Exclusive rare B -> K*e+e- decays at low recoil: controlling the long-distance effects

Benjamin Grinstein; Dan Pirjol

REVIEW

Exclusive rare B -> K*e+e- decays at low recoil: controlling the long-distance effects

Benjamin Grinstein, Dan Pirjol

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 28 Apr 2004 · 35 references

Pith's verdict: The OPE reorganization of the long-distance amplitude is the real contribution and it holds up; the sub-10% error bar is an estimate, not a calculation, and the low-recoil window is not as clean of charmonium as Sec. II suggests.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on October 29, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 7 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/0404250 (version 3)

Pith IDPBPM7V4H, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationBenjamin Grinstein, Dan Pirjol. "Exclusive rare B -> K*e+e- decays at low recoil: controlling the long-distance effects." arXiv:hep-ph/0404250 (2004). https://pith.science/paper/PBPM7V4H

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Worth your time, with one caveat about the error bar. The real contribution here is structural, not numerical. Grinstein and Pirjol take the nonlocal T-product that everyone else saturates with psi resonances and factorized B -> K* psi amplitudes, and expand it in 1/Q with Q = {m_b, sqrt(q^2)}. The power counting in Table I is clean, the operator basis is complete at the stated order, and the key result -- that the O(1) and O(m_c^2/Q^2) pieces collapse into state-independent effective Wilson coefficients C7^eff, C9^eff (Eqs. 53-56) built only from known form factors -- is the kind of thing that should have been done earlier. I checked the C7^eff algebra; it closes. The Appendix rederives the improved form factor relations from the QCD equations of motion rather than leaning on their earlier papers, which is the right move. Where it is soft: the O(Lambda/m_b) sector. The B1-B5 coefficients are kept formally but set to zero numerically, and the r_b(q^2_max) estimate is dimensional analysis, not a calculation -- the paper says the details are presented elsewhere. So the claim of Lambda/m_b control is structural, not demonstrated. That is a real gap, though an honestly flagged one. The duality estimate is the other soft spot, and here I would push back on the paper's own framing. Sec. II says q^2_max is sufficiently far from the c-cbar region, but the window they actually use, q^2 = 15-19.2 GeV^2, contains the psi(4040) at 16.3 and the psi(4160) at 17.6. Their R-ratio argument runs at sqrt(q^2) = 4.1-4.4 GeV, right on those states, and treats the ~25% oscillation as pQCD plus duality violation rather than as resonance contamination of an exclusive channel. The chain from 25% in Im C9^eff down to under 5% in N_eff is plausible but heuristic. The stress-test is right that the analogy they invoke, the R-ratio, is a two-point function, not the one Sec. II itself calls closer, the inclusive semileptonic width. The sub-10% headline is an estimate. Also worth noting: the |V_ub| method inherits the R_B = R_D SU(3) relation wholesale and adds nothing to it, and that uncertainty may be comparable to the 10% they work to control. For B-physics people doing rare decays or CKM fits. Yes to referees.

Referee report

Significance

The structural result is significant and, as far as I can check, correct: the demonstration that no new hadronic form factors enter the long-distance amplitude at O(1) and O(m_c^2/m_b^2), and that the leading OPE coefficients are state-independent and RG-invariant order by order, is a genuine improvement over resonance-saturation and parton-model treatments. The Appendix derivation of the improved form factor relations from the QCD equations of motion (Eqs. A21-A40) is important because it removes the appearance that the central claim rests on the authors' earlier self-citations [6,7]; the relations are rederived here, not assumed. The paper also makes falsifiable statements: the q^2 dependence of C_9^eff is predicted to be mild (about 2.5% between y=1 and y=1.5, Table II), and the shape of the dilepton spectrum and angular distributions are offered as a posteriori tests of the approximations. The |V_ub| method itself is not new, but the systematic control of the long-distance contribution is, and the explicit identification of which terms are calculable and which introduce new form factors is a useful service to the field.

Major objections (3)

[Sec. V, Eq. (96) and the duality-violation discussion] The quantitative estimate of duality violations is the weakest load-bearing step in the paper, and it is internally in tension with Sec. II. Section II states explicitly that 'a closer analogy is to the computation of the inclusive semileptonic width of B hadrons using the OPE and heavy quark expansion,' yet Sec. V estimates the duality error by analogy with the R ratio in e+e- -> hadrons, a two-point vacuum correlator rather than a three-point function with external B and K* states. The reduction chain quoted (25% oscillations in R, Im C_9^eff about 12% of |C_9^eff|, a further factor of 0.5 in N_eff) is a heuristic sequence of scalings, not a derivation, and the choice of analogy materially affects the final number. Since the '< 10%' figure in the abstract (abstract:s4) is the headline precision claim of the phenomenological section, the authors should either justify why the R-ratio analogy is the conservative choice despite the Sec. II remark, or quote the estimate as a range with the alternative analogy made explicit.
[Sec. II, paragraph on the zero-recoil point, versus Sec. V integration window] Section II states that the zero-recoil point q^2_max = 19.2 GeV^2 'is sufficiently far away from the threshold of the resonance region connected with c-cbar states q^2 ~ 10 GeV^2.' That statement is true of the endpoint itself, but the paper's own region of validity extends about 5 GeV^2 below q^2_max, and the phenomenological window quoted in Sec. V is q^2 = [15,19] GeV^2. That window contains the psi(4040) at q^2 ~ 16.3 GeV^2 and the psi(4160) at q^2 ~ 17.6 GeV^2. The paper should state explicitly that these resonances lie inside the integration region and explain why the OPE-based duality argument is still expected to apply there, rather than leaving the reader with the impression that the whole window is below the charmonium threshold.
[Abstract (abstract:s2) versus Sec. IV, Eqs. (76)-(78)] The abstract claims that nonperturbative effects 'up to and including terms suppressed by Lambda/Q and m_c^2/m_b^2 relative to the short-distance amplitude can be included in a model-independent way.' For the m_c^2/m_b^2 terms this is accurate, since they are absorbed into C_7^eff and C_9^eff. For the Lambda/Q terms it is not: Eqs. (76)-(78) express A^{l.d.} through D^{l.d.} in terms of the unknown Wilson coefficients B_{1-5} and the new form factors d^{(0)}, d_1^{(0)}, d_+^{(0)}, which are not computed anywhere in the paper. The Lambda/Q contribution is therefore parameterized, not predicted, and the phrase 'model-independent' should be qualified accordingly in the abstract and in the Sec. II summary sentence that the O(Lambda/Q) terms 'can be accounted for in terms of the form factors of the two dimension-4 currents.'

