2 spontaneous chiral-symmetry breaking, i.e., quark con- responding nonrelativistic quark model assignments are densates, generates a diquark mass term, which behaves given of the spin and orbital angular momentum. differently from the other mass terms. We discuss how we can identify and determine the parameters of such a coupling term of the diquark effective Lagrangian. B. Scalar and pseudo-scalar diquarks in chiral This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we SU(3)R × SU(3)L symmetry introduce diquarks and their local operator representa- tion, and formulate chiral effective theory in the chiral- In this paper, we concentrate on the scalar and pseu- symmetry limit. In Sec. III, explicit chiral-symmetry doscalar diquarks from the viewpoint of chiral symmetry. breaking due to the quark masses is introduced and its More specifically, we consider the first two states, Nos. 1 consequences are discussed. In Sec. IV, a numerical esti- and 2, from Table I, which have spin 0, color 3¯ and flavor mate is given for the parameters of the effective theory. 3.¯ We here see that these two diquarks are chiral part- We use the diquark masses calculated in lattice QCD and ners to each other, i.e., they belong to the same chiral also the experimental values of the singly heavy baryons. representation and therefore they would be degenerate if In Sec. V, a conclusion is given. the chiral symmetry is not broken. To see this, using the chiral projection operators, a PR,L ≡ (1 ± γ5)/2, we define the right quark, qR,i = a II. DIQUARK EFFECTIVE THEORY PR qi , as a (3,1) representation of chiral SU(3)R × a a SU(3)L symmetry, and the left quark, qL,i = PL qi , as a A. Diquark operators in flavor SU(3) symmetry (1,3) representation. Explicitly, they transform as a a qR,i → (UR)ijqR,j,UR ∈ SU(3)R (2) In order to study the transformation properties of the qa → (U ) qa ,U ∈ SU(3) . (3) diquark systems, we consider properties of QCD compos- L,i L ij L,j L L ite operators made of two quark fields. We employ the Then we construct “right” and “left” spin-0 diquark op- a ¯ flavor SU(3) basis for the quark operators, qα,i, where a erators with color 3 as is color, α is Dirac, i is flavor index of the quark. Then da ≡ abc (qbT C qc ), (4) local diquark operators are defined by R,i ijk R,j R,k da ≡ abc (qbT C qc ). (5) T a b L,i ijk L,j L,k (qi Γqj) = (qα,i (Γ)αβ qβ,j), (1) It is straightforward to show that dR and dL belong to where T denotes the transpose for the Dirac index and Γ chiral (3¯, 1) and (1, 3)¯ representation, respectively, and is a relevant combination of the Dirac gamma matrices. transform as Possible combinations satisfying the Lorentz covariance da → da (U † ) , (3¯, 1), (6) and the Pauli principle for quarks are given in Table I. R,i R,j R ji a a † ¯ dL,i → dL,j (UL)ji, (1, 3). (7) J π color flavor 2S+1L J The other diquark operators are also decomposed in the T 3¯ − ¯ ¯ 3 1 (q Cq)A 0 3 3 P0 chiral basis similarly, as shown in Table II B. First two T 5 3¯ + ¯ ¯ 1 2 (q Cγ q)A 0 3 3 S0 of them are the diquarks that we concern in this paper. T µ 5 3¯ − ¯ ¯ 3 3 (q Cγ γ q)A 1 3 3 P1 T µ 3¯ + ¯ 3 4 (q Cγ q)S 1 3 6 S1 spin color chiral T µν 3¯ + − ¯ 3 1 a bT c ¯ ¯ 5 (q Cσ q)S 1 , 1 3 6 D1, P1 dR,i = abcijk(qR,j CqR,k) 0 3 (3, 1) T 6 − 3 a bT c ¯ ¯ 6 (q Cq)S 0 6 6 P0 dL,i = abcijk(qL,j CqL,k) 0 3 (1, 3) 7 (qT Cγ5q)6 0+ 6 6 1S a,µ bT µ c ¯ S 0 d(i,j) = abc(qL,iCγ qR,j ) 1 3 (3, 3) T µ 5 6 − 3 a,µν bT µν c 8 (q Cγ γ q)S 1 6 6 P1 ¯ dR{ij} = abc(qR,iCσ qR,j ) 1 3 (6, 1) T µ 6 + ¯ 3 9 (q Cγ q)A 1 6 3 S1 a,µν bT µν c ¯ dL{ij} = abc(qL,iCσ qL,j ) 1 3 (1, 6) T µν 6 + − ¯ 3 1 10 (q Cσ q)A 1 , 1 6 3 D1, P1 ˜{ab} aT b aT b dR{ij} = (qR,iCqR,j + qR,j CqR,i) 0 6 (6, 1) ˜{ab} aT b aT b dL{ij} = (qL,iCqL,j + qL,j CqL,i) 0 6 (1, 6) 0 2 ˜{ab},µ aT µ b bT µ a TABLE I. Local diquark operators. C = iγ γ is the charge d(i,j) = (qL,iCγ qR,j + qL,iCγ qR,j ) 1 6 (3, 3) conjugation Dirac matrix. The rightmost column shows the ˜{ab},µν aT µν b ¯ dR,i = ijk(qR,j Cσ qR,k) 1 6 (3, 1) relevant quantum states for two (nonrelativistic) quarks. ˜{ab},µν aT µν b ¯ dL,i = ijk(qL,j Cσ qL,k) 1 6 (1, 3)

The first five operators belong to the total color 3¯ rep- TABLE II. Local diquark operators in the chiral basis. resentation, i.e., color antisymmetric combinations, while the lower five are in the color symmetric 6 representation. The indices S (symmetric) and A (antisymmetric) des- The diquarks given above are not eigenstates of parity. ignate the flavor symmetry. In the last column, the cor- Using the parity transform of the quark operators, P : 3

