pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.12065 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

A Phenomenological Study of Semileptonic B^+ and B_s⁰ Decays into Axial-Vector Mesons big(D₁(2420),\, D₁^prime(2430),\, D_{s1}(2460),\, and D_{s1}^prime(2536)big) within the Standard Model

Rana Khan , Qazi Maaz Us Salam , Zohaib Aarfi , Ishtiaq Ahmed
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 05:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords semileptonic B decaysaxial-vector mesonsmixing anglebranching ratiosform factorslepton flavor universalityforward-backward asymmetrypolarization fraction
0
0 comments X

The pith

Branching ratios in semileptonic B decays to axial-vector mesons vary with the mixing angle between light angular momentum states.

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

This paper calculates observables including branching ratios, lepton forward-backward asymmetries, polarization fractions, and lepton flavor universality ratios for the decays B+ to D1 or D1 prime plus lepton neutrino and Bs0 to Ds1 or Ds1 prime plus lepton neutrino. The axial-vector mesons are modeled as mixtures of two basis states with different light-quark angular momenta, controlled by a single mixing angle. Form factors from a covariant light-front quark model are used to show that the observables change with the value of this angle. The results are presented both in experimentally favored regions of the angle and across a wider range, along with correlations between observables. These calculations supply Standard Model reference values that future measurements can compare against to test the structure of the excited mesons.

Core claim

Treating the axial-vector mesons as mixtures of j_ℓ=1/2 and j_ℓ=3/2 states parametrized by the mixing angle θ_D1 and using form factors from the covariant light-front quark model, the analysis finds that polarized and unpolarized branching ratios, the lepton forward-backward asymmetry, the longitudinal polarization fraction, and lepton flavor universality ratios all depend on θ_D1. Predictions are given for both muon and tau modes over experimentally motivated and broader ranges of the mixing angle, together with correlations among the observables.

What carries the argument

The mixing angle θ_D1 that parametrizes the admixture of the j_ℓ=1/2 and j_ℓ=3/2 heavy-quark basis states inside the axial-vector meson wave functions.

If this is right

  • Branching ratios for the listed decays change appreciably with the mixing angle.
  • The lepton forward-backward asymmetry and longitudinal polarization fraction supply independent information on the mixing.
  • Lepton flavor universality ratios stay near one but still vary with the mixing angle.
  • Correlations between observables can help isolate the value of the mixing angle.
  • The computed values serve as Standard Model benchmarks for comparison with data from future B-factory and LHCb measurements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Confirmation of a specific mixing angle from these channels would give a direct experimental handle on the 1/2 versus 3/2 composition of the excited charm mesons.
  • The same mixing description could be tested for consistency in other heavy-meson decay modes not studied here.
  • Deviations from the predicted correlations among observables could indicate contributions beyond the Standard Model.

Load-bearing premise

The form factors taken from the covariant light-front quark model correctly describe transitions to these axial-vector states, and the single mixing angle captures the dominant distinction between the two classes of states.

What would settle it

A measurement of the branching ratio for B+ to D1(2420) muon neutrino that lies outside the full range of values computed for every possible mixing angle would show that the dependence on mixing does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.12065 by Ishtiaq Ahmed, Qazi Maaz Us Salam, Rana Khan, Zohaib Aarfi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The mixing angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The mixing angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The polarized and unpolarized branching ratio, lepton forward backward asymmetry, and the longitudinal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The polarized and unpolarized branching ratio, lepton forward backward asymmetry, and the longitudinal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The polarized and unpolarized branching ratio, lepton forward backward asymmetry, and the longitudinal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The polarized and unpolarized branching ratio, lepton backward asymmetry, and the longitudinal fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The polarized and unpolarized branching ratio, lepton forward backward asymmetry, and the longitudinal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The polarized and unpolarized branching ratio, lepton forward backward asymmetry, and the longitudinal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Correlations between observables for the decay channels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study semileptonic $B$ meson decays $B^+ \to D_1^{(\prime)}\ell^+\nu_\ell$ and $B_s^0 \to D_{s1}^{-(\prime)}\ell^+\nu_\ell$, where $\ell=\mu,\tau$. The final state axial vector mesons are treated as mixtures of the heavy quark basis states with light degree of freedom angular momenta $j_\ell=1/2$ and $j_\ell=3/2$, parametrized by the mixing angle $\theta_{D_1}$. Using form factors obtained in the covariant light front quark model, we analyze the dependence of various observables on $\theta_{D_1}$ such as polarized and unpolarized branching ratios, the lepton forward-backward asymmetry, the longitudinal polarization fraction, and the lepton flavor universality ratios. In addition, we also discuss correlations among different observables. We study these observables in the experimentally motivated mixing angle regions as well as over a wider range of $\theta_{D_1}$. Our results show that branching ratios and other observables are sensitive to the axial-vector mixing structure. These predictions provide useful Standard Model benchmarks for future measurements of semileptonic $B_{(s)}$ decays into orbitally excited mesons and may help to clarify the long standing $1/2$ vs. $3/2$ puzzle in semileptonic $B$ decays.

