Probing New Physics Via the Transverse Amplitudes of B0-> K*0(-> K- pi+) l+l- at Large Recoil

Frank Kr\"uger; Joaquim Matias

REVIEW

Probing New Physics Via the Transverse Amplitudes of B0-> K*0(-> K- pi+) l+l- at Large Recoil

Frank Krüger, Joaquim Matias

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 7 Feb 2005 · 32 references

Pith's verdict: Clean, form-factor-free transverse asymmetries; the one number I'd push back on is the ±0.003 on A_T^(2).

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 →

· 1 major objection · 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/0502060 (version 2)

Pith IDOPJTMTW5, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationFrank Kr\"uger, Joaquim Matias. "Probing New Physics Via the Transverse Amplitudes of B0-> K*0(-> K- pi+) l+l- at Large Recoil." arXiv:hep-ph/0502060 (2005). https://pith.science/paper/OPJTMTW5

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

The thing worth knowing: this paper turns the heavy-quark/large-energy relations into two observables that carry no hadronic form-factor dependence at leading power. Because the relations force A_perp = -A_par (Eqs. 3.8-3.9), the ratios in Eq. 4.2 collapse to A_T^(1) ~ 1 and A_T^(2) ~ 0 with no xi dependence. That is a short algebraic step, but it is the right one and it is stated cleanly. The NLL treatment follows Beneke-Feldmann-Seidel with the formulas written out (Eqs. 4.7-4.8) and inputs taken from that paper's table, so the calculation is checkable. The SM numbers in Table 1 are plausible given the near-cancellation. Credit where due: the authors flag two limitations themselves. Subleading 1/m_b corrections are deferred (S1 and S5, 'will be included elsewhere'), and Fig. 2 shows alpha_K* is strongly sensitive to xi_perp(0). Neither is hidden. Where I would push is the ±0.003 on A_T^(2). Write A_perp = -A_par(1+delta); then A_T^(2) ~ delta and A_T^(1) ~ 1 - delta^2/2. So A_T^(1) is quadratically protected and its 0.9986 is genuinely robust. A_T^(2) is linear in delta, and the quoted -0.043 is delta ~ 4%: the whole signal is a subleading effect, generated by the O(m_K*^2/m_B^2) terms dropped between Eqs. 3.8-3.10 and by the NLL corrections. The quoted error covers input-parameter variation and NLL, but not the deferred power corrections, which shift exactly the quantity that produces the 4%. The central value could plausibly move by an amount comparable to itself while the error stays at 7%. That does not touch A_T^(1), F_L, or the form-factor-independence argument, and the new-physics shifts in Figs. 4 and 6 are large enough that the qualitative conclusion survives. But the precision claim on A_T^(2), and the abstract's 'large effects' phrasing, are stronger than the body supports. Who it is for: anyone working on b -> s l l angular observables or right-handed currents in the dipole operator. The observables became standard for a reason. Recommendation: send it out. The structural result is sound and the calculation is reproducible; a referee should ask for a power-correction estimate on A_T^(2), not a rewrite.

Referee report

Significance

The paper delivers a genuinely useful structural result: because A_perp = -A_parallel at leading power, A_T^(1) is quadratically protected (1 - delta^2/2) and A_T^(2) is linear in the symmetry-breaking parameter delta, so the two asymmetries form a matched pair of null and precision tests with complementary sensitivity. The cancellation of hadronic form factors in these ratios is algebraic and verifiable directly from Eqs. (3.8)-(3.9) and (4.2), and the NLL treatment is transparently tied to a published calculation rather than asserted. The predictions are falsifiable and quantitative, and the model-independent scan with an explicit b->s gamma constraint gives experimentalists a concrete target. The paper is also candid about where its control is weak: it states in Sec. 4.2 that alpha_K* is strongly sensitive to the poorly known xi_perp(0) and that better theoretical control on the soft form factor is required, which is the right way to present a result whose robustness is uneven across observables.

Major objections (1)

[Sec. 4.2, Table 1, and abstract sentences s3-s4] The quoted error on A_T^(2) of +/-0.003 (about 7% of the central value) is obtained by varying the theoretical input parameters, as the abstract states, but it does not appear to include any estimate of the neglected 1/m_b and 1/E power corrections, which the authors explicitly defer to future work in Sec. 1 and again in Sec. 5. This matters more for A_T^(2) than for A_T^(1): since A_T^(2) vanishes at leading power, its entire SM value of -0.043 is itself a subleading effect generated by the O(m_K*^2/m_B^2) terms dropped between Eqs. (3.8)-(3.10) and by the NLL corrections of Sec. 4.2. The same subleading corrections that produce the central value can plausibly shift it, so the reader cannot tell from Table 1 whether +/-0.003 is a total theoretical error or only the parameter-variation piece. Please state explicitly in the Table 1 caption and in Sec. 4.2 that the quoted error excludes power corrections, and if feasible give a rough numerical estimate of the size of the dropped m_K*^2/m_B^2 terms so that the precision claim on A_T^(2) can be judged. The structural result for A_T^(1) and the form-factor-independence argument are unaffected by this point.

