Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 25 references

This paper establishes a factorization theorem for the B^- → τ^- ν̄_τ(γ) decay rate that includes QED corrections at O(α) with resummed leading logarithms, and shows the QED correction is a few percent with a structure-dependent uncertainty

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

2026-08-02 06:08 UTC pith:KLDKCHHG

load-bearing objection Genuine EFT result with a solid factorization theorem, but the headline uncertainty is an assumed range for unknown form factors, not a derived error. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13144 v2 pith:KLDKCHHG submitted 2026-07-14 hep-ph

QED Corrections to B^-toτ^-bar{ν}_τ

Claudia Cornella , Max Ferr\'e , Matthias K\"onig , Matthias Neubert This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords QED correctionsleptonic B decayB → τνheavy-fermion effective theoryfactorizationsoft photonsform factorslepton flavor universality
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 computes electromagnetic corrections to the leptonic decay B^- → τ^- ν̄_τ, with a veto on real radiation below the QCD scale, and arrives at a factorization formula for the rate at first order in α with leading logarithms resummed. The key choice is to treat the tau lepton as a heavy fermion, not a fast particle like the muon, which keeps the effective theory local and simple: the only unknown hadronic input is a small set of QED-induced B→τ form factors. A correction term that would naively be of order Λ_QCD m_B/m_τ^2 cancels exactly, and the radiation veto dependence is mild. If the paper is right, the decay remains a clean probe of |V_ub| and lepton-flavour universality, with a hadronic-uncertainty budget of about half a percent.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper shows that the QED-corrected width of B^-→τ^-ν̄_τ(γ) obeys the factorization formula (3.12), separating hard logarithms, hadronic matrix elements at μ0=1.5 GeV, and ultrasoft radiation below E_cut. Virtual QED generates only local hadronic currents, parameterized by form factors f_i(w, μ0) built from time-like Wilson lines, making them lattice-calculable — unlike the muon channel with its light-cone distribution amplitudes. The leading 1/m_τ corrections cancel via the identity O_8 = -O_3, so the naively large Λ_QCD m_B/m_τ^2 terms vanish, and B→B*γ contributions are numerically negligible. For E_cut in [20,150] MeV the paper finds Γ_dir/Γ_tree = 1 + 10^-2 (0.77–1.

What carries the argument

Heavy-Fermion Effective Theory (HFET): an HQET-like framework in which both the b quark and the τ lepton are heavy particles below the hard scale, matched onto a Heavy-Meson Effective Theory (HMET) at μ0=1.5 GeV. The load-bearing object is the factorization formula (3.12), whose individual ingredients are the soft anomalous dimension γ_soft(v·v_τ), the time-like soft Wilson lines entering the definition of the QED-induced form factors f_i, and the tree-level identity O_8 = -O_3 that cancels the leading 1/m_τ contamination. The time-like (rather than light-like) Wilson lines are what keeps the hadronic matrix elements local and accessible to lattice QCD.

Load-bearing premise

The whole numerical picture rests on the assumption that the QED×QCD corrections are saturated by local form factors f_i of order one — the paper sets them to zero with a ±1 variation, so the quoted 0.5% uncertainty is the definition of that assumption, not a derived error — and that experiments can enforce E_cut ≪ Λ_QCD.

What would settle it

A lattice QCD calculation at μ0 = 1.5 GeV of the matrix elements in (2.41) and (2.47), involving time-like Wilson lines, would settle the central claim: if any f_i comes out larger than O(1), the predicted rate (4.6) shifts by more than the quoted ±0.5% and the local-form-factor picture would be falsified.

