REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 67 references
Prospective analysis of CKM element $|V_{cd}|$ and $D^+$-meson decay constant from leptonic decays $D^+ \to \ell^+ \nu$
T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a QCD sum rule extended to dimension-six condensates determines the D+ meson decay constant as $f_{D^+}=203.0\pm1.5$ MeV, and that combining this with the measured $D^+\to\mu^+\nu_\mu$ branching fraction yields…
desk verdict A solid but incremental QCD sum rule calculation for f_D+, whose ±1.5 MeV error ignores the dominant threshold and truncation systematics. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the two-point QCD sum rule for $f_{D^+}$, built from the axial-vector current correlation function and evaluated in the background field theory approach, where quantum fluctuations carry the perturbative part and background fields encode vacuum condensates. The sum rule links the Borel-transformed correlation function to the hadronic side through quark-hadron duality, with a single continuum threshold $s_0=5.4~\mathrm{GeV}^2$ and a Borel window fixed by three criteria: continuum contribution below 35%, dimension-six condensate contribution below 5%, and stability of $f_{D^+}$ within the window. Together, the dimension-six truncation and these criteria determine the quoted central value and error.
What would settle it
A lattice QCD calculation of $f_{D^+}$ with total uncertainty below 1 MeV that returns a central value more than 2 MeV above 203 MeV, or a measurement of $\mathcal{B}(D^+\to\mu^+\nu_\mu)$ that, combined with an independently known $|V_{cd}|$, implies $f_{D^+}$ above 207 MeV, would falsify the central claim; agreement within errors would support it.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central claim is that extending the QCD sum rule for the D+ meson decay constant to include dimension-six condensates – the double-quark condensate, the quark-gluon condensate, the double-gluon condensate, and the triple-gluon condensate – produces $f_{D^+}=203.0\pm1.5$ MeV. From this constant and the standard model formula for the leptonic branching fraction, the paper derives the integrated decay widths and branching fractions for all three charged-lepton channels, and then uses the experimentally measured $\mathcal{B}(D^+\to\mu^+\nu_\mu)$ to extract $|V_{cd}|=0.227^{+0.002}_{-0.001}$. The author would state that the predicted branching fractions are consistent with existing measurements but are systematically below the values obtained when $f_{D^+}$ is taken from lattice QCD.
Load-bearing premise
The central premise is that all higher-energy contributions and condensates beyond dimension six can be absorbed into a single continuum threshold and the known lower-dimension condensates, so that neglecting them changes $f_{D^+}$ by less than the quoted 1.5 MeV.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- The leptonic branching fractions of the D+ meson become sharp predictions: $\mathcal{B}(D^+\to e^+\nu_e)=8.260\times10^{-9}$, $\mathcal{B}(D^+\to\mu^+\nu_\mu)=3.508\times10^{-4}$, and $\mathcal{B}(D^+\to\tau^+\nu_\tau)=0.935\times10^{-3}$.
- The extracted $|V_{cd}|=0.227^{+0.002}_{-0.001}$ provides an independent cross-check of CKM unitarity and of semileptonic determinations of the same matrix element.
- Because the predicted branching fractions are lower than lattice-QCD-based values, a precise measurement of $D^+\to\mu^+\nu_\mu$ or $D^+\to\tau^+\nu_\tau$ can distinguish the two theoretical inputs.
- Improved experimental precision on the leptonic channels will directly reduce the uncertainty of the $|V_{cd}|$ extraction, since $f_{D^+}$ is already fixed at the sub-percent level in this approach.
Reading between the lines
- The quoted 1.5 MeV uncertainty rests on the single-threshold quark-hadron duality ansatz; a more realistic excited-state model could shift $f_{D^+}$ by more than the stated error.
- A precise measurement of the ratio $\mathcal{B}(D^+\to\tau^+\nu_\tau)/\mathcal{B}(D^+\to\mu^+\nu_\mu)$ would test lepton flavor universality without needing $f_{D^+}$ at all.
