pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2512.19794 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-22 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

Probing invisible particles with charm

Gudrun Hiller , Dominik Suelmann
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 20:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-ex
keywords charm decaysinvisible particlesaxion-like particlesdark photonsSMEFTrare decaysnew physicsmissing energy
0
0 comments X

The pith

Rare charm decays can probe invisible particles with branching ratios up to 10^{-3}.

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

The paper establishes that rare decays of D mesons and Lambda_c baryons into a visible hadron plus an invisible state serve as clean null tests of the Standard Model. These branching ratios remain largely unconstrained for light new physics, bounded only by lifetime limits around 0.1, yet specific models with dark photons or axion-like particles still permit values as large as 0.001 or 0.0001. Recasting existing missing-energy searches in modes such as D to pi X, D0 to X, and Lambda_c to p X reveals these windows without immediate need for new dedicated experiments. Future runs at high-luminosity facilities can tighten the reach, with different modes offering complementary sensitivities to couplings. This approach extends the search for light dark sectors using data already being collected.

Core claim

By recasting existing searches for missing energy in D to (pi, omega) X, D0 to X, and Lambda_c to p X decays where X stands for invisible states including dineutrinos, left- and right-handed neutrinos, ALPs, or Z', the branching ratios are clean null tests of the Standard Model. For light new physics they stay essentially unconstrained except by weak lifetime limits at O(10^{-1}), while probed models still allow up to 10^{-3} for Z' and 10^{-4} for ALPs. Chirality-preserving SMEFT operators imply tighter upper limits of a few times 10^{-5}, whereas chirality-flipping heavy new physics or light sterile neutrinos permit up to a few times 10^{-4}.

What carries the argument

Recasting of missing-energy searches in D to (pi, omega) X, D0 to X, and Lambda_c to p X decays for invisible final states including neutrinos, ALPs, and dark photons.

If this is right

  • Branching ratios up to 10^{-3} remain allowed for dark photon models under current constraints.
  • Branching ratios up to 10^{-4} remain allowed for ALP models under current constraints.
  • Chirality-preserving dimension-6 SMEFT operators tighten limits to a few times 10^{-5}.
  • Lambda_c to p X and D to pi pi X modes provide distinct sensitivities to couplings compared with other channels.
  • Running and future experiments with high charm luminosities can study these processes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • These modes could provide independent constraints on parameters already bounded by B-meson or kaon searches for the same invisible particles.
  • Light sterile neutrinos may be more accessible through the weaker chirality-flipping limits identified here.
  • Data from a super-tau-charm factory could close much of the gap between current limits and the lifetime bound for several models.

Load-bearing premise

Existing experimental searches for missing energy in D and Lambda_c decays can be directly recast for the new invisible final states without major changes to backgrounds, efficiencies, or kinematic assumptions.

What would settle it

An observation of a branching ratio above 10^{-3} in D to pi plus missing energy at BESIII or Belle II would exceed the lifetime constraint or require new physics outside the models considered.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.19794 by Dominik Suelmann, Gudrun Hiller.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: as a function of the ALP mass ma. For differ￾ential branching ratios D → πa differs from D → πνν as its decay topology is that of a two-body decay. The differential branching fraction would be proportional to a Dirac delta function δ(q 2 − m2 a ) and would be distin￾guishable from the contributions shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Branching ratio of Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Shapes of d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Shapes of d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Ratio of the branching fractions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Excluded regions (blue) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Upper limits on the coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Upper limit on the branching fraction of Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Mesonic form factors 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We point out opportunities to probe invisible particles, left- and right-handed neutrinos, axion-like particles (ALPs) and dark photons $(Z^\prime)$ with rare decays of charm hadrons. We employ and recast existing searches in $D \to (\pi, \omega) X$, $D^ 0 \to X$ and $\Lambda_c \to p X$, where $X$ denotes one of the above invisible final states including dineutrinos. The branching ratios are clean null tests of the standard model, yet, are essentially unconstrained for some parameters of light new physics, limited only by weak lifetime constraints at the level of $\mathcal{O}(10^{-1})$. On the other hand, if models are probed, branching ratios still reach up to $10^{-3}$ ($Z^\prime$) and $10^{-4}$ (ALPs). Chirality-preserving operators from heavy new physics in the dimension six standard model effective theory (SMEFT) imply tighter upper limits, up to few $\times 10^{-5}$. Constraints on chirality-flipping heavy new physics, such as lepton number violation from dimension seven SMEFT, or with light sterile neutrinos, are weaker, with branching ratios up to few$\times 10^{-4}$. Sensitivities to different couplings arise with $\Lambda_c \to p X $ and $D \to \pi \pi X$ decays, in particular in relation with the other modes. Processes can be studied at running and future experiments with high charm luminosities, BESIII, Belle II, a super-tau-charm factory (STCF) and $Z$-factories, such as the FCC-ee and the CEPC.

