Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 57 references

The $D^*D^*\pi$ and $B^*B^*\pi$ couplings from light-cone sum rules

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper's upgraded light-cone sum rule predicts the strong couplings $g_{D^*D^*\pi}=5.71^{+0.67}_{-0.53}\,\text{GeV}^{-1}$ and $g_{B^*B^*\pi}=4.90^{+0.57}_{-0.44}\,\text{GeV}^{-1}$, and a separated static coupling $\hat{g}=0.30\pm0.04$.

desk verdict Real LCSR upgrade, but the printed sum rules mix GeV^2 with GeV^-2 (Eq. 53) and give the static coupling the wrong dimension (Eq. 59); the central values are unsupported as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12182 v1 pith:PPJ4MAMU submitted 2026-08-12 hep-ph

Chao Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 12.38.-t12.39.Hg
keywords light-conesumrulesstrongcouplingconstantsD*D*πB*B*πheavyquarkspinsymmetrypiondistributionamplitudeshard-collinearfactorizationhigher-twistcorrections
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 sets out to determine the strong couplings $g_{D^*D^*\pi}$ and $g_{B^*B^*\pi}$ — the vertices that control how a pion interacts with a pair of heavy vector mesons — from light-cone sum rules, going beyond earlier leading-order treatments. The upgrade works on two fronts: the leading-power part of the correlation function is factorized through next-to-leading order in $\alpha_s$, and the next-to-leading-power part is included at leading order by evaluating two- and three-particle pion distribution amplitudes up to twist-4. The paper obtains $g_{D^*D^*\pi}=5.71^{+0.67}_{-0.53}\,\text{GeV}^{-1}$ and $g_{B^*B^*\pi}=4.90^{+0.57}_{-0.44}\,\text{GeV}^{-1}$. Parametrizing the $1/m_H$ corrections and combining with the companion $H^*H\pi$ couplings, it extracts the universal static coupling $\hat{g}=0.30\pm0.04$, which sits below lattice and experimental values because those extraction routes absorb positive heavy-quark mass corrections. If the calculation is right, these are the most complete light-cone sum rule values to date for couplings that feed the one-pion-exchange potentials of the $Z_c(4020)$ and $Z_b(10650)$ exotic candidates and the $H^*\to\pi$ transition form factors needed for rare weak decays of heavy vector mesons.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the vacuum-to-pion correlation function $\Pi_{\mu\nu}(p,q)$ of two local heavy-vector interpolating currents, whose hadronic double dispersion relation has a pole term proportional to $g_{H^*H^*\pi}f_{H^*}^2$. The argument is carried by three pieces of machinery: the hard-collinear factorization formula at leading power, whose one-loop hard kernel $H^{(1)}_1$ is obtained by subtracting the operator renormalization factors (including the evanescent operator mixing $Z_{E1}$) from the bare QCD amplitude; the NLO double spectral density $\rho^{(1)}(r,\sigma)$, rewritten in variables $r=(\hat{s}_2-1)/(\hat{s}_1-1)$, $\sigma=\hat{s}_1+\hat{s}_2-2$, where a localized $\delta(r-1)$ term and a continuous logarithmic term of opposite signs make the result sensitive to the shape of the two-dimensional quark-hadron duality region $(s_1/s_*)^\alpha+(s_2/s_*)^\alpha\le 1$ (the triangle, $\alpha=1$, chosen as default); and the light-cone expansion of the heavy-quark propagator in a background gluon field, which generates the two- and three-particle higher-twist contributions. The final sum rule combines these into an expression for $g_{H^*H^*\pi}f_{H^*}^2$ whose static limit reproduces the $H^*H\pi$ sum rule, thereby verifying heavy quark spin symmetry.

