Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Kinematic Moments of $\bar{B}\to X_c \ell \bar{\nu}_\ell$ to Order $\mathcal{O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^5/m_b^5)$

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper extends the tree-level heavy-quark expansion for $\bar B\to X_c\ell\bar\nu_\ell$ to order $\mathcal{O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^5/m_b^5)$, producing analytic kinematic moments and identifying a sharp tension between the predicted…

desk verdict A serious, mostly careful HQE calculation with genuinely new O(lambda^5) analytic results; the new part is the least externally checked and the CLEO discrepancy is model-dependent, but this deserves referee time. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09090 v1 pith:NVFSZHSB submitted 2025-01-15 hep-ph

Gael Finauri This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 13.20.He12.38.Bx12.15.Hh
keywords heavy-quarkexpansioninclusivesemileptonicBdecays|V_cb|kinematicmomentsq^2powercorrectionsoperatorproductlowest-lyingstatesaturationansatz
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

The paper aims to show that the heavy-quark expansion for inclusive semileptonic $B$ decays can be carried out analytically to fifth order in the power-counting parameter $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_b$ at tree level, and that the resulting expressions for kinematic moments are directly usable. It delivers the first analytic $q^2$ moments with a lower cut on the lepton energy at this order, alongside updated moments in lepton energy and hadronic invariant mass. If the results hold, they give global fits for the CKM element $|V_{cb}|$ a new set of observables and a concrete way to test whether truncating the expansion at cubic order underestimates the theory error. The paper also reports a notable discrepancy between its prediction and an old CLEO measurement of the second central $q^2$ moment, and calls for new measurements.

What carries the argument

The engine is the local operator product expansion for the hadronic tensor of the inclusive decay. At tree level the structure functions reduce to a finite sum of Dirac-delta derivatives in the variable $\hat u$, so every moment with a lower lepton-energy cut collapses into a single family of one-dimensional master integrals; $q^2$ moments with a lower $q^2$ cut require regulating endpoint singularities by shifting the delta arguments by $\epsilon$ before integrating and then taking $\epsilon\to 0$. The lowest-lying state saturation ansatz (LLSA) supplies numerical values for the otherwise unknown dimension-seven and dimension-eight HQE parameters in terms of the kinetic parameters and two excitation energies.

