Complete $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)$ Corrections to the Leptonic Invariant Mass Spectrum in $b\to X_c l\bar{\nu}_l$ Decay

Abdur Rehman; Mateusz Czaja; Miko{\l}aj Misiak

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Complete $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)$ Corrections to the Leptonic Invariant Mass Spectrum in $b\to X_c l\bar{\nu}_l$ Decay

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper computes the complete $O(\\alpha_s^2)$ correction to the partonic $q^2$ spectrum of $b\\to X_c l\\bar{\\nu}_l$, including the triple-charm channel, and confirms the earlier single-charm result.

desk verdict Completes the NNLO q2 spectrum with the first triple-charm treatment and confirms the single-charm result; the unverified cut-MI completeness is a real but phenomenologically harmless caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12866 v1 pith:3NOJOXSK submitted 2024-11-19 hep-ph

Mateusz Czaja , Miko{l}aj Misiak , Abdur Rehman This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph PACS 12.38.Bx13.20.He14.65.Fy

keywords inclusivesemileptonicBdecaysq^2momentsleptonicinvariantmassspectrumNNLOQCDcorrectionstriple-charmchannel|V_cb|extractionheavyquarkexpansionmasterintegrals

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 completes the next-to-next-to-leading-order ($O(\\alpha_s^2)$) QCD correction to the leptonic-invariant-mass squared ($q^2$) spectrum of the partonic $b\\to X_c l\\bar{\\nu}_l$ decay, the free-quark-level process underlying inclusive semileptonic $B$-meson decays. It adds the previously omitted triple-charm channel, whose final hadronic state is $c\\bar{c}c$, and separates it from the dominant single-charm channel. It also independently confirms the single-charm NNLO result already in the literature. The final spectrum is given as numerical fits in $q^2$, the charm-quark mass, and the renormalization scale, ready for computations of $q^2$ moments that are used to extract $|V_{cb}|$.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through an effective-width formula (eq. 2.13) that replaces the lepton pair by a light auxiliary vector boson, so the $q^2$ spectrum becomes the total width of $b\\to X_c W$ and can be obtained from imaginary parts of three-loop forward-scattering diagrams via the optical theorem. Integration-by-parts identities reduce those diagrams to 98 master integrals in five topologies; the triple-charm channel is isolated by keeping only unitarity cuts that separate three charm-quark lines, which leaves 22 master integrals in two topologies. All master integrals are evaluated numerically with 60-digit precision at hundreds of kinematic points, then fitted to the ansatz functions of eqs. (3.1) and (3.3), with renormalization performed in the on-shell scheme for quark masses and in the $\\overline{\\rm MS}$ scheme for $\\alpha_s$.

What would settle it

Compute the $b\\to c\\bar{c}c\\,l\\bar{\\nu}_l$ differential rate at a representative kinematic point, for example $\\hat m_c = 0.27$ and $\\hat q^2 = 0.1$, by an independent method such as direct integration of the squared amplitude over the three-charm phase space, and compare it with the fit in eq. (3.1); a disagreement beyond the stated fit error of $1.5\\%$ would show that the cut-master-integral set or the subtraction is incomplete.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the complete $O(\\alpha_s^2)$ correction to the partonic $q^2$ spectrum is now known, with the triple-charm $b\\to c\\bar{c}c\\,l\\bar{\\nu}_l$ contribution evaluated explicitly and subtracted from the fully inclusive correction to define the single-charm piece. The single-charm piece reproduces the result of ref. [13], including exact agreement with all digits of the centralized moments published there. The triple-charm piece, shown for the first time as a function of $q^2$, has a negligible effect on the first four normalized centralized moments for physical quark masses and realistic $q^2$ cuts, decreasing rapidly as either $\\hat m_c$ or the cut increases. This means that previous single-charm-only NNLO analyses were numerically adequate for current fits, while the present fits make the complete correction available for any future cut choice.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that every possible $b\\to c\\bar{c}c\\,l\\bar{\\nu}_l$ contribution at this order is captured by the 22 master integrals from the two diagram families identified in figure 4; if a contributing family were missed, the separation into single- and triple-charm parts would be wrong even if the total inclusive spectrum were unaffected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any $q^2$ moment with an arbitrary lower cut can now be computed at NNLO by integrating the provided fits in $\\hat q^2$.
The centralized $q^2$ moments used in $|V_{cb}|$ fits can be quoted with the triple-charm channel included, eliminating a previously unquantified missing-channel assumption.
The single-charm NNLO spectrum of ref. [13] is independently confirmed, including exact agreement with its published moment values.
For physical quark masses and non-zero $q^2$ cuts, the relative triple-charm correction to the first four centralized moments is below $10^{-4}$ over most of the parameter range, so earlier single-charm-only analyses remain numerically sound.
The normalized spectrum shows better perturbative convergence than the unnormalized one, because the overall factor of $(m_b^{\\rm OS})^5$ and part of the renormalon ambiguity cancel in the width ratio.

