Hadronic photon correction to $\gamma^{\ast} \gamma \to f_{2}(1270)$ at next-to-leading order

Bing-Xin Liu; Shen-Qiang Ren

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Hadronic photon correction to $\gamma^{\ast} \gamma \to f_{2}(1270)$ at next-to-leading order

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The hadronic component of the real photon contributes calculable power-suppressed corrections to the $\gamma^*\gamma\to f_2(1270)$ form factors, computed here at next-to-leading order in $\alpha_s$ with next-to-leading-log resummation.

desk verdict A solid, honest NLO LCSR extension to f2(1270) whose NLL claim needs a caveat: incomplete renormalization of the tensor current leaves the residual scale dependence unquantified. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08054 v1 pith:76UYOOYP submitted 2026-08-08 hep-ph

Bing-Xin Liu , Shen-Qiang Ren This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords light-conesumruleshadronicphotoncorrectionsf2(1270)tensormesontransitionformfactorsnext-to-leadingordernext-to-leading-logresummationdistributionamplitudetwo-photonprocesses

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

Within light-cone sum rules, this paper computes the subleading-power corrections to the $\gamma^*\gamma\to f_2(1270)$ transition form factors that come from the hadronic (quark--antiquark) component of the real photon, at next-to-leading order in $\alpha_s$. It establishes the factorization formula for the vacuum-to-photon correlation function, extracts the perturbative hard matching coefficients with the method of regions, and resums the large logarithms to next-to-leading-logarithmic accuracy using the two-loop evolution of the leading-twist photon distribution amplitude. Combined with the known leading-power results from QCD collinear factorization, the updated predictions for the three helicity form factors $T_0$, $T_1$, and $T_2$ show that $T_0$ is substantially enhanced---improving agreement with single-tag two-photon data---while $T_1$ and $T_2$ shift by about 1--5% and 5--8% for $4

What carries the argument

The central object is the leading-twist photon distribution amplitude $\phi_\gamma(z,\mu)$, which encodes the quark--antiquark content of the real photon, together with the tensor-meson interpolating current $j_{\rho\sigma\alpha}$ used to build the vacuum-to-photon correlation function. The argument proceeds by computing the four-point partonic amplitudes at tree level and one loop, separating hard and collinear scales with the method of regions, extracting the finite hard matching coefficients $H_i^{(1)}$, and evolving the photon DA and the tensor current to NLL accuracy via the two-loop evolution kernel. A Borel transform and continuum subtraction convert the factorized correlation function into sum rules for the three helicity form factors.

What would settle it

Recompute the one-loop matching with the full anomalous-dimension matrix for the operator basis and check whether the residual $\mu$-dependence of $T_0(Q^2)$ over $4<Q^2<25$ GeV$^2$ stays inside the quoted uncertainty band; if the scale variation grows beyond it, the NLL light-cone sum rules miss a numerically significant mixing effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the hadronic component of the real photon produces a calculable next-to-leading-power contribution to $\gamma^*\gamma\to f_2(1270)$, and that this contribution can be isolated at NLO in $\alpha_s$ and resummed to NLL accuracy. The authors define a vacuum-to-photon correlation function built from the electromagnetic current and a tensor-meson interpolating current, calculate the tree-level and one-loop partonic amplitudes, extract the hard matching coefficients by dimensionally regulating and applying the method of regions, and match onto light-ray tensor operators. The resulting light-cone sum rules, Eqs. (3.45)--(3.46), give a tree-level hadronic-photon contribution to $T_0$ and $O(\alpha_s)$ contributions to $T_1$ and $T_2$. Adding these NLP terms to the known leading-power QCD factorization results yields the updated predictions: $T_0$ moves upward and agrees better with the experimental trend, while $T_1$ and $T_2$ receive modest (1--5)% and (5--8)% shifts. All three corrections are power-suppressed as $\Lambda^2/Q^2$ in the large-$Q^2$ limit.

