{"id":"da758695-bafd-4733-ab3b-d6d87a6bc443","arxiv_id":"hep-ph/0406029","paper_version":1,"verdict":"ACCEPT","confidence":"MODERATE","novelty_score":2.0,"correctness_risk":"low","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":3,"one_line_summary":"A systematic 2004 compilation of indirect experimental upper bounds on R-parity-violating supersymmetric couplings, organized by bilinear versus trilinear operators and by the physical process that constrains each one.","lead":"This review compiles the experimental upper bounds on the couplings that would break R parity in supersymmetric models, drawing on low- and intermediate-energy tests of the Standard Model. It is a reference catalogue for anyone asking how badly R parity could be broken without contradicting existing data.","discovery_kind":"unclear","skeptic_critique":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","headline":"The headline order-of-magnitude claim survives, but several catalogue entries (Eqs. 24, 25, 28) are derived in the m̃ >> m_W, m_t limit and then quoted at the 100 GeV reference mass, where that limit does not hold.","rationale":"The paper is a 2004 review whose load-bearing assertion is a hedged order-of-magnitude statement about the size of RPV couplings implied by existing data. The reader's weakest_assumption (single-coupling dominance plus basis dependence) is a real feature of the catalogue, but the paper states it plainly in §1.3–1.4 and the claim is phrased conditionally on it, so attacking it does not land on the claim as written. The reader's inference that the bounds 'remove the naturalness argument for exact R parity' is somewhat stronger than the paper's own text: the classic proton-decay naturalness argument turns on the product of a baryon-number-violating and a lepton-number-violating coupling being far below 10^-1, not on individual couplings being below unity, and the paper does not claim otherwise. The one concern I can raise that is concrete, technical, and not fully acknowledged is the uniform application of the 100 GeV reference mass to bounds derived in the m̃ >> m_W, m_t limit (Eqs. 24, 25, 28). That is a correctness risk on individual catalogue entries, not on the headline claim, and it does not move the verdict. The paper's other candid limitations — 1998 PDG vintage (§1.5), the invalidity of earlier EDM bounds in Refs. [155, 173], the basis ambiguity — are acknowledged rather than buried, and the standard formulas I can check (Eqs. 3, 33, 40, 41) follow from the stated assumptions. I therefore recommend UNCHANGED, with the mass-limit consistency check as the one verification step worth running before the catalogue numbers are reused verbatim.","tokens_in":61111,"tokens_out":3874,"duration_ms":72701,"concrete_test":"Recompute one heavy-limit-derived entry — for example the K0–K̄0 λ''332λ''331 bound in Eq. 24, or the neutron-EDM bound ℑ(λ''213λ''⋆232) in Eq. 28 — at m̃ = 100 GeV without taking m̃ >> m_t, retaining the full top-mass dependence in the box/penguin amplitude. If the resulting bound shifts by more than a factor of roughly three, the 100 GeV entries in that class are not self-consistent with their derivation and should be quoted with an explicit validity caveat.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"The central claim is the §1.3 statement that bounds are typically [λ, λ', λ''] < [O(10^-1) – O(10^-2)] × (m̃/100 GeV), with the linear mass scaling 'strictly holding in tree level type mechanisms.' The reader's weakest_assumption — single-coupling dominance and its basis dependence — is explicitly acknowledged in §1.3 and §1.4 and is built into the claim's own wording ('bounds derived under the single coupling constant dominance hypothesis'), so it does not land on the claim as stated. The narrower, less-acknowledged soft spot is the reference-mass convention. Several of the strongest entries are derived in an explicit heavy-sfermion limit: §3.3.1 states the K–K̄ effective Lagrangian is valid 'in the limit of large scalar superpartners masses, m_q >> m_W, m_q >> m_t,' and Eqs. 24–25 and the neutron-EDM bound in Eq. 28 inherit that limit. Yet the catalogue quotes these at m̃ = 100 GeV, where m̃ ≈ m_t and the decoupling/logarithmic approximations used to obtain the coefficients are marginal. The paper acknowledges in §1.3 that scaling is non-uniform between tree and loop mechanisms, but does not flag that specific entries are evaluated outside the domain of their derivation. This affects individual numbers by factors of a few, not the order-of-magnitude headline, so it is a correctness risk on the catalogue rather than on the central claim.","agreement_with_reader":"partial"},"referee_report":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","summary":"This is a systematic review of the indirect phenomenological constraints on R-parity-violating couplings in supersymmetric