Nonperturbative Dynamics in D-meson Mixing

Alexey A. Petrov; Bla\v{z}enka Meli\'c; Lovro Dulibi\'c

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Nonperturbative Dynamics in D-meson Mixing

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper calculates, for the first time, explicit mixed quark-gluon and four-quark condensate contributions to D0–D0bar mixing, pushing the predicted mixing parameter to (1.27 ± 0.18) × 10^-5, still below the measured value near 0.4%.

desk verdict A careful first explicit OPE calculation of dimension-9/11/12 condensate contributions to x_D, whose headline number is plausible but whose quoted error bar misses the dominant factorization uncertainty. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.16337 v1 pith:C6RVDJDV submitted 2025-08-22 hep-ph

Lovro Dulibić , Blaženka Melić , Alexey A. Petrov This is my paper

classification hep-ph PACS 12.38.-t14.40.Lb

keywords D-mesonmixingQCDcondensatesoperatorproductexpansionGIMsuppressionnonperturbativefour-quarkcondensatemixedquark-gluoncharmquark

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

Neutral D mesons can oscillate into their antiparticles, but the Standard Model's prediction for how fast they do so has long trailed the measured rate, partly because the GIM mechanism suppresses the leading quark-level contribution by high powers of the strange-quark mass. This paper tries to recover the missing size by computing higher-order 1/m_c corrections to the mixing parameter x_D from QCD condensates, including mixed quark-gluon and four-quark condensates for the first time. The condensates act as chirality flips that replace some of the small quark-mass factors, so the total condensate contribution reaches x_cond^D = (1.27 ± 0.18) × 10^-5, which the paper describes as an increase by two orders of magnitude over the perturbative NLO result. The result is still far below the experimental x_D, but it identifies which nonperturbative parameters—the strange-quark condensate, the mixed-condensate moment, and the four-quark condensate—control the size of the missing piece.

What carries the argument

The engine of the calculation is the operator product expansion of the time-ordered product of two ΔC=1 weak Hamiltonians, combined with a background-field expansion of nonlocal light-quark condensates into local condensates up to dimension six. The central identities are the parametrizations of the nonlocal quark condensate and mixed quark-gluon condensate, whose terms proportional to x_μ and σ_{μν}x_ρ flip the light-quark chirality, replacing one power of the small strange-quark mass and softening the GIM suppression. The four-quark condensate contribution is evaluated in the vacuum-insertion (factorization) approximation, producing a dimension-12 contribution that scales as m_s^2/m_c^2.

What would settle it

A lattice QCD evaluation of the long-distance four-quark contribution to x_D—or even of the single matrix element ⟨D0|(cΓu)(ss)(cΓu)|D0⟩ without vacuum-insertion factorization—would settle whether the dimension-12 term has the size and sign reported here; alternatively, a precise extraction of the strange-quark condensate ratio ⟨ss⟩0/⟨dd⟩0 would directly move the central value along the steep dependence shown in the paper.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the long-distance, nonperturbative part of D0–D0bar mixing can be computed by expanding the light-quark propagators in a background gluon field and expressing nonlocal condensates as a series of local condensates. The dominant higher-order matrix elements are dimension-9, dimension-11, and dimension-12 operators, proportional respectively to the two-quark condensate, the mixed quark-gluon condensate, and the four-quark condensate. Evaluating these matrix elements with vacuum-insertion factorization, the paper obtains x_cond^D = (1.27 ± 0.18) × 10^-5. The key finding is that, contrary to earlier estimates, the higher-dimensional condensate terms do not produce a huge

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the vacuum-insertion/factorization approximation for the four-quark condensate matrix elements is correct and that OPE terms which do not flip light-quark chirality are subdominant; if either fails, the central value and its error change substantially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central value holds, the short-distance plus condensate prediction for x_D remains roughly two orders below experiment, so the residual gap requires either additional nonperturbative effects or new physics.
The explicit calculation shows that earlier back-of-the-envelope estimates of the condensate contribution were inflated by taking the quark condensate scale near 1 GeV; the smaller physical condensate strongly suppresses the four-quark contribution.
The dimension-12 four-quark term is parametrically leading but not numerically dominant, because cancellations among the sixteen contributing diagrams keep it comparable to the dimension-9 term, so truncating the OPE at low dimension is not obviously safe.
The calculation makes the SU(3)-breaking ratio of strange to nonstrange quark condensates and the mixed-condensate parameter λ_q^2 into quantitatively important inputs whose precise values directly shift the prediction along the steep curves shown in the paper.

