text:
# Elsevier instructions for the preparation of a 2-column format camera-ready paper in LaTeX

## 1 Introduction

Given the Standard Model’s remarkable success in accurately describing Physics at length scales ranging from atomic scales all the way down to the shortest currently probed scales of about $`10^{18}`$ m it may appear puzzling that so much theoretical and experimental work is devoted to discovering physics beyond the Standard Model (SM)

In the first part of this talk I review the basic argument - the hierarchy problem - which motivates much of Physics Beyond the SM (PBSM) research. I then argue that the hierarchy problem can be used to make specific predictions with regards to the quantum numbers of new particles we might expect to discover at future colliders, and I present those predictions. In the second part of my talk, I give a pedagogical introduction to a recently discovered new solution to the hierarchy problem, the “Little Higgs” mechanism.

## 2 The hierarchy problem of the Standard Model

The predictions of the Standard Model have been probed directly at LEP and at the Tevatron up to energy scales of order of a few hundred GeV. Lower bounds on masses of new particles BSM are approximately

$`100`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{new}\mathrm{leptons}`$
$`200`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{new}\mathrm{quarks}`$
$`300`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{leptoquarks}`$
$`700`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}W^{}\mathrm{or}Z^{}`$
In addition, precision measurements at LEP, SLC and the Tevatron have indirectly probed scales between 1 and 10 TeV and found no significant disagreement with SM predictions. Finally, bounds on new flavor and CP violating couplings indirectly probe scales as high as 100 to 1000 TeV for new flavor violating couplings or order one at those scales.

Altogether, the experimental evidence shows that the SM works extremely well, and one might be tempted to postulate a “minimal scenario”: we will discover the SM Higgs boson with a mass somewhere between the current lower bound of 114 GeV  and the triviality bound near 500 GeV, and there is no new PBSM up to very high scales. In particular, this would imply that the LHC will not see any PBSM. In the following I argue that this pessimistic option is not only disfavored by the data but is also extremely unlikely because it implies a very delicate and unnatural fine-tuning of parameters.

The bounds from precision data require that new physics at the TeV scale is approximately flavor preserving and sufficiently weakly coupled so as to not generate large radiative corrections. In particular, new particles with masses of order a TeV are not very constrained. Most radiative corrections to precision observables from weakly coupled TeV scale particles are suppressed by factors of $`(M_W/TeV)^2`$ relative to loops with SM particles. Experiments are sensitive at the level of SM loops but not at the level of small corrections to them. Well-known examples for such new physics which may be hiding at the TeV scale are supersymmetry, vector-like extra generations, new gauge bosons or extended Higgs sectors.

Nevertheless, one might argue that the simplest possibility is to assume that the SM remains valid even beyond scales at which it has been directly tested. What is wrong with that possibility, why are we convinced that new physics will be discovered at the TeV scale? The answer is provided by the hierarchy problem which I briefly review here; not because the hierarchy problem is unfamiliar, but because I would like to formulate the problem in a way which best motivates the Little Higgs solution. In addition, I want to connect the hierarchy problem to future experiments.

At the LHC the 1-10 TeV energy scale will be probed directly for the first time. Thus an important question to answer is whether it is natural for the SM to be valid up to these scales (or if we can expect to discover new physics at the LHC). To make the argument, let us assume that the SM is valid up to a cut-off scale of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10`$ TeV. At even higher energies new physics takes over, which implies that we do not know how to compute loop diagrams with momenta larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, thus we will cut such loops off at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The hierarchy problem arises from the fact that there are quadratically divergent loop contributions to the Higgs mass which drive the Higgs mass to unacceptably large values unless the tree level mass parameter is finely tuned to cancel the large quantum corrections.

The most significant of these divergences come from three sources. They are - in order of decreasing magnitude - one-loop diagrams (Figure 1.) involving the top quark, the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge bosons, and the Higgs itself.

All other quadratically divergent diagrams involve small coupling constants and do not significantly contribute for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=`$ 10 TeV. The contributions from the three diagrams are

$$\frac{3}{8\pi ^2}\lambda _t^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(2TeV)^2$$
(1)
from the top loop,

$$\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}g^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(700GeV)^2$$
(2)
from the gauge loop, and

$$\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\lambda ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(500GeV)^2$$
(3)
from the Higgs loop. Thus the total Higgs mass is approximately

$$m_h^2=m_{tree}^2[100105](200GeV)^2.$$
(4)
In order for this to add up to a Higgs mass of order a few hundred GeV as required in the SM fine tuning of one part in 100 (see Figure 2.) is required. This is the hierarchy problem.

Is the SM model already fine tuned given that we have experimentally probed to near 1 TeV and found no PBSM? Setting $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=`$ 1 TeV in the above formulas we find that the most dangerous contribution from the top loop is only about (200 GeV)2. Thus no fine tuning is required, the SM with no new physics up to 1 TeV is perfectly natural, and we should not be surprised that we have not yet seen deviations from it at colliders.

In the following, we will turn the argument around and use the hierarchy problem to predict what forms of new physics exist at what scale in order to solve the hierarchy problem. Consider for example the correction to the Higgs mass form the top loop. Limiting this contribution to be no larger than about 10 times the Higgs mass (limiting fine-tuning to less than 1 part in 10) we find a maximum cut-off for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=`$ 2 TeV. In other words, we predict the existence of new particles with masses less than or equal to 2 TeV which cancel the quadratically divergent Higgs mass contribution from the top quark. In order for this cancellation to occur naturally, the new particles must be related to the top quark by a symmetry. In practice this means that the new particles have to have similar quantum numbers to top quarks. Thus the hierarchy problem predicts a new multiplet of particles with mass below 2 TeV which carry color and are easily produced at the LHC. In supersymmetric extensions these new particles are of course the top squarks.

The contributions from gauge loops also need to be canceled by new particles which are related to the SM $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge bosons by a symmetry. The masses of these states are predicted to be at or below 5 TeV for the cancellation to be natural. Similarly, the Higgs loop requires new states related to the Higgs at 10 TeV. We see that the hierarchy problem can be used to obtain specific predictions.

$`\mathrm{SM}\mathrm{loop}`$ $`\mathrm{maximum}\mathrm{mass}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{new}\mathrm{particles}`$
$`\mathrm{top}`$ $`2\mathrm{TeV}`$
$`\mathrm{weak}\mathrm{bosons}`$ $`5\mathrm{TeV}`$
$`\mathrm{Higgs}`$ $`10\mathrm{TeV}`$
### 2.1 Supersymmetry and the hierarchy

One successful approach to solving the hierarchy problem is based on supersymmetry (SUSY). Loosely speaking, in SUSY every quadratically divergent loop diagram in Figure 1. has a superpartner, a diagram with superpartners running in the loop (Figure 3.). The diagrams with superpartners exactly cancel the quadratic divergences of the SM diagrams. Generically, this happens because superpartner coupling constants are related to SM coupling constants by supersymmetry, but superpartner loops have the opposite sign from their SM partner because of opposite spin-statistics.

In the limit of unbroken supersymmetry the diagrams cancel completely. If weak scale SUSY occurs in nature superpartner masses softly break the supersymmetry. Then the cancellation only takes place above the scale of superpartner masses $`M_{SUSY}`$. Below $`M_{SUSY}`$ only the SM particles exist, thus there the SM loop diagrams (Figure 1) are not canceled but the cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is replaced by $`M_{SUSY}`$.

Experimental bounds on superpartner masses are somewhere in the few hundred GeV range, much lower than the upper bound of 2 TeV from fine tuning constraints top loops. Nevertheless, the MSSM is already somewhat fine tuned. The problem arises from the experimental lower bound on the Higgs mass. As is well known, the tree level Higgs mass in the MSSM is bounded from above by the Z mass. Radiative corrections from stop loops give a positive contribution and can lift the Higgs mass above the experimental bound of 114 GeV. However, a large enough correction requires heavy stops which in turn reintroduce fine tuning.

Current experimental bounds force a minimum fine tuning on the order of $`10\%`$.

### 2.2 SUSY, the only solution to the hierarchy problem?

Until recently it was widely believed that supersymmetry represents the only possible weakly coupled solution to the hierarchy problem. This belief was based on a lack of known alternatives, bolstered by a “folk theorem”. The “folk theorem” loosely states that supersymmetry is the only theory in which quadratic divergences cancel without tuning. The “folk proof” roughly goes as follows: i. boson and fermion loops have opposite signs due to a minus sign in the Feynman rules for fermion loops – ii. therefore cancellation of divergences only occurs between boson and fermion loops – iii. in order for the cancellation to be natural the boson and fermion loops need to be related by a symmetry: supersymmetry.

However, the folk theorem is wrong. Amusingly, a counter example to step ii. in the above “proof” occurs in the MSSM itself. Because it is instructive let us briefly look at this example. The MSSM extends the Higgs sector of the SM to a two Higgs doublet model. The tree level quartic couplings for the Higgses arise from integrating out the D-auxiliary fields in the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge vector multiplets. Looking for example only at the contribution from hypercharge, the relevant terms in the Lagrangian are

$$=\frac{1}{2}D^2+\frac{g}{2}(h_u^{}Dh_uh_d^{}Dh_d)$$
(5)
giving the usual quartic D-term in the Higgs potential

$$V=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{g}{2}\right)^2(h_u^{}h_uh_d^{}h_d)^2$$
(6)
The cancellation of quadratic divergences is most easily understood be keeping the D-auxiliary fields in the theory. Then, the “quartic coupling” contained in eq. (5) leads to three distinct diagrams (Figure 4.).

The first cancels against fermionic loops with gauginos as predicted by the folk theorem. However, the other two diagrams cancel between each other. The cancellation occurs between diagrams with only bosons. It requires no fine tuning because the diagrams are proportional to the hypercharges of the Higgses in the loop which are opposite in sign and equal in magnitude (by gauge invariance and supersymmetry). Thus we see that even in the MSSM some of the quadratic divergences cancel between bosons, with the required difference in sign simply arising from a difference in signs between coupling constants.

## 3 Introducing the Little Higgs

In this part of the talk I give a brief pedagogical introduction to Little Higgs (LH) theories. The material covered is almost entirely contained in the recent literature which I briefly review here: Little Higgs theories are realizations of an old idea to stabilize the Higgs mass by making the Higgs a pseudo-Goldstone boson resulting from a spontaneously broken approximate symmetry. Early attempts at constructing such models  were not entirely successful and quadratic divergences to the Higgs mass remained. The first successful model which canceled all relevant quadratic divergences based on the pseudo-Goldstone idea was constructed by Arkani-Hamed, Cohen and Georgi in . Subsequently, simpler and more elegant models were constructed. The models may be described by their global symmetry breaking patterns, $`SU(5)/SO(5)`$ , $`SU(6)/SP(6)`$ , the minimal moose $`SU(3)^2/SU(3)`$ , and general mooses $`SU(3)^n/SU(3)^k`$ . Model building constraints on specific UV completions of LH have been discussed in , and preliminary studies of LH phenomenology appeared in . More recently, a new variant of the LH mechanism was discovered which does not require duplication of gauge groups . At this conference LH were already presented in two talks by Lane  and Wacker .

