Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

With or without U(2)? Probing non-standard flavor and helicity structures in semileptonic B decays

T0 review · 2 major / 3 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 A minimally broken flavor symmetry, with only left-handed breakings, fixes the pattern of B-decay anomalies in a way that future measurements can confirm or falsify.

desk verdict A careful U(2)^5 EFT for B anomalies whose charged-current correlations are genuinely new and testable, but whose abstract oversells the dynamical independence of the neutral-current predictions. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02519 v2 pith:JPB3KSL2 submitted 2019-09-05 hep-ph

Javier Fuentes-Martín , Gino Isidori , Julie Pagès , Kei Yamamoto This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords leptonflavoruniversalityBanomaliesU(2)symmetryspurionssemileptonicdecayseffectivefieldtheorytaupolarizationBsmesondimuondecay
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 argues that the apparent violations of lepton-flavor universality in semileptonic $B$ decays are not random: they fit an approximate $U(2)^5$ flavor symmetry, broken in the same minimal way as the Standard Model Yukawa sector. If this hypothesis is right, the many anomaly-related measurements — $R_{D^{(*)}}$, $R_{K^{(*)}}$, leptonic $B$ branching ratios, and tau polarization asymmetries — become tightly correlated, so a handful of future measurements can confirm or refute the whole framework without knowing its ultraviolet origin. The authors show that in the charged-current sector the symmetry reduces the new physics to just two effective couplings, while in the neutral-current sector it produces clean equalities such as $R_K \approx R_{K^*}$ and a CKM-like scaling of new-physics effects between $b\to s$ and $b\to d$ transitions. A sympathetic reader would take away that the flavor and helicity structure of the $B$ anomalies can be tested model-independently with upcoming data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the factorized flavor tensor $\Lambda^{[ij\alpha\beta]} = (\Gamma_L^\dagger)^{\alpha j}\,\Gamma_R^{i\beta}$ (and its vector counterpart), which encodes the $U(2)^5$ breaking through the left-handed spurions $V_q$ and $V_{\ell}$ aligned with the third generation. The tensor factorization, together with the suppression of right-handed spurions, reduces the effective Lagrangian to a small set of operators. In the charged-current case the physical content collapses to two coefficients, $C_V$ and $C_S$; the matching to a $U_1$ vector leptoquark (a color-triplet mediator connecting quark and lepton currents) — where $C_{V1}=C_{V3}=C_V$ and $C_S/C_V=-2\beta_R$ — is used as a benchmark, but the $U(2)^5$ predictions themselves do not depend on that completion.

What would settle it

Measure the tau polarization in $\bar{B}\to D^*\tau\nu$ (or $F_L^{D^*}$) and compare it with the predicted curve as a function of $\Delta R_D - \Delta R_{D^*}$; a point outside the band would rule out the minimal $U(2)$ ansatz. In the neutral-current sector, a precise demonstration that $R_{\phi}$ differs from $R_K$, or that $B(B\to\pi\mu\mu)/B(B\to\pi ee)$ differs from $R_{K^{(*)}}$ in the perturbative $q^2$ windows, would falsify the predicted equalities.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that non-standard amplitudes in semileptonic $B$ decays can be described by an EFT whose Wilson coefficients respect a $U(2)_q \times U(2)_{\ell}$ flavor symmetry, with the leading breaking coming from two spurion vectors $V_q$ and $V_{\ell}$ of order $0.1$ and negligible right-handed breaking. This assumption alone implies that charged-current $b\to c$ and $b\to u$ processes are governed by the same two combinations of effective couplings, so once $R_D$ and $R_{D^*}$ (together with $B_u\to\tau\nu$) fix them, all other observables — tau polarizations in $\bar{B}\to D^{(*)}\tau\nu$, $\bar{B}_{c,u}\to\tau\nu$, $\bar{B}\to\pi\tau\nu$ — are predicted with no further freedom. In neutral currents it yields $R_K \approx R_{K^*}$, equality of all short-distance $\mu/e$ universality ratios, and a definite link between the $R_{K^{(*)}}$ deviation and $B_s\to\mu\mu$, with a helicity-sensitive scalar term. It also predicts that new-physics effects in $b\to d$ transitions scale with CKM elements exactly as those in $b\to s$. The authors emphasize that these relations are independent of the dynamical origin of the anomalies.

