Unraveling weak radiative hyperon decays with broken flavor symmetry

Jin Sun; Kaiwen Chen; Lin Qiu; Ruilin Zhu; Zhi-Peng Xing

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 23 references

Unraveling weak radiative hyperon decays with broken flavor symmetry

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A broken-SU(3) fit with eight parameters describes all ten measured hyperon radiative decay observables and predicts the Ξ⁻→Σ⁻γ asymmetry to be negative, opposite to the current central value.

desk verdict A compact broken-SU(3) fit to hyperon radiative decays that is transparent about what is fitted and makes one sharp testable prediction, but the reduction to eight parameters rests on a scaling assumption the paper does not justify. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03248 v1 pith:O3UUI425 submitted 2026-08-04 hep-ph

Kaiwen Chen , Lin Qiu , Jin Sun , Zhi-Peng Xing , Ruilin Zhu This is my paper

classification hep-ph

keywords weakradiativehyperondecaysSU(3)flavorsymmetryHara'stheoremasymmetryparameterelectromagneticpenguinparityviolationbreakingglobalfit

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that weak radiative hyperon decays — rare two-body decays in which a strange baryon emits a photon — are governed by a broken SU(3) flavor symmetry that needs only six independent reduced amplitudes, and only eight free parameters once a minimal relation between parity-conserving and parity-violating form factors is imposed. A global fit to the ten available branching fractions and asymmetry parameters yields χ²/d.o.f. = 0.98 and reproduces the large negative asymmetry in Σ⁺→pγ, the long-standing puzzle that appears to contradict Hara's theorem in the exact-symmetry limit. The fit's nonzero parity-violating form factor g_b8 absorbs symmetry-breaking and electromagnetic-penguin effects, giving a flavor-symmetry realization of the parity-violating amplitude that stays compatible with the theorem. The framework predicts α_γ(Ξ⁻→Σ⁻γ) = −0.716(33), opposite in sign to the current experimental central value 1.0(1.3), and forces this asymmetry to equal α_γ(Ξ⁰→Σ⁰γ). A precise measurement of that charged mode would decide the issue.

What carries the argument

Six reduced amplitudes built from the weak octet Hamiltonian with the charge-octet matrix $Q=\mathrm{diag}(2/3,-1/3,-1/3)$ and mass-octet matrix $M=\mathrm{diag}(-1/3,-1/3,2/3)$ inserted on internal and spectator quark lines; each channel's amplitude in Table I is a linear combination of these. The parameter count drops from twelve form factors to eight through the factorization ansatz of Eq. (14) — each symmetry-breaking form-factor pair $(f,g)$ for $a_{8x}$, $b_{8x}$ keeps the same $f/g$ ratio as its SU(3)-symmetric parent — which forces the asymmetry equalities $\alpha(\Xi^-\to\Sigma^-\gamma)=\alpha(\Xi^0\to\Sigma^0\gamma)$ and $\alpha(\Sigma^+\to p\gamma)=\alpha(\Sigma^0\to n\gamma)$ of

What would settle it

Measure $\alpha_\gamma(\Xi^-\to\Sigma^-\gamma)$ with uncertainty far below the current $\pm 1.3$. A positive central value — as the present $1.0(1.3)$ hints — would exclude the predicted $-0.716(33)$, falsifying the factorization ansatz of Eq. (14) that ties this asymmetry to the well-measured negative $\Xi^0\to\Sigma^0\gamma$ value. A first measurement of the unobserved $\alpha_\gamma(\Sigma^0\to n\gamma)$ would test the companion equality with $\alpha_\gamma(\Sigma^+\to p\gamma)$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Broken SU(3) flavor symmetry, with charge and mass octet insertions added to the weak octet Hamiltonian, yields six reduced amplitudes ($a_8$, $b_8$, $a_{8q}$, $b_{8q}$, $a_{8m}$, $b_{8m}$) spanning all six hyperon radiative channels. The central claim: with the Eq. (14) factorization ansatz cutting twelve form factors to eight real parameters, this one parametrization fits all ten measured observables ($\chi^2/\mathrm{d.o.f.}=0.98$) and accommodates the large negative $\alpha_\gamma(\Sigma^+\to p\gamma)$. The nonzero fitted $g_{b_8}=-1.75(75)$ supplies the parity-violating amplitude via symmetry breaking and electromagnetic penguins, without violating Hara's theorem, which constrains only t