What would settle it

Measure the second central $q^2$ moment with $E_\ell>1\ \mathrm{GeV}$ at Belle II with sub-0.1$\ \mathrm{GeV}^4$ precision: the prediction here is $Q_2(1\ \mathrm{GeV})=8.3\pm0.4\ \mathrm{GeV}^4$, against the CLEO value $2.852\pm0.047\ \mathrm{GeV}^4$, so the new point would distinguish a real power-correction effect from an experimental systematic. Alternatively, compute the full $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ corrections to $Q_n(E_\ell^{\rm cut})$ and check whether they exceed the few-percent expectation used in the comparison.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The author claims that the tree-level operator product expansion for $\bar B\to X_c\ell\bar\nu_\ell$ can be evaluated cleanly through dimension-eight operators, i.e. to order $\mathcal{O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^5/m_b^5)$, and that the first three moments in lepton energy, hadronic invariant mass, and $q^2$ all follow analytically. The new result is the first analytic computation of $q^2$ moments with a lower cut on the lepton energy at this order, together with $q^2$ moments with a lower cut on $q^2$; all expressions are supplied in ancillary files. Using the lowest-lying state saturation ansatz to fix the dimension-seven and dimension-eight matrix elements, the paper argues that $q^2$ moments, especially the third central $q^2$ moment, are sensitive to power corrections and that the uncertainties assigned to predictions truncated at $\mathcal{O}(\lambda^3)$ underestimate the higher-order contribution. It also reports a puzzling discrepancy between its prediction and the CLEO measurement of the second central $q^2$ moment at lepton-energy cuts of 1 GeV and 1.5 GeV.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical results and the data comparison rest on the lowest-lying state saturation ansatz, a model that fixes the $\mathcal{O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^4/m_b^4)$ and $\mathcal{O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^5/m_b^5)$ non-perturbative parameters from lower-order inputs, and on the assumption that perturbative $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ corrections to the $q^2$ moments with lepton-energy cuts are only a few percent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The analytic $\mathcal{O}(\lambda^5)$ moments with lepton-energy cuts can be included in global fits for $|V_{cb}|$, adding constraints that were previously unavailable.
  • For $q^2$ moments, truncation at $\mathcal{O}(\lambda^3)$ underestimates the missing higher-power uncertainty, so fits should either include at least the $\mathcal{O}(\lambda^4)$ tree-level corrections or inflate the theory errors on these observables.
  • The expansion in $\rho=m_c^2/m_b^2$ converges slowly, so counting $m_c\sim\mathcal{O}(m_b)$ is appropriate unless the phase-space logarithms are resummed.
  • A new measurement of the second central $q^2$ moment with lepton-energy cuts would decide whether the CLEO tension is a real physical effect or an experimental systematic.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the master-integral reduction separates the kinematics from the HQE parameters, the same formalism should extend to one-loop $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ corrections with cuts; computing them would replace the paper's few-percent assumption for the perturbative size with a calculated number.
  • The predicted ratio $Q_2(1.5\ \mathrm{GeV})/Q_2(1\ \mathrm{GeV})=1.027\pm0.020$ is already compatible with CLEO, so a precise measurement of this ratio is a cleaner way to isolate systematic effects than the absolute central moment.
  • A two-step matching with $m_b\gg m_c\gg\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, resumming the $\ln\rho$ terms, is a natural next step and might stabilise the third central $q^2$ moment.
  • Re-fitting $|V_{cb}|$ with the new $\mathcal{O}(\lambda^5)$ terms will likely shift the central value and the error budget once the CLEO tension is resolved; the author leaves such a fit to future work.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a tree-level heavy-quark expansion (HQE) calculation of the inclusive semileptonic decay \bar{B} \to X_c \ell \bar{\nu}_\ell through order \mathcal{O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^5/m_b^5). The author computes the fully differential rate, the first three moments in lepton energy E_\ell, hadronic invariant mass m_X^2, and q^2 with a lower cut on E_\ell, as well as the first three q^2 moments with a lower cut on q^2. Analytic results are provided in ancillary Mathematica files. The lowest-lying state saturation ansatz (LLSA) is used to estimate the dimension-7 and dimension-8 HQE parameters, and the numerical consequences are studied through convergence plots, a comparison with CLEO q^2 moments with an E_\ell cut, and a discussion of higher-order theoretical uncertainties. The central new claim is that analytic expressions for q^2 moments with a lower lepton-energy cut are derived for the first time to order \mathcal{O}(\lambda^5).

