Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 103 references

Resolving the $(g-2)_{\mu}$ and $B$ anomalies with leptoquarks and a dark Higgs boson

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-Higgs-doublet model with leptoquarks and a light dark Higgs can resolve the muon g-2 and B anomalies together.

desk verdict A genuine combined model for the g-2 and B anomalies whose parameter bands rest on an uncomputed W-loop proxy for the vector-leptoquark triangle; worth refereeing, but the quantitative center is conditional until that loop is calculated. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08625 v2 pith:TCJXXWTC submitted 2019-08-22 hep-ph hep-ex

Alakabha Datta , Jonathan L. Feng , Saeed Kamali , Jacky Kumar This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex PACS 12.60.Fr13.40.Em
keywords muong-2anomalyB-mesonanomaliesvectorleptoquarkdarkHiggsbosonBarr-Zeediagramtwo-Higgs-doubletmodellightscalarmediatorraremesondecays
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

The paper proposes one concrete model that addresses both the muon's anomalous magnetic moment discrepancy and the set of B-meson decay anomalies. The model is a Type II two-Higgs-doublet model extended with a vector leptoquark $U$ that handles the $B$ anomalies, additional vector leptoquarks $V$, and a light scalar $S$ with mass between 10 and 200 MeV. The $V$ leptoquarks generate an $S\gamma\gamma$ coupling, and the resulting two-loop Barr-Zee diagram supplies the required positive shift to $(g-2)_\mu$. The authors show that with $\sin\theta \simeq 0.005$, $\tan\beta \simeq 40$, and a handful of TeV-scale $V$ leptoquarks, all discrepancies are reduced to about $1\sigma$ while surviving current hadronic constraints. The same light scalar produces rare $B$, $K$, and Higgs decays whose branching fractions sit just below current bounds.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective $S\gamma\gamma$ interaction with coefficient $\kappa$, generated by vector leptoquark loops and written in Eq. (16) as $\kappa = \frac{\alpha_{EM}}{4\pi} \sum_i N_c Q_i^2 \frac{g_{V_i}}{m_{V_i}} F_W$, where $F_W$ is the loop function of a $W$ boson. The paper states explicitly that it models the colored spin-1 leptoquark triangle by the $W$ loop for an order-one estimate. This $\kappa$ enters the log-enhanced two-loop Barr-Zee contribution $\Delta(g-2)_\mu \simeq \frac{1}{4\pi^2} \sin\theta \tan\beta \frac{m_\mu^2}{v} \kappa \ln(\Lambda/m_S)$. The Barr-Zee diagram is a two-loop correction in which a heavy charged particle loop generates the light scalar's coupling to two photons, which then attach to the muon line. The companion object is the $U$ leptoquark with couplings $h^U_{ij}$ to left-handed quarks and leptons, which supplies the Wilson coefficients needed for $R_{K^{(*)}}$ and $R(D^{(*)})$.

What would settle it

A full calculation of the two-loop Barr-Zee amplitude with a spin-1 colored leptoquark in the loop, replacing the $W$-boson loop function $F_W$ in Eq. (16) with the exact amplitude, would settle the central numerical claim: if the resulting $\kappa$ changes sign or drops below roughly one third of the $W$-loop value, the required leptoquark multiplicity grows beyond the TeV-scale region and the claimed solution fails. On the experimental side, a search for $B\to K^{(*)} \gamma\gamma$ with diphoton mass between 10 and 200 MeV that excludes branching fractions above about $10^{-5}$ would also exclude the preferred parameter space.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the $(g-2)_\mu$ and $B$ anomalies can be resolved together by a Type II two-Higgs-doublet model plus a vector leptoquark $U$, additional vector leptoquarks $V_i$, and a light scalar $S$ with $m_S \sim 10\text{--}200$ MeV. The $V_i$ leptoquarks induce an effective $S\gamma\gamma$ coupling $\kappa \sim (1~\mathrm{TeV})^{-1}$, and this feeds a two-loop Barr-Zee diagram that shifts $(g-2)_\mu$ upward by the required $27 \times 10^{-10}$. The same construction's $U$ leptoquark generates the $b\to s\mu^+\mu^-$ and $b\to c\tau\bar\nu$ coefficients that move $R_K$, $R_{K^*}$, and $R(D^{(*)})$ toward their measured values. The authors identify a viable patch of parameter space—$\sin\theta\simeq 0.005$, $\tan\beta\simeq 40$, $m_S\simeq 100$ MeV, and roughly ten TeV-scale $V$ leptoquarks—and check that current $B$, $K$, $B_s$, and $(g-2)_e$ bounds leave it open.

Load-bearing premise

The crucial assumption is that the unknown loop of the new heavy charged leptoquarks produces the same effect on the light particle's coupling to two photons as a $W$-boson loop; if that estimate is off in sign or size by more than a factor of a few, the number of leptoquarks needed changes by an order of magnitude and the claimed solution may fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $(g-2)_\mu$ discrepancy can be removed with new physics at the TeV scale plus a single light state $S$ at 10 to 200 MeV that decays promptly to $e^+e^-$ or $\gamma\gamma$.
  • The model predicts $B\to K^{(*)}e^+e^-$ events with $m_{e^+e^-}=m_S$ and $B\to K^{(*)} \gamma\gamma$ events with $m_{\gamma\gamma}=m_S$ at branching fractions near current limits, so existing and upcoming searches can test it.
  • It predicts $K^+\to \pi^+\gamma\gamma$ and $K_L\to \pi^0\gamma\gamma$ rates of order $10^{-6}$ with a narrow diphoton peak at $m_S$, above the nonresonant background if $m_S$ is away from the neutral pion mass.
  • It predicts that $h\to SS\to \gamma\gamma\gamma\gamma$ contributes to the observed $h\to\gamma\gamma$ signal; current signal strengths allow it, and more precise measurements may reveal a deviation.
  • All listed $B$, $K$, $B_s$, and electron $g-2$ constraints are satisfied in the preferred parameter region, so the model is currently viable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the numerical bridge between the model and $(g-2)_\mu$ is the $W$-loop approximation in Eq. (16); a complete calculation of the spin-1 colored leptoquark triangle could raise or lower the required leptoquark multiplicity, and a sign flip would break the solution entirely.
  • Editorial extension: if $m_S$ sits near the neutral pion mass, the predicted diphoton signals coincide kinematically with $B\to K^{(*)} \pi^0$ and $K\to\pi\pi^0$ backgrounds; measurements with fine diphoton mass resolution are what separate the new-physics peak from the pion.
  • Editorial extension: the same template—a light scalar with loop-induced $S\gamma\gamma$ and a Barr-Zee contribution—applies to any model with TeV-scale charged colored states, so the proposed diphoton searches are a generic test of that class of explanations.
  • Editorial extension: because the preferred region uses several leptoquark copies with couplings up to $4\pi$, the model as stated is an effective theory; a UV completion would necessarily introduce more states just above the TeV scale, making the leptoquark sector itself a discovery target.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs a Type II 2HDM extended by a light real scalar S (the dark Higgs), a vector leptoquark U, and an adjustable number N_LQ of vector leptoquarks V_i. The U leptoquark is used to address the B-meson anomalies in R(K), R(K*), and R(D(*)), while the V_i leptoquarks generate an effective Sγγ coupling κ. Through a two-loop Barr-Zee diagram, the Sγγ coupling combined with the S-fermion Yukawa couplings provides a contribution to (g−2)_μ. The paper scans m_S, sinθ, tanβ, κ, and the V-leptoquark parameters to find viable regions, then checks a broad set of hadronic constraints (Table I) and predicts new signals such as B→K(*)e+e−, B→K(*)γγ, K→πγγ, and h→γγγγ. The central quantitative g−2 mechanism is Eq. (16), where the V-leptoquark loop is modeled by the W-boson loop function F_W.

