pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.20446 · v3 · submitted 2025-06-25 · ✦ hep-ph

Investigating New Physics through the Observables of Semileptonic B_(s)to K^(ast)(to K π)μ⁺μ⁻ Decay

Zohaib Aarfi , Qazi Maaz Us Salam , Ishtiaq Ahmed , Faisal Munir Bhutta , Rizwan Khalid , M.Ali Paracha This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 08:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords Bs to K* mu mu decaynew physicsWilson coefficientsangular observablesb to d transitionforward-backward asymmetryeffective field theorysemileptonic decays
0
0 comments X

The pith

Modifications to Wilson coefficients for the b to d mu mu transition produce deviations from Standard Model predictions in multiple observables of the Bs to K* mu+ mu- decay.

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

The paper carries out a model-independent study of the rare semileptonic decay Bs to K* to K pi mu+ mu- within the weak effective field theory to look for signs of new physics. It evaluates the differential branching ratio, forward-backward asymmetry, longitudinal polarization fraction, and several normalized angular coefficients as functions of dilepton invariant mass squared. The analysis considers one- and two-dimensional new-physics scenarios that alter the coefficients C7^NP, C9 prime NP, and C10 prime NP while leaving hadronic form factors unchanged. Notable departures from Standard Model expectations appear across the computed quantities, and correlations among them are examined to help restrict the new-physics parameter space.

Core claim

In the one-dimensional and two-dimensional scenarios where new physics modifies the Wilson coefficients C7^NP, C9^(prime)NP, and C10^(prime)NP, the full set of observables including branching ratio, forward-backward asymmetry, polarization fractions, and angular coefficients I_i exhibit clear deviations from their Standard Model values over the accessible q^2 range.

What carries the argument

Weak effective field theory description of the b to d mu+ mu- transition, with new physics introduced exclusively through selected Wilson coefficients.

If this is right

  • Two-dimensional contour plots of pairs of observables can further restrict the allowed ranges for new-physics Wilson coefficients.
  • The decay provides a complementary channel to other b to s and b to d processes for testing the Standard Model.
  • Correlations among angular coefficients offer additional handles for distinguishing among possible new-physics scenarios.
  • Updated experimental data on these quantities can tighten bounds on the size of the new-physics contributions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same framework could be applied to related decays such as Bd to K* mu+ mu- to test whether the same coefficient shifts appear consistently.
  • The observed deviations could be confronted with explicit ultraviolet models that generate the required operator modifications.
  • Precision measurements at upcoming runs of LHCb or Belle II could confirm or exclude the specific 1D and 2D scenarios examined.

Load-bearing premise

New physics affects the decay only by changing the values of C7^NP, C9 prime NP, and C10 prime NP while all Standard Model inputs and hadronic form factors remain exactly as predicted.