- The same background-field sum-rule machinery could be carried over to $D_s^+$ and $B^+$ decays, where the dimension-six terms would allow a comparative check of the truncation scheme.
- If lattice QCD eventually reaches sub-percent precision on $f_{D^+}$ and confirms a value near 210 MeV, the gap with the sum-rule result would indicate missing higher-dimension contributions rather than experimental error.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. This paper uses QCD sum rules in the background-field framework to compute the D+ meson decay constant f_D+, including condensates up to dimension-six. The authors obtain f_D+ = 203.0 ± 1.5 MeV (Eq. (15)), use it to predict the branching fractions for D+ → ℓ+νℓ (ℓ = e, μ, τ) in Eq. (16) and Table I, and extract |V_cd| = 0.227^{+0.002}_{-0.001} from the BESIII measurement of B(D+ → μ+νμ). The paper claims agreement with BESIII and older lattice results; the disagreement with newer averages is noted only in passing.
Significance. The paper presents an explicit QCD sum rule expression for f_D+ including dimension-six condensates, which is a nontrivial calculation, and gives predictions for decay widths and branching fractions that are testable at BESIII and future facilities. If the error budget were complete, the result would be a competitive non-lattice determination of f_D+ and a clean CKM extraction. The main strengths are the transparent presentation of Eq. (9), the use of a systematic OPE framework, and the broad comparison with experimental and lattice results. However, the quoted precision relies on an incomplete treatment of sum-rule systematics, and the derivation of the central formula is delegated to earlier work, which reduces the self-containedness of the manuscript.
major comments (3)
- [Numerical Analysis, Eqs. (9) and (15)] The uncertainty in the quoted f_D+ = 203.0 ± 1.5 MeV accounts only for the input parameters in Eq. (13). No uncertainty is propagated from the continuum threshold s0 = 5.4 GeV^2, from the Borel window selection via the three criteria of Ref. [39], or from the truncation of the OPE at dimension-six. The threshold is motivated by the mass of D0(2550)0, which is not known to high precision, and the dimension-six terms in Eq. (9) are suppressed only by powers of 1/M^2, so a modest variation of s0 or an estimate of dimension-eight contributions could shift f_D+ by more than 1.5 MeV. Since the final |V_cd| scales as 1/f_D+, the claimed few-per-mille uncertainty on |V_cd| is not justified until these systematics are quantified. Please specify the Borel window used, vary s0 over a range consistent with the excited-state mass uncertainty, and estimate the effect of higher-dimensional condensates (e.g., by adding a dimension-eight term and studying its contribution).
- [Theoretical Framework, Eq. (9)] Equation (9) is the core sum rule that determines f_D+, but its derivation is not presented in this manuscript; the text only refers to Ref. [35]. Since the paper's central claim is that the calculation includes dimension-six condensates and improves the accuracy of f_D+, the derivation (or a substantial outline, including the treatment of infrared divergences and the matching of the OPE to the hadronic dispersion relation) should be given, at least in an appendix. Without this, the reader cannot verify the claimed accuracy or identify what is new relative to Ref. [35].
- [Fig. 4 and Table II] The final value f_D+ = 203.0 ± 1.5 MeV is several standard deviations below the modern averages quoted by PDG 2024 (212.0 ± 0.7 MeV) and FLAG 2019 (209.0 ± 2.4 MeV). The paper notes agreement with BESIII'14 and LQCD'13, but does not address the two-to-four-sigma tension with the more recent averages. This discrepancy is not a refutation by itself, but it reinforces the need for the systematic error analysis requested in the first comment. The discussion should be updated with a direct comparison to the current PDG and FLAG averages and a comment on whether the sum rule is expected to reproduce them.
minor comments (5)
- [Throughout] There are several typos and grammatical errors: 'mestioned' should be 'mentioned', 'Moveover' should be 'Moreover', 'the six-dimensional condensates' should be 'dimension-six condensates', 'Fork state' should be 'Fock state', and 'BEIII' in Table II should be 'BESIII'.