Reading between the lines

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

An independent evaluation of the triple-charm spectrum at one kinematic point, for example by reverse unitarity rather than cut master integrals, would test the completeness of the 22-integral set without requiring a full second computation.
Because the triple-charm effect on normalized centralized moments is so small, the limiting uncertainty for future $|V_{cb}|$ fits from $q^2$ moments will likely come from power-suppressed non-perturbative matrix elements and from renormalization-scale variation, not from this channel.
The same cut-based channel decomposition could be applied to other inclusive observables to separate final-state multiplicities whose heavy-quark-expansion behaviour differs, not just in semileptonic $B$ decays.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Mateusz, here's my read.

The genuinely new content is the first NNLO treatment of the b -> c cbar c l nu channel in the q^2 spectrum, computed via three-loop unitarity cuts, plus an independent confirmation of the Fael-Herren single-charm result. The single-charm moments agree to all digits quoted there; the triple-charm piece is small and carefully quantified.

The paper is technically solid. The pipeline (QGRAF, KIRA IBPs, AMFlow) is standard, and the authors work at 60-digit precision before fitting clean ansatze with documented errors. The fits are in an appendix and an ancillary file, so the results are directly usable. The replacement of the lepton pair by a massive auxiliary vector boson is a known trick, and there is no circularity: the spectrum is computed directly, and the fits are numerical representations rather than inputs.

The soft spot is the completeness of the triple-charm cut-MI enumeration. The claim of a complete O(alpha_s^2) correction rests on the statement that exactly 22 of the 98 three-loop master integrals belong to two topologies that admit an allowed cut across three c-quark lines. There is no independent cross-check of that enumeration for the triple-charm channel. The check against ref. [13] cannot provide one: it is a 5.2e-4 relative comparison of single-charm spectra, while the triple-charm width is five to nine orders of magnitude smaller. A missing triple-charm topology would shift that comparison by far less than its stated precision, so the agreement is compatible with both a complete and an incomplete triple-charm list. The authors are transparent about fit errors, but this structural assumption is unverified. I do not regard it as fatal: even if a topology were missed, the fully inclusive spectrum would be unaffected, and the triple-charm effect on the moments is at the 1e-9 to 1e-6 level for physical inputs. The practical impact on |Vcb| fits is negligible. Still, the word 'complete' is doing real work and deserves either a stronger argument or a small caveat.

Who this is for: anyone doing inclusive semileptonic B decays, HQET, or |Vcb| extraction from Belle/Belle II q^2 moments. It belongs in JHEP.

Recommendation: send it to peer review. I would accept, asking for a more systematic enumeration check of the triple-charm cuts, or at minimum an explicit statement of this caveat and why it is phenomenologically irrelevant.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a calculation of the O(alpha_s^2) QCD correction to the leptonic invariant mass (q^2) spectrum in the partonic b -> X_c l nu_l decay. The authors use the optical theorem with an auxiliary vector boson of mass sqrt(q^2), generate the three-loop forward-scattering diagrams with QGRAF, reduce the scalar integrals with KIRA, and evaluate the master integrals with AMFlow. They identify 22 cut master integrals that isolate the triple-charm channel b -> c cbar c l nu, define the single-charm channel by subtracting the triple-charm contribution from the fully inclusive result, and provide numerical fits for both channels as functions of qhat^2 and mhat_c. They confirm the single-charm results of Fael and Herren [13] and show that the triple-charm channel has a numerically negligible effect on centralized q^2 moments for physical parameters.

