Brought to you by:
Paper The following article is Open access

Spectroscopic investigation of light strange S = −1 Λ and Σ and S = −2 Ξ baryons

and

© 2021Chinese Physical Society and the Institute of High Energy Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Modern Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and IOP Publishing Ltd
, , Citation Chandni Menapara and Ajay Kumar Rai 2021 Chinese Phys. C 45 063108 DOI 10.1088/1674-1137/abf4f4

1674-1137/45/6/063108

Abstract

The present study is dedicated to light-strange $\Lambda$ with strangeness S = −1 and isospin I = 0, $\Sigma$ with S = −1 and I = 1, and $\Xi$ baryon with S = −2 and $I=\dfrac{1}{2}$. In this study, the hypercentral constituent quark model with linear confining potential has been employed along with a first order correction term to obtain the resonance masses up to approximately 4 GeV. The calculated states include 1S-5S, 1P-4P, 1D-3D, 1F-2F, and 1G (in a few cases) along with all possible spin-parity assignments. Regge trajectories have been explored for the linearity of the calculated masses for $(n,M^{2})$ and $(J,M^{2})$. Magnetic moments have been intensively studied for ground state spin $\dfrac{1}{2}$ and $\dfrac{3}{2}$, in addition to the configuration mixing of the first negative parity state for $\Xi$. Lastly, the transition magnetic moments and radiative decay widths have been presented.

Export citation and abstract BibTeX RIS

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI. Article funded by SCOAP and published under licence by Chinese Physical Society and the Institute of High Energy Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Modern Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and IOP Publishing Ltd

I. INTRODUCTION

The objective of the study of hadrons is to reveal the possible degrees of freedom responsible for the appearance of a given system. The quark confinement and asymptotic freedom have been the starting points of any theoretical and phenomenological study to understand quark dynamics. Hadron spectroscopy attempts to explore the excited mass spectrum along with the multiplet structure and spin-parity assignments. The light quark baryons form the basis of octets and decuplets ranging from strangeness S = 0 to S = −3 based on symmetric, asymmetric, and mixed-symmetric flavor-spin combinations.

The presence of a strange quark in a baryon draws attention because it would be slightly heavier than u and d quarks and considerably lighter than c and b quarks. Particularly, the strangeness S = −2 $ \Xi $ baryons have not been observed experimentally like other light sector baryons [1], as depicted in Table 1. The limited observations in the $ \Xi $ baryon group are owing to the fact that they are produced only as the final state in a process in addition to having considerably small cross-sections [2]. Unlike the $ \Xi $ baryons, $ \Sigma $ and $ \Lambda $ with S = −1 have quite a number of experimentally established states.

Table 1.  $\Xi$ listed by Particle Data Group (PDG [1]).

State $J^{P}$ Status
$\Xi^{0}$(1314) $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ ****
$\Xi^{-}$(1321) $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ ****
$\Xi$(1530) $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ ****
$\Xi$(1620)  *
$\Xi$(1690)  ***
$\Xi$(1820) $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ ***
$\Xi$(1950)  ***
$\Xi$(2030) $\dfrac{5}{2}^{?}$ ***
$\Xi$(2120)  *
$\Xi$(2250)  **
$\Xi$(2370)  **
$\Xi$(2500)  *

The present article is dedicated to the study of $ \Lambda $, $ \Sigma $ and $ \Xi $ baryons. Cascade baryons appear with isospin $ I = \dfrac{1}{2} $ in the octet ( $ J = \dfrac{1}{2} $) and decuplet ( $ J = \dfrac{3}{2} $) as $ \Xi $ and $ \Xi^{*} $, respectively. The quark combination is uss for $ \Xi^{0} $ and dss for $ \Xi^{-} $.

For mixed symmetry flavor wave-function in the octet group,

For symmetric flavor wave-function in the decuplet group,

Similarly, the $ \Sigma $ baryon with u, d, and s constituent quarks has a place in octets and decuplets with three possible combinations as uus, uds, and dds respectively. The $ \Lambda $ baryon appearing in an octet as I = 0 has uds quark content; however, its wave-function differs from that of $ \Sigma^{0} $.

Experimental facilities around the world have been striving to study strange hyperons. A recent study at CERN by ALICE Collaboration established an attractive interaction between protons and $ \Xi^{-} $ [3]. Activities in measuring weak decays of $ \Xi $ hyperons were reported by the KTeV Collaboration [4] and the NA48/1 Collaboration [5]; the BABAR Collaboration has also been carrying out extensive studies [6]. The photoproduction of $ \Xi $ has been observed by CLAS detector at Jefferson Lab [7]. Additionally, JLab has recently proposed to explore the strange hyperon spectroscopy through a secondary KL beam along with a GlueX experiment [8], and the findings are expected to provide new direction and understanding of strange hyperons $ \Sigma $, $ \Lambda $, and $ \Xi $. The BESIII Collaboration observed $ \Xi $(1530) in a baryon-antibaryon pair from charmonium decay [9]. The upcoming experimental facility PANDA at FAIR-GSI has high expectations to establish the whole spectrum of hyperons through proton-antiproton collisions [10-13]. A $ \Xi $ dedicated study has been undertaken for mass, width, and decay modes by a member of the PANDA group [14-16].

In the case of $ \Sigma $ and $ \Lambda $ baryons, all properties are not completely known. Most of the data for strange baryons have been based on earlier studies from a bubble chamber for $ K^{-} $ reactions. The $ \Lambda $(1405) with $ J^{P} = \dfrac{1}{2}^{-} $ is still a mysterious state in the lambda spectrum. This state is lower than the non-strange counterpart $ N^{*} $(1535). Recent studies have attempted to understand this state as hadronic molecular [17, 18]. The JPAC and Osaka-ANL groups have applied a coupled channel approach to study these dynamics [19, 20]. Additionally, a two pole structure of $ \Lambda $(1405) has been analyzed using chiral effective field theory [21]. E. Klempt et al. has extensively reviewed the $ \Lambda $ and $ \Sigma $ hyperon spectrum based on experimental and theoretical studies focusing on all the known states of the spectrum [22]. These spectra are studied through photoproduction off the proton in ref. [23]. The study of strangeness S = −1 and −2 becomes more interesting not only in a high energy arena but also in astrophysical bodies such as neutron stars [24].

