REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 98 references
Weak decays of $B_s$ meson in self-consistent covariant light-front approach
T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read A self-consistent light-front quark model of $B_s$ weak decays produces lattice-compatible form factors and Standard Model benchmarks across the full kinematic range.
desk verdict Solid Type-II CLFQM application to B_s decays with a broad observable catalog and good LQCD/experiment agreement; marred by an overstated abstract, missing uncertainties on angular observables, and an underspecified substitution rule. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central object is the Type-II correspondence rule of the covariant light-front quark model: in the one-loop integrand that defines the transition matrix element, every occurrence of the meson masses $M'$ and $M''$ is replaced by the kinetic invariant masses $M_0'$ and $M_0''$ (Eqs. (20)–(21)). This is the substitution that removes spurious terms proportional to the light-like vector $\omega_\mu$ and makes the longitudinal and transverse helicity amplitudes agree, restoring manifest covariance. On top of this sits the $z$-series expansion of Eq. (22), truncated at $K=2$, which carries the form factors from the space-like region where the light-front calculation is done to the physical time-like region using the pole masses of Table I. For the nonleptonic sector, the same form factors feed the standard factorization amplitudes with Wilson-coefficient combinations $a_1$ and $a_2$, and the paper augments those with effective values $a_1^E=0.88$, $a_2^E=-0.47$ to represent nonfactorizable effects.
What would settle it
Compute the $B_s \to K^*$ axial form factor $A_0(q^2)$ directly on the lattice across the full physical range. The paper's Type-II $z$-series prediction rises from $A_0(0)=0.30$ to $A_0(q^2_{\max})=2.39$, whereas the Type-I treatment it flags as inconsistent gives $A_0(q^2_{\max})=8.42$; a lattice result near 2.4 supports the central claim, and one near 8 refutes the self-consistency prescription.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper claims that the first self-consistent (Type-II) covariant light-front quark model analysis of $B_s \to P(V)$ weak transitions produces form factors that agree with lattice QCD at both low and high $q^2$, and that these form factors, mapped to the physical region by a model-independent $z$-series expansion, give reliable Standard Model predictions for semileptonic branching ratios, angular observables, and nonleptonic two-body rates. For the pseudoscalar channels the form factors match lattice results at the few-percent level ($F_0^{B_s D_s}(q^2_{\max})$ within about 1%), and the vector channel $B_s \to D_s^*$ reproduces the lattice curves across the entire kinematic range. The paper's distinctive numerical results are the LFU ratios $R_{D_s}=0.2995$ and $R_{D_s^*}=0.258$, the negative forward-backward asymmetries, and the $q^2$-resolved predictions for $B_s\to D_s^{(*)} \ell\nu$ that can be converted into $|V_{cb}|$ benchmarks.
Load-bearing premise
The entire calculation stands on a substitution rule imported from earlier papers—replace every meson mass in the loop integrand with the kinetic mass of its two constituent quarks—and the paper adopts that rule without re-deriving or stress-testing it, so if the rule is invalid every form factor, branching ratio, and angular observable shifts.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- The predicted $B_s \to K$ and $B_s \to D_s$ form factors can be used as a cross-check of lattice QCD outside the endpoints, especially in the mid-$q^2$ region where lattice data are sparser.
- The LFU ratios $R_K$, $R_{D_s}$, and $R_{D_s^*}$ agree with lattice predictions, so the model sharpens the Standard Model baseline for testing lepton flavor universality in $B_s$ decays.
- Because the $D_s^{(*)}$ branching ratios scale as $|V_{cb}|^2$, the paper's results convert future improvements in $|V_{cb}|$ directly into updated branching-ratio benchmarks; a mismatch would signal new physics or a form-factor error.
- In the nonleptonic sector, the need for effective coefficients $a_1^E=0.88$, $a_2^E=-0.47$ quantifies the size of nonfactorizable corrections required beyond naive factorization to match measured $B_s\to PP/PV$ rates.
- The observed approximately 30% spread between Type-I and Type-II treatments of $B_s\to K^*\ell\nu$ means that older extractions of CKM elements from such modes carry a systematic uncertainty that this framework removes.
Reading between the lines
- If the Type-II prescription is as robust as it appears here, the same z-series pipeline should also cure zero-mode artifacts in other heavy-flavor transitions, so porting it to $B_c$, baryon, or rare $B_s$ modes is a natural next step.
- The sharp upward curvature predicted for $V^{B_s D_s^*}(q^2)$ ($a'_2 \sim 11.5$) is a strong, testable signature: a future high-statistics lattice determination at large $q^2$ would either confirm the assumed pole structure or expose an over-extrapolation.
- The paper's comparison suggests that the long-standing tension in color-allowed nonleptonic $B_s$ decays may reside more in the factorization coefficients than in the form factors, since the Type-II form factors match lattice data while the rates still require effective $a_1,a_2$.
