Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Model-independent method for measuring the angular coefficients of $B^0 \to D^{*-} \tau^+ \nu_{\tau}$ decays

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that the twelve angular coefficients of $B^0\to D^{*-}\tau^+\nu_\tau$ can be measured from reconstructed angles alone, without assuming a form-factor model, by folding detector effects into twelve template histograms.

desk verdict Clever template trick for semitauonic angular measurements, but the inclusive q2-integrated version is not as model-independent as claimed—the q2-binned version is the real deal. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04643 v4 pith:J76NO5L4 submitted 2019-08-13 hep-ph hep-ex

Donal Hill , Malcolm John , Wenqi Ke , Anton Poluektov This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords angularcoefficientssemitauonicBdecaystemplatefitmodelindependencemissingneutrinoreconstructionR(D*)LHCbBelleII
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 claims a way to measure all twelve angular coefficients $I_X$ of $B^0\to D^{*-}\tau^+\nu_\tau$ from reconstructed decay angles without choosing a form-factor or new-physics model. Because both the $B$ and $\tau$ decays lose neutrinos, the reconstructed angular distribution is strongly biased, so a direct fit to the analytic angular decay rate fails. The proposed fix is to let the twelve angular functions of the decay rate become twelve template histograms in reconstructed angle space, with resolution, acceptance, and event migration included in each template; the signal fit is then a linear sum of these templates. The paper demonstrates with Monte Carlo that the fit is unbiased, works with realistic backgrounds and a multivariate classifier, and gives competitive sensitivities at the LHCb and Belle II experiments. If the method is right, angular observables of semitauonic decays can probe new physics beyond the $R(D^*)$ anomaly without form-factor systematics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the reconstructed-angle template $h_{IX}$, defined for each of the twelve angular functions $X\in\{1c,1s,2c,2s,3,4,5,6c,6s,7,8,9\}$. To build it, one fills a $30\times30\times30$ histogram $D_{IX}$ in true $(\cos\theta_D,\cos\theta_L,\chi)$ with the angular function itself, divides by the total signal-model histogram $M$ to form the model-independent ratio $R_{IX}=D_{IX}/M$, assigns each simulated event twelve weights $w_{IX}=R_{IX}(i)$ according to its true angle bin, and fills weighted histograms in the reconstructed angles. These $h_{IX}$ may be negative in places but their sum is positive and proportional to the total decay rate; the fit PDF is the normalised sum $\sum_X I_X h_{IX}$ with $I_{1c}$ fixed by the normalisation condition. A fourth dimension, a gradient-boosted decision-tree output built from $\tau$ lifetime and $3\pi$ mass variables, is added to separate signal from the dominant $B\to D^{*-}D_s^+(X)$ backgrounds.