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.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper performs a phenomenological analysis of semileptonic B^+ → D_1^{(′)} ℓ^+ ν_ℓ and B_s^0 → D_{s1}^{-(′)} ℓ^+ ν_ℓ decays (ℓ = μ, τ) in the Standard Model. Axial-vector final states are treated as mixtures of j_ℓ = 1/2 and j_ℓ = 3/2 heavy-quark basis states parametrized by a single mixing angle θ_{D1}. Form factors are taken from the covariant light-front quark model (CLFQM) and linearly combined according to the mixing; the resulting observables (unpolarized and polarized branching ratios, forward-backward asymmetry A_FB, longitudinal polarization fraction F_L, lepton-flavor-universality ratios, and correlations among them) are computed as functions of θ_{D1} over both experimentally motivated and wider ranges.

Significance. If the CLFQM form factors remain reliable after mixing, the explicit mapping of observables onto θ_{D1} supplies concrete SM benchmarks that can be confronted with future LHCb and Belle II data, potentially helping to resolve the long-standing 1/2-versus-3/2 puzzle. The correlation plots between different observables add practical value for experimental design. The approach is standard for phenomenological studies but inherits the model dependence of the underlying quark-model form factors.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2] §2 (Form factors): The physical-state form factors are obtained by the linear superposition F^{phys} = cos θ_{D1} F^{1/2} + sin θ_{D1} F^{3/2} using CLFQM results for the pure j_ℓ states; no re-derivation, parameter retuning, or comparison to lattice QCD or QCD sum-rule calculations is performed for the mixed D_1(2420), D_1'(2430), D_{s1}(2460), and D_{s1}'(2536) states. Because the central claim is that observables are sensitive to the mixing and provide robust SM benchmarks, the absence of independent validation for the mixed states is load-bearing.
  2. [§3.2] §3.2 and Figs. 3–5: Branching ratios and A_FB are presented as functions of θ_{D1} without propagation of the CLFQM model parameters (e.g., the harmonic-oscillator parameter β or constituent quark masses) into uncertainty bands; only the variation with θ_{D1} is shown. This makes it impossible to judge whether the reported sensitivity exceeds the intrinsic model uncertainty.
  3. [§4] §4 (Discussion): The claim that the results “may help to clarify the long-standing 1/2 vs. 3/2 puzzle” rests on the assumption that the CLFQM mixing prescription captures the dominant effect; no quantitative comparison is made with existing experimental upper limits on the branching fractions or with other theoretical approaches that treat the same final states.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §2] Notation for the mixing angle is inconsistent between the abstract (theta_D1) and the body (θ_{D1}); a uniform symbol should be adopted.
  2. [Table 1] Table 1 (or equivalent numerical summary) lists central values but omits the reference values of the CLFQM parameters used; these should be stated explicitly for reproducibility.
  3. [§3.1] The lepton-mass dependence in the τ modes is treated only through the kinematic limits; a brief statement on the size of the τ-mass corrections relative to the μ modes would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address each major point below, indicating the revisions we intend to make to strengthen the presentation while remaining within the scope of this phenomenological study.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§2] §2 (Form factors): The physical-state form factors are obtained by the linear superposition F^{phys} = cos θ_{D1} F^{1/2} + sin θ_{D1} F^{3/2} using CLFQM results for the pure j_ℓ states; no re-derivation, parameter retuning, or comparison to lattice QCD or QCD sum-rule calculations is performed for the mixed D_1(2420), D_1'(2430), D_{s1}(2460), and D_{s1}'(2536) states. Because the central claim is that observables are sensitive to the mixing and provide robust SM benchmarks, the absence of independent validation for the mixed states is load-bearing.

    Authors: We agree that independent validation of the mixed-state form factors would be desirable. The linear superposition is the standard phenomenological treatment of the 1/2–3/2 mixing in the heavy-quark basis, as employed in numerous prior studies of these decays. Our focus is the resulting sensitivity of observables to θ_{D1} within the CLFQM. In the revised manuscript we will expand the discussion in §2 to explicitly state the limitations of this approach, cite existing lattice-QCD and QCD-sum-rule results for the physical D_1 and D_{s1} states, and note where our predictions lie relative to those benchmarks. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 and Figs. 3–5: Branching ratios and A_FB are presented as functions of θ_{D1} without propagation of the CLFQM model parameters (e.g., the harmonic-oscillator parameter β or constituent quark masses) into uncertainty bands; only the variation with θ_{D1} is shown. This makes it impossible to judge whether the reported sensitivity exceeds the intrinsic model uncertainty.

