Skip to main content
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2024 May 31;84(5):553. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12936-x

The first limit on invisible decays of Bs mesons comes from LEP

Gonzalo Alonso-Álvarez 1,2, Miguel Escudero Abenza 3,
PMCID: PMC11143049  PMID: 38827813

Abstract

Motivated by the recent evidence for B+K+ν¯ν decays at Belle II, we point out that fully invisible Bd and Bs meson decays are strongly constrained by LEP. A reinterpretation of an old inclusive ALEPH search for b-hadron decays with large missing energy allows us to place the limits Br(Bdinvisible)<1.4×10-4 and Br(Bsinvisible)<5.6×10-4, both at 90% CL. The Bd limit is only a factor of 6 looser than the world-leading one provided by the BaBar collaboration, while the Bs one is the first limit in the literature on this decay mode. These results are relevant in the context of new light states coupled to quarks and exemplify the power of a future Tera-Z factory at FCC-ee to look for B meson decays containing missing energy.

Introduction

Rare decays of b-flavored mesons are a promising avenue to look for new physics. The bs flavor-changing neutral currents, which are strongly suppressed in the Standard Model (SM), have gathered a lot of attention in the past few years. The transition involving neutrinos, bsν¯ν, is theoretically well-suited to test the consistency of the Standard Model [15] and offers a window to weakly-coupled light new physics [617]. However, the associated B meson decay modes are challenging to test experimentally due to the presence of missing energy in the final state, and until recently only upper limits on the BKν¯ν channels existed [1821].

The experimental situation has very recently been upended by the 3.5σ detection of Br(B+K+ν¯ν)=(2.3±0.7)×10-5 by the Belle II collaboration [22]. This rate is 2.7σ larger than the Standard Model expectation [23], which has prompted ample discussion [2432]. Of particular interest is the interplay with the other channels triggered by the bsν¯ν transition, BdK()0ν¯ν and Bsν¯ν. Current upper limits on the former mode [20] are only a factor of 2 away from the SM prediction [23], but up to now no bounds exist on the invisible Bs decay rate. This is a critical channel since an enhanced rate above the extremely suppressed SM prediction [3335] would constitute a smoking gun signal of the presence of light new physics in bs transitions [24, 27]. It is therefore very timely to explore the extent to which existing and upcoming experiments can look for fully invisible decays of neutral B mesons. In this study, we argue that e+e- colliders running at the Z pole are excellently positioned to carry out this task.

The ALEPH collaboration at LEP performed a set of inclusive searches for b-quark decays involving large missing energy. In particular, the collaboration was able to make the first measurement of bτ-ν¯τX [36], and set world record limits (at the time) on B-τ-ν¯τ [37]. Around the time when these analyses were performed, Grossman, Ligeti & Nardi pointed out that these type of searches could also be used to constrain inclusive bsν¯ν decays [2], as well as BXτ+τ- and the radiative Bγν¯ν mode [38], see also [39] for Bcτν decays. In fact, a subsequent dedicated analysis by ALEPH [40] lead to the still-standing most stringent upper limit on the first of these decay channels: Br(bsν¯ν)<6.4×10-4 at 90% CL, see also [41]. The strategy behind these searches at ALEPH is simple [36, 37, 40]: to look for hadronic Z decays with bb¯ quarks in the final state where one of these b’s produces large amounts of missing energy in its decay. The basic prerequisite for the selected events is the presence of two jets in opposite hemispheres. Once a jet is tagged as arising from a b quark, the missing energy is reconstructed in the opposite one by subtracting the energy deposited in the various calorimeters to the known initial beam energy. This renders the search completely inclusive: any event with a b quark whose decay contains sufficient missing energy falls in the signal region. Since no possible decay mode leads to more missing energy than a fully invisible Bs or Bd decay, the ALEPH strategy is extremely powerful to test such channels.

In this letter, we reinterpret the results of the ALEPH search [40] to, for the first time, place a limit on Br(Bsinvisibles). As a side product, we also derive a bound on Br(Bdinvisibles) that is only a factor of 6 weaker than the current best limit derived with a dedicated search at BaBar [42]. The power of the search strategy at ALEPH is manifested by the fact that the LEP data set contains less than one million Z bosons decaying into bb¯ versus the 471 million BB¯ pairs contained in the BaBar sample.