Load-bearing premise

The predictive web rests on treating the left-handed spurions $V_q$ and $V_{\ell}$ as the only relevant $U(2)$ breaking, with all right-handed and subleading spurions negligible; if right-handed currents are not suppressed, the sharp equalities and correlations are lost even if the symmetry itself is real.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Once $R_D$ and $R_{D^*}$ fix $C_V$ and $C_S$, the tau polarization asymmetries $P_D^{\tau}$, $P_{D^*}^{\tau}$, $F_L^{D^*}$, and the branching ratios $\bar{B}_{c,u}\to\tau\nu$ and $\bar{B}\to\pi\tau\nu$ trace out specific curves versus $\Delta R_D - \Delta R_{D^*}$ with no remaining freedom.
  • $b\to u\tau\nu$ transitions receive the same relative new-physics effect as $b\to c\tau\nu$, so $B(\bar{B}_u\to\tau\nu)$ normalized to the SM and $R_{\pi}$ follow from the same two couplings fitted to $R_D$ and $R_{D^*}$.
  • In the neutral-current sector, all short-distance-dominated $\mu/e$ universality ratios — $R_K$, $R_{K^*}$, $R_{\phi}$, $R_{\pi K}$, and related modes — are predicted to be equal.
  • The normalized $B_s\to\mu\mu$ rate is tied to $\Delta R_{K^{(*)}}$ and to the scalar coupling, so its measurement sharpens the helicity structure of the new physics.
  • New-physics effects in $b\to d\,\ell\ell$ scale with CKM elements exactly as in $b\to s$, giving $B(B\to\pi\mu\mu)/B(B\to\pi ee)\approx R_{K^{(*)}}$ and equal normalized rates for $B_s\to\mu\mu$ and $B_d\to\mu\mu$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If these tests pass, the flavor structure of the $B$ anomalies would point to a common origin with the fermion mass hierarchy, independently of the identity of the mediator.
  • The framework also predicts per-mille-level LFU violation in $B\to D^{(*)}\mu\nu$ versus $e\nu$ and in $B_u\to\mu\nu$, a signature that distinguishes this class from scalar leptoquark models with larger light-lepton effects and is within reach of upcoming B-factory data.
  • A natural extension would be to include right-handed spurions: if future data require them, the factorized tensor structure would be modified in a calculable way and the neutral-current equalities such as $R_K = R_{K^*}$ would break in definite patterns.
  • The same spurion machinery could be applied systematically to tau and kaon decays, where the paper notes $\tau\to\mu\gamma$ and $K_L\to\ell\ell$ constraints are currently weak but future sensitivities could make them decisive.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the non-standard effects suggested by semileptonic B-decay anomalies are described by a U(2)_q × U(2)_ℓ flavor symmetry with minimal breaking along the same directions as the SM Yukawa sector (V_q and V_ℓ spurions of order 0.1), with subleading right-handed spurions neglected. Working in SMEFT, the authors retain only the operators O_lq^(1), O_lq^(3), and O_ledq with factorized flavor tensors, match the construction to the U1 vector leptoquark as a benchmark, fit two effective couplings C_c^V and C_c^S to R_D and R_D*, and derive predictions for polarization asymmetries, B_{c,u}→τν, B→πτν, b→u versus b→c universality, and (under additional assumptions) neutral-current observables such as R_K(∗), B_s→μμ, B_s→ττ, and b→d scaling relations. The central claim is that future measurements will prove or falsify this symmetry hypothesis independently of the UV completion.