Significance. If the analytic results are correct, this is a useful step for inclusive |V_{cb}| determinations: the new E_\ell-cut q^2 moments have never been included in global fits, and the paper provides open, machine-readable expressions that can be implemented in future analyses. The calculation follows a well-established OPE algorithm, cross-checks the E_\ell moments by an independent integration order, and agrees with previous literature through order \mathcal{O}(\lambda^4). The explicit treatment of reparametrization invariance and the characterization of the O(\lambda^5) discrepancy with Ref. [30] are valuable. At the same time, the numerical and phenomenological conclusions rest on two model-dependent inputs: the LLSA assignment of the dimension-7 and dimension-8 parameters, and the assumption that uncalculated O(\alpha_s) corrections are only a few percent in the E_\ell-cut q^2 moments. The paper is generally transparent about the former but less so about the latter.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Eqs. (2.38)-(2.40)] The genuinely new content of the paper is the O(\lambda^5) part of the moments, but the only stated difference from Ref. [30] is attributed to a 'likely' violation of identity (2.40) by that reference. The cross-checks shown in the text stop at O(\lambda^4), and the O(\lambda^5) expressions are relegated to ancillary files. Since the headline claim of first-time E_\ell-cut q^2 moments depends precisely on this unproven cancellation, the author should provide a direct verification of identity (2.40) on the tensor basis of Ref. [30], or an independent derivation of at least one O(\lambda^5) moment, and should display the key O(\lambda^5) combinations in the paper or appendix so that the new result is checkable from the manuscript itself.
  2. [Sec. 3.4, Eq. (3.19)] For the q^2 moments with a lower q^2 cut, the endpoint singularities are regularized by shifting both the delta-function arguments and the phase-space boundary, and the text states that all singularities cancel after integration. This cancellation is not demonstrated order by order, and the O(\lambda^5) terms are exactly the terms that differ from Ref. [30]. The author should show that the finite O(\lambda^5) remainder is independent of the regularization prescription (for example by comparing different \epsilon parametrizations or a symmetrized limit). The E_\ell-cut q^2 moments themselves are obtained from Section 3.1 and do not rely on this regulator, but the q^2-cut results are still part of the paper and need to be secured.
  3. [Sec. 4.2, Eqs. (4.6)-(4.10)] The comparison with CLEO is presented as a 'puzzling discrepancy', but the notation Q_n is overloaded: Section 3.4 defines Q_n as raw q^2 moments, while the comparison in Section 4.2 clearly uses central moments without stating the switch. Please state explicitly which definition is used in Eq. (4.7). Furthermore, the expectation that O(\alpha_s) corrections are only a few percent is borrowed from q^2-cut calculations [28,39] and is not computed for the E_\ell-cut q^2 moments, which break RPI. Because the claimed tension with CLEO depends on this assumption, the author should either provide an estimate of the O(\alpha_s) corrections for these observables or soften the conclusion accordingly.
  4. [Sec. 4.1 and Appendix A] The numerical convergence statements and the error-budget conclusions in Section 4.3 rest entirely on the LLSA values of the dimension-7 and dimension-8 parameters, with seven dimension-8 parameters set to zero with a minimum uncertainty of 0.01 GeV^5. The paper acknowledges the model dependence and assigns a 60% uncertainty, but the abstract and summary still present the 'puzzling discrepancy' and the convergence findings as robust phenomenological observations. Please add an explicit caveat that these numerical conclusions are conditional on the LLSA ansatz and on the uncalculated O(\alpha_s) corrections, so that readers do not mistake a model-dependent estimate for a QCD-derived prediction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2.39)] The relation between the r_i basis and the RPI combination X^5_8/2 + X^5_{10}/2 is stated but not derived; a reference to the conversion formulas in Ref. [30] is given, but it would help to write the combination (2.39) explicitly in terms of the r_i parameters that appear in the final moments.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, text before Eq. (4.6)] There is a typo: 'knew theoretical predictions' should be 'new theoretical predictions'. In addition, the sentence 'All moments computed with three different a lower cuts' in the caption of Figure 1 should be corrected to 'three different lower cuts'.
  3. [References [31]-[32]] In the introduction, the Kolya framework is cited as Ref. [32], but the bibliography lists the Kolya paper as Ref. [31] and the conference proceedings as Ref. [32]; the citation appears to be mismatched.
  4. [Sec. 3.5, Eq. (3.24)] The notation for central moments in Eq. (3.24) is identical to the notation for the raw moments defined in Sections 3.2-3.4. Please use distinct symbols (for example \mathcal{L}_n, \mathcal{H}_n, \mathcal{Q}_n) to avoid the ambiguity that arises in Section 4.2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the moment calculation is self-contained, with the LLSA and the prior fit used only as external inputs rather than as fitted targets.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation of the triple differential rate and the E_l, m_X^2 and q^2 moments proceeds from the OPE in Section 2 through the explicit projector expansion (2.32)-(2.36), the general moment formula (3.3)-(3.8), and the phase-space integrations in Sections 3.2-3.4. None of the moments being predicted enters as an input to the calculation; the structure functions are determined from the M_(mu) projectors and the HQE parameters, not from the observables themselves. The q^2 moments with a lower lepton-energy cut are a direct specialization M_00n of the all-moments formula, so they are not a renamed known result or a fitted parameter disguised as a prediction. The LLSA is used to estimate the O(lambda^4) and O(lambda^5) parameters from lower-dimensional inputs such as mu_pi^2, mu_G^2, rho_D^3 and rho_LS^3 (Eqs. (4.2)-(4.5), Appendix A), but those inputs are themselves taken from an external fit [28] and are not tuned to the CLEO q^2-moment data used later; the CLEO comparison is therefore an independent test. The only self-citation, Ref. [28], supplies input values and a perturbative-size expectation, but the analytic claims do not reduce to that fit, and the fit did not use the CLEO E_l-cut q^2 moments. The stated difference from Ref. [30] at O(lambda^5), attributed to the identity (2.40), is a correctness or consistency assertion, not a circular step. No load-bearing argument depends on an unverified self-citation, and no prediction is equivalent to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The analytic moment computation uses standard OPE/HQET axioms and introduces no new particles. The numerical part depends on six fitted inputs from Ref. [28], two LLSA excitation energies, the LLSA parameterization of dimension-7 and dimension-8 operators, and an uncomputed estimate of O(alpha_s) effects in the new lepton-energy-cut q^2 moments. No new force, particle, or dimension is invented; the only invented entity is the LLSA fictitious meson doublet used to estimate higher-order parameters.

