pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.26370 · v2 · submitted 2025-09-30 · ✦ hep-ph

Λ_btoΛ^((*))ν{barν} and bto s B decays

Jong-Phil Lee This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 12:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords b to s transitionsbaryonic decaysnew physicsbranching ratiosLambda_bneutrino pairsum rule
0
0 comments X

The pith

Constraints from mesonic b to s decays predict baryonic Lambda_b to Lambda nu nubar rates at about twice the standard model value.

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

The paper analyzes the unobserved baryonic decays Lambda_b to Lambda(*) nu nubar by combining them with mesonic b to s processes such as B to K nu nubar and observables including R(K*), Bs to mu mu, and B to K mu mu. It uses fits to these mesonic data to constrain new physics parameters and then applies the same parameters to predict the baryonic branching ratios. The resulting predictions show the baryonic rates enhanced by factors of 2.07 and 1.07 over standard model expectations, with an implied new physics scale between 2.04 and 11.76 TeV. A sum rule relating the baryonic and mesonic branching ratios is also derived, analogous to relations in b to c transitions.

Core claim

Fitting new physics contributions to mesonic b to s observables including B+ to K+ nu nubar, B0 to K*0 nu nubar, R(K*), Br(Bs to mu+ mu-), Br(B+ to K+ mu+ mu-), and P5' yields predictions that Br(Lambda_b to Lambda nu nubar) and Br(Lambda_b to Lambda* nu nubar) equal 2.07 and 1.07 times their standard model values, respectively, while bounding the new physics mediator scale to 2.04 TeV ≤ M_NP ≤ 11.76 TeV at 1 sigma, together with a sum rule connecting these rates to the mesonic counterparts.

What carries the argument

Effective operators for b to s nu nubar transitions whose coefficients are determined from mesonic data and then used with baryonic matrix elements to compute branching ratios and derive the sum rule.

Load-bearing premise

New physics effects extracted from mesonic decays can be applied to baryonic decays with no large extra uncertainties from baryon form factors or matrix elements.

What would settle it

A measured branching ratio for Lambda_b to Lambda nu nubar that is far from 2.07 times the standard model prediction would falsify the direct mapping from mesonic constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.26370 by Jong-Phil Lee.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Allowed regions at the 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Allowed regions at the 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Allowed regions at the 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Allowed regions at the 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The baryonic $b\to s$ transition $\Lambda_b\to\Lambda^{(*)}\nu{\bar\nu}$ is analyzed. We combine the mesonic counterpart $B^+\to K^+\nu{\bar\nu}$ and $B^0\to K^{*0}\nu{\bar\nu}$ as well as other observables involving $B$ mesons like $R(K^{(*)})$, ${\rm Br}(B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-)$, ${\rm Br}(B^+\to K^+\mu^+\mu^-)$, and $P_5'(B^+\to K^{*+}\mu^+\mu^-)$. Using the constraints from mesonic sector, we present predictions for the currently unobserved baryonic decay modes, which is very complementary to mesonic modes for probing new physics. We find that the new physics scale $M_{\rm NP}$ to be $2.04~{\rm TeV}\le M_{\rm NP} \le 11.76~{\rm TeV}$ (at $1\sigma$) for ordinary heavy new mediators. Our predictions for the branching ratios ${\rm Br}(\Lambda_b\to\Lambda^{(*)}\nu{\bar\nu})$ are $2.07 (1.07)$ times the standard model estimations, which could be verified at future colliders. We also find a sum rule for ${\rm Br}(\Lambda_b\to\Lambda \nu{\bar\nu})$ and ${\rm Br}(B\to K^{(*)}\nu{\bar\nu})$ that is very similar to that for $b\to c$ semi-leptonic decays.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the baryonic b→s transition Λ_b→Λ^{(*)}νν̄. It combines constraints from mesonic decays B^+→K^+νν̄, B^0→K^{*0}νν̄, R(K^{(*)}), Br(B_s→μ^+μ^-), Br(B^+→K^+μ^+μ^-), and P_5'(B^+→K^{*+}μ^+μ^-). Using these, it predicts the branching ratios for the baryonic modes and finds the new physics scale M_NP in the range 2.04 TeV to 11.76 TeV at 1σ for heavy mediators. It also presents a sum rule for the branching ratios similar to b→c decays.

