pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.21489 · v1 · pith:R4G3PNQAnew · submitted 2026-06-19 · ✦ hep-ph

Accessing the HQET B-Meson Shape Function from a LaMET Quasi-Shape Function

Ao-Sheng Xiong , Jun Ding , Ji Xu , Jun Zeng , Shuai Zhao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 13:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords B-meson shape functionHQETLaMETlattice QCDfactorizationheavy quarkinclusive decays
0
0 comments X

The pith

A two-step factorization scheme called HQLaMET allows lattice computation of the B-meson shape function by separating the scales P_B^z, m_b, and Λ_QCD.

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

The paper introduces the HQLaMET framework to compute the B-meson shape function on the lattice. This nonperturbative object is needed for first-principles predictions of inclusive heavy-meson decays. The method starts from a quasi-shape function and applies a two-step factorization that isolates the effects of the large momentum P_B^z, the b-quark mass m_b, and the QCD scale Λ_QCD. An example using a phenomenological model shows how the matching proceeds. The work provides the setup for future lattice QCD extractions of the shape function.

Core claim

The central claim is that a two-step factorization scheme in the HQLaMET framework computes the B-meson shape function on the lattice while fully disentangling the disparate scales P_B^z, m_b, and Λ_QCD. Starting from a phenomenological model of the shape function in HQET, the procedure matches a quasi-shape function through this factorization with controllable power corrections, establishing the foundation for nonperturbative lattice determinations.

What carries the argument

The HQLaMET two-step factorization scheme, which matches the LaMET quasi-shape function to the HQET shape function while separating the scales P_B^z, m_b, and Λ_QCD.

If this is right

  • Future lattice QCD simulations can extract the B-meson shape function nonperturbatively.
  • Theoretical predictions for inclusive B decays gain direct input from first-principles QCD.
  • The same separation of scales applies to related objects such as the light-cone distribution amplitude.
  • Power corrections remain under control throughout the matching procedure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The framework could be tested by comparing the output shape function against existing phenomenological parametrizations.
  • It opens a route to combine lattice results with experimental data on inclusive decays to constrain nonperturbative parameters.
  • Similar two-step matching may apply to other heavy-light systems where multiple scales must be isolated.

Load-bearing premise

The quasi-shape function computed on the lattice can be matched to the shape function through the two-step factorization with controllable power corrections and without lattice artifacts that invalidate the scale separation.

What would settle it

A lattice calculation in which artifacts from finite spacing or volume mix the scales P_B^z, m_b, and Λ_QCD in a way that cannot be subtracted would show the factorization fails to disentangle them.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.21489 by Ao-Sheng Xiong, Ji Xu, Jun Ding, Jun Zeng, Shuai Zhao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. One-loop Feynman diagrams for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Illustration of the second step of the HQLaMET [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The quasi-SFs obtained from the first step matching [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The shape function and the light-cone distribution amplitude of heavy meson jointly characterize the nonperturbative structure of the heavy meson on the light-cone, with the former being essential for theoretical predictions of inclusive decays and the latter for exclusive decays. While first-principles lattice QCD results for the heavy meson LCDA have become available in recent years, lattice results for the shape function remain absent. In this work, we establish a two-step factorization scheme -- known as the HQLaMET framework -- for computing the $B$-meson shape function on the lattice, which fully disentangles the effects of the disparate scales $P_B^z$, $m_b$, and $\Lambda_{\textrm{QCD}}$. For illustration, starting from a phenomenological model for the shape function in HQET, we provide a graphical presentation of the entire procedure of this framework. The results of the current work lay the foundation for nonperturbative lattice QCD determinations of the shape function in the near future.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the HQLaMET two-step factorization framework to compute the B-meson shape function on the lattice from a LaMET quasi-shape function. It claims this scheme fully disentangles the scales P_B^z, m_b, and Λ_QCD with controllable power corrections. The work illustrates the procedure graphically by feeding a phenomenological model for the shape function through the steps, laying groundwork for future nonperturbative lattice determinations, but supplies no explicit matching kernels or power-counting derivations.

