Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 71 references

A photon-tagged energy correlator factorizes the leading-power angular structure of inclusive endpoint B→X_sγ decays into a known hard coefficient, the universal B-meson shape function, and a new measured quark jet function, with no new non

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 08:41 UTC pith:QWMUJYYO

load-bearing objection A genuinely new angular observable with a careful SCET derivation, but the one-loop jet function likely double-counts soft modes for lack of a zero-bin subtraction. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27367 v1 pith:QWMUJYYO submitted 2026-07-29 hep-ph hep-ex

Photon-Tagged Energy Flow in Inclusive Endpoint B Decays

Shuai Zhao This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords B decaysB→X_sγenergy correlatorfactorizationshape functionmeasured jet functionendpoint kinematicsphoton tagging
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper introduces a photon-tagged energy correlator (BTEC) that resolves how the recoiling hadronic system in inclusive endpoint B decay spreads in angle around the photon-defined axis. Its central aim is to prove that, at leading power and at the natural collinear angular scale, this angular spectrum is completely determined by the known hard coefficient, the same universal B-meson shape function that controls the ordinary photon spectrum, and a new perturbatively calculable measured quark jet function. The paper derives this factorization relation, computes the new jet function at one-loop accuracy, and verifies that integrating it over angle recovers the standard inclusive quark jet function. A sympathetic reader would care because the observable adds genuinely new angular information beyond the photon spectrum, provides a closure test of endpoint factorization, and could sharpen signal-background separation when energy-flow profiles differ.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the double-differential spectrum d²Γ_BTEC/(dEγ dτ) for the direct-photon contribution to B→X_sγ obeys a leading-power factorization: 2Γ_γ^(0)|VtbVts*|² Hγ(mb,μ) P− ∫_0^{P+} dω J_TEC^q(P−[P+−ω],τ,μ) bS_B(ω,μ), plus power corrections. Here Hγ is the standard hard coefficient, bS_B is the universal B-meson shape function already present in the inclusive photon spectrum, and J_TEC^q is a new measured quark jet function. The paper shows that the angular measurement acts only on the collinear sector at leading power, so no new nonperturbative function enters; all new angular dependence is carried by J_TEC^q, which the paper computes at one loop as a distribution i

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the photon-tagged one-point energy correlator (BTEC) and the measured quark jet function J_TEC^q(s,τ,μ). The BTEC assigns each hadron in the recoiling X_s system an energy weight E_a/E_X at the angular variable τ_a = Q²(1−n̂_J·n̂_a)/2, with the recoil axis n̂_J fixed exactly by the tagged photon. The proof uses a soft-collinear decoupling field redefinition to separate collinear and soft degrees of freedom, then shows that the measurement, the momentum-conservation constraints, and the soft matrix element reduce at leading power to a convolution of the hard coefficient, the shape function, and J_TEC^q. The measured jet function, defined as a cut collinear matrix

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the direct-photon (O7) channel is the only leading-power contribution in the endpoint region, so resolved-photon contributions—where the photon couples to light partons—are suppressed by a power of Λ_QCD/Q; if that premise fails, the angular spectrum requires new nonperturbative soft and jet functions.

