Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Power corrections in the determination of heavy meson LCDAs: A renormalon-based estimation

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Renormalon-model calculation puts the power corrections to the QCD-to-HQET light-cone distribution amplitude matching at roughly 22% for the D meson and 7% for the B meson.

desk verdict A plausible first renormalon estimate of power corrections in the QCD-to-HQET LCDA matching, but the headline 22%/7% numbers rest on an unproven 'virtual part only' step that the authors need to demonstrate. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08611 v3 pith:CSLAZPPA submitted 2025-05-13 hep-ph

Tu Guo , Chao Han , Wei Wang , Jialu Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords heavymesonLCDAHQETpowercorrectionsrenormalonmodelBoreltransformbubblechaindiagramsDB
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

To extract the light-cone distribution amplitude (LCDA) of a heavy meson, one matches the QCD LCDA onto the simpler HQET LCDA at leading power. This paper estimates the power-suppressed corrections to that matching using the renormalon model, in which the divergent tail of the perturbative matching kernel parameterizes higher-twist contributions. The authors compute the vertex bubble-chain diagrams and find Borel-plane poles at $w=n+\frac12$ for all $n$ and at $w=1$, with the dominant ambiguity coming from the virtual part of the vertex diagram. Using phenomenological models for both LCDAs, the correction is about 22% for the $D$ meson and 7% for the $\overline{B}$ meson in the peak region. If those numbers are right, leading-power matching is not sufficient for high-precision charm physics and needs a few-percent correction even for bottom.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Borel transform of the matching kernel $J_{\rm peak}$ that connects the QCD and HQET LCDAs. In the renormalon model the perturbative series is made divergent by chains of fermion bubbles inserted into the gluon propagator; after renormalization the factorial growth appears as poles in the Borel plane, and the residue of each pole gives the renormalon ambiguity that stands in for a higher-twist power correction. The calculation either renormalizes the bubble chain step by step or uses the Borel-transformed bubble-chain propagator, reducing the vertex diagram to a residue formula involving $\Gamma(-2w)\Gamma(w)/\Gamma(2-w)$ with $e^{5w/3}$. Evaluating the residues at $w=n+\frac12$ and $w=1$ produces the 22% and 7% estimates.

What would settle it

Evaluate the Borel transform of the complete bare QCD bubble-chain result including the discarded real $\theta(u-s)$ term, and compare its residues at $w=1/2$ and $w=1$ with the virtual-only residues used here; alternatively, a lattice extraction of the $D$-meson HQET LCDA that directly measures the size of the $1/m_c$ correction would settle whether 22% is the right order of magnitude.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that in the renormalon model the dominant power corrections to the QCD-to-HQET LCDA matching kernel come from the virtual part of the vertex bubble-chain diagram, whose Borel transform has poles at $w=n+\frac12$ for every non-negative integer $n$ and at $w=1$. These poles make the Borel integral ambiguous at precisely the orders expected for higher-twist operators, $(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_Q)^{2w}$. With a polynomial parametrization of the QCD LCDA and an exponential model for the HQET LCDA, the renormalon ambiguity divided by the one-loop matching result is approximately 22% for the $D$ meson and 7% for the $\overline{B}$ meson at $\mu\sim m_Q$; because the matching kernel is independent of the light-cone momentum fraction, the correction is a constant shift of the peak-region amplitude rather than a distortion of its shape.