Significance. If the V-leptoquark loop calculation were controlled and the sign of the Sγγ coupling confirmed, the paper would offer a single coherent framework addressing both the muon g−2 and the B anomalies with specific, testable predictions for B, K, and Higgs decays. The manuscript is strong on breadth: it provides explicit Lagrangian definitions, an explicit scalar-potential appendix, and a systematic table of hadronic constraints (Table I) showing that the proposed parameter region is not excluded by the observables considered. The predicted branching fractions lie close to current sensitivities, which is a genuine phenomenological virtue. However, the central quantitative bridge of the (g−2)_μ resolution is an uncomputed O(1) estimate, and the B-sector resolution is a parameterized fit rather than an independent prediction. The paper is therefore best viewed as a proof of principle for a combined dark-Higgs/leptoquark solution, conditional on the completion of the vector-leptoquark two-loop calculation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (16)] The entire numerical resolution of the (g−2)_μ anomaly rests on Eq. (16), where the V-leptoquark contribution to the Sγγ coupling κ is modeled by the W-boson loop function F_W. The text explicitly states that “leptoquarks are not gauge bosons, there might be ambiguities in the leptoquark two-loop contribution” and that this is only an O(1) estimate. For a colored spin-1 particle, the gauge/Goldstone/ghost structure that makes the W result gauge-independent does not transfer automatically, and the sign and coefficient of the Sγγ amplitude are not guaranteed. Because Eq. (13) requires κ with a particular sign and magnitude, a factor of order unity or a sign change in this loop would move or destroy the allowed region in Fig. 3. This is the load-bearing step for the claimed g−2 solution, and a direct calculation of the V-leptoquark triangle contribution to Sγγ—or a clearly defined effective-theory treatment—is necessary before the central claim can be considered established.
  2. [Sec. III.B, text after Eq. (16)] The sentence asserting that “the leptoquark contributions to (g−2)_μ are always positive—that is, in the right direction” is not justified by the W-boson analogy. The sign of the Sγγ amplitude depends on the charge and spin structure of the internal particles, and the loop function F_W is specific to the electroweak W boson. If the sign of the effective κ were reversed, the Barr-Zee contribution in Eq. (13) would become negative and the model would not resolve the anomaly through this channel. The paper should either prove the sign statement by an explicit calculation or soften it to a condition on the sign of the loop amplitude and discuss the consequences.
  3. [Sec. III.C, Eqs. (18)-(19)] There is an internal inconsistency in the charge assignment used for the one-loop U-leptoquark contribution. In the model the U leptoquark is defined with SM quantum numbers (3,1,2/3), which corresponds to electric charge Q_U=+2/3 in the convention used elsewhere in the paper (see Eq. (16), where V has Q=5/3). However, the text below Eq. (18) sets Q_U=−2/3. If Q_U is corrected to +2/3, the sign of the coefficient in Eq. (19) flips and the contribution becomes positive rather than negative. For the allowed range hU_bμ∼0.1–0.6, the corrected magnitude is of order 10^-12–10^-10, so the qualitative conclusion that the U contribution is negligible compared with Δ(g−2)_μ≈27×10^-10 survives, but the formula as printed is incorrect and should be fixed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (9)] The notation sinθ′ is used without a clear definition in the main text; Eq. (10) gives an approximate expression, but the reader has to infer from Appendix A that sinθ′ controls the up-type Yukawa suppression. Please define both mixing angles explicitly in Sec. II.
  2. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (13)] The cutoff Λ in the logarithmic factor ln(Λ/m_S) is taken to be 2 TeV everywhere, while Fig. 3 allows V-leptoquark masses up to 4 TeV and the text mentions masses up to 4 TeV. The mild logarithmic dependence means this does not affect the conclusions, but the choice should be stated and justified.
  3. [Sec. IV.B, Table I] The table lists the new scalar contributions to many observables, but for several rows only the new contribution is shown without the total or the SM value. Adding the SM predictions would make the comparison with the quoted measurements more transparent.
  4. [Sec. V.A, Fig. 6] The purple shaded region in Fig. 6 is described as the region where BR(B→K*e+e−) is within 1σ of its measured value, but the caption does not state how the experimental uncertainty is treated. Please clarify the definition of the band.
  5. [Sec. V.D] The example parameter set in the h→SS discussion appears to require a tuned cancellation to make m_S as low as 10–200 MeV; the paper acknowledges this in footnote 4. A brief quantitative measure of the fine-tuning would be useful for assessing naturalness.
  6. [General] There are several typographical issues, including the un-contracted φφ terms in Eq. (8), the notation K(∗) appearing without parentheses in some places, and the statement “N_LQ∼10” in the conclusions while Fig. 3 displays N_LQ up to 60 for some parameter choices. A careful proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper explicitly fits parameters, and the cited B-sector results are external data-driven analyses.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the required sense. The central g-2 mechanism fixes a required effective coupling κ from Eq. (13) and then shows in Eqs. (16)-(17) that N_LQ vector leptoquarks can generate that κ. This is a parameter construction, not a prediction disguised as a derivation; the paper never claims to predict (g-2)_μ from first principles. The B-anomaly resolution is imported from fits in Refs. [53] and [69], but those are data-driven analyses (including the stated constraint hU_bμ hU_sμ = 8×10^-4 from Ref. [69]); using them is normal literature reliance, and the self-citation is not load-bearing because the U-leptoquark mechanism is widely studied and externally falsifiable. The stated 'O(1) estimate' modeling the V-leptoquark loop by the W loop (Sec. III.B) is a genuine robustness limitation: the sign and normalization of the spin-1 colored loop are not computed, so the required N_LQ and m_LQ could change. But this is a correctness and uncertainty caveat, not an input-output identity. Predicted signals (B→K^(*)γγ, K→πγγ, and h→γγγγ) are computed after fixing parameters and are not used to define those parameters. Hence no step reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The model's central claims rest on several chosen parameters: the dark Higgs mass and mixing, tanβ, the effective Sγγ coupling, the number and coupling of V leptoquarks, and the U couplings fixed by B-decay fits. The most fragile axiom is the W-loop proxy for the V-leptoquark contribution. The dark Higgs has an independent experimental handle in rare meson decays; the leptoquarks do not.