What would settle it

Vary the duality boundary shape parameter $\alpha$ beyond the three values ($1/2,1,2$) the paper already scans, or evaluate the double dispersion integral with the alternative pole-resolving technique it cites: the off-diagonal NLO density changes by several percent under the existing scans, so a wider scan that moves $g_{D^*D^*\pi}$ or $g_{B^*B^*\pi}$ by more than the quoted $\pm0.5$ to $\pm0.7\,\text{GeV}^{-1}$ would falsify the duality ansatz. Independently, a lattice determination of the static coupling that separates $1/m_Q$ corrections by the same convention and returns $\hat{g}$ above about $0.4$ would contradict the paper's central claim that the gap to experiment is heavy quark spin symmetry breaking rather than a defect of the sum rule.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the $H^*H^*\pi$ strong coupling can be extracted from a correlation function of two heavy-vector currents in a pion state once two systematic improvements are made: a hard-collinear factorization formula at leading power carried to next-to-leading order in $\alpha_s$, with the one-loop hard-matching kernel computed and its scale dependence shown to cancel against the pion distribution amplitude; and next-to-leading-power contributions evaluated at leading order from two- and three-particle pion distribution amplitudes up to twist-4. After matching the QCD spectral representation to the hadronic double dispersion relation and performing a double Borel transformation, the paper predicts $g_{D^*D^*\pi}=5.71^{+0.67}_{-0.53}\,\text{GeV}^{-1}$ and $g_{B^*B^*\pi}=4.90^{+0.57}_{-0.44}\,\text{GeV}^{-1}$, with a dominant twist-2 leading-order term, a twist-3 correction around 40% of it, a negligible twist-4 term, and next-to-leading-order corrections near 10% that carry opposite signs in the charm and bottom channels. The paper further claims that heavy quark spin symmetry breaking can be isolated by parametrizing the $1/m_H$ corrections, yielding the static coupling $\hat{g}=0.30\pm0.04$ with correction parameters $\delta_1=1.24\pm0.55$ GeV and $\delta_2=0.46\pm0.43$ GeV, and that the systematically larger lattice and experimental values of $\hat{g}$ are explained by those extractions absorbing the positive power corrections.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the continuum contribution to the double dispersion integral is modeled by a two-dimensional quark-hadron duality region of a specific boundary shape (the triangle, $\alpha=1$) with effective thresholds $s_0$; the paper itself notes it is unclear whether the triangular-region argument carries over to the off-diagonal part of the NLO spectral density, so if that ansatz fails the NLO and higher-twist contributions shift beyond the quoted errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the strict heavy-quark limit the new sum rule reduces analytically to the same static expression as the $H^*H\pi$ coupling, so the framework self-consistently verifies heavy quark spin symmetry; the finite-mass deviations are then attributed to $1/m_H$ breaking rather than to a defect of the method.
  • The extracted $\hat{g}=0.30\pm0.04$ is systematically below lattice and experimental extractions, which the paper attributes to those extractions absorbing positive $1/m_Q$ corrections; the gap is therefore presented as a measure of heavy quark spin symmetry breaking rather than a contradiction.
  • The improved $g_{D^*D^*\pi}$ and $g_{B^*B^*\pi}$ values directly enter the one-pion-exchange potential, shifting predicted binding energies for exotic threshold candidates such as $Z_c(4020)$ and $Z_b(10650)$.
  • The couplings set the residue of the $H^*$ pole in the $H^*\to\pi$ transition form factor, providing input that will be needed to interpret the as-yet-unobserved weak decays of $B^*$ and $D^*$ mesons at future heavy-flavor runs.
  • Within the quoted errors the central values are stable against Borel mass, threshold, and factorization scale variations, and the twist-4 contribution is tiny, which the paper takes as support for the truncation of the operator product expansion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because $\hat{g}$ and the correction parameters $\delta_i$ are strongly anti-correlated in the combined fit, adding an external constraint on any one of them — for instance a lattice value of the static coupling — would shrink the error ellipsoid substantially without any new sum-rule input; the paper does not perform this exercise.
  • The opposite signs of the NLO corrections in the charm and bottom channels arise from a delicate balance between the localized and continuous parts of the NLO spectral density at the chosen central scales; evaluating both channels at a common scale (say $\mu=m_c$) would show whether the sign difference is a physical mass effect or an artifact of scale choice.
  • The duality-shape sensitivity lives entirely in the off-diagonal NLO density, so adopting the alternative systematic treatment of double dispersion integrals cited in the paper would provide a direct, independent cross-check of the dominant systematic uncertainty.
  • A lattice calculation of the $H^*H^*\pi$ vertex at unphysical kinematics with controlled extrapolation, rather than of the static coupling alone, would test the paper's central values without relying on the intermediate $1/m_H$ parametrization whose parameters are so strongly correlated.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the light-cone sum rule (LCSR) calculation of the strong couplings g_{D*D*π} and g_{B*B*π}. It derives the hard-collinear factorization of the relevant correlation function at leading power through next-to-leading order in α_s, includes next-to-leading-power higher-twist contributions from two- and three-particle pion distribution amplitudes up to twist-4, matches the QCD-level double spectral representation to the hadronic dispersion relation, and performs a numerical analysis with Borel, threshold, factorization-scale, and duality-region-shape uncertainties. The quoted results are g_{D*D*π}=5.71^{+0.67}_{-0.53} GeV^{-1}, g_{B*B*π}=4.90^{+0.57}_{-0.44} GeV^{-1}, and a static coupling ĝ=0.30±0.04 extracted by fitting 1/m_H corrections. The manuscript also compares these values with previous LCSR, QCD sum rule, lattice, and experimental determinations.

