Next-to-leading-order time-like rho electromagnetic form factors in ${k_{\rm T}}$ factorization

Chao Wang; Si-Yu Wang; Ya-Lan Zhang; Ya Li; Zhen-jun Xiao

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 46 references

Next-to-leading-order time-like rho electromagnetic form factors in ${k_{\rm T}}$ factorization

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Time-like rho EM form factors reach NLO in kT factorization and match BABAR.

desk verdict First NLO time-like rho EM form factors in kT factorization, but the analytic continuation that carries the whole result is asserted, not derived; the paper deserves refereeing but needs that step fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05059 v1 pith:N4AA5A7W submitted 2025-01-09 hep-ph

Ya-Lan Zhang , Si-Yu Wang , Chao Wang , Zhen-Jun Xiao , Ya Li This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph PACS 11.80.Fv12.38.Bx12.38.Cy12.39.St

keywords rhomesonelectromagneticformfactorkTfactorizationnext-to-leadingorderanalyticcontinuationtwist-3distributionamplitudehelicityamplitudesBABAR

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

This paper claims that the time-like electromagnetic form factors of the rho meson can be computed at next-to-leading order in kT factorization by analytically continuing the known space-like NLO results from $-Q^2$ to $Q^2$. Using this continuation, the authors obtain the three helicity amplitudes for $\gamma^* \to \rho^+\rho^-$ and predict their moduli-squared ratio $|F_{LL}|^2:|F_{LT/TL}|^2:|F_{TT}|^2 = 0.522:0.107:0.025$ and a total cross section $\sigma(e^+e^-\to\rho^+\rho^-) \approx 21.2$ fb at $Q^2 = 112$ GeV$^2$, both consistent with the BABAR measurement at $\sqrt{s}=10.58$ GeV. A second central claim is that the rho form factor is dominated by the twist-3 contribution rather than the twist-2 one, because the twist-3 distribution amplitudes stay constant at small momentum fractions while the twist-2 ones vanish linearly, producing an end-point enhancement.

What carries the argument

The central object is the analytic continuation of the NLO space-like hard kernels, written as correction functions $F^{(1)}_{LL22}$, $F^{(1)}_{LT23}$, $F^{(1)}_{TL23}$, into the time-like region via the replacements of Eq. (23) and the subsequent Fourier transformation from transverse momentum space to $b$-space giving $\tilde{F}^{(1)}_{\rho,LL22}$, $\tilde{F}^{(1)}_{\rho,LT23}$, $\tilde{F}^{(1)}_{\rho,TL23}$. These $b$-space kernels, together with the Sudakov factor $S_\rho$ and the modified hard function $h'(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2) = K_0(i\sqrt{x_1x_2}Qb_2)[\Theta(b_1-b_2)I_0(i\sqrt{x_1}Qb_2)K_0(i\sqrt{x_1}Qb_1)+b_1\leftrightarrow b_2]$, carry the entire NLO calculation and feed directly into the convolution formulas (27)-(29) for the three helicity amplitudes.

What would settle it

An independent NLO computation performed directly in the time-like region, without using the $-Q^2\to Q^2$ continuation, would settle whether Eqs. (24)-(26) capture all branch-cut structure; if the two calculations disagree in the imaginary parts or in the $b$-space kernels, the predicted helicity ratio and cross section would not be reliable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that NLO corrections to the time-like rho electromagnetic form factors can be obtained from the space-like NLO hard kernels by the substitutions in Eq. (23), namely $-Q^2 \to Q^2$ with the associated $i\pi$ terms from $\ln(-Q^2-i\varepsilon)$, and that the resulting Fourier-transformed kernels in $b$-space, Eqs. (24)-(26), yield well-behaved predictions for the helicity amplitudes $F_{LL}$, $F_{LT/TL}$, and $F_{TT}$. The numerical results show the NLO correction to the leading-twist form-factor magnitude stays below about 30% for $Q^2 > 30$ GeV$^2$ and below 20% for $Q^2 > 50$ GeV$^2$, while the twist-3 contribution dominates because the twist-3 rho distribution amplitudes are $O(1)$ at small $x$ and the propagators scale as $1/x_1$ and $1/(x_1x_2)$. The computed helicity ratio and the total cross section near $Q^2 = 112$ GeV$^2$ agree with the BABAR data within uncertainties, and the predicted ratio $G_1:G_2:G_3 = 0.5:2:1$ is consistent with the universal ratio of Eq. (1).