free parameters (10)
  • mS (dark Higgs mass) = 10-200 MeV (scanned)
    Chosen range for S to be light enough for meson decays and heavy enough to evade the B to K(*) e+e- constraint at low mS.
  • sinθ (dark Higgs mixing) = ~0.005
    Sets the S couplings to fermions; chosen so the Barr-Zee contribution is large enough while FCNC constraints are satisfied.
  • tanβ = ~40-60
    Enhances down-type and lepton couplings of S; combined with sinθ determines the g-2 contribution.
  • κ (effective Sγγ coupling) = ~(1 TeV)^(-1)
    Required by Eq. (13) to resolve (g-2)_mu; effectively fitted to the anomaly.
  • N_LQ (number of V leptoquarks) = 5-50 depending on mass and coupling
    Set via Eq. (17) to produce the required κ.
  • g_V (SVV coupling) = 3 to 4π
    Chosen so that N_LQ stays plausibly small; larger g_V runs into strong coupling above the TeV scale.
  • m_LQ (V leptoquark mass) = 1-4 TeV
    TeV-scale masses consistent with current pair-production bounds.
  • hU_bμ hU_sμ product = 8×10^-4
    Fixed by the fit to b to s mu mu data, Eq. (21), following Ref. [69].
  • hU_bτ = ~1
    O(1) third-generation coupling required to explain R(D) and R(D*).
  • 2HDM quartic couplings (λ1, λ2, λ345, λd, λu, λud) = λ1=0.6, λ2=0.3, λ345=2.8, λd=-0.3, λu=0.0005, λud=0.005
    Chosen to make h to SS contribute to h to gamma gamma at a level consistent with the measured signal strength, µγγ ≈ 1.08.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Type II 2HDM with CP conservation is the underlying Higgs sector, with a scalar portal to the dark Higgs S.
    The model assumes this framework in Sec. II; CP conservation is imposed to avoid additional CP-violating mixing.
  • domain assumption A single U vector leptoquark with left-handed couplings can explain both R(D(*)) and R(K(*)) anomalies.
    The paper relies on fits in Refs. [53,55] (some with overlapping authors) rather than presenting a new global fit within this model.
  • ad hoc to paper The vector-leptoquark loop contribution to Sγγ is well approximated by the W-boson loop function FW.
    Stated in Sec. III.B as an O(1) estimate; no full calculation of the spin-1 colored loop is provided. This is the weakest assumption.
  • domain assumption The SM predictions for (g-2)_mu, R(K), R(K*), R(D), and R(D*) quoted in Eqs. (1)-(7) are the correct reference values.
    The anomaly magnitudes are taken from the cited literature; theoretical uncertainties are included but not re-evaluated.
  • domain assumption B to K(*) form factors from light-cone sum rules (Refs. [83,84]) are used for the decay rate predictions.
    Predictions for B to K(*) gamma gamma and B to K(*) e+ e- depend on these external form factors; the authors note they are not first-principle QCD.
  • ad hoc to paper The scalar potential can be tuned so that the physical S mass lies in the 10-200 MeV range.
    Footnote 4 states fine-tuning between the bare mass and quartic contributions is required; the mechanism is assumed to be stable under this tuning.
invented entities (3)
  • Dark Higgs boson S independent evidence
    purpose: Provides the Sγγ coupling and fermion couplings that generate the two-loop Barr-Zee contribution to (g-2)_mu, and produces the predicted rare meson decay signals.
    The model predicts B to K(*) gamma gamma, K to pi gamma gamma, and h to 4 gamma with branching fractions near current bounds, providing falsifiable signatures external to the paper's fit.
  • U leptoquark (3,1,2/3)
    purpose: Couples to left-handed quarks and leptons to resolve R(D(*)) and R(K(*)) anomalies.
    No new collider signature specific to this U leptoquark is presented beyond generic leptoquark pair production; its couplings are fitted to B anomalies.
  • V leptoquarks (3,1,5/3)
    purpose: Induce the effective Sγγ coupling that yields the g-2 contribution; not directly involved in B decays.
    The paper does not specify collider signatures or other independent observables for the V leptoquarks; their number, mass, and coupling are chosen to produce the desired κ.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Resolving the $(g-2)_{\mu}$ and $B$ anomalies with leptoquarks and a dark Higgs boson." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TCJXXWTC

@misc{pith2026190808625,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Resolving the $(g-2)_\mu$ and $B$ anomalies with leptoquarks and a dark Higgs boson},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TCJXXWTC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08625}
}
abstract