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 proposes using rare charm hadron decays such as D → (π, ω) X, D⁰ → X, and Λ_c → p X to probe invisible final states including neutrinos, axion-like particles (ALPs), and dark photons (Z'). It recasts existing missing-energy searches to argue that branching ratios remain largely unconstrained for light new physics (limited only by weak lifetime bounds at O(10^{-1})), while specific models still permit BRs up to 10^{-3} (Z') and 10^{-4} (ALPs). Dimension-6 SMEFT operators yield tighter limits (few × 10^{-5}) for chirality-preserving cases, with weaker bounds from dimension-7 operators or sterile neutrinos; complementary sensitivities arise from Λ_c and multi-pion modes, with prospects at BESIII, Belle II, STCF, and Z-factories.

Significance. If the recasting assumptions hold, the work usefully highlights an underexplored charm sector for light new physics, providing concrete BR benchmarks and noting how different modes probe distinct couplings. This complements B-physics searches and supplies falsifiable targets for high-luminosity experiments. The identification of null tests and operator-type distinctions adds value, though overall impact depends on validating the efficiency claims for non-neutrino states.

major comments (2)
  1. [Recasting of experimental searches] Recasting section: the translation of existing experimental limits on BR(D → π X) etc. directly to ALPs and Z' assumes identical signal efficiencies, backgrounds, and kinematic acceptance for massless neutrinos versus massive or long-lived particles. For m_X ≳ 100 MeV or cτ ~ cm, angular distributions and decay lengths differ, so efficiencies can drop by factors of a few; this undermines the quantitative statements that BRs reach 10^{-3}–10^{-4} and that rates are 'essentially unconstrained'. A dedicated efficiency study or Monte Carlo comparison is required.
  2. [SMEFT analysis] SMEFT discussion: the claimed upper limits of few × 10^{-5} for chirality-preserving dimension-6 operators versus few × 10^{-4} for chirality-flipping or dimension-7 cases rest on matching to specific Wilson coefficients, but the abstract and main text do not show the explicit operator basis, matching formulas, or numerical inputs used to obtain these numbers. Without this, the distinction between operator classes cannot be verified.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] Notation for the invisible state X is used inconsistently across modes (single particle vs. dineutrino pair); add a clarifying sentence in the introduction.
  2. Standardize spacing in numerical expressions such as 'few × 10^{-5}' versus 'few×10^{-4}' throughout the text and abstract.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below, indicating where revisions will be made to improve clarity and rigor.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Recasting section: the translation of existing experimental limits on BR(D → π X) etc. directly to ALPs and Z' assumes identical signal efficiencies, backgrounds, and kinematic acceptance for massless neutrinos versus massive or long-lived particles. For m_X ≳ 100 MeV or cτ ~ cm, angular distributions and decay lengths differ, so efficiencies can drop by factors of a few; this undermines the quantitative statements that BRs reach 10^{-3}–10^{-4} and that rates are 'essentially unconstrained'. A dedicated efficiency study or Monte Carlo comparison is required.

    Authors: We agree that the recasting relies on the assumption of comparable efficiencies for different invisible final states. For very light prompt particles the kinematics closely resemble neutrinos, but for m_X above ~100 MeV or long-lived cases the acceptance and efficiency can indeed vary. We will revise the text to qualify the quoted branching-ratio ranges as approximate and primarily applicable to the massless or light-prompt regime, while explicitly noting that dedicated Monte Carlo studies would be needed for precise limits in other mass or lifetime windows. This tempers the quantitative claims without altering the central conclusion that these modes remain largely unconstrained by existing data. revision: partial

