it has been known that the naive factorization assumption ( fa ) @xcite does not apply to exclusive @xmath6 meson decays into charmonia , such as @xmath7 @xcite .
these modes belong to the color - suppressed category @xcite , for which predictions from fa are always small due to the vanishing wilson coefficient @xmath8 . however , the branching ratios measured by babar recently @xcite @xmath9 imply a larger parameter @xmath10 @xcite
. the same difficulty has appeared in other similar decays @xmath11 : the observed branching ratios are usually many times larger than the expectations from fa . for example , the @xmath12 decays do not receive factorizable contributions , but the data of their branching ratios are comparable to those of @xmath13 in eq .
( [ eq : brexp ] ) .
many attempts to resolve this puzzle have been made in more sophisticated approaches ( for a review , see @xcite ) .
the large @xmath14 leads to a natural conjecture that nonfactorizable contributions , such as the vertex and spectator corrections from figs .
[ fvs](a)-[fvs](d ) and from figs .
[ fvs](e ) and [ fvs](f ) , respectively , may play an important role .
it has been found @xcite in the qcd - improved factorization ( qcdf ) @xcite that the above nonfactorizable contributions , resulting in the branching ratio @xmath15 , are too small to explain the data . since only the leading - twist ( twist-2 )
kaon distribution amplitude was included in @xcite , the authors of @xcite added the twist-3 contribution , which is chirally enhanced , though being power - suppressed in the heavy quark limit . unfortunately ,
[ fvs](e ) and [ fvs](f ) generate logarithmical divergences from the end - point region , where the parton momentum fraction of the kaon is small . to make an estimation , arbitrary cutoffs for parameterizing the divergences , i.e. , large theoretical uncertainties ,
have been introduced .
the end - point singularities become more serious in the qcdf analysis of the @xmath16 decays @xcite .
it has been claimed that the data of those modes involving @xmath17 , @xmath18 , and @xmath19 are not understandable in qcdf , and only those involving @xmath20 are @xcite .
the @xmath13 decays have been also studied in light - cone sum rules ( lcsr ) @xcite , and the small branching ratio from the factorizable contribution @xcite , @xmath21 was confirmed .
the nonfactorizable contributions considered in @xcite refer , however , to those arising from the three - parton kaon distribution amplitudes . in the corresponding diagrams an additional valence gluon from the kaon attaches one of the charm quarks in the @xmath17 meson . adding these pieces , one arrived at the parameter @xmath22 , which is still insufficient to account for the data .
the calculation of fig .
[ fvs ] in lcsr , involving two - loop integrals , has not yet been performed .
hence , the conclusion in @xcite simply indicates that the nonfactorizable contributions to the @xmath13 decays from higher fock states of the involved mesons are negligible .
we doubt that the conclusion from qcdf is solid for two reasons .
first , the end - point singularities render the estimation of the nonfactorizable contributions out of control .
second , the simple asymptotic models were adopted for the charmonium distribution amplitudes , which , without any theoretical and experimental bases , may underestimate the nonfactorizable contributions .
motivated by the above observations , we shall investigate the nonfactorizable corrections to fa from fig .
[ fvs ] using the following method .
we take into account the vertex corrections through the variation of the renormalization scale for the factorizable contributions , because their evaluation requires more theoretical inputs , which have not yet been available .
the spectator amplitudes will be computed in the perturbative qcd ( pqcd ) approach based on @xmath1 factorization theorem @xcite .
the formalism , similar to that of the color - suppressed mode @xmath23 @xcite , is free from the end - point singularities .
we infer the charmonium distribution amplitudes from the non - relativistic heavy quarkonium bound - state wave functions , which have been shown to well explain the cross section of charmonium production in @xmath24 collisions @xcite .
based on the universality of hadron distribution amplitudes , these more sophisticated models should be able to account for the exclusive @xmath6 meson decays into charmonia , if qcd factorization theorem works .
the @xmath25 decays have been studied in pqcd @xcite , compared to which the new ingredients of this work are : 1 ) we clarify several controversial statements on the end - point singularities in the @xmath26 analysis in the literature ; 2 ) the @xmath27 meson distribution amplitudes derived from qcd sum rules @xcite are included up to two - parton and twist-3 level ; 3 ) the models for the charmonium distribution amplitudes have both theoretical and experimental bases ; 4 ) not only the @xmath25 decays , but @xmath28 are investigated .
it will be shown that the obtained branching ratios , polarization fractions , and relative phases among various helicity amplitudes , except those of @xmath2 , are all in consistency with the existing data . the observed @xmath2 branching ratios , significantly larger than our results , are the only puzzle .
therefore , our conclusion differs from that drawn in qcdf @xcite .
the predictions for the @xmath29 modes can be compared with future measurements .
we present our formalism for the @xmath25 decays as an example in sec .
the factorizable contributions are treated in fa , since the @xmath30 transition form factors in the present case are characterized by a low scale , and may not be calculable .
the vertex and spectator corrections are handled in the way stated above .
the same formalism is then applied to the other exclusive @xmath6 meson decays into charmonia in sec .
section iv is the conclusion .
the appendix collects the expressions of the involved meson distribution amplitudes and of the factorization formulas for all the spectator amplitudes . for a review of the studies of
semi - inclusive @xmath6 meson decays into charmonia , refer to @xcite .
we write the @xmath6 ( @xmath17 ) meson momentum @xmath31 ( @xmath32 ) in the light - cone coordinates as @xmath33 with the mass ratio @xmath34 .
the @xmath27 meson momentum is then given by @xmath35 .
the polarization vectors of the @xmath17 meson are parameterized as @xmath36 the relevant effective hamiltonian for the @xmath25 decays is @xmath37-v_{tb}v_{ts}^{*}\sum_{k=3}^{10}c_k(\mu)o_k\right\}\ ; , \label{effj}\end{aligned}\ ] ] with the cabibbo - kobayashi - maskawa ( ckm ) matrix elements @xmath38 and the four - fermion operators , @xmath39 @xmath40 being the color indices .
below we shall neglect the tiny product @xmath41 , and assume @xmath42 for convenience .
the @xmath13 decay rate has the expression , @xmath43 in pqcd , we found that its characteristic scale is around 1 gev .
with such a small hard scale , the perturbation theory may not be reliable .
therefore , we do not attempt to calculate the factorizable contribution , but parameterize it in fa . the amplitude @xmath44 is then written as @xmath45 with the @xmath17 meson decay constant @xmath46 and the spectator amplitude @xmath47 .
the form factor @xmath48 is defined via the matrix element , @xmath49 + f_0(q^2)\frac{m_b^2-m_k^2}{q^2}q_\mu\;,\label{fp}\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath50 being the momentum transfer , and @xmath51 the kaon mass .
the effective wilson coefficient @xmath52 sums the contributions from both the tree and penguin operators in eq .
( [ effj ] ) : @xmath53 with @xmath54 and the charm quark charge @xmath55 .
after parameterizing the factorizable contribution in fa , the soft dynamics is absorbed into the form factor @xmath56 .
the remaining piece , i.e. , the wilson coefficient , is dominated by hard dynamics of @xmath57 , @xmath58 being the @xmath59 quark mass
. we shall set the renormalization scale to @xmath60 gev , which corresponds to @xmath61 .
the spectator amplitude @xmath62 is characterized by a scale of @xmath63 with @xmath64 being a hadronic scale @xcite : the hard gluons in figs .
[ fvs](e ) and [ fvs](f ) , carrying the difference between the momenta of the soft spectator in the @xmath6 meson and of the energetic spectator in the kaon , are off - shell by @xmath63 . strictly speaking ,
once a @xmath6 meson transition form factor is treated as a soft object , the vertex corrections in figs .
[ fvs](a)-[fvs](d ) should be added , which become of the same order as the spectator amplitude .
this is the counting rules of qcdf .
the pqcd formalism for the vertex corrections requires the inclusion of the transverse momenta @xmath1 of the charm quarks , because of the end - point singularities in some modes .
the @xmath1-dependent charmonium wave functions are then the necessary inputs , which , however , have been determined neither theoretically nor experimentally . therefore , the vertex corrections appear as a theoretical uncertainty eventually , which can be covered by a variation of the scale @xmath65 between @xmath66 and @xmath67 as shown below .    in terms of the notation in @xcite , we decompose the nonlocal matrix elements associated with longitudinally and transversely polarized @xmath17 mesons into @xmath68_{lj}\psi^l(x)+[{\not{\!\epsilon}}_l{\not{\!p}}]_{lj } \psi^{t}(x ) \bigg\}\ ; , \label{lpf}\\ \langle
j/\psi(p,\epsilon_t)|\bar c(z)_jc(0)_l|0\rangle & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2n_c}}\int_0 ^ 1 dx e^{ixp\cdot z } \bigg\{m_{j/\psi}[{\not{\!\epsilon}}_t]_{lj}\psi^v(x)+ [ { \not{\!\epsilon}}_t{\not{\!p}}]_{lj}\psi^t(x ) \bigg\}\ ; , \label{spf}\end{aligned}\ ] ] respectively , which define the twist-2 distribution amplitudes @xmath69 and @xmath70 , and the twist-3 distribution amplitudes @xmath71 and @xmath72 with the @xmath73 quark carrying the fractional momentum @xmath74 . it is confusing that both the structures @xmath75 and @xmath76 were regarded as being leading - twist in the analysis of the @xmath13 decays @xcite .
in fact , it is @xmath77 that is leading - twist , which contributes only to the @xmath78 decays .
the vertex corrections to the @xmath13 decays , denoted as @xmath79 in qcdf , have been calculated in the ndr scheme @xcite .
their effect can be combined into the wilson coefficients associated with the factorizable contributions : @xmath80 with the function , @xmath81\;,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where those terms proportional to @xmath82 have been neglected .
we have also neglected the contributions from the electroweak penguin operators for simplicity . as shown in fig .
