Non-Abelian Dipole Radiation and the Heavy Quark Expansion

Andrzej Czarnecki; Kirill Melnikov; Nikolaj Uraltsev

REVIEW

Non-Abelian Dipole Radiation and the Heavy Quark Expansion

Andrzej Czarnecki, Kirill Melnikov, Nikolaj Uraltsev

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 15 Aug 1997 · 22 references

Pith's verdict: A solid two-loop letter: the new non-Abelian coefficient in the dipole coupling and the O(αs²) low-scale mass relation are real, but the μ-dependent two-loop matching behind Eq. (18) is asserted rather than displayed.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 13, 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 →

· 2 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/9708372 (version 1)

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

CitationAndrzej Czarnecki, Kirill Melnikov, Nikolaj Uraltsev. "Non-Abelian Dipole Radiation and the Heavy Quark Expansion." arXiv:hep-ph/9708372 (1997). https://pith.science/paper/NIFHJVKB

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

This is a 1997 letter from the Uraltsev-heavy-quark-expansion group, and it does what such letters are supposed to do: it defines a physical effective coupling αs^(ω) through the SV structure-function ratio (Eq. 6), computes its relation to αMS to two loops, and turns that into an O(αs²) relation between a gauge-invariant low-scale running mass mQ(μ) and the MS mass (Eq. 18). The genuinely new numbers are the non-Abelian coefficient −(π²/6 − 13/12)CA ≈ −1.685 in Eq. (8) and the two-loop constant K in Eq. (19). Those are worth having, and the mass relation is the kind of thing people actually plug into B-physics fits, so it earns its citations on utility alone. The Abelian-limit check (αs^(ω) → α(0) with no light fermions, to all orders) and the comparison with the ultrarelativistic αeff of Catani–Trentadue are the right sanity checks, and the BLM resummation in Eqs. (10) and (21) is a useful bonus. I also checked the one-loop piece of Eq. (18) against what Eqs. (12)–(14) demand, and it comes out right, including the −(4/3)(μ/m̄) and −μ²/2m̄² terms. That is a real internal consistency sign, not just decoration. Where I would push as a referee is the two-loop μ-dependence. Eq. (18) contains non-BLM μ-dependent pieces (8π²/9 − 52/9 and π²/3 − 23/18) that must cancel against two-loop corrections to Λ(μ) and μπ²(μ), and those corrections are never written down. The cancellation is presumably fine — the machinery is in Refs. [3], [6], [11] — but the letter does not show it, and that is the one place where a wrong sign would hide. The stress-test note is right to aim there rather than at universality, which is the paper's premise, argued from OPE and stated as such. Minor: Eq. (15) is garbled as printed, and the note in Ref. [18] about a misprint in Voloshin–Shifman is a curious thing to leave in a reference list. Eq. (24) is an order-of-magnitude factorization estimate at αs ≈ 1; the authors flag it as such, so no complaint. Read it for the two coefficients and the mass relation; skim the nonperturbative section. It deserves a referee.

Referee report

Significance

If correct, Eq. (18) supplies a gauge-invariant, physically defined short-distance heavy-quark mass at a low normalization scale with two-loop accuracy, which is what HQE phenomenology needs once O(α_s²) is the state of the art, and Eq. (8) supplies a physically defined expansion parameter for heavy-flavor transitions. The construction has real strengths that should be named. The definition (6) is a genuine physical definition rather than a fit, so the relation (8) is a computation and not a parametrization. The Abelian-limit argument (α_s^(ω) coincides with α(0) in QED without light fermions, to all orders) is a nontrivial structural check on the β0 part. The one-loop µ-dependence of Eq. (18) reproduces Eq. (14) exactly with C_F = 4/3, which I verified. The kinetic-operator result is checked against the independent zero-recoil calculation of [11]. The authors are candid that the non-BLM coefficient −1.685 is “not small either,” and they flag the renormalon caveat in footnote 5 rather than hiding it.