Minor objections (7)

[Abstract (abstract:s4) versus Sec. V, final paragraph] The abstract states that the residual theoretical uncertainty in the |V_ub| determination 'is estimated to be below 10%,' whereas Sec. V concludes that the uncertainty in N_eff is below about 10% and that this gives 'a total theory uncertainty on |V_ub| from this method of about 5%.' Since |V_ub| scales as the square root of N_eff, these two statements should be reconciled so that the abstract quotes the uncertainty on the quantity it names.
[Sec. V, Eq. (94) and the R_B/R_D relation] The paper is explicit that it has nothing new to add on the SU(3)- and heavy-quark-symmetry breaking relation R_B(y) = R_D(y)(1 + O(m_s(1/m_c - 1/m_b))), and that the quoted <10% refers only to N_eff. It would help to state in one sentence, near Eq. (95), that the total theoretical error of the |V_ub| method also carries this unimproved symmetry-breaking uncertainty, so that the reader does not conflate the two.
[Sec. III, Eq. (34)] The matrix element of the four-quark operator in Eq. (34) contains an explicit 1/epsilon pole, and the text notes only that the coefficient of log m_c agrees with the expansion of the exact result. A sentence explaining that the pole cancels against the mixing of these operators into O^{(-2)} would make the matching argument complete, even though these operators are subsequently dropped.
[Sec. II, discussion of duality onset] The statement that 'duality sets in much faster from below resonance than from above, as evidenced by empirical observation' is asserted without a reference. A citation to the e+e- -> hadrons data or to a standard discussion of local duality would strengthen it.
[Table II] In the LL rows the entries for C_7^eff at y=1 and y=1.5 are given as 'C7' rather than as numerical values, while the NLL rows give explicit complex numbers. If this is intentional (i.e. C_7^eff = C_7 at LL), a footnote to that effect would avoid the appearance of a missing entry.
[Fig. 1 caption] The caption refers to 'one of the operators O^{(-1,0)}', a shorthand that is not defined in the text; spelling out O^{(-1)} and O^{(0)} would remove the ambiguity.
[Sec. II, operator list] The paper states that 'there are no contributions scaling like Q m_c, since the dependence on the charm quark mass must contain only even powers of m_c.' This is correct but deserves one clause of justification (e.g. that the charm mass enters only through the closed loop), since it is the step that fixes the placement of the m_c^2 operators in Table I.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

The long-distance contributions to B -> K* e+e- at low recoil are shown to be computable in an operator product expansion in terms of known form factors, enabling a |Vub| extraction with estimated theory error below 10%.

The reading

Rare decays of B mesons into a K* and an electron-positron pair are sensitive to short-distance physics, but they also receive long-distance contributions from quark loops (charm and up quarks) that are hard to calculate. Near the zero-recoil point, where the lepton pair has large invariant mass q^2 close to (mB - mK*)^2, the authors show that these long-distance effects can be organized in an operator product expansion in inverse powers of Q = {mb, sqrt(q^2)}. The leading terms and the leading charm-mass corrections depend only on the same B -> K* form factors that already appear in the short-distance amplitude, so no new hadronic unknowns enter at that order. Corrections suppressed by Lambda/mb are given by matrix elements of local dimension-4 operators, which can be related to physical form factors through equations of motion. The paper then uses this expansion to relate the rare decay rate to the semileptonic B -> rho e nu rate, with a calculable coefficient N_eff. The ratio of rates gives |Vub|, up to SU(3) breaking that can be constrained by D decays. The authors estimate the residual theory uncertainty at below 10%, dominated by duality violations, which they argue are small by analogy with the R ratio in e+e- annihilation.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The nonlocal long-distance amplitude for B -> K* e+e- at low recoil can be expanded in an OPE in 1/Q with Q = {mb, sqrt(q^2)}, and the leading O(1) and O(mc^2/mb^2) terms depend only on known B -> K* form factors, with O(Lambda/mb) corrections given by local dimension-4 operators. This is stated in Sec II (Eq. 8 and Table I) and realized in Sec IV through the effective Wilson coefficients C7^eff, C9^eff (Eqs. 53-56) and the local operators O(-1)_i.

Load-bearing premise

Local quark-hadron duality holds in the low-recoil region q^2 ~ 15-19 GeV^2, so the OPE in 1/Q with Q ~ 4-5 GeV converges and duality violations are small. This premise enters in Sec II, where the paper invokes local duality by analogy with e+e- -> hadrons and states that it is 'expected to hold up to power corrections in 1/Q'. If duality fails at these scales, the truncation of the expansion and the 'below 10%' uncertainty estimate are uncontrolled.

