Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 59 references

Semileptonic $D_{e4}$ decays: hadronic dynamics and the determination of $|V_{cs}|$

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 The D*(2010) pole contribution can mimic the S-wave signal in the Kpi system of D_e4 decays, so the apparent kappa(700) resonance may not be a genuine scalar meson.

desk verdict A competent but limited reanalysis: the D*-pole mimicry claim is plausible as a proof-of-principle, but it rests on fits to BESIII's model curves and is undercut by a ~pi phase flip between isospin channels. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06586 v3 pith:F4M6GXXO submitted 2025-06-06 hep-ph

J. L. Gutiérrez Santiago , G. López Castro This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 13.20.Fc12.15.Hh
keywords semileptonicDdecaysD_e4K*(892)resonanceD*(2010)poleS-waveK-pisystemstrangescalarkappa|V_cs|determinationmesondominancemodel
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 aims to establish that the charmed vector meson $D^*(2010)$ can reproduce, through a pole contribution, the S-wave signal in the $K\pi$ system that recent BESIII data show in the four-body semileptonic decays $D^+\to K^-\pi^+e^+\nu_e$ and $D^0\to \overline K^0\pi^-e^+\nu_e$. If that is right, the effect usually attributed to the light, wide strange scalar meson $\kappa/K_0^*(700)$ is not unique evidence that such a meson exists. The claim matters because it removes one of the experimental cornerstones of the light strange scalar and shifts the interpretation of the hadronic form factors extracted from $D_{e4}$ decays. Using the same fits, the paper extracts $|V_{cs}|=0.963\pm0.029$ from $D_{e4}$ decays, consistent with the more precise determinations from $D_s$ and $D\to K$ decays but not yet competitive.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the $D^*(2010)$ pole contribution to the hadronic weak current for $D\to K\pi\ell\nu$, described through the subleading $D^*\to K$ transition with weak form factors $V', A_1', A_2'$ and a fitted strong coupling $g_{D^*}$ with relative phase $\delta_{D^*}$. Because this pole has a different momentum-transfer structure than the $K^*(892)$ pole, its interference with the dominant P-wave reshapes the $K\pi$ mass distribution in a way that resembles an S-wave signal. The calculation uses the standard four-form-factor decomposition of the $D\to K\pi\ell\nu$ matrix element, monopole $q^2$ dependence for the weak form factors, and energy-dependent Breit-Wigner widths; the fits have five free parameters: $V(0)$, $A_1(0)$, $A_2(0)$, $|g_{D^*}|$, and $\delta_{D^*}$.

What would settle it

Fit the same $K^*+D^*$ model directly to the unfolded BESIII event distributions (detector effects unfolded bin by bin) and compare its goodness of fit with the $K^*+$scalar model; if the $K^*+D^*$ model degrades significantly in the region below and above the $K^*(892)$ peak or in the helicity-form-factor distributions, the mimicry claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the BESIII distributions of the $K\pi$ invariant mass, the momentum transfer $q^2$, and the helicity form factors of $D^+_{e4}$ and $D^0_{e4}$ decays can be described by a model containing only the $K^*(892)$ pole for the dominant P-wave plus a $D^*(2010)$ pole contribution, with no scalar resonance at all. In this model the $D^*$ pole mimics the effect of the S-wave component of the $K\pi$ system that the BESIII analyses interpret as the light strange scalar, contributing roughly 10% of the total branching fraction compared with the 5–6% scalar fraction reported by the experiment. The fitted parameters show that the $D^*$ pole correlates with the weak form factors of the $D\to K^*$ transition at $q^2=0$, while the $K^*(892)$ mass and width stay essentially unchanged; with a theoretical input for $A_1(0)$ this yields $|V_{cs}|$ from $D_{e4}$ decays at the level $0.963\pm0.029$.

