Global analysis of inclusive B decays

Aneesh V. Manohar; Christian W. Bauer; Michael Luke; Michael Trott; Zoltan Ligeti

REVIEW

Global analysis of inclusive B decays

Christian W. Bauer, Zoltan Ligeti, Michael Luke, Aneesh V. Manohar, Michael Trott

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 2 Aug 2004 · 45 references

Pith's verdict: A careful, unglamorous update on inclusive |Vcb| whose central values are sturdier than the error bar stapled to them.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 11, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 9 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/0408002 (version 3)

Pith IDRUSC4V5O, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationAneesh V. Manohar, Christian W. Bauer, Michael Luke, Michael Trott, Zoltan Ligeti. "Global analysis of inclusive B decays." arXiv:hep-ph/0408002 (2004). https://pith.science/paper/RUSC4V5O

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Bottom line: the numbers in Eq. (22) are worth using, but quote them with the scheme spread attached, not as a standalone 1.5 percent measurement. The ±0.6 is a model output, not a measured uncertainty, and the paper knows it even if it doesn't quite say so that bluntly. What's actually new: a much larger data set (BABAR, BELLE, CDF, CLEO, DELPHI), the α_s Λ/m_b correction to the hadronic mass spectrum from Trott, and an eleven-scheme sweep run through one common error model. The real result is the scheme stability: 1S gives 41.4, kinetic gives 41.2, and the paper states plainly that the dividing line is whether m_b − m_c is expanded in HQET, not which short-distance mass you pick. That is a useful, checkable claim, and it holds up in Table I. Credit where due: they throw out the half-integer hadronic moments with a real argument (the expansion isn't a 1/m_b series when m_c ≪ m_b, and the BLM pieces are unknown), which most analyses would have buried in a footnote. They also print the no-theory-error fit next to the main one, and footnote the inverted QED factor from the preprint. That is good hygiene. Soft spots, in proportion. The theory-error scale A = 0.001 and the B_i/2 perturbative term are chosen, and the χ²/ν of 0.59 versus 1.72 (1S) and 2.72 (kinetic) with theory errors off means the truth sits somewhere between two error models; the quoted ±0.6 is a compromise nobody has independently validated. The stress-test's flag on the 0.05 diagonal repair of the BABAR hadronic correlation matrix is fair but smaller than stated: adding 0.05 to a unit diagonal inflates those errors by about 2.5 percent, not 5, and the authors say what they did. Worth quantifying, not disqualifying. Duality is explicitly left out of the budget (Sec. V A), and their defense — a bad fit would show it — is weak against a coherent shift, though the multi-cut, three-spectrum structure constrains that more than the reader allows. Who should read it: flavor people, and anyone using |Vcb| as an input to unitarity-triangle or |Vub| work. Yes to referees.

Referee report

Significance

If the result holds, this is a benchmark determination of a Standard-Model CKM element at the ~1.5% level, and equally a demonstration that the OPE truncated at Lambda_QCD^3/m_b^3 plus alpha_s^2 beta_0 describes inclusive B spectra down to lepton cuts of 0.6 GeV. The paper's strengths are concrete and should be named. It fits all publicly available data from five experiments with the published correlation matrices rather than a hand-picked subset, and it states its theory-error prescription explicitly in Eq. (17) so that a reader can reweight or discard it. It demonstrates scheme stability across eleven mass schemes and shows in Fig. 1 the perturbative convergence order by order, which is real internal evidence rather than assertion. It ships falsifiable by-products: the cut-dependent branching ratios of Table II, the ratio in Eq. (24), and the C parameter of Eq. (25), all of which can be checked against future data. It compares its m_b^1S with the independent sum-rule determination of Hoang and its |V_cb| with the exclusive PDG value, and it discloses in footnote 4 an error in the preprint version of the QED factor eta_QED that enhanced |V_cb|. The paper is also candid that its 1S

Major objections (3)

