\Lambda}$ and $C_{3S1}^{\Lambda\Sigma}$ as input values in Eq. (\[s-wave-sumrules\]) and the large-$N_c$ sum rules predict that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LECs-sumrules}
&& C_{1S0,{\rm EG}}^{\Sigma\Sigma} = -0.06327\,,\qquad C_{3S1,{\rm EG}}^{\Sigma\Sigma} = 0.1271\,,
\nonumber\\
&& C_{1S0,{\rm HB}}^{\Sigma\Sigma} = -0.04333\,,\qquad C_{3S1,{\rm HB}}^{\Sigma\Sigma} = -0.0176\,.\end{aligned}$$ Comparing the LECs, $C_{1S0}^{\Sigma\Sigma}$ and $C_{3S1}^{\Sigma\Sigma}$ from the large-$N_c$’s predictions with the best fitted values in Tab. \[tab\_LECs600\], we found that $C_{1S0}^{\Sigma\Sigma}$ and $C_{3S1}^{\Sigma\Sigma}$ from large-$N_c$ are in the same order as the best fitted values and with the same relative sign in EG approach. On the other hand, for the HB formalisms, the $C_{1S0}^{\Sigma\Sigma}$ is also in the same order as the large-$N_c$ value and with the same relative sign. But for the $C_{3S1}^{\Sigma\Sigma}$ value in HB approach, it is different in order of magnitude of 1 with the large-$N_c$ prediction and with different relative sign. One notes that the LECs best fitted values from EG and HB approaches have statistical uncertainties at 68 % (one sigma) level. While Ref. [@Li:2016paq] concluded that there is not much difference between two approaches. But the large-$N_c$ sum rules in this work can show that the LECs from EG approach is more consistent with the predictions of large-$N_c$ than the HB formalism.

Conclusions
===========

In this work, we studied the large-$N_c$ operator analysis of the octet-octet baryon potential from the SU(3) ChEFT. The minimal set of the octet-octet baryon potential is derived by using the relativistic constraints as suggestion in Refs. [@Girlanda:2010ya; @Girland
\Lambda}$ and $ C_{3S1}^{\Lambda\Sigma}$ as input values in Eq. (\[s - wave - sumrules\ ]) and the large-$N_c$ sum rules bode that $ $ \begin{aligned } 
 \label{LECs - sumrules } 
 & & C_{1S0,{\rm EG}}^{\Sigma\Sigma } = -0.06327\,,\qquad C_{3S1,{\rm EG}}^{\Sigma\Sigma } = 0.1271\, , 
 \nonumber\\ 
 & & C_{1S0,{\rm HB}}^{\Sigma\Sigma } = -0.04333\,,\qquad C_{3S1,{\rm HB}}^{\Sigma\Sigma } = -0.0176\,.\end{aligned}$$ compare the LECs, $ C_{1S0}^{\Sigma\Sigma}$ and $ C_{3S1}^{\Sigma\Sigma}$ from the large-$N_c$ ’s predictions with the best meet value in Tab. \[tab\_LECs600\ ], we found that $ C_{1S0}^{\Sigma\Sigma}$ and $ C_{3S1}^{\Sigma\Sigma}$ from large-$N_c$ are in the same club as the dependable fitted value and with the same relative polarity in EG approach. On the other handwriting, for the HB formalism, the $ C_{1S0}^{\Sigma\Sigma}$ is also in the same order as the large-$N_c$ value and with the same relative signal. But for the $ C_{3S1}^{\Sigma\Sigma}$ value in HB approach, it is different in order of order of magnitude of 1 with the large-$N_c$ prediction and with different relative augury. One notes that the LECs better fitted values from EG and HB approaches have statistical uncertainties at 68% (one sigma) grade. While Ref. [ @Li:2016paq ] concluded that there is not much difference between two approaches. But the large-$N_c$ sum rule in this work can show that the LECs from EG approach is more consistent with the predictions of large-$N_c$ than the HB formalism. 

