Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Unitarity bounds with subthreshold and anomalous cuts for $b$-hadron decays

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper generalizes the Boyd-Grinstein-Lebed (BGL) parametrization so that unitarity bounds hold for hadronic form factors with subthreshold and anomalous branch cuts.

desk verdict Solid new subthreshold parametrization; the anomalous-cut bound is a program, not a derivation, despite what the abstract says. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04388 v2 pith:JNIX6SU5 submitted 2024-12-05 hep-ph math-phmath.MP

Abinand Gopal , Nico Gubernari This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phmath-phmath.MP
keywords unitarityboundsformfactorsBGLparametrizationsubthresholdcutsanomalousconformalmappingBmesondecaysdispersionrelations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the BGL parametrization, which enforces a unitarity bound on hadronic form-factor expansions, can be extended to form factors whose analytic structure contains subthreshold and anomalous branch cuts. The central claim is that adding the same positive subthreshold integral to both sides of the dispersive inequality restores the standard bound, so the coefficients in the $z(q^2,s_\Gamma)$ expansion satisfy $\sum_n |c_n|^2 < 1$ and the truncation error is under control. The paper demonstrates this explicitly for $f_+^{BK}$ and $f_0^{BK}$ and presents a conformal-mapping procedure intended to do the same for non-local form factors with anomalous cuts, such as $f_{nl}$ in $B\to K\ell^+\ell^-$. If the construction is right, it removes a known source of model dependence and allows first-principles unitarity bounds to constrain fits to $B\to D^{(*)}$, $B\to K^{(*)}$, and $\Lambda_b\to\Lambda$ decays.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the modified dispersive inequality obtained by adding the positive subthreshold integral $\Delta\chi_J$ to both sides of the OPE bound. This converts an integral over $[s_\Gamma,\infty)$ into a contour integral on the unit circle in the variable $z(q^2,s_\Gamma)$, and with the outer function chosen to absorb both thresholds the expansion coefficients satisfy $\sum_n |c_n|^2 < 1$. For $f_+^{BK}$ the outer function is given in closed form; for $f_0^{BK}$ the pole between the thresholds is removed by a pole-subtracted combination of subtracted dispersion relations. For the anomalous-cut case, the analogous object is the conformal map $\hat z$ built from a Schwarz-Christoffel map $g$ and a Möbius transformation, whose construction is the computational core that must deliver the same unitarity-bound inequality.

What would settle it

Compute the conformal map for the anomalous-cut domain using an independent numerical method and compare its boundary with the claimed slit from $4m_D^2$ to $24.1-3.5i$; any mismatch, or a failure of the induced inequality $\sum_n |c_n|^2<1$ to hold for a test expansion, would show that the anomalous-cut construction is not valid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims the first model-independent and unitarity-bounded parametrization for form factors with subthreshold cuts, demonstrated explicitly for $f_+^{BK}$. The key step is to add the subthreshold integral $\Delta\chi_{1,bs}(2)$ to both sides of the dispersive inequality; after this addition the full integral from $s_\Gamma$ to $\infty$ can be written as an integral around the unit circle in the variable $z(q^2,s_\Gamma)$, and with a suitably chosen outer function $\phi_+(q^2)$ that knows about both thresholds, the expansion coefficients satisfy $\sum_n |c_{+,n}|^2 < 1$. For $f_0^{BK}$, whose pole at $m_{B_{s0}}^2$ lies between $s_\Gamma$ and $s_+$, the same trick is applied with the pole removed by an additional subtraction, again yielding $\sum_n |c_{0,n}|^2 < 1$. For the non-local form factor $f_{nl}$ with an anomalous cut between $4m_D^2$ and $s_A=24.1-3.5i$, the paper constructs a Schwarz-Christoffel map of the slit domain to the unit disk and states that the same bounded-parametrization procedure applies, while leaving the explicit numerical bound for $f_{nl}$ and the estimation of the corresponding $\Delta\chi_J$ as future work.

