Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

The paper derives an exact mass-evolution relation for the Lambda_Q light-cone distribution amplitude and solves it analytically, with renormalon corrections for power-suppressed effects.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 17:52 UTC pith:MRWZMFIU

load-bearing objection Solid formal derivation of the baryon mass-evolution tool, with an honest but unquantified domain gap that needs attention before it can serve the lattice program. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17471 v1 pith:MRWZMFIU submitted 2026-07-20 hep-ph hep-lat

Heavy quark mass dependence of the Λ_Q light-cone distribution amplitude in QCD

Yu-Ji Shi , Ji Xu , Shuai Zhao This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-lat
keywords Lambda_b baryonlight-cone distribution amplitudeheavy quark mass dependenceboosted heavy-quark effective theorymass evolution equationrenormalonlattice QCD extrapolationpeak region
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.

This paper establishes that the leading-twist light-cone distribution amplitude of the Lambda_Q baryon depends on the heavy-quark mass in a simple, analytically controlled way. Starting from the factorization of the QCD LCDA into a perturbative jet function times the boosted-HQET LCDA, the authors derive a first-order partial differential equation for the mass dependence at fixed renormalization scale and solve it exactly. The solution says that changing the heavy-quark mass rescales the light-quark momentum fractions linearly and multiplies the whole distribution by the square of the mass ratio times an exponential factor built from an anomalous dimension. Including Borel-resummed renormalon corrections adds a mass-dependent term to the anomalous dimension, giving a numerical handle on missing power corrections. If correct, the relation turns a lattice calculation performed at one accessible heavy-quark mass into a prediction at any other mass, in particular the physical bottom-quark mass.

Core claim

The central claim is that the mass dependence of the Lambda_Q QCD LCDA is governed by the exact relation Phi_QCD(x_i, m_Q; mu) = (m_Q/m_Q0)^2 Phi_QCD((m_Q/m_Q0) x_i, m_Q0; mu) times an exponential factor exp[integral gamma dm'/m'], where gamma is the logarithmic derivative of the one-loop matching kernel. This structure follows because the boosted-HQET distribution depends on m_Q only through the products x_i m_Q, so the characteristics of the mass-evolution equation impose a pure rescaling of the momentum fractions, while the jet function contributes a multiplicative evolution factor. The power-correction extension replaces the jet function by a renormalon-corrected version whose additional

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the factorization Phi_QCD(x_1,x_2) = m_Q^2 J(m_Q, mu) Phi_bHQET(x_1 m_Q, x_2 m_Q), where Phi_bHQET is the LCDA in boosted heavy-quark effective theory and J is the one-loop matching kernel. Differentiating this identity with respect to ln m_Q at fixed mu turns it into a first-order linear partial differential equation; the method of characteristics then yields the exact solution, with the invariant m_Q x_i along the characteristics. The anomalous dimension gamma = d ln J / d ln m_Q, computed from the resummed kernel, collects all logarithmic mass dependence. A renormalon model for the jet function contributes a correction delta-gamma suppressed by Lambda_QCD/m_Q, p

Load-bearing premise

The simple multiplicative factorization of the QCD LCDA into m_Q^2 times a jet function times the boosted-HQET LCDA must remain accurate at the momentum fractions where the mass evolution reads its initial condition, including moderate x values where x is not much smaller than 1.

What would settle it

Take two lattice extractions of the Lambda_Q LCDA at heavy-quark masses m1 and m2 at the same scale mu. If (m1/m2)^2 Phi_QCD(x, m2; mu) times exp(- integral_{m2}^{m1} gamma dm'/m') does not equal Phi_QCD((m1/m2) x, m1; mu) within errors in the region below the peak, the mass-evolution relation is ruled out.

