Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 72 references

Determination of $B$-meson distribution amplitudes from $B\to \pi,K,D$ transition form factors

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A global fit to B→π, K, D transition form factors determines the inverse moment of the B-meson leading-twist distribution amplitude to be λ_B = 217 MeV at 1 GeV, lower than all previous extractions, and returns |V_ub| = 3.68 × 10⁻³.

desk verdict A sound global-fit strategy for λ_B, but the central value is pinned near the imposed λ_B>200 lower bound and depends on LCSR inputs whose own parameters are treated as fixed—worth publishing after the authors address that dependence. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.11741 v2 pith:CFMQ7EB7 submitted 2025-12-12 hep-ph

Dong-Hao Li , Cai-Dian Lü , Ulf-G. Mei{ss}ner , Jing Gao This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords B-mesonlight-conedistributionamplitudeinversemomentλ_BB→πKDtransitionformfactorssumruleslatticeQCD|V_ub|BCLz-seriesparametrizationnext-to-leading-powercorrections
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 seeks to pin down λ_B, the inverse moment of the B-meson's leading-twist light-cone distribution amplitude, by treating it as a free parameter in a global fit to the B→π, K, and D transition form factors. The fit combines lattice QCD results at small recoil, light-cone sum rule expressions at q²=0 that depend explicitly on λ_B, and the measured B→πℓν branching fractions, using a three-parameter model of the distribution amplitude and a BCL z-series for the q² dependence. The authors obtain λ_B(1 GeV) = 217(19)^{+82}_{-17} MeV and |V_ub| = 3.68(13)^{+0}_{-1} × 10⁻³, with a χ²_min/dof of 84.7/76. They trace the lower central value to the next-to-leading-power corrections in the sum rules, which reduce the form factors by roughly 30%; without those corrections the same fit returns λ_B = 321(26)^{+84}_{-48} MeV, consistent with previous determinations. A careful reader would care because λ_B enters many QCD factorization and sum-rule predictions for B decays, and because a value this far below earlier estimates sharpens the question of where the discrepancy originates.

What carries the argument

The central object is the inverse moment λ_B of the B-meson leading-twist light-cone distribution amplitude, defined by 1/λ_B(μ) = ∫₀^∞ (dω/ω) φ⁺_B(ω, μ). The calculation uses a three-parameter model of φ⁺_B (a hypergeometric function) specified by the inverse moment λ_B and the logarithmic inverse moments σ̂₁ and σ̂₂; from this model, the q²=0 B→π, K, D form factors are expressed through light-cone sum rules as explicit functions of λ_B. These λ_B-dependent sum-rule values are joined to the lattice points at large q² and to the B→πℓν rates through the BCL z-series parametrization of the q² dependence, and a global χ² fit treats λ_B and |V_ub| as free parameters alongside the BCL coefficient

What would settle it

Repeat the global fit with M² and s₀ varying self-consistently with λ_B (or treated as free parameters); if the best-fit λ_B shifts by more than ~50 MeV, the reported central value is not robust. Alternatively, a future lattice QCD calculation of the B-meson LCDA that returns λ_B ≥ 300 MeV with controlled systematic errors would contradict the 217 MeV result, since the paper's own no-NLP fit lands at 321 MeV.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a single global fit to the high-q² lattice points, the light-cone sum rule form factors at q²=0, and the experimental B→πℓν rates can simultaneously determine the inverse moment of the B-meson's leading-twist distribution amplitude and |V_ub|. The best fit gives λ_B = 217(19)^{+82}_{-17} MeV at 1 GeV (central values at σ̂₁=0, σ̂₂=π²/6, with λ_B constrained to be >200 MeV) and |V_ub| = 3.68(13)^{+0}_{-1} × 10⁻³, together with BCL coefficients for f⁺, f⁰ and f^T. The authors show that repeating the fit without the next-to-leading-power contributions raises λ_B to 321(26)^{+84}_{-48} MeV, thereby identifying the 30% size reduction of the form factors from N