What would settle it

Compute the resolved-photon soft and jet functions in the same endpoint region and compare their contribution to the fixed-cut cumulative F_i(τ_c) with the direct term; any contribution that is not suppressed by Λ_QCD/Q falsifies the leading-power relation. Experimentally, an independently calibrated shape function propagated to multiple (Eγ, τ_c) bins that yields residuals Δ_i systematically larger than the estimated power corrections would also falsify the factorization.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The double-differential BTEC spectrum is predictable at leading power once the B-meson shape function is calibrated from the ordinary photon spectrum; no additional nonperturbative function needs to be fitted.
  • Integrating the measured jet function over angle exactly recovers the standard inclusive quark jet function, so the ordinary photon-energy spectrum is reproduced as the zeroth angular moment.
  • Bounded cumulatives with a fixed angular cut τ_c ~ QΛ_QCD remain valid leading-power observables even though the pointwise spectrum fails at τ ~ Λ_QCD², making the prediction testable without resolving the nonperturbative small-angle region.
  • An illustrative one-loop benchmark places 3–16% of the normalized energy flow outside fixed cuts τ_c = 2–4 GeV², with larger migration at lower photon energy where the recoil jet is broader.
  • The same measured jet function and leading shape function appear in the semileptonic endpoint analogue, enabling a consistency test of shape-function universality before inclusive |Vub| applications.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the one-loop angular kernel is finite and analytic, higher-order and resummed versions of J_TEC^q could turn the boundary logarithm ln(s/τ_c) into a precision probe of angular ordering in inclusive B decay, which the one-dimensional photon spectrum cannot access.
  • Editorial inference: the one-tag construction is not specific to radiative B decay; any inclusive process with a fixed reference axis, such as a tagged Z or Higgs recoil, could be treated with the same measured-jet-function formalism and the same closure test.
  • Editorial inference: the proposed closure test is insensitive to corrections that mimic a shape-function shift; designing a minimal set of (Eγ, τ_c) bins that breaks that degeneracy would make the test substantially stronger, but the paper does not quantify such a design.
  • Editorial inference: if resolved-photon effects turn out not to be subleading, the BTEC data would not simply invalidate the factorization relation but would provide a first map of those subleading soft and jet functions, converting the proposed closure test into a discovery channel for them.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a photon-tagged one-point energy correlator (BTEC) for the endpoint region of B → X_s γ. Restricting to the direct O_7 contribution, it derives a leading-power SCET factorization, Eq. (45), in which the double-differential spectrum is a convolution of the standard hard coefficient, the universal B-meson shape function, and a new measured quark jet function J_TEC. The one-loop J_TEC is computed explicitly, an angular plus prescription is defined, the inclusive sum rule (Eq. (46)) and the standard quark-jet renormalization are checked, and fixed-cut cumulatives are constructed. Using the BLNP shape function, an illustrative benchmark gives 3–16% migration above angular cuts, and a closure test of leading-power endpoint factorization is proposed.

Significance. The observable and the factorization claim are interesting and potentially important: if Eq. (45) is correct, the angular spectrum is determined at leading power by known perturbative coefficients and the universal shape function, with no new leading-power nonperturbative function. The paper is largely self-contained, and its explicit one-loop calculation, the verification of the inclusive sum rule, and the RG-consistency check are valuable technical steps. The proposed fixed-cut cumulatives and closure test are a sensible way to isolate angular information. However, the one-loop jet function computation contains an unsubtracted soft/collinear overlap that affects the very angular kernel on which the numerical benchmark and closure test rest; this must be addressed before the quantitative claims can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (52)] The real-emission integral in Eq. (52) integrates x over 0≤x≤1 with no zero-bin subtraction. In the x→0 region at fixed s, the emitted gluon has n·p_g≃s/Q∼Λ_QCD, n̄·p_g=xQ→0, and p⊥→0: this is a soft mode, not a collinear one, and by the paper's own Eq. (27) such a particle contributes to the BTEC only at O(Λ_QCD/Q). After BPS decoupling, final-state soft gluons belong to the soft matrix element bS_B, not to the collinear J_TEC. This region generates the large-r tail of g(r)∼2/r² and contributes to G(R) in Eq. (77), hence to Table I and the closure test in Sec. VI C. The plus prescription and the inclusive sum rule in Eq. (46) do not remove this contamination because the sum rule only constrains ∫dτ J_TEC. A zero-bin subtraction (or an equivalent collinear-mode restriction) is required to define a purely collinear measurable jet function.
  2. [Secs. III F and IV] There is an internal tension between the power counting in Sec. III F and the one-loop calculation in Sec. IV. Equation (35) states that soft transverse recoil produces an O(Λ²_QCD/τ) angular migration, which is power suppressed at τ∼s∼QΛ_QCD, and Eq. (36) replaces the transverse constraint by δ(p_Xn⊥). Yet the x→0 mode retained in Eq. (52) is precisely a quark recoiling against a soft gluon, giving the quark a small angle τ≃sx and the gluon a wide angle τ≃s/x. This is the same soft-recoil migration that Sec. III F classifies as a power correction. Including it at leading power in J_TEC therefore double-counts the soft sector and likely overstates the angular tail; the claimed leading-power prediction is not established until this overlap is removed and the numerical impact on G(R), Table I, and Δi(τc) in Eq. (91) is reassessed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV A] Typo: “On can immediately check” should read “One can immediately check.”
  2. [Throughout] Several occurrences of “sufficient” should be “sufficient”; there are also nonstandard DOI strings in Refs. [51] and [60] that should be corrected.
  3. [Sec. VI B] The statement that the BLNP normalization N cancels in each normalized cumulative assumes the same α_s(μ_i) model, which is stated; this is fine for the illustrative benchmark, but the reader would benefit from an explicit note that the cancellation holds only for the normalized ratio, not for absolute rates.
  4. [Sec. V] The all-order extension of Eq. (72) is admittedly conjectural; a brief comment on the expected form of the τ-dependence of the two-loop counterterm would strengthen the presentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the one-loop angular kernel is computed, the sum rule is a consistency identity, and the closure test uses an independently calibrated shape function.