    Authors: The referee is correct that we have not displayed uncertainty bands arising from variation of the CLFQM parameters. The figures were constructed to isolate the dependence on the mixing angle. In the revision we will add a dedicated paragraph in §3.2 that quotes the typical ranges of β and constituent masses used in the CLFQM literature, estimates the resulting spread in branching ratios and A_FB, and shows that the variation with θ_{D1} over the experimentally motivated interval remains larger than this model uncertainty for the key observables. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [§4] §4 (Discussion): The claim that the results “may help to clarify the long-standing 1/2 vs. 3/2 puzzle” rests on the assumption that the CLFQM mixing prescription captures the dominant effect; no quantitative comparison is made with existing experimental upper limits on the branching fractions or with other theoretical approaches that treat the same final states.

    Authors: We acknowledge that direct numerical comparisons would improve the discussion. In the revised §4 we will insert a table (or set of plots) that confronts our predictions for representative values of θ_{D1} with the existing experimental upper limits on the relevant branching fractions and with selected results from other approaches (light-cone sum rules, relativistic quark models). This will allow readers to assess how the θ_{D1} dependence relates to the 1/2-versus-3/2 puzzle. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • A complete re-derivation of the form factors directly for the physical mixed states inside the CLFQM or a dedicated lattice-QCD calculation of those form factors, both of which lie outside the phenomenological scope of the present work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; model inputs treated as external

full rationale

The derivation takes form factors for the j_ℓ=1/2 and j_ℓ=3/2 basis states directly from the covariant light-front quark model (cited as prior literature) and forms linear combinations via the external mixing angle θ_D1, which is varied over motivated ranges rather than fitted to the target observables. Branching ratios, asymmetries, and ratios are then computed from these combinations; none of the reported predictions reduce by construction to a re-fit of the same inputs or to a self-citation chain that itself lacks independent support. The paper remains a standard model-dependent phenomenological study whose central sensitivity claim follows directly from the linear mixing ansatz without circular redefinition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on the covariant light-front quark model whose parameters are taken from prior literature, plus the two-state mixing ansatz for the axial-vector mesons. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • mixing angle theta_D1
    Parametrizes the admixture of j_l=1/2 and j_l=3/2 components; varied over experimentally motivated and wider ranges.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Form factors computed in the covariant light-front quark model are reliable for these semileptonic transitions.
    Invoked when the authors adopt the CLFQM form factors without additional validation in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5632 in / 1412 out tokens · 45304 ms · 2026-05-13T05:03:53.947274+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 84 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Observable for the decay ofB + →D 1ℓ+νℓ. FIG. 3: The polarized and unpolarized branching ratio, lepton forward backward asymmetry, and the longitudinal fraction as a function ofq 2 forB + →D 1µ+νtransition. dβ/dq2 dβL/dq2 dβT/dq2 0 2 4 6 8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 q2[GeV2] dβ(B+D1μ+ν)/dq2×10-4 ℓ=μ, θD1 = [-30.3°, -24.9°] (a) FB FBL FBT 0 2 4 6 8 -0...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Observable for the decay ofB + →D ′ 1ℓ+νℓ. FIG. 5: The polarized and unpolarized branching ratio, lepton forward backward asymmetry, and the longitudinal fraction as a function ofq 2 forB + →D ′ 1µ+νtransition. dβ/dq2 dβL/dq2 dβT/dq2 0 2 4 6 8 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 q2[GeV2] dβ(B+D1 ′ μ+ν)/dq2×10-4 ℓ=μ, θD1 = [-30.3°, -24.9°] (a) FB FBL FBT 0 2 4 6 8...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Observable for the decay ofB 0 s →D − s1ℓ+νℓ. FIG. 7: The polarized and unpolarized branching ratio, lepton forward backward asymmetry, and the longitudinal fraction as a function ofq 2 forB + →D s1µ+νtransition. dβ/dq2 dβL/dq2 dβT/dq2 0 2 4 6 8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 q2[GeV2] dβ(Bs 0Ds1 - μ+ν)/dq2×10-4 ℓ=μ, θD1 = [-30.3°, -24.9°] (a) FB FBL ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Observable for the decay ofB 0 s →D −′ s1 ℓ+νℓ. FIG. 9: The polarized and unpolarized branching ratio, lepton forward backward asymmetry, and the longitudinal fraction as a function ofq 2 forB + →D ′ s1µ+νtransition. dβ/dq2 dβL/dq2 dβT /dq2 0 2 4 6 8 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 q2[GeV2] dβ(Bs 0Ds1 ′-μ+ν)/dq2×10-4 ℓ=μ, θD1 = [-30.3°, -24.9°] (a) FB FBL FBT...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Therefore, in this work, we extend the study ofR D(′) 1 andR D(′) s1 observables define in Eq

