pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.24922 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex· hep-lat

Recognition: unknown

The Angular Observables of Λ_b to Λ_c(to Λ⁰ π^+) \, τ^-(to π^- ν_τ)\, bar{ν}_τ within the Paradigm of FCCC Anomalies

Muhammad Arslan , Ishtiaq Ahmed , Muhammad Jamil Aslam
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 02:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-exhep-lat
keywords Lambda_b decayslepton flavor universalitynew physicsangular observablesB meson anomaliesWilson coefficientslattice QCD form factors
0
0 comments X

The pith

The (C_VL, C_SR) new physics scenario favored by B-meson anomalies produces the largest deviations in angular observables of the Lambda_b baryonic decay.

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

The paper performs a global fit to the current R_tau/(mu,e)(D(*)) anomalies in B decays using latest HFLAV data and B_c lifetime bounds, then extends the same effective operators to the baryonic cascade Lambda_b to Lambda_c tau nu with full angular analysis. It identifies the combination of left-handed vector and right-handed scalar operators as the solution with the strongest statistical pull from the Standard Model while remaining insensitive to branching-ratio constraints. Using lattice QCD form factors, the calculation shows that this and related scalar-tensor scenarios induce the biggest shifts in four specific angular coefficients, with correlation patterns that differ according to whether the underlying dynamics allow CP violation.

Core claim

The new physics Wilson coefficients that best explain the mesonic lepton-flavor-universality ratios also generate observable deviations in the five-fold angular distribution of the Lambda_b decay chain; the (C_VL, C_SR) scenario yields the largest separation from Standard Model predictions, while the (Re[C_SL = 4 C_T], Im[C_SL = 4 C_T]) scenario produces inverse correlations among K_1c, K_2ss, K_2cc and K_4s that are consistent with a possible CP-violating phase.

What carries the argument

The complete set of angular observables K_i arising from the five-fold differential decay rate of Lambda_b^0 to Lambda_c^+ (to Lambda^0 pi^+) tau^- (to pi^- nu_tau) bar nu_tau, evaluated with lattice QCD form factors for the baryon transition.

If this is right

  • The (C_VL, C_SR) solution remains viable under all three B_c lifetime bounds and gives the largest pull from the Standard Model.
  • The observables K_1c, K_2ss, K_2cc and K_4s exhibit the strongest sensitivity to the new physics operators.
  • The (Re[C_SL = 4 C_T], Im[C_SL = 4 C_T]) scenario displays inverse correlations between K_1c and the other three coefficients, while (C_SL, C_SR) shows complementary direct correlations.
  • Baryonic semileptonic decays supply an independent experimental handle on the same new physics that may explain the mesonic anomalies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Precision measurements of the angular correlations could distinguish whether the underlying new physics is CP-conserving or CP-violating.
  • The same lattice-QCD plus angular-observable framework can be applied to other baryonic modes such as Lambda_b to p tau nu to cross-check the operator structure.
  • If the baryonic observables deviate exactly as predicted by the mesonic fit, it would strengthen the case that a single set of dimension-six operators is responsible for all current flavor anomalies.

Load-bearing premise

The same effective operators and Wilson coefficients fitted to mesonic B decays apply directly, without modification, to the baryonic Lambda_b transition.