- [Numerical Analysis, Eq. (14)] The renormalization scale at which Eq. (15) is evaluated is not stated explicitly. The RGE expressions in Eq. (14) contain µ and µ0, but the final numerical value should specify the scale used (e.g., µ = 2 GeV or µ = m_c), otherwise the result is not fully reproducible.
- [Table II] The BESIII'19 entry reads '0.237 ± 0.024 ± 0.12 ± 0.001', but the Introduction quotes '0.237 ± 0.024 ± 0.012 ± 0.001'; the '0.12' appears to be a typo for '0.012'.
- [References] Reference [38] (Colangelo and Khodjamirian) lacks publication details; please provide the journal, volume, and year, or indicate that it is a preprint.
- [Numerical Analysis, Figs. 2 and 3] The Borel window boundaries are not given numerically. The figures show shaded regions, but the paper should state the M^2 range used to obtain Eq. (15) so that readers can reproduce the quoted central value and uncertainty.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: f_D+ comes from an independent QCD sum rule checked against external data, and |V_cd| is extracted from a measured branching fraction.
full rationale
The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The decay constant f_D+ is obtained from the QCD sum rule Eq. (9), with inputs limited to quark masses, vacuum condensates (Eq. (13)), the continuum threshold s0 = 5.4 GeV^2 set by the excited-state mass, and the Borel-window criteria. None of these inputs is the D+ leptonic branching fraction, the CKM element |V_cd|, or the target value of f_D+. The sum rule is solved, not fitted to the BESIII decay data; the resulting f_D+ = 203.0 ± 1.5 MeV is then compared with BESIII, CLEO, lattice and flavor-averaging results, which are external benchmarks. Branching fractions are computed from Eq. (1) using f_D+ and the PDG value of |V_cd|, and they are checked against BESIII measurements; the final |V_cd| = 0.227 is a standard extraction that inverts Eq. (1) with the BESIII-measured B(D+ -> mu+ nu_mu) as an experimental input. Although several technical ingredients (propagator expressions, condensate values, Borel criteria) are cited from the same group's prior papers, those citations provide calculational machinery and parameter values, not the target prediction, and the central result is externally falsifiable against BESIII and lattice determinations. The under-quantified s0 and truncation systematics are a correctness concern, not a circularity.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (7)
- Continuum threshold s0 =
5.4 GeV^2
- Borel parameter window M^2 =
not stated numerically
- Quark condensate <qbar q>(2 GeV) =
(-2.417 +0.227 -0.114) x 10^-2 GeV^3
- Four-quark condensate <g_s qbar q>^2(2 GeV) =
(2.082 +0.734 -0.697) x 10^-3 GeV^6
- Quark-gluon mixing condensate <g_s qbar sigma G q>(2 GeV) =
(-1.934 +0.188 -0.103) x 10^-2 GeV^5
- Gluon condensate <alpha_s G^2> =
0.037 ± 0.011 GeV^4
- Triple-gluon condensate <g_s^3 f G^3> =
0.045 GeV^6
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption Quark-hadron duality: the continuum contribution to the correlation function is adequately modeled by a single threshold s0 = 5.4 GeV^2 and subtracted via the Borel transformation.
- domain assumption The OPE truncated at dimension-six, with propagators taken from Ref. [35], gives the dominant nonperturbative content; higher-dimension condensates are negligible.
- domain assumption The vacuum condensate values in Eq. (13) from Refs. [36,37,38] are correct at the stated scales.
