pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2511.13456 · v2 · submitted 2025-11-17 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex

D_{(s)}(2S) and D^{*}_{(s)}(2S) production in nonleptonic B_{(s)} weak decays

Zhi-Jie Sun , Yong-Jin Sun , Zhi-Qing Zhang , You-Ya Yang , Si-Yang Wang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 22:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-ex
keywords nonleptonic B decaysradially excited statescovariant light-front quark modelbranching ratiosD(2S) mesonsheavy meson decayspolarization fractions
0
0 comments X

The pith

B_{(s)} decays to radially excited D_{(s)}(2S) states have large branching ratios up to 10^{-3}.

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

The paper calculates branching ratios for nonleptonic decays of B and B_s mesons into the first radially excited charmed meson states D(2S), D_s(2S), D*(2S) and D_s*(2S) using the covariant light-front quark model. It finds that many of these channels have branching fractions in the range from 10^{-5} to 10^{-4}, with some as large as 10^{-3}, making them accessible to current experimental facilities. The results are compared to other theoretical approaches and to known decays involving ground-state D mesons, showing agreement in some cases and highlighting similar polarization patterns between excited and ground states.

Core claim

In the covariant light-front approach the nonleptonic B_{(s)} decays to D_{(s)}(2S) and D^*_{(s)}(2S) accompanied by light pseudoscalar or vector mesons yield branching ratios mostly between 10^{-5} and 10^{-4} and reaching 10^{-3} in selected channels. These rates exceed those obtained with the Bethe-Salpeter method yet are consistent with relativistic quark model predictions. The longitudinal polarization fraction for the vector final states remains dominant at roughly 90 percent, mirroring the pattern seen in the corresponding ground-state transitions.

What carries the argument

Covariant light-front quark model wave functions and form-factor parametrizations for the radially excited (2S) states

If this is right

  • Many decay channels produce branching ratios large enough for detection at current experiments.
  • Predictions exceed Bethe-Salpeter results but match relativistic quark model and relativistic independent quark model calculations.
  • Branching ratios for ground-state D(1S) decays are consistent with existing data.
  • Polarization properties, with longitudinal fractions near 90 percent, are similar for (1S) and (2S) vector modes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The availability of these excited-state decays offers new channels to probe the structure of radial excitations in heavy mesons.
  • Discrepancies with Bethe-Salpeter calculations may point to differences in how radial wave functions are treated across models.
  • Precision measurements of these branching ratios could help discriminate between competing non-perturbative QCD approaches.

Load-bearing premise

The covariant light-front quark model wave functions and form-factor parametrizations for the radially excited (2S) states accurately capture the non-perturbative QCD dynamics in these transitions.

What would settle it

An upper limit on the branching ratio for B to D(2S) pi below 10^{-5} would contradict the predicted large rates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.13456 by Si-Yang Wang, Yong-Jin Sun, You-Ya Yang, Zhi-Jie Sun, Zhi-Qing Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Feynman diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Form factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Form factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recently, many new excited states of heavy mesons have been discovered in recent experiments, including radially excited states. The production processes of these states from the $B_{(s)}$ meson have drawn significant interest. In this paper, we use the covariant light-front approach to study the nonleptonic $B_{(s)}$ meson decays to the first radially excited states $D_{(s)}(2S)$ and $D^{*}_{(s)}(2S)$. Our results reveal that many channels exhibit large branching ratios in the range $10^{-5}\sim 10^{-4}$, even up to $10^{-3}$ for individual channels, which are detectable by current experiments. Our predictions for the decays $B_{(s)}\to D^{(*)}_{(s)}(2S)(\pi,\rho,K^{(*)})$ are larger than those given by the Bethe-Salpeter (BS) equation method, but agree well with the relativistic quark mode (RQM) and the relativistic independent quark model (RIQM) calculations. For comparison, we also present the branching ratios of the decays $B_{(s)}\to D^{(*)}_{(s)}(1S)(\pi,\rho,K^{(*)})$, which are comparable with other theoretical results and the data. Although the branching ratios of the decays $B_{(s)} \to D^{*}_{(s)}(1S)(\rho,K^*)$ are much larger than those of the decays $B_{(s)} \to D^{*}_{(s)}(2S)(\rho,K^*)$, the polarization properties between them are similar, that is, the longitudinal polarization fractions are dominant and can amount roughly to $90\%$.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper employs the covariant light-front quark model to compute branching ratios for nonleptonic B_{(s)} decays to the radially excited D_{(s)}(2S) and D^*_{(s)}(2S) states (and compares to ground-state 1S decays). It reports many channels with branching ratios in the 10^{-5} to 10^{-3} range, claims these are experimentally detectable, finds values larger than Bethe-Salpeter results but consistent with relativistic quark model and relativistic independent quark model calculations, and notes that longitudinal polarization fractions remain dominant (~90%) and similar for 1S and 2S final states.

