Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 65 references

Including both baryon parities in QCD sum rules removes form-factor ambiguity and yields nearly SU(3)-symmetric heavy-baryon decay widths.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 04:39 UTC pith:QWJOI4VZ

load-bearing objection A serious QCD sum-rule calculation with an honest caveat: the headline Dirac-structure independence rests on an unvalidated four-pole ansatz, but the predictions are testable and the paper deserves refereeing. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.04311 v5 pith:QWJOI4VZ submitted 2026-02-04 hep-ph

Analysis of the semileptonic decays Sigma_btoSigma_clbar{ν}_l, Xi'_btoXi'_clbar{ν}_l and Ω_btoΩ_clbar{ν}_l in QCD sum rules

Jie Lu , Guo-Liang Yu , Dian-Yong Chen , Zhi-Gang Wang , Bin Wu This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 12.38.Lg13.30.Ce14.20.Mr
keywords QCD sum rulessemileptonic decaysheavy baryonsbottom baryonstransition form factorsnegative-parity baryonsSU(3) flavor symmetrylepton universality
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper sets out to show that three-point QCD sum rules—a non-perturbative method that matches quark-level correlation functions to hadronic states—give stable, Dirac-structure-independent form factors for the b→c semileptonic transitions Σ_b→Σ_c, Ξ'_b→Ξ'_c, and Ω_b→Ω_c only when the interpolating currents are coupled to both positive- and negative-parity baryon states. With this addition, the extracted vector and axial-vector form factors are the same for all twenty-four Dirac structures, and the computed decay widths of the three channels differ by only 1-10%, approximately obeying SU(3) flavor symmetry. This matters because earlier three-point sum-rule analyses that kept only ground-state positive-parity baryons produced form factors that depended strongly on the chosen Dirac structure and predicted large SU(3) breaking; the paper argues those results are artifacts. It also provides concrete predictions—partial widths, branching fractions for Ω_b→Ω_c l ν_l, lepton-universality ratios near 0.30, and asymmetry parameters—for future experiments to test.

Core claim

The central claim is that the phenomenological side of the three-point correlation function for Σ_b→Σ_c, Ξ'_b→Ξ'_c, and Ω_b→Ω_c must include both JP=1/2+ ground states and their lowest JP=1/2− partners. Doing so introduces twenty-four unknown form factors matched to twenty-four independent Dirac structures, and solving that linear system yields form factors F1, F2, F3, G1, G2, G3 that are independent of the Dirac structure used to extract them. Using these form factors, the paper finds total semileptonic widths near 11, 10.5, and 9.8×10^−15 GeV for the electron channels of the three decays, with tau modes about three times smaller; the SU(3) breaking relative to exact symmetry is 1-10%. The

What carries the argument

The machinery is the three-point correlation function of the initial-baryon current, the electroweak current, and the final-baryon current, analyzed by double Borel transformation and quark-hadron duality. The decisive step is the phenomenological side: the interpolating current couples to both positive- and negative-parity baryons, giving four pole terms and twenty-four form factors; matching these to the twenty-four Dirac structures of the QCD side and solving the linear equations removes the Dirac-structure ambiguity. On the QCD side, the operator product expansion includes perturbative and vacuum-condensate terms up to dimension 8, with spectral densities obtained by Cutkosky rules.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the hadronic side is fully captured by four states—the positive-parity ground baryon and its lowest negative-parity partner for both the initial and final baryon—with all higher resonances and continuum handled by quark-hadron duality; in the Borel window used, the s-channel ground-state contribution is only about 40% for F1, so this saturation is the load-bearing premise.

What would settle it

Add the next positive-parity excited states to the hadronic side and check whether F1 at Q^2=1 GeV^2 moves by more than the quoted ~10% uncertainty—the s-channel pole contribution is only about 40%, so this is a sharp test. Alternatively, measure the width ratio Γ(Ω_b→Ω_c e ν_e)/Γ(Ξ'_b→Ξ'_c e ν_e): the paper predicts about 0.93, whereas the earlier analyses it criticises predict about 2, so a measurement near 2 would refute the central claim.

