Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a general approach for describing hadronic B decays. Using this method, all amplitudes for such decays can be expressed in terms of contractions, though the matrix elements are not evaluated. Many years ago, Buras and Silvestrini proposed a similar approach. However, our technique goes beyond theirs in several ways. First, we include recent theoretical and experimental developments which indicate which contractions are negligible, and which are expected to be smaller than others. Second, we show that all B-decay diagrams can be simply expressed in terms of contractions. This constitutes a formal proof that the diagrammatic method is rigorous. Third, we show that one reproduces the relations between tree and electroweak-penguin diagrams described by Neubert and Rosner, and by Gronau, Pirjol and Yan. Fourth, although the previous results hold to all orders in α s , we show that it is also possible to work order-by-order in this approach. In this way it is possible to make a connection with the matrix-element evaluation methods of QCD factorization (QCDfac) and perturbative QCD (pQCD). Finally, using the contractions approach, we reevaluate the question of whether there is a "B → πK puzzle." At [Formula: see text], we find that the diagram ratio |C′/T′| is about 0.17, a factor of 10 too small to explain all the B → πK data. Both QCDfac and pQCD find that, at [Formula: see text], the value of |C′/T′| may be raised to only about 2–3 times its lowest-order value. We therefore conclude that, assuming the effect is not a statistical fluctuation, it is likely that the value of |C′/T′| is similar to its [Formula: see text] result, and that there really is a B → πK puzzle.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".