full rationale

The central factorization relation Eq. (45) is derived from the SCET hard/soft/collinear decomposition, with the measured jet function defined in Eq. (43) and computed from the real-emission cut diagrams in Fig. 3. The one-loop angular kernel g(r), Eq. (56), is an output of the calculation, not an input fitted to the BTEC observable. The inclusive relation Eq. (46) follows from the identity Σ_i ¯n·p_i/Q=1 built into the energy-weighted measurement; it is used only as a consistency check and to fix the δ(τ) coefficient via the independently known inclusive quark jet function. The benchmark and closure test in Sec. VI use the BLNP shape function as an external nonperturbative input and expressly avoid refitting bS_B to the BTEC cumulatives, so the predicted angular cumulatives are not imposed by construction. The assumptions that resolved photons are subleading and that τ∼Λ²_QCD requires TMD-like soft functions are stated power-counting assumptions/limitations, not self-referential definitions. The author's self-citations (Refs. [61,62]) are peripheral lattice references and carry no load-bearing argument. The missing zero-bin subtraction raised by the skeptic is a physics/correctness concern about collinear-soft overlap, not a circularity in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The factorization relation Eq. (45) rests on standard SCET power counting and the universality of the shape function. The numerical benchmark additionally imports the BLNP model parameters; these are not derived here. No new physical entities are introduced; the 'measured jet function' is a perturbative operator matrix element, not a new particle or interaction.