Minor objections (7)

[Sec. 4.3, Figs. 3-8] The new-physics analysis uses the leading-order form-factor relations of Eqs. (2.8) and the leading-order amplitudes of Eqs. (3.2)-(3.4), whereas the SM baseline in Table 1 and Fig. 1 is the NLL result. The SM curve drawn in Figs. 3-8 is therefore the LO one, not the NLL prediction of Table 1. Please say so explicitly in the figure captions or in the text, and confirm that the qualitative conclusions of Figs. 3-8 are unchanged when the NLL baseline is used; Fig. 1 suggests the shift is small, but the reader should not have to infer it.
[Sec. 4.3, Figs. 5-6] The variation R_{9,10} = C_{9,10}/C_{9,10}^SM is described only as being 'in a range that is consistent with present data on rare B decays', with no numerical endpoints given. Please state the actual range used, since the width of the shaded bands in Figs. 5 and 6 is the visual measure of how robust the C_7^{eff'} sensitivity is against C_9,10 contributions.
[Eq. (4.10)] The b->s gamma constraint |C_7^{eff}|^2 + |C_7^{eff'}|^2 <= 1.2 |C_7^{eff,SM}|^2 is imposed at leading order, as the text notes. Since the NLL corrections to B(B->X_s gamma) are not negligible at the quoted precision, please add a sentence on how much the allowed region in the (C_7^{eff}, C_7^{eff'}) plane would move under the NLL prediction, or state that the leading-order treatment is sufficient for the illustrative scenarios shown.
[Sec. 3.1, Eqs. (3.8)-(3.10)] The text says terms of O(m_K*^2/m_B^2) have been dropped. Since these are precisely the terms that generate the non-zero A_T^(2) and the deviation of A_T^(1) from unity, it would help to quote their numerical size at, say, M_{mu+mu-} = 2 GeV, so the reader can see how the leading-power formulas connect to the NLL numbers of Table 1.
[Abstract] The abstract states l = e, mu, tau, but the numerical analysis of Sec. 4.2 and Table 1 is restricted to muons in the window 2 m_mu <= M_{mu+mu-} <= 2.5 GeV. Please make the restriction explicit in the abstract so that the quoted numbers are not read as applying to all three lepton flavours.
[Reference [13]] The entry 'M. Beneke, A. P. Chapovsky, M. Diehl, and T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. B643, 2002 (431)' has the year and page transposed; it should read Nucl. Phys. B643, 431 (2002).
[Fig. 1 caption] The caption attributes the small cusp to a variation of m_c and calls it an artifact of the c-bar c threshold. Please state which curve the cusp appears on and at what value of M_{mu+mu-}, so that a reader comparing with Fig. 2 is not left guessing.

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

The paper

The paper claims

The paper argues that two transverse asymmetries in $B^0$ decays to $K^{*0}(K^+K^-)$ plus a lepton pair are free of hadronic form-factor uncertainty, and therefore give a clean handle on right-handed new physics.

The reading

The paper asks whether the angular distribution of $B^0$ decays to $K^{*0}(K^-K^+)$ plus a lepton pair can produce observables clean enough to test the Standard Model precisely and to expose right-handed currents. Its strategy is to work at low dilepton mass, where the $K^*$ carries large energy and the seven $B$ to $K^*$ form factors collapse onto two universal soft functions, $xi_$ and $xi_parallel$. Because that same collapse forces $A_perp = -A_parallel$ in the Standard Model, the two transverse asymmetries built from those amplitudes lose their dependence on hadronic input at leading order, and the paper checks that the residual next-to-leading corrections stay small. If that holds, a measured deviation from $A_T^(1)$ close to one, or from $A_T^(2)$ close to zero, would point at new physics in the electromagnetic dipole operators rather than at poorly known hadronic matrix elements. The authors then show what a right-handed dipole coefficient $C_7^{eff prime}$ would do to these asymmetries and to the longitudinal and transverse polarization fractions.

What carries the argument

The carrying device is the transversity basis: the $K^*$ spin amplitudes $A_perp$, $A_parallel$, $A_0$ (plus a time-like $A_t$ that vanishes for massless leptons) appear in the four-body angular distribution, and their ratios can be extracted from the angles of the $K^-pi^+$ and lepton pairs. Combined with the heavy-quark and large-recoil form factor relations, which express all seven $B$ to $K^*$ form factors through $xi_perp$ and $xi_parallel$ up to corrections of order $1/m_b$ and $alpha_s$, these ratios become predictions with almost no hadronic input. The paper then upgrades the relations to next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy using factorizable and non-factorizable corrections, including the hard-scattering kernels and light-cone wave functions, to test how much of that cleanliness survives.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the transverse asymmetries $A_T^(1) = -2 Re(A_parallel A_perp^*)/(|A_perp|^2 + |A_parallel|^2)$ and $A_T^(2) = (|A_perp|^2 - |A_parallel|^2)/(|A_perp|^2 + |A_parallel|^2)$ are, at leading order in $1/m_b$ and $alpha_s$, completely independent of the hadronic form factors. The mechanism is the heavy-quark and large-energy relation $A_perp = -A_parallel$, which follows from the reduction of the seven $B$ to $K^*$ form factors to the two soft functions $xi_perp$ and $xi_parallel$; the ratios defining the asymmetries then cancel the form factors entirely. Including factorizable and non-factorizable corrections at next-to-leading logarithmic order, the authors find the Standard Model prediction integrated over $2m_mu <= M_{mu^+mu^-} <= 2.5$ GeV to be $A_T^(1) = 0.9986 plus or minus 0.0002$ and $A_T^(2) = -0.043 plus or minus 0.003$, with theoretical errors below seven percent. For the polarization fractions they obtain $F_L = 0.69 plus or minus 0.03$ and $F_T = 0.31 plus or minus 0.03$, hence $Gamma_L/Gamma_T = 2.23 plus or minus 0.31$, and $alpha_{K^*} = 3.47 plus or minus 0.71$. Allowing new physics in the dipole coefficient $C_7^{eff prime}$ subject to the inclusive $b$ to $s$ photon bound, they find large, sign-sensitive shifts in the transverse asymmetries, so that a measurement away from the Standard Model values would be a hint of right-handed quark currents.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the heavy-quark and large-energy relations holding in the low-mass window, and on the soft form factor normalization $xi_perp(0) = 0.35 plus or minus 0.07$ that is fitted to radiative decay data rather than derived; the paper itself notes that $alpha_{K^*}$ roughly doubles its peak if that number moves to $0.24$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A measurement of $A_T^(1)$ and $A_T^(2)$ in the low dimuon mass window that departs from $0.9986$ and $-0.043$ would indicate new physics in the electromagnetic dipole operators rather than a hadronic uncertainty.
The sign as well as the magnitude of a right-handed coefficient $C_7^{eff prime}$ is accessible through $A_T^(2)$, which the paper shows responds to both.
The longitudinal and transverse polarization fractions, predicted at $(69 plus or minus 3)$ percent and $(31 plus or minus 3)$ percent, give complementary information on beyond-the-Standard-Model scenarios, with a smaller form-factor penalty than $alpha_{K^*}$.
Because the effects survive even when $C_9$ and $C_{10}$ are allowed to shift by amounts consistent with rare $B$ decay data, the transverse asymmetries remain a usable probe of $O_7^{prime}$ in a less clean new-physics environment.