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the NLO space-like hard kernels can be continued to the time-like region by the simple replacements in Eq. (23), with the $i\pi$ terms correctly accounting for all branch cuts when the kernels are Fourier-transformed to $b$-space.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the analytic continuation is correct, the time-like rho EM form factors are now known at NLO, placing the comparison with BABAR on a perturbative QCD footing and opening the way to NLO predictions for other time-like form factors by the same continuation technique.
The claimed dominance of the twist-3 contribution implies that endpoint enhancement, not leading-twist perturbative behavior, controls the large-$Q^2$ rho form factor, so any LO twist-2-only analysis is quantitatively incomplete.
The predicted helicity ratio at NLO, $|F_{LL}|^2:|F_{LT/TL}|^2:|F_{TT}|^2 = 0.522:0.107:0.025$, provides a specific, testable target for future $e^+e^-$ experiments measuring $\rho^+\rho^-$ production.
The claimed total cross section of about 21.2 fb at $Q^2=112$ GeV$^2$ offers a definite prediction that can be checked against BABAR's measured $19.5\pm1.6\pm3.2$ fb and against any future measurement.
The result supports the feasibility of computing complex time-like form factors directly in the PQCD approach, which the authors argue can be used in multi-body hadronic $B$ meson decays.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct check of the continuation step would be to compare the NLO time-like kernels (24)-(26) against an independent calculation performed entirely in the time-like region; if the imaginary parts or $b$-space singularities differ, Eqs. (27)-(29) would need revision.
The same continuation technique could be applied to the NLO kernels for the pion EM form factor and the $B\to\pi$ transition form factor, providing a cross-check of the claimed endpoint enhancement and of the $i\pi$ prescription.
The predicted dominance of twist-3 over twist-2 at large $Q^2$ suggests that the asymptotic 'universal ratio' may be approached non-uniformly, and that measurements of the individual helicity amplitudes could discriminate between twist-2-only and twist-3-enhanced dynamics.
The Phragmen-Lindelof argument mentioned in the paper implies a near-zero time-like $G_1$; a lattice or experimental determination of $G_1$ in the time-like region could test whether the predicted ratio $G_1:G_2:G_3 = 0.5:2:1$ holds.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The one thing you should know: this is the first NLO calculation of time-like rho electromagnetic form factors in kT factorization, and the numbers are new and testable against BABAR. The second thing: the central step—analytic continuation from the space-like NLO kernels—is stated, not shown, and the stress-test note has a real point about the sign/support of the step-function terms in Eq. (23). I would not sign off on the quoted 0.522:0.107:0.025 ratio until that step is checked.

What the paper genuinely does well: it takes the group's own space-like NLO kernels from Ref. [23], continues them to the time-like region, and produces concrete predictions for the helicity amplitudes and the e+e- → rho+rho- cross section. That is a legitimate extension, and the comparison with BABAR is honest: the NLO corrections move the LO ratio toward the measured values, and the cross section goes from 17.4 to 21.2 fb, bracketing the data. The twist-3 dominance explanation via endpoint enhancement is clear and physically plausible. The authors are not fitting any parameter to the BABAR data; the inputs are fixed from earlier work. Good.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. The analytic continuation in Eq. (23) is the load-bearing wall, and the derivation is absent. The iπ Θ(-x1Q2 + k1T) terms look suspicious: for the region where the log argument is positive, the usual iε prescription would contribute -iπ, and the support of the theta functions is left unjustified. More importantly, those kT-dependent step functions cannot silently disappear under the b-space Fourier transform; they should produce functions of Q2 b1^2, like arctangents, not just constants and simple logs as in Eqs. (24)-(26). This is exactly the kind of gap a referee needs to close. The x1 → -x1 substitution in h' is also announced without derivation, and that affects the LO phase structure on which the NLO corrections are superimposed. Minor but real: no theoretical uncertainties are given—scale variation, Gegenbauer moments, decay constants, and the neglected FLL33/FTT33 terms are all unquantified. And the Sec. IV remark that the NLO ratio “satisfies the universal ratios” is overstated: G1:G2:G3 = 0.5:2:1 does not match Eq. (1) at large η, which asymptotically gives about (-2η/3):2:-1. The Phragmén–Lindelöf comment is suggestive, not a derivation.