free parameters (4)
  • BLNP shape-function parameter Λ = 0.685 GeV (model S5)
    Adopted from Ref [5] for the illustrative benchmark in Sec. VI B; fitted to B→X_sγ spectra elsewhere, not determined here.
  • BLNP shape-function exponent b = 2.93 (model S5)
    Adopted from Ref [5]; controls the falloff of the model shape function in the benchmark.
  • Initial model scale μ_i = 1.5 GeV
    Chosen for the BLNP model input; benchmark probes only the exponential core below the radiative-tail onset.
  • QCD coupling at jet scale α_s(μ_J) = 0.30, varied 0.25–0.35
    Used in the one-loop benchmark; not computed in the paper. The central factorization result does not depend on this choice.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Direct O7 dominance at leading power; resolved-photon effects are subleading.
    Invoked in Sec. I, Sec. III C, and Eq. (92). If false, additional soft and jet functions would enter at leading power.
  • domain assumption Standard SCET power counting and mode decomposition: collinear p_n ~ Q(1,λ²,λ), soft k_s ~ Q(λ²,λ²,λ²), λ²~Λ_QCD/Q.
    Sec. III B defines the momentum regions used in the factorization derivation.
  • standard math BPS field redefinition decouples soft gluons from collinear fields at leading power.
    Sec. III E applies the BPS redefinition and state factorization; a standard theorem in SCET.
  • domain assumption The B-meson initial state has no collinear constituents and factorizes as |B⟩ = |0⟩_n ⊗ |B⟩_s.
    Sec. III E uses this to separate the cut state sum into collinear and soft sectors.
  • domain assumption Azimuthal symmetry of the unpolarized B decay; no linear term in the transverse recoil expansion.
    Sec. III F and Appendix A rely on this to set the leading transverse-recoil correction to O(Λ_QCD²/τ).
  • domain assumption Perturbative calculability of the measured jet function at μ_J² ~ s ~ τ ~ QΛ_QCD.
    Sec. III G and Sec. IV compute J_TEC^q at one loop; requires α_s(μ_J) to be small enough, with μ_J ~ 1-2 GeV.
  • domain assumption Universality of the leading B-meson shape function bS_B across inclusive B decays.
    Sec. III G identifies the soft matrix element with the standard shape function of Refs [2,5]; the closure test in Sec. VI C depends on this.
  • standard math Standard distribution theory: star distributions and plus distributions on the half-line are well-defined.
    Sec. IV B defines the angular plus prescription and dimensionful star distributions used in the one-loop result.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 25255 in / 19000 out tokens · 200215 ms · 2026-08-01T08:41:17.371648+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We introduce a $B$-decay tagged energy correlator (BTEC) to resolve the angular structure of energy flow in inclusive $B$ decays in the endpoint region, focusing on the direct-photon contribution to $\overline B\to X_s\gamma$. At leading power and at the natural collinear angular scale $\tau\sim s\sim Q\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, we derive a factorization relation involving the standard hard coefficient and $B$-meson shape function together with a new measured quark jet function; no new leading-power nonperturbative function is introduced. We calculate the measured jet function at one-loop accuracy and verify that its angular integral reproduces the standard inclusive quark jet function. For the central Bosch--Lange--Neubert--Paz parameter set, an illustrative benchmark gives $3 - 16\%$ migration outside the fixed angular cuts $\tau_c=2 - 4~{\rm GeV}^2$. With an independently constrained shape function, the angular cumulatives provide a closure test of leading-power endpoint factorization and are sensitive to direct-$O_7$ power corrections and resolved-photon effects. The BTEC thereby adds information on the angular structure of the inclusive recoil jet beyond the ordinary photon spectrum and may improve signal--background discrimination when their energy-flow profiles differ.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27367 by Shuai Zhao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: displays the continuous fixed-cut dependence underlying Table I. The cumulative increases as the common angular boundary is opened and approaches the inclusive normalization. At fixed τc, the lower photon-energy bins have smaller values of Fi(τc) and hence larger migration fractions. This trend directly reflects the larger recoil mass M2 X = QP+ and broader jet at lower Eγ. For the representative cut τc = … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 54 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A. V. Manohar and M. B. Wise, Camb. Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol. 10, 1-191 (2000) doi:10.1017/9781009402125

    doi:10.1017/9781009402125 2000

  2. [2]

    Neubert, Phys

    M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D 49, 4623-4633 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.49.4623 [arXiv:hep-ph/9312311 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  3. [3]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming and M. E. Luke, Phys. Rev. D 63, 014006 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.014006 [arXiv:hep- ph/0005275 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2000

  4. [4]

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

    arXiv 2002

  5. [5]

    S. W. Bosch, B. O. Lange, M. Neubert and G. Paz, Nucl. Phys. B 699, 335-386 (2004) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2004.07.041 [arXiv:hep-ph/0402094 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  6. [6]

    B. O. Lange, M. Neubert and G. Paz, Phys. Rev. D 72, 073006 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.073006 [arXiv:hep- ph/0504071 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    Paz, Springer Proc

    G. Paz, Springer Proc. Phys. 292, 65-72 (2023) doi:10.1007/978-3-031-30459-0_7 [arXiv:2212.06865 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Misiak, A

    M. Misiak, A. Rehman and M. Steinhauser, JHEP 06, 175 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2020)175 [arXiv:2002.01548 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    Gunawardana and G

    A. Gunawardana and G. Paz, JHEP 11, 141 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2019)141 [arXiv:1908.02812 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis and S. T. Love, Phys. Lett. B 85, 297-299 (1979) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(79)90601-4

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(79)90601-4 1979

  11. [11]

    C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis and S. T. Love, Phys. Rev. D 17, 2298 (1978) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.17.2298

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.17.2298 1978

  12. [12]

    C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis and S. T. Love, Phys. Rev. Lett. 41, 1585 (1978) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.41.1585

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.41.1585 1978

  13. [13]

    Moult and H

    I. Moult and H. X. Zhu, [arXiv:2506.09119 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    Craft, K

    E. Craft, K. Lee, B. Meçaj and I. Moult, [arXiv:2210.09311 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    A. P. Chen, X. Liu and Y. Q. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 19 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.191901 [arXiv:2405.10056 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Barata, J