[Sec. V A, Eq. (17), Table I, Sec. VI] The quoted uncertainty in Eq. (22) is produced by the theory-error model of Eq. (17), and that model is calibrated after the fact rather than independently. The scale A = 0.001 (0.003 for non-integer hadronic moments) and the perturbative term B_i/2 are chosen so that the fit returns chi^2/nu = 0.59 for 1SEXP, which the authors themselves read as roughly two standard deviations below the mean and as evidence that the theory errors are overestimated; with the theory errors set to zero the same fit gives chi^2/nu = 1.72 (1SEXP) and 2.72 (kinEXP), as reported in Table I and Sec. VI. The truth therefore lies between the two error models, and the headline +/-0.6 is a compromise between them that is not validated anywhere in the paper. This is load-bearing because the abstract and Eq. (22) present the error as part of the result. A concrete and inexpensive test is requested: repeat the 1SEXP fit with A multiplied and divided by a factor of two (and separately with the B_i/2 term removed), and quote the resulting shifts in |V_cb| and m_b^1S in Table I. A second, model-independent handle is already available in the manuscript: the spread of central values across the eleven schemes, which could be quoted as an additional systematic alongside the fit error rather than left implicit in Fig. 1.
[Sec. V B, Table I] The treatment of the BABAR hadronic correlation matrix deserves explicit justification because those moments are the most constraining data for m_b. The manuscript states that the matrix has negative eigenvalues much larger than round-off and that the authors are forced to add 0.05 to the diagonal entries to make them positive. Adding 0.05 to a correlation matrix diagonal is not a small repair: it corresponds to inflating the variance of every BABAR hadronic moment by 5% of the product of the quoted errors, which systematically down-weights precisely the data that fix m_b. The paper does not show what happens without this repair, or with 0.02 or 0.10 instead of 0.05, and does not state whether the negative eigenvalues indicate a genuine problem in the published matrix or an over-conservative treatment by the authors. Please add a table entry or a short paragraph giving |V_cb| and m_b^1S for at least two alternative values of the diagonal regulator, and for the fit omitting the BABAR hadronic moments entirely. If the central values move by less than the quoted error, the repair is harmless and the point is closed; if they move by more, the error budget must reflect it.
[Sec. V A, Sec. VI, Fig. 2] The manuscript acknowledges in Sec. V A that duality violation is not included in the error budget, arguing that it would reveal itself as a poor fit. That test is weaker than the argument implies, because the fit has seven parameters and, as Sec. V C concedes, several very flat directions in parameter space; a coherent duality-violating shift common to all moments at a given cut can be partly absorbed into the fitted parameters and leave chi^2 small. The paper has the data in hand to do better, and the test is worth running. Please repeat the 1SEXP fit restricted to lepton and hadron moments with E_cut >= 1.0 GeV (and, if statistics allow, >= 1.2 GeV) and compare the resulting |V_cb| and m_b^1S with Eq. (22); a shift significantly larger than the quoted error would be direct evidence of a cut-dependent effect that the current error model does not capture. A second useful decomposition is a fit to lepton moments alone versus hadron moments alone, since duality violation is expected to affect the relation between different spectra more than any single spectrum. Either test converts an acknowledged gap into a bounded one.

Minor objections (9)

[Sec. III C, Sec. V C] The exclusion of the half-integer hadronic moments is well argued in Sec. III C, but the BABAR fit of Ref. [4] includes them, so a direct comparison would be informative. Please quote the shift in |V_cb| and m_b^1S when the half-integer moments are added back to the 1SEXP fit, even if only to confirm that the shift is within the quoted error.
[Sec. V C, Eq. (18)] The constraint term of Eq. (18) with m_chi = M_chi = 500 MeV is a prior that stabilizes flat directions, and the text says only that the results were checked to be insensitive to varying m_chi between 500 MeV and 1 GeV in Ref. [1]. Please give the numerical shift in |V_cb| and m_b^1S between fits with and without chi^2_param, and between m_chi = 500 MeV and 1 GeV, in this paper rather than by reference to the earlier analysis.
[Sec. IV, Eqs. (14)-(15)] Lambda and Lambda_c are defined as the differences between the quark masses and their reference values about which the expansion is performed, but the numerical reference values are never stated. Please give them, since a reader cannot otherwise reproduce the coefficient functions X^(k) and Y^(k).
[Eq. (25)] As typeset, Eq. (25) reads as a product of Gamma(B -> X_c l nu), |V_cb|^2, |V_ub|^2, and Gamma(B -> X_u l nu), which is dimensionally inconsistent with a ratio of order unity. Please check the placement of the division signs in the definition of C.
[Eq. (25) and surrounding text] The value C = 0.58 +/- 0.01 is quoted with an error that does not include the four-quark operator matrix element, which the following sentences say contributes an additional uncertainty estimated by replacing the divergent term with 8(Lambda_QCD/m_b)^3 ~ 0.01. Please fold that estimate into the quoted error, or state the two contributions separately, so that the number is not read as more precise than it is.
[Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 captions] The curves in Figs. 2 and 3 are post-fit, so they are consistency checks rather than predictions, and the captions do not say so. Please state explicitly that the red bands are the fit result at the best-fit parameters, and that the yellow bands are the theory-error estimate of Eq. (17) and are not included in the fit shown in Fig. 3.
[Sec. II, Fig. 1] The recommendation that the pole and MS schemes be avoided for high-precision fits is stated more strongly than Fig. 1 alone establishes. Please state the quantitative criterion by which a scheme is judged to be worse, for example the size of the order-alpha_s^2 beta_0 shift relative to the order-alpha_s shift, so that the recommendation is tied to a number.
[Table I] The second error quoted for kinEXP, from varying mu between 1 and 1.5 GeV, has no counterpart for 1SEXP. Please state in the caption that the 1S scheme has no factorization scale and therefore no such error, so that the two rows are not read as having asymmetric error treatment for unexplained reasons.
[Fig. 1 caption] The caption contains the typographical error 'red doted' where 'red dotted' is intended.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

A simultaneous fit to ninety-two inclusive B-decay measurements pins the CKM element |V_cb| to about 1.5 percent and the bottom-quark 1S mass to 4.68 GeV, and the answer barely moves when the mass scheme is changed.

The reading

The paper asks a deceptively simple question: if you take every published measurement of the shape of inclusive $B$ decays — the charged-lepton energy spectrum, the hadronic invariant-mass spectrum, and the photon spectrum in $Bto X_s gamma$ — and fit them all at once with the standard heavy-quark expansion, what values of the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa element $|V_{cb}|$ and the bottom-quark mass $m_b$ come out, and how much do those values depend on how you define the quark masses? The authors' answer is $|V_{cb}| = (41.4 pm 0.6 pm 0.1_{tau_B}) times 10^{-3}$ and $m_b^{1S} = 4.68 pm 0.03$ GeV, with a fit quality ($chi^2/nu = 0.59$ for 86 degrees of freedom) that is better than the quoted theoretical errors would lead one to expect. The reason a reader outside the field should care is that $|V_{cb}|$ is one of the four numbers that fix the shape of the unitarity triangle, and it is also the normalization against which $|V_{ub}|$ is measured; a one-percent handle on it tightens every quark-flavour test of the Standard Model that uses it. The paper's real burden is not the central values but the claim that the theoretical expansion, truncated at order $Lambda_{QCD}^3/m_b^3$ plus the leading renormalon-resummed piece $alpha_s^2 beta_0$, is good enough to describe these spectra down to lepton energy cuts as low as 0.6 GeV.

