Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Form factors and phenomenology of $\boldsymbol{B_{(s)}}$ and $\boldsymbol{D_{(s)}}$ semileptonic decays to $\boldsymbol{\eta}$ and $\boldsymbol{\eta^\prime}$

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Updated QCD sum-rule form factors for semileptonic B(s), D(s) decays to η and η′ make CKM extractions from these modes competitive with conventional semileptonic decays.

desk verdict A solid, reproducible LCSR update for B/D to eta/eta' form factors with useful pheno predictions, but the CKM precision claim is overstated and the near-unity p-values indicate the quoted errors are too large. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13734 v2 pith:FLU5ZUTU submitted 2025-07-18 hep-ph

Blaženka Melić , Méril Reboud This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords semileptonicdecaysformfactorslight-conesumruleseta-eta'mixingCKMmatrixelementsleptonflavouruniversalitybranchingratiossimplifiedseriesexpansion
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

This paper updates the light-cone sum-rule form factors for $B$, $B_s$, $D$, and $D_s$ transitions to the $\eta$ and $\eta'$ mesons, then extends them across the full $q^2$ range with a simplified series expansion. Combining these form factors with recent experimental measurements, it predicts branching ratios, lepton-flavour universality ratios, and forward-backward asymmetries, and extracts the CKM elements $|V_{ub}|$, $V_{cs}$, and $V_{cd}$. The central claim is that these modes now determine CKM elements with a precision comparable to more conventional semileptonic decays such as $B \to \pi \ell \nu$ and $D \to K \ell \nu$. A reader should care because $B \to \eta^{(\prime)}$ decays are used to model backgrounds in inclusive $|V_{ub}|$ extraction, so sharper form factors directly improve a standard input of the flavour programme.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the light-cone sum-rule form factors combined with the simplified series expansion $f(q^2) = \frac{1}{1 - q^2/m_R^2} \sum_n \alpha_n z(q^2)^n$, where $z(q^2)$ is the standard conformal variable. The $\eta$-$\eta'$ system is treated in the FKS single-angle scheme, which sets the two mixing angles equal to a single angle $\varphi = 39.3^\circ \pm 1.0^\circ$, with twist-2 quark and gluon distribution amplitudes expanded in Gegenbauer moments and the $U(1)_A$ anomaly entering through the higher-twist parameters $h_q$ and $h_s$. This setup produces the $q^2 = 0$ normalizations and the LCSR constraints used in a Bayesian fit over the eight series-expansion parameters; the Gaussian prior on $\varphi$ is the dominant source of uncertainty, alone contributing the largest error on the $D\to\eta$ form factor at zero momentum transfer.