Major objections (2)

[Eqs. (18)–(20), with Eqs. (8) and (14)] The central result Eq. (18) is assembled from the pole-to-MS conversion of [12], the SV subtraction terms whose µ-evolution is Eq. (14), and the two-loop constant K of Eq. (19), but the paper never shows that the µ-dependent pieces of Eq. (18) actually cancel against the running implied by Eq. (8). At O(α_s) the check is satisfied: differentiating the one-loop part of Eq. (18) gives −(16/9)(α_s/π) − (4/3)(α_s/π)(µ/m), which is exactly −dΛ/dµ − (1/2m)dµ_π²/dµ from Eq. (14) with C_F = 4/3. The analogous two-loop check, which involves the X1 and X2 logarithms of Eq. (20) together with the β0 terms of Eq. (8), is not displayed. Please add it explicitly, and state which terms of Eq. (18) originate in the two-loop subtraction rather than in [12]; if the cancellation fails, Eq. (18) is wrong at O(α_s²) in a µ-dependent way.
[Eq. (8)] Eq. (8) is the engine for every subsequent result, but the genuine non-Abelian coefficient −C_A(π²/6 − 13/12) is quoted without any stated check. The Abelian-limit argument in the paragraph after Eq. (14) and the BLM resummation (10) constrain only the β0 part and say nothing about the −1.685. Please state what independent check was performed on this coefficient, for example a comparison with the two-loop soft anomalous dimension or with the α_eﬀ of [5] in an appropriate limit, and either give the O(α_s²) expression for d(ω) itself or state explicitly that Eq. (8) together with the RG exhausts the SV-limit content of the two-loop dipole radiation.

Minor objections (9)

[Eq. (7)] With β1 = 102 − (38/3)n_f in the standard convention where β(α) = −(β0/2)(α/π)² − (β1/4)(α/π)³ − …, the printed coefficient β1/8 appears to be a factor of two too small; please check the normalization.
[Paragraph after Eq. (6), item (b)] The statement that there is no dependence on the particular initial heavy hadron sits uneasily with the later statement that α_s^(ω) “would differ in B and Λ_b even in the heavy quark limit”; please state explicitly that (b) holds at the perturbative level and that the hadron dependence is the 1/ω^k correction of Eq. (23).
[Paragraph after Eq. (23), the c₂ = 0 argument] Expanding w_0(ω − v·p) with w_0 = Nδ(ω) + (2v²/3)d(ω)/ω produces a term of order v²p² from the δ-function, not of the stated p²v⁴ form; please spell out why this term only rescales the overall normalization and does not generate a 1/ω² term in the ω-dependence of α_s^(ω).
[Footnote 5 and Eq. (24)] The renormalon and small-instanton caveat is properly acknowledged, but the numerical estimate −(0.55 GeV/ω)³ should carry the same caveat, and the scale at which α_s(µ) ≈ 1 and ρ_D³ ≈ 0.1 GeV³ are evaluated should be stated.
[Paragraph before the acknowledgments] The Euclidean counterpart of α_s^(ω) is announced with “These technical details will be given elsewhere”; either give the definition in a sentence or soften the claim.
[References [9], [10], [11]] These are listed as “to appear” or without publication data, yet the definition of m_Q(µ) in Eqs. (17)–(18) and the cross-check after Eq. (14) rest on them; please update the references and state whether the [11] cross-check is independent (different observable, same technique) or shares the calculation.
[Eq. (18) and text below Eq. (20)] Please state the flavor-number convention used (n_f, and at which thresholds) and whether the massive correction of Eq. (11) is included; also the text below Eq. (20) says neglected terms ∼ µ³/m_Q², which in the ratio m_Q/m̄ should read µ³/m³.
[Eq. (15)] The coefficient is typeset ambiguously in the version I read; please state it unambiguously.
[Abstract and Eq. (8)] The claim that α_s^(ω) is “advantageous for heavy quark physics” would be better supported by one numerical illustration, for example the sizes of the O(α_s²) and BLM O(α_s³) terms of Eq. (18) at µ ≈ 1 GeV; the BLM scale e^{−5/3+ln2}µ ≈ 0.38µ in Eq. (8) is low enough that this matters.

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

The paper

The paper claims

The paper claims that the gluon radiation from a slowly moving heavy quark defines a physical QCD coupling whose two-loop matching fixes the running heavy-quark mass and the scale evolution of spin-singlet operators.