- standard math The renormalization group running in Eq. (14) correctly evolves masses and condensates to the sum rule scale.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Prospective analysis of CKM element $|V_{cd}|$ and $D^+$-meson decay constant from leptonic decays $D^+ \to \ell^+ \nu$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TVP4YGAE
@misc{pith2026241110660,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Prospective analysis of CKM element $|V_cd|$ and $D^+$-meson decay constant from leptonic decays $D^+ \to \ell^+ \nu$},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TVP4YGAE}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10660}
}
abstract
The leptonic decay of $D^+$-meson has attracted significant interest due to its unique characteristics. In this paper, we carry out an investigation into the $D^+$-meson leptonic decays $D^+\to \ell^+\nu_{\ell}$ with $\ell=(e,\mu,\tau)$ by employing the QCD sum rules approach. In which the $D^+$-meson decay constant $f_{D^+}$ is an important input parameter in the process. To enhance the accuracy of our calculations for $f_{D^+}$, we consider the quark propagator and vertex up to dimension-six within the framework of background field theory. Consequently, we obtain the QCD sum rule expression for $f_{D^+}$ up to dimension-six condensates, yielding $f_{D^+}=203.0\pm1.5~\mathrm{MeV}$. Our results are in good agreement with BESIII measurements and theoretical predictions. We also present the integrated decay widths for the $D^+$-meson in three channels $\Gamma(D^+\to e^+\nu_e)=(5.263_{-0.075}^{+0.076})\times10^{-21}~\mathrm{GeV}$, $\Gamma(D^+\to \mu^+\nu_{\mu})=(2.236_{-0.032}^{+0.032})\times10^{-16}~\mathrm{GeV}$ and $\Gamma(D^+\to \tau^+\nu_{\tau})=(5.958_{-0.085}^{+0.086})\times10^{-16}~\mathrm{GeV}$. Accordingly, we compute the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(D^+\to\ell^+\nu_{\ell})$ with the electron, muon and tau channels, which are $\mathcal{B}(D^+\to e^+\nu_e)=(8.260_{-0.118}^{+0.119})\times10^{-9}$, $\mathcal{B}(D^+\to\mu^+\nu_{\mu})=(3.508_{-0.050}^{+0.051})\times10^{-4}$ and $\mathcal{B}(D^+\to\tau^+\nu_{\tau})=(0.935_{-0.013}^{+0.013})\times10^{-3}$. Furthermore, we present our prediction for the CKM matrix element $|V_{cd}|$ using the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(D^+\to\mu^+\nu_{\mu})$ obtained from BESIII Collaboration, yielding $|V_{cd}|=0.227_{-0.001}^{+0.002}$.
Figures
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[35]
P. A. Boyle, L. Del Debbio, A. J¨ uttner, A. Khamseh, F. Sanfilippo and J. T. Tsang, JHEP 12, 008 (2017) [arXiv:1701.02644]
arXiv 2017
-
[39]
Charmed and strange pseudoscalar meson decay constants from HISQ simulations
A. Bazavov et al. [Fermilab Lattice and MILC Collaboration], PoS LATTICE2013, 405 (2014) . [arXiv:1312.0149]
work page Pith review arXiv 2014
-
[1]
Kobayashi and T
M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49, 652-657 (1973)
1973
-
[2]
The OPE of the correlation func- tion Eq
is obtained by inserting a completed set of intermediate hadronic states in the physical region. The OPE of the correlation func- tion Eq. (
-
[3]
can be rewritten as Π D+ (z,q ) = i ∫ d4xeiq·x × { − Tr⟨0|Sc F (0,x )/zγ5Sq F (x, 0)/zγ5|0⟩ + Tr⟨0|¯c(x)c(0)/zγ5Sq F (x, 0)/zγ5|0⟩ + Tr⟨0|Sc F (0,x )/zγ5 ¯q(0)q(x)/zγ5|0⟩ } + · · ·, (5) where “Tr” indicates trace for the γ-matrix and color ma- trix, Sc F (0,x ) and Sq F (x, 0) are quark propagators in the background field, respectively. The tedious express...
-
[4]
and its hadron expansion in deep Euclidean 4 region can be matched by the dispersion relation. By further applying the Borel transformation for both sides, the QCD sum rule formula for the D+-meson decay con- stantfD+ can be written as f 2 D+ (M 2,s D+ 0 ) = M 2e m2 D+ M 2 { 1 π 1 M 2 ∫ sD+ 0 tmin dse− s M 2 1 8π { [ 2m2 c s ( 1 − m2 c s ) + 1 ] ( 1 − 2m2...