Significance. If the model implementation for the 2S states is validated, the work supplies concrete phenomenological predictions that could guide searches for radially excited charmed mesons at LHCb and Belle II. The direct comparison of 1S versus 2S branching ratios and polarization fractions, together with cross-model comparisons, adds practical value for experiment-theory interplay in heavy-flavor physics.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4 and tables of branching ratios] §4 (numerical results) and associated tables: branching ratios are quoted in the 10^{-5}–10^{-3} range with no error estimates, no variation of the 2S-specific harmonic-oscillator parameter, and no explicit demonstration that the nodal overlap integrals remain stable under reasonable shifts in quark masses or wave-function ansatz. Because the central claim of experimental detectability rests on these numbers staying above ~10^{-5}, the absence of such robustness checks is load-bearing.
  2. [§3] §3 (form-factor parametrization): the covariant light-front wave functions for the 2S states are constructed by extending the 1S ansatz, yet the manuscript provides neither a systematic scan of the 2S parameters nor an independent cross-check (e.g., against known 2S decay constants or lattice form factors). This directly affects the reliability of the overlap integrals that determine the quoted branching ratios.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract and introduction refer to “many new excited states … discovered in recent experiments” without citing the specific experimental papers; adding those references would improve context.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We have prepared point-by-point responses to the major comments and will revise the manuscript accordingly to address the concerns about robustness and validation of the 2S results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4 and tables of branching ratios] §4 (numerical results) and associated tables: branching ratios are quoted in the 10^{-5}–10^{-3} range with no error estimates, no variation of the 2S-specific harmonic-oscillator parameter, and no explicit demonstration that the nodal overlap integrals remain stable under reasonable shifts in quark masses or wave-function ansatz. Because the central claim of experimental detectability rests on these numbers staying above ~10^{-5}, the absence of such robustness checks is load-bearing.

    Authors: We acknowledge the importance of robustness checks for the branching ratio predictions. In the revised manuscript, we will add a section discussing the theoretical uncertainties by varying the harmonic-oscillator parameter for the 2S states within a physically motivated range and demonstrate that the branching ratios for the detectable channels remain above 10^{-5}. We will also show the stability of the overlap integrals under reasonable variations in the quark masses, which are constrained by the meson spectroscopy in our model. This will reinforce the claim regarding experimental accessibility. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3] §3 (form-factor parametrization): the covariant light-front wave functions for the 2S states are constructed by extending the 1S ansatz, yet the manuscript provides neither a systematic scan of the 2S parameters nor an independent cross-check (e.g., against known 2S decay constants or lattice form factors). This directly affects the reliability of the overlap integrals that determine the quoted branching ratios.

    Authors: The 2S wave functions in the covariant light-front quark model are obtained by extending the 1S ansatz with an additional radial node, and the parameter is fixed by the normalization condition and the orthogonality to the ground state. While a comprehensive scan of all parameters is not performed, we will include a sensitivity analysis in the revision. For cross-checks, we compare our results with those from the relativistic quark model and relativistic independent quark model, finding good agreement. However, experimental values for the decay constants of D(2S) states are not yet available, and lattice QCD studies for these excited states are limited. We will explicitly discuss these aspects and the reliance on the model framework in the updated manuscript. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained within standard model application

