Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 91 references

This paper claims that the semileptonic decay D+ → ω ℓ+ ν is governed, within QCD light-cone sum rules, by the ω meson's transverse twist-2 distribution amplitude, and that the resulting branching fractions for electron and muon channels ag

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 00:32 UTC pith:6JQ7VTI6

load-bearing objection A workmanlike LCSR computation of D+→ω form factors with a genuinely new transverse-DA model, but the central sum-rule expressions are borrowed rather than shown, so the headline numbers cannot be independently checked. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2511.00441 v2 pith:6JQ7VTI6 submitted 2025-11-01 hep-ph

Non-perturbaitve effects for the isoscalar light vector ω-meson in charmed meson semileptonic decays

Yin-Long Yang , Fang-Ping Peng , Yan-Ting Yang , Hai-Bing Fu , Sheng-Quan Wang This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords D meson semileptonic decaysomega mesonlight-cone sum rulestransition form factorstransverse twist-2 light-cone distribution amplitudelight-cone harmonic oscillator modelbranching fractionsangular observables
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper aims to show that the semileptonic decay D+ → ω ℓ+ ν can be computed from QCD light-cone sum rules once the correlation function is built with a right-handed chiral current. That construction makes the transverse twist-2 light-cone distribution amplitude of the ω meson the dominant nonperturbative input, so the paper models this amplitude with a light-cone harmonic oscillator wavefunction fixed by normalization, average transverse momentum, and the first Gegenbauer moment. Using this input, it predicts the four transition form factors at zero recoil, extrapolates them over the full kinematic range with a simplified z-series expansion, and obtains branching fractions near 1.8 × 10^-3 for both the electron and muon channels, in agreement with current measurements. It also predicts angular and polarization observables—forward-backward asymmetry, convexity, lepton polarizations, and longitudinal polarization fraction—whose uncertainties largely cancel. The wider interest is that a single controlled distribution amplitude, not a multi-parameter fit, reproduces the measured rates and yields CKM-independent form-factor ratios that future charm experiments can test.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the D+→ω semileptonic form factors are controlled by the transverse twist-2 light-cone distribution amplitude φ^⊥_{2;ω}(x,μ), isolated by choosing a right-handed chiral current in the correlation function. With a light-cone harmonic oscillator model for this amplitude—a transverse-momentum Gaussian with exponential endpoint suppression and a Gegenbauer longitudinal correction, fixed by normalization, ⟨k⊥²⟩^{1/2}=0.37 GeV, and a^⊥_{2;ω}(1 GeV)=0.14±0.12—the paper obtains at q²=0: A1(0)=0.537^{+0.053}_{-0.053}, A2(0)=0.540^{+0.068}_{-0.068}, V(0)=0.754^{+0.079}_{-0.079}, A0(0)=0.553^{+0.044}_{-0.043}, with ratios rV=1.40^{+0.21}_{-0.19} and r2=1.01^{+0.17}_{-0

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the correlation function Π_μ(p,q)=i∫d⁴x e^{iq·x}⟨ω(p,λ)|T{\bar q_1(x)γ_μ(1−γ_5)c(x), j^†_{D+}(0)}|0⟩ with the right-handed chiral current j^†_{D+}=i\bar c(1+γ_5)q_2. This current selects only chiral-odd distribution amplitudes, so the transverse twist-2 LCDA φ^⊥_{2;ω}(x,μ)—a function describing the longitudinal momentum sharing of the ω's valence quark–antiquark pair in a transversely polarized state—dominates the operator product expansion. The paper models that LCDA through a light-cone harmonic oscillator wavefunction: a Gaussian in transverse momentum with an exponential endpoint suppression, multiplied by a longitudinal correction expanded in Gegenbauer pol

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the D+→ω sum-rule expressions are exactly the B→ρ ones with masses and decay constants substituted; the paper states this has been verified but does not print the D→ω correlation function or OPE, so if the chiral-odd operator product expansion or the Borel/continuum treatment differs for the lighter D meson—especially for A0(q²)—the form factors and all derived rates and observables would shift.

