pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.22505 · v1 · pith:J5D3LXFKnew · submitted 2026-06-21 · ✦ hep-ph

Study on the Cabibbo-favored {overline B}_(d,s) {to} D_(d,s)^((*)+)S⁻ weak decays in QCD factorization

Lili Chen , Chenyang Jing , Kaiyuan Gao , Shuai Xu , Mengfei Zhao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 10:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords Cabibbo-favored B decaysQCD factorizationbranching ratiosscalar mesonsa0(1450)K0*(1430)NLO correctionslight-front form factors
0
0 comments X

The pith

Branching ratios for anti-B0 to D+ a0- decays reach order 10^{-4} when scalars are treated as lowest p-wave states.

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

The paper applies the QCD factorization approach, including next-to-leading-order corrections, to compute branching ratios for Cabibbo-favored anti-B_d,s decays into D or D* mesons plus scalar mesons such as a0(1450) and K0*(1430). It uses updated transition form factors obtained from a covariant light-front quark model and evaluates the amplitudes under two different scenarios for the scalar mesons. The central finding is that the a0 modes reach branching ratios of order 10^{-4} specifically in scenario two. A sympathetic reader would care because these rates lie within the sensitivity of current and near-future experiments at LHCb and SuperKEKB, offering a direct test of both the decay mechanism and the internal structure assigned to the scalars.

Core claim

Within the QCDF framework with NLO contributions and form factors from a covariant light-front quark model, the branching ratios for the decays anti-B0 to D+ a0- and anti-Bs0 to Ds+ a0- reach up to order 10^{-4} in scenario two, which assumes the scalar mesons are the lowest-lying p-wave states.

What carries the argument

QCDF decay amplitudes at NLO that incorporate hard-scattering kernels, B to D(*) transition form factors, and scalar-meson decay constants plus distribution amplitudes defined separately in two scenarios.

If this is right

  • The anti-B0 to D+ a0- and anti-Bs0 to Ds+ a0- channels become high-priority targets for searches at LHCb and SuperKEKB.
  • Branching ratios remain smaller in scenario one for the same decays.
  • The NLO corrections modify the predicted rates relative to leading-order estimates.
  • Decays involving K0*(1430) yield different numerical results depending on which scenario is adopted.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Confirmation of the 10^{-4} rates would favor the p-wave quark-antiquark assignment over other pictures of the scalars.
  • Data on these modes could be used to extract or constrain the scalar-meson distribution amplitudes directly.
  • The same QCDF setup can be applied to related non-factorizable or penguin-dominated channels to test consistency across the b to c transition.
  • Improved form-factor inputs would reduce the theoretical uncertainty on the quoted branching ratios.

Load-bearing premise

The scalar mesons are treated as lowest-lying p-wave states in scenario-2, which fixes the decay constants and distribution amplitudes inserted into the QCDF amplitude.

What would settle it

An experimental measurement or upper limit showing the branching ratio of anti-B0 to D+ a0- is well below 10^{-5} would rule out the scenario-2 prediction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.22505 by Chenyang Jing, Kaiyuan Gao, Lili Chen, Mengfei Zhao, Shuai Xu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Next-to-leading-order QCD vertex corrections to the decays [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The transition form factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Motivated by recent experimental progress and theoretical developments, we investigate the Cabibbo-favored $b\to c$ governed ${\overline B}_{d,s}$ ${\to}$ $D_{d,s}^{(*)+}S^{-}$~($S$$=$$K_0^*(1430)$, $a_0(1450)$) weak decays by considering the next-to-leading (NLO) contributions within QCDF framework. With the updated values of $B_{(s)}\to D_{(s)}^{(*)}$ transition form factors obtained from a covariant light-front quark model, branching ratios are estimated in two scenarios for scalar mesons. It is found that the branching ratios for ${\overline B}^0{\to}D^{+}{a_0^-}$ and ${\overline B}_{s}^0{\to}D_{s}^{+}{a_0^-}$ decays can reach up to the order of ${\cal O}(10^{-4})$ in scenario-2 by assuming that the scalar mesons are lowest-lying p-wave states, which deserve high-priority experimental searches and may be observed in the ongoing LHCb and SuperKEKB experiments.

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

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes branching ratios for the Cabibbo-favored decays ar B_{d,s} o D_{d,s}^{(*)+} S^- (S = K_0^*(1430), a_0(1450)) in the QCDF framework at NLO order. Form factors are taken from a covariant light-front quark model; results are presented in two scenarios for the scalar mesons, with the finding that ar B^0 o D^+ a_0^- and ar B_s^0 o D_s^+ a_0^- reach O(10^{-4}) in scenario-2 under the explicit assumption that the scalars are lowest-lying p-wave states. The predictions are offered as motivation for searches at LHCb and SuperKEKB.