It is also worth pointing out that other B decay modes involving dark matter particles and other light neutral states can also be searched for using the ALEPH data sample. We refer to [43] for an analysis of some of these modes and to [9, 14] for scenarios where these types of searches could cover yet uncharted parameter space. As a bonus, in Appendix A, we provide the first bounds on Bτa and Bρa where a is a light axion-like particle that does not interact with the detector.

ALEPH search for B decays with large missing energy

In what follows we give explicit details about our recast of the latest ALEPH search for b-quark decays with large missing energy at the Z peak [40]. This search in turn was strongly based on [36, 37] – see [44] for many checks and details about the original analyses.

Event sample, cuts and efficiencies: The event sample contains approximately 4 million hadronically decaying Z bosons. Explicitly, according to Table 1.2 of [45], the number of hadronically Z decays used in the legacy analysis is

N(Zhadrons)=4.07×106. 1

For the analysis [40], a tagging method is used to select signal-like events with rather high efficiency. Events are divided into two hemispheres defined by the plane perpendicular to the thrust axis. Candidate hemispheres with large missing energy are kept only if there is a positive b tag in the other hemisphere (efficiency=0.88). The b tagged hemisphere is simply required to have Emiss<25GeV and to have at least six good tracks. Cuts are also performed on the value of the thrust to ensure that events are dijet-like and also on the direction of the thrust axis to ensure that they are well contained in the detector. Events containing a moderately energetic light lepton (e/μ) in hemispheres with large missing energy are removed. This is done to efficiently reject semileptonic bν¯X decays, which have a large branching fraction and produce significant amounts of missing energy.

After considering all the cuts and efficiency selections, the ALEPH collaboration reports the following signal efficiencies for their target signal modes:

efficiency(B-τ-ν¯τ)=8.1%, 2
efficiency(bsν¯ν)=8.8%. 3

Simulating the precise signal efficiency for the completely invisible Bd/s decays that we are interested in is beyond the scope of this work. However, as discussed in the previous paragraphs, the efficiency is mostly dictated by selections on the hemisphere opposite to the signal one. This explains why the efficiencies in Eqs. (2) and (3) are very similar which should also be the case for our decays of interest. In consequence, in what follows we take1:

efficiency(Bd/sinvisibles)=8%, 4

for the decay modes of interest in this work.

Fragmentation function: To understand the observed missing energy distribution pattern, it is key to have a handle on the fraction of the beam energy that b-hadrons carry at the time of their decay. This fraction is always smaller than one as a result of the hadronization process. On average, at LEP, b-hadrons decay carrying a fraction of 70% of the beam energy [50]. The ALEPH collaboration performed a dedicated study of the fragmentation function [51] and found that the energy spectra of B mesons was well described by the fragmentation function of Kartvelishvili et al. [52]. In what follows, we use the values of EB/Ebeam resulting from the fit to the data displayed in Figure 5 of [51] using the Kartvelishvili et al. function.

Data processing, signal region and backgrounds: In the ALEPH search, each bb¯ dijet event is divided into two hemispheres defined by the plane perpendicular to the thrust axis. After the various cuts and event selections were made, events were listed in histograms of Emiss defined as approximately EmissEbeam-Evisible, where Ebeam=s/2 and Evisible is the measured energy in the given hemisphere. The correction factor to this formula is small, see page 282 of [53], and the missing energy spectrum resolution is expected to be 2.8GeV. Although the ALEPH data set was taken at slightly different energies around and at the Z peak (see [51]), we take s=91.2GeV for all the events. This is justified not only because at least 50% of the events were recorded at that energy, but also because data taking was roughly symmetrical around the Z peak. We thus do not expect this simplification to have any significant impact on our results.

The signal region used by the ALEPH collaboration consists of events with Emiss>35GeV. The main source of background in this region are bτνX and c/bνX semileptonic decays in which the neutrino carries a large missing energy and the energetic lepton is not identified in the signal hemisphere due to limited selection efficiencies. Although events where the visible energy is miss-reconstructed could in principle also contribute to the background rate, Ref. [44] shows that these types of events do not populate the signal region with Emiss>35GeV.

