Neutrinoless Double-Beta Decays from Operator Mixing

J. de Vries; L. P. S. Leal; O. Sumensari; R. Zukanovich Funchal; S. Fajfer

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 60 references

Neutrinoless Double-Beta Decays from Operator Mixing

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Through one-loop renormalization-group mixing, lepton-number-violating operators that contribute nothing at tree level to neutrinoless double-beta decay still acquire constraints reaching scales near 30 TeV.

desk verdict Solid d=7 SMEFT RG atlas for 0νββ, but the Weinberg-mixing limits need to be redone under the same neutrino-mass bound they use against a competing tool. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07657 v1 pith:LCKELVSQ submitted 2026-08-07 hep-ph

J. de Vries , S. Fajfer , L. P. S. Leal , O. Sumensari , R. Zukanovich Funchal This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords neutrinolessdouble-betadecaySMEFTdimension-sevenoperatorsrenormalizationgroupevolutionoperatormixingleptonnumberviolationleading-logarithmexpansionquarkflavor

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 asks whether neutrinoless double-$\beta$ decay ($0\nu\beta\beta$), a lepton-number-violating process in which a nucleus emits two electrons and no neutrinos, can constrain the full set of dimension-seven operators of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory, not just the few that contribute at tree level. The answer it argues for is yes: through the complete one-loop renormalization-group running, operators that look inert at the high scale, especially those involving heavy quarks, mix into operators that drive the decay. With the current KamLAND-Zen limit on the $^{136}$Xe half-life, $T^{0\nu}_{1/2} > 3.8\times 10^{26}~\mathrm{yr}$, this makes $0\nu\beta\beta$ the most restrictive probe of many such operators, reaching new-physics scales around $\Lambda \sim 30~\mathrm{TeV}$ and improving on limits from meson decays. The paper also shows that for some operators and flavor combinations the leading contribution is a second logarithm, so a first-log approximation would miss the effect entirely.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-loop anomalous dimension matrix $\gamma^{(7)}$ — the matrix controlling how operator coefficients change as the energy scale runs — for the twelve dimension-seven lepton-number-violating SMEFT operators. Its off-diagonal entries, which are proportional to electroweak gauge couplings and to quark Yukawa couplings with CKM factors, convert 'inert' operators into contributors to $0\nu\beta\beta$. The analysis organizes the running through the leading-logarithm expansion of the evolution matrix $U(\mu_{\mathrm{ew}}, \Lambda)$, and it keeps track of cases where a single one-loop mixing step is suppressed, so that the dominant effect comes from a two-step, second-logarithm mixing.

What would settle it

Compute the two-loop anomalous dimensions for the dimension-seven lepton-number-violating operators and re-evaluate the quoted limits. For the flavor combinations where the paper places the leading term at second-log order, such as $O^{(7)}_{\bar d u L L D}$ with quark indices $(3,1)$, a two-loop result that is not small compared with the iterated one-loop term would change the bounds; separately, a meson-decay measurement that bounds the same operator more tightly than $0\nu\beta\beta$ would break the claimed ranking.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a complete one-loop renormalization-group analysis changes which lepton-number-violating operators neutrinoless double-$\beta$ decay can see. Even when a dimension-seven SMEFT operator has no tree-level contribution to $0\nu\beta\beta$, in particular operators built from heavy-quark fields, the one-loop anomalous dimension matrix mixes it into operators that do contribute, through the quark Yukawa couplings and the flavor misalignment encoded in the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) matrix. These RG-induced contributions make $0\nu\beta\beta$ the strongest existing probe of numerous dimension-seven operators, with constraints reaching $\Lambda \sim 30~\mathrm{TeV}$ for order-one Wilson coefficients, and for several flavor combinations the leading effect arises only at second logarithmic order rather than first.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical limits inherit the nuclear-physics calculations that turn each operator's strength into a predicted double-beta decay rate; if those calculations are off by a factor of a few, the claim that double-beta decay gives the strongest limits on some operators could fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Neutrinoless double-beta decay becomes the most stringent published constraint on a broad class of dimension-seven lepton-number-violating operators, surpassing limits from kaon, $D$- and $B$-meson decays for most flavor combinations.
Operators with third-generation quark flavors, which have no tree-level contribution to the decay, can be probed up to effective scales of about $\Lambda \sim 30~\mathrm{TeV}$ through RG-induced mixing.
For specific operators and flavor combinations, such as $O^{(7)}_{\bar d u L L D}$ with quark indices $(2,1)$ and $(3,1)$, the leading contribution is a second logarithm, so analyses that stop at the first leading logarithm would miss the dominant effect.
The operator $O^{(7)}_{\bar d L u e H}$ with third-family indices receives an RG-induced constraint comparable to the tree-level valence-quark constraint, because the loop suppression is compensated by a milder chiral suppression.
Next-generation $0\nu\beta\beta$ experiments are expected to nearly double the reach in $\Lambda$ for these operators.