  2. Referee: SMEFT discussion: the claimed upper limits of few × 10^{-5} for chirality-preserving dimension-6 operators versus few × 10^{-4} for chirality-flipping or dimension-7 cases rest on matching to specific Wilson coefficients, but the abstract and main text do not show the explicit operator basis, matching formulas, or numerical inputs used to obtain these numbers. Without this, the distinction between operator classes cannot be verified.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the explicit operator basis, matching relations, and numerical inputs were not presented in sufficient detail. We will add a dedicated appendix (or expanded section) listing the relevant dimension-6 SMEFT operators (e.g., O_{lq}^{(1,3)} and O_{lequ}^{(1,3)} for chirality-preserving cases), the dimension-7 lepton-number-violating operators, the tree-level matching to the effective charm-decay couplings, and the benchmark Wilson-coefficient values used to obtain the quoted branching-ratio limits. This will make the distinction between operator classes fully verifiable. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper recasts published experimental upper limits on missing-energy modes in D and Lambda_c decays and applies standard SMEFT matching for dimension-6/7 operators. These steps rely on external data and textbook effective-field-theory relations rather than any parameter fitted to the target branching ratios or any self-citation chain that defines the result. No equation reduces to its own input by construction, and the lifetime bounds cited as O(10^{-1}) are independent weak-decay constraints. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard model effective field theory matching for dimension-six and dimension-seven operators plus the assumption that existing missing-energy searches can be repurposed without new background modeling.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard model effective field theory provides a valid description of heavy new physics effects in charm decays
    Invoked when translating dimension-six and dimension-seven operators into branching-ratio predictions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5603 in / 1186 out tokens · 15947 ms · 2026-05-16T20:13:36.554815+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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · 15 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    For Ξ + c →Σ + tran- sitions we use the same form factors and the same ex- pressions with obvious kinematic replacements

    in the limit of massless leptons. For Ξ + c →Σ + tran- sitions we use the same form factors and the same ex- pressions with obvious kinematic replacements. This can be done because their respective form factors are equal in the iso-spin limit via flavor symmetries [10]. In Fig. 3 we show the differential branching fraction, where for each curve a singlex ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    n.a.” indicates that presently no usable data is available, but the decay mode is in principle sensitive to the coupling, as opposed to “-

    we find for the unaccounted branching ratios B(D0 →unacc.) <∼ 0.050,B(D + →unacc.) <∼ 0.082, B(D+ s →unacc.) <∼ 0.39, B(Λc →unacc.) <∼ 0.25,B(Ξ + c →unacc.) <∼ 0.77. (69) which are weak, however, provide constraints beyond the searches Eqs. (66)-(68). As any measurement is expected to give better bounds, we will not use (69) in the tables with constraints...

    work page

  3. [3]

    [26] for this decay only

    and user V =V(0)/A 1(0) = 1.548±0.079±0.041 and r2 =A 2(0)/A1(0) = 0.823±0.056±0.026 [61] instead of the values in Ref. [26] for this decay only

    work page

  4. [4]

    Rare Charm Decays in the Standard Model and Beyond

    G. Burdman, E. Golowich, J. L. Hewett and S. Pakvasa, Phys. Rev. D66(2002), 014009 , arXiv:hep-ph/0112235 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  5. [5]

    Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

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

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no.1, 1, arXiv:2409.02578 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. D105(2022) no.7, L071102, arXiv:2112.14236 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. D106(2022) no.7, 072008, arXiv:2208.04496 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    Y. T. Laiet al.[Belle], Phys. Rev. D95(2017) no.1, 011102, arXiv:1611.09455 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    Achasov et al.,STCF conceptual design report (Volume 1): Physics & detector,Front

    M. Achasov, X. C. Ai, R. Aliberti, L. P. An, Q. An, X. Z. Bai, Y. Bai, O. Bakina, A. Barnyakov and V. Bli- nov,et al.Front. Phys. (Beijing)19(2024) no.1, 14701, arXiv:2303.15790 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    X. Ai, W. Altmannshofer, P. Athron, X. Bai, L. Calibbi, L. Cao, Y. Che, C. Chen, J. Y. Chen and L. Chen,et al. Chin. Phys.49(2025) no.10, 103003, arXiv:2412.19743 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Future Circular Collider Feasibility Study Report: Volume 1, Physics, Experiments, Detectors

    M. Benediktet al.[FCC], arXiv:2505.00272 [hep-ex]. 22

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  13. [13]

    Bause, H

    R. Bause, H. Gisbert, M. Golz and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D103(2021) no.1, 015033, arXiv:2010.02225 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Beltr´ an, G