Load-bearing premise

The demonstration rests on fitting to the central points of BESIII's best-fit curves rather than to the raw unfolded event data, so if those curves do not faithfully represent the true data, the D* mimicry could be an artifact of the model used to smooth them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A confirmed D* mimicry would mean the S-wave component observed in $D_{e4}$ decays is not by itself evidence for the existence of the light strange scalar meson $\kappa/K_0^*(700)$.
  • The $K^*(892)$ mass and width extracted from $D_{e4}$ data remain essentially unchanged when the D* pole is added, so the main effect of the new mechanism is to shift the extracted $D\to K^*$ weak form factors at zero momentum transfer by several percent.
  • Branching fractions computed with the $K^*+D^*$ model agree with the current world averages; the pure D* mechanism accounts for about 10% of the total $D_{e4}$ rate, close to the scalar contribution reported by BESIII.
  • A value $|V_{cs}|=0.963\pm0.029$ is obtained from $D_{e4}$ decays; with better form-factor inputs and unfolded data, $D_{e4}$ decays could provide a competitive, independent determination of $|V_{cs}|$.
  • Because lepton masses are kept in the amplitude, the model also predicts the muonic $D_{\mu 4}$ branching fractions and their ratios to the electronic modes, providing a lepton-universality test.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive test of the mimicry would be a model-independent partial-wave decomposition of the unfolded $K\pi$ system: a genuine scalar produces a characteristic slowly rising phase as $\sqrt{s_{12}}$ grows, whereas the D* pole predicts a phase fixed by the fitted $\delta_{D^*}$ and the D* propagator.
  • If the D* pole is the true origin, the effective S-wave strength in $D^+_{e4}$ and $D^0_{e4}$ should be correlated through the same $g_{D^*}$; a joint fit of both channels with a common coupling would either confirm that correlation or expose that the two channels require incompatible parameters.
  • Reanalyzing the previously published $D_{e4}$ data sets quoted in the paper with a $K^*+D^*$ model and no scalar pole would shift the extracted $\kappa$ parameters, which would mean that current $\kappa$ masses and widths carry a D*-related systematic error.
  • The same D* mechanism should appear in the muonic modes $D^+\to K^-\pi^+\mu^+\nu_\mu$, where the lepton-mass dependence of the D* interference could distinguish it from a scalar contribution that would be lepton-flavor blind.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a hadronic model for the semileptonic four-body decays D^+ -> K^- pi^+ e^+ nu_e and D^0 -> anti-K^0 pi^- e^+ nu_e in which the Kpi system is described by K*(892) and D*(2010) pole contributions, and the scalar K0*(700) is excluded a priori. Fitting the model to the central points of BESIII's best-fit curves for the mass, q^2, helicity, and branching-fraction observables, the authors report acceptable chi^2 per degree of freedom and conclude that the D* pole can mimic the S-wave contribution attributed to the kappa resonance. They also extract |Vcs| = 0.963 +/- 0.029 by combining the isospin-related channels with an external value of A1(0). The paper includes complete formulas for the four-body kinematics and angular distribution, and a transparent statement of the pseudo-data limitation used in the fits.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would offer a dynamical alternative to the interpretation of the D_e4 S-wave as evidence for a light strange scalar, and would add D_e4 as an independent, albeit currently less precise, source of |Vcs|. The manuscript's strengths are its explicit meson-dominance construction, the complete angular-distribution formalism in Appendix B, and the honest statement in Section IV that the fits use BESIII's best-fit curves rather than unfolded data. However, the evidence is conditional: the fits are not performed on raw data, the K*+D* model is never compared with a model without an S-wave component, and the fitted D* phase is not isospin-consistent between the charged and neutral channels. The |Vcs| determination is not competitive and relies on an external axial form factor whose uncertainty is not propagated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (17)] The chi^2 is evaluated on "central points reproduced from their best fitted curves" of the BESIII analysis, not on raw unfolded event data. Because those best-fit curves are generated by a BESIII model that explicitly contains the K0*(700) S-wave contribution, the good chi^2/n.d.f. values in Tables IV and VI (0.78 and 0.746) demonstrate only that the K*+D* model can emulate the K*+S-wave model, not that the D* pole reproduces the true S-wave component of the data. The sentence in Section IV calling this "a limitation in our procedure" is accurate, but the central claim in Section V that "the role of the S-wave configuration for the Kpi system can be mimicked in our model by the D* pole contribution" is a data-level claim and is therefore not established by these fits. The authors should either fit the unfolded spectra directly, or demonstrate the mimicry on fits that remove the S-wave from the comparison model, or at least quantify the sensitivity of the result to the BESIII model assumptions.
  2. [Section V, Tables IV and VI] The fitted relative phases differ by approximately pi: delta_gD* = 0.643(156) rad for D^+ and 3.846(250) rad for D^0, which corresponds to cos(delta) changing from about +0.80 to -0.77. Under the isospin relation quoted at the beginning of Section V, <K^- pi^+|J|D^+> = -<K^0 pi^-|J|D^0>, the ratio of the D* and K* amplitudes should be the same in the two channels up to the overall sign; a phase shift of pi implies the D* interference is constructive in one channel and destructive in the other, which is not a single physical D* contribution. The paper notes in Section V that the phase is different but does not confront this inconsistency. A combined fit with a common, isospin-rotated phase, or an explicit demonstration that the pi shift is an isospin Clebsch-Gordan convention effect, is required before the D*-pole mimicry claim can be accepted. The 2.3-sigma splitting in |Vcs A1(0)| quoted in Eq. (18) is a further symptom of the same problem.
  3. [Section V, Table V and Eq. (17)] The branching fractions listed in Table V as "calculated in this work" are not independent predictions, because the chi^2 in Eq. (17) explicitly includes the measured branching fraction BRexp as one of the fitted observables, and |A1(0)| is a free normalization. The agreement with the world averages therefore mainly confirms the fit normalization rather than providing new evidence that the D* pole reproduces the S-wave contribution. The claim that the pure D* contribution is about 10% of the branching fraction should be presented as a model-dependent fit output, not as a prediction, unless the branching-fraction term is removed from the fit.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section I] The first sentence of the Introduction contains a typo: "Th precise" should read "The precise".
  2. [Section II] The sentence "The expression for this expansion is deserved to Appendix B" should read "is deferred to Appendix B".
  3. [Section IV] The text says "the seven free parameters of our fit are are the following"; the duplicated "are" should be removed.
  4. [Table IV] The table caption says "Third to fifth columns are the results of our fits," but the table as printed contains only one "This work" column; the caption is inconsistent with the table's actual layout.
  5. [Table V] The text before Table V defines the K*(892) region as m_K* - Gamma_K* <= sqrt(s12) <= m_K* + Gamma_K*, while the table heading states m_K* - 2 Gamma_K* <= sqrt(s12) <= m_K* + 2 Gamma_K*; these definitions should be reconciled.
  6. [Section V] The value |Vcs| = 0.963 +/- 0.029 in Eq. (19) uses the theoretical input A1(0) = 0.619 without propagating an uncertainty for A1(0); since the text notes that the theoretical error is not reported, this result should be labeled a central-value estimate rather than a complete determination.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