Let us begin by discussing LH theories from a phenomenological point of view. It should be clear from the previous section that they necessarily involve new particles related to the top quark, the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge bosons and the Higgs. In LH theories the masses of these new states are given by a single scale $`f`$ at which global symmetries are spontaneously broken. The spectrum of a generic theory is summarized in Figure 5.

From a purely mechanical point of view the cancellation of quadratic divergences in LH models is very simple. As in the case of supersymmetry there are diagrams with new particles in loops which precisely cancel the quadratic divergences. Consider for example the loop involving top quarks. LH Higgs theories contain a new vector like quark $`\chi `$ with mass of order $`f`$ and couplings which are related to the top Yukawa coupling $`\lambda _t`$. The relevant interactions of this new fermion are

$$\lambda _tf\left(1\frac{1}{2}\frac{h^{}h}{f^2}\right)\chi _R^{}\chi _L+h.c.$$
(7)
They allow a new quadratically divergent contribution to the Higgs mass from Figure 6 which involves the same integral as the top loop and is proportional to the coupling constants

$$\lambda _t^{}f(\frac{\lambda _t}{2f})=\frac{1}{2}|\lambda _t^2|.$$
(8)
There are two such diagrams which together exactly cancel the top loop divergence

As advertised, a fermion loop cancels a fermion loop. Similarly, the gauge and Higgs loops are canceled by diagrams with new bosons in loops.

Note that this alone is of course no solution to the hierarchy problem. Without a symmetry which enforces the relations between coupling constants required for the cancellations one has only shifted the fine tuning from the Higgs mass to the coupling constants of the new fields. However, Little Higgs theories have such a symmetry built in. To discover it we will take a little detour.

### 3.1 Higgs as a Pseudo-Goldstone boson

In this section we identify the symmetry which makes the identification of coupling constants of the previous discussion radiatively stable and therefore “technically natural”. To do so we first briefly review Goldstone bosons.

Massless Goldstone bosons always arise when global symmetries are spontaneously broken by the vacuum. Consider for example the theory of a complex scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with potential $`𝒱=𝒱(|\mathrm{\Phi }|)`$. This potential preserves a global $`U(1)`$ symmetry $`\mathrm{\Phi }e^{iϵ}\mathrm{\Phi }`$. If the potential induces a vacuum expectation value for $`<\mathrm{\Phi }>=f`$ then the $`U(1)`$ symmetry is spontaneously broken and a massless Goldstone boson arises. To see this explicitly, it is convenient to parameterize $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(v+r)e^{i\theta /f}`$, where $`r`$ and $`\theta `$ are real fields. Because of the global $`U(1)`$ symmetry $`\theta `$ can be removed from the potential by a space-time dependent $`U(1)`$ transformation with $`ϵ=\theta /f`$. The resulting Lagrangian does not contain $`\theta `$ except in derivative interactions. Therefore $`\theta `$ has no potential and in particular also no mass. The “radial mode” $`r`$ does obtain a mass from the potential and can be integrated out (Figure 7.).

Note that this argument is based only on the existence of the $`U(1)`$ symmetry and is therefore stable under radiative corrections.

To summarize, we now have a simple mechanism for generating massless scalar fields. Unfortunately, the symmetry needed forbids all non-derivative couplings. Thus $`\theta `$ is not a good toy example for a light Higgs, it has no quartic, gauge or Yukawa couplings.

Furthermore, $`\theta `$ also has the wrong quantum numbers to be the SM Higgs. This is easily fixed by generalizing to non-abelian symmetry breaking. Consider for example the breaking of a global $`SU(3)`$ symmetry to $`SU(2)`$ by an expectation value for a complex triplet field $`<\mathrm{\Phi }^T>=<(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\varphi _3)>=(0,0,f)`$. In this vacuum $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is conveniently parameterized as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=e^{i\theta /f}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\hfill \\ 0\hfill \\ f\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(9)
where $`\theta =\theta ^aT^a`$ is a hermitian $`3\times 3`$ matrix containing the properly normalized five Goldstone bosons from the breaking of $`SU(3)SU(2)`$

$$\theta =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}& h\\ h^{}& 0\end{array}\right)+\frac{\eta }{4}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 2\end{array}\right).$$
(10)
Under the unbroken $`SU(2)`$ the four real fields in $`h`$ transform as a complex doublet whereas $`\eta `$ is a singlet. As in the abelian case, by performing a space-time dependent $`SU(3)`$ rotation it is possible to remove all non-derivative interactions of the Goldstone fields. This is still very different from the SM Higgs boson, our “Higgs” $`h`$ is an $`SU(2)`$ doublet but it has no gauge, quartic, or Yukawa interactions and is exactly massless.

To add these couplings we need to explicitly break the global $`SU(3)`$ symmetry. Explicit symmetry breaking introduces non-derivative couplings of the Goldstone bosons, they become pseudo-Goldstone bosons. If the explicit symmetry breaking stems only from a small “spurion” parameter $`ϵ`$ then all non-derivative couplings are proportional to the spurion. This remains true even including radiative corrections. Thus breaking of global symmetries by small spurions gives us control over quantum corrections. In the diagram of Figure 7. a small breaking of the symmetry corresponds to a small tilt of the “Mexican hat” proportional to $`ϵ`$.

This is all very nice and allows us to control the mass of pseudo-Goldstone bosons, however – unfortunately – the SM Higgs couplings are not small. Thus even though radiative corrections are proportional to these couplings, this does not sufficiently suppress the contributions to the Higgs mass; i.e. simply adding the SM Higgs couplings and thereby explicitly breaking the $`SU(3)`$ symmetry leads to the radiative corrections of Figure 1. which are too large $`\lambda _t^2/16\pi ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$.

The new model building idea which led to the construction of Little Higgs models is collective breaking of symmetries. Instead of breaking the symmetry with a single coupling, one introduces two couplings in such a way that each coupling by itself preserves sufficient amount of symmetry to guarantee the masslessness of the pseudo-Goldstone boson. Schematically, we add two new sets of interactions $`_i`$ to the $`SU(3)`$ preserving Lagrangian $`_0`$

$$=_0+ϵ_1_1+ϵ_2_2,$$
(11)
where each term is chosen such that by itself it preserves an $`SU(3)`$ symmetry but that together they break $`SU(3)`$ explicitly. Therefore radiative corrections to the Higgs mass are necessarily proportional to both spurions $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$. In the example we will study below, the fact that both spurions are required implies that quadratically divergent contributions arise only at two loops $`ϵ_1^2/16\pi ^2ϵ_1^2/16\pi ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ which is sufficiently small for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=`$ 10 TeV even for $`ϵ_i1`$.

### 3.2 Toy Little Higgs theory

In order to study the LH mechanism without the notational complexity require by the many fields of the SM let us imagine a toy world without hypercharge in which the only fermions are top and bottom quarks with their normal Yukawa couplings and $`SU(3)\times SU(2)`$ gauge interactions. Particle theorists of this toy world have constructed a “Toy Standard Model” which suffers from the same hierarchy problem as the real SM. In order to protect the toy SM Higgs from quadratic divergences one can introduce an $`SU(3)`$ symmetry which is spontaneously broken to $`SU(2)`$ at the scale $`f`$ 1 TeV. The Higgs consists of four of the resulting Goldstone bosons as described before.

We generate Yukawa and gauge couplings without reintroducing quadratic divergences by using collective symmetry breaking. This is achieved by introducing two $`SU(3)`$ groups which are each spontaneously broken to $`SU(2)`$ by expectation values for two scalar triplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$.

Concretely, $`SU(2)`$-weak is enlarged into an $`SU(3)`$ gauge group. Two scalar fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ are both charged under this $`SU(3)`$ and both obtain expectation values. In order to understand the collective breaking, imagine turning off the gauge coupling to either one of the triplets. In this limit, there are two $`SU(3)`$ symmetries, one gauged, one global. Thus the model has two $`SU(3)`$ symmetries which are explicitly broken to the diagonal gauge group by the gauge couplings. But note that the gauge couplings to both $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ are required for the breaking. The $`SU(3)`$ gauge couplings of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ play the role of the spurions $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$.

It is convenient to parameterize the light fields in the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1=e^{i\theta /f}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\hfill \\ 0\hfill \\ f\hfill \end{array}\right)`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_2=e^{i\theta /f}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\hfill \\ 0\hfill \\ f\hfill \end{array}\right).`$ (19)
Here $`\theta `$ are the pseudo-Goldstone bosons corresponding to breaking of the “axial” $`SU(3)`$. The eaten Goldstone bosons corresponding to the diagonal “vector” $`SU(3)`$ have been removed by a gauge transformation (to unitary gauge). The expectation values $`f`$ of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s have been chosen to be equal for simplicity. Note that neither of the $`SU(3)`$’s here have anything to do with color.

Ignoring the singlet $`\eta `$, the pseudo-Goldstones are

$$\theta =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}& h\\ h^{}& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(20)
i.e. a complex Higgs doublet which is charged under the unbroken $`SU(2)`$ gauge group. Explicitly, the $`SU(2)`$ gauge interactions for $`h`$ stem from the $`SU(3)`$ gauge couplings of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s

$`\left[(_\mu +igA_\mu )\mathrm{\Phi }_1\right]^{}(_\mu +igA_\mu )\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$
$`+\left[(_\mu +igA_\mu )\mathrm{\Phi }_2\right]^{}(_\mu +igA_\mu )\mathrm{\Phi }_2.`$ (21)
In calculating the quadratic divergence from the gauge interactions it is most convenient to work in a manifestly $`SU(3)`$ invariant formalism. Then quadratic divergences simply come from a diagram with external $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s and an $`SU(3)`$ gauge boson loop (the first diagram in Figure 8.).

The quadratic divergence of this diagram produces the operators

$$\frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2\right)$$
(22)
which respects both $`SU(3)`$ symmetries and therefore does not contain couplings of the pseudo-Goldstone bosons. This can also be seen explicitly by substituting eq. (19). The logarithmically divergent second diagram in Figure 8. gives rise to an operator which explicitly breaks $`[SU(3)]^2SU(3)`$ and therefore contains a mass for $`h`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{16\pi ^2}}\left|\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2\right|^2\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/f^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^4f^2}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/f^2)h^{}h,`$ (23)
which is of order 100 GeV for $`f`$ 1 TeV.

