Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 30 references

On the Coulomb corrections in nuclear beta decay

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that Coulomb corrections to nuclear beta decay are fully encoded in unitarity discontinuities, recover the known D parameter, and generate a second T-odd correlation at the same order in the Standard Model.

desk verdict Solid, useful beta-decay phenomenology with a real but patchable gap: the single-cut assertion under the Coulomb correction calculation needs a proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17702 v2 pith:6CPD43HS submitted 2024-12-23 hep-ph

Edoardo Alviani , Adam Falkowski This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords betadecayCoulombcorrectionsT-oddcorrelationsDparametermassivespinorhelicityon-shellamplitudesunitaritycutsmirrortransitions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to put nuclear $\beta$ decay amplitudes on a Lorentz-invariant, little-group-covariant footing valid for any nuclear spin, and to use that framework to compute one-loop Coulomb corrections from unitarity alone. In the Standard Model limit the calculation recovers the established Coulomb contribution to the $D$ parameter, given in Eq. (4.5), and updates its numerical values for several mirror transitions. It also finds that a second T-odd correlation, $\widetilde c_3$, is generated by Coulomb effects at the same order as $D$ for transitions with spin $J \ge 1$, while a third, $\widetilde c_4$, vanishes at that order. Beyond the Standard Model, subleading Coulomb corrections to $D$ from scalar and tensor interactions are derived, with the tensor part being new. The point of the exercise is that $D$ and related coefficients are prime experimental probes of time-reversal violation, so their Standard Model Coulomb background must be known precisely.

What carries the argument

The engine of the paper is the massive spinor-helicity formalism: each massive particle momentum is encoded in two pairs of two-component spinors carrying an $SU(2)$ little-group index, so that an amplitude for any spin $J$ can be written in a manifestly Lorentz-invariant and little-group-covariant form. The $\beta$ decay amplitude is expanded in powers of the momentum transfer $q$, and the nuclear spin information is condensed into the spin vector $S^\mu$. Coulomb corrections are then obtained by unitarity: the discontinuity of the one-loop amplitude equals the two-body phase-space integral of the tree-level $\beta$ decay amplitude times the tree-level electromagnetic scattering amplitude, evaluated with the phase-space parametrization of Appendix B that reduces the cut integrals to polynomial integrals. Spin-vector and leptonic sum rules in Appendix A turn the discontinuity into Lorentz-invariant correlation coefficients.

