Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 48 references

Charmless B→VV decays disagree with the SU(3)_F Standard Model by more than 7σ once ϕ and ω modes are included.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-30 11:07 UTC pith:YBJ5V26Y

load-bearing objection Clean, cross-checked SU(3) fits show a real exact-symmetry tension in B o VV (5.2–>7σ); the SM-anomaly reading still needs a breaking study. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27202 v1 pith:YBJ5V26Y submitted 2026-07-29 hep-ph hep-ex

Anomalies in Hadronic B to VV Decays

Bhubanjyoti Bhattacharya , Marianne Bouchard , Alexandre Jean , David London , Ipsita Ray This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords B to VV decaysflavour SU(3)topological diagramspolarization fractionselectroweak penguinscharmless B decaysisospin sum rules
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.

Earlier work found a 4.1σ tension when charmless B→PP decays were fit under exact flavour SU(3). This paper repeats the exercise for vector-vector final states. With only isospin, the four B→ρK* modes fit acceptably. Under full SU(3)_F the same diagrams must describe all B→VV modes with V in {ρ, K*}; that combined fit is already 5.2σ from the symmetry limit of the Standard Model. Adding modes that contain ϕ or ω pushes the discrepancy above 7σ. The only theoretical approximations are the usual electroweak-penguin–tree relations (neglecting two tiny Wilson coefficients) and exact SU(3)_F. The authors note that ~30 % SU(3) breaking is unlikely to erase a multi-sigma tension, but they leave that check for future work.

Core claim

In the exact SU(3)_F limit of the Standard Model, a global fit of the effective topological diagrams to all available charmless B→VV data yields χ²_min/d.o.f. = 39.2/5 (5.2σ) when V ∈ {ρ, K*} and χ²_min/d.o.f. = 130/20 (>7σ) when V ∈ {ρ, K*, ϕ, ω}. The isospin-only B→ρK* subset remains acceptable (χ²_min/d.o.f. = 3.6/3).

What carries the argument

SU(3)_F reduced matrix elements (equivalently, effective topological diagrams) for each of the three transversity amplitudes, reduced by the electroweak-penguin–tree relations after dropping c7 and c8.

Load-bearing premise

That the roughly 30 percent SU(3) breaking expected in the Standard Model cannot absorb a tension larger than 7σ.

What would settle it

A global fit that allows O(30 %) SU(3)_F breaking among the same diagrams and still finds an acceptable χ² would falsify the claim that the discrepancy is anomalous.

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

If this is right

  • Polarization fractions and CP asymmetries in the still-unmeasured B→VV modes become high-priority experimental targets.
  • Any new-physics explanation proposed for the earlier B→PP anomaly must also accommodate the larger VV tension.
  • Isospin sum rules for each transversity of B→ρK* can be tested once complete angular analyses of all four modes exist.
  • The pattern of which observables dominate the χ² points to longitudinal-versus-transverse polarization mismatches between ΔS=0 and ΔS=1 channels.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the same diagrams also fail once moderate SU(3) breaking is introduced, the anomaly would rank among the strongest indirect hints in the flavour sector.
  • The growth of tension when ϕ and ω are added suggests that singlet–octet mixing or OZI-suppressed amplitudes may be the most sensitive probes.
  • A parallel U-spin analysis restricted to the K*K* and ρρ pairs could isolate whether the breaking is mainly s↔d or more general.

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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper extends a previous exact-flavour-SU(3)_F analysis of charmless B→PP decays to B→VV, treating the three transversity amplitudes separately. It gives RME and topological-diagram decompositions for (8⊗8)S, 8⊗1 and 1⊗1 final states, imposes EWP–tree relations after neglecting c7,c8, and performs three fits. An isospin-only B→ρK* fit has χ²min/d.o.f.=3.6/3, although with unexpectedly large effective Puc/Ptc ratios. Requiring common SU(3)_F diagrams for V∈{ρ,K*} gives χ²min/d.o.f.=39.2/5, quoted as 5.2σ from SM_SU(3)_F; including ω and ϕ gives χ²min/d.o.f.=130/20, quoted as >7σ. The authors emphasize that these are exact-SU(3)_F results and that ∼30% symmetry breaking remains to be checked.