At present, there are outstanding discrepancies between standard model predictions and measurements of the muon's $g-2$ and several $B$-meson properties. We resolve these anomalies by considering a two-Higgs-doublet model extended to include leptoquarks and a dark Higgs boson $S$. The leptoquarks modify $B$-meson decays and also induce an $S \gamma \gamma$ coupling, which contributes to the muon's $g-2$ through a Barr-Zee diagram. We show that, for TeV-scale leptoquarks and dark Higgs boson masses $m_{S} \sim 10-200~\text{MeV}$, a consistent resolution to all of the anomalies exists. The model predicts interesting new decays, such as $B \to K^{(*)} e^+ e^-$, $B \to K^{(*)} \gamma \gamma$, $K \to \pi \gamma \gamma$, and $h \to \gamma \gamma \gamma \gamma$, with branching fractions not far below current bounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08625 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Contribution of the effective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The region of the (tan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The region of the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Contours of constant flight distance (excluding the boost factor) ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Contours of constant branching fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The values of the branching fractions for the decays [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Calculation of the hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment,

    RBC, UKQCD Collaboration, T. Blum, P. A. Boyle, V. G¨ ulpers, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Jung, A. J¨ uttner, C. Lehner, A. Portelli, and J. T. Tsang, “Calculation of the hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 no. 2, (2018) 022003, arXiv:1801.07224 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    ] −gmUSUµUµ

    and Lagrangian LU =−1 4FU µνFUµν−m2 UUµUµ− [ hU ij ( ¯QiLγµLjL ) Uµ + H.c. ] −gmUSUµUµ. (11) TheU leptoquark’s couplings to left-handed quarks and leptons resolve theB-meson anoma- lies. The leptoquark’s couplings to right-handed quarks and leptons are constrained to be small [69]. We have also included the leptoquark’s couplings to S. This interaction is...

  3. [3]

    A clear guide to the combined explanation of the anomalies may be found in Ref

    that couples dominantly to left-handed quarks and leptons. A clear guide to the combined explanation of the anomalies may be found in Ref. [62]. For a massmU∼ 1 TeV andO(1) couplings to the third generation, the U leptoquark can explain the R(D(∗)) and R(K(∗)) anomalies, at least for the central q2 data. Weak-scale states do not fully resolve the low-q2 d...

  4. [4]

    and assume that their couplings to right-handed quarks and leptons are identical. Assuming small couplings hV jk, the leading way in which these Vi leptoquarks contribute to (g− 2)µ is by inducing an Sγγ coupling, which then contributes through a Barr-Zee diagram. The Barr-Zee contribution to ( g− 2)µ with a W boson in the loop has been 6 mS=100 MeV mS=20...

  5. [5]

    In all panels, we setmS = 100 MeV

    induce an effectiveSγγ coupling that resolves the (g−2)µ anomaly. In all panels, we setmS = 100 MeV. In the upper and lower panels, we fix (sinθ, tanβ) = (0.01, 60) and (0.005, 40), respectively. For the left panels, we set gV = 3 and show the bands where the (g− 2)µ discrepancy is reduced to 1 σ. For the right panels, we consider the several values of gV i...

  6. [6]

    Final Report of the Muon E821 Anomalous Magnetic Moment Measurement at BNL,

    Muon g-2 Collaboration, G. W. Bennett et al., “Final Report of the Muon E821 Anomalous Magnetic Moment Measurement at BNL,” Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) 072003, arXiv:hep-ex/0602035 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    Muon (g− 2) Technical Design Report,

    Muon g-2 Collaboration, J. Grange et al., “Muon (g− 2) Technical Design Report,” arXiv:1501.06858 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    The Belle II Physics Book,

    Belle-II Collaboration, W. Altmannshofer et al., “The Belle II Physics Book,” arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    Evidence for an excess of ¯B→D(∗)τ−¯ντ decays,

    BaBar Collaboration, J. P. Lees et al., “Evidence for an excess of ¯B→D(∗)τ−¯ντ decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 101802, arXiv:1205.5442 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Measurement of an Excess of ¯B→D(∗)τ−¯ντ Decays and Implications for Charged Higgs Bosons,

    BaBar Collaboration, J. P. Lees et al., “Measurement of an Excess of ¯B→D(∗)τ−¯ντ Decays and Implications for Charged Higgs Bosons,” Phys. Rev. D88 no. 7, (2013) 072012, arXiv:1303.0571 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Measurement of the branching ratio of ¯B→D(∗)τ−¯ντ relative to ¯B→D(∗)𝓁−¯ν𝓁 decays with hadronic tagging at Belle,

    Belle Collaboration, M. Huschle et al., “Measurement of the branching ratio of ¯B→D(∗)τ−¯ντ relative to ¯B→D(∗)𝓁−¯ν𝓁 decays with hadronic tagging at Belle,” Phys. Rev. D92 no. 7, (2015) 072014, arXiv:1507.03233 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Measurement of the branching ratio of ¯B0→D∗+τ−¯ντ relative to ¯B0→D∗+𝓁−¯ν𝓁 decays with a semileptonic tagging method,

    Belle Collaboration, A. Abdesselam et al., “Measurement of the branching ratio of ¯B0→D∗+τ−¯ντ relative to ¯B0→D∗+𝓁−¯ν𝓁 decays with a semileptonic tagging method,” in Proceedings, 51st Rencontres de Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories: La Thuile, Italy, Mar...

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Measurement of the τ lepton polarization and R(D∗) in the decay ¯B→D∗τ−¯ντ,

    Belle Collaboration, S. Hirose et al., “Measurement of the τ lepton polarization and R(D∗) in the decay ¯B→D∗τ−¯ντ,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 no. 21, (2017) 211801, arXiv:1612.00529 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Measurement of the ratio of branching fractions B( ¯B0→D∗+τ−¯ντ)/B( ¯B0→D∗+µ−¯νµ),

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Measurement of the ratio of branching fractions B( ¯B0→D∗+τ−¯ντ)/B( ¯B0→D∗+µ−¯νµ),” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 no. 11, (2015) 111803, arXiv:1506.08614 [hep-ex] . [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.115,no.15,159901(2015)]

    2015

  7. [15]

    Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, and τ-lepton properties as of summer 2016,

    Heavy Flavor Averaging Group Collaboration, Y. Amhis et al., “Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, and τ-lepton properties as of summer 2016,” Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 895, arXiv:1612.07233 [hep-ex] . Updated results and plots available at https://hflav.web.cern.ch

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Revisiting B→D𝓁ν,

    D. Bigi and P. Gambino, “Revisiting B→D𝓁ν,” Phys. Rev. D94 no. 9, (2016) 094008, arXiv:1606.08030 [hep-ph] . 21

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Extraction of |Vcb| from B→D(∗)𝓁ν𝓁 and the Standard Model predictions of R(D(∗)),