Load-bearing premise

For the anomalous-cut part, the entire bound rests on the assumption that the numerically computed Schwarz-Christoffel mapping really does map the unit disk onto the claimed slit domain, and that the associated outer function makes the unitarity inequality hold; the paper gives no numerical error estimate or independent check.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Analyses of $B\to D^{(*)}$, $B\to K^{(*)}$, and $\Lambda_b\to\Lambda$ form factors can now use fits whose truncation error is controlled by $\sum_n |c_n|^2<1$ while accounting for the real subthreshold cut.
  • The same procedure gives a template for unitarity-bounded parametrizations of non-local form factors in rare $B$ decays, which previously had no bounded parametrization at all.
  • The method makes explicit that the subthreshold contribution $\Delta\chi_J$ must be estimated or bounded; when the cut is short, as for $B\to K$, the paper argues this contribution is negligible compared with the OPE uncertainty.
  • Once an upper bound on $\Delta\chi_J$ is supplied, the paper's construction would reduce the model dependence in predictions of $B\to K\mu^+\mu^-$ observables.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the anomalous-cut conformal mapping proves numerically stable, the same strategy could be applied to form factors with several intersecting anomalous cuts, although the paper only treats one cut explicitly.
  • The pole-removal trick used for $f_0^{BK}$ could be iterated to suppress any subthreshold contribution by additional subtractions, which the paper mentions but does not develop into a general algorithm.
  • A direct test would be to compute the coefficients $c_n$ for a known toy form factor with a subthreshold cut and verify that the tail respects $\sum |c_n|^2<1$; the paper does not provide such a numerical demonstration.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a generalization of the BGL parametrization for b-hadron decay form factors that have subthreshold branch cuts or anomalous (complex) branch cuts. For subthreshold cuts, the authors add the positive subthreshold integral to both sides of the standard dispersion inequality, choose a conformal variable z(q^2, s_Gamma) that removes the cut from the unit disk, and construct an outer function so that the expanded coefficients satisfy sum |c_n|^2 < 1. This is worked out explicitly for f_+^{BK} and f_0^{BK}, including a pole-removal trick for f_0. For anomalous cuts, the paper computes a Schwarz-Christoffel mapping of the cut domain to the unit disk and sketches how the same strategy would apply, but it does not provide the outer function or the required Delta-chi bound. The conclusion claims a systematic procedure for bounded parametrizations with both types of cuts.

Significance. If fully realized, the subthreshold construction would be a useful, rigorous alternative to the standard BGL treatment for form factors such as those in B -> D and B -> K decays, and for non-local form factors where subthreshold effects are not negligible. The f_+^{BK} and f_0^{BK} examples are explicit and the pole-removal for f_0 is a clean, potentially transferable trick. The paper also makes a concrete computational contribution by supplying Python code for the conformal mapping with a single branch cut. However, the anomalous-cut part is presented only as a road map: the essential elements that would convert the dispersion inequality into a coefficient bound are explicitly deferred. As a result, the abstract's claim to derive unitarity bounds for anomalous cuts is not yet substantiated, and the subthreshold bound's rigor depends on an estimate that is plausible but not proven.

