Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Precision calculations of $B\to K^*$ form factors from SCET sum rules beyond leading-power contributions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper extends the SCET light-cone sum-rule calculation of B→K* form factors to next-to-leading power, finding 30% corrections that sharpen Standard Model predictions for B→K*νν̅ decays.

desk verdict Genuinely new subleading-power SCET calculation for B->K*, but the headline branching fractions sit on an underexplained poor-quality fit. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13084 v3 pith:ITT5FUX7 submitted 2024-12-17 hep-ph hep-ex

Jing Gao , Ulf-G. Mei{ss}ner , Yue-Long Shen , Dong-Hao Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords B→K*formfactorslight-conesumrulessoft-collineareffectivetheorysubleading-powercorrectionsB-mesondistributionamplitudesB→K*νν̅decaybranchingfractionlongitudinalpolarization
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 extends the SCET light-cone sum-rule (LCSR) calculation of the seven $B\to K^*$ form factors to next-to-leading power (NLP), adding tree-level corrections from the hard-collinear propagator, the subleading effective weak current, and higher-twist $B$-meson distribution amplitudes. It finds that the NLP terms are about 30\% of the leading-power result, comparable in size to the next-to-leading-logarithmic corrections, so they cannot be neglected. Combining the improved low-$q^2$ LCSR predictions with high-$q^2$ lattice QCD data through the BCL parametrization yields form factors across the full kinematic range. The resulting Standard Model predictions are $\mathrm{BR}(\bar B^0\to \bar K^{*0}\nu_\ell\bar\nu_\ell)=8.09(96)\times 10^{-6}$, $\mathrm{BR}(\bar B^+\to \bar K^{*+}\nu_\ell\bar\nu_\ell)=9.95(1.05)\times 10^{-6}$, and the longitudinal polarization fraction $F_L=0.44(4)$, giving sharp targets for Belle II.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the vacuum-to-$B$-meson correlation function in soft-collinear effective theory, expanded beyond leading power. The new subleading-power terms come from three sources: the heavy-quark expansion of the hard-collinear propagator, the subleading effective current $\bar{q}\Gamma[i\,\slashed{D}_{\perp}/(2m_b)]h_v$, and higher-twist (including twist-five/six four-particle) $B$-meson light-cone distribution amplitudes. These are converted into sum rules using dispersion relations, quark-hadron duality, and Borel transformation. The numerical evaluation uses a three-parameter model for the $B$-meson LCDAs fixed by the inverse moment $\lambda_B=350\pm150\,\mathrm{MeV}$ and the inverse-logarithmic moments $\hat\sigma_1,\hat\sigma_2$.