Reading between the lines

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

The same Yukawa-induced mixing should also feed other lepton-number-violating searches, such as same-sign dilepton events at colliders and rare kaon decays, so the operators singled out here should appear with correlated coefficients in those channels.
The second-logarithm cases give a concrete target for future two-loop anomalous-dimension calculations: those operators are where the one-loop resummation is least protected and where the quoted limits are most likely to shift.
The paper's comparison with an independent automated implementation shows that some operators also feed neutrino masses; a realistic ultraviolet model must cancel those contributions to keep light-neutrino masses below about 0.1 eV, which can weaken constraints that naively look strongest.
Measuring $0\nu\beta\beta$ in several isotopes could help identify which operator dominates, because RG-induced operators enter through different chiral and nuclear suppressions and would produce distinct isotope ratios relative to standard light-neutrino exchange.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

I read this one carefully. The new content is real: a complete one-loop RG analysis of all d=7 LNV operators in 0νββ, with general quark flavor, including the subleading-logarithm terms. Earlier work did diagonal running or subsets; this paper systematically maps which operators get constrained through mixing, and identifies flavor combinations where the leading effect appears only at second logarithmic order—e.g., C_duLLD with (3,1). That is a useful result for model builders. The machinery is standard, the ADM is taken from Ref [23], and the numerical rates go through the public νDoBe chain. The representative analytic expressions check out internally.

The soft spot is the neutrino-mass consistency. In the last paragraph of Sec. V, the authors explain that Ref [58] gets overly stringent bounds on operators that mix into the Weinberg operator because the induced neutrino masses are unrealistic and 'must be canceled out by other EFT contributions.' Fine. But they do not apply that same reasoning to their own Fig. 4 limits on exactly those operators. Footnote 8 even names C_dlqlH1 with i=j=3 as generating a Weinberg contribution proportional to y_b. If the 0νββ signal for that coefficient is dominated by the one-loop RG-generated Weinberg term, then imposing m_nu < 0.1 eV would remove or drastically reweight that signal. The quoted Λ limits and the comparison to meson decays could change by orders of magnitude for those operators. The paper needs to either demonstrate that its constraints are invariant under the same cancellation, or re-derive the affected limits with the neutrino-mass bound imposed. This doesn't sink the whole paper—many operators don't feed the Weinberg operator—but it is a load-bearing issue for a subset of the headline claims.

A separate, minor issue is that the limits are quoted without uncertainty bands despite inheriting nuclear matrix elements and chiral coefficients from νDoBe. That's standard practice in this field, but it means the 'most stringent' ordering against meson decays could shift for some operators if the nuclear input moves by order one.

Who's this for? EFT practitioners and model builders working on TeV-scale LNV. The core methodology is sound and the flavor atlas in Figs. 3–4 is valuable. With the Weinberg-mixing consistency fixed, this is a solid paper. I'd send it to a serious referee, but the revision should be asked to address that point before acceptance.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies neutrinoless double-beta decay (0νββ) constraints on the twelve lepton-number-violating dimension-seven SMEFT operators. The authors use the one-loop anomalous dimension matrix of Ref. [23] to evolve the full set of d=7 Wilson coefficients from the new-physics scale to the electroweak scale, including Yukawa/CKM-induced flavor mixing and keeping first- and second-logarithmic terms in the RG expansion. They feed the resulting low-energy coefficients into the νDoBe 'Master Formula' chain (Refs. [12,13,43]) to compute 0νββ half-lives, and compare the resulting limits on Λ/∛C with limits from pseudoscalar meson decays (P→e+inv, P→P'e^-e^-, P→P'inv). The main results are that RG-induced mixing makes 0νββ the most stringent probe for many ψ4H and ψ4D operators, especially those with heavy-quark flavor indices, with scales up to about 30 TeV, and that for several operators the leading contribution arises at second logarithmic order through two-step mixing. The paper also compares its results with the numerical tool of Ref. [58] and argues that the more stringent limits obtained there for operators that mix into the Weinberg operator rely on unrealistic induced neutrino masses.

