Fragmentation fraction and the decay
in the light-front formalism
Abstract
One has measured at the level of , where the fragmentation faction is to evaluate the -quark to production rate. Using the transition form factors calculated in the light-front quark model, we predict . In particular, we extract , demonstrating that the to productions are much more difficult than the to ones. Since has not been determined experimentally, added to theoretical branching fractions can be compared to future measurements of the decays.
I introduction
The anti-triplet -baryons and all decay weakly pdg , where belongs to the sextet -baryon states. Interestingly, only is allowed to have a direct transition to in the weak interaction, where stands for a spin-3/2 decuplet baryon. This is due to the fact that and both have totally symmetric quark orderings. By contrast, the anti-triplet baryon consisting of mismatches with in the to transition. Clearly, the decay into worths an investigation.
One has barely measured the decays. Moreover, the fragmentation fraction that evaluates the -quark to production rate has not been determined yet. Consequently, the charmful decay channel can only be partially measured. In addition to and , the partial branching fractions are given by pdg
(1) |
where . Some theoretical attempts have been given to extract Hsiao:2015cda ; Hsiao:2015txa ; Jiang:2018iqa . Using the calculations of and Hsiao:2015cda ; Hsiao:2015txa , one extracts and as some certain numbers. Without a careful study of Hsiao:2015cda ; Hsiao:2015txa , it is roughly estimated that . Therefore, it can be an important task to explore the charmful decay.
See Fig. 1, is depicted to proceed through the transition, while is produced from the internal -boson emission. To calculate the branching fraction, the information of the transition is required. On the other hand, the light-front quark model has provided its calculation on the transition form factors, such that one interprets the relative branching fractions of and to that of Hsiao:2020gtc . Therefore, we propose to calculate the transition form factors in the light-front formalism, as applied to the decays as well as the other heavy hadron decays Zhao:2018zcb ; Bakker:2003up ; Ji:2000rd ; Bakker:2002aw ; Choi:2013ira ; Cheng:2003sm ; Schlumpf:1992vq ; Hsiao:2019wyd ; Jaus:1991cy ; Melosh:1974cu ; Dosch:1988hu ; Zhao:2018mrg ; Geng:2013yfa ; Geng:2000if ; Ke:2012wa ; Ke:2017eqo ; Ke:2019smy ; Hu:2020mxk ; Chung:1988mu . We will be able to predict , and extract . Besides, we will compare the branching fractions of , and , and their fragmentation fractions.
II Formalism

According to Fig. 1, the amplitude of combines the matrix elements of the transition and production, written as Hsiao:2015cda ; Hsiao:2015txa
(2) |
where is the Fermi constant, and the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix element. The factorization derives that , where are the effective Wilson coefficients, and the color number ali ; Hsiao:2014mua . For the production, the matrix elements read Becirevic:2013bsa
(3) |
where , and are the mass, decay constant and polarization four-vector, respectively. The matrix elements of the transition are parameterized as Zhao:2018mrg ; Gutsche:2018utw
(4) |
where and represent the mass and momentum of , respectively, and () are the form factors. By substituting the matrix elements of Eqs. (3, II) for those of Eq. (2), we derive the amplitude in the helicity basis Gutsche:2018utw ,
(5) |
where , and and denote the helicity states of and , respectively. Due to the helicity conservation, should be respected, where . Subsequently, we obtain Gutsche:2018utw
(6) |
and , with , , and .
In the light-front quark model, we can calculate the form factors. To start with, we consider the baryon as a bound state that consists of three quarks , and , where are combined as a diquark, denoted by . Explicitly, the baryon bound state can be written as Dosch:1988hu
(7) | |||||
where and stand for the momentum and helicity state, respectively, and is the momentum-space wave function. In the light-front frame, one defines with and , and with and , together with and , which result in and with . Moreover, and are related as and , where
(8) |
with from the relative momentum. By means of the energy of the (di)quark and , the above parameters can be rewritten as
(9) |
In addition, we obtain . We also get with , where describe the internal motions of the internal quarks. Under the Melosh transformation Melosh:1974cu , we derive as Ke:2012wa ; Ke:2017eqo ; Zhao:2018mrg ; Hu:2020mxk
(10) |
where represents the vertex function for the scalar (axial-vector) quantity of the diquark, given by Ke:2012wa ; Ke:2017eqo ; Zhao:2018mrg ; Hu:2020mxk
(11) |
Moreover, the parameter for is given by
(12) |
In Eq. (10), is the wave function that illustrates the momentum distribution of the constituent quark-diquark states. Here, we present in the Gaussian form Hsiao:2020gtc ; Zhao:2018zcb ; Ke:2012wa ; Ke:2017eqo ; Zhao:2018mrg ; Hu:2020mxk ; Ke:2019smy :
(13) |
with to shape the momentum distribution of the - (-) system in the () bound state.
Using the bound states of and in Eq. (7) and the above identities, we derive the matrix elements of the transition in the light-front frame, given by Zhao:2018mrg
(14) | |||||
where , and .
To determine , the identities and can be useful, where and . We can hence perform the following calculations Zhao:2018mrg ; Hsiao:2020gtc ,
(15) | |||||
By connecting to , that is, , in can be extracted with in the light-front quark model, as the other extractions of the transition form factors Hsiao:2020gtc ; Zhao:2018zcb ; Ke:2012wa ; Ke:2017eqo ; Zhao:2018mrg ; Hu:2020mxk ; Ke:2019smy . Similarly, enables us to get . We will present our results in the next section.