What would settle it

Future high-precision measurements that agree with Standard Model predictions for every listed observable across the full q^2 interval, within experimental errors, would rule out the new-physics contributions considered here.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20446 by Faisal Munir Bhutta, Ishtiaq Ahmed, M.Ali Paracha, Qazi Maaz Us Salam, Rizwan Khalid, Zohaib Aarfi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Kinematics of the Bs → K∗ (→ Kπ)l +l − decay. I1s = (2 + β 2 l ) 2 N 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Different observables of Bs → K∗ (→ Kπ)µ +µ − decay in the SM and in 1D NP scenarios. The first and the second columns show (from top to bottom) the differential branching ratio dB/dq 2 , the AFB, fL as functions of the squared dilepton mass q 2 (GeV2 ) and of WCs (Ci = C ( ′ )NP 9,10 ), respectively. While the third column displays the variation in their values by different colors bar due to 1σ and 2σ par… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The angular coefficients ⟨I1s⟩, ⟨I1c⟩, ⟨I2s⟩, and ⟨I2c⟩ for Bs → K∗ (→ Kπ)µ +µ − where the remaining description is the same as describe in caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The angular coefficients ⟨I3⟩, ⟨I4⟩, ⟨I5⟩, and ⟨I6s⟩ for Bs → K∗ (→ Kπ)µ +µ − where the remaining description is the same as describe in the caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correlations between AFB and different observables of Bs → K∗ (→ Kπ)µ +µ − decay in SM and in 1D NP scenarios. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The first row shows, the dB/dq 2 , the AFB, and fL as a function of q 2 . The second row displays the variation in their values by different colors bar due to 1σ and 2σ parametric ranges of 2D NP WCs. 3.2.3 Helicity fraction Finally, in the fL best-fit plot, a behavior similar to that of the AFB best-fit plot is observed. However, in contrast to AFB, where the scenarios predicted higher values than the SM,… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The angular coefficients ⟨I1s⟩, ⟨I1c⟩, ⟨I2s⟩, and ⟨I2c⟩ for Bs → K∗ (→ Kπ)µ +µ − where the remaining description is the same as describe in caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The angular coefficients ⟨I3⟩, ⟨I4⟩, ⟨I5⟩, and ⟨I6s⟩ for Bs → K∗ (→ Kπ)µ +µ − where the remaining description is the same as describe in the caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Correlation between the different observables of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The contour plots of Br, AFB, and fL by using the 1σ and 2σ allowed regions of 2D WCs. The black dot and star are defined by the SM value and the value by using the best fit point of WCs. The dashed rectangular box represents the values of observables by using 1σ parametric space of Wcs. with the axes showing the NP WCs in the corresponding scenario. Each contour plot shows ten contours with the variable … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The contour plots of ⟨I1s⟩, ⟨I1c⟩, ⟨I2s⟩, and ⟨I2c⟩ by using the 1σ and 2σ allowed regions of 2D WCs. The black dot and star are defined by the SM value and the value by using the best fit point of WCs. The dashed rectangular box represents the values of observables by using 1σ parametric space of Wcs. The contour plots in Figs. 10-12 show a useful visual presentation of the effects of the 2D NP scenarios… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The contour plots of ⟨I3⟩, ⟨I4⟩, ⟨I5⟩, and ⟨I6s⟩ by using the 1σ and 2σ allowed regions of 2D WCs. The black dot and star are defined by the SM value and the value by using the best fit point of WCs. The dashed rectangular box represents the values of observables by using 1σ parametric space of Wcs. 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The rare four-fold decay $B_s \to K^*(\to K\pi)\mu^+\mu^- $, governed by the flavor-changing neutral current transition $b \to d\mu^+\mu^-$, provides a sensitive probe for testing the Standard Model (SM) and investigating signatures of new physics (NP). This work presents a comprehensive model-independent analysis of the decay using the framework of the weak effective field theory. We compute a set of key physical observables, including the differential branching ratio, forward-backward asymmetry, longitudinal polarization fraction, and several normalized angular coefficients $\langle I_i\rangle$, as a function of the dilepton invariant mass squared $q^2$. The impact of NP is explored via both one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) scenarios involving NP Wilson coefficients $C_7^{\text{NP}}$, $C_9^{(\prime)\text{NP}}$, and $C_{10}^{(\prime)\text{NP}}$. Our findings reveal notable deviations from the SM predictions across multiple observables. Furthermore, we analyze the correlations between different observables and their 2D contour plots which would be useful to further constrain the parametric space of possible NP contributions. This study reinforces the potential of $B_s \to K^* \mu^+ \mu^-$ decay as a complementary channel in the search for physics beyond the SM.

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 performs a model-independent analysis of the rare decay Bs → K*(→Kπ)μ+μ− in the weak effective field theory framework. It computes observables including the differential branching ratio, forward-backward asymmetry, longitudinal polarization fraction, and normalized angular coefficients ⟨Ii⟩ as functions of q². New physics is explored by varying the Wilson coefficients C7^NP, C9^(′)NP, and C10^(′)NP in one- and two-dimensional scenarios, with reported notable deviations from SM predictions and analysis of correlations via 2D contour plots.