What would settle it

A lattice-QCD calculation of the physical $D_s\to\eta$ and $D_s\to\eta'$ scalar form factors at $q^2 = 0$ that confirms the previously reported ratio $|f_0^{D_s\eta}(0)|/|f_0^{D_s\eta'}(0)| > 1$ would contradict the LCSR pattern used here; equivalently, a precise measurement of the $B_s\to\eta\ell\nu$ differential rate whose $q^2$ shape disagrees with the predicted series-expansion form factor beyond the quoted uncertainties would falsify the central extraction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the $B_{(s)}, D_{(s)} \to \eta^{(\prime)}$ form factors can now be determined precisely enough to make semileptonic decays to these mesons competitive with conventional exclusive modes. Using light-cone sum rules updated with lattice-QCD inputs for the $\eta$ and $\eta'$ parameters, decay constants, and distribution amplitudes, the authors obtain form factors at $q^2 = 0$ and extrapolate to the full kinematic range with a simplified series expansion. Combined fits to recent measurements yield $V_{cd} = 0.207^{+0.045}_{-0.035}$, $V_{cs} = 0.987^{+0.034}_{-0.033}$, and $|V_{ub}| = 2.92^{+0.80}_{-0.56} \times 10^{-3}$, in agreement with world averages. The predicted branching ratios, lepton-flavour universality ratios, and forward-backward asymmetries agree with experiment. The paper also concludes that the single-angle mixing scheme that dominates the form-factor uncertainty will not be usable for precision extraction of the $\eta$-$\eta'$ mixing angle in these decays.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the single-angle mixing scheme, with the angle fixed to $\varphi = 39.3^\circ \pm 1.0^\circ$, describes the $\eta$-$\eta'$ system well enough for all extracted quantities; the paper itself warns that this scheme will not be usable for precision in these decays.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The extracted CKM elements can now be included in global averages, since their uncertainties are comparable to those from $B\to\pi\ell\nu$, $D\to K\ell\nu$, and similar channels.
  • The predicted branching ratios for $B^-\to\eta \ell \bar{\nu}$ and related modes can serve as improved background models in inclusive $|V_{ub}|$ and $B\to X_u \ell \nu$ analyses.
  • The lepton-flavour universality ratios and forward-backward asymmetries provide theory references that current experimental data are consistent with.
  • The $B_s\to\eta\nu\bar{\nu}$ and $B_s\to\eta'\nu\bar{\nu}$ branching ratios, around $2.6\times 10^{-6}$ and $2.4\times 10^{-6}$, give a new rare-decay probe of penguin-sector new physics when combined with $B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-$.
  • Ratios of $\eta'$ to $\eta$ rates remain useful as effective mixing-angle indicators, but subleading twist and gluonic contributions break the simple $\tan\varphi$ behaviour, so the extracted angle is not a precision determination.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If these form factors are adopted in the exclusive sum used to subtract $B\to\eta^{(\prime)}$ backgrounds in inclusive $|V_{ub}|$ measurements, part of the inclusive-exclusive tension could shift; the paper does not quantify this.
  • A future lattice-QCD calculation of the physical $D_s\to\eta'$ scalar form factor at $q^2 = 0$ would provide a sharp test, since the existing single-lattice-spacing result implies a $D_s\to\eta/\eta'$ form-factor ratio larger than one, in tension with the LCSR pattern.
  • The same simplified series expansion can be extended to $B_s\to\eta^{(\prime)}\ell^+\ell^-$ once the nonlocal charm-loop contributions that the paper deliberately omits are included; the present form factors would then constrain the local part of those amplitudes.
  • Measuring the $q^2$ dependence of $B_s\to\eta\ell\nu$, where the strange-quark component dominates, would test whether the single-angle mixing scheme survives outside the low-$q^2$ region where the extrapolation uncertainty grows.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents an updated light-cone sum rule (LCSR) calculation of the B_(s), D_(s) → η, η′ form factors, fits them to a simplified series expansion over the full q² range, and then uses the resulting form factors to predict branching ratios, lepton-flavour universality ratios, forward-backward asymmetries, and to extract the CKM elements |V_ub|, V_cs, and V_cd from recent semileptonic data. It also compares the B_s → η_s form factors with a lattice calculation and discusses the η–η′ mixing angle. The numerical analysis is carried out with the EOS software, and the analysis code and results are made publicly available. The central quantitative claim, stated in the abstract and repeated in Section 5, is that the extracted CKM elements are becoming comparable in precision to those obtained from more conventional semileptonic decays.

