January, 2022
Hadronic three-body decays mediated by scalar resonances
Abstract
We study the quasi-two-body decays and the three-body decays proceeding through intermediate scalar resonances, where and denote scalar and pseudoscalar mesons, respectively. Our main results are: (i) Certain external and internal -emission diagrams with the emitted meson being a scalar meson are naïvely expected to vanish, but they actually receive contributions from vertex and hard spectator-scattering corrections beyond the factorization approximation. (ii) For light scalars with masses below or close to 1 GeV, it is more sensible to study three-body decays directly and compare with experiment as the two-body branching fractions are either unavailable or subject to large finite-width effects of the scalar meson. (iii) We consider the two-quark (scheme I) and four-quark (scheme II) descriptions of the light scalar mesons, and find the latter generally in better agreement with experiment. This is in line with recent BESIII measurements of semileptonic charm decays that prefer the tetraquark description of light scalars produced in charmed meson decays. (iv) The topological amplitude approach fails here as the decay branching fractions cannot be reliably inferred from the measurements of three-body decays, mainly because the decay rates cannot be factorized into the topological amplitude squared and the phase space factor. (v) The predicted rates for are generally smaller than experimental data by one order of magnitude, presumably implying the significance of -exchange amplitudes. (vi) The -annihilation amplitude is found to be very sizable in the sector with , contrary to its suppression in the sector with . (vii) Finite-width effects are very important for the very broad and mesons. The experimental branching fractions and are thus corrected to be and , respectively.
I Introduction
In recent years many measurements of hadronic three-body and four-body decays of charmed mesons have been performed with Dalitz-plot amplitude analyses. Amplitudes describing meson decays into multibody final states are dominated by quasi-two-body processes, such as and , where and denote pseudoscalar, vector, scalar, axial-vector and tensor mesons, respectively. Among various -, - and -wave intermediate resonances, the identification of the scalar mesons is rather difficult due to their broad widths and flat angular distributions.
Scalar mesons with masses lower than 2 GeV can be classified into two nonets: one nonet with masses below or close to 1 GeV, including , , and ; and the other nonet with masses above 1 GeV, including , , , and . Since the last three are all isosinglet scalars and only two of them can be accommodated in the quark model, implying a dominant scalar glueball content in one of the three isosinglets.
In this work, we shall study the quasi-two-body decays and the three-body decays proceeding through intermediate scalar resonances. In Tables 1 and 2 we collect all the measured branching fractions of decays available in the Particle Data Group (PDG) PDG . It is clear that and the family such as , and are observed in the three-body decays of and , while is seen exclusively in three-body decays (except for ). Contrary to and which are relatively easy to identify experimentally, the establishment of and is very difficult and controversial because their widths are so broad that their shapes are not clearly resonant. Nevertheless, their signals in three-body decays have been identified in , and , respectively. Because of threshold and coupled-channel effects for and and the very broad widths for and , it is no longer pertinent to use the conventional Breit-Wigner parametrization to describe their line shapes.
The decays and related three-body decays have been studied previously in Refs. Kamal ; Katoch ; Buccella96 ; Fajfer ; ChengSP ; ElBennich ; Boito ; Cheng:SAT ; Xie:2014tma ; Dedonder:2014xpa ; Loiseau:2016mdm ; Dedonder:2021dmb . In the decays, the flavor diagram of each topology has two possibilities: one with the spectator quark in the charmed meson going to the pseudoscalar meson in the final state, and the other with the spectator quark ending up in the scalar meson. We thus need two copies of each topological diagram to describe the decay processes. Many of these decays have been observed in recent years through dedicated experiments and powerful Dalitz plot analysis of multi-body decays. We will investigate whether an extraction of the sizes and relative strong phases of these amplitudes is possible.
One purpose of studying these decays is to check our understanding in the structures and properties of light even-parity scalar mesons. Another goal is to learn the final-state interaction pattern in view of the rich resonance spectrum around the meson mass range. Not only does this work update our previous study Cheng:SAT , we also study the finite-width effect in the three-body decays mediated by the scalar mesons. Such an effect is observed to be particularly important for decays involving and in the intermediate state because of their broad widths compared to their masses, respectively. Therefore, one should be careful in the use of the narrow width approximation (NWA) to extract the two-body decays from the three-body decay rates.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we review the current experimental status about how various decay branching fractions are extracted using the NWA from three-body decay rates. In Section III, we discuss the two-quark and tetraquark pictures of the scalar nonet near or below 1 GeV along with the associated conundrums. The decay constants and form factors required for subsequent numerical calculations are given in this section, too. Section IV sets up the notation and formalism of flavor amplitude analysis, for both quark-antiquark and tetraquark pictures. In Section V, we take the factorization approach as an alternative toward analyzing these decays. We also introduce line shapes for the scalar resonances when describing various three-body decays. Section VI gives the results obtained based upon the approaches in the previous two sections for a comparison. Section VI.2 is devoted to the study of finite-width effect and how the NWA should be modified. We summarize our findings in Section VII.
II Experimental status
It is known that three- and four-body decays of heavy mesons provide a rich laboratory for studying the intermediate-state resonances. The Dalitz plot analysis of three-body or four-body decays of charmed mesons is a very useful technique for this purpose. We are interested in decays followed by . The results of various experiments are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. To extract the branching fraction for a decay, it is the usual practice to use the NWA:
(1) |
Since this relation holds only in the limit, we put the subscript NWA to emphasize that thus obtained is under this limit. Finite width effects will be discussed in Section VI.2. For the branching fractions of two-body decays of scalar mesons, we shall use PDG
(2) | |||||
where we have applied the average of from PDG PDG to extract the branching fraction of , assuming that its width is saturated by the and modes. For we have used the values of and from PDG together with the assumption of its width being saturated by , and modes. For or , we are not able to extract the branching fractions of due to the lack of information of (except for ), especially for where the threshold effect must be taken into account. For example, the NWA relation
(3) |
cannot be applied to extract the branching fraction of due to the unknown . Therefore, we will calculate the branching fractions of directly and compare them with experiment (see Table 8 below).