What carries the argument

The engine is the operator product expansion for inclusive $B$ decays: up to corrections suppressed by powers of $Lambda_{QCD}/m_b$, the meson decay rate equals the free-quark decay rate, with nonperturbative physics entering only through a short list of matrix elements. At order $Lambda_{QCD}^2/m_b^2$ these are $lambda_1$ and $lambda_2$; at order $Lambda_{QCD}^3/m_b^3$ six more appear, written $rho_{1,2}$ and $T_{1,2,3,4}$, of which only three independent combinations $T_1 - 3T_4$, $T_2 + T_4$, $T_3 + 3T_4$ enter inclusive $B$ decays. The paper's practical innovation is to write each moment as an explicit linear combination of these parameters — 17 terms when $m_b - m_c$ is expanded, 22 terms when $m_c$ is kept free — and then to fit. Two ingredients make the fit defensible: the recently computed $alpha_s Lambda_{QCD}/m_b$ correction to the hadronic mass spectrum, and a prescription for assigning theoretical errors (a common fractional floor $A$ times a dimensionful scale, plus half the last computed perturbative term) with correlations taken from the experimental correlation matrices. A one-sided penalty term keeps the $1/m_b^3$ matrix elements from drifting to unphysical sizes without pinning them to a preferred value.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports a global fit of 92 inclusive observables — 53 lepton-energy moments, 34 hadronic-mass moments, and 5 photon-energy moments, plus the semileptonic branching ratio — to a seven-parameter heavy-quark expansion, and finds $|V_{cb}| = (41.4 pm 0.6 pm 0.1) times 10^{-3}$ and $m_b^{1S} = 4.68 pm 0.03$ GeV in the 1S scheme with $m_b - m_c$ expanded in heavy-quark effective theory. The authors emphasise a structural result over the numbers themselves: the fits in the 1S, kinetic, PS, pole and MS schemes, with and without expanding $m_b - m_c$, all land on essentially the same $|V_{cb}|$ and $m_b$, so the dominant systematic is not the choice of short-distance mass definition but whether the charm mass is eliminated through meson mass differences or kept as a free parameter. They further report that the fit is consistent with the data at the level of $chi^2/nu = 0.59$ when their estimated theory errors are included, and that switching those errors off raises $chi^2/nu$ to 1.72 in the 1S scheme and 2.72 in the kinetic scheme — a pattern they read as evidence that uncomputed higher-order effects are present but smaller than their own error model.

Load-bearing premise

The whole extraction rests on quark–hadron duality — the assumption that the operator product expansion, truncated at order $Lambda_{QCD}^3/m_b^3$, still describes the average of real hadronic final states down to lepton energy cuts of 0.6 GeV and photon cuts of 1.8 GeV — and the paper explicitly declines to assign any error to violations of it, arguing only that such violations would show up as a poor fit, which they would not if the shift were common to all moments at a given cut and got absorbed into the fitted parameters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The unitarity-triangle constraint from $|V_{cb}|$ tightens to the few-percent level, and the same number sets the normalization for every inclusive $|V_{ub}|$ extraction that divides one semileptonic rate by the other.
Because the 1S and kinetic schemes agree, the long-standing worry that the $1/m_c$ expansion for the charm quark is uncontrolled in inclusive $B$ decays is not borne out at current precision, and the $1/m_c$ route can be used.
The paper supplies the ratio of the total semileptonic branching ratio to the branching ratio above a lepton energy cut, which lets experiments with different cuts be compared on a common footing.
The parameter $C$, the ratio of the $B to X_c l nu$ and $B to X_u l nu$ rates weighted by the CKM elements, is quoted as $0.58 pm 0.01$, which feeds directly into predictions for the $B to X_s gamma$ rate.
The fit's $chi^2$ being well below one is a standing invitation: either the theoretical error model is too conservative and $|V_{cb}|$ can be quoted more tightly, or there is a coherent shift absorbed into the fitted parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

If the low $chi^2$ is really a sign that the theory errors are overestimated by a factor of order two, then the honest error bar on $|V_{cb}|$ is closer to the no-theory-error fit, roughly $0.3$–$0.4 times 10^{-3}$, and the field's quoted precision is limited by its own conservatism rather than by the expansion.
The deliberate exclusion of the half-integer hadronic moments is the sharpest internal tension: those moments are precisely the ones most sensitive to the low-mass tail of the $X_c$ spectrum, so a future computation of their BLM corrections and a demonstration that the expansion is a genuine power series in $1/m_b$ would turn the excluded data into an independent check on the same fit.
A useful cross-check the paper does not perform is a split-sample fit: fit only the high-cut moments and predict the low-cut ones. Agreement there would test duality far better than a global $chi^2$, because a common shift would not be free to hide in the fitted parameters.
The near-equality of $m_b^{1S}$ from this fit and the sum-rule value quoted from threshold $B bar B$ physics suggests the two very different machineries are converging; a third, lattice-based determination of the same short-distance mass would make the agreement hard to dismiss as coincidence.