What would settle it

Amputate the shortcut: compute the complete one-loop photon-exchange amplitude for $\beta$ decay in a standard covariant gauge without cutting any lines, and compare its imaginary part in the physical region with the discontinuity formulas in Eqs. (3.5)--(3.7). If an imaginary part appears that is not accounted for by the final-state cut, or a discontinuity opens across another kinematic variable, the predictions for $D$ and $\widetilde c_3$ are incomplete; the same check can be pushed to two loops to test the assumption's stability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Coulomb corrections to $\beta$ decay are entirely contained in the discontinuity formulas of Eqs. (3.5)--(3.7): at one loop, the only cut that opens in physical kinematics is the final-state one in which a photon is exchanged between the outgoing electron and the daughter nucleus, and unitarity turns that cut into a phase-space integral of tree-level $\beta$ decay and electromagnetic scattering amplitudes, with no loop integration required. In the Standard Model limit this yields the $D$ parameter in Eq. (4.5), which agrees in the parent rest frame with the known results for spin $1/2$ and for arbitrary spin in the earlier literature. The same discontinuities produce a new T-odd correlation, $\widetilde c_3$, at the same order as $D$ whenever the nuclear spin is at least one, with numerical predictions of order $10^{-4}$ for several mirror transitions; $\widetilde c_4$ is zero at that order. For non-standard scalar and tensor interactions, the framework produces subleading Coulomb corrections to $D$ in Eq. (5.6), of which the tensor contributions are new.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that at one-loop order the only intermediate state that can go on shell in $\beta$ decay is the final-state electron plus daughter nucleus with a photon exchanged between them, so no other discontinuity contributes; if another cut exists, the predicted $D$ and $\widetilde c_3$ values would be incomplete.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Standard Model Coulomb contribution to $D$ is expressed in closed Lorentz-invariant form and updated numerically for neutron, $^{17}$F, $^{19}$Ne, $^{23}$Mg, $^{35}$Ar, $^{37}$K, and $^{39}$Ca decays, with values of order $10^{-4}$.
  • For transitions with $J \ge 1$, the T-odd correlation $\widetilde c_3$ is generated by Coulomb corrections at the same order as $D$, while $\widetilde c_4$ is zero at that order in the SM; numerical values for $\widetilde c_3$ are provided for the same mirror transitions.
  • The framework reproduces the known rest-frame results for $D$ (spin $1/2$ and arbitrary spin), providing a consistency check and a clear route to subleading and higher-order corrections.
  • In the presence of non-standard scalar and tensor interactions, the subleading Coulomb corrections to $D$ are derived in Eq. (5.6); the tensor contributions are new, and the overall effect of scalar and tensor Wilson coefficients at their current bounds is at or below $10^{-7}$.
  • Because the discontinuity calculation never performs an explicit loop integral, the same machinery can be extended to higher loops and to other beta transitions, including forbidden decays, as the authors note.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A consequence the authors leave implicit: because $\widetilde c_3$ shares the same Coulomb origin and typical size as the $D$ parameter, future searches for time-reversal violation in $J \ge 1$ nuclei should treat it as an additional Standard Model background; its detectability has not yet been studied.
  • The same cut-based machinery could be applied to other radiative corrections in beta decay, such as electron spectrum distortions or beta-neutrino angular correlations, giving a loop-free route to observables usually computed by direct Feynman integrals.
  • If the formalism is pushed to subsubleading order in the momentum transfer, additional T-odd correlation coefficients could appear; the paper shows the three-index spin tensor cancels at the order studied, but does not rule out new coefficients at higher order.
  • The updated numerical $D$ values rest on currently fitted Wilson coefficients; as those fits improve with new beta decay data, the same closed-form expressions can be re-evaluated without redoing the loop calculation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops a manifestly Lorentz-invariant and little-group-covariant description of nuclear beta decay amplitudes for mixed Fermi–Gamow–Teller allowed transitions of arbitrary nuclear spin J, using the massive spinor-helicity formalism of Ref. [4]. The tree-level amplitude is expanded in powers of the momentum transfer q (Eqs. (2.6)–(2.7)), and one-loop Coulomb corrections are computed by the unitarity method: the discontinuity of the beta decay amplitude is written as a two-body phase-space integral over the product of the tree-level beta decay amplitude and the electron–nucleus electromagnetic amplitude (Eqs. (3.1)–(3.7)). From the Coulomb-corrected amplitude squared the authors extract the T-odd correlations D and c-tilde_3 (and c-tilde_4) in the SM limit (Eqs. (4.5)–(4.6), Table 2), and give new subleading Coulomb contributions to D in the presence of non-standard scalar and tensor interactions (Eq. (5.6)). The SM-limit D parameter is stated to agree in the rest frame with Callan–Treiman and Holstein, and the c-tilde_3 coefficient, generated at the same order as D for J ≥ 1, is a new prediction.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper has two notable achievements. First, the on-shell spinor-helicity framework provides a Lorentz-invariant organizing principle for beta decay amplitudes at arbitrary nuclear spin, which is a genuinely useful tool for systematic higher-order calculations. Second, the Coulomb-correction results are of direct phenomenological relevance: the updated SM values of D and the new c-tilde_3 for mirror transitions in Table 2 are falsifiable predictions for the upcoming MORA/DESIR measurements with 23Mg. The rest-frame agreement with Callan–Treiman and Holstein is a strong internal check of the machinery, and the derivation is parameter-free in the sense that nothing is fitted to the D parameter; the only inputs are the standard external Wilson coefficients C_V, C_A, C_M, so there is no circularity. The main residual weakness is that the genuinely new pieces (c-tilde_3, and the subleading scalar/tensor contributions) have no independent cross-check, so the correctness of the subleading sector rests on internal consistency alone.