Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Beyond leading twist: $\rho$ meson decay constants and distribution amplitudes in a self-consistent light-front quark model

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that replacing the physical rho mass by the internal quark-antiquark mass in light-front integrals yields decay constants and distribution amplitudes through twist 4 that are independent of current component…

desk verdict Careful, internally coherent LFQM extension delivering f_A, f_S, and chiral-odd DAs for the rho, but twist-4 collapses to twist-2 and the EOM check leans on the M→M0 prescription. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02844 v2 pith:MCQ2DCW5 submitted 2025-06-03 hep-ph

Ahmad Jafar Arifi , Ho-Meoyng Choi , Chueng-Ryong Ji This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords rhomesondecayconstantsdistributionamplitudeslight-frontquarkmodelBakamjian-Thomasconstructionhighertwistchiral-evenandchiral-oddzeromodes
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 aims to establish that the rho meson's two decay constants and its eight distribution amplitudes (DAs, the functions describing how the quark and antiquark share the meson's longitudinal momentum) through twist 4 can be extracted from light-front matrix elements in a way that is independent of the chosen current component, polarization, and reference frame. The key claim is that this holds when the Bakamjian-Thomas construction is applied uniformly: the physical rho mass $M$ is replaced by the quark-antiquark invariant mass $M_0$ everywhere inside the integrals, including in the mixing coefficient $\alpha = 2m/M_0$. With that substitution, the axial-vector and scalar current extractions give $f_A = 122$ MeV and $f_S = 61$ MeV, and the QCD equation-of-motion relations $f_A = f_\parallel - (2m/M_0) f_\perp$ and $f_S = f_\perp - (2m/M_0) f_\parallel$ are satisfied. If the paper is right, a single light-front quark model supplies a complete, internally consistent set of rho DAs through twist 4, useful as nonperturbative input for exclusive processes and for comparisons with lattice QCD.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Bakamjian-Thomas (BT) construction, implemented as the uniform substitution $M \to M_0$, from the physical rho mass to the internal invariant mass of the quark-antiquark pair, applied both to the Lorentz prefactors and inside the integrands of the matrix elements, including the mixing coefficient $\alpha = 2m/M_0$. This substitution absorbs the light-front zero-mode contamination that otherwise appears in the 'bad' current components and is what makes the extracted decay constants and DAs independent of current components, polarizations, and frames. The nonlocal axial-vector and scalar matrix elements are handled by integrating over $z^-$; the derivative of the delta function in Eq. (24) converts the $x$-moment into the integrated forms for $f_A$ and $f_S$. The Gaussian radial wave function with a single variational parameter $\beta$ supplies the nonperturbative profile, and in the equal-mass case it makes the twist-2 and twist-4 DAs coincide by construction.

