Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 6 cited by

Towards a Global Analysis of the $b\to c\bar{u} q$ Puzzle

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the Standard Model cannot describe four nonleptonic B-meson decay rates simultaneously, and that a Weak Effective Theory with four new-physics operators accounts for the data with decisive Bayes factors.

desk verdict New three-particle kernels and inclusive width are genuine, but the BSM conclusion rests on the power-correction prior — a limitation the authors themselves flag. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09458 v2 pith:U3Z5PZ3O submitted 2024-11-14 hep-ph

Stefan Meiser , Danny van Dyk , Javier Virto This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph MSC 81V1581V05 PACS 13.25.Hw12.15.Mm11.30.Hv
keywords btocanti-uqdecaysQCDfactorizationclass-Inonleptonicweakeffectivetheoryhard-scatteringkernelsB-mesonlifetimeBayesianfitsnewphysicsbeyondtheStandardModel
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 studies the class-I nonleptonic decays $\bar{B}_s^0\to D_s^{(*)+}\pi^-$ and $\bar{B}^0\to D^{(*)+}K^-$ within the Weak Effective Theory up to dimension six. It provides the first complete set of three-particle hard-scattering kernels at leading order in $\alpha_s$ for the full operator basis, and the first leading-order calculation of the inclusive nonleptonic $B$-meson width for the full set of $b\to c\bar{u}q$ operators. A global Bayesian fit, varying up to six effective couplings simultaneously, finds that the Standard Model alone fails badly: $\chi^2=26.69$ for four degrees of freedom, corresponding to $p=2\cdot 10^{-5}$. Every four-operator and six-operator new-physics model is decisively preferred over the Standard Model, with Bayes factors from $1.5\cdot 10^3$ to $3.4\cdot 10^5$, and the four-operator models are strongly preferred over the six-operator models. The authors stress that a model with power corrections of order $-20\%$ to $-30\%$ also fits perfectly, so the case for new physics hinges on the true size of those corrections.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the QCD-factorization formula for class-I decays, $\langle Q_i\rangle = \sum_j F_j^{B\to D^{(*)}}(m_P^2)\int_0^1 du\, T_{ij}(u,\mu)\Phi_P(u,\mu)+O(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_b)$, which separates short-distance physics in the hard-scattering kernels $T_{ij}(u,\mu)$ from the nonperturbative $B\to D^{(*)}$ form factors and the light-meson light-cone distribution amplitudes $\Phi_P(u)$. The paper uses a Fierz-transformed BMU operator basis for the analytic amplitude calculations and the Bern basis for the lifetime and fits, connecting them through a next-to-leading-order basis change that includes evanescent operators. The new three-particle contributions are organized by the twist-3 and twist-4 light-cone distribution amplitudes $\Phi_{3;P}$ and $\Phi_{4;P}$, and the inclusive width constraint comes from a tree-level calculation of the cut diagram for $b\to c\bar{u}q$ interference.

What would settle it

A direct lattice QCD calculation of any of the four branching ratios $\mathcal{B}(\bar{B}_s\to D_s^+\pi^-)$, $\mathcal{B}(\bar{B}_s\to D_s^{*+}\pi^-)$, $\mathcal{B}(\bar{B}^0\to D^+K^-)$, or $\mathcal{B}(\bar{B}^0\to D^{*+}K^-)$ that agrees with the Standard Model prediction at the percent level, together with a precision determination of the related $B\to D^{(*)}$ form factors, would remove the statistical tension and imply that the new-physics fits are an artifact of underestimated power corrections

