Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A single 11-parameter global fit accounts for 36 measured D→VV decays and predicts 28 more.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 16:55 UTC pith:AJIFWAMA

load-bearing objection First FAT scan of D→VV gives a useful 28-mode catalog, but the poor fit (χ²/dof=8.43) undermines the claimed phase-driven explanations for f∥>fL and D-wave dominance. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2604.01008 v2 pith:AJIFWAMA submitted 2026-04-01 hep-ph

Precise theoretical prediction on branching fractions and polarizations of D to V V decays

Jing Ou-Yang , Hui Zheng , Run-Hui Li , Si-Hong Zhou This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords D meson decaysvector-vector decaysbranching fractionspolarization fractionstopological amplitudesfactorization-assisted approachflavor SU(3) breakingstrong phases
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to establish that the observed branching fractions and polarization fractions of charmed-meson decays into two vector mesons (D→VV) can be reproduced by one global fit with only 11 free parameters, and that the same fit predicts 28 additional modes. The mechanism is the factorization-assisted topological-amplitude approach: amplitudes are separated into factorizable form factors and decay constants plus a small set of universal nonfactorizable strengths and strong phases, so flavor-SU(3) breaking does not require many ad hoc parameters. From the fitted phases, two surprising patterns follow: interference between color-suppressed and W-exchange contributions can make the parallel polarization fraction exceed the longitudinal one, and in W-exchange-dominated decays the D-wave can be larger than the S-wave. If correct, the fit resolves polarization puzzles that naive factorization leaves unexplained and supplies specific unmeasured modes for future experiments to test.

Core claim

Using 36 experimental data points for D→VV decays, the paper fits 10 universal nonfactorizable parameters — magnitudes and strong phases of the color-suppressed C amplitude and the W-exchange E amplitude — together with the factorization scale µ that controls the Wilson coefficient in the factorizable T amplitude, obtaining χ²/d.o.f. = 8.43. The fit gives the hierarchies |C0|>|T0|>|E0| and |T∥(⊥)|∼|C∥(⊥)|>|E∥(⊥)|, and strong-phase differences φ^0_E−φ^0_C>π/2, φ^∥_E−φ^∥_C<π/2. These phases turn destructive in the longitudinal channel and constructive in the parallel channel, so modes with C+E (and the pure-E mode D0→ωρ0) have f∥>fL. For the E amplitude, the magnitude pattern |S|<|D| yields a

What carries the argument

The machinery is the factorization-assisted topological-amplitude (FAT) framework: each decay amplitude is decomposed into topological diagrams T (color-favored tree), C (color-suppressed tree), E (W-exchange), and A (W-annihilation). T is computed by naive factorization with one fitted scale µ; C and E are written as the product of factorized form factors and decay constants times universal magnitudes and strong phases shared by all modes. The transversity basis (longitudinal, parallel, perpendicular) and the partial-wave basis (S, P, D) are linked by fixed linear transformations, converting the fitted parameters into branching fractions and polarization observables.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that one set of universal correction amplitudes (two 'nonfactorizable' pieces, color-suppressed and W-exchange) with fixed strengths and strong phases describes every D→VV mode once form factors and decay constants are divided out; the paper itself flags tension by finding the color-suppressed piece stronger than the factorizable tree piece and by dropping D0→K̄*0K*0 because that one mode would add about 484 to the fit's χ².