Reading between the lines

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

The same cancellation logic should transfer to the $B_s$ to $phi$ lepton-pair channel, where an analogous large-energy limit applies, giving a second, statistically independent handle on right-handed dipole contributions.
A future lattice or soft-collinear determination of $xi_perp(0)$ that lands far from the fitted $0.35$ would not much damage the transverse asymmetries but would decisively settle how useful $alpha_{K^*}$ can become.
If a right-handed dipole is established this way, one would expect correlated shifts in the $B$ to $K^*$ photon polarization and in other low-$q^2$ $b$ to $s$ lepton-pair observables, which makes a joint fit across channels the natural next step.
The authors' error budget is dominated by a quantity fitted to radiative decay data; a reader could reasonably treat the sub-percent error on $A_T^(1)$ as a statement about the internal consistency of the heavy-quark expansion rather than as a forecast of experimental reach.

Original abstract

We perform an analysis of the K* polarization states in the exclusive B meson decay B0->K*0(-> K- pi+)l+ l- (l=e, mu, tau) in the low dilepton mass region, where the final vector meson has a large energy. Working in the transversity basis, we study various observables that involve the K* spin amplitudes Aperp, Apar, A0 by exploiting the heavy-to-light form factor relations in the heavy quark and large-E_K* limit. We find that at leading order in 1/m_b and alpha_s the form-factor dependence of the asymmetries that involve transversely polarized K* completely drops out. At next-to-leading logarithmic order, including factorizable and non-factorizable corrections, the theoretical errors for the transverse asymmetries turn out to be small in the standard model (SM). Integrating over the lower part of the dimuon mass region, and varying the theoretical input parameters, the SM predicts A_T^(1)=0.9986+/- 0.0002 and A_T^(2)=-0.043+/- 0.003. In addition, the longitudinal and transverse polarization fractions are found to be (69+/-3)% and (31+/-3)% respectively, so that Gamma_L/Gamma_T = 2.23+/-0.31. Beyond the SM, we focus on new physics that mainly gives sizable contributions to the coefficients C_7^eff' of the electromagnetic dipole operators. Taking into account experimental data on rare B decays, we find large effects of new physics in the transverse asymmetries. Furthermore, we show that a measurement of longitudinal and transverse polarization fractions will provide complementary information on physics beyond the SM.

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, 7,287 input tokens, $0.0003 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.33 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.18 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.98 · compares with prior results 0.49 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We perform an analysis of the K* polarization states in the exclusive B meson decay B0->K*0(-> K- pi+)l+ l- (l=e, mu, tau) in the low dilepton mass region, where the final vector meson has a large energy. Working in the transversity basis, we study various observables that involve the K* spin amplitudes Aperp, Apar, A0 by exploiting the heavy-to-light form factor relations in the heavy quark and large-E_K* limit. We find that at leading order in 1/m_b and alpha_s the form-factor dependence of the asymmetries that involve transversely polarized K* completely drops out. At next-to-leading logarithmic order, including factorizable and non-factorizable corrections, the theoretical errors for the transverse asymmetries turn out to be small in the standard model (SM). Integrating over the lower part of the dimuon mass region, and varying the theoretical input parameters, the SM predicts A_T^(1)=0.9986+/- 0.0002 and A_T^(2)=-0.043+/- 0.003. In addition, the longitudinal and transverse polarization fractions are found to be (69+/-3)% and (31+/-3)% respectively, so that Gamma_L/Gamma_T = 2.23+/-0.31. Beyond the SM, we focus on new physics that mainly gives sizable contributions to the coefficients C_7^eff' of the electromagnetic dipole operators. Taking into account experimental data on rare B decays, we find large effects of new physics in the transverse asymmetries. Furthermore, we show that a measurement of longitudinal and transverse polarization fractions will provide complementary information on physics beyond the SM.

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 perform an analysis of the K* polarization states in the exclusive B meson decay B0->K*0(-> K- pi+)l+ l- (l=e, mu, tau) in the low dilepton mass region, where the final vector meson has a large energy.	contribution 1.00	0.93	0.03	asserted 0.95
s1	Working in the transversity basis, we study various observables that involve the K* spin amplitudes Aperp, Apar, A0 by exploiting the heavy-to-light form factor relations in the heavy quark and large-E_K* limit.	method 0.77	0.93	0.04	asserted 0.96
s2	We find that at leading order in 1/m_b and alpha_s the form-factor dependence of the asymmetries that involve transversely polarized K* completely drops out.	result 1.00	0.93	0.25	asserted 1.00
s3	At next-to-leading logarithmic order, including factorizable and non-factorizable corrections, the theoretical errors for the transverse asymmetries turn out to be small in the standard model (SM).	result 0.99	0.88	0.11	asserted 1.00
s4	Integrating over the lower part of the dimuon mass region, and varying the theoretical input parameters, the SM predicts A_T^(1)=0.9986+/- 0.0002 and A_T^(2)=-0.043+/- 0.003.	result 1.00	0.89	0.15	asserted 1.00
s5	In addition, the longitudinal and transverse polarization fractions are found to be (69+/-3)% and (31+/-3)% respectively, so that Gamma_L/Gamma_T = 2.23+/-0.31.	result 1.00	0.94	0.10	asserted 1.00
s6	Beyond the SM, we focus on new physics that mainly gives sizable contributions to the coefficients C_7^eff' of the electromagnetic dipole operators.	contribution 0.66	0.36	0.05	asserted 0.68
s7	Taking into account experimental data on rare B decays, we find large effects of new physics in the transverse asymmetries.	result 0.98	0.91	0.45	asserted 1.00
s8	Furthermore, we show that a measurement of longitudinal and transverse polarization fractions will provide complementary information on physics beyond the SM.	interpretation 0.83	0.86	0.25	asserted 0.94