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

If this is right

  • A measurement of B→τν with percent-level precision can extract |V_ub| with QED theory uncertainty below 1%, provided E_cut can be kept well below Λ_QCD.
  • The lepton-flavour-universality ratio R_{τμ}, defined with phase-space factors removed, is predicted to deviate from unity by at most a few percent for common veto energies, with a specific veto dependence shown in Figure 4.
  • The indirect contributions through B*γ and B*π are negligible up to E_cut ≈ 150 MeV, so the veto-energy dependence of the tau rate is mild and the dominant uncertainty is the unknown f_i.
  • A lattice computation of the time-like Wilson-line matrix elements (2.41) and (2.47) would replace the ±0.5% estimate with a derived number, making the prediction fully first-principles.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the cancellation O_8 = -O_3 is a structural prediction of the heavy-tau treatment; computing the two matrix elements separately on the lattice would test the EFT power counting independently of the numerical f_i.
  • Beyond the paper: if the f_i are genuinely O(1), the remaining theory uncertainty is comparable to projected experimental precision, so the main obstacle to a precise |V_ub| extraction shifts from theory to experiment.
  • Beyond the paper: the same two-heavy-fermion EFT could be carried over to decays with a similar mass hierarchy (e.g., B_c→τν or B_s→ττ), where the same cancellation may operate.
  • Beyond the paper: since f_2 only enters at O(α^2), the result is insensitive to it; a dedicated check of the renormalization-scheme dependence (the parameter κ) would sharpen the 0.5% claim, as that scheme dependence is not part of the f_i variation.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a sequence of effective field theories (LEFT → HFET → HMET) to compute the B^- → τ^- anti-ν_τ(γ) decay rate at O(α) with resummed leading logarithms, under a photon-veto condition E_cut ≪ Λ_QCD. The central result is the factorization formula (3.12), which separates hard, hadronic, and ultrasoft scales and includes the leading 1/m_τ and E_cut/Λ_QCD corrections. The authors prove an analytic cancellation (O8 = −O3) of the naively dominant Λ_QCD m_B/m_τ^2 terms, show that BB*γ- and BB*π-mediated contributions are negligible for the tau channel, and give numerical predictions (4.6)–(4.9) with an estimated structure-dependent uncertainty of about 0.5%, as well as a lepton-flavor-universality ratio R_τμ. The nonperturbative inputs are QED-induced B^-→τ^- form factors f_i(w, μ0), which are presently unknown and varied in [−1, 1].

Significance. If correct, the paper provides the first complete EFT treatment of QED corrections for the tau channel, with a soft-collinear structure that is simpler than in the muon case. The factorization theorem is explicit and internally consistent, and the cancellation of the would-be leading power correction is a valuable structural result. The f_i form-factor parameterization gives a concrete target for lattice QCD, and R_τμ is a clear observable. The main limitation is that the numerical uncertainty is conditional on the assumed f_i range; without an independent computation or a model estimate of f_i, the quoted 0.5% is not a fully derived error. The paper is transparent about this, and the central EFT derivation is not forced by construction.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.4 / §4 (Eqs. 2.45, 4.5, 4.6, 4.9)] The 0.5% structure-dependent uncertainty quoted in the abstract and in (4.6) is not a derived error, but an assumption. Section 2.4 states that the QED-induced form factors f_i are 'expected to be of order unity', and Section 4 states they are 'currently unknown'; no lattice, sum-rule, or model estimate is provided. Since f1 enters the rate linearly with coefficient 2α/π ≃ 4.8×10^-3, a value f1(μ0)=5 — which is not excluded by any argument in the paper — would shift Γ_dir/Γ_tree by about 2.4%, comparable to the entire QED correction and five times the quoted ±0.49%. The central predictions and the abstract should be explicitly labeled as conditional on the assumed range |f_i| ≤ 1, or the authors should supply an independent estimate of these form factors.
  2. [§4, Eq. (4.5)] The prescription to 'vary their values independently in the range [−1,+1]' does not yield the quoted ±4.87×10^-3. The maximum of 4.82 f1 + 0.68 f3 on the cube is ±5.50×10^-3, while 4.87 is the root-sum-square of the two ranges. If quadrature is intended, the statistical meaning of the variation should be stated explicitly; otherwise the extremal range should be used. This affects the uncertainty on all subsequent numbers, including (4.6), (4.9), and the LFU ratio.
  3. [§2.4, Eq. (2.47)] The subleading form factor f3 is normalized by an ad hoc scale Λ_c = 500 MeV and then assumed to be of order unity. This normalization is not innocent: the term (Λ_c/m_τ)(α/π) f3 contributes at the 0.07% level in (4.5), and the assumed range of f3 is part of the ±0.49% uncertainty budget. Please justify the choice of Λ_c, or treat it as a free scale and show the sensitivity of the final result to it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2 (Eqs. 3.14–3.16)] The phase-space functions I(0,z) and I(z,y) are taken from the companion paper [1], but the general function I(z,y) is not quoted here. To make the paper more self-contained, please give the explicit expression or state clearly where it can be found.
  2. [§2.2, Eq. (2.22)] The exponent on μ_h/μ_0 in (2.22) is typeset in a way that is easy to misread (α/π versus α/π(1−α/π)). Please clarify the notation.
  3. [§3.1, Eq. (3.12)] The μ0-cancellation in (3.12) relies on the running of f1 in (2.49). It would help the reader if the text explicitly noted that f_i must be RG-evolved when μ0 is varied, rather than kept fixed.
  4. [§4, Figures 3 and 4] The captions state that the band width indicates theoretical uncertainties in the structure-dependent QED corrections. Please specify that these bands reflect only the f_i variation, not the g_BB*γ or g_BB*π uncertainties.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the tau-channel factorization is derived from stated matching conditions and RG equations; the form factors f_i are transparently unknown inputs, not fitted parameters, and the O8=−O3 cancellation is a derived operator identity.