[ rg ] , including the vertex corrections leads to a larger @xmath83 , which reproduces eq .
( [ eq : brnf ] ) roughly .
we have confirmed that the variation of @xmath65 between @xmath84 and @xmath85 is wide enough for taking into account the effect of the vertex corrections .
the definitions of the @xmath6 meson wave function @xmath86 and of the kaon distribution amplitudes @xmath87 are referred to @xcite .
it is then straightforward to derive the spectator amplitude , @xmath88 where the amplitudes @xmath89 and @xmath90 result from the @xmath91 and @xmath92 operators in eq .
( [ effj ] ) , respectively .
their factorization formulas are given by @xmath93\int_{0}^{\infty } b_{1}db_{1 } \phi _ { b}(x_{1},b_{1 } ) \nonumber \\ & & \times \big\ { \big [ ( 1 - 2r^{2}_{2})(1-x_{2 } ) \phi _ { k } ( x_{3 } ) \psi^{l}(x_{2 } ) + \frac{1}{2 } r^{2}_{2 } \phi_{k}(x_{3})\psi^{t } ( x_{2 } ) \nonumber \\ & & - r_{k } ( 1-r^2_2)x_3 \phi^{p}_{k}(x_3 ) \psi _ { l}(x_{2})+ r_{k } \left ( 2r^{2}_{2}(1-x_2)+(1-r^2_2)x_3 \right ) \phi^{\sigma}_{k}(x_3 ) \psi^{l}(x_{2 } )    \big]\nonumber \\ & & \times e_{4}(t_d^{(1)})h_d^{(1)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \nonumber \\ & & - \big [ ( x_2+(1 - 2r^2_{2})x_{3})\phi _ { k } ( x_{3 } ) \psi^{l}(x_{2})+r^{2}_{2}(2r_{k}\phi^{\sigma}_{k}(x_{3 } ) -\frac{1}{2}\phi_{k}(x_{3}))\psi^{t}(x_{2 } )   \nonumber \\ & & -r_{k } ( 1-r^2_2)x_3 \phi^{p}_{k}(x_3 ) \psi _ { l}(x_{2})- r_{k } \left ( 2r^{2}_{2}x_2+(1-r^2_2)x_3 \right ) \phi^{\sigma}_{k}(x_3 ) \psi^{l}(x_{2})\big]\nonumber \\ & & \times e_{4}(t^{(2)}_d ) h_d^{(2)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1)\;,\label{psi4}\\ { \cal m}_{6}^{(j/\psi k ) } & = & 16\pi c_{f}\sqrt{2n_{c}}\int_{0}^{1}[dx]\int_{0}^{\infty } b_{1}db_{1 } \phi _ { b}(x_{1},b_{1 } ) \nonumber \\ & & \times \big\ {   \big [ ( 1-x_2+(1 - 2r^2_{2})x_{3})\phi _ { k } ( x_{3 } ) \psi^{l}(x_{2})+ r^{2}_{2}(2r_{k}\phi^{\sigma}_{k}(x_{3})-\frac{1}{2}\phi_{k}(x_{3}))\psi^{t}(x_{2 } )   \nonumber \\ & & -r_{k } ( 1-r^2_2)x_3 \phi^{p}_{k}(x_3 ) \psi^{l}(x_{2})- r_{k } \left ( 2r^{2}_{2}(1-x_2)+(1-r^2_2)x_3 \right ) \phi^{\sigma}_{k}(x_3 ) \psi^{l}(x_{2})\big]\nonumber \\ & & \times e_{6}(t_d^{(1)})h_d^{(1)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \nonumber \\ & & - \big [ ( 1 - 2r^{2}_{2})x_{2 } \phi _
{ k } ( x_{3 } ) \psi^{l}(x_{2 } ) + \frac{1}{2 } r^{2}_{2 } \phi_{k}(x_{3})\psi^{t } ( x_{2 } ) \nonumber \\ & & - r_{k } ( 1-r^2_2)x_3 \phi^{p}_{k}(x_3 ) \psi^{l}(x_{2})+ r_{k } \left ( 2r^{2}_{2}x_2+(1-r^2_2)x_3 \right ) \phi^{\sigma}_{k}(x_3 ) \psi^{l}(x_{2 } )    \big]\nonumber \\ & & \times e_{6}(t^{(2)}_d ) h_d^{(2)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \big\}\;,\label{psi6}\end{aligned}\ ] ] with the color factor @xmath94 , the number of colors @xmath95 , the symbol @xmath96\equiv
dx_1 dx_2 dx_3 $ ] and the mass ratio @xmath97 , @xmath98 being the chiral scale associated with the kaon .
the evolution factors are written as @xmath99 with the wilson coefficients , @xmath100 the sudakov exponent is given by @xmath101\ ; , \label{sb } \\
s_{k}(t)&=&\exp\left[-s(x_{3}p_{3}^{-},b_{3 } ) -s((1-x_{3})p_{3}^{-},b_{3 } ) -2\int_{1/b_{3}}^{t}\frac{d{\bar{\mu}}}{\bar{\mu } } \gamma ( \alpha_{s}({\bar{\mu}}))\right]\ ; , \label{sbk}\end{aligned}\ ] ] with the quark anomalous dimension @xmath102 .
note that the coefficient @xmath103 of the quark anomalous dimension in eq .
( [ sb ] ) differs from 2 in eq .
( [ sbk ] ) .
the reason is that the rescaled heavy - quark field adopted in the definition of the heavy - meson wave function has a self - energy correction different from that of the full heavy - quark field @xcite .
the variables @xmath104 and @xmath105 , conjugate to the parton transverse momenta @xmath106 and @xmath107 , represent the transverse extents of the @xmath6 and @xmath108 mesons , respectively .
the explicit expression of the exponent @xmath109 can be found in @xcite .
the above sudakov exponentials decrease fast in the large @xmath59 region , such that the @xmath13 spectator amplitudes remain sufficiently perturbative in the end - point region of the momentum fractions .
the hard functions @xmath110 , @xmath111 and 2 , are @xmath112 with the arguments , @xmath113r_2 ^ 2\ ; ,   \\ d_2 & = & x_1x_2r_2^{2}+(x_1-x_2)x_3(1-r_2^{2 } ) + \left(\frac{1}{4}-x_2 ^ 2\right)r_2 ^ 2\;.\end{aligned}\ ] ] the hard scales @xmath114 are chosen as @xmath115 without the transverse momenta @xmath1 , the terms containing @xmath116 in eqs .
( [ psi4 ] ) and ( [ psi6 ] ) are logarithimically divergent due to the end - point singularities from @xmath117 @xcite .
since the end - point singularities appear only at the power of @xmath118 , instead of at leading power , the spectator contributions are expected to be evaluated more reliably than the factorizable contributions in pqcd .    for the @xmath78 modes , the parametrization of the kinematic variables in eqs .
( [ mom ] ) and ( [ pol ] ) still apply .
we further define the polarization vectors @xmath119 for the @xmath120 meson , which is orthogonal to the @xmath120 meson momentum @xmath121 . in this case
the @xmath120 meson mass should be kept in the intermediate stage of the calculation , and then dropped at the end according to the power counting rules in @xcite .
the decay rate is given by @xmath122 the amplitudes for different final helicity states are expressed as @xmath123 , \nonumber\\ & & i\ , \epsilon^{\alpha \beta\gamma \rho } \epsilon^{*}_{2\alpha}\epsilon^{*}_{3\beta } \frac{p_{2\gamma } p_{3\rho } } { m_b^2}\ , \left[r_2a_{\rm eff}(\mu)f_{j/\psi}v(m_{j/\psi}^2)+{\cal m}^{(j/\psi k^*)}_{t}\right]\bigg\}\ ; , \label{m1}\end{aligned}\ ] ] with the combination of the form factors , @xmath124 and the mass ratio @xmath125 .
the first term in eq .
