Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

The paper establishes that, with the naive factorisation helicity hierarchy imposed, the Standard Model cannot fit B→V1V2 polarisation data, mainly because f_L(Bs→K*0K*0) sits 3.5σ below its U-spin expectation.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 11:40 UTC pith:ZAIMFT4S

load-bearing objection A thorough U-spin fit that reframes the B→V1V2 polarisation puzzle as a test of the helicity hierarchy assumption rather than a data-driven SM failure. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.05324 v2 pith:ZAIMFT4S submitted 2026-01-08 hep-ph hep-ex

Polarisation fractions in Bto V₁ V₂: U-Spin constraints and new physics signatures

Debajyoti Choudhury , Suman Kumbhakar , Anirban Kundu , Soumitra Nandi This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords B meson decaysU-spin symmetrylongitudinal polarisation fractionshelicity amplitudesheavy-quark factorisationb→s penguinsnew physics in B decaysQCD factorisation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to show that a set of eight B decays to two light vector mesons, connected pairwise by U-spin symmetry (d↔s), cannot be described by the Standard Model once one accepts the heavy-quark-factorisation hierarchy between helicity amplitudes (A0:A−:A+ ≈ 1:0.3:0). With that hierarchy imposed, a global fit to 17 measurements gives χ²/dof = 370.5/11, and even allowing 30% U-spin breaking barely improves it. The culprit is the longitudinal polarisation fraction in ΔS=1 decays, especially Bs→K*0K*0, whose value 0.24±0.04 is only about a third of its U-spin partner Bd→K*0K*0 (0.74±0.05), corresponding to a 3.5σ discrepancy. If the hierarchy is dropped and amplitudes are left free, the fit is excellent, but the extracted amplitudes violate the hierarchy, meaning the Standard Model would need large nonfactorisable contributions. The paper then shows that flavour-specific new physics in b→s transitions with non-hierarchical Lorentz structures relieves, but does not fully cure, the tension.

Core claim

Within the U-spin framework, the paper finds a dichotomy: exact U-spin with free helicity amplitudes gives a good fit (χ²/dof = 3.4/5), but the best-fit |A−/A0| ratios for ΔS=1 modes are roughly 1–1.7, violating the expected 0.3 hierarchy; imposing the hierarchy uniformly makes the fit fail at χ²/dof = 370.5/11, even with 30% U-spin breaking. The authors conclude that within the SM, only large nonfactorisable contributions to all these amplitudes could resolve the puzzle, and that otherwise one needs new physics in b→s that does not respect the hierarchy. Fits with scalar, vector, or tensor NP operators improve the description but remain poor, with best χ²/dof ≈ 29/10; the NP amplitudes that

What carries the argument

The argument runs on two ingredients put together: U-spin SU(2)U, which relates ΔS=0 and ΔS=1 amplitudes by interchanging d and s quarks and expresses all eight decay amplitudes through 12 reduced matrix elements (RMEs) A_{nD}^{p,h}; and the naive-factorisation heavy-quark hierarchy A0:A−:A+ ≈ 1:ΛQCD/mb:(ΛQCD/mb)^2 ≈ 1:0.3:0, which is used to cut the 12 RMEs to 6. The U-spin RME decomposition gives the fit its structure; the hierarchy is what makes the fit predictive and, as the data show, wrong for ΔS=1. NP is introduced via effective b→s operators of scalar, vector, and tensor type, whose helicity dependence is computed under factorisation and added to the SM amplitudes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that |A−/A0|=0.3 and A+=0 is the correct Standard Model expectation for every mode—if nonfactorisable corrections are large enough to break this hierarchy, the poor SM fit and the inferred need for new physics both disappear.