Reading between the lines

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

The same chirality-flip mechanism should operate in y_D and in the lifetime-difference channel, where the leading-order suppression is even stronger; working out the analogous condensate terms there is a natural extension the paper does not perform.
The vacuum-insertion factorization of the four-quark condensate is the main uncontrolled approximation; a lattice computation of the matrix element ⟨D0|(cΓu)(ss)(cΓu)|D0⟩ without factorization would either validate Eq. (4.21) or change the central value in sign or magnitude.
Because the condensate contributions are strongly scale dependent, a consistent renormalization-group treatment of condensates and Wilson coefficients could alter the conclusion that the gap remains two orders of magnitude.
The result sharpens the case for direct lattice calculations of long-distance D-meson mixing matrix elements as the decisive next step, since the size and sign of each individual diagram vary greatly and only a complete non-factorized computation can confirm the cancellation pattern found here.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this paper. First, it actually does something new: it computes, for the first time, the dimension-9 (quark-quark condensate), dimension-11 (mixed quark-gluon), and dimension-12 (four-quark) contributions to the D-meson mixing parameter x_D, within the established OPE framework. The calculation is detailed and mostly transparent, with explicit integrals, numerical inputs, and a diagram-by-diagram appendix for the sixteen four-quark diagrams. That is real work and a real step forward for a longstanding puzzle. Second, the central number x_cond = (1.27 ± 0.18) × 10^-5 is not as solid as the quoted error suggests, for reasons the paper itself half acknowledges. The result is dominated by the dimension-9 piece, x^(9) = (0.99 ± 0.13) × 10^-5, which rests on the vacuum-insertion factorization of a six-quark operator, Eq. (4.3). No uncertainty is assigned to that approximation. If the true matrix element deviates by a factor of two—a very plausible size for vacuum insertion in charm physics—the central value shifts by about 1 × 10^-5, far outside the quoted ±0.18. I agree with the stress-test note that this is the load-bearing soft spot, more than the four-quark factorization in Eq. (4.21), which only affects the subdominant x^(12). The sign of the result is also chosen rather than derived: the footnote in Section 5 says the overall sign is fixed by requiring a positive mass difference. That is an external input, not a prediction. The ad hoc alpha_s^NP = 1 and the unquantified truncation of non-chirality-flipping terms are smaller but related concerns. To be fair, the paper is honest about its limitations. The conclusion explicitly says a complete computation without factorization is desired, and the authors do not oversell the result as resolving the discrepancy with experiment. The parametric statements—that the m_s^2 dependence appears at dimension-12, and that the numerical result is not as enhanced as earlier estimates suggested—are instructive and likely robust. The errors quoted are propagated from input parameters, which is fine as far as it goes, but it is not the dominant uncertainty. Who is this for? People working on D mixing, QCD sum rules, and OPE-based heavy quark expansions. They will want this paper on file and will need to read it carefully before using the number as a benchmark. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should push for a quantitative treatment of the factorization error before publication, or at minimum a much more modest claim about the quoted central value. My recommendation: send it to review, with the expectation of substantial revision on the error estimate.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes the D0-D0bar mixing parameter x_D in the OPE/HQE framework, expanding the weak-interaction correlation function in 1/m_c and including nonperturbative QCD condensate contributions up to dimension-12 operators. In addition to the standard dimension-6 result, the authors evaluate dimension-9 (quark condensate), dimension-11 (mixed quark-gluon condensate), and dimension-12 (four-quark condensate) contributions, using vacuum-insertion factorization to reduce the matrix elements to products of condensates and dimension-6 matrix elements. Their central result is x_cond^D = (1.27 ± 0.18)×10^{-5} (Eq. 6.1), about two orders of magnitude above the perturbative NLO result, but still well below the experimental x_D = (0.407 ± 0.044)%. The paper claims this is the first explicit computation of mixed quark-gluon and four-quark condensate effects in D-meson mixing.

