BBeauty 2019 — Conference summary
Patrick Koppenburg ∗ Nikhef, Amsterdam, NetherlandsE-mail: [email protected]
Some highlights from the 18 th international conference on B physics at frontier machines arepresented, including first results from the full LHC Run 2 data and from early Belle II data. ∗ Speaker. c (cid:13) Copyright owned by the author(s) under the terms of the Creative CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). http://pos.sissa.it/ a r X i v : . [ h e p - e x ] M a r onference summary Patrick Koppenburg
1. Introduction
Beauty 2019 was a lively conference, where we saw first results from the full LHC Run 2data and from early Belle 2 data. There was excitement due to new announcements, mostly inspectroscopy, and in anticipation of updates of the now long-standing flavour anomalies. Theobservation of CP violation in charm — certainly the HEP highlight of 2019 — also triggered manydiscussions. But the main initial shock was the announcement of the bankruptcy of the local carrierAdria airways, which forced most of the attendees to rearrange their travel plans at the last minute.The scene was nicely set by Chris Quigg, who asked 50 questions to be answered by experimentand theory [1].
2. Spectroscopy
Who would have guessed that doubly charmed baryons would feature prominently at a Beautyphysics conference? Fifteen years after the putative observation of the Ξ + cc baryon at a massof 3519 MeV/ c by the SELEX [2] experiment, LHCb observed its doubly charged counterpart Ξ ++ cc [3, 4]. It was seen in the decay modes Ξ ++ cc → Λ + c K − π + π + and Ξ ++ cc → Ξ + c π + [5], but notin Ξ ++ cc → D + pK − π + [6]. In the meantime we know its mass (3621 . ± . ± .
31 MeV) [7]; itslifetime (256 + − ±
14 fs) [8], which confirms it as a weakly decaying particle; and its productionrate in pp collisions at √ s =
13 TeV [9].However, the mass measurement poses a problem: the Ξ + cc and Ξ ++ cc states cannot be isospinpartners as their masses differ by 100 MeV/ c , while at most 1 MeV is expected. LHCb thus startedlooking for the singly charged state and did not find any excess at 3519 MeV/ c [10]. However,there is a 2 . σ excess at a mass of 3621 MeV/ c (Fig. 1), which is the near the expected mass foran isospin partner of the Ξ ++ cc baryon [11]. More data will tell if the SELEX state is a statisticalfluctuation, if there is an unusual ispospin splitting, or if the two states are different in nature.Another conundrum is the Ω c lifetime: the FOCUS, WA89 and E687 experiments give acombined lifetime of 69 ±
12 fs [12, 13]. It is to be noted here that these fixed-target experimentsreport lifetimes at the edge of their resolution of 50 to 70 fs. With a much larger sample, LHCb get284 ±
25 fs [14], which now places the Ω c lifetime in between those of the Λ + c and Ξ + c baryons [15],as shown in Fig. 1. ] c ) [MeV/ + p - K +c L ( m c C a nd i d a t e s p e r . M e V / LHCb = 7, 8, 13 TeV s DataTotalSignalBackground lifetime [fs] (PDG, 2018) W (PDG, 2018) X (PDG, 2018) +c L (PDG, 2018) +c X (LHCb, 2018) W (LHCb, 2019) X (LHCb, 2019) +c L (LHCb, 2019) +c X Figure 1: (left) Mass spectrum of Λ + c in the search for the Ξ + cc baryon at LHCb [10]. (right) Lifetimes ofcharm baryons [15]. onference summary Patrick Koppenburg p y / J m C and i da t e s / ( M e V ) all datatotal fitpolynomial LHCb + (4312) c P + (4440) c P + (4457) c P , h y M(J/050100150200250300 E v en t s / M e V DataTotal signalCombinatorial BG p K y J/ fi B ppy J/ fi B ppy J/ fi s B KK y J/ fi s B * + refl. Ly J/ fi L K c P fi L K refl. c P fi L K c1 P fi L K c2 P fi L K c3 P fi L K c4 P fi L -1 = 7, 8 TeV; 4.9, 20.6 fbs ,p,K) < 5.65 GeV y ATLAS
Preliminary
Figure 2: Fits to the J / ψ p mass spectrum in Λ b → J / ψ pK − decays at (left) LHCb [24] and (right) ATLAS [27]. The recent observation of excited B + c states nicely demonstrates the importance of resolutionand large data samples. ATLAS first observed one state with 8 TeV data [16], which was thenrecently resolved into two by CMS [17] and LHCb [4, 18]. Owing to the larger sample only CMScan claim the observation of both states, while LHCb has the better resolution on their masses.More new particles have been announced by LHCb. A new X ( ) meson seen in the D + D − and D D spectra could be the spin-3 ψ ( D ) state [4, 19]. Also, two resonances appear in the Λ b π + π − spectrum [4, 20]. The tentatively called Λ b ( ) baryon decays to Σ ± b π ∓ and Σ ∗± b π ∓ while the lighter Λ b ( ) decays only to Σ ∗± b π ∓ . They are likely to be the Λ b ( D ) doublet with J P = + and J P = + . They could also be excited Σ b baryons, but this hypothesis is disfavoured [21].A much broader Λ b π + π − resonance, consistent with being the Λ b ( S ) state, was later reportedusing the same dataset [22]. These states are also seen at the CMS experiment [23].Finally an analysis of Run 2 Λ b → J / ψ pK − data has unveiled additional pentaquarks: A new P c ( ) + state and overlapping