What would settle it

Re-derive the D+→ω light-cone sum rule directly, without the B→ρ substitution, and compute A0(0); if the independent derivation gives A0(0) outside 0.55±0.04 while A1(0), A2(0), and V(0) stay in their quoted ranges, the substitution step is the source of the discrepancy. Alternatively, a lattice QCD calculation of the D→ω transition form factors at high q², matched through the z-series to these low-q² predictions, would settle whether the extrapolated curves are correct.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The electron-channel branching fraction is predicted to exceed the muon-channel one, a lepton-mass phase-space effect that higher-statistics measurements can now test.
  • The CKM-independent ratios rV=V(0)/A1(0)=1.40 and r2=A2(0)/A1(0)=1.01 give direct experimental targets that do not require knowing |Vcd|.
  • The small-q² behavior of the forward-backward asymmetry and the lepton-side convexity parameter is sharply lepton-mass dependent, providing distinctive angular signatures.
  • Because the angular and polarization observables are ratios of form factors, their theoretical uncertainties largely cancel, making them sharper tests of the current structure than the branching fractions themselves.
  • The z-series extrapolation is internally consistent with the LCSR points at the sub-0.1 percent level, so future high-q² form-factor measurements would directly probe the extrapolation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the substitution from B→ρ is legitimate, the same right-handed-chiral-current construction should apply to sibling charm transitions such as D_s→φℓν or D→K*ℓν, where independent lattice or quark-model results exist; agreement there would validate the method beyond one channel.
  • The unprinted D→ω LCSR derivation is the natural stress point; an independent derivation of the chiral-odd OPE for the D system, or a lattice computation of D→ω form factors at high q², would be the most direct check of the central claim.
  • The LCHO transverse distribution amplitude, once fixed, could be probed in other hard exclusive ω processes (for instance ω production or photon–ω transition form factors), giving independent constraints on the model's endpoint shape.
  • Because A0 enters observables only through m_ℓ²/q²-suppressed terms, the sizeable A0 discrepancy with heavy-quark effective theory is expected to leave branching fractions almost untouched; a dedicated A0 measurement would therefore be needed to expose it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes the D+ -> omega semileptonic transition form factors A1, A2, V, A0 in QCD light-cone sum rules using a right-handed chiral current, so that the transverse twist-2 light-cone distribution amplitude phi_perp_{2;omega} dominates. The authors construct phi_perp_{2;omega} from an LCHO model, fix it to the Gegenbauer moment a_perp_2(1 GeV)=0.14+/-0.12, and then apply LCSR expressions that they state are obtained from their earlier B->rho work [67] by simple mass and decay-constant substitutions. They obtain A1(0)=0.537, A2(0)=0.540, V(0)=0.754, A0(0)=0.553, extrapolate to the full q^2 region with a simplified z-series, and derive branching fractions B(D+->omega e+nu_e)=(1.84^{+0.36}_{-0.33})e-3 and B(D+->omega mu+nu_mu)=(1.78^{+0.33}_{-0.30})e-3, together with several angular observables. The branching fractions are compared with BESIII and CLEO results and with many other theoretical models.

Significance. If the central LCSR derivation were fully shown and validated, the paper would be a useful contribution to D->omega semileptonic decays: it uses a transverse-DA-driven chiral-current construction, gives a new model for phi_perp_{2;omega}, and provides a broad set of convenient observables (branching fractions, FB asymmetry, convexity, polarizations). The comparison with BESIII/CLEO is a genuine postdiction, not a fit to those data, which strengthens the test. The paper also collects transparent kinematic formulas and compares systematically with many quark-model and HQEFT predictions. Its main weakness is that the central LCSR expressions are not reproduced in the text, making the numerical output impossible to verify independently; this must be repaired.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, after Eq. (16)]
  2. [Sec. III, Borel windows]
  3. [Sec. III, Table II]
  4. [Sec. III, Table III]
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (19)]
  2. [Eq. (23)]
  3. [Table II]
  4. [Sec. IV and Fig. 1]

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

D→ω TFF derivation is not shown; it is imported from co-authored B→ρ paper [67] via substitutions, while the LCHO model and external benchmarks give the central claim independent content.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section II (Theoretical Framework), paragraph after Eq. (16) defining the D+→ω correlation function]
    "It is worth mentioning that the derivation results are similar to our previous work on B → ρ [67]. The key difference lies in the need to make the following substitutions : mB → mD+ , mρ → mω, mb → mc, fB → fD+ and f ⊥ ρ → f ⊥ ω . This has been verified by us through repeating the corresponding calculation process. Here, we do not provide the specific expressions."