Significance. If the numerical fits are robust, this is a significant over-constrained test of flavour SU(3)_F in charmless B→VV decays and a useful companion to the reported B→PP tension. Notable strengths are the explicit RME and diagram decompositions in Tables III–VIII, the EWP–tree relations, the careful independent-observable counting in Appendix E, the experimental isospin sum-rule test, and the cross-checking of large fits with three independent codes and many starting points. The result is presently strongest as evidence against the exact symmetry limit; its interpretation as a Standard Model anomaly awaits quantified SU(3)-breaking and fitting systematics.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV.B–C, Eqs. (31)–(41), Tables XV–XVI] The fits force each helicity’s effective diagrams/RMEs to be common across ΔS=0, ΔS=1 and related final states. Tables XV–XVI therefore establish a failure of the exact-SU(3)_F implementation, not yet of the full SM. No helicity- or channel-dependent SU(3)-breaking nuisance parameters or theory covariance enter the 5.2σ and >7σ significances; the abstract and §V instead rely on the unquantified judgement that ∼30% breaking is unlikely to suffice. Please scan or marginalize over a specified breaking model, or restrict the conclusions to exclusion of SM_SU(3)_F.
  2. [§IV and Appendices C and E] The χ² construction appears to treat all entries as independent Gaussian observables. Several fitted quantities come from the same angular analyses—for example the large sets for B+→ρ0K*+ in Table X, Bs→K*0 anti-K*0 in Table X, and Bs→ϕϕ in Table XII. Appendix E removes algebraic redundancy, but algebraic independence does not imply statistical or systematic uncorrelatedness. The experimental covariance matrices, or a conservative correlation sensitivity analysis, are needed before the precise χ² values and Gaussian-equivalent significances can be regarded as established.
  3. [Eqs. (21), (25), (32), (34), (38) and (41); §§IV–V] The EWP–tree relations neglect c7,c8, with an estimated ∼10% modification, but this uncertainty is not propagated into the fit. CKM inputs are also fixed to central world averages in §IV. Since these choices reduce the parameter space and the quoted discrepancies are 5–7σ, the fit should include nuisance variations or a demonstrated theory covariance, and report the resulting range of χ²min/significance.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§IV.C, Eq. (44)] Please state the numerical value and source used for θω, whether it is fixed or fitted, and how its uncertainty/convention is treated. Table XVI contains no θω entry, although the enlarged fit depends on the ω–ϕ decomposition.
  2. [Appendix C, Tables IX and XI] Several branching fractions are near or outside the physical boundary, e.g. B(B0→ϕϕ)=(-0.04±0.12)×10−6 and B(B0→ωϕ)=(0.0±0.3)×10−6. Explain the likelihood used for these and for asymmetric entries such as B(B0→K*+K*−), and show that excluding or treating them as upper-limit likelihoods does not materially change the result.
  3. [§I] The statement that fL=0.16 versus 0.61 directly indicates strong U-spin violation should be qualified. Exact U-spin relates these amplitudes with different CKM factors and tree/penguin compositions, so it does not by itself require equal fL values.
  4. [§III.A, Eqs. (27)–(30)] Give the normalization and units of δρK* in its numerical test. It is not clear from Eqs. (27)–(30) and the amplitude units why the result is quoted as (-4±6)×10−4.
  5. [Tables XIII–XVI] The phase notation such as “(36±23)×10°” is ambiguous, and several phases have errors comparable to or reach the imposed [0,360°] range. Please clarify the notation and treatment of phase boundaries.
  6. [§III.A and Table XII] Typographical/notation issues: “ampliudes” after Eq. (30), and the symbol rendered as fδ⊥ in Table XII should be checked against the phase notation of Eq. (13). The tangent transformation and associated error propagation should also be stated explicitly.
  7. [§V and Appendix D] Reproducibility would be substantially improved by providing machine-readable fit inputs, per-observable χ² contributions, and the minimization code or notebooks, particularly given the stated three-code cross-check.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Standard overconstrained SU(3)_F fit: free diagrams vs external data; poor χ² is an output, not an input by construction.