free parameters (8)
  • m_b (kinetic scheme) = 4.573 +/- 0.012 GeV
    External fit parameter from [28]; used for phase-space and numerical moments.
  • m_c (MSbar, 2 GeV) = 1.090 +/- 0.010 GeV
    External fit parameter from [28]; used for phase-space and numerical moments.
  • mu_pi^2 = 0.454 +/- 0.043 GeV^2
    External fit parameter from [28]; central low-order HQE input.
  • mu_G^2 = 0.288 +/- 0.049 GeV^2
    External fit parameter from [28]; central low-order HQE input.
  • rho_D^3 = 0.176 +/- 0.019 GeV^3
    External fit parameter from [28]; used to calibrate LLSA excitation energies.
  • rho_LS^3 = -0.113 +/- 0.090 GeV^3
    External fit parameter from [28]; used to calibrate LLSA excitation energies.
  • epsilon_1/2 = 379.5 MeV
    LLSA excitation energy determined from rho_D^3 and rho_LS^3 via Eq. (4.3).
  • epsilon_3/2 = 388.8 MeV
    LLSA excitation energy determined from rho_D^3 and rho_LS^3 via Eq. (4.3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Locality and convergence of the OPE for inclusive B to X_c l nu at m_b >> Lambda_QCD in powers of 1/m_b.
    Section 2.1; the whole HQE expression (2.25)-(2.27) assumes the local OPE and power counting.
  • standard math Equations of motion (2.16)-(2.17) and the parity constraint (2.34) reduce the operator basis at each dimension.
    Section 2.2; these are standard consequences of HQET and QCD used to construct M^(n).
  • domain assumption The background-field charm propagator (2.26) and optical theorem (2.22) give the tree-level hadronic tensor.
    Section 2.1; assumes standard OPE techniques and neglects O(alpha_s) corrections.
  • ad hoc to paper LLSA determines all dimension-7 and dimension-8 HQE parameters from mu_pi^2, mu_G^2, epsilon_1/2 and epsilon_3/2.
    Appendices A.3-A.4, Section 4; a model ansatz from [33] with a 60% assigned uncertainty, not a QCD-derived relation.
  • ad hoc to paper O(alpha_s) corrections to the new Q_n(E_l_cut) moments are only a few percent.
    Section 4.2; extrapolated from q^2-cut moments [28,39], not computed for lepton-energy-cut moments.
invented entities (1)
  • LLSA fictitious heavy-light meson doublets with excitation energies epsilon_1/2 and epsilon_3/2
    purpose: To assign numerical values to the 9 dimension-7 and 18 dimension-8 HQE parameters used in the convergence and CLEO comparison studies.
    No falsifiable prediction outside the model is provided; the energies are calibrated through Eq. (4.2) to lower-order parameters rho_D^3 and rho_LS^3. The method carries a 60% uncertainty.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kinematic Moments of $\bar{B}\to X_c \ell \bar{\nu}_\ell$ to Order $\mathcal{O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^5/m_b^5)$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NVFSZHSB

@misc{pith2026250109090,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kinematic Moments of $\barB\to X_c \ell \bar\nu_\ell$ to Order $\mathcalO(\Lambda_\rm QCD^5/m_b^5)$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NVFSZHSB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09090}
}
abstract