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3, after Eq. (3.1)] The claim that “at one loop, the only discontinuity appears on the positive u axis for u > u0” is the pivot of the calculation: Eq. (3.1) defines the Coulomb correction as half of that single discontinuity, and Eqs. (3.5)–(3.7) are asserted to contain the complete Coulomb information. The paper does not substantiate the claim beyond “one can verify,” even though the one-loop triangle diagram has three two-particle cut channels. The verification is short and should be written out: in the physical decay region the other channels are below their two-particle thresholds, since s = (p1+p2)^2 = (p_N − p_N′)^2 = 2 m_N (E_e + E_ν) is far below (2 m_N)^2, and t = (p1+p3)^2 = m_N^2 + m_e^2 − 2 m_N E_e < (m_N + m_e)^2 for all physical E_e, while the final-state N′–e pair invariant mass is the only one that reaches (or exceeds, for the physical mass difference) its two-body threshold. Because the unitarity method is the only mechanism by which the Coulomb corrections are computed in this paper, this kinematic uniqueness argument should be stated explicitly rather than left to the reader.
  2. [Sec. 4, Eq. (4.3)] The truncation of the amplitude squared in Eq. (4.3) omits the interference between the subleading tree-level amplitude and the leading Coulomb correction. The kept terms are |M^(0)|^2, 2 Re[M^(0) M-bar^(1)], and 2 Re[M^(0) Σ_{i+j≤1} M-bar^(C(i,j))], but the term 2 Re[M^(1) M-bar^(C(0,0))] is absent. Since M^(1) and the Coulomb pieces M^(C(1,0)) and M^(C(0,1)) are each one power of the recoil expansion above their leading counterparts, the term 2 Re[M^(1) M-bar^(C(0,0))] is of the same nominal order in α and in the 1/m_N expansion as the retained M^(0) × M^(C(1,0)) and M^(0) × M^(C(0,1)) terms. The authors should either demonstrate that this interference does not contribute to D, c-tilde_3, or c-tilde_4 at the claimed order (for example by a symmetry or power-counting argument), or include it in Eqs. (4.5)–(4.6) and in the numerical values of Table 2. As written, the assertion at the end of Section 3 that the discontinuity formulas contain complete information about the Coulomb corrections to all correlation coefficients is not fully supported by Eq. (4.3).
  3. [Sec. 2, Eqs. (2.6)–(2.7) and Sec. 5] The calculation in Section 5 works at fixed tree-level leading and subleading amplitudes for the SM terms, while the non-standard scalar and tensor contributions are truncated differently: Eqs. (5.2)–(5.3) include the leading and subleading S and T amplitudes, but the text (after Eq. (5.3)) explicitly defers “a complete analysis at that order” to future work. This asymmetry is acknowledged in the paper, and I accept it as a deliberate scoping choice; however, the claim in Section 6 that the paper determines “next-to-leading order effects due to scalar and tensor interactions beyond the SM” should carry the same caveat, since the SM subleading amplitude is included in the SM part, whereas the corresponding non-SM subleading operators are not. This is a presentation point, but it affects how a reader interprets Eq. (5.6) as a complete O(1/m_N) result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that “two other T-odd correlation coefficients are generated in the SM at the same order as the D parameter,” but Section 4 (Eq. (4.6)) finds c-tilde_4^C = O(m_N^{-2}) and only c-tilde_3 is generated at the same order as D; the abstract should be rephrased to say one new coefficient.
  2. [Sec. 4, Table 2] The numerical predictions for D and c-tilde_3 are quoted without uncertainties. Since the values inherit errors from the fit to C_i^A (Ref. [29]) and from the magnetic-moment input used for C_i^M, a statement of the resulting precision, or at least of the input uncertainties, is needed to support the claim of updated numerical values.
  3. [Sec. 4, Eq. (4.6)] The SM prediction for c-tilde_3 is new and has no external cross-check, whereas the D parameter was verified against Callan–Treiman and Holstein. An independent check of c-tilde_3 (for example, a direct rest-frame loop calculation for a specific transition) would considerably strengthen the claim, given that this coefficient is one of the paper’s two new physics results.
  4. [Appendix B] The sentence “the discontinuities considered throughout out work” contains a typo and should read “throughout our work.”
  5. [Sec. 3, after Eq. (3.5)] The statement that “the O(m_N^1) terms in Eq. (3.5) … contribute to D only beyond the SM” while “the O(m_N^0) terms … will contribute to D in the SM limit” is not self-evident from the displayed formulas, which mix m_e^2 and (m_N^2 − p1 p3) structures alongside the IR-divergent φ shift; a brief sentence tracing which displayed structures feed into Eq. (4.5) would prevent misreading of the power counting defined in footnote 3.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; Coulomb corrections are derived from unitarity and tree-level amplitudes, and the numerical inputs are external fit parameters rather than the predicted observables.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained: the Coulomb corrections are obtained from the unitarity relation in Eq. (3.1), where the discontinuity is expressed as a phase-space integral over products of the tree-level beta-decay amplitude and the tree-level electromagnetic scattering amplitude. The explicit results in Eqs. (3.5)-(3.7) are then used to extract the T-odd correlation coefficients D and c3 by matching Lorentz structures in the squared amplitude, as stated around Eqs. (4.2)-(4.6). These steps do not presuppose the values of D or c3; they compute them. The numerical values in Table 2 use Wilson coefficients Ci_A, Ci_V, and Ci_M obtained from beta-decay fits and magnetic-moment input, including the authors' own Ref. [29], but that is standard parameter input and is not equivalent to the predicted Coulomb corrections. The agreement of Eq. (4.5) with Callan-Treiman and Holstein in the rest frame is presented as a consistency check, not as an input to the calculation. The only notable caveat is the unproven assertion after Eq. (3.1) that the sole one-loop discontinuity in physical kinematics is the final-state electron-nucleus cut; this is a potential correctness gap, not a circularity, because the subsequent algebra does not secretly assume the D or c3 values. No fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation. Thus the paper receives a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard on-shell amplitude mathematics, a small set of domain assumptions about beta-decay operators and the final-state cut, and three fitted or measured Wilson coefficients. The paper introduces no new entities.