-
[5]
In which, FIG. 4: We compared our own obtained predictions about fD+ with the results of other experimental and theoretical groups. the shaded region stand for the Borel window. The con- tinuum and the dimension-six condensates satisfy the above mentioned criteria, respectively, and the range of Borel window generated in them is reasonable. Moveover, it c...
-
[6]
The shaded band stand for the uncertainties from the errors of all the mestioned input parameters including the quark mass, masons mass, each non-perturbative vacuum condensates. From the figure, we can see that the decay constant is flat in the allow- able Borel windows which is consistent with the third criterion. By using the above three criteria and the...
Show all 67 references
-
[7]
From the figures we can see that our prediction is in good agreement with the BESIII’14 [ 13] prediction and the LQCD’13(1) [29] within errors
As a comparison, we also listed the experimental and theoretical predictions, e.g, PDG in 2024 [ 17], HFLA V in 2022 [ 18] and 2019 [ 40], FLAG in 2019 [ 19], BESIII in 2014 [ 13], CLEO Col- laboration in 2008 [ 16] and 2005 [ 15], LQCD [ 22–32]. From the figures we can see tha...
2024
-
[8]
In addition, based on the obtained fD+ , we have also calculated the integrated values of leptonic decay widths (
-
[9]
the quark- gluon condensate ⟨gs ¯qσTGq ⟩, the double-quark conden- sates ⟨gs ¯qq⟩2 and the triple-gluon condensate ⟨g3 sfG 3⟩
that a large M 2 has a certain stabilizing effect on some the non-perturbative vacuum condensates up to dimension-six, e.g. the quark- gluon condensate ⟨gs ¯qσTGq ⟩, the double-quark conden- sates ⟨gs ¯qq⟩2 and the triple-gluon condensate ⟨g3 sfG 3⟩. In order to have a deep loo...
-
[10]
Besson et al
D. Besson et al. [CLEO Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 80, 032005 (2009) . [ arXiv:0906.2983]
2009 arXiv
-
[11]
Cabibbo, Phys
N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 531-533 (1963)
1963
-
[12]
P. A. Boyle et al. [RBC/UKQCD Collaboration], [arXiv:1812.08791]
-
[13]
Black et al
M. Black et al. [RBC and UKQCD Collaboration], PoS LATTICE2022, 405 (2023) . [ arXiv:2212.10125]
2023 arXiv
-
[14]
Colquhoun et al
B. Colquhoun et al. [HPQCD], Phys. Rev. D 91, no.11, 114509 (2015) . [arXiv:1503.05762]
2015 arXiv
- [15]
-
[16]
Finally, we extracted the popular CKM matrix element |Vcd| using the branching fractions B(D+ → µ+νµ) in BESIII’13 [ 13], which is |Vcd| = 0.227+0.002 − 0.001
and the branching fraction in the Table I of D+ → ℓ+ν with ℓ = (µ,e,τ ) lepton decays. Finally, we extracted the popular CKM matrix element |Vcd| using the branching fractions B(D+ → µ+νµ) in BESIII’13 [ 13], which is |Vcd| = 0.227+0.002 − 0.001. Acknowledgments.–Tao Zhong and...