Load-bearing premise

The estimate rests on the assumption that in the peak region the power correction is saturated by the virtual part of the vertex bubble-chain diagram; the real part proportional to $\theta(u-s)$ is discarded from the bare QCD result (equation A2), and if that discarded piece contributes at the same order, the pole residues and the 22%/7% numbers would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Charm-quark extractions of the HQET LCDA from lattice QCD will need an explicit treatment of power corrections or a model for higher-twist operators, since a 22% normalization shift is larger than typical target precision.
  • For the bottom quark, leading-power matching carries an intrinsic uncertainty of order 7%, so precision comparisons with $B$-factory data should include this correction or estimate it independently.
  • Because the matching kernel is independent of the light-cone momentum fraction $u$, the renormalon power correction changes the overall size of the peak-region LCDA rather than its shape.
  • Heavy-quark spin symmetry extends the size of the estimated correction to vector mesons, so the same percent-level power corrections should be expected there.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step is to compute the full bubble-chain result without dropping the real $\theta(u-s)$ term; if its Borel residue is comparable, the saturation assumption breaks and the numerical estimates are not robust.
  • Extrapolating the mass dependence shown in the paper's Fig. 7, the renormalon estimate grows as the meson mass drops below the charm scale, so the model is least trustworthy in exactly the region where the correction is largest; explicit higher-twist matrix elements would be needed there.
  • The same machinery could be applied to other factorization theorems with a heavy-quark scale, such as $B$-meson form factors or $W$-decay-to-$B$ processes, to produce comparable power-correction estimates before lattice input is available.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 estimates the power corrections to the factorization formula that matches heavy-meson QCD light-cone distribution amplitudes onto bHQET/HQET LCDAs, using the renormalon model. The authors compute the bubble-chain vertex diagram of Fig. 1(a) in coordinate space, renormalize the fermion-loop insertions, and derive a Borel transform of the matching kernel whose singularities they locate at w = n + 1/2 (n ∈ N) and w = 1. Identifying the renormalon ambiguity with the leading Λ_QCD/m_Q corrections, they then use phenomenological models for the D- and B-meson LCDAs and report power corrections of about 22% for the D meson and 7% for the B meson in the peak region.

Significance. If the claims are correct, the paper provides a concrete, quantitative warning that leading-power QCD-HQET matching is insufficient for charm physics and only marginally safe for bottom physics. The work has several strengths: the analytic bubble-chain calculation is presented in detail, the bare results for all four diagrams are collected in Appendix A, two independent calculational methods (direct bubble-chain evaluation and Borel-transformed propagator) are used as cross-checks, and the final numbers are concrete and falsifiable by future lattice determinations of HQET LCDAs. The main weakness is that the numerical results rest on an unproven truncation to the virtual part of the vertex diagram, so the headline percentages are not yet secure.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II.B and Eq. (29) vs. Eq. (A2)] The central numerical results rely on dropping the theta(u-s) term in the full bare QCD vertex diagram. The text states that in the peak region only the virtual part of Fig. 1(a) contributes and that this follows from expansion by regions or explicit calculation, but no demonstration is given. In the convolution Eq. (7), s = ω/m_H and the HQET LCDA φ_+(ω) peaks at ω of order Λ_QCD, while u is of order λ = Λ_QCD/m_Q; hence u-s is generically of the same order as u and s, not suppressed by a power of m_Q. Moreover, the discarded term in Eq. (A2), proportional to θ(u-s)/(u-s)^{2(n+1)ε+1}, contains in its ε expansion a 1/ε δ(u-s) piece plus a plus-distribution, so it cannot be dismissed by simple power counting. Since the Borel pole positions and residues in Eqs. (40)-(41), and therefore the 22% and 7% estimates, are computed from the virtual-only expression, please either supply the promised expansion-by-regions proof or compute the real-emission term explicitly and show that its contribution to the final ratios is numerically negligible.
  2. [Sec. IV, Figs. 4 and 6] The numerical pipeline from the Borel residues to the reported percentages is not shown. No explicit formula is given for δφ_+/φ_+ in terms of Res B[J](w), the set of poles included, the definition of Λ_QCD, the values of α_s, or the sum over singularities. The statement that the ratio is independent of the momentum fraction u is asserted but not derived; it presumably follows from a formula such as δφ_+/φ_+ = δJ/J in the peak region, but the reader cannot verify this from Eqs. (39)-(41) alone. Please present the complete expression used for Figs. 4 and 6 and list the numerical inputs, so that the 22% and 7% numbers can be reproduced.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (38)] The index in the term f^{[-1]}_{i+1} appears to be a typo; it should presumably be f^{[-1]}_{n+1}. If not, the index i is undefined.
  2. [References] References [35] and [71] are identical (Han et al., Lattice Parton Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 111, 034503 (2025)). Please remove the duplicate. In addition, references [33] and [73]-[78] do not appear to be cited in the text; please check the citation list.
  3. [Eq. (6)] The equation for f_H appears to have a typographical formatting issue: the right-hand side should show the tilde on the first decay constant, i.e. f_H = \tilde f_H(μ)(1 - α_s C_F/(4π)(3/2 ln μ^2/m_Q^2 + 2) + ...). Please fix the notation so the matching relation is unambiguous.
  4. [Eq. (41)] The replacement μ^{2w} e^{-w/(β_0 a_s)} = Λ_{QCD}^{2w} implicitly fixes a scheme and running-order convention for Λ_QCD. Please state the convention (e.g., one-loop MS-bar with a specified number of active flavors and reference value) so the numerical estimates are reproducible.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Mild interpretive circularity: 22%/7% are the renormalon model's defining Borel ambiguity, not an independent derivation.