( [ m1 ] ) corresponds to the configuration with both the vector mesons being longitudinally polarized , and the second ( third ) term to the two configurations with both the vector mesons being transversely polarized in the parallel ( perpendicular ) directions .
the effective wilson coefficient @xmath52 is the same as in eq .
( [ a ] ) .
the @xmath126 transition form factors @xmath127 , @xmath128 , and @xmath38 are defined via the matrix elements , @xmath129 the spectator amplitudes @xmath130 from figs .
[ fvs](e ) and [ fvs](f ) are written as @xmath131 where the explicit factorization formulas for the amplitudes @xmath132 and for @xmath133 are presented in the appendix .
the helicity amplitudes are then defined as , @xmath134\ ; , \nonumber\\ a_{\parallel}&=&-g \sqrt{2}\left[r_2a_{\rm eff}(\mu)f_{j/\psi}a_1(m_{j/\psi}^2)+{\cal m}^{(j/\psi k^*)}_{n}\right]\ ; , \nonumber \\
r_2r_{k^ * } \sqrt{2[(v_2\cdot v_3)^{2}-1 ] } \left[r_2a_{\rm eff}(\mu)f_{j/\psi}v(m_{j/\psi}^2)+{\cal m}^{(j/\psi k^*)}_{t}\right]\ ; , \label{ase}\end{aligned}\ ] ] for the longitudinal , parallel , and perpendicular polarizations , respectively , with the velocities @xmath135 and @xmath136 .
the normalization factor @xmath137 has been chosen such that the following relation is satisfied : @xmath138 ( @xmath139 ) between @xmath140 ( @xmath141 ) and @xmath142 takes the value of @xmath143 in the heavy - quark limit , ie .
, as @xmath144 is real and @xmath130 vanish .
we define the polarization fractions @xmath145 , @xmath146 , and @xmath147 .
the @xmath78 polarizations , significantly affected by the nonfactorizable contributions , were not discussed in @xcite .      to perform the numerical analysis
, we need the information of the involved meson distribution amplitudes .
the @xmath6 meson wave function @xmath86 and the @xmath27 meson distribution amplitudes have been studied intensively , whose expressions are collected in the appendix . the charmonium distribution amplitudes attract less attention in the literature . in @xcite they were assumed to be identical to the corresponding light - meson distribution amplitudes : those of the @xmath17 ( @xmath19 ) meson are the same as of the @xmath148 ( @xmath143 ) meson .
then the twist-3 charmonium distribution amplitudes do not vanish at the end points @xmath149 , 1 , where the valence charm quarks become highly off - shell .
such a functional shape seems to contradict to the intuition .
more realistic asymptotic models have been proposed recently in @xcite , which were inferred from the non - relativistic heavy quarkonium bound - state wave functions with the same quantum numbers .
we shall adopt these @xmath17 and @xmath19 meson distribution amplitudes , and derive the @xmath20 and @xmath18 meson distribution amplitudes following the similar procedure in the next section .
the @xmath17 meson asymptotic distribution amplitudes are given by @xcite @xmath150^{0.7}\;,\nonumber\\ \psi^t(x)&=&10.94\frac{f_{j/\psi}}{2\sqrt{2n_c}}(1 - 2x)^2 \left[\frac{x(1-x)}{1 - 2.8x(1-x)}\right]^{0.7}\;,\nonumber\\ \psi^v(x)&=&1.67\frac{f_{j/\psi}}{2\sqrt{2n_c}}\left[1+(2x-1)^2\right ] \left[\frac{x(1-x)}{1 - 2.8x(1-x)}\right]^{0.7}\;,\label{jda}\end{aligned}\ ] ] in which the twist-3 ones @xmath151 vanish at the end points due to the additional factor @xmath152^{0.7}$ ] . compared to @xcite , we have distinguished the distribution amplitudes associated with the longitudinally and transversely polarized @xmath17 mesons , which exhibit the different asymptotic behaviors .
we do not distinguish the decay constant @xmath46 for the normalization of @xmath69 and @xmath153 for the normalization of @xmath71 .
the distribution amplitudes associated with the structures @xmath154 ( the identity ) and @xmath155 ( the pseudo - vector ) diminish like @xmath156 , @xmath157 being the @xmath73 quark mass .
the above models have been shown to yield the observed cross section of charmonium production in @xmath24 collisions @xcite .
if factorization theorem works , the same distribution amplitudes , due to their universality , should be able to explain the exclusive @xmath6 meson decays into charmonia .
c|ccc    ' '' ''    & @xmath158 & @xmath159 & @xmath59 + @xmath48 & 0.35 & 1.58 & 0.68 + @xmath160 & 0.35 & 0.71 & 0.04 + @xmath161 & 0.31 & 1.79 & 1.18 + @xmath162 & 0.31 & 1.68 & 1.08 + @xmath163 & 0.26 & 0.93 & 0.19 + @xmath164 & 0.24 & 1.63 & 0.98 +    c|cc    ' '' ''    @xmath165 & @xmath166[gev ] & @xmath167[mev ] + @xmath168 & 2.980 & @xmath169 + @xmath170 & 3.097 & 405 @xmath171 14 + @xmath172 & 3.415 & 360 + @xmath173 & 3.511 & 335 +    for the @xmath30 transition form factors , we employ the models derived from the light - front qcd @xcite , which have been parameterized as @xmath174 with the constants @xmath158 , @xmath159 , and @xmath59 being listed in table  [ tab:1 ] . using the inputs in table  [ tab : proper ] @xcite for the various charmonium states , the ckm matrix elements @xmath175 and @xmath176 , the quark mass @xmath177 for the wilson coefficients , the lifetimes @xmath178 and @xmath179 , and the fermi constant @xmath180
, we derive the branching ratios , @xmath181 we have also derived the the polarization fractions and the relative phases among the helicity amplitudes for the @xmath182 decays , @xmath183 both the @xmath184 and @xmath185 modes have the same polarization fractions , since they differ only in the lifetimes in our formalism .
the theoretical uncertainties come from the variation of the renormalization scale @xmath65 .
we have checked the sensitivity of our results to the choice of the @xmath59 quark mass : @xmath186 gev increases the branching ratio @xmath187 only by 10% .
the recent babar measurement gave @xcite @xmath188 and the belle measurement gave @xcite @xmath189 it is found that the consistency between the theoretical and experimental values for the @xmath25 branching ratios is reasonable .
the predicted longitudinal polarization fraction @xmath190 for the @xmath78 is a bit larger , and the predicted relative phases are a bit smaller than the data .
however , we point out that the polarization fractions and the relative phases could be modified by adding the higher gegenbauer terms to the @xmath17 meson distribution amplitudes , and that the consistency will be improved .
this fine tuning will not be performed here .
roughly speaking , it is very promising to understand the @xmath191 data in the pqcd framework .
another remark is as follows .
most of the @xmath17 meson distribution amplitudes , except @xmath71 , exhibit maxima at @xmath192 , such that the valence charm quark , carrying the invariant mass @xmath193 , is almost on - shell . however , @xmath71 has two humps with a dip at @xmath192 .
we argue that the models in eq .
( [ jda ] ) are the asymptotic ones . including the higher gegenbauer terms , such as those for a light vector meson , @xmath194\right .
\nonumber \\ & & \left.+a_2^{j/\psi}[3 - 30(2x-1)^2 + 35(2x-1)^4]\right\ } \left[\frac{x(1-x)}{1 - 2.8x(1-x)}\right]^{0.70}\;,\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath71 possess three humps with the major one located at @xmath192 .
adopting this parametrization , the gegenbauer coefficients @xmath195 and @xmath196 should be determined from the data of charmonium production in @xmath24 annihilation , before it is applied to the exclusive @xmath6 meson decays into charmonia .
before calculating the spectator contributions to other similar modes , we clarify a confusing statement in the literature .
it has been claimed @xcite that the end - point singularities from @xmath117 cancel between the spectator diagrams figs .
[ fvs](e ) and [ fvs](f ) in the qcdf formalism for the @xmath13 decays , but do not for the @xmath198 decays .
our opinion is that the end - point singularities should appear in both modes at the power of @xmath199 , if no approximation is made .
the singularities cancel in @xcite because of the relation , @xmath200 where the decay constant @xmath153 is associated with the normalization of the twist-3 distribution amplitude @xmath71 .
this relation arises from the exact on - shell condition of the valence charm quarks .
the singularities were present in @xcite , since the authors , considering only the leading - twist @xmath18 meson distribution amplitude , got no chance to apply eq .
( [ onsh ] ) .
we agree on the comment made in @xcite : it is not clear why the singularities cancel in @xcite for the @xmath13 decays , viewing that they treated the ratio on the left - hand side of eq .
( [ onsh ] ) as a constant .
the exact on - shell condition is indeed not necessary , because a deviation from mass shell , as long as being power - suppressed , is allowed .
furthermore , the momentum fraction @xmath201 , running between 0 and 1 , is hardly related to the left - hand side . once eq .
