Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Probing a 146 GeV cLFV scalar using the LHC and low-energy experiments

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-12 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A 146 GeV scalar that could explain the CMS eμ excess is already under pressure from μ–e conversion and will be settled by low-energy experiments within a decade.

desk verdict Clean model-agnostic MCMC of a 146 GeV cLFV scalar; the non-zero Y_eμ peak is real but carries only ~20% posterior weight under a 2.8σ Gaussian pull, so the abstract overstates preference while the complementarity map remains useful. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.03249 v1 pith:26FNSSNM submitted 2026-07-03 hep-ph hep-th

Christina Gao , Lingfeng Li , Z.J. Xiong This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th
keywords chargedleptonflavorviolation146GeVscalarCMSeμexcessμ–econversionBayesianMCMCeffectiveLagrangianMu2eCOMET
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

CMS has reported a 2.8σ excess consistent with a 146 GeV scalar decaying to an electron-muon pair. The paper asks whether any such scalar can also survive the full suite of existing low-energy charged-lepton-flavor-violation bounds. It introduces a minimal effective description with seven free couplings (one gluonic, six Yukawa) that control both the LHC rate and every low-energy process, then maps the allowed region with a Bayesian MCMC scan. The posterior is bimodal: one mode clusters near vanishing flavor-violating couplings, the other peaks at Yeμ ≈ 10^{-4.09} and is already grazed by present μ–e conversion limits. Projected reaches of Mu2e, COMET, Mu3e, MEG II, Belle II, STCF and the HL-LHC cover essentially the entire non-zero mode, so the scalar interpretation of the excess will be confirmed or excluded within roughly ten years.

What carries the argument

The seven-parameter effective Lagrangian of Eq. (1.1)/​(2.1) together with a Bayesian MCMC likelihood that folds the CMS 3.89 fb excess, same-flavor di-lepton resonance limits, and the complete set of low-energy cLFV branching-ratio bounds into a single posterior.

What would settle it

A null result from Mu2e or COMET at the projected 10^{-16}–10^{-17} conversion sensitivity would exclude the entire non-zero Yeμ peak preferred by the CMS excess.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A single real scalar of mass 146 GeV coupled to gluons and to all charged-lepton bilinears yields a preferred posterior mode with Yeμ ∼ 10^{-4.09} that simultaneously accommodates the CMS eμ excess and existing cLFV null results; that mode is already cut by current μ–e conversion and lies fully within the projected sensitivity of the next generation of low-energy experiments.

Load-bearing premise

Treating the CMS 2.8σ global excess as a Gaussian likelihood centered on 3.89 fb while still allowing a vanishing-coupling mode, so the non-zero peak is only as strong as that modest excess.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mu2e and COMET will cover almost the entire CMS-favored Yeμ island, leaving at most a narrow surviving strip.
  • Mu3e will independently close the same island through the three-electron channel.
  • MEG II will tighten the product Yeτ Yμτ by an order of magnitude, further restricting the τ-sector plane.
  • HL-LHC same-flavor di-lepton searches will push the diagonal Yukawas Ye e, Yμμ, Yττ well below their present loose upper limits.
  • If the excess is real, a heterogeneous data set from muon experiments, τ factories and the HL-LHC will pin down the seven couplings within a decade.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the non-zero mode is already grazed by present conversion limits, even a modest improvement in SINDRUM-II-style data could have shifted the posterior weight decisively toward vanishing couplings.
  • The same seven-parameter scaffold can be reused for any future resonance claim in a different di-lepton channel without committing to a specific ultraviolet completion.
  • A parallel lepton-PDF production analysis would test whether the excess can be rescued by a purely leptophilic production mechanism that evades the gluonic conversion bound.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether a single real scalar of mass 146 GeV, coupled to gluons via a dimension-5 operator and to all charged-lepton bilinears via seven real Yukawa couplings (Eqs. 1.1/2.1), can accommodate the CMS local excess in pp oϕ o eμ while remaining compatible with the full suite of low-energy cLFV bounds. Production is computed in the ggF channel with a heavy-top K-factor (Sec. 3.1); tree-level and one-loop rates for μ−e conversion, muonium oscillation, three-lepton and radiative LFV decays, and semileptonic τ decays are derived in Sec. 3.2. A Bayesian MCMC scan with log-uniform priors (Sec. 4.1) yields a bimodal posterior: a vanishing-coupling mode favored by the null results and a secondary non-zero mode peaking near log10 Yeμ≃−4.09 that is already constrained by current μ−e conversion. Projected sensitivities of Mu2e, COMET, Mu3e, MEG II, Belle II, STCF and the HL-LHC are shown to cover the CMS-selected region, establishing quantitative complementarity between high- and low-energy probes.