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the factorization ansatz of Eq. (14) — every symmetry-breaking amplitude preserves the parity structure of its SU(3)-symmetric counterpart ($f_{a8x}/g_{a8x}=f_{a8}/g_{a8}$, $f_{b8x}/g_{b8x}=f_{b8}/g_{b8}$) — together with the claim that photon-emission contributions to the current-current operators vanish in exact SU(3); if either fails, the eight-parameter counting and the negative $\Xi^-\to\Sigma^-\gamma$ prediction collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The ten measured branching fractions and asymmetry parameters are described by eight real parameters with χ²/d.o.f. = 0.98, including the recently updated Σ⁺→pγ branching fraction and asymmetry.
The nonzero fitted g_b8 = −1.75(75) realizes the parity-violating amplitude through SU(3) breaking and electromagnetic-penguin contributions, without contradicting Hara's theorem.
α_γ(Ξ⁻→Σ⁻γ) is predicted to equal α_γ(Ξ⁰→Σ⁰γ) = −0.716(33), negative and opposite to the current experimental central value 1.0(1.3); the 1.3σ separation is attributed to the large experimental uncertainty.
α_γ(Σ⁰→nγ) is predicted to equal α_γ(Σ⁺→pγ) = −0.685(35), with a branching fraction of 3.7(3.0)×10⁻⁷.
Fitted breaking parameters reach roughly five times the reference amplitudes, indicating that SU(3) breaking is essential to the description.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If a future precise measurement of α_γ(Ξ⁻→Σ⁻γ) returns a positive value, the factorization ansatz of Eq. (14) — not just this particular fit — would be ruled out, because it forces the charged mode's asymmetry to equal the well-measured negative Ξ⁰→Σ⁰γ value.
The never-measured Σ⁰→nγ channel offers a clean by-product test: its predicted asymmetry of −0.685(35) would check the second equality in Eq. (16) at any facility able to produce entangled Σ⁰ pairs.
The same broken-SU(3) machinery that relieved the Σ⁺ nonleptonic branching-fraction tension is carried over to the radiative sector, suggesting a single parameter economy across hyperon decay classes.
The ratios r_a = η_a8q/η_a8m and r_b = η_b8q/η_b8m, proposed in the paper as measures of tree-level versus penguin strength, could be compared with operator-level calculations of the Wilson coefficients to test whether the fitted insertion sizes are physically plausible.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the short version. This paper is a workmanlike, transparent broken-SU(3) analysis of weak radiative hyperon decays. It updates the old irrep-amplitude program with current BESIII data, writes a six-amplitude basis, then reduces twelve form factors to eight via an assumption in Eq. (14): symmetry-breaking amplitudes inherit the same parity-conserving/parity-violating ratio as the leading amplitudes. That assumption is the engine of the paper. It produces the compact fit and the equality predictions alpha(Ξ−)=alpha(Ξ0) and alpha(Σ+)=alpha(Σ0). Without it, you have twelve form factors and ten observables, so the model is underdetermined and the headline Xi- prediction is not pinned down. The authors call the ansatz 'minimal' but offer no dynamical justification. That is the real soft spot, not a manufactured one.

What is good: the paper is honest about logic. It says explicitly that the large negative Sigma+ asymmetry is accommodated, not predicted, and it flags the 1.3 sigma difference with the current Xi- central value. The fit quality is fine for a phenomenological model, and the amplitude table is clear enough to re-derive in a few lines. The treatment of the mixed QM insertion as absorbable into I, Q, M is correct.

Two caveats beyond Eq. (14). First, the claim that photon-emission contributions to Q1,2 vanish in exact SU(3) is asserted as 'straightforward to verify' and not shown. The reference may cover it, but the text should at least sketch the argument. Second, eight parameters against ten observables is thin; no p-value, so the good chi^2/dof is suggestive, not conclusive.