Original abstract

We present a model-independent description of the exclusive rare decays B-> K* e+e- in the low recoil region (large lepton invariant mass q^2 ~ m_b^2). In this region the long-distance effects from quark loops can be computed with the help of an operator product expansion in 1/Q, with Q={m_b, \sqrt{q^2}}. Nonperturbative effects up to and including terms suppressed by Lambda/Q and mc^2/mb^2 relative to the short-distance amplitude can be included in a model-independent way. Based on these results, we propose an improved method for determining the CKM matrix element |V{ub}| from a combination of rare and semileptonic B and D decays near the zero recoil point. The residual theoretical uncertainty from long distance effects in this |V{ub}| determination comes from terms in the OPE of order alpha_s(Q)\Lambda/mb, alpha_s^2(Q), mc^4/mb^4$ and duality violations and is estimated to be below 10%.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,476 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.05 · states limitation 0.90 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.94 · compares with prior results 0.20 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v3. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We present a model-independent description of the exclusive rare decays B-> K* e+e- in the low recoil region (large lepton invariant mass q^2 ~ m_b^2). In this region the long-distance effects from quark loops can be computed with the help of an operator product expansion in 1/Q, with Q={m_b, \sqrt{q^2}}. Nonperturbative effects up to and including terms suppressed by Lambda/Q and mc^2/mb^2 relative to the short-distance amplitude can be included in a model-independent way. Based on these results, we propose an improved method for determining the CKM matrix element |V{ub}| from a combination of rare and semileptonic B and D decays near the zero recoil point. The residual theoretical uncertainty from long distance effects in this |V{ub}| determination comes from terms in the OPE of order alpha_s(Q)\Lambda/mb, alpha_s^2(Q), mc^4/mb^4$ and duality violations and is estimated to be below 10%.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We present a model-independent description of the exclusive rare decays B-> K* e+e- in the low recoil region (large lepton invariant mass q^2 ~ m_b^2).	contribution 1.00	0.90	0.11	asserted 1.00
s1	In this region the long-distance effects from quark loops can be computed with the help of an operator product expansion in 1/Q, with Q={m_b, \sqrt{q^2}}.	method 0.79	0.24	0.06	asserted 0.91
s2	Nonperturbative effects up to and including terms suppressed by Lambda/Q and mc^2/mb^2 relative to the short-distance amplitude can be included in a model-independent way.	method 0.47	0.69	0.16	asserted 0.93
s3	Based on these results, we propose an improved method for determining the CKM matrix element \|V{ub}\| from a combination of rare and semileptonic B and D decays near the zero recoil point.	contribution 0.87	0.79	0.44	asserted 0.48
s4	The residual theoretical uncertainty from long distance effects in this \|V{ub}\| determination comes from terms in the OPE of order alpha_s(Q)\Lambda/mb, alpha_s^2(Q), mc^4/mb^4$ and duality violations and is estimated to be below 10%.	result 0.60	0.87	0.22	asserted 0.96

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.69 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.96.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v3

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1: Contributions to the

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Graphs in QCD contributing to the matching onto ¯s

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Graphs contributing to the matching onto operators w

Figures reproduced from arXiv:hep-ph/0404250 by the authors.

References

Works cited (35)

[1]

A. Ali, P. Ball, L.T. Handoko and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D 61, 074024 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[2]

T. Onogi, arXiv:hep-ph/0309225; D. Becirevic, S. Prelo vsek and J. Zupan, Phys. Rev. D 67, 054010 (2003); J. Shigemitsu, S. Collins, C. T. H. Davies, J. Hein, R. R. Horgan and G. P. Lepa ge, Phys. Rev. D 66, 074506 (2002). A. X. El-Khadra, A. S. Kronfeld, P. B. Mackenzie, S. M. Ryan and J. N. Simone, Ph ys. Rev. D 64, 014502 (2001)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[3]

P. Ball, arXiv:hep-ph/0308249; P. Ball and R. Zwicky, JH EP 0110, 019 (2001)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[4]

N. Isgur and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D 42, 2388 (1990)

View on Pith 1990
[5]

G. Burdman and J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Lett. B 270, 55 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[6]

B. Grinstein and D. Pirjol, Phys. Lett. B 533, 8 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[7]

B. Grinstein and D. Pirjol, Phys. Lett. B 549, 314 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[8]

B. Grinstein, M. Savage and M. B. Wise, Nucl. Phys. B 319, 271 (1989); B. Grinstein, R. Springer and M. B. Wise, Nucl. Phys. B 339, 269 (1990)

View on Pith 1989
[9]

G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras and M. E. Lautenbacher,Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 1125 (1996)

View on Pith 1996
[10]

A. J. Buras and M. M¨ unz, Phys. Rev. D 52, 186 (1995); M. Misiak, Nucl. Phys. B 393, 23 (1993); [(E) Nucl. Phys. B 439, 461 (1995).]

View on Pith 1995
[11]

C. S. Lim, T. Morozumi and A. I. Sanda, Phys. Lett. B 218, 343 (1989); N. G. Deshpande, J. Trampetic and K. Panose, Phys. Rev. D39, 1461 (1989); P. J. O’Donnell and H. K. K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D 43, 2067 (1991); F. Kruger and L. M. Sehgal, Phys. Lett. B 380, 199 (1996)

View on Pith 1989
[12]

Z. Ligeti, I. W. Stewart and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 420, 359 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[13]

A. I. Sanda and A. Yamada, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2807 (1995). 21

View on Pith 1995
[14]

Z. Ligeti and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D 53, 4937 (1996)

View on Pith 1996
[15]

B. Grinstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3067 (1993)

View on Pith 1993
[16]

B. Aubert et al. [BABAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 221802 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ex/0308042]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[17]

A. Ishikawa et al. [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 261601 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ex/0308044]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[18]

B. Grinstein and D. Pirjol, Phys. Rev. D 62, 093002 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[19]

B. Grinstein, D. R. Nolte and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4545 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[20]

E. D. Bloom and F. J. Gilman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 25, 1140 (1970); idem, Phys. Rev. D 4, 2901 (1971)

View on Pith 1970
[21]

E. C. Poggio, H. R. Quinn and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 13, 1958 (1976)

View on Pith 1976
[22]

M. A. Shifman, arXiv:hep-ph/0009131

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[23]

J. Chay, H. Georgi and B. Grinstein, Phys. Lett. B 247, 399 (1990); M. A. Shifman and M. B. Voloshin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 41, 120 (1985)

View on Pith 1990
[24]

D. Seidel, arXiv:hep-ph/0403185

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[25]

A. Ghinculov, T. Hurth, G. Isidori and Y. P. Yao, arXiv:h ep-ph/0312128. H. H. Asatrian, H. M. Asatrian, C. Greub and M. Walker, Phys. Lett. B 507, 162 (2001); H. H. Asatryan, H. M. Asatrian, C. Greub and M. Wa lker, Phys. Rev. D 65, 074004 (2002)

