Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 1 cited by

SU(3) flavor symmetry analysis of hyperon non-leptonic two body decays

T0 review · 1 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A global SU(3) flavor-symmetry fit to hyperon non-leptonic two-body decays reproduces all measured channels except $\Sigma^+\to p\pi^0$, whose branching ratio and asymmetry deviate by more than $1\sigma$, suggesting possible new decay…

desk verdict A systematic SU(3) analysis with genuinely new decuplet predictions, but the claimed new-physics hint in Sigma+ -> p pi0 is not robust; the paper should be revised, not desk-rejected. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16558 v2 pith:BCKNRLM6 submitted 2025-05-22 hep-ph

Xin Wu , Qi Chen , Ye Xing , Zhi-Peng Xing , Ruilin Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords SU(3)flavorsymmetryhyperonnon-leptonictwo-bodydecaysirreduciblerepresentationamplitudestopologicaldiagrammaticanalysisbreakingstrange-quarkmassspurionbranchingratiosandasymmetryparametersbeyondStandardModelsignals
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper develops a systematic $SU(3)$ flavor-symmetry description of hyperon two-body non-leptonic weak decays driven by $s\to u\bar u d$, using both irreducible-representation amplitudes (IRA) and topological-diagrammatic amplitudes (TDA). After the effective weak Hamiltonian is decomposed into $SU(3)$ multiplets (the 27-plet and four octets; the $\mathbf{10}$ and $\bar{\mathbf{10}}$ components vanish by the symmetry of the quark fields), color-antisymmetry arguments reduce the independent amplitudes to a small set, and strange-quark-mass breaking is included as a linear spurion $\omega=\mathrm{diag}(0,0,1)$. A global fit to measured branching ratios and asymmetry parameters then reproduces essentially all octet-hyperon data, with one exception: the branching ratio and asymmetry of $\Sigma^+\to p\pi^0$ deviate by more than $1\sigma$. The paper takes this residual as a possible sign of decay mechanisms beyond the Standard Model, and uses the fit to predict several decuplet and charmed-baryon branching ratios.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the decomposition of the four-quark weak Hamiltonian under $SU(3)$ flavor, $3\otimes3\otimes3\otimes3 = 27\oplus10\oplus\overline{10}\oplus8\oplus8\oplus8\oplus8\oplus1\oplus1$, followed by two truncations: symmetries of the quark-antiquark pairs kill the $10$ and $\overline{10}$ contributions, and color antisymmetry in baryon states reduces the surviving 27-plet and octet amplitudes to six ($c_{27}, a_8, b_8, c_8, d_8, e_8$). Symmetry breaking is introduced through the strange-quark mass matrix as the spurion $\omega=\mathrm{diag}(0,0,1)$, whose insertions are linearized and mostly absorbed into the symmetric amplitudes, leaving three independent breaking terms; a key output is that $c_{27}$ carries only symmetry-breaking information, with $R_f=-(75\pm5)\%$ and $R_g$ consistent with very large (order-1000\%) breaking. A least-$\chi^2$ fit over the parity-conserving and parity-violating form factors of the six octet channels is what produces the predicted branching ratios and asymmetry parameters.