What would settle it

A larger, high-precision angular analysis of Bs→K*0K*0 (and ideally Bd→K*0K*0 in the same experiment) that measures f_L and the transverse amplitude ratio |A−/A0| directly: if f_L moves toward 0.6–0.7 and |A−/A0| near 0.3, the tension vanishes; if |A−/A0| stays ≳1 while f_L≈0.24, the hierarchy breakdown is confirmed and the paper's NP or large-nonfactorisable conclusion stands.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the hierarchy is a genuine SM prediction, the SM cannot account for the measured B→V1V2 polarisations; abandoning naive factorisation for penguin-dominated b→s decays is the only in-SM way out.
  • Permitting U-spin breaking up to 30% does not rescue the fit, so the puzzle is not a moderate SU(3)-breaking effect.
  • New physics restricted to b→s with non-hierarchical helicity amplitudes improves the fit for several scalar/vector/tensor operators, but none of the simple single-operator scenarios yields a fully satisfactory χ².
  • The unpolarised branching fractions and CP asymmetries remain consistent with data once NP is added, because the NP mainly feeds transverse amplitudes.
  • A measurement of f_L(Bs→K*+K*−) is predicted to lie anywhere from about 0.26 to about 0.79 depending on the NP Lorentz structure, providing a direct discriminator.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If nonfactorisable contributions really are large enough to break the hierarchy, the same mechanism could contaminate other penguin-dominated b→s observables; the paper's NP brackets should then be read as bounds on short-distance effects rather than signals.
  • The U-spin framework treats the hierarchy as a theory input rather than a fitted quantity. A cleaner test would be to fit A−/A0 per mode as a pull parameter; the paper's own free-amplitude fit already indicates a mode-dependent breakdown.
  • The predicted spread in f_L(Bs→K*+K*−) is essentially a map of Lorentz structures: near 0.3 favours scalar or tensor NP, near 0.8 favours vector (V−A)⊗(V+A) NP; this is a testable short-term discriminator.
  • Should f_L(Bs→K*0K*0) shift upward with more data, the puzzle would collapse into a statistical fluctuation; the paper's strongest phenomenological legacy would then be the systematic U-spin framework itself.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents a U-spin analysis of eight B→V1V2 channels, using 17 measured observables (branching ratios, CP asymmetries, polarisation fractions) to fit U-spin reduced matrix elements. With only A_+=0, the SM fit is good (χ²/dof=3.4/5), but the best-fit transverse amplitudes violate the expected helicity hierarchy, especially for ΔS=1 modes. Imposing A_-/A_0=0.3 and A_+=0 produces χ²/dof=370.5/11, driven mainly by f_L(Bs→K*0K̄*0). The authors show that allowing up to 30% U-spin breaking does not cure this, and that flavour-specific NP operators in b→s can improve the fit but do not make it good. They also predict LPFs for the unobserved modes Bs→K*+K*- and Bs→K*-ρ+.

