A Comparative Study of the Decays $B \to (K,K^*) \ell^+ \ell^-$ in Standard Model and Supersymmetric Theories

A. Ali (DESY; G. Hiller (SLAC); Hamburg); L.T. Handoko (DESY; Patricia Ball (CERN)

REVIEW

A Comparative Study of the Decays $B \to (K,K^*) \ell^+ \ell^-$ in Standard Model and Supersymmetric Theories

A. Ali (DESY, Hamburg), Patricia Ball (CERN), L.T. Handoko (DESY, G. Hiller (SLAC)

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 4 Oct 1999 · 73 references

Pith's verdict: The real contribution is Eq. (4.32): the FB-asymmetry zero in B → K*ℓℓ becomes a form-factor-free relation between short-distance coefficients, and that is what later work picked up.

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 · 10 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/9910221 (version 2)

Pith ID5SO6UL7T, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationA. Ali (DESY, G. Hiller (SLAC), Hamburg), L.T. Handoko (DESY, Patricia Ball (CERN). "A Comparative Study of the Decays $B \to (K,K^*) \ell^+ \ell^-$ in Standard Model and Supersymmetric Theories." arXiv:hep-ph/9910221 (1999). https://pith.science/paper/5SO6UL7T

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 to take away is Eq. (4.32). In the large-energy limit the zero of the forward-backward asymmetry in B → K*ℓℓ collapses to a relation among Re C9eff, C7eff and mb, with the hadronic form factors cancelling through the LEET ratios of Eq. (4.31). Burdman could only argue this by scanning models; Ali et al. turn it into an analytic statement. I checked the substitution and it goes through, and their own LCSR form factors satisfy the LEET relations to a few percent at ŝ ≈ 0.1. That is the piece worth citing, and it is why the paper still gets referenced a quarter century on. The rest is solid craft: LCSR form factors with NLO and twist-4 corrections (a ~10% shift on their earlier numbers), tabulated as central/max/min so anyone can redo the error band, and C9–C10 exclusion contours from the CDF limit on B → K*μμ that concretely kill the MIA

Referee report

Significance

The paper is a substantial and useful contribution. The LCSR form factors are a genuine improvement over leading-twist estimates, and the T1(0) = 0.379 value is cross-checked against the measured B → K*γ rate, which is a meaningful consistency test. The observation that the FB-asymmetry zero is form-factor independent in LEET is the most valuable structural result: I verified by direct substitution that Eq. (4.31) into Eq. (4.30) does reproduce Eq. (4.32), and that the LCSR form factors in Tables 3–5 satisfy the LEET relations at the few-percent level near ŝ ≈ 0.1. The conversion of the CDF limit into C9–C10 contours, and the resulting exclusion of the MIA enhancement scenarios, is a concrete and falsifiable statement. Table 8 is a reusable deliverable that makes the paper useful beyond its own numerical choices. The paper is also candid about its systematic uncertainties, quoting separate hadronic, mt, µ, mb,pole and αs contributions throughout.

Major objections (3)

[Abstract (s3), §4.2, Eq. (5.6)] The abstract's claim that the FB asymmetry 'constitutes a precision test of the SM' runs ahead of the error budget the paper itself quotes. Eq. (5.6) gives s0 = 2.88 (+0.44/−0.28) GeV², and the breakdown immediately above it attributes +14%/−7% to the scale µ and ±6% to mb,pole, i.e. the total is dominated by short-distance, not hadronic, uncertainty. The statement in §4.2 that the precision on s0 is 'at par with the corresponding quantity in the inclusive decays B → Xsℓ+ℓ−' is therefore correct only for the form-factor piece, not for the total theory error. Since the paper's own low-tanβ SUGRA and MFV discussion concludes that SM-like scenarios are indistinguishable given present errors, the realistic discriminating power is qualitative (presence versus absence of the zero, i.e. the sign condition of Eq. 4.35) rather than a quantitative measurement of s0. I would ask the authors to qualify the abstract and the §4.2 sentence accordingly, and to state explicitly what fractional precision on s0 would be needed to distinguish the SM from the low-tanβ scenarios they consider.
[§4.2, Eqs. (4.31)–(4.32)] The phrase 'essentially no hadronic uncertainty' attached to Eq. (4.31) is stronger than the derivation supports: the LEET relations hold at leading order in αs and in 1/mb, and the paper does not quantify the size of the corrections. This matters because the form-factor independence of s0 is the paper's central structural claim. The authors are in a good position to close this gap with their own numbers: from Tables 3–5 one can read off T1/V and T2/A1 at ŝ ≈ 0.1 and compare with Eq. (4.31), and the deviation can be propagated into Eq. (4.30) to give a explicit 'LEET-breaking' contribution to the s0 error bar, to be added to the ±1% form-factor entry already quoted. I would ask for that number, and for the wording to be softened to 'no hadronic uncertainty at leading order in the large-energy expansion'.
[§2, Eq. (2.6), Table 2, and §4.2] The long-distance contribution to C9eff is the weakest link in the chain leading to s0, and the paper treats it only as a band in the spectra (Figs. 4–7) rather than as a shift in the zero itself. Two points need to be made explicit. First, the κi fudge factors of Table 2 are extracted from B → K(*)J/ψ, ψ′ data with the phase fixed by factorization (as stated in §2); the sensitivity of Re(C9eff) near ŝ ≈ 0.1 to that phase assumption should be estimated, since a phase error rotates the resonance tail into the region where s0 sits. Second, and more directly, the shift in s0 between the AMM prescription (Eq. 2.6) and the KS prescription (Ref. [29]) is not quoted anywhere, even though s0 is the paper's precision observable. I would ask the authors to add Δs0(AMM vs KS) to the error budget of Eq. (5.6) and to state whether the sign condition of Eq. (4.35) survives under both prescriptions.

Minor objections (10)

[§1 and §4.2] Two typographical errors that appear to be in the source rather than artifacts of the PDF: 'challange' in §1 and 'reonances' in the sentence following Eq. (4.32).
[Tables 3–5 and Eq. (3.7)] The caption should state explicitly that c3 is set to zero for all B → K* form factors, and that the parametrization is accurate to 1% only for s < 15 GeV². It would also help to say which of the three sets (central, max, min) corresponds to which variation of mb, the Gegenbauer moments, M² and s0, since the max/min sets are used as the inner/outer contours in Figs. 9–12.
[Table 6] α⁻¹ = 129 is listed without an uncertainty and does not appear in the list of varied parameters, whereas αs(mZ) does. Please state whether α is held fixed and, if so, why its variation is negligible relative to the other electroweak inputs.
[Table 7, Table 8, Eq. (6.9)] The linear coefficients e, f, g in Eq. (6.9) and the constants in Table 8 arise from interference with the long-distance part of C9eff, so they depend on which Y(ŝ) prescription was used. Please state explicitly which prescription underlies Tables 7 and 8, and whether the quoted coefficients change materially between AMM and KS.
[Eq. (6.14)] The factor τB in the definition of ΔAFB should be accompanied by a statement of units and by the explicit relation ΔĀFB = ΔAFB/ΔB_K*, so that the −9.2% SM number quoted in the text can be reproduced from Table 8 without ambiguity.
[§6.2] The MFV scan ranges for mH±, M2 and |µsusy| are given, but the resulting ranges 0.98 < R9 < 1.07 and 0.79 < R10 < 1.15 are quoted without the corresponding R7. Since the point of the section is that MFV mimics SUGRA, a representative (R7, R9, R10) triplet would make the comparison with Eq. (6.4) direct.
[Figs. 4–8] The figures carry up to four line styles plus, in Fig. 8, upper and lower branches for two different models. A short legend table in the caption of Fig. 8 identifying which branch corresponds to C7eff < 0 and which to C7eff > 0 for each model would remove the need to reconstruct this from the text.
[Fig. 3] The entry labelled 'B+ K τ+τ−' is ambiguous as printed; please relabel it as B+ → K+τ+τ− and confirm that the K*τ+τ− entry is for the average of charged and neutral modes, as stated for the other entries.
[§5, Eqs. (5.1)–(5.5)] The individual errors in these equations are asymmetric while the ±2.5% lifetime error is symmetric; please state the prescription used when adding them in quadrature and when displaying the resulting band in Fig. 3.
[§6.4, footnote 6] The neglect of RG running between µ = mB (used in Ref. [23]) and µ = mb,pole (used here) is acknowledged but not estimated. Since the excluded MIA points sit far outside the contours this is unlikely to matter, but a one-line estimate of the size of the effect would make the exclusion statement airtight.