major comments (3)
  1. [ANOMALOUS BRANCH CUTS (after Eq. (27))] The derivation in this section stops short of the advertised result. The text states that 'The derivation of the outer function is standard and is not shown here' and that the calculation of Delta chi_J is 'particularly challenging in this case and beyond the scope of this work.' These are precisely the two ingredients needed to write the analogue of Eq. (15) and to extend the spectral integral to the full unit circle as in Eq. (17). Without the outer function, no explicit expansion of f_nl^{BK} with a unitarity bound can be written; without a bound on Delta chi_J, the inequality for the non-local form factor does not close. The abstract and introduction claim that the paper 'derive[s] unitarity bounds in the presence of ... anomalous branch cuts', which is not supported by the present content.
  2. [SUBTHRESHOLD BRANCH CUTS, Eqs. (12)-(18)] The identification tilde-chi^1,bs = chi^1,bs_OPE used in the outer function (16) is not a rigorous upper bound but an estimate. Since Delta chi^1,bs as defined in Eq. (12) is positive, replacing tilde-chi by chi_OPE in phi_+ makes the right-hand side of Eq. (17) equal to tilde-chi/chi_OPE > 1, so the claimed bound sum |c_+,n|^2 < 1 in Eq. (18) only holds if Delta chi is truly negligible. The argument based on Eq. (14) and K < 1 (or even K ~ 100) is a reasonable order-of-magnitude estimate, but it is not a proof; a rigorous first-principles bound requires a rigorous upper bound on |f_+^{BK}| on the interval [s_Gamma, s_+]. The same issue applies to f_0^{BK}, where Eq. (21) leaves Delta chi_0,bs unevaluated and no numerical value for tilde-chi_0 is provided.
  3. [ANOMALOUS BRANCH CUTS, Eq. (27)] The numerical Schwarz-Christoffel mapping is not validated. The text describes a quasi-Newton determination of the prevertex z1, but provides no numerical error estimate, no convergence test, and no independent verification that g maps the unit disk to the claimed domain Omega in Eq. (26) (e.g., by checking boundary correspondence or by integrating g' along test arcs). Because the entire anomalous-cut parametrization rests on this mapping and its inverse, the mapping's accuracy must be demonstrated before the construction can be considered reliable.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title and abstract] There is a spacing typo in the title: 'forb-hadron decays' should read 'for b-hadron decays'.
  2. [Eq. (2)] The notation z(q^2, s_+) is used in Eq. (1) and in the text, but the definition in Eq. (2) also depends on the free parameter s_0; the s_0 dependence should be made explicit throughout, or stated as implicit.
  3. [Eq. (5)] The polynomials p_n are described as orthonormal on an arc, but only p_0, p_1, p_2 are given in Ref. [9]; the general construction of these polynomials should be stated or referenced clearly so the reader can reproduce the expansion.
  4. [Figs. 1 and 2] The captions refer to 'magenta line' and 'magenta arc' inconsistently; the visual representation of the subthreshold cut and the integration arc should be clarified in the captions themselves.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: subthreshold bound follows from OPE input plus analytic structure; the anomalous-cut section is incomplete but not circular.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The subthreshold result is self-contained: Eq. (11) is an inequality obtained from the OPE value χ_OPE and the positive \bar BK contribution to Im Π, Eq. (12) defines Δχ as the same integrand over [sΓ, s+], and adding it to both sides gives Eq. (13). Because the paper gives a numerical argument that Δχ is negligible, it sets ˜χ = χ_OPE, and then constructs the parametrization Eq. (15) and outer function Eq. (16) so that Eq. (13) becomes the unit-circle integral Eq. (17), yielding Eq. (18). The coefficients c_n are not fitted and are not inputs; the bound constrains them. The f_0 case follows the same construction, with the subthreshold pole removed by the subtracted quantity χ_Σ in Eq. (20). The anomalous-cut section, however, does not complete the promised derivation: it states that 'The derivation of the outer function is standard and is not shown here. The only point requiring further clarification is the calculation of ΔχJ, which is particularly challenging in this case and beyond the scope of this work.' This is a missing piece and an overclaim relative to the abstract, but it is not a circular reduction: the paper does not define the result in terms of itself or rename a fitted parameter as a prediction. The self-citations (e.g., Refs. [9], [15], [17], [29]) supply OPE and hadronic ingredients rather than serving as an unverified uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the conclusion. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own output, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on standard dispersion relations and positivity of the hadronic spectral function, plus the stated analytic structure of each form factor. The only genuinely new mathematical object is the numerical Schwarz-Christoffel mapping for the anomalous-cut domain, which is provided as code but without accuracy checks. No free parameters are fitted to data; the coefficient bound is a consequence of the OPE input.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The correlator Pi_J satisfies a subtracted dispersion relation and its OPE evaluation chi_OPE is a valid input for the unitarity bound.
    Invoked in Eqs. (8) and (11); standard analyticity and unitarity input from Refs. [7,13].
  • domain assumption The form factors' only singularities are the stated branch cuts (real subthreshold cut, unitarity cut, or anomalous cut) and the explicitly included poles.
    The conformal mapping and outer function rely on this analytic structure; e.g., the domain Omega in Eq. (26).
  • ad hoc to paper The Schwarz-Christoffel numerical mapping g computed via quasi-Newton correctly conformally maps the unit disk to the cut domain Omega.
    Used in the anomalous-cut section; no error analysis is provided, only the code.
  • domain assumption The pQCD asymptotic scaling |f_+^{BK}(q^2)|^2 ~ K (s_Gamma/q^2)^2 is applicable on the subthreshold interval to bound Delta chi.
    From Refs. [18,19], used in Eq. (14); the estimate is robust to K but no rigorous bound is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unitarity bounds with subthreshold and anomalous cuts for $b$-hadron decays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JNIX6SU5