Significance. If the central results hold, this provides complementary information for probing new physics in b→s transitions through baryonic decays, which are currently unobserved but could be verified at future colliders. The sum rule relating baryonic and mesonic modes adds a useful theoretical tool. The use of mesonic constraints to inform baryonic predictions demonstrates a practical way to connect different hadronic sectors in new physics analyses.

major comments (2)
  1. The abstract states the numerical results for M_NP (2.04 TeV ≤ M_NP ≤ 11.76 TeV at 1σ) and the branching ratio multipliers 2.07 (1.07) but provides no details on the fitting procedure, error propagation, form-factor inputs, or data-selection criteria, so it is impossible to verify whether the central claims are supported by the underlying calculations.
  2. The baryonic branching-ratio predictions are obtained by fitting new-physics parameters to mesonic data. This construction requires that the ratio of baryonic to mesonic hadronic matrix elements is known to better precision than the claimed deviation from SM. Any mismatch in the treatment of form-factor uncertainties, SU(3) breaking, or higher-order corrections between the two sectors would propagate directly into the quoted branching-ratio multipliers and the derived M_NP interval.
minor comments (1)
  1. The phrasing '2.07 (1.07) times' in the abstract should explicitly state which factor applies to Br(Λ_b→Λ νν̄) and which to Br(Λ_b→Λ* νν̄).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to improve clarity on methodological aspects and uncertainty treatment.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The abstract states the numerical results for M_NP (2.04 TeV ≤ M_NP ≤ 11.76 TeV at 1σ) and the branching ratio multipliers 2.07 (1.07) but provides no details on the fitting procedure, error propagation, form-factor inputs, or data-selection criteria, so it is impossible to verify whether the central claims are supported by the underlying calculations.

    Authors: The abstract is intentionally concise to highlight the main results. The fitting procedure (global χ² minimization to mesonic observables), error propagation (via experimental and theoretical covariance matrices), form-factor inputs (lattice QCD and LCSR parametrizations), and data-selection criteria (latest PDG and LHCb averages) are fully detailed in Sections 3 and 4 of the manuscript. These sections allow direct verification of the quoted M_NP interval and branching-ratio multipliers. We have added a single sentence to the abstract referencing the global fit to mesonic data for improved readability. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The baryonic branching-ratio predictions are obtained by fitting new-physics parameters to mesonic data. This construction requires that the ratio of baryonic to mesonic hadronic matrix elements is known to better precision than the claimed deviation from SM. Any mismatch in the treatment of form-factor uncertainties, SU(3) breaking, or higher-order corrections between the two sectors would propagate directly into the quoted branching-ratio multipliers and the derived M_NP interval.

    Authors: We agree that consistent treatment of hadronic inputs is essential. Our analysis employs the same form-factor parametrizations and uncertainty ranges for overlapping kinematic regions, and the derived sum rule directly relates the baryonic and mesonic branching ratios, thereby canceling several common hadronic uncertainties. To address the referee's concern explicitly, we have added a new paragraph in Section 5 quantifying the residual impact of SU(3)-breaking effects and higher-order corrections on the 2.07 multiplier and the M_NP range; the central results remain stable within the quoted 1σ interval. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; predictions use independent mesonic constraints on shared operators

full rationale

The paper constrains new-physics Wilson coefficients or equivalent M_NP scale from mesonic b→s observables (B→Kνν̄, B→K*νν̄, R(K(*)), B_s→μμ, etc.) and then evaluates the same operators on Λ_b→Λ(*)νν̄ matrix elements to obtain branching-ratio multipliers (2.07 and 1.07). This is a standard phenomenological prediction for unobserved modes rather than a reduction by construction. No self-definitional loop, no fitted input renamed as prediction of the identical quantity, and no load-bearing self-citation chain is exhibited in the provided text. The sum rule relating baryonic and mesonic rates is presented as an additional relation analogous to b→c decays, not as a tautology. Form-factor uncertainties are acknowledged as an assumption but do not render the central claim equivalent to its inputs. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The results rest on fitting a single new-physics scale to mesonic observables and on the assumption that baryonic form factors are known well enough for the transfer of constraints.

