Arxiv:1909.13562V1 [Hep-Ph] 30 Sep 2019

Low-energy axial-vector transitions from decuplet to octet baryons

M˚ansHolmberg and Stefan Leupold Institutionen f¨orfysik och astronomi, Uppsala Universitet, Box 516, S-75120 Uppsala, Sweden (Dated: October 1, 2019) Axial-vector transitions of decuplet to octet baryons are parametrized at low energies guided by a complete and minimal chiral Lagrangian up to next-to-leading order. It is pointed out that beyond the well-known leading-order term, there is only one contribution at next-to-leading order. This contribution is ﬂavor symmetric. Therefore the corresponding low-energy constant can be determined in any strangeness sector. As functions of this low-energy constant, we calculate the decay widths and Dalitz distributions for the decays of decuplet baryons to octet baryons, pions, and photons and for the weak decay of the Omega baryon to a cascade baryon, an electron, and an anti-neutrino.

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY transitions can be written as µ µν hB∗(p0)|j |B(p)i =u ¯ (p0)Γ u(p) (1) One of the interesting processes of neutrino-nucleon A ν scattering is the production of the lowest-lying Delta with q = p0 − p and state [1–5]. On the theory side, the relevant quantities are µν µ ν 2 µν 2 the vector and axial-vector form factors for the transition Γ = q q H0(q ) + g H1(q ) µ ν µν 2 µα ν 2 of a nucleon to a Delta. While the vector transition form + (γ q − /q g )H2(q ) + iσ qαq H3(q ) . (2) factors can also be addressed in the electro-production of The advantage of the decomposition (1), (2) lies in the a Delta on a nucleon, information about the axial-vector fact that contributions to the axial-vector transition form transition form factors is scarce. Of course, the situa- factors H start only at the ith chiral order for i = 1, 2, 3. tion is even worse in the strangeness sector. At least, i This is easy to see because the momentum q carried by the decay width of the reaction Ω → Ξ0 e ν¯ has been − − e the axial-vector current is a small quantity of chiral order measured [6, 7]. 1. In particular, this implies that H does not receive The purpose of the present work is to study the low- 3 contributions from leading order (LO) and from NLO. energy limit of these axial-vector transition form factors The “regular” contributions to H start also at third chi- and to point out various ways how to measure these quan- 0 ral order, but H receives a contribution at LO from a tities. Recently we have established a complete and mini- 0 Goldstone-boson pole term. mal relativistic chiral Lagrangian of next-to-leading order For the following rewriting, it is of advantage to recall (NLO) for the three-flavor sector including the lowest ly- the equations of motion for the spin-1/2 spinors u and ing baryon octet and decuplet states [8]. Based on this the spin-3/2 Rarita-Schwinger vector-spinors [9] u : Lagrangian, we will calculate various observables that de- ν pend on the low-energy constants (LECs) that enter the (p/ − m8) u(p) = 0 , (p/0 − m10) uν (p0) = 0 (3) axial-vector transition form factors. Dealing with a chiral baryon Lagrangian at NLO where m8/10 denotes the mass of the considered baryon means that we carry out tree-level calculations. But why octet/decuplet state. Note that the mass difference m10− do we bother about such NLO tree-level results, if the m8 is counted as a small quantity. state of the art seems to be one-loop calculations [2, 3]? The use of the form factor H3 is not very common. α Though axial-vector transition form factors have been Instead of iσµαq qν one often uses a structure calculated at the one-loop level of chiral perturbation pµ0 qν − p0 · q gµν ; see e.g. [2, 3] and references therein. theory (χPT), the numerically fairly unknown tree-level The problem with the latter structure is, however, that arXiv:1909.13562v1 [hep-ph] 30 Sep 2019 contributions have often been formulated based on non- it looks like an additional fourth independent term that minimal Lagrangians. In this way, one assumes a too contributes at NLO. Instead, the decomposition (2) large number of to be fitted parameters and one misses shows that there are only three structures up to and cross relations between form factors and also between including NLO — and H0 receives only a Goldstone- different processes. Therefore we have decided to go one boson pole contribution, i.e. there are only two inde- step back and analyze the NLO structure, i.e. tree-level pendent terms up to and including NLO. The structure structure of the axial-vector transition form factors. Of pµ0 qν − p0 · q gµν is not required up to and including course, this can only be the first step of a more detailed NLO. To make contact between different ways how to investigation that should go beyond the NLO level. parametrize the transition form factors, one can use a Let us start with the introduction of pertinent axial- Gordon-type identity, vector transition form factors where we can already point α u¯ν −2p0 + (m10 + m8)γµ + qµ − iσµαq u = 0 , (4) out some short-comings of previous works. With B de- µ noting a spin-1/2 baryon from the nucleon octet and B∗ a which can easily be established using the equations of spin-3/2 baryon from the Delta decuplet, the axial-vector motion (3). 2

