Erratum to: Comprehensive Bayesian analysis of rare (semi)leptonic and radiative B decays

By F. Beaujean, C. Bobeth, Danny van Dyk. 2014

167 citations recorded by the source corpus.

When revisiting our fits in order to expand the above work, errors in the implementation of analytical expressions of the observables have been encountered. One of these errors affects the branching ratio of B → K + − at low q2 in the presence of chirality-flipped operators. Carefully checking our results, we also found that systematic uncertainties of the lattice results of the B → K (∗) form factors had been incorrectly neglected. After correcting these errors, we replace Tables 2 (“Postdiction” rows only), 3, 6, 4, and 5, as well as Figs. 2, 3, and 4. We also replace selected parts of Sect. 4 that are not given in the tables. While our main conclusions stay as they are, some details are adjusted. Our revised conclusions are given at the end of this erratum.

Subfields: Nuclear and High Energy Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2ce90314b1bd8be78f910233fe152181243f76a5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Nuclear and High Energy Physics

Citations in the corpus

Resonances gone topsy turvy - the charm of QCD or new physics in b→sℓ+ℓ−? (2014, background): “The possibility of ∆C ′ 9 ' 1, driven by high q(2) and B → Kμμ, was suggested in [33] and later by [34, 40, 41].”
On the anomalies in the latest LHCb data (2016, result): “Because the two sets of SM predictions - LHCb compares with in their first and in their latest analysis - use rather different guesstimates [13,33] the quoted standard deviations in both analyses cannot be compared directly.”