Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 80 references

Soft Collinear Effective Theory for Heavy QCD Axions

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new gluonic operator adds a 25–30% spectator correction to B→K a in the low-scale axion scenario.

desk verdict Genuinely new SCET operator and spectator contribution for heavy QCD axions in B→K a, but the headline 25–30% ratio rests on a local-E0 approximation the paper itself flags as doubtful at the relevant hard virtuality; the structural claim holds, the number does not yet. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12467 v1 pith:EVO4GYSZ submitted 2026-08-12 hep-ph

Deepanshu Bisht , Sabyasachi Chakraborty , Siddhartha Karmakar , Atanu Samanta This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords heavyQCDaxionaxion-likeparticlessoft-collineareffectivetheoryBtoKadecayspectatorscatteringsoft-overlapformfactorgluonequationofmotionflavor-changingneutralcurrents
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper develops a soft-collinear effective theory (SCET) treatment of rare $B\to K a$ decays induced by a heavy QCD axion coupled to gluons through $aG\tilde G$. Its central claim is that when that gluonic coupling is the only axion interaction at the weak scale, eliminating the redundant flavor-changing gluon operator in the low-energy theory generates a new dimension-seven operator, and this operator produces a hard-spectator-scattering contribution to $B\to K a$ that sits at the same power as the soft-overlap term and equals roughly 25–30% of it. In the alternative, more standard realization in which the gluon coupling is imposed above the electroweak scale, renormalization-group evolution generates a direct $b\to s a$ operator whose soft form-factor contribution dominates and reduces the spectator piece to 6–7%. The paper thereby identifies when the usual form-factor description of $B\to K a$ is reliable and when it must be replaced by a factorized SCET treatment that includes spectator scattering.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the modified gluon equation of motion in the presence of $aG\tilde G$: $(D^\mu G_{\alpha\mu})^A = g_s J_\alpha^A + (4C_{gg}/f_a)(\partial^\mu a)\tilde G_{\alpha\mu}^A$. Substituting this into the redundant operator $O_{Dg}$ is what generates $O_{\partial ag}$ and, after tree-level matching onto SCET (the effective theory that separates soft, collinear, and hard-collinear momentum modes in heavy-to-light decays), the leading SCET operator $O^{\rm SCET}_{\partial ag}\propto [\bar\chi_n\gamma^\mu_\perp P_L T^A Y_s^\dagger h_v](\partial_\nu a)\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} n_\rho G^A_{\bar n\perp\sigma}$. The spectator amplitude then factorizes as $M^{\partial ag}_{\rm spec}= g_s (C_{\partial ag}/f_a)(C_F E_K/N_c)(f_K f_B m_B^2)/(8\lambda_B)$, with the inverse moment $1/\lambda_B$ encoding the $B$-meson light-cone distribution amplitude, while the soft amplitude is the matrix element of the radiatively generated SCET current proportional to $(n\cdot q)E_K\zeta(E_K)$. The same machinery, with different Wilson coefficients, controls the chromomagnetic operator $O_{8g}$ and the direct $b\to s a$ operator.