What would settle it

A future measurement at LHCb showing that the angular coefficients K_1c and K_2ss in Lambda_b decays agree with Standard Model predictions while the R_tau/(mu,e)(D(*)) anomalies remain at their current significance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24922 by Ishtiaq Ahmed, Muhammad Arslan, Muhammad Jamil Aslam.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Results of the fits for NP scenarios at the scale view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The angular observables view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Preferred view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Correlation plots of the angular observables view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Correlation plots of the angular observables view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a global analysis of the current $B$-meson flavor anomalies and extend it to the baryonic sector through the decay $\Lambda_b^0 \to \Lambda_c^+(\to \Lambda^0 \pi^+) \tau^-(\to \pi^- \nu_\tau)\bar{\nu}_\tau$. The lepton flavor universality ratios $R_{\tau/(\mu,e)}(D^{(*)})$, measured by BaBar, Belle, and LHCb, exhibit a combined $3.8\sigma$ deviation from Standard Model (SM) predictions. Using the latest HFLAV averages and $B_c$-lifetime constraints, $\mathcal{B}(B_c \to \tau \nu) < 60\%, 30\%, 10\%$, found new physics (NP) solutions to the cascade decay $\Lambda_b^0 \to \Lambda_c^+(\to \Lambda^0 \pi^+) \tau^-(\to \pi^- \nu_\tau)\bar{\nu}_\tau$. The scenario $(C_{V_L},C_{S_R})$ emerges as the most favored NP solution, largest pull from the SM and insensitive to branching-ratio constraints; followed by $C_{V_L}$ case. We study the impact of NP operators on a complete set of angular observables on the five-fold $\Lambda_b$ decay using Lattice-QCD form factors and find that the scenarios $(\Re[C_{S_L}=4C_T],\Im[C_{S_L}=4C_T])$ and $(C_{S_L},C_{S_R})$ generate the largest deviations from the SM predictions. In particular, the observables $\mathcal{K}_{1c}$, $\mathcal{K}_{2ss}$, $\mathcal{K}_{2cc}$, and $\mathcal{K}_{4s}$ show the highest sensitivity to NP effects. The correlation analysis reveals the $(\Re[C_{S_L}=4C_T],\Im[C_{S_L}=4C_T])$ scenario exhibits inverse correlations among $\mathcal{K}_{1c}$ and $\mathcal{K}_{2ss,2cc,4s}$ and direct correlations between $\mathcal{K}_{2ss}$ and $\mathcal{K}_{2cc,4s}$, pointing to a possible CP-violating phase, while the $(C_{S_L},C_{S_R})$ scenario displays complementary behavior consistent with CP-conserving dynamics. These results establish baryonic semileptonic decays as a powerful and independent probe of the $R_{\tau/(\mu,e)}(D^{(*)})$ anomalies, with future measurements providing critical tests of the underlying NP structure.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript conducts a global fit to the R_{τ/(μ,e)}(D^{(*)}) anomalies using HFLAV averages and B_c lifetime bounds, identifying (C_{V_L}, C_{S_R}) as the most favored new physics scenario. It then computes the full set of angular observables for the five-fold differential decay Λ_b^0 → Λ_c^+(→ Λ^0 π^+) τ^-(→ π^- ν_τ) ν_bar_τ using lattice QCD form factors, reporting largest deviations in K_{1c}, K_{2ss}, K_{2cc}, and K_{4s} for the (Re[C_{S_L}=4C_T], Im[C_{S_L}=4C_T]) and (C_{S_L}, C_{S_R}) scenarios, along with correlation patterns that may indicate CP violation, and concludes that baryonic decays provide an independent probe of the anomalies.

