Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 88 references

Correlating $\epsilon^\prime/\epsilon$ to hadronic $B$ decays via $U(2)^3$ flavour symmetry

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a single new-physics operator set with a global U(2)^3 flavour symmetry can simultaneously explain the anomaly in Kaon direct CP violation (epsilon'/epsilon) and the pattern of CP asymmetries in hadronic B decays…

desk verdict Worth refereeing, but Eq. (17) has a sign error: as printed, the color-triplet operator reduces rather than explains the ε'/ε anomaly. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02101 v1 pith:CQL6FJ3P submitted 2019-09-04 hep-ph

Andreas Crivellin , Christian Gross , Stefan Pokorski , Leonardo Vernazza This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords directCPviolationepsilon'/epsilonBtoKpipuzzleU(2)^3flavoursymmetryhadronicdecaysisospinnewphysicsbeyondtheStandardModelQCDfactorisation
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

This paper sets out to show that two independent anomalies in quark-flavour physics—the measured direct CP violation in Kaon decays (epsilon'/epsilon) and the pattern of CP asymmetries in hadronic B decays (the B->K pi puzzle)—could share a single new-physics origin. The key is a global U(2)^3 flavour symmetry in the quark sector, which locks the Wilson coefficients for s->d, b->s, and b->d transitions to the same underlying couplings up to CKM factors, a common weak phase, and one order-one factor. A global fit to B decay data is more than 3 $\sigma$ better than the Standard Model in the color-singlet case, and the same parameter set naturally gives a contribution to epsilon'/epsilon of the order $10^{{-3}}$, the size needed to explain the discrepancy. If right, this would replace two separate puzzles with one coherent pattern and yield testable predictions for b->d decays such as B->K+K- and B->pi pi.

What carries the argument

The central object is the global U(2)^3 flavour symmetry in the quark sector (less-minimal flavour violation), combined with the two four-quark operators O_VLR_q and their color-triplet partners. Its role is to enforce Eq. (16): the Wilson coefficients for s->d, b->s, and b->d transitions are all proportional to the same real coefficients $c_q^{{(a)}}$ times the corresponding CKM factors, an order-one factor x_B, and a common new weak phase phi. This single proportionality relation is what translates a Kaon-sector anomaly into B-sector predictions and vice versa; the amplitude evaluation uses QCD factorisation at next-to-leading order.

What would settle it

A precise measurement of a b->d CP-asymmetry difference predicted in Fig. 2 (for instance $\Delta$ A_CP^- in B->rho pi or B->pi pi modes) that falls outside the fitted U(2)^3 ranges would falsify the common-origin claim, as would a revised lattice-QCD calculation that shifts the Standard Model epsilon'/epsilon prediction up to the experimental central value and removes the anomaly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the measured discrepancies in both direct CP violation observables can be consistently described by a single set of four-quark operators, with Wilson coefficients obeying the U(2)^3 flavour relations of Eq. (16). The paper finds that both the color-singlet and color-triplet scenarios provide a consistent pattern in hadronic B decays, with best-fit improvements over the SM of 3.3 $\sigma$ and 2.9 $\sigma$ respectively (3.5 and 3.0 $\sigma$ in the maximal-isospin-violation case), and that for order-one values of the symmetry-breaking factor x_B the same coefficients produce (epsilon'/epsilon)_NP of order $10^{{-3}}$, the size needed to explain the lattice-QCD-based discrepancy. The framework also gives definite predictions for differences of CP asymmetries in b->d transitions, which can be checked by LHCb.