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.77.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

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.** SM predictions for the asymmetries A (1) T and A (2) T as a function of the dimuon mass at LL (dashed line) and NLL (solid line). The shaded area has been obtained by varying the renormalization scale, the b-quark mass, mc/mb, the input parameters according to Ref. [12], and ξ⊥(0) as described in the text. the error band is substantially larger even for a fixed value of ξ⊥(0) = 0.35. A more detailed analysis of the dependence on the value of ξ⊥(0) shows that if we consider instead ξ⊥(0) = 0.24, which corresponds to the upper solid curve, the deviation would induce an even larger…

**Figure 2.** Left plot: The polarization parameter αK∗ at LL (dashed curve) and NLL (lower solid curve), as a function of the dimuon mass. The shaded area has been obtained by varying the theoretical input parameters for fixed ξ⊥(0) = 0.35 (see the text for details). To show the strong impact of ξ⊥(0), we also display the NLL result for ξ⊥(0) = 0.24 (upper solid curve). Right plot: The SM prediction for the K∗ polarization fractions, adopting the same conventions as before and allowing for a variation of ξ⊥(0) between 0.24 and 0.35. The inner dark region has been obtained by varying the…

**Figure 3.** The transverse asymmetry A (1) T as a function of the dimuon mass, for different choices of [C eff 7 , Ceff′ 7 ]. The SM prediction corresponds to the case [C eff,SM 7 , 0]. We have taken into account the bound in Eq. (4.10) and the SM values for C9,10 from Ref. [12]

**Figure 4.** The asymmetry A (2) T as a function of the dimuon mass, for different new-physics scenarios. See

**Figure 5.** The asymmetry A (1) T vs the dimuon mass for fixed [C eff 7 , Ceff 7 ′ ], including new-physics contributions to C9,10. The shaded areas have been obtained by varying R9,10 ≡ C9,10/CSM 9,10 in a range that is consistent with present data on rare B decays (see, e.g., Refs. [9,29]). The inner solid lines correspond to the case where C9,10 = C SM 9,10

**Figure 6.** A (2) T vs the dimuon mass in the presence of new-physics contributions to C eff(′) 7 , C9,10. See

**Figure 7.** The K∗ polarization parameter αK∗ as a function of the dimuon mass for different sets of [C eff 7 , Ceff′ 7 ] (from top to bottom): (i) [C eff,SM 7 , 0] (SM), (ii) [C eff,SM 7 , −0.13], (iii) [C eff,SM 7 , 0.13], (iv) [0, Ceff,SM 7 ], (v) [0, −C eff,SM 7 ], (vi) [−C eff,SM 7 , 0]. The remaining Wilson coefficients are assumed to be SM-valued. into account the constraints from rare B decays [9,29] (see also [30]), we obtain the asymmetries shown in Figs. 5 and 6. As can be seen, a determination of the magnitude of the right-handed currents is possible even in the presence of…

**Figure 8.** Longitudinal and transverse K∗ polarization fractions vs the dimuon mass, for two scenarios of [C eff 7 , Ceff′ 7 ] and C9,10 being SM-like. Since the remaining new-physics cases displayed in

**Figure 9.** Definition of kinematic variables in the decay

Figures reproduced from arXiv:hep-ph/0502060 by the authors.

References

Works cited (32)

[12]

M. Beneke, T. Feldmann, and D. Seidel, Nucl. Phys. B612, 25 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[1]

D. Melikhov, N. Nikitin, and S. Simula, Phys. Lett. B 442, 381 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[2]

F. Kr¨ uger, L. M. Sehgal, N. Sinha, and R. Sinha, Phys. Rev. D 61, 114028 (2000); 63, 019901(E) (2001)

View on Pith 2000
[3]

C. S. Kim, Y. G. Kim, C.-D. L¨ u, and T. Morozumi, Phys. Rev. D 62, 034013 (2000); C. S. Kim, Y. G. Kim, and C.-D. L¨ u, ibid. 64, 094014 (2001)

View on Pith 2000
[4]

C.-H. Chen and C. Q. Geng, Nucl. Phys. B636, 338 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[5]

Y. Grossman and D. Pirjol, J. High Energy Phys. 0006, 029 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[6]

A. Ali and A. S. Saﬁr, Eur. Phys. J. C 25, 583 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[7]

T. Feldmann and J. Matias, J. High Energy Phys. 0301, 074 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[8]

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

View on Pith 2000
[9]

A. Ali, E. Lunghi, C. Greub, and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D 66, 034002 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[10]

J. Charles, A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. P` ene, and J.-C. Rayna l, Phys. Rev. D 60, 014001 (1999); Phys. Lett. B 451, 187 (1999). See also M. J. Dugan and B. Grinstein, ibid. 255, 583 (1991)

View on Pith 1999
[11]

M. Beneke and T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. B592, 3 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[13]

See, for example, C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, and M. E. Luke, Phys . Rev. D 63, 014006 (2001); C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stewart, ibid. 63, 114020 (2001); C. W. Bauer and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Lett. B 516, 134 (2001); M. Beneke, A. P. Chapovsky, M. Diehl, and T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. B643, 2002 (431); R. J. Hill and M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys....