  1. self definitional [Section II.C 'Renormalon model'; Eq. (41); Section IV numerical estimates.]
    "The renormalon model is based on the expectation that the ambiguity is of the same order as the contribution from higher-twist operators, allowing it to serve as a parameterization of these higher-twist effects."

    The headline 'power corrections' (22% for D, 7% for B) are computed as the Borel residue in Eq. (41) divided by the one-loop matching result. But the model is defined precisely by identifying higher-twist power corrections with that Borel ambiguity, so the numerical output follows from the model's defining relation rather than from an independent QCD input. The paper is transparent about this model dependence, so this is mild self-definitional circularity; the separately questionable neglect of the theta(u-s) term between Eq. (29) and Eq. (A2) is an approximation issue, not a circular step.

full rationale

The explicit bubble-chain calculation is not fitted to the target percentages: the Borel residues and pole positions follow from the diagram integrals, and the D/B ratio tracks Lambda/m. The main caveat is interpretive: the renormalon model defines the estimated power correction as the Borel ambiguity, so the numerical result is the model's output rather than a first-principles check. The virtual-part-only treatment is an unquantified approximation that could affect the numbers, but it is not circularity. Self-citation [42] appears only in a list of applications and is not load-bearing. Overall severity is low: a conditional model estimate, not a disguised tautology.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on the standard renormalon-model identifications: the Borel ambiguity is the higher-twist contribution, bubble chains dominate the factorial growth, and the matching-kernel factorization is valid. No new particles or entities are introduced. The main nonstandard load-bearing assumption is that the virtual part alone controls the power correction in the peak region.

free parameters (3)
  • QCD inputs alpha_s(m_c), alpha_s(m_b), Lambda_QCD = not stated in text
    The residue in Eq. (41) depends on Lambda_QCD^{2w} and on alpha_s through the exponential; the 22%/7% numbers cannot be reproduced without these values.
  • D-meson HQET LCDA model parameters (omega0, c1, c2', c3') = omega0 = 0.32(15) GeV, c1 = 0.63(44), c2' = 0.12(37), c3' = 0.04(19)
    External lattice-model inputs from Ref. [71] used to build Fig. 3. They cancel in the ratio delta-phi/phi because the matching kernel contains delta(u - omega/m_H), so they do not determine the headline percentages.
  • Gegenbauer moments of D and B meson QCD LCDAs = D: {-0.659, 0.206, ...} at 1.6 GeV; B: {-1.082, 0.826, ...} at 4.8 GeV
    External inputs from Ref. [31] used to plot the QCD LCDA. They also cancel in the ratio for the same delta-function reason, though they set the one-loop reference curves.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The renormalon ambiguity equals the higher-twist power correction, the ultraviolet-dominance assumption.
    Invoked in Section II.C, Eqs. (11)-(14), citing Refs. [40,65]; this identification is the interpretive bridge from a divergent series to a physical power correction.
  • domain assumption Bubble chain diagrams dominate the factorial growth of the matching kernel, with -2/3 n_f replaced by beta_0.
    Standard renormalon-model ansatz from Refs. [40,66-70], invoked in Section II.C; if other diagram classes contribute comparably, the pole set could change.
  • domain assumption In the peak region only the virtual part of the vertex diagram contributes; real theta(u-s) terms are power suppressed.
    Stated in Section II.B and used at Eq. (29), where the real term from Eq. (A2) is discarded. No quantitative proof is given.
  • domain assumption The leading-power factorization of QCD LCDAs into HQET LCDAs, Eq. (7), is valid.
    Taken from Refs. [29-31]; this paper assumes that factorization rather than proving it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Power corrections in the determination of heavy meson LCDAs: A renormalon-based estimation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CSLAZPPA