Significance. If correct, this is the first complete NNLO partonic q^2 spectrum including the triple-charm channel, which is a needed ingredient for precision |Vcb| determinations from Belle and Belle-II q^2-moment measurements. The paper's strengths are its use of state-of-the-art multi-loop technology (QGRAF, KIRA, AMFlow), the independent confirmation of the dominant single-charm contribution of ref. [13], and the provision of reusable fit functions in an ancillary Mathematica-readable file. The triple-charm result is new, and the paper appropriately separates this channel from the better-controlled single-charm channel because the heavy-quark expansion is questionable near the triple-charm threshold.

major comments (1)

[3.1] The completeness of the triple-charm channel rests on the statement that, out of all 3-loop master integrals in the fully inclusive calculation, 22 cut master integrals with an allowed cut across three c-quark lines were extracted. The manuscript does not document the selection procedure, nor does it provide an independent check of this enumeration. This is load-bearing because eq. (3.2) subtracts the triple-charm contribution from the fully inclusive spectrum to define the single-charm channel; a missed cut topology would change both channels and invalidate the word 'complete' in the paper's central claim. The 5.2e-4 relative agreement with ref. [13] in section 3.2 cannot validate the triple-charm part, since the triple-charm width is roughly 1e-8 to 1e-5 of the single-charm width (figure 6), so an error in the triple-charm extraction would be far below the quoted comparison accuracy. Please provide a detailed description of how the 22 cut MIs were identified from the 98 MIs, or an independent cross-check such as a reverse-unitarity enumeration, or a comparison of the integrated total width (single-plus-triple charm) with known O(alpha_s^2) results, e.g. from ref. [16].

minor comments (4)

[3.1] The sentence 'We obtain the numerical results for the q^2 spectrum ... with 60 significant digits' refers to the AMFlow evaluation, but the final fit has a relative error as large as 1.5%. Please clarify that the 60-digit statement applies to the intermediate numerical integration, not to the fitted spectrum.
[3.1, eq. (3.1)] The step function Theta[10 L3c - 1] in the fit ansatz is not explained. Please define the step function and state its role in describing the high-q^2 region of the triple-charm spectrum.
[3.2] The comparison with ref. [13] is quoted as a relative error never exceeding 5.2e-4, while section 3.3 states that the moments agree 'to all digits given' in ref. [13]. Please clarify the relationship between these two statements, since a 5e-4 spectrum-level difference can still yield agreement at the level of the printed moment digits.
[Appendix A] The fit coefficients in tables 1-6 are presented without any indication of their numerical precision or the resulting fit uncertainty. Since these fits are the main output of the paper, please state explicitly how many significant digits of the coefficients are meaningful and how the residuals quoted in sections 3.1 and 3.2 were computed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the O(alpha_s^2) spectrum is obtained from direct multi-loop computation, with an independent cross-check; the fits are numerical representations, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The central quantity dGamma_sl^{part,(2)}/dq^2 is obtained by (i) deriving the exact effective-width relation, Eq. (2.13), (ii) generating the NNLO b-propagator diagrams, IBP-reducing them to 98 master integrals in five topologies, evaluating them numerically with AMFlow at 682 kinematic points, and renormalizing in the on-shell/MS schemes, and (iii) isolating the triple-charm channel by unitarity cuts (22 cut master integrals in two topologies) and defining the single-charm channel by subtraction, Eq. (3.2). None of these steps defines the output in terms of itself: the triple-charm contribution is the imaginary part of the same master integrals with a specified cut, not an input imposed on the spectrum. The fits in Eqs. (3.1) and (3.3) are numerical interpolations of the computed grid, with stated errors (<1.5% and <5.2e-4 relative), so they are not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The single-charm result is checked against the independent analytic calculation of ref. [13] at 13600 points and reproduces the published centralized moments exactly; this is external evidence, not circular. The only self-citation in the paper (ref. [1] in the introduction) is contextual and does not support any derivation step. The enumeration of cut master integrals is an assumption about completeness, but that is a correctness/completeness risk, not circularity: no equation in the paper reduces the claimed result to a fit parameter, to a self-citation, or to a definition of the target quantity in terms of itself.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No physical free parameters are fitted; all numerical outputs come from the 3-loop computation. The fit coefficients in tables 1-6 are a compressed representation of the computed grid, not parameters used to obtain the result. The only new construct is the auxiliary vector boson used as a calculational device.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The effective width formula (2.13) relating dGamma/dq^2 to the width of b -> X_c W with MW^2 = q^2 is valid, following from the factorization of the leptonic tensor and the polarization sum (2.12).
Invoked in Section 2.2; this is a known trick from ref. [19], not re-derived in the paper.
standard math The optical theorem (2.14) gives the width as the imaginary part of forward scattering diagrams, and unitary cuts across three charm lines isolate the triple-charm channel.
Sections 2.3 and 3.1; standard quantum field theory tool.
domain assumption The renormalization constants Za for alpha_s, m_b, and m_c in the on-shell and MSbar schemes from refs. [28-30] are correct and sufficient to cancel all UV divergences at NNLO.
Section 2.4; the paper relies on these published constants.
domain assumption The numerical evaluation by AMFlow at the chosen grid points is accurate to the claimed 60 significant digits, and no singularity or branch-cut issue distorts the imaginary parts.
Sections 2.3 and 3.1-3.2; this is a tooling assumption about the reliability of the auxiliary mass flow method.
domain assumption Subtracting the triple-charm contribution from the fully inclusive result yields the single-charm contribution because the two channels exhaust the final states at O(alpha_s^2).
Eq. (3.2) in Section 3.2; relies on the absence of other charm multiplicities at this order.

