Constraints on the malaphoric $B_3-L_2$ model from di-lepton resonance searches at the LHC

Ben Allanach (Cambridge University)

Constraints on the malaphoric $B_3-L_2$ model from di-lepton resonance searches at the LHC

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The malaphoric $B_3-L_2$ model can still explain the B-meson flavour anomalies only if its $Z^\prime$ boson is heavier than 2.8 TeV, and the HL-LHC should reach 4.2 TeV.

desk verdict A clean, reproducible LHC constraint on a specific Z' model; the headline mass bound is real but inherits the author's working assumption about hadronic effects in the b→s fit. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01956 v1 pith:KYCJRDBU submitted 2024-12-02 hep-ph hep-ex

Ben Allanach (Cambridge University) This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-ex

keywords B-anomaliesbeyondtheStandardModelbumphuntkineticmixingZ'bosondi-leptonresonancesearchleptonflavouruniversalityLHC

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 malaphoric $B_3-L_2$ model, a proposed explanation of persistent tensions in $b \to s l^+ l^-$ transitions, can survive direct production searches at the LHC. Because this model's $Z^\prime$ boson has order-unity kinetic mixing with hypercharge, it couples to valence quarks, making it far easier to produce at a proton collider than the $Z^\prime$ of the original unmixed model. Recasting the ATLAS 139 fb$^{-1}$ 13 TeV resonant di-lepton search, the paper finds that the entire 95% good-fit region is excluded for $Z^\prime$ masses below about 2.8 TeV, while a non-negligible allowed region survives at higher masses. The paper estimates that the HL-LHC, with 3000 fb$^{-1}$, would extend sensitivity to $M_{Z^\prime} = 4.2$ TeV and cover most of the remaining parameter space.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $Z^\prime$ boson of the malaphoric $B_3-L_2$ model, defined by a spontaneously broken $U(1)_X$ gauge symmetry with charge $X = B_3 - L_2$ and a sizeable kinetic mixing $\sin \chi$ between the $X$ gauge boson and hypercharge. The kinetic mixing generates family-universal $Z^\prime$ couplings to all fermions, so the $Z^\prime$ acquires first-generation quark couplings and $u\bar{u} \to Z^\prime$ dominates LHC production, making the model directly testable in di-lepton resonance searches. To scan the parameter space, the paper uses the approximate solution of the neutral gauge-boson mixing equations in the limit $M_Z/M_{Z^\prime} \ll 1$, namely $M_{Z^\prime} = \sqrt{1 + s_w^2 s_\chi^2}\, M_X / c_\chi$, together with relations connecting $M_{Z^\prime}$, $M_X$, and $\sin \chi$; a fixed-point iteration in the appendix refines this to arbitrary precision. The ATLAS bounds are recast through the interpolation $s(z, M_{Z^\prime}) = s(0, M_{Z^\prime})\left(s(0.1, M_{Z^\prime})/s(0, M_{Z^\prime})\right)^{z/10}$ with $z = \Gamma_{Z^\prime}/M_{Z^\prime}$, and the exclusion is taken as the maximum over muon and electron channels of the ratio of predicted $\sigma \times \mathrm{BR}$ to the observed upper limit.