- Reanalyzing existing LHCb and Belle data for $B_s^0 \to D_s^{(*)} \ell\nu$ with these Type-II form factors could yield a competitive exclusive $|V_{cb}|$ extraction with a different systematic bias than the CLN/BGL fits currently used.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The manuscript computes B_s → P(V) weak transition form factors in the Type-II 'self-consistent' covariant light-front quark model (CLFQM), parameterizes them with a K=2 z-series fitted at five space-like q^2 points, and uses these form factors to predict semileptonic branching ratios, LFU ratios, angular observables (A_FB, C_F, P_L, P_T, F_L, α*), and nonleptonic B_s → PP/PV branching ratios in a factorization framework. The results are compared extensively with lattice QCD, LCSR, other quark-model calculations, and LHCb/PDG data.
Significance. If the Type-II scheme is correctly implemented, the paper would provide a valuable unified set of Standard Model benchmarks for B_s decays over the full q^2 range, with particular utility for LFU tests (R_K, R_Ds, R_D*s) and for angular observables in τ channels. The semileptonic branching ratios and LFU ratios agree well with lattice QCD and experiment (e.g., B(B_s → K μν), R_Ds), and the comparison tables are extensive and clearly organized. The main weakness is the imprecise specification of the Type-II substitution rule, which is load-bearing for every form factor and observable in the paper.
major comments (2)
- [Abstract; II.B; III.A] The Type-II correspondence is stated as the replacement M'(M'') → M0'(M0'') 'throughout the integrand, including all M-dependent terms.' Taken literally, this substitution makes the denominators \hat N'_1 = x1(M'^2 − M0'^2) and \hat N''_1 defined in Eq. (19) vanish in Eq. (20), so the central expression for the matrix element is singular. The manuscript does not specify which M-dependent factors (traces, vertex normalizations, the \hat N denominators, or the combinations M'^2 − M0'^2) are exempt, and Appendix A states only that the Type-II expressions are obtained by the same replacement, deferring to Refs. [48,49]. Because every form factor, z-coefficient, branching ratio, and angular observable in Tables II–IV is computed from these expressions, the paper's self-consistency claim rests on an imprecisely specified, imported rule. Please state the replacement rule unambiguously, give the resulting Type-II integrands explicitly (or provide a complete dictionary), and add a numerical check showing that longitudinal and transverse helicity amplitudes yield identical BSW form factors.
- [Abstract; II.B; III.A] The abstract claims a 'model-independent z-series expansion calibrated to lattice QCD,' but the z-coefficients a'_k in Eq. (22) are fitted to five space-like CLFQM (Type-II) points listed in Sec. II.B, with LQCD entering only through quark-mass inputs and later comparisons in Sec. III.A. This overstates the role of LQCD in the extraction. Please rephrase the abstract and Sec. II.B to state that the z-coefficients are obtained by fitting the CLFQM points and are then validated against LQCD; alternatively, if a genuinely LQCD-calibrated z-fit is intended, the fitting procedure should be changed accordingly.
minor comments (6)
- [II.C, Eqs. (31)-(32)] Equations (31) and (32) contain M_Bc in the denominator; for B_s decays these factors should be M_Bs, matching Eq. (25).
- [II.B] The five-point, K=2 z-fits are not characterized; please report residuals or χ²/dof and check the stability of a'_k against K=1 or different choices of fitting points.
- [III.A (v) and Fig. 4] Reference [81] is cited as a lattice QCD prediction, but the bibliography entry for Ref. [81] is a QED-correction study; the LQCD comparison in Fig. 4 should be attributed to Ref. [4] (HPQCD) alone, with Ref. [81] removed or reclassified.
- [III] The uncertainty budget neglects the z-series truncation and pole-mass uncertainties; the phrase 'conservative uncertainty estimates' should be justified or qualified accordingly.
- [II.B] The statement that the coefficients a'_k 'do not carry direct physical interpretation' is confusing because, by Eq. (22), a'_0 = F(0); please rephrase.
- [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'theoretcial' in Sec. I and inconsistent header formatting in the tables (e.g., 'HFLA V'); these should be corrected in a final proofreading pass.
Circularity Check
Central semileptonic derivation is independent, but nonleptonic 'predictions' using effective a1/a2 are partly calibrated to the very branching ratios then reported as predictions; Type-II M→M0 substitution is imported and ambiguous but not circular by definition.
-
fitted input called prediction
[Sec. III.C(ii), nonleptonic decays; Tables V-X; Sec. II.D Eqs. (39)-(42)]
"Comparison with experimental branching ratios necessitates the use of an effective color-suppressed amplitude parameter, aE2 , with a significantly larger magnitude, alongside a mildly suppressed color-favored amplitude parameter, aE1 . ... Consequently, we adopt aE1 = 0.88 and aE2 = ?0.47 for our analysis [87]. This choice yields B(B0s → D+s π−) = (2.87+0.07−0.07)×10−3, in strong agreement with experiment [1], and improves consistency with experiment for the Class-II decay B0s → D0K0."