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the light-cone sum rule's internal parameters—the Borel mass M² and the effective thresholds s₀—can be treated as fixed, λ_B-independent inputs with 10% uncorrelated errors; if, as the authors themselves note, these parameters shift with λ_B, the central value 217 MeV, which sits at the imposed λ_B > 200 MeV boundary, could move substantially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the inverse moment of the B-meson LCDA is roughly 30% lower than the 300–400 MeV range from earlier sum-rule and lattice estimates, which would rescale predictions for many exclusive B decays that enter through 1/λ_B.
  • The extracted |V_ub| = 3.68(13)×10⁻³ is consistent with the exclusive-decay average and keeps the known tension with inclusive determinations intact.
  • The joint fit constrains the first inverse-logarithmic moment to σ̂₁ ∈ [-0.7, 0.27] at 68.3% confidence, showing the data are sensitive to the shape of the distribution amplitude, not only its first moment.
  • The fitted B→π form factor f⁺_Bπ(0) = 0.258(11) is more precise in the low-q² region than the bare sum-rule prediction because the lattice and experimental data pull the shape parameters.
  • The systematic uncertainty from varying σ̂₁ and σ̂₂ is still large (+82/−17 MeV), so the fit fixes the scale of λ_B but leaves its precise value model-dependent.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the authors fix the Borel mass and effective thresholds at λ_B-independent values and themselves note these should depend on λ_B, the marginal position of the central value at the λ_B > 200 MeV boundary suggests the true value could move upward once those correlations are included; in that case the robust message would be the strong numerical impact of NLP corrections rather than the exact
  • The same strategy could be applied to other channels such as B→ρ, B→K*, or B→D*, or to b→c transitions with |V_cb|, testing whether a low λ_B is universal to all light final states or specific to π, K, D.
  • A direct lattice computation of the B-meson LCDA with controlled systematics would settle the tension: a determination of λ_B near or above 300 MeV would conflict with this result, while a value near 220 MeV would confirm the NLP-driven shift and validate the current sum-rule truncation.
  • The strong λ_B–σ̂₁ correlation means future data are likely to improve both parameters together; the reported joint confidence ellipse provides a concrete target for such computations to aim at.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a global fit of the B→π, K, D semileptonic form factors using lattice QCD results from RBC/UKQCD, FNAL/MILC, and HPQCD at small recoil, LCSR predictions at q²=0 expressed in terms of the inverse moment λ_B of the B-meson LCDA, and q²-binned B→πℓν branching fractions from BaBar, Belle, and Belle II. Form factors are parametrized with the BCL z-expansion truncated at N=3. The fit has 20 free parameters (λ_B, |V_ub|, 18 independent BCL coefficients) and yields χ²_min/dof = 84.7/76. The central result is λ_B(1 GeV) = 217(19)^{+82}_{-17} MeV and |V_ub| = 3.68(13)^{+0}_{-1}×10^{-3}. A profile-likelihood scan gives λ_B = [208,324] MeV and σ̂₁ = [-0.7,0.27]. The low λ_B value is attributed to the ~30% effect of NLP corrections in the LCSR inputs.