What would settle it

If the HL-LHC accumulates 3000 fb$^{-1}$ and finds no resonant di-muon excess above the expected background in the 3 to 4.2 TeV mass window while the $b \to s l^+ l^-$ anomalies persist, the model's remaining 95% good-fit region would be excluded, since the paper estimates that luminosity is sufficient to reach $M_{Z^\prime} = 4.2$ TeV.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a model-dependent lower bound obtained by overlaying the model's predicted $\sigma(pp \to Z^\prime) \times \mathrm{BR}$ on the observed 95% limits of the ATLAS resonant di-lepton search. Within the 95% CL region preferred by the earlier SMEFT fit to $b \to s l^+ l^-$ observables, electroweak precision data, and LEP2 di-lepton cross sections, the paper finds that at least $M_{Z^\prime} > 2.8$ TeV is required after the Run II ATLAS search, with the di-muon channel providing the strongest constraint at $M_X = 2$ and $3$ TeV. For $M_X = 4$ and $6$ TeV, a non-negligible allowed region survives. Scaling the expected ATLAS sensitivity by the square root of the luminosity ratio gives an estimated HL-LHC reach of $M_{Z^\prime} = 4.2$ TeV. If correct, the malaphoric $B_3-L_2$ model remains a viable explanation of the B-anomalies only for $Z^\prime$ masses above a few TeV, and the HL-LHC can test the remaining region.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that additional non-perturbative hadronic contributions to $b \to s l^+ l^-$ (notably charm-loop rescattering) are small enough that the new physics fit used to define the good-fit region is meaningful; the paper states it will assume this case and does not prove it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the bound stands, the malaphoric $B_3-L_2$ model can only improve the fit to $b \to s l^+ l^-$ data when $M_{Z^\prime} > 2.8$ TeV; at $M_X = 2$ and $3$ TeV the whole 95% fit region is already excluded.
The HL-LHC at 3000 fb$^{-1}$ is expected to exclude the remaining good-fit region up to $M_{Z^\prime} = 4.2$ TeV, covering almost all currently allowed parameter space.
Although the $Z^\prime$ couples to electrons through kinetic mixing, the di-muon channel drives the exclusions at low $M_X$, consistent with the model's large branching ratio $\mathrm{BR}(Z^\prime \to \mu^+\mu^-) \approx 0.48$.
Since CMS has performed a similar di-lepton search, the paper expects CMS bounds to be very similar to those derived from ATLAS.
In the region relevant to the fit, LHC production is dominated by $u\bar{u} \to Z^\prime$, so the model's LHC signature is a high-mass di-lepton bump rather than the $b$-associated production of the original unmixed model.

Reading between the lines

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

If the $b \to s$ anomalies persist and the 2.8 TeV threshold survives, the model makes a sharp testable prediction: a high-mass $Z^\prime$ should appear in HL-LHC di-muon spectra between roughly 3 and 4.2 TeV, with $\mathrm{BR}(Z^\prime \to \mu^+\mu^-) \approx 0.48$; this consequence is implicit in the paper.
The paper's equivalence between the kinetically mixed malaphoric model and a zero-mixing model with charge $X = B_3 - L_2 + \alpha Y$ implies that the same mass bound should transfer to ultraviolet completions phrased in terms of a hypercharge-shifted charge assignment.
The $\sqrt{L}$ luminosity scaling used for the HL-LHC projection is an approximation, and the paper itself cites a caveat about that procedure; a more detailed treatment including systematic uncertainties could shift the 4.2 TeV reach by a few hundred GeV.
The derived mass bound is conditional on the assumption that additional effective hadronic contributions, notably charm-loop rescattering, are small; if refined estimates enlarge those contributions, the fit region would move and the 2.8 TeV statement would need to be re-derived.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Ben's paper is worth a serious look. The new content is the application of the ATLAS di-lepton resonance search to the malaphoric B3-L2 model, and the result is a concrete bound: within the region of parameter space that fits b→s data, the Z' mass is pushed above 2.8 TeV. The coupling derivation is compact, the (MZ/MZ')^2 approximation is stated with its range, and the paper ships the UFO files and a Python solver for the full kinetic-mixing equations. That is exactly the kind of reproducibility that makes a constraint paper useful.

The LHC recasting itself follows a method the author and others validated earlier, and the paper is properly careful about the width interpolation and the regions where it extrapolates. The HL-LHC projection is labeled an estimate and cites the known caveat about sqrt(L) scaling. That is fine.