Original abstract

In light of the large amount of new experimental data, we revisit the determination of V_{cb} and m_b from inclusive semileptonic and radiative B decays. We study shape variables to order lqcd^3/m_b^3 and alpha_s^2\beta_0, and include the order alpha_s, lqcd/m_b correction to the hadron mass spectrum in semileptonic decay, which improves the agreement with the data. We focus on the 1S and kinetic mass schemes for the b quark, with and without expanding m_b-m_c in HQET. We perform fits to all available data from BABAR, BELLE, CDF, CLEO, and DELPHI, discuss the theoretical uncertainties, and compare with earlier results. We find V_{cb} = (41.4 +- 0.6 +- 0.1) x 10^{-3} and m_b^{1S} = 4.68 +- 0.03 GeV, including our estimate of the theoretical uncertainty in the fit.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,465 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.36 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.06 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.99 · compares with prior results 0.94 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v3. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

In light of the large amount of new experimental data, we revisit the determination of V_{cb} and m_b from inclusive semileptonic and radiative B decays. We study shape variables to order lqcd^3/m_b^3 and alpha_s^2\beta_0, and include the order alpha_s, lqcd/m_b correction to the hadron mass spectrum in semileptonic decay, which improves the agreement with the data. We focus on the 1S and kinetic mass schemes for the b quark, with and without expanding m_b-m_c in HQET. We perform fits to all available data from BABAR, BELLE, CDF, CLEO, and DELPHI, discuss the theoretical uncertainties, and compare with earlier results. We find V_{cb} = (41.4 +- 0.6 +- 0.1) x 10^{-3} and m_b^{1S} = 4.68 +- 0.03 GeV, including our estimate of the theoretical uncertainty in the fit.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	In light of the large amount of new experimental data, we revisit the determination of V_{cb} and m_b from inclusive semileptonic and radiative B decays.	contribution 0.65	0.68	0.04	asserted 0.68
s1	We study shape variables to order lqcd^3/m_b^3 and alpha_s^2\beta_0, and include the order alpha_s, lqcd/m_b correction to the hadron mass spectrum in semileptonic decay, which improves the agreement with the data.	method 0.64	0.95	0.05	asserted 1.00
s2	We focus on the 1S and kinetic mass schemes for the b quark, with and without expanding m_b-m_c in HQET.	method 0.90	0.80	0.02	asserted 0.84
s3	We perform fits to all available data from BABAR, BELLE, CDF, CLEO, and DELPHI, discuss the theoretical uncertainties, and compare with earlier results.	method 0.89	0.95	0.03	asserted 0.96
s4	We find V_{cb} = (41.4 +- 0.6 +- 0.1) x 10^{-3} and m_b^{1S} = 4.68 +- 0.03 GeV, including our estimate of the theoretical uncertainty in the fit.	result 1.00	0.97	0.91	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 0.62 · evidence from analysis of existing data 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v3

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Measurements (blue squares: BABAR [25, 31], green tr

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Measurements and fit results for the hadron invariant

Showing 5 of the paper's 6 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:hep-ph/0408002 by the authors.

References

Works cited (45)

[1]

C. W. Bauer, Z. Ligeti, M. Luke and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. D 67, 054012 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[2]

M. Battaglia et al. , Phys. Lett. B 556 (2003) 41

View on Pith 2003
[3]

A. H. Mahmood et al. [CLEO Collaboration], Phys. Rev. 12 D 67, 072001 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[4]

B. Aubert et al. [BABAR Collaboration], hep- ex/0404017

View on Pith
[5]

J. Chay, H. Georgi and B. Grinstein, Phys. Lett. B247 (1990) 399; M.A. Shifman and M.B. Voloshin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 41 (1985) 120; I.I. Bigi, N.G. Uraltsev and A.I. Vainshtein, Phys. Lett. B293 (1992) 430 [E. B297 (1992) 477]; I.I. Bigi, M.A. Shifman, N.G. Uraltsev and A.I. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993) 496; A.V. Manohar and M.B. Wise, Phys. Re...

View on Pith 1990
[6]

A.V. Manohar and M.B. Wise, Cambridge Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol. 10 (2000) 1

View on Pith 2000
[7]

N. Isgur, Phys. Lett. B448 (1999) 111; Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 074030

View on Pith 1999
[8]

M. Trott, hep-ph/0402120

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[9]

P. Gambino and N. Uraltsev, Eur. Phys. J. C 34, 181 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[10]

A. Hoang, Z. Ligeti and A. Manohar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 277; Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 074017

View on Pith 1999
[11]

A.H. Hoang and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 114027

View on Pith 1999
[12]

M. Beneke, Phys. Lett. B434 (1998) 115

View on Pith 1998
[13]

M.B. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. D51 (1995) 4934

View on Pith 1995
[14]

M. Gremm, A. Kapustin, Z. Ligeti and M.B. Wise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 20

View on Pith 1996
[15]

M. Gremm and A. Kapustin, Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 6924

View on Pith 1997
[16]

M. Gremm and I. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 1226

View on Pith 1997
[17]

A.F. Falk, M. Luke, and M.J. Savage, Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 2491; D53 (1996) 6316

View on Pith 1996
[18]

A.F. Falk and M. Luke, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 424

View on Pith 1998
[19]

A.F. Falk, M. Luke, and M.J. Savage, Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 3367

View on Pith 1994
[20]