We investigate the heavy-quark expansion (HQE) for inclusive semileptonic $\bar{B}$ decays, at tree level, by computing the fully differential decay rate up to order $\mathcal{O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^5/m_b^5)$. We provide analytic results for the first three moments in the lepton energy, hadronic invariant mass and leptonic invariant mass ($q^2$) with a lower cut on the lepton energy in the $\bar{B}$ rest frame, as well as for the first three $q^2$ moments with a lower cut on $q^2$. By means of the lowest-lying state saturation ansatz we study the numerical behaviour of the HQE providing insights into the theoretical error budget associated with power corrections. Available CLEO data on the second central $q^2$ moment with a lower cut on the lepton energy present puzzling discrepancies with the theoretical expectations. This observation makes new measurements of these observables desirable, which could improve the precision of global fit analyses for the inclusive determination of $|V_{cb}|$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09090 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. First (left), second central (middle) and third central (right) moments in the lepton energy (top), hadronic invariant mass (middle) and q 2 (bottom). All moments computed with three different a lower cuts Eℓcut on the lepton energy. The moments are displayed as functions of the order at which the HQE is truncated. Uncertainties are obtained by gaussian error propagation from the inputs. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. First (left), second central (middle) and third central (right) q 2 moments with three different lower cuts in q 2 . The moments are displayed as functions of the order at which the HQE is truncated. Uncertainties are obtained by gaussian error propagation from the inputs. for the full expressions of the moments. In this section we investigate the behaviour of the expansion in ρ for each order of the HQE separately.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Third central moment in the lepton energy (top), hadronic invariant mass (middle) and q 2 (bottom) at Eℓcut = 1 GeV. Each column contains only terms of the corresponding O(λ k ) labelled at the top. The number displayed on the right corresponds to the final sum of all orders, with respective uncertainty. Each panel shows the ρ expansion of the respective term, where the last point (at ρ∞) corresponds to the unexpand… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: First moment in the lepton energy (top), hadronic invariant mass (middle) and q 2 (bottom) at Eℓcut = 1 GeV. See caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Second central moment in the lepton energy (top), hadronic invariant mass (middle) and q 2 (bottom) at Eℓcut = 1 GeV. See caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plots for the comparison of the O(λ 3 ) predictions with theory uncertainty estimates (blue), against the O(λ 5 ) predictions with uncertainty coming only from the mi and ri HQE parameters. All moments are computed with Eℓcut = 1 GeV. 5 Summary In this work we have inv…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [30]

    Mannel, I

    T. Mannel, I. S. Milutin and K. K. Vos, Inclusive semileptonic b → cℓν decays to order 1/m5 b, JHEP 02 (2024) 226, [ 2311.12002]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Heavy Quark Parameters and Vcb from Spectral Moments in Semileptonic B Decays

    M. Battaglia, M. Calvi, P. Gambino, A. Oyanguren, P. Roudeau, L. Salmi et al., Heavy quark parameters and —V(cb)— from spectral moments in semileptonic B 27 decays, eConf C0304052 (2003) WG102, [hep-ph/0210319]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  3. [2]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Ligeti, M. Luke and A. V. Manohar, B decay shape variables and the precision determination of —V(cb)— and m(b) , Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 054012, [hep-ph/0210027]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  4. [3]

    CLEO collaboration, R. A. Briere et al., Measurement of the lepton energy in the decay anti-B — > X l anti-nu and determination of the heavy quark expansion parameters, in 31st International Conference on High Energy Physics , 7, 2002. hep-ex/0209024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2002

  5. [4]

    B. Blok, L. Koyrakh, M. A. Shifman and A. I. Vainshtein, Differential distributions in semileptonic decays of the heavy flavors in QCD , Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 3356, [hep-ph/9307247]

    arXiv 1994

  6. [5]

    A. V. Manohar and M. B. Wise, Inclusive semileptonic B and polarized Lambda(b) decays from QCD, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 1310–1329, [ hep-ph/9308246]

    arXiv 1994

  7. [6]

    I. I. Y. Bigi, M. A. Shifman, N. G. Uraltsev and A. I. Vainshtein, QCD predictions for lepton spectra in inclusive heavy flavor decays , Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993) 496–499, [hep-ph/9304225]

    arXiv 1993

  8. [7]

    Gremm and A

    M. Gremm and A. Kapustin, Order 1/m(b)**3 corrections to B – > X(c) lepton anti-neutrino decay and their implication for the measurement of Lambda-bar and lambda(1), Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 6924–6932, [ hep-ph/9603448]

    arXiv 1997

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Ligeti, M. Luke, A. V. Manohar and M. Trott, Global analysis of inclusive B decays , Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 094017, [ hep-ph/0408002]