Who should read this: hyperon phenomenologists and anyone interested in a clean example of organizing symmetry-breaking for radiative decays. It deserves a serious referee. The referee should push for a derivation or a more careful statement of Eq. (14) and the vanishing-step claim. The Xi- asymmetry prediction is worth testing.

I would not desk-reject it. Send it out.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents a broken SU(3) flavor parametrization of weak radiative hyperon decays. The ΔS=1 Hamiltonian is taken as current-current plus electromagnetic-penguin operators; baryons are represented by flavor octets, and six reduced amplitudes are constructed with charge and mass insertions. A factorization ansatz (Eq. 14) reduces the 12 parity-conserving/parity-violating form factors to 8, enabling a fit to ten experimental observables with χ²/d.o.f.=0.98. The fit reproduces αγ(Σ+→pγ)≈−0.685, yields a nonzero effective parity-violating form factor g_b8, and predicts αγ(Ξ−→Σ−γ)=−0.716(33), opposite in sign to the current experimental central value. The paper emphasizes compatibility with Hara's theorem because the nonzero parity-violating amplitude is generated by symmetry breaking and penguin effects rather than by the exact-SU(3) current-current contribution.

Significance. If the framework's assumptions are valid, this is a compact and potentially useful phenomenological description: it updates previous flavor analyses with recent BESIII data, gives explicit amplitude counting, and produces a sharp, falsifiable prediction for Ξ−→Σ−γ. Credit is due for transparent parameter counting, use of current data, and the candid statement that the Σ+ asymmetry is accommodated rather than independently predicted. However, two load-bearing assumptions are not derived. The factorization ansatz Eq. (14) is entirely responsible for the reduction to eight parameters and for the asymmetry equalities in Eq. (16) that lead to the Ξ− prediction; without it the model has 12 form factors for only 10 observables and the prediction disappears. The claimed vanishing of photon-emission contributions from Q1,2 in exact SU(3) is also stated without proof. With only two degrees of freedom in the global fit, the statistical support is limited. The significance is therefore that of an interesting but not yet established phenomenological framework.

major comments (3)

[Eq. (14), Global analysis] The reduction from 12 to 8 form factors is entirely due to the factorization ansatz f_{a8x}/g_{a8x}=f_{a8}/g_{a8} and f_{b8x}/g_{b8x}=f_{b8}/g_{b8} for x=q,m. This is not a symmetry result; the text calls it 'minimal' but gives no dynamical justification. It is load-bearing because without it the model has 12 real form factors but only 10 measured observables, so the quoted χ²/d.o.f.=0.98 has little constraining power. Moreover, Eq. (14) directly forces the equalities αγ(Ξ−→Σ−γ)=αγ(Ξ0→Σ0γ) and αγ(Σ+→pγ)=αγ(Σ0→nγ), and hence the advertised prediction αγ(Ξ−→Σ−γ)=−0.716(33). Current data cannot discriminate this equality: the two measured asymmetries differ by only about 1.4σ. The authors should either derive Eq. (14) from a stated dynamical principle, or demonstrate stability of the Ξ− prediction by performing a fit without the factorization (e.g., with 12 parameters under priors or with a
[Section 'SU(3) amplitudes', after Eq. (7)] The paper asserts that photon-emission contributions from the current-current operators Q1,2 'vanish in the exact SU(3) F symmetry limit' and that the amplitudes associated with the penguin operators are 'identical' to those associated with Q1,2, thereby reducing the leading amplitude basis to Eq. (8). This is a nontrivial dynamical claim and is not proven. Exact SU(3) flavor symmetry does not make quark charges degenerate, and the physical photon still couples to the charge octet Q; equal constituent masses would suppress mass-dependent photon emission but not charge-dependent emission. If this assertion fails, additional independent reduced amplitudes from Q1,2-induced photon emission must be included, changing the amplitude counting and the fit. The cited reference [26] is not a substitute for a derivation in the text; please state the mechanism and its precise validity domain.
[Table III and prediction uncertainty] The fit has 10 observables and 8 free parameters, so d.o.f.=2; a χ²/d.o.f. of 0.98 is therefore not strong evidence of model validity. The quoted error ±0.033 on the central prediction αγ(Ξ−→Σ−γ)=−0.716(33) appears to be a one-dimensional propagated uncertainty, but correlations among f_{a8}, g_{a8}, and the η parameters are likely sizable. Please provide the correlation matrix or a profile-likelihood scan for the predicted asymmetry. If the true 1σ interval is substantially wider, the claimed 1.3σ difference from the current experimental central value and the 'decisive test' statement would need to be revised.

