Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 70 references

Flavor and CP Symmetries in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under the U(3)^5 minimal-flavor-violation hypothesis, the independent CP-violating phases in baryon/lepton-conserving dimension-8 SMEFT operators drop from 11,777 to 655.

desk verdict Useful first pass at the dimension-8 MFV CP classification, but the quoted CP-odd counts disagree with the paper's own tables, and that mismatch must be resolved before the headline numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03526 v1 pith:3YABHNB5 submitted 2025-02-05 hep-ph

Hao Sun , Jiang-Hao Yu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords SMEFTCPviolationflavorsymmetryminimalHilbertseriesYoungtableauxinvariantsdimension-eightoperators
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

This paper tries to establish how many independent CP-violating phases the standard-model effective field theory (SMEFT) contains when flavor symmetry is imposed, and to give explicit tools for computing those phases. The authors classify every baryon/lepton-number-conserving operator of dimension 6 and 8 by CP behavior, using the accidental $U(1)^4$ rephasing symmetry to distinguish operators that are merely CP-odd from ones that are genuinely CP-violating. Under the $U(3)^5$ minimal-flavor-violation hypothesis, they find 26 independent CP-violating phases at dimension 6, down from 705, and 655 at dimension 8, down from 11,777. The reduction matters because any UV completion matching the MFV-SMEFT would have to reproduce exactly those CP phases.

What carries the argument

The counting engine is the combination of rephasing symmetry and flavor invariants. The $U(1)^4$ rephasing symmetry, the residual phase rotations that cannot be removed by field redefinitions, separates CP-odd operators from those whose Wilson-coefficient phases are genuinely physical. Under $U(3)^5$, Wilson coefficients are promoted to spurions, and the physically distinct CP-violating phases are identified with primary flavor invariants linear in those spurions, counted by the Hilbert series and constructed explicitly by Young-tableau symmetrization; the Cayley-Hamilton relations among the resulting tensors reduce the basic invariants to the primary ones. Minimal flavor violation then restricts the spurions to the three Yukawa matrices, which produces the headline numbers.

What would settle it

Recompute the Hilbert series for CP-violating operators at dimension 8 with the $U(1)^4$ rephasing symmetry included and check whether the count is exactly 11,777; a mismatch there would shift the comparison baselines. Alternatively, construct the full set of $U(3)^5$ primary invariants linear in the dimension-8 Wilson coefficients, with the three Yukawa spurions as the only other building blocks, and see whether exactly 655 survive the syzygy reduction; if the count differs, the paper's phase enumeration is off.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a complete enumeration, at dimension 6 and dimension 8, of the CP-even and CP-odd baryon/lepton-number-conserving SMEFT operators, together with a flavor-invariant counting of the CP-violating phases. Without flavor symmetry, the paper reports 705 CP-violating dimension-6 operators and 11,777 CP-violating dimension-8 operators; promoting the Wilson coefficients to $U(3)^5$ spurions and assuming minimal flavor violation reduces these to 26 and 655 independent phases. The paper further claims that, because the $U(1)^4$ rephasing symmetry is a subgroup of $U(3)^5$, CP-odd and CP-violating operators coincide once a flavor symmetry is imposed, whereas without flavor symmetry they are distinct. The two dimension-8 classes with new flavor structures, $\psi^4\phi^2$ and $\psi^4\phi D$, are also worked out under $U(2)^5$, where more operators survive.

