Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Theory determination of $\bar{B}\to D^{(*)}\ell^-\bar\nu$ form factors at $\mathcal{O}(1/m_c^2)$

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Theory alone fixes the ten $\bar B\to D^{(*)}$ form factors and reconciles the exclusive and inclusive determinations of $|V_{cb}|$.

desk verdict A genuinely new, carefully executed HQE analysis of all ten B→D(*) form factors at O(1/m_c²) with a sensible |V_cb|; deserves a serious referee, though the quoted uncertainties are probably too small. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09398 v1 pith:D4KHFMTB submitted 2019-08-25 hep-ph hep-ex

Marzia Bordone , Martin Jung , Danny van Dyk This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords heavy-quarkexpansionBmesonsemileptonicdecaysformfactorsIsgur-Wisefunctions|Vcb|light-conesumruleslatticeQCDleptonflavouruniversality
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper establishes that the full set of ten form factors governing $\bar{B}\to D^{(*)}\ell^-\bar\nu$ decays can be determined from theory inputs alone—lattice QCD, light-cone sum rules, QCD sum rules, and unitarity—within the Heavy-Quark Expansion to order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s, 1/m_b, 1/m_c^2)$. The coefficients of the $1/m_c^2$ terms come out of order one, which the authors read as evidence that the expansion converges at this order. With these form factors, the exclusive determination of the CKM element $|V_{cb}|$ from light-lepton decays is $(40.3\pm 0.8)\times 10^{-3}$, compatible with the inclusive determination at the $1.2\sigma$ level. The same machinery yields precision predictions for the lepton-flavour-universality ratios $R_{D^{(*)}}$, the $\tau$ polarizations $P_\tau^{D^{(*)}}$, and the longitudinal polarization fraction $F_L$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Heavy-Quark Expansion of the hadronic matrix elements under the power counting $\varepsilon_b \sim \varepsilon_c^2 \sim \alpha_s/\pi \sim \varepsilon^2$, where $\varepsilon_Q = \bar\Lambda/2m_Q$. Within this scheme each form factor is expressed through ten independent Isgur-Wise functions—the leading $\xi$, the subleading $\chi_{2,3}$ and $\eta$, and the six subsubleading $\ell_1,\dots,\ell_6$—each expanded in the conformal variable $z$ around zero recoil. The argument is carried by a Bayesian fit that combines lattice pseudo-data, LCSR results for all form factors at $q^2\lesssim 0$, three-point QCD sum rules for the subleading functions, and dispersive unitarity bounds, with the minimal viable z-expansion model 2/1/0 and the nominal model 3/2/1.