What would settle it

A calculation using the fixed physical value $\alpha = 2m/M$ outside the integrals that still yields current-component-independent $f_A$ and $f_S$ would undercut the paper's central justification; alternatively, a lattice QCD determination of $f_A$ and $f_S$ at a scale near 1 GeV that disagrees with 122 MeV and 61 MeV, or with the equation-of-motion mixing relations evaluated at $M_0$, would falsify the extraction prescription.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the standard light-front quark model built on the Bakamjian-Thomas construction, the rho-meson decay constants $f_\parallel$ and $f_\perp$ and the chiral-even DAs $(\phi^\parallel_{2;\mathrm{V}}, \phi^\parallel_{3;\mathrm{V}}, \psi^\perp_{3;\mathrm{A}}, \phi^\parallel_{4;\mathrm{V}})$ and chiral-odd DAs $(\phi^\perp_{2;\mathrm{T}}, \phi^\perp_{3;\mathrm{T}}, \psi^\parallel_{3;\mathrm{S}}, \phi^\perp_{4;\mathrm{T}})$ are all obtainable from the local and nonlocal matrix elements $\langle 0|\bar{q}(z)\,\Gamma\, q(-z)|\rho(P,h)\rangle$ with $\Gamma = (\gamma^\mu, \sigma^{\mu\nu}, \gamma^\mu\gamma_5, \mathbf{1})$, and the results do not depend on current components, polarizations, or frames. The novelty lies in the axial-vector and scalar channels, where $f_\parallel$ and $f_\perp$ mix; the paper shows the mixing is resolved only when the physical mass $M$ is replaced by the internal invariant mass $M_0$ inside the integrals, including in $\alpha = 2m/M_0$. The resulting values $f_\parallel = 215$ MeV, $f_\perp = 173$ MeV, $f_A = 122$ MeV, and $f_S = 61$ MeV satisfy the QCD equation-of-motion mixing relations written above. In the chiral limit all twist-2 and twist-4 DAs (and the two twist-3 partners $\psi^\perp_{3;\mathrm{A}}$ and $\psi^\parallel_{3;\mathrm{S}}$) reduce to $6x(1-x)$; $\phi^\parallel_{3;\mathrm{V}}$ and $\phi^\perp_{3;\mathrm{T}}$ approach $\frac{3}{4}(1+\xi^2)$ and $3\xi^2$, consistent with QCD sum-rule expectations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the physical rho mass $M$ can be replaced by the internal quark-antiquark mass $M_0$ uniformly inside the integrals, including inside the mixing coefficient $\alpha = 2m/M_0$; the paper justifies this by internal consistency rather than deriving it from QCD.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The decay constants $f_\parallel = 215$ MeV, $f_\perp = 173$ MeV, $f_A = 122$ MeV, and $f_S = 61$ MeV are concrete predictions; $f_\parallel$ already matches the experimental value $216(5)$ MeV from $e^+e^-$ annihilation.
  • The full twist-4 set of chiral-even and chiral-odd DAs gives the nonperturbative input for collinear-factorization calculations of exclusive rho production, radiative, and semileptonic processes.
  • Satisfying the equation-of-motion mixing relations with $\alpha = 2m/M_0$ inside the integrals confirms that the model reproduces the QCD constraint without residual zero-mode contamination.
  • In the chiral limit the DAs reduce to the expected asymptotic shapes $6x(1-x)$, $\frac{3}{4}(1+\xi^2)$, and $3\xi^2$, providing a consistency check against QCD sum rules.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This suggests the same $M \to M_0$ substitution should yield frame-independent results for unequal-mass vector mesons ($K^*$, $\phi$, $D^*$, $B^*$), for which the paper itself notes that the twist-2 and twist-4 DAs no longer coincide; those systems would be a sharper test of the prescription.
  • A lattice QCD computation of $f_A$ and $f_S$ at a scale near 1 GeV would independently test the 122 MeV and 61 MeV predictions and the $M_0$-evaluated mixing relations.
  • One could compare the BT-substitution results with an explicit Bethe-Salpeter light-front calculation that includes zero-mode diagrams; agreement would indicate the substitution is equivalent to resumming those contributions.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper extends the authors' 'self-consistent light-front quark model' based on the Bakamjian-Thomas (BT) construction to compute the rho meson decay constants and distribution amplitudes (DAs) up to twist 4. The central technical claim is that the decay constants f_parallel and f_perp, together with the twist-3 and twist-4 chiral-even and chiral-odd DAs, can be extracted from local and nonlocal matrix elements of the vector, tensor, axial-vector, and scalar currents in a way that is independent of current component, polarization, and reference frame, provided the physical meson mass M is replaced by the internal invariant mass M0 inside all integrands, including the mixing coefficient alpha = 2m/M0. The paper presents explicit integral formulas and numerical results: f_parallel = 215 MeV (in agreement with experiment), f_perp = 173 MeV, f_A = 122 MeV, f_S = 61 MeV, and a full set of DAs with their xi-moments and Gegenbauer moments. The authors also compare their DAs with QCD sum rules, DSE, and lattice results.

Significance. If the framework is accepted, the paper would provide a complete, internally consistent set of rho meson DAs up to twist 4 from a simple valence-quark model, with the notable feature that the previously problematic axial-vector and scalar current extractions are regularized by the BT mass substitution. The numerical prediction for f_parallel matches experiment, and the model yields the SU(6) relation f_pi + f_parallel = 2 f_perp. The paper is transparent about its assumptions and provides explicit integral formulas that allow independent numerical reproduction, although no code is supplied. The main caveat is that the advertised 'beyond leading twist' content is partially diminished by the model's prediction that the twist-4 DAs coincide with twist-2 DAs in the equal-mass case, and the verification of the QCD equation-of-motion relations is contingent on the same M-to-M0 prescription used to define the extracted constants.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.B, Eqs. (36)-(38), Table II] The demonstration that the model satisfies the QCD equation-of-motion relations (35) is circular. The tilde quantities \tilde f_\perp and \tilde f_\parallel are defined with the factor 2m/M0 evaluated inside the integrals, and f_A and f_S are computed after the same replacement in Eqs. (30) and (34). Consequently, the equalities f_A = f_\parallel - \tilde f_\perp and f_S = f_\perp - \tilde f_\parallel hold by construction; Table II does not constitute an independent verification of Eq. (35). The text's statement that "to ensure that Eq. (35) is satisfied self-consistently within our model, we should take M as M0" makes the desired outcome an input. The authors should either derive the M0 substitution from the BT construction or explicitly describe Eq. (35) as a consistency constraint used to fix the mixing coefficient, not as a benchmark being tested.
  2. [Sec. III.B, Eqs. (29)-(34)] The uniform replacement of the physical mass M by the invariant mass M0 inside the integrands is an ad hoc prescription, inherited from Ref. [30] but not derived in this paper. Because the claimed current-component and polarization independence of f_A and f_S depends entirely on this replacement (the paper notes that using a fixed alpha = 2m/M would lead to inconsistencies across current components), the central extraction claim rests on an input assumption. Please provide a detailed derivation of this substitution from the covariant BS model or from the BT mass operator, or at least a discussion of its range of validity. Without this, the 'self-consistency' is a property of the prescription rather than a result of the model.
  3. [Sec. IV, Table III and Eqs. (45)-(53)] The title and abstract advertise 'beyond leading twist' DAs, but in the equal-mass case the twist-4 DAs \phi^\parallel_{4;V} and \phi^\perp_{4;T} coincide identically with their twist-2 counterparts because the corresponding operators in Table I are the same. The text calls this 'fortuitous,' yet it means that the only genuinely higher-twist predictions are the twist-3 DAs. This limitation should be stated prominently in the abstract and conclusions, or the model should be extended (e.g., with unequal masses or higher Fock states) to generate distinct twist-4 DAs, before the claim of a comprehensive twist-4 analysis can be sustained.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. IV.B] The word 'chrial-even' should be 'chiral-even'; in Table IV, 'Gegenbaur' should be 'Gegenbauer'.
  2. [Eq. (10)] The symbol M is used both for the meson mass and for the combination M2 - M1 in the spin-orbit wave functions; please rename the latter (e.g., \Delta M) to avoid confusion.
  3. [Throughout] The notation for the decay constants is inconsistent: the text uses both f_A^\rho and f_\rho^A (similarly for f_S); please adopt a single convention.
  4. [Fig. 1] The legends in Figure 1 ('Ball99', 'Gao14', 'Fors10') do not match the references cited in the text (QCD SRs [14], DSE [67], HERA-fit [68]); please align the labels with the bibliography.
  5. [Sec. IV.C] The statement about the heavy-quark limit that 'all DAs converge to a common form proportional to \delta(x - 1/2)' is not fully supported by Eq. (56) alone, since the DAs also involve helicity-dependent spin factors from Table I that may introduce further x dependence; please clarify the argument.
  6. [Table II] The 'Expt.' row lists values for f^\parallel but not for f^\perp; a reference for an experimental or lattice determination of f^\perp would be useful for comparison.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The advertised self-consistency is installed by the uniform M→M0 replacement, and the QCD equation-of-motion relation is 'verified' only after changing α=2m/M to α=2m/M0.

