Revisiting B ! D'

By Dante Bigi, Paolo Gambino. 2016

182 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Constraining new physics in b → cℓν transitions (2018, methodology): “we follow [9] and add a fully correlated systematic uncertainty of 6.”
FLAG Review 2019 (2019, methodology): “299(3) quoted in [623].”
Review of lepton universality tests in B decays (2018, result): “[91], the results were combined together with experimental information from B factories on f+ (assuming no NP in decays involving light leptons) that leads to very similar results for RD (but not for other quantities like |Vcb|).”
Extraction of |Vcb| from B → D(∗)ℓνℓ and the Standard Model predictions of R(D(∗)) (2017, methodology): “Here, nI represents the number of light valence quarks or the effective iso-spin factor, as given in [16].”
R(D∗), |Vcb|, and the Heavy Quark Symmetry relations between form factors (2017, methodology): “In our fits we do not employ directly the HQET relations because we believe their present uncertainty does not make them useful and therefore a combined fit to B → D and B → D∗ data would give the same results of the two separate fits presented here and in [5].”
R(D(⁎)) in a general two Higgs doublet model (2017, background): “()). The SM prediction for R(D) is R(D) = 0:252 0:003 [20], The SM predictions for R(D) based on recent Lattice calculations are R(D) = 0:299 0:011 [21], R(D) = 0:300 0:008 [22] and R(D) = 0:299 0:003[23]. See also Refs. [24, 25]. In order to study the anomaly, a model-independent eective operator a”