Significance. If the helicity-hierarchy assumption were independently established, the paper would document a serious challenge to QCDF/naive factorisation, with a concrete observable ratio at about 3.5σ. The U-spin decomposition is clean, the fits are transparent, and the NP survey is a useful bottom-up study. The paper also offers falsifiable predictions for unobserved modes, notably Bs→K*+K*-, whose f_L differs strongly among NP scenarios. However, as the paper itself demonstrates, the central 'puzzle' is conditional on the imposed hierarchy; without independent evidence that nonfactorisable contributions are subdominant, the claim that the SM is disfavoured is not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II.B, Table III and Eq. (19)] The SM fit with 12 RMEs and only A_+=0 gives χ²/dof=3.4/5 (p=0.64), and Eq. (19) yields |A_-/A_0| for the ΔS=1 modes as 1.03±0.19, 1.72±0.54, and 1.28±0.40, far from the imposed 0.3. Thus the data alone do not disfavour the SM; the catastrophic χ²/dof=370.5/11 in Table IV is entirely produced by the external assumption A_-/A_0=0.3, A_+=0. The paper does not provide an independent estimate of the size of nonfactorisable contributions to these penguin modes; it assumes they are subdominant before Eq. (7). The abstract and conclusions state that the SM yields a poor fit, which overstates the result. Please reframe the analysis as a test of the factorisation/helicity-hierarchy assumption, and either derive the hierarchy from a controlled calculation with uncertainties or present the direct f_L ratio in Eqs. (16)–(17) as the central observable.
  2. [§II.B, Eq. (20)] The treatment of U-spin breaking by randomising RME ratios within [0.7,1.3] is not described as a statistical procedure. It is not stated how many samples are generated, whether the sampled ratios are then fixed and fitted, or how the resulting distribution of χ² is used. Since the robustness to U-spin breaking is part of the argument that the SM cannot explain the data, please specify the procedure exactly and report the best χ² and p-value obtained after the randomisation. The 30% range also appears arbitrary; a profile over nuisance parameters representing U-spin breaking would be more defensible.
  3. [§III, Table VI] The NP fits are constructed so that NP acts only on ΔS=1 modes through operators specifically chosen to enhance the transverse helicity amplitude, so the improvement over the SM hierarchy fit is partly built in. More importantly, the SM part in these fits still assumes exact U-spin and the 0.3 hierarchy. Comparing Table VI (χ²/dof≈3–7) with the relaxed-hierarchy SM fit in Table III (χ²/dof=3.4/5) shows that the data are better described by relaxing the hierarchy within the SM than by any of the NP scenarios considered. The paper should state this explicitly. In addition, the prediction for f_L(Bs→K*+K*-) changes from 0.50±0.04 in Table I to 0.26–0.79 in Table VII depending on the NP model; these are model-dependent predictions, not independent measurements, and the text should make that clear.
  4. [Abstract and Conclusions] The abstract says 'the Standard Model (SM) yields only a very poor agreement with the data' and that the individual disagreement for Bs→K*0K̄*0 is 'more than 7σ'. Both statements are made without the qualifier that they follow only after imposing the helicity hierarchy A_-/A_0=0.3, A_+=0. Given the paper's own Table III, these statements are misleading as written. The abstract and conclusions should present the result as a conditional statement: if the factorisation hierarchy is imposed, the SM fit is extremely poor; without that assumption, the SM is compatible with the data. Also, the phrase 'We restore the hierarchy' in §II.B should be 'We impose the hierarchy', since it is an external assumption.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§II.B after Eq. (7)] The text says the hierarchy is approximately A_0:A_-:A_+ ≃ 1:0.27:0.01 from naive factorisation, but then uniformly sets A_-/A_0=0.3 and A_+=0. Please clarify whether 0.3 is the numerical form-factor result or an order-of-magnitude rounding, and state the corresponding f_L values implied by the hierarchy.
  2. [Table I] The entries marked ♠ are predictions, not measurements, but they are displayed in the same table as the experimental data. It would be clearer to separate predictions from data, or at least state in the caption that the ♠ rows are model-dependent outputs of the fit, not inputs.
  3. [§III, Eq. (22)] There are minor language issues, e.g. 'consider, instead, to a NP effective Hamiltonian' should read 'consider instead a NP effective Hamiltonian'. Also, the definitions of c_i are given only by examples; a sentence stating that c_i are chiral projection coefficients would help readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central tension is an empirical comparison against external QCDF/U-spin expectations, and the paper explicitly tests the effect of its hierarchy assumption.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is not circular. The tension is quantified by comparing the experimental LPF ratio fL(Bd→K*0K*0)/fL(Bs→K*0K*0) = 3.08±0.55 with the external QCDF expectation 1.09^{+0.19}_{-0.08} (Eqs. 16-17), based on LHCb/PDG data and the independent calculation of Ref. [22]. The hierarchy A0:A-:A+ ~ 1:Λ/mb:(Λ/mb)^2 in Eq. (7) is an explicitly stated theoretical assumption, and the paper transparently shows what happens when it is relaxed: the same U-spin decomposition with only A+=0 gives an excellent SM fit (χ²/dof = 3.4/5, Table III). The poor fit with χ²/dof = 370.5/11 is therefore a conditional statement about the factorization-hierarchy assumption, not a hidden re-insertion of the conclusion. The paper also flags this limitation directly: 'Within the SM framework, the only effective resolution would be to disregard entirely the hierarchy between the longitudinal and transverse helicity amplitudes...' and 'subject to the caveat that this need not be valid in the presence of large non-factorisable corrections.' The NP analysis introduces independent new parameters and yields different predictions for the unobserved Bs→K*+K*- mode depending on the NP Lorentz structure (Table VII), so the improvement is not tautological. The ♠ entries are explicitly labeled as 'our predictions, made from the best fit values of the RMEs,' i.e. constrained extrapolations to unmeasured modes rather than fitted quantities relabeled as predictions. Self-citations ([2], [5], [6], [27]) are contextual and not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior work. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external data and external theory, and no circular reduction is exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper's main free parameters are the hadronic matrix elements and the imposed hierarchy ratio. The NP sector introduces one fitted coefficient per operator and a nominal mediator with no independent evidence. The U-spin symmetry and the factorisation-based hierarchy are the key axiomatic inputs.