What would settle it

A lattice-QCD determination of the inverse moment $\lambda_B$ with uncertainty below about $50\,\mathrm{MeV}$ that falls outside the $350$--$500\,\mathrm{MeV}$ window, combined with a Belle II measurement of the $B\to K^*\nu\bar\nu$ branching fraction at roughly 10\% total uncertainty, would settle whether the 30\% NLP correction is correctly normalized.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the complete set of next-to-leading-power contributions at tree level changes the $B\to K^*$ form factors by about 30\% relative to the leading-power results, an effect as large as the NLL resummation itself. The dominant NLP source is the two-particle higher-twist $B$-meson light-cone distribution amplitudes, while the twist-5/6 four-particle effects contribute only 3--7\% of the NLP total. The paper then shows that a combined fit of these improved LCSR form factors with lattice QCD results gives the Standard Model predictions $\mathrm{BR}(\bar B^0\to \bar K^{*0}\nu_\ell\bar\nu_\ell)=8.09(96)\times10^{-6}$, $\mathrm{BR}(\bar B^+\to \bar K^{*+}\nu_\ell\bar\nu_\ell)=9.95(1.05)\times10^{-6}$, and $F_L=0.44(4)$, with uncertainties dominated by the hadronic form factors.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the assumed model for the $B$-meson light-cone distribution amplitude and its inverse-moment parameter $\lambda_B$, which is only fixed to $350\pm150\,\mathrm{MeV}$; the quoted form factors and branching fractions are highly sensitive to this parameter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 30% NLP correction means previous leading-power-only LCSR predictions for $B\to K^*$ observables are shifted by an amount comparable to the NLL effects, so future extractions from $b\to s$ transitions should adopt the updated form factors.
  • The combined LCSR+lattice fit gives $B\to K^*$ form factors with smaller uncertainties over the full $q^2$ range than lattice-only fits, sharpening the interpretation of Belle II data on $B\to K^*\nu\bar\nu$.
  • The Standard Model predictions $\mathrm{BR}(\bar B^0\to \bar K^{*0}\nu_\ell\bar\nu_\ell)=8.09(96)\times10^{-6}$ and $F_L=0.44(4)$ are concrete, testable targets for the upcoming Belle II measurements.
  • The paper isolates the dominant source of the NLP corrections as the two-particle higher-twist $B$-meson LCDAs, identifying where better non-perturbative input would most reduce the uncertainty.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Since the tree-level NLP effect is already 30\% of the leading power, the next order (NLO in $\alpha_s$ at NLP) could shift the branching fractions by several percent, so a full NLO-NLP calculation may be needed before claiming the quoted ~10\% precision as a Standard Model benchmark.
  • The same SCET sum-rule machinery should apply to other $B\to V$ transitions ($\rho$, $\omega$, $\phi$); if similar 30\% NLP effects appear, ratios such as $B\to K^*$ to $B\to\rho$ form factors could be cleaner observables than individual form factors for new-physics searches.
  • The paper leaves out power-suppressed corrections from the interpolating currents and one-loop spectator-quark mass effects; given that the included NLP terms already shift the form factors by 30\%, these omissions could be numerically relevant at the few-percent level.
  • The tension between $\lambda_B\approx 300\,\mathrm{MeV}$ preferred by light-meson sum rules and the lattice value of $389(35)\,\mathrm{MeV}$, noted in the paper, points to a genuine puzzle in the $B$-meson LCDA; higher-precision lattice determinations or a measurement of the $B\to K^*\nu\bar\nu$ $q^2$ distribution could indicate which side underestimates power corrections.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs light-cone sum rules for the seven B→K* form factors using vacuum-to-B-meson correlation functions, and adds tree-level subleading-power corrections from three sources: higher-twist two- and three-particle B-meson light-cone distribution amplitudes, the power-suppressed terms in the hard-collinear propagator expansion, the subleading HQET weak current, and twist-five/six four-particle contributions. These NLP corrections are combined with the existing NLL leading-power results and are then fitted together with lattice QCD data in the small-recoil region using a BCL z-parametrization. The resulting form factors are used to predict the branching fractions BR(bar B^0 -> bar K*0 nu_l bar nu_l) = 8.09(96) x 10^-6, BR(bar B^+ -> bar K*+ nu_l bar nu_l) = 9.95(1.05) x 10^-6, and the longitudinal polarization fraction F_L = 0.44(4). The paper also discusses the impact of the inverse moment λ_B and provides a comparison with the light-meson-sum-rule results of Ref. [27].