Significance. If the calculation is correct, this would be one of the most complete LCSR determinations of the H*H*π couplings, with a documented error budget covering scale, Borel, threshold, and duality-shape systematics. The explicit NLO hard-collinear kernel, the treatment of the two-dimensional quark-hadron duality region, and the breakdown of twist contributions are valuable and potentially useful for applications to hadronic molecules and heavy-meson weak decays. The paper also honestly states its main truncations (asymptotic DA in the NLO density, omission of twist-3 NLO corrections). However, the claimed numerical predictions cannot be verified from the printed formulas because the higher-twist sum rules contain dimensionally inconsistent terms, and the static-limit expression used for the ĝ extraction has the same problem. The manuscript is therefore not yet in a publishable form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Eqs. (48) and (53)] The twist-3 term in Eq. (53) is dimensionally inconsistent and cannot be added to the other terms. With φ4(u) carrying dimension GeV² from Eq. (A9), the first term in Eq. (53) has dimension GeV². In the second term, however, φσ3 is dimensionless and 1/(3 m_Q μπ) has dimension GeV^{-2}, so the term has dimension GeV^{-2}. The same inconsistency appears in the integrand of Eq. (48), where the two terms inside the parentheses do not share a common dimension. Since Eq. (53) enters the central sum rule Eq. (55), and Table II assigns the twist-3 LO piece about 40% of the twist-2 LO value, the numerical results in Eq. (57) are not reproducible from the formulas as printed. Please correct the factors of m_Q and μπ (or supply the missing dimensionful prefactors) and recompute the numerical tables and central values.
  2. [Section VI, Eq. (59)] The static-limit expression in Eq. (59) has a dimension problem. Using f_H* = \hat f sqrt(m_Q), the factor fπ²/\hat f² has dimension GeV, the parenthesized sum has dimension GeV, and the outer bracket therefore has dimension GeV². Multiplied by the prefactor 2/fπ, the right-hand side has dimension GeV, whereas the left-hand side g_{H*H*π} should have dimension GeV^{-1}. The text further states that the bracket is exactly the dimensionless static coupling ĝ, which is also dimensionally impossible. Either the left-hand side should carry a factor f_{H*}^2, or a compensating power of m_Q (or τ) is missing. This undercuts the claimed analytic verification of HQSS and the extraction of ĝ=0.30±0.04 in Eq. (61), and it must be repaired before the numerical result can be trusted.
  3. [Section VI, Eqs. (60)-(62)] The extraction of the static coupling ĝ is not an independent determination. Two of the four inputs to the fit in Eq. (60) are the values g_{D*Dπ}=14.1 and g_{B*Bπ}=30.0 taken from Ref. [33], and Eq. (59) is explicitly stated to be structurally identical to Eq. (5.10) of the same reference. The resulting ĝ=0.30±0.04 therefore largely re-states the earlier framework, so the comparison with LQCD and experiment in Table V should be framed accordingly. Please show what the fit gives when the Ref. [33] inputs are removed, or otherwise quantify how much of the final ĝ is contributed by the new finite-mass LCSR results.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, text after Eq. (43)] The sentence 'The duality region possesses a smooth border crossing across the diagonals 1 = s_2' should read 'across the diagonal s1 = s2'.
  2. [Section VI, Eq. (60)] The first relation in Eq. (60), g_{H*Hπ} = (2 m_H ĝ)/fπ (1+δ1/m_H), is dimensionless if ĝ is dimensionless, while the couplings quoted in Table V are given in GeV^{-1}. Please clarify the convention used for g_{H*Hπ} and g_{H*H*π} in these relations, or add the explicit factor that restores the correct mass dimension.
  3. [Section VI, Model for the pion DA] In the definition of Model II, the phrase 'its second momenta2 is adopted' should read 'its second Gegenbauer moment a2 is adopted'.
  4. [Table V] The entry for LCSR [33], g_{D*D*π}=7.27 GeV^{-1}, is derived from g_{H*Hπ}/\sqrt{m_{H*}m_H}; this should be stated directly in the table or its caption to avoid confusion with the directly computed couplings.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The finite-mass g_{D*D*pi} and g_{B*B*pi} are new LCSR outputs, but the static coupling \hat{g}=0.30 is largely a refit of the same framework: Eq. (59) is stated to be identical to Eq. (5.10) of Ref. [33], and two of the four fitted inputs come from Ref. [33].