The reading

The paper asks whether the gluon radiation emitted when a heavy quark changes velocity can be captured by one effective strong-interaction coupling, and whether that coupling can be computed accurately enough to control the heavy-quark expansion. The authors define the coupling from the inelastic part of a heavy-quark structure function in the small-velocity limit, compute its relation to the standard $Â¯$ coupling through second order in $Î±_s$, and use heavy-quark sum rules to turn the same coupling into renormalization-group equations for spin-singlet (spin-zero) heavy-quark operators. The payoff is an $Â¡Â£(Î±_s^2)$ relation between a gauge-invariant low-scale running heavy-quark mass and the $Â¯$ mass, plus a statement that the leading nonperturbative correction to the effective coupling is suppressed by at least three powers of $Î›_{Â¡Â£}/Ï‰$. A reader should care because heavy-flavor predictions need a short-distance mass and a physically meaningful expansion parameter at the two-loop level.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the effective coupling $Î±_s^{(Ï‰)}(Ï‰)$, defined as a ratio of the inelastic structure function $w(Ï‰,Â¡Ãºv)$ to its normalization integral in the limit $Â¡ÃºvÂ¡Ãº0$, $m_QÂ¡ÃºÂ¡ÂÞ$ (Eq. (6)). That ratio removes the normalization of the effective nonrelativistic current and makes the coupling finite and infrared safe. Its two-loop matching to $Î±_{Â¯}$ (Eq. (8)) and its renormalization-group equation (Eq. (7)) are then inserted into the small-velocity sum rules (Eqs. (12)-(13)) that express moments of the structure function as local heavy-quark operators. This is what converts a statement about radiation into a statement about operator evolution and the running mass.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that non-Abelian dipole radiation in QCD is not merely a classical analogy: in the small-velocity limit it defines an effective coupling $Î±_s^{(Ï‰)}(Ï‰)$ through Eq. (6), and this coupling obeys the usual renormalization-group equation with the first two QCD $\beta$-function coefficients. The authors compute the two-loop matching to the $Â¯$ coupling, Eq. (8), finding a non-Abelian term proportional to $C_A(Ï€^2/6 - 13/12)$, and then use the small-velocity sum rules to show that the same coupling drives the scale dependence of the spin-singlet heavy-quark operators, Eqs. (14)-(15). From this they obtain the $Â¡Â£(Î±_s^2)$ relation between the low-scale running mass $m_Q(Î¼)$ and $Â¯m_Q(Â¯m_Q)$, Eq. (18), and argue that the first nonperturbative correction to $Î±_s^{(Ï‰)}$ starts at order $1/Ï‰^3$ because the kinetic operator does not contribute.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the effective coupling extracted from the small-velocity structure function is the same for every weak current, quark-mass ratio, and heavy hadron, so that one coupling can be inserted into the renormalization-group equations for heavy-quark operators and the running mass.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Heavy-flavor decays can be organized with a gauge-invariant low-scale mass $m_Q(Î¼)$ instead of the pole mass or a low-scale $Â¯$ mass, which removes a known ambiguity in the heavy-quark expansion.
The same effective coupling controls the scale dependence of $Î›(Î¼)$, the kinetic operator $Î¼_Ï€^2(Î¼)$, and the slope of the Isgur-Wise function, so these quantities are tied to one perturbatively computable function.
The leading nonperturbative correction to the dipole coupling is suppressed as $(Î›_{Â¡Â£}/Ï‰)^3$, so the perturbative treatment can be used down to relatively low excitation energies above $Î›_{Â¡Â£}$.
The two-loop relation gives a concrete target for extracting $m_Q(Î¼)$ from heavy-flavor observables and for comparing different mass schemes.

Reading between the lines

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

If the universality holds, the same coupling could be extracted from lattice or experimental structure functions and used as a common benchmark for heavy-quark masses; a mismatch between channels would point to a breakdown of the operator-product-expansion argument or to underestimated higher orders.
The vanishing coefficient of the kinetic operator suggests a pattern in which only operators with a genuine spin-singlet Darwin structure enter at leading nonperturbative order, which could simplify the systematics of inclusive heavy-flavor fits.
The comparison with the ultrarelativistic soft-gluon coupling suggests a family of effective charges; mapping their two-loop differences onto a common scheme would test whether the numerical smallness of the non-Abelian term persists at three loops.
Because the coupling is defined in Minkowski space, a Euclidean counterpart built from a dispersion integral could be checked on the lattice; agreement would give a direct nonperturbative test of the definition.

