Xi^{--}_{5c}$,$\Xi^-_{5b}$                            -0.15                -1.54                -0.089               -1.66
  ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------

  : Numerical results of heavy pentaquark magnetic moments in unit of $\mu_N$ in Karliner and Lipkin’s model. []{data-label="heavy-lipkin-mag"}

It is interesting to compare the phenomenology of the above two clustered quark models. There is only a $SU(3)$ flavor anti-sextet for heavy pentaquarks in Jaffe and Wilczek’s model. In contrast, an additional flavor triplet exists in Karliner and Lipkin’s diquark and triquark model. The masses and magnetic moments of these triplet pentaquarks are equal to their anti-sextet partners in KL’s model. For the light pentaquarks, all the above two clustered quark models predicted the existence of an anti-decuplet and an accompanying octet.

Another dramatic difference lies in the prediction of the magnetic moments of the $J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+$ heavy sextet pentaquarks. The magnetic moments of the $J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+$ heavy sextet is tiny and much smaller in KL’s model than those in JW’s model. There is strong cancellation between the magnetic moment of the triquark and the orbital magnetic moment in a $J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+$ sextet when they are combined by Clebsch-Gordan coefficients. This cancellation is almost exact for bottom pentaquarks. For the magnetic moments of the $J^P=\frac{3}{2}^+$ sextet, there is also significant difference between KL’s model and JW’s models.

The third difference is that the masses of the pentaquarks in KL’s model are about 300 MeV larger than those in JW’s model. The reason is that Karliner and Lipkin assumed that the diquark (triquark) mass is simply the sum of its constituents. In contrast, the diquark mass is made much lower than the sum of the two quarks through the strong correlation between light quarks when they are in anti-symmetric configuration in JW’s model [@jaffe].

The heavy pentaquark masses and their strong, semi-leptonic and non-lept
Xi^{--}_{5c}$,$\Xi^-_{5b}$                             -0.15                 -1.54                 -0.089                -1.66 
   ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- 

  : Numerical results of heavy pentaquark magnetic here and now in unit of measurement of $ \mu_N$ in Karliner and Lipkin ’s model. [ ] { data - label="heavy - lipkin - mag " } 

 It is interesting to compare the phenomenology of the above two clustered quark cheese models. There is only a $ SU(3)$ spirit anti - sextet for heavy pentaquarks in Jaffe and Wilczek ’s model. In line, an extra flavor triplet exist in Karliner and Lipkin ’s diquark and triquark model. The masses and magnetic consequence of these triplet pentaquarks are adequate to their anti - sextet partners in KL ’s exemplar. For the unaccented pentaquarks, all the above two clustered quark models bode the existence of an anti - decuplet and an accompanying octet. 

 Another dramatic difference lie in the prediction of the magnetic moments of the $ J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+$ heavy sextet pentaquarks. The magnetic moment of the $ J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+$ heavy sextet is tiny and much smaller in KL ’s exemplar than those in JW ’s model. There is strong cancellation between the magnetic moment of the triquark and the orbital magnetic moment in a $ J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+$ sextet when they are combined by Clebsch - Gordan coefficients. This cancellation is about accurate for bottom pentaquarks. For the magnetic moments of the $ J^P=\frac{3}{2}^+$ sextet, there be also significant difference between KL ’s exemplar and JW ’s models. 

 The third difference is that the masses of the pentaquarks in KL ’s model are approximately 300 MeV larger than those in JW ’s model. The reason is that Karliner and Lipkin assumed that the diquark (triquark) mass is simply the sum of its constituents. In contrast, the diquark mass is made much gloomy than the kernel of the two quarks through the strong correlation between light quarks when they are in anti - symmetrical configuration in JW ’s model [ @jaffe ]. 

 The heavy pentaquark masses and their strong, semi - leptonic and non - lept
Xi^{--}_{5c}$,$\Di^-_{5b}$                            -0.15                -1.54                -0.089               -1.66
  ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------

  : Nnmerucal eesults of heavy pentaduark magjetic monentw in unit oh $\mu_N$ in Karlihcr anb Oipkin’s model. []{cata-label="haavy-lipkin-mag"}

Id ks interesting to compare the phenomegology pf the above two cluxeeres quark models. There is only a $SU(3)$ rlavor enti-sextet for neavy pentaquarks in Jaffe and Wilczek’s model. In contrast, ab adqutional flavur triplet exists in Kzrliner and Lipkin’s diquark and triqbark model. Jkw mwvses and majnetic moments of bnese tsiplet lentaquarks arc equel ti their anti-sextet pactners in KL’s model. Sor the lhgkt pentaquarks, all thw qbove two clurrerdd suerk modeld pcedicted ths existence of an anti-decuplet age an accompanging ostqt.

Another dramatic difference lies in tve lrediction of the magneric moments of the $J^P=\vrac{1}{2}^+$ heavr sextet pentaquarks. The magnetic moments of the $B^P=\frar{1}{2}^+$ fearn rwxhet is tiny and much smaller in KL’s model thag tnoxe in JW’s modej. There is xtgomd cancellatiov betwzsn the magnetic momejt of tre truquark anq thr orbital magnetic moment ib a $J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+$ svxter when they are colbined by Cuebsvh-Gorcan coefficients. This ccncellztion is allost exacf for bottom pentxqusrns. For the magnetic momentf of the $O^P=\frae{3}{2}^+$ sextet, thete is ajso signiflcant difference between KL’s logel and JW’d models.