Significance. If the matching coefficients and power-counting arguments were supplied and validated, the framework would provide a concrete route to first-principles lattice QCD results for the shape function, which is essential for inclusive B decays. The proposal combines LaMET and HQET ideas in a potentially useful way, though the current manuscript offers only a model-based illustration rather than a derivation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The statement that the HQLaMET framework 'fully disentangles the effects of the disparate scales P_B^z, m_b, and Λ_QCD' with 'controllable power corrections' is not supported by any derivation. No explicit matching kernels are given between the quasi-shape function and the intermediate object or between that object and the HQET shape function, and no power-counting analysis (e.g., suppression of O(Λ_QCD/P_B^z) or O(Λ_QCD/m_b)) is presented to justify controllability. The graphical illustration using a phenomenological model does not establish the general claim.
  2. The manuscript states that the two-step factorization 'fully disentangles' the scales, yet the only concrete content is the model illustration; without the kernels and power-counting proof, the assertion that lattice artifacts remain controllable rests on the assumption the framework is intended to justify rather than demonstrate.
minor comments (1)
  1. The graphical presentation of the procedure is clear for illustration purposes but would benefit from explicit labels on the intermediate objects and scale hierarchies in the figures to make the disentanglement visually precise.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address each major point below, clarifying the scope of the work as a conceptual proposal and model-based illustration of the HQLaMET framework.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The statement that the HQLaMET framework 'fully disentangles the effects of the disparate scales P_B^z, m_b, and Λ_QCD' with 'controllable power corrections' is not supported by any derivation. No explicit matching kernels are given between the quasi-shape function and the intermediate object or between that object and the HQET shape function, and no power-counting analysis (e.g., suppression of O(Λ_QCD/P_B^z) or O(Λ_QCD/m_b)) is presented to justify controllability. The graphical illustration using a phenomenological model does not establish the general claim.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not contain explicit matching kernels or a dedicated power-counting derivation. This paper introduces the two-step HQLaMET factorization conceptually and demonstrates the procedure via a phenomenological model to show how the scales are separated in practice. The full kernels and power corrections are reserved for follow-up work that will implement the lattice computation. We will revise the abstract to describe the manuscript as proposing the framework and providing an illustration, rather than claiming a complete derivation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The manuscript states that the two-step factorization 'fully disentangles' the scales, yet the only concrete content is the model illustration; without the kernels and power-counting proof, the assertion that lattice artifacts remain controllable rests on the assumption the framework is intended to justify rather than demonstrate.

    Authors: The framework is constructed by combining the established LaMET quasi-to-light-cone factorization at large P_B^z with the subsequent HQET factorization that isolates m_b from Λ_QCD. The model illustration is meant to visualize this separation explicitly. While we acknowledge that a rigorous validation requires the kernels (which are not derived here), the controllability follows from the scale hierarchy built into the two-step procedure. We will not add the kernels to this manuscript but will adjust the abstract language as noted above. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Explicit matching kernels between the quasi-shape function, intermediate object, and HQET shape function, together with the associated power-counting analysis, are not supplied in the present manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: proposal for HQLaMET scheme with external model illustration

full rationale

The paper proposes the HQLaMET two-step factorization as a new framework to disentangle scales for lattice computation of the B-meson shape function. It illustrates the procedure by feeding a phenomenological model through the steps but presents no derivations, matching kernels, or power-counting proofs that reduce any claimed result to an input by construction. No self-citations are load-bearing for the central claim, and the illustration uses an independent external model rather than fitted parameters from the present work. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The proposal rests on standard assumptions of HQET and LaMET; no new free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions of HQET and LaMET hold for the factorization of the quasi-shape function onto the shape function
    The framework is built on the validity of these effective theories for separating the listed scales.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5706 in / 1272 out tokens · 30876 ms · 2026-06-26T13:48:43.409992+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · 19 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    in LaMET with nonzero gluon mass Here, we present directly the one-loop results for the individual graphs in Fig

    One-loop results for the quasi-shape function ˜SLaM. in LaMET with nonzero gluon mass Here, we present directly the one-loop results for the individual graphs in Fig. 1 for the quasi-SF. The heavy-quark sail graph in Fig. 1(a) is: ˜SLaM.(1,a)(x, µ) mg =    − 1−2xln x x−1 1−x θ(x−1) ⊕ ,  − 2x−1−2xln 4P z2 B (1−x) m2g 1−x θ(x)θ(1−x) ...

