Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

New Physics in inclusive semileptonic $B$ decays

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A global fit to inclusive semileptonic B-decay moments yields new, competitive bounds on beyond-Standard-Model Wilson coefficients, with the q² moments giving the dominant constraint on a right-handed vector current.

desk verdict Solid first global fit of inclusive semileptonic B decays with the full WET basis; the flagship CVR bound leans on q2-moment data that deserve a stability check, but the paper is worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22123 v2 pith:QPV65BZN submitted 2025-07-29 hep-ph

Alexandre Carvunis , Gael Finauri , Paolo Gambino , Martin Jung , Sandro Mächler This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords inclusivesemileptonicBdecaysweakeffectivetheoryWilsoncoefficientsheavyquarkexpansionq^2momentsright-handedvectorcurrentVcbextractionnewphysicsconstraints
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

Semileptonic B-meson decays to charm and light leptons have usually been treated as a way to pin down the CKM element $|\tilde{V}_{cb}|$, with new physics handled as a nuisance. This paper argues that they are also a competitive direct probe of physics beyond the Standard Model. The authors compute how all dimension-six operators of the weak effective theory shift the measured kinematic moments and total rate through order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^3/m_b^3$, including the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ corrections for a right-handed vector current, and fit the full inclusive dataset. The key finding is that the $q^2$ moments, measured by Belle and Belle II, remove a known blind direction and give the dominant bound on the right-handed vector Wilson coefficient $C_{V_R}$, making inclusive constraints complementary to and competitive with exclusive decays. In the full seven-parameter fit the Standard Model remains compatible with the data at the $0.7\sigma$ level.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a local operator product expansion for the hadronic tensor, expressed through the heavy-quark expansion in which the inclusive decay is governed by structure functions $w_i(\hat{q}^2,\hat{q}_0)$ obtained from the forward scattering amplitude. The paper parametrizes new physics by seven real quantities $\{a_R, a_S, a_P, a_T, \cos\delta_R, \cos\delta_{ST}, \cos\delta_{PT}\}$ and works out the coefficients $\xi_{XY}$ in the expansion of each moment observable. The $q^2$ moments $Q_n(q^2_{\rm cut})$ play a special role: unlike lepton-energy and hadronic-mass moments, they do not suffer from the $|\tilde{V}_{cb}|$--${\rm Re}[\tilde{C}_{V_R}]$ blind direction, and the quadratic tensor coefficient $\zeta_{TT}$ in the total width is an order of magnitude larger than the other NP coefficients, which creates the flat direction in the full fit.