Load-bearing premise

The correlation stands or falls on the U(2)^3 flavour relation of Eq. (16), which forces the new-physics couplings for s->d, b->s, and b->d transitions to share the same real coefficients, a common phase, and a single order-one factor; if the true flavour structure gives independent phases or coefficients for different transitions, the epsilon'/epsilon-to-B correlation breaks, and the analysis also inherits the debated lattice-QCD-based Standard Model value of epsilon'/epsilon.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A confirmed common fit would mean the same new physics responsible for the B->K pi CP asymmetry also accounts for the Kaon anomaly, eliminating the need for separate models.
  • The fitted U(2)^3 parameters fix concrete predictions for b->d CP-asymmetry differences that LHCb should be able to measure in the near future.
  • The isospin-violating branching fractions Br[Bs->phi pi^0] and Br[Bs->phi rho^0] are predicted to differ from the SM at an observable level in the preferred parameter ranges.
  • Because the MFV limit (phi=0, x_B=1) removes the B-decay CP source, a positive signal in these observables would be a direct indication of non-minimal flavour violation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the predicted b-to-d asymmetries are confirmed, the U(2)^3 structure would point to new physics whose flavour-breaking pattern mirrors the SM's, favouring models where new interactions are aligned with the Higgs Yukawa sector rather than with arbitrary flavour textures.
  • The same operator set could in principle affect other observables such as rare Kaon decays or electric dipole moments; the paper does not explore these, but they would offer independent tests of the common phase phi.
  • A future shift in the lattice QCD value of epsilon'/epsilon toward the experimental central value would remove the anomaly and weaken the motivation for this common explanation, making lattice progress itself a key discriminator.
  • Extending the fit to b-to-s muon-anomaly observables (e.g., B->K mu mu) with the same U(2)^3 operator pattern could test whether one flavour structure unifies more than these CP anomalies; this is beyond the paper's scope.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. Using a U(2)^3 flavour-symmetric effective field theory with a minimal spurion sector, the paper connects the epsilon'/epsilon anomaly to CP asymmetries in hadronic B decays. It identifies two SMEFT four-quark operators (colour singlet and colour triplet) whose Wilson coefficients for s->d, b->s, and b->d transitions are related by CKM factors, a common real coefficient c_q^(a), a common new weak phase phi, and an order-one factor x_B. A global fit of the two scenarios to hadronic B decays gives Delta chi^2 = 16.5 (singlet) and 13.7 (triplet) relative to the SM, and the same parameter values imply a positive new-physics contribution to epsilon'/epsilon of order 10^-3 for TeV-scale Lambda, consistent with the observed discrepancy. Predictions are given for b->d analogues of the CP asymmetries and for other isospin-sensitive observables.