models, organized into six parts: bilinear and spontaneously broken R parity (§2), constraints from precision electroweak and SM tests (§3), constraints from low- and intermediate-energy scattering and rare decays (§4), renormalization-group evolution (§5), cosmology and astrophysics (§6), and a synthesis selecting the strongest bound per coupling (§7). The load-bearing claim is stated in §1.3: under the single-coupling-dominance hypothesis, the trilinear couplings are typically bounded by [λ, λ', λ''] < [O(10^-1) – O(10^-2)] × (m̃/100 GeV), with the linear mass scaling holding strictly for tree-level mechanisms. The review assembles the individual bounds from charged- and neutral-current universality, Z-pole observables, APV, muon g−2, CP violation and EDMs, meson mixing and rare decays, neutrino masses and moments, and astrophysical/cosmological arguments, and it adds one piece of original analysis of its own in §3.1.2, where the electroweak fit relations are used to extract λ12k.","tokens_in":61430,"tokens_out":4996,"duration_ms":91854,"significance":"If the headline scaling holds, no RPV coupling can be order unity with superpartners at the electroweak scale, which removes the naturalness motivation for exact R parity and confines any broken-R-parity model to a constrained corner of parameter space. The review's value lies in the breadth and internal cross-linking of the catalogue, in the explicit statement of the single-coupling-dominance hypothesis and its basis dependence (§1.3, §1.4), and in the basis-independent treatment of bilinear parameters via the alignment condition μα ∝ vα (§2.2.1). It also ships falsifiable predictions that can be tested independently of the catalogue: the transverse muon polarization P_T(K_μ2γ) < 10^-2 (§3.3.2), the neutrino transition moment μ_{νeνμ} ≈ (10^-11 – 10^-10) μ_B (§3.4.2), and the phase difference Δφ ≃ O(1) between B_d → φK_S and B_d → J/ψK_S (§3.3.4). The original electroweak-fit analysis in §3.1.2, which converts the m_W and sin²θ_W inputs into a bound on λ12k, is a genuine contribution rather than a compilation entry.","major_comments":[{"comment":"The K–K̄ effective Lagrangian in §3.3.1 is explicitly stated to hold 'in the limit of large scalar superpartners masses, m̃_q >> m_W, m̃_q >> m_t,' and Eqs. (24), (25) and the neutron-EDM bound in Eq. (28) inherit that limit through their logarithmic and m_ui/m_W-enhanced coefficients. The catalogue then quotes these entries at the reference mass m̃ = 100 GeV, where m̃ ≈ m_t and the decoupling approximation used to obtain the coefficients is marginal. Section 1.3 acknowledges that scaling is non-uniform between tree-level and loop-level mechanisms, but it does not flag that specific entries are evaluated outside the domain of their derivation. I would ask the authors to mark, for each entry derived in a heavy-sfermion limit, the mass range in which the quoted coefficient is valid, or to attach an estimated error band. This affects individual numbers by factors of a few and does not threaten the order-of-magnitude headline, but it is a correctness risk on the catalogue as a reference document.","section":"§3.3.1, Eqs. (24), (25), (28)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The review states in §1.5 that it relies on the 1998 Review of Particle Physics as its source of experimental data and that the 2000 and later compilations 'have been used very scarcely.' For the electroweak entries this matters quantitatively rather than cosmetically: in §3.1.2 the authors themselves observe that the error on m_W 'dominates by far all the other' uncertainties in the λ12k extraction, and the inputs quoted there (m_W = 80.405 ± 0.089 GeV, sin²θ_W(m_Z)|MS = 0.23124 ± 0.00017, Δr = 0.0349 ± 0.0019) are pre-2000 values. Since the bound scales with the m_W error, the quoted |λ12k| < 0.038 ẽ_R and < 0.046 ẽ_R should be accompanied by an explicit statement of how they move under the then-current electroweak fit, or by a caveat that the numerical entries in the catalogue are anchored to the 1998 data set. Relatedly, the sentence in §3.1.2 that the off-shell scheme comparison 'leads to a negative value for |λ12k|², therefore ruling out the coupling constant λ12k' should be rephrased: a negative best-fit value for a positive-definite quantity means the data prefer the SM and yield an upper bound, not that the coupling is excluded.","section":"§1.5 and §3.1.2","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The second and third bullet entries of Eq. (24) quote bounds on the same coupling product λ''332 λ''⋆331, but with different mass powers (linear in m̃_q versus quadratic in m̃_q), different inequality types (a strict upper bound versus an approximate equality), and different numerical coefficients (0.3 × 10^-4 versus 0.71 × 10^-3). As printed, a reader cannot tell which of the two is the operative bound at a given m̃_q, nor