a 0 a a 0 a qiR(t, x) → γ qiL(t, −x), qiL(t, x) → γ qiR(t, −x), the Here we truncate the interaction terms with more than spin-0 diquarks are found to transform as two Σ’s. We also omit ΣΣ† and Σ†Σ terms, since they + a a a a do not contribute to the mass difference between the 0 P : dR,i → −dL,i, dL,i → −dR,i. (8) and 0− states. V (Σ), which is not shown explicitly, de- notes the interaction potential terms for the meson fields Thus the Lorentz scalar, S (J π = 0+), and pseudoscalar, that cause the spontaneous symmetry breaking, Eq. (12). P (0−), operators can be identified by Hereafter, we will omit the kinetic and potential parts of a 1 a a 1 abc bT c the mesons, because we consider only the mean fields of S = √ (d − d ) = √  ijk(q Cγ5 q ), (9) i 2 R,i L,i 2 j k the mesons. As the diquark is not a color-singlet state, we have a 1 a a 1 abc bT c Pi = √ (dR,i + dL,i) = √  ijk(qj C qk). (10) introduced a color-gauge-covariant derivative in Eq. (16), 2 2 α α Dµ = ∂µ + igT Gµ, with Gµ being the gluon field, and These relations show that the scalar and pseudoscalar T α the color SU(3) generator for the 3¯ representation. diquarks, given as Nos. 1 and 2 of Table I, belong to (3¯, 1) All the color indices are contracted and not explicitly and (1, 3)¯ representations of chiral symmetry. Thus, we written. The kinetic energy term of the gluons fields is conclude that the scalar and pseudoscalar diquarks are also omitted. chiral partners. It is easy to check that the Lagrangian, Eq.(16), is chiral invariant and parity conserving. We may rewrite the Lagrangian in terms of the parity eigenstates, Eqs. (9) C. Chiral Lagrangian in the chiral limit and (10), as

µ † µ † We now introduce the chiral (3,3)¯ meson fields Σ, L = DµSi (D Si) + DµPi (D Pi) 2 † † which contain nonet pseudoscalar and nonet scalar −m0(SiSi + PiPi ) mesons. Their chiral transform is given by m2 − 1 (−S σ S† + P σ P † − iS π P † + iP π S†) † ¯ f i ij j i ij j i ij j i ij j Σij ≡ σij + iπij → UL,ikΣkmUR,mj (3, 3) (11) m2 where σ represents a scalar nonet, and π a pseudoscalar − 2   −S (σ σ − π π )S† 2f 2 ijk `mn k `i mj `i mj n nonet. Σ transforms under the spatial inversion as P : † † † Σ → Σ . Chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken by +Pk(σ`iσmj − π`iπmj)Pn + iSk(π`iσmj + σ`iπmj)Pn the vacuum state, which is represented by the vacuum †  −iPk(π`iσmj + σ`iπmj)Sn (17) expectation value (VEV) of the scalar field σ as hΣ i = hσ i = fδ , hπ i = 0 (12) ij ij ij ij D. Masses of the diquarks and generalized where f is the pion decay constant. For this vacuum, Goldberger-Treiman relation πij is the nonet of massless Nambu-Goldstone bosons. To read off the conventional meson contents from Σ, one In the mean field approximation, keeping the SU(3) uses the Gell-Mann matrices, λp, as symmetry, hΣiji = fδij, the masses of the diquarks are read from Σij ≡ (λp)ij(σp + iπp) (13) L = −m2(d d† + d d† ) 1  †  mass 0 R,i R,i L,i L,i σp = Tr λp(Σ + Σ ) , (14) 4 2 2 † † −(m1 + m2)(dR,idL,i + dL,idR,i), (18) 1  †  πp = Tr λp(Σ − Σ ) . (15) 4i which leads to the mass matrix for (dR,i, dL,i) as Note that σ and π contain the flavor singlet components,  m2 m2 + m2  for which we use λ = p2/31 with the unit matrix 1. M 2 = 0 1 2 (19) 0 m2 + m2 m2 We are ready to present an effective Lagrangian in the 1 2 0 chiral limit as Diagonalizing the mass matrix, we obtain the mass eigen- µ † µ † states, L = DµdR,i (D dR,i) + DµdL,i (D dL,i) 2 † † 1 −m (dR,id + dL,id ) a a a 0 R,i L,i Si = √ (dR,i − dL,i) 2 2 m1 † † † q − (dR,iΣijdL,j + dL,iΣijdR,j) + 2 2 2 f −→ M(0 ) = m0 − m1 − m2, (20) 2 m2 † † † † a 1 a a − ijk`mn(dR,kΣ`iΣmjdL,n + dL,kΣ`iΣmjdR,n) P = √ (d + d ) 2f 2 i 2 R,i L,i 1 q  µ †  − 2 2 2 + Tr ∂ Σ ∂µΣ + V (Σ). (16) −→ M(0 ) = m + m + m , (21) 4 0 1 2 4 which are also the eigenstates of the parity. negative-parity excited heavy baryon into the positive- Now it is clear how the diquark masses are generated parity ground states. from the spontaneous chiral-symmetry breaking (SCSB). On the other hand, the coupling constant of the singlet + In the regime of complete chiral restoration, the 0 and (eta) meson π0 = η1 is given by − 0 diquarks are degenerate with the mass m0. This is 2 2 m1 − 2m2 the limit where all the hadrons are subjected to belong gπ0SP = . (24) to a parity doublet. In the ordinary vacuum of QCD, the f SCSB resolves their