full rationale

The paper applies the covariant light-front quark model to compute transition form factors and branching ratios for B_{(s)} decays into radially excited D_{(s)}(2S) and D^*_{(s)}(2S) states. Parameters in the light-front wave functions are determined from established meson properties (masses, decay constants) in the usual way for this framework, with explicit validation of the same model on 1S decays against existing data and other calculations. The 2S results are presented as forward predictions rather than refits, and no equation reduces a claimed observable to an input by algebraic identity or by renaming a fitted quantity. Self-citations (if present for the method) are not load-bearing for the central numerical claims, which remain independently falsifiable against future measurements. This is the normal non-circular case for a model-based phenomenology paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation relies on standard light-front quark-model assumptions for meson wave functions and on fitted parameters for quark masses and binding energies; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • quark masses and wave-function parameters
    Typical inputs for light-front quark models that are adjusted to reproduce known meson masses and decay constants.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Covariant light-front quark model provides reliable transition form factors for radially excited states
    Invoked throughout the calculation of decay amplitudes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5631 in / 1296 out tokens · 27526 ms · 2026-05-17T22:21:43.426100+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 88 canonical work pages · 29 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    (11) In practice, we use the light-front decomposition of the Feynman lo op momentum and integrate out the minus component through the contour method

    (γµ − γµγ5) (̸p′ 1 +m′ 1)γ5 (− ̸ p2 +m2) ] . (11) In practice, we use the light-front decomposition of the Feynman lo op momentum and integrate out the minus component through the contour method. If the covariant vertex functions are not singular when performing integration, the trans ition amplitudes will pick up the singularities in the anti-quark propa...

    work page 2058

  2. [2]

    77+0. 00+0. 01 − 0. 00− 0. 01 0. 94+0. 00+0. 01 − 0. 00− 0. 01 0. 78+0. 00+0. 03 − 0. 01− 0. 03 0. 82+0. 04+0. 14 − 0. 08− 0. 16 ABD∗ 0 0. 75+0. 00+0. 06 − 0. 01− 0. 02 0. 79+0. 00+0. 05 − 0. 02− 0. 02 0. 17+0. 01+0. 01 − 0. 01− 0. 00 0. 12+0. 07+0. 02 − 0. 06− 0. 03 ABD∗ 1 0. 67+0. 00+0. 01 − 0. 01− 0. 11 0. 76+0. 00+0. 01 − 0. 01− 0. 01 0. 38+0. 01+0. 0...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The small branching ratios for the latter are related to the node structure of the wave function 13 of D(2S) meson

    From Table VI, one can find that the branching ratios of the deca ys B → D(1S)(π,ρ,K (∗)) fall within the range of 10 − 4 ∼ 10− 3, which are about one order larger than those of the corresponding decays B → D(2S)(π,ρ,K (∗)). The small branching ratios for the latter are related to the node structure of the wave function 13 of D(2S) meson. When calculated t...

    work page

  4. [4]

    A simila r situa- tion also occurs in the calculations from the QCDF approach in Refs

    The branching ratios of the neutral decays ¯B0 (s) → D(s)(1S)+(π,ρ,K (∗))− are larger than the experimental data [52], as shown in Tables VI and VII. A simila r situa- tion also occurs in the calculations from the QCDF approach in Refs. [5 3, 54], where although the contributions from more comprehensive amplitudes [54 ] and the next-to- next-to-leading-or...

    work page

  5. [5]

    While if replaced the ground state charmed meson with the radially excited o ne in these decays, the predicted results between these two approaches show signific ant discrepancies

    Our predictions for the branching ratios of the decays with grou nd state D(s) or D∗ (s) meson involved are comparable with those given by the BS method [48]. While if replaced the ground state charmed meson with the radially excited o ne in these decays, the predicted results between these two approaches show signific ant discrepancies. For example, Br(B ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Our predictions are comparable with those given by t he BS approach

    A similar situation also occurs in the decays B → D∗(1S, 2S)(π,ρ,K (∗)) as shown in Table VIII, where the branching ratios of the neutral decays ¯B0 → D∗0(1S)(π,ρ,K (∗)) are about 2 times as large as the data, while the difference between o ur predictions and experimental measurements for the charged decays B− → D∗0(1S)(π,ρ,K (∗))− is not significant. Our p...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Note that our results are consistent well with the RIQM calcu lations [55] in both D∗(1S) and D∗(2S) cases

    for the ground state D∗(1S) case, but much larger for the excited state D∗(2S) case. Note that our results are consistent well with the RIQM calcu lations [55] in both D∗(1S) and D∗(2S) cases

    work page

  8. [8]

    Compared to the experimental data, the similar situation occurs again in the decays ¯B0 s → D∗+ s (1S)(π,ρ,K )− , that is the predictions for their branching ratios have an obvious exceedance, as shown in Table IX. Certainly, our prediction s for the branching ratios of the decays ¯B0 s → D∗+ s (2S)(π,ρ,K (∗))− are also larger than those given by the BS a...