Significance. If the result holds, this is a valuable new determination of λ_B from a broad and independent set of lattice and experimental data. The global-fit strategy is appropriate, the χ²/dof ≈ 1.1 indicates a reasonable fit, and the N=4 truncation test is a useful stability check. The extracted |V_ub| is robust against LCDA modeling, which is an important outcome. However, the central λ_B value is quite sensitive to LCSR internal parameters and to the imposed lower bound λ_B > 200 MeV, and there is an internal inconsistency in the χ²_min used for the profile-likelihood contours. These issues need to be addressed before the quantitative λ_B determination can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (19), Fig. 1, Sec. 4] The LCSR predictions f_m^{LCSR}(0; λ_B) are computed with fixed Borel masses M²=1.25/4.5 GeV² and effective thresholds s0^π=0.7, s0^K=1.05, s0^D=6.0 GeV². The authors themselves state in Sec. 4 that 'the intrinsic LCSR parameters, such as the Borel mass M² and effective thresholds s0 should in principle depend on λ_B.' Since the fitted λ_B=217 MeV lies close to the imposed lower bound λ_B>200 MeV, fixing M² and s0 at values presumably tuned for λ_B≈350 MeV can directly bias the extracted quantity. Please provide a stability test varying M² and s0 over their allowed ranges, or a self-consistent determination as functions of λ_B, and quantify the resulting shift in λ_B relative to the quoted 19 MeV statistical error.
  2. [Eq. (20)] The LCSR covariance in Eq. (20) assigns a flat 10% relative error to all four f_m^{LCSR} constraints and splits it ad hoc into uncorrelated and fully correlated parts. These LCSR constraints are the primary drivers of λ_B, so the 10% choice is load-bearing. The paper should justify this value from the systematics of Refs. [53,54] and show sensitivity to, e.g., 5% and 20% assumptions. It should also clarify whether the covariance is evaluated at the fitted f_m values or at the λ_B-dependent LCSR predictions; if the latter, the covariance changes during the fit and should be iterated.
  3. [Eq. (14) and Introduction] The Introduction quotes B→γℓν lower bounds λ_B > 240 MeV (Ref. [31]) and > 214 MeV (Ref. [32]), yet Eq. (14) adopts the range λ_B ∈ [200,500] MeV and the central fit gives λ_B=217 MeV, below the quoted >240 MeV bound. The systematic uncertainty in Eq. (24) is obtained by imposing λ_B > 200 MeV, so the lower edge of the uncertainty is controlled by that choice. The authors should reconcile the fit result with the B→γℓν bounds or explicitly justify why 200 MeV is the appropriate lower boundary; otherwise the central value may be an artifact of the prior range.
  4. [Eq. (26) and Fig. 5] There is an internal inconsistency in the definition of Δχ². The text states 'χ²_min = 82.5 is the global minimum in Eq. (23)', but Eq. (23) with the default σ̂₁=0, σ̂₂=π²/6 yields χ²_min = 84.7, as reported earlier. The value 82.5 apparently refers to the profile minimum with σ̂₂ treated as free, i.e., a different fit. The paper should clarify which χ²_min is used for the contours in Fig. 5 and Eq. (27). If the contours are relative to the profiled fit, then the intervals [208,324] and [-0.7,0.27] do not belong to the same fit that produces Eq. (24); if they are relative to the fixed-σ̂₂ fit, the stated 82.5 is incorrect. Either way, the quoted confidence intervals need to be revised.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] Typographical issues: 'an three-parameter ansatz' and 'preditions' should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] 'pannel' should be 'panel' (also in the text near Fig. 2).
  3. [Table 2] The row labeled 'The upper limit of BR(B→γℓν)' actually lists lower bounds (>240, >214). The label should read 'lower limit'.
  4. [Eq. (20)] The matrices Cov_uncor and Cov_cor are not defined explicitly; please give their entries or a precise description of the correlation structure.
  5. [References] Several DOIs appear malformed (e.g., Refs. [12] and [33] contain non-standard strings such as 'yvjd-2ymn' and '2t8s-w8t6'). Please check and correct.
  6. [Sec. 3] Minor language issues: 'quiet precise' should be 'quite precise'; 'B→P form factors versus z (left pannel)' should be 'left panel'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: λ_B is extracted from external lattice and experimental data; the M²/s0 caveat is a self-consistency limitation, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. λ_B is defined through the LCDA by Eq. (11), and the LCSR quantities f_m^LCSR(0;λ_B) in Eq. (19) are computed as functions of λ_B via the three-parameter ansatz (12)-(13), not set equal to the fit output. The global χ² (23) connects these theory curves to three independent external datasets: lattice QCD form factors from HPQCD, MILC, and RBC/UKQCD (Eq. (18), Appendix A), the LCSR q²=0 constraints, and measured B→πℓν partial branching fractions (Eqs. (21)-(22)). Since the lattice and experimental inputs are external to the LCSR framework, the fitted λ_B=217 MeV is an extraction rather than a restatement of an input. The only self-citation is the import of the NLL/NLP LCSR results from Refs. [53,54], one of which shares a current author; this is a published, parameterized calculation and does not assume the target λ_B value. The Sec. 4 statement that 'the intrinsic LCSR parameters, such as the Borel mass M² and effective thresholds s0 should in principle depend on λ_B' is a genuine model-consistency limitation that could shift the central value, but it is not a circular reduction: no equation defines λ_B in terms of the fit output. The NLL-without-NLP cross-check yielding λ_B=321(26) MeV further confirms that the fitted parameter responds to the input data rather than being fixed by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on the untested adequacy of the three-parameter LCDA ansatz (Eq. 12) and the imported LCSR predictions from Refs [53,54]. The fit fixes the Borel parameter and effective thresholds and represents LCSR theory uncertainties by a 10% covariance; the extracted λ_B sits at the edge of the imposed lower bound and shifts by ~100 MeV if NLP corrections are removed, so many choices upstream of the fit carry the result.