degeneracies. In the present case, This relation is not a GT relation and is not directly 2 2 derived from the symmetry because the axial U (1) is the mass splitting is given by the m1 and m2 terms. A It should be noted that the diquarks are bosons and explicitly broken and the singlet η1 is not a massless their chiral behaviors are different from fermions. In the Nambu-Goldstone boson as is discussed in the next sec- linear sigma model for baryons, if we assign the chirality tion. of the baryon according to the chirality of quarks (naive choice), then the baryon mass should vanish in the chiral- symmetric limit. In this case, the baryon mass comes E. UA(1) anomaly only from SCSB. It was, however, shown that the mirror assignment of chirality (L ↔ R reversed) of the baryon So far, we have considered the chiral SU(3)R ×SU(3)L is possible, and then the chiral symmetric mass term is symmetry. The given Lagrangian, Eq.(16), is invariant allowed. Realistic baryons may be a mixing of these two under the SU(3)R × SU(3)L transform. However, the assignments [30–32]. QCD Lagrangian for massless quarks has another axial In contrast, the chiral representation of the spin-0 di- symmetry, UA(1) symmetry, which counts the difference quarks allows both the chiral symmetric and SCSB mass of right and left quarks, regardless of flavor. In fact, this 2 symmetry is not realized in the hadron spectrum due terms simultaneously. Namely, the m0 term is indepen- 2 2 to anomaly. It is known that the instanton, a topolog- dent from SCSB, while the m1 and m2 terms contribute to the baryon masses only when the chiral symmetry is ically nontrivial configuration of the gluon field in the spontaneously broken. Euclidean 4-dimensional space-time, plays a leading role 2 2 in the U (1) breaking. There the light quarks, (u, d, s) As is shown in Eq.(17), the m1 and m2 terms of the La- A grangian describe the meson-diquark interactions. The couples to the instanton in an axial-symmetry breaking π − S − P vertex terms are given by manner [33, 34]. In low-energy effective field theories, the UA(1) im2 anomaly can be taken into account as an effective L = 1 (S π P † − P π S†) πSP f i ij j i ij j symmetry-breaking term. For instance, for the light me- † im2 son sector, it is given as an extra term like gD det (Σ+Σ ) − 2   (S π hσ iP † − P π hσ iS† ) (Kobayashi-Maskawa-’t Hooft (KMT) term) 1. It makes f 2 ijk `mn k `i mj n k `i mj n the flavor singlet η1(= π0) massive, while the octet i(m2 + m2) 1 2 † † η8(= π8) is massless in the chiral limit [35–37]. = (SiπijPj − PiπijSj ) f We similarly consider the UA(1) anomaly for the di- 2 2 im quark effective theory. It happens that the m1 term of − 2 Tr[π](S P † − P S†) f i i i i Eq.(16), 2 2 m2 i(m1 + m2) † † 1 † † † = π (Sλ P − P λ S ) Lm1 = − (dR,iΣ d + dL,iΣijd ) (25) f p p p f ij L,j R,i 3im2 breaks U (1) symmetry [22, 23]. It is easy to prove − 2 π (Sλ P † − P λ S†) (22) A f 0 0 0 that each term contains three left and three right quarks with antisymmetric flavor indices. Thus the term is pro- √ † † where π0 = η1 = 6Tr[π] is the singlet pseudoscalar portional to deti,j(qR,jqL,i + qL,jqR,i). This is nothing meson. but the determinant interaction, which is known to come We then obtain the relation between the octet-meson- from the instanton-light-quark couplings and breaks the diquark couplings and the mass differences of diquarks, UA(1) symmetry. In fact, by using the Fierz transforma- as a generalized Goldberger-Treiman (GT) relation, tion, one can explicitly show † † b a a b† 2 2 2 − 2 + dR,iΣ d ∝ d (q q¯ )d m1 + m2 M (0 ) − M (0 ) ij L,j R,i R,i L,j L,j gπSP ≡ = . (23) cT d eT f † a a f 2f = bcdipq(qR,p C qR,q)bef jrs(qL,r C qL,s) (qR,iq¯L,j) a a This relation can also be derived from the conserva- = 12 detij(¯qL,iqR,j) (26) tion of the flavor-octet axial-vector currents and the existence of the massless Nambu-Goldstone bosons, πp (p = 1,... 8). Note that this coupling is a nonderivative, 1 We suppose that this term is included in the meson potential S-wave, coupling that describes the mesonic decay of the term in Eq. (16). 5