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes the first complete Weak Effective Theory description of the class-I decays $\bar{B}^0_{(s)}\to D^{(*)+}_{(s)}P^-$. It recalculates the two-particle hard-scattering kernels at next-to-leading order in $\alpha_s$ for all twenty operators, confirming the literature, and computes the three-particle ($q\bar{q}g$) hard-scattering kernels at tree level for the full WET basis for the first time. It also computes the inclusive nonleptonic $B$-meson decay width at leading order in QCD and leading power in $1/m_b$ for the full set of $b\to c\bar{u}q$ operators. In the Bayesian analysis, the Standard Model fit yields $\chi^2=26.69$ for four effective degrees of freedom ($p=2\cdot10^{-5}$); all four BSM models are decisively favoured over the SM, with Bayes factors ranging from $1.5\cdot10^3$ to $3.4\cdot10^5$, and the four-operator models WET-1 and WET-3 are strongly preferred over the six-operator models WET-2 and WET-4. Each BSM model exhibits two well-separated modes, one closer to the SM point and one farther away, and the paper shows that a more precise measurement of $\mathcal{B}(\bar{B}_s\to D_s^+\pi^-)$ would distinguish them. The paper also notes that allowing power corrections of about $-20\%$ to $-30\%$ removes the tension completely, so the new-physics interpretation is conditional on those corrections being small.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that new physics is needed hinges on the assumption that the power corrections to the QCD-factorization formula for these decays are only a few percent, as estimated in the literature, rather than the large corrections of order minus thirty percent that would make the Standard Model fit perfectly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The complete set of hard-scattering kernels for all twenty WET operators makes class-I nonleptonic decays usable as a general probe of $b\to c\bar{u}q$ new physics, not just a test of the two Standard Model operators.
  • Simultaneously varying up to six Wilson coefficients yields stronger and more realistic bounds on the $qbcu$ sector than previous one- or two-operator scans, and identifies parameter directions that are currently only constrained by the lifetime.
  • All four BSM models are decisively favoured over the Standard Model, while the four-operator models WET-1 and WET-3 are strongly preferred over the six-operator models WET-2 and WET-4, narrowing the space of plausible new-physics explanations.
  • A more precise measurement of $\mathcal{B}(\bar{B}_s\to D_s^+\pi^-)$ would discriminate between the two modes in every BSM model, because all A-mode predictions undershoot the current central value while all B-mode predictions overshoot it.
  • The lifetime constraint effectively bounds the volume of the WET parameter space, and the paper identifies combinations of Wilson coefficients for which the lifetime is the dominant constraint rather than the exclusive branching ratios.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If independent determinations of the $B\to D^{(*)}$ form factors or of the power corrections in QCD factorization become precise enough, the ambiguity between the new-physics solution and the large-power-correction solution could be resolved; a power correction near $-20\%$ would dissolve the puzzle without BSM.
  • The two-mode structure seen in all four BSM models suggests an approximate discrete symmetry of the likelihood; combining the exclusive data with the lifetime ratio $\tau(B^+)/\tau(B^0)$ and the semileptonic CP asymmetry $a_{\rm sl}^d$ could break this degeneracy and single out one mode.
  • The same machinery could be extended to a merged ten-operator scenario, allowing the data to decide whether the four-operator or six-operator structure is preferred, and to other class-I decay modes with different CKM factors, adding independent observables to the global fit.
  • The paper's leading-order inclusive width calculation is a stepping stone: adding $1/m_b$ and $\alpha_s$ corrections to the lifetime constraint would sharpen the bounds on the $b\to c\bar{u}q$ parameter space in future analyses.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a WET analysis of the class-I nonleptonic decays \(\bar B^0_{(s)}\to D^{(*)+}_{(s)}P^-\) with \(P=\pi,K\). The authors recalculate the two-particle hard-scattering kernels at NLO in QCD for the full WET operator basis, confirming the results of Ref. [28]; they then compute, for the first time, the three-particle hard-scattering kernels at LO for the full WET basis. They also derive the two-loop anomalous dimension matrix in the Bern basis and compute the inclusive nonleptonic \(B\)-meson decay width at LO in QCD and at leading power in \(1/m_b\) for the full \(qbcu\) WET sector. These results are implemented in the EOS software and used in a Bayesian analysis of four WET fit models (with four or six simultaneously varied Wilson coefficients), alongside SM, SM+PC, and SM+PC' models. The SM fit is poor (\(\chi^2=26.69\) for 4 d.o.f., \(p=2\times10^{-5}\)), all BSM models are decisively favoured over the SM, and two distinct posterior modes are found in each BSM model. The paper explicitly notes that an unconstrained power-correction model, SM+PC', fits the data with \(p=45\%\) and larger evidence than any WET model, so the BSM preference is conditional on the adopted power-correction prior.