View on Pith 2001
[26]

E. Eichten and B. Hill, Phys. Lett. B 240, 193 (1990)

View on Pith 1990
[27]

K. G. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak and M. Munz, Nucl. Phys. B 520, 279 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[28]

C. Bobeth, M. Misiak and J. Urban, Nucl. Phys. B 574, 291 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[29]

M. Beneke, T. Feldmann and D. Seidel, Nucl. Phys. B 612, 25 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[30]

P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn and U. Haisch, Nucl. Phys. B 673, 238 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[31]

C. Bobeth, P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn and U. Haisch, [arXiv: hep-ph/0312090]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[32]

K. Hagiwara et al. [Particle Data Group Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 66, 010001 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[33]

C.W. Bauer, S. Fleming and M.E. Luke, Phys. Rev. D 63, 014006 (2001); C.W. Bauer et al., Phys. Rev. D 63, 114020 (2001); C.W. Bauer and I.W. Stewart, Phys. Lett. B 516, 134 (2001); C.W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I.W. Stewart, Phys. Re v. D 65, 054022 (2002). C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys . Rev. D 67, 071502 (2003)

View on Pith 2001
[34]

M. Beneke and T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. B 592, 3 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[35]

D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, arXiv:hep-ph/0309053

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

Forward citations

Cited by 59 Pith papers

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

Enhanced Three-Particle Contribution to Electroweak Penguin $B$-Meson Decays
hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

The leading-power three-particle twist-three B-meson distribution amplitude contribution to B->P l+ l- decays is computed at NLO in SCET and changes some CP-asymmetry predictions by 15-30%.
Unitarity bounds with subthreshold and anomalous cuts for $b$-hadron decays
hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

A generalized, unitarity-bounded parametrization for b-hadron decay form factors that incorporates subthreshold and anomalous branch cuts is constructed.
Non-local matrix elements in $B_{(s)}\to \{K^{(*)},\phi\}\ell^+\ell^-$
hep-ph 2020-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The soft-gluon correction to the charm-loop amplitude in rare B decays is two orders of magnitude smaller than previously calculated, and a new dispersive bound turns the extrapolation truncation error into a parametric one.
Observation of a resonance in $B^+ \to K^+ \mu^+\mu^-$ decays at low recoil
hep-ex 2013-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

A greater-than-six-sigma resonance at 4191 MeV (width 65 MeV) in B+ to K+ mu+ mu- is identified with the psi(4160), giving the first observation of B+ to psi(4160) K+ and psi(4160) to mu+ mu-.
Hilbert Series of Pseudoscalar Mesons: Operators and Sum Rules
hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A Hilbert series construction yields the complete four-meson, two-derivative operator basis with CKM spurions, from which all leading-order B to pseudoscalar decay sum rules follow as null vectors.

Show 54 more citing papers

Probing New Physics Through CP Violation in $B_{(s)}\to V\mu^+\mu^-$ Decays
hep-ph 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The paper identifies a minimal four-observable basis in Bd -> K* mu+ mu- that, combined with B -> K mu+ mu- input, can extract the complex (CP-violating) Wilson coefficients C9, C10, C'9 and C'10.
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 ...
Dispersive Analysis of $B\to K^{(*)}$ and $B_s\to \phi$ Form Factors
hep-ph 2023-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Including below-threshold B_s pi0 and B_s pi0 pi0 branch cuts in a joint dispersive fit of the B to K(*), B_s to phi form factors produces parametrizations whose truncation error is bounded rather than guessed.
On Flavourful Easter eggs for New Physics hunger and Lepton Flavour Universality violation
hep-ph 2017-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Fitting six New Physics scenarios to rare B decay data, the authors find nonzero Wilson coefficients at about 3 sigma under conservative hadronic assumptions, and show that an axial lepton-flavour-violating scenario f...
Towards the discovery of new physics with lepton-universality ratios of $b\to s\ell\ell$ decays
hep-ph 2017-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

LHCb's muon-to-electron ratios in B decays deviate from the Standard Model at 3.7 sigma, and effective-field-theory fits favour new physics in the O9/O10 operators, with a proposed new observable to isolate the O10 co...
Patterns of Flavour Violation in Models with Vector-Like Quarks
hep-ph 2016-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A systematic survey of eleven vector-like-quark models shows their kaon and B-meson predictions fall into distinguishable patterns, and that combining mixing with rare-decay data fixes the new quark mass independently...
Assessing lepton-flavour non-universality from $B\to K^*\ell\ell$ angular analyses
hep-ph 2016-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Combinations of B to K* electron and muon angular coefficients, especially the ratio ~M, can probe lepton-flavour non-universal new physics while largely cancelling charm-loop hadronic uncertainties at leading order i...
On the anomalies in the latest LHCb data
hep-ph 2016-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Fitting all b to s l+ l- data to Wilson coefficients, the authors find a muon-specific C9 shift of about -21 percent preferred at 4.2 sigma, with the tension robust against form-factor and power-correction variations ...
$\Lambda_b \to \Lambda \ell^+ \ell^-$ form factors, differential branching fraction, and angular observables from lattice QCD with relativistic $b$ quarks
hep-lat 2016-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A lattice QCD calculation at the physical bottom-quark mass yields all ten Lambda_b to Lambda form factors and Standard-Model predictions for the Lambda_b to Lambda mu mu differential rate and angular observables.
Phenomenology of semileptonic B-meson decays with form factors from lattice QCD
hep-ph 2015-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

