Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 47 references

New physics effects on $B\to D^{(*)}\tau\nu$ decays

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper finds that the measured B→D(*)τν rates and polarizations exclude the Standard Model at the 2σ level, requiring finite new physics with a scale below about 27 TeV for ordinary tree-level mediators.

desk verdict A solid, honest R(D(*)) fit with one genuinely new observable result; the SM-exclusion claim needs its confidence thresholds stated before it can be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19843 v2 pith:26CFGCUS submitted 2024-11-29 hep-ph

Jong-Phil Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords B→D(*)τνdecaysR(D)anomalytaupolarizationWilsoncoefficientsnew-physicsscaleb→csemileptonictransitionsleptoquarksunparticles
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

The paper asks whether the long-standing excess in $B \to D^{(*)} \tau \nu$ decays can be explained by new physics and what that new physics would look like. It parameterizes every new-physics contribution by four Wilson coefficients with a common scale $M_{\rm NP}$ and an adjustable power $\alpha$, fits the world data on $R(D)$, $R(D^*)$, the $\tau$ polarizations, and the $D^*$ longitudinal polarization, and imposes the $B_c \to \tau \nu$ bound. The result is that the Standard Model point (all Wilson coefficients zero) lies outside the $2\sigma$ allowed region, so a finite new-physics effect is required; for ordinary particles ($\alpha = 2$) the scale is bounded by $M_{\rm NP} \lesssim 27$ TeV inside the scanned couplings. It also identifies the few operator combinations that can reverse the sign of the $\tau$ polarization in $B \to D$, a signature that would pin down the Lorentz structure of the new physics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Wilson-coefficient parametrization $C_j(\mu_b) = A_j (v/M_{\rm NP})^\alpha$ times renormalization-group factors, where $A_j$ collects the fermionic couplings, $M_{\rm NP}$ is the new-physics scale, $v$ is the Higgs vacuum expectation value, and $\alpha$ is a free exponent ($\alpha=2$ for ordinary tree-level mediators, non-integer in the unparticle scenario). This single formula maps every new-physics model into a point in the five-dimensional parameter space, and the $\chi^2$ fit then evaluates the analytic observable formulas. The argument is carried by the interference terms in the observable expressions: the signs of $\mathrm{Re}[(1+C_{VL})(C_{SL}\pm C_{SR})^*]$ and $\mathrm{Re}[(1+C_{VL})C_T^*]$ decide whether $P_\tau(D)$ can flip sign, and the large coefficients of $|C_T|^2$ keep the allowed tensor Wilson coefficient small.

