$$\Lambda_c(2910)^+$$

$I(J^P) = ?(?)^\sigma \text{ Status: } *$

OMITTED FROM SUMMARY TABLE

A candidate heavy quark symmetry doublet partner to the $\Lambda_c(2940)$. Further study is needed to confirm whether this state is an excited $\Lambda_c$ or $\Sigma_c$.

$\Lambda_c(2910)^+$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2913.8 ± 5.6 ± 3.8</td><td>150</td><td>1 Li</td><td>23E BELL</td><td>B<sup>0</sup> → Σ<sub>c</sub>(2455)<sup>0,++</sup> π<sup>±</sup> p̄</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ LI 23E observes evidence for the $\Lambda_c(2910)^+$ at 4.2σ significance.

$\Lambda_c(2910)^+$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>51.8 ± 20.0 ± 18.8</td><td>150</td><td>1 Li</td><td>23E BELL</td><td>B<sup>0</sup> → Σ<sub>c</sub>(2455)<sup>0,++</sup> π<sup>±</sup> p̄</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ LI 23E observes evidence for the $\Lambda_c(2910)^+$ at 4.2σ significance.

$\Lambda_c(2910)^+$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>i</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub></td><td>Σ<sub>c</sub>(2455)<sup>0</sup> π<sup>+</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub></td><td>Σ<sub>c</sub>(2455)<sup>++</sup> π<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Lambda_c(2910)^+$ BRANCHING RATIOS

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(Σ<sub>c</sub>(2455)<sup>0</sup> π<sup>+</sup>)/Γ<sub>total</sub></th><th>Γ<sub>1</sub>/Γ</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE</td><td>LI</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>23E BELL</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(Σ<sub>c</sub>(2455)<sup>++</sup> π<sup>-</sup>)/Γ<sub>total</sub></th><th>Γ<sub>2</sub>/Γ</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VALUE</td><td>LI</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>23E BELL</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Lambda_c(2910)^+$ REFERENCES

LI 23E PRL 130 031901 Y.B. Li et al. (BELLE Collab.)

$$\Lambda_c(2940)^+$$

$I(J^P) = 0(3/2^-) \text{ Status: } **$

A narrow peak seen in $pD^0$ and in $\Lambda_c^+ \pi^+ \pi^-$. It is not seen in $pD^+$, and therefore it is a $\Lambda_c^+$ and not a $\Sigma_c$. $J^P = 3/2^-$ is favored, but not certain.

$\Lambda_c(2940)^+$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2939.6<sup>+1.3</sup><sub>-1.5</sub> OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2944.8<sup>+3.5</sup><sub>-2.5</sub> ± 0.4<sup>+0.1</sup><sub>-4.6</sub></td><td></td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>17s LHCB in Λ<sub>b</sub><sup>0</sup> → D<sup>0</sup> pπ<sup>-</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2939.8 ± 1.3 ± 1.0</td><td>2.2k</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>07 BABR in pD<sup>0</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2938.0 ± 1.3<sup>+2.0</sup><sub>-4.0</sub></td><td>220</td><td>MIZUK</td><td>07 BELL in Σ<sub>c</sub>(2455)<sup>0,++</sup> π<sup>±</sup></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ The third AAIJ 17s uncertainty comes from modeling the resonant shape of the nearby $\Lambda_c(2880)^+$ and the background (non-resonant) amplitudes.

$\Lambda_c(2940)^+$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>20<sup>+6</sup><sub>-5</sub> OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>27.7<sup>+8.2</sup><sub>-6.0</sub> ± 0.9<sup>+5.2</sup><sub>-10.4</sub></td><td></td><td>2 AAIJ</td><td>17s LHCB in Λ<sub>b</sub><sup>0</sup> → D<sup>0</sup> pπ<sup>-</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>17.5 ± 5.2 ± 5.9</td><td>2.2k</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>07 BABR in pD<sup>0</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>13<sup>+8</sup><sub>-5</sub> <sup>+27</sup><sub>-7</sub></td><td>220</td><td>MIZUK</td><td>07 BELL in Σ<sub>c</sub>(2455)<sup>0,++</sup> π<sup>±</sup></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

² The third AAIJ 17s uncertainty comes from modeling the resonant shape of the nearby $\Lambda_c(2880)^+$ and the background (non-resonant) amplitudes.

$\Lambda_c(2940)^+$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>i</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub></td><td>pD<sup>0</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub></td><td>Σ<sub>c</sub>(2455)<sup>0,++</sup> π<sup>±</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Lambda_c(2940)^+$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>AALI</td><td>17S JHEP 1705 030</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.) JP</td></tr><tr><td>AUBERT</td><td>07 PRL 98 012001</td><td>B. Aubert et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>MIZUK</td><td>07 PRL 98 262001</td><td>R. Mizuk et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr></table>

$$\Sigma_c(2455)$$

$I(J^P) = 1(1/2^+) \text{ Status: } ****$

The angular distribution of $B^- \to \Sigma_c(2455)^0 p\bar{p}$ favors $J = 1/2$ (as the quark model predicts). $J = 3/2$ is excluded by more than four standard deviations; see AUBERT 08BN.

$\Sigma_c(2455)$ MASSES

The masses are obtained from the mass-difference measurements that follow.

$\Sigma_c(2455)^{++}$ MASS

VALUE (MeV) DOCUMENT ID

2453.97 ± 0.14 OUR FIT

$\Sigma_c(2455)^+$ MASS

VALUE (MeV) DOCUMENT ID

2452.65 ± $^{+0.22}_{-0.16}$ OUR FIT

$\Sigma_c(2455)^0$ MASS

VALUE (MeV) DOCUMENT ID

2453.75 ± 0.14 OUR FIT

$\Sigma_c(2455) - \Lambda_c^+$ MASS DIFFERENCES

$m\Sigma_c(2455)^+ - m\Lambda_c^+$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>167.510 ± 0.017</td><td>0.01 ± 0.02</td><td>36k</td><td>LEE</td><td>14 BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(45)</td></tr><tr><td>167.44 ± 0.04</td><td>± 0.12</td><td>13.8k</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>11H CDF p̄p̄ at 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>167.4 ± 0.1</td><td>± 0.2</td><td>2k</td><td>ARTUSO</td><td>02 CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(45)</td></tr><tr><td>167.35 ± 0.19</td><td>± 0.12</td><td>461</td><td>LINK</td><td>00C FOCs γA, E<sub>γ</sub> 180 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>167.76 ± 0.29</td><td>± 0.15</td><td>122</td><td>AITALA</td><td>96B E791 π<sup>-</sup> N<sub>-</sub> 500 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>167.6 ± 0.6</td><td>± 0.6</td><td>56</td><td>FRABETTI</td><td>96 E687 γBe, E<sub>γ</sub> ≈ 220 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>168.2 ± 0.3</td><td>± 0.2</td><td>126</td><td>CRAWFORD</td><td>93 CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(45)</td></tr><tr><td>167.8 ± 0.4</td><td>± 0.3</td><td>54</td><td>BOWCOCK</td><td>89 CLEO e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> 10 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>168.2 ± 0.5</td><td>± 1.6</td><td>92</td><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>88D ARG e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> 10 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>167.4 ± 0.5</td><td>± 2.0</td><td>46</td><td>DIESBURG</td><td>87 SPEC nA ~ 600 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>167</td><td>± 1</td><td>2</td><td>JONES</td><td>87 HBC νp in BEBC</td></tr><tr><td>166</td><td>± 1</td><td>1</td><td>BOSETTI</td><td>82 HBC See JONES 87</td></tr><tr><td>168</td><td>± 3</td><td>6</td><td>BALTAY</td><td>79 HLBC ν Ne-H in 15-ft</td></tr><tr><td>166</td><td>± 15</td><td>1</td><td>CAZZOLI</td><td>75 HBC νp in BNL 7-ft</td></tr></table>

$m\Sigma_c(2455)^+ - m\Lambda_c^+$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>166.19<sup>+0.16</sup><sub>-0.08</sub> OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

166.19<sup>+0.15</sup><sub>-0.08</sub> OUR AVERAGE

<table><tr><td>166.17 ± 0.05<sup>+0.16</sup><sub>-0.07</sub></td><td></td><td>YELTON</td><td>21 BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(nS)</td></tr><tr><td>166.4 ± 0.2</td><td>± 0.3</td><td>661</td><td>AMMAR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>168.5 ± 0.4</td><td>± 0.2</td><td>111</td><td>CRAWFORD CLE2 See AMMAR 01</td></tr><tr><td>168</td><td>± 3</td><td>1</td><td>CALICCHIO HBC νp in BEBC-TST</td></tr></table>

$m\Sigma_c(2455)^0 - m\Lambda_c^+$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>167.290 ± 0.017</td><td>0.01 ± 0.02</td><td>32k</td><td>LEE</td><td>14 BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(45)</td></tr><tr><td>167.28 ± 0.03</td><td>± 0.12</td><td>15.9k</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>11H CDF p̄p̄ at 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>167.2 ± 0.1</td><td>± 0.2</td><td>2k</td><td>ARTUSO</td><td>02 CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(45)</td></tr><tr><td>167.38 ± 0.21</td><td>± 0.13</td><td>362</td><td>LINK</td><td>00C FOCs γA, E<sub>γ</sub> 180 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>167.38 ± 0.29</td><td>± 0.15</td><td>143</td><td>AITALA</td><td>96B E791 π<sup>-</sup> N<sub>-</sub> 500 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>167.8 ± 0.6</td><td>± 0.2</td><td>69</td><td>ALEEV</td><td>96 SPEC n nucleus, 50 GeV/c</td></tr><tr><td>166.6 ± 0.5</td><td>± 0.6</td><td>69</td><td>FRABETTI</td><td>96 E687 γBe, E<sub>γ</sub> ≈ 220 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>167.1 ± 0.3</td><td>± 0.2</td><td>124</td><td>CRAWFORD CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(45)</td></tr><tr><td>168.4 ± 1.0</td><td>± 0.3</td><td>14</td><td>ANJOS</td><td>89D E691 γBe 90-260 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>167.9 ± 0.5</td><td>± 0.3</td><td>48</td><td>1 BOWCOCK</td><td>89 CLEO e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> 10 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>167.0 ± 0.5</td><td>± 1.6</td><td>70</td><td>1 ALBRECHT</td><td>88D ARG e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> 10 GeV</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>178.2</td><td>±0.4</td><td>±2.0</td><td>85</td><td>2</td><td>DIESBURG</td><td>87</td><td>SPEC</td><td>nA ~ 600 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>163</td><td>±2</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>AMMAR</td><td>86</td><td>EMUL</td><td>νA</td></tr></table>

¹This result enters the fit through $m_{\Sigma_c^{++} - m_{\Sigma_c^0}}$ given below.

²See the note on DIESBURG 87 in the $m_{\Sigma_c^{++} - m_{\Sigma_c^0}}$ section below.

### $\Sigma_c(2455)$ MASS DIFFERENCES

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">$m_{\Sigma_c(2455)++} - m_{\Sigma_c(2455)0}$</th><th rowspan="2">DOCUMENT ID</th><th rowspan="2">TECN</th><th rowspan="2">COMMENT</th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>ΔVTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>0.220 ± 0.013 OUR FIT</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>0.221 ± 0.014 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td></tr><tr><td>0.22 ± 0.01 ± 0.01</td><td></td><td>LEE</td><td>14</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at Υ(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>0.2 ± 0.1 ± 0.1</td><td></td><td>ARTUSO</td><td>02</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>- 0.03 ± 0.28 ± 0.11</td><td></td><td>LINK</td><td>00c</td><td>FOCS</td><td>γA, E<sub>γ</sub> 180 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.38 ± 0.40 ± 0.15</td><td></td><td>AITALA</td><td>96b</td><td>E791</td><td>π<sup>-</sup> N, 500 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>1.1 ± 0.4 ± 0.1</td><td></td><td>CRAWFORD</td><td>93</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>- 0.1 ± 0.6 ± 0.1</td><td></td><td>BOWCOCK</td><td>89</td><td>CLEO</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> 10 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>1.2 ± 0.7 ± 0.3</td><td></td><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>88d</td><td>ARG</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ~ 10 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

-10.8 ± 2.9

³DIESBURG 87 is completely incompatible with the other experiments, which is surprising since it agrees with them about $m_{\Sigma_c(2455)++} - m_{\Lambda_c^+}$. We go with the majority here.

<table><tr><th colspan="2">$m_{\Sigma_c(2455)++} - m_{\Sigma_c(2455)0}$</th><th rowspan="2">DOCUMENT ID</th><th rowspan="2">TECN</th><th rowspan="2">COMMENT</th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>ΔVTS</th></tr></thead></table>

-1.10<sup>+0.16</sup><sub>-0.08</sub> OUR FIT

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

1.4 ± 0.5 ± 0.3

### $\Sigma_c(2455)$ WIDTHS

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">$\Sigma_c(2455)^{++}$ WIDTH</th><th rowspan="2">DOCUMENT ID</th><th rowspan="2">TECN</th><th rowspan="2">COMMENT</th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>ΔVTS</th></tr></thead></table>

1.89<sup>+0.09</sup><sub>-0.18</sub> OUR AVERAGE

Error includes scale factor of 1.1.

<table><tr><td>1.84 ± 0.04<sup>+0.07</sup><sub>-0.20</sub></td><td>36k</td><td>LEE</td><td>14</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at Υ(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>2.34 ± 0.13 ± 0.45</td><td>13.8k</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>11H</td><td>CDF</td><td>pP at 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>2.3 ± 0.2 ± 0.3</td><td>2k</td><td>ARTUSO</td><td>02</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>2.05<sup>+0.41</sup><sub>-0.38</sub> ± 0.38</td><td>1110</td><td>LINK</td><td>02</td><td>FOCS</td><td>γA, E<sub>γ</sub> ≈ 180 GeV</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><th colspan="2">$\Sigma_c(2455)^+$ WIDTH</th><th rowspan="2">DOCUMENT ID</th><th rowspan="2">TECN</th><th rowspan="2">COMMENT</th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>ΔVTS</th></tr></thead></table>

2.3<sup>+0.3</sup><sub>-0.3</sub> OUR AVERAGE

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<4.6 90 661 AMMAR 01 CLE2 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)

<table><tr><th colspan="2">$\Sigma_c(2455)^0$ WIDTH</th><th rowspan="2">DOCUMENT ID</th><th rowspan="2">TECN</th><th rowspan="2">COMMENT</th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>ΔVTS</th></tr></thead></table>

1.83<sup>+0.11</sup><sub>-0.19</sub> OUR AVERAGE

Error includes scale factor of 1.2.

<table><tr><td>1.76 ± 0.04<sup>+0.09</sup><sub>-0.21</sub></td><td>32k</td><td>LEE</td><td>14</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at Υ(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>1.65 ± 0.11 ± 0.49</td><td>15.9k</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>11H</td><td>CDF</td><td>pP at 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>2.6 ± 0.5 ± 0.3</td><td></td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08BN</td><td>BABR</td><td>B<sup>-</sup> → pP<sup>+</sup>Λ<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>2.5 ± 0.2 ± 0.3</td><td>2k</td><td>ARTUSO</td><td>02</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>1.55<sup>+0.41</sup><sub>-0.37</sub> ± 0.38</td><td>913</td><td>LINK</td><td>02</td><td>FOCS</td><td>γA, E<sub>γ</sub> ≈ 180 GeV</td></tr></table>

### $\Sigma_c(2455)$ DECAY MODES

$\Lambda_c^+ \pi$ is the only strong decay allowed to a $\Sigma_c$ having this mass.

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>i</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> Λ<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup> π</td><td>≈ 100 %</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Sigma_c(2455)$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>YELTON</td><td>21</td><td>PR D104 052003</td><td>J. Yelton et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LEE</td><td>14</td><td>PR D89 091102</td><td>S.-H. Lee et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AALTONEN</td><td>11H</td><td>PR D84 012003</td><td>T. Aaltonen et al.</td><td>(CDF Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AUBERT</td><td>08BN</td><td>PR D78 112003</td><td>B. Aubert et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ARTUSO</td><td>02</td><td>PR D65 071101</td><td>M. Artuso et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LINK</td><td>02</td><td>PL B525 205</td><td>J.M. Link et al.</td><td>(FNAL FOCUS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AMMAR</td><td>01</td><td>PRL 86 1167</td><td>R. Ammar et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LINK</td><td>00C</td><td>PL B488 218</td><td>J.M. Link et al.</td><td>(FNAL FOCUS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AITALA</td><td>96B</td><td>PL B379 292</td><td>E.M. Aitala et al.</td><td>(FNAL E791 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ALEV</td><td>96</td><td>JINRCC 3-77 31</td><td>A.N. Aleev et al.</td><td>(Serpukhov EXCHARM Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>FRABETTI</td><td>96</td><td>PL B365 461</td><td>P.L. Frabetti et al.</td><td>(FNAL E687 Collab.)</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>CRAWFORD</td><td>93</td><td>PRL 71 3259</td><td>G. Crawford et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANJOS</td><td>89D</td><td>PRL 62 1721</td><td>J.C. Anjos et al.</td><td>(FNAL E691 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BOWCOCK</td><td>89</td><td>PRL 62 1240</td><td>T.J.V. Bowcock et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>88D</td><td>PL B211 489</td><td>H. Albrecht et al.</td><td>(ARGUS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>DIESBURG</td><td>87</td><td>PRL 59 2711</td><td>M. Diesburg et al.</td><td>(FNAL E400 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>JONES</td><td>87</td><td>ZPHY C36 593</td><td>G.T. Jones et al.</td><td>(CERN WA21 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AMMAR</td><td>86</td><td>JETPL 43 515</td><td>R. Ammar et al.</td><td>(ITEP)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Translated from ZETFP 43 401.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>BOSETTI</td><td>82</td><td>PL 109B 234</td><td>P.C. Bosetti et al.</td><td>(AACH3, BONN, CERN+)</td></tr><tr><td>CALICCHIO</td><td>80</td><td>PL 93B 521</td><td>M. Calicchio et al.</td><td>(BARI, BIRM, BRUX+)</td></tr><tr><td>BALTAY</td><td>79</td><td>PRL 42 1721</td><td>C. Baltay et al.</td><td>(COLU, BNL)</td></tr><tr><td>CAZZOLI</td><td>75</td><td>PRL 34 1125</td><td>E.G. Cazzoli et al.</td><td>(BNL)</td></tr></table>





$$ \Sigma_c(2520) $$

$$ I(J^P) = 1(\frac{3}{2}^+) \text{ Status: } \ast\ast\ast $$

Seen in the $\Lambda_c^+ \pi^+$ mass spectrum. The natural assignment is that this is the $J^P = 3/2^+$ excitation of the $\Sigma_c(2455)$, the charm counterpart of the $\Sigma(1385)$, but neither J nor P has been measured.

### $\Sigma_c(2520)$ MASSES

The masses are obtained from the mass-difference measurements that follow.

<table><tr><th colspan="5">$\Sigma_c(2520)^{++}$ MASS</th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>ΔVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></table>

2518.41<sup>+0.22</sup> OUR FIT

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

2530 ± 5 ± 5 6 1 AMMOSOV 93 HLBC νp → μ⁻ $\Sigma_c(2530)^{++}$

¹AMMOSOV 93 sees a cluster of 6 events and estimates the background to be 1 event.

<table><tr><th colspan="5">$\Sigma_c(2520)^+$ MASS</th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>ΔVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></table>

2517.4<sup>+0.7</sup><sub>-0.5</sub> OUR FIT

<table><tr><th colspan="5">$\Sigma_c(2520)^0$ MASS</th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>ΔVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></table>

2518.48<sup>+0.21</sup> OUR FIT

### $\Sigma_c(2520)$ MASS DIFFERENCES

<table><tr><th colspan="5">$m_{\Sigma_c(2520)^{++}} - m_{\Lambda_c^+}$</th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>ΔVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></table>

231.95<sup>+0.18</sup> OUR FIT

Error includes scale factor of 1.8.

<table><tr><td>231.99 ± 0.10 ± 0.02</td><td>44k</td><td>LEE</td><td>14</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at Υ(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>230.73 ± 0.56 ± 0.16</td><td>8.8k</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>11H</td><td>CDF</td><td>pP at 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>231.5 ± 0.4 ± 0.3</td><td>1.3k</td><td>ATHAR</td><td>05</td><td>CLEO</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, 9.4-11.5 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>234.5 ± 1.1 ± 0.8</td><td>677</td><td>BRANDENB...</td><td>97</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)</td></tr></table>

WEIGHTED AVERAGE
231.95<sup>+0.16</sup> (Error scaled by 1.6)

<figure><img src="image_739.png" /></figure>

Values above of weighted average, error, and scale factor are based upon the data in this ideogram only. They are not necessarily the same as our 'best' values, obtained from a least-squares constrained fit utilizing measurements of other (related) quantities as additional information.

$m_{\Sigma_c(2520)^{++}} - m_{\Lambda_c^+}$ (MeV)

<table><tr><th colspan="5">$m_{\Sigma_c(2520)^+} - m_{\Lambda_c^+}$</th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>ΔVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></table>

230.9<sup>+0.7</sup><sub>-0.5</sub> OUR FIT

230.9<sup>+0.7</sup><sub>-0.5</sub> OUR AVERAGE

<table><tr><td>230.9 ± 0.5<sup>+0.5</sup><sub>-0.1</sub></td><td>YELTON</td><td>21</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at Υ(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>231.0 ± 1.1 ± 2.0</td><td>327</td><td>AMMAR</td><td>01</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)</td></tr></table>
$m_{\Sigma_c(2520)^0} - m_{\Lambda_c^+}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>232.02±0.15 OUR FIT</strong></td><td></td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.4.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>232.02±0.17 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td><td></td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.5.</td><td></td><td>See the ideogram below.</td></tr><tr><td>231.98 ±0.11 ±0.04</td><td>41k</td><td>LEE</td><td>14</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at Υ(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>232.88 ±0.43 ±0.16</td><td>9.0k</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>11H</td><td>CDF p<sup>2</sup> at 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>231.4 ±0.5 ±0.3</td><td>1.3k</td><td>ATHAR</td><td>05</td><td>CLEO e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup>, 9.4-11.5 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>232.6 ±1.0 ±0.8</td><td>504</td><td>BRANDENB...</td><td>97</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

WEIGHTED AVERAGE
232.02±0.17 (Error scaled by 1.5)

<figure><img src="image_740.png" /></figure>

$m_{\Sigma_c(2520)^0} - m_{\Lambda_c^+}$ (MeV)

$m_{\Sigma_c(2520)^++} - m_{\Sigma_c(2520)^0}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>0.01±0.15±0.03</strong></td><td>44/41k</td><td>LEE</td><td>14</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at Υ(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

0.1 ±0.8 ±0.3 2 ATHAR 05 CLEO e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup>, 9.4-11.5 GeV

1.9 ±1.4 ±1.0 3 BRANDENB... 97 CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)

2 This ATHAR 05 result is redundant with measurements in earlier entries.

3 This BRANDENBURG 97 result is redundant with measurements in earlier entries.

## $\Sigma_c(2520)$ WIDTHS

$\Sigma_c(2520)^++$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>14.78<sup>+0.30</sup><sub>-0.40</sub> OUR AVERAGE</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>14.77 ±0.25<sup>+0.18</sup><sub>-0.30</sub></td><td>44k</td><td>LEE</td><td>14</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at Υ(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>15.03 ±2.12 ±1.36</td><td>8.8k</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>11H</td><td>CDF p<sup>2</sup> at 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>14.4<sup>+1.6</sup><sub>-1.5</sub> ±1.4</td><td>1.3k</td><td>ATHAR</td><td>05</td><td>CLEO e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup>, 9.4-11.5 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>17.9<sup>+3.8</sup><sub>-3.2</sub> ±4.0</td><td>677</td><td>BRANDENB...</td><td>97</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Sigma_c(2520)^+$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>17.2<sup>+2.3</sup><sub>-2.1</sub>±3.1</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<17 90 327 AMMAR 01 CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)

$\Sigma_c(2520)^0$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>15.3<sup>+0.4</sup><sub>-0.5</sub> OUR AVERAGE</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>15.41 ±0.41<sup>+0.20</sup><sub>-0.32</sub></td><td>41k</td><td>LEE</td><td>14</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at Υ(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>12.51 ±1.82 ±1.37</td><td>9.0k</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>11H</td><td>CDF p<sup>2</sup> at 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>16.6<sup>+1.9</sup><sub>-1.7</sub> ±1.4</td><td>1.3k</td><td>ATHAR</td><td>05</td><td>CLEO e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup>, 9.4-11.5 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>13.0<sup>+3.7</sup><sub>-3.0</sub> ±4.0</td><td>504</td><td>BRANDENB...</td><td>97</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

## $\Sigma_c(2520)$ DECAY MODES

$\Lambda_c^+ \pi$ is the only strong decay allowed to a $\Sigma_c$ having this mass.

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>j</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> Λ<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup> π</td><td>≈ 100 %</td></tr></tbody></table>

## $\Sigma_c(2520)$ REFERENCES

<table><tbody><tr><td>YELTON</td><td>21</td><td>PR D104 052003</td><td>J. Yelton et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LEE</td><td>14</td><td>PR D89 091102</td><td>S.-H. Lee et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AALTONEN</td><td>11H</td><td>PR D84 012003</td><td>T. Aaltonen et al.</td><td>(CDF Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ATHAR</td><td>05</td><td>PR D71 051101</td><td>S.B. Athar et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AMMAR</td><td>01</td><td>PRL 86 1167</td><td>R. Ammar et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BRANDENB...</td><td>97</td><td>PRL 78 2304</td><td>G. Brandenburg et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AMMOSOV</td><td>93</td><td>JETPL 58 247</td><td>V.V. Ammosov et al.</td><td>(SERP)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Translated from ZETF 58 241.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Sigma_c(2800)$

$I(J^P) = 1(?)^2$ Status: ***

Seen in the $\Lambda_c^+ \pi^+$, $\Lambda_c^+ \pi^0$, and $\Lambda_c^+ \pi^-$ mass spectra.

## $\Sigma_c(2800)$ MASSES

The charged ++ and + masses are obtained from the mass-difference measurements that follow. The neutral mass is dominated by the mass-difference measurement, but is pulled up somewhat by the less well-determined but considerably higher direct-mass measurement. It is possible, in fact, that AUBERT 08BN is seeing a different $\Sigma_c$.

$\Sigma_c(2800)^++$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th></tr></thead></table>

$2801<sup>+4</sup><sub>-6</sub> OUR FIT$

$\Sigma_c(2800)^+$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th></tr></thead></table>

$2792<sup>+14</sup><sub>-5</sub> OUR FIT$

$\Sigma_c(2800)^0$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

$2806<sup>+5</sup><sub>-7</sub> OUR FIT$ \quad \text{Error includes scale factor of 1.3.}$

$2846<sup>+8</sup><sub>-10</sub> AUBERT 08BN BABR $B^- \to p\Lambda_c^+ \pi^-$

## $\Sigma_c(2800)$ MASS DIFFERENCES

$m_{\Sigma_c(2800)^++} - m_{\Lambda_c^+}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

$514<sup>+4</sup><sub>-6</sub> OUR FIT$

$514.5<sup>+3.4</sup><sub>-3.1</sub><sup>+2.8</sup><sub>-4.9</sub> 2810<sup>+1090</sup><sub>-775</sub> MIZUK 05 BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)

$m_{\Sigma_c(2800)^+} - m_{\Lambda_c^+}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

$505<sup>+14</sup><sub>-5</sub> OUR FIT$

$505.4<sup>+5.8</sup><sub>-4.6</sub><sup>+12.4</sup><sub>-2.0</sub> 1540<sup>+1750</sup><sub>-1050</sub> MIZUK 05 BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)

$m_{\Sigma_c(2800)^0} - m_{\Lambda_c^+}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

$519<sup>+5</sup><sub>-7</sub> OUR FIT$ \quad \text{Error includes scale factor of 1.3.}$

$515.4<sup>+3.2</sup><sub>-3.1</sub><sup>+2.1</sup><sub>-6.0</sub> 2240<sup>+1300</sup><sub>-740</sub> MIZUK 05 BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)

## $\Sigma_c(2800)$ WIDTHS

$\Sigma_c(2800)^++$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>75<sup>+18</sup><sub>-13</sub>±12</strong></td><td>2810<sup>+1090</sup><sub>-775</sub></td><td>MIZUK</td><td>05</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Sigma_c(2800)^+$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

$62<sup>+37</sup><sub>-23</sub><sup>+52</sup><sub>-36</sub> 1540<sup>+1750</sup><sub>-1050</sub> MIZUK 05 BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)

$\Sigma_c(2800)^0$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

$72<sup>+22</sup><sub>-15</sub> OUR AVERAGE$

$86<sup>+33</sup><sub>-22</sub>±12 AUBERT 08BN BABR $B^- \to p\Lambda_c^+ \pi^-$

$61<sup>+18</sup><sub>-13</sub><sup>+22</sup><sub>-13</sub> 2240<sup>+1300</sup><sub>-740</sub> MIZUK 05 BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)
## $\Sigma_c(2800)$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction ($\Gamma_i/\Gamma$)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>$\Gamma_1$</td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

## $\Sigma_c(2800)$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>AUBERT</td><td>08BN PR D78 112003</td><td>B. Aubert et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>MIZUK</td><td>05 PRL 94 122002</td><td>R. Mizuk et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_741.png" /></figure>

$$I(J^P) = \frac{1}{2}(\frac{1}{2}^+) \text{ Status: } \*\*\*$$

Neither of J or P has actually been measured.

## $\Xi_c^+$ MASS

The fit uses the $\Xi_c^+$ and $\Xi_c^0$ mass and mass-difference measurements.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>2467.71 ± 0.23 OUR FIT</strong> Error includes scale factor of 1.3.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>2467.95 ± 0.19 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td></tr><tr><td>2467.97 ± 0.14 ± 0.17</td><td>3.8k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>14z LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>2468.00 ± 0.18 ± 0.51</td><td>5.1k</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>14b CDF</td><td>pT at 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>2468.1 ± 0.4 <sup>+</sup> 0.2 <sup>-</sup> 1.4</td><td>4.9k</td><td>2 LESIAK</td><td>05 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, T(45)</td></tr><tr><td>2465.8 ± 1.9 ± 2.5</td><td>90</td><td>FRABETTI</td><td>98 E687</td><td>γ Be, E<sub>γ</sub> ≈ 220 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>2467.0 ± 1.6 ± 2.0</td><td>147</td><td>EDWARDS</td><td>96 CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(45)</td></tr><tr><td>2465.1 ± 3.6 ± 1.9</td><td>30</td><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>90f ARG</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(45)</td></tr><tr><td>2467 ± 3 ± 4</td><td>23</td><td>ALAM</td><td>89 CLEO</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> 10.6 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>2466.5 ± 2.7 ± 1.2</td><td>5</td><td>BARLAG</td><td>89c ACCM</td><td>π<sup>-</sup> Cu 230 GeV</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>• • •</strong> We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. <strong>• • •</strong></td></tr><tr><td>2464.4 ± 2.0 ± 1.4</td><td>30</td><td>FRABETTI</td><td>93b E687</td><td>See FRABETTI 98</td></tr><tr><td>2459 ± 5 ± 30</td><td>56</td><td>3 COTEUS</td><td>87 SPEC</td><td>nA ≈ 600 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>2460 ± 25</td><td>82</td><td>BIAGI</td><td>83 SPEC</td><td>Σ<sup>-</sup> Be 135 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ AAIJ 14Z systematic error includes in quadrature the 0.14 MeV uncertainty from the $m(\Lambda_c^+) mass value.

² The systematic error was (wrongly) given the other way round in LESIAK 05; see the erratum.

³ Although COTEUS 87 claims to agree well with BIAGI 83 on the mass and width, there appears to be a discrepancy between the two experiments. BIAGI 83 sees a single peak (stated significance about 6 standard deviations) in the $\Lambda K^- \pi^+ \pi^+$ mass spectrum. COTEUS 87 sees two peaks in the same spectrum, one at the $\Xi_c^+$ mass, the other 75 MeV lower. The latter is attributed to $\Xi_c^+ \to \Sigma^0 K^- \pi^+ \pi^+ \to (\Lambda\gamma) K^- \pi^+ \pi^+$, with the $\gamma$ unseen. The combined significance of the double peak is stated to be 5.5 standard deviations. But the absence of any trace of a lower peak in BIAGI 83 seems to us to throw into question the interpretation of the lower peak of COTEUS 87.

## $\Xi_c^+$ MEAN LIFE

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (10<sup>-15</sup> s)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>453 ± 5 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>454 ± 5 ± 2</td><td>56k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>19AG LHCB</td><td>$\Xi_c^+ \to pK^- \pi^+$</td></tr><tr><td>503 ± 47 ± 18</td><td>250</td><td>MAHMOOD</td><td>02 CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(45)</td></tr><tr><td>439 ± 22 ± 9</td><td>532</td><td>LINK</td><td>01D FOC5</td><td>γ nucleus, E<sub>γ</sub> ≈ 180 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>340<sup>+</sup> 70<sup>-</sup> 50 ± 20</td><td>56</td><td>FRABETTI</td><td>98 E687</td><td>γ Be, E<sub>γ</sub> ≈ 220 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>400<sup>+</sup> 180<sup>-</sup> 120 ± 100</td><td>102</td><td>COTEUS</td><td>87 SPEC</td><td>nA ≈ 600 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>480<sup>+</sup> 210<sup>-</sup> 150 ± 100</td><td>53</td><td>BIAGI</td><td>85c SPEC</td><td>Σ<sup>-</sup> Be 135 GeV</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>• • •</strong> We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. <strong>• • •</strong></td></tr><tr><td>410<sup>+</sup> 110<sup>-</sup> 80 ± 20</td><td>30</td><td>FRABETTI</td><td>93b E687</td><td>See FRABETTI 98</td></tr><tr><td>200<sup>+</sup> 110<sup>-</sup> 60</td><td>6</td><td>BARLAG</td><td>89c ACCM</td><td>π<sup>-</sup> (K<sup>-</sup>) Cu 230 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ AAIJ 19AG reports $[\Xi_c^+ \text{MEAN LIFE}] / [D^+ \text{MEAN LIFE}] = 0.4392 \pm 0.0034 \pm 0.0028$ which we multiply by our best value $D^+ \text{MEAN LIFE} = (1.033 \pm 0.005) \times 10^{-12}$ s. Our first error is their experiment's error and our second error is the systematic error from using our best value.

## $\Xi_c^+$ DECAY MODES

Branching fractions marked with a footnote, e.g. [a], have been corrected for decay modes not observed in the experiments. For example, the sub-mode fraction $\Xi_c^+ \to \Sigma^+ \bar{K}^* (892)^0$ seen in $\Xi_c^+ \to \Sigma^+ K^- \pi^+$ has been multiplied up to include $\bar{K}^* (892)^0 \to \bar{K}^0 \pi^0$ decays.

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction ($\Gamma_i/\Gamma$)</th><th>Scale factor/<br>Confidence level</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table>

## Cabibbo-favored ($S = -2$) decays

$$\Gamma_1 \quad \rho 2 K_S^0 \quad (2.5 \pm 1.3) \times 10^{-3}$$

$$\Gamma_2 \quad \Lambda \bar{K}^0 \pi^+ \quad \bar{K}^0 \quad -$$

$$\Gamma_3 \quad \Sigma (1385)^+ \bar{K}^0 \quad [a] \quad (2.9 \pm 2.0) \%$$

$$\Gamma_4 \quad \Lambda K^- 2 \pi^+ \quad (9 \pm 4) \times 10^{-3}$$

$$\Gamma_5 \quad \Lambda K^* (892)^0 \pi^+ \quad [a] < 5 \times 10^{-3} \quad \text{CL=90\%}$$

$$\Gamma_6 \quad \Sigma (1385)^+ K^- \pi^+ \quad [a] < 6 \times 10^{-3} \quad \text{CL=90\%}$$

$$\Gamma_7 \quad \Sigma^+ K^- \pi^+ \quad (2.7 \pm 1.2) \%$$

$$\Gamma_8 \quad \Sigma^+ \bar{K}^* (892)^0 \quad [a] \quad (2.3 \pm 1.1) \%$$

$$\Gamma_9 \quad \Sigma^0 K^- 2 \pi^+ \quad (8 \pm 5) \times 10^{-3}$$

$$\Gamma_{10} \quad \Xi^0 \pi^+ \quad (1.6 \pm 0.8) \%$$

$$\Gamma_{11} \quad \Xi^- 2 \pi^+ \quad (2.9 \pm 1.3) \%$$

$$\Gamma_{12} \quad \Xi (1530)^0 \pi^+ \quad [a] < 2.9 \times 10^{-3} \quad \text{CL=90\%}$$

$$\Gamma_{13} \quad \Xi (1620)^0 \pi^+ \quad \text{seen}$$

$$\Gamma_{14} \quad \Xi (1690)^0 \pi^+ \quad \text{seen}$$

$$\Gamma_{15} \quad \Xi^0 \pi^+ \pi^0 \quad (6.7 \pm 3.5) \%$$

$$\Gamma_{16} \quad \Xi^0 \pi^- 2 \pi^+ \quad (5.0 \pm 2.6) \%$$

$$\Gamma_{17} \quad \Xi^0 e^+ \nu_e \quad (7 \pm 4) \%$$

$$\Gamma_{18} \quad \Omega^- K^+ \pi^+ \quad (2.0 \pm 1.5) \times 10^{-3}$$

## Cabibbo-suppressed decays

$$\Gamma_{19} \quad p K^- \pi^+ \quad (6.2 \pm 3.0) \times 10^{-3}$$

$$\Gamma_{20} \quad p \bar{K}^* (892)^0 \quad [a] \quad (3.3 \pm 1.7) \times 10^{-3}$$

$$\Gamma_{21} \quad \Sigma^+ \pi^+ \pi^- \quad (1.4 \pm 0.8) \%$$

$$\Gamma_{22} \quad \Sigma^- 2 \pi^+ \quad (5.1 \pm 3.4) \times 10^{-3}$$

$$\Gamma_{23} \quad \Sigma^+ K^+ K^- \quad (4.3 \pm 2.5) \times 10^{-3}$$

$$\Gamma_{24} \quad \Sigma^+ \phi \quad [a] < 3.2 \times 10^{-3} \quad \text{CL=90\%}$$

$$\Gamma_{25} \quad \Xi (1690)^0 K^+, \Xi^0 \to \Sigma^+ K^- \quad < 1.3 \times 10^{-3} \quad \text{CL=90\%}$$

$$\Gamma_{26} \quad p \phi (1020) \quad (1.2 \pm 0.6) \times 10^{-4}$$

[a] This branching fraction includes all the decay modes of the final-state resonance.

## $\Xi_c^+$ BRANCHING RATIOS

### Cabibbo-favored ($S = -2$) decays

$$\frac{\Gamma(\rho 2 K_S^0)/\Gamma(\Xi^- 2 \pi^+)}{\text{VALUE}} \quad \frac{\text{EVTS}}{0.087 \pm 0.016 \pm 0.014} \quad \frac{168 \pm 27}{\text{DOCUMENT ID}} \quad \frac{\text{TECN}}{05} \quad \frac{\text{COMMENT}}{\text{BELL}} \quad e^+ e^-, \gamma (45)$$

$$\frac{\Gamma(\Sigma(1385)^+ \bar{K}^0)/\Gamma(\Xi^- 2 \pi^+)}{\text{VALUE}} \quad \frac{\text{EVTS}}{1.00 \pm 0.49 \pm 0.24} \quad \frac{20}{\text{DOCUMENT ID}} \quad \frac{\text{TECN}}{03E} \quad \frac{\text{COMMENT}}{\text{FOCS}} \quad < 1.72, 90\% \text{ CL}$$

$$\frac{\Gamma(\Lambda K^- 2 \pi^+)/\Gamma(\Xi^- 2 \pi^+)}{\text{VALUE}} \quad \frac{\text{EVTS}}{0.323 \pm 0.033 \text{ OUR AVERAGE}} \quad \frac{1177 \pm 55}{\text{DOCUMENT ID}} \quad \frac{\text{TECN}}{05} \quad \frac{\text{COMMENT}}{\text{BELL}} \quad e^+ e^-, \gamma \text{ nucleus}, E_\gamma \approx 180 \text{ GeV}$$

$$0.323 \pm 0.03 \pm 0.02 \quad 1177 \pm 55 \quad \text{LESIAK} \quad 05 \quad \text{FOCS} \quad \gamma \text{ nucleus}, E_\gamma \approx 180 \text{ GeV}$$

$$0.28 \pm 0.06 \pm 0.06 \quad 58 \quad \text{LINK} \quad 03E \quad \text{FOCS} \quad e^+ e^-, \gamma \text{ nucleus}, E_\gamma \approx 180 \text{ GeV}$$

$$0.58 \pm 0.16 \pm 0.07 \quad 61 \quad \text{BERGFELD} \quad 96 \quad \text{CLE2} \quad e^+ e^- \approx \gamma (45)$$

$$\frac{\Gamma(\Lambda K^* (892)^0 \pi^+)/\Gamma(\Lambda K^- 2 \pi^+)}{\text{VALUE}} \quad \frac{\text{EVTS}}{<0.5} \quad \frac{90}{\text{DOCUMENT ID}} \quad \frac{\text{TECN}}{BERGFELD} \quad \frac{\text{COMMENT}}{CLE2} \quad e^+ e^- \approx \gamma (45)$$

$$\frac{\Gamma(\Sigma(1385)^+ K^- \pi^+)/\Gamma(\Lambda K^- 2 \pi^+)}{\text{VALUE}} \quad \frac{\text{EVTS}}{<0.7} \quad \frac{90}{\text{DOCUMENT ID}} \quad \frac{\text{TECN}}{BERGFELD} \quad \frac{\text{COMMENT}}{CLE2} \quad e^+ e^- \approx \gamma (45)$$

$$\frac{\Gamma(\Sigma^+ K^- \pi^+)/\Gamma(\Xi^- 2 \pi^+)}{\text{VALUE}} \quad \frac{\text{EVTS}}{0.94 \pm 0.10 \text{ OUR AVERAGE}} \quad \frac{251}{\text{DOCUMENT ID}} \quad \frac{\text{TECN}}{03E} \quad \frac{\text{COMMENT}}{\text{FOCS}} \quad \gamma \text{ nucleus}, E_\gamma \approx 180 \text{ GeV}$$

$$0.91 \pm 0.11 \pm 0.04 \quad 251 \quad \text{LINK} \quad 03E \quad \text{FOCS} \quad e^+ e^-, \gamma \text{ nucleus}, E_\gamma \approx 180 \text{ GeV}$$

$$0.92 \pm 0.20 \pm 0.07 \quad 1 JUN \quad 00 \quad \text{SELX} \quad \Sigma^- \text{ nucleus}, 600 \text{ GeV}$$

$$1.18 \pm 0.26 \pm 0.17 \quad 119 \quad \text{BERGFELD} \quad 96 \quad \text{CLE2} \quad e^+ e^- \approx \gamma (45)$$
$$ \Gamma(\Sigma^0 K^- 2\pi^+)/(\Gamma(\Lambda K^- 2\pi^+)) \qquad \Gamma_9/\Gamma_4 $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.84 ± 0.36</td><td>47</td><td>1 COTEUS</td><td>87</td><td>SPEC nA ≈ 600 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹See, however, the note on the COTEUS 87 $\Xi^+_c$ mass measurement.

$$ \Gamma(\Xi^0 \pi^+) / \Gamma(\Xi^- 2\pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{10}/\Gamma_{11} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.55 ± 0.13 ± 0.09</td><td>39</td><td>EDWARDS</td><td>96</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\Xi^- 2\pi^+) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{11}/\Gamma $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2.86 ± 1.21 ± 0.38</td><td>24</td><td>1 LI</td><td>19C BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>131</td><td>BERGFELD</td><td>96</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>160</td><td>AVERY</td><td>95</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>30</td><td>FRABETTI</td><td>93B E687</td><td>γBe, E<sub>γ</sub> = 220 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>30</td><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>90F ARG</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>23</td><td>ALAM</td><td>89</td><td>CLEO e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> 10.6 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹LI 19C report a significance of 6.8 σ for the observation of this decay mode, observed in $\Xi^+_c$ from $\bar{B}^0 \to \Lambda^-_c \Xi^+_c$.

$$ \Gamma(\Xi(1530)^0 \pi^+) / \Gamma(\Xi^- 2\pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{12}/\Gamma_{11} $$

Unseen decay modes of the $\Xi(1530)^0$ are included.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><0.1</td><td>90</td><td>LINK</td><td>03E</td><td>FOCS γ nucleus, E<sub>γ</sub> ≈ 180 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>&lt;0.2</td><td>90</td><td>BERGFELD</td><td>96</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\Xi(1620)^0 \pi^+) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{13}/\Gamma $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>SUMIHAMA</td><td>19</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> mostly at T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\Xi(1690)^0 \pi^+) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{14}/\Gamma $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>SUMIHAMA</td><td>19</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> mostly at T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\Xi^0 \pi^+ \pi^+) / \Gamma(\Xi^- 2\pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{15}/\Gamma_{11} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2.34 ± 0.57 ± 0.37</td><td>81</td><td>EDWARDS</td><td>96</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\Xi(1530)^0 \pi^+) / \Gamma(\Xi^0 \pi^+ \pi^0) \qquad \Gamma_{12}/\Gamma_{15} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;0.3</td><td>90</td><td>EDWARDS</td><td>96</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\Xi^0 \pi^- 2\pi^+) / \Gamma(\Xi^- 2\pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{16}/\Gamma_{11} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.74 ± 0.42 ± 0.27</td><td>57</td><td>EDWARDS</td><td>96</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\Xi^0 e^+ \nu_e) / \Gamma(\Xi^- 2\pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{17}/\Gamma_{11} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2.3 ± 0.6 ± 0.6</td><td>41</td><td>ALEXANDER</td><td>95B</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\Omega^- K^+ \pi^+) / \Gamma(\Xi^- 2\pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{18}/\Gamma_{11} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.07 ± 0.03 ± 0.03</td><td>14</td><td>LINK</td><td>03E</td><td>FOCS &lt; 0.12, 90% CL</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\rho K^- \pi^+) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{19}/\Gamma $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-3</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>6.2 ± 3.0</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td><td colspan="3">Error includes scale factor of 1.5.</td></tr><tr><td>11.35 ± 0.02 ± 3.87</td><td>1.6M</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>20AH LHCB</td><td>pp at 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>4.5 ± 2.1 ± 0.7</td><td>24</td><td>2 LI</td><td>19C BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹AAIJ 20AH extracts $B(\Xi^+_c \to pK^-\pi^+)$ assuming production fraction ratios $f_{\Xi^0/M} / \Lambda^+_c$ = (9.7 ± 0.9 ± 3.1) × 10⁻² (from AAIJ 19AB plus heavy quark symmetry arguments) as well as $f_{\Xi^0/M} / f_{\Xi^+_c} = 1.00 ± 0.01$, and uses the input $B(\Lambda^+_c \to pK^-\pi^+) = (6.23 ± 0.33) × 10^{-2}$. Its correlation with $B(\Xi^0_c \to \Lambda^+_c \pi^-)$, as measured in AAIJ 20AH, is 0.414.

²LI 19C report a significance of 4.4 σ for the observation of this decay mode, observed in $\Xi^+_c$ from $\bar{B}^0 \to \Lambda^-_c \Xi^+_c$.

Cabibbo-suppressed decays

$$ \Gamma(\rho K^- \pi^+) / \Gamma(\Xi^- 2\pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{19}/\Gamma_{11} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.21 ± 0.04</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td><td colspan="3"></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>0.194 ± 0.054</td><td>47 ± 11</td><td>VAZQUEZ-JA...08</td><td>SELX</td><td>Σ<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 600 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.234 ± 0.047 ± 0.022</td><td>202</td><td>LINK</td><td>01B</td><td>FOCS γ nucleus</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>0.20 ± 0.04 ± 0.02</td><td>76</td><td>JUN</td><td>00</td><td>SELX See VAZQUEZ- JAUREGUI 08</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\rho K^* (892)^0) / \Gamma(\rho K^- \pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{20}/\Gamma_{19} $$

Unseen decay modes of the $\bar{K}^*(892)^0$ are included.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.54 ± 0.09 ± 0.05</td><td></td><td>LINK</td><td>01B</td><td>FOCS γ nucleus</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\Sigma^+ \pi^+ \pi^-) / \Gamma(\Xi^- 2\pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{21}/\Gamma_{11} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.48 ± 0.20</td><td>21 ± 8</td><td>VAZQUEZ-JA...08</td><td>SELX</td><td>Σ<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 600 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\Sigma^- 2\pi^+) / \Gamma(\Xi^- 2\pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{22}/\Gamma_{11} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.18 ± 0.09</td><td>10 ± 4</td><td>VAZQUEZ-JA...08</td><td>SELX</td><td>Σ<sup>-</sup> nucleus, 600 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\Sigma^+ K^+ K^-) / \Gamma(\Sigma^+ K^- \pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{23}/\Gamma_{17} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.16 ± 0.06 ± 0.01</td><td>17</td><td>LINK</td><td>03E</td><td>FOCS γ nucleus, E<sub>γ</sub> ≈ 180 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\Sigma^+ \phi) / \Gamma(\Sigma^+ K^- \pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{24}/\Gamma_{17} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;0.12</td><td>90</td><td>LINK</td><td>03E</td><td>FOCS γ nucleus, E<sub>γ</sub> ≈ 180 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\rho \phi(1020)) / \Gamma(\rho K^- \pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{26}/\Gamma_{19} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-3</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>19.8 ± 0.7 ± 0.9 ± 0.2</td><td>3.4k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>19I</td><td>LHCB pp at 8 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹The last uncertainty is due to the uncertainty in the $\phi \to K^+K^-$ branching fraction.

$$ \Gamma(\Xi(1690)^0 K^+ \times B(\Xi(1690)^0 \to \Sigma^+ K^-)) / \Gamma(\Sigma^+ K^- \pi^+) \qquad \Gamma_{25}/\Gamma_{17} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;0.05</td><td>90</td><td>LINK</td><td>03E</td><td>FOCS γ nucleus, E<sub>γ</sub> ≈ 180 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Xi^+_c$ REFERENCES

<table><tbody><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>20AH PR D102 071101</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>19AB PR D99 052006</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>19AG PR D100 032001</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>19I JHEP 1904 084</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LI</td><td>19C PR D100 031101</td><td>Y.B. Li et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>SUMIHAMA</td><td>19 PRL 122 072501</td><td>M. Sumihama et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>14Z PRL 113 032001</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AALTONEN</td><td>14B PR D89 072014</td><td>T. Aaltonen et al.</td><td>(CDF Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>VAZQUEZ-JA...08</td><td>PL B666 299</td><td>E. Vazquez-Jauregui et al.</td><td>(SELEX Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LESIAK</td><td>05 PL B605 237</td><td>T. Lesiak et al.</td><td>(BELEL Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>Also</td><td>PL B617 198 (errat.)</td><td>T. Lesiak et al.</td><td>(BELEL Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LINK</td><td>03E PL B571 139</td><td>J.M. Link et al.</td><td>(FINAL FOCUS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>MAHMOOD</td><td>02 PR D65 031102</td><td>A.H. Mahmood et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>01B</td><td>PL B512 277</td><td>J.M. Link et al.</td><td>(FINAL FOCUS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>01D</td><td>PL B523 53</td><td>J.M. Link et al.</td><td>(FINAL FOCUS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>JUN</td><td>00 PRL 84 1857</td><td>S.Y. Jun et al.</td><td>(FINAL SELEX Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>FRABETTI</td><td>98 PL B427 211</td><td>P.L. Frabetti et al.</td><td>(FINAL E687 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BERGFELD</td><td>96 PL B365 431</td><td>T. Bergfeld et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>EDWARDS</td><td>96 PL B373 261</td><td>K.W. Edwards et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ALEXANDER</td><td>95B PRL 74 3113</td><td>J. Alexander et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>Also</td><td>PRL 75 4155 (errat.)</td><td>J. Alexander et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AVERY</td><td>95 PRL 75 4364</td><td>P. Avery et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>FRABETTI</td><td>93B PRL 70 1381</td><td>P.L. Frabetti et al.</td><td>(FINAL E687 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>90F PRL B247 121</td><td>H. Albrecht et al.</td><td>(ARGUS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ALAM</td><td>89 PL B226 401</td><td>M.S. Alam et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BARLAG</td><td>89C PL B233 522</td><td>S. Barlag et al.</td><td>(ACCMOR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>COTEUS</td><td>87 PRL 59 1530</td><td>P. Coteus et al.</td><td>(FINAL E400 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BIAGI</td><td>85C PL 150B 230</td><td>S.F. Blagi et al.</td><td>(CERN WA62 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BIAGI</td><td>83 PL 122B 455</td><td>S.F. Blagi et al.</td><td>(CERN WA62 Collab.)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_742.png" /></figure>

$I(P^P) = \frac{1}{2}(\frac{1}{2}+)$ Status: ****

Neither *J* or *P* has actually been measured.

$\Xi^0$ MASS

The fit uses the $\Xi^0_c$ and $\Xi^+_c$ mass and mass-difference measurements.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

2470.44 ± 0.28 OUR FIT Error includes scale factor of 1.2.

$$ 2470.99^{+0.30}_{-0.50} \text{ OUR AVERAGE} $$

<table><tbody><tr><td>2470.85 ± 0.24 ± 0.55</td><td>3.4k</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>14B CDF</td><td>p<span style="text-decoration: overline">p</span> at 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>2471.0 ± 0.3 ± 0.2</td><td>1.4</td><td>1 LESIAK</td><td>05 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup>, T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>2470.0 ± 2.8 ± 2.6</td><td>85</td><td>FRABETTI</td><td>98B E687</td><td>γ Be, E<sub>γ</sub> = 220 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>2469 ± 2 ± 3</td><td>9</td><td>HENDERSON</td><td>92B CLEO</td><td>Ω<sup>-</sup> K<sup>+</sup></td></tr><tr><td>2472.1 ± 2.7 ± 1.6</td><td>54</td><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>90F ARG</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>2473.3 ± 1.9 ± 1.2</td><td>4</td><td>BARLAG</td><td>90 ACCM</td><td>π<sup>-</sup> (K<sup>-</sup>) Cu 230 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>2472 ± 3 ± 4</td><td>19</td><td>ALAM</td><td>89 CLEO</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> 10.6 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>2462.1 ± 3.1 ± 1.4</td><td>42</td><td>2 FRABETTI</td><td>93C E687</td><td>See FRABETTI 98B</td></tr><tr><td>2471 ± 3 ± 4</td><td>14</td><td>AVERY</td><td>89 CLEO</td><td>See ALAM 89</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹The systematic error was (wrongly) given the other way round in LESIAK 05.

²The FRABETTI 93C mass is well below the other measurements.
### Ξ₀⁻ c - Ξ⁺ c MASS DIFFERENCE

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>2.72±0.23 OUR FIT</strong> Error includes scale factor of 1.1.<br><strong>2.91±0.26 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td></tr><tr><td>2.85±0.30±0.04</td><td>5.1/3.4k</td><td>AALTONEN</td><td>14B</td><td>p p&#773; at 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>2.9 ±0.5</td><td></td><td>LESIAK</td><td>05</td><td>e⁺e⁻, T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>7.0 ±4.5 ±2.2</td><td></td><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>90F</td><td>e⁺e⁻ at T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>6.8 ±3.3 ±0.5</td><td></td><td>BARLAG</td><td>90</td><td>ACCM π⁻(K⁻) Cu 230 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>5 ±4 ±1</td><td></td><td>ALAM</td><td>89</td><td>Ξ₀⁻ → Ξ⁻π⁺, Ξ⁺⁻ → Ξ⁻π⁺π⁺</td></tr></tbody></table>

### Ξ₀⁻ c MEAN LIFE

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (10⁻¹⁵ s)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>150.4± 2.8 OUR AVERAGE</strong> Error includes scale factor of 1.4.</td></tr><tr><td>148.0± 2.3±2.2</td><td></td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>22γ</td><td>pp → Ξ₀⁻ + X, Ξ₀⁻ → pK⁻K⁻π⁺</td></tr><tr><td>153.4± 2.4±0.7</td><td>22k</td><td>2,3 AAIJ</td><td>19AG</td><td>Ξ_b⁻ → Ξ₀⁻μ⁻p̄μ + X, Ξ₀⁻ → pK⁻K⁻π⁺</td></tr><tr><td>118 <sup>+14</sup><sub>-12</sub> ±5</td><td>110</td><td>LINK</td><td>02H</td><td>γ nucleus, ≈ 180 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>101 <sup>+25</sup><sub>-17</sub> ±5</td><td>42</td><td>FRABETTI</td><td>93C</td><td>γBe, E<sub>γ</sub> = 220 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>82 <sup>+59</sup><sub>-30</sub></td><td>4</td><td>BARLAG</td><td>90</td><td>ACCM π⁻(K⁻) Cu 230 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Measured in Ξ₀⁻ produced promptly in pp collisions, using D⁰ → K⁺K⁻π⁺π⁻ as normalisation mode. AAIJ 22γ reports this lifetime value as (148.0 ± 2.3 ± 2.2 ± 0.2) × 10⁻¹⁵ s where the last uncertainty is due to the uncertainty on the D⁰ lifetime value from PDG 20 average, τ<sub>D0</sub> = (410.1 ± 1.5) fs.

² AAIJ 19AG reports [Ξ₀⁻ MEAN LIFE] / [D⁺ MEAN LIFE] = 0.1485 ± 0.0017 ± 0.0016 which we multiply by our best value D⁺ MEAN LIFE = (1.033 ± 0.005) × 10⁻¹² s. Our first error is their experiment's error and our second error is the systematic error from using our best value.

³ Measured in Ξ₀⁻ produced in semileptonic Ξ_b⁻ decays.

### Ξ₀⁻ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>i</sub>/Γ)</th><th>Confidence level</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>Cabibbo-favored decays</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> pK<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td><td>(4.9 ± 1.0) × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> pK<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup>* (892)<sup>0</sup>, K<sup>-</sup>* → K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td><td>(2.0 ± 0.6) × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub> pK<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup> (no K<sup>-</sup>*<sup>0</sup>)</td><td>(3.0 ± 0.8) × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>4</sub> ΛK<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td><td>(3.2 ± 0.6) × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>5</sub> ΛK<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td><td>(1.45 ± 0.28) %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>6</sub> ΛK<sup>+</sup>* (892)<sup>0</sup></td><td>(2.6 ± 0.6) × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>7</sub> ΛK<sup>0</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>8</sub> ΛK<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>9</sub> Σ<sup>0</sup> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td><td>(5.4 ± 1.4) × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>10</sub> Σ<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td><td>(1.8 ± 0.4) × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>11</sub> Σ<sup>0</sup> K<sup>+</sup>* (892)<sup>0</sup></td><td>(9.9 ± 1.9) × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>12</sub> Σ<sup>+</sup> K<sup>+</sup>* (892)<sup>-</sup></td><td>(4.9 ± 1.3) × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>13</sub> Ξ⁻π<sup>+</sup></td><td>(1.43 ± 0.27) %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>14</sub> Ξ⁻π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td><td>(4.8 ± 2.3) %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>15</sub> Ξ<sup>0</sup> K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td><td>(5.2 ± 1.2) × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>16</sub> Ξ<sup>0</sup> φ, φ → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td><td>(5.6 ± 1.2) × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>17</sub> Ξ<sup>0</sup> K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> nonresonant</td><td>(4.2 ± 0.9) × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>18</sub> Ω<sup>-</sup> K<sup>+</sup></td><td>(1.05 ± 0.20) %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>19</sub> Ξ⁻ e<sup>+</sup>ν<sub>e</sub></td><td>(1.01 ± 0.21) %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>20</sub> Ξ⁻ μ<sup>+</sup>ν<sub>μ</sub></td><td>(1.01 ± 0.21) %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>21</sub> Ξ<sup>0</sup> γ</td><td>&lt; 1.7 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90%</td></tr></tbody></table>

### Cabibbo-suppressed decays

<table><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>22</sub> Λ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub> π<sup>-</sup></td><td>(5.5 ± 1.1) × 10<sup>-3</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>23</sub> Ξ<sup>-</sup> K<sup>+</sup></td><td>(3.9 ± 1.1) × 10<sup>-4</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>24</sub> ΛK<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup> (no φ)</td><td>(4.1 ± 1.3) × 10<sup>-4</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>25</sub> Λφ</td><td>(4.9 ± 1.3) × 10<sup>-4</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

### FIT INFORMATION

An overall fit to 7 branching ratios uses 8 measurements to determine 4 parameters. The overall fit has a χ² = 1.4 for 4 degrees of freedom.

The following off-diagonal array elements are the correlation coefficients ⟨δxᵢδxⱼ⟩ / (δxᵢδxⱼ), in percent, from the fit to the branching fractions, xᵢ ≡ Γᵢ/Γ<sub>total</sub>.

<table><tbody><tr><td>x<sub>5</sub></td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>x<sub>13</sub></td><td>86</td><td>74</td></tr><tr><td>x<sub>22</sub></td><td>64</td><td>55</td><td>75</td></tr><tr><td>x<sub>1</sub></td><td>x<sub>5</sub></td><td>x<sub>13</sub></td></tr></tbody></table>

### Ξ₀⁻ BRANCHING RATIOS

#### Cabibbo-favored (S = -2) decays

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(pK<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)/Γ<sub>total</sub></th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.49±0.10 OUR FIT</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.59±0.23±0.05</td><td>17 ± 5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(pK<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.339±0.035 OUR FIT</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.34 ±0.04 OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.33 ±0.03 ±0.03</td><td>1908 ± 62</td><td>LESIAK</td><td>05</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>0.35 ±0.06 ±0.03</td><td>148 ± 18</td><td>DANKO</td><td>04</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(pK<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup>* (892)<sup>0</sup>, K<sup>-</sup>*<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.14±0.03±0.01</td><td></td><td>DANKO</td><td>04</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(pK<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>(no K<sup>-</sup>*<sup>0</sup>))/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.21±0.04±0.02</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(ΛK<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>)/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.225±0.013 OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.229±0.008±0.012</td><td>5.6k</td><td>LI</td><td>21F</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(nS)</td></tr><tr><td>0.21 ± 0.02 ± 0.02</td><td>465 ± 37</td><td>LESIAK</td><td>05</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(ΛK<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)/Γ<sub>total</sub></th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.45±0.28 OUR FIT</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.17±0.37±0.09</td><td>24 ± 6</td><td>LI</td><td>19A</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(ΛK<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.02±0.14 OUR FIT</td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.1.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.07±0.12±0.07</td><td>2979 ± 211</td><td>LESIAK</td><td>05</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(ΛK<sup>+</sup>* (892)<sup>0</sup>)/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.18±0.02±0.01</td><td>4k</td><td>JIA</td><td>21</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(ΛK<sup>0</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)/Γ<sub>total</sub></th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(ΛK<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)/Γ<sub>total</sub></th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(Σ<sup>0</sup> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>)/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3.8±0.6±0.4</td><td>279</td><td>LI</td><td>21F</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(Σ<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>)/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>12.3±0.7±1.0</td><td>889</td><td>LI</td><td>21F</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(Σ<sup>0</sup> K<sup>+</sup>* (892)<sup>0</sup>)/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.69±0.03±0.03</td><td>6.3k</td><td>JIA</td><td>21</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(Σ<sup>+</sup> K<sup>+</sup>* (892)<sup>-</sup>)/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.34±0.06±0.02</td><td>373</td><td>JIA</td><td>21</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)/Γ<sub>total</sub></th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.43±0.27 OUR FIT</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.80±0.50±0.14</td><td>45 ± 7</td><td>LI</td><td>19A</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.30±0.12±0.05</td><td></td><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>90F</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>
Baryon Particle Listings

$\Xi_c^0, \Xi_c^{0/\pm}$

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(Ω<sup>-</sup> K<sup>+</sup>)/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup> π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>18</sub>/Γ<sub>13</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.294±0.018±0.016</td><td>650</td><td>AUBERT, B</td><td>05M</td><td>BABR</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(Ξ<sup>0</sup> φ, φ → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>)/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup> π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>16</sub>/Γ<sub>13</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.036±0.004±0.002</td><td>311</td><td>1 MCNEIL</td><td>21</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at Υ(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ MCNEIL 21 assumes an azimuthally symmetric amplitude model to recover resonant and nonresonant contributions to $\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^0 K^+ K^-$.

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(Ξ<sup>0</sup> K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> nonresonant)/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup> π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>17</sub>/Γ<sub>13</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.039±0.004±0.002</td><td>311</td><td>1 MCNEIL</td><td>21</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at Υ(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ MCNEIL 21 assumes an azimuthally symmetric amplitude model to recover resonant and nonresonant contributions to $\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^0 K^+ K^-$.

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup> e<sup>+</sup> ν<sub>e</sub>)/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup> π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>19</sub>/Γ<sub>13</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.730±0.021±0.039</td><td>1 LI</td><td>21C</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at 10.52, 10.58 GeV</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

1.38 ±0.14 ±0.22 ACHARYA 21A ALCE pp at 13 TeV

3.1 ±1.0 $^{+0.3}_{-0.5}$ 54 ALEXANDER 95B CLE2 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)

0.96 ±0.43 ±0.18 18 ²ALBRECHT 93B ARG e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.4 GeV

¹ LI 21C measures ratio $B(\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^- e^+ \nu_e)/B(\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^- \mu^+ \nu_\mu) = 1.03 \pm 0.05 \pm 0.07$.

² This ALBRECHT 93B value is the average of the $(\Xi^- e^+ \text{ anything})/\Xi^- \pi^+$ and $(\Xi^- \mu^+ \text{ anything})/\Xi^- \pi^+$ ratios. Here we average it with the $\Xi^- e^+ \nu_e/\Xi^- \pi^+$ ratio.

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup> e<sup>+</sup> ν<sub>e</sub>)/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup> μ<sup>+</sup> ν<sub>μ</sub>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>19</sub>/Γ<sub>20</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.038±0.04±0.04</td><td>1 LI</td><td>21C</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at 10.52, 10.58 GeV</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

1.03 ±0.05 ±0.07 ¹ LI 21C BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at 10.52, 10.58 GeV

¹ LI 21C value is not independent from other quoted measurements.

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup> μ<sup>+</sup> ν<sub>μ</sub>)/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup> π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>20</sub>/Γ<sub>13</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.708±0.033±0.056</td><td>1 LI</td><td>21C</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at 10.52, 10.58 GeV</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ LI 21C measures ratio $B(\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^- e^+ \nu_e)/B(\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^- \mu^+ \nu_\mu) = 1.03 \pm 0.05 \pm 0.07$.

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(Ξ<sup>0</sup>γ)/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup> π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>21</sub>/Γ<sub>13</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;1.2 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>90</td><td>LI</td><td>23</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → Υ(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Cabibbo-suppressed decays

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(Λ<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup>)/Γ<sub>total</sub></th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>22</sub>/Γ</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>5.5±1.1 OUR FIT</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5.5±0.2±1.8</td><td>6.3k</td><td>¹ AAIJ</td><td>20AH LHCB</td><td>pp at 13 TeV</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ AAIJ 20AH extracts $B(\Xi_c^0 \to \Lambda_c^+ \pi^-)$ using two different normalization modes: $\Lambda_c^+ \to pK^- \pi^+$ and $\Xi_c^+ \to pK^- \pi^+$. The mean value of both results, taking their correlations into account, is presented as the final result. The measurement assumes production fraction ratios $f_{\Xi_c^0/\bar{\Xi}_c^0} = (9.7 \pm 0.9 \pm 3.1) \times 10^{-2}$ (from AAIJ 19AB plus heavy quark symmetry arguments) as well as $f_{\Xi_c^0/\bar{\Xi}_c^0} = 1.00 \pm 0.01$. It further uses the inputs $B(\Lambda_c^+ \to pK^- \pi^+) = (6.23 \pm 0.33) \times 10^{-2}$ and $B(\Xi_c^+ \to pK^- \pi^+) = (4.5 \pm 2.1 \pm 0.7) \times 10^{-3}$ (from LI 19C). Its correlation with $B(\Xi_c^+ \to pK^- \pi^+)$, as measured in AAIJ 20AH, is 0.414.

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(Λ<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup>)/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup> π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>22</sub>/Γ<sub>13</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.38±0.05 OUR FIT</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.38±0.04±0.04</td><td>1468</td><td>¹ TANG</td><td>23</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → Υ(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ TANG 23 reports fitted masses $m_{\Lambda_c^+} = 2286.55 \pm 0.03$ MeV and $m_{\Xi_c^0} = 2470.43 \pm 0.06$ MeV.

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup> K<sup>+</sup>)/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup> π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>23</sub>/Γ<sub>13</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2.75±0.51±0.25</td><td>314 ± 58</td><td>CHISTOV</td><td>13</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → Υ(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(ΛK<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> (no φ))/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup> π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>24</sub>/Γ<sub>13</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2.86±0.61±0.37</td><td>510 ± 110</td><td>CHISTOV</td><td>13</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(Λφ)/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup> π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>25</sub>/Γ<sub>13</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3.43±0.58±0.32</td><td>316 ± 54</td><td>CHISTOV</td><td>13</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Xi_c^0$ DECAY PARAMETERS

See the note on "Baryon Decay Parameters" in the neutron Listings.

<table><thead><tr><th>α FOR Ξ<sup>0</sup><sub>c</sub> → Ξ<sup>-</sup> π<sup>+</sup></th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-0.64±0.05±0.01</td><td>LI</td><td>21C</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at 10.52, 10.58 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

-0.56±0.39$^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$ 138 CHAN 01 CLE2 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)

<table><thead><tr><th>α FOR Ξ<sup>0</sup><sub>c</sub> → Ξ<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup></th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.61±0.05±0.01</td><td>LI</td><td>21C</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at 10.52, 10.58 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>α FOR Ξ<sup>0</sup><sub>c</sub> → ΛK<sup>+</sup>(892)<sup>0</sup></th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.15±0.22±0.04</td><td>4k</td><td>1 JIA</td><td>21</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at Υ(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ JIA 21 measures $\alpha(\Xi_c^0 \to \Lambda K^+(892)^0) \propto (\Lambda \to p\pi^-) = 0.115 \pm 0.164 \pm 0.031$, and uses $\alpha(\Lambda \to p\pi^-) = 0.747 \pm 0.010$.

<table><thead><tr><th>α FOR Ξ<sup>0</sup><sub>c</sub> → Σ<sup>+</sup> K<sup>+</sup>(892)<sup>-</sup></th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-0.52±0.30±0.02</td><td>373</td><td>1 JIA</td><td>21</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at Υ(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ JIA 21 measures $\alpha(\Xi_c^0 \to \Sigma^+ K^+(892)^-) \propto (\Sigma^+ \to p\pi^0) = 0.514 \pm 0.295 \pm 0.012$, and uses $\alpha(\Sigma^+ \to p\pi^0) = -0.980 \pm 0.017$.

$\Xi_c^0$ REFERENCES

<table><tbody><tr><td>LI</td><td>23 PR D107 032001</td><td>Y. Li et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>TANG</td><td>23 PR D107 032005</td><td>S.S. Tang et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>22Y SCIB 67 479</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHARYA</td><td>21A PR 127 272001</td><td>S. Acharya et al.</td><td>(ALICE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>JIA</td><td>21 JHEP 2106 160</td><td>S. Jia et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LI</td><td>21C PR 127 121803</td><td>Y.B. Li et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LI</td><td>21F PR D105 011102</td><td>Y. Li et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>MCNEIL</td><td>21 PR D103 112002</td><td>J.T. McNeil et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>20AH PR D102 071101</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>PDG</td><td>20 PTEP 2020 083C01</td><td>P.A. Zyła et al.</td><td>(PDG Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>19AB PR D99 052006</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>19AG PR D100 032001</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LI</td><td>19A PR 122 082001</td><td>Y.B. Li et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LI</td><td>19C PR D100 031101</td><td>Y.B. Li et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AALTONEN</td><td>14B PR D89 072014</td><td>T. Aaltonen et al.</td><td>(CDF Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>CHISTOV</td><td>13 PR D88 071103</td><td>R. Chistov et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AUBERT, B</td><td>05M PR 95 142003</td><td>B. Aubert et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LESIAK</td><td>05 PL B605 237</td><td>T. Lesiak et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LESIAK</td><td>Also PL B617 198 (errat.)</td><td>T. Lesiak et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>DANKO</td><td>04 PR D69 052004</td><td>I. Danko et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LINK</td><td>02H PL B541 211</td><td>J.M. Link et al.</td><td>(FINAL FOCUS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>CHAN</td><td>01 PR D63 111102</td><td>S. Chan et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>FRABETTI</td><td>98B PL B426 403</td><td>P.L. Frabetti et al.</td><td>(FINAL E687 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ALEXANDER</td><td>95B PR 74 3113</td><td>J. Alexander et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>Also</td><td>Also PL 75 4155 (errat.)</td><td>J. Alexander et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>93B PL B303 368</td><td>H. Albrecht et al.</td><td>(ARGUS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>FRABETTI</td><td>93C PL 70 2058</td><td>P.L. Frabetti et al.</td><td>(FINAL E687 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>HENDERSON</td><td>92B PL B203 161</td><td>S. Henderson et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>90F PL B247 121</td><td>H. Albrecht et al.</td><td>(ARGUS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BARLAG</td><td>90 PL B236 495</td><td>S. Barlag et al.</td><td>(ACCMOR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ALAM</td><td>89 PL B226 401</td><td>M.S. Alam et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AWERY</td><td>89 PL 62 863</td><td>P. Avery et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Xi_c^{0/\pm}$

$I(J^P) = \frac{1}{2}(\frac{1}{2}^+)$ Status: ***

The $\Xi_c^{0/\pm}$ and $\Xi_c^0$ presumably complete the SU(3) sextet whose other members are the $\Sigma_c^{++}$, $\Sigma_c^+$, $\Sigma_c^0$, and $\Omega_c^0$: see Fig. 5 in the "Quark Model" review. The quantum numbers given above come from this presumption but have not been measured.

$\Xi_c^{0/\pm}$ MASS

The mass is obtained from the mass-difference measurement that follows.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2578.2±0.5 OUR FIT</td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.1.</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Xi_c^{0/\pm} - \Xi_c^0$ MASS DIFFERENCE

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>110.5±0.4 OUR FIT</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>110.5±0.1±0.4</td><td>7k</td><td>YELTON</td><td>16</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, Υ regions</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>107.8±1.7±2.5</td><td>25</td><td>JESSOP</td><td>99</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Xi_c^{0/\pm} - \Xi_c^0$ MASS DIFFERENCE

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-0.5±0.6 OUR FIT</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>-0.8±0.1±0.5</td><td>YELTON</td><td>16</td><td>BELL</td><td>7055 and 11,560 evts</td></tr></tbody></table>
Baryon Particle Listings

$$ \Xi_c^{\prime+}, \Xi_c^{\prime 0}, \Xi_c(2645), \Xi_c(2790) $$

### $\Xi_c^{\prime+}$ DECAY MODES

The $\Xi_c^{\prime+} = \Xi_c^{+}$ mass difference is too small for any strong decay to occur.

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>i</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> &Xi;<sub>c</sub><sup>+&gamma;</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c^{\prime+}$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>YELTON</td><td>16</td><td>PR D94 052011</td><td>J. Yelton et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>JESSOP</td><td>99</td><td>PRL 82 492</td><td>C.P. Jessop et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_743.png" /></figure>

$$ I(J^P) = \frac{1}{2}(\frac{1}{2}^{+}) \text{ Status: ***} $$

The $\Xi_c^{\prime 0}$ and $\Xi_c^{\prime +}$ presumably complete the SU(3) sextet whose other members are the $\Sigma_c^{++}$, $\Sigma_c^{+}$, $\Sigma_c^{0}$, and $\Omega_c^0$: see Fig. 5 in the “Quark Model” review. The quantum numbers given above come from this presumption but have not been measured.

### $\Xi_c^{\prime 0}$ MASS

The mass is obtained from the mass-difference measurement that follows.

<table><tr><td>VALUE (MeV)</td><td>DOCUMENT ID</td></tr><tr><td>2578.7 &plusmn; 0.5 OUR FIT</td><td></td></tr></table>

### $\Xi_c^{\prime 0} - \Xi_c^0$ MASS DIFFERENCE

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>100.3 &plusmn; 0.4 OUR FIT</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>100.3 &plusmn; 0.1 &plusmn; 0.4</td><td>11.5k</td><td>YELTON</td><td>16</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> in T regions</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>107.0 &plusmn; 1.4 &plusmn; 2.5</td><td>28</td><td>JESSOP</td><td>99</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> &asymp; T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c^{\prime 0}$ DECAY MODES

The $\Xi_c^{\prime 0} - \Xi_c^0$ mass difference is too small for any strong decay to occur.

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>i</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> &Xi;<sub>c</sub><sup>0</sup>γ</td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c^{\prime 0}$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>YELTON</td><td>16</td><td>PR D94 052011</td><td>J. Yelton et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>JESSOP</td><td>99</td><td>PRL 82 492</td><td>C.P. Jessop et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_744.png" /></figure>

$$ I(J^P) = \frac{1}{2}(\frac{3}{2}^{+}) \text{ Status: ***} $$

The natural assignment is that this is the $J^P = 3/2^+$ excitation of the $\Xi_c$ in the same SU(4) multiplet as the $\Delta(1232)$, but the quantum numbers have not been measured.

### $\Xi_c(2645)$ MASSES

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">$\Xi_c(2645)^+ \text{ MASS}$</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2645.10 &plusmn; 0.30 OUR FIT</td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.2.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2645.6 &plusmn; 0.2</td><td>+0.6<br>-0.8</td><td>578 &plusmn; 32</td><td>LESIAK</td><td>08 BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> &asymp; T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">$\Xi_c(2645)^0 \text{ MASS}$</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2646.16 &plusmn; 0.25 OUR FIT</td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.3.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2645.7 &plusmn; 0.2</td><td>+0.6<br>-0.7</td><td>611 &plusmn; 32</td><td>LESIAK</td><td>08 BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> &asymp; T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(2645) - \Xi_c$ MASS DIFFERENCES

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">$m_{\Xi_c(2645)} + -m_{\Xi_c^0}$</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>174.67 &plusmn; 0.09 OUR FIT</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>174.66 &plusmn; 0.06 &plusmn; 0.07</td><td>1260</td><td>YELTON</td><td>16</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> in T regions</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>177.1 &plusmn; 0.5</td><td>±1.1</td><td>47</td><td>FRABETTI</td><td>98B E687 γ Be, E<sub>γ</sub> = 220 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>174.3 &plusmn; 0.5</td><td>±1.0</td><td>34</td><td>GIBBONS</td><td>96 CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> &asymp; T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">$m_{\Xi_c(2645)^0} - m_{\Xi_c^+}$</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>178.45 &plusmn; 0.10 OUR FIT</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>178.46 &plusmn; 0.07 &plusmn; 0.07</td><td>975</td><td>YELTON</td><td>16 BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> in T regions</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>178.2 &plusmn; 0.5</td><td>±1.0</td><td>55</td><td>AVERY</td><td>95 CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> &asymp; T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(2645)^+ - \Xi_c(2645)^0$ MASS DIFFERENCE

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-1.06 &plusmn; 0.27 OUR FIT</td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.1.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>-0.85 &plusmn; 0.09 &plusmn; 0.49</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-0.1 &plusmn; 0.3</td><td>±0.6</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>YELTON</td><td>16 BELL 1260 and 975 evts</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>LESIAK</td><td>08 BELL &asymp; 600 evts each</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(2645)$ WIDTHS

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">$\Xi_c(2645)^+ \text{ WIDTH}$</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2.14 &plusmn; 0.19 OUR AVERAGE</td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.1.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2.06 &plusmn; 0.13 &plusmn; 0.13</td><td>1260</td><td></td><td>YELTON</td><td>16 BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> in T regions</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2.6 &plusmn; 0.2</td><td>±0.4</td><td>3.7k</td><td>KATO</td><td>14 BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> - T(15) - T(55)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;3.1</td><td>90</td><td></td><td>GIBBONS</td><td>96 CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> &asymp; T(4S)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">$\Xi_c(2645)^0 \text{ WIDTH}$</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2.35 &plusmn; 0.18 &plusmn; 0.13</td><td>975</td><td></td><td>YELTON</td><td>16 BELL e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> in T regions</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;5.5</td><td>90</td><td>55</td><td>AVERY</td><td>95 CLE2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> &asymp; T(4S)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(2645)$ DECAY MODES

$\Xi_c \pi$ is the only strong decay allowed to a $\Xi_c$ resonance having this mass.

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>i</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> &Xi;<sub>c</sub><sup>0</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> &Xi;<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(2645)$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>YELTON</td><td>16</td><td>PR D94 052011</td><td>J. Yelton et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>KATO</td><td>14</td><td>PR D89 052003</td><td>Y. Kato et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LESIAK</td><td>08</td><td>PL B665 9</td><td>T. Lesiak et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>FRABETTI</td><td>98B</td><td>PL B426 403</td><td>P.L. Frabetti et al.</td><td>(FNAL E687 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>GIBBONS</td><td>96</td><td>PRL 77 810</td><td>L.K. Gibbons et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AVERY</td><td>95</td><td>PRL 75 4364</td><td>P. Avery et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_745.png" /></figure>

$$ I(J^P) = \frac{1}{2}(\frac{1}{2}^{-}) \text{ Status: ***} $$

Seen in $\Xi_c^0 \pi$ decays. The simplest assignment, based on the mass, width, and decay mode, is that this belongs in the same SU(4) multiplet as the $\Lambda(1405)$ and the $\Lambda_c(2595)^+$, but the spin and parity have not been measured.

### $\Xi_c(2790)$ MASSES

The masses are obtained from the mass-difference measurements that follow.

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">$\Xi_c(2790)^+ \text{ MASS}$</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2791.9 &plusmn; 0.5 OUR FIT</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">$\Xi_c(2790)^0 \text{ MASS}$</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2793.9 &plusmn; 0.5 OUR FIT</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(2790) - \Xi_c^0$ MASS DIFFERENCES

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">$m_{\Xi_c(2790)} + -m_{\Xi_c^0}$</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>213.20 &plusmn; 0.22 OUR FIT</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>213.2 &plusmn; 0.2</td><td>±0.1</td><td>YELTON</td><td>16 BELL 2231 and 11,560 evts</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>211.2 &plusmn; 1.3</td><td>±1.0</td><td>18</td><td>CSORNA</td><td>01 CLEO e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> &asymp; T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>
$m_{\Xi_c(2790)^0} - m_{\Xi_c^+}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>215.70 ± 0.22</strong> OUR FIT</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>215.7 ± 0.2 ± 0.1</strong></td><td></td><td>YELTON</td><td>16</td><td>BELL 1241 and 7055 evts</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>216.2 ± 1.3 ± 1.0</td><td>14</td><td>CSORNA</td><td>01</td><td>CLEO e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(45)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Xi_c(2790)^+ - \Xi_c(2790)^0$ MASS DIFFERENCE

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>-2.0 ± 0.7</strong> OUR FIT</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>-3.3 ± 0.4 ± 0.5</td><td>YELTON</td><td>16</td><td>BELL 2231 and 1241 evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Xi_c(2790)$ WIDTHS

$\Xi_c(2790)^+ \text{ WIDTH}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>8.9 ± 0.6 ± 0.8</strong></td><td>2231</td><td>YELTON</td><td>16</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, T regions</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;15</td><td>90</td><td>CSORNA</td><td>01</td><td>CLEO e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(45)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Xi_c(2790)^0 \text{ WIDTH}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>10.0 ± 0.7 ± 0.8</strong></td><td>1241</td><td>YELTON</td><td>16</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, T regions</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;12</td><td>90</td><td>CSORNA</td><td>01</td><td>CLEO e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(45)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Xi_c(2790)$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>i</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> Ξ'<sub>c</sub>π</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>0</sup>γ</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub> Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup>γ</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>4</sub> Λ<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Xi_c(2790)$ BRANCHING RATIOS

$\Gamma(\Xi'_c \pi) / \Gamma_{\text{total}}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>YELTON</td><td>16</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, T regions</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>CSORNA</td><td>01</td><td>CLEO e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(45)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Gamma(\Xi_c^0 \gamma) / \Gamma(\Xi'_c \pi)$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>0.13 ± 0.03 ± 0.02</strong></td><td>401</td><td>1 YELTON</td><td>20</td><td>BELL 0 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(45)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Assumes B(Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup> → Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>0</sup>γ) = 100%, noting no strong decay of the Ξ<sub>c</sub>' is permitted in the available phase space. YELTON 20 measures B(Ξ<sub>c</sub>(2790)<sup>0</sup> → Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>0</sup>γ)/B(Ξ<sub>c</sub>(2790)<sup>0</sup> → Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> → Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup>γπ<sup>-</sup>).

$\Gamma(\Xi_c^+ \gamma) / \Gamma(\Xi'_c \pi)$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>&lt;0.06</strong></td><td>90</td><td>1 YELTON</td><td>20</td><td>BELL + e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(45)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Assumes B(Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>0</sup> → Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>0</sup>γ) = 100%, noting no strong decay of the Ξ<sub>c</sub>' is permitted in the available phase space. YELTON 20 measures B(Ξ<sub>c</sub>(2790)<sup>+</sup> → Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup>γ)/B(Ξ<sub>c</sub>(2790)<sup>+</sup> → Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>0</sup>π<sup>+</sup> → Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>0</sup>γπ<sup>+</sup>).

$\Gamma(\Lambda_c^+ K^-) / \Gamma_{\text{total}}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>1.5k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>23x LHCB B<sup>-</sup> → Λ<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup> Λ<sub>c</sub><sup>-</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ AAIJ 23x observes this decay mode at 3.7σ significance from a study of the Λ<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup> system within B<sup>-</sup> → Λ<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup> Λ<sub>c</sub><sup>-</sup> K<sup>-</sup> decays.

$\Xi_c(2790)$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>23X</td><td>PR D108 012020</td></tr><tr><td>YELTON</td><td>20</td><td>PR D102 071103</td></tr><tr><td>YELTON</td><td>16</td><td>PR D94 052011</td></tr><tr><td>CSORNA</td><td>01</td><td>PRL 86 4243</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>R. Aaij et al.</td></tr><tr><td>J. Yelton et al.</td></tr><tr><td>J. Yelton et al.</td></tr><tr><td>S.E. Csorna et al.</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr></table>

$\Xi_c(2815)$

$I(J^P) = \frac{1}{2}(\frac{3}{2}^-)$ Status: ***

Seen in both Ξ'<sub>c</sub>π and Ξ<sub>c</sub>ππ decays. The simplest assignment is that this belongs to the same SU(4) multiplet as the Λ(1520) and the Λ<sub>c</sub>(2625), but the spin and parity have not been measured.

$\Xi_c(2815)$ MASSES

The masses are obtained from the mass-difference measurements that follow.

$\Xi_c(2815)^+ \text{ MASS}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>2816.51 ± 0.25</strong> OUR FIT</td><td colspan="4">Error includes scale factor of 1.2.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>2817.0 ± 1.2 <sup>+0.7</sup><sub>-0.8</sub></td><td>73 ± 10</td><td>LESIAK</td><td>08</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(45)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Xi_c(2815)^0 \text{ MASS}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>2819.79 ± 0.30</strong> OUR FIT</td><td colspan="4">Error includes scale factor of 1.1.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>2820.4 ± 1.4 <sup>+0.9</sup><sub>-1.0</sub></td><td>48 ± 8</td><td>LESIAK</td><td>08</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(45)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Xi_c(2815) - \Xi_c$ MASS DIFFERENCES

$m_{\Xi_c(2815)^+} - m_{\Xi_c^+}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>348.80 ± 0.10</strong> OUR FIT</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>348.80 ± 0.08 ± 0.06</strong></td><td>941</td><td>YELTON</td><td>16</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, T regions</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>348.6 ± 0.6 ± 1.0</td><td>20</td><td>ALEXANDER</td><td>99B</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(45)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$m_{\Xi_c(2815)^0} - m_{\Xi_c^0}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>349.35 ± 0.11</strong> OUR FIT</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>349.35 ± 0.08 ± 0.07</strong></td><td>1258</td><td>YELTON</td><td>16</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, T regions</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>347.2 ± 0.7 ± 2.0</td><td>9</td><td>ALEXANDER</td><td>99B</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(45)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Xi_c(2815)^+ - \Xi_c(2815)^0$ MASS DIFFERENCE

$m_{\Xi_c(2815)^+} - m_{\Xi_c(2815)^0}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>-3.27 ± 0.27</strong> OUR FIT</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>-3.47 ± 0.12 ± 0.48</td><td>YELTON</td><td>16</td><td>BELL 941 and 1258 evts</td></tr><tr><td>-3.4 ± 1.9 ± 0.9</td><td>LESIAK</td><td>08</td><td>BELL 73 & 48 events</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Xi_c(2815)$ WIDTHS

$\Xi_c(2815)^+ \text{ WIDTH}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>2.43 ± 0.20 ± 0.17</strong></td><td>941</td><td>YELTON</td><td>16</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, T regions</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;3.5</td><td>90</td><td>ALEXANDER</td><td>99B</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(45)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Xi_c(2815)^0 \text{ WIDTH}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>2.54 ± 0.18 ± 0.17</strong></td><td>1258</td><td>YELTON</td><td>16</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, T regions</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;6.5</td><td>90</td><td>ALEXANDER</td><td>99B</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(45)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Xi_c(2815)$ DECAY MODES

The Ξ<sub>c</sub>ππ modes are consistent with being entirely via Ξ<sub>c</sub>(2645)π.

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>i</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> Ξ'<sub>c</sub>π</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> Ξ<sub>c</sub>(2645)π</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub> Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>0</sup>γ</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>4</sub> Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup>γ</td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Gamma(\Xi_c' \pi) / \Gamma_{\text{total}}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>YELTON</td><td>16</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, T regions</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>ALEXANDER</td><td>99B</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(45)</td></tr></tbody></table>
$\Gamma(\Xi_c(2645)\pi)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_2/\Gamma$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>YELTON</td><td>16</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, T regions</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>LESIAK</td><td>08</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(45)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Gamma(\Xi_c^0\gamma)/\Gamma(\Xi_c(2645)\pi) \quad \Gamma_3/\Gamma_2$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>CHG</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.41±0.05±0.03</td><td>222</td><td>1 YELTON</td><td>20</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(45)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Assumes $B(\Xi_c(2645)^+ \rightarrow \Xi_c^0\pi^+) = 100\%$, which is the only strong decay of the $\Xi_c(2645)$ permitted in the available phase space. YELTON 20 measures $B(\Xi_c(2815)^0 \rightarrow \Xi_c^0\gamma)/B(\Xi_c(2815)^0 \rightarrow \Xi_c(2645)^+\pi^- \rightarrow \Xi_c^0\pi^+) = 100\%$.

$\Gamma(\Xi_c^+\gamma)/\Gamma(\Xi_c(2645)\pi) \quad \Gamma_4/\Gamma_2$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>CHG</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><0.09</td><td>90</td><td>1 YELTON</td><td>20</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(45)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Assumes $B(\Xi_c(2645)^0 \rightarrow \Xi_c^+\pi^-) = 100\%$, which is the only strong decay of the $\Xi_c(2645)$ permitted in the available phase space. YELTON 20 measures $B(\Xi_c(2815)^+ \rightarrow \Xi_c^+\gamma)/B(\Xi_c(2815)^+ \rightarrow \Xi_c(2645)^0\pi^+ \rightarrow \Xi_c^+\pi^-\pi^+) = 100\%$.

### $\Xi_c(2815)$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>YELTON</td><td>20</td><td>PR D102 071103</td><td>J. Yelton et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>YELTON</td><td>16</td><td>PR D94 052011</td><td>J. Yelton et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LESIAK</td><td>08</td><td>PL B665 9</td><td>T. Lesiak et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ALEXANDER</td><td>99B</td><td>PRL 83 3390</td><td>J.P. Alexander et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr></table>

$$ \Xi_c(2882) $$

$$ I(J^P) = ?(??) \quad \text{Status: *} $$

OMITTED FROM SUMMARY TABLE

### $\Xi_c(2882)$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2881.8±3.1±8.5</td><td>1.5k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>23x</td><td>LHCB B<sup>-</sup> → Λ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub>Λ<sup>-</sup><sub>c</sub> K<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ AAIJ 23x finds evidence of this state with a local significance of $3.8\sigma$.

### $\Xi_c(2882)$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>12.4±5.3±5.8</td><td>1.5k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>23x</td><td>LHCB B<sup>-</sup> → Λ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub>Λ<sup>-</sup><sub>c</sub> K<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ AAIJ 23x finds evidence of this state with a local significance of $3.8\sigma$.

### $\Xi_c(2882)$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>i</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> Λ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub> K<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(2882)$ BRANCHING RATIOS

$\Gamma(\Lambda_c^+\bar{K}^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_1/\Gamma$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>1.5k</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>23x</td><td>LHCB B<sup>-</sup> → Λ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub>Λ<sup>-</sup><sub>c</sub> K<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(2882)$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>23X</td><td>PR D108 012020</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr></table>

$$ \Xi_c(2923) $$

$$ I(J^P) = ?(??) \quad \text{Status: **} $$

OMITTED FROM SUMMARY TABLE

### $\Xi_c(2923)$ MASSES

$\Xi_c(2923)^0$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2923.2 ±0.4 OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.2.</td></tr><tr><td>2924.5 ±0.4 ±1.1</td><td>1.5k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>23x</td><td>LHCB B<sup>-</sup> → Λ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub>Λ<sup>-</sup><sub>c</sub> K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>2923.04 ±0.25 ±0.24</td><td>5.4k</td><td>2 AAIJ</td><td>20x</td><td>LHCB pp at 13 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ AAIJ 23x studies the $\Lambda_c^+\bar{K}^-$ system within $B^− \rightarrow \Lambda_c^+\bar{\Lambda}_c^-$ K$^-$ decays.

² AAIJ 20x uses a prompt $\Lambda_c^+\bar{K}^-$ sample, and reports $2923.04 \pm 0.25 \pm 0.20 \pm 0.14$ MeV where the last uncertainty is due to the $\Lambda_c^+$ mass.

### $\Xi_c(2923)$ WIDTHS

$\Xi_c(2923)^0$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>5.8±1.3 OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tr><td>4.8±0.9±1.5</td><td>1.5k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>23x</td><td>LHCB B<sup>-</sup> → Λ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub>Λ<sup>-</sup><sub>c</sub> K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>7.1±0.8±1.8</td><td>5.4k</td><td>2 AAIJ</td><td>20x</td><td>LHCB pp at 13 TeV</td></tr></table>

¹ AAIJ 23x studies the $\Lambda_c^+\bar{K}^-$ system within $B^− \rightarrow \Lambda_c^+\bar{\Lambda}_c^-$ K$^-$ decays.

² AAIJ 20x uses a prompt $\Lambda_c^+\bar{K}^-$ sample.

### $\Xi_c(2923)$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>j</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> Λ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub> K<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(2923)$ BRANCHING RATIOS

$\Gamma(\Lambda_c^+\bar{K}^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_1/\Gamma$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>1.5k</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>23x</td><td>LHCB B<sup>-</sup> → Λ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub>Λ<sup>-</sup><sub>c</sub> K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>5.4k</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>20x</td><td>LHCB pp at 13 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(2923)$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>23X</td><td>PR D108 012020</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>20X</td><td>PRL 124 222001</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr></table>

$$ \Xi_c(2930) $$

$$ I(J^P) = ?(??) \quad \text{Status: **} $$

OMITTED FROM SUMMARY TABLE

### $\Xi_c(2930)$ MASSES

$\Xi_c(2930)^+$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2942.3±4.4±1.5</td><td>21</td><td>LI</td><td>18D</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(45)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Xi_c(2930)^0$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2938.55±0.30 OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2938.5 ±0.9 ± 2.3</td><td>1.5k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>23x</td><td>LHCB B<sup>-</sup> → Λ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub>Λ<sup>-</sup><sub>c</sub> K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>2938.55 ±0.21 ± 0.22</td><td>10.4k</td><td>2 AAIJ</td><td>20x</td><td>LHCB pp at 13 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>2928.9 ±3.0 ±0.9</td><td>61</td><td>LI</td><td>18A</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(45)</td></tr><tr><td>2931 ±3 ±5</td><td>34</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08H</td><td>BABR T(45) → B<sup>+</sup>B</td></tr></table>

¹ AAIJ 23x studies the $\Lambda_c^+\bar{K}^-$ system within $B^− \rightarrow \Lambda_c^+\bar{\Lambda}_c^-$ K$^-$ decays.

² AAIJ 20x uses a prompt $\Lambda_c^+\bar{K}^-$ sample and reports $2938.55 \pm 0.21 \pm 0.17 \pm 0.14$ MeV where the last uncertainty is due to the $\Lambda_c^+$ mass. Observes that the broader resonance at 2930 MeV seen in $B^− \rightarrow \Lambda_c^+\bar{\Lambda}_c^-$ by LI 18A and AUBERT 08H resolves into two narrower peaks at approximately 2939 MeV and 2923 MeV.

$\Xi_c(2930)^+ - \Xi_c(2930)^0$ MASS DIFFERENCE

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>13.4±5.3±1.7</td><td>21</td><td>1 LI</td><td>18D</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(45)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ This LI 18D value is not independent of the mass measurements.

### $\Xi_c(2930)$ WIDTHS

$\Xi_c(2930)^+$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>14.8±8.8±2.5</td><td>21</td><td>LI</td><td>18D</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(45)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Xi_c(2930)^0$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>10.2±0.8±1.1</td><td>10.4k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>20x</td><td>LHCB pp at 13 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •
11.0±1.9±7.5
19.5±8.4±5.9
36±7±11
23x
LI
18A
BELL
08H
BABR
T(45) → B<sup>+</sup>B

¹ AAIJ 20x uses a prompt $\Lambda_c^+\bar{K}^-$ sample and observes that the broader resonance at 2930 MeV seen in $B^− \rightarrow \Lambda_c^+\bar{\Lambda}_c^-$ by LI 18A and AUBERT 08H resolves into two narrower peaks at approximately 2939 MeV and 2923 MeV.
### $\Xi_c(2930)$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>i</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> Λ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub> K<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> Λ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(2930)$ BRANCHING RATIOS

<table><caption>Γ(Λ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub> K<sup>-</sup>) / Γ<sub>total</sub></caption><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>1.5k</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>23x LHCB</td><td>B<sup>-</sup> → Λ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub> Λ<sup>-</sup><sub>c</sub> K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>10.4k</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>20x LHCB</td><td>pp at 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>61</td><td>LI</td><td>18A BELL</td><td>Significance 5.1 std</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>34</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08H BABR</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table><table><caption>Γ(Λ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>) / Γ<sub>total</sub></caption><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>21</td><td>LI</td><td>18D BELL</td><td>Significance 4.1 std</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(2930)$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>23X PR D108 012020</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>20X PRL 124 222001</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LI</td><td>18A EPJ C78 252</td><td>Y.B. Li et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LI</td><td>18D EPJ C78 928</td><td>Y.B. Li et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AUBERT</td><td>08H PR D77 031101</td><td>B. Aubert et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr></table>

$$ \Xi_c(2970) $$

was $\Xi_c(2980)$

$J^P = 1/2^+$ is favored by MOON 21.

### $\Xi_c(2970)$ MASSES

#### $\Xi_c(2970)^+$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2964.3 ± 1.5 OUR FIT</td><td colspan="4">Error includes scale factor of 3.9.</td></tr><tr><td>2967.1 ± 1.4 OUR AVERAGE</td><td colspan="4">Error includes scale factor of 2.0. See the ideogram below.</td></tr><tr><td>2966.0 ± 0.8 ± 0.2</td><td>0.9k</td><td>YELTON</td><td>16 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(4S), T(5S) and continuum</td></tr><tr><td>2974.9 ± 1.5 ± 2.1</td><td>244 ± 39</td><td>KATO</td><td>14 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(1S) to T(5S)</td></tr><tr><td>2969.3 ± 2.2 ± 1.7</td><td>756 ± 206</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08J BABR</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.58 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>2967.7 ± 2.3 <sup>+1.1</sup><sub>-1.2</sub></td><td>78 ± 13</td><td>LESIAK</td><td>08 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

2978.5 ± 2.1 ± 2.0 405 ± 51 CHISTOV 06 BELL See KATO 14

<figure><img src="image_746.png" /><figcaption>WEIGHTED AVERAGE
2967.1 ± 1.4 (Error scaled by 2.0)</figcaption></figure>

Values above of weighted average, error, and scale factor are based upon the data in this ideogram only. They are not necessarily the same as our 'best' values, obtained from a least-squares constrained fit utilizing measurements of other (related) quantities as additional information.

#### $\Xi_c(2970)^0$ MASS

The evidence is statistically weaker for this charge state.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2967.1 ± 1.7 OUR FIT</td><td colspan="4">Error includes scale factor of 6.7.</td></tr><tr><td>2965.9 ± 2.2 OUR AVERAGE</td><td colspan="4">Error includes scale factor of 7.4.</td></tr><tr><td>2964.88 ± 0.26 ± 0.20</td><td>11.7k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>20X LHCB</td><td>pp at 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>2970.8 ± 0.7 ± 0.2</td><td>1.4k</td><td>YELTON</td><td>16 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(4S), T(5S), continuum</td></tr><tr><td>2972.9 ± 4.4 ± 1.6</td><td>67 ± 44</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08J BABR</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.58 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>2965.7 ± 2.4 <sup>+1.1</sup><sub>-1.2</sub></td><td>57 ± 13</td><td>LESIAK</td><td>08 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>2977.1 ± 8.8 ± 3.5</td><td>42 ± 24</td><td>CHISTOV</td><td>06 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹AAIJ 20x reports 2964.88 ± 0.26 ± 0.14 ± 0.14 MeV where the last uncertainty is due to the Λ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub> mass. Further studies are required to establish whether the narrow resonance at 2965 MeV is a different baryon from the narrow resonance at 2970 MeV seen by YELTON 16.

### $\Xi_c(2970)$ – $\Xi_c$ MASS DIFFERENCES

<table><caption>m<sub>Ξ<sub>c</sub>(2970)</sub><sup>+</sup> – m<sub>Ξ<sub>c</sub>(2970)</sub><sup>+</sup></caption><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>496.6 ± 1.5 OUR FIT</td><td colspan="4">Error includes scale factor of 3.7.</td></tr><tr><td>498.1 ± 0.8 ± 0.2</td><td>916</td><td>YELTON</td><td>16 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, Ξ regions</td></tr></tbody></table><table><caption>m<sub>Ξ<sub>c</sub>(2970)</sub><sup>0</sup> – m<sub>Ξ<sub>c</sub>(2970)</sub><sup>0</sup></caption><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>496.7 ± 1.8 OUR FIT</td><td colspan="4">Error includes scale factor of 5.3.</td></tr><tr><td>499.9 ± 0.7 ± 0.2</td><td>1.4k</td><td>YELTON</td><td>16 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, Ξ regions</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(2970)^+$ – $\Xi_c(2970)^0$ MASS DIFFERENCE

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-2.8 ± 1.9 OUR FIT</td><td colspan="4">Error includes scale factor of 4.8.</td></tr><tr><td>-4.8 ± 0.1 ± 0.5</td><td>YELTON</td><td>16 BELL</td><td>916 and 1443 evts</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(2970)$ WIDTHS

#### $\Xi_c(2970)^+$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>20.9 <sup>+2.4</sup><sub>-3.5</sub> OUR AVERAGE</td><td colspan="4">Error includes scale factor of 1.2.</td></tr><tr><td>28.1 ± 2.4 <sup>+1.0</sup><sub>-5.0</sub></td><td>916</td><td>YELTON</td><td>16 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, Ξ regions</td></tr><tr><td>14.8 ± 2.5 ± 4.1</td><td>244 ± 39</td><td>KATO</td><td>14 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(1S) to T(5S)</td></tr><tr><td>27 ± 8 ± 2</td><td>756 ± 206</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08J BABR</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.58 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>18 ± 6 ± 3</td><td>78 ± 13</td><td>LESIAK</td><td>08 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>43.5 ± 7.5 ± 7.0</td><td>405 ± 51</td><td>CHISTOV</td><td>06 BELL</td><td>See KATO 14</td></tr></tbody></table>

#### $\Xi_c(2970)^0$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>14.1 ± 0.9 ± 1.3</td><td>11.7k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>20X LHCB</td><td>pp at 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>30.3 ± 2.3 <sup>+1.0</sup><sub>-1.8</sub></td><td>1443</td><td>YELTON</td><td>16 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, Ξ regions</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>31 ± 7 ± 8</td><td>67 ± 44</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08J BABR</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.58 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>15 ± 6 ± 3</td><td>57 ± 13</td><td>LESIAK</td><td>08 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></table>

¹Further studies are required to establish whether the narrow resonance at 2965 MeV is a different baryon from the narrow resonance at 2970 MeV seen by YELTON 16.

### $\Xi_c(2970)$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>i</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> Λ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub> K̄π</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> Σ<sub>c</sub>(2455) K̄</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub> Λ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub> K̄</td><td>not seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>4</sub> Λ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub> K<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>5</sub> Ξ<sub>c</sub> 2π</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>6</sub> Ξ'<sub>c</sub> π</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>7</sub> Ξ<sub>c</sub>(2645) π</td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(2970)$ BRANCHING RATIOS

<table><caption>Γ(Λ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub> K̄π) / Γ<sub>total</sub></caption><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td></td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08J BABR</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td></td><td>CHISTOV</td><td>06 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table><table><caption>Γ(Λ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub> K<sup>-</sup>) / Γ<sub>total</sub></caption><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>11.7k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>20X LHCB</td><td>pp at 13 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Further studies are required to establish whether the narrow resonance at 2965 MeV is a different baryon from the narrow resonance at 2970 MeV seen by YELTON 16.

<table><caption>Γ(Σ<sub>c</sub>(2455) K̄) / Γ(Λ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub> K̄π)</caption><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.55 ± 0.07 ± 0.13</td><td></td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08J BABR</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table><table><caption>Γ(Ξ<sub>c</sub> π) / Γ<sub>total</sub></caption><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td></td><td>YELTON</td><td>16 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, Ξ regions</td></tr></tbody></table><table><caption>Γ(Ξ<sub>c</sub>(2645) π) / Γ<sub>total</sub></caption><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td></td><td>LESIAK</td><td>08 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>
$$\Gamma(\Xi_c'\pi)/\Gamma(\Xi_c(2645)\pi)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.67±0.29<sup>+0.15</sup><sub>-0.09</sub>±0.25</td><td>778</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>MOON</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Measurement of the ratio of $\Xi_c(2970)^+ \rightarrow \Xi_c(2645)^0\pi^+$ versus $\Xi_c(2970)^+ \rightarrow \Xi_c^0\pi^+$. The last uncertainty is from possible isospin-symmetry-breaking effects. MOON 21 determines from an angular analysis of the $\Xi_c^+\pi^+\pi^-$ final state that the spin of the $\Xi_c(2970)^+$ is strongly compatible with $J=1/2$, assuming domination by the lowest partial wave in $\Xi_c(2970)^+ \rightarrow \Xi_c(2645)^0\pi^+$. When further combined with the size of this ratio, MOON 21 determines from heavy quark symmetry that the spin-parity of the $\Xi_c(2970)^+$ is favored to be $J^P = 1/2^+$, with light degrees of freedom in the $0^+$ state.

### $\Xi_c(2970)$ REFERENCES

<table><thead><tr><th>MOON</th><th>21</th><th>PR D103 1111101</th><th>T.J. Moon et al.</th><th>(BELLE Collab.) JP</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>20X</td><td>PRL 124 222001</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHC Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>YELTON</td><td>16</td><td>PR D94 052011</td><td>J. Yelton et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>KATO</td><td>14</td><td>PR D89 052003</td><td>Y. Kato et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AUBERT</td><td>08J</td><td>PR D77 012002</td><td>B. Aubert et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LESIAK</td><td>08</td><td>PL B665 9</td><td>T. Leslak et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>CHISTOV</td><td>06</td><td>PRL 97 162001</td><td>R. Chistov et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\Xi_c(3055)$$

$$I(J^P) = ?(??) \quad \text{Status: ***}$$

### $\Xi_c(3055)$ MASSES

$$\Xi_c(3055)^+ \text{MASS}$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3055.9±0.4</td><td>894</td><td>KATO</td><td>16</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> T region</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>3058.1±1.0±2.1</td><td>199 ± 46</td><td>KATO</td><td>14</td><td>BELL See KATO 16</td></tr><tr><td>3054.2±1.2±0.5</td><td>218 ± 95</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08J</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.58 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(3055)$ WIDTHS

$$\Xi_c(3055)^+ \text{WIDTH}$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>7.8±1.2±1.5</td><td></td><td>KATO</td><td>16</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> T region</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>9.7±3.4±3.3</td><td>199 ± 46</td><td>KATO</td><td>14</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> T(1S) to T(5S)</td></tr><tr><td>17 ± 6 ± 11</td><td>218 ± 95</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08J</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.58 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(3055)$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>i</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> Σ<sup>++</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> ΛD<sup>+</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(3055)$ BRANCHING RATIOS

$$\Gamma(\Lambda D^+)/\Gamma(\Sigma^++K^-)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>5.09±1.01±0.76</td><td></td><td>KATO</td><td>16</td><td>BELL 721 and 103 evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(3055)$ REFERENCES

<table><thead><tr><th>KATO</th><th>16</th><th>PR D94 032002</th><th>Y. Kato et al.</th><th>(BELLE Collab.)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>KATO</td><td>14</td><td>PR D89 052003</td><td>Y. Kato et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AUBERT</td><td>08J</td><td>PR D77 012002</td><td>B. Aubert et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\Xi_c(3080)$$

$$I(J^P) = \frac{1}{2}(??) \quad \text{Status: ***}$$

### $\Xi_c(3080)$ MASSES

$$\Xi_c(3080)^+ \text{MASS}$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3077.2±0.4 OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3077.9±0.9</td><td>596</td><td>KATO</td><td>16</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> T region</td></tr><tr><td>3077.0±0.4±0.2</td><td>403 ± 60</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08J</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.58 GeV</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>3076.9±0.3±0.2</td><td>210 ± 30</td><td>KATO</td><td>14</td><td>BELL See KATO 16</td></tr><tr><td>3076.7±0.9±0.5</td><td>326 ± 40</td><td>CHISTOV</td><td>06</td><td>BELL See KATO 14</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\Xi_c(3080)^0 \text{MASS}$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3079.9±1.4 OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.3.</td></tr><tr><td>3079.3±1.1±0.2</td><td>90 ± 27</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08J</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.58 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>3082.8±1.8±1.5</td><td>67 ± 20</td><td>CHISTOV</td><td>06</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(45)</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(3080)$ WIDTHS

$$\Xi_c(3080)^+ \text{WIDTH}$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3.6±1.1 OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.5.</td></tr><tr><td>3.0±0.7±0.4</td><td>596</td><td>KATO</td><td>16</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> T region</td></tr><tr><td>5.5±1.3±0.6</td><td>403 ± 60</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08J</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.58 GeV</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>2.4±0.9±1.6</td><td>210 ± 30</td><td>KATO</td><td>14</td><td>BELL See KATO 16</td></tr><tr><td>6.2±1.2±0.8</td><td>326 ± 40</td><td>CHISTOV</td><td>06</td><td>BELL See KATO 14</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\Xi_c(3080)^0 \text{WIDTH}$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>5.6±2.2 OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5.9±2.3±1.5</td><td>90 ± 27</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08J</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.58 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>5.2±3.1±1.8</td><td>67 ± 20</td><td>CHISTOV</td><td>06</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(45)</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(3080)$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>i</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> Λ<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>π</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> Σ<sub>c</sub>(2455) K<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub> Σ<sub>c</sub>(2455)<sup>++</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>4</sub> Σ<sub>c</sub>(2520)<sup>++</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>5</sub> Σ<sub>c</sub>(2455) K<sup>-</sup> + Σ<sub>c</sub>(2520) K<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>6</sub> Λ<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td><td>not seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>7</sub> Λ<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup></td><td>not seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>8</sub> ΛD<sup>+</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(3080)$ BRANCHING RATIOS

$$\Gamma(\Sigma_c(2455) K^-)/\Gamma(\Lambda_c^+ K^-)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.45±0.06 OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.45±0.05±0.05</td><td></td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08J</td><td>BABR in Λ<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td></tr><tr><td>0.44±0.12±0.07</td><td></td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08J</td><td>BABR in Λ<sup>+</sup> K<sup>0</sup>Sπ<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\Gamma(\Sigma_c(2520)<sup>++</sup> K<sup>-</sup>)/\Gamma(\Sigma_c(2455)<sup>++</sup> K<sup>-</sup>)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.07±0.27±0.04</td><td></td><td>KATO</td><td>16</td><td>BELL 234 and 176 evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$[\Gamma(\Sigma_c(2455) K^-) + \Gamma(\Sigma_c(2520) K^-)]/\Gamma(\Lambda_c^+ K^-)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.89±0.12 OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.95±0.14±0.06</td><td></td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08J</td><td>BABR in Λ<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td></tr><tr><td>0.78±0.21±0.05</td><td></td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08J</td><td>BABR in Λ<sup>+</sup> K<sup>0</sup>Sπ<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\Gamma(\Lambda D^+)/\Gamma(\Sigma_c(2455)<sup>++</sup> K^-)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.29±0.30±0.15</td><td></td><td>KATO</td><td>16</td><td>BELL 186 and 176 evts</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(3080)$ REFERENCES

<table><thead><tr><th>KATO</th><th>16</th><th>PR D94 032002</th><th>Y. Kato et al.</th><th>(BELLE Collab.)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>KATO</td><td>14</td><td>PR D89 052003</td><td>Y. Kato et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AUBERT</td><td>08J</td><td>PR D77 012002</td><td>B. Aubert et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>CHISTOV</td><td>06</td><td>PRL 97 162001</td><td>R. Chistov et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\Xi_c(3123)$$

$$I(J^P) = ?(??) \quad \text{Status: *}$$

### OMITTED FROM SUMMARY TABLE

A peak in the $\Sigma_c(2520)<sup>++</sup> K<sup>-</sup> → Λ<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup> mass spectrum with a significance of 3.6 standard deviations. KATO 14 finds no evidence for this state.

### $\Xi_c(3123)$ MASSES

$$\Xi_c(3123)^+ \text{MASS}$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3122.9±1.3±0.3</td><td>101 ± 35</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08J</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.58 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(3123)$ WIDTHS

$$\Xi_c(3123)^+ \text{WIDTH}$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>4.4±3.4±1.7</td><td>101 ± 35</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08J</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.58 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_c(3123)$ REFERENCES

<table><thead><tr><th>KATO</th><th>14</th><th>PR D89 052003</th><th>Y. Kato et al.</th><th>(BELLE Collab.)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>AUBERT</td><td>08J</td><td>PR D77 012002</td><td>B. Aubert et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr></tbody></table>
The quantum numbers have not been measured, but are simply assigned in accord with the quark model, in which the $\Omega_c^0$ is the ssc ground state. No absolute branching fractions have been measured.

$\Omega_c^0$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2695.2 ± 1.7</td><td>OUR FIT</td><td></td><td></td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.3.</td></tr></tbody></table>

2695.2<sup>+</sup> 1.8 1.6 OUR AVERAGE Error includes scale factor of 1.3. See the ideogram below.

<table><tbody><tr><td>2693.6 ± 0.3<sup>+1.8</sup><sub>-1.5</sub></td><td>725</td><td>SOLOVIEVA</td><td>09</td><td>BELL</td><td>Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup> in e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → Υ(4S)</td></tr><tr><td>2694.6 ± 2.6<sup>+1.9</sup></td><td>40</td><td>1 CRONIN-HEN..01</td><td>CLE2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.6 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>2699.9 ± 1.5<sup>+2.5</sup></td><td>42</td><td>2 FRABETTI</td><td>94H</td><td>E687</td><td>γ<sub>e</sub>Be, E<sub>γ</sub> = 221 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>2705.9 ± 3.3<sup>+2.0</sup></td><td>10</td><td>3 FRABETTI</td><td>93</td><td>E687</td><td>γ<sub>e</sub>Be, E<sub>γ</sub> = 221 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>2719.0 ± 7.0<sup>+2.5</sup></td><td>11</td><td>4 ALBRECHT</td><td>92H</td><td>ARG</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ 10.6 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>2740 ± 20</td><td>3</td><td>BIAGI</td><td>85B</td><td>SPEC</td><td>Σ<sup>-</sup>Be 135 GeV/c</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹CRONIN-HENNESSY 01 sees 40.4 ± 9.0 events in a sum over five channels.

²FRABETTI 94H claims a signal of 42.5 ± 8.8 Σ⁺K⁻K⁻π⁺ events. The background is about 24 events.

³FRABETTI 93 claims a signal of 10.3 ± 3.9 Ω⁻π⁺ events above a background of 5.8 events.

⁴ALBRECHT 92H claims a signal of 11.5 ± 4.3 Ξ⁻K⁻π⁺π⁺ events. The background is about 5 events.

<figure><img src="image_747.png" /><figcaption>WEIGHTED AVERAGE
2695.2+1.8-1.6 (Error scaled by 1.3)</figcaption></figure>

Values above of weighted average, error, and scale factor are based upon the data in this ideogram only. They are not necessarily the same as our 'best' values, obtained from a least-squares constrained fit utilizing measurements of other (related) quantities as additional information.

$\Omega_c^0$ MEAN LIFE

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (10<sup>-15</sup> s)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>273 ± 12</strong> OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>243 ± 48 ± 11</td><td>88</td><td>ABUDINEN</td><td>23</td><td>BEL2 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → Ω<sub>c</sub><sup>0</sup> + X, Ω<sub>c</sub><sup>0</sup> → Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td></tr><tr><td>276.5 ± 13.4 ± 4.5</td><td>1,2 AAIJ</td><td>22Y</td><td>LHCB</td><td>p p → Ω<sub>c</sub>X, Ω<sub>c</sub> → pK<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td></tr><tr><td>268 ± 24 ± 10</td><td>978</td><td>1,3 AAIJ</td><td>18J</td><td>LHCB Ω<sub>b</sub> → Ω<sub>c</sub>μν + X, Ω<sub>c</sub> → pK<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>72 ± 11 ± 11</td><td>64</td><td>LINK</td><td>03C</td><td>FOCS Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>, Ξ<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td></tr><tr><td>55 <sup>+13</sup><sub>-11</sub> ± 18</td><td>86</td><td>ADAMOVICH</td><td>95B</td><td>WA89 Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup>, Ξ<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td></tr><tr><td>86 <sup>+27</sup><sub>-20</sub> ± 28</td><td>25</td><td>FRABETTI</td><td>95D</td><td>E687 Σ<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Recent measurements by AAIJ 18J, AAIJ 22γ, and ABUDINEN 23 obtain consistent results that are nearly four times larger than the average result of previous experiments, (69 ± 12) × 10⁻¹⁵ s. We go with the more recent results, mostly obtained with much larger data samples, and also note the positive correlation between the measured value and the inverse of the estimated statistical uncertainty in lifetime measurements.

²AAIJ 22γ reports this measurement as (276.5 ± 13.4 ± 4.4 ± 0.7) × 10⁻¹⁵ s. The last uncertainty is due to the uncertainty on the D⁰ lifetime τ<sub>D⁰</sub> = (410.1 ± 1.5) fs from PDG 20. Measured in Ω<sub>c</sub> produced promptly in p p collisions, using D⁰ → K⁺K⁻π⁻π⁺π⁻ as normalisation mode.

³Measured using Ω<sub>c</sub> produced in semileptonic Ω<sub>b</sub> decays.

$\Omega_c^0$ DECAY MODES

No absolute branching fractions have been measured. The following are branching ratios relative to Ω⁻π⁺.

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>j</sub>/Γ)</th><th>Confidence level</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>Cabibbo-favored (S = -3) decays — relative to Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></strong></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub></td><td>Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td><td>DEFINED AS 1</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub></td><td>Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td><td>1.80 ± 0.33</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub></td><td>Ω<sup>-</sup>ρ<sup>+</sup></td><td>>1.3</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>4</sub></td><td>Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup>2π<sup>+</sup></td><td>0.31 ± 0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>5</sub></td><td>Ω<sup>-</sup>e<sup>+</sup>ν<sub>e</sub></td><td>1.98 ± 0.15</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>6</sub></td><td>Ω<sup>-</sup>μ<sup>+</sup>ν<sub>μ</sub></td><td>1.94 ± 0.21</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>7</sub></td><td>Ξ<sup>0</sup> K<sup>0</sup></td><td>1.64 ± 0.29</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>8</sub></td><td>Ξ<sup>0</sup> K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td><td>1.20 ± 0.18</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>9</sub></td><td>Ξ<sup>0</sup> K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>, K<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td><td>0.68 ± 0.16</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>10</sub></td><td>Ω(2012)<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>, Ω(2012)<sup>-</sup> → Ξ<sup>0</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td><td>0.12 ± 0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>11</sub></td><td>Ξ<sup>-</sup> K<sup>0</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td><td>2.12 ± 0.28</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>12</sub></td><td>Ω(2012)<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>, Ω(2012)<sup>-</sup> → Ξ<sup>0</sup> K<sup>0</sup></td><td>0.12 ± 0.06</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>13</sub></td><td>Ξ<sup>-</sup> K<sup>-</sup>2π<sup>+</sup></td><td>0.63 ± 0.09</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>14</sub></td><td>Ξ(1530)<sup>0</sup> K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>, Ξ<sup>0</sup> → Ξ<sup>0</sup> K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td><td>0.21 ± 0.06</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>15</sub></td><td>Ξ<sup>-</sup> K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td><td>0.34 ± 0.11</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>16</sub></td><td>ρK<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>17</sub></td><td>Σ<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td><td>&lt;0.32</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>18</sub></td><td>ΛK<sup>0</sup> K<sup>0</sup></td><td>1.72 ± 0.35</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>Singly Cabibbo-suppressed modes — relative to Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></strong></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>19</sub></td><td>Ξ<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td><td>0.25 ± 0.06</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>20</sub></td><td>Ω<sup>-</sup>K<sup>+</sup></td><td>&lt;0.29</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>Doubly Cabibbo-suppressed modes — relative to Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></strong></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>21</sub></td><td>Ξ<sup>-</sup>K<sup>+</sup></td><td>&lt;0.07</td><td>90%</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Omega_c^0$ BRANCHING RATIOS

A few early but now obsolete measurements have been omitted. See K.A. Olive, et al. (Particle Data Group), Chinese Physics C38 070001 (2014).

<table><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>Γ(Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>0</sup>)/Γ(Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</strong></td><td colspan="2"><strong>Γ<sub>2</sub>/Γ<sub>1</sub></strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>VALUE</strong></td><td><strong>EVTS</strong></td><td><strong>DOCUMENT ID</strong></td><td><strong>TECN</strong></td><td><strong>COMMENT</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1.80 ± 0.33</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.9.</td></tr><tr><td>2.00 ± 0.17 ± 0.11</td><td>403</td><td>YELTON</td><td>18</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → Υ(4S), +higher</td></tr><tr><td>1.27 ± 0.31 ± 0.11</td><td>64</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>07AH</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>Γ(Ω<sup>-</sup>ρ<sup>+</sup>)/Γ(Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>0</sup>)</strong></td><td colspan="2"><strong>Γ<sub>3</sub>/Γ<sub>2</sub></strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>VALUE</strong></td><td><strong>EVTS</strong></td><td><strong>DOCUMENT ID</strong></td><td><strong>TECN</strong></td><td><strong>COMMENT</strong></td></tr><tr><td>&gt;0.71</td><td>90</td><td>1 YELTON</td><td>18</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → Υ(4S), +higher</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹This submode fraction is evaluated from a background-subtracted signal in a mass plot. Result ignores interference effects and systematic uncertainties, which YELTON 18 claim are both small.

<table><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>Γ(Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup>2π<sup>+</sup>)/Γ(Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>0</sup>)</strong></td><td colspan="2"><strong>Γ<sub>4</sub>/Γ<sub>1</sub></strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>VALUE</strong></td><td><strong>EVTS</strong></td><td><strong>DOCUMENT ID</strong></td><td><strong>TECN</strong></td><td><strong>COMMENT</strong></td></tr><tr><td>0.31 ± 0.05</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.32 ± 0.05 ± 0.02</td><td>108</td><td>YELTON</td><td>18</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → Υ(4S), +higher</td></tr><tr><td>0.28 ± 0.09 ± 0.01</td><td>25</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>07AH</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>Γ(Ω<sup>-</sup>e<sup>+</sup>ν<sub>e</sub>)/Γ(Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</strong></td><td colspan="2"><strong>Γ<sub>5</sub>/Γ<sub>1</sub></strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>VALUE</strong></td><td><strong>EVTS</strong></td><td><strong>DOCUMENT ID</strong></td><td><strong>TECN</strong></td><td><strong>COMMENT</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1.98 ± 0.13 ± 0.08</td><td></td><td>LI</td><td>22A</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at Υ(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>2.4 ± 1.1 ± 0.2</td><td>11</td><td>1 AMMAR</td><td>02</td><td>CLE2 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ Υ(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹AMMAR 02 reported 0.41 ± 0.19 ± 0.04 for the inverse of this branching fraction.

<table><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>Γ(Ω<sup>-</sup>μ<sup>+</sup>ν<sub>μ</sub>)/Γ(Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</strong></td><td colspan="2"><strong>Γ<sub>6</sub>/Γ<sub>1</sub></strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>VALUE</strong></td><td><strong>EVTS</strong></td><td><strong>DOCUMENT ID</strong></td><td><strong>TECN</strong></td><td><strong>COMMENT</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1.94 ± 0.18 ± 0.10</td><td></td><td>LI</td><td>22A</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at Υ(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>Γ(Ω<sup>-</sup>e<sup>+</sup>ν<sub>e</sub>)/Γ(Ω<sup>-</sup>μ<sup>+</sup>ν<sub>μ</sub>)</strong></td><td colspan="2"><strong>Γ<sub>5</sub>/Γ<sub>6</sub></strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>VALUE</strong></td><td><strong>EVTS</strong></td><td><strong>DOCUMENT ID</strong></td><td><strong>TECN</strong></td><td><strong>COMMENT</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1.02 ± 0.10 ± 0.02</td><td></td><td>LI</td><td>22A</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at Υ(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>Γ(Ξ<sup>0</sup>K<sup>0</sup>)/Γ(Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</strong></td><td colspan="2"><strong>Γ<sub>7</sub>/Γ<sub>1</sub></strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>VALUE</strong></td><td><strong>EVTS</strong></td><td><strong>DOCUMENT ID</strong></td><td><strong>TECN</strong></td><td><strong>COMMENT</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1.64 ± 0.26 ± 0.12</td><td>98</td><td>YELTON</td><td>18</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → Υ(4S), +higher</td></tr></tbody></table>
Baryon Particle Listings

$\Omega_c^0, \Omega_c(2770)^0, \Omega_c(3000)^0$

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Γ(Ξ<sup>0</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)/Γ(Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th colspan="3">Γ<sub>8</sub>/Γ<sub>1</sub></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.20±0.16±0.08</td><td>168</td><td>YELTON</td><td>18</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(4S), +higher</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Γ(Ξ<sup>0</sup>K<sup>-</sup><sup>0</sup>, K<sup>-</sup><sup>0</sup> → K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)/Γ(Ξ<sup>0</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th colspan="3">Γ<sub>9</sub>/Γ<sub>8</sub></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.57±0.10</td><td>95</td><td>1 YELTON</td><td>18</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(4S), +higher</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 This submode fraction is evaluated from a background-subtracted signal in a mass plot. Result ignores interference effects and systematic uncertainties, which YELTON 18 claim are both small.

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Γ(Ω(2012)<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>, Ω(2012)<sup>-</sup> → Ξ<sup>0</sup>K<sup>-</sup>)/Γ(Ξ<sup>0</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th colspan="3">Γ<sub>10</sub>/Γ<sub>8</sub></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>9.6±3.2±1.8</td><td>28</td><td>1 LI</td><td>21D</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 LI 21D reports the significance of the Ω(2012) signal is 4.2 σ including systematic uncertainties. Also measures B(Ω_c^0 → Ω(2012)<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>, Ω(2012)<sup>-</sup> → (KΞ<sup>-</sup>)<sup>-</sup>)/B(Ω_c^0 → Ξ<sup>0</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>) = 0.220 ± 0.059 ± 0.035.

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup>K<sup>0</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)/Γ(Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th colspan="3">Γ<sub>11</sub>/Γ<sub>1</sub></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2.12±0.24±0.14</td><td>349</td><td>YELTON</td><td>18</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(4S), +higher</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Γ(Ω(2012)<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>, Ω(2012)<sup>-</sup> → Ξ<sup>-</sup>K<sup>0</sup>)/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup>K<sup>0</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th colspan="3">Γ<sub>12</sub>/Γ<sub>11</sub></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>5.5±2.8±0.7</td><td>18</td><td>1 LI</td><td>21D</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 LI 21D reports the significance of the Ω(2012) signal is 4.2σ including systematic uncertainties. Also measures B(Ω_c^0 → Ω(2012)<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>, Ω(2012)<sup>-</sup> → (KΞ<sup>-</sup>)<sup>-</sup>)/B(Ω_c^0 → Ξ<sup>0</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>) = 0.220 ± 0.059 ± 0.035.

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup>2π<sup>+</sup>)/Γ(Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th colspan="3">Γ<sub>13</sub>/Γ<sub>1</sub></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.63±0.09</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td><td colspan="4">Error includes scale factor of 1.4.</td></tr><tr><td>0.68±0.07±0.03</td><td>278</td><td>YELTON</td><td>18</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(4S), +higher</td></tr><tr><td>0.46±0.13±0.03</td><td>45</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>07AH</td><td>BABR</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> ≈ T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Γ(Ξ(1530)<sup>0</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>, Ξ<sup>-</sup> → Ξ<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup>2π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th colspan="3">Γ<sub>14</sub>/Γ<sub>13</sub></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.33±0.09</td><td>74</td><td>1 YELTON</td><td>18</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(4S), +higher</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 This submode fraction is evaluated from a background-subtracted signal in a mass plot. Result ignores interference effects and systematic uncertainties, which YELTON 18 claim are both small.

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup><sup>0</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)/Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup>2π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th colspan="3">Γ<sub>15</sub>/Γ<sub>13</sub></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.55±0.16</td><td>136</td><td>1 YELTON</td><td>18</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(4S), +higher</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 This submode fraction is evaluated from a background-subtracted signal in a mass plot. Result ignores interference effects and systematic uncertainties, which YELTON 18 claim are both small.

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Γ(pK<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)/Γ<sub>total</sub></th><th colspan="3">Γ<sub>16</sub>/Γ</th></tr><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td></td><td>AAIJ</td><td>160</td><td>LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Γ(Σ<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)/Γ(Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th colspan="3">Γ<sub>17</sub>/Γ<sub>1</sub></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;0.32</td><td>90</td><td>17</td><td>YELTON</td><td>18</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(4S), +higher</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Γ(ΛK<sup>0</sup>K<sup>0</sup>)/Γ(Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th colspan="3">Γ<sub>18</sub>/Γ<sub>1</sub></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.72±0.32±0.14</td><td>95</td><td>YELTON</td><td>18</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(4S), +higher</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)/Γ(Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th colspan="3">Γ<sub>19</sub>/Γ<sub>1</sub></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.253±0.052±0.030</td><td>208</td><td>HAN</td><td>23</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Γ(Ω<sup>-</sup>K<sup>+</sup>)/Γ(Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th colspan="3">Γ<sub>20</sub>/Γ<sub>1</sub></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;0.29</td><td>90</td><td>HAN</td><td>23</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Γ(Ξ<sup>-</sup>K<sup>+</sup>)/Γ(Ω<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>)</th><th colspan="3">Γ<sub>21</sub>/Γ<sub>1</sub></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;0.070</td><td>90</td><td>HAN</td><td>23</td><td>BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(nS)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Omega_c^0$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>ABUDINEN</td><td>23</td><td>PR D107 L031103</td><td>F. Abudinen et al.</td><td>(BELLE II Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>HAN</td><td>23</td><td>JHEP 2301 055</td><td>X. Han et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>22Y</td><td>SCIB 67 479</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LI</td><td>22A</td><td>PR D105 L091101</td><td>Y.B. Li et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LI</td><td>21D</td><td>PR D104 052005</td><td>Y.B. Li et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>PDG</td><td>20</td><td>PTEP 2020 083C01</td><td>P.A. Zyla et al.</td><td>(PDG Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>18J</td><td>PRL 121 092003</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>YELTON</td><td>18</td><td>PR D97 032001</td><td>J. Yelton et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>160</td><td>PR D93 092007</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>PDG</td><td>14</td><td>CP C38 070001</td><td>K. Olive et al.</td><td>(PDG Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>SOLOVIEVA</td><td>09</td><td>PL B672 1</td><td>E. Solovieva et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AUBERT</td><td>07AH</td><td>PRL 99 062001</td><td>B. Aubert et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LINK</td><td>03C</td><td>PL B561 41</td><td>J.M. Link et al.</td><td>(FNAL FOCUS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AMMAR</td><td>02</td><td>PRL 89 171803</td><td>R. Ammar et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>CRONIN-HEN-01</td><td>01</td><td>PRL 86 3730</td><td>D. Cronin-Hennessy et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ADAMOVICH</td><td>95B</td><td>PRL B358 151</td><td>M.I. Adamovich et al.</td><td>(CERN WA89 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>FRABETTI</td><td>95D</td><td>PL B357 678</td><td>P.L. Frabetti et al.</td><td>(FNAL E687 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>FRABETTI</td><td>94H</td><td>PL B338 106</td><td>P.L. Frabetti et al.</td><td>(FNAL E687 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>FRABETTI</td><td>93</td><td>PL B300 190</td><td>P.L. Frabetti et al.</td><td>(FNAL E687 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>92H</td><td>PL B288 367</td><td>H. Albrecht et al.</td><td>(ARGUS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BIAGI</td><td>85B</td><td>ZPHY C28 175</td><td>S.F. Biagi et al.</td><td>(CERN WA62 Collab.)</td></tr></table>

$$\Omega_c(2770)^0$$

$$I(J^P) = 0(\frac{3}{2}^+) \text{ Status: } \*\*\*$$

The natural assignment is that this goes with the $\Sigma_c(2520)$ and $\Xi_c(2645)$ to complete the lowest mass $J^P = \frac{3}{2}^+$ SU(3) sextet, part of the SU(4) 20-plet that includes the $\Delta(1232)$. But $J$ and $P$ have not been measured.

$\Omega_c(2770)^0$ MASS

The mass is obtained from the mass-difference measurement that follows.

<table><tr><td>VALUE (MeV)</td><td>DOCUMENT ID</td></tr><tr><td>2765.9±2.0</td><td>OUR FIT</td></tr></table>

$\Omega_c(2770)^0$ - $\Omega_c^0$ MASS DIFFERENCE

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5">70.7<sup>+0.8</sup><sub>-0.9</sub> OUR FIT</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">70.7<sup>+0.9</sup><sub>-0.9</sub> OUR AVERAGE</td></tr><tr><td>70.7±0.9<sup>+0.1</sup><sub>-0.9</sub></td><td>54 ± 9</td><td>SOLOVIEVA</td><td>09</td><td>BELL</td></tr><tr><td>70.8±1.0<sup>+1.1</sup><sub>-1.0</sub></td><td>105 ± 22</td><td>AUBERT,BE</td><td>06I</td><td>BABR</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Omega_c(2770)^0$ DECAY MODES

The $\Omega_c(2770)^0-\Omega_c^0$ mass difference is too small for any strong decay to occur.

<table><tr><td>Mode</td><td>Fraction (Γ<sub>f</sub>/Γ)</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub></td><td>presumably 100%</td></tr></table>

$\Omega_c(2770)^0$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>SOLOVIEVA</td><td>09</td><td>PL B672 1</td><td>E. Solovieva et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AUBERT,BE</td><td>06I</td><td>PRL 97 232001</td><td>B. Aubert et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr></table>

$$\Omega_c(3000)^0$$

$$I(J^P) = ?(???) \text{ Status: } \*\*\*$$

$\Omega_c(3000)^0$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5">3000.46±0.25 OUR AVERAGE</td></tr><tr><td>3000.44±0.07<sup>+0.07</sup><sub>-0.13</sub></td><td>0.23</td><td>8.8k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>23AS LHCB pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>3000.7 ±1.0 ±0.2</td><td>38</td><td>YELTON</td><td>18B</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 The third uncertainty is due to the uncertainty in the $\Xi_c^+$ mass, taken to be the PDG 22 fit result 2467.71 ± 0.23 MeV.

2 Measured via $\Omega_c^-$ → $\Omega_c^{**0}π^-$ → $\Xi_c^+K^-π^-$. The third uncertainty is due to the uncertainty in the $\Xi_c^+$ mass.

3 See AAIJ 23AS.

$\Omega_c(3000)^0$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3.83±0.23<sup>+1.59</sup><sub>-0.29</sub></td><td>8.8k</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>23AS LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>4.8 ±2.1 ±2.5</td><td>24</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>21AS LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>4.5 ±0.6 ±0.3</td><td>1.3k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>17AS LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr></table>

1 See AAIJ 23AS.
## $\Omega_c(3000)^0$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>f</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> Ξ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub> K<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

## $\Omega_c(3000)^0$ BRANCHING RATIOS

$$ \Gamma(\Xi_c^+ K^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{1/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>8.8k</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>23AS LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>24</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>21AC LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>38</td><td>2 YELTON</td><td>18B BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>seen</td><td>1.3k</td><td>3,4 AAIJ</td><td>17AH LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr></table>

¹AAIJ 21AC report a significance of 6.2 σ.

²YELTON 18B report a significance of 3.9 σ.

³AAIJ 17AH report a significance of 20.4 σ.

⁴See AAIJ 23AS.

## $\Omega_c(3000)^0$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>23AS PRL 1311902</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>PDG</td><td>22</td><td>R.L. Workman et al.</td><td>(PDG Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>21AC PR D104 L091102</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>YELTON</td><td>18B PR D97 051102</td><td>J. Yelton et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>17AH PRL 118 182001</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr></table>

$$ \Omega_c(3050)^0 \qquad I(J^P) = ?(??) \quad \text{Status: ***} $$

AAIJ 21AC rejects $J = 1/2$ hypothesis at 2.2 σ.

## $\Omega_c(3050)^0$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>3050.17±0.19 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td></tr><tr><td>3050.18±0.04<sup>+0.06</sup><sub>-0.07</sub>±0.23</td><td>8.5k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>23AS LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>3050.1 ±0.3 ±0.2<sup>+0.19</sup><sub>-0.22</sub></td><td>33</td><td>2 AAIJ</td><td>21AC LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>3050.2 ±0.4 ±0.2</td><td>28</td><td>YELTON</td><td>18B BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>3050.2 ±0.1 ±0.1</td><td>970</td><td>3 AAIJ</td><td>17AH LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr></table>

¹The third uncertainty is due to the uncertainty in the $\Xi_c^+$ mass, taken to be the PDG 22 fit result 2467.71 ± 0.23 MeV.

²Measured via $\Omega_b^- \to \Omega^{*+0} \pi^- \to \Xi_c^+ K^- \pi^-$. The third uncertainty is due to the uncertainty in the $\Xi_c^+$ mass.

³See AAIJ 23AS.

## $\Omega_c(3050)^0$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>CL<sub>+</sub></th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>&lt;1.8</strong></td><td>95</td><td>8.5k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>23AS LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.6</td><td>95</td><td>33</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>21AC LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.2</td><td>95</td><td>970</td><td>2 AAIJ</td><td>17AH LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹AAIJ 23AS also report a central value of 0.67 ± 0.17<sup>+0.64</sup><sub>-0.72</sub> MeV.

²See AAIJ 23AS.

## $\Omega_c(3050)^0$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>f</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> Ξ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub> K<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

## $\Omega_c(3050)^0$ BRANCHING RATIOS

$$ \Gamma(\Xi_c^+ K^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{1/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>8.5k</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>23AS LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>33</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>21AC LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>28</td><td>2 YELTON</td><td>18B BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>seen</td><td>970</td><td>3,4 AAIJ</td><td>17AH LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr></table>

¹AAIJ 21AC report a significance of 9.9 σ.

²YELTON 18B report a significance of 4.6 σ.

³AAIJ 17AH report a significance of 20.4 σ.

⁴See AAIJ 23AS.

## $\Omega_c(3050)^0$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>23AS PRL 1311902</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>PDG</td><td>22</td><td>R.L. Workman et al.</td><td>(PDG Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>21AC PR D104 L091102</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>YELTON</td><td>18B PR D97 051102</td><td>J. Yelton et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>17AH PRL 118 182001</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr></table>

$$ \Omega_c(3065)^0 \qquad I(J^P) = ?(??) \quad \text{Status: ***} $$

AAIJ 21AC rejects $J = 1/2$ hypothesis at 3.6 σ.

## $\Omega_c(3065)^0$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>3065.58±0.21 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td></tr><tr><td>3065.63±0.06±0.06</td><td>15k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>23AS LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>3065.9 ±0.4 ±0.4<sup>+0.19</sup><sub>-0.22</sub></td><td>51</td><td>2 AAIJ</td><td>21AC LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>3064.9 ±0.6 ±0.2</td><td>82</td><td>YELTON</td><td>18B BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

²Measured via $\Omega_b^- \to \Omega^{*+0} \pi^- \to \Xi_c^+ K^- \pi^-$. The third uncertainty is due to the uncertainty in the $\Xi_c^+$ mass.

³See AAIJ 23AS.

## $\Omega_c(3065)^0$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>3.4 +0.7<br>-0.8 OUR AVERAGE</strong> Error includes scale factor of 1.7.</td></tr><tr><td>3.79±0.20<sup>+0.38</sup><sub>-0.47</sub></td><td>15k</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>23AS LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>1.7 ±1.0 ±0.5</td><td>51</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>21AC LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>3.5 ±0.4 ±0.2</td><td>1.74k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>17AH LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr></table>

¹See AAIJ 23AS.

## $\Omega_c(3065)^0$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>f</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> Ξ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub> K<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

## $\Omega_c(3065)^0$ BRANCHING RATIOS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>15k</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>23AS LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>51</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>21AC LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>82</td><td>YELTON</td><td>18B BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>seen</td><td>1.74k</td><td>2,3 AAIJ</td><td>17AH LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr></table>

¹AAIJ 21AC report a significance of 11.9 σ.

²AAIJ 17AH report a significance of 23.9 σ.

³See AAIJ 23AS.

## $\Omega_c(3065)^0$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>23AS PRL 1311902</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>PDG</td><td>22 PTEP 2022 083C01</td><td>R.L. Workman et al.</td><td>(PDG Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>21AC PR D104 L091102</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>YELTON</td><td>18B PR D97 051102</td><td>J. Yelton et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>17AH PRL 118 182001</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr></table>

$$ \Omega_c(3090)^0 \qquad I(J^P) = ?(??) \quad \text{Status: ***} $$

## $\Omega_c(3090)^0$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>3090.15±0.26 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td></tr><tr><td>3090.16±0.11<sup>+0.06</sup><sub>-0.10</sub>±0.23</td><td>17k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>23AS LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>3091.0 ±1.1 ±1.0<sup>+0.19</sup><sub>-0.22</sub></td><td>41</td><td>2 AAIJ</td><td>21AC LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>3089.3 ±1.2 ±0.2</td><td>87</td><td>YELTON</td><td>18B BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>3090.2 ±0.3 ±0.5</td><td>2.0k</td><td>3 AAIJ</td><td>17AH LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr></table>

¹The third uncertainty is due to the uncertainty in the $\Xi_c^+$ mass, taken to be the PDG 22 fit result 2467.71 ± 0.23 MeV.

²Measured via $\Omega_b^- \to \Omega^{*+0} \pi^- \to \Xi_c^+ K^- \pi^-$. The third uncertainty is due to the uncertainty in the $\Xi_c^+$ mass.

³See AAIJ 23AS.
### $\Omega_c(3090)^0$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>8.48 ± 0.44 <sup>+0.61</sup><sub>-1.62</sub></td><td>17k</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>23AS LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>7.4 ± 3.1 ± 2.8</td><td>41</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>21AC LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>8.7 ± 1.0 ± 0.8</td><td>2.0k</td><td><sup>1</sup>AAIJ</td><td>17AH LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><sup>1</sup>See AAIJ 23AS.</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Omega_c(3090)^0$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>j</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> Ξ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub>K<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Omega_c(3090)^0$ BRANCHING RATIOS

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="6">Γ(Ξ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub>K<sup>-</sup>)/Γ<sub>total</sub></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>17k</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>23AS LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>41</td><td><sup>1</sup>AAIJ</td><td>21AC LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>87</td><td>YELTON</td><td>18B BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> at T(4S)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>2.0k</td><td><sup>2,3</sup>AAIJ</td><td>17AH LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. AAIJ 21AC report a significance of 7.8 σ.

2. AAIJ 17AH report a significance of 21.1 σ.

3. See AAIJ 23AS.

### $\Omega_c(3090)^0$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>23AS PRL 131 131902</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>PDG</td><td>22 PTEP 2022 083C01</td><td>R.L. Workman et al.</td><td>(PDG Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>21AC PR D104 L91102</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>YELTON</td><td>18B PR D97 051102</td><td>J. Yelton et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>17AH PRL 118 182001</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr></table>

$$ \Omega_c(3120)^0 $$

$$ I(J^P) = ?(??) \quad \text{Status: ***} $$

### $\Omega_c(3120)^0$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3118.98 ± 0.12 <sup>+0.09</sup><sub>-0.23</sub> ± 0.23</td><td>3.7k</td><td><sup>1</sup>AAIJ</td><td>23AS LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>3119.1 ± 0.3 ± 0.9 ± 0.3</td><td>480</td><td><sup>2,3</sup>AAIJ</td><td>17AH LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. The third uncertainty is due to the uncertainty in the $\Xi_c^+$ mass, taken to be the PDG 22 fit result 2467.71 ± 0.23 MeV.

2. The third error is the uncertainty on the $\Xi_c^+$ mass. (AAIJ 17AH gave $\pm 0.3$ MeV here, but as of 2018 it is $\pm 0.3$.)

3. See AAIJ 23AS.

### $\Omega_c(3120)^0$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>&lt;2.5</strong></td><td>95</td><td>3.7k</td><td><sup>1</sup>AAIJ</td><td>23AS LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;2.6</td><td>95</td><td>480</td><td><sup>2</sup>AAIJ</td><td>17AH LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><sup>1</sup>AAIJ 23AS also report a central value of 0.60 ± 0.63 <sup>+0.90</sup><sub>-1.05</sub>.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><sup>2</sup>See AAIJ 23AS.</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Omega_c(3120)^0$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>j</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> Ξ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub>K<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Omega_c(3120)^0$ BRANCHING RATIOS

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="6">Γ(Ξ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub>K<sup>-</sup>)/Γ<sub>total</sub></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>3.7k</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>23AS LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>480</td><td><sup>1,2</sup>AAIJ</td><td>17AH LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. AAIJ 17AH report a significance of 10.4 σ.

2. See AAIJ 23AS.

### $\Omega_c(3120)^0$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>23AS PRL 131 131902</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>PDG</td><td>22 PTEP 2022 083C01</td><td>R.L. Workman et al.</td><td>(PDG Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>17AH PRL 118 182001</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr></table>

$$ \Omega_c(3185)^0 $$

$$ I(J^P) = ?(??) \quad \text{Status: ***} $$

### $\Omega_c(3185)^0$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3185 ± 1.7 <sup>+7.4</sup><sub>-0.9</sub> ± 0.2</td><td>12k</td><td><sup>1</sup>AAIJ</td><td>23AS LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. The third uncertainty is due to the uncertainty in the $\Xi_c^+$ mass, taken to be the PDG 22 fit result 2467.71 ± 0.23 MeV.

### $\Omega_c(3185)^0$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>50 ± 7 <sup>+10</sup><sub>-20</sub></td><td>12k</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>23AS LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Omega_c(3185)^0$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>j</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> Ξ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub>K<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Omega_c(3185)^0$ BRANCHING RATIOS

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="6">Γ(Ξ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub>K<sup>-</sup>)/Γ<sub>total</sub></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>12k</td><td><sup>1</sup>AAIJ</td><td>23AS LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. AAIJ 23AS report a significance of 12σ.

### $\Omega_c(3185)^0$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>23AS PRL 131 131902</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>PDG</td><td>22 PTEP 2022 083C01</td><td>R.L. Workman et al.</td><td>(PDG Collab.)</td></tr></table>

$$ \Omega_c(3327)^0 $$

$$ I(J^P) = ?(??) \quad \text{Status: ***} $$

### $\Omega_c(3327)^0$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3327.1 ± 1.2 <sup>+0.1</sup><sub>-1.3</sub> ± 0.2</td><td>4.1k</td><td><sup>1</sup>AAIJ</td><td>23AS LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. The third uncertainty is due to the uncertainty in the $\Xi_c^+$ mass, taken to be the PDG 22 fit result 2467.71 ± 0.23 MeV.

### $\Omega_c(3327)^0$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>20 ± 5 <sup>+13</sup><sub>-1</sub></td><td>4.1k</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>23AS LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Omega_c(3327)^0$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>j</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> Ξ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub>K<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Omega_c(3327)^0$ BRANCHING RATIOS

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="6">Γ(Ξ<sup>+</sup><sub>c</sub>K<sup>-</sup>)/Γ<sub>total</sub></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>4.1k</td><td><sup>1</sup>AAIJ</td><td>23AS LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8, 13 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. AAIJ 23AS report a significance of 10σ.

### $\Omega_c(3327)^0$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>23AS PRL 131 131902</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>PDG</td><td>22 PTEP 2022 083C01</td><td>R.L. Workman et al.</td><td>(PDG Collab.)</td></tr></table>
<figure><img src="image_748.png" /></figure>

## DOUBLY CHARMED BARYONS
(C = +2)

$$ \Xi_{cc}^{++} = ucc, \Xi_{cc}^{+} = dcc, \Omega_{cc}^{+} = scc $$

<figure><img src="image_749.png" /></figure>

$$ I(J^P) = ?(??) \quad \text{Status: *} $$

### OMITTED FROM SUMMARY TABLE

Nominally the isospin partner of the $\Xi_{cc}^{++}$ (ccu). While the SE-LEX experiment (MATTSON 02, OCHERASHVILI 05) claimed an observation of this state, subsequent searches by BABAR (AUBERT, B 06D), Belle (CHISTOV 06, KATO 14), and LHCb (AAIJ 13CD, AAIJ 20AX) did not find any significant signal or evidence for the $\Xi_{cc}^+$. However, AAIJ 21AE reports that its search for $\Xi_{cc}^+ \to \Xi_c^+ \pi^+ \pi^-$, when combined with a prior search for $\Xi_{cc}^+ \to \Lambda_c^+ K^- \pi^+$ decays in AAIJ 20AX, yields a signal at 2.9 $\sigma$ global significance (4.0 $\sigma$ local).

### $\Xi_{cc}^+$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>3518.9±0.9 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td></tr><tr><td>3518 ±3</td><td>6</td><td>1 OCHERASHVILI.05</td><td>SELX</td><td>Σ<sup>-</sup> nucleus ≈ 600 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>3519 ±1</td><td>16</td><td>2 MATTSON</td><td>02</td><td>SELX Σ<sup>-</sup> nucleus ≈ 600 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

$$ 3623.0±1.4 \quad 368±193 \quad 3 \text{AAIJ} \quad 21\text{AE LHCB} \quad \text{pp at } 7, 8, 13 \text{ TeV} $$

1. OCHERASHVILI 05 claims "an excess of 5.62 events over ... 1.38 ± 0.13 events" for a significance of 4.8 $\sigma$ in $pD^+K^-$ events.

2. MATTSON 02 claims "an excess of 15.9 events over an expected background of 6.1 ± 0.5 events, a statistical significance of 6.3 $\sigma$ in the $\Lambda_c^+ K^- \pi^+$ invariant-mass spectrum. The probability that the peak is a fluctuation increases from $1.0 \times 10^{-6}$ to $1.1 \times 10^{-4}$ when the number of bins searched is considered.