D*-pole mimicry is fitted to BESIII's S-wave-model curves, and the Table V branching fractions are fitted inputs presented as predictions.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV (Fit to BESIII data) and Section V (Fit results)]
    "we have fitted our model to the central points reproduced from their best fitted curves, but we keep the experimental error associated to the bins of each observable. Certainly, this is a limitation in our procedure given the impossibility to access the information on folding effects. ... A comparison of the results of our fits with the ones provided in Refs. [21, 24], shows that the role of the S-wave configuration for the Kπ system can be mimicked in our model by the D∗ pole contribution."

    The pseudo-data being fitted are the central points of BESIII's best-fit curves, which were produced by a model that already includes the K0*(700) S-wave. The subsequent conclusion that the D* pole 'can mimic' the S-wave is therefore obtained by fitting to an input that already contains the S-wave component. The fit demonstrates only that a K*+D* model can reproduce the output of a K*+S-wave model, not independently that the D* pole reproduces the true S-wave in unfolded data. The paper itself labels this 'a limitation in our procedure.'

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section IV, Eq. (17) and Section V, Table V]
    "The χ2 function is built as follows ... + ( BRth − BRexp / σBR,exp )^2 + ... Once all the free parameters have been fixed from experimental data as done in columns 3 of Tables IV and VI, we can predict the branching fractions of D+,0 e4 decays."