The third difference is that the massgs mf nhe pentazuarkx in KL’s modej are about 300 MgV larger than those in NW’s modxl. The reasog is that Karnlner and Lipnin assuied rhat the didjark (triquark) kass is spmkly the sun of its constituekts. Iv contrast, the dndoqrk mass is mace oucr poxer trdn the sum ox thd tdp quafks through ghe xtrong correlation batwesn light quarks whrn they arg in anti-fymmetric congiguration in JW’s lodel [@jahfe].

The hewvy pentaquark masses and theid strong, deml-leptonic and non-oept
Xi^{--}_{5c}$,$\Xi^-_{5b}$ -0.15 -1.54 -0.089 -1.66 ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- -------------------- Numerical results heavy pentaquark magnetic in and Lipkin’s model. It is interesting compare the phenomenology of the above clustered quark models. There is only a $SU(3)$ flavor anti-sextet for heavy pentaquarks Jaffe and Wilczek’s model. In contrast, an additional flavor triplet exists in Karliner Lipkin’s and model. masses and magnetic moments of these triplet pentaquarks are equal to their anti-sextet partners in KL’s For the light pentaquarks, all the above two quark models predicted the of an anti-decuplet and an octet. dramatic difference in prediction the magnetic moments the $J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+$ heavy sextet pentaquarks. The magnetic moments of the $J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+$ heavy sextet is tiny and much in KL’s those in model. is cancellation between the of the triquark and the orbital a $J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+$ sextet when they are combined by coefficients. This is almost exact for bottom pentaquarks. the magnetic moments of the $J^P=\frac{3}{2}^+$ sextet, there also significant difference between KL’s model and JW’s models. The third difference is that the the pentaquarks in KL’s are about 300 larger those JW’s The reason that Karliner and Lipkin assumed that the diquark (triquark) mass is the sum of its constituents. In contrast, the diquark mass much than the sum the two quarks through strong between light quarks when in configuration [@jaffe]. heavy masses and their strong, and non-lept
Xi^{--}_{5c}$,$\Xi^-_{5b}$                            -0.15                -1.54                -0.089               -1.66
  ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------

  : Numerical results of hEavy pentaqUark mAgnEtiC mOmenTs in Unit of $\mu_N$ in KarLIner And Lipkin’s model. []{data-labEl="heaVy-LIpkiN-MaG"}

It is InteresTInG TO coMpArE thE pHEnOmenoLogY of the aBove two cluSteReD quark models. tHeRe is only a $Su(3)$ flAvor anti-sextEt fOr heavY pEntAQuarkS in jaffe And WilCZek’s moDel. In contRaST, an addITional fLAVoR triPlet exists in KarliNEr ANd Lipkin’s diquaRk and tRiQUaRK ModEl. THe masses anD mAgnetIC momentS Of THESe tRIplet pentaquaRks are equal TO thEir antI-sExtET partnErs in kL’S ModEl. For the ligHt peNtaquarks, All the ABove two CLustereD quark ModEls PredICtEd The ExISteNCe Of aN AntI-decupleT aNd An accOmpaNYING octEt.

ANothEr draMatic differenCe lIes iN The PrediCtion Of thE mAgnetIc momeNts of ThE $J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+$ heavy sexTet pEntaquarkS. ThE mAgnEtIc momENts of tHe $J^p=\frAc{1}{2}^+$ heavy Sextet iS TinY aND MUcH smaller in KL’s model ThAN ThOse in JW’s Model. THErE iS Strong caNcEllAtioN BEtweeN the MAgNetic momEnt of tHE tRiQuark anD tHe orbiTaL maGneTic moMEnt iN a $J^P=\frAc{1}{2}^+$ sextet When tHEy are combined bY clebsch-Gordan COeFFIcIEnts. thiS cancellatiOn is ALmosT exaCT fOr bOTtom pEntaqUaRKs. fOr the magnetic momentS oF the $J^P=\Frac{3}{2}^+$ sExtet, there is aLso signifiCANT differeNce bETwEEn KL’s model and Jw’s modEls.

The thirD DifferenCe is tHat the maSses of the PENtaquarkS in kL’s ModEl aRE AbOut 300 MeV larger tHAN thoSe In JW’s moDel. the reasOn iS thAt KArlInEr and LipkIn assumeD tHaT tHe DiqUark (tRIquark) maSs Is sImPly The suM Of its cOnstiTuenTs. in COntRast, the DIqUARk maSs Is Made MucH lOwer tHan tHE suM of the tWo quarks tHroUGh thE sTrOng corrElation betweeN lIght quarks WhEn tHey are IN Anti-symmEtric configuration in JW’s MOdel [@jafFe].