whether the two are meant to correspond to distinct diagrams (mixed scalar–gauge versus pure scalar exchange) that happen to share the same coupling product. The accompanying text assigns the first two entries to charm and top exchange in the mixed case and the third to pure scalar top exchange, but the labelling is not carried into the bullets themselves. Please disambiguate the three entries explicitly, for instance by labelling each with its diagram class and its mass-scaling regime.","section":"Eq. (24)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"The abstract describes the review as surveying 'the direct experimental constraints' on the RPV couplings, whereas §1.3 is titled 'Indirect bounds on RPV coupling constants' and the body consistently treats the bounds as indirect, mediated by off-shell superpartner exchange. The two descriptions should be made consistent, since the distinction is precisely what determines the interpretation of the catalogue.","section":"Abstract vs. §1.3","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The title page carries the date 'October 30, 2018' while the content, the data sources and the arXiv identifier are from 2004. This appears to be a running date stamp that was not frozen at submission and should be corrected.","section":"Title page","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"In the third term of Eq. (3), the coupling product is written λ_ijk λ*_{i'jk'} while the fermion bilinear carries the indices k and k' on the right-chirality electron fields; the free index structure does not appear to match the stated contraction. Please check the index assignment.","section":"Eq. (3)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The bound quoted as 'μ^e_μ ≡ μ1μ < 1150' is garbled in the typesetting and cannot be read as a numerical constraint. Please restore the intended expression and its units.","section":"§2.2.1","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The exclusion of high-energy collider tests is stated openly ('Due to lack of space, we have left aside the discussion of high energy colliders tests'), which is fair, but the title and abstract promise a survey of phenomenological constraints without that qualification. A sentence in the abstract or introduction noting the omission would prevent the review from being read as complete on the LSP-instability signatures, which are the primary discovery channel for broken R parity.","section":"§1.5","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The statement that the single-coupling bounds inferred in Refs. [155] and [173] 'are not valid ones, owing to an inappropriate interpretation of the space-time structure of interactions in applying the Feynman graph rules' is a strong claim about published work. The chirality-selection-rule argument that follows does support it, but a short diagram-level demonstration of which vertex fails in which of the cited calculations would make the refutation verifiable rather than assertive.","section":"§3.3.3","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The left-hand sides of Eq. (16) are written as products such as A_e A_e and A_e A_μ, using the same symbol A for the asymmetry and for its factorized pieces, while the right-hand sides give 1/4 minus a correction. The notation would be clearer if the asymmetry and its per-fermion factors were distinguished, as they are in the surrounding text.","section":"Eq. (16)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null}],"recommendation":"minor_revision"},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","letter":"This is Chemtob's 2004 survey of indirect bounds on R-parity-violating couplings, and the honest summary is that it is a well-organized catalogue rather than a source of new results. It does the catalogue job well: 48 couplings sorted against the processes that constrain them, the bilinear/spontaneous-breaking option cleanly separated from the trilinear one, and the closing sections on RGE running and cosmology give the reader a place to start on questions the bound tables do not answer. The four-way split into hadron flavor, lepton flavor, lepton number and baryon number is the right organizing principle and I have used it. The effective Lagrangians in Eqs. 3, 41 and 42 and the one-loop neutrino mass formula in Eq. 33 are standard and correctly assembled. The author is also candid about the earlier EDM bounds in Refs. [155, 173] being invalid, which is the right way to handle it. The genuinely new content is thin: a corrected CKM unitarity formula in §3.1.2 that restores the quadratic coupling products dropped by Ledroit and Sajot, and updated top-mass entries in the epsilon and neutron-EDM estimates. That is worth having but it is not a review's reason for existing. On soft spots: the stress-test note lands. Several of the strongest entries — Eqs. 24, 25 and the