Significance. If the quantitative deviations in the favored scenarios prove robust against form-factor uncertainties, the work offers a concrete framework for using angular distributions in baryonic semileptonic decays to test and discriminate among new physics operators responsible for the mesonic R(D^{(*)}) tensions. The emphasis on lattice inputs and explicit correlation analysis strengthens the potential for future LHCb measurements to distinguish CP-conserving versus CP-violating solutions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Results on angular observables] Abstract and results discussion: the manuscript identifies (C_{V_L}, C_{S_R}) as the scenario with largest pull from the SM and least tension with branching-ratio constraints, yet states that the largest deviations in the angular observables K_{1c}, K_{2ss}, K_{2cc}, K_{4s} occur instead in the (Re[C_{S_L}=4C_T], Im[C_{S_L}=4C_T]) and (C_{S_L}, C_{S_R}) scenarios. No numerical estimate is supplied for the size of the shift (relative to lattice-QCD uncertainties) at the favored (C_{V_L}, C_{S_R}) point; this gap directly undermines the central claim that the five-fold angular distribution furnishes a powerful independent test of the R anomalies.
  2. [NP operator framework] Effective theory section: the Wilson coefficients are extracted from mesonic B decays and applied without modification to the baryonic Λ_b decay. A concrete justification is required for the assumption that the same operator basis and coefficients govern both sectors, including any discussion of possible differences in matching or higher-order corrections that could affect the predicted angular observables.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Notation] Notation for angular observables should be standardized (e.g., consistent use of script K versus plain K) across text, tables, and figures.
  2. [Correlation analysis] The correlation plots and statements about inverse/direct correlations in the (Re[C_{S_L}=4C_T], Im[C_{S_L}=4C_T]) scenario would benefit from explicit numerical values or a supplementary table to allow readers to assess the strength of the claimed CP-violating signature.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address each major comment below and propose revisions to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Results on angular observables] Abstract and results discussion: the manuscript identifies (C_{V_L}, C_{S_R}) as the scenario with largest pull from the SM and least tension with branching-ratio constraints, yet states that the largest deviations in the angular observables K_{1c}, K_{2ss}, K_{2cc}, K_{4s} occur instead in the (Re[C_{S_L}=4C_T], Im[C_{S_L}=4C_T]) and (C_{S_L}, C_{S_R}) scenarios. No numerical estimate is supplied for the size of the shift (relative to lattice-QCD uncertainties) at the favored (C_{V_L}, C_{S_R}) point; this gap directly undermines the central claim that the five-fold angular distribution furnishes a powerful independent test of the R anomalies.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative estimates of the deviations at the favored (C_{VL}, C_{SR}) point are needed to fully support the claim. In the revised version we will add explicit numerical values (with uncertainties from the lattice form factors) for K_{1c}, K_{2ss}, K_{2cc} and K_{4s} evaluated at the best-fit point of this scenario, together with a short discussion of their sensitivity relative to the SM. This addition will clarify the discriminating power even for the most favored NP solution. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [NP operator framework] Effective theory section: the Wilson coefficients are extracted from mesonic B decays and applied without modification to the baryonic Λ_b decay. A concrete justification is required for the assumption that the same operator basis and coefficients govern both sectors, including any discussion of possible differences in matching or higher-order corrections that could affect the predicted angular observables.

    Authors: The effective operators for the b → c τ ν transition are identical in both sectors because they arise from the same quark-level process. The Wilson coefficients are determined from mesonic data and transferred directly under the assumption that the short-distance physics is universal. We will insert a concise paragraph in the effective-theory section stating this universality, noting that higher-order QCD matching corrections are expected to be small compared with present form-factor and experimental uncertainties, and citing the relevant literature on the weak effective theory for these decays. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; mesonic fit extended to distinct baryonic observables

full rationale

The paper performs a global fit of NP Wilson coefficients to external mesonic data (HFLAV R(D(*)) averages plus B_c lifetime bounds) and then computes the resulting angular observables K_1c, K_2ss etc. for the Lambda_b decay using independent lattice-QCD form factors. This is a genuine cross-channel prediction rather than a reduction of the output to the input by construction. The angular distributions involve different kinematics, form-factor inputs, and measurable quantities; deviations are not forced to match the mesonic fit. No self-citations, self-definitional steps, or fitted-input-called-prediction patterns appear in the derivation chain. The claim that baryonic decays provide an independent probe rests on future experimental measurements, which are external to the present calculation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on effective field theory operators for NP, lattice QCD form factors treated as fixed inputs, and the assumption that the same NP coefficients govern both mesonic and baryonic transitions. No new particles or forces are invented.

free parameters (1)
  • C_VL, C_SR, C_SL, C_T
    Wilson coefficients of effective operators fitted to R(D(*)) data and B_c lifetime constraints.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Effective field theory description of b->c tau nu transitions with dimension-6 operators
    Invoked throughout the global analysis and angular observable calculations.
  • domain assumption Lattice QCD form factors for Lambda_b to Lambda_c transitions are accurate and sufficient
    Used to compute the five-fold differential decay rate and angular coefficients.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5840 in / 1567 out tokens · 43697 ms · 2026-05-08T02:51:04.135133+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

135 extracted references · 131 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    As a result, all effective operators contribute to the decayΛ0 b →Λ + c τ −¯ντ. These baryonic transitions exhibit kinematic structures and form-factor dependencies distinct from their mesonic counterparts, thereby providing complementary sensitivity to the underlyingb→cτ¯ν τ dynamics. The primary limitation arises from the comparatively less precise know...