Significance. If the central numerical results hold under the stated scenario-2 assumption, the work supplies concrete, falsifiable predictions at the 10^{-4} level for modes that have not yet been measured. The explicit conditioning of the largest rates on the p-wave assignment for the scalars, together with the use of updated covariant light-front form factors, provides a transparent framework that can be tested once data become available. No machine-checked proofs or parameter-free derivations are present, but the conditional presentation of the O(10^{-4}) claim is a positive feature.

minor comments (3)
  1. The abstract and introduction should state the numerical size of the NLO corrections relative to the leading-order terms for at least one benchmark mode, to allow readers to assess their practical importance without consulting the full amplitude expressions.
  2. Table entries for branching ratios should include separate columns or footnotes for the individual sources of uncertainty (form-factor variation, scalar-meson inputs, CKM elements) rather than a single combined error, to facilitate comparison with future measurements.
  3. The definition of the two scenarios for the scalar mesons (including the explicit values adopted for decay constants and Gegenbauer moments) should be collected in a single dedicated subsection or table for quick reference.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our work and the recommendation for minor revision. No specific major comments appear in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation uses external inputs and explicit assumptions

full rationale

The paper computes branching ratios in the QCDF framework using NLO terms, form factors taken from an external covariant light-front quark model, and decay constants/DAs chosen under two explicitly stated scenarios for the scalar mesons. The O(10^{-4}) result is presented as conditional on scenario-2 (lowest-lying p-wave states) rather than derived from the inputs by construction. No self-definitional step, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain appears in the abstract or stated framework; the central claim remains an application of standard QCDF to chosen inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only abstract available so ledger is partial. Free parameters include the B to D transition form factors taken from an external model and the two scenarios for scalar meson structure. Axioms include the validity of QCDF at NLO for these decays and the identification of a0(1450) as a p-wave state in scenario-2. No invented entities.

free parameters (2)
  • B to D(*) transition form factors
    Updated values from covariant light-front quark model; these are inputs fitted or computed externally and directly scale the branching ratios.
  • Scalar meson decay constants and distribution amplitudes
    Differ between the two scenarios; scenario-2 choice produces the O(10^{-4}) result.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption QCDF framework applies with NLO contributions to these b to c transitions
    Standard assumption in the field but not re-derived here.
  • ad hoc to paper Scalar mesons in scenario-2 are lowest-lying p-wave states
    This modeling choice controls the largest predicted rates.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5757 in / 1361 out tokens · 30687 ms · 2026-06-26T10:12:11.031169+00:00 · methodology

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

86 extracted references · 86 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D15, 267 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.15.267

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.15.267 1977

  2. [2]

    R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D15, 281-289 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.15.281

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.15.281 1977

  3. [3]

    Mathur et al., Phys

    N. Mathur et al., Phys. Rev. D76, 11405 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.114505

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.114505 2007

  4. [4]

    Prelovsek, T

    S. Prelovsek, T. Draper, C. B. Lang et al., Phys. Rev. D82, 094507 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.094507

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.82.094507 2010

  5. [5]

    F. E. Close, N. A. Tornqvist, Phys. Rev. G28, R249 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/201

    work page doi:10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/201 2002

  6. [6]

    Garmash et al

    A. Garmash et al. (Belle Collabora- tion), Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 251803 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.251803

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.251803 2006

  7. [7]

    Chang, K

    P. Chang, K. Abe, H. Aihara et al. (Belle Col- laboration), Phys. Lett. B599, 148-158 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2004.07.063

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2004.07.063 2004

  8. [8]

    M. Prim, I. Adachi, T. Aushev et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D88, 072004 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.072004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.072004 2013

  9. [9]

    C. C. Chiang, H. Aihara, K. Arinstein et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D81, 071101 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.071101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.81.071101 2010

  10. [10]

    J. P. Lees, V. Poireau, V. Tisserand et al. (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D85, 112010 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.112010

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.85.112010 2012

  11. [11]

    J. P. Lees, V. Poireau, V. Tisserand et al. (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D83, 112010 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.112010

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.83.112010 2011

  12. [12]

    Aubert, Y

    B. Aubert, Y. Karyotakis, E. Prencipe et al. (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D79, 052005 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.79.052005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.79.052005 2009

  13. [13]

    Aubert, M

    B. Aubert, M. Bona, Y. Karyotakis et al. (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D78, 012004 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.78.012004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.012004 2008

  14. [14]

    Aubert, E

    B. Aubert, E. Prencipe, Y. Karyotakis et al. (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 161801 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.161801