P c ( ) + and P c ( ) + states were reported by LHCb [24, 25].The P c ( ) + state [26], previously reported in a full 6-dimensional amplitude analysis, is thussplit into two overlapping states, while the one-dimensional fit of Ref. [24] has no sensitivity to thebroad P c ( ) + state (Fig. 2). A 6-dimensional analysis will provide a clearer picture. For thefirst time the P + c states were also confirmed by another experiment: ATLAS reported a fit includingthe LHCb states [27] (Fig. 2), although they are not able to fully exclude the hypothesis of nopentaquarks ( p ∼ × − ). Meanwhile the GlueX experiment reported no evidence for P + c statesin J / ψ photoproduction [28]. A similar study from CMS is eagerly awaited. In the meantime CMSobserved the promising decay B s → J / ψΛ φ and studied the decay B + → J / ψΛ p but do not needexotic contributions to explain the data [29].Counting the excited Ω − b states [30] reported after the conference, the LHC has now observed33 new hadrons [31]. CP violation The most exciting CP -violation result of the year is the observation of CP violation in the charmsector. Using the data collected so far, LHCb measures a significant difference ∆ A CP between the2 onference summary Patrick Koppenburg CP asymmetries in D → K + K − and D → π + π − [32]. This comes 35, 17 and 6 years after the firstobservation of CP violation in the kaon, B and B s [33] systems, respectively. However it is hard totell if the measured CP asymmetry is consistent with the SM or not [34]. The understanding of theSM contributions to this asymmetry has improved recently — also thanks to wildly varying valuesof ∆ A CP reported in previous measurements — but the jury is still out on whether the measuredvalue is consistent with expectations.In parallel there has been progress on precision measurement of CP asymmetries in B decays.The weak B s mixing phase, φ s , was measured with similar precision by ATLAS and LHCb [38–40].The latest HFLAV average [35] is shown in Fig. 3 and compared to the SM prediction [41]. Theincreased precision is largely due to improved flavour tagging algorithms [40, 43, 44]. A comparisonof the tagging efficiency and mistag rates for selected analyses in five experiments is shown inFig. 3. The improvement is particularly striking when comparing the performance of LHCb’sanalyses of B s → J / ψφ published this year [38] and B → J / ψ K , which dates from 2015 [37]. Moredevelopments in flavour tagging are still in the pipeline. Improved measurements of the unitaritytriangle angle γ are also to be expected in the next years [45].These measurements are input to CKM unitarity triangle closure tests [46, 47] (Fig. 4, left).There is still a discrepancy in the values of the CKM matrix elements | V ub | and | V cb | depending onwhether they are determined using inclusive b → q (cid:96) ν or exclusive B → H q (cid:96) ν decays (Fig. 4, right).For the latter, form factors are a critical input. However their determination by lattice groups alsovaries, as shown by Witzel [48]. Those for the decay B s → K − (cid:96) + ν [49], which is sensitive to | V ub | ,will become relevant in the near future. The expectation from CKM fits favours the inclusive (higher)value of | V cb | and the exclusive (lower) value of | V ub | . Recently a measurement of B s → D ( ∗ ) − s µ + ν by LHCb [50] has provided a first exclusive measurement of | V cb | using B s decays. It is found tobe closer to the value favoured by inclusive measurements, but also consistent with the average ofexclusive determinations. It is likely that these puzzles remain for a while. -0.4 -0.2 -0.0 0.2 0.4 φ c ¯ css [rad] ∆ Γ s [ p s − ] ATLAS 99.7 fb − D0 8 fb − CMS 19.7 fb − CDF 9.6 fb − Combined
LHCb 4.9 fb − SM
68% CL contours( ∆ log L = 1.15) HFLAV
Spring 2019
Mistag fraction, ω T a gg i n g e ffi c i e n c y , ε t a g LHCb B → D + D − ATLAS B → J /ψφ CMS B → J /ψφ BaBar B → ccK ( ∗ )0 Belle B → ccK ( ∗ )0 LHCb B → J /ψ K LHCb B s → J /ψφ % % % . % . % . % . % E ff ec t i v e t a gg i n g e ffi c i e n c y , ε e ff Figure 3: (left) Best fit of B s mixing parameters [35] and (right) comparison of tagging efficiency and mistagfraction for selected CP violation measurements [36–39]. This average still uses the slightly different preliminary ATLAS result [42]. onference summary Patrick Koppenburg γα α d m ∆ K ε s m ∆ & d m ∆ ub V β sin 2 (excl. at CL > 0.95) < 0 β sol. w/ cos 2 α βγ ρ η e xc l uded a r ea ha s C L > . Summer 18
CKM f i t t e r
35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ] -3 | [10 cb |V ] - | [ ub | V n D* l fi B n D l fi B n l p fi B n m p fi b L World Average ) = 7.7% c P( Inclusive |: GGOU ub |V |: global fit in KS cb |V = 1.0 contours cD s HFLAV
Spring 2019
HFLAV
Spring 2019
Figure 4: (left) CKM unitarity triangle fit from CKMFitter [46]. (right) Determinations of | V ub | and | V cb | using exclusive B decays [35]. The average obtained from inclusive decays is shown for comparison.