    The Ratio of Branching Fraction Ratios of branching fractions such asR (D) [79–81] andR (D∗) [80, 82, 83] have been studied in both experimental and theoretical literature as sensitive probes of LFU [84–87]. Therefore, in this work, we extend the study ofR D(′) 1 andR D(′) s1 observables define in Eq. (12) as a complementary check on LFU. 17 FIG. 11: The ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Becirevic, A

    D. Becirevic, A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, J.-C. Raynal, P. Roudeau, and J. Serrano,Proposal to studyB s → ¯DsJ transitions,Phys. Rev. D87(2013), no. 5 054007, [arXiv:1206.5869]

    work page arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    Azizi, H

    K. Azizi, H. Sundu, and S. Sahin,SemileptonicB s →D ∗ s2(2573)ℓ¯νℓ transition in QCD,Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015), no. 5 197, [arXiv:1411.3100]

    work page arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Alomayrah, J

    N. Alomayrah, J. S. Alzahrani, and M. S. Al-Buriahi,Study on the semileptonic transition ofB s →D s2(2900)ℓνℓ in QCD: Promising case for the standard model,Nucl. Phys. A1027(2022) 122512

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Barakat,The semi-leptonicB s →D s2ℓνℓ transition to tensor meson of negative parity in the QCD sum rules approach,Nucl

    T. Barakat,The semi-leptonicB s →D s2ℓνℓ transition to tensor meson of negative parity in the QCD sum rules approach,Nucl. Phys. B983(2022) 115915

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Hwang and Z.-T

    C.-W. Hwang and Z.-T. Wei,Covariant light-front approach for heavy quarkonium: decay constants,P→γγand V→P γ,J. Phys. G34(2007) 687–702, [hep-ph/0609036]

    work page arXiv 2007

  11. [11]

    S.-c. Li, Y. Jiang, T.-h. Wang, Q. Li, Z.-h. Wang, and G.-L. Wang,Semi-leptonic production ofD sJ(3040)and DJ(3000)inB s andBdecays,Mod. Phys. Lett. A32(2016), no. 03 1750013, [arXiv:1608.07145]

    work page arXiv 2016

  12. [12]

    Gan, J.-R

    L.-F. Gan, J.-R. Zhang, M.-Q. Huang, H.-B. Zhuo, Y.-Y. Ma, Q.-J. Zhu, J.-X. Liu, and G.-B. Zhang,D sJ(2860)From The Semileptonic Decays OfB s Mesons,Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015), no. 5 232, [arXiv:1412.7969]

    work page arXiv 2015

  13. [13]

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, and A. Ozpineci,QCD sum rules analysis of theB(s)→D sJ(2460)ℓνdecay, in1st International Conference on Hadron Physics, 1, 2008.arXiv:0801.0958

    work page arXiv 2008

  14. [14]

    S.-M. Zhao, X. Liu, and S.-J. Li,Study onB s →D sJ(2317,2460)ℓ¯νSemileptonic Decays in the CQM Model,Eur. Phys. J. C51(2007) 601–606, [hep-ph/0612008]

    work page arXiv 2007

  15. [15]

    Wei, P.-Z

    W. Wei, P.-Z. Huang, and S.-L. Zhu,Strong decays ofD sJ(2317)andD sJ(2460),Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 034004, [hep-ph/0510039]

    work page arXiv 2006

  16. [16]

    Wang, X.-L

    F.-L. Wang, X.-L. Chen, D.-H. Lu, S.-L. Zhu, and W.-Z. Deng,Decays ofD ∗ sj(2317)andD sj(2460)Mesons in the Quark Model,HEPNP30(2006) 1041–1047, [hep-ph/0604090]

    work page arXiv 2006

  17. [17]

    Z.-H. Wang, Y. Zhang, T.-h. Wang, Y. Jiang, Q. Li, and G.-L. Wang,The Strong Decays ofP-wave Mixing Heavy-Light 1+ States,Chin. Phys. C42(2018), no. 12 123101, [arXiv:1803.06822]

    work page arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    Yang, Z.-Q

    Y.-Y. Yang, Z.-Q. Zhang, and H. Yang,SemileptonicB (s) meson decays toD ∗ 0(2300),D ∗ s0(2317),D s1(2460),D s1(2536), D1(2420), andD 1(2430)within the covariant light-front approach,Phys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 7 076006

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Godfrey and N

    S. Godfrey and N. Isgur,Mesons in a Relativized Quark Model with Chromodynamics,Phys. Rev. D32(1985) 189–231

    work page 1985

  20. [20]