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

If this is right

  • The semileptonic widths of Σ_b, Ξ'_b, and Ω_b decays are predicted to be nearly equal (within 1-10%), so a future measurement of any two channels tests SU(3) flavor symmetry directly.
  • Ω_b→Ω_c e ν_e has a predicted branching fraction of about 2.4%, and Ω_b→Ω_c τ ν_τ about 0.75%, values close to several quark-model estimates and suitable for comparison with future data.
  • The lepton-universality ratios R for all three decays come out near 0.30, providing a baseline for new-physics searches in tau-vs-electron channels.
  • If the method is correct, previous three-point sum-rule form factors for heavy-baryon transitions that omitted negative-parity states need to be recomputed; their Dirac-structure spread was a symptom of an incomplete hadronic side.
  • The asymmetry parameters A_FB and α are predicted with definite q^2 dependence, so their measured mean values provide a cross-check of the form-factor set.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the four-state truncation is the real reason the ambiguity disappears, applying the same prescription to other three-point sum-rule calculations should also remove their Dirac-structure dependence; that is a testable methodological corollary the paper does not work out.
  • The near-zero values of G1 and G2 at Q^2 ≈ 1 GeV^2 arise from a near cancellation between the perturbative term and the four-quark condensate, so a reader should expect those axial form factors to be the least stable output—even though the paper shows the widths are insensitive to setting them to zero.
  • A clean experimental discriminator is the ratio Γ(Ω_b→Ω_c e ν_e)/Γ(Ξ'_b→Ξ'_c e ν_e): the paper predicts roughly 0.93, whereas the earlier analyses it criticises predicted about 2; a measurement near 2 would refute the mild-SU(3)-breaking picture.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes the b→c semileptonic transition form factors for the sextet baryon decays Σ_b→Σ_c, Ξ'_b→Ξ'_c and Ω_b→Ω_c in three-point QCD sum rules. The phenomenological side includes, in addition to the ground-state positive-parity baryons, their lowest negative-parity partners; the QCD side includes the perturbative contribution and vacuum condensates up to dimension 8. The twenty-four independent Dirac structures are matched to obtain the positive-to-positive form factors F_{1,2,3} and G_{1,2,3}, which are then extrapolated from the space-like region to the physical q^2 region using a z-series expansion. From these form factors the authors derive partial widths, branching ratios, lepton-universality ratios and asymmetry parameters for the three decay channels. The central claims are that the inclusion of both parities systematically eliminates the Dirac-structure dependence of the extracted form factors, that the resulting SU(3) flavor symmetry breaking is small (about 1–10%), and that previous QCDSR studies [4,5] are unreliable because they omitted negative-parity states.

