Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Latest B-decay angular data favor long-distance charm effects over a short-distance shift in C9 once form-factor uncertainties are enlarged.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 01:48 UTC pith:EOLETHJF

load-bearing objection Solid conservative re-analysis: pure-LQCD DM form factors plus newest angular data tilt the b o sℓℓ fit toward genuine hadronic effects, with the usual caveat on the truncated charm correlator. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.03531 v1 pith:EOLETHJF submitted 2026-07-03 hep-ph hep-ex

A Dispersive Look at Rare B-meson Semileptonic Decays

Marco Ciuchini , Marco Fedele , Ayan Paul , Josua Scholze , Luca Silvestrini , Silvano Simula , Mauro Valli , Ludovico Vittorio This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex PACS 13.20.He12.39.Hg12.38.Gc14.40.Nd
keywords rare B decaysb to s llform factorsDispersive Matrixcharming penguinsC9 anomalyb to s nu nuWeak Effective Theory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Rare B-meson decays that change a bottom quark into a strange quark and produce a lepton pair are sensitive probes of new physics, but their rates and angular distributions are also shaped by poorly known hadronic matrix elements. This paper re-determines the local form factors with a dispersive method that enforces analyticity and unitarity, first using only lattice QCD and then adding light-cone sum-rule inputs. Dropping the sum-rule inputs substantially inflates the form-factor errors at large recoil. When those larger errors are combined with a flexible parametrization of non-local charm-loop contributions and with the newest LHCb and CMS angular measurements that are sensitive to strong phases, a global fit prefers sizeable long-distance hadronic effects rather than a universal short-distance shift in the Wilson coefficient C9. The same form factors also supply updated Standard-Model predictions for the cleaner neutrino modes and a first look at possible new-physics contributions to them in light of the recent Belle II excess.

Core claim

Once local form factors are determined from lattice QCD alone via the Dispersive Matrix method (so that their uncertainties at large recoil are no longer artificially reduced by light-cone sum rules) and non-local charm dynamics are left free, the latest strong-phase-sensitive angular observables favor genuine long-distance hadronic contributions over a short-distance lepton-universal shift in C9.

What carries the argument

Dispersive Matrix form factors (unitarity-bounded envelopes of all BGL expansions that exactly reproduce lattice data) together with a power-series parametrization of the non-local charm correlator h_λ(q^{2}) that can partially mimic C7 and C9.

Load-bearing premise

The flexible power-series model of the non-local charm correlator is complete enough that any leftover short-distance new physics in C9 can still be cleanly told apart from ordinary hadronic effects once form-factor errors are enlarged.

What would settle it

A first-principles lattice calculation of the non-local charm correlator that finds its imaginary parts and q^{2}-dependent real parts much smaller than the values preferred by the present data-driven fit, while still reproducing the measured angular observables.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper re-determines B o K(*), Bs oϕ form factors with the Dispersive Matrix method, comparing a pure LQCD setup to one that also includes LCSR inputs at low q^{2}, and uses the resulting BGL coefficients in global HEPfit analyses of b o sℓ^{+}ℓ^{-} and b o sνν̄. With enlarged large-recoil FF uncertainties and the latest LHCb/CMS angular data, the Data-Driven SM fit (free complex h(i)λ) prefers non-zero genuine hadronic parameters (Im(h(0,1)−), Re(h(2)−), Re(h(2)K)) over a pure short-distance C9 shift (Fig. 4); the Model-Dependent treatment recovers the familiar negative C9 preference. Updated SM BRs for B o K(*)νν̄ and WET constraints on δCνL,R (including the Belle II excess) are also given.