A. Kapustin and Z. Ligeti, Phys. Lett. B355 (1995) 318

View on Pith 1995
[21]

Z. Ligeti, M. Luke, A.V. Manohar and M.B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 034019

View on Pith 1999
[22]

C. Bauer, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 5611 [Erratum-ibid. D60 (1999) 099907]

View on Pith 1998
[23]

M. Luke, M.J. Savage, and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B345 (1995) 301

View on Pith 1995
[24]

S. Eidelman et al. , Particle Data Group, Phys. Lett. B 592, 1 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[25]

B. Aubert et al. [BABAR Collaboration], hep- ex/0403030

View on Pith
[26]

R. Kaiser, A. V. Manohar and T. Mehen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 142001 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[27]

B. Aubert et al. [BABAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 69, 071101 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[28]

K. Abe et al. [BELLE Collaboration], hep-ex/0409015

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[29]

A. H. Mahmood et al. [CLEO Collaboration], hep- ex/0403053

View on Pith
[30]

DELPHI Collaboration, DELPHI note: 2003-028- CONF-648, http://delphiwww.cern.ch/pubxx/ conferences/summer03/PapNo046.html

View on Pith 2003
[31]

B. Aubert et al. [BABAR Collaboration], hep- ex/0403031

View on Pith
[32]

K. Abe et al. [BELLE Collaboration], hep-ex/0408139

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[33]

CDF Collaboration, CDF note 6973, available at: http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/new/bottom/ 040428.blessed-bhadr-moments/

View on Pith
[34]

S. E. Csorna et al. [CLEO Collaboration], hep- ex/0403052

View on Pith
[35]

C.W. Bauer and M. Trott, Phys. Rev. D 67, 014021 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[36]

P. Koppenburg et al. [BELLE Collaboration], hep- ex/0403004

View on Pith
[37]

S. Chen et al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 251807

View on Pith 2001
[38]

B. Aubert et al. [BABAR Collaboration], hep- ex/0207074

View on Pith
[39]

P. J. Mohr and B. N. Taylor, Rev. Mod. Phys. 72, 351 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[40]

E. Barberio and P. Urquijo, private communications; C. Schwanda talk at the workshop on the “Determination of CKM Matrix Elements Vub/Vcb at Belle,” Oct. 12–13, 2004, Nagoya University, Japan

View on Pith 2004
[41]

A.H. Hoang, hep-ph/0008102

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[42]

M. Beneke and A. Signer, Phys. Lett. B 471, 233 (1999)

View on Pith 1999
[43]

M. B. Voloshin, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 10, 2865 (1995)

View on Pith 1995
[44]

P. Gambino and M. Misiak, Nucl. Phys. B 611, 338 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[45]

C. W. Bauer and C. N. Burrell, Phys. Lett. B 469, 248 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

Forward citations

Cited by 31 Pith papers

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

Evidence for intrinsic charm quarks in the proton
hep-ph 2022-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The proton contains a non-perturbative intrinsic charm component with a valence-like peak near x = 0.4, significant at roughly 3 standard deviations once LHCb Z+charm or EMC data are added.
The B -> D* l nu form factor at zero recoil from three-flavor lattice QCD: A model independent determination of |V_cb|
hep-lat 2008-08 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

Three-flavor lattice QCD yields the zero-recoil B to D* form factor F(1) = 0.921(13)(20) and hence |V_cb| = 38.7(9)(10) x 10^-3, about 2 sigma below the inclusive determination.
Inclusive $B$ decays, lifetimes, and $|V_{cb}|$: a unified heavy-quark expansion analysis
hep-ph 2026-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A unified HQE fit with fitted perturbative scales gives |Vcb| = (42.32 ± 0.30) x 10^-3, predicted lifetimes 1.1 to 1.2 sigma below experiment, and a full-dataset p-value of 8.4 x 10^-5.
Kinematic Moments of $\bar{B}\to X_c \ell \bar{\nu}_\ell$ to Order $\mathcal{O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^5/m_b^5)$
hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Analytic HQE moments for inclusive B to X_c l nu are extended to O(Lambda^5/m_b^5), including q^2 moments with a lepton-energy cut, and a CLEO data tension is identified.
Constrained second-order power corrections in HQET: $R(D^{(*)})$, $|V_{cb}|$, and new physics
hep-ph 2022-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Truncating HQET second-order power corrections by a conjectured counting in transverse residual momentum reduces 32 subsubleading Isgur-Wise functions to 3 and yields R(D)=0.288(4), R(D*)=0.249(3), |Vcb|=38.7(6)e-3.