Significance. If the derivation is sound, the paper would be a useful step toward a Dirac-structure-independent QCD sum-rule determination of heavy-baryon semileptonic form factors, and its predictions for Ω_b→Ω_c branching ratios would provide a benchmark for future LHCb measurements. The inclusion of condensates up to dimension 8 and the explicit comparison with quark-model and other QCDSR results are positive features. However, the central methodological claim is not demonstrated: the paper does not display or analyze the 24×24 linear system, the spectral densities are delegated to previous papers, and the paper's own numerical output contains strong signatures of an ill-conditioned inversion (huge z-series coefficients, strong Borel dependence of G_1 and G_2, a marginal 40% s-channel pole contribution). The SU(3) breaking claim is also not established at the stated precision, since no uncertainties are propagated into Table VII and the central deviations range up to 13.4%, outside the abstract's 1–10% range. The paper provides no machine-checked algebra or reproducible numerical code, which further limits independent verification.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III.A, Eqs. (12), (31)–(32)] The central claim that including positive- and negative-parity pole terms 'systematically eliminates' Dirac-structure dependence is not demonstrated. The paper does not show the 24×24 linear system or discuss its rank, determinant, or condition number; it only presents the final inversions for F_i and G_i. The underlying spectral densities ρ_i^QCD are delegated to Refs. [7,8,55], so the reader cannot check the inversion. If the system is near-singular, the apparent Dirac-structure independence could be an artifact of the four-pole truncation. The authors should provide the full system, a conditioning/stability analysis, and a study of the dependence on the number of retained poles.
  2. [§IV, Fig. 3 and Tables IV/XI] The numerical output itself signals an unstable extraction. The paper admits that G_1 and G_2 have strong T^2 dependence because of cancellations between the perturbative and four-quark-condensate terms. More seriously, the z-series fit for the lower bound of Ω_b G_2 (Table XI) returns F(0)=3.18×10^-9, a=-1.25×10^9, and b=4.55, which is not a physically meaningful expansion. Huge coefficients also appear in Table IV (e.g., a=-15.5, b=87.2 for Ξ'_b F_1). The extrapolation to q^2_max is therefore uncontrolled, and the claimed reliability of the form factors—and of the widths derived from them—is not established.
  3. [§IV, Fig. 3(a) and Table II] The four-pole ansatz relies on ground-state dominance, but for Σ_b→Σ_c F_1 the s-channel pole contribution is only about 40% in the adopted Borel window. This is marginal. The thresholds s_0 and u_0 are taken from two-point sum rules [2], and the Σ_b and Σ_c pole residues are rescaled by √2 in Table II footnote (a) because the quark compositions differ from Ref. [2]; no independent derivation of this rescaling is given. The paper should quantify the sensitivity of the form factors and widths to the threshold choices and to the pole-residue modification.
  4. [Table VII and Abstract] The claimed 'slight breaking' of SU(3) flavor symmetry is not supported by the stated uncertainties. Table VII reports deviations of 2.65% to 13.37%, with the Ω_b e/μ channels at 13.3%, outside the abstract's '1–10%' range. The widths in Table VI have large, overlapping errors, so the central values are statistically consistent with unbroken SU(3). The conclusion should be restated with proper error propagation and a significance test, not just central-value ratios.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §IV] The abstract and §V state that the Dirac-structure dependence is 'systematically eliminated', but §IV concedes that G_1 and G_2 have strong Borel-parameter dependence and are numerically unstable. The wording should be moderated to reflect the actual demonstrated behavior.
  2. [Table II, footnote a] The √2 rescaling of the Σ_b and Σ_c pole residues should be explained in the main text; currently the footnote is the only justification for a parameter that directly affects the form-factor normalization.
  3. [Introduction] Typographical and language issues include 'perturbative filed theory', 'Dramatically', 'the asymmetric parameter', and 'LargeN_c expand approach'. A careful proofread is needed.
  4. [§III.B, Eqs. (23)–(26)] The spectral densities ρ_i^QCD are central to the sum rules but are not presented; they are only said to be obtained as in Refs. [7,8,55]. For a self-contained publication, the authors should include at least the representative expressions or provide them as supplementary material.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No exhibited circular reduction; central QCDSR derivation is independent, though it leans on self-cited prior inputs and methods.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain: the phenomenological side (Sec. III.A, Eq. (12)) and QCD side (Sec. III.B, Eqs. (17)-(24)) are independently constructed; the 24 invariant amplitudes are matched to produce the sum rules for F_i and G_i (Eqs. (31)-(32)); the form factors are then converted to helicity amplitudes and widths (Secs. II, IV). No displayed equation equates a target form factor or width to an input by construction. The pole residues and thresholds taken from Ref. [2] and the spectral-density methods taken from Refs. [7,8,55] are prior QCDSR inputs, not fits to the target widths. The central SU(3)-breaking claim is also compared with external calculations (LFQM, Refs. [4,5]) and with the PDG lifetime for branching ratios, so it is not a renamed input. The ad hoc sqrt(2) rescaling of the Sigma residues (Table II) and the four-pole truncation in Eq. (12) are modeling choices; the strong T^2 dependence of G1/G2 and the large z-series coefficients indicate fragility, and the 24x24 inversion is not conditioned, but these are correctness/reproducibility concerns, not circular reductions. I therefore find no significant circularity; the score of 2 reflects the paper's heavy but non-circular reliance on self-cited prior calculations and input parameters.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles or interactions are introduced. The central result rests on standard QCDSR assumptions (duality, Borel suppression) and on one paper-specific modeling choice: the claim that the full phenomenological side is captured by the 1/2+ and 1/2− doublet for each baryon. The paper introduces two types of unforced numerical choices: the Borel windows and the z-series fit parameters, plus an ad hoc √2 rescaling of pole residues.