Significance. If the deviations remain after proper treatment of hadronic uncertainties, the work would provide useful complementary constraints on new physics in the less-explored b→dμ+μ− transition. The explicit computation of multiple angular observables and their correlations, including 2D contours, is a constructive element that can inform future experimental analyses.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that 'our findings reveal notable deviations from the SM predictions across multiple observables' provides no quantitative information on the size of the deviations, their statistical significance, error bars, or the precise SM baseline and experimental inputs used for comparison. This omission is load-bearing for evaluating the result.
  2. [Methodology and results sections] Methodology and results sections: the analysis fixes hadronic form factors to SM values with no uncertainty propagation shown (standard 10–20% errors are typical). Because the separation between NP-modified observables and SM predictions relies on this assumption, the lack of variation or propagation undermines the robustness of the reported deviations.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Notation] Notation for the primed Wilson coefficients (C9^(′)NP etc.) should be defined once and used consistently in all 1D/2D scenario descriptions.
  2. [Figures] The 2D contour plots would benefit from explicit marking of the SM point (C_i^NP=0) and indication of the confidence level contours.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the major comments point by point below, indicating where revisions will be incorporated.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that 'our findings reveal notable deviations from the SM predictions across multiple observables' provides no quantitative information on the size of the deviations, their statistical significance, error bars, or the precise SM baseline and experimental inputs used for comparison. This omission is load-bearing for evaluating the result.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from additional quantitative context. In the revised manuscript we will update the abstract to include specific information on the magnitude of deviations (e.g., relative differences from SM predictions for the differential branching ratio and selected angular coefficients) together with a brief reference to the SM baseline and form-factor inputs employed. This change will be made while preserving the original scope and conclusions of the work. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methodology and results sections] Methodology and results sections: the analysis fixes hadronic form factors to SM values with no uncertainty propagation shown (standard 10–20% errors are typical). Because the separation between NP-modified observables and SM predictions relies on this assumption, the lack of variation or propagation undermines the robustness of the reported deviations.

    Authors: The referee correctly identifies that the present analysis employs central values of the hadronic form factors. This choice was made to isolate the effects of the NP Wilson coefficients in a transparent, model-independent manner. To strengthen the presentation we will add a dedicated paragraph in the methodology section discussing the typical size of hadronic uncertainties and their potential impact on the size of the reported deviations. Where computationally feasible we will also overlay representative uncertainty bands on the main figures. A complete statistical propagation across all 1D and 2D scenarios is not included in the current version but will be noted as a direction for future refinement. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; standard NP scenario exploration with fixed inputs

full rationale

The paper conducts a model-independent effective-theory calculation of decay observables by explicitly varying NP Wilson coefficients in chosen 1D/2D scenarios while holding form factors and SM inputs fixed. The resulting deviations from SM are the direct numerical output of those chosen non-zero NP values and are presented as such for constraining purposes; this does not constitute a self-definitional loop, a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or any load-bearing self-citation. The derivation chain relies on standard weak EFT machinery and externally cited hadronic inputs, remaining self-contained without reduction to its own assumptions by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the weak effective theory for b to d transitions and on accurate prior knowledge of hadronic form factors and SM Wilson coefficients.

free parameters (3)
  • C7^NP
    New physics contribution to the electromagnetic dipole operator, scanned in 1D and 2D scenarios.
  • C9^NP
    New physics contribution to the vector semileptonic operator, scanned in 1D and 2D scenarios.
  • C10^NP
    New physics contribution to the axial-vector semileptonic operator, scanned in 1D and 2D scenarios.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Weak effective field theory provides a valid description of the b to d mu mu transition at low energies.
    Invoked as the framework for incorporating NP effects via Wilson coefficients.
  • domain assumption Hadronic form factors and other non-perturbative inputs are taken from prior literature without re-derivation.
    Required to compute the differential observables and angular coefficients.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5814 in / 1522 out tokens · 41449 ms · 2026-05-19T08:02:48.396549+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Real and Complex Singlet-Scalar Benchmarks with a Vector-Like Down Quark for $B\to X_s\gamma$ and $B_s-\bar B_s$ Mixing

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    In minimal benchmarks with a vector-like down quark D and singlet scalar, the new-physics contribution to B to X_s gamma is only 0.4 percent of the Standard Model value at TeV scales, while B_s mixing imposes stronger...