4. Flavour Anomalies
ATLAS, CMS and LHCb have released measurements of the B s → µ + µ − and B → µ + µ − branching fractions [51, 52] using data up to 2016. A combination by Straub is shown in Fig. 5. Itshould be noted that the quoted branching fractions assume the SM value of the effective lifetimefor the admixture of heavy and light B s states, which affects the selection efficiency [53]. LHCbprovides a recipe to correct for this effect [51]. This issue will no longer be relevant once theeffective lifetime has been measured [54]. LHCb and CMS have provided first measurements,although still with poor sensitivity.It is debatable whether the B → µ + µ − tension with the SM prediction counts as an anomaly,but the low rate of b → s µ + µ − decays certainly does. There is a lower rate of such decays withrespect to the electronic b → se + e − decays seen by LHCb [56] and to a lesser extent by Belle [57].Similarly, all branching fractions of b → s µ + µ − decays are measured below their theoreticalexpectations [58]. Moreover, the SM prediction for B → K ∗ µ + µ − may even be too low, as explainedby Descotes-Genon [59, 60]. BR( B s → µ + µ − ) × − B R ( B → µ + µ − ) × − ATLASLHCbCMSfull comb.Gaussian comb.SM prediction − . − . − . . . C bsµµ − . . . . . C b s µµ flavio b → sµµ σb → sµµ & B s,d → µµ σb → sµµ & B s,d → µµ & ∆ F = 2 1 σb → sµµ & B s,d → µµ & ∆ F = 2 & Λ b → Λ µµ σ Figure 5: (left) B → µ + µ − constraints update by Straub based on Ref. [55] and (right) constraints on vectorand axial Wilson coefficients C NP9 µ and C NP10 µ [55]. onference summary Patrick KoppenburgTable 1: Pulls with respect to the Standard Model of various fits to b → s (cid:96) + (cid:96) − data with three New Physicshypothesis [60]. ReferencesNew Physics hypothesis [65] [55] [66] [67] [68] [69]Vector: C NP9 µ . σ . σ . σ . σ . σ . σ V − A : C NP9 µ = − C NP10 µ . σ . σ . σ . σ . σ . σ RH : C NP9 µ = − C NP9 (cid:48) µ . σ . σ The value of the P (cid:48) asymmetry in B → K ∗ (cid:96) + (cid:96) − decays [61] has been measured for muonsby the LHC experiments [62], and for both muons and electrons by Belle [64]. There are de-viations from the SM predictions at the level of 2 to 3 σ in the dilepton-mass-squared region4 < q < / c .Combining all constraints on b → s (cid:96) + (cid:96) − and b → s γ decays, various groups perform Wilsoncoefficient fits which disfavour the Standard Model with large significances [55, 65–69]. The pullsare listed in Table 1, where the SM is compared to models with new vector, V − A , or right-handed(RH) currents. These pulls should however be taken with some care. Significant experimentalsignatures are eagerly awaited.Any new physics explanation of these anomalies must leave all other well-measured observablesminimally changed. Particularly difficult are the constraints from B s mixing as a new operatorinvolving a bs coupling would strongly affect the mixing frequency. The measured values of ∆ m s and ∆ m d are actually a bit off the SM predictions using decay constants from the lattice [70] (byless than 2 σ ), but the pull tends to go into the opposite direction of what would be expected fromnew operators required to address the flavour anomalies [71, 72].The scale of such new physics is also very poorly constrained. It could be as high as 30 TeV foran unsuppressed coupling, 6 TeV in case of CKM-suppression ( | V tb V ∗ ts | ), 2.5 TeV for loop suppression(1 / π ) and as little as 0.5 TeV for both [72, 73].Any departure from lepton universality is likely associated with some level of violation oflepton-flavour conservation. No known symmetry principle can protect the one in the absence of theother [74]. It is thus essential to look for lepton-flavour-violating decays such as B → Ke µ . However,no hint is seen. LHCb for instance have recently improved the limit on B + → K + e ± µ ∓ [75] to the10 − range. Similarly BaBar set limits in the 10 − range for a large set of D decays [76].Another sign of lepton-universality violation is seen in tree-level B → D ( ∗ ) τ − ν decays. Bellehas presumably given their final word on the ratios R ( D ) = B ( B → D τ − ν ) / B ( B → D µ − ν ) and R ( D ∗ ) in Ref. [77]. The HFLAV average is now 3 σ away from the SM, as shown in Fig. 6 [35].