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

The paper

The paper claims

The dilepton forward-backward asymmetry in $B^*$ decays has a zero whose position barely depends on hadronic form factors, so measuring it tests the Standard Model against supersymmetry.

The reading

The paper asks whether the rare decays $B^0$ into a $K$ or $K^*$ plus a lepton pair can be turned into a clean test of physics beyond the Standard Model. Its answer is yes, and the cleanest handle is the forward-backward asymmetry in $B^0$ into $K^*$ plus two muons: the lepton emitted forward versus backward relative to the $B$ direction. The authors compute the relevant hadronic form factors with light-cone QCD sum rules, including next-to-leading radiative corrections and twist-4 corrections, then propagate those form factors through the decay distributions in the Standard Model and in four supersymmetric scenarios. The central observation is that the dilepton mass at which the asymmetry crosses zero is almost insensitive to the form factors, because in the large-energy limit the ratios $T_2/A_1$ and $T_1/V$ lose their hadronic dependence, leaving a relation between the short-distance coefficients $C_7^{eff}$ and $C_9^{eff}$. That turns a hadronically messy exclusive decay into a short-distance measurement comparable in cleanliness to the inclusive $B^0$ into $X_s$ dilepton decay, and it lets existing data on $B^0$ into $X_s$ photon and the $B^0$ into $K^*$ dimuon upper limit constrain the coefficients of the underlying effective theory.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the zero of the forward-backward asymmetry in $B^0$ into $K^*$ lepton pairs, defined as the dilepton invariant mass ${s}_0$ where $dA_{FB}/d{s}$ changes sign. The differential asymmetry is proportional to $C_{10}$ times a combination $Re(C_9^{eff}) V A_1 + hat m_b {s} C_7^{eff}[V T_2 (1-hat m_{K^*}) + A_1 T_1 (1+hat m_{K^*})]$, so its zero is set by a ratio of Wilson coefficients dressed by ratios of form factors. The large-energy relations make those form-factor ratios universal, which is what converts a hadronic nuisance into a short-distance observable. Supporting machinery: light-cone QCD sum rule form factors with radiative and twist-4 corrections, parametrized as $F({s}) = F(0) exp(c_1 {s} + c_2 {s}^2 + c_3 {s}^3)$ with central, maximum and minimum parameter sets; two treatments of the long-distance charm-loop contribution to $C_9^{eff}$, a Breit-Wigner resonance ansatz with fudge factors fitted to $B^0$ into $K^{(*)}$ charmonium data, and a dispersion relation built from hadronic cross-section data; and a table of coefficients expressing the partially integrated branching ratios and asymmetry as quadratics in $C_7^{eff}$, $C_9$ and $C_{10}$.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the forward-backward asymmetry in $B^0$ into $K^*$ lepton pairs is a precision test of the Standard Model, because its zero is nearly free of form-factor uncertainty. Using the large-energy effective theory relations $T_2/A_1 = (1+hat m_{K^*})/(1+hat m_{K^*}^2-{s}) (1-{s}/(1-{s}m_{K^*}^2))$ and $T_1/V = 1/(1+hat m_{K^*})$, the condition for the asymmetry to vanish collapses from a form-factor-dependent equation to $Re(C_9^{eff}({s}_0)) = -2 hat m_b {s}_0 C_7^{eff} (1-{s}_0)/(1+hat m_{K^*}^2-{s}_0)$. In the Standard Model with the stated inputs this gives ${s}_0 = 2.88^{+0.44}_{-0.28}$ GeV$^2$, with the form-factor error contributing only about one percent. The asymmetry also has a sharp qualitative signature: it vanishes below the charmonium resonances only if $C_7^{eff}$ and $Re(C_9^{eff})$ have opposite signs, as in the Standard Model and low-$tan beta$ supergravity, whereas the large-$tan beta$ supergravity solutions that survive the $B^0$ into $X_s$ photon bound flip the sign of $C_7^{eff}$ and leave the asymmetry negative with no zero at all. Alongside this, the authors use the $B^0$ into $X_s$ photon bound and the CDF upper limit on $B^0$ into $K^*$ dimuons to carve allowed regions in the $C_9$-$C_{10}$ plane, and find that the most aggressive flavor-violating supersymmetric enhancement scenarios are already excluded by those limits.

Load-bearing premise

The argument leans on the charm-loop contribution to the effective coefficient $C_9^{eff}$ being modeled well enough by the two competing prescriptions, and on the large-energy relations between form factors holding at the few-GeV dilepton masses where the asymmetry zero sits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A measurement of the zero of the forward-backward asymmetry in $B^0$ into $K^*$ dimuons near 2.9 GeV$^2$ would confirm the Standard Model coefficient ratio, while a zero at a different mass or no zero at all below the charmonium resonances would point to a new-physics contribution to $C_7^{eff}$ or $C_9^{eff}$.
The large-$tan beta$ supergravity solutions compatible with the $B^0$ into $X_s$ photon rate predict a positive $C_7^{eff}$, hence an asymmetry that stays negative below the $J/psi$ and dilepton spectra enhanced by up to a factor of two relative to the Standard Model, which the stated experimental reach should separate from the Standard Model band.
The existing CDF upper limit on $B^0$ into $K^*$ dimuons already excludes the most aggressive flavor-violating supersymmetric enhancement points, so the $C_9$-$C_{10}$ plane is constrained by data rather than only by theory.
The tabulated coefficients for partially integrated rates and asymmetry let any model specified by three real coefficients be checked against a forthcoming measurement without recomputing form factors.
If the asymmetry zero behaves as predicted, the exclusive channel delivers short-distance information at a precision competitive with the inclusive $B^0$ into $X_s$ dilepton decay, where the analogous condition is $Re(C_9^{eff}({s}_0)) = -2{s}_0 C_7^{eff}$.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the zero depends on the ratio $C_7^{eff}/Re(C_9^{eff})$ and on the quark mass rather than on hadronic details, a future lattice determination of the same form-factor ratios at low recoil would provide an independent cross-check of the large-energy relations, and any disagreement would shift the extracted coefficient ratio rather than merely widen an error bar.
The same logic should transfer to $B_s$ into phi lepton pairs and to $B^0$ into $K^*$ tau pairs, with the caveat the authors note that the tau channel has no asymmetry zero by kinematics and that neutral Higgs exchange, neglected here, could matter there.
If the asymmetry in the dimuon channel is measured to match the Standard Model, the remaining room in the $C_9$-$C_{10}$ plane will be squeezed mainly by the $B^0$ into $K^*$ dimuon rate, so the asymmetry and the rate together act as two nearly orthogonal constraints on the same two coefficients.
The paper's treatment of the charmonium region means that a claimed sign flip of $C_{10}$, which reverses the asymmetry sign without touching the dilepton spectra, would be hardest to confirm precisely where the long-distance modeling is weakest, so a measurement of the asymmetry integrated only below the $J/psi$ would be the sharper discriminator.