The excited states of hyperons have been investigated using phenomenological as well as theoretical approaches. Various models have attempted to reproduce the octet and decuplet ground states and a range of excited states. A recent review has summarized in detail a few strange baryon spectrum states with theoretical and experimental aspects [25]. L. Xiao et al. intensively studied the strong decays of $ \Xi $ under the chiral quark model, which may assist in determining the possible spin-parity of a given state in strong decay [26]. Some of the models have been summarized briefly in Sec. 3, ranging from the relativistic approach [27], instanton induced model [28], CI model [29], algebraic model [30], and Skyrme model [31], etc. The present work is based on the phenomenological non-relativistic hypercentral constituent quark model [32]. Similar studies have previously been carried out for nucleons and delta baryons, which serve as guides towards exploring strange baryons [33-36].

This paper is organized as follows: after the briefing on hadron spectroscopy and various experimental and theoretical approaches, Sec. 2 deals with the background of the model used. Sec. 3 describes the results for resonance masses and provides a detailed discussion regarding the data presented in respective tables. Sec. 4 presents the Regge trajectories and deductions based on them. Sec. 5 is dedicated to the magnetic moments of the isospin states of $ \Xi $, $ \Sigma $, and $ \Lambda $ based on their effective masses. Sec. 6 focuses on the transition magnetic moments and radiative decay widths, and lastly, the conclusion ends the paper.

II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The constituent quark model (CQM) is based on a simple assumption of baryon as a system of three quarks (or anti-quarks) interacting by some potential, which ultimately may provide a quantitative description of baryonic properties. It is obvious that the QCD quark masses are considerably smaller than constituent quark masses; however, this large mass parametrizes all the other effects in a baryon. Thus, the CQMs have been employed in various studies through various modifications in non-relativistic or semi-relativistic approaches.

The hypercentral constituent quark model (hCQM) has been employed for the present study, which is a non relativistic approach [37, 38]. It undertakes the baryon as a confined system of three quarks wherein the potential is hypercentral one. The dynamics of a three body system are addressed using the Jacobi coordinates, introduced as $ \rho $ and $ \lambda $, reducing the body parameters to two [39].

Equation (1)

Equation (2)

The hyperradius and hyperangle are defined as

Equation (3)

The Hamiltonian of the system is written with the potential term solely depending on the hyperradius x of the three body system

Equation (4)

where $ m = \dfrac{2m_{\rho}m_{\lambda}}{m_{\rho}+m_{\lambda}} $ is the reduced mass. Thus the hyper-radial part of the wave-function as determined by the hypercentral Schrodinger equation is [40]

Equation (5)

Here, $ \gamma $ replaces the angular momentum quantum number with the relation $ l(l+1) \rightarrow \dfrac{15}{4} + \gamma (\gamma + 4) $. The choice of hypercentral potential narrows down to a hyperCoulomb one, i.e., $ -\dfrac{\tau}{x} $. The confinement term here is chosen to be of linear nature.

Equation (6)

Here, $ \tau = \dfrac{2}{3}\alpha_{s} $, with $ \alpha_{s} $ being a running coupling constant and $ \alpha $ a parameter based on the fitting of the ground state for a given system.

The $ V_{\rm SD}(x) $ accounts for the spin-dependent terms leading to hyperfine interactions.

Equation (7)

where $ V_{SS}(x) $, $ V_{\gamma S}(x) $, and $ V_{T}(x) $ are spin-spin, spin-orbit, and tensor terms, respectively [41]. In the present study, a first order correction term to the potential with $ \dfrac{1}{m} $ dependence has also been added as $ \dfrac{1}{m}V^{1}(x) $ [42-44].

Equation (8)

where $ C_{F} $ and $ C_{A} $ are Casimir elements of fundamental and adjoint representation.

The resonance masses have been obtained with and without the first order correction term. The constituent quark masses have been taken to be $ m_{u} = m_{d} = 0.290 $ MeV and $ m_{s} = 0.500 $ MeV. Mathematica Notebook has been employed for numerical solutions [45].

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION FOR THE RESONANCE MASS SPECTRA

In the present work, the resonance masses are calculated for radial and orbital states from 1S-5S, 1P-4P, 1D-3D, and 1F-2F. In Tables 2-20, the resonance mass for all the possible spin-parity configurations for each state with $ S = \dfrac{1}{2} $ and $ S = \dfrac{3}{2} $ has been considered and the respective contribution has been calculated based on the model discussed in Sec. 2, including with and without first order corrections. For S-state, possible total angular momentum and parity are $ \dfrac{1}{2}^{+} $ and $ \dfrac{3}{2}^{+} $(Tables 2, 8, and 15); for P-state, the range goes from $ \dfrac{1}{2}^{-} $ to $ \dfrac{5}{2}^{-} $(Tables 3, 9, and 16); for D-state, the range is $ \dfrac{3}{2}^{+} $ to $ \dfrac{7}{2}^{+} $(Tables 4, 10, and 17); and for F-state, it is $ \dfrac{3}{2}^{-} $ to $ \dfrac{9}{2}^{-} $(Tables 5, 11, and 18). Additionally, for G-state, the range is from $ \dfrac{5}{2}^{+} $ to $ \dfrac{11}{2}^{+} $(Table 12) (only calculated for baryon). Only a few experimentally established states with four star status availability are mentioned in their respective tables. In the tables, $ Mass_{\rm cal}1 $ and $ Mass_{\rm cal}2 $ represent resonance masses without and with first order correction, respectively, in MeV.

Table 2.  S-wave of $\Xi$ baryon (in MeV).

State $J^{P}$ $Mass_{\rm cal}$1 $Mass_{\rm cal}$2 $Mass_{\rm exp}$ [1]
1S $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 132213211321
  $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 153115241532
2S $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 18841891 
  $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 19711964 
3S $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 23612372 
  $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 24572459 
4S $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 29352954 
  $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 30293041 
5S $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 35913620 
  $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 36793702 

Table 3.  P-wave of $\Xi$ baryon (in MeV).

State $J^{P}$ $Mass_{\rm cal}$1 $Mass_{\rm cal}$2 $Mass_{\rm exp}$ [1]
$1^{2}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 18861889 
$1^{2}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 187118731823
$1^{4}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 18941897 
$1^{4}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 187918811823
$1^{4}P_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 18591859 
$2^{2}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 23612373 
$2^{2}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 23372347 
$2^{4}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 23732386 
$2^{4}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 23492360 
$2^{4}P_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 23182325 
$3^{2}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 29292948 
$3^{2}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 28942913 
$3^{4}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 29462966 
$3^{4}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 29122931 
$3^{4}P_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 28652884 
$4^{2}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 35773609 
$4^{2}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 35323563 
$4^{4}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 35993632 
$4^{4}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 35543586 
$4^{4}P_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 34943524 

Table 4.  D-wave of $\Xi$ baryon (in MeV).