    The paper's four TFFs and all downstream branching fractions and angular observables are presented as new predictions, but the D+→ω LCSR is never derived in the text: no OPE, Borel transform, or sum rule is shown. The only justification given is that the result is 'similar to' the co-authored B→ρ paper [67] and follows by mB→mD+, mρ→mω, mb→mc, fB→fD+, fρ⊥→fω⊥. Thus the central numerical output reduces, on the face of the paper, to the previous authors' B→ρ expressions relabeled by these substitutions; the claim 'verified by us' is an assertion, not a derivation, so the prediction is not independently checkable from the manuscript.

full rationale

Most of the paper's quantitative output—A1(0), A2(0), V(0), A0(0), branching fractions, and angular observables—is not fitted to experiment, so the comparison with BESIII/CLEO is a genuine postdiction, not a circular fit. The LCHO model of φ⊥2;ω is constrained by external inputs (normalization, ⟨k⊥²⟩=0.37 GeV, a⊥2;ω(μ0)=0.14±0.12 from DL), and the TFFs are then computed, so the DA part is not a renamed fit. The one load-bearing self-citation is the implicit importation of the entire D→ω LCSR structure from the co-authored B→ρ paper [67] by mass/decay-constant substitution, with the explicit expressions withheld. This is a self-citation that carries the central derivation, but it is not a definitional identity: [67] is a separate published calculation and the new LCHO model provides independent content. The claimed agreement of the LCHO DA with DL in Fig. 1 is partly tautological because a⊥2;ω is an input, but that affects only a validation remark. The suspicious Borel windows (M² > s0 for A1 and V) and the sign discrepancy in A0 with HQEFT are correctness/verifiability issues, not circularity. Hence score 4.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on external input moments (a⊥2;ω, ⟨k⊥²⟩), a phenomenological wave-function ansatz, and chosen sum-rule windows. The most important free parameters are the LCHO shape inputs and the fitted SSE coefficients; the latter determine the extrapolated TFFs used for branching fractions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • a^⊥_{2;ω}(μ0) = 0.14 ± 0.12
    External Gegenbauer moment from DL [47]; fixes B^⊥_{2;ω} in the LCHO model via Eq. (25).
  • ⟨k⊥²⟩^{1/2}_{2;ω} = 0.37 GeV
    Transverse-momentum scale taken from Refs. [72,76]; fixes the harmonic parameter b^⊥_{2;ω} via Eq. (24).
  • m̂_q (constituent quark mass) = 300 MeV (paper prints 300 GeV)
    Input to the spin wave function Eq. (19) and the LCHO exponent; a typo in units appears in the text.
  • Borel mass M_i² and continuum threshold s0,i for A1,A2,V,A0 = M²=6.7, 4.0, 6.0, 6.5 GeV²; s0=5.7, 5.5, 5.0, 6.8 GeV²
    Chosen by sum-rule stability criteria; no plateau or sensitivity plots are shown. These directly set the TFF values at q²=0.
  • SSE coefficients β_{k,i} (k=0,1,2) for A1,A2,V,A0 = β0=0.537,0.540,0.754,0.553; β1=-0.991,-2.367,-5.204,-4.963; β2=8.401,21.951,92.184,115.247
    Fitted to the LCSR points to satisfy Δ<1%; the extrapolation to full q², and hence the branching fractions, depends on these coefficients.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Quark-hadron duality and Borel suppression allow the hadronic LCSR representation to be matched to the OPE near the light cone.
    Standard LCSR framework; invoked without proof in Section II.
  • ad hoc to paper The D+→ω TFF expressions are obtained from the B→ρ LCSR calculation of [67] by the substitutions m_B→m_D+, m_ρ→m_ω, m_b→m_c, f_B→f_D+, f_ρ^⊥→f_ω^⊥.
    The paper explicitly says the derivation is similar and does not provide the expressions ('we do not provide the specific expressions'), so this transfer is a load-bearing, untested premise.
  • ad hoc to paper The LCHO/BHL relation: the light-front wave function equals the equal-time wave function via the energy correspondence in Eq. (20), with an exponential spatial form Ψ_R ∝ exp[-b²(k⊥²+m̂²)/(x(1-x))].
    Phenomenological model assumption, not derived from QCD; it fixes the shape of φ^⊥_{2;ω}.
  • domain assumption Odd Gegenbauer moments of the ω DA vanish and ρ-ω mixing plus high-twist contributions are negligible for the final observables.
    Invoked in Sections I and III to justify truncating the DA expansion and neglecting mixing; the paper acknowledges mixing exists but says it is small.
  • standard math The QCD evolution of a^⊥_{2;ω} from μ0=1 GeV to μk≈1.4 GeV is correctly described by the evolution equations of [79].
    Used to evolve the DA; standard but not reproduced.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20155 in / 19996 out tokens · 204059 ms · 2026-08-04T00:32:48.715908+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Motivated by the renewed attention from the recent BESIII experiment on the semileptonic decay $D\to V \ell\nu_{\ell}$, we investigate semileptonic decay $D^+\to \omega \ell^+\nu_{\ell}$ within the framework of QCD light-cone sum rule in this work. By constructing correlation function with right-handed chiral current, the transverse twist-2 light-cone distribution amplitudes (LCDA) $\phi^{\perp}_{2;\omega}(x,\mu)$ dominates the contribution in TFFs. We study the properties of twist-2 LCDA $\phi^{\perp}_{2;\omega}(x,\mu)$ through light-cone harmonic oscillator model. Applying it to the TFFs, we obtained $A_1(0)$, $A_2(0)$, $V(0)$, and $A_0(0)$ at large recoil point. Two TFF ratios are $r_V=1.40^{+0.21}_{-0.19}$ and $r_2=1.01^{+0.17}_{-0.16}$. After extrapolating those TFFs to the whole physical $q^2$ region by using the simplified $z(q^2,t)$ series expansion, the ratio of longitudinal and transverse decay widths is $\Gamma_{\rm{L}}/\Gamma_{\rm{T}}=0.987^{+0.107}_{-0.121}$. Then, we get branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(D^+\to \omega e^+\nu_e)=(1.848^{+0.365}_{-0.330})\times 10^{-3}$ and $\mathcal{B}(D^+\to \omega \mu^+\nu_{\mu})=(1.782^{+0.334}_{-0.303})\times 10^{-3}$, which is in good agreement with BESIII and CLEO Collaborations. Taking into account the secondary decay $\omega\to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$, we predict branching fraction of five body decay as $\mathcal{B}(D^+\to \omega(\to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^0)e^+\nu_{e})=(1.648^{+0.341}_{-0.305})\times 10^{-3}$ and $\mathcal{B}(D^+\to \omega(\to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^0)\mu^+\nu_{\mu})=(1.589^{+0.313}_{-0.281})\times 10^{-3}$. Finally, we predict the forward-backward asymmetry $A_{\rm{FB}}^{\ell}$, lepton-side convexity parameter $C^{\ell}_{\rm{F}}$, longitudinal (transverse) polarization $P_{\rm{L}(\rm{T})}^{\ell}$, as well as longitudinal polarization fraction $F_{\rm{L}}^{\ell}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.00441 by Fang-Ping Peng, Hai-Bing Fu, Sheng-Quan Wang, Yan-Ting Yang, Yin-Long Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The behavior of TFFs (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The polarization and asymmetry observables as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 45 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Measurement of CP asymmetries in D+ (s) → ηπ+ and D+ (s) → η′π+ decays, JHEP 04, 081 (2023) . [arXiv:2204.12228]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    At the hadronic level, there exists a mixing e ffect between the ρ0 andω-mesons. In theρ-ω resonance region, the cross-section of e+e− → π+π− process exhibits a narrow interference shoulder, which ari ses from the superposition of the narrow ω resonance and broad ρ resonance exchange amplitudes [ 13]. In fact, in the process of strong interaction participa...