Significance. If the calculation is correct, the analytic NLP results are a valuable and nontrivial extension of the SCET sum-rule program from B→D* to B→K*. The comparison in Sec. 3.3 with the earlier B→D* calculation is a useful cross-check, and the finding that the NLP corrections amount to roughly 30% of the leading-power results is important for precision flavor physics. The derivation is not circular: the branching fractions are predictions, not fitted inputs, and the calculation uses external inputs such as LCDA moments and lattice data. However, the numerical evidence for the central claims is not fully established. The combined BCL fit has a poor χ²/dof, and the q²=0 LCSR results in Table 2 carry much larger fractional uncertainties than the corresponding light-meson LCSR results, so the 'improved precision' claim requires a more careful quantitative comparison. The strong sensitivity to the model-dependent B-meson LCDA parameters, including the unresolved discrepancy between λ_B ≈ 300 MeV preferred by light-meson sum rules and the lattice value λ_B = 389(35) MeV, also needs to be confronted directly.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (77)] The combined fit yields χ²_min/dof = 40.1/23, corresponding to p ≈ 0.015. This is a poor fit for 23 degrees of freedom and contradicts the later statement in Sec. 5 that the fit 'confirm[s] the consistency of the two complementary methods'. Because the BCL coefficients extracted from this fit directly determine the form factors and the headline branching fractions, the paper must diagnose the source of the tension (for example, which lattice or LCSR points contribute most to χ²), report the p-value, and either enlarge the covariance matrices or use a more robust combination scheme. As written, the quoted uncertainties on the final observables likely underestimate the systematic tension between the LCSR and lattice inputs.
  2. [Table 2 and Sec. 4.2] The abstract's claim that the paper 'improve[s] the precision of theoretical predictions' is not supported by the q²=0 LCSR entries in Table 2: for example V = 0.20(14), A0 = 0.066(38), and A1 = 0.19(13) have relative errors of roughly 60–70%, whereas the corresponding light-meson LCSR results from Ref. [27] are V = 0.29(3), A0 = 0.118(16), and A1 = 0.306(33). If the precision claim is intended for the final full-range BCL fit, the paper should present a direct comparison of the BCL form-factor uncertainties with previous determinations, and should soften the wording for the large-recoil LCSR inputs. Otherwise the central 'improved precision' claim is not demonstrated.
  3. [Sec. 4.1, Fig. 7, Appendix D] The final numerical predictions are strongly sensitive to λ_B and to the three-parameter model for the B-meson LCDAs, whose validity the authors themselves restrict to small momenta in Appendix D. The paper notes that light-meson LCSR fits prefer λ_B ≈ 300 MeV while the recent lattice value is λ_B = 389(35) MeV, and the final predictions nevertheless use λ_B = 350(150) MeV. Since λ_B enters the convolutions that determine the NLP corrections as well as the leading-power results, the authors should quote the shifts in BR and F_L obtained with the lattice-motivated λ_B = 389(35) MeV, and should state explicitly whether the unresolved λ_B discrepancy is included in the quoted uncertainties or treated as an additional model-dependence caveat.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5] There is a typo in the first paragraph: 'In addtion' should be 'In addition'.
  2. [Sec. 4.3] The text writes 'K´allen function'; the correct spelling is 'Källén function'.
  3. [Table 1] The entries for {σ̂1, σ̂2} appear as three separate rows with values {0.7, 6.0}, {0.0, π²/6}, and {-0.7, -6.0}; the table should clarify which is the central value and which values are the boundaries of the uncertainty range.
  4. [Sec. 4.2] The fit coefficients and correlation matrix are said to be provided as supplemental material on the arXiv page; for a journal submission, this material should be included as an ancillary file or an appendix so that the fit results are available to referees and readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the new NLP corrections and final B→K*νν observables are genuine SCET sum-rule outputs built from external inputs; the only mild self-citation (Ref. [31] for NLL LP and higher-twist pieces) is not load-bearing in a circular sense.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is largely self-contained. The new subleading-power contributions (hard-collinear propagator expansion, subleading effective current, four-particle twist-5/6 effects) are computed in Sections 3.2–3.4 from explicitly displayed correlation functions and factorization formulas; they are not imported from the target observables. The higher-twist two/three-particle contribution and the NLL leading-power form factors are taken from the authors' earlier Ref. [31] (e.g., Eq. (35) is quoted from that work), which is a legitimate external previous calculation rather than a circular input, because the final branching fractions and F_L are not used to determine those inputs. The B-meson LCDA model is adopted from Ref. [54] (not by the present authors), with moments λ_B and σ̂_{1,2} treated as external parameters; the paper explicitly acknowledges that a QCD-based precise determination of λ_B remains elusive and compares the conventional range with a lattice value. The BCL fit combines LCSR pseudo-data with independent lattice QCD results from Refs. [13,14]; the predicted BR and F_L are computed from the fitted form factors, not fitted to the measured BR. The reported χ²_min/d.o.f = 40.1/23 and the large low-q² form-factor uncertainties (e.g., V=0.20(14), A0=0.066(38)) are legitimate scientific concerns about fit quality and precision, but they do not constitute a circular reduction of a prediction to an input. No equation or parameter in the paper is defined in terms of the final observables, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard LCSR framework, the B-meson LCDA model from prior literature, and a set of auxiliary parameters. No new physical entities are introduced. The dominant free parameters are the LCDA moments, especially lambda_B, which the paper itself identifies as the main uncertainty.