    S. Jaiswal, S. Nandi, and S. K. Patra, “Extraction of |Vcb| from B→D(∗)𝓁ν𝓁 and the Standard Model predictions of R(D(∗)),” JHEP 12 (2017) 060, arXiv:1707.09977 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Measurement ofR(D) andR(D∗) with a semileptonic tagging method,

    Belle Collaboration, A. Abdesselam et al., “Measurement ofR(D) andR(D∗) with a semileptonic tagging method,” arXiv:1904.08794 [hep-ex]

    1904 arXiv

  11. [19]

    More model-independent analysis of b→s processes,

    G. Hiller and F. Kruger, “More model-independent analysis of b→s processes,” Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 074020, arXiv:hep-ph/0310219 [hep-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  12. [20]

    RK and future b→s𝓁𝓁 physics beyond the standard model opportunities,

    G. Hiller and M. Schmaltz, “ RK and future b→s𝓁𝓁 physics beyond the standard model opportunities,” Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 054014, arXiv:1408.1627 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Search for lepton-universality violation in B+→K+𝓁+𝓁− decays,

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Search for lepton-universality violation in B+→K+𝓁+𝓁− decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 no. 19, (2019) 191801, arXiv:1903.09252 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    On the Standard Model predictions for RK and RK∗,

    M. Bordone, G. Isidori, and A. Pattori, “On the Standard Model predictions for RK and RK∗,” Eur. Phys. J. C76 no. 8, (2016) 440, arXiv:1605.07633 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Test of lepton universality with B0→K∗0𝓁+𝓁− decays,

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Test of lepton universality with B0→K∗0𝓁+𝓁− decays,” JHEP 08 (2017) 055, arXiv:1705.05802 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Test of lepton flavor universality in B→K∗𝓁+𝓁− decays at Belle,

    Belle Collaboration, A. Abdesselam et al., “Test of lepton flavor universality in B→K∗𝓁+𝓁− decays at Belle,” arXiv:1904.02440 [hep-ex]

    1904 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Test of lepton flavor universality in B→K𝓁+𝓁− decays,

    A. Abdesselam et al., “Test of lepton flavor universality in B→K𝓁+𝓁− decays,” arXiv:1908.01848 [hep-ex]

    1908 arXiv

  18. [26]

    On the impact of power corrections in the prediction of B→K∗µ+µ− observables,

    S. Descotes-Genon, L. Hofer, J. Matias, and J. Virto, “On the impact of power corrections in the prediction of B→K∗µ+µ− observables,” JHEP 12 (2014) 125, arXiv:1407.8526 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Resonances gone topsy turvy - the charm of QCD or new physics in b→s𝓁+𝓁−?,

    J. Lyon and R. Zwicky, “Resonances gone topsy turvy - the charm of QCD or new physics in b→s𝓁+𝓁−?,” arXiv:1406.0566 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Reassessing the discovery potential of the B→K∗𝓁+𝓁− decays in the large-recoil region: SM challenges and BSM opportunities,

    S. J¨ ager and J. Martin Camalich, “Reassessing the discovery potential of the B→K∗𝓁+𝓁− decays in the large-recoil region: SM challenges and BSM opportunities,” Phys. Rev. D93 no. 1, (2016) 014028, arXiv:1412.3183 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Simultaneous Explanation of the RK and R(D(∗)) Puzzles,

    B. Bhattacharya, A. Datta, D. London, and S. Shivashankara, “Simultaneous Explanation of the RK and R(D(∗)) Puzzles,” Phys. Lett. B742 (2015) 370–374, arXiv:1412.7164 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Lepton universality violation and lepton flavor conservation inB-meson decays,

    R. Alonso, B. Grinstein, and J. Martin Camalich, “Lepton universality violation and lepton flavor conservation inB-meson decays,” JHEP 10 (2015) 184, arXiv:1505.05164 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    On the breaking of Lepton Flavor Universality in B decays,

    A. Greljo, G. Isidori, and D. Marzocca, “On the breaking of Lepton Flavor Universality in B decays,” JHEP 07 (2015) 142, arXiv:1506.01705 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Effective Field Theory Approach to b→s𝓁𝓁′, B→K(∗)νν and B→D(∗)τν with Third Generation Couplings,

    L. Calibbi, A. Crivellin, and T. Ota, “Effective Field Theory Approach to b→s𝓁𝓁′, B→K(∗)νν and B→D(∗)τν with Third Generation Couplings,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 181801, arXiv:1506.02661 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    RD(∗) anomaly: A possible hint for natural supersymmetry with R-parity violation,

    W. Altmannshofer, P. S. Bhupal Dev, and A. Soni, “ RD(∗) anomaly: A possible hint for natural supersymmetry with R-parity violation,” Phys. Rev. D96 no. 9, (2017) 095010, arXiv:1704.06659 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Patterns of New Physics in b→s𝓁+𝓁− transitions in the light of recent data,

    B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin, S. Descotes-Genon, J. Matias, and J. Virto, “Patterns of New Physics in b→s𝓁+𝓁− transitions in the light of recent data,” JHEP 01 (2018) 093, arXiv:1704.05340 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Interpreting Hints for Lepton Flavor Universality Violation,

    W. Altmannshofer, P. Stangl, and D. M. Straub, “Interpreting Hints for Lepton Flavor Universality Violation,” Phys. Rev. D96 no. 5, (2017) 055008, arXiv:1704.05435 22 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Flavour anomalies after the RK∗ measurement,

    G. D’Amico, M. Nardecchia, P. Panci, F. Sannino, A. Strumia, R. Torre, and A. Urbano, “Flavour anomalies after the RK∗ measurement,” JHEP 09 (2017) 010, arXiv:1704.05438 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    RK and RK∗ beyond the standard model,

    G. Hiller and I. Nisandzic, “ RK and RK∗ beyond the standard model,” Phys. Rev. D96 no. 3, (2017) 035003, arXiv:1704.05444 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Towards the discovery of new physics with lepton-universality ratios of b→s𝓁𝓁 decays,

    L.-S. Geng, B. Grinstein, S. J¨ ager, J. Martin Camalich, X.-L. Ren, and R.-X. Shi, “Towards the discovery of new physics with lepton-universality ratios of b→s𝓁𝓁 decays,” Phys. Rev. D96 no. 9, (2017) 093006, arXiv:1704.05446 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    On Flavourful Easter Eggs for New Physics Hunger and Lepton Flavour Universality Violation,