    work page

  9. [9]

    The upper relationships remain valid when B andD(∗) are replaced with Bs andD(∗) s , respectively

    When the same initial state B(s) decays to the same final states D(∗) (s)(nS),n = 1, 2 with emission of different types of light mesons, the branching ratios exhibit a clear 15 hierarchical pattern, primarily due to the hierarchical structure of the CKM factors, that is Vud ≫ Vus, Br (B → D(nS)π ) ≫ B r (B → D(nS)K) , Br (B → D(nS)ρ) ≫ B r (B → D(nS)K ∗) , ...

    work page

  10. [10]

    3. 80 0. 281 8. 73 0. 758

    work page

  11. [11]

    2. 60 0. 237 7. 94 0. 488 Exp.[1] 2. 66 0. 216 6. 8 0. 33 Modes ¯B0 → D∗+(2S)π − ¯B0 → D∗+(2S)K − ¯B0 → D∗+(2S)ρ− ¯B0 → D∗+(2S)K ∗− This work 0. 45+0. 00+0. 16+0. 01 − 0. 00− 0. 16− 0. 01 0. 03+0. 00+0. 01+0. 00 − 0. 00− 0. 01− 0. 00 1. 09+0. 00+0. 41+0. 02 − 0. 00− 0. 41− 0. 02 0. 06+0. 00+0. 02+0. 00 − 0. 00− 0. 02− 0. 00

    work page

  12. [12]

    0. 038 0. 00274 0. 0267 0. 00162

    work page

  13. [13]

    − − 1. 12 0. 07 Modes B− → D∗0(1S)π − B− → D∗0(1S)K − B− → D∗0(1S)ρ− B− → D∗0(1S)K ∗− This work 5. 67+0. 01+0. 05+0. 98 − 0. 01− 0. 19− 2. 53 0. 43+0. 00+0. 00+0. 07 − 0. 00− 0. 01− 0. 19 15. 45+0. 04+0. 13+2. 30 − 0. 04− 0. 53− 6. 52 0. 89+0. 00+0. 01+0. 13 − 0. 00− 0. 03− 0. 37

    work page

  14. [14]

    4. 11 0. 304 8. 73 0. 846

    work page

  15. [15]

    5. 04 0. 398 11. 7 0. 682 Exp.[1] 5. 17 0. 419 9. 8 0. 81 Modes B− → D∗0(2S)π − B− → D∗0(2S)K − B− → D∗0(2S)ρ− B− → D∗0(2S)K ∗− This work 0. 46+0. 00+0. 16+0. 01 − 0. 00− 0. 17− 0. 01 0. 03+0. 00+0. 01+0. 00 − 0. 00− 0. 01− 0. 00 1. 10+0. 00+0. 42+0. 02 − 0. 00− 0. 42− 0. 02 0. 06+0. 00+0. 02+0. 00 − 0. 00− 0. 02− 0. 00

    work page

  16. [16]

    0. 041 0. 00295 0. 0287 0. 00173

    work page

  17. [17]

    − − 1. 18 0. 07 16 TABLE IX: The branching ratios (10 − 3) of the decays ¯B0 s → D∗ s (1S, 2S)(π, ρ, K (∗)), together with other theoretical results and data for comparison. Modes This work [27] [41] [49] [50] [33] [48] [55] Exp.[1] ¯B0 s → D∗+ s (1S)π − 4. 03+0. 02+1. 30+0. 59 − 0. 02− 1. 18− 0. 45 2. 7 2 3. 1 2. 11 2. 42 3. 37 − 1. 9 ¯B0 s → D∗+ s (1S)K...

    work page

  18. [18]

    00 − − − f∥[%] 9

    105. 00 − − − f∥[%] 9. 11 11. 47 7. 65 9. 90 BS+F A [49] 10. 4 13. 3 − − BS+PQCD [49] 11. 3 10. 4 − − The polarization fractions for the decays ¯B0 (s) → D∗+ (s)(1S, 2S)(ρ,K ∗)− are listed in Table XI, where the results of the BS equation [49] and the PQCD [58] appr oaches and the available data [59] are also listed for comparison. From Table XI, it could...

    work page

  19. [19]