5. Outlook
We are in exciting times for flavour physics. Belle II, the successor of Belle, has started andis presently rediscovering rare decays such as B → K ∗ γ and optimising their sensitivity to CP violation [78]. They have already produced their first physics paper with 276 pb − [79].The aim isto collect more than 50 ab − by 2027. The LHCb measurement was recently updated in Ref. [63]. onference summary Patrick Koppenburg
R(D) R ( D * ) HFLAV average
Average of SM predictions = 1.0 contours cD – R(D) = 0.299 0.005 – R(D*) = 0.258
HFLAV
Winter 2019 ) = 27% c P( s LHCb15LHCb18Belle17 Belle19 Belle15BaBar12
HFLAV
Spring 2019
Figure 6: HFLAV average of R ( D ) and R ( D ∗ ) [35]. Recoil mass spectrum in e + e − → µ + µ − Z (cid:48) search [79]In parallel, most of the LHC Run 2dataset is still to be analysed. In particular the first results from the CMS parked B sample areeagerly awaited.In the near future, we are also expecting a much improved measurement of the muon’s g − V ub and V cb puzzles. Model builders are eagerly awaiting confirmation (or not) of theflavour anomalies to pave the way toward a consistent New Physics model that can accommodatethem.The LHC will resume operations in 2021. All LHC detectors are being upgraded, but the mostdramatic change is that of LHCb. Most of the detector is being replaced in order to cope with anincreased luminosity of 2 × cm − s − and to feed all data into a software-only trigger. LHCb hasalso presented plans for a phase-II upgrade, with the plan to collect 300 fb − by the end of Run 5.A timeline is shown in Fig. 7. The expression of interest [81] and the physics case [82] were wellreceived by the LHCC, who encourage the collaboration to present a TDR.The future beyond that is less well defined. The proposed 100 km FCC accelerator has also an LHC Run 3 LS3 Run 4 LS4 Run 5 . . .LHCb Ia LHCb Ib LHCb IIBelle II
Figure 7: Timeline of LHCb and Belle II operations. onference summary Patrick Koppenburg interesting potential for flavour physics, in particular in its initial FCC- ee form [83]. However, itis presently hard to reply to Quigg’s last question “How do you assess the scientific potential forBeauty and in general of . . . ” followed by a list of 10 more or less realistic future projects [1]. Theanswer will likely depend on the direction indicated by the flavour anomalies. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the conference advisory committee for the kind invitation, thelocal committee for the perfect conference organisation and ÖBB Nightjet for providing acarbon-neutral alternative to flying. Many thanks to Boštjan Golob, Neville Harnew, Niels Tuningand Gerhard Raven for helpful comments on the manuscript.
References [1] C. Quigg,
Beauty at High Precision / Sensitivity , arXiv:2002.08292 , these proceedings.[2] SELEX collaboration, M. Mattson et al. , First observation of the doubly charmed baryon Ξ + cc , Phys.Rev. Lett. (2002) 112001, arXiv:hep-ex/0208014 ; SELEX collaboration, A. Ocherashvili et al. , Confirmation of the double charm baryon Ξ cc ( ) + via its decay to pD + K − , Phys. Lett. B628 (2005) 18, arXiv:hep-ex/0406033 .[3] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Observation of the doubly charmed baryon Ξ ++ cc , Phys. Rev. Lett. (2017) 112001, arXiv:1707.01621 .[4] M. Needham, Spectroscopy at LHCb — conventional states , these proceedings.[5] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , First observation of the doubly charmed baryon decay Ξ ++ cc → Ξ + c π + , Phys. Rev. Lett. (2018) 162002, arXiv:1807.01919 .[6] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , A search for Ξ ++ cc → D + pK − π + decays , JHEP (2019) 124, arXiv:1905.02421 .[7] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Precision measurement of the Ξ ++ cc mass , JHEP (2020) 049, arXiv:1911.08594 .[8] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Measurement of the lifetime of the doubly charmed baryon Ξ ++ cc ,Phys. Rev. Lett. (2018) 052002, arXiv:1806.02744 .[9] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Measurement of Ξ ++ cc production in pp collisions at √ s = TeV ,Chin. Phys. C (2020) 022001, arXiv:1910.11316 .[10] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Search for the doubly charmed baryon Ξ + cc , Sci. China Phys. Mech.Astron. (2020) 221062, arXiv:1909.12273 .[11] S. Prelovsek, Lattice spectroscopy with focus on exotics , arXiv:2001.01767 , these proceedings;M. Padmanath, Hadron Spectroscopy and Resonances: Review , PoS
LATTICE2018 (2018) 013, arXiv:1905.09651 .[12] FOCUS collaboration, J. M. Link et al. , Measurement of the Ω c lifetime , Phys. Lett. B561 (2003) 41, arXiv:hep-ex/0302033 ; WA89 collaboration, M. I. Adamovich et al. , Measurement of the Ω c lifetime , Phys. Lett. B358 (1995) 151, arXiv:hep-ex/9507004 ; E687 collaboration, P. L. Frabetti et al. , First measurement of the lifetime of the Ω c , Phys. Lett. B357 (1995) 678.[13] Particle Data Group, M. Tanabashi et al. , Review of particle physics , Phys. Rev.