The soft spot is not in the collider calculation; it is upstream. The 2.8 TeV number is the intersection of the ATLAS limit with the 95% good-fit region taken from the author's earlier paper, and that region was obtained under the explicit assumption that additional hadronic contributions to b→sll are small. The paper says so, but it does not quantify how the fit contour moves if that assumption is relaxed. So the mass bound is conditional. If a future charm-loop estimate shifts the C9/C10 best-fit point, the bound would move. The paper does not hide this—the abstract and Section 1 both state the assumption—but a reader who quotes 'MZ'>2.8 TeV' without the caveat will overstate it.

The minor points: approximating θsb=0 in the cross-sections is justified at one benchmark point, and the conclusion that it holds over the whole parameter space is plausible but not shown in detail. The wide-resonance region z>0.1 is extrapolated and is excluded from the main plots anyway. Fine.

Overall, this is a honest, focused paper. It does not pretend to solve the hadronic uncertainty; it constrains a model under a stated assumption. The work is formally grounded and reproducible. It deserves peer review. I would send it to a competent referee, asking them to check the coupling derivation and to press on a sensitivity statement about the fit region, but I don't see a load-bearing flaw.

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper confronts the malaphoric B3-L2 Z' model with the ATLAS 139 fb^-1 13 TeV resonant di-lepton search. The author derives the Z' couplings in the presence of kinetic mixing, gives an approximate analytic solution for the physical masses/couplings valid to O((M_Z/M_Z')^2), and supplies an iterative numerical method for higher precision. Using MadGraph at tree level, the paper computes pp -> Z' -> e+e-/mu+mu- cross sections times branching ratios, interpolates/extrapolates the ATLAS limits using Eq. (25), and overlays the 95% CL fit region from Ref. [1]. The central result is that, within the fit region, the ATLAS search leaves a non-negligible allowed window only for M_Z' > 2.8 TeV, and the paper estimates that the HL-LHC at 3000 fb^-1 will be sensitive to M_Z' = 4.2 TeV.

Significance. If the result holds, it is an important step for the B3-L2 program: the kinetically mixed 'malaphoric' variant, which is currently preferred by global fits to b -> s l+ l- data, is much more strongly constrained by LHC di-lepton searches than the original B3-L2 model, yet a TeV-scale window survives. The paper's strengths are its transparency and reproducibility: the mixing derivation is clean, the validity range of the epsilon expansion is stated, an iterative solution is provided, and the UFO model and numerical code are made available in the ancillary files. The recasting follows a previously validated method. The main caveat is that the 2.8 TeV lower bound is not a pure collider limit but an intersection with the 95% CL fit region of Ref. [1], which is obtained under the explicitly stated assumption that additional effective hadronic contributions to b -> s l+ l- are small. This is a limitation of the interpretation, not an internal inconsistency; the manuscript is honest about it, though the abstract could state it more prominently.

minor comments (6)

[§3, recasting paragraph] The fit region is attributed to 'Ref. [17]' twice in Section 3 ('As mentioned above, the malaphoric B3-L2 model was fit ... in Ref. [17]' and 'We pick an example point in parameter space from Ref. [17]'), but that fit is from Ref. [1]; Ref. [17] is the earlier di-lepton recasting paper. Please correct the cross-reference.
[§3, Fig. 3 discussion] The sentence 'Figs. 3d and 3d show that MX = 4 TeV and MX = 6 TeV have some allowed parameter space' should read 'Figs. 3c and 3d'.
[Abstract and §4] The abstract states the 2.8 TeV bound without qualification, but the bound applies under the working assumption, made in Section 1, that additional effective hadronic contributions to b -> s l+ l- are small; making that condition explicit in the abstract and conclusion would prevent a too-strong reading of the result.
[§3, Eq. (27)] The 4.2 TeV HL-LHC projection uses naive sqrt(L) scaling even though Ref. [21] argues against that practice; the text should explicitly label the projection as an optimistic sensitivity estimate rather than a guaranteed exclusion.
[§3, Eq. (25) and Fig. 4] The extrapolation of Eq. (25) to z>0.1 is mentioned in the text, but Fig. 4's legend entry 'Gamma_Z'/M_Z' > 0.1' does not by itself demarcate where the extrapolated region affects the R=1 contour; please shade or outline that region directly on the plot.
[§3, scan description] The sentence 'sin chi is then scanned between the value consistent with y and -0.95' is hard to parse; spell out the scan range explicitly (for example, sin chi in [-0.95, E] with E = y M_X/(3 TeV)) before introducing E in the footnote.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LHC di-lepton constraints are computed from independent ATLAS data, and the mass relation is analytic rather than fitted.

