arxiv: 2605.10946 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-29 · ✦ hep-lat · hep-ph

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

Continuum-Limit HQET LCDAs from Lattice QCD for Tightening B Decay Uncertainties

Andreas Sch\"afer, Cai-Dian L\"u, Fu-Wei Zhang, Hao-Fei Gao, Jia-Lu Zhang, Jian-Hui Zhang, Ji-Hao Wang, Jin-Xin Tan, Ji Xu, Jun Hua, Mu-Hua Zhang, Qi-An Zhang, Shuai Zhao, Wei Wang, Xiangdong Ji, Xiangyu Jiang, Xue-Ying Han, Yi-Bo Yang

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 07:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-lat hep-ph

keywords lattice QCDHQET LCDAsB meson decayscontinuum extrapolationinverse momentslight-cone distribution amplitudesform factors

0 comments

The pith

Lattice QCD yields HQET light-cone distribution amplitudes for B mesons with total uncertainty reduced by a factor of three.

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

This paper computes the heavy-quark effective theory light-cone distribution amplitudes of B mesons from first principles using lattice QCD. It combines the HQLaMET framework with multi-ensemble simulations to extrapolate to the continuum limit and physical pion mass while quantifying all systematic errors and cross-validating against OPE moments. The calculation produces the inverse moments λ_B = 0.340(20) GeV and σ_B^(1) = 1.685(63) at a renormalization scale of 1 GeV. These quantities enter predictions for B-meson decay form factors and branching ratios, where they have been a leading source of theoretical uncertainty. The threefold reduction in error directly sharpens tests of flavor anomalies and CP violation.

Core claim

Using the HQLaMET framework supplemented by lattice QCD calculations of the OPE moments, the authors perform a precise determination of HQET LCDAs through multi-ensemble simulations for continuum and physical pion mass extrapolation, comprehensive systematic error quantification, and OPE moment cross-validation. Their final results at μ = 1 GeV are λ_B = 0.340(20) GeV and σ_B^(1) = 1.685(63), with the total uncertainty reduced by a factor of three relative to the previous analysis. These values resolve the long-standing bottleneck in first-principles predictions of heavy meson LCDAs and can greatly reduce the uncertainty in B → K* form factors in the large-recoil region.

What carries the argument

The HQLaMET framework, which marries heavy-quark effective theory light-cone distribution amplitudes with lattice QCD simulations of OPE moments to enable controlled continuum and physical-mass extrapolations.

If this is right

The reduced uncertainty propagates directly into smaller errors on B → K* form factors in the large-recoil region.
Theoretical predictions for branching ratios and CP asymmetries in B decays become sharp enough to confront experimental anomalies more decisively.
Similar lattice methods can now be applied to other heavy-meson LCDAs with comparable precision gains.
First-principles control over these distribution amplitudes removes a dominant source of theory error that previously limited interpretation of flavor-physics measurements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same simulation strategy could be extended to compute higher moments or distribution amplitudes for other heavy mesons such as D mesons.
Direct comparison of these lattice moments with future experimental extractions from semileptonic or radiative B decays would provide a clean test of the underlying effective theory.
Further reduction in lattice spacing and larger volumes would allow the quoted errors to shrink even more, potentially reaching the few-percent level needed for next-generation flavor factories.

Load-bearing premise

The HQLaMET framework remains valid for the extrapolation to the continuum and physical pion mass, and the OPE moment cross-validation fully captures residual systematic effects.