State $J^{P}$ $Mass_{\rm cal}$1 $Mass_{\rm cal}$2 $Mass_{\rm exp}$ [1]
$1^{2}D_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 22702281 
$1^{2}D_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{+}$ 22342244 
$1^{4}D_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 23102322 
$1^{4}D_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 22832295 
$1^{4}D_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{+}$ 22472257 
$1^{4}D_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{+}$ 22032211 
$2^{2}D_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 28192842 
$2^{2}D_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{+}$ 27712791 
$2^{4}D_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 28742899 
$2^{4}D_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 28382861 
$2^{4}D_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{+}$ 27902810 
$2^{4}D_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{+}$ 27292747 
$3^{2}D_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 34553489 
$3^{2}D_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{+}$ 33913423 
$3^{4}D_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 35273562 
$3^{4}D_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 34793513 
$3^{4}D_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{+}$ 34153448 
$3^{4}D_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{+}$ 33363366 

Table 6. Comparison of masses with other predictions based on $J^{P}$ value for $\Xi$ baryon (in MeV).

$J^{P}$ $Mass_{\rm cal}1$ $Mass_{\rm cal}2$ [27] [28] [29] [30] [46] [47] [31] [2] [48] [49]
$\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 132213211330131013051334134813171318132513171303 ± 13
 188418911886187618401727180517721932189117502178 ± 48
 2310232219932062204019321868   19802231 ± 44
 23612372201221312100  1874  20542408 ± 45
 28742899209121762130     2107 
 29352954214222152150     2149 
 35273562236722492230     2254 
 35913620  2345       
$\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 153115241518153915051524152815521539152015261553 ± 18
 197119641966198820451878 16532120193419522228 ± 40
 227022812100207620651979    19702398 ± 52
 22832295212121282115     20652574 ± 52
 24572459212221702165     2114 
 28192842214421752170     2174 
 28382861214922192210     2184 
 30293041242122572230     2218 
 34553489 22792275     2252 
 34793513          
 36793702          
$\dfrac{5}{2}^{+}$ 22342242210820132045    19361959 
 22472295214721412165    20252102 
 27712791221321972230     2170 
 27902810 22312230     2205 
 33913423 22792240     2239 
 34153448          
$\dfrac{7}{2}^{+}$ 22032211218921692180    20352074 
 27292747 22892240     2189 
 33363366          

Table 7. Comparison of masses with other predictions based on $J^{P}$ value for $\Xi$ baryon (in MeV).

$J^{P}$ $Mass_{\rm cal}1$ $Mass_{\rm cal}2$ [27] [28] [29] [30] [46] [47] [31] [2] [48] [49]
$\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 188618891682177017551869  1658172517721716 ± 43
 189418971758192218101932   181118941837 ± 28
 236123731839193818352076    19261844 ± 43
 23732386216022412225      2758 ± 78
 29292948221022662285       
 29462966223323872300       
 35773609226124112320       
 35993632 24452380       
Continued on next page

Table 8.  S-wave of $\Lambda$ baryon (in MeV).

State $J^{P}$ $Mass_{\rm cal}$1 $Mass_{\rm cal}$2 $Mass_{\rm exp}$ [1]
1S $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 111511151115
2S $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 159215891600
3S $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 188518921810
4S $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 22022220 
5S $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 25402571 

Table 13. Comparison of masses with other predictions based on $J^{P}$ value for $\Lambda$ baryon (in MeV).

$J^{P}$ $Mass_{\rm cal}1$ $Mass_{\rm cal}2$ [27] [28] [29] [30] [46] [47] [50] [51] [48] [49]
$\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 111511151115110811151133113611161116111211131149 ± 18
 159215891615167716801577162515181600169516061807 ± 94
 17941814   1799179916661810 17642112 ± 54
 18851892190117471830  1955  18802137 ± 68
 21052144197218981910  1960  2013 
 22022220198620772010     2173 
 24412496204220992105     2198 
 25402571209921322120       
$\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 176917891854182319001849 18961890190318361991 ± 103
 17771798197619521960   2000 19582058 ± 139
 20762113213020451995    1993 2481 ± 111
 20862123218420872050    2061  
 24082459220221332080    2121  
 24192471        2134 
$\dfrac{5}{2}^{+}$ 174617671825183418901849 1896182018461839 
 175517762098199920352074  211021322008 
 20512085222120782115     2103 
 20602096225521272115     2129 
 23052363225821502180     2155 
 23782426          
 23892471          
$\dfrac{7}{2}^{+}$ 17271748225121302120   2020 2064 
 2029206124712331        
 22532302          
 22652316          
 23522398          
$\dfrac{9}{2}^{+}$ 2204224623602340 2357  23502360  
 22162260          
$\dfrac{11}{2}^{+}$ 21592195      2585   

Table 14. Comparison of masses with other predictions based on $J^{P}$ value for $\Lambda$ baryon (in MeV).

$J^{P}$ $Mass_{\rm cal}1$ $Mass_{\rm cal}2$ [27] [28] [29] [30] [46] [47] [50] [51] [48] [49]
$\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 154615581406152415501686155616501670167915591416 ± 81
 15531564166716301615179916821732 183016561546 ± 110
 18341858173318161675 177819691800 17911713 ± 116
 18411867192720112015  1854   2075 ± 249
 21492186219720762095  1928    
 21582196221821172160       
 24842536          
 24952548          
$\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 153415441549150815451686155616501690168315601751 ± 41
 15401551169316621645 168217851520 17022203 ± 106
 18191841181217751770  18542325 18592381 ± 87
 18271850203519872030  1928    
 20432079231920902110  1969    
 21312166232221472185       
 21402176239222592230       
 23712427245422902275       
 2464251324682313        
 24742525          
 27232793          
$\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 15241533          
 18071827186118281775179917781785183018501803 
 20052039213620802180       
 20152050235021792250       
 21162149          
 23292380          
 23412393          
 24472494          
 26762741          
 26892755          
$\dfrac{7}{2}^{-}$ 19702002209720902150   21002087  
 19802013258322272230       
 22912337          
 23032350          
 26322693          
 26452707          
$\dfrac{9}{2}^{-}$ 1939196926652370        
 22572299          
 25932650          

Table 15.  S-wave of $\Sigma$ baryon (in MeV).