free parameters (6)
  • U-spin reduced matrix elements A^{p,h}_{nD} (12 in full fit; 6 in hierarchy fit) = Table III (full), Table IV (hierarchy)
    Hadronic matrix elements treated as free and extracted from the 17 observables.
  • Helicity hierarchy ratio |A−/A0| = 0.3 (motivated by form-factor estimate 0.27)
    Imposed to reduce free parameters; the fit's quality is highly sensitive to this value.
  • A+ helicity amplitude = 0
    Set to zero based on (Λ/m_b)^2 suppression, reducing parameter count.
  • U-spin breaking randomisation range = ±30%
    Chosen to model moderate U-spin breaking; results shown to be insensitive.
  • NP Wilson coefficients h_s, h_v, h_t = Table VI (e.g., scalar (S+P)⊗(S+P): 0.068±0.005 TeV^{-2})
    One coefficient per NP scenario fitted to the ΔS=1 data.
  • NP weak phases ζ_i = 0
    Taken real for simplicity, motivated by small SM b→s phase.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption SU(2) U-spin relates ΔS=0 and ΔS=1 decay amplitudes through d↔s interchange (Eq. 6)
    Standard approximate flavour symmetry; the paper explicitly tests its breaking.
  • domain assumption Naive factorisation and heavy-quark limit imply helicity hierarchy A0:A−:A+ ~ 1:Λ/m_b:(Λ/m_b)^2 (Eq. 7)
    Input from QCDF; the paper's tension depends on this.
  • domain assumption Nonfactorisable contributions subdominant for all modes
    Needed for the hierarchy; the paper acknowledges this can be relaxed.
  • ad hoc to paper Exact U-spin for the SM parts of amplitudes in NP fits
    Simplifying assumption in Section III; earlier analysis showed 30% breaking doesn't change SM conclusions.
  • domain assumption A+ negligible (set to 0)
    From (Λ/m_b)^2 suppression.
invented entities (1)
  • Heavy mediator X with b→s flavour-violating coupling and light-quark couplings no independent evidence
    purpose: Motivates the b→s effective operators; not committed to a specific UV completion
    Mentioned in Section III as a possible origin of the NP Hamiltonian; no mass or couplings predicted.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18431 in / 14655 out tokens · 145073 ms · 2026-08-03T11:40:45.836932+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the decays of $B$ mesons, {\em i.e.}, $B_d$, $B_s$, $B^+$, and their antiparticles, to two light vector mesons ($B \to V_1V_2$). We use the SU(2) U-spin symmetry, which relates $\Delta S = 0$ and $\Delta S = 1$ decay amplitudes through the interchange $d \leftrightarrow s$ and is an approximate symmetry of the Standard Model (SM), to relate the helicity amplitudes of these decays. Treating all the helicity amplitudes for these decays, and hence the reduced matrix elements, as free parameters, we find an acceptable solution within the SM, although this is driven by the fact that the number of observables is smaller than what is needed for a meaningful fit. To reduce the number of free parameters, we then use some apparently reasonable and theoretically motivated approximations, like the dominance of factorisable contributions over the non-factorisable ones, and hence a distinct hierarchy between the helicity amplitudes. We find that once the assumption of hierarchy is imposed, there is no acceptable solution. This is due to the longitudinal polarisation fractions in almost all $\Delta S = 1$ decays. This is particularly true for $B_s \to K^{*0} \overline{K^{*0}}$, for which the individual disagreement with U-spin based expectation is more than $7\sigma$. Within SM, the only effective resolution would be to allow for large nonfactorisable contributions to all these decay amplitudes. We also explore whether some new physics (NP) in the $b\to s$ sector that does not respect the hierarchy among the helicity amplitudes can reduce the tension for all the $\Delta S=1$ modes. While such an option helps, we find that for simplistic new physics scenarios, the tension still exists and the fit remains poor enough, if the hierarchy exists among the SM amplitudes. Some possible scenarios for a complete solution of the puzzle are also suggested.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Anomalies in Hadronic $B \to VV$ Decays