full rationale

The paper's central results are the intersection of two independent inputs. The ATLAS resonant di-lepton search bounds (Ref. [16]) are external data, and the 95% CL good-fit region is imported from Ref. [1], a prior fit to b→sℓ+ℓ− observables, electroweak parameters, and LEP2 cross-sections. The present paper does not fit any parameter to the ATLAS bounds; it computes Z′ production cross-sections and branching ratios from the model Lagrangian and compares them with the experimental upper limits. The key mass relation, MZ′ = sqrt(1 + s_w^2 s_chi^2)/c_chi M_X, is derived analytically from the kinetic-mixing gauge mass matrix, not obtained by fitting. The only load-bearing self-citation is Ref. [1] for the good-fit region, but that region is an externally falsifiable fit to different data and is not redefined in terms of the LHC observables being constrained; the paper explicitly states its working assumption that additional hadronic contributions are small and then imports the resulting fit. The HL-LHC projection uses a stated sqrt(luminosity) scaling of the expected ATLAS limit, with the caveat of Ref. [21] acknowledged; it is an extrapolated estimate, not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. No derivation step reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the previously fitted model parameters (g_X, sin chi, theta_sb), the model's flavor structure assumptions, and the physical assumption that hadronic uncertainties in b -> s l+ l- are under control. The paper itself contributes no new fitted numbers; it computes LHC constraints for a pre-existing model. The most fragile ingredient is the hadronic uncertainty assumption, as it determines whether the 'good fit' region is meaningful.

free parameters (4)

g_X / M_X (effective gauge coupling) = 95% CL fit region from Ref [1]
The ratio g_X/M_X sets the strength of the Z' interaction and is fitted to b -> s l+ l- data, electroweak observables and LEP2 measurements in the prior paper.
sin chi (kinetic mixing) = 95% CL fit region from Ref [1]
The sizeable kinetic mixing is the defining feature of the malaphoric model and is fitted in Ref [1]; this paper scans over it.
theta_sb (b-s mixing angle) = -0.19 (best fit, Table 2)
The angle in V_dL facilitating b -> s transitions; taken from the fit in Ref [1] and shown to have negligible effect on LHC cross-sections.
M_X (X gauge boson mass parameter) = Scanned between 2 and 6 TeV
The mass scale of the X gauge boson before kinetic mixing; an input parameter of the model, not fitted to data in this paper.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The U(1)_X gauge group with the malaphoric charge assignment X = B3 - L2 + alpha Y (via kinetic mixing) is a valid extension of the Standard Model with anomaly cancellation via right-handed neutrinos.
The model definition is taken from Ref [1] and summarized in Section 1; the paper does not re-derive anomaly cancellation.
domain assumption Order-unity kinetic mixing sin chi between hypercharge and X gauge fields is allowed and radiatively stable.
This is the central model assumption introduced in Ref [1]; the present paper parameterizes it by sin chi and notes in the conclusions that a UV completion via charge assignment X = B3 - L2 + alpha Y is equivalent.
ad hoc to paper The fermion mixing matrices satisfy V_lL = V_eR = V_uR = V_dR = I_3, with V_dL containing only the 2-3 mixing angle theta_sb.
Section 1 states 'The assumptions above about the V_psi are strong, but have the consequence that strong constraints from some flavour changing Z' couplings are evaded.' This is a model-building choice that suppresses dangerous flavor-changing neutral currents.
domain assumption The remaining theoretical uncertainties in the SM predictions for b -> s l+ l-, especially from the charm-loop contribution, are small enough that a new physics fit is meaningful.
Introduction: 'We shall investigate the case that the additional effective hadronic contributions are small and fit a new physics contribution to the measurements.' The paper cites Refs [2-5] indicating this is not fully settled.
domain assumption The ATLAS limit interpolation formula s(z,MZ') = s(0,MZ') (s(0.1,MZ')/s(0,MZ'))^(z/10) remains valid for z > 0.1.
Section 3, Eq. (25). The paper states it uses the formula to extrapolate for z > 0.1 and demarcates such regions, but does not validate it there.