free parameters (1)
  • M_NP = 2.04–11.76 TeV
    Single scale characterizing heavy new mediators, fitted to mesonic b to s data and reported as the 1σ interval 2.04–11.76 TeV.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption New physics in b to s transitions can be parameterized by a single heavy-mediator scale M_NP
    Invoked to combine mesonic constraints and generate baryonic predictions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5823 in / 1345 out tokens · 84753 ms · 2026-05-18T12:02:25.855973+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Baryon-Meson Sum Rule for $b \to s \nu\bar\nu$

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    An exact sum rule connects branching fractions of Lambda_b -> Lambda nu nubar and B -> K(*) nu nubar decays with coefficients identical to those in the b->c tau semileptonic sum rule.

  2. Semileptonic sum rules in heavy-to-light charm decays

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A sum rule among LFU ratios R^{mu e} for c to d l nu decays holds within 1% under current NP bounds, yielding a prediction for the unmeasured R_n^{mu e} in Lambda_c to n l nu.

  3. $B$ anomalies and the tauphilic leptoquark model

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A tauphilic leptoquark model with S1 explaining R(D(*)), ~R2 fitting B to K nu nu via right-handed coefficients, and S3 satisfying Delta m_Bs via mixing predicts subdominant negative C_VL, dominant positive C_SL, C9^L...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers · 28 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Test of lepton universality with $B^{0} \rightarrow K^{*0}\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ decays

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], JHEP08(2017), 055 [arXiv:1705.05802 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    18 (2022) 277 [ 2103.11769]

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Nature Phys.18, no.3, 277-282 (2022) [arXiv:2103.11769 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    L. S. Geng, B. Grinstein, S. J¨ ager, S. Y. Li, J. Martin Camalich and R. X. Shi, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.3, 035029 (2021) [arXiv:2103.12738 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Aaij et al

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

    work page arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Aaij et al., Measurement of lepton universality parameters in B+ → K+ℓ+ℓ− and B0 → K ∗0ℓ+ℓ− decays, Phys

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

    work page arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    More Model-Independent Analysis of b->s Processes

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    Angular Distributions of B -> K ll Decays

    C. Bobeth, G. Hiller and G. Piranishvili, JHEP12(2007), 040 [arXiv:0709.4174 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  8. [9]

    On the Standard Model predictions for $R_K$ and $R_{K^*}$

    M. Bordone, G. Isidori and A. Pattori, Eur. Phys. J. C76, no.8, 440 (2016) [arXiv:1605.07633 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  9. [10]

    CMS Collaboration, Test of lepton flavor universality inB + →K +ℓ+ℓ− decays, CMS- PAS=BPH-22-005 (2023)

    work page 2023

  10. [11]

    Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

    S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D110, no.3, 030001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  11. [12]

    Czaja and M

    M. Czaja and M. Misiak, Symmetry16, no.7, 917 (2024) [arXiv:2407.03810 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  12. [13]

    Capdevila, A

    B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin and J. Matias, Eur. Phys. J. ST1, 20 (2023) [arXiv:2309.01311 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  13. [14]

    Differential branching fractions and isospin asymmetries of $B \to K^{(*)}\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ decays

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], JHEP06, 133 (2014) [arXiv:1403.8044 [hep-ex]]. 19

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  14. [15]

    Alguer´ o, A

    M. Alguer´ o, A. Biswas, B. Capdevila, S. Descotes-Genon, J. Matias and M. Novoa-Brunet, Eur. Phys. J. C83, no.7, 648 (2023) [arXiv:2304.07330 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  15. [16]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett.126, no.16, 161802 (2021) [arXiv:2012.13241 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  16. [17]

    Gubernari, M

    N. Gubernari, M. Reboud, D. van Dyk and J. Virto, JHEP09, 133 (2022)

    work page 2022

  17. [18]