free parameters (5)
  • λ_B (inverse moment of B-meson LCDA) = 217 MeV central; profile interval [208,324] MeV
    Free parameter of the global fit (Eq. 23); defines the inverse moment of the LCDA.
  • |V_ub| = 3.68×10^-3
    CKM matrix element determined from B→πℓν branching fractions in the same fit.
  • 18 BCL coefficients bP,i = see Eq. (25), e.g., b+π,0=0.408(12)
    Shape parameters of the z-expansion fitted to lattice and LCSR constraints.
  • Borel mass M² and effective thresholds s0 = M²=1.25 GeV² (π,K), 4.5 GeV² (D); s0π=0.7, s0K=1.05, s0D=6.0 GeV²
    Fixed LCSR input parameters from Refs [53,54]; paper notes they should depend on λ_B but treats them as constants, which is a hidden assumption.
  • LCSR relative systematic 10% = 0.1
    Eq. (20) constructs the LCSR covariance from 10% uncorrelated plus 10% fully-correlated errors without derivation; this weighting controls how strongly the LCSR q²=0 constraints pull λ_B.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Three-parameter LCDA ansatz Eq. (12) with hypergeometric U and mapping Eq. (13) spans the true space of B-meson LCDAs
    All λ_B dependence of LCSR form factors passes through this model from Ref. [28]; if the true LCDA lies outside it, the extraction is biased. The paper scans σ1, σ2 but cannot cover unmodeled shapes.
  • domain assumption LCSR form factors at q²=0 from Refs [53,54] are correct at NLL leading power with NLP leading-log corrections
    Central theory input; not rederived here, and code was privately provided (Acknowledgements). The 30% NLP effect changes λ_B by ~100 MeV, so this is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption Quark-hadron duality and Borel transform assumptions in LCSR (Eqs. 6–8) are valid
    Standard LCSR methodology; an unproved approximation that controls the relation between λ_B and f(0).
  • domain assumption λ_B>200 MeV lower bound from B→γℓν (Refs. [32,34]) is imposed as a prior
    The central value 217 MeV sits close to this boundary; without the constraint the fit would explore lower λ_B and the central uncertainty would change.
  • domain assumption BCL z-expansion truncated at N=3 adequately describes form factors over full q² range
    Stability checked against N=4, but extrapolation from large-q² lattice to q²=0 is a model assumption; paper flags it as a remaining uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Experimental and lattice covariance matrices are complete and correctly propagated
    The fit uses published experimental covariances and lattice points regenerated from collaboration BCL fits via Ref. [53]; full covariance data are not reproduced in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Determination of $B$-meson distribution amplitudes from $B\to \pi,K,D$ transition form factors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CFMQ7EB7

@misc{pith2026251211741,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Determination of $B$-meson distribution amplitudes from $B\to \pi,K,D$ transition form factors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CFMQ7EB7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.11741}
}
abstract