With new lattice-QCD form factors, Standard Model predictions for B to pi/K mu mu run 1 to 2 sigma above LHCb measurements, and the same inputs give |Vtd| and |Vts| with uncertainties competitive with meson mixing.
$B\to V\ell^+\ell^-$ in the Standard Model from Light-Cone Sum Rules
hep-ph 2015-03 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Updated light-cone sum rule form factors for B to V l+ l- decays, with correlated uncertainties and combined lattice fits, sharpen Standard Model predictions for rare B decays and the extraction of |Vub|.
Reassessing the discovery potential of the $B \to K^{*} \ell^+\ell^-$ decays in the large-recoil region: SM challenges and BSM opportunities
hep-ph 2014-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Allowing power corrections to the heavy-quark limit to float reduces the B to K* mu mu angular anomaly from 3.7 sigma to below 2 sigma, and new muon-to-electron angular ratios are proposed as clean lepton-universality tests.
Angular Analysis of the Decay $\Lambda_b \to \Lambda (\to N \pi) \ell^+\ell^-$
hep-ph 2014-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The full angular distribution of Lambda_b to Lambda(-> N pi) l+ l- yields ten angular observables, two of which (X1, X2) probe right-handed b to s couplings that B to K* l+ l- cannot access.
On the impact of power corrections in the prediction of B->K*mu+mu- observables
hep-ph 2014-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Using a scheme-dependent treatment of soft form factors and a fit to light-cone sum rule inputs, the authors find that factorisable power corrections to B to K* mu+ mu- angular observables are under control at the rou...
Resonances gone topsy turvy - the charm of QCD or new physics in $b \to s \ell^+ \ell^-$?
hep-ph 2014-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The charm-resonance interference observed by LHCb in B+ to K+ mu mu has the wrong sign and is about seven times too large to be explained by Standard Model factorisation plus estimated QCD corrections.
Calculation of $B^0 \to K^{*0} \mu^+ \mu^-$ and $B_s^0 \to \phi \mu^+ \mu^-$ observables using form factors from lattice QCD
hep-ph 2013-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Using unquenched lattice QCD form factors, the authors find the Standard Model overpredicts high-q² B → K* μμ and Bs → φ μμ rates by about 30%, and a fit to C9 and C9' yields a 2σ hint of new physics.
Lattice QCD calculation of form factors describing the rare decays $B \to K^* \ell^+ \ell^-$ and $B_s \to \phi \ell^+ \ell^-$
hep-lat 2013-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Full-QCD lattice calculations with 2+1 dynamical quark flavors and NRQCD bottom quarks determine the B to K* and Bs to phi form factors at low recoil with roughly 5 percent total systematic uncertainty.
Understanding the B->K*mu+mu- Anomaly
hep-ph 2013-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The LHCb B to K* mu mu anomalies are best explained by a negative new-physics shift in the semileptonic Wilson coefficient C9 of roughly -1.5, at 4.5 sigma significance from large-recoil data alone.
Isospin asymmetries in $B\to (K^*,\rho) \gamma/ l^+ l^-$ and $B \to K l^+ l^-$ in and beyond the Standard Model
hep-ph 2013-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Standard Model isospin asymmetries in B to K, K*, rho plus lepton pairs are computed to be below 1.5 percent at low dilepton mass, and a ratio of the rho-gamma and K*-gamma asymmetries is proposed as a quasi-null test...
General Analysis of B -> K^(*) l^+ l^- Decays at Low Recoil
hep-ph 2012-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

At low hadronic recoil, the transversity observables H_T^(1,3,4,5) stay free of hadronic matrix elements even with the full dimension-six operator basis, and J_7 probes the operator product expansion at the few-percent level.
On B -> V l l at small dilepton invariant mass, power corrections, and new physics
hep-ph 2012-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The positive-helicity amplitudes in B to K* lepton pairs are suppressed by the V-A structure even including non-factorizable charm and light-quark corrections, leaving P1 and P3^CP as clean null tests sensitive to C'_...
The Decay B --> K l^+ l^- at Low Hadronic Recoil and Model-Independent Delta B = 1 Constraints
hep-ph 2011-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

At low hadronic recoil, B to K l+l- and B to K* l+l- rates for light leptons share a single short-distance coefficient, forcing identical CP asymmetries, and current data bound new-physics scales above 44 TeV.
Theory of B -> K(*)l+l- decays at high q^2: OPE and quark-hadron duality
hep-ph 2011-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The high-q^2 region of B -> K(*) l+ l- is shown to be calculable from standard form factors alone, with nonperturbative corrections and quark-hadron duality violation each estimated below a few percent.
Flavor Physics in the Randall-Sundrum Model: II. Tree-Level Weak-Interaction Processes
hep-ph 2009-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

In the minimal Randall-Sundrum model, tree-level Kaluza-Klein exchange makes Delta F=2 observables relatively model-independent while Delta F=1 rare decays depend strongly on right-handed top quark localization and th...
CP Asymmetries in bar B -> bar K* (-> bar K pi) l+ l- and Untagged bar B_s,B_s -> phi (-> K+ K-) l+ l- Decays at NLO
hep-ph 2008-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Seven angular CP asymmetries in B -> K* l+ l- are computed at NLO in QCD factorization; all sit at or below the percent level in the Standard Model, while the three T-odd ones can reach order one with new physics.
Improved Theory Predictions and Global Analysis of Exclusive $\boldsymbol{b\to s\mu^+\mu^-}$ Processes
hep-ph 2022-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A global analysis of rare B to K(*) mu+mu- and Bs to phi mu+mu- decays with parametrized non-local form factors finds a 5.7 sigma tension with the Standard Model in B to K mu+mu- and BSM shifts Re C9 approximately -1....
Interplay of dineutrino modes with semileptonic rare $\boldsymbol{B}$-decays
hep-ph 2021-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Using the Standard Model's SU(2) link between dineutrino and charged-dilepton couplings, the authors predict that lepton universality forces the B0 to K*0 neutrino-pair to B0 to K0 neutrino-pair branching ratio into 1...
$B\to K^* \ell^+ \ell^-$ decays at large recoil in the Standard Model: a theoretical reappraisal
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Once charm-loop power corrections with a q^4 term are allowed as free nuisance parameters, LHCb B to K* mu+ mu- angular data are described by the Standard Model with no new physics required.
Global analysis of $b\to s\ell\ell$ anomalies
hep-ph 2015-10 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