Significance. If the CMS excess is real, a model-agnostic map of the seven-parameter space that simultaneously satisfies LHC production and every major low-energy cLFV observable is a useful and timely contribution. The paper supplies explicit, standard formulae for all rates, uses FLAG 2024 form factors, and produces falsifiable projections that future experiments can test within a decade. The bimodal posterior itself is an informative result: it quantifies how weakly a 2.8σ global excess pulls against existing nulls. The analysis is therefore valuable both as a consistency check of the scalar interpretation and as a concrete target list for Mu2e/COMET/Mu3e and HL-LHC.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract and Sec. 4.2: the language “preferred mode with peaked value Yeμ∼10−4.09” overstates the posterior. Sec. 4.2 itself states that the vanishing-coupling mode carries roughly 80 % of the 68 % posterior weight; the non-zero peak is secondary. Because χ^{2}_146 (Eqs. 4.3–4.4) converts a 2.8σ global excess into a two-sided Gaussian centered on 3.89 fb, the non-zero mode is an artifact of that likelihood construction. The abstract and conclusions should be rewritten to state that the posterior is bimodal, that the dominant mode is vanishing couplings, and that the non-zero peak is only a secondary feature pulled by the modest CMS excess.
  2. Sec. 4.1, Eqs. (4.3)–(4.4): the treatment of the CMS excess is inconsistent with the treatment of the same-flavor resonance searches (Eq. 4.5). The latter correctly use one-sided upper-limit χ^{2}; the former actively pulls toward a non-zero signal. Given that the global significance is only 2.8σ and the look-elsewhere effect has already been folded in, a more conservative construction (one-sided upper limit, or a mixture that includes the background-only hypothesis) should be shown as a robustness check. If that check eliminates the non-zero peak, the “preferred Yeμ” claim must be dropped.
minor comments (5)
  1. Sec. 3.2.3, Eqs. (3.32)–(3.33): the interference terms in τ→eeμ and τ→μμe are dropped “for simplicity.” A short numerical statement that their inclusion does not shift the posterior would strengthen the claim.
  2. App. B and Fig. 9: the prior-sensitivity test is useful; it would help the reader if the same exercise were repeated for the two-dimensional credible regions of (κgg,Yeμ) that drive the complementarity argument.
  3. Fig. 5 caption and Table 2: the 68 % HPD intervals for log10 Yeμ are reported as two disjoint intervals, yet the abstract quotes only the non-zero peak. Align the abstract wording with the table.
  4. Sec. 3.1: the residual model dependence of the SM K-factor for a pure dimension-5 ϕGG operator is stated to be “percent-level”; a one-sentence reference to the finite-mt literature would make the claim fully transparent.
  5. Typos / notation: “T oy Model” in the contents; occasional missing spaces around ∼ and in “µ−econversion”; “Brth” vs. “Brlim” notation is clear but could be standardized in the tables.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: free parameters scanned against external experimental inputs; posterior peak is an output of the fit, not an input renamed as prediction.

full rationale

The seven couplings are free parameters with log-uniform priors. All observables (ggF cross section via κ_gg and Br(φ o eμ), μ−e conversion, muonium oscillation, three-lepton and radiative decays, τ semi-leptonic modes, same-flavor LHC resonance limits) are computed from the Lagrangian and compared to external experimental numbers (CMS 3.89 fb excess, SINDRUM II, MEG II, Belle, etc.). The MCMC posterior, including the bimodal structure and the non-zero peak at log10(Y_eμ)∼−4.09, is therefore a genuine output of that multi-experiment likelihood, not a quantity forced by construction from a fitted constant or a self-citation. The paper itself reports that the vanishing-coupling mode carries the larger posterior weight and that the CMS global significance is only 2.8σ; no equation equates a claimed prediction to an input by definition. Standard external lattice/PDF/K-factor inputs are used without load-bearing self-citation chains. Methodological choices about how to encode a modest excess as a Gaussian pull affect the strength of the non-zero mode but do not constitute circularity under the defined patterns.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on seven free Yukawa/gluon couplings scanned with log-uniform priors, the assumption that a single real CP-even scalar of fixed mass 146 GeV mediates all processes via the written operators, and standard narrow-width and heavy-top approximations. No new conserved charges or extra dimensions are introduced; the scalar itself is the sole invented entity and is tied directly to the CMS mass peak.

