Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Renormalisation group evolution of the shape function $g_{17}$ in $\bar{B}\to X_s \gamma$ and $\bar{B} \to X_s \ell^+\ell^-$ at subleading power

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives the one-loop anomalous dimension of the subleading B-meson shape function $g_{17}(\omega,\omega_1;\mu)$, shows that the naively mixed terms are irrelevant in physical convolutions, and solves the resulting factorised RG…

desk verdict Careful one-loop calculation of the g17 anomalous dimension with a plausible but not yet fully demonstrated argument for dropping the non-factorizing term. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16634 v2 pith:ZUSKSA76 submitted 2024-11-25 hep-ph

Riccardo Bartocci , Philipp Böer , Tobias Hurth This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords subleadingpowerfactorizationshapefunctiong17soft-collineareffectivetheoryheavy-quarkresolvedphotoncontributionsBtoX_sgammadecayl+l-renormalisationgroupevolution
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 scale dependence of the subleading shape function $g_{17}(\omega,\omega_1;\mu)$ --- the non-perturbative soft function controlling the resolved-photon $Q_1^c$--$Q_{7\gamma}$ interference in $\bar{B}\to X_s\gamma$ and $\bar{B}\to X_s\ell^+\ell^-$ --- is governed by a one-loop anomalous dimension that factorises into two independent kernels, one acting on each light-cone momentum variable. Because of this factorisation, the renormalisation-group equation separates and can be solved analytically in momentum space, leading to the closed-form solution in Eq. (3.31). The authors argue that the terms in the $Z$-factor that appear to mix the two collinear sectors are irrelevant: they vanish when convolved with jet functions whose singularities all lie on one side of the real axis, and they are eliminated by the correct cut (closed-time-path) definition of the soft operator. The same reasoning simplifies the renormalisation of an amplitude-level soft function $\Phi_G$ relevant to exclusive $\bar{B}_{d,s}\to\gamma\gamma$, yielding a 'reduced' RG equation that is solved explicitly. This is the first ingredient needed for an NLO RG-improved calculation of the largest resolved-photon uncertainty in the inclusive penguin modes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the subleading shape function $g_{17}(\omega,\omega_1;\mu)$, the Fourier-transformed forward matrix element of an HQET operator $O_{17}$ that contains two heavy-quark fields separated along the $n$ light-cone and a soft gluon field-strength smeared along the $\bar n$ light-cone. The machinery carrying the argument is the one-loop $Z$-factor and its anomalous dimension, computed both with ordinary time-ordered Feynman rules and with cut (closed-time-path) rules that distinguish fields in the amplitude from fields in the complex-conjugate amplitude. The decisive mechanism is analyticity: the relevant jet functions have their singularities on one side of the real axis ($\omega+i0$ for the inclusive cut process, $\omega-i0$ for the exclusive time-ordered process), so the mixed convolution terms $\Delta Z_{17}$ and $\Delta\Gamma_G$ can be removed by contour deformation. Once removed, the anomalous dimension decouples into separate kernels for $\omega$ and $\omega_1$; each sector is then solved by a Mellin transformation, and the momentum-space evolution functions are expressed with Meijer-G functions.