free parameters (5)
  • lambda_B (inverse moment of leading-twist B-meson LCDA) = 350 +/- 150 MeV (central); 389 +/- 35 MeV for comparison
    Input defining the normalization of phi_B^+; dominant source of uncertainty in the form factors (Fig. 7 and Sec. 5).
  • sigma1, sigma2 (inverse logarithmic moments) = {0, pi^2/6}, with ranges -0.7<sigma1<0.7, -6.0<sigma2<6.0
    Shape parameters of the B-meson LCDA model; varied within conservative intervals.
  • lambda_E^2, lambda_H^2 (higher-twist HQET matrix elements) = (2*lambda_E^2+lambda_H^2)=0.25+/-0.15 GeV^2, lambda_E^2/lambda_H^2=0.50+/-0.10
    Control the size of higher-twist LCDAs; taken from QCD sum rules with ranges covering Refs. [45,90,91].
  • Borel mass M^2 and thresholds s_0^perp, s_0^par = M^2=1.7+/-0.5 GeV^2, s_0^perp=1.4+/-0.1 GeV^2, s_0^par=1.7+/-0.1 GeV^2
    LCSR auxiliary parameters, chosen by requiring stability of the sum rules against their variation (Sec. 4.1).
  • BCL z-expansion coefficients b_i^k (for 7 form factors) = Not given in text; promised as arXiv supplemental material
    Determined by a combined chi^2 fit to LCSR pseudo-data and lattice QCD points (Sec. 4.2); used to extrapolate form factors to the full q^2 range.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Quark-hadron duality: the hadronic spectral function above the threshold s0 is approximated by the partonic spectral function computed in SCET.
    Used to derive the LCSR by matching the dispersion integral (Eq. 14) and subtracting continuum; this is the standard but unproven assumption of all LCSR calculations.
  • domain assumption The three-parameter model for all B-meson LCDAs (Eq. 98) satisfies the classical equations of motion and has the correct asymptotic behavior.
    This model, taken from Beneke et al. [54], is the non-perturbative input for the sum rules; its validity is assumed, not derived.
  • domain assumption Factorization of four-particle twist-5/6 contributions into a product of two-particle LCDAs and quark condensates (Eq. 59).
    Used in Sec. 3.4 to compute the four-particle corrections; the factorization is an approximation and no systematic uncertainty is assigned to it.
  • domain assumption The NLP contributions are only computed at tree level; O(alpha_s) corrections to NLP are assumed to be small.
    The paper states in Sec. 5 that NLO at subleading power is left for future work; the numerical results assume the tree-level NLP is sufficient.
  • domain assumption The narrow-width approximation for the tau lepton in the long-distance contribution to B+ to K*+ nu nubar (Sec. 4.3, Eq. 82).
    Used to include the B+ to tau+(to K*+ nu_tau) nubar_tau tree-level effect; valid because Gamma_tau/m_tau is small.
  • standard math Standard SCET factorization and power counting (Lambda_QCD/m_b expansion).
    The whole calculation is built on the SCET matching QCD to SCET_I to SCET_II; this framework is assumed valid for these form factors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Precision calculations of $B\to K^*$ form factors from SCET sum rules beyond leading-power contributions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ITT5FUX7

@misc{pith2026241213084,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Precision calculations of $B\to K^*$ form factors from SCET sum rules beyond leading-power contributions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ITT5FUX7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13084}
}
abstract

We construct light-cone sum rules (LCSR) for the $B\to K^*$ form factors in the large recoil region using vacuum-to-$B$-meson correlation functions, and systematically calculate subleading-power corrections to these form factors at tree level, including next-to-leading power contributions from the hard-collinear propagator, the subleading effective current $\bar{q}\Gamma[i\slashed{D}_{\perp}/(2m_b)]h_v$, and twist-five/six four-particle higher-twist effects. By incorporating the available leading-power results at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ and the corrections to higher-twist $B$-meson light-cone distribution amplitudes from our previous work, we improve the precision of theoretical predictions for $B\to K^*$ form factors and find that the subleading-power contributions amount to 30\% of the corresponding leading-power results. Employing the Bourrely-Caprini-Lellouch (BCL) parametrization, we determine the numerical results for $B\to K^*$ form factors across the full kinematic range through a combined fit of LCSR predictions in the large recoil region and lattice QCD results in the small recoil region. Using the newly obtained $B\to K^*$ form factors, we compute the branching fractions for the rare decays $B \to K^* \nu_\ell\bar{\nu}_\ell$ in the Standard Model, obtaining $\mathcal{BR}(\bar{B}^0 \to \bar{K}^{*0} \nu_\ell\bar{\nu}_\ell)=8.09(96)\times 10^{-6}$ and $\mathcal{BR}(\bar{B}^+ \to \bar{K}^{*+} \nu_\ell\bar{\nu}_\ell)=9.95(1.05)\times 10^{-6}$. Additionally, we predict that the longitudinal $K^*$ polarization fraction is $F_L=0.44(4)$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13084 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagrammatic representations of the vacuum-to- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diagrammatic representations of two-particle (left) and three-particle (right) corrections to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diagrammatic representations of twist-five and twist-six four-particle corrections to the vaccumm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dependence of the form factors VB→K∗ and A0,B→K∗ on the Borel parameter M2 . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Subleading-power corrections to the B → K∗ form factors VB→K∗ (left panel) and A0,B→K∗ (right panel) in the kinematic region of 0 ≤ q 2 ≤ 6 GeV2 . The shaded bands represent the uncertainties from the variation of factorization scale µ. We now explore the contribution …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the LL resummation improved tree-level contribution (LL), NLL resummation im [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of LL resummation improved tree level contribution (LL), NLL resummation improved [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Theoretical predictions of the B → K∗ decay form factors (red band) obtained from the combined fit of updated LCSR (pink points) and lattice QCD (blue points) in the entire kinematical region. The “ lattice QCD only ” predictions for these form factors are indicated by…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Theory predictions for the CKM-independent differential branching fraction of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Investigating non-local contributions in $B_{s} \to \phi \bar{\ell} \ell$ including higher-twist effects