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section VI, Eqs. (59)-(61)]
    "The expression inside the square brackets is exactly the static coupling \hat{g} evaluated in HQET. Remarkably, the dynamical structure of this sum rule is completely identical to that of the H∗Hπ coupling derived in the same limit (see Eq. (5.10) in Ref. [33]) ... By combining our results with the vector-to-pseudoscalar transition couplings obtained in Ref. [33] ... Fitting these relations yields: \hat{g}=0.30±0.04"

    The static coupling is presented as an extracted result, but the extraction uses as two of its four inputs the H∗Hπ couplings from Ref. [33], and Eq. (59) explicitly identifies the static limit of the new H∗H∗π sum rule with Eq. (5.10) of that same reference. Thus the fitted \hat{g}=0.30 is not an independent first-principles prediction: it substantially re-encodes the earlier LCSR framework and its value (Ref. [33] already gives \hat{g}=0.30±0.02 in Table V). The finite-mass g_{D*D*π} and g_{B*B*π} in Eq. (57) are newly computed from Eq. (55) and are not forced by these inputs, so the circularity is partial and confined to the secondary static-coupling claim.

full rationale

The central new claims are the finite-mass couplings g_{D*D*π}=5.71^{+0.67}_{-0.53} and g_{B*B*π}=4.90^{+0.57}_{-0.44} GeV^{-1} from the LCSR in Eq. (55). Their derivation is self-contained: the LO/NLO LP spectral densities and the higher-twist NLP terms are evaluated from the stated correlation function and pion DAs, with external inputs (f_H*, a_2, f_π, μ_π, δ2π, Borel and threshold windows) taken from LQCD and prior sum-rule analyses; no parameter is fitted to the target couplings. The one genuinely circular piece is the static-limit discussion: Eq. (59) is admitted to be structurally identical to Eq. (5.10) of Ref. [33], and the numerical value \hat{g}=0.30±0.04 is obtained by fitting Eq. (60) to two couplings from this work plus two H∗Hπ couplings from Ref. [33], so the agreement with the earlier \hat{g}=0.30 is substantially built in. Because this affects only the secondary static-coupling result, the overall circularity score is moderate rather than high. Separately, the apparent dimensional mismatches in Eqs. (53) and (59) flagged in review are a correctness/reproducibility issue, not a circularity: they do not make any output equal to an input by construction, but they would undermine the numerical support of the printed formulas if confirmed.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation uses standard LCSR machinery but depends on several choices and inputs from the author's prior work and from lattice. The main fitted or hand-adjusted quantities are the Borel masses, thresholds, factorization scales, and the duality region shape. The static-coupling extraction fits three parameters to four LCSR values, two from Ref. [33]. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (10)
  • Borel mass M^2 (D*) = 4.5 ± 1.0 GeV^2
    Working window adopted from Ref. [53]; central value used in Eq. (55), varied for uncertainty.
  • Borel mass M^2 (B*) = 16.0 ± 4.0 GeV^2
    From Ref. [54]; varied for uncertainty.
  • Effective continuum threshold s0 (D*) = 7.0 ± 0.5 GeV^2
    From Ref. [53]; models the onset of the continuum.
  • Effective continuum threshold s0 (B*) = 37.5 ± 2.5 GeV^2
    From Ref. [54].
  • Factorization scale μ (D*) = 1.5 GeV, varied in [1.0,3.0] GeV
    Chosen central scale; residual dependence folded into errors.
  • Factorization scale μ (B*) = 3.0 GeV, varied in [2.5,4.5] GeV
    Chosen central scale.
  • Duality region shape α = 1 (s* = 2s0)
    Default triangular boundary; alternative values 1/2 and 2 are used to estimate the systematic uncertainty.
  • Static coupling ĝ (fit) = 0.30 ± 0.04
    Fitted parameter in Eq. (60) to the four LCSR couplings.
  • 1/m_H correction δ1 = 1.24 ± 0.55 GeV
    Fitted parameter for g_H*Hπ in Eq. (60).
  • 1/m_H correction δ2 = 0.46 ± 0.43 GeV
    Fitted parameter for g_H*H*π in Eq. (60).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Double Borel transformation of the hadronic dispersion relation can be performed with M1^2=M2^2=2M^2 and subtraction terms drop out.
    Used in deriving Eqs. (42) and (55); standard property of Borel transforms in QCD sum rules.
  • domain assumption The correlation function factorizes at leading power into hard kernels and pion twist-2 DA, and the NLP contributions are given by two- and three-particle pion DAs up to twist-4.
    This is the SCET and light-cone OPE framework of Sections III and V; it assumes a highly virtual heavy quark with |(p+q)^2-m_Q^2| and |q^2-m_Q^2| of order m_Q^2.
  • domain assumption Quark-hadron duality: the continuum contribution is represented by a double spectral integral over a region Σ cut by effective thresholds s0.
    Eqs. (10), (42), (43); the choice of the boundary shape (triangle) is acknowledged to be uncertain.
  • ad hoc to paper The pion twist-2 DA can be approximated by the asymptotic form 6uū inside the NLO spectral density.
    Stated in Section IV with reference [30]; no quantitative bound is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The finite heavy-quark mass is treated in the MS scheme and the residual scale dependence is small; the twist-3 NLO and non-asymptotic NLO density contributions are neglected.
    Section VI: the scale dependence is shown to be slight for the total, but the paper concedes these truncations produce the visible scale dependence of the NLO component.
  • domain assumption The 1/m_H parametrization in Eq. (60) with parameters ĝ, δ1, δ2 describes the four LCSR couplings.
    Functional form from Ref. [56]; with four data points and three parameters, the form itself is not tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The $D^*D^*\pi$ and $B^*B^*\pi$ couplings from light-cone sum rules." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PPJ4MAMU

