Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Shedding light on the intrinsic transversal momentum distributions of pion and kaon

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that adding a Gaussian soft-transverse-momentum distribution (iTMD) to pion and kaon light-cone distribution amplitudes repairs $k_T$-factorization form-factor predictions at low momentum transfers and yields a pion…

desk verdict A serious NLO pQCD phenomenology paper whose improved form-factor predictions are worth refereeing, but the Gaussian iTMD is an assumed shape and the kaon and m0_pi results carry more fitting freedom than the text suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05941 v4 pith:OKP5KOEU submitted 2024-12-08 hep-ph

Jian Chai , Shan Cheng This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords intrinsictransversemomentumdistributionlight-coneamplitudepionelectromagneticformfactorkaonkTfactorizationchiralmasstimelikepQCD
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 argues that the standard $k_T$ factorization of exclusive QCD processes leaves out the soft transverse motion of partons inside a fast-moving meson, which is why pQCD predictions for pion and kaon form factors only become reliable at very large momentum transfers. To repair this, the authors add intrinsic transverse-momentum distributions (iTMDs) to the light-cone distribution amplitudes, modeling them as Gaussians with a single transverse-size parameter $\beta^2$, and repeat the next-to-leading-order pQCD calculation including the chiral-enhanced higher-twist contributions. Fitting timelike pion and kaon data gives $\beta_\pi^2 = 0.51 \pm 0.04$ GeV$^{-2}$ and $\beta_K^2 = 0.30 \pm 0.05$ GeV$^{-2}$, and the fitted spacelike pion form factor yields a chiral mass $m_0^\pi(1\,\text{GeV}) = 1.84 \pm 0.07$ GeV, consistent with chiral perturbation theory. The result extends the usable range of pQCD factorization down to a few GeV$^2$, where the improved predictions match existing measurements and lattice QCD evaluations.

What carries the argument

The key object is the intrinsic transverse-momentum distribution $\Sigma(u,k_T)$, a Gaussian in $k_T$ with width controlled by $\beta^2/[u(1-u)]$ (Eq. 5), which multiplies the light-cone distribution amplitude to define the soft wave function $\psi(u,k_T)$. In impact-parameter space it becomes the exponential $\widehat\Sigma(u,b_T)=4\pi\exp(-b_T^2 u(1-u)/(4\beta^2))$. This soft function enters the improved factorization formula (Eq. 14) alongside the $e^{-S}$ resummed soft-gluon suppression factor, and the transverse-size parameter $\beta^2$ is the only new degree of freedom; it is fixed externally for the pion and fitted to timelike kaon data.

What would settle it

A lattice QCD computation of the spacelike pion form factor at $Q^2$ between 1 and 10 GeV$^2$ that falls outside the iTMD-improved band shown in Fig. 3, or an independent measurement of the pion's transverse-momentum distribution that conflicts with the Gaussian width $\beta_\pi^2=0.51\pm0.04$ GeV$^{-2}$, would disprove the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that supplementing the light-cone distribution amplitudes with iTMDs captures the soft transverse dynamics that were previously missing, and that this single addition brings pQCD form-factor predictions into agreement with data at low and intermediate momentum transfers. With $\beta_\pi^2$ fixed by the $\pi\to\gamma\gamma$ asymptotic constraint, the improved next-to-leading-order calculation with higher-twist terms gives a spacelike pion form factor consistent with lattice QCD and yields $m_0^\pi(1\,\text{GeV}) = 1.84 \pm 0.07$ GeV, replacing the earlier pQCD value $1.37 \pm 0.30$ GeV. For the kaon, fitting $\beta_K^2 = 0.30 \pm 0.05$ GeV$^{-2}$ to the timelike data explains the precise measurements away from resonances, and the strange-quark mass term reduces the spacelike kaon form factor by about 30%. The mean transverse momenta come out at soft scales, about 0.36 GeV for the pion and 0.55 GeV for the kaon, consistent with the picture of partons gently oscillating in the transverse plane.