State $J^{P}$ $Mass_{\rm cal}$1 $Mass_{\rm cal}$2 $Mass_{\rm exp}$ [1]
1S $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 119311931193
  $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 138413841385
2S $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 164316431660
  $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 18271827 
3S $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 20832099 
  $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 22292236 
4S $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 25602589 
  $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 26752693 
5S $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 30673108 
  $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 31593189 

Table 19. Comparison of masses with other predictions based on $J^{P}$ value for $\Sigma$ baryon (in MeV).

$J^{P}$ $Mass_{\rm cal}1$ $Mass_{\rm cal}2$ [27] [28] [29] [30] [46] [47] [50] [51] [48] [49]
$\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 119311931187119011901170118012111193119811921216 ± 15
 164316431711176017201604161615461660165616642069 ± 74
 20832099192219471915 191116681770 19242149 ± 66
 20862107198320091970  18011880 19862335 ± 63
 25362568202820522005     2022 
 25602589218020982030     2069 
 30273072229221382105     2172 
 306731082472         
 35493613          
$\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 138413841381141113701382138913341385138113831471 ± 23
 18271827186218961920 186514391560 18682194 ± 81
 20402057202519611970  19241690 19472250 ± 79
 20552074207620112010   1840 19932468 ± 67
 22292236209620442030     2039 
 24812510215720622045     2075 
 24992529218621032085     2098 
 26752693 21122115     2122 
 29623004        2168 
 29843027          
 31593189          
$\dfrac{5}{2}^{+}$ 199820131991195619951872 2061191519301949 
 20142029206220272030   2070 2028 
 24322459222120712095     2062 
 24512478        2107 
 29052945        2154 
 29262967          
 34103464          
 34353490          
$\dfrac{7}{2}^{+}$ 196219742033207020602012  203020392002 
 23902414247021612125     2106 
 28552892          
 33533403          

Table 20. Comparison of masses with other predictions based on $ J^{P}$ value for $ \Xi$ baryon (in MeV).

$J^{P}$ $Mass_{\rm cal}1$ $Mass_{\rm cal}2$ [27] [28] [29] [30] [46] [47] [50] [51] [48] [49]
$\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 172017251620162816301711167717531620175416571603 ± 38
 17311736169317711675 173618681750 17461718 ± 58
 21282145174717981695 175918952000 18021730 ± 34
 21422159211521112110      2478 ± 104
 25802608219821362155       
 25982627220222512165       
 30683111228922642205       
 30883133238122882260       
 35883641          
 36123664          
$\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 169817021706166916551711167717531670169716981861 ± 26
 170917131731172817501974173618681940195617901736 ± 40
 20992114185617811755 175918952250 18022394 ± 74
 21142129217521392120      2297 ± 122
 24162495220321712185       
 25452571230022032200       
 25632589          
 29432990          
 30273067          
 30473089          
 34563512          
 35413594          
 35653617          
$\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 16801683175717701755 17361753177517771743 
 20762087221421742205       
 23862416234722262250       
 24062437          
 25162541          
 28582901          
 28812925          
 29943030          
 33633417          
 33883443          
 35653617          
$\dfrac{7}{2}^{-}$ 23182343225922362245   2100   
 2338236523492285        
 27812819          
 28042844          
 32783330          
 33033356          
$\dfrac{9}{2}^{-}$ 2257227822892325        
 27122746          
 32023252          

An attempt has been made to summarize the calculated masses in this paper along with those of different models.Tables 6, 7, 13, 14, 19, and 20 depict the range of masses for a given $ J^{P} $ value irrespective of the assigned state in increasing order. It is evident that the low lying resonance states are within a reasonable range for almost all of the models and approaches listed. However, the higher states have huge variations possibly because of the fact that not a single model exactly predicts the spin-parity assignments, and in addition, there is no experimental evidence for the states. Furthermore, the present calculations included masses up to 4 GeV.

Table 9.  P-wave of $\Lambda$ baryon (in MeV).

State $J^{P}$ $Mass_{\rm cal}$1 $Mass_{\rm cal}$2 $Mass_{\rm exp}$ [1]
$1^{2}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 154615581670
$1^{2}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 153415441520
$1^{4}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 15531564 
$1^{4}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 15401551 
$1^{4}P_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 15241533 
$2^{2}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 183418581800
$2^{2}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 181918411690
$2^{4}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 18411867 
$2^{4}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 18271850 
$2^{4}P_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 180718271830
$3^{2}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 21492186 
$3^{2}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 21312166 
$3^{4}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 21582196 
$3^{4}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 21402176 
$3^{4}P_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 21162149 
$4^{2}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 24842536 
$4^{2}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 24642513 
$4^{4}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 24952548 
$4^{4}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 24742525 
$4^{4}P_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 24472494 

Table 10.  D-wave of $\Lambda$ baryon (in MeV).

State $J^{P}$ $Mass_{\rm cal}$1 $Mass_{\rm cal}$2 $Mass_{\rm exp}$ [1]
$1^{2}D_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 176917891890
$1^{2}D_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{+}$ 174617671820
$1^{4}D_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 17941814 
$1^{4}D_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 17771798 
$1^{4}D_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{+}$ 17551776 
$1^{4}D_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{+}$ 17271748 
$2^{2}D_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 207621132070
$2^{2}D_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{+}$ 205120852110
Continued on next page

Table 11.  F-wave of $\Lambda$ baryon (in MeV).

State $J^{P}$ $Mass_{\rm cal}$1 $Mass_{\rm cal}$2 $Mass_{\rm exp}$ [1]
$1^{2}F_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 20052039 
$1^{2}F_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{-}$ 197020022100
$1^{4}F_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 20432079 
$1^{4}F_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 20152050 
$1^{4}F_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{-}$ 19802013 
$1^{4}F_{9/2}$ $\dfrac{9}{2}^{-}$ 19391969 
$2^{2}F_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 23292380 
$2^{2}F_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{-}$ 22912337 
$2^{4}F_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 23712427 
$2^{4}F_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 23412393 
$2^{4}F_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{-}$ 23032350 
$2^{4}F_{9/2}$ $\dfrac{9}{2}^{-}$ 22572299 
$3^{2}F_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 26762741 
$3^{2}F_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{-}$ 26322693 
$3^{4}F_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 27232793 
$3^{4}F_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 26892755 
$3^{4}F_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{-}$ 26452707 
$3^{4}F_{9/2}$ $\dfrac{9}{2}^{-}$ 25932650 

Table 12.  G-wave of $\Lambda$ baryon (in MeV).