    R. Beltr´ an, G. Cottin, M. Hirsch, A. Titov and Z. S. Wang, JHEP05, 031 (2023), arXiv:2302.03216 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Li and J

    G. Li and J. Tandean, JHEP11, 205 (2023), arXiv:2306.05333 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    C. Q. Geng and G. Li, Phys. Lett. B839(2023), 137811, arXiv:2212.04699 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Carmona, C

    A. Carmona, C. Scherb and P. Schwaller, JHEP08 (2021), 121, arXiv:2101.07803 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    J. F. Eguren, S. Klingel, E. Stamou, M. Tabet and R. Ziegler, JHEP08(2024), 111, arXiv:2405.00108 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Faisel, J

    G. Faisel, J. Y. Su and J. Tandean, JHEP04(2021), 246, arXiv:2012.15847 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    FCNC decays of SM fermions into a dark photon

    E. Gabrielli, B. Mele, M. Raidal and E. Venturini, Phys. Rev. D94(2016) no.11, 115013, arXiv:1607.05928 [hep- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  21. [21]

    Martin Camalich and R

    J. Martin Camalich and R. Ziegler, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.75(2025) no.1, 223-246, arXiv:2503.17323 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    J. Y. Su and J. Tandean, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) no.11, 115029, arXiv:2005.05297 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  23. [23]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, S. Renner, M. Schnubel and A. Thamm, JHEP09(2022), 056, arXiv:2110.10698 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek, JHEP10(2010), 085, arXiv:1008.4884 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  25. [25]

    Extending the Standard Model Effective Field Theory with the Complete Set of Dimension-7 Operators

    L. Lehman, Phys. Rev. D90(2014) no.12, 125023, arXiv:1410.4193 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  26. [26]

    Hamoudou, J

    S. Hamoudou, J. Kumar and D. London, JHEP03 (2023), 157, arXiv:2207.08856 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    T. Li, X. D. Ma and M. A. Schmidt, JHEP07(2020), 152, arXiv:2005.01543 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Felkl, S

    T. Felkl, S. L. Li and M. A. Schmidt, JHEP12(2021), 118, arXiv:2111.04327 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Di Canto, T

    A. Di Canto, T. Hacheney, G. Hiller, D. S. Mitzel, S. Monteil, L. R¨ ohrig and D. Suelmann, arXiv:2509.10447 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  30. [30]

    Y. Liao, X. D. Ma and Q. Y. Wang, JHEP08(2020), 162, arXiv:2005.08013 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B149(1984), 351-356

    work page 1984

  32. [32]

    R-axion at colliders

    B. Bellazzini, A. Mariotti, D. Redigolo, F. Sala and J. Serra, Phys. Rev. Lett.119(2017) no.14, 141804, arXiv:1702.02152 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [33]

    Fermionic UV completions of Composite Higgs models

    G. Ferretti and D. Karateev, JHEP03(2014), 077, arXiv:1312.5330 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  34. [34]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, M. Galanis, L. Lehner, J. O. Thompson and K. Van Tilburg, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) no.8, 083014, arXiv:1909.11665 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, S. Renner, M. Schnubel and A. Thamm, JHEP04(2021), 063, arXiv:2012.12272 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Fabbrichesi, E

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli and G. Lanfranchi, ISBN 978-3-030-62519-1, arXiv:2005.01515 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2005

  37. [37]

    The Low-Energy Frontier of Particle Physics

    J. Jaeckel and A. Ringwald, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60(2010), 405-437, arXiv:1002.0329 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  38. [38]

    Aokiet al.(Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)), Eur

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

    work page arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Bazavovet al.[Fermilab Lattice and MILC], Phys

    A. Bazavovet al.[Fermilab Lattice and MILC], Phys. Rev. D107(2023) no.9, 094516, arXiv:2212.12648 [hep- lat]

    work page arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    Lubiczet al.[ETM], Phys

    V. Lubiczet al.[ETM], Phys. Rev. D96(2017) no.5, 054514 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D99(2019) no.9, 099902; erratum: Phys. Rev. D100(2019) no.7, 079901], arXiv:1706.03017 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv 2017

  41. [41]

    Tensor form factor of $D \to \pi(K) \ell \nu$ and $D \to \pi(K) \ell \ell$ decays with $N_f=2+1+1$ twisted-mass fermions