@misc{pith2026250508611,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Power corrections in the determination of heavy meson LCDAs: A renormalon-based estimation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CSLAZPPA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08611}
}
abstract

At leading power accuracy the QCD light-cone distribution amplitudes (LCDAs) for a heavy meson can be matched onto the LCDAs in the framework of heavy-quark effective theory (HQET) through a factorization formula. We examine the power corrections to this factorization in the renormalon model, which can associate the power corrections originating from high-twist contributions to the divergent series in a matching kernel. Our analysis indicates that the dominant power corrections originate from the virtual part of the vertex bubble chain diagrams, which generate poles at $w=n+\frac{1}{2},\forall n\in \mathbb{N}$ and $w=1$ in the Borel plane. Employing phenomenological models for both HQET and QCD LCDA, we present a numerical estimate. The results indicate that the power corrections in the peak region are approximately $22\%$ for the D meson and $7\%$ for the $\overline{\mathrm{B}}$ meson. These findings showcase the magnitude and the potential importance of power corrections in achieving high-precision phenomenological predictions for heavy mesons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08611 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The one-loop diagrams for the QCD and HQET [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The bubble chain diagrams correspond to changing a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) The HQET LCDA of the D meson with one-loop matching is shown. The blue error band represents the variation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The ratio of renormalon ambiguity to the one-loop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The HQET LCDA of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The ratio of renormalon ambiguity to the one-loop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The ratio of renormalon ambiguity to one-loop match [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

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. Heavy quark mass dependence of the $\Lambda_Q$ light-cone distribution amplitude in QCD

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The Lambda_Q baryon LCDA at mass m_Q equals (m_Q/m_Q^0)^2 times the LCDA at m_Q^0 evaluated at rescaled fractions x_i*m_Q/m_Q^0, times an exponentiated anomalous dimension, plus renormalon-model power corrections.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [42]

    Power Corrections, Renormalons and Resummation

    M. Beneke, [arXiv:hep-ph/9609215 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [1]

    1 (a) in coordinate space

    Bare bubble chain calculation Now, we explicitly calculate Fig. 1 (a) in coordinate space. For convenience, we use the substitution z≡n+t. The integral expression for Fig. 1 (a) in coordinate space is ϕa(z) = (−i)−(2+n)ϵg2Rn ϵ 8π4−2ϵΓ(1 +nϵ) Z ddk Z 1 0 dt′ Z ∞ 0 dσ1 Z ∞ 0 dσ2σ1−ϵ 2 σ−((n+1)ϵ) 1 Z ddη × exp −i η2σ2 + m2 4σ2 +σ1(η−t′z)2 −ikη ¯q(z)n /+(η /+...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Then we discard the terms 7 with ϵ−n(n > 0)