    2025

  2. [2]

    Arbey and F

    A. Arbey and F. Mahmoudi, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.119, 103865 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103865 [arXiv:2104.11488 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103865 2021

  3. [3]

    M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, CERN Yellow Rep. School Proc.5, 85 (2022) doi:10.23730/CYRSP-2021-005.85

    work page doi:10.23730/cyrsp-2021-005.85 2022

  4. [4]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], JHEP06, 133 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2014)133 [arXiv:1403.8044 [hep-ex]]

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], JHEP06, 133 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2014)133 [arXiv:1403.8044 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep06(2014)133 2014

  5. [5]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], JHEP05, 082 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2014)082 [arXiv:1403.8045 [hep-ex]]

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], JHEP05, 082 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2014)082 [arXiv:1403.8045 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2014)082 2014

  6. [6]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], JHEP09, 179 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2015)179 [arXiv:1506.08777 [hep-ex]]

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], JHEP09, 179 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2015)179 [arXiv:1506.08777 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2015)179 2015

  7. [7]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], JHEP02, 104 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2016)104 [arXiv:1512.04442 [hep-ex]]

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], JHEP02, 104 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2016)104 [arXiv:1512.04442 [hep-ex]]. 19

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep02(2016)104 2016

  8. [8]

    Measurements of the S-wave fraction in B 0 → K + π − μ + μ − decays and the B 0 → K ∗(892)0 μ + μ − differential branching fraction

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], JHEP11, 047 (2016) [erratum: JHEP04, 142 (2017)] doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2016)047 [arXiv:1606.04731 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep11(2016)047 2016

  9. [9]

    Branching Fraction Measurements of the Rare <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mn>0</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo stretchy="false">→</mml:mo><mml:mi>ϕ</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi>μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mi>μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>−</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math> and <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mn>0</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo stretchy="false">→</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo><mml:mn>1525</mml:mn><mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mi>μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>−</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math> Decays

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett.127, no.15, 151801 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.151801 [arXiv:2105.14007 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.151801 2021

  10. [10]

    Angular analysis of the rare decay $$ {B}_s^0 $$ → ϕμ+μ−

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], JHEP11, 043 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2021)043 [arXiv:2107.13428 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep11(2021)043 2021

  11. [11]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. D108, no.3, 032002 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.032002 [arXiv:2212.09153 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.032002 2023

  12. [12]

    Test of Lepton Universality in <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false">→</mml:mo><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mo>ℓ</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mo>ℓ</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>−</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math> Decays

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett.131, no.5, 051803 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.051803 [arXiv:2212.09152 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.051803 2023

  13. [13]

    Smith [LHCb], [arXiv:2405.11890 [hep-ex]]

    M. Smith [LHCb], [arXiv:2405.11890 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv

  14. [14]

    Test of lepton flavor universality in B ± →K ±µ+µ− and B± →K ±e+e− decays in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], Rept. Prog. Phys.87, no.7, 077802 (2024) doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ad4e65 [arXiv:2401.07090 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ad4e65 2024

  15. [15]

    Celis, J

    A. Celis, J. Fuentes-Martin, A. Vicente and J. Virto, Phys. Rev. D96, no.3, 035026 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.035026 [arXiv:1704.05672 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.035026 2017

  16. [16]

    Buttazzo, A

    D. Buttazzo, A. Greljo, G. Isidori and D. Marzocca, JHEP11, 044 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2017)044 [arXiv:1706.07808 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep11(2017)044 2017

  17. [17]

    Aebischer, W

    J. Aebischer, W. Altmannshofer, D. Guadagnoli, M. Reboud, P. Stangl and D. M. Straub, Eur. Phys. J. C80, no.3, 252 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7817-x [arXiv:1903.10434 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7817-x 2020

  18. [18]

    Alasfar, A

    L. Alasfar, A. Azatov, J. de Blas, A. Paul and M. Valli, JHEP12, 016 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2020)016 [arXiv:2007.04400 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep12(2020)016 2020

  19. [19]

    Isidori, D

    G. Isidori, D. Lancierini, A. Mathad, P. Owen, N. Serra and R. Silva Coutinho, Phys. Lett. B830, 137151 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137151 [arXiv:2110.09882 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137151 2022

  20. [20]