111Assuming a fit fraction of 20% for in decay LHCb:D+toKKK . | |
prohibited on-shell | |
222BESIII data taken from Ref. BESIII:Dspi+pi0pi0 . | |
333BESIII data taken from Ref. BESIII:DsKKpi ., 444 denotes both and . | |
333BESIII data taken from Ref. BESIII:DsKKpi . | |
222BESIII data taken from Ref. BESIII:Dspi+pi0pi0 . | |
333BESIII data taken from Ref. BESIII:DsKKpi . | |
555The branching fraction is assigned to be by the PDG PDG . However, as pointed out in Ref. BESIII:Dstoa0pi , the fraction of with respect to the total fraction of is evaluated to be 0.66. Consequently, the branching fraction should be multiplied by a factor of 0.66 to become . | |
333BESIII data taken from Ref. BESIII:DsKKpi . | |
111BESIII data taken from Ref. BESIII:D0KKKS . | |
111BESIII data taken from Ref. BESIII:D0KKKS . | |
111BESIII data taken from Ref. BESIII:D0KKKS . | |
III Physical properties of scalar mesons
It is known that the underlying structure of scalar mesons is not well established theoretically (see, e.g., Refs. Amsler ; Close for a review). Scalar mesons with masses lower than 2 GeV can be classified into two nonets: one nonet with masses below or close to 1 GeV, including the isoscalars (or ), , the isodoublet (or ) and the isovector ; and the other nonet with masses above 1 GeV, including , , and . If the scalar meson states below or near 1 GeV are identified as the conventional low-lying nonet, then the nonet states above 1 GeV could be excited states.
In the naïve quark model, the flavor wave functions of the light scalars read
(4) | |||
where an ideal mixing for and is assumed as is the heaviest one and the lightest one in the light scalar nonet. However, as summarized in Ref. Cheng:SAT , this simple picture encounters several serious problems:
-
1.
It is impossible to understand the mass degeneracy between and , which is the so-called “inverted spectrum problem.”
-
2.
The -wave meson has one unit of orbital angular momentum which costs an energy around 500 MeV. Hence, it should have a mass lying above rather than below 1 GeV.
-
3.
It is difficult to explain why and are much broader than and in width.
-
4.
The widths of and are much smaller than naïvely expected for a state bar85 .
-
5.
The radiative decay , which cannot proceed if is a pure state, can be nicely described by the four-quark nature of Achasov:1987ts ; Achasov:2003cn or the kaon loop mechanism Schechter06 . Likewise, the observation of the radiative decay is also accounted for by the four-quark state of Achasov:2003cn .
It turns out that these difficulties can be readily resolved in the tetraquark scenario where the four-quark flavor wave functions of light scalar mesons are symbolically given by Jaffe
(5) |
The four quarks can form an -wave (rather than -wave) meson without introducing one unit of orbital angular momentum. This four-quark description explains naturally the inverted mass spectrum of the light nonet, 111However, it has been claimed recently in Ref. Kuroda:2019jzm that the inverse mass hierarchy can be realized in the picture through a axial anomaly including explicit breaking. The anomaly term contributes to with the strange quark mass and to with the up or down quark mass due to its flavor singlet nature. The current mass of the strange quark makes the meson heavier than the meson. especially the mass degeneracy between and , and accounts for the broad widths of and while and are narrow because of the suppressed phase space for their decays to the kaon pairs. Lattice calculations have confirmed that and are mesons, and suggested that , and are tetraquark mesonia Prelovsek ; Mathur ; Wakayama:scalar ; Alexandrou:a0kappa ; Alexandrou:a0 .
The inverted spectrum problem can also be alleviated in the scenario where the light scalars are dynamically generated from the meson-meson interaction, with the and the coupling strongly to the channel with isospin 0 and 1, respectively. Indeed, the whole light scalar nonet appears naturally from properly unitarized chiral amplitudes for pseudoscalar-pseudoscalar scatterings Oller:1997ng ; Oller:1998hw . Consequently, both and are good candidates of molecular states Weinstein:1990gu , while and can be considered as the bound states of and , respectively.
In the naïve two-quark model with ideal mixing for and , is purely an state, while is an state with . However, there also exists some experimental evidence indicating that is not a purely state. For example, the observation of PDG clearly shows the existence of the non-strange and strange quark contents in . Therefore, isoscalars and must have a mixing
(6) |
Various mixing angle measurements have been discussed in the literature and summarized in Refs. CCY ; Fleischer:2011au . A recent measurement of the upper limit on the branching fraction product by LHCb leads to LHCb:theta . Likewise, in the four-quark scenario for light scalar mesons, one can also define a similar - mixing angle
(7) |
It has been shown that Maiani .
In reality, the light scalar mesons could have both two-quark and four-quark components. Indeed, a real hadron in the QCD language should be described by a set of Fock states each of which has the same quantum number as the hadron. For example,
(8) |
In the tetraquark model, , while it is the other way around in the two-quark model. Although as far as the spectrum and decay are concerned, light scalars are predominately tetraquark states, their productions in heavy meson decays and in high energy hadron collisions are probably more sensitive to the two-quark component of the scalar mesons. For example, one may wonder if the energetic produced in decays is dominated by the four-quark configuration as it requires to pick up two energetic quark-antiquark pairs to form a fast moving light tetraquark. Since the scalar meson production in charm decays is not energetic, it is possible that it has adequate time to form a tetraquark state. In principle, the two-quark and four-quark descriptions of the light scalars can be discriminated in the semileptonic charm decays. For example, the ratio
(9) |
is equal to 1 in the two-quark scenario and 3 in the four-quark model under the flavor SU(3) symmetry Wang:2009azc . Based on the BESIII measurements of BESIII:Dtoa0SL , and the upper limit on BESIII:DtosigmaSL , it follows that at 90% confidence level. Hence, the BESIII results favor the SU(3) nonet tetraquark description of the , and produced in charmed meson decays. A detailed analysis of BESIII and CLEO data on the decays and in Ref. Achasov:2020qfx also shows results in favor of the four-quark nature of light scalar mesons and .
The vector and scalar decay constants of the scalar meson are, respectively, defined as
(10) |
The neutral scalar mesons , and cannot be produced via the vector current owing to charge conjugation invariance or conservation of vector current:
(11) |
Applying the equation of motion to Eq. (10) yields
(12) |
where and are the running current quark masses. Therefore, the vector decay constant of the scalar meson vanishes in the SU(3) or isospin limit. The vector decay constants of and the charged are non-vanishing, but they are suppressed due to the small mass difference between the constituent and quarks and between and quarks, respectively. The scalar decay constants have been computed in Ref. CCY within the framework of QCD sum rules. For reader’s conveneince, we list the scalar decay constants (in units of MeV) at GeV relevant to the present work
(13) |
From Eq. (12) we obtain (in units of MeV) 222The vector decay constants of the scalar meson and its antiparticle are of opposite sign. For example, and .
(14) |
In short, the vector decay constants of scalar mesons are either zero or very small for non-strange scalar mesons.
Form factors for transitions are defined by BSW
(15) |
where and . As shown in Ref. CCH , a factor of is needed in the transition in order for the form factors to be positive. This can also be checked from heavy quark symmetry consideration CCH .