Significance. If the results are correct, this is a useful systematic contribution: it extends earlier single-operator studies to the complete d=7 LNV operator set with general quark flavor, identifies operators for which second-logarithmic mixing is the leading effect, and gives concrete predictions for the sensitivity of next-generation 0νββ experiments. Strengths include the use of an independent published anomalous-dimension matrix, the explicit classification of tree-level, first-log, and second-log dominance in Fig. 4, and the use of the public νDoBe pipeline, which makes the numerical analysis reproducible in principle. The comparison with meson decays is a valuable benchmark. The main caveats are the model-dependent treatment of d=7→d=5 Weinberg mixing and the absence of quantitative uncertainty estimates for the nuclear input; these affect the strength of the 'most stringent' claim for a subset of the operators.

major comments (3)

[Sec. V, final paragraph and footnote 8; Figs. 3–4] The paper excludes, for a class of operators, the contribution obtained by mixing into the dimension-five Weinberg operator, invoking a cancellation of the induced neutrino masses. However, the text does not state which entries in Figs. 3 and 4 are affected by this exclusion, nor does it show that the cancellation required to satisfy mν≲0.1 eV leaves the remaining non-Weinberg contributions unchanged. The concrete case named in footnote 8, C^{(7)}_{dlqlH1} with i=j=3, appears in Fig. 4; if its displayed 0νββ bound had included the y_b-proportional Weinberg contribution, imposing the neutrino-mass bound would remove or strongly reweight that limit. The comparison with Ref. [58] suggests that this contribution was dropped, but the paper should say so explicitly for each affected operator and quantify the resulting change. As written, the 'most stringent' claim for the affected ψ4H and ψ4D entries is not fully supported.
[Sec. III, Eq. (3); Sec. IV B; Sec. V] The abstract and introduction describe the analysis as a 'complete one-loop RG analysis' of 0νββ, but Eq. (3) drops the 'contributions from insertions of lower-dimensional operators' and the numerical analysis does not include the d=7→d=5 mixing that is precisely the subject of the final comparison paragraph. This is a physical choice: one can marginalize over a tuned cancellation of induced neutrino masses, but then the quoted bounds are conditional on that tuning. The paper should either include the Weinberg-mixing terms in the numerical pipeline or qualify the 'complete' claim and state the tuning assumption at the point where νDoBe is adopted (Sec. IV B), rather than only in the closing discussion.
[Sec. IV B; Figs. 3–4] The quoted limits are central values with no uncertainty bands. The 0νββ half-lives inherit nuclear matrix elements and chiral EFT coefficients from νDoBe; order-one changes in these inputs could reorder the comparison with meson-decay limits for operators where the two probes are close. To support the 'most stringent' claim, the paper should provide an estimate of the dominant nuclear/EFT uncertainties, or identify how large a shift would be needed to change the ordering between 0νββ and meson-decay constraints.

minor comments (6)