State $J^{P}$ $Mass_{\rm cal}$1 $Mass_{\rm cal}$2 $Mass_{\rm exp}$[1]
$1^{2}G_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{+}$ 22532302 
$1^{2}G_{9/2}$ $\dfrac{9}{2}^{+}$ 220422462350
$1^{4}G_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{+}$ 23052363 
$1^{4}G_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{+}$ 22652316 
$1^{4}G_{9/2}$ $\dfrac{9}{2}^{+}$ 22162260 
$1^{4}G_{11/2}$ $\dfrac{11}{2}^{+}$ 21592195 

Table 16.  P-wave of $\Sigma$ baryon (in MeV).

State $J^{P}$ $Mass_{\rm cal}$1 $Mass_{\rm cal}$2 $Mass_{\rm exp}$ [1]
$1^{2}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 172017251620
$1^{2}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 169817021670
$1^{4}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 173117361750
$1^{4}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 17091713 
$1^{4}P_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 168016831775
$2^{2}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 212821451900
$2^{2}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 209921141910
$2^{4}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 21422159 
$2^{4}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 21142129 
$2^{4}P_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 20762087 
$3^{2}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 25802608 
$3^{2}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 25452571 
$3^{4}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 25982627 
$3^{4}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 25632589 
$3^{4}P_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 25162541 
$4^{2}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 30683111 
$4^{2}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 30273067 
$4^{4}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 30883133 
$4^{4}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 30473089 
$4^{4}P_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 29943030 
$5^{2}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 35883641 
$5^{2}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 35413594 
$5^{4}P_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{-}$ 36123664 
$5^{4}P_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 35653617 
$5^{4}P_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 35023555 

Table 17.  D-wave of $\Sigma$ baryon (in MeV).

State $J^{P}$ $Mass_{\rm cal}$1 $Mass_{\rm cal}$2 $Mass_{\rm exp}$ [1]
$1^{2}D_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 204020571940
$1^{2}D_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{+}$ 199820131915
$1^{4}D_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 20862107 
$1^{4}D_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 20552074 
$1^{4}D_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{+}$ 20142029 
$1^{4}D_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{+}$ 196219742025
$2^{2}D_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 24812510 
$2^{2}D_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{+}$ 24322459 
$2^{4}D_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 25362568 
$2^{4}D_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 24992529 
$2^{4}D_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{+}$ 24512478 
$2^{4}D_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{+}$ 23902414 
$3^{2}D_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 29623004 
$3^{2}D_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{+}$ 29052945 
$3^{4}D_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 30273072 
$3^{4}D_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 29843027 
$3^{4}D_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{+}$ 29262967 
$3^{4}D_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{+}$ 28552892 
$4^{2}D_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 34763534 
$4^{2}D_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{+}$ 34103464 
$4^{4}D_{1/2}$ $\dfrac{1}{2}^{+}$ 35493613 
$4^{4}D_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{+}$ 35003560 
$4^{4}D_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{+}$ 34353490 
$4^{4}D_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{+}$ 33533403 

Table 18.  F-wave of $\Sigma$ baryon (in MeV).

State $J^{P}$ $Mass_{\rm cal}$1 $Mass_{\rm cal}$2 $Mass_{\rm exp}$ [1]
$1^{2}F_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 23862416 
$1^{2}F_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{-}$ 23182343 
$1^{4}F_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 24612495 
$1^{4}F_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 24062437 
$1^{4}F_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{-}$ 23382365 
$1^{4}F_{9/2}$ $\dfrac{9}{2}^{-}$ 22572278 
$2^{2}F_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 28582901 
$2^{2}F_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{-}$ 27812819 
$2^{4}F_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 29432990 
$2^{4}F_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 28812925 
$2^{4}F_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{-}$ 28042844 
$2^{4}F_{9/2}$ $\dfrac{9}{2}^{-}$ 27122746 
$3^{2}F_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 33633417 
$3^{2}F_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{-}$ 32783330 
$3^{4}F_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 34563512 
$3^{4}F_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 33883443 
$3^{4}F_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{-}$ 33033356 
$3^{4}F_{9/2}$ $\dfrac{9}{2}^{-}$ 32023252 

Ref. [27] employed the relativistic quark-diquark model for the calculation of strange baryon mass spectra. As the model considers both ground and excited states of diquarks, the number of excited states is limited and confined to only lower states. Another relativistic approach based on the three quark Bethe-Salpeter equation with instantaneous two and three body forces is described by Ref. [28]. It introduced instanton induced hyperfine splitting of positive and negative parity states. A further approach is the well known relativised Capstick-Isgur model with higher order spin-dependent potential terms in a three quark system and has predicted masses for nearly 2 GeV [29].

The approach by R.Bijker et al. [30] uses an algebraic model. It is based on collective string-like qqq wherein the orbital excitations are treated as rotations and vibrations of the strings. Low-lying states are established by this model for octet and decuplet class but exact spin-parity are not assigned in the case of $ \Xi $. Ref. [46] utilized the relativistic constituent quark model (RCQM) with Goldstone-boson exchange. Another relativistic quark-diquark approach with Coulomb plus linear interaction and an exchange term, which is inspired by Gürsey-Radicati, has been employed in Ref. [47] for low-lying resonance states of $ \Xi $. Y. Oh [31] has studied the cascade and omega baryons through a Skyrme model, which is based on the approximation of equal mass splitting of hyperon resonances. The mass formula is developed with isospin and spin in the soliton-kaon bound-state model. The $ \Xi $ has also been explored in large- $ N_{c} $ limits [52, 53] as well as through the QCD-SUM rule method [54]. M. Pervin [2] has obtained mass spectra using a non-relativistic quark model approach. Y. Chen et al. have implemented a different approach with a non-relativistic quark model supplemented with hyperfine interaction of a higher order $ O(\alpha_{s}^{2}) $ [48]. Some low-lying states have been exploited through dynamical chirally improved quarks by BGR Collaboration [49].