    J. Barata, J. Brewer, K. Lee and J. M. Silva, [arXiv:2508.19404 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. [ALICE], [arXiv:2504.03431 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    M. E. Luke, M. J. Savage and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 322, 154-158 (1994) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)90504-5 [arXiv:hep- ph/9311308 [hep-ph]]. 22

    arXiv 1994

  19. [19]

    G. F. Sterman, ILL-TH-75-32

  20. [20]

    D. M. Hofman and J. Maldacena, JHEP 05, 012 (2008) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/05/012 [arXiv:0803.1467 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  21. [21]

    Kologlu, P

    M. Kologlu, P. Kravchuk, D. Simmons-Duffin and A. Zhiboedov, JHEP 01, 128 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2021)128 [arXiv:1905.01311 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    C. H. Chang, M. Kologlu, P. Kravchuk, D. Simmons-Duffin and A. Zhiboedov, JHEP 05, 059 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2022)059 [arXiv:2010.04726 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    H. Chen, I. Moult and H. X. Zhu, JHEP 08, 233 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2022)233 [arXiv:2104.00009 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    Chen, JHEP 01, 035 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2024)035 [arXiv:2311.00350 [hep-ph]]

    H. Chen, JHEP 01, 035 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2024)035 [arXiv:2311.00350 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis and S. T. Love, Phys. Rev. D 19, 2018 (1979) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.19.2018

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.19.2018 2018

  26. [26]

    A. V. Belitsky, G. P. Korchemsky and G. F. Sterman, Phys. Lett. B 515, 297-307 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00899-1 [arXiv:hep-ph/0106308 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  27. [27]

    L. J. Dixon, I. Moult and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.1, 014009 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.014009 [arXiv:1905.01310 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    H. Chen, I. Moult, X. Zhang and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.5, 054012 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.054012 [arXiv:2004.11381 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    H. Chen, I. Moult, J. Sandor and H. X. Zhu, JHEP 09, 199 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2022)199 [arXiv:2202.04085 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    T. Z. Yang and X. Zhang, JHEP 09, 006 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2022)006 [arXiv:2208.01051 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    W. Chen, J. Gao, Y. Li, Z. Xu, X. Zhang and H. X. Zhu, JHEP 05, 043 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2024)043 [arXiv:2307.07510 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    X. Liu, W. Vogelsang, F. Yuan and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, no.15, 151901 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.151901 [arXiv:2410.16371 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    H. Chen, P. F. Monni, Z. Xu and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, no.23, 231901 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.231901 [arXiv:2406.06668 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    K. Lee, A. Pathak, I. W. Stewart and Z. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, no.23, 231902 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.231902 [arXiv:2405.19396 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Z. B. Kang, J. Penttala and C. Zhang, [arXiv:2410.21435 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Herrmann, Z

    E. Herrmann, Z. B. Kang, J. Penttala and C. Zhang, [arXiv:2507.17704 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Ricci and M

    L. Ricci and M. Riembau, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.11, 114010 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.114010 [arXiv:2207.03511 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Z. B. Kang, F. Ringer and W. J. Waalewijn, JHEP 07, 064 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2017)064 [arXiv:1705.05375 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  40. [40]

    P. Cal, F. Ringer and W. J. Waalewijn, JHEP 05, 143 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2019)143 [arXiv:1901.06389 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  41. [41]

    C. Lee, A. Hornig and G. Ovanesyan, PoS EFT09, 010 (2009) doi:10.22323/1.069.0010 [arXiv:0905.0168 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  42. [42]

    A. J. Larkoski, D. Neill and J. Thaler, JHEP 04, 017 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2014)017 [arXiv:1401.2158 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  43. [43]

    Mi and Z

    Z. Mi and Z. Wang, JHEP 11, 090 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2025)090 [arXiv:2507.21613 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Makris and V

    Y. Makris and V. Vaidya, JHEP 10, 019 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2018)019 [arXiv:1807.09805 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  45. [45]

    H. Cao, X. Liu and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.11, 114008 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.114008 [arXiv:2303.01530 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    Y. Fu, Z. B. Kang, J. Penttala and Y. Zhou, JHEP 06, 247 (2026) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2026)247 [arXiv:2512.16847 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    Z. B. Kang, R. Kao, M. Li and J. Penttala, [arXiv:2603.02300 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  48. [48]