Load-bearing premise

The NLL accuracy rests on assuming that only the diagonal anomalous dimension of the tensor interpolating current matters; if off-diagonal mixing with operators of the same quantum numbers is numerically significant, the resummed predictions carry an uncontrolled factorization-scale dependence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For $4<Q^2<25$ GeV$^2$, the hadronic-photon term raises $T_0$ substantially; above $Q^2=10$ GeV$^2$ it is less than half the leading-power result and falls to about 20% near 25 GeV$^2$.
The same term shifts $T_1$ upward by about (1--5)% and $T_2$ by about (5--8)% over this range, with both corrections scaling as $\Lambda^2/Q^2$ at large momentum transfer.
The first nonzero hadronic-photon contributions to $T_1$ and $T_2$ appear only at $O(\alpha_s)$, so they are genuine next-to-leading-order effects rather than tree-level corrections.
The combined NLO+NLL predictions, normalized to $T_2(0)$, provide a direct point of comparison with single-tag two-photon measurements and track the measured $T_0$ trend better than the leading-power curve alone.
The same factorization, matching, and resummation procedure applies to hadronic photon corrections in other two-photon meson production processes, as the authors note.

Reading between the lines

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

The computation keeps only the diagonal anomalous dimension of the tensor interpolating current; if off-diagonal operator mixing is numerically important, the NLL resummation and the quoted scale uncertainties would need revision, a check the paper identifies but does not perform.
Because $T_0$ is sensitive to the quark and gluon couplings $f_q$, $f_g^S$, the magnetic susceptibility $\chi$, and the photon-DA moment $a_2$, fixing these inputs with independent lattice or sum-rule determinations would turn the observed $T_0$ enhancement into a sharper test of the hadronic-photon mechanism.
A natural extension is to apply the same $O(\alpha_s)$ hadronic-photon machinery to $B\to f_2(1270)$ form factors or other tensor-meson processes; nothing in the present paper covers that case.

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

This is a serious piece of work that extends the hadronic-photon LCSR program to a tensor meson final state, with genuinely new one-loop matching coefficients for the f2 interpolating current and NLL-resummed LCSRs for all three helicity form factors. The advertised improvement in T0 relative to Belle data is real but rests on an incomplete renormalization of the tensor current, a limitation the authors themselves flag in Sec. 3.2.6, and the NLL claim is therefore conditional on off-diagonal operator mixing being negligible.

The new calculation is worth taking seriously. The method is the same as the pion/eta program (Refs. [16,19-24]), but applying it to the spin-2 current with covariant derivative is a non-trivial extension. The hard matching coefficients in Eqs. (3.29) are new, the NLL resummation through the two-loop evolution kernel is done competently, and the final LCSRs (3.45)-(3.46) are complete enough to reproduce. The paper is honest: it explicitly notes the residual scale dependence from omitting the full anomalous-dimension matrix, and it notes that f_q, f_S_g, and f_T_g are partly motivated by data.

Where I would push back is on the strength of the conclusion. The effects on T1 and T2 are small (1-5% and 5-8%), and the T0 improvement is at the tens-of-percent level. If off-diagonal mixing contributes at a comparable size, the conclusions shift. That is not a fatal flaw, but it means "NLL accurate" is too strong; the paper should either complete the mixing analysis or quantify the residual scale dependence by varying mu in the numerical analysis and show it is small. I also note there is no uncertainty quoted for f_T_g, and T0 is very sensitive to these couplings, so the good agreement with Belle is not a sharp test of the calculation.

The one-loop integrals are not independently checkable from the text. That is a minor issue if the authors supply ancillary files or more details, but it matters for a calculation whose central claim is new NLO results.