A global fit to 3 fb^-1 of LHCb b to s lepton data confirms that a negative new-physics contribution to C9 of about -1 is the most economical explanation of the B to K* mu mu anomaly, with several two-parameter scenar...
$B\to Kl^+l^-$ decay form factors from three-flavor lattice QCD
hep-lat 2015-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Lattice QCD with 2+1 flavors yields f+, f0, and fT for B to K l+ l- across the full q2 range, with total errors of about 3% at high q2 and 10-30% at q2 = 0.
Generalised helicity formalism, higher moments and the $B \to K_{J_K}(\to K \pi) \bar{\ell}_1 \ell_2$ angular distributions
hep-ph 2015-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A generalized helicity formalism yields the complete angular distribution for B to K(*) l1 l2 decays and proposes higher angular moments as a diagnostic for QED corrections and higher-spin operators.
Lepton flavor non-universality in $b \to s \ell^+ \ell^-$ processes
hep-ph 2015-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A lepton-specific right-handed coupling fit to B_s to mu mu and B to K mu mu data predicts R_K* = 1.11(8) and R_K*/R_K = 1.27(19), testable at LHCb.
Angular analysis of charged and neutral $B \to K \mu^+\mu^-$ decays
hep-ex 2014-03 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Angular fits to 4746 charged and 176 neutral B to K mu+ mu- candidates yield the most precise A_FB and F_H values to date, all consistent with Standard Model expectations.
Differential branching fractions and isospin asymmetries of $B \to K^{(*)}\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ decays
hep-ex 2014-03 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

With 3 inverse femtobarns of LHCb data, the isospin asymmetries of B to K mu mu and B to K* mu mu are consistent with the Standard Model, while all three measured branching fractions sit below their predictions but re...
Comprehensive Bayesian Analysis of Rare (Semi)leptonic and Radiative B Decays
hep-ph 2013-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A Bayesian global fit of rare B decay data prefers the Standard Model over new physics in C7, C9, C10 and their chirality-flipped partners, once 15 percent power corrections are permitted.
B -> K^* Form Factors from Flavor Data to QCD and Back
hep-ph 2013-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Form factor ratios extracted from B to K-star dilepton angular data at low recoil, combined with heavy-quark symmetry and LCSR input, yield Standard-Model-consistent predictions for A_FB and P'_5.
Differential branching fraction and angular analysis of the decay $B^{0} \to K^{*0} \mu^{+}\mu^{-}$
hep-ex 2013-04 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

The forward-backward asymmetry of B0 to K*0 mu+ mu- changes sign at q^2 = 4.9 +/- 0.9 GeV^2/c^4, the first measurement of that zero-crossing, consistent with Standard Model predictions.
Optimizing the basis of B->K*ll observables in the full kinematic range
hep-ph 2013-03 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

The authors define an optimal basis of form-factor-insensitive angular observables for B → K*ℓ+ℓ− and provide binned Standard Model predictions for both CP-averaged and CP-violating quantities.
Differential branching fraction and angular analysis of the $B^{+} \rightarrow K^{+}\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ decay
hep-ex 2012-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

LHCb reports the most precise differential branching fraction and a binned angular analysis of B+ to K+ mu+ mu-, finding angular observables consistent with the Standard Model and a total branching fraction of (4.36 +...
Bayesian Fit of Exclusive $b \to s \bar\ell\ell$ Decays: The Standard Model Operator Basis
hep-ph 2012-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A full Bayesian fit of the Wilson coefficients C7, C9 and C10 to exclusive rare B decays finds a Standard-Model-like and a sign-flipped solution with roughly equal posterior weight, and no evidence requiring new physics.
Model-independent constraints on new physics in b --> s transitions
hep-ph 2011-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Combining all available b to s rare-decay data, the fit finds every 95% confidence region compatible with the Standard Model, excludes several sign-flipped Wilson coefficient scenarios, and caps Bs to mu mu at roughly...
More Benefits of Semileptonic Rare B Decays at Low Recoil: CP Violation
hep-ph 2011-05 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

At low hadronic recoil, CP asymmetries in B -> K* l+ l- and Bs -> phi l+ l- are Standard-Model null tests (order 10^-4) that current data allow to reach about 0.2, and several can be measured without flavor tagging.
New Physics in b -> s mu+ mu-: CP-Conserving Observables
hep-ph 2010-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

New vector-axial-vector operators can push most CP-conserving asymmetries in b to s mu mu decays well past Standard Model predictions, while scalar and tensor operators can do so only for the forward-backward asymmetr...
The Benefits of B ---> K* l+ l- Decays at Low Recoil
hep-ph 2010-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Low-recoil B -> K* l+ l- data, analyzed in the Grinstein-Pirjol HQET framework, constrain the Wilson coefficients C9 and C10 more tightly than large-recoil data and admit both Standard Model and beyond-Standard-Model ...
Theoretical and Phenomenological Constraints on Form Factors for Radiative and Semi-Leptonic B-Meson Decays
hep-ph 2010-04 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Two-term series expansions, constrained by newly computed NLO tensor-current dispersive bounds, describe B to K, rho, K* and phi form factors across the whole decay region and reproduce lattice points not used in the fits.
The rare decay $B^+ \to K^+\ell^+\ell^-(\nu\bar{\nu})$ under the QCD sum rules approach
hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A QCD light-cone sum-rule calculation with the authors' kaon distribution amplitudes predicts B(B+ to K+ nu nubar) = 4.14 x 10^-6 and B(B+ to K+ l+l-) around 6.6 x 10^-7, consistent with other SM estimates.
Implications of new evidence for lepton-universality violation in $b\to s\ell^+\ell^-$ decays
hep-ph 2021-03 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Combining R_K, R_K* and B_s to mu mu measurements, the authors find 4.0 sigma tension with the Standard Model and best-fit new-physics couplings to muons of delta C9 = -0.82 or delta C10 = +0.65.
Angular analysis of the decay B0 to K*0 mu mu from pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV
hep-ex 2015-07 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