Show 26 more citing papers

A Tale of Invisibility: Constraints on New Physics in $b\to s\nu\nu$
hep-ph 2021-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A complete dimension-six effective-field-theory analysis of b to s neutrino-antineutrino decays shows that B to K, B to K*, the K* longitudinal polarisation, and the inclusive B to X_s rate probe complementary classes...
Inclusive B -> X_s l^+ l^-: Complete angular analysis and a thorough study of collinear photons
hep-ph 2015-03 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Collinear photon emission reshapes the angular distribution of inclusive B -> X_s l+ l-; the authors compute those log-enhanced QED corrections, propose QED-only observables H3 and H4, and update Standard Model predic...
Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators III: Gauge Coupling Dependence and Phenomenology
hep-ph 2013-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The authors compute the gauge-coupling terms of the one-loop anomalous dimension matrix for the 59 dimension-six SMEFT operators, completing the full 2499 x 2499 matrix.
Logarithmically Enhanced Corrections to the Decay Rate and Forward Backward Asymmetry in anti-B --> X(s) l+ l-
hep-ph 2007-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Logarithmically enhanced QED corrections shift the high-dilepton-mass B -> X_s mu mu rate by about -8%, and the forward-backward asymmetry zero is fixed at (3.50 +/- 0.12) GeV^2.
NNLO QCD corrections to the B -> X_s gamma matrix elements using interpolation in m_c
hep-ph 2006-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A three-loop QCD matrix element for B -> X_s gamma is computed in the heavy-charm limit and interpolated to the physical charm mass, giving a Standard Model branching ratio of (3.15 +/- 0.23) x 10^-4 above 1.6 GeV.
Electromagnetic Logarithms in B -> X_s l+ l-
hep-ph 2005-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Including the collinear QED logarithm ln(m_b^2/m_l^2) in the four-fermion matrix elements shifts the low-q^2 B -> X_s mu+ mu- branching ratio to (1.59 ± 0.11) x 10^-6, completing the logarithmically enhanced electroma...
Perturbative corrections to semileptonic b decay distributions
hep-ph 2005-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Complete analytic one-loop and resummed large-beta0 corrections to all five semileptonic b decay structure functions, with a soft-singularity subtraction that makes arbitrary kinematic cuts numerically tractable.
The $q^2$ moments in inclusive semileptonic $B$ decays
hep-ph 2023-10 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Adding new O(α_s²β_0) corrections and the Belle/Belle II q² moments to the global OPE fit yields |Vcb| = (41.97 ± 0.48) × 10⁻³, with the uncertainty on ρ³D roughly halved.
Precise predictions for $\Lambda_b \to \Lambda_c$ semileptonic decays
hep-ph 2018-12 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Fitting HQET form factors to LHCb and lattice QCD data yields R(Lambda_c) = 0.324 +/- 0.004, parameter-free tensor form factors, and a factorization test for Lambda_b -> Lambda_c pi.
Reparametrization Invariance and Partial Re-Summations of the Heavy Quark Expansion
hep-ph 2018-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Reparametrization invariance of the heavy-quark expansion is used to resum higher-order terms and reduce the number of independent non-perturbative parameters at order 1/m^4 to eight.
Taming the higher power corrections in semileptonic B decays
hep-ph 2016-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Adding dimension-7 and dimension-8 operators to the global fit of inclusive semileptonic B decay moments shifts |Vcb| by about 0.25%, confirming that higher power corrections do not destabilize the inclusive extraction.
Precision determination of the CKM element Vcb
hep-ph 2014-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Including the newly computed O(alpha_s Lambda^2/m_b^2) corrections in a global fit to inclusive semileptonic B moments yields |Vcb| = (42.21 +/- 0.78) x 10^-3 and m_b^kin(1 GeV) = 4.553 +/- 0.020 GeV.
Inclusive semileptonic fits, heavy quark masses, and V_cb
hep-ph 2013-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

A global fit to semileptonic B decay moments with NNLO corrections and an external charm mass yields |Vcb| = 42.42(86) x 10^-3 and m_b^kin = 4.541(23) GeV.
Optimizing the basis of B->K*ll observables in the full kinematic range
hep-ph 2013-03 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

The authors define an optimal basis of form-factor-insensitive angular observables for B → K*ℓ+ℓ− and provide binned Standard Model predictions for both CP-averaged and CP-violating quantities.
NSUSY fits
hep-ph 2012-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A global fit to 48 Higgs signal-strength channels, combined with W-mass, B-to-Xs-gamma and collider constraints, leaves viable light-stop regions in Natural SUSY but finds it hard to reach a 125 GeV Higgs with sub-TeV stops.
Implications from clean observables for the binned analysis of B -> K*ll at large recoil
hep-ph 2012-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Binned, form-factor-insensitive angular observables in B -> K* mu mu are defined, predicted in the Standard Model, extracted from LHCb data, and shown to constrain New Physics in the Wilson coefficients C7, C9 and C10.
B semileptonic moments at NNLO
hep-ph 2011-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The first three lepton-energy and hadronic-mass moments in inclusive B semileptonic decays are computed at complete O(alpha_s^2), and the non-BLM corrections are found to be small, confirming the earlier O(alpha_s^2 b...
Exploring New Physics in the C7-C7' plane
hep-ph 2011-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The isospin asymmetry in B to K* gamma excludes the flipped-sign solution for the Wilson coefficient C7 at one sigma, requiring a 1.6 sigma stretch to keep it alive.
Charged-Higgs phenomenology in the Aligned two-Higgs-doublet model
hep-ph 2010-06 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Low-energy flavour data bound the three complex Yukawa alignment parameters of the aligned two-Higgs-doublet model, giving |ς_l|/M_H± ≤ 0.40 GeV^-1 and |ς_u|/M_H± < 0.011 GeV^-1 at 95% CL.
New strategies for New Physics search in B -> K* nu anti-nu, B -> K nu anti-nu and B -> X(s) nu anti-nu decays
hep-ph 2009-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The paper gives updated Standard Model predictions for B to K* neutrino pairs, B to K neutrino pairs and inclusive B to X_s neutrino pairs, and shows all three collapse onto a two-parameter plane whose second coordina...
SuperIso v3.0: A program for calculating flavor physics observables in 2HDM and supersymmetry
hep-ph 2008-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