The effective coefficients are selected, within the 'phenomenologically reasonable range' described in Sec. II.D, precisely because they reproduce the measured Bs→Dsπ and Bs→D0K0 branching ratios. Since the factorized amplitudes scale directly with a1 (Class I) and a2 (Class II), the Table V entries labeled 'aE1 = 0.88, aE2 = ?0.47' for these modes are constraints that determine the parameters, not independent predictions. The paper nevertheless presents these entries as 'This Work' predictions and as evidence of agreement with experiment, and the other nonleptonic rates inherit the same calibration of the effective coefficients.
full rationale
The central derivation chain — Type-II CLFQM form factors, z-series fit, semileptonic branching ratios and angular observables — is not circular: the z-coefficients are fitted to the model's own form-factor points at five q2 values, then compared with independent LQCD, LCSR, and experimental results; no fitted quantity in that chain is renamed as a prediction. The Type-II replacement rule M'(M'') → M0'(M0'') (Sec. II.A, Appendix A) is load-bearing and imported from Refs. [48,49] plus the authors' own Ref. [58]; its literal reading would make the denominators N-hat'_1 = x1(M'^2 - M0'^2) vanish, and the paper defers details rather than re-deriving the rule. However, this is a correctness/ambiguity concern, not a circular reduction, because the substitution rule is not defined in terms of the Bs observables it predicts and the external sources provide independent support. The partial circularity is confined to the nonleptonic sector, where aE1 = 0.88 and aE2 = -0.47 are adopted because they reproduce the measured Bs→Dsπ and Bs→D0K0 rates and those very rates are then reported as predictions in Tables V-X. This fits the 'fitted input called prediction' pattern for those modes, while leaving the central semileptonic results independent; hence score 4 rather than higher.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (4)
- Constituent quark masses =
mu=md=0.26, ms=0.40, mc=1.27, mb=4.50 GeV with uncertainties
- Beta parameters for meson wave functions =
beta_K=0.3479, beta_Ds=0.5432, beta_Bs=0.6019, beta_K*=0.2926, beta_D*s=0.3932 GeV
- z-series coefficients a'_0, a'_1, a'_2 per form factor =
Table II: F(0)=a'_0 from 0.19 to 0.73; a'_1 from -4.60 to -0.33; a'_2 from -0.72 to 11.46
- Effective Wilson coefficients for nonleptonic decays =
a1^E=0.88, a2^E=-0.47
assumptions (5)
- domain assumption Type-II self-consistency replacement M -> M0 throughout the light-front integrand
- domain assumption Gaussian radial wave function with beta parameters
- domain assumption z-series expansion truncated at K=2 with fixed pole masses
- domain assumption Naive factorization of nonleptonic amplitudes with neglect of penguin and nonfactorizable terms
- domain assumption Standard Model weak Hamiltonian with CKM, masses, and lifetimes from PDG
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Weak decays of $B_s$ meson in self-consistent covariant light-front approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GVUNNBSM
@misc{pith2026250705104,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Weak decays of $B_s$ meson in self-consistent covariant light-front approach},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GVUNNBSM}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05104}
}
abstract
We present a comprehensive study of weak transition form factors and decay observables of the $B_s$ meson in transitions to pseudoscalar ($P$) and vector ($V$) mesons. The $B_s \to P(V)$ form factors are calculated using the self-consistent covariant light-front quark model, with a model-independent $z$-series expansion calibrated to lattice QCD and phenomenological inputs for quark masses and $\beta$ parameters. This enables reliable $q^2$-resolved predictions across the full kinematic range. Based on these form factors, we predict branching ratios and angular observables, including forward-backward asymmetries, polarization fractions, and leptonic convexity parameters for semileptonic decays. Nonleptonic two-body decay rates for $B_s \to PP$ and $B_s \to PV$ modes are also computed within the standard factorization framework using the same dynamical input. Comparisons with results from lattice QCD, light-cone sum rules, and other approaches are presented, highlighting both theoretical consistency and persistent tensions with experiment.
Figures
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
k′ ⊥ · q⊥ q2 + 2 D′′ V,con h k′2 ⊥ + (k′ ⊥ · q⊥)2 q2 io , (A5) ef (x1, k′ ⊥, q2) = − 2 n − (m′ 1 + m′′ 1)2(m′ 1 − m2) + (x1m2 − x2m′ 1)M ′2 + (x1m2 + x2m′ 1)M ′′2 − x1(m2 − m′ 1)(M ′2 0 + M ′′2 0 ) + 2x1m′′ 1M ′2 0 − 4(m′ 1 − m2) k′2 ⊥ + (k′ ⊥ · q⊥)2 q2 − m2q2 − (m′ 1 + m′′ 1)(q2 + q · p) k′ ⊥ · q⊥ q2 + 4(m′ 1 − m2)B(2) 1 + 2 D′′ V,con h k′2 ⊥ + (k′ ⊥ · q...
-
[2]
Furthermore, the analytic structure of the form factors in Eq. (22) reflects contributions from resonant states with definite spin-parity quantum numbers [62, 63]; accordingly, we adopt the pole masses listed in Table I for each transition channel. C. Semileptonic decay widths and other physical observables The differential decay width of Bs to P (V ) sem...
