REVIEW 2 cited by
Testing the Standard Model with CP-asymmetries in flavour-specific non-leptonic decays
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
Motivated by recent indications that the rates of colour-allowed non-leptonic channels are not in agreement with their Standard Model expectations based on QCD factorisation, we investigate the potential to study CP asymmetries with these decays. In the Standard Model, these flavour-specific decays are sensitive to CP violation in $B^0_{(s)}$--$\bar{B}^0_{(s)}$ mixing, which is predicted with low uncertainties and can be measured precisely with semileptonic decays. If there are beyond Standard Model contributions to the non-leptonic decay amplitudes, there could be significant enhancements to the CP asymmetries. Measurements of these quantities therefore have potential to identify BSM effects without relying on Standard Model predictions that might be affected by hadronic effects. We discuss the experimental prospects, and note the excellent potential for a precise determination of the CP asymmetry in $\bar{B}_s \to D_s^+ \pi^-$ decays by the LHCb experiment.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
$B$-meson decay width up to $1/m_b^3$ corrections within and beyond the Standard Model
Complete analytic HQE matching coefficients for B-meson decay widths up to 1/m_b^3 are derived for generic new-physics operators, including previously missing weak-annihilation terms.
-
Weak decays of $B_s$ meson in self-consistent covariant light-front approach
A self-consistent light-front quark model calculation gives B_s to P(V) form factors and decay observables, with semileptonic results consistent with lattice QCD and LHCb but nonleptonic predictions requiring fitted e...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.