It is clear that this term breaks UA(1) symmetry as the where MQ is the heavy-quark mass. As stated above, numbers of left and right quarks in each term are dif- one can absorb MB0 into the redefinition of MQ, which ferent. On the other hand, it keeps SU(3)R × SU(3)L implies that it is impossible to distinguish MB0 and MQ. invariant, because the flavor determinant is invariant un- Now, let us assume that the binding energies between der the SU(3) transform. the heavy quark Q and the diquark qq are the same for Figure 1 shows the chiral properties of the vertices of the baryons with positive and negative parities. Then, 2 the Lagrangian, Eq. (16). The m1 term contains a six- the mass difference between two baryons is determined 2 quark vertex induced by the instanton, while the m2 term by the mass difference of the relevant diquarks. By com- does not break the UA(1) symmetry. The UA(1) anomaly paring the formulas in Eq. (28) with the ones for diquark effects will arise to the diquark mass and interaction only masses in Eqs. (20) and (21), the mass difference of chi- when the chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken. ral partners of the singly heavy baryons is related to the diquark mass parameter as

− + F. Masses of the singly heavy baryons MB− − MB+ = M(0 ) − M(0 ) q q = m2 + m2 + m2 − m2 − m2 − m2 . (29) As the diquarks are not directly observed, we may in- 0 1 2 0 1 2 stead consider a singly heavy baryon, a bound state of a diquark with a heavy quark Q (charm or bottom) [28, 29]. III. QUARK MASSES, SU(3) BREAKING Corresponding baryons are ΛQ, and ΞQ with spin-parity 1/2+ and 1/2−. We write down the effective Lagrangian for the Qqq baryons with the one-to-one correspondence It is important to include the effects of the explicit to Eq.(16), as breaking of chiral symmetry due to the quark masses, (m , m , m ), which are not zero nor equal. The mass ¯ ¯ u d s LQqq baryons = SR,i(iv · ∂)SR,i + SL,i(iv · ∂)SL,i hierarchies of the light mesons and baryons reflect the
−MB0 S¯R,i SR,i + S¯L,i SL,i SU(3) breaking due to the quark masses. In effective M theories, this effect comes either in the choices of the − B1 (S¯ ΣT S + S¯ ΣT †S ) f R,i ij L,j L,i ij R,j parameters, or with extra terms with explicit breaking or both. M − B2   (S¯ ΣT ΣT S + h.c.), (27) 2f 2 ijk `mn L,k `i mj R,n where SL/R,i denotes the effective field for the Qqq A. Chiral Lagrangian with explicit symmetry baryon multiplets with the left/right 3¯ representation breaking µ carrying the velocity v . We note that these SL/R,i fields are the heavy hadron effective fields for the fluc- In the linear sigma model, we consider the effective µ 2 tuation modes satisfying v γµ SL/R,i = SL/R,i. We quark mass generated by the current quark mass and the may redefine the fields to eliminate the MB0 term as spontaneous chiral-symmetry breaking. Namely, with µ −iMB0v xµ SL/R,i → e SL/R,i, but we keep this term to the condensation of σ, the quarks acquire an effective see the explicit correspondence to the diquark Lagrangian mass of ∼ 300 − 500 MeV. in Eq. (16). The MB1 term is the one that breaks the UA(1) symmetry. This term generates anomalous meson- −miq¯iqi −→ −(mi + gshσiii)¯qiqi (30) baryon couplings, the S-wave Ξ (1/2−)Ξ (1/2+)π and Q Q where m is the current quark mass of the ith flavor and Ξ (1/2+)Λ (1/2−)K couplings. The M term is in- i Q Q B2 g (∼ 3) denotes the coupling of the scalar meson, σ, to variant under U (1) symmetry transformation in addi- s A the quark. We choose hσ i = hσ i = f ∼ 92 MeV and tion to the chiral SU(3) × SU(3) symmetry transfor- 11 22 π R L hσ i = f = 2f − f ∼ 128 MeV. mation. 33 s K π In a more general form, using the quark mass matrix, As in Eq. (12), the VEV of Σ field causes the sponta- M ≡ diag(m , m , m ), and the VEV of Σ, we write the neous chiral-symmetry breaking. Then, from the above u d s effective mass as Lagrangian, the masses of the baryons with positive and negative parities are given by Meff = M + gshΣi ' (gsfπ) diag{1, 1,A}, (31) M = M + M − M − M , f  m  B+ Q B0 B1 B2 A ≡ s 1 + s > 1. (32) MB− = MQ + MB0 + MB1 + MB2 . (28) fπ gsfs Here we neglect u and d quark masses ∼2 and 5 MeV, respectively, as they are much smaller than gsfπ ∼ 300 2 The fields SL/R,i are related to the heavy baryon Dirac field MeV, while for ms ∼ 100 − 200 MeV, A ∼ 5/3 gives a µ P −iMQv xµ significant correction. operators BL/R,i as BL/R,i = vµ e BL/R,i(v) and SL/R,i = P+BL/R,i(v), where P+ is the projection operator de- Now we consider the symmetry breaking in the interac- µ fined as P+ = (1 + v γµ)/2 and MQ is the heavy-quark mass. tion terms of the Lagrangian, Eq.(16). The above consid- 6

2 2 2 FIG. 1. Quark line representations of the diquark interaction terms. (a) m1 term, (b) m1 term with quark condensate, (c) m2 2 term, and (d) m2 term with quark condensate.