Load-bearing premise

The whole extraction rests on the assumption that the soft transverse motion is a Gaussian with a single size parameter $\beta^2$ that sits entirely inside the meson distribution amplitude, separate from the hard kernel and the $e^{-S}$ resummation factor; the paper states that a first-principles derivation of this function is infeasible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pion and kaon electromagnetic form factors can be predicted by pQCD down to $Q^2$ of a few GeV$^2$, making direct comparison with data and lattice QCD possible.
  • The extracted pion chiral mass $m_0^\pi(1\,\text{GeV}) = 1.84 \pm 0.07$ GeV removes the previous tension with chiral perturbation theory and with the estimate from current quark masses.
  • The timelike kaon form factor is reproduced in the perturbative region, and the spacelike kaon form factor is predicted below the current lattice points, with the strange-quark-mass-dependent higher-twist term lowering it by about 30%.
  • The fitted iTMDs imply soft mean transverse momenta (0.36 GeV for pion, 0.55 GeV for kaon) and transverse sizes smaller than the respective charge radii.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test process independence; if the iTMD is universal, the same $\beta_\pi^2$ should reappear in other exclusive amplitudes such as $\pi\to\gamma\gamma$ or in high-mass lepton-pair production, where it could be independently checked.
  • The paper does not derive the Gaussian shape; a direct measurement of the pion's transverse-momentum distribution would turn this ansatz into a falsifiable prediction.
  • The same soft-transverse mechanism could matter for exclusive $B$-meson decays at moderate recoil, where $k_T$ factorization is used and soft dynamics are usually absorbed into the exponential resummation factor.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes to supplement light-cone distribution amplitudes (LCDAs) with intrinsic transverse-momentum distribution functions (iTMDs), modeled as Gaussians with a single transverse-size parameter beta^2, in order to capture soft transverse dynamics that is missed in the standard k_T factorization of exclusive QCD processes. The scheme is applied to the pion and kaon electromagnetic form factors at next-to-leading order: beta_pi^2 is fixed externally through Eq. (13), beta_K^2 is fitted to timelike kaon data, and the pion chiral mass is extracted as m_0^pi(1 GeV)=1.84\pm0.07 GeV using a modular dispersion relation that includes a pQCD contribution in its integrand. The authors claim that the iTMD-improved predictions agree with data and lattice results down to a few GeV^2, and that the extracted m_0^pi is consistent with chiral perturbation theory.

Significance. If the framework is valid, it offers a practical phenomenological way to restore predictive power to pQCD form-factor calculations at moderate momentum transfers and to resolve the long-standing m_0^pi tension. The paper benefits from state-of-the-art NLO twist expansions, a clear discussion of hard and soft scales, and direct comparisons with lattice QCD and BaBar/BESIII data; the pion channel also uses a parameter-free external constraint for beta_pi^2. However, the central quantitative claims depend on an untested Gaussian ansatz for the iTMD and on partly self-referential extractions of beta_K^2 and m_0^pi, so the significance of the results as evidence for the missed soft dynamics is currently limited.