Significance. If the charged-current predictions hold, the paper provides a sharp, minimally parameterized benchmark for the U(2)^5 hypothesis, with explicit Wilson coefficients and several genuinely falsifiable relations, e.g. Eq. (35) and the CKM-scaling relations (49)–(51). The construction is transparent and the authors flag many of their assumptions in the body, including the U1 matching condition in Eq. (20) and the neglect of right-handed spurions. The main weakness is an overstatement in the abstract and conclusions: the neutral-current correlations are not independent of the UV completion, so the 'prove or falsify independently of dynamical origin' claim is too strong as written.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §V vs §IV C] The central claim that the U(2)^5 hypothesis can be 'proved or falsified ... independently of its dynamical origin' is not supported for the neutral-current observables. Section IV C itself states that model-dependent assumptions such as the constraints in Eq. (20) play an important role, and Eq. (20) is not a consequence of the U(2)_q×U(2)_ℓ symmetry and its minimal breaking; it is the tree-level matching condition of a U1 vector leptoquark (C_V1 = C_V3, Γ_V1^L = Γ_V3^L = Γ_L). These conditions enter the numerical predictions for B_s→ττ (Eq. (37)), the translation of ΔR_K(∗) into B_s→μμ (Eqs. (41)–(45)), and the summary of neutral-current predictions in Sec V. A different UV completion with the same U(2)^5 breaking but C_V1 ≠ C_V3 would generically change the correlations among R_K(∗), B_s→ττ, and B_s→μμ. The abstract and conclusions should be revised to attribute the neutral-current predictions to a U1-like realization of the minimal-breaking ansatz, and to state that the charged-current predictions of Secs IV A–IV B and the qualitative left-handed-current structure RK≈RK∗ are the parts that test the symmetry hypothesis independently of the UV completion.
  2. [§III, Eqs. (13), (16), (18), and §V] The factorized tensors in Eqs. (13) and (18) — and hence the downstream relations (43), (49), and (45) — rest on the assumption that subleading spurions with non-trivial U(2)_u,d,e quantum numbers are negligible. The paper states this as 'a first strong simplification' in Sec III, but it is not a logical consequence of the U(2)^5 symmetry; it is part of the adopted definition of 'minimally broken.' If right-handed currents were not suppressed, the sharp correlations would be lost even though the symmetry itself could still hold. Please state this suppression explicitly in the statement of the central claim (abstract or conclusions) so that 'minimally broken as in the Standard Model Yukawa sector' is not read as a symmetry-dictated condition.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 1 and §IV C] The text states that the gray 90% CL exclusion region in Fig. 1 is computed for λ_s^q = 3|V_ts|, but the figure caption does not mention this; please add the value to the caption for self-containedness.
  2. [Abstract and §IV A] The abstract lists B(\bar B_{c,u} → ℓ\bar ν) without specifying the lepton flavor, while the analysis concerns τν modes because light-lepton contributions are negligible in this framework; please make the ℓ=τ restriction explicit.
  3. [§IV C, Eq. (45)] The B_s→μμ relation (45) depends on the input ratios s_τ/λ^μ_ℓ and C_S/C_V^*, which are not predicted by the symmetry; the text and Fig. 4 should state more prominently that the plotted bands are illustrative benchmarks for a U1-like scenario with scalar/right-handed couplings, not universal U(2)^5 predictions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the U(2)^5 predictions are derived from explicit spurion assumptions, not from their own outputs; the neutral-current caveat about U1 matching is a scope limitation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The U(2)^5 symmetry and the minimal spurion content in Eqs. (3)-(5) are stated as assumptions; the charged-current sector reduces to two combinations Cc_V and Cc_S (Eq. 22), which are fitted to R_D and R_D*. All subsequent b->c tau nu predictions (polarizations, Bc->tau nu, Bu->tau nu, B->pi tau nu) are independent functions of these parameters, so they are not tautologies. Eq. (35), relating R_pi to R_D and R_D*, is a linearized consequence of C_u=C_c (Eq. 32) and the form-factor inputs; it is a model-internal consistency relation, not an input. The neutral-current relations (43) and (49)-(51) follow from the factorized spurion structure and CKM ratios in Eq. (17); they are structural consequences of the ansatz, not fitted outputs. The abstract's phrase 'independently of its dynamical origin' is stronger than what the paper proves for neutral currents, because Sec. IV C explicitly states: 'Contrary to the charged-current case, here model-dependent assumptions, such as the constraints in (20), play a more important role.' Equation (20) imposes U1-like matching (C_V1=C_V3, Gamma_V1_L=Gamma_V3_L=Gamma_L) that is not required by U(2)^5 alone. This is a scope limitation and correctness risk, but it is not circular: the paper does not define U(2)^5 in terms of the predictions, nor does it fit the neutral-current observables and re-label them as predictions. The self-citations to the U(2)^5 literature and to U1 leptoquark papers are motivational and contextual; the operative derivation is written out in the paper, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked to forbid alternatives. Therefore no step reduces, by construction, to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the U(2)^5 symmetry ansatz and its minimal-breaking structure, with both the symmetry and the spurion sizes taken from the anomalies and from the authors' prior work. No new entities are invented; the analysis is within SMEFT. The free parameters are the effective couplings fitted to R_D/R_D* and the spurion combinations fixed by the B anomaly data.