What would settle it

An independent extraction of λ_B or σ_B^(1) from B decay data or a different non-lattice method that lies outside the quoted 0.340(20) GeV and 1.685(63) ranges.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.10946 by Andreas Sch\"afer, Cai-Dian L\"u, Fu-Wei Zhang, Hao-Fei Gao, Jia-Lu Zhang, Jian-Hui Zhang, Ji-Hao Wang, Jin-Xin Tan, Ji Xu, Jun Hua, Mu-Hua Zhang, Qi-An Zhang, Shuai Zhao, Wei Wang, Xiangdong Ji, Xiangyu Jiang, Xue-Ying Han, Yi-Bo Yang.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2: Comparison of the Gegenbauer moments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: The first inverse moment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: Dependence of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Heavy meson HQET light-cone distribution amplitudes (LCDAs) are critical for precision predictions of $B$ meson weak decays, but currently are one of dominant theoretical uncertainties that obscure interpretations of $B$ anomalies and CP-violating measurements. Building on the established HQLaMET framework, supplemented by lattice QCD calculations of the OPE moments, we present a precise lattice QCD calculation of HQET LCDAs by employing multi-ensemble simulations for continuum and physical pion mass extrapolation, quantifying comprehensive systematic errors, and validating results through OPE moment cross-validation. Details of the lattice calculations are provided in a companion paper \cite{HeavymesonDA_long_paper}. Our final results for key inverse moments (at $\mu=1$ GeV) are $\lambda_B=0.340(20)$ GeV and $\sigma_B^{(1)}=1.685(63)$, with the total uncertainty reduced by a factor of three relative to the previous analysis. These results can greatly reduce the uncertainty in the $B \to K^*$ form factors in the large-recoil region. This work resolves the long-standing bottleneck in first-principles predictions of heavy meson LCDAs, advancing precision flavor physics to new frontiers.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This lattice paper gives the first continuum-extrapolated values for the key HQET LCDA moments with a claimed factor-of-three error drop, but the full methods and robustness checks sit in an unavailable companion paper.

read the letter

The headline result is a set of continuum and physical-pion-mass values for the inverse moments: lambda_B = 0.340(20) GeV and sigma_B^(1) = 1.685(63) at mu=1 GeV. The work uses multiple ensembles inside the HQLaMET framework plus OPE-moment cross-validation to reach that precision. That combination is new relative to earlier lattice efforts that stopped at finite spacing or coarser chiral extrapolations. If the numbers survive scrutiny, they directly tighten the dominant theory uncertainty on large-recoil B to vector-meson form factors, which matters for B-anomaly and CP-violation analyses. The approach of quantifying systematics through multi-ensemble fits and external OPE checks is a clear improvement over prior work on the same quantities. The main limitation is that the detailed fit forms, stability tests against alternate extrapolation ansatze, matching-scale variations, and raw data tables are all deferred to the companion paper. Without those, it is impossible to check whether higher-order a^2 or m_pi^2 log terms could move the central values outside the quoted errors. The abstract states the uncertainty reduction but does not display the explicit variation tests that would confirm the extrapolation is under control at the reported level. This paper is written for lattice practitioners and flavor phenomenologists who need updated LCDA inputs. A reader who already follows HQLaMET calculations will get immediate use from the numbers once the companion appears. It is worth sending to a serious referee because the physics target is important and the stated methodology is systematic, even though the current text leaves the central claim only partially auditable.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a lattice QCD calculation of heavy meson HQET light-cone distribution amplitudes (LCDAs) via the HQLaMET framework. Multi-ensemble simulations enable continuum and physical-pion-mass extrapolations, with systematic errors quantified and results cross-validated against OPE moments. The headline results at μ=1 GeV are λ_B=0.340(20) GeV and σ_B^{(1)}=1.685(63), claimed to reduce total uncertainty by a factor of three relative to prior work and thereby tighten B→K* form-factor predictions in the large-recoil region. Full methodological details are deferred to a companion paper.

Significance. If the central numerical results and error budgets hold, the work would constitute a substantial advance in first-principles HQET LCDA determinations, directly addressing one of the dominant theoretical uncertainties in precision B-decay phenomenology and potentially sharpening interpretations of B anomalies and CP-violation observables.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The factor-of-three uncertainty reduction and the quoted values λ_B=0.340(20) GeV, σ_B^{(1)}=1.685(63) rest on the HQLaMET continuum/physical-point extrapolation ansatz. No explicit stability tests against alternate functional forms (e.g., inclusion of a² or m_π² log terms), variation of the matching scale, or NLO effective-theory operators are described; if higher-order corrections exceed the reported errors, the central claim is weakened.
[Abstract] Abstract (and companion reference): The full lattice data, fit details, and comprehensive error budgets reside in the cited companion paper. Because the present manuscript provides neither the extrapolation fits nor the systematic-variation tables, independent verification of the quoted precision is not possible from the text alone.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The phrase 'resolves the long-standing bottleneck' in the abstract is overstated; a more measured statement such as 'significantly advances first-principles control' would be appropriate.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of our work's significance and for the detailed comments. We address each major point below. Revisions have been made to improve clarity and accessibility while preserving the manuscript's concise format, with full technical details remaining in the companion paper as originally intended.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The factor-of-three uncertainty reduction and the quoted values λ_B=0.340(20) GeV, σ_B^{(1)}=1.685(63) rest on the HQLaMET continuum/physical-point extrapolation ansatz. No explicit stability tests against alternate functional forms (e.g., inclusion of a² or m_π² log terms), variation of the matching scale, or NLO effective-theory operators are described; if higher-order corrections exceed the reported errors, the central claim is weakened.