  2. [2]

    1 for the QCD SF

    One-loop results for the shape functionS QCD in QCD with nonzero gluon mass We present the one-loop results for the individual graphs in Fig. 1 for the QCD SF. The heavy-quark sail graph in Fig. 1(a) is: SQCD(1,a)(y, µ) mg = 2y 1−y 1 ϵ + ln µ2 m2g y θ(y)θ(1−y) ⊕ .(A5) The Wilson-line self-energy contribution vanishes, since the amplitude is proportional t...

  3. [3]

    (A8) This result no longer depends on the gluon massmg, confirming the regulator independence of the matching coefficient

    One-loop results for the matching coefficient With the above results at hand, and following the same procedure as in the main text, we now present the one-loop matching coefficient in thism g ̸= 0 scheme (withy→1): Z(1) Γ (x, y→1, µ) mg =    1 x−1 −1−x+ (1 +x 2) ln x x−1 ⊕ θ(−x), 1 x−1 −2 +x+x 2 + (1 +x 2) ln µ2 4P z2 B (1−x)x ⊕ θ(x)θ(1...

    2023

  4. [4]

    Analysis of the Photon Spectrum in Inclusive $B\to X_s\,\gamma$ Decays

    M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D49(1994), 4623-4633 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.49.4623 [arXiv:hep-ph/9312311 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.49.4623 1994

  5. [5]

    A. G. Grozin and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D55(1997), 272-290 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.272 [arXiv:hep- ph/9607366 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.55.272 1997

  6. [6]

    QCD-Based Interpretation of the Lepton Spectrum in Inclusive $\bar B\to X_u\,\ell\,\bar\nu$ Decays

    M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D49(1994), 3392-3398 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.49.3392 [arXiv:hep-ph/9311325 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.49.3392 1994

  7. [7]

    S. W. Bosch, B. O. Lange, M. Neubert and G. Paz, Nucl. Phys. B699(2004), 335-386 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2004.07.041 [arXiv:hep- ph/0402094 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2004.07.041 2004

  8. [8]

    C. Q. Zhang, J. Sun, Z. P. Xing and R. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no.11, 113003 doi:10.1103/6g56-v496 [arXiv:2501.00512 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/6g56-v496 2025

  9. [9]

    Neubert, Phys

    M. Neubert, Phys. Lett. B612(2005), 13- 20 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.02.055 [arXiv:hep- ph/0412241 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.02.055 2005

  10. [10]

    Beneke, G

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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.83.1914 1999

  11. [11]

    Beneke and T

    M. Beneke and T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. B592(2001), 3-34 doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00585-X [arXiv:hep- ph/0008255 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(00)00585-x 2001

  12. [12]

    Beneke, G

    M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C. T. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B606, 245-321 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(01)00251-6 [arXiv:hep- ph/0104110 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(01)00251-6 2001

  13. [13]

    Becher and R

    T. Becher and R. J. Hill, Phys. Lett. B633, 61- 69 (2006) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.11.063 [arXiv:hep- ph/0509090 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.11.063 2006

  14. [14]

    $B \rightarrow D l \nu$ Form Factors at Non-Zero Recoil and Extraction of $|V_{cb}|$

    H. Naet al.[HPQCD], Phys. Rev. D92, no.5, 054510 (2015) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D93, no.11, 119906 (2016)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.119906 [arXiv:1505.03925 [hep-lat]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.119906 2015

  15. [15]

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

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2022)024 2022

  16. [16]

    Y. J. Shi and J. Zeng, JHEP05(2026), 212 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2026)212 [arXiv:2602.14187 [hep- ph]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2026)212 2026

  17. [17]

    Z. F. Deng, W. Wang, Y. B. Wei and J. Zeng, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.11, 114006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.114006 [arXiv:2409.00632 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.114006 2024

  18. [18]

    and others

    S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) no.3, 030001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  19. [19]

    Y. S. Amhiset al.[HFLAV], Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) no.5, 052008 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.052008 [arXiv:2206.07501 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.052008 2023

  20. [20]

    Cao [Belle], PoSEPS-HEP2023(2024), 356 doi:10.22323/1.449.0356 [arXiv:2311.00379 [hep-ex]]

    L. Cao [Belle], PoSEPS-HEP2023(2024), 356 doi:10.22323/1.449.0356 [arXiv:2311.00379 [hep-ex]]. 12

    work page doi:10.22323/1.449.0356 2024

  21. [21]

