Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

HyperIso is a new standalone program that computes flavour observables for SM, THDM, SUSY and user-defined BSM models through a single shared backend.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 15:37 UTC pith:HIKW6NPY

load-bearing objection Solid, honest re-implementation of SuperIso with a genuinely useful statistics engine; the MARTY 'general BSM' route is not yet accurate enough for scalar operators. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18222 v1 pith:HIKW6NPY submitted 2026-07-20 hep-ph

HyperIso: A general BSM calculator for flavour observables

T. Reymermier , N. Fardeau , F. Mahmoudi This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords flavour physicsWilson coefficientsbeyond Standard Modeleffective field theoryB meson decaysmuon g-2uncertainty propagationstatistical fits
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

HyperIso is a new standalone program for computing flavour-physics observables. It inherits the physics of an earlier code but is rebuilt as a modular C++ package with common input, calculation, and statistical layers. The paper's central claim is that this one program covers the Standard Model, the two-Higgs-doublet model, supersymmetry, and, through an automated symbolic-calculus route, user-defined BSM models, returning Wilson coefficients, observables, uncertainties and fits from a single backend. This matters because it removes the usual need to re-engineer observable and statistics code for every new model. The paper validates the native calculations against the legacy code at the sub-per-mille level and documents the remaining discrepancies of the automated route in scalar-operator sectors.

Core claim

The central discovery is that a single program can take a user-supplied LHA-style spectrum for a BSM model and produce the corresponding flavour observables, complete with QCD running, uncertainty propagation, and maximum-likelihood fits, because the Wilson-coefficient layer is decoupled from the observable layer. For established models the coefficients are computed analytically at orders up to NNLO; for new models, an automated symbolic engine computes the leading-order BSM contribution directly in the program's operator basis, and the SM contribution is added without relying on a subtraction of two large numbers. Validation shows agreement with the parent code for native SM, THDM and SUSY

What carries the argument

The pivotal mechanism is the separation of a Wilson-coefficient pipeline from decay-specific calculators, all sharing one runtime parameter cache. A user-defined model enters as a spectrum file; the program either uses native analytical Wilson coefficients (SM, THDM, SUSY) or sends the model to an automated symbolic-calculus engine that generates leading-order amplitudes and projects them onto the effective-operator basis. The BSM contribution is isolated diagrammatically—any diagram containing at least one non-SM particle—and added to the SM contribution, avoiding the cancellation errors of a subtraction method. Around this core, a copula-based statistical engine lets non-Gaussian uncertain

Load-bearing premise

The program's promise of a general BSM calculator rests on the automatically generated leading-order Wilson coefficients being accurate enough for phenomenology; the paper itself states in §8.2 that the direct basis projection is not yet a dedicated EFT matching calculation and reports relative differences of roughly 23–26% for the muon scalar coefficients in the THDM benchmark.