Bottom line: this is a workmanlike extension, not a breakthrough, but it is a real result with a checkable claim. The paper needs a serious referee—not because the answer is obviously wrong, but because the key derivation is missing and the step-function issue could be fatal or could be a simple typo. I would recommend sending to peer review with a clear request: show the analytic continuation, justify or fix the sign/support of the theta terms, and add an uncertainty estimate. If the continuation checks out, the paper is publishable as a useful phenomenological step.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes the time-like rho electromagnetic form factors in the k_T factorization formalism, including NLO corrections to the leading-twist and twist-3 contributions. The NLO hard kernels are obtained by analytically continuing the authors' earlier space-like results from -Q^2 to Q^2, and the resulting helicity amplitudes F_LL, F_LT/TL, and F_TT are used to predict the moduli-squared ratio and the e+e- -> rho+rho- cross section at sqrt(s)=10.58 GeV, with comparisons to BABAR data. The paper also argues that the rho form factor is dominated by the twist-3 contribution because of endpoint enhancement.

Significance. If the analytic-continuation procedure were fully justified, this work would be a useful step toward time-like form factors in k_T factorization, with potential applications to three-body B decays. The paper makes concrete, falsifiable predictions (Eq. (33) and the cross-section value ~21.2 fb) and presents explicit b-space expressions for the NLO kernels. Its strengths are the use of existing NLO space-like results, the direct comparison with BABAR data, and the identification of endpoint-enhanced twist-3 contributions. However, the central technical step, the continuation from space-like to time-like kinematics, is asserted rather than demonstrated, and at least one internal inconsistency in the interpretation of the form factors is visible. No code or ancillary material is provided, so the numerical results are not independently reproducible from the text alone.

major comments (4)

[Sec. III, Eqs. (23)-(26) and (30)] The central load-bearing step is the analytic continuation of the NLO space-like kernels to the time-like b-space kernels (24)-(26), but this step is not demonstrated. In Eq. (23), the step-function terms appear to have the wrong support: for the standard convention Theta(z)=1 for z>0, the term i pi Theta(-x1 Q^2 + k1T) adds a phase when the argument of the logarithm is positive, which is opposite to the usual i epsilon prescription for a negative-real argument. Furthermore, the kT-dependent step functions in Eq. (23) cannot be assumed to reduce silently to the simple logarithmic and constant terms shown in Eqs. (24)-(26); a Fourier transformation of such terms generically produces functions of Q^2 b^2 such as arctangents. The hard function h' in Eq. (30) is also stated to follow from h by x1 -> -x1 without derivation. Because these expressions enter every numerical result in Sec. IV, the missing derivation and the apparent sign/support error in Eq. (23) are load-bearing gaps, not presentation issues.
[Sec. III, Eqs. (27)-(29)] The NLO corrections included in the calculation are only partial. In Eq. (27), the twist-3 terms ( -gamma_rho^2 phi_t phi_s - 2 gamma_rho^2 (1+x1) phi_s phi_s ) do not receive the factor [1 + F_LL22]; in Eq. (29), F_TT contains no NLO correction factor at all. The text states that F_LL33 and F_TT33 are neglected because of power suppression (see the paragraph after Eq. (22)), but no numerical estimate of the neglected terms is provided. Since the paper's headline claims are the NLO ratio (33) and the cross section of about 21.2 fb, the size of these neglected pieces should be quantified, or the claim should be moderated to 'partial NLO'.
[Sec. IV, paragraph after Fig. 5] The statement 'G1 : G2 : G3 = 0.5 : 2 : 1' and the claim that this satisfies the universal ratio in Eq. (1) are inconsistent with the amplitudes computed from Eqs. (13), (27)-(29). Using the NLO ratio in Eq. (33) and the normalization given below it, Eq. (13) gives |G1| ~ 0.158, |G2| ~ 0.110, and |G3| ~ 0.001 (in the same units), which is far from 0.5:2:1. Moreover, Eq. (1) with eta ~ 47 gives a magnitude ratio of approximately 31:2:1, so the claimed ratio does not match the universal ratio either. This point needs to be corrected or explained.
[Sec. IV, numerical analysis] No theoretical uncertainty estimate is provided. The comparisons with BABAR data in Eq. (33), Eq. (34), and Fig. 4 are made without varying the input Gegenbauer moments, decay constants, Lambda_QCD, or the renormalization/factorization scale defined in Eq. (31). Since the claimed consistency with experiment is a central result, an estimate of the scale dependence and parameter sensitivity should be added before the comparison can be considered quantitative.