Bottom line: This is a valid, incremental contribution to a specialized subfield. It deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review with requests to quantify the residual scale dependence, give f_T_g an uncertainty, and soften the NLL claim accordingly. If the mu-variation turns out to be under control, the paper should be published.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies the hadronic-photon (next-to-leading-power) contributions to the gamma* gamma -> f2(1270) transition form factors T0, T1, T2 within light-cone sum rules. The authors compute the vacuum-to-photon correlation function of the electromagnetic current and a tensor-meson interpolating current at one loop, extract hard matching coefficients using the method of regions, resum large logarithms to next-to-leading-logarithmic accuracy via the two-loop evolution of the leading-twist photon distribution amplitude, and combine the resulting NLP LCSRs with known leading-power QCD factorization results. They find that the hadronic-photon effect enhances T0 by tens of percent and improves agreement with Belle data, while T1 and T2 shift by about 1-5% and 5-8%, respectively, for 4<Q^2<25 GeV^2. The paper explicitly acknowledges that only the diagonal anomalous dimension of the tensor current is included in the renormalization analysis.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper provides the first complete NLO treatment of the hadronic-photon contribution to tensor-meson transition form factors and is a useful step beyond the leading-power analysis of Braun et al. The manuscript is valuable in that it makes the full analytic expressions for the one-loop hard amplitudes and spectral densities available, and it is honest about the incomplete operator-mixing treatment. The numerical comparison with Belle data is a concrete falsifiable prediction. The main caveat is that the central 'NLL-resummed' claim rests on an unverified assumption about the smallness of off-diagonal operator mixing, and the quoted uncertainties do not include this effect. Overall, the paper is a solid LCSR calculation with a clearly identified limitation rather than a definitive precision prediction.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 3.2.6 (after Eq. (3.39))] The paper explicitly states that only the diagonal anomalous dimension of the tensor interpolating current j_{rho sigma alpha} is included, while a complete cancellation of the factorization-scale dependence would require the full anomalous-dimension matrix gamma_ij. This is a load-bearing limitation: the NLL resummed hard functions and the LCSRs in Eqs. (3.45)-(3.46) therefore carry an unquantified scale dependence. Since the reported hadronic-photon effects are modest (1-5% for T1, 5-8% for T2, and a tens-of-percent enhancement for T0), an off-diagonal mixing contribution of comparable size could change the main phenomenological conclusions. The authors should either compute or bound the effect of the omitted mixing, for example by a mu-variation scan or by estimating the off-diagonal entries of gamma_ij, and adjust the claim of NLL accuracy accordingly.
[Sec. 4.2 and Fig. 3] The theoretical uncertainty band in Fig. 3 is described as propagating the errors of individual input parameters; it does not include the residual renormalization-scale dependence discussed in Sec. 3.2.6. Given that the central claim is NLL accuracy, the paper should show the mu-dependence of T0, T1, and T2 over a reasonable range (for example mu around 1-4 GeV) and include this in the quoted uncertainties. Without such an estimate, the improved agreement with Belle data may partly reflect an unestimated systematic effect rather than a robust prediction.
[Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (3.12)-(3.29)] The one-loop hard amplitudes A_{i,h}^{(1)} are presented as final expressions, but several nontrivial steps are only described verbally: the method-of-regions decomposition, the UV renormalization of the SCET operator, and the IR subtraction implicit in Eq. (3.30). As written, an independent reader cannot reproduce or verify the central formulas (3.29), which is a concern because these amplitudes determine the entire numerical NLO correction. The authors should provide the definition of the SCET operator matrix element and the one-loop renormalization constant Z^{(1)} used in Eq. (3.31), or make the algebraic reduction available in an ancillary file.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. 4.1, Eqs. (4.1)-(4.2)] The normalization T2(0) = 339 MeV is derived under the assumption |T2(0)| >> |T0(0)| at Q^2=0; this assumption is stated but its impact on the normalized form-factor predictions is not quantified.
[Sec. 4.1 and Appendix B] The value b3/b1 = -0.16 is borrowed from scalar-meson results and is described as a phenomenological guide; the sensitivity of the final predictions to this prescription should be reported or at least included in the error budget.
[Appendix B, Eq. (B.16)] The conversion relations between the form-factor conventions are called 'simplified relations'; the paper should specify the approximations involved and their expected accuracy in the comparison with the Belle data.
[References] References [16] and [47] appear to be the same paper (Y.-M. Wang and Y.-L. Shen, JHEP 12 (2017) 037) and should be merged or cross-referenced consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the NLP hadronic-photon LCSRs (3.45)-(3.46) come from an explicit one-loop matching calculation with external photon-DA inputs; the acknowledged incomplete operator renormalization in Sec. 3.2.6 is a stated scale-dependence limitation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's new result — the NLP hadronic-photon contributions to T0, T1, T2 in Eqs. (3.45)-(3.46) — is obtained by an explicit calculation, not by fitting. The chain is: vacuum-to-photon correlation function (2.1); one-loop partonic amplitudes from diagrams (a)-(g), Eqs. (3.12)-(3.27); hard matching via Eq. (3.30) giving H_i^(1) = A_i^(1),reg; the NLL factorization formula (3.33) and (3.43); dispersive LCSRs (3.45)-(3.46). No step is defined in terms of the predicted form factors. Inputs — photon DA phi_gamma, magnetic susceptibility chi, quark condensate <qq>, f2 decay constant fT_f2 — are external, with independent determinations; the Belle comparison uses external data [13]. Normalization by T2(0) = 339 MeV from the measured two-photon width, Eq. (4.2), fixes only an overall scale; the Q^2-dependence and the mutual ratios of T0, T1, T2 remain genuine predictions. The LP baseline is adopted from Ref. [7], an independent 2016 publication, so no self-citation chain supports the central claim. Two passages deserve explicit flagging but are not circular. (i) Section 3.2.6 candidly states that only the diagonal anomalous dimension of the tensor interpolating current is retained and that full cancellation of scale dependence would require the gamma_ij matrix for the full operator basis; this is an acknowledged incompleteness — a scale-uncertainty/correctness risk to be weighed separately, not a reduction of the prediction to its inputs. (ii) Section 4.1 says f_q and f_S_g are 'motivated by theoretical estimates from QCD sum rules and the agreement between theoretical predictions and experimental data'; the values remain anchored to independent sum-rule ranges, the dependence is disclosed, and the novel NLP correction itself does not depend on these f2-DA couplings, so the new contribution is not a re-labeled fit. Verdict: no significant circularity; score 1.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All nonperturbative inputs are taken from prior QCD sum rules, lattice, or phenomenological estimates; no new particles or forces are postulated. The central free parameters are the sum rule window (M^2, s0), the photon DA parameters (a2, chi, quark condensate), the f2 decay constant and DA moments, and the normalization T2(0) from the measured width. The most fragile assumption is the neglect of operator mixing in the renormalization of the interpolating current, flagged by the authors themselves.