full rationale

The central factorization formula (3.12) is obtained by explicit matching from LEFT to HFET and HFET to HMET, with hard functions computed at one loop (2.14)–(2.15), RG evolution (2.17)–(2.22), and a separately derived radiation function (3.7)–(3.9). The cancellation of the naively sizable Lambda_QCD m_B/m_tau^2 terms follows from the operator identity O8 = −O3 (2.38), which is derived from the definitions (2.31) and (2.36), not imposed by construction. The numerical prediction depends on the QED-induced B−→tau− form factors f1 and f3, which the paper explicitly labels as unknown (Section 4, Eq. (4.5)) and varies in an assumed range; this is an honest input assumption, not a fitted parameter called a prediction, and the quoted ±0.5% is an estimate of the resulting parametric sensitivity, not a derived error. Self-citations to [1] provide low-energy HMET ingredients and the muon-channel input for R_tau_mu; these are independent prior calculations whose assumptions do not include the tau-channel result, so they are not load-bearing circularity. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper computes everything above the hadronic scale and honestly declares what lies below it: two unknown form-factor combinations f_1, f_3, a hand-chosen hadronic scale Λ_c = 500 MeV, and standard external lattice/sum-rule inputs. The central value f_i = 0 means the quoted rate is the simplest-assumption rate; the 0.5% uncertainty is the assumed range, not an error from an actual determination. These are the price of the claim that only local form factors are needed. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • f_1(w, μ0), f_3(w, μ0) — QED-induced B→τ form-factor combinations = 0 central; varied ±1 independently
    Eqs. (2.45), (2.47), (4.5). Unknown hadronic matrix elements carrying the structure-dependent QED corrections; the central predictions (4.6), (4.9), (4.11) set them to zero and the ±4.87×10⁻³ uncertainty is the assumed range of variation.
  • Λ_c (hadronic scale normalizing f_3) = 500 MeV
    Eq. (2.47): 'a typical hadronic scale', chosen by hand; controls the size of the f_3 term (Λ_c/(2m_τ) ≈ 0.14) in (2.52) and (4.5).
  • μ0 (factorization/hadronic-matching scale) = 1.5 GeV
    Section 2.5. Assumed high enough for perturbation theory, low enough to suppress large logs; residual μ0-dependence of the leading rate is shown to cancel at one loop ((2.49) vs (3.12)), but the f_i = ±1 range and the Λ_c definition are tied to it.
  • y_B*⊥, y_B*∥ (B* leptonic couplings) = 1 (tree level)
    Eq. (3.3): tree-level matching relations are used; O(α) corrections uncomputed. Harmless here because the B* contribution is O(10⁻⁷–10⁻⁵) of the rate (4.7).
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption The radiation veto satisfies E_cut ≪ Λ_QCD, so real photons only see a point-like B meson; the HMET expansion parameter ζ = E_cut/Λ_QCD is small (Sections 1, 3, Eq. 3.1).
    The entire real-emission treatment (radiation function R(E_cut, μ0), Eq. 3.6–3.9) presupposes this hierarchy; the authors state the prediction is usable only with such a veto and that at E_cut ≳ 250 MeV the EFT is no longer reliable.
  • domain assumption The tau can be treated as a second heavy fermion: the expansion in λ ~ Λ_QCD/m_τ with tree-level 1/m_τ corrections suffices, and the unresummed series (Λ_QCD m_B/m_τ²)^n, n ≥ 2, is numerically small (Section 2, 'choice of treatment').
    m_τ/m_B ≈ 0.337 is not a small number; the neglect of higher-order terms rests on an analogy with charm-quark-loop studies [16–20], and the vanishing of the n=1 term is shown at O(α) tree level. If the expansion fails, the percent-level correction shifts.
  • domain assumption Virtual QED corrections above the hadronic scale generate only local hadronic currents for the tau channel — no light-cone distribution amplitudes — so the QED-induced B→τ form factors F_1, F_2 (f_1, f_2, f_3) completely capture the hadronic content (Section 1; Eqs. 2.41–2.47).
    This structural difference from the muon case (which involves light-like Wilson lines and light-cone quantities) is the key simplification; it is argued from kinematics (no boosted tau) but not proven beyond EFT power counting.
  • domain assumption Light-meson dynamics below μ0 are absorbed into the renormalization of heavy-meson couplings (g_BB*γ etc.), so HMET without explicit pion fields suffices, except for the soft-π background in footnote 1 (Section 1, footnote 1; Eq. 3.13).
    Pion-mediated effects enter only through the B→B*π term (Eq. 3.16), treated as reducible background when E_cut > m_π0.
  • ad hoc to paper The QED-induced form factors f_i(w, μ0) are of order unity and are varied independently in [−1, 1] (Eqs. 2.47, 4.5).
    No estimate from theory or lattice is provided for the size of these matrix elements; the ±0.5% uncertainty is defined by this assumed range, and the central values are f_i = 0.