Load-bearing premise

The headline counts assume that the dimension-8 operator basis taken from Ref. [7] is complete and independent, and that, as imported from Refs. [18,19], the flavor-violating primary invariants linear in the Wilson coefficients are in one-to-one correspondence with the independent CP-violating phases at dimension 8.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any UV flavor model that matches the $U(3)^5$ MFV-SMEFT must contain exactly 26 independent CP-violating phases at dimension 6 and 655 at dimension 8, on top of the CKM phase.
  • The complete CP classification at dimension 8 provides a direct inventory for phenomenological scans: each CP-violating operator class now has a definite number, so experimental searches can be organized class by class.
  • The explicit Young-tableau construction of primary invariants makes basis-invariant CP analysis feasible at dimension 8, not just counting.
  • Under $U(2)^5$, the classes $\psi^4\phi^2$ and $\psi^4\phi D$ contain more independent operators than under $U(3)^5$, so weaker flavor assumptions retain richer CP phenomenology.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The correspondence between flavor-violating primary invariants linear in Wilson coefficients and independent CP-violating phases is asserted from Refs. [18,19]; a direct dimension-8 proof would completely close the gap between the 655-count and the Hilbert-series counting.
  • The same Young-tensor/Hilbert-series pipeline could be pushed to dimension 9 and 10 operators, where a parallel MFV phase count would tell whether the reduction factor persists.
  • A practical check of the 655 number would be to construct all primary invariants linear in the dimension-8 Wilson coefficients and count the syzygy-reduced set; the paper gives the machinery but does not display all 655 invariants.
  • Because after fixing the down-basis the number of CP-violating operators at dimension 8 rises from 655 to 6,857, readers should distinguish independent CP phases from operators with physical phases when comparing with other bases.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper classifies baryon/lepton-number-conserving SMEFT operators of dimension 6 and 8 by their CP properties, applies the U(1)^4 rephasing symmetry to distinguish CP-odd from CP-violating operators, and studies the effect of U(3)^5 and U(2)^5 flavor symmetries. It further imposes the MFV hypothesis and uses spurion expansions to count the independent flavor structures and CP-violating phases, reporting 26 CP-violating phases at dimension 6 and 655 at dimension 8, compared with 705 and 11777 without flavor symmetry. The paper also introduces a Young-tableaux-based method for constructing flavor invariants.

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide a valuable complete classification of the CP properties of B/L-conserving SMEFT operators at mass dimension 8, and the MFV reduction of independent CP-violating phases would be a useful reference for flavor-model building and for interpreting CP-violating observables. The explicit operator listings and spurion expansions are extensive, and the connection between CP violation and flavor invariants is an important organizing principle. However, the internal numerical inconsistency in the CP-odd operator counts, detailed below, currently prevents the reader from trusting the claimed completeness and the headline phase counts.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, Tables 3, 5, 6] The paper quotes from Ref. [17] that there are 1422 and 22016 CP-odd operators at dimension 6 and 8, respectively, but its own tables sum to different numbers. Summing the CP-odd column of Table 3 gives 1143 fermionic CP-odd operators at dimension 6, and adding the 6 bosonic CP-odd operators from Table 5 gives 1149. Similarly, summing the CP-odd column of Table 6 gives 18063 fermionic CP-odd operators at dimension 8, and adding the 35 bosonic ones from Table 5 gives 18098. These disagree with the quoted 1422 and 22016. The discrepancy is not a convention difference: both the paper and Ref. [17] purport to count independent CP-odd B/L-conserving operators. The paper neither reconciles the numbers nor flags the difference. Since the completeness of the CP-odd tables is the foundation for the claimed CP classification and for the derived MFV-reduced phase counts, this must be fixed. Either the tables are incomplete, in which case the headline numbers 26 and 655 may change, or the quoted numbers from Ref. [17] include additional (e.g., B/L-violating) operators and the quote must be corrected and clarified.
  2. [Sec. 4.4 and Sec. 5.2 (Table 8)] The central numerical result, 655 independent CP-violating phases at dimension 8 under the U(3)^5 MFV hypothesis, relies on the claim that flavor-violating primary invariants linear in the Wilson coefficients correspond one-to-one with the independent CP-violating phases. This correspondence is imported from Refs. [18,19] and is not proved for dimension-8 operators in this paper. The paper gives an informal three-point argument (linearity, invariance, primary), but no construction or proof is provided that every CP-violating phase in the dimension-8 SMEFT is captured by such invariants, nor that the count in the nY column of Table 8 indeed equals the number of independent phases. Given that this is the conceptual bridge from the operator classification to the headline phase count, a proof or a cross-check against an independent Hilbert-series computation is needed.
  3. [Sec. 4.5] The paper claims to present "a new method utilizing the Young tableaux to construct the basic invariants systematically and analytically," but the exposition only demonstrates the method for the adjoint building blocks Xu and Xd up to order 5, and then states that higher orders can be handled by repeating the algorithm. No general algorithm is given for arbitrary building blocks, arbitrary orders, or for the invariants that actually enter the dimension-8 SMEFT analysis (e.g., the Labcd and A/Babcd invariants of Sec. 4.4). The paper does not prove that the Young symmetrizer approach produces all relevant primary invariants, nor does it specify the exact trace relations and the completeness of the Young symmetrizer matrices for the SU(3) adjoint case. As it stands, the method is a sketch rather than a systematic construction, and the reader cannot verify that the invariants used in Sec. 4.4 are complete or primary.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 4 caption] The caption of Table 4 says "The CP properties of the dimension-6 bosonic operators of the SMEFT," but the table lists dimension-8 operators (classes X^4, X^3 H^2, etc.). The caption should read "dimension-8."
  2. [Sec. 1 and Sec. 5.1] There are several typographical errors: "Warsa basis" should be "Warsaw basis" (Sec. 5.1), "Yuakwa matrices" should be "Yukawa matrices" (Sec. 4.1), and "completed operators" in the Introduction should be "complete operators."
  3. [Sec. 3.3] The sentence "the CP-odd and the CP-violating operators are equivalent since the rephasing symmetry is satisfied automatically as a subgroup of the flavor symmetry" is stated without explicitly separating the U(3)^5 case (where the rephasing group is U(1)^4) from the U(2)^5 case (where the remaining rephasing is trivial). The argument is clear, but a short sentence noting that this holds for any flavor symmetry containing the relevant U(1)^4 would improve readability.
  4. [Fig. 1] Figure 1 is described in the text as showing various numbers, but the figure itself is not reproduced in the manuscript text provided; the box labels such as "CP-even: 514" and "CP-odd: 381" appear inconsistent with the numbers in Tables 5–8. The figure should be checked for consistency with the tables.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity: the MFV CP-phase counts (26; 655) arise from spurion enumerations anchored to independent external results ([17], [18], [43], [8]); self-cited inputs [7] and [61] are load-bearing but independently corroborated. The unaddressed table-sum discrepancies (1149 vs 1422; 18098 vs 22016) are a completeness risk, not a circularity.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 4.5 (Flavor Invariants Construction); Introduction (method claim)]
    "As discussed in Ref. [61], the symmetrization relations between the tensors of the Yong tableaux method are equivalent to the Cayley-Hamilton relations. ... Actually, even the basic invariants are difficult to find. In this subsection, we present the Young tensor method as an analytic and systematic method to find the basic invariants and expect to pave the way to the primary ones."