free parameters (11)

Borel parameter M^2 = 1.0 to 1.4 GeV^2
Standard LCSR window; predictions depend on this choice within the stated range.
Effective threshold s0 = 2.53 GeV^2
Quark-hadron duality threshold chosen following Ref. [5]; affects continuum subtraction.
Photon DA Gegenbauer moment a2(1 GeV) = 0.07 +/- 0.07
From QCD sum rules [51]; shapes the leading-twist photon DA in the factorization formulas.
Magnetic susceptibility chi(1 GeV) = 3.15 +/- 0.3 GeV^-2
From QCD sum rules [50]; sets the overall size of the hadronic photon contribution.
Quark condensate <qq>(2 GeV) = -(272 +/- 5 MeV)^3
From FLAG [49]; appears in the normalization of the photon DA matrix element.
f2 decay constant f_perp_f2(1 GeV) = 117 +/- 25 MeV
Computed with QCD sum rules [5]; enters the sum rule normalization with a 21% uncertainty.
f2 quark coupling f_q(1 GeV) = 85 +/- 10 MeV
Input to LP form factors; the paper states it is motivated partly by agreement with experimental data, not derived.
f2 gluon couplings f_S_g and f_T_g = 45 MeV and about 20 MeV
Ballpark estimates; no uncertainty is assigned to f_T_g, yet it is included in the uncertainty propagation.
Gegenbauer moments b1 and b3/b1 = 5/3 and -0.16
b1 from [5]; b3/b1 taken from scalar meson studies [54] as a phenomenological guide, explicitly not claimed to be dynamically equivalent.
Twist-three couplings zeta3, omega3, tilde_omega3 = 0.15(8), -0.2(3), 0.06(1)
Inputs to the LP formula for T1 from Refs. [5,7].
T2(0) normalization = 339 +/- 22 MeV
Derived from the measured Gamma(f2 -> gamma gamma) = 3.03(40) keV; used to normalize all predictions. This is an experimental input, not a prediction.