free parameters (3)
  • κ_gg
    Dimensionful gluon coupling controlling ggF production; scanned log-uniform over ten orders of magnitude and fitted to the CMS excess plus low-energy bounds.
  • Y_eμ
    Off-diagonal Yukawa fixed by the eμ excess and constrained by μ−e conversion and muonium oscillation; preferred posterior peak is the main result.
  • Y_eτ, Y_μτ, Y_ee, Y_μμ, Y_ττ
    Remaining five Yukawas enter total width, radiative and three-body decays; only 95 % upper limits are reported because they are not directly fixed by the CMS excess.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption All seven couplings are real, Y_ij = Y_ji, and ϕ is CP-even with no ϕG̃G operator.
    Stated in Sec. 2; simplifies the parameter space and eliminates CP-odd observables.
  • domain assumption ϕ is an on-shell resonance treated in the narrow-width approximation.
    Used throughout Sec. 3.1 for the production×branching formula.
  • domain assumption The K-factor for gg→ϕ is identical to the SM heavy-top Higgs K-factor (K≈1.47).
    Adopted in Eq. (3.7) with residual finite-m_t uncertainty argued to be percent-level.
  • ad hoc to paper Log-uniform priors on all |Y_ij| and κ_gg spanning [10^{-10},1].
    Chosen in Sec. 4.1 for maximal ignorance; one-sided limits retain mild prior dependence quantified in App. B.
  • domain assumption Likelihoods for experimental upper limits are one-sided Gaussians (1.645σ for 90 % CL, 1.96σ for 95 % CL).
    Standard approximation used in Eqs. (4.5)–(4.6).
invented entities (1)
  • Real scalar ϕ of mass exactly 146 GeV with the seven free couplings of Eq. (1.1)/(2.1)
    purpose: Provide a model-agnostic mediator that can produce the CMS eμ excess while being constrained by all low-energy cLFV observables.
    Mass is taken from the CMS peak; couplings are free parameters rather than derived from a UV completion. Independent evidence would be confirmation of the excess or observation of the predicted low-energy rates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing a 146 GeV cLFV scalar using the LHC and low-energy experiments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/26FNSSNM

@misc{pith2026260703249,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing a 146 GeV cLFV scalar using the LHC and low-energy experiments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/26FNSSNM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.03249}
}
abstract

The CMS Collaboration reported a local excess at $146~\mathrm{GeV}$ in the search for the lepton-flavor-violating decay of the Higgs boson and additional Higgs bosons in the $e\mu$ final state at $\sqrt{s}= 13~\mathrm{TeV}$. If confirmed, this would constitute a major piece of evidence of charged lepton flavor violation (cLFV). We investigate the compatibility of the claimed signal with the full suite of existing low-energy cLFV constraints in a bottom-up effective description: a single real scalar of mass $146~\mathrm{GeV}$ coupled to gluons and to all charged-lepton bilinears, with seven free parameters that simultaneously control the LHC production cross section, every di-lepton decay channel, and every low-energy cLFV observable. A Bayesian MCMC analysis against $\mu-e$ conversion, muonium-antimuonium oscillation, three-lepton and radiative LFV decays, semileptonic $\tau$ LFV decays, and LHC di-lepton searches yields a preferred mode with peaked value $Y_{e\mu} \sim 10^{-4.09}$, already cut into by the current $\mu-e$ conversion limits. The projected sensitivities of Mu2e, COMET, Mu3e, MACE, MEG~II, Belle~II, STCF, and the HL-LHC directly probe the region of coupling space selected by the CMS excess, so the complementarity between high-energy and low-energy cLFV probes will either corroborate or decisively exclude the scalar interpretation of the anomaly within the next decade.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Marciano and A.I

    W.J. Marciano and A.I. Sanda,Exotic Decays of the Muon and Heavy Leptons in Gauge Theories,Phys. Lett. B67(1977) 303

    1977

  2. [2]