    hep-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Including twist-5 and twist-6 B_s-meson distribution amplitudes enhances the charm-loop non-local form factors in B_s to phi l+l- by about an order of magnitude, producing a larger but still Standard-Model-consistent ...

  2. Determination of $B$-meson distribution amplitudes from $B\to \pi,K,D$ transition form factors

    hep-ph 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Global fit of B to pi, K, D form factors from lattice QCD and LCSR yields lambda_B = 217(19) MeV with model variations and |V_ub| = 3.68(13) x 10^{-3}.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [31]

    J. Gao, C. D. L¨ u, Y. L. Shen, Y. M. Wang and Y. B. Wei, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.7, 074035 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.074035 [arXiv:1907.11092 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2020

  2. [27]

    Bharucha, D

    A. Bharucha, D. M. Straub and R. Zwicky, JHEP 08, 098 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)098 [arXiv:1503.05534 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [1]

    Alguer´ o, A

    M. Alguer´ o, A. Biswas, B. Capdevila, S. Descotes-Genon, J. Matias and M. Novoa-Brunet, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, no.7, 648 (2023) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11824-0 [arXiv:2304.07330 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [2]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, no.1, 011802 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.011802 [arXiv:2003.04831 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [3]

    Capdevila, A

    B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin and J. Matias, Eur. Phys. J. ST 1, 20 (2023) doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-023- 01012-2 [arXiv:2309.01311 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [4]

    Adachi et al

    I. Adachi et al. [Belle-II], Phys. Rev. D 109, no.11, 112006 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.112006 [arXiv:2311.14647 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [5]

    Beneke, T

    M. Beneke, T. Feldmann and D. Seidel, Nucl. Phys. B612, 25-58 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(01)00366- 2 [arXiv:hep-ph/0106067 [hep-ph]]. 27

    arXiv 2001

  8. [6]

    Beneke, T

    M. Beneke, T. Feldmann and D. Seidel, Eur. Phys. J. C41, 173-188 (2005) doi:10.1140/epjc/s2005-02181-5 [arXiv:hep-ph/0412400 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2005

Show all 92 references
  1. [7]

    Lyon and R

    J. Lyon and R. Zwicky, Phys. Rev. D 88, no.9, 094004 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.094004 [arXiv:1305.4797 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Khodjamirian, T

    A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel, A. A. Pivovarov and Y. M. Wang, JHEP 09, 089 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2010)089 [arXiv:1006.4945 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Gubernari, D

    N. Gubernari, D. van Dyk and J. Virto, JHEP 02, 088 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2021)088 [arXiv:2011.09813 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [10]

    A. J. Buras, J. Girrbach-Noe, C. Niehoff and D. M. Straub, JHEP 02, 184 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2015)184 [arXiv:1409.4557 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Allanach and A

    B. Allanach and A. Mullin, JHEP 09, 173 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2023)173 [arXiv:2306.08669 [hep- ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [12]

    B. F. Hou, X. Q. Li, M. Shen, Y. D. Yang and X. B. Yuan, JHEP 06, 172 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2024)172 [arXiv:2402.19208 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [13]

    R. R. Horgan, Z. Liu, S. Meinel and M. Wingate, Phys. Rev. D 89, no.9, 094501 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.094501 [arXiv:1310.3722 [hep-lat]]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [14]

    R. R. Horgan, Z. Liu, S. Meinel and M. Wingate, PoS LA TTICE2014, 372 (2015) doi:10.22323/1.214.0372 [arXiv:1501.00367 [hep-lat]]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Beneke and T