assumptions (6)

standard math QCD factorization and light-cone sum rules with Borel transformation and quark-hadron duality
Framework of the calculation, Secs. 1 and 3; endpoints and continuum are suppressed by the Borel transform.
domain assumption The leading-twist photon distribution amplitude parametrizes the hadronic photon contribution; higher-twist photon DAs are neglected
Used in Eq. (3.7), Sec. 3.1; only the two-particle leading-twist photon DA is included.
standard math Method of regions cleanly separates hard and collinear contributions; collinear integrals are scaleless and removed by IR subtraction
Applied in Secs. 3.2.1 and 3.2.4; standard technique for SCET matching.
domain assumption The evolution kernel V(z,z') and its two-loop coefficient from Refs. [42-46] are correct for the leading-twist photon DA and light-ray tensor operator
Used in Eqs. (3.34)-(3.40) for the NLL resummation.
ad hoc to paper Only the diagonal anomalous dimension of the tensor interpolating current j_rho sigma alpha is needed; full operator mixing is neglected
Acknowledged in Sec. 3.2.6 after Eq. (3.39); complete scale cancellation would require the full anomalous-dimension matrix.
standard math Spectral representations in Appendix A are correct analytic continuations used to obtain the LCSR spectral densities
Equations (A.1)-(A.9), used for Eqs. (3.45)-(3.46).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hadronic photon correction to $\gamma^{\ast} \gamma \to f_{2}(1270)$ at next-to-leading order." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/76UYOOYP

@misc{pith2026260808054,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hadronic photon correction to $\gamma^\ast \gamma \to f_2(1270)$ at next-to-leading order},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/76UYOOYP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08054}
}

abstract

Within the framework of light-cone sum rules, we calculate the hadronic photon corrections to the $\gamma^*\gamma \to f_2(1270)$ transition form factors induced by the leading-twist photon distribution amplitude of the real photon. We establish the factorization formula for the vacuum-to-photon correlation function at next-to-leading order in $\alpha_s$, and extract the perturbative hard matching coefficients by applying the method of regions. The parametrically large logarithms appearing in the hard functions are resummed to next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy by solving the two-loop evolution equation for the corresponding light-ray tensor operator. Combining the resulting light-cone sum rules with the known leading-power contributions from QCD collinear factorization, we provide updated theoretical predictions for the three helicity form factors $T_0(Q^2)$, $T_1(Q^2)$ and $T_2(Q^2)$, including an estimate of the theoretical uncertainties.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[3]

Cheng and K.-C

H.-Y. Cheng and K.-C. Yang,Charmless Hadronic B Decays into a Tensor Meson,Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 034001 [1010.3309]

arXiv 2011
[4]

Kim, R.-H

C.S. Kim, R.-H. Li, F. Simanjuntak and Z.T. Zou,CharmlessB u,d,s →V Tdecays in perturbative QCD approach,Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 014031

work page 2013
[5]

Two-parton Light-cone Distribution Amplitudes of Tensor Mesons

H.-Y. Cheng, Y. Koike and K.-C. Yang,Two-parton Light-cone Distribution Amplitudes of Tensor Mesons,Phys. Rev. D82(2010) 054019 [1007.3541]

work page Pith review arXiv 2010
[6]

Hard Exclusive Production of Tensor Mesons

V.M. Braun and N. Kivel,Hard exclusive production of tensor mesons,Phys. Lett. B501 (2001) 48 [hep-ph/0012220]

work page Pith review arXiv 2001
[7]

Electroproduction of tensor mesons in QCD

V.M. Braun, N. Kivel, M. Strohmaier and A.A. Vladimirov,Electroproduction of tensor mesons in QCD,JHEP06(2016) 039 [1603.09154]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[8]

Giacosa, T

F. Giacosa, T. Gutsche, V.E. Lyubovitskij and A. Faessler,Decays of tensor mesons and the tensor glueball in an effective field approach,Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 114021 [hep-ph/0511171]

arXiv 2005
[9]

Production of $f_2(1270)$ meson in $pp$ collisions at the LHC via gluon-gluon fusion in the $k_t$-factorization approach

P. Lebiedowicz and A. Szczurek,Production off 2(1270)meson inppcollisions at the LHC via gluon-gluon fusion in thek t-factorization approach,Phys. Lett. B810(2020) 135816 [2007.12485]. [10]Bellecollaboration,Evidence for large direct CP violation in B+- —>rho(770)0K+- from analysis of the three-body charmless B+- —>K+- pi+- pi-+ decay,Phys. Rev. Lett.96 (...