The ground state of $ \Xi $ has been very well established with known spin-parity at 1321 MeV and $ J^{P} = \dfrac{1}{2}^{+} $ in the octet family. It is evident from Table 5 that the ground state fits well for nearly all the models owing to the minor variations in the assumptions of any given model. Another state is 1532 MeV with $ J^{P} = \dfrac{3}{2}^{+} $ holding a place in decuplet. The mass for this state varies within 20 MeV among all the models discussed. The only negative parity state by PDG is 1823 MeV at $ J^{P} = \dfrac{3}{2}^{-} $, which is obtained as 1871 MeV and 1879 MeV for octet and decuplet $ \Xi $, respectively.

Table 5.  F-wave of $\Xi$ baryon (in MeV).

State $J^{P}$ $Mass_{\rm cal}$1 $Mass_{\rm cal}$2 $Mass_{\rm exp}$ [1]
$1^{2}F_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 27132736 
$1^{2}F_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{-}$ 26472666 
$1^{4}F_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 27862813 
$1^{4}F_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 27332757 
$1^{4}F_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{-}$ 26672687 
$1^{4}F_{9/2}$ $\dfrac{9}{2}^{-}$ 25882603 
$2^{2}F_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 33333368 
$2^{2}F_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{-}$ 32493280 
$2^{4}F_{3/2}$ $\dfrac{3}{2}^{-}$ 34263465 
$2^{4}F_{5/2}$ $\dfrac{5}{2}^{-}$ 33583394 
$2^{4}F_{7/2}$ $\dfrac{7}{2}^{-}$ 32743306 
$2^{4}F_{9/2}$ $\dfrac{9}{2}^{-}$ 31733201 

$ \Xi $(1690) is a fairly well-known state in the PDG database; however, the spin-parity assignments and exact mass predictions vary considerably. The BABAR Collaboration concluded the state to be spin $ \dfrac{1}{2} $ [6]. As shown in Table 6, various models have predicted this state in a comparatively higher mass from PDG, the nearest being 1682 MeV. Furthermore, due to the intrinsic drawback of the present model, a conclusive assignment of this state was not possible. The $ \Xi $(2030) with assigned angular momentum value of $ \dfrac{5}{2} $ is predicted here to be 2234 MeV with positive parity. Other model predictions vary within a 200 MeV range for the same spin-parity. $ \Xi $(1620) appears in PDG with a one star status. Such a state is not established in this work, although one study shines light on the existence of $ \Xi $(1620) and $ \Xi $(1690) [55].

The PDG states $ \Xi $(1950), $ \Xi $(2250), and $ \Xi $(2370) are three and two starred; however, due to lack of spin-parity assignment, the comparison is not reasonable. In addition, one study depicts the states of cascade around $ \Xi $(1950) within the range of 1900-2000 MeV in three different states [56]. A few states in our results are comparatively near to those in the BGR work [49], which do not appear in other approaches.

For the $ \Lambda $ baryon, the ground state mass is 1115 MeV and for $ \Sigma $ it is 1193 MeV; the confinement parameters are determined accordingly. Here, the constituent quark masses for u and d quarks are similar; hence, the charges of $ \Sigma $ are not distinguished. The four star status states are in good agreement with the PDG masses, as evident from the tables. As for the excited states of $ \Lambda $ 2S(1600), the predicted masses are very near to almost all the model masses. However, the first negative parity state $ \Lambda $(1405) $ J^{P} = \dfrac{1}{2}^{-} $ is not established by the present model, and the next state with $ J^{P} = \dfrac{3}{2}^{-} $ 1520 MeV varies by 15 MeV from that in PDG. The $ J^{P} = \dfrac{5}{2}^{+} $ state of 1D (1769 MeV) also falls within the PDG mass range of 1750-1850. The $ J^{P} = \dfrac{9}{2}^{+} $ for 1G is somewhat under-predicted owing to the limitations of the hCQM.

For the case of the $ \Sigma $ baryon, the early negative parity states are just one star status. The later state with $ J^{P} = \dfrac{1}{2}^{-} $ appearing as $ \Sigma $(1750) is predicted well here as 1720 MeV within the range 1700-1800. The $ J^{P} = \dfrac{5}{2}^{+} $ $ \Sigma $(1915) is slightly higher, predicted from most of the models. The results of the other higher ranged states from hCQM are comparable to those of the BGR Collaboration [49].

IV. REGGE TRAJECTORIES

Regge trajectories have been one of the most useful tools in spectroscopic studies. The plots of total angular momentum, J, and principal quantum number, n, against the square of resonance mass, $ M^{2} $, are drawn based on calculated data. The non-intersecting and linearly fitted lines were in accordance with theoretical and experimental data in many studies [57]. These plots might be helpful in predicting the correct spin-parity assignment of a given state.

Equation (9)

Equation (10)

As is evident from Figs. 1-3, the Regge trajectory for n against $ M^{2} $ has been linearly fitted for the calculated resonance masses, which follow the expected trend. The trajectories for J against $ M^{2} $ for the natural parity as depicted in Figs. 4-8 also follow the linear nature, which signifies that the spin-parity assignment for the obtained states are in agreement. The overall nature of the Regge trajectories observed in baryon studies agrees with the calculated results for a few of the states.

Fig. 1

Fig. 1 (color online) Regge trajectory $ \Xi $ for $ n \rightarrow M^{2} $

Standard image
Fig. 2

Fig. 2 (color online) Regge trajectory $ \Sigma $ for $ n \rightarrow M^{2} $

Standard image
Fig. 3

Fig. 3 (color online) Regge trajectory $ \Lambda $ for $ n \rightarrow M^{2} $

Standard image
Fig. 4

Fig. 4 (color online) Regge trajectory $ \Xi $ for $ J^{P} \rightarrow M^{2} $

Standard image
Fig. 5

Fig. 5 (color online) Regge trajectory $ \Xi $ for $ J^{P} \rightarrow M^{2} $

Standard image
Fig. 6

Fig. 6 (color online) Regge trajectory $ \Sigma $ for $ J^{P} \rightarrow M^{2} $

Standard image
Fig. 7

Fig. 7 (color online) Regge trajectory $ \Sigma $ for $ J^{P} \rightarrow M^{2} $

Standard image
Fig. 8

Fig. 8 (color online) Regge trajectory $ \Lambda $ for $ J^{P} \rightarrow M^{2} $