    2004 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Buchmuller and H

    O. Buchmuller and H. Flacher, Fit to moment from B — > X(c) l anti-nu and B — > X(s) gamma decays using heavy quark expansions in the kinetic scheme , Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 073008, [ hep-ph/0507253]

    2006 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Gambino and C

    P. Gambino and C. Schwanda, Inclusive semileptonic fits, heavy quark masses, and Vcb, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 014022, [ 1307.4551]

    2014 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Alberti, P

    A. Alberti, P. Gambino, K. J. Healey and S. Nandi, Precision Determination of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa Element Vcb, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 061802, [1411.6560]

    2015 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Bordone, B

    M. Bordone, B. Capdevila and P. Gambino, Three loop calculations and inclusive Vcb, Phys. Lett. B 822 (2021) 136679, [ 2107.00604]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [13]

    A. Lenz, M. L. Piscopo and A. V. Rusov, Disintegration of beauty: a precision study , JHEP 01 (2023) 004, [ 2208.02643]. 28

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Aubert et al., Measurement of the electron energy spectrum and its moments in inclusive B → Xeν decays, Phys

    BaBar collaboration, B. Aubert et al., Measurement of the electron energy spectrum and its moments in inclusive B → Xeν decays, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 111104, [hep-ex/0403030]

    2004 arXiv

  8. [15]

    CLEO collaboration, S. E. Csorna et al., Moments of the B meson inclusive semileptonic decay rate using neutrino reconstruction , Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 032002, [hep-ex/0403052]

    2004 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Acosta et al., Measurement of the moments of the hadronic invariant mass distribution in semileptonic B decays, Phys

    CDF collaboration, D. Acosta et al., Measurement of the moments of the hadronic invariant mass distribution in semileptonic B decays, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 051103, [hep-ex/0502003]

    2005 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Abdallah et al., Determination of heavy quark non-perturbative parameters from spectral moments in semileptonic B decays , Eur

    DELPHI collaboration, J. Abdallah et al., Determination of heavy quark non-perturbative parameters from spectral moments in semileptonic B decays , Eur. Phys. J. C 45 (2006) 35–59, [ hep-ex/0510024]

    2006 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Schwanda et al., Moments of the Hadronic Invariant Mass Spectrum in B → Xcℓν Decays at BELLE , Phys

    Belle collaboration, C. Schwanda et al., Moments of the Hadronic Invariant Mass Spectrum in B → Xcℓν Decays at BELLE , Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 032005, [hep-ex/0611044]

    2007 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Urquijo et al., Moments of the electron energy spectrum and partial branching fraction of B — > X(c) e nu decays at Belle , Phys

    Belle collaboration, P. Urquijo et al., Moments of the electron energy spectrum and partial branching fraction of B — > X(c) e nu decays at Belle , Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 032001, [ hep-ex/0610012]

    2007 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Aubert et al., Measurement and interpretation of moments in inclusive semileptonic decays anti-B — > X(c) l- anti-nu , Phys

    BaBar collaboration, B. Aubert et al., Measurement and interpretation of moments in inclusive semileptonic decays anti-B — > X(c) l- anti-nu , Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 032003, [0908.0415]

    2010 arXiv

  14. [21]

    van Tonder et al., Measurements of q2 Moments of Inclusive B → Xcℓ+νℓ Decays with Hadronic Tagging, Phys

    Belle collaboration, R. van Tonder et al., Measurements of q2 Moments of Inclusive B → Xcℓ+νℓ Decays with Hadronic Tagging, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 112011, [2109.01685]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Abudin´ en et al.,Measurement of lepton mass squared moments in B→Xcℓν¯ℓ decays with the Belle II experiment , Phys

    Belle-II collaboration, F. Abudin´ en et al.,Measurement of lepton mass squared moments in B→Xcℓν¯ℓ decays with the Belle II experiment , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 072002, [ 2205.06372]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [23]

    M. Fael, T. Mannel and K. Keri Vos, Vcb determination from inclusive b → c decays: an alternative method , JHEP 02 (2019) 177, [ 1812.07472]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Bernlochner, M