  • ad hoc to paper Λ_c = 500 MeV is a typical hadronic scale for the f_3 matrix element (Eq. 2.47).
    Hand-chosen normalization; sets the size of the subleading form-factor contribution at Λ_c/(2m_τ) ≈ 0.14 in (2.52) and (4.5).
  • domain assumption External inputs — f_B, f_B*/f_B, g_BB*γ, g_BB*π, α(m_Z), G_F — are taken from lattice QCD, sum rules, and quark models (Table 1) and are not re-derived here.
    The absolute rate is proportional to f_B²|V_ub|²; the quoted correction factors inherit uncertainties from these inputs, mostly canceling in the ratios but not in the branching ratio (4.9).
  • standard math Standard QCD/QED loop integrals, the soft anomalous dimension γ_soft(w) from [22,23], the two-loop heavy-light anomalous dimension [24], and the HQET trace formalism [29] are used without reproof (Sections 2.2, 2.4).
    Background machinery of the field; the paper adds the τ-specific matching coefficients, the O_3–O_12 basis, and the f_i parameterization.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20750 in / 40614 out tokens · 352444 ms · 2026-08-02T06:08:19.417235+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Using a sequence of effective field theories (EFTs), we calculate the rate for the leptonic decay $B^-\to\tau^-\bar{\nu}_\tau(\gamma)$ including real and virtual QED corrections, with a cut $E_{\rm cut}\ll\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ imposed on electromagnetic radiation in the $B$-meson rest frame. We establish a factorization theorem for the rate and evaluate it at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha)$, resumming the leading logarithmic corrections to all orders in perturbation theory. The large mass $m_\tau$ allows us to treat the tau lepton as a heavy fermion below $\mu\sim m_B\sim m_\tau$, leading to an EFT construction that is structurally different and noticeably simpler than that for the muon case. In particular, hadron-structure dependent QED corrections can be described in terms of QED-induced $B^-\to\tau^-$ form factors, which should be calculable on the lattice. Our analysis includes the leading $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_\tau$ corrections as well as the leading corrections in $E_{\rm cut}/\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. We show that contributions of the form $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}m_B/m_\tau^2$, which are naively sizable, cancel among each other. Contrary to the muon channel, structure-dependent corrections involving $BB^\ast\gamma$ transitions are numerically negligible for the tau case. The remaining logarithmic dependence on $E_\mathrm{cut}$ is mild. We estimate that the present uncertainty in the calculation of the structure-dependent QED corrections is about 0.5\% of the rate. As a byproduct, we present a state-of-the-art prediction for the lepton flavor universality ratio of the tau and muon channels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13144 by Claudia Cornella, Matthias K\"onig, Matthias Neubert, Max Ferr\'e.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: One-loop diagrams contributing to the matching of the LEFT to HFET. Wave-function corrections are not shown. The factorization of the operators into quark and lepton currents is broken when electromag￾netic emissions (virtual or real) are taken into account. In this case, the two currents separately are not even gauge invariant. Operators analogous to O0, O1 and O2 also appear in the muon channel, but here… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Feynman diagrams for the decay B− → τ −ν¯τ (γ) in the effective theory below the hadronic scale. The second graph includes contributions from both the leading-power operators O1,2 and the 1/mτ -suppressed operator O6 (see text for explanation). The last two graphs describe the B–B∗ transitions through a photon or a pion, followed by a leptonic decay of the virtual B∗ meson. The black square indicates that … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: B− → τ − ν¯τ (γ) branching ratio obtained with the central values for |Vub|, τ (B−) and fB, both including (red band) and not including the pion contribution (blue band). The vertical dotted line shows the value of the pion mass, above which the latter contribution becomes relevant. The width of the bands indicates the theoretical uncertainties in the calculation of the structure￾dependent QED corrections.… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Veto dependence of the LFU ratio Rτµ under the assumption that Ecut is chosen to be the same in the tau and muon channels. The red band shows the complete result, while the blue band assumes that the pion contribution has been removed. Finally, we compare the muon and tau channels directly by means of a lepton-flavor uni￾versality ratio, which we construct by dividing out the phase-space and chirality fact… 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