3. Uncertainties are statistical only. Because of undetermined systematic uncertainties in the extraction of this result it cannot be considered a mass measurement. AAIJ 21AE performs a combined fit to its $\Xi_{cc}^+ \to \Xi_c^+ \pi^+ \pi^-$ data and the $\Xi_{cc}^+ \to \Lambda_c^+ K^- \pi^+$ data from AAIJ 20AX, finding a global significance of 2.9 $\sigma$ (4.0 $\sigma$ local).

### $\Xi_{cc}^+$ MEAN LIFE

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (10<sup>-15</sup> s)</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;33</td><td>90</td><td>MATTSON</td><td>02</td><td>SELX Σ<sup>-</sup> nucleus, ≈ 600 GeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_{cc}^+$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>i</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> Λ<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> π<sup>+</sup></td><td>not seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup> π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup></td><td>not seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub> pD<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(pD^+K^-)/\Gamma(\Lambda_c^+K^-\pi^+) \\ \text{VALUE} \qquad \text{EVTS} \qquad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \qquad \text{TECN} \qquad \text{COMMENT} \\ \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \end{array} \qquad \Gamma_3/\Gamma_1 \\ 0.36\pm0.21 \qquad 6 \qquad \text{OCHERASHVILI.05} \qquad \text{SELX} \qquad \Sigma^- \approx 600 \text{ GeV} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(\Lambda_c^+ K^- \pi^+) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \\ \text{VALUE} \qquad \text{CL\%} \qquad \text{EVTS} \qquad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \qquad \text{TECN} \qquad \text{COMMENT} \\ \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \end{array} \qquad \Gamma_1/\Gamma \\ \text{not seen} \qquad 1 \text{AAIJ} \qquad 20\text{AX LHCB} \qquad \text{pp at } 7, 8, 13 \text{ TeV} \end{array} $$

1. No significant signal is observed in the mass range 3.4–3.8 GeV.

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(\Xi_c^+ \pi^+ \pi^-) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \\ \text{VALUE} \qquad \text{CL\%} \qquad \text{EVTS} \qquad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \qquad \text{TECN} \qquad \text{COMMENT} \\ \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \end{array} \qquad \Gamma_2/\Gamma \\ \text{not seen} \qquad 95 \quad 145 \pm 139 \qquad 1 \text{AAIJ} \quad 21\text{AE LHCB} \qquad \text{pp at } 7, 8, 13 \text{ TeV} \end{array} $$

1. No significant signal is seen in the mass range 3.4–3.8 GeV. Combined fit to its $\Xi_{cc}^+ \to \Xi_c^+ \pi^+ \pi^-$ data and the $\Xi_{cc}^+ \to \Lambda_c^+ K^- \pi^+$ data from AAIJ 20AX, finding a global significance of 2.9 $\sigma$ (4.0 $\sigma$ local).

### $\Xi_{cc}^+$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>21AE JHEP 2112 107</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>20AX SCPMA 63 221062</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>KATO</td><td>14 PR D89 052003</td><td>Y. Kato et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>13CD JHEP 1312 090</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AUBERT, B</td><td>06D PR D74 011103</td><td>B. Aubert et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>CHISTOV</td><td>06 PRL 97 162001</td><td>R. Chistov et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>OCHERASHVILI.05</td><td>PL B628 18</td><td>A. Ocherashvili et al.</td><td>(FNAL SELEX Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>MATTSON</td><td>02 PRL 89 112001</td><td>M. Mattson et al.</td><td>(FNAL SELEX Collab.)</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_750.png" /></figure>

$$ I(J^P) = ?(??) \quad \text{Status: ***} $$

### $\Xi_{cc}^{++}$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3621.55±0.23±0.30</td><td>2k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>20j LHCB</td><td>pp at 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>3620.6 ±1.5 ±0.4 ±0.3</td><td>91</td><td>2 AAIJ</td><td>18BA LHCB</td><td>pp at 13 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>3621.40 ±0.72±0.27±0.14</td><td>313</td><td>3 AAIJ</td><td>17BC LHCB</td><td>pp at 13 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. AAIJ 20j combines mass measurements 3621.53 ± 0.24 ± 0.29 MeV from $\Xi_{cc}^{++} \to \Lambda_c^+ K^- \pi^+ \pi^+$ and 3621.95 ± 0.60 ± 0.49 MeV from $\Xi_{cc}^{++} \to \Xi_c^+ \pi^+$. Supersedes AAIJ 18BA and AAIJ 17BC.

2. The third error in AAIJ 18BA value is from the uncertainty of the $\Xi_c^+$ mass.

3. The third error in AAIJ 17BC value is from the uncertainty of the $\Lambda_c^+$ mass. The width of the signal is 6.6 ± 0.8 MeV, consistent with the experimental resolution.

### $\Xi_{cc}^{++}$ MEAN LIFE

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (10<sup>-15</sup> s)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>256<sup>+24</sup><sub>-22</sub>±14</td><td>304</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>18G LHCB</td><td>pp at 13 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\Xi_{cc}^{++}$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>i</sub>/Γ)</th><th>Confidence level</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> Λ<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>+</sup></td><td></td><td>DEFINED AS 1</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup> π<sup>+</sup>, Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup> → pK<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td><td>0.0022±0.0006</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub> Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup> π<sup>+</sup>, Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup> → Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup> γ, Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup> → pK<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td><td>0.0031±0.0009</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>4</sub> D<sup>+</sup> pK<sup>-</sup> π<sup>+</sup></td><td>&lt;0.017</td><td>90%</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(\Lambda_c^+ K^- \pi^+ \pi^+) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \\ \text{VALUE} \qquad \text{EVTS} \qquad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \qquad \text{TECN} \qquad \text{COMMENT} \\ \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \end{array} \qquad \Gamma_1/\Gamma \\ \text{• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •} \\ \text{seen} \qquad \text{AAIJ} \qquad 17BC LHCB \qquad 12 \text{ std significance} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(\Xi_c^+ \pi^+, \Xi_c^+ \to pK^- \pi^+) / \Gamma_{\text{total}} \\ \text{VALUE} \qquad \text{EVTS} \qquad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \qquad \text{TECN} \qquad \text{COMMENT} \\ \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \end{array} \qquad \Gamma_2/\Gamma \\ \text{• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •} \\ \text{seen} \qquad 91 \qquad \text{AAIJ} \qquad 18BA LHCB \qquad 5.9 \text{ std significance} \end{array} $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(\Xi_c^+ \pi^+, \Xi_c^+ \to pK^- \pi^+) / \Gamma(\Lambda_c^+ K^- \pi^+ \pi^+) \\ \text{VALUE (units 10<sup>-3</sup>)} \qquad \text{CL\%} \qquad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \qquad \text{TECN} \qquad \text{COMMENT} \\ \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \end{array} \qquad \Gamma_2/\Gamma_1 \\ 2.2±0.6±0.1 \qquad 1 \text{AAIJ} \qquad 18BA LHCB \qquad \text{Ratio 91 over 289 events} \end{array} $$

1. AAIJ 18BA reports $[\Gamma(\Xi_c^{++} \to \Xi_c^+ \pi^+, \Xi_c^+ \to pK^- \pi^+) / \Gamma(\Xi_c^{++} \to \Lambda_c^+ K^- \pi^+ \pi^+)] / [B(\Lambda_c^+ \to pK^- \pi^+)] = (3.5 \pm 0.9 \pm 0.3) \times 10^{-2}$ which we multiply by our best value $B(\Lambda_c^+ \to pK^- \pi^+) = (6.24 \pm 0.28) \times 10^{-2}$. Our first error is their experiment's error and our second error is the systematic error from using our best value.

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(\Xi_c^+ \pi^+, \Xi_c^+ \to \Xi_c^+ \gamma, \Xi_c^+ \to pK^- \pi^+) / \Gamma(\Xi_c^+ \pi^+, \Xi_c^+ \to pK^- \pi^+) \\ \text{VALUE} \qquad \text{EVTS} \qquad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \qquad \text{TECN} \qquad \text{COMMENT} \\ \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \end{array} \qquad \Gamma_3/\Gamma_2 \\ 1.41±0.17±0.10 \qquad 756 \qquad 1 \text{AAIJ} \qquad 22G LHCB \qquad \text{pp at 13 TeV} \end{array} $$

1. The photon in the $\Xi_c^+ \to \Xi_c^+ \gamma$ process is not reconstructed. Analysis uses two disjoint subsamples triggered on and independently from the signal.

$$ \begin{array}{l} \Gamma(D^+ pK^- \pi^+) / \Gamma(\Lambda_c^+ K^- \pi^+ \pi^+) \\ \text{VALUE} \qquad \text{CL\%} \qquad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \qquad \text{TECN} \qquad \text{COMMENT} \\ \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \qquad \text{Gamma} \end{array} \qquad \Gamma_4/\Gamma_1 \\ <1.7 \times 10^{-2} \qquad 90 \qquad \text{AAIJ} \qquad 19AO LHCB \qquad \text{pp at 13 TeV} \end{array} $$

### $\Xi_{cc}^{++}$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>22G JHEP 2205 038</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>20J JHEP 2002 049</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>19AO JHEP 1910 124</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>18BA PRL 121 162002</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>18G PRL 121 052002</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>17BC PRL 119 112001</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr></table>
## BOTTOM BARYONS

$(B = -1)$

$$ \begin{aligned} \Lambda_b^0 &= udb, \Sigma_b^0 = udb, \Sigma_b^+ = uub, \Sigma_b^- = ddb \\ \Xi_b^0 &= usb, \Xi_b^- = dsb, \Omega_b^- = ssb \end{aligned} $$

$\Lambda_b^0$

$I(J^P) = 0(\frac{1}{2}^+) \text{ Status: ***}$

In the quark model, a $\Lambda_b^0$ is an isospin-0 udb state. The lowest $\Lambda_b^0$ ought to have $J^P = 1/2^+$. None of I, J, or P have actually been measured.

$\Lambda_b^0$ MASS

$m_{\Lambda_b^0}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVENTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>5619.60 ± 0.17 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td></tr><tr><td>5619.62 ± 0.16 ± 0.13</td><td></td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>17AM LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>5619.30 ± 0.34</td><td></td><td>2 AAIJ</td><td>14AA LHCB</td><td>pp at 7 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>5620.15 ± 0.31 ± 0.47</td><td></td><td>3 AALTONEN</td><td>14B CDF</td><td>p̄p at 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>5619.7 ± 0.7 ± 1.1</td><td></td><td>3 AAD</td><td>13U ATLS</td><td>pp at 7 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>5621 ± 4 ± 3</td><td></td><td>4 ABE</td><td>97B CDF</td><td>p̄p at 1.8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>5668 ± 16 ± 8</td><td>4</td><td>5 ABREU</td><td>96N DLPH</td><td>e⁺e⁻ → Z</td></tr><tr><td>5614 ± 21 ± 4</td><td>4</td><td>5 BUSKULIC</td><td>96L ALEP</td><td>e⁺e⁻ → Z</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>5619.65 ± 0.17 ± 0.17</td><td>6 AAIJ</td><td>16Y LHCB</td><td>Repl. by AAIJ 17AM</td></tr><tr><td>5619.44 ± 0.13 ± 0.38</td><td>3 AAIJ</td><td>13AV LHCB</td><td>Repl. by AAIJ 17AM</td></tr><tr><td>5619.19 ± 0.70 ± 0.30</td><td>3 AAIJ</td><td>12E LHCB</td><td>Repl. by AAIJ 13AV</td></tr><tr><td>5619.7 ± 1.2 ± 1.2</td><td>7 ACOSTA</td><td>06 CDF</td><td>Repl. by AALTO-NEN 14B</td></tr><tr><td>not seen</td><td>8 ABE</td><td>93B CDF</td><td>Repl. by ABE 97B</td></tr><tr><td>5640 ± 50 ± 30</td><td>16</td><td>91E UAI</td><td>p̄p 630 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>5640 +100<br/>-210</td><td>52</td><td>BARI</td><td>91 SFM</td><td>Λ<sub>B</sub><sup>0</sup> → pD<sup>0</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>5650 +150<br/>-200</td><td>90</td><td>BARI</td><td>91 SFM</td><td>Λ<sub>B</sub><sup>0</sup> → Λ<sub>C</sub><sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

1. Uses $\Lambda_b^0 \to \chi_{c1} p K^-$, $\Lambda_b^0 \to \chi_{c2} p K^-$, $\Lambda_b^0 \to J/\psi \Lambda$, $\Lambda_b^0 \to p \psi(2S) K^-$, $\Lambda_b^0 \to p J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^- K^-$, and $\Lambda_b^0 \to p J/\psi K^- \to K^-$ decays.

2. Uses exclusively reconstructed final states $\Lambda_b^0 \to \Lambda_c^+ D_s^-$, $\Lambda_c^+ D^-$ and $\bar{B}^0 \to D^+ D_s^-$ decays. The uncertainty includes both statistical and systematic contributions.

3. Uses $\Lambda_b^0 \to J/\psi \Lambda$ fully reconstructed decays.

4. ABE 97B observed 38 events with a background of $18 \pm 1.6$ events in the mass range 5.60-5.65 GeV/c$^2$, a significance of > 3.4 standard deviations.

5. Uses 4 fully reconstructed $\Lambda_b^0$ events.

6. Uses $\Lambda_b^0 \to p \psi(2S) K^-$, $\Lambda_b^0 \to p J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^- K^-$, and $\Lambda_b^0 \to p J/\psi K^- \to K^-$ decays.

7. Uses exclusively reconstructed final states containing a $J/\psi \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ decays.

8. ABE 93b states that, based on the signal claimed by ALBAJAR 91E, CDF should have found 30 ± 23 $\Lambda_b^0 \to J/\psi(1S) \Lambda$ events. Instead, CDF found not more than 2 events.

9. ALBAJAR 91E claims 16 ± 5 events above a background of 9 ± 1 events, a significance of about 5 standard deviations.

$m_{\Lambda_b^0} - m_{\bar{B}^0}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>339.2 ± 1.4 ± 0.1</td><td>1 ACOSTA</td><td>06</td><td>p̄p at 1.96 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. Uses exclusively reconstructed final states containing $J/\psi \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ decays.

$m_{\Lambda_b^0} - m_{B^+}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>339.72 ± 0.28 OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>339.72 ± 0.24 ± 0.18</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>14AA LHCB</td><td>pp at 7 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>339.71 ± 0.71 ± 0.09</td><td>2 AAIJ</td><td>12E LHCB</td><td>pp at 7 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. Uses exclusively reconstructed final states $\Lambda_b^0 \to \Lambda_c^+ D_s^-$, $\Lambda_c^+ D^-$ and $\bar{B}^0 \to D^+ D_s^-$ decays.

2. Uses exclusively reconstructed final states containing $J/\psi \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ decays.

$\Lambda_b^0$ MEAN LIFE

See b-baryon Admixture section for data on b-baryon mean life average over species of b-baryon particles.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (10<sup>-12</sup> s)</th><th>EVENTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>1.471 ± 0.009 OUR EVALUATION</strong> (Produced by HFLAV)</td></tr><tr><td>1.477 ± 0.027 ± 0.009</td><td>1 SIRUNYAN</td><td>18BY CMS</td><td>pp at 8 TeV</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.415 ± 0.027 ± 0.006</td><td>2 AAIJ</td><td>14E LHCB</td><td>pp at 7 TeV</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.479 ± 0.009 ± 0.010</td><td>3 AAIJ</td><td>14U LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8 TeV</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.565 ± 0.035 ± 0.020</td><td>2 AALTONEN</td><td>14B CDF</td><td>p̄p at 1.96 TeV</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.449 ± 0.036 ± 0.017</td><td>2 AAD</td><td>13U ATLS</td><td>pp at 7 TeV</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.503 ± 0.052 ± 0.031</td><td>2 CHATRCHYAN 13AC</td><td>CMS</td><td>pp at 7 TeV</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.303 ± 0.075 ± 0.035</td><td>2 ABAZOV</td><td>12U D0</td><td>p̄p at 1.96 TeV</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.401 ± 0.046 ± 0.035</td><td>4 AALTONEN</td><td>10B CDF</td><td>p̄p at 1.96 TeV</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>1.482 ± 0.018 ± 0.012</td><td>5 AAIJ</td><td>13BB LHCB</td><td>Repl. by AAIJ 14U</td></tr><tr><td>1.537 ± 0.045 ± 0.014</td><td>2 AALTONEN</td><td>11 CDF</td><td>Repl. by AALTONEN 14B</td></tr><tr><td>1.218 ± 0.130 ± 0.042</td><td>2 ABAZOV</td><td>07S D0</td><td>Repl. by ABAZOV 12U</td></tr><tr><td>1.290 ± 0.119 ± 0.087</td><td>6 ABAZOV</td><td>07U D0</td><td>p̄p at 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>1.593 ± 0.083 ± 0.033</td><td>2 ABULENCIA</td><td>07A CDF</td><td>Repl. by AALTONEN 11</td></tr><tr><td>1.22 ± 0.22 ± 0.04</td><td>2 ABAZOV</td><td>05C D0</td><td>Repl. by ABAZOV 07S</td></tr><tr><td>1.11 ± 0.19 ± 0.05</td><td>7 ABREU</td><td>99W DLPH</td><td>e⁺e⁻ → Z</td></tr><tr><td>1.29 ± 0.24 ± 0.06</td><td>7 ACKERSTAFF</td><td>98G OPAL</td><td>e⁺e⁻ → Z</td></tr><tr><td>1.21 ± 0.11</td><td>7 BARATE</td><td>98D ALEC</td><td>e⁺e⁻ → Z</td></tr><tr><td>1.32 ± 0.15 ± 0.07</td><td>8 ABE</td><td>96M CDF</td><td>p̄p at 1.8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>1.19 ± 0.21 ± 0.07</td><td>ABREU</td><td>96D DLPH</td><td>Repl. by ABREU 99W</td></tr><tr><td>1.27 ± 0.35 ± 0.09</td><td>ABREU</td><td>95S DLPH</td><td>Repl. by ABREU 99W</td></tr><tr><td>1.14 ± 0.22 ± 0.07</td><td>69 AKERS</td><td>95K OPAL</td><td>Repl. by ACKERSTAFF 98G</td></tr><tr><td>1.02 ± 0.23 ± 0.06</td><td>44 BUSKULIC</td><td>95L ALEC</td><td>Repl. by BARATE 98D</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. Measured using $\Lambda_b^0 \to J/\psi \Lambda$ decays.

2. Measured mean life using fully reconstructed $\Lambda_b^0 \to J/\psi \Lambda$ decays.

3. Used $\Lambda_b^0 \to J/\psi p K^-$ decays.

4. Measured mean life using fully reconstructed $\Lambda_b^0 \to \Lambda_c^+ \pi^-$ decays.

5. Measured the lifetime ratio of decays $\Lambda_b^0 \to J/\psi p K^-$ to $B^0 \to J/\psi \pi^+ K^-$ to be 0.976 ± 0.012 ± 0.006 with $\tau_{B^0} = 1.519 \pm 0.007$ ps.

6. Measured using semileptonic decays $\Lambda_b^0 \to \Lambda_c^+ \mu \nu X$ and $\Lambda_c^+ \to K^0 S p$.

7. Measured using $\Lambda_c \ell^- \to \Lambda \ell^+ \ell^- \to K^0 S$.

8. Excess $\Lambda_c \ell^-$, decay lengths.

$\tau_{\Lambda_b^0/\tau_{\bar{B}^0}}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.940 ± 0.035 ± 0.006</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>14E LHCB</td><td>pp at 7 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. Measured using $\Lambda_b^0 \to J/\psi \Lambda$ decays.

$\tau_{\Lambda_b^0/\tau_{\bar{B}^0}}$ MEAN LIFE RATIO

$\tau_{\Lambda_b^0/\tau_{\bar{B}^0}}$ (direct measurements)

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

0.964 ± 0.007 OUR EVALUATION (Produced by HFLAV)

0.970 ± 0.009 OUR AVERAGE Error includes scale factor of 1.4. See the ideogram below.

<table><tbody><tr><td>0.978 ± 0.018 ± 0.006</td><td>1 SIRUNYAN</td><td>18BY CMS</td><td>pp at 8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.929 ± 0.018 ± 0.004</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>14E LHCB</td><td>pp at 7 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.974 ± 0.006 ± 0.004</td><td>2 AAIJ</td><td>14U LHCB</td><td>pp at 7, 8 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.960 ± 0.025 ± 0.016</td><td>3 AAD</td><td>13U ATLS</td><td>pp at 7 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>0.864 ± 0.052 ± 0.033</td><td>4,5 ABAZOV</td><td>12U D0</td><td>p̄p at 1.96 TeV</td></tr><tr><td>1.020 ± 0.030 ± 0.008</td><td>4 AALTONEN</td><td>11 CDF</td><td>p̄p at 1.96 TeV</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>0.976 ± 0.012 ± 0.006</td><td>6 AAIJ</td><td>13BB LHCB</td><td>Repl. by AAIJ 14U</td></tr><tr><td>0.811 ± 0.096 ± 0.034</td><td>4,5 ABAZOV</td><td>07S D0</td><td>Repl. by ABAZOV 12U</td></tr><tr><td>1.041 ± 0.057</td><td>7 ABULENCIA</td><td>07A CDF</td><td>Repl. by AALTONEN 11</td></tr><tr><td>0.87 ± 0.17 ± 0.03</td><td>7 ABAZOV</td><td>05C D0</td><td>Repl. by ABAZOV 07S</td></tr></tbody></table>

WEIGHTED AVERAGE
0.970 ± 0.009 (Error scaled by 1.4)

<figure><img src="image_751.png" /></figure>

$\tau_{\Lambda_b^0/\tau_{\bar{B}^0}}$ (direct measurements)

1. Measured using $\Lambda_b^0 \to J/\psi \Lambda$ and $B^0 \to J/\psi K^*(892)^0$ decays.

2. Used $\Lambda_b^0 \to J/\psi p K^-$ and $B^0 \to J/\psi K^*(892)^0$ decays.