Significance. If correct, the paper would demonstrate that two prominent flavour anomalies can share a single non-minimal-flavour-violating new-physics source and would provide falsifiable LHCb predictions for b->d decays. The paper is transparent about several caveats: footnote 4 notes that B->pi K data alone may be accommodated within QCD factorization with modified hadronic parameters, footnote 1 notes the chiral perturbation theory alternative for epsilon'/epsilon, and the conclusions acknowledge the need for improved theory. The global fit reports pulls, and the appendix gives semi-numerical formulas for the observables. The main conceptual caveat is that the epsilon'/epsilon agreement is a consistency check rather than an independent prediction, because the Wilson coefficients are fixed by the B-decay fit and Lambda and x_B remain free; nevertheless, the U(2)^3 relation between the two sectors is a non-trivial and testable hypothesis.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, Eqs. (16)-(17) and Eq. (22)] Equation (17) assigns the colour-triplet coefficient the phase factor V_ts V_td^*, whereas matching the operator tilde O_q^{VLR} of Eq. (3) to O^{(3)}_{2111} of Eq. (15) and using Eq. (16) gives C^{(3)}_{2111} = V_td V_ts^* c_q^{(3)}. Because c_q^{(3)} is real and Im(V_td V_ts^*) > 0 in the standard CKM convention, the printed version reverses the sign of Im(tilde C_d^{VLR} - tilde C_u^{VLR}) entering Eq. (4). Used literally, Eq. (17) with the triplet best fit x_B x^{(3)} = 0.144 yields a negative (epsilon'/epsilon)_NP, moving the prediction away from experiment and contradicting the paper's central conclusion that the triplet scenario provides a common explanation. The positive numerical coefficients in Eq. (22) imply that the authors actually used the unconjugated phase; the inconsistency is load-bearing and must be fixed, and the text and figures checked accordingly.
  2. [Sec. II, text after Eq. (15)] The statement that hermiticity forces c_q^{(1,3)} to be real is not correct for this operator basis: the operators O^{(1,3)}_{ijkl} are not self-conjugate, and a complex Wilson coefficient is consistent with a Hermitian Lagrangian when the conjugate operator is included separately. The reality of c_q^{(a)} is an additional assumption (no new CP phase in the s->d link beyond the CKM one) that is essential for fixing the sign and phase of the epsilon'/epsilon contribution. This assumption should be stated and justified explicitly rather than attributed to hermiticity.
  3. [Secs. III-IV, Eq. (22) and Fig. 1] The agreement with epsilon'/epsilon is a consistency check rather than a parameter-free prediction: x^{(a)} is extracted from the hadronic B-decay fit and then inserted into Eq. (22), with x_B and Lambda still free. The non-trivial content is that the B-fit region in Fig. 1 overlaps the epsilon'/epsilon-favoured region for x_B of order one and Lambda of order TeV. The abstract and conclusions should be worded to make this postdiction logic explicit and to avoid giving the impression that epsilon'/epsilon is predicted independently of the B-decay data.
  4. [Sec. IV, after Eq. (21)] The conclusion that 'both operators provide a consistent pattern ... resulting in a very good fit which is more than 3 sigma better than the one of the SM' is not supported by the numbers in Eqs. (20)-(21): the pulls are 3.3 sigma for the singlet and 2.9 sigma for the triplet (3.5 sigma and 3.0 sigma in the z=0 case). Only the singlet scenario exceeds 3 sigma, so the 'both operators' claim is numerically inaccurate and should be corrected in the text and abstract.
minor comments (4)
  1. [App. A, Eq. (A5)] In the formula for Br[Bs->phi rho^0], a '+' sign is missing between the SM value '0.53+0.18-0.13' and the new-physics correction bracket; as printed the expression is not well-formed.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (19) and marginalization ranges] The best-fit values x_B z^(1) = -0.12 and x_B z^(3) = -0.04 lie at the boundary of the chosen marginalization intervals, so the reported fit is sensitive to this unexplained cut. The authors should justify the ranges or demonstrate that the conclusions are robust to widening them.
  3. [Sec. III and App. A] The global fit relies on the QCD factorization matrix elements of Ref. [37], and the appendix formulas are illustrative only; providing a table of the input parameters or a link to the fit code would substantially improve reproducibility.
  4. [Sec. I, footnote 4] Footnote 4 concedes that the B->pi K data may be accommodated by modified hadronic parameters, so the abstract's characterization of the 'B->K pi puzzle' as a deviation 'calling for a common explanation' should be tempered to reflect that the data leave room for, but do not unambiguously require, new physics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the epsilon'/epsilon link follows from the assumed U(2)^3 symmetry and is checked against, not fitted to, that observable.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) assume the U(2)^3 flavor structure of Eq. (16), an external symmetry hypothesis; (ii) fit the common coefficients c_q^(a), phi, and x_B to hadronic B decays only, with the results in Eqs. (19)-(21); (iii) translate the same coefficients to epsilon'/epsilon via Eqs. (17) and (4), giving Eq. (22); (iv) check that the B-fit region overlaps the epsilon'/epsilon-motivated band in Fig. 1. Since the epsilon'/epsilon data are not used in the fit, Eq. (22) is a genuine cross-correlation rather than a statistically forced re-use of a fitted quantity. The b to d observables in Fig. 2 are likewise predictions from the fitted parameters, not inputs. The only self-citations (Refs. [37] and [80], both involving co-author Vernazza) supply the QCD-factorization fit machinery and are not used to preclude alternatives or to assert uniqueness; the paper also gives its own semi-numerical formulas in Appendix A. Consequently, no circular step is exhibited. I note, without counting it as circularity, that the printed Eqs. (16)-(17) appear to carry a phase/conjugation mismatch for the color-triplet coefficient ilde C_q^{VLR}; this is a correctness concern rather than a circularity concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles. Its predictive power comes from the U(2)^3 flavour assumption, which relates Wilson coefficients across different sectors. The main free parameters are the combinations x_B x^(a), the phase phi, and the marginalized z^(a) ranges. The NP scale Lambda is set to 1 TeV for normalization.