Significance. If the results are correct, the updated form factors and the accompanying predictions provide a useful coherent set of inputs for background modelling in B → πℓν and inclusive B → X_u ℓν analyses, for lepton-flavour universality tests, and for future global CKM fits. The paper is commendable for releasing the analysis repository and for providing detailed covariance matrices of the form-factor fits. However, the claimed precision of the CKM extractions is not supported by the uncertainties reported in Table 2, and the dominant source of uncertainty in the D → η, η′ channels is an η–η′ mixing scheme that the paper itself, in Section 5, states will not be usable for precision. The phenomenological predictions for branching ratios and asymmetries may well be valuable, but the headline precision claim needs to be recalibrated or replaced by a concrete two-angle analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 5; Table 2; Eq. (3.14)] The claim that the extracted CKM elements are 'becoming comparable in precision' (abstract) or 'now competitive in precision' (Section 5) is contradicted by the uncertainties in Table 2. The reported values are V_cd = 0.207+0.045−0.035 (about 19%), |V_ub| = 2.92+0.80−0.56 ×10^-3 (about 23%), and V_cs = 0.987±0.034 (about 3.4%). Standard exclusive or inclusive determinations of these elements are typically at the few-percent level or better, so the comparison is not supported. Moreover, the dominant uncertainty in Eq. (3.14) is the h_q,φ entry, which contributes ±0.129 to f_{Dη}(0) = 0.380±0.130; this entry is propagated from the Gaussian prior on the single-angle FKS ansatz φ_q = φ_s = φ of Eqs. (2.5)–(2.6), which Section 5 concedes 'will not be usable for precision in these decays.' The precision claim should be removed or substantially recalibrated, or the authors should test a two-angle ansatz before making such a claim.
  2. [Section 3.2] The statement that 'All the fits have 3 degrees of freedom (11 LCSR constraints for 8 parameters) and show excellent p-values larger than 99.8%' is a strong indication that the quoted LCSR uncertainties are overestimated. With three degrees of freedom, p-values above 99.8% correspond to very small chi-square values, i.e. χ²/d.o.f. ≪ 1, which is implausible for a set of LCSR constraints with the stated systematic uncertainties. This inflates the apparent agreement between theory and data and means that the phenomenological fits have less constraining power than claimed. The authors should provide diagnostics for the effective chi-square, re-examine the correlation structure or the widths of the systematic uncertainties, and discuss how the overestimated errors affect the extracted CKM uncertainties.
  3. [Section 3.3; Fig. 3] The 'very good' agreement with the lattice B_s → η_s results of Ref. [17] is a weak test because the LCSR extrapolated values at q²_max carry very large uncertainties: f^+ = 2.5±1.3 and f^0 = 1.1±1.0, compared with the lattice values 2.58(28) and 0.808(15)(27). The two results are consistent but the comparison is not discriminating at large q². At q² = 0 the comparison (0.339±0.025 versus 0.296(25)) is more informative, but the paper should state explicitly that the large-q² comparison is limited by the LCSR extrapolation uncertainty and should not be presented as a precise validation of the form factors.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, after Eq. (4.11)] The agreement between the experimental mixing angle of Eq. (4.11) and the FKS input of Eq. (2.6) is presented as a validation, but it is partly circular because the same FKS scheme is used as an input to the calculation. The authors should state that this is a consistency check within the FKS scheme rather than an independent confirmation of the single-angle ansatz.
  2. [Section 3.2, last paragraph] The text says 'The posterior distributions are provided in section D,' but Section D actually provides only the means and covariance matrices of a multivariate normal approximation. Please rephrase to 'summarized in Section D' or 'the parameters of the multinormal approximation are listed in Section D.'
  3. [Table captions throughout] Several table captions in the compiled manuscript read 'T able 1', 'T able 2', etc. These formatting errors should be corrected before publication.
  4. [Section 4.2, Eq. (4.9) and following text] The discussion of the mixing-angle extraction is self-contradictory: the text says the ratios are 'suitable for the extraction of the mixing parameters', but a few sentences later states the method 'can only be used as an indication of the general behaviour, but not as a method for a precise extraction of the φ angle.' Please clarify which of these two conclusions is intended for the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: form-factor and CKM derivations are self-contained.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The LCSR form-factor expressions and their numerical inputs are taken from established QCD sum-rule technology and lattice QCD results (Refs. [9], [10], [23], [43], [44]); they do not incorporate the experimental branching-fraction data used later to extract CKM elements. The CKM fits in Table 2 combine these independently constructed form factors with external semileptonic measurements, so the extracted Vcd, Vcs, and |Vub| are not fitted inputs renamed as predictions. Branching-ratio, LFU, and forward-backward-asymmetry predictions are compared with, not fitted to, the experimental data. The FKS single-angle phi is used as a Gaussian prior (Table 1), but the paper explicitly declines to claim a precise extraction of phi in Section 4.2 ('can only be used as an indication of the general behaviour, but not as a method for a precise extraction of the phi angle'), so the consistency check against the BESIII value is not an output smuggled from an input. Self-citations to Refs. [7] and [9] are methodological (analysis setup and LCSR expressions), not uniqueness theorems or answer-shaping inputs. The paper even provides an external lattice comparison for the unphysical Bs->eta_s form factors in Section 3.3, further anchoring the results independently of the paper's own parameter choices.