minor comments (3)

[Table II] The table header states that branching fractions are in units of 10^{-3}, but the row Br(Σ0→nγ) is printed as 3.7(3.0)×10^{-7}. Use consistent units or a separate column.
[Eq. (7)] The wording 'the amplitudes associated with tilde a and tilde b are identical to those associated with a and b' is ambiguous. Only the SU(3) contraction structure is identical; the dynamical coefficients are not. Please rephrase to avoid implying numerical equality.
[Abstract and Summary] The title and the phrase 'provides a possible flavor-symmetry realization' are stronger than the evidence: the paper itself states that the Σ+→pγ asymmetry is a consistent accommodation rather than an independent prediction. Consider aligning the wording with this acknowledged limitation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

One central 'prediction' (αγ(Ξ−→Σ−γ)) is actually a fitted value for an observable included in the global fit; the rest of the derivation is an explicit, non-circular ansatz.

fitted input called prediction [Abstract; 'Global analysis and discussion' (paragraph before Table II; Table II lists αγ(Ξ−→Σ−γ)=1.0(1.3)[30] among the ten fitted observables)]
"Our analysis favors a sizable negative value of αγ(Ξ− → Σ−γ), which differs from the current experimental result by approximately 1.3σ. Future precision measurements of this observable will provide a decisive test of this prediction. ... The relevant experimental values are collected in Table II, comprising a total of ten data points."

The abstract labels αγ(Ξ−→Σ−γ) as a 'prediction', but Table II lists the experimental value αγ(Ξ−→Σ−γ)=1.0(1.3)[30] as one of the ten observables used in the eight-parameter global fit. The fitted value −0.716(33) is therefore the model's posterior best fit to that same data point, not an out-of-sample prediction. The χ²/d.o.f. and the 'prediction' are assessed on the same data that determine the parameters. The model is not forced to reproduce 1.0 because the uncertainty is huge, so the circularity is partial, but calling it a 'decisive test' misrepresents an in-sample consistency check as an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper is mostly self-contained and transparent. The SU(3) amplitude construction, the six-amplitude counting, and the reduction from 12 to 8 form factors rest on an explicitly stated factorization ansatz (Eq. (14)); however ad hoc that ansatz may be, it is not circular because it is presented as an assumption and not smuggled in through citation. The equalities of Eq. (16) are derived consequences of that assumption and provide a genuine cross-channel constraint. The vanishing of Q1,2 photon-emission contributions is attributed to an external citation [26], and Hara's theorem is independent. The paper even concedes explicitly that the Σ+→pγ asymmetry is 'a consistent accommodation rather than an independent prediction' because it is in the fitted data. The only concrete circular element is the Ξ− asymmetry: although the experimental value αγ(Ξ−→Σ−γ)=1.0(1.3) is one of the ten fitted observables, the abstract calls the fitted output −0.716(33) a 'prediction' and proposes future measurement as a 'decisive test'. That is an in-sample postdiction mislabeled as a prediction, meriting a moderate circularity score. No self-citation load-bearing or uniqueness-imported circularity was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All explanatory power resides in eight fitted form-factor parameters; the model introduces no new particles or interactions. The structural assumptions are: SU(3) symmetry as the organizing principle with octet charge/mass spurions; omission of the 27-plet and of QCD penguin operators; the unproved equivalence between photon-emission and direct amplitudes; and the factorization ansatz Eq. (14) that identifies the parity-conserving and parity-violating form-factor ratios of each symmetry-breaking term with those of the leading term. Hara's theorem is used as an external constraint but plays no predictive role since symmetry breaking is allowed.