Significance. The theoretical core of the paper is significant and, as far as I can determine, sound: the two-particle NLO kernels reproduce known results and the correct charmless limits, the three-particle kernels are new, and the lifetime calculation at LO for the full WET basis fills a gap in the literature. The paper also ships reproducible code and machine-readable likelihood and form-factor inputs in EOS, which is a clear strength. The phenomenological claim that new physics is required is, however, weaker than the abstract's 'decisively favoured' language suggests, because the paper's own SM+PC' fit—with power corrections of order \(-20\%\) to \(-30\%\)—describes the data at least as well as all BSM models. This is a load-bearing caveat, but the authors are transparent about it in Sec. 6, and the underlying calculations are not circular: the fits use external measurements and the form-factor priors come from independent earlier work.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.2.1 and Table 4] The SM+PC' fit, with \(\delta_P,\delta_V\in[-30\%,0]\) (Eq. 5.9), yields \(\chi^2=1.58\) with \(p=45\%\) and log-evidence 29.12, which is larger than every WET model evidence in Table 4. The paper's conclusion that BSM is needed is therefore entirely conditional on the prior in Eq. (5.8), which restricts power corrections to the estimates of Ref. [21]; that estimate is not re-derived or independently tested here. The abstract and §5.2.2 nevertheless state that BSM models are 'decisively favoured' over the SM, which is true but potentially misleading without an explicit comparison to SM+PC'. I recommend adding \(K(\mathrm{SM+PC'}, \mathrm{WET\text{-}i})\) to Table 4 or a dedicated discussion, and/or exploring a combined fit in which \(\delta_P,\delta_V\) are treated as nuisance parameters alongside the WET coefficients, so that the power-correction hypothesis competes on equal footing in the model comparison.
  2. [§5.1.2 and Fig. 4] The claimed SM p-value of \(2\times10^{-5}\) and the associated \(3.4\sigma\) form-factor pull are computed with a multivariate Gaussian approximation to the experimental likelihood, even though Fig. 4 shows that the full likelihood is strongly non-Gaussian in \(\mathcal{B}(\bar B_s\to D_s\pi)\), \(\mathcal{B}(\bar B_s\to D_s^*\pi)\), and \(f_s/f_d\). If the full likelihood has heavier tails, both the p-value and the Bayes factors in Table 4 could shift appreciably. Please quantify the effect by evaluating the SM fit and at least the decisive WET-1 versus SM+PC' comparison with the full eight-nuisance-parameter likelihood, or clearly state the size of the systematic shift induced by the Gaussian approximation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 4 and §5.2.2] The quoted Bayes factors \(K(\mathrm{WET\text{-}2B, SM})=1.5\times10^3\) and \(K(\mathrm{WET\text{-}1B, SM})=3.4\times10^5\) compare a single local mode's evidence with the SM evidence, although Eq. (5.4) defines the global model evidence as the sum of the local evidences; the quoted numbers are therefore conservative lower bounds and should be labelled as such or replaced by global-evidence ratios.
  2. [Eq. (3.49)] The notation \(O(q^4)\) in the tensor three-particle matrix element is ambiguous; since the light-meson momentum is on-shell with \(q^2=m_P^2\), please restate this as \(O(m_P^4)\) for clarity.
  3. [§5.1.4] The assertion that light-meson decay-constant and LCDA uncertainties are 'small' is not quantified; a one-line numerical test, for example varying \(f_{3P}\), \(\omega_{3P}\), and the \(\alpha_P^i\) by their quoted uncertainties, would make the sensitivity of the new three-particle kernels more transparent.
  4. [Fig. 4] The distinction between the 'full' and 'approx' likelihoods would be clearer with a legend or labelled contours; the current caption relies on the reader identifying the coloured regions by eye.
  5. [Table 4 caption] The statement that providing a p-value is 'not useful' is puzzling for the SM and SM+PC rows, where the number of degrees of freedom is positive; please report p-values for those rows or give a clearer explanation of why they are omitted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the new kernels, lifetime term, and fits are self-contained; the BSM interpretation is explicitly conditioned on rejecting the unconstrained power-correction hypothesis.

full rationale

The paper's central theoretical results are parameter-free QCD calculations: the two-particle kernels are recalculated and checked against Refs. [10,28] and the mc->0 limit, the three-particle kernels are new LO results for the full WET basis, and the inclusive width is a tree-level heavy-quark-expansion result. None of these absorb the target branching ratios. The phenomenological analysis uses external experimental data, and the form-factor priors from Ref. [72] were obtained independently of the nonleptonic observables analyzed here. The only author-overlapping inputs (the power-correction estimates of Ref. [21] and the EOS software) are used as external estimates and tools rather than as assumed conclusions; the paper transparently states in Sec. 6 that all BSM modes are 'not over the unconstrained power-correction hypothesis (SM+PC')' and that loosening the power-correction prior yields an excellent fit. Thus no equation reduces to its input by construction, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the self-citations do not carry the derivation. The central claim is therefore not circular, though its physical interpretation depends on an external prior about the size of power corrections.