major comments (4)
  1. [Electromagnetic form factors and pQCD prediction, Eqs. (11) and (12)] The extraction of m_0^pi is partly self-referential as implemented. The modular dispersion relation in Eq. (11) contains the pQCD prediction in the high-energy tail through |F_pi^pQCD(s)|^2 in Eq. (12), and that pQCD prediction itself depends on m_0^pi. The paper states that the fit starts from an initial value m_0^pi=1.6\pm0.4 GeV and iterates; this means the quoted result m_0^pi=1.84\pm0.07 GeV is a self-consistent fit rather than an independent determination. The sentence claiming that the modular dispersion relation is model independent is therefore too strong. Please quantify the sensitivity of the extracted m_0^pi and its uncertainty to (i) the choice of s_max, (ii) the initial m_0^pi value, and (iii) the omission or replacement of the pQCD tail, or justify why the iteration does not bias the result.
  2. [Intrinsic transversal momentum dependent functions, Eq. (5), and kT factorization revitalization, Eq. (14)] The Gaussian form of the iTMD, Eq. (5), combined with the factorization assumption Eq. (14), is the load-bearing input for every quantitative result, yet its functional form is not tested. For the pion, beta_pi^2 is fixed by the independent constraint Eq. (13), so the pion comparison tests only the overall transverse-size scale, not the Gaussian shape. For the kaon, beta_K^2 is fitted to the same timelike data that the paper later claims to explain, so the kaon channel does not validate the ansatz either. Since the paper explicitly states that a first-principles derivation of iTMDs is infeasible, a minimal consistency check is necessary: repeat the analysis with several alternative shapes (for example an exponential or dipole form) that share the same mean transverse momentum, and show that the extracted m_0^pi and beta_K^2 change by less than the quoted errors. Without this check, the agreement can be attributed to the flexibility of the Gaussian ansatz rather than to the missing soft transverse dynamics.
  3. [Electromagnetic form factors and pQCD prediction, kaon paragraph and Fig. 4] The kaon result is presented as an explanation of the precise timelike measurements, but beta_K^2=0.30\pm0.05 GeV^-2 is obtained by fitting the iTMD-improved pQCD prediction to those same BABAR and BESIII data. The left panel of Fig. 4 therefore demonstrates that a parameter has been adjusted to reproduce the data, not that the framework independently predicts them. In addition, the three-particle size parameter is simply set to beta_K'^2 = beta_K^2 without a sensitivity study, even though Eq. (8) introduces it as an independent quantity. Please state explicitly which aspects of the kaon data (e.g., the q^2 dependence, the normalization, or the crossing to the spacelike region) provide a nontrivial test of the framework, and assess the impact of relaxing beta_K'^2 = beta_K^2.
  4. [Electromagnetic form factors and pQCD prediction, pion parameter inputs] The pion channel is less independent than it first appears because Eq. (13) uses the Gegenbauer moments a_2^pi=0.28\pm0.05 and a_4^pi=0.19\pm0.06 obtained from a joint analysis that already relies on the same modular dispersion relation and pQCD formalism [14]. The paper should clarify which contributions in this chain are independent measurements and which are prior model assumptions, and how the uncertainty in a_2^pi and a_4^pi propagates into beta_pi^2 and m_0^pi.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract quotes beta_K^2 with units GeV^2, while the text and Table I use GeV^-2; please correct the unit in the abstract.
  2. [Electromagnetic form factors and pQCD prediction, kaon paragraph] The text states that beta_K^2=0.30\pm0.05 GeV^-2 'corresponds to the mean transversal momentum 0.55\pm0.07 MeV'; the unit should be GeV, not MeV.
  3. [Fig. 3] The legend entries 'DR1' and 'DR2T' are not defined in the text or caption; please explain which dispersion-relation variants they denote.
  4. [Intrinsic transversal momentum dependent functions, Eq. (6)] The inequality in Eq. (6) and the numerical factor 0.2 are introduced without derivation; please define the relation between the transverse radius and the charge radius and clarify the direction and origin of the bound.
  5. [Introduction, Fig. 1] The coordinate x^2 introduced in the discussion of Figure 1 is not defined; please state its relationship to the light-cone coordinates used in Eq. (3).
  6. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors ('happed', 'statue', 'significient') and a missing closing parenthesis in the sentence following Eq. (9); a careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Kaon 'explanation' is a one-parameter fit to the same timelike data it claims to predict, and the m0_pi extraction runs a self-consistency loop through the pQCD tail in the dispersion integral.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 'Electromagnetic form factors and pQCD prediction', figure 4 paragraph and Summary]
    "By fitting the iTMDs-improved pQCD prediction to the timelike data, we obtain β2K = 0.30 ± 0.05 GeV−2. ... The iTMDs-improved pQCD calculation also explains the precise measurement of timelike kaon form factor far away from the resonances very well."

    The only kaon-specific parameter in the improved pQCD prediction, β_K^2, is obtained by fitting the theoretical curve to the same BaBar/BESIII timelike data that are later said to be 'explained'. With a single free parameter controlling the soft transverse suppression, agreement with those data is enforced by construction rather than independently predicted. The Gaussian shape in Eq. (5) is not tested by this comparison: the fit only determines the overall transverse-size parameter, and the subsequent claim that iTMDs 'explain' the kaon data reduces to a statement that the fitted curve matches the data it was fitted to.