What would settle it

Re-run the global fit once with Belle's $q^2$ moments and once with Belle II's; if the two resulting bounds on ${\rm Re}[\tilde{C}_{V_R}]$ differ by more than the quoted uncertainty, the claim that the $q^2$ moments dominate the constraint is not robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the first global fit to all available inclusive $\bar{B}\to X_c\ell\bar{\nu}$ observables in the full dimension-six WET basis does not reduce to a restatement of the total rate. The $q^2$ moments break the near-degeneracy between $\tilde{V}_{cb}$ and ${\rm Re}[\tilde{C}_{V_R}]$ that had made the right-handed vector bound uncompetitive, and thereby supply the dominant constraint on $C_{V_R}$. In the single-mediator scenarios the fit yields bounds complementary to exclusive $B\to D^{(*)} \ell\nu$ analyses, while all NP parameters remain consistent with the SM, with the best fit point compatible at the $0.7\sigma$ level. With all Wilson coefficients complex and free, the data permit large cancellations among tensor, scalar and pseudoscalar contributions along a flat direction, which drags $|\tilde{V}_{cb}|$ down to $(35.1^{+4.2}_{-3.6})\times 10^{-3}$ with an uncertainty nearly ten times the SM fit; the paper interprets this as a degeneracy to be resolved by additional observables, not as evidence of new physics. It also flags that the small Belle--Belle II tension in $q^2$ moments affects the BSM conclusions.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's flagship bound on the right-handed vector current presumes that the slight mismatch between the Belle and Belle II $q^2$-moment measurements is absorbed by the theory uncertainty; if that mismatch is an experimental artifact, the bound would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $q^2$ moments provide the dominant inclusive bound on ${\rm Re}[\tilde{C}_{V_R}]$, a constraint that does not suffer from the blind direction of the older lepton-energy and hadronic-moment fits.
  • In each of the five single-mediator scenarios, inclusive data alone give constraints complementary to and competitive with exclusive $B\to D^{(*)} \ell\nu$ fits, with an implied new-physics scale $\Lambda_{\rm NP} \gtrsim 1.1$ TeV.
  • No scenario improves the SM description significantly; the full WET best fit is compatible with the SM at the $0.7\sigma$ level.
  • Allowing all seven Wilson-coefficient parameters to float opens a flat direction from tensor--scalar--pseudoscalar interference, lowering $|\tilde{V}_{cb}|$ to $(35.1^{+4.2}_{-3.6})\times 10^{-3}$ with a much larger uncertainty.
  • A future measurement of the forward-backward asymmetry $A_{FB}$ in inclusive decays could remove this flat direction and sharpen the fit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the small Belle--Belle II discrepancy in $q^2$ moments is experimental rather than theoretical, the quoted $C_{V_R}$ bound and the "competitive with exclusive" claim would shift; the paper does not test this by dropping one experiment.
  • The dominance of $q^2$ moments suggests that refined Belle II $q^2$-moment measurements, especially at lower $q^2$ cuts, would translate almost directly into tighter $C_{V_R}$ bounds.
  • Because the inclusive OPE and exclusive form-factor analyses use independent hadronic inputs, a combined inclusive-plus-exclusive fit should separate nonperturbative HQE parameters from new-physics Wilson coefficients more cleanly, and lattice determinations of the HQE parameters would further remove degeneracies.
  • The large $\zeta_{TT}$ enhancement near $q^2=0$ implies that measurements of the low-$q^2$ region, where the tensor contribution is amplified, could be the most sensitive place to look for tensor operators.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies BSM effects in inclusive semileptonic B decays within the Weak Effective Theory. It derives the BSM contributions to the triple differential rate, the kinematic moments (lepton-energy, hadronic-mass, and q2 moments), partial rates, and total width through O(Λ_QCD^3/m_b^3), plus O(α_s) corrections for the right-handed vector current, and it releases the expressions as an ancillary Mathematica file. It then performs least-squares fits of the full set of inclusive measurements, simultaneously extracting HQE parameters and NP Wilson coefficients, for five single-mediator scenarios and for the full seven-parameter WET. The main results are that no significant BSM signal is found (the full NP fit improves χ^2 by 6.54 for 7 degrees of freedom), that in several scenarios the inclusive data provide new bounds that are competitive with exclusive fits, and that the q2 moments break the blind direction in the Re[CVR]–|Vcb| plane identified in Ref. [22]. The paper also identifies a flat direction between aT and |Vcb| that lowers the extracted |Vcb| in the full WET fit.

