Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 71 references

$V_{cb}$ puzzle in semi-leptonic $B\to D^*$ decays revisited

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using the newest Belle and Belle II differential data together with lattice QCD and light-cone sum-rule form factors, the paper finds that the CLN, BGL, and HQET parameterizations give mutually consistent values of |Vcb| around 39.5–39.9…

desk verdict Consistent |Vcb| from CLN, BGL, and HQET with the newest data is a solid result, but the Bayesian truncation analysis that claims higher-order HQET terms cannot solve the puzzle is an artifact of the scale prescription in Eq. (20), not evidence of convergence. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05989 v2 pith:TMIOQZV3 submitted 2024-12-08 hep-ph hep-ex

Shuang-Yi Li , Jie Xu , Rui-Xiang Shi , Li-Sheng Geng , Yi Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords VcbpuzzleBtoD*semileptonicdecaysCKMmatrixelementHQETformfactorsCLNparameterizationBGLBayesiantruncationuncertaintyleptonflavouruniversality
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

The paper tries to establish whether the long-standing discrepancy between exclusive and inclusive determinations of the CKM element $|V_{cb}|$ stems from the way $B\to D^*$ form factors are parameterized, from neglected higher-order corrections, or from something more interesting. Fitting the latest Belle and Belle II differential data together with recent lattice QCD and light-cone sum-rule form factors, the three standard parameterizations (CLN, BGL, and HQET) return mutually consistent values, $|V_{cb}|=(39.69\pm0.56)\times10^{-3}$, $(39.90\pm0.55)\times10^{-3}$, and $(39.48\pm0.59)\times10^{-3}$, respectively. These sit about 2–3 standard deviations below the inclusive determinations, so the puzzle is reconfirmed rather than explained away. A Bayesian estimate of the terms missing from the truncated heavy-quark expansion gives an almost vanishing truncation error for $|V_{cb}|$, indicating that higher-order HQET contributions cannot close the gap. The paper also predicts the observables $R_{D^*}$, $F_L^{D^*}$, and $P_\tau^{D^*}$ from form-factor inputs alone and reads the resulting tensions with current measurements as evidence that lepton-flavour universality violation in $b\to c\tau\nu$ persists.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three form-factor parameterizations and a Bayesian truncation-error model. CLN is a compact dispersion-relation and heavy-quark expansion using four parameters; BGL is a model-independent $z$-expansion with Blaschke factors and weak-unitarity constraints; HQET(2/1/0) expands the leading, subleading, and sub-subleading Isgur–Wise functions in powers of $z$, with 2, 1, and 0 $z$-terms respectively. The Bayesian machinery treats the truncated expansion of any observable as $X=X_{\rm ref}\sum_n c_n Q^n$, with $Q=\max\{\alpha_s/\pi, \bar\Lambda/(2m_b), \bar\Lambda/(2m_c)\}$, defines $X_{\rm ref}$ through Eq. (20) as the largest of the LO, NLO, and NNLO scales, and constructs a posterior for the dimensionless remainder $\Delta_k$. From the known coefficients $c_1$, $c_2$ this yields the truncation uncertainty $X_{\rm ref}\Delta_k$, which for $|V_{cb}|$ comes out close to zero and is then folded into a refit of all parameters.