free parameters (7)
  • x_B x^(1) (singlet isospin-violating combination) = 0.306
    Best fit point from global fit (Eq. 19). Product of order-one U(2)^3 factor x_B and the difference c_d^(1)-c_u^(1).
  • x_B x^(3) (triplet isospin-violating combination) = 0.144
    Best fit point for color triplet scenario (Eq. 19).
  • phi^(1) = 157.6 degrees
    Best fit weak phase in singlet scenario (Eq. 20).
  • phi^(3) = 169.0 degrees
    Best fit weak phase in triplet scenario (Eq. 20).
  • x_B z^(1) (singlet isospin-conserving combination) = -0.12 (boundary)
    Marginalized over -0.12<z^(1)<0.12; best fit sits at the boundary.
  • x_B z^(3) (triplet isospin-conserving combination) = -0.04 (boundary)
    Marginalized over -0.04<z^(3)<0.04; best fit at boundary.
  • Lambda (NP scale) = 1 TeV (assumed)
    Wilson coefficients are normalized to Lambda=1 TeV; results scale with Lambda^2.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption QCD factorization is valid for the hadronic matrix elements of the four-quark operators in non-leptonic B decays.
    The semi-numerical formulas in Appendix A rely on next-to-leading order QCD factorization, following Beneke et al. Refs. [77-80]. If factorization fails, the fit results and predictions change.
  • domain assumption The Standard Model prediction for epsilon'/epsilon is in the range (1-2)x10^-4 as estimated by lattice QCD.
    Section II quotes this range with error ~5x10^-4, defining the discrepancy that motivates new physics. Chiral perturbation theory estimates are consistent with experiment with large errors, so the discrepancy is not firmly established.
  • ad hoc to paper The U(2)^3 flavour symmetry with a minimal spurion sector governs the flavour structure of NP Wilson coefficients.
    Eq. (16) assumes s->d, b->s, and b->d FCNC transitions are all proportional to the same underlying coefficients c_q^(a) with a common phase phi and order-one x_B. This is the central assumption that creates the correlation.
  • domain assumption Only the two VLR four-quark operators (color singlet and triplet) give relevant contributions to epsilon'/epsilon in this setup; other operators are suppressed by small Yukawas or excluded by LHC.
    Section II restricts to the operators listed in Ref. [19], stating that other operators require NP scales in conflict with direct searches. This truncation is standard but could miss contributions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Correlating $\epsilon^\prime/\epsilon$ to hadronic $B$ decays via $U(2)^3$ flavour symmetry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CQL6FJ3P

@misc{pith2026190902101,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Correlating $\epsilon^\prime/\epsilon$ to hadronic $B$ decays via $U(2)^3$ flavour symmetry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CQL6FJ3P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02101}
}
abstract