@misc{pith2026241204388,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unitarity bounds with subthreshold and anomalous cuts for $b$-hadron decays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JNIX6SU5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04388}
}
abstract

We derive a generalisation of the Boyd-Grinstein-Lebed (BGL) parametrization. Most form factors (FFs) in $b$-hadron decays exhibit additional branch cuts -- namely subthreshold and anomalous branch cuts -- beyond the ``standard'' unitarity cut. These additional cuts cannot be adequately accounted for by the BGL parametrization. For instance, these cuts arise in the FFs for $B\to D^{(*)}$, $B\to K^{(*)}$, and $\Lambda_b\to \Lambda$ processes, which are particularly relevant from a phenomenological standpoint. We demonstrate how to parametrize such FFs and derive unitarity bounds in the presence of subthreshold and/or anomalous branch cuts. Our work paves the way for a wide range of new FF analyses based solely on first principles, thereby minimising systematic uncertainties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04388 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Illustration of the conformal mapping ˆz [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. A Dispersive Look at Rare $B$-meson Semileptonic Decays

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Lattice-only Dispersive Matrix form factors enlarge large-recoil uncertainties and, with new angular data, favour long-distance hadronic effects over a short-distance C9 New Physics shift.

  2. Investigating non-local contributions in $B_{s} \to \phi \bar{\ell} \ell$ including higher-twist effects

    hep-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Including twist-5 and twist-6 B_s-meson distribution amplitudes enhances the charm-loop non-local form factors in B_s to phi l+l- by about an order of magnitude, producing a larger but still Standard-Model-consistent ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Aoki et al

    Y. Aoki et al. (Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)), FLAG Review 2021, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 869 (2022), arXiv:2111.09849 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Colangelo and A

    P. Colangelo and A. Khodjamirian, QCD sum rules, a modern perspective, At The Frontier of Particle Physics , 1495 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0010175

    arXiv 2000

  3. [3]

    Bharucha, D

    A. Bharucha, D. M. Straub, and R. Zwicky, B → V ℓ+ℓ− in the Standard Model from light-cone sum rules, JHEP 08, 098, arXiv:1503.05534 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Gubernari, A

    N. Gubernari, A. Kokulu, and D. van Dyk, B → P and B → V Form Factors from B-Meson Light- Cone Sum Rules beyond Leading Twist, JHEP 01, 150, arXiv:1811.00983 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Gubernari, A

    N. Gubernari, A. Khodjamirian, R. Mandal, and T. Man- nel, B → D1(2420) and B → D′ 1(2430) form fac- tors from QCD light-cone sum rules, JHEP 05, 029, arXiv:2203.08493 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    C. G. Boyd, B. Grinstein, and R. F. Lebed, Con- straints on form-factors for exclusive semileptonic heavy to light meson decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4603 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9412324

    arXiv 1995

  7. [7]