    Ciuchini, M

    M. Ciuchini, M. Fedele, E. Franco, A. Paul, L. Silvestrini and M. Valli, Phys. Rev. D107, no.5, 055036 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.055036 [arXiv:2212.10516 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.055036 2023

  21. [21]

    Hiller and F

    G. Hiller and F. Kruger, Phys. Rev. D69, 074020 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.074020 [arXiv:hep-ph/0310219 [hep- ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.69.074020 2004

  22. [22]

    Bordone, G

    M. Bordone, G. Isidori and A. Pattori, Eur. Phys. J. C76, no.8, 440 (2016) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4274-7 [arXiv:1605.07633 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4274-7 2016

  23. [23]

    Mishra and N

    D. Mishra and N. Mahajan, Phys. Rev. D103, no.5, 056022 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.056022 [arXiv:2010.10853 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.056022 2021

  24. [24]

    Isidori, S

    G. Isidori, S. Nabeebaccus and R. Zwicky, JHEP12, 104 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2020)104 [arXiv:2009.00929 [hep- ph]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep12(2020)104 2020

  25. [25]

    F. U. Bernlochner, M. F. Sevilla, D. J. Robinson and G. Wormser, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, no.1, 015003 (2022) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.94.015003 [arXiv:2101.08326 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.94.015003 2022

  26. [26]

    Fischer, B

    O. Fischer, B. Mellado, S. Antusch, E. Bagnaschi, S. Banerjee, G. Beck, B. Belfatto, M. Bellis, Z. Berezhiani and M. Blanke,et al.Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.8, 665 (2022) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10541-4 [arXiv:2109.06065 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10541-4 2022

  27. [27]

    London and J

    D. London and J. Matias, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.72, 37-68 (2022) doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102020-090209 [arXiv:2110.13270 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102020-090209 2022

  28. [28]

    Crivellin and M

    A. Crivellin and M. Hoferichter, Science374, no.6571, 1051 (2021) doi:10.1126/science.abk2450 [arXiv:2111.12739 [hep- ph]]

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abk2450 2021

  29. [29]

    Crivellin and J

    A. Crivellin and J. Matias, [arXiv:2204.12175 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv

  30. [30]

    J. P. Leeset al.[BaBar], Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 101802 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.101802 [arXiv:1205.5442 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.101802 2012

  31. [31]

    J. P. Leeset al.[BaBar], Phys. Rev. D88, no.7, 072012 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.072012 [arXiv:1303.0571 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.072012 2013

  32. [32]

    Huschleet al.[Belle], Phys

    M. Huschleet al.[Belle], Phys. Rev. D92, no.7, 072014 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.072014 [arXiv:1507.03233 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.072014 2015

  33. [33]

    G.Cariaet al.[Belle], Phys.Rev.Lett.124, no.16, 161803(2020)doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.161803[arXiv:1910.05864 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.161803 2020

  34. [34]

    Recent Belle II results on semi leptonic decay anomaliesR(D)andR(D ∗)Presented at Lepton Photon 2023, https://indico.cern.ch/event/1114856/contributions/5423684/attachments/2685890/4660084/2023-07-04_ LP2023_KojimaFinalVer_main.pdf

    work page arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett.115, no.11, 111803 (2015) [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.115, no.15, 159901 (2015)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.111803 [arXiv:1506.08614 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.111803 2015

  36. [36]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett.120, no.17, 171802 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.171802 [arXiv:1708.08856 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.171802 2018

  37. [37]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. D97, no.7, 072013 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.072013 [arXiv:1711.02505 [hep- ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.072013 2018

  38. [38]

    [LHCb], [arXiv:2302.02886 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv

  39. [39]

    Test of lepton flavor universality using <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mn>0</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo stretchy="false">→</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>−</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mi>τ</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>ν</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>τ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math> decays with hadronic <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mi>τ</mml:mi></mml:math> channels

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. D108, no.1, 012018 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.012018 [arXiv:2305.01463 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.012018 2023

  40. [40]

    J. A. Baileyet al.[MILC], Phys. Rev. D92, no.3, 034506 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.034506 [arXiv:1503.07237 [hep-lat]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.034506 2015

  41. [41]

    Naet al.[HPQCD], Phys

    H. Naet al.[HPQCD], Phys. Rev. D92, no.5, 054510 (2015) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D93, no.11, 119906 (2016)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.119906 [arXiv:1505.03925 [hep-lat]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.119906 2015

