Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 56 references

The paper argues that an SU(15)_p confining preon model, with composite quarks, leptons, and Higgs, can account for the complete observed pattern of charged-fermion masses and CKM mixing using two flavour spurions with a hierarchical κ≈0.17

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 01:07 UTC pith:LYVDHWFM

load-bearing objection Honest and careful first flavour analysis of the two-scalar SU(15) preon model, but the headline 'reproduction' is a texture-fit existence proof rather than a derivation, and the 'O(1)' claim is stretched by fitted coefficients around 5–6. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2608.00166 v1 pith:LYVDHWFM submitted 2026-07-31 hep-ph hep-exhep-th

The flavour of SU(15) composite quarks and leptons

Beno\^it Assi , Ryan Plestid , Amartya Sengupta , Jure Zupan This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-exhep-th
keywords preon compositenessSU(15) chiral gauge theoryflavour spurionsFroggatt-Nielsen texturefermion mass hierarchyCKM matrixflavour-changing neutral currentselectric dipole moments
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper's central thesis: an SU(15)_p confining gauge theory, in which quarks, leptons and the Higgs are composite prebaryon bound states, can generate the entire observed charged-fermion mass spectrum and the CKM matrix from just two SU(4)_F flavour-breaking spurions λ and λ′, provided these have a hierarchical Froggatt-Nielsen-like texture with small parameter κ≈0.17. The authors exhibit a benchmark fit in which all non-perturbative coefficients are order one and all six quark masses, three charged lepton masses, and the full CKM matrix are reproduced. Because the very same spurions generate flavour-changing neutral currents and electric dipole moments, the compositeness scale Λ_pre becomes testable in precision experiments: electron EDM and K0–K̄0 mixing currently probe Λ_pre near 10^4 TeV, and projected electron-EDM sensitivity raises the reach to about 10^6 TeV, beyond planned proton-decay searches. If the construction is right, flavour physics—not just proton decay—becomes a discovery channel for quark and lepton compositeness.

Core claim

On its own terms, the model's central claim is that a two-spurion flavour sector suffices. The antisymmetric λ and symmetric λ′ Yukawa couplings of the SU(15)_p scalars A and A′ break SU(4)_F explicitly, and with the κ-texture of Eq. (3.2) they produce up- and down-Yukawa matrices of the form F-term plus one-loop box structures weighted by N/16π². A numerical fit with coefficients bounded by |X|≲6, splittings |δ_X|≤1, and tanβ≈22.9 returns the observed m_u, m_d, m_s, m_c, m_b, m_t, m_e, m_μ, m_τ, the modulus of every V_CKM entry, and the Jarlskog invariant to sub-percent accuracy. The paper then derives the phenomenological consequence: rotating the same spurions to the mass basis induces di

What carries the argument

The key objects are the two flavour spurions λ (antisymmetric, transforming as a 6 of SU(4)_F) and λ′ (symmetric, a 10), generated by Yukawa couplings of the SU(15)_p scalars in the conjugate antisymmetric (105) and conjugate symmetric (120) representations respectively. The paper imposes a hierarchical texture on them, Eq. (3.2), with integer powers of κ≈0.17; this texture seeds the five-order-of-magnitude hierarchy of fermion masses. The machinery then consists of the 1/N and N/16π² power-counting rules: tree-level s-channel exchanges plus one-loop crossed-box dressings build the Yukawa matrices, while the misalignment between λ and λ′ (relative to the right-handed-isospin symmetric limit)

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the hand-imposed κ≈0.17 texture of the two spurion matrices, together with the assumption that the strongly-coupled SU(15)_p dynamics is well described by a small set of O(1) matching coefficients; nothing in the model generates that texture, so a different UV pattern would shift every mass/CKM and FCNC prediction.

What would settle it

Measure the electron EDM below about 10^-31 e cm: the paper's benchmark gives Λ_pre > 6×10^4 TeV when d_e < 10^-31 e cm, so a null result combined with independent evidence that Λ_pre ≈ 10^4 TeV (e.g., from proton-decay limits) would force the diagonal dipole coefficient below its O(κ³) texture value and falsify the benchmark.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The compositeness scale Λ_pre must be at least about 10^4 TeV in the benchmark, since both the electron EDM and CP-violating K–K̄ mixing (ε_K) exclude lower scales; this matches the lower end of the proton-decay bound.
  • A next-generation electron EDM measurement at d_e ≲ 10^-34 e cm would probe Λ_pre ≈ 2×10^6 TeV, exceeding the planned Hyper-Kamiokande proton-decay reach.
  • µ→eγ, D–D̄ mixing, neutron EDM, B_d–B̄_d mixing and dipole-dominated µ→e conversion give complementary reach in the 10^2–10^3 TeV range, so a broad flavour program can map out the spurion texture.
  • The texture predicts specific parametric ratios—e.g., up/down Yukawa matrices nearly aligned, m_t/m_b set mostly by tanβ, and b→sγ, b→dγ both O(κ²)—that are testable in B-physics.
  • First-generation masses (m_u, m_e), small CKM elements |V_ub|, |V_td|, and the Jarlskog invariant require cancellations at the few-percent level, creating a localized fine-tuning hotspot that sharper measurements would stress.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The κ-texture is an input, not a prediction: the paper shows that if the UV completion delivers these powers, the fit works; finding a dynamical origin for κ and the exponents would convert a benchmark into a genuine prediction.
  • A null electron EDM at the projected 10^-34 e cm level would do more than push Λ_pre upward: it would force the diagonal dipole coefficient Im[Cγ_ℓ]11 below its O(κ³) benchmark value, ruling out the texture unless non-perturbative coefficients are tuned—providing a sharp discriminator between the hierarchical benchmark and flavour anarchy.
  • The same spurion logic could be exported to the neutrino sector, which the paper leaves to type-I seesaw: if the PMNS matrix were correlated with the charged-lepton rotations from λ, λ′ rather than anarchic, neutrino-oscillation data would indirectly test the preon scale.
  • The light composite states that mediate the lepton Yukawas (H_ℓ) could appear at colliders if Λ_pre is at the low end, so the flavour bounds and direct searches for TeV-scale scalars jointly constrain the model.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the flavour structure of the SU(15)_p confining chiral gauge theory proposed by Dobrescu, in which SM quarks, leptons and the Higgs are composite prebaryons. Two scalars in the conjugate antisymmetric (105) and conjugate symmetric (120) representations of SU(15)_p provide two SU(4)_F spurions, λ (antisymmetric) and λ′ (symmetric), which generate both the SM Yukawa couplings and flavour-changing processes. The up/down Yukawas are correlated by an approximate right-handed isospin symmetry, so a non-trivial CKM matrix requires spontaneous SU(2)_I breaking by composite-scalar vevs. Using a hand-imposed Froggatt–Nielsen-like κ-texture with κ≈0.17, the authors perform a numerical fit (order 40 free parameters) and present a benchmark that reproduces the six quark masses, three charged-lepton masses, and CKM matrix with coefficients claimed to be O(1). The same spurions are then used to compute dipole, semi-leptonic, four-quark and leptonic four-fermion operators, yielding constraints on the compositeness scale Λ_pre from e-EDM, K0–Kbar0 mixing, μ→eγ, μ→e conversion, D and B mixing, rare kaon decays, and related observables. The headline results are that e-EDM and ϵ_K probe Λ_pre near 10^4 TeV currently, with projected e-EDM sensitivity reaching ~10^6 TeV, beyond proton-decay projections.

Significance. If the benchmark construction is accepted, the paper is a useful first systematic study of flavour in this composite model. It gives an explicit, fully documented numerical benchmark (including an ancillary machine-readable file), a clear operator dictionary for low-energy flavour observables, and a broad comparison of current and projected experimental reaches. The logical connection between the mass fit and the FCNC/EDM predictions is non-circular: the fitted spurions are used to predict independent flavour observables. The paper is also commendably explicit about many of its own limitations. However, the central claim that the model 'reproduces' the fermion spectrum is weakened by three factors: the κ-texture is imposed rather than derived or statistically motivated; the fit is heavily underdetermined (~40 parameters vs 14 observables) and only one benchmark is shown; and the fitted non-perturbative coefficients are not all O(1) in the sense used in the abstract and conclusions, with values up to |X|≈5.6 and u/d splittings at the imposed bound. The FCNC reach numbers therefore inherit an unquantified theory uncertainty from the unknown non-perturbative coefficients, which the pa

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (3.2); §C] The central 'reproduction' of quark and lepton masses and CKM rests on the hand-imposed κ-texture in Eq. (3.2). No dynamics is shown to produce these integer powers, and no scan over alternative textures is reported; the paper itself states in §4.6 and the Conclusions that other spurion choices 'would generically lead to new structures' and may be realized in the UV. With ~40 fitted parameters and 14 observables, the presented benchmark is a single point in a highly degenerate space. To make the claim 'the model reproduces the observed spectrum' load-bearing, the authors should either (i) perform a scan over integer κ-textures with the same κ and report the fraction that fit the data, or (ii) identify a symmetry or dynamical argument that uniquely selects Eq. (3.2). Without this, the mass/CKM 'prediction' is a fit to the observables it claims to reproduce.
  2. [App. B.1, B.2; §5] The claim that all fitted non-perturbative coefficients are O(1) is not supported by the benchmark values. Appendix B.1 gives J_l=+5.647, K_l=−4.248, and the u/d splittings include δ_G=+1.000, δ_F=+0.962, δ_J=+0.913, i.e. several at or near the imposed bound |δ_X|≤1. Appendix B.2 states these are 'within a factor of ≲2 of the O(1) NDA expectation', which is numerically incorrect for coefficients with |X|≈5.6. The abstract and conclusions repeat the O(1) claim. The authors should either redefine what 'O(1)' means in this paper (e.g., |X|<2π), or, if the intended NDA range is larger, state it explicitly and propagate it to the naturalness assessment of the benchmark.
  3. [§3.1 (after Eq. 3.17); App. B.2] First-generation observables are reproduced only through cancellations. The text after Eq. (3.17) states that m_u requires cancellations 'on the order of a few×10^−2', and Appendix B.2 reports that m_u, m_e, |V_ub|, |V_td| and the Jarlskog invariant J have large multiplicative responses to a 3% jitter of the fitted parameters. These are precisely the observables that differentiate the texture from a generic hierarchical ansatz. The claim 'all of the fitted non-perturbative coefficients are O(1)' therefore hides a significant fine-tuning hotspot. A quantitative fine-tuning measure (e.g., Barbieri–Giudice-type sensitivity) should be reported for the benchmark, and the abstract/conclusions should be adjusted so that 'O(1) coefficients' is not read as 'natural reproduction of all masses and CKM elements.'
  4. [§4.2, Eq. (4.3); §4.3–4.6] The flavour-physics reach estimates in Fig. 6 are obtained by setting all non-perturbative coefficients in the dipole and four-fermion operators to 1, while the mass fit in App. B.1 finds coefficients spanning roughly 0.4 to 5.6. Since the bounds scale as a square root (or fourth root) of the Wilson coefficients, the quoted Λ_pre values can shift by factors of order 2–3, and the ordering of the most sensitive observables could change. The paper acknowledges this caveat in §4.6, but the abstract and Fig. 6 present the reach numbers as definite. The authors should propagate the fitted coefficient range into the benchmark bounds, or at least show a band of Λ_pre for each observable corresponding to the spread found in App. B.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4.60)] In the ∆F=2 Lagrangian, the term written as [C^{ℓq}_{RL}]_{ji;ij} should presumably be [C^{qq}_{RL}]_{ji;ij} (or an analogous quark–quark coefficient); as written it mixes lepton and quark labels in a four-quark operator.
  2. [§3.3] The sentence about pNGBs lying 'two orders of magnitude [taken from sqrt(...)]' appears corrupted or incomplete; the parenthetical material should be integrated into the text.
  3. [App. B.2] The statement 'within a factor of ≲2 of the O(1) NDA expectation' should be reworded once the criterion for O(1) is defined; as written it is inconsistent with the quoted values.
  4. [Abstract / §5] The abstract's 'O(1) non-perturbative coefficients' is too strong given the fitted values in App. B; consider saying 'within an order of magnitude of unity' and referencing the residual fine-tuning in the first generation.
  5. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption is dense; it would help to state explicitly that the solid/dashed bars correspond to current/projected experimental sensitivity and that the benchmark panel uses cosβ=0.0437 while the anarchic panel uses cosβ=1.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Mass/CKM 'reproduction' reduces to a fit against those same observables with a hand-chosen κ-texture; the FCNC/EDM predictions are independent and keep the paper from being substantially circular.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix C / C.1, with loss function Eq. (C.1); see also Section 3.1 and Eq. (3.2)]
    "Convergence is reached within a few thousand epochs. The fitted Higgs parameters are tanβ = 22.87, vu = 245.77 GeV, vd = 10.75 GeV, and the predicted masses match their input values to better than 0.1% both for the charged-fermion spectrum and for all nine |VCKM| entries; the Jarlskog invariant is reproduced to comparable accuracy."

    The 'predicted masses and CKM' are exactly the observables appearing in the loss function, L = Σ w_m((m_pred_i - m_obs_i)/m_obs_i)^2 + w_|V| Σ(|Vjk|_pred - |Vjk|_obs)^2 + w_J(J_pred - J_obs)^2. The free parameters are minimized against these same data, so matching them is enforced by construction. Additionally, the integer powers in the κ-texture of Eq. (3.2) were chosen by hand to encode the observed inter-generation hierarchies, so this part of the paper is a fit reported as a reproduction/prediction rather than an independent derivation.

  2. self definitional [Section 4.6, paragraph beginning 'Furthermore, the benchmark values...']
    "Furthermore, the benchmark values of λ, λ′ spurions were assumed in our analysis to follow a particular hierarchical pattern, chosen because we anticipated the minimal amount of fine tuning required to reproduce the observed values of CKM and the masses of SM quarks and charged leptons."

    This is an explicit admission that the input spurion texture was reverse-engineered from the very observables the model is later said to 'reproduce'. The hierarchy is imposed as an ansatz, not derived from SU(15)_p dynamics. Therefore the successful mass and CKM pattern is not an independent prediction of the model, though the paper is transparent about the assumption.

full rationale

The central mass/CKM sector is partially circular: the benchmark fit is judged by a loss function containing precisely the quark masses, lepton masses, and CKM elements that the paper reports as reproduced, and the κ-texture of Eq. (3.2) was selected to encode those hierarchies. The paper is honest about this, using language like 'benchmark fit' and explicitly saying the texture is assumed and that other UV choices are possible. The genuinely non-circular content is the FCNC/EDM analysis: the fitted spurions and rotation matrices are inserted into independent dipole, four-fermion, and meson-mixing operators, and the resulting Λ_pre bounds are compared with independent experimental data. Those flavour constraints would change if a different texture were chosen, but they are not themselves fit targets. The self-citations to [12–14] provide the underlying preon model and proton-decay estimates but are not used as an unverified uniqueness theorem to force the central claim. Overall the paper's central derivation is a benchmark demonstration with one hand-imposed texture, so the circularity is partial and localized to the mass/CKM 'prediction', not the flavour phenomenology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 9 axioms · 3 invented entities

The central fit depends on a large set of free parameters: the two spurion matrices, their kappa-texture powers, tan beta, twelve non-perturbative coefficients, and six up/down splittings (roughly 40 real parameters). The paper also assumes an uncomputed strongly-coupled sector with only large-N/NDA control, and introduces composite scalars/vevs that are not independently evidenced. This ledger shows that the mass/CKM 'reproduction' is a parametrized fit, while the FCNC reach depends on setting further unknown coefficients to 1.

free parameters (9)
  • lambda antisymmetric spurion entries = 6 complex entries, Eq. (B.3)
    Fitted to SM fermion masses and CKM; not predicted by the model.
  • lambda' symmetric spurion entries = 10 complex entries, Eq. (B.4)
    Fitted together with lambda; determines Yukawa hierarchy via texture.
  • FN expansion parameter kappa = 0.17 (kappa^2 = 0.03)
    Chosen by hand; its integer powers encode the observed mass hierarchy.
  • FN texture powers n_ij = Integer powers in Eq. (3.2)
    Assigned by hand to lambda and lambda' to produce the desired hierarchy.
  • tan beta = 22.87 (cos beta = 0.0437)
    Fitted to set up/down and charm/strange mass ratios.
  • quark-sector non-perturbative coefficients F', F, G, I, J, K = 0.414, 0.684, 2.447, -0.432, -2.239, 1.871 (Eq. B.14)
    Fitted with bound |X|<=6; encode unknown SU(15) dynamics of Yukawa operators.
  • lepton-sector non-perturbative coefficients F'_l, F_l, G_l, I_l, J_l, K_l = 0.404, -1.588, 0, -1.702, 5.647, -4.248 (Eq. B.15)
    Fitted; G_l = 0 collapses one channel.
  • up/down splittings delta_X = delta_F'=-0.685, delta_F=0.962, delta_G=1.000, delta_I=0.262, delta_J=0.913, delta_K=-0.823 (Eq. B.16)
    Fitted, |delta|<=1; parametrize SU(2)_I breaking by composite scalar vevs.
  • dipole/four-fermion matching coefficients (F^gamma, G^gamma, F4, G4, ...) = set to 1
    Not fitted; assigned NDA value 1 in all Sec. 4 bounds, despite fitted analogues ranging up to ~6; directly sets the quoted Lambda_pre reach.
axioms (9)
  • domain assumption SU(15)_p chiral gauge theory confines and its low-energy spectrum contains the prebaryons of Table 2.
    Taken from Refs. [12-14]; no lattice or first-principles demonstration exists; underlies all quark/lepton/Higgs compositeness.
  • domain assumption Large-N and naive dimensional analysis power counting (Eq. 2.3) control operator sizes, with 1/N ~ 0.07.
    Used to select diagram topologies and justify O(1) matching coefficients; not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper The dominant Yukawa contributions are the tree and one-loop topologies of Figs. 1-2, giving Eqs. (3.4) and (3.19).
    Other topologies with more spurion insertions or different preon interchanges are assumed subleading without a full computation.
  • ad hoc to paper SU(2)_I breaking by vevs of composite scalars phi_7/6 and phi_Q is the dominant source of up/down misalignment.
    Needed for non-trivial CKM and quark mass ratios; the vevs' sizes are not computed, only encoded in delta_X.
  • domain assumption Lepton Yukawas require a light composite H_l with M_Hl << Lambda_pre propagating below Lambda_pre.
    Non-local matching in Sec. 3.2 relies on a scalar spectrum below Lambda_pre that is not established.
  • domain assumption The scalars A and A' have masses near Lambda_pre and only the Yukawa interactions of Eq. (2.1).
    Simplest implementation; other flavour-breaking mechanisms (vectors, gauge charge assignments) are not considered.
  • ad hoc to paper The kappa-textures of Eq. (3.2) represent the UV flavour breaking.
    No UV origin for the hierarchy; the fit only fixes O(1) prefactors.
  • domain assumption SM inputs (masses, CKM, J) run to mu = 10^4 TeV using one-loop SM running; lattice meson-mixing matrix elements from the literature apply.
    Standard tooling assumption; the paper does not compute these elements itself.
  • ad hoc to paper All nonperturbative matrix elements in FCNC/EDM operators are set to 1 and equal across species.
    Sec. 4; the paper itself notes this holds only up to order-of-magnitude accuracy and can change the observable hierarchy.
invented entities (3)
  • A' scalar in the 120 of SU(15)_p, with A in the 105 no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide a second, non-trivially-misaligned flavour spurion needed for a non-trivial CKM matrix.
    This paper corrects prior work that effectively used two 105s; there is no direct experimental evidence for these scalars; they exist only within the composite model.
  • Composite scalars phi_7/6, phi_Q, phi_88 with nonzero vevs no independent evidence
    purpose: Break SU(2)_I (phi_7/6, phi_Q) and generate charged-lepton Yukawas (phi_88, phi_7/6) via di-prebaryon vevs.
    Their masses and vevs are not computed; their effects are absorbed into free delta_X and lepton-sector coefficients, with no independent falsifiable handle given here.
  • Non-local lepton-Higgs H_l with M_Hl << Lambda_pre no independent evidence
    purpose: Enhance the tau Yukawa through mixing with H_d; without it the tau mass would be too small.
    Speculative scalar below the confinement scale; no predicted mass or couplings that could be probed independently are provided.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 35730 in / 19657 out tokens · 221965 ms · 2026-08-04T01:07:50.262429+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the flavour structure of an $SU(15)_p$ confining chiral gauge theory in which the Standard Model (SM) quarks, leptons, and Higgs emerge as composite bound states. The couplings of two scalar fields in the conjugate antisymmetric ($\overline{\mathbf{105}}$) and conjugate symmetric ($\overline{\mathbf{120}}$) representations of $SU(15)_p$ provide two $SU(4)_F$ flavour-breaking spurions that generate both the SM Yukawa couplings and the flavour-changing processes. The up and down Yukawa matrices are tightly-correlated due to a "right-handed isospin" symmetry, which predicts a trivial CKM matrix in the absence of spontaneous symmetry breaking. The lepton Yukawas are correlated with the quarks due to a common source of flavour spurions. With a judicious Froggatt-Nielsen-like texture for the two flavour spurions we find that a benchmark fit with $\mathcal{O}(1)$ non-perturbative coefficients reproduces all six quark masses, three charged lepton masses, and the CKM matrix. The same spurions mediate charged lepton flavour violation, neutral meson mixing, rare kaon decays, and induce electric dipole moments. We compare the reach on the compositeness scale $\Lambda_{\rm pre}$ across these observables in the numerical benchmark and find that the electron EDM and $K^0$-$\bar{K}^0$ mixing provide the strongest sensitivity, reaching $\mathcal{O}(10^4)$ TeV, the lower end of the range probed by proton decay, while $\mu\to e\gamma$, $D^0$-$\bar{D}^0$ mixing, and $\mu$-$e$ conversion give complementary reach at $10^2$-$10^3$ TeV. The projected electron EDM sensitivity extends this to $\mathcal{O}(10^6)$ TeV, beyond the reach of planned proton decay searches.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 38 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    M. E. Peskin,Compositeness of Quarks and Leptons,eConfC810824(1981) 880

    1981

  2. [2]

    J. C. Pati, A. Salam, and J. A. Strathdee,Are Quarks Composite?,Phys. Lett. B59(1975) 265–268

    1975

  3. [3]

    Terazawa,Subquark Model of Leptons and Quarks,Phys

    H. Terazawa,Subquark Model of Leptons and Quarks,Phys. Rev. D22(1980) 184. – 37 –

    1980

  4. [4]

    M. A. Shupe,A Composite Model of Leptons and Quarks,Phys. Lett. B86(1979) 87–92

    1979

  5. [5]

    Harari,A Schematic Model of Quarks and Leptons,Phys

    H. Harari,A Schematic Model of Quarks and Leptons,Phys. Lett. B86(1979) 83–86

    1979

  6. [6]

    Dimopoulos, S

    S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby, and L. Susskind,Light Composite Fermions,Nucl. Phys. B173 (1980) 208–228

    1980

  7. [7]

    S. Raby, S. Dimopoulos, and L. Susskind,Tumbling Gauge Theories,Nucl. Phys. B169 (1980) 373–383

    1980

  8. [8]

    ’t Hooft,Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,NATO Sci

    G. ’t Hooft,Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,NATO Sci. Ser. B59(1980) 135–157

    1980

  9. [9]

    Eichten, R

    E. Eichten, R. D. Peccei, J. Preskill, and D. Zeppenfeld,Chiral Gauge Theories in the 1/N Expansion,Nucl. Phys. B268(1986) 161–178

    1986

  10. [10]

    D. B. Kaplan,Flavor at SSC energies: A New mechanism for dynamically generated fermion masses,Nucl. Phys. B365(1991) 259–278

    1991

  11. [11]

    Panico and A

    G. Panico and A. Wulzer,The Composite Nambu-Goldstone Higgs, vol. 913. Springer, 2016

    2016

  12. [12]

    B. A. Dobrescu,Quark and Lepton Compositeness: A Renormalizable Model,Phys. Rev. Lett.128(2022), no. 24 241804, [2112.15132]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Assi and B

    B. Assi and B. A. Dobrescu,Proton decay from quark and lepton compositeness,JHEP12 (2022) 116, [2211.02211]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    Assi and B

    B. Assi and B. A. Dobrescu,Composite quarks and leptons with embedded QCD,Phys. Rev. D112(2025), no. 7 075005, [2501.11607]

    arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Davidson and B

    S. Davidson and B. Echenard,Reach and complementarity ofµ→esearches,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022), no. 9 836, [2204.00564]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Aebischeret al.,Kaon physics: a cornerstone for future discoveries,J

    J. Aebischeret al.,Kaon physics: a cornerstone for future discoveries,J. Phys. G52(2025), no. 10 100501, [2503.22256]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    A. J. Buras,The Return of Kaon Flavour Physics,Acta Phys. Polon. B49(2018) 1043, [1805.11096]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    Pospelov and A

    M. Pospelov and A. Ritz,Electric dipole moments as probes of new physics,Annals Phys. 318(2005) 119–169, [hep-ph/0504231]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  19. [19]

    Pospelov and A

    M. Pospelov and A. Ritz,Electric Dipole Moments and New Physics,2509.23531

    arXiv

  20. [20]

    Eichten, K

    E. Eichten, K. Kang, and I.-G. Koh,Anomaly Free Complex Representations in SU(N),J. Math. Phys.23(1982) 2529. [21]CMSCollaboration, A. Tumasyanet al.,Inclusive nonresonant multilepton probes of new phenomena at √s=13 TeV,Phys. Rev. D105(2022), no. 11 112007, [2202.08676]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1982

  21. [22]

    V. A. Miransky and K. Yamawaki,Conformal phase transition in gauge theories,Phys. Rev. D55(1997) 5051–5066, [hep-th/9611142]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 56, 3768 (1997)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  22. [23]

    Braun, C

    J. Braun, C. S. Fischer, and H. Gies,Beyond Miransky Scaling,Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 034045, [1012.4279]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  23. [24]

    A. V. Manohar,Large N QCD, inLes Houches Summer School in Theoretical Physics, Session 68: Probing the Standard Model of Particle Interactions, pp. 1091–1169, 2, 1998. hep-ph/9802419. – 38 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  24. [25]

    Calibbi, R

    L. Calibbi, R. Ziegler, and J. Zupan,Minimal models for dark matter and the muon g−2 anomaly,JHEP07(2018) 046, [1804.00009]. [26]MEG IICollaboration, K. Afanacievet al.,New limit on theµ + →e +γdecay with the MEG II experiment,Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025), no. 10 1177, [2504.15711]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 85, 1317 (2025)]. [27]BaBarCollaboration, B. Aubertet a...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [30]

    Banerjee,Searches for Lepton Flavor Violation in Tau Decays at Belle II,Universe8 (2022), no

    S. Banerjee,Searches for Lepton Flavor Violation in Tau Decays at Belle II,Universe8 (2022), no. 9 480, [2209.11639]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [31]

    D. M. Straub,flavio: a Python package for flavour and precision phenomenology in the Standard Model and beyond,1810.08132

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [32]

    Straub, P

    D. Straub, P. Stangl, M. Kirk, A. Smolkovic, J. Kumar, C. Niehoff, G. Kumar, M. Schmidt, M. Hudec, J. Alda Gallo, E. Gurler, Z. S. Wang, O. Sumensari, M. Reboud, M. Prim, J. Kriewald, J. Aebischer, D. Kovalskyi, A. Beck, and N. Sahoo,flav-io/flavio: v2.7.0, 3, 2026

    2026

  28. [33]

    Chupp, P

    T. Chupp, P. Fierlinger, M. Ramsey-Musolf, and J. Singh,Electric dipole moments of atoms, molecules, nuclei, and particles,Rev. Mod. Phys.91(2019), no. 1 015001, [1710.02504]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [34]

    T. S. Roussyet al.,An improved bound on the electron’s electric dipole moment,Science381 (2023), no. 6653 adg4084, [2212.11841]. [35]Muon (g-2)Collaboration, G. W. Bennettet al.,An Improved Limit on the Muon Electric Dipole Moment,Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 052008, [0811.1207]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [37]

    Sakuraiet al.,muEDM: Towards a Search for the Muon Electric Dipole Moment at PSI Using the Frozen-spin Technique,JPS Conf

    M. Sakuraiet al.,muEDM: Towards a Search for the Muon Electric Dipole Moment at PSI Using the Frozen-spin Technique,JPS Conf. Proc.37(2022) 020604, [2201.06561]. [38]Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)Collaboration, Y. Aokiet al.,FLAG Review 2021,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022), no. 10 869, [2111.09849]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  31. [39]

    Gupta, B

    R. Gupta, B. Yoon, T. Bhattacharya, V. Cirigliano, Y.-C. Jang, and H.-W. Lin,Flavor diagonal tensor charges of the nucleon from (2+1+1)-flavor lattice QCD,Phys. Rev. D98 (2018), no. 9 091501, [1808.07597]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [40]

    Haxton, K

    W. Haxton, K. McElvain, T. Menzo, E. Rule, and J. Zupan,Effective theory tower forµ→e conversion,JHEP11(2024) 076, [2406.13818]. [41]n2EDMCollaboration, N. J. Ayreset al.,The design of the n2EDM experiment: nEDM Collaboration,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021), no. 6 512, [2101.08730]. [42]TUCANCollaboration, T. Higuchiet al.,Neutron EDM Experiment with an Advanced ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [43]

    Wurmet al.,The PanEDM Neutron Electric Dipole Moment Experiment at the ILL,EPJ Web Conf.219(2019) 02006, [1911.09161]

    D. Wurmet al.,The PanEDM Neutron Electric Dipole Moment Experiment at the ILL,EPJ Web Conf.219(2019) 02006, [1911.09161]. – 39 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [44]

    Suzuki, D

    T. Suzuki, D. F. Measday, and J. P. Roalsvig,Total Nuclear Capture Rates for Negative Muons,Phys. Rev. C35(1987) 2212

    1987

  35. [45]

    W. C. Haxton, E. Rule, K. McElvain, and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf,Nuclear-level effective theory ofµ→e conversion: Formalism and applications,Phys. Rev. C107(2023), no. 3 035504, [2208.07945]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [46]

    Wintz,Results of the SINDRUM-II experiment, inProceedings of the First International Symposium on Lepton and Baryon Number Violation(H

    P. Wintz,Results of the SINDRUM-II experiment, inProceedings of the First International Symposium on Lepton and Baryon Number Violation(H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and I. V. Krivosheina, eds.), (Bristol), p. 534, IOP, 1998. [47]SINDRUM IICollaboration, C. Dohmenet al.,Test of lepton flavor conservation in mu —>e conversion on titanium,Phys. Lett. B317(199...

    arXiv 1998

  37. [51]

    Arganda and M

    E. Arganda and M. J. Herrero,Testing supersymmetry with lepton flavor violating tau and mu decays,Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 055003, [hep-ph/0510405]. [52]SINDRUMCollaboration, U. Bellgardtet al.,Search for the Decay mu+ —>e+ e+ e-, Nucl. Phys. B299(1988) 1–6. [53]Belle-IICollaboration, I. Adachiet al.,Search for the lepton-flavor-violatingτ − →e ∓ℓ±ℓ∓ decays a...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  38. [56]

    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) 1–196, [0812.1594]. [57]Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)Collaboration, Y. Aokiet al.,FLAG review 2024,Phys. Rev. D113(2026), no. 1 014508, [2411.04268]. [58]BNLCollaboration, D. Ambroseet al.,...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  39. [59]

    A. J. Buras, D. Buttazzo, J. Girrbach-Noe, and R. Knegjens,K + →π +ννandK L →π 0νν in the Standard Model: status and perspectives,JHEP11(2015) 033, [1503.02693]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  40. [60]

    A. J. Buras, J. Harz, and M. A. Mojahed,Disentangling new physics inK→πν νand B→K(K ∗)ν νobservables,JHEP10(2024) 087, [2405.06742]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [61]

    J. Brod, M. Gorbahn, and E. Stamou,Updated Standard Model Prediction forK→πν¯νand ϵK,PoSBEAUTY2020(2021) 056, [2105.02868]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [62]

    J. Brod, M. Gorbahn, and E. Stamou,Two-Loop Electroweak Corrections for theK→πν¯ν Decays,Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 034030, [1009.0947]. – 40 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  43. [63]

    Buchalla, A

    G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras, and M. E. Lautenbacher,Weak Decays beyond Leading Logarithms, Rev. Mod. Phys.68(1996) 1125–1144, [hep-ph/9512380]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  44. [64]

    X. Chang,New measurement ofK + →π +ν¯νbranching ratio at the NA62 experiment, in 60th Rencontres de Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories: Moriond EW 2026, 4, 2026.2604.12649. [65]NA62Collaboration, E. Cortina Gilet al.,Observation of theK + →π +ννdecay and measurement of its branching ratio,JHEP02(2025) 191, [2412.12015]. [66]KOTOColla...

    arXiv 2026

  45. [67]

    A. Dery, M. Ghosh, Y. Grossman, and S. Schacht,K→µ +µ−as a clean probe of short-distance physics,JHEP07(2021) 103, [2104.06427]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [68]

    Dery and M

    A. Dery and M. Ghosh,K→µ +µ− beyond the standard model,JHEP03(2022) 048, [2112.05801]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  47. [69]

    Brod and E

    J. Brod and E. Stamou,Impact of indirectCPviolation onBr(K S →µ +µ−)τ=0 ,JHEP05 (2023) 155, [2209.07445]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [70]

    D’Ambrosio and T

    G. D’Ambrosio and T. Kitahara,DirectCPViolation inK→µ +µ−,Phys. Rev. Lett.119 (2017), no. 20 201802, [1707.06999]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  49. [71]

    D’Ambrosio, A

    G. D’Ambrosio, A. Dery, Y. Grossman, T. Kitahara, R. Marchevski, D. Mart ´ ınez Santos, and S. Schacht,CPviolation inK→µ +µ− with and without time dependence through a tagged analysis,JHEP09(2025) 190, [2507.13445]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [72]

    Inami and C

    T. Inami and C. S. Lim,Effects of Superheavy Quarks and Leptons in Low-Energy Weak Processes k(L) —>mu anti-mu, K+ —>pi+ Neutrino anti-neutrino and K0<—> anti-K0,Prog. Theor. Phys.65(1981) 297. [Erratum: Prog.Theor.Phys. 65, 1772 (1981)]

    1981

  51. [73]

    Aebischer, C

    J. Aebischer, C. Bobeth, A. J. Buras, and J. Kumar,SMEFT ATLAS of∆F = 2 transitions, JHEP12(2020) 187, [2009.07276]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  52. [74]

    Gabbiani, E

    F. Gabbiani, E. Gabrielli, A. Masiero, and L. Silvestrini,A Complete analysis of FCNC and CP constraints in general SUSY extensions of the standard model,Nucl. Phys. B477(1996) 321–352, [hep-ph/9604387]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  53. [75]

    Mescia and J

    F. Mescia and J. Virto,Natural SUSY and Kaon Mixing in view of recent results from Lattice QCD,Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 095004, [1208.0534]. [76]RBC, UKQCDCollaboration, P. A. Boyle, N. Garron, and R. J. Hudspith,Neutral kaon mixing beyond the standard model withn f = 2 + 1chiral fermions,Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 054028, [1206.5737]. [77]ETMCollaboration, V. Bert...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  54. [80]

    Charles, S

    J. Charles, S. Descotes-Genon, Z. Ligeti, S. Monteil, M. Papucci, K. Trabelsi, and L. Vale Silva,New physics inBmeson mixing: future sensitivity and limitations,Phys. Rev. D102(2020), no. 5 056023, [2006.04824]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  55. [81]

    J. Brod, E. Stamou, and T. Steudtner,Four-loop QCD mixing of current-current operators, 2604.16691

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  56. [82]

    J. Brod, M. Gorbahn, and E. Stamou,Standard-Model Prediction ofϵ K with Manifest Quark-Mixing Unitarity,Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020), no. 17 171803, [1911.06822]. – 42 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020