    M. Ciuchini, A. M. Coutinho, M. Fedele, E. Franco, A. Paul, L. Silvestrini, and M. Valli, “On Flavourful Easter Eggs for New Physics Hunger and Lepton Flavour Universality Violation,” Eur. Phys. J. C77 no. 10, (2017) 688, arXiv:1704.05447 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Gauge-invariant implications of the LHCb measurements on lepton-flavor nonuniversality,

    A. Celis, J. Fuentes-Martin, A. Vicente, and J. Virto, “Gauge-invariant implications of the LHCb measurements on lepton-flavor nonuniversality,” Phys. Rev. D96 no. 3, (2017) 035026, arXiv:1704.05672 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    A leptoquark model to accommodateRexp K <R SM K and Rexp K∗ <R SM K∗ ,

    D. Beˇ cirevi´ c and O. Sumensari, “A leptoquark model to accommodateRexp K <R SM K and Rexp K∗ <R SM K∗ ,” JHEP 08 (2017) 104, arXiv:1704.05835 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Minimal flavor-changingZ′ models and muon g− 2 after the RK∗ measurement,

    S. Di Chiara, A. Fowlie, S. Fraser, C. Marzo, L. Marzola, M. Raidal, and C. Spethmann, “Minimal flavor-changingZ′ models and muon g− 2 after the RK∗ measurement,” Nucl. Phys. B923 (2017) 245–257, arXiv:1704.06200 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    A New Light Particle in B Decays?,

    F. Sala and D. M. Straub, “A New Light Particle in B Decays?,” Phys. Lett. B774 (2017) 205–209, arXiv:1704.06188 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Explaining the RK and RK∗ anomalies,

    D. Ghosh, “Explaining the RK and RK∗ anomalies,” Eur. Phys. J. C77 no. 10, (2017) 694, arXiv:1704.06240 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    New Physics in b→sµ+µ− after the Measurement of RK∗,

    A. K. Alok, B. Bhattacharya, A. Datta, D. Kumar, J. Kumar, and D. London, “New Physics in b→sµ+µ− after the Measurement of RK∗,” Phys. Rev. D96 no. 9, (2017) 095009, arXiv:1704.07397 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Lepton flavor non-universality in the B-sector: a global analyses of various new physics models,

    A. K. Alok, D. Kumar, J. Kumar, and R. Sharma, “Lepton flavor non-universality in the B-sector: a global analyses of various new physics models,” arXiv:1704.07347 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Implications of the RK and RK∗ anomalies,

    W. Wang and S. Zhao, “Implications of the RK and RK∗ anomalies,” Chin. Phys. C42 no. 1, (2018) 013105, arXiv:1704.08168 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    U(1)B3−3Lµ gauge symmetry as a simple description of b→s anomalies,

    C. Bonilla, T. Modak, R. Srivastava, and J. W. F. Valle, “ U(1)B3−3Lµ gauge symmetry as a simple description of b→s anomalies,” Phys. Rev. D98 no. 9, (2018) 095002, arXiv:1705.00915 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Role of Tensor operators in RK and RK∗,

    D. Bardhan, P. Byakti, and D. Ghosh, “Role of Tensor operators in RK and RK∗,” Phys. Lett. B773 (2017) 505–512, arXiv:1705.09305 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Simultaneous explanation ofR(D(∗)) and b→sµ+µ−: the last scalar leptoquarks standing,

    A. Crivellin, D. M¨ uller, and T. Ota, “Simultaneous explanation ofR(D(∗)) and b→sµ+µ−: the last scalar leptoquarks standing,” JHEP 09 (2017) 040, arXiv:1703.09226 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Vector leptoquark resolution ofRK and RD(∗) puzzles,

    S. Fajfer and N. Koˇ snik, “Vector leptoquark resolution ofRK and RD(∗) puzzles,” Phys. Lett. B755 (2016) 270–274, arXiv:1511.06024 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Minimal Leptoquark Explanation for the RD(∗) , RK , and (g− 2)µ Anomalies,

    M. Bauer and M. Neubert, “Minimal Leptoquark Explanation for the RD(∗) , RK , and (g− 2)µ Anomalies,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 no. 14, (2016) 141802, arXiv:1511.01900 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Anomalies in B-decays and U(2) flavour symmetry,

    R. Barbieri, G. Isidori, A. Pattori, and F. Senia, “Anomalies in B-decays and U(2) flavour symmetry,” Eur. Phys. J. C76 no. 2, (2016) 67, arXiv:1512.01560 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Towards a unified explanation of RD(∗), RK 23 and (g− 2)µ anomalies in a left-right model with leptoquarks,

    D. Das, C. Hati, G. Kumar, and N. Mahajan, “Towards a unified explanation of RD(∗), RK 23 and (g− 2)µ anomalies in a left-right model with leptoquarks,” Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 055034, arXiv:1605.06313 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Phenomenology of anSU (2)×SU (2)×U(1) model with lepton-flavour non-universality,

    S. M. Boucenna, A. Celis, J. Fuentes-Martin, A. Vicente, and J. Virto, “Phenomenology of anSU (2)×SU (2)×U(1) model with lepton-flavour non-universality,” JHEP 12 (2016) 059, arXiv:1608.01349 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Leptoquark model to explain the B-physics anomalies, RK and RD,

    D. Beˇ cirevi´ c, S. Fajfer, N. Koˇ snik, and O. Sumensari, “Leptoquark model to explain the B-physics anomalies, RK and RD,” Phys. Rev. D94 no. 11, (2016) 115021, arXiv:1608.08501 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Simultaneous Explanation of the RK and RD(∗) Puzzles: a Model Analysis,

    B. Bhattacharya, A. Datta, J.-P. Gu´ evin, D. London, and R. Watanabe, “Simultaneous Explanation of the RK and RD(∗) Puzzles: a Model Analysis,” JHEP 01 (2017) 015, arXiv:1609.09078 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Excesses of muon g− 2, RD(∗), and RK in a leptoquark model,

    C.-H. Chen, T. Nomura, and H. Okada, “Excesses of muon g− 2, RD(∗), and RK in a leptoquark model,” Phys. Lett. B774 (2017) 456–464, arXiv:1703.03251 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Combined Explanations of the b→sµ+µ− and b→cτ−¯ν Anomalies: a General Model Analysis,