What would settle it

Find the next-order shift: a future fit that includes $O(1/m_c^3)$ or NNNLO HQET corrections (or lattice determinations of the next subleading Isgur–Wise functions) should move $|V_{cb}|$ by an amount comparable to the observed NLO-to-NNLO shift of about $2.8\times10^{-3}$ (36.69 to 39.48) if the near-zero Bayesian error is wrong; if it moves by only a few $0.1\times10^{-3}$, the paper's conclusion is supported. Alternatively, re-run the Bayesian estimate with $X_{\rm ref}$ defined as $|X_{\rm LO}|$ or as the maximum of the three unnormalized scales; if the resulting truncation uncertainty grows to the size of the inclusive-exclusive gap (about $2\times10^{-3}$), the near-zero result is an artifact of the scale choice. A new Belle II measurement that raises the exclusive central value by roughly $2\times10^{-3}$ would also dissolve the puzzle.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, with the newest data set, the $V_{cb}$ puzzle is real and independent of form-factor parameterization. Fitting the Belle 2023 and Belle II differential distributions together with the latest non-zero-recoil lattice QCD results and the two recent LCSR computations, the CLN, BGL, and HQET(2/1/0) parameterizations agree on $|V_{cb}|$ at the level of $39.5$–$39.9$ in units of $10^{-3}$, with uncertainties near $\pm0.55$–$0.59$. The same fits leave a gap of about 2–3$\sigma$ relative to the inclusive values $(41.69\pm0.63)\times10^{-3}$ and $(41.97\pm0.48)\times10^{-3}$. Applying a Bayesian truncation-error analysis to the HQET expansion, the paper concludes that neglected terms beyond $O(1/m_c^2)$ cannot account for the deviation, so the discrepancy has to be resolved by improved data or by new physics. Using only lattice and sum-rule inputs, it then predicts the Standard Model values of $R_{D^*}$, $F_L^{D^*}$, and $P_\tau^{D^*}$, finding tensions with the current HFLAV average for $R_{D^*}$ and with the Belle measurement of $F_L^{D^*}$, which it interprets as a persistent hint of lepton-flavour universality violation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Bayesian truncation-error model correctly measures the size of the missing higher-order heavy-quark expansion terms, even though its definition of the overall scale $X_{\rm ref}$ and its use of only the first two known coefficients can return a near-zero truncation error when the NLO-to-NNLO shift in $|V_{cb}|$ itself is about 7.6% (from 36.69 to 39.48 in units of $10^{-3}$), so if the true higher-order corrections are comparable to that observed shift, the claim that they cannot resolve the $V_{cb}$ puzzle would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Parameterization dependence is ruled out as the source of the puzzle: CLN, BGL, and HQET fits to the same combined data agree, so future work should target experimental systematics, form-factor inputs, or new physics.
  • The 2–3$\sigma$ gap between exclusive and inclusive $|V_{cb}|$ persists under the newest Belle and Belle II data, so the puzzle is not a relic of older measurements.
  • Missing higher-order HQET terms cannot close the gap, meaning the exclusive determination's uncertainty is dominated by data and form-factor errors rather than by truncation of the heavy-quark expansion.
  • The Standard Model predictions for $R_{D^*}$, $F_L^{D^*}$, and $P_\tau^{D^*}$ derived only from lattice and sum-rule inputs provide benchmarks for future measurements; the predicted $R_{D^*}=0.262\pm0.003$ sits about $1.8\sigma$ below the current experimental average.
  • Combining $B\to D$ and $B\to D^*$ constraints in the HQET framework, flagged by the paper as future work, is the natural next step to sharpen the exclusive $|V_{cb}|$ value.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The near-zero Bayesian truncation error may be an artifact of the $X_{\rm ref}$ choice: the large NLO-to-NNLO jump in $|V_{cb}|$ (36.69 to 39.48) is divided by $Q^2\simeq0.033$ before being compared to the other scales, so a robustness check with alternative $X_{\rm ref}$ definitions is warranted before concluding that higher-order effects are truly negligible.
  • If the $R_{D^*}$ and $F_L^{D^*}$ tensions survive future high-luminosity measurements, the $b\to c\tau\nu$ transition would become the strongest single hint of new physics, and the paper's form-factor-only predictions give a concrete target ($R_{D^*}\sim0.262$) to test.
  • A direct test of the Bayesian assumption would be to estimate the next coefficient $c_3$ from a model NNNLO HQET fit or from lattice calculations of the next subleading Isgur–Wise functions; a large $c_3$ would revise the 'near-zero' truncation error.
  • The paper's decision not to rescale the NLO form factors to the lattice value at zero recoil explains part of the difference from earlier NLO HQET results; a systematic comparison of rescaling choices could help separate genuine higher-order effects from fitting conventions.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the extraction of |Vcb| from exclusive B -> D* l nu decays using the recently published Belle 2023 and Belle II differential distributions together with lattice QCD and light-cone sum rule form factors. It analyzes three form-factor parameterizations (CLN, BGL, HQET) and finds consistent exclusive values, |Vcb|_CLN = (39.69 +/- 0.56) x 10^-3, |Vcb|_BGL = (39.90 +/- 0.55) x 10^-3, and |Vcb|_HQET = (39.48 +/- 0.59) x 10^-3, which deviate from recent inclusive determinations by about 2-3 sigma. The paper then employs a Bayesian truncation-error framework to estimate the effect of missing higher-order HQET terms and concludes that this effect is negligible, so the Vcb puzzle persists. Finally, using form-factor parameters fitted only to LQCD and LCSR data, it predicts R_D*, F_L^D*, and P_tau^D* and claims that lepton-flavour universality is violated in b -> c tau nu transitions.

