Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

This paper argues that a previously omitted a1(1260) cascade chain is one of the largest Standard Model contributions to D0 -> pi+ pi- l+ l-, and that including it brings the SM prediction into agreement with the measured distributions.

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

2026-08-04 00:03 UTC pith:DS3GJR2Z

load-bearing objection The a1pi cascade is a real new ingredient and the fit improves, but the model has enough flexibility that the 'unprecedented agreement' is not yet evidence the cascade specifically is the cause; still worth refereeing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.02775 v2 pith:DS3GJR2Z submitted 2025-11-04 hep-ph hep-ex

Impact of the a₁(1260) π cascade contribution on D⁰ to π^+ π^- ell^+ ell^- decays

Eleftheria Solomonidi , Luiz Vale Silva This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex PACS 13.20.Fc12.38.-t
keywords rare charm decaysD0 -> pi+ pi- l+ l-a1(1260) cascaderesonance modellong-distance QCDangular observablesnull testsGIM mechanism
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.

Charm-meson decays to two pions and two leptons are rare, and in the Standard Model they are driven mostly by long-distance resonance chains. The paper revisits D0 -> pi+ pi- l+ l- and argues that a neglected topology — D0 -> pi- a1+(1260) (-> pi+ rho0(-> l+l-)) — is one of the largest pieces of the amplitude. With this cascade added, the fit to the measured differential branching ratios improves from a chi^2 per degree of freedom of about 2 to a p-value near 48 percent. The cascade also changes the angular predictions, making several previously vanishing observables non-zero in the SM, so future searches for new physics in these decay modes must subtract this hadronic contribution. The same hadronic parameters also describe the four-pion non-leptonic decays, which the paper takes as support for the resonance picture.

Core claim

Central claim: the amplitude of D0 -> pi+ pi- l+ l- includes a large, previously missing cascade chain D0 -> pi- a1+(1260)(-> pi+ rho0(-> l+l-)). Because the a1's momentum depends on cos(theta_pi), this term makes the pion angular distribution non-parabolic and creates relative phases between same-wave amplitudes. Fit to the experimental data yields a cascade fit fraction near 40%, comparable to rho0 and sigma, and chi2_min = 82 (p ≈ 48%). It also makes previously vanishing observables (S7, S8, S9, <I3>-, <I6>-, <I9>-) nonzero in the SM, and the cascade normalization agrees with the four-pion amplitude analyses.

What carries the argument

The central object is the a1(1260) cascade amplitude: D0 -> pi- a1+(1260) (-> pi+ rho0(-> l+l-)), modelled as an axial-vector resonance (mass ~1225 MeV, width ~430 MeV) with a data-driven line shape. The amplitude is built from D->pi form factors, the a1 and rho0 propagators, a constant a1->rho pi coupling, and a fitted complex coefficient B_casc e^{i delta_casc}; the chain is generated by the dominant four-quark operator with Wilson coefficient C1(m_c)=1.22. The key property is that k^2 (the a1's squared momentum) depends on cos(theta_pi), so the cascade interferes with both the S-wave (sigma) and P-wave (rho) dipion amplitudes and breaks the old null-test relations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the sigma, rho, omega, phi, and a1 resonance chains, with the remaining QCD dynamics compressed into a few fitted complex constants, saturate the D0 -> pi+ pi- l+ l- amplitude in the fitted region; if some other sizeable contribution is missing, the fitted cascade amplitude will absorb it and the conclusion would not survive.

What would settle it

Measure dGamma/d cos(theta_pi) with fine bins (or the five-fold differential distribution) in D0 -> pi+ pi- mu+ mu-: the cascade predicts a smooth, non-parabolic peak in cos(theta_pi) whose position moves with p^2. If the shape is parabolic, or if a fit that adds a second axial-vector resonance (for instance a1(1640)) significantly changes B_casc and the strong phases, the claim that this one cascade is among the largest SM contributions would be falsified.