work page Pith review arXiv 2020
[14]

Schuler, F.A

G.A. Schuler, F.A. Berends and R. van Gulik,Meson photon transition form-factors and resonance cross-sections in e+ e- collisions,Nucl. Phys. B523(1998) 423 [hep-ph/9710462]

arXiv 1998

Show all 48 references

[15]

Hoferichter and P

M. Hoferichter and P. Stoffer,Asymptotic behavior of meson transition form factors,JHEP 05(2020) 159 [2004.06127]

2020 arXiv
[16]

Wang and Y.-L

Y.-M. Wang and Y.-L. Shen,Subleading power corrections to the pion-photon transition form factor in QCD,JHEP12(2017) 037 [1706.05680]

2017 arXiv
[17]

Braun,Light cone sum rules, in4th International Workshop on Progress in Heavy Quark Physics, pp

V.M. Braun,Light cone sum rules, in4th International Workshop on Progress in Heavy Quark Physics, pp. 105–118, 9, 1997 [hep-ph/9801222]

1997 arXiv
[18]

Colangelo and A

P. Colangelo and A. Khodjamirian,QCD sum rules, a modern perspective,hep-ph/0010175

arXiv
[19]

Agaev, V.M

S.S. Agaev, V.M. Braun, N. Offen and F.A. Porkert,Light Cone Sum Rules for the pi0-gamma*-gamma Form Factor Revisited,Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 054020 [1012.4671]

2011 arXiv
[20]

Mikhailov, A.V

S.V. Mikhailov, A.V. Pimikov and N.G. Stefanis,Systematic estimation of theoretical uncertainties in the calculation of the pion-photon transition form factor using light-cone sum rules,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 114018 [1604.06391]

2016 arXiv
[21]

Y.-L. Shen, J. Gao, C.-D. L¨ u and Y. Miao,Power corrections to the pion transition form factor from higher-twist distribution amplitudes of a photon,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 096013 [1901.10259]

2019 arXiv
[22]

Stefanis,Pion-photon transition form factor in light cone sum rules and tests of asymptotics,Phys

N.G. Stefanis,Pion-photon transition form factor in light cone sum rules and tests of asymptotics,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 034022 [2006.10576]

2020 arXiv
[23]

Agaev, V.M

S.S. Agaev, V.M. Braun, N. Offen, F.A. Porkert and A. Sch¨ afer,Transition form factors γ∗γ→ηandγ ∗γ→η ′ in QCD,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 074019 [1409.4311]

2014 arXiv
[24]

Braun, K.G

V.M. Braun, K.G. Chetyrkin and A.N. Manashov,γ*→ηγandγ*→η’γform factors to NNLO accuracy in perturbative QCD,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 056026 [2510.15643]

2026
[25]

Sun, Z.-H

Y.-J. Sun, Z.-H. Li and T. Huang,B (s) →Stransitions in the light cone sum rules with the chiral current,Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 025024 [1011.3901]

2011 arXiv
[26]

Zhong, X.-G

T. Zhong, X.-G. Wu, J.-W. Zhang, Y.-Q. Tang and Z.-Y. Fang,New results on Pionic Twist-3 Distribution Amplitudes within the QCD Sum Rules,Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 036002 [1101.3592]

2011 arXiv
[27]

Wang, Y.-B

Y.-M. Wang, Y.-B. Wei, Y.-L. Shen and C.-D. L¨ u,Perturbative corrections to B→D form factors in QCD,JHEP06(2017) 062 [1701.06810]

2017 arXiv
[28]

Wang and Y.-L

Y.-M. Wang and Y.-L. Shen,Subleading-power corrections to the radiative leptonicB→γℓν decay in QCD,JHEP05(2018) 184 [1803.06667]

2018 arXiv
[29]

Emmerich, M

M. Emmerich, M. Strohmaier and A. Sch¨ afer,B→f 2(1270)form factors with light-cone sum rules,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 014008 [1804.02953]

2018 arXiv
[30]