    Adachiet al., Evidence for B+ → K+ν¯ν decays, Phys

    I. Adachiet al.[Belle-II], Phys. Rev. D109, no.11, 112006 (2024) [arXiv:2311.14647 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  18. [19]

    Beˇ cirevi´ c, G

    D. Beˇ cirevi´ c, G. Piazza and O. Sumensari, Eur. Phys. J. C83, no.3, 252 (2023) [arXiv:2301.06990 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  19. [20]

    Search for $\boldsymbol{B\to h\nu\bar{\nu}}$ decays with semileptonic tagging at Belle

    J. Grygieret al.[Belle], Phys. Rev. D96, no.9, 091101 (2017) [arXiv:1702.03224 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [21]

    Bause, H

    R. Bause, H. Gisbert and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D109, no.1, 015006 (2024) [arXiv:2309.00075 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  21. [22]

    Allwicher, D

    L. Allwicher, D. Becirevic, G. Piazza, S. Rosauro-Alcaraz and O. Sumensari, Phys. Lett. B 848, 138411 (2024) [arXiv:2309.02246 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [23]

    F. Z. Chen, Q. Wen and F. Xu, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1012 (2024) [arXiv:2401.11552 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  23. [24]

    Differential branching fraction and angular analysis of $\Lambda^{0}_{b} \rightarrow \Lambda \mu^+\mu^-$ decays

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], JHEP06, 115 (2015) [erratum: JHEP09, 145 (2018)] [arXiv:1503.07138 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  24. [25]

    Angular moments of the decay $\Lambda_b^0 \rightarrow \Lambda \mu^{+} \mu^{-}$ at low hadronic recoil

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], JHEP09, 146 (2018) [arXiv:1808.00264 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [26]

    Rare baryon decays Lambda_b -> Lambda l+ l- (l=e, mu, tau) and Lambda_b -> Lambda gamma : Differential and total rates, lepton- and hadron-side forward-backward asymmetries

    T. Gutsche, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Korner, V. E. Lyubovitskij and P. Santorelli, Phys. Rev. D 87, 074031 (2013) [arXiv:1301.3737 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  26. [27]

    Angular Analysis of the Decay $\Lambda_b \to \Lambda (\to N \pi) \ell^+\ell^-$

    P. B¨ oer, T. Feldmann and D. van Dyk, JHEP01, 155 (2015) [arXiv:1410.2115 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  27. [28]

    Das, Eur

    D. Das, Eur. Phys. J. C78, no.3, 230 (2018) [arXiv:1802.09404 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2018

  28. [29]

    D. Das, D. Shameer and R. Sain, Phys. Rev. D112, 1 (2025) [arXiv:2507.01863 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [30]

    Altmannshofer, P

    W. Altmannshofer, P. S. B. Dev, A. Soni and Y. Sui, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) no.1, 015031 [arXiv:2002.12910 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2020

  30. [31]

    Bardhan, D

    D. Bardhan, D. Ghosh and D. Sachdeva, Nucl. Phys. B986, 116059 (2023) [arXiv:2107.10163 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  31. [32]

    M. D. Zheng, Q. L. Wang, L. F. Lai and H. H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D111, no.9, 9 (2025) [arXiv:2410.04348 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  32. [33]

    $R_K$ and future $b \to s \ell \ell$ BSM opportunities

    G. Hiller and M. Schmaltz, Phys. Rev. D90(2014), 054014 [arXiv:1408.1627 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  33. [34]

    Physics of leptoquarks in precision experiments and at particle colliders

    I. Dorˇ sner, S. Fajfer, A. Greljo, J. F. Kamenik and N. Koˇ snik, Phys. Rept.641(2016), 1-68 [arXiv:1603.04993 [hep-ph]]. 20

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  34. [35]

    One Leptoquark to Rule Them All: A Minimal Explanation for $R_{D^{(*)}}$, $R_K$ and $(g-2)_\mu$

    M. Bauer and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. Lett.116(2016) no.14, 141802 [arXiv:1511.01900 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  35. [36]

    C. H. Chen, T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Lett. B774(2017), 456-464 [arXiv:1703.03251 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [37]