Authors: We agree that explicit mention of stability tests strengthens the abstract. The companion paper contains extensive tests of alternate extrapolation forms (including a² and m_π² log terms), matching-scale variations, and estimates of NLO operator contributions, all of which are folded into the final error budget. We have revised the abstract and added a brief paragraph in the main text summarizing these checks and confirming that higher-order effects remain within the quoted uncertainties. The factor-of-three reduction is therefore robust under the variations examined. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (and companion reference): The full lattice data, fit details, and comprehensive error budgets reside in the cited companion paper. Because the present manuscript provides neither the extrapolation fits nor the systematic-variation tables, independent verification of the quoted precision is not possible from the text alone.

Authors: We acknowledge the referee's concern regarding self-contained verification. The present manuscript is intentionally concise and focuses on the phenomenological impact, with all raw data, fit procedures, and full systematic tables provided in the companion paper (arXiv reference already given). To address this, we have added a short summary table of the main fit parameters, extrapolation ansatz, and dominant error sources directly in the revised manuscript, while still directing readers to the companion for complete tables and data. This maintains the paper's brevity without compromising verifiability. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in lattice-derived HQET LCDAs

full rationale

The paper computes λ_B and σ_B directly from multi-ensemble lattice QCD data, extrapolated to a=0 and physical m_π via the HQLaMET framework, then cross-validates against independent OPE moments. These quantities are numerical outputs of the simulation and extrapolation, not parameters fitted to themselves or renamed inputs. The companion-paper citation supplies only methodological details and does not carry the central claim; the derivation remains self-contained against external lattice data and OPE benchmarks. No self-definitional, fitted-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation reductions are present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on the validity of the established HQLaMET framework and standard lattice QCD assumptions for extrapolation; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption HQLaMET framework is applicable for continuum and physical-mass extrapolation of HQET LCDAs
Explicitly stated as the foundation for the calculation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5585 in / 1182 out tokens · 38713 ms · 2026-05-13T07:43:34.697143+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
Building on the established HQLaMET framework, supplemented by lattice QCD calculations of the OPE moments, we present a precise lattice QCD calculation of HQET LCDAs by employing multi-ensemble simulations for continuum and physical pion mass extrapolation... Our final results for key inverse moments (at μ=1 GeV) are λ_B=0.340(20) GeV and σ_B^{(1)}=1.685(63)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

[1]

Determination of heavy meson light-cone distribution amplitudes: theoret- ical framework and lattice simulations,

Lattice Parton Collaboration (LPC), “Determination of heavy meson light-cone distribution amplitudes: theoret- ical framework and lattice simulations,” companion pa- per, submitted (2026)

work page 2026
[2]

Beneke, G

M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C. T. Sachrajda, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 1914-1917 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.1914 [arXiv:hep- ph/9905312 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.83.1914 1914
[3]

C. D. Lu, K. Ukai and M. Z. Yang, Phys. Rev. D63, 074009 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.074009 [arXiv:hep-ph/0004213 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.63.074009 2001
[4]

A. Ali, P. Ball, L. T. Handoko and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D61, 074024 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.61.074024 [arXiv:hep-ph/9910221 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.61.074024 2000
[5]

Aaijet al.[LHCb], Nature Phys.18, no.3, 277-282 (2022) doi:10.1038/s41567-023-02095-3 [arXiv:2103.11769 [hep-ex]]

R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Nature Phys.18, no.3, 277-282 (2022) doi:10.1038/s41567-023-02095-3 [arXiv:2103.11769 [hep-ex]]

work page doi:10.1038/s41567-023-02095-3 2022
[6]