[References] Refs. [24] and [58] are the same paper (Y. Liao et al., JHEP 08 (2025) 138); the duplicate citation should be merged.
[Sec. IV B and Sec. IV A] There are two typos: 'automized' should be 'automated', and 'out SMEFT analysis' should be 'our SMEFT analysis'.
[Table I and footnote 8] The coefficient C^{(7)}_{dlqlH1} in footnote 8 uses a different notation from the operator O^{(7)}_{\bar{d}LQLH1} in Table I; please unify the naming convention for this operator.
[Sec. IV C and Fig. 2 caption] The notation P^-→P'^+ + inv is confusing because both mesons are charged; please define the charge assignments and state explicitly that 'inv' denotes missing neutrinos in the process.
[Sec. V, paragraph after Fig. 4] The Belle-II B^+→K^++inv result is described as a 'mild excess' and then translated into Λ≃3 TeV as though it were an upper bound; please specify whether this is treated as a limit, a two-sided constraint, or a signal, and what confidence level is used.
[Sec. III, Eq. (5); Sec. VI] The term 'second leading-logarithm' is used for the log² term built from two one-loop anomalous-dimension entries; this should be distinguished explicitly from a genuine two-loop anomalous-dimension contribution, which the conclusion mentions as future work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: mixing constraints use the external one-loop ADM of Ref. [23] and the public νDoBe chain; self-citations are peripheral or independent, and the neutrino-mass caveat is a consistency issue, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not equivalent to its inputs. The one-loop evolution in Eqs. (3)-(5) is driven by the anomalous dimension matrix γ^(7) taken from Ref. [23], an independent calculation by D. Zhang; no element of that matrix is fitted to 0νββ data, and the logarithmic expansion is a standard perturbative resummation, not a fit. The 'beyond first leading-logarithm' effects are products of the same one-loop ADM, and the paper explicitly defers a true two-loop anomalous dimension to future work, so the leading double-log result is not presented as an independent prediction. The numerical bounds in Secs. IV-V use the KamLAND-Zen half-life limit [4] and the public tool νDoBe [43], whose Master Formula [12,13] is co-authored by one of the present authors. This is a self-citation, but it is not load-bearing in a circular sense: the Master Formula and νDoBe are external, code-reproduced tools with stated nuclear/chiral assumptions that do not include the 0νββ constraints being derived, and they are equally applicable to any Wilson coefficient input. The final-paragraph critique of Ref. [58]—that operators generating the Weinberg operator require cancellation of neutrino masses (m_ν ≲ 0.1 eV)—is a consistency caveat about a competing tool's bounds, not a definitional loop in this paper: the paper's own constraints are the less stringent ones for those channels, and no equation here defines a predicted half-life in terms of the experimental input. The remaining self-citations (e.g., Ref. [17] for the scalar-leptoquark example, Ref. [57] for the Belle-II excess) are illustrative and do not carry the derivation. Overall, no step exhibits the pattern of an input defined by the output or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction; the score of 2 reflects only the presence of peripheral self-citations, not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameter is fitted to data; the reported limits assume unit Wilson coefficients as a convention. The load-bearing inputs are external computations and standard EFT assumptions, including the anomalous dimension matrix, the νDoBe nuclear input, and the neutrino-mass cancellation invoked for operators that feed the Weinberg operator.

free parameters (1)

Wilson coefficient normalization for reported limits = C = 1 for all operators
Figs. 3 and 4 quote limits on Λ/∛C, which assumes unit dimensionless coefficients at the new-physics scale; this is a reporting convention, not a parameter fitted to data.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Mass gap between the electroweak scale and new physics, with perturbative coefficients (C ≲ 4π).
Defines the SMEFT validity and the gray hatched region in Figs. 3 and 4 (Sec. II).
domain assumption The one-loop anomalous dimension matrix for d=7 SMEFT operators from Ref [23] is complete and correct.
Sec. III uses this matrix as the input for the entire RG analysis; no entry is recomputed here.
domain assumption The evolution matrix in Eq. (5) with fixed SM couplings captures the relevant first and second logarithms.
Used in Secs. III and V; the paper notes that a full account of higher-order effects would require two-loop anomalous dimensions.
domain assumption The Master Formula and nuclear input in νDoBe reliably convert SMEFT and LEFT coefficients into 0νββ half-lives.
Adopted in Sec. IV B; no uncertainty band is propagated into the quoted limits.
ad hoc to paper Neutrino masses induced by d=7 operators can be canceled by other EFT contributions while leaving the 0νββ bounds unchanged.
Invoked in Sec. V when explaining the disagreement with Ref [58]; the cancellation is not demonstrated for the operators constrained in Fig. 4.
domain assumption Lepton flavors are fixed to the first generation and quark fields are evaluated in the down-aligned basis.
Stated in Secs. II and IV; appropriate for 0νββ, which only accesses electron flavor.
domain assumption One-loop QCD running below the electroweak scale is sufficient.
Sec. IV A states that higher-order QCD corrections have only a small impact and one-loop evolution is used for consistency.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutrinoless Double-Beta Decays from Operator Mixing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LCKELVSQ

@misc{pith2026260807657,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutrinoless Double-Beta Decays from Operator Mixing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LCKELVSQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07657}
}

read the original abstract

We perform a complete one-loop Renormalization Group (RG) analysis of neutrinoless double-beta decays within the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT). Although several effective operators do not contribute to these processes at tree level, we show that they can generate sizable contributions through operator mixing. By accounting for the full one-loop RG evolution within the SMEFT, we find that the resulting constraints provide the most stringent bounds on numerous dimension-seven operators, improving upon limits derived from meson decays. We also highlight the importance of contributions beyond the first leading logarithm, which can provide the leading effects for specific operators and flavor combinations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07657 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** In this Table, the contributions that generate nonnegligible mixing of operators that are relevant for 0νββ are highlighted in blue. These entries are proportional to the quark Yukawas, with the largest effects coming from operators with third-generation quarks. Contributions that are proportional to the lepton Yukawas are displayed in gray, as they are negligible for ℓ = e, as we consider. Notably, all classes of… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[23]