Throughout this paper, we use the 3-parameter parametrization
(16) |
for transitions. For hadronic decays, the relevant form factor is . The parameters , and for transitions calculated in the covariant light-front quark model (CLFQM) CCH ; Verma:2011yw , covariant confined quark model (CCQM) Soni:2020sgn , light-cone sum rules (LCSR) Shi:2017pgh ; Cheng:2017fkw ; Huang:2021owr are exhibited in Table 3. Note that the matrix element is sometimes parametrized as
(17) |
It is easily seen that
(18) |
and hence . It was argued in Huang:2021owr that the relation holds in the LCSR calculation. In Soni:2020sgn , the transition form factors are defined by
(19) |
They are related to and through the relation
(20) |
Transition | CLFQM | CCQM | LCSR(I) | LCSR(II) | LCSR(III) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CCH ; Verma:2011yw | Soni:2020sgn | Shi:2017pgh | Cheng:2017fkw | Huang:2021owr | |
111For transition. | 0.321 | ||||
222For transition. | |||||
333It stands for either or transition. | 444Use of the relation has been made. | ||||
For the dependence of the form factors in various models, the parameters and are available in Refs. CCH ; Verma:2011yw and Ref. Shi:2017pgh for CLFQM and LCSR(I), respectively. In CCQM and LCSR(II), one needs to apply Eq. (18) to get the dependence of . The form-factor dependence in the LCSR(III) calculation is shown in Fig. 3 of Ref. Huang:2021owr .
BESIII has measured the branching fractions of both and BESIII:SLa0 . The theoretical calculations depend on the form factors and and their dependence (see e.g. Ref. Cheng:DmesonSL ). It turns out that the predicted branching fractions for in LCSR(II) Cheng:2017fkw are too large by more than a factor of 2 compared to the BESIII experiment (see Table VI of Ref. Huang:2021owr ). Hence, this model is disfavored.
IV Diagrammatic amplitudes
A least model-dependent analysis of heavy meson decays can be carried out in the so-called topological diagram approach. In this diagrammatic scenario, all two-body nonleptonic weak decays of heavy mesons can be expressed in terms of six distinct quark diagrams Chau ; CC86 ; CC87 : , the external -emission tree diagram; , the internal -emission; , the -exchange; , the -annihilation; , the horizontal -loop; and , the vertical -loop. The one-gluon exchange approximation of the graph is the so-called “penguin diagram.” These diagrams are classified according to the topologies of weak interactions with all strong interaction effects encoded.
The topological amplitudes for decays have been discussed in ChengSP ; Cheng:SAT . Just as decays, one generally has two sets of distinct diagrams for each topology. For example, there are two external -emission and two internal -emission diagrams, depending on whether the emitted particle is an even-party meson or an odd-parity one. Following the convention in ChengSP ; Cheng:SAT , we shall denote the primed amplitudes and for the case when the emitted meson is a scalar one. For the -exchange and -annihilation diagrams with the final state , the primed amplitude denotes that the even-parity meson contains the quark . Since , and the light scalars fall into two different SU(3) flavor nonets, in principle one cannot apply SU(3) symmetry to relate the topological amplitudes in to, for example, those in .
Decay | Amplitude | |
---|---|---|
111Since the decay amplitudes of and are the same except an overall negative sign, they have the same rates. | ||
prohibited | ||
In Ref. Cheng:SAT we have presented the topological amplitude decomposition in decays in two different schemes. In scheme I, light scalar mesons and are described by the ground-state states, while and as excited states. In scheme II, light scalars are tetraquark states, while and are ground-state . The topological amplitudes for decays are listed in Table 4. The expressions of topological amplitudes are the same in both schemes I and II except for the channels involving and . For example,
(23) | |||||
(26) |
In our numerical estimates, we will take , saturating the measured upper bound mentioned earlier.
In Table 4 the upper part involves only light scalar mesons (, , , and ), whereas the lower part involves the and mesons in the heavier nonet representation. This division is made because the amplitudes of the same topology in these two groups have no a priori relations. In each group we have 15 unknown parameters for the 8 topological amplitudes and . For neutral scalar mesons and , we cannot set even though their vector decay constants vanish. As will be discussed in Sec. V.A, and do receive nonfactorizable contributions through vertex and spectator-scattering corrections Cheng:2006 ; Cheng:2013 . Nevertheless, it is naïvely expected that, for example, and for charged . However, as we shall see in Sec. V.C, a realistic calculation yields instead. At any rate, we have more theory parameters than observables (6 in the upper part and 5 in the lower part of the table), barring a fit.
Since the branching fractions of and are unknown, many of the two-body decays in Table 4 cannot be extracted from the data of three-body decays. Nevertheless, the strong couplings such as and have been inferred from a fit to the data. There are 17 available modes, but there are only 14 data related to and we have 15 parameters to fit. Moreover, since we need to introduce appropriate energy-dependent line shapes for the scalar mesons, it is not conceivable to extract the topological amplitudes from three-body decays as the decay rate cannot be factorized into the topological amplitude squared and the phase space factor. We will come back to this point later.
It is interesting to notice that the current data already imply the importance of -exchange and -annihilation amplitudes. Consider the decays: and with the two-body decay amplitudes proportional to and , respectively (see Table 4). If the -exchange contributions are negligible, the former mode governed by the amplitude is expected to have a rate smaller than the latter (cf. Table 2). Experimentally, it is the other way around. This is an indication that and play some role.
V Factorization Approach
The diagrammatic approach has been applied quite successfully to hadronic decays of charmed mesons into and final states RosnerPP08 ; RosnerVP ; RosnerPP09 ; Cheng:Ddecay2010 ; Cheng:2012a ; Cheng:2012b ; Li:2012 ; Qin ; Cheng:2016 ; Cheng:2021 . When generalized to the decay modes involving a scalar meson in the final state, it appears that the current data are still insufficient for us to fully extract the information of all amplitudes. Therefore, we take the naïve factorization formalism as a complementary approach to estimate the rates of these decay modes. In this framework, the -exchange and -annihilation type of contributions will be neglected.
V.1 Factorizable and nonfactorizable amplitudes
The factorizable amplitudes for the decays read
(27) |
and have the expressions
(28) |
where use of Eqs. (10) and (III) has been made. Hence,
(29) |
The primed amplitudes and vanish for the neutral scalar mesons such as , and as they cannot be produced through the current; that is, . Nevertheless, beyond the factorization approximation, contributions proportional to the scalar decay constant of the scalar meson defined in Eq. (10) can be produced from vertex and hard spectator-scattering corrections. It has been shown in Refs. Cheng:2006 ; Cheng:2013 that the nonfactorizable amplitudes can be recast to
(30) |
for and , etc., while the expressions of and given in Eq. (V.1) are valid for and , etc.