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

If this is right

  • Lattice QCD results for Lambda_Q LCDAs obtained at a lighter simulated heavy-quark mass can be extrapolated analytically to the physical bottom-quark mass.
  • The peak of the LCDA moves toward smaller x and its height grows roughly like (m_Q/m_Q0)^2 as the heavy-quark mass increases.
  • The renormalon-corrected evolution provides a numerical estimate of the size of missing power corrections across the charm-to-bottom window.
  • The baryon mass-evolution law mirrors the heavy-meson one but differs by a squared prefactor and a different logarithmic coefficient, making the meson/baryon distinction explicit.
  • The derived relation is strictly valid in the peak region x_i much smaller than 1, so only the small-x portion of the numerical distributions should be used physically.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A direct lattice test of the relation is possible: extract the LCDA at two different heavy-quark masses and check whether the rescaled distributions agree as a function of x*m_Q; if they do not, the factorization premise fails.
  • The same characteristic-rescaling method could be applied to other heavy-baryon observables that factorize through boosted HQET, yielding mass-evolution equations for higher-twist or spin-dependent amplitudes once their matching kernels are known.
  • The renormalon model predicts a specific asymptotic behavior for the perturbation series of the matching kernel; computing higher-order bubble-chain corrections could confirm or refute the assumed ambiguity.
  • Because the charm-to-bottom mass ratio is about 3.3, extrapolating the small-x region requires the initial LCDA at momentum fractions around 0.3 to 1.0, so lattice data in that moderate-x region, not just the asymptotically small-x tail, will decide the practical usefulness of the formula.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the heavy-quark mass dependence of the leading-twist light-cone distribution amplitude (LCDA) of the Λ_Q baryon in QCD, using the leading-power factorization, Eq. (6), that relates the QCD LCDA to the boosted-HQET LCDA in the peak region x_i << 1. Differentiating this relation with respect to m_Q at fixed renormalization scale μ yields a first-order partial differential equation, Eq. (10), which the authors solve by characteristics, obtaining the explicit rescaling relation Eq. (14), with the exponential factor written in resummed form in Eq. (20). They then incorporate a renormalon-model correction to the jet function, Eq. (21)-(24), leading to a modified anomalous dimension δγ and a corrected mass-evolution formula, Eq. (30). A numerical illustration using an exponential model for the HQET LCDA shows that, as m_Q increases from m_c to m_b, the LCDA becomes narrower and its peak shifts to smaller x. The paper claims that these results provide a tool for extrapolating lattice QCD results for heavy-baryon LCDAs from simulated masses to the physical b-quark mass.

Significance. If correct, this would be a useful analytic result: it reduces the mass dependence of the Λ_Q LCDA to a simple rescaling plus a calculable exponential factor, with the same structure as the known heavy-meson case but with different powers and coefficients. The central algebra is transparent and appears correct: the characteristic solution, Eq. (14), follows from Eq. (6), and the resummed exponent, Eq. (20), is consistent with the one-loop kernel and running coupling. The paper also makes an honest effort to estimate power corrections through a renormalon model. However, the practical application claimed—extrapolating from charm-like to bottom-like masses—requires the initial condition at values of x_i that lie outside the peak region where Eq. (6) is derived. The numerical example is circular because the initial condition is itself generated from the same factorization. These issues must be addressed before the tool can be considered reliable for lattice extrapolation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eqs. (14), (20)] The practical m_c → m_b extrapolation (mass ratio ~3.3) forces the initial condition to be read at x_i^(0) = (m_b/m_c)x_i. For target x_i = 0.1 this is x_i^(0) ≈ 0.33, and for x_i = 0.3 it is x_i^(0) ≈ 1.0. These values are not in the peak-region domain x_i << 1 where the factorization Eq. (6) is derived; omitted power corrections are of order Λ_QCD/m_c ≈ 0.2–0.3. The paper acknowledges the peak-region limitation in Sec. V but does not quantify the error at the specific x_i^(0) required by the evolution. Without such an estimate, the advertised lattice-extrapolation tool is not supported as stated. Please either restrict the claimed range of applicability or provide a quantitative estimate of the power corrections at the required x_i^(0).
  2. [Sec. V, Fig. 1] The numerical example is circular as a test of the factorization: the initial condition Φ_QCD(x_i, m_c; μ) is itself generated from Eq. (6) using the same exponential model, Eq. (32). Therefore the observed narrowing and peak shift are forced by the rescaling in Eq. (14) and cannot validate the factorization assumption in the region x_i^(0) ≈ 0.3–1.0. The exercise illustrates the algebra but does not provide evidence that the mass-evolution formula is accurate for the lattice-extrapolation window. Please use an initial condition from an independent source, or at least explicitly state that the numerical study is only a consistency check of the algebraic relation.
  3. [Sec. IV, Eq. (21)] The renormalon ambiguity δJ_peak computed in Ref. [44] for heavy mesons is asserted to transfer unchanged to the Λ_Q baryon because the jet function is 'identical for heavy mesons and heavy baryons.' However, the matching in Eq. (6) involves the state-dependent normalization factor \bar f_ΛQ/f_ΛQ, and the baryon matrix element could introduce additional state-dependent power corrections beyond the single-gluon eikonal exchange. The paper neither derives the baryon δJ_peak nor estimates the error from this transfer. This is a load-bearing assumption for the uncertainty estimate in Sec. IV and should be scrutinized or at least softened.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (9)] Eq. (9) as printed is dimensionally inconsistent: the left-hand side is a derivative of Φ_bHQET with respect to ln m_Q, but the right-hand side is expressed as x_i ∂Φ_QCD/∂x_i. The correct intermediate step should involve ∂Φ_bHQET/∂ω_i evaluated at ω_i = x_i m_Q, and only after using Eq. (6) does it become x_i ∂Φ_QCD/∂x_i. Please correct the display to avoid confusing readers.
  2. [Eq. (20)] The argument order in the second line is inconsistent: Eq. (14) writes Φ_QCD((m_Q/m_Q^(0)) x_i, m_Q^(0); μ), whereas Eq. (20) writes Φ_QCD(m_Q^(0), (m_Q/m_Q^(0)) x_i, μ). Please unify the notation.
  3. [Eqs. (22), (24)] The definitions of Λ_1 and Λ_2 are implicit in Eq. (22) but then used in later equations. Please define them explicitly as Λ_1 = 3 C_F Λ_QCD e^{5/6}/β_0 and Λ_2 = C_F Λ_QCD^2 e^{5/3}/β_0, and fix the typo 'Eq. 22)' in Sec. V.
  4. [Sec. V, Fig. 1] The labels 'm_Q = m_c (D meson)' and 'm_Q = m_b (B meson)' are misleading since the object is a Λ_Q baryon. Presumably these indicate the charm and bottom scales; please rephrase to avoid confusion.
  5. [Abstract/Introduction] Typo: 'acess' should be 'access' in the Introduction. Please also check the equation-numbering in the reference to Eq. (22) in Sec. V.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the mass-evolution formula is an analytic consequence of the cited factorization, not a fit or renamed input.