    M. Beneke and T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. B 592, 3-34 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00585-X [arXiv:hep-ph/0008255 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  10. [16]

    C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 67, 071502 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.67.071502 [arXiv:hep-ph/0211069 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Beneke and T

    M. Beneke and T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. B 685, 249-296 (2004) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2004.02.033 [arXiv:hep-ph/0311335 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Beneke, A

    M. Beneke, A. P. Chapovsky, M. Diehl and T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. B 643, 431-476 (2002) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(02)00687-9 [arXiv:hep-ph/0206152 [hep-ph]]

    2002 arXiv

  13. [19]

    B. O. Lange and M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys. B 690, 249-278 (2004) [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B 723, 201-202 (2005)] doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.06.019 [arXiv:hep-ph/0311345 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  14. [20]

    R. J. Hill, T. Becher, S. J. Lee and M. Neubert, JHEP 07, 081 (2004) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/07/081 [arXiv:hep-ph/0404217 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Beneke and D

    M. Beneke and D. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B 736, 34-81 (2006) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.11.027 [arXiv:hep- ph/0508250 [hep-ph]]

    2006

  16. [22]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 63, 114020 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.114020 [arXiv:hep-ph/0011336 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Beneke, Y

    M. Beneke, Y. Kiyo and D. s. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B 692, 232-248 (2004) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2004.05.018 [arXiv:hep-ph/0402241 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Ball and V

    P. Ball and V. M. Braun, Phys. Rev. D 55, 5561-5576 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.5561 [arXiv:hep- ph/9701238 [hep-ph]]

    1997

  19. [25]

    Ball and V

    P. Ball and V. M. Braun, Phys. Rev. D 58, 094016 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.094016 [arXiv:hep- ph/9805422 [hep-ph]]. 28

    1998

  20. [26]

    Ball and R

    P. Ball and R. Zwicky, Phys. Rev. D 71, 014029 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.014029 [arXiv:hep- ph/0412079 [hep-ph]]

    2005

  21. [28]

    Khodjamirian, T

    A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel and N. Offen, Phys. Rev. D 75, 054013 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.054013 [arXiv:hep-ph/0611193 [hep-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Gubernari, A

    N. Gubernari, A. Kokulu and D. van Dyk, JHEP 01, 150 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2019)150 [arXiv:1811.00983 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [30]

    De Fazio, T

    F. De Fazio, T. Feldmann and T. Hurth, JHEP 02, 031 (2008) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/02/031 [arXiv:0711.3999 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Khodjamirian, B

    A. Khodjamirian, B. Meli´ c and Y. M. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. ST 233, no.2, 271-298 (2024) doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-023-01046-6 [arXiv:2311.08700 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Cheng, A

    S. Cheng, A. Khodjamirian and J. Virto, Phys. Rev. D 96, no.5, 051901 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.051901 [arXiv:1709.00173 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Descotes-Genon, A

    S. Descotes-Genon, A. Khodjamirian and J. Virto, JHEP 12, 083 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2019)083 [arXiv:1908.02267 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Descotes-Genon, A

    S. Descotes-Genon, A. Khodjamirian, J. Virto and K. K. Vos, JHEP 06, 034 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2023)034 [arXiv:2304.02973 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    B. Y. Cui, Y. K. Huang, Y. L. Shen, C. Wang and Y. M. Wang, JHEP 03, 140 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2023)140 [arXiv:2212.11624 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    J. Gao, T. Huber, Y. Ji, C. Wang, Y. M. Wang and Y. B. Wei, JHEP 05, 024 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2022)024 [arXiv:2112.12674 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    B. Y. Cui, Y. K. Huang, Y. M. Wang and X. C. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.7, L071504 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.L071504 [arXiv:2301.12391 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Okubo, Phys

    S. Okubo, Phys. Rev. D 4, 725-733 (1971) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.4.725

    1971 doi

  32. [40]

    Bourrely, B

    C. Bourrely, B. Machet and E. de Rafael, Chromodynamics,” Nucl. Phys. B 189, 157-181 (1981) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90086-9

    1981 doi

  33. [41]

    Bourrely, I

    C. Bourrely, I. Caprini and L. Lellouch, Phys. Rev. D 79, 013008 (2009) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 82, 099902 (2010)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.099902 [arXiv:0807.2722 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  34. [42]