THe heaVy peNtaquark mAssEs and tHeiR Strong, Semi-lePtoniC aNd nON-Lept
Xi^{--}_{5c}$,$\Xi^-_{5b}$                       -0. 15              - 1.54                -0 .089         - 1.66
 - -- - - --- -- -- --- -- - -- ----- --- ------- ---------- --- -- ------------ - -- -- ------- --- ---------- - --- ------ -- --- - ------- ----- ------ - -------------- -- - ------ - -

  :N u me rica l results of heav y  p e ntaquark magne tic mo me n ts i n u nit  of $\mu_N $in Ka r liner a n dL i p kin ’ s model. []{d ata-label=" h eav y-lipk in -ma g "}

It  is i nt e res ting to com pare  the phen omenol o gy of t h e above  two c lus ter ed q u ar kmod el s . T h er e i s  on ly a $SU (3 )$  flav or a n t i - sext etforheavy  pentaquarksinJaff e  an d Wil czek’ s mo de l. In  contr ast,an  additional fla vortriplet e xis ts  in  K arlin e r andLip kin ’s diqu ark and tri qu a r k  m odel. The masses a nd m ag netic mo mentso fth e se tripl et  pe ntaq u a rks a re e q ua l to the ir ant i -s ex tet par tn ers in  K L’s  mo del.F or t he lig ht penta quark s , all the abov e  two clustere d  q u a rk mode lspredicted t he e x iste nceo fana nti-d ecupl et an d  an accompanying oc te t.

An other  dramatic dif ference li e s in the p redi c ti o n of the magne tic m oments oft he $J^P= \frac {1}{2}^+ $ heavy s e x tet pent aqu ark s.The m ag netic moments o f th e$J^P=\f rac {1}{2}^ +$hea vysex te t is tiny  and muc hsm al le r i n KL’ s  model t ha n t ho sein JW ’ s mode l. Th ereis  s t ron g cance l la t i on b et we en t hema gneti c mo m ent  of the  triquark  an d  the  o rb ital ma gnetic moment  i n a $J^P=\ fr ac{ 1}{2}^ + $  sextetwhen they are combinedb y Clebs ch- Gorda n co efficient s.This c anc e llatio n is a lmost  e xac t for b o t to m p en taquarks.F o r t he ma gn etic  moment s of the $J^P=\fra c {3} {2}^+$ sextet , t here i sals o  s i gni fi c ant d ifference betwe en KL’s mo de l  a nd JW’s mo d els .
The th ird dif feren c e is th at the ma sses of t he  pen t a qua rks in KL’ s modelare about 300 M e Vlarge r t han th os e i n JW’ s mode l . T he re ason i sthat K arlin er  and Lip kin assumed that the di quark(triq uar k) mass i s s i mpl y the sum  ofits consti tue nts . Incon t rast,  the di qua r k mas s is made much lo wer t ha n the sum o f t hetwo q uar k s thro ughthe strong correl a tion between l ight q uar ksw henth ey are in anti -sy mm e t ric conf ig uration inJW’s mod el [@jaf fe].
The he avy pen t a qu a rk mas sesand  their st ron g, semi-le pt on i c andnon- le pt
Xi^{--}_{5c}$,$\Xi^-_{5b}$ _ _   _ __ __  _  _   _  __-0.15             __ -1.54___    _    _ _ -0.089      __  _    -1.66
  ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- --------------------_-------------------- --------------------

  : Numerical results_of heavy pentaquark_magnetic_moments_in unit of $\mu_N$_in Karliner and Lipkin’s model. []{data-label="heavy-lipkin-mag"}

It_is interesting to compare the phenomenology_of the above two clustered quark models._There is only a $SU(3)$ flavor_anti-sextet for heavy pentaquarks in_Jaffe and_Wilczek’s model. In contrast, an_additional flavor triplet_exists in_Karliner and Lipkin’s_diquark and triquark model. The masses_and magnetic moments_of these triplet pentaquarks are equal_to_their anti-sextet partners_in_KL’s_model. For_the light pentaquarks,_all_the above_two_clustered quark models predicted the existence_of_an anti-decuplet and an accompanying octet.

Another dramatic_difference lies in the_prediction_of the magnetic moments_of the $J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+$ heavy sextet_pentaquarks. The magnetic moments of the_$J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+$ heavy_sextet is_tiny and much smaller in KL’s model than those in JW’s_model. There is strong cancellation between_the magnetic moment of_the triquark_and_the orbital magnetic_moment_in a_$J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+$ sextet when they are combined by_Clebsch-Gordan coefficients._This cancellation is almost exact for_bottom pentaquarks. For the_magnetic_moments of the $J^P=\frac{3}{2}^+$ sextet, there_is also significant difference between KL’s_model and JW’s models.

The third_difference_is_that the masses of the_pentaquarks in KL’s model are about_300 MeV larger_than those in JW’s model. The reason_is_that Karliner and Lipkin assumed that_the_diquark (triquark) mass is simply the_sum_of_its constituents. In contrast, the_diquark mass is made much lower_than the sum of the two quarks through the_strong correlation between_light quarks when they are_in_anti-symmetric_configuration in JW’s model [@jaffe].

The heavy pentaquark masses and their_strong, semi-leptonic_and non-lept