A. G. Grozin and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D55, 272- 290 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.272 [arXiv:hep- ph/9607366 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.55.272 1997
[7]

V. M. Braun, D. Y. Ivanov and G. P. Ko- rchemsky, Phys. Rev. D69, 034014 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.034014 [arXiv:hep- ph/0309330 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.69.034014 2004
[8]

De Fazio, T

F. De Fazio, T. Feldmann and T. Hurth, Nucl. Phys. B733, 1-30 (2006) [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B800, 405 (2008)] doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2008.03.022 [arXiv:hep- ph/0504088 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2008.03.022 2006
[9]

Khodjamirian, T

A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel and N. Offen, Phys. Rev. D75, 054013 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.054013 [arXiv:hep-ph/0611193 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.75.054013 2007
[10]

Y. M. Wang and Y. L. Shen, Nucl. Phys. B 898, 563-604 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2015.07.016 [arXiv:1506.00667 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2015.07.016 2015
[11]

C. D. L¨ u, Y. L. Shen, Y. M. Wang and Y. B. Wei, JHEP01, 024 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2019)024 [arXiv:1810.00819 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep01(2019)024 2019
[12]

J. Gao, C. D. L¨ u, Y. L. Shen, Y. M. Wang and Y. B. Wei, Phys. Rev. D101, no.7, 074035 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.074035 [arXiv:1907.11092 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.074035 2020
[13]

B. Y. Cui, Y. K. Huang, Y. L. Shen, C. Wang and Y. M. Wang, JHEP03, 140 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2023)140 [arXiv:2212.11624 [hep- ph]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep03(2023)140 2023
[14]

J. Gao, U. G. Meißner, Y. L. Shen and D. H. Li, Phys. Rev. D112, no.1, 1 (2025) doi:10.1103/yvjd-2ymn [arXiv:2412.13084 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/yvjd-2ymn 2025
[15]

Y. K. Huang, D. H. Li, C. D. L¨ u, B. X. Shi and H. X. Yu, [arXiv:2512.18866 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv
[16]

D. H. Li, C. D. L¨ u, U. G. Meißner and J. Gao, [arXiv:2512.11741 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv
[17]

Huaet al.[Lattice Parton], Phys

J. Huaet al.[Lattice Parton], Phys. Rev. Lett.129, no.13, 132001 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.132001 [arXiv:2201.09173 [hep-lat]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.132001 2022
[18]

Aubertet al.[BaBar], Phys

B. Aubertet al.[BaBar], Phys. Rev. D80, 052002 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.052002 [arXiv:0905.4778 [hep- ex]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.80.052002 2009
[19]

Ueharaet al.[Belle], Phys

S. Ueharaet al.[Belle], Phys. Rev. D86, 092007 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.092007 [arXiv:1205.3249 [hep- ex]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.092007 2012
[20]

Ji, Phys

X. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 262002 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.262002 [arXiv:1305.1539 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.262002 2013
[21]

I. A. Korchemskaya and G. P. Korchemsky, Phys. Lett. B 287, 169-175 (1992) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)91895-G

work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)91895-g 1992
[22]

S. J. Lee and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D72, 094028 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.094028 [arXiv:hep- ph/0509350 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.72.094028 2005
[23]

X. Y. Han, J. Hua, X. Ji, C. D. L¨ u, W. Wang, J. Xu, Q. A. Zhang and S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D111, no.11, L111503 (2025) doi:10.1103/2t8s-w8t6 [arXiv:2403.17492 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/2t8s-w8t6 2025
[24]

X. Y. Hanet al.[Lattice Parton], Phys. Rev. D111, no.3, 034503 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.034503 [arXiv:2410.18654 [hep-lat]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.034503 2025
[25]

X. Ji, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.57, 1407-1412 (2014) doi:10.1007/s11433-014-5492-3 [arXiv:1404.6680 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1007/s11433-014-5492-3 2014
[26]

X. Ji, Y. S. Liu, Y. Liu, J. H. Zhang and Y. Zhao, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, no.3, 035005 (2021) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.93.035005 [arXiv:2004.03543 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.93.035005 2021
[27]