What would settle it

Generate pseudo-data with a physics model whose angular coefficients vary strongly across $q^2$ but integrate to the Standard Model values used in the templates, apply the same reconstruction smearing, and fit with the ISGW2-built templates; any fitted coefficient that shifts by more than the toy statistical uncertainty would falsify the claimed model independence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that model independence survives reconstruction if the templates are built from the ratio $R_{IX}=D_{IX}/M$. Here $D_{IX}$ is a finely binned histogram of the true angular function multiplying $I_X$ in Eq. (1.1), and $M$ is a histogram of the full signal model used in simulation; events are reweighted by $R_{IX}$ and filled into reconstructed-angle histograms $h_{IX}$. The simulation model cancels in this ratio, so each $h_{IX}$ encodes only the detector's response to that angular component. A binned maximum-likelihood fit in $(\cos\theta_D,\cos\theta_L,\chi)_{\rm reco}$, with one coefficient fixed by the total-rate normalisation, then measures the remaining eleven $I_X$ without statistical bias. The paper verifies the claim by comparing the template fit to an unbinned truth-level parametric fit, by reweighting the sample to the CLN form-factor scheme and recovering the same coefficients, and by toy studies showing pull distributions centred at zero with unit width.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the simulated detector response packed into each template is the same for every possible underlying physics model; if data and simulation disagree in a way the templates cannot absorb, the measured $I_X$ values are biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At 9 fb$^{-1}$ of LHCb data the fit is already unbiased: the signal fraction is recovered to $f_{\rm sig}=0.116\pm0.010$ and the derived $D^*$ longitudinal polarisation is $F_L(D^*)=0.368\pm0.047$, statistical only.
  • At 50 fb$^{-1}$ the eleven free coefficients are measured with absolute statistical uncertainties between 0.01 and 0.06, and $F_L(D^*)=0.446\pm0.010$.
  • A Belle II sample of roughly 7000 three-prong tagged events gives coefficient uncertainties competitive with 23 fb$^{-1}$ of LHCb data, because tagging the other $B$ improves the $B^0$ momentum constraint and the sample is cleaner.
  • The same template construction extends to $N$ bins in true $q^2$: it needs $12N^2$ templates but still only $11N$ angular coefficients plus $N$ signal fractions, so model independence is preserved when $q^2$ migration is modelled.
  • The measured signal fraction can be converted to $R(D^*)$, but with worse statistical precision than a model-dependent fit (8.6% versus below 3% at 9 fb$^{-1}$); the angular coefficients themselves are the model-independent new-physics probes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper tests model independence with only two form-factor schemes; a sharper check would be to reweight the true $q^2$ distribution to extreme shapes and verify that the reconstructed templates do not move, which is a direct consequence of the claimed ratio cancellation that the authors do not report.
  • If the templates are truly model-independent, the same method can be used as a null test in $B\to D^{(*)}l\nu$ decays, where better angular resolution should make agreement with Standard Model predictions much stricter; the paper suggests this but does not quantify it.
  • A practical extension would split the sample by $\tau$ charge to measure $I_X$ and $\bar I_X$ separately as a CP test; the paper notes this possibility but gives no sensitivity estimate.
  • The systematic uncertainty from limited Monte Carlo template statistics is mentioned but not evaluated; a natural extension is to propagate template bin fluctuations in the toy studies and show that the fitted coefficients remain unbiased.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a template-based method for measuring the q2-integrated angular coefficients IX of B0 -> D*- tau+ nu_tau decays. The twelve angular functions of Eq. (1.1) are converted into multidimensional histograms in reconstructed angular variables by weighting simulated events with the ratios RIX = DIX/M, where DIX is a histogram of the angular function f_X and M is the histogram of the generator's total angular distribution. The authors argue that this weighting cancels the generator model dependence, making the templates model independent. The method is validated on fast Monte Carlo samples against a truth-level parametric fit and with a CLN reweighting, and is extended to a realistic background mixture and a BDT classifier. Sensitivity projections are given for LHCb (9, 23, and 50 fb^-1) and Belle II (50 ab^-1) scenarios, along with a discussion of systematic uncertainties and the extrapolation to R(D*).