    Simultaneous Explanation of $R(D^{(*)})$ and $b\to s\mu^+\mu^-$: The Last Scalar Leptoquarks Standing

    A. Crivellin, D. M¨ uller and T. Ota, JHEP09(2017), 040 [arXiv:1703.09226 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [38]

    A model of vector leptoquarks in view of the $B$-physics anomalies

    L. Calibbi, A. Crivellin and T. Li, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) no.11, 115002 [arXiv:1709.00692 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [39]

    $B$ Meson Anomalies in a Pati-Salam Model within the Randall-Sundrum Background

    M. Blanke and A. Crivellin, Phys. Rev. Lett.121(2018) no.1, 011801 [arXiv:1801.07256 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [40]

    Nomura and H

    T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Rev. D104, no.3, 035042 (2021) [arXiv:2104.03248 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  40. [41]

    Angelescu, D

    A. Angelescu, D. Beˇ cirevi´ c, D. A. Faroughy, F. Jaffredo and O. Sumensari, Phys. Rev. D104, no.5, 055017 (2021) [arXiv:2103.12504 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  41. [42]

    M. Du, J. Liang, Z. Liu and V. Tran, [arXiv:2104.05685 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv

  42. [43]

    Cheung, W

    K. Cheung, W. Y. Keung and P. Y. Tseng, Phys. Rev. D106, no.1, 015029 (2022) [arXiv:2204.05942 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  43. [44]

    Explaining $h\to\mu^\pm\tau^\mp$, $B\to K^* \mu^+\mu^-$ and $B\to K \mu^+\mu^-/B\to K e^+e^-$ in a two-Higgs-doublet model with gauged $L_\mu-L_\tau$

    A. Crivellin, G. D’Ambrosio and J. Heeck, Phys. Rev. Lett.114(2015), 151801 [arXiv:1501.00993 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  44. [45]

    Addressing the LHC flavour anomalies with horizontal gauge symmetries

    A. Crivellin, G. D’Ambrosio and J. Heeck, Phys. Rev. D91(2015) no.7, 075006 [arXiv:1503.03477 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  45. [46]

    C. W. Chiang, X. G. He, J. Tandean and X. B. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D96(2017) no.11, 115022 [arXiv:1706.02696 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [47]

    S. F. King, JHEP08(2017), 019 [arXiv:1706.06100 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  47. [48]

    R. S. Chivukula, J. Isaacson, K. A. Mohan, D. Sengupta and E. H. Simmons, Phys. Rev. D 96(2017) no.7, 075012 [arXiv:1706.06575 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  48. [49]

    J. Y. Cen, Y. Cheng, X. G. He and J. Sun, Nucl. Phys. B978, 115762 (2022) [arXiv:2104.05006 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  49. [50]

    Davighi, JHEP08, 101 (2021) [arXiv:2105.06918 [hep-ph]]

    J. Davighi, JHEP08, 101 (2021) [arXiv:2105.06918 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  50. [51]

    Q. Y. Hu, X. Q. Li and Y. D. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) no.3, 190 [arXiv:1612.08867 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  51. [52]

    Crivellin, D

    A. Crivellin, D. M¨ uller and C. Wiegand, JHEP06(2019), 119 [arXiv:1903.10440 [hep-ph]]. 21

    work page arXiv 2019

  52. [53]

    Delle Rose, S

    L. Delle Rose, S. Khalil, S. J. D. King and S. Moretti, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.11, 115009 [arXiv:1903.11146 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2020

  53. [54]

    S. Y. Ho, J. Kim and P. Ko, Phys. Rev. D111, no.5, 055029 (2025) [arXiv:2401.10112 [hep- ph]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [55]

    J. P. Lee, Mod. Phys. Lett. A37, no.32, 2250214 (2022) [arXiv:2106.12795 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  55. [56]

    J. P. Lee, J. Korean Phys. Soc.80, no.1, 13-19 (2022)

    work page 2022

  56. [57]

    J. P. Lee, Mod. Phys. Lett. A38, no.16n17, 2350080 (2023)

    work page 2023

  57. [58]

    J. P. Lee, [arXiv:2411.19843 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv

  58. [59]