The mechanism for adding a top Yukawa coupling without introducing a quadratic divergence relies on the same principle. Since the weak interactions are embedded in an $`SU(3)`$ gauge group we need to introduce left-handed quarks in an $`SU(3)`$ triplet $`(t_L,b_L,\chi _L)`$. The first two components are the usual quark doublet whereas the third component is a new quark. In addition to the triplet we also introduce three right handed quark singlets, two correspond to the right handed top and bottom quarks and one is the right handed component $`\chi _R`$ of the vector like heavy quark $`\chi `$ which is responsible for canceling the top loop divergence. To produce a mass for $`\chi `$ and a Yukawa coupling for the top quark we add

$$\frac{\lambda _t}{\sqrt{2}}(\chi _1\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}+\chi _2\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{})\left(\begin{array}{c}t_L\hfill \\ b_L\hfill \\ \chi _L\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(24)
where – again for simplicity – we have taken the two Yukawa couplings equal and factored out a $`\sqrt{2}`$ in order to simplify subsequent equations. Expanding the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ to second order in the Higgs field and defining the two linear combinations

$$\chi _R=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\chi _1+\chi _2),t_R=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\chi _1\chi _2),$$
(25)
eq. (24) becomes

$$\lambda _tf(1\frac{h^{}h}{2f^2})\chi _R^{}\chi _L+\lambda _tt_R^{}h^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}t_L\hfill \\ b_L\hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(26)
The first term yields a TeV scale mass $`m_\chi =\lambda _tf`$ and a higher-dimensional coupling to the Higgs for the vector-like quark. The second term is the top Yukawa coupling. Note that these couplings are exactly what we needed for the cancellation of the quadratic divergences in Figure 6. The cancellation of the divergence is again most transparent in an $`SU(3)`$ symmetric calculation (Figure 9.).

The first diagram is quadratically divergent but preserves both $`SU(3)`$’s. Therefore the resulting operator

$$\frac{\lambda _t^2}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2\right)$$
(27)
is independent of the pseudo-Goldstones. The second diagram is only logarithmically divergent and gives a a contribution

$$\frac{\lambda _t^4}{16\pi ^2}\left|\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2\right|^2\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/f^2).$$
(28)
This breaks the $`SU(3)`$ symmetry which protects the Higgs mass, but it’s coefficient is sufficiently small (compare to eq. (23)).

This concludes our discussion of the Little Higgs in the toy world. To promote the toy LH model to a fully realistic model requires three extra ingredients i. hypercharge, ii. the other quarks and leptons, iii. a quartic coupling for the Higgs. Adding hypercharge is very easy, one simply gauges one of the global $`U(1)`$ symmetries of the model. The mechanism for canceling quadratic divergences is unchanged by this. Adding the remaining fermions is also straightforward. Note that every SM fermion doublet has to be promoted to a triplet because of the $`SU(3)`$ gauge symmetry. Adding the Higgs quartic coupling is non-trivial and requires some additional structure, which the interested reader can find in .

## 4 Signatures and Conclusions

Little Higgs theories predict new states at the TeV scale which can be seen at the LHC.

Specifically, one generically finds a vector-like quark of charge $`2/3`$ (up-type) which is required to cancel the divergence from the top loop. The new quark can be pair-produced at Hadron colliders as long as it’s mass is within the kinematical reach ($``$ 2 TeV). $`\chi `$’s are expected to decay predominantly to $`h+t`$, $`W+b`$ and $`Z+t`$. In addition we expect new gauge bosons which cancel the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge loops. Their quantum numbers appear to be model dependent. Generically they carry weak charges and may be electrically charged. They couple with weak coupling strength and can be singly produced at colliders. They have couplings to light fermions and can mix with the SM $`W`$ and $`Z`$. These couplings typically lead to the strongest constraints on LH models from electroweak precision tests. Finally, one also expects new scalars with masses somewhere in the 100 GeV - 2 TeV range. The quantum numbers of the scalars are model dependent but additional Higgs doublets are often found. The new scalars couple most strongly to the Higgs, to the weak gauge bosons and to third generation fermions. In some models one of the neutral scalars is stable because of an unbroken discrete symmetry providing an excellent cold dark matter candidate.

In conclusion, I reiterate that despite the spectacular success of the SM in describing all particle physics experiments to date we have good reasons to believe that new physics will be discovered in the foreseeable future at the Tevatron or the LHC. This optimism is based on the belief that the hierarchy problem requires a TeV scale solution. Until recently, the only known such solution which is weakly coupled at the TeV scale and therefore does not suffer from fine tuning problems associated with precision data was supersymmetry. Thanks to recent developments supersymmetry has acquired a competitor, the Little Higgs. Many open questions remain: Are there even simpler Little Higgs models? Which signatures are generic? Are there compelling UV completions to Little Higgs models? What is the origin of flavor? What are the constraints from precision electro-weak fits? … Obviously much more theoretical work is needed to answer these questions, but in the end experiments will have to tell tell us if the Little Higgs has it’s place in nature.

## 5 Acknowledgments

It is my pleasure to thank N. Arkani-Hamed, R.S. Chivukula, A.G. Cohen, H. Georgi, D.E. Kaplan, A.E. Nelson and W. Skiba for introducing me to the Little Higgs. I would also like to thank the organizers of ICHEP2002 for a perfectly organized conference and for inviting me to speak. This work is supported by the Department of Energy with an OJI grant and under contract DE-FG02-91ER-40676.


format: text

text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

Previously CLEO has searched for charmful baryonic $`B`$ decays in the class $`\overline{B}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\overline{N}X`$. The experimental results are :

$`(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(1.33_{0.40}^{+0.46}\pm 0.37)\times 10^3,`$ (1)
$`(B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}\pi ^0)`$ $`<`$ $`3.12\times 10^3,`$ (2)
$`(B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(6.2_{2.0}^{+2.3}\pm 1.6)\times 10^4,`$ (3)
$`(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p})`$ $`<`$ $`2.1\times 10^4.`$ (4)
Recently, Belle  and CLEO  have reported the measurements of the exclusive decays of $`B`$ mesons into final states of the type $`_c\overline{p}n(\pi )`$, where $`_c=\mathrm{\Lambda }_c,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1},\mathrm{\Sigma }_c(2455),\mathrm{\Sigma }_{c1}`$ \[$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_c(2593),\mathrm{\Lambda }_c(2625)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{c1}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_c(2520)`$\] and $`n`$ is the number of the pions in the final state. Form Table I we see that the new measurements of $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ and $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ are consistent with, and much more accurate than, the previous CLEO results (1), however the new result for the former is somewhat low $`(1.5\sigma `$).

In general, CLEO and Belle results are consistent with each other except for the ratio of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^+`$. The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}`$ decay proceeds via both external and internal $`W`$-emission diagrams, whereas the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0`$ decay can only proceed via an internal $`W`$ emission. While Belle measurements imply a sizable suppression for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0`$ decay (and likewise for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{c1}`$ decay), it is found by CLEO that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^0`$ are of the same order of magnitude. Therefore, it is concluded by CLEO that the external $`W`$ decay diagram does not dominate over the internal $`W`$-emission diagram in Cabibbo-allowed baryonic $`B`$ decays. This needs to be clarified by the forthcoming improved measurements.

On the theoretical side, the decays $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ and $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ have been studied by us within the framework of the pole model . We have explained several reasons why the three-body decay rate of $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ is larger than that of the two-body one $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$. At the pole-diagram level, the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b`$ propagator in the pole amplitude for the latter is of order $`1/(m_b^2m_c^2)`$, while the invariant mass of the $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\pi ^{})`$ system can be large enough in the former decay so that its propagator of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ in the pole diagram is not subject to the same $`1/m_b^2`$ suppression. Moreover, the strong coupling constant for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0B^{}p`$ is larger than that for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\overline{B}^0p`$, and this suffice to explain the original CLEO observation.

Since at the pole-diagram level, $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ proceeds through the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b`$ pole, while $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}`$ proceeds through the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ pole, it is naively expected that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p})>\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{})<\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{})`$. However, the latter relation is not borne out by the new measurements of both Belle and CLEO (see Table I). Indeed, at the quark level, it appears that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ should have similar rates as both of them receive external $`W`$-emission contributions.

It turns out that the meson-pole contribution to the three-body baryonic $`B`$ decays which was originally missed in  is important for the charmful $`B`$ decays $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ and $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$. Moreover, this meson-pole effect contributes destructively to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ and constructively to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$. As we shall see, this eventually leads to the explanation of why (B¯0Σc++p¯π)>

(BΛc+p¯π)superscript¯𝐵0superscriptsubscriptΣ𝑐absent¯𝑝superscript𝜋>

superscript𝐵superscriptsubscriptΛ𝑐¯𝑝superscript𝜋{\cal B}(\overline{B}^{0}\to\Sigma_{c}^{++}\bar{p}\pi^{-}){\ \lower-1.2pt\vbox{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{$>$\hss}\lower 5.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}
}}}\ }{\cal B}(B^{-}\to\Lambda_{c}^{+}\bar{p}\pi^{-}).

Since $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ and $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^0`$ can only proceed via an internal $`W`$ emission, it is suitable to apply the pole model to study these two decays. As we shall see later, not all the internal $`W`$-emission diagrams in baryonic decays are subject to color suppression.

The layout of the present paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we first study the two-body charmful decay $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$, $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}`$, $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{n}`$ and $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$. We then turn to the three-body decays $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$, $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$, $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ and $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^0`$ in Sec. III. Discussions and conclusions are given in Sec. IV.

## II Two-body charmful $`B`$ Decays

In this section we shall study the two-body charmful decays $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$, $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}`$, $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{n}`$ and $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$. Since the former has been discussed in , we will describe it in a somewhat cursory way.

### A $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$

To proceed, we first write down the Hamiltonian relevant for the present paper

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{cb}V_{ud}^{}[c_1^{\mathrm{eff}}O_1+c_2^{\mathrm{eff}}O_2]+H.c.,`$ (5)
where $`O_1=(\overline{c}b)(\overline{d}u)`$ and $`O_2=(\overline{c}u)(\overline{d}b)`$ with $`(\overline{q}_1q_2)\overline{q}_1\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)q_2`$ and the effective coefficients $`c_1^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`c_2^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ are renormalization scale and scheme independent. In order to ensure that the physical amplitude is renormalization scale and $`\gamma _5`$-scheme independent, we have included vertex corrections to the hadronic matrix elements. This amounts to redefining the Wilson coefficients $`c_{1,2}(\mu )`$ into the effective ones $`c_{1,2}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Numerically we have $`c_1^{\mathrm{eff}}=1.168`$ and $`c_2^{\mathrm{eff}}=0.365`$ .