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Charmless B→VV decays under SU(3)_F show 5.2σ tension for ρ,K* modes and >7σ when ϕ and ω are included, while isospin-only ρK* fits remain acceptable.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    TheB→πKpuzzle revisited,

    N. B. Beaudry, A. Datta, D. London, A. Rashed and J. S. Roux, “TheB→πKpuzzle revisited,” JHEP01(2018), 074 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2018)074 [arXiv:1709.07142 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    fL(Bd →K ∗0K ∗0) fL(Bs →K ∗0K ∗0) # QCDF =1.09 +0.19 −0.08 , (16) while we find

    are Ah(B + →K ∗0ρ+)= − r 2 3 · λu bs A u,h 1 2 s +λ c bs A c,h 1 2 s ¸ , Ah(Bs →K ∗0K ∗0)= − 1p 6 h λu bs A u,h 0s +λ c bs A c,h 0s i − 1 2 h λu bs A u,h 1s +λ c bs A c,h 1s i Ah(Bs →K ∗−K ∗+)= 1 2 h λu bs A u,h 0s +λ c bs A c,h 0s i − 1 2 h λu bs A u,h 1s +λ c bs A c,h 1s i Ah(Bd →K ∗+ρ−)=λ u bs A u,h 1s +λ c bs A c,h 1s . (5) However, one may note that ...

    2023

  3. [3]

    Complete analysis of all B→πK decays,

    A. Kundu, S. K. Patra and S. Roy, “Complete analysis of all B→πK decays,” Phys. Rev. D104(2021) no.9, 095025 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.095025 [arXiv:2106.15633 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    The branching fraction ofB 0 s →K 0K 0 : three puzzles,

    Y. Amhis, Y. Grossman and Y. Nir, “The branching fraction ofB 0 s →K 0K 0 : three puzzles,” JHEP02(2023), 113 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2023)113 [arXiv:2212.03874 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    B s →K 0K 0 beyond the Standard Model,

    Y. Grossman, M. Neubert, Y. Nir, Y. Shpilman and Y. Viernik, “B s →K 0K 0 beyond the Standard Model,” JHEP 05(2025), 210 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2025)210 [arXiv:2407.13506 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    U-spin puzzle in B decays,

    B. Bhattacharya, S. Kumbhakar, D. London and N. Payot, “U-spin puzzle in B decays,” Phys. Rev. D107(2023) no.1, L011505 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.L011505 [arXiv:2211.06994 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Anomalies in Hadronic B Decays,

    R. Berthiaume, B. Bhattacharya, R. Boumris, A. Jean, S. Kumbhakar and D. London, “ Anomalies in Hadronic B Decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024) no.21, 211802 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.211802 [arXiv:2311.18011 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Reappraisal of SU(3)-flavor breaking in B→DP ,

    J. Davies, S. Schacht, N. Skidmore and A. Soni, “Reappraisal of SU(3)-flavor breaking in B→DP ,” Phys. Rev. D 109(2024) no.11, 113006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.113006 [arXiv:2403.04878 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    DetailedSU(3) Flavour Symmetry Analysis of Charmless Two- BodyB-Meson Decays Including Factorizable Corrections,

    M. Burgos Marcos, M. Reboud and K. K. Vos, “DetailedSU(3) Flavour Symmetry Analysis of Charmless Two- BodyB-Meson Decays Including Factorizable Corrections,” [arXiv:2504.05209 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  10. [10]