View on Pith 2001
[14]

A. L. Kagan and M. Neubert, Phys. Lett. B 539 227 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[15]

A. J. Buras and M. M¨ unz, Phys. Rev. D 52, 186 (1995); M. Misiak, Nucl. Phys. B393, 23 (1993); B439, 461(E) (1995); G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras, and M. E. Lautenbache r, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 1125 (1996); A. J. Buras, in Probing the Standard Model of Particle 19 Interactions, edited by R. Gupta et al. (Elsevier Science B.V., New York, 1999), p. 281, hep-ph/9806471

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995
[16]

See, for example, P. Cho and M. Misiak, Phys. Rev. D 49, 5894 (1994); C. Greub, A. Ioan- nisian, and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. B 346, 149 (1995); P. Ball, J. M. Fr` ere, and J. Matias, Nucl. Phys. B572, 3 (2000)

View on Pith 1994
[17]

See, for example, F. Borzumati, C. Greub, T. Hurth, and D. Wy ler, Phys. Rev. D 62, 075005 (2000); T. Besmer, C. Greub, and T. Hurth, Nucl. Phys. B609, 359 (2001); L. Eve- rett, G. L. Kane, S. Rigolin, L.-T. Wang, and T. T. Wang, J. High Ener gy Phys. 0201, 022 (2002)

View on Pith 2000
[18]

C. Bobeth, M. Misiak, and J. Urban, Nucl. Phys. B574, 291 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[19]

H. H. Asatryan, H. M. Asatrian, C. Greub, and M. Walker, Phys . Lett. B 507, 162 (2001); Phys. Rev. D 65, 074004 (2002); 66, 034009 (2002); A. Ghinculov, T. Hurth, G. Isidori, and Y. P. Yao, Nucl. Phys. B648, 254 (2003)

View on Pith 2001
[20]

P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn, and U. Haisch, Nucl. Phys. B673, 238 (2003); C. Bobeth, P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn, and U. Haisch, J. High Energy Phys. 0404, 071 (2004)

View on Pith 2003
[21]

M. Wirbel, B. Stech, and M. Bauer, Z. Phys. C 29, 637 (1985); B. Stech, ibid. 75, 245 (1997)

View on Pith 1985
[22]

G. Burdman and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D 63, 113008 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[23]

B. Stech, Phys. Lett. B 354, 447 (1995); J. M. Soares, Phys. Rev. D 54, 6837 (1996); hep-ph/9810402

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995
[24]

J. M. Soares, hep-ph/9810421

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[25]

D. Chang, A. Masiero, and H. Murayama, Phys. Rev. D 67, 075013 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[26]

A. Ali and A. Y. Parkhomenko, Eur. Phys. J. C 23, 89 (2002); S. W. Bosch and G. Buchalla, Nucl. Phys. B621, 459 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[27]

K. G. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak, and M. M¨ unz, Phys. Lett. B 400, 206 (1997); 425, 414(E) (1998); P. Gambino and M. Misiak, Nucl. Phys. B611, 338 (2001); A. J. Buras, A. Czar- necki, M. Misiak, and J. Urban, ibid. B631, 219 (2002). 20

View on Pith 1997
[28]

CLEO Collaboration, S. Chen et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 251807 (2001); BaBar Collaboration, B. Aubert et al. , hep-ex/0207076; Belle Collaboration, P. Koppen- burg et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 061803 (2004); Heavy Flavor Averaging Group, http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[29]

G. Hiller and F. Kr¨ uger, Phys. Rev. D 69, 074020 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[30]

P. Gambino, U. Haisch, and M. Misiak, hep-ph/0410155

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[31]

T. M. Aliev, C. S. Kim, and Y. G. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 62, 014026 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[32]

A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. K¨ orner, and V. E. Lyubovitskij, EPJdirect C4, 18 (2002). 21

View on Pith 2002

Forward citations

Cited by 52 Pith papers

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

Measurement of form-factor independent observables in the decay $B^{0} \to K^{*0} \mu^+ \mu^-$
hep-ex 2013-08 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

LHCb reports the first measurements of form-factor independent angular observables in B0 -> K*0 mu+ mu-, finding a 3.7 sigma local deviation from Standard Model predictions in P'_5.
A Dispersive Look at Rare $B$-meson Semileptonic Decays
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Lattice-only Dispersive Matrix form factors enlarge large-recoil uncertainties and, with new angular data, favour long-distance hadronic effects over a short-distance C9 New Physics shift.
Hadronic and New Physics Contributions to $b \to s$ Transitions
hep-ph 2018-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Fitting all b to s Wilson coefficients simultaneously, including scalar, pseudoscalar and lepton-flavour-violating ones, yields a 4.1 sigma Standard Model pull, while a Wilks test cannot yet separate new physics from ...
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 ...
Angular analysis of the $B^{0}\rightarrow K^{*0}\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ decay using $3\,\mbox{fb}^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity
hep-ex 2015-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The complete angular analysis of B0 to K*0 mu+mu- finds a 3.4 sigma tension with Standard Model predictions, driven mainly by the observable S5 (P'5) at low dimuon mass.