@misc{pith2026260812182,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The $D^*D^*\pi$ and $B^*B^*\pi$ couplings from light-cone sum rules},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PPJ4MAMU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12182}
}
abstract

We revisit the calculation of the strong couplings $D^{*}D^{*}\pi$ and $B^{*}B^{*}\pi$ from the light-cone sum rules (LCSR) using the pion light-cone distribution amplitudes. The accuracy of the underlying correlation function is upgraded by establishing the hard-collinear factorization formula at the leading power up to the next-to-leading order in $\alpha_s$. Furthermore, the next-to-leading power contributions are systematically incorporated at the leading order by evaluating the two-particle and three-particle higher-twist pion distribution amplitudes up to twist-4 accuracy. By matching the QCD-level spectral representations with the hadronic dispersion relations, we present a solid numerical analysis that accounts for the finite heavy quark masses and carefully evaluates the systematic uncertainty originating from the two-dimensional quark-hadron duality ansatz. We predict $g_{D^{*}D^{*}\pi} = 5.71_{-0.53}^{+0.67} \text{ GeV}^{-1}$ and $g_{B^{*}B^{*}\pi} = 4.90_{-0.44}^{+0.57} \text{ GeV}^{-1}$. Finally, by parameterizing the $1/m_H$ (with $H=D,\,B$) power corrections to extract the universal static coupling $\hat{g} = 0.30 \pm 0.04$, we compare our results with previous theoretical determinations and experimental data, highlighting the significance of heavy quark spin symmetry breaking effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12182 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The one-loop Feynman diagrams for the twist-two pion DA contribution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Dependence of the LCSR predictions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [33]

    Khodjamirian, B

    A. Khodjamirian, B. Meli´ c, Y. M. Wang and Y. B. Wei, JHEP03(2021), 016 [arXiv:2011.11275 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2021

  2. [1]

    M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D45(1992) no.7, R2188

    work page 1992

  3. [2]

    Casalbuoni, A

    R. Casalbuoni, A. Deandrea, N. Di Bartolomeo, R. Gatto, F. Feruglio and G. Nardulli, Phys. Rept.281(1997), 145-238 [arXiv:hep-ph/9605342 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 1997

  4. [3]