full rationale

The paper parametrizes B→VV amplitudes via SU(3)_F (or isospin) reduced matrix elements / effective topological diagrams (Secs. III–IV, Eqs. 31–41, Tables III–VIII), imposes standard EWP–tree relations after neglecting c7,c8 (~10% theory input), fixes CKM elements to external world averages, and minimizes χ² against experimental branching ratios, polarization fractions, CP asymmetries, and phases (Tables IX–XII). The reported 5.2σ and >7σ discrepancies are the resulting fit qualities (χ²_min/d.o.f. = 39.2/5 and 130/20), not quantities forced by the definitions of the free parameters. Effective diagrams are linear redefinitions of RMEs (Eqs. 36–41), an equivalent basis, not a tautology that manufactures tension. Self-citations to the authors’ B→PP and B→πK papers supply the shared methodology and EWP–tree relations; they do not supply the VV data or the χ² values. No fitted subset is relabeled a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is load-bearing, and no sum rule or polarization observable is defined in terms of the claimed anomaly. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks; any concern about unmodeled SU(3)_F breaking is a correctness/interpretation issue, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The load-bearing content is a symmetry-limit fit. Almost all dynamical freedom sits in large sets of fitted diagram magnitudes and strong phases; the group theory and EWP–tree relations are standard domain assumptions; no new particles or forces are postulated. The physical claim that the tension is a SM anomaly further depends on an untested size-of-breaking judgment.

free parameters (5)
  • B→ρK* isospin diagram set (12 magnitudes + 11 relative strong phases) = χ²_min=3.6/3 unconstrained; 26.1/3 with |P̃_uc/P̃_tc|≤1
    Four effective diagrams per transversity (T̃, C̃, P̃_uc, P̃_tc) fitted to 26 observables; one strong phase fixed to zero.
  • SU(3) (8⊗8)_S diagram set for V∈{ρ,K*} (21 magnitudes + 20 relative strong phases) = χ²_min/d.o.f.=39.2/5
    Seven effective diagrams per transversity shared across ΔS=0 and ΔS=1; 41 parameters vs combined observables.
  • Full SU(3) diagram set including 8⊗1 and 1⊗1 (39 magnitudes + 38 relative strong phases) = χ²_min/d.o.f.=130/20
    Additional diagrams for modes with ω_8/ω_1 admixtures when ϕ,ω are included; 77 parameters.
  • CKM magnitudes and weak phases β, γ, β_s = world averages [35]
    Fixed to PDG/world averages rather than floated; residual CKM uncertainty not profiled in the reported χ².
  • ω–ϕ mixing angle θ_ω = arctan(1/√2)≈35.3°
    Ideal mixing ≈35.3° used to map physical ϕ,ω onto ω_8,ω_1; not varied in the fit.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Exact flavour SU(3)_F (or exact isospin) relates all amplitudes via a common set of RMEs/effective diagrams for each helicity.
    Core premise of Sec. III and all global fits; breaking is deferred.
  • domain assumption EWP–tree relations after neglecting Wilson coefficients c7 and c8 (expected ~10% correction if restored).
    Eqs. (21), (25), (32), (34), (38), (41); reduces independent diagrams; stated as the only notable theoretical input.
  • standard math Wigner–Eckart / topological-diagram equivalence: only effective linear combinations of diagrams appear, matching the RME count.
    Sec. III B; standard in the Gronau–Hernandez–London–Rosner program.
  • domain assumption Naive size estimates |P_uc/P_tc|<0.5 (or conservative ≤1) and |E,A|/T≲5% may be used as optional constraints but are not required for the headline χ².
    Sec. III and IV A; unconstrained fits violate them badly.
  • domain assumption Experimental averages from HFLAV/PDG and primary papers are treated as independent Gaussian (or asymmetric) inputs after the observable-counting reductions of Appendix E.
    Sec. IV data handling; correlations across experiments are not fully remodelled.
  • ad hoc to paper ~30% SU(3)_F breaking is unlikely to remove a >7σ symmetry-limit discrepancy.
    Abstract and Sec. V; asserted without a broken-SU(3) fit or error budget—the authors note it must be verified.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 36159 in / 4160 out tokens · 87572 ms · 2026-07-30T11:07:59.297057+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recently, a fit of charmless $B\to PP$ decays ($B \in \{B^0, B^+, B_s^0\}$, $P \in \{ \pi, K, \eta, \eta' \}$) to the latest data was performed under the assumption of flavour SU(3) symmetry [SU(3)$_F$]. It was found that there is a $4.1\sigma$ disagreement with the SU(3)$_F$ limit of the Standard Model [$\rm SM_{SU(3)_F}$]. In this paper, we extend this analysis to charmless $B \to VV$ decays ($V \in \{\rho, K^*, \phi, \omega\}$). The fit examining $B \to \rho K^*$ decays, assuming only isospin symmetry, is found to be acceptable. When we fit to $B \to VV$ decays with $V \in \{ \rho, K^* \}$ within SU(3)$_F$, we find a $5.2\sigma$ discrepancy with SM$_{SU(3)_F}$. Finally, when $B \to VV$ decays with $V \in \{ \rho, K^*, \phi, \omega \}$ are considered, the discrepancy grows to $>7\sigma$. The theoretical input in this analysis is modest, so our results are quite rigorous, group theoretically, and hold almost exactly in the SU(3)$_F$ limit. Although it seems unlikely that the introduction of $\sim 30$% SU(3)$_F$-breaking effects can account for this discrepancy, this must be verified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27202 by Alexandre Jean, Bhubanjyoti Bhattacharya, David London, Ipsita Ray, Marianne Bouchard.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The decay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