Gao, C.-D

J. Gao, C.-D. L¨ u, Y.-L. Shen, Y.-M. Wang and Y.-B. Wei,Precision calculations ofB→V form factors from soft-collinear effective theory sum rules on the light-cone,Phys. Rev. D 101(2020) 074035 [1907.11092]. – 26 –

2020 arXiv
[31]

Beneke, C

M. Beneke, C. Bobeth and Y.-M. Wang,B d,s →γℓ ¯ℓdecay with an energetic photon,JHEP 12(2020) 148 [2008.12494]

2020 arXiv
[32]

Li, C.-D

H.-D. Li, C.-D. L¨ u, C. Wang, Y.-M. Wang and Y.-B. Wei,QCD calculations of radiative heavy meson decays with subleading power corrections,JHEP04(2020) 023 [2002.03825]

2020 arXiv
[33]

J. Gao, T. Huber, Y. Ji, C. Wang, Y.-M. Wang and Y.-B. Wei,B→Dℓν ℓ form factors beyond leading power and extraction of|V cb|and R(D),JHEP05(2022) 024 [2112.12674]

2022 arXiv
[34]

Cui, Y.-K

B.-Y. Cui, Y.-K. Huang, Y.-L. Shen, C. Wang and Y.-M. Wang,Precision calculations of Bd,s →π, K decay form factors in soft-collinear effective theory,JHEP03(2023) 140 [2212.11624]

2023 arXiv
[35]

Huang, D.-H

Y.-K. Huang, D.-H. Li, C.-D. L¨ u, B.-X. Shi and H.-X. Yu,Next-to-Next-to-Leading-Order Corrections to theB→πForm Factors from Light-Cone Sum Rules,2512.18866
[36]

Di and Y.-H

F.-Z. Di and Y.-H. Liu,Next-to-leading-order QCD calculations of B→A form factors with higher-twist corrections,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 116003 [2504.13649]

2025
[37]

Gao, U.-G

J. Gao, U.-G. Meißner, Y.-L. Shen and D.-H. Li,Precision calculations of B→K* form factors from SCET sum rules beyond leading-power contributions,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 014032 [2412.13084]

2025 arXiv
[38]

Khodjamirian, B

A. Khodjamirian, B. Meli´ c and Y.-M. Wang,A guide to the QCD light-cone sum rules for b-quark decays,Eur. Phys. J. ST233(2024) 271 [2311.08700]

2024 arXiv
[39]

Beneke and V.A

M. Beneke and V.A. Smirnov,Asymptotic expansion of Feynman integrals near threshold, Nucl. Phys. B522(1998) 321 [hep-ph/9711391]

1998 arXiv
[40]

Wang,B to tensor meson form factors in the perturbative qcd approach,Physical Review D83(2011)

W. Wang,B to tensor meson form factors in the perturbative qcd approach,Physical Review D83(2011)

2011
[41]

P. Ball, V. Braun and N. Kivel,Photon distribution amplitudes in qcd,Nuclear Physics B 649(2003) 263–296

2003
[42]

Lepage and S.J

G.P. Lepage and S.J. Brodsky,Exclusive Processes in Quantum Chromodynamics: Evolution Equations for Hadronic Wave Functions and the Form-Factors of Mesons,Phys. Lett. B87 (1979) 359

1979
[43]

Shifman and M.I

M.A. Shifman and M.I. Vysotsky,FORM-F ACTORS OF HEA VY MESONS IN QCD,Nucl. Phys. B186(1981) 475

1981
[44]

Belitsky, D

A.V. Belitsky, D. Mueller and A. Freund,Reconstruction of nonforward evolution kernels, Phys. Lett. B461(1999) 270 [hep-ph/9904477]

1999 arXiv
[45]

Mikhailov and A.A

S.V. Mikhailov and A.A. Vladimirov,ERBL and DGLAP kernels for transversity distributions. Two-loop calculations in covariant gauge,Phys. Lett. B671(2009) 111 [0810.1647]

2009 arXiv
[46]

Belitsky, A

A.V. Belitsky, A. Freund and D. Mueller,NLO evolution kernels for skewed transversity distributions,Phys. Lett. B493(2000) 341 [hep-ph/0008005]

2000 arXiv
[47]

Wang and Y.-L

Y.-M. Wang and Y.-L. Shen,Subleading power corrections to the pion-photon transition form factor in qcd,Journal of High Energy Physics2017(2017) . [48]Particle Data Groupcollaboration,Review of Particle Physics,Chin. Phys. C38(2014) 090001. [49]Flavour Lattice A veraging Group...