What would settle it

Evaluate the two-loop ($O(\alpha_s^2)$) anti-hard-collinear jet function in the massless-quark limit and compute its convolution with $\Delta Z_{17}$ from Eq. (2.33); if the integral over $\omega$ and $\omega_1$ does not vanish on the physical jet-function space, the factorised anomalous dimension in Eq. (3.3) is not the correct RG kernel for $g_{17}$. For the exclusive case, one can instead test whether the full solution of the anomalous dimension in Ref. [40] and the 'reduced' solution in Eq. (4.18) agree for a low-scale model of $\Phi_G$ that is allowed negative support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the one-loop $\overline{\rm MS}$ anomalous dimension of the operator $O_{17}$, after the contribution $\Delta Z_{17}$ in Eq. (2.33) is dropped, takes the factorised form $$\gamma_{17}(\omega,\omega_1,\omega',\omega'_1;\mu)=\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\left\{C_F\,\delta(\omega_1-\omega'_1)\,\gamma_n(\omega,\omega';\mu)+\frac{C_A}{2}\,\delta(\omega-\omega')\,\gamma_{\bar n}(\omega_1,\omega'_1;\mu)\right\}.$$ The Abelian kernel $\gamma_n$ acts only on the soft variable associated with the $n$ direction and is identical in structure to the leading shape-function kernel; the non-Abelian kernel $\gamma_{\bar n}$ acts only on the variable associated with the $\bar n$ direction. The mixed terms $\Delta Z_{17}$ are not needed for physical quantities because the time-ordered jet functions have poles and branch cuts only in the lower half-plane, and the cut prescription in Eq. (2.37) enforces $t>0$, so their convolutions vanish. For the exclusive amplitude-level soft function $\Phi_G$, an analogous set of mixed terms in the anomalous dimension becomes irrelevant after convolution with jet functions whose singularities lie in the upper half-plane; there the identity $H_+=H_-$ holds on the relevant test-function space, reducing the anomaly to the factorised form in Eq. (4.9). The paper checks the cancellation of all $1/\varepsilon$ singularities between hard, jet and soft loops at NLO in the massless-quark limit, using a two-loop anti-hard-collinear jet-function calculation that is reported in a forthcoming publication.

Load-bearing premise

The argument hinges on the analytic behaviour of the jet functions: if at higher orders these functions develop singularities or branch cuts on both sides of the real axis, or do not fall off fast enough for contour deformation, the troublesome mixed terms in the anomalous dimension would not vanish, and the factorised RG equation would have to be modified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The resolved-photon contribution from the $Q_1^c$--$Q_{7\gamma}$ interference in $\bar{B}\to X_s\gamma$ and $\bar{B}\to X_s\ell^+\ell^-$ can now be RG-improved at next-to-leading order, removing the large scale ambiguity of the leading-order result.
  • The scale evolution of $g_{17}$ is completely fixed by its initial condition at the low scale through Eq. (3.31); the function remains real, so no strong phases are generated by resummation.
  • For the exclusive $\bar{B}_{d,s}\to\gamma\gamma$ soft function $\Phi_G$, the reduced RG equation factorises in $\omega$ and $\omega_1$, a positively-supported initial function stays positively supported, and inverse moments acquire no complex phases, simplifying the resummation of large logarithms.
  • The cancellation of $1/\varepsilon$ singularities between hard, jet and soft loops at NLO, checked in the massless-quark limit with the two-loop $\bar n$-jet function, supports the consistency of the underlying factorisation formula.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the one-sided analyticity property holds beyond one loop, the irrelevance of mixed two-light-cone operator-mixing terms is likely a general structural property of multi-light-cone soft functions; a testable extension would be to apply the same reduction to soft-quark functions in Drell-Yan or $gg\to h$ at next-to-leading power.
  • Appendix A's requirement that matrix elements of $O_{17}$ be integrated over the full real axis in $\omega$ implies that practical models for $g_{17}$ with a hard cut-off in $\omega$ are not consistent with renormalisation; model builders may need to work with full-line support and control the radiative tail by evolution.
  • The claim that reduced evolution introduces no complex phases in inverse moments is phenomenologically consequential for CP asymmetries in $\bar{B}\to X_s\gamma$: it would mean strong phases in the resolved contribution come only from the initial soft function at $\mu_0$, not from resummation. This could be tested once a complete model of $g_{17}$ at the low scale is available.
  • The identity $H_+=H_-$ on the jet-function test space suggests that an anomalous dimension of a soft operator is defined only modulo terms with one-sided analyticity; classifying such 'irrelevant' terms could simplify future subleading-power RG analyses.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives the one-loop renormalisation of the HQET operator O17 whose hadronic matrix element defines the subleading shape function g17(ω,ω1;μ) in the factorisation of the resolved-photon Q1^c–Q7γ interference in B̄→Xsγ and B̄→Xsℓ+ℓ−. The one-loop Z-factor is computed with explicit Feynman rules, modified plus-distributions, and dimensional regularisation. The authors find that, after removing an ostensibly non-factorising contribution ΔZ17, the anomalous dimension separates into two kernels acting on the two light-cone momentum variables ω and ω1, Eq. (3.3). They then solve the resulting integro-differential RG equation analytically by Mellin transformations, expressing the solution in terms of evolution functions involving Meijer-G and hypergeometric functions, Eq. (3.31), and provide numerical checks against direct discretisation. The same analyticity argument is applied to the amplitude-level soft function ΦG appearing in exclusive B̄d,s→γγ decays, for which a simplified 'reduced' RG equation is solved and compared with the full result of [40] through a double inverse moment, Eq. (4.28).