What would settle it

A lattice QCD calculation of the $\bar B\to D^*$ form factors at nonzero recoil precise enough to resolve the subleading Isgur-Wise functions, or a measurement of the $\cos\theta_\ell$ distribution in $\bar B\to D^*\ell\bar\nu$ that disagrees with the posterior prediction, would test the expansion; alternatively, computing the $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon_b\varepsilon_c)$ mixed corrections and finding them to shift $|V_{cb}|$ by more than roughly $1\times 10^{-3}$ would falsify the truncation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the ten independent $\bar{B}\to D^{(*)}$ form factors are determined at physical recoil by the Heavy-Quark Expansion truncated at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s, 1/m_b, 1/m_c^2)$, with all ten Isgur-Wise functions at subsubleading power included for the first time. The key finding is that the subsubleading coefficients $\hat{\ell}_i$ are of $\mathcal{O}(1)$, so the $1/m_c^2$ corrections are neither anomalously large nor accidentally small; the expansion is well behaved. Combining the fit with Belle kinematic distributions and HFLAV branching ratios gives $|V_{cb}| = (40.3\pm 0.8)\times 10^{-3}$, which agrees with both the BGL-based exclusive value and the inclusive determination at $1.2\sigma$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole extraction rests on the power counting $\varepsilon_b\sim\varepsilon_c^2\sim\alpha_s/\pi\sim\varepsilon^2$ and on treating every higher-order or mixed term as negligible; if any of those omitted terms contributes at the current precision, the form factors and $|V_{cb}|$ shift by more than the quoted uncertainty.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The full set of form factors is available without assuming the absence of new physics in light-lepton modes, so $|V_{cb}|$ and new-physics Wilson coefficients can be extracted from the same data.
  • The $|V_{cb}|$ puzzle shrinks: the exclusive HQE value $(40.3\pm 0.8)\times 10^{-3}$ agrees with the inclusive determination at $1.2\sigma$.
  • Predictions for $\bar B\to D^{(*)} \tau\bar\nu$ observables sharpen: with experimental input the paper finds $R_D=0.297\pm 0.003$ and $R_{D^*}=0.250\pm 0.003$, with uncertainties well below current measurements.
  • The order-one size of the $1/m_c^2$ coefficients indicates that neglected $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^3)$ and mixed $\varepsilon_b\varepsilon_c$ terms are not visible at present precision.
  • Upcoming lattice results for $\bar B\to D^*$ form factors at nonzero recoil can be incorporated directly into the same framework to reduce uncertainties further.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same combined-analysis strategy—lattice plus LCSR plus unitarity in a z-expanded HQE—should transfer directly to other heavy-quark transitions such as $\Lambda_b\to\Lambda_c \ell\bar\nu$, where the subleading Isgur-Wise functions are less constrained.
  • The visible pull in $P(\cos\theta_\ell)$ suggests that a future high-statistics measurement of the lepton angular distribution in $\bar B\to D^*\ell\bar\nu$ is a sharper test of the HQE form-factor shapes than the recoil spectra alone.
  • If the neglected $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^3)$ and mixed $\varepsilon_b\varepsilon_c$ terms were included, the central value of $|V_{cb}|$ would shift at the level of the current uncertainty, so the quoted $1.2\sigma$ compatibility with the inclusive value is itself contingent on the power counting.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper determines the full set of ten B->D^(*) semileptonic form factors within the Heavy-Quark Expansion (HQE) to O(alpha_s, 1/m_b, 1/m_c^2), using lattice QCD data, light-cone sum rules, QCD three-point sum rules, and unitarity bounds. The authors introduce two z-expansion models for the Isgur-Wise functions, denoted 2/1/0 and 3/2/1, and perform Bayesian fits to theory constraints with and without Belle experimental distributions. They report posterior predictions for R_D^(*) and tau polarization observables, and extract an exclusive |V_cb| = (40.3 +/- 0.8) x 10^-3 that is compatible with both the BGL-based exclusive value and the inclusive determination at the 1.2 sigma level. Posterior samples and the EOS-based analysis code are made publicly available.