What would settle it

Run a dedicated one-loop EFT matching calculation for the same type-II THDM benchmark and compare its muon scalar Wilson coefficients C_Q1 and C_Q2 to the automated route: if the ~0.23–0.26 relative differences survive the comparison, the general-BSM claim for those sectors is unsupported; if they shrink to the per-mille level, the projection is validated.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For a user-defined BSM model, a single spectrum file is enough to obtain Wilson coefficients, observables, uncertainty bands and best-fit contours through identical C++, Python, CLI and GUI entry points.
  • Existing flavour analyses that used the legacy code can be ported to the new program with per-mille-level changes in the native SM/THDM/SUSY results.
  • Because correlations are modelled with copulas, fits no longer need to force experimental uncertainties to be Gaussian; asymmetric or flat nuisance distributions can be used without losing the correlation structure.
  • The heavy multi-bin angular decays dominate runtime; the paper's parallel cache-filling and Monte-Carlo outer-loop scheduling bring typical calls from seconds to well under a second on consumer hardware.
  • The frozen reproducibility suite makes release-to-release comparisons of Wilson coefficients, observables and seeded Monte-Carlo results possible.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The documented ~23–26% relative differences in the muon scalar coefficients of the THDM benchmark suggest that, before the promised dedicated matching layer arrives, the generic-model route should be cross-checked against a dedicated EFT calculation whenever scalar operators matter for the observable.
  • If the direct-projection limitation is fixed, the architecture could become a de facto standard for fast BSM flavour scans, since the observable and statistics layers are already model independent.
  • A natural stress test is to feed a model with an analytically known one-loop matching, such as a simple leptoquark, and compare the automated scalar Wilson coefficients; this would quantify the projection error in sectors beyond the B-sector coefficients displayed in the paper.
  • The copula-based likelihood construction could be reused as a stand-alone fitting recipe for any collider observable with non-Gaussian systematics, not just flavour decays.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents HyperIso, a new C++/Python/CLI/GUI software package for computing flavour observables in the SM, THDM, SUSY, and, via the MARTY framework, user-defined BSM models. The native implementations are validated against SuperIso for Wilson coefficients at the matching scale and for angular observables, showing sub-per-mille agreement in most B-sector coefficients and good agreement for F_L and P_5'. The statistical engine introduces copula-based non-Gaussian uncertainty propagation and profiling/marginalisation methods. The MARTY interface is described as generating LO Wilson coefficients by direct projection onto the HyperIso operator basis; the validation in §8.2 shows this route agrees well for C7, C8, C9 but deviates by 22–26% for the muon scalar coefficients C_Q1/C_Q2 in the type-II THDM BSM contribution, in addition to spurious imaginary parts. The paper includes a reproducible CLI test suite and frozen reference outputs.

Significance. If the caveats are properly addressed, HyperIso would fill a practical niche: a single, modular, well-documented code that reproduces SuperIso's physics while adding a user-facing statistical engine and a path to automated BSM matching. The native SuperIso validation is strong and the reproducibility suite (frozen references, SHA-256 metadata, fixed-seed Monte Carlo) is a genuine strength that should be highlighted. However, the advertised 'general BSM calculator' capability for user-defined models rests on the MARTY route, and the paper's own validation demonstrates that this route is not reliable in the scalar-operator sector—precisely the sector relevant for B_s→μ^+μ^- and B→D^{(*)}τν. The paper is honest about the limitation in §8.2, but the abstract and conclusion make unqualified claims that overstate the current version's capabilities. With appropriate revisions that either correct the MARTY matching or clearly scope the claims, the paper could be acceptable; as it stands, the central claim needs qualification.