free parameters (6)
  • C_c_V = ~ (1-2)×10^-2 from R_D/R_D* fit (Fig. 1)
    Effective vector coupling for b→c τν; fitted to R_D and R_D* (Sec. IV A) and used to predict all other b→cτν observables.
  • C_c_S = not quoted numerically, see Fig. 1
    Effective scalar coupling for b→c τν; constrained by R_D and R_D* (Fig. 1); controls polarizations and B_c→τν.
  • λ_s^q = O(10^-1)
    Quark U(2)_q breaking combination; size set by the B anomaly fit (Eq. (5)); drives b→s and b→c NP amplitudes.
  • λ_ℓ^μ = O(10^-1)
    Lepton U(2)_ℓ breaking combination; estimated from R_K(*) (Sec. IV C b); enters b→sµµ, B_s→μμ, τ→μγ.
  • sτ = free; benchmark -0.1 λ_ℓ^μ in Fig. 4
    Right-handed lepton mixing; enters scalar contributions to B_s→μμ (Eq. (45)) and B_s→τμ; not fixed by symmetry.
  • C_S/C_V = free; benchmark 0 and 2 used
    Helicity ratio of NP operators; constrained by R_D/R_D* but an independent input for neutral-current predictions.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Non-standard effects are described by the U(2)_q × U(2)_ℓ flavor symmetry, minimally broken as in the SM Yukawa sector.
    Central hypothesis of the paper; not derived from a deeper principle, adopted because it fits the B anomalies and the Yukawa hierarchies (Sec. I and II).
  • ad hoc to paper The leading breaking spurions V_q and V_ℓ are of order 0.1, while subleading right-handed spurions are negligible.
    Assumption of minimal breaking; introduced in Sec. II around Eq. (5) and Sec. III before Eq. (13). It gives the EFT its predictive power.
  • domain assumption There are no new degrees of freedom below the electroweak scale; NP is described by SMEFT dimension-six semileptonic operators.
    Standard EFT assumption, stated in Sec. III; allows a model-independent parametrization.
  • ad hoc to paper The matching condition C_V1 = C_V3 and Γ_V1 = Γ_V3 = Γ_L holds.
    Motivated by the U1 leptoquark UV completion (Eq. (20)) and adopted for neutral-current predictions; it is not a consequence of the U(2)^5 symmetry itself and is acknowledged in Sec. IV C.
  • standard math CKM unitarity.
    Used to derive C_u = C_c and related relations in Eqs. (22) and (32).
  • domain assumption Form factors and SM predictions are taken from cited lattice/QCD/QCDF analyses.
    External inputs, e.g., R_SM_D, R_SM_D* from [35], R_π from [48-51], B_s→μμ SM from [72].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of With or without U(2)? Probing non-standard flavor and helicity structures in semileptonic B decays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JPB3KSL2

@misc{pith2026190902519,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: With or without U(2)? Probing non-standard flavor and helicity structures in semileptonic B decays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JPB3KSL2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02519}
}
abstract