    2013

  3. [3]

    Based on the BHL description, the LCWF can be expressed as Ψ⊥ 2;ω(x, k⊥) = ∑ h1h2 χh1h2 ω (x, k⊥)ΨR 2;ω(x, k⊥) (18) In which λ1 and λ2 are the helicity of q1 and ¯q2 in spin WF χh1h2 ω (x, k⊥), respectively. By using the Wigner-Melosh ro- tation [ 68–70], the di fferent helicities of χh1h2 ω (x, k⊥) can be obtained ∑ h1h2 χh1h2 ω (x, k⊥) = ˆmq√ k2 ⊥ + ˆm2 ...

  4. [4]

    Then, we utilize TFFs to calculate the di fferential decay widths, branching fractions and polarization and asymmetry observ - ables

    The extrapolation trend exhibits a stable behavior across the entire q2 range. Then, we utilize TFFs to calculate the di fferential decay widths, branching fractions and polarization and asymmetry observ - ables. In Fig. 3, we present the di fferential decay width 1/|Vcd|2dΓ(D+ → ωℓ+νℓ)/dq2. For both the electron and muon channels, we present the correspond...

    2025

  5. [5]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], Improved Measure- ments of D+ →ηe+νe and D+ →ηµ+νµ, [arXiv:2506.02521]