Significance. If correct, this is a valuable first global analysis of inclusive semileptonic B decays in the full WET basis, with HQE parameters fitted simultaneously with NP coefficients. The paper's strengths include explicit cross-checks against earlier calculations (Table 1), numerical tables of the NP coefficients for all observables, an ancillary expression file, and a clear statement of the assumptions (small Wilson coefficients, expansion to O(a_i^2)). The no-BSM conclusion is robust: the Δχ^2 improvement in the full NP fit is only 6.54 for seven additional degrees of freedom, and all single-mediator scenarios are consistent with the SM. The headline claim that q2 moments provide competitive CVR constraints is important and testable. The main weakness is that the flagship bound is not tested for stability under the known Belle/Belle II q2-moment tension and under the conservative theory-covariance prescription, as detailed in the major comments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Fig. 2] The claim that the q2 moments provide the dominant bound on Re[CVR] rests entirely on the combined Belle and Belle II q2-moment data. The paper itself states at the end of Section 3.2 that the SM fit clearly prefers Belle II while the global fit's preference is less pronounced, and that a resolution of this tension will affect the BSM results. Yet no fit is shown with the two experiments separated, with one dropped, or with reweighted data. Because the q2 moments are the single new ingredient that breaks the CVR blind direction of Ref. [22], please add such a stability test and report how the 95% CL bound in the left panel of Fig. 2 and the 'competitive with exclusive' statement change.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (3.11) and Fig. 2] The quoted bounds are Δχ^2 statements built on the theory-covariance prescription of Refs. [6,45], which yields χ^2/d.o.f. = 42.58/74 ≈ 0.58 in the SM fit. The authors describe these uncertainties as conservative. If they are indeed overestimated, the 95% CL intervals in Fig. 2 would be wider than shown and the competitiveness with exclusive constraints could be reduced. I request a quantitative sensitivity test, such as rescaling the theory covariance or replacing it by an alternative estimate, to assess how much the flagship bounds on Re[CVR] and aT move.
  3. [Section 3.2, paragraph on CVR] The sentence 'the q2 moments provide a strong constraint that does not suffer from this problem, and thereby the dominant bound on CVR' is stated without the qualification that it applies to a real right-handed coefficient. The very next paragraph shows that allowing Im[CVR] changes the fit drastically and that the best-fit point of scenario I is complex. Please state explicitly that the competitive bound refers to Re[CVR] with Im[CVR]=0, and provide the corresponding constraint for complex CVR (even if weaker) so that the abstract's claim of generic BSM sensitivity is not overstated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 2 caption] The caption reads '2D profile Δχ^2 plot in the Re[CVR]−|Vcb| (left) and aT−|Vcb| (right) planes', but the text describes three panels (scenario VI, VII, IV). Please update the caption to describe the central panel and to identify the right panel as scenario IV / aT−|Vcb|.
  2. [Table 4] The 68.3% interval for cos(δPT), 0.91 +0.09 −1.91, extends below the physical lower bound −1. Please clarify whether this is an artifact of the parabolic interpolation of a non-Gaussian profile and how the reader should interpret the interval.
  3. [Introduction vs. Section 3.2] The Introduction states 'With the exception of Ref. [17], only the total decay rate has been used as a constraint on BSM physics', but Section 3.2 credits Ref. [22] with a fit to lepton-energy and hadronic-invariant-mass moments including NP. Please correct the Introduction to avoid the contradiction.
  4. [Section 3.1, text after Eq. (3.10)] The text claims ζRR = ζSM 'holds to all orders in the perturbative and power expansions', but Table 11 lists ζSM with O(α_s^2), O(α_s^3) and O(α_em) terms while ζRR only contains the leading, power and O(α_s) terms. Please clarify that the identity is not fully implemented in the numerical coefficients and estimate the numerical impact on the a_R bound.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the NP bounds are joint-fit constraints from data, and the relied-upon SM framework is independently benchmarked.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a first-principles OPE calculation of NP contributions to inclusive semileptonic B decay observables, followed by a global fit. The NP Wilson coefficients are free parameters determined from the same data, so the quoted limits (e.g., the Re[CVR] bound from q2 moments) are constraints, not predictions of quantities that were fed into the fit. No parameter is fitted to a subset and then 'predicted' for the same subset. The theoretical expressions in Eqs. (3.7) and (3.8) are computed explicitly and cross-checked against independent literature (Table 1), including the O(alpha_s) corrections for the right-handed vector current. The heavy reliance on Refs. [6,45] for the SM fit framework and theory covariance is not circular: those are fits to external data and independent SM calculations, benchmarked in the present paper via the SM fit chi2/d.o.f., and they are not used as the source of the NP constraints. The disclosed Belle/Belle II q2-moment tension is a data-robustness caveat that affects the numerical bounds, but it is not a reduction of the result to its own inputs by construction. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation, and no known empirical pattern is merely renamed. Accordingly, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 15 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard HQE/OPE premise that integrated inclusive moments admit a local expansion, the WET assumption of heavy NP with left-handed neutrinos and flavor conservation, a truncation of the NP expansion at O(a_i^2) and O(a_i a_j) with fitted a_i reaching about 0.6, an uncertainty prescription inherited from Refs [6,45] that yields chi2/dof around 0.58, and SM-side inputs at NNLO/N3LO from the literature. No invented entities are introduced; the five single-mediator scenarios are standard literature classifications. The 15 fitted parameters listed are extracted from the same inclusive data, which is why NP bounds and HQE parameters cannot be disentangled without external input such as lattice QCD.