Original abstract

Dipole radiation in QCD is derived to the second order in $\alpha_s$. A power-like evolution of the spin-singlet heavy quark operators is obtained to the same accuracy. In particular, ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ relation between a short-distance low-scale running heavy quark mass and the $\barMS$ mass is given. We discuss the properties of the effective QCD coupling $\aw(E)$ which governs the dipole radiation. This coupling is advantageous for heavy quark physics.

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, 4,122 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.08 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.34 · compares with prior results 0.09 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Dipole radiation in QCD is derived to the second order in $\alpha_s$. A power-like evolution of the spin-singlet heavy quark operators is obtained to the same accuracy. In particular, ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ relation between a short-distance low-scale running heavy quark mass and the $\barMS$ mass is given. We discuss the properties of the effective QCD coupling $\aw(E)$ which governs the dipole radiation. This coupling is advantageous for heavy quark physics.

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	Dipole radiation in QCD is derived to the second order in $\alpha_s$.	result 0.76	0.87	0.23	asserted 1.00
s1	A power-like evolution of the spin-singlet heavy quark operators is obtained to the same accuracy.	result 0.99	0.90	0.22	asserted 1.00
s2	In particular, ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ relation between a short-distance low-scale running heavy quark mass and the $\barMS$ mass is given.	result 0.99	0.88	0.30	asserted 1.00
s3	We discuss the properties of the effective QCD coupling $\aw(E)$ which governs the dipole radiation.	contribution 0.91	0.59	0.08	asserted 0.86
s4	This coupling is advantageous for heavy quark physics.	interpretation 0.99	0.45	0.12	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

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

References

Works cited (22)

[3]

A. Czarnecki and K. Melnikov, hep-ph/9706227

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[6]

N.G. Uraltsev, Nucl. Phys. B491 (1997) 303

View on Pith 1997
[11]

A. Czarnecki, K. Melnikov and N. Uraltsev, hep-ph/9706311

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[18]

M. Voloshin and M. Shifman, ZhETF 91 (1986) 1180 [ JETP 64 (1986) 698]. There is a misprint in the text preceeding Eq. (18)

View on Pith 1986
[12]

N. Gray, D.J. Broadhurst, W. Grafe and K. Schilcher, Z. Phys. C48 (1990) 673

View on Pith 1990
[5]

S. Catani and L. Trentadue, Nucl. Phys. B327 (1989) 323

View on Pith 1989
[1]

M. Voloshin and M. Shifman, Yad. Fiz. 47 (1988) 801 [ Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 47 (1988) 511]

View on Pith 1988
[2]

M.B. Voloshin, Nucl. Phys. B154 (1979) 365; K. Gottfried, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978) 598

View on Pith 1979
[4]

S.J. Brodsky, G. Lepage and P. Mackenzie, Phys. Rev. D28 (1983) 228

View on Pith 1983
[7]

For a detailed discussion, see P. Ball, M. Beneke and V.M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. B452 (1995) 563

View on Pith 1995
[8]

I. Bigi, M. Shifman, N. Uraltsev, A. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D50 (1994) 2234

View on Pith 1994
[9]

I. Bigi, M. Shifman, N.G. Uraltsev, hep-ph/9703290, to appear in Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[10]

I. Bigi, M. Shifman, N. Uraltsev and A. Vainshtein, hep-ph/9704 245, to appear in Phys. Rev. D

View on Pith
[13]

I. Bigi, M. Shifman, N. Uraltsev, A. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D52 (1995) 196

View on Pith 1995
[14]

G. Grunberg, Phys.Lett. 95B (1980) 70; E – ibid. 110B (1982) 501; Phys. Rev. D29 (1984) 2315

View on Pith 1980
[15]

A.I. Vainshtein and V.I. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73 (1994) 1207. 11