Zhang, JHEP02(2024), 133 [arXiv:2310.11055 [hep- ph]]

D. Zhang, JHEP02(2024), 133 [arXiv:2310.11055 [hep- ph]]

arXiv 2024
[58]

Y. Liao, X. D. Ma, H. L. Wang and X. Zhao, JHEP08 (2025), 138 [arXiv:2505.06499 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[1]

Sajjad Athar, S

M. Sajjad Athar, S. W. Barwick, T. Brunner, J. Cao, M. Danilov, K. Inoue, T. Kajita, M. Kowalski, M. Lind- ner and K. R. Long,et al.Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.124 (2022), 103947 [arXiv:2111.07586 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2022
[2]

Snowmass Neutrino Frontier Report

P. Huber, K. Scholberg, E. Worcester, J. Asaadi, A. B. Balantekin, N. Bowden, P. Coloma, P. B. Den- ton, A. de Gouvˆ ea and L. Fields,et al.[arXiv:2211.08641 [hep-ex]]

work page Pith review arXiv
[3]

Weinberg, Phys

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.43(1979), 1566-1570

work page 1979
[4]

Abeet al.[KamLAND-Zen], Phys

S. Abeet al.[KamLAND-Zen], Phys. Rev. Lett.135 (2025) no.26, 262501 [arXiv:2406.11438 [hep-ex]]

arXiv 2025
[5]

Agostiniet al.[GERDA], Phys

M. Agostiniet al.[GERDA], Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020) no.25, 252502 [arXiv:2009.06079 [nucl-ex]]

arXiv 2020
[6]

I. J. Arnquistet al.[Majorana], Phys. Rev. Lett.130 (2023) no.6, 062501 [arXiv:2207.07638 [nucl-ex]]

arXiv 2023

Show all 60 references

[7]

Antonet al.[EXO-200], Phys

G. Antonet al.[EXO-200], Phys. Rev. Lett.123(2019) no.16, 161802 [arXiv:1906.02723 [hep-ex]]

2019 arXiv
[8]

D. Q. Adamset al.[CUORE], Phys. Rev. Lett.129 (2022) no.22, 222501 [arXiv:2205.03132 [nucl-ex]]

2022 arXiv
[9]

Abgrallet al.[LEGEND], [arXiv:2107.11462 [physics.ins-det]]

N. Abgrallet al.[LEGEND], [arXiv:2107.11462 [physics.ins-det]]

arXiv
[10]

Adhikariet al.[nEXO], J

G. Adhikariet al.[nEXO], J. Phys. G49(2022) no.1, 015104 [arXiv:2106.16243 [nucl-ex]]

2022 arXiv
[11]

Albaneseet al.[SNO+], JINST16(2021) no.08, P08059 [arXiv:2104.11687 [physics.ins-det]]

V. Albaneseet al.[SNO+], JINST16(2021) no.08, P08059 [arXiv:2104.11687 [physics.ins-det]]

2021 arXiv
[12]

Cirigliano, W

V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, M. L. Graesser and E. Mereghetti, JHEP12(2017), 082 [arXiv:1708.09390 [hep-ph]]

2017 arXiv
[13]

Cirigliano, W

V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, M. L. Graesser and E. Mereghetti, JHEP12(2018), 097 [arXiv:1806.02780 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[14]

Fridell, L

K. Fridell, L. Gr´ af, J. Harz and C. Hati, JHEP05(2024), 154 [arXiv:2306.08709 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[15]

Gr´ af, C

L. Gr´ af, C. Hati, A. Mart ´ ın-Gal´ an and O. Scholer, Phys. Rev. D113no.3, 035031 [arXiv:2504.00081 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[16]

Hirsch, H

M. Hirsch, H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and S. G. Ko- valenko, Phys. Rev. D54(1996), R4207-R4210 [arXiv:hep-ph/9603213 [hep-ph]]

1996 arXiv
[17]

Fajfer, L

S. Fajfer, L. P. S. Leal, O. Sumensari and R. Z. Funchal, JHEP01(2025), 147 [arXiv:2406.20050 [hep-ph]]

2025 arXiv
[18]