V.2 Flavor operators
The flavor operators in Eqs. (V.1) and (30) are basically the Wilson coefficients in conjunction with short-distance nonfactorizable corrections such as vertex corrections and hard spectator interactions. In general, they have the expressions BBNS ; BN 333Notice that and do not receive contributions from penguin contractions.
(31) |
where are the Wilson coefficients, with , is the emitted meson and shares the same spectator quark with the meson. The quantities account for vertex corrections, for hard spectator interactions with a hard gluon exchange between the emitted meson and the spectator quark of the meson. The explicit expressions of and in the QCD factorization approach are given in Cheng:2006 . The expression of the quantities , which are relevant to the factorizable amplitudes, reads
(32) |
Results for the flavor operators with and are shown in Table 5. 444Studies of decays in QCDF were presented in Refs. Cheng:2006 ; Cheng:2013 . Here We generalize these works to the decays and obtain the flavor operators given in Table 5.
We see from Eqs. (V.2) and (32) that the factorizable contributions to and vanish for and . Beyond the factorization approximation, nonfactorizable contributions proportional to the decay constant can be produced from vertex and spectator-scattering corrections Cheng:2006 ; Cheng:2013 . Therefore, when the strong coupling is turned off, the nonfactorizable contributions vanish accordingly. In short, the primed amplitudes and are factorizable for , namely , whereas they are nonfactorizable for .
Upon an inspection of Table 5, we see that (i) the flavor operators and are very different as the former does not receive factorizable contributions (i.e. ), and (ii) while and are similar for any light and heavy scalar mesons, namely and , and vary from neutral to the charged ones as shown in Table 6. One may wonder why the flavor operators are much greater than . As noticed in Eqs. (V.1) and (30), the nonfactorizable amplitudes are proportional to for charged and to for neutral . Hence, . We see from Table 6 that become larger when the decay constants become smaller.
(MeV) | |||
---|---|---|---|
35.3 | |||
1.3 |
V.3 Implications
Naïvely it is expected that because and due to the fact that . Although we are not able to extract the topological amplitudes of from the experimental data of three-body decays, we can use the theoretical calculations to see their sizes and relative phases. From Eq. (V.1) we have
(33) | |||||
Using the flavor operators given in Table 5, form factors listed in Table 3 and evaluated in the covariant confining quark model Ivanov:2019nqd , we find numerically (in units of GeV),
(34) |
For heavier scalar mesons we find
(35) | |||
In the light scalar meson sector, we have and rather than and . For scalar mesons in the higher nonet representation, we find with being suppressed as the mass term becomes smaller when becomes heavier.
V.4 Flatté line shape
To describe three-body decays we need to introduce a line shape of the scalar resonance. Normally we use the relativistic Breit-Wigner line shape to describe the scalar resonance contributions to three-body decays :
(36) |
with
(37) |
where is the c.m. momentum in the rest frame of , the value of when is equal to . However, this parametrization is not suitable to describe the decay of or into as MeV and MeV are near threshold. In other words, one has to take the threshold effect into account. Since couples strongly to the channel as well as to the channel , they can be described by a coupled channel formula, the so-called Flatté line shape Flatte:1976xu
(38) |
with the phase space factor
(39) |
so that
(40) |
and when below the threshold, i.e. for . The dimensionful coupling constants in Eq. (38) are
(41) |
Likewise, couples strongly to and
(42) |
with
(43) |
It is important to check whether and can be interpreted as the strong couplings of to and , respectively. Using the formula
(44) |
with being the c.m. momentum of the pion in the rest frame of , it is easily seen that the term in Eq. (38) is identical to . Therefore, we are sure that is the strong coupling appearing in the matrix element . The strong couplings , and have been extracted from fits to the experimental data. In this work we shall use
(45) | |||||
where the values of and are taken from Ref. BESIII:D0KKKS , dominated by the Dalitz plot analysis of performed by KLOE KLOE:f0 . The couplings and are taken from the analysis of the decay by BESIII BESIII:D0KKKS . 555From the amplitude analysis of the decay, BESIII obtained another set of couplings: and BESIII:etapipi . However, this set of couplings is not appealing for two reasons: (a) the large coupling constant will yield too large partial width MeV, recalling that the total width of lies in the range of 50 to 100 MeV PDG , and (b) it is commonly believed that couples more strongly to than to , especially in the scenario in which is a molecular state. Note the result for the coupling is consistent with the value of GeV extracted from Belle’s measurement of the partial width of Belle:f0 .
The partial widths can be inferred from the strong couplings listed in Eq. (45) as
(46) |
though they are not directly measured.
V.5 Line shape for
As stressed in Ref. Pelaez:2015qba , the scalar resonance is very broad and cannot be described by the usual Breit-Wigner line shape. Its partial wave amplitude does not resemble a Breit-Wigner shape with a clear peak and a simultaneous steep rise in the phase. The mass and width of the resonance are identified from the associated pole position of the partial wave amplitude in the second Riemann sheet as Pelaez:2015qba . We shall follow the LHCb Collaboration Aaij:3pi_2 to use a simple pole description
(47) |
with and
(48) |
Using the isobar description of the -wave to fit the decay data, the LHCb Collaboration found Aaij:3pi_2
(49) |
consistent with the PDG value of PDG .
In principle, we could also use a similar pole shape
(50) |
to describe the broad resonance and follow Pelaez:2020uiw to use the latest result
(51) |
determined from a dispersive data analysis. However, we find that this line shape together with the above pole mass and width will yield a very huge and unreasonable result for the finite-width correction to (see Sec. VI.B below). Hence, we will use the usual Breit-Wigner lineshape for and take the Breit-Wigner mass and width PDG
(52) |
V.6 Three-body decays
We take as an example to illustrate the calculation for the three-body rate. The two-body decay amplitude for with ( being the invariant mass of the is given by
(53) |
Denoting , we have
(54) |
where the line shape is given by Eq. (47). When is off the mass shell, especially when is approaching the upper bound of , it is necessary to account for the off-shell effect. For this purpose, we shall follow Cheng:FSI to introduce a form factor parametrized as
(55) |
with the cutoff not far from the resonance,
(56) |
where the parameter is expected to be of order unity. We shall use , MeV and in subsequent calculations.