Significance. If the numerical result were robust, the paper would be a valuable step toward understanding the long-distance QCD enhancement of D-meson mixing: it identifies which higher-dimensional OPE terms reduce the GIM suppression and provides a transparent analytic framework for systematically including condensate contributions. Strengths include the explicit coordinate-space calculation, the diagram-by-diagram accounting in Appendix B, and the use of modern lattice matrix elements and decay constants rather than older estimates. The central numerical claim is, however, only as reliable as the factorization assumptions on which it rests, and the quoted uncertainty does not currently reflect the dominant theoretical error.

major comments (3)

[§4.1, Eq. (4.3); Table 1] The headline result is dominated by the dimension-9 term x_D^(9) = (0.99 ± 0.13)×10^{-5}, which is obtained with the factorization/vacuum-insertion ansatz in Eq. (4.3), i.e. ⟨D|(cΓu)(q̄q)(cΓu)|D⟩ ≈ ⟨q̄q⟩⟨D|(cΓu)(cΓu)|D⟩. This is a six-quark matrix element evaluated in a regime where m_c ~ Λ, so there is no parametric suppression of vacuum-insertion corrections; O(1) deviations are typical in charm physics. No uncertainty for this factorization is included in the error budget: the quoted ±0.18×10^{-5} only propagates the input-parameter uncertainties. A factor-of-two correction to the factorized matrix element—conservative for this channel—would shift x_D^(9) by ~1×10^{-5}, i.e. much more than the stated error. The same issue applies to the four-quark condensate factorization in Eq. (4.21), although x_D^(12) is subdominant. As it stands, Eq. (6.1) does not have a reliable theoretical unce
[§5, footnote 4] The sign of the result is not obtained from the calculation. The footnote states that 'the choice of the overall sign must be such that the final result is positive, since x_D represents the mass difference.' This makes the sign an input rather than a prediction. Since the comparison with the NLO perturbative result and the claim that condensate terms 'increase' the prediction depend on the relative signs of x_LO, x_NLO and x_cond, the authors need to derive the sign of Eq. (4.10) from the signs of ⟨s̄s⟩_0 and the input matrix elements, or otherwise explain the convention. Otherwise the numerical central value is not fully determined by the calculation.
[§5, final paragraph] The authors neglect OPE terms that do not flip light-quark chirality, arguing that they carry the same powers of m_s but are suppressed by additional powers of 1/m_c. Because the entire calculation is performed in the regime m_c > Λ but not m_c ≫ Λ, this suppression is numerically weak. No estimate or bound is given for the size of the neglected terms, so it is not established that they are smaller than the computed contributions. Since the central claim is that the condensate terms are two orders of magnitude above NLO, a crude numerical estimate of at least the first omitted chirality-conserving class is needed.

minor comments (4)