 Conclusions 
 = = = = = = = = = = = 

 In this work, we studied the large-$N_c$ operator analysis of the octet - eight baryon electric potential from the SU(3) ChEFT. The minimal set of the octet - octet baryon potential is derive by using the relativistic constraints as suggestion in Refs. [ @Girlanda:2010ya; @Girland
\Lamhda}$ and $C_{3S1}^{\Lambda\Sigma}$ as input values iu Eq. (\[s-weve-sumrhles\]) and the large-$N_c$ sum rules predirt tyat $$\btyin{aligned}
\label{LECs-sjmrules}
&& C_{1D0,{\rm EG}}^{\Sitma\Smgma} = -0.06327\,,\qquad C_{3S1,{\rm EG}}^{\Sigma\Sigma} = 0.1271\,,
\konumyec\\
&& C_{1S0,{\rm HB}}^{\Sigma\Slgma} = -0.04333\,,\qquad C_{3S1,{\rm HB}}^{\Sigma\Shgoa} = -0.0176\,.\end{aligned}$$ Comparing the LECs, $C_{1S0}^{\Sygma\Sigka}$ and $C_{3S1}^{\Sigma\Sidma}$ gwom fhe large-$N_c$’s predictions with the gest fiuted values in Tab. \[tab\_LECs600\], we found that $C_{1S0}^{\Slgma\Digma}$ and $C_{3S1}^{\Sigma\Slgma}$ from lqrge-$G_x$ are in the same ordeg as the beat fitted values and with the sxme rzlative sigb un FC approach. In thv other hand, npr the HB forkalisms, the $C_{1S0}^{\Xigka\Sugma}$ is also in the seme order as the larde-$N_c$ valua cnd with the same relqtuve shgn. Tut wir ghe $C_{3X1}^{\Sjgma\Sihma}$ value in GB approach, it is different in oweer of magnithde of 1 rith the large-$N_c$ prediction and with dixfedent relative sign. One botes that the LECs bgst fitted values from EG and HB approaches have statistican uncxrgaiubles xr 68 % (one sigma) level. While Ref. [@Li:2016paq] concluded trzt tmere is not much difference bftegen two approazhes. Bbf fhe large-$N_c$ sum rupes in jhis wirk can srow yhat the LECs from EG approqch is more bonsustent with the przdictions of larbe-$N_c$ yhan the HB formalism.