We can now focus on the three form factors H0, H1 and Decay hA H2, which receive contributions already at LO or NLO, ∆ → Nπ 2.87 ± 0.05 respectively. Using the Lagrangians of LO and NLO from Σ∗+ → Λπ+ 2.39 ± 0.03 [8] one obtains Σ∗+ → (Σπ)+ 2.2 ± 0.1 Ξ∗0 → (Ξπ)0 2.00 ± 0.06

TABLE I: Determination of hA from different decay channels of decuplet baryons. We used mixed states in h 1 the case of the ∆ → Nπ decay. The errors come from the H (q2) = −√A k , 0 2 2 f experimental uncertainties of the particle masses, decay 2 q − mGB widths, and branching ratios. hA H1 = √ kf , 2 H2 = −2cE kf (5) In section II we present the basics of the relevant LO and NLO Lagrangian of baryon octet plus decuplet and Goldstone-boson octet χPT. We also specify the numerical values of the previously determined LECs. This is the first part of the paper. In section III, we specify the rele- → 0 with the LO low-energy constant h and the NLO low- vant interaction terms of the Ω− Ξ e−ν¯e decay and we A also present the LO and NLO decay width predictions (as energy constant cE. The flavor factor kf depends on the considered channel, i.e. on the flavors of B, B and the a function of cE). Section IV is outlined similarly to sec- ∗ tion III but in the case of B(J = 3/2) → B(J = 1/2)γπ axial-vector current. Correspondingly, mGB denotes the mass of the Goldstone-boson that can be excited in the processes. We close by showing the cE dependence of 0 → + considered channel. The flavor factor is extracted from the single differential decay width of Ξ∗ Ξ−π γ and ade ¯ν µ b c finally give some concluding remarks. Tabc (a )d Be.