What would settle it

Recompute the soft-overlap matching of $O_{\partial ag}$ using the momentum-dependent charm-loop form factor $E_0(q^2)$ evaluated at $q^2\sim m_b^2$ instead of the constant $|E_0|=5$; if the resulting soft amplitude changes by more than the quoted uncertainties, the central $25$–$30\%$ spectator-to-soft ratio and the rate enhancement $1.5$–$1.7$ shift accordingly. Alternatively, measure the $m_a$ dependence of the $B\to K a$ rate: the low-scale gluonic scenario predicts a total SCET amplitude that decreases with $m_a$, whereas the conventional form-factor prediction increases.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the axion–gluon operator $aG\tilde G$ modifies the gluon equation of motion, so the standard elimination of the redundant operator $O_{Dg}$ from the weak effective theory no longer produces only the familiar QCD-penguin four-quark operators. It also produces a new dimension-seven operator $O_{\partial ag} = \bar{s} T^A \gamma^\mu P_L b\,(\partial_\nu a)\tilde G^{A\mu\nu}$ with Wilson coefficient $C_{\partial ag}/f_a = 4 C_{gg} C_{Dg}/f_a$. Matching $O_{\partial ag}$ onto SCET at leading power yields a soft-overlap amplitude proportional to $(n\cdot q) E_K \zeta(E_K)$ and a spectator-scattering amplitude that factorizes into a perturbative hard kernel and the $B$- and $K$-meson light-cone distribution amplitudes. In the low-scale gluonic realization the spectator amplitude is $25$–$30\%$ of the soft one (Eq. 67), so under constructive interference the total rate is enhanced by a factor $1.5$–$1.7$ and the conventional form-factor treatment is incomplete; in the above-electroweak realization the direct $b\to s a$ operator makes the soft term dominant and the spectator correction only $6$–$7\%$ (Eq. 73), so the conventional treatment remains valid. The same framework yields the chromomagnetic-operator contributions and updated bounds on the axion decay constant $f_a$ for both realizations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the coefficient $E_0\simeq5$ of the redundant operator $O_{Dg}$ can be treated as a local constant even though it is really a $q^2$-dependent charm-quark loop form factor; the approximation is trusted below the charm threshold, while the soft-overlap amplitude receives hard gluons at the $b$-quark scale.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the low-scale gluonic scenario, precision analyses of $B\to K a$ must include the $O_{\partial ag}$ spectator term: omitting it changes the amplitude by roughly 25–30% and strengthens the inferred bound on $f_a$ by the same amount under constructive interference.
  • When the gluon coupling is imposed above the electroweak scale, the RG-induced direct $b\to s a$ operator makes the soft-overlap form factor dominant and the spectator correction only 6–7%, so the conventional $f_0(q^2)$ form-factor treatment remains valid within its uncertainties.
  • The chromomagnetic operator $O_{8g}$ has a larger spectator-to-soft ratio (about 0.5–0.9), but its small Wilson coefficient makes its absolute contribution only about 15% of the $O_{\partial ag}$ spectator term.
  • The two realizations have very different experimental reach: the low-scale gluonic scenario probes only $f_a\sim O(\text{GeV})$, while the above-electroweak scenario with the direct $b\to s a$ operator gives branching fractions of order $10^{-6}$ for $f_a\sim 200$ GeV and correspondingly stronger limits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to compute the charm-loop form factor $E_0(q^2)$ at hard virtuality $q^2\sim m_b^2$ and redo the one-loop soft matching; if it departs from $|E_0|=5$, the 25–30% ratio is the first quantity to shift.
  • The same modified-gluon-equation mechanism should generate analogous spectator operators in other $b\to s$ modes with pseudoscalar final states, such as $B_s\to\phi a$ or $\Lambda_b\to\Lambda a$, where the soft-versus-spectator balance could be probed in differential distributions.
  • Because the SCET total amplitude in the low-scale scenario decreases with $m_a$ while the LCSR form-factor result increases, a shape measurement of the $B\to K a$ rate as a function of $m_a$ could distinguish the spectator mechanism from the conventional treatment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper constructs a soft-collinear effective theory (SCET) description of B to K a decays for a heavy QCD axion coupled only through a G tilde-G at low scales. The authors show that eliminating the redundant operator O_Dg via the gluon equation of motion, modified by the axion-gluon interaction, generates a dimension-seven operator O_{partial a g}. They match this operator onto SCET and calculate the leading-power spectator-scattering amplitude (Eq. (44)) and the one-loop soft-overlap amplitude (Eq. (51)). The central numerical result is that the spectator term amounts to about 25-30 percent of the soft term (Eq. (67)) when aG tilde-G is present only below the electroweak scale. In the alternative UV realization where aG tilde-G is present above the electroweak scale, the induced direct operator O_bsa dominates and the gluonic spectator term is only about 6-7 percent (Eq. (73)). The paper also derives f_a sensitivity estimates for both cases and discusses ALP-meson mixing and RG effects in the appendices.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper identifies a genuinely new leading-power spectator-scattering contribution to B to K a that is absent in the conventional form-factor description and is large enough to matter for precision studies of the low-scale gluonic axion scenario. The operator derivation is transparent, the SCET matching is presented in detail, and the factorization formula in Eq. (44) is explicit and reproducible from the stated inputs. The paper also gives a clean separation of two UV realizations and makes falsifiable numerical predictions. The main quantitative claim, however, depends on treating the charm-loop coefficient E0 as a local constant in the soft-overlap amplitude, an approximation that the paper itself flags as invalid for hard gluons; this is the main obstacle to accepting the 25-30 percent ratio.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III B, Eq. (67)] The central numerical claim in Eq. (67) is not robust under the momentum dependence of E0, which the footnote after Eq. (6) identifies as a q^2-dependent charm-loop form factor. In the spectator amplitude (Eq. (44)) the internal hard-collinear gluon has virtuality l^2 = -2 omega u-bar E_K ~ -Lambda_QCD m_b, below 4 m_c^2, so using the low-energy value |E0| = 5 is justified there. In the soft-overlap matching (Eqs. (45)-(49)) the loop integral samples hard gluon virtualities up to O(m_b^2), exactly the region where the paper states that the local approximation fails. Because both M_spec and M_soft are proportional to C_{partial a g} = 4 C_gg C_Dg, the ratio R_spec in Eq. (67) implicitly contains E0(q_low^2)/E0(q_hard^2), and an O(1) variation of this form factor at q^2 ~ m_b^2 would move R_spec well outside the quoted 0.25-0.30 range. Please recompute the soft-overlap amplitude with the actual q^2-dependent E0 (for instance, using the charm-loop dispersion treatment of Ref. [35]) or provide a quantitative bound on the induced error.