    The branching fraction is one of the fitted observables in Eq. (17), since the χ2 includes a term (BRth − BRexp)²/σ². After the fit, the same quantity is presented in Table V as a model 'prediction' and its agreement with the world average is cited as validation. The D*-only and K*-only branching fractions are computed from the same fitted parameters, so their relative sizes are not independent predictions; they are algebraically determined by parameters already adjusted to reproduce the fitted branching-fraction input.

full rationale

Two genuine instances of fitted input being relabeled as prediction are present: the branching fractions in Table V are fitted, not predicted, and the central mimicry claim rests on fitting to BESIII's best-fit curves that already include the S-wave. However, the paper is not wholly circular: the fitted D* coupling magnitude is consistent with the measured D* width, and an independent calculation (Ref. [49]) also finds a non-resonant contribution of the same order. The isospin inconsistency of the fitted D* phases (δ ≈ 0.64 rad for D+ versus 3.85 rad for D0, a ~3.2 rad flip) is a physics concern rather than a circularity and is not counted here. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz-smuggled-via-self-citation pattern appears; the D*→K form factors from Ref. [34] trace to the external model of Refs. [44,45]. Score 5 reflects partial circularity in the central evidence and one clearly fitted 'prediction', while acknowledging independent external support.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a meson-dominance model with seven fitted parameters (K* mass and width, axial normalization A1(0), ratios r2 and rV, and the magnitude and phase of the D* coupling), on fixed inputs from external models (D* -> K form factors from Ref. [34], pole masses from the PDG), on the assumption that the contact term and higher resonances can be neglected, on the a priori exclusion of the kappa/scalar, and on the assumption that BESIII best-fit curves are a valid proxy for true data. No new particles are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • m_K* (892) = 892.95(1.23) MeV (D+), 890.05(1.59) MeV (D0)
    Pole mass of the K*(892) resonance, fitted to BESIII distributions.
  • Gamma_K* (892) = 45.38(1.20) MeV (D+), 48.12(1.70) MeV (D0)
    Width of the K*(892) resonance, fitted to BESIII distributions.
  • A1(0) = 0.627(10) (D+), 0.590(12) (D0)
    Axial form factor normalization of the D -> K* transition, global normalization of the decay distributions.
  • r2 = A2(0)/A1(0) = 0.766(55) (D+), 0.680(70) (D0)
    Ratio of axial form factors, fitted to BESIII data.
  • rV = V(0)/A1(0) = 1.453(77) (D+), 1.459(100) (D0)
    Ratio of vector to axial form factor, fitted to BESIII data.
  • |g_D*| = 8.744(317) (D+), 9.413(769) (D0)
    Magnitude of the D*Dpi strong coupling, fitted; consistent with the value 8.390(80) from the D* width.
  • delta_D* = 0.643(156) rad (D+), 3.846(250) rad (D0)
    Relative phase between the K* and D* amplitudes, fitted; not fixed by flavor symmetry.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The hadronic weak current is saturated by K*(892) and D*(2010) poles, with the contact term negligible.
    Section III.A and Eq. (6): the authors explicitly state they neglect the contact term C and exclude higher resonances.
  • ad hoc to paper The scalar K*0(700) contribution is excluded a priori.
    Section III.A: 'we will not consider the effects of the latter in our analysis' to test the D* pole hypothesis; this prevents a nested test of whether both D* and kappa are needed.
  • domain assumption Weak form factors have monopole q^2 dependence with pole masses taken from light resonances.
    Eq. (12) in Section III.A; standard pole dominance assumption.
  • domain assumption The D* -> K weak form factors (V', A1', A2') at q2=0 are taken from the constituent quark model of Ref. [34].
    Section III.A, Table II; these subleading inputs are assumed correct and fixed in the fit.
  • domain assumption Isospin symmetry relates D+ and D0 hadronic matrix elements.
    Section V.A, used to average |Vcs A1(0)| from the two channels; the observed 2.3 sigma discrepancy puts strain on this assumption.
  • domain assumption The D*(2010) pole is treated as a real propagator with no width (DD* = s' - m_D*^2).
    Eq. (6) and surrounding text; the D* width is neglected.
  • ad hoc to paper Central points of the BESIII best-fit curves can be used as pseudo-data with the experimental bin errors.
    Section IV: the authors fit to 'central points reproduced from their best fitted curves' rather than actual data; this is a load-bearing assumption for the mimicry claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semileptonic $D_{e4}$ decays: hadronic dynamics and the determination of $|V_{cs}|$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F4M6GXXO