The observed and expected background events in the relevant bins are given in Table 5 of [40] and displayed in Fig. 1. Following the original analysis, for our recast we use a single inclusive bin with

NE>35GeVobserved=2, 5
NE>35GeVexpected=2.5±1.6. 6

Fragmentation ratios: In order to derive bounds on Bd and Bs decays, we need to account for the probability of a b-quark hadronizing and leading to a weakly-decaying Bd or Bs in Z decays. This has been extensively studied using a combination of measurements of the LEP experiments. The latest averages from HFLAV are [54, 55]:

fBs=0.101±0.008, 7a
fBd/B±=0.407±0.007, 7b
fb-baryons=0.085±0.011. 7c

In what follows we will use the central values, as we have checked that propagating these uncertainties does not appreciably change our results.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Missing energy spectrum from b-flavored hadron decays at ALEPH [40]. The various bins contain background events where the missing energy is miss-reconstructed (dark grey), events from semileptonic b and c decays (grey), and bτ-ν¯τX (light grey). We superimpose (dashed red) the contribution from Bsinvisibles with a branching fraction of 10-3. The visibly large effect in the signal region translates into it being statistically disfavoured (Δχ26.5)

Simulation and analysis: We simulate the missing energy spectrum of Binvisibles decays by folding in the b-quark fragmentation function taken from [51] and associating as missing energy all the energy carried by the given B meson. In addition, since the calorimeters have a finite energy resolution (see above), we add to the simulated spectrum a random ΔEmiss=2.8GeV Gaussian uncertainty. Our simulation shows that approximately 45% of the invisible B decay events fall in the signal region. The number of expected signal events can then be calculated based on the number of hadronic Z decays in Eq. (1), taking into account that Br(Zb¯b)=(15.12±0.05)% and Br(Zhadrons)=(69.91±0.06)%  [41], and assuming an efficiency of 8% for our decays of interest, following Eq. (4).

In order to compare the simulated spectrum with the data, we build a Poisson likelihood for the number of observed events given an unknown signal and background rate. In addition, we add to the likelihood a Gaussian distribution for the background rate with fixed variance informed by the estimate in Eq. (6). Since no excess of events over the expected background is observed, we use the confidence levels method [56, 57] to place an upper limit on the signal rate.2 All together, this translates into

Br(Bsinvisibles)<5.6×10-4[90%CL], 8
Br(Bdinvisibles)<1.4×10-4[90%CL], 9

which amounts to requiring less than 3.7 expected signal events in the signal region (4.6 at 95% CL).

Given the improvements in the predictions of semileptonic heavy quark decays over the last decades one may be worried that the background modeling used by ALEPH is by now obsolete. While this is unlikely to be true because the events with large missing energy are not necessarily those at the kinematical end point (see [2]), one can derive a very conservative bound assuming NE>35GeVexpected=0. Namely, that ALEPH was seeing only signal. By following the same procedure as before we find that the 90(95)% CL limit on the number of signal events would be 5.3(6.3), with the upper limits in Eqs. (8) and (9) being relaxed accordingly.

On the other hand, one can wonder whether our Binvisibles search is impacted by the SM processes B±τν and bsνν¯ that were the original targets of the ALEPH search. We find that the constraints shown in Eqs. (8) and (9) are slightly strengthened by considering these SM channels as background in the signal region. Using the current measurement of the branching ratio of B-τ-ν¯τ [41] and the SM prediction for bsνν¯ from [7], together with the ALEPH signal rate estimations [40], we find these processes to contribute +0.93 events in our signal region. By adding those to the expected background, the 90(95)% CL upper limit on the number of Bd/sinvisibles events becomes 3.4(4.3), only 10% stronger than our benchmark bound in Eqs. (8) and (9).

Discussion, conclusions and outlook

Motivated by the recent evidence for B+K+ν¯ν transitions at Belle II [58, 59], in this study we have derived new limits on fully invisible neutral B meson decays. For that, we have reinterpreted an old search carried out by the ALEPH experiment that looked into b-quark decay events with large missing energy at LEP [40]. Reproducing the original analysis as faithfully as possible, our recast implies that Br(Bsinvisibles)<5.6×10-4 and Br(Bdinvisibles)<1.4×10-4, both at 90% CL.

This limit on Bdinvisibles is less than a factor of 6 times looser than the one reported by the BaBar collaboration from a dedicated analysis of 471 million BB¯ pairs [42]. Taking into account that the full ALEPH data sample only contains approximately 0.9 million bb¯ pairs, it is clear that the ALEPH search strategy is extremely powerful to look for B meson decays featuring large missing energy. The reason behind it is its inclusiveness: aside from standard selection cuts, the search selects events based solely on large missing energy requirement, which results in an efficiency as high as 8%. This should be contrasted to the strategy at B-factories which requires at least partial tagging of the B meson at the non-signal hemisphere yielding efficiencies of 0.17% [42].