What would settle it

Measure $\mathrm{Br}(\Sigma^+\to p\pi^0)$ and $\alpha(\Sigma^+\to p\pi^0)$ with uncertainties smaller than the current deviation, or repeat the fit with a quadratic $\omega^2$ spurion (or chiral-loop corrections): if the prediction then agrees with experiment, the claimed need for new mechanisms is falsified. A lattice-QCD evaluation of the $\Sigma^+\to p\pi^0$ amplitude in the same $SU(3)$-breaking scheme would settle it independently.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the $SU(3)$ structure of the $s\to u\bar u d$ weak Hamiltonian, together with a linear quark-mass spurion for symmetry breaking and a color-based truncation of amplitudes, accounts for every measured hyperon non-leptonic two-body decay except $\Sigma^+\to p\pi^0$. That channel is fixed by the same amplitudes that describe $\Lambda^0\to p\pi^-$, $\Lambda^0\to n\pi^0$, $\Sigma^+\to n\pi^+$, $\Sigma^-\to n\pi^-$, $\Xi^-\to\Lambda^0\pi^-$, and $\Xi^0\to\Lambda^0\pi^0$, so the more-than-$1\sigma$ discrepancy in both $\mathrm{Br}(\Sigma^+\to p\pi^0)$ and $\alpha(\Sigma^+\to p\pi^0)$ cannot be removed by the modeled symmetry-breaking terms; the paper reads it as evidence that new decay mechanisms or beyond-Standard-Model contributions may enter this mode. The same framework yields the relation $M(\Omega^-\to\Xi^0\pi^-)=\sqrt{3}\,M(\Xi^{*0}\to\Sigma^+\pi^-)$, predicts $\mathrm{Br}(\Xi^{*0}\to\Sigma^+\pi^-)\simeq 8\times10^{-14}$, and gives ranges for $\mathrm{Br}(\Xi^{*0}\to\Lambda^0\pi^0)$ and $\mathrm{Br}(\Xi^{*-}\to\Lambda^0\pi^-)$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument treats all $SU(3)$ breaking as a single linear strange-quark-mass spurion with only three independent surviving amplitudes; if higher-order mass corrections or non-spurion hadronic effects shift $\Sigma^+\to p\pi^0$ by about $1\sigma$, the residual would disappear without any new physics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the $SU(3)$ fit with linear symmetry breaking is predictive: it reproduces all octet-hyperon observables except $\Sigma^+\to p\pi^0$ at $\chi^2/\mathrm{d.o.f.}=1.54$, so any future datum that contradicts a predicted channel is a potential signal.
  • The relation $M(\Omega^-\to\Xi^0\pi^-)=\sqrt{3}\,M(\Xi^{*0}\to\Sigma^+\pi^-)$ converts the measured $\Omega^-$ branching ratio into the definite prediction $\mathrm{Br}(\Xi^{*0}\to\Sigma^+\pi^-)=(8.04\pm0.51)\times10^{-14}$.
  • The extracted 27-plet breaking ratio $R_f=-(75\pm5)\%$ quantifies the dominance of symmetry breaking in the 27-plet amplitudes, while the large $R_g$ shows the pseudoscalar sector can carry much larger breaking.
  • The unknown phase between $D_8$ and the other fitted amplitudes leaves bounded ranges $4.59\times10^{-14}\le\mathrm{Br}(\Xi^{*0}\to\Lambda^0\pi^0)\le4.16\times10^{-13}$ and $4.87\times10^{-14}\le\mathrm{Br}(\Xi^{*-}\to\Lambda^0\pi^-)\le8.65\times10^{-13}$, giving concrete experimental targets.
  • The same Hamiltonian decomposition produces ready-to-use amplitudes for charmed-baryon decays $\Xi_c^+\to\Lambda_c^+\pi^0$, $\Xi_c^0\to\Lambda_c^+\pi^-$, $\Omega_c^0\to\Xi_c^0\pi^0$, and related modes, testable once data become available.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: a dedicated sub-percent measurement of $\alpha(\Sigma^+\to p\pi^0)$ is the cheapest observable to decide whether the residual is real, because the channel's amplitude is fully determined by the same parameters that fit the other octet modes.
  • Beyond the paper: the finding that the 27-plet component carries $\sim75\%$ symmetry breaking suggests that other hadronic weak-decay analyses that truncate 27-plet terms at leading order may systematically underestimate mass effects; this implication for neighboring decays is not developed in the paper.
  • Beyond the paper: adding a quadratic $\omega^2$ spurion or next-order chiral corrections to the same global fit is a direct extension; if the $\Sigma^+\to p\pi^0$ residual disappears under those extensions the new-physics hint weakens, and if it persists it strengthens.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper develops an SU(3) flavor-symmetry analysis of hyperon two-body non-leptonic weak decays driven by the s -> u ubar d transition. It decomposes the effective weak Hamiltonian into irreducible SU(3) representations (27-plet and octets), constructs decay amplitudes for octet and decuplet baryons and for charmed baryons using both IRA and TDA, and includes linear SU(3)-breaking via a quark-mass spurion. A global fit to branching ratios and asymmetry parameters yields a set of amplitudes; most measured channels are reproduced, while Br(Sigma+ -> p pi0) and alpha(Sigma+ -> p pi0) are claimed to deviate by more than 1 sigma. The paper interprets this residual as a possible hint of new physics. It also presents predictions for several unmeasured decuplet decay channels and a range for Xi* -> Lambda pi branching ratios.