What would settle it

Measure $P_\tau(D)$ with high statistics: the Standard Model predicts $P_\tau(D) = 0.331 \pm 0.004$, while the paper finds that a significantly negative value requires new physics with either $\{C_{VL}, C_{SR}\}$ or $\{C_{VL}, C_{SL}, C_T\}$ active. A result of $P_\tau(D) < 0$ at the $3\sigma$ level would confirm the central claim and select the operator set; a result consistent with the SM prediction would undermine the case that finite new physics is needed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the combined fit of $R(D)$, $R(D^*)$, $P_\tau(D^*)$, and $F_L(D^*)$ — together with the $\mathrm{Br}(B_c \to \tau \nu) < 0.3$ constraint — excludes the Standard Model at the $2\sigma$ level: the point $C_{VL}=C_{SL}=C_{SR}=C_T=0$ is not inside the allowed region ($\chi^2_{\rm min}/\text{d.o.f.} \approx 1.25$). Within the scanned parameter space ($-100 \leq A_j \leq 100$, $1\text{ TeV} \leq M_{\rm NP} \leq 100\text{ TeV}$, $0 \leq \alpha \leq 7$), the new-physics scale for ordinary tree-level mediators ($\alpha=2$) satisfies $M_{\rm NP} \lesssim 27$ TeV, and the tension is concentrated in $R(D^*)$, which never overlaps the SM prediction in the fit. The polarization asymmetry $P_\tau(D)$ can go negative only when the active operators are $\{C_{VL}, C_{SR}\}$ or $\{C_{VL}, C_{SL}, C_T\}$, and a large negative value would force $C_T \neq 0$.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that all new physics in these decays enters through just four interaction types whose strengths scale as $A_j(v/M_{\rm NP})^\alpha$, and it leaves out the right-handed vector type entirely.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • New physics must contribute at tree level to $b \to c \tau \nu$: the SM point with all $C_j = 0$ is outside the $2\sigma$ allowed region, so the data cannot be reproduced by the Standard Model alone.
  • For ordinary new particles ($\alpha=2$) with $|A_j| \leq 100$, the mediator mass is bounded by $M_{\rm NP} \lesssim 27$ TeV; weaker couplings lower the bound roughly as $\sqrt{k}$.
  • If $P_\tau(D)$ is measured negative, the active new-physics operators must be either $\{C_{VL}, C_{SR}\}$ or $\{C_{VL}, C_{SL}, C_T\}$, with a large negative value requiring $C_T \neq 0$.
  • $R(\Lambda_c)$ is predicted to stay above its SM value with no overlap in the allowed region, and the $R(\Lambda_c)$--$R(D^{(*)})$ sum rule holds throughout the parameter space.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The bound $M_{\rm NP} \lesssim 27$ TeV is conditional on the four-operator basis; if the neglected right-handed vector interaction dominates the true new physics, both the fitted regions and the scale bound would shift.
  • The $\sqrt{k}$ scaling of the mass bound gives a concrete search strategy: a few-TeV mediator with suppressed couplings is easier to test than a 27 TeV one, so future colliders should target small $|A_j|$.
  • The correlation lines $C_{SL} = +8.4 C_T$ and $C_{SL} = -8.9 C_T$ show that the fit prefers the latter, which acts as a model filter for leptoquark scenarios.
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. The paper performs a global χ² fit to the B→D(*)τν observables R(D), R(D*), Pτ(D*), and FL(D*) using a model-independent parametrization of new-physics Wilson coefficients, C_j = A_j (v/M_NP)^α times RG factors, with α, M_NP, and four couplings A_VL, A_SL, A_SR, A_T scanned over chosen ranges. The fit includes experimental correlations and imposes Br(B_c→τν)<0.3. The main claims are: (i) within the scan, the new-physics scale is bounded by M_NP ≲ 27 TeV for α=2; (ii) the SM point (all C_j=0) is not in the allowed region at 2σ, so finite NP must exist; (iii) negative Pτ(D) is possible only for certain operator combinations; and (iv) the sum rule for R(Λc) works well. The paper also presents predictions for R(J/Ψ) and R(Λc).