free parameters (15)
  • aR = |CVR tilde| = 0.19 (+0.21/-0.16) at 68% CL in the full NP fit (Table 4)
    Magnitude of the right-handed vector Wilson coefficient; fitted to inclusive moments and rate, bounded via Delta chi2 profiles.
  • aS = 0.46 (+0.10/-0.14) at 68% CL (Table 4)
    Scalar Wilson coefficient magnitude, fitted simultaneously with the HQE parameters.
  • aP = 0.20 (+0.43/-0.20) at 68% CL (Table 4)
    Pseudoscalar Wilson coefficient magnitude, fitted in the global NP analysis.
  • aT = 0.15 (+0.07/-0.11) at 68% CL (Table 4)
    Tensor Wilson coefficient magnitude; strongly correlated with |Vcb tilde| through the large zeta_TT coefficient in the total rate.
  • cos(delta_R) = 0.99 (+0.01/-0.81) at 68% CL (Table 4)
    Cosine of the relative phase of CVR tilde; fitted parameter in scenario I and in the full NP fit.
  • cos(delta_ST) = -0.94 (+0.92/-0.06) at 68% CL (Table 4)
    Cosine of the relative phase between CS tilde and CT tilde; enters the interference terms in the moments.
  • cos(delta_PT) = 0.91 (+0.09/-1.91) at 68% CL (Table 4)
    Cosine of the relative phase between CP tilde and CT tilde; fitted in the full WET analysis.
  • mb (kinetic scheme, 1 GeV) = 4.574 +/- 0.012 GeV (SM fit, Table 3)
    HQE parameter extracted simultaneously with the NP parameters from the same inclusive data.
  • mc (MSbar, 2 GeV) = 1.090 +/- 0.010 GeV (SM fit, Table 3)
    Charm mass input, fitted jointly with the NP and HQE parameters.
  • mu_pi^2 (1 GeV) = 0.435 +/- 0.040 GeV^2 (SM fit, Table 3)
    Kinetic energy parameter of the HQE, extracted from the moments in the same fit.
  • mu_G^2 (1 GeV) = 0.278 +/- 0.048 GeV^2 (SM fit, Table 3)
    Chromomagnetic moment parameter, fitted with external constraints from Ref [6].
  • rho_D^3 (1 GeV) = 0.164 +/- 0.018 GeV^3 (SM fit, Table 3)
    Darwin term of the HQE, extracted from the fit to the inclusive moments.
  • rho_LS^3 (1 GeV) = -0.090 +/- 0.089 GeV^3 (SM fit, Table 3)
    Spin-orbit term, fitted with external constraints as in Ref [6].
  • BR(c l nu) inclusive branching ratio = 10.62 +/- 0.15 % (SM fit, Table 3)
    Normalization observable used to extract |Vcb| from the partial branching fractions.
  • sigma_Gamma (extra theory uncertainty on |Vcb|) = 0.00025
    Hand-chosen additional theory uncertainty on |Vcb tilde| following Ref [7] to cover truncation of perturbative and power expansions in the total rate (Section 3.2); it directly inflates the error on the extracted |Vcb|.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The local OPE (HQE) converges for integrated moments of B to Xc l nu, and quark-hadron duality holds at the level of the moments.
    Standard premise of all inclusive B decay analyses; invoked in Section 2.2 where the forward scattering amplitude is expanded in Lambda_QCD/mb up to order 1/mb^3.
  • domain assumption BSM physics is heavy (Lambda_NP much larger than mb) and described by dimension-six WET operators at the b scale.
    Section 2, first paragraph; justifies the WET basis and neglect of higher-dimensional operators.
  • domain assumption Lepton flavor conservation (l = l') and only left-handed neutrinos (X = L) are assumed in the fits.
    Section 2, footnote 1 states these assumptions can be relaxed, but the full fit uses the reduced set of seven parameters.
  • ad hoc to paper Observables are expanded to O(a_i^2) and O(a_i a_j) in the NP Wilson coefficients; higher orders are dropped.
    Eq (3.7); the fit assumes small NP coefficients, and the resulting bounds reach a_i around 0.6, which only marginally justifies the quadratic truncation.
  • domain assumption The kinetic-scheme conversion re-expands observables in alpha_s, Lambda_QCD/mb and a_i while keeping all powers of mu_k/mb as O(1).
    Section 3.1, after Eq (3.7); this re-expansion procedure is taken from Refs [54,55] and is assumed not to generate large scheme-dependent terms.
  • standard math Wilks' theorem applies to the Delta chi2 profiles despite the NP parameters being non-Gaussian.
    Section 3.2; the 68% CL intervals in Table 4 rely on Delta chi2 following a chi2 distribution with degrees of freedom equal to the scanned subspace dimension.
  • standard math The Standard Model theoretical inputs (NNLO q2 moments [58], N3LO rate [8], O(alpha_s/mb^3) power corrections [62,63], QED corrections [46]) are correct as published.
    Background literature results used as inputs; the central NP bounds inherit all SM-side uncertainties from these references.
  • domain assumption External constraints on the b and c quark masses and on mu_G^2 and rho_LS^3 are taken from Ref [6] with their correlations.
    Section 3.1, paragraph on external inputs; these constraints anchor part of the HQE parameter space.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New Physics in inclusive semileptonic $B$ decays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QPV65BZN