@misc{pith2026250606586,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semileptonic $D_e4$ decays: hadronic dynamics and the determination of $|V_cs|$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F4M6GXXO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06586}
}
abstract

The four-body decays $D^+ \to K^-\pi^+e^+\nu_e$ ($D_{e4}^+$) and $D^0\to \overline{K^0}\pi^-e^+\nu_e$ ($D^0_{e4}$) are studied in a model where the momentum-dependence of the hadronic matrix elements are described in terms of $K^*(892)$ and $D^*(2010)$ pole contributions. From fits to the recent data of the BESIII collaboration we find that the $D^*$-pole can mimic the effect of the $S$-wave contribution of the $K\pi$ system to the branching fraction. Implications for the determination of the $|V_{cs}|$ quark mixing matrix element are discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06586 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Feynman diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Kinematics of the four-body [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Comparison of the Breit-Wigner shapes of the domi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Invariant mass distribution for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Invariant mass distribution for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Upper panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [49]

    (BABAR Collaboration), Analy- sis of the D+ → K −π+e+νe decay channel, Phys

    del Amo Sanchez et al. (BABAR Collaboration), Analy- sis of the D+ → K −π+e+νe decay channel, Phys. Rev. D 83, 072001 (2011). 14

    work page 2011

  2. [1]

    |H|2 4M 4 X 2d2 − |F |2 2 c2 1 − |G|2 2 c2 2 − d2 2 − Re (F G∗) c1c2 # , I3 = d2 4M 2

    Angular distribution In order to perform the integrations more easily, we can write the squared unpolarized probability as an expan- sion in the angular variables ( θ34, ϕ) [40, 51]. After inte- gration over these two angular variables, we end up with a distribution on the remaining variabless12, s34 and θ12. Up to an overall constant, we can write |M|2 ∼...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Using the expressions for the strong and hadronic weak vertices just defined, we can get the following expressions for the form factors of the Dℓ4 decay defined in Eq

    give negligible contributions. Using the expressions for the strong and hadronic weak vertices just defined, we can get the following expressions for the form factors of the Dℓ4 decay defined in Eq. (4) − i M F = −gK∗ BWK∗ (s12) m2 K∗ (mK∗ + M )A1 P · Q m2 K∗ + 2A2Y mK∗ + M + gD∗ BWD∗ (s′) m2 D∗ (mD∗ + m1)A′ 1(Z + 1) + XA ′ 2 mD∗ + m1 − 2gSBWS(s12)f+ q2 ,...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Semileptonic $D_{e4}$ decays: hadronic dynamics and the determination of $|V_{cs}|$

    and references therein). Some determinations of the 1 The mass scale of D mesons is not large enough to rely on inclu- sive calculations at the perturbative quark level. Therefore and inclusive determination of |Vcs| similar to |Vcb| and |Vub| is not possible. 2 Only one (three) form factor is needed forDe3 (De4) decay. More form factors can contribute if...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  5. [4]

    The central value of |Vcs|(De4) turns out to be smaller than but consistent with other (most precise) determinations

    for the weak axial charge A1(0), we extract the value of |Vcs| from De4 decays. The central value of |Vcs|(De4) turns out to be smaller than but consistent with other (most precise) determinations. Future improvements in theoretical calculations of the D → K ∗ and D∗ → K form factors together with more precise measurements of the branching fractions and o...

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    − s12, L2 = s34, N 2 = 2(m2 3 + m2

    work page

  7. [6]

    (A5) In the limit m3 = m4 = 0, these relations coincide with the ones given in the reference [50]

    − s34, P · Q = m2 1 − m2 2, L · N = m2 3 − m2 4, P · L = 1 2 (M 2 − s12 − s34), P · N = b1 − c1 cos θ34, Q · L = P · L P · Q s12 + Xβ 12 cos θ12, Q · N = b3 − c2 cos θ34 − d sin θ34 cos ϕ . (A5) In the limit m3 = m4 = 0, these relations coincide with the ones given in the reference [50]. The differential decay rate is given by 11 dΓ = Xβ 12β34 4(4π)6M 2 |...

    work page

  8. [7]

    (B2) below)