    J. Kumar, D. London, and R. Watanabe, “Combined Explanations of the b→sµ+µ− and b→cτ−¯ν Anomalies: a General Model Analysis,” Phys. Rev. D99 no. 1, (2019) 015007, arXiv:1806.07403 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  52. [60]

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

    M. Blanke and A. Crivellin, “ B Meson Anomalies in a Pati-Salam Model within the Randall-Sundrum Background,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 no. 1, (2018) 011801, arXiv:1801.07256 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Importance of Loop Effects in Explaining the Accumulated Evidence for New Physics in B Decays with a Vector Leptoquark,

    A. Crivellin, C. Greub, D. M¨ uller, and F. Saturnino, “Importance of Loop Effects in Explaining the Accumulated Evidence for New Physics in B Decays with a Vector Leptoquark,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 no. 1, (2019) 011805, arXiv:1807.02068 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Explaining the Flavor Anomalies with a Vector Leptoquark (Moriond 2019 update),

    A. Crivellin and F. Saturnino, “Explaining the Flavor Anomalies with a Vector Leptoquark (Moriond 2019 update),” PoS DIS2019 (2019) 163, arXiv:1906.01222 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Probing New Physics Signals with Symmetry-Restored Yukawa Textures,

    S.-P. Li and X.-Q. Li, “Probing New Physics Signals with Symmetry-Restored Yukawa Textures,” arXiv:1907.13555 [hep-ph]

    1907 arXiv

  56. [64]

    RD(∗),RK(∗) and neutrino mass in the 2HDM-III with right-handed neutrinos,

    S.-P. Li, X.-Q. Li, Y.-D. Yang, and X. Zhang, “ RD(∗),RK(∗) and neutrino mass in the 2HDM-III with right-handed neutrinos,” JHEP 09 (2018) 149, arXiv:1807.08530 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  57. [65]

    R2 as a single leptoquark solution to RD(∗) and RK(∗),

    O. Popov, M. A. Schmidt, and G. White, “ R2 as a single leptoquark solution to RD(∗) and RK(∗),” Phys. Rev. D100 no. 3, (2019) 035028, arXiv:1905.06339 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  58. [66]

    B-physics anomalies: a guide to combined explanations,

    D. Buttazzo, A. Greljo, G. Isidori, and D. Marzocca, “ B-physics anomalies: a guide to combined explanations,” JHEP 11 (2017) 044, arXiv:1706.07808 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Supersymmetry and the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon,

    J. L. Feng and K. T. Matchev, “Supersymmetry and the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 3480–3483, arXiv:hep-ph/0102146 [hep-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Scalar dark matter candidates,

    C. Boehm and P. Fayet, “Scalar dark matter candidates,” Nucl. Phys. B683 (2004) 219–263, arXiv:hep-ph/0305261 [hep-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Secluded U(1) below the weak scale,

    M. Pospelov, “Secluded U(1) below the weak scale,” Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 095002, arXiv:0811.1030 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  62. [70]

    US Cosmic Visions: New Ideas in Dark Matter 2017: Community Report,

    M. Battaglieri et al., “US Cosmic Visions: New Ideas in Dark Matter 2017: Community Report,” in U.S. Cosmic Visions: New Ideas in Dark Matter College Park, MD, USA, March 23-25, 2017 . 2017. arXiv:1707.04591 [hep-ph] . http://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2017/conf/fermilab-conf-17-282...

    2017 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Muon anomalous magnetic moment through the leptonic Higgs portal,

    B. Batell, N. Lange, D. McKeen, M. Pospelov, and A. Ritz, “Muon anomalous magnetic moment through the leptonic Higgs portal,” Phys. Rev. D95 no. 7, (2017) 075003, arXiv:1606.04943 [hep-ph] . 24

    2017 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Light resonances and the low-q2 bin of RK∗,

    W. Altmannshofer, M. J. Baker, S. Gori, R. Harnik, M. Pospelov, E. Stamou, and A. Thamm, “Light resonances and the low-q2 bin of RK∗,” JHEP 03 (2018) 188, arXiv:1711.07494 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  65. [73]

    The B Anomalies and New Physics in b→se+e−,

    A. Datta, J. Kumar, and D. London, “The B Anomalies and New Physics in b→se+e−,” Phys. Lett. B797 (2019) 134858, arXiv:1903.10086 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  66. [74]

    B-decay discrepancies after Moriond 2019,

    J. Aebischer, W. Altmannshofer, D. Guadagnoli, M. Reboud, P. Stangl, and D. M. Straub, “B-decay discrepancies after Moriond 2019,” arXiv:1903.10434 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Tale of two anomalies,

    H. Davoudiasl and W. J. Marciano, “Tale of two anomalies,” Phys. Rev. D98 no. 7, (2018) 075011, arXiv:1806.10252 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Implications of a light “dark Higgs

    C.-Y. Chen, H. Davoudiasl, W. J. Marciano, and C. Zhang, “Implications of a light “dark Higgs” solution to the gµ− 2 discrepancy,” Phys. Rev. D93 no. 3, (2016) 035006, arXiv:1511.04715 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  69. [77]

    New Barr-Zee contributions to ( g− 2)µ in two-Higgs-doublet models,

    V. Ilisie, “New Barr-Zee contributions to ( g− 2)µ in two-Higgs-doublet models,” JHEP 04 (2015) 077, arXiv:1502.04199 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Higgs Decay to Two Photons,

    W. J. Marciano, C. Zhang, and S. Willenbrock, “Higgs Decay to Two Photons,” Phys. Rev. D85 (2012) 013002, arXiv:1109.5304 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  71. [79]

    New Physics Contributions to the Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment: A Numerical Code,

    F. S. Queiroz and W. Shepherd, “New Physics Contributions to the Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment: A Numerical Code,” Phys. Rev. D89 no. 9, (2014) 095024, arXiv:1403.2309 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Continuing search for new physics in b→sµµ decays: two operators at a time,

    A. K. Alok, A. Dighe, S. Gangal, and D. Kumar, “Continuing search for new physics in b→sµµ decays: two operators at a time,” JHEP 06 (2019) 089, arXiv:1903.09617 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  73. [81]