What would settle it

Measure the polarization fractions and S-/D-wave partial rates of D0→ωρ0 (or of any C+E mode such as D0→ωK̄*0). The paper predicts f∥>fL and D-wave dominance for D0→ωρ0; a precise observation of fL>f∥ or S-wave dominance would directly contradict the fitted strong-phase solution. Likewise, a future measurement of D0→K̄*0K*0 near its current central value would falsify the global fit, since the paper excludes it to avoid a χ² contribution of about 484.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Total and partial-wave branching fractions for 28 D→VV modes are predicted; unmeasured modes at the 10^-3–10^-2 level are identified as promising targets for upcoming experiments.
  • Modes built from C+E amplitudes — D0→ωK̄*0, D0→ωω, D0→K*0ω — are predicted to have f∥>fL, with the pure-E mode D0→ωρ0 the most striking case (fL≈0.38, f∥≈0.62).
  • W-exchange-mediated modes should show D-wave branching fractions exceeding S-wave ones, in agreement with measurements of D0→ρ0ρ0 and related channels.
  • D0→ρ0φ and D0→ωφ are predicted to differ in rate because SU(3) breaking enters through distinct D→ρ and D→ω form factors, matching data where the older identical-amplitude expectation fails.
  • For modes governed by T or C alone (or T+C), longitudinal polarization remains dominant; the polarization anomalies appear specifically when E interferes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the cleanest test of the phase solution is measuring the full set of C+E modes (ωK̄*0, ωω, K*0ω) against the C−E modes (ρ0K̄*0, ρ0ρ0, K*0ρ0) in one experiment; the two classes have opposite fL/f∥ ordering and opposite S/D interference, so a single dataset could confirm or refute the strong-phase pattern.
  • Editorial inference: if the universal C and E parameters survive more precise data, they can be carried over to quasi-two-body analyses of three-body D decays, where the same nonfactorizable amplitudes appear with additional hadronic final-state interactions.
  • Editorial inference: the fit's assumption that T is purely factorizable is testable by fitting a nonfactorizable T component once more D→VV polarization data exist; the paper already notes |C0|>|T0|, so the extracted phases may shift.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies the factorization-assisted topological-amplitude (FAT) approach to D→VV decays. The T amplitude is taken from naive factorization with a single adjustable scale μ; the C and E amplitudes are parametrized by universal magnitudes and strong phases after factorizing out form factors and decay constants; the A diagram and the transverse E amplitude are neglected. A global fit to 36 experimental branching-fraction and partial-wave data points yields 11 free parameters with χ²/d.o.f. = 8.43. From the fitted strong phases the paper claims that a large longitudinal E strong phase causes destructive interference with the C longitudinal component, giving f_∥>f_L, and that the amplitude hierarchy |S|<|D| for E-dominated modes explains the observed D-wave dominance. Branching fractions and polarization fractions for 28 decay modes are tabulated, and the paper states that the predictions agree with existing data.

Significance. If the analysis were sound, the paper would provide a systematic and reasonably predictive framework for charmed vector-vector decays, with explicit tables and a clearly stated parametrization. The compilation of data and the transparent expression of topological amplitudes are useful. However, the fit quality is poor, the central strong-phase claims are not statistically significant after accounting for the poor χ², and at least one numerical statement in the explanation of f_∥>f_L is inconsistent with the fitted values. The framework is promising, but the specific conclusions as presented are not robust.

major comments (5)
  1. [§III.B, Eq. (16)] The global fit has χ²/d.o.f. = 8.43, with 36 data points and 11 free parameters (d.o.f. = 25), so the total χ² is about 211. This is a poor fit. The quoted parameter uncertainties are therefore not credible; they should be rescaled by √(χ²/d.o.f.) ≈ 2.9. Doing so, the 1σ uncertainty on φ0E − φ∥E becomes about 1.1 rad, so the interval extends from roughly 0.9 to 3.1 rad and includes both π/2 and smaller values. The claimed strong-phase mechanism for the hierarchy |S|<|D| is thus not statistically significant. The same rescaling affects the significance of the phases that produce f_∥>f_L. The authors should find a fit with acceptable χ², add a systematic/model-uncertainty term, or explicitly state that the strong-phase differences are not significant. The presence of two included modes contributing χ² ≈ 45 and ≈ 22 reinforces that the fit is dominated by outliers.
  2. [§III.D, Eq. (16)] The text states that for modes with C+E contributions 'the strong phase difference satisfy φ0E − φ0C > π/2', and this is used to explain destructive interference in the longitudinal component and hence f_∥>f_L. However, from Eq. (16), φ0E − φ0C = 2.23 − 0.87 = 1.36 rad, which is less than π/2 (≈1.57 rad). The central values of the fit do not support the stated inequality. The mechanism for f_∥>f_L is therefore not backed by the numerical results presented.
  3. [§III.C] The D0→K*0K*0 mode is excluded from the fit because including it would add χ² ≈ 484. This mode is governed by the E diagram with a CKM-suppressed combination, so it is precisely the type of mode that should constrain the universal E amplitude and the strong phases that drive the paper's headline conclusions. Dropping it post hoc removes the strongest direct test of the E-amplitude universality. At minimum, the fit should be repeated with this mode included and the large residual discussed as a breakdown of the universality assumption, rather than silently excluding the data point.
  4. [§III.B] The fit gives |C0|>|T0|, i.e., the nonfactorizable C amplitude is larger than the factorizable T amplitude. The paper acknowledges this as a tension. Because the strong phases of C and E are extracted under the assumption that T is purely factorizable, the extracted phases and all subsequent explanations (f_∥>f_L, D-wave dominance) inherit this model dependence. The paper should quantify the effect of allowing nonfactorizable T contributions or otherwise demonstrate that the conclusions are stable under relaxation of this assumption.
  5. [§III.C and §IV] The paper repeatedly states that the predictions are consistent with experimental data and that the fit 'explains' observed anomalies. However, the 36 data points used in the fit are the same data against which agreement is claimed; this is a fit, not a prediction. The only genuine predictions are the unmeasured modes. The paper should clearly distinguish fitted and predicted quantities and avoid presenting agreement with the fitted dataset as independent confirmation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, §III.B, §IV] The word 'longitude' should be 'longitudinal' throughout.
  2. [Eq. (13)] The expression for Γ has a duplicated sum: the same polarization sum is written twice and then divided by 2. This appears to be a typographical error.
  3. [§III.B] The sentence 'In total, we have 9 magnitudes and 9 strong phases' is confusing because later the parameter count is reduced to 11 after setting χ⊥E and A parameters to zero. Please state clearly the final number of active parameters versus the starting set.
  4. [Abstract] The phrase 'modes processing exclusively by the E diagram' should be 'modes proceeding exclusively through the E diagram'.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged

The key 'predictions' (f∥>fL and D-wave dominance) are algebraic consequences of the strong phases and magnitudes fitted to the same data that exhibit these anomalies.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract and Sec. III.D (Eq. (16), Table VIII)]
    "Utilizing 36 experimental data points for D→VV decays, we precisely extract ten nonfactorizable parameters ... We find that a large strong phase in the longitude E amplitude cause strong destructive interference with the C longitudinal component, yielding f∥ > fL ... Based on the fitted parameters in Eq.(16), we calculated the polarization fractions fL and f∥ ... Given that the strong phase difference satisfy φ0E − φ0C > π/2 ... yielding f∥ > fL."

    The phase differences φ0E−φ0C and φ∥E−φ∥C are free parameters determined by a global fit to the 36 data points, not independently predicted inputs. The statement that these phases 'yield' f∥>fL is an algebraic rearrangement of the fitted values: had the same data shown the opposite polarization pattern, the fit would have returned different phases. Thus the claimed explanation reduces to the fit output and is not a parameter-free prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III.B, Eqs. (16)–(18); Sec. III.C]
    "the hierarchy is reversed for the E diagram (e.g., |S| < |D|) due to the large strong phase difference |φ0E − φ∥E|. The hierarchy of |S| < |D| for E amplitudes can lead to a larger D-wave branching fraction than that of the S-wave"

    The ratio |E0|:|E∥| = 1:1.31 and the phase difference of about 2.00 rad in Eq. (16) are fitted to datasets that already exhibit the D-wave anomalies in modes such as D0→K∗−ρ+, D0→ρ−ρ+, and D0→ρ0K̄∗0. The subsequent statement that the E hierarchy 'leads to' D-wave dominance is therefore a postdiction: the fitted magnitudes and phases were adjusted to reproduce these same anomalies. It is a consequence of the fit, not an independent theoretical derivation.

  3. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III.C, Tables IV–VII]
    "For comparison, we also list the experimental data (“Bexp”), which constitute the dataset used in our global fit. ... The predicted branching fractions and polarizations for 28 decay modes are consistent with existing experimental data."

    The 11 free parameters were minimized against these same 36 Bexp data points, so agreement with the measured modes is in-sample consistency, not a predictive success. Labeling this agreement as 'predicted' for modes that entered the global fit is a fitted input relabeled as a prediction. Only genuinely unobserved modes would constitute extrapolation beyond the fitted dataset.

full rationale

The paper is transparent that the C and E parameters are fitted, and the FAT framework is a legitimate phenomenological tool. I do not find load-bearing self-citation circularity: the FAT references are externally published and the universality assumption is an explicit modeling choice, not an imported uniqueness theorem. However, the paper's central explanatory claims—f∥>fL from a large E strong phase and D-wave dominance from |S|<|D|—are not derived from independent first principles; they are direct consequences of the numerical values in Eq. (16), which were obtained by fitting to the same experimental anomalies they purport to explain. The in-sample agreement of the 28 modes likewise is not a prediction for the modes already in the fit. The poor fit quality (χ2/d.o.f.=8.43), the exclusion of D0→K̄∗0K∗0, and the unrealistically small parameter uncertainties are serious correctness concerns, but they are separate from circularity. The circularity score reflects that the headline mechanisms reduce to the fitted parameters rather than to independent constraints.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

13 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. Its parameters are 11 fitted quantities (plus hand-set zeros) and several domain assumptions inherited from the FAT framework. The qualitative predictions are direct functions of the fitted strong phases.