@misc{pith2026250722123,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New Physics in inclusive semileptonic $B$ decays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QPV65BZN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22123}
}
abstract

We study inclusive semileptonic $\bar{B}\to X_c \ell \bar{\nu}$ decays ($\ell = e,\mu$) in the presence of generic physics Beyond the Standard Model (BSM) that is heavy compared to the $b$-quark mass. Its effect is encoded in the Wilson coefficients of dimension-six operators of the Weak Effective Theory (WET). We compute the resulting BSM contributions to the experimentally measured kinematic moments and the total decay rate through order $\mathcal{O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^3/m_b^3)$ in the Heavy Quark Expansion, as well as the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ corrections for the right-handed vector current. We then perform fits to the full set of available inclusive measurements in several single-mediator scenarios and in the full WET basis. We find qualitatively new bounds in several of these scenarios, complementary to and competitive with constraints from exclusive decays.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Inclusive $\bar B_s\mapsto X_{\bar sc} \ell \bar \nu$ decays from lattice QCD: computational strategy and a first physical result

    hep-lat 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Lattice QCD strategy interpolates sub-physical mass data with OPE to obtain the inclusive anti-B_s to X_sc l nu decay rate, yielding 7% precision on limited ETMC ensembles via a new four-point correlator method.

  2. Extracting production fractions of $b$ hadrons from exclusive semi-leptonic decays

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    A method to extract fs/fd and similar ratios from exclusive semi-leptonic B decays yields a 7% uncertainty constraint using existing measurements.