major comments (3)
  1. [§8.2, Tables 6, 33, 34] The MARTY route fails precisely where it matters most. For the type-II THDM BSM contribution, C^μ_Q1 and C^μ_Q2 differ from the native calculation by 22.6% and 26.1% respectively, and acquire imaginary parts (e.g., −0.000322i and +0.000315i). These scalar operators are not peripheral: they enter B_s→μ^+μ^- and B→D^{(*)}τν, two flagship observables listed in Table 4. A user applying the advertised MARTY workflow to a new model will therefore obtain scalar Wilson coefficients with ~25% error, which will strongly bias the predicted branching ratios. Since §8.2 itself states that the projection 'is not yet equivalent to a dedicated EFT matching calculation', the abstract's unqualified claim of a 'general BSM calculator' for user-defined models is not supported. The paper should either implement a proper matching/projection for the scalar and primed sectors or restrict the claim to the valida
  2. [Tables 33–34 and Appendix D] The complete validation tables omit the electron and tau scalar entries and the full C'_Q family, with the explanation that they are omitted 'for compactness'. However, because the discrepancy is concentrated in scalar/primed structures, omitting these entries hides the full extent of the problem. The claim in the text that the complete set is 'reported in D' is inaccurate. At minimum, the paper should state explicitly whether the observed 22–26% discrepancies extend to the omitted lepton flavours and primed scalar coefficients, and provide the machine-readable files so readers can check. Without this, the validation is incomplete in exactly the sectors where the MARTY route is least reliable.
  3. [Abstract and §11 Conclusion] The abstract says HyperIso 'interfaces with the MARTY framework to compute automatically BSM Wilson coefficients at leading order' and the conclusion says the MARTY route provides a 'complementary validation' of the generic-model interface. These statements do not reflect the numerical reality in Table 34: the MARTY route at LO is not a validated replacement for the native matching in the scalar sector. The 'general BSM calculator' phrasing in the title and abstract should be qualified, e.g., 'for vector/axial-vector operators; scalar/primed matching under development'. This is not a mere wording issue: it affects how a user will trust the output for a new model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§8.1] The native validation is performed exclusively against SuperIso, which is the same group's earlier code. While this is appropriate for a reimplementation, an independent cross-check against flavio or EOS for at least a few observables would substantially strengthen the claim of correctness. If such a comparison is not feasible, a sentence explicitly acknowledging the lack of third-party validation would be helpful.
  2. [Eq. (13)] The relative-difference definition uses |C^HI_i| in the denominator; for coefficients that vanish in the native calculation (e.g., C1, C2 in THDM), the comparison is undefined. The paper uses a dash for such entries, which is fine, but it would be clearer to also state this in the text.
  3. [Table 5] Minor formatting issues: some entries contain an extra digit (e.g., '0.158 396 345 3' vs '0.158 396 345 1') and the column header alignment is inconsistent. These are cosmetic but should be cleaned up.
  4. [§7.3] The text says 'the Wilson coefficients are first calculated at a scale μ_W~M_W' but later the code example uses qmatch=81 GeV. The numerical value used in the validation tables should be stated explicitly (e.g., μ_W = 81 GeV or M_W = 80.36 GeV) to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [References] The paper relies heavily on the SuperIso documentation for theoretical formulas. While this is acceptable for a software paper, it would help the reader to have at least one equation for the effective Hamiltonian used for the scalar operators, rather than referencing [17] only. This is a readability issue, not a correctness issue.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: HyperIso's observable predictions are computed from external inputs and are not defined in terms of their own targets; the main weakness is that the validation anchors are the authors' own codes and fits (SuperIso legacy, reproduced fit [27]), which is self-referential but externally anchored and honestly disclosed.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [§7 (Theoretical framework, Wilson-coefficient paragraph) and §8.1 (Validation of SuperIso legacy, Table 5)]
    "The SM, 2-HDM and MSSM contributions are natively implemented up to NNLO as legacy from SuperIso ... The relative differences remain below the per-mille level in the displayed benchmark, confirming that the native HyperIso implementation reproduces the corresponding SuperIso short-distance calculation."

    The native physics content of HyperIso is literally inherited from the authors' own prior code (SuperIso, refs [1–4], all authored by co-author F. Mahmoudi): the SM/THDM/SUSY Wilson coefficients are described as "natively implemented ... as legacy from SuperIso." The primary physics validation then consists of showing that the port reproduces its own source (Table 5 relative differences ~0), so the correctness standard is the same code the calculation was copied from; agreement is expected by construction for a faithful port. This is a legitimate code-fidelity and reimplementation check, and SuperIso itself is long-established and externally falsifiable, so the citation chain terminates in outside evidence. It therefore does not invalidate the physics content, but as an independent test of