neutron EDM bound in Eq. 28 — are derived explicitly in the m_squark >> m_W, m_t limit and then quoted at the 100 GeV reference mass, where that limit is marginal. The author flags in §1.3 that scaling differs between tree and loop mechanisms but does not flag that specific entries sit outside their derivation's domain. That is a correctness risk on individual numbers, not on the headline order-of-magnitude claim, which survives. The single-coupling-dominance worry is already acknowledged in §1.3 and §1.4, so I would not press it as a discovery. The 1998 PDG vintage is stated in §1.5 and is a product of its time. Who should read it: anyone entering RPV phenomenology who needs the map, and anyone writing a bound table who wants a checklist. Do not copy the numbers without going back to the cited sources — several entries are garbled in the text as presented. This deserves a referee, mainly to check the catalogue entries against their sources and to force the heavy-sfermion-limit issue into the open.","headline":"A useful structural map of RPV bounds, with a small amount of new material and a reference-mass convention that papers over where several entries were actually derived.","tokens_in":62139,"tokens_out":827,"duration_ms":16354},"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":["11.30.Pb","12.60.Jv"],"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","headline":"Existing low-energy data already push every R-parity-violating coupling below about 0.1 at 100 GeV superpartner masses, so exact R parity loses its naturalness argument.","keywords":["R-parity violation","supersymmetry phenomenology","trilinear RPV couplings","bilinear R-parity violation","spontaneous R-parity breaking","neutrinoless double beta decay","neutral meson mixing","atomic parity violation"],"falsifier":"A measured rare decay, mixing parameter, or precision observable that requires an order-unity R-parity-violating coupling with 100 GeV sfermions, for instance an $O(1)$ $lambda'_{131}$ implied by $K_L to e^+ e^-$, or a demonstrated two-coupling cancellation that satisfies all existing data while violating the quoted quadratic bounds.","tokens_in":62346,"feed_emoji":"⚛️","tokens_out":3881,"duration_ms":71893,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"Supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model usually assume an exact R parity, a discrete symmetry that forbids renormalizable couplings letting quarks and leptons interact with their scalar superpartners. Chemtob asks what happens if that symmetry is only approximate, and answers by cataloguing, process by process, the indirect limits that low- and intermediate-energy experiments already place on the 48 possible R-parity-violating couplings. The headline number is that, with superpartners at 100 GeV, essentially every coupling is pushed below $O(10^{-1})$ to $O(10^{-2})$ times $(m/100~GeV)$, with the linear mass scaling holding for tree-level mechanisms. If that is right, no R-parity-violating coupling can be of order unity at the electroweak scale, so the familiar naturalness argument for exact R parity loses its force and any broken-R-parity model is squeezed into a narrow corner of parameter space.","feed_headline":"R-parity breaking is already pinned below 0.1 at 100 GeV","feed_subtitle":"A survey of low-energy data says no R-parity-violating coupling can be order unity at electroweak-scale superpartner masses.","key_machinery":"The machinery that carries the argument is the effective four-fermion Lagrangian obtained by integrating out a single sfermion, whose coefficients scale as $lambda^2/m_{tilde f}^2$, together with the single-coupling-dominance hypothesis: each bound is derived by switching on one R-parity-violating coupling at a time and setting the rest to zero, with all superpartner masses fixed at a reference 100 GeV. A ubiquitous technical ingredient is the redefinition of the Fermi constant by sfermion exchange, $G_F to G_F(1 + r_{12k}(tilde e_{kR}))$ with $r_{ijk} = (m_W^2/g_2^2 m_{tilde e_k}^2)|lambda_{ijk}|^2$, which propagates into every charged- and neutral-current observable and makes the bounds on $lambda_{12k}$ from muon decay, CKM unitarity, and atomic parity violation correlated rather than independent.","core_discovery":"The paper's central claim is a quantitative one: the existing body of precision, rare-decay, mixing, neutrino and cosmological data is already sufficient to bound the R-parity-violating Yukawa couplings to a characteristic size of order $10^{-1}$ to $10^{-2}$ for 100 GeV superpartners, with the bound scaling linearly with the superpartner mass in tree-level processes. Chemtob builds this claim by surveying, in a single systematic framework, three families of constraints: the bilinear and spontaneously broken options (where sneutrino vacuum expectation values, majoron emission from stars, and the Z invisible width