Motivated by the recent hints of lepton flavor universality violation observed in semileptonic $B$ decays, we analyze how to test flavor and helicity structures of the corresponding amplitudes in view of future data. We show that the general assumption that such non-standard effects are controlled by a $U(2)_q \times U(2)_\ell$ flavor symmetry, minimally broken as in the Standard Model Yukawa sector, leads to stringent predictions on leptonic and semileptonic $B$ decays. Future measurements of $R_{D^{(*)}}$, $R_{K^{(*)}}$, ${\mathcal B}(\bar B_{c,u}\to \ell \bar \nu)$, ${\mathcal B}(\bar B \to \pi \ell \bar\nu)$, ${\mathcal B}(B \to \pi \ell \bar\ell)$, ${\mathcal B}(B_{s,d}\to\ell\bar\ell^{(\prime)})$, as well as various polarization asymmetries in $\bar B\to D^{(*)} \tau \bar \nu$ decays, will allow to prove or falsify this general hypothesis independently of its dynamical origin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02519 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Best fit regions in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Deviations of the polarization asymmetries com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Predictions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Predictions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Towards the Swampland of Flavour Symmetries

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A thesis claiming flavour theories with explicitly broken (or absent) symmetries can be as predictive and TeV-testable as symmetry-protected ones, demonstrated via type-II seesaw textures, minimal SO(10) with leptoqua...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 111803 (2015), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.115,no.15,159901(2015)], arXiv:1506.08614 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D88, 072012 (2013), arXiv:1303.0571 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    Hirose et al

    S. Hirose et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 211801 (2017), arXiv:1612.00529 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. D97, 072013 (2018), arXiv:1711.02505 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Abdesselam et al

    A. Abdesselam et al. (Belle), (2019), arXiv:1904.08794 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 151601 (2014), arXiv:1406.6482 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), JHEP 08, 055 (2017), arXiv:1705.05802 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 191801 (2019), arXiv:1903.09252 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    J. T. Wei et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 171801 (2009), arXiv:0904.0770 [hep-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Abdesselam et al

    A. Abdesselam et al. (Belle), (2019), arXiv:1904.02440 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D73, 092001 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0604007 [hep-ex]

    2006 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Bhattacharya, A

    B. Bhattacharya, A. Datta, D. London, and S. Shivashankara, Phys. Lett. B742, 370 (2015), arXiv:1412.7164 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Alonso, B

    R. Alonso, B. Grinstein, and J. Martin Camalich, JHEP 10, 184 (2015), arXiv:1505.05164 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Greljo, G

    A. Greljo, G. Isidori, and D. Marzocca, JHEP 07, 142 (2015), arXiv:1506.01705 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Calibbi, A

    L. Calibbi, A. Crivellin, and T. Ota, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 181801 (2015), arXiv:1506.02661 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Barbieri, G

    R. Barbieri, G. Isidori, A. Pattori, and F. Senia, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 67 (2016), arXiv:1512.01560 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Barbieri, G

    R. Barbieri, G. Isidori, J. Jones-Perez, P. Lodone, and D. M. Straub, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1725 (2011), arXiv:1105.2296 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Blankenburg, G

    G. Blankenburg, G. Isidori, and J. Jones-Perez, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 2126 (2012), arXiv:1204.0688 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Barbieri, D

    R. Barbieri, D. Buttazzo, F. Sala, and D. M. Straub, JHEP 07, 181 (2012), arXiv:1203.4218 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Cornella, J

    C. Cornella, J. Fuentes-Martin, and G. Isidori, JHEP 07, 168 (2019), arXiv:1903.11517 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Bordone, C

    M. Bordone, C. Cornella, J. Fuentes-Mart´ ın, and G. Isidori, JHEP 10, 148 (2018), arXiv:1805.09328 [hep- ph]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Di Luzio, A

    L. Di Luzio, A. Greljo, and M. Nardecchia, Phys. Rev. D96, 115011 (2017), arXiv:1708.08450 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Di Luzio, J

    L. Di Luzio, J. Fuentes-Martin, A. Greljo, M. Nardecchia, and S. Renner, JHEP 11, 081 (2018), arXiv:1808.00942 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, JHEP 10, 085 (2010), arXiv:1008.4884 [hep- ph]