    Petcov,The Processesµ→e+γ, µ→e+ e, ν′ →ν+γin the Weinberg-Salam Model with Neutrino Mixing,Sov

    S.T. Petcov,The Processesµ→e+γ, µ→e+ e, ν′ →ν+γin the Weinberg-Salam Model with Neutrino Mixing,Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.25(1977) 340

    1977

  3. [3]

    Bilenky, S.T

    S.M. Bilenky, S.T. Petcov and B. Pontecorvo,Lepton Mixing, mu –>e + gamma Decay and Neutrino Oscillations,Phys. Lett. B67(1977) 309

    1977

  4. [4]

    Cheng and L.-F

    T.-P. Cheng and L.-F. Li,Muon Number Nonconservation Effects in a Gauge Theory with V A Currents and Heavy Neutral Leptons,Phys. Rev. D16(1977) 1425

    1977

  5. [5]

    B.W. Lee, S. Pakvasa, R.E. Shrock and H. Sugawara,Muon and Electron Number Nonconservation in a V-A Gauge Model,Phys. Rev. Lett.38(1977) 937. [7]MEG IIcollaboration,A search forµ + →e +γwith the first dataset of the MEG II experiment,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 216 [2310.12614]. [8]SINDRUMcollaboration,Search for the decayµ + →e +e+e−,Nuclear Physics B299 (19...

    arXiv 1977

  6. [6]

    Willmann, P.V

    L. Willmann, P.V. Schmidt, H.P. Wirtz, R. Abela, V. Baranov, J. Bagaturia et al.,New bounds from searching for muonium to antimuonium conversion,Physical Review Letters82 (1999) 49 [hep-ex/9807011]

    arXiv 1999

  7. [7]

    Bai et al.,Conceptual design of the muonium-to-antimuonium conversion experiment (MACE),Nucl

    A.-Y. Bai et al.,Conceptual design of the muonium-to-antimuonium conversion experiment (MACE),Nucl. Sci. Tech.37(2026) 57 [2410.18817]. [15]Bellecollaboration,Search for lepton-flavor-violating tau-lepton decays tolγat Belle, Journal of High Energy Physics2021(2021) 19 [2103.12994]. [16]Belle-IIcollaboration,Search for the lepton-flavor-violatingτ − →e ∓ℓ...

    arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Achasov et al.,STCF conceptual design report (Volume 1): Physics & detector,Front

    M. Achasov et al.,STCF conceptual design report (Volume 1): Physics & detector,Front. Phys. (Beijing)19(2024) 14701 [2303.15790]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Delzanno, K

    F. Delzanno, K. Fuyuto, S. Gonz` alez-Sol´ ıs and E. Mereghetti,Global analysis ofµ→e interactions in the SMEFT,JHEP07(2025) 283 [2411.13497]. – 23 –

    2025

  2. [10]

    Fern´ andez-Mart´ ınez, X

    E. Fern´ andez-Mart´ ınez, X. Marcano and D. Naredo-Tuero,Global lepton flavour violating constraints on new physics,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 666 [2403.09772]

    2024

  3. [11]

    Abu-Ajamieh, S

    F. Abu-Ajamieh, S. Kumbhakar, R. Sarkar and S. Vempati,Improved bounds and global fit of flavor-violating charged lepton yukawa couplings post lhc,The European Physical Journal C 85(2025) 967 [2505.12208]

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Dev, R.N

    P.S.B. Dev, R.N. Mohapatra and Y. Zhang,Lepton Flavor Violation Induced by a Neutral Scalar at Future Lepton Colliders,Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) 221804 [1711.08430]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Li and M.A

    T. Li and M.A. Schmidt,Sensitivity of future lepton colliders to the search for charged lepton flavor violation,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 055038 [1809.07924]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Xu,Neutral and doubly charged scalars at future lepton colliders,Phys

    F. Xu,Neutral and doubly charged scalars at future lepton colliders,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 036002 [2302.08653]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Arroyo-Ure˜ na, R

    M.A. Arroyo-Ure˜ na, R. Gait´ an, M. Mar´ ın, H. Salazar and M.G. Villanueva-Utrilla,Searching for the lepton-flavor violatingγγeµinteraction at future e-e+ colliders,Phys. Rev. D113 (2026) 035014 [2504.12431]

    2026

  8. [16]