D98 (2018) 030001. onference summary Patrick Koppenburg[14] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Measurement of the Ω c lifetime , Phys. Rev. Lett. (2018)092003, arXiv:1807.02024 .[15] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Precision measurement of the Λ + c , Ξ + c , and Ξ c baryon lifetimes ,Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 032001, arXiv:1906.08350 .[16] ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al. , Observation of an excited B ± c meson state with the ATLAS detector ,Phys. Rev. Lett. (2014) 212004, arXiv:1407.1032 .[17] CMS collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al. , Observation of two excited B + c states and measurement of theB + c (2S) mass in pp collisions at √ s =
13 TeV , Phys. Rev. Lett. (2019) 132001, arXiv:1902.00571 ; L. Cristella,
CMS studies of excited B + c states , these proceedings.[18] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Observation of an excited B + c state , Phys. Rev. Lett. (2019)232001, arXiv:1904.00081 .[19] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Near-threshold DD spectroscopy and observation of a newcharmonium state , JHEP (2019) 035, arXiv:1903.12240 .[20] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Observation of new resonances in the Λ b π + π − system , Phys. Rev.Lett. (2019) 152001, arXiv:1907.13598 .[21] B. Chen, S.-Q. Luo, X. Liu, and T. Matsuki, Interpretation of the observed Λ b ( ) and Λ b ( ) states as 1D bottom baryons , Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 094032, arXiv:1910.03318 ; W. Liang, Q.-F.Lü, and X.-H. Zhong,
Canonical interpretation of the newly observed Λ b ( ) and Λ b ( ) viastrong decay behaviors , Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 054013, arXiv:1908.00223 .[22] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Observation of a new baryon state in the Λ b π + π − mass spectrum , arXiv:2002.05112 , submitted to JHEP.[23] CMS collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al. , Study of excited Λ b states decaying to Λ b π + π − inproton-proton collisions at √ s =
13 TeV , arXiv:2001.06533 .[24] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Observation of a narrow P c ( ) + state, and of two-peak structureof the P c ( ) + , Phys. Rev. Lett. (2019) 222001, arXiv:1904.03947 .[25] L. Zhang, Spectroscopy at LHCb — exotic states , these proceedings.[26] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Observation of J / ψ p resonances consistent with pentaquark statesin Λ b → J / ψ pK − decays , Phys. Rev. Lett. (2015) 072001, arXiv:1507.03414 .[27] ATLAS collaboration, Study of J / ψ p resonances in the Λ b → J / ψ pK − decays in pp collisions at √ s=7and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector , ATLAS-CONF-2019-048, CERN, Geneva, 2019; I. Yeletskikh, Search for exotic states in ATLAS: pentaquarks , these proceedings.[28] GlueX collaboration, A. Ali et al. , First measurement of near-threshold J / ψ exclusive photoproductionoff the proton , Phys. Rev. Lett. (2019) 072001, arXiv:1905.10811 .[29] CMS collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al. , Study of the B + → J / ψΛ p decay in proton-proton collisionsat √ s = , JHEP (2019) 100, arXiv:1907.05461 ; CMS collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al. , Observation of the Λ b → J / ψΛ φ decay in proton-proton collisions at √ s =