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

If this is right

  • If the cascade is genuinely this large, any SM background estimate for D0 -> pi+ pi- l+ l- that omits the a1 pi term is incomplete; deviations previously attributed to new physics in the dipion-mass spectrum no longer require new physics.
  • Observables <I3>- and <I9>-, previously zero in the resonance model, can serve as diagnostic signals of the cascade when integrated over suitable p^2 and cos(theta_pi) windows.
  • Null-test observables such as S7 and <I6>- keep their role but with a SM floor; a measured value must be compared with the cascade-induced SM contribution before being interpreted as new physics.
  • The agreement between the fitted cascade normalization and the normalization extracted from D0 -> 4pi amplitude analyses suggests that hadronic parameters are transferable between rare and non-leptonic charm decays.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the conclusion rests on the completeness of the resonance basis (sigma, rho, omega, phi, a1). Heavier axial-vector states, annihilation-type topologies, or four-pion rescattering, if non-negligible, could be absorbed into B_casc and the fitted phases; the large cascade fit fraction would then be an artifact of the basis.
  • Editorial inference: a decisive next measurement is the dGamma/d cos(theta_pi) shape (and the pi+ mu+ mu- spectrum). The model predicts a smooth, non-parabolic cos(theta_pi) peak whose location shifts with p^2; a parabolic shape would challenge the large-cascade hypothesis.
  • Editorial inference: the same mechanism should be tested in D0 -> K+ K- l+ l-, where an analogous K1(1270) or K1(1400) cascade could resolve a similar tension or expose the need for different dynamics.
  • Editorial inference: the four-pion amplitude analyses observe an inverse S/P/D-wave hierarchy that the large-N_c parametrization does not reproduce; if that hierarchy is real, it represents dynamics beyond the present model and could modify the rare-decay fit when included consistently.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends the resonance-model description of D0 -> pi+ pi- l+ l- by adding a cascade topology D0 -> pi- a1+(1260) (-> pi+ rho0 (-> l+ l-)). The free normalization and phase of this amplitude are fitted, together with the existing quasi-two-body parameters, to the LHCb binned differential branching ratios dGamma/dp^2 and dGamma/dq^2. The fit improves from chi2/N_dof ~2 to chi2_min = 82 with a p-value of about 48% (N_dof ~82). The authors then predict nonzero values for several angular observables that vanish in their previous model, and compare the fitted normalization factors with those extracted from CLEO-c and BESIII amplitude analyses of D0 -> 4pi and D0 -> 2pi2K, finding agreement for the cascade normalization but substantial differences in phases.

Significance. If the cascade interpretation is correct, the paper resolves the long-standing tension in the p^2 distribution of D0 -> pi+ pi- l+ l- and establishes a class of SM-induced nonzero null-test observables. The explicit amplitude expressions in Appendix A and the comparison with nonleptonic amplitude analyses are valuable. The central claim, however, is conditional on the completeness of the resonance basis and on the fit being able to isolate the a1pi contribution. The data used are two one-dimensional spectra with a number of free complex coefficients, and the paper itself identifies several missing dynamics. Therefore the significance of the result depends on additional robustness checks that are not currently provided.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2 / App. B / App. D] The conclusion that the a1pi cascade is one of the largest contributions rests on the fitted value of g_a1rho_pi f_a1 B_casc (Eq. (16)) and the phases (Eqs. (20)-(21)). These are extracted from data with p^2 up to 1.0 GeV^2 and q^2 in [0.5,1.2] GeV^2. The model omits the f0(980) resonance, which sits near the upper edge of the fitted p^2 range and is a standard component of four-pion amplitude analyses, and it omits the D-wave rho-rho/rho-phi components that the authors themselves note dominate in the nonleptonic amplitude analyses (App. D). Because the cascade amplitude is broad in p^2 and carries a free complex coefficient, the fitted B_casc and delta_casc can absorb the missing f0(980) and D-wave strength. The claim of a ~40% fit fraction for the cascade is therefore not a robust inference. A concrete test would be to add f0(980) and/or the D-wave rho-rho term to the fit and check whe
  2. [Sec. 3 / App. B / App. B.1] The quoted p-value of about 48% is obtained with only statistical uncertainties, with the p^2 window [0.18,0.32] GeV^2 excluded, with omega bins merged, and without bin correlations. These choices reduce the effective information content, so the p-value is not a reliable goodness-of-fit measure. The existence of a second solution with p~58% and substantially different parameters (compare Eq. (26) with Eq. (15), and Eq. (25) with Eq. (14)) shows that the two one-dimensional spectra do not pin down the model uniquely. The angular observables are then extrapolations from an underdetermined fit, not independent validations of the cascade contribution. The statement of 'unprecedented agreement' should be qualified by these limitations.
  3. [App. C / Table 1] The comparison with nonleptonic decays is only partial. The normalization agreement in Table 1 has large uncertainties, and the authors state that the fitted phase differences between rare and nonleptonic decays 'differ substantially'. Moreover, the nonleptonic extraction uses the same large-N_C model that fails to reproduce the observed inverse S/P/D partial-wave hierarchy (App. D). Thus the agreement of the cascade modulus is suggestive but does not validate the specific interference pattern used in the rare-decay fit, which is essential for the predicted angular observables. The wording 'excellent agreement' in Sec. 3 overstates the evidence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (6) vs Eq. (16)] In Eq. (6) the free parameter is introduced as B_casc, while the fit constrains the product g_a1rho_pi f_a1 B_casc (Eq. (16)). Please state explicitly that this product is the fitted combination to avoid ambiguity in the comparison with Table 1.
  2. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (11)-(16)] The text says 'which are about 3 sigma ranges, as hereafter'. It would be helpful to clarify whether these are one-dimensional 3-sigma intervals for each parameter or a joint region.
  3. [Fig. 2 / App. B] The solid curves in Fig. 2 are built by connecting bin predictions; the omega peak is not visible in the curve. This is explained in App. B, but a brief note in the figure caption would improve readability.
  4. [Reference [22]] The journal reference for Ref. [22] is incomplete: 'Phys. Rev. D, 109:3, 2024' should include the article number 036027.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the cascade parameters are fitted, but the angular-observable predictions and the non-leptonic amplitude comparison provide independent content.