Significance. If the conclusions are robust, the parameterization-independence of |Vcb| across CLN, BGL, and HQET is a valuable update to the Vcb puzzle literature, and the use of LQCD/LCSR-only inputs for the R_D*, F_L^D*, and P_tau^D* predictions avoids the circularity of fitting to the very observables being predicted. The central numerical fits are standard and the dataset is comprehensive. However, the paper's most distinctive claim - that higher-order HQET corrections cannot resolve the Vcb puzzle - rests on a Bayesian truncation estimate that has a structural weakness; and the final lepton-flavour-universality conclusion is drawn from 1.8-1.9 sigma tensions, which is stronger than the evidence warrants.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III B, Eq. (20), Table IV] The near-zero Bayesian truncation uncertainty for |Vcb| is driven by the definition of X_ref in Eq. (20), not by evidence of convergence. With Q = max{0.0716, 0.0522, 0.1807} = 0.1807, the three candidates in Eq. (20) are |X_LO| = 36.57, |X_LO - X_NLO|/Q = 0.12/0.1807 approx 0.66, and |X_NLO - X_NNLO|/Q^2 = 2.79/0.1807^2 approx 85.4 (in the units of Table IV). The third term dominates, so X_ref = 85.4, and c2 = (X_NNLO - X_NLO)/(X_ref Q^2) = 1 by construction. The posterior in Eq. (24) then excludes c2 as the 'cm = 1' term, leaving only c0 approx 0.43 and c1 approx 0.008. These two coefficients contain essentially no information about whether the NNLO shift was anomalously large or part of a normal fluctuation, so the resulting Delta near zero is an artifact of the normalization. The observed NLO-to-NNLO shift of 2.79 x 10^-3 (7.6%) is absorbed into X_ref instead of being treated as a correction that should inform the truncation error. I ask the authors to provide a direct test: repeat the estimate with X_ref = |X_LO| or X_ref = |X_NNLO|, or with c2 included in the posterior, and report the resulting truncation error on |Vcb|. This test is essential because the paper's conclusion that higher-order effects cannot eliminate the deviation relies on this near-zero Bayesian error.
  2. [Table IV, Sec. III B] The HQET series is not visibly converged at NNLO in this analysis. The NLO fit has chi^2/d.o.f. = 324.68/171, whereas the NNLO fit has chi^2/d.o.f. = 222.80/167, and the NNLO correction moves |Vcb| by 7.6%. A model that returns a negligible tail from such a sequence is not a reliable basis for the claim that higher-order contributions are 'completely negligible'. At minimum, the authors should provide a convergence diagnostic - for example, the values of c0, c1, and c2 under alternative normalizations, or a stability check of the Bayesian error against the choice of expansion parameter Q in Eq. (21). Without such a check, the statement that higher-order HQET effects cannot solve the Vcb puzzle is not supported.
  3. [Abstract, Sec. III C, Sec. IV] The conclusion that 'lepton-flavour universality violations still exist in the b -> c tau nu transitions' is stronger than the numerical results warrant. The predicted R_D* = 0.262 +/- 0.003 differs from the HFLAV value by about 1.8 sigma, and the predicted F_L^D* differs from the Belle result by about 1.9 sigma, while P_tau^D* is consistent. Tensions at the 1.8-1.9 sigma level do not establish the existence of lepton-flavour-universality violation. The abstract and summary should be reworded to say that the predictions show mild tensions, unless a combined significance that properly accounts for correlations is provided.
  4. [Sec. III B, final paragraph] The re-fit procedure that 'incorporates their Bayesian uncertainties' into the data covariance is self-referential in an important way. The Bayesian uncertainties are computed from the same LO, NLO, and NNLO fits whose central values are then used to generate the final Bayesian fit, and because X_ref in Eq. (20) is chosen so that the largest known increment defines cm = 1 and is then excluded, the added uncertainties are near zero by construction. The final parameter uncertainty in the 'Bayesian results' column of Table IV therefore does not provide an independent propagation of truncation uncertainty. A cleaner approach would be to add a nuisance parameter with a scale set by X_ref * Delta_k to the |Vcb| extraction, or to show explicitly how the posterior for |Vcb| changes when the truncation error is included as a separate source.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II C, Eq. (20)] Please clarify the units and dimensionality of X_ref: since X in Eq. (18) is the observable, X_ref carries the same units, and the coefficients cn are dimensionless. The text should state this explicitly, especially because Eq. (20) combines X_LO and differences divided by powers of Q.
  2. [Sec. II C, after Eq. (24)] The statement that h = 10 is chosen 'based on comprehensive numerical tests' is not supported by any results in the paper. A short table or figure showing convergence of the Bayesian uncertainty as a function of h would make this choice reproducible.
  3. [Sec. III A, datasets] The treatment of correlations within and between the LQCD data sets (FNAL/MILC, HPQCD, JLQCD) and between the Belle and Belle II measurements is not described. If only diagonal uncertainties were used for the 153 or 179 fitted data points, the reported parameter uncertainties could be underestimated. Please state the covariance treatment explicitly.
  4. [Various] There are several typographical issues: 'Beysian' in Sec. I should be 'Bayesian'; 'LSCR' in the text preceding Table VIII should be 'LCSR'; and 'the the preferred' appears in Sec. III C. These should be corrected in a revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the exclusive Vcb fits, the RD*/FL/PD* predictions, and the Bayesian truncation analysis are each based on stated external inputs or transparent statistical models rather than on the quantities they claim to determine.