    The paper advertises the Young-tensor construction of flavor invariants as a new, systematic method, but the section's load-bearing equivalence (Young symmetrization equals Cayley-Hamilton reduction) is imported from the authors' own Ref. [61] and is not proved here. This self-citation supports the invariant-construction claims of Sec. 4.5, but it is not load-bearing for the headline results: the 26 (dim-6) and 655 (dim-8) MFV CP-violating counts come from the spurion expansions of Sec. 5 (Tables 7-8), not from this construction, and the construction is cross-checked against independent results (699 U(3)^5 invariants, matching Refs. [17, 18, 60]). Its impact is accordingly minor.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain. The CP classification (Tables 2-6) is obtained in-paper from the CP transformation rules of Sec. 3.1 applied to the adopted operator basis; the dimension-8 basis is taken from Ref. [7], a self-cited paper that includes a co-author of the present work, but the same basis set is independently reproduced by Murphy (Ref. [8]), which this paper also cites, so the completeness input is externally corroborated. The unflavored CP-violating benchmarks (705 and 11777) and the quoted CP-odd counts (1422 and 22016) are taken from the independent Hilbert-series paper Ref. [17]; they are inputs to, not outputs of, the derivation. The correspondence between primary flavor invariants linear in Wilson coefficients and independent CP-violating phases is imported from Refs. [18, 19] by different authors, and is only argued heuristically here (Sec. 4.4). The MFV reduction is a fresh enumeration: the spurion forms f(Y) of Sec. 5 are fixed by the Yukawa structures and power counting, and the nY columns of Tables 7 and 8 count the surviving CP-violating combinations; nothing is fitted, no parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no count is defined in terms of the claimed result. The dim-6 MFV count (26) is consistent with the independent analysis of Ref. [43]. I find no step in which a prediction reduces by construction to its inputs, so no pattern of kinds 1, 2, 4, 5, or 6 is present; the only self-citation worth recording is the importation of the Young-tensor method from Ref. [61] in Sec. 4.5. A serious caveat is weighed here even though it is a completeness risk rather than circularity: the paper's own tables disagree with the CP-odd numbers it quotes from Ref. [17]. At dimension 6, the fermionic CP-odd entries of Table 3 sum to 1143; adding the 6 bosonic CP-odd operators of Table 5 gives 1149, yet Sec. 3.3 quotes 1422 CP-odd operators from [17], and Sec. 3.2 asserts 'These results are consistent with the Hilbert series result [17].' At dimension 8, the CP-odd entries of Table 6 sum to 18063; adding Table 5's 35 gives 18098, versus 22016 quoted from [17]. The paper neither flags nor reconciles either discrepancy, and because the claimed completeness of the CP-odd list underlies the CP-violating counts (11777 and hence the MFV-reduced 655 via the imported [18, 19] correspondence), an error in either direction changes the headline numbers.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger is clean of invented physical entities; the load-bearing assumptions are the MFV hypothesis, the completeness of the cited operator basis, and the invariant-to-phase correspondence borrowed from earlier work. The only hand-chosen parameters are expansion truncations.