  1. self definitional [Sec. III.A, Eq. (17) and Table I; Sec. I, Eq. (3)]
    "f ∥ ρ = ⟨0| ¯qγ µq / P µ V |P ⟩BT , f ⊥ ρ = ⟨0| ¯qσ µνq / P µν T |P ⟩BT . Here, the physical mass M included in Lorentz factors P µ V and P µν T is replaced with the invariant mass M0, and the Lorentz factors are evaluated within the integral over internal momenta."

    The paper's central claim of current-component, polarization, and frame independence is not an emergent prediction: the extraction rule in Eq. (17) defines the Lorentz factors P_V and P_T with M replaced by M0 inside the integral. Because P^- and the polarization vectors are then M0-dependent, the 'bad' components reduce to the same operators O_V(T) as the 'good' components (Table I). The conclusion concedes this: quantities extracted from different current components are 'expected to agree by construction.' Thus the self-consistency headline is a property of the definition rather than an independent numerical result.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III.B, after Eq. (35), Eqs. (36)-(38), Table II]
    "To ensure that Eq. (35) is satisfied self-consistently within our model, we should take M as M0, yielding α = 2m/M0. This assignment is not arbitrary but essential for obtaining decay constants and DAs that are independent of the choice of current component or polarization state. In contrast, employing a fixed value of α = 2m/M in our model would lead to inconsistencies across different current components."

    The external QCD equation-of-motion relation, Eq. (35), fixes α=2m/M. The paper explicitly changes this to α=2m/M0 because the QCD value would fail inside the model. Table II then presents fA=f∥−f~⊥ and fS=f⊥−f~∥ as 'numerically verified.' But the modified α was chosen precisely so that these relations hold under the model's BT replacement. The numerical agreement therefore tests the model's own consistency condition, not the original QCD relation; the 'prediction' of fA and fS from Eq. (35) is forced by the input prescription.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. I, paragraphs on BT construction and Type II link]
    "This approach originates from the covariant BS model [54, 55] and transitions to the standard LFQM via a matching condition, which we termed the 'Type II' link (see Eq. (49) in Ref. [30]). A key aspect of this link is replacing M in matrix element integrands with M0, effectively imposing the on-mass-shell condition for the constituent quark and antiquark in the LFQM."