Significance. If the amplitude basis were known to be complete and the statistical treatment sound, the paper would provide a useful systematic SU(3) framework for hyperon decays and a set of testable predictions, particularly for the decuplet channels in Eqs. (40)-(41). The explicit Hamiltonian decomposition and the use of recent BESIII data are strengths, as is the transparent listing of fitted amplitudes in Table I. However, the central interpretive claim---that the Sigma+ -> p pi0 residual indicates physics beyond the Standard Model---is not supported by the analysis as presented: the amplitude basis appears incomplete, and the quoted significance is obtained after post hoc expansion of the very errors that define the anomaly. The paper's value is therefore primarily in its framework and predictions, not in the claimed new-physics signal.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (19) and surrounding text] The factor sin(theta) appears in the Hamiltonian components in Eq. (19) and in every amplitude in Tables II and III, but the angle theta is never defined anywhere in the paper. If it denotes the Cabibbo angle, this should be stated explicitly and its numerical value specified; if it denotes something else, the definition is missing. This is not merely cosmetic, because the fitted parameters in Table I are extracted using amplitudes proportional to sin(theta), and a reader cannot reproduce the fit without knowing its meaning.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Sec. I, references] The reference list omits several recent works on SU(3) analyses of hyperon decays that use comparable methods, e.g., the isospin analysis in Ref. [22] is cited, but more recent SU(3) fits of non-leptonic hyperon decays are not discussed in the text. Adding a brief comparison with those results would strengthen the context.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed Σ+→pπ0 'prediction' is the global fit's residual for a channel whose own data were fit inputs, so the >1σ BSM hint is partially circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Sec. III (text before Table II and Table II itself)]
    "A global fit to current experimental data allows us to extract form factors and predict branching ratios and asymmetry parameters for several decay channels, including Λ0 →pπ −, Σ + →pπ 0, and Ω − →Ξ 0π−."

    The channels named in this abstract sentence as 'predicted' are the same channels whose measured branching ratios and asymmetries enter the least-χ² fit in Sec. III. Table II lists the experimental and 'Our work' values side by side, and for fitted channels they coincide at the quoted precision (e.g. Λ0→pπ−: 64.1(5) vs 64.1(5); 0.747(9) vs 0.747(9)), which is the expected output of a fit to those inputs. The 'predicted' values are therefore in-sample fitted reproductions, not independent predictions.

full rationale

The SU(3) decomposition itself is not circular: the Hamiltonian reduction in Eq. (14), the color-suppression argument, and the TDA-IRA correspondence cited from refs. [32–35] are external or dynamical inputs, not self-citations, and the decuplet section produces genuinely out-of-sample predictions for Ξ* decays from fitted Ω amplitudes. The circularity is localized to the central interpretive claim. The abstract and Sec. III label fit outputs as 'predictions' for channels whose measured branching ratios and asymmetry parameters were used as fit inputs, especially Λ, Σ+, and Ω−→Ξ0π−. The significance of the Σ+→pπ0 anomaly is therefore not an independent test: it is the failure of the fitted amplitude basis to reproduce two of its own data points, and the paper itself weakens the quoted pull by expanding those two errors to 2σ after seeing the discrepancy. This does not make the whole derivation definitionally circular, but it makes the headline new-physics suggestion partly an artifact of presenting in-sample residuals as predictions. Hence score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central fit uses 7 physical amplitude parameters plus the error-inflation factor. The assumptions are mostly standard domain assumptions for SU(3) analyses, but the linear spurion and color-suppression reductions are specific to this paper and are not rigorously justified.