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

The analysis rests on the established LCSR formalism, on external lattice and phenomenological values for eta-eta' parameters, and on truncation choices (twist-4, N=2 SSE). No new entities are introduced; the free parameters are the fit parameters and prior inputs of the Bayesian analysis.

free parameters (5)
  • SSE coefficients alpha_n = Tables 4 to 11
    Coefficients of the z-expansion fitted to LCSR constraints, 8 parameters per form factor; part of the q^2 extrapolation.
  • b_2^g (gluonic DA moment) = Gaussian prior 0 +/- 20
    Unknown Gegenbauer moment of the gluon DA, varied in the fit; prior from Ref [31].
  • a_2^pi, a_4^pi = 0.17 +/- 0.08, 0.06 +/- 0.10
    Pion Gegenbauer moments assumed equal to the eta and eta' light-quark DA moments (Eq. 2.14); from Ref [43], varied in the fit.
  • Mixing angle phi and decay constants f_q, f_s = 39.3 +/- 1.0 deg, f_q = (1.07 +/- 0.02) f_pi, f_s = (1.34 +/- 0.06) f_pi
    FKS single-angle parameters from Ref [19]; dominant source of uncertainty for D to eta form factors, Eq. (3.14).
  • Borel mass M^2 and threshold s_0 = uniform priors, see Table 1
    LCSR auxiliary parameters varied; s_0 slope s_0' in [0, 0.2] accounts for threshold systematics.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LCSR factorization and twist expansion up to twist-4 at LO and NLO
    Form factors computed via Eqs. (3.4) to (3.6) using the framework of Ref [9]; relies on the validity of the light-cone expansion for these transitions.
  • domain assumption Single-angle FKS ansatz phi_q = phi_s (Eq. 2.5)
    Default description of eta-eta' mixing; the paper states in Section 5 that the scheme will not be usable for precision in these decays.
  • ad hoc to paper SSE truncation at N=2 reproduces the extrapolation uncertainty
    Section 3.2 adopts N=2 for all form factors after a qualitative check against the SE method; a more detailed analysis is deferred to future work.
  • domain assumption Neglect of eta-glueball and pion mixing
    Based on the lattice result of Ref [25]; stated in Section 2 as negligible for the properties considered here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Form factors and phenomenology of $\boldsymbol{B_{(s)}}$ and $\boldsymbol{D_{(s)}}$ semileptonic decays to $\boldsymbol{\eta}$ and $\boldsymbol{\eta^\prime}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FLU5ZUTU

@misc{pith2026250713734,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Form factors and phenomenology of $\boldsymbolB_(s)$ and $\boldsymbolD_(s)$ semileptonic decays to $\boldsymbol\eta$ and $\boldsymbol\eta^\prime$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FLU5ZUTU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13734}
}
abstract

Motivated by more precise recent measurements of the $B \to \eta \ell \nu$ and $D_{(s)} \to \eta^{(\prime)}\ell \nu$ decays, we employ state-of-the-art parametrizations to describe the $B_{(s)}, D_{(s)} \to \eta^{(\prime)}$ form factors across the full $q^2$ range, fitting them to the latest light-cone sum rule results. Using these results, we compute the branching ratios for all relevant decays and compare them with experimental data, finding good agreement. Additionally, we examine the validity and precision of the extracted $\eta$-$\eta'$ mixing angle in the context of heavy meson decays. By combining our predictions for the $B, D, D_s \to \eta^{(\prime)}$ form factors with recent semileptonic decay measurements, we extract the CKM elements $|V_{ub}|$, $V_{cs}$, and $V_{cd}$. We also provide tests of the lepton flavour universality in the $B, D, D_s \to \eta^{(\prime)} \ell \nu$ decays and present results for the forward-backwards asymmetries in these decays. Our findings indicate that the extracted values are becoming comparable in precision to those obtained from more conventional semileptonic decay analyses.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    W. G. Parrott, C. Bouchard, C. T. H. Davies and D. Hatton,Toward accurate form factors forB-to-light meson decay from lattice QCD,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 094506, [2010.07980]