Significance. If the stated significance of the SM exclusion and the M_NP bound were robust, the paper would provide useful guidance for NP model building in b→cτν transitions. The analysis uses up-to-date formulae from Ref. [4], includes the available experimental correlations, and offers a convenient parametrization of the Wilson coefficients. The check of the R(Λc) sum rule is a nice consistency test. The main experimental finding—R(D*) lying above the SM—is visible in the fits, and the observation that negative Pτ(D) selects specific Lorentz structures is a potentially interesting phenomenological target. However, the central statistical claims are not presently reproducible because the χ² threshold for the reported confidence regions is not defined, and the impact of theory uncertainties and the neglected O_VR operator is not assessed. These issues must be fixed before the results can be taken at face value.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Figs. 1–8] The paper never states the Δχ² threshold used to draw the '2σ' contours. Equation (35) defines only the χ² function. Because the fit has six free parameters (α, M_NP, A_VL, A_SL, A_SR, A_T) and the plots are at most two-dimensional projections, the 95.45% contour requires Δχ²=6.18 for a profiled two-dimensional region and Δχ²=12.59 for a joint six-dimensional region; if the contours were drawn with Δχ²=4 (the one-parameter 2σ cutoff), the claim that the SM point is excluded at 2σ and the α upper bound quoted in Sec. III (α ≲ 6.4, Fig. 2) would not hold at the stated confidence. The author should state the threshold explicitly and regenerate the contours with the correct threshold, or soften the exclusion claims accordingly.
  2. [Section II, Eqs. (20)–(26)] The numerical coefficients in the observable formulae (e.g., 1.01, 0.84, 1.49, 16.0, 5.17) are treated as exact, and the SM theory uncertainties quoted in Eqs. (4)–(8) are not propagated into the covariance matrix used in Eq. (35). Because the central claim is a finite-NP exclusion at the 2σ level, the effect of these theory uncertainties on the confidence regions must be quantified; otherwise the statistical significance is overestimated.
  3. [Section II, after Eq. (19)] The fit neglects the operator O_VR 'for simplicity,' but the abstract's phrase 'general and model-independent' and the operator-specific conclusions in Sec. III (e.g., that negative Pτ(D) arises only for (O_VL,O_SR) or (O_VL,O_SL,O_T)) are conditional on the chosen four-operator basis. If a right-handed vector current contributes, the fitted regions, the 2σ SM exclusion, and the M_NP bound all change. The paper should either extend the fit to include C_VR or explicitly state in the abstract and conclusions that the results apply only to the O_VL, O_SL, O_SR, O_T basis.
  4. [Section III, Fig. 1 and Abstract] The headline bound M_NP ≲ 27 TeV for α=2 depends on the arbitrary scan range |A_j| ≤ 100 and on the parametrization C_j = A_j (v/M_NP)^α. The text acknowledges the √k scaling for other coupling ranges, but the Abstract states the bound without this qualification. The bound is not a physical limit; it is a consequence of the chosen scan region. The Abstract and conclusions should report it as 'under the assumption |A_j| ≤ 100' or remove the unqualified number.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption lists panels with duplicated labels, '(a) CSL vs. C_VL, (b) C_SR vs. C_VL, (a) C_T vs. C_VL, (b) C_T vs. C_SL, and (e) C_SR vs. C_SL'; the panel labels (a)–(e) should be sequential and consistent.
  2. [Page 10, text after Fig. 3] The sentence 'Figure 3 (c) shows that most of Br(B_c → τν) values are safely less than ∼0.1' appears to reference the wrong panel; Fig. 3(d) shows Br(B_c → τν) as a function of α.
  3. [Page 14, Sec. III] The sentence 'Among 4 Wilson coefficients C_VL,SL,SR,T in out analysis two or three of them can be zero' contains a typo ('out' for 'our') and is confusing; it should state that two or three of the coefficients can be nonzero (since not all of them vanish).
  4. [Section II, Eq. (34)] The constraint Br(B_c → τν) < 0.3 is very weak compared with current bounds; the author should cite the latest experimental limit or justify the choice of the 'moderate' 30% bound.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's fits are genuine fits to external data, and the self-citations are non-load-bearing remarks.

full rationale

The paper's central outputs are obtained by minimizing the chi-square of Eq. (35) against the external experimental data in Table I, using the observable formulas of Eqs. (20)-(24) taken from independent references [4,25,33,34]. The NP parametrization Cj = Aj (v/M_NP)^alpha times RG factors in Eq. (27) is explicitly presented as an assumption, not as a theorem imported from the author's prior work; the citations [23,24] merely note that the same approach was previously applied to R(K(*)), and [22] motivates the possibility of non-integer alpha. None of these citations supplies a load-bearing uniqueness or derivation step. The bound M_NP <~ 27 TeV for alpha=2 is a fit output conditional on the stated scan range |Aj| <= 100, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that the bound scales with the assumed coupling range, so it is an honest conditional statement rather than a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The claim that the SM point Cj=0 is outside the 2-sigma allowed region is a standard contour statement from the fitted chi-square; whether the confidence-level threshold is correctly specified is a statistical-correctness question, not a circularity. The negative-P_tau(D) discussion is likewise read off the fitted allowed regions together with Eq. (22), with no quantity reducing to an input by construction. No self-definitional, fitted-input-renamed-as-prediction, or self-citation-chain circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on a standard effective-field-theory operator basis, literature formulas for observables, published experimental data, and an ad hoc parametrization with free alpha and scanned coupling range. The main custom input is the (v/M_NP)^alpha power-law form and the associated scan priors.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha (power of v/M_NP) = 2.278 (best fit, scanned 0-7)
    Free exponent in the parametrization C_j proportional to (v/M_NP)^alpha; fitted to the data.
  • M_NP (new physics scale) = 4.731 TeV (best fit, scanned 1-100 TeV)
    The mass scale in the parametrization; the upper bound of about 27 TeV for alpha=2 depends on the scan range of A_j.
  • A_VL, A_SL, A_SR, A_T (coupling combinations) = scanned in [-100,100]; best-fit C values are CVL=0.105, CSL=-0.188, CSR=0.121, CT=-0.016
    The fermionic coupling combinations in Eq. (27); they are free parameters of the fit.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The b->c l nu transition is described by the effective Hamiltonian in Eq. (15) with operators O_VL, O_SL, O_SR, O_T; O_VR is neglected.
    See Sec. II after Eq. (19). This restricts the space of NP.
  • domain assumption The numerical formulas Eqs. (20)-(26) relating observables to Wilson coefficients, taken from Refs. [4,25,33,34], are correct and have negligible theoretical uncertainty.
    The entire fit relies on these external formulas.
  • domain assumption The experimental measurements in Table I and their correlation matrix are accurate.
    The chi-squared uses these published values.
  • domain assumption The constraint Br(Bc->tau nu) < 0.3 from [32] is the appropriate bound.
    The paper calls it a moderate bound; stronger bounds would tighten the allowed regions.
  • ad hoc to paper The parametrization C_j = A_j (v/M_NP)^alpha times RG factors captures the energy scaling of NP contributions, with alpha free.
    Introduced in Sec. II, Eq. (27); alpha is a free parameter inspired by unparticle physics, and for ordinary new particles alpha=2 is expected.
  • ad hoc to paper The scan ranges 0 <= alpha <= 7, 1 TeV <= M_NP <= 100 TeV, -100 <= A_j <= 100 are sufficient.
    The upper bound on M_NP directly depends on the selected A_j range.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New physics effects on $B\to D^{(*)}\tau\nu$ decays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/26CFGCUS