    Arroyo-Ure˜ na, O

    M.A. Arroyo-Ure˜ na, O. F´ elix-Beltr´ an, J. Hern´ andez-S´ anchez, C.G. Honorato and S. Rosado-Navarro,Lepton flavor violation in photon-induced electron-muon pairs at the HL-LHC,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) L111701 [2511.14835]

    2025

  9. [17]

    Arroyo-Ure˜ na, J.L

    M.A. Arroyo-Ure˜ na, J.L. D´ ıaz-Cruz, O. F´ elix-Beltr´ an and M. Zeleny-Mora,Lessons from LHC on the LFV Higgs decays h→ℓaℓb in the two-Higgs doublet models,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 39(2024) 2450079 [2308.01380]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Varzielas and A

    I.d.M. Varzielas and A. Sengupta,Constraining flavoured leptoquarks with LHC and LFV, Nucl. Phys. B1001(2024) 116495 [2301.04119]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Arroyo-Ure˜ na, E.A

    M.A. Arroyo-Ure˜ na, E.A. Herrera-Chac´ on, S. Rosado-Navarro and H. Salazar,Hunting for a charged Higgs boson pair in proton-proton collisions,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 015023 [2405.06036]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Huang and X.-G

    Z.-L. Huang and X.-G. He,Constraints on∆L = 2 vector bosons with tree couplings to SM particles,JHEP07(2025) 205 [2503.18591]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Koivunen and M

    N. Koivunen and M. Raidal,Production and decays of 146 gev flavons intoeµfinal state at the LHC,Journal of High Energy Physics2023(2023) 14 [2305.00014]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Han and Z

    S. Han and Z. Kang,Light lepton-flavor-violating flavon: The messenger of neutrino mixing and lepton g-2,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 115037 [2504.12070]

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Arroyo-Ure˜ na, E.A

    M.A. Arroyo-Ure˜ na, E.A. Herrera-Chac´ on, I. Melendez-Hern´ andez and S. Rosado-Navarro, Lepton flavor violation in Higgs boson decays at the HL-LHC,JHEP04(2026) 120 [2511.19337]

    2026

  16. [24]

    Calibbi and G

    L. Calibbi and G. Signorelli,Charged Lepton Flavour Violation: An Experimental and Theoretical Introduction,Riv. Nuovo Cim.41(2018) 71 [1709.00294]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Ardu and G

    M. Ardu and G. Pezzullo,Introduction to charged lepton flavor violation,Universe8(2022) 299

    2022

  18. [26]

    Frau and C

    G. Frau and C. Langenbruch,Charged Lepton-Flavour Violation,Symmetry16(2024) 359

    2024

  19. [27]

    Primulando, J

    R. Primulando, J. Julio, N. Srimanobhas and P. Uttayarat,A new Higgs boson with electron-muon flavor-violating couplings,Physics Letters B845(2023) 138129 [2304.13757]. – 24 –

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Afik, P.S.B

    Y. Afik, P.S.B. Dev and A. Thapa,Hints of a new leptophilic Higgs sector?,Physical Review D109(2024) 015003 [2305.19314]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Liu and I.P

    B. Liu and I.P. Ivanov,Lepton flavor violating signals driven by CP symmetry of order 4, 2601.19398

  22. [30]

    Dawson, I.M

    S. Dawson, I.M. Lewis and M. Zeng,Effective field theory for Higgs boson plus jet production,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 093007 [1409.6299]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Cai, M.A

    Y. Cai, M.A. Schmidt and G. Valencia,Lepton-flavour-violating gluonic operators: Constraints from the LHC and low energy experiments,Journal of High Energy Physics 2018(2018) 143 [1802.09822]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Clark, E

    D.B. Clark, E. Godat and F.I. Olness,ManeParse: A Mathematica reader for Parton Distribution Functions,Computer Physics Communications216(2017) 126 [1605.08012]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Herzog, B

    F. Herzog, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J.A.M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt,On Higgs decays to hadrons and the R-ratio at Nˆ4LO,Journal of High Energy Physics2017(2017) 113 [1707.01044]. [46]Particle Data Groupcollaboration,Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 030001

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Cirigliano, R

    V. Cirigliano, R. Kitano, Y. Okada and P. Tuzon,On the model discriminating power of µ→econversion in nuclei,Physical Review D80(2009) 013002 [0904.0957]. [48]Flavour Lattice A veraging Group (FLAG)collaboration,FLAG review 2024,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 014508 [2411.04268]