full rationale

I walked the paper's claimed derivation chain and found no step in which a prediction is defined in terms of its own target or a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The central examples are all computed from external inputs: Wilson coefficients from model parameters supplied via LHA/SLHA (with external spectrum tools 2HDMC, SOFTSUSY), observables from PDG inputs and published form factors, and the reproduced C9/C10 fit from CMS [26] and LHCb [28] data. The three validation legs are: (a) native HyperIso vs SuperIso, which are the same group's codes and, per the paper's own wording, share the same physics legacy ("as legacy from SuperIso") — a port-fidelity test, genuinely circular as independent physics evidence but anchored by SuperIso's long external record; (b) native vs MARTY, an internal comparison in which the paper explicitly concedes the projection is "not yet equivalent to a dedicated EFT matching calculation" and reports 22.6–26.1% relative differences in the muon scalar coefficients CQ1/CQ2 (Table 34) with spurious imaginary parts — this is an honestly disclosed correctness/overclaim risk for the "general BSM calculator" claim, not a circular reduction; and (c) reproduction of the fit of [27], authored with an overlapping author (F. Mahmoudi), against external CMS/LHCb data, with the results said to be "coherent with" rather than forced to equal that fit. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in by citation: Sklar's theorem and MINUIT2 are external, and the MARTY projection procedure is described in the text with its limitations stated. The absence of a third-party flavour code (flavio, EOS) as an independent anchor weakens the validation but does not make the derivation circular. Score 2 reflects the minor, disclosed in-group self-citation in the validation chain; the central claim (a working modular flavour calculator) has independent content and is not derived by assuming itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters or invented entities; all numerical inputs are standard constants or external hadronic inputs from the literature. The central assumptions are the validity of the inherited SuperIso/MARTY physics, the external form factors, and the statistical modeling choices (Gaussian copula, Wilks approximation).

axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Weak effective Hamiltonian description with Wilson coefficients (Eq. 1) is the correct framework for the flavour observables.
    Standard flavour physics framework; the paper implements it without re-deriving it.
  • domain assumption The SuperIso implementation, used as validation reference, is correct.
    Validation in §8.1 assumes SuperIso provides the true values; SuperIso is the authors' own predecessor code.
  • domain assumption MARTY-generated LO amplitudes projected onto the operator basis represent the BSM contribution.
    The paper itself states in §8.2 that this is not yet equivalent to a dedicated EFT matching calculation.
  • domain assumption External form-factor and hadronic inputs from cited references (BSZ, GRvDV, FLAG, etc.) are valid.
    Observable calculations rely on these inputs (Appendix A); no independent verification is performed in the paper.
  • standard math Sklar's theorem justifies the copula decomposition.
    Theorem in §7.2 is standard probability theory.
  • domain assumption The Gaussian copula built from experimental correlation matrices adequately models non-Gaussian uncertainties.
    Statistical engine uses this model (Eq. 5) to combine non-Gaussian marginals with Gaussian correlations.
  • domain assumption Wilks approximation for confidence contours holds.
    Used for contour construction in §7.2.3, Eq. (12).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 30947 in / 13653 out tokens · 104947 ms · 2026-08-01T15:37:27.716072+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present HyperIso, a new standalone program for the evaluation of flavour physics observables across a wide variety of Standard Model (SM) and Beyond-the-Standard-Model (BSM) scenarios. The code builds on the physics heritage of SuperIso, but is implemented as a new modular software package with a modern C++ core and multiple user interfaces. In addition to native implementations for established scenarios such as the SM, the general Two-Higgs-Doublet Model (THDM), and supersymmetric models, HyperIso interfaces with the MARTY framework to compute automatically BSM Wilson coefficients at leading order. This design makes it possible to study user-defined BSM models while keeping the observable calculation, uncertainty propagation and statistical interpretation in a common backend. The software provides C++, Python, command-line and graphical interfaces. It supports the evaluation of key observables such as the branching ratios and, where available, angular observables, for radiative, leptonic, and semileptonic B decays, as well as for the relevant kaon and D-meson decays, together with the muon anomalous magnetic moment (g-2). The inputs can be provided through JSON/YAML configuration files and Les Houches Accord files, either supplied by the user or generated by external spectrum calculators. HyperIso therefore provides a flexible and extensible tool for flavour studies, phenomenological scans and the validation of BSM scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18222 by F. Mahmoudi, N. Fardeau, T. Reymermier.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Hexagonal architecture of the HyperIso Core module. This architecture reduces coupling between modules and makes the physics, input, interface and numerical layers easier to test independently. 3 Software architecture A high-level description of the HyperIso architecture and data flow is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Data flow in the HyperIso software. 4 Program description HyperIso is a modular software tool designed for the computation of Wilson coefficients, flavour observables and statistical analyses. Its architecture is built around a C++ core and applies the SOLID object-oriented design principles [14, 15], with several user-facing layers built on top of the same internal calculation pipeline. The program suppor… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Input precedence in HyperIso. JSON files provide the distributed reference database. YAML files document user-level changes, including uncertainty metadata. LHA￾family files provide the final model-dependent central values and override matching entries in the runtime cache. The JSON layer is version controlled with the code rather than edited for each scan. A typical entry stores the central value and the … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effect of the three projection methods on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between SuperIso and HyperIso for some B → K∗µµ angular observables. We compared the Wilson coefficients in all the models common to SuperIso and HyperIso, namely the SM, THDM and SUSY benchmarks, using identical input parameters. This establishes the consistency of the native HyperIso implementation for the hard-coded legacy scenarios. We next compared the long-distance implementation. This bei… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Model-independent C9, C10 fit to angular B0 → K∗0µ +µ − observables, using the measurements from CMS [26] and LHCb [28]. The present MARTY interface is used for the leading-order calculation. We therefore restrict the direct native–MARTY comparison to LO coefficients. Higher-order QCD cor￾rections are not generated by MARTY in this workflow; they are instead part of the native HyperIso implementation and o… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Per-decay benchmark of the mean wall time of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Thread-scaling benchmark for a binned semileptonic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mahmoudi, SuperIso: A Program for calculating the isospin asymmetry ofB→K ∗γ in the MSSM, Comput