Recent work on $B \to \pi$, $K$ and $B\to D$ form factors from lattice QCD and light-cone sum rules has made it possible to constrain the inverse moment $\lambda_B$ of the $B$-meson light-cone distribution amplitudes by performing a global fit of $B\to \pi,K,D$ form factors. We have compiled the $B\to \pi,K,D$ form factors calculated by the HPQCD, MILC, and RBC/UKQCD collaborations in the large $q^2$ region. By employing an three-parameter ansatz of the $B$-meson light-cone distribution amplitudes, we express the $B\to \pi,K,D$ form factors at $q^2=0$ that are calculated from light-cone sum rules, in terms of the inverse moment $\lambda_B$ of the leading-twist $B$-meson light-cone distribution amplitude. In the $B \to \pi \ell \nu$ channel, we also include the available $q^2$-binned experimental data from the BaBar, Belle, and Belle~II collaborations. Using the Bourrely-Caprini-Lellouch parametrization, we perform a global fit and obtain $\lambda_B=217(19)_{-17}^{+82}$~MeV and $|V_{\text{ub}}|=3.68(13)_{-1}^{+0}\times10^{-3}$. The second uncertainty is obtained by constraining $\lambda_B>200$ MeV and varying the inverse logarithmic moments $\hat{\sigma}_1\in[-0.7,0.7]$ and $\hat{\sigma}_2\in[-6,6]$, which represents the model-dependent uncertainty from the $B$-meson light-cone distribution amplitudes. When taking into account $\lambda_B$ and $\hat{\sigma}_1$ as fitting parameters simultaneously, the intervals of our preditions are $\lambda_B=[208, 324]$~MeV and $\hat{\sigma}_1=[-0.7, 0.27]$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.11741 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The dependence of the B → P form factors on λB for three different sets of {σˆ1, σˆ2} . For the B → π, K cases, the Borel parameter is M2 = 1.25 GeV2 , and the effective threshold parameters are s π 0 = 0.7 GeV2 and s K 0 = 1.05 GeV2 . For the B → D case, the Borel parameter M2 = 4.5 GeV2 , and the effective threshold parameter is s D 0 = 6.0 GeV2 . as f 0 Bπ q 2  = N X−1 i=0 b 0 π,iz [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Specifically, f LCSR m (0; λB) is treated as a parameter to be fitted, rather than as the input data. The covariance matrix Cov for LCSR results in Eq. (19) is composed of two components: Cov = (0.1f LCSR m )(Covuncor)mn(0.1f LCSR n ) + (0.1f LCSR m )(Covcor)mn(0.1f LCSR n ), (20) where the first term, (0.1f LCSR m )(Covuncor)m,n(0.1f LCSR n ), represents uncorrelated systematic uncertainties originating from the ef… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Results of the global fit to the B → P form factors versus z (left pannel) and versus q 2 (right pannel) with the parameter set {σˆ1, σˆ2} = {0, π2/6}. The gray points correspond to the LCSR form factor at q 2 = 0 for λB = 350 MeV, with the upper and lower limits of the gray error bars representing for λB = 200 MeV and λB = 500 MeV, respectively. We also display the results by performing a BCL fit to input data only… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Theoretical predictions for the CKM-independent differential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dependence of the form factor f + BK(0) (left panel) and the best-fit value of λB (right panel) on the parameters ˆσ1 and ˆσ2. It can be seen that the determination of the inverse moment, λB = 217(19)+82 −17 MeV, is still subject to sizable uncertainties due to the mod…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The joint 68.3% confidence region (red contour) for the parameters {λB, σˆ1} (left panel) and {λB, σˆ2} (right panel). The projections of the blue region onto the λB, ˆσ1 and ˆσ2 axes yield the individual 68.3% confidence intervals for each parameter. studies extractin…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 61 linked inside Pith

  1. [31]

    Gelbet al.[Belle], Phys

    M. Gelbet al.[Belle], Phys. Rev. D98(2018) no.11, 112016 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.112016 [arXiv:1810.12976 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [32]

    Y. M. Wang, JHEP09(2016), 159 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2016)159 [arXiv:1606.03080 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [1]

    G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Lett. B87(1979), 359-365 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(79)90554-9

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(79)90554-9 1979

  4. [2]

    A. V. Efremov and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Lett. B94(1980), 245-250 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90869-2

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90869-2 1980

  5. [3]

    A. G. Grozin and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D55(1997), 272-290 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.272 [arXiv:hep- ph/9607366 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 1997

  6. [4]