    Z. B. Kang, K. Lee, D. Y. Shao and F. Zhao, JHEP 03, 153 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2024)153 [arXiv:2310.15159 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    A. Gao, H. T. Li, I. Moult and H. X. Zhu, JHEP 09, 072 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2024)072 [arXiv:2312.16408 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Z. B. Kang, S. Lee, J. Penttala, F. Zhao and Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D 112, no.1, 014012 (2025) doi:10.1103/1djw-8zrh [arXiv:2410.02747 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Q. H. Cao, Z. Yu, C. P. Yuan, S. T. Zhang and H. X. Zhu, JHEP 02, 244 (2026) [erratum: JHEP 04, 206 (2026)] doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2026)244 [arXiv:2509.18892 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    Benzke, S

    M. Benzke, S. J. Lee, M. Neubert and G. Paz, JHEP 08, 099 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2010)099 [arXiv:1003.5012 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  53. [53]

    Benzke, S

    M. Benzke, S. J. Lee, M. Neubert and G. Paz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 141801 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.141801 [arXiv:1012.3167 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  54. [54]

    Benzke and T

    M. Benzke and T. Hurth, Frascati Phys. Ser. 73, 101-108 (2022) [arXiv:2303.06447 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    Bartocci, P

    R. Bartocci, P. Böer and T. Hurth, JHEP 04, 066 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2025)066 [arXiv:2411.16634 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Hashimoto, PTEP 2017, no.5, 053B03 (2017) doi:10.1093/ptep/ptx052 [arXiv:1703.01881 [hep-lat]]

    S. Hashimoto, PTEP 2017, no.5, 053B03 (2017) doi:10.1093/ptep/ptx052 [arXiv:1703.01881 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  57. [57]

    Barone, S

    A. Barone, S. Hashimoto, A. Jüttner, T. Kaneko and R. Kellermann, JHEP 07, 145 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2023)145 [arXiv:2305.14092 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    Cao et al

    L. Cao et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. D 104, no.1, 012008 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.012008 [arXiv:2102.00020 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  59. [59]

    Buchalla, A

    G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras and M. E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 1125-1144 (1996) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.68.1125 [arXiv:hep-ph/9512380 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  60. [60]

    Becher, R

    T. Becher, R. J. Hill and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D 72, 094017 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.094017 [arXiv:hep- 23 ph/0503263 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2005

  61. [61]

    W. Wang, J. Xu, Q. A. Zhang and S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 112, no.5, 054044 (2025) doi:10.1103/1547-t91t [arXiv:2504.18018 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    A. S. Xiong, J. Ding, J. Xu, J. Zeng and S. Zhao, [arXiv:2606.21489 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  63. [63]

    Becher and M

    T. Becher and M. Neubert, Phys. Lett. B 637, 251-259 (2006) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.04.046 [arXiv:hep-ph/0603140 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  64. [64]

    Brüser, Z

    R. Brüser, Z. L. Liu and M. Stahlhofen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, no.7, 072003 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.072003 [arXiv:1804.09722 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  65. [65]

    Kou et al

    E. Kou et al. [Belle-II], PTEP 2019, no.12, 123C01 (2019) [erratum: PTEP 2020, no.2, 029201 (2020)] doi:10.1093/ptep/ptz106 [arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2019

  66. [66]

    Abudinén et al

    F. Abudinén et al. [Belle-II], [arXiv:2210.10220 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  67. [67]

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

    arXiv 2005

  68. [68]

    S. W. Bosch, M. Neubert and G. Paz, JHEP 11, 073 (2004) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/073 [arXiv:hep-ph/0409115 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  69. [69]

    Abumusabh et al

    M. Abumusabh et al. [Belle-II], Phys. Rev. D 113, no.3, 032004 (2026) doi:10.1103/59ws-zxbt [arXiv:2512.08056 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2026

  70. [70]

    H. M. Chang, M. Procura, J. Thaler and W. J. Waalewijn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 102002 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.102002 [arXiv:1303.6637 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  71. [71]

    Jaarsma, Y

    M. Jaarsma, Y. Li, I. Moult, W. J. Waalewijn and H. X. Zhu, JHEP 12, 087 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2023)087 [arXiv:2307.15739 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023