The decay amplitude of $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ consists of factorizable and nonfactorizable parts:

$`A(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p})=A(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p})_{\mathrm{fact}}+A(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p})_{\mathrm{nonfact}},`$ (6)
with

$`A(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p})_{\mathrm{fact}}={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{cb}V_{ud}^{}a_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\overline{p}|(\overline{c}u)|00|(\overline{d}b)|\overline{B}^0,`$ (7)
where $`a_2=c_2^{\mathrm{eff}}+c_1^{\mathrm{eff}}/N_c`$. The short-distance factorizable contribution is nothing but the $`W`$-exchange diagram. This $`W`$-exchange contribution has been estimated and is found to be very small and hence can be neglected . However, a direct evaluation of nonfactorizable contributions is very difficult. It is customary to assume that the nonfactorizable effect is dominated by the pole diagram with low-lying baryon intermediate states; that is, nonfactorizable $`s`$\- and $`p`$-wave amplitudes are dominated by $`\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ low-lying baryon resonances and $`\frac{1}{2}^+`$ ground-state intermediate states, respectively . For $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$, we consider the strong-interaction process $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^{+()}\overline{p}`$ followed by the weak transition $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^{+()}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^{}`$ is a $`\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ baryon resonance (see Fig. 1). The pole-diagram amplitude has the form

$`A(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p})_{\mathrm{nonfact}}=\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}(A+B\gamma _5)v_{\overline{p}},`$ (8)
where

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\overline{B}^0p}b_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}}{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^{}}}},B={\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\overline{B}^0p}a_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}}{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b}}},`$ (9)
correspond to $`s`$-wave parity-violating (PV) and $`p`$-wave parity-conserving (PC) amplitudes, respectively, and

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+|_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{PC}}|\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+=\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}a_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}u_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b},\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+|_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{PV}}|\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+=i\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}b_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}u_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^{}}.`$ (10)
The main task is to evaluate the weak matrix elements and the strong coupling constants. We shall employ the MIT bag model  to evaluate the baryon matrix elements (see e.g.  for the method). Since the quark-model wave functions best resemble the hadronic states in the frame where both baryons are static, we thus adopt the static bag approximation for the calculation. Note that because the combination of the four-quark operators $`O_1+O_2`$ is symmetric in color indices, it does not contribute to the baryon-baryon matrix element since the baryon-color wave function is totally antisymmetric. This leads to the relation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+|O_2|\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+=\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+|O_1|\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+`$. From Eq. (5) we obtain the PC matrix element

$`a_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{cb}V_{ud}^{}(c_1^{\mathrm{eff}}c_2^{\mathrm{eff}}){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}}(X_1+3X_2)(4\pi ),`$ (11)
where***For details of the MIT bag model evaluation, see . Note that the bag integrals $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ given in Eq. (B4) of  are defined for the operator $`O_2`$ rather than for $`O_1`$.

$`X_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^R}r^2𝑑r[u_d(r)v_b(r)v_d(r)u_b(r)][u_c(r)v_u(r)v_c(r)u_u(r)],`$ (12)
$`X_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^R}r^2𝑑r[u_d(r)u_b(r)+v_d(r)v_b(r)][u_c(r)u_u(r)+v_c(r)v_u(r)]`$ (13)
are four-quark overlap bag integrals and $`u_q(r)`$, $`v_q(r)`$ are the large and small components of the quark wave functions in the ground $`(1S_{1/2})`$ state. In principle, one can also follow  to tackle the low-lying negative-parity $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^{}`$ state in the bag model and evaluate the PV matrix element $`b_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$. However, it is known that the bag model is less successful even for the physical non-charm and non-bottom $`\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ resonances , not mentioning the charm or bottom $`\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ resonances. In short, we know very little about the $`\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ state. Therefore, we will not evaluate the PV matrix element $`b_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$ as its calculation in the bag model is much involved and is far more uncertain than the PC one .

Using the bag wave functions given in the Appendix of , we find numerically

$`X_1=1.49\times 10^5\mathrm{GeV}^3,X_2=1.81\times 10^4\mathrm{GeV}^3.`$ (14)
The decay rate of $`B_1\overline{}_2`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_1\overline{}_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_c}{4\pi }}\{|A|^2{\displaystyle \frac{(m_B+m_1+m_2)^2p_c^2}{(E_1+m_1)(E_2+m_2)m_B^2}}`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`|B|^2{\displaystyle \frac{[(E_1+m_1)(E_2+m_2)+p_c^2]^2}{(E_1+m_1)(E_2+m_2)m_B^2}}\},`$ (16)
where $`p_c`$ is the c.m. momentum, $`E_i`$ and $`m_i`$ are the energy and mass of the baryon $`_i`$, respectively. Putting everything together we obtain

$`(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p})_{\mathrm{PC}}=5.0\times 10^6\left|{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\overline{B}^0p}}{5}}\right|^2.`$ (17)
The PV contribution is expected to be smaller. For example, it is found to be $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{PV}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{PC}}=0.59`$ in . Therefore, we conclude that

(B¯0Λc+p¯)<

 7.9×106|gΣb+B¯0p5|2.superscript¯𝐵0superscriptsubscriptΛ𝑐¯𝑝<

7.9superscript106superscriptsubscript𝑔superscriptsubscriptΣ𝑏superscript¯𝐵0𝑝52\displaystyle{\cal B}(\overline{B}^{0}\to\Lambda_{c}^{+}\bar{p}){\ \lower-1.2pt\vbox{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{$<$\hss}\lower 5.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}
}}}\ }7.9\times 10^{-6}\left|{g_{\Sigma_{b}^{+}\to\overline{B}^{0}p}\over 5}\right|^{2}. (18)
The strong coupling $`g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\overline{B}^0p}`$ has been estimated in  using the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ quark-pair-creation model and it is found to lie in the range $`|g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\overline{B}^0p}|=610`$. At any rate, the prediction (18) is consistent with the current experimental limit of $`3.1\times 10^5`$ by Belle  and $`9\times 10^5`$ by CLEO . Note that all earlier predictions based on the QCD sum rule  or the pole model  or the diquark model  are too large compared to experiment (see e.g. Table I of ). In the pole-model calculation in , the weak matrix element is largely over-estimated.

### B $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}`$ and $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{n}`$

The pole diagrams for $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}`$ and $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{n}`$ consist of two poles: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^{0()}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^{0()}`$ as depicted in Fig. 2. Proceeding as before, the parity-conserving amplitudes readIt is found in  that the parity-violating contribution to $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}`$ is largely suppressed relative to the parity-conserving one.

$`B(B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0B^{}p}a_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0}}{m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^0B^{}p}a_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0}}{m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b}}},`$ (19)
$`B(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{n})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0\overline{B}^0n}a_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0}}{m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^0\overline{B}^0n}a_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0}}{m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b}}},`$ (20)
where

$`a_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{cb}V_{ud}^{}(c_1^{\mathrm{eff}}c_2^{\mathrm{eff}}){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}}(X_13X_2)(4\pi ),`$ (21)
$`a_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{cb}V_{ud}^{}(c_1^{\mathrm{eff}}c_2^{\mathrm{eff}}){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}(X_1+9X_2)(4\pi ).`$ (22)
There are two models which can be used to estimate the strong couplings: the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ quark-pair-creation model in which the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair is created from the vacuum with vacuum quantum numbers $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$, and the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ model in which the quark pair is created perturbatively via one gluon exchange with one-gluon quantum numbers $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$. Presumably, the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model works in the nonperturbative low energy regime. In contrast, in the perturbative high energy region where perturbative QCD is applicable, it is expected the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ model may be more relevant as the light baryons produced in two-body charmless baryonic $`B`$ decays are very energetic. However, in practice it is much simpler to estimate the relative strong coupling strength in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model  rather than in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ model where hard gluons arise from four different quark legs and generally involve infrared problems.

In the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model we have the relations (see Eq. (3.23) of )

$`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0B^{}p}`$ $`=`$ $`3\sqrt{3}g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^0B^{}p}=3\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\overline{B}^0p},`$ (23)
$`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0\overline{B}^0n}`$ $`=`$ $`3\sqrt{3}g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^0\overline{B}^0n}=3\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\overline{B}^0p}.`$ (24)
This leads to $`|g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0B^{}p}|=18`$ for $`|g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\overline{B}^0p}|=5`$. However, the predicted branching ratio $`1.6\times 10^4`$ for $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}`$ is too large compared to the experimental limits, $`0.93\times 10^4`$ by Belle and $`0.8\times 10^4`$ by CLEO. This means that the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model relation Eq. (23) is badly broken. This is not a surprise: As discussed above, the relevant model for energetic two-body baryonic $`B`$ decays is the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ model. Fitting to the central value of the measured branching ratio of $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}`$, $`0.45\times 10^4`$ (see Table I), we find

$`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0B^{}p}1.2\sqrt{3}g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^0B^{}p}=1.2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\overline{B}^0p}.`$ (25)
The isospin relation leads to

$`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0\overline{B}^0n}1.2\sqrt{3}g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^0\overline{B}^0n}=1.2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\overline{B}^0p}.`$ (26)
Hence, $`|g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0B^{}p}|=|g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0\overline{B}^0n}|7`$ and $`|g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^0B^{}p}|=|g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^0\overline{B}^0n}|3.5`$ for $`|g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\overline{B}^0p}|=5`$. Since $`|g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0B^{}p}|>|g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^0B^{}p}|`$, $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}`$ has a larger rate than $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$. Note that $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}`$ is thus far the only two-body baryonic $`B`$ decay that its evidence has been observed by Belle with a significance of $`3\sigma `$ .

In contrast, the decay rate of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{n}`$ is quite suppressed,

$`(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{n})=6\times 10^7.`$ (27)
It has something to do with the smallness of the weak transition for $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{n}`$. Since $`X_1X_2`$, to a good approximation we have $`a_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0}a_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0}/\sqrt{3}`$ \[see Eq. (21)\]. As $`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0\overline{B}^0n}1.2\sqrt{3}g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^0\overline{B}^0n}`$, there is a large cancellation occurred in the PC amplitude, see Eq. (19). Note that the ratio $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{n})/\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p})`$ is predicted to be 1/2 in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model , whereas it is only of order $`10^2`$ in our case. Therefore, a measurement of the ratio $`R`$ can be used to discriminate between different quark-pair-creation models.