SuperIso v3.0 packages calculations of several flavor-physics observables and the muon g-2 into one public C program for the SM, 2HDM, MSSM, and NMSSM.
Rare Decays of \Lambda_b->\Lambda + \gamma and \Lambda_b ->\Lambda + l^{+} l^{-} in the Light-cone Sum Rules
hep-ph 2008-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Light-cone sum rules with higher-twist Lambda distribution amplitudes give Lambda_b to Lambda form factors roughly three times smaller than earlier QCD sum rule estimates, yielding a branching ratio for Lambda_b to La...
Model-Independent Extraction of $|V_{cb}|$ from $\bar{B}\rightarrow D^* \ell \overline{\nu}$
hep-ph 2017-03 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Fitting Belle's unfolded B to D* lepton neutrino data with the BGL form-factor expansion gives |Vcb| = (41.9 +2.0/-1.9) x 10^-3, consistent with inclusive determinations and above the CLN value from the same dataset.
The Standard Model Effective Field Theory and Next to Leading Order
hep-ph 2016-10 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

The paper argues that leading-order SMEFT fits to LHC data are insufficient at current and projected precision, and specifies a Warsaw-basis leading-order construction designed to be extended to next-to-leading order.
Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector
hep-ph 2016-10 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

The report fixes the community's baseline numbers for Higgs boson production and decay at the 13 TeV LHC, including a 48.6 pb gluon-fusion cross section at N3LO with an explicit uncertainty budget.
Averages of b-hadron and c-hadron Properties at the End of 2007
hep-ex 2008-08 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

HFAG combines 492 published measurements from 148 papers into world averages for b-hadron and c-hadron lifetimes, branching fractions, mixing parameters, and CP observables as of end-2007.

How the literature uses it

48 arXiv papers cite this in 68 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 43 sentences without a confident label

Contests it 1 paper

In the fit of [ref] , the corrections are underestimated to be $α_s/4πΛ_QCD^2/m_b^2∼0.0002$: the contributions we find are roughly ten times larger.

Kinetic corrections to B -> X_c l nu at one loop · Results for the moments of the differential rate · contest 0.83

Uses its method or tool 4 papers

The fit relies on the calculations of the spectral moments described in Ref. [ref] .

Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, and tau-lepton properties as of early 2012 · Analysis in the 1S scheme · 0.93
In the $1S_EXP$ scheme in Ref. [ref] , one relates $m_b-m_c$ using heavy-quark effective theory (HQET) to a linear combination of the spin averaged hadron mass difference, $m_B-m_D$, $λ_1$, and dimension-6 HQET matrix elements.

Precise predictions for B -> Xc tau nu decay distributions · Numerical results · 0.85
The theoretical tool for calculating the inclusive semileptonic $B$ decay width $Γ(B→X_cℓν)$ is the Operator Product Expansion (OPE) [ref] , [equation] At the leading order in $1/m_b$, this expression coincides with the parton model result, i.e., the decay width of a free $b$-quark.

Determination of |V_cb| from Inclusive Decays B -> Xc l nu using a Global Fit · Theory · 0.89

Uses its data or values 11 papers

The masses $$ and $m_b-m_c$ and HQET parameters $λ_1,2$, $ρ_1,2$ and $T_1,2,3,4$, as well as their correlated uncertainties, are obtained using a fit to the $B$ decay spectra [ref] .

Constraining weak annihilation using semileptonic D decays · Introduction · 0.90
For the leading order shape function, we use the fit result from Ref. [ref] , and for consistency we also take the central value for $m_b^1S$ from there, which is consistent with the fit results in the $1S$ scheme in Refs. [ref] , with a conservative error of $±50$.

Precise predictions for B -> Xc tau nu decay distributions · Numerical results · 0.99
Fits to b-decays yield $λ_1^H≃-0.20 GeV^2$ [ref] , while measurements on the lattice yield for $λ_2^H≃0.10 GeV^2$ [ref] .

Puzzles of excited charm meson masses · Results from heavy hadron chiral perturbation theory · 1.00

Compares with it 2 papers

The determinations in the different channels are consistent within the quoted uncertainties and with earlier determinations [ref] .

Determination of the b-quark mass and nonperturbative parameters in semileptonic and radiative penguin decays at BABAR · Summary · 0.99
This value is also consistent with the mass estimates in the $kin_EXP$ and $1 S_EXP$ schemes [ref] .

Inclusive Measure of |V_ub| with the Analytic Coupling Model · Quark masses · 0.90

Cites it as background 5 papers

The theory underlying inclusive decays is based on a local operator product expansion, the Heavy Quark Expansion (HQE) [ref] , which allows to predict sufficiently inclusive decay observables, as the total semileptonic rate or moments of kinematic spectra, as an expansion in inverse powers of the bottom quark mass.

A first glance to the kinematic moments of $B \to X_c \ell \nu$ at third order · Introduction · 0.95
Inclusively the Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements $|V_ub|$ and $|V_cb|$ are extracted from global fits to experimental data on the semileptonic $B →X_c(u) ℓν$ decay width and moments of several kinematic distributions like the ones for the hadronic invariant mass or the lepton energy [ref] .

$\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^3)$ calculations for the inclusive determination of $|V_{cb}|$ · Introduction · 0.99
The goal of global fit analyses [ref] is to extract the values of the non-perturbative parameters, crucial for precisely determining $|V_cb|$ and all theoretical predictions based on the HQE [ref] , from data.