free parameters (2)
  • MFV expansion truncation order = 10^-3
    Equation (5.8) sets the expansion parameters Yu/yt ~ 1 and Yd/yt, Ye/yt ~ 10^-3, and Section 5 truncates MFV expansions at O(10^-3); which operators are retained depends on this choice.
  • U(2)^5 spurion power counting = Delta ~ 10^-2, V ~ 10^-1
    Equation (5.61) assigns orders to the tensor and vector spurions; the U(2)^5 operator lists in Section 5.3 are truncated at 10^-4 accordingly.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption SMEFT with gauge group SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1), three fermion flavors, no right-handed neutrinos, and conserved baryon and lepton number
    Section 2 and the abstract restrict the analysis to B/L-conserving operators; adding right-handed neutrinos or B/L violation would change the counts.
  • domain assumption U(3)^5 and U(2)^5 are the relevant flavor symmetries and the SM Yukawa matrices are the only flavor-breaking sources under MFV
    Sections 4 and 5 adopt these symmetries and the MFV hypothesis; this is a modeling choice, not derived.
  • domain assumption Flavor-violating primary invariants linear in the Wilson coefficients correspond one-to-one with independent CP-violating phases
    Section 4.4 uses this equivalence, importing it from Refs. [18,19]; the paper does not prove it for dimension-8 operators.
  • domain assumption The dimension-8 operator basis of Ref. [7] is complete and independent
    The CP and MFV classifications are built on this basis; any redundancy or omission propagates to Tables 6 and 8.
  • standard math The Hilbert series plethystic logarithm counts basic invariants and syzygies correctly for the representations used
    Section 4.5 uses PL(H(q)) and syzygy reduction to identify primary invariants, citing Ref. [60].
  • ad hoc to paper The Young symmetrizer matrices and trace relations used in Section 4.5 are correct and complete for the SU(3) adjoint building blocks
    The paper states these relations without derivation; they are the core of the claimed new method.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Flavor and CP Symmetries in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3YABHNB5

@misc{pith2026250203526,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Flavor and CP Symmetries in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3YABHNB5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03526}
}
abstract

The CP properties of effective operators are closely related to the spacetime and internal symmetries, such as the flavor symmetry, in the standard model effective field theory (SMEFT). In this work, we utilize the flavor symmetry to organize and reduce numbers of independent Wilson coefficients of the SMEFT operators. We classify the dimension-6 and dimension-8 baryon/lepton-number-conserving operators based on their CP properties. The $U(1)^4$ rephasing symmetry is applied to distinguish CP-odd and CP-violating operators which leads to reduction of the independent CP-violating phases. The $U(3)^5$ and $U(2)^5$ flavor symmetries let us classify the CP-violating phases as the flavor invariants, which can be enumerated by the Hilbert series and obtained explicitly by the Young tensor method. Then after introducing the minimal flavor violation (MFV) hypothesis, we present the flavor structures of the dimension-6 and dimension-8 SMEFT operators under the MFV hypothesis utilizing the spurion method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03526 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The logic flow in this paper, where the numbers are of the baryon/lepton-number-conserving dimension-8 op [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The actions of C and P on representations of G = SO(3,1) × I. Here r is the irreducible representation of I and r ∗ is its complex conjugation representation. (j1, j2) label the representations of the Lorentz group SO(3,1). The composing fields determine the CP property of an operator. If it is invariant under the CP transformation, it is CP-even, and if it becomes its opposite, it is CP-odd, CP-even: O CP −→ O , (3… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    Kondo, H