@misc{pith2026241119843,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New physics effects on $B\to D^(*)\tau\nu$ decays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/26CFGCUS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19843}
}
abstract

We investigate new physics effects on $B\to D^{(*)}\tau\nu$ decays in a general and model-independent way. The $\chi^2$ fits for fractions of the branching ratios $R(D^{(*)})$ and other polarization parameters are implemented. We parameterize the relevant Wilson coefficients with a new physics scale and its power together with combined fermionic couplings. Constraints from $B_c\to\tau\nu$ are imposed such that its branching ratio is less than 30%. For a moderate range of our parameters we find that the new physics scale goes up to $\lesssim 27$ TeV for ordinary new particle contributions. It turns out that the polarization asymmetry of $\tau$ for $B\to D$ transition can be negative only for a few combinations of the new physics operators. We also discuss related processes $B_c\to J/\Psi\tau\nu$ and $\Lambda_b\to\Lambda_c\tau\nu$ decays.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19843 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Allowed regions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Allowed regions of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (c) shows that most of Br(Bc → τν) values are safely less than ∼ 0.1. Note that our constraint is Br(Bc → τν) < 0.3. Since the SM value of the branching ratio (=0.022) 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Allowed regions of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Allowed regions of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Allowed regions of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Allowed regions of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Allowed regions of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    NP effects, if exist, seems to enhance R(J/Ψ) while shrink R(Λc)

    and R(Λc) = |0.04/Vcb|2(0.285±0.073) [31]. NP effects, if exist, seems to enhance R(J/Ψ) while shrink R(Λc). Still there exist large experimental uncertainties for both of them and we will not take R(J/Ψ) and R(Λc) as fitting data. Instead we provide outlooks of NP effects allowed by B → D(∗) transitions on them. The branching ratio of Br( Bc → τ ν) puts ...

    work page 2015

  2. [1]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, no.5, 051803 (2023)

    2023

  3. [2]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 108, no.3, 032002 (2023)

    2023

  4. [3]

    D’Alise, G

    A. D’Alise, G. Fabiano, D. Frattulillo, D. Iacobacci, F. Sannino, P. Santorelli and N. Vignaroli, Nucl. Phys. B 1006, 116631 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    Iguro, T

    S. Iguro, T. Kitahara and R. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.7, 7 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    b → clν decays at LHCb

    LHCb Collaboration, “ b → clν decays at LHCb.”. https : //indico.in2p3.fr/event/32664/timetable/?view = standardnumbered#38-b-to-c-l-nu- decays-at-lhcb

    work page

  7. [7]

    Hirose et al

    S. Hirose et al. [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, no. 21, 211801 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Hirose et al

    S. Hirose et al. [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 1, 012004 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 110, no.9, 092007 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Abdesselam et al

    A. Abdesselam et al. [Belle Collaboration], arXiv:1903.03102 [hep-ex]

    1903 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Sakaki, M

    Y. Sakaki, M. Tanaka, A. Tayduganov and R. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. D 88, no.9, 094012 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    Freytsis, Z