[§4.1, Eq. (4.7)] The statement 'we take α_s^NP = 1' is ad hoc and no variation is included in the error budget. The numerical impact is small because x_D^(11) is subdominant, but the choice should be justified or varied.
[§2, p. 3] Typo: 'Neglecting CP-violation In the SM' should be '... in the SM'.
[Figures 6–8] The axis labels are garbled: Fig. 6 should show ⟨s̄s⟩_0/⟨d̄d⟩_0, and the powers of ten in the vertical axes ('10 6', '10-6') need proper typesetting.
[§4.3] The statement that Ref. [37] 'claimed there were problems with second factorization' while 'we do not encounter any issues' would benefit from one sentence explaining the difference; otherwise the reader cannot judge whether the apparent contradiction is resolved.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the condensate contributions are computed from explicit OPE integrals with external lattice and condensate inputs; only minor self-citation and an admitted sign-convention choice keep the score above zero.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The dimension-9, -11, and -12 contributions are obtained by evaluating explicit OPE integrals (Eqs. 4.10, 4.18, 4.22) using external inputs: lattice matrix elements ⟨O_V−A⟩ and ⟨O_S−P⟩ from [43], f_D from [42], quark condensates via the GMOR relation, and λ_q from QCD sum rules. The target x_D^cond is not defined in terms of any of these inputs, and no parameter is fitted to the experimental x_D. The factorization approximations of Eqs. (4.3) and (4.21) are stated assumptions, not circular reductions; the paper explicitly calls for a lattice computation without factorization in Sec. 6. The admitted sign choice in the footnote of Sec. 5 fixes only the overall sign to match the positive mass-difference convention; the magnitude remains an OPE prediction. References [14] and [6] are coauthored by one of the present authors, but [14] is used only as a benchmark NLO comparison and [6] is cited for a scaling expectation that is then verified by explicit calculation; neither carries the derivation. The main robustness concern, namely the uncontrolled ±O(1) uncertainty from vacuum insertion, is a correctness/uncertainty issue, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on external condensate values and matrix elements from lattice QCD and QCD sum rules, plus the factorization assumption for four-quark condensates. No new particles or forces are introduced. The ad hoc choices (alpha_s^NP = 1, equal lambda_q^2, sign of xD) are the main extra assumptions beyond standard QCD inputs.

free parameters (4)

quark condensate <qq>_0 = (-268.5 ± 1.3 MeV)^3 at 1.3 GeV
Obtained from Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relation, an external fit. Central to all condensate contributions.
lambda_q^2 (mixed condensate parameter) = (0.4 ± 0.1) GeV^2
From QCD sum rules (Ref. [35]). Used to set the mixed quark-gluon condensate value. Assumed equal for strange and down quarks.
SU(3)_F breaking ratio <ss>_0/<dd>_0 = 0.8 ± 0.1
From QCD sum rules (Ref. [38]). Strongly affects the result, as shown in Fig. 6.
nonperturbative coupling alpha_s^NP = 1 (chosen)
Set to 1 by hand in Section 4.1. Appears in the dimension-6 terms of the nonlocal condensate expansions. No uncertainty is assigned.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Operator product expansion in 1/m_c is valid for m_c > Lambda (but not m_c >> Lambda).
Stated in Section 2. The entire calculation expands nonlocal contributions in powers of Lambda/m_c, assuming the heavy-quark limit approximately holds.
domain assumption Vacuum insertion (factorization) approximation for four-quark condensate matrix elements.
Introduced in Eqs. (4.3) and (4.21). No model-independent value exists for the four-quark condensate, so the result depends on this approximation.
ad hoc to paper Neglect of OPE terms that do not flip light-quark chirality.
Section 5 states these terms are unlikely to be numerically larger, but no estimate is given. They have the same m_s power but extra 1/m_c suppression.
domain assumption Neglect of b-quark and CP-violating contributions.
Section 2: b-quark contribution is suppressed by CKM factors (~10^-6) and CP violation is small. Standard and reasonable.
ad hoc to paper lambda_s^2 = lambda_d^2 for the mixed condensate.
Footnote in Section 4.2 assumes equal values for strange and down quarks due to lack of precise analyses.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonperturbative Dynamics in D-meson Mixing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C6RVDJDV

