Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Semileptonic Decays of $D \to \rho l^+ \nu$ and $D_{(s)} \to K^\ast l^+ \nu$ from Light-Cone Sum Rules

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A QCD sum-rule calculation of charm decays to ρ and K* finds branching ratios 10–20% below experiment, pointing to missing finite-width and non-resonant effects.

desk verdict Solid twist-5 LCSR calculation, but the BCL extrapolation is too fragile to back the claimed 10–20% discrepancy. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01329 v2 pith:RLATGUBE submitted 2025-05-02 hep-ph hep-ex

Wang Lin , Xiao-En Huang , Shan Cheng , De-Liang Yao This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex PACS 13.20.Fc12.38.Lg
keywords light-conesumrulessemileptoniccharmdecaysvectormesonformfactorstwistexpansiondistributionamplitudesbranchingratiosheavyquarkeffectivefieldtheoryz-seriesparametrization
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 works out the form factors for the semileptonic decays of charmed mesons into light vector mesons ($D\to\rho\ell\nu$, $D_s\to K^*\ell\nu$, $D\to K^*\ell\nu$) using light-cone sum rules, a QCD-based method that expands the transition amplitude in twists. The calculation is carried out at leading order in the strong coupling and includes both two- and three-particle light-cone distribution amplitudes up to twist-five accuracy. Turned into branching ratios, the predictions come out 10–20% below the measured values. The authors take this persistent shortfall as evidence that the standard narrow-width description of the $\rho$ and $K^*$ is missing finite-width and non-resonant QCD contributions that future precision studies will need to include.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the light-cone operator product expansion of a two-current correlation function, in which the highly virtual charm quark propagates near the light cone and the vector meson is encoded by twist-ordered two- and three-particle light-cone distribution amplitudes (LCDAs)—functions that give the momentum-fraction and spin structure of the quark-antiquark and quark-antiquark-gluon configurations of the meson. The OPE expression is turned into form factors through a Borel transformation and quark-hadron duality, and a truncated z-series parametrization extends the low-$q^2$ results to the whole kinematic range. The twist-by-twist breakdown is what allows the paper to verify OPE convergence and to quantify $1/m_c$ power corrections in the heavy-quark expansion.