Significance. If the result holds, this is a significant advance: it is the first determination of the complete set of B->D^(*) form factors at subsubleading power in the HQE, and it provides a theory-driven exclusive |V_cb| that is consistent with the inclusive value, thereby addressing the long-standing V_cb puzzle without assuming the absence of new physics in light-lepton modes. The public release of posterior samples and code is a clear strength of the paper. However, the robustness of the quoted precision depends on an untested power-counting truncation and on the statistical consistency of the input constraints, so the central claims should be re-examined in revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.A and Table II] The central convergence claim is not supported to the precision claimed. The power counting epsilon_b ~ epsilon_c^2 ~ alpha_s/pi ~ epsilon^2 relegates all O(epsilon^3) and mixed terms to 'assumed to be negligible,' but no quantitative estimate of these terms is provided. The fitted 1/m_c^2 coefficients in Table II have very broad posteriors; for example, l_1'(1) = -5.78 with a 68% interval [-12.5,-0.16], and l_3(1) = 0.86 with [-8.29,5.17]. These intervals are compatible with a wide range of magnitudes and do not by themselves establish that the subsubleading coefficients are of O(1). The authors should estimate the size of neglected O(epsilon^3) contributions (for instance by evaluating the fitted IW functions at the edge of the recoil range) or explicitly add a truncation uncertainty to the quoted form factors and |V_cb|.
  2. [Sec. III.A and Table I] The goodness of fit for the theory-only fits is unusually good, indicating that the input uncertainties may be overestimated. The 3/2/1 theory-only fit gives chi^2 = 9.91 for 28 dof, corresponding to a p-value of about 0.999; the 2/1/0 theory-only fit has chi^2/dof = 22.87/38, also well below 1. Such low values suggest that the covariance of the inputs, most plausibly the LCSR constraints at w >= 1.5, is inflated or that correlations are not fully captured. Because the posterior widths of the Isgur-Wise functions directly feed into the quoted uncertainty of |V_cb| = (40.3 +/- 0.8) x 10^-3, the authors should address this mismatch, for example by reporting goodness-of-fit p-values, scaling the LCSR covariance, or demonstrating that the result is robust to a recalibration of those uncertainties.
  3. [Sec. III.B and Table III] The choice of the 3/2/1 model as the nominal model is not propagated as a systematic uncertainty. The combined |V_cb| changes from 40.7 +/- 1.0 in the 2/1/0 theory-only fit to 40.2 +/- 1.0 in the 3/2/1 theory-only fit, while the final quoted uncertainty is 0.8. The z-order truncation therefore shifts the central value by about half of the quoted error. The authors should include this model uncertainty, for instance by model averaging over the two z-orders or by adding the observed shift in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 2, P_D*(chi) panel] The legend of the P_D*(chi) panel lists 'fit 3/1/0', which appears to be a typo for 'fit 3/2/1'.
  2. [Sec. II.A, eq. (10)] The transition from the expansion in (w-1)^k to the expansion in z is described only verbally; a brief explicit definition of z(w) would improve clarity, especially because the maximum |z| used here is larger than in previous studies.
  3. [Acknowledgments] The text contains a duplicated article: 'the the DFG Excellence Cluster' should read 'the DFG Excellence Cluster'.
  4. [Sec. III.B, after eq. (14)] The sentence 'Averaging the two exclusive determinations with the inclusive one' is slightly confusing because the exclusive determination is presented as a single combined result; rephrasing to refer to the D and D* channels individually would be clearer.
  5. [Table II caption] The caption states that uncertainty ranges are 'for illustrative purpose only' but these ranges are then used in the text to discuss the size of the 1/m_c^2 coefficients; a more precise statement about their interpretation and coverage would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the form-factor fit uses independent published theory inputs, and the predictions and |Vcb| extraction are not fitted to the target quantities.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The ten form factors are parametrized through the HQE in terms of ten Isgur-Wise functions (Sec. II.A) whose parameters are constrained by external, published theory inputs: lattice QCD data [6-8], three-point QCD sum rules [27-29], LCSR calculations [9], and unitarity bounds [10,24]. These inputs enter through a likelihood and priors; they are not defined in terms of the paper's target predictions. The purported predictions of f_T, R_D(*), P_tau, F_L, and the branching ratios are posterior-predictive quantities generated from the fitted IW functions; the tau observables are not fitted to tau data, and f_T is explicitly excluded from the likelihood before being predicted and later compared with [9]. The |Vcb| extraction uses the HFLAV world-average branching ratios together with the theory-determined form-factor normalizations, so it is a standard inference rather than a renamed input. The self-citations [9] (van Dyk) and [13] (Jung) provide a published LCSR calculation and a statistical/z-expansion framework; both are independent, externally falsifiable, and do not encode the form-factor outputs or the |Vcb| result. The statement that 1/m_c^2 coefficients are O(1) is a fitted outcome, not an imposed normalization. The only substantive caveat—the assumed power counting and neglect of O(epsilon^3)/mixed terms (Sec. II.A, Sec. IV)—is a convergence-risk concern, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on a truncation of the heavy-quark expansion plus a z-expansion of the Isgur-Wise functions. The free parameters are the derivatives of these functions, fit to lattice, LCSR, and sum-rule data; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (11)
  • Leading IW function derivatives xi'(1), xi''(1), xi'''(1) = -1.14, +1.88, -3.29
    Fitted to lattice, LCSR, and sum-rule constraints; they determine the shape of the leading Isgur-Wise function.
  • Subleading IW function chi2(1), chi2'(1), chi2''(1) = -0.06, -0.00, +0.06
    Constrained by QCD sum rules and the global fit; enters at order 1/m_Q.
  • Subleading IW function chi3'(1), chi3''(1) = +0.04, -0.05
    chi3(1) is fixed to zero by normalization; the slope and curvature are fitted.
  • Subleading IW function eta(1), eta'(1), eta''(1) = +0.60, -0.02, -0.04
    Fitted subleading IW function entering all form factors at order 1/m_Q.
  • Subsubleading IW function l1(1), l1'(1) = +0.12, -5.78
    First subsubleading IW function; the slope is poorly constrained with a wide posterior range.
  • Subsubleading IW function l2(1), l2'(1) = -1.89, -3.14
    Fitted at O(1/m_c^2); contributes to the convergence test.
  • Subsubleading IW function l3(1), l3'(1) = +0.86, +0.06
    Fitted with very large uncertainties, indicating weak constraints on this function.
  • Subsubleading IW function l4(1), l4'(1) = -2.02, -0.05
    Fitted at O(1/m_c^2); part of the full set of subsubleading functions.
  • Subsubleading IW function l5(1), l5'(1) = +3.79, -1.40
    Fitted at O(1/m_c^2); the normalization is O(1).
  • Subsubleading IW function l6(1), l6'(1) = +3.53, +0.04
    Fitted at O(1/m_c^2); the slope is compatible with zero at 68% probability.
  • |V_cb| = 40.3 +/- 0.8 (x 10^-3) in the nominal 3/2/1 fit
    CKM matrix element extracted in fits that include experimental branching ratios; not a parameter of the theory-only determination.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Power counting epsilon_b ~ epsilon_c^2 ~ alpha_s/pi ~ epsilon^2; all higher-order and mixed terms are negligible.
    Adopted in Section II.A; defines the truncation of the HQE. If O(epsilon^3) or mixed terms are not small, the central results would shift.
  • ad hoc to paper The z-expansions of the Isgur-Wise functions can be truncated at orders k/l/m (2/1/0 or 3/2/1).
    Chosen to achieve good fits; the model difference is not fully propagated as a systematic uncertainty.
  • standard math Analyticity of the IW functions and the mapping to z(w) capture the branch structure correctly.
    Standard dispersive treatment from refs. [10,24], used throughout the paper.
  • domain assumption The unitarity bounds can be modeled as one-sided Gaussians with central values and widths from OPE results.
    Appendix A introduces a statistical prior on the bound instead of a hard cutoff.
  • domain assumption The LCSR results of ref. [9] for the full set of form factors at large recoil are valid and can be combined with lattice data via the z-expansion.
    Key external input; co-authored by one of the present authors but published independently and making falsifiable predictions.
  • standard math Equations of motion reduce the number of independent subleading and subsubleading IW functions (refs. [23,39]).
    Used to define the basis of ten IW functions in Section II.A and Appendix B.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Theory determination of $\bar{B}\to D^{(*)}\ell^-\bar\nu$ form factors at $\mathcal{O}(1/m_c^2)$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D4KHFMTB