    The probability |M|2 can be expanded explicitly in terms of the angles θ34 and ϕ, whose coefficients depend only on the remaining variables s12, s34, and θ12 (see Eq. (B2) below). Such a decomposition allows to integrate over θ34 and ϕ angles in the case that the decay proba- bility does not depend on them [37, 40]. This distribution is given in Appendix ...

    work page

Show all 59 references
  1. [8]

    Johnson, Precision measurements of weak interaction parameters at Belle and Belle II (2025), arXiv:2504.00354 [hep-ex]

    A. Johnson, Precision measurements of weak interaction parameters at Belle and Belle II (2025), arXiv:2504.00354 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Cabibbo, Unitary Symmetry and Leptonic Decays, Phys

    N. Cabibbo, Unitary Symmetry and Leptonic Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 531 (1963)

    1963

  3. [10]

    Kobayashi and T

    M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, CP Violation in the 13 Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49, 652 (1973)

    1973

  4. [11]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group Collaboration), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  5. [12]

    Altmannshofer et al

    W. Altmannshofer et al. (Belle-II), The Belle II Physics Book, PTEP 2019, 123C01 (2019), [Erratum: PTEP 2020, 029201 (2020)], arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]

    2019

  6. [13]

    Kumar, K

    M. Kumar, K. Lalwani, K. Trabelsi, and K. Prasanth, Measurement of the CKM angle ϕ3 using B → DK at Belle II, in 16th Conference on Flavor Physics and CP Violation, edited by A. Giri and R. Mohanta (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019) pp. 287–290

    2019

  7. [14]

    Abudin´ enet al., Combined analysis of Belle and Belle II data to determine the CKM angle ϕ3 using B+ → D(K 0 Sh+h−)h+ decays, Journal of High Energy Physics 2022, 63 (2022)

    F. Abudin´ enet al., Combined analysis of Belle and Belle II data to determine the CKM angle ϕ3 using B+ → D(K 0 Sh+h−)h+ decays, Journal of High Energy Physics 2022, 63 (2022)

    2022

  8. [15]

    Adachi, Aggarwal, et al

    I. Adachi, Aggarwal, et al. , Determination of the CKM angle ϕ3 from a combination of Belle and Belle II results, Journal of High Energy Physics 2024, 143 (2024)

    2024

  9. [16]

    Ablikim et al., Future Physics Programme of BESIII, Chinese Physics C 44, 040001 (2020)

    M. Ablikim et al., Future Physics Programme of BESIII, Chinese Physics C 44, 040001 (2020)

    2020

  10. [17]

    Aaij et al., Simultaneous determination of CKM angle γ and charm mixing parameters, Journal of High Energy Physics 2021, 141 (2021)

    R. Aaij et al., Simultaneous determination of CKM angle γ and charm mixing parameters, Journal of High Energy Physics 2021, 141 (2021)

    2021

  11. [18]

    Aaij et al., Measurement of the CKM angleγ using the B± → D∗h± channels, Journal of High Energy Physics 2023, 13 (2023)

    R. Aaij et al., Measurement of the CKM angleγ using the B± → D∗h± channels, Journal of High Energy Physics 2023, 13 (2023)

    2023

  12. [19]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. , Measurement of the CKM angle γ with B± → D K ∓π±π±π∓ h± decays using a binned phase- space approach, Journal of High Energy Physics 2023, 138 (2023)

    2023

  13. [20]

    R. Aaij et al., A model-independent measurement of the CKM angle γ in partially reconstructed B± → D∗h± decays with D → K 0 Sh+h−(h = π, K), Journal of High Energy Physics 2024, 118 (2024)

    2024

  14. [21]

    are shown with error bars. FIG. 5. Invariant mass distribution for the ¯K 0π− system in D0 e4 decays. The blue-solid line corresponds to the best fit within our model, compared to data and best fit (line with crosses) from the BESIII collaboration [24] The vertical lines in ma...