Kinematic Moments of $\bar{B}\to X_c \ell \bar{\nu}_\ell$ to Order $\mathcal{O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^5/m_b^5)$ · Introduction · 0.87

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

C. W. Bauer, Z. Ligeti, M. Luke and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. D 67, 054012 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[2] [2]

M. Battaglia et al. , Phys. Lett. B 556 (2003) 41

View on Pith 2003

[3] [3]

A. H. Mahmood et al. [CLEO Collaboration], Phys. Rev. 12 D 67, 072001 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[4] [4]

B. Aubert et al. [BABAR Collaboration], hep- ex/0404017

View on Pith

[5] [5]

J. Chay, H. Georgi and B. Grinstein, Phys. Lett. B247 (1990) 399; M.A. Shifman and M.B. Voloshin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 41 (1985) 120; I.I. Bigi, N.G. Uraltsev and A.I. Vainshtein, Phys. Lett. B293 (1992) 430 [E. B297 (1992) 477]; I.I. Bigi, M.A. Shifman, N.G. Uraltsev and A.I. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993) 496; A.V. Manohar and M.B. Wise, Phys. Re...

View on Pith 1990

[6] [6]

A.V. Manohar and M.B. Wise, Cambridge Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol. 10 (2000) 1

View on Pith 2000

[7] [7]

N. Isgur, Phys. Lett. B448 (1999) 111; Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 074030

View on Pith 1999

[8] [8]

M. Trott, hep-ph/0402120

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[9] [9]

P. Gambino and N. Uraltsev, Eur. Phys. J. C 34, 181 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[10] [10]

A. Hoang, Z. Ligeti and A. Manohar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 277; Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 074017

View on Pith 1999

[11] [11]

A.H. Hoang and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 114027

View on Pith 1999

[12] [12]

M. Beneke, Phys. Lett. B434 (1998) 115

View on Pith 1998

[13] [13]

M.B. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. D51 (1995) 4934

View on Pith 1995

[14] [14]

M. Gremm, A. Kapustin, Z. Ligeti and M.B. Wise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 20

View on Pith 1996

[15] [15]

M. Gremm and A. Kapustin, Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 6924

View on Pith 1997

[16] [16]

M. Gremm and I. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 1226

View on Pith 1997

[17] [17]

A.F. Falk, M. Luke, and M.J. Savage, Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 2491; D53 (1996) 6316

View on Pith 1996

[18] [18]

A.F. Falk and M. Luke, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 424

View on Pith 1998

[19] [19]

A.F. Falk, M. Luke, and M.J. Savage, Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 3367

View on Pith 1994

[20] [20]

A. Kapustin and Z. Ligeti, Phys. Lett. B355 (1995) 318

View on Pith 1995

[21] [21]

Z. Ligeti, M. Luke, A.V. Manohar and M.B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 034019

View on Pith 1999

[22] [22]

C. Bauer, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 5611 [Erratum-ibid. D60 (1999) 099907]

View on Pith 1998

[23] [23]

M. Luke, M.J. Savage, and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B345 (1995) 301

View on Pith 1995

[24] [24]

S. Eidelman et al. , Particle Data Group, Phys. Lett. B 592, 1 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[25] [25]

B. Aubert et al. [BABAR Collaboration], hep- ex/0403030

View on Pith

[26] [26]

R. Kaiser, A. V. Manohar and T. Mehen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 142001 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[27] [27]

B. Aubert et al. [BABAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 69, 071101 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[28] [28]

K. Abe et al. [BELLE Collaboration], hep-ex/0409015

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[29] [29]

A. H. Mahmood et al. [CLEO Collaboration], hep- ex/0403053

View on Pith

[30] [30]

DELPHI Collaboration, DELPHI note: 2003-028- CONF-648, http://delphiwww.cern.ch/pubxx/ conferences/summer03/PapNo046.html

View on Pith 2003

[31] [31]

B. Aubert et al. [BABAR Collaboration], hep- ex/0403031

View on Pith

[32] [32]

K. Abe et al. [BELLE Collaboration], hep-ex/0408139

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[33] [33]

CDF Collaboration, CDF note 6973, available at: http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/new/bottom/ 040428.blessed-bhadr-moments/

View on Pith

[34] [34]

S. E. Csorna et al. [CLEO Collaboration], hep- ex/0403052

View on Pith

[35] [35]

C.W. Bauer and M. Trott, Phys. Rev. D 67, 014021 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[36] [36]

P. Koppenburg et al. [BELLE Collaboration], hep- ex/0403004

View on Pith

[37] [37]

S. Chen et al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 251807

View on Pith 2001

[38] [38]

B. Aubert et al. [BABAR Collaboration], hep- ex/0207074

View on Pith

[39] [39]

P. J. Mohr and B. N. Taylor, Rev. Mod. Phys. 72, 351 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[40] [40]

E. Barberio and P. Urquijo, private communications; C. Schwanda talk at the workshop on the “Determination of CKM Matrix Elements Vub/Vcb at Belle,” Oct. 12–13, 2004, Nagoya University, Japan

View on Pith 2004

[41] [41]

A.H. Hoang, hep-ph/0008102

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[42] [42]

M. Beneke and A. Signer, Phys. Lett. B 471, 233 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

[43] [43]

M. B. Voloshin, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 10, 2865 (1995)

View on Pith 1995

[44] [44]

P. Gambino and M. Misiak, Nucl. Phys. B 611, 338 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[45] [45]

C. W. Bauer and C. N. Burrell, Phys. Lett. B 469, 248 (1999)

View on Pith 1999