@misc{pith2026190809398,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Theory determination of $\barB\to D^(*)\ell^-\bar\nu$ form factors at $\mathcalO(1/m_c^2)$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D4KHFMTB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09398}
}
abstract

We carry out an analysis of the full set of ten $\bar{B}\to D^{(*)}$ form factors within the framework of the Heavy-Quark Expansion (HQE) to order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s,\,1/m_b,\,1/m_c^2)$, both with and without the use of experimental data. This becomes possible due to a recent calculation of these form factors at and beyond the maximal physical recoil using QCD light-cone sum rules, in combination with constraints from lattice QCD, QCD three-point sum rules and unitarity. We find good agreement amongst the various theoretical results, as well as between the theoretical results and the kinematical distributions in $\bar{B}\to D^{(*)}\lbrace e^-,\mu^-\rbrace\bar\nu$ measurements. The coefficients entering at the $1/m_c^2$ level are found to be of $\mathcal{O}(1)$, indicating convergence of the HQE. The phenomenological implications of our study include an updated exclusive determination of $|V_{cb}|$ in the HQE, which is compatible with both the exclusive determination using the BGL parametrization and with the inclusive determination. We also revisit predictions for the lepton-flavour universality ratios $R_{D^{(*)}}$, the $\tau$ polarization observables $P_\tau^{D^{(*)}}$, and the longitudinal polarization fraction $F_L$. Posterior samples for the HQE parameters are provided as ancillary files, allowing for their use in subsequent studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09398 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The full set of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The four 1D kinematical probability distibutions arising from the full 4D differential decay rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Towards a Global Analysis of the $b\to c\bar{u} q$ Puzzle

    hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    New three-particle QCD kernels for the full Weak Effective Theory basis plus a first six-coupling global fit show that the b to c u q puzzle favors four-operator new-physics models over six-operator ones.

  2. $V_{cb}$ puzzle in semi-leptonic $B\to D^*$ decays revisited

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using the latest Belle and Belle II data, CLN, BGL, and HQET fits give consistent exclusive |Vcb| values near 39.7 times 10^-3, confirming the persistent 2 to 3 sigma gap with the inclusive value.