  2. [Appendix C] The discussion of renormalization-group effects in Appendix C is qualitative: the statement that resummation changes the individual amplitudes by 10-20 percent and partially cancels in R_spec is not supported by a calculation. The quoted range for R_spec in Eq. (67) is itself of order 25 percent, so an unquantified 10-20 percent effect is comparable in size to the central claim. The paper should either present a resummed result for the ratio, or explicitly label Eq. (67) as a fixed-order leading-order estimate and assign a conservative uncertainty from the missing resummation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. VI] The heading 'F uture Directions' contains a spacing typo and should read 'Future Directions'.
  2. [Sec. VI, Eqs. (67)-(69)] The relative sign between M_spec and M_soft is not computed, so the enhancement factor in Eq. (69) and the statement that the spectator contribution strengthens the f_a limit by 25-30 percent assume constructive interference. This assumption should be stated in the main text together with the branching-fraction predictions, since a negative relative sign would instead reduce the total rate.
  3. [Eq. (26)] The text says x = 2E_K/m_B with x <= 1, but for small axion masses x is very close to 1 (e.g., x = 0.9996 for m_a = 0.5 GeV). The wording 'x < 1' should be clarified so that the large-recoil window and the x to 1 limit are not confused.
  4. [Eq. (44)] The derivation leading to Eq. (44) drops the term 1/(2 u-bar E_K) relative to 1/omega in Eq. (42). This is justified at leading power but only after an endpoint-region check; a brief statement that endpoint contributions are power-suppressed for LCDAs vanishing linearly at the endpoint would make the step self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central 25–30% and 6–7% ratios are derived from external inputs, with common short-distance coefficients cancelling in the ratios.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the central results do not reduce to their inputs by construction. The operator O∂ag (Eq. 10) is literally the second term obtained by substituting the modified gluon equation of motion (Eq. 8) into O_Dg (Eq. 9); this is an algebraic identity, not a hidden definition of the output. The spectator amplitude (Eq. 44) and the soft-overlap amplitude (Eq. 51) share the common factor C∂ag/fa; in the ratio R_spec (Eq. 67) this factor, including the external charm-loop input E0, cancels analytically, and the residual ratio depends on fK, fB, λB, EK, and the external light-cone soft form factor ζK (Eq. 66). No parameter is fitted to force the 25–30% level. In the second realization, the ratio R^bsa_spec (Eq. 73) is likewise independent of the two-loop Wilson coefficient C_bsa taken from Refs. [3,5,6]; even though two of those references share authors with the present paper, the coefficient is an external published two-loop result used as an input, not as a justification of the ratio, and the ratio itself cancels it. The self-citations are therefore not load-bearing for the soft/spectator hierarchy. The paper's own footnote (page 3) flags that the local constant E0≈5 is only an approximation for hard gluons; this is an honest limitation affecting the numerical accuracy of M_soft, and hence the central ratio, but an acknowledged approximation is not a circular reduction. The derivation is self-contained once the external Wilson coefficients, decay constants, λB, and ζK are accepted as inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The only new object is a dimension-seven operator O_{\partial ag} in an EFT basis, which is not a new entity. The central ratios depend on known nonperturbative parameters and short-distance Wilson coefficients; no hidden fit to the target ratio is present.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda_B (inverse moment of B-meson LCDA) = 0.338 ± 0.068 GeV
    Controls the size of the spectator contribution in Eqs. (44), (54), and (62); taken from lattice input [70].
  • B-to-K soft form factor zeta_K(m_a) = 0.297 / (1 - 1.28 m_a^2 / m_B^2)
    Nonperturbative soft-overlap input used in Eqs. (51), (57), and (65); from the light-cone quark model [12].
  • Effective E0 coefficient of O_Dg = 5
    Sets the strength of the generated operator O_{\partial ag} and the overall normalization of Case 1 bounds; from Refs. [32-34], but it is q-squared dependent and used here as a local constant.
  • C_bsa (direct b-to-s-a Wilson coefficient) = 2.46e-7 (for Case 2)
    Taken from Ref. [6] by the same group; sets the Case 2 branching fractions and f_a bounds, not re-derived in this paper.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption At mu ~ m_b, a G tilde G is the only independent axion interaction (Case 1).
    Eq. (3) and Sec. I state this minimal realization; it excludes direct axion-quark couplings and the complete operator basis.
  • domain assumption The gluon equation of motion (8) may be used to eliminate the redundant operator O_Dg, generating O_{\partial ag}.
    Sec. II; standard on-shell EOM and field-redefinition logic, but requires the modified EOM to hold in the presence of a G tilde G.
  • domain assumption E0 is treated as a local Wilson coefficient with value about 5.
    Footnote after Eq. (6); valid for hard-collinear gluons, only an approximation for hard gluons used in the soft matching.
  • standard math Large-recoil SCET factorization of B-to-K form factors, including f0 = C0 zeta + Delta_spec.
    Eq. (2) and Sec. III rely on established factorization theorems of Refs. [9,10].
  • domain assumption Axion kinematic scaling q^mu ~ (1,1,lambda^2), heavy or nonrelativistic, for 0.5 GeV < m_a < 2.3 GeV.
    Sec. III A 2 and Table I; authors note this assignment is not unique and becomes anti-collinear as m_a approaches m_K.
  • domain assumption Below m_b, a leading-order alpha_s treatment without full RG resummation is sufficient for the quoted ratios.
    Appendix C; authors estimate 10 to 20 percent resummation effects, partially canceling in R_spec.
  • domain assumption C_bsa does not run from M_W to m_B.
    Sec. V states this as a property of the low-energy ALP operator basis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Soft Collinear Effective Theory for Heavy QCD Axions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EVO4GYSZ