2023
-
[17]
Aaij et al
R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], [ arXiv:2311.05224]
-
[18]
Cao et al
L. Cao et al. [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, no.21, 211801 (2023) . [arXiv:2303.17309]
2023 arXiv
-
[19]
Aggarwal et al
L. Aggarwal et al. [Belle-II Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, no.5, 051804 (2023) . [arXiv:2301.08266]
2023 arXiv
-
[20]
Ablikim et al
M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 92, 072012 (2015) . [ arXiv:1508.07560]
2015 arXiv
-
[21]
Ablikim [BESIII Collaboration], Phys
M. Ablikim [BESIII Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 231801 (2020) . [ arXiv:2003.12220]
2020
-
[22]
Ablikim et al
M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 89, 051104 (2014) . [ arXiv:1312.0374]
2014 arXiv
-
[23]
Ablikim et al
M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 211802 (2019) . [ arXiv:1908.08877]
2019
-
[24]
Artuso et al
M. Artuso et al. [CLEO Collabora- tion], Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 251801 (2005) . [arXiv:hep-ex/0508057]
2005 arXiv
-
[25]
B. I. Eisenstein et al. [CLEO Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 78, 052003 (2008) . [ arXiv:0806.2112]
2008 arXiv
-
[26]
Navas et al
S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 110, no.3, 030001 (2024)
2024
-
[27]
Y. S. Amhis et al. [HFLA V Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 107, 052008 (2023) . [ arXiv:2206.07501]
2023 arXiv
-
[28]
Aoki et al
S. Aoki et al. [Flavour Lattice Averaging Group], Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 113 (2020) . [ arXiv:1902.08191]
2020 arXiv
-
[29]
Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015), 427 . [arXiv:1506.01993]
2015 arXiv
-
[30]
Dhiman and H
N. Dhiman and H. Dahiya, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 133 (2018) no.4, 134 . [arXiv:1708.07274]
2018 arXiv
-
[31]
Collins, J
S. Collins, J. Heitger, F. Joswig, S. Kuberski and W. S¨ oldner,PoS EuroPLEx2023, 033 (2024)
2024
-
[32]
B. C. Ke, J. Koponen, H. B. Li and Y. Zheng, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 73, 285-314 (2023) . [arXiv:2310.05228]
2023 arXiv
-
[33]
Chen et al
Y. Chen et al. [χQCD Collaboration], Chin. Phys. C 45, 023109 (2021) [arXiv:2008.05208]
2021 arXiv
-
[34]
Bazavov, C
A. Bazavov, C. Bernard, N. Brown, C. De- tar, A. X. El-Khadra, E. G´ amiz, S. Gottlieb, U. M. Heller, J. Komijani and A. S. Kronfeld, et al. Phys. Rev. D 98, 074512 (2018) . [ arXiv:1712.09262]
2018 arXiv
-
[36]
Carrasco, P
N. Carrasco, P. Dimopoulos, R. Frezzotti, P. Lami, V. Lubicz, F. Nazzaro, E. Picca, L. Riggio, G. C. Rossi and F. Sanfilippo, et al. Phys. Rev. D 91, 054507 (2015) . [arXiv:1411.7908]
2015 arXiv
-
[37]
Bazavov et al
A. Bazavov et al. [Fermilab Lattice and MILC Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 90, 074509 (2014) . [arXiv:1407.3772]
2014 arXiv
-
[38]
Dimopoulos, R
P. Dimopoulos, R. Frezzotti, P. Lami, V. Lubicz, E. Picca, L. Riggio, G. C. Rossi, F. Sanfilippo, S. Sim- ula and C. Tarantino, PoS LATTICE2013, 314 (2014) . [arXiv:1311.3080]
2014 arXiv
-
[40]
Bazavov et al
A. Bazavov et al. [Fermilab Lattice and MILC Collaboration], PoS LATTICE2012, 159 (2012) . [arXiv:1210.8431]
2012 arXiv
-
[41]
Bazavov et al
A. Bazavov et al. [Fermilab Lattice and MILC Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 85, 114506 (2012) . [arXiv:1112.3051]
2012 arXiv
-
[42]
M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B 147, 385-447 (1979)
1979
-
[43]
Hubschmid and S
W. Hubschmid and S. Mallik, Nucl. Phys. B 207, 29-42 (1982)
1982
-