    F. Mahmoudi, SuperIso: A Program for calculating the isospin asymmetry ofB→K ∗γ in the MSSM, Comput. Phys. Commun. 178 (2008) 745–754. arXiv:0710.2067 , doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2007.12.006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  2. [2]

    Mahmoudi, SuperIso v2.3: A Program for calculating flavor physics observables in Supersymmetry, Comput

    F. Mahmoudi, SuperIso v2.3: A Program for calculating flavor physics observables in Supersymmetry, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009) 1579–1613.arXiv:0808.3144, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2009.02.017

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  3. [3]

    Mahmoudi, SuperIso v3.0, flavor physics observables calculations: Extension to NMSSM, Comput

    F. Mahmoudi, SuperIso v3.0, flavor physics observables calculations: Extension to NMSSM, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009) 1718–1719.doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2009 .05.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2009 2009

  4. [4]

    Neshatpour, F

    S. Neshatpour, F. Mahmoudi, Flavour Physics with SuperIso, PoS TOOLS2020 (2021) 036.arXiv:2105.03428,doi:10.22323/1.392.0036

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Reymermier, N

    T. Reymermier, N. Fardeau, F. Mahmoudi, Hyperiso: A general bsm calculator for flavour observables (2026).doi:10.5281/zenodo.214470722. URLhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.214470722

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.214470722 2026

  6. [6]

    Reymermier, N

    T. Reymermier, N. Fardeau, F. Mahmoudi, Hyperiso: A general BSM calculator for flavour observables, PoS EPS-HEP2025 (2026) 351.doi:10.22323/1.485.0351

    work page doi:10.22323/1.485.0351 2026

  7. [7]

    Uhlrich, F

    G. Uhlrich, F. Mahmoudi, A. Arbey, MARTY – Modern ARtificial Theoretical phYsicist A C++ framework automating symbolic calculations Beyond the Standard Model, Comput. Phys. Commun. 264 (2021) 107928.arXiv:2011.02478, doi:10.1016/j.cp c.2021.107928

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Uhlrich, F

    G. Uhlrich, F. Mahmoudi, A. Arbey, MARTY, a new C++ framework for automated symbolic calculations in Beyond the Standard Model physics, PoS ICHEP2020 (2021) 928.arXiv:2011.06558,doi:10.22323/1.390.0928