13 TeV , Phys. Lett.
B802 (2020) 135203, arXiv:1911.03789 ; S. Polikarpov,
Heavy flavour spectroscopy at CMS ,these proceedings.[30] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , First observation of excited Ω − b states , Phys. Rev. Lett. (2020)082002, arXiv:2001.00851 . onference summary Patrick Koppenburg[31] P. Koppenburg,
New particles discovered at the LHC et al. , Observation of CP violation in charm decays , Phys. Rev. Lett. (2019) 211803, arXiv:1903.08726 ; M. Schubiger,
Charm mixing and CPV at LHCb , theseproceedings.[33] J. H. Christenson, J. W. Cronin, V. L. Fitch, and R. Turlay,
Evidence for the π decay of the K meson ,Phys. Rev. Lett. (1964) 138; BaBar collaboration, B. Aubert et al. , Observation of CP violation inthe B meson system , Phys. Rev. Lett. (2001) 091801, arXiv:hep-ex/0107013 ; Bellecollaboration, K. Abe et al. , Observation of large CP violation in the neutral B meson system , Phys. Rev.Lett. (2001) 091802, arXiv:hep-ex/0107061 ; LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Firstobservation of CP violation in the decays of B s mesons , Phys. Rev. Lett. (2013) 221601, arXiv:1304.6173 .[34] U. Nierste, Charm decays , arXiv:2002.06686 , these proceedings.[35] Heavy Flavor Averaging Group, Y. Amhis et al. , Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, and τ -leptonproperties as of 2018 , arXiv:1909.12524 , updated results and plots available at https://hflav.web.cern.ch .[36] LHCb collaboration, K. Heinicke, Comparison of flavour tagging performances displayed in the ω − ε tag plane , LHCb-FIGURE-2020-002, 2020; LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Measurement ofCP violation in B → D + D − decays , Phys. Rev. Lett. (2016) 261801, arXiv:1608.06620 ; CMScollaboration, V. Khachatryan et al. , Measurement of the CP-violating weak phase φ s and the decaywidth difference ∆Γ s using the B s to J / ψφ ( ) decay channel in pp collisions at √ s = TeV , Phys.Lett.
B757 (2015) 97, arXiv:1507.07527 ; BaBar collaboration, B. Aubert et al. , Measurement ofTime-Dependent CP Asymmetry in B → c ¯ cK ( ∗ ) Decays , Phys. Rev.
D79 (2009) 072009, arXiv:0902.1708 ; Belle collaboration, H. Kakuno et al. , Neutral B flavor tagging for themeasurement of mixing induced CP violation at Belle , Nucl. Instrum. Meth.
A533 (2004) 516, arXiv:hep-ex/0403022 .[37] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Measurement of CP violation in B → J / ψ K decays , Phys. Rev.Lett. (2015) 031601, arXiv:1503.07089 .[38] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Updated measurement of time-dependent CP-violating observablesin B s → J / ψ K + K − decays , Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) 706, arXiv:1906.08356 .[39] ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al. , Measurement of the CP-violating phase φ s in B s → J / ψφ decaysin ATLAS at 13 TeV , arXiv:2001.07115 .[40] R. Novotny, CP violation in B s → J / ψφ in ATLAS , these proceedings.[41] M. Artuso, G. Borissov, and A. Lenz, CP violation in the B s system , Rev. Mod. Phys. (2016) 045002,Addendum ibid. (2019) 049901, arXiv:1511.09466 .[42] ATLAS collaboration, Measurement of the CP violation phase φ s in B s → J / ψφ decays in ATLAS at 13TeV , ATLAS-CONF-2019-009, 2019.[43] E. Govorkova, φ s status and prospects at LHCb , these proceedings.[44] F. Palla, Measurement of CP violating phase φ s at CMS , these proceedings; M. Calvi, Other physicswith B → open charm at LHCb , these proceedings.[45] M. Bjørn, Measurement of the CKM angle γ at LHCb , these proceedings. onference summary Patrick Koppenburg[46] CKMfitter group, J. Charles et al. , Current status of the standard model CKM fit and constraints on ∆ F = new physics , Phys. Rev. D91 (2015) 073007, arXiv:1501.05013 , updated results andplots available at http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr/ .[47] UTfit collaboration, M. Bona et al. , The unitarity triangle fit in the standard model and hadronicparameters from lattice QCD: A reappraisal after the measurements of ∆ m s and BR ( B → τν τ ) , JHEP (2006) 081, arXiv:hep-ph/0606167 , updated results and plots available at .[48] O. Witzel, Lattice QCD (focus on Charm and Beauty form factors, R ( D ∗ ) , b- & c-quark masses) , arXiv:2002.01056 .[49] C. M. Bouchard, G. P. Lepage, C. Monahan, H. Na, and J. Shigemitsu, B s → K (cid:96) ν form factors fromlattice QCD , Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 054506, arXiv:1406.2279 ; J. M. Flynn, T. Izubuchi,T. Kawanai, C. Lehner, A. Soni, R. S. Van de Water, and O. Witzel, B → π (cid:96) ν and B s → K (cid:96) ν formfactors and | V ub | from 2+1-flavor lattice QCD with domain-wall light quarks and relativistic heavyquarks , Phys. Rev. D91 (2015) 074510, arXiv:1501.05373 ; ALPHA collaboration, F. Bahr,D. Banerjee, F. Bernardoni, A. Joseph, M. Koren, H. Simma, and R. Sommer,