( [ onsh ] ) is not postulated , the end - point singularities exist in the terms proportional to @xmath199 for the @xmath13 decays @xcite , and also for the @xmath202 decays . note that these singularities disappear in the pqcd approach based on @xmath1 factorization theorem .
the pqcd analysis of the @xmath203 decays is similar to that of @xmath25 . to calculate the nonfactorizable spectator amplitudes , we consider the @xmath18 meson distribution amplitudes defined via the nonlocal matrix elements associated with the longitudinal and transverse polarizations , @xmath204_{lj}\chi_{1}^{l}(x)+[\gamma_5{\not{\!\epsilon}}_l{\not{\!p}}]_{lj } \chi_{1}^{t}(x ) \bigg\ } , \label{lpf1}\\ \langle \chi_{c1}(p,\epsilon_t)|\bar c(z)_jc(0)_l|0\rangle & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2n_c}}\int_0 ^ 1 dx e^{ixp\cdot z } \bigg\{m_{\chi_{c1}}[\gamma_5{\not{\!\epsilon}}_t]_{lj}\chi_1^v(x)+ [ \gamma_5{\not{\!\epsilon}}_t{\not{\!p}}]_{lj}\chi_1^t(x ) \bigg\ } , \label{spf1}\end{aligned}\ ] ] respectively , with the @xmath18 meson mass @xmath205 .
the asymptotic models for the twist-2 distribution amplitudes @xmath206 and @xmath207 , and for the twist-3 distribution amplitudes @xmath208 and @xmath209 will be derived following the prescription in @xcite : they can be extracted from the @xmath210 , @xmath211 schrodinger states for a coulomb potential , whose radial dependence is given by @xmath212 @xmath213 being the bohr momentum .
fourier transformation of the above solution leads to @xmath214 with @xmath215 . employing the substitution @xcite , @xmath216 @xmath217 ( @xmath218 ) being the @xmath73 ( @xmath219 ) quark momentum fraction
, we obtain the heavy quarkonium distribution amplitude , @xmath220}{[1 - 4x\bar x(1-v^2)]^2}\right\}\;,\label{x1}\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath221 .
to impose a fractional power @xmath222 to the factor in the curved brackets @xcite , we neglect the @xmath223 term in the numerator .
otherwise , the numerator may become negative for @xmath224 and the analyticity of the distribution amplitude will be lost .
we then propose the @xmath18 meson distribution amplitudes inferred from eq .
( [ x1 ] ) , @xmath225 ^ 2}\right\}^{1-v^2}\;,\label{int}\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath226 being set to the asymptotic models of the corresponding twists for light vector mesons .
it is now clear that after imposing the fractional power @xmath222 , eq .  ( [ int ] ) approaches the light meson distribution amplitudes as @xmath227 , and the heavy quarkonium distribution amplitudes the same as eq .
( [ x1 ] ) as @xmath228 @xcite .
fixing the normalization , we derive @xmath229}{[1 - 2.8x(1-x)]^2}\right\}^{0.7}\;,\nonumber\\ \chi_1^t(x)&=&15.17\frac{f_{\chi_{c1}}}{2\sqrt{2n_c}}(1 - 2x)^2 \left\{\frac{x(1-x)[1 - 4x(1-x)]}{[1 - 2.8x(1-x)]^2}\right\}^{0.7}\;,\nonumber\\ \chi_1^v(x)&=&3.60\frac{f_{\chi_{c1}}}{2\sqrt{2n_c}}\left[1+(2x-1)^2\right ] \left\{\frac{x(1-x)[1 - 4x(1-x)]}{[1 - 2.8x(1-x)]^2}\right\}^{0.7}\;,\label{chda}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the same decay constant @xmath230 has been assumed for the longitudinally and transversely polarized @xmath18 meson .
note that the dip at @xmath192 is a consequence of the @xmath231-wave schrodinger wave functions .
the @xmath203 decay amplitudes are written as @xmath232 , \nonumber\\ & & i\ , \epsilon^{\alpha \beta\gamma \rho } \epsilon^{*}_{2\alpha}\epsilon^{*}_{3\beta } \frac{p_{2\gamma } p_{3\rho } } { m_b^2}\ , \left[r_2f_{\chi_{c1}}v(m_{\chi_{c1}}^2)+{\cal m}^{(\chi_{c1 } k^*)}_{t}\right]\bigg\}\ ; , \label{m7}\end{aligned}\ ] ] with the mass ratio @xmath233 , and the effective wilson coefficient , @xmath234 similarly , we shall vary the renormalization scale @xmath65 in the range between @xmath84 and @xmath67 , which covers the effect of the vertex corrections . as in the case of @xmath13 ,
the infrared divergences in the vertex corrections cancel in the @xmath235 decays : the hard kernel of the vertex corrections is odd for the structure @xmath236 under the exchange of @xmath217 and @xmath237 , while the corresponding distribution amplitude is even .
the hard kernel vanishes for the structure @xmath238 .
express the spectator amplitudes @xmath239 and @xmath240 as @xmath241 where the factorization formulas of the amplitudes @xmath242 , @xmath243 , @xmath244 and @xmath245 are shown in the appendix .
their expressions are similar to those of @xmath25 with some terms flipping signs .    using the inputs listed in table  [ tab : proper ] @xcite
, we get @xmath246 the errors of the above predictions arise from the variation of the renormalization scale @xmath65 for the factorizable contribution . for the @xmath247 branching ratios , the imaginary part of the spectator amplitude @xmath248 dominates , such that the influence of the @xmath65 dependence becomes mild .
this is also the reason we obtain a large @xmath249 .
the @xmath235 branching ratios in eq .
( [ chi01 ] ) are consistent with the recent babar measurement @xcite , @xmath250 note that these branching ratios , with a parametrization for the logarithmical end - point singularities , were estimated to be only about @xmath251 in qcdf @xcite .
our predictions for the @xmath247 decays , including the branching ratios , the polarization fractions ( especially the large @xmath249 ) , and the relative phases , can be compared with data in the future .
we then discuss the @xmath252 decays , for which the nonfactorizable contributions dominate due to the absence of the factorizable ones .
the nonlocal matrix element associated with the @xmath20 meson is decomposed into , @xmath253_{lj } \chi_0^{v}(x)+m_{\chi_{c0}}[i]_{lj}\chi_0^s(x ) \bigg\}\ ; , \label{lpf0}\end{aligned}\ ] ] which defines the twist-2 and twist-3 distribution amplitudes , @xmath254 and @xmath255 , respectively , @xmath256 being the @xmath20 meson mass . to satisfy the identity @xmath257
, @xmath254 must be anti - symmetric under the exchange of @xmath217 and @xmath237 .
following the similar ansatz of constructing the @xmath18 meson distribution amplitudes , we propose the following asymptotic models , @xmath258}{[1 - 2.8x(1-x)]^2}\right\}^{0.7}\ ; , \nonumber\\ \chi_0^s(x)&=&4.73\frac{f_{\chi_{c0}}}{2\sqrt{2n_c } } \left\{\frac{x(1-x)[1 - 4x(1-x)]}{[1 - 2.8x(1-x)]^2}\right\}^{0.7}\ ; , \label{cda}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the decay constant @xmath259 for the normalization of @xmath260 and @xmath261 has been assumed to be equal .    in the qcdf analysis of
the @xmath262 decays , the vertex corrections from figs .
[ fvs](a)-[fvs](d ) are infrared safe .
however , for the @xmath263 decays , the hard kernels of the vertex corrections are even for the structure @xmath154 , and odd for @xmath264 under the exchange of @xmath217 and @xmath237 .
the corresponding @xmath20 meson distribution amplitudes are also even for the structure @xmath154 , and odd for @xmath264 .
therefore , the infrared divergences do not cancel @xcite . to regularize these divergences , a binding energy @xmath265 and a gluon mass @xmath266
have been introduced in @xcite and @xcite , respectively . the vertex corrections to the @xmath267
decays can also be handled in the pqcd approach .
for the reasons stated in the introduction , we do not attempt such a calculation here . instead , we shall demonstrate that the spectator contributions are sufficient to account for the observed @xmath252 branching ratios .
the decay amplitudes are written as @xmath268 with the explicit factorization formulas of the amplitudes @xmath269 being referred to the appendix .
there are also logarithmic end - point singularities in these amplitudes , if using qcdf , indicating that the pqcd approach based on @xmath1 factorization theorem is more appropriate .
adopting the inputs in table  [ tab : proper ] , we obtain the branching ratios , @xmath270 there is no theoretical uncertainty from the variation of @xmath65 , since the factorizable contributions vanish in this case .
babar gave the upper bounds ( the values ) @xcite , @xmath271 and belle gave @xcite @xmath272 where the third error comes from a model uncertainty .
hence , we conclude that the above data are understandable .