    2010 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bhattacharya, A

    B. Bhattacharya, A. Datta, J.-P. Gu´ evin, D. Lon- don, and R. Watanabe, JHEP 01, 015 (2017), arXiv:1609.09078 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Hiller and I

    G. Hiller and I. Nisandzic, Phys. Rev. D96, 035003 (2017), arXiv:1704.05444 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Buttazzo, A

    D. Buttazzo, A. Greljo, G. Isidori, and D. Marzocca, JHEP 11, 044 (2017), arXiv:1706.07808 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Angelescu, D

    A. Angelescu, D. Beˇ cirevi´ c, D. A. Faroughy, and O. Sumensari, JHEP 10, 183 (2018), arXiv:1808.08179 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Kumar, D

    J. Kumar, D. London, and R. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. D99, 015007 (2019), arXiv:1806.07403 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Aebischer, W

    J. Aebischer, W. Altmannshofer, D. Guadagnoli, M. Re- boud, P. Stangl, and D. M. Straub, (2019), arXiv:1903.10434 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    https://hflav-eos.web.cern.ch/hflav-eos/semi/ spring19/html/RDsDsstar/RDRDs.html

  24. [32]

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

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Tanaka and R

    M. Tanaka and R. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. D87, 034028 (2013), arXiv:1212.1878 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Gonz´ alez-Alonso, J

    M. Gonz´ alez-Alonso, J. Martin Camalich, and K. Mi- mouni, Phys. Lett. B772, 777 (2017), arXiv:1706.00410 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Bordone, M

    M. Bordone, M. Jung, and D. van Dyk, (2019), arXiv:1908.09398 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Iguro, T

    S. Iguro, T. Kitahara, Y. Omura, R. Watanabe, and K. Yamamoto, JHEP 02, 194 (2019), arXiv:1811.08899 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Blanke, A

    M. Blanke, A. Crivellin, S. de Boer, T. Kitahara, M. Moscati, U. Nierste, and I. Niˇ sandˇ zi´ c, Phys. Rev. D99, 075006 (2019), arXiv:1811.09603 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Hirose et al

    S. Hirose et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D97, 012004 (2018), arXiv:1709.00129 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Abdesselam et al

    A. Abdesselam et al. (Belle), in 10th International Workshop on the CKM Unitarity Triangle (CKM 2018) Heidelberg, Germany, September 17-21, 2018 (2019) arXiv:1903.03102 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Murgui, A

    C. Murgui, A. Pe˜ nuelas, M. Jung, and A. Pich, (2019), arXiv:1904.09311 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Alonso, B

    R. Alonso, B. Grinstein, and J. Martin Camalich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 081802 (2017), arXiv:1611.06676 [hep- ph]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Celis, M

    A. Celis, M. Jung, X.-Q. Li, and A. Pich, Phys. Lett. B771, 168 (2017), arXiv:1612.07757 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Watanabe, Phys

    R. Watanabe, Phys. Lett. B776, 5 (2018), arXiv:1709.08644 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Detmold, C

    W. Detmold, C. Lehner, and S. Meinel, Phys. Rev. D92, 034503 (2015), arXiv:1503.01421 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  37. [45]

    T. D. Cohen, H. Lamm, and R. F. Lebed, JHEP 09, 168 (2018), arXiv:1807.02730 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Bona (UTfit), Proceedings, 9th International Work- shop on the CKM Unitarity Triangle (CKM2016): Mumbai, India, November 28-December 3, 2016 , PoS CKM2016, 096 (2017)

    M. Bona (UTfit), Proceedings, 9th International Work- shop on the CKM Unitarity Triangle (CKM2016): Mumbai, India, November 28-December 3, 2016 , PoS CKM2016, 096 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Tanabashi et al

    M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. 12 D98, 030001 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Tanaka and R

    M. Tanaka and R. Watanabe, PTEP 2017, 013B05 (2017), arXiv:1608.05207 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  41. [49]

    J. A. Bailey et al. (Fermilab Lattice, MILC), Phys. Rev. D92, 014024 (2015), arXiv:1503.07839 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    F. U. Bernlochner, Phys. Rev. D92, 115019 (2015), arXiv:1509.06938 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  43. [51]