    The load-bearing M→M0 substitution is not derived in this paper but imported from the authors' own earlier work, Ref. [30] (Choi and Ji, PRD 89, 033011), via a 'Type II' link that itself originates in same-group BS-model papers, Refs. [54,55]. Every self-consistency claim in the present work depends on this same-author construction. The citation is invoked as the authority for the replacement, but the prior work is a model-matching ansatz, not an externally verified theorem, so the central premise rests on a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper is not wholly circular: f∥=215 MeV agrees with experiment, the twist-2 and twist-3 DA shapes are compared with QCD sum rules, DSE, and lattice results, and the fixed model parameters (m, β) carry independent predictive content. However, the paper's central advertised property—extraction of decay constants and DAs independent of current component, polarization, and reference frame—is, by the paper's own admission, built in 'by construction' through the uniform M→M0 replacement inherited from the authors' Type II link. Moreover, the 'verification' of the QCD equation-of-motion relations is weakened by replacing α=2m/M with α=2m/M0 after noting that the physical value fails; Table II then checks the modified relation, not the original one. This is partial circularity: a consistency condition has been dressed as a numerical verification. It does not reduce the whole derivation to a tautology because the direct computation of fA/fS and the DA shapes contains nontrivial model content, so a score of 6 is appropriate rather than 8 or 10.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows two spectrum-fitted parameters (m, beta), one adopted scale (mu0 = 1 GeV), and one modeling choice (the M to M0 replacement inside the mixing coefficient). The QCD equation-of-motion relations, the Lorentz parametrizations of the nonlocal matrix elements, and the twist classification are imported from the Ball-Braun sum-rule literature and are not derived here. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Constituent quark mass m = 0.25 GeV
    Fitted in the authors' prior variational meson-spectrum analysis [34, 35] with a harmonic-oscillator confining potential. Sets the chiral-symmetry-breaking coefficient alpha = 2m/M0 and appears in every matrix element and DA.
  • Gaussian radial width beta = 0.3194 GeV
    Variational parameter from the same spectrum fit [34, 35]. Controls the transverse-momentum profile and therefore the shapes and magnitudes of all decay constants and DAs.
  • Initial scale mu0 = 1 GeV
    UV cutoff on |k_perp| approximating the model's scale dependence; the paper adopts mu0 ~ 1 GeV as the optimal initial scale and quotes all Gegenbauer moments at this scale.
  • Mass replacement inside the mixing coefficient (M to M0 in alpha = 2m/M)
    Modeling choice in Sec. III.B (Eqs. 36-38): the physical mass is replaced by the internal invariant mass and moved inside the integrals; the paper says this is essential for consistency but does not derive it.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Fock space truncation to the valence q-qbar component with on-mass-shell constituents (p_i^2 = m_i^2)
    Sec. II, Eq. (4): the meson state is a two-body noninteracting representation; no higher Fock states or off-shell and instantaneous contributions are included.
  • ad hoc to paper Uniform BT mass replacement M to M0 inside all integrands, including Lorentz factors and the mixing coefficient alpha = 2m/M0
    Sec. III.B (Eqs. 17, 29-38): the load-bearing device inherited from the authors' Refs. [30, 39]; justified by internal consistency, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption QCD equation-of-motion relations f_A = f_parallel - alpha f_perp and f_S = f_perp - alpha f_parallel (Eq. 35) from Ball-Braun-Koike-Tanaka [13]
    External QCD benchmark used to test the mixing; verified only in the modified alpha = 2m/M0 form.
  • domain assumption Lorentz parametrizations of nonlocal vector and tensor matrix elements (Eqs. 40 and 48) from Ball-Braun and Ball-Braun-Lenz [13, 16]
    Imports the twist classification and Lorentz structures in terms of which the model DAs are defined.
  • standard math Distributional identity for the z^- integral, Eq. (24): the integral of z^- e^{-i(x'-x)P^+ z^-} psi(x) equals i/(P^+)^2 d/dx' [delta(x-x') psi(x)]
    Standard Fourier identity with derivatives of the delta function; used to invert the nonlocal matrix elements into DAs.
  • domain assumption SU(2) isospin symmetry with equal u/d constituent masses (m1 = m2 = m)
    Sec. II: equal masses are assumed for the rho meson, which forces the odd Gegenbauer moments to vanish and simplifies the spin-orbit wave function.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond leading twist: $\rho$ meson decay constants and distribution amplitudes in a self-consistent light-front quark model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MCQ2DCW5

@misc{pith2026250602844,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond leading twist: $\rho$ meson decay constants and distribution amplitudes in a self-consistent light-front quark model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MCQ2DCW5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02844}
}
abstract