free parameters (13)
  • µ (factorization scale) = 465.14 ± 0.12 MeV
    Fitted scale in the Wilson coefficient a1(µ) of the T amplitude (Eq. 9).
  • χ0C = 0.55 ± 0.03
    Magnitude of longitudinal C nonfactorizable amplitude (Eq. 10).
  • φ0C = 0.87 ± 0.10
    Strong phase of longitudinal C amplitude (Eq. 10).
  • χ∥C = 0.45 ± 0.03
    Magnitude of parallel C amplitude (Eq. 10).
  • φ∥C = 0.77 ± 0.11
    Strong phase of parallel C amplitude (Eq. 10).
  • χ⊥C = 0.37 ± 0.02
    Magnitude of perpendicular C amplitude (Eq. 10).
  • φ⊥C = 0.36 ± 0.04
    Strong phase of perpendicular C amplitude (Eq. 10).
  • χ0E = 0.24 ± 0.07
    Magnitude of longitudinal E amplitude (Eq. 11).
  • φ0E = 2.23 ± 0.30
    Strong phase of longitudinal E amplitude (Eq. 11). This fitted phase drives the claimed f∥>fL and D-wave effects.
  • χ∥E = 0.25 ± 0.03
    Magnitude of parallel E amplitude (Eq. 11).
  • φ∥E = 0.23 ± 0.21
    Strong phase of parallel E amplitude (Eq. 11). The large uncertainty is acknowledged.
  • χ⊥E = 0 (set by hand)
    Neglected after preliminary fit found very small value; reduces parameter count.
  • χ0A, χ∥A, χ⊥A = 0 (set by hand)
    A diagram contributions neglected because stable fits could not be obtained.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Factorized universality of nonfactorizable C and E amplitudes
    Core FAT assumption: after factoring form factors and decay constants, a single set of χ/φ per polarization describes all modes (Eqs. 10–11). If false, the global fit and the extracted strong phases are invalid.
  • domain assumption T amplitude is fully described by naive factorization with a single fitted scale µ
    Invoked in Eq. (9). The paper itself notes the fit gives |C0|>|T0|, suggesting this premise is strained (Sec. III B).
  • ad hoc to paper Neglect of A diagram and χ⊥E
    Set to zero because stable fits could not be obtained; affects predictions for pure-annihilation modes and E-transverse contributions.
  • domain assumption Form factors and decay constants from specific theory inputs with ad hoc uncertainties
    D→V form factors from Refs. [10,39] (relativistic oscillator model, 1985), decay constants from theory [41–45]; assigned 10% and 5% uncertainties.
  • standard math CKM unitarity suppression for D0→K̄*0K*0
    Used to justify the theoretical suppression of this mode, but the measured branching fraction is much larger, leading to its post-hoc exclusion.
  • domain assumption Penguin contributions negligible
    Stated in Sec. II B; standard for charm tree decays but not rigorously justified.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19099 in / 11461 out tokens · 93511 ms · 2026-08-02T16:55:41.724294+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a precise and systematic analysis of $D \to V V$ decays within the factorization-assisted topological-amplitude approach, where $D$ denotes the set $\{D^0, \, D^+,\, D^+_s\}$ and $V$ represents the vector mesons $\rho, K^*, \omega$, and $\phi$. Given the limited current experimental data, the factorization-assisted topological-amplitude approach serves as a available phenomenological framework for predicting charmed meson decays to both vector mesons. In this framework, incorporating flavor SU(3) symmetry breaking effects, we can express nonfactorizable contributions of different modes as a minimal set of universal parameters globally fitted to experimental data. Utilizing 36 experimental data points for $D \to VV$ decays, we precisely extract ten nonfactorizable parameters associated with the $C$ and $E$ topological diagrams with $\chi^2/\mathrm{d.o.f.}=8.43$. We find that a large strong phase in the longitude $E$ amplitude cause strong destructive interference with the $C$ longitudinal component, yielding $f_\parallel >f_L $, contrary to the naive factorization predictions. Additionally, for modes processing exclusively by the $E$ diagram, the amplitude hierarchy $|S|<|D|$ leads to a $D$-wave branching fraction larger than that of the $S$-wave. This explains recent observations that contradict $S$-wave dominance predictions. The predicted branching fractions and polarizations for 28 decay modes are consistent with existing experimental data. Unobserved modes, especially those with branching fractions of order $10^{-3}\sim10^{-2}$, the $D$-wave dominated modes, and modes exhibiting $f_\parallel >f_L $, await measurement by BESIII, STCF, Belle II, and LHCb.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.01008 by Hui Zheng, Jing Ou-Yang, Run-Hui Li, Si-Hong Zhou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Topological diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Polarized observables in $\tau \to VV \nu_{\tau}$ decays