Significance. If the separation of long-distance effects from C9 NP survives, the work supplies a more conservative baseline for interpreting the b o s anomalies and clean SM predictions for the invisible modes. Strengths include tabulated BGL posteriors and correlations (App. B), full HPDI/correlation matrices for the hadronic parameters (App. C), explicit IC model comparison, and a transparent LQCD-only versus LQCD+LCSR comparison that quantifies how much the large-recoil uncertainty budget depends on LCSR. The νν̄ analysis is complementary and free of charming-penguin contamination.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III B, Eqs. (22)–(25), Fig. 4] Sec. III B, Eqs. (22)–(25) and Fig. 4: the claim of “strengthened evidence in favour of long-distance hadronic effects rather than a short-distance shift in C9” rests on a truncated power series for hλ(q^{2}). Only Re(h(1)−) is fully degenerate with CNP9,U; residual higher-order terms, anomalous thresholds or unmodelled rescattering (Refs. [66,96–99]) can still project onto the same real combination. When LCSR inputs are dropped the 95 % contour includes the origin, so the residual preference for non-zero Im parts and Re(h(2)−) is basis-dependent. A quantitative truncation/systematics test (extra terms, alternative bases, or explicit leakage estimate) is needed before the abstract claim can be regarded as robust.
  2. [Sec. IV B] Sec. IV B and the IC discussion: the Information Criterion comparison is decisive for preferring Data-Driven SM over NP, yet the manuscript never states the numerical IC values, the precise data set, or the number of free parameters entering each model. Without these numbers the preference cannot be independently verified and the claim that “NP fits all show larger IC” remains opaque.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table I] Table I: the B o Kνν̄ BRs are identical for both FF sets (as expected), but the text should state explicitly that the quoted uncertainty already includes the full FF covariance and parametric inputs.
  2. [Figs. 2–3] Figs. 2–3: the LCSR points at negative q^{2} that enter the fit are not shown; a brief note or inset would help the reader judge the lever arm of those inputs.
  3. [Appendix A] App. A: the susceptibilities are taken from perturbative estimates; a short remark on the expected size of missing lattice corrections would be useful.
  4. [Sec. II] Nomenclature “LQCD+LCSR DM” is slightly imprecise (LCSR only for vector channels); a clarifying sentence early in Sec. II would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: DM form factors are extrapolated from external lattice inputs; Data-Driven hadronic coefficients are free parameters fitted to data with an explicitly acknowledged real-part degeneracy.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. II A, Eqs. (1)–(13) and surrounding text; also Refs. [33–35]]
    "the DM procedure is equivalent to the envelope of the results of all possible Boyd-Grinstein-Lebed (BGL) z-expansions, which satisfy unitarity and at the same time reproduce exactly the input unitary data. This implies that the DM band is rigorously truncation-independent."

    The mathematical equivalence of the DM band to the unitary envelope of all BGL expansions is taken from the authors’ own prior work. While the statement is used only as a technical justification for the extrapolation method and does not force any phenomenological conclusion about C9 versus hadronic effects, it is a self-citation that underpins the claimed first-principles character of the form-factor uncertainties.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is self-contained. Lattice QCD points (HPQCD, FNAL/MILC, HLMW) are external inputs; the Dispersive Matrix construction (Eqs. 1–13) enforces unitarity/analyticity bounds and produces bands that are then re-parametrized as ordinary BGL coefficients (Eq. 14) for use in HEPfit. Those coefficients never re-enter the lattice data. For the non-local correlator the paper adopts a phenomenological power series (Eqs. 22–25) whose real parts of h(0)- and h(1)- are deliberately degenerate with short-distance shifts in C7 and C9; the remaining coefficients (especially imaginary parts and higher-order real terms) are free and are constrained only by the experimental angular and branching-fraction data. The resulting posterior preference for non-zero Im(h) and Re(h(2)) is therefore a fit outcome, not a quantity forced by construction. Self-citations to earlier DM and charming-penguin papers supply the technical tools and the same parametrization, but do not close a logical loop that would make the present posteriors tautological. SM predictions for b o s u ū depend solely on the local form factors and are independent of the charged-lepton data. Hence the circularity score is minimal.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the Dispersive Matrix unitarity bounds applied to existing lattice data, on a flexible but truncated phenomenological expansion of the non-local charm correlator, and on the completeness of the experimental angular and branching-fraction inputs. No new particles or forces are postulated; the free parameters are the hadronic coefficients fitted to data and the BGL coefficients that encode the form factors.