@misc{pith2026250816337,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonperturbative Dynamics in D-meson Mixing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C6RVDJDV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16337}
}

abstract

Theoretical predictions for the $D^0\overline{D^0}$ mixing parameters fall significantly short of experimental measurements, with discrepancies spanning several orders of magnitude. This gap is mainly due to the Glashow-Iliopoulos-Maiani (GIM) mechanism, which suppresses leading-order contributions by high powers of $m_s/m_c$. However, higher-order corrections and nonperturbative effects could reduce this suppression, especially through flavor $SU(3)_F$ symmetry breaking. In this work, we investigate the long-distance contributions from QCD condensates, including, for the first time, the effects of mixed quark-gluon and four-quark condensates. Our results show an increase in the predicted values of $D^0\overline{D^0}$ mixing parameters by two orders of magnitude compared to perturbative NLO result, providing valuable insights into nonperturbative QCD dynamics. Although the theoretical estimates still fall below experimental values, this study represents an important step toward narrowing the gap between theory and observation, highlighting the significance of higher-order $1/m_c$ QCD effects in understanding $D^0\overline{D^0}$ mixing.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

[1]

A. A. Petrov,Charm physics, Eur. Phys. J. ST233 (2024) 439–456

work page 2024
[2]

Friday, E

D. Friday, E. Gersabeck, A. Lenz and M. L. Piscopo,Charm physics, 2506.15584

arXiv
[3]

Mixing and $CP$ violation in the charm system

A. Lenz and G. Wilkinson,Mixing and CP Violation in the Charm System, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71 (2021) 59–85, [2011.04443]

work page Pith review arXiv 2021
[4]

How large can the SM contribution to CP violation in $D^0-\bar D^0$ mixing be?

M. Bobrowski, A. Lenz, J. Riedl and J. Rohrwild,How Large Can the SM Contribution to CP Violation inD0 − ¯D0 Mixing Be?, JHEP 03 (2010) 009, [1002.4794]

work page Pith review arXiv 2010
[5]

Can Nearby Resonances Enhance D^0 - anti-D^0 Mixing?

E. Golowich and A. A. Petrov,Can nearby resonances enhance D0 - anti-D0 mixing?, Phys. Lett. B 427 (1998) 172–178, [hep-ph/9802291]

work page Pith review arXiv 1998
[6]

A. F. Falk, Y. Grossman, Z. Ligeti and A. A. Petrov,SU(3) breaking and D0 - anti-D0 mixing, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 054034, [hep-ph/0110317]

work page Pith review arXiv 2002
[7]

Cheng and C.-W

H.-Y. Cheng and C.-W. Chiang,Updated analysis of D→PP,VP, and VV decays: Implications for KS0-KL0 asymmetries and D0-D¯0 mixing, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 073008, [2401.06316]

arXiv 2024
[8]

J. F. Donoghue, E. Golowich, B. R. Holstein and J. Trampetic,Dispersive Effects in D0 anti-D0 Mixing, Phys. Rev. D33 (1986) 179

work page 1986

Show all 43 references

[9]

A. F. Falk, Y. Grossman, Z. Ligeti, Y. Nir and A. A. Petrov,The D0 - anti-D0 mass difference from a dispersion relation, Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 114021, [hep-ph/0402204]

2004 arXiv
[10]

Li,Dispersive analysis of neutral meson mixing, Phys

H.-n. Li,Dispersive analysis of neutral meson mixing, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 054023, [2208.14798]

2023 arXiv
[11]

H.-N. Li, H. Umeeda, F. Xu and F.-S. Yu,D meson mixing as an inverse problem, Phys. Lett. B 810 (2020) 135802, [2001.04079]

2020 arXiv
[12]

Banerjee et al.,Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, and τ-lepton properties as of 2023, 2411.18639

Hea vy Fla vor A veraging Group (HFLA V)collaboration, S. Banerjee et al.,Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, and τ-lepton properties as of 2023, 2411.18639

2023 arXiv
[13]

Datta and D

A. Datta and D. Kumbhakar,D0 anti-D0 Mixing: A Possible Test of Physics Beyond the Standard Model, Z. Phys. C 27 (1985) 515

1985
[14]

Golowich and A

E. Golowich and A. A. Petrov,Short distance analysis of D0 - anti-D0 mixing, Phys. Lett. B 625 (2005) 53–62, [hep-ph/0506185]. – 19 –

2005 arXiv
[15]