    Godfrey and R

    S. Godfrey and R. Kokoski,The Properties of p Wave Mesons with One Heavy Quark,Phys. Rev. D43(1991) 1679–1687. [16]BelleCollaboration, K. Abe et al.,Study ofB→D ∗∗ 0 π−(D∗∗ 0 →D (∗)+π−)decays,Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 112002, [hep-ex/0307021]. [17]BaBarCollaboration, B. Aubert et al.,Dalitz Plot Analysis ofB − →D +π−π−,Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 112004, [arXiv:0901.1291]

    work page arXiv 1991

  21. [21]

    I. I. Bigi, B. Blossier, A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. Pene, J. C. Raynal, A. Oyanguren, and P. Roudeau,Memorino on the ‘1/2vs.3/2Puzzle’ in ¯B→ℓ¯νX c – a Year Later and a Bit Wiser,Eur. Phys. J. C52(2007) 975–985, [arXiv:0708.1621]

    work page arXiv 2007

  22. [22]

    Morenas, A

    V. Morenas, A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. Pene, and J. C. Raynal,Quantitative predictions for B semileptonic decays into D, D* and the orbitally excited D** in quark models a la Bakamjian-Thomas,Phys. Rev. D56(1997) 5668–5680, [hep-ph/9706265]

    work page arXiv 1997

  23. [23]

    Scora and N

    D. Scora and N. Isgur,Semileptonic meson decays in the quark model: An update,Phys. Rev. D52(1995) 2783–2812, [hep-ph/9503486]

    work page arXiv 1995

  24. [24]

    Colangelo, F

    P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, and N. Paver,Universalτ 1/2(y)Isgur–Wise function at the next-to-leading order in QCD sum rules,Phys. Rev. D58(1998) 116005, [hep-ph/9804377]

    work page arXiv 1998

  25. [25]

    Zhang and Z.-X

    F.-W. Zhang and Z.-X. Zhao,Weak decays of singly heavy baryons: the1/2→3/2case, [arXiv:2508.13648]. [23]BelleCollaboration, F. Meier et al.,First observation ofB→ ¯D1(→ ¯Dπ+π−)ℓ+νℓ and measurement of the B→ ¯D(∗)πℓ+νℓ andB→ ¯D(∗)π+π−ℓ+νℓ branching fractions with hadronic tagging at Belle,Phys. Rev. D107(2023), no. 9 092003, [arXiv:2211.09833]

    work page arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Barnes, F

    T. Barnes, F. E. Close, and H. J. Lipkin,Implications of a DK molecule at 2.32-GeV,Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 054006, [hep-ph/0305025]. 28

    work page arXiv 2003

  27. [27]

    Hofmann and M

    J. Hofmann and M. F. M. Lutz,Open charm meson resonances with negative strangeness,Nucl. Phys. A733(2004) 142–152, [hep-ph/0308263]

    work page arXiv 2004

  28. [28]

    Cheng and W.-S

    H.-Y. Cheng and W.-S. Hou,B decays as spectroscope for charmed four quark states,Phys. Lett. B566(2003) 193–200, [hep-ph/0305038]

    work page arXiv 2003

  29. [29]

    M. A. Nowak, M. Rho, and I. Zahed,Chiral Doubling of Heavy-Light Hadrons: BaBar2317 MeV/c 2 and CLEO 2463 MeV/c 2 Discoveries,Acta Phys. Polon. B35(2004) 2377–2392, [hep-ph/0307102]

    work page arXiv 2004

  30. [30]

    T. E. Browder, S. Pakvasa, and A. A. Petrov,Comment on the newD (∗)+ s π0 resonances,Phys. Lett. B578(2004) 365–368, [hep-ph/0307054]

    work page arXiv 2004

  31. [31]

    W. A. Bardeen, E. J. Eichten, and C. T. Hill,Chiral Multiplets of Heavy - Light Mesons,Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 054024, [hep-ph/0305049]

    work page arXiv 2003

  32. [32]

    Chen and X.-Q

    Y.-Q. Chen and X.-Q. Li,A Comprehensive Four-Quark Interpretation ofD s(2317),D s(2457)andD s(2632),Phys. Rev. Lett.93(2004) 232001, [hep-ph/0407062]

    work page arXiv 2004

  33. [33]

    Kim and Y

    H. Kim and Y. Oh,D s(2317)as a four-quark state in QCD sum rules,Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 074012, [hep-ph/0508251]

    work page arXiv 2005

  34. [34]

    E. E. Kolomeitsev and M. F. M. Lutz,On Heavy light meson resonances and chiral symmetry,Phys. Lett. B582(2004) 39–48, [hep-ph/0307133]

    work page arXiv 2004

  35. [35]