To the best of our knowledge (see [41]), our derived limit on Bsinvisibles is the first of its kind. Characterizing this channel is particularly timely because the Belle II collaboration has recently reported 3.5σ evidence for the B+K+ν¯ν decay [22]. This detection is intriguing as the implied rate is 2.7σ above the Standard Model expectation [23]. If confirmed, this will be the first indication of a bsν¯ν transition. Clearly, such transition could also trigger the Bsinvisibles process. The rate for this mode in the Standard Model is predicted to be minuscule [3335], but extensions of the Standard Model featuring new light species could make it substantial. In fact, recent global analyses of BKν¯ν modes show that one could expect branching ratios as large as Br(Bsinvisibles)10-5-10-4 [24, 27]. While the limit that we have derived in this work is not able to reach such sensitivities, it shows a potential new avenue to shed light on bs transitions.

Looking forward, Belle II running at the Υ(5S) resonance with 5ab-1 of luminosity is expected to reach sensitivities of Br(Bsinvisibles)10-5 [60]. Looking further ahead, our study demonstrates that an ideal place to look for this type of decays would be the Tera-Z factory at FCCee [61, 62]. With a total of 6×1012 Z bosons, the sensitivity to invisible B decays should be excellent. Although a detailed forecast is beyond the scope of this paper, we expect branching ratios Br(Bsinvisibles)10-5-10-4 to be fully covered in such an experiment. This will test new physics models capable of explaining the recent Belle II measurement [27]. Even if the claimed detection were to be refuted, FCCee should have no problem reaching the Standard Model prediction for bsν¯ν at the level of Br10-5. Beyond there, disentangling a potential new physics signal from the SM contribution could be challenging, but one still expects rather fine sensitivities, as was seen in [6365] looking at similar types of b decays at FCCee.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Ian Tomalin for very useful discussions on the original ALEPH searches, in particular, about the signal efficiency expected for invisible B decays. We would like to thank also Enrico Nardi for useful discussions about the role of hadronization in inclusive bsν¯ν decays. This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada.

Appendix A: Bounds on Bρa and B+τ+a

A procedure similar to the one described above can be used to place limits on partially invisible flavor-violating B meson decays involving light particles like an axion or a dark photon. In particular, and due to the inclusive nature of the search strategy, limits on channels that have so far not been directly targeted by experiments, like Bρa (see Table I in [9]) and Bτa, can be derived. Though not directly related with the main aim of this work, in this appendix we report the limits for archival purposes.

Assuming that the B meson decays isotropically and that the missing energy of the event is fully carried by the axion a, we obtain the fraction of events with Emiss>35GeV in the lab frame via a Monte Carlo simulation. The resulting branching ratio constraints as a function of the axion mass are shown in Fig. 2. For Bρa, we include the charged B+ρ+a as well as neutral Bdρ0a channels. For B+τ+a, we correct the limit by a factor of 1/BR(τhadrons+ν) given that the ALEPH search rejects events with energetic electrons and muons such as those that arise from leptonic τ decays. For a massless axion, we find

Br(Bρa)<3.9×10-4[90%CL], A1
Br(B+τ+a)<3.0×10-3[90%CL]. A2

Note that the limits on B+τ+a are quite conservative since for simplicity we do not count the missing energy carried away by the neutrinos in the τ decay chain.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Limits on flavor-violating B meson two-body decays involving an axion from a recast of the ALEPH [40] analysis

Data Availability Statement

This manuscript has no associated data. [Authors’ comment: Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.]

Code Availability Statement

The manuscript has no associated code/software. [Author’s comment: Code/Software sharing not applicable to this article as no code/software was generated or analysed during the current study.]

Footnotes

1

ALEPH data and its analysis tools are public, and there are ongoing efforts to translate it to modern formats which could allow in the future for a definite test of this assumption. See [46], and [4749] for recent reanalyses of the data.

2

We have checked that using a profiled likelihood method leads to similar results.