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

The central analytic results (hard-scattering kernels, inclusive width) rest on the standard QCDF and heavy-quark expansions; the phenomenological bounds add the listed fit parameters and priors. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • WET Wilson coefficients C1..C4 (WET-1) = posterior modes A/B, see Fig. 6 and ancillary material
    Fitted to branching ratios and lifetime in fit model WET-1.
  • WET Wilson coefficients C5..C10 (WET-2) = posterior modes A/B, see Fig. 7
    Fitted in fit model WET-2 with SM-like coefficients fixed to SM values.
  • WET Wilson coefficients C1'..C4' (WET-3) = posterior modes A/B, see ancillary material
    Fitted in fit model WET-3 for chirality-flipped SM-like operators.
  • WET Wilson coefficients C5'..C10' (WET-4) = posterior modes A/B, see ancillary material
    Fitted in fit model WET-4 for chirality-flipped non-SM operators.
  • Power-correction parameters delta_P, delta_V (SM+PC and SM+PC') = SM+PC' posteriors around -20 percent; SM+PC priors delta_P in [-0.5%, 0], delta_V in [-0.3%, 0]
    Fitted to test whether power corrections alone can explain the data.
  • Hadronic form factors f0(Bs->Ds)(m_pi^2), f0(B->D)(m_K^2), A0(Bs->Ds*)(m_pi^2), A0(B->D*)(m_K^2) = Table 2 values with Gaussian priors; posterior pulls discussed in Sec. 5.2.1
    Nuisance parameters varied in the fits, with priors from Ref. [72].
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption QCD factorization formula (Eq. 1.1) holds for the class-I decays, with O(Lambda_QCD/m_b) power corrections neglected.
    Central framework for all exclusive predictions.
  • domain assumption Heavy-quark expansion for the inclusive nonleptonic width at leading power in 1/m_b and LO in alpha_s (Eq. 4.1).
    Used for the lifetime penalty; 1/m_b corrections are not estimated.
  • ad hoc to paper Gaussian approximation of the experimental likelihood replaces the full 8-nuisance-parameter likelihood (Sec. 5.1.2).
    Adopted for computational speed; the paper shows the approximation misses some non-Gaussian features (Fig. 4).
  • ad hoc to paper Uniform priors on the WET Wilson coefficients with the stated finite supports (Eqs. 5.10-5.13).
    Posterior bounds and Bayes factors are relative to these prior choices.
  • domain assumption The measured B- nonleptonic width is saturated by the q b c u sector (Sec. 5.1.2).
    Needed to construct the lifetime penalty function.
  • domain assumption Light-meson decay constants and LCDA parameters are fixed to literature values (Table 3) and their uncertainties are not propagated.
    Stated in Sec. 5.1.4 as small compared to form-factor uncertainties.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards a Global Analysis of the $b\to c\bar{u} q$ Puzzle." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U3Z5PZ3O

@misc{pith2026241109458,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards a Global Analysis of the $b\to c\baru q$ Puzzle},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U3Z5PZ3O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09458}
}
abstract

We study the nonleptonic decays $\bar{B}_s^0 \to D_s^{(*)+} \pi^-$ and $\bar{B}^0 \to D^{(*)+} K^-$ within the Weak Effective Theory (WET) up to mass-dimension six. We revisit the calculation of the hadronic matrix elements within QCD Factorization including the full set of WET operators. We recalculate the two-particle contributions to the hard-scattering kernels at next-to-leading order in $\alpha_s$, confirming recent results in the literature. We also calculate the three-particle contributions at leading order in $\alpha_s$, clarifying the procedure, refining the SM results in the literature, and providing for the first time the complete set of contributions within the WET. We use these results to perform a global phenomenological study of the effective couplings, putting bounds on the size of the WET Wilson coefficients in four distinct fit models. The fits include constraints from the nonleptonic $B$-meson decay width, which we calculate at the leading order for the full set of WET operators for the first time. This study is the first one to account for simultaneous variation of up to six effective couplings. We identify two distinct modes in all fit models and discuss how future measurements can be used to distinguish between them.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. $B$-meson decay width up to $1/m_b^3$ corrections within and beyond the Standard Model

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Complete analytic HQE matching coefficients for B-meson decay widths up to 1/m_b^3 are derived for generic new-physics operators, including previously missing weak-annihilation terms.

  2. HQET sum rules for matrix elements of dimension-six four-quark operators for meson lifetimes within and beyond the Standard Model

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    HQET sum rules yield the first four-quark bag parameters for B-meson lifetimes with beyond-standard-model operators, plus updated standard-model results.

  3. Inclusive Charmless Non-Leptonic B Decays at NLO within and beyond the Standard Model

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Complete NLO QCD corrections to charmless inclusive non-leptonic B-decay widths are computed for the full BSM operator set, yielding 26 constrained directions in Wilson coefficient space.

  4. Predictions for $b$-baryon lifetimes at NNLO-QCD

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    NNLO-QCD corrections to the free b-quark decay and NLO corrections to dimension-five operators reduce uncertainties in HQE predictions for b-baryon lifetimes, yielding excellent agreement with experiment.