minor comments (7)

[Title and Abstract] The title contains a typo: 'for m factors' should be 'form factors'. The abstract uses the informal 'It's observed' and 'lower than 30%' where 'less than 30%' would be more appropriate.
[Sec. I and Sec. II] The section heading 'KINETICS' should be 'KINEMATICS'; 'The related expansions' should be 'The relevant expansions'; and in the Introduction, 'at at small invariant mass squared' has a duplicated 'at'.
[Eqs. (17)-(22)] The notation for the NLO correction functions is inconsistent: Eq. (17) uses H^(1)_LL22 and F^(1)_LL22, while Eqs. (20)-(22) write F^(1)_{rho, LL22}, F^(1)_{rho, LT23}, and F^(1)_{rho, TL23}. Please make the subscript conventions uniform and explain which twist combination each function refers to.
[Eqs. (27)-(29)] In Eq. (28), the factor [1 + F_LT23] is applied to the first and third terms, while the second term uses [1 + F_TL23]; the distinction between F_LT23 and F_TL23 should be explained explicitly, since the text does not define which polarization and twist indices correspond to each.
[Figures 2-5] The axis labels and legends in the figures are garbled in the source file (e.g., sequences like '/s53 /s49/s48'), making the plots unreadable. Please regenerate the figures with standard text encoding.
[Sec. IV, around Eq. (34)] The text states 'Compare to sigma = 17.4 fb from the LO contribution in [36]', but the value 17.4 fb is not shown in the present paper or in the cited reference excerpt; please specify where this number comes from.
[Sec. IV, scale setting] In Eq. (31) the hard scale is t = max(sqrt(x1) Q, sqrt(x2) Q, 1/b1, 1/b2), while Sec. IV writes 'max(sqrt(xi) Q, 1/bi)'; the latter is ambiguous and should be written out consistently with Eq. (31).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the NLO time-like form factors are computed from prior space-like NLO kernels plus analytic continuation, with no parameters fitted to the BABAR data.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: adopt rho-meson DAs and decay constants from external sources [28,31,32]; import the NLO space-like hard kernels from Ref. [23] (Eqs. 20-22); analytically continue from -Q^2 to Q^2 via Eq. (23) and Fourier-transform to b space to obtain the tilde kernels (24)-(26); insert these into Eqs. (27)-(29) with h' from Eq. (30); and evaluate at sqrt(s)=10.58 GeV. No parameter is fitted to the BABAR data, and the quoted ratio (33) and total cross section (~21.2 fb) are genuine outputs of the calculation rather than fits. The importation from Refs. [23] and [36] is prior work by the same research group, but it is not a restatement of the target time-like result: those references compute space-like quantities without using the BABAR time-like data, so they supply independent content. The weakest point of the paper is technical, not circular: the b-space continuation functions (24)-(26) and the LO hard function h' in Eq. (30) are asserted rather than derived in this manuscript, and the support/sign of the Theta-function terms in Eq. (23) is not explained. Those are derivation gaps and potential correctness risks, but they do not make the prediction equivalent to its inputs by construction. No self-definitional, fitted-input, imported-uniqueness, or renaming pattern is present, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central prediction depends on four hadronic input parameters, two Gegenbauer moments and two decay constants, taken from the authors' cited literature, plus the QCD scale. None of these are fitted in this paper. The main theoretical assumptions are the validity of kT factorization in the time-like region, the analytic continuation of the NLO kernels, and the power suppression of neglected twist-4 and twist-3/twist-3 NLO terms. No new particles or entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