Continuum limit of theleading-order HQET form factor in B s → K (cid:96) ν decays , Phys. Lett. B757 (2016) 473, arXiv:1601.04277 ; Fermilab Lattice, MILC collaborations, A. Bazavov et al. , B s → K (cid:96) ν decayfrom lattice QCD , Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 034501, arXiv:1901.02561 .[50] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Measurement of | V cb | with B s → D ( ∗ ) − s µ + ν decays , arXiv:2001.03225 , submitted to Phys. Rev. D.[51] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Measurement of the B s → µ + µ − branching fraction and effectivelifetime and search for B → µ + µ − decays , Phys. Rev. Lett. (2017) 191801, arXiv:1703.05747 .[52] ATLAS, M. Aaboud et al. , Study of the rare decays of B s and B mesons into muon pairs using datacollected during 2015 and 2016 with the ATLAS detector , JHEP (2019) 098, arXiv:1812.03017 ; CMS collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al. , Measurement of properties ofB s → µ + µ − decays and search for B → µ + µ − with the CMS experiment , arXiv:1910.12127 ;W. Walkoviak, Rare and semi-rare B decays in ATLAS , these proceedings; J. Chen,
Measurement ofrare B → µ + µ − and search for τ → µ decays at CMS , these proceedings.[53] K. De Bruyn, R. Fleischer, R. Knegjens, P. Koppenburg, M. Merk, and N. Tuning, Branching ratiomeasurements of B s decays , Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 014027, arXiv:1204.1735 .[54] K. De Bruyn, R. Fleischer, R. Knegjens, P. Koppenburg, M. Merk, A. Pellegrino, and N. Tuning,
Probing new physics via the B s → µ + µ − effective lifetime , Phys. Rev. Lett. (2012) 041801, arXiv:1204.1737 .[55] J. Aebischer, W. Altmannshofer, D. Guadagnoli, M. Reboud, P. Stangl, and D. M. Straub, B-decaydiscrepancies after Moriond 2019 , arXiv:1903.10434 .[56] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Test of lepton universality using Λ b → pK − (cid:96) + (cid:96) − decays , arXiv:1912.08139 , submitted to JHEP; LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Test of leptonuniversality with B → K ∗ (cid:96) + (cid:96) − decays , JHEP (2017) 055, arXiv:1705.05802 ; LHCbcollaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Search for lepton-universality violation in B + → K + (cid:96) + (cid:96) − decays , Phys.Rev. Lett. (2019) 191801, arXiv:1903.09252 ; C. Langenbruch, b → s (cid:96) + (cid:96) − and friends (R K ,R K ∗ , etc.) at LHCb , these proceedings. onference summary Patrick Koppenburg[57] Belle collaboration, A. Abdesselam et al. , Test of lepton flavor universality in B → K ∗ (cid:96) + (cid:96) − decays atBelle , arXiv:1904.02440 ; Belle collaboration, A. Abdesselam et al. , Test of lepton flavoruniversality in B → K (cid:96) + (cid:96) − decays , arXiv:1908.01848 ; S. Watanuki, B → K ∗ (cid:96) + (cid:96) − (and B → X s γ )measurements at Belle , these proceedings.[58] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Differential branching fractions and isospin asymmetries ofB → K ( ∗ ) µ + µ − decays , JHEP (2014) 133, arXiv:1403.8044 ; LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Differential branching fraction and angular analysis of Λ b → Λ µ + µ − decays , JHEP (2015)115, Erratum ibid. (2018) 145, arXiv:1503.07138 ; LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Angularanalysis and differential branching fraction of the decay B s → φ µ + µ − , JHEP (2015) 179, arXiv:1506.08777 ; LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Measurements of the S-wave fraction inB → K + π − µ + µ − decays and the B → K ∗ ( ) µ + µ − differential branching fraction , JHEP (2016) 047, Erratum ibid. (2017) 142, arXiv:1606.04731 .[59] S. Descotes-Genon, A. Khodjamirian, and J. Virto, Light-cone sum rules for B → K π form factors andapplications to rare decays , JHEP (2019) 083, arXiv:1908.02267 .[60] S. Descotes-Genon, Angular distributions and BSM fits for rare B decays , these proceedings.[61] S. Descotes-Genon, T. Hurth, J. Matias, and J. Virto,
Optimizing the basis of B → K ∗ (cid:96) + (cid:96) − observablesin the full kinematic range , JHEP (2013) 137, arXiv:1303.5794 .[62] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Angular analysis of the B → K ∗ µ + µ − decay using fb − ofintegrated luminosity , JHEP (2016) 104, arXiv:1512.04442 ; ATLAS collaboration,M. Aaboud et al. , Angular analysis of B d → K ∗ µ + µ − decays in pp collisions at √ s = TeV with theATLAS detector , JHEP (2018) 047, arXiv:1805.04000 ; CMS collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al. , Measurement of angular parameters from the decay B → K ∗ µ + µ − in proton-proton collisionsat √ s = , Phys. Lett. B781 (2018) 517, arXiv:1710.02846 .[63] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Measurement of CP-averaged observables in the B → K ∗ µ + µ − decay , arXiv:2003.04831 , submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett.[64] Belle collaboration, S. Wehle et al. , Lepton-flavor-dependent angular analysis of B → K ∗ (cid:96) + (cid:96) − , Phys.Rev. Lett. (2016) 111801, arXiv:1612.05014 .[65] M. Algueró, B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin, S. Descotes-Genon, P. Masjuan, J. Matias, and J. Virto, Emerging patterns of New Physics with and without lepton flavour universal contributions , Eur. Phys. J.