References

  • 1.Buchalla G, Buras AJ. Nucl. Phys. B. 1993;400:225. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(93)90405-E. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Y. Grossman, Z. Ligeti, E. Nardi, Nucl. Phys. B 465, 369 (1996). 10.1016/0550-3213(96)00051-X. arXiv:hep-ph/9510378. [Erratum: Nucl. Phys. B 480, 753–754 (1996)]
  • 3.Buchalla G, Buras AJ, Lautenbacher ME. Rev. Mod. Phys. 1996;68:1125. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.68.1125. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bartsch M, Beylich M, Buchalla G, Gao DN. JHEP. 2009;11:011. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/11/011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Buras AJ, Girrbach-Noe J, Niehoff C, Straub DM. JHEP. 2015;02:184. doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2015)184. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bird C, Jackson P, Kowalewski RV, Pospelov M. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2004;93:201803. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.201803. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Altmannshofer W, Buras AJ, Straub DM, Wick M. JHEP. 2009;04:022. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/04/022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Filimonova A, Schäfer R, Westhoff S. Phys. Rev. D. 2020;101:095006. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.095006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Martin Camalich J, Pospelov M, Vuong PNH, Ziegler R, Zupan J. Phys. Rev. D. 2020;102:015023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.015023. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Browder TE, Deshpande NG, Mandal R, Sinha R. Phys. Rev. D. 2021;104:053007. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.053007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bause R, Gisbert H, Golz M, Hiller G. JHEP. 2021;12:061. doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2021)061. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.He XG, Valencia G. Phys. Lett. B. 2021;821:136607. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136607. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Felkl T, Li SL, Schmidt MA. JHEP. 2021;12:118. doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2021)118. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ferber T, Filimonova A, Schäfer R, Westhoff S. JHEP. 2023;04:131. doi: 10.1007/JHEP04(2023)131. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.He X-G, Ma X-D, Valencia G. JHEP. 2023;03:037. doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2023)037. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ovchynnikov M, Schmidt MA, Schwetz T. Eur. Phys. J. C. 2023;83:791. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11975-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.P. Asadi, A. Bhattacharya, K. Fraser, S. Homiller, A. Parikh. (2023). arXiv:2308.01340 [hep-ph]
  • 18.J.P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 87, 112005 (2013). 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.112005. arXiv:1303.7465 [hep-ex]
  • 19.O. Lutz et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D 87, 111103 (2013). 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.111103. arXiv:1303.3719 [hep-ex]
  • 20.J. Grygier et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D 96, 091101 (2017). 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.091101. arXiv:1702.03224 [hep-ex]. note [Addendum: Phys. Rev. D 97, 099902 (2018)]
  • 21.F. Abudinén et al. (Belle-II), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127. 181802 (2021). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.181802. arXiv:2104.12624 [hep-ex]
  • 22.I. Adachi et al. (Belle-II). (2023). arXiv:2311.14647 [hep-ex]
  • 23.D. Bečirević, G. Piazza, O. Sumensari, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 252 (2023). 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11388-z. arXiv:2301.06990 [hep-ph]
  • 24.R. Bause, H. Gisbert, G. Hiller. (2023). arXiv:2309.00075 [hep-ph]
  • 25.P. Athron, R. Martinez, C. Sierra. (2023). arXiv:2308.13426 [hep-ph]
  • 26.L. Allwicher, D. Becirevic, G. Piazza, S. Rosauro-Alcaraz, O. Sumensari. (2023). arXiv:2309.02246 [hep-ph]
  • 27.T. Felkl, A. Giri, R. Mohanta, M.A. Schmidt. (2023). arXiv:2309.02940 [hep-ph]
  • 28.X.-G. He, X.-D. Ma, G. Valencia. (2023b). arXiv:2309.12741 [hep-ph]
  • 29.H.K. Dreiner, J.Y. Günther, Z.S. Wang. (2023). arXiv:2309.03727 [hep-ph]
  • 30.W. Altmannshofer, A. Crivellin, H. Haigh, G. Inguglia, J. Martin Camalich. (2023). arXiv:2311.14629 [hep-ph]
  • 31.D. McKeen, J.N. Ng, D. Tuckler. (2023). arXiv:2312.00982 [hep-ph]
  • 32.P.D. Bolton, S. Fajfer, J.F. Kamenik, M. Novoa-Brunet. (2024). arXiv:2403.13887 [hep-ph]
  • 33.Lu C-D, Zhang D-X. Phys. Lett. B. 1996;381:348. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(96)00587-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Badin A, Petrov AA. Phys. Rev. D. 2010;82:034005. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.034005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Bortolato B, Kamenik JF. Eur. Phys. J. C. 2021;81:388. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09151-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.D. Buskulic et al. (ALEPH), Phys. Lett. B 298, 479 (1993). 10.1016/0370-2693(93)91853-F