48 extracted references · 40 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The quarks (u, d, s) form a triplet (3) under SU(3)F , so that the initial stateB= (B +, B0, B0 s ) also is a3

    RMEs We begin with the (8⊗8) S final state. The quarks (u, d, s) form a triplet (3) under SU(3)F , so that the initial stateB= (B +, B0, B0 s ) also is a3. The weak Hamiltonian 14 (8⊗8) S ∆S= 0 ∆S= 1 B+ →K ∗+ ¯K∗0 B+ →ρ +K∗0 B+ →ρ +ρ0 B+ →ρ 0K∗+ B+ →ω 8 ρ+ B+ →ω 8 K∗+ B0 →K ∗0 ¯K∗0 B0 s →K ∗0 ¯K∗0 B0 →ρ +ρ− B0 s →ρ +ρ− B0 →ρ 0ρ0 B0 s →ρ 0ρ0 B0 →K ∗+K∗− B0...

  2. [2]

    There are six diagrams proportional toλ (q) u :T,C,P uc,E,A,P A uc

    Diagrams The amplitudes can also be expressed in terms of diagrams. There are six diagrams proportional toλ (q) u :T,C,P uc,E,A,P A uc. There are eight diagrams proportional toλ (q) t : Ptc,P Atc,P EW ,P C EW ,P A EW ,P E EW ,P Pu EW ,P P Au EW . For the (8⊗8) S final state, Ref. [2] gives the expressions for theB→P Pamplitudes in terms of diagrams. As us...

  3. [3]

    Berthiaume, B

    R. Berthiaume, B. Bhattacharya, R. Boumris, A. Jean, S. Kumbhakar, and D. London, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 211802 (2024), arXiv:2311.18011 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Bhattacharya, M

    B. Bhattacharya, M. Bouchard, L. Hudy, A. Jean, D. London, and C. MacKenzie, (2025), arXiv:2505.11492 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Choudhury, S

    D. Choudhury, S. Kumbhakar, A. Kundu, and S. Nandi, Phys. Rev. D114, 015019 (2026), arXiv:2601.05324 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    J. Chai, S. Cheng, F.-Q. Hu, Y. Li, J.-Y. Shen, and D.-C. Yan, (2026), arXiv:2607.22093 [hep-ph]. 37

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Banerjeeet al.(Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFLA V)), Phys

    S. Banerjeeet al.(Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFLA V)), Phys. Rev.D113, 012008 (2026), with online updates athttps://hflav.web.cern.ch/, arXiv:2411.18639 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Alguer´ o, A

    M. Alguer´ o, A. Crivellin, S. Descotes-Genon, J. Matias, and M. Novoa-Brunet, JHEP04, 066, arXiv:2011.07867 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  9. [9]

    Aleksan and L

    R. Aleksan and L. Oliver, (2023), arXiv:2312.07198 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Beneke, J

    M. Beneke, J. Rohrer, and D. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B774, 64 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0612290

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  11. [11]

    A. S. Dighe, I. Dunietz, H. J. Lipkin, and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Lett. B369, 144 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9511363

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  12. [12]

    Fleischer and I

    R. Fleischer and I. Dunietz, Phys. Rev. D55, 259 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9605220

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  13. [13]

    A. S. Dighe, I. Dunietz, and R. Fleischer, Eur. Phys. J. C6, 647 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9804253

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  14. [14]

    Chiang and L

    C.-W. Chiang and L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D61, 074031 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9911338

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  15. [15]

    Bhattacharya, A

    B. Bhattacharya, A. Datta, M. Duraisamy, and D. London, Phys. Rev. D88, 016007 (2013), arXiv:1306.1911 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  16. [16]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 021803 (2026), arXiv:2508.13563 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), JHEP12, 155, arXiv:1907.10003 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), JHEP12, 155, arXiv:1907.10003 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 1907

  18. [18]