    Maiani, F

    L. Maiani, F. Piccinini, A. D. Polosa, and V. Riquer,Diquark-antidiquarks with hidden or open charm and the nature of X(3872),Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 014028, [hep-ph/0412098]

    work page arXiv 2005

  36. [36]

    Guo, P.-N

    F.-K. Guo, P.-N. Shen, H.-C. Chiang, R.-G. Ping, and B.-S. Zou,Dynamically generated 0+ heavy mesons in a heavy chiral unitary approach,Phys. Lett. B641(2006) 278–285, [hep-ph/0603072]

    work page arXiv 2006

  37. [37]

    Wang and S.-L

    Z.-G. Wang and S.-L. Wan,D s0(2317)as a tetraquark state with QCD sum rules in the heavy quark limit,Nucl. Phys. A 778(2006) 22–29, [hep-ph/0602080]

    work page arXiv 2006

  38. [38]

    Vijande, F

    J. Vijande, F. Fernandez, and A. Valcarce,Open-charm meson spectroscopy,Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 034002, [hep-ph/0601143]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 74, 059903 (2006)]

    work page arXiv 2006

  39. [39]

    Xie, G.-Q

    Z.-X. Xie, G.-Q. Feng, and X.-H. Guo,AnalyzingD ∗ s0(2317)+ in theDKmolecule picture in the Bethe–Salpeter approach,Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 036014

    work page 2010

  40. [40]

    Cleven, H

    M. Cleven, H. W. Grießhammer, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, and U.-G. Meißner,Strong and radiative decays of the D∗ s0(2317)andD s1(2460),Eur. Phys. J. A50(2014) 149, [arXiv:1405.2242]

    work page arXiv 2014

  41. [41]

    Xiao, D.-Y

    c.-J. Xiao, D.-Y. Chen, and Y.-L. Ma,Radiative and pionic transitions from theD s1(2460)to theD ∗ s0(2317),Phys. Rev. D93(2016), no. 9 094011, [arXiv:1601.06399]

    work page arXiv 2016

  42. [42]

    Wang, Y.-L

    W. Wang, Y.-L. Shen, and C.-D. Lu,The study ofB − c →X(3872)π −(K −)decays in the covariant light-front approach, Eur. Phys. J. C51(2007) 841–847, [arXiv:0704.2493]

    work page arXiv 2007

  43. [43]

    Cheng, C.-K

    H.-Y. Cheng, C.-K. Chua, and C.-W. Hwang,Covariant light front approach for s wave and p wave mesons: Its application to decay constants and form-factors,Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 074025, [hep-ph/0310359]

    work page arXiv 2004

  44. [44]

    Yang, Z.-Q

    Y.-Y. Yang, Z.-Q. Zhang, H. Yang, Z.-J. Sun, and M.-X. Xie,Study ofB (s) meson decays toD ∗ 0(2300),D ∗ s0(2317), Ds1(2460)andD s1(2536)within the covariant light-front approach,Phys. Rev. D110(2024), no. 3 033006, [arXiv:2405.00496]

    work page arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Cheng and C.-K

    H.-Y. Cheng and C.-K. Chua,Covariant Light-Front Approach forB→K ∗γ,K 1γ,K ∗ 2 γDecays,Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 094007, [hep-ph/0401141]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 81, 059901 (2010)]

    work page arXiv 2004

  46. [46]

    C.-D. Lu, W. Wang, and Z.-T. Wei,Heavy-to-light form factors on the light cone,Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 014013, [hep-ph/0701265]

    work page arXiv 2007

  47. [47]

    Li, and Z.-X

    Wuenqi, R.-H. Li, and Z.-X. Zhao,Semileptonic and nonleptonic ¯Bs →D sJ decays in covariant light-front approach, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025), no. 9 1023, [arXiv:2504.15056]

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Cheng,Hadronic B decays involving even parity charmed mesons,Phys

    H.-Y. Cheng,Hadronic B decays involving even parity charmed mesons,Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 094005, [hep-ph/0307168]

    work page arXiv 2003

  49. [49]

    Dai and M.-q

    Y.-b. Dai and M.-q. Huang,Semileptonic B decays into excited charmed mesons from QCD sum rules,Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 034018, [hep-ph/9807461]

    work page arXiv 1999

  50. [50]

    Huang and Y.-b

    M.-q. Huang and Y.-b. Dai,Subleading Isgur–Wise form factors andO(1/m Q)corrections to the semileptonic decays B→D 1ℓ¯νandB→D ∗ 2 ℓ¯ν,Phys. Rev. D64(2001) 014034, [hep-ph/0102299]

    work page arXiv 2001

  51. [51]