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Using generalized hidden local symmetry, tau-to-two-vector-meson decays are predicted to have longitudinal polarization fractions clearly different from 1/3, with branching ratios comparable to effective-chiral-model ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 37 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aubert et al., Rates, polarizations, and asymmetries in charmless vector-vector B meson decays, Phys

    BaBar Collaboration, B. Aubert et al., Rates, polarizations, and asymmetries in charmless vector-vector B meson decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 171802, [ hep-ex/0307026]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  2. [2]

    V2(p2, ǫ∗ 0)] = i m2 D 2m1m2 ( S1 − S2 2 ) , A± = A [ D → V1(p1, η∗ ±) V2(p2, ǫ∗ ±) ] = i(S1 ∓ S3) . (2) Within the naive factorization framework, the helicity amplitudes can be formally expressed as Ah = GF √ 2 VCKM ⟨ V h 1 ⏐ ⏐(¯cq)V −A |D⟩ ⟨ V h 2 ⏐ ⏐(¯qq′)V |0⟩ , (3) By neglecting m2 i contributions, the three helicity amplitudes are explicitly given b...

  3. [3]

    , A+ = iGF √ 2 VCKM f2 m2 { −(mD + m1) ADV1 1 (m2

  4. [4]

    + ( mD − m1) V DV1(m2 2) } , A− = iGF √ 2 VCKM f2 m2 { −(mD + m1) ADV1 1 (m2

  5. [5]

    − (mD − m1) V DV1(m2 2) } , (4) where ADV1 0 (m2 2), ADV1 1 (m2

  6. [6]

    [10, 39]

    denote the transition form factors, as defined in Refs. [10, 39]. Given the m2/mD suppression of A± relative to the A0 and the A1 and V 4 cancellation, the amplitudes follow the hierarchy A0 : A− : A+ = 1 : ΛQCD mc : ( ΛQCD mc ) 2 . (5) In general, decay amplitudes admit several equivalent representa tions. Specially, the helicity amplitudes A0,+,− relate ...

  7. [7]

    , A∥ = −iGF VCKM f2 m2 (mD + m1) ADV1 1 (m2

  8. [8]

    , A⊥ = iGF VCKM f2 m2 (mD − m1) V DV1(m2

  9. [9]

    (8) Eqs.(7) and (8) reveal that, in the naive factorization approach, the polarization amplitude hierarchies satisfy |A∥|2 ≥ |A 0|2 > |A⊥|2, and |S|2 ≥ |P |2 > |D|2 [17]

    , (7) As experimental data for D → V V decays are predominantly presented in terms of partial- wave ( S, P, D) branching fractions, it is necessary to convert the transversit y amplitudes into partial-wave amplitudes via S = 1 √ 3(−A0 + √ 2A∥) ; P = A⊥ ; D = 1√ 3( √ 2A0 + A∥) . (8) Eqs.(7) and (8) reveal that, in the naive factorization approach, the pola...

  10. [10]

    , T ∥ = −iGF VCKM a1(µ) m2 (mD + m1) f2 ADV1 1 (m2

  11. [11]

    , T ⊥ = iGF VCKM a1(µ) m2 (mD − m1) f2 V DV1(m2

  12. [12]

    The scale parameter µ, representing the energy release, is treated as a single free para meter constrained to be below mc/2

    , (9) where a1(µ) = C2(µ) + C1(µ)/3 is the effective Wilson coefficients for four-quark operators. The scale parameter µ, representing the energy release, is treated as a single free para meter constrained to be below mc/2. The terms ADV1 0 , ADV1 1 , and V DV1 denote the transition form factors, and f2 is the decay constant of the emitted vector meson. In c...

  13. [13]

    , C ∥ = −iGF VCKM χ∥ C eiφ∥ C m2 (mD + m1) f2 ADV1 1 (m2

  14. [14]

    , C ⊥ = iGF VCKM χ⊥ C eiφ⊥ C m2 (mD − m1) f2 V DV1(m2

  15. [15]

    (10) Similarly, for the E diagram, we factorize the relevant meson decay constants to cha rac- terize SU(3) breaking effects. The polarized amplitudes are given by E0 = iGF √ 2 VCKM χ0 E eiφ0 E m2 D fD f1 f2 1 f 2ρ , E∥ = −iGF VCKM χ∥ E eiφ∥ E mD (m1 + m2) fD f1 f2 1 f 2 ρ , E⊥ = iGF VCKM χ⊥ E eiφ⊥ E m2 D fD f1 f2 1 f 2ρ , (11) where the parameters χ0, ∥, ...