We deduce from (5) the following information: In the NLO approximation, one needs for all the axial-vector II. CHIRAL LAGRANGIAN decuplet-to-octet transitions only two flavor symmetric low-energy constants. It does not matter in which flavor The relevant part of the LO chiral Lagrangian for channels one determines these constants. The main part baryons including the spin-3/2 decuplet states is given of this paper is devoted to suggestions how to pin down by [8, 12–16] the NLO low-energy constant cE. (1) ¯ ¯µ α ν abc Lbaryon = tr B iDB/ + Tabc iγµναD (T ) Obviously, cE contributes differently than hA. Thus a minimal and complete NLO Lagrangian must contain a D µ F µ + tr(B¯ γ γ5 {uµ,B}) + tr(B¯ γ γ5 [uµ,B]) cE-type structure. It is missing, for instance, in [10]. It 2 2 might be interesting to explain why this low-energy con- hA ade µ b c e µ d abc + √ T¯ (uµ) B + ade B¯ (u ) T stant has an index “E” for “electric”. At low energies, i.e. 2 2 abc d e c b µ in the non-relativistic limit for the baryons, the dominant HA µ 0 − T¯ γ γ (uν )c T abd (6) contribution for the H2 form factor stems from γ and 2 abc ν 5 d µ from spatial ν. This selects the combination qja0 − q0aj, which constitutes an electric axial-vector field strength. with tr denoting a flavor trace. For mesons the well know LO chiral Lagrangian is given by [17–19] We close the present section by determining hA. The corresponding structure of the LO Lagrangian gives rise F 2 L(1) = π tr(u uµ) . (7) to decays of decuplet baryons to pions and octet baryons. meson 4 µ From each of the measured decay widths, one can extract an estimate for hA. This is provided in table I, which is in In principle, mass terms for the baryons mesons should agreement with [11]. Note that this is an approximation be added to (6) and (7) and to the NLO Lagrangian given for the decay widths that is accurate up to and including later. We later use the physical masses for each particle. NLO — because there are no additional contributions at This is a proper procedure in NLO accuracy [8]. NLO [8]. One cannot expect to obtain always the very We have introduced the totally antisymmetrized prod- same numerical result for hA. But the spread in the ob- ucts of two and three gamma matrices [20], tained values can be regarded as an estimate for the ne- glected contributions that appear beyond NLO. Indeed, 1 γµν := [γµ, γν ] = −iσµν (8) those contributions break the flavor symmetry. 2 3 and for an anti-decuplet by 0 0 µνα 1 µ ν α ν α µ α µ ν µ ¯ µ ¯ µ a ¯ µ b ¯ γ := (γ γ γ + γ γ γ + γ γ γ (D T )abc := ∂ Tabc − (Γ )a Ta0bc − (Γ )b Tab0c 6 0 µ c ¯ − γµγαγν − γαγν γµ − γν γµγα) − (Γ )c Tabc0 , (16) 1 and for the Goldstone boson fields by = {γµν , γα} = +iµναβγ γ , (9) 2 β 5 ∇µU := ∂µU − i(vµ + aµ) U + iU (vµ − aµ) (17) respectively. Our conventions are: γ := iγ0γ1γ2γ3 and 5 with 0123 = −1 (the latter in agreement with [20] but opposite to [15, 21]). If a formal manipulation program is used to 1 Γµ := u† (∂µ − i(vµ + aµ)) u calculate spinor traces and Lorentz contractions a good 2 check for the convention for the Levi-Civita symbol is the + u (∂µ − i(vµ − aµ)) u† , (18) last relation in (9). where v and a denote external vector and axial-vector The spin-1/2 octet baryons are collected in (Ba is the b sources. entry in the ath row, bth column) Standard values for the coupling constants are Fπ =   1 Σ0 + 1 ΛΣ+ p 92.4 MeV, D = 0.80, F = 0.46. For the pion-nucleon √2 √6 coupling constant this implies g = F + D = 1.26. In  1 0 1  A B =  Σ− − Σ + Λ n  .  √2 √6  the case of HA, we use estimates from large-Nc consider- 0 2 9 Ξ Ξ − Λ ations: HA = gA ≈ 2.27 [15, 21] or HA = 9F − 3D ≈ − √6 5 (10) 1.74 [14, 22], since we lack a simple direct observable to The decuplet is expressed by a totally symmetric flavor pin it down. Numerically we use HA ≈ 2.0. tensor T abc with At NLO, we have five terms that contribute to the decays of interest [8]: two octet sector terms fields that 1 T 111 = ∆++,T 112 = √ ∆+, are given by 3 µν µν bM,D tr(B¯{f , σµν B}) + bM,F tr(B¯[f , σµν B]) , (19) 122 1 0 222 + + T = √ ∆ ,T = ∆−, 3 one term from the decuplet sector given by 113 1 + 123 1 0 223 1 µν c abd T = √ Σ∗ ,T = √ Σ∗ ,T = √ Σ∗−, dM i (T¯µ)abc (f ) T , (20) 3 6 3 + d ν and finally two decuplet-to-octet transition terms given 133 1 0 233 1 333 T = √ Ξ∗ ,T = √ Ξ∗−,T = Ω . (11) by 3 3 ¯e µν d abc The Goldstone bosons are encoded in icM ade Bc γµγ5(f+ )b Tν √ √ µν  0 1 + +  ¯e d abc π + η 2 π 2 K + i cEade Bc γµ(f )b Tν + h.c. . (21) √ √3 √ −  0 1 0  µν Φ =  2 π− −π + η 2 K  , The field strengths f are given by  √ √ √3  ± 0 2 µν µν µν 2 K− 2 K¯ − η √3 f := u FL u† ± u† FR u (22) ± 2 u := U := exp(iΦ/Fπ) , uµ := i u† (∇µU) u† = uµ† .(12) with The fields have the following transformation properties µν µ ν ν ν µ µ µ µ ν ν FR,L := ∂ (v ± a ) − ∂ (v ± a ) − i [v ± a , v ± a ] . with respect to chiral transformations [12, 19] (23)