    2009 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Kitano, M

    R. Kitano, M. Koike and Y. Okada,Detailed calculation of lepton flavor violating muon-electron conversion rate for various nuclei,Physical Review D66(2002) 096002 [hep-ph/0203110]

    2002 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Borrel, D.G

    L. Borrel, D.G. Hitlin and S. Middleton,A new determination of the(Z, A)dependence of coherent muon-to-electron conversion,Nuclear Physics A1062(2025) 123161 [2401.15025]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Bai et al.,Snowmass2021 Whitepaper: Muonium to antimuonium conversion, in Snowmass 2021, 3, 2022 [2203.11406]

    A.-Y. Bai et al.,Snowmass2021 Whitepaper: Muonium to antimuonium conversion, in Snowmass 2021, 3, 2022 [2203.11406]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Fukuyama, Y

    T. Fukuyama, Y. Mimura and Y. Uesaka,Models of the muonium to antimuonium transition,Physical Review D105(2022) 015026 [2108.10736]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Conlin and A.A

    R. Conlin and A.A. Petrov,Muonium-antimuonium oscillations in effective field theory, Physical Review D102(2020) 095001 [2005.10276]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Porod, F

    W. Porod, F. Staub and A. Vicente,A flavor kit for BSM models,The European Physical Journal C74(2014) 2992

    2014

  33. [41]

    Alloul, N.D

    A. Alloul, N.D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr and B. Fuks,FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology,Computer Physics Communications185(2014) 2250 [1310.1921]

    2014 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Hahn,Generating Feynman Diagrams and Amplitudes with FeynArts 3,Computer Physics Communications140(2001) 418 [hep-ph/0012260]

    T. Hahn,Generating Feynman Diagrams and Amplitudes with FeynArts 3,Computer Physics Communications140(2001) 418 [hep-ph/0012260]

    2001 arXiv

  35. [43]

    T. Hahn, S. Paßehr and C. Schappacher,FormCalc 9 and Extensions,PoSLL2016(2016) 068 [1604.04611]

    2016 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Blankenburg, J

    G. Blankenburg, J. Ellis and G. Isidori,Flavour-changing decays of a125 GeVhiggs-like particle,Physics Letters B712(2012) 386 [1202.5704]. – 25 – [59]MEG IIcollaboration,MEG II physics and detector performance,Journal of Instrumentation18(2023) C10020

    2012 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Banerjee,Searches for lepton flavor violation in tau decays at Belle II,Universe8(2022) 480 [2209.11639]

    S. Banerjee,Searches for lepton flavor violation in tau decays at Belle II,Universe8(2022) 480 [2209.11639]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Karamanis, F

    M. Karamanis, F. Beutler and J.A. Peacock,zeus: A python implementation of ensemble slice sampling for efficient bayesian parameter inference,arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.03468 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Karamanis and F

    M. Karamanis and F. Beutler,Ensemble slice sampling: Parallel, black-box and gradient-free inference for correlated & multimodal distributions,arXiv preprint arXiv: 2002.06212(2020)

    2002 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Foreman-Mackey,corner.py: Scatterplot matrices in python,The Journal of Open Source Software1(2016) 24

    D. Foreman-Mackey,corner.py: Scatterplot matrices in python,The Journal of Open Source Software1(2016) 24. [64]CMScollaboration,Search for mssm higgs bosons decaying toµ +µ− in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV,Physics Letters B798(2019) 134992 [1907.03152]. [65]CMScollab...

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Chen and Q.-M

    M.-H. Chen and Q.-M. Shao,Monte carlo estimation of bayesian credible and hpd intervals, Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics8(1999) 69 [https://doi.org/10.1080/10618600.1999.10474802]. [70]ATLAS, CMScollaboration,Addendum to the report on the physics at the HL-LH...

    1999 doi

  42. [50]

    Kumar, C

    R. Kumar, C. Carroll, A. Hartikainen and O. Martin,Arviz a unified library for exploratory analysis of bayesian models in python,Journal of Open Source Software4(2019) 1143

    2019

  43. [51]

    T. Goto, R. Kitano and S. Mori,Lepton flavor violatingZ-boson couplings from nonstandard Higgs interactions,Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 075021 [1507.03234]. [73]CMScollaboration,Search for charged lepton flavor violatingzandz ′ boson decays in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV,P...

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.