III Numerical analysis
For the numerical analysis, the CKM matrix elements and the mass (decay constant) of the meson state are given by pdg
(16) |
with and in the Wolfenstein parameterization. The effective Wilson coefficients come from Refs. ali ; Hsiao:2014mua . In the generalized version of the factorization approach, is taken as a floating number, in order that the non-factorizable effects from QCD corrections can be estimated. By adopting in Hsiao:2015cda ; Hsiao:2015txa , we obtain , which has been used to interpret and .
In terms of and and the theoretical inputs in Eqs. (13, 14, II), given by Ke:2019smy
(17) |
we derive as the functions of , depicted in Fig. 2. It is common that one parameterizes the form factors in the dipole expressions Cheng:2003sm ; Choi:2013ira ; Hsiao:2019wyd , which reproduce the momentum dependences derived in the quark model. Subsequently, the form factors can have simple forms to be used in the weak decays. In our case, we present Zhao:2018zcb ; Hsiao:2020gtc
(18) |
with , , and at given in Table 1, in order to describe the momentum behaviors of in Fig. 2.


Thus, we calculate the branching fraction and fragmentation fraction as
(19) |
where is extracted with and the data in Eq. (I). Moreover, the first and second uncertainties come from and , respectively, and the third one for is from the measurement.
IV Discussions and Conclusions
Because of the insufficient information on the transition, the decays have not been richly explored. In the light-front quark model, we calculate the transition form factors. We can hence predict , which is compatible with those of the anti-triplet -baryon decays and Hsiao:2015cda ; Hsiao:2015txa . On the other hand, is given by the authors of Ref. Gutsche:2018utw . In addition, the total decay width s-1 Cheng:1996cs leads to , where we have used for the demonstration.
In the helicity basis, the branching fraction is given by
(20) |
where . It is found that give (19,81)% of ; besides, , such that gives the main contribution to .
In Eq. (III), agrees with the previous upper limit of 0.108 Hsiao:2015txa . By comparing our extraction to and Hsiao:2015txa , it demonstrates that the to productions are much more difficult than the to ones. Since the fragmentation fraction has not been determined experimentally, the branching fractions of the decays should be partially measured with the factor . Therefore, our extraction for can be useful. With of Eq. (III) added to the branching fractions, one can compare his theoretical results to future measurements of the decays.
In summary, we have investigated the charmful decay channel . In the light-front quark model, we have studied the transition form factors (). We have hence predicted , which is compatible with those of the and decays. In addition, has been found to give the main contribution. Particularly, we have extracted from the partial observation . Since has not been determined experimentally, by adding to the branching fractions, one is allowed to compare his calculations to future observations of the decays.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
YKH was supported in part by National Science Foundation of China (Grants No. 11675030 and No. 12175128). CCL was supported in part by CTUST (Grant No. CTU109-P-108).
References
- (1) P.A. Zyla et al. [Particle Data Group], PTEP 2020, 083C01 (2020).
- (2) Y.K. Hsiao, P.Y. Lin, L.W. Luo and C.Q. Geng, Phys. Lett. B 751, 127 (2015).
- (3) Y.K. Hsiao, P.Y. Lin, C.C. Lih and C.Q. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 92, 114013 (2015).
- (4) H.Y. Jiang and F.S. Yu, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 224 (2018).
- (5) Y.K. Hsiao, L. Yang, C.C. Lih and S.Y. Tsai, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1066 (2020).
- (6) Z.X. Zhao, Chin. Phys. C 42, 093101 (2018).
- (7) H.J. Melosh, Phys. Rev. D 9, 1095 (1974).
- (8) P.L. Chung, F. Coester and W.N. Polyzou, Phys. Lett. B 205, 545 (1988).
- (9) H.G. Dosch, M. Jamin and B. Stech, Z. Phys. C 42, 167 (1989).
- (10) W. Jaus, Phys. Rev. D 44, 2851 (1991).
- (11) F. Schlumpf, Phys. Rev. D 47, 4114 (1993); Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 49, 6246 (1994)].
- (12) C.Q. Geng, C.C. Lih and W.M. Zhang, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 15, 2087 (2000).
- (13) C.R. Ji and C. Mitchell, Phys. Rev. D 62, 085020 (2000).
- (14) B.L.G. Bakker and C.R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 65, 073002 (2002).
- (15) B.L.G. Bakker, H.M. Choi and C.R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 67, 113007 (2003).
- (16) H.Y. Cheng, C.K. Chua and C.W. Hwang, Phys. Rev. D 69, 074025 (2004).
- (17) H.M. Choi and C.R. Ji, Few Body Syst. 55, 435 (2014).
- (18) C.Q. Geng and C.C. Lih, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2505 (2013).
- (19) H.W. Ke, X.H. Yuan, X.Q. Li, Z.T. Wei and Y.X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 86, 114005 (2012).
- (20) H.W. Ke, N. Hao and X.Q. Li, J. Phys. G 46, 115003 (2019).
- (21) Z.X. Zhao, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 756 (2018).
- (22) X.H. Hu, R.H. Li and Z.P. Xing, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 320 (2020).
- (23) H.W. Ke, N. Hao and X.Q. Li, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 540 (2019).
- (24) Y.K. Hsiao, S.Y. Tsai, C.C. Lih and E. Rodrigues, JHEP 2004, 035 (2020).
- (25) A. Ali, G. Kramer, and C.D. Lu, Phys. Rev. D 58, 094009 (1998).
- (26) Y.K. Hsiao and C.Q. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 91, 116007 (2015).
- (27) D. Bečirević, G. Duplančić, B. Klajn, B. Melić and F. Sanfilippo, Nucl. Phys. B 883, 306 (2014).
- (28) T. Gutsche, M.A. Ivanov, J.G. Korner and V.E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D 98, 074011 (2018).
- (29) H.Y. Cheng, Phys. Rev. D 56, 2799 (1997).