In this study, we present a comprehensive analysis of decay constants and chiral-even and chiral-odd distribution amplitudes (DAs) up to twist 4 for the $\rho$ meson in the standard light-front quark model (LFQM) based on the Bakamjian-Thomas (BT) construction. For the $\rho$ meson, which possesses both longitudinal $(h=0)$ and transverse $(h=\pm 1)$ polarizations, two types of decay constants, $f_{\rho}^{\parallel}$ and $f_{\rho}^{\perp}$, arises accordingly. We demonstrate that these decay constants can be self-consistently extracted from both local ($z^\mu=0$) and nonlocal ($z^\mu\neq 0$) matrix elements $\langle 0 | \bar{q}(z)\, \Gamma\, q(-z) | \rho(P,h) \rangle$, with $\Gamma = (\gamma^\mu, \sigma^{\mu\nu}, \gamma^\mu\gamma_5, \mathbf{1})$, in a manner independent of current components, polarizations, and reference frames. In particular, we emphasize the role of nonlocal matrix elements involving axial-vector and scalar currents, where mixing between $f_\rho^{\parallel}$ and $f_\rho^{\perp}$ occurs. We show that this mixing is consistently resolved through the BT construction, ensuring the proper extraction of these decay constants. Additionally, we investigate the structure of chiral-even DAs ($\phi_{2;\mathrm{V}}^\parallel, \phi_{3;\mathrm{V}}^\parallel, \psi_{3;\mathrm{A}}^\perp, \phi_{4;\mathrm{V}}^\parallel$) and chiral-odd DAs ($\phi_{2;\mathrm{T}}^\perp, \phi_{3;\mathrm{T}}^\perp, \psi_{3;\mathrm{S}}^\parallel, \phi_{4;\mathrm{T}}^\perp$) beyond leading twists, and present their corresponding $\xi$-moments and Gegenbauer moments. These results provide deeper insight into the nonperturbative structure of vector mesons and demonstrate the robustness and self-consistency of the LFQM based on the BT framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02844 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Chiral-even (upper panel) and chiral-odd (lower [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Chiral-even (upper panel) and chiral-odd (lower [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [30]

    Hwang, Analyses of decay constants and light-cone distribution amplitudes for s-wave heavy meson, Phys

    C.-W. Hwang, Analyses of decay constants and light-cone distribution amplitudes for s-wave heavy meson, Phys. Rev. D 81, 114024 (2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [1]

    ¯vλ2 (p′ 2)p x′ 2 γxγ5 uλ1 (p′ 1)p x′ 1 # , (32) and f A ρ = p Nc Z 1 0 dx Z x 0 dx′ Z d2k⊥ 16π3 Φ(x′, k⊥) × 4 √ 2 M X λ1,λ2 R′11 λ1λ2

    (31) The resulting numerical value of f S ρ is then substituted back into Eq. (28), applying the same replacement to determine ψ∥ 3;S(x). Now, for the computation of ψ⊥ 3;A(x) and f A ρ in Eq. (21), the only nonvanishing Lorentz factor is P µ A = 1 2 M ϵµ να−ϵν ±pαz−. This implies that only the transverse (h = ±) polarization vectors contribute. Furthermo...

    work page

  3. [2]

    in the P⊥ = 0 frame: A− V(0) = f ∥ ρ M ϵ− 0 Z 1 0 dx e−iζP ·zϕ∥ 4;V(x). (44) The explicit forms of the three chiral-even DAs, ϕV =n ϕ∥ 2;V, ϕ⊥ 3;V, ϕ∥ 4;V o , derived from the vector current, are given by ϕV(x) = √Nc f ∥ ρ Z d2k⊥ 16π3 Φ(x, k⊥)OV, (45) where the corresponding operators OV, defined for each DA, are OV = n O+(⊥) V (0), O⊥(−) V (±1), O− V (0)...

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Exclusive Processes in Perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2157 (1980). 13

    work page 1980

  5. [4]

    A. V. Efremov and A. V. Radyushkin, Factorization and asymptotic behaviour of pion form factor in QCD, Phys. Lett. B 94, 245 (1980)

    work page 1980

  6. [5]

    V. L. Chernyak and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Asymptotic Behav- ior of Exclusive Processes in QCD, Phys. Rept. 112, 173 (1984)

    work page 1984

  7. [6]

    Abe et al.(Belle-II), Belle II Technical Design Report, (2010)

    T. Abe et al.(Belle-II), Belle II Technical Design Report, (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [7]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Implications of LHCb measure- ments and future prospects, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2373 (2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 80 references
  1. [8]

    Dudek et al., Physics Opportunities with the 12 GeV Upgrade at Jefferson Lab, Eur

    J. Dudek et al., Physics Opportunities with the 12 GeV Upgrade at Jefferson Lab, Eur. Phys. J. A48, 187 (2012)

    2012

  2. [9]

    Accardi, J

    A. Accardi, J. L. Albacete, M. Anselmino, N. Armesto, E. C. Aschenauer, A. Bacchetta, D. Boer, W. K. Brooks, T. Burton, N. B. Chang, et al., Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Frontier: Understanding the glue that binds us all, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 268 (2016)

    2016

  3. [10]

    Abdul Khalek et al., Science Requirements and Detec- tor Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report, Nucl

    R. Abdul Khalek et al., Science Requirements and Detec- tor Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report, Nucl. Phys. A 1026, 122447 (2022)

    2022

  4. [11]

    V. M. Braun, Higher Twists, EPJ Web Conf. 274, 01012 (2022)

    2022

  5. [12]

    Kroll and K

    P. Kroll and K. Passek-Kumeriˇ cki, Twist-3 contributions to wide-angle photoproduction of pions, Phys. Rev. D 97, 074023 (2018)

    2018

  6. [13]