Standard image

V. MAGNETIC MOMENT

The study of electromagnetic properties of baryons is an active area for theoretical as well as experimental work. This intrinsic property helps reveal the shape and other dynamics of transition in decay modes. In the case of cascade $ \Xi $ and $ \Sigma $ baryon, the magnetic moment is to be determined for both spin configurations based on the respective spin-flavor wave-function. The generalized form of the magnetic moment is

Equation (11)

where $ \phi_{\rm sf} $ is the spin-flavor wave function. The contribution from an individual quark appears as

Equation (12)

$ e_{q} $ being the quark charge, $ \sigma_{qz} $ being the spin orientation, and $ m_{q}^{\rm eff} $ is the effective mass, which may vary from model-based quark mass due to the interactions. Here, is it noteworthy that a magnetic moment shall have contributions from many other effects within the baryon such as the sea quark, valence quark, and orbital. Various models have contributed to obtaining the magnetic moment of the octet and decuplet baryons. The order of quarks in spin-flavor will not affect the magnetic moment calculation. The final spin-flavor wave function along with the calculated ground state magnetic moment in terms of the nuclear magneton ( $ \mu_{N} $) are mentioned in Table 21.

Table 21. Magnetic moment for ground states.

SpinBaryon $\sigma_{qz}$ Mass/MeV $\mu$ ( $\mu_{N}$)
$\dfrac{1}{2}$ $\Xi^{0}$(uss) $\dfrac{1}{3}(4\mu_{s}-\mu_{u})$ 1322−1.50
$\dfrac{1}{2}$ $\Xi^{-}$(dss) $\dfrac{1}{3}(4\mu_{s}-\mu_{d})$ 1322−0.46
$\dfrac{3}{2}$ $\Xi^{*0}$(uss) $(2\mu_{s}+\mu_{u})$ 15310.766
$\dfrac{3}{2}$ $\Xi^{*-}$(dss) $(2\mu_{s}+\mu_{d})$ 1531−1.962
$\dfrac{1}{2}$ $\Sigma^{+}$(uus) $\dfrac{1}{3}(4\mu_{u}-\mu_{s})$ 11932.79
$\dfrac{1}{2}$ $\Sigma^{0}$(uds) $\dfrac{1}{3}(2\mu_{u}+2\mu_{d}-\mu_{s})$ 11930.839
$\dfrac{1}{2}$ $\Sigma^{-}$(dds) $\dfrac{1}{3}(4\mu_{d}-\mu_{s})$ 1193−1.113
$\dfrac{3}{2}$ $\Sigma^{*+}$(uus) $(2\mu_{u}+\mu_{s})$ 13842.877
$\dfrac{3}{2}$ $\Sigma^{*0}$(uds) $(\mu_{u}+\mu_{d}+\mu_{s})$ 13840.353
$\dfrac{3}{2}$ $\Sigma^{*-}$(dds) $(2\mu_{d}+\mu_{s})$ 1384−2.171
$\dfrac{1}{2}$ $\Lambda^{0}$(uds) $\mu_{s}$ 1115−0.606

Table 22 provides a comparison of present magnetic moments with those of different approaches. H. Dahiya et al. presented octet and decuplet baryon magnetic moments in a chiral quark model with configuration mixing and generalizing the Cheng-Li mechanism. Effective mass and a screened charge scheme have been employed in Refs. [62], and both results appear in the table. Light-cone sum rules [63] and lattice QCD [64] have also been employed for octet and decuplet magnetic moments. A recent study focused on the hyperonic medium at a finite temperature using the chiral mean field approach [65]. Our results are under-predicted compared to the experimental values of PDG by 0.5 and 0.4 for $ \Xi $ octet baryons; however, there are large variations in the case of decuplet considering all the approaches. It is expected that experimental decuplet values shall be the deciding factor. In the case of $ \Lambda^{0} $, the magnetic moment is nearly the same as those obtained in [1], [58], and [64]. For $ \Sigma^{+} $ and $ \Sigma^{-} $, the results are within a 0.5 $ \mu_{N} $ variation for all the approaches.

Table 22. Comparison of calculated magnetic moments with various models (All data in units of $\mu_{N}$).

Baryon $\mu_{\rm cal}$ Exp [1] [58] [58] [59] [60, 61] [62] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]
$\Xi^{0}$ −1.50−1.25−1.41−1.39 −1.3  −1.25−1.37  
$\Xi^{-}$ −0.46−0.651−0.50−0.50 −0.7  −1.07−0.82  
$\Xi^{*0}$ 0.766 0.600.490.490.690.480.320.440.160.5080.65
$\Xi^{*-}$ −1.962 −2.11−2.43−2.27−1.18−1.9−2.05−2.27−0.62−1.805−2.30
$\Sigma^{+}$ 2.792.4582.612.64    2.462.87  
$\Sigma^{0}$ 0.839    0.11  0.650.76  
$\Sigma^{-}$ −1.113−1.16−1.01−1.28 −1.13  −1.16−1.48  
$\Sigma^{*+}$ 2.877 3.023.072.85 2.562.542.631.273.028 
$\Sigma^{*0}$ 0.353 0.300.080.09 0.230.140.080.330.188 
$\Sigma^{*-}$ −2.171 −2.41−2.92−2.66 −2.10−2.19−2.43−1.88−2.015 
$\Lambda^{0}$ −0.606−0.613−0.59−0.60 −0.11  −0.51−0.70  

Here, an effort has been made to determine the magnetic moment of the low-lying negative parity state of $ \Xi $, which was inspired by studies based on N(1535). The hyperfine interactions between the constituent quarks induce linear combinations of two states with the same angular momentum value. The magnetic moment will now have contribution from spin as well as orbital angular momentum as [67]

Equation (13)

The $ J^{P} = \dfrac{1}{2}^{-} $, L = 1 for $ S = \dfrac{1}{2} $ and $ S = \dfrac{3}{2} $, and calculated resonance masses are 1886 and 1894 MeV, respectively. These states are not experimentally established; however, 1690 MeV is tentatively assigned by many predictions to this state. The physical eigenvalues will be

Equation (14)

Equation (15)

From the approach of NCQM described in Ref. [68], we directly write the final wave-function with mixing for $ \Xi^{0}(uss) $ as

Equation (16)

The mixing angle is taken as $ \theta = -31.7 $. The magnetic moment for $ \Xi^{0}(1886) $ is obtained to be -0.695 $ \mu_{N} $, which is -0.99 $ \mu_{N} $ by [68]. Similarly, for $ \Xi^{-}(1886) $, the magnetic moment is obtained as -0.193 $ \mu_{N} $ as compared to -0.315 $ \mu_{N} $ [68]. The variation relies on the fact that resonance mass is model dependent and the effective mass used in the calculation ultimately depends on resonance mass.