free parameters (3)
  • h(i)λ coefficients (real and imaginary parts)
    Complex coefficients in the power-series expansion of the non-local charm correlator (Eqs. 22–25); treated as free parameters with broad priors and fitted to data in the Data-Driven approach.
  • BGL coefficients a_n for each form factor
    Coefficients of the truncated z-expansion (Eq. 14) that translate the DM bands into a form usable by HEPfit; determined by fits to the DM output and fully correlated.
  • δCν_L, δCν_R
    Real, flavour-universal New-Physics shifts in the left- and right-handed neutrino Wilson coefficients; fitted to B o K(*)νν data under three chiral scenarios.
axioms (4)
  • standard math Analyticity and unitarity of the form factors imply the positivity of the determinant of the Dispersive Matrix Mχ (Eq. 7), yielding the uniform band of Eq. 8.
    Standard consequence of dispersion relations and positivity of spectral functions; invoked throughout Sec. II.
  • domain assumption Sub-threshold poles and cuts can be absorbed into a modified outer function ϕp(z) without spoiling the unitarity bound for the kinematics of B o K(*) and Bs oϕ.
    Justified by the smallness of δ=(t+−tth)/tth (Sec. II A) and by recent numerical studies cited in the text.
  • ad hoc to paper The non-local charm correlator admits a power-series expansion in q^{2} (or √q^{2}) whose leading coefficients can be treated as free complex parameters.
    Phenomenological parametrization introduced in Eqs. 22–25; truncation order is chosen by hand and higher terms are neglected.
  • domain assumption Lattice QCD form-factor points at high q^{2} (and LCSR points when included) are statistically independent of the rare-decay angular data used in the global fit.
    Implicit throughout the analysis; required for the form-factor uncertainties to be treated as external inputs.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 49174 in / 2713 out tokens · 21474 ms · 2026-07-12T01:48:42.102660+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Rare semileptonic $b \to s$ flavour-changing neutral current transitions provide stringent tests of the Standard Model. Their interpretation is limited by hadronic uncertainties, notably the $B \to K^{(*)}$ and $B_s \to \phi$ form factors (FFs) and the matrix elements of four-quark operators. We perform a global analysis of $b \to s \ell^+\ell^-$ transitions taking these uncertainties fully into account, determining the FFs through the Dispersive Matrix method and comparing a setup based solely on lattice QCD (LQCD) with one that also includes light-cone sum-rule (LCSR) inputs at low $q^2$. Compared to the case where both input are taken into account, using only LQCD substantially enlarges the FF uncertainties at large recoil. Combined with the latest LHCb and CMS angular measurements sensitive to strong phases, our global fit yields strengthened evidence in favour of long-distance hadronic effects rather than a short-distance shift in $C_9$. We further present new SM predictions for the theoretically clean $b \to s \nu\bar\nu$ modes, which depend only on local FFs, and a New Physics analysis of these transitions in the Weak Effective Theory, discussing their impact on the interpretation of the recent Belle~II measurement and on the available experimental upper bounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.03531 by Ayan Paul, Josua Scholze, Luca Silvestrini, Ludovico Vittorio, Marco Ciuchini, Marco Fedele, Mauro Valli, Silvano Simula.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: As a comparison, in the same figure we report also as orange bands the results obtained in Ref. [65]. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Comparison of the FFs entering the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Same as Figure 2 for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Left Panel: Joint posterior p.d.f. for Re( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Two-dimensional marginalized posterior distribution in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Two- and one-dimensional marginalized posterior distribution in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Two- and one-dimensional marginalized joint p.d.f. for the set of WCs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Two- and one-dimensional marginalized joint p.d.f. for the set of 4 WCs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Two- and one-dimensional marginalized joint p.d.f. for the set of 6 WCs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Two- and one-dimensional marginalized joint p.d.f. for the set of 8 WCs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Disentangling short- vs. long-distance dynamics in $B\to K^{*}\mu^+\mu^-$

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Dispersive resonance modeling of non-local effects in B o K*μ+μ- reduces the C9 anomaly to ≤2σ while yielding precise postdictions for S7,8,9.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references · 87 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Khodjamirian, T

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [2]

    J¨ ager and J

    S. J¨ ager and J. Martin Camalich, OnB→V ℓℓat small dilepton invariant mass, power corrections, and new physics, JHEP05, 043, arXiv:1212.2263 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    Lyon and R

    J. Lyon and R. Zwicky, Resonances gone topsy turvy - the charm of QCD or new physics inb→sℓ +ℓ−?, arXiv:1406.0566 [hep-ph] (2014)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  4. [4]