    De Fazio, T

    F. De Fazio, T. Feldmann and T. Hurth, Nucl. Phys. B 733, 1-30 (2006) [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B 800, 405 (2008)] doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2008.03.022 [arXiv:hep-ph/0504088 [hep-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Y. M. Wang and Y. L. Shen, Nucl. Phys. B 898, 563-604 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2015.07.016 [arXiv:1506.00667 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  36. [44]

    C. D. L¨ u, Y. L. Shen, Y. M. Wang and Y. B. Wei, JHEP 01, 024 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2019)024 [arXiv:1810.00819 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A. G. Grozin and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D 55, 272-290 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.272 [arXiv:hep- ph/9607366 [hep-ph]]. 29

    1997

  38. [46]

    Beneke and J

    M. Beneke and J. Rohrwild, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1818 (2011) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1818-8 [arXiv:1110.3228 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Beneke and T

    M. Beneke and T. Feldmann, Phys. Lett. B 553, 267-276 (2003) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(02)03204-5 [arXiv:hep-ph/0211358 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Colangelo and A

    P. Colangelo and A. Khodjamirian, doi:10.1142/9789812810458 0033 [arXiv:hep-ph/0010175 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    A. K. Leibovich, Z. Ligeti and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 564, 231-234 (2003) doi:10.1016/S0370- 2693(03)00565-3 [arXiv:hep-ph/0303099 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  42. [50]

    V. M. Braun, Y. Ji and A. N. Manashov, JHEP 05, 022 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2017)022 [arXiv:1703.02446 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    I. I. Balitsky and V. M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. B 311, 541-584 (1989) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(89)90168-5

    1989 doi

  44. [52]

    Neubert, Phys

    M. Neubert, Phys. Rept. 245, 259-396 (1994) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(94)90091-4 [arXiv:hep-ph/9306320 [hep-ph]]

    1994 arXiv

  45. [53]

    A. F. Falk, M. Neubert and M. E. Luke, Nucl. Phys. B 388, 363-375 (1992) doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(92)90617-K [arXiv:hep-ph/9204229 [hep-ph]]

    1992 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Beneke, V

    M. Beneke, V. M. Braun, Y. Ji and Y. B. Wei, JHEP 07, 154 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2018)154 [arXiv:1804.04962 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    S. S. Agaev, V. M. Braun, N. Offen and F. A. Porkert, Phys. Rev. D 83, 054020 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.054020 [arXiv:1012.4671 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  48. [56]

    X. Y. Han et al. [Lattice Parton], Phys. Rev. D 111, no.3, 034503 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.034503 [arXiv:2410.18654 [hep-lat]]

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 110, no.3, 030001 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    Y. L. Shen, Y. M. Wang and Y. B. Wei, JHEP 12, 169 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2020)169 [arXiv:2009.02723 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Beneke, C

    M. Beneke, C. Bobeth and Y. M. Wang, JHEP 12, 148 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2020)148 [arXiv:2008.12494 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  52. [60]

    K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kuhn and M. Steinhauser, Comput. Phys. Commun. 133, 43-65 (2000) doi:10.1016/S0010-4655(00)00155-7 [arXiv:hep-ph/0004189 [hep-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Aoki et al

    Y. Aoki et al. [Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)], Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.10, 869 (2022) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10536-1 [arXiv:2111.09849 [hep-lat]]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Allton et al

    C. Allton et al. [RBC-UKQCD], Phys. Rev. D 78, 114509 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.114509 [arXiv:0804.0473 [hep-lat]]

    2008 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Janowski, B

    T. Janowski, B. Pullin and R. Zwicky, JHEP 12, 008 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2021)008 [arXiv:2106.13616 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Ball and E

    P. Ball and E. Kou, JHEP 04, 029 (2003) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/04/029 [arXiv:hep-ph/0301135 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Mandal, S

    R. Mandal, S. Nandi and I. Ray, Phys. Lett. B 848, 138345 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138345 [arXiv:2308.07033 [hep-ph]]

    2024

  58. [66]

    S. J. Lee and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D 72, 094028 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.094028 [arXiv:hep- ph/0509350 [hep-ph]]. 30

    2005

  59. [67]

    Feldmann, B

    T. Feldmann, B. O. Lange and Y. M. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 89, no.11, 114001 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.114001 [arXiv:1404.1343 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  60. [68]

    V. M. Braun, D. Y. Ivanov and G. P. Korchemsky, Phys. Rev. D 69, 034014 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.034014 [arXiv:hep-ph/0309330 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  61. [69]