full rationale

The paper's central result follows by differentiating the leading-power matching relation (Eq. 6), Φ_QCD = m_Q^2 J(m_Q, μ) Φ_bHQET(x_i m_Q), with respect to ln m_Q and solving the resulting first-order PDE by characteristics. The rescaling x_i → (m_Q/m_Q^(0)) x_i and the (m_Q/m_Q^(0))^2 prefactor in Eq. (14) are algebraic consequences of the argument ω_i = x_i m_Q and the m_Q^2 prefactor, not quantities fitted to data and then renamed as predictions. The exponential factor is determined by the one-loop anomalous dimension γ computed from J, so the result carries independent perturbative content beyond simply restating Eq. (6). The numerical section is explicitly labelled an illustration: the initial condition is generated from the same matching relation, so it cannot serve as a test, but the paper does not use it as validation; the proposed lattice application would take an external input at m^(0). The renormalon correction δJ_peak is imported from Ref. [44] and asserted to be baryon-identical on the grounds that the jet function is the same; this transferability is an assumption relevant to validity, not a circular step. The self-citations to Refs. [39], [42], and [35] are to published work and to the same matching formalism also cited from other groups ([36]-[38]); they are not used as a uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternatives. The acknowledged peak-region limitation in Sec. V restricts the applicable x-range but is a domain-of-validity caveat, not a circularity. A separate typo in Eq. (9) (missing the m_Q^2 J factor) is a technical misprint; the subsequent PDE is the correct consequence of Eq. (6), and no circular reduction can be exhibited. Accordingly, no circular step is identified and the score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The mass-evolution relation is exact given the factorization input; the ledger therefore lists the premises that make that factorization quantitative: peak-region validity and its x-range, the one-loop kernel, m_Q-independence of the bHQET LCDA except through omega_i = x_i m_Q, universality of the jet-function renormalon, and the illustrative model inputs. No new entities are introduced; the renormalon model is imported from prior literature. The main uncertainty not in the ledger is the error of Eq. (6) at x-values near 0.3-1 where the final formula must be applied.