U → LUR† ,u → L u h† = h u R† , Interactions with external forces are studied by the replacement of the vector and axial-vector sources vν , aν . u → h u h ,B → h B h , (13) µ µ † † For electromagnetic interactions we have the replacement abc a b c def ¯µ d e f ¯µ Tµ → hd he hf Tµ ,Tabc → (h†)a (h†)b (h†)c Tdef . [23] In particular, the choice of upper and lower flavor indices  2 0 0  is used to indicate that upper indices transform with h 3  1  under flavor transformations while the lower components vµ → eAµ  0 − 0  (24)  3  transform with h . † 0 0 − 1 The chirally covariant derivative for a (baryon) octet 3 is defined by with the photon field Aµ and the proton charge e; and for weak interactions mediated by the W-bosons we have DµB := ∂µB + [Γµ,B] , (14) the replacement [23] for a decuplet T by   0 0 0 Vud Vus µ abc µ abc µ a a bc µ b ab c gw + (D T ) := ∂ T + (Γ ) 0 T + (Γ ) 0 T − → −√   a b vµ aµ Wµ  0 0 0  + h.c. (25) µ c abc0 2 + (Γ )c0 T , (15) 0 0 0 4

+ with the W-boson ﬁeld Wµ , the Cabibbo-Kobayashi- Maskawa matrix elements Vud, Vus [24], and the weak gauge coupling gw (related to Fermi’s constant and the W mass).

The values of the low-energy constants bM,D/F and dM are determined by ﬁtting the calculated and measured magnetic moments of the octet and decuplet baryons, 1 respectively. The results are: bM,D ≈ 0.321 GeV− , 1 1 bM,F ≈ 0.125 GeV− , and dM ≈ −1.16 GeV− . Further- more, from the radiative decay of decuplet baryons to 1 a pion and a photon, one obtains cM ≈ ±1.92 GeV− . The values of the above NLO LECs come from [8]. Next we present two types of decay channels that can be 0 FIG. 2: NLO branching ratio of Ω− → Ξ e−ν¯e as a func- used to determine cE and the sign of cM , starting with 0 tion of cE, together with the LO result and the experi- Ω− → Ξ e−ν¯e. mental value [7]. The gray box illustrates the measure- In view of the absence of data that one can use to ment uncertainty. help pin down cE and the sign of cM ; we stress that the purpose of this paper is to motivate such experiments and not to explore the uncertainties of already determined LECs. Therefore, we stick to the central values of those LECs for numerical results.

− 0 − III. DECAY PROCESS Ω → Ξ e ν¯e

There are two contributing tree-level diagrams at NLO We then ﬁt the NLO branching ratio to the measure- in χPT for the decay of the Omega baryon decaying 1 ment, resulting in cE: (0.5 ± 1) GeV− and (−5 ± 1) into a Cascade baryon, an electron, and an electron anti- 1 GeV− . The error comes from the experimental uncer- neutrino. These are shown in ﬁgure 1. tainty of the branching ratio. We cannot distinguish between the two solutions of cE by only considering the in- 0 p Ξ 0 tegrated decay width, and likewise, we cannot pin down p Ξ P P the sign of cM since the partial decay width contains no Ω− e− linear c term. k k Ω− e− M 1 k k1 k W − K−

W −

k2 k2 We can instead study the distribution of the double ν¯e ν¯e diﬀerential decay width to obtain more information. In

FIG. 1: Diagrams contributing to the decay of Ω− → figure 3 we illustrate the double differential decay distri- 0 Ξ e−ν¯e. These two diagrams are the only two topologi- bution for the four different solutions of cM and cE in the cally distinct diagrams at NLO, but note that the ΩΞW - frame where the electron and anti-neutrino goes back to ~ ~ vertex comes from three terms. back, i.e., k1 + k2 = 0. We chose to work with the kine- 2 matic variables m (e−ν¯e) and cos(θ), where θ is the angle between the three-momenta of the Cascade baryon and At LO, we have three contributing terms: the ∼ hA term the electron. With enough statistics, it would be possible from (6), the kinetic term for the mesons in (7), as well as to distinguish between all four cases, and even with less the standard weak charged-current interaction term [23]. statistics, it could be possible to at least determine the Going to NLO, we also have the ∼ cM/E terms in (21). relative sign of cM and cE, depending on where one finds When calculating the decay width we used Mathematica the majority of events in the Dalitz plots (i.e., closer to and FeynCalc to perform the traces of the gamma ma- cos(θ) = 1 or cos(θ) = −1). Note also that there is an ap- trices [25, 26]. The resulting partial decay width at NLO parent antisymmetry such that cM → −cM is equivalent 2 2 2 contains terms proportional to hA, cE, cM and hAcE. to cos(θ) → − cos(θ). This is, however, only approxi- Figure 2 illustrates the calculated and measured branch- mately true when the lepton masses are small compared ing ratio. We use the values of the LECs described in to the hadron masses. In the case of vanishing lepton section II together with hA = 2.0, i.e., the value of hA masses, we find that all linear terms of cos(θ) in the dou- obtained from fitting the partial decay width of Ξ∗ → Ξπ ble differential decay width are proportional to cM . This to data, again see table I. phenomenon is called forward-backward asymmetry [27]. 5