  2. self definitional [Section 'Electromagnetic form factors and pQCD prediction', passage following Eqs. (11)-(12)]
    "The pQCD prediction of the timelike form factor is embodied in the modular dispersion integral Eq. (11) as the high energy tail contribution, in which the mπ0 terms can not be separated out in the logarithm. So in the fit we firstly take an initial value of chiral mass (1.6 ± 0.4 GeV) for the high energy tail contribution in the integrand, and do the numerical iteration to find the optional value ofmπ0 via the modular dispersion relation."

    The extracted chiral mass m_0^π is simultaneously the fitted output and an input to the very constraint used for the fit. Equation (12) feeds |F_pQCD^π(s)|^2 into the modular dispersion integral, and that pQCD expression depends on m_0^π; the spacelike prediction being fitted is then compared with a dispersion relation that already contains the same parameter in its high-energy tail. The iteration merely finds a self-consistent value, and the initial guess (1.6 ± 0.4 GeV) already brackets the ChPT result, so the reported agreement with ChPT is partly seeded by the input rather than being an independent confirmation.

full rationale

The paper's pion channel retains independent content: β_π^2 is fixed by the π→γγ asymptotic constraint Eq. (13), not by fitting the spacelike form factor data to which the improved pQCD prediction is compared, so the improved agreement with lattice and JLab/NA7 data is a genuine (though shape-insensitive) test of the soft-k_T suppression. However, two central quantitative claims reduce to fits. First, β_K^2 is extracted by fitting Eq. (14) to the timelike kaon data, and the same data are then presented as being 'explained' by the iTMDs-improved calculation; with a single free parameter, the agreement is enforced by construction and carries no predictive confirmation of the Gaussian ansatz. Second, the m_0^π extraction is a self-consistency loop: the modular dispersion relation in Eq. (11) contains a pQCD high-energy tail that itself depends on m_0^π, and the iteration starts from an initial value (1.6 ± 0.4 GeV) already overlapping the ChPT result, so the final 'consistency' with ChPT is partly built into the procedure. The paper explicitly concedes that iTMDs cannot be derived from first principles and adopts the Gaussian form as an ansatz; that is an honest model assumption rather than circular reasoning, but it means the extracted β_K^2 and m_0^π are model-dependent fit outputs, not independent determinations. Overall, the central pion comparison is a real falsifiable check of the overall soft suppression, but the kaon 'explanation' and the chiral-mass 'extraction' are substantially circular, giving a partial-circularity score of 6 rather than a fully forced derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on 5 fitted or hand-set parameters (beta_pi^2, beta_K^2, beta'_K^2, m0_pi, and the Gegenbauer moments taken from prior work), 5 modeling assumptions (factorization, Gaussian shapes, the pi->gamma gamma relation, the modular dispersion relation, and independence of three-particle iTMDs), and one invented nonperturbative object, the iTMD. None of these are machine-checked or derived from QCD in this paper.