+ eration leads us to a prescription that the explicit sym- The eigenstates coincide with the scalar (Si, 0 ) and − metry breaking is introduced by the replacement, pseudoscalar (Pi, 0 ) diquarks again and their masses are given by Σ −→ Σ˜ ≡ Σ + M/gs. (33) q + + 2 2 2 This is justified because every mass insertion to a quark M1(0 ) = M2(0 ) = m0 − m1 − Am2, (38) line in Feynman diagrams can have chiral-symmetry q + 2 2 2 breaking hqq¯ i condensate in the same line. M3(0 ) = m0 − Am1 − m2, (39) Then this prescription gives the Lagrangian that in- q − − 2 2 2 cludes explicit chiral-symmetry breaking as M1(0 ) = M2(0 ) = m0 + m1 + Am2, (40) 2 q m † † † − 2 2 2 1 ˜ ˜ M3(0 ) = m + Am + m . (41) Lint = − (dR,iΣijdL,j + dL,iΣijdR,j) 0 1 2 fπ 2 Now one sees nontrivial hierarchy structures of the di- m2 ˜ ˜ † − 2 ijk`mn(dR,kΣ`iΣmjdL,n + h.c.), (34) quark masses. From Eqs. (38)-(41), one obtains 2fπ 2 2 2 2 M (0+) − M (0+) = M (0−) − M (0−) ˜ 1 1,2 3 3 1,2 with Σij ≡ Σij + Mij. 2 2 gs = (A − 1)(m1 − m2). (42) Note that the i = 1 (ds) and i = 2 (su) diquarks are the B. Diquark masses with SU(3) breaking ones with the strange quark, while the i = 3 (ud) diquark is nonstrange. Suppose that the (ud) scalar diquark is lighter than In the chiral-symmetry breaking vacuum, by replac- the (ds) and (su) diquarks. This is a natural assumption ing Σ˜ with its expectation value, hΣ˜i = M /g = eff s which can be confirmed from the spectrum of the singly f diag {1, 1,A}, in Eq.(34), we can read off the mass π heavy baryons, M(Ξ = Qsu, Qds) > M(Λ = Qud). terms, as Q Q As M1 and M2 correspond to the isodoublet diquarks, 2 † † + + Lmass = −m0(dR,idR,i + dL,idL,i) we need to have a mass hierarchy, M1(0 ) = M2(0 ) > + 2 2 2 2 † † M3(0 ). Now from Eq. (42) and A > 1, m1 > m2 is −(m1 + Am2)(dR,1dL,1 + dL,1dR,1 required. Then for the negative-parity diquarks, we will † † have M (0−) = M (0−) < M (0−). This is an inverse +dR,2dL,2 + dL,2dR,2) 1 2 3 hierarchy, because for the negative-parity diquarks, the 2 2 † † −(Am1 + m2)(dR,3dL,3 + dL,3dR,3). (35) strange ones (i = 1, 2) are lighter than the nonstrange The mass eigenstates are obtained by diagonalizing the (i = 3) one. mass matrix for each flavor,  2 2 2  2 m0 m1 + Am2 IV. NUMERICAL ESTIMATES (M )1,2 = 2 2 2 , (36) m1 + Am2 m0  2 2 2  2 m0 Am1 + m2 In order to determine the parameters of the effective (M )3 = 2 2 2 . (37) Am1 + m2 m0 Lagrangian, we need to have a few inputs. Ideally, the 7

2 masses of the diquarks are useful. There are several at- It should be noted here that the value of m2 happens tempts of computing the diquark masses and spectrum in to be negative, but it is perfectly all right because this lattice QCD [11–15]. As the diquark is not a color-singlet is a parameter of the Lagrangian whose sign is not con- state, we need either fixing the gauge on the lattice and strained. measure the diquark masses, or placing a heavy color source to compensate the color of the diquark and mea- sure the mass (energy) differences of the different diquark B. Method II states. Both the methods give qualitatively consistent results, in particular for the mass difference between the As an alternative, we may use the charmed baryon scalar diquark (0+) and the axial-vector diquark (1+), masses to determine the mass differences of the diquarks. which is about 150 − 200 MeV. In order to determine the diquark masses, we need the + + − The other possible inputs are the masses of singly masses of M(Λc, 1/2 ), M(Ξc, 1/2 ) and M(Λc, 1/2 ). heavy baryons. The bound states of a spin-0 diquark The first two are experimentally given as [45] + and a charm quark form charmed baryons, such as Λc + ± +,0 ± M(Λc, 1/2 ) = 2286.46 MeV, (48) (cud, 1/2 ) and Ξc (csu or csd, 1/2 ) [38–44]. Assum- 1 ing that the charm quark is a spectator, we can estimate M(Ξ , 1/2+) = (M(Ξ+) + M(Ξ0)) = 2469.42 MeV. the mass differences among the diquarks from those of c 2 c c the baryons. (49) Here we present two methods of determining the pa- However, the masses of the negative-parity states have rameters, Method I (from lattice QCD) and II (from not been determined by experiment. Λ (1/2−) observed heavy baryon masses), in the following. c at 2592 MeV is not a 0− diquark bound state, but is rather a P -wave bound state of the 0+ diquark (see dis- − A. Method I cussions in Sec. IV C). Then the bound state of a 0 diquark and a charm quark is the second (ρ-mode) 1/2− state and we do not have experimental data yet. There- First, we take the diquark masses from a recent lattice fore we here use a quark model prediction of the second QCD calculation for the Landau gauge in full QCD [15], − Λc(1/2 ) from Ref. [25], + M3(0 ) = 725 MeV, (43) − M(Λc, 1/2 ) = 2890 MeV. (50) − M3(0 ) = 1265 MeV, (44) + Using these data, we find M1,2(0 ) = 906 MeV. (45) + + M1(0 ) − M3(0 ) Then from Eq. (42), we obtain + + = M(Ξc, 1/2 ) − M(Λc, 1/2 ) = 183 MeV. (51) − − + M1,2(0 ) = 1142 MeV. (46) M3(0 ) − M3(0 ) + = M(Λ , 1/2−) − M(Λ , 1/2+) = 604 MeV. (52) By using the observed Λc(1/2 ) mass given in Eq. (48) c c + as an input, we estimate the mass of Ξc(1/2 ) as By using the lattice data