full rationale

The paper is a standard resonance-model fit rather than a circular derivation. The new cascade amplitude enters through Eq. (6) with a free normalization B_casc and phase delta_casc, which are fitted to the LHCb dGamma/dp^2 and dGamma/dq^2 distributions. The reported chi2 improvement is a goodness-of-fit statement about the fitted model, not a relabeled prediction, and the paper does not present the fitted B_casc itself as a first-principles prediction. The genuinely predictive step is the subsequent computation of angular observables (Sec. 3) after fixing the parameters from the two one-dimensional spectra; those observables are functions of the fitted parameters but are not identical by construction to the fitted inputs. Moreover, the comparison with CLEO-c and BESIII non-leptonic amplitude analyses (Appendix C and Table 1) is an external, non-circular check: the cascade normalization extracted from non-leptonic decays (g_a1rho_pi f_a1 B_casc = 3.5 +/- 0.3 GeV^2) agrees with the value from the rare-decay fit (3.6 +/- 0.1 GeV^2). No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and the main self-citation [22] supplies the baseline Q2B formalism and earlier chi^2 comparison rather than the new result. The limitations explicitly flagged in the paper - restriction to a1 among axial-vector cascades, the fit window ending at p^2 = 1.0 GeV^2 with possible heavier resonances, and the inverse S/P/D partial-wave hierarchy observed in D -> 4pi - are model-completeness and systematic-error concerns. A truncated basis could in principle absorb missing contributions into fitted constants, but that is underdetermination rather than an equivalence of inputs and outputs. There is no quoted equation or construction showing that a fitted parameter is being renamed as a prediction or that any result is forced by self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are postulated; the a1(1260), rho, omega, phi, and sigma are existing resonances. The intellectual debt is to the fitted normalization/phase parameters and to the resonance-basis completeness assumption, both of which are explicit.