  5. Semileptonic and nonleptonic weak decays of bottom baryons $\Omega^{(*)}_{b}$

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    QCD sum-rule calculation predicts Ω_b^*→Ω_c and Ω_b→Ω_c^* semileptonic and nonleptonic decay widths, e.g. Γ(Ω_b^*→Ω_c eν)=(1.54+0.29−0.27)×10^-14 GeV.

  6. Communicating Likelihoods with Normalising Flows

    hep-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A normalizing-flow workflow compresses sample-based likelihoods into small files, validated with a radial Kolmogorov-Smirnov test on three high-energy physics examples.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [28]

    Cai, W.-J

    F.-M. Cai, W.-J. Deng, X.-Q. Li and Y.-D. Yang, Probing new physics in class-I B-meson decays into heavy-light final states , JHEP 10 (2021) 235 [ 2103.04138]

    arXiv 2021

  2. [10]

    Beneke, G

    M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C.T. Sachrajda, QCD factorization for exclusive, nonleptonic B meson decays: General arguments and the case of heavy light final states , Nucl. Phys. B 591 (2000) 313 [hep-ph/0006124]

    arXiv 2000

  3. [21]

    Bordone, N

    M. Bordone, N. Gubernari, T. Huber, M. Jung and D. van Dyk, A puzzle in ¯B0 (s) → D(∗)+ (s) {π−, K−} decays and extraction of the fs/fd fragmentation fraction, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 951 [ 2007.10338]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [1]

    Isidori, Y

    G. Isidori, Y. Nir and G. Perez, Flavor Physics Constraints for Physics Beyond the Standard Model , Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60 (2010) 355 [ 1002.0900]

    arXiv 2010

  5. [2]

    Antonelli et al., Flavor Physics in the Quark Sector , Phys

    M. Antonelli et al., Flavor Physics in the Quark Sector , Phys. Rept. 494 (2010) 197 [ 0907.5386]

    arXiv 2010

  6. [3]

    Belle-II collaboration, The Belle II Physics Book , PTEP 2019 (2019) 123C01 [1808.10567], [Erratum: PTEP 2020, 029201 (2020)]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [4]

    BaBar, Belle collaboration, The Physics of the B Factories , Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3026 [1406.6311]

    arXiv 2014

  8. [5]

    Kuhr, Flavor physics at the Tevatron , vol

    T. Kuhr, Flavor physics at the Tevatron , vol. 249 (2013), 10.1007/978-3-642-10300-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-10300-1 2013

Show all 81 references
  1. [6]

    LHCb collaboration, Implications of LHCb measurements and future prospects , Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2373 [ 1208.3355]

    2013 arXiv

  2. [7]

    Aebischer, M

    J. Aebischer, M. Fael, C. Greub and J. Virto, B physics Beyond the Standard Model at One Loop: Complete Renormalization Group Evolution below the Electroweak Scale , JHEP 09 (2017) 158 [1704.06639]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [8]

    Beneke, G

    M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C.T. Sachrajda, QCD factorization for B → ππ decays: Strong phases and CP violation in the heavy quark limit , Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 1914 [ hep-ph/9905312]

    1999 arXiv

  4. [9]

    Bauer, S

    C.W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol and I.W. Stewart, An Effective field theory for collinear and soft gluons: Heavy to light decays , Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 114020 [ hep-ph/0011336]

    2001 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Beneke, G

    M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C.T. Sachrajda, QCD factorization in B → πK, ππ decays and extraction of Wolfenstein parameters , Nucl. Phys. B 606 (2001) 245 [ hep-ph/0104110]

    2001 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Beneke and M

    M. Beneke and M. Neubert, QCD factorization for B → P Pand B → P Vdecays, Nucl. Phys. B 675 (2003) 333 [ hep-ph/0308039]

    2003 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Bauer, D

    C.W. Bauer, D. Pirjol, I.Z. Rothstein and I.W. Stewart, B → M1M2: Factorization, charming penguins, strong phases, and polarization , Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 054015 [ hep-ph/0401188]

    2004 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Bauer, D

    C.W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I.W. Stewart, A Proof of factorization for B → Dπ, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 201806 [ hep-ph/0107002]. – 44 –

    2001 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Kr¨ ankl, T

    S. Kr¨ ankl, T. Mannel and J. Virto, Three-body non-leptonic B decays and QCD factorization , Nucl. Phys. B 899 (2015) 247 [ 1505.04111]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Huber, J

    T. Huber, J. Virto and K.K. Vos, Three-Body Non-Leptonic Heavy-to-heavy B Decays at NNLO in QCD, JHEP 11 (2020) 103 [ 2007.08881]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Neubert and B