invented entities (2)

Z' boson (massive vector of U(1)_X) independent evidence
purpose: Mediates b -> s l+ l- transitions and produces the di-lepton resonance at the LHC
The model predicts specific couplings to quarks and leptons, making the Z' discoverable in LHC di-lepton searches; this paper computes those predictions and compares them with ATLAS data.
Three right-handed neutrinos
purpose: Anomaly cancellation for U(1)_X and seesaw mechanism for neutrino masses
Introduced for anomaly cancellation as part of the B3-L2 model; they have no direct experimental handle discussed in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraints on the malaphoric $B_3-L_2$ model from di-lepton resonance searches at the LHC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KYCJRDBU

@misc{pith2026241201956,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraints on the malaphoric $B_3-L_2$ model from di-lepton resonance searches at the LHC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KYCJRDBU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01956}
}

abstract

We confront the malaphoric $B_3-L_2$ model with bounds coming from a search for resonances in the di-lepton channels at the 13~TeV LHC. In contrast to the original $B_3-L_2$ model, the $Z^\prime$ of the malaphoric $B_3-L_2$ model has sizeable couplings to the lighter two families; these originate from order unity kinetic mixing with the hypercharge gauge boson and ameliorate the fit to lepton flavour universality measurements in $B-$meson decays. The $Z^\prime$ coupling to the first two families of quark means that the resulting constraints from resonant di-lepton searches are stronger. Nevertheless, we find that for $M_{Z^\prime}>2.8$ TeV there remains a non-negligible region of allowed parameter space where the model significantly improves upon several Standard Model predictions for observables involving the $b \rightarrow s l^+ l^-$ transition. We estimate that the 3000 fb$^{-1}$ HL-LHC will extend this sensitivity to $M_{Z^\prime}= 4.2$ TeV.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

The Plan B Model: $Z^{\prime}$ collider phenomenology and discovery prospects
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Current LHC data exclude a significant portion of the Plan B Model's preferred parameter space, and the HL-LHC could extend sensitivity to Z′ masses around 2.5 TeV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Malaphoric $Z'$ models for $b \rightarrow s \ell^+ \ell^-$ anomalies

B. Allanach and N. Gubernari, Malaphoric Z′ models for b → sℓ+ℓ− anomalies, 2409.06804

work page Pith review arXiv
[2]

Gubernari, M

N. Gubernari, M. Reboud, D. van Dyk and J. Virto, Improved theory predictions and global analysis of exclusive b → sµ+µ− processes, JHEP 09 (2022) 133 [ 2206.03797]

arXiv 2022
[3]

Mutke, M

S. Mutke, M. Hoferichter and B. Kubis, Anomalous thresholds in B → (P, V) γ∗ form factors, JHEP 07 (2024) 276 [ 2406.14608]

arXiv 2024
[4]

Isidori, Z

G. Isidori, Z. Polonsky and A. Tinari, An explicit estimate of charm rescattering in B0 → K0 ¯ℓℓ, 2405.17551

arXiv
[5]

Ciuchini, M

M. Ciuchini, M. Fedele, E. Franco, A. Paul, L. Silvestrini and M. Valli, Constraints on lepton universality violation from rare B decays , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023), no. 5 055036 [2212.10516]

arXiv 2023
[6]