    C. G. Boyd, B. Grinstein, and R. F. Lebed, Precision corrections to dispersive bounds on form-factors, Phys. Rev. D 56, 6895 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9705252

    arXiv 1997

  8. [8]

    Bharucha, T

    A. Bharucha, T. Feldmann, and M. Wick, Theoretical and Phenomenological Constraints on Form Factors for Radiative and Semi-Leptonic B-Meson Decays, JHEP 09, 090, arXiv:1004.3249 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Gubernari, D

    N. Gubernari, D. van Dyk, and J. Virto, Non-local ma- trix elements in B(s) → {K (∗), ϕ}ℓ+ℓ−, JHEP 02, 088, arXiv:2011.09813 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  2. [10]

    J. M. Flynn, A. J¨ uttner, and J. T. Tsang, Bayesian in- ference for form-factor fits regulated by unitarity and an- alyticity, JHEP 12, 175, arXiv:2303.11285 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    L. N. Trefethen, Approximation theory and approxima- tion practice, extended edition (SIAM, 2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Mutke, M

    S. Mutke, M. Hoferichter, and B. Kubis, Anomalous thresholds in B → (P, V)γ∗ form factors, JHEP 07, 276, arXiv:2406.14608 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Barton, Introduction to Dispersion Techniques in Field Theory (W.A

    G. Barton, Introduction to Dispersion Techniques in Field Theory (W.A. Benjamin Inc. New York, 1965)

    1965

  6. [14]

    Caprini, L

    I. Caprini, L. Lellouch, and M. Neubert, Dispersive bounds on the shape of ¯B → D(∗)ℓ¯ν form factors, Nucl. Phys. B 530, 153 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9712417

    1998 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Gubernari, Applications of Light-Cone Sum Rules in Flavour Physics , Ph.D

    N. Gubernari, Applications of Light-Cone Sum Rules in Flavour Physics , Ph.D. thesis, Munich, Tech. U. (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Blake, S

    T. Blake, S. Meinel, M. Rahimi, and D. van Dyk, Disper- sive bounds for local form factors in Λ b → Λ transitions, Phys. Rev. D 108, 094509 (2023), arXiv:2205.06041 [hep- ph]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Gubernari, M

    N. Gubernari, M. Reboud, D. van Dyk, and J. Virto, Dis- persive analysis of B → K (∗) and Bs → ϕ form factors, JHEP 12, 153, arXiv:2305.06301 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Exclusive Processes in Perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2157 (1980)

    1980

  11. [19]

    Akhoury, G

    R. Akhoury, G. F. Sterman, and Y. P. Yao, Exclusive semileptonic decays of B mesons into light mesons, Phys. Rev. D 50, 358 (1994)

    1994

  12. [20]

    Becher and R

    T. Becher and R. J. Hill, Comment on form-factor shape and extraction of |V (ub)| from B → πlν , Phys. Lett. B 633, 61 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0509090

    2006 arXiv

  13. [21]

    C. G. Boyd, B. Grinstein, and R. F. Lebed, Model in- dependent determinations of ¯B → D(∗)ℓ¯ν form factors, Nucl. Phys. B 461, 493 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9508211

    1996 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Caprini and M

    I. Caprini and M. Neubert, Improved bounds for the slope and curvature of ¯B → D(∗)ℓ¯ν form-factors, Phys. Lett. B 380, 376 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9603414

    1996 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Beneke, G

    M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, and C. T. Sachra- jda, QCD factorization for exclusive, nonleptonic B meson decays: General arguments and the case of heavy light final states, Nucl. Phys. B 591, 313 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0006124

    2000 arXiv

  16. [24]

    C. B. Lang, D. Mohler, S. Prelovsek, and R. M. Woloshyn, Predicting positive parity B s mesons from lattice QCD, Phys. Lett. B 750, 17 (2015), arXiv:1501.01646 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Khodjamirian, T