free parameters (4)
  • Borel window T² = 23–25, 24–26, 25–27 GeV² for Σ_b, Ξ'_b, Ω_b transitions
    Chosen by hand so that the s-channel pole contribution ≈ 40% and the OPE converges; the paper states the platforms were determined 'after repeated trials' (Sec. IV).
  • z-series coefficients a, b (and F(0), G(0)) = e.g., F1(Σ_b): a=-10.45, b=53.62; G2(Ω_b) central: a=-1.35×10³, b=7.79×10³; lower-bound G2(Ω_b): a=-1.25×10⁹
    Fitted to the five computed space-like points Q²=1–5 GeV², without using the pointwise errors, and used to extrapolate to the time-like region (Sec. IV, Eqs. (36)–(38)).
  • √2 rescaling of Σ_b/Σ_c pole residues = √2 × λ from Ref. [2]
    Footnote in Table II: introduced because the quark compositions for Σ_b and Σ_c in the present work differ from those in Ref. [2]; this is an ad hoc renormalization of input.
  • Two-point sum-rule inputs: pole residues λ and thresholds s0, u0 = λ from Ref. [2]; √s0 = 6.60–6.80 GeV, √u0 = 3.20–3.40 GeV (with ±0.1 bounds)
    Taken from the authors' earlier two-point QCDSR (Ref. [2]) and used as the backbone of the phenomenological side; threshold variation is the main source of quoted uncertainty.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Quark-hadron duality: the hadronic spectral density integrated up to thresholds s0, u0 equals the OPE spectral density
    Standard QCDSR ingredient invoked in Sec. III.C to derive the sum rules in Eqs. (31)–(32).
  • domain assumption The interpolating current couples to the ground-state 1/2+ baryon and to its lowest 1/2− parity partner, and no other intermediate states are needed in the phenomenological side
    Sec. III.A, Eqs. (12)–(14). This four-pole truncation is the load-bearing new ingredient; the paper asserts it is 'the only correct approach' but does not prove that other excited states do not contaminate.
  • domain assumption The z-series parametrization (truncated at z³, with a B_c* pole) is a valid and sufficiently accurate extrapolation from space-like Q² to the full time-like region
    Sec. IV, Eqs. (36)–(38). The extrapolation distance is large (Q²=1–5 GeV² to q²_max ≈ 11 GeV²) and the G1, G2 fits are numerically unstable.
  • domain assumption The OPE truncated at dimension 8 converges; uncalculated higher-dimensional condensate and α_s corrections are negligible
    Sec. III.B; the only check offered is the Borel-window flatness shown in Appendix A, with some form factors (G1, G2) showing strong T² dependence.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 34631 in / 13517 out tokens · 146171 ms · 2026-08-03T04:39:14.261792+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this article, the electroweak transition form factors of $\Sigma_b\to\Sigma_c$, $\Xi'_b\to\Xi'_c$ and $\Omega_b\to\Omega_c$ are analyzed within the framework of three-point QCD sum rules. In phenomenological side, all possible couplings of interpolating current to hadronic states are considered, and the Dirac structure dependence on the form factors is systematically eliminated. In QCD side, our calculation incorporates both the perturbative part and the contributions from vacuum condensates up to dimension 8. This systematic inclusion of higher-dimensional terms accounts for a broader set of Feynman diagrams, thereby enhancing the comprehensiveness and reliability of the operator product expansion. Using the obtained form factors, we study the partial widths of semileptonic decays $\Sigma_b\to\Sigma_cl\bar{\nu}_l$, $\Xi'_b\to\Xi'_cl\bar{\nu}_l$ and $\Omega_b\to\Omega_cl\bar{\nu}_l$ ($l=e$, $\mu$ and $\tau$). The results indicate that these decay widths approximately satisfy SU(3) flavor symmetry. Next, we calculate the branching ratios for the decay process $\Omega_b\to\Omega_cl\bar{\nu}_l$ and compare them with the results from other collaborations. Furthermore, the lepton universality ratios and some asymmetry parameters of these decay processes are also analyzed, which provide information for the study of new physics. We hope that these results will serve as a useful reference for future theoretical and experimental studies of weak decays involving heavy flavor baryons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.04311 by Bin Wu, Dian-Yong Chen, Guo-Liang Yu, Jie Lu, Zhi-Gang Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The Feynman diagram for semileptonic decays [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The Feynman diagrams for the perturbative part and vacuum condensate terms in quark level, where the blue, red, green and black [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The pole contributions (a) and the contributions of perturba [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a), we observe that when s0 takes its upper or lower bound, the Borel parameter should be adjusted accordingly so that the pole contribution satisfies Poles ≈ 40%. In other words, the upper and lower bounds of the Borel platform are used to determine the form factor values when s0 is set to its upper and lower bounds, respectively. The determination of the uncertainty from u0 follows a similar procedure. … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The fitting results of vector (a-c) and axial vector (d-f) form factors for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: It is the same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: It is the same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The total (red), longitudinal (blue), and transverse (green) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The contributions of the perturbative part and di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: It is the same as the Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: It is the same as the Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