    T. M. Yan, H. Y. Cheng, C. Y. Cheung, G. L. Lin, Y. C. Lin and H. L. Yu, Phys. Rev. D46 (1992), 1148-1164 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D55(1997), 5851]

    work page 1992

  5. [4]

    Burdman and J

    G. Burdman and J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Lett. B280(1992), 287-291

    work page 1992

  6. [5]

    First Measurement of Gamma(D*+) and Precision Measurement of m_D*+ - m_D0

    A. Anastassovet al.[CLEO], Phys. Rev. D65(2002), 032003 [arXiv:hep-ex/0108043 [hep-ex]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2002

  7. [6]

    J. P. Leeset al.[BaBar], Phys. Rev. Lett.111(2013) no.11, 111801 [arXiv:1304.5657 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2013

  8. [7]

    J. P. Leeset al.[BaBar], Phys. Rev. D88(2013) no.5, 052003 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) no.7, 079902] [arXiv:1304.5009 [hep-ex]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

Show all 57 references
  1. [8]

    N. A. Tornqvist, Z. Phys. C61(1994), 525-537 [arXiv:hep-ph/9310247 [hep-ph]]

    1994 arXiv

  2. [9]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rept.639(2016), 1-121 [arXiv:1601.02092 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [10]

    F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U. G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao and B. S. Zou, Rev. Mod. Phys. 23 90(2018) no.1, 015004 [erratum: Rev. Mod. Phys.94(2022) no.2, 029901] [arXiv:1705.00141 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Brambilla, S

    N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C. P. Shen, C. E. Thomas, A. Vairo and C. Z. Yuan, Phys. Rept.873(2020), 1-154 [arXiv:1907.07583 [hep-ex]]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett.111(2013) no.24, 242001 [arXiv:1309.1896 [hep- ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett.112(2014) no.13, 132001 [arXiv:1308.2760 [hep- ex]]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Bondaret al.[Belle], Phys

    A. Bondaret al.[Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett.108(2012), 122001 [arXiv:1110.2251 [hep-ex]]

    2012 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Abudin´ en, T

    F. Abudin´ en, T. Blake, U. Egede and T. Gershon, Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) no.5, 459 [arXiv:2202.03916 [hep-ex]]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Kouet al.[Belle-II], PTEP2019(2019) no.12, 123C01 [erratum: PTEP2020(2020) no.2, 029201] [arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]]

    E. Kouet al.[Belle-II], PTEP2019(2019) no.12, 123C01 [erratum: PTEP2020(2020) no.2, 029201] [arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]]

    2019

  10. [17]

    Chang, J

    Q. Chang, J. Zhu, N. Wang and R. M. Wang, Adv. High Energy Phys.2018(2018), 7231354 [arXiv:1808.02188 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [18]

    A. Ray, S. Sahoo and R. Mohanta, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) no.8, 670 [arXiv:1907.13586 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [19]

    S. Y. Wang, Y. Y. Yang, Z. J. Sun, H. Yang, P. Li and Z. Q. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C48(2024) no.12, 123102 [arXiv:2410.09672 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Carvalho, F

    F. Carvalho, F. O. Duraes, F. S. Navarra and M. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. C72(2005), 024902 [arXiv:hep-ph/0508137 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  14. [21]

    M. E. Bracco, M. Chiapparini, F. S. Navarra and M. Nielsen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.67 (2012), 1019-1052 [arXiv:1104.2864 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Z. G. Wang, Nucl. Phys. A796(2007), 61-82 [arXiv:0706.0296 [hep-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  16. [23]

    I. I. Balitsky, V. M. Braun and A. V. Kolesnichenko, Nucl. Phys. B312(1989), 509-550

    1989

  17. [24]

    V. M. Belyaev, V. M. Braun, A. Khodjamirian and R. Ruckl, Phys. Rev. D51(1995), 6177- 6195 [arXiv:hep-ph/9410280 [hep-ph]]

    1995 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Becirevic and F

    D. Becirevic and F. Sanfilippo, Phys. Lett. B721(2013), 94-100 [arXiv:1210.5410 [hep-lat]]

    2013 arXiv

  19. [26]

    K. U. Can, G. Erkol, M. Oka, A. Ozpineci and T. T. Takahashi, Phys. Lett. B719(2013), 103-109 [arXiv:1210.0869 [hep-lat]]