Significance. If the central factorisation result Eq. (3.3) holds, the paper supplies the first ingredient for a systematic next-to-leading-order analysis of one of the largest hadronic uncertainties in inclusive penguin B decays, and it provides a closed-form RG evolution valid beyond leading power. The calculation is performed with unusual transparency: the operator Feynman rules, the treatment of modified plus-distributions, and the analytic continuation prescriptions are given in enough detail to be checked independently. The Abelian part correctly reproduces the known evolution of the leading shape function [36], and the non-Abelian kernel is consistent with the independent calculation of [40] for the exclusive counterpart. The proposed simplification of multi-light-cone soft-function renormalisation, if confirmed, has broader applicability to other subleading-power and QED-generalised soft functions. The analytic solutions and the convergence properties of the evolved moments are valuable, and the numerical consistency checks in Figs. 4 and 6 support the algebra of the solution.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.4, Eqs. (2.33), (3.3), (3.31)] The factorised form of the anomalous dimension, Eq. (3.3), is obtained by dropping ΔZ17 from the one-loop Z-factor. The paper's justification is that ΔZ17 vanishes after convolution with jet functions because all jet-function singularities lie in one half-plane, but the only explicit example given is the leading-order propagator (ω+i0)^{-1}. The decisive next-to-leading-order check is stated to have been performed but is deferred to a forthcoming publication [56], and it is carried out in the massless limit mc→mu=0. This is a load-bearing point: if the finite-charm jet function develops branch cuts in both half-planes, or if the mc→0 limit is not smooth, Eq. (3.3) would need a non-factorised correction and the closed-form solution (3.31) would not describe the evolution of g17. The paper itself flags this limitation in Section 2.4 ('we have explicitly checked... in the massless case') and in the Conclusions ('will be discussed in a forthcoming publication'). The manuscript should either include the NLO cancellation check, or clearly state the central result as conditional on the analyticity assumption and on the smoothness of the massless limit.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (4.8), (4.9), (4.18)] The same analyticity argument is used to replace ΔΓG by a local imaginary term, Eq. (4.8), and to solve the 'reduced' RG equation of ΦG, Eq. (4.18). The identification H+ = H− on the space of jet-function test functions is plausible and consistent with the leading-order analytic structure, but the paper does not provide a proof for all orders or for the finite-charm case; the statement is supported only by the leading-order propagator example and by the assertion that the NLO 1/ε cancellation has been checked in the massless limit. The cross-check in Eq. (4.28) compares a single double inverse moment of the reduced-evolution result with the full result of [40], which is a necessary but weak test of the claimed equivalence of the evolution kernels. Since the simplified RG solution is a central by-product of the paper, the reduction should either be proven more rigorously or the scope of the claim should be restricted accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, after Eq. (4.21)] The text twice refers to 'Meier-G functions'; the correct name is Meijer-G functions.
  2. [Figs. 4 and 6] The agreement between the analytic evolution and the discretised RG equation is described only as 'good agreement'; adding a residual plot or a quantitative error measure would make the verification more convincing.
  3. [Eq. (2.12) and surrounding text] The definitions of the modified plus-distributions [⋯]⊕ and [⋯]⊖ are essential for the central calculation, but the notation is dense; a short worked example showing how a test function is evaluated at ω or at ±ω would improve readability.
