Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 20 references

A study of the corrections to factorization in $\bar{B}^0 \to D^{* +} \omega \pi^-$

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read No statistically significant corrections to QCD factorization are found in the $\omega\pi$ channel of $\bar{B}^0 \to D^{*+}\omega\pi^-$ decays.

desk verdict Solid, carefully caveated null result on factorization in B->D* omega pi, worth refereeing after the abstract is toned down and the model uncertainty is bounded. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00200 v2 pith:K6QDAUX2 submitted 2019-08-31 hep-ph

S.I. Eidelman , L.V. Kardapoltsev , D.V. Matvienko This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords QCDfactorizationBmesondecaysomega-piformfactorconservedvectorcurrentnonleptonicamplitudeanalysislargeNclimitperturbativecorrections
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to test QCD factorization in the color-favored decay $\bar{B}^0 \to D^{*+}\omega\pi^-$ by comparing the $\omega\pi$ production form factor $F_{\omega\pi}(q^2)$ extracted from Belle data with the same form factor measured in $\tau \to \omega\pi\nu_\tau$ decays and in $e^+e^- \to \omega\pi^0$ annihilation, connected by the conserved vector current. Under exact factorization the product $a_1 F_{\omega\pi}^B(q^2)$ should equal $(c_1 + c_2/3)F_{\omega\pi}^{\tau(e^+e^-)}(q^2)$ over the whole kinematic range. The extracted effective coefficient $a_1 = 0.87 \pm 0.09$ is consistent, within the still-large Belle uncertainties, with the next-to-leading-order prediction $a_1(m_b) = 1.02 \pm 0.02$, so no statistically significant corrections to factorization are found. The paper interprets the lower central normalization as a hint of large-$N_c$ effects and the absence of a growing shape difference as a sign that perturbative QCD corrections to factorization are small, while arguing that only higher-statistics data from Belle II or LHCb can make the test conclusive.

What carries the argument

The central object is the $\omega\pi$ transition form factor $F_{\omega\pi}(q^2)$, modeled in eq. (2.2) as the coherent sum of $\rho(770)$ and $\rho(1450)$ Breit-Wigner amplitudes with Blatt-Weisskopf factors, whose squared modulus is integrated with the $B\to D^*$ partial-wave form factors to normalize the $B$-decay rate. The load-bearing identity is eq. (1.3): if factorization is exact, $a_1 F_{\omega\pi}^B(q^2) = (c_1(\mu) + c_2(\mu)/3)F_{\omega\pi}^{\tau(e^+e^-)}(q^2)$. The machinery consists of the Belle amplitude analysis for the $B$-decay side, the CLN parameterization with $F(1)|V_{cb}|$ from Belle for the semileptonic current, and CVC to identify the weak $\omega\pi$ current with the isovector electromagnetic current measured in $e^+e^-$ and $\tau$ data.

What would settle it

A high-statistics Belle II or LHCb measurement of the $q^2 = M^2(\omega\pi)$ distribution in $\bar{B}^0 \to D^{*+}\omega\pi^-$ that shows a greater-than-$5\sigma$ deviation from the factorization prediction in the 4\textendash{}5 GeV$^2$ region, or a $D^*$ longitudinal polarization inconsistent with the semileptonic measurement, would falsify the exact-factorization picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, in the color-favored $\bar{B}^0 \to D^{*+}\omega\pi^-$ channel, the $\omega\pi$ form factor extracted from the Belle amplitude analysis is consistent with the form factor measured in $\tau$ decays and $e^+e^-$ annihilation under the factorization hypothesis. The test identity is $a_1 F_{\omega\pi}^B(q^2) = (c_1 + c_2/3)F_{\omega\pi}^{\tau(e^+e^-)}(q^2)$; the left side is obtained from the $B$ data by fixing the $B\to D^*$ current at the Belle semileptonic values of $F(1)|V_{cb}|$ and CLN parameters, while the right side comes from CVC-related $\tau$ and $e^+e^-$ data. The extraction gives $a_1\tilde g = 2.66\pm 0.28$ and $\tilde g = 3.05\pm 0.02$ from a fit to SND data, yielding $a_1 = 0.87\pm 0.09$, compared with the NLO factorization value $1.02\pm 0.02$. The paper therefore concludes that no evidence of corrections to factorization can be claimed at current precision; the difference in normalization, if real, would point to $1/N_c$ corrections, while any shape difference growing with $q^2 = M^2(\omega\pi)$ would be the perturbative-QCD signature.