C79 (2019) 714, arXiv:1903.09578 .[66] A. K. Alok, A. Dighe, S. Gangal, and D. Kumar,
Continuing search for new physics in b → s µ µ decays:two operators at a time , JHEP (2019) 089, arXiv:1903.09617 .[67] A. Arbey, T. Hurth, F. Mahmoudi, D. M. Santos, and S. Neshatpour, Update on the b → s anomalies ,Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 015045, arXiv:1904.08399 .[68] G. D’Amico, M. Nardecchia, P. Panci, F. Sannino, A. Strumia, R. Torre, and A. Urbano,
Flavouranomalies after the R K ∗ measurement , JHEP (2017) 010, arXiv:1704.05438 .[69] K. Kowalska, D. Kumar, and E. M. Sessolo, Implications for new physics in b → s µ µ transitions afterrecent measurements by Belle and LHCb , Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) 840, arXiv:1903.10932 .[70] HPQCD collaboration, E. Gamiz, C. T. H. Davies, G. P. Lepage, J. Shigemitsu, and M. Wingate,
Neutral B Meson Mixing in Unquenched Lattice QCD , Phys. Rev.
D80 (2009) 014503, arXiv:0902.1815 ; ETM collaboration, N. Carrasco et al. , B-physics from N f = 2 tmQCD: theStandard Model and beyond , JHEP (2014) 016, arXiv:1308.1851 ; Y. Aoki, T. Ishikawa,T. Izubuchi, C. Lehner, and A. Soni, Neutral B meson mixings and B meson decay constants with static onference summary Patrick Koppenburg heavy and domain-wall light quarks , Phys. Rev.
D91 (2015) 114505, arXiv:1406.6192 ; FermilabLattice, MILC collaborations, A. Bazavov et al. , B ( s ) -mixing matrix elements from lattice QCD for theStandard Model and beyond , Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 113016, arXiv:1602.03560 .[71] L. Di Luzio, M. Kirk, A. Lenz, and T. Rauh, ∆ M s theory precision confronts flavour anomalies , JHEP (2019) 009, arXiv:1909.11087 .[72] A. Vicente, Theory status and implications of R K ( ∗ ) , arXiv:2001.04788 , these proceedings.[73] L. Di Luzio and M. Nardecchia, What is the scale of new physics behind the B-flavour anomalies? , Eur.Phys. J.
C77 (2017) 536, arXiv:1706.01868 .[74] S. L. Glashow, D. Guadagnoli, and K. Lane,
Lepton flavor violation in B decays? , Phys. Rev. Lett. (2015) 091801, arXiv:1411.0565 .[75] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , Search for the lepton-flavour violating decays B + → K + µ ± e ∓ , Phys.Rev. Lett. (2019) 231802, arXiv:1909.01010 .[76] BaBar collaboration, J. P. Lees et al. , Search for rare or forbidden decays of the D meson , Phys. Rev.Lett. (2020) 071802, arXiv:1905.00608 .[77] Belle collaboration, A. Abdesselam et al. , Measurement of R ( D ) and R ( D ∗ ) with a semileptonictagging method , arXiv:1904.08794 .[78] Y. Kown, Fighting systematics in charm CPV measurements at Belle II , these proceedings; E. Ganiev,N. Rout, and B. Wach,
Hadronic B decay reconstruction in early Belle II data , arXiv:2001.09482 ,these proceedings.[79] Belle II collaboration, I. Adachi et al. , Search for an invisibly decaying Z (cid:48) boson at Belle II ine + e − → µ + µ − ( e ± µ ∓ ) plus missing energy final states , arXiv:1912.11276 .[80] Z. Kuˇcerová, Recent results in kaon physics , these proceedings; A. Pich,
Rare kaon decays and CPviolation , arXiv:2001.11350 .[81] LHCb collaboration, Expression of Interest for a Phase-II LHCb Upgrade: Opportunities in flavourphysics, and beyond, in the HL-LHC era , CERN-LHCC-2017-003, 2017.[82] LHCb collaboration,
Physics case for an LHCb Upgrade II — Opportunities in flavour physics, andbeyond, in the HL-LHC era , arXiv:1808.08865 .[83] A. Abada et al. , FCC physics opportunities , Eur. Phys. J.
C79 (2019) 474; A. Abada et al. , FCC-ee:The lepton collider , Eur. Phys. J. ST (2019) 261.(2019) 261.