  3. With or without U(2)? Probing non-standard flavor and helicity structures in semileptonic B decays

    hep-ph 2019-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Under the minimally-broken U(2)_q × U(2)_ℓ flavor symmetry hypothesis, semileptonic B decay amplitudes are controlled by a few parameters, yielding testable correlations such as equal new-physics effects in b→u and b→...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    ¯B→D The ¯B→ D form factors have been defined in Eqs. (1)-(2). Their translation to the heavy-quark matrix elements defined in Ref. [12] reads f+ = 1 2√r [(1 +r)h+− (1−r)h−] , (B1) f− = 1 2√r [(1 +r)h−− (1−r)h+] , (B2) f0 =f+ + 1 +r2− 2rw 1−r2 f−, (B3) fT = 1 +r 2√r hT, (B4) where r≡MD/MB

    work page

  2. [2]

    ¯B→D∗ The form factors for ¯B→ D∗ are defined in Eqs. (4)-(6). The factors in Eq. (6) have been chosen such that the conventions of Ref. [22] for the following contractions are recovered: 4 ⟨D∗(k,η )| ¯cqνσµνb| ¯B(p)⟩ =−2iϵµνρση∗νpρkσT1(q2), (B5) ⟨D∗(k,η )| ¯cqνσµνγ5b| ¯B(p)⟩ =η∗ α {[ (M 2 B−M 2 D∗)gα µ−pα(p +k)µ ] T2(q2) +pα [ qµ− q2 M 2 B−M 2 D∗ (p +k)µ ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The αs corrections are written in terms of the leading order results for the HQET Wilson coefficients ˆCi(w); see [39] for a review

    Details on the HQE for the form factors A generic heavy-quark form factor h is expanded in αs/π, εQ≡ ¯Λ/2mQ, and z as follows: h(z) =ξ(w)ˆh(w) =ξ(w) ( a + αs π b [ ˆCi(w) ] +εbcb [ ˆLi(w) ] +εccc [ ˆLi(w) ] +ε2 cd [ ˆ𝓁i(w) ]) w=w(z) (B14) where a = 1, 0, depending on whether the form factor vanishes in heavy-quark limit or is proportional to the leading I...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Amhis et al

    Y. Amhis et al. (HFLAV), Eur. Phys. J. C77, 895 (2017), updated results and plots available at https://hflav.web.cern.ch/, arXiv:1612.07233 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Glattauer et al

    R. Glattauer et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D93, 032006 (2016), arXiv:1510.03657 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Abdesselam et al

    A. Abdesselam et al. (Belle), (2017), arXiv:1702.01521 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Abdesselam et al

    A. Abdesselam et al. (Belle), (2018), arXiv:1809.03290 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), (2019), arXiv:1903.10002 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    J. A. Bailey et al. (MILC), Phys. Rev. D92, 034506 (2015), arXiv:1503.07237 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [10]

    H. Na, C. M. Bouchard, G. P. Lepage, C. Monahan, and J. Shigemitsu (HPQCD), Phys. Rev. D92, 054510 (2015), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D93,no.11,119906(2016)], arXiv:1505.03925 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Harrison, C

    J. Harrison, C. Davies, and M. Wingate (HPQCD), Phys. Rev. D97, 054502 (2018), arXiv:1711.11013 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Gubernari, A

    N. Gubernari, A. Kokulu, and D. van Dyk, JHEP 01, 150 (2019), arXiv:1811.00983 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    C. G. Boyd, B. Grinstein, and R. F. Lebed, Phys. Lett. B353, 306 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9504235 [hep-ph]

    1995 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Bigi and P

    D. Bigi and P. Gambino, Phys. Rev. D94, 094008 (2016), arXiv:1606.08030 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    F. U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, M. Papucci, and D. J. Robinson, Phys. Rev. D95, 115008 (2017), [erratum: Phys. Rev.D97,no.5,059902(2018)], arXiv:1703.05330 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Jung and D

    M. Jung and D. M. Straub, JHEP 01, 009 (2019), arXiv:1801.01112 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    D. Bigi, P. Gambino, and S. Schacht, Phys. Lett. B769, 441 (2017), arXiv:1703.06124 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Grinstein and A

    B. Grinstein and A. Kobach, Phys. Lett. B771, 359 (2017), arXiv:1703.08170 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Jaiswal, S