free parameters (8)
  • B_casc (product g_a1rho_pi f_a1 B_casc) = 3.3-3.9 GeV^2 (nominal); 3.8-4.5 GeV^2 (alternative)
    Overall size of the a1 cascade amplitude; fitted to LHCb p^2 and q^2 spectra (Eq. (6), App. B).
  • delta_casc = 0.4pi-1.3pi relative to other amplitudes
    Strong phase of the cascade amplitude; fitted to combined p^2/q^2 distributions (Eqs. (20)-(21)).
  • A_1(0) B_rho0 = 0.8-1.4
    P-wave rho-rho normalization; fitted.
  • B_phi / B_rho0 = 0.7-0.9
    Relative size of the rho-phi contribution; fitted.
  • B_omega^(S) / B_rho0^(S) = 1.1-1.5
    S-wave sigma-omega normalization; fitted.
  • B_phi^(S) / B_rho0^(S) = 0.4-0.6
    S-wave sigma-phi normalization; fitted.
  • a_S(0) / A_1(0) = 40-60 GeV (nominal); 80-100 GeV (alternative)
    Size of the sigma contribution; fitted but constrained by large-N_C and semileptonic data.
  • relative strong phases delta{sigma,rho0}-delta{sigma,omega}, delta{rho0/omega,rho0}-delta{rho0/omega,phi}, etc. = Ranges in Eqs. (17)-(21) and (28)-(32)
    Interference phases of included amplitudes; fitted to combined p^2/q^2 distributions.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Local semileptonic operators are negligible for c -> u l+ l-; the amplitude is generated by non-local insertions of the four-quark operators Q1 and Q2 (Eq. (2)).
    Standard in charm rare-decay literature; the paper cites Refs. [17-19].
  • domain assumption Large-N_C factorization defines the relative weight and structure of the D-to-resonance weak amplitudes; A-type/annihilation topologies are neglected or absorbed; the cascade amplitude multiplies C1.
    Sec. 2 and App. A; this is a modeling assumption, not a derived result.
  • domain assumption Resonance-mediated isobar model: the decay amplitude is a sum of sigma, rho, omega, phi quasi-two-body terms plus one a1 cascade, with Breit-Wigner-type lineshapes; the a1 -> rho pi coupling is constant (Eq. (5)).
    Sec. 2, App. A; completeness of this basis is the key fragility of the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The CP-conjugate intermediate state D0 -> a1- pi+ and heavier axial-vector resonances are negligibly small.
    Argued from form-factor expectations and D -> 4pi fit fractions; not independently established (Sec. 2).
  • ad hoc to paper Fit phase-space restrictions: p^2 in [4m_pi^2,0.18] U [0.32,1.0] GeV^2, q^2 in [0.5,1.2] GeV^2; K_S contamination and heavier resonances justify exclusions.
    App. B; these cuts shape the fit and are not derived from first principles.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14567 in / 13912 out tokens · 160729 ms · 2026-08-04T00:03:19.720413+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We revisit the Standard Model description of the recently measured rare decays $D^0\to\pi^+\pi^-\ell^+\ell^-$. Because of the effectiveness of the Glashow-Iliopoulos-Maiani mechanism in charm flavour-changing neutral currents, those decays are driven by non-local insertions of four-quark operators. Following previous work, we consider the mediation of resonances both for the dipion and dilepton pairs. For the first time, we incorporate the effect of the cascade-type topology $D^0\to \pi^- a_1^+(1260)(\to\pi^+\rho^0(\to\ell^+\ell^-))$, which manifests distinctly in the invariant-mass and angular distributions. We find that this partial amplitude comprises one of the largest contributions to the decay rate and obtain an unprecedented agreement of the Standard Model prediction with the available LHCb data. Finally, we compare to the available CLEO-c, LHCb, and BESIII amplitude analyses for the analogous four-body hadronic decays and find that similar values of the hadronic parameters of our model successfully describe the two classes of decays.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.02775 by Eleftheria Solomonidi, Luiz Vale Silva.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Cascade topology contributing to charm-meson [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Fit to the differential branching ratio as a function of the invariant mass of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Similar to Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

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

41 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Observation of CP Violation in Charm Decays.Phys

    Roel Aaij et al. Observation of CP Violation in Charm Decays.Phys. Rev. Lett., 122(21):211803, 2019.arXiv:1903.08726,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.211803

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. Measurement of the Time-Integrated CP Asymmetry in D0→K-K+ Decays.Phys. Rev. Lett., 131(9):091802, 2023.arXiv:2209.03179,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.131.091802

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Alexander Khodjamirian and Alexey A. Petrov. Direct CP asymmetry inD→π −π+ andD→K −K+ in QCD-based approach.Phys. Lett. B, 774:235–242, 2017.arXiv: 1706.07780,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.070

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Alexander Lenz, Maria Laura Piscopo, and Aleksey V. Rusov. Two body non-leptonic D0 decays from LCSR and implications for∆a dir CP.JHEP, 03:151, 2024.arXiv:2312. 13245,doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2024)151