  15. [22]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. , Measurement of the CKM angle γ in the B0 → DK ∗0 channel using self-conjugate D → K 0 Sh+h− decays, The European Physical Journal C84, 206 (2024)

    2024

  16. [23]

    Mackay, Measurements of the CKM angleγ and param- eters related to mixing and CP violation in the charm at LHCb (2024), arXiv:2404.18789 [hep-ex]

    I. Mackay, Measurements of the CKM angleγ and param- eters related to mixing and CP violation in the charm at LHCb (2024), arXiv:2404.18789 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Hao, CKM γ measurements at LHCb (2024), arXiv:2401.03720 [hep-ex]

    L. Hao, CKM γ measurements at LHCb (2024), arXiv:2401.03720 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Model- independent determination of the relative strong-phase difference between D0 and D 0 → K 0 S,Lπ+π− and its im- pact on the measurement of the CKM angle γ/ϕ3, Phys. Rev. D 101, 112002 (2020)

    2020

  19. [26]

    Zhou, Inputs for the γ measurements from BESIII (2024), arXiv:2404.14907 [hep-ex]

    X. Zhou, Inputs for the γ measurements from BESIII (2024), arXiv:2404.14907 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. , Evidence for κ meson production in J/ψ → ¯K ∗(892)0K +π− process, Physics Letters B 633, 681 (2006)

    2006

  21. [28]

    Guo, R.-G

    F.-K. Guo, R.-G. Ping, P.-N. Shen, H.-C. Chiang, and B.- S. Zou, S wave Kπ scattering and effects of κ in J/ψ → ¯K ∗0(892)K +π−, Nuclear Physics A 773, 78 (2006)

    2006

  22. [29]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Study of D+ → K −π+e+νe, Phys. Rev. D 94, 032001 (2016), arXiv:1512.08627 [hep- ex]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [30]

    del Amo Sanchez et al

    P. del Amo Sanchez et al. (BABAR Collaboration), Anal- ysis of the D+ → K −π+e+νe decay channel, Phys. Rev. D 83, 072001 (2011)

    2011

  24. [31]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Study of the decay D0 → ¯K 0π−e+νe, Phys. Rev. D 99, 011103 (2019), arXiv:1811.11349 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Ablikim et al., Study of the semileptonic decay D0 → K 0 π−e+νe, Journal of High Energy Physics 2025, 197 (2025)

    M. Ablikim et al., Study of the semileptonic decay D0 → K 0 π−e+νe, Journal of High Energy Physics 2025, 197 (2025)

    2025

  26. [33]

    E. M. Aitala et al. (E791), Dalitz Plot Analysis of the De- cay D+ → K −π+π+ and the Study of theKπ Scalar Am- plitudes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 121801 (2002), arXiv:hep- ex/0204018

    2002

  27. [34]

    van Beveren, T

    E. van Beveren, T. A. Rijken, K. Metzger, C. Dullemond, G. Rupp, and J. E. Ribeiro, A Low Lying Scalar Meson Nonet in a Unitarized Meson Model, Z. Phys. C 30, 615 (1986), arXiv:0710.4067 [hep-ph]

    1986 arXiv

  28. [35]

    van Beveren and G

    E. van Beveren and G. Rupp, Comment on ‘Understand- ing the scalar meson q anti-q nonet’, Eur. Phys. J. C 10, 469 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9806246

    1999 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Ishida, M

    S. Ishida, M. Ishida, T. Ishida, K. Takamatsu, and T. Tsuru, Analysis of Kπ -Scattering Phase Shift and Ev- idence for the κ(900) Meson, Prog. Theor. Phys. 98, 621 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9705437

    1997 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Black, A

    D. Black, A. H. Fariborz, F. Sannino, and J. Schechter, Evidence for a scalar κ(900) resonance in πK scattering, Phys. Rev. D 58, 054012 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9804273

    1998 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Napsuciale, Scalar meson masses and mixing an- gle in a U(3) ×U(3) Linear Sigma Model, arXiv:hep- ph/9803396

    M. Napsuciale, Scalar meson masses and mixing an- gle in a U(3) ×U(3) Linear Sigma Model, arXiv:hep- ph/9803396

  32. [39]

    J. A. Oller, E. Oset, and J. R. Pelaez, Meson-meson interaction in a nonperturbative chiral approach, Phys. Rev. D 59, 074001 (1999), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 60, 099906 (1999), Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 75, 099903 (2007)], arXiv:hep-ph/9804209

    1999 arXiv

  33. [40]