the @xmath273 branching ratio was found to be as small as @xmath274 in @xcite ( with a large theoretical uncertainty from parameterizing the end - point singularities in qcdf ) and @xmath275 for the gluon mass @xmath276 gev in @xcite . despite of several discrepancies in their factorization formulas for the vertex corrections and for the spectator amplitudes ,
the difference in their numerical results is not really essential due to the tunable parameters .
the analysis of the @xmath277 decays is similar to that of @xmath278 .
the nonlocal matrix element associated with the @xmath20 meson is decomposed into @xmath279_{lj } \eta^{v}(x)+m_{\eta_{c}}[\gamma_5]_{lj}\eta^s(x ) \bigg\}\ ; , \label{epf0}\end{aligned}\ ] ] which defines the twist-2 and twist-3 @xmath280 meson distribution amplitudes , @xmath281 and @xmath282 , respectively , @xmath283 being the @xmath280 meson mass .
the asymptotic models for the @xmath280 meson distribution amplitudes have been determined in @xcite : @xmath284^{0.7}\ ; , \nonumber\\ \eta^s(x)&=&1.97\frac{f_{\eta_{c}}}{2\sqrt{2n_c } } \left[\frac{x(1-x)}{1 - 2.8x(1-x)}\right]^{0.7}\ ; ,   \label{eda}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where we have assumed the same the decay constant @xmath285 for the normalization of @xmath286 and @xmath287 .
the decay amplitudes are written as @xmath288 for which the factorization formulas of the spectator amplitudes , @xmath289 can be found in the appendix . the @xmath290 transition form factor @xmath291 and
the @xmath126 transition form factor @xmath292 have been defined in eqs .
( [ fp ] ) and ( [ a012 ] ) , respectively .
the effective wilson coefficient @xmath293 for the @xmath294 decays is also given by eq .
( [ b ] ) .
similarly , we shall vary the renormalization scale @xmath65 in the range between @xmath84 and @xmath67 , which covers the effect of the vertex corrections .
the hard kernels of the vertex corrections are even for the structure @xmath295 , and odd for @xmath296 under the exchange of @xmath217 and @xmath237 .
the corresponding @xmath19 meson distribution amplitudes are both even for @xmath295 and @xmath296 .
therefore , the infrared divergences in the vertex corrections to the @xmath297 decay , cancelling only for @xmath296 , still exist .    using the inputs in table  [ tab : proper ] @xcite and the form factor parametrization in eq .
( [ fpa ] ) , we obtain the branching ratios , @xmath298 since the @xmath19 meson distribution amplitudes have no two humps , the @xmath299 branching ratios are expected to be smaller than the @xmath13 ones .
however , the belle measurement @xcite , @xmath300 and the babar measurement @xcite , @xmath301 are significantly larger than our predictions .
the qcdf approach gave the @xmath2 branching ratios about @xmath302 for a rough estimate , which are also too small @xcite .    because the @xmath19 meson distribution amplitudes in eq .
( [ eda ] ) have been shown to produce the observed cross section for charmonium production in @xmath24 annihilation @xcite , they are supposed to explain the branching ratios of the exclusive @xmath6 meson decays into charmonia according to the universality , even though these two processes involve dramatically different dynamics . therefore , we conclude that the @xmath2 decays are the only puzzle , and demand more studies .
the exclusive @xmath6 meson decays into charmonia , @xmath303 , for @xmath304 , and @xmath19 have been analyzed in the qcdf approach in the literature . among these modes , those with @xmath305
were claimed to be explainable , and those with @xmath306 , and @xmath19 were not . however , this conclusion is not solid due to the serious end - point singularities in many qcdf decay amplitudes for the vertex corrections and for the spectator contributions , and due to the ad - hoc models of the charmonium distribution amplitudes . in this paper
we have investigated these decays in an improved framework : the factorizable contributions are still treated in fa , since the involved @xmath30 transition form factors , evaluated at the charmonium mass , may not be calculated perturbatively ; the effect of the vertex corrections was taken into account by varying the renormalization scale @xmath65 , because their estimation in the pqcd approach needs additional nonperturbative information , i.e. , the distribution of the charm quark in its transverse degrees of freedom inside a charmonium ; the spectator contributions were computed in pqcd , in which the end - point singularities are smeared by the sudakov factor associated with the @xmath27 meson .
the @xmath17 and @xmath19 meson distribution amplitudes have been inferred from the @xmath307 , @xmath308 schrodinger state for a coulomb potential @xcite , which produce the measured cross section of charmonium production in @xmath24 collisions . to analyze the @xmath309 decays ,
we have obtained the @xmath310 meson distribution amplitudes from the @xmath210 , @xmath211 schrodinger states following the similar procedure .
that is , our models for the charmonium distribution amplitudes have been constrained theoretically and experimentally .
our investigation has indicated that only the @xmath299 decays exhibit a puzzle , whose branching ratios are significantly smaller than the observed values .
the data of the @xmath311 , @xmath312 decays , including the branching ratios , the polarization fractions , and the relative phases among the various helicity amplitudes , are all understandable within theoretical uncertainty .
if qcd factorization theorem works , the @xmath19 meson distribution amplitudes , explaining the charmonium production data , are supposed to explain the exclusive @xmath6 meson decays into charmonia .
hence , the @xmath313 modes require a more thorough study .
we have predicted the branching ratios , the polarization fractions , and the relative phases associated with the @xmath314 decays , which can be compared with future measurements .
1.0 cm we thank k.t .
chao and h.y .
cheng for useful discussions . this work was supported by the national science council of r.o.c . under grant
nsc-93 - 2112-m-001 - 014 .
for the @xmath6 meson wave function , we adopt the model @xcite , @xmath315 \label{bw } \;,\end{aligned}\ ] ] with the shape parameter @xmath316 gev .
the normalization constant @xmath317 gev is related to the decay constant @xmath318 mev ( in the convention @xmath319 mev ) .
the @xmath108 and @xmath120 meson distribution amplitudes have been derived from qcd sum rules @xcite , @xmath320\right\}\ ; , \label{kk}\\ \phi _ { k}^{p}(x ) & = & \frac{f_k}{2\sqrt{2n_{c}}}\left [ 1 + 0.24c_{2}^{1/2}(1 - 2x)-0.11c_{4}^{1/2}(1 - 2x)\right ] \ ; , \label{kp}\\ \phi _ { k}^{\sigma } ( x ) & = & \frac{f_k}{2\sqrt{2n_{c}}}(1 - 2x)\left [ 1 + 0.35(10x^{2}-10x+1)\right ] \ ; , \label{ks } \\ \phi_{k^ * } ( x ) & = & \frac{3f_{k^*}}{\sqrt{2n_{c}}}x(1-x ) \big[1 + 0.57(1 - 2x)+0.07c^{3/2}_2(1 - 2x)\big]\ ; , \label{pk2}\\ \phi_{k^*}^{t } ( x ) & = & \frac{f_{k^*}^t}{2\sqrt{2n_{c } } } \bigg\ { 0.3(1 - 2x)\left[3(1 - 2x)^2 + 10(1 - 2x)-1\right]+1.68c^{1/2}_4(1 - 2x ) \nonumber \\ & & + 0.06(1 - 2x)^2\left[5(1 - 2x)^2 - 3\right ] + 0.36\left [ 1 - 2(1 - 2x)(1+\ln(1-x))\right ] \bigg\ } \ ; , \label{pk3t}\\ \phi _ { k^*}^s ( x )   & = & \frac{f_{k^*}^t}{2\sqrt{2n_{c } } } \bigg\ { 3(1 - 2x)\left[1 + 0.2(1 - 2x)+0.6(10x^2 - 10x+1)\right ] \nonumber \\ & & -0.12x(1-x)+0.36[1 - 6x-2\ln(1-x)]\bigg\ } \ ; , \label{pk3s}\\ \phi_{k^*}^{t}(x)&=&\frac{3f_{k^*}^t}{\sqrt{2n_c } } x(1-x ) \big[1 + 0.6(1 - 2x)+0.04c^{3/2}_2(1 - 2x)\big]\ ; , \label{pkt}\\ \phi_{k^*}^v(x)&=&\frac{f_{k^*}}{2\sqrt{2n_c } } \bigg\{\frac{3}{4}\big[1+(1 - 2x)^2 + 0.44(1 - 2x)^3\big ] + 0.4c^{1/2}_2(1 - 2x ) \nonumber \\ & & + 0.88c^{1/2}_4(1 - 2x)+0.48[2x+\ln(1-x ) ] \bigg\}\ ; , \label{pkv}\\ \phi_{k^*}^a(x ) & = & \frac{f_{k^*}}{4\sqrt{2n_{c } } } \big\{3(1 - 2x)\big[1 + 0.19(1 - 2x)+0.81(10x^2 - 10x+1)\big]\nonumber \\ & & -1.14x(1-x)+0.48[1 - 6x-2\ln(1-x)]\big\}\ ; , \label{pka}\end{aligned}\ ] ] with the gegenbauer polynomials @xmath321 and the decay constants @xmath322 mev , @xmath323 mev , and @xmath324 mev .