  2. Weak Annihilation Contribution to Angular Observables in $B_{c}^+\to D^{\ast+}\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ Decays

    hep-ph 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Weak annihilation contributions are sizable in B_c^+ to D^{*+} lepton pair decays and must be included to obtain reliable Standard Model predictions for angular observables.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 28 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    S. L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos, and L. Maiani, Phys. Rev. D, 2, 1285–1292 (1970)

    work page 1970

  2. [2]

    Descotes-Genon, T

    S. Descotes-Genon, T. Hurth, J. Matias, and J. Virto, JHEP, 05, 137 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Descotes-Genon, L

    S. Descotes-Genon, L. Hofer, J. Matias, and J. Virto, JHEP, 06, 092 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    A. K. Alok, A. Datta, A. Dighe, M. Duraisamy, D. Ghosh, and D. London, JHEP, 11, 121 (2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Ghosh, M

    D. Ghosh, M. Nardecchia, and S. A. Renner, JHEP, 12, 131 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    A. J. Buras, M. V. Carlucci, S. Gori, and G. Isidori, JHEP, 10, 009 (2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Fleischer, R

    R. Fleischer, R. Jaarsma, and G. Tetlalmatzi-Xolocotzi, JHEP, 05, 156 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    C. O. Dib, J. C. Helo, V. E. Lyubovitskij, I. Schmidt, and N. Sinha, JHEP, 02, 224 (2023)

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Rare $B$ Decays as Tests of the Standard Model

    Thomas Blake, Gaia Lanfranchi, and David M. Straub, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 92, 50–91 (2017), arXiv:1606.00916

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    Gudrun Hiller and Frank Kruger, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 074020 (2004), hep-ph/0310219

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  11. [11]

    Christoph Bobeth, PoS, EPS-HEP2011, 169 (2011), arXiv:1111.3478

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  12. [12]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 131(5), 051803 (2023), arXiv:2212.09152

    work page arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Roel Aaij et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 30(07), 1530022 (2015), arXiv:1412.6352

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  14. [14]

    Roel Aaij et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 128(19), 191802 (2022), arXiv:2110.09501

    work page arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    J. P. Lees et al., Phys. Rev. D, 86, 032012 (2012), arXiv:1204.3933

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  16. [16]

    Choudhuryet al.(Belle), Test of lepton flavor univer- sality and search for lepton flavor violation inB→Kℓℓ decays, JHEP03, 105 (2021), arXiv:1908.01848 [hep-ex]

    S. Choudhury et al., JHEP, 03, 105 (2021), arXiv:1908.01848

    work page arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Bernat Capdevila, Ursula Laa, and German Valencia, Eur. Phys. J. C, 79(6), 462 (2019), arXiv:1811.10793

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Rajeev (2 2025), arXiv:2502.20145

    Md Isha Ali, Utpal Chattopadhyay, Dilip Kumar Ghosh, and N. Rajeev (2 2025), arXiv:2502.20145

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Adachi et al., Phys

    I. Adachi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 133(10), 101804 (2024), arXiv:2404.08133

    work page arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Nicola Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett., 10, 531–533 (1963)

    work page 1963

  21. [21]

    Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys., 49, 652–657 (1973)

    work page 1973

  22. [22]

    Sebastien Descotes-Genon, Joaquim Matias, Marc Ramon, and Javier Virto, JHEP, 01, 048 (2013), arXiv:1207.2753

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  23. [23]

    Sebastien Descotes-Genon, Tobias Hurth, Joaquim Matias, and Javier Virto, JHEP, 05, 137 (2013), arXiv:1303.5794