25 extracted references · 19 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Cornella, M

    C. Cornella, M. Ferr´ e, M. K¨ onig and M. Neubert,The simplest B decay, precisely, JHEP06(2026) 027, [2601.14361]. [2]Flavour Lattice A veraging Group (FLAG)collaboration, Y. Aoki et al.,FLAG Review 2024,2411.04268. [3]BaBarcollaboration, B. Aubert et al.,A search forB + →ℓ +νℓ Recoiling Against B− →D 0ℓ−¯νX,Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 051101, [0912.2453]. [4]B...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [10]

    X. Zuo, M. Fedele, C. Helsens, D. Hill, S. Iguro and M. Klute,Prospects forB + c and B+ →τ +ντ at FCC-ee,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 87, [2305.02998]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [11]

    Cornella, M

    C. Cornella, M. K¨ onig and M. Neubert,Structure-dependent QED effects in exclusive B decays at subleading power,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) L031502, [2212.14430]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [12]

    K¨ urten, M

    S. K¨ urten, M. Zanke, B. Kubis and D. van Dyk,Dispersion relations forB→ℓ −¯νℓ ℓ′−ℓ′+ form factors,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 053006, [2210.09832]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [13]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar and P. Stoffer,Low-Energy Effective Field Theory below the Electroweak Scale: Operators and Matching,JHEP03(2018) 016, [1709.04486]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  6. [14]

    W. J. Marciano and A. Sirlin,Radiative corrections toπ ℓ2 decays,Phys. Rev. Lett.71 (1993) 3629–3632

    1993

  7. [15]

    D. Bigi, M. Bordone, P. Gambino, U. Haisch and A. Piccione,QED effects in inclusive semi-leptonic B decays,JHEP11(2023) 163, [2309.02849]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [16]

    M. B. Voloshin,LargeO(m −2 c )nonperturbative correction to the inclusive rate of the decayB→X sγ,Phys. Lett. B397(1997) 275–278, [hep-ph/9612483]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  9. [17]