The decay rate then reads
(57) |
where the factor of accounts for the identical particle effect. The coupling constant is determined by the relation
(58) |
Decay | Scheme I | Scheme II | |
---|---|---|---|
0 | 0 | ||
VI Results and Discussion
In Tables 7 and 8 we have calculated two-body and three-body decays, respectively, in schemes I and II using the factorization approach with -exchange and -annihilation being neglected. We see from Table 4 that the decay modes and are free of -annihilation contributions and they are ideal for testing the validity of the factorization approach. From Table 8 it is evident that the calculated rates of and in scheme II are in agreement with experiment. These modes are governed by the topologies which interfere constructively. This is in contrast to the Cabibbo-favored (CF) decay in the sector where and contribute destructively. For , predictions in scheme II are improved over that in scheme I and the discrepancies presumably arise from the -exchange or -annihilation amplitude. This implies that the tetraquark picture for light scalars works better than the quark-antiquark scenario.
Upon an inspection of Table 7, the reader may wonder (i) why the branching fractions for decays in scheme II are always larger than that in scheme I except for , and (ii) why the predicted branching fractions of and are larger than experimental data, while the corresponding three-body decays agree with the measurements. For (i), we see from Table IV and also Eq. (23) that the -emission decay amplitude involving is suppressed by a factor of in scheme I relative to that in scheme II, while it is suppressed by a factor of for the -emission decay amplitude involving . As a consequence our choice of , the branching fractions for in scheme II are always larger than scheme I except for . For (ii), it has something to do with the finite-width effects of and as they are both very broad. We shall see in Sec. VI.2 that the extraction of from the data is affected by the broad widths of both and .
Scheme I | Scheme II | Experiment | |
---|---|---|---|
0 | 0 | ||
1.38% | |||
VI.1 -annihilation amplitude
In the factorization calculations presented in Tables 7 and 8, we have neglected both -exchange and -annihilation amplitudes. The mode recently observed by BESIII BESIII:Dstoa0pi proceeds only through the -annihilation amplitudes. However, its branching fraction at a percent level is much larger than the other two -annihilation channels and whose branching fractions are and , respectively PDG . This implies that . In other words, the -annihilation amplitude plays a more significant role in the sector than in the one.



Consider the decay amplitude of and the -annihilation contribution to (in scheme II)
(59) |
Following the -parity argument given in Ref. Cheng:Ddecay2010 , it is obvious that the direct -annihilation process through is allowed in decay but not in decay as , and . This means that short-distance -annihilation contributions respect the relation , contrary to the naïve expectation. Hence, one needs large long-distance -annihilation which yields . Since has the largest branching fraction of among the CF decays PDG , it is conceivable that long-distance contribution from the weak decays followed by the resonantlike final-state rescattering of (see Fig. 1), which has the same topology as -annihilation, may explain the large -annihilation rate. 666The hadronic weak decays and followed by final-state rescattering will also contribute to . It is customary to evaluate the final-state rescattering contribution, Fig. 1, at the hadron level manifested in Fig. 2. One of the diagrams, namely, the triangle graph in Fig. 2(b) has been evaluated recently in Hsiao:a0 ; Ling:a0 . It yields a major contribution to owing to the large coupling constants for and . The graph in Fig. 2(a) shows the resonant final-state interactions manifested by the nearby resonance whose strong decay to has been seen experimentally PDG . However, we are not able to have a quantitative statement owing to the lack of information on its partial width.
Assuming , the annihilation amplitude extracted from the data of is (in units of GeV),
(60) |
Hence, the annihilation amplitude is very sizable in the sector, , contrary to its suppression in the sector Cheng:2019ggx and in the sector Cheng:2021yrn .
VI.2 Finite Width Effects
The finite-width effect is accounted for by the quantity defined by Cheng:2020mna ; Cheng:2020iwk
(61) |
so that the deviation of from unity measures the degree of departure from the NWA when the resonance width is finite. It is naïvely expected that the correction will be of order . It is calculable theoretically but depends on the line shape of the resonance and the approach of describing weak hadronic decays such as QCD factorization and perturbative QCD.
Using the branching fractions of two-body and three-body decays calculated in Tables 7 and 8, respectively, in scheme II, the resultant parameters for scalar resonances and produced in the three-body decays are summarized in Table 9. We only consider the decays as the three-body modes listed in Table 9 are not contaminated by the -annihilation amplitude and hence the calculated finite width effects are more trustworth. We have also checked explicitly that in the narrow width limit as it should be. The parameters for various resonances produced in the three-body decays have been evaluated in Cheng:2020mna ; Cheng:2020iwk . Our results for ’s in Table 9 have similar features as the values and obtained in decays.
Resonance | (MeV) PDG | (MeV) PDG | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.850 | |||||
1.873 | |||||
0.985 |
Note that a priori we do not know if the deviation of from unity is positive or negative. In general, it depends on the line shape, mass and width of the resonance. As alluded to above, the mass and width have a more dominant effect than the line shape in the case of . As another example, we found in Ref. [83] that for the Breit-Wigner line shape and when the Gounaris-Sakurai model Gounaris:1968mw is used to describe the line shape of the broad resonance. To our knowledge, there is no good argument favoring one line shape over the other. Therefore, , for example, is the result of our particular line shape choice.
When the resonance is sufficiently broad, it is necessary to take into account the finite-width effects characterized by the parameter . Explicitly Cheng:2020mna ; Cheng:2020iwk ,
(62) |
Therefore, the experimental branching fractions for and decays in Tables 1 and 7 should have the following corrections:
(63) | |||||
From Table 7, it is evident that the agreement between theory and experiment is substantially improved for and .
If we employ the pole mass and width, MeV and MeV, respectively, for and the pole line shape given in Eq. (50), we will be led to the results , and . This implies that the finite-width correction will be unreasonably too large and thus unlikely, as alluded to at the end of Sec. V.5. However, if the Breit-Wigner mass and width are used instead, we get for pole line shape, which is a more reasonable result. This implies that in this case, it is the mass and width rather than the line shape that governs the finite-width correction.
For the case of , one may wonder what the correction will be if the Breit-Wigner line shape is used. According to PDG PDG , the Breit-Wigner mass and width of lie in the wide ranges of 400-800 MeV and 100-800 MeV, respectively. As a result, it is quite difficult to pin down a specific set of parameters and thereby determine the finite-width correction. On the contrary, LHCb has determined its pole mass and width with reasonable accuracy using the pole line shape [see Eq. (49)]. It turns out that the pole mass and width fall within the above allowed ranges of the Breit-Wigner mass and width. Therefore, it is more sensible to use pole mass and width for calculations in either line shapes.
VII Conclusions
In this work we have examined the quasi-two-body decays and the three-body decays proceeding through intermediate scalar resonances. Our main results are:
-
•
In the decays, we cannot extract the two-body branching fractions for and due to the lack of information of (except for ). For and , the extracted two-body branching fractions are subject to large finite-width effects owing to their broad widths. Hence, for light scalars it is more sensible to study directly and compare with experiment.