Significance. If the model-independence claim holds, this is a valuable methodological contribution to semitauonic B decays, where the missing neutrinos strongly bias the angular distribution and prevent a direct parametric fit. The paper's strengths include the explicit template construction, the validation against a truth-level fit, the use of pull distributions to demonstrate fit stability, and a realistic treatment of backgrounds and selection effects. The method is potentially applicable to other decays. However, the central claim of strict model independence is weakened by the q2-dependence of the reconstruction smearing, as detailed in the major comments; the numerical results in Sec. 5 are obtained with the inclusive version of the method, which relies on an additional assumption that is not tested with sufficient vigour.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (2.1)-(2.4), Sec. 3.2] The model-independence claim in Sec. 3 (and repeated in the abstract and conclusion) is exact only at truth level. After reconstruction, the template hIX(Omega_reco) is proportional to ∫ d(Omega_true) f_X(Omega_true) ∫ dq2 P_gen(q2|Omega_true) T(Omega_reco|q2, Omega_true), where P_gen is the generator's conditional q2 distribution at fixed true angles and T is the reconstruction kernel. Because the weights wIX = RIX(i) depend only on the true angular bin i and not on q2, a physics model with a different q2 dependence at fixed true angles, but with the same q2-integrated coefficients, yields a different template. The reconstruction given by Eqs. (2.1)-(2.4) depends on the 3-pion invariant mass and momenta, which are correlated with q2, so the kernel T is not q2-independent. The CLN reweighting test in Sec. 3.2 does not expose this residual dependence because CLN and ISGW2 have similar q2 shapes. This issue is load-bearing for the paper's central claim.
  2. [Sec. 3.3, Sec. 5] Section 3.3 acknowledges the additional assumption needed for the inclusive method: "Assuming simulation accurately models all q2True->q2Reco sculpting and bin migration, the model independence of the IX measurements is preserved." This is in tension with the unconditional model-independence statement in Sec. 3 and the conclusion. The q2-binned extension with 12N^2 templates is the correct remedy, but it is presented as an aside and the numerical results in Sec. 5 are obtained with the inclusive method. The authors should either (a) demonstrate numerically that the inclusive templates are stable under a drastically changed q2 spectrum (for example, by reweighting the generated sample to a form factor model with a very different q2 shape and recomputing the templates and the fitted coefficients), or (b) adopt the q2-binned method for the central sensitivity projections and present the inclusive method as an approximation with a quantitative validity range.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 3.1] The statement that one of the eleven IX parameters is fixed by "sum IX = 1" is not correct; the normalisation condition in Eq. (3.2), Gamma = 1, fixes a linear combination of I1c, I1s, I2c, and I2s, not their sum. Please revise the wording.
  2. [Eq. (3.4) and Sec. 5.4] There are formatting errors in the mathematical notation: "12N 2 templates" should be "12N^2 templates", "y,j6s" should be "yj,6s", and "303 binning" should be "30^3 binning".
  3. [Sec. 3] The assertion that template statistical uncertainties are negligible with one million generated events is not quantified. With 30^3 true-space bins, the average occupancy is about 37 events per bin, so the weights RIX can have substantial fluctuations in bins with small M; the resulting uncertainty on hIX is only addressed in Sec. 5.4 as an unquantified systematic. Please estimate the template uncertainty or justify the statement quantitatively.
  4. [Table 3 (a)] The uncertainty on I1s is quoted as 0.00, which is not meaningful; please give the value with an additional significant digit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the angular coefficients are free parameters of a binned likelihood fit, and the template ratio cancellation is a construction designed for model independence rather than a prediction derived from inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the twelve angular coefficients IX can be extracted as free parameters from a multidimensional template fit, with detector effects absorbed into the templates. The template construction divides each angular density DIX by the generator's total signal model M and then weights simulated events by RIX = DIX/M. This cancels the generator's angular model by construction, which is exactly what makes the templates nominally model-independent; it is not a case of fitting a parameter to data and then presenting that same fit as a prediction. The IX values themselves are floated in a binned maximum-likelihood fit to pseudo-data, not derived from the template inputs. The validation against a truth-level parametric fit and the CLN reweighting test are external consistency checks, and the comparison SM values come from an independent reference [30] rather than from the authors' own prior results. The only self-citation is the software package TensorFlowAnalysis [40], which is used as a fitting tool and is not load-bearing for any physics claim. A residual q2-model dependence in the q2-integrated inclusive templates is acknowledged in the paper and is a systematic limitation rather than a circular reduction: it does not make any predicted quantity equivalent to its input by definition. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

The method introduces no new physics entities and fits no physical constants. The free parameters listed are fixed background or signal fractions used in the demonstration datasets. The load-bearing assumptions are the completeness of the angular basis, the accuracy of the simulation, and the model independence of the weighted templates.