free parameters (8)

f_{a8} = 1.47(88)
Parity-conserving reduced amplitude for a8, fit to branching fractions and asymmetries.
f_{b8} = 4.4(1.8)
Parity-conserving reduced amplitude for b8.
g_{a8} = -0.62(37)
Parity-violating reduced amplitude for a8.
g_{b8} = -1.75(75)
Parity-violating reduced amplitude for b8; absorbs symmetry-breaking and penguin effects, accommodating the Sigma+ asymmetry.
eta_{a8q} = 1.7(1.0)
Scale factor for charge-insertion correction to a8 form factors.
eta_{b8q} = -2.909(38)
Scale factor for charge-insertion correction to b8 form factors.
eta_{a8m} = 5.6(1.6)
Scale factor for mass-insertion correction to a8 form factors.
eta_{b8m} = -3.138(58)
Scale factor for mass-insertion correction to b8 form factors.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption SU(3) flavor symmetry with symmetry-breaking spurions Q and M transforming as octets (Eqs. 9-10)
The entire IRA expansion assumes hadronic matrix elements are dominated by SU(3) representations expanded to first order in the charge and mass spurions.
domain assumption The 27-plet Hamiltonian contribution is negligible
Section 'SU(3) amplitudes': 'the symmetric 27-plet Hamiltonian is suppressed due to the antisymmetric color structure of the baryon wave function. Therefore we omit its contribution.'
domain assumption QCD penguin operators Q3-6 are ignored
Section 'SU(3) amplitudes': 'where QCD-penguin operators Q3-6 are ignored.' No estimate of their impact is given.
ad hoc to paper Photon emission from current-current operators vanishes in exact SU(3) and tilde a/b amplitudes equal the untilded ones
After Eq. (7): 'their contributions vanish in the exact SU(3) F symmetry limit... It is straightforward to verify that the amplitudes associated with tilde a and tilde b are identical to those associated with a and b.' This step is asserted, not derived, and it collapses eight possible amplitudes to two.
ad hoc to paper Factorization ansatz Eq. (14): each symmetry-breaking amplitude preserves the relative parity structure of its SU(3)-symmetric counterpart
Eq. (14) sets f_{a8x} = eta_{a8x} f_{a8}, g_{a8x} = eta_{a8x} g_{a8}, etc., reducing 12 form factors to 8 and forcing the equal-asymmetry relations Eq. (16). The paper calls it a 'minimal assumption' but gives no dynamical justification.
domain assumption Form factors are real (CP conservation)
Section 'Global analysis': 'we take the six reduced amplitudes in Eq. (12) to be real.' No CP-violating phases are considered.
domain assumption Hara's theorem holds in the exact SU(3) limit (external constraint)
The paper relies on Hara's theorem [19] that the parity-violating current-current amplitude for charged decays vanishes in exact SU(3). It uses this only as a consistency constraint, since symmetry breaking is allowed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unraveling weak radiative hyperon decays with broken flavor symmetry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O3UUI425

@misc{pith2026260803248,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unraveling weak radiative hyperon decays with broken flavor symmetry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O3UUI425}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03248}
}

abstract

We present a broken $SU(3)$ flavor analysis of weak radiative decays of spin-1/2 hyperons, incorporating current-current and electromagnetic-penguin contributions as well as charge- and mass-insertion effects. Six independent reduced amplitudes describe all decay channels, while a minimal relation between the parity-conserving and parity-violating form factors reduces to eight free parameters. A global fit to the ten available observables yields $\chi^2/\mathrm{d.o.f.}=0.98$ and accommodates the large negative asymmetry in $\Sigma^+\to p\gamma$. The resulting nonzero effective form factor $g_{b_8}$ provides a possible flavor-symmetry realization of the parity-violating amplitude while remaining compatible with Hara's theorem, which constrains the current-current contribution in the exact symmetry limit. Our analysis favors a sizable negative value of $\alpha_\gamma(\Xi^- \to \Sigma^- \gamma)$, which differs from the current experimental result by approximately $1.3\sigma$. Future precision measurements of this observable will provide a decisive test of this prediction.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[26]