do the work), the trilinear couplings $lambda$, $lambda'$, $lambda''$ as tested by charged- and neutral-current universality, atomic parity violation, neutral meson mixing, rare leptonic and semileptonic decays, and neutrino masses, and finally the renormalization-group and cosmological/astrophysical constraints. A secondary but load-bearing observation is that bounds on products of two couplings are generally stronger than the product of the corresponding single-coupling bounds, so flavour-changing processes such as $K$-$bar K$ and $B$-$bar B$ mixing constrain pairs of couplings at the $10^{-8}$ to $10^{-9}$ level, and some individual entries are far tighter still, notably $|lambda'_{333}| < 6 times 10^{-6}$ from the cosmological limit on the sum of light neutrino masses.","pith_inferences":["The one-at-a-time table is structurally weaker than a global fit: because two non-zero couplings can cancel in an observable, the interesting question is which combinations of the 48 parameters survive jointly, and a likelihood over the full parameter space would say more than the per-coupling entries.","Because every bound scales with the sfermion mass, a discovery of multi-TeV superpartners would relax the entire catalogue proportionally, so these constraints are better read as a joint probe of the supersymmetry scale and R parity than as a verdict on R parity alone.","The basis dependence the author flags in the introduction means bounds quoted in the mass basis and in the gauge basis are not directly comparable; a future measurement interpreted in one basis should be re-expressed in the other before it is used to exclude a model.","The neutrino-mass entry, many orders tighter than the generic $10^{-1}$, is the most fragile item in the table: it inherits its strength from a cosmological input, so it moves with that input rather than with any laboratory measurement."],"forward_implications":["Exact R parity stops being justifiable on naturalness grounds: if every coupling must sit below roughly 0.1 at 100 GeV, an approximate symmetry suppresses proton decay and flavour violation as effectively as an exact one.","Broken R parity survives as a neutrino-mass mechanism only in narrow windows, since the cosmological sum-of-masses limit forces $|lambda'_{333}| < 6 times 10^{-6}$ and comparable entries, requiring the soft chirality-mixing squark terms to be correspondingly tuned.","The lightest supersymmetric particle decays, the defining signature of broken R parity, are suppressed in the surviving parameter regions, so prompt-LSP-decay searches at colliders probe mostly the already-excluded corner.","Flavour-changing explanations of B-meson decay anomalies must live at the edge of the quadratic bounds, since $K$-$bar K$ and $B$-$bar B$ mixing constrain the relevant coupling products to $10^{-8}$ to $10^{-9}$.","Any relaxation of the bounds is proportional to the superpartner mass, so the tightness of the catalogue is itself a statement about where supersymmetry must sit, not only about R parity."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"Barger et al. supply the original tree-level comparison with precision electroweak data and the Fermi-constant redefinition that underlies most single-coupling bounds in Sections 3 and 4.","marker":"[33]"},{"why":"Ledroit and Sajot provide the updated fits to charged- and neutral-current, Z-pole and atomic parity violation data from which many of the quoted numerical bounds are read off.","marker":"[111]"},{"why":"Hall and Suzuki supply the bilinear R-parity-violation framework with generation-universal soft breaking and the sneutrino-VEV neutrino mass mechanism used in Section 2.","marker":"[24]"},{"why":"Ross and Valle supply the spontaneous breaking scenario driven by a finite tau-sneutrino vacuum expectation value, the template for the majoron and stellar-cooling constraints.","marker":"[26]"},{"why":"Choudhury and Roy supply the effective Lagrangian and the $K_L, K_S to e^+ e^-$ analysis from which the quadratic coupling-product bounds in Section 4.1 are derived.","marker":"[252]"},{"why":"Barbieri and Masiero supply the $lambda''$ box and penguin mechanism for $epsilon$ and $epsilon'$ and the neutron electric dipole moment, the basis for the CP-violation bounds in Section 3.3.","marker":"[30]"},{"why":"Allanach et al. supply the updated cosmological neutrino-mass limit that yields the tightest single bound quoted, $|lambda'_{333}| < 6 times 10^{-6}$.","marker":"[97]"},{"why":"Agashe and Graesser supply the single-coupling-dominance bounds from $K$-$bar K$, $D$-$bar D$ and $B$-$bar B$ mixing that survive without invoking a second coupling.","marker":"[258]"},{"why":"Abel et al. supply the chirality-selection argument that suppresses one-loop electric dipole moments and the two-loop bounds on quartic coupling products quoted in Section 3.3.3.","marker":"[175]"}],"fun_headline_variants":["R-parity-violating couplings capped near 10^-1 at 100 GeV","Survey bounds R-parity violation to 10^-1–10^-2 at 100 GeV","Flavor data push R-parity-violating coupling products to 10^-8","Cosmology tightens one R-parity coupling below 6x10^-6","R-parity breaking squeezed to 10^-1–10^-2 at 100 GeV"],"cache_read_input_tokens":0,"weakest_assumption_plain":"Every bound in the catalogue assumes that one R-parity-violating coupling dominates at a time, with all superpartner masses fixed at 100 GeV and the couplings written in a chosen field basis, so a pair of non-zero couplings that cancels in an observable would evade the quoted limits entirely.