free parameters (3)
  • f_D0 = 0.057 (fixed)
    Fixed fraction of B to D*- D0(X) background in the toy mixtures (Sec 4.3); not fitted, but chosen value affects demonstrated sensitivity.
  • f_D** = 0.11 (fixed)
    Fixed feed-down fraction from B to D** tau nu, not yet measured; varied by 40% for systematics (Sec 5.4).
  • f_3pi = 0.78 (fixed)
    Relative fraction of tau+ to 3pi nu versus 3pi pi0 nu signal modes, taken from Ref [8] (Sec 4.2).
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The decay rate is fully described by Eq. (1.1) with twelve independent angular coefficients.
    The templates and normalization (Eq 3.2) are built from this angular basis from Ref [30]; if additional angular terms existed, the method would be incomplete.
  • domain assumption Detector simulation accurately models real data reconstruction, resolution and acceptance.
    Sec 1 states 'the technique assumes and requires excellent agreement between data and simulated samples'; all templates come from simulation.
  • ad hoc to paper The templates h_IX are model independent after the R_IX weighting.
    Sec 3 claims the model cancels by construction, but the cancellation assumes the generated true distribution is proportional to M and no q2-dependent response; only ISGW2 versus CLN is tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Model-independent method for measuring the angular coefficients of $B^0 \to D^{*-} \tau^+ \nu_{\tau}$ decays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J76NO5L4

@misc{pith2026190804643,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Model-independent method for measuring the angular coefficients of $B^0 \to D^*- \tau^+ \nu_\tau$ decays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J76NO5L4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04643}
}
abstract

Reconstruction of the $B^0 \to D^{*-} \tau^+ \nu_{\tau}$ angular distribution is complicated by the strongly-biasing effect of losing the neutrino information from both the $B$ and $\tau$ decays. In this work, a novel method for making unbiased measurements of the angular coefficients while preserving the model independence of the angular technique is demonstrated. The twelve angular functions that describe the signal decay, in addition to background terms, are modelled in a multidimensional fit, using template probability density functions that encapsulate all resolution and acceptance effects. Sensitivities at the LHCb and Belle II experiments are estimated, and sources of systematic uncertainty are discussed, notably in the extrapolation to a measurement of $R(D^{*})$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    BaBar collaboration, Evidence for an excess of¯B→D(∗)τ −¯ντ decays, Phys. Rev. Lett.109 (2012) 101802 [1205.5442]

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    BaBar collaboration, Measurement of an Excess of¯B→D(∗)τ −¯ντ Decays and Implications for Charged Higgs Bosons, Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 072012 [1303.0571]

    arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    Belle collaboration, Measurement of the branching ratio of¯B→D(∗)τ −¯ντ relative to ¯B→D(∗)𝓁−¯ν𝓁 decays with hadronic tagging at Belle, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 072014 [1507.03233]

    arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Belle collaboration, Measurement of theτ lepton polarization andR(D∗) in the decay ¯B→D∗τ −¯ντ, Phys. Rev. Lett.118 (2017) 211801 [1612.00529]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Belle collaboration, Measurement of theτ lepton polarization andR(D∗) in the decay ¯B→D∗τ −¯ντ with one-prong hadronicτ decays at Belle, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 012004 [1709.00129]

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Belle collaboration, Measurement ofR(D) andR(D∗) with a semileptonic tagging method, 1904.08794

    arXiv 1904

  7. [7]

    LHCb collaboration, Measurement of the ratio of branching fractions B( ¯B0→D∗+τ −¯ντ)/B( ¯B0→D∗+µ−¯νµ), Phys. Rev. Lett.115 (2015) 111803 [1506.08614]

    arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    LHCb collaboration, Test of lepton flavor universality by the measurement of the B0→D∗−τ +ντ branching fraction using three-prongτ decays, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 072013 [1711.02505]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Hea vy Fla vor A veraging Groupcollaboration, Averages ofb-hadron,c-hadron, and τ-lepton properties as of summer 2016, Eur. Phys. J.C77 (2017) 895 [1612.07233]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Biancofiore, P

    P. Biancofiore, P. Colangelo and F. De Fazio,On the anomalous enhancement observed in B→D(∗)τ ¯ντ decays, Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) 074010 [1302.1042]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Duraisamy and A

    M. Duraisamy and A. Datta,The fullB→D∗τ −¯ντ angular distribution andCP violating triple products, JHEP 09 (2013) 059 [1302.7031]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Fajfer, J

    S. Fajfer, J. F. Kamenik and I. Nišandžić,B→D∗τντ sensitivity to new physics, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 094025 [1203.2654]

    2012 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Tanaka,Charged Higgs effects on exclusive semi-tauonicB decays, Zeitschrift für Physik C Particles and Fields67 (1995) 321 [hep-ph/9411405]