Georgi,D - anti-D mixing in heavy quark effective field theory, Phys

H. Georgi,D - anti-D mixing in heavy quark effective field theory, Phys. Lett. B297 (1992) 353–357, [hep-ph/9209291]

1992 arXiv
[16]

I. I. Y. Bigi and N. G. Uraltsev,D0 - anti-D0 oscillations as a probe of quark hadron duality, Nucl. Phys. B 592 (2001) 92–106, [hep-ph/0005089]

2001 arXiv
[17]

Bobrowski, A

M. Bobrowski, A. Lenz and T. Rauh,Short distance D-Dbar mixing, in5th International Workshop on Charm Physics, 8, 2012,1208.6438

2012 arXiv
[18]

X. Xie, H. Umeeda and J. Zhu,D0 − ¯D0 mixing in the Dyson-Schwinger approach, 2504.11745

arXiv
[19]

Di Carlo, F

M. Di Carlo, F. Erben and M. T. Hansen,Long distance contributions to neutralD-meson mixing from lattice QCD, 2504.16189

arXiv
[20]

A. Lenz, M. L. Piscopo and C. Vlahos,Renormalization scale setting for D-meson mixing, Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 093002, [2007.03022]

2020 arXiv
[21]

Buchalla, A

G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras and M. E. Lautenbacher,Weak decays beyond leading logarithms, Rev. Mod. Phys.68 (1996) 1125–1144, [hep-ph/9512380]

1996 arXiv
[22]

Golowich, S

E. Golowich, S. Pakvasa and A. A. Petrov,New Physics contributions to the lifetime difference in D0-anti-D0 mixing, Phys. Rev. Lett.98 (2007) 181801, [hep-ph/0610039]

2007 arXiv
[23]

A. A. Petrov and A. E. Blechman,Effective Field Theories. World Scientific Publishing, 2016, 10.1142/8619

2016 doi
[24]

T. Ohl, G. Ricciardi and E. H. Simmons,D - anti-D mixing in heavy quark effective field theory: The Sequel, Nucl. Phys. B 403 (1993) 605–632, [hep-ph/9301212]

1993 arXiv
[25]

Pascual and R

P. Pascual and R. Tarrach,QCD: Renormalization for the Practitioner. Lecture Notes in Physics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2014

2014
[26]

Bagan, J

E. Bagan, J. I. Latorre and P. Pascual,Heavy and Heavy to Light Quark Expansions, Z. Phys. C 32 (1986) 43

1986
[27]

Bagan, M

E. Bagan, M. R. Ahmady, V. Elias and T. G. Steele,Full contributions of three-dimension and four-dimension QCD vacuum condensates to current current correlation functions and Feynman amplitudes, Phys. Lett. B305 (1993) 151–156

1993
[28]

F. J. Yndurain,Nonperturbative Propagators for Scalars and Fermions to All Orders in Their Masses, Z. Phys. C 42 (1989) 653–656

1989
[29]

S. C. Generalis and D. J. Broadhurst,The Heavy Quark Expansion and QCD Sum Rules for Light Quarks, Phys. Lett. B139 (1984) 85–89

1984
[30]

Gromes,Space-time Dependence of the Gluon Condensate Correlation Function and Quarkonium Spectra, Phys

D. Gromes,Space-time Dependence of the Gluon Condensate Correlation Function and Quarkonium Spectra, Phys. Lett. B115 (1982) 482–486

1982
[31]

A. G. Grozin,Methods of calculation of higher power corrections in QCD, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 10 (1995) 3497–3529, [hep-ph/9412238]

1995 arXiv
[32]

V. A. Novikov, M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov,Calculations in external fields in quantum chromodynamics. Technical review, Fortsch. Phys. 32 (1984) 585–622

1984
[33]

M. L. Piscopo,Higher order corrections to the lifetime of heavy hadrons, Ph.D. thesis, Siegen U., 2021. 2112.03137. 10.25819/ubsi/10024

2021 arXiv
[34]

B. L. Ioffe,Condensates in quantum chromodynamics, Phys. Atom. Nucl.66 (2003) 30–43, [hep-ph/0207191]. – 20 –

2003 arXiv
[35]