Show 47 more citing papers

Angular analysis of the $B^0 \rightarrow K^{*0} e^+ e^-$ decay in the low-$q^2$ region
hep-ex 2015-01 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

First angular analysis of B0 to K*0 e+e- below 1.12 GeV^2/c^4 yields F_L = 0.16 +/- 0.06 +/- 0.03 and transverse asymmetries consistent with zero, in agreement with the Standard Model.
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...
Disentangling the Decay Observables in $B^- \to \pi^+\pi^-\ell^-\bar\nu_\ell$
hep-ph 2013-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The paper derives the complete angular decomposition of B- to pi+ pi- l- nu-bar and a set of algebraic null tests that would reveal non-standard (V+A, scalar, or tensor) structure in b to u transitions.
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.
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'_...
Complete Anatomy of B -> K*ll and its angular distribution
hep-ph 2012-02 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A complete basis of angular observables for B -> K* l+ l- is constructed, with six form-factor-independent observables in the massless case plus two for lepton masses and two for scalars.
New physics reach of the decay mode $\bar{B} \to \bar{K}^{*0}\ell^+\ell^-$
hep-ph 2010-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The angular distribution of B to K*0 l+ l- has four symmetries in the massless-lepton limit, not three, and this yields one exact constraint among the angular coefficients plus a new form-factor-free observable.
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...
Symmetries and Asymmetries of B -> K* mu+ mu- Decays in the Standard Model and Beyond
hep-ph 2008-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A complete basis of CP-averaged and CP-violating angular observables for B -> K* mu+ mu- is defined, computed in the Standard Model with full form factors, and shown to discriminate among new-physics scenarios.
New observables in the decay mode anti-B --> anti-K*0 l+ l-
hep-ph 2008-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Two new form-factor-independent angular observables, A_T^(3) and A_T^(4), are constructed for B_d to K*0 l+ l- and shown to probe right-handed currents, while the previously proposed A_T^(1) is shown to be experimenta...
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.
Measurement of angular parameters from the decay $\mathrm{B}^0 \to \mathrm{K}^{*0} \mu^+ \mu^-$ in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV
hep-ex 2017-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

CMS measures the P1 and P5' angular parameters of B0 to K*0 mu+ mu- in seven dimuon-mass-squared bins and finds agreement with standard-model predictions, in mild tension with the larger P5' deviation reported by LHCb.
Hadronic uncertainties in $B\to K^*\mu^+\mu^-$: a state-of-the-art analysis
hep-ph 2017-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A detailed re-analysis of hadronic uncertainties in B to K* mu mu finds that neither factorisable power corrections nor charm-loop effects can account for the observed anomalies, and identifies P2 at very low q2 as a ...
Loop effects of heavy new scalars and fermions in $b\to s\mu^+\mu^-$
hep-ph 2016-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A systematic survey of 24 gauge representations for new heavy scalars and fermions finds that one-loop box diagrams can explain both the b to s mu mu anomalies and the muon g-2 at the 2 sigma level, but only with a mu...
Constraints on new physics from radiative $B$ decays
hep-ph 2016-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Combining LHCb's B_s to phi gamma mass-eigenstate rate asymmetry and low-q² B to K* e+e- angular observables with older radiative data, the authors bound new physics in the dipole coefficients C7 and C7' at the few-pe...
$B\to K^* \ell^+ \ell^-$ 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.
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.
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.
Rare baryon decays Lambda_b -> Lambda l+ l- (l=e, mu, tau) and Lambda_b -> Lambda gamma : Differential and total rates, lepton- and hadron-side forward-backward asymmetries
hep-ph 2013-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A covariant constituent quark model calculation of the differential rates, lepton-side and hadron-side forward-backward asymmetries, and Lambda polarization in Lambda_b -> Lambda l+ l- and Lambda_b -> Lambda gamma, wi...
Impact of $B\to K^\ast_0 \ell^+\ell^-$ on the New Physics search in $B\to K^\ast \ell^+\ell^-$ decay
hep-ph 2012-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Unwanted S-wave K-pi pairs from the scalar K*_0 resonance can shift the normalization of the transverse asymmetries in B to K* lepton-pair decays by up to roughly 20 percent near q squared of 2 GeV squared, and under ...
Implications from clean observables for the binned analysis of B -> K*ll at large recoil
hep-ph 2012-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Binned, form-factor-insensitive angular observables in B -> K* mu mu are defined, predicted in the Standard Model, extracted from LHCb data, and shown to constrain New Physics in the Wilson coefficients C7, C9 and C10.
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...
On transverse asymmetries in B --> K* l+l-
hep-ph 2011-06 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

A new transverse asymmetry A_T^(re) is defined for B to K* l+ l-, and the zero-crossing patterns of three independent asymmetries are shown to discriminate among new-physics scenarios in C7, C9, and C10.
Exploring New Physics in the C7-C7' plane
hep-ph 2011-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The isospin asymmetry in B to K* gamma excludes the flipped-sign solution for the Wilson coefficient C7 at one sigma, requiring a 1.6 sigma stretch to keep it alive.
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.
FlavBit: A GAMBIT module for computing flavour observables and likelihoods
hep-ph 2017-05 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

FlavBit packages flavour physics predictions, experimental measurements, and correlated likelihoods into a reusable module for global fits of physics beyond the Standard Model.
Status of the $B\to K^*\mu^+\mu^-$ anomaly after Moriond 2017
hep-ph 2017-03 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

Combining updated LHCb, ATLAS and CMS data, the b to s mu mu anomalies remain at 5.2 sigma and are fit by a new-physics shift in C9 of about minus one, with no evidence for q-squared or helicity dependence.
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.
Towards the Identification of New Physics through Quark Flavour Violating Processes
hep-ph 2013-06 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

The paper proposes a twelve-step, correlation-based program and DNA charts for identifying new physics from quark-flavor observables, illustrated with CMFV, MFV, two-Higgs-doublet, and tree-level Z-prime and scalar scenarios.
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 Semileptonic $B$ Anomalies
hep-ph 2023-09 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

Global fits to B decay data prefer a lepton-flavour-universal vector coupling to muons plus a left-handed vector current in b to c tau nu, a combination a leptoquark can generate, at 6.3 sigma over the Standard Model.
SuperB Progress Reports -- Physics
hep-ex 2010-08 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

The report argues that a 75 ab^-1 e+e- flavour factory could probe new physics at 10-100 TeV and discriminate among models through correlated rare-decay and CP measurements.
$B$ Flavour Anomalies: 2021 Theoretical Status Report
hep-ph 2021-10 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

As of Moriond 2021 the b to s lepton-pair and b to c tau-neutrino data both disagree with the Standard Model, and the best-fitting new-physics patterns are a muon-specific vector coupling or a purely left-handed one.
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

85 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 80 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 8 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 20 of the 136 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

5 later papers by other authors are listed below: 4 used its method or tool and 1 cited it as support.