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Neubert,QCD based interpretation of the lepton spectrum in inclusive ¯B→X ul¯νdecays, Phys

    M. Neubert,QCD based interpretation of the lepton spectrum in inclusive ¯B→X ul¯νdecays, Phys. Rev. D49(1994) 3392–3398, [hep-ph/9311325]

    arXiv 1994

  3. [3]

    Beneke and M

    M. Beneke and M. Neubert,QCD factorization forB→P PandB→P Vdecays,Nucl. – 22 – α+0 α+1 α+2 α01 α02 αT0 αT1 αT2 0.14±0.05−0.43±0.21 0.55±2.88 0.08±0.14 0.20±2.99 0.16±0.05−0.49±0.25 0.78±3.43 1.0000−0.7632 0.0032 0.1051−0.0726 0.9859−0.6815 0.0635 1.0000−0.4271 0.1589−0.0261−0.7762 0.6958−0.0784 1.0000−0.1478 0.4260 0.0513−0.0769 0.0432 1.0000−0.4333 0.046...

    arXiv 2003

  4. [4]

    Nonleptonic $B_s$ to charmonium decays: analyses in pursuit of determining the weak phase $\beta_s$

    P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio and W. Wang,NonleptonicB s to charmonium decays: analyses in pursuit of determining the weak phaseβ s,Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 094027, [1009.4612]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    Exploring CP Violation and $\eta$-$\eta'$ Mixing with the $B^0_{s,d} \to J/\psi \eta^{(\prime)}$ Systems

    R. Fleischer, R. Knegjens and G. Ricciardi,Exploring CP Violation andη-η ′ Mixing with the B0 s,d →J/ψη (′) Systems,Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011) 1798, [1110.5490]. – 23 – α+0 α+1 α+2 α01 α02 αT0 αT1 αT2 0.38±0.13−0.51±0.48−1.21±17.52 0.18±0.49−0.24±16.54 0.38±0.13−0.67±0.53−1.98±19.34 1.0000−0.2108−0.1158 0.2648−0.0943 0.9917−0.2848−0.0783 1.0000−0.6087 0.0520...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  6. [7]

    Leljak, B

    D. Leljak, B. Meli´ c and D. van Dyk,The B→πform factors from QCD and their impact on|V ub|,JHEP07(2021) 036, [2102.07233]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [8]

    Bolognani, D

    C. Bolognani, D. van Dyk and K. K. Vos,New determination of|V ub/Vcb|from B0 s → {K−, D− s }µ+ν,JHEP11(2023) 082, [2308.04347]. – 24 – α+0 α+1 α+2 α01 α02 αT0 αT1 αT2 0.50±0.05−0.72±0.92−10.99±44.85 0.43±1.02−11.03±49.49 0.58±0.06−0.17±1.29−28.07±58.38 1.0000−0.0884−0.1844 0.4339−0.4366 0.9033 0.1276−0.1005 1.0000−0.6888 0.0768−0.1259−0.1676 0.1432−0.0273...

    arXiv 2023

  8. [9]

    Duplancic and B

    G. Duplancic and B. Melic,Form factors of B, B s →η (′) and D, D s →η (′) transitions from QCD light-cone sum rules,JHEP11(2015) 138, [1508.05287]. [10]RQCDcollaboration, G. S. Bali, V. Braun, S. Collins, A. Sch¨ afer and J. Simeth,Masses and decay constants of theηandη’ mesons from lattice QCD,JHEP08(2021) 137, [2106.05398]. [11]CSSM/QCDSF/UKQCDcollabora...

    arXiv 2015

Show all 55 references
  1. [13]

    C. G. Boyd, B. Grinstein and R. F. Lebed,Constraints on form-factors for exclusive semileptonic heavy to light meson decays,Phys. Rev. Lett.74(1995) 4603–4606, [hep-ph/9412324]

    1995 arXiv

  2. [14]

    Bharucha, T

    A. Bharucha, T. Feldmann and M. Wick,Theoretical and Phenomenological Constraints on Form Factors for Radiative and Semi-Leptonic B-Meson Decays,JHEP09(2010) 090, [1004.3249]. [15]EOS Authorscollaboration, D. van Dyk et al.,EOS: a software for flavor physics phenomenology,Eur....