Bonilla, T

C. Bonilla, T. Modak, R. Srivastava and J. W. F. Valle, U (1)B3−3Lµ gauge symmetry as a simple description of b → s anomalies, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018), no. 9 095002 [1705.00915]

arXiv 2018
[7]

Flavoured $B-L$ Local Symmetry and Anomalous Rare $B$ Decays

R. Alonso, P. Cox, C. Han and T. T. Yanagida, Flavoured B − L local symmetry and anomalous rare B decays, Phys. Lett. B 774 (2017) 643–648 [ 1705.03858]

work page Pith review arXiv 2017
[8]

B. C. Allanach, U (1)B3−L2 explanation of the neutral current B−anomalies, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021), no. 1 56 [ 2009.02197]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 81, 321 (2021)]

work page Pith review arXiv 2021

Show all 31 references

[9]

Navas et

Particle Data GroupCollaboration, S. Navas et. al. , Review of particle physics , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 3 030001

2024
[10]

LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et. al. , Test of lepton universality in b → sℓ+ℓ− decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023), no. 5 051803 [ 2212.09152]

2023
[11]

K. S. Babu, C. F. Kolda and J. March-Russell, Implications of generalized Z - Z-prime mixing , Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 6788–6792 [ hep-ph/9710441]

1998 arXiv
[12]

Cheng, X.-H

H.-C. Cheng, X.-H. Jiang, L. Li and E. Salvioni, Dark showers from Z-dark Z’ mixing , JHEP 04 (2024) 081 [ 2401.08785]

2024 arXiv
[13]

Degrande, C

C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mattelaer and T. Reiter, UFO - The Universal FeynRules Output , Comput. Phys. Commun. 183 (2012) 1201–1214 [1108.2040]. Constraints on the malaphoric B3 − L2 model 17

2012 arXiv
[14]

Abada et

FCC Collaboration, A. Abada et. al. , FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2 , Eur. Phys. J. ST 228 (2019), no. 2 261–623

2019
[15]

Abdallah et

CEPC Study GroupCollaboration, W. Abdallah et. al. , CEPC Technical Design Report: Accelerator, Radiat. Detect. Technol. Methods 8 (2024), no. 1 1–1105 [2312.14363]

2024
[16]

A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et. al. , Search for high-mass dilepton resonances using 139 fb −1 of pp collision data collected at √s =13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B 796 (2019) 68–87 [ 1903.06248]

2019 arXiv
[17]

Allanach, LHC di-lepton searches for Z’ bosons which explain measurements of b→sl+l− transitions, Phys

B. Allanach, LHC di-lepton searches for Z’ bosons which explain measurements of b→sl+l− transitions, Phys. Lett. B 858 (2024) 139055 [ 2404.14748]

2024 arXiv
[18]

B. C. Allanach, J. M. Butterworth and T. Corbett, Collider constraints on Z ′ models for neutral current B-anomalies , JHEP 08 (2019) 106 [ 1904.10954]

2019 arXiv
[19]

Alwall, R

J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli and M. Zaro, The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP 07 ...

2014 arXiv
[20]

CMS Collaboration, Search for a high mass dimuon resonance associated with b quark jets at √s = 13 TeV,
[21]

Belvedere, C

A. Belvedere, C. Englert, R. Kogler and M. Spannowsky, Dispelling the √ L myth for the High-Luminosity LHC , Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024), no. 7 715 [ 2402.07985]

2024 arXiv
[22]

B. C. Allanach, J. M. Butterworth and T. Corbett, Large hadron collider constraints on some simple Z′ models for b → sµ+µ− anomalies, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021), no. 12 1126 [ 2110.13518]

2021 arXiv
[23]

CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et. al., Search for resonant and nonresonant new phenomena in high-mass dilepton final states at √s = 13 TeV , JHEP 07 (2021) 208 [2103.02708]