invented entities (1)

Auxiliary light vector boson (W with MW^2 = q^2) replacing the lepton pair
purpose: Computational device to express dGamma/dq^2 in terms of the width of b -> X_c W via eq. (2.13).
Not a physical particle; a known calculational trick from ref. [19]. It does not appear in the final physical results.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Complete $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)$ Corrections to the Leptonic Invariant Mass Spectrum in $b\to X_c l\bar{\nu}_l$ Decay." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3NOJOXSK

@misc{pith2026241112866,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Complete $\mathcalO(\alpha_s^2)$ Corrections to the Leptonic Invariant Mass Spectrum in $b\to X_c l\bar\nu_l$ Decay},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3NOJOXSK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12866}
}

abstract

In the determination of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element $|V_{cb}|$ from inclusive semileptonic $B$-meson decays, moments of the leptonic invariant mass spectrum constitute valuable observables. To evaluate them with sufficient precision, perturbative $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)$ corrections to the analogous spectrum in the partonic $b\to X_c l\bar{\nu}_l$ decay are necessary. In the present paper, we compute such perturbative corrections in a complete manner, including contributions from the triple-charm channel, namely from the $cc\bar{c}l\bar{\nu}_l$ final states. We present our results in terms of numerical fits in both the single- and triple-charm cases. We confirm the recently found results for the single-charm correction, and analyze the triple-charm channel impact on centralized moments of the spectrum.

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

New Physics in inclusive semileptonic $B$ decays
hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A global fit to inclusive semileptonic B decay moments and rate constrains all seven dimension-six new-physics parameters, finding no significant BSM signal but new bounds, especially on the right-handed vector Wilson...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[13]

NNLO QCD corrections to theq2 spectrum of inclusive semileptonic B-meson decays,

M. Fael and F. Herren,“NNLO QCD corrections to theq2 spectrum of inclusive semileptonic B-meson decays,”JHEP 05 (2024), 287 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2024)287 [arXiv:2403.03976 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2024
[16]