@misc{pith2026260812467,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Soft Collinear Effective Theory for Heavy QCD Axions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EVO4GYSZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12467}
}
abstract

We develop a soft-collinear effective theory (SCET) framework for heavy QCD axion, considering two low-energy realizations and taking $B\to Ka$ as a benchmark mode. In the first realization, $aG\widetilde G$ is assumed to be the only independent axion interaction at the scale $\mu\sim m_b$. We show that eliminating the redundant flavor-changing derivative-gluon operator in the weak effective theory generates a new dimension-seven axion operator identified as $\mathrm{O}_{\partial ag}$. We match this operator onto SCET and derive the corresponding leading-power soft and spectator-scattering contributions to $B\to Ka$. We obtain a factorized expression for the spectator contribution in terms of perturbative hard kernels and the $B$- and $K$-meson light-cone distribution amplitudes. The spectator contribution arises at the same order in the power expansion as the soft-overlap term and amounts to approximately $25\%$ of the soft contribution. In the second realization, the Wilson coefficient of $aG\widetilde G$ is assumed to be present above the electroweak scale. Renormalization-group evolution and matching then induce a direct $b\to sa$ operator, which subsequently results in a dominant soft form-factor contribution, whereas the gluonic spectator term turns out to be numerically subleading ($\sim 6-7\%$). We thus identify the conditions under which spectator scattering becomes relevant for heavy-axion production in rare $B$-meson decays. Finally, we derive the corresponding bounds on the axion decay constant $f_a$ for both realizations and compare their phenomenological implications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12467 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Leading SCET contribution to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Representative hard scale diagram contributing to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Two-loop diagrams generating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Representative hard scale diagram contributing to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Leading SCET contribution to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [35]

    Grinstein, R

    B. Grinstein, R. P. Springer, and M. B. Wise, Strong Interaction Effects in Weak Radiative ¯BMeson Decay, Nucl. Phys. B339, 269 (1990)

    work page 1990

  2. [1]

    SCET Operator Construction We begin with the field strength tensorGA µν of Eq. (10). For the spectator-scattering contribution, the gluon field, as shown in Table I must ben-hard collinear. Forn- hard collinear gluon, the leading component of the field strength is GAρσ =1 2 nρGAσ ¯n⊥−nσGAρ ¯n⊥ +O(λ 2), whereG Aσ ¯n⊥≡¯nαGA αβgβσ ⊥ ,(12) andλis the SCET pow...

    work page

  3. [2]