-
•
We have considered the two-quark (scheme I) and four-quark (scheme II) descriptions of the light scalar mesons with masses below or close to 1 GeV. Recent BESIII measurements of semileptonic charm decays favor the SU(3) nonet tetraquark description of the , and produced in charmed meson decay. In Table 8 we have calculated in schemes I and II. It is evident that scheme II agrees better with experiment for decays such as followed by and followed by or . This again favors the tetraquark structure for light scalars. The predicted rates for are generally smaller than experimental data by one order of magnitude, presumably implying the importance of -exchange.
-
•
The three-body decay modes , and are ideal for testing the validity of the factorization approach as they are free of -annihilation contributions. and amplitudes contribute constructively, contrary to the Cabibbo-allowed decay where the interference between external and internal -emission is destructive.
-
•
Denoting the primed amplitudes and for the case when the emitted meson is a scalar meson, it is naïvely expected that for the neutral scalars and , and for the charged and and for the and . Beyond the factorization approximation, contributions proportional to the scalar decay constant can be produced from vertex and hard spectator-scattering corrections for the above-mentioned neutral scalars.
-
•
We have studied the flavor operators for and within the framework of QCD factorization. Notice that and are very different as the former does not receive factorizable contributions. While are similar for any light and heavy scalar mesons, and vary from neutral to the charged ones as shown in Table 6. The flavor operators are much greater than . In general, become larger when the vector decay constants become smaller.
-
•
For and , we use the Flatté line shape to describe both of them to take into account the threshold and coupled channel effects. For the very broad , we follow LHCb to employ a simple pole description.
-
•
The annihilation amplitude inferred from the measurement of is given by . It is very sizable in the sector, , contrary to its suppression in the sector with .
-
•
Since and are very broad, we have considered their finite-width effects characterized by the parameter , whose deviation from unity measures the degree of departure from the NWA when the resonance width is finite. We find and to be of order . The experimental branching fractions and should then read and , respectively.
-
•
For each scalar nonet (lighter and heavier one) we have 15 unknown parameters for the 8 topological amplitudes and . However, there are only 14 independent data to fit. Moreover, since we need to introduce appropriate energy-dependent line shapes for the scalar mesons, it is not conceivable to extract the topological amplitudes from three-body decays as the decay rates cannot be factorized into the topological amplitude squared and the phase space factor.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported in part by the Ministry of Science and Technology of R.O.C. under Grant Nos. MOST-107-2119-M-001-034, MOST-110-2112-M-001-025 and MOST-108-2112-M-002-005-MY3, the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 11347030, the Program of Science and Technology Innovation Talents in Universities of Henan Province 14HASTIT037.
References
- (1) P.A. Zyla et al. [Particle Data Group], Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2020, 083C01 (2020) and 2021 update.
- (2) F. Hussain, A. N. Kamal and S. N. Sinha, “Cabibbo Angle Favored Decays: ,” Z. Phys. C 36, 199 (1987).
- (3) A. C. Katoch and R. C. Verma, “D decays into pseudoscalar and scalar mesons,” Z. Phys. C 62, 173 (1994).
- (4) S. Fajfer, “ decays and the effective chiral Lagrangian for heavy and light mesons,” Z. Phys. C 68, 81 (1995).
- (5) F. Buccella, M. Lusignoli and A. Pugliese, “Charm nonleptonic decays and final state interactions,” Phys. Lett. B 379, 249 (1996) [arXiv:hep-ph/9601343].
- (6) H. Y. Cheng, “Hadronic D decays involving scalar mesons,” Phys. Rev. D 67, 034024 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0212117].
- (7) B. El-Bennich, O. Leitner, J. P. Dedonder and B. Loiseau, “The Scalar Meson in Heavy-Meson Decays,” Phys. Rev. D 79, 076004 (2009) [arXiv:0810.5771 [hep-ph]].
- (8) D. R. Boito, J. P. Dedonder, B. El-Bennich, O. Leitner and B. Loiseau, “Scalar resonances in a unitary -wave model for ,” Phys. Rev. D 79, 034020 (2009) [arXiv:0812.3843 [hep-ph]].
- (9) H. Y. Cheng and C. W. Chiang, “Hadronic D decays involving even-parity light mesons,” Phys. Rev. D 81, 074031 (2010) [arXiv:1002.2466 [hep-ph]].
- (10) J. P. Dedonder, R. Kaminski, L. Lesniak and B. Loiseau, “Dalitz plot studies of decays in a factorization approach,” Phys. Rev. D 89, 094018 (2014) [arXiv:1403.2971 [hep-ph]].
- (11) J. J. Xie, L. R. Dai and E. Oset, “The low lying scalar resonances in the decays into and , , ,” Phys. Lett. B 742, 363-369 (2015) [arXiv:1409.0401 [hep-ph]].
- (12) B. Loiseau, “Theory overview on amplitude analyses with charm decays,” PoS CHARM2016, 033 (2016) [arXiv:1611.05286 [hep-ph]].
- (13) J. P. Dedonder, R. Kamiński, L. Leśniak and B. Loiseau, “Dalitz plot studies of decays in a factorization approach,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 114028 (2021) [arXiv:2105.03355 [hep-ph]].
- (14) R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], “Dalitz plot analysis of the decay,” JHEP 04, 063 (2019) [arXiv:1902.05884 [hep-ex]].
- (15) M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], “Amplitude analysis and branching fraction measurement of the decay ,” [arXiv:2109.12660 [hep-ex]].
- (16) M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], “Amplitude analysis and branching fraction measurement of ,” Phys. Rev. D 104, 012016 (2021) [arXiv:2011.08041 [hep-ex]].
- (17) M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], “Amplitude analysis of and first observation of the pure -annihilation decays and ,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 112001 (2019) [arXiv:1903.04118 [hep-ex]].
- (18) M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], “Analysis of the decay ,” [arXiv:2006.02800 [hep-ex]].
- (19) C. Amsler and N. A. Tornqvist, “Mesons beyond the naïve quark model,” Phys. Rept. 389, 61-117 (2004).
- (20) F. E. Close and N. A. Tornqvist, “Scalar mesons above and below 1-GeV,” J. Phys. G 28, R249-R267 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0204205 [hep-ph]].
- (21) T. Barnes, “Two Photon Decays Support the () Molecule Picture of the and ,” Phys. Lett. B 165, 434-440 (1985).
- (22) N. N. Achasov and V. N. Ivanchenko, “On a Search for Four Quark States in Radiative Decays of Meson,” Nucl. Phys. B 315, 465-476 (1989).
- (23) N. N. Achasov, “Radiative decays of meson about nature of light scalar resonances,” Nucl. Phys. A 728, 425-438 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0309118 [hep-ph]].