    1968

  16. [16]

    Y. Cao, Y. Cheng, and Q. Zhao, Resolving the polarization puzzles in D0 → V V , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 7 073002, [ arXiv:2303.00535]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Belle Collaboration, K. F. Chen et al., Measurement of branching fractions and polarization in B → φK (∗) decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 201801, [ hep-ex/0307014]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  18. [18]

    Coffman et al., Resonant substructure in anti-K pi pi pi decays of D mesons , Phys

    MARK-III Collaboration, D. Coffman et al., Resonant substructure in anti-K pi pi pi decays of D mesons , Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 2196–2211

    1992

  19. [19]

    Ablikim et al., Amplitude analysis of D0 → K −π+π+π−, Phys

    BESIII Collaboration, M. Ablikim et al., Amplitude analysis of D0 → K −π+π+π−, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017), no. 7 072010, [ arXiv:1701.08591]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    Ablikim et al., Amplitude analysis of D0 → π+π−π+π− and π+π−π0π0 , Chin

    BESIII Collaboration, M. Ablikim et al., Amplitude analysis of D0 → π+π−π+π− and π+π−π0π0 , Chin. Phys. C 48 (2024), no. 8 083001, [ arXiv:2312.02524]

    arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Ablikim et al., Amplitude analysis and branching fraction measurement of the decay D+ s → K +π+π−π0, JHEP 09 (2022) 242, [ arXiv:2205.13759]

    BESIII Collaboration, M. Ablikim et al., Amplitude analysis and branching fraction measurement of the decay D+ s → K +π+π−π0, JHEP 09 (2022) 242, [ arXiv:2205.13759]

    arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    FOCUS Collaboration, J. M. Link et al., Study of the D0 → π−π+π−π+ decay, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 052003, [ hep-ex/0701001]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  23. [23]

    d’Argent, N

    P. d’Argent, N. Skidmore, J. Benton, J. Dalseno, E. Gersa beck, S. Harnew, P. Naik, 21 C. Prouve, and J. Rademacker, Amplitude Analyses of D0 → π+π−π+π− and D0 → K +K −π+π− Decays, JHEP 05 (2017) 143, [ arXiv:1703.08505]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  24. [24]

    A. N. Kamal, R. C. Verma, and N. Sinha, D, D+ (s) → V V decays in two models: An SU(3) symmetry model and a factorization model with final state int eractions, Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991) 843–854

    1991

  25. [25]

    Bauer, B

    M. Bauer, B. Stech, and M. Wirbel, Exclusive Nonleptonic Decays of D, D(s), and B Mesons, Z. Phys. C 34 (1987) 103

    1987

  26. [26]

    Cheng and C.-W

    H.-Y. Cheng and C.-W. Chiang, Long-Distance Contributions to D0 − ¯D0 Mixing Parameters, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 114020, [ arXiv:1005.1106]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  27. [27]

    Uppal and R

    T. Uppal and R. C. Verma, Branching ratios for D → V V decays in presence of smearing effects due to rho meson width , Z. Phys. C 56 (1992) 273–277

    1992

  28. [28]

    polarization anomalies

    for a review). It has been applied to D0 − ¯D0 mixing [29], K 0 S − K 0 L asymmetries [30], CP violation in charm decays [31], and the extraction of the CKM phase γ from charmless two-body B decays [32]. Recent extensions include quasi-two-body B decays [33–36] and D decays [37, 38]. Notably, the F AT approach has successfully explain ed the “polarization...

  29. [29]

    P. F. Bedaque, A. K. Das, and V. S. Mathur, Two-body nonleptonic decays of charmed mesons, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 269–274, [ hep-ph/9307296]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  30. [30]

    B. Bajc, S. Fajfer, R. J. Oakes, and S. Prelovsek, Nonleptonic two-body charmed meson decays in an effective model for their semileptonic decays , Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 7207–7215, [ hep-ph/9706223]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  31. [31]

    Hinchliffe and T

    I. Hinchliffe and T. A. Kaeding, Nonleptonic two-body decays of D mesons in broken SU(3) , Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 914–928, [ hep-ph/9502275]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  32. [32]

    Cheng and C.-W

    H.-Y. Cheng and C.-W. Chiang, Updated analysis of D →PP,VP, and VV decays: Implications for K 0 S − K 0 L asymmetries and D0 − ¯D0 mixing, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 7 073008, [ arXiv:2401.06316]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Cheng and C.-W