What would settle it

A lattice QCD computation of the $D\to\rho$ and $D\to K^*$ form factors at $q^2$ above 0.4 GeV$^2$ would settle the issue. If lattice values rise above the extrapolated curves, the branching-ratio shortfall is an extrapolation artifact; if they agree, the gap is attributable to missing finite-width and non-resonant effects.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a twist-five-accurate light-cone sum rule computation of the $D\to V$ transition form factors—performed at leading order in QCD with two- and three-particle distribution amplitudes—produces a well-converged operator product expansion: twist-four and twist-five terms are numerically negligible, while the twist-three terms play a dominant role in some axial form factors, a pattern the authors explain through heavy-quark effective field theory. After using a z-series parametrization to extrapolate the form factors from the low-$q^2$ region where the sum rule is valid to the full kinematic range, the resulting branching ratios for $D^+\to\rho^0\ell^+\nu$, $D_s^+\to K^{*0}\ell^+\nu$, $D^0\to K^{*-}\ell^+\nu$, and $D^+\to \bar K^{*0}\ell^+\nu$ fall 10–20% short of the experimental world averages. Because the shortfall appears across the different channels, the paper concludes that the narrow-width and non-resonant QCD background effects, rather than the sum-rule inputs themselves, are the main physics missing from the standard description.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the form factors, which are computed reliably only at small momentum transfer, can be extrapolated to the entire allowed kinematic range by a short fitted series that misses no important structure; any failure of that extrapolation would shift the predicted branching ratios and could account for part or all of the 10–20% gap.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The twist expansion of the form factors is under control: twist-four and twist-five contributions are negligible, so future LCSR calculations may truncate at twist three.
  • Power corrections of order $1/m_c$ are numerically sizable for the $A_1$ and $A_2$ form factors, so leading heavy-quark-symmetry predictions for charm vector decays are not reliable at percent-level precision.
  • Three-particle LCDA contributions are as large as two-particle twist-three ones and must be retained in any accurate sum-rule analysis of $D\to V$ transitions.
  • The 10–20% branching-ratio deficit relative to experiment is a common feature of the $\rho$ and $K^*$ channels, signaling that finite-width and non-resonant effects must be added to the narrow-width factorisation before these decays can test the Standard Model.
  • Lepton-mass effects are confined to the large-recoil end of the spectrum, so they cannot be the source of the discrepancy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the missing width and non-resonant contributions indeed close the gap, then CKM extractions ($|V_{cd}|$, $|V_{cs}|$) and lepton-universality ratios built on narrow-width charm semileptonic decays carry an unquantified systematic shift of order 10–20%.
  • A direct extension of this framework to the full four-body $D\to\pi\pi\ell\nu$ and $D\to K\pi\ell\nu$ amplitudes, treating the vector meson through its $\pi\pi$/$K\pi$ spectral function, would simultaneously test the width-effect interpretation and improve low-$q^2$ input for dispersion analyses.
  • The same twist-five-accurate LCSR machinery applied to $B\to\rho\ell\nu$ would indicate whether the residual gap is specific to the charm scale or a general feature of heavy-to-light vector transitions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a light-cone sum rule (LCSR) calculation of the D→ρ, D_s→K*, and D→K* semileptonic form factors at leading order in α_s, including two-particle and three-particle light-cone distribution amplitudes up to twist-5. The authors provide explicit OPE expressions for the correlation function, verify the twist convergence, interpret the twist-3 dominance of some axial form factors in the heavy quark effective theory, and use a third-order BCL z-expansion to extrapolate the LCSR results from q^2 ≤ 0.4 GeV^2 to the full kinematic range. They then compute branching ratios for four D_(s)→V ℓν modes and find central values that differ from PDG averages by 10%–20%, which they interpret as evidence that vector-meson width and non-resonant effects are important.