Load-bearing premise

The test stands on the assumption, inherited from the Belle amplitude analysis, that nonfactorizable corrections do not affect the $D^*$ polarization; if they do, the extracted $\omega\pi$ form factor is biased and the comparison would miss exactly the corrections it aims to detect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the color-favored $B \to D^*\omega\pi$ amplitude shows no significant nonfactorizable contribution, so new-physics effects in this decay would have to be smaller than the current roughly 20% uncertainties.
  • The central value $a_1 = 0.87 \pm 0.09$, below the NLO $1.02 \pm 0.02$, would become, with better statistics, a quantitative measure of the $1/N_c$ parameter $\epsilon_8$ in the effective coefficient $a_1 = (c_1+c_2/3)(1+\epsilon_1) + c_2\epsilon_8$.
  • A shape difference growing with $q^2$ is the predicted signature of perturbative QCD corrections to factorization, since those scale as $M(\omega\pi)/m_b$; the current data do not resolve it.
  • The $\rho(2150)$ bump seen in $e^+e^-$ ISR data between 4 and 5 GeV$^2$ should also appear in the $B$-decay $q^2$ spectrum if factorization and CVC hold; Belle data show a hint only.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • I would extend the same ratio test to other two-meson channels such as $B \to D^*\rho$ or $B \to D^*\pi\pi$, where the same identity compares the extracted $B$-decay form factor with CVC data on $\pi\pi$ production; a discrepancy in one channel would localize the breakdown.
  • A model-independent version could extract the form-factor shape without the $\rho+\rho'$ parameterization by using weighted integrals over $q^2$, and only then compare normalizations; the paper's model dependence would then be testable.
  • If the normalization difference persists with smaller errors, the implied $\epsilon_8$ would connect to other nonleptonic $B$ decays like $B\to D\pi$, where $a_1$ is also measured; a consistent value across channels would strengthen the large-$N_c$ interpretation.
  • The high-statistics measurement could come from $B_s \to D_s^*\omega\pi$ at LHCb; the same machinery applies, and a cross-check between $B$ and $B_s$ decays would separate spectator effects from genuine factorization corrections.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper tests the factorization hypothesis in $\bar{B}^0 \to D^{*+} \omega \pi^-$ by comparing the $\omega\pi$ transition form factor extracted from Belle data [1] with the form factors measured in $\tau \to \omega\pi\nu_\tau$ decays and in $e^+e^- \to \omega\pi^0$ via the conserved vector current hypothesis. After re-fitting the Belle amplitude analysis with the CLN parametrization and combining the color-favored branching fraction with $F(1)|V_{cb}|$, the authors obtain $a_1 \tilde{g} = 2.66 \pm 0.28$; fitting the same $\rho(770)+\rho(1450)$ model to SND data gives $\tilde{g} = 3.05 \pm 0.02$, which yields $a_1 = 0.87 \pm 0.09$. This is consistent with the next-to-leading-order value $a_1(m_b) = 1.02 \pm 0.02$ within the present statistical accuracy. The paper concludes that current $B$-decay data do not show statistically significant corrections to factorization, discusses a possible $\rho(2150)$-related structure around $q^2 = 4\text{--}5$ GeV$^2$, and identifies Belle II and LHCb as the route to a more sensitive test.