There are strong similarities between charge-parity (CP) violating observables in hadronic $B$ decays (in particular $\Delta A^-_{\rm CP}$ in $B\to K\pi$) and direct CP violation in Kaon decays ($\epsilon^\prime$): All these observables are very sensitive to new physics (NP) which is at the same time CP and isospin violating (i.e. NP with complex couplings which are different for up quarks and down quarks). Intriguingly, both the measurements of $\epsilon^\prime$ and $\Delta A^-_{\rm CP}$ show deviations from their Standard Model predictions, calling for a common explanation (the latter is known as the $B\to K\pi$ puzzle). For addressing this point, we parametrize NP using a gauge invariant effective field theory approach combined with a global $U(2)^3$ flavor symmetry in the quark sector (also known as less-minimal flavour violation). We first determine the operators which can provide a common explanation of $\epsilon^\prime$ and $\Delta A^-_{\rm CP}$ and then perform a global fit of their Wilson coefficients to the data from hadronic $B$ decays. Here we also include e.g. the recently measured CP asymmetry in $B_s\to KK$ as well as the purely isospin violating decay $B_s\to\phi\rho^0$, finding a consistent NP pattern providing a very good fit to data. Furthermore, we can at the same time explain $\epsilon^\prime/\epsilon$ for natural values of the free parameters within our $U(2)^3$ flavour approach, and this symmetry gives interesting predictions for hadronic decays involving $b\to d$ transitions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02101 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Preferred regions from hadronic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Predictions for differences of direct CP asymmetries. The first four observables are defined in Eq. (A1) and involve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. D. Sakharov, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 5, 32 (1967), [Usp. Fiz. Nauk161,no.5,61(1991)]

    1967

  2. [2]

    + 5(cd 6−cu 6) ] cosφ, ∆A−,ρK CP ≃ 0.11+0.11 −0.45 + [ 21(cd 5−cu

  3. [3]

    + 39(cd 6−cu 6) ] sinφ− [ 12(cd 5−cu

  4. [4]

    + 10cd 6− 1.1cu 6 ] cosφ, ∆A−,πK∗ CP ≃ 0.09+0.23 −0.29 + [ 23(cd 5−cu

  5. [5]

    + 34(cd 6−cu 6) ] sinφ− [ 2(cd 5−cu

  6. [6]

    + 45(cd 6−cu 6) ] sinφ + [ − 6cd 5 + 8cu 5− 2cd 6 + 7cu 6 ] cosφ, ∆A−,ρK∗ CP ≃ 0.01+0.15 −0.10 + [ (cd 5−cu 5)− 20cd 6 + 25cu 6 ] sinφ− [ 10(cd 5−cu

  7. [7]

    (A1) 6 These formulae already include the evolution of the Wil- son coefficients Cu 5,6 and Cd 5,6 in Eq

    + 2.5cd 6 + 2.5cu 6 ] cosφ. (A1) 6 These formulae already include the evolution of the Wil- son coefficients Cu 5,6 and Cd 5,6 in Eq. (10) from the elec- troweak scale to the scale mB and the numerical eval- uation of the matrix elements using QCD factorization. Note also that the term ∝ cosφ in the direct CP asym- metries Eq. (A1) originate from the interf...

  8. [8]

    A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, and A. E. Nelson, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 43, 27 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9302210 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 1993

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    M. B. Gavela, P. Hernandez, J. Orloff, and O. Pene, Mod. Phys. Lett. A9, 795 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9312215 [hep-ph]

    1994 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Huet and E

    P. Huet and E. Sather, Phys. Rev. D51, 379 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9404302 [hep-ph]

    1995 arXiv

  3. [11]

    M. B. Gavela, M. Lozano, J. Orloff, and O. Pene, Nucl. Phys. B430, 345 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9406288 [hep-ph]

    1994 arXiv

  4. [12]

    M. B. Gavela, P. Hernandez, J. Orloff, O. Pene, and C. Quimbay, Nucl. Phys. B430, 382 (1994), arXiv:hep- ph/9406289 [hep-ph]

    1994

  5. [13]

    Riotto and M

    A. Riotto and M. Trodden, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 49, 35 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9901362 [hep-ph]