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Search for CP violation in D+ (s) → h+π0 and D+ (s) → h+η decays, JHEP 06, 019 (2021) . [arXiv:2103.11058]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Search for CP violation in the phase space of D0 → K0 S K±π∓ decays with the energy test, JHEP 03, 107 (2024) . [arXiv:2310.19397]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Search for charge-parity violation in semileptonically tagged D0 → K+π? decays, JHEP 03, 149 (2025) . [arXiv:2501.11635]

    arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], Measurements of the branching fractions of semileptonic D+ s decays via e+e− → D∗+ s D∗− s , Phys. Rev. D 110, 072017 (2024) . [arXiv:2406.01332]

    arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], First Measurement of the Form Factors in D+ s → K0e+νe and D+ s → K∗0e+νe Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 061801 (2019) . [arXiv:1811.02911]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], Study of Dy- namics of D0 → K−e+νe and D0 → π−e+νe Decays, Phys. Rev. D 92, 072012 (2015) . [arXiv:1508.07560]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  12. [12]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], Studies of the decay D+ s → K+K−µ+νµ, JHEP 12, 072 (2023) . [arXiv:2307.03024]

    arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    L. M. Barkov, A. G. Chilingarov, S. I. Eidelman, B. I. Kha zin, M. Y . Lelchuk, V . S. Okhapkin, E. V . Pakhtusova, S. I. Redin, N. M. Ryskulov and Y . M. Shatunov, et al. Electromagnetic Pion Form-Factor in the Timelike Region, Nucl. Phys. B 256, 365 (1985)

    1985

  14. [14]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], Observation of D+ → f0(500)µ+νµ and study of D+ → π+π−ℓ+νℓ decay dynamics, Phys. Rev. D 110, 092008 (2024) . [arXiv:2401.13225]

    arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], Measurement of the form factors in the decay D+ → ωe+νe and search for the decay D+ → φe+νe, Phys. Rev. D 92, 071101 (2015) . [arXiv:1508.00151]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  16. [16]

    Ablikim [BESIII Collaboration] Observa- tion of the semimuonic decay D+ → ωµ+νµ, Phys

    M. Ablikim [BESIII Collaboration] Observa- tion of the semimuonic decay D+ → ωµ+νµ, Phys. Rev. D 101, 072005 (2020) . [arXiv:2002.10578]

    arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    (23) where Erf( x) = 2 ∫ x 0 e−t2 dx/ √ π is the error function

    to integrate over transverse momentum, the LCHO model of twist-2 LCDA φ⊥ 2ω(x,µ ) can be determined, and which reads φ⊥ 2;ω(x,µ ) = A⊥ 2;ω √ 3x ¯x ˆmq 8π3/2˜f ⊥ω b⊥ 2;ω [1 + B⊥ 2;ωC3/2 2 (ξ)] ×  Erf  b⊥ 2;ω √ µ2 + ˆm2 q x ¯x   − Erf  b⊥ 2;ω √ ˆm2 q x ¯x    . (23) where Erf( x) = 2 ∫ x 0 e−t2 dx/ √ π is the error function. From this form, two a...

  18. [18]

    D. N. Gao and M. L. Yan, ρ0-ω mixing in U(3) L × U(3)R chiral theory of mesons, Eur. Phys. J. A 3, 293 (1998) . [arXiv:9801210]

    1998

  19. [19]

    H. B. O’Connell, B. C. Pearce, A. W. Thomas and A. G. Williams, Rho-omega mixing, vec- tor meson dominance and the pion form-factor, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 39, 201 (1997) . [arXiv:9501251]

    1997

  20. [20]

    Maltman, H

    K. Maltman, H. B. O’Connell and A. G. Williams, Analysis of ρ − ω interference in the pion form-factor, Phys. Lett. B 376, 19 (1996) . [arXiv:9601309]

    1996

  21. [21]

    S. L. Glashow, Is isotopic spin a good quantum number?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 7, 469 (1961)

    1961

  22. [22]

    Urech, ρ0 − ω mixing in chiral perturbation theory, Phys

    R. Urech, ρ0 − ω mixing in chiral perturbation theory, Phys. Lett. B 355, 308 (1995) . [arXiv:9504238]

    1995

  23. [23]

    H. B. O’Connell, B. C. Pearce, A. W. Thomas and A. G. Williams, ρ − ω mixing and the pion electromagnetic form-factor, Phys. Lett. B 354, 14 (1995) . [arXiv:9503332]

    1995

  24. [24]

    X. H. Guo, O. M. A. Leitner and A. W. Thomas, Enhanced direct CP violation in B± → ρ0π±, Phys. Rev. D 63, 056012 (2001) . [arXiv:0009042]

    2001

  25. [25]

    Guetta and P

    D. Guetta and P . Singer, ω −ρ mixing and the ω →ππγ decay, Phys. Rev. D 63, 017502 (2001) . [arXiv:0005059]

    2001

  26. [26]

    A. G. Williams, H. B. O’Connell and A. W. Thomas, On ex- tracting the ρ −ω mixing amplitude from the pion form-factor, Nucl. Phys. A 629, 464 (1998) , [arXiv:9707253]

    1998

  27. [27]