2022
-
[3]
Navas et al
S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)
2024
-
[4]
S. Banerjee et al.(Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFLA V)), Averages ofb-hadron, c-hadron, and τ -lepton properties as of 2023, (2024), arXiv:2411.18639 [hep-ex]
arXiv 2024
-
[5]
J. Harrison and C. T. H. Davies (HPQCD, (HPQCD Collaboration) ‡), B→D* and Bs→Ds* vector, axial-vector and tensor form factors for the full q2 range from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 109, 094515 (2024), arXiv:2304.03137 [hep-lat]
arXiv 2024
-
[6]
$B_s \rightarrow D_s^*$ Form Factors for the full $q^2$ range from Lattice QCD
J. Harrison and C. T. H. Davies (HPQCD), Bs →Ds* form factors for the full q2 range from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 105, 094506 (2022), arXiv:2105.11433 [hep-lat]
work page Pith review arXiv 2022
-
[7]
Caria et al.(Belle), Measurement of R(D) and R(D∗) with a semileptonic tagging method, Phys
G. Caria et al.(Belle), Measurement of R(D) and R(D∗) with a semileptonic tagging method, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 161803 (2020), arXiv:1910.05864 [hep-ex]
arXiv 2020
-
[8]
F. U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, M. Papucci, and D. J. Robinson, Combined analysis of semilep- tonic B decays to D and D∗: R(D(∗)), |Vcb|, and new physics, Phys. Rev. D 95, 115008 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 97, 059902 (2018)], arXiv:1703.05330 [hep-ph]
arXiv 2017
Show all 98 references
-
[9]
Paolucci (LHCb), Study of the measurement of the ratio R(D∗ s ) at LHCb, Nuovo Cim
L. Paolucci (LHCb), Study of the measurement of the ratio R(D∗ s ) at LHCb, Nuovo Cim. C 45, 120 (2022)
2022
-
[10]
Aaij et al.(LHCb), Measurement of |Vcb| with B0 s → D(∗)− s µ+νµ decays, Phys
R. Aaij et al.(LHCb), Measurement of |Vcb| with B0 s → D(∗)− s µ+νµ decays, Phys. Rev. D 101, 072004 (2020), arXiv:2001.03225 [hep-ex]
2020
-
[11]
Martinelli, M
G. Martinelli, M. Naviglio, S. Simula, and L. Vittorio, —Vcb—, lepton flavor universality and SU(3)F symmetry breaking in Bs→Ds(*)ℓνℓ decays through unitarity and lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 106, 093002 (2022), arXiv:2204.05925 [hep-ph]
2022 arXiv
-
[12]
Bordone, N
M. Bordone, N. Gubernari, D. van Dyk, and M. Jung, Heavy-Quark expansion for ¯Bs → D(∗) s form factors and unitarity bounds beyond the SU (3)F limit, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 347 (2020), arXiv:1912.09335 [hep-ph]
2020
-
[13]
R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin, and X.-W. Kang, Relativistic description of the semileptonic decays of bottom mesons, Phys. Rev. D 106, 013004 (2022), arXiv:2206.10277 [hep-ph]
2022 arXiv
-
[14]
Cui, Y.-K
B.-Y. Cui, Y.-K. Huang, Y.-M. Wang, and X.-C. Zhao, Shedding new light on R(D(s)(*)) and —Vcb— from semileptonic B¯(s)→D(s)(*)ℓν¯ℓ decays, Phys. Rev. D 108, L071504 (2023), arXiv:2301.12391 [hep-ph]
2023 arXiv
-
[15]
S. S. Gershtein and M. Y. Khlopov, SU(4) Symmetry Breaking and Lepton Decays of Heavy Pseudoscalar Mesons, JETP Lett. 23, 338 (1976)
1976
-
[16]
M. Y. Khlopov, Effects of Symmetry Violation in Semileptonic Meson Decays, Sov. J. Nucl. 22 Phys. 28, 583 (1978)
1978
-
[17]
Khodjamirian, B
A. Khodjamirian, B. Meli´ c, and Y.-M. Wang, A guide to the QCD light-cone sum rules for b-quark decays, Eur. Phys. J. ST 233, 271 (2024), arXiv:2311.08700 [hep-ph]
2024 arXiv
-
[18]
Bordone, N
M. Bordone, N. Gubernari, T. Huber, M. Jung, and D. van Dyk, A puzzle in ¯B0 (s) → D(∗)+ (s) {π−, K−} decays and extraction of the fs/fd fragmentation fraction, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 951 (2020), arXiv:2007.10338 [hep-ph]
2020 arXiv
-
[19]
Zhang, T
Y. Zhang, T. Zhong, H.-B. Fu, W. Cheng, L. Zeng, and X.-G. Wu, Ratio R(Ds) for Bs→Dsℓνℓ by using the QCD light-cone sum rules within the framework of heavy quark effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D 105, 096013 (2022), arXiv:2202.02730 [hep-ph]
2022 arXiv
-
[20]
Banerjee (ALPHA), Form factors in the B s → Kℓν decays using HQET and the lattice, PoS LA TTICE2016, 292 (2016), arXiv:1701.03923 [hep-lat]