free parameters (8)
  • A8 (f and g) = f=-3.20±0.45, g=-1.74±0.46
    Fitted to hyperon decay data in the global chi-square fit; absorbs both symmetric and symmetry-breaking contributions.
  • B8 (f and g) = f=-3.32±0.45, g=-10.49±0.45
    Fitted in Table I.
  • c8 (f and g) = f=-2.39±0.45, g=-8.84±0.45
    Fitted in Table I; contributes to octet amplitudes.
  • d8 (f and g) = f=-3.04±0.45, g=-2.64±0.45
    Fitted in Table I.
  • e8 (f and g) = f=2.42±0.45, g=2.48±0.45
    Fitted in Table I.
  • c27 (f and g) = f=0.0672±0.0010, g=0.031±0.088
    Fitted; represents symmetry-breaking contribution in the 27-plet amplitude.
  • c2_27 (f and g) = f=-0.0503±0.0032, g=-0.23±0.12
    Fitted; additional 27-plet symmetry-breaking parameter.
  • Error inflation factor for Sigma+ -> p pi0 B and alpha = 2 (errors expanded to 2 sigma)
    Chosen post hoc to achieve chi2/d.o.f=1.54; not a physical parameter.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Only tree-level operators Q1 and Q2 contribute; penguin and electroweak penguin operators are neglected.
    Used to define the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1)-(3); the paper sets z_{3-10}=0 and y_{1/2}=0 without quantifying the uncertainty.
  • ad hoc to paper SU(3) symmetry breaking enters only as the linear quark-mass spurion omega (Eq. 27).
    Higher-order mass insertions are ignored; the authors themselves note that the breaking may be as large as ~1000% in some form factors, so this linearization is a strong assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Color-symmetry arguments from topological diagrams reduce the independent amplitudes to {c27, a8, b8, c8, d8, e8}.
    The reduction relies on a heuristic rather than a full derivation; the paper admits an earlier miscount of amplitudes.
  • domain assumption The phase between the D8 amplitude and a8/e27 is unknown and left free when predicting decuplet branching ratios.
    The paper notes this phase cannot be determined from current data and therefore gives ranges rather than precise values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SU(3) flavor symmetry analysis of hyperon non-leptonic two body decays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BCKNRLM6

@misc{pith2026250516558,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SU(3) flavor symmetry analysis of hyperon non-leptonic two body decays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BCKNRLM6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16558}
}
abstract

This paper present a systematic study of hyperon non-leptonic two-body decays induced by light quark transitions, particularly the $s \rightarrow u\bar{u}d$ process, within the framework of SU(3) flavor symmetry. The effective weak Hamiltonian is decomposed into irreducible SU(3) representations, including the 27-plet and octet components, and applied to analyze decays of octet and decuplet baryons and charmed baryons. Both the irreducible representation amplitude (IRA) approach and the topological diagrammatic analysis (TDA) are employed to construct decay amplitudes and constrain the parameter space. SU(3) symmetry-breaking effects arising from the strange quark mass are incorporated systematically. A global fit to current experimental data allows us to extract form factors and predict branching ratios and asymmetry parameters for several decay channels, including $\Lambda^0 \rightarrow p\pi^-$, $\Sigma^+ \rightarrow p\pi^0$, and $\Omega^- \rightarrow \Xi^0\pi^-$. Our results demonstrate the predictive power of SU(3) flavor symmetry while highlighting significant symmetry-breaking effects, especially in amplitudes related to the 27-plet. Notably, the $\Sigma^+ \rightarrow p\pi^0$ decay channel exhibits a deviation exceeding $1\sigma$ from experimental measurements, suggesting the possible presence of new decay mechanisms or contributions beyond the Standard Model. This work provides a systematic framework for future tests of the Standard Model and the search for new physics in hyperon decays.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16558 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Color symmetric topological diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fig.2. The topological diagrams in Fig.2 can be divided [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Unraveling weak radiative hyperon decays with broken flavor symmetry

    hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A broken-SU(3) fit with eight parameters reproduces the observed hyperon radiative decay data and predicts a sizable negative Xi- -> Sigma- gamma asymmetry that current data do not rule out.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    For constructing these representation matrices, the Hamiltonian matrixH ij kl can be symmetrized and anti- symmetrized to four terms as H ij kl =H {ij} {kl} +H {ij} [kl] +H [ij] {kl} +H [ij] [kl] , H {ij} {kl} = 1 4 (H ij kl +H ji kl +H ij lk +H ji lk ), H {ij} [kl] = 1 4 (H ij kl +H ji kl −H ij lk −H ji lk ), H [ij] {kl} = 1 4 (H ij kl −H ji kl +H ij lk ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett.120, no.22, 221803 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.221803 [arXiv:1712.08606 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. D97, no.3, 032013 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.032013 [arXiv:1709.10236 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett.129, no.13, 131801 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.131801 [arXiv:2204.11058 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Sci

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Sci. Bull.66, 1278-1287 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.scib.2021.02.030 [arXiv:2012.10380 [hep- ex]]

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett.130, no.21, 211901 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.211901 [arXiv:2302.13568 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett.129, no.21, 212002 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.212002 [arXiv:2206.10791 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Then the amplitudec 27 only contains the symmetry breaking contribution and other amplitude are contributed by symmetry and its breaking together

    After the redefinition, the degrees of freedom are 8. Then the amplitudec 27 only contains the symmetry breaking contribution and other amplitude are contributed by symmetry and its breaking together. Therefore, the value ofc 27 will represent the contribution of symmetry breaking effect. By the least-χ 2 fit method[36], we can give a global analysis on t...

    work page

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Lett. B852, 138614 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138614 [arXiv:2312.17063 [hep-ex]]

    2024

  2. [10]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. D108, no.9, L091101 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.L091101 [arXiv:2309.06368 [hep-ex]]

    2023

  3. [11]

    X. G. He and J. P. Ma, Phys. Lett. B839, 137834 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137834 [arXiv:2212.08243 [hep-ph]]

    2023

  4. [12]

    Gockeleret al.[QCDSF], Phys

    M. Gockeleret al.[QCDSF], Phys. Lett. B545, 112-118 (2002) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(02)02578-9 [arXiv:hep- lat/0208017 [hep-lat]]

    2002

  5. [13]

    Z. P. Xing, Y. J. Shi, J. Sun and Z. X. Zhao, [arXiv:2312.17568 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    J. Fu, H. B. Li, J. P. Wang, F. S. Yu and J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D108, no.9, 9 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.L091301 [arXiv:2307.04364 [hep-ex]]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    E. N. Dubovik, V. S. Zamiralov, S. Lepshokov and A. E. Shkolnikov, Phys. Atom. Nucl.71, 136-146 (2008) doi:10.1007/s11450-008-1015-x

    2008 doi

  8. [16]

    X. H. Hu and Z. X. Zhao, Chin. Phys. C43, no.9, 093104 (2019) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/43/9/093104 [arXiv:1811.01478 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Zenczykowski, Acta Phys