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    G.Uhlrich, F.Mahmoudi, A.Arbey, Automaticextractionofone-loopWilsoncoefficients in general BSM scenarios using MARTY-1.4, PoS EPS-HEP2021 (2022) 507.arXiv: 2110.14515,doi:10.22323/1.398.0507

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    P. Z. Skands, et al., SUSY Les Houches Accord: Interfacing susy spectrum calculators, decay packages, and event generators, JHEP 07 (2004) 036.arXiv:hep-ph/0311123, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/07/036

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  11. [11]

    B. C. Allanach, et al., SUSY Les Houches Accord 2, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009) 8–25.arXiv:0801.0045,doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2008.08.004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  12. [12]

    Mahmoudi, et al., Flavour Les Houches Accord: Interfacing Flavour related Codes, Comput

    F. Mahmoudi, et al., Flavour Les Houches Accord: Interfacing Flavour related Codes, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183 (2012) 285–298.arXiv:1008.0762,doi:10.1016/j.cp c.2011.10.006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  13. [13]

    Cockburn, Hexagonal architecture, Technical Report HaT TR 2005.02, Humans and Technology, original Ports and Adapters article (Sep

    A. Cockburn, Hexagonal architecture, Technical Report HaT TR 2005.02, Humans and Technology, original Ports and Adapters article (Sep. 2005). URLhttps://alistair.cockburn.us/hexagonal-architecture/ 47

    2005

  14. [14]

    R. C. Martin, Agile Software Development: Principles, Patterns, and Practices, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2003

    2003

  15. [15]

    R. C. Martin, Clean architecture: a craftsman’s guide to software structure and design, Prentice Hall Press, 2017

    2017

  16. [16]

    K. G. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak, M. Munz,|∆F| = 1nonleptonic effective Hamiltonian in a simpler scheme, Nucl. Phys. B 520 (1998) 279–297.arXiv:hep-ph/9711280 , doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00131-X

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  17. [17]

    Yan, C.-S

    Q.-S. Yan, C.-S. Huang, W. Liao, S.-H. Zhu, Exclusive semileptonic rare decaysB→ (K, K∗)ℓ+ℓ− in supersymmetric theories, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 094023.arXiv: hep-ph/0004262,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.094023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  18. [18]

    Sakaki, M

    Y. Sakaki, M. Tanaka, A. Tayduganov, R. Watanabe, Testing leptoquark models in ¯B→D (∗)τ¯ν, Phys. Rev. D 88 (9) (2013) 094012.arXiv:1309.0301, doi:10.1103/Ph ysRevD.88.094012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  19. [19]

    Aebischer, C

    J. Aebischer, C. Bobeth, A. J. Buras, J. Kumar, SMEFT ATLAS of∆F = 2 transitions, JHEP 12 (2020) 187.arXiv:2009.07276,doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2020)187

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    J. Brod, M. Gorbahn, E. Stamou, Two-Loop Electroweak Corrections for theK→πν¯ν Decays, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 034030.arXiv:1009.0947, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD .83.034030

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  21. [21]

    Czakon, U

    M. Czakon, U. Haisch, M. Misiak, Four-Loop Anomalous Dimensions for Radiative Flavour-Changing Decays, JHEP 03 (2007) 008. arXiv:hep-ph/0612329 , doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/03/008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  22. [22]

    Bobeth, M

    C. Bobeth, M. Gorbahn, E. Stamou, Electroweak Corrections toBs,d→ℓ +ℓ−, Phys. Rev. D 89 (3) (2014) 034023.arXiv:1311.1348,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.034023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  23. [23]

    Galassi, J

    M. Galassi, J. Davies, J. Theiler, B. Gough, G. Jungman, P. Alken, M. Booth, F. Rossi, GNU Scientific Library Reference Manual (3rd Ed.), Network Theory Ltd., 2009

    2009

  24. [24]

    Sklar, Fonctions de répartition à n dimensions et leurs marges, Publications de l’Institut de Statistique de l’Université de Paris 8 (1959) 229–231

    A. Sklar, Fonctions de répartition à n dimensions et leurs marges, Publications de l’Institut de Statistique de l’Université de Paris 8 (1959) 229–231