    M. Freytsis, Z. Ligeti and J. T. Ruderman, Phys. Rev. D 92, no.5, 054018 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    Bauer and M

    M. Bauer and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, no.14, 141802 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    Fajfer and N

    S. Fajfer and N. Koˇ snik, Phys. Lett. B 755, 270-274 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Beˇ cirevi´ c, S

    D. Beˇ cirevi´ c, S. Fajfer, N. Koˇ snik and L. Paviˇ ci´ c, Phys. Rev. D110, no.5, 5 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Bhattacharya, A

    B. Bhattacharya, A. Datta, D. London and S. Shivashankara, Phys. Lett. B 742, 370-374 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    Greljo, G

    A. Greljo, G. Isidori and D. Marzocca, JHEP 07, 142 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    S. M. Boucenna, A. Celis, J. Fuentes-Martin, A. Vicente and J. Virto, JHEP 12, 059 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    Carena, E

    M. Carena, E. Meg ´ ıas, M. Qu ´ ıros and C. Wagner, JHEP12, 043 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Fajfer, J

    S. Fajfer, J. F. Kamenik, I. Nisandzic and J. Zupan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 161801 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Crivellin, C

    A. Crivellin, C. Greub and A. Kokulu, Phys. Rev. D 86, 054014 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Celis, M

    A. Celis, M. Jung, X. Q. Li and A. Pich, JHEP 01, 054 (2013). 18

    2013

  15. [23]

    J. P. Lee, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 36, no.30, 2150219 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    J. P. Lee, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 80, no.1, 13-19 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    J. P. Lee, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 38, no.16n17, 2350080 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Blanke, A

    M. Blanke, A. Crivellin, S. de Boer, T. Kitahara, M. Moscati, U. Nierste and I. Niˇ sandˇ zi´ c, Phys. Rev. D 99, no.7, 075006 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Blanke, A

    M. Blanke, A. Crivellin, T. Kitahara, M. Moscati, U. Nierste and I. Niˇ sandˇ zi´ c, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.3, 035035 (addendum, 2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    Fedele, M

    M. Fedele, M. Blanke, A. Crivellin, S. Iguro, T. Kitahara, U. Nierste and R. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.5, 055005 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Harrison et al

    J. Harrison et al. [LATTICE-HPQCD], Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, no.22, 222003 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    F. U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, D. J. Robinson and W. L. Sutcliffe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, no.20, 202001 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    F. U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, D. J. Robinson and W. L. Sutcliffe, Phys. Rev. D 99, no.5, 055008 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    F. U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, M. Papucci and D. J. Robinson, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.1, L011502 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Alonso, B

    R. Alonso, B. Grinstein and J. Martin Camalich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, no.8, 081802 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    Aoki et al., Eur

    S. Aoki et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no. 2, 112 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    F. U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, M. Papucci and D. J. Robinson, Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 11, 115008 (2017) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 5, 059902 (2018)]

    2017

  28. [36]

    J. P. Lees et al. [BaBar Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 88, no. 7, 072012 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    Huschle et al

    M. Huschle et al. [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 7, 072014 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    Sato et al

    Y. Sato et al. [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 7, 072007 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Hirose [Belle Collaboration], Nucl

    S. Hirose [Belle Collaboration], Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 287-288, 185 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Abdesselam et al

    A. Abdesselam et al. [Belle Collaboration], arXiv:1904.08794 [hep-ex]

    1904 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Adachi et al

    I. Adachi et al. [Belle-II], Phys. Rev. D 110, no.7, 072020 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, no. 11, 111803 (2015) Addendum: [Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, no. 15, 159901 (2015)]

    2015

  35. [43]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 7, 072013 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 108, no.1, 012018 (2023) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 109, no.11, 119902 (2024)]. 19

    2023

  37. [45]

    Average of R(D) and R(D∗) for Spring 2019, Heavy Flavor Averaging Group, https://hflav- eos.web.cern.ch/hflav-eos/semi/spring19/html/RDsDsstar/RDRDs.html

    2019

  38. [46]

    Iguro, T

    S. Iguro, T. Kitahara and R. Watanabe, [arXiv:2210.10751 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Capdevila, A

    B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin and J. Matias, Eur. Phys. J. ST 1, 20 (2023). 20

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.