AG-2026.04-1900·hep-ph·cross-listed: hep-ex
$b \to c$ semileptonic sum rule: orbitally excited hadrons
Authors
- Motoi Endo
- Syuhei Iguro
- Satoshi Mishima
Abstract
We study semileptonic sum rules for $b \to c τ\overlineν$ transitions involving orbitally excited charm hadrons. Starting from the amplitude-level relation implied by the heavy quark symmetry, we construct sum rules relating these decays. We then examine deviations from the small-velocity limit. Our numerical analysis shows that the deviations generally increase once excited hadrons are involved, with tensor contributions often inducing sizable effects. At present, however, the relevant form factors are not yet sufficiently constrained. Further improvements in the hadronic inputs are essential for these sum rules to yield robust predictions for the corresponding lepton-universality ratios.
Submitted
30 April 20261 week ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2604.27970
Summary
Physicists derived mathematical relationships for rare particle decays involving excited charm hadrons, finding that standard theoretical approximations break down more than expected—but current experimental data isn't precise enough to test the predictions.
- Heavy quark symmetry provides constraints on how bottom quarks decay into charm, but these constraints are weaker when the charm quark ends up in an excited (higher-energy) state rather than a ground state.
- Tensor contributions—subtle quantum effects—create unexpectedly large deviations from the standard theoretical approximations, making predictions less reliable for these rare decays.
- The bottleneck is experimental: we need better measurements of how excited charm hadrons behave before we can use these sum rules to test whether leptons really couple equally to particle decay processes.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.