    1999 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A. J. Buras, D. Buttazzo, J. Girrbach-Noe, and R. Kneg- jens, JHEP 11, 121 (2014), arXiv:1408.0728 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A. J. Buras and J.-M. G´ erard, JHEP 12, 008 (2015), arXiv:1507.06326 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A. J. Buras, M. Gorbahn, S. J¨ ager, and M. Jamin, JHEP 11, 202 (2015), arXiv:1507.06345 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Bai et al

    Z. Bai et al. (RBC, UKQCD), Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 212001 (2015), arXiv:1505.07863 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Kitahara, U

    T. Kitahara, U. Nierste, and P. Tremper, JHEP 12, 078 (2016), arXiv:1607.06727 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Cirigliano, G

    V. Cirigliano, G. Ecker, H. Neufeld, A. Pich, and J. Por- toles, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 399 (2012), arXiv:1107.6001 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Pich, in Proceedings, 32nd International Confer- ence on High Energy Physics (ICHEP 2004): Beijing, China, August 16-22, 2004

    A. Pich, in Proceedings, 32nd International Confer- ence on High Energy Physics (ICHEP 2004): Beijing, China, August 16-22, 2004. Vol. 1+2 (2004) arXiv:hep- ph/0410215 [hep-ph]

    2004

  13. [21]

    Pallante, A

    E. Pallante, A. Pich, and I. Scimemi, Nucl. Phys. B617, 441 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0105011 [hep-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Gisbert and A

    H. Gisbert and A. Pich, Rept. Prog. Phys. 81, 076201 (2018), arXiv:1712.06147 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Gisbert and A

    H. Gisbert and A. Pich, Proceedings, 21st High-Energy Physics International Conference in Quantum Chromo- dynamics (QCD 18): Montpellier, France, July 2-6, 2018, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 300-302, 137 (2018), arXiv:1810.04904 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    G. C. Branco, J. M. Frere, and J. M. Gerard, Nucl. Phys. B221, 317 (1983)

    1983

  17. [25]

    Aebischer, C

    J. Aebischer, C. Bobeth, A. J. Buras, J.-M. G´ erard, and D. M. Straub, Phys. Lett. B792, 465 (2019), arXiv:1807.02520 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Gronau and J

    M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D59, 113002 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9809384 [hep-ph]

    1999 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A. J. Buras, R. Fleischer, S. Recksiegel, and F. Schwab, Eur. Phys. J. C32, 45 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0309012 [hep-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  20. [28]

    A. J. Buras, R. Fleischer, S. Recksiegel, and F. Schwab, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 101804 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0312259 [hep-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  21. [29]

    A. J. Buras, R. Fleischer, S. Recksiegel, and F. Schwab, Nucl. Phys. B697, 133 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0402112 [hep-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Baek and D

    S. Baek and D. London, Phys. Lett. B653, 249 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0701181 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Fleischer, S

    R. Fleischer, S. Recksiegel, and F. Schwab, Eur. Phys. J. C51, 55 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0702275 [HEP-PH]

    2007 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. D98, 032004 (2018), 7 arXiv:1805.06759 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Fleischer, R

    R. Fleischer, R. Jaarsma, and K. K. Vos, Phys. Lett. B785, 525 (2018), arXiv:1712.02323 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Fleischer, R

    R. Fleischer, R. Jaarsma, E. Malami, and K. K. Vos, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 943 (2018), arXiv:1806.08783 [hep- ph]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Datta, D

    A. Datta, D. Sachdeva, and J. Waite, (2019), arXiv:1905.04046 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Faisel and J

    G. Faisel and J. Tandean, Phys. Rev. D99, 075007 (2019), arXiv:1810.11437 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Fleischer, Phys

    R. Fleischer, Phys. Lett. B365, 399 (1996), arXiv:hep- ph/9509204 [hep-ph]

    1996

  30. [38]

    Fleischer, S

    R. Fleischer, S. Jager, D. Pirjol, and J. Zupan, Phys. Rev. D78, 111501 (2008), arXiv:0806.2900 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Baek, C.-W