    P. Zenczykowski, Acta Phys. Polon. B51, 2111 (2020) doi:10.5506/APhysPolB.51.2111 [arXiv:2009.12552 [hep- ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    J. P. Wang and F. S. Yu, Phys. Lett. B849, 138460 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138460 [arXiv:2208.01589 [hep-ph]]

    2024

  11. [19]

    Zenczykowski, Phys

    P. Zenczykowski, Phys. Rev. D62, 014030 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.014030 [arXiv:hep- ph/9911267 [hep-ph]]

    2000

  12. [20]

    R. X. Shi, S. Y. Li, J. X. Lu and L. S. Geng, Sci. Bull.67, 2298-2304 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.scib.2022.10.026 [arXiv:2206.11773 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    R. X. Shi and L. S. Geng, Sci. Bull.68, 779-782 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.scib.2023.03.040 [arXiv:2303.18002 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Han and J

    C. Han and J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D109, no.1, 014034 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.014034 [arXiv:2311.02669 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    R. X. Shi, Z. Jia, L. S. Geng, H. Peng, Q. Zhao and X. Zhou, Chin. Phys. Lett.42, no.3, 032401 (2025) doi:10.1088/0256-307X/42/3/032401 [arXiv:2502.15473 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    R. M. Wang, M. Z. Yang, H. B. Li and X. D. Cheng, Phys. Rev. D100, no.7, 076008 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.076008 [arXiv:1906.08413 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Y. G. Xu, X. D. Cheng, J. L. Zhang and R. M. Wang, J. Phys. G47, no.8, 085005 (2020) doi:10.1088/1361- 6471/ab97c7 [arXiv:2001.06907 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    P. Y. Niu, J. M. Richard, Q. Wang and Q. Zhao, Chin. Phys. C45, no.1, 013101 (2021) doi:10.1088/1674- 1137/abc067 [arXiv:2007.09621 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    G. S. Bali, V. M. Braun, S. B¨ urger, M. G¨ ockeler, M. Gru- ber, F. Kaiser, B. A. Kniehl, O. L. Veretin and P. Wein, [arXiv:2411.19091 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    M. H. Chuet al.[Lattice Parton], Phys. Rev. D111, no.3, 034510 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.034510 [arXiv:2411.12554 [hep-lat]]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Chang, [arXiv:hep-ph/0011163 [hep-ph]]

    D. Chang, [arXiv:hep-ph/0011163 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    H. B. Li, Front. Phys. (Beijing)12, no.5, 121301 (2017) [erratum: Front. Phys. (Beijing)14, no.6, 64001 (2019)] doi:10.1007/s11467-017-0691-9 [arXiv:1612.01775 [hep- ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    X. G. He, J. Tandean and G. Valencia, Phys. Rev. D108, no.5, 055012 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.055012 [arXiv:2304.02559 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Zenczykowski, Phys

    P. Zenczykowski, Phys. Rev. D73, 076005 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.076005 [arXiv:hep- ph/0512122 [hep-ph]]

    2006

  25. [33]

    Buchalla, A

    G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras and M. E. Lauten- bacher, Rev. Mod. Phys.68, 1125-1144 (1996) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.68.1125 [arXiv:hep- ph/9512380 [hep-ph]]

    1996

  26. [34]

    J. G. Korner, Nucl. Phys. B25, 282-290 (1971) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(71)90538-4

    1971 doi

  27. [35]

    J. C. Pati and C. H. Woo, Phys. Rev. D3, 2920-2922 (1971) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.3.2920

    1971 doi

  28. [36]

    X. G. He and W. Wang, Chin. Phys. C42, no.10, 103108 (2018) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/42/10/103108 [arXiv:1803.04227 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    X. G. He, Y. J. Shi and W. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.5, 359 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7862-5 [arXiv:1811.03480 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Lepage and C

    P. .Lepage and C. Gohlke, gplepage/lsqfit: lsqfit ver- sion 11.7 (v11.7),Zenodo doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4037174

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.