free parameters (5)
  • beta_pi^2 (pion transverse-size parameter) = 0.51 ± 0.04 GeV^-2
    Set by Eq. (13) using f_pi and Gegenbauer moments a2=0.28, a4=0.19 from Ref. [14]; not directly fitted to the pion form factor data.
  • beta_K^2 (kaon transverse-size parameter) = 0.30 ± 0.05 GeV^-2
    Fitted to the timelike kaon form factor data [33-35]; the same data are later presented as being explained by the model.
  • beta'_K^2 (three-particle iTMD size) = = beta_K^2
    Set equal to beta_K^2 by hand because data accuracy does not allow a separate extraction; this ad hoc choice is not propagated as an uncertainty.
  • m0_pi (pion chiral mass at 1 GeV) = 1.84 ± 0.07 GeV
    Extracted by fitting the iTMDs-improved spacelike form factor to the modular dispersion relation, iterating because m0_pi also enters the pQCD tail inside the dispersion integral.
  • a2_pi, a4_pi (Gegenbauer moments) = 0.28 ± 0.05, 0.19 ± 0.06
    Inputs from the joint analysis in Ref. [14] used to evaluate Eq. (13) for beta_pi^2; they carry uncertainty from a previous LCSR/dispersion fit.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The improved factorization Eq. (14) is valid: soft transverse dynamics can be factorized into iTMDs that multiply LCDAs, cleanly separated from the hard kernel and Sudakov factor.
    This is the paper's central modeling assumption; no derivation from QCD is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The iTMDs have a Gaussian form Eq. (5): Sigma(u,k_T) = 16 pi^2 beta^2/(u(1-u)) exp(-beta^2 k_T^2/(u(1-u))).
    Adopted to preserve rotational invariance; the authors state that a first-principles derivation is infeasible.
  • domain assumption Equation (13), beta_pi^2 = 1/(8 pi^2 f_pi^2 (1 + a2_pi + a4_pi + ...)), from the pi -> gamma gamma asymptotic behavior is applicable.
    Taken from Li and Mishima [32]; its validity and the truncation of the Gegenbauer series control beta_pi^2.
  • domain assumption The modular dispersion relation Eq. (11) with the modulus substitution Eq. (12) is model independent and can be used to connect spacelike and timelike form factors.
    The authors assert model independence; the pQCD tail in |F|^2 is part of the same calculation being fitted.
  • ad hoc to paper The three-particle iTMD is independent of the two-particle iTMD and is normalized by Eq. (9).
    Introduced to absorb quark-mass proportional terms; its shape is fixed as another Gaussian with beta'^2, assumed equal to beta^2 for kaon.
invented entities (1)
  • iTMD Sigma(u,k_T) with Gaussian parameter beta^2
    purpose: Represents the soft transverse motion of valence partons in the meson wave function, supplementing longitudinal LCDAs in k_T factorization.
    The Gaussian shape is assumed, and its size parameter is either set by a model relation for the pion or fitted to the kaon form factor; no independent observable outside the form factor analyses pins it down.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shedding light on the intrinsic transversal momentum distributions of pion and kaon." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OKP5KOEU

@misc{pith2026241205941,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shedding light on the intrinsic transversal momentum distributions of pion and kaon},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OKP5KOEU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05941}
}
abstract

We propose to introduce the intrinsic transversal momentum distribution functions (iTMDs), in conjunction with the light-cone distribution amplitudes (LCDAs), to elucidate the probability amplitude of encountering a meson state wherein the partons swiftly traverse along the longitudinal axis while gently oscillating in the transversal plane. The primary motivation stems from the oversight of soft transverse dynamics within the $k_T$ factorization formalism of an exclusive QCD process, which confines perturbative QCD (pQCD) predictions to scenarios involving large momentum transfers. We meticulously investigate the $\pi$ and $K$ electromagnetic form factors using the iTMDs-improved pQCD calculation at next-to-leading order. By analyzing data in the timelike physical regions, we obtain the transversal-size parameters $\beta_\pi^2 = 0.51 \pm 0.04$ GeV$^{-2}$ and $\beta_K^2 = 0.30 \pm 0.05$ GeV$^2$. We then extract the chiral mass of pion to be $m_0^\pi(1 \, {\rm GeV}) = 1.84 \pm 0.07$ GeV and explain the precise measurements of kaon form factor in the perturbative timelike region. As a remarkable byproduct, we found that the incorporation of iTMDs improves the pQCD predictions for electromagnetic form factors, extending the applicable range to a few GeV$^2$. This improvement allows for direct comparison with existing measurements and lattice QCD evaluations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05941 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The sketch map of pion electromagnetic form factor. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Kinematical clarification of pion electromagnetic form factor. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The iTMDs-improved pQCD prediction of pion elec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The pQCD predictions of kaon electromagnetic form factor in the timelike (left) and spacelike (right) regions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The state-of-the-art pQCD predictions of pion (left) and kaon (right) electromagnetic form factors. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The mean transversal momenta in the pion (left) and kaon (right) electromagnetic form factors. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

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. Probing $B^+ \to K^+$ semi-leptonic FCNC decay with new physics effects under PQCD approach

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An improved PQCD plus lattice calculation of B to K semileptonic FCNC form factors confirms a 2.7 sigma excess in B+ to K+ nu nubar and a deficit in B+ to K+ l+ l-, and rules out single-leptoquark explanations using B...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [14]

    Cheng, A

    S. Cheng, A. Khodjamirian and A. V. Rusov, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.7, 074022 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    A. H. Mueller, Phys. Rept. 73, 237 (1981)

    work page 1981

  3. [2]

    Brodsky, G.P

    S.J. Brodsky, G.P. Lepage, in: A.H. Mueller (Ed.), Per- turbative Quantum Chromodynamics, World Scientific, Singapore, 1989

    work page 1989

  4. [3]