Significance. If the calculation is correct over the full q^2 range, the paper provides a complete higher-twist LCSR description of D→V form factors and updates the theoretical picture for charm semileptonic decays to vector mesons. The paper is careful about OPE convergence and offers explicit expressions, twist-by-twist decomposition, and comparisons with earlier LCSR, quark-model, and lattice determinations; the form-factor ratios r_V and r_2 are also compared with BESIII measurements. However, the central branching-ratio predictions, and hence the claimed 10%–20% discrepancy, rest on a BCL extrapolation that is not yet validated, and the discrepancy itself is within the quoted uncertainties. The physics conclusion about resonant-width and non-resonant effects is therefore not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [III C, Eq. (25), Table V] The BCL z-expansion is fitted only to LCSR results in 0 ≤ q^2 ≤ 0.4 GeV^2, corresponding to z ∈ [0.008, 0.023] for D→ρ; the physical endpoint q^2 = (m_D - m_V)^2 corresponds to z = 0, which lies outside the fitted interval. The fit yields a3 coefficients as large as 34 (Table V, V form factors) while a1 is O(1), and the table lists no uncertainties for any fitted coefficient. The paper gives no fit residuals, no stability check against truncation order (N = 1, 2, 3), and no covariance or propagation of the fit uncertainty. Since the branching ratios in Table VI are obtained by integrating over the full kinematic range, including q^2 > 0.4 GeV^2 not covered by the LCSR input, the claimed 10%–20% discrepancy with experiment is not an error-controlled statement. The authors should quantify the extrapolation uncertainty and demonstrate that the branching ratios are stable against the order of the BCL truncation.
  2. [III D, Table VI, Abstract] The claimed "10%–20% discrepancy" is not statistically significant with the quoted uncertainties. For example, D^+→ρ^0 e^+ν is 2.30^{+0.32}_{-0.25} versus PDG 1.90±0.10 (about 1.2σ), D^0→K^{*-} e^+ν is 45.2^{+6.2}_{-5.0} versus 54.0±1.0 (about 1.4σ), and D^+→\bar K^{*0} e^+ν is 42.7^{+5.7}_{-4.5} versus 52.7±1.5 (about 1.7σ). The abstract's wording "a 10%–20% discrepancy from experimental measurements is found" overstates the significance, and the conclusion that vector-meson width and non-resonant QCD background effects are required is therefore not established. The authors should either quantify the significance in a statistically meaningful way or soften the claim.
  3. [III C, Tables V and VI] The manuscript does not provide numerical tables of the LCSR form factors in the accessible region 0 ≤ q^2 ≤ 0.4 GeV^2, nor the uncertainties of the fitted BCL coefficients. This makes the extrapolation step non-reproducible and prevents a reader from assessing whether the large a3 coefficients are fit artifacts or genuine curvature. At minimum, the authors should supply the form-factor values (or a machine-readable ancillary file), the fit residuals, and the covariance matrix of the BCL parameters so that the extrapolation uncertainty can be independently checked.
minor comments (6)
  1. [II A, II B, III D] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected: "befinit" (Section II A), "frist" (Section II B), "configutations" and "repectively" (Section II B), "Tthe" (Section III D), and "observed derivations" (Section III B, likely "deviations").
  2. [Table VI] The table caption does not explain why each decay mode has two numerical entries; the text and caption should state explicitly that the two columns correspond to the electron and muon channels, respectively.
  3. [Eq. (25) and Table V] The notation is inconsistent: Eq. (25) uses α_i^k, while Table V lists a1, a2, a3 with no a0. The authors should define the normalization of the series (including the value of a0 or F_i(0)) and clarify whether "third order" means terms through z^3 or (z - z(0))^3, and how many parameters were actually fitted.
  4. [Eq. (28)] The quantity v is called the "velocity parameter" but is defined as v = 1 - m_l^2/q^2, which appears to be the square of the usual lepton velocity factor; the authors should clarify whether v or v^2 enters the decay width formula.
  5. [Table III and Appendix A] For the twist-four parameters ζ_4, ζ_4^T, and \tilde ζ_4^T, the table cites Ref. [21] but does not state the renormalization scale at which these values are defined; the scale should be specified in the table caption or text.