65 extracted references · 48 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  2. [2]

    Wang, Phys

    Z.-G. Wang, Phys. Lett. B685, 59 (2010), 0912.1648

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

    Wang, Eur

    Z.-G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. A47, 81 (2011), 1003.2838

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  4. [4]

    Neishabouri and K

    Z. Neishabouri and K. Azizi, Phys. Rev. D112, 054009 (2025), 2503.12390

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Neishabouri, K

    Z. Neishabouri, K. Azizi, and H. R. Moshfegh, Phys. Rev. D 110, 014010 (2024), 2404.12654

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Luo, S.-W

    X. Luo, S.-W. Zhang, H.-X. Chen, A. Hosaka, N. Su, and H.-M. Yang (2025), 2510.13013

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Lu, G.-L

    J. Lu, G.-L. Yu, D.-Y . Chen, Z.-G. Wang, and B. Wu, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1382 (2025), 2508.11900

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Yu, Z.-G

    G.-L. Yu, Z.-G. Wang, J. Lu, B. Wu, P. Yang, and Z. Zhou (2026), 2601.06427

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Y .-M. Wang, M. J. Aslam, and C.-D. Lu, Eur. Phys. J. C59, 847 (2009), 0810.0609

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  10. [10]

    Wang, Y .-L

    Y .-M. Wang, Y .-L. Shen, and C.-D. Lu, Phys. Rev. D80, 074012 (2009), 0907.4008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  11. [11]

    Khodjamirian, C

    A. Khodjamirian, C. Klein, T. Mannel, and Y . M. Wang, JHEP 09, 106 (2011), 1108.2971. 19 1 /s8722 /s48/s46/s490.00.10.20.30.40.50.6F1 (Q2 =1GeV2 ) Total Perturbative /s10216 g2 sGG /s10217 /s10216 qq /s102172 /s10216 qq /s10217/s10216 qg s /s963G q /s10217( a) /s8722 /s48/s46/s490.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.7F2 (Q2 =1GeV2 ) Total Perturbative /s10216 g2 sGG /s...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  12. [12]

    Wang and Y .-L

    Y .-M. Wang and Y .-L. Shen, JHEP02, 179 (2016), 1511.09036

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  13. [13]

    T. M. Aliev, T. Barakat, and M. Savcı, Phys. Rev. D93, 056007 (2016), 1603.04762

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    T. M. Aliev, S. Bilmis, and M. Savci, Phys. Rev. D106, 074022 (2022), 2208.10365