a_parallel_2_rho = 0.17
Gegenbauer moment of the longitudinal twist-2 rho DA, taken from QCD sum rule fit in Ref. [31]; affects all twist-2 and mixed-twist amplitudes.
a_perp_2_rho = 0.14
Gegenbauer moment of the transverse twist-2 and twist-3 DAs, from Ref. [31].
f_rho = 0.216 GeV
Longitudinal decay constant, from Ref. [32].
f_T_rho = 0.165 GeV
Transverse decay constant, from Ref. [32].
Lambda_QCD = 0.2857 GeV
QCD scale defining alpha_s in Sec. IV; input from global fits, not fitted here.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption kT factorization theorem for time-like rho form factors, including Sudakov resummation of double logarithms.
The entire calculation assumes the kT factorization formula of Ref. [33] remains valid at NLO in the time-like region; no proof is given in this paper.
domain assumption Analytic continuation of NLO space-like kernels to time-like via Eq. (23), including the branch-cut phases.
The paper assumes the simple replacement -Q^2 -> Q^2 with the log phase rules reproduces the full NLO time-like hard kernel. This is stated in Sec. III but not derived.
domain assumption Truncated conformal expansion of rho DAs at second Gegenbauer moment, Eqs. (6)-(11).
The DAs are taken from light-cone sum rules with only a_2 terms; higher Gegenbauer moments and radiative corrections to the DAs are neglected.
ad hoc to paper Twist-4 and twist-2/twist-4 mixing contributions to FLL33 and FTT33 are power suppressed and can be neglected.
The paper states this follows the power counting in Refs. [23] and [35], but no quantitative check is given for the time-like case.
ad hoc to paper The distribution amplitudes are used at fixed Gegenbauer moments without explicit renormalization-group evolution to the hard scale t.
Sec. II uses fixed Gegenbauer moments from Ref. [31] while the hard scale in Eq. (31) varies with Q and b; the effect of missing DA evolution is not discussed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Next-to-leading-order time-like rho electromagnetic form factors in ${k_{\rm T}}$ factorization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N4AA5A7W

@misc{pith2026250105059,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Next-to-leading-order time-like rho electromagnetic form factors in $k_\rm T$ factorization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N4AA5A7W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05059}
}

abstract

We calculate the time-like $\rho$ electromagnetic (EM) form factor in the $k_T$ factorization formalism by including the next-to-leading-order (NLO) corrections of the leading-twist and sub-leading twist contributions. It's observed that the NLO correction to the magnitude of the LO leading-twist form factor is lower than $30\%$ at large invariant mass squared $Q^2 > 30 \text{GeV}^2$. It is found that the $\rho$ meson EM form factor is dominated by twist-3 contribution instead of by twist-2 one because of the end-point enhancement. The theoretical predictions of the moduli of three helicity amplitudes and total cross section are analyzed at $\sqrt{s}=10.58$ GeV, which are consistent with measurements from BABAR Collaboration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05059 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The PQCD predictions of the time-like EM form factor i [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The PQCD predictions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The cross-section of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The PQCD predictions for the dependence of time-like [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[23]

J. W. Chen, H. Kohyama, K. Ohnishi, U. Raha and Y . L. Shen, Phys. Lett. B 693 (2010), 102-107 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.05.082 [arXiv:0908.2973 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2010
[1]

Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Huaiyin Institute of Technology,Huaian,Jiangsu 223200, P .R. China

work page
[2]

C hina and

Department of Physics and Institute of Theoretical Physi cs, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210023, P .R. C hina and

work page
[3]

universal ratios

Department of Physics, College of Sciences, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210095 , P .R. China (Dated: January 10, 2025) We calculate the time-like ρ electromagnetic (EM) form factor in the kT factorization formalism by including the next-to-leading-order (NLO) co rrections of the leading-twist and sub-leading twist contributions. It’s...

work page 2025
[4]

( 4) are satisﬁed

and Eq. ( 4) are satisﬁed. The related expansions of the nonlocal matrix elements for ρ meson are written in the following form [28, 29] ⟨ 0 | ¯u(0)jd(z1)l |ρ−(p1, ǫT ) ⟩ = 1√ 2Nc ∫ 1 0 dx1eix1p1·z1 { p /1ǫ /1TφT ρ (x1) + mρǫ /1Tφv ρ(x1) + mρiǫµνρσ γµ γ5ǫν 1Tnρvσ φa ρ(x1) } lj , ⟨ 0 | ¯u(0)jd(z1)l |ρ−(p1, ǫL) ⟩ = 1 √ 2Nc ∫ 1 0 dx1eix1p1·z1 { mρǫ /1Lφρ(x1)...

work page
[5]

S. J. Brodsky and J. R. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992), 2141-2149 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.46.2141

doi:10.1103/physrevd.46.2141 1992
[6]

B. D. Keister, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994), 1500-1505 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.49.1500 [arXiv:hep-ph/9303264 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 1994
[7]

Cardarelli, I

F. Cardarelli, I. L. Grach, I. M. Narodetsky, G. Salme and S. Simula, Phys. Lett. B 349 (1995), 393-399 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(95)00230-I [arXiv:hep-ph/9502360 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 1995

Show all 46 references

[8]