Significance. The paper presents a well-documented extraction chain: the form-factor definition is explicit, the error propagation is laid out, and the comparison with $e^+e^-/\tau$ data uses a common parametrization so that the quoted numbers follow from the displayed equations. If the result holds, the paper provides a proof-of-method factorization test in a color-favored $B$ decay and an honest null result whose statistical limitations are clearly stated. The main value is methodological and as a baseline for future high-statistics analyses, rather than as a decisive measurement; the current uncertainties are too large to discriminate between the $1/N_c$ and perturbative-QCD pictures of nonfactorizable corrections.

major comments (3)
  1. [§1 and §2, Eqs. (1.2), (1.3), (2.5)] The extraction of $F_B^{\omega\pi}$ (and hence of $a_1\tilde{g}$) inherits a factorization assumption from the input Belle amplitude analysis [1], which fixed the $D^*$ helicity-amplitude normalizations from $\bar{B}^0 \to D^{*+}l^-\bar{\nu}_l$ and assumed that corrections affecting the $D^*$ polarization are absent. The manuscript states this limitation, but it does not quantify how large nonfactorizable corrections in the $D^*$ polarization sector could be while remaining invisible to the test. Because the Sec. 3 null conclusion applies only to corrections that leave this sector untouched, I ask the authors to add a quantitative sensitivity statement, e.g., by propagating a plausible range or uncertainty of the longitudinal polarization $P_{D^*}$ and of the helicity ratios $R_1,R_2$ into $a_1\tilde{g}$, so that the reader can judge how large such corrections could be without being detected.
  2. [§2, Eqs. (2.2), (2.3) and Fig. 2] The $\rho(770)+\rho(1450)$ parametrization with the Blatt-Weisskopf radius $r = 1.6$ GeV$^{-1}$ is used for both the $B$-side and the $e^+e^-$ side, but the model uncertainty is not propagated into $a_1$ and is not shown in Fig. 2, where the 68% band reflects only statistical uncertainties. The authors' own example shows that changing $r$ to $0$ shifts the SND-derived $g_{\omega\rho\pi}$ from $13.9 \pm 0.1$ to $15.9 \pm 0.4$ GeV$^{-1}$; a similar sensitivity can be expected on the $B$-side $\tilde{g}$. Please provide a quantitative estimate of the model uncertainty on $a_1$ (for instance by varying $r$ and the two-resonance ansatz), or demonstrate explicitly how this uncertainty cancels in the ratio entering Eq. (1.4).
  3. [§2, around Eq. (2.5)] The quoted error $a_1\tilde{g} = 2.66 \pm 0.28$ is stated to be dominated by the integral $J$, but the paper does not give the composition of this uncertainty. In particular, it is not explicit whether all significant systematic uncertainties of the Belle amplitude analysis of ref. [1] are included; the text refers to Table III of [1] to argue that the $D^{**}$ model dependence is not significant, yet the relevant numbers are not reproduced here. Please break down the 0.28 uncertainty into the statistical contribution from the fit, the uncertainty from $F(1)|V_{cb}|$, the uncertainty from $f_{\rho+\rho'} \times \mathcal{B}(B \to D^*\omega\pi)$, and the model-parameter contribution, and confirm that the $D^{**}$ uncertainties are either included or explicitly justified as negligible.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (1.4)] Because Eq. (1.4) uses absolute values, $\delta_{NF}$ is a magnitude correction and any phase information in the helicity amplitudes is dropped; this should be stated when the parameter is introduced.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption says the data are weighted by $a_1 = 1.02 \pm 0.02$, while the green dotted line is obtained from the fitted $a_1\tilde{g}$ product; please clarify in the caption which curves use the predicted $a_1$ and which use the extracted value, to avoid confusion.
  3. [Reference [16]] Reference [16] is incomplete: the entry lacks the author list and reads as a bare title; it should be completed before submission.
  4. [§2, around Eq. (2.1)] The notation switches between $\tilde{g}$ and $g_{\omega\rho\pi}$; please state explicitly, before Eq. (2.1), that $\tilde{g}$ is the product of the $\rho$-meson weak decay constant $f_\rho$ and the coupling $g_{\omega\rho\pi}$.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The B-side form factor inherits the input amplitude analysis's assumption that D* polarization corrections are absent, so the null result is not exhaustive in that sector.

  1. self definitional [Section 1, after Eq. (1.3); Section 3 conclusion]
    "Results of the amplitude analysis in ref. [1] are obtained under the assumption that corrections affecting the polarization of the D* are absent. In such a case, the current J(B→D*) mu takes into account only nontrivial final-state interaction phases in helicity amplitudes (see Appendix C in ref. [1]) which cancel after integration over angular variables. ... As a consequence, such a test is not exhaustive and should be considered as a complementary one to the first test discussed above."