    S. Jaiswal, S. Nandi, and S. K. Patra, JHEP 12, 060 (2017), arXiv:1707.09977 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    F. U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, M. Papucci, and D. J. Robinson, Phys. Rev. D96, 091503 (2017), arXiv:1708.07134 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Faller, A

    S. Faller, A. Khodjamirian, C. Klein, and T. Mannel, Eur. Phys. J. C60, 603 (2009), arXiv:0809.0222 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  14. [22]

    D. Bigi, P. Gambino, and S. Schacht, JHEP 11, 061 (2017), arXiv:1707.09509 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Gambino, M

    P. Gambino, M. Jung, and S. Schacht, Phys. Lett. B795, 386 (2019), arXiv:1905.08209 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Ball and R

    P. Ball and R. Zwicky, Phys. Rev. D71, 014015 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0406232 [hep-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Ball and R

    P. Ball and R. Zwicky, Phys. Rev. D71, 014029 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0412079 [hep-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  18. [26]

    A. F. Falk and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D47, 2965 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9209268 [hep-ph]

    1993 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Caprini, L

    I. Caprini, L. Lellouch, and M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys. B530, 153 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9712417 [hep-ph]

    1998 arXiv

  20. [28]

    J. A. Bailey et al. (Fermilab Lattice, MILC), Phys. Rev. D89, 114504 (2014), arXiv:1403.0635 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Aoki et al., Eur

    S. Aoki et al., Eur. Phys. J. C77, 112 (2017), see http://flag.unibe.ch/2019/MainPage for updates., arXiv:1607.00299 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Neubert, Z

    M. Neubert, Z. Ligeti, and Y. Nir, Phys. Lett. B301, 101 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9209271 [hep-ph]

    1993 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Neubert, Z

    M. Neubert, Z. Ligeti, and Y. Nir, Phys. Rev. D47, 5060 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9212266 [hep-ph]

    1993 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ligeti, Y

    Z. Ligeti, Y. Nir, and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D49, 1302 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9305304 [hep-ph]

    1994 arXiv

  25. [33]

    V. M. Braun, Y. Ji, and A. N. Manashov, JHEP 05, 022 (2017), arXiv:1703.02446 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Grigo, J

    J. Grigo, J. Hoff, P. Marquard, and M. Steinhauser, Nucl. Phys. B864, 580 (2012), arXiv:1206.3418 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  27. [35]

    EOS — A HEP program for Flavor Observables,

    D. van Dyk et al. , “EOS — A HEP program for Flavor Observables,” (2019), version 0.2.6, available from https: //eos.github.io, doi:10.5281/zenodo.3376591

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    Posterior samples for ¯B→D(∗)𝓁¯ν form factors in the heavy-quark expansion to order 1/m2 c,

    M. Bordone, M. Jung, and D. van Dyk, “Posterior samples for ¯B→D(∗)𝓁¯ν form factors in the heavy-quark expansion to order 1/m2 c,” (2019), doi:10.5281/zenodo.3376898

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    Gambino, K

    P. Gambino, K. J. Healey, and S. Turczyk, Phys. Lett. B763, 60 (2016), arXiv:1606.06174 [hep-ph]. 14

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    F. U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, D. J. Robinson, and W. L. Sutcliffe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 202001 (2018), arXiv:1808.09464 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Vaquero, C

    A. Vaquero, C. DeTar, A. X. El-Khadra, A. S. Kronfeld, J. Laiho, and R. S. Van de Water, in 17th Conference on Flavor Physics and CP Violation (FPCP 2019) Victoria, BC, Canada, May 6-10, 2019 (2019) arXiv:1906.01019 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Kaneko, Y

    T. Kaneko, Y. Aoki, B. Colquhoun, H. Fukaya, and S. Hashimoto (JLQCD), Proceedings, 36th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (Lattice 2018): East Lansing, MI, United States, July 22-28, 2018 , PoS LATTICE2018, 311 (2018), arXiv:1811.00794 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Bhattacharya et al

    T. Bhattacharya et al. (LANL/SWME), Proceedings, 36th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (Lattice 2018): East Lansing, MI, United States, July 22-28, 2018 , PoS LATTICE2018, 283 (2018), arXiv:1812.07675 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Neubert, Phys

    M. Neubert, Phys. Rept. 245, 259 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9306320 [hep-ph]

    1994 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.