    (γµ − γµγ5) (̸p′ 1 +m′ 1)γ5 (− ̸ p2 +m2) ] = − 2iǫµναβ { p′α 1 Pβ (m′′ 1 − m′

    work page

  20. [20]

    +p′α 1 qβ (m′′ 1 +m′ 1 − 2m2) +qαPβm′ 1 } + 1 W ′′ V (4p′ 1ν − 3qν − Pν)iǫµαβρ p′α 1 qβPρ +2gµν { m2 ( q2 − N ′ 1 − N ′′ 1 − m′2 1 − m′′2 1 ) − m′ 1 ( M ′′2 − N ′′ 1 − N2 − m′′2 1 − m2 2 ) −m′′ 1 ( M ′2 − N ′ 1 − N2 − m′2 1 − m2 2 ) − 2m′ 1m′′ 1m2 } +8p′ 1µp′ 1ν (m2 − m′

    work page

  21. [21]

    − 2 (Pµqν +qµPν + 2qµqν)m′ 1 + 2p′ 1µPν (m′ 1 − m′′ 1) +2p′ 1µqν (3m′ 1 − m′′ 1 − 2m2) + 2Pµp′ 1ν (m′ 1 +m′′

    work page

  22. [22]

    + 2qµp′ 1ν (3m′ 1 +m′′ 1 − 2m2) + 1 2W ′′ V (4p′ 1ν − 3qν − Pν) { 2p′ 1µ [ M ′2 +M ′′2 − q2 − 2N2 + 2 (m′ 1 − m2) (m′′ 1 +m2) ] +qµ [ q2 − 2M ′2 +N ′ 1 − N ′′ 1 + 2N2 − (m1 +m′′ 1)2 + 2 (m′ 1 − m2)2 ] +Pµ [ q2 − N ′ 1 − N ′′ 1 − (m′ 1 +m′′ 1)2 ]} . (B1) 20 SPP µ = Tr [γ5 (̸p′′ 1 +m′′ 1)γµ (̸p′ 1 +m′ 1)γ5 (− ̸ p2 +m2)] = 2p′ 1µ [ M ′2 +M ′′2 − q2 − 2N2 − (...

    work page

  23. [23]

    (x1m2 − x2m′′ 1 )] } , (B7) 21 A B(s)D⋆ (s) 0 (q2) = M ′ + M ′′ 2M ′′ A B(s)D⋆ (s) 1 (q2) − M ′ − M ′′ 2M ′′ A B(s)D⋆ (s) 2 (q2) − q2 2M ′′ Nc 16π 3 ∫ dx2d2p′ ⊥ h′ B(s) h′′ D⋆ (s) x2 ˆN ′ 1 ˆN ′′ 1{ 2 (2x1 − 3) (x2m′ 1 + x1m2) − 8 (m′ 1 − m2) × [ p′2 ⊥ q2 + 2 (p′ ⊥ ·q⊥ )2 q4 ] − [(14 − 12x1) m′ 1 − 2m′′ 1 − (8 − 12x1) m2] p′ ⊥ ·q⊥ q2 + 4 w′′ D⋆ (s) ([ M ′...

    work page

  24. [24]

    Particle Data Group collaboration, Review of Particle P hysics, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 030001

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    S. K. Choi et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 102001 (2002) [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 129901 (2002)] [arXiv:0206002 [hep-ex]]

    work page 2002

  26. [26]

    Observation of new resonances decaying to $D\pi$ and $D^*\pi$ in inclusive $e^+e^-$ collisions near $\sqrt{s}=$10.58 GeV

    P. del Amo Sanchez et al. [BaBar], Phys. Rev. D 82, 111101 (2010) [arXiv:1009.2076 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  27. [27]

    J. B. Liu and M. Z. Yang, Chin. Phys. C 40, 073101 (2016)

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    A. M. Badalian and B. L. G. Bakker, Phys. Rev. D 84, 034006 (2011) [arXiv:1104.1918 [hep- ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  29. [29]

    Q. T. Song, D. Y. Chen, X. Liu and T. Matsuki, Phys. Rev. D 92, 074011 (2015) [arXiv:1503.05728 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  30. [30]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys.Rev.Lett.126, 122002 (2021) [arxiv:2011.09 112 [hep-ex]]

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    J. M. Xie, M. Z. Liu and L. S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 104, 094051 ( 2021)