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Shi and Z.-X

    Y .-J. Shi and Z.-X. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D110, 096015 (2024), 2407.07431

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Luo, H.-X

    X. Luo, H.-X. Chen, E.-L. Cui, H.-M. Yang, D. Zhou, and Z.-Y . Zhou, Phys. Rev. D112, 096028 (2025), 2506.08335

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    T. M. Aliev, S. Bilmis, and M. Savci, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 65 (2026), 2510.21409

    arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    Cheng and B

    H.-Y . Cheng and B. Tseng, Phys. Rev. D53, 1457 (1996), [Er- ratum: Phys.Rev.D 55, 1697 (1997)], hep-ph/9502391

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  19. [19]

    M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Korner, V . E. Lyubovitskij, M. A. Pisarev, and A. G. Rusetsky, Phys. Rev. D61, 114010 (2000), hep- ph/9911425

    arXiv 2000

  20. [20]

    Zhao, Chin

    Z.-X. Zhao, Chin. Phys. C42, 093101 (2018), 1803.02292

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Yu, Z.-Y

    G.-L. Yu, Z.-Y . Li, Z.-G. Wang, J. Lu, and M. Yan, Nucl. Phys. B990, 116183 (2023), 2206.08128

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Li, G.-L

    Z.-Y . Li, G.-L. Yu, Z.-G. Wang, J.-Z. Gu, J. Lu, and H.-T. Shen, Chin. Phys. C47, 073105 (2023), 2207.04167

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Li, G.-L

    Z.-Y . Li, G.-L. Yu, Z.-G. Wang, and J.-Z. Gu, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1310 (2024), 2405.16162

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Zhang and Z.-X

    F.-W. Zhang and Z.-X. Zhao (2025), 2508.13648

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Patel and K

    K. Patel and K. Thakkar (2025), 2510.16529

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Q. P. Xu and A. N. Kamal, Phys. Rev. D47, 2849 (1993)

    1993

  27. [27]

    Du and C

    M.-k. Du and C. Liu, Phys. Rev. D84, 056007 (2011), 1107.2535

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  28. [28]

    Han and C

    C. Han and C. Liu, Nucl. Phys. B961, 115262 (2020), 2011.00473

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Korner, V . E. Lyubovitskij, and A. G. Ruset- sky, Phys. Rev. D59, 074016 (1999), hep-ph/9809254

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  30. [30]

    Sheng, J

    J.-H. Sheng, J. Zhu, X.-N. Li, Q.-Y . Hu, and R.-M. Wang, Phys. Rev. D102, 055023 (2020), 2009.09594

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    G.-L. Yu, Y . Meng, Z.-Y . Li, Z.-G. Wang, and L. Jie, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A38, 2350082 (2023), 2302.11758

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Wang, Y .-H

    W.-J. Wang, Y .-H. Zhou, L.-Y . Xiao, and X.-H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D105, 074008 (2022), 2202.05426

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Zhou, W.-J

    Y .-H. Zhou, W.-J. Wang, L.-Y . Xiao, and X.-H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D108, 094032 (2023), 2309.13906

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Y . Li, J. Chen, Y .-X. Wang, and Z.-T. Zou, Phys. Rev. D113, 013003 (2026), 2509.02257

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    Neishabouri, K

    Z. Neishabouri, K. Azizi, and H. R. Moshfegh (2026), 2601.00657

    arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    Amiri and K

    A. Amiri and K. Azizi, Nucl. Phys. B1022, 117281 (2026), 2510.20937

    arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. D96, 112005 (2017), 1709.01920

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  38. [38]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 191803 (2022), 2201.03497

    arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Gutsche, M

    T. Gutsche, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. K ¨orner, V . E. Lyubovitskij, and P. Santorelli, Phys. Rev. D90, 114033 (2014), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 94, 059902 (2016)], 1410.6043

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  40. [40]

    Zhao, R.-H

    Z.-X. Zhao, R.-H. Li, Y .-L. Shen, Y .-J. Shi, and Y .-S. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 1181 (2020), 2010.07150