    F. Bernlochner, M. Fael, K. Olschewsky, E. Persson, R. van Tonder, K. K. Vos et al., First extraction of inclusive V cb from q2 moments, JHEP 10 (2022) 068, [2205.10274]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [25]

    M. Fael, K. Sch¨ onwald and M. Steinhauser,Relation between the MS and the kinetic mass of heavy quarks , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 014005, [ 2011.11655]. 29

    2021 arXiv

  19. [26]

    M. Fael, K. Sch¨ onwald and M. Steinhauser,Third order corrections to the semileptonic b→c and the muon decays , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 016003, [2011.13654]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Mannel, D

    T. Mannel, D. Moreno and A. A. Pivovarov, NLO QCD corrections to inclusive b → cℓ¯νdecay spectra up to 1/m3 Q, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 054033, [ 2112.03875]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Finauri and P

    G. Finauri and P. Gambino, The q 2 moments in inclusive semileptonic B decays , JHEP 02 (2024) 206, [ 2310.20324]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Mannel, S

    T. Mannel, S. Turczyk and N. Uraltsev, Higher Order Power Corrections in Inclusive B Decays, JHEP 11 (2010) 109, [ 1009.4622]

    2010 arXiv

  23. [31]

    M. Fael, I. S. Milutin and K. K. Vos, Kolya: an open-source package for inclusive semileptonic B decays, 2409.15007

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    I. S. Milutin, T. Mannel and K. K. Vos, Pushing the Heavy Quark Expansion for b → cl¯ν to Higher Order in 1/mb, in 42nd International Conference on High Energy Physics, 10, 2024. 2410.15324

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Heinonen and T

    J. Heinonen and T. Mannel, Improved Estimates for the Parameters of the Heavy Quark Expansion, Nucl. Phys. B 889 (2014) 46–63, [ 1407.4384]

    2014 arXiv

  26. [34]

    D. Bigi, M. Bordone, P. Gambino, U. Haisch and A. Piccione, QED effects in inclusive semi-leptonic B decays , JHEP 11 (2023) 163, [ 2309.02849]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    A. V. Manohar and M. B. Wise, Heavy quark physics , vol. 10. 2000

    2000

  28. [36]

    V. A. Novikov, M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, Calculations in external fields in quantum chromodynamics. Technical review , Fortsch. Phys. 32 (1984) 585–622

    1984

  29. [37]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana, FeynCalc 9.3: New features and improvements, Comput. Phys. Commun. 256 (2020) 107478, [ 2001.04407]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Gambino, B semileptonic moments at NNLO , JHEP 09 (2011) 055, [ 1107.3100]

    P. Gambino, B semileptonic moments at NNLO , JHEP 09 (2011) 055, [ 1107.3100]

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Fael and F

    M. Fael and F. Herren, NNLO QCD corrections to the q 2 spectrum of inclusive semileptonic B-meson decays , JHEP 05 (2024) 287, [ 2403.03976]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    M. Fael, K. Sch¨ onwald and M. Steinhauser,A first glance to the kinematic moments of B → Xcℓν at third order , JHEP 08 (2022) 039, [ 2205.03410]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Navas et al., Review of particle physics , Phys

    Particle Data Groupcollaboration, S. Navas et al., Review of particle physics , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 030001. 30

    2024

  34. [42]

    Gambino, K

    P. Gambino, K. J. Healey and S. Turczyk, Taming the higher power corrections in semileptonic B decays , Phys. Lett. B 763 (2016) 60–65, [ 1606.06174]

    2016 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Breidenbach, T

    C. Breidenbach, T. Feldmann, T. Mannel and S. Turczyk, On the Role of ’Intrinsic Charm’ in Semi-Leptonic B-Meson Decays , Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 014022, [0805.0971]

    2008 arXiv

  36. [44]

    I. Bigi, T. Mannel, S. Turczyk and N. Uraltsev, The Two Roads to ’Intrinsic Charm’ in B Decays , JHEP 04 (2010) 073, [ 0911.3322]

    2010 arXiv

  37. [45]

    C. W. Bauer, A. F. Falk and M. E. Luke, Resumming phase space logarithms in inclusive semileptonic B decays , Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 2097–2107, [hep-ph/9604290]. 31

    1996 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.