Original abstract

Using improved theoretical calculations of the decay form factors in the Light Cone-QCD sum rule approach, we investigate the decay rates, dilepton invariant mass spectra and the forward-backward (FB) asymmetry in the decays $B \to (K,K^*) \ell^+ \ell^-$ ($\ell^\pm =e^\pm,\mu^\pm,\tau^\pm$) in the standard model (SM) and a number of popular variants of the supersymmetric (SUSY) models. Theoretical precision on the differential decay rates and FB-asymmetry is estimated in these theories taking into account various parametric uncertainties. We show that existing data on $B \to X_s \gamma$ and the experimental upper limit on the branching ratio ${\cal B}(B \to K^* \mu^+ \mu^-)$ provide interesting bounds on the coefficients of the underlying effective theory. We argue that the FB-asymmetry in $B \to K^* \ell^+ \ell^-$ constitutes a precision test of the SM and its measurement in forthcoming experiments may reveal new physics. In particular, the presently allowed large-$\tan \beta$ solutions in SUGRA models, as well as more general flavor-violating SUSY models, yield FB-asymmetries which are characteristically different from the corresponding ones in 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, 4,649 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.31 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.66 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.10 · compares with prior results 0.77 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

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

Using improved theoretical calculations of the decay form factors in the Light Cone-QCD sum rule approach, we investigate the decay rates, dilepton invariant mass spectra and the forward-backward (FB) asymmetry in the decays $B \to (K,K^*) \ell^+ \ell^-$ ($\ell^\pm =e^\pm,\mu^\pm,\tau^\pm$) in the standard model (SM) and a number of popular variants of the supersymmetric (SUSY) models. Theoretical precision on the differential decay rates and FB-asymmetry is estimated in these theories taking into account various parametric uncertainties. We show that existing data on $B \to X_s \gamma$ and the experimental upper limit on the branching ratio ${\cal B}(B \to K^* \mu^+ \mu^-)$ provide interesting bounds on the coefficients of the underlying effective theory. We argue that the FB-asymmetry in $B \to K^* \ell^+ \ell^-$ constitutes a precision test of the SM and its measurement in forthcoming experiments may reveal new physics. In particular, the presently allowed large-$\tan \beta$ solutions in SUGRA models, as well as more general flavor-violating SUSY models, yield FB-asymmetries which are characteristically different from the corresponding ones in 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	Using improved theoretical calculations of the decay form factors in the Light Cone-QCD sum rule approach, we investigate the decay rates, dilepton invariant mass spectra and the forward-backward (FB) asymmetry in the decays $B \to (K,K^*) \ell^+ \ell^-$ ($\ell^\pm =e^\pm,\mu^\pm,\tau^\pm$) in the standard model (SM) and a number of popular variants of the supersymmetric (SUSY) models.	contribution 0.96	0.92	0.06	asserted 0.93
s1	Theoretical precision on the differential decay rates and FB-asymmetry is estimated in these theories taking into account various parametric uncertainties.	method 0.50	0.82	0.04	asserted 0.99
s2	We show that existing data on $B \to X_s \gamma$ and the experimental upper limit on the branching ratio ${\cal B}(B \to K^* \mu^+ \mu^-)$ provide interesting bounds on the coefficients of the underlying effective theory.	result 0.86	0.69	0.08	asserted 0.88
s3	We argue that the FB-asymmetry in $B \to K^* \ell^+ \ell^-$ constitutes a precision test of the SM and its measurement in forthcoming experiments may reveal new physics.	interpretation 0.98	0.37	0.57	hedged possibility 0.80
s4	In particular, the presently allowed large-$\tan \beta$ solutions in SUGRA models, as well as more general flavor-violating SUSY models, yield FB-asymmetries which are characteristically different from the corresponding ones in the SM.	result 0.93	0.73	0.30	asserted 0.97

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.85 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.95.

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.** LCSR form factors with theoretical uncertainties for the B → K transition as a function of sˆ. Solid, dotted and dashed curves correspond to f+, fT , f0, respectively. Renormalization scale for fT is µ = mb. (a) (b)

**Figure 2.** LCSR form factors with theoretical uncertainties for the B → K∗ transition as a function of sˆ. In (a), the solid, dotted, dashed and short long dashed curves correspond to V, A0, A1, A2 and in (b), the solid, dotted and dashed curves correspond to T1, T2, T3, respectively. Renormalization scale for Ti is µ = mb. 9

**Figure 3.** Theoretical expectations for the exclusive decay branching ratios B(B → K∗ ℓ +ℓ −), B(B → Kℓ+ℓ −), ℓ ± = e ±, µ±, τ ±, calculated in the LCSR method in the SM. For the sake of completeness, we also give the branching ratios for the inclusive decays B → Xsℓ +ℓ − and B → Xdℓ +ℓ − in the SM, including the CKM dependence of the latter. Experimental upper limits (at 90% C.L.) are also shown: solid squares are from the charged B+ decays (and charge conjugate), circles from the decays of B0 (and charge conjugate), and the empty squares are from the inclusive decays, averaged over th

**Figure 4.** The dilepton invariant mass distribution in B → Kµ+µ − decays, using the form factors from LCSR as a function of s. Solid curve: SD + LD using Ref. [29], dashed curve: SD + LD using Ref. [28]; dotted: pure SD; long-short dashed curve: SD + LD using Ref. [29] with C7 eff = −C7 eff SM. (a) (b)

**Figure 5.** The dilepton invariant mass distribution (a), and the normalized FB-asymmetry (b) in B → K∗µ +µ − decays, using the form factors in LCSR as a function of s in the SM. Solid curves: SD + LD according to Ref. [29], dashed curves: SD + LD using Ref. [28]; dotted: pure SD; long-short dashed curves: SD + LD using Ref. [29] with C7 eff = −C7 eff SM. 20

**Figure 6.** The dilepton invariant mass distribution in B → Kµ+µ − decays, using the form factors from LCSR as a function of s. All resonant cc¯ states are parametrized as in Ref. [29]. The solid line represents the SM and the shaded area depicts the form factor-related uncertainties. The dotted line corresponds to the SUGRA model with R7 = −1.2, R9 = 1.03 and R10 = 1. The long-short dashed lines correspond to an allowed point in the parameter space of the MIA-SUSY model, given by R7 = −0.83, R9 = 0.92 and R10 = 1.61. The corresponding pure SD spectra are shown in the lower part of the plot

**Figure 7.** The dilepton invariant mass distribution in B → K∗µ +µ − decays, using the form factors from LCSR as a function of s. All resonant cc¯ states are parametrized as in Ref. [29]. The legends are the same as in

**Figure 8.** The normalized forward-backward asymmetry in B → K∗µ +µ − decay as a function of s, using the form factors from the LCSR approach. All resonant cc¯ states are parametrized as in Ref. [29]. The solid line denotes the SM prediction. The dotted (long-short dashed) lines correspond to the SUGRA (the MIA-SUSY) model, using the parameters given in Eq. (6.4) (Eq. (6.10)) with the upper and lower curves representing the C7 eff < 0 and C7 eff > 0 case, respectively. The dashed curves indicating a positive asymmetry for large s correspond to the MIA-SUSY models using the parameters given in E

**Figure 9.** Bounds on the coefficients C9(mB) and C10 resulting from the experimental upper bound B(B0 → K∗0µ +µ −) < 4.0 × 10−6 (at 90% C.L.) [34] and C7 eff(µ = 4.8 GeV) = −0.249 from the bounds given in Eq. (6.1).The SM-point and two representative points in the SUSYMIA approach from Ref. [23] are also shown. The three curves correspond to using the central values of the form factors (solid curve), the minimum (outer dashed curve) and maximum (inner dashed curve) allowed values discussed in Sec. 3. −15 −5 5 15 −15 −5 5 15 C9 C10 C7 eff > 0 MIAbest enh

Showing 9 of the paper's 12 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:hep-ph/9910221 by the authors.