    Beneke, G

    M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C. T. Sachrajda, Phys. Rev. Lett.83(1999), 1914-1917 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.1914 [arXiv:hep-ph/9905312 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 1999

  7. [5]

    Y. Y. Keum, T. Kurimoto, H. N. Li, C. D. Lu and A. I. Sanda, Phys. Rev. D69(2004), 094018 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.094018 [arXiv:hep-ph/0305335 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2004

  8. [6]

    Khodjamirian, T

    A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel and N. Offen, Phys. Lett. B620(2005), 52-60 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.06.021 [arXiv:hep-ph/0504091 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2005

Show all 72 references
  1. [7]

    V. M. Braun and A. Khodjamirian, Phys. Lett. B718(2013), 1014-1019 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.11.047 [arXiv:1210.4453 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Y. M. Wang and Y. L. Shen, Nucl. Phys. B898(2015), 563-604 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2015.07.016 [arXiv:1506.00667 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Beneke, C

    M. Beneke, C. Bobeth and Y. M. Wang, JHEP12(2020), 148 doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2020)148 [arXiv:2008.12494 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [10]

    B. Y. Cui, Y. K. Huang, Y. M. Wang and X. C. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) no.7, L071504 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.L071504 [arXiv:2301.12391 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Y. L. Shen, Y. M. Wang and Y. B. Wei, JHEP12(2020), 169 doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2020)169 [arXiv:2009.02723 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [12]

    J. Gao, U. G. Meißner, Y. L. Shen and D. H. Li, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.1, 1 doi:10.1103/yvjd-2ymn [arXiv:2412.13084 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Y. K. Huang, Y. L. Shen, C. Wang and Y. M. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) no.9, 091901 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.091901 [arXiv:2403.11258 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  8. [14]

    B. O. Lange and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. Lett.91(2003), 102001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.102001 [arXiv:hep-ph/0303082 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  9. [15]

    G. Bell, T. Feldmann, Y. M. Wang and M. W. Y. Yip, JHEP11(2013), 191 doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2013)191 [arXiv:1308.6114 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  10. [16]

    V. M. Braun and A. N. Manashov, Phys. Lett. B731(2014), 316-319 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.02.051 [arXiv:1402.5822 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  11. [17]

    A. M. Galda and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D102(2020), 071501 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.071501 [arXiv:2006.05428 [hep-ph]]. 12

    2020 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Y. K. Huang, Y. Ji, Y. L. Shen, C. Wang, Y. M. Wang and X. C. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024) no.17, 171901 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.171901 [arXiv:2312.15439 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Feldmann, P

    T. Feldmann, P. L¨ ughausen and D. van Dyk, JHEP10(2022), 162 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2022)162 [arXiv:2203.15679 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [20]

    S. J. Lee and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D72(2005), 094028 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.094028 [arXiv:hep- ph/0509350 [hep-ph]]

    2005

  15. [21]

    Feldmann, B

    T. Feldmann, B. O. Lange and Y. M. Wang, Phys. Rev. D89(2014) no.11, 114001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.114001 [arXiv:1404.1343 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Beneke, G

    M. Beneke, G. Finauri, K. K. Vos and Y. Wei, JHEP09(2023), 066 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2023)066 [arXiv:2305.06401 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [23]

    W. Wang, J. H. Zhang, S. Zhao and R. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D100(2019) no.7, 074509 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.074509 [arXiv:1904.00978 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [24]

    W. Wang, Y. M. Wang, J. Xu and S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) no.1, 011502 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.011502 [arXiv:1908.09933 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [25]

    W. Wang, J. Xu, Q. A. Zhang and S. Zhao, [arXiv:2411.07101 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  20. [26]

    X. Y. Hanet al.[Lattice Parton], Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no.3, 034503 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.034503 [arXiv:2410.18654 [hep-lat]]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [27]

    V. M. Braun, Y. Ji and A. N. Manashov, JHEP05(2017), 022 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2017)022 [arXiv:1703.02446 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Beneke, V

    M. Beneke, V. M. Braun, Y. Ji and Y. B. Wei, JHEP07(2018), 154 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2018)154 [arXiv:1804.04962 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [29]