    Sibidanov et al

    A. Sibidanov et al. [Belle Collaboration], Study of Ex- clusive B → Xuℓν Decays and Extraction of ∥Vub∥us- ing Full Reconstruction Tagging at the Belle Experiment, Phys. Rev. D 88, 032005 (2013) . [arXiv:1306.2781]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  28. [28]

    Leskovec, S

    L. Leskovec, S. Meinel, M. Petschlies, J. Negele, S. Pau l and A. Pochinsky, B → ρℓ¯ν Resonance Form Factors from B → ππℓ¯ν in Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 161901 (2025) . [arXiv:2501.00903]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Y . L. Wu, M. Zhong and Y . B. Zuo, B(s), D(s) → π, K,η,ρ, K∗,ω,φ Transition Form Factors and Decay Rates with Extraction of the CKM parameters |Vub|, |Vcs|, |Vcd|, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 21, 6125 (2006) . [arXiv:0604007]

    2006

  30. [30]

    Fajfer and J

    S. Fajfer and J. F. Kamenik, Charm meson resonances and D → V semileptonic form-factors, Phys. Rev. D 72, 034029 (2005) . [arXiv:0506051]

    2005

  31. [31]

    R. C. V erma, 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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  32. [32]

    R. N. Faustov, V . O. Galkin and X. W. Kang, Semileptonic decays of D and Ds mesons in the relativistic quark model, Phys. Rev. D 101, 013004 (2020) . [arXiv:1911.08209]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    M. A. Ivanov, J. G. K¨ orner, J. N. Pandya, P . Santorelli, N. R. Soni and C. T. Tran, Exclusive semileptonic decays of D and Ds mesons in the covariant confining quark model, Front. Phys. (Beijing) 14, 64401 (2019). [arXiv:1904.07740]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    Ball and R

    P . Ball and R. Zwicky, Improved analysis of B → πeν from QCD sum rules on the light cone, JHEP 10, 019 (2001) . [arXiv:0110115]

    2001

  35. [35]

    Khodjamirian, R

    A. Khodjamirian, R. Ruckl, S. Weinzierl, C. W. Winhart and O. I. Yakovlev, Predictions on B → π ¯ℓνℓ, D → π ¯ℓνℓ and D → K ¯ℓνℓ from QCD light cone sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 62, 114002 (2000) . [arXiv:0001297]

    2000

  36. [36]

    T. M. Aliev, D. A. Demir, E. Iltan and N. K. Pak, Radiative B∗ → Bγ and D∗ → Dγ decays in light cone QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 54, 857 (1996) . [arXiv:9511362]

    1996

  37. [37]

    Khodjamirian, T

    A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel and P . Urban, Gluonic pen- 11 guins in B → ππ from QCD light cone sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 67, 054027 (2003) . [arXiv:0210378]

    2003

  38. [38]

    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) . [arXiv:9802299]

    1998

  39. [39]

    Y . L. Yang, Y . L. Song, F. P . Peng, H. B. Fu, T. Zhong and S. Ullah, Exploring the exclusive decay B+ → ωℓ+ν with light-cone sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 112, 016002 (2025) . [arXiv:2504.05650]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    A. P . Bakulev and S. V . Mikhailov, The ρ meson and related meson wave functions in QCD sum rules with nonlocal con- densates, Phys. Lett. B 436, 351 (1998) . [arXiv:9803298]

    1998

  41. [41]

    N. G. Stefanis and A. V . Pimikov, Chimera distribution a m- plitudes for the pion and the longitudinally polarized ρ-meson, Nucl. Phys. A 945, 248 (2016) . [arXiv:1506.01302]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  42. [42]

    J. R. Forshaw and R. Sandapen, An AdS /QCD holo- graphic wavefunction for the ρ meson and di ffractive ρ meson electroproduction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012), 081601. [arXiv:1203.6088]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  43. [43]

    F. Gao, L. Chang, Y . X. Liu, C. D. Roberts and S. M. Schmidt, Parton distribution amplitudes of light vect or mesons, Phys. Rev. D 90, 014011 (2014) . [arXiv:1405.0289]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  44. [44]

    P . Ball, V . M. Braun and A. Lenz, Twist-4 distribution am pli- tudes of the K∗ and φ mesons in QCD, JHEP 08, 090 (2007) . [arXiv:0707.1201]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  45. [45]

    Almeida-Zamora, J

    B. Almeida-Zamora, J. J. Cobos-Mart´ ınez, A. Bashir, K. Raya, J. Rodr´ ıguez-Quintero and J. Segovia, Light-fron t wave functions of vector mesons in an algebraic model, Phys. Rev. D 107, 074037 (2023) . [arXiv:2303.09581]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    Hua et al