References

Works cited (73)

[23]

E. Lunghi et.al., Preprint hep–ph/9906286

View on Pith
[29]

F. Kr¨ uger and L.M. Sehgal, Phys. Lett. B380 (1996) 199

View on Pith 1996
[1]

S.L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos and L. Maiani, Phys. Rev. D2 (1970) 1285

View on Pith 1970
[2]

N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 (1963) 531; M. Kobayashi and K. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49 (1973) 652

View on Pith 1963
[3]

A. Ali, C. Greub and T. Mannel, Report DESY 93–016 (ZU–TH 4 /93, IKDA 93/5), pub- lished in Proceedings of the ECF A Workshop on a European B Meson Factor y, Hamburg, Germany, 1993, editors: R. Aleksan and A. Ali

View on Pith 1993
[4]

C.S. Kim, T. Morozumi and A.I. Sanda, Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 7240

View on Pith 1997
[5]

A. Ali and G. Hiller, Euro. Phys. Jour. C8 (1999) 619

View on Pith 1999
[6]

A. Ali, H. Asatrian and C. Greub, Phys. Lett. B429 (1998) 87

View on Pith 1998
[7]

M.S. Alam et.al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 2885; S. Ahmed et.al. (CLEO Collaboration), CLEO CONF 99–10 (hep–ex/9908022)

View on Pith 1995
[8]

R. Barate et.al. (ALEPH Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B429 (1998) 169

View on Pith 1998
[9]

J. Alexander, in Proceedings of the XXIXth. Int. Conf. on High Energy Physics , Vancou- ver, B.C., Canada, 1998, World Scientiﬁc Publishers, edito rs: A. Astbury, D. Axen and J. Robinson

View on Pith 1998
[10]

A. Ali, Preprint DESY 97–162 (hep–ph/9709507); to be pu blished in the Proceedings of 7th International Symposium on Heavy Flavor Physics , Santa Barbara (CA), USA, July 1997. 32

View on Pith 1997
[11]

A.J. Buras, Preprint TUM–HEP–316–98 (hep–ph/9806471 ); Preprint TUM–HEP–349–99 (hep–ph/9905437)

View on Pith
[12]

A. Ali and D. London, Euro. Phys. Jour. C9 (1999) 687

View on Pith 1999
[13]

S. Mele, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 113011

View on Pith 1999
[14]

F. Parodi, P. Roudeau and A. Stocchi, Preprint LAL–99–0 3 (hep–ex/9903063)

View on Pith
[15]

C. Caso et.al. (PDG Collaboration), Euro. Phys. Jour. C3 (1998) 1

View on Pith 1998
[16]

S. Bertolini et.al., Nucl. Phys. B353 (1991) 591

View on Pith 1991
[17]

A. Ali, G.F. Giudice and T. Mannel, Z. Phys. C67 (1995) 417

View on Pith 1995
[18]

P. Cho, M. Misiak and D. Wyler, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 3329

View on Pith 1996
[19]

J.L. Hewett and J.D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 5549

View on Pith 1997
[20]

T. Goto et.al., Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 4273; T. Goto, Y. Okada and Y. Shimizu, Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 094006

View on Pith 1997
[21]

M. Ciuchini et.al., Nucl. Phys. B534 (1998) 3

View on Pith 1998
[22]

T. Goto, Y. Okada and Y. Shimizu, Preprint KEK–TH–611 (h ep–ph/9908499)

View on Pith
[24]

S. Baek and P. Ko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 488; Preprint KAIST–TH–99–1 (hep– ph/9904283)

View on Pith 1999
[25]

A. Ali et.al., Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 4105

View on Pith 1997
[26]

G. Buchalla and G. Isidori, Nucl. Phys. B525 (1998) 333

View on Pith 1998
[27]

G. Buchalla, G. Isidori and S.J. Rey, Nucl. Phys. B511 (1998) 594

View on Pith 1998
[28]

A. Ali, T. Mannel and T. Morozumi, Phys. Lett. B273 (1991) 505

View on Pith 1991
[30]

D. Melikhov, N. Nikitin and S. Simula, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 6814

View on Pith 1998
[31]

Z. Ligeti, I.W. Stewart and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B420 (1998) 359

View on Pith 1998
[32]

A. Ali and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 034017

View on Pith 1999
[33]

S. Glenn et.al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 2289

View on Pith 1998
[34]

T. Aﬀolder et al. (CDF Collaboration), Preprint hep–ex/9905004

View on Pith
[35]

R. Godang et al. (CLEO Collaboration), Report CONF 98–22, submitted to the XXIXth. Int. Conf. on High Energy Physics , Vancouver, B.C., Canada, ICHEP98–1012, 1998. 33

View on Pith 1998
[36]

N. G. Deshpande, J. Trampetic and K. Panose, Phys. Rev. D39 (1989) 1461; C.S. Lim, T. Morozumi and A.I. Sanda, Phys. Lett. B218 (1989) 343

View on Pith 1989
[37]

C.A. Dominguez, N. Paver and Riazuddin, Z. Phys. C48 (1990) 55

View on Pith 1990
[38]

A. Ali and T. Mannel, Phys. Lett. B264 (1991) 447; Err. ibid. B274 (1992) 526

View on Pith 1991
[39]

C. Greub, A. Ioannisian and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. B346 (1994) 149

View on Pith 1994
[40]

D. Melikhov, N. Nikitin and S. Simula, Phys. Lett. B410 (1997) 290; D. Melikhov and N. Nikitin, Preprint hep–ph/9609503

View on Pith 1997
[41]

W. Roberts, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 863

View on Pith 1996
[42]

C.Q. Geng and C.P. Kao, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 5636

View on Pith 1996
[43]

P. Colangelo et.al., Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 3672; Err. ibid. D57 (1998) 3186

View on Pith 1996
[44]

G. Burdman, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 4254

View on Pith 1998
[45]

I.I. Balitsky, V.M. Braun and A.V. Kolesnichenko, Nucl. Phys. B312 (1989) 509

View on Pith 1989
[46]

V.L. Chernyak and I.R. Zhitnitsky, Nucl. Phys. B345 (1990) 137

View on Pith 1990
[47]

V.M. Braun, Preprint NORDITA–98–1–P (hep–ph/9801222 )

View on Pith
[48]

A. Khodjamirian and R. R¨ uckl, Preprint WUE–ITP–97–04 9 (hep–ph/9801443)

View on Pith
[49]

P. Ball and V.M. Braun, Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 094016

View on Pith 1998
[50]

P. Ball et al. , Nucl. Phys. B529 (1998) 323

View on Pith 1998
[51]