[44]
Zhang, T
Y. Zhang, T. Zhong, X. G. Wu, K. Li, H. B. Fu and T. Huang, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 76 (2018) . [arXiv:1709.02226]
2018 arXiv
-
[45]
Zhong, X
T. Zhong, X. G. Wu, Z. G. Wang, T. Huang, H. B. Fu and H. Y. Han, Phys. Rev. D 90, 016004 (2014) . [arXiv:1405.0774]
2014 arXiv
-
[46]
Zhong, Z
T. Zhong, Z. H. Zhu, H. B. Fu, X. G. Wu and T. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 104, 016021 (2021) . [ arXiv:2102.03989]
2021 arXiv
- [47]
-
[48]
H. J. Tian, H. B. Fu, T. Zhong, X. Luo, D. D. Hu and Y. L. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 108, 076003 (2023) . [arXiv:2306.07595]
2023 arXiv
-
[49]
Y. S. Amhis et al. [HFLA V Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 226 (2021) . [ arXiv:1909.12524]
2021 arXiv
-
[50]
Fleischer, R
R. Fleischer, R. Jaarsma and G. Koole, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 153 (2020) . [ arXiv:1912.08641]
2020 arXiv
-
[51]
Rubin et al
P. Rubin et al. [CLEO Collabora- tion], Phys. Rev. D 73, 112005 (2006) . [arXiv:hep-ex/0604043]
2006 arXiv
-
[52]
Ablikim et al
M. Ablikim et al. [BES Collabora- tion], Phys. Lett. B 610, 183-191 (2005) . [arXiv:hep-ex/0410050]
2005 arXiv
-
[53]
Bonvicini et al
G. Bonvicini et al. [CLEO Collabo- ration], Phys. Rev. D 70, 112004 (2004) . [arXiv:hep-ex/0411050]
2004 arXiv
-
[54]
Aoki et al
Y. Aoki et al. [Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG) Collaboration], FLAG Review 2021, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 869 (2022) . [ arXiv:2111.09849]
2022 arXiv
-
[55]
Ablikim et al
M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], First Measure- ment of the Form Factors in D+ s → K 0e+νe and D+ s → 8 K ∗ 0e+νe Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 061801 (2019) . [arXiv:1811.02911]
2019 arXiv
-
[56]
Ablikim et al
M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 97, 092009 (2018) . [ arXiv:1803.05570]
2018 arXiv
-
[57]
Ablikim et al
M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 96, 012002 (2017) . [ arXiv:1703.09084]
2017 arXiv
-
[58]
Charles et al
J. Charles et al. [CKMfitter Group], Eur. Phys. J. C 41, 1-131 (2005) . [arXiv:hep-ph/0406184]
2005 arXiv
-
[59]
Zhong, Y
T. Zhong, Y. Zhang, X. G. Wu, H. B. Fu and T. Huang Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 937 (2018) . [ arXiv:1807.03453]
2018 arXiv
-
[60]
Zhong, D
T. Zhong, D. Huang and H. B. Fu, Chin. Phys. C 47, 053104 (2023) . [ arXiv:2212.04641]
2023 arXiv
-
[61]
D. D. Hu, X. G. Wu, H. B. Fu, T. Zhong, Z. H. Wu and L. Zeng, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.1, 15 (2024) . [arXiv:2307.04640]
2024 arXiv
-
[62]
Huang, T
D. Huang, T. Zhong, H. B. Fu, Z. H. Wu, X. G. Wu and H. Tong, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 680 (2023) . [arXiv:2211.06211]
2023 arXiv
-
[63]
D. D. Hu, H. B. Fu, T. Zhong, L. Zeng, W. Cheng and X. G. Wu, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 12 (2022) . [arXiv:2102.05293]
2022 arXiv
-
[64]
Wang [BESIII Collaboration], [ arXiv:2404.00592]
T. Wang [BESIII Collaboration], [ arXiv:2404.00592]
-
[65]
H. J. Tian, Y. L. Yang, D. D. Hu, H. B. Fu, T. Zhong and X. G. Wu, Phys. Lett. B 857, 138975 (2024) . [arXiv:2405.07154]
2024 arXiv
-
[66]
Zhong, H
T. Zhong, H. B. Fu and X. G. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.11, 116020 (2022) . [arXiv:2201.10820]
2022 arXiv
-
[67]
Gelhausen, A
P. Gelhausen, A. Khodjamirian, A. A. Pivovarov and D. Rosenthal, Phys. Rev. D 88, 014015 (2013) . [arXiv:1305.5432]
2013 arXiv
Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.