Studying Radiative Baryon Decays with the SU(3) Flavor Symmetry

R.-M. Wang, X.-D. Cheng, Y.-Y. Fan, J.-L. Zhang, and Y.-G. Xu,Studying radiative baryon decays with the SU(3) flavor symmetry,J. Phys. G48(2021), no. 8 085001, [arXiv:2008.06624]

work page Pith review arXiv 2021
[3]

X. Wu, Q. Chen, Y. Xing, Z.-P. Xing, and R. Zhu, SU(3) flavor symmetry analysis of hyperon non-leptonic two body decays,Chin. Phys. C49(2025), no. 12 123101, [arXiv:2505.16558]

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[4]

M. B. Gavela, A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. Pene, J. C. Raynal, and T. N. Pham,Parity Violating Radiative Weak Decays and the Quark Model,Phys. Lett. B101 (1981) 417–422

work page 1981
[5]

Nardulli,A Pole Model Calculation of Weak Radiative Hyperon Decays,Phys

G. Nardulli,A Pole Model Calculation of Weak Radiative Hyperon Decays,Phys. Lett. B190(1987) 187–191

work page 1987
[6]

E. E. Jenkins, M. E. Luke, A. V. Manohar, and M. J. Savage,Weak radiative hyperon decays in chiral perturbation theory,Nucl. Phys. B397(1993) 84–104, [hep-ph/9210265]

work page Pith review arXiv 1993
[7]

Neufeld,Weak radiative baryon decays in chiral perturbation theory,Nucl

H. Neufeld,Weak radiative baryon decays in chiral perturbation theory,Nucl. Phys. B402(1993) 166–194

work page 1993
[8]

Lach and P

J. Lach and P. Zenczykowski,Hyperon Radiative Decays,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A10(1995) 3817–3876

work page 1995
[9]

Borasoy and B

B. Borasoy and B. R. Holstein,Resonances in radiative hyperon decays,Phys. Rev. D59(1999) 054019, [hep-ph/9902431]

arXiv 1999

Show all 23 references

[10]

E. N. Dubovik, V. S. Zamiralov, S. Lepshokov, and A. E. Shkolnikov,Weak radiative hyperon decays in the quark model,Phys. Atom. Nucl.71(2008) 136–146

2008
[11]

Li,Prospects for rare and forbidden hyperon decays at BESIII,Front

H.-B. Li,Prospects for rare and forbidden hyperon decays at BESIII,Front. Phys. (Beijing)12(2017), no. 5 121301, [arXiv:1612.01775]. [Erratum: Front.Phys.(Beijing) 14, 64001 (2019)]

2017 arXiv
[12]

I. I. Bigi, X.-W. Kang, and H.-B. Li,CP Asymmetries in Strange Baryon Decays,Chin. Phys. C42(2018), no. 1 013101, [arXiv:1704.04708]

2018 arXiv
[13]

Xing, Y.-J

Z.-P. Xing, Y.-J. Shi, J. Sun, and Z.-X. Zhao,Light baryon in three quark picture light front approach and its application: hyperon weak radiative decays, arXiv:2312.17568

arXiv
[14]

Erben, V

F. Erben, V. G¨ ulpers, M. T. Hansen, R. Hodgson, and A. Portelli,Exploratory calculation of the rare hyperon decayΣ + →pℓ +ℓ− from lattice QCD,JHEP07(2025) 038, [arXiv:2504.07727]. [15]BESIIICollaboration, M. Ablikim et al.,Measurement 6 of the Absolute Branching Fraction and...

2025 arXiv
[19]

Hara,Nonleptonic Decays of Baryons and the Eightfold Way,Phys

Y. Hara,Nonleptonic Decays of Baryons and the Eightfold Way,Phys. Rev. Lett.12(1964) 378–379

1964
[20]

R.-X. Shi, Z. Jia, L.-S. Geng, H. Peng, Q. Zhao, and X. Zhou,Status and Prospect of Weak Radiative Hyperon Decays,Chin. Phys. Lett.42(2025), no. 3 032401, [arXiv:2502.15473]

2025 arXiv
[21]

J. W. Bos, D. Chang, S. C. Lee, Y. C. Lin, and H. H. Shih,Hyperon weak radiative decays in chiral perturbation theory,Phys. Rev. D54(1996) 3321–3328, [hep-ph/9601299]