    Renormalization of bubble chain diagram In the renormalization process, a bare diagram with n fermion loops is replaced by a sum of diagrams where some of the fermion loops are substituted with their cor- responding counter-terms. Then we discard the terms 7 with ϵ−n(n > 0). This substitution introduces the fac- torial growth, as each permutation of fermi...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Renormalon Ambiguity The renormalon ambiguity corresponds to the residue of the Borel transform of matching kernel. The Borel transform of ϕa,ren can be written as B[fHϕa.ren](w) =R(w) + ∞X n=0 f[n] 0 wn = R(w) +F (0,w ) δ(u−s) (39) whereR(w) is an entire function inw, which corresponds to the first two terms in Eq. (38) and do not contribute to renormalo...

    work page

  5. [4]

    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]]

    arXiv 1997

  6. [5]

    B. O. Lange and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 102001 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.102001 [arXiv:hep- ph/0303082 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2003

  7. [6]

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

    work page arXiv 2004

  8. [7]

    Geyer and O

    B. Geyer and O. Witzel, Phys. Rev. D 72, 034023 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.034023 [arXiv:hep- ph/0502239 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2005

Show all 80 references
  1. [8]

    Kawamura, J

    H. Kawamura, J. Kodaira, C. F. Qiao and K. Tanaka, Phys. Lett. B 523, 111 (2001) [erratum: Phys. Lett. B 536, 344-344 (2002)] doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01299-0 [arXiv:hep-ph/0109181 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  2. [9]

    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

  3. [10]

    Beneke, G

    M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C. T. Sachrajda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1914-1917 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.1914 [arXiv:hep- ph/9905312 [hep-ph]]

    1999

  4. [11]

    Beneke, G

    M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C. T. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B 591, 313-418 (2000) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00559-9 [arXiv:hep- ph/0006124 [hep-ph]]

    2000

  5. [12]

    C. D. Lu, K. Ukai and M. Z. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 63, 074009 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.074009 [arXiv:hep-ph/0004213 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Y. Y. Keum, H. N. Li and A. I. Sanda, Phys. Rev. D 63, 054008 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.054008 [arXiv:hep-ph/0004173 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  7. [14]

    C. D. Lu and M. Z. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C 28, 515- 523 (2003) doi:10.1140/epjc/s2003-01199-y [arXiv:hep- ph/0212373 [hep-ph]]

    2003

  8. [15]

    Khodjamirian, T

    A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel and N. Offen, Phys. Lett. B 620, 52-60 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.06.021 [arXiv:hep-ph/0504091 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  9. [16]

    C. W. Hwang, Phys. Rev. D 81, 114024 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.114024 [arXiv:1003.0972 [hep- ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Ball and V

    P. Ball and V. M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. B 543, 201-238 (1999) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00014-0 [arXiv:hep- ph/9810475 [hep-ph]]

    1999

  11. [18]

    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

  12. [19]

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

    2005

  13. [20]

    Kawamura and K

    H. Kawamura and K. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 81, 114009 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.114009 [arXiv:1002.1177 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  14. [21]

    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

  15. [22]

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

    2015 arXiv

  16. [23]

    H. K. Sun and M. Z. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 95, no.11, 113001 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.113001 [arXiv:1609.08958 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Binosi, L

    D. Binosi, L. Chang, M. Ding, F. Gao, J. Pa- pavassiliou and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Lett. B 790, 257-262 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.01.033 [arXiv:1812.05112 [nucl-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [25]

    V. M. Braun, Y. Ji and A. N. Manashov, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.1, 014023 (2019) doi:10.3204/PUBDB-2019- 02451 [arXiv:1905.04498 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [26]

    F. E. Serna, R. C. da Silveira, J. J. Cobos-Mart´ ınez, B. El-Bennich and E. Rojas, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.10, 955 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08517-3 [arXiv:2008.09619 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [27]

    A. M. Galda and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D 102, 071501 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.071501 [arXiv:2006.05428 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [28]