    M. Tanaka,Charged Higgs effects on exclusive semi-tauonicB decays, Zeitschrift für Physik C Particles and Fields67 (1995) 321 [hep-ph/9411405]

    1995 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Tanaka and R

    M. Tanaka and R. Watanabe,Tau longitudinal polarization inB→Dτν and its role in the search for the charged Higgs boson, Phys. Rev. D82 (2010) 034027 [1005.4306]

    2010 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Sakaki and H

    Y. Sakaki and H. Tanaka,Constraints on the charged scalar effects using the forward-backward asymmetry onB→D(∗)τντ, Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) 054002 [1205.4908]

    2013 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Datta, M

    A. Datta, M. Duraisamy and D. Ghosh,Diagnosing new physics inb→cτντ decays in the light of the recent BABAR result, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 034027 [1206.3760]

    2012 arXiv

  9. [17]

    M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Körner and C. T. Tran,Exclusive decaysB→𝓁−ν and B→D(∗)𝓁−ν in the covariant quark model, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 114022 [1508.02678]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Becirevic, S

    D. Becirevic, S. Fajfer, I. Nisandzic and A. Tayduganov,Angular distributions of ¯B→D(∗)𝓁¯ν𝓁 decays and search of New Physics, 1602.03030. – 26 –

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Alonso, A

    R. Alonso, A. Kobach and J. Martin Camalich,New physics in the kinematic distributions of B→D(∗)τ −(→𝓁−ν𝓁ντ)ντ, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 094021 [1602.07671]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A. K. Alok, D. Kumar, S. Kumbhakar and S. U. Sankar,D∗ polarization as a probe to discriminate new physics inB→D∗τν, Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) 115038 [1606.03164]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Bardhan, P

    D. Bardhan, P. Byakti and D. Ghosh,A closer look at theR(D) and R(D∗) anomalies, JHEP 01 (2017) 125 [1610.03038]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Körner and C. T. Tran,Probing new physics inB 0 →D(∗)τ −ντ using the longitudinal, transverse, and normal polarization components of the tau lepton, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 036021 [1701.02937]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Alonso, J

    R. Alonso, J. M. Camalich and S. Westhoff,Tau properties inB→Dτν from visible final-state kinematics, Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) 093006 [1702.02773]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Asadi, M

    P. Asadi, M. R. Buckley and D. Shih,Asymmetry observables and the origin ofRD(∗) anomalies, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 035015 [1810.06597]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Colangelo and F

    P. Colangelo and F. De Fazio,Scrutinizing B→D∗ (Dπ)𝓁−ν𝓁 and B→D∗ (Dγ)𝓁−ν𝓁 in search of new physics footprints, JHEP 06 (2018) 082 [1801.10468]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Belle collaboration, Measurement of theD∗− polarization in the decayB0→D∗−τ +ντ, in 10th International Workshop on the CKM Unitarity Triangle (CKM 2018) Heidelberg, Germany, September 17-21, 2018, 2019, 1903.03102

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Tanaka and R

    M. Tanaka and R. Watanabe,New physics in the weak interaction of¯B→D(∗)τ ¯ν, Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) 034028 [1212.1878]

    2013 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Huang, Y

    Z.-R. Huang, Y. Li, C.-D. Lu, M. A. Paracha and C. Wang,Footprints of new physics in b→cτν transitions, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 095018 [1808.03565]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Bhattacharya, S

    S. Bhattacharya, S. Nandi and S. Kumar Patra,b→cτντ Decays: A Catalogue to Compare, Constrain, and Correlate New Physics Effects, Eur. Phys. J.C79 (2019) 268 [1805.08222]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Becirevic, M

    D. Becirevic, M. Fedele, I. Nisandzic and A. Tayduganov,Lepton Flavor Universality tests through angular observables ofB→D(∗)𝓁ν decay modes, 1907.02257

    1907 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A. K. Alok, A. Datta, A. Dighe, M. Duraisamy, D. Ghosh and D. London,New Physics in b→sµ+µ−: CP-Violating Observables, JHEP 11 (2011) 122 [1103.5344]

    2011 arXiv

  24. [32]