    M. Neubert and B. Stech, Nonleptonic weak decays of B mesons , Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 15 (1998) 294 [ hep-ph/9705292]

    1998 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Beneke and T

    M. Beneke and T. Feldmann, Symmetry breaking corrections to heavy to light B meson form-factors at large recoil, Nucl. Phys. B 592 (2001) 3 [ hep-ph/0008255]

    2001 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Huber, S

    T. Huber, S. Kr¨ ankl and X.-Q. Li, Two-body non-leptonic heavy-to-heavy decays at NNLO in QCD factorization, JHEP 09 (2016) 112 [ 1606.02888]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Beneke, P

    M. Beneke, P. B¨ oer, G. Finauri and K.K. Vos,QED factorization of two-body non-leptonic and semi-leptonic B to charm decays , JHEP 10 (2021) 223 [ 2107.03819]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Bordone, A

    M. Bordone, A. Greljo and D. Marzocca, Exploiting dijet resonance searches for flavor physics , JHEP 08 (2021) 036 [ 2103.10332]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Atkinson, C

    O. Atkinson, C. Englert, M. Kirk and G. Tetlalmatzi-Xolocotzi, Collider-Flavour Complementarity from the bottom to the top , 2411.00940

    arXiv

  17. [24]

    Iguro and T

    S. Iguro and T. Kitahara, Implications for new physics from a novel puzzle in ¯B0 (s) → D(∗)+ (s) {π−, K−} decays, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 071701 [ 2008.01086]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Fleischer and E

    R. Fleischer and E. Malami, Using B0 s → D∓ s K ± Decays as a Portal to New Physics , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 056004 [ 2109.04950]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Fleischer and E

    R. Fleischer and E. Malami, Revealing new physics in B0 s → D∓ s K ± decays, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 420 [2110.04240]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Piscopo and A.V

    M.L. Piscopo and A.V. Rusov, Non-factorisable effects in the decays B 0 s → D+ s π− and B 0 → D+K − from LCSR, JHEP 10 (2023) 180 [ 2307.07594]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Aebischer et al., WCxf: an exchange format for Wilson coefficients beyond the Standard Model , Comput

    J. Aebischer et al., WCxf: an exchange format for Wilson coefficients beyond the Standard Model , Comput. Phys. Commun. 232 (2018) 71 [ 1712.05298]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Buras, M

    A.J. Buras, M. Misiak and J. Urban, Two loop QCD anomalous dimensions of flavor changing four quark operators within and beyond the standard model , Nucl. Phys. B 586 (2000) 397 [ hep-ph/0005183]

    2000 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Jenkins, A.V

    E.E. Jenkins, A.V. Manohar and P. Stoffer, Low-Energy Effective Field Theory below the Electroweak Scale: Operators and Matching , JHEP 03 (2018) 016 [ 1709.04486], [Erratum: JHEP 12, 043 (2023)]. – 45 –

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Buras and P.H

    A.J. Buras and P.H. Weisz, QCD Nonleading Corrections to Weak Decays in Dimensional Regularization and ’t Hooft-Veltman Schemes , Nucl. Phys. B 333 (1990) 66

    1990

  25. [33]

    Dugan and B

    M.J. Dugan and B. Grinstein, On the vanishing of evanescent operators , Phys. Lett. B 256 (1991) 239

    1991

  26. [34]

    Herrlich and U

    S. Herrlich and U. Nierste, Evanescent operators, scheme dependences and double insertions , Nucl. Phys. B 455 (1995) 39 [ hep-ph/9412375]

    1995 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Tracas and N

    N. Tracas and N. Vlachos, Two Loop Calculations in QCD and the ∆I = 1/2 Rule in Nonleptonic Weak Decays, Phys. Lett. B 115 (1982) 419

    1982

  28. [36]

    Dekens and P

    W. Dekens and P. Stoffer, Low-energy effective field theory below the electroweak scale: matching at one loop, JHEP 10 (2019) 197 [ 1908.05295], [Erratum: JHEP 11, 148 (2022)]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Gorbahn and U

    M. Gorbahn and U. Haisch, Effective Hamiltonian for non-leptonic |∆F | = 1 decays at NNLO in QCD , Nucl. Phys. B 713 (2005) 291 [ hep-ph/0411071]

    2005 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Buras, Weak Hamiltonian, CP violation and rare decays , in Les Houches Summer School in Theoretical Physics, Session 68: Probing the Standard Model of Particle Interactions , pp

    A.J. Buras, Weak Hamiltonian, CP violation and rare decays , in Les Houches Summer School in Theoretical Physics, Session 68: Probing the Standard Model of Particle Interactions , pp. 281–539, 6, 1998 [hep-ph/9806471]