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.101.161801 2008

  15. [15]

    Aubert, M

    B. Aubert, M. Bona, Y. Karyotakis et al. (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D78, 092008 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.78.092008

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.092008 2008

  16. [16]

    J. P. Lees, V. Poireau, V. Tisserand et al. (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D85, 072005 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.072005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.85.072005 2012

  17. [17]

    Aubert, M

    B. Aubert, M. Bona, Y. Karyotakis et al. (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D76, 071103 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.071103

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.071103 2007

  18. [18]

    R. Aaij, B. Adeva, M. Adinolfi et al. (LHCb Collaboration), JHEP06, 114 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2019)114

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep06(2019)114 2019

  19. [19]

    R. Aaij, B. Adeva, M. Adinolfi et al. (LHCb Collaboration), JHEP07, 032 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2019)032

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2019)032 2019

  20. [20]

    Review of particle physics,

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  21. [21]

    R. Aaij, B. Adeva, M. Adinolfi et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D92, 032002 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.032002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.032002 2015

  22. [22]

    H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D102, 053006 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.053006

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.053006 2020

  23. [23]

    H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D94, 094015 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.094015

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.094015 2016

  24. [24]

    H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D89, 074025 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.074025

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.074025 2014

  25. [25]

    H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D88, 114014 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.114014

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.114014 2013

  26. [26]

    H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D76, 094006 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.094006

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.094006 2007

  27. [27]

    Furman, B

    A. Furman, B. Loiseau et al., Phys. Rev. D79, 094005 (2009)[erratum: Phys. Rev. D83, 039903 (2011)]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.039903

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.83.039903 2009

  28. [28]

    Y. Li, H. Y. Zhang, Y. Xing et al., Phys. Rev. D91, 074022 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.074022

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.074022 2015

  29. [29]

    H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D73, 014017 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.73.014017

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.014017 2006

  30. [30]

    H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D71, 054020 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.71.054020

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.71.054020 2005

  31. [31]

    H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D77, 014304 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.77.014034

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.014034 2008

  32. [32]

    H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D82, 034014 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.034014

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.82.034014 2010

  33. [33]

    H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D87, 114001 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.114001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.87.114001 2013

  34. [34]

    J. J. Qi, Z. Y. Wang, X. H. Guo et al., Phys. Rev. D99, 076010 (2019). https://api.semanticscholar.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.076010 9

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.076010 2019

  35. [35]

    L. Chen, M. Zhao, Y. Zhang et al., Phys. Rev. D105, 016002 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.016002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.016002 2022

  36. [37]

    N. Wang, Q. Chang, Y. L. Yang et al., J. Phys. G46, 095001 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361- 6471/ab2553

    work page doi:10.1088/1361- 2019

  37. [38]

    Z. T. Zou, Y. Li, X. Liu, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 517 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8094-4

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8094-4 2020

  38. [39]

    Z. T. Zou, Y. Li, Q. X. Li et al., Eur. Phys. J. C5, 394 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7925-7

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7925-7 2020

  39. [40]

    Z. T. Zou, Y. Li, X. Liu, Eur. Phys. J. C12, 870 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5441-1

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5441-1 2017

  40. [41]

    Q. X. Li, L. Yang, Z. T. Zou et al., Eur. Phys. J. C79, 960 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7484-y

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7484-y 2019

  41. [42]

    W. F. Wang, H. C. Hu, C. D. L¨ u et al., Phys. Rev. D89, 074031 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.074031

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.074031 2014

  42. [43]

    Z. Rui, W. F. Wang, Phys. Rev. D97, 033006 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.033006

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.033006 2018

  43. [44]

    Z. Rui, Y. Q. Li, J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D99, 093007 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.093007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.093007 2019

  44. [46]

    X. Liu, Z. T. Zou, Z. J. Xiao, J. Phys. G40, 025002 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/40/2/025002

    work page doi:10.1088/0954-3899/40/2/025002 2013

  45. [47]

    X. Liu, Z. T. Zou, Z. J. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D88, 094003 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.094003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.094003 2013

  46. [48]

    R. H. Li, C. D. L¨ u, W. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. D79, 014013 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.79.014013

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.79.014013 2009

  47. [49]

    Z. Q. Zhang, S. J. Wang, L. Y. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C37, 043103 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1088/1674- 1137/37/4/043103

    work page doi:10.1088/1674- 2013

  48. [50]

    Z. Q. Zhang, EPL97, 11001 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/97/11001

    work page doi:10.1209/0295-5075/97/11001 2012

  49. [51]

    Z. Q. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D82, 034036 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.034036

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.82.034036 2010

  50. [52]