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep03(2024)151 2024

  5. [5]

    Final-state interactions in the CP asymmetries of charm-meson two-body decays.Phys

    Antonio Pich, Eleftheria Solomonidi, and Luiz Vale Silva. Final-state interactions in the CP asymmetries of charm-meson two-body decays.Phys. Rev. D, 108(3):036026, 2023.arXiv:2305.11951,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.036026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    A new parametrization for the scalar pion form factors.Eur

    Stefan Ropertz, Christoph Hanhart, and Bastian Kubis. A new parametrization for the scalar pion form factors.Eur. Phys. J. C, 78(12):1000, 2018.arXiv:1809.06867, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6416-6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Ampli- tude Analyses ofD 0 →π +π−π+π− andD 0 →K +K−π+π− Decays.JHEP, 05:143, 2017.arXiv:1703.08505,doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2017)143

    Philippe d’Argent, Nicola Skidmore, Jack Benton, Jeremy Dalseno, Evelina Gersabeck, Sam Harnew, Paras Naik, Claire Prouve, and Jonas Rademacker. Ampli- tude Analyses ofD 0 →π +π−π+π− andD 0 →K +K−π+π− Decays.JHEP, 05:143, 2017.arXiv:1703.08505,doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2017)143

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Search forCPviolation through an amplitude analysis ofD 0 → K+K−π+π− decays.JHEP, 02:126, 2019.arXiv:1811.08304,doi:10.1007/ JHEP02(2019)126

    Roel Aaij et al. Search forCPviolation through an amplitude analysis ofD 0 → K+K−π+π− decays.JHEP, 02:126, 2019.arXiv:1811.08304,doi:10.1007/ JHEP02(2019)126

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    Amplitude analysis of the decaysD 0 →π +π−π+π− and D0 →π +π−π0π0.Chin

    Medina Ablikim et al. Amplitude analysis of the decaysD 0 →π +π−π+π− and D0 →π +π−π0π0.Chin. Phys. C, 48(8):083001, 2024.arXiv:2312.02524,doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ad3d4d

    arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Observation ofD 0 meson decays toπ +π−µ+µ− andK +K−µ+µ− final states.Phys

    Roel Aaij et al. Observation ofD 0 meson decays toπ +π−µ+µ− andK +K−µ+µ− final states.Phys. Rev. Lett., 119(18):181805, 2017.arXiv:1707.08377,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevLett.119.181805

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

    Measurement of Angular and CP Asymmetries inD 0 →π +π−µ+µ− andD 0 →K +K−µ+µ− decays.Phys

    Roel Aaij et al. Measurement of Angular and CP Asymmetries inD 0 →π +π−µ+µ− andD 0 →K +K−µ+µ− decays.Phys. Rev. Lett., 121(9):091801, 2018.arXiv: 1806.10793,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.091801

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

    Searches for 25 rare and forbidden decays ofD + andD + s mesons

    Roel Aaij et al. Searches for 25 rare and forbidden decays ofD + andD + s mesons. JHEP, 06:044, 2021.arXiv:2011.00217,doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2021)044

    arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Angular Analysis ofD 0 →π +π−µ+µ− andD 0 →K +K−µ+µ− Decays and Search forCPViolation.Phys

    Roel Aaij et al. Angular Analysis ofD 0 →π +π−µ+µ− andD 0 →K +K−µ+µ− Decays and Search forCPViolation.Phys. Rev. Lett., 128(22):221801, 2022.arXiv: 2111.03327,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.221801. 14

    arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    Search for the rare decay of charmed baryon Λc+ into the pµ+µ- final state.Phys

    Roel Aaij et al. Search for the rare decay of charmed baryon Λc+ into the pµ+µ- final state.Phys. Rev. D, 110(5):052007, 2024.arXiv:2407.11474,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.110.052007

    arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Search forD 0 meson decays toπ +π−e+e− andK +K−e+e− fi- nal states.Phys

    Roel Aaij et al. Search forD 0 meson decays toπ +π−e+e− andK +K−e+e− fi- nal states.Phys. Rev. D, 111(9):L091101, 2025.arXiv:2412.09414,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.111.L091101