free parameters (4)
  • omega_0 (exponential LCDA model scale) = 0.4 GeV
    Shape parameter of the model Phi_bHQET proportional to omega_1 omega_2 exp[-(omega_1+omega_2)/omega_0], Eq. (32), taken from Ref. [41]. It sets the numerical curves in Figs. 1-2 and the peak position, but is not fitted to data in this paper.
  • Lambda_QCD = 0.3 GeV
    Input to the renormalon model, Eq. (22); determines Lambda_1 = 0.332 GeV and Lambda_2 = 0.076 GeV^2. Chosen by convention and not varied in the numerical study.
  • Quark masses m_c, m_b (MS-bar) = 1.27 GeV, 4.18 GeV
    Endpoints of the evolution window used in Sec. V; standard MS-bar inputs from prior literature.
  • Renormalization scale mu = 8 GeV
    Fixed scale for the numerical illustration; the mass evolution is mu-dependent, and no scale variation is shown, so the truncation uncertainty of gamma is not assessed.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Leading-twist peak-region factorization Phi_QCD = m_Q^2 J(m_Q,mu) Phi_bHQET(x_1 m_Q, x_2 m_Q), Eq. (6), with one-loop kernel Eq. (7).
    The entire derivation starts from this relation imported from Ref. [39]; the mass evolution equation is an exact consequence of it, so its accuracy bounds the whole result.
  • domain assumption Peak-region kinematics x_i << 1, with corrections suppressed by powers of Lambda_QCD/m_Q and x_i.
    The authors state validity only in the peak region (Secs. III, V); the size of the corrections at the initial x^(0) values (about 0.3-1) needed for the m_c to m_b window is not quantified.
  • domain assumption The bHQET LCDA depends on m_Q only through the combination omega_i = x_i m_Q.
    Used in Eq. (9) to convert the mass derivative into x-derivatives; inherent in the bHQET definition, so low risk, but load-bearing for the PDE.
  • domain assumption The heavy-quark jet function and its renormalon ambiguity deltaJ_peak are identical for heavy mesons and heavy baryons.
    Invoked in Sec. IV to import deltaJ_peak from Ref. [44], argued from the single-gluon-exchange structure; asserted rather than computed for the baryon, and it carries the entire power-correction estimate.
  • domain assumption The renormalon model (bubble-chain resummation) provides an estimate of the missing power corrections to the factorization.
    Standard Beneke-style assumption (Ref. [43]); the authors explicitly call their result an estimate, not an exact power-correction determination (Sec. IV).
  • ad hoc to paper The exponential model Phi_bHQET(omega_1,omega_2) proportional to omega_1 omega_2 exp[-(omega_1+omega_2)/omega_0] describes the actual Lambda_Q LCDA.
    Used in Sec. V for the numerical illustration; no data comparison is made, so the numerical curves are illustrative only.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10291 in / 30666 out tokens · 245307 ms · 2026-08-01T17:52:41.025083+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the heavy quark mass dependence of the leading-twist light-cone distribution amplitude (LCDA) of the $\Lambda_Q$ baryon in QCD. Starting from the factorization formula that relates the QCD LCDA to the boosted heavy-quark effective theory (bHQET) LCDA, we derive a first-order partial differential equation governing this mass dependence in the peak region. The equation is solved analytically, and the explicit factor connecting LCDAs at different heavy quark masses is presented. We further incorporate Borel-resummed perturbative corrections from a renormalon model into the factorization. The impact of these renormalon corrections on the mass dependence is studied, and a numerical analysis using a simple LCDA model is performed to illustrate the behavior and to assess the uncertainties arising from the corrections, thereby providing a numerical estimate of the associated power corrections to the mass dependence. Our results provide an essential tool for extrapolating lattice QCD calculations of heavy-baryon LCDAs from smaller simulated masses to the physical bottom quark mass.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17471 by Ji Xu, Shuai Zhao, Yu-Ji Shi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Left: Leading-power mass evolution of the Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Parametric curve of the peak position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] 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

44 extracted references · 34 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Nature643, no.8074, 1223-1228 (2025) doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09119-3 [arXiv:2503.16954 [hep-ex]]

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Nature643, no.8074, 1223-1228 (2025) doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09119-3 [arXiv:2503.16954 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    J. P. Wang and F. S. Yu, Chin. Phys. C48, no.10, 101002 (2024) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ad75f4 [arXiv:2407.04110 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    J. J. Han, J. X. Yu, Y. Li, H. n. Li, J. P. Wang, Z. J. Xiao and F. S. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, no.22, 221801 (2025) doi:10.1103/ynnx-f63h [arXiv:2409.02821 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Beneke, G

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

    arXiv 1914

  5. [5]

    Beneke, G

    M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C. T. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B591, 313-418 (2000) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00559-9 [arXiv:hep- ph/0006124 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2000

  6. [6]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D63, 114020 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.114020 [arXiv:hep- ph/0011336 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2001

  7. [7]

    C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D65, 054022 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.054022 [arXiv:hep-ph/0109045 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  8. [8]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, I. Z. Roth- stein and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D66, 014017 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.014017 [arXiv:hep- ph/0202088 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2002

  9. [9]

    Wang, Phys

    W. Wang, Phys. Lett. B708, 119-126 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.01.036 [arXiv:1112.0237 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  10. [10]