free parameters (3)
  • Ci_V (vector Wilson coefficient) = 0.9857 v^-2 (Table 2)
    Fitted to beta decay data in Ref [29]; universal in isospin limit. Enters the D prediction.
  • Ci_A (axial Wilson coefficient) = e.g., -1.2575 for n, 0.9115 for 19Ne (Table 2)
    Fitted per transition to beta decay data; enters D and tilde c3 predictions.
  • Ci_M (weak magnetism Wilson coefficient) = e.g., 4.6085 for n, 110.9 for 17F (Table 2)
    Computed from measured nuclear magnetic moments using isospin symmetry; enters subleading D.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Massive spinor-helicity formalism of Arkani-Hamed, Huang, Huang correctly represents arbitrary-spin amplitudes.
    Assumed from Ref [4]; used in Section 2 to build nuclear currents.
  • domain assumption Mirror beta-decay transitions with unbroken isospin have m_N = m_N' and operators limited to vector, axial and weak-magnetism at O(q).
    Introduced in Eq. (2.2) and used throughout; restricts validity of results.
  • domain assumption Coulomb corrections to the amplitude are one half of the one-loop discontinuity, and only the final-state electron-nucleus cut contributes at physical kinematics.
    Section 3, Eq. (3.1); the uniqueness of the cut is asserted but not proven.
  • domain assumption Neutrino massless; nuclear momenta small compared to nuclear mass; expansion in q/m_N.
    Power-counting used throughout Sections 3-5.
  • domain assumption Soft-photon IR divergence of the cut integrals is universal and cancels in correlation coefficients.
    Discussed after Eq. (3.5) and in Appendix B.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Coulomb corrections in nuclear beta decay." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6CPD43HS