Uses its method or tool 4 of 5 papers with this label

Started from the K* transversity amplitudes in naive factorization, citing this paper.

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 (2008) · 0.88 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
In the absence of mixing, we can give the general expression for the angular coefficients using the general formalism of Refs. [ref] , with the angular convention specified in Appendix [ref], [equation]

On the impact of meson mixing on $B_s\to\phi ee$ angular observables at low $q^2$ (2022) · $B_s→ϕ(→K^+ K^-)ℓℓ$ angular coefficients · 0.94
Incorporated non-factorizable corrections at next-to-leading order in QCD by the transformations of this paper.

New Physics Effects and Hadronic Form Factor Uncertainties in B -> K^* l^+ l^- (2012) · 0.92 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Used sin phi defined as in this paper.

Disentangling the Decay Observables in $B^- \to \pi^+\pi^-\ell^-\bar\nu_\ell$ (2013) · 0.95 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

Cites it as support 1 of 3 papers with this label

Said that corrections to the LEET limit are small and that this makes A_T^(2) an excellent observable to look for new-physics effects, citing this paper.

New Physics in b -> s mu+ mu-: CP-Conserving Observables (2010) · 0.97 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

81 arXiv papers cite this in 132 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 · 104 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 5 papers

Starting from the $K^*$ transversity amplitudes $A_i(q^2)$, $i = {⊥, ∥, 0, t}$ in naive factorization (see, e.g., [ref] ), the NLO $$-corrections at large recoil using QCDF [ref] can be taken into account by the replacements [ref] [equation] where [equation] The functions $T_⊥,∥^-$ can be obtained from the $T_⊥,∥$ given in [ref] by substituting $C_7^eff$ with $C_7^eff - C_7^'$ whereas $T_⊥^+$ is obtained from $T_⊥$ by replacing $C_7^eff$ with $C_7^eff +C_7^'$.

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 · Transversity Amplitudes at NLO · 0.88
The helicity of the dilepton system (and, correspondingly, of the hadronic one) can be identified experimentally via the the angle $θ_ℓ$, defined as the angle between the lepton and the $B$ direction of flight in the $q_0$ rest frame.[The $q_0$ rest frame coincides with dilepton rest frame in the limit of negligible final-state radiation [ref] .] Neglecting lepton masses, the $B→H_s ℓ^+ ℓ^-$ double-differential decay rate can be decomposed as [ref] d^2Γ/dq_0^2 dcosθ_ℓ = ^(1)_[J=0,1^0] ×sin^2θ_ℓ+ ^(2)_[J=1^±] ×cosθ_ℓ + ^(3)_[J=1^±] ×(1+cos^2θ_ℓ) .

Semi-inclusive Lepton Flavor Universality ratio in $b\to s\ell^+\ell^-$ transitions · Angular projection in the low–$q_0^2$ region · 0.83
In the absence of mixing, we can give the general expression for the angular coefficients using the general formalism of Refs. [ref] , with the angular convention specified in Appendix [ref], [equation]

On the impact of meson mixing on $B_s\to\phi ee$ angular observables at low $q^2$ · $B_s→ϕ(→K^+ K^-)ℓℓ$ angular coefficients · 0.94

Compares with it 1 paper

We have taken a pragmatic route in verifying that the results in [ref] agree with each other for common contributions, and crucially that our results are in agreement with these contributions for $B̅ →K̅^*$ if $J_4,6,7,9 = - _4,6,7,9$ and $J_1,2,3,5,8 = _1,2,3,5,8$.

Generalised helicity formalism, higher moments and the $B \to K_{J_K}(\to K \pi) \bar{\ell}_1 \ell_2$ angular distributions · Angular conventions · 0.97

Cites it as support 3 papers

Its unique sensitivity to $O_7^',9^',10^'$ (shown in [ref] ) and the very limited hadronic uncertainties attached to it makes it into a very appealing observable to distinguish between different NP scenarios.

Exploring New Physics in the C7-C7' plane · Class II · 0.96
The decision to fix these parameters was due to the limited statistical power of the dataset, and were chosen because although they may differentiate between new physics scenarios, their impact on $^(')$ constraints is minimal [ref] .

Angular analysis of $B \to K^* e^+ e^-$ in the low-$q^2$ region with new electron identification at Belle · Fit to the angular distributions · 0.98
This indicates that corrections to the LEET limit are small, and makes $A_T^(2)$ an excellent observable to look for new-physics effects [ref] .

New Physics in b -> s mu+ mu-: CP-Conserving Observables · Angular asymmetries $A_T^(2)$ and $A_LT$ · 0.97

Cites it as background 16 papers

The SM and SM' operators are written as [ref] [equation] Furthermore, we allow for scalar and pseudo-scalar operators, referred to as S and P, [equation] which includes the chirality-flipped ones, as well as tensor operators, referred to as T and T5, [equation] Note that $_T5 = [equation] [equation] = _TE/2$, see Eq. ([ref]), as commonly used in the literature [ref] .

General Analysis of B -> K^(*) l^+ l^- Decays at Low Recoil · The Effective Hamiltonian · 0.83
How to extract the maximal amount of information from the decay while keeping uncertainties from QCD minimal has recently attracted much interest [ref] .

The effect of S-wave interference on the $B^0 \to K^{\ast 0}\ell^+\ell^-$ angular observables · Introduction · 0.84
[$A_T^(2)(q^2)$ and other transverse asymmetries have been discussed in the literature [ref] .