the coefficients of the gegenbauer polynomials correspond to the masses @xmath325 gev and @xmath326 gev .
we adopt the @xmath120 meson mass @xmath327 gev .
we present the spectator amplitudes for the @xmath329 decays below , where the symbol @xmath330 represents the charmonium @xmath17 or @xmath18 : @xmath331\int_{0}^{\infty } b_{1}db_{1 } \phi _ { b}(x_{1},b_{1 } ) \nonumber \\ & & \times \big\ { \big [ ( 1 - 2r^{2}_{2})(1-x_{2 } ) \phi _ { k } ( x_{3 } ) x^{l}(x_{2 } ) + \zeta_{y } \frac{1}{2 } r^{2}_{2 } \phi_{k}(x_{3})x^{t } ( x_{2 } ) \nonumber \\ & & - r_{k } ( 1-r^2_2)x_3 \phi^{p}_{k}(x_3 ) x^{l}(x_{2})+ r_{k } \left ( 2r^{2}_{2}(1-x_2)+(1-r^2_2)x_3 \right ) \phi^{\sigma}_{k}(x_3 ) x^{l}(x_{2 } )    \big]\nonumber \\ & & \times e_{4}(t_d^{(1)})h_d^{(1)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \nonumber \\ & & - \big [ ( x_2+(1 - 2r^2_{2})x_{3})\phi _ { k } ( x_{3 } ) x^{l}(x_{2})+r^{2}_{2}(2r_{k}\phi^{\sigma}_{k}(x_{3})-\frac{1}{2}\phi_{k}(x_{3}))x^{t}(x_{2 } )   \nonumber \\ & & -r_{k } ( 1-r^2_2)x_3 \phi^{p}_{k}(x_3 ) x^{l}(x_{2})- r_{k } \left ( 2r^{2}_{2}x_2+(1-r^2_2)x_3 \right ) \phi^{\sigma}_{k}(x_3 ) x^{l}(x_{2})\big]\nonumber \\ & & \times e_{4}(t^{(2)}_d ) h_d^{(2)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \big\}\;,\end{aligned}\ ] ]    @xmath332\int_{0}^{\infty } b_{1}db_{1 } \phi _ { b}(x_{1},b_{1 } ) \nonumber \\ & & \times \big\ {   \big [ ( 1-x_2+(1 - 2r^2_{2})x_{3})\phi _ { k } ( x_{3 } ) x^{l}(x_{2})+ \zeta_{x } r^{2}_{2}(2r_{k}\phi^{\sigma}_{k}(x_{3})-\frac{1}{2}\phi_{k}(x_{3}))x^{t}(x_{2 } )   \nonumber \\ & & -r_{k } ( 1-r^2_2)x_3 \phi^{p}_{k}(x_3 ) x^{l}(x_{2})- r_{k } \left ( 2r^{2}_{2}(1-x_2)+(1-r^2_2)x_3 \right ) \phi^{\sigma}_{k}(x_3 ) x^{l}(x_{2})\big]\nonumber \\ & & \times e_{6}(t_d^{(1)})h_d^{(1)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \nonumber \\ & & - \big [ ( 1 - 2r^{2}_{2})x_{2 } \phi _ { k } ( x_{3 } ) x^{l}(x_{2 } ) + \frac{1}{2 } r^{2}_{2 } \phi_{k}(x_{3})x^{t } ( x_{2 } ) \nonumber \\ & & - r_{k } ( 1-r^2_2)x_3 \phi^{p}_{k}(x_3 ) x^{l}(x_{2})+ r_{k } \left ( 2r^{2}_{2}x_2+(1-r^2_2)x_3 \right ) \phi^{\sigma}_{k}(x_3 ) x^{l}(x_{2 } )    \big]\nonumber \\ & & \times e_{6}(t^{(2)}_d ) h_d^{(2)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \big\}\;,\end{aligned}\ ] ]    @xmath333\int_{0}^{\infty } b_{1}db_{1 } \phi _ { b}(x_{1},b_{1 } ) \nonumber \\ & & \times \big\ { \big [ ( 1 - 2r^{2}_{2})(1-x_{2 } ) \phi _ { k^ * } ( x_{3 } ) x^{l}(x_{2 } ) + \zeta_{x } \frac{1}{2 } r^{2}_{2 } \phi_{k^*}(x_{3})x^{t } ( x_{2 } ) \nonumber \\ & & - r_{k^ * } ( 1-r^2_2)x_3 \phi^{s}_{k^*}(x_3 ) x^{l}(x_{2})+ r_{k^ * } \left ( 2r^{2}_{2}(1-x_2)+(1 - 2r^2_2)x_3 \right ) \phi^{t}_{k^*}(x_3 ) x^{l}(x_{2 } )    \big]\nonumber \\ & & \times e_{4}(t_d^{(1)})h_d^{(1)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \nonumber \\ & & - \big [ ( x_2+(1 - 2r^2_{2})x_{3})\phi _ { k^ * } ( x_{3 } ) x^{l}(x_{2})+r^{2}_{2}(2r_{k^*}\phi^{t}_{k^*}(x_{3})-\frac{1}{2}\phi_{k^*}(x_{3}))x^{t}(x_{2 } )   \nonumber \\ & & -r_{k^ * } ( 1-r^2_2)x_3 \phi^{s}_{k^*}(x_3 ) x^{l}(x_{2})- r_{k^ * } \left ( 2r^{2}_{2}x_2+(1 - 2r^2_2)x_3 \right ) \phi^{t}_{k^*}(x_3 ) x^{l}(x_{2})\big]\nonumber \\ & & \times e_{4}(t^{(2)}_d ) h_d^{(2)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \big\}\;,\end{aligned}\ ] ]    @xmath334\int_{0}^{\infty } b_{1}db_{1 } \phi _ { b}(x_{1},b_{1 } ) \nonumber \\ & & \times \big\ { \big [ ( 1-x_2+(1 - 2r^2_{2})x_{3})\phi _ { k^ * } ( x_{3})x^{l}(x_{2})+ \zeta_{x } r^{2}_{2}(2r_{k^*}\phi^{t}_{k^*}(x_{3})-\frac{1}{2}\phi_{k^*}(x_{3}))x^{t}(x_{2 } )   \nonumber \\ & & - r_{k^ * } ( 1-r^2_2)x_3 \phi^{s}_{k^*}(x_3 ) x^{l}(x_{2})- r_{k^ * } \left ( 2r^{2}_{2}(1-x_2)+(1 - 2r^2_2)x_3 \right ) \phi^{t}_{k^*}(x_3 ) x^{l}(x_{2})\big ] \nonumber \\ & & \times e_{6}(t_d^{(1)})h_d^{(1)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \nonumber \\ & & - \big [ ( 1 - 2r^{2}_{2})x_{2 } \phi _ { k^ * } ( x_{3 } ) x^{l}(x_{2 } ) + \frac{1}{2 } r^{2}_{2 } \phi_{k^*}(x_{3})x^{t } ( x_{2 } ) \nonumber \\ & & - r_{k^ * } ( 1-r^2_2)x_3 \phi^{s}_{k^*}(x_3 ) x^{l}(x_{2})+ r_{k^ * } \left ( 2r^{2}_{2}x_2+(1 - 2r^2_2)x_3 \right ) \phi^{t}_{k^*}(x_3 ) x^{l}(x_{2 } )    \big]\nonumber \\ & & \times e_{6}(t^{(2)}_d ) h_d^{(2)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \big\}\;,\end{aligned}\ ] ]    @xmath335\int_{0}^{\infty } b_{1}db_{1 } \phi _ { b}(x_{1},b_{1 } ) \nonumber \\ & & \times r_{2}\big\
{ \big[(1-r^2_{2})(1-x_{2})\psi^{t}_{k^*}(x_3)x^{v}(x_2 ) \nonumber \\ & &   + \zeta_{x } \frac{1}{2}r_{k^ * }   ( ( 1+r^{2}_{2 } ) \phi^{v}_{k^*}(x_{3 } )   -(1-r^{2}_{2})\psi^{a}_{k^*}(x_{3 } ) ) x^{t}(x_{2})\big ] e_{4}(t^{(1)}_d)h_d^{(1)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \nonumber \\ & & + \big[(1-r^2_{2})x_{2}\psi^{t}_{k^*}(x_3)x^{v}(x_2 ) \nonumber \\ & &   -\left((1-r^2_{2})\phi^{t}_{k^*}(x_3)- \frac{1}{2}r_{k^ * }    ( ( 1+r^{2}_{2 } ) \phi^{v}_{k^*}(x_{3})+(1-r^{2}_{2})\psi^{a}_{k^*}(x_{3 } ) \right )    x^{t}(x_{2 } ) \nonumber \\    & & -2r_{k^*}((1+r^{2}_{2})x_{2}+(1-r^{2}_{2})x_{3 } ) \phi^{v}_{k^*}(x_{3 } ) x^{v}(x_2 ) \big ] e_{4}(t^{(2)}_d ) h_d^{(2)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \big\}\;,\end{aligned}\ ] ]    @xmath336\int_{0}^{\infty } b_{1}db_{1 } \phi _ { b}(x_{1},b_{1 } ) \nonumber \\ & & \times r_{2}\big\ { \big[(1-r^2_{2})(1-x_{2})\psi^{t}_{k^*}(x_3)x^{v}(x_2 ) \nonumber \\ & &   -\zeta_{x } \left((1-r^2_{2})\phi^{t}_{k^*}(x_3)- \frac{1}{2}r_{k^ * }    ( ( 1+r^{2}_{2 } ) \phi^{v}_{k^*}(x_{3})+(1-r^{2}_{2})\psi^{a}_{k^*}(x_{3 } ) \right )    x^{t}(x_{2 } ) \nonumber \\    & & -2r_{k^*}((1+r^{2}_{2})(1-x_{2})+(1-r^{2}_{2})x_{3 } )    \phi^{v}_{k^*}(x_{3 } ) x^{v}(x_2 ) \big ]    e_{6}(t^{(1)}_d)h_d^{(1)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \nonumber \\ & & + \big[(1-r^2_{2})x_{2}\psi^{t}_{k^*}(x_3)x^{v}(x_2 ) \nonumber \\ & &   + \frac{1}{2}r_{k^ * }   ( ( 1+r^{2}_{2 } ) \phi^{v}_{k^*}(x_{3})-(1-r^{2}_{2})\psi^{a}_{k^*}(x_{3 } ) ) x^{t}(x_{2})\big ]