Fridell, L

K. Fridell, L. Gr´ af, J. Harz and C. Hati, JHEP09(2025), 050 [arXiv:2412.14268 [hep-ph]]

2025
[19]

Zhang, JHEP10(2023), 148 [arXiv:2306.03008 [hep- ph]]

D. Zhang, JHEP10(2023), 148 [arXiv:2306.03008 [hep- ph]]

2023 arXiv
[20]

D. A. Faroughy, G. Isidori, F. Wilsch and K. Yamamoto, JHEP08(2020), 166 [arXiv:2005.05366 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[21]

Buchmuller and D

W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, Nucl. Phys. B268(1986), 621-653

1986
[22]

Kobach, Phys

A. Kobach, Phys. Lett. B758(2016), 455-457 [arXiv:1604.05726 [hep-ph]]

2016 arXiv
[25]

A. J. Buras and M. Jung, JHEP06(2018), 067 [arXiv:1804.05852 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[26]

Elias Miro, C

J. Elias Miro, C. Fernandez, M. A. Gumus and A. Po- marol, JHEP06(2022), 126 [arXiv:2112.12131 [hep-ph]]

2022 arXiv
[27]

Plakias and O

I. Plakias and O. Sumensari, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.3, 035016 [arXiv:2312.14070 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[28]

J. Kley, T. Theil, E. Venturini and A. Weiler, Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) no.10, 926 [arXiv:2109.15085 [hep-ph]]

2022 arXiv
[29]

Cirigliano, W

V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries and E. Mereghetti, Phys. Rev. D94(2016) no.1, 016002 [arXiv:1603.03049 [hep-ph]]

2016 arXiv
[30]

Allwicher, C

L. Allwicher, C. Cornella, G. Isidori and B. A. Stefanek, JHEP03(2024), 049 [arXiv:2311.00020 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[31]

Haisch and L

U. Haisch and L. Schnell, JHEP02(2025), 038 [arXiv:2410.13304 [hep-ph]]

2025 arXiv
[32]

Allwicher, G

L. Allwicher, G. Isidori, J. M. Lizana, N. Selimovic and B. A. Stefanek, JHEP05(2023), 179 [arXiv:2302.11584 [hep-ph]]

2023 arXiv
[33]

L. Born, A. Greljo and A. E. Thomsen, [arXiv:2604.26817 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[34]

R. Coy, M. Frigerio, F. Mescia and O. Sumensari, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) no.1, 52 [arXiv:1909.08567 [hep- ph]]

2020 arXiv
[35]

Aebischer and J

J. Aebischer and J. Kumar, JHEP09(2020), 187 [arXiv:2005.12283 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[36]

Aebischer, A

J. Aebischer, A. J. Buras and J. Kumar, Phys. Rept. 1198(2026), 1-181 [arXiv:2507.05926 [hep-ph]]

2026
[37]

J. A. M. Vermaseren, S. A. Larin and T. van Rit- bergen, Phys. Lett. B405(1997), 327-333 [arXiv:hep- ph/9703284 [hep-ph]]

1997
[38]

K. G. Chetyrkin, Phys. Lett. B404(1997), 161-165 [arXiv:hep-ph/9703278 [hep-ph]]

1997 arXiv
[39]

J. A. Gracey, Phys. Rev. D106(2022) no.8, 085008 [arXiv:2208.14527 [hep-ph]]

2022 arXiv
[40]

van Ritbergen, J

T. van Ritbergen, J. A. M. Vermaseren and S. A. Larin, Phys. Lett. B400(1997), 379-384 [arXiv:hep- ph/9701390 [hep-ph]]

1997
[41]

K. G. Chetyrkin, B. A. Kniehl and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. Lett.79(1997), 2184-2187 [arXiv:hep-ph/9706430 [hep-ph]]. 13

1997 arXiv
[42]

Cirigliano, Z

V. Cirigliano, Z. Davoudi, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, J. En- gel, X. Feng, J. Gehrlein, M. L. Graesser, L. Gr´ af and H. Hergert,et al.[arXiv:2203.12169 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[43]

Scholer, J

O. Scholer, J. de Vries and L. Gr´ af, JHEP08(2023), 043 [arXiv:2304.05415 [hep-ph]]

2023 arXiv
[44]