full rationale

The paper's central |Vcb| values are obtained by maximum-likelihood fits to Belle/Belle II differential distributions plus LQCD h_A1(1), LQCD form factors at nonzero recoil, and LCSR results; the three parameterizations (CLN, BGL, HQET 2/1/0) are independent functional forms, and the fitted values are compared with external inclusive determinations. This is a fit, not a disguised prediction. The RD*, F_L^{D*}, and P_tau^{D*} predictions in Sec. III C are explicitly based on fits to LQCD and LCSR data only (Tables V-VII), with the experimental values for these observables used only for comparison, so they are genuine out-of-sample predictions rather than circular. The only element that is self-referential in a broad sense is the Bayesian truncation-error estimate: the error for |Vcb| is computed from the LO/NLO/NNLO sequence of fits and then included in a re-fit. However, this is a stated statistical convergence model (Eqs. 18-24), not a reduction of the claimed result to its input: the near-zero Bayesian uncertainty follows from the paper's explicit Xref choice in Eq. (20) and the exclusion of the cm=1 coefficient. Whether that prescription is a reliable way to estimate missing higher-order HQET terms is a correctness/statistical-modeling concern (especially because the NLO-to-NNLO shift in |Vcb| is ~7.6%), not a circularity defined by equivalence of a prediction to its fitted input. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the authors' prior work is cited for definitions and for previous applications of the Bayesian framework, while the framework itself is cited to independent references [42-44]. The paper is therefore not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard form-factor parameterizations, on the HQET(2/1/0) truncation, on the Bayesian prior model and its hyperparameters, on the PDG error-scaling prescription, and on the published LQCD/LCSR inputs. The most fragile ingredient is the Bayesian convergence model, which drives the 'higher-order effects negligible' conclusion.