    V. M. Braun, D. Y. Ivanov and G. P. Korchemsky, Phys. Rev. D69(2004), 034014 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.034014 [arXiv:hep-ph/0309330 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Khodjamirian, R

    A. Khodjamirian, R. Mandal and T. Mannel, JHEP10(2020), 043 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2020)043 [arXiv:2008.03935 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    X. Y. Han, J. Hua, X. Ji, C. D. L¨ u, W. Wang, J. Xu, Q. A. Zhang and S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no.11, L111503 doi:10.1103/2t8s-w8t6 [arXiv:2403.17492 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Janowski, B

    T. Janowski, B. Pullin and R. Zwicky, JHEP12(2021), 008 doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2021)008 [arXiv:2106.13616 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    J. Gao, C. D. L¨ u, Y. L. Shen, Y. M. Wang and Y. B. Wei, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.7, 074035 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.074035 [arXiv:1907.11092 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Mandal, S

    R. Mandal, S. Nandi and I. Ray, Phys. Lett. B848(2024), 138345 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138345 [arXiv:2308.07033 [hep-ph]]

    2024

  29. [37]

    Bourrely, I

    C. Bourrely, I. Caprini and L. Lellouch, Phys. Rev. D79(2009), 013008 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D82 (2010), 099902] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.099902 [arXiv:0807.2722 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  30. [38]

    J. Chai, S. Cheng and J. Hua, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) no.7, 556 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11725-2 [arXiv:2209.13312 [hep-ph]]. 13

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    J. Hua, H. n. Li, C. D. Lu, W. Wang and Z. P. Xing, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) no.1, 016025 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.016025 [arXiv:2012.15074 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Cheng, A

    S. Cheng, A. Khodjamirian and A. V. Rusov, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) no.7, 074022 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.074022 [arXiv:2007.05550 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Gonz` alez-Sol ´ ıs, P

    S. Gonz` alez-Sol ´ ıs, P. Masjuan and C. Rojas, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) no.11, 114041 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.114041 [arXiv:2110.06153 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    J. M. Flynn, T. Izubuchi, T. Kawanai, C. Lehner, A. Soni, R. S. Van de Water and O. Witzel, Phys. Rev. D91(2015) no.7, 074510 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.074510 [arXiv:1501.05373 [hep-lat]]

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    J. A. Baileyet al.[Fermilab Lattice and MILC], Phys. Rev. D92(2015) no.1, 014024 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.014024 [arXiv:1503.07839 [hep-lat]]

    2015 arXiv

  36. [44]

    J. A. Bailey, A. Bazavov, C. Bernard, C. M. Bouchard, C. DeTar, D. Du, A. X. El-Khadra, J. Foley, E. D. Freeland and E. G´ amiz,et al.Phys. Rev. D93(2016) no.2, 025026 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.025026 [arXiv:1509.06235 [hep-lat]]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [45]

    J. A. Baileyet al.[Fermilab Lattice and MILC], Phys. Rev. D92(2015) no.3, 034506 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.034506 [arXiv:1503.07237 [hep-lat]]

    2015 arXiv

  38. [46]

    W. G. Parrottet al.[(HPQCD collaboration)§and HPQCD], Phys. Rev. D107(2023) no.1, 014510 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.014510 [arXiv:2207.12468 [hep-lat]]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Naet al.[HPQCD], Phys

    H. Naet al.[HPQCD], Phys. Rev. D92(2015) no.5, 054510 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D93(2016) no.11, 119906] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.119906 [arXiv:1505.03925 [hep-lat]]

    2015 arXiv

  40. [48]

    del Amo Sanchezet al.[BaBar], Phys

    P. del Amo Sanchezet al.[BaBar], Phys. Rev. D83(2011), 032007 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.032007 [arXiv:1005.3288 [hep-ex]]

    2011 arXiv

  41. [49]

    J. P. Leeset al.[BaBar], Phys. Rev. D86(2012), 092004 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.092004 [arXiv:1208.1253 [hep-ex]]

    2012 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Haet al.[Belle], Phys

    H. Haet al.[Belle], Phys. Rev. D83(2011), 071101 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.071101 [arXiv:1012.0090 [hep-ex]]