- (24) D. Black, M. Harada and J. Schechter, “Chiral approach to radiative decays,” Phys. Rev. D 73, 054017 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0601052 [hep-ph]].
- (25) R. L. Jaffe, “Multi-Quark Hadrons. 1. The Phenomenology of (2 Quark 2 anti-Quark) Mesons,” Phys. Rev. D 15, 267 (1977); “Multi-Quark Hadrons. 2. Methods,” Phys. Rev. D 15, 281 (1977).
- (26) Y. Kuroda, M. Harada, S. Matsuzaki and D. Jido, “Inverse Mass Hierarchy of Light Scalar Mesons Driven by Anomaly-Induced Flavor Breaking,” PTEP 2020, 053D02 (2020) [arXiv:1910.09146 [hep-ph]].
- (27) S. Prelovsek, T. Draper, C. B. Lang, M. Limmer, K. F. Liu, N. Mathur and D. Mohler, “Lattice study of light scalar tetraquarks with : Are and tetraquarks?,” Phys. Rev. D 82, 094507 (2010) [arXiv:1005.0948 [hep-lat]]; S. Prelovsek and D. Mohler, “A lattice study of light scalar tetraquarks,” Phys. Rev. D 79, 014503 (2009) [arXiv:0810.1759 [hep-lat]].
- (28) N. Mathur, A. Alexandru, Y. Chen, S. J. Dong, T. Draper, I. Horvath, F. X. Lee, K. F. Liu, S. Tamhankar and J. B. Zhang, “Scalar mesons and from lattice QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 76, 114505 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0607110].
- (29) C. Alexandrou, J. O. Daldrop, M. Dalla Brida, M. Gravina, L. Scorzato, C. Urbach and M. Wagner, “Lattice investigation of the scalar mesons (980) and using four-quark operators,” JHEP 04, 137 (2013) [arXiv:1212.1418 [hep-lat]].
- (30) C. Alexandrou, J. Berlin, M. Dalla Brida, J. Finkenrath, T. Leontiou and M. Wagner, “Lattice QCD investigation of the structure of the meson,” Phys. Rev. D 97, 034506 (2018) [arXiv:1711.09815 [hep-lat]].
- (31) M. Wakayama, T. Kunihiro, S. Muroya, A. Nakamura, C. Nonaka, M. Sekiguchi and H. Wada, “Lattice QCD study of four-quark components of the isosinglet scalar mesons: Significance of disconnected diagrams,” Phys. Rev. D 91, 094508 (2015) [arXiv:1412.3909 [hep-lat]].
- (32) J. A. Oller, E. Oset and J. R. Pelaez, “Nonperturbative approach to effective chiral Lagrangians and meson interactions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3452-3455 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9803242 [hep-ph]].
- (33) J. A. Oller, E. Oset and J. R. Pelaez, “Meson meson interaction in a nonperturbative chiral approach,” Phys. Rev. D 59, 074001 (1999) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 60, 099906 (1999); erratum: Phys. Rev. D 75, 099903 (2007)] [arXiv:hep-ph/9804209 [hep-ph]].
- (34) J. D. Weinstein and N. Isgur, “ Molecules,” Phys. Rev. D 41, 2236 (1990)
- (35) H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua and K. C. Yang, “Charmless hadronic B decays involving scalar mesons: Implications to the nature of light scalar mesons,” Phys. Rev. D 73, 014017 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0508104 [hep-ph]].
- (36) R. Fleischer, R. Knegjens and G. Ricciardi, “Anatomy of ,” Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1832 (2011) [arXiv:1109.1112 [hep-ph]].
- (37) R. Aaij et al. [LHCb collaboration], “Analysis of the resonant components in ,” Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) 052001 [arXiv:1301.5347 [hep-ex]].
- (38) L. Maiani, F. Piccinini, A.D. Polosa, and V. Riquer, “A New look at scalar mesons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 212002 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0407017 [hep-ph]].
- (39) W. Wang and C. D. Lu, “Distinguishing two kinds of scalar mesons from heavy meson decays,” Phys. Rev. D 82, 034016 (2010) [arXiv:0910.0613 [hep-ph]].
- (40) M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], “Observation of the Semileptonic Decay and Evidence for ,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 081802 (2018) [arXiv:1803.02166 [hep-ex]].
- (41) M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], “Observation of and Improved Measurements of ,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 062001 (2019) [arXiv:1809.06496 [hep-ex]].
- (42) N. N. Achasov, A. V. Kiselev and G. N. Shestakov, “Semileptonic decays and as the probe of constituent quark-antiquark pairs in the light scalar mesons,” Phys. Rev. D 102, no.1, 016022 (2020) [arXiv:2005.06455 [hep-ph]].
- (43) M. Wirbel, B. Stech and M. Bauer, “Exclusive Semileptonic Decays of Heavy Mesons,” Z. Phys. C 29, 637 (1985); M. Bauer, B. Stech and M. Wirbel, “Exclusive Nonleptonic Decays of , and Mesons,” Z. Phys. C 34, 103 (1987).
- (44) 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 factors,” Phys. Rev. D 69, 074025 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0310359].
- (45) 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, 025005 (2012) [arXiv:1103.2973 [hep-ph]].
- (46) N. R. Soni, A. N. Gadaria, J. J. Patel and J. N. Pandya, “Semileptonic Decays of Charmed Mesons to Light Scalar Mesons,” Phys. Rev. D 102, 016013 (2020) [arXiv:2001.10195 [hep-ph]].
- (47) Y. J. Shi, W. Wang and S. Zhao, “Chiral dynamics, S-wave contributions and angular analysis in ,” Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 452 (2017) [arXiv:1701.07571 [hep-ph]].
- (48) X. D. Cheng, H. B. Li, B. Wei, Y. G. Xu and M. Z. Yang, “Study of decay in the light-cone sum rules approach,” Phys. Rev. D 96, 033002 (2017) [arXiv:1706.01019 [hep-ph]].
- (49) Q. Huang, Y. J. Sun, D. Gao, G. H. Zhao, B. Wang and W. Hong, “Study of form factors and branching ratios for with light-cone sum rules,” [arXiv:2102.12241 [hep-ph]].
- (50) M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], “Observation of the Semileptonic Decay and Evidence for ,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 081802 (2018) [arXiv:1803.02166 [hep-ex]].
- (51) H. Y. Cheng and X. W. Kang, “Branching fractions of semileptonic and decays from the covariant light-front quark model,” Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 587 (2017) [erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 863 (2017)] [arXiv:1707.02851 [hep-ph]].