    J¨ ager and J

    S. J¨ ager and J. Martin Camalich, Reassessing the discovery potential of theB→K ∗ℓ+ℓ− decays in the large-recoil region: SM challenges and BSM opportunities, Phys. Rev. D93, 014028 (2016), arXiv:1412.3183 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Descotes-Genon, L

    S. Descotes-Genon, L. Hofer, J. Matias, and J. Virto, On the impact of power corrections in the prediction ofB→K ∗µ+µ− observables, JHEP12, 125, arXiv:1407.8526 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [6]

    Ciuchini, M

    M. Ciuchini, M. Fedele, E. Franco, S. Mishima, A. Paul, L. Silvestrini, and M. Valli,B→K ∗ℓ+ℓ− decays at large recoil in the Standard Model: a theoretical reappraisal, JHEP06, 116, arXiv:1512.07157 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [7]

    Ciuchini, M

    M. Ciuchini, M. Fedele, E. Franco, S. Mishima, A. Paul, L. Silvestrini, and M. Valli,B→K ∗ℓ+ℓ− in the Standard Model: Elaborations and Interpretations, PoSICHEP2016, 584 (2016), arXiv:1611.04338 [hep-ph]. 28 C NP 9,e= [−2.83, −0.95] −2.5 0.0 2.5 C NP 9,e C NP 9,e= [−2.73, −0.99] −2.5 0.0 2.5 C NP 10,e −2.5 0.0 2.5 C NP 9,µ −2.5 0.0 2.5 C NP 10,µ −2.5 0.0 ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Ciuchini, A

    M. Ciuchini, A. M. Coutinho, M. Fedele, E. Franco, A. Paul, L. Silvestrini, and M. Valli, On Flavourful Easter eggs for New Physics hunger and Lepton Flavour Universality violation, Eur. Phys. J.C77, 688 (2017), arXiv:1704.05447 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [9]

    V. G. Chobanova, T. Hurth, F. Mahmoudi, D. Martinez Santos, and S. Neshatpour, Large hadronic power corrections or new physics in the rare decayB→K ∗µ+µ−?, JHEP07, 025, arXiv:1702.02234 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    Bobeth, M

    C. Bobeth, M. Chrzaszcz, D. van Dyk, and J. Virto, Long-distance effects inB→K ∗ℓℓfrom analyticity, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 451 (2018), arXiv:1707.07305 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    Ciuchini, A

    M. Ciuchini, A. M. Coutinho, M. Fedele, E. Franco, A. Paul, L. Silvestrini, and M. Valli, Hadronic uncertainties in semileptonicB→K ∗µ+µ− decays, PoSBEAUTY2018, 044 (2018), arXiv:1809.03789 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

    Arbey, T

    A. Arbey, T. Hurth, F. Mahmoudi, and S. Neshatpour, Hadronic and New Physics Contributions tob→sTransitions, Phys. Rev. D98, 095027 (2018), arXiv:1806.02791 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Ciuchini, A

    M. Ciuchini, A. M. Coutinho, M. Fedele, E. Franco, A. Paul, L. Silvestrini, and M. Valli, New Physics inb→sℓ +ℓ− confronts new data on Lepton Universality, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 719 (2019), arXiv:1903.09632 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Ciuchini, M

    M. Ciuchini, M. Fedele, E. Franco, A. Paul, L. Silvestrini, and M. Valli, Lessons from theB 0,+ →K ∗0,+µ+µ− angular analyses, Phys. Rev. D103, 015030 (2021), arXiv:2011.01212 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    Gubernari, D

    N. Gubernari, D. van Dyk, and J. Virto, Non-local matrix elements inB (s) → {K (∗), ϕ}ℓ+ℓ−, JHEP02, 088, arXiv:2011.09813 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  16. [16]

    Hurth, F

    T. Hurth, F. Mahmoudi, and S. Neshatpour, Implications of the new LHCb angular analysis ofB→K ∗µ+µ− : Hadronic effects or new physics?, Phys. Rev. D102, 055001 (2020), arXiv:2006.04213 [hep-ph]. 29

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Ciuchini, M

    M. Ciuchini, M. Fedele, E. Franco, A. Paul, L. Silvestrini, and M. Valli, Charming penguins and lepton universality violation inb→sℓ +ℓ− decays, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 64 (2023), arXiv:2110.10126 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Ciuchini, M