    A. V. Efremov and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Lett. B 94, 245-250 (1980)

    work page 1980

  5. [4]

    G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2157 (1980)

    1980

  6. [5]

    Cheng, Phys

    S. Cheng, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.1, 013007 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    V. M. Braun, G. P. Korchemsky and D. M¨ uller, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 51, 311-398 (2003)

    work page 2003

  8. [7]

    V. M. Braun and I. E. Filyanov, Z. Phys. C 48, 239-248 (1990)

    work page 1990

Show all 37 references
  1. [8]

    P. Ball, V. M. Braun and A. Lenz, JHEP 05, 004 (2006)

    2006

  2. [9]

    J. Chai, S. Cheng and J. Hua, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) no.7, 556

    2023

  3. [10]

    Leutwyler, Phys

    H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett. B 378, 313-318 (1996)

    1996

  4. [11]

    Navas et al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

    S. Navas et al.[Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 110, no.3, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  5. [12]

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

    2011

  6. [13]

    Cheng, Y

    S. Cheng, Y. Y. Fan and Z. J. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D 89, no.5, 054015 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Lepage, S.J

    G.P. Lepage, S.J. Brodsky, T. Huang and P.B. Macken- zie, Banff Summer Institute, Particles and Fields 2, eds. A.Z. Capri and A.N. Kamal (1983) p.83

    1983

  8. [16]

    Jakob and P

    R. Jakob and P. Kroll, Phys. Lett. B 315 (1993), 463-470 [erratum: Phys. Lett. B 319 (1993), 545]

    1993

  9. [17]

    Kroll, Eur

    P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011), 1623

    2011

  10. [18]

    V. M. Braun, A. Khodjamirian and M. Maul, Phys. Rev. D 61, 073004 (2000)

    2000

  11. [19]

    Bijnens and A

    J. Bijnens and A. Khodjamirian, Eur. Phys. J. C 26, 67-79 (2002)

    2002

  12. [20]

    Chang, I

    L. Chang, I. C. Clo¨ et, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt and P. C. Tandy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) no.14, 141802

    2013

  13. [21]

    C. D. Roberts, D. G. Richards, T. Horn and L. Chang, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 120 (2021), 103883

    2021

  14. [22]

    Wang et al.[χQCD], Phys

    G. Wang et al.[χQCD], Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), 074502

    2021

  15. [23]

    H. T. Ding, X. Gao, A. D. Hanlon, S. Mukherjee, P. Pe- treczky, Q. Shi, S. Syritsyn, R. Zhang and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, no.18, 181902 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    L. B. Chen, W. Chen, F. Feng and Y. Jia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, no.20, 201901 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Y. Ji, B. X. Shi, J. Wang, Y. F. Wang, Y. M. Wang and H. X. Yu, [arXiv:2411.03658 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    J. P. Lees et al.[BaBar], Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012), 032013

    2012

  19. [27]

    Fujikawa et al.[Belle], Phys

    M. Fujikawa et al.[Belle], Phys. Rev. D78 (2008), 072006

    2008

  20. [28]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Phys. Lett. B 753 (2016), 629-638 [erratum: Phys. Lett. B 812 (2021), 135982]

    2016

  21. [29]

    S. R. Amendolia et al. [NA7], Nucl. Phys. B 277 (1986), 168

    1986

  22. [30]

    Horn et al

    T. Horn et al. [Jefferson Lab F(pi)-2], Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006), 192001

    2006

  23. [31]

    G. M. Huber et al. [Jefferson Lab], Phys. Rev. C 78 (2008), 045203

    2008

  24. [32]

    H. n. Li and S. Mishima, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009), 074024

    2009

  25. [33]

    J. P. Lees et al. [BaBar], Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) no.3, 032013

    2013

  26. [34]

    J. P. Lees et al. [BaBar], Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) no.7, 072008

    2015

  27. [35]

    Ablikim et al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikim et al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.3, 032001

    2019

  28. [36]

    Z. Q. Yao, D. Binosi and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Lett. B 855, 138823 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    L. B. Chen, W. Chen, F. Feng and Y. Jia, [arXiv:2407.21120 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.