- (52) L. L. Chau and H. Y. Cheng, “Analysis of Exclusive Two-Body Decays of Charm Mesons Using the Quark Diagram Scheme,” Phys. Rev. D 36, 137 (1987); “Analysis of the Recent Data of Exclusive Two-body Charm Decays,” Phys. Lett. B 222, 285-292 (1989).
- (53) L. L. Chau, “Quark Mixing in Weak Interactions,” Phys. Rept. 95, 1-94 (1983).
- (54) L. L. Chau and H. Y. Cheng, “Quark Diagram Analysis of Two-body Charm Decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1655-1658 (1986).
- (55) H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua and K. C. Yang, “Charmless hadronic decays involving scalar mesons: Implications to the nature of light scalar mesons,” Phys. Rev. D 73, 014017 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0508104 [hep-ph]].
- (56) H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua, K. C. Yang and Z. Q. Zhang, “Revisiting charmless hadronic decays to scalar mesons,” Phys. Rev. D 87, 114001 (2013) [arXiv:1303.4403 [hep-ph]].
- (57) H. Y. Cheng and C. W. Chiang, “Two-body hadronic charmed meson decays,” Phys. Rev. D 81, 074021 (2010) [arXiv:1001.0987 [hep-ph]].
- (58) B. Bhattacharya and J. L. Rosner, “Flavor symmetry and decays of charmed mesons to pairs of light pseudoscalars,” Phys. Rev. D 77, 114020 (2008) [arXiv:0803.2385 [hep-ph]].
- (59) B. Bhattacharya and J. L. Rosner, “Decays of Charmed Mesons to PV Final States,” Phys. Rev. D 79, 034016 (2009) [arXiv:0812.3167 [hep-ph]].
- (60) B. Bhattacharya and J. L. Rosner, “Charmed meson decays to two pseudoscalars,” arXiv:0911.2812 [hep-ph].
- (61) H. Y. Cheng and C. W. Chiang, “Direct CP violation in two-body hadronic charmed meson decays,” Phys. Rev. D 85, 034036 (2012) [arXiv:1201.0785 [hep-ph]]; 85, 079903(E) (2012).
- (62) H. Y. Cheng and C. W. Chiang, “SU(3) symmetry breaking and CP violation in decays,” Phys. Rev. D 86, 014014 (2012) [arXiv:1205.0580 [hep-ph]].
- (63) H. -n. Li, C. D. Lu and F. S. Yu, “Branching ratios and direct CP asymmetries in decays,” Phys. Rev. D 86, 036012 (2012) [arXiv:1203.3120 [hep-ph]]
- (64) Q. Qin, H. n. Li, C. D. Lü, and F. S. Yu, “Branching ratios and direct CP asymmetries in decays,” Phys. Rev. D 89, 054006 (2014) [arXiv:1305.7021 [hep-ph]].
- (65) H. Y. Cheng, C. W. Chiang and A. L. Kuo, “Global analysis of two-body decays within the framework of flavor symmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 93, 114010 (2016) [arXiv:1604.03761 [hep-ph]].
- (66) H. Y. Cheng and C. W. Chiang, “CP violation in quasi-two-body decays and three-body D decays mediated by vector resonances,” Phys. Rev. D 104, 073003 (2021) [arXiv:2104.13548 [hep-ph]].
- (67) M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C. T. Sachrajda, “QCD factorization for decays: Strong phases and CP violation in the heavy quark limit,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1914 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9905312]; “QCD factorization for exclusive, non-leptonic B meson decays: General arguments and the case of heavy-light final states,” Nucl. Phys. B 591, 313 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0006124].
- (68) M. Beneke and M. Neubert, “QCD factorization for and decays,” Nucl. Phys. B 675, 333 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0308039 [hep-ph]].
- (69) M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Körner, J. N. Pandya, P. Santorelli, N. R. Soni and C. T. Tran, “Exclusive semileptonic decays of D and Ds mesons in the covariant confining quark model,” Front. Phys. (Beijing) 14, 64401 (2019) [arXiv:1904.07740 [hep-ph]].
- (70) S. M. Flatte, “Coupled - Channel Analysis of the and Systems Near Threshold,” Phys. Lett. B 63, 224-227 (1976).
- (71) F. Ambrosino et al. [KLOE Collaboration], “Dalitz plot analysis of events at approximately ) with the KLOE detector,” Eur. Phys. J. C 49, 473-488 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ex/0609009 [hep-ex]].
- (72) M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], “Amplitude analysis of the decays,” Phys. Rev. D 95, 032002 (2017) [arXiv:1610.02479 [hep-ex]].
- (73) T. Mori et al. [Belle Collaboration], “High statistics study of resonance in production,” Phys. Rev. D 75, 051101 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ex/0610038 [hep-ex]].
- (74) J. R. Pelaez, “From controversy to precision on the sigma meson: a review on the status of the non-ordinary resonance,” Phys. Rept. 658, 1 (2016) [arXiv:1510.00653 [hep-ph]].
- (75) R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], “Amplitude analysis of the decay,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 012006 (2020) [arXiv:1909.05212 [hep-ex]].
- (76) J. R. Peláez and A. Rodas, “Determination of the lightest strange resonance or , from a dispersive data analysis,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 172001 (2020) [arXiv:2001.08153 [hep-ph]].
- (77) H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua and A. Soni, “Final state interactions in hadronic decays,” Phys. Rev. D 71, 014030 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0409317 [hep-ph]].
- (78) Y. K. Hsiao, Y. Yu and B. C. Ke, “Resonant state in triangle rescattering decays,” Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 895 (2020) [arXiv:1909.07327 [hep-ph]].
- (79) X. Z. Ling, M. Z. Liu, J. X. Lu, L. S. Geng and J. J. Xie, “Can the nature of be tested in the decay?,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 116016 (2021) [arXiv:2102.05349 [hep-ph]].
- (80) H. Y. Cheng and C. W. Chiang, “Revisiting CP violation in and decays,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 093002 (2019) [arXiv:1909.03063 [hep-ph]].
- (81) H. Y. Cheng and C. W. Chiang, “CP violation in quasi-two-body decays and three-body decays mediated by vector resonances,” Phys. Rev. D 104, 073003 (2021) [arXiv:2104.13548 [hep-ph]].
- (82) H. Y. Cheng, C. W. Chiang and C. K. Chua, “Width effects in resonant three-body decays: decay as an example,” Phys. Lett. B 813, 136058 (2021) [arXiv:2011.03201 [hep-ph]].
- (83) H. Y. Cheng, C. W. Chiang and C. K. Chua, “Finite-Width Effects in Three-Body Decays,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 036017 (2021) [arXiv:2011.07468 [hep-ph]].
- (84) G. J. Gounaris and J. J. Sakurai, “Finite width corrections to the vector meson dominance prediction for ,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 21, 244 (1968).