    1959

  25. [25]

    James, M

    F. James, M. Roos, MINUIT: A system for function minimization and analysis of the parameter errors and correlations, Comput. Phys. Commun. 10 (1975) 343–367. doi:10.1016/0010-4655(75)90039-9

    doi:10.1016/0010-4655(75)90039-9 1975

  26. [26]

    Hayrapetyan, et al., Angular analysis of theB0→K∗(892)0µ+µ− decay in proton- proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, Phys

    A. Hayrapetyan, et al., Angular analysis of theB0→K∗(892)0µ+µ− decay in proton- proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 864 (2025) 139406.arXiv:2411.11820, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139406

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Hurth, F

    T. Hurth, F. Mahmoudi, Y. Monceaux, S. Neshatpour, Data-driven analyses and model-independent fits for present b→sℓℓ results, Phys. Rev. D 112 (11) (2025) 113003. arXiv:2508.09986,doi:10.1103/bc5h-8jm3. 48

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Aaij, et al., Comprehensive Analysis of the B0→K*0µ+µ- Decay, Phys

    R. Aaij, et al., Comprehensive Analysis of the B0→K*0µ+µ- Decay, Phys. Rev. Lett. 137 (2) (2026) 021802.arXiv:2512.18053,doi:10.1103/24g9-yn9d

    arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Eriksson, J

    D. Eriksson, J. Rathsman, O. Stål, 2HDMC: Two-higgs-doublet model calculator, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181 (2010) 189–205.arXiv:0902.0851,doi:10.1016/j.cp c.2009.09.011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  30. [30]

    B. C. Allanach, SOFTSUSY: A program for calculating supersymmetric spectra, Comput. Phys. Commun. 143 (2002) 305–331. arXiv:hep-ph/0104145 , doi: 10.1016/S0010-4655(01)00460-X

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  31. [31]

    Takahashi, et al., Review of Particle Physics, Int

    F. Takahashi, et al., Review of Particle Physics, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 41 (2026) 2630011. doi:10.1142/S0217751X26300115

    doi:10.1142/s0217751x26300115 2026

  32. [32]

    Aoki, et al., FLAG Review 2024, Physical Review D 113 (1) (11 2024).arXiv: 2411.04268

    Y. Aoki, et al., FLAG Review 2024, Physical Review D 113 (1) (11 2024).arXiv: 2411.04268

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    P. Ball, V. M. Braun, Y. Koike, K. Tanaka, Higher twist distribution amplitudes of vector mesons in QCD: Formalism and twist - three distributions, Nucl. Phys. B 529 (1998) 323–382.arXiv:hep-ph/9802299,doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00356-3

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  34. [34]

    Bharucha, D

    A. Bharucha, D. M. Straub, R. Zwicky,B→Vℓ +ℓ− in the Standard Model from light-cone sum rules, JHEP 08 (2016) 098.arXiv:1503.05534, doi:10.1007/JHEP08 (2016)098

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  35. [35]

    Gubernari, M

    N. Gubernari, M. Reboud, D. van Dyk, J. Virto, Dispersive analysis ofB→K (∗) and Bs→ϕ form factors, JHEP 12 (2023) 153, [Erratum: JHEP 01, 125 (2025)]. arXiv:2305.06301,doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2023)153

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Gubernari, A

    N. Gubernari, A. Kokulu, D. van Dyk,B→P andB→V Form Factors fromB-Meson Light-Cone Sum Rules beyond Leading Twist, JHEP 01 (2019) 150.arXiv:1811.00983, doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2019)150

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    R. R. Horgan, Z. Liu, S. Meinel, M. Wingate, Lattice QCD calculation of form factors describing the rare decaysB→K ∗ℓ+ℓ− and Bs→ϕℓ +ℓ−, Phys. Rev. D 89 (9) (2014) 094501.arXiv:1310.3722,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.094501

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  38. [38]