    On the equivalence of Flavor SU(3) analyses ofB→P Pdecays,

    Y. J. Shi, W . Wang and J. Xu, “On the equivalence of Flavor SU(3) analyses ofB→P Pdecays,” [arXiv:2505.21283 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  11. [11]

    Bhattacharya, M

    B. Bhattacharya, M. Bouchard, L. Hudy, A. Jean, D. London and C. MacKenzie, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.5, 056014 doi:10.1103/5jp1-7cfw [arXiv:2505.11492 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    A U-spin anomaly in charm CP violation,

    S. Schacht, “ A U-spin anomaly in charm CP violation,” JHEP03(2023), 205 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2023)205 [arXiv:2207.08539 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    U-spin-CP anomaly in charm,

    R. Bause, H. Gisbert, G. Hiller, T . Höhne, D. F . Litim and T . Steudtner, “U-spin-CP anomaly in charm,” Phys. Rev. D108(2023) no.3, 035005 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.035005 [arXiv:2210.16330 [hep-ph]]. 21

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Anatomy of non-leptonic two-body decays of charmed mesons into final states withη’ ,

    C. Bolognani, U. Nierste, S. Schacht and K. K. Vos, “ Anatomy of non-leptonic two-body decays of charmed mesons into final states withη’ ,” JHEP05(2025), 148 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2025)148 [arXiv:2410.08138 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Implications of the evidence for directCP violation inD→π +π− decays,

    R. Sinha, T . E. Browder, N. G. Deshpande, D. Sahoo and N. Sinha, “Implications of the evidence for directCP violation inD→π +π− decays,” [arXiv:2505.24338 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    Amplitude analysis of theB 0 (s) →K ∗0K ∗0 decays and measurement of the branching fraction of theB 0 →K ∗0K ∗0 decay,

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], “ Amplitude analysis of theB 0 (s) →K ∗0K ∗0 decays and measurement of the branching fraction of theB 0 →K ∗0K ∗0 decay,” JHEP07(2019), 032 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2019)032 [arXiv:1905.06662 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Bd,s →K ∗0K ∗0 decays, a serious problem for the Standard Model,

    R. Aleksan and L. Oliver, “ Bd,s →K ∗0K ∗0 decays, a serious problem for the Standard Model,” [arXiv:2312.07198 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    Analysis of data onBdecays into two light vector mesons,

    R. Aleksan and L. Oliver, “ Analysis of data onBdecays into two light vector mesons,” [arXiv:2403.19025 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    A new puzzle in non-leptonic B de- cays,

    A. Biswas, S. Descotes-Genon, J. Matias and G. Tetlalmatzi-Xolocotzi, “ A new puzzle in non-leptonic B de- cays,” JHEP06(2023), 108 doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2023)108 [arXiv:2301.10542 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Biswas, S

    A. Biswas, S. Descotes-Genon, J. Matias and G. Tetlalmatzi-Xolocotzi, JHEP08(2024), 030 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2024)030 [arXiv:2404.01186 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Explaining theB d,s →K (∗)K (∗) non-leptonic puzzle and charged-current B-anomalies via scalar leptoquarks,

    J. M. Lizana, J. Matias and B. A. Stefanek, “Explaining theB d,s →K (∗)K (∗) non-leptonic puzzle and charged-current B-anomalies via scalar leptoquarks,” JHEP09(2023), 114 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2023)114 [arXiv:2306.09178 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Determination of gamma from Charmless B —>M(1) M(2) Decays Using U-Spin,

    A. Soni and D. A. Suprun, “Determination of gamma from Charmless B —>M(1) M(2) Decays Using U-Spin,” Phys. Rev. D75(2007), 054006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.054006 [arXiv:hep-ph/0609089 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  23. [23]

    Branching fractions, polarisation and asymmetries of B —>VV decays,

    M. Beneke, J. Rohrer and D. Yang, “Branching fractions, polarisation and asymmetries of B —>VV decays,” Nucl. Phys. B774(2007), 64-101 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.03.020 [arXiv:hep-ph/0612290 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  24. [24]