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    Zhang, X.-N

    J. Zhang, X.-N. Jin, C.-W. Liu, and C.-Q. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 107, 033004 (2023), 2210.16825

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    R. N. Faustov and V . O. Galkin, Phys. Rev. D98, 093006 (2018), 1810.03388

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  43. [43]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V . I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B147, 385 (1979)

    1979

  44. [44]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V . I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B147, 448 (1979)

    1979

  45. [45]

    Colangelo and A

    P. Colangelo and A. Khodjamirian, pp. 1495–1576 (2000), hep- ph/0010175

    arXiv 2000

  46. [46]

    Wang, Front

    Z.-G. Wang, Front. Phys. (Beijing)21, 016300 (2026), 2502.11351

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    Y .-J. Shi, W. Wang, and Z.-X. Zhao, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 568 (2020), 1902.01092

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    Zhao, X.-Y

    Z.-X. Zhao, X.-Y . Sun, F.-W. Zhang, Y .-P. Xing, and Y .-T. Yang, Phys. Rev. D108, 116008 (2023), 2103.09436

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Zhang and C.-F

    S.-Q. Zhang and C.-F. Qiao, Phys. Rev. D108, 074017 (2023), 2307.05019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Lu, G.-L

    J. Lu, G.-L. Yu, Z.-G. Wang, and B. Wu, Phys. Lett. B852, 138624 (2024), 2401.00669

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Lu, D.-Y

    J. Lu, D.-Y . Chen, G.-L. Yu, Z.-G. Wang, and B. Wu, Phys. Rev. D111, 114037 (2025), 2501.15534

    arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Lu, D.-Y

    J. Lu, D.-Y . Chen, G.-L. Yu, and Z.-G. Wang, Phys. Lett. B872, 140057 (2026), 2510.03757

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    αs(µ) αs(mc[b]) # 12 33−2N f , ms(µ)=m s(2GeV)

    are introduced to reduce the Borel parameters in this work. Then, using the quark-hadron duality condition, we can establish a series of linear equa- tions about twenty-four scalar invariant amplitudes in both phenomenological and QCD sides. Finally, all form factors in Eq. (15) can be uniquely determined by solving these twenty- four linear equations. In...

    2024

  54. [54]

    M. E. Bracco, M. Chiapparini, F. S. Navarra, and M. Nielsen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.67, 1019 (2012), 1104.2864

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  55. [55]

    Lu, G.-L

    J. Lu, G.-L. Yu, Z.-G. Wang, and B. Wu, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 907 (2023), 2308.06705

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Lu, D.-Y

    J. Lu, D.-Y . Chen, G.-L. Yu, Z.-G. Wang, and Z. Zhou, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1061 (2025), 2506.23095

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Pascual and R

    P. Pascual and R. Tarrach,QCD: RENORMALIZATION FOR THE PRACTITIONER, vol. 194 (1984)

    1984

  58. [58]

    L. J. Reinders, H. Rubinstein, and S. Yazaki, Phys. Rept.127, 1 (1985)

    1985

  59. [59]

    R. E. Cutkosky, J. Math. Phys.1, 429 (1960)

    1960

  60. [60]

    Narison, Phys

    S. Narison, Phys. Lett. B693, 559 (2010), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 705, 544–544 (2011)], 1004.5333

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  61. [61]

    Narison, Phys

    S. Narison, Phys. Lett. B706, 412 (2012), 1105.2922

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  62. [62]

    Narison, Phys

    S. Narison, Phys. Lett. B707, 259 (2012), 1105.5070

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  63. [63]

    C. G. Boyd, B. Grinstein, and R. F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 4603 (1995), hep-ph/9412324. 22

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  64. [64]

    Li, Y .-S

    X.-J. Li, Y .-S. Li, F.-L. Wang, and X. Liu, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 1080 (2023), 2308.07206

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  65. [65]

    D. Jido, N. Kodama, and M. Oka, Phys. Rev. D54, 4532 (1996), hep-ph/9604280

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996