    H.-Y. Cheng and C.-W. Chiang, CP violation in quasi-two-body D →VP decays and three-body D decays mediated by vector resonances , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), no. 7 073003, [arXiv:2104.13548]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Qin, H.-n

    Q. Qin, H.-n. Li, C.-D. L¨ u, and F.-S. Yu, Branching ratios and direct CP asymmetries in D → P V decays, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014), no. 5 054006, [ arXiv:1305.7021]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  35. [35]

    Zheng, J.-R

    H. Zheng, J.-R. Dong, and S.-H. Zhou, Updated branching ratios and CP asymmetries in D→PV decays, Phys. Rev. D 113 (2026), no. 3 036004, [ arXiv:2511.10389]

    arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    Wang and Q

    J. Wang and Q. Zhao, Combined analysis of the singly-Cabbibo-suppressed decays o f 22 D0 → V P , [ arXiv:2601.10437]

    arXiv

  37. [37]

    Cheng and C.-W

    H.-Y. Cheng and C.-W. Chiang, Two-body hadronic charmed meson decays , Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 074021, [ arXiv:1001.0987]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  38. [38]

    Cheng and C.-W

    H.-Y. Cheng and C.-W. Chiang, Direct CP violation in two-body hadronic charmed meson decays, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 034036, [ arXiv:1201.0785]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 85, 079903 (2012)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  39. [39]

    Zhou, Y.-B

    S.-H. Zhou, Y.-B. Wei, Q. Qin, Y. Li, F.-S. Yu, and C.-D. L u, Analysis of Two-body Charmed B Meson Decays in Factorization-Assisted Topological-Ampl itude Approach, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015), no. 9 094016, [ arXiv:1509.04060]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  40. [40]

    Zhou, Q.-A

    S.-H. Zhou, Q.-A. Zhang, W.-R. Lyu, and C.-D. L¨ u, Analysis of Charmless Two-body B decays in Factorization Assisted Topological Amplitude Ap proach, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017), no. 2 125, [ arXiv:1608.02819]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  41. [41]

    Li, C.-D

    H.-n. Li, C.-D. Lu, and F.-S. Yu, Branching ratios and direct CP asymmetries in D → P P decays, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 036012, [ arXiv:1203.3120]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  42. [42]

    Wang, Q.-A

    C. Wang, Q.-A. Zhang, Y. Li, and C.-D. Lu, Charmless B(s) → V V Decays in Factorization-Assisted Topological-Amplitude Approach, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017), no. 5 333, [ arXiv:1701.01300]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  43. [43]

    Q. Qin, C. Wang, D. Wang, and S.-H. Zhou, The factorization-assisted topological-amplitude approach and its applications , Front. Phys. (Beijing) 18 (2023), no. 6 64602, [arXiv:2111.14472]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Jiang, F.-S

    H.-Y. Jiang, F.-S. Yu, Q. Qin, H.-n. Li, and C.-D. L¨ u, D0-D 0 mixing parameter y in the factorization-assisted topological-amplitude approach, Chin. Phys. C 42 (2018), no. 6 063101, [arXiv:1705.07335]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  45. [45]

    Wang, F.-S

    D. Wang, F.-S. Yu, P.-F. Guo, and H.-Y. Jiang, K 0 S − K 0 L asymmetries in D-meson decays, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017), no. 7 073007, [ arXiv:1701.07173]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    F.-S. Yu, D. Wang, and H.-n. Li, CP asymmetries in charm decays into neutral kaons , Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017), no. 18 181802, [ arXiv:1707.09297]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

    Zhou and C.-D

    S.-H. Zhou and C.-D. L¨ u, Extraction of the CKM phase γ from the charmless two-body B meson decays, Chin. Phys. C 44 (2020), no. 6 063101, [ arXiv:1910.03160]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    Zhou, R.-H

    S.-H. Zhou, R.-H. Li, Z.-Y. Wei, and C.-D. Lu, Analysis of three-body charmed B-meson decays under the factorization-assisted topological-amp litude approach, Phys. Rev. D 104 23 (2021), no. 11 116012, [ arXiv:2107.11079]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

    Zhou, X.-X

    S.-H. Zhou, X.-X. Hai, R.-H. Li, and C.-D. Lu, Analysis of three-body charmless B-meson decays under the factorization-assisted topological-amp litude approach, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023), no. 11 116023, [ arXiv:2305.02811]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Zhou, R.-H