It should be stressed again that the strong couplings are in principle $`q^2`$ dependent. Therefore, the values of strong couplings quoted above should be considered as an average over the allowed $`q^2`$ region.

### C $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$

The relevant pole diagram for the decay $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$ being the antiparticle of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$) consists of the intermediate states $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^{+()}`$. Since the parity-violating amplitude vanishes in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ quark-pair-creation model , we thus have

$`C=0,D={\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+B^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}a_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}}{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b}}},`$ (28)
corresponding to the parity-violating $`p`$-wave and parity-conserving $`d`$-wave amplitudes, respectively, for the decay $`\overline{B}_1(\frac{1}{2}^+)\overline{}_2(\frac{3}{2}^{})`$ with a spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ baryon in the final state,

$`𝒜(\overline{B}_1(p_1)\overline{}_2(p_2))=iq_\mu \overline{u}_1(p_1)(C+D\gamma _5)v_2^\mu (p_2),`$ (29)
where $`v^\mu `$ is the Rarita-Schwinger vector spinor for a spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ antiparticle and $`q=p_1p_2`$. The decay rate is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_1(1/2^+)\overline{}_2(3/2^{}))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_c^3}{6\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_1^2}}\{|C|^2{\displaystyle \frac{[(E_1+m_1)(E_2+m_2)+p_c^2]^2}{(E_1+m_1)(E_2+m_2)m_B^2}}`$ (30)
$`+`$ $`|D|^2{\displaystyle \frac{(m_B+m_1+m_2)^2p_c^2}{(E_1+m_1)(E_2+m_2)m_B^2}}\}.`$ (31)
In the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model one has the relation (see e.g. Eq. (3.32) of )

$`g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+B^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}=2\sqrt{6}g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\overline{B}^0p}.`$ (32)
As before, this $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model relation is also expected to be badly broken. Indeed, it has been pointed out in  that using the strong coupling $`g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+B^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}`$ extracted from Eq. (32) will lead to $`(B^{}p\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{})=5.8\times 10^6`$. Because of the strong decay $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$, the resonant contribution from $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$ to the branching ratio of $`B^{}p\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ would be $`6\times 10^6`$. This already exceeds the recent Belle measurement $`(B^{}p\overline{p}\pi ^{})=(1.9_{0.9}^{+1.0}\pm 0.3)\times 10^6`$ or the upper limit of $`3.7\times 10^6`$ . Therefore, the coupling of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to the $`B`$ meson and the octet baryon is smaller than what is expected from Eq. (32). By applying the same scaling from Eq. (23) to Eq. (25), it is natural to have

$`g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+B^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}0.8\sqrt{6}g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\overline{B}^0p}.`$ (33)
Therefore, $`g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+B^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}=9.8`$ for $`g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\overline{B}^0p}=5`$, which is close to the value of 12 employed in . Numerically, we obtain

$`(B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{})=1.9\times 10^5,`$ (34)
where use of Eq. (11) has been made.

## III Three-body charmful baryonic decays

In this section we shall study the three-body charmful baryonic $`B`$ decays: $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$, $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$, $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ and $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^0`$.

### A $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$

This decay mode has been studied in  by us. However, we have missed an important meson-pole contribution arising from the external $`W`$-emission diagram. As we shall see later, this meson-pole effect dominates the decay $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$.

The decay $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ receives resonant and nonresonant contributions:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{})_{\mathrm{nonr}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{})`$ (35)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}).`$ (36)
As the resonant contributions $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}`$ and $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$ are discussed in the last section, here we will focus on the nonresonant contribution.

The quark diagrams and the corresponding pole diagrams for $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ are shown in Fig. 3. There exist two distinct internal $`W`$ emissions and only one of them is factorizable, namely, Fig. 3(b). The external $`W`$-emission diagram Fig. 3(a) is of course factorizable. The factorizable amplitude reads

$`A(B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{})_{\mathrm{fact}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{cb}V_{ud}^{}\{a_1\pi ^{}|(\overline{d}u)|0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}|(\overline{c}b)|B^{}`$ (37)
$`+`$ $`a_2\pi ^{}|(\overline{d}b)|B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}|(\overline{c}u)|0\}A_1+A_2,`$ (38)
where $`a_1=c_1^{\mathrm{eff}}+c_2^{\mathrm{eff}}/N_c`$. Let us first consider the factorizable amplitude $`A_2`$, as shown in Fig. 3(b), which has the expression

$`A_2={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ud}V_{cb}^{}a_2\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}[(ap/_\pi +b)(cp/_\pi +d)\gamma _5]v_{\overline{p}},`$ (39)
where

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`2f_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(t)F_1^{B\pi }(t)+2f_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(t)F_1^{B\pi }(t),`$ (40)
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}m_p)f_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(t)\left[F_1^{B\pi }(t)+(F_0^{B\pi }(t)F_1^{B\pi }(t)){\displaystyle \frac{m_B^2m_\pi ^2}{t}}\right]`$ (42)
$`2f_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(t)F_1^{B\pi }(t)(p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}p_p)p_\pi /(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+m_p)+f_3^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(t)F_0^{B\pi }(t)(m_B^2m_\pi ^2)/(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+m_p),`$
$`c`$ $`=`$ $`2g_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(t)F_1^{B\pi }(t)+2g_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(t)F_1^{B\pi }(t)(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}m_p)/(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+m_p),`$ (43)
$`d`$ $`=`$ $`(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+m_p)g_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(t)\left[F_1^{B\pi }(t)+(F_0^{B\pi }(t)F_1^{B\pi }(t)){\displaystyle \frac{m_B^2m_\pi ^2}{t}}\right]`$ (45)
$`2g_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(t)F_1^{B\pi }(t)(p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}p_p)p_\pi /(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+m_p)+g_3^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(t)F_0^{B\pi }(t)(m_B^2m_\pi ^2)/(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+m_p),`$
and $`tq^2=(p_Bp_\pi )^2=(p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+p_{\overline{p}})^2`$, and we have employed the baryonic form factors defined by

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}|(\overline{c}u)|0`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}\{f_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(q^2)\gamma _\mu +i{\displaystyle \frac{f_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(q^2)}{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+m_p}}\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{f_3^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(q^2)}{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+m_p}}q_\mu `$ (47)
$`[g_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(q^2)\gamma _\mu +i{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(q^2)}{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+m_p}}\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{g_3^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(q^2)}{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+m_p}}q_\mu ]\gamma _5\}v_{\overline{p}},`$
and the mesonic form factors given by

$`\pi ^{}(p_\pi )|(\overline{d}b)|B^{}(p_B)=F_1^{B\pi }(q^2)(p_B+p_\pi )_\mu +\left(F_0^{B\pi }(q^2)F_1^{B\pi }(q^2)\right){\displaystyle \frac{m_B^2m_\pi ^2}{q^2}}q_\mu .`$ (48)
As for the factorizable amplitude $`A_1`$, since in practice we do not know how to evaluate the 3-body hadronic matrix element $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}|(\overline{c}b)|B^{}`$ at the quark level, we will instead evaluate the corresponding two low-lying pole diagrams for the external $`W`$-emission as depicted in Fig. 3(a): (i) the baryon pole diagram with strong process $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^{0()}\overline{p}`$ followed by the weak decay $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^{0()}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\pi ^{}`$, and (ii) the meson pole diagram with the color-allowed weak process $`B^{}\{D^0,D^0,D_1^0\}\pi ^{}`$ followed by the strong reaction $`\{D^0,D^0,D_1^0\}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$. We consider the baryon pole contribution first. Its amplitude is given by

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ud}V_{cb}^{}g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_bB^{}p}f_\pi a_1\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}\{f_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}(m_\pi ^2)[2p_\pi p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+p/_\pi (m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c})]\gamma _5`$ (50)
$`+g_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}(m_\pi ^2)[2p_\pi p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}p/_\pi (m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}+m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c})]\}v_{\overline{p}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+p_\pi )^2m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}^2}},`$
where we have applied factorization to the weak decay $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\pi ^{}`$. Note that the intermediate states $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^0`$ also do not contribute to $`A_1`$ under the factorization approximation because the weak transition $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c|(\overline{c}b)|\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^{0()}`$ is prohibited as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^{}`$ are sextet bottom baryons whereas $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ is an anti-triplet charmed baryon.

The meson pole contribution from Fig. 3(a) consists of the pseudoscalar meson $`D^0`$, the vector meson $`D^0`$ and the axial-vector meson $`D_1^0(2400)`$. Note that the weak decay process $`B^{}\{D^0,D^0,D_1^0\}\pi ^{}`$ in Fig. 3(a) is color allowed, namely, its amplitude is proportional to $`a_1`$, while the same process in Fig. 3(b), being proportional to $`a_2`$, is color suppressed. The charmed-meson pole amplitude has the form

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ud}^{}V_{cb}a_1\pi ^{}|(\overline{d}u)|0\{[D^0|(\overline{c}b)|B^{}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{q^2m_D^2}}g^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cpD^0}\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}\gamma _5v_{\overline{p}}`$ (51)
$`+`$ $`D^0|(\overline{c}b)|B^{}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{q^2m_D^{}^2}}\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}i\epsilon _D^{}^\nu \left(g_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pD^0}\gamma _\nu +i{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pD^0}}{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+m_p}}\sigma _{\nu \lambda }q^\lambda \right)v_{\overline{p}}`$ (52)
$`+`$ $`D_1^0|(\overline{c}b)|B^{}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{q^2m_{D_1}^2}}\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}i\epsilon _{D_1}^\nu (h_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pD_1^0}\gamma _\nu +i{\displaystyle \frac{h_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pD_1^0}}{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+m_p}}\sigma _{\nu \lambda }q^\lambda )\gamma _5v_{\overline{p}}\},`$ (53)
where $`q=p_Bp_\pi =p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+p_{\overline{p}}`$, and $`g`$, $`g_1,g_2`$, $`h_1,h_2`$ are the unknown strong couplings. After some manipulation we obtain

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ud}^{}V_{cb}f_\pi a_1\{(m_B^2m_D^2)F_0^{BD}(m_\pi ^2){\displaystyle \frac{g^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cpD^0}}{q^2m_D^2}}\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}\gamma _5v_{\overline{p}}`$ (54)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_D^{}}{q^2m_D^{}^2}}A_0^{BD^{}}(m_\pi ^2)p_B^\mu \left(g_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{m_D^{}^2}}\right)\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}\left(g_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pD^0}\gamma ^\nu +i{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pD^0}}{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+m_p}}\sigma ^{\nu \lambda }q_\lambda \right)v_{\overline{p}}`$ (55)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_{D_1}}{q^2m_{D_1}^2}}V_0^{BD_1}(m_\pi ^2)p_B^\mu (g_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{m_{D_1}^2}})\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}(h_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pD_1^0}\gamma ^\nu +i{\displaystyle \frac{h_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pD_1^0}}{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+m_p}}\sigma ^{\nu \lambda }q_\lambda )\gamma _5v_{\overline{p}}\},`$ (56)
where we have employed the form factors defined byOur definition for $`BD^{}`$ form factors is the same as  except for a sign difference for the matrix elements of the axial-vector current. This sign change is required in order to ensure positive form factors as one can check via heavy quark symmetry or the QCD sum rule analysis.