    The factorization test in Eq. (1.3) requires the B-side form factor F_B^{ωπ}(q2) to be measured without assuming the hypothesis under test. However, that form factor is extracted from the Belle amplitude analysis of ref. [1], which fixed the D* longitudinal polarization and helicity-amplitude normalizations under the factorization assumption. Nonfactorizable corrections that alter the D* polarization are therefore absorbed or projected out before a1 g-tilde is obtained from Eq. (2.5). The quoted consistency a1=0.87±0.09 versus a1(mb)=1.02±0.02 is thus insensitive by construction to that class of corrections. The paper's own 'not exhaustive' caveat confirms that the conclusion 'no ...

full rationale

This is a partial circularity, not a full one. The comparison of the q2-dependent form factor shape against independent tau and e+e- data is an external benchmark, and a1 g-tilde is obtained from the measured color-favored branching fraction and fitted rho/rho-prime parameters rather than by fitting a1 to the prediction. The Blatt-Weisskopf choice r = 1.6 GeV^-1 is a stated model assumption with acknowledged effects on g_ρωπ, which is model dependence rather than circularity. The main circular element is inherited from ref. [1], where the D* polarization and helicity normalizations were fixed assuming factorization; the present paper explicitly concedes 'such a test is not exhaustive.' Because this inherited assumption directly limits the central null conclusion, the score is 4. It is not higher because the shape comparison retains independent content and the authors do not present the polarization-blind test as complete evidence against factorization.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's input is almost entirely external: the Belle amplitude analysis of ref [1], the CLN/HQET form factor machinery with parameters from ref [10], F(1)|Vcb| from ref [10], the NLO a1 from ref [13], and the CVC hypothesis. The paper itself fits the rho-prime parameters and the coupling g-tilde to the B data and to SND e+e- data, and chooses the Blatt-Weisskopf radius r by hand. No new entities are introduced; the rho(2150) structure mentioned as a possible explanation of the high-q2 bump is an already-known state. The main additions are five fitted parameters and the model choice of eq (2.2), whose uncertainty is not quantified.

free parameters (6)
  • Blatt-Weisskopf radius r = 1.6 GeV^-1
    Hand-chosen 'typical hadronic scale' in the F_rho(q2) form factors (eq 2.3). Affects the extracted g_omega-rho-pi: 13.9 GeV^-1 with r = 1.6 versus 15.9 GeV^-1 for r = 0 (Section 2).
  • rho(1450) mass m_rho' = 1540 ± 22 MeV
    Free parameter in the refit of Belle data with the CLN parameterization (Section 2); also free in the SND e+e- fit. Central to the high-q2 shape comparison.
  • rho(1450) width Gamma_rho' = 304 ± 49 MeV
    Free parameter in the B-data refit (Section 2); determines the broad second resonance contribution to the form factor shape.
  • relative rho' strength A_rho' = 0.19 ± 0.05
    Free parameter in the refit of the Belle data (Section 2), part of the f_omega-pi(q2) parameterization (eq 2.2).
  • relative rho' phase phi_rho' = 2.52 ± 0.11 rad
    Free parameter in the refit of the Belle data (Section 2), part of the f_omega-pi(q2) parameterization (eq 2.2).
  • omega-pi form factor coupling g-tilde = 3.05 ± 0.02 (e+e- fit); 2.61 ± 0.28 (B fit with a1 = 1.02)
    The overall normalization coupling of f_omega-pi, free in the SND e+e- fit; its ratio to the B-side product a1 g-tilde = 2.66 plus/minus 0.28 yields the paper's a1 = 0.87 plus/minus 0.09.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Conserved vector current hypothesis: the isovector part of the electromagnetic current matches the weak charged current, eq (1.1).
    Basis for equating the e+e- to omega pi0 form factor with the tau weak form factor; standard SM input, unproven in the paper.
  • domain assumption Factorization assumed for the D* polarization and helicity amplitudes in the input Belle amplitude analysis (ref [1]).
    Section 1 states the Belle analysis fixed PD* in part from the factorization prediction and assumed corrections affecting the D* polarization are absent. The test inherits this assumption, so corrections in the polarization sector are invisible.
  • ad hoc to paper The rho(770) plus rho(1450) model with Blatt-Weisskopf form factors (eq 2.2) describes the omega-pi form factor in both B and e+e- data.
    Chosen over VMD because VMD fits the B data about 3 sigma worse (Section 2). The model uncertainty is stated but not quantified, and the comparison is model-dependent (r = 1.6 versus r = 0 shifts g_omega-rho-pi by 15 percent).
  • standard math Isgur-Wise function described by the CLN parameterization with parameters rho2, R1, R2 from ref [10].
    Used for the B to D* transition form factors in the integral J (eq 2.6); external input from semileptonic decays, treated as given.
  • domain assumption The effective coefficient a1(mb) = 1.02 plus/minus 0.02 from NLO QCD factorization (ref [13]).
    External calculation used to convert a1 g-tilde into g-tilde and to draw the factorization-prediction comparison in figure 2; the paper does not recompute it.
  • domain assumption The QCD factorization framework of refs [7,8] governs the interpretation of delta_NF, including the large-Nc expectation that a1 is slightly less than naive and the pQCD expectation that corrections grow with M(omega-pi).
    The interpretation of the normalization shift and of the high-q2 behavior rests on these external frameworks; the paper provides no independent derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A study of the corrections to factorization in $\bar{B}^0 \to D^{* +} \omega \pi^-$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K6QDAUX2