    1998 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Egner, M

    M. Egner, M. Fael, K. Sch¨ onwald and M. Steinhauser, Nonleptonic B-meson decays to next-to-next-to-leading order, 2406.19456

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Descotes-Genon and C.T

    S. Descotes-Genon and C.T. Sachrajda, Factorization, the light cone distribution amplitude of the B meson and the radiative decay B → γℓνℓ, Nucl. Phys. B 650 (2003) 356 [ hep-ph/0209216]

    2003 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Bordone, M

    M. Bordone, M. Jung and D. van Dyk, Theory determination of ¯B → D(∗)ℓ− ¯ν form factors at O(1/m2 c), Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 74 [ 1908.09398]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Jeffreys, The Theory of Probability , Oxford Classic Texts in the Physical Sciences, Oxford University Press (1939)

    H. Jeffreys, The Theory of Probability , Oxford Classic Texts in the Physical Sciences, Oxford University Press (1939)

    1939

  35. [43]

    Belle collaboration, Measurement of the Decay B0 s → D− s π+ and Evidence for B0 s → D± s K ± in e+e− Annihilation at √s ˜ 10.87-GeV , Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 021801 [ 0809.2526]

    2009 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Belle collaboration, Observation of Cabibbo suppressed B → D(∗)K − decays at BELLE , Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 111801 [ hep-ex/0104051]

    2001 arXiv

  37. [45]

    BaBar collaboration, Branching fraction measurement of B0 → D(∗)+π−, B− → D(∗)0π− and isospin analysis of ¯B → D(∗)π decays, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 031101 [ hep-ex/0610027]

    2007 arXiv

  38. [46]

    CLEO collaboration, Measurement of B(B− → D0π−) and B( ¯B0 → D+π−) and isospin analysis of ¯B → Dπ decays, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 031101 [ hep-ex/0206030]

    2002 arXiv

  39. [47]

    BaBar collaboration, Measurement of the absolute branching fractions B → Dπ, D∗π, D∗∗π with a missing mass method , Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 111102 [ hep-ex/0609033]

    2006 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Belle collaboration, Observation of B0 s → D∗− s π+, B0 s → D(∗)− s ρ+ Decays and Measurement of B0 s → D∗− s ρ+ Polarization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 231801 [ 1003.5312]. – 46 –

    2010 arXiv

  41. [49]

    CLEO collaboration, A New measurement of B → D∗π branching fractions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 2762 [hep-ex/9706019]

    1998 arXiv

  42. [50]

    CDF collaboration, Measurement of the Ratios of Branching Fractions B(B0 s → D− s π+π+π−)/B(B0 → D−π+π+π−) and B(B0 s → D− s π+)/B(B0 → D−π+), Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 061802 [ hep-ex/0610045]

    2007 arXiv

  43. [51]

    LHCb collaboration, Measurements of the branching fractions of the decays B0 s → D∓ s K ± and B0 s → D− s π+, JHEP 06 (2012) 115 [ 1204.1237]

    2012 arXiv

  44. [52]

    LHCb collaboration, Measurement of the fragmentation fraction ratio fs/fd and its dependence on B meson kinematics , JHEP 04 (2013) 001 [ 1301.5286]

    2013 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Particle Data Groupcollaboration, Review of Particle Physics , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 030001

    2018

  46. [54]

    BaBar collaboration, Measurement of branching fractions and resonance contributions for B0 → ¯D0K +π− and search for B0 → D0K +π− decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 011803 [hep-ex/0509036]

    2006 arXiv

  47. [55]

    LHCb collaboration, Study of B0 → D∗−π+π−π+ and B0 → D∗−K +π−π+ decays, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 092001 [ 1303.6861]

    2013 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Jung, Branching ratio measurements and isospin violation in B-meson decays , Phys

    M. Jung, Branching ratio measurements and isospin violation in B-meson decays , Phys. Lett. B 753 (2016) 187 [ 1510.03423]

    2016 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Belle collaboration, Studies of B0– ¯B0 mixing properties with inclusive dilepton events , Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 052004 [ hep-ex/0212033]

    2003 arXiv

  50. [58]

    BaBar collaboration, Measurement of the branching fraction of Υ(4S) → B0B 0 , Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 042001 [ hep-ex/0504001]

    2005 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Particle Data Groupcollaboration, Review of Particle Physics , PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01

    2022

  52. [60]

    Meiser, D

    S. Meiser, D. van Dyk and J. Virto, EOS/DATA-2024-03: Supplementary material for EOS/ANALYSIS-2023-09, Nov., 2024. 10.5281/zenodo.14161470