2017 arXiv
[50]

Ball, V.M

P. Ball, V.M. Braun and N. Kivel,Photon distribution amplitudes in QCD,Nucl. Phys. B 649(2003) 263 [hep-ph/0207307]

2003 arXiv
[51]

Ball, V.M

P. Ball, V.M. Braun and A. Lenz,Higher-twist distribution amplitudes of the K meson in QCD,JHEP05(2006) 004 [hep-ph/0603063]

2006 arXiv
[52]

Aliev and M.A

T.M. Aliev and M.A. Shifman,Old Tensor Mesons in QCD Sum Rules,Phys. Lett. B112 (1982) 401

1982
[53]

Aliev and M.A

T.M. Aliev and M.A. Shifman,QCD SUM RULES AND TENSOR MESONS. (IN RUSSIAN),Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.36(1982) 891

1982
[54]

Cheng, C.-K

H.-Y. Cheng, C.-K. Chua and K.-C. Yang,Charmless hadronic B decays involving scalar mesons: Implications to the nature of light scalar mesons,Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 014017 [hep-ph/0508104]

2006 arXiv
[55]

Fleming, C

S. Fleming, C. Lee and A.K. Leibovich,Exclusive radiative decays of Upsilon in SCET,Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 074002 [hep-ph/0411180]

2005 arXiv
[56]

Schuler, F

G. Schuler, F. Berends and R. van Gulik,Meson-photon transition form factors and resonance cross-sections ine +e− collisions,Nuclear Physics B523(1998) 423–438. – 28 –

1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [3]

Cheng and K.-C

H.-Y. Cheng and K.-C. Yang,Charmless Hadronic B Decays into a Tensor Meson,Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 034001 [1010.3309]

arXiv 2011

[2] [4]

Kim, R.-H

C.S. Kim, R.-H. Li, F. Simanjuntak and Z.T. Zou,CharmlessB u,d,s →V Tdecays in perturbative QCD approach,Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 014031

work page 2013

[3] [5]

Two-parton Light-cone Distribution Amplitudes of Tensor Mesons

H.-Y. Cheng, Y. Koike and K.-C. Yang,Two-parton Light-cone Distribution Amplitudes of Tensor Mesons,Phys. Rev. D82(2010) 054019 [1007.3541]

work page Pith review arXiv 2010

[4] [6]

Hard Exclusive Production of Tensor Mesons

V.M. Braun and N. Kivel,Hard exclusive production of tensor mesons,Phys. Lett. B501 (2001) 48 [hep-ph/0012220]

work page Pith review arXiv 2001

[5] [7]

Electroproduction of tensor mesons in QCD

V.M. Braun, N. Kivel, M. Strohmaier and A.A. Vladimirov,Electroproduction of tensor mesons in QCD,JHEP06(2016) 039 [1603.09154]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016

[6] [8]

Giacosa, T

F. Giacosa, T. Gutsche, V.E. Lyubovitskij and A. Faessler,Decays of tensor mesons and the tensor glueball in an effective field approach,Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 114021 [hep-ph/0511171]

arXiv 2005

[7] [9]

Production of $f_2(1270)$ meson in $pp$ collisions at the LHC via gluon-gluon fusion in the $k_t$-factorization approach

P. Lebiedowicz and A. Szczurek,Production off 2(1270)meson inppcollisions at the LHC via gluon-gluon fusion in thek t-factorization approach,Phys. Lett. B810(2020) 135816 [2007.12485]. [10]Bellecollaboration,Evidence for large direct CP violation in B+- —>rho(770)0K+- from analysis of the three-body charmless B+- —>K+- pi+- pi-+ decay,Phys. Rev. Lett.96 (...

work page Pith review arXiv 2020

[8] [14]

Schuler, F.A

G.A. Schuler, F.A. Berends and R. van Gulik,Meson photon transition form-factors and resonance cross-sections in e+ e- collisions,Nucl. Phys. B523(1998) 423 [hep-ph/9710462]

arXiv 1998