free parameters (8)
  • CLN rho_D*^2 = 1.147 +/- 0.026 (Data+LQCD+LCSR)
    Slope parameter of the h_A1 form factor; fitted to experimental and lattice data in Table I.
  • CLN R1(1) = 1.205 +/- 0.022
    Ratio form factor at zero recoil; fitted in Table I.
  • CLN R2(1) = 0.884 +/- 0.016
    Ratio form factor at zero recoil; fitted in Table I.
  • CLN R0(1) (prediction fits) = 1.08 +/- 0.02 (LQCD+LCSR fit, Table V)
    Additional ratio determining A0; fitted to LQCD and LCSR data only for the observable predictions.
  • BGL expansion coefficients a_g^j, a_f^j, a_F1^j, a_F2^j = See Tables II, VI, X, XI
    Coefficients of the BGL z-expansion; fitted with weak unitarity constraints imposed through non-Gaussian priors.
  • HQET Isgur-Wise expansion coefficients xi(1), xi(2), chi_2^(0), chi_2^(1), chi_3^(1), eta(0), eta(1), l_2^(0)… = See Tables III, IV, VII
    Coefficients of the z-expansions of the Isgur-Wise functions in the HQET(2/1/0) truncation; fitted to data.
  • HQET expansion steps epsilon_a, epsilon_b, epsilon_c = 0.0716, 0.0522, 0.1807
    Adopted from Ref. [27], not fit in this work; they set the expansion scale Q = Max{epsilon_a, epsilon_b, epsilon_c} in the Bayesian analysis.
  • Bayesian hyperparameters c_<, c_>, h = 0.5, 10, 10
    Chosen by hand in Sec. II.C; the paper reports robustness checks for c_< in 0.1 to 0.85 and insensitivity to c_>, but the truncation error estimate depends on this prior setup.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Validity of the CLN, BGL, and HQET parameterizations for the B to D* form factors.
    Used throughout Sec. II.B; the paper relies on these standard parameterizations without deriving them from first principles.
  • domain assumption The HQET(2/1/0) truncation of the Isgur-Wise function z-expansions is sufficient to describe the data.
    Introduced in Sec. II.B following Refs. [26,27]; if higher z-terms are needed, the Vcb extraction and the truncation error estimate would change.
  • domain assumption Neglect of O(1/m_b m_c, 1/m_b^2, alpha_s/m_b,c) NNLO corrections in the heavy quark expansion.
    Sec. II.B cites Ref. [28] for the claim that these corrections are not sensitive to available data; this directly affects the Bayesian truncation analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper The Bayesian prior model of Refs. [42-44] with hyperparameters c_< = 0.5, c_> = 10, h = 10 accurately quantifies the truncation uncertainty of the HQET series.
    Sec. II.C; the conclusion that higher-order effects cannot resolve the Vcb puzzle depends on this model and on the X_ref definition in Eq. (20).
  • domain assumption The PDG chi^2/d.o.f. rescaling prescription provides a valid inflation of fit uncertainties.
    Sec. III.A applies this scaling to all fitting results; it is standard practice in particle physics.
  • domain assumption The published LQCD and LCSR form factor inputs are accurate and their uncertainties are Gaussian.
    The fits take the values and errors from Refs. [5,31-34] at face value, including the 2014 FNAL/MILC h_A1(1) = 0.906 +/- 0.013 rather than a newer FLAG average.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $V_{cb}$ puzzle in semi-leptonic $B\to D^*$ decays revisited." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TMIOQZV3

@misc{pith2026241205989,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $V_cb$ puzzle in semi-leptonic $B\to D^*$ decays revisited},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TMIOQZV3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05989}
}
abstract

Inspired by the newly reported $B\to D^*(\to D\pi)\ell\bar{\nu}_\ell$ differential decay rates by the Belle and Belle II Collaborations, we revisit the $V_{cb}$ puzzle in semi-leptonic $B\to D^*$ decays, considering the latest lattice QCD~(LQCD) simulations and light-cone sum rule~(LCSR) results. We examine the commonly used Caprini-Lellouch-Neubert~(CLN), Boyd-Grinstein-Lebed~(BGL), and heavy quark effective theory~(HQET) parameterizations. We demonstrate that these three parameterizations yield consistent results and reconfirm the $V_{cb}$ puzzle. Then, we use a state-of-the-art Bayesian method to estimate the impact of higher-order terms beyond the present HQET expansion on the uncertainty of $V_{cb}$. We show that higher-order effects cannot eliminate the deviation between the exclusive and inclusive determinations of $V_{cb}$. Finally, utilizing the best-fit results obtained in the HQET parameterization via fitting LQCD and LCSR data only as inputs, we predict the relevant observables, i.e., $R_{D^*}$, $F_L^{D^*}$, and $P_\tau^{D^*}$, sensitive to new physics in the $B\to D^*\ell\bar{\nu}_\ell$ decays. We conclude that lepton-flavour universality violations still exist in the $b\to c\tau\nu$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05989 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Form factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Y . S. Amhis et al. (HFLA V), Phys. Rev. D107, 052008 (2023), arXiv:2206.07501 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    The BGL parameterization relies on dispersion relations and operator product expansion, which is a model-independent parameterization