    M. Ciuchini, M. Fedele, E. Franco, A. Paul, L. Silvestrini, and M. Valli, Constraints on lepton universality violation from rare B decays, Phys. Rev. D107, 055036 (2023), arXiv:2212.10516 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Bordone, G

    M. Bordone, G. Isidori, S. M¨ achler, and A. Tinari, Short- vs. long-distance physics inB→K (∗)ℓ+ℓ−: a data-driven analysis, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 547 (2024), arXiv:2401.18007 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Hurth, A

    T. Hurth, A. Khodjamirian, F. Mahmoudi, D. Mishra, Y. Monceaux, and S. Neshatpour, Nonlocal form factor of chro- momagnetic penguin in B→Kℓ +ℓ− from QCD light-cone sum rules, JHEP06, 120, arXiv:2512.10868 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  21. [21]

    Hurth, F

    T. Hurth, F. Mahmoudi, Y. Monceaux, and S. Neshatpour, Data-driven analyses and model-independent fits for present b→sℓℓresults, Phys. Rev. D112, 113003 (2025), arXiv:2508.09986 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Altmannshofer, S

    W. Altmannshofer, S. G. Christensen, and P. Stangl, Large Hadronic Effects inB→K ∗µµ?, arXiv:2603.27753 [hep-ph] (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    Kruger and J

    F. Kruger and J. Matias, Probing new physics via the transverse amplitudes ofB 0 →K ∗0(→K −π+)l+l− at large recoil, Phys. Rev. D71, 094009 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0502060

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  24. [24]

    Matias, F

    J. Matias, F. Mescia, M. Ramon, and J. Virto, Complete Anatomy of ¯Bd−> ¯K ∗0(−> Kπ)l +l− and its angular distribution, JHEP04, 104, arXiv:1202.4266 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    Descotes-Genon, T

    S. Descotes-Genon, T. Hurth, J. Matias, and J. Virto, Optimizing the basis ofB→K ∗llobservables in the full kinematic range, JHEP05, 137, arXiv:1303.5794 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    Greljo, J

    A. Greljo, J. Salko, A. Smolkoviˇ c, and P. Stangl, Rare b decays meet high-mass Drell-Yan, JHEP05, 087, arXiv:2212.10497 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    Alguer´ o, A

    M. Alguer´ o, A. Biswas, B. Capdevila, S. Descotes-Genon, J. Matias, and M. Novoa-Brunet, To (b)e or not to (b)e: no electrons at LHCb, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 648 (2023), arXiv:2304.07330 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Guadagnoli, C

    D. Guadagnoli, C. Normand, S. Simula, and L. Vittorio, Insights on the current semi-leptonic B-decay discrepancies — and how B s→µ +µ−γcan help, JHEP10, 102, arXiv:2308.00034 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    N. N. Meiman, Analytic Expressions for Upper Limits of Coupling Constants in Quantum Field Theory, Sov. Phys. JETP 17, 830 (1963)

    1963

  30. [30]

    Okubo, Exact bounds forK l3 decay parameters, Phys

    S. Okubo, Exact bounds forK l3 decay parameters, Phys. Rev. D3, 2807 (1971)

    1971

  31. [31]

    Okubo and I.-F

    S. Okubo and I.-F. Shih, Exact inequality and test of chiral sw(3) theory in k-l-3 decay problem, Phys. Rev. D4, 2020 (1971)

    2020

  32. [32]

    Okubo, New improved bounds forK l3 parameters, Phys

    S. Okubo, New improved bounds forK l3 parameters, Phys. Rev. D4, 725 (1971)

    1971

  33. [33]

    Bourrely, B

    C. Bourrely, B. Machet, and E. de Rafael, Semileptonic Decays of Pseudoscalar Particles (M→M ′ℓνℓ) and Short Distance Behavior of Quantum Chromodynamics, Nucl. Phys. B189, 157 (1981)

    1981

  34. [34]

    Lellouch, Lattice constrained unitarity bounds for ¯B0 →π +l−¯νl decays, Nucl

    L. Lellouch, Lattice constrained unitarity bounds for ¯B0 →π +l−¯νl decays, Nucl. Phys. B479, 353 (1996), arXiv:hep- ph/9509358

    arXiv 1996

  35. [35]