  6. [Abstract and Section IV] The abstract states that twist-four and twist-five contributions are "indeed negligible," while the introduction and summary emphasize that three-particle contributions are "substantial" for A1 and A2. These statements are not contradictory (the former refers to overall size, the latter to specific form factors), but the wording should be harmonized to avoid the appearance of inconsistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the form factors are computed from QCD via LCSR with external LCDA and lattice inputs, and the BCL fit is an internal parametrization whose results are benchmarked against, not fitted to, the experimental branching ratios.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense required for a circularity finding. The D to V form factors are obtained from a light-cone OPE calculation of a correlation function, Eq. (7), with inputs consisting of vector-meson LCDA parameters from external QCD sum rules and lattice determinations (Refs. [40]-[43]), decay constants extracted from lattice or from independent V -> e+e- processes, and standard LCSR parameters (Borel mass and continuum threshold). No experimental semileptonic D -> V l nu branching ratio enters anywhere in the computation of the form factors. The BCL parametrization in Eq. (25) is fitted to the LCSR predictions themselves over the low-q^2 window 0 <= q^2 <= 0.4 GeV^2, as stated in Sec. III C: 'The coefficients ai's are unknown constants and are fixed by fitting to the LCSR predictions.' This is internal functional parametrization, not fitting to the target observables. The branching ratios in Table VI are then obtained by integrating the resulting form factors and comparing with PDG values; that comparison is an external benchmark. A skeptical concern about the robustness of the BCL extrapolation from a tiny z-range to the full kinematic region is an accuracy or model-dependence issue, not a circularity issue, and the authors themselves acknowledge the need for future lattice-constrained fits. The self-references (e.g., Ref. [20], an in-progress follow-up) are cited for future directions and not used as evidence for the central derivation. Therefore no self-definitional step, fitted-input-called-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain exists; the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on established LCSR techniques (OPE, duality, Borel) and external nonperturbative inputs. The main in-paper choices are the Borel window, threshold, charm mass, and the BCL extrapolation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Borel mass M^2 for D to rho = 4.5 +/- 1.0 GeV^2
    Chosen to satisfy ground-state dominance and OPE convergence; standard LCSR window parameter.
  • Borel mass M^2 for D_(s) to K* = 4.0 +/- 1.0 GeV^2
    Same criteria as above, for the K* channels.
  • Continuum threshold s0 = 7 +/- 0.5 GeV^2
    Set around the first excited charmed meson mass; justified by stability of physical quantities.
  • Charm quark mass m_c = ~1.33 GeV (implied)
    The scale mu = sqrt(m_D^2 - m_c^2) approximately 1.3 GeV is quoted; m_c itself is not stated explicitly but enters the OPE and Borel transformed sum rules.
  • BCL coefficients a_i = Given in Table V per form factor
    Coefficients of the z-expansion fitted to the LCSR predictions; they implement the extrapolation to full q^2 and affect the branching ratios.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The OPE near the light cone is valid for the correlation function in the region 0 <= q^2 <= m_c^2 - 2 m_c chi with chi ~ 500 MeV.
    Standard LCSR assumption; the paper restricts predictions to q^2 <= 0.4 GeV^2 based on this.
  • domain assumption Quark-hadron duality: the continuum contribution above the threshold s0 is modeled by the OPE and subtracted via the Borel transformation.
    Section II.C, Eq. (21). This is a standard LCSR technique but an uncontrolled approximation.
  • domain assumption The vector meson LCDAs are described by the conformal expansion truncated at second order in Gegenbauer moments, with parameters taken from Refs. [40,42,43,21].
    The parametrization and truncation are external inputs; the paper does not validate them independently.
  • ad hoc to paper The BCL parametrization truncated at third order (Eq. 25) provides a valid extrapolation of the form factors from q^2 in [0,0.4] GeV^2 to the full kinematical range.
    No independent check of the truncation uncertainty is provided; this is a modeling choice specific to this paper.
  • domain assumption The final vector mesons are treated as stable particles in the branching ratio calculation (narrow-width approximation).
    The paper uses the two-body decay formula and later argues that finite-width and non-resonant effects are the likely cause of the 10-20% discrepancy.
  • domain assumption The heavy quark expansion at O(1/m_c) is valid and the series is under control.
    The paper includes power corrections and explains twist-3 dominance via HQEFT; the convergence of the 1/m_c expansion is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semileptonic Decays of $D \to \rho l^+ \nu$ and $D_{(s)} \to K^\ast l^+ \nu$ from Light-Cone Sum Rules." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RLATGUBE

@misc{pith2026250501329,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semileptonic Decays of $D \to \rho l^+ \nu$ and $D_(s) \to K^\ast l^+ \nu$ from Light-Cone Sum Rules},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RLATGUBE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01329}
}
abstract

We investigate the semileptonic decays of charmed mesons to light vector mesons within the framework of light-cone sum rules. Our calculation is performed at leading order in QCD coupling, incorporating contributions up to twist-five accuracy from both two-particle and three-particle light-cone distribution amplitudes. Transition form factors are predicted twist by twist to assess the convergence property of the operator product expansion. It is verified that the twist-four and twist-five contributions are indeed negligible for all the decays under consideration. Twist-three dominance is observed for some of the form factors, subject to heavy quark effective field theory interpretation. Branching ratios for the decays $D^+ \to \rho^0 \ell^+\nu_\ell$ , $D_s^+ \to K^{\ast0} \ell^+\nu_\ell$, $D^0 \to K^{\ast-} \ell^+\nu_\ell$ and $D^+ \to \bar{K}^{\ast0} \ell^+\nu_\ell$ are obtained, and a $10\%$--$20\%$ discrepancy from experimental measurements is found. Our finding indicates that the resonant-width and non-resonant QCD backgrounds effects should be potentially significant, implying the necessity to further implement their contributions in future precision studies of the semileptonic charm decays.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01329 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. LCSR predictions of the D0 → ρ − FFs in the region of q 2 ∈ [0, 0.4] GeV2 . The FFs are anatomized into various contributions from different twist LCDAs. B. Form factors in the LCSR accessible region With the parameters discussed in the preceding subsection, we are now in the position to make predictions for the FFs. As is well known, the OPE framework is only applicable in the low q 2 region with large recoils. Mor… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. LCSR predictions of D+ s → K∗0 (892) FFs in the region of q 2 ∈ [0, 0.4] GeV2 . two-particle twist-two and twist-three LCDAs produce a net positive enhancement in the final result. For the FF A2, the leading-twist and two-particle twist-three LCDAs contributions are comparable in magnitude but opposite in sign. The cancellation between the two contributions leads to a significantly suppressed A2 value compared to ot… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. LCSR predictions of D+ → K∗0 (892) FFs in the region of q 2 ∈ [0, 0.4] GeV2 . A0, associated with the helicity-flipped function L2 [21], are suppressed by powers of O(1/mD), leading to the twist-three dominance. At zero momentum transfer q 2 = 0, it is useful to predict the hadronic FF ratios that can be measured by experiments [9, 44–46]. To that end, we define the following two ratios rV ≡ V (0) A1(0), r2 ≡ A2(0) … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: LCSR predictions of the D0 → ρ − form factors in the whole kinematical region. Other determinations using LCSR in 2006 [21], QM [47], LFQM [27], LEChQM [48], HChPT [32] and LQCD [49] are shown for easy comparison. The BCL parametrization corresponds to a combination of…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: LCSR predictions of D+ s → K∗0 (892) form factors in the whole kinematical region. other theoretical approaches within uncertainties, showing particularly good agreement with various quark model predictions. However, our updated LCSR predictions for A1 and A2 exhibit s…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: LCSR predictions of D+ → K∗0 (892) form factors in the whole kinematical region. given by v = 1−m2 l /q2 . Tthe helicity amplitudes are associated with the FFs in Eq. (1) through Ht(q 2 ) = − 2imD|⃗p2| p q 2 A0(q 2 ), H±(q 2 ) = −(mD + mV )iA1(q 2 ) ± 2imD|⃗p| mD + mV …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Differential decay widths dΓ/dq2 (in unit of 10−15 GeV−1 ) induced by the c → d (up) and c → s (down) weak currents. (CLFQM) [51], the HChPT [32] and the experimental values from PDG [2]. In comparison to the previous LCSR calculation [21], the corrections arising from…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Vector mesons leading-twist longitudinal distribution amplitudes and related semi-leptonic decays within QCD sum rules

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    New QCD sum-rule calculation gives ξ-moments up to tenth order and PLP-model distribution amplitudes for ρ, K*, φ, which are then used to recalculate D_(s)→V semileptonic observables.

  2. Scrutinizing lepton flavor universality and transition form factor correlation from charmed meson semileptonic decay into light strange vector $K^*$ meson

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A light-cone sum-rule calculation predicts D_s^+→K^{*0} form factors and a muon/electron branching ratio R=0.950, consistent with the Standard Model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Two-particle LCDAs LCDAs are rigorously defined by the matrix elements sandwiched by the quark bilinears with light-cone separation, and are switched to the actual momenta and the near lightlike distance xin practice. In Refs. [56, 57], high-twist LCDAs of vector mesons are systematical studied in QCD based on conformal expansion with meson and quark mass...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Three-particle LCDAs The definition of three-particle LCDAs are quoted as [59] ⟨V(p,η ∗)|¯q1(0)gGµν(¯vx)σαβq2(x)|0⟩ =f ⊥ Vm2 V η∗·x 2p·x h pαpµg⊥ βν−pβpµg⊥ αν−pαpνg⊥ βµ +pβpνg⊥ αµ i T(¯v,px) +f ⊥ Vm2 V h pαη∗ ⊥µg⊥ βν−pβη∗ ⊥µg⊥ αν−pαη∗ ⊥νg⊥ βµ +pβη∗ ⊥νg⊥ αµ i T (4) 1 (¯v,px) +f ⊥ Vm2 V h pµη∗ ⊥αg⊥ βν−pµη∗ ⊥βg⊥ αν−pνη∗ ⊥αg⊥ βµ +pνη∗ ⊥βg⊥ αµ i T (4) 2 (¯v,px...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Y. S. Amhiset al.[HFLAV], Phys. Rev. D107(2023) no.5, 052008

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

    S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.3, 030001

    2024

  5. [5]

    Isgur, D

    N. Isgur, D. Scora, B. Grinstein and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D39(1989), 799-818

    work page 1989

  6. [6]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett.121(2018) no.17, 171803

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Ablikim [BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikim [BESIII], Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.7, 072005

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Faller, T

    S. Faller, T. Feldmann, A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel and D. van Dyk, Phys. Rev. D89(2014) no.1, 014015

    work page 2014

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    X. W. Kang, B. Kubis, C. Hanhart and U. G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. D89(2014), 053015

    2014

  2. [10]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett.122(2019) no.6, 062001

    2019

  3. [11]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.11, 112018

    2024

  4. [12]

    Cheng, A

    S. Cheng, A. Khodjamirian and J. Virto, JHEP05(2017), 157

    2017

  5. [13]

    Hambrock and A

    C. Hambrock and A. Khodjamirian, Nucl. Phys. B905(2016), 373-390

    2016

  6. [14]

    Cheng, A

    S. Cheng, A. Khodjamirian and J. Virto, Phys. Rev. D96(2017) no.5, 051901 24

    2017

  7. [15]

    Cheng, Phys

    S. Cheng, Phys. Rev. D99(2019) no.5, 053005

    2019

  8. [16]

    P. Böer, T. Feldmann and D. van Dyk, JHEP02(2017), 133

    2017

  9. [17]

    Leskovec, S

    L. Leskovec, S. Meinel, M. Petschlies, J. Negele, S. Paul and A. Pochinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.134 (2025) no.16, 161901

    2025

  10. [18]

    Herren, B

    F. Herren, B. Kubis and R. van Tonder, [arXiv:2502.20960 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Cheng, [arXiv:2502.07333 [hep-ph]]

    S. Cheng, [arXiv:2502.07333 [hep-ph]]

  12. [20]

    Y. J. Shi, W. Wang and S. Zhao, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) no.7, 452

    2017

  13. [21]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) no.1, 011803

    2025

  14. [22]

    Shan Cheng, Ling-Yun Dai, Xiao-En Huang and De-Liang Yao,Bl4 andD l4 decays from QCD, in progress

  15. [23]

    Y. L. Wu, M. Zhong and Y. B. Zuo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A21(2006), 6125-6172

    2006

  16. [24]

    H. B. Fu, W. Cheng, L. Zeng, D. D. Hu and T. Zhong, Phys. Rev. Res.2(2020) no.4, 043129

    2020

  17. [25]

    Ball, Phys

    P. Ball, Phys. Rev. D48(1993), 3190-3203

    1993

  18. [26]

    Feldmann, B

    T. Feldmann, B. Müller and D. Seidel, JHEP08(2017), 105

    2017

  19. [27]

    Scora and N

    D. Scora and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D52(1995), 2783-2812

    1995

  20. [28]

    H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua and C. W. Hwang, Phys. Rev. D69(2004), 074025

    2004

  21. [29]

    R. C. Verma, J. Phys. G39(2012), 025005

    2012

  22. [30]

    H. Y. Cheng and X. W. Kang, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) no.9, 587 [erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) no.12, 863]

    2017

  23. [31]

    N. R. Soni, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Körner, J. N. Pandya, P. Santorelli and C. T. Tran, Phys. Rev. D 98(2018) no.11, 114031

    2018

  24. [32]

    M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Körner, J. N. Pandya, P. Santorelli, N. R. Soni and C. T. Tran, Front. Phys. (Beijing)14(2019) no.6, 64401

    2019

  25. [33]

    R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin and X. W. Kang, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.1, 013004

    2020

  26. [34]

    Fajfer and J

    S. Fajfer and J. F. Kamenik, Phys. Rev. D72(2005), 034029

    2005

  27. [35]

    Sekihara and E

    T. Sekihara and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D92(2015) no.5, 054038

    2015

  28. [36]

    Khodjamirian, R

    A. Khodjamirian, R. Ruckl, S. Weinzierl, C. W. Winhart and O. I. Yakovlev, Phys. Rev. D62 (2000), 114002

    2000

  29. [37]

    Khodjamirian, C

    A. Khodjamirian, C. Klein, T. Mannel and N. Offen, Phys. Rev. D80(2009), 114005

    2009

  30. [38]

    Offen, F

    N. Offen, F. A. Porkert and A. Schäfer, Phys. Rev. D88(2013) no.3, 034023

    2013

  31. [39]

    D. L. Yao, P. Fernandez-Soler, M. Albaladejo, F. K. Guo and J. Nieves, Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) no.4, 310

    2018

  32. [40]

    Kuberskiet al.[RQCD and ALPHA], JHEP07(2024), 090

    S. Kuberskiet al.[RQCD and ALPHA], JHEP07(2024), 090

    2024

  33. [41]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) no.17, 171801

    2021

  34. [42]

    Bharucha, D

    A. Bharucha, D. M. Straub and R. Zwicky, JHEP08(2016), 098

    2016

  35. [43]

    Alltonet al.[RBC-UKQCD], Phys

    C. Alltonet al.[RBC-UKQCD], Phys. Rev. D78(2008), 114509

    2008

  36. [44]

    Arthur, P

    R. Arthur, P. A. Boyle, D. Brommel, M. A. Donnellan, J. M. Flynn, A. Juttner, T. D. Rae and C. T. C. Sachrajda, Phys. Rev. D83(2011), 074505

    2011

  37. [45]

    Ball and G

    P. Ball and G. W. Jones, JHEP03(2007), 069 25

    2007

  38. [46]

    Dobbset al.[CLEO], Phys

    S. Dobbset al.[CLEO], Phys. Rev. Lett.110(2013) no.13, 131802

    2013

  39. [47]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett.122(2019) no.6, 061801

    2019

  40. [48]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], JHEP03(2025), 197

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], JHEP03(2025), 197

    2025

  41. [49]

    Melikhov and B

    D. Melikhov and B. Stech, Phys. Rev. D62(2000), 014006

    2000

  42. [50]

    Palmer and J

    T. Palmer and J. O. Eeg, Phys. Rev. D89(2014) no.3, 034013

    2014

  43. [51]

    Abadaet al.[SPQcdR], Nucl

    A. Abadaet al.[SPQcdR], Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.119(2003), 625-628

    2003

  44. [52]

    Bourrely, I

    C. Bourrely, I. Caprini and L. Lellouch, Phys. Rev. D79(2009), 013008 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D82 (2010), 099902]

    2009

  45. [53]

    Zhang, X

    L. Zhang, X. W. Kang, X. H. Guo, L. Y. Dai, T. Luo and C. Wang, JHEP02(2021), 179

    2021

  46. [54]

    Beleñoet al.[Belle], Phys

    C. Beleñoet al.[Belle], Phys. Rev. D103(2021) no.11, 112001

    2021

  47. [55]

    Wang, in private discussions

    Y-M. Wang, in private discussions

  48. [56]

    D. L. Yao, L. Y. Dai, H. Q. Zheng and Z. Y. Zhou, Rept. Prog. Phys.84(2021) no.7, 076201

    2021

  49. [57]

    V. L. Chernyak and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rept.112(1984), 173

    1984

  50. [58]

    P. Ball, V. M. Braun, Y. Koike and K. Tanaka, Nucl. Phys. B529(1998), 323-382

    1998

  51. [59]

    Ball and V

    P. Ball and V. M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. B543(1999), 201-238

    1999

  52. [60]

    P. Ball, V. M. Braun and A. Lenz, JHEP08(2007), 090

    2007

  53. [61]

    Ball and V

    P. Ball and V. M. Braun, Phys. Rev. D58(1998), 094016

    1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.