    Treating the b quark distribution function with reliable uncertainties

    Z. Ligeti, I. W. Stewart and F. J. Tackmann, Phys. Rev. D78(2008), 114014 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.114014 [arXiv:0807.1926 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.114014 2008

  22. [22]

    Y. J. Shi, Y. Xing and Z. P. Xing, Eur. Phys. J. C 83(2023) no.8, 744 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11930-z [arXiv:2305.17622 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11930-z 2023

  23. [23]

    Misiak, H

    M. Misiak, H. M. Asatrian, K. Bieri, M. Czakon, A. Czar- necki, T. Ewerth, A. Ferroglia, P. Gambino, M. Gor- bahn and C. Greub,et al.Phys. Rev. Lett.98(2007), 022002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.022002 [arXiv:hep- ph/0609232 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.98.022002 2007

  24. [24]

    V. M. Braun, D. Y. Ivanov and G. P. Ko- rchemsky, Phys. Rev. D69(2004), 034014 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.034014 [arXiv:hep- ph/0309330 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.69.034014 2004

  25. [25]

    K. S. M. Lee and I. W. Stewart, Nucl. Phys. B 721(2005), 325-406 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.05.004 [arXiv:hep-ph/0409045 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.05.004 2005

  26. [26]

    B meson light-cone distribution amplitudes in the heavy-quark limit

    H. Kawamura, J. Kodaira, C. F. Qiao and K. Tanaka, Phys. Lett. B523(2001), 111 [erratum: Phys. Lett. B 536(2002), 344-344] doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01299-0 [arXiv:hep-ph/0109181 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(01)01299-0 2001

  27. [27]

    X. q. Li and Y. d. Yang, Phys. Rev. D73(2006), 114027 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.114027 [arXiv:hep- ph/0602224 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.114027 2006

  28. [28]

    V. M. Braun, Y. Ji and A. N. Manashov, Phys. Rev. D100(2019) no.1, 014023 doi:10.3204/PUBDB-2019- 02451 [arXiv:1905.04498 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3204/pubdb-2019- 2019

  29. [29]

    J. Gao, C. D. L¨ u, Y. L. Shen, Y. M. Wang and Y. B. Wei, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.7, 074035 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.074035 [arXiv:1907.11092 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.074035 2020

  30. [30]

    J. Gao, U. G. Meißner, Y. L. Shen and D. H. Li, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.1, 1 doi:10.1103/yvjd-2ymn [arXiv:2412.13084 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/yvjd-2ymn 2025

  31. [31]

    J. Chai, S. Cheng, Y. h. Ju, D. C. Yan, C. D. L¨ u and Z. J. Xiao, Chin. Phys. C46(2022) no.12, 123103 doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ac88bd [arXiv:2207.04190 [hep- ph]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ac88bd 2022

  32. [32]

    Evolution of the Light Cone Distribution Function for a Heavy Quark

    C. Balzereit, T. Mannel and W. Kilian, Phys. Rev. D58(1998), 114029 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.114029 [arXiv:hep-ph/9805297 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.58.114029 1998

  33. [33]

    C. W. Bauer and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. D70(2004), 034024 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.034024 [arXiv:hep-ph/0312109 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.70.034024 2004

  34. [34]

    Aglietti and G

    U. Aglietti and G. Ricciardi, Phys. Lett. B466(1999), 313 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(99)01103-X [arXiv:hep- ph/9907501 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(99)01103-x 1999

  35. [35]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming and M. E. Luke, Phys. Rev. D63(2000), 014006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.014006 [arXiv:hep-ph/0005275 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.63.014006 2000

  36. [36]

    J. Hua, H. n. Li, C. D. Lu, W. Wang and Z. P. Xing, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) no.1, 016025 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.016025 [arXiv:2012.15074 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.016025 2021

  37. [37]

    Parton Physics on Euclidean Lattice

    X. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett.110(2013), 262002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.262002 [arXiv:1305.1539 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.262002 2013

  38. [38]

    X. Ji, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.57(2014), 1407- 1412 doi:10.1007/s11433-014-5492-3 [arXiv:1404.6680 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/s11433-014-5492-3 2014

  39. [39]

    X. Ji, Y. S. Liu, Y. Liu, J. H. Zhang and Y. Zhao, Rev. Mod. Phys.93(2021) no.3, 035005 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.93.035005 [arXiv:2004.03543 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.93.035005 2021

  40. [40]