e_{6}(t^{(2)}_d ) h_d^{(2)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \big\}\;,\end{aligned}\ ] ]    @xmath337\int_{0}^{\infty } b_{1}db_{1 } \phi _ { b}(x_{1},b_{1 } ) \nonumber \\ & & \times   r_{2}\big\ { \big [ ( 1-x_2)\phi^{t}_{k^*}(x_3)x^{v}(x_2 ) -\zeta_{x } \frac{1}{2 } r_{k^ * } \left(\phi^{v}_{k^*}(x_3)-(1 + 2r^{2}_{2})\psi^{a}_{k^*}(x_3 ) \right ) x^{t}(x_{2 } ) \big ] \nonumber \\ & & \times e_{4}(t^{(1)}_d)h_d^{(1)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \nonumber \\ & & + \big [ x_2 \phi^{t}_{k^*}(x_3)x^{v}(x_2 ) - \left(\phi^{t}_{k^*}(x_3)-\frac{1}{2 } r_{k^ * } ( \phi^{v}_{k^*}(x_3)+(1 + 2r^{2}_{2})\psi^{a}_{k^*}(x_3 ) ) \right ) x^{t}(x_{2 } )   \nonumber \\ & & -2r_{k^ * } ( ( 1 + 2r^{2}_{2})x_2 + x_{3})\phi^{a}_{k^*}(x_3 ) x^{v}(x_2 ) \big]e_{4}(t^{(2)}_d ) h_d^{(2)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \big\}\;,\end{aligned}\ ] ]    @xmath338\int_{0}^{\infty } b_{1}db_{1 } \phi _ { b}(x_{1},b_{1 } ) \nonumber \\ & & \times   r_{2}\big\ { \big [ ( 1-x_2 ) \phi^{t}_{k^*}(x_3)x^{v}(x_2 ) \nonumber \\ & & -\zeta_{x } \left(\phi^{t}_{k^*}(x_3)-\frac{1}{2 } r_{k^ * } ( \phi^{v}_{k^*}(x_3)+(1 + 2r^{2}_{2})\psi^{a}_{k^*}(x_3 ) ) \right ) x^{t}(x_{2 } )   \nonumber \\ & & -2r_{k^ * } ( ( 1 + 2r^{2}_{2})(1-x_2 ) + x_{3})\phi^{a}_{k^*}(x_3 ) x^{v}(x_2 ) \big ] e_{6}(t^{(1)}_d)h_d^{(1)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \nonumber \\ & & + \big [ x_2\phi^{t}_{k^*}(x_3)x^{v}(x_2 ) -\frac{1}{2 } r_{k^ * } \left(\phi^{v}_{k^*}(x_3)-(1 + 2r^{2}_{2})\psi^{a}_{k^*}(x_3 ) \right ) x^{t}(x_{2 } ) \big ] \nonumber\\ & & \times e_{6}(t^{(2)}_d ) h_d^{(2)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \big\}\;,\end{aligned}\ ] ]        we present the spectator amplitudes for the @xmath342 decays below , where the symbol @xmath330 represents the charmonium @xmath20 or @xmath19 : @xmath343\int_{0}^{\infty } b_{1}db_{1 } \phi _ { b}(x_{1},b_{1 } ) \nonumber \\ & & \times \big\ { \big [ ( 1-x_{2 } ) \phi _ { k } ( x_{3 } ) x^v(x_{2 } ) -\zeta_{x } r^{2}_{2}(2r_{k}\phi^{p}_{k}(x_3)-\frac{1}{2 }   \phi_{k}(x_{3}))x^{s}(x_{2 } ) \nonumber \\ & & + r_{k } ( 1-r^2_2)x_3 \phi^{\sigma}_{k}(x_3 ) x^{v}(x_{2})- r_{k } \left ( 2r^{2}_{2}(1-x_2)+(1-r^2_2)x_3 \right ) \phi^{p}_{k}(x_3 ) x^{v}(x_{2 } )    \big]\nonumber \\ & & \times e_{4}(t_d^{(1)})h_d^{(1)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \nonumber \\ & & - \big [ ( x_2+(1 - 2r^2_{2})x_{3})\phi _ { k } ( x_{3 } ) x^{v}(x_{2})+r^{2}_{2}(2r_{k}\phi^{p}_{k}(x_{3})-\frac{1}{2}\phi_{k}(x_{3}))x^{s}(x_{2 } )   \nonumber \\ & & -r_{k } ( 1-r^2_2)x_3 \phi^{\sigma}_{k}(x_3 ) x^{v}(x_{2})- r_{k } \left ( 2r^{2}_{2}x_2+(1-r^2_2)x_3 \right ) \phi^{p}_{k}(x_3 ) x^{v}(x_{2})\big]\nonumber \\ & & \times e_{4}(t^{(2)}_d ) h_d^{(2)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \big\}\;,\end{aligned}\ ] ]    @xmath344\int_{0}^{\infty } b_{1}db_{1 } \phi _ { b}(x_{1},b_{1 } ) \nonumber \\ & & \times \big\ {   \big [ ( 1-x_2+(1 - 2r^2_{2})x_{3})\phi _ { k } ( x_{3 } ) x^{v}(x_{2})- \zeta_{x } r^{2}_{2}(2r_{k}\phi^{p}_{k}(x_{3})-\frac{1}{2}\phi_{k}(x_{3}))x^{s}(x_{2 } )   \nonumber \\ & & -r_{k } ( 1-r^2_2)x_3 \phi^{\sigma}_{k}(x_3 ) x^{v}(x_{2})- r_{k } \left ( 2r^{2}_{2}(1-x_2)+(1-r^2_2)x_3 \right ) \phi^{p}_{k}(x_3 ) x^{v}(x_{2})\big]\nonumber \\ & & \times e_{6}(t_d^{(1)})h_d^{(1)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \nonumber \\ & &   -\big [ x_{2 } \phi _ { k } ( x_{3 } ) x^{v}(x_{2 } ) + r^{2}_{2}(2r_{k}\phi^{p}_{k}(x_3)-\frac{1}{2 }   \phi_{k}(x_{3}))x^{s}(x_{2 } ) \nonumber \\ & & + r_{k } ( 1-r^2_2)x_3 \phi^{\sigma}_{k}(x_3 ) x^{v}(x_{2})- r_{k } \left ( 2r^{2}_{2}x_2+(1-r^2_2)x_3 \right ) \phi^{p}_{k}(x_3 ) x^{v}(x_{2 } )    \big]\nonumber \\ & & \times e_{6}(t^{(2)}_d ) h_d^{(2)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \big\}\;,\end{aligned}\ ] ]    @xmath345\int_{0}^{\infty } b_{1}db_{1 } \phi _ { b}(x_{1},b_{1 } ) \nonumber \\ & & \times \big\ { \big [ ( 1-x_{2 } ) \phi _ { k^ * } ( x_{3 } ) x^{v}(x_{2 } ) -\zeta_{x } r^{2}_{2}(2r_{k^*}\phi^{s}_{k^*}(x_3)-\frac{1}{2 }   \phi_{k^*}(x_{3}))x^{s}(x_{2 } ) \nonumber \\ & & + r_{k^ * } ( 1-r^2_2)x_3 \phi^{t}_{k^*}(x_3 ) x^{v}(x_{2})- r_{k^ * } \left ( 2r^{2}_{2}(1-x_2)+(1-r^2_2)x_3 \right ) \phi^{s}_{k^*}(x_3 ) x^{v}(x_{2 } )    \big]\nonumber \\ & & \times e_{4}(t_d^{(1)})h_d^{(1)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \nonumber \\ & & - \big [ ( x_2+(1 - 2r^2_{2})x_{3})\phi _ { k^ * } ( x_{3 } ) x^{v}(x_{2})+r^{2}_{2}(2r_{k^*}\phi^{s}_{k}(x_{3 } ) -\frac{1}{2}\phi_{k^*}(x_{3}))x^{s}(x_{2 } )   \nonumber \\ & & -r_{k^ * } ( 1-r^2_2)x_3 \phi^{t}_{k^*}(x_3 ) x^{v}(x_{2})- r_{k^ * } \left ( 2r^{2}_{2}x_2+(1-r^2_2)x_3 \right ) \phi^{s}_{k^*}(x_3 ) x^{v}(x_{2})\big]\nonumber \\ & & \times e_{4}(t^{(2)}_d ) h_d^{(2)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \big\}\;,\end{aligned}\ ] ]    @xmath346\int_{0}^{\infty } b_{1}db_{1 } \phi _ { b}(x_{1},b_{1 } ) \nonumber \\ & & \times \big\ {   \big [ ( 1-x_2+(1 - 2r^2_{2})x_{3})\phi _ { k^ * } ( x_{3 } ) x^{v}(x_{2})-\zeta_{x}r^{2}_{2}(2r_{k}\phi^{s}_{k^*}(x_{3})-\frac{1}{2}\phi_{k^*}(x_{3}))x^{s}(x_{2 } )   \nonumber \\ & & - r_{k^ * } ( 1-r^2_2)x_3 \phi^{t}_{k^*}(x_3 ) x^{v}(x_{2})- r_{k^ * } \left ( 2r^{2}_{2}(1-x_2)+(1-r^2_2)x_3 \right ) \phi^{s}_{k^*}(x_3 ) x^{v}(x_{2})\big]\nonumber \\ & & \times e_{6}(t_d^{(1)})h_d^{(1)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \nonumber \\ & &   -\big [ x_{2 } \phi _ { k^ * } ( x_{3 } ) x^{v}(x_{2 } ) + r^{2}_{2}(2r_{k^*}\phi^{s}_{k^*}(x_3)-\frac{1}{2 }   \phi_{k^*}(x_{3}))x^{s}(x_{2 } ) \nonumber \\ & & + r_{k^ * } ( 1-r^2_2)x_3 \phi^{t}_{k^*}(x_3 ) x^{v}(x_{2})- r_{k^ * } \left ( 2r^{2}_{2}x_2+(1-r^2_2)x_3 \right ) \phi^{s}_{k^*}(x_3 ) x^{v}(x_{2 } )    \big]\nonumber \\ & & \times e_{6}(t^{(2)}_d ) h_d^{(2)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1 ) \big\}\;,\end{aligned}\ ] ]        m. bauer , b. stech , m. wirbel , z. phys .
c * 29 * , 637 ( 1985 ) ; _ ibid . _ * 34 * , 103 ( 1987 ) .
a. ali , g. kramer and c.d .
l , phys .
d * 58 * , 094009 ( 1998 ) ; y.h .
chen , h.y .
cheng , b. tseng , and k.c .
yang , phys .
d * 60 * , 094014 ( 1999 ) .
cheng and k.c .
yang , phys .
d * 59 * , 092004 ( 1999 ) .
m. neubert and a.a .
petrov , phys .
b * 519 * , 50 ( 2001 ) .
babar collaboration , b. aubert _ et al .
_ , hep - ex/0412062 .
li , prog . part .
phys . * 51 * , 85 ( 2003 ) ; czech .
* 53 * , 657 ( 2003 ) . j. chay and c. kim , hep - ph/0009244 .
m. beneke , g. buchalla , m. neubert , and c.t .
sachrajda , phys .
lett . * 83 * , 1914 ( 1999 ) ; nucl .
* b591 * , 313 ( 2000 ) .
cheng and k.c .
yang , phys .
d * 63 * , 074011 ( 2001 ) .
z.z . song , c. meng , and k.t .
chao , phys .
b * 568 * , 127 ( 2003 ) ; z.z .
song , c. meng , y.j .
gao , and k.t .
chao , phys .
d * 69 * , 054009 ( 2004 ) .
z.z . song , c. meng , and k.t .
chao , eur .
j. c * 36 * , 365 ( 2004 ) .
b. melic , lect .
notes phys .
* 647 * , 287 ( 2004 ) ; phys .
d * 68 * , 034004 ( 2003 ) ; b. melic and r. rckl , hep - ph/0210353 .
wang , l. li , and t. huang , phys .
d * 70 * , 074006 ( 2004 ) .
li and h.l .
yu , phys .
lett . * 74 * , 4388 ( 1995 ) ; phys .
b * 353 * , 301 ( 1995 ) ; phys .
d * 53 * , 2480 ( 1996 ) .
c.h . chang and h - n .
li , phys .
d * 55 * , 5577 ( 1997 ) .
keum , h - n .
li , and a.i .
sanda , phys .
b * 504 * , 6 ( 2001 ) ; phys .
d * 63 * , 054008 ( 2001 ) ; y.y .
keum and h - n .
li , phys . rev .
* d63 * , 074006 ( 2001 ) . c. d. l , k. ukai , and m. z. yang , phys .
d * 63 * , 074009 ( 2001 ) .
keum , t. kurimoto , h .-
lu , and a.i .
sanda , phys .
d * 69 * , 094018 ( 2004 ) .
a.e . bondar and v.l .
chernyak , hep - ph/0412335 .
t.w . yeh and h - n .
li , phys .
d * 56 * , 1615 ( 1997 ) .
sanda , n. sinha , r. sinha , and k. ukai , in _
proceedings for the 4th international workshop on @xmath6 physics and cp violation _ , ed .
t. ohshima and a.i .
sanda ( world scientific , singapore , 2001 ) .
chen , phys .
d * 67 * , 094011 ( 2003 ) .
p. ball , jhep * 01 * , 010 ( 1999 ) .
p. ball , v.m .
braun , y. koike , and k. tanaka , nucl .
b529 * , 323 ( 1998 ) .
quarkonium working group , n. brambilla _ et al .
_ , hep - ph/0412158 . m. nagashima and h - n .
li , phys .
d * 67 * , 034001 ( 2003 ) .
chen , y.y .
keum , and h - n . li , phys .
d * 64 * , 112002 ( 2001 ) ; phys .
d * 66 * , 054013 ( 2002 ) .
t. kurimoto , h - n .
li , and a.i .
sanda , phys .
d * 65 * , 014007 , ( 2002 ) ; phys .
d * 67 * , 054028 ( 2003 ) .
li and h.s .
liao , phys .
d * 70 * , 074030 ( 2004 ) .
collins and d.e .
soper , nucl . phys . *
b193 * , 381 ( 1981 ) .
j. botts and g. sterman , nucl .
* b325 * , 62 ( 1989 ) .
li and g. sterman , nucl . phys . *
b381 * , 129 ( 1992 ) .
li and s. mishima , hep - ph/0411146 , to appear in phys .
ma and z.g .
si , phys .
d * 70 * , 074007 ( 2004 ) .
particle data group collaboration , s. eidelman _
et al . _ ,
b * 592 * , 1 ( 2004 ) .
d.s . hwang and g.h .
kim , z. phys .
c * 76 * , 107 ( 1997 ) .
novikov , l.b .
okun , m.a .
shifman , a.i .
vainshtein , m.b .
voloshin and v.i .
zakharov , phys .
rep . * 41 * , 1 ( 1978 ) .
cheng , c.k .
chua , and c.w .
hwang , phys .
d * 69 * , 074025 ( 2004 ) and references therein ; h.y .
cheng , hep - ph/0410316 .
b. melic , phys .
b * 591 * , 91 ( 2004 ) .
belle collaboration , k. abe _
et al . _ , hep - ex/0408104 .
pham and g. zhu , hep - ph/0412428 . c. meng , y.j .
gao , and k.t .
chao , hep - ph/0502240 .
babar collaboration , b. aubert _ et al .
_ , hep - ex/0501061 .
belle collaboration , a. garmash _ et al .
_ , hep - ex/0412066 .
belle collaboration , f. fang _
et al . _ ,
lett . * 90 * , 071801 ( 2003 ) .
babar collaboration , b. aubert _ et al .
d * 70 * , 011101 ( 2004 ) .