Beˇ cirevi´ c, F

D. Beˇ cirevi´ c, F. Jaffredo, A. Pe˜ nuelas and O. Sumensari, JHEP05(2021), 175 [arXiv:2012.09872 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[45]

Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

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

2024
[46]

Aokiet al.[Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)], Phys

Y. Aokiet al.[Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)], Phys. Rev. D113(2026) no.1, 014508 [arXiv:2411.04268 [hep-lat]]

2026 arXiv
[47]

Abada, V

A. Abada, V. De Romeri, M. Lucente, A. M. Teixeira and T. Toma, JHEP02(2018), 169 [arXiv:1712.03984 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[48]

A. J. Buras, J. Harz and M. A. Mojahed, JHEP10 (2024), 087 [arXiv:2405.06742 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[49]

Felkl, S

T. Felkl, S. L. Li and M. A. Schmidt, JHEP12(2021), 118 [arXiv:2111.04327 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[50]

Felkl, A

T. Felkl, A. Giri, R. Mohanta and M. A. Schmidt, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) no.12, 1135 [arXiv:2309.02940 [hep- ph]]

2023 arXiv
[51]

Cortina Gilet al.[NA62], JHEP02(2025), 191 [arXiv:2412.12015 [hep-ex]]

E. Cortina Gilet al.[NA62], JHEP02(2025), 191 [arXiv:2412.12015 [hep-ex]]

2025 arXiv
[52]

Adachiet al.[Belle-II], Phys

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

2024 arXiv
[53]

Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. D105(2022) no.7, L071102 [arXiv:2112.14236 [hep-ex]]

2022
[54]

Grygieret al.[Belle], Phys

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

2017 arXiv
[55]

Bause, H

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

2021 arXiv
[56]

Hiller and D

G. Hiller and D. Suelmann, Phys. Rev. D113(2026) no.9, 095008 [arXiv:2512.19794 [hep-ph]]

2026 arXiv
[57]

Abada, C

A. Abada, C. Chevallier, L. P. S. Leal, A. Llaurad´ o, O. Sumensari and R. Z. Funchal, [arXiv:2607.13142 [hep- ph]]

arXiv
[59]

Chala and A

M. Chala and A. Titov, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) no.3, 035002 [arXiv:2104.08248 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[60]

Donini, M

A. Donini, M. Gonz´ alez, M. Hirsch and N. A. Neill, Phys. Rev. D113(2026) no.7, 075004 [arXiv:2510.24835 [hep- ph]]

2026
[61]

Zhou, JHEP06(2022), 127 [arXiv:2112.00767 [hep- ph]]

G. Zhou, JHEP06(2022), 127 [arXiv:2112.00767 [hep- ph]]

2022 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [23]

Zhang, JHEP02(2024), 133 [arXiv:2310.11055 [hep- ph]]

D. Zhang, JHEP02(2024), 133 [arXiv:2310.11055 [hep- ph]]

arXiv 2024

[2] [58]

Y. Liao, X. D. Ma, H. L. Wang and X. Zhao, JHEP08 (2025), 138 [arXiv:2505.06499 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[3] [1]

Sajjad Athar, S

M. Sajjad Athar, S. W. Barwick, T. Brunner, J. Cao, M. Danilov, K. Inoue, T. Kajita, M. Kowalski, M. Lind- ner and K. R. Long,et al.Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.124 (2022), 103947 [arXiv:2111.07586 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2022

[4] [2]

Snowmass Neutrino Frontier Report

P. Huber, K. Scholberg, E. Worcester, J. Asaadi, A. B. Balantekin, N. Bowden, P. Coloma, P. B. Den- ton, A. de Gouvˆ ea and L. Fields,et al.[arXiv:2211.08641 [hep-ex]]

work page Pith review arXiv

[5] [3]

Weinberg, Phys

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.43(1979), 1566-1570

work page 1979

[6] [4]

Abeet al.[KamLAND-Zen], Phys

S. Abeet al.[KamLAND-Zen], Phys. Rev. Lett.135 (2025) no.26, 262501 [arXiv:2406.11438 [hep-ex]]

arXiv 2025

[7] [5]

Agostiniet al.[GERDA], Phys

M. Agostiniet al.[GERDA], Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020) no.25, 252502 [arXiv:2009.06079 [nucl-ex]]

arXiv 2020

[8] [6]

I. J. Arnquistet al.[Majorana], Phys. Rev. Lett.130 (2023) no.6, 062501 [arXiv:2207.07638 [nucl-ex]]

arXiv 2023