Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 72 references

The spin of the light diquark, not the charm-quark mass, determines how magnetization is distributed in singly charmed baryons.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-07-31 23:26 UTC pith:YXD37V25

load-bearing objection Credible quark-diquark calculation of charmed-baryon form factors; the Lambda_c magnetic claim is right, but the timelike cross-section section has a dimensional bug. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23943 v1 pith:YXD37V25 submitted 2026-07-27 hep-ph hep-exhep-lat

Electromagnetic form factors of singly charmed baryons Sigma_c and Λ_c in a covariant quark-diquark model

Ye Cao , Cheng Chen , Dongyan Fu , Ju-Jun Xie This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-exhep-lat PACS 13.40.Gp14.20.Lq12.39.Ki
keywords electromagnetic form factorssingly charmed baryonsquark-diquark modelLambda_cSigma_cmagnetic momentsscalar diquarkaxial-vector diquark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish where electric charge and magnetization sit inside singly charmed baryons, using a covariant quark-diquark model in which each baryon is a charm quark plus a light diquark. It finds that the electric form factors of both Sigma_c and Lambda_c fall far more slowly with momentum transfer than the proton's, so the charm quark acts as a compact core that shrinks the charge distribution. The magnetic structure is where the two baryons split: in Sigma_c, the spin-1 axial-vector diquark dominates the magnetic form factor, while in Lambda_c the spin-0 scalar diquark contributes nothing magnetic and the finite-mass charm quark takes over. This contrast explains why Lambda_c should have a much smaller magnetic radius than Sigma_c and why the infinite-heavy-quark limit fails for Lambda_c's magnetism. It also yields concrete predictions for e+e- → Sigma_c Sigma_cbar cross sections that charm-factory experiments can check.

Core claim

The paper claims a structural dichotomy inside baryons with the same cud quark content. Sigma_c has its two light quarks in a spin-1 axial-vector diquark, and its magnetic form factor is dominated by that diquark; Lambda_c has its light quarks in a spin-0 scalar diquark whose effective current contains only an electric monopole, so its magnetic form factor is governed instead by the charm quark. The authors establish this in a covariant quark-diquark calculation of the spacelike Sachs form factors, with parameters fixed by lattice QCD results for Sigma_c^{++} and Sigma_c^0, obtaining magnetic moments consistent with the spread of other models and electric radii noticeably smaller than the pr

What carries the argument

The machinery is the split of the baryon electromagnetic current into a quark current and a diquark current, with the diquark currents themselves computed from quark loops. The spin-1 diquark is described by a vector-meson-like current with three form factors, while the spin-0 diquark is described by a single electric monopole, j_D(s) = 2 f_D(t) P_D^mu. That monopole-only structure is the load-bearing piece: it removes the scalar diquark from the magnetic form factor by construction, so Lambda_c's G_M comes almost entirely from the charm quark.

Load-bearing premise

The scalar diquark in Lambda_c is treated as a point-like spin-0 object with only an electric monopole current; if it carries any anomalous magnetic coupling from its internal quark substructure, the claim that Lambda_c's magnetic form factor is governed by the charm quark collapses.