    Datta and D

    A. Datta and D. London, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A19, 2505 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0303159

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  19. [19]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), JHEP05, 026, arXiv:1812.07008 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), JHEP05, 026, arXiv:1812.07008 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    Buchalla, A

    G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras, and M. E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Phys.68, 1125 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9512380

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  21. [21]

    Chau and H.-Y

    L.-L. Chau and H.-Y. Cheng, Phys. Rev. Lett.56, 1655 (1986)

    1986

  22. [22]

    Gronau, O

    M. Gronau, O. F. Hernandez, D. London, and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D50, 4529 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9404283

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  23. [23]

    Gronau, O

    M. Gronau, O. F. Hernandez, D. London, and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D52, 6374 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9504327

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  24. [24]

    Gronau, D

    M. Gronau, D. Pirjol, and T.-M. Yan, Phys. Rev. D60, 034021 (1999), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 69, 119901 (2004)], arXiv:hep-ph/9810482

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  25. [25]

    A. J. Buras and R. Fleischer, Phys. Lett. B341, 379 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9409244

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  26. [26]

    Beneke, G

    M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, and C. T. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B606, 245 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0104110

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  27. [27]

    Bell, Nucl

    G. Bell, Nucl. Phys. B795, 1 (2008), arXiv:0705.3127 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  28. [28]

    Bell, Nucl

    G. Bell, Nucl. Phys. B822, 172 (2009), arXiv:0902.1915 [hep-ph]. 38

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  29. [29]

    Beneke, T

    M. Beneke, T. Huber, and X.-Q. Li, Nucl. Phys. B832, 109 (2010), arXiv:0911.3655 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  30. [30]

    G. Bell, M. Beneke, T. Huber, and X.-Q. Li, Phys. Lett. B750, 348 (2015), arXiv:1507.03700 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  31. [31]

    A. J. Buras, R. Fleischer, S. Recksiegel, and F. Schwab, Eur. Phys. J. C32, 45 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0309012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  32. [32]

    A. J. Buras, R. Fleischer, S. Recksiegel, and F. Schwab, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 101804 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0312259

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  33. [33]

    A. J. Buras, R. Fleischer, S. Recksiegel, and F. Schwab, Nucl. Phys. B697, 133 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0402112

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  34. [34]

    Bhattacharya, M

    B. Bhattacharya, M. Bouchard, A. Jean, D. London, and I. Ray, JHEP05, 195, arXiv:2510.13969 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    Gronau, Phys

    M. Gronau, Phys. Lett. B627, 82 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0508047

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  36. [36]

    Adachiet al.(Belle-II), Phys

    I. Adachiet al.(Belle-II), Phys. Rev. D109, 012001 (2024), arXiv:2310.06381 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Takahashiet al.(Particle Data Group), Int

    F. Takahashiet al.(Particle Data Group), Int. J. Mod. Phys. A41, 2630011 (2026)

    2026

  38. [38]

    James and M

    F. James and M. Roos, Comput. Phys. Commun.10, 343 (1975)

    1975

  39. [39]

    Aubertet al.(BaBar), Phys

    B. Aubertet al.(BaBar), Phys. Rev. D78, 051103 (2008), arXiv:0806.4467 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  40. [40]

    Aubertet al.(BaBar), Phys

    B. Aubertet al.(BaBar), Phys. Rev. D78, 071104 (2008), arXiv:0807.4977 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  41. [41]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), (2025), arXiv:2512.05102 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), (2025), arXiv:2512.05102 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    del Amo Sanchezet al.(BaBar), Phys

    P. del Amo Sanchezet al.(BaBar), Phys. Rev. D83, 051101 (2011), arXiv:1012.4044 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  43. [43]

    Aubertet al.(BaBar), Phys

    B. Aubertet al.(BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 201801 (2008), arXiv:0807.3935 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  44. [44]

    Aubertet al.(BaBar), Phys

    B. Aubertet al.(BaBar), Phys. Rev. D79, 052005 (2009), arXiv:0901.3703 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  45. [45]

    J. P. Leeset al.(BaBar), Phys. Rev. D89, 051101 (2014), arXiv:1312.0056 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  46. [46]

    Guanet al.(Belle), Phys

    Y. Guanet al.(Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 081801 (2024), arXiv:2401.04646 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), JHEP05, 069, arXiv:1403.2888 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), JHEP05, 069, arXiv:1403.2888 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [48]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 171802 (2023), arXiv:2304.06198 [hep-ex]. 39

    arXiv 2023