We study color allowed ${\mathrm{\Lambda }}_b\to {\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c^{(*,**)}{M}^{-}$, ${\mathrm{\Xi }}_b\to {\mathrm{\Xi }}_c^{(**)}{M}^{-}$, and ${\mathrm{\Omega }}_b\to {\mathrm{\Omega }}_c^{(*)}{M}^{-}$ decays with $M=\pi ,K,\rho ,K^{*},D,D_s,D^{*},D_s^{*},a_1$, ${\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c^{(*,**)}={\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c,{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c(2595),{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c(2765),{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c(2940)$, ${\mathrm{\Xi }}_c^{(**)}={\mathrm{\Xi }}_c,{\mathrm{\Xi }}_c(2790)$, and ${\mathrm{\Omega }}_c^{(*)}={\mathrm{\Omega }}_c,{\mathrm{\Omega }}_c(3090)$, in this work. There are three types of transitions, namely ${\mathcal{B}}_b({\overline{\mathbf{3}}}_{\mathbf{f}},1/2^{+})$ to ${\mathcal{B}}_c({\overline{\mathbf{3}}}_{\mathbf{f}},1/2^{+})$, ${\mathcal{B}}_b({\mathbf{6}}_{\mathbf{f}},1/2^{+})$ to ${\mathcal{B}}_c({\mathbf{6}}_{\mathbf{f}},1/2^{+})$, and ${\mathcal{B}}_b({\overline{\mathbf{3}}}_{\mathbf{f}},1/2^{+})$ to ${\mathcal{B}}_c({\overline{\mathbf{3}}}_{\mathbf{f}},1/2^{-})$ transitions. The bottom baryon to charmed baryon form factors are calculated using the light-front quark model. Decay rates and up-down asymmetries are predicted using naïve factorization and can be checked experimentally. We find that in ${\mathcal{B}}_b\to {\mathcal{B}}_{c}P$ decays, rates in ${\mathcal{B}}_b({\mathbf{6}}_{\mathbf{f}},1/2^{+})\to {\mathcal{B}}_c({\mathbf{6}}_{\mathbf{f}},1/2^{+})$ [type (ii)] transition are smaller than those in ${\mathcal{B}}_b({\overline{\mathbf{3}}}_{\mathbf{f}},1/2^{+})\to {\mathcal{B}}_c({\overline{\mathbf{3}}}_{\mathbf{f}},1/2^{+})$ [type (i)] transition, but similar to those in ${\mathcal{B}}_b({\overline{\mathbf{3}}}_{\mathbf{f}},1/2^{+})\to {\mathcal{B}}_c({\overline{\mathbf{3}}}_{\mathbf{f}},1/2^{-})$ [type (iii)] transition, while in ${\mathcal{B}}_b\to {\mathcal{B}}_{c}V,{\mathcal{B}}_{c}A$ decays, rates in ${\mathcal{B}}_b({\mathbf{6}}_{\mathbf{f}},1/2^{+})\to {\mathcal{B}}_c({\mathbf{6}}_{\mathbf{f}},1/2^{+})$ [type (ii)] transition are much smaller than those in ${\mathcal{B}}_b({\overline{\mathbf{3}}}_{\mathbf{f}},1/2^{+})\to {\mathcal{B}}_c({\overline{\mathbf{3}}}_{\mathbf{f}},1/2^{+})$ [type (i)] transition and are also smaller than those in ${\mathcal{B}}_b({\overline{\mathbf{3}}}_{\mathbf{f}},1/2^{+})\to {\mathcal{B}}_c({\overline{\mathbf{3}}}_{\mathbf{f}},1/2^{-})$ [type (iii)] transition. For the up-down asymmetries, the signs are mostly negative, except for those in the ${\mathcal{B}}_b({\mathbf{6}}_{\mathbf{f}},1/2^{+})\to {\mathcal{B}}_c({\mathbf{6}}_{\mathbf{f}},1/2^{+})$ [type (ii)] transition. Most of these asymmetries are large in sizes. The study on these decay modes may shed light on the quantum numbers of some of the charmed baryons as the decays depend on the bottom baryon to charmed baryon form factors, which are sensitive to the configurations of the final state charmed baryons.

• Received 3 December 2018

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.014023

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP³.

Published by the American Physical Society