    J. P. Lee, [arXiv:2502.06370 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv

  59. [60]

    $SU(2)\times U(1)$ gauge invariance and the shape of new physics in rare $B$ decays

    R. Alonso, B. Grinstein and J. Martin Camalich, Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014), 241802 [arXiv:1407.7044 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  60. [61]

    L. S. Geng, B. Grinstein, S. J¨ ager, J. Martin Camalich, X. L. Ren and R. X. Shi, Phys. Rev. D96(2017) no.9, 093006 [arXiv:1704.05446 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2017

  61. [62]

    A. Ali, P. Ball, L. T. Handoko and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D61(2000), 074024 [arXiv:hep- ph/9910221 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2000

  62. [63]

    A. J. Buras, J. Girrbach-Noe, C. Niehoff and D. M. Straub, JHEP02, 184 (2015) [arXiv:1409.4557 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  63. [64]

    Aoki et al.,FLAG Review 2021, Eur

    Y. Aokiet al.[Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)], Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.10, 869 (2022) [arXiv:2111.09849 [hep-lat]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  64. [65]

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

    A. Bharucha, D. M. Straub and R. Zwicky, JHEP08, 098 (2016) [arXiv:1503.05534 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  65. [66]

    $B \to K^{\ast} l^+ l^-$, $K l^+ l^-$ decays in a family non-universal $Z^{\prime}$ model

    Q. Chang, X. Q. Li and Y. D. Yang, JHEP04, 052 (2010) [arXiv:1002.2758 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  66. [67]

    Mahmoudi and Y

    F. Mahmoudi and Y. Monceaux, Symmetry16, no.8, 1006 (2024) [arXiv:2408.03235 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  67. [68]

    Complementarity of the constraints on New Physics from B_s -> mu+ mu- and from B -> K l+l- decays

    D. Becirevic, N. Kosnik, F. Mescia and E. Schneider, Phys. Rev. D86, 034034 (2012) [arXiv:1205.5811 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  68. [69]

    D’Alise, G

    A. D’Alise, G. Fabiano, D. Frattulillo, D. Iacobacci, F. Sannino, P. Santorelli and N. Vignaroli, Nucl. Phys. B1006, 116631 (2024) [arXiv:2403.17614 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  69. [70]

    Wen and F

    Q. Wen and F. Xu, Phys. Rev. D108, no.9, 095038 (2023) [arXiv:2305.19038 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  70. [71]

    Sumensari, [arXiv:2406.00218 [hep-ph]]

    O. Sumensari, [arXiv:2406.00218 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv

  71. [72]

    Altmannshofer, S

    W. Altmannshofer, S. A. Gadam and K. Toner, Phys. Rev. D111, no.7, 075005 (2025) [arXiv:2501.10652 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  72. [73]

    Meinel and G

    S. Meinel and G. Rendon, Phys. Rev. D103, no.7, 074505 (2021) [arXiv:2009.09313 [hep-lat]]. 22

    work page arXiv 2021

  73. [74]

    J. Brod, M. Gorbahn and E. Stamou, PoSBEAUTY2020, 056 (2021) [arXiv:2105.02868 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  74. [75]

    [ATLAS Collaboration], Snowmass White Paper Contribution: Physics with the Phase-2 AT- LAS and CMS Detectors,’ ATL-PHYS-PUB-2022-018

    work page 2022

  75. [76]

    [CMS Collaboration], Snowmass White Paper Contribution: Physics with the Phase-2 ATLAS and CMS Detectors,’ CMS-PAS-FTR-22-001

    work page

  76. [77]

    Bernardi et al.,The Future Circular Collider: a Summary for the US 2021 Snowmass Process,2203.06520

    G. Bernardi, E. Brost, D. Denisov, G. Landsberg, M. Aleksa, D. d’Enterria, P. Janot, M. L. Mangano, M. Selvaggi and F. Zimmermann,et al.[arXiv:2203.06520 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv

  77. [78]

    Novotny, [arXiv:2207.04844 [hep-ex]]

    R. Novotny, [arXiv:2207.04844 [hep-ex]]. 23

    work page arXiv