    S. Baek, C.-W. Chiang, and D. London, Phys. Lett. B675, 59 (2009), arXiv:0903.3086 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Barger, L

    V. Barger, L. L. Everett, J. Jiang, P. Langacker, T. Liu, and C. E. M. Wagner, JHEP 12, 048 (2009), arXiv:0906.3745 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Barger, L

    V. Barger, L. Everett, J. Jiang, P. Langacker, T. Liu, and C. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D80, 055008 (2009), arXiv:0902.4507 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Fleischer, Phys

    R. Fleischer, Phys. Lett. B332, 419 (1994)

    1994

  35. [43]

    Hofer, D

    L. Hofer, D. Scherer, and L. Vernazza, JHEP 02, 080 (2011), arXiv:1011.6319 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Hofer and L

    L. Hofer and L. Vernazza, in 7th International Workshop on the CKM Unitarity Triangle (CKM 2012) Cincin- nati, Ohio, USA, September 28-October 2, 2012 (2012) arXiv:1212.4785 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. D95, 012006 (2017), arXiv:1610.05187 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Barbieri, G

    R. Barbieri, G. R. Dvali, and L. J. Hall, Phys. Lett. B377, 76 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9512388 [hep-ph]

    1996 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Barbieri, L

    R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall, and A. Romanino, Phys. Lett. B401, 47 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9702315 [hep-ph]

    1997 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Barbieri, P

    R. Barbieri, P. Campli, G. Isidori, F. Sala, and D. M. Straub, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1812 (2011), arXiv:1108.5125 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Barbieri, G

    R. Barbieri, G. Isidori, J. Jones-Perez, P. Lodone, and D. M. Straub, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1725 (2011), arXiv:1105.2296 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Crivellin, L

    A. Crivellin, L. Hofer, and U. Nierste, Proceedings, 21st International Europhysics Conference on High energy physics (EPS-HEP 2011): Grenoble, France, July 21-27, 2011, PoS EPS-HEP2011, 145 (2011), arXiv:1111.0246 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Barbieri, D

    R. Barbieri, D. Buttazzo, F. Sala, and D. M. Straub, JHEP 07, 181 (2012), arXiv:1203.4218 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Barbieri, D

    R. Barbieri, D. Buttazzo, F. Sala, and D. M. Straub, JHEP 10, 040 (2012), arXiv:1206.1327 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  45. [53]

    R. S. Chivukula, H. Georgi, and L. Randall, Nucl. Phys. B292, 93 (1987)

    1987

  46. [54]

    L. J. Hall and L. Randall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 2939 (1990)

    1990

  47. [55]

    A. J. Buras, P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn, S. Jager, and L. Silvestrini, Phys. Lett. B500, 161 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0007085 [hep-ph]

    2001

  48. [56]

    D’Ambrosio, G

    G. D’Ambrosio, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori, and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B645, 155 (2002), arXiv:hep- ph/0207036 [hep-ph]

    2002

  49. [57]

    J. R. Batley et al. (NA48), Phys. Lett. B544, 97 (2002), arXiv:hep-ex/0208009 [hep-ex]

    2002 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Alavi-Harati et al

    A. Alavi-Harati et al. (KTeV), Phys. Rev. D67, 012005 (2003), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D70,079904(2004)], arXiv:hep-ex/0208007 [hep-ex]

    2003 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Abouzaid et al

    E. Abouzaid et al. (KTeV), Phys. Rev. D83, 092001 (2011), arXiv:1011.0127 [hep-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  52. [60]

    A. J. Buras and F. De Fazio, JHEP 03, 010 (2016), arXiv:1512.02869 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  53. [61]

    A. J. Buras and F. De Fazio, JHEP 08, 115 (2016), arXiv:1604.02344 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Bobeth, A

    C. Bobeth, A. J. Buras, A. Celis, and M. Jung, JHEP 07, 124 (2017), arXiv:1703.04753 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    M. Endo, T. Kitahara, S. Mishima, and K. Yamamoto, Phys. Lett. B771, 37 (2017), arXiv:1612.08839 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Bobeth, A