    S. M. Hu, J. Xu and S. Zhao, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.5, 502 (2024) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12672-2 [arXiv:2401.04291 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    W. Wang, J. Xu, Q. A. Zhang and S. Zhao, [arXiv:2411.07101 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  23. [30]

    J. E. Mandula and M. C. Ogilvie, Phys. Rev. D 45, 2183- 12 2187 (1992) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.45.R2183

    1992 doi

  24. [31]

    R. R. Horgan, L. Khomskii, S. Meinel, M. Wingate, K. M. Foley, G. P. Lepage, G. M. von Hippel, A. Hart, E. H. Muller and C. T. H. Davies, et al. Phys. Rev. D 80, 074505 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.074505 [arXiv:0906.0945 [hep-lat]]

    2009 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Zhao, Phys

    S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.7, 071503 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.071503 [arXiv:1910.03470 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Ishaq, Y

    S. Ishaq, Y. Jia, X. Xiong and D. S. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, no.13, 132001 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.132001 [arXiv:1905.06930 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Beneke, G

    M. Beneke, G. Finauri, K. K. Vos and Y. Wei, JHEP 09, 066 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2023)066 [arXiv:2305.06401 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Ishaq, S

    S. Ishaq, S. Zafar, A. Rehman and I. Ahmed, PTEP 2024, no.6, 063B05 (2024) doi:10.1093/ptep/ptae080 [arXiv:2404.01696 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    S. M. Hu, W. Wang, J. Xu and S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.3, 034001 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.034001 [arXiv:2308.13977 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [37]

    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

  31. [39]

    J. H. Zhang, J. W. Chen, X. Ji, L. Jin and H. W. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 95, no.9, 094514 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.094514 [arXiv:1702.00008 [hep-lat]]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    J. W. Chen, S. D. Cohen, X. Ji, H. W. Lin and J. H. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B 911, 246-273 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2016.07.033 [arXiv:1603.06664 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Beneke and V

    M. Beneke and V. M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. B 426, 301-343 (1994) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(94)90314-X [arXiv:hep- ph/9402364 [hep-ph]]

    1994

  34. [43]

    Beneke, Phys

    M. Beneke, Phys. Rept. 317, 1-142 (1999) doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(98)00130-6 [arXiv:hep- ph/9807443 [hep-ph]]

    1999

  35. [44]

    Beneke and V

    M. Beneke and V. M. Braun, doi:10.1142/9789812810458 0036 [arXiv:hep-ph/0010208 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  36. [45]

    C. Han, W. Wang, J. L. Zhang and J. H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.9, 094038 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.094038 [arXiv:2408.13486 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [46]

    V. M. Braun, M. Koller and J. Schoenle- ber, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.7, 074510 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.074510 [arXiv:2401.08012 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Beneke, Phys

    M. Beneke, Phys. Lett. B 344, 341-347 (1995) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)01505-7 [arXiv:hep- ph/9408380 [hep-ph]]

    1995

  39. [48]

    Beneke and V

    M. Beneke and V. M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. B 454, 253-290 (1995) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(95)00439-Y [arXiv:hep- ph/9506452 [hep-ph]]

    1995

  40. [49]

    Scimemi and A

    I. Scimemi and A. Vladimirov, JHEP 03, 002 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2017)002 [arXiv:1609.06047 [hep- ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  41. [50]

    V. M. Braun, A. Vladimirov and J. H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 99, no.1, 014013 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.014013 [arXiv:1810.00048 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [51]

    W. Y. Liu and J. W. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.9, 094501 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.094501 [arXiv:2010.06623 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Caola, S

    F. Caola, S. Ferrario Ravasio, G. Limatola, K. Mel- nikov, P. Nason and M. A. Ozcelik, JHEP 12, 062 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2022)062 [arXiv:2204.02247 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [53]

    S. T. Schindler, I. W. Stewart and Z. Sun, JHEP 10, 187 (2023) [erratum: JHEP 10, 175 (2024)] doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2023)187 [arXiv:2305.19311 [hep- ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [54]