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    P. G. Ortega, J. Segovia, D. R. Entem and F. Fernandez, Phy s. Lett. B 827, 136998 (2022) [arXiv:2111.00023 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 101, 032005 (2020) [arXiv:1911.05957 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Amplitude analysis of $B^{-} \to D^{+} \pi^{-} \pi^{-}$ decays

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 94, no.7, 072001 (2016) [arXiv:1608.01289 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  35. [35]

    Study of $D_J$ meson decays to $D^+\pi^-$, $D^0 \pi^+$ and $D^{*+}\pi^-$ final states in pp collision

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], JHEP 09, 145 (2013) [arXiv:1307.4556 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  36. [36]

    Comment on the Nature of the $D_{s1}^*(2710)$ and $D_{sJ}^*(2860)$ Mesons

    S. Godfrey and I. T. Jardine, Phys. Rev. D 89, 074023 (2014) [arXiv:1312.6181 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  37. [37]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 222001 (2006)

    work page 2006

  38. [38]

    Brodzicka et al

    J. Brodzicka et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 092001 (2008)

    work page 2008

  39. [39]

    Heavy-light meson spectroscopy and Regge trajectories in the relativistic quark model

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, Eur. Phys. J. C 66, 197-206 (2010) [arXiv:0910.5612 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  40. [40]

    R. Dhir, R. Verma and A. Sharma, Adv. High Energy Phys, 20 13, 706543 (2013). 22

    work page 2013

  41. [41]

    R. H. Li, C. D. Lu and Y. M. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009), 014005 [arXiv:0905.3259 [hep- ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  42. [42]

    S. B. Wu, H. J. Tian, Y. L. Yang, W. Cheng, H. B. Fu and T. Zho ng, [arXiv:2501.02694 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv

  43. [43]

    H. B. Fu, X. G. Wu, H. Y. Han, Y. Ma and T. Zhong, Nucl. Phys. B 884, 172-192 (2014) [arXiv:1309.5723 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  44. [44]

    Uncertainties of the $B\to D$ transition form factor from the $D$-Meson Leading-Twist Distribution Amplitude

    Y. Zhang, T. Zhong, X. G. Wu, K. Li, H. B. Fu and T. Huang, Eu r. Phys. J. C 78, 76 (2018) [arXiv:1709.02226 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  45. [45]

    J. Gao, T. Huber, Y. Ji, C. Wang, Y. M. Wang and Y. B. Wei, JH EP 05, 024 (2022) [arXiv:2112.12674 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    The Ratio $\mathcal{R}(D)$ and the $D$-meson Distribution Amplitude

    T. Zhong, Y. Zhang, X. G. Wu, H. B. Fu and T. Huang, Eur. Phy s. J. C 78, 937 (2018) [arXiv:1807.03453 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [47]

    D. L. Yao, P. Fernandez-Soler, F. K. Guo and J. Nieves, Ph ys. Rev. D 101, 034014 (2020) [arXiv:1906.00727 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    J. A. Bailey et al. [MILC], Phys. Rev. D 92, 034506 (2015) [arXiv:1503.07237 [hep-lat]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  49. [49]

    $B \rightarrow D l \nu$ Form Factors at Non-Zero Recoil and Extraction of $|V_{cb}|$

    H. Na et al. [HPQCD], Phys. Rev. D 92, 054510 (2015) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 93, 119906 (2016)] [arXiv:1505.03925 [hep-lat]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  50. [50]

    R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013), 034033 [arXiv:1212.3167 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  51. [51]

    R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin and X. W. Kang, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022), 013004 [arXiv:2206.10277 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    Y. M. Wang, H. Zou, Z. T. Wei, X. Q. Li and C. D. Lu, Eur. Phys . J. C 54, 107-121 (2008) [arXiv:0707.1138 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  53. [53]

    Y. M. Wang, H. Zou, Z. T. Wei, X. Q. Li and C. D. Lu, Eur. Phys . J. C 55, 607-613 (2008) [arXiv:0802.2762 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  54. [54]

    T. Wang, Y. Jiang, H. Yuan, K. Chai and G. L. Wang, J. Phys. G 44, 045004 (2017) [arXiv:1604.03298 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2017

  55. [55]

    Z. Q. Zhang, Z. J. Sun, Y. C. Zhao, Y. Y. Yang and Z. Y. Zhang , Eur. Phys. J. C 83, no.6, 477 (2023) [arXiv:2301.11107 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    R. H. Li, C. D. Lu and H. Zou, Phys. Rev. D 78, 014018 (2008) [arXiv:0803.1073 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  57. [57]