    J. Hua et al. [Lattice Parton], Distribution Amplitudes of K∗ and φ at the Physical Pion Mass from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 062002 (2021) . [arXiv:2011.09788]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    Segovia, L

    J. Segovia, L. Chang, I. C. Clo¨ et, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt and H. s. Zong, Distribution amplitudes of ligh t- quark mesons from lattice QCD, Phys. Lett. B 731, 13 (2014) . [arXiv:1311.1390]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  48. [48]

    V . M. Braun, P . C. Bruns, S. Collins, J. A. Gracey, M. Gru- ber, M. G¨ ockeler, F. Hutzler, P . P´ erez-Rubio, A. Sch¨ afer and W. S¨ oldner, et al. The ρ-meson light-cone distri- bution amplitudes from lattice QCD, JHEP 04, 082 (2017) . [arXiv:1612.02955]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  49. [49]

    H. n. Li, Dispersive derivation of the pion distributio n ampli- tude, Phys. Rev. D 106, 034015 (2022) . [arXiv:2205.06746]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    Ball and R

    P . Ball and R. Zwicky, New results on B → π, K,η decay formfactors from light-cone sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 71, 014015 (2005) . [arXiv:0406232]

    2005

  51. [51]

    Dimou, J

    M. Dimou, J. Lyon and R. Zwicky, Exclu- sive Chromomagnetism in heavy-to-light FCNCs, Phys. Rev. D 87, 074008 (2013) . [arXiv:1212.2242]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  52. [52]

    Arthur, P

    R. Arthur, P . A. Boyle, D. Brommel, M. A. Donnellan, J. M. Flynn, A. Juttner, T. D. Rae and C. T. C. Sachrajda, Lattice Results for Low Moments of Light Meson Distribution Ampli- tudes, Phys. Rev. D 83, 074505 (2011) . [arXiv:1011.5906]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  53. [53]

    Ball and G

    P . Ball and G. W. Jones, Twist-3 distribution amplitude s of K∗ andφ mesons, JHEP 03, 069 (2007) . [arXiv:0702100]

    2007

  54. [54]

    Chang, I

    L. Chang, I. C. Cloet, J. J. Cobos-Martinez, C. D. Robert s, S. M. Schmidt and P . C. Tandy, Imaging dynamical chiral symmetry breaking: pion wave function on the light front, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 132001 (2013) . [arXiv:1301.0324]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  55. [55]

    A. E. Bondar and V . L. Chernyak, Is the BELLE result for th e cross section σ(e+e− → J/ψ +ηc) a real di fficulty for QCD?, Phys. Lett. B 612, 215 (2005) . [arXiv:0412335]

    2005

  56. [56]

    S. J. Brodsky and G. F. de Teramond, Hadronic spec- tra and light-front wavefunctions in holographic QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 201601 (2006) . [arXiv:0602252]

    2006

  57. [57]

    J. P . Ma and Z. G. Si, Predictions for e+e− → J/ψηc with light-cone wave-functions, Phys. Rev. D 70, 074007 (2004) . [arXiv:0405111]

    2004

  58. [58]

    X. G. Wu, T. Huang and Z. Y . Fang, B → K transition form- factor up to O(1/m2 b) within the kT factorization approach,” Eur. Phys. J. C 52, 561 (2007) . [arXiv:0707.2504]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  59. [59]

    Huang and X

    T. Huang and X. G. Wu, A Model for the twist-3 wave func- tion of the pion and its contribution to the pion form-factor , Phys. Rev. D 70, 093013 (2004) . [arXiv:0408252]

    2004

  60. [60]

    Zhong, X

    T. Zhong, X. G. Wu, H. Y . Han, Q. L. Liao, H. B. Fu and Z. Y . Fang, Revisiting the Twist-3 Distribution Amplitudes of K Meson within the QCD Background Field Approach, Commun. Theor. Phys. 58, 261 (2012) . [arXiv:1109.3127]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  61. [61]

    H. B. Fu, X. G. Wu, H. Y . Han, Y . Ma and H. Y . Bi, Theρ-meson longitudinal leading-twist distribution amplitud e, Phys. Lett. B 738, 228 (2014) . [arXiv:1409.3053]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  62. [62]