    The hard- collinear gluon in Eq

    Spectator matrix element The contribution to the spectator-scattering amplitude for the decayB→Kaproceeds as follows. The hard- collinear gluon in Eq. (22) interacts with the soft specta- tor quark via the SCET Lagrangian interaction [26, 27] LSCET ξqB = (¯qsYs)igsBAρ n⊥γ⊥ρTA W† nξn ,(23) thereby generating the leading spectator contribution to the decay ...

    work page

  4. [3]

    (27) are absorbed into the kaon projector, 6 while the soft spectator quark and the heavy-quark field combine to form theB-meson projector

    Factorization of the Spectator Matrix Element At leading power in the SCET expansion, the collinear fields in Eq. (27) are absorbed into the kaon projector, 6 while the soft spectator quark and the heavy-quark field combine to form theB-meson projector. To make this factorization explicit, we insert the standard light-cone projectors for the kaon and theB...

    work page

  5. [4]

    Dirac Structure and Momentum-Space Factorization Substituting the light-cone projectors for the meson fields into Eq. (27), together with the color identity dis- cussed before, the spectator amplitude assumes the form M∂ag spec = (gsmB)iC∂ag 2fa CF Nc fKfBmB 16 (¯n.pK) (n.v) × Z 1 0 du Z ∞ 0 dω Z d4y Z d4ℓ (2π)4 ¯n·ℓ ℓ2 +i0 ei(ℓ+¯upK−ks)·y ×ϕK(u)ϕ+ B(ω)Tµ...

    work page

  6. [5]

    In particular, the integration over the space-time coordinateyenforces overall momentum conservation through the resulting four-dimensional delta function

    Momentum Integrations and Spectator Contribution The remaining integrations are purely kinematical and can therefore be carried out analytically. In particular, the integration over the space-time coordinateyenforces overall momentum conservation through the resulting four-dimensional delta function. This fixes the momen- tum flowing through the hard-coll...

    work page

  7. [6]

    ALPs Across Scales

    Radiatively Generated Operator and Matching to SCET The quark-level loop amplitude can be expressed as A∂ag =C∂ag fa (igsCFϵµνρσ) Z ddℓ (2π)d ¯u(p′)γµPL /p− /ℓ+m b γσu(p)qνℓρ ℓ2 [(p−ℓ) 2−m 2 b] .(45) The steps are rather straightforward, and it generates A∂ag =i C∂aggsCF 16π2fa (17m2 b−2m 2 a) 9 ¯u(p′)/qPLu(p). (46) The final step in the matching from QCD...

    work page arXiv 2023

  8. [7]

    Izaguirre, T

    E. Izaguirre, T. Lin, and B. Shuve, Searching for Axionlike Particles in Flavor-Changing Neutral Cur- rent Processes, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 111802 (2017), arXiv:1611.09355 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 80 references
  1. [8]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, S. Renner, M. Schnubel, and A. Thamm, The Low-Energy Effective Theory of Axions and ALPs, JHEP4(2021), 063, arXiv:2012.12272 [hep- ph]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Chakraborty, M

    S. Chakraborty, M. Kraus, V. Loladze, T. Okui, and K. Tobioka, Heavy QCD axion in b→s transition: En- hanced limits and projections, Phys. Rev. D104, 055036 (2021), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 108, 039903 (2023)], arXiv:2102.04474 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Bertholet, S

    E. Bertholet, S. Chakraborty, V. Loladze, T. Okui, A. Soffer, and K. Tobioka, Heavy QCD axion at Belle II: Displaced and prompt signals, Phys. Rev. D105, L071701 (2022), arXiv:2108.10331 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, S. Renner, M. Schnubel, and A. Thamm, Flavor probes of axion-like particles, JHEP 09(2022), 056, arXiv:2110.10698 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Bisht, S

    D. Bisht, S. Chakraborty, and A. Samanta, A compre- hensive study of ALPs from B-decays, JHEP07(2025), 092, arXiv:2412.09678 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Ball and R

    P. Ball and R. Zwicky, New results onB→π,K,ηdecay formfactors from light-cone sum rules, Phys. Rev. D71, 014015 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0406232

    2005 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Ball and R

    P. Ball and R. Zwicky,B d,s→ρ,ω,K ∗,ϕdecay form- factors from light-cone sum rules revisited, Phys. Rev. D 71, 014029 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0412079

    2005 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Beneke and T

    M. Beneke and T. Feldmann, Symmetry breaking correc- tions to heavy to light B meson form-factors at large re- coil, Nucl. Phys. B592, 3 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0008255