    D. Kondo, H. Murayama and R. Okabe, 23, 381, 6242, 103268, 1743183, . . . : Hilbert series for CP-violating operators in SMEFT, JHEP 03 (2023) 107, [2212.02413]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Weinberg, Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 1566–1570

    work page 1979

  3. [2]

    Buchmuller and D

    W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation, Nucl. Phys. B 268 (1986) 621–653

    work page 1986

  4. [3]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek, Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian, JHEP 10 (2010) 085, [1008.4884]

    arXiv 2010

  5. [4]

    Henning, X

    B. Henning, X. Lu, T. Melia and H. Murayama, 2, 84, 30, 993, 560, 15456, 11962, 261485, ...: Higher dimension operators in the SM EFT, JHEP 08 (2017) 016, [1512.03433]

    arXiv 2017

  6. [5]

    Lehman, Extending the Standard Model Effective Field Theory with the Complete Set of Dimension-7 Operators, Phys

    L. Lehman, Extending the Standard Model Effective Field Theory with the Complete Set of Dimension-7 Operators, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 125023, [1410.4193]

    arXiv 2014

  7. [6]

    Liao and X.-D

    Y . Liao and X.-D. Ma,Renormalization Group Evolution of Dimension-seven Baryon- and Lepton-number-violating Operators, JHEP 11 (2016) 043, [1607.07309]

    arXiv 2016

  8. [7]

    H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, J. Shu, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu and Y .-H. Zheng,Complete set of dimension-eight operators in the standard model effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 015026, [2005.00008]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 70 references
  1. [8]

    C. W. Murphy, Dimension-8 operators in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory, JHEP 10 (2020) 174, [2005.00059]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [9]

    H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu and Y .-H. Zheng,Complete set of dimension-nine operators in the standard model effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 015025, [2007.07899]. 54

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Liao and X.-D

    Y . Liao and X.-D. Ma,An explicit construction of the dimension-9 operator basis in the standard model effective field theory, JHEP 11 (2020) 152, [2007.08125]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [11]

    R. V . Harlander, T. Kempkens and M. C. Schaaf,Standard model effective field theory up to mass dimension 12, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 055020, [2305.06832]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Cabibbo, Unitary Symmetry and Leptonic Decays, Phys

    N. Cabibbo, Unitary Symmetry and Leptonic Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 (1963) 531–533

    1963

  6. [13]

    Kobayashi and T

    M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, CP Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49 (1973) 652–657

    1973

  7. [14]

    Alonso, E

    R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, A. V . Manohar and M. Trott,Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators III: Gauge Coupling Dependence and Phenomenology, JHEP 04 (2014) 159, [1312.2014]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [15]

    G. N. Remmen and N. L. Rodd, Consistency of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory, JHEP 12 (2019) 032, [1908.09845]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Durieux, G

    G. Durieux, G. N. Remmen, N. L. Rodd, O. J. P. ´Eboli, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, D. Kondo et al., LHC EFT WG Note: Basis for Anomalous Quartic Gauge Couplings, 2411.02483

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Bonnefoy, E

    Q. Bonnefoy, E. Gendy, C. Grojean and J. T. Ruderman, Beyond Jarlskog: 699 invariants for CP violation in SMEFT, JHEP 08 (2022) 032, [2112.03889]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Bonnefoy, E

    Q. Bonnefoy, E. Gendy, C. Grojean and J. T. Ruderman, Opportunistic CP violation, JHEP 06 (2023) 141, [2302.07288]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Y . Wang, B. Yu and S. Zhou,Flavor invariants and renormalization-group equations in the leptonic sector with massive Majorana neutrinos, JHEP 09 (2021) 053, [2107.06274]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Yu and S

    B. Yu and S. Zhou, Hilbert series for leptonic flavor invariants in the minimal seesaw model, JHEP 10 (2021) 017, [2107.11928]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Yu and S

    B. Yu and S. Zhou, CP violation and flavor invariants in the seesaw effective field theory, JHEP 08 (2022) 017, [2203.10121]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Grojean, J