  4. [Section 3.3] The phenomenological discussion explicitly leaves a serious numerical estimate to future work; this should be stated already in the introduction or section heading so that the reader does not expect a quantitative estimate of the scale ambiguity reduction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the anomalous dimension is computed from first principles, and the RG solution is not an input to the calculation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, the factorized anomalous dimension in Eq. (3.3) and the closed-form evolution in Eq. (3.31), is derived by an explicit one-loop computation of the UV singularities of the operator O17 defined independently in Eqs. (2.3)-(2.4). No parameter is fitted to g17 and no quantity is renamed as a prediction. The delicate step of dropping the mixed-variable piece ΔZ17 is justified by analyticity and cut-diagram arguments in Section 2.4, not by assuming the result; the NLO check is deferred to a forthcoming publication, which is an incompleteness caveat rather than circularity. Citations to [47], which shares an author with the present paper, are methodological (definitions of modified plus-distributions and Mellin-space techniques) and do not import the target anomalous dimension or the solution of the RG equation. The numerical verification in Figs. 4 and 6 compares the analytic solution with a direct discretization of the same RG equation, which is a consistency check rather than a circular derivation. There is no self-citation chain, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation that would force the result.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard SCET/HQET framework, the analyticity of jet functions, and the Keldysh prescription for cut diagrams. No free parameters are fitted to obtain the Z-factor or the RG solution; the only hand-chosen numbers are illustrative model parameters for the numerical checks. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • Illustrative h17 model moments (⟨ω1^0 h17⟩, ⟨ω1^2 h17⟩, σ) = 0.25 GeV^2, 0.1 GeV^4, 0.3 GeV
    Used only for the numerical illustration in Fig. 4 and the moment relations in Eq. 3.41; not fitted to data and not used in the derivation of the Z-factor or the RG solution.
  • Illustrative ΦG exponential model parameters (λE^2+λH^2, ω0) = ω0=0.3 GeV, λE^2+λH^2 not assigned numerically
    Model (4.25) taken from [40] for the cross-check in Section 4.3; not load-bearing for the central result.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SCET/HQET factorization structure for the resolved-photon contribution (H·J⊗g17⊗Jbar)
    Adopted from [16] and [31]; the paper does not re-derive factorization but assumes it holds at subleading power to define the operator and its renormalization (Section 1, Eq. 1.2).
  • standard math UV singularities of the non-perturbative soft operator can be computed with partonic external states in perturbation theory
    Standard in HQET/SCET: the paper states this in Section 2.1 ('Despite the non-perturbative nature... safe to compute in perturbation theory using partonic external states').
  • domain assumption Analytic properties of jet functions (singularities only in lower half-plane for inclusive, upper for exclusive) and sufficient fall-off of test functions
    Used to drop ΔZ17 (Section 2.4) and to identify H+ = H− (Section 4.1). Only the leading-order jet function is shown explicitly; all-order validity is asserted.
  • domain assumption Smoothness of the mc to mu = 0 limit for the anti-hard-collinear jet function
    Used for the NLO cancellation check and the identity of inclusive/exclusive jet functions (Sections 2.4 and 4.1: 'it is important that the limit mc → mu = 0 is smooth').
  • domain assumption Keldysh/cut formalism gives the correct soft function for the decay rate
    The operator (2.37) with '+' and '−' fields replaces the time-ordered operator to implement restricted cuts; the paper argues this is necessary and checks consistency, but the non-perturbative equivalence is an assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Renormalisation group evolution of the shape function $g_{17}$ in $\bar{B}\to X_s \gamma$ and $\bar{B} \to X_s \ell^+\ell^-$ at subleading power." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZUSKSA76