    Zuo, H.-Y

    Y.-B. Zuo, H.-Y. Jin, J.-Y. Tian, J. Yi, H.-Y. Gong, and T.-T. Pan,B (s) →D ∗∗ (s) form factors in HQEFT and model independent analysis of relevant semileptonic decays with NP effects,Chin. Phys. C47(2023), no. 10 103104, [arXiv:2307.08271]. 29

    work page arXiv 2023

  52. [52]

    Gubernari, A

    N. Gubernari, A. Khodjamirian, R. Mandal, and T. Mannel,B→D 1(2420)andB→D ′ 1(2430)form factors from QCD light-cone sum rules,JHEP05(2022) 029, [arXiv:2203.08493]

    work page arXiv 2022

  53. [53]

    A. K. Leibovich, Z. Ligeti, I. W. Stewart, and M. B. Wise,Predictions forB→D 1(2420)ℓ¯νandB→D ∗ 2(2460)ℓ¯νat orderΛ QCD /mc,b,Phys. Rev. Lett.78(1997) 3995–3998, [hep-ph/9703213]

    work page arXiv 1997

  54. [54]

    A. K. Leibovich, Z. Ligeti, I. W. Stewart, and M. B. Wise,Semileptonic B decays to excited charmed mesons,Phys. Rev. D57(1998) 308–330, [hep-ph/9705467]

    work page arXiv 1998

  55. [55]

    F. U. Bernlochner and Z. Ligeti,SemileptonicB (s) decays to excited charmed mesons withe, µ, τand searching for new physics withR(D ∗∗),Phys. Rev. D95(2017), no. 1 014022, [arXiv:1606.09300]

    work page arXiv 2017

  56. [56]

    F. U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, and S. Turczyk,New ways to search for right-handed currents,Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 091503

    work page 2017

  57. [57]

    Blanke, A

    M. Blanke, A. Crivellin, S. de Boer, T. Kitahara, M. Moscati, U. Nierste, and I. Niˇ sandˇ zi´ c,Impact of polarization observables andB c →τ νon new physics explanations of theb→cτ νanomaly,Phys. Rev. D99(2019), no. 7 075006, [arXiv:1811.09603]

    work page arXiv 2019

  58. [58]

    Fedele, M

    M. Fedele, M. Blanke, A. Crivellin, S. Iguro, T. Kitahara, U. Nierste, and R. Watanabe,Impact ofΛ b →Λ cτ ν measurement on new physics in b→clνtransitions,Phys. Rev. D107(2023), no. 5 055005, [arXiv:2211.14172]

    work page arXiv 2023

  59. [59]

    Yasmeen, I

    T. Yasmeen, I. Ahmed, S. Shafaq, M. Arslan, and M. J. Aslam,Probing New Physics in Light of Recent Developments in b→cℓv Transitions,PTEP2024(2024), no. 7 073B07, [arXiv:2401.02334]

    work page arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    Dutta and N

    R. Dutta and N. Rajeev,Signature of lepton flavor universality violation inB s →D sτ νsemileptonic decays,Phys. Rev. D97(2018), no. 9 095045, [arXiv:1803.03038]

    work page arXiv 2018

  61. [61]

    Li, Y.-D

    X.-Q. Li, Y.-D. Yang, and X. Zhang,Revisiting the one leptoquark solution to theR(D (∗))anomalies and its phenomenological implications,JHEP08(2016) 054, [arXiv:1605.09308]

    work page arXiv 2016

  62. [62]

    Sakaki, M

    Y. Sakaki, M. Tanaka, A. Tayduganov, and R. Watanabe,Testing leptoquark models in ¯B→D (∗)τ¯ν,Phys. Rev. D88 (2013), no. 9 094012, [arXiv:1309.0301]. [61]F ermilab Lattice, MILCCollaboration, J. A. Bailey et al.,Update of|V cb|from the ¯B→D ∗ℓ¯νform factor at zero recoil with three-flavor lattice QCD,Phys. Rev. D89(2014), no. 11 114504, [arXiv:1403.0635]

    work page arXiv 2013

  63. [63]

    Ligeti, M

    Z. Ligeti, M. Papucci, and D. J. Robinson,New Physics in the Visible Final States ofB→D (∗)τ ν,JHEP01(2017) 083, [arXiv:1610.02045]. [63]BelleCollaboration, A. Abdesselam et al.,Measurement of theD ∗− polarization in the decayB 0 →D ∗−τ +ντ, in10th International Workshop on the CKM Unitarity Triangle, 3, 2019.arXiv:1903.03102. [64]BelleCollaboration, A. A...

    work page arXiv 2017

  64. [64]

    Kamali, A

    S. Kamali, A. Rashed, and A. Datta,New physics in inclusiveB→X cℓ¯νdecay in light ofR(D (∗))measurements,Phys. Rev. D97(2018), no. 9 095034, [arXiv:1801.08259]

    work page arXiv 2018

  65. [65]