0.06 γ B p 0.04 k P P q T γ 0.04 T π 0.03 π k p k + q q 0.02 B 0.02 π 0.01 1. 2. 0 0 π γ −1 −1 q (a) cM = 1.92 GeV , (b) cM = 1.92 GeV , k −1 −1 P P cE = 0.5 GeV cE = −5 GeV T γ T π B0 B q 0.06 k 0 k + p q + p 0.04 p p

0.04 0.03 B B 3. 4. 0.02 0.02 π γ q 0.01 k P P T γ T π 0 0 T 0 k T 0 q k + p q + p −1 −1 (c) cM = −1.92 GeV , (d) cM = −1.92 GeV , p p −1 −1 cE = 0.5 GeV cE = −5 GeV B B FIG. 3: The double differential decay distribution of 5. 6. 0 Ω− → Ξ ν¯ee− for the two solutions of cE and for different signs of cM . The scale of the double differential FIG. 4: Diagrams contributing to the decay of a decuplet decay distribution is linear with an arbitrary normaliza- baryon into an octet baryon, a pion and a photon. tion. As before, we use Mathematica and FeynCalc to perform the traces of the gamma matrices. Furthermore, we explicitly checked that the Ward identity for the electro- µ magnetic current holds, that is Mµk = 0 for all decays. Concerning the values of the different LECs, we used hA = 2.4, being the average value of table I, together with 1 1 cM = +1.92 GeV− and cE = 0.5 GeV− . The decays contain infrared divergences resulting from final-state ra- diation that, in the limit of vanishing photon energy, can make a propagating particle on-shell [20]. There- fore, we used a cutoff of the photon energy at 25 MeV (in the frame where ~p + ~q = 0), roughly corresponding to the lowest detectable photon energy at the upcoming PANDA¯ experiment (Antiproton ANnihilation at DArm- stadt) [28–30] and the Beijing Spectrometer III [31]. This cutoff can be arbitrarily chosen to match the photon energy resolution of any experiment. In table II, we have collected the predictions of all energetically possible de- IV. DECAY PROCESSES cays and their branching ratios at LO and NLO as well B(J = 3/2) → B(J = 1/2)γπ as the LEC dependence. Looking at table II we see that decay widths containing only neutral states vanish at LO, which is only natural since neutral hadrons do not interact with photons at LO. Contributions with LO LECs appear at NLO since For the decay of a decuplet baryon into an octet the amplitudes contain structures which are proportional baryon, a pion and a photon we have 6 diagrams at NLO to products of LO and NLO LECs, e.g., diagram 3 gives in χPT. These diagrams are shown in figure 4. The in- terms like ∼ hAbM,D, but with absent pure LO contribu- teraction terms are given by all terms in (6), (7), (19), tions. Furthermore, it is reassuring that the branching (20), and (21). ratios of these neutral decays are small at NLO since they 6

0 + vanish at LO; indicating that the NLO contribution is, Ξ∗ → Ξ− π γ changes when varying cE. in general, a small correction. The branching ratios of decays with neutral pions in the final state are small due to the same reason, that is, since the pion-pion-photon vertex forbids neutral pions, the otherwise large contribution of the pion propagator in diagram 2 disappear. Let us briefly investigate the possible ranges of the different LECs due to their uncertainty, starting with HA. Varying the value of HA by ±0.3 changes the decay widths insignificantly (much less than 1%), except 0 0 0 0 0 in the cases of Ξ∗ → Ξ π γ and ∆ → n π γ which change by 10% and 2%, respectively. We also considered 1 cM = −1.92 GeV− , which changes the decay widths by a few percents (often much less) in the case of decays involving charged states. The four decays with only neutral states (and vanishing decay width at LO) changed FIG. 5: Impact of the two solutions of cE on the single 0 + significantly (up to 80%). But since they vanish at LO differential decay width of Ξ∗ → Ξ−π γ using cM = 1 they are prone to be more sensitive to the values of the +1.92 GeV− . We plot the single differential decay width NLO LECs. down to a photon energy of 50 MeV (otherwise the cE- Once data are available, we can use these radiative dependence is hard to display). The gray intervals come from the uncertainty of the two solutions of c . three-body decays to further investigate cE. For this pur- E 0 0 + pose, the decays Ξ∗− → Ξ π− γ and Ξ∗ → Ξ− π γ are of most interest, since they both have a relatively 3 large branching ratio of ∼ 10− and because of the small We note that at low photon energies both solutions (total) decay width of Cascade baryons (as compared to of cE converge, in the region where the single differen- broad Delta baryons). We find that the decay widths tial decay width blows up, due to the infrared diver- of these two Cascade decays decrease by around 20% gence. Instead, it is at higher photon energies, i.e., lower 2 + 2 when changing to the negative cE solution. In figure m (π Ξ−) = MΞ − 2MΞEγ , where we can distinguish 5 we consider how the single differential decay width of between the two possible cE.

Decay LEC dependence at NLO BR at LO BR at NLO ∗− − 0 −6 −6 Ξ → Ξ π γ hA, dM , bM,D, bM,F 8.2 × 10 8.6 × 10 ∗− 0 − −3 −3 Ξ → Ξ π γ hA,HA, cM , cE , dM , bM,D 1.4 × 10 1.4 × 10 ∗0 − + −3 −3 Ξ → Ξ π γ hA, D, F, cM , cE , bM,D, bM,F 1.2 × 10 1.2 × 10 ∗0 0 0 −6 Ξ → Ξ π γ hA,HA, D, F, cM , bM,D 0 1.9 × 10 ∗+ + 0 −7 −6 Σ → Σ π γ hA,HA, D, cM , dM , bM,D, bM,F 8.9 × 10 1.2 × 10 ∗+ 0 + −5 −5 Σ → Σ π γ hA,HA, F, cM , cE , dM , bM,D 3.6 × 10 3.7 × 10 ∗− − 0 −7 −7 Σ → Σ π γ hA, dM , bM,D, bM,F 6.3 × 10 6.6 × 10 ∗− 0 − −5 −5 Σ → Σ π γ hA,HA, cM , cE , dM , bM,D 4.4 × 10 4.5 × 10 ∗0 + − −5 −5 Σ → Σ π γ hA,HA, D, F, cM , cE , bM,D, bM,F 5.9 × 10 5.9 × 10 ∗0 − + −5 −5 Σ → Σ π γ hA, D, F, cM , cE , bM,D, bM,F 3.3 × 10 3.4 × 10 ∗0 0 0 −8 Σ → Σ π γ hA, D, cM , bM,D 0 2.6 × 10 ∗0 0 −6 Σ → Λ π γ hA, D, cM , bM,D 0 3.6 × 10 ++ + −3 −3 ∆ → p π γ hA,HA, cM , cE , dM , bM,D, bM,F 1.7 × 10 1.8 × 10 + 0 −5 −5 ∆ → p π γ hA,HA, D, F, cM , dM , bM,D, bM,F 5.6 × 10 7.2 × 10 + + −4 −4 ∆ → n π γ hA,HA, D, F, cM , cE , dM , bM,D 7.5 × 10 7.6 × 10 0 − −3 −3 ∆ → p π γ hA,HA, D, F, cM , dM , bM,D, bM,F 1.0 × 10 1.0 × 10 0 0 −6 ∆ → n π γ hA,HA, D, F, cM , bM,D 0 7.6 × 10 − − −3 −3 ∆ → n π γ hA,HA, cM , cE , dM , bM,D 2.3 × 10 2.3 × 10

TABLE II: Branching ratios at LO and NLO of all energetically possible B∗(J = 3/2) → Bπγ decays allowed by ﬂavor 0 symmetry, except Σ∗± → Λ π± γ that run over the pole of Σ . The second column is showing the LEC dependence at NLO. 7