    Zhao, Phys

    S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no.1, 1 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.014002 [arXiv:2212.00825 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.014002 2024

  41. [41]

    Radyushkin and S

    A. Radyushkin and S. Zhao, JHEP02(2022), 163 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2022)163 [arXiv:2201.02181 [hep- ph]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep02(2022)163 2022

  42. [42]

    Zhao and A

    S. Zhao and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) no.5, 054022 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.054022 [arXiv:2006.05663 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.054022 2021

  43. [43]

    J. H. Zhang, X. Ji, A. Sch¨ afer, W. Wang and S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett.122(2019) no.14, 142001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.142001 [arXiv:1808.10824 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.142001 2019

  44. [44]

    A guide to light-cone PDFs from Lattice QCD: an overview of approaches, techniques and results

    K. Cichy and M. Constantinou, Adv. High Energy Phys.2019(2019), 3036904 doi:10.1155/2019/3036904 [arXiv:1811.07248 [hep-lat]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1155/2019/3036904 2019

  45. [45]

    J. Xu, Q. A. Zhang and S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) no.11, 114026 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.114026 [arXiv:1804.01042 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.114026 2018

  46. [46]

    Y. S. Liu, W. Wang, J. Xu, Q. A. Zhang, S. Zhao and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D99(2019) no.9, 094036 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.094036 [arXiv:1810.10879 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.094036 2019

  47. [47]

    Y. S. Liu, W. Wang, J. Xu, Q. A. Zhang, J. H. Zhang, S. Zhao and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) no.3, 034006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.034006 [arXiv:1902.00307 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.034006 2019

  48. [48]

    Huaet al.[Lattice Parton], Phys

    J. Huaet al.[Lattice Parton], Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) no.6, 062002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.062002 [arXiv:2011.09788 [hep-lat]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.062002 2021

  49. [49]

    J. Xu, X. R. Zhang and S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D106(2022) no.1, L011503 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.L011503 [arXiv:2202.13648 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.l011503 2022

  50. [50]

    W. Wang, Y. M. Wang, J. Xu and S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) no.1, 011502 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.011502 [arXiv:1908.09933 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.011502 2020

  51. [51]

    S. M. Hu, W. Wang, J. Xu and S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) no.3, 034001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.034001 [arXiv:2308.13977 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.034001 2024

  52. [52]

    S. M. Hu, J. Xu and S. Zhao, Eur. Phys. J. C84 (2024) no.5, 502 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12672-2 [arXiv:2401.04291 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12672-2 2024

  53. [53]

    W. Wang, J. Xu, Q. A. Zhang and S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.5, 054044 doi:10.1103/1547-t91t [arXiv:2504.18018 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/1547-t91t 2025

  54. [54]

    Ishaq, Y

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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.132001 2020

  55. [55]

    Beneke, G

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

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2023)066 2023

  56. [56]

    X. Y. Han, J. Hua, X. Ji, C. D. L¨ u, W. Wang, J. Xu, Q. A. Zhang and S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no.11, L111503 doi:10.1103/2t8s-w8t6 [arXiv:2403.17492 [hep- ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/2t8s-w8t6 2025

  57. [57]

    X. Y. Hanet al.[Lattice Parton], Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) no.3, 034503 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.034503 [arXiv:2410.18654 [hep-lat]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.034503 2025

  58. [58]

    Search for the rare decay of $B^+ \to \ell^{\,+} \nu_{\ell} \gamma$ with improved hadronic tagging

    M. Gelbet al.[Belle], Phys. Rev. D98(2018) no.11, 112016 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.112016 13 [arXiv:1810.12976 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.112016 2018

  59. [59]

    H. F. Gaoet al.[LPC], [arXiv:2604.25802 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  60. [60]

    X. Y. Hanet al.[LPC], [arXiv:2605.10946 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [61]

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

    arXiv

  62. [62]

    Factorization Theorem Relating Euclidean and Light-Cone Parton Distributions

    T. Izubuchi, X. Ji, L. Jin, I. W. Stewart and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) no.5, 056004 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.056004 [arXiv:1801.03917 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.056004 2018

  63. [63]

    Version 3 of {\tt RunDec} and {\tt CRunDec}

    F. Herren and M. Steinhauser, Comput. Phys. Com- mun.224(2018), 333-345 doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2017.11.014 [arXiv:1703.03751 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2017.11.014 2018