CMS extracts the muon forward-backward asymmetry, the K*0 longitudinal polarization, and the differential branching fraction of B0 to K*0 mu mu in seven bins of dimuon mass squared, finding agreement with standard-mod...
On the LHCb anomaly in B -> K* l+ l-
hep-ph 2013-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Under the Minimal Flavour Violation hypothesis, the LHCb B to K* mu mu angular anomalies are compatible with data at the 2 sigma level without introducing new flavour structures.
Angular analysis and branching fraction measurement of the decay B0 to K*0 mu+ mu-
hep-ex 2013-08 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

CMS measures the muon forward-backward asymmetry, the K*0 longitudinal polarization, and the differential branching fraction of B0 to K*0 mu+ mu- across dimuon mass bins, finding agreement with standard-model predictions.
Implications of LHCb measurements and future prospects
hep-ex 2012-08 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

LHCb's first 1.0 fb^-1 of 7 TeV data already constrain several new-physics scenarios, and a proposed upgrade to 50 fb^-1 would sharpen those constraints by roughly an order of magnitude.
Review of Lepton Universality tests in B decays
hep-ex 2018-09 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

Measurements of B-meson decays deviate from Standard Model predictions of lepton universality at the 2 to 4 sigma level, and this review maps the experimental and theoretical status of that tension.
Rare $B$ decays using lattice QCD form factors
hep-lat 2015-01 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

Imposing all four kinematic constraints simultaneously in the lattice form factor fits sharpens the prediction for FL in rare B decays while leaving branching fractions and most angular observables unchanged.
Rare $B$ Decays as Tests of the Standard Model
hep-ph 2016-06 accept novelty 1.0 of 10

Rare B meson decays give some of the tightest constraints on new physics, and global fits to b to s data show a coherent few-sigma tension best described by a shift in the Wilson coefficient C9.

How later papers used it

91 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 89 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 32 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 14 of the 182 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

1 later paper by other authors is listed below: 1 used its method or tool. 1 more paper by the same authors is listed: 1 used its method or tool.

Uses its method or tool 2 of 28 papers with this label · 1 by the same authors

Used the heavy quark effective theory framework by Grinstein and Pirjol, applicable to the low recoil region where the square root of q^2 is of order the b-quark mass and the emitted vector meson is soft in the B meson rest frame.

The Benefits of B ---> K* l+ l- Decays at Low Recoil (2010) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

By the same authors

Followed this paper for the implementation of the OPE and considered m_c much less than m_b, implying an expansion up to order m_c^2/m_b^2.

Weak decays of unstable $b$-mesons (2015) (same authors) · 0.98 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

90 arXiv papers cite this in 181 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 123 sentences without a confident label

Builds on it 2 papers

The effective coefficients are written as [equation] and [equation] where we extended previous works [ref] by including the doubly Cabibbo-suppressed contribution proportional to $λ̂_u = V_ub^V_us^*/(V_tb^V_ts^*)$.

More Benefits of Semileptonic Rare B Decays at Low Recoil: CP Violation · Decay amplitudes with CP violation at low recoil · 1.00
We go beyond the work of [ref] by addressing in detail the issue of duality violation and the basis of the OPE formalism.

Theory of B -> K(*)l+l- decays at high q^2: OPE and quark-hadron duality · Comments on the literature · 0.80

Uses its method or tool 26 papers

We use the heavy quark effective theory (HQET) framework by Grinstein and Pirjol [ref] , which is applicable to the low recoil region, where $√(q^2)$ is of the order of the mass of the $b$-quark, $m_b$, and the emitted vector meson is soft in the $B$ mesons rest frame.

The Benefits of B ---> K* l+ l- Decays at Low Recoil · Introduction · 1.00
For the implementation of the OPE in the present paper we follow [ref] and consider $m_c≪m_b$, so that an expansion up to $𝒪(m_c^2/m_b^2)$ is also implied.

Weak decays of unstable $b$-mesons · Numerical analysis · 0.98
The OPE [ref] in $1/Q$, $Q={m_b, √(q^2)}$ is combined with the improved heavy quark form factor relations [ref] between the dipole form factors $T_1,2,3$ and vector ones $V,A_1,2$.

The Pheno-analysis of B-> K(*) mu^+ mu^- decays in 2011 plus · The High-$q^2$ Region · 0.85

Compares with it 5 papers

It reads, up to corrections of $O(α_s^2)$, [equation] The relations ffrelations are consistent with the ones derived in [ref] at lowest order in $1/m_b$ after changing to the Isgur-Wise form factor basis [ref] .

The Benefits of B ---> K* l+ l- Decays at Low Recoil · The model-independent framework · 0.98
Although our approach is similar in spirit to the analysis of [ref] , the concrete implementation is different.

Theory of B -> K(*)l+l- decays at high q^2: OPE and quark-hadron duality · Introduction · 0.96
The authors of [ref] perform the OPE without subsequent matching to HQET contrary to [ref] , among further technical details.

Angular analysis of B --> V (--> P_1 P_2) l^+ l^- decays · High-$q^2$ / Low recoil region · 0.84

Cites it as support 4 papers

The additional benefit of the low recoil region is the strong parametric suppression of the subleading $1/m_b$ corrections to the decay amplitudes at the order of a few percent [ref] .

General Analysis of B -> K^(*) l^+ l^- Decays at Low Recoil · Introduction · 0.99
Moreover, the relevant hadronic matrix elements from both sources are not independent [ref] .

More Benefits of Semileptonic Rare B Decays at Low Recoil: CP Violation · Introduction · 0.98
A remarkable feature of this OPE is that the subleading operators in the expansion are suppressed by either $𝒪(α_s×Λ_QCD/m_b)$ or $𝒪(Λ_QCD^2/m_b^2)$ [ref] and are numerically small [ref] .

Weak decays of unstable $b$-mesons · Anatomy of the decay amplitude · 0.96

Cites it as background 13 papers

We refer to [ref] for more details concerning the (real-valued) Wilson coefficients $i≤6$ as well as the LO and NLO QCD corrections encoded in the functions $h(m_i, q^2)$ and $A,B,C$, $F_8^(7,9)$, respectively.