$`D^0(p_D^{},\epsilon )|(\overline{c}b)_{_{VA}}|B^{}(p_B)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_B+m_D^{}}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon ^\nu p_D^{}^\alpha p_B^\beta V^{BD^{}}(q^2)`$ (58)
$``$ $`i\{(m_B+m_D^{})\epsilon _\mu ^{}A_1^{BD^{}}(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^{}p_B}{m_B+m_D^{}}}(p_B+p_D^{})_\mu A_2^{BD^{}}(q^2)`$ (59)
$``$ $`2m_{D_1}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^{}p_B}{q^2}}q_\mu [A_3^{BD^{}}(q^2)A_0^{BD^{}}(q^2)]\},`$ (60)
with

$`A_3^{BD^{}}(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{m_B+m_D^{}}{2m_D^{}}}A_1^{BD^{}}(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{m_Bm_D^{}}{2m_D^{}}}A_2^{BD^{}}(q^2),`$ (61)
and

$`D_1^0(p_{D_1},\epsilon )|(\overline{c}b)_{_{VA}}|B^{}(p_B)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_B+m_{D_1}}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon ^\nu p_{D_1}^\alpha p_B^\beta A^{BD_1}(q^2)`$ (62)
$``$ $`i\{(m_B+m_{D_1})\epsilon _\mu ^{}V_1^{BD_1}(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^{}p_B}{m_B+m_{D_1}}}(p_B+p_{D_1})_\mu V_2^{BD_1}(q^2)`$ (63)
$``$ $`2m_{D_1}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^{}p_B}{q^2}}q_\mu [V_3^{BD_1}(q^2)V_0^{BD_1}(q^2)]\},`$ (64)
with

$`V_3^{BD_1}(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{m_B+m_{D_1}}{2m_V}}V_1^{BD_1}(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{m_Bm_{D_1}}{2m_{D_1}}}V_2^{BD_1}(q^2)`$ (65)
and $`A_3^{BD^{}}(0)=A_0^{BD^{}}(0)`$ as well as $`V_3^{BD_1}(0)=V_0^{BD_1}(0)`$. The above amplitude can be further simplified by applying the Gordon decomposition as

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ud}^{}V_{cb}f_\pi a_1\{(m_B^2m_D^2)F_0^{BD}(m_\pi ^2){\displaystyle \frac{g^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cpD^0}}{q^2m_D^2}}\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}\gamma _5v_{\overline{p}}`$ (66)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_D^{}}{q^2m_D^{}^2}}A_0^{BD^{}}(m_\pi ^2)\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}[(g_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cpD^0}+g_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cpD^0})p/_B`$ (67)
$``$ $`g_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cpD^0}{\displaystyle \frac{(p_Bq)(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}m_p)}{m_D^{}^2}}g_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cpD^0}{\displaystyle \frac{p_B(p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}p_{\overline{p}})}{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+m_p}}]v_{\overline{p}}`$ (68)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_{D_1}}{q^2m_{D_1}^2}}V_0^{BD_1}(m_\pi ^2)\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}[(h_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cpD_1^0}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}m_p}{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+m_p}}h_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cpD_1^0})p/_B`$ (69)
$``$ $`h_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cpD_1^0}{\displaystyle \frac{(p_Bq)(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+m_p)}{m_{D_1}^2}}h_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cpD_1^0}{\displaystyle \frac{p_B(p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}p_{\overline{p}})}{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+m_p}}]\gamma _5v_{\overline{p}}\}.`$ (70)
In order to compute the nonresonant decay rate for $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ we need to know the strong couplings $`g,g_1,g_2`$, $`h_1,h_2`$ and their $`q^2`$ dependence. Fortunately, this can be achieved by considering the meson-pole contributions to the factorizable internal $`W`$-emission as depicted in Fig. 3(b). In the pole model description, the relevant intermediate states are $`D^0,D^0`$ and $`D_1^0(2400)`$ as shown in the same figure. The matrix element $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}|(VA)_\mu |0`$ then reads

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}|(VA)_\mu |0_{\mathrm{pole}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}\{{\displaystyle \frac{f_D^{}m_D^{}}{q^2m_D^{}^2}}[g_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cpD^{}}\gamma _\mu +i{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cpD^{}}}{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+m_p}}\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu ]`$ (71)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{D_1}m_{D_1}}{q^2m_{D_1}^2}}\left[h_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cpD_1}\gamma _\mu +i{\displaystyle \frac{h_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cpD^{}}}{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+m_p}}\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu \right]\gamma _5`$ (72)
$``$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{f_Dg^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cpD}}{q^2m_D^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{D_1}g_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cpD_1}}{q^2m_{D_1}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+m_p}{m_{D_1}}}]q_\mu \gamma _5\}v_{\overline{p}}.`$ (73)
where the decay constants are defined by

$`D(q)|A_\mu |0=if_Dq_\mu ,D^{}(q,\epsilon )|V_\mu |0=f_D^{}m_D^{}\epsilon _\mu ^{},`$ (74)
$`D_1(q,\epsilon )|A_\mu |0=f_{D_1}m_{D_1}\epsilon _\mu ^{}.`$ (75)
Comparing this with Eq. (47) we see that the $`D^{}`$ meson is responsible for the strong couplings $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$, $`D_1(2400)`$ for $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$, and $`D`$ for the coupling $`g`$. More precisely,

$`g_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cpD^{}}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2m_D^{}^2}{f_D^{}m_D^{}}}f_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(q^2),g_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cpD^{}}(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{q^2m_D^{}^2}{f_D^{}m_D^{}}}f_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(q^2),`$ (76)
$`h_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cpD_1}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2m_{D_1}^2}{f_{D_1}m_{D_1}}}g_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(q^2),h_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cpD_1}(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{q^2m_{D_1}^2}{f_{D_1}m_{D_1}}}g_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(q^2),`$ (77)
$`g^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cpD}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2m_D^2}{f_D(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+m_p)}}g_3^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(q^2),`$ (78)
where the $`D_1`$ pole contribution to $`g_3^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}`$ can be neglected at the $`q^2`$ range of interest.

The form factors $`f_i`$ and $`g_i`$ for the heavy-to-heavy and heavy-to-light baryonic transitions at zero recoil have been computed using the non-relativistic quark model . In principle, HQET puts some constraints on these form factors. However, it is clear that HQET is not adequate for our purposes: the predictive power of HQET for the baryon form factors at order $`1/m_Q`$ is limited only to the antitriplet-to-antitriplet heavy baryonic transition. Hence, we will follow  to apply the nonrelativistic quark model to evaluate the weak current-induced baryon form factors at zero recoil in the rest frame of the heavy parent baryon, where the quark model is most trustworthy. This quark model approach has the merit that it is applicable to heavy-to-heavy and heavy-to-light baryonic transitions at maximum $`q^2`$. It has been shown in  that the quark model predictions agree with HQET for the antitriplet-to-antitriplet (e.g. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c,\mathrm{\Xi }_b\mathrm{\Xi }_c`$) form factors to order $`1/m_Q`$. For sextet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ transitions, the quark-model results are also in accord with the HQET predictions (for details see ). Numerically we have

$`f_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}(q_m^2)=g_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}(q_m^2)=1.02,f_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}(q_m^2)=g_3^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}(q_m^2)=0.23,`$ (79)
$`f_3^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}(q_m^2)=g_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}(q_m^2)=0.03,`$ (80)
for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ transition at zero recoil $`q_m^2=(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c})^2`$, and §§§The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp`$ form factors $`f_2,f_3,g_2,g_3`$ given in Eq. (81) are different from that in  owing to a different definition of these form factors.

$`f_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(q_m^2)=g_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(q_m^2)=0.79,f_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(q_m^2)=g_3^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(q_m^2)=0.69,`$ (81)
$`f_3^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(q_m^2)=g_2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp}(q_m^2)=0.20,`$ (82)
for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp`$ transition at $`q_m^2=(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}m_p)^2`$.

Since the calculation for the $`q^2`$ dependence of form factors is beyond the scope of the non-relativistic quark model, we will follow the conventional practice to assume a pole dominance for the form-factor $`q^2`$ behavior:

$`f(q^2)=f(q_m^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1q_m^2/m_V^2}{1q^2/m_V^2}}\right)^n,g(q^2)=g(q_m^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1q_m^2/m_A^2}{1q^2/m_A^2}}\right)^n,`$ (83)
where $`m_V`$ ($`m_A`$) is the pole mass of the vector (axial-vector) meson with the same quantum number as the current under consideration. The function

$`G(q^2)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1q_m^2/m_{\mathrm{pole}}^2}{1q^2/m_{\mathrm{pole}}^2}}\right)^n`$ (84)
plays the role of the baryon Isgur-Wise function $`\zeta (\omega )`$ for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q^{}`$ transition, namely, $`G=1`$ at $`q^2=q_m^2`$. However, whether the $`q^2`$ dependence is monopole ($`n=1`$) or dipole ($`n=2`$) for heavy-to-heavy transitions is not clear. Hence we shall use both monopole and dipole dependence in ensuing calculations. Moreover, one should bear in mind that the $`q^2`$ behavior of form factors is probably more complicated and it is likely that a simple pole dominance only applies to a certain $`q^2`$ region, especially for the heavy-to-light transition. We will use the pole masses $`m_V=2.01`$ GeV and $`m_A=2.42`$ GeV for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp`$ transition and $`m_V=6.34`$ GeV, $`m_A=6.73`$ GeV for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ transitions.

For the form factors $`F_{0,1}^{B\pi }(q^2)`$ we consider the Melikhov-Stech (MS) model based on the constituent quark picture . Although the form factor $`q^2`$ dependence is in general model dependent, it should be stressed that $`F_1^{B\pi }(q^2)`$ increases with $`q^2`$ more rapidly than $`F_0^{B\pi }(q^2)`$ as required by heavy quark symmetry.