    C. Bobeth, A. J. Buras, A. Celis, and M. Jung, JHEP 04, 079 (2017), arXiv:1609.04783 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Blanke, A

    M. Blanke, A. J. Buras, and S. Recksiegel, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 182 (2016), arXiv:1507.06316 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  58. [66]

    A. J. Buras, D. Buttazzo, and R. Knegjens, JHEP 11, 166 (2015), arXiv:1507.08672 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  59. [67]

    A. J. Buras, JHEP 04, 071 (2016), arXiv:1601.00005 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Tanimoto and K

    M. Tanimoto and K. Yamamoto, PTEP 2016, 123B02 (2016), arXiv:1603.07960 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Kitahara, U

    T. Kitahara, U. Nierste, and P. Tremper, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 091802 (2016), arXiv:1604.07400 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  62. [70]

    M. Endo, S. Mishima, D. Ueda, and K. Yamamoto, Phys. Lett. B762, 493 (2016), arXiv:1608.01444 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Crivellin, G

    A. Crivellin, G. D’Ambrosio, T. Kitahara, and U. Nier- ste, Phys. Rev. D96, 015023 (2017), arXiv:1703.05786 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  64. [72]

    M. Endo, T. Goto, T. Kitahara, S. Mishima, D. Ueda, and K. Yamamoto, JHEP 04, 019 (2018), arXiv:1712.04959 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Chen and T

    C.-H. Chen and T. Nomura, JHEP 08, 145 (2018), arXiv:1804.06017 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Chen and T

    C.-H. Chen and T. Nomura, Phys. Lett. B787, 182 (2018), arXiv:1805.07522 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  67. [75]

    N. Haba, H. Umeeda, and T. Yamada, JHEP 05, 052 (2018), arXiv:1802.09903 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  68. [76]

    N. Haba, H. Umeeda, and T. Yamada, JHEP 10, 006 (2018), arXiv:1806.03424 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Matsuzaki, K

    S. Matsuzaki, K. Nishiwaki, and K. Yamamoto, JHEP 11, 164 (2018), arXiv:1806.02312 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Aebischer, C

    J. Aebischer, C. Bobeth, A. J. Buras, and D. M. Straub, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 219 (2019), arXiv:1808.00466 [hep- ph]

    2019 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Chen and T

    C.-H. Chen and T. Nomura, Phys. Rev. D99, 115006 (2019), arXiv:1811.02315 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Iguro and Y

    S. Iguro and Y. Omura, (2019), arXiv:1905.11778 [hep- ph]

    2019 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Amhis et al

    Y. Amhis et al. (Heavy Flavor Averaging Group), Eur. Phys. J. C77, 895 (2017), updated results and plots avail- able at https://hflav.web.cern.ch/, arXiv:1612.07233 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  74. [82]

    N. B. Beaudry, A. Datta, D. London, A. Rashed, and J.-S. Roux, JHEP 01, 074 (2018), arXiv:1709.07142 [hep- ph]

    2018 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Beneke, G

    M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, and C. T. Sachrajda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1914 (1999), arXiv:hep- ph/9905312 [hep-ph]

    1999

  76. [84]

    Beneke, G

    M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, and C. T. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B606, 245 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0104110 [hep-ph]

    2001

  77. [85]

    Beneke and M

    M. Beneke and M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys. B675, 333 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0308039 [hep-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Beneke, X.-Q

    M. Beneke, X.-Q. Li, and L. Vernazza, Eur. Phys. J. 8 C61, 429 (2009), arXiv:0901.4841 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Buchmuller and D

    W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, Nucl.Phys. B268, 621 (1986)

    1986

  80. [88]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, JHEP 1010, 085 (2010), arXiv:1008.4884 [hep- ph]

    2010 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.