    Beneke, G

    M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, and C. T. Sachra- jda, QCD factorization in B → πK, ππdecays and ex- traction of Wolfenstein parameters, Nucl. Phys. B 606, 245 (2001)

    2001

  7. [14]

    Beppu, Y

    H. Beppu, Y. Koike, K. Tanaka, and S. Yoshida, Single Transverse-Spin Asymmetry in Large PT Open Charm Production at an Electron-Ion Collider, Phys. Rev. D 85, 114026 (2012)

    2012

  8. [15]

    P. Ball, V. M. Braun, Y. Koike, and K. Tanaka, Higher twist distribution amplitudes of vector mesons in QCD: Formalism and twist - three distributions, Nucl. Phys. B 529, 323 (1998)

    1998

  9. [16]

    Ball and V

    P. Ball and V. M. Braun, Higher twist distribution am- plitudes of vector mesons in QCD: Twist - 4 distribu- tions and meson mass corrections, Nucl. Phys. B 543, 201 (1999)

    1999

  10. [17]

    P. Ball, V. M. Braun, and A. Lenz, Higher-twist distri- bution amplitudes of the K meson in QCD, JHEP 05, 004

  11. [18]

    P. Ball, V. M. Braun, and A. Lenz, Twist-4 distribution amplitudes of the K ∗ and ϕ mesons in QCD, JHEP 08, 090

  12. [19]

    Huang, X

    T. Huang, X. H. Wu, and M. Z. Zhou, Twist-3 distribu- tion amplitude of the pion in QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 70, 014013 (2004)

    2004

  13. [20]

    S. V. Mikhailov, A. V. Pimikov, and N. G. Stefanis, End- point behavior of the pion distribution amplitude in QCD sum rules with nonlocal condensates, Phys. Rev. D 82, 054020 (2010)

    2010

  14. [21]

    Hu, X.-G

    D.-D. Hu, X.-G. Wu, L. Zeng, H.-B. Fu, and T. Zhong, Improved light-cone harmonic oscillator model for the ϕ- meson longitudinal leading-twist light-cone distribution amplitude and its effects to D+ s → ϕℓ+νℓ, Phys. Rev. D 110, 056017 (2024)

    2024

  15. [22]

    S. S. Agaev, Impact of the higher twist effects on the γγ ∗ → π0 transition form factor, Phys. Rev. D 72, 114010 (2005), erratum: Phys. Rev. D 73, 059902 (2006)

    2005

  16. [23]

    V. Y. Petrov, M. V. Polyakov, R. Ruskov, C. Weiss, and K. Goeke, Pion and photon light-cone wave-functions from the instanton vacuum, Phys. Rev. D 59, 114018 (1999)

    1999

  17. [24]

    S. I. Nam and H.-C. Kim, Twist-3 pion and kaon distri- bution amplitudes from the instanton vacuum with fla- vor SU(3) symmetry breaking, Phys. Rev. D 74, 096007 (2006)

    2006

  18. [25]

    W.-Y. Liu, E. Shuryak, and I. Zahed, Hadronic structure on the light front. VIII. Light scalar and vector mesons, Phys. Rev. D 109, 074029 (2024)

    2024

  19. [26]

    E. R. Arriola and W. Broniowski, Pion light-cone wave-function and pion distribution amplitude in the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model, Phys. Rev. D 66, 094016 (2002)

    2002

  20. [27]

    Prasza lowicz and A

    M. Prasza lowicz and A. Rostworowski, Pion light cone wave-function in the nonlocal NJL model, Phys. Rev. D 64, 074003 (2001)

    2001

  21. [28]

    Chang, C

    L. Chang, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, Light front distribution of the chiral condensate, Phys. Lett. B 727, 255 (2013)

    2013

  22. [29]

    C. Shi, C. Chen, L. Chang, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, and H.-S. Zong, Kaon and pion parton distribution am- plitudes to twist three, Phys. Rev. D 92, 014035 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Choi and C.-R

    H.-M. Choi and C.-R. Ji, Distribution amplitudes and decay constants for (π, K, ρ, K∗) mesons in the light-front quark model, Phys. Rev. D 75, 034019 (2007)

    2007

  24. [32]

    H. M. Choi and C. R. Ji, Self-consistent covariant descrip- tion of vector meson decay constants and chirality-even quark-antiquark distribution amplitudes up to twist-3 in the light-front quark model, Phys. Rev. D 89, 033011 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    H. M. Choi and C. R. Ji, Consistency of the light-front quark model with chiral symmetry in the pseudoscalar meson analysis, Phys. Rev. D 91, 014018 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    H. M. Choi and C. R. Ji, Two-particle twist-3 distribution amplitudes of the pion and kaon in the light-front quark model, Phys. Rev. D 95, 056002 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    S. J. Brodsky, H.-C. Pauli, and S. S. Pinsky, Quantum chromodynamics and other field theories on the light cone, Phys. Rept. 301, 299 (1998)

    1998

  28. [36]

    Choi and C.-R

    H.-M. Choi and C.-R. Ji, Mixing angles and electromag- netic properties of ground state pseudoscalar and vector meson nonets in the light-cone quark model, Phys. Rev. D 59, 074015 (1999)

    1999

  29. [37]

    Choi and C.-R

    H.-M. Choi and C.-R. Ji, Light-front quark model anal- ysis of exclusive 0 − → 0− semileptonic heavy meson de- cays, Phys. Lett. B 460, 461 (1999)

    1999

  30. [38]

    Choi, C.-R

    H.-M. Choi, C.-R. Ji, Z. Li, and H.-Y. Ryu, Variational analysis of mass spectra and decay constants for ground state pseudoscalar and vector mesons in the light-front quark model, Phys. Rev. C 92, 055203 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    Dhiman, H

    N. Dhiman, H. Dahiya, C.-R. Ji, and H.-M. Choi, Twist-2 pseudoscalar and vector meson distribution amplitudes in light-front quark model with exponential-type confining potential, Phys. Rev. D 100, 014026 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    A. J. Arifi, H. M. Choi, C. R. Ji, and Y. Oh, Mixing effects on 1S and 2S state heavy mesons in the light-front quark model, Phys. Rev. D 106, 014009 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    A. J. Arifi, H.-M. Choi, C.-R. Ji, and Y. Oh, Indepen- dence of current components, polarization vectors, and 14 reference frames in the light-front quark model analy- sis of meson decay constants, Phys. Rev. D 107, 053003 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Cheng, C.-Y

    H.-Y. Cheng, C.-Y. Cheung, and C.-W. Hwang, Mesonic form-factors and the Isgur-Wise function on the light front, Phys. Rev. D 55, 1559 (1997)

    1997

  35. [43]

    Jaus, Semileptonic decays of B and D mesons in the light-front formalism, Phys

    W. Jaus, Semileptonic decays of B and D mesons in the light-front formalism, Phys. Rev. D 41, 3394 (1990)

    1990

  36. [44]

    Jaus, Relativistic constituent-quark model of elec- troweak properties of light mesons, Phys

    W. Jaus, Relativistic constituent-quark model of elec- troweak properties of light mesons, Phys. Rev. D44, 2851 (1991)

    1991

  37. [45]

    Choi, Self-consistent light-front quark model anal- ysis of B → Dlvl transition form factors, Phys

    H.-M. Choi, Self-consistent light-front quark model anal- ysis of B → Dlvl transition form factors, Phys. Rev. D 103, 073004 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Choi, Current-component independent transition form factors for semileptonic and rare D → π(K) decays in the light-front quark model, Adv

    H.-M. Choi, Current-component independent transition form factors for semileptonic and rare D → π(K) decays in the light-front quark model, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2021, 4277321 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    A. J. Arifi, L. Happ, S. Ohno, and M. Oka, Structure of heavy mesons in the light-front quark model, Phys. Rev. D 110, 014020 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Ridwan, A

    M. Ridwan, A. J. Arifi, and T. Mart, Self-consistent M1 radiative transitions of excited Bc and heavy quarko- nia with different polarizations in the light-front quark model, Phys. Rev. D 111, 016011 (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    Pandya, B

    B. Pandya, B. Gurjar, D. Chakrabarti, H.-M. Choi, and C.-R. Ji, Mixing effects on spectroscopy and partonic ob- servables of heavy mesons with logarithmic confining po- tential in a light-front quark model, Phys. Rev. D 110, 094021 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    B. D. Keister, Rotational covariance and light-front cur- rent matrix elements, Phys. Rev. D 49, 1500 (1994)

    1994

  43. [51]

    Choi and C.-R

    H.-M. Choi and C.-R. Ji, Nonvanishing zero modes in the light-front current, Phys. Rev. D 58, 071901(R) (1998)

    1998

  44. [52]

    S. J. Brodsky and D. S. Hwang, Exact light-cone wave- function representation of matrix elements of electroweak currents, Nucl. Phys. B 543, 239 (1999)

    1999

  45. [53]

    Jaus, Covariant analysis of the light-front quark model, Phys

    W. Jaus, Covariant analysis of the light-front quark model, Phys. Rev. D 60, 054026 (1999)

    1999

  46. [54]

    Carbonell, B

    J. Carbonell, B. Desplanques, V. A. Karmanov, and J. F. Mathiot, Explicitly covariant light-front dynamics and relativistic few-body systems, Phys. Rep. 300, 215 (1998)

    1998

  47. [55]

    de Melo, T

    J. de Melo, T. Frederico, E. Pace, and G. Salm` e, Pair term in the electromagnetic current within the front-form dynamics: spin-0 case, Nucl. Phys. A 707, 399 (2002)

    2002

  48. [56]

    B. L. G. Bakker, H.-M. Choi, and C.-R. Ji, Regularizing the divergent structure of light-front currents, Phys. Rev. D 63, 074014 (2001)

    2001

  49. [57]