@misc{pith2026241217702,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Coulomb corrections in nuclear beta decay},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6CPD43HS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17702}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a Lorentz invariant and little group covariant description of beta decay amplitudes relying on on-shell amplitude methods and the spinor variables for massive particles. The framework is employed to calculate Coulomb corrections to the decay amplitude and their contribution to T -odd correlation coefficients, including the D parameter. In the SM limit we recover the known results for the Coulomb contributions to D and update their numerical values. We also calculate new subleading contributions to D in the presence of non-standard scalar and tensor interactions. We also point out that two other T -odd correlation coefficients are generated in the SM at the same order as the D parameter, and provide their numerical values for selected transitions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    Arkani-Hamed, T.-C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang and Y.-t. Huang,Scattering amplitudes for all masses and spins, JHEP 11 (2021) 070 [1709.04891]

    arXiv 2021

  2. [1]

    Fermi,Tentativo di una teoria dell’emissione dei raggi beta, Ric

    E. Fermi,Tentativo di una teoria dell’emissione dei raggi beta, Ric. Sci. 4 (1933) 491. – 18 –

    work page 1933

  3. [2]

    Lee and C.-N

    T.D. Lee and C.-N. Yang,Question of Parity Conservation in Weak Interactions, Phys. Rev. 104 (1956) 254

    work page 1956

  4. [3]

    Holstein,Recoil Effects in Allowed beta Decay: The Elementary Particle Approach, Rev

    B.R. Holstein,Recoil Effects in Allowed beta Decay: The Elementary Particle Approach, Rev. Mod. Phys. 46 (1974) 789

    work page 1974

  5. [5]

    Jackson, S.B

    J.D. Jackson, S.B. Treiman and H.W. Wyld,Possible tests of time reversal invariance in Beta decay, Phys. Rev. 106 (1957) 517

    work page 1957

  6. [6]

    Herczeg,Beta decay beyond the standard model, Prog

    P. Herczeg,Beta decay beyond the standard model, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.46 (2001) 413

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    Complete 1-Loop Calculation of the T-violating D-Parameter in Neutron Decay in the MSSM

    M. Drees and M. Rauch,Complete one loop calculation of the T violating D parameter in neutron decay in the MSSM, Eur. Phys. J. C29 (2003) 573 [hep-ph/0302244]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  8. [8]

    Ng and S

    J. Ng and S. Tulin,D versus d: CP Violation in Beta Decay and Electric Dipole Moments, Phys. Rev. D85 (2012) 033001 [1111.0649]

    arXiv 2012

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    El-Menoufi, M.J

    B.K. El-Menoufi, M.J. Ramsey-Musolf and C.-Y. Seng,Right-Handed Neutrinos and T-Violating, P-Conserving Interactions, Phys. Lett. B765 (2017) 62 [1605.09060]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Ramsey-Musolf and J.C

    M.J. Ramsey-Musolf and J.C. Vasquez,Left-right symmetry and electric dipole moments. A global analysis, Phys. Lett. B815 (2021) 136136 [2012.02799]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Falkowski and A

    A. Falkowski and A. Rodríguez-Sánchez,On the sensitivity of the D parameter to new physics, Eur. Phys. J. C82 (2022) 1134 [2207.02161]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Callan and S.B

    C.G. Callan and S.B. Treiman,Electromagnetic Simulation of T Violation in Beta Decay, Phys. Rev. 162 (1967) 1494

    1967

  5. [13]

    Chen,Electromagnetic simulation of time-reversal violation in mirror spin 3/2 beta decays, Phys

    H.H. Chen,Electromagnetic simulation of time-reversal violation in mirror spin 3/2 beta decays, Phys. Rev. 185 (1969) 2003