    W. Wang, Y. M. Wang, J. Xu and S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.1, 011502 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.011502 [arXiv:1908.09933 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [70]

    X. Y. Han, J. Hua, X. Ji, C. D. L¨ u, W. Wang, J. Xu, Q. A. Zhang and S. Zhao, [arXiv:2403.17492 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    P. Ball, V. M. Braun, Y. Koike and K. Tanaka, Nucl. Phys. B 529, 323-382 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0550- 3213(98)00356-3 [arXiv:hep-ph/9802299 [hep-ph]]

    1998 arXiv

  64. [72]

    J. Brod, M. Gorbahn and E. Stamou, Phys. Rev. D 83, 034030 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.034030 [arXiv:1009.0947 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Bona et al

    M. Bona et al. [UTfit], Rend. Lincei Sci. Fis. Nat. 34, 37-57 (2023) doi:10.1007/s12210-023-01137-5 [arXiv:2212.03894 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    B. L. Ioffe, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 66, 30-43 (2003) doi:10.1134/1.1540654 [arXiv:hep-ph/0207191 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Gelhausen, A

    P. Gelhausen, A. Khodjamirian, A. A. Pivovarov and D. Rosenthal, Phys. Rev. D 88, 014015 (2013) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 89, 099901 (2014); erratum: Phys. Rev. D 91, 099901 (2015)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.014015 [arXiv:1305.5432 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Y. M. Wang and Y. L. Shen, JHEP 05, 184 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2018)184 [arXiv:1803.06667 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Lellouch, Nucl

    L. Lellouch, Nucl. Phys. B 479, 353-391 (1996) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(96)00443-9 [arXiv:hep-ph/9509358 [hep-ph]]

    1996 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Bourrely and I

    C. Bourrely and I. Caprini, Nucl. Phys. B 722, 149-165 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.06.013 [arXiv:hep-ph/0504016 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Kou et al

    E. Kou et al. [Belle-II], PTEP 2019, no.12, 123C01 (2019) [erratum: PTEP 2020, no.2, 029201 (2020)] doi:10.1093/ptep/ptz106 [arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]]

    2019

  72. [80]

    Halder [Belle-II], [arXiv:2101.11573 [hep-ex]]

    S. Halder [Belle-II], [arXiv:2101.11573 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  73. [81]

    J. P. Lees et al. [BaBar], Phys. Rev. D 87, no.11, 112005 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.112005 [arXiv:1303.7465 [hep-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Lutz et al

    O. Lutz et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. D 87, no.11, 111103 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.111103 [arXiv:1303.3719 [hep-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Grygier et al

    J. Grygier et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. D 96, no.9, 091101 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.091101 [arXiv:1702.03224 [hep-ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Altmannshofer, A

    W. Altmannshofer, A. J. Buras, D. M. Straub and M. Wick, JHEP 04, 022 (2009) doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2009/04/022 [arXiv:0902.0160 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Inami and C

    T. Inami and C. S. Lim, Prog. Theor. Phys. 65, 297 (1981) [erratum: Prog. Theor. Phys. 65, 1772 (1981)] doi:10.1143/PTP.65.297

    1981 doi

  78. [86]

    Buchalla and A

    G. Buchalla and A. J. Buras, Nucl. Phys. B 398, 285-300 (1993) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(93)90110-B

    1993 doi

  79. [87]

    Buchalla and A

    G. Buchalla and A. J. Buras, Nucl. Phys. B 548, 309-327 (1999) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00149-2 [arXiv:hep-ph/9901288 [hep-ph]]. 31

    1999 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Misiak and J

    M. Misiak and J. Urban, Phys. Lett. B 451, 161-169 (1999) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00150-1 [arXiv:hep-ph/9901278 [hep-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  81. [89]

    J. F. Kamenik and C. Smith, Phys. Lett. B 680, 471-475 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.09.041 [arXiv:0908.1174 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Nishikawa and K

    T. Nishikawa and K. Tanaka, Nucl. Phys. B 879, 110-142 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2013.12.007 [arXiv:1109.6786 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Rahimi and M

    M. Rahimi and M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.1, 016027 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.016027 [arXiv:2012.12165 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  84. [92]

    V. M. Braun, A. N. Manashov and N. Offen, Phys. Rev. D 92, no.7, 074044 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.074044 [arXiv:1507.03445 [hep-ph]]. 32

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.