    V. Lubiczet al.[ETM], Phys. Rev. D98(2018) no.1, 014516, arXiv:1803.04807 [hep-lat]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  42. [42]

    G¨ artner, N

    L. G¨ artner, N. Hartmann, L. Heinrich, M. Horstmann, T. Kuhr, M. Reboud, S. Stefkova and D. van Dyk, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) no.7, 693, arXiv:2402.08417 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Gratrex, M

    J. Gratrex, M. Hopfer and R. Zwicky, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) no.5, 054008, arXiv:1506.03970 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

    Das Model independent New Physics analysis in Λb → Λµ+µ− decay, Eur

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

    work page arXiv 2018

  45. [45]

    Form Factors for Lambda_b -> Lambda Transitions in SCET

    T. Feldmann and M. W. Y. Yip, Phys. Rev. D85(2012), 014035 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D86(2012), 079901], arXiv:1111.1844 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  46. [46]

    Meinel, Phys

    S. Meinel, Phys. Rev. D97(2018) no.3, 034511, arXiv:1712.05783 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv 2018

  47. [47]

    M. Golz, G. Hiller and T. Magorsch, JHEP09(2021), 208, arXiv:2107.13010 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    Crivellin, C

    A. Crivellin, C. A. Manzari, W. Altmannshofer, G. In- guglia, P. Feichtinger and J. Martin Camalich, Phys. Rev. D106(2022) no.3, L031703, arXiv:2202.12900 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    B. I. Eisensteinet al.[CLEO], Phys. Rev. D78(2008), 052003, arXiv:0806.2112 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  50. [50]

    Martin Camalich, M

    J. Martin Camalich, M. Pospelov, P. N. H. Vuong, R. Ziegler and J. Zupan, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) no.1, 015023, arXiv:2002.04623 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  51. [51]

    Hiller and D

    G. Hiller and D. Wendler, JHEP09(2024), 009, arXiv:2403.17063 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Hiller, L

    G. Hiller, L. Nollen and D. Wendler, Eur. Phys. J. C85 (2025) no.6, 657, arXiv:2502.12250 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Bause, M

    R. Bause, M. Golz, G. Hiller and A. Tayduganov, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) no.1, 65 [erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 81(2021) no.3, 219], arXiv:1909.11108 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  54. [54]

    Bause, H

    R. Bause, H. Gisbert, G. Hiller, T. H¨ ohne, D. F. Litim and T. Steudtner, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) no.3, 035005, arXiv:2210.16330 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Kouet al.[Belle-II], PTEP2019(2019) no.12, 123C01 [erratum: PTEP2020(2020) no.2, 029201], arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]

    E. Kouet al.[Belle-II], PTEP2019(2019) no.12, 123C01 [erratum: PTEP2020(2020) no.2, 029201], arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2019

  56. [56]

    Ablikimet al., Chin

    M. Ablikimet al., Chin. Phys. C44(2020) no.4, 040001, arXiv:1912.05983 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  57. [57]

    Abadaet al.[FCC Collaboration], Eur

    A. Abadaet al.[FCC Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) no.6, 474

    work page 2019

  58. [58]

    W. Lin, X. E. Huang, S. Cheng and D. L. Yao, Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no.11, 113005, arXiv:2505.01329 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Weak form factors for heavy meson decays: an update

    D. Melikhov and B. Stech, Phys. Rev. D62(2000), 014006, arXiv:hep-ph/0001113 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  60. [60]

    Khodjamirian, CRC Press, 2020, ISBN 978-1-138- 30675-2, 978-1-315-14200-5

    A. Khodjamirian, CRC Press, 2020, ISBN 978-1-138- 30675-2, 978-1-315-14200-5

    work page 2020

  61. [61]

    Semileptonic Form-factors from B-> K* gamma Decays in the Large Energy Limit

    G. Burdman and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D63(2001), 113008, arXiv:hep-ph/0011266 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  62. [62]

    Disentangling the Decay Observables in $B^- \to \pi^+\pi^-\ell^-\bar\nu_\ell$

    S. Faller, T. Feldmann, A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel and D. van Dyk, Phys. Rev. D89(2014) no.1, 014015, arXiv:1310.6660 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  63. [63]

    Descotes-Genon, A

    S. Descotes-Genon, A. Khodjamirian and J. Virto, JHEP 12(2019), 083, arXiv:1908.02267 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  64. [64]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.11, 112018, arXiv:2409.04276 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024