    Measurement of CP violation inB 0 s →φφdecays,

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], “Measurement of CP violation inB 0 s →φφdecays,” Phys. Rev. D90(2014) no.5, 052011 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.052011 [arXiv:1407.2222 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  25. [25]

    Precision Measurement of CP Violation in the Penguin-Mediated Decay Bs0→φφ,

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], “Precision Measurement of CP Violation in the Penguin-Mediated Decay Bs0→φφ,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) no.17, 171802 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.171802 [arXiv:2304.06198 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    A phenomenological estimate of rescattering effects inBs →K ∗0K ∗0 ,

    Y. Yu, H. B. Fu, H. Zhang and B. C. Ke, “ A phenomenological estimate of rescattering effects inBs →K ∗0K ∗0 ,” Eur. Phys. J. C85, no.1, 42 (2025) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13752-7 [arXiv:2405.16054 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    First observation ofC Pviolation and measurement of polarization inB + → ρ(770)0K ∗(892)+ decays,

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], “First observation ofC Pviolation and measurement of polarization inB + → ρ(770)0K ∗(892)+ decays,” [arXiv:2508.13563 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    Possibility of large lifetime differences in neutralBmeson systems,

    A. Dighe, A. Kundu and S. Nandi, “Possibility of large lifetime differences in neutralBmeson systems,” Phys. Rev. D76, 054005 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.054005 [arXiv:0705.4547 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  29. [29]

    QCD factorization in B —>pi K, pi pi decays and extraction of Wolfenstein parameters,

    M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C. T . Sachrajda, “QCD factorization in B —>pi K, pi pi decays and extraction of Wolfenstein parameters,” Nucl. Phys. B606(2001), 245-321 doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(01)00251-6 [arXiv:hep-ph/0104110 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  30. [30]

    Angular Correlations in the DecayB→V Vand CP Violation,

    G. Valencia, “ Angular Correlations in the DecayB→V Vand CP Violation,” Phys. Rev. D39(1989), 3339 22 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.39.3339

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.39.3339 1989

  31. [31]

    Triple-product correlations in B –>V1 V2 decays and new physics,

    A. Datta and D. London, “Triple-product correlations in B –>V1 V2 decays and new physics,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A19(2004), 2505-2544 doi:10.1142/S0217751X04018300 [arXiv:hep-ph/0303159 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  32. [32]

    Review of particle physics,

    S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D110, no.3, 030001 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  33. [33]

    Minuit: A System for Function Minimization and Analysis of the Parameter Errors and Correlations,

    F . James and M. Roos, “Minuit: A System for Function Minimization and Analysis of the Parameter Errors and Correlations,” Comput. Phys. Commun.10(1975), 343-367 doi:10.1016/0010-4655(75)90039-9

    doi:10.1016/0010-4655(75)90039-9 1975

  34. [34]

    MINUIT Function Minimization and Error Analysis: Reference Manual Version 94.1,

    F . James, “MINUIT Function Minimization and Error Analysis: Reference Manual Version 94.1,” CERN-D-506

  35. [35]

    Heavy Flavor Averaging Group; Winter conferences (Moriond, etc.) 2024: https://hflav- eos.web.cern.ch/hflav-eos/triangle/moriond2024/

    2024

  36. [36]

    Physical Results from 2+1 Flavor Domain Wall QCD and SU(2) Chiral Pertur- bation Theory,

    C. Alltonet al.[RBC-UKQCD], “Physical Results from 2+1 Flavor Domain Wall QCD and SU(2) Chiral Pertur- bation Theory,” Phys. Rev. D78(2008), 114509 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.114509 [arXiv:0804.0473 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  37. [37]

    B→Vℓ +ℓ− in the Standard Model from light-cone sum rules,

    A. Bharucha, D. M. Straub and R. Zwicky, “B→Vℓ +ℓ− in the Standard Model from light-cone sum rules,” JHEP08(2016), 098 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)098 [arXiv:1503.05534 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016