VI. TRANSITION MAGNETIC MOMENT AND RADIATIVE DECAY WIDTH

The transition magnetic moment as well as the radiative decay width are important in the understanding of the internal structure of baryon in addition to the magnetic and electric transitions. Many approaches have been used for the study of radiative decay over the years including some recent ones [69]. Here, $ \Xi^{*0} \rightarrow \Xi^{0}\gamma $ and $ \Sigma^{*} \rightarrow \Sigma\gamma $ have been studied using the effective mass obtained with the hCQM approach. The generalized form for the transition magnetic moment is [70],

Equation (17)

The spin-flavor wave function is obtained similar to the above for decuplet and octet $ \Xi $ as

Equation (18)

The effective mass here is a geometric mean of those for spin $ \dfrac{1}{2} $ and $ \dfrac{3}{2} $. Our result comes out to be 2.378 $ \mu_{N} $, which is in good agreement with various models implemented in [62, 70]. The radiative decay width is obtained as [71]

Equation (19)

where q is the photon energy, $ m_{p} $ is the proton mass, and J is the initial angular momentum giving $ \Gamma_{R} $ = 0.214 MeV. The total decay width available from the experiment is 9.1 MeV. Thus, the branching ratio $ \dfrac{\Gamma_{R}}{\Gamma_{\rm total}} $ is 2.35%, where the PDG data suggests $ \lt 3.7 $%. Thus, it is in accordance with other results as well as the experimental data. The radiative decay of $ \Sigma $ baryons with transition magnetic moments are summarized in Table 23. The obtained results are consistent with experimental data from PDG as well as a few other theoretical approaches.

Table 23.  $\Sigma^{*} $ Radiative decays.

DecayWave-functionTransition moment(in $\mu_{N}$) $\Gamma_{R}$(in MeV)
$\Sigma^{*0} \rightarrow \Lambda^{0}\gamma$ $\dfrac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}(\mu_{u}-\mu_{d})$ 2.2960.4256
$\Sigma^{*0} \rightarrow \Sigma^{0}\gamma$ $\dfrac{\sqrt{2}}{3}(\mu_{u}+\mu_{d}-2\mu_{s})$ 0.9230.0246
$\Sigma^{*+} \rightarrow \Sigma^{+}\gamma$ $\dfrac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}(\mu_{u}-\mu_{s})$ 2.2040.1404
$\Sigma^{*-} \rightarrow \Sigma^{-}\gamma$ $\dfrac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}(\mu_{d}-\mu_{s})$ −0.3590.0037

VII. CONCLUSION

The present work aimed at studying the strangeness of -1 $ \Lambda $ and $ \Sigma $ and -2 $ \Xi $ light baryon owing to the limited data on these. The non-relativistic hypercentral constituent quark model (hCQM) has been a tool for obtaining a large number of resonance masses with a linear term. The results have been compared for cases with and without first order correction terms as well, where there is a difference of a few MeV for low-lying states and up to 30 MeV for higher excited states for $ \Xi $. The octet and decuplet states have not been exclusively distinguished due to a lack of required data.

The mass-range has been compared to various theoretical approaches listed in Sec. 3. The state-wise comparison is not possible because no approach has established spin-parity assignments. The overview of Tables 6 and 7 shows that the low-lying resonance masses are in good agreement among each other especially the four star states of PDG. For higher excited states, present work overestimates the results compared to other models. The $ \Xi $(1820) differs by 48 MeV from the PDG mass. The $ \Xi(2030) $ state with $ J = \dfrac{5}{2} $ could find a place with either positive or negative parity as both have masses in that range. $ \Xi $(1620) and $ \Xi $(1690) are not obtained in present results. However, $ \Xi $(1690), which is likely $ \dfrac{1}{2}^{-} $as found by BABAR Collaboration, is calculated as 1886 MeV in this work. A few differences in results exist owing to the model dependent factors. As for $ \Lambda $(1405), hCQM could not establish the mass but predicts the other negative parity state with good agreement. The four star states for $ \Sigma $ and $ \Lambda $ also agree with many approaches to a good extent.

The Regge trajectories based on some resonance mass are plotted. The principal quantum number n against the square of mass $ M^{2} $ shows a linear nature but the fitted lines are not exactly parallel. The angular momentum J versus the square of mass $ M^{2} $ plots also depict the linearity of data points, which validates our spin-parity assignments to a particular state and may be helpful in new experimental states.

The magnetic moments for spin $ \dfrac{1}{2} $ as well as $ \Xi^{0} $ and $ \Xi^{-} $ vary by 0.25 $ \mu_{N} $ and 0.19 $ \mu_{N} $, respectively, from those of PDG as well as other results. For spin $ \dfrac{3}{2} $ as well as $ \Xi^{*0} $ and $ \Xi^{*-} $, our results vary from nearly 0.2 $ \mu_{N} $ to 0.4 $ \mu_{N} $ compared to all approaches. The transition magnetic moment is obtained for $ \Xi^{0} $ 1886 MeV of our spectra, which differs by 0.30 $ \mu_{N} $, and $ \Xi^{-} $ differs by 0.12 $ \mu_{N} $ from that in Ref. [68]. However, the difference in magnetic moment follows due to the difference in resonance masses used for the calculation. Similarly for $ \Sigma^{+} $, $ \Sigma^{-} $, and $ \Lambda^{0} $, the results are in good accordance with other approaches and PDG.

The transition magnetic moment was obtained as 2.378 $ \mu_{N} $, which agrees with other models. Moreover, the radiative decay width branching fraction was found to be 2.35% in our case, which was well within the PDG range of $ \lt 3.7 $%. The transition magnetic moment and radiative decay width for $ \Sigma $were similar to other results.

Thus, with some agreements and discrepancies, this work with a large number of predicted resonances along with important properties, may be helpful for upcoming experimental facilities like PANDA, which is expected to intensively study the light strange baryons [10-13, 15, 16].

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Ms. Chandni Menapara would like to acknowledge the support from the Department of Science and Technology (DST) under the INSPIRE-FELLOWSHIP scheme for pursuing this work.

Please wait… references are loading.
10.1088/1674-1137/abf4f4