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  24. [24]

    Saadi Ishaq, Faisal Munir, and Ishtiaq Ahmed, JHEP, 07, 006 (2013)

    work page 2013

  25. [25]

    Zhuo-Ran Huang, Muhammad Ali Paracha, Ishtiaq Ahmed, and Cai-Dian L¨ u, Phys. Rev. D, 100(5), 055038 (2019), arXiv:1812.03491

    work page arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    Faisal Munir, Saadi Ishaq, and Ishtiaq Ahmed, PTEP, 2016(1), 013B02 (2016), arXiv:1511.07075

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  27. [27]

    Ali Paracha, and Wenyu Wang, Nucl

    Faisal Munir Bhutta, Zhuo-Ran Huang, Cai-Dian L¨ u, M. Ali Paracha, and Wenyu Wang, Nucl. Phys. B, 979, 115763 (2022), arXiv:2009.03588

    work page arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    Jamil Aslam, Ishtiaq Ahmed, and Saadi Ishaq (10 2024), arXiv:2410.20633

    Faisal Munir Bhutta, Abdur Rehman, M. Jamil Aslam, Ishtiaq Ahmed, and Saadi Ishaq (10 2024), arXiv:2410.20633

    work page arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Diganta Das, Bharti Kindra, Girish Kumar, and Namit Mahajan, Phys. Rev. D, 99(9), 093012 (2019), arXiv:1812.11803

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    Mohapatra and Anjan Giri, Phys

    Manas K. Mohapatra and Anjan Giri, Phys. Rev. D, 104(9), 095012 (2021), arXiv:2109.12382

    work page arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    Rajeev, N

    N. Rajeev, Niladribihari Sahoo, and Rupak Dutta, Phys. Rev. D, 103(9), 095007 (2021), arXiv:2009.06213

    work page arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    Rupak Dutta, Phys. Rev. D, 100(7), 075025 (2019), arXiv:1906.02412

    work page arXiv 2019

  33. [33]

    Mohapatra, N

    Manas K. Mohapatra, N. Rajeev, and Rupak Dutta, Phys. Rev. D, 105(11), 115022 (2022), arXiv:2108.10106

    work page arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    Ali Paracha, and Faisal Munir Bhutta, Nucl

    Marwah Zaki, M. Ali Paracha, and Faisal Munir Bhutta, Nucl. Phys. B, 992, 116236 (2023), arXiv:2303.01145

    work page arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Yu-Shuai Li and Xiang Liu, Phys. Rev. D, 108(9), 093005 (2023), arXiv:2309.08191

    work page arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Qazi Maaz Us Salam, Ishtiaq Ahmed, Rizwan Khalid, and Ibad Ur Rehman, J. Phys. G, 52(4), 045003 (2025), arXiv:2411.00912

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Navas et al., Phys

    S. Navas et al., Phys. Rev. D, 110(3), 030001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Jian-Jun Wang, Ru-Min Wang, Yuan-Guo Xu, and Ya-Dong Yang, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 014017 (2008), arXiv:0711.0321

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  39. [39]

    Hai-Zhen Song, Lin-Xia Lu, and Gong-Ru Lu, Commun. Theor. Phys., 50, 696–702 (2008)

    work page 2008

  40. [40]

    Wen-Fei Wang and Zhen-Jun Xiao, Phys. Rev. D, 86, 114025 (2012), arXiv:1207.0265

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  41. [41]

    Ali Paracha, and Faisal Munir Bhutta, Chin

    Nimra Farooq, Marwah Zaki, M. Ali Paracha, and Faisal Munir Bhutta, Chin. Phys. C, 48(10), 103107 (2024), arXiv:2407.00520

    work page arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Kou et al

    E. Kou et al., PTEP, 2019(12), 123C01 (2019), 1808.10567

    work page arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    Roel Aaij et al., JHEP, 07, 020 (2018), arXiv:1804.07167