    2001 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Beneke and T

    M. Beneke and T. Feldmann, Factorization of heavy to light form-factors in soft collinear effective theory, Nucl. Phys. B685, 249 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0311335

    2004 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Beneke, G

    M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, and C. T. Sachra- jda, QCD factorization for exclusive, nonleptonic B meson decays: General arguments and the case of heavy light final states, Nucl. Phys. B591, 313 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0006124

    2000 arXiv

  11. [18]

    C.-D. Lu, W. Wang, and Z.-T. Wei, Heavy-to-light form factors on the light cone, Phys. Rev. D76, 014013 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0701265

    2007 arXiv

  12. [19]

    J. E. Kim, Weak Interaction Singlet and Strong CP In- variance, Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 103 (1979)

    1979

  13. [20]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, Can Confinement Ensure Natural CP Invariance of Strong In- teractions?, Nucl. Phys. B166, 493 (1980)

    1980

  14. [21]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, and M. E. Luke, Summing Sudakov logarithms inB→X sγin effective field theory., Phys. Rev. D63, 014006 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0005275

    2000 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Zhang and Y.-K

    J.-W. Zhang and Y.-K. Huang, SCET sum rules forB→ D1(2420) andB→D ′ 1(2430) form factors at next-to- leading order, (2026), arXiv:2607.09573 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  16. [23]

    G. Bell, P. B¨ oer, T. Feldmann, D. Horstmann, and V. Shtabovenko,B c →η c form factors at large re- coil: SCET analysis and a three-loop consistency check, (2026), arXiv:2605.21314 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Gao, U.-G

    J. Gao, U.-G. Meißner, Y.-L. Shen, and D.-H. Li, Preci- sion calculations ofB→K ∗ form factors from SCET sum rules beyond leading-power contributions, Phys. Rev. D112, 014032 (2025), arXiv:2412.13084 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Cui, Y.-K

    B.-Y. Cui, Y.-K. Huang, Y.-L. Shen, C. Wang, and Y.- M. Wang, Precision calculations of B d,s →π, K decay form factors in soft-collinear effective theory, JHEP03 (2023), 140, arXiv:2212.11624 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Huang, Y.-L

    Y.-K. Huang, Y.-L. Shen, X.-C. Zhao, and S.-H. Zhou, Complete analysis on QED corrections toB q→τ +τ−, JHEP10(2023), 073, arXiv:2301.00697 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [27]

    B¨ oer and T

    P. B¨ oer and T. Feldmann, Structure-dependent QED ef- fects in exclusiveB-meson decays, Eur. Phys. J. ST233, 299 (2024), arXiv:2312.12885 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Cornella, M

    C. Cornella, M. Ferr´ e, M. K¨ onig, and M. Neubert, The simplest B decay, precisely, JHEP06(2026), 027, arXiv:2601.14361 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  22. [29]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stewart, An Effective field theory for collinear and soft gluons: Heavy to light decays, Phys. Rev. D63, 114020 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0011336

    2001 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Beneke and D

    M. Beneke and D. Yang, Heavy-to-light b meson form factors at large recoil energy—spectator-scattering cor- rections, Nuclear Physics B736, 34–81 (2006)

    2006

  24. [31]

    C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stewart, Factorization and endpoint singularities in heavy to light decays, Phys. Rev. D67, 071502 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0211069

    2003 arXiv

  25. [32]

    C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol, I. Z. Rothstein, and I. W. Stew- art,B→M 1M2: Factorization, charming penguins, strong phases, and polarization, Phys. Rev. D70, 054015 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0401188

    2004 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Beneke, A

    M. Beneke, A. P. Chapovsky, M. Diehl, and T. Feldmann, Soft collinear effective theory and heavy to light currents beyond leading power, Nucl. Phys. B643, 431 (2002), 17 arXiv:hep-ph/0206152

    2002 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Buchalla, A

    G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras, and M. E. Lautenbacher, Weak Decays beyond Leading Logarithms, Rev. Mod. Phys.68, 1125 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9512380

    1996 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Simma, Equations of motion for effective Lagrangians and penguins in rare B decays, Z

    H. Simma, Equations of motion for effective Lagrangians and penguins in rare B decays, Z. Phys. C61, 67 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9307274

    1994 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Inami and C

    T. Inami and C. S. Lim, Effects of Superheavy Quarks and Leptons in Low-Energy Weak ProcessesK L→µ¯µ, K+→π +ν¯νandK 0↔ ¯K0, Prog. Theor. Phys.65, 297 (1981), [Erratum: Prog.Theor.Phys. 65, 1772 (1981)]