    2013 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Detmold, C

    W. Detmold, C. J. D. Lin and S. Meinel, Phys. Rev. D85(2012), 114508 [arXiv:1203.3378 24 [hep-lat]]

    2012 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Bernardoniet al.[ALPHA], Phys

    F. Bernardoniet al.[ALPHA], Phys. Lett. B740(2015), 278-284 [arXiv:1404.6951 [hep-lat]]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [29]

    J. M. Flynnet al.[RBC and UKQCD], Phys. Rev. D93(2016) no.1, 014510 [arXiv:1506.06413 [hep-lat]]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Khodjamirian, R

    A. Khodjamirian, R. Ruckl, S. Weinzierl and O. I. Yakovlev, Phys. Lett. B457(1999), 245-252 [arXiv:hep-ph/9903421 [hep-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  24. [31]

    H. D. Li, C. D. L¨ u, C. Wang, Y. M. Wang and Y. B. Wei, JHEP04(2020), 023 [arXiv:2002.03825 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Wang and H

    C. Wang and H. D. Li, Chin. Phys. C44(2020) no.7, 073103 [arXiv:2001.05112 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    S. P. Jin and H. Y. Jiang, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) no.6, 598 [arXiv:2403.13087 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    H. Y. Jiang and S. P. Jin, JHEP03(2025), 106 [arXiv:2406.06209 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Y. M. Wang and Y. L. Shen, JHEP12(2017), 037 [arXiv:1706.05680 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    B. Y. Cui, Y. L. Shen, C. Wang and Y. B. Wei, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) no.9, 1052 [arXiv:2308.16436 [hep-ph]]

    2025

  30. [38]

    Khodjamirian, B

    A. Khodjamirian, B. Meli´ c and Y. M. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. ST233(2024) no.2, 271-298 [arXiv:2311.08700 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D71(2005), 014030 [arXiv:hep-ph/0409317 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  32. [40]

    A. V. Belitsky and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rept.418(2005), 1-387 [arXiv:hep-ph/0504030 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  33. [41]

    S. S. Agaev, V. M. Braun, N. Offen and F. A. Porkert, Phys. Rev. D83(2011), 054020 [arXiv:1012.4671 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  34. [42]

    G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D22(1980), 2157

    1980

  35. [43]

    A. V. Efremov and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Lett. B94(1980), 245-250

    1980

  36. [44]

    Neubert, Phys

    M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D45(1992), 2451-2466

    1992

  37. [45]

    Blok and M

    B. Blok and M. A. Shifman, Phys. Rev. D47(1993), 2949-2964 [arXiv:hep-ph/9207217 [hep- ph]]

    1993 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Pullin and R

    B. Pullin and R. Zwicky, JHEP09(2021), 023 [arXiv:2106.13617 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    I. I. Balitsky and V. M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. B311(1989), 541-584 25

    1989

  40. [48]

    Aokiet al.[Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)], Phys

    Y. Aokiet al.[Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)], Phys. Rev. D113(2026) no.1, 014508 [arXiv:2411.04268 [hep-lat]]

    2026 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Lubiczet al.[ETM], Phys

    V. Lubiczet al.[ETM], Phys. Rev. D96(2017) no.3, 034524 [arXiv:1707.04529 [hep-lat]]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Takahashiet al.[Particle Data Group], Int

    F. Takahashiet al.[Particle Data Group], Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 41, 2630011 (2026)

    2026

  43. [51]

    G. S. Baliet al.[RQCD], JHEP08(2019), 065 [arXiv:1903.08038 [hep-lat]]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    P. Ball, V. M. Braun and A. Lenz, JHEP0605, 004 (2006) [hep-ph/0603063]

    2006 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Khodjamirian, C

    A. Khodjamirian, C. Klein, T. Mannel and N. Offen, Phys. Rev. D80(2009), 114005 [arXiv:0907.2842 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Khodjamirian, T

    A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel, N. Offen and Y. M. Wang, Phys. Rev. D83(2011), 094031 [arXiv:1103.2655 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Duplancic, A

    G. Duplancic, A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel, B. Melic and N. Offen, JHEP04(2008), 014 [arXiv:0801.1796 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  48. [56]

    C. G. Boyd and B. Grinstein, Nucl. Phys. B442(1995), 205-227 [arXiv:hep-ph/9402340 [hep-ph]]

    1995 arXiv

  49. [57]

    V. M. Braun and I. E. Filyanov, Z. Phys. C48(1990), 239-248 26

    1990

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.