P. Ball and V.M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. B543 (1999) 201

View on Pith 1999
[52]

P. Ball, JHEP 09 (1998) 005

View on Pith 1998
[53]

P. Ball, JHEP 01 (1999) 010

View on Pith 1999
[54]

A.J. Buras and M. M¨ unz, Phys. Rev. D52 (1995) 186

View on Pith 1995
[55]

M. Misiak, Nucl. Phys. B393 (1993) 23; Err. ibid. B439 (1995) 461

View on Pith 1993
[56]

K. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak and M. M¨ unz, Phys. Lett. B400 (1997) 206; Err. ibid. B425 (1998) 425

View on Pith 1997
[57]

J. Nielsen for the ALEPH Collaboration, Preprint hep–e x/9908016

View on Pith
[58]

J. Charles et.al., Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 014001

View on Pith 1999
[59]

A.J. Buras et.al., Nucl. Phys. B424 (1994) 374

View on Pith 1994
[60]

M. Je˙ zabek and J.H. K¨ uhn,Nucl. Phys. B320 (1989) 20. 34

View on Pith 1989
[61]

M. Neubert and B. Stech, in Heavy Flavors (2nd Edition), editors: A.J. Buras and M. Lindner, World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1998 (hep–ph/9705 292)

View on Pith 1998
[62]

Z. Ligeti and M.B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 4937

View on Pith 1996
[63]

M. Bauer, B. Stech and M. Wirbel, Z. Phys. C34 (1987) 103

View on Pith 1987
[64]

T.E. Browder and K. Honscheid, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 35 (1995) 81

View on Pith 1995
[65]

M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein and V.I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B147 (1979) 385; ibid. B147 (1979) 448; ibid. B147 (1979) 519

View on Pith 1979
[66]

S.J. Brodsky and G.P. Lepage, in: Perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics , ed. by A.H. Mueller, p. 93, World Scientiﬁc (Singapore) 1989; V.L. Chernyak and A.R. Zhitnitsky, JETP Lett. 25 (1977) 510; Yad. Fiz. 31 (1980) 1053; A.V. Efremov and A.V. Radyushkin, Phys. Lett. B94 (1980) 245; Teor. Mat. Fiz. 42 (1980) 147; G.P. Lepage and S.J. Brodsky, Phys. Lett. B...

View on Pith 1977
[67]

J.M. Flynn, Talk given at the 7th International Symposium on Heavy Flavor Physics , Santa Barbara CA, USA, July 1997, Preprint SHEP–97–25 (hep– lat/9710080); H. Wittig, Lectures given at International School of Physics, “Enrico Fermi” , Varenna, Italy, July 1997, Preprint OUTP–97–59–P (hep–lat/9710088 )

View on Pith 1997
[68]

A. Ali, V.M. Braun and H. Simma, Z. Phys. C63 (1994) 437

View on Pith 1994
[69]

E. Bagan, P. Ball and V.M. Braun, Phys. Lett. B417 (1998) 154

View on Pith 1998
[70]

R. Ammar et al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993) 674

View on Pith 1993
[71]

A. Ali and C. Greub, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 2996

View on Pith 1998
[72]

See, for example, F.M. Borzumati and C. Greub, Report PM –98–23 (1998) (hep– ph/9810240)

View on Pith 1998
[73]

L.J. Hall, V.A. Kostelecky and S. Raby, Nucl. Phys. B267 (1986) 415. 35

View on Pith 1986

Forward citations

Cited by 38 Pith papers

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

Soft-Collinear Chiral Perturbation Theory for $B \to \pi$ form factors at large recoil
hep-ph 2026-09 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

At large recoil the chiral-logarithm corrections to the B to pion form factor split into two independent coefficients, one per spectator chirality, contradicting the single-factor ansatz of Hard-Pion ChPT.
Minimal Flavour Violation: an effective field theory approach
hep-ph 2002-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

Minimal Flavour Violation is formulated as a spurion effective field theory, yielding a complete dimension-six operator basis, bounds of 1 to 10 TeV on their scales, and a systematic resummation of tan(beta)-enhanced ...
Systematic approach to exclusive B ->V l^+l^-, V gamma decays
hep-ph 2001-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Next-to-leading-order QCD factorization corrections to exclusive B to K* gamma and B to K* l+l- decays shift the forward-backward asymmetry zero from about 3.4 to 4.4 GeV^2 while leaving it a clean probe of the Wilson...
$\Lambda_b \to \Lambda \ell^+\ell^-$ and $\Lambda_b \to \Lambda^{\ast} \ell^+\ell^-$ decays with polarized leptons
hep-ph 2026-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Polarization observables for Lambda_b to Lambda(*) lepton-antilepton decays are derived and evaluated, with first results for the excited Lambda*(1520) state.
Search for the $\boldsymbol{B^0 \to K^0_{\rm S} \tau^+ \tau^-}$ decay
hep-ex 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

No evidence is found for B0→K0Sτ+τ−; the first upper limit, B<8.3×10^-4 at 90% CL, is set, and the isospin-combined B→Kτ+τ− limit becomes 5.4×10^-4.

Show 33 more citing papers

The KSVZ Atlas: A Unified SMEFT-ALP Framework
hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

A matching framework from arbitrary KSVZ UV completions to SMEFT and ALP EFT yields robust operator bounds from global fits that often dominate direct ALP searches except when mass mixing occurs.
Lepton polarization dependent angular observables and the polarization asymmetries in the four-fold $\Lambda_b \rightarrow \Lambda(\rightarrow N \pi) \ell^+\ell^-$ decay
hep-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The authors derive the lepton-polarized four-fold angular distributions for Λ_b→Λ(→Nπ)ℓ⁺ℓ⁻, identify new angular coefficients for normal and transverse polarizations, and provide SM and NP predictions for the polariza...
Measurements of the S-wave fraction in $B^{0}\rightarrow K^{+}\pi^{-}\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ decays and the $B^{0}\rightarrow K^{\ast}(892)^{0}\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ differential branching fraction
hep-ex 2016-06 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The S-wave fraction of the K+pi- system in B0 -> K+pi-mu+mu- is measured to be 0.101 +/- 0.017 +/- 0.009 for 1.1 < q^2 < 6.0 GeV^2/c^4, and the S-wave-corrected differential branching fraction of B0 -> K*(892)0 mu+mu-...
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.
A taste of dark matter: Flavour constraints on pseudoscalar mediators
hep-ph 2014-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Flavour-changing meson decays tightly constrain light pseudoscalar dark matter mediators, ruling out a DAMA explanation and requiring mediator masses above roughly 10 GeV to fit the Galactic Centre excess.
$R_K$ and future $b \to s \ell \ell$ BSM opportunities
hep-ph 2014-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A left-handed vector-minus-axial-vector four-fermion operator coupling to muons, C9 = -C10 < 0, is the simplest single-operator explanation of the 2014 R_K anomaly, and two scalar leptoquark models can generate it.
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'_...
Multi-lepton Signatures of a Hidden Sector in Rare B Decays
hep-ph 2009-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Loop-induced b to s transitions into GeV-scale hidden-sector scalars or pseudoscalars yield monochromatic dilepton signals that existing B-factory data already bound more tightly than naturalness requires.
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.
Angular Distributions of B -> K ll Decays
hep-ph 2007-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