    2010 arXiv

  3. [16]

    van Dyk, M

    D. van Dyk, M. Reboud, M. Kirk, N. Gubernari, P. L¨ ughausen, D. Leljak et al.,EOS version 1.0.17, May, 2025. 10.5281/zenodo.17060834

    2025 doi

  4. [18]

    S. D. Bass and P. Moskal,η ′ andηmesons with connection to anomalous glue,Rev. Mod. Phys.91(2019) 015003, [1810.12290]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [19]

    Feldmann, P

    T. Feldmann, P. Kroll and B. Stech,Mixing and decay constants of pseudoscalar mesons, Phys. Rev. D58(1998) 114006, [hep-ph/9802409]

    1998 arXiv

  6. [20]

    Feldmann,Quark structure of pseudoscalar mesons,Int

    T. Feldmann,Quark structure of pseudoscalar mesons,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A15(2000) 159–207, [hep-ph/9907491]

    2000 arXiv

  7. [21]

    G. S. Bali, V. M. Braun, B. Gl¨ aßle, M. G¨ ockeler, M. Gruber, F. Hutzler et al.,Pion – 25 – distribution amplitude from Euclidean correlation functions: Exploring universality and higher-twist effects,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 094507, [1807.06671]. [22]ETMcollaboration, K. Ottnad...

    2018 arXiv

  8. [23]

    Ottnad, S

    K. Ottnad, S. Bacchio, J. Finkenrath, B. Kostrzewa, M. Petschlies, F. Pittler et al.,η,η ′ mesons from lattice QCD in fully physical conditions,2503.09895

    arXiv

  9. [24]

    Bennett, N

    E. Bennett, N. Forzano, D. K. Hong, H. Hsiao, J.-W. Lee, C. J. D. Lin et al.,Mixing between flavor singlets in lattice gauge theories coupled to matter fields in multiple representations, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 074504, [2405.05765]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [25]

    Jiang, W

    X. Jiang, W. Sun, F. Chen, Y. Chen, M. Gong, Z. Liu et al.,η-glueball mixing from Nf=2 lattice QCD,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 094510, [2205.12541]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [26]

    Zhang, X.-G

    Y.-J. Zhang, X.-G. Wu, D.-D. Hu and L. Zeng,Theη-η ′ mixing and its application in the B+/D+/D+ s →η (′)ℓ+νℓ decays,2506.13214

  12. [27]

    V. N. Baier and A. G. Grozin,Meson Wave Functions With Two Gluon States,Nucl. Phys. B192(1981) 476–488

    1981

  13. [28]

    M. A. Shifman and M. I. Vysotsky,Form-factors of heavy mesons in QCD,Nucl. Phys. B 186(1981) 475–518. [29]RQCDcollaboration, G. S. Bali, V. M. Braun, S. B¨ urger, M. G¨ ockeler, M. Gruber, F. Hutzler et al.,Light-cone distribution amplitudes of pseudoscalar mesons from lattice...

    1981 arXiv

  14. [30]

    Kroll and K

    P. Kroll and K. Passek-Kumericki,The Two gluon components of the eta and eta-prime mesons to leading twist accuracy,Phys. Rev. D67(2003) 054017, [hep-ph/0210045]

    2003 arXiv

  15. [31]

    Ball and G

    P. Ball and G. W. Jones,B→η (′) Form Factors in QCD,JHEP08(2007) 025, [0706.3628]

    2007 arXiv

  16. [32]

    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

  17. [33]

    Melic, B

    B. Melic, B. Nizic and K. Passek,A Note on the factorization scale independence of the PQCD predictions for exclusive processes,Eur. Phys. J. C36(2004) 453–458, [hep-ph/0107311]