View on Pith 1994
[16]

I. Bigi, M. Shifman, N. Uraltsev and A. Vainshtein, Int. Journ. Mod. Phys. A9 (1994) 2467

View on Pith 1994
[17]

I. Bigi, A. Grozin, M. Shifman, N. Uraltsev and A. Vainshtein, Phys. Lett. B339 (1994) 160; C.-K. Chow and D. Pirjol, Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 3998

View on Pith 1994
[19]

T. Appelquist, M. Dine and I. Muzinich, Phys. Lett. B69 (1977) 231 and Phys. Rev. D17 (1978) 2074

View on Pith 1977
[20]

M. Peter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 602 and hep-ph/9702245

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997
[21]

A recent dedicated discussion is given in: B. Chibisov, R. Dikeman, M. Shifman and N. Uraltsev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A12 (1997) 2075

View on Pith 1997
[22]

S.J. Brodsky and H.J. Lu, hep-ph/9606322, hep-ph/9409462 . 12

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

Forward citations

Cited by 20 Pith papers

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

The photon-energy spectrum in $B\to X_s\gamma$ to N$^3$LO: light-fermion and large-$N_{\rm c}$ corrections
hep-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 8.0 of 10

N3LO calculation of the B to Xs gamma photon spectrum including complete light-fermion corrections, two massive fermion loops, and large-Nc terms, with improved results in kinetic and MSR mass schemes.
Total decay rates of $B$ mesons at NNLO-QCD
hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

At NNLO in QCD, the heavy quark expansion predicts the B+, Bd, and Bs decay widths and semileptonic branching fractions within experimental uncertainties, with a systematic 4% shortfall in the central width values.
Third order corrections to the semi-leptonic \boldmath{$b\to c$} and the muon decays
hep-ph 2020-11 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

The three-loop QCD corrections to b to c semileptonic decay are computed and found to be below 1 percent in the kinetic scheme, with companion results for b to u and for third-order QED corrections to muon decay.
On the Light Massive Flavor Dependence of the Large Order Asymptotic Behavior and the Ambiguity of the Pole Mass
hep-ph 2017-06 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

A renormalization-group treatment of lighter massive quark loops puts the heavy-quark pole mass ambiguity at about 250 MeV, driven by the number of massless flavors.
Quark mass relations to four-loop order
hep-ph 2015-02 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

Four-loop QCD corrections to the on-shell to MS-bar heavy quark mass relation are computed, giving conversion coefficients for charm, bottom and top with roughly 2 percent uncertainty on the constant term.

Show 15 more citing papers

Treating the b quark distribution function with reliable uncertainties
hep-ph 2008-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

A complete orthonormal basis for the nonperturbative shape function, combined with renormalization-group evolution and moment constraints, gives a systematic handle on functional-form uncertainties in inclusive B decays.
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.
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.
Trace-anomaly-subtracted $\sigma$-mass for Heavy Quarks and Matching from Lattice QCD
hep-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The sigma-mass, obtained by subtracting the trace-anomaly contribution from the pole mass, is free of the leading infrared renormalon, with its relation to the pole mass now known to five loops.
Current-current operator contribution to the decay matrix in $B$-meson mixing at next-to-next-to-leading order of QCD
hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The full charm-mass dependence of the three-loop current-current contribution to the B-meson decay matrix is computed, yielding Delta_Gamma_s = (0.077 +/- 0.016) ps^-1 with the leading-term perturbative error reduced ...
First extraction of inclusive $V_{cb}$ from $q^2$ moments
hep-ph 2022-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Using q2 moments measured by Belle and Belle II, the authors obtain |Vcb| = (41.69 +/- 0.63) x 10^-3, consistent with the established inclusive value from lepton-energy and hadronic-mass moments.
A first glance to the kinematic moments of $B \to X_c \ell \nu$ at third order
hep-ph 2022-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Third-order QCD corrections to the first four moments of the electron energy, dilepton mass and hadronic mass spectra in inclusive B to X_c lepton neutrino decays are computed analytically and found to be 0.5 to 2 per...
Lattice QCD study of inclusive semileptonic decays of heavy mesons
hep-lat 2022-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Lattice QCD can reproduce inclusive semileptonic heavy-meson rates and moments at unphysical quark masses, with results broadly consistent with OPE where the expansion is expected to work.
On the Casimir scaling violation in the cusp anomalous dimension at small angle
hep-ph 2017-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The four-loop quartic-Casimir contribution to the QCD cusp anomalous dimension is computed to order phi^4 and shown to differ analytically from a recent all-order conjecture, while remaining numerically close to it.
$\overline{\rm MS}$-on-shell quark mass relation up to four loops in QCD and a general SU$(N)$ gauge group
hep-ph 2016-06 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The four-loop MS-bar to on-shell quark mass conversion is computed for general SU(N) colour factors, reaching 0.2% numerical uncertainty in QCD and improving on the authors' earlier 3% result.
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.
The MSR Mass and the ${\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$ Renormalon Sum Rule
hep-ph 2017-04 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