In the Standard Model the flat term in the B -> K l+ l- angular distribution scales as the lepton mass squared and the muon-to-electron rate ratio R_K equals one to 10^-4, giving two clean null tests of new physics.
Symmetry-breaking corrections to heavy-to-light B meson form factors at large recoil
hep-ph 2000-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The large-recoil symmetry relations among B-to-light form factors survive strong-interaction corrections, which are computable and shift form factor ratios by roughly ten percent.
Probing mixed-state dark matter and flavor observables in a scalar-assisted baryonic gauge theory
hep-ph 2026-02 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

Adding a colored scalar S1 to a U(1)_B dark matter model correlates dark matter freeze-out with b→s μ+μ− observables, but the flavor amplitudes use a Z'–muon coupling that the model's zero-kinetic-mixing limit forbids.
Semileptonic neutral current decays of $\Xi_b$ with dileptons or dineutrinos in the final state
hep-ph 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

Perturbative QCD calculations find that branching fractions for Ξ_b to Ξ lepton-pair decays lie within LHCb reach and that angular observables plus a specific ratio can constrain Wilson coefficients and extract |V_td/...
Study of Form Factors and Observables in $B_c^- \rightarrow \bar{D}^{(*)0}\ell^-\bar{\nu}_{\ell}$ and $B_c^- \rightarrow D^{(*)-}\ell^+\ell^-$ decays
hep-ph 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

Computes pQCD form factors for B_c to D(*) transitions via lattice inputs and heavy quark symmetry, then predicts branching fractions and angular observables for semileptonic and rare dilepton decays.
Standard Model predictions for $B\to K\ell^+\ell^-$, $B\to K\ell_1^- \ell_2^+$ and $B\to K\nu\bar{\nu}$ using form factors from $N_f=2+1+1$ lattice QCD
hep-ph 2022-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Using new Nf=2+1+1 lattice form factors, the Standard Model B to K mu+ mu- rate exceeds the LHCb measurement by up to 4.2 sigma in the low-q2 region, a tension largely removed by shifting C9 and C10.
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.
Long Lived Light Scalars as Probe of Low Scale Seesaw Models
hep-ph 2017-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

In TeV-scale left-right seesaw models the B-L-breaking scalar can be a GeV-scale particle that lives long enough to produce displaced collimated diphoton vertices at the LHC.
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...
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.
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 +...
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 ...
Constraining the Axion Portal with B -> K l+ l-
hep-ph 2009-11 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Existing B to K lepton-pair data bound the axion decay constant of DFSZ-type axion-portal models to be above roughly a few TeV for small tan beta, constraining the model's dark matter parameter space.
B_{d,s}->rho, omega, K*, phi Decay Form Factors from Light-Cone Sum Rules Revisited
hep-ph 2004-12 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Improved light-cone sum rule calculations give B to vector meson form factors with about 10% uncertainty and simple parametrizations valid over the full kinematic range.
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.
Angular analysis of $B^0_d \rightarrow K^{*}\mu^+\mu^-$ decays in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}= 8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2018-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

ATLAS extracts the K* longitudinal polarisation fraction and angular coefficients of B0 -> K* mu+ mu- from 787 selected 8 TeV events and finds them consistent with Standard Model predictions within roughly three stand...
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...
A facility to Search for Hidden Particles at the CERN SPS: the SHiP physics case
hep-ph 2015-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

SHiP, a proposed CERN SPS beam-dump experiment, could probe dark-photon, scalar, heavy-neutral-lepton and axion-like-particle parameter space well beyond existing limits, according to order-of-magnitude sensitivity estimates.
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.
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

95 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 83 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 23 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 34 of the 164 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

7 later papers by other authors are listed below: 1 built on it, 2 used its method or tool and 4 used its data or values. 1 more paper by the same authors is listed: 1 used its data or values.

Builds on it 1 of 2 papers with this label

Updated this paper's expressions to include additional primed, scalar and pseudoscalar operators, as well as QCDF corrections.

Constraining new physics with B to K* mu+ mu- in the early LHC era (2010) · 0.94 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

Uses its method or tool 2 of 12 papers with this label

Used the parametrization given in this paper for the tensor hadronic matrix element of the K to B transition.

Explaining the $B^+\to K^+ \nu \bar{\nu}$ excess via a massless dark photon (2024) · 0.85 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
The angular and distributions of and decays are generated according to the SM, following the description in Ref. [ref] with form factors from Ref. [ref] .

Angular analysis of the $B^+\to\pi^+\mu^+\mu^-$ decay (2026) · Detector and simulation · 0.91

Uses its data or values 5 of 10 papers with this label · 1 by the same authors

Used the form factors calculated in this paper in the framework of QCD light-cone sum rules in its numerical calculations.

New Physics in b -> s mu+ mu-: CP-Conserving Observables (2010) · 0.83 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Fixed the values of the phenomenological parameters from B to K* l+ l-, taking the J/Psi and Psi' resonance values from this paper.

Model Independent Analysis of the Forward-Backward Asymmetry for the $B\to K_{1}\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ Decay (2010) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Took the parameters f(0), c1, c2 and c3 for each form factor from a table in this paper.

Large forward-backward asymmetry in B --> K mu+ mu- from new physics tensor operators (2008) · 0.83 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Used this paper's results for kappa_V obtained for the B to K* transition.

Lepton polarization in $B \to K_1 \ell^+ \ell^-$ Decays (2009) · 0.99 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

By the same authors

Took the SM prediction of the branching ratios of inclusive B to X_s l l decays for q^2 > 0.04 from this paper.

$R_K$ and future $b \to s \ell \ell$ BSM opportunities (2014) (same authors) · 0.99 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

90 arXiv papers cite this in 158 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 · 95 sentences without a confident label

Builds on it 2 papers

The auxiliary functions $A$-$I(q^2)$ follow [ref] ; however, we have updated the previous expressions to include additional primed, scalar, and pseudoscalar operators, as well as QCDF correction via $𝒯^(')NLO_∥(q^2)$ and $𝒯^(')NLO_⊥(q^2)$ as outlined in [ref].

Constraining new physics with B to K* mu+ mu- in the early LHC era · Decay Amplitude · 0.94
The decay amplitude for $B→$ which is analogous to the $B→$ decay [ref] is given by [equation] where [equation] with $= p/m_B$, $_B = p_B/m_B$, $= q/m_B$ and $p = p_B + p_$, $q = p_B - p_= p_+ + p_-$.

K1(1270)-K1(1400) Mixing Angle and New-Physics Effects in B to K1 l+ l- Decays · $→ℓ^+ ℓ^-$ decays in the SM · 0.84

Uses its method or tool 12 papers

Formulas are given in or are adapted from Refs. [ref] .

Model-independent analysis of $b\to d$ processes · Rare $b →d$ decay observables · 0.93
For the tensor hadronic matrix element $⟨K^*|s̅ σ_μν b| B^0⟩$ we use again the parametrization provided in Ref. [ref] , which in the general case of $q^2≠0$ gives ⟨K^*() |[s̅σ_μνq^νb] |B^0()⟩ = i2ϵ_μναβ ε^†ν ^α^β T_1(s) + T_2(s)[ε^†_μ(^2-^2)- (ε^†·)(+)_μ] + T_3(s)(ε^†·)[q_μ- s/^2-^2(+)_μ] ,

Explaining the $B^+\to K^+ \nu \bar{\nu}$ excess via a massless dark photon · Decay width for $B^0→K^*$ · 0.82
In exclusive decays the main job is to calculate the form factors, for our analysis we borrow the light cone QCD sum rules form factors (LCSR) [ref] .