D. Banerjee (ALPHA), Form factors in the B s → Kℓν decays using HQET and the lattice, PoS LA TTICE2016, 292 (2016), arXiv:1701.03923 [hep-lat]
2016 arXiv
-
[21]
Hu, S.-P
X.-Q. Hu, S.-P. Jin, and Z.-J. Xiao, Semileptonic decays B/Bs → (D(∗), D(∗) s )lνl in the PQCD approach with the lattice QCD input, Chin. Phys. C 44, 053102 (2020), arXiv:1912.03981 [hep-ph]
2020 arXiv
-
[22]
Fan, W.-F
Y.-Y. Fan, W.-F. Wang, and Z.-J. Xiao, Study of ¯B0 s → (D+ s , D∗+ s )l− ¯νl decays in the pQCD factorization approach, Phys. Rev. D 89, 014030 (2014), arXiv:1311.4965 [hep-ph]
2014 arXiv
-
[23]
Enqi, R.-H
W. Enqi, R.-H. Li, and Z.-X. Zhao, Semileptonic and nonleptonic ¯Bs → DsJ decays in covari- ant light-front approach, (2025), arXiv:2504.15056 [hep-ph]
2025 arXiv
-
[24]
Zhang, X.-W
L. Zhang, X.-W. Kang, X.-H. Guo, L.-Y. Dai, T. Luo, and C. Wang, A comprehensive study on the semileptonic decay of heavy flavor mesons, JHEP 02, 179, arXiv:2012.04417 [hep-ph]
2012 arXiv
-
[25]
J. N. Pandya, P. Santorelli, and N. R. Soni, Prediction of various observables for B0 s → D(∗)− s ℓ+νℓ within covariant confined quark model, Eur. Phys. J. ST 233, 2075 (2024), arXiv:2307.14245 [hep-ph]
2024 arXiv
-
[26]
N. R. Soni, A. Issadykov, A. N. Gadaria, Z. Tyulemissov, J. J. Patel, and J. N. Pandya, Form factors and branching fraction calculations for Bs → D(∗) s ℓ+νℓ in view of LHCb observation, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138, 163 (2023), arXiv:2110.12740 [hep-ph]
2023 arXiv
-
[27]
Witzel, Lattice QCD (focus on Charm and Beauty form factors, R(D∗), b- \& c-quark masses), PoS Beauty2019, 037 (2020), arXiv:2002.01056 [hep-ph]
O. Witzel, Lattice QCD (focus on Charm and Beauty form factors, R(D∗), b- \& c-quark masses), PoS Beauty2019, 037 (2020), arXiv:2002.01056 [hep-ph]
2020 arXiv
-
[28]
J. M. Flynn, R. C. Hill, A. J¨ uttner, A. Soni, J. T. Tsang, and O. Witzel (RBC/UKQCD), Exclusive semileptonic Bs →Kℓν decays on the lattice, Phys. Rev. D 107, 114512 (2023), arXiv:2303.11280 [hep-lat]
2023 arXiv
-
[29]
McLean, C
E. McLean, C. T. H. Davies, J. Koponen, and A. T. Lytle, Bs → Dsℓν Form Factors for the full q2 range from Lattice QCD with non-perturbatively normalized currents, Phys. Rev. D 101, 074513 (2020), arXiv:1906.00701 [hep-lat]
2020 arXiv
-
[30]
Becirevic, S
D. Becirevic, S. Fajfer, I. Nisandzic, and A. Tayduganov, Angular distributions of ¯B → D(∗)ℓ¯νℓ decays and search of New Physics, Nucl. Phys. B 946, 114707 (2019), arXiv:1602.03030 [hep- ph]
2019 arXiv
-
[31]
Albertus, Weak decays of ¯Bs mesons, Phys
C. Albertus, Weak decays of ¯Bs mesons, Phys. Rev. D 89, 065042 (2014), arXiv:1401.1791 [hep-ph]
2014 arXiv
-
[32]
R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, Weak decays of Bs mesons to Ds mesons in the relativistic quark model, Phys. Rev. D 87, 034033 (2013), arXiv:1212.3167 [hep-ph]. 23
2013 arXiv
-
[33]
Cai, W.-J
F.-M. Cai, W.-J. Deng, X.-Q. Li, and Y.-D. Yang, Probing new physics in class-I B-meson decays into heavy-light final states, JHEP 10, 235, arXiv:2103.04138 [hep-ph]
-
[34]
Azizi, R
K. Azizi, R. Khosravi, and F. Falahati, Analyzing of the B(q) — > D(q)(D*(q)) P and B(q) —> D(q) (D*(q)) V decays within the factorization approach in QCD, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 24, 5845 (2009), arXiv:0811.2671 [hep-ph]
2009 arXiv
-
[35]
M. L. Piscopo and A. V. Rusov, Non-factorisable effects in the decays B 0 s → D+ s π− and B 0 → D+K− from LCSR, JHEP 10, 180, arXiv:2307.07594 [hep-ph]
-
[36]
Li, C.-D
R.-H. Li, C.-D. Lu, and Y.-M. Wang, Exclusive Bs decays to the charmed mesons D+ s (1968,2317) in the standard model, Phys. Rev. D 80, 014005 (2009), arXiv:0905.3259 [hep-ph]
2009 arXiv
-
[37]
Yu, Z.-T
X. Yu, Z.-T. Zou, and C.-D. L¨ u, Time-dependent CP -violations of B(Bs) decays in the per- turbative QCD approach, Phys. Rev. D 88, 054018 (2013), arXiv:1307.7485 [hep-ph]
2013 arXiv
-
[38]
Zou, R.-H
H. Zou, R.-H. Li, X.-X. Wang, and C.-D. Lu, The CKM suppressed B(B(s)) — > anti-D(s)P, anti-D(s)V, anti-D*(s)P, anti-D*(s)V decays in perturbative QCD approach, J. Phys. G 37, 015002 (2010), arXiv:0908.1856 [hep-ph]