To conclude, we provide two types of decay chan- ried out at PANDA¯ and in part at BES III. nels that can be used to probe the axial-vector transition of a decuplet to an octet baryon, parameterized by cE. The most promising decays for this purpose are ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 0 0 0 + Ω− → Ξ e−ν¯e,Ξ∗− → Ξ π− γ, and Ξ∗ → Ξ− π γ. Moreover, by studying the double diﬀerentiable decay The authors thank Albrecht Gillitzer for valuable dis- distribution of the Omega decay, one can determine the cussions and his interest in a future measurement of the sign of cM . We hope that such experiments can be car- radiative three-body decays using the PANDA¯ experiment.

[1] L. Alvarez-Ruso et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 100, 1 Physics 49, 652 (1973). (2018), arXiv:1706.03621 [hep-ph]. [25] Wolfram Research, Inc., Mathematica (Champaign, IL, [2] M. Procura, Phys. Rev. D78, 094021 (2008), 2019). arXiv:0803.4291 [hep-ph]. [26] R. Mertig, M. Böhm, and A. Denner, Computer Physics [3] L. S. Geng, J. Martin Camalich, L. Alvarez-Ruso, and Communications 64, 345 (1991). M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. D78, 014011 (2008), [27] J. Donoghue, E. Golowich, and B. Holstein, Dynamics arXiv:0801.4495 [hep-ph]. of the Standard Model, Cambridge Monographs on Parti- [4] U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C91, 065501 (2015), cle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology (Cambridge arXiv:1502.08032 [nucl-th]. University Press, 1994). [5]Y. Unal,¨ A. Kü¸cükarslan, and S. Scherer, Phys. Rev. [28] E. Thomé, Multi-Strange and Charmed Antihyperon- D99, 014012 (2019), arXiv:1808.03046 [hep-ph]. Hyperon Physics for P¯ANDA, Ph.D. thesis, Uppsala U. [6] M. Bourquin et al. (Bristol-Geneva-Heidelberg-Orsay- (2012). Rutherford-Strasbourg), Nucl. Phys. B241, 1 (1984). [29] M. F. M. Lutz et al. (PANDA), (2009), arXiv:0903.3905 [7] M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. [hep-ex]. D98, 030001 (2018). [30] W. Erni et al. (PANDA), (2008), arXiv:0810.1216 [8] M. Holmberg and S. Leupold, Eur. Phys. J. A54, 103 [physics.ins-det]. (2018), arXiv:1802.05168 [hep-ph]. [31] M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A614, [9] W. Rarita and J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 60, 61 (1941). 345 (2010), arXiv:0911.4960 [physics.ins-det]. [10] S.-Z. Jiang, Y.-R. Liu, H.-Q. Wang, and Q.-H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D97, 054031 (2018), arXiv:1801.09879 [hep- ph]. [11] C. Granados, S. Leupold, and E. Perotti, Eur. Phys. J. A53, 117 (2017), arXiv:1701.09130 [hep-ph]. [12] E. E. Jenkins and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B259, 353 (1991). [13] M. F. M. Lutz and E. E. Kolomeitsev, Nucl. Phys. A700, 193 (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0105042 [nucl-th]. [14] A. Semke and M. F. M. Lutz, Nucl. Phys. A778, 153 (2006), arXiv:nucl-th/0511061 [nucl-th]. [15] V. Pascalutsa, M. Vanderhaeghen, and S. N. Yang, Phys. Rept. 437, 125 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0609004 [hep-ph]. [16] T. Ledwig, J. Martin Camalich, L. S. Geng, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. D90, 054502 (2014), arXiv:1405.5456 [hep-ph]. [17] S. Weinberg, Physica A96, 327 (1979). [18] J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B250, 465 (1985). [19] S. Scherer and M. R. Schindler, Lect. Notes Phys. 830 (2012). [20] M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory (Westview Press, 1995). [21] T. Ledwig, J. Martin-Camalich, V. Pascalutsa, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. D85, 034013 (2012), arXiv:1108.2523 [hep-ph]. [22] R. F. Dashen and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B315, 425 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9307241 [hep-ph]. [23] S. Scherer, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 27, 277 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0210398 [hep-ph]. [24] M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Progress of Theoretical