for the lightest diquark mass as + an input, M(Ξc, 1/2 ) theo + + + + = M(Λc, 1/2 ) + (M1,2(0 ) − M3(0 )) = 2467 MeV, M3(0 ) = 725 MeV, (53) which beautifully agrees with the experimental value we obtain, from Eqs. (51), (52) and (42), − given in Eq. (49). Similarly, the masses of Λc(1/2 ) and M (0+) = 906 MeV, (54) − 1 Ξc(1/2 ) are predicted as − M3(0 ) = 1329 MeV, (55) − − M(Λc, 1/2 ) theo M1(0 ) = 1212 MeV. (56) + − + = M(Λc, 1/2 ) + (M3(0 ) − M3(0 )) = 2826 MeV, Then the masses of the 1/2− charmed baryons are pre- − M(Ξc, 1/2 ) theo dicted as + − + − = M(Λc, 1/2 ) + (M1,2(0 ) − M3(0 )) = 2704 MeV. M(Ξc, 1/2 ) theo = 2772 MeV . (57) Note that the above results are independent from the Again, the above results are independent from the choice of A. We, however, have to fix A to determine choice of A, while we can determine the parameters of 2 2 the Lagrangian parameters m1 and m2. By assuming the Lagrangian for the Method II, by setting A = 5/3, A = 5/3, as 2 2 2 2 m0 = (1031 MeV) , m0 = (1070 MeV) , 2 2 2 2 m1 = (606.3 MeV) , (47) m1 = (632 MeV) , (58) 2 2 2 2 m2 = −(274.4 MeV) . m2 = −(213 MeV) . 8

2 2 2 2 Method I Method II Experiment A m1 (MeV ) m2 (MeV ) + 2 2 M3(0 ) (MeV) 725* 725* 1.50 (696) −(328) + 2 2 M1,2(0 ) (MeV) 906* 906 1.67 (631) −(210) − 2 M3(0 ) (MeV) 1265* 1329 1.91 (569) 0 − 2 2 M1,2(0 ) (MeV) 1142 1212 2.00 (552) (96) + M(Λc, 1/2 )(MeV) 2286* 2286* 2286.46 + M(Ξc, 1/2 )(MeV) 2467 2469* 2469.42 2 2 TABLE IV. A dependences of the parameters, m1 and m2 for − M(Λc, 1/2 )(MeV) 2826 2890* 2592 the Method II. − M(Ξc, 1/2 )(MeV) 2704 2772 2793 2 2 2 2 m0 (MeV ) (1031) (1070) 2 2 2 2 In the present numerical analysis, the parameter A is m1 (MeV ) (606) (631) 2 2 2 2 fixed to 5/3 ∼ 1.67. This value comes from the conven- m2 (MeV ) −(274) −(210) tional wisdom in the quark model that the ratio of the constituent quark masses of s and u/d is given by TABLE III. Parameters of the chiral effective theory and the Meff (s) 5 predicted diquark and baryon masses. The asterisk is for the A = ∼ . (59) M (u/d) 3 input values. The experimental value of the Ξc mass is the eff (charge) average of Ξ0 and Ξ+. c c Let us estimate A according to the definition, Eq. (32). First, fs = 128 MeV, and fπ = 92 MeV are determined from the weak decays of the pseudoscalar mesons. gs C. Discussions is the coupling constant of the pion to the u, d quark. It can be related to the πNN coupling constant, ı.e., The results obtained from the two methods are sum- 1 gs = 3 gπNN ∼ 4.2, Here we use gπNN = 12.5, which marized in Table III. One immediately sees that the two is determined from the Goldberger-Treiman relation. Fi- methods give almost identical results. This simply indi- nally ms is the current strange quark mass determined in cates that our scheme works very well with the diquark the chiral perturbation theory, ms ∼ 85 − 105 MeV [45]. masses given by the lattice QCD calculation. From these values, we obtain A ∼ 1.61 − 1.67, which A prominent feature of the mass spectrum is the in- agrees with our choice. − − verse ordering of Λc(1/2 ) and Ξc(1/2 ). This is anoma- While this estimate is plausible, we check how the re- lous from the quark model viewpoint because Ξc = (csq) sults depend on the value of A. We recalculate the La- contains a strange quark and is expected to be heavier grangian parameters for A = 1.5 and 2 for the Method than Λ (cqq) for the same quantum numbers. A naive 2 c II. Noting that m0 does not depend on A, we obtain estimate would conclude M(Ξc) ∼ M(Λc) + 200 (MeV), 2 2 while the present chiral dynamics predicts M(Ξc) ∼ m1 = (696 MeV) , M(Λ ) − 120 (MeV) for the 1/2− states. The difference 2 2 c m2 = −(328 MeV) , (60) comes from the combination of the UA(1) anomaly term and the second-order chiral-symmetry breaking term as for A = 1.5 and is seen in Eq. (42). 2 2 − m = (552 MeV) , The PDG [45] reports a Λc(1/2 ) state at 2592 MeV 1 − 2 2 and a Ξc(1/2 ) state at 2793 MeV (Table III). However, m2 = (96 MeV) , (61) they may not directly be compared with our predictions. There are two competing structures for the negative par- for A = 2. ity 1/2− baryon resonances, either a bound state of 0+ We summarize the A dependence in Table IV. It is 2 diquark and a charm in P wave (L = 1) (λ-mode), or a found that the value of m2 is sensitive to the choice of bound state of 0− and a charm in S wave (ρ-mode). Our A. In fact, we can fit to the charmed baryon masses 2 diquark picture assumes the ρ-mode excited states, where without m2 term for A = 1.91. On the other hand, the 2 the diquark itself is excited. In the quark model analysis, UA(1) anomaly term, m1, is more stable and is consis- the ρ-mode states are in general heavier than the λ-mode tently dominant. states [46]. In fact, Λc(2592) fits to the λ-mode in the quark model very well [25]. On the other hand, because of the inverse ordering, V. CONCLUSION − our prediction of Ξc(1/2 ) comes as low as the observed state, Ξc(2793), while, in the quark model, Ξc(2793) In this paper, we have proposed a chiral effective the- would be assigned to the λ-mode excitation. It is in- ory of scalar and pseudoscalar