The total decay rate for the process $`B^{}(p_B)\mathrm{\Lambda }_c(p_1)+\overline{p}(p_2)+\pi ^{}(p_3)`$ is computed by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32m_B^3}}{\displaystyle |A|^2𝑑m_{12}^2𝑑m_{23}^2},`$ (85)
where $`m_{ij}^2=(p_i+p_j)^2`$ with $`p_3=p_\pi `$. Under naive factorization, the parameter $`a_2`$ appearing in Eq. (37) is numerically equal to 0.024, which is very small compared to the value of $`a_2=0.400.55`$ extracted from $`\overline{B}^0D^{0()}\pi ^0`$ decays  and $`|a_2|=0.26\pm 0.02`$ from the $`BJ/\psi K`$ decay . Since $`a_2`$ may receive sizable contributions from the pole diagram Fig. 3(c), we will thus treat $`a_2`$ as a free parameter and take $`a_2=0.30`$ as an illustration.

Collecting everything together we obtain numericallyIf we use $`|g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_bB^{}p}|=16`$ as in , then we will have $`(B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{})_{\mathrm{nonr}}=5.0\times 10^4`$ for $`n=1`$ and $`8.3\times 10^4`$ for $`n=2`$.

$`(B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{})_{\mathrm{nonr}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1.8\times 10^4\hfill & \text{for }n=1\text{,}\hfill \\ 2.6\times 10^4\hfill & \text{for }n=2\text{,}\hfill \end{array}`$ (86)
where we have used $`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_bB^{}p}=7`$ (or $`g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\overline{B}^0p}=5`$), $`f_D=200`$ MeV, $`f_D^{}=f_{D_1}=230`$ MeV and $`V_0^{BD_1}(0)=0.37`$. It should be stressed that the sign of the strong coupling $`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_bB^{}p}`$ must be negative and hence $`g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\overline{B}^0p}`$ has to be positive \[see Eq. (25)\] so that the interference between meson and baryon pole contributions is destructive for $`n=1`$ and constructive for $`n=2`$. Indeed, if $`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_bB^{}p}=7`$ is employed, one will have a branching ratio of order $`9.6\times 10^4`$ for $`n=1`$ and $`4.7\times 10^5`$ for $`n=2`$, in disagreement with experiment. We shall see below that the prediction of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ rate is consistent with experiment only for $`n=1`$. Adding the resonant contributions from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$ as discussed in Sec. II, we are led to

$`(B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{})2.4\times 10^4.`$ (87)
Note that the resonant contributions account for about one quarter of the total decay rate.

In  we obtained a branching ratio of order $`(4.99.2)\times 10^4`$ for $`|g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_bB^{}p}|=16`$. Our present results (86) are smaller for two reasons: (i) The large strong coupling $`|g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_bB^{}p}|=16`$ will lead to a too large $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}`$ which is ruled out by experiment. Therefore we use $`|g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_bB^{}p}|=7`$, obtained by fitting to the observed central value of $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}`$. The branching ratio due to the baryon poles becomes $`1.7\times 10^4`$ for $`n=1`$ and $`1.1\times 10^4`$ for $`n=2`$. (ii) The color-allowed charmed-meson pole contribution to the branching ratio is $`3.6\times 10^4`$ for $`n=1`$ and $`0.5\times 10^4`$ for $`n=2`$. It has a destructive (constructive) interference with baryon pole contributions for $`n=1`$ ($`n=2`$).

### B $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$

The three-body mode $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ does receive factorizable internal $`W`$-emission and $`W`$-exchange contributions:

$`A(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{})_{\mathrm{fact}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{cb}V_{ud}^{}\{a_1\pi ^{}|(\overline{d}u)|0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}|(\overline{c}b)|\overline{B}^0`$ (88)
$`+`$ $`a_2\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}|(\overline{c}u)|00|(\overline{d}b)|\overline{B}^0\}.`$ (89)
As before, we do not know how to evaluate the 3-body hadronic matrix element $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}|(\overline{c}b)|\overline{B}^0`$ at the quark level. Thus we will instead evaluate the corresponding two low-lying pole diagrams for the external $`W`$-emission: (i) the baryon pole diagram with strong process $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^{()+}\overline{p}`$ followed by the weak decay $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^{()+}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\pi ^{}`$ \[see Fig. 4(a)\], and (ii) the meson pole diagram with the weak process $`\overline{B}^0\{D^+,D^+,D_1^+\}\pi ^{}`$ followed by the strong reaction $`\{D^+,D^+,D_1^+\}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}`$ \[Fig. 4(a)\]. We consider the baryon pole contribution first. Its amplitude is given by

$`A(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{})_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ud}V_{cb}^{}g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\overline{B}^0p}f_\pi a_1\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}\{f_1^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}(m_\pi ^2)[2p_\pi p_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}+p/_\pi (m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b}m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c})]\gamma _5`$ (91)
$`+g_1^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}(m_\pi ^2)[2p_\pi p_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}p/_\pi (m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b}+m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c})]\}v_{\overline{p}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}+p_\pi )^2m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b}^2}},`$
where we have applied factorization to the weak decay $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\pi ^{}`$.

The heavy-to-heavy transition $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ at zero recoil is predicted by HQET to be (see e.g. )

$`f_1^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}(q_m^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[1(m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b}+m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c})\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}}}\right)\right],`$ (92)
$`f_2^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}(q_m^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}}}\right)(m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b}+m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}),`$ (93)
$`f_3^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}(q_m^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}}}\right)(m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b}+m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}),`$ (94)
$`g_1^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}(q_m^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},g_2^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}(q_m^2)=g_3^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}(q_m^2)=0,`$ (95)
where $`q_m^2=(m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b}m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c})^2`$. Numerically we find a small branching ratio

$`(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{})_{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}0.45\times 10^4\hfill & n=1\text{,}\hfill \\ 0.24\times 10^4\hfill & n=2\hfill \end{array}`$ (96)
arising from the baryon poles. Comparing to the experimental value (see Table I), it is obvious that the baryon pole contribution alone is not adequate to account for the data and it is necessary to take into account the meson pole contribution.

The meson pole contribution from Fig. 4(a) is

$`A(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{})_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ud}^{}V_{cb}a_1\pi ^{}|(\overline{d}u)|0\{[D^+|(\overline{c}b)|\overline{B}^0{\displaystyle \frac{i}{q^2m_D^2}}g^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}pD^+}\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}\gamma _5v_{\overline{p}}`$ (97)
$`+`$ $`D^+|(\overline{c}b)|\overline{B}^0{\displaystyle \frac{i}{q^2m_D^{}^2}}\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}i\epsilon _D^{}^\nu \left(g_1^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}pD^+}\gamma _\nu +i{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}pD^+}}{m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}+m_p}}\sigma _{\nu \lambda }q^\lambda \right)v_{\overline{p}}`$ (98)
$`+`$ $`D_1^+|(\overline{c}b)|\overline{B}^0{\displaystyle \frac{i}{q^2m_{D_1}^2}}\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}i\epsilon _{D_1}^\nu (h_1^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}pD_1^+}\gamma _\nu +i{\displaystyle \frac{h_2^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}pD_1^+}}{m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}+m_p}}\sigma _{\nu \lambda }q^\lambda )v_{\overline{p}}\}.`$ (99)
After some manipulation we obtain

$`A(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{})_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ud}^{}V_{cb}f_\pi a_1\{(m_B^2m_D^2)F_0^{BD}(m_\pi ^2){\displaystyle \frac{g^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}pD^+}}{q^2m_D^2}}\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}\gamma _5v_{\overline{p}}`$ (101)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_D^{}}{q^2m_D^{}^2}}A_0^{BD^{}}(m_\pi ^2)\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}[(g_1^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}pD^+}+g_2^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}pD^+})p/_B`$ (102)
$``$ $`g_1^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}pD^+}{\displaystyle \frac{(p_Bq)(m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}m_p)}{m_D^{}^2}}g_2^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}pD^+}{\displaystyle \frac{p_B(p_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}p_{\overline{p}})}{m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}+m_p}}]v_{\overline{p}}`$ (103)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_{D_1}}{q^2m_{D_1}^2}}V_0^{BD_1}(m_\pi ^2)\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}[(h_1^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}pD_1^+}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}m_p}{m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}+m_p}}h_2^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}pD_1^+})p/_B`$ (104)
$``$ $`h_1^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}pD_1^+}{\displaystyle \frac{(p_Bq)(m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}+m_p)}{m_{D_1}^2}}h_2^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}pD_1^+}{\displaystyle \frac{p_B(p_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}p_{\overline{p}})}{m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}+m_p}}]\gamma _5v_{\overline{p}}\}.`$ (105)
There exist five unknown strong couplings $`g^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}pD^+}`$, $`g_{_{1,2}}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}pD^+}`$ and $`h_{_{1,2}}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}pD_1^+}`$ which are $`q^2`$ dependent. To determine these couplings we apply the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ quark-pair-creation model to obtain

$`g_{_{1,2}}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}pD^{}}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}g_{_{1,2}}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pD^{}}(q^2),h_{_{1,2}}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}pD_1}(q^2)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}h_{_{1,2}}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pD_1}(q^2),`$ (107)
$`g^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}pD}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`3\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}g^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pD}(q^2).`$ (108)
As noted in passing, the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model is perhaps reliable only in the low energy regime. Nevertheless, we will use Eq. (107) for an estimation. We obtain numerically

$`(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}4.5\times 10^4\hfill & \text{for }n=1\text{,}\hfill \\ 4.3\times 10^6\hfill & \text{for }n=2\text{,}\hfill \end{array}`$ (109)
for $`g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\overline{B}^0p}=5`$. Note that the interference between meson and baryon pole contributions is constructive (destructive) for $`n=1`$ ($`n=2`$), opposite to the case of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$. Evidently, $`n=1`$ is favored by the measurements of Belle and CLEO. Therefore, we conclude that $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ has a rate slightly larger than $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$.

### C $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ and $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^0`$

The decays $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ and $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^0`$ proceed via the nonfactorizable internal $`W`$-emission (see Figs. 5 and 6). Naively one may argue that they are color suppressed relative to $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$. However, it may not be the case for baryonic $`B`$ decays. To demonstrate this, let us take a look at Fig. 3(b) which proceeds via an internal $`W`$-emission. This diagram is color suppressed because in order to form the $`\pi ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$, the color of the spectator $`\overline{u}`$ quark has to be matched with that of the $`d`$ quark created from the $`b`$ quark decay, and similarly the color of the $`c`$ quark has to be matched with that of the $`\overline{u}`$ quark created from the $`b`$ quark decay. In the effective Hamiltonian approach, the factorizable amplitude is proportional to $`a_2\pi ^{}|(\overline{d}b)|B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}|(\overline{c}u)|0`$, where the coefficient $`a_2`$ is equivalent to 1/3 in the absence of strong interactions. On the contrary, the other internal $`W`$-emission diagram Fig. 3(c) is not color suppressed because the color wave function of the baryon is totally antisymmetric and hence the color of the $`c`$ quark must be different from that of the $`d`$ quark created from the $`b`$ quark decay. Likewise, Figs. 5 and 6 are not color suppressed. Indeed, as shown in Sec. II, the weak baryon-baryon transition is found to be proportional to $`c_1c_2`$ rather than to $`c_2+c_1/N_c`$.