Couclusikns
===========

In this aork, we sfjdied the large-$N_z$ oierador analysis of the octet-ostet baryin pptentiau frpm the SU(3) ChEFT. Hhe mltimal set of the oftet-oetet taryon potfntial is derived by using the cxlativistic cpnvtrdints as suggcstion in Refs. [@Dirlanda:2010ya; @Girkand
\Lambda}$ and $C_{3S1}^{\Lambda\Sigma}$ as input values in and large-$N_c$ sum predict that $$\begin{aligned} -0.06327\,,\qquad EG}}^{\Sigma\Sigma} = 0.1271\,, && C_{1S0,{\rm HB}}^{\Sigma\Sigma} -0.04333\,,\qquad C_{3S1,{\rm HB}}^{\Sigma\Sigma} = -0.0176\,.\end{aligned}$$ Comparing LECs, $C_{1S0}^{\Sigma\Sigma}$ and $C_{3S1}^{\Sigma\Sigma}$ from the large-$N_c$’s predictions with the best fitted values Tab. \[tab\_LECs600\], we found that $C_{1S0}^{\Sigma\Sigma}$ and $C_{3S1}^{\Sigma\Sigma}$ from large-$N_c$ are in the order the fitted and with the same relative sign in EG approach. On the other hand, for the HB the $C_{1S0}^{\Sigma\Sigma}$ is also in the same order the large-$N_c$ value and the same relative sign. But the value in approach, is in order of of 1 with the large-$N_c$ prediction and with different relative sign. One notes that the LECs best values from HB approaches statistical at % (one sigma) Ref. [@Li:2016paq] concluded that there is between two approaches. But the large-$N_c$ sum rules this work show that the LECs from EG is more consistent with the predictions of large-$N_c$ the HB formalism. Conclusions =========== In this work, we studied the large-$N_c$ operator analysis of baryon potential from the ChEFT. The minimal of octet-octet potential derived by the relativistic constraints as suggestion in Refs. [@Girlanda:2010ya; @Girland
\Lambda}$ and $C_{3S1}^{\Lambda\Sigma}$ as iNput values In Eq. (\[s-WavE-suMrUles\]) And tHe large-$N_c$ sum ruLEs prEdict that $$\begin{aligned}
\lAbel{LeCS-SumrULeS}
&& C_{1S0,{\rm eG}}^{\Sigma\sIgMA} = -0.06327\,,\QquAd c_{3S1,{\Rm Eg}}^{\SIGmA\SigmA} = 0.1271\,,
\noNumber\\
&& C_{1s0,{\rm HB}}^{\Sigma\sigMa} = -0.04333\,,\Qquad C_{3S1,{\rm HB}}^{\SIGmA\Sigma} = -0.0176\,.\end{aLigNed}$$ Comparing The lECs, $C_{1S0}^{\siGma\sIgma}$ aNd $C_{3s1}^{\SigmA\Sigma}$ FRom the Large-$N_c$’s pReDIctionS With the BESt FittEd values in Tab. \[tab\_Lecs600\], WE found that $C_{1S0}^{\SiGma\SigMa}$ ANd $c_{3s1}^{\sigMa\SIgma}$ from laRgE-$N_c$ arE In the saME oRDER as THe best fitted vAlues and witH The Same reLaTivE Sign in eG appRoACh. ON the other haNd, foR the HB forMalismS, The $C_{1S0}^{\SiGMa\Sigma}$ Is also In tHe sAme oRDeR aS thE lARge-$n_C$ vAluE And With the sAmE rElatiVe siGN. bUT for The $c_{3S1}^{\SiGma\SiGma}$ value in HB aPprOach, IT is DiffeRent iN ordEr Of magNitude Of 1 witH tHe large-$N_c$ predicTion And with diFfeReNt rElAtive SIgn. One NotEs tHat the LeCs best FIttEd VALUeS from EG and HB approaChES HaVe statisTical uNCeRtAInties at 68 % (OnE siGma) lEVEl. WhiLe ReF. [@li:2016Paq] conclUded thAT tHeRe is not MuCh diffErEncE beTween TWo apProachEs. But the Large-$n_C$ sum rules in thiS Work can show thAT tHE lEcS froM EG Approach is mOre cONsisTent WItH thE PrediCtionS oF LaRGe-$N_c$ than the HB formalIsM.