J. P . B. C. de Melo and T. Frederico, Phys. Rev. C 55 (1997), 2043 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.55.2043 [arXiv:nucl-th/9706032 [nucl-th]]

1997 arXiv
[9]

V . V . Braguta and A. I. Onishchenko, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004), 033001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.033001 [arXiv:hep-ph/0403258 [hep-ph]]

2004 arXiv
[10]

T. M. Aliev and M. Savci, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004), 094007 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.094007 [arXiv:hep-ph/0405235 [hep-ph]]

2004 arXiv
[11]

H. M. Choi and C. R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004), 053015 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.053015 [arXiv:hep-ph/0402114 [hep-ph]]

2004 arXiv
[12]

Andersen and W

W. Andersen and W. Wilcox, Annals Phys. 255 (1997), 34-59 doi:10.1006/aphy.1996.5648 [arXiv:hep-lat/9502015 [hep-lat]]

1997
[13]

G. I. Gakh, E. Tomasi-Gustafsson, C. Adamuscin, S. Dubni cka and A. Z. Dubnickova, Phys. Rev. C 74 (2006), 025202 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.74.025202 [ arXiv:nucl-th/0604066 [nucl-th]]

2006 arXiv
[14]

Adamuscin, G

C. Adamuscin, G. I. Gakh and E. Tomasi-Gustafsson, Phys . Rev. C 75 (2007), 065202 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.75.065202 [arXiv:0706.1125 [hep-ph]]

2007 arXiv
[15]

S. J. Brodsky and G. R. Farrar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 31, 1153-1156 (1973)

1973
[16]

J. C. Collins and R. K. Ellis, Nucl. Phys. B 360, 3-30 (1991)

1991
[17]

Botts and G

J. Botts and G. F. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B 325, 62-100 (1989)

1989
[18]

H. n. Li and G. F. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B 381, 129-140 (1992)

1992
[19]

Huang, Q

T. Huang, Q. x. Shen and P . Kroll, Z. Phys. C 50, 139-144 (1991)

1991
[20]

H. C. Hu and H. n. Li, Phys. Lett. B 718 (2013), 1351-1357 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.12.006 [arXiv:1204.6708 [hep-ph]]

2013 arXiv
[21]

H. n. Li, Y . L. Shen, Y . M. Wang and H. Zou, Phys. Rev. D 83, 054029 (2011)

2011
[22]

Cheng and Z

S. Cheng and Z. J. Xiao, Phys. Lett. B 749 (2015), 1-7 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.07.038 [arXiv:1505.02909 [hep-ph]]

2015 arXiv
[24]

Cheng, Y

S. Cheng, Y . Y . Fan and Z. J. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) no.5, 054015 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.054015 [arXiv:1401.5118 [hep-ph]]

2014 arXiv
[25]

J. Hua, S. Cheng, Y . l. Zhang and Z. J. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.11, 113002 (2018)

2018
[26]

H. n. Li, Y . L. Shen and Y . M. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 85, 074004 (2012)

2012
[27]

Y . L. Zhang, J. Hua, D. S. Li and Z. J. Xiao, Nucl. Phys. B 949, 114782 (2019)

2019
[28]

Aubert et al

B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008), 071103 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.071103 [arXiv:0806.3893 [hep-ex]]

2008 arXiv
[29]

C. E. Carlson and F. Gross, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53 (1984), 127-129 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.53.127

1984 doi
[30]

J. P . B. C. de Melo, C. R. Ji and T. Frederico, Phys. Lett. B 763 (2016), 87-93 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.10.018

2016 doi
[31]

Diehl, T

M. Diehl, T. Gousset, B. Pire and O. Teryaev, Phys. Rev. L ett. 81, 1782-1785 (1998). 13

1998
[32]

P . Ball, V . M. Braun, Y . Koike and K. Tanaka, Nucl. Phys. B 529, 323-382 (1998)

1998
[33]

Ball and V

P . Ball and V . M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. B 543, 201-238 (1999)

1999
[34]

J. Chai, S. Cheng, Y . h. Ju, D. C. Y an, C. D. L¨ u and Z. J. Xiao, Chin. Phys. C 46 (2022) no.12, 123103 doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ac88bd [arXiv:2207.04190 [hep-ph]]

2022 arXiv
[35]

Bharucha, D

A. Bharucha, D. M. Straub and R. Zwicky, JHEP 08 (2016), 098 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)098 [arXiv:1503.05534 [hep-ph]]

2016 arXiv
[36]