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Search for resonance-enhanced CP and angular asymmetries in the Λc+→pµ+µ- decay at LHCb.Phys

    Roel Aaij et al. Search for resonance-enhanced CP and angular asymmetries in the Λc+→pµ+µ- decay at LHCb.Phys. Rev. D, 111(9):L091102, 2025.arXiv:2502. 04013,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.L091102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.l091102 2025

  17. [17]

    Fajfer, Sasa Prelovsek, and P

    S. Fajfer, Sasa Prelovsek, and P. Singer. Resonant and nonresonant contributions to the weak D —>V lepton+ lepton- decays.Phys. Rev. D, 58:094038, 1998.arXiv: hep-ph/9805461,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.094038

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  18. [18]

    Standard Model prediction and new physics tests forD 0 →h +h−ℓ+ℓ−(h=π, K:ℓ=e, µ).JHEP, 04:135, 2013

    Luigi Cappiello, Oscar Cata, and Giancarlo D’Ambrosio. Standard Model prediction and new physics tests forD 0 →h +h−ℓ+ℓ−(h=π, K:ℓ=e, µ).JHEP, 04:135, 2013. arXiv:1209.4235,doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2013)135

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  19. [19]

    Higher-order Wilson coefficients for c→utransitions in the standard model.JHEP, 08:091, 2016.arXiv:1606.05521, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)091

    Stefan de Boer, Bastian M¨ uller, and Dirk Seidel. Higher-order Wilson coefficients for c→utransitions in the standard model.JHEP, 08:091, 2016.arXiv:1606.05521, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)091

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    Null tests from angular distributions inD→ P1P2l+l−,l=e, µdecays on and off peak.Phys

    Stefan De Boer and Gudrun Hiller. Null tests from angular distributions inD→ P1P2l+l−,l=e, µdecays on and off peak.Phys. Rev. D, 98(3):035041, 2018.arXiv: 1805.08516,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.035041

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Disentangling QCD and new physics inD + →π +ℓ+ℓ−.JHEP, 04:158, 2021.arXiv:2011.12856,doi:10.1007/ JHEP04(2021)158

    Aoife Bharucha, Diogo Boito, and C´ edric M´ eaux. Disentangling QCD and new physics inD + →π +ℓ+ℓ−.JHEP, 04:158, 2021.arXiv:2011.12856,doi:10.1007/ JHEP04(2021)158

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    S-wave contribution to rareD 0→π+π−ℓ+ℓ− decays in the standard model and sensitivity to new physics

    Svjetlana Fajfer, Eleftheria Solomonidi, and Luiz Vale Silva. S-wave contribution to rareD 0→π+π−ℓ+ℓ− decays in the standard model and sensitivity to new physics. Phys. Rev. D, 109:3, 2024.arXiv:2312.07501,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.036027

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    D→Pℓ +ℓ− decays assisted by QCD light-cone sum rules.JHEP, 08:026, 2025.arXiv:2505.21369, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2025)026

    Anshika Bansal, Alexander Khodjamirian, and Thomas Mannel. D→Pℓ +ℓ− decays assisted by QCD light-cone sum rules.JHEP, 08:026, 2025.arXiv:2505.21369, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2025)026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Effective field theory analysis of rare|∆c|=|∆u|= 1 charm decays.JHEP, 12:102, 2024.arXiv:2410.00115, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2024)102

    Hector Gisbert, Gudrun Hiller, and Dominik Suelmann. Effective field theory analysis of rare|∆c|=|∆u|= 1 charm decays.JHEP, 12:102, 2024.arXiv:2410.00115, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2024)102

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Ecker and R

    G. Ecker and R. Unterdorfer. Four pion production in e+ e- annihilation.Eur. Phys. J. C, 24:535–545, 2002.arXiv:hep-ph/0203075,doi:10.1007/s10052-002-0960-8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  26. [26]

    Hadronic charmed meson decays involving axial vector mesons

    Hai-Yang Cheng. Hadronic charmed meson decays involving axial vector mesons. Phys. Rev. D, 67:094007, 2003.arXiv:hep-ph/0301198,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 67.094007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  27. [27]

    Gronau and J

    M. Gronau and J. Zupan. Weak phase alpha from B0 —>a(1)+- (1260) pi-+. Phys. Rev. D, 73:057502, 2006.arXiv:hep-ph/0512148,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 73.057502. 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  28. [28]