    Z. Q. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D82, 114016 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.114016

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.82.114016 2010

  51. [53]

    Z. W. Liu, Z. T. Zou, Y. Li et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 59 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-022- 10016-6

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022- 2022

  52. [54]

    El-Bennich, A

    B. El-Bennich, A. Furman et al., Phys. Rev. D74, 114009 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.74.114009

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.74.114009 2006

  53. [55]

    H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua, C. W. Hwang, Phys. Rev. D69, 074025 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.69.074025

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.69.074025 2004

  54. [56]

    X. W. Kang, T. Luo, Y. Zhang et al., Eur. Phys. J. C78, 909 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052- 018-6385-9

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 2018

  55. [57]

    Issadykov, M

    A. Issadykov, M. A. Ivanov, S. K. Sakhiyev, Phys. Rev. D91, 074007 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.074007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.074007 2015

  56. [58]

    Cheng, J

    S. Cheng, J. M. Shen, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 554 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8124-2

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8124-2 2020

  57. [59]

    Y. Li, E. L. Wang, H. Y. Zhang, Adv. High Energy Phys.2013, 175287 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/175287

    work page doi:10.1155/2013/175287 2013

  58. [60]

    Y. Li, D. D. Wang, C. D. L¨ u, Chin. Phys. C40, 013101 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/40/1/013101

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/40/1/013101 2016

  59. [61]

    Ghahramany, R

    N. Ghahramany, R. Khosravi, Phys. Rev. D80, 016009 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.016009

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.80.016009 2009

  60. [62]

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, M. Savci, Phys. Rev. D76, 074017 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.074017

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.074017 2007

  61. [63]

    M. Z. Yang, Phys. Rev. D73, 034207 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.73.079901

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.079901 2006

  62. [64]

    H. Y. Han, X. G. Wu, H. B. Fu et al., Eur. Phys. J. A49, 78 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2013-13078-7

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/i2013-13078-7 2013

  63. [65]

    Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 427 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3653-9

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3653-9 2015

  64. [66]

    H. Y. Cheng, Phys. Rev. D67, 034024 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.67.034024

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.67.034024 2003

  65. [67]

    W. Wang, Y. L. Shen, Y. Li et al., Phys. Rev. D74, 114010 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.74.114010

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.74.114010 2006

  66. [68]

    Z. T. Zou, Y. Li, X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D95, 016011 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.016011

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.016011 2017

  67. [70]

    Bauer, B

    M. Bauer, B. Stech, M. Wirbel, Z. Phys. C34, 103 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01561122

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01561122 1987

  68. [71]

    Deandrea, N

    A. Deandrea, N. Di Bartolomeo, G. Nardulli et al., Phys. Lett. B318, 549-558 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(93)91554-Z

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(93)91554-z 1993

  69. [72]

    C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol, I. W. Stew- art, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 201806 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.201806

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.87.201806 2001

  70. [73]

    R. H. Li, C. D. L¨ u, H. Zou, Phys. Rev. D78, 014018 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.78.014018

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.014018 2008

  71. [74]

    Azizi, R

    K. Azizi, R. Khosravi, F. Falahati, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A24, 5845-5860 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X0904751X

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217751x0904751x 2009

  72. [75]

    X. J. Chen, H. F. Fu, G. L. Wang et al., J. Phys. G39, 045002 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1088/0954- 3899/39/4/045002

    work page doi:10.1088/0954- 2012

  73. [76]

    H. F. Fu, G. L. Wang, Z. H. Wang et al., Chin. Phys. Lett.28, 121301 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1088/0256- 307X/28/12/121301

    work page doi:10.1088/0256- 2011

  74. [77]

    R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin, Phys. Rev. D87, 034033 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.034033

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.87.034033 2013

  75. [78]

    S. H. Zhou, Y. B. Wei, Q. Qin et al., Phys. Rev. D92, 094016 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.094016

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.094016 2015

  76. [79]

    Kr¨ ankl, T

    S. Kr¨ ankl, T. Huber, JHEP04, 140 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2015)140

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2015)140 2015

  77. [80]

    Kr¨ ankl, T

    S. Kr¨ ankl, T. Huber, X. Q. Li, JHEP09, 112 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2016)112

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2016)112 2016

  78. [81]

    Beneke, G

    M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 1914-1917 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.1914

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.83.1914 1914

  79. [82]

    Beneke, G

    M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert et al., Nucl. Phys. B606, 245-321 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0550- 3213(01)00251-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s0550- 2001

  80. [83]

    Beneke, M

    M. Beneke, M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys. B675, 333-415 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2003.09.026

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2003.09.026 2003

Showing first 80 references.