    L. S. Lu, C. D. L¨ u, Y. L. Shen and Y. B. Wei, JHEP09, 172 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2025)172 [arXiv:2506.21419 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    H. H. Shih, S. C. Lee and H. n. Li, Phys. Rev. D59, 094014 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.094014 [arXiv:hep-ph/9810515 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  12. [12]

    Y. Y. Keum, H. N. Li and A. I. Sanda, Phys. Rev. D63, 054008 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.054008 [arXiv:hep-ph/0004173 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  13. [13]

    C. D. Lu, K. Ukai and M. Z. Yang, Phys. Rev. D63, 074009 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.074009 [arXiv:hep-ph/0004213 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  14. [14]

    Y. Y. Keum, H. n. Li and A. I. Sanda, Phys. Lett. B504, 6-14 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00247-7 [arXiv:hep-ph/0004004 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  15. [15]

    C. D. Lu, Y. M. Wang, H. Zou, A. Ali and G. Kramer, Physical review / D80, 1-29 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.034011 [arXiv:0906.1479 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  16. [16]

    J. J. Han, Y. Li, H. n. Li, Y. L. Shen, Z. J. Xiao and F. S. Yu, Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.8, 686 (2022) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10642-0 [arXiv:2202.04804 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    J. J. Han, J. X. Yu, Y. Li, H. n. Li, J. P. Wang, Z. J. Xiao and F. S. Yu, Phys. Rev. D112, no.5, 053007 (2025) doi:10.1103/lvsn-v3xj [arXiv:2506.07197 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Y. Li, J. Chen, Y. X. Wang and Z. T. Zou, Phys. Rev. D113, no.1, 013003 (2026) doi:10.1103/8ztx-56ys [arXiv:2509.02257 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    L. Yang, J. J. Han, Q. Chang and F. S. Yu, Eur. Phys. J. C86, no.2, 103 (2026) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-026- 15295-x [arXiv:2508.18069 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    Y. M. Wang, Y. L. Shen and C. D. Lu, Phys. Rev. D80, 074012 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.074012 [arXiv:0907.4008 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  21. [21]

    Y. M. Wang and Y. L. Shen, JHEP02, 179 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2016)179 [arXiv:1511.09036 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    Y. Miao, H. Deng, K. S. Huang, J. Gao and Y. L. Shen, Chin. Phys. C46, no.11, 113107 (2022) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ac8652 [arXiv:2206.12189 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Khodjamirian, B

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    K. S. Huang, H. Y. Jiang and F. S. Yu, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, no.3, 351 (2025) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14033- z [arXiv:2412.06515 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    A. Ali, C. Hambrock, A. Y. Parkhomenko and W. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C73, no.2, 2302 (2013) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2302-4 [arXiv:1212.3280 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  26. [26]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  27. [27]

    Feldmann and D

    T. Feldmann and D. Vladimirov, JHEP07, 108 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2025)108 [arXiv:2505.02570 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    H. F. Gaoet al.[LPC], [arXiv:2604.25802 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    Ji, Phys

    X. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 262002 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.262002 [arXiv:1305.1539 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  32. [32]

    X. Ji, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.57, 1407-1412 (2014) doi:10.1007/s11433-014-5492-3 [arXiv:1404.6680 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  33. [33]

    X. Ji, Y. S. Liu, Y. Liu, J. H. Zhang and Y. Zhao, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, no.3, 035005 (2021) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.93.035005 [arXiv:2004.03543 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Cichy and M

    K. Cichy and M. Constantinou, Adv. High Energy Phys.2019, 3036904 (2019) doi:10.1155/2019/3036904 [arXiv:1811.07248 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    Ishaq, Y

    S. Ishaq, Y. Jia, X. Xiong and D. S. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, no.13, 132001 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.132001 [arXiv:1905.06930 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    Zhao, Phys

    S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D101, no.7, 071503 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.071503 [arXiv:1910.03470 [hep-ph]]. 8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    Beneke, G

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Y. J. Shi and J. Zeng, JHEP05, 212 (2026) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2026)212 [arXiv:2602.14187 [hep- ph]]

    arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

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

    arXiv 2003

  41. [41]

    P. Ball, V. M. Braun and E. Gardi, Phys. Lett. B 665, 197-204 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.06.004 [arXiv:0804.2424 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  42. [42]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    Beneke, Phys

    M. Beneke, Phys. Rept.317, 1-142 (1999) doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(98)00130-6 [arXiv:hep- ph/9807443 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 1999

  44. [44]

    T. Guo, C. Han, W. Wang and J. L. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D112, no.1, 016013 (2025) doi:10.1103/c97x-z7j9 [arXiv:2505.08611 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025