diquarks. Based on the teresting to see whether Ξc(2793) is possible to be the linear representations, we find that the color 3,¯ flavor 3¯ − + − ρ-mode excitation. If so, we expect to have two Ξc(1/2 ) and spin-parity 0 diquark, S, and the 0 diquark, P , states in the same energy region. with the same color and flavor, form a chiral (3¯, 1)+(1, 3)¯ 9 representation. Their mass difference comes from spon- methods of determining the parameters, which give sim- taneous chiral symmetry breaking (SCSB). ilar results. The most prominent feature of the diquark picture of the charmed baryon is the reversed ordering A linear-sigma-model Lagrangian is constructed with − − 2 2 2 of Λc(1/2 ) and Ξc(1/2 ). We predict a lower mass for three mass parameters, m0, m1 and m2. Among them, − 2 Ξc(1/2 ). This inversion is caused by the UA(1) anomaly m0 represents the chiral invariant mass. On the other 2 2 term. A similar mass inversion was seen also in the scalar hand, the m1 and m2 terms yield masses under SCSB. Furthermore, the m2 term breaks the axial U (1) symme- meson spectrum in a chiral effective theory approach [36]. 1 A Numerical values of the parameters in the effective La- try and thus represents the UA(1) anomaly. It is shown 2 grangian show that the UA(1) anomaly term is domi- that the m0 mass is diagonal in the chirality of the di- 2 2 nant for the mass difference between the positive- and quark, while the m1 and m2 masses are off-diagonal, con- necting the left and right diquarks. The scalar and pseu- negative-parity diquarks. doscalar diquarks are mass eigenstates and their mass So far, we have introduced only the scalar and pseu- 2 2 doscalar diquarks. It is interesting to extend this ap- difference is given by m1 and m2. We also find that the coupling of the pseudoscalar octet mesons to the diquarks proach to vector and axial-vector diquarks. Considering satisfies the generalized Goldberger-Trieman relation. finite temperature and baryon density is another direc- tion to explore, as the diquark masses might change due By introducing the finite quark mass effects, we find to restoration of the chiral-symmetry breaking. These 2 that the contributions of the UA(1) anomaly mass m1 are subjects of future studies. depend on the quark mass in a reversed manner com- 2 pared to the m2 contributions. As a result, we find the inverse mass ordering of the negative-parity diquarks, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS M(us/ds, 0−) < M(ud, 0−). In order to estimate the coupling constants in the ef- We thank Dr. Daisuke Jido for useful discussions. fective Lagrangian, we take into account the results of This work was supported in part by JSPS KAKENHI lattice QCD calculations of diquark masses and also the Grant Nos. JP16K05345 (M.H.), JP17K14277 (K.S.), masses of the bound states of a charm quark and a di- JP19H05159 (M.O.), and also by NNSFC (No. 11775132) quark, i.e., singly charmed baryons. We propose two (Y.R.L).

[1] H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, S. L. Zhu, “The hidden- 222002. charm pentaquark and tetraquark states,” Phys. Rept. [13] R. Babich, N. Garron, C. Hoelbling, J. Howard, L. Lel- 639, 1 (2016). louch, C. Rebbi, “Diquark correlations in baryons on the [2] A. Hosaka, T. Iijima, K. Miyabayashi, Y. Sakai, S. Yasui, lattice with overlap quarks,” Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) “Exotic hadrons with heavy flavors: X, Y, Z, and related 074021. states,” PTEP 2016, no. 6, 062C01 (2016). [14] T. DeGrand, Z. Liu, S. Schaefer, “Diquark effects in light [3] S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki, D. Zieminska, “Nonstandard baryon correlators from lattice QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 77 heavy mesons and baryons: Experimental evidence,” (2008) 034505. Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, no. 1, 015003 (2018). [15] Y. Bi, H. Cai, Y. Chen, M. Gong, Z. Liu, H. X. Qiao, [4] Y. R. Liu, H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Y. B. Yang, “Diquark mass differences from unquenched “Pentaquark and Tetraquark states,” Prog. Part. Nucl. lattice QCD,” Chin. Phys. C 40 (2016) 073106. Phys. 107, 237 (2019). [16] D. Ebert, T. Feldmann, C. Kettner and H. Reinhardt, “A [5] M. Ida, R. Kobayashi, “Baryon resonances in a quark Diquark model for baryons containing one heavy quark,” model,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 36 (1966) 846. Z. Phys. C 71 (1996) 329. [6] D. B. Lichtenberg, L. J. Tassie, “Baryon Mass Splitting [17] K. Nagata, A. Hosaka and L. J. Abu-Raddad, “The Mass in a Boson-Fermion Model,” Phys. Rev. 155 (1967) 1601. of the nucleon in a chiral quark-diquark model,” Phys. [7] M. Anselmino, E. Predazzi, S. Ekelin, S. Fredriksson, Rev. C 72, 035208 (2005), Erratum: [Phys. Rev. C 73, D. B. Lichtenberg, “Diquarks,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 65 049903 (2006)]. (1993) 1199. [18] V. Dmitrasinovic, K. Nagata and A. Hosaka, “Chiral [8] R. L. Jaffe and F. Wilczek, “Diquarks and exotic spec- properties of baryon interpolating fields,” Mod. Phys. troscopy,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 232003. Lett. A 23, 2381 (2008). [9] R. L. Jaffe, “Exotica,” Phys. Rept. 409 (2005) 1. [19] D. K. Hong, C. J. Song, “Light scalar decay in diquark [10] D. K. Hong, Y. J. Sohn, I. Zahed, “A Diquark chiral chiral effective theory,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 27 (2012) effective theory and exotic baryons,” Phys. Lett. B 596 1250051. (2004) 191. [20] M. G. Alford, K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek, “QCD at [11] M. Hess, F. Karsch, E. Laermann, I. Wetzorke, “Di- finite baryon density: Nucleon droplets and color super- quark masses from lattice QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) conductivity,” Phys. Lett. B 422 (1998) 247. 