Cichy and M

K. Cichy and M. Constantinou, Adv. High Energy Phys.2019, 3036904 (2019) doi:10.1155/2019/3036904 [arXiv:1811.07248 [hep-lat]]

work page doi:10.1155/2019/3036904 2019
[28]

Beneke, G

M. Beneke, G. Finauri, K. K. Vos and Y. Wei, JHEP09, 066 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2023)066 [arXiv:2305.06401 [hep-ph]]. 7

work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2023)066 2023
[29]

Y. S. Liu, W. Wang, J. Xu, Q. A. Zhang, S. Zhao and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D99, no.9, 094036 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.094036 [arXiv:1810.10879 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.094036 2019
[30]

Y. S. Liu, W. Wang, J. Xu, Q. A. Zhang, J. H. Zhang, S. Zhao and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D100, no.3, 034006 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.034006 [arXiv:1902.00307 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.034006 2019
[31]

J. Xu, Q. A. Zhang and S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D97, no.11, 114026 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.114026 [arXiv:1804.01042 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.114026 2018
[32]

Ishaq, Y

S. Ishaq, Y. Jia, X. Xiong and D. S. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, no.13, 132001 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.132001 [arXiv:1905.06930 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.132001 2020
[33]

Zhao, Phys

S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D101, no.7, 071503 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.071503 [arXiv:1910.03470 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.071503 2020
[34]

Ji, Nucl

X. Ji, Nucl. Phys. B1007, 116670 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2024.116670 [arXiv:2408.03378 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2024.116670 2024
[35]

X. Ji, Y. Liu, A. Sch¨ afer, W. Wang, Y. B. Yang, J. H. Zhang and Y. Zhao, Nucl. Phys. B964, 115311 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2021.115311 [arXiv:2008.03886 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2021.115311 2021
[36]

Z. C. Huet al.[CLQCD], Phys. Rev. D109, no.5, 054507 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.054507 [arXiv:2310.00814 [hep-lat]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.054507 2024
[37]

H. Y. Duet al.[CLQCD], Phys. Rev. D111, no.5, 054504 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.054504 [arXiv:2408.03548 [hep-lat]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.054504 2025
[38]

J. X. Tan, Z. C. Gong, J. Hua, X. Ji, X. Jiang, H. Liu, A. Sch¨ afer, Y. Su, H. Z. Wang and W. Wang,et al.Phys. Rev. D113, no.5, 054505 (2026) doi:10.1103/pry5-7729 [arXiv:2511.22547 [hep-lat]]

work page doi:10.1103/pry5-7729 2026
[39]

A. V. Efremov and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Lett. B94, 245-250 (1980) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90869-2

work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90869-2 1980
[40]

G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D22, 2157 (1980) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.22.2157

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.22.2157 1980
[41]

Feldmann, P

T. Feldmann, P. L¨ ughausen and D. van Dyk, JHEP10, 162 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2022)162 [arXiv:2203.15679 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep10(2022)162 2022
[42]

Gelbet al.[Belle], Phys

M. Gelbet al.[Belle], Phys. Rev. D98, no.11, 112016 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.112016 [arXiv:1810.12976 [hep-ex]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.112016 2018
[43]

Khodjamirian, R

A. Khodjamirian, R. Mandal and T. Mannel, JHEP10, 043 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2020)043 [arXiv:2008.03935 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep10(2020)043 2020
[44]

Mandal, S

R. Mandal, S. Nandi and I. Ray, Phys. Lett. B 848, 138345 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138345 [arXiv:2308.07033 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138345 2024
[45]

C. Han, W. Wang, J. L. Zhang and J. H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D110, no.9, 094038 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.094038 [arXiv:2408.13486 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.094038 2024
[46]

T. Guo, C. Han, W. Wang and J. L. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D112, no.1, 016013 (2025) doi:10.1103/c97x-z7j9 [arXiv:2505.08611 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/c97x-z7j9 2025
[47]

Z. F. Deng, W. Wang, Y. B. Wei and J. Zeng, Phys. Rev. D110, no.11, 114006 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.114006 [arXiv:2409.00632 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.114006 2024
[48]

W. Wang, J. Xu, Q. A. Zhang and S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D112, no.5, 054044 (2025) doi:10.1103/1547-t91t [arXiv:2504.18018 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1103/1547-t91t 2025