    Di Carlo, G

    M. Di Carlo, G. Martinelli, M. Naviglio, F. Sanfilippo, S. Simula, and L. Vittorio, Unitarity bounds for semileptonic decays in lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D104, 054502 (2021), arXiv:2105.02497 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Differential branching fraction and angular analysis of the decayB 0 →K ∗0µ+µ−, JHEP08, 131, arXiv:1304.6325 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Differential branching fraction and angular analysis of the decayB 0 →K ∗0µ+µ−, JHEP08, 131, arXiv:1304.6325 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Differential branching fraction and angular analysis of the decayB 0 s →ϕµ +µ−, JHEP07, 084, arXiv:1305.2168 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Differential branching fraction and angular analysis of the decayB 0 s →ϕµ +µ−, JHEP07, 084, arXiv:1305.2168 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Measurement of Form-Factor-Independent Observables in the DecayB 0 →K ∗0µ+µ−, Phys

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Measurement of Form-Factor-Independent Observables in the DecayB 0 →K ∗0µ+µ−, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 191801 (2013), arXiv:1308.1707 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  39. [39]

    Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Angular Analysis and Branching Fraction Measurement of the DecayB 0 →K ∗0µ+µ−, Phys

    S. Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Angular Analysis and Branching Fraction Measurement of the DecayB 0 →K ∗0µ+µ−, Phys. Lett. B727, 77 (2013), arXiv:1308.3409 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  40. [40]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Differential branching fractions and isospin asymmetries ofB→K (∗)µ+µ− decays, JHEP06, 133, arXiv:1403.8044 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Differential branching fractions and isospin asymmetries ofB→K (∗)µ+µ− decays, JHEP06, 133, arXiv:1403.8044 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    Khachatryanet al.(CMS, LHCb), Observation of the rareB 0 s →µ +µ− decay from the combined analysis of CMS and LHCb data, Nature522, 68 (2015), arXiv:1411.4413 [hep-ex]

    V. Khachatryanet al.(CMS, LHCb), Observation of the rareB 0 s →µ +µ− decay from the combined analysis of CMS and LHCb data, Nature522, 68 (2015), arXiv:1411.4413 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  42. [42]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Angular analysis and differential branching fraction of the decayB 0 s →ϕµ +µ−, JHEP09, 179, arXiv:1506.08777 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Angular analysis and differential branching fraction of the decayB 0 s →ϕµ +µ−, JHEP09, 179, arXiv:1506.08777 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Angular analysis of theB 0 →K ∗0µ+µ− decay using 3 fb −1 of integrated luminosity, JHEP02, 104, arXiv:1512.04442 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Angular analysis of theB 0 →K ∗0µ+µ− decay using 3 fb −1 of integrated luminosity, JHEP02, 104, arXiv:1512.04442 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [44]

    Wehleet al.(Belle), Lepton-Flavor-Dependent Angular Analysis ofB→K ∗ℓ+ℓ−, Phys

    S. Wehleet al.(Belle), Lepton-Flavor-Dependent Angular Analysis ofB→K ∗ℓ+ℓ−, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 111801 (2017), arXiv:1612.05014 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [45]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Measurement of theB 0 s →µ +µ− branching fraction and effective lifetime and search forB0 →µ +µ− decays, Phys

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Measurement of theB 0 s →µ +µ− branching fraction and effective lifetime and search forB0 →µ +µ− decays, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 191801 (2017), arXiv:1703.05747 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    M. Aaboudet al.(ATLAS), Study of the rare decays ofB 0 s andB 0 mesons into muon pairs using data collected during 2015 and 2016 with the ATLAS detector, JHEP04, 098, arXiv:1812.03017 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  47. [47]

    Abdesselamet al.(Belle), Test of Lepton-Flavor Universality inB→K ∗ℓ+ℓ− Decays at Belle, Phys

    A. Abdesselamet al.(Belle), Test of Lepton-Flavor Universality inB→K ∗ℓ+ℓ− Decays at Belle, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 161801 (2021), arXiv:1904.02440 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.(CMS), Measurement of properties of B 0 s →µ +µ− decays and search for B0 →µ +µ− with the CMS experiment, JHEP04, 188, arXiv:1910.12127 [hep-ex]. 30