111502. [21] R. Rapp, T. Sch¨afer,E. V. Shuryak and M. Velkovsky, [12] C. Alexandrou, P. de Forcrand, B. Lucini, “Evidence for “Diquark Bose condensates in high density matter and diquarks in lattice QCD,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) instantons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 53. 10

[22] T. Hatsuda, M. Tachibana, N. Yamamoto, G. Baym, [35] T. Hatsuda, T. Kunihiro, “QCD phenomenology based “New critical point induced by the axial anomaly in dense on a chiral effective Lagrangian,” Phys. Rept. 247 (1994) QCD,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 122001. 221. [23] N. Yamamoto, M. Tachibana, T. Hatsuda, G. Baym, [36] Y. Kuroda, M. Harada, S. Matsuzaki, D. Jido, “In- “Phase structure, collective modes, and the axial verse Mass Hierarchy of Light Scalar Mesons Driven by anomaly in dense QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 76, 074001 Anomaly-Induced Flavor Breaking,” arXiv:1910.09146 (2007). [hep-ph]. [24] K. Kim, D. Jido,S. H. Lee, “Diquarks: a QCD sum rule [37] S. Kono, D. Jido, Y. Kuroda, M. Harada, “Role of UA(1) perspective,” Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 025204. breaking term in dynamical chiral symmetry breaking of [25] T. Yoshida, E. Hiyama, A. Hosaka, M. Oka, K. Sadato, chiral effective theories,” arXiv:1910.12982 [nucl-th]. “Spectrum of heavy baryons in the quark model,” Phys. [38] L. Liu, H. W. Lin, K. Orginos and A. Walker-Loud, Rev. D 92 (2015) 114029. “Singly and Doubly Charmed J=1/2 Baryon Spectrum [26] D. Jido, M. Sakashita, “Quark confinement potential ex- from Lattice QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 094505. amined by excitation energy of the Λc and Λb baryons in a [39] R. A. Briceno, H. W. Lin and D. R. Bolton, “Charmed- quark-diquark model,” PTEP 2016 (2016) no.8, 083D02. Baryon Spectroscopy from Lattice QCD with Nf = 2 + [27] K. Kumakawa, D. Jido, “Excitation energy spectra of the 1 + 1 Flavors,” Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 094504. Λc and Λb baryons in a finite-size diquark model,” PTEP [40] Y. Namekawa et al. [PACS-CS Collaboration], “Charmed 2017 (2017) no.12, 123D01. baryons at the physical point in 2+1 flavor lattice QCD”, [28] Y. Kawakami, M. Harada, “Analysis of Λc(2595), Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 094512. Λc(2625), Λb(5912), Λb(5920) based on a chiral partner [41] Z. S. Brown, W. Detmold, S. Meinel and K. Orginos, structure,” Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 114024. “Charmed bottom baryon spectroscopy from lattice [29] Y. Kawakami, M. Harada, “Singly heavy baryons with QCD”, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 094507. chiral partner structure in a three-flavor chiral model,” [42] P. Perez-Rubio, S. Collins and G. S. Bali, “Charmed Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 094016. baryon spectroscopy and light flavor symmetry from lat- [30] C. E. Detar and T. Kunihiro, “Linear σ Model With tice QCD”, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 034504. Parity Doubling,” Phys. Rev. D 39, 2805 (1989). [43] C. Alexandrou, C. Kallidonis, “Low-lying baryon masses [31] D. Jido, Y. Nemoto, M. Oka and A. Hosaka, “Chiral sym- using Nf = 2 twisted mass clover-improved fermions di- metry for positive and negative parity nucleons,” Nucl. rectly at the physical pion mass”, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) Phys. A 671, 471 (2000). 034511. [32] D. Jido, T. Hatsuda and T. Kunihiro, “Chiral symmetry [44] K. U. Can, H. Bahtiyar, G. Erkol, P. Gubler, M. Oka realization for even parity and odd parity baryon reso- and T. T. Takahashi, “Spectrum of the Charmed Baryons nances,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 3252. in 2+1-flavor Lattice QCD,” JPS Conf. Proc. 26 (2019) [33] G. ’t Hooft, “Computation of the Quantum Effects Due 022028. to a Four-Dimensional Pseudoparticle,” Phys. Rev. D 14, [45] M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), “The Review 3432 (1976) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 18, 2199 (1978)]. of Particle Physics”, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 030001, and [34] G. ’t Hooft, “How Instantons Solve the U(1) Problem,” 2019 update on-line http://pdg.lbl.gov. Phys. Rept. 142, 357 (1986). [46] L. A. Copley, N. Isgur, G. Karl, “Charmed baryons in a quark model with hyperfine interactions”, Phys. Rev. D 20 (1979) 768–775.