Fourth-generation SM imprints in B -> K^*l^+l^- decays with polarized K^* · Introduction · 0.97

Uses its data or values 9 papers

The form factors $f_+, 0, T$ were calculated in the framework of QCD light-cone sum rules in Ref. [ref] .

New Physics in b -> s mu+ mu-: CP-Conserving Observables · Details of the $$ analysis · 0.85
Their $z$ dependence is given by [ref] [equation] where the parameters $f(0), c_1$, $c_2$ and $c_3$ for each form factor are given in Table [ref].

Large forward-backward asymmetry in B --> K mu+ mu- from new physics tensor operators · Forward-backward asymmetry of muons in $$ · 0.83
Keeping in view that there is no experimental data on $B→K_1(1270)l^+l^-$, we have fixed the values of the phenomenological parameters $κ_i$ from $B→K^∗l^+l^-$, which for the resonances $J/Ψ$ and $Ψ^^'$ are taken to be $κ=1.65$ and $κ=2.36$, respectively [ref] .

Model Independent Analysis of the Forward-Backward Asymmetry for the $B\to K_{1}\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ Decay · Effective Hamiltonian and Matrix Elements · 1.00

Compares with it 7 papers

For comparison, the theoretical and experimental results also are presented , such as the PDG [ref] , HFLAV [ref] , HPQCD'13(22) [ref] , LCSR'00(06) [ref] , RQM'02 [ref] , BHDW'11 [ref] , PQCD'12 [ref] , MILC'15 [ref] , (Majorana neutrino exchange)MNE-18 [ref] , BaBar-08(12,16) [ref] , CDF-11 [ref] , Belle'02(09,19) [ref] , and LHCb'12(14C,16) [ref] .

The rare decay $B^+ \to K^+\ell^+\ell^-(\nu\bar{\nu})$ under the QCD sum rules approach · Numerical Analysis · 1.00
Confining ourself to the SM, the above expression of the FB asymmetry in terms of the Wilson coefficients becomes [equation] which in agreement with the the one obtained for $B→K^∗l^+l^-$decay in [ref] .

Impact of $Z^{\prime}$ and UED parameters on different asymmetries in $B_{s} \to \phi \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$ decays · Forward-Backward Asymmetries · 0.90
The branching fractions for $B→$ and $B→$ are close to $B→$, $B→$ given in [ref] .

K1(1270)-K1(1400) Mixing Angle and New-Physics Effects in B to K1 l+ l- Decays · Branching fractions · 0.99

Cites it as support 2 papers

The measurement of the FBA at LHC is significant due to the minimal dependence on the form factors [ref] , and as such this observable is of greater importance to check the more clear signals of any NP than the other observables such as branching ratio etc.

Analysis of B_{C} --> D_{s}^{*}l^{+}l^{-} in the Standard Model Beyond Third Generation · Forward-Backward Asymmetry of $B→D^∗_s ℓ^+ ℓ^-$ decay · 0.97
This is because there has been no hint of NP in the radiative decays $B̅ →X_s γ, K̅^(*) γ$ [ref] , which imposes strong constraints on $|C_7^eff|$.

New Physics in b -> s mu+ mu-: CP-Conserving Observables · Standard Model and New Physics: effective Hamiltonians · 0.97

Cites it as background 21 papers

Theoretically, Refs. [ref] offer a multitude of theoretical predictions for the decays $b→sℓ^+ℓ^-$ and $b→sνν̅$ that can afford us access to a deeper horizon.

The rare decay $B^+ \to K^+\ell^+\ell^-(\nu\bar{\nu})$ under the QCD sum rules approach · Introduction · 0.96
The general effective Hamiltonian for rare semileptonic $b→s μ^+ μ^-$ transition is given as [ref] , [equation] where $G_F$ is the Fermi coupling constant, $V_ij$ represents the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements.

Signature of (axial)vector operators in $B_c\to D_s^{(*)} \mu^+ \mu^-$ decays · Effective Hamiltonian · 0.85
Many exclusive $B→K( K^∗) ℓ^+ℓ^-$ [ref] , $B→ϕℓ^+ℓ^-$ [ref] , $B→γℓ^+ℓ^-$ [ref] , $B→ℓ^+ℓ^-$ [ref] processes based on $b→s( d) ℓ^+ℓ^-$ have been studied in literature and many fameworks have been applied to the description of meson transition form factors: like constituent quark models, QCD sum rules, lattice QCD, approaches based on heavy quark symmetry and analytical constraints.

Exclusive B-> K_{1}l ^{+}l ^{-} decay in model with single universal extra dimension · Introduction · 0.96

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] [23]

E. Lunghi et.al., Preprint hep–ph/9906286

View on Pith

[2] [29]

F. Kr¨ uger and L.M. Sehgal, Phys. Lett. B380 (1996) 199

View on Pith 1996

[3] [1]

S.L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos and L. Maiani, Phys. Rev. D2 (1970) 1285

View on Pith 1970

[4] [2]

N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 (1963) 531; M. Kobayashi and K. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49 (1973) 652

View on Pith 1963

[5] [3]

A. Ali, C. Greub and T. Mannel, Report DESY 93–016 (ZU–TH 4 /93, IKDA 93/5), pub- lished in Proceedings of the ECF A Workshop on a European B Meson Factor y, Hamburg, Germany, 1993, editors: R. Aleksan and A. Ali

View on Pith 1993

[6] [4]

C.S. Kim, T. Morozumi and A.I. Sanda, Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 7240

View on Pith 1997

[7] [5]

A. Ali and G. Hiller, Euro. Phys. Jour. C8 (1999) 619

View on Pith 1999

[8] [6]

A. Ali, H. Asatrian and C. Greub, Phys. Lett. B429 (1998) 87

View on Pith 1998

[9] [7]

M.S. Alam et.al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 2885; S. Ahmed et.al. (CLEO Collaboration), CLEO CONF 99–10 (hep–ex/9908022)

View on Pith 1995

[10] [8]

R. Barate et.al. (ALEPH Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B429 (1998) 169

View on Pith 1998

[11] [9]

J. Alexander, in Proceedings of the XXIXth. Int. Conf. on High Energy Physics , Vancou- ver, B.C., Canada, 1998, World Scientiﬁc Publishers, edito rs: A. Astbury, D. Axen and J. Robinson

View on Pith 1998

[12] [10]

A. Ali, Preprint DESY 97–162 (hep–ph/9709507); to be pu blished in the Proceedings of 7th International Symposium on Heavy Flavor Physics , Santa Barbara (CA), USA, July 1997. 32

View on Pith 1997

[13] [11]

A.J. Buras, Preprint TUM–HEP–316–98 (hep–ph/9806471 ); Preprint TUM–HEP–349–99 (hep–ph/9905437)

View on Pith

[14] [12]

A. Ali and D. London, Euro. Phys. Jour. C9 (1999) 687

View on Pith 1999

[15] [13]

S. Mele, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 113011

View on Pith 1999

[16] [14]

F. Parodi, P. Roudeau and A. Stocchi, Preprint LAL–99–0 3 (hep–ex/9903063)

View on Pith

[17] [15]

C. Caso et.al. (PDG Collaboration), Euro. Phys. Jour. C3 (1998) 1

View on Pith 1998

[18] [16]

S. Bertolini et.al., Nucl. Phys. B353 (1991) 591

View on Pith 1991

[19] [17]

A. Ali, G.F. Giudice and T. Mannel, Z. Phys. C67 (1995) 417

View on Pith 1995

[20] [18]