@misc{pith2026190900200,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A study of the corrections to factorization in $\barB^0 \to D^* + \omega \pi^-$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K6QDAUX2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00200}
}
abstract

A factorization hypothesis is tested by examining a form factor of the $\omega\pi$ production in hadronic $B^0 \to D^{\ast \pm}\omega\pi^\mp$ decays. The form factor is compared to that from available $\tau$-lepton as well as $e^+e^-$ data using the conserved vector current hypothesis. The difference of normalizations of form factor shapes from $B$ and $\tau~(e^+e^-)$ data indicates the important role of the large $N_c$ limit in QCD. Moreover, the growth of the difference between the form factors with the $\omega\pi$ invariant mass is related to the perturbative QCD corrections of factorization. The current precision of $B$ data does not allow one to find any evidence of corrections to factorization. A promising study could be performed with the Belle II and LHCb data sets.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Study of $D^{**}$ production and light hadronic states in the $\bar{B}^0 \to D^{*+} \omega \pi^-$ decay

    D. Matvienko, A. Kuzmin, S. Eidelman et al. [ Belle Collaboration ] Study of D∗∗ production and light hadronic states in the ¯B0→D∗+ωπ − decay, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 012013. [arXiv:1505.03362 [hep-ex]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    Comment on studying the corrections to factorization in B -> D(*) X

    Z. Ligeti, M. Like and M. Wise, Comment on studying the corrections to factorization in B→D(∗)X, Phys. Lett. B 507 (2001) 142. [arXiv:hep-ph/0103020]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2001

  3. [3]

    Korner and G

    J. Korner and G. Goldstein, Quark and particle helicities in hadronic charmed particle decays, Phys. Lett. B 89 (1979) 105

    work page 1979

  4. [4]

    First Observation of B -> D(*) rho', rho' -> omega pi-

    J.P. Alexander, C. Bebek, B.E. Berger et al. [ CLEO Collaboration ], First observation of ¯B0→D∗ρ ′−, ρ ′−→ωπ −, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 092001. [arXiv:hep-ex/0103021]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2001

  5. [5]

    Study of the decay B0bar -> D*+ omega pi-

    B. Aubert, R. Barate, M. Bona et al. [ BABAR Collaboration ], Study of the decay ¯B0→D∗+ωπ −, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 012001. [arXiv:hep-ex/0604009]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

  6. [6]