    2004 arXiv

  18. [34]

    F. A. C. Porkert,Meson distribution amplitudes, Ph.D. thesis, Regensburg U., 2019

    2019

  19. [35]

    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

  20. [36]

    Beneke and M

    M. Beneke and M. Neubert,Flavor singlet B decay amplitudes in QCD factorization,Nucl. Phys. B651(2003) 225–248, [hep-ph/0210085]

    2003 arXiv

  21. [37]

    Offen, F

    N. Offen, F. A. Porkert and A. Sch¨ afer,Light-cone sum rules for theD (s) →η (′)lνl form factor,Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 034023, [1307.2797]

    2013 arXiv

  22. [38]

    Duplancic, A

    G. Duplancic, A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel, B. Melic and N. Offen,Light-cone sum rules for B→πform factors revisited,JHEP04(2008) 014, [0801.1796]

    2008 arXiv

  23. [39]

    Duplancic and B

    G. Duplancic and B. Melic,B, B s →Kform factors: An Update of light-cone sum rule results,Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 054015, [0805.4170]

    2008 arXiv

  24. [40]

    Gonz` alez-Sol ´ ıs and P

    S. Gonz` alez-Sol ´ ıs and P. Masjuan,Study ofB→πℓνℓ andB + →η (′)ℓ+νℓ decays and determination of|V ub|,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 034027, [1805.11262]. – 26 –

    2018 arXiv

  25. [41]

    Bolognani, U

    C. Bolognani, U. Nierste, S. Schacht and K. K. Vos,Anatomy of non-leptonic two-body decays of charmed mesons into final states withη’,JHEP05(2025) 148, [2410.08138]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [42]

    Jamin and B

    M. Jamin and B. O. Lange,f(B) and f(B(s)) from QCD sum rules,Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 056005, [hep-ph/0108135]

    2002 arXiv

  27. [43]

    Khodjamirian, T

    A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel, N. Offen and Y. M. Wang,B→πℓν l Width and|V ub|from QCD Light-Cone Sum Rules,Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 094031, [1103.2655]. [44]Flavour Lattice A veraging Group (FLAG)collaboration, Y. Aoki et al.,FLAG Review 2024,2411.04268. [45]BESIIIcollaboration, M. ...

    2011 arXiv

  28. [48]

    Hu, H.-B

    D.-D. Hu, H.-B. Fu, T. Zhong, L. Zeng, W. Cheng and X.-G. Wu,η (′)-meson twist-2 distribution amplitude within QCD sum rule approach and its application to the semi-leptonic decayD + s →η (′)ℓ+νℓ,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 12, [2102.05293]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [49]

    Hu, X.-G

    D.-D. Hu, X.-G. Wu, H.-B. Fu, T. Zhong, Z.-H. Wu and L. Zeng,Properties of theη q leading-twist distribution amplitude and its effects to theB/D + →η (′)ℓ+νℓ decays,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 15, [2307.04640]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [50]

    G. S. Bali, S. Collins, S. D¨ urr and I. Kanamori,D s →η, η′ semileptonic decay form factors with disconnected quark loop contributions,Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 014503, [1406.5449]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [51]

    Wei, H.-W

    Z.-T. Wei, H.-W. Ke and X.-F. Yang,Interpretation of the ’f(D(s)) puzzle’ in SM and beyond,Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 015022, [0905.3069]

    2009 arXiv

  32. [52]

    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 D s mesons in the covariant confining quark model, Front. Phys. (Beijing)14(2019) 64401, [1904.07740]. [53]BESIIIcollaboration, M. Ablikim et al.,Precis...