    B. L. G. Bakker, H.-M. Choi, and C.-R. Ji, The vector meson form factor analysis in light-front dynamics, Phys. Rev. D 65, 116001 (2002)

    2002

  50. [58]

    J. P. C. B. de Melo, H. W. L. Naus, and T. Frederico, Pion electromagnetic current in the light cone formalism, Phys. Rev. C 59, 2278 (1999)

    1999

  51. [59]

    H. J. Melosh, Quarks: Currents and constituents, Phys. Rev. D 9, 1095 (1988)

    1988

  52. [60]

    Bakamjian and L

    B. Bakamjian and L. H. Thomas, Relativistic particle dynamics. II, Phys. Rev. 92, 1300 (1953)

    1953

  53. [61]

    B. D. Keister and W. N. Polyzou, Relativistic Hamilto- nian dynamics in nuclear and particle physics, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 20, 225 (1991)

    1991

  54. [62]

    A. J. Arifi, H.-M. Choi, and C.-R. Ji, Pseudoscalar meson decay constants and distribution amplitudes up to the twist-4 in the light-front quark model, Phys. Rev. D 108, 013006 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    Choi and C.-R

    H.-M. Choi and C.-R. Ji, Consistency of the pion form factor and unpolarized transverse momentum dependent parton distributions beyond leading twist in the light- front quark model, Phys. Rev. D 110, 014006 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    Cardarelli, I

    F. Cardarelli, I. L. Grach, I. M. Narodetsky, G. Salme, and S. Simula, Electromagnetic form-factors of the rho meson in a light front constituent quark model, Phys. Lett. B 349, 393 (1995)

    1995

  57. [65]

    Cheng, C.-K

    H.-Y. Cheng, C.-K. Chua, and C.-W. Hwang, Covariant light-front approach for s-wave and p-wave mesons: Its application to decay constants and form factors, Phys. Rev. D 69, 074025 (2004)

    2004

  58. [66]

    H. Y. Cheng and C. K. Chua, Light-front approach for Pentaquark strong decays, JHEP 11, 072

  59. [67]

    Navas et al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navas et al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  60. [68]

    Leutwyler, Mesons in terms of quarks on a null plane, Nuclear Physics B 76, 413 (1974)

    H. Leutwyler, Mesons in terms of quarks on a null plane, Nuclear Physics B 76, 413 (1974)

    1974

  61. [69]

    F. Gao, L. Chang, Y.-X. Liu, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, Parton distribution amplitudes of light vector mesons, Phys. Rev. D 90, 014011 (2014)

    2014

  62. [70]

    J. R. Forshaw and R. Sandapen, Extracting the rho me- son wavefunction from HERA data, JHEP 11, 037

  63. [71]

    Zhong, Y.-H

    T. Zhong, Y.-H. Dai, and H.-B. Fu, ρ-meson longitu- dinal leading-twist distribution amplitude revisited and the D→ρ semileptonic decay, Chin. Phys. C 48, 063108 (2024)

    2024

  64. [72]

    A. V. Pimikov, S. V. Mikhailov, and N. G. Stefanis, Rho meson distribution amplitudes from QCD sum rules with nonlocal condensates, Few Body Syst. 55, 401 (2014)

    2014

  65. [73]

    Ball and R

    P. Ball and R. Zwicky, Bd,s → ρ, ω, K∗, ϕdecay form- factors from light-cone sum rules revisited, Phys. Rev. D 71, 014029 (2005)

    2005

  66. [74]

    Gurjar, C

    B. Gurjar, C. Mondal, and S. Kaur, ρ-meson spec- troscopy and diffractive production using the holographic light-front Schr¨ odinger equation and the ’t Hooft equa- tion, Phys. Rev. D 109, 094017 (2024)

    2024

  67. [75]

    C. R. Ji, P. L. Chung, and S. R. Cotanch, Light cone quark model axial vector meson wave function, Phys. Rev. D 45, 4214 (1992)

    1992

  68. [76]

    Arthur, P

    R. Arthur, P. A. Boyle, D. Brommel, M. A. Donnel- lan, J. M. Flynn, A. Juttner, T. D. Rae, and C. T. C. Sachrajda, Lattice Results for Low Moments of Light Me- son Distribution Amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D 83, 074505 (2011)

    2011

  69. [77]

    V. M. Braun et al., The ρ-meson light-cone distribution amplitudes from lattice QCD, JHEP 04, 082

  70. [78]

    A. P. Bakulev and S. V. Mikhailov, The rho meson and related meson wave functions in QCD sum rules with nonlocal condensates, Phys. Lett. B 436, 351 (1998)

    1998

  71. [79]

    Choi and C.-R

    H.-M. Choi and C.-R. Ji, Perturbative qcd analysis of exclusive j/ψ +ηc production in e+e− annihilation, Phys. Rev. D 76, 094010 (2007)

    2007

  72. [80]

    M. V. Polyakov and H.-D. Son, Second Gegenbauer mo- ment of a ρ-meson distribution amplitude, Phys. Rev. D 102, 114005 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.