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    Particle Data Groupcollaboration, Review of particle physics , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 030001

    2024

  54. [62]

    Flavour Lattice A veraging Group (FLAG)collaboration, FLAG Review 2021 , Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 869 [ 2111.09849]

    2022 arXiv

  55. [63]

    RBC, UKQCDcollaboration, Domain wall QCD with physical quark masses , Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 074505 [1411.7017]

    2016 arXiv

  56. [64]

    HPQCD, UKQCDcollaboration, High Precision determination of the π, K, D and D(s) decay constants from lattice QCD , Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 062002 [ 0706.1726]

    2008 arXiv

  57. [65]

    MILC collaboration, Results for light pseudoscalar mesons , PoS LA TTICE2010(2010) 074 [1012.0868]. – 47 –

    2010 arXiv

  58. [66]

    RQCD collaboration, Light-cone distribution amplitudes of pseudoscalar mesons from lattice QCD , JHEP 08 (2019) 065 [ 1903.08038], [Addendum: JHEP 11, 037 (2020)]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Lattice Partoncollaboration, Pion and Kaon Distribution Amplitudes from Lattice QCD , Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (2022) 132001 [ 2201.09173]

    2022 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Ball, V.M

    P. Ball, V.M. Braun and A. Lenz, Higher-twist distribution amplitudes of the K meson in QCD , JHEP 05 (2006) 004 [ hep-ph/0603063]

    2006 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Fermilab Lattice, MILCcollaboration, Charmed and Light Pseudoscalar Meson Decay Constants from Four-Flavor Lattice QCD with Physical Light Quarks , Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 074509 [ 1407.3772]

    2014 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Dowdall, C.T.H

    R.J. Dowdall, C.T.H. Davies, G.P. Lepage and C. McNeile, Vus from π and K decay constants in full lattice QCD with physical u, d, s and c quarks, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 074504 [ 1303.1670]

    2013 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Carrasco et al., Leptonic decay constants fK , fD, and fDs with Nf = 2 + 1 + 1 twisted-mass lattice QCD, Phys

    N. Carrasco et al., Leptonic decay constants fK , fD, and fDs with Nf = 2 + 1 + 1 twisted-mass lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 054507 [ 1411.7908]

    2015 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Bordone, N

    M. Bordone, N. Gubernari, D. van Dyk and M. Jung, Heavy-Quark expansion for ¯Bs → D(∗) s form factors and unitarity bounds beyond the SU (3)F limit, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 347 [ 1912.09335]

    2020

  65. [73]

    EOS Authorscollaboration, EOS: a software for flavor physics phenomenology , Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 569 [ 2111.15428]

    2022 arXiv

  66. [74]

    van Dyk, M

    D. van Dyk, M. Reboud, N. Gubernari, P. L¨ ughausen, D. Leljak, M. Kirk et al., EOS version 1.0.13 , Oct., 2024. 10.5281/zenodo.13947381

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    M. Endo, S. Iguro and S. Mishima, Revisiting rescattering contributions to B(s) → D(∗) (s) M decays, JHEP 01 (2022) 147 [ 2109.10811]

    2022 arXiv

  68. [76]

    A. Lenz, J. M¨ uller, M.L. Piscopo and A.V. Rusov, Taming new physics in b → c¯ ud(s) with τ (B+)/τ (Bd) and ad sl, JHEP 09 (2023) 028 [ 2211.02724]

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Panuluh, S

    A.H. Panuluh, S. Tanaka and H. Umeeda, B(s) → D(∗) (s) M decays in the presence of final-state interaction, 2408.15466

    arXiv

  70. [78]

    Buras, M

    A.J. Buras, M. Jamin, M.E. Lautenbacher and P.H. Weisz, Effective Hamiltonians for ∆S = 1 and ∆B = 1 nonleptonic decays beyond the leading logarithmic approximation , Nucl. Phys. B 370 (1992) 69 [Addendum: Nucl.Phys.B 375, 501 (1992)]

    1992

  71. [79]

    Chetyrkin, M

    K.G. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak and M. Munz, |∆F | = 1 nonleptonic effective Hamiltonian in a simpler scheme, Nucl. Phys. B 520 (1998) 279 [ hep-ph/9711280]

    1998 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Morell and J

    P. Morell and J. Virto, On the two-loop penguin contributions to the Anomalous Dimensions of four-quark operators, JHEP 04 (2024) 105 [ 2402.00249]

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Aebischer, P

    J. Aebischer, P. Morell, M. Pesut and J. Virto, Two-Loop Anomalous Dimensions in the LEFT: Dimension-Six Four-Fermion Operators in NDR , 2501.08384. – 48 –

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.