    D. Du, A. X. El-Khadra, S. Gottlieb, A. S. Kronfeld, J. Laiho, E. Lunghi, R. S. Van de Water, and R. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D93, 034005 (2016), arXiv:1510.02349 [hep- ph]

    2016 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Capdevila, A

    B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin, S. Descotes-Genon, L. Hofer, and J. Matias, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 181802 (2018), arXiv:1712.01919 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 251802 (2017), arXiv:1703.02508 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Bobeth, M

    C. Bobeth, M. Gorbahn, T. Hermann, M. Misiak, E. Sta- mou, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 101801 (2014), arXiv:1311.0903 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Crivellin, C

    A. Crivellin, C. Greub, D. M¨ uller, and F. Saturnino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 011805 (2019), arXiv:1807.02068 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Alguer, B

    M. Alguer, B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin, S. Descotes- Genon, P. Masjuan, J. Matias, and J. Virto, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 714 (2019), arXiv:1903.09578 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Grinstein, R

    B. Grinstein, R. P. Springer, and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B202, 138 (1988)

    1988

  50. [58]

    Buchalla, A

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

    1996 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Bordone, G

    M. Bordone, G. Isidori, and A. Pattori, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 440 (2016), arXiv:1605.07633 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Celis, J

    A. Celis, J. Fuentes-Martin, A. Vicente, and J. Virto, Phys. Rev. D96, 035026 (2017), arXiv:1704.05672 [hep- ph]

    2017 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Capdevila, A

    B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin, S. Descotes-Genon, J. Matias, and J. Virto, JHEP 01, 093 (2018), arXiv:1704.05340 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Hiller and M

    G. Hiller and M. Schmaltz, JHEP 02, 055 (2015), arXiv:1411.4773 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), JHEP 02, 104 (2016), arXiv:1512.04442 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Wehle et al

    S. Wehle et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 111801 (2017), arXiv:1612.05014 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 10, 047 (2018), arXiv:1805.04000 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Measurement of the P1 and P′ 5 angular parameters of the decay B0→ K∗0µ+µ− in proton-proton collisions at√s = 8 TeV, Tech. Rep. CMS- PAS-BPH-15-008 (2017)

    2017

  59. [67]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 04, 098 (2019), arXiv:1812.03017 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 101804 (2013), arXiv:1307.5025 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS, LHCb), Nature 522, 68 (2015), arXiv:1411.4413 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 191801 (2017), arXiv:1703.05747 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Measurement of properties of B0 s → µ+µ− decays and search for B0→µ+µ− with the CMS experiment , Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-BPH-16-004 (2019)

    2019

  64. [72]

    Beneke, C

    M. Beneke, C. Bobeth, and R. Szafron, (2019), arXiv:1908.07011 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), (2019), arXiv:1905.06614 [hep-ex]

    2019

  66. [74]

    Khodjamirian and A

    A. Khodjamirian and A. V. Rusov, JHEP 08, 112 (2017), arXiv:1703.04765 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  67. [75]

    J. A. Bailey et al. (Fermilab Lattice, MILC), Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 152002 (2015), arXiv:1507.01618 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), JHEP 10, 034 (2015), arXiv:1509.00414 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Altmannshofer et al

    W. Altmannshofer et al. (Belle-II), (2018), arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]

    2018

  70. [78]

    G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori, A. Salvio, and A. Strumia, JHEP 02, 137 (2015), arXiv:1412.2769 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Dorˇ sner, S

    I. Dorˇ sner, S. Fajfer, D. A. Faroughy, and N. Koˇ snik, (2017), 10.1007/JHEP10(2017)188, [JHEP10,188(2017)], arXiv:1706.07779 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Beˇ cirevi´ c, I

    D. Beˇ cirevi´ c, I. Dorˇ sner, S. Fajfer, N. Koˇ snik, D. A. Faroughy, and O. Sumensari, Phys. Rev. D98, 055003 (2018), arXiv:1806.05689 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

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