    New Physics in b→s𝓁+𝓁− confronts new data on Lepton Universality,

    M. Ciuchini, A. M. Coutinho, M. Fedele, E. Franco, A. Paul, L. Silvestrini, and M. Valli, “New Physics in b→s𝓁+𝓁− confronts new data on Lepton Universality,” arXiv:1903.09632 [hep-ph]

    1903 arXiv

  74. [82]

    What RK and Q5 can tell us about New Physics in b→s𝓁𝓁 transitions?,

    M. Alguero, B. Capdevila, S. Descotes-Genon, P. Masjuan, and J. Matias, “What RK and Q5 can tell us about New Physics in b→s𝓁𝓁 transitions?,” JHEP 07 (2019) 096, arXiv:1902.04900 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Implications for New Physics in b→sµµ transitions after recent measurements by Belle and LHCb,

    K. Kowalska, D. Kumar, and E. M. Sessolo, “Implications for New Physics in b→sµµ transitions after recent measurements by Belle and LHCb,” arXiv:1903.10932 [hep-ph]

    1903 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Multi-lepton Signatures of a Hidden Sector in Rare B Decays,

    B. Batell, M. Pospelov, and A. Ritz, “Multi-lepton Signatures of a Hidden Sector in Rare B Decays,” Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) 054005, arXiv:0911.4938 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  77. [85]

    A light Z′ for the RK puzzle and nonstandard neutrino interactions,

    A. Datta, J. Liao, and D. Marfatia, “A light Z′ for the RK puzzle and nonstandard neutrino interactions,” Phys. Lett. B768 (2017) 265–269, arXiv:1702.01099 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  78. [86]

    New light mediators for the RK and RK∗ puzzles,

    A. Datta, J. Kumar, J. Liao, and D. Marfatia, “New light mediators for the RK and RK∗ puzzles,” Phys. Rev. D97 no. 11, (2018) 115038, arXiv:1705.08423 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  79. [87]

    B→V𝓁 +𝓁− in the Standard Model from light-cone sum rules,

    A. Bharucha, D. M. Straub, and R. Zwicky, “ B→V𝓁 +𝓁− in the Standard Model from light-cone sum rules,” JHEP 08 (2016) 098, arXiv:1503.05534 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  80. [88]

    New results on B→π,K,η decay formfactors from light-cone sum rules,

    P. Ball and R. Zwicky, “New results on B→π,K,η decay formfactors from light-cone sum rules,” Phys. Rev. D71 (2005) 014015, arXiv:hep-ph/0406232 [hep-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Lifetimes and heavy quark expansion,

    A. Lenz, “Lifetimes and heavy quark expansion,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A30 no. 10, (2015) 1543005, arXiv:1405.3601 [hep-ph] . [,63(2014)]

    2015 arXiv

  82. [90]

    flavio: a Python package for flavour and precision phenomenology in the Standard Model and beyond,

    D. M. Straub, “flavio: a Python package for flavour and precision phenomenology in the Standard Model and beyond,” arXiv:1810.08132 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  83. [91]

    Review of Particle Physics,

    Particle Data Group Collaboration, M. Tanabashi et al., “Review of Particle Physics,” Phys. Rev. D98 no. 3, (2018) 030001. 25

    2018

  84. [92]

    QCD corrections to b→sγγ induced decays: B→Xsγγ and Bs→γγ,

    L. Reina, G. Ricciardi, and A. Soni, “QCD corrections to b→sγγ induced decays: B→Xsγγ and Bs→γγ,” Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 5805–5815, arXiv:hep-ph/9706253 [hep-ph]

    1997 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Phenomenology of two Higgs doublet models with flavor changing neutral currents,

    D. Atwood, L. Reina, and A. Soni, “Phenomenology of two Higgs doublet models with flavor changing neutral currents,” Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 3156–3176, arXiv:hep-ph/9609279 [hep-ph]

    1997 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Measurement of BR(K±→µ±νµe+e−) with NA48/2 at CERN,

    G. Khoriauli, “Measurement of BR(K±→µ±νµe+e−) with NA48/2 at CERN,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 800 no. 1, (2017) 012035. http://stacks.iop.org/1742-6596/800/i=1/a=012035

    2017

  87. [95]

    New Physics and the Proton Radius Problem,

    C. E. Carlson and B. C. Rislow, “New Physics and the Proton Radius Problem,” Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 035013, arXiv:1206.3587 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Precise measurement of the K±→π±e+e− decay,

    NA48/2 Collaboration, J. R. Batley et al., “Precise measurement of the K±→π±e+e− decay,” Phys. Lett. B677 (2009) 246–254, arXiv:0903.3130 [hep-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Measurement of the B0→K∗0e+e− branching fraction at low dilepton mass,

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Measurement of the B0→K∗0e+e− branching fraction at low dilepton mass,” JHEP 05 (2013) 159, arXiv:1304.3035 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Measurement of the B→Xsl+l− branching fraction and search for direct CP violation from a sum of exclusive final states,

    BaBar Collaboration, J. P. Lees et al., “Measurement of the B→Xsl+l− branching fraction and search for direct CP violation from a sum of exclusive final states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 211802, arXiv:1312.5364 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Predictions for B→Kγγ decays,

    G. Hiller and A. S. Safir, “Predictions for B→Kγγ decays,” JHEP 02 (2005) 011, arXiv:hep-ph/0411344 [hep-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Higgs boson decays to CP odd scalars at the Tevatron and beyond,

    B. A. Dobrescu, G. L. Landsberg, and K. T. Matchev, “Higgs boson decays to CP odd scalars at the Tevatron and beyond,” Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 075003, arXiv:hep-ph/0005308 [hep-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Measurements of Higgs boson properties in the diphoton decay channel in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,

    CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., “Measurements of Higgs boson properties in the diphoton decay channel in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,” JHEP 11 (2018) 185, arXiv:1804.02716 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Measurements of Higgs boson properties in the diphoton decay channel using 80 fb−1 of pp collision data at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of Higgs boson properties in the diphoton decay channel using 80 fb−1 of pp collision data at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Tech. Rep. ATLAS-CONF-2018-028, CERN, Geneva, Jul, 2018. http://cds.cern.ch/record/2628771

    2018

  95. [103]

    Implications of a Modified Higgs to Diphoton Decay Width,

    M. Carena, I. Low, and C. E. M. Wagner, “Implications of a Modified Higgs to Diphoton Decay Width,” JHEP 08 (2012) 060, arXiv:1206.1082 [hep-ph] . 26

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.