  3. $|V_{cb}|$ determinations from $\bar{B} \to D^{(*)} \ell \bar\nu$ decays within the SM and beyond

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Fits to B to D(*) l nu form factors with BSZ, BGL and HQET yield |V_cb| matching PDG average for BGL but smaller for HQET, while data still allows non-zero new physics contributions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [22]

    Limit on a Right-Handed Admixture to the Weak $b \to c$ Current from Semileptonic Decays

    R. Feger, T. Mannel, V. Klose, H. Lacker and T. Luck, Limit on a Right-Handed Admixture to the Weak b → c Current from Semileptonic Decays , Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 073002 [1003.4022]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

  2. [21]

    M. Fael, M. Rahimi and K.K. Vos, New physics contributions to moments of inclusive b → c semileptonic decays, JHEP 02 (2023) 086 [ 2208.04282]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  3. [1]

    Gambino et al., Challenges in semileptonic B decays, Eur

    P. Gambino et al., Challenges in semileptonic B decays, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 966 [2006.07287]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [2]

    Bernlochner, M.T

    F.U. Bernlochner, M.T. Prim and K.K. Vos, |Vub| and |Vcb| from exclusive semileptonic decays, Eur. Phys. J. ST 233 (2024) 347

    work page 2024

  5. [3]

    Belle-II collaboration, The Belle II Physics Book , PTEP 2019 (2019) 123C01 [1808.10567]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [4]

    Heavy Flavor A veraging Group (HFLA V)collaboration, Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, and τ -lepton properties as of 2023 , 2411.18639

    arXiv 2023

  7. [5]

    Flavour Lattice A veraging Group (FLAG)collaboration, FLAG Review 2024 , 2411.04268

    arXiv 2024

  8. [6]

    Finauri and P

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

    arXiv 2024

Show all 73 references
  1. [7]

    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

  2. [8]

    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

  3. [9]

    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

  4. [10]

    Gambino, A

    P. Gambino, A. Melis and S. Simula, Extraction of heavy-quark-expansion parameters from unquenched lattice data on pseudoscalar and vector heavy-light meson masses , Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 014511 [ 1704.06105]

    2017 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Gambino and S

    P. Gambino and S. Hashimoto, Inclusive Semileptonic Decays from Lattice QCD , Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 032001 [ 2005.13730]. – 26 –

    2020 arXiv

  6. [12]

    De Santis et al., Inclusive semileptonic decays of the Ds meson: Lattice QCD confronts experiments, 2504.06064

    A. De Santis et al., Inclusive semileptonic decays of the Ds meson: Lattice QCD confronts experiments, 2504.06064

  7. [13]

    Kellermann, Z

    R. Kellermann, Z. Hu, A. Barone, A. Elgaziari, S. Hashimoto, T. Kaneko et al., Inclusive semileptonic decays from lattice QCD: Analysis of systematic effects , Phys. Rev. D 112 (2025) 014501 [ 2504.03358]

    2025 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Czarnecki and S

    A. Czarnecki and S. Davidson, QCD corrections to the charged Higgs decay of a heavy quark , Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 4183 [ hep-ph/9301237]

    1993 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Grossman, H.E

    Y. Grossman, H.E. Haber and Y. Nir, QCD corrections to charged Higgs mediated b — > c tau-neutrino decay, Phys. Lett. B 357 (1995) 630 [ hep-ph/9507213]

    1995 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Dassinger, R

    B.M. Dassinger, R. Feger and T. Mannel, Testing the left-handedness of the b — > c transition, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 095007 [ hep-ph/0701054]

    2007 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Dassinger, R

    B. Dassinger, R. Feger and T. Mannel, Complete Michel Parameter Analysis of inclusive semileptonic b — > c transition, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 075015 [ 0803.3561]

    2009 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Colangelo and F

    P. Colangelo and F. De Fazio, Tension in the inclusive versus exclusive determinations of |Vcb|: a possible role of new physics , Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 011701 [ 1611.07387]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Kamali, New physics in inclusive semileptonic B decays including nonperturbative corrections, Int

    S. Kamali, New physics in inclusive semileptonic B decays including nonperturbative corrections, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 34 (2019) 1950036 [ 1811.07393]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Colangelo, F

    P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio and F. Loparco, Inclusive semileptonic Λb decays in the Standard Model and beyond , JHEP 11 (2020) 032 [ 2006.13759]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Crivellin, Effects of right-handed charged currents on the determinations of —V(ub)— and —V(cb)— , Phys