    Y . L. Yang, H. J. Tian, Y . X. Wang, H. B. Fu, T. Zhong, S. Q. Wang and D. Huang, Probing |Vcs| and lepton flavor universality through D → K∗ 0(1430)ℓνℓ decays, Phys. Rev. D 110, 116030 (2024) . [arXiv:2409.01512]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    D. D. Hu, X. G. Wu, L. Zeng, H. B. Fu and T. Zhong, Im- proved light-cone harmonic oscillator model for the φ-meson longitudinal leading-twist light-cone distribution amplitude and its e ffects to D+ s → φℓ+νℓ, Phys. Rev. D 110, 056017 (2024) . [arXiv:2403.10003]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    D. D. Hu, X. G. Wu, H. B. Fu, T. Zhong, Z. H. Wu and L. Zeng, Properties of the ηq leading-twist distribution amplitude and its e ffects to the B/D+ → η(′)ℓ+νℓ decays, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 15 (2024) . [arXiv:2307.04640]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    Z. H. Wu, H. B. Fu, T. Zhong, D. Huang, D. D. Hu and X. G. Wu, a0(980)-meson twist-2 distribution am- plitude within the QCD sum rules and investigation of D → a0(980)(→ ηπ)e+νe, Nucl. Phys. A 1036, 122671 (2023) . [arXiv:2211.05390]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  66. [66]

    H. B. Fu, X. G. Wu, W. Cheng and T. Zhong, ρ - meson longitudinal leading-twist distribution amplitude within QCD background field theory, Phys. Rev. D 94, 074004 (2016) . [arXiv:1607.04937]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  67. [67]

    Y . L. Yang, Y . X. Wang, H. B. Fu, T. Zhong and Y . L. Song, Scrutinizing B0-meson flavor changing neutral current decay into scalar K∗ 0(1430) meson with b → sℓ+ℓ−(ν¯ν) transition, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 64 (2025) . [arXiv:2410.09363]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    S. B. Wu, H. J. Tian, Y . L. Yang, W. Cheng, H. B. Fu and T. Zhong, Footprint in fitting B → D vector form factor and determination for D-meson leading-twist LCDA, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 552 (2025) . [arXiv:2501.02694]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    M. A. Ivanov, J. G. K¨ orner and C. T. Tran, Exclusive deca ys B → ℓ− ¯ν and B → D(∗)ℓ− ¯ν in the covariant quark model, Phys. Rev. D 92, 114022 (2015) . [arXiv:1508.02678]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  70. [70]

    Gutsche, M

    T. Gutsche, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. K¨ orner, V . E. Lyubovit- skij, P . Santorelli and N. Habyl, Semileptonic decay Λb → Λc + τ− + ¯ντ in the covariant confined quark model, Phys. Rev. D 91, 074001 (2015) . [arXiv:1502.04864]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  71. [71]

    H. B. Fu, X. G. Wu, H. Y . Han and Y . Ma,B →ρ transition form factors and the ρ-meson transverse leading-twist distribution amplitude, J. Phys. G 42, 055002 (2015) . [arXiv:1406.3892]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  72. [72]

    H. J. Melosh, Quarks: Currents and constituents, Phys. Rev. D 9, 1095 (1974)

    1974

  73. [73]

    F. G. Cao, J. Cao, T. Huang and B. Q. Ma, The Hard scatterin g amplitude for the higher helicity components of the pion for m- factor, Phys. Rev. D 55, 7107 (1997) . [arXiv:9703395]

    1997

  74. [74]

    F. g. Cao and T. Huang, Large corrections to asymp- 12 totic Fηcγ and Fηbγ in the light cone perturbative QCD, Phys. Rev. D 59, 093004 (1999) . [arXiv:9711284]

    1999

  75. [75]

    Huang, B

    T. Huang, B. Q. Ma and Q. X. Shen, Analysis of the pion wave function in light cone formalism, Phys. Rev. D 49, 1490 (1994) . [arXiv:9402285]

    1994

  76. [76]

    X. H. Guo and T. Huang, Hadronic wave functions in D and B decays, Phys. Rev. D 43, 2931 (1991)

    1991

  77. [77]

    Huang, Hadron wavefunctions and structure function s in QCD, AIP Conf

    T. Huang, Hadron wavefunctions and structure function s in QCD, AIP Conf. Proc. 68, 1000 (1980)

    1980

  78. [78]

    Y . J. Sun, X. G. Wu, F. Zuo and T. Huang, The Cross section o f the process e+ + e− → J/ψ +ηc within the QCD light-cone sum rules, Eur. Phys. J. C 67, 117 (2010) . [arXiv:0911.0963]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  79. [79]

    X. G. Wu and T. Huang, Constraints on the Light Pseudosca lar Meson Distribution Amplitudes from Their Meson-Photon Transition Form Factors, Phys. Rev. D 84, 074011 (2011) . [arXiv:1106.4365]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  80. [80]

    X. G. Wu and T. Huang, Heavy and light meson wavefunction s, Chin. Sci. Bull. 59, 3801 (2014) . [arXiv:1312.1455]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

Showing first 80 references.