On transverse asymmetries in B --> K* l+l- · Summary · 0.97

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] [12]

M. Beneke, T. Feldmann, and D. Seidel, Nucl. Phys. B612, 25 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[2] [1]

D. Melikhov, N. Nikitin, and S. Simula, Phys. Lett. B 442, 381 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[3] [2]

F. Kr¨ uger, L. M. Sehgal, N. Sinha, and R. Sinha, Phys. Rev. D 61, 114028 (2000); 63, 019901(E) (2001)

View on Pith 2000

[4] [3]

C. S. Kim, Y. G. Kim, C.-D. L¨ u, and T. Morozumi, Phys. Rev. D 62, 034013 (2000); C. S. Kim, Y. G. Kim, and C.-D. L¨ u, ibid. 64, 094014 (2001)

View on Pith 2000

[5] [4]

C.-H. Chen and C. Q. Geng, Nucl. Phys. B636, 338 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[6] [5]

Y. Grossman and D. Pirjol, J. High Energy Phys. 0006, 029 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[7] [6]

A. Ali and A. S. Saﬁr, Eur. Phys. J. C 25, 583 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[8] [7]

T. Feldmann and J. Matias, J. High Energy Phys. 0301, 074 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[9] [8]

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

View on Pith 2000

[10] [9]

A. Ali, E. Lunghi, C. Greub, and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D 66, 034002 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[11] [10]

J. Charles, A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. P` ene, and J.-C. Rayna l, Phys. Rev. D 60, 014001 (1999); Phys. Lett. B 451, 187 (1999). See also M. J. Dugan and B. Grinstein, ibid. 255, 583 (1991)

View on Pith 1999

[12] [11]

M. Beneke and T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. B592, 3 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[13] [13]

See, for example, C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, and M. E. Luke, Phys . Rev. D 63, 014006 (2001); C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stewart, ibid. 63, 114020 (2001); C. W. Bauer and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Lett. B 516, 134 (2001); M. Beneke, A. P. Chapovsky, M. Diehl, and T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. B643, 2002 (431); R. J. Hill and M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys....

View on Pith 2001

[14] [14]

A. L. Kagan and M. Neubert, Phys. Lett. B 539 227 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[15] [15]

A. J. Buras and M. M¨ unz, Phys. Rev. D 52, 186 (1995); M. Misiak, Nucl. Phys. B393, 23 (1993); B439, 461(E) (1995); G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras, and M. E. Lautenbache r, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 1125 (1996); A. J. Buras, in Probing the Standard Model of Particle 19 Interactions, edited by R. Gupta et al. (Elsevier Science B.V., New York, 1999), p. 281, hep-ph/9806471

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995

[16] [16]

See, for example, P. Cho and M. Misiak, Phys. Rev. D 49, 5894 (1994); C. Greub, A. Ioan- nisian, and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. B 346, 149 (1995); P. Ball, J. M. Fr` ere, and J. Matias, Nucl. Phys. B572, 3 (2000)

View on Pith 1994

[17] [17]

See, for example, F. Borzumati, C. Greub, T. Hurth, and D. Wy ler, Phys. Rev. D 62, 075005 (2000); T. Besmer, C. Greub, and T. Hurth, Nucl. Phys. B609, 359 (2001); L. Eve- rett, G. L. Kane, S. Rigolin, L.-T. Wang, and T. T. Wang, J. High Ener gy Phys. 0201, 022 (2002)

View on Pith 2000

[18] [18]

C. Bobeth, M. Misiak, and J. Urban, Nucl. Phys. B574, 291 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[19] [19]

H. H. Asatryan, H. M. Asatrian, C. Greub, and M. Walker, Phys . Lett. B 507, 162 (2001); Phys. Rev. D 65, 074004 (2002); 66, 034009 (2002); A. Ghinculov, T. Hurth, G. Isidori, and Y. P. Yao, Nucl. Phys. B648, 254 (2003)

View on Pith 2001

[20] [20]

P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn, and U. Haisch, Nucl. Phys. B673, 238 (2003); C. Bobeth, P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn, and U. Haisch, J. High Energy Phys. 0404, 071 (2004)

View on Pith 2003

[21] [21]

M. Wirbel, B. Stech, and M. Bauer, Z. Phys. C 29, 637 (1985); B. Stech, ibid. 75, 245 (1997)

View on Pith 1985

[22] [22]

G. Burdman and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D 63, 113008 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[23] [23]

B. Stech, Phys. Lett. B 354, 447 (1995); J. M. Soares, Phys. Rev. D 54, 6837 (1996); hep-ph/9810402

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995

[24] [24]

J. M. Soares, hep-ph/9810421

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[25] [25]

D. Chang, A. Masiero, and H. Murayama, Phys. Rev. D 67, 075013 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[26] [26]

A. Ali and A. Y. Parkhomenko, Eur. Phys. J. C 23, 89 (2002); S. W. Bosch and G. Buchalla, Nucl. Phys. B621, 459 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[27] [27]

K. G. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak, and M. M¨ unz, Phys. Lett. B 400, 206 (1997); 425, 414(E) (1998); P. Gambino and M. Misiak, Nucl. Phys. B611, 338 (2001); A. J. Buras, A. Czar- necki, M. Misiak, and J. Urban, ibid. B631, 219 (2002). 20

View on Pith 1997

[28] [28]

CLEO Collaboration, S. Chen et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 251807 (2001); BaBar Collaboration, B. Aubert et al. , hep-ex/0207076; Belle Collaboration, P. Koppen- burg et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 061803 (2004); Heavy Flavor Averaging Group, http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[29] [29]

G. Hiller and F. Kr¨ uger, Phys. Rev. D 69, 074020 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[30] [30]

P. Gambino, U. Haisch, and M. Misiak, hep-ph/0410155

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[31] [31]

T. M. Aliev, C. S. Kim, and Y. G. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 62, 014026 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[32] [32]

A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. K¨ orner, and V. E. Lyubovitskij, EPJdirect C4, 18 (2002). 21

View on Pith 2002