    T. A. Rijken, V. G. J. Stoks, and Y. Yamamoto, Soft-core hyperon-nucleon potentials, Phys. Rev. C 59, 21 (1999), arXiv:nucl-th/9807082

    1999 arXiv

  34. [41]

    C. S. Kim, G. Lopez-Castro, S. L. Tostado, and A. Vi- cente, Remarks on the Standard Model predictions for R(D) and R(D∗), Phys. Rev. D 95, 013003 (2017), arXiv:1610.04190 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [42]

    C. S. Kim, G. L. Castro, and S. L. Tostado, Evaluation of CKM matrix elements from exclusive Pℓ4 decays, Phys. Rev. D 95, 073003 (2017), arXiv:1702.01704 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Cabibbo and A

    N. Cabibbo and A. Maksymowicz, Angular Correlations in Ke4 Decays and Determination of Low-Energy π-π Phase Shifts, Phys. Rev. 137, B438 (1965), [Erratum: Phys.Rev. 168, 1926 (1968)]

    1965

  37. [44]

    F. A. Berends, A. Donnachie, and G. C. Oades, Theoret- ical study of Kl4 decay, Phys. Rev. 171, 1457 (1968)

    1968

  38. [45]

    Pais and S

    A. Pais and S. B. Treiman, Pion phase-shift information from Kl4 decays, Phys. Rev. 168, 1858 (1968)

    1968

  39. [46]

    Rosselet et al., Experimental Study of 30,000 Ke4 De- cays, Phys

    L. Rosselet et al., Experimental Study of 30,000 Ke4 De- cays, Phys. Rev. D 15, 574 (1977)

    1977

  40. [47]

    Bijnens, G

    J. Bijnens, G. Colangelo, and J. Gasser, Kl4 decays be- yond one loop, Nucl. Phys. B 427, 427 (1994), arXiv:hep- ph/9403390

    1994

  41. [48]

    Bijnens, G

    J. Bijnens, G. Ecker, and J. Gasser, Semileptonic kaon decays, arXiv:hep-ph/9411311

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Chang, J

    Q. Chang, J. Zhu, X.-L. Wang, J.-F. Sun, and Y.-L. Yang, Study of semileptonic ¯B∗ → P ℓ¯νℓ decays, Nuclear Physics B 909, 921 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    Abada, D

    A. Abada, D. Becirevic, P. Boucaud, J. Flynn, J. Leroy, V. Lubicz, and F. Mescia, Heavy to light vector me- son semileptonic decays, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 119, 625 (2003), proceedings of the XXth International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory

    2003

  44. [52]

    Wirbel, B

    M. Wirbel, B. Stech, and M. Bauer, Exclusive semilep- tonic decays of heavy mesons, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik C Particles and Fields 29, 637 (1985)

    1985

  45. [53]

    Bauer and M

    M. Bauer and M. Wirbel, Form factor effects in exclusive D and B decays, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik C Particles and Fields 42, 671 (1989)

    1989

  46. [54]

    R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin, and X.-W. Kang, Semilep- tonic decays of D and Ds mesons in the relativistic quark model, Phys. Rev. D 101, 013004 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    J. G. Korner and G. A. Schuler, Exclusive Semileptonic Heavy Meson Decays Including Lepton Mass Effects, Z. Phys. C 46, 93 (1990)

    1990

  48. [56]

    J. M. Link et al. (FOCUS), New Measurements of the D+ → K ∗0 µ+ν Form-Factor Ratios, Phys. Lett. B 544, 89 (2002), arXiv:hep-ex/0207049

    2002 arXiv

  49. [57]

    B. Bajc, S. Fajfer, R. J. Oakes, and T. N. Pham, Reso- nant and nonresonant D+ → K −π+ℓ+νℓ semileptonic decays, Phys. Rev. D 58, 054009 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph/9710422

    1998

  50. [58]

    Bijnens, G

    J. Bijnens, G. Ecker, and J. Gasser, Radiative semilep- tonic kaon decays, Nucl. Phys. B 396, 81 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9209261

    1993 arXiv

  51. [59]

    C. L. Y. Lee, M. Lu, and M. B. Wise, Bl4 and Dl4 decay, Phys. Rev. D 46, 5040 (1992)

    1992

Pith tools

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