P . Ball, G. W. Jones and R. Zwicky, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007), 054004 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.054004 [arXiv:hep-ph/0612081 [hep-ph]]

2007 arXiv
[37]

Y . L. Zhang, S. Cheng, J. Hua and Z. J. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) no.9, 094031 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.094031 [arXiv:1510.05108 [hep-ph]]

2015 arXiv
[38]

Y . l. Zhang, S. Cheng, J. Hua and Z. j. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.3, 036002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.036002 [arXiv:1512.00886 [hep-ph]]

2016 arXiv
[39]

Cheng, Y

S. Cheng, Y . l. Zhang, J. Hua, H. n. Li and Z. j. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) no.7, 076005 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.076005 [arXiv:1703.04958 [hep-ph]]

2017 arXiv
[40]

Y . L. Zhang, X. C. Liu, S. S. Shao, Y . Y . Fan and C. Wang, Int . J. Mod. Phys. A 37, no.23, 2250146 (2022)

2022
[41]

Kurimoto, H

T. Kurimoto, H. n. Li and A. I. Sanda, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002), 014007 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.014007 [arXiv:hep-ph/0105003 [hep-ph]]

2002 arXiv
[42]

J. J. Han, Y . Li, H. n. Li, Y . L. Shen, Z. J. Xiao and F. S. Y u, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) no.8, 686 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10642-0 [arXiv:2202.04804 [hep-ph]]

2022 arXiv
[43]

J. X. Y u, J. J. Han, Y . Li, H. n. Li, Z. J. Xiao and F. S. Y u, [ arXiv:2409.02821 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[44]

F. T. Hawes and M. A. Pichowsky, Phys. Rev. C 59 (1999), 1743-1750 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.59.1743 [arXiv:nucl-th/9806025 [nucl-th]]

1999 arXiv
[45]

H. L. L. Roberts, A. Bashir, L. X. Gutierrez-Guerrero, C . D. Roberts and D. J. Wilson, Phys. Rev. C 83 (2011), 065206 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.83.065206 [ arXiv:1102.4376 [nucl-th]]

2011 arXiv
[46]

B. L. G. Bakker, H. M. Choi and C. R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002), 116001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.116001 [arXiv:hep-ph/0202217 [hep-ph]]

2002 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [23]

J. W. Chen, H. Kohyama, K. Ohnishi, U. Raha and Y . L. Shen, Phys. Lett. B 693 (2010), 102-107 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.05.082 [arXiv:0908.2973 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2010

[2] [1]

Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Huaiyin Institute of Technology,Huaian,Jiangsu 223200, P .R. China

work page

[3] [2]

C hina and

Department of Physics and Institute of Theoretical Physi cs, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210023, P .R. C hina and

work page

[4] [3]

universal ratios

Department of Physics, College of Sciences, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210095 , P .R. China (Dated: January 10, 2025) We calculate the time-like ρ electromagnetic (EM) form factor in the kT factorization formalism by including the next-to-leading-order (NLO) co rrections of the leading-twist and sub-leading twist contributions. It’s...

work page 2025

[5] [4]

( 4) are satisﬁed

and Eq. ( 4) are satisﬁed. The related expansions of the nonlocal matrix elements for ρ meson are written in the following form [28, 29] ⟨ 0 | ¯u(0)jd(z1)l |ρ−(p1, ǫT ) ⟩ = 1√ 2Nc ∫ 1 0 dx1eix1p1·z1 { p /1ǫ /1TφT ρ (x1) + mρǫ /1Tφv ρ(x1) + mρiǫµνρσ γµ γ5ǫν 1Tnρvσ φa ρ(x1) } lj , ⟨ 0 | ¯u(0)jd(z1)l |ρ−(p1, ǫL) ⟩ = 1 √ 2Nc ∫ 1 0 dx1eix1p1·z1 { mρǫ /1Lφρ(x1)...

work page

[6] [5]

S. J. Brodsky and J. R. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992), 2141-2149 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.46.2141

doi:10.1103/physrevd.46.2141 1992

[7] [6]

B. D. Keister, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994), 1500-1505 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.49.1500 [arXiv:hep-ph/9303264 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 1994

[8] [7]

Cardarelli, I

F. Cardarelli, I. L. Grach, I. M. Narodetsky, G. Salme and S. Simula, Phys. Lett. B 349 (1995), 393-399 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(95)00230-I [arXiv:hep-ph/9502360 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 1995