2021 arXiv
[24]

Allanach and E

B. Allanach and E. Loisa, Flavonstrahlung in the B 3− L2Z’ model at current and future colliders, JHEP 03 (2023) 253 [ 2212.07440]

2023 arXiv
[25]

Isidori, 2024

G. Isidori, 2024. Panel debate at with B.C. Allanach at ‘Open Questions and Future Directions in Flavour Physics’ Workshop, MITP, Germany

2024
[26]

Allanach and A

B. Allanach and A. Mullin, Plan B: new Z’ models for b → sℓ+ℓ− anomalies, JHEP 09 (2023) 173 [ 2306.08669]

2023 arXiv
[27]

Altmannshofer, J

W. Altmannshofer, J. Davighi and M. Nardecchia, Gauging the accidental symmetries of the standard model, and implications for the flavor anomalies , Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020), no. 1 015004 [ 1909.02021]

2020 arXiv
[28]

Greljo, Y

A. Greljo, Y. Soreq, P. Stangl, A. E. Thomsen and J. Zupan, Muonic force behind flavor anomalies , JHEP 04 (2022) 151 [ 2107.07518]

2022 arXiv
[29]

B. C. Allanach, B. Gripaios and T. You, The case for future hadron colliders from B → K(∗)µ+µ− decays, JHEP 03 (2018) 021 [ 1710.06363]

2018 arXiv
[30]

Azatov, F

A. Azatov, F. Garosi, A. Greljo, D. Marzocca, J. Salko and S. Trifinopoulos, New physics in b → sµµ: FCC-hh or a muon collider? , JHEP 10 (2022) 149 [ 2205.13552]

2022 arXiv
[31]

Greljo, H

A. Greljo, H. Tiblom and A. Valenti, New Physics Through Flavor Tagging at FCC-ee, 2411.02485

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Malaphoric $Z'$ models for $b \rightarrow s \ell^+ \ell^-$ anomalies

B. Allanach and N. Gubernari, Malaphoric Z′ models for b → sℓ+ℓ− anomalies, 2409.06804

work page Pith review arXiv

[2] [2]

Gubernari, M

N. Gubernari, M. Reboud, D. van Dyk and J. Virto, Improved theory predictions and global analysis of exclusive b → sµ+µ− processes, JHEP 09 (2022) 133 [ 2206.03797]

arXiv 2022

[3] [3]

Mutke, M

S. Mutke, M. Hoferichter and B. Kubis, Anomalous thresholds in B → (P, V) γ∗ form factors, JHEP 07 (2024) 276 [ 2406.14608]

arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

Isidori, Z

G. Isidori, Z. Polonsky and A. Tinari, An explicit estimate of charm rescattering in B0 → K0 ¯ℓℓ, 2405.17551

arXiv

[5] [5]

Ciuchini, M

M. Ciuchini, M. Fedele, E. Franco, A. Paul, L. Silvestrini and M. Valli, Constraints on lepton universality violation from rare B decays , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023), no. 5 055036 [2212.10516]

arXiv 2023

[6] [6]

Bonilla, T

C. Bonilla, T. Modak, R. Srivastava and J. W. F. Valle, U (1)B3−3Lµ gauge symmetry as a simple description of b → s anomalies, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018), no. 9 095002 [1705.00915]

arXiv 2018

[7] [7]

Flavoured $B-L$ Local Symmetry and Anomalous Rare $B$ Decays

R. Alonso, P. Cox, C. Han and T. T. Yanagida, Flavoured B − L local symmetry and anomalous rare B decays, Phys. Lett. B 774 (2017) 643–648 [ 1705.03858]

work page Pith review arXiv 2017

[8] [8]

B. C. Allanach, U (1)B3−L2 explanation of the neutral current B−anomalies, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021), no. 1 56 [ 2009.02197]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 81, 321 (2021)]

work page Pith review arXiv 2021