    A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel, A. Pivovarov, and Y.-M. Wang, Charm-loop effect in B → K (∗)ℓ+ℓ− and B → K ∗γ, JHEP 09, 089, arXiv:1006.4945 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Khodjamirian, T

    A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel, and Y. M. Wang, B → Kℓ +ℓ− decay at large hadronic recoil, JHEP 02, 010, arXiv:1211.0234 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Ciuchini, M

    M. Ciuchini, M. Fedele, E. Franco, A. Paul, L. Silvestrini, and M. Valli, Constraints on lepton universality violation from rare B decays, Phys. Rev. D 107, 055036 (2023), arXiv:2212.10516 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Gubernari, M

    N. Gubernari, M. Reboud, D. van Dyk, and J. Virto, Im- proved theory predictions and global analysis of exclusive b → sµ+µ− processes, JHEP 09, 133, arXiv:2206.03797 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Feldmann and N

    T. Feldmann and N. Gubernari, Non-factorisable con- tributions of strong-penguin operators in Λ b → Λℓ+ℓ− decays, JHEP 03, 152, arXiv:2312.14146 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Isidori, Z

    G. Isidori, Z. Polonsky, and A. Tinari, An explicit es- timate of charm rescattering in B0 → K 0 ¯ℓℓ, (2024), arXiv:2405.17551 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Lucha, D

    W. Lucha, D. Melikhov, and S. Simula, Dispersion rep- resentations and anomalous singularities of the triangle diagram, Phys. Rev. D 75, 016001 (2007), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 92, 019901 (2015)], arXiv:hep-ph/0610330

    2007 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Colangelo, M

    G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, M. Procura, and P. Stoffer, Dispersion relation for hadronic light-by-light scattering: theoretical foundations, JHEP 09, 074, arXiv:1506.01386 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Buchalla, A

    G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras, and M. E. Lautenbacher, Weak decays beyond leading logarithms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 1125 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9512380

    1996 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Differential branching fractions and isospin asymmetries of B → K (∗)µ+µ− decays, JHEP 06, 133, arXiv:1403.8044 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS), Test of lepton flavor uni- versality in B± → K ±µ+µ− and B± → K ±e+e− decays 7 in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, Rept. Prog. Phys. 87, 077802 (2024), arXiv:2401.07090 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    W. G. Parrott, C. Bouchard, and C. T. H. Davies (HPQCD), Standard Model predictions for B → Kℓ +ℓ−, B → Kℓ + 1 ℓ− 2 and B → Kνν using form factors from N f= 2 + 1 + 1 lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 107, 014511 (2023), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 107, 119903 (2023)], arXiv:2207.13371 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Alguer´ o, A

    M. Alguer´ o, A. Biswas, B. Capdevila, S. Descotes-Genon, J. Matias, and M. Novoa-Brunet, To (b)e or not to (b)e: no electrons at LHCb, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 648 (2023), arXiv:2304.07330 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Driscoll, Schwarz–christoffel toolbox, github.com/tobydriscoll/sc-toolbox (2024)

    T. Driscoll, Schwarz–christoffel toolbox, github.com/tobydriscoll/sc-toolbox (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    T. A. Driscoll and L. N. Trefethen, Schwarz-Christoffel Mapping, Cambridge Monographs on Applied and Com- putational Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, 2002)

    2002

  32. [40]

    Grinstein and D

    B. Grinstein and D. Pirjol, Exclusive rare B → K ∗ℓ+ℓ− decays at low recoil: Controlling the long-distance effects, Phys. Rev. D 70, 114005 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0404250

    2004 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Beylich, G

    M. Beylich, G. Buchalla, and T. Feldmann, Theory of B → K (∗)ℓ+ℓ− decays at high q2: OPE and quark-hadron duality, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1635 (2011), arXiv:1101.5118 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.