    R. R. Horgan, Z. Liu, S. Meinel, M. Wingate, RareB decays using lattice QCD form factors, PoS LATTICE2014 (2015) 372.arXiv:1501.00367, doi:10.22323/1.214.0 372

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  39. [39]

    P. Ball, R. Zwicky,Bd,s→ρ,ω,K ∗,ϕ decay form-factors from light-cone sum rules revisited, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 014029.arXiv:hep-ph/0412079, doi:10.1103/Ph ysRevD.71.014029

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  40. [40]

    P. Ball, R. Zwicky,|Vtd/Vts| from B→Vγ , JHEP 04 (2006) 046.arXiv:hep-ph/0603 232,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/04/046

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/04/046 2006

  41. [41]

    Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110 (3) (2024) 030001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001. 49

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  42. [42]

    Czaja, M

    M. Czaja, M. Misiak, Current status of the standard model prediction for theBs ->µ+ µ− branching ratio (2024).arXiv:2407.03810. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2407.03810

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Gambino, C

    P. Gambino, C. Schwanda, Inclusive semileptonic fits, heavy quark masses, andVcb, Phys. Rev. D 89 (1) (2014) 014022.arXiv:1307.4551,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.014022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  44. [44]

    Misiak, M

    M. Misiak, M. Steinhauser, NNLO QCD corrections to the anti-B —> X(s) gamma matrix elements using interpolation in m(c), Nucl. Phys. B 764 (2007) 62–82.arXiv: hep-ph/0609241,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.11.027

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  45. [45]

    Altmannshofer, D

    W. Altmannshofer, D. M. Straub, New physics inb→s transitions after LHC run 1, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (8) (2015) 382.arXiv:1411.3161, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-0 15-3602-7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  46. [46]

    W. G. Parrott, C. Bouchard, C. T. H. Davies,B→K and D→K form factors from fully relativistic lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 107 (1) (2023) 014510.arXiv:2207.12468, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.014510

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    Proceedings, Workshop13-16 Feb 2002 CERN, Geneva, Switzerland,, CERN Yellow Reports: Conference Proceedings.arXiv: hep-ph/0304132,doi:10.5170/CERN-2003-002-corr

    The CKM Matrix and the Unitarity Triangle. Proceedings, Workshop13-16 Feb 2002 CERN, Geneva, Switzerland,, CERN Yellow Reports: Conference Proceedings.arXiv: hep-ph/0304132,doi:10.5170/CERN-2003-002-corr

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  48. [48]

    Isidori, R

    G. Isidori, R. Unterdorfer, On the short-distance constraints fromKL,S→µ +µ−, JHEP 01 (2004) 009.arXiv:hep-ph/0311084,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/01/009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  49. [49]

    Antonelli, V

    M. Antonelli, V. Cirigliano, G. Isidori, F. Mescia, M. Moulson, H. Neufeld, E. Passemar, M. Palutan, B. Sciascia, M. Sozzi, R. Wanke, O. P. Yushchenko, An evaluation of |v us | and precise tests of the standard model from world data on leptonic and semileptonic kaon decays, The European Physical Journal C 69 (3-4) (2010) 399–424. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-0...

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1406-3 2010

  50. [50]

    J. Brod, M. Gorbahn, E. Stamou, Two-loop electroweak corrections for thek→πν ν decays, Physical Review D 83 (3) (Feb. 2011).doi:10.1103/physrevd.83.034030. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.034030

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.83.034030 2011

  51. [51]

    Mescia, C

    F. Mescia, C. Smith, Improved estimates of rarek decay matrix elements fromKℓ3 decays, Physical Review D 76 (3) (Aug. 2007).doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.034017. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.034017

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.034017 2007

  52. [52]

    Detmold, S

    W. Detmold, S. Meinel,Λb→ Λℓ+ℓ− form factors, differential branching fraction, and angular observables from lattice QCD with relativisticb quarks, Phys. Rev. D 93 (7) (2016) 074501.arXiv:1602.01399,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.074501. 50

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016