    Measurements of the B to D* Form Factors Using the Decay B0 --> D* e nu_e

    B. Aubert, R. Barate, D. Boutigny et al. [ BABAR Collaboration ], Measurements of the B→D∗ form-factors using the decay ¯B0→D∗+e−νe, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 092004. [arXiv:hep-ex/0602023]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    Neubert and B

    M. Neubert and B. Stech, Non-leptonic weak decays of B mesons, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 15 (1998) 294. [arXiv:hep-ph/9705292]

    arXiv 1998

  8. [8]

    Beneke, G

    M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C. Sachrajda, QCD factorization for exclusive, nonleptonic B meson decays: General arguments and the case of heavy light final states , Nucl. Phys. B 591 (2000) 313. [arXiv:hep-ph/0006124]

    arXiv 2000

Show all 20 references
  1. [9]

    Arnaldi, K

    R. Arnaldi, K. Banucz, K. Borer et al. [ NA60 Collaboration) ], Precision study of the η→µ+µ−γ and ω→µ+µ−π0 electromagnetic transition form-factors and of the ρ→µ+µ− line shape in NA60 , Phys. Lett. B 757 (2016) 437. [arXiv:1608.07898 [hep-ex]]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Waheed, P

    E. Waheed, P. Urquijo, I. Adachi et al. [ Belle Collaboration ], Measurement of CKM matrix element|Vcb| fromB0→D∗−l+νl, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 052007. [arXiv:1809.03290 [hep-ex]]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Caprini, L

    I. Caprini, L. Lellouch and M. Neubert, Dispersive bounds on the shape of ¯B→D(∗) lepton anti-neutrino form-factors Nucl. Phys. B 530 (1998) 153. [arXiv:hep-ph/9712417]

    1998 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Tanabashi, K

    M. Tanabashi, K. Hagiwara, K. Hikasa et al. [Particle Data Group], Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 030001

    2018

  5. [13]

    Beneke, G

    M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C.Sachrajda, QCD factorization in B→πK,ππ decays and extraction of Wolfenstein parameters , Nucl. Phys. B 606 (2001) 245. [arXiv:hep-ph/0104110] – 9 –

    2001 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Achasov, K.I

    M.N. Achasov, K.I. Beloborodov, A.V. Berdyugin et al. [ SND Collaboration ], The process e+e−→ωπ 0→π0π0γ up to 1.4-GeV , Phys. Lett. B 486 (2000) 29. [arXiv: hep-ex/0005032]

    2000 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Achasov, A.Yu

    M.N. Achasov, A.Yu. Barnyakov, K.I. Beloborodov et al. [ SND Collaboration ], Updated measurement of the e+e−→ωπ 0→π0π0γ cross section with the SND detector , Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 112001. [arXiv:1610.00235 [hep-ex]]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    gωρπ reexamined, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 249. [arXiv:hep-ph/9608331]

    1997 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Edwards, R

    K.W. Edwards, R. Janicek, P.M. Patel et al. [ CLEO Collaboration ], Resonant structure of τ→ 3ππ 0ντ and τ→ωπντ decays, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 072003. [arXiv:hep-ex/9908024]

    2000 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Akhmetshin, V.M

    R.R. Akhmetshin, V.M. Aulchenko, V.Sh. Banzarov et al. [ CMD-2 Collaboration ], Study of the processe+e−→ωπ 0→π0π0γ in c.m. energy range 920 MeV - 1380 MeV at CMD-2 , Phys. Lett. B 562 (2003) 173. [arXiv:hep-ex/030400]

    2003

  11. [19]

    Kozyrev, R.R

    E.A. Kozyrev, R.R. Akhmetshin, A.N. Amirkhanov et al. [ CMD-3 Collaboration ], An amplitude analysis of the process e+e−→ 4π in the center-of-mass energy range 900 - 2000 MeV with the CMD3 detector at the VEPP-2000 e+e− collider, EPJ Web Conf. 212 (2019) 03008

    2019

  12. [20]

    J.P. Lees,V. Poireau, V. Tisserand et al. [ BaBar Collaboration ], Measurement of the e+e−→π+π−π0π0 cross section using initial-state radiation at BABAR , Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 092009. [arXiv:1709.01171 [hep-ex]] – 10 –

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.