    LHCb collaboration, Differential branching fraction and angular analysis of the decay B0→K 0µ+µ−, JHEP 08 (2013) 131 [1304.6325]

    2013 arXiv

  25. [33]

    G. A. Cowan, D. C. Craik and M. D. Needham,RapidSim: an application for the fast simulation of heavy-quark hadron decays, Comput. Phys. Commun.214 (2017) 239 [1612.07489]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Brun and F

    R. Brun and F. Rademakers,ROOT: An object oriented data analysis framework, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A389 (1997) 81

    1997

  27. [35]

    Cacciari, S

    M. Cacciari, S. Frixione and P. Nason,The pT spectrum in heavy flavor photoproduction, JHEP 03 (2001) 006 [hep-ph/0102134]

    2001 arXiv

  28. [36]

    D. J. Lange,The EvtGen particle decay simulation package, Nucl. Instrum. Meth.A462 (2001) 152

    2001

  29. [37]

    Isgur, D

    N. Isgur, D. Scora, B. Grinstein and M. B. Wise,Semileptonic B and D decays in the quark model, Phys. Rev. D39 (1989) 799. – 27 –

    1989

  30. [38]

    Chrzaszcz, T

    M. Chrzaszcz, T. Przedzinski, Z. Was and J. Zaremba,TAUOLA ofτ lepton decays-framework for hadronic currents, matrix elements and anomalous decays, Comput. Phys. Commun. 232 (2018) 220 [1609.04617]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Tanabashi et al.,Review of Particle Physics, Phys

    M. Tanabashi et al.,Review of Particle Physics, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 030001

    2018

  32. [40]

    TensorFlowAnalysis

    A. Poluektov, “TensorFlowAnalysis.” https://gitlab.cern.ch/poluekt/TensorFlowAnalysis, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems

    M. Abadi et al., “TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems.” http://tensorflow.org/, 2015

    2015

  34. [42]

    James and M

    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

    1975

  35. [43]

    Caprini, L

    I. Caprini, L. Lellouch and M. Neubert,Dispersive bounds on the shape ofB→D(∗)l¯ν lepton anti-neutrino form-factors, Nucl. Phys. B530 (1998) 153 [hep-ph/9712417]

    1998 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Duell, F

    S. Duell, F. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, M. Papucci and D. Robinson,HAMMER: Reweighting tool for simulated data samples, PoS ICHEP2016 (2017) 1074

    2017

  37. [45]

    Ligeti, M

    Z. Ligeti, M. Papucci and D. J. Robinson,New Physics in the Visible Final States of B→D(∗)τν, JHEP 01 (2017) 083 [1610.02045]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Pedregosa et al.,Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python, Journal of Machine Learning Research 12 (2011) 2825

    F. Pedregosa et al.,Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python, Journal of Machine Learning Research 12 (2011) 2825

    2011

  39. [47]

    LHCb collaboration, Physics case for an LHCb Upgrade II - Opportunities in flavour physics, and beyond, in the HL-LHC era, 1808.08865

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Shwartz,The Belle II Experiment, Nuclear and Particle Physics Proceedings260 (2015) 233

    B. Shwartz,The Belle II Experiment, Nuclear and Particle Physics Proceedings260 (2015) 233

    2015

  41. [49]

    Belle-II collaboration, The Belle II Physics Book, 1808.10567

  42. [50]

    R. J. Barlow and C. Beeston,Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples, Comput. Phys. Commun. 77 (1993) 219

    1993

  43. [51]

    London,CP Violation in ¯B0→D∗+𝓁−¯ν𝓁, in17th Conference on Flavor Physics and CP Violation (FPCP 2019) Victoria, BC, Canada, May 6-10, 2019, 2019, 1906.07752

    D. London,CP Violation in ¯B0→D∗+𝓁−¯ν𝓁, in17th Conference on Flavor Physics and CP Violation (FPCP 2019) Victoria, BC, Canada, May 6-10, 2019, 2019, 1906.07752. Acknowledgements We wish to thank Daniel Craik, Dean Robinson, Michele Papucci, and Tom Blake for their advice and a...

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.