1996 arXiv
[22]

Niu, J.-M

P.-Y. Niu, J.-M. Richard, Q. Wang, and Q. Zhao, Hyperon Weak Radiative Decay,Chin. Phys. C45 (2021), no. 1 013101, [arXiv:2007.09621]

2021 arXiv
[23]

Shi, S.-Y

R.-X. Shi, S.-Y. Li, J.-X. Lu, and L.-S. Geng,Weak radiative hyperon decays in covariant baryon chiral perturbation theory,Sci. Bull.67(2022) 2298–2304, [arXiv:2206.11773]

2022 arXiv
[24]

Shi and L.-S

R.-X. Shi and L.-S. Geng,Are we close to solving the puzzle of weak radiative hyperon decays?,Sci. Bull.68 (2023) 779–782, [arXiv:2303.18002]

2023 arXiv
[25]

Zenczykowski,Joint description of weak radiative and nonleptonic hyperon decays in broken SU(3),Phys

P. Zenczykowski,Joint description of weak radiative and nonleptonic hyperon decays in broken SU(3),Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 076005, [hep-ph/0512122]

2006 arXiv
[27]

Buchalla, A

G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras, and M. E. Lautenbacher, Weak Decays beyond Leading Logarithms,Rev. Mod. Phys.68(1996) 1125–1144, [hep-ph/9512380]

1996 arXiv
[28]

J. G. Korner,Octet behaviour of single-particle matrix elements< B′|H(W)|B >and<M’—H(W)—M> using a weak current current quark Hamiltonian,Nucl. Phys. B25(1971) 282–290

1971
[29]

J. C. Pati and C. H. Woo,Delta I = 1/2 rule with fermion quarks,Phys. Rev. D3(1971) 2920–2922. [30]E761Collaboration, T. Dubbs et al.,Measurement of the Branching Ratio forΞ − →Σ −γRadiative Decay, Phys. Rev. Lett.72(1994) 808–811

1971

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [26]

Studying Radiative Baryon Decays with the SU(3) Flavor Symmetry

R.-M. Wang, X.-D. Cheng, Y.-Y. Fan, J.-L. Zhang, and Y.-G. Xu,Studying radiative baryon decays with the SU(3) flavor symmetry,J. Phys. G48(2021), no. 8 085001, [arXiv:2008.06624]

work page Pith review arXiv 2021

[2] [3]

X. Wu, Q. Chen, Y. Xing, Z.-P. Xing, and R. Zhu, SU(3) flavor symmetry analysis of hyperon non-leptonic two body decays,Chin. Phys. C49(2025), no. 12 123101, [arXiv:2505.16558]

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[3] [4]

M. B. Gavela, A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. Pene, J. C. Raynal, and T. N. Pham,Parity Violating Radiative Weak Decays and the Quark Model,Phys. Lett. B101 (1981) 417–422

work page 1981

[4] [5]

Nardulli,A Pole Model Calculation of Weak Radiative Hyperon Decays,Phys

G. Nardulli,A Pole Model Calculation of Weak Radiative Hyperon Decays,Phys. Lett. B190(1987) 187–191

work page 1987

[5] [6]

E. E. Jenkins, M. E. Luke, A. V. Manohar, and M. J. Savage,Weak radiative hyperon decays in chiral perturbation theory,Nucl. Phys. B397(1993) 84–104, [hep-ph/9210265]

work page Pith review arXiv 1993

[6] [7]

Neufeld,Weak radiative baryon decays in chiral perturbation theory,Nucl

H. Neufeld,Weak radiative baryon decays in chiral perturbation theory,Nucl. Phys. B402(1993) 166–194

work page 1993

[7] [8]

Lach and P

J. Lach and P. Zenczykowski,Hyperon Radiative Decays,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A10(1995) 3817–3876

work page 1995

[8] [9]

Borasoy and B

B. Borasoy and B. R. Holstein,Resonances in radiative hyperon decays,Phys. Rev. D59(1999) 054019, [hep-ph/9902431]

arXiv 1999