What would settle it

Measure or compute Lambda_c's magnetic form factor directly, for example through a first-principles lattice calculation or through spin-sensitive e+e- → Lambda_c Lambdabar_c observables; if Lambda_c's magnetic radius turns out to be near the proton's, or its G_M is comparable in size to Sigma_c's, the monopole-only scalar-diquark assumption is wrong.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the dichotomy is right, Lambda_c should have a magnetic radius well below the proton's and well below Sigma_c's, while the Sigma_c magnetic radii should be comparable to the proton's.
  • The predicted magnetic moments obey the generalized Coleman-Glashow relation for the Sigma_c triplet and fall inside the lattice QCD range for Sigma_c^{++} and Sigma_c^0.
  • The spacelike form factors, converted via the empirical relation, give concrete e+e- → Sigma_c Sigma_cbar cross-section estimates testable at charm factories; the paper notes charmonium resonances also contribute, so the numbers are estimates, not complete predictions.
  • Finite charm-quark mass is essential: in the exact heavy-quark limit Lambda_c's magnetic form factor would vanish, so any nonzero measured Lambda_c G_M directly tests beyond-static heavy-quark dynamics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: the scalar-diquark monopole assumption could be checked directly by a first-principles calculation of Lambda_c's magnetic form factor; a Lambda_c G_M comparable to Sigma_c's would invalidate the central dichotomy.
  • Beyond the paper: the same spin-configuration logic should transfer to bottom counterparts, with Lambda_b's magnetic form factor even more dominated by the heavy quark and Sigma_b's still light-diquark dominated, though the signal is smaller because the b quark's magnetic moment is tiny.
  • Beyond the paper: the fitted shift parameter for charmed baryons differs from the value used for hyperons, which hints that the onset of the spacelike-timelike asymptotic relation depends on baryon mass or flavor; a single universal shift may be too optimistic.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the spacelike electromagnetic form factors of the singly charmed baryons Σ_c^{++}, Σ_c^+, Σ_c^0 and Λ_c^+ in a covariant quark-diquark model. The quark and diquark currents are computed in a one-photon-exchange picture, with the diquark treated as either an axial-vector (Σ_c) or scalar (Λ_c) object. From the form factors the authors extract magnetic moments and electric/magnetic radii and compare with lattice QCD and other models. Their central structural claim is that the magnetic form factors of Σ_c are dominated by the light axial-vector diquark, while those of Λ_c^+ are governed by the charm quark because the scalar diquark is magnetically inert. In the final part, using an empirical asymptotic relation between spacelike and timelike form factors, the authors fit the parameter x to BESIII Λ_c^+ data and predict total cross sections for e^+e^- → Σ_c \barΣ_c. The cross-section predictions are advertised as testable at BESIII, Belle II, and Super Tau-Charm Facility.

Significance. The central magnetic-structure claim is physically interesting and internally consistent: for a J=0 scalar diquark the one-photon current in Eq. (18) indeed has no magnetic term, so the Λ_c^+ magnetic form factor is controlled by the finite charm-quark mass. This is a useful counterpoint to the naive infinite-heavy-quark limit and is not undermined by the parameter fitting. The paper also provides a systematic comparison of magnetic moments with many models, and its decomposition of G_E and G_M into quark/diquark contributions is illuminating. However, the advertised cross-section predictions rest on a dimensionally inconsistent Coulomb factor in Eq. (22), and the electric radius of Σ_c^{++} disagrees with lattice QCD by a factor ~2.3, so the quantitative claims need substantial revision. The manuscript does not ship machine-checkable code or independence proofs beyond the analytic decomposition.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.D, Eq. (22)] The Coulomb correction factor C is dimensionally inconsistent. With τ = q^2/(4M^2), the quantity y defined as y = π α M / (2√(τ−1)) has the dimension of mass (GeV), so C = y/(1−e^{−y}) is not a valid dimensionless Sommerfeld factor. The standard expression is y = π α / β = π α √τ / √(τ−1). Because x=3.5 in Fig. 5(a) is obtained by fitting the BESIII data using this contaminated C, the fitted value is nonphysical, and the predicted Σ_c cross sections in Fig. 5(b)–(d) are unreliable. This is load-bearing for the paper's final advertised predictions; the entire Section II.D needs to be recomputed with the correct Coulomb factor, which will also change the extracted x and the uncertainty band.
  2. [Sec. III.C, Table III] The electric radius of Σ_c^{++} is reported as ⟨r^2⟩_E = 0.541 fm^2, compared with the LQCD result 0.234(37) fm^2. This is a factor ~2.3 discrepancy, far outside the quoted lattice uncertainty. The text says 'Our results for the electric radii are larger than the LQCD estimates' and claims 'qualitative agreement', but a factor of two in a fundamental radius is not qualitative agreement. This discrepancy undermines the paper's conclusion that the model reliably describes the charge distribution of Σ_c, and it should be addressed explicitly — for example by assessing the effect of the fitted parameters g_1 and m_R, or by showing whether the discrepancy is due to the unphysical pion masses used in the lattice calculation.
  3. [Sec. III.A, Fig. 3] The parameters g_1 and m_R are fitted to the LQCD data for Σ_c^{++} and Σ_c^0 (Sec. III.A). Therefore the agreement shown in Fig. 3 is partly a fit, not an independent verification. This should be stated clearly in the abstract and conclusions; the current wording 'in qualitative agreement with available lattice QCD results' could mislead readers into thinking the comparison is a prediction. The issue is amplified by the electric-radius discrepancy in Table III: with only two fitted parameters and a poor electric radius, the model's predictive power for the unmeasured Σ_c^+ and Λ_c^+ observables is weaker than the text suggests.
  4. [Sec. II.D, Eq. (21)] The use of the empirical asymptotic relation G_TL(q^2) ≃ G_SL(−q^2 + xM^2) with x=3.5 is problematic beyond the Coulomb-factor issue. The Phragmén–Lindelöf argument is an asymptotic statement, but the BESIII data are at finite q^2 near threshold. Moreover, x=3.5 for Λ_c gives xM^2 ≈ 18.3 GeV^2, so the spacelike form factors are evaluated at Q^2 = q^2 − xM^2 ≳ 13 GeV^2, far above the range Q^2 ≲ 6 GeV^2 in which the model was computed and compared with lattice data. The spacelike input is therefore an uncontrolled extrapolation, and the resulting cross-section predictions should be presented only as an illustration, not as quantitative predictions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II.B, Eq. (18)] The scalar-diquark current j_D(s)=2 f_D(t) P_D^μ is imposed by Lorentz covariance for a point-like spin-0 object. The paper should state explicitly that any possible magnetic contribution from higher Fock states or internal quark substructure of the scalar diquark is neglected by model assumption. As written, 'vanishing contribution of the scalar diquark' can be read as a dynamical prediction rather than a built-in model property.
  2. [Sec. III.B, Fig. 4] The text compares the electric form factor falloff of Λ_c^+ and Σ_c^+ with that of the proton, but no proton form-factor curve is shown in the figures. Including it would make the claimed compactness of the charmed baryons directly visible.
  3. [Sec. II.D, Eq. (22)] The definitions of τ and β in this section are standard, but after correcting y the relation between y and β should be written explicitly as y = π α / β, and the threshold limit y → ∞ should be noted.
  4. [Sec. III.A, Table I] The uncertainty band in Fig. 4 is generated by varying m_[qq] between 680 and 700 MeV, but the text states the range 160–180 MeV for the mass splitting. Please make the connection between the splitting range and the corresponding mass values explicit, and explain whether the uncertainty is treated symmetrically.
  5. [Sec. III.B, Fig. 3] The figure captions and axis labels contain encoding artifacts in the provided text. The published version should ensure the mathematical symbols are rendered correctly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the spacelike form-factor calculation is self-contained and the Λ_c magnetic-structure result follows transparently from the spin-0 diquark current, not from a fitted target.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The model parameters are explicitly fitted: "The remaining parameters for the Σ_c system are fitted to LQCD data as g_1 = 0.7 and m_R = 3.1 GeV" (Sec. III.A), and the comparison with LQCD in Fig. 3 is presented as agreement of a fitted model, not as an independent prediction; the genuine predictions are Σ_c^+ and Λ_c^+, which were not used in that fit. The central Λ_c magnetic-structure claim follows from the stated spin-0 diquark current j^μ_{D(s)} = 2 f_D(t) P_D^μ (Eq. 18) and the γ5 quark-loop trace in Eq. (17), which cannot generate a magnetic term; this is a transparent model consequence — indeed the paper notes it "can also be directly observed from Eq. (4)" — not a parameter fitted to the claimed output. The timelike extension uses Eq. (21) with x = 3.5 fitted to BESIII Λ_c data and then applied to Σ_c; that is an extrapolation from one channel to another, not a fit to the predicted Σ_c cross sections. Self-citations (Refs. 54–57 and 24–25) supply the model framework and earlier applications, but the load-bearing calculation here is performed in this paper rather than imported as a result; no uniqueness theorem or hidden ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The possible dimensional inconsistency in Eq. (22) is a correctness concern, not evidence of circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model relies on a set of fitted parameters (quark/diquark masses, vertex coupling, cutoff, asymptotic-relation parameter x) and on specific modeling assumptions for the diquark currents. The central claim about Λ_c's magnetic structure depends critically on the scalar-diquark current having no magnetic term (Eq. 18). No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • m_c (constituent charm quark mass) = 1.62 GeV
    Taken from Refs [49,61] and fine-tuned to match LQCD results for Σ_c^{++} and Σ_c^0 (Sec. III.A).
  • m_q (light constituent quark mass) = 450 MeV
    Taken from Refs [49,61] and fine-tuned to match LQCD results (Sec. III.A).
  • m_{qq} (axial-vector diquark mass) = 860 MeV
    Light diquark mass for Σ_c, fixed by fine-tuning to LQCD (Table I).
  • m_{[qq]} (scalar diquark mass) = 690 MeV
    Light diquark mass for Λ_c; set by m_{qq} - 170 MeV mass splitting, varied 160-180 MeV for uncertainty (Sec. III.A).
  • g1 (baryon-quark-diquark vertex coupling) = 0.7
    Fitted to LQCD data of Σ_c^{++} and Σ_c^0 (Sec. III.A).
  • m_R (regulator cutoff) = 3.1 GeV
    Fitted to LQCD data; same value used for Λ_c (Sec. III.A).
  • x (asymptotic relation parameter) = 3.5
    Fitted to BESIII Λ_c cross-section data via Eq. (21); varied by ±10% for uncertainty (Sec. III.D).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Singly charmed baryons are bound states of one charm quark and a light diquark; HQSS decouples heavy quark from the light diquark degrees of freedom.
    Introduced in Sec. I and used throughout the model; not derived, but standard in quark-diquark phenomenology.
  • domain assumption The scalar (spin-0) diquark current has no magnetic term: j_D(s)=2f_D(t)P_D^μ (Eq. 18).
    This is the premise that forces Λ_c's G_M to be charm-quark-dominated. It follows from spin-0 kinematics in the model but is not empirically verified.
  • domain assumption The quark-diquark vertices are regularized by Ξ(p1,p2) with a common cutoff m_R (Eq. 12), and results are insensitive to reasonable variations of g1 and m_R except for neutral G_E.
    Regularization scheme adopted from Refs [54-59]; sensitivity is asserted, not systematically demonstrated.
  • domain assumption The empirical asymptotic relation G_TL(q^2) ≈ G_SL(-q^2 + x M^2) (Eq. 21) is valid at finite q^2 with a fitted x.
    Follows from Phragmén-Lindelöf in the large-q^2 limit, but its finite-q^2 application is empirical and relies on x fitted to BESIII data (Sec. III.D).
  • standard math Standard one-photon approximation, Sachs form factor definitions, and Dirac algebra (Eqs. 5-7).
    Foundational QED/kinematics framework; unproblematic.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18985 in / 14293 out tokens · 129904 ms · 2026-07-31T23:26:41.120229+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a systematic study of the spacelike electromagnetic form factors of the ground-state singly charmed baryons, $\Sigma_c$ ($\Sigma_c^{++},\Sigma_c^+,\Sigma_c^0$) and $\Lambda_c^+$, within a covariant quark-diquark model. Based on this framework, we obtain their magnetic moments as well as electric charge and magnetic moment radii. Such observables are important to understand the internal structure and the inner dynamics of these heavy baryon states. Our theoretical calculations are in qualitative agreement with available lattice QCD results of $\Sigma_c^{++}$ and $\Sigma_c^0$ baryons. We also discuss the mechanism behind the dependence of the numerical results on the charm quark and light diquark. A key finding is that the electric form factors of the singly charmed baryons fall off much more slowly with momentum transfer $Q^2$ than that of the proton, indicating a more compact electric charge distribution, which is attributed to the heavy charm quark acting as a localized core. More importantly, we observe a striking difference in the magnetic structure: while the magnetic form factors of $\Sigma_c$ are dominated by the light axial-vector diquark, those of $\Lambda_c^+$ are unexpectedly governed by the charm quark due to the vanishing contribution of the scalar diquark. This highlights the decisive role of the light-diquark spin configuration in determining the magnetic properties. Finally, using an empirical asymptotic relation connecting the spacelike and timelike regions, we predict the total cross section for $e^+e^-\to\Sigma_c\bar{\Sigma}_c$. Our findings can be tested at existing facilities including the BESIII, Belle II and LHCb, as well as the proposed Super Tau-Charm Facility.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23943 by Cheng Chen, Dongyan Fu, Ju-Jun Xie, Ye Cao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Feynman diagrams for photon coupling to a quark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The effective EM coupling of a photon to a diquark is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Electric form factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Theoretical calculations for the electric form factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Theoretical calculations of the total cross sections for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 50 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Pacetti, R

    S. Pacetti, R. Baldini Ferroli, and E. Tomasi-Gustafsson, Proton electromagnetic form factors: Basic notions, present achievements and future perspectives, Phys. Rept.550-551, 1 (2015)

    2015

  2. [2]

    Hohler and E

    G. Hohler and E. Pietarinen, Electromagnetic Radii of Nucleon and Pion, Phys. Lett. B53, 471 (1975)

    1975

  3. [3]

    Punjabi, C

    V. Punjabi, C. F. Perdrisat, M. K. Jones, E. J. Brash, and C. E. Carlson, The Structure of the Nucleon: Elastic Electromagnetic Form Factors, Eur. Phys. J. A51, 79 (2015), arXiv:1503.01452 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Maris and P

    P. Maris and P. C. Tandy, Theπ,K +, andK 0 electro- magnetic form-factors, Phys. Rev. C62, 055204 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/0005015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  5. [5]

    A. M. Bincer, Electromagnetic structure of the nucleon, Phys. Rev.118, 855 (1960)

    1960

  6. [6]

    Isgur and M

    N. Isgur and M. B. Wise, Weak Decays of Heavy Mesons in the Static Quark Approximation, Phys. Lett. B232, 113 (1989)

    1989

  7. [7]

    Georgi, An Effective Field Theory for Heavy Quarks at Low-energies, Phys

    H. Georgi, An Effective Field Theory for Heavy Quarks at Low-energies, Phys. Lett. B240, 447 (1990)

    1990

  8. [8]

    Isgur and M

    N. Isgur and M. B. Wise, Spectroscopy with heavy quark symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett.66, 1130 (1991)

    1991

  9. [9]

    Shifman, QCD chemistry: Remarks on diquarks, Nucl

    M. Shifman, QCD chemistry: Remarks on diquarks, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc.347, 86 (2024), arXiv:2412.05440 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    J. G. Korner, M. Kramer, and D. Pirjol, Heavy baryons, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.33, 787 (1994), arXiv:hep- ph/9406359

    arXiv 1994

  11. [11]

    Castellano, G

    M. Castellano, G. Di Giugno, J. W. Humphrey, E. Sassi Palmieri, G. Troise, U. Troya, and S. Vitale, The reactione +e− →p¯pat a total energy of 2.1 GeV, Nuovo Cim. A14, 1 (1973)

    1973

  12. [12]

    Ambrogiani et al

    M. Ambrogiani et al. (E835), Measurements of the mag- netic form-factor of the proton in the timelike region at large momentum transfer, Phys. Rev. D60, 032002 (1999)

    1999

  13. [13]

    Antonelli et al., The first measurement of the neutron electromagnetic form-factors in the timelike region, Nucl

    A. Antonelli et al., The first measurement of the neutron electromagnetic form-factors in the timelike region, Nucl. Phys. B517, 3 (1998)

    1998

  14. [14]

    Andivahis et al., Measurements of the electric and magnetic form-factors of the proton fromQ 2 = 1.75 to 8.83 (GeV/c)2, Phys

    L. Andivahis et al., Measurements of the electric and magnetic form-factors of the proton fromQ 2 = 1.75 to 8.83 (GeV/c)2, Phys. Rev. D50, 5491 (1994)

    1994

  15. [15]

    M. K. Jones et al. (Jefferson Lab Hall A),G Ep/GM pratio by polarization transfer in⃗ ep→e⃗ p, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 1398 (2000), arXiv:nucl-ex/9910005

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  16. [16]

    Gayou et al

    O. Gayou et al. (Jefferson Lab Hall A), Measurement of GEp/GM pin⃗ ep→e⃗ ptoQ2 = 5.6 GeV 2, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 092301 (2002), arXiv:nucl-ex/0111010

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  17. [17]

    Denig and G

    A. Denig and G. Salme, Nucleon Electromagnetic Form Factors in the Timelike Region, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 68, 113 (2013), arXiv:1210.4689 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  18. [18]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Precision measurement of the e+e− →Λ + c ¯Λ− c cross section near threshold, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 132001 (2018), arXiv:1710.00150 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Measurement of Energy- Dependent Pair-Production Cross Section and Electro- magnetic Form Factors of a Charmed Baryon, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 191901 (2023), arXiv:2307.07316 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Measurements of the absolute branching fractions of the Λ + c hadronic decays, (2026), arXiv:2601.01503 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Guo, Q.-H

    D. Guo, Q.-H. Yang, and L.-Y. Dai, Study of the timelike electromagnetic form factors of the Λc, Phys. Rev. D109, 114005 (2024), arXiv:2404.06191 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    A. I. Milstein and S. G. Salnikov, Final-state interaction in the processe +e− →Λ c ¯Λc, Phys. Rev. D105, 074002 (2022), arXiv:2201.07450 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    S. G. Salnikov and A. I. Milstein, Near-threshold res- onance ine +e− →Λ c ¯Λc process, Phys. Rev. D108, L071505 (2023), arXiv:2309.17018 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    C. Chen, B. Yan, and J.-J. Xie, Cross Sections and the Electromagnetic Form Factors within the Extended Vector Meson Dominance Model, Chin. Phys. Lett.41, 021302 (2024), arXiv:2312.16753 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    C. Chen, B. Yan, and J.-J. Xie, The electromagnetic form factors and spin polarization of Λ + c in the pro- cesse +e− →Λ + c ¯Λ− c , Chin. Phys. C49, 023102 (2025), arXiv:2407.19445 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    J. Wan, Y. Yang, and Z. Lu, The electromagnetic form factors of Λ c hyperon in the vector meson dom- inance model, Eur. Phys. J. Plus136, 949 (2021), arXiv:2102.03092 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    L.-Y. Dai, J. Haidenbauer, and U.-G. Meißner, Electro- magnetic Form Factors of Hyperons in the Timelike Re- gion: A Short Review, Chin. Phys. Lett.42, 030202 (2025), arXiv:2412.07543 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Lin, H.-W

    Y.-H. Lin, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, Dispersion-theoretical analysis of the electromagnetic form factors of the nucleon: Past, present and future, Eur. Phys. J. A57, 255 (2021), arXiv:2106.06357 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    K. U. Can, G. Erkol, B. Isildak, M. Oka, and T. T. Taka- hashi, Electromagnetic structure of charmed baryons in Lattice QCD, JHEP05, 125, arXiv:1310.5915 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    K. U. Can, Lattice QCD study of the elastic and transi- tion form factors of charmed baryons, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A36, 2130013 (2021), arXiv:2107.13159 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    Kim and H.-C

    J.-Y. Kim and H.-C. Kim, Electromagnetic form factors of singly heavy baryons in the self-consistent SU(3) chiral quark-soliton model, Phys. Rev. D97, 114009 (2018), arXiv:1803.04069 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [32]

    Kim and H.-C

    J.-Y. Kim and H.-C. Kim, Pion mass dependence of the electromagnetic form factors of singly heavy baryons, PTEP2021, 063D03 (2021), arXiv:1912.01437 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Kim, Electromagnetic and axial-vector structure of singly heavy baryons, PoSQCHSC24, 108 (2025), arXiv:2503.23005 [hep-ph]

    H.-C. Kim, Electromagnetic and axial-vector structure of singly heavy baryons, PoSQCHSC24, 108 (2025), arXiv:2503.23005 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    L.-L. Liu, C. Wang, and X.-H. Guo, Electromagnetic form factors of Λ c in the space-like momentum region, Chin. Phys. C42, 103106 (2018), arXiv:1801.08417 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [35]

    Franklin, D

    J. Franklin, D. B. Lichtenberg, W. Namgung, and D. Carydas, Wave Function Mixing of Flavor Degener- ate Baryons, Phys. Rev. D24, 2910 (1981)

    1981

  36. [36]

    Mohan, T

    B. Mohan, T. M. S., A. Hazra, and R. Dhir, Screening of the quark charge and mixing effects on transition mo- ments and M1 decay widths of baryons, Phys. Rev. D 106, 113007 (2022), arXiv:2211.16418 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    R.-X. Shi, Y. Xiao, and L.-S. Geng, Magnetic moments of the spin-1/2 singly charmed baryons in covariant baryon chiral perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D100, 054019 (2019), arXiv:1812.07833 [hep-ph]. 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  38. [38]

    G.-J. Wang, L. Meng, H.-S. Li, Z.-W. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Magnetic moments of the spin- 1 2 singly charmed baryons in chiral perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D98, 054026 (2018), arXiv:1803.00229 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [39]

    Bernotas and V

    A. Bernotas and V. ˇSimonis, Radiative M1 transitions of heavy baryons in the bag model, Phys. Rev. D87, 074016 (2013), arXiv:1302.5918 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  40. [40]

    Sharma, H

    N. Sharma, H. Dahiya, P. K. Chatley, and M. Gupta, Spin 1 2 + , spin 3 2 + and transition magnetic moments of low lying and charmed baryons, Phys. Rev. D81, 073001 (2010), arXiv:1003.4338 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  41. [41]

    ¨Ozdem, Magnetic dipole moments of the singly-heavy baryons with spin- 1 2 and spin- 3 2 , Eur

    U. ¨Ozdem, Magnetic dipole moments of the singly-heavy baryons with spin- 1 2 and spin- 3 2 , Eur. Phys. J. A61, 62 (2025), arXiv:2411.09405 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    T. M. Aliev, T. Barakat, and M. Savci, Magnetic mo- ments of heavyJ P = 1 2 + baryons in light cone QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D91, 116008 (2015), arXiv:1502.06233 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  43. [43]

    T. M. Aliev, A. Ozpineci, and M. Savci, The Mag- netic moments of Λ b and Λ c baryons in light cone QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D65, 056008 (2002), arXiv:hep- ph/0107196

    arXiv 2002

  44. [44]

    Julia-Diaz and D

    B. Julia-Diaz and D. O. Riska, Baryon magnetic mo- ments in relativistic quark models, Nucl. Phys. A739, 69 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0401096

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  45. [45]

    Faessler, T

    A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Korner, V. E. Lyubovitskij, D. Nicmorus, and K. Pumsa-ard, Magnetic moments of heavy baryons in the relativis- tic three-quark model, Phys. Rev. D73, 094013 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0602193

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  46. [46]

    Barik and M

    N. Barik and M. Das, Magnetic moments of confined quarks and baryons in an independent-quark model based on Dirac equation with power-law potential, Phys. Rev. D28, 2823 (1983)

    1983

  47. [47]

    Patel and K

    K. Patel and K. Thakkar, Electromagnetic and weak de- cay of singly Heavy Baryons (Qqq), Eur. Phys. J. Plus 140, 452 (2025), arXiv:2505.10132 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Gandhi, Z

    K. Gandhi, Z. Shah, and A. K. Rai, Decay properties of singly charmed baryons, Eur. Phys. J. Plus133, 512 (2018), arXiv:1811.00251 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  49. [49]

    Farhadi, S

    M. Farhadi, S. M. Moosavi Nejad, and A. Armat, An- alytical Determination of Mass and Magnetic Moment of Baryons in Diquark Model, Few Body Syst.64, 75 (2023), [Erratum: Few Body Syst. 64, 76 (2023)]

    2023

  50. [50]

    Yang and H.-C

    G.-S. Yang and H.-C. Kim, Magnetic moments of the lowest-lying singly heavy baryons, Phys. Lett. B781, 601 (2018), arXiv:1802.05416 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  51. [51]

    Scholl and H

    S. Scholl and H. Weigel, Magnetic moments of baryons with a single heavy quark, Nucl. Phys. A735, 163 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0312282

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  52. [52]

    Oh, D.-P

    Y.-s. Oh, D.-P. Min, M. Rho, and N. N. Scoccola, Massive quark baryons as skyrmions: Magnetic moments, Nucl. Phys. A534, 493 (1991)

    1991

  53. [53]

    F. J. Ernst, R. G. Sachs, and K. C. Wali, Electromagnetic form factors of the nucleon, Phys. Rev.119, 1105 (1960)

    1960

  54. [54]

    Fu, B.-D

    D. Fu, B.-D. Sun, and Y. Dong, Electromagnetic and gravitational form factors of ∆ resonance in a covari- ant quark-diquark approach, Phys. Rev. D105, 096002 (2022), arXiv:2201.08059 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    D. Fu, J. Wang, and Y. Dong, Form factors of Ω − in a covariant quark-diquark approach, Phys. Rev. D108, 076023 (2023), arXiv:2306.04869 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    J. Wang, D. Fu, and Y. Dong, Form factors of decu- plet baryons in a covariant quark-diquark approach, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 79 (2024), arXiv:2311.07149 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    J. Wang, D. Fu, and Y. Dong, A systematic study of nu- cleon form factors with the pion cloud effect, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1254 (2025), arXiv:2410.14953 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    M. D. Scadron, Covariant Propagators and Vertex Func- tions for Any Spin, Phys. Rev.165, 1640 (1968)

    1968

  59. [59]

    Frederico, E

    T. Frederico, E. Pace, B. Pasquini, and G. Salme, Pion Generalized Parton Distributions with covariant and Light-front constituent quark models, Phys. Rev. D80, 054021 (2009), arXiv:0907.5566 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  60. [60]

    Meyer, The Nucleon as a relativistic quark-diquark bound state with an exchange potential, Phys

    H. Meyer, The Nucleon as a relativistic quark-diquark bound state with an exchange potential, Phys. Lett. B 337, 37 (1994), arXiv:nucl-th/9407003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  61. [61]

    Chen, K.-W

    B. Chen, K.-W. Wei, X. Liu, and T. Matsuki, Low-lying charmed and charmed-strange baryon states, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 154 (2017), arXiv:1609.07967 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  62. [62]

    Cotogno, C

    S. Cotogno, C. Lorc´ e, P. Lowdon, and M. Morales, Co- variant multipole expansion of local currents for massive states of any spin, Phys. Rev. D101, 056016 (2020), arXiv:1912.08749 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  63. [63]

    Capitani, M

    S. Capitani, M. Della Morte, D. Djukanovic, G. von Hip- pel, J. Hua, B. J¨ ager, B. Knippschild, H. B. Meyer, T. D. Rae, and H. Wittig, Nucleon electromagnetic form fac- tors in two-flavor QCD, Phys. Rev. D92, 054511 (2015), arXiv:1504.04628 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  64. [64]

    Abdel-Rehim, C

    A. Abdel-Rehim, C. Alexandrou, M. Constantinou, K. Hadjiyiannakou, K. Jansen, and G. Koutsou, Nucleon electromagnetic form factors from twisted mass lattice QCD, PoSLA TTICE2014, 148 (2015), arXiv:1501.01480 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  65. [65]

    Djukanovic, T

    D. Djukanovic, T. Harris, G. von Hippel, P. Junnarkar, H. B. Meyer, and H. Wittig, Nucleon electromagnetic form factors and axial charge from CLSNf = 2+1 ensem- bles, PoSLA TTICE2015, 137 (2016), arXiv:1511.07481 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  66. [66]

    Alexandrou, M

    C. Alexandrou, M. Constantinou, K. Hadjiyiannakou, K. Jansen, C. Kallidonis, G. Koutsou, and A. Vaquero Aviles-Casco, Nucleon electromagnetic form factors us- ing lattice simulations at the physical point, Phys. Rev. D96, 034503 (2017), arXiv:1706.00469 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  67. [67]

    Simonis, Improved predictions for magnetic mo- ments and M1 decay widths of heavy hadrons, (2018), arXiv:1803.01809 [hep-ph]

    V. Simonis, Improved predictions for magnetic mo- ments and M1 decay widths of heavy hadrons, (2018), arXiv:1803.01809 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  68. [68]

    Zhu, W.-Y

    S.-L. Zhu, W.-Y. P. Hwang, and Z.-S. Yang, The Σ c and Λc magnetic moments from QCD spectral sum rules, Phys. Rev. D56, 7273 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9708411

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  69. [69]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  70. [70]

    Ramalho, M

    G. Ramalho, M. T. Pe˜ na, and K. Tsushima, Hyperon electromagnetic timelike elastic form factors at largeq 2, Phys. Rev. D101, 014014 (2020), arXiv:1908.04864 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  71. [71]

    J. G. Korner and M. Kuroda,e +e− Annihilation Into Baryon-anti-Baryon Pairs, Phys. Rev. D16, 2165 (1977)

    1977

  72. [72]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), A Study ofe +e− →p¯pusing initial state radiation with BABAR, Phys. Rev. D73, 012005 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0512023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006