    Hadronic D decays involving even-parity light mesons.Phys

    Hai-Yang Cheng and Cheng-Wei Chiang. Hadronic D decays involving even-parity light mesons.Phys. Rev. D, 81:074031, 2010.arXiv:1002.2466,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.81.074031

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  29. [29]

    Resolving theϕ 2 (α) ambiguity inB 0 →a ± 1 π∓.JHEP, 10:191, 2019

    Jeremy Dalseno. Resolving theϕ 2 (α) ambiguity inB 0 →a ± 1 π∓.JHEP, 10:191, 2019. arXiv:1907.09237,doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2019)191

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    Gomez Dumm, A

    D. Gomez Dumm, A. Pich, and J. Portoles. tau —>pi pi pi nu(tau) decays in the resonance effective theory.Phys. Rev. D, 69:073002, 2004.arXiv:hep-ph/0312183, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.073002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  31. [31]

    Gomez Dumm, P

    D. Gomez Dumm, P. Roig, A. Pich, and J. Portoles. tau —>pi pi pi nu(tau) decays and the a(1)(1260) off-shell width revisited.Phys. Lett. B, 685:158–164, 2010. arXiv:0911.4436,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.01.059

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  32. [32]

    Gomez Dumm, P

    D. Gomez Dumm, P. Roig, A. Pich, and J. Portoles. Hadron structure in tau —> KK pi nu (tau) decays.Phys. Rev. D, 81:034031, 2010.arXiv:0911.2640,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.034031

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  33. [33]

    Stech, and M

    Manfred Bauer, B. Stech, and M. Wirbel. Exclusive Nonleptonic Decays of D, D(s), and B Mesons.Z. Phys. C, 34:103, 1987.doi:10.1007/BF01561122

    doi:10.1007/bf01561122 1987

  34. [34]

    Observation ofD + →f 0(500)e+νe and Improved Measure- ments ofD→ρe +νe.Phys

    Medina Ablikim et al. Observation ofD + →f 0(500)e+νe and Improved Measure- ments ofD→ρe +νe.Phys. Rev. Lett., 122(6):062001, 2019.arXiv:1809.06496, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.062001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

    Observation of the resonant character of theZ(4430) − state.Phys

    Roel Aaij et al. Observation of the resonant character of theZ(4430) − state.Phys. Rev. Lett., 112(22):222002, 2014.arXiv:1404.1903,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 112.222002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  36. [36]

    Chilikin et al

    K. Chilikin et al. Observation of a new charged charmoniumlike state in ¯B0 → J/ψK −π+ decays.Phys. Rev. D, 90(11):112009, 2014.arXiv:1408.6457,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.90.112009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  37. [37]

    Kuhn and A

    Johann H. Kuhn and A. Santamaria. Tau decays to pions.Z. Phys. C, 48:445–452, 1990.doi:10.1007/BF01572024

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01572024 1990

  38. [38]

    1007/JHEP08(2017)105

    Thorsten Feldmann, Bastian M¨ uller, and Dirk Seidel.D→ρ ℓ +ℓ− decays in the QCD factorization approach.JHEP, 08:105, 2017.arXiv:1705.05891,doi:10. 1007/JHEP08(2017)105

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  39. [39]

    D-meson semileptonic decays to pseudoscalars from four-flavor lattice QCD.Phys

    Alexei Bazavov et al. D-meson semileptonic decays to pseudoscalars from four-flavor lattice QCD.Phys. Rev. D, 107(9):094516, 2023.arXiv:2212.12648,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.107.094516

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    On the transition form factors of the axial-vector resonance f 1(1285) and its decay into e +e−.JHEP, 07:106, 2021

    Marvin Zanke, Martin Hoferichter, and Bastian Kubis. On the transition form factors of the axial-vector resonance f 1(1285) and its decay into e +e−.JHEP, 07:106, 2021. arXiv:2103.09829,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2021)106

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Light-cone distribution amplitudes of axial-vector mesons.Nucl

    Kwei-Chou Yang. Light-cone distribution amplitudes of axial-vector mesons.Nucl. Phys. B, 776:187–257, 2007.arXiv:0705.0692,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007. 03.046. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007