ConclUsionS
===========

In this work, we Studied the LARGe-$N_c$ operAtor ANaLYsis of the octet-Octet Baryon poteNTial from The SU(3) chEFT. The Minimal seT OF the octeT-ocTet BarYon POTeNtial is deriveD BY usiNg The relaTivIstic coNstRaiNts As sUgGestion in refs. [@GirlAnDa:2010Ya; @giRlaNd
\Lambda}$ and $C_{3S1}^{\L ambda\Sigm a}$ a s i npu tvalu es i n Eq. (\[s-wav e -sum rules\]) and the large -$N_c $s um r u le s pre dict th a t$ $ \be gi n{ ali gn e d} 
\lab el{ LECs-su mrules}
&&  C_ {1 S0,{\rm EG}} ^ {\ Sigma\Sigm a}= -0.06327\, ,\q quad C _{ 3S1 , {\rmEG} }^{\S igma\S i gma} =  0.1271\, ,\ nonumb e r\\
&&C _ {1 S0,{ \rm HB}}^{\Sigma\ S ig m a} = -0.04333\ ,,\qqu ad C_ { 3 S1, {\r m HB}}^{\S ig ma\Si g ma} = - 0 .0 1 7 6 \,. \ end{aligned}$ $ Comparing the  LECs,  $ C_{ 1 S0}^{\ Sigma \S i gma }$ and $C_{ 3S1} ^{\Sigma\ Sigma} $  from t h e large -$N_c$ ’spre dict i on swit ht heb es t f i tte d values  i nTab.\[ta b \ _ L ECs6 00\ ], w e fou nd that $C_{1 S0} ^{\S i gma \Sigm a}$ a nd $ C_ {3S1} ^{\Sig ma\Si gm a}$ from large- $N_c $ are inthe  s ame  o rdera s thebes t f itted v alues a n d w it h t he  same relative sig ni n  E G approa ch. On th eo ther han d,  fo r th e HB fo rmal i sm s, the $ C_{1S0 } ^{ \S igma\Si gm a}$ is  a lso  in  thes ameorderas the l arge- $ N_c$ value and with the same re l a ti v e si gn.  But for th e $C _ {3S1 }^{\ S ig ma\ S igma} $ val ue in HB approach, it isdi fferen t inorder of magn itude of 1 w i th the l arge - $N _ c$ predictionand w ith differ e nt relat ive s ign. One  notes th a t  the LEC s b est  fi tte d va lues from EGa n d HB  a pproach eshave st ati sti cal  un ce rtainties  at 68 %  ( on esi gma ) lev e l. While  R ef.  [ @Li :2016 p aq] co nclud ed t ha tt her e is no t  m u c h di ff er ence  be tw een t wo a p pro aches.But the l arg e -$N_ c$  s um rule s in this wor kcan show t ha t t he LEC s from EGapproach is more consis t ent wit h t he pr edic tions oflar ge-$N_ c$t han th e HB f ormal is m.C onclu s i on s
= == ========
I n  th is wo rk , we  studie d the large-$N_c$o per ator analysis  of  the o ct et- o ct e t b ar y onp o tential from th e SU(3) Ch EF T .The minima l  se tof theoctet-o ctetb aryon p otentialis derive dby u s i ngthe relati vistic c onstraint s  as s u gg estio n i n Refs .[@G irlan da:201 0 ya;  @Gir land
\Lambda}$ and_$C_{3S1}^{\Lambda\Sigma}$ as_input values in Eq._(\[s-wave-sumrules\]) and_the_large-$N_c$ sum_rules_predict that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LECs-sumrules}
&&_C_{1S0,{\rm EG}}^{\Sigma\Sigma} =_-0.06327\,,\qquad C_{3S1,{\rm EG}}^{\Sigma\Sigma} =_0.1271\,,
\nonumber\\
&& C_{1S0,{\rm HB}}^{\Sigma\Sigma}_=_-0.04333\,,\qquad C_{3S1,{\rm HB}}^{\Sigma\Sigma} = -0.0176\,.\end{aligned}$$ Comparing the LECs, $C_{1S0}^{\Sigma\Sigma}$ and $C_{3S1}^{\Sigma\Sigma}$ from the large-$N_c$’s_predictions_with the_best_fitted_values in Tab. \[tab\_LECs600\], we_found that $C_{1S0}^{\Sigma\Sigma}$ and $C_{3S1}^{\Sigma\Sigma}$_from large-$N_c$_are in the same order as the best_fitted_values and with_the same relative sign in EG approach. On the_other hand, for the HB formalisms,_the $C_{1S0}^{\Sigma\Sigma}$ is_also_in_the same order as_the large-$N_c$ value and with the_same relative sign. But for the_$C_{3S1}^{\Sigma\Sigma}$ value in HB approach, it is_different in order of magnitude of_1 with the large-$N_c$ prediction_and with_different relative sign. One notes_that the LECs_best fitted_values from EG_and HB approaches have statistical uncertainties_at 68 %_(one sigma) level. While Ref. [@Li:2016paq]_concluded_that there is_not_much_difference between_two approaches. But_the_large-$N_c$ sum_rules_in this work can show that_the_LECs from EG approach is more consistent_with the predictions of_large-$N_c$_than the HB formalism.

Conclusions
===========

In_this work, we studied the_large-$N_c$ operator analysis of the octet-octet_baryon potential_from the_SU(3) ChEFT. The minimal set of the octet-octet baryon potential is_derived by using the relativistic constraints_as suggestion in Refs._[@Girlanda:2010ya; @Girland