Third order corrections to the semileptonic b → c and the muon decays,

M. Fael, K. Schönwald and M. Steinhauser,“Third order corrections to the semileptonic b → c and the muon decays,”Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) no.1, 016003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.016003 [arXiv:2011.13654 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2021
[1]

Current Status of the Standard Model Prediction for the Bs → µ+µ− Branching Ratio,

M. Czaja and M. Misiak,“Current Status of the Standard Model Prediction for the Bs → µ+µ− Branching Ratio,”Symmetry 16 (2024) no.7, 917 doi:10.3390/sym16070917 [arXiv:2407.03810 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2024
[2]

2023 update ofεK with lattice QCD inputs,

S. Jwa, J. Kim, S. Kim, S. Lee, W. Lee, J. Leem, J. Pak and S. Park,“2023 update ofεK with lattice QCD inputs,”PoS LATTICE2023 (2024), 160 doi:10.22323/1.453.0160 [arXiv:2312.02986 [hep-lat]]

arXiv 2024
[3]

Precision Determination of the – 16 – Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa Element Vcb,

A. Alberti, P. Gambino, K. J. Healey and S. Nandi,“Precision Determination of the – 16 – Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa Element Vcb,” Phys. Rev. Lett.114 (2015) no.6, 061802 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.061802 [arXiv:1411.6560 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2015
[4]

The Physics of theB Factories,

A. J. Bevanet al.[BaBar and Belle],“The Physics of theB Factories,” Eur. Phys. J. C74 (2014), 3026 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3026-9 [arXiv:1406.6311 [hep-ex]]

arXiv 2014
[5]

Measurements of q2 Moments of InclusiveB → Xcℓ+νℓ Decays with Hadronic Tagging,

R. van Tonderet al.[Belle], “Measurements of q2 Moments of InclusiveB → Xcℓ+νℓ Decays with Hadronic Tagging,”Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) no.11, 112011 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.112011 [arXiv:2109.01685 [hep-ex]]

arXiv 2021
[6]

Measurement of lepton mass squared moments inB → Xcl¯νl decays with the Belle II experiment,

F. Abudinénet al.[Belle-II], “Measurement of lepton mass squared moments inB → Xcl¯νl decays with the Belle II experiment,”Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) no.7, 072002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.072002 [arXiv:2205.06372 [hep-ex]]

arXiv 2023

Show all 31 references

[7]

Heavy quark physics,

A. V. Manohar and M. B. Wise,“Heavy quark physics,”Camb. Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol. 10 (2000), 1-191

2000
[8]

Measurement of the Positive Muon Lifetime and Determination of the Fermi Constant to Part-per-Million Precision,

D. M. Webberet al.[MuLan], “Measurement of the Positive Muon Lifetime and Determination of the Fermi Constant to Part-per-Million Precision,”Phys. Rev. Lett.106 (2011), 041803 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.079901 [arXiv:1010.0991 [hep-ex]]

2011 arXiv
[9]

NLO QCD corrections to inclusiveb → cℓ¯ν decay spectra up to1/m3 Q,

T. Mannel, D. Moreno and A. A. Pivovarov,“NLO QCD corrections to inclusiveb → cℓ¯ν decay spectra up to1/m3 Q,” Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) no.5, 054033 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.054033 [arXiv:2112.03875 [hep-ph]]

2022 arXiv
[10]

Reparametrization Invariance and Partial Re-Summations of the Heavy Quark Expansion,

T. Mannel and K. K. Vos,“Reparametrization Invariance and Partial Re-Summations of the Heavy Quark Expansion,”JHEP 06 (2018), 115 doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2018)115 [arXiv:1802.09409 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[11]

First extraction of inclusiveVcb from q2 moments,

F. Bernlochner, M. Fael, K. Olschewsky, E. Persson, R. van Tonder, K. K. Vos and M. Welsch,“First extraction of inclusiveVcb from q2 moments,” JHEP 10 (2022), 068 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2022)068 [arXiv:2205.10274 [hep-ph]]

2022 arXiv
[12]

The q2 moments in inclusive semileptonic B decays,

G. Finauri and P. Gambino,“The q2 moments in inclusive semileptonic B decays,”JHEP 02 (2024), 206 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2024)206 [arXiv:2310.20324 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[14]