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  49. [49]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Measurement ofCP-Averaged Observables in theB 0 →K ∗0µ+µ− Decay, Phys

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Measurement ofCP-Averaged Observables in theB 0 →K ∗0µ+µ− Decay, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 011802 (2020), arXiv:2003.04831 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  50. [50]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.(CMS), Angular analysis of the decay B + →K ∗(892)+µ+µ− in proton-proton collisions at √s= 8 TeV, JHEP04, 124, arXiv:2010.13968 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  51. [51]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Angular Analysis of theB + →K ∗+µ+µ− Decay, Phys

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Angular Analysis of theB + →K ∗+µ+µ− Decay, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 161802 (2021), arXiv:2012.13241 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  52. [52]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Branching Fraction Measurements of the RareB 0 s →ϕµ +µ− andB 0 s →f ′ 2(1525)µ+µ−- Decays, Phys

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Branching Fraction Measurements of the RareB 0 s →ϕµ +µ− andB 0 s →f ′ 2(1525)µ+µ−- Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 151801 (2021), arXiv:2105.14007 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Angular analysis of the rare decayB 0 s→ϕµ +µ−, JHEP11, 043, arXiv:2107.13428 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Angular analysis of the rare decayB 0 s→ϕµ +µ−, JHEP11, 043, arXiv:2107.13428 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  54. [54]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Analysis of Neutral B-Meson Decays into Two Muons, Phys

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Analysis of Neutral B-Meson Decays into Two Muons, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 041801 (2022), arXiv:2108.09284 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Test of lepton universality inb→sℓ +ℓ− decays, Phys

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Test of lepton universality inb→sℓ +ℓ− decays, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 051803 (2023), arXiv:2212.09152 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Measurement of lepton universality parameters inB + →K +ℓ+ℓ− andB 0 →K ∗0ℓ+ℓ− decays, Phys

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Measurement of lepton universality parameters inB + →K +ℓ+ℓ− andB 0 →K ∗0ℓ+ℓ− decays, Phys. Rev. D108, 032002 (2023), arXiv:2212.09153 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    Tumasyanet al.(CMS), Measurement of the B 0 S→µ+µ− decay properties and search for the B 0→µ+µ− decay in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV, Phys

    A. Tumasyanet al.(CMS), Measurement of the B 0 S→µ+µ− decay properties and search for the B 0→µ+µ− decay in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV, Phys. Lett. B842, 137955 (2023), arXiv:2212.10311 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Angular analysis of theB 0 →K ∗(892)0µ+µ− decay in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV, Phys

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Angular analysis of theB 0 →K ∗(892)0µ+µ− decay in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV, Phys. Lett. B864, 139406 (2025), arXiv:2411.11820 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), A comprehensive analysis of theB 0 →K ∗0µ+µ− decay, arXiv:2512.18053 [hep-ex] (2025)

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), A comprehensive analysis of theB 0 →K ∗0µ+µ− decay, arXiv:2512.18053 [hep-ex] (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Adachiet al.(Belle-II), Evidence forB + →K +ν¯νdecays, Phys

    I. Adachiet al.(Belle-II), Evidence forB + →K +ν¯νdecays, Phys. Rev. D109, 112006 (2024), arXiv:2311.14647 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    J. F. Kamenik and C. Smith, Tree-level contributions to the rare decaysB + →π +ν¯ν,B+ →K +ν¯ν, andB + →K ∗+ν¯ν in the Standard Model, Phys. Lett. B680, 471 (2009), arXiv:0908.1174 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  62. [62]

    W. G. Parrott, C. Bouchard, and C. T. H. Davies (HPQCD), Standard Model predictions forB→Kℓ +ℓ−, B→Kℓ − 1 ℓ+ 2 andB→Kν¯νusing form factors fromN f = 2 + 1 + 1 lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D107, 014511 (2023), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 107, 119903 (2023)], arXiv:2207.13371 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  63. [63]

    Beˇ cirevi´ c, G

    D. Beˇ cirevi´ c, G. Piazza, and O. Sumensari, RevisitingB→K(∗)ν¯νdecays in the Standard Model and beyond, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 252 (2023), arXiv:2301.06990 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  64. [64]

    C. G. Boyd, B. Grinstein, and R. F. Lebed, Precision corrections to dispersive bounds on form-factors, Phys. Rev. D56, 6895 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9705252