  • 37.D. Buskulic et al. (ALEPH), Phys. Lett. B 343, 444 (1995). 10.1016/0370-2693(94)01584-Y
  • 38.Grossman Y, Ligeti Z, Nardi E. Phys. Rev. D. 1997;55:2768. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.55.2768. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Mangano ML, Slabospitsky SR. Phys. Lett. B. 1997;410:299. doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(97)00953-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.R. Barate et al. (ALEPH), Eur. Phys. J. C 19, 213 (2001). 10.1007/s100520100612. arXiv:hep-ex/0010022
  • 41.R.L. Workman et al. (Collaboration Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022). 10.1093/ptep/ptac097
  • 42.J.P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 86, 051105 (2012). 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.051105. arXiv:1206.2543 [hep-ex]
  • 43.Alonso-Álvarez G, Elor G, Escudero M. Phys. Rev. D. 2021;104:035028. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.035028. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.I. Tomalin, Measurement of the Bτν/bτνX Inclusive/Exclusive Branching Ratios. Tech. Rep. (CERN, Geneva, 1994). https://cds.cern.ch/record/806041
  • 45.S. Schael et al. (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group, SLD Heavy Flavour Group), Phys. Rep. 427, 257 (2006). 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.12.006. arXiv:hep-ex/0509008
  • 46.M. Maggi, Parallel talk given at the 7th FCC Workshop in Annecy (France, Jan 29–Feb 2, 2024). https://indico.cern.ch/event/1307378/contributions/5729653/
  • 47.Badea A , Baty A, Chang P, Innocenti GM, Maggi M, Mcginn C, Peters M, Sheng T-A, Thaler J, Lee Y-J. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2019;123:212002. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.212002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Y. Chen, Y.-J. Lee, M. Maggi, P. Chang, Y.-T. Chien, C. McGinn, D. Perepelitsa. (2021). arXiv:2108.04877 [hep-ex]
  • 49.Y.-C. Chen, Y.-J. Lee, Y. Chen, P. Chang, C. McGinn, T.-A. Sheng, G.M. Innocenti, M. Maggi. (2023). arXiv:2309.09874 [hep-ex]
  • 50.J. Abdallah et al. (Collaboration DELPHI), Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1557 (2011). 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1557-x. arXiv:1102.4748 [hep-ex]
  • 51.A. Heister et al. (ALEPH), Phys. Lett. B 512, 30 (2001). 10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00690-6. arXiv:hep-ex/0106051
  • 52.Kartvelishvili VG, Likhoded AK, Petrov VA. Phys. Lett. B. 1978;78:615. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(78)90653-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.D. Buskulic et al. (ALEPH), Phys. Lett. B 322, 275 (1994). 10.1016/0370-2693(94)91120-7
  • 54.Y.S. Amhis et al. (HFLAV), Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 226 (2021). 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8156-7. arXiv:1909.12524 [hep-ex]
  • 55.Y.S. Amhis et al. (Heavy Flavor Averaging Group, HFLAV), Phys. Rev. D 107, 052008 (2023). 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.052008. arXiv:2206.07501 [hep-ex]
  • 56.Junk T. Nucl. Instrum. Methods A. 1999;434:435. doi: 10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00498-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Read AL. J. Phys. G. 2002;28:2693. doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.A. Glazov, Plenary Talk Given at the EPS-HEP2023 Conference in Hamburg (Germany, Aug 20–25, 2023). https://indico.desy.de//event/34916/contributions/149769/
  • 59.E. Ganiev, Parallel talk given at the EPS-HEP2023 Conference in Hamburg (Germany, Aug 20–25, 2023). https://indico.desy.de/event/34916/contributions/146877/
  • 60.W. Altmannshofer et al. (Belle-II), PTEP 2019, 123C01 (2019). 10.1093/ptep/ptz106. arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]. [Erratum: PTEP 2020, 029201 (2020)]
  • 61.A. Abada et al. (FCC), Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 474 (2019). 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6904-3
  • 62.A. Abada et al. (FCC), Eur. Phys. J. ST 228, 261 (2019). 10.1140/epjst/e2019-900045-4
  • 63.Amhis Y, Hartmann M, Helsens C, Hill D, Sumensari O. JHEP. 2021;12:133. doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2021)133. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.M. Fedele, C. Helsens, D. Hill, S. Iguro, M. Klute, X. Zuo. (2023). arXiv:2305.02998 [hep-ex]
  • 65.Y. Amhis, M. Kenzie, M. Reboud, A.R. Wiederhold. (2023b). 10.17181/6k4q7-veh06. arXiv:2309.11353 [hep-ex]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

This manuscript has no associated data. [Authors’ comment: Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.]


Articles from The European Physical Journal. C, Particles and Fields are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES