arxiv: 2605.08861 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-09 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: no theorem link

B anomalies and the tauphilic leptoquark model

Jong-Phil Lee

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 01:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph

keywords leptoquarksB anomaliesR(D) anomaliesBs mixingWilson coefficientsthird generation leptonsscalar leptoquarksneutrino branching ratios

0 comments

The pith

Three scalar leptoquarks coupling only to third-generation leptons explain multiple B anomalies while satisfying Bs mixing bounds.

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

The paper proposes a model with three scalar leptoquarks S1, ~R2, and S3 that couple exclusively to third-generation leptons and quarks. S1 generates the necessary contributions to resolve the R(D(*)) ratios, ~R2 supplies right-handed neutrino operators to match the measured B to K(*) nu nu branching ratio, and S3 supplies the mixing term required to keep Delta m_Bs within experimental limits. The resulting operator pattern favors dominant positive scalar left-handed coefficients, subdominant negative vector left-handed coefficients, and a lepton-flavor universality violating C9 approximately equal to +1, with all masses below roughly 3 TeV.

Core claim

The combination of the singlet S1, the doublet ~R2, and the triplet S3, together with the S1-S3 mixing term, simultaneously accounts for the R(D(*)) anomalies and the B to K(*) nu nu rates while respecting the Delta m_Bs constraint, producing dominant C_SL >0, subdominant C_VL <0, and C9^LQ approx +1.

What carries the argument

The mixing term between the scalar singlet S1 and triplet S3, which supplies the additional contribution needed to satisfy the Bs mixing constraint while preserving third-generation-only couplings.

If this is right

The model requires dominant positive scalar left-handed contributions and subdominant negative vector left-handed contributions to the B anomalies.
A lepton-flavor universality violating C9^LQ coefficient of approximately +1 emerges naturally from the leptoquark exchanges.
The mass hierarchy satisfies M_S1 approximately equal to M_~R2, both lighter than M_S3 which remains below 3 TeV.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Searches at the LHC and proposed future hadron colliders can directly probe the predicted mass range through tau-plus-bottom final states.
The strict third-generation coupling pattern may connect to mechanisms for neutrino mass generation or other rare processes not examined in the present analysis.
Varying the S1-S3 mixing angle offers a handle for fitting additional flavor observables in extensions of the model.

Load-bearing premise

The mixing between S1 and S3 can be introduced without generating extra unwanted operators or violating other experimental bounds while keeping all couplings exclusive to the third generation.

What would settle it

Direct observation of any of the three leptoquarks with mass above 3 TeV, or precision measurements showing the opposite sign pattern in the Wilson coefficients, would rule out the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.08861 by Jong-Phil Lee.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: plots allowed regions of various couplings. As mentioned before y23y33 can be treated as a single coupling in our analysis. Also for x L 23 and x L 33 or z23 and z33, products of x L 23x L 33 and z23z33 play important roles to describe the Wilson coefficients. They correspond to the fermionic coupling coefficients Aj of [65]. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Allowed regions at the 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Allowed regions at the 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Allowed regions at the 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Allowed regions at the 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Allowed regions at the 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We suggest three scalar leptoquarks, $S_1$, ${\tilde R}_2$, and $S_3$ which couple exclusively to the 3rd generation of leptons to explain the $B$ anomalies. The scalar singlet $S_1$ can explain $R(D^{(*)})$, while the doublet ${\tilde R}_2$ is needed to fit the branching ratio ${\rm Br}(B\to K^{(*)}\nu{\bar\nu})$ via the right-handed Wilson coefficients $C_R^\nu$. A strong constraint from $\Delta m_{B_s}$ requires triplet $S_3$ where the mixing term between $S_1$ and $S_3$ is important. Our analysis suggests subdominant $C_{V_L}<0$ and dominant $C_{S_L} >0$ and lepton-flavor universality violating $C_9^{\rm LQ} \approx +1$. The masses are expected to be $M_{S_1}\sim M_{{\tilde R}_2} < M_{S_3} \lesssim 3$ TeV, which can be probed in future colliders.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Incremental three-leptoquark model for B anomalies that relies on unexamined S1-S3 mixing effects.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this is an incremental three-leptoquark model for the B anomalies, with S1, ~R2, and S3 all restricted to third-generation leptons, and mixing between S1 and S3 used to satisfy the Delta m_Bs constraint. The paper does a good job assigning distinct tasks to each leptoquark and deriving a mass hierarchy that stays below 3 TeV. It also identifies the needed Wilson coefficient pattern: subdominant negative C_VL, positive dominant C_SL, and C9 around +1 from the leptoquarks. The soft spot is the mixing. Because S1 and S3 transform differently under SU(2)_L, diagonalizing their mass matrix mixes their Yukawa couplings. This could easily produce extra Delta F=2 terms or small couplings to muons and electrons unless the original couplings are tuned in a particular way. The abstract does not show the explicit calculation after mixing, so that part of the claim is not yet solid. The analysis selects parameters to reproduce the anomalies and the mass bound, which makes the quoted coefficients more like fitted values than pure predictions. This is not a fatal issue but reduces the novelty. Specialists in B physics and leptoquark searches would find this worth reading for the concrete mass range and the emphasis on right-handed neutrino contributions. It is coherent enough to deserve a serious referee, who can check the mixing details and ask for a full parameter scan. I recommend sending it for peer review.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes three scalar leptoquarks (S1, ~R2, S3) with exclusive third-generation lepton couplings to explain the B anomalies: S1 accounts for R(D(*)), ~R2 fits Br(B→K(*)νν̄) via C_R^ν, and S3 with a mixing term to S1 satisfies the Δm_Bs constraint. The analysis yields subdominant C_VL < 0, dominant C_SL > 0, C9^LQ ≈ +1, and masses M_S1 ∼ M_~R2 < M_S3 ≲ 3 TeV.

Significance. If the central construction holds, the model supplies a concrete tauphilic leptoquark realization that simultaneously addresses multiple B anomalies while remaining testable at future colliders. The explicit use of S1–S3 mixing to evade the Δm_Bs bound is a distinctive feature, though its consistency with the tauphilic assumption must be demonstrated.

major comments (2)

[Model Lagrangian and mixing analysis] The section discussing the S1–S3 mixing term and the Δm_Bs constraint: because S1 and S3 transform differently under SU(2)_L, their Yukawa couplings to quarks and leptons are structurally distinct; after mass-matrix diagonalization the physical eigenstates acquire linear combinations of the original couplings. The manuscript must supply the explicit post-mixing effective Lagrangian (or at minimum the resulting Wilson-coefficient shifts) to confirm that no additional ΔF=2 operators, modifications to C_SL/C_VL, or non-zero couplings to lighter leptons are generated.
[Numerical analysis and results] The paragraph presenting the Wilson-coefficient results (C_VL, C_SL, C9^LQ): these values are stated as outcomes of the analysis, yet the parameter choices (masses and mixing angle) are selected to reproduce the input anomalies and the Δm_Bs bound. The manuscript should separate input observables from derived predictions and provide the χ² or likelihood surface to quantify the circularity burden.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract uses the symbol ~R2 without defining it as the scalar doublet; a brief parenthetical clarification would improve readability.
[Phenomenological results] The mass upper bound M_S3 ≲ 3 TeV is quoted without an accompanying plot or table showing the dependence on the mixing parameter; adding such a figure would strengthen the collider-prospect claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate the suggested improvements for clarity and rigor.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The section discussing the S1–S3 mixing term and the Δm_Bs constraint: because S1 and S3 transform differently under SU(2)_L, their Yukawa couplings to quarks and leptons are structurally distinct; after mass-matrix diagonalization the physical eigenstates acquire linear combinations of the original couplings. The manuscript must supply the explicit post-mixing effective Lagrangian (or at minimum the resulting Wilson-coefficient shifts) to confirm that no additional ΔF=2 operators, modifications to C_SL/C_VL, or non-zero couplings to lighter leptons are generated.

Authors: We agree that an explicit treatment of the post-mixing Lagrangian is required. In the revised manuscript we add a dedicated subsection that presents the scalar mass matrix including the S1–S3 mixing term, its diagonalization, and the resulting effective Yukawa Lagrangian for the physical eigenstates. Because the original Yukawa couplings are strictly tauphilic (third-generation leptons only), the linear combinations preserve this property and generate no couplings to lighter leptons. We explicitly compute the induced shifts to C_SL and C_VL and demonstrate that they remain negligible for the small mixing angles needed to satisfy the Δm_Bs bound; no additional ΔF=2 operators are generated beyond those already accounted for in the analysis. revision: yes
Referee: The paragraph presenting the Wilson-coefficient results (C_VL, C_SL, C9^LQ): these values are stated as outcomes of the analysis, yet the parameter choices (masses and mixing angle) are selected to reproduce the input anomalies and the Δm_Bs bound. The manuscript should separate input observables from derived predictions and provide the χ² or likelihood surface to quantify the circularity burden.

Authors: We accept that a clearer separation between inputs and derived quantities is needed. The revised numerical section now begins with an explicit list of the input observables (R(D(*)), Br(B→K(*)νν), and Δm_Bs) together with their experimental values and uncertainties. The model parameters (masses and mixing angle) are then chosen to satisfy these inputs, after which the Wilson coefficients C_VL, C_SL, and C9^LQ are presented as derived predictions. We also add a new figure showing the χ² profile and 1σ/2σ contours in the relevant parameter planes, thereby quantifying the fit quality and the degree of constraint imposed by the data. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper constructs a phenomenological model by positing three specific scalar leptoquarks with third-generation lepton couplings, introducing an S1-S3 mixing term to accommodate the Delta m_Bs constraint, and deriving effective Wilson coefficients from the resulting operators. The quoted values for C_VL, C_SL, C9^LQ and the mass hierarchy are direct outputs of fitting the model parameters to the B anomalies and branching ratios rather than independent predictions; however, this is standard model-building practice and does not constitute a self-definitional loop, fitted input renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation. The derivation remains self-contained because the effective coefficients follow from the assumed Yukawa structures and mixing without reducing to the input data by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on introducing three new scalar particles with ad-hoc exclusive third-generation lepton couplings and several fitted parameters (masses, mixing term) chosen to match data; standard effective-field-theory assumptions for B decays are invoked without independent derivation.

free parameters (2)

Masses of S1, ~R2, S3
Ranges chosen to fit R(D(*)), Br(B to K nu nu), and Delta m_Bs while remaining below 3 TeV.
Mixing term between S1 and S3
Introduced specifically to satisfy the Delta m_Bs constraint.

axioms (2)

ad hoc to paper Leptoquarks couple exclusively to third-generation leptons
Invoked to evade constraints from lighter generations while addressing tau-related anomalies.
domain assumption Effective field theory operators describe B decays
Standard assumption in flavor physics for matching to Wilson coefficients.

invented entities (1)

Scalar leptoquarks S1, ~R2, S3 with tauphilic couplings no independent evidence
purpose: To mediate the observed B anomalies via specific left- and right-handed operators
Postulated new particles; no independent evidence or falsifiable prediction outside the fit is supplied.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5497 in / 1778 out tokens · 77749 ms · 2026-05-12T01:56:43.491469+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 97 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

D’Alise, G

A. D’Alise, G. Fabiano, D. Frattulillo, D. Iacobacci, F. Sannino, P. Santorelli and N. Vignaroli, Nucl. Phys. B1006, 116631 (2024) [arXiv:2403.17614 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2024
[2]

Global fit tob→cτ νanomalies as of Spring 2024,

S. Iguro, T. Kitahara and R. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. D110, no.7, 7 (2024) [arXiv:2405.06062 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2024
[3]

J. P. Leeset al.[BaBar Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D88, no. 7, 072012 (2013) [arXiv:1303.0571 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv 2013
[4]

Huschle and others (Belle Collaboration),Measurement of the branching ratio of ¯B→D (∗)τ −¯ντ relative to ¯B→D (∗)ℓ−¯νℓ decays with hadronic tagging at Belle,Phys

M. Huschleet al.[Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D92, no. 7, 072014 (2015) [arXiv:1507.03233 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv 2015
[5]

Satoet al.[Belle Collaboration], Phys

Y. Satoet al.[Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D94, no. 7, 072007 (2016) [arXiv:1607.07923 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv 2016
[6]

Hirose [Belle Collaboration], Nucl

S. Hirose [Belle Collaboration], Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc.287-288, 185 (2017)

work page 2017
[7]

Hiroseet al.[Belle Collaboration], Phys

S. Hiroseet al.[Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.118, no. 21, 211801 (2017) [arXiv:1612.00529 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv 2017
[8]

Hiroseet al.[Belle Collaboration], Phys

S. Hiroseet al.[Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D97, no. 1, 012004 (2018) [arXiv:1709.00129 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv 2018
[9]

Abdesselamet al.[Belle Collaboration], [arXiv:1904.08794 [hep-ex]]

A. Abdesselamet al.[Belle Collaboration], [arXiv:1904.08794 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv 1904
[10]

Adachiet al.[Belle-II], Phys

I. Adachiet al.[Belle-II], Phys. Rev. D110, no.7, 072020 (2024) [arXiv:2401.02840 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv 2024
[11]

Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys

R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 111802 (2023) [arXiv:2302.02886 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv 2023
[12]

Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys

R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. D108, no.1, 012018 (2023) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D109, no.11, 119902 (2024)] [arXiv:2305.01463 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv 2023
[13]

Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys

R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett.134, no.6, 061801 (2025) [arXiv:2406.03387 [hep-ex]]. 22

work page arXiv 2025
[14]

Average ofR(D) andR(D ∗) for Spring 2019, Heavy Flavor Averaging Group, https://hflav- eos.web.cern.ch/hflav-eos/semi/spring19/html/RDsDsstar/RDRDs.html

work page 2019
[15]

Abdesselamet al.[Belle], [arXiv:1903.03102 [hep-ex]]

A. Abdesselamet al.[Belle], [arXiv:1903.03102 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv 1903
[16]

Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys

R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. D110, no.9, 092007 (2024) [arXiv:2311.05224 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv 2024
[17]

Harrisonet al.[LATTICE-HPQCD], Phys

J. Harrisonet al.[LATTICE-HPQCD], Phys. Rev. Lett.125, no.22, 222003 (2020)

work page 2020
[18]

F. U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, D. J. Robinson and W. L. Sutcliffe, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, no.20, 202001 (2018)

work page 2018
[19]

F. U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, D. J. Robinson and W. L. Sutcliffe, Phys. Rev. D99, no.5, 055008 (2019)

work page 2019
[20]

Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys

R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett.120, no.12, 121801 (2018) [arXiv:1711.05623 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv 2018
[21]

Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], Phys

A. Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Rev. D111, no.5, L051102 (2025) [arXiv:2408.00678 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv 2025
[22]

Chekhovskyet al.[CMS], [arXiv:2510.21559 [hep-ex]]

V. Chekhovskyet al.[CMS], [arXiv:2510.21559 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv
[23]

Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys

R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett.128, no.19, 191803 (2022) [arXiv:2201.03497 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv 2022
[24]

Blanke, A

M. Blanke, A. Crivellin, S. de Boer, T. Kitahara, M. Moscati, U. Nierste and I. Niˇ sandˇ zi´ c, Phys. Rev. D99, no.7, 075006 (2019) [arXiv:1811.09603 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2019
[25]

Addendum to “Impact of polarization observables andB c →τ νon new physics explanations of theb→cτ νanomaly

M. Blanke, A. Crivellin, T. Kitahara, M. Moscati, U. Nierste and I. Niˇ sandˇ zi´ c, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.3, 035035 (addendum, 2019) [arXiv:1905.08253 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2019
[26]

Fedele, M

M. Fedele, M. Blanke, A. Crivellin, S. Iguro, T. Kitahara, U. Nierste and R. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. D107, no.5, 055005 (2023) [arXiv:2211.14172 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2023
[27]

X. Zuo, M. Fedele, C. Helsens, D. Hill, S. Iguro and M. Klute, Eur. Phys. J. C84, no.1, 87 (2024) [arXiv:2305.02998 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv 2024
[28]

Alonso, B

R. Alonso, B. Grinstein and J. Martin Camalich, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, no.8, 081802 (2017) [arXiv:1611.06676 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2017
[29]

Aaijet al.[LHCb], JHEP08(2017), 055 [arXiv:1705.05802 [hep-ex]]

R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], JHEP08(2017), 055 [arXiv:1705.05802 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv 2017
[30]

Aaijet al.[LHCb], Nature Phys.18, no.3, 277-282 (2022) [arXiv:2103.11769 [hep-ex]]

R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Nature Phys.18, no.3, 277-282 (2022) [arXiv:2103.11769 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv 2022
[31]

L. S. Geng, B. Grinstein, S. J¨ ager, S. Y. Li, J. Martin Camalich and R. X. Shi, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.3, 035029 (2021) [arXiv:2103.12738 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2021
[32]