    2019 arXiv

  33. [54]

    Gubernari, M

    N. Gubernari, M. Reboud, D. van Dyk and J. Virto,Dispersive analysis ofB→K (∗) and Bs →ϕform factors,JHEP12(2023) 153, [2305.06301]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [55]

    Meli´ c and M

    B. Meli´ c and M. Reboud,EOS/DATA-2025-04: Supplementary material for EOS/ANALYSIS-2025-02, Apr., 2025. 10.5281/zenodo.17045425

    2025 doi

  35. [56]

    C. M. Bouchard, G. P. Lepage, C. Monahan, H. Na and J. Shigemitsu,B s →Kℓνform factors from lattice QCD,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 054506, [1406.2279]

    2014 arXiv

  36. [57]

    R. J. Dowdall, C. T. H. Davies, G. P. Lepage and C. McNeile,V us fromπandKdecay constants in full lattice QCD with physicalu, d, sandcquarks,Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 074504, [1303.1670]

    2013 arXiv

  37. [58]

    Khodjamirian, T

    A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel, A. A. Pivovarov and Y. M. Wang,Charm-loop effect in B→K (∗)ℓ+ℓ− andB→K ∗γ,JHEP09(2010) 089, [1006.4945]. – 27 –

    2010 arXiv

  38. [59]

    Gubernari, M

    N. Gubernari, M. Reboud, D. van Dyk and J. Virto,Improved theory predictions and global analysis of exclusiveb→sµ +µ− processes,JHEP09(2022) 133, [2206.03797]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [60]

    M. V. Carlucci, P. Colangelo and F. De Fazio,Rare B(s) decays to eta and eta-prime final states,Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 055023, [0907.2160]

    2009 arXiv

  40. [61]

    Azizi, R

    K. Azizi, R. Khosravi and F. Falahati,Rare SemileptonicB s Decays toηandη ′ mesons in QCD,Phys. Rev. D82(2010) 116001, [1008.3175]

    2010 arXiv

  41. [62]

    Choi,Exclusive RareB s →(K, η, η′)ℓ+ℓ− Decays in the Light-Front Quark Model,J

    H.-M. Choi,Exclusive RareB s →(K, η, η′)ℓ+ℓ− Decays in the Light-Front Quark Model,J. Phys. G37(2010) 085005, [1002.0721]

    2010 arXiv

  42. [63]

    R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin,RareB s decays in the relativistic quark model,Eur. Phys. J. C73(2013) 2593, [1309.2160]. [64]Particle Data Groupcollaboration, S. Navas et al.,Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 030001. [65]CKMfitter Groupcollaboration, J. Charles,...

    2013 arXiv

  43. [69]

    Carrasco et al.,Leptonic decay constantsf K, fD,andf Ds withN f = 2 + 1 + 1 twisted-mass lattice QCD,Phys

    N. Carrasco et al.,Leptonic decay constantsf K, fD,andf Ds withN f = 2 + 1 + 1 twisted-mass lattice QCD,Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 054507, [1411.7908]

    2015 arXiv

  44. [70]

    Bazavov et al.,B- andD-meson leptonic decay constants from four-flavor lattice QCD, Phys

    A. Bazavov et al.,B- andD-meson leptonic decay constants from four-flavor lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 074512, [1712.09262]. [71]ETMcollaboration, A. Bussone et al.,Mass of the b quark and B -meson decay constants from Nf =2+1+1 twisted-mass lattice QCD,Phys. Rev. D93(201...

    2018 arXiv

  45. [73]

    Hughes, C

    C. Hughes, C. T. H. Davies and C. J. Monahan,New methods for B meson decay constants and form factors from lattice NRQCD,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 054509, [1711.09981]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [74]

    C. B. Lang, D. Mohler, S. Prelovsek and R. M. Woloshyn,Predicting positive parity B s mesons from lattice QCD,Phys. Lett. B750(2015) 17–21, [1501.01646]. [75]BESIIIcollaboration, M. Ablikim et al.,Search for the rare decaysD→h(h ′)e+e−,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 072015, [1802.09752]...

    2015 arXiv

  47. [79]

    D’Agostini,On the use of the covariance matrix to fit correlated data,Nucl

    G. D’Agostini,On the use of the covariance matrix to fit correlated data,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A346(1994) 306–311. [80]CLEOcollaboration, J. Yelton et al.,Studies ofD + →η ′, η, ϕe+νe,Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 032001, [1011.1195]. [81]BESIIIcollaboration, M. Ablikim,First Observatio...

    1994 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.