2010 arXiv
-
[39]
Li, C.-D
R.-H. Li, C.-D. Lu, and H. Zou, The B(B(s)) — > D(s) P, D(s) V, D*(s) P and D*(s) V decays in the perturbative QCD approach, Phys. Rev. D 78, 014018 (2008), arXiv:0803.1073 [hep-ph]
2008 arXiv
-
[40]
M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Korner, S. G. Kovalenko, P. Santorelli, and G. G. Saidullaeva, Form factors for semileptonic, nonleptonic and rare B (Bs) meson decays, Phys. Rev. D 85, 034004 (2012), arXiv:1112.3536 [hep-ph]
2012 arXiv
-
[41]
Davies, S
J. Davies, S. Schacht, N. Skidmore, and A. Soni, Reappraisal of SU(3)-flavor breaking in B→DP, Phys. Rev. D 109, 113006 (2024), arXiv:2403.04878 [hep-ph]
2024 arXiv
-
[42]
M. Endo, S. Iguro, and S. Mishima, Revisiting rescattering contributions to B(s) → D(∗) (s) M decays, JHEP 01, 147, arXiv:2109.10811 [hep-ph]
-
[43]
Colangelo and R
P. Colangelo and R. Ferrandes, Model independent analysis of a class of anti-B(s)0 decay modes, Phys. Lett. B 627, 77 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0508033
2005 arXiv
-
[44]
J. M. Flynn, A. J¨ uttner, and J. T. Tsang, Bayesian inference for form-factor fits regulated by unitarity and analyticity, JHEP 12, 175, arXiv:2303.11285 [hep-ph]
-
[45]
Bordone, B
M. Bordone, B. Capdevila, and P. Gambino, Three loop calculations and inclusive Vcb, Phys. Lett. B 822, 136679 (2021), arXiv:2107.00604 [hep-ph]
2021 arXiv
-
[46]
Greljo, Y
A. Greljo, Y. Soreq, P. Stangl, A. E. Thomsen, and J. Zupan, Muonic force behind flavor anomalies, JHEP 04, 151, arXiv:2107.07518 [hep-ph]
-
[47]
Bordone, A
M. Bordone, A. Greljo, and D. Marzocca, Exploiting dijet resonance searches for flavor physics, JHEP 08, 036, arXiv:2103.10332 [hep-ph]
-
[48]
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
-
[49]
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), arXiv:hep-ph/0310359
2004 arXiv
-
[50]
Choi and C.-R
H.-M. Choi and C.-R. Ji, Self-consistent covariant description 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), arXiv:1308.4455 [hep-ph]. 24
2014 arXiv
-
[51]
Chang, X.-N
Q. Chang, X.-N. Li, and L.-T. Wang, Revisiting the form factors of P → V transition within the light-front quark models, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 422 (2019), arXiv:1905.05098 [hep-ph]
2019 arXiv
-
[52]
Chang, X.-L
Q. Chang, X.-L. Wang, and L.-T. Wang, Tensor form factors of P → P, S, Vand A transi- tions within standard and covariant light-front approaches, Chin. Phys. C 44, 083105 (2020), arXiv:2003.10833 [hep-ph]
2020 arXiv
-
[53]
Bourrely, I
C. Bourrely, I. Caprini, and L. Lellouch, Model-independent description of B —> pi l nu decays and a determination of —V(ub)—, Phys. Rev. D 79, 013008 (2009), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 82, 099902 (2010)], arXiv:0807.2722 [hep-ph]
2009 arXiv
-
[54]
Chakraborty, C
B. Chakraborty, C. T. H. Davies, B. Galloway, P. Knecht, J. Koponen, G. C. Donald, R. J. Dowdall, G. P. Lepage, and C. McNeile, High-precision quark masses and QCD coupling from nf = 4 lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 91, 054508 (2015), arXiv:1408.4169 [hep-lat]
2015 arXiv
-
[55]
R. C. Verma, Decay constants and form factors of s-wave and p-wave mesons in the covariant light-front quark model, J. Phys. G 39, 025005 (2012), arXiv:1103.2973 [hep-ph]
2012 arXiv
-
[56]
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
-
[57]
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), arXiv:hep-ph/9607332
1997 arXiv
-
[58]
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), arXiv:hep-ph/9705477
1998 arXiv
-
[59]
Wirbel, B
M. Wirbel, B. Stech, and M. Bauer, Exclusive Semileptonic Decays of Heavy Mesons, Z. Phys. C 29, 637 (1985)
1985
-
[60]
T. M. S., A. Hazra, N. Sharma, and R. Dhir, Weak decays of Bc involving vector mesons in self-consistent covariant light-front approach, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 204 (2025), arXiv:2404.00734 [hep-ph]
2025 arXiv
-
[61]
Hazra, T
A. Hazra, T. M. S., N. Sharma, and R. Dhir, Bc to A transition form factors and semilep- tonic decays in self-consistent covariant light-front approach, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 944 (2024), arXiv:2309.03655 [hep-ph]
2024 arXiv
-
[62]
Jaus, Semileptonic, radiative, and pionic decays of B, B* and D, D* mesons, Phys
W. Jaus, Semileptonic, radiative, and pionic decays of B, B* and D, D* mesons, Phys. Rev. D 53, 1349 (1996), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 54, 5904 (1996)]
1996
-
[63]
Melikhov, Dispersion approach to quark binding effects in weak decays of heavy mesons, Eur
D. Melikhov, Dispersion approach to quark binding effects in weak decays of heavy mesons, Eur. Phys. J. direct 4, 2 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0110087
2002 arXiv
-
[64]
Bauer and M
M. Bauer and M. Wirbel, Form-Factor Effects in Exclusive d and B Decays, Z. Phys. C 42, 671 (1989)
1989
-
[65]
Melikhov and B
D. Melikhov and B. Stech, Weak form-factors for heavy meson decays: An Update, Phys. Rev. D 62, 014006 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0001113
2000 arXiv
-
[66]
J. G. Korner and G. A. Schuler, Exclusive Semileptonic Heavy Meson Decays Including Lepton Mass Effects, Z. Phys. C 46, 93 (1990)
1990
-
[67]
M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Korner, and P. Santorelli, Semileptonic decays of Bc mesons into char- monium states in a relativistic quark model, Phys. Rev. D 71, 094006 (2005), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 75, 019901 (2007)], arXiv:hep-ph/0501051
2005 arXiv
-
[68]
A. J. Buras, Theoretical review of B physics, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A368, 1 (1995), arXiv:hep- ph/9509329. 25
1995
-
[69]
Bauer, B
M. Bauer, B. Stech, and M. Wirbel, Exclusive Nonleptonic Decays of D, D(s), and B Mesons, Z. Phys. C 34, 103 (1987)
1987
-
[70]
Wirbel, Description of Weak Decays of D and B Mesons, Prog
M. Wirbel, Description of Weak Decays of D and B Mesons, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 21, 33 (1988)
1988
-
[71]
T. E. Browder and K. Honscheid, B mesons, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 35, 81 (1995), arXiv:hep- ph/9503414
1995
-
[72]
Cheng, Implications of recent anti-B0 — > D*0 X0 measurements, Phys
H.-Y. Cheng, Implications of recent anti-B0 — > D*0 X0 measurements, Phys. Rev. D 65, 094012 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0108096
2002 arXiv
-
[73]
Cheng and C.-W
H.-Y. Cheng and C.-W. Chiang, Two-body hadronic charmed meson decays, Phys. Rev. D 81, 074021 (2010), arXiv:1001.0987 [hep-ph]
2010 arXiv
-
[74]
Cheng, C.-W
H.-Y. Cheng, C.-W. Chiang, and A.-L. Kuo, Updating B →PP,VP decays in the framework of flavor symmetry, Phys. Rev. D 91, 014011 (2015), arXiv:1409.5026 [hep-ph]
2015 arXiv
-
[75]
Beneke, G
M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, and C. T. Sachrajda, QCD factorization for exclusive, nonleptonic B meson decays: General arguments and the case of heavy light final states, Nucl. Phys. B 591, 313 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0006124
2000 arXiv
-
[76]
Chang, X.-N
Q. Chang, X.-N. Li, X.-Q. Li, F. Su, and Y.-D. Yang, Self-consistency and covariance of light-front quark models: testing via P , V and A meson decay constants, and P → P weak transition form factors, Phys. Rev. D 98, 114018 (2018), arXiv:1810.00296 [hep-ph]
2018 arXiv
-
[77]
R. J. Dowdall, C. T. H. Davies, G. P. Lepage, and C. McNeile, Vus from pi and K decay constants in full lattice QCD with physical u, d, s and c quarks, Phys. Rev. D 88, 074504 (2013), arXiv:1303.1670 [hep-lat]
2013 arXiv
-
[78]
Bharucha, D
A. Bharucha, D. M. Straub, and R. Zwicky, B → V ℓ+ℓ− in the Standard Model from light- cone sum rules, JHEP 08, 098, arXiv:1503.05534 [hep-ph]
-
[79]
Chakraborty, C
B. Chakraborty, C. T. H. Davies, G. C. Donald, J. Koponen, and G. P. Lepage (HPQCD), Nonperturbative comparison of clover and highly improved staggered quarks in lattice QCD and the properties of the ϕ meson, Phys. Rev. D 96, 074502 (2017), arXiv:1703.05552 [hep-lat]
2017 arXiv
-
[80]
Lubicz, A
V. Lubicz, A. Melis, and S. Simula (ETM), Masses and decay constants of D* (s) and B* (s) mesons with N f = 2 + 1 + 1 twisted mass fermions, Phys. Rev. D 96, 034524 (2017), arXiv:1707.04529 [hep-lat]
2017 arXiv
-
[81]
Ablikim et al
M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), First Experimental Study of the Purely Leptonic Decay Ds*+→e+νe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 141802 (2023), arXiv:2304.12159 [hep-ex]
2023
-
[82]
Neubert, Heavy quark symmetry, Phys
M. Neubert, Heavy quark symmetry, Phys. Rept. 245, 259 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9306320
1994 arXiv
-
[83]
Y. Yang, J. Li, L. Wang, and J. Sun, The nonfactorizable QED correction to the Bs→D(∗) s ℓ¯νℓ decays, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 402 (2025), arXiv:2502.09883 [hep-ph]
2025 arXiv
-
[84]
A. F. Falk, B. Grinstein, and M. E. Luke, Leading mass corrections to the heavy quark effective theory, Nucl. Phys. B 357, 185 (1991)
1991
-
[85]
Neubert, Heavy quark effective theory, Subnucl
M. Neubert, Heavy quark effective theory, Subnucl. Ser. 34, 98 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9610266
1997 arXiv
-
[86]
Aaij et al
R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), First observation of the decay B0 s → K−µ+νµ and Measurement of |Vub|/|Vcb|, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 081804 (2021), arXiv:2012.05143 [hep-ex]
2021
-
[87]
Aaij et al
R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Precise measurement of the fs/fd ratio of fragmentation fractions and of B0 s decay branching fractions, Phys. Rev. D 104, 032005 (2021), arXiv:2103.06810 [hep-ex]
2021
-
[88]
X. J. Chen, H. F. Fu, C. S. Kim, and G. L. Wang, Estimating Form Factors of Bs → D(∗) s and 26 their Applications to Semi-leptonic and Non-leptonic Decays, J. Phys. G 39, 045002 (2012), arXiv:1106.3003 [hep-ph]
2012 arXiv
-
[89]
Cheng and C.-K
H.-Y. Cheng and C.-K. Chua, Production of P-wave Charmed Mesons in Hadronic B Decays, Phys. Rev. D 74, 034020 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0605073
2006 arXiv
-
[90]
Fleischer and E
R. Fleischer and E. Malami, Using B0 s → D∓ s K± Decays as a Portal to New Physics, Phys. Rev. D 106, 056004 (2022), arXiv:2109.04950 [hep-ph]
2022 arXiv
-
[91]
Aaij et al
R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), First observation and measurement of the branching fraction for the decay B0 s → D∗∓ s K±, JHEP 06, 130, arXiv:1503.09086 [hep-ex]
-
[92]
Louvot et al
R. Louvot et al. (Belle), Observation of B0 s − > D∗− s π+, B0 s − > D(∗)− s rho+ Decays and Mea- surement of B0 s − > D∗− s ρ+ Polarization, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 231801 (2010), arXiv:1003.5312 [hep-ex]
2010 arXiv
-
[93]
Iguro and T
S. Iguro and T. Kitahara, Implications for new physics from a novel puzzle in ¯B0 (s) → D(∗)+ (s) {π−, K−} decays, Phys. Rev. D 102, 071701 (2020), arXiv:2008.01086 [hep-ph]
2020 arXiv
-
[94]
A. H. Panuluh, S. Tanaka, and H. Umeeda, B(s) →D(s)(*)M decays in the presence of final- state interactions, Phys. Rev. D 111, 095020 (2025), arXiv:2408.15466 [hep-ph]
2025 arXiv
-
[95]
Gershon, A
T. Gershon, A. Lenz, A. V. Rusov, and N. Skidmore, Testing the Standard Model with CP asymmetries in flavor-specific nonleptonic decays, Phys. Rev. D 105, 115023 (2022), arXiv:2111.04478 [hep-ph]
2022 arXiv
-
[96]
Beneke, P
M. Beneke, P. B¨ oer, G. Finauri, and K. K. Vos, QED factorization of two-body non-leptonic and semi-leptonic B to charm decays, JHEP 10, 223, arXiv:2107.03819 [hep-ph]
-
[97]
Bordone, N
M. Bordone, N. Gubernari, M. Jung, and D. van Dyk, Challenging ¯B(s) → D(∗) (s) Form Factors with the Heavy Quark Expansion, (2025), arXiv:2507.03569 [hep-ph]. 27 Table I: Transition pole masses for Bs → P and V form factors (in GeV). Quark transition F1(q2), V(q2) F0(q2) A0(q...
2025
-
[98]
(Type-I) [22] [24] [1] B0 s → K−e+νe (1.07+0.27+0.00 −0.23−0.00) × 10−4 1.56 × 10−4 9.23 × 10−5 - - B0 s → K−µ+νµ (1.07+0.27+0.00 −0.23−0.00) × 10−4 1.55 × 10−4 9.23 × 10−5 - (1 .06 ± 0.09) × 10−4 B0 s → K−τ +ντ (8.13+2.04+0.01 −1.79−0.01) × 10−5 9.10 × 10−5 6.18 × 10−5 - - B0...
Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.