    H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua and C. W. Hwang, Phys. Rev. D 69, 074025 (2004) [arXiv:0310359 [hep-ph]]

    work page 2004

  58. [58]

    Jaus, Phys

    W. Jaus, Phys. Rev. D 60, 054026 (1999)

    work page 1999

  59. [59]

    Neubert and B

    M. Neubert and B. Stech, Nonleptonic weak decays of B mes ons, [arXiv:9705292[hep-ph]]

    work page

  60. [60]

    Godfrey and K

    S. Godfrey and K. Moats, Phys. Rev. D 93, 034035 (2016)

    work page 2016

  61. [61]

    Guo-Li Wang, Phys. Lett. B 633, 492 (2006). 23

    work page 2006

  62. [62]

    Patricia Ball and Roman Zwicky, Phys. Rev. D 71, 014029 (2005)

    work page 2005

  63. [63]

    Damir Becirevic, Beno ˆ ıt Blossier, [arXiv:1311.744 [hep-ph]]

    work page

  64. [64]

    Blasi, P

    P. Blasi, P. Colangelo, G. Nardulli and N. Paver, Phys. R ev. D 49 (1994), 238-246 [arXiv:9307290 [hep-ph]]

    work page 1994

  65. [65]

    Y. Y. Fan, W. F. Wang and Z. J. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014), 014030 [arXiv:1311.4965 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  66. [66]

    X. Q. Hu, S. P. Jin and Z. J. Xiao, Chin. Phys. C 44, 053102 (2020) [arXiv:1912.03981 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2020

  67. [67]

    Y. Y. Fan, W. F. Wang, S. Cheng and Z. J. Xiao, Chin. Sci. Bu ll. 59, 125-132 (2014) [arXiv:1301.6246 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  68. [68]

    N. R. Soni, A. Issadykov, A. N. Gadaria, Z. Tyulemissov, J. J. Patel and J. N. Pandya, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138, 163 (2023) [arXiv:2110.12740 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  69. [69]

    R. C. Verma, J. Phys. G 39, 025005 (2012) [arXiv:1103.2973 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  70. [70]

    G. Li, F. -l. Shao and W. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 82, 094031 (2010) [arXiv:1008.3696 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  71. [71]

    T. Zhou, T. Wang, Y. Jiang, L. Huo and G. L. Wang, J. Phys. G 48 (2021) no.5, 055006 [arXiv:2006.05704 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  72. [72]

    X. J. Chen, H. F. Fu, C. S. Kim and G. L. Wang, J. Phys. G 39 (2012), 045002 [arXiv:1106.3003 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  73. [73]

    Azizi, R

    K. Azizi, R. Khosravi and F. Falahati, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 24, 5845 (2009)

    work page 2009

  74. [74]

    Beringer et al

    J. Beringer et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 86, 010001 (2012)

    work page 2012

  75. [75]

    Particle Data Group collaboration, Review of Particle Physics, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 030001

    work page 2018

  76. [76]

    Two-body non-leptonic heavy-to-heavy decays at NNLO in QCD factorization

    T. Huber, S. Kr¨ ankl and X. Q. Li, JHEP 09 (2016), 112 [arXiv:1606.02888 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  77. [77]

    Application of the light-front holographic wavefunction for heavy-light pseudoscalar meson in $B_{d,s}\to D_{d,s}P$ decays

    Q. Chang, S. Xu and L. Chen, Nucl. Phys. B 921 (2017), 454-471 [arXiv:1805.02011 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  78. [78]

    K. Dash, P. C. Dash, R. Panda, L. Nayak, S. Kar and N. Barik , Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023), 1163 [arXiv:2302.02142 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  79. [79]

    Tests of Factorization and SU(3) Relations in B Decays into Heavy-Light Final States

    R. Fleischer, N. Serra and N. Tuning, Phys. Rev. D 83, 014017 (2011) [arXiv:1012.2784 [hep- ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  80. [80]

    New Strategy for B_s Branching Ratio Measurements and the Search for New Physics in B^0_s -> mu^+ mu^-

    R. Fleischer, N. Serra and N. Tuning, Phys. Rev. D 82, 034038 (2010) [arXiv:1004.3982 [hep- ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

Showing first 80 references.