    1969

  6. [14]

    Holstein,Tests for t invariance in allowed nuclear beta decay, Phys

    B.R. Holstein,Tests for t invariance in allowed nuclear beta decay, Phys. Rev. C 5 (1972) 1529

    1972

  7. [15]

    Ando, J.A

    S.-i. Ando, J.A. McGovern and T. Sato,The D coefficient in neutron beta decay in effective field theory, Phys. Lett. B677 (2009) 109 [0902.1194]

    2009 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Cirigliano, J

    V. Cirigliano, J. de Vries, L. Hayen, E. Mereghetti and A. Walker-Loud,Pion-induced radiative corrections to neutron beta-decay, 2202.10439

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Chupp et al.,Search for a T-odd, P-even Triple Correlation in Neutron Decay, Phys

    T.E. Chupp et al.,Search for a T-odd, P-even Triple Correlation in Neutron Decay, Phys. Rev. C 86 (2012) 035505 [1205.6588]

    2012 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Hallin, F.P

    A.L. Hallin, F.P. Calaprice, D.W. Macarthur, L.E. Piilonen, M.B. Schneider and D.F. Schreiber,TEST OF TIME REVERSAL SYMMETRY IN THE BETA DECAY OF NE-19, Phys. Rev. Lett.52 (1984) 337

    1984

  11. [19]

    P. Delahaye et al.,The MORA project, in7th International Conference on Trapped Charged Particles and Fundamental Physics (TCP 2018) Takamatsu, Japan, September 30-October 5, 2018, 2018 [1812.02970]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Goyal,Detection of beta decay in laser oriented trapped radioactive isotopes for the MORA project, Ph.D

    N. Goyal,Detection of beta decay in laser oriented trapped radioactive isotopes for the MORA project, Ph.D. thesis, Grand Accélérateur National d’Ions Lourds, France, GANIL, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Tschopp,Search for CP violation with MORA : commissioning of the setups and first – 19 – experiments, Ph.D

    S.D. Tschopp,Search for CP violation with MORA : commissioning of the setups and first – 19 – experiments, Ph.D. thesis, Laboratoire de physique corpusculaire de Caen, France, Caen U., 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Dreiner, H.E

    H.K. Dreiner, H.E. Haber and S.P. Martin,Two-component spinor techniques and Feynman rules for quantum field theory and supersymmetry, Phys.Rept. 494 (2010) 1 [0812.1594]

    2010 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Aoude, K

    R. Aoude, K. Haddad and A. Helset,On-shell heavy particle effective theories, JHEP 05 (2020) 051 [2001.09164]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Cangemi, M

    L. Cangemi, M. Chiodaroli, H. Johansson, A. Ochirov, P. Pichini and E. Skvortsov,From higher-spin gauge interactions to Compton amplitudes for root-Kerr, JHEP 09 (2024) 196 [2311.14668]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Holstein and A

    B.R. Holstein and A. Ross,Spin Effects in Long Range Gravitational Scattering, 0802.0716

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Jackson, S.B

    J.D. Jackson, S.B. Treiman and H.W. Wyld,Coulomb corrections in allowed beta transitions, Nucl. Phys. 4 (1957) 206

    1957

  19. [27]

    Falkowski, M

    A. Falkowski, M. González-Alonso, A. Palavrić and A. Rodríguez-Sánchez,Constraints on subleading interactions in beta decay Lagrangian, 2112.07688

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Herczeg and I.B

    P. Herczeg and I.B. Khriplovich,Time reversal violation in Beta decay in the standard model, Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 80

    1997

  21. [29]

    Falkowski, M

    A. Falkowski, M. González-Alonso and O. Naviliat-Cuncic,Comprehensive analysis of beta decays within and beyond the Standard Model, JHEP 04 (2021) 126 [2010.13797]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    C.-Y. Seng, A. Glick-Magid and V. Cirigliano,Intruding the sealed land: Unique forbidden beta decays at zero momentum transfer, 2409.18115. – 20 –

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.