    Colangelo and F

    P. Colangelo and F. De Fazio,Tension in the inclusive versus exclusive determinations of|V cb|: a possible role of new physics,Phys. Rev. D95(2017), no. 1 011701, [arXiv:1611.07387]

    work page arXiv 2017

  66. [66]

    Chang, J

    Q. Chang, J. Zhu, N. Wang, and R.-M. Wang,Probing the effects of new physics in ¯B∗ →P ℓ¯νℓ decays,Adv. High Energy Phys.2018(2018) 7231354, [arXiv:1808.02188]

    work page arXiv 2018

  67. [67]

    Mahata, M

    S. Mahata, M. Mandal, H. Mahapatra, S. Biswas, and S. Sahoo,Model dependent analysis ofD + (s) →η (′)l+vl decays in beyond standard model,Chin. Phys. C48(2024), no. 9 093106, [arXiv:2405.18254]

    work page arXiv 2024

  68. [68]

    Mahata, M

    S. Mahata, M. Mandal, S. Biswas, A. Biswas, and S. Sahoo,Investigation ofB ∗ d(s) →D + d (D+ s )τ −¯ντ decays in W’ model and scalar leptoquark model,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A38(2023), no. 22n23 2350113

    work page 2023

  69. [69]

    Wei et al.,Dark matter search with a resonantly-coupled hybrid spin system,Rept

    K. Wei et al.,Dark matter search with a resonantly-coupled hybrid spin system,Rept. Prog. Phys.88(2025), no. 5 057801, [arXiv:2306.08039]

    work page arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    Karmakar, S

    S. Karmakar, S. Chattopadhyay, and A. Dighe,Identifying physics beyond SMEFT in the angular distribution of Λb →Λ c(→Λπ)τ¯ντdecay,Phys. Rev. D110(2024), no. 1 015010, [arXiv:2305.16007]

    work page arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    Sheng, Q.-Y

    J.-H. Sheng, Q.-Y. Hu, R.-M. Wang, and J. Zhu,Phenomenology analysis of ¯B∗ →V τ −¯ντ decays in and beyond the Standard Model,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022), no. 8 768

    work page 2022

  72. [72]

    Sheng, J

    J.-H. Sheng, J. Zhu, and Q.-Y. Hu,Investigation on the New Physics effects of the vector leptoquark on semileptonic ¯B∗ →V τ − ¯ντ decays,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021), no. 6 524

    work page 2021

  73. [73]

    Zhang, Y

    J. Zhang, Y. Zhang, Q. Zeng, and R. Sun,New physics effects of the vector leptoquark on ¯B∗ →P τ¯ντ decays,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019), no. 2 164. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 79, 423 (2019)]. 30

    work page 2019

  74. [74]

    Huang, F

    Z.-R. Huang, F. M. Bhutta, N. Farooq, M. A. Paracha, and Y. Li,Reinvestigating the semileptonicB→D (∗)τ¯ντ decays in the model independent scenarios and leptoquark models,Phys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 11 115035, [arXiv:2501.03734]

    work page arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    Zafar, Q

    S. Zafar, Q. M. U. Salam, R. Khan, I. Ahmed, and R. Khalid,Chirality structure of vector like new physics operators in charged current transitions,Eur. Phys. J. Plus140(2025), no. 12 1167, [arXiv:2507.23721]. [78]Particle Data GroupCollaboration, S. Navas et al.,Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. D110(2024), no. 3 030001

    work page arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    Bigi and P

    D. Bigi and P. Gambino,RevisitingB→Dℓν,Phys. Rev. D94(2016), no. 9 094008, [arXiv:1606.08030]

    work page arXiv 2016

  77. [77]

    F. U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, M. Papucci, and D. J. Robinson,Combined analysis of semileptonicbdecays todandD ∗: r(D(∗)),|V cb|, and new physics,Phys. Rev. D95(Jun, 2017) 115008

    work page 2017

  78. [78]

    Jaiswal, S

    S. Jaiswal, S. Nandi, and S. K. Patra,Extraction of|V cb|fromB→D (∗)ℓνℓ and the Standard Model predictions of R(D(∗)),JHEP12(2017) 060, [arXiv:1707.09977]

    work page arXiv 2017

  79. [79]

    Jaiswal, S

    S. Jaiswal, S. Nandi, and S. K. Patra,Updates on extraction of|V cb|and SM prediction ofR(D ∗)inB→D ∗ℓνℓ decays, JHEP06(2020) 165, [arXiv:2002.05726]

    work page arXiv 2020

  80. [80]

    Gambino, M

    P. Gambino, M. Jung, and S. Schacht,The vcb puzzle: An update,Physics Letters B795(2019) 386–390

    work page 2019

Showing first 80 references.