An analytic sum rule extracts the O(Lambda_QCD) renormalon normalization of any perturbative series from its known coefficients, giving N_1/2 = 0.526, 0.492, 0.446 for 3, 4, 5 massless flavors.
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...
Three loop calculations and inclusive $V_{cb}$
hep-ph 2021-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Feeding new three-loop QCD corrections and improved lattice quark masses into the global semileptonic fit gives |Vcb| = 42.16(51) x 10^-3, cutting the inclusive uncertainty by about one third.
The Semileptonic B Frontier: LHC, B-factories, Lattice QCD & the Hunt for Precision
hep-ph 2026-10 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

A comprehensive review of semileptonic B decays, including charged-current and neutral-current processes, with emphasis on CKM determinations, LFU tests, and the interplay between experiment and theory.

How the literature uses it

32 arXiv papers cite this in 51 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 · 34 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 5 papers

The $μ$-dependence of $p_u,c^(1,2)(r,μ)$ can be found exploiting the $μ$-independence of the widths at each perturbative order and the known $μ$-dependence of masses and OPE parameters [ref] m_q^pole ≡m_q(0)= m_q(μ) + [Λ(μ)]_pert +[μ_π^2(μ)]_pert/2m_q(μ) μ_π^2(0) = μ_π^2 (μ) - [μ_π^2 (μ)]_pert , ρ_D^3(0) = ρ_D^3 (μ) - [ρ_π^2 (μ)]_pert , where [Λ̅(μ)]_pert= 4/3C_F α_s/π μ(1+/π [β_0^(3)/2 (lnm_b/2μ + 8/3)- C_A(π^2/6-13/12)]), [μ_π^2 (μ) ]_pert =3/4 μ[Λ̅(μ)]_pert - C_F^2β_0^(3)/π^2 μ^2/4 , [ρ_D^3 (μ)]_pert =μ^2/2 [Λ̅(μ)]_pert -C_F^2β_0^(3)/π^2 2μ^3/9 , In the above formulas $C_F=4/3$, $C_A=N_c=3$, and we have used $n_f=3$ in $β_0$, corresponding to three light massless quarks: indeed, the $m_c$ dependence of the charm loops on gluon lines is not known, and one can approximately decouple them.

Normalizing inclusive rare B decays · Calculation of $C$ · 0.84
It consists of a Python library which computes the prediction for the total rate and lepton-energy, hadronic invariant mass and dilepton invariant mass kinematic moments within the framework of the HQE utilizing the so-called kinetic scheme [ref] .

Kolya: an open-source package for inclusive semileptonic $B$ decays · Introduction · 0.84
In the plots we have taken the $μ=μ_c=1$ values of the $b$ and $c$ masses and of the OPE parameters $$ and $$ in Eq. ([ref]) and have evolved them to different $μ,μ_c$ using $O(^2)$ perturbative expansions [ref] with $(m_b)$.

B semileptonic moments at NNLO · Scale dependence of leptonic moments · 0.91

Uses its data or values 1 paper

The perturbative coefficients of the relation between the kinetic and pole mass, assuming lighter massive quarks to be massless, can be found in Refs. [ref] .

REvolver: Automated running and matching of couplings and masses in QCD · Theoretical input · 0.91

Cites it as background 8 papers

While the short-distance masses can be defined in many different ways [ref] , the guiding principle is that they should not contain linear $O(Λ_QCD)$ terms.