    A. Crivellin, Effects of right-handed charged currents on the determinations of —V(ub)— and —V(cb)— , Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 031301 [ 0907.2461]

    2010 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Crivellin and S

    A. Crivellin and S. Pokorski, Can the differences in the determinations of Vub and Vcb be explained by New Physics? , Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 011802 [ 1407.1320]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Celis, M

    A. Celis, M. Jung, X.-Q. Li and A. Pich, Scalar contributions to b → c(u)τ νtransitions, Phys. Lett. B 771 (2017) 168 [ 1612.07757]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Kamali, A

    S. Kamali, A. Rashed and A. Datta, New physics in inclusive B → Xcℓ¯ν decay in light of R(D(∗)) measurements, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 095034 [ 1801.08259]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Jung and D.M

    M. Jung and D.M. Straub, Constraining new physics in b → cℓν transitions, JHEP 01 (2019) 009 [ 1801.01112]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Iguro and R

    S. Iguro and R. Watanabe, Bayesian fit analysis to full distribution data of B → D(∗)ℓν : |Vcb| determination and new physics constraints , JHEP 08 (2020) 006 [2004.10208]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Freytsis, Z

    M. Freytsis, Z. Ligeti and J.T. Ruderman, Flavor models for ¯B → D(∗)τ ¯ν, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 054018 [ 1506.08896]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Particle Data Groupcollaboration, Review of particle physics , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 030001. – 27 –

    2024

  23. [31]

    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]

    1994 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Manohar and M.B

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

    1994 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Turczyk, Additional Information on Heavy Quark Parameters from Charged Lepton Forward-Backward Asymmetry, JHEP 04 (2016) 131 [ 1602.02678]

    S. Turczyk, Additional Information on Heavy Quark Parameters from Charged Lepton Forward-Backward Asymmetry, JHEP 04 (2016) 131 [ 1602.02678]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Herren, The forward-backward asymmetry and differences of partial moments in inclusive semileptonic B decays, SciPost Phys

    F. Herren, The forward-backward asymmetry and differences of partial moments in inclusive semileptonic B decays, SciPost Phys. 14 (2023) 020 [ 2205.03427]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Novikov, M.A

    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

    1984

  28. [36]

    Alberti, Higher order corrections to inclusive semileptonic B decays , Ph.D

    A. Alberti, Higher order corrections to inclusive semileptonic B decays , Ph.D. thesis, Turin U., 3, 2015

    2015

  29. [37]

    Fael, I.S

    M. Fael, I.S. Milutin and K.K. Vos, Kolya: An open-source package for inclusive semileptonic B decays , SciPost Phys. Codeb. 55 (2025) 1 [ 2409.15007]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek, Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian, JHEP 10 (2010) 085 [ 1008.4884]

    2010 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Celis, J

    A. Celis, J. Fuentes-Martin, A. Vicente and J. Virto, DsixTools: The Standard Model Effective Field Theory Toolkit, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 405 [ 1704.04504]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Fuentes-Martin, P

    J. Fuentes-Martin, P. Ruiz-Femenia, A. Vicente and J. Virto, DsixTools 2.0: The Effective Field Theory Toolkit, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 167 [ 2010.16341]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Murgui, A

    C. Murgui, A. Pe˜ nuelas, M. Jung and A. Pich, Global fit to b → cτ νtransitions, JHEP 09 (2019) 103 [ 1904.09311]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    BaBar collaboration, 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

  35. [43]

    BaBar collaboration, Measurement and interpretation of moments in inclusive semileptonic decays ¯B → Xcℓ− ¯ν, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 032003 [ 0908.0415]

    2010 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Belle collaboration, 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

  37. [45]

    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

  38. [46]

    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

  39. [47]

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

    2004 arXiv

  40. [48]

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

    2006 arXiv

  41. [49]

    CDF collaboration, 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

  42. [50]