    S. V. Mikhailov and N. Volchanskiy, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.9, 096015 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.096015 [arXiv:2307.13458 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Liu and Y

    Y. Liu and Y. Su, JHEP 2024, 204 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2024)204 [arXiv:2311.06907 [hep- ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [56]

    N. G. Gracia and V. Mateu, JHEP 07, 229 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2021)229 [arXiv:2104.13942 [hep- ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [57]

    A. M. Clavero, R. Br¨ user, V. Mateu and M. Stahlhofen, JHEP 04, 040 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2025)040 [arXiv:2412.06881 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  49. [58]

    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

  50. [59]

    C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 65, 054022 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.054022 [arXiv:hep-ph/0109045 [hep-ph]]

    2002 arXiv

  51. [60]

    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

  52. [61]

    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

  53. [62]

    Neubert, Phys

    M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D 46, 1076-1087 (1992) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.46.1076

    1992 doi

  54. [63]

    Gehrmann, G

    T. Gehrmann, G. Luisoni and P. F. Monni, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, no.1, 2265 (2013) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012- 2265-x [arXiv:1210.6945 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Ferrario Ravasio, G

    S. Ferrario Ravasio, G. Limatola and P. Nason, JHEP 06, 018 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2021)018 [arXiv:2011.14114 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Makarov, K

    S. Makarov, K. Melnikov, P. Nason and M. A. Ozce- lik, JHEP 05, 153 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2023)153 [arXiv:2302.02729 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Zhang, J

    R. Zhang, J. Holligan, X. Ji and Y. Su, Phys. Lett. B 844, 138081 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138081 [arXiv:2305.05212 [hep-lat]]

    2023

  58. [67]

    Makarov, K

    S. Makarov, K. Melnikov, P. Nason and M. A. Ozce- lik, JHEP 01, 074 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2024)074 [arXiv:2308.05526 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Beneke, V

    M. Beneke, V. M. Braun and L. Magnea, Nucl. Phys. B 497, 297-333 (1997) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(97)00251-4 [arXiv:hep-ph/9701309 [hep-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  60. [69]

    D. J. Gross and A. Neveu, Phys. Rev. D 10, 3235 (1974) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.10.3235

    1974 doi

  61. [70]

    B. E. Lautrup, Phys. Lett. B 69, 109-111 (1977) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90145-9

    1977 doi

  62. [71]

    Zichichi, doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-4208-3 13

    A. Zichichi, doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-4208-3 13

    doi

  63. [72]

    D. J. Broadhurst and A. G. Grozin, Phys. Rev. D 52, 4082-4098 (1995) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.52.4082 [arXiv:hep-ph/9410240 [hep-ph]]

    1995 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Beneke and V

    M. Beneke and V. M. Braun, Phys. Lett. B 348, 513-520 (1995) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(95)00184-M [arXiv:hep- ph/9411229 [hep-ph]]

    1995

  65. [74]

    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

  66. [75]

    Z. F. Deng, W. Wang, Y. B. Wei and J. Zeng, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.11, 114006 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.114006 [arXiv:2409.00632 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Komijani, JHEP 08, 062 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2017)062 [arXiv:1701.00347 [hep- ph]]

    J. Komijani, JHEP 08, 062 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2017)062 [arXiv:1701.00347 [hep- ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Beneke, Eur

    M. Beneke, Eur. Phys. J. ST 230, no.12-13, 2565-2579 (2021) doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-022-00659-7 [arXiv:2108.04861 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  69. [78]

    J. Xu, X. R. Zhang and S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.1, L011503 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.L011503 [arXiv:2202.13648 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Xu and X

    J. Xu and X. R. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.11, 114019 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.114019 [arXiv:2209.10719 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  71. [80]

    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

  72. [81]

    Zhao and A

    S. Zhao and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.5, 054022 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.054022 [arXiv:2006.05663 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.