    2011 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Sibidanovet al.[Belle], Phys

    A. Sibidanovet al.[Belle], Phys. Rev. D88(2013) no.3, 032005 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.032005 [arXiv:1306.2781 [hep-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Adamczyket al.[Belle-II], [arXiv:2210.04224 [hep-ex]]

    K. Adamczyket al.[Belle-II], [arXiv:2210.04224 [hep-ex]]

  45. [53]

    B. Y. Cui, Y. K. Huang, Y. L. Shen, C. Wang and Y. M. Wang, JHEP03(2023), 140 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2023)140 [arXiv:2212.11624 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    J. Gao, T. Huber, Y. Ji, C. Wang, Y. M. Wang and Y. B. Wei, JHEP05(2022), 024 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2022)024 [arXiv:2112.12674 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    I. I. Balitsky, V. M. Braun and A. V. Kolesnichenko, Nucl. Phys. B312(1989), 509-550 doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(89)90570-1

    1989 doi

  48. [56]

    I. I. Balitsky, V. M. Braun and A. V. Kolesnichenko, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.44(1986), 1028

    1986

  49. [57]

    V. L. Chernyak and I. R. Zhitnitsky, Nucl. Phys. B345(1990), 137-172 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90)90612-H

    1990 doi

  50. [58]

    V. M. Belyaev, A. Khodjamirian and R. Ruckl, Z. Phys. C60(1993), 349-356 doi:10.1007/BF01474633 [arXiv:hep-ph/9305348 [hep-ph]]

    1993 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Ball and V

    P. Ball and V. M. Braun, Phys. Rev. D55(1997), 5561-5576 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.5561 [arXiv:hep- ph/9701238 [hep-ph]]. 14

    1997

  52. [60]

    Khodjamirian, T

    A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel and N. Offen, Phys. Rev. D75(2007), 054013 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.054013 [arXiv:hep-ph/0611193 [hep-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Khodjamirian, B

    A. Khodjamirian, B. Meli´ c and Y. M. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. ST233(2024) no.2, 271-298 doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-023-01046-6 [arXiv:2311.08700 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Y. M. Wang, Y. B. Wei, Y. L. Shen and C. D. L¨ u, JHEP06(2017), 062 doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2017)062 [arXiv:1701.06810 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Gubernari, A

    N. Gubernari, A. Kokulu and D. van Dyk, JHEP01(2019), 150 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2019)150 [arXiv:1811.00983 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Y. M. Wang and Y. L. Shen, JHEP05(2018), 184 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2018)184 [arXiv:1803.06667 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Aokiet al.[Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)], [arXiv:2411.04268 [hep-lat]]

    Y. Aokiet al.[Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)], [arXiv:2411.04268 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

    S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.3, 030001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    R. J. Dowdall, C. T. H. Davies, T. C. Hammant and R. R. Horgan, Phys. Rev. D86(2012), 094510 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.094510 [arXiv:1207.5149 [hep-lat]]

    2012 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Mathur, M

    N. Mathur, M. Padmanath and S. Mondal, Phys. Rev. Lett.121(2018) no.20, 202002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.202002 [arXiv:1806.04151 [hep-lat]]

    2018 arXiv

  61. [69]

    W. A. Bardeen, E. J. Eichten and C. T. Hill, Phys. Rev. D68(2003), 054024 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.054024 [arXiv:hep-ph/0305049 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  62. [70]

    C. G. Boyd, B. Grinstein and R. F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. Lett.74(1995), 4603-4606 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.4603 [arXiv:hep-ph/9412324 [hep-ph]]

    1995 arXiv

  63. [71]

    C. G. Boyd, B. Grinstein and R. F. Lebed, Nucl. Phys. B461(1996), 493-511 doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(95)00653-2 [arXiv:hep-ph/9508211 [hep-ph]]

    1996 arXiv

  64. [72]

    C. G. Boyd, B. Grinstein and R. F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. D56(1997), 6895-6911 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.6895 [arXiv:hep-ph/9705252 [hep-ph]]. 15

    1997 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.