    1981

  30. [38]

    M. R. Ahmady, E. Kou, and A. Sugamoto, Nonspectator contribution: A Mechanism for inclusiveB→X sη′ and exclusiveB→K (∗)η′ decays, Phys. Rev. D58, 014015 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9710509

    1998 arXiv

  31. [39]

    J. O. Eeg, K. Kumericki, and I. Picek, Soft gluon con- tributions to theB→Kη ′ amplitude in a low en- ergy bosonization model, J. Phys. G32, 2081 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0506152

    2006 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Hou and B

    W.-S. Hou and B. Tseng, Enhancedb→sgdecay, inclu- sive eta-prime production, and the gluon anomaly, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 434 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9705304

    1998 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Khodjamirian, T

    A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel, A. A. Pivovarov, and Y. M. Wang, Charm-loop effect inB→K (∗)ℓ+ℓ− andB→ K∗γ, JHEP09(2010), 089, arXiv:1006.4945 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  34. [42]

    B. O. Lange and M. Neubert, Factorization and the soft overlap contribution to heavy to light form-factors, Nucl. Phys. B690, 249 (2004), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 723, 201–202 (2005)], arXiv:hep-ph/0311345

    2004 arXiv

  35. [43]

    C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stewart, On Power sup- pressed operators and gauge invariance in SCET, Phys. Rev. D68, 034021 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0303156

    2003 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Becher, A

    T. Becher, A. Broggio, and A. Ferroglia,Introduction to Soft-Collinear Effective Theory, Vol. 896 (Springer, 2015) arXiv:1410.1892 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Bauer and I

    C. Bauer and I. Stewart,The Soft-Collinear Ef- fective Theory, TASI Lecture Notes 2013 and 2014,https://indico.cern.ch/event/1174608/ sessions/447636/attachments/2664357/4616509/ SCET-Lecture-notes_Bauer-Stewart.pdf

    2013

  38. [46]

    C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stewart, Soft collinear factorization in effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D65, 054022 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0109045

    2002 arXiv

  39. [47]

    C. W. Bauer, O. Cata, and G. Ovanesyan, On different ways to quantize Soft-Collinear Effective Theory, (2008), arXiv:0809.1099 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A. G. Grozin and M. Neubert, Asymptotics of heavy me- son form-factors, Phys. Rev. D55, 272 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9607366

    1997

  41. [49]

    G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Exclusive Processes in Perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2157 (1980)

    1980

  42. [50]

    A. V. Efremov and A. V. Radyushkin, Factorization and Asymptotical Behavior of Pion Form-Factor in QCD, Phys. Lett. B94, 245 (1980)

    1980

  43. [51]

    B. O. Lange and M. Neubert, Renormalization group evolution of the B meson light cone distribution am- plitude, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 102001 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0303082

    2003

  44. [52]

    Chay and C

    J. Chay and C. Kim, Collinear effective theory at sub- leading order and its application to heavy - light currents, Phys. Rev. D65, 114016 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0201197

    2002 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Charles, A

    J. Charles, A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. Pene, and J. C. Raynal, Heavy to light form-factors in the heavy mass to large energy limit of QCD, Phys. Rev. D60, 014001 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9812358

    1999 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Hurth and R

    T. Hurth and R. Szafron, Refactorisation in sublead- ing B¯→Xsγ, Nucl. Phys. B991, 116200 (2023), arXiv:2301.01739 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Bisht, S

    D. Bisht, S. Chakraborty, and A. Samanta, Axion EFT in the BMHV Scheme: Flavor Currents, Evanescent Op- erators and Ward Identities, (2026), arXiv:2603.26880 [hep-ph]

    2026

  48. [56]

    R. J. Hill, T. Becher, S. J. Lee, and M. Neubert, Sudakov resummation for subleading SCET currents and heavy- to-light form-factors, JHEP07(2004), 081, arXiv:hep- ph/0404217

    2004

  49. [57]

    Beneke, Y

    M. Beneke, Y. Kiyo, and D. s. Yang, Loop corrections to subleading heavy quark currents in SCET, Nucl. Phys. B692, 232 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0402241

    2004 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Hanet al.(Lattice Parton), Calculation of heavy meson light-cone distribution amplitudes from lattice QCD, Phys

    X.-Y. Hanet al.(Lattice Parton), Calculation of heavy meson light-cone distribution amplitudes from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D111, 034503 (2025), arXiv:2410.18654 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Altmannshofer, S