  42. [42]

    S. Aoki, Y. Aoki, D. Becirevic, C. Bernard, T. Blum, G. Colangelo, M. Della Morte, P. Dimopoulos, S. Dürr and H. Fukaya,et al.Eur. Phys. J. C77, no.2, 112 (2017) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4509-7 [arXiv:1607.00299 [hep-lat]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4509-7 2017

  43. [43]

    Fajfer, J

    S. Fajfer, J. F. Kamenik and I. Nisandzic, Phys. Rev. D85, 094025 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.094025 [arXiv:1203.2654 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.85.094025 2012

  44. [44]

    Bigi and P

    D. Bigi and P. Gambino, Phys. Rev. D94, no.9, 094008 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.094008 [arXiv:1606.08030 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.094008 2016

  45. [45]

    F. U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, M. Papucci and D. J. Robinson, Phys. Rev. D95, no.11, 115008 (2017) [erratum: Phys. 20 Rev. D97, no.5, 059902 (2018)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.115008 [arXiv:1703.05330 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.115008 2017

  46. [46]

    D. Bigi, P. Gambino and S. Schacht, JHEP11, 061 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2017)061 [arXiv:1707.09509 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep11(2017)061 2017

  47. [47]

    Jaiswal, S

    S. Jaiswal, S. Nandi and S. K. Patra, JHEP12, 060 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2017)060 [arXiv:1707.09977 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep12(2017)060 2017

  48. [48]

    Gambino, M

    P. Gambino, M. Jung and S. Schacht, Phys. Lett. B795, 386-390 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.06.039 [arXiv:1905.08209 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.06.039 2019

  49. [49]

    Bordone, M

    M. Bordone, M. Jung and D. van Dyk, Eur. Phys. J. C80, no.2, 74 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7616-4 [arXiv:1908.09398 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7616-4 2020

  50. [50]

    Martinelli, S

    G. Martinelli, S. Simula and L. Vittorio, Phys. Rev. D105, no.3, 034503 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.034503 [arXiv:2105.08674 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.034503 2022

  51. [51]

    Preliminary average ofR(D)andR(D ∗)for Moriond 2024,https://hflav-eos.web.cern.ch/hflav-eos/semi/ moriond24/html/RDsDsstar/RDRDs.html

    2024

  52. [52]

    PreliminaryaverageofR(D)andR(D ∗)forSpring2025,https://hflav-eos.web.cern.ch/hflav-eos/semi/spring25/ html/RDsDsstar/RDRDs.html

  53. [53]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett.120, no.12, 121801 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.121801 [arXiv:1711.05623 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.121801 2018

  54. [54]

    Recent CMS results on flavor anomalies and lepton flavor violation

    CMS collaboration, "Recent CMS results on flavor anomalies and lepton flavor violation.",https://indico.desy.de/ event/34916/contributions/146862/

  55. [55]

    Lepton flavor (universality) violation studies at CMS

    CMS collaboration, "Lepton flavor (universality) violation studies at CMS.",https://indico.cern.ch/event/1291157/ contributions/5878345/

    work page arXiv

  56. [56]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett.128, no.19, 191803 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.191803 [arXiv:2201.03497 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128.191803 2022

  57. [57]

    Watanabe, Phys

    R. Watanabe, Phys. Lett. B776, 5-9 (2018) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.11.016 [arXiv:1709.08644 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.11.016 2018

  58. [58]

    Harrisonet al.[LATTICE-HPQCD], Phys

    J. Harrisonet al.[LATTICE-HPQCD], Phys. Rev. Lett.125, no.22, 222003 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.222003 [arXiv:2007.06956 [hep-lat]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.222003 2020

  59. [59]

    F. U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, D. J. Robinson and W. L. Sutcliffe, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, no.20, 202001 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.202001 [arXiv:1808.09464 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.202001 2018

  60. [60]

    Detmold, C

    W. Detmold, C. Lehner and S. Meinel, Phys. Rev. D92, no.3, 034503 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.034503 [arXiv:1503.01421 [hep-lat]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.034503 2015

  61. [61]