@misc{pith2026241116634,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Renormalisation group evolution of the shape function $g_17$ in $\barB\to X_s \gamma$ and $\barB \to X_s \ell^+\ell^-$ at subleading power},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZUSKSA76}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16634}
}
abstract

We derive and solve the renormalisation-group (RG) equation of the shape function $g_{17}(\omega,\omega_1;\mu)$, which appears at subleading power in the factorization of the inclusive decays $\bar{B} \to X_s \gamma$ and $\bar B \to X_s \ell^+\ell^-$. Our results provide the first ingredient for a next-to-leading order analysis of the respective resolved-photon ${Q}^{c}_{1} - {Q}_{7\gamma}$ interference contribution, whose current uncertainties are among the largest ones in both inclusive penguin modes. As a by-product of our study, we find that the analytic properties of the soft anomalous dimension as well as the jet functions in a factorization theorem allow for a simplified renormalisation of operators in Heavy-Quark Effective Theory that are composed of fields smeared along distinct light-cone directions. Their hadronic matrix elements become relevant in various inclusive and exclusive $B$-decays beyond leading power in the heavy-quark and large-energy expansion. Using these insights, we derive and solve a simpler ``reduced'' RG equation of an amplitude-level soft function that describes the long-distance QCD dynamics for penguin contributions to exclusive $\bar{B}_{d,s} \to \gamma \gamma$ decays, and which has recently been discussed in the literature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16634 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Diagrams built from the one gluon Feynman rule [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diagrams built from the one gluon Feynman rule [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diagrams built from the one gluon Feynman rule [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Photon-Tagged Energy Flow in Inclusive Endpoint $B$ Decays

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new photon-tagged angular energy correlator in inclusive B→X_sγ factorizes at leading power into the standard shape function and a newly computed measured jet function, enabling angular tests of endpoint factorization.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [40]

    Huang, Y

    Y.-K. Huang, Y. Ji, Y.-L. Shen, C. Wang, Y.-M. Wang and X.-C. Zhao, Renormalization-Group Evolution for the Three-Particle B-Meson Soft Function , Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2024) 171901, [ 2312.15439]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [47]

    Beneke, P

    M. Beneke, P. B¨ oer, J.-N. Toelstede and K. K. Vos, Light-cone distribution amplitudes of heavy mesons with QED effects , JHEP 08 (2022) 020, [ 2204.09091]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [36]

    S. W. Bosch, B. O. Lange, M. Neubert and G. Paz, Factorization and shape function effects in inclusive B meson decays , Nucl. Phys. B 699 (2004) 335–386, [ hep-ph/0402094]

    arXiv 2004

  4. [56]

    Bartocci, P

    R. Bartocci, P. B¨ oer and T. Hurth, to appear,

    work page

  5. [1]

    Present Status of Inclusive Rare B Decays

    T. Hurth, Present status of inclusive rare B decays , Rev. Mod. Phys. 75 (2003) 1159–1199, [hep-ph/0212304]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  6. [2]

    Radiative and Electroweak Penguin Decays of B Mesons

    T. Hurth and M. Nakao, Radiative and Electroweak Penguin Decays of B Mesons , Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60 (2010) 645–677, [ 1005.1224]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

  7. [3]

    New physics search with flavour in the LHC era

    T. Hurth and F. Mahmoudi, Colloquium: New physics search with flavor in the LHC era , Rev. Mod. Phys. 85 (2013) 795, [ 1211.6453]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  8. [4]

    Huber, T

    T. Huber, T. Hurth, J. Jenkins, E. Lunghi, Q. Qin and K. K. Vos, Phenomenology of inclusive B → Xsℓ+ℓ− for the Belle II era , JHEP 10 (2020) 088, [ 2007.04191]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 68 references
  1. [5]

    Hurth, F

    T. Hurth, F. Mahmoudi and S. Neshatpour, B anomalies in the post RK(∗) era, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 115037, [ 2310.05585]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [6]

    Amhis and P

    Y. Amhis and P. Owen, Isospin extrapolation as a method to study inclusive B → Xsℓ+ℓ− decays, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 371, [ 2106.15943]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [7]

    Isidori, Z

    G. Isidori, Z. Polonsky and A. Tinari, Semi-inclusive b → s¯ℓℓ transitions at high q2, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 093008, [ 2305.03076]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [8]

    Huber, T

    T. Huber, T. Hurth, J. Jenkins, E. Lunghi, Q. Qin and K. K. Vos, Inclusive ¯B → Xsℓ+ℓ− at the LHC: theory predictions and new-physics reach , 2404.03517

    arXiv

  5. [9]

    Altmannshofer et al., The Belle II Physics Book , PTEP 2019 (2019) 123C01, [ 1808.10567]

    Belle-II collaboration, W. Altmannshofer et al., The Belle II Physics Book , PTEP 2019 (2019) 123C01, [ 1808.10567]

    2019

  6. [10]

    S. J. Lee, M. Neubert and G. Paz, Enhanced Non-local Power Corrections to the ¯B → Xsγ Decay Rate, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 114005, [ hep-ph/0609224]

    2007 arXiv

  7. [11]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, An Effective field theory for collinear and soft gluons: Heavy to light decays , Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 114020, [ hep-ph/0011336]

    2001 arXiv

  8. [12]

    C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Soft collinear factorization in effective field theory , Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 054022, [ hep-ph/0109045]

    2002 arXiv

  9. [13]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, I. Z. Rothstein and I. W. Stewart, Hard scattering factorization from effective field theory , Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 014017, [ hep-ph/0202088]

    2002 arXiv

  10. [14]

    Beneke, A

    M. Beneke, A. P. Chapovsky, M. Diehl and T. Feldmann, Soft collinear effective theory and heavy to light currents beyond leading power , Nucl. Phys. B 643 (2002) 431–476, [hep-ph/0206152]. – 34 –

    2002 arXiv

  11. [15]

    Beneke and T

    M. Beneke and T. Feldmann, Multipole expanded soft collinear effective theory with nonAbelian gauge symmetry , Phys. Lett. B 553 (2003) 267–276, [ hep-ph/0211358]

    2003 arXiv

  12. [16]

    Benzke, S

    M. Benzke, S. J. Lee, M. Neubert and G. Paz, Factorization at Subleading Power and Irreducible Uncertainties in ¯B → Xsγ Decay, JHEP 08 (2010) 099, [ 1003.5012]

    2010 arXiv

  13. [17]

    Benzke, S

    M. Benzke, S. J. Lee, M. Neubert and G. Paz, Long-Distance Dominance of the CP Asymmetry in B → Xs,d + γ Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 141801, [ 1012.3167]

    2011 arXiv

  14. [18]

    Hurth, M

    T. Hurth, M. Fickinger, S. Turczyk and M. Benzke, Resolved Power Corrections to the Inclusive Decay ¯B → Xsℓ+ℓ−, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 285-286 (2017) 57–62, [ 1711.01162]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [19]

    Benzke, T

    M. Benzke, T. Hurth and S. Turczyk, Subleading power factorization in ¯B → Xsℓ+ℓ−, JHEP 10 (2017) 031, [ 1705.10366]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [20]

    Misiak et al., Updated NNLO QCD predictions for the weak radiative B-meson decays , Phys

    M. Misiak et al., Updated NNLO QCD predictions for the weak radiative B-meson decays , Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 221801, [ 1503.01789]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [21]

    Huber, T

    T. Huber, T. Hurth and E. Lunghi, Inclusive B → Xsℓ+ℓ− : complete angular analysis and a thorough study of collinear photons , JHEP 06 (2015) 176, [ 1503.04849]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [22]

    Huber, T

    T. Huber, T. Hurth, J. Jenkins, E. Lunghi, Q. Qin and K. K. Vos, Long distance effects in inclusive rare B decays and phenomenology of ¯B → Xdℓ+ℓ−, JHEP 10 (2019) 228, [1908.07507]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [23]

    M. B. Voloshin, Large O(m−2 c ) nonperturbative correction to the inclusive rate of the decay B → Xsγ, Phys. Lett. B 397 (1997) 275–278, [ hep-ph/9612483]

    1997 arXiv

  20. [24]

    Ligeti, L

    Z. Ligeti, L. Randall and M. B. Wise, Comment on nonperturbative effects in ¯B → Xsγ, Phys. Lett. B 402 (1997) 178–182, [ hep-ph/9702322]

    1997 arXiv

  21. [25]

    A. K. Grant, A. G. Morgan, S. Nussinov and R. D. Peccei, Comment on nonperturbative O(1/m2 c) corrections to Γ( ¯B → Xsγ), Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 3151–3154, [ hep-ph/9702380]

    1997 arXiv

  22. [26]

    Buchalla, G

    G. Buchalla, G. Isidori and S. J. Rey, Corrections of order Λ2 QCD /m2 c to inclusive rare B decays, Nucl. Phys. B 511 (1998) 594–610, [ hep-ph/9705253]

    1998 arXiv

  23. [27]

    Gunawardana and G

    A. Gunawardana and G. Paz, On HQET and NRQCD Operators of Dimension 8 and Above , JHEP 07 (2017) 137, [ 1702.08904]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [28]

    Gunawardana and G

    A. Gunawardana and G. Paz, Reevaluating uncertainties in B → Xsγ decay, JHEP 11 (2019) 141, [ 1908.02812]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [29]

    Benzke and T

    M. Benzke and T. Hurth, Resolved 1/mb contributions to ¯B → Xs,dℓ+ℓ− and ¯B → Xsγ, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 114024, [ 2006.00624]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [30]

    Benzke and T

    M. Benzke and T. Hurth, work in progress,

  27. [31]

    Hurth and R

    T. Hurth and R. Szafron, Refactorisation in subleading ¯B → Xsγ, Nucl. Phys. B 991 (2023) 116200, [2301.01739]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [32]

    B¨ oer,QCD Factorisation in Exclusive Semileptonic B Decays New Applications and Resummation of Rapidity Logarithms , Ph.D

    P. B¨ oer,QCD Factorisation in Exclusive Semileptonic B Decays New Applications and Resummation of Rapidity Logarithms , Ph.D. thesis, Siegen U., 2018

    2018

  29. [33]

    Z. L. Liu, B. Mecaj, M. Neubert and X. Wang, Factorization at subleading power and endpoint divergences in h → γγ decay. Part II. Renormalization and scale evolution , JHEP 01 (2021) 077, [ 2009.06779]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [34]

    Beneke, M

    M. Beneke, M. Garny, S. Jaskiewicz, J. Strohm, R. Szafron, L. Vernazza et al., – 35 – Next-to-leading power endpoint factorization and resummation for off-diagonal “gluon” thrust, JHEP 07 (2022) 144, [ 2205.04479]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [35]

    G. Bell, P. B¨ oer and T. Feldmann,Muon-electron backward scattering: a prime example for endpoint singularities in SCET , JHEP 09 (2022) 183, [ 2205.06021]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [37]

    C. W. Bauer and A. V. Manohar, Shape function effects in B → Xsγ and B → Xuℓ¯ν decays, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 034024, [ hep-ph/0312109]

    2004 arXiv

  33. [38]

    Qin, Y.-L

    Q. Qin, Y.-L. Shen, C. Wang and Y.-M. Wang, Deciphering the Long-Distance Penguin Contribution to ¯Bd,s → γγ Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 091902, [ 2207.02691]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [39]

    M. L. Piscopo and A. V. Rusov, Non-factorisable effects in the decays B 0 s → D+ s π− and B 0 → D+K − from LCSR, JHEP 10 (2023) 180, [ 2307.07594]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [41]

    Feldmann and N

    T. Feldmann and N. Gubernari, Non-factorisable contributions of strong-penguin operators in Λb → Λℓ+ℓ− decays, JHEP 03 (2024) 152, [ 2312.14146]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [42]

    Beneke, C

    M. Beneke, C. Bobeth and R. Szafron, Enhanced electromagnetic correction to the rare B-meson decay Bs,d → µ+µ−, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 011801, [ 1708.09152]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [43]

    Beneke, C

    M. Beneke, C. Bobeth and R. Szafron, Power-enhanced leading-logarithmic QED corrections to Bq → µ+µ−, JHEP 10 (2019) 232, [ 1908.07011]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [44]

    Beneke, P

    M. Beneke, P. B¨ oer, J.-N. Toelstede and K. K. Vos, QED factorization of non-leptonic B decays, JHEP 11 (2020) 081, [ 2008.10615]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [45]

    Beneke, P

    M. Beneke, P. B¨ oer, G. Finauri and K. K. Vos, QED factorization of two-body non-leptonic and semi-leptonic B to charm decays , JHEP 10 (2021) 223, [ 2107.03819]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [46]

    Beneke, P

    M. Beneke, P. B¨ oer, J.-N. Toelstede and K. K. Vos, Light-cone distribution amplitudes of light mesons with QED effects , JHEP 11 (2021) 059, [ 2108.05589]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Cornella, M

    C. Cornella, M. K¨ onig and M. Neubert, Structure-dependent QED effects in exclusive B decays at subleading power , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) L031502, [ 2212.14430]

    2023

  42. [49]

    B¨ oer and T

    P. B¨ oer and T. Feldmann,Structure-dependent QED effects in exclusive B-meson decays , Eur. Phys. J. ST 233 (2024) 299–323, [ 2312.12885]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Z. L. Liu, B. Mecaj, M. Neubert, X. Wang and S. Fleming, Renormalization and Scale Evolution of the Soft-Quark Soft Function , JHEP 07 (2020) 104, [ 2005.03013]

    2020 arXiv

  44. [51]

    G. T. Bodwin, J.-H. Ee, J. Lee and X.-P. Wang, Analyticity, renormalization, and evolution of the soft-quark function , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 016010, [ 2101.04872]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Broggio, S

    A. Broggio, S. Jaskiewicz and L. Vernazza, Next-to-leading power two-loop soft functions for the Drell-Yan process at threshold , JHEP 10 (2021) 061, [ 2107.07353]. – 36 –

    2021 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Broggio, S

    A. Broggio, S. Jaskiewicz and L. Vernazza, Threshold factorization of the Drell-Yan quark-gluon channel and two-loop soft function at next-to-leading power , JHEP 12 (2023) 028, [2306.06037]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Beneke, Y

    M. Beneke, Y. Ji and X. Wang, Renormalization of the next-to-leading-power γγ → h and gg → h soft quark functions , JHEP 05 (2024) 246, [ 2403.17738]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Beneke, Y

    M. Beneke, Y. Ji, E. S¨ underhauf and X. Wang, Renormalization of the Next-to-Leading-Power Soft Function for the Drell-Yan Off-diagonal Channel , 2502.01973

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    Itzykson and J

    C. Itzykson and J. Zuber, Quantum Field Theory . Dover Books on Physics. Dover Publications, 2012

    2012

  50. [58]

    J. S. Schwinger, Brownian motion of a quantum oscillator , J. Math. Phys. 2 (1961) 407–432

    1961

  51. [59]

    L. V. Keldysh, Diagram technique for nonequilibrium processes , Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 47, 1515 (1964)

    1964

  52. [60]

    Becher, M

    T. Becher, M. Neubert and G. Xu, Dynamical Threshold Enhancement and Resummation in Drell-Yan Production, JHEP 07 (2008) 030, [ 0710.0680]

    2008 arXiv

  53. [61]

    G. Bell, T. Feldmann, Y.-M. Wang and M. W. Y. Yip, Light-Cone Distribution Amplitudes for Heavy-Quark Hadrons , JHEP 11 (2013) 191, [ 1308.6114]

    2013 arXiv

  54. [62]

    V. M. Braun and A. N. Manashov, Conformal symmetry of the Lange-Neubert evolution equation, Phys. Lett. B 731 (2014) 316–319, [ 1402.5822]

    2014 arXiv

  55. [63]

    S. J. Lee and M. Neubert, Model-independent properties of the B-meson distribution amplitude, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 094028, [ hep-ph/0509350]

    2005 arXiv

  56. [64]

    B. O. Lange and M. Neubert, Renormalization group evolution of the B meson light cone distribution amplitude , Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 102001, [ hep-ph/0303082]

    2003 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Bell and T

    G. Bell and T. Feldmann, Modelling light-cone distribution amplitudes from non-relativistic bound states, JHEP 04 (2008) 061, [ 0802.2221]

    2008 arXiv

  58. [66]

    V. M. Braun and I. E. Filyanov, Conformal Invariance and Pion Wave Functions of Nonleading Twist, Z. Phys. C 48 (1990) 239–248

    1990

  59. [67]

    V. M. Braun, Y. Ji and A. N. Manashov, Higher-twist B-meson Distribution Amplitudes in HQET, JHEP 05 (2017) 022, [ 1703.02446]

    2017 arXiv

  60. [68]

    A. G. Grozin and M. Neubert, Asymptotics of heavy meson form-factors , Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 272–290, [ hep-ph/9607366]. – 37 –

    1997 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.