    The four unknown parameters ρ2 D∗, hA1(1), R1(1), and R2(1) are determined by fitting to the experimental data and LQCD simulations, andR0(1) can be calculated using HQET [50]. The BGL parameterization relies on dispersion relations and operator product expansion, which is a model-independent parameterization. However, the BGL parameterization includes a ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    hA3 (ω) + mD∗ mB hA2 (ω) # , A0 (ω) = 1 2√mBmD∗

    PFi(z) are the Blaschke factors, which read PFi(z) = nY P=1 z− zP 1− zzP , (8) with zP = q t+− m2 P−√t+− t− q t+− m2 P +√t+− t− , t± = (mB± mD∗)2. (9) They can help eliminate poles forq2 < (mB + mD∗)2 associated with the on-shell production of the B∗ c bound states. The ϕi(z) are so-called outer functions, defined as ϕ f (z) = 4rD∗ m2 B s nI 3πχT 1+(0) (1...

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Aoki et al

    Y . Aoki et al. (Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)), (2024), arXiv:2411.04268 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Values II

    F. U. Bernlochner, M. T. Prim, and K. K. V os, Eur. Phys. J. ST 233, 347 (2024), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.ST 233, 5–8 (2024)]. 22 TABLE X. Fit results using the BGL parameterization with experimental data. Here, the “Values II” in Table IX is used forχT 1+(0) and ˜χT 1−(0). BGL Fit Data +hA1(0) = 0.906 +B( ¯B0→ D∗+ℓ¯νℓ) Data + LQCD Data + LQCD + LCSR χ2/d.o.f...

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Abdesselam et al

    A. Abdesselam et al. (Belle), (2017), arXiv:1702.01521 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    J. A. Bailey et al. (Fermilab Lattice, MILC), Phys. Rev. D 89, 114504 (2014), arXiv:1403.0635 [hep-lat]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Faller, A

    S. Faller, A. Khodjamirian, C. Klein, and T. Mannel, Eur. Phys. J. C 60, 603 (2009), arXiv:0809.0222 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2009

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Neubert, Z

    M. Neubert, Z. Ligeti, and Y . Nir, Phys. Lett. B 301, 101 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9209271

    1993 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Neubert, Z

    M. Neubert, Z. Ligeti, and Y . Nir, Phys. Rev. D 47, 5060 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9212266

    1993 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Ligeti, Y

    Z. Ligeti, Y . Nir, and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D 49, 1302 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9305304

    1994 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Grinstein and A

    B. Grinstein and A. Kobach, Phys. Lett. B 771, 359 (2017), arXiv:1703.08170 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  5. [13]

    D. Bigi, P. Gambino, and S. Schacht, Phys. Lett. B 769, 441 (2017), arXiv:1703.06124 [hep-ph]. 23 TABLE XII. Correlations among{ρ2 D∗, R1(1), R2(1),|Vcb|}-{ρ2 D∗, R1(1), R2(1),|Vcb|} in the CLN parameterization cor- responding to Table I. Corr. ρ2 D∗ R1(1) R2(1) |Vcb| ρ2 D∗ 1....

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    F. U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, M. Papucci, and D. J. Robinson, Phys. Rev. D 95, 115008 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 97, 059902 (2018)], arXiv:1703.05330 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Jaiswal, S

    S. Jaiswal, S. Nandi, and S. K. Patra, JHEP 12, 060 (2017), arXiv:1707.09977 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    D. Bigi, P. Gambino, and S. Schacht, JHEP 11, 061 (2017), arXiv:1707.09509 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Jung and D

    M. Jung and D. M. Straub, JHEP 01, 009 (2019), arXiv:1801.01112 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    F. U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, M. Papucci, and D. J. Robinson, Phys. Rev. D 96, 091503 (2017), arXiv:1708.07134 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    F. U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, and D. J. Robinson, Phys. Rev. D 100, 013005 (2019), arXiv:1902.09553 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Caprini, L

    I. Caprini, L. Lellouch, and M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys. B 530, 153 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9712417

    1998 arXiv

  13. [21]

    C. G. Boyd, B. Grinstein, and R. F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. D 56, 6895 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9705252

    1997 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Neubert, Phys

    M. Neubert, Phys. Rept. 245, 259 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9306320

    1994 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Waheed et al

    E. Waheed et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D 100, 052007 (2019), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 103, 079901 (2021)], arXiv:1809.03290 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Gubernari, A

    N. Gubernari, A. Kokulu, and D. van Dyk, JHEP 01, 150 (2019), arXiv:1811.00983 [hep-ph]. 24 TABLE XIV . Correlations among{|Vcb|,ξ (n), ˆχ(n) 2,3,η (n), ˆℓ(0) 2,3,5,6}-{|Vcb|,ξ (n), ˆχ(n) 2,3,η (n), ˆℓ(0) 2,3,5,6} in the HQET (2/1/0) param- eterization corresponding to Table I...