    Ligeti, L

    Z. Ligeti, L. Randall and M. B. Wise,Comment on nonperturbative effects in ¯B→X sγ, Phys. Lett. B402(1997) 178–182, [hep-ph/9702322]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  10. [18]

    A. K. Grant, A. G. Morgan, S. Nussinov and R. D. Peccei,Comment on nonperturbative O(1/m2 c)corrections toΓ( ¯B→X sγ),Phys. Rev. D56(1997) 3151–3154, [hep-ph/9702380]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  11. [19]

    Buchalla, G

    G. Buchalla, G. Isidori and S. J. Rey,Corrections of orderΛ 2 QCD /m2 c to inclusive rare B decays,Nucl. Phys. B511(1998) 594–610, [hep-ph/9705253]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  12. [20]

    Benzke, S

    M. Benzke, S. J. Lee, M. Neubert and G. Paz,Factorization at Subleading Power and Irreducible Uncertainties in ¯B→X sγDecay,JHEP08(2010) 099, [1003.5012]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  13. [21]

    Neubert,Heavy quark symmetry,Phys

    M. Neubert,Heavy quark symmetry,Phys. Rept.245(1994) 259–396, [hep-ph/9306320]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  14. [22]

    G. P. Korchemsky and A. V. Radyushkin,Renormalization of the Wilson Loops Beyond the Leading Order,Nucl. Phys. B283(1987) 342–364

    1987

  15. [23]

    A. F. Falk, H. Georgi, B. Grinstein and M. B. Wise,Heavy Meson Form-factors From QCD,Nucl. Phys. B343(1990) 1–13. 24

    1990

  16. [24]

    Ji and M

    X.-D. Ji and M. J. Musolf,Subleading logarithmic mass dependence in heavy meson form-factors,Phys. Lett. B257(1991) 409–413

    1991

  17. [25]

    B. O. Lange and M. Neubert,Factorization and the soft overlap contribution to heavy to light form-factors,Nucl. Phys. B690(2004) 249–278, [hep-ph/0311345]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  18. [26]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  19. [27]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, I. Z. Rothstein and I. W. Stewart,Hard scattering factorization from effective field theory,Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 014017, [hep-ph/0202088]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  20. [28]

    R. J. Hill and M. Neubert,Spectator interactions in soft collinear effective theory,Nucl. Phys. B657(2003) 229–256, [hep-ph/0211018]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  21. [29]

    Neubert,Symmetry breaking corrections to meson decay constants in the heavy quark effective theory,Phys

    M. Neubert,Symmetry breaking corrections to meson decay constants in the heavy quark effective theory,Phys. Rev. D46(1992) 1076–1087

    1992

  22. [30]

    Beneke, C

    M. Beneke, C. Bobeth and R. Szafron,Power-enhanced leading-logarithmic QED corrections toB q →µ +µ−,JHEP10(2019) 232, [1908.07011]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [31]

    Beneke, P

    M. Beneke, P. B¨ oer, J.-N. Toelstede and K. K. Vos,QED factorization of non-leptonic Bdecays,JHEP11(2020) 081, [2008.10615]. [32]Particle Data Groupcollaboration, S. Navas et al.,Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 030001. [33]HPQCDcollaboration, B. Colquhoun, C. T. H. Davies, R. J. Dowdall, J. Kettle, J. Koponen, G. P. Lepage et al.,B-meson...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [35]

    Pullin and R

    B. Pullin and R. Zwicky,Radiative decays of heavy-light mesons and thef (T) H,H ∗,H1 decay constants,JHEP09(2021) 023, [2106.13617]. [36]RBC, UKQCDcollaboration, J. M. Flynn, P. Fritzsch, T. Kawanai, C. Lehner, B. Samways, C. T. Sachrajda et al.,TheB ∗BπCoupling Using Relativistic Heavy Quarks,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 014510, [1506.06413]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [37]

    L. Dai, C. Kim and A. K. Leibovich,Universal lepton universality violation in exclusive processes,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) L031301, [2103.03963]. 25

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022