    W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, and D. J. Robinson, Con- straining axionlike particles from rare pion decays, Phys. Rev. D101, 075002 (2020), arXiv:1909.00005 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  52. [60]

    S. Gori, G. Perez, and K. Tobioka, KOTO vs. NA62 Dark Scalar Searches, JHEP08(2020), 110, arXiv:2005.05170 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Bandyopadhyay, S

    T. Bandyopadhyay, S. Chakraborty, and S. Trifinopou- los, Displaced searches for light vector bosons at Belle II, JHEP05(2022), 141, arXiv:2203.03280 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, S. Renner, M. Schnubel, and A. Thamm, Consistent Treatment of Axions in the Weak Chiral Lagrangian, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 081803 (2021), arXiv:2102.13112 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Bandyopadhyay, S

    T. Bandyopadhyay, S. Ghosh, and T. S. Roy, ALP- Pions generalized, Phys. Rev. D105, 115039 (2022), arXiv:2112.13147 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Fujiwara, T

    T. Fujiwara, T. Kugo, H. Terao, S. Uehara, and K. Ya- mawaki, Nonabelian Anomaly and Vector Mesons as Dynamical Gauge Bosons of Hidden Local Symmetries, Prog. Theor. Phys.73, 926 (1985)

    1985

  57. [65]

    Aloni, Y

    D. Aloni, Y. Soreq, and M. Williams, Coupling QCD- Scale Axionlike Particles to Gluons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 031803 (2019), arXiv:1811.03474 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Cheng, L

    H.-C. Cheng, L. Li, and E. Salvioni, A theory of dark pions, JHEP01(2022), 122, arXiv:2110.10691 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    A. M. Galda, M. Neubert, and S. Renner, ALP – SMEFT interference, JHEP06(2021), 135, arXiv:2105.01078 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Grojean, J

    C. Grojean, J. Kley, and C.-Y. Yao, Hilbert series for ALP EFTs, JHEP11(2023), 196, arXiv:2307.08563 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Mahajan, ALPs and heavy hadron chiral per- turbation theory, Phys

    N. Mahajan, ALPs and heavy hadron chiral per- turbation theory, Phys. Rev. D108, 014016 (2023), arXiv:2212.13869 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Lu, Heavy meson chiral perturbation theory con- straints on a charm-coupled GeV-scale QCD axion, (2026), arXiv:2607.17277 [hep-ph]

    B.-Q. Lu, Heavy meson chiral perturbation theory con- straints on a charm-coupled GeV-scale QCD axion, (2026), arXiv:2607.17277 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Chakraborty, A

    S. Chakraborty, A. Gupta, and M. Vanvlasselaer, Pho- toproduction of heavy QCD axions in supernovae, Phys. Rev. D110, 063032 (2024), arXiv:2403.12169 [hep-ph]. 18

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Bai, T.-K

    Y. Bai, T.-K. Chen, J. Liu, and X. Ma, Wess-Zumino- Witten Interactions of Axions, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 081803 (2025), arXiv:2406.11948 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Quevillon, C

    J. Quevillon, C. Smith, and P. N. H. Vuong, Axion ef- fective action, JHEP08(2022), 137, arXiv:2112.00553 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Chakraborty, N

    S. Chakraborty, N. Mahajan, and T. S. Roy, A Phe- nomenological Model of Mesons for Charged Current Weak Decays, (2026), arXiv:2605.13977 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Chakrabortty, S

    J. Chakrabortty, S. Chakraborty, and S. Karmakar, Hilbert Series of Pseudoscalar Mesons: Operators and Sum Rules, (2026), arXiv:2608.11118 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Mandal, S

    R. Mandal, S. Nandi, and I. Ray, Constraining in- verse moment of B-meson distribution amplitude using Lattice QCD data, Phys. Lett. B848, 138345 (2024), arXiv:2308.07033 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  70. [78]

    A. R. Williamson and J. Zupan, Two body B decays with isosinglet final states in SCET, Phys. Rev. D74, 014003 (2006), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 74, 03901 (2006)], arXiv:hep-ph/0601214

    2006 arXiv

  71. [79]

    S. D. Bass and P. Moskal,η ′ andηmesons with con- nection to anomalous glue, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 015003 (2019), arXiv:1810.12290 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Georgi, D

    H. Georgi, D. B. Kaplan, and L. Randall, Manifesting the Invisible Axion at Low-energies, Phys. Lett. B169, 73 (1986)

    1986

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.