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Gambino, M

    P. Gambino, M. Jung, and S. Schacht, Phys. Lett. B 795, 386 (2019), arXiv:1905.08209 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Jaiswal, S

    S. Jaiswal, S. Nandi, and S. K. Patra, JHEP 06, 165 (2020), arXiv:2002.05726 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Ferlewicz, P

    D. Ferlewicz, P. Urquijo, and E. Waheed, Phys. Rev. D 103, 073005 (2021), arXiv:2008.09341 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Bordone, M

    M. Bordone, M. Jung, and D. van Dyk, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 74 (2020), arXiv:1908.09398 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Iguro and R

    S. Iguro and R. Watanabe, JHEP 08, 006 (2020), arXiv:2004.10208 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    F. U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, M. Papucci, M. T. Prim, D. J. Robinson, and C. Xiong, Phys. Rev. D 106, 096015 (2022), arXiv:2206.11281 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    M. T. Prim et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D 108, 012002 (2023), arXiv:2301.07529 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Adachi et al

    I. Adachi et al. (Belle-II), Phys. Rev. D 108, 092013 (2023), arXiv:2310.01170 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (Fermilab Lattice, MILC), (2021), arXiv:2105.14019 [hep-lat]. 25 TABLE XVI. Correlations among{aFi j}-{aFi j} in the BGL parameterization corresponding to Table VI . Corr. ag 0 ag 1 ag 2 a f 0 a f 1 a f 2 aF1 1 aF1 2 aF2 0 aF2 1 ag 0 1.000 0.047 -0.257 0.117 ...

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Harrison and C

    J. Harrison and C. T. H. Davies (HPQCD, (HPQCD Collaboration)‡), Phys. Rev. D 109, 094515 (2024), arXiv:2304.03137 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Y . Aoki, B. Colquhoun, H. Fukaya, S. Hashimoto, T. Kaneko, R. Kellermann, J. Koponen, and E. Kou (JLQCD), Phys. Rev. D 109, 074503 (2024), arXiv:2306.05657 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Cui, Y .-K

    B.-Y . Cui, Y .-K. Huang, Y .-M. Wang, and X.-C. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D108, L071504 (2023), arXiv:2301.12391 [hep-ph]. 26 TABLE XVIII. Correlations among{ξ(n), ˆχ(n) 2,3,η (n), ˆℓ(0) 2,3,5,6}-{ξ(n), ˆχ(n) 2,3,η (n), ˆℓ(0) 2,3,5,6} in the HQET (2/1/0) parameterization corresponding...

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Bordone and A

    M. Bordone and A. Juttner, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 129 (2025), arXiv:2406.10074 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Martinelli, S

    G. Martinelli, S. Simula, and L. Vittorio, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 400 (2024), arXiv:2310.03680 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Kapoor, Z.-R

    T. Kapoor, Z.-R. Huang, and E. Kou, JHEP 02, 053 (2025), arXiv:2401.11636 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Lellouch, Nucl

    L. Lellouch, Nucl. Phys. B 479, 353 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9509358

    1996 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Di Carlo, G

    M. Di Carlo, G. Martinelli, M. Naviglio, F. Sanfilippo, S. Simula, and L. Vittorio, Phys. Rev. D 104, 054502 (2021), arXiv:2105.02497 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Cacciari and N

    M. Cacciari and N. Houdeau, JHEP 09, 039 (2011), arXiv:1105.5152 [hep-ph]. 27 TABLE XX. Correlations among{|Vcb|, aFi j}-{|Vcb|, aFi j} in the BGL parameterization corresponding to Table XI. Corr. ag 0 ag 1 ag 2 a f 0 a f 1 a f 2 aF1 1 aF1 2 |Vcb| ag 0 1.000 −0.427 0 .046 0 .2...

    2011 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and P. Reinert, Front. in Phys. 8, 98 (2020), arXiv:1911.11875 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    R. J. Furnstahl, N. Klco, D. R. Phillips, and S. Wesolowski, Phys. Rev. C 92, 024005 (2015), arXiv:1506.01343 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  37. [45]

    J. A. Melendez, S. Wesolowski, and R. J. Furnstahl, Phys. Rev. C 96, 024003 (2017), arXiv:1704.03308 [nucl- th]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    J. A. Melendez, R. J. Furnstahl, D. R. Phillips, M. T. Pratola, and S. Wesolowski, Phys. Rev. C 100, 044001 (2019), arXiv:1904.10581 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Lu, C.-X

    J.-X. Lu, C.-X. Wang, Y . Xiao, L.-S. Geng, J. Meng, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 142002 (2022), arXiv:2111.07766 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Zhai, M.-Z

    Q.-Y . Zhai, M.-Z. Liu, J.-X. Lu, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D106, 034026 (2022), arXiv:2205.03878 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Lu, L.-S

    J.-X. Lu, L.-S. Geng, M. Doering, and M. Mai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 071902 (2023), arXiv:2209.02471 [hep- ph]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Bhattacharya, T

    B. Bhattacharya, T. E. Browder, Q. Campagna, A. Datta, S. Dubey, L. Mukherjee, and A. Sibidanov, Phys. Rev. D 107, 015011 (2023), arXiv:2206.11283 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Sirlin, Nucl

    A. Sirlin, Nucl. Phys. B 196, 83 (1982)

    1982

  44. [52]

    Fajfer, J

    S. Fajfer, J. F. Kamenik, and I. Nisandzic, Phys. Rev. D 85, 094025 (2012), arXiv:1203.2654 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Sakaki, M

    Y . Sakaki, M. Tanaka, A. Tayduganov, and R. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. D 88, 094012 (2013), arXiv:1309.0301 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Isgur and M

    N. Isgur and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 232, 113 (1989)

    1989

  47. [55]

    Epelbaum et al., Eur

    E. Epelbaum et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 92 (2020), arXiv:1907.03608 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Bernlochner, M

    F. Bernlochner, M. Fael, K. Olschewsky, E. Persson, R. van Tonder, K. K. V os, and M. Welsch, JHEP 10, 068 (2022), arXiv:2205.10274 [hep-ph]. 28

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Finauri and P

    G. Finauri and P. Gambino, JHEP 02, 206 (2024), arXiv:2310.20324 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Harrison, Phys

    J. Harrison, Phys. Rev. D 110, 054506 (2024), arXiv:2405.01390 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Martinelli, S

    G. Martinelli, S. Simula, and L. Vittorio, Phys. Rev. D 104, 094512 (2021), arXiv:2105.07851 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Crivellin and S

    A. Crivellin and S. Pokorski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 011802 (2015), arXiv:1407.1320 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Colangelo and F

    P. Colangelo and F. De Fazio, Phys. Rev. D 95, 011701 (2017), arXiv:1611.07387 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Colangelo and F

    P. Colangelo and F. De Fazio, JHEP 06, 082 (2018), arXiv:1801.10468 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Huang, E

    Z.-R. Huang, E. Kou, C.-D. L ¨u, and R.-Y . Tang, Phys. Rev. D105, 013010 (2022), arXiv:2106.13855 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Shi, L.-S

    R.-X. Shi, L.-S. Geng, B. Grinstein, S. J ¨ager, and J. Martin Camalich, JHEP 12, 065 (2019), arXiv:1905.08498 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Martinelli, S

    G. Martinelli, S. Simula, and L. Vittorio, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 242 (2025), arXiv:2410.17974 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  59. [67]

    HFLA V , https://hflav-eos.web.cern.ch/hflav-eos/semi/moriond24/html/RDsDsstar/RDRDs. html

  60. [68]

    Hirose et al

    S. Hirose et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 211801 (2017), arXiv:1612.00529 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), (2023), arXiv:2311.05224 [hep-ex]

    2023

  62. [70]

    Abdesselam et al

    A. Abdesselam et al. (Belle), in 10th International Workshop on the CKM Unitarity Triangle (2019) arXiv:1903.03102 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Huang, Y

    Z.-R. Huang, Y . Li, C.-D. Lu, M. A. Paracha, and C. Wang, Phys. Rev. D98, 095018 (2018), arXiv:1808.03565 [hep-ph]. 29

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.