    S.-H. Zhou, R.-H. Li, and X.-Y. L¨ u, Analysis of three-body decays B →D(V→)PP under the factorization-assisted topological-amplitude approach, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 5 056001, [arXiv:2406.00373]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Ou-Yang, R.-H

    J. Ou-Yang, R.-H. Li, and S.-H. Zhou, Analysis of three-body charmed B meson decays B→D(V*→)VP, Phys. Rev. D 112 (2025), no. 5 056005, [ arXiv:2506.14675]

    arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Zhou and S.-H

    X.-D. Zhou and S.-H. Zhou, Analysis of three-body hadronic D-meson decays , Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025), no. 11 116008, [ arXiv:2503.18593]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Wang, J.-Y

    W.-F. Wang, J.-Y. Xu, S.-H. Zhou, and P.-P. Shi, Contributions of ρ(770, 1450) → ωπ for the Cabibbo-favored D → hωπ decays, [ arXiv:2502.11159]

    arXiv

  54. [54]

    Wirbel, B

    M. Wirbel, B. Stech, and M. Bauer, Exclusive Semileptonic Decays of Heavy Mesons , Z. Phys. C 29 (1985) 637

    1985

  55. [55]

    Navas et al., Review of particle physics , Phys

    Particle Data Group Collaboration, S. Navas et al., Review of particle physics , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 3 030001

    2024

  56. [56]

    R. C. Verma, Decay constants and form factors of s-wave and p-wave mesons in the covariant light-front quark model , J. Phys. G 39 (2012) 025005, [ arXiv:1103.2973]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  57. [57]

    Cheng, C.-K

    H.-Y. Cheng, C.-K. Chua, and C.-W. Hwang, Covariant light front approach for s wave and p wave mesons: Its application to decay constants and form-fa ctors, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 074025, [ hep-ph/0310359]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  58. [58]

    P. Ball, G. W. Jones, and R. Zwicky, B → V γ beyond QCD factorisation , Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 054004, [ hep-ph/0612081]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  59. [59]

    Bharucha, D

    A. Bharucha, D. M. Straub, and R. Zwicky, B → V ℓ+ℓ− in the Standard Model from light-cone sum rules , JHEP 08 (2016) 098, [ arXiv:1503.05534]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  60. [60]

    Gelhausen, A

    P. Gelhausen, A. Khodjamirian, A. A. Pivovarov, and D. R osenthal, Decay constants of heavy-light vector mesons from QCD sum rules , Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 014015, [arXiv:1305.5432]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 89, 099901 (2014), Erratum: Phys.R ev.D 91, 099901 (2015)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  61. [61]

    Ablikim et al., Amplitude analysis and branching-fraction 24 measurement of D+ s → K 0 SK −π+π+, Phys

    BESIII Collaboration, M. Ablikim et al., Amplitude analysis and branching-fraction 24 measurement of D+ s → K 0 SK −π+π+, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021), no. 9 092006, [arXiv:2102.03808]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  62. [62]

    Ablikim et al., Amplitude analysis and branching fraction measurement of D+ s → K −K +π+π0, Phys

    BESIII Collaboration, M. Ablikim et al., Amplitude analysis and branching fraction measurement of D+ s → K −K +π+π0, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), no. 3 032011, [arXiv:2103.02482]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  63. [63]

    Ablikim et al., First Measurement of Polarizations in the Decay D0 → ωφ, Phys

    BESIII Collaboration, M. Ablikim et al., First Measurement of Polarizations in the Decay D0 → ωφ, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022), no. 1 011803, [ arXiv:2108.02405]

    arXiv 2022

  64. [64]

    Ablikim et al., Amplitude analysis and branching fraction measurement of the decay D+ → K 0 Sπ+π0π0, JHEP 09 (2023) 077, [ arXiv:2305.15879]

    BESIII Collaboration, M. Ablikim et al., Amplitude analysis and branching fraction measurement of the decay D+ → K 0 Sπ+π0π0, JHEP 09 (2023) 077, [ arXiv:2305.15879]

    arXiv 2023

  65. [65]

    Aaij et al., Studies of the resonance structure in D0 → K ∓π±π±π∓ decays, Eur

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Studies of the resonance structure in D0 → K ∓π±π±π∓ decays, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018), no. 6 443, [ arXiv:1712.08609]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  66. [66]

    Aaij et al., Search for CP violation through an amplitude analysis of D0 → K +K −π+π− decays, JHEP 02 (2019) 126, [ arXiv:1811.08304]

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Search for CP violation through an amplitude analysis of D0 → K +K −π+π− decays, JHEP 02 (2019) 126, [ arXiv:1811.08304]. 25

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019