Linear power corrections to top quark pair production in hadron collisions · The monopole $tt$ + $t̅t̅$ contributions · 0.82
To this end, other schemes have been identified, such as the potential-subtracted mass [ref] or the kinetic mass [ref] , which can be used at scales $μ≤m_Q$, as well as schemes which can be used at all scales [ref] .

Extending the Kinetic Mass to Higher Orders in $1/m_Q$ · Introduction · 0.98
On the other hand there are “short-distance masses” like the $$, kinetic [ref] , PS [ref] , 1S [ref] , RS [ref] , and MSR [ref] masses which have no linear low momentum sensitivity and consequently do not have such a renormalon.

On the Light Massive Flavor Dependence of the Top Quark Mass · Introduction · 0.90

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] [3]

A. Czarnecki and K. Melnikov, hep-ph/9706227

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[2] [6]

N.G. Uraltsev, Nucl. Phys. B491 (1997) 303

View on Pith 1997

[3] [11]

A. Czarnecki, K. Melnikov and N. Uraltsev, hep-ph/9706311

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[4] [18]

M. Voloshin and M. Shifman, ZhETF 91 (1986) 1180 [ JETP 64 (1986) 698]. There is a misprint in the text preceeding Eq. (18)

View on Pith 1986

[5] [12]

N. Gray, D.J. Broadhurst, W. Grafe and K. Schilcher, Z. Phys. C48 (1990) 673

View on Pith 1990

[6] [5]

S. Catani and L. Trentadue, Nucl. Phys. B327 (1989) 323

View on Pith 1989

[7] [1]

M. Voloshin and M. Shifman, Yad. Fiz. 47 (1988) 801 [ Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 47 (1988) 511]

View on Pith 1988

[8] [2]

M.B. Voloshin, Nucl. Phys. B154 (1979) 365; K. Gottfried, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978) 598

View on Pith 1979

[9] [4]

S.J. Brodsky, G. Lepage and P. Mackenzie, Phys. Rev. D28 (1983) 228

View on Pith 1983

[10] [7]

For a detailed discussion, see P. Ball, M. Beneke and V.M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. B452 (1995) 563

View on Pith 1995

[11] [8]

I. Bigi, M. Shifman, N. Uraltsev, A. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D50 (1994) 2234

View on Pith 1994

[12] [9]

I. Bigi, M. Shifman, N.G. Uraltsev, hep-ph/9703290, to appear in Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[13] [10]

I. Bigi, M. Shifman, N. Uraltsev and A. Vainshtein, hep-ph/9704 245, to appear in Phys. Rev. D

View on Pith

[14] [13]

I. Bigi, M. Shifman, N. Uraltsev, A. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D52 (1995) 196

View on Pith 1995

[15] [14]

G. Grunberg, Phys.Lett. 95B (1980) 70; E – ibid. 110B (1982) 501; Phys. Rev. D29 (1984) 2315

View on Pith 1980

[16] [15]

A.I. Vainshtein and V.I. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73 (1994) 1207. 11

View on Pith 1994

[17] [16]

I. Bigi, M. Shifman, N. Uraltsev and A. Vainshtein, Int. Journ. Mod. Phys. A9 (1994) 2467

View on Pith 1994

[18] [17]

I. Bigi, A. Grozin, M. Shifman, N. Uraltsev and A. Vainshtein, Phys. Lett. B339 (1994) 160; C.-K. Chow and D. Pirjol, Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 3998

View on Pith 1994

[19] [19]

T. Appelquist, M. Dine and I. Muzinich, Phys. Lett. B69 (1977) 231 and Phys. Rev. D17 (1978) 2074

View on Pith 1977

[20] [20]

M. Peter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 602 and hep-ph/9702245

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

[21] [21]

A recent dedicated discussion is given in: B. Chibisov, R. Dikeman, M. Shifman and N. Uraltsev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A12 (1997) 2075

View on Pith 1997

[22] [22]

S.J. Brodsky and H.J. Lu, hep-ph/9606322, hep-ph/9409462 . 12

View on Pith Pith review arXiv