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  65. [65]

    Gubernari, M

    N. Gubernari, M. Reboud, D. van Dyk, and J. Virto, Dispersive analysis ofB→K (∗) andB s →ϕform factors, JHEP 12, 153, [Erratum: JHEP 01, 125 (2025)], arXiv:2305.06301 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Gopal and N

    A. Gopal and N. Gubernari, Unitarity bounds with subthreshold and anomalous cuts for b-hadron decays, Phys. Rev. D 111, L031501 (2025), arXiv:2412.04388 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    Gubernari, Unitarity bounds and form-factor predictions forB-meson decays (2026) arXiv:2605.26213 [hep-ph]

    N. Gubernari, Unitarity bounds and form-factor predictions forB-meson decays (2026) arXiv:2605.26213 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    Simula and L

    S. Simula and L. Vittorio, Multiple dispersive bounds. II. Subthreshold branch cuts, Phys. Rev. D113, 074018 (2026), arXiv:2509.00412 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  69. [69]

    Simula and L

    S. Simula and L. Vittorio, Multiple dispersive bounds. I. The z expansion, Phys. Rev. D113, 074017 (2026), arXiv:2509.00411 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  70. [70]

    W. G. Parrott, C. Bouchard, and C. T. H. Davies (HPQCD collaboration),B→KandD→Kform factors from fully relativistic lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D107, 014510 (2023), arXiv:2207.12468 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  71. [71]

    J. A. Baileyet al.,B→Kl +l− Decay Form Factors from Three-Flavor Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D93, 025026 (2016), arXiv:1509.06235 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  72. [72]

    R. R. Horgan, Z. Liu, S. Meinel, and M. Wingate, Lattice QCD calculation of form factors describing the rare decays B→K ∗ℓ+ℓ− andB s →ϕℓ +ℓ−, Phys. Rev. D89, 094501 (2014), arXiv:1310.3722 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  73. [73]

    R. R. Horgan, Z. Liu, S. Meinel, and M. Wingate, RareBdecays using lattice QCD form factors, PoSLATTICE2014, 372 (2015), arXiv:1501.00367 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  74. [74]

    van Dyket al.(EOS Authors), EOS: a software for flavor physics phenomenology, Eur

    D. van Dyket al.(EOS Authors), EOS: a software for flavor physics phenomenology, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 569 (2022), arXiv:2111.15428 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  75. [75]

    Bouchard, G

    C. Bouchard, G. P. Lepage, C. Monahan, H. Na, and J. Shigemitsu (HPQCD), Rare decayB→Kℓ +ℓ− form factors from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D88, 054509 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 88, 079901 (2013)], arXiv:1306.2384 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  76. [76]

    Aokiet al.(Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)), FLAG review 2024, Phys

    Y. Aokiet al.(Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)), FLAG review 2024, Phys. Rev. D113, 014508 (2026), arXiv:2411.04268 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  77. [77]

    Simula and L

    S. Simula and L. Vittorio, Dispersive analysis of the experimental data on the electromagnetic form factor of charged pions at spacelike momenta, Phys. Rev. D108, 094013 (2023), arXiv:2309.02135 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  78. [78]

    Gubernari, A

    N. Gubernari, A. Kokulu, and D. van Dyk,B→PandB→VForm Factors fromB-Meson Light-Cone Sum Rules beyond Leading Twist, JHEP01, 150, arXiv:1811.00983 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  79. [79]

    De Blaset al.,HEPfit: a code for the combination of indirect and direct constraints on high energy physics models, Eur

    J. De Blaset al.,HEPfit: a code for the combination of indirect and direct constraints on high energy physics models, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 456 (2020), arXiv:1910.14012 [hep-ph]. [80]HEPfit: a tool to combine indirect and direct constraints on High Energy Physics,http://hepfit.roma1.infn.it/

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  80. [80]

    Bonaet al.(UTfit), New UTfit Analysis of the Unitarity Triangle in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa scheme, Rend

    M. Bonaet al.(UTfit), New UTfit Analysis of the Unitarity Triangle in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa scheme, Rend. Lincei Sci. Fis. Nat.34, 37 (2023), arXiv:2212.03894 [hep-ph]. 31

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.