Kinetic operator effects in¯B → Xclν at O(αs),

A. Alberti, T. Ewerth, P. Gambino and S. Nandi,“Kinetic operator effects in¯B → Xclν at O(αs),” Nucl. Phys. B870 (2013), 16-29 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2013.01.005 [arXiv:1212.5082 [hep-ph]]

2013 arXiv
[15]

Perturbative corrections to power suppressed effects in semileptonic B decays,

A. Alberti, P. Gambino and S. Nandi,“Perturbative corrections to power suppressed effects in semileptonic B decays,”JHEP 01 (2014), 147 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2014)147 [arXiv:1311.7381 [hep-ph]]

2014 arXiv
[17]

A first glance to the kinematic moments of B → Xcℓν at third order,

M. Fael, K. Schönwald and M. Steinhauser,“A first glance to the kinematic moments of B → Xcℓν at third order,”JHEP 08 (2022), 039 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2022)039 [arXiv:2205.03410 [hep-ph]]

2022 arXiv
[18]

Perturbative corrections to semileptonic – 17 – b decay distributions,

V. Aquila, P. Gambino, G. Ridolfi and N. Uraltsev,“Perturbative corrections to semileptonic – 17 – b decay distributions,”Nucl. Phys. B719 (2005), 77-102 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.04.031 [arXiv:hep-ph/0503083 [hep-ph]]

2005 arXiv
[19]

Semi-Leptonic b-decay at Intermediate Recoil,

M. Dowling, A. Pak and A. Czarnecki,“Semi-Leptonic b-decay at Intermediate Recoil,”Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008), 074029 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.074029 [arXiv:0809.0491 [hep-ph]]

2008 arXiv
[20]

Higgs boson production at hadron colliders in NNLO QCD,

C. Anastasiou and K. Melnikov,“Higgs boson production at hadron colliders in NNLO QCD,” Nucl. Phys. B646 (2002), 220-256 doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(02)00837-4 [arXiv:hep-ph/0207004 [hep-ph]]

2002 arXiv
[21]

Automatic Feynman graph generation,

P. Nogueira,“Automatic Feynman graph generation,”J. Comput. Phys.105 (1993), 279 doi:10.1006/jcph.1993.1074

1993
[22]

Kira—A Feynman integral reduction program,

P. Maierhöfer, J. Usovitsch and P. Uwer,“Kira—A Feynman integral reduction program,” Comput. Phys. Commun.230 (2018), 99-112 doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2018.04.012 [arXiv:1705.05610 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[23]

Integral reduction with Kira 2.0 and finite field methods,

J. Klappert, F. Lange, P. Maierhöfer and J. Usovitsch,“Integral reduction with Kira 2.0 and finite field methods,”Comput. Phys. Commun.266 (2021), 108024 doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2021.108024 [arXiv:2008.06494 [hep-ph]]

2021
[24]

Libra: A package for transformation of differential systems for multiloop integrals,

R. N. Lee,“Libra: A package for transformation of differential systems for multiloop integrals,” Comput. Phys. Commun.267 (2021), 108058 doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2021.108058 [arXiv:2012.00279 [hep-ph]]

2021
[25]

A Systematic and Efficient Method to Compute Multi-loop Master Integrals,

X. Liu, Y. Q. Ma and C. Y. Wang,“A Systematic and Efficient Method to Compute Multi-loop Master Integrals,”Phys. Lett. B779 (2018), 353-357 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.02.026 [arXiv:1711.09572 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[26]

Multiloop corrections for collider processes using auxiliary mass flow,

X. Liu and Y. Q. Ma,“Multiloop corrections for collider processes using auxiliary mass flow,” Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) no.5, L051503 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.L051503 [arXiv:2107.01864 [hep-ph]]

2022 arXiv
[27]

AMFlow: A Mathematica package for Feynman integrals computation via auxiliary mass flow,