Theoretically, it is not easy to estimate the pole contributions as the weak decay processes, for example $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{n}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\pi ^+`$ in Fig. 5, are not factorizable. This renders the calculation difficult. Among the pole diagrams, only the intermediate $`\overline{n}`$ state in Fig. 5(a) and the $`\overline{p}`$ state in Fig. 6 can be reliably estimated since the involved weak transitions are already discussed in Sec. II and moreover the strong $`\pi NN`$ coupling can be related to the nucleon-nucleon form factor $`g_3^{np}(q^2)`$ and hence its $`q^2`$ dependence can be determined .

Consider the decay $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ first. The decay amplitude of the $`\overline{n}`$ pole diagram reads

$`A(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^+)_{\overline{n}\mathrm{pole}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}g_{\pi NN}(q^2)B(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{n})\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}p/_\pi v_{\overline{p}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2m_N^2}},`$ (110)
where $`B`$ is the parity-conserving amplitude given in Eq. (19) and $`q^2=(p_{\overline{p}}+p_\pi )^2`$. In  we have shown that

$`g_{\pi NN}(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{q^2m_\pi ^2}{2\sqrt{2}f_\pi m_N}}g_3^{np}(q^2),`$ (111)
where $`g_3^{np}`$ is one of the form factors defined by

$`\overline{n}(p_{\overline{n}})|(VA)_\mu |\overline{p}(p_{\overline{p}})`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{v}_{\overline{n}}(p_{\overline{n}})\{f_1^{np}(q^2)\gamma _\mu +i{\displaystyle \frac{f_2^{np}(q^2)}{2m_N}}\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{f_3^{np}(q^2)}{2m_N}}q_\mu `$ (113)
$`[g_1^{np}(q^2)\gamma _\mu +i{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^{np}(q^2)}{2m_N}}\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{g_3^{np}(q^2)}{2m_N}}q_\mu ]\gamma _5\}v_{\overline{p}}(p_{\overline{p}}),`$
with $`q=p_{\overline{n}}p_{\overline{p}}`$. As shown in , the induced pseudoscalar form factor $`g_3`$ corresponds to a pion pole contribution to the $`np`$ axial matrix element and it is related to the form factor $`g_1`$ via

$`g_3^{np}(t)={\displaystyle \frac{4m_N^2}{tm_\pi ^2}}g_1^{np}(t).`$ (114)
The vector form factors $`f_i(q^2)`$ can be related to the nucleon’s electromagnetic form factors which are customarily described in terms of the electric and magnetic Sachs form factors $`G_E^N(t)`$ and $`G_M^N(t)`$. A recent phenomenological fit to the experimental data of nucleon form factors has been carried out in  using the following parametrization:

$`|G_M^p(t)|`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{t^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{t^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_3}{t^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_4}{t^5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_5}{t^6}}\right)\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{Q_0^2}}\right]^\gamma ,`$ (115)
$`|G_M^n(t)|`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{t^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{y_2}{t^3}}\right)\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{Q_0^2}}\right]^\gamma ,`$ (116)
where $`Q_0=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ 300 MeV and $`\gamma =2+\frac{4}{3\beta }=2.148`$ . For our purposes, we just need the best fit values of $`x_1`$ and $`y_1`$

$`x_1=420.96\mathrm{GeV}^4,y_1=236.69\mathrm{GeV}^4`$ (117)
extracted from the neutron data . For the axial form factor $`g_1^{np}(t)`$, we shall follow  to assume that it has a similar expression as $`G_M^n(t)`$

$`g_1^{np}(t)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{d_1}{t^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d_2}{t^3}}\right)\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{Q_0^2}}\right]^\gamma ,`$ (118)
where the coefficient $`d_1`$ is related to $`x_1`$ and $`y_1`$ by considering the asymptotic behavior of Sachs form factors $`G_M^p`$ and $`G_M^n`$ \[see Eq. (115)\]

$`d_1={\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}x_1y_1.`$ (119)
For $`d_2`$ we shall use the value of $`2370\mathrm{GeV}^6`$ obtained by fitting to the data of $`\overline{B}^0D^0p\overline{p}`$ .

Collecting all the inputs, we finally obtain

$`(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^+)_{\overline{n}\mathrm{pole}}^{\mathrm{PC}}=1.3\times 10^4.`$ (120)
It is interesting to note that this pole contribution alone is consistent with both Belle and CLEO. The remaining pole diagrams in Fig. 5 are more difficult to get a reliable estimate as the strength and momentum dependence of the strong couplings is unknown. Therefore, whether or not $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ is substantially suppressed relative to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ is unknown. Nevertheless, as noted in passing, even if the former is suppressed relative to the latter, it has nothing to do with color suppression.

Likewise, we find the $`\overline{p}`$ pole diagram in Fig. 6 gives

$`(B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^0)_{\overline{p}\mathrm{pole}}=4.8\times 10^3.`$ (121)
This enormously large branching ratio comes from the fact that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{n}`$ as discussed in Sec. IIB. At first sight, it appears that this prediction is ruled out as it already exceeds the measurement by CLEO (see Table I). However, the decay amplitude of Fig. 6(b) has a sign opposite to that of Fig. 6(a) owing to the $`\pi ^0`$ wave function $`\pi ^0=(\overline{u}u\overline{d}d)/\sqrt{2}`$. Hence, there exists a destructive interference between Fig. 6(a) and Fig. 6(b). Unfortunately, as we do not have a reliable estimate of other pole diagrams in Fig. 6, we cannot make a reliable prediction of the branching ratio for $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^0`$. Nevertheless, it is very conceivable that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^0`$ has a larger rate than $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^+`$. Recall that the CLEO measurements imply that Σc0p¯π0>

Σc++p¯π>

Σc0p¯π+superscriptsubscriptΣ𝑐0¯𝑝superscript𝜋0>

superscriptsubscriptΣ𝑐absent¯𝑝superscript𝜋>

superscriptsubscriptΣ𝑐0¯𝑝superscript𝜋\Sigma_{c}^{0}\bar{p}\pi^{0}{\ \lower-1.2pt\vbox{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{$>$\hss}\lower 5.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}
}}}\ }\Sigma_{c}^{++}\bar{p}\pi^{-}{\ \lower-1.2pt\vbox{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{$>$\hss}\lower 5.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}
}}}\ }\Sigma_{c}^{0}\bar{p}\pi^{+} .

## IV Conclusions

We have studied exclusive $`B`$ decays to final states containing a charmed baryon within the framework of the pole model. We first draw some conclusions and then proceed to discuss some sources of theoretical uncertainties.

1. In the pole model, the two-body baryonic $`B`$ decay amplitudes are expressed in terms of strong couplings and weak baryon-baryon transition matrix elements. We apply the bag model to evaluate the baryon matrix elements. Since the strong coupling for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0B^{}p`$ is larger than that for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^0B^{}p`$, the two-body charmful decay $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}`$ has a rate larger than $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ as the former proceeds via the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ pole while the latter via the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b`$ pole. However, the relative coupling strength predicted by the quark-antiquark creation $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model, namely, $`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0B^{}p}=3\sqrt{3}g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^0B^{}p}`$ will lead to a large rate for $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}`$ that already exceeds the present experiment limit. Likewise, the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ relation $`g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+B^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}=2\sqrt{6}g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+\overline{B}^0p}`$ will lead to too large $`B^{}p\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$ and $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$. Our best values for strong couplings are $`|g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^+B^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}|10`$, $`|g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0B^{}p}|7`$ and $`|g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^0B^{}p}|3.5`$. The inconsistency of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model’s predictions with experiment may imply that the relevant one is the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{0}^{}`$ model for quark pair creation.
2. The ratio of $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{n})/\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p})`$ also provides a nice test on the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model. While $`R`$ is predicted to be 1/2 in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model, it is of order only 0.01 in our case.
3. At the quark level, $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ and $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ are expected to have similar rates as they both receive external $`W`$-emission contributions. By the same token as two-body decays, the three-body decay $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ receives less baryon-pole contribution than $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ at the pole-diagram level. However, because the important charmed-meson pole diagrams contribute constructively to the former and destructively to the latter, $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ has a rate slightly larger than $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$.
4. $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ also receives the resonant contributions from $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}`$ and $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$. The nonresonant contribution to the branching ratio is smaller than our previous estimate mainly because the strong coupling $`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0B^{}p}`$ becomes smaller as implied by the data of $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}`$. We found that resonant contributions account for about one quarter of the $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ rate.
5. The decays $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ and $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^0`$ that can only proceed via an internal $`W`$-emission are not color suppressed. In the pole model, it is easily seen that the weak baryon-baryon transition vertex in the pole diagram is proportional to $`(c_1c_2)`$ rather than $`a_2`$. We have estimated the neutron pole contribution to $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ and the proton pole contribution to $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^0`$. Due to the lack of information of the momentum dependence of strong couplings, we cannot have a definite prediction for the decay rates of these two modes, though it is conceivable that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^0>\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\overline{p}\pi ^+`$. If these two decays are found to be suppressed relative to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$, it has nothing to do with color suppression and must arise from some other dynamic consideration.

The calculation of baryonic $`B`$ decays is rather complicated and very much involved and hence it suffers from many possible theoretical uncertainties. Many of them have been discussed in detail in . For the present work, we would like to mention three uncertainties. First, the charmed meson-pole amplitude is sensitive to the form factor $`V_0^{BD_1}(0)`$ which we have taken it to be 0.37 . Hence, a model calculation of the form factors $`V_{0,1,2}^{BD_1}(0)`$ is urgent. Second, a reliable estimate of the strong couplings for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}pD(D^{},D_1)`$ and their $`q^2`$ dependence is needed in order to calculate the rate of $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ more accurately. Third, final-state interactions may contribute sizably to the charmful two-body baryonic $`B`$ decays. For example, the color- and Cabibbo-allowed decay $`\overline{B}^0D^+\pi ^{}`$ followed by the rescattering of $`D^+\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ may introduce a significant contribution to $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$. This deserves a further study.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by the National Science Council of R.O.C. under Grant Nos. NSC91-2112-M-001-038 and NSC91-2112-M-033-013.