More Benefits of Semileptonic Rare B Decays at Low Recoil: CP Violation · Decay amplitudes with CP violation at low recoil · 0.90
We do not present the formulas of them here, which can be read from Refs. [ref] .

The rare decay $B^+ \to K^+\ell^+\ell^-(\nu\bar{\nu})$ under the QCD sum rules approach · THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK · 0.88
The decay $$ can be described using QCD factorisation at low $q^2$ [ref] and an operator product expansion in $1/m_b$ at high $q^2$ [ref] .

Direct determination of Wilson coefficients using $B^0\to K^{*0}\mu^+\mu^-$ decays · Introduction · 0.87

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

A. Ali, P. Ball, L.T. Handoko and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D 61, 074024 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[2] [2]

T. Onogi, arXiv:hep-ph/0309225; D. Becirevic, S. Prelo vsek and J. Zupan, Phys. Rev. D 67, 054010 (2003); J. Shigemitsu, S. Collins, C. T. H. Davies, J. Hein, R. R. Horgan and G. P. Lepa ge, Phys. Rev. D 66, 074506 (2002). A. X. El-Khadra, A. S. Kronfeld, P. B. Mackenzie, S. M. Ryan and J. N. Simone, Ph ys. Rev. D 64, 014502 (2001)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[3] [3]

P. Ball, arXiv:hep-ph/0308249; P. Ball and R. Zwicky, JH EP 0110, 019 (2001)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[4] [4]

N. Isgur and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D 42, 2388 (1990)

View on Pith 1990

[5] [5]

G. Burdman and J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Lett. B 270, 55 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[6] [6]

B. Grinstein and D. Pirjol, Phys. Lett. B 533, 8 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[7] [7]

B. Grinstein and D. Pirjol, Phys. Lett. B 549, 314 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[8] [8]

B. Grinstein, M. Savage and M. B. Wise, Nucl. Phys. B 319, 271 (1989); B. Grinstein, R. Springer and M. B. Wise, Nucl. Phys. B 339, 269 (1990)

View on Pith 1989

[9] [9]

G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras and M. E. Lautenbacher,Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 1125 (1996)

View on Pith 1996

[10] [10]

A. J. Buras and M. M¨ unz, Phys. Rev. D 52, 186 (1995); M. Misiak, Nucl. Phys. B 393, 23 (1993); [(E) Nucl. Phys. B 439, 461 (1995).]

View on Pith 1995

[11] [11]

C. S. Lim, T. Morozumi and A. I. Sanda, Phys. Lett. B 218, 343 (1989); N. G. Deshpande, J. Trampetic and K. Panose, Phys. Rev. D39, 1461 (1989); P. J. O’Donnell and H. K. K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D 43, 2067 (1991); F. Kruger and L. M. Sehgal, Phys. Lett. B 380, 199 (1996)

View on Pith 1989

[12] [12]

Z. Ligeti, I. W. Stewart and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 420, 359 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[13] [13]

A. I. Sanda and A. Yamada, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2807 (1995). 21

View on Pith 1995

[14] [14]

Z. Ligeti and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D 53, 4937 (1996)

View on Pith 1996

[15] [15]

B. Grinstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3067 (1993)

View on Pith 1993

[16] [16]

B. Aubert et al. [BABAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 221802 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ex/0308042]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[17] [17]

A. Ishikawa et al. [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 261601 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ex/0308044]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[18] [18]

B. Grinstein and D. Pirjol, Phys. Rev. D 62, 093002 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[19] [19]

B. Grinstein, D. R. Nolte and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4545 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[20] [20]

E. D. Bloom and F. J. Gilman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 25, 1140 (1970); idem, Phys. Rev. D 4, 2901 (1971)

View on Pith 1970

[21] [21]

E. C. Poggio, H. R. Quinn and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 13, 1958 (1976)

View on Pith 1976

[22] [22]

M. A. Shifman, arXiv:hep-ph/0009131

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[23] [23]

J. Chay, H. Georgi and B. Grinstein, Phys. Lett. B 247, 399 (1990); M. A. Shifman and M. B. Voloshin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 41, 120 (1985)

View on Pith 1990

[24] [24]

D. Seidel, arXiv:hep-ph/0403185

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[25] [25]

A. Ghinculov, T. Hurth, G. Isidori and Y. P. Yao, arXiv:h ep-ph/0312128. H. H. Asatrian, H. M. Asatrian, C. Greub and M. Walker, Phys. Lett. B 507, 162 (2001); H. H. Asatryan, H. M. Asatrian, C. Greub and M. Wa lker, Phys. Rev. D 65, 074004 (2002)

View on Pith 2001

[26] [26]

E. Eichten and B. Hill, Phys. Lett. B 240, 193 (1990)

View on Pith 1990

[27] [27]

K. G. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak and M. Munz, Nucl. Phys. B 520, 279 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[28] [28]

C. Bobeth, M. Misiak and J. Urban, Nucl. Phys. B 574, 291 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[29] [29]

M. Beneke, T. Feldmann and D. Seidel, Nucl. Phys. B 612, 25 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[30] [30]

P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn and U. Haisch, Nucl. Phys. B 673, 238 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[31] [31]

C. Bobeth, P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn and U. Haisch, [arXiv: hep-ph/0312090]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[32] [32]

K. Hagiwara et al. [Particle Data Group Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 66, 010001 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[33] [33]

C.W. Bauer, S. Fleming and M.E. Luke, Phys. Rev. D 63, 014006 (2001); C.W. Bauer et al., Phys. Rev. D 63, 114020 (2001); C.W. Bauer and I.W. Stewart, Phys. Lett. B 516, 134 (2001); C.W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I.W. Stewart, Phys. Re v. D 65, 054022 (2002). C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys . Rev. D 67, 071502 (2003)

View on Pith 2001

[34] [34]

M. Beneke and T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. B 592, 3 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[35] [35]

D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, arXiv:hep-ph/0309053

View on Pith Pith review arXiv