Aaijet al.,Test of lepton universality in b→sℓ +ℓ− decays, Phys

R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett.131, no.5, 051803 (2023) [arXiv:2212.09152 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv 2023
[33]

Aaijet al.,Measurement of lepton universality parameters in B+ →K +ℓ+ℓ− and B0 →K ∗0ℓ+ℓ− decays, Phys

R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. D108, no.3, 032002 (2023) [arXiv:2212.09153 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv 2023
[34]

More Model-Independent Analysis of b->s Processes

G. Hiller and F. Kruger, Phys. Rev. D69(2004), 074020 [arXiv:hep-ph/0310219 [hep-ph]]. 23

work page Pith review arXiv 2004
[35]

Bobeth, G

C. Bobeth, G. Hiller and G. Piranishvili, JHEP12(2007), 040 [arXiv:0709.4174 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2007
[36]

L. S. Geng, B. Grinstein, S. J¨ ager, J. Martin Camalich, X. L. Ren and R. X. Shi, Phys. Rev. D96(2017) no.9, 093006 [arXiv:1704.05446 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2017
[37]

Bordone, G

M. Bordone, G. Isidori and A. Pattori, Eur. Phys. J. C76, no.8, 440 (2016) [arXiv:1605.07633 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2016
[38]

Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D110, no.3, 030001 (2024)

work page 2024
[39]

Bause, H

R. Bause, H. Gisbert, M. Golz and G. Hiller, JHEP12, 061 (2021) [arXiv:2109.01675 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2021
[40]

Bause, H

R. Bause, H. Gisbert and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D109, no.1, 015006 (2024) [arXiv:2309.00075 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2024
[41]

Capdevila, A

B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin, S. Descotes-Genon, L. Hofer and J. Matias, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, no.18, 181802 (2018) [arXiv:1712.01919 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2018
[42]

Evidence forB + →K +ν¯νdecays,

I. Adachiet al.[Belle-II], Phys. Rev. D109, no.11, 112006 (2024) [arXiv:2311.14647 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv 2024
[43]

Beˇ cirevi´ c, G

D. Beˇ cirevi´ c, G. Piazza and O. Sumensari, Eur. Phys. J. C83, no.3, 252 (2023) [arXiv:2301.06990 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2023
[44]

Grygieret al.[Belle], Phys

J. Grygieret al.[Belle], Phys. Rev. D96, no.9, 091101 (2017) [arXiv:1702.03224 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv 2017
[45]

A. M. Sirunyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Lett. B816, 136188 (2021) [arXiv:2007.02434 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv 2021
[46]

Aaijet al.[LHCb], JHEP03, 137 (2021) [arXiv:2011.12041 [hep-ex]]

R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], JHEP03, 137 (2021) [arXiv:2011.12041 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv 2021
[47]

Aaijet al.[LHCb], Nature Phys.18, no.1, 1-5 (2022) [arXiv:2104.04421 [hep-ex]]

R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Nature Phys.18, no.1, 1-5 (2022) [arXiv:2104.04421 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv 2022
[48]

Bezshyikoet al.[LHCb], Phys

I. Bezshyikoet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett.132, no.5, 051802 (2024) [arXiv:2308.01468 [hep- ex]]

work page arXiv 2024
[49]

Di Luzio, M

L. Di Luzio, M. Kirk, A. Lenz and T. Rauh, JHEP12, 009 (2019) [arXiv:1909.11087 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2019
[50]

Altmannshofer, P

W. Altmannshofer, P. S. B. Dev, A. Soni and Y. Sui, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) no.1, 015031 [arXiv:2002.12910 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2020
[51]

Bardhan, D

D. Bardhan, D. Ghosh and D. Sachdeva, Nucl. Phys. B986, 116059 (2023) [arXiv:2107.10163 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2023
[52]

M. D. Zheng, Q. L. Wang, L. F. Lai and H. H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D111, no.9, 9 (2025) [arXiv:2410.04348 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2025
[53]

Crivellin, G

A. Crivellin, G. D’Ambrosio and J. Heeck, Phys. Rev. Lett.114(2015), 151801 [arXiv:1501.00993 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2015
[54]

Crivellin, G

A. Crivellin, G. D’Ambrosio and J. Heeck, Phys. Rev. D91(2015) no.7, 075006 [arXiv:1503.03477 [hep-ph]]. 24

work page arXiv 2015
[55]