X. Liu and Y. Q. Ma,“AMFlow: A Mathematica package for Feynman integrals computation via auxiliary mass flow,”Comput. Phys. Commun.283 (2023), 108565 doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2022.108565 [arXiv:2201.11669 [hep-ph]]

2023
[28]

Ultraviolet behavior of nonabelian gauge theories,

D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek,“Ultraviolet behavior of nonabelian gauge theories,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 30 (1973), 1343-1346 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.30.1343

1973 doi
[29]

The Three loop on-shell renormalization of QCD and QED,

K. Melnikov and T. van Ritbergen,“The Three loop on-shell renormalization of QCD and QED,” Nucl. Phys. B591 (2000), 515-546 doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00526-5 [arXiv:hep-ph/0005131 [hep-ph]]

2000 arXiv
[30]

Light quark mass effects in the on-shell renormalization constants,

S. Bekavac, A. Grozin, D. Seidel and M. Steinhauser,“Light quark mass effects in the on-shell renormalization constants,”JHEP 10 (2007), 006 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/10/006 [arXiv:0708.1729 [hep-ph]]

2007 arXiv
[31]

Vcb determination from inclusiveb → c decays: an alternative method,

M. Fael, T. Mannel and K. Keri Vos,“Vcb determination from inclusiveb → c decays: an alternative method,”JHEP 02 (2019), 177 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2019)177 [arXiv:1812.07472 [hep-ph]]. – 18 –

2019 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [13]

NNLO QCD corrections to theq2 spectrum of inclusive semileptonic B-meson decays,

M. Fael and F. Herren,“NNLO QCD corrections to theq2 spectrum of inclusive semileptonic B-meson decays,”JHEP 05 (2024), 287 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2024)287 [arXiv:2403.03976 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2024

[2] [16]

Third order corrections to the semileptonic b → c and the muon decays,

M. Fael, K. Schönwald and M. Steinhauser,“Third order corrections to the semileptonic b → c and the muon decays,”Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) no.1, 016003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.016003 [arXiv:2011.13654 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2021

[3] [1]

Current Status of the Standard Model Prediction for the Bs → µ+µ− Branching Ratio,

M. Czaja and M. Misiak,“Current Status of the Standard Model Prediction for the Bs → µ+µ− Branching Ratio,”Symmetry 16 (2024) no.7, 917 doi:10.3390/sym16070917 [arXiv:2407.03810 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2024

[4] [2]

2023 update ofεK with lattice QCD inputs,

S. Jwa, J. Kim, S. Kim, S. Lee, W. Lee, J. Leem, J. Pak and S. Park,“2023 update ofεK with lattice QCD inputs,”PoS LATTICE2023 (2024), 160 doi:10.22323/1.453.0160 [arXiv:2312.02986 [hep-lat]]

arXiv 2024

[5] [3]

Precision Determination of the – 16 – Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa Element Vcb,

A. Alberti, P. Gambino, K. J. Healey and S. Nandi,“Precision Determination of the – 16 – Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa Element Vcb,” Phys. Rev. Lett.114 (2015) no.6, 061802 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.061802 [arXiv:1411.6560 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2015

[6] [4]

The Physics of theB Factories,

A. J. Bevanet al.[BaBar and Belle],“The Physics of theB Factories,” Eur. Phys. J. C74 (2014), 3026 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3026-9 [arXiv:1406.6311 [hep-ex]]

arXiv 2014

[7] [5]

Measurements of q2 Moments of InclusiveB → Xcℓ+νℓ Decays with Hadronic Tagging,

R. van Tonderet al.[Belle], “Measurements of q2 Moments of InclusiveB → Xcℓ+νℓ Decays with Hadronic Tagging,”Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) no.11, 112011 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.112011 [arXiv:2109.01685 [hep-ex]]

arXiv 2021

[8] [6]

Measurement of lepton mass squared moments inB → Xcl¯νl decays with the Belle II experiment,

F. Abudinénet al.[Belle-II], “Measurement of lepton mass squared moments inB → Xcl¯νl decays with the Belle II experiment,”Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) no.7, 072002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.072002 [arXiv:2205.06372 [hep-ex]]

arXiv 2023