V. M. Belyaev and B. L. Ioffe,Determination of Baryon and Baryonic Resonance Masses from QCD Sum Rules. 1. Nonstrange Baryons, Sov. Phys. JETP 56 (1982) 493–501

1982
[36]

Gubler and D

P. Gubler and D. Satow,Recent Progress in QCD Condensate Evaluations and Sum Rules, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.106 (2019) 1–67, [1812.00385]

2019 arXiv
[37]

Yeghiyan,Dominant 1/mc Contribution To The Mass Difference in D0-D0bar Mixing, in 5th International Workshop on Charm Physics, 9, 2012,1209.1854

G. Yeghiyan,Dominant 1/mc Contribution To The Mass Difference in D0-D0bar Mixing, in 5th International Workshop on Charm Physics, 9, 2012,1209.1854

2012 arXiv
[38]

L. J. Reinders, H. Rubinstein and S. Yazaki,Hadron Properties from QCD Sum Rules, Phys. Rept. 127 (1985) 1

1985
[39]

Bobrowski, A

M. Bobrowski, A. Lenz, J. Riedl and J. Rohrwild,D - anti-D mixing in the framework of the HQE revisited, 0904.3971

arXiv
[40]

Dulibić, B

L. Dulibić, B. Melić and A. A. Petrov,D0D0 mixing from nonlocal condensate contributions, PoS ICHEP2024 (2025) 413, [2410.14382]

2025 arXiv
[41]

Navas et al.,Review of particle physics, Phys

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

2024
[42]

Aoki et al.,FLAG Review 2024, 2411.04268

Fla vour Lattice A veraging Group (FLAG)collaboration, Y. Aoki et al.,FLAG Review 2024, 2411.04268

2024 arXiv
[43]

Bazavov et al.,Short-distance matrix elements forD0-meson mixing forNf = 2 + 1 lattice QCD, Phys

A. Bazavov et al.,Short-distance matrix elements forD0-meson mixing forNf = 2 + 1 lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 034513, [1706.04622]. – 21 –

2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A. A. Petrov,Charm physics, Eur. Phys. J. ST233 (2024) 439–456

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Friday, E

D. Friday, E. Gersabeck, A. Lenz and M. L. Piscopo,Charm physics, 2506.15584

arXiv

[3] [3]

Mixing and $CP$ violation in the charm system

A. Lenz and G. Wilkinson,Mixing and CP Violation in the Charm System, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71 (2021) 59–85, [2011.04443]

work page Pith review arXiv 2021

[4] [4]

How large can the SM contribution to CP violation in $D^0-\bar D^0$ mixing be?

M. Bobrowski, A. Lenz, J. Riedl and J. Rohrwild,How Large Can the SM Contribution to CP Violation inD0 − ¯D0 Mixing Be?, JHEP 03 (2010) 009, [1002.4794]

work page Pith review arXiv 2010

[5] [5]

Can Nearby Resonances Enhance D^0 - anti-D^0 Mixing?

E. Golowich and A. A. Petrov,Can nearby resonances enhance D0 - anti-D0 mixing?, Phys. Lett. B 427 (1998) 172–178, [hep-ph/9802291]

work page Pith review arXiv 1998

[6] [6]

A. F. Falk, Y. Grossman, Z. Ligeti and A. A. Petrov,SU(3) breaking and D0 - anti-D0 mixing, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 054034, [hep-ph/0110317]

work page Pith review arXiv 2002

[7] [7]

Cheng and C.-W

H.-Y. Cheng and C.-W. Chiang,Updated analysis of D→PP,VP, and VV decays: Implications for KS0-KL0 asymmetries and D0-D¯0 mixing, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 073008, [2401.06316]

arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

J. F. Donoghue, E. Golowich, B. R. Holstein and J. Trampetic,Dispersive Effects in D0 anti-D0 Mixing, Phys. Rev. D33 (1986) 179

work page 1986