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["R-parity-violating couplings capped near 10^-1 at 100 GeV","Survey bounds R-parity violation to 10^-1–10^-2 at 100 GeV","Flavor data push R-parity-violating coupling products to 10^-8","Cosmology tightens one R-parity coupling below 6x10^-6","R-parity breaking squeezed to 10^-1–10^-2 at 100 GeV"]},"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","effort":"low","attempts":1,"cost_usd":0.0,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":1543,"prompt_tokens":1019,"completion_tokens":524,"prompt_tokens_details":null,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":425}},"tokens_in":1019,"tokens_out":524,"duration_ms":9645,"image_pages":[],"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_budget":50,"reasoning_tokens":425,"transport_provider":"selfhosted","cache_read_input_tokens":0,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-11-13T08:41:39.097322+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash"},"pipeline_version":"pith-pipeline@v1.5.0-archive-selfhost","input_kind":null,"input_chars":null,"input_total_chars":null,"passes_missing":null,"published_standing":null,"published_confidence":null,"objection_audit":null,"run_record":null,"basis":{"kind":"not_recorded","source":null,"chars_given":null,"chars_total":null},"receipt":null,"falsifier":"A measured rare decay, mixing parameter, or precision observable that requires an order-unity R-parity-violating coupling with 100 GeV sfermions, for instance an $O(1)$ $lambda'_{131}$ implied by $K_L to e^+ e^-$, or a demonstrated two-coupling cancellation that satisfies all existing data while violating the quoted quadratic bounds.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":"Phys. Rev. D40, 2987","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Barger et al. supply the original tree-level comparison with precision electroweak data and the Fermi-constant redefinition that underlies most single-coupling bounds in Sections 3 and 4."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Ledroit and Sajot provide the updated fits to charged- and neutral-current, Z-pole and atomic parity violation data from which many of the quoted numerical bounds are read off."},{"cited_title":"Nucl. Phys. B231, 419","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Hall and Suzuki supply the bilinear R-parity-violation framework with generation-universal soft breaking and the sneutrino-VEV neutrino mass mechanism used in Section 2."},{"cited_title":"Phys. Lett. B151, 375","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Ross and Valle supply the spontaneous breaking scenario driven by a finite tau-sneutrino vacuum expectation value, the template for the majoron and stellar-cooling constraints."},{"cited_title":"Phys. Lett. B378, 153","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Choudhury and Roy supply the effective Lagrangian and the $K_L, K_S to e^+ e^-$ analysis from which the quadratic coupling-product bounds in Section 4.1 are derived."},{"cited_title":"Nucl. Phys. B267, 679","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Barbieri and Masiero supply the $lambda''$ box and penguin mechanism for $epsilon$ and $epsilon'$ and the neutron electric dipole moment, the basis for the CP-violation bounds in Section 3.3."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Allanach et al. supply the updated cosmological neutrino-mass limit that yields the tightest single bound quoted, $|lambda'_{333}| < 6 times 10^{-6}$."},{"cited_title":"Phys. Rev. D54, 4445","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Agashe and Graesser supply the single-coupling-dominance bounds from $K$-$bar K$, $D$-$bar D$ and $B$-$bar B$ mixing that survive without invoking a second coupling."},{"cited_title":"JHEP 0005, 013","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Abel et al. supply the chirality-selection argument that suppresses one-loop electric dipole moments and the two-loop bounds on quartic coupling products quoted in Section 3.3.3."}],"lane_accuracy":{"status":"not yet measured","lane":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","input_kind":null},"url":"https://pith.science/accuracy"},"review_version":1}