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    Rigo Bause, Hector Gisbert, Marcel Golz, and Gudrun Hiller, Eur. Phys. J. C, 83(5), 419 (2023), arXiv:2209.04457

    work page arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    Ashutosh Kumar Alok, Amol Dighe, Shireen Gangal, and Dinesh Kumar, Eur. Phys. J. C, 80(7), 682 (2020), 30 arXiv:1912.02052

    work page arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    Damir Becirevic, Nejc Kosnik, Federico Mescia, and Elia Schneider, Phys. Rev. D, 86, 034034 (2012), arXiv:1205.5811

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  47. [47]

    On the anomalies in the latest LHCb data

    T. Hurth, F. Mahmoudi, and S. Neshatpour, Nucl. Phys. B, 909, 737–777 (2016), arXiv:1603.00865

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  48. [48]

    J. P. Lees et al., Phys. Rev. D, 88(3), 032012 (2013), arXiv:1303.6010

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  49. [49]

    J. T. Wei et al., Phys. Rev. D, 78, 011101 (2008), arXiv:0804.3656

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  50. [50]

    Roel Aaij et al., JHEP, 10, 034 (2015), arXiv:1509.00414

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  51. [51]

    $B\to V\ell^+\ell^-$ in the Standard Model from Light-Cone Sum Rules

    Aoife Bharucha, David M. Straub, and Roman Zwicky, JHEP, 08, 098 (2016), arXiv:1503.05534

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  52. [52]

    Roel Aaij et al., JHEP, 02, 104 (2016), arXiv:1512.04442

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  53. [53]

    Measurement of the branching ratio of $\bar{B} \to D^{(\ast)} \tau^- \bar{\nu}_\tau$ relative to $\bar{B} \to D^{(\ast)} \ell^- \bar{\nu}_\ell$ decays with hadronic tagging at Belle

    M. Huschle et al., Phys. Rev. D, 92, 072014 (2015), 1507.03233

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  54. [54]

    R. L. Workman et al., PTEP, 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    work page 2022

  55. [55]

    Roel Aaij et al., Nature Phys., 18, 277–282 (2022), 2103.11769

    work page arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    Belle-II Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett., 127, 181802 (2021), 2104.12624

    work page arXiv 2021

  57. [57]

    Charm-loop effect in $B \to K^{(*)} \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$ and $B\to K^*\gamma$

    A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel, and Y. M. Wang, JHEP, 09, 089 (2010), 1006.4945

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  58. [58]

    Rare decay B -> K ll form factors from lattice QCD

    Chris Bouchard, G. Peter Lepage, Christopher Monahan, Heechang Na, and Junko Shigemitsu, Phys. Rev. D, 88(5), 054509, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 88, 079901 (2013)] (2013), arXiv:1306.2384

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  59. [59]

    Christoph Bobeth, Mikolaj Misiak, and Jorg Urban, Nucl. Phys. B, 574, 291–330 (2000), hep-ph/9910220

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  60. [60]

    Systematic approach to exclusive B ->V l^+l^-, V gamma decays

    M. Beneke, T. Feldmann, and D. Seidel, Nucl. Phys., B612, 25–58 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0106067

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  61. [61]

    H. H. Asatrian, H. M. Asatrian, C. Greub, and M. Walker, Phys. Lett. B, 507, 162–172 (2001), hep-ph/0103087

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  62. [62]

    H. H. Asatryan, H. M. Asatrian, C. Greub, and M. Walker, Phys. Rev., D65, 074004 (2002), arXiv:hep- ph/0109140

    work page arXiv 2002

  63. [63]

    Christoph Greub, Volker Pilipp, and Christof Schupbach, JHEP, 12, 040 (2008), arXiv:0810.4077

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  64. [64]

    Daping Du, A. X. El-Khadra, Steven Gottlieb, A. S. Kronfeld, J. Laiho, E. Lunghi, R. S. Van de Water, and Ran Zhou, Phys. Rev. D, 93(3), 034005 (2016), arXiv:1510.02349. 31

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016