C. W. Chiang, X. G. He, J. Tandean and X. B. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D96(2017) no.11, 115022 [arXiv:1706.02696 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2017
[56]

S. F. King, JHEP08(2017), 019 [arXiv:1706.06100 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2017
[57]

R. S. Chivukula, J. Isaacson, K. A. Mohan, D. Sengupta and E. H. Simmons, Phys. Rev. D 96(2017) no.7, 075012 [arXiv:1706.06575 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2017
[58]

J. Y. Cen, Y. Cheng, X. G. He and J. Sun, Nucl. Phys. B978, 115762 (2022) [arXiv:2104.05006 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2022
[59]

Davighi, JHEP08, 101 (2021) [arXiv:2105.06918 [hep-ph]]

J. Davighi, JHEP08, 101 (2021) [arXiv:2105.06918 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2021
[60]

Q. Y. Hu, X. Q. Li and Y. D. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) no.3, 190 [arXiv:1612.08867 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2017
[61]

Crivellin, D

A. Crivellin, D. M¨ uller and C. Wiegand, JHEP06(2019), 119 [arXiv:1903.10440 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2019
[62]

Delle Rose, S

L. Delle Rose, S. Khalil, S. J. D. King and S. Moretti, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.11, 115009 [arXiv:1903.11146 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2020
[63]

S. Y. Ho, J. Kim and P. Ko, Phys. Rev. D111, no.5, 055029 (2025) [arXiv:2401.10112 [hep- ph]]

work page arXiv 2025
[64]

J. P. Lee, Mod. Phys. Lett. A37, no.32, 2250214 (2022) [arXiv:2106.12795 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2022
[65]

J. P. Lee, J. Korean Phys. Soc.80, no.1, 13-19 (2022)

work page 2022
[66]

J. P. Lee, Mod. Phys. Lett. A38, no.16n17, 2350080 (2023)

work page 2023
[67]

J. P. Lee, J. Korean Phys. Soc.88, no.2, 188-198 (2026) [arXiv:2411.19843 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2026
[68]

J. P. Lee, J. Korean Phys. Soc.88, no.4, 418-428 (2026) [arXiv:2502.06370 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2026
[69]

J. P. Lee, [arXiv:2509.26370 [hep-ph]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[70]

$R_K$ and future $b \to s \ell \ell$ BSM opportunities

G. Hiller and M. Schmaltz, Phys. Rev. D90(2014), 054014 [arXiv:1408.1627 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014
[71]

Beˇ cirevi´ c, S

D. Beˇ cirevi´ c, S. Fajfer and N. Koˇ snik, Phys. Rev. D92, no.1, 014016 (2015) [arXiv:1503.09024 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2015
[72]

Physics of leptoquarks in precision exper- iments and at particle colliders,

I. Dorˇ sner, S. Fajfer, A. Greljo, J. F. Kamenik and N. Koˇ snik, Phys. Rept.641(2016), 1-68 [arXiv:1603.04993 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2016
[73]

Bauer and M

M. Bauer and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. Lett.116(2016) no.14, 141802 [arXiv:1511.01900 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2016
[74]

C. H. Chen, T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Lett. B774(2017), 456-464 [arXiv:1703.03251 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2017
[75]

Crivellin, D

A. Crivellin, D. M¨ uller and T. Ota, JHEP09(2017), 040 [arXiv:1703.09226 [hep-ph]]. 25

work page arXiv 2017
[76]

Y. Cai, J. Gargalionis, M. A. Schmidt and R. R. Volkas, JHEP10, 047 (2017) [arXiv:1704.05849 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2017
[77]

Calibbi, A

L. Calibbi, A. Crivellin and T. Li, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) no.11, 115002 [arXiv:1709.00692 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2018
[78]

Blanke and A

M. Blanke and A. Crivellin, Phys. Rev. Lett.121(2018) no.1, 011801 [arXiv:1801.07256 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2018
[79]

Nomura and H

T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Rev. D104, no.3, 035042 (2021) [arXiv:2104.03248 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2021
[80]

Angelescu, D

A. Angelescu, D. Beˇ cirevi´ c, D. A. Faroughy, F. Jaffredo and O. Sumensari, Phys. Rev. D104, no.5, 055017 (2021) [arXiv:2103.12504 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv 2021

Showing first 80 references.