P. Cho, M. Misiak and D. Wyler, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 3329

View on Pith 1996

[21] [19]

J.L. Hewett and J.D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 5549

View on Pith 1997

[22] [20]

T. Goto et.al., Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 4273; T. Goto, Y. Okada and Y. Shimizu, Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 094006

View on Pith 1997

[23] [21]

M. Ciuchini et.al., Nucl. Phys. B534 (1998) 3

View on Pith 1998

[24] [22]

T. Goto, Y. Okada and Y. Shimizu, Preprint KEK–TH–611 (h ep–ph/9908499)

View on Pith

[25] [24]

S. Baek and P. Ko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 488; Preprint KAIST–TH–99–1 (hep– ph/9904283)

View on Pith 1999

[26] [25]

A. Ali et.al., Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 4105

View on Pith 1997

[27] [26]

G. Buchalla and G. Isidori, Nucl. Phys. B525 (1998) 333

View on Pith 1998

[28] [27]

G. Buchalla, G. Isidori and S.J. Rey, Nucl. Phys. B511 (1998) 594

View on Pith 1998

[29] [28]

A. Ali, T. Mannel and T. Morozumi, Phys. Lett. B273 (1991) 505

View on Pith 1991

[30] [30]

D. Melikhov, N. Nikitin and S. Simula, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 6814

View on Pith 1998

[31] [31]

Z. Ligeti, I.W. Stewart and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B420 (1998) 359

View on Pith 1998

[32] [32]

A. Ali and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 034017

View on Pith 1999

[33] [33]

S. Glenn et.al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 2289

View on Pith 1998

[34] [34]

T. Aﬀolder et al. (CDF Collaboration), Preprint hep–ex/9905004

View on Pith

[35] [35]

R. Godang et al. (CLEO Collaboration), Report CONF 98–22, submitted to the XXIXth. Int. Conf. on High Energy Physics , Vancouver, B.C., Canada, ICHEP98–1012, 1998. 33

View on Pith 1998

[36] [36]

N. G. Deshpande, J. Trampetic and K. Panose, Phys. Rev. D39 (1989) 1461; C.S. Lim, T. Morozumi and A.I. Sanda, Phys. Lett. B218 (1989) 343

View on Pith 1989

[37] [37]

C.A. Dominguez, N. Paver and Riazuddin, Z. Phys. C48 (1990) 55

View on Pith 1990

[38] [38]

A. Ali and T. Mannel, Phys. Lett. B264 (1991) 447; Err. ibid. B274 (1992) 526

View on Pith 1991

[39] [39]

C. Greub, A. Ioannisian and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. B346 (1994) 149

View on Pith 1994

[40] [40]

D. Melikhov, N. Nikitin and S. Simula, Phys. Lett. B410 (1997) 290; D. Melikhov and N. Nikitin, Preprint hep–ph/9609503

View on Pith 1997

[41] [41]

W. Roberts, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 863

View on Pith 1996

[42] [42]

C.Q. Geng and C.P. Kao, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 5636

View on Pith 1996

[43] [43]

P. Colangelo et.al., Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 3672; Err. ibid. D57 (1998) 3186

View on Pith 1996

[44] [44]

G. Burdman, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 4254

View on Pith 1998

[45] [45]

I.I. Balitsky, V.M. Braun and A.V. Kolesnichenko, Nucl. Phys. B312 (1989) 509

View on Pith 1989

[46] [46]

V.L. Chernyak and I.R. Zhitnitsky, Nucl. Phys. B345 (1990) 137

View on Pith 1990

[47] [47]

V.M. Braun, Preprint NORDITA–98–1–P (hep–ph/9801222 )

View on Pith

[48] [48]

A. Khodjamirian and R. R¨ uckl, Preprint WUE–ITP–97–04 9 (hep–ph/9801443)

View on Pith

[49] [49]

P. Ball and V.M. Braun, Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 094016

View on Pith 1998

[50] [50]

P. Ball et al. , Nucl. Phys. B529 (1998) 323

View on Pith 1998

[51] [51]

P. Ball and V.M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. B543 (1999) 201

View on Pith 1999

[52] [52]

P. Ball, JHEP 09 (1998) 005

View on Pith 1998

[53] [53]

P. Ball, JHEP 01 (1999) 010

View on Pith 1999

[54] [54]

A.J. Buras and M. M¨ unz, Phys. Rev. D52 (1995) 186

View on Pith 1995

[55] [55]

M. Misiak, Nucl. Phys. B393 (1993) 23; Err. ibid. B439 (1995) 461

View on Pith 1993

[56] [56]

K. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak and M. M¨ unz, Phys. Lett. B400 (1997) 206; Err. ibid. B425 (1998) 425

View on Pith 1997

[57] [57]

J. Nielsen for the ALEPH Collaboration, Preprint hep–e x/9908016

View on Pith

[58] [58]

J. Charles et.al., Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 014001

View on Pith 1999

[59] [59]

A.J. Buras et.al., Nucl. Phys. B424 (1994) 374

View on Pith 1994

[60] [60]

M. Je˙ zabek and J.H. K¨ uhn,Nucl. Phys. B320 (1989) 20. 34

View on Pith 1989

[61] [61]

M. Neubert and B. Stech, in Heavy Flavors (2nd Edition), editors: A.J. Buras and M. Lindner, World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1998 (hep–ph/9705 292)

View on Pith 1998

[62] [62]

Z. Ligeti and M.B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 4937

View on Pith 1996

[63] [63]

M. Bauer, B. Stech and M. Wirbel, Z. Phys. C34 (1987) 103

View on Pith 1987

[64] [64]

T.E. Browder and K. Honscheid, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 35 (1995) 81

View on Pith 1995

[65] [65]

M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein and V.I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B147 (1979) 385; ibid. B147 (1979) 448; ibid. B147 (1979) 519

View on Pith 1979

[66] [66]

S.J. Brodsky and G.P. Lepage, in: Perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics , ed. by A.H. Mueller, p. 93, World Scientiﬁc (Singapore) 1989; V.L. Chernyak and A.R. Zhitnitsky, JETP Lett. 25 (1977) 510; Yad. Fiz. 31 (1980) 1053; A.V. Efremov and A.V. Radyushkin, Phys. Lett. B94 (1980) 245; Teor. Mat. Fiz. 42 (1980) 147; G.P. Lepage and S.J. Brodsky, Phys. Lett. B...

View on Pith 1977

[67] [67]

J.M. Flynn, Talk given at the 7th International Symposium on Heavy Flavor Physics , Santa Barbara CA, USA, July 1997, Preprint SHEP–97–25 (hep– lat/9710080); H. Wittig, Lectures given at International School of Physics, “Enrico Fermi” , Varenna, Italy, July 1997, Preprint OUTP–97–59–P (hep–lat/9710088 )

View on Pith 1997

[68] [68]

A. Ali, V.M. Braun and H. Simma, Z. Phys. C63 (1994) 437

View on Pith 1994

[69] [69]

E. Bagan, P. Ball and V.M. Braun, Phys. Lett. B417 (1998) 154

View on Pith 1998

[70] [70]

R. Ammar et al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993) 674

View on Pith 1993

[71] [71]

A. Ali and C. Greub, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 2996

View on Pith 1998

[72] [72]

See, for example, F.M. Borzumati and C. Greub, Report PM –98–23 (1998) (hep– ph/9810240)

View on Pith 1998

[73] [73]

L.J. Hall, V.A. Kostelecky and S. Raby, Nucl. Phys. B267 (1986) 415. 35

View on Pith 1986