    Belle collaboration, Moments of the Hadronic Invariant Mass Spectrum in B → Xcℓν Decays at BELLE , Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 032005 [ hep-ex/0611044]. – 28 –

    2007 arXiv

  43. [51]

    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

  44. [52]

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

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Belle-II collaboration, 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

  46. [54]

    Bigi, M.A

    I.I.Y. Bigi, M.A. Shifman, N. Uraltsev and A.I. Vainshtein, High power n of m(b) in beauty widths and n=5 — > infinity limit , Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 4017 [ hep-ph/9704245]

    1997 arXiv

  47. [55]

    M. Fael, K. Sch¨ onwald and M. Steinhauser,Kinetic Heavy Quark Mass to Three Loops , Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 052003 [ 2005.06487]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Melnikov, O(alpha(s)**2) corrections to semileptonic decay b — > cl anti-nu(l) , Phys

    K. Melnikov, O(alpha(s)**2) corrections to semileptonic decay b — > cl anti-nu(l) , Phys. Lett. B 666 (2008) 336 [ 0803.0951]

    2008 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Pak and A

    A. Pak and A. Czarnecki, Heavy-to-heavy quark decays at NNLO , Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 114015 [0808.3509]

    2008 arXiv

  50. [58]

    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

  51. [59]

    Alberti, T

    A. Alberti, T. Ewerth, P. Gambino and S. Nandi, Kinetic operator effects in ¯B → Xclν at O(αs), Nucl. Phys. B 870 (2013) 16 [ 1212.5082]

    2013 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Alberti, P

    A. Alberti, P. Gambino and S. Nandi, Perturbative corrections to power suppressed effects in semileptonic B decays , JHEP 01 (2014) 147 [ 1311.7381]

    2014 arXiv

  53. [61]

    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 [ hep-ph/9603448]

    1997 arXiv

  54. [62]

    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

  55. [63]

    Mannel and A.A

    T. Mannel and A.A. Pivovarov, QCD corrections to inclusive heavy hadron weak decays at Λ3 QCD/m3 Q, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 093001 [ 1907.09187]

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Czaja, M

    M. Czaja, M. Misiak and A. Rehman, Complete O α2 s corrections to the leptonic invariant mass spectrum in b → Xclνl decay, JHEP 02 (2025) 021 [ 2411.12866]

    2025 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Albrecht, D

    J. Albrecht, D. van Dyk and C. Langenbruch, Flavour anomalies in heavy quark decays , Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 120 (2021) 103885 [ 2107.04822]

    2021 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Capdevila, A

    B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin and J. Matias, Review of semileptonic B anomalies , Eur. Phys. J. ST 1 (2023) 20 [ 2309.01311]

    2023 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Fedele, M

    M. Fedele, M. Blanke, A. Crivellin, S. Iguro, U. Nierste, S. Simula et al., Discriminating B→D*ℓν form factors via polarization observables and asymmetries , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 055037 [ 2305.15457]

    2023 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Ray and S

    I. Ray and S. Nandi, Test of new physics effects in B → D(∗), π ℓ−νℓ decays with heavy and light leptons , JHEP 01 (2024) 022 [ 2305.11855]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    TUMQCD collaboration, Relations between heavy-light meson and quark masses , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 034503 [ 1712.04983]. – 29 –

    2018 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Gambino, M

    P. Gambino, M. Jung and S. Schacht, The Vcb puzzle: An update , Phys. Lett. B 795 (2019) 386 [1905.08209]

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Gambino, S

    P. Gambino, S. Hashimoto, S. M¨ achler, M. Panero, F. Sanfilippo, S. Simula et al., Lattice QCD study of inclusive semileptonic decays of heavy mesons , JHEP 07 (2022) 083 [2203.11762]

    2022 arXiv

  64. [72]

    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

  65. [73]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana, FeynCalc 10: Do multiloop integrals dream of computer codes?, Comput. Phys. Commun. 306 (2025) 109357 [ 2312.14089]. – 30 –

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.