    Alonso, B

    R. Alonso, B. Grinstein and J. Martin Camalich, Phys. Rev. Lett.118(2017) no.8, 081802 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.081802 [arXiv:1611.06676 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118.081802 2017

  62. [62]

    Celis, M

    A. Celis, M. Jung, X. Q. Li and A. Pich, Phys. Lett. B771, 168-179 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.05.037 [arXiv:1612.07757 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.05.037 2017

  63. [63]

    S. S. Gershtein, V. V. Kiselev, A. K. Likhoded and A. V. Tkabladze, Phys. Usp.38, 1-37 (1995) doi:10.1070/PU1995v038n01ABEH000063 [arXiv:hep-ph/9504319 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1070/pu1995v038n01abeh000063 1995

  64. [64]

    I. I. Y. Bigi, Phys. Lett. B371, 105-110 (1996) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(95)01574-4 [arXiv:hep-ph/9510325 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(95)01574-4 1996

  65. [65]

    Beneke and G

    M. Beneke and G. Buchalla, Phys. Rev. D53, 4991-5000 (1996) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.53.4991 [arXiv:hep-ph/9601249 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.53.4991 1996

  66. [66]

    C. H. Chang, S. L. Chen, T. F. Feng and X. Q. Li, Phys. Rev. D64, 014003 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.014003 [arXiv:hep-ph/0007162 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.64.014003 2001

  67. [67]

    V.Kiselev, A.E

    V. V.Kiselev, A.E. KovalskyandA. K.Likhoded, Nucl.Phys.B585, 353-382(2000)doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00386-2 [arXiv:hep-ph/0002127 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(00)00386-2 2000

  68. [68]

    A.G.AkeroydandC.H.Chen, Phys.Rev.D96, no.7, 075011(2017)doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.075011[arXiv:1708.04072 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.075011 2017

  69. [69]

    Hiroseet al.[Belle], Phys

    S. Hiroseet al.[Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett.118, no.21, 211801 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.211801 [arXiv:1612.00529 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118.211801 2017

  70. [70]

    Hiroseet al.[Belle], Phys

    S. Hiroseet al.[Belle], Phys. Rev. D97, no.1, 012004 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.012004 [arXiv:1709.00129 [hep- ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.012004 2018

  71. [71]

    Abdesselamet al.[Belle], [arXiv:1903.03102 [hep-ex]]

    A. Abdesselamet al.[Belle], [arXiv:1903.03102 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 1903

  72. [72]

    A. K. Alok, D. Kumar, S. Kumbhakar and S. U. Sankar, Phys. Rev. D95, no.11, 115038 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.115038 [arXiv:1606.03164 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.115038 2017

  73. [73]

    Iguro and R

    S. Iguro and R. Watanabe, JHEP08, no.08, 006 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2020)006 [arXiv:2004.10208 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep08(2020)006 2020

  74. [74]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. D110, no.9, 092007 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.092007 [arXiv:2311.05224 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.092007 2024

  75. [75]

    Chen, PoSEPS-HEP2023, 338 (2024) doi:10.22323/1.449.0338

    C. Chen, PoSEPS-HEP2023, 338 (2024) doi:10.22323/1.449.0338

    work page doi:10.22323/1.449.0338 2024

  76. [76]

    Iguro, T

    S. Iguro, T. Kitahara and R. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. D110, no.7, 7 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.075005 [arXiv:2405.06062 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.075005 2024

  77. [77]

    Azizi and J

    K. Azizi and J. Y. Süngü, Phys. Rev. D97, no.7, 074007 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.074007 [arXiv:1803.02085 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.074007 2018

  78. [78]

    Azizi, Y

    K. Azizi, Y. Sarac and H. Sundu, Phys. Rev. D99, no.11, 113004 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.113004 [arXiv:1904.08267 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.113004 2019

  79. [79]

    Asadi and D

    P. Asadi and D. Shih, Phys. Rev. D100, no.11, 115013 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.115013 [arXiv:1905.03311 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.115013 2019

  80. [80]

    Murgui, A

    C. Murgui, A. Peñuelas, M. Jung and A. Pich, JHEP09, 103 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2019)103 [arXiv:1904.09311 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2019)103 2019

Showing first 80 references.