    C. Grojean, J. Kley, D. Leflot and C.-Y . Yao,The flavor invariants of the νSM, JHEP 12 (2024) 069, [2406.00094]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Darvishi, Y

    N. Darvishi, Y . Wang and J.-H. Yu,Automated ring-diagram framework for classifying CP invariants, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 115030, [2311.15422]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Darvishi, Y

    N. Darvishi, Y . Wang and J.-H. Yu,Identifying CP Basis Invariants in SMEFT, 2403.18732

  18. [26]

    S. L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos and L. Maiani, Weak Interactions with Lepton-Hadron Symmetry, Phys. Rev. D 2 (1970) 1285–1292

    1970

  19. [27]

    Navas et al., Review of particle physics, Phys

    P ARTICLE DATA GROUP collaboration, S. Navas et al., Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 030001

    2024

  20. [28]

    Isidori, Y

    G. Isidori, Y . Nir and G. Perez,Flavor Physics Constraints for Physics Beyond the Standard Model, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60 (2010) 355, [1002.0900]

    2010 arXiv

  21. [29]

    R. S. Chivukula and H. Georgi, Composite Technicolor Standard Model, Phys. Lett. B 188 (1987) 99–104

    1987

  22. [30]

    D’Ambrosio, G

    G. D’Ambrosio, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori and A. Strumia, Minimal flavor violation: An Effective field theory approach, Nucl. Phys. B 645 (2002) 155–187, [hep-ph/0207036]. 55

    2002 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bonnefoy, E

    Q. Bonnefoy, E. Gendy and C. Grojean, Positivity bounds on Minimal Flavor Violation, JHEP 04 (2021) 115, [2011.12855]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Aoude, T

    R. Aoude, T. Hurth, S. Renner and W. Shepherd, The impact of flavour data on global fits of the MFV SMEFT, JHEP 12 (2020) 113, [2003.05432]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Bruggisser, R

    S. Bruggisser, R. Sch ¨afer, D. van Dyk and S. Westhoff,The Flavor of UV Physics, JHEP 05 (2021) 257, [2101.07273]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Bruggisser, D

    S. Bruggisser, D. van Dyk and S. Westhoff, Resolving the flavor structure in the MFV-SMEFT, JHEP 02 (2023) 225, [2212.02532]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Bartocci, A

    R. Bartocci, A. Biek ¨otter and T. Hurth, A global analysis of the SMEFT under the minimal MFV assumption, JHEP 05 (2024) 074, [2311.04963]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Bartocci, Global analysis of the U(3)5 symmetric SMEFT, in 58th Rencontres de Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, 5, 2024

    R. Bartocci, Global analysis of the U(3)5 symmetric SMEFT, in 58th Rencontres de Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, 5, 2024. 2405.10101

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Barbieri, G

    R. Barbieri, G. Isidori, J. Jones-Perez, P. Lodone and D. M. Straub, U(2) and Minimal Flavour Violation in Supersymmetry, Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1725, [1105.2296]

    2011 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Barbieri, D

    R. Barbieri, D. Buttazzo, F. Sala and D. M. Straub, Flavour physics from an approximate U(2)3 symmetry, JHEP 07 (2012) 181, [1203.4218]

    2012 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Blankenburg, G

    G. Blankenburg, G. Isidori and J. Jones-Perez, Neutrino Masses and LFV from Minimal Breaking of U(3)5 and U(2)5 flavor Symmetries, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2126, [1204.0688]

    2012 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Greljo, G

    A. Greljo, G. Isidori and D. Marzocca, On the breaking of Lepton Flavor Universality in B decays, JHEP 07 (2015) 142, [1506.01705]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Barbieri, G

    R. Barbieri, G. Isidori, A. Pattori and F. Senia, Anomalies in B-decays and U(2) flavour symmetry, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 67, [1512.01560]

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Buttazzo, A

    D. Buttazzo, A. Greljo, G. Isidori and D. Marzocca, B-physics anomalies: a guide to combined explanations, JHEP 11 (2017) 044, [1706.07808]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    D. A. Faroughy, G. Isidori, F. Wilsch and K. Yamamoto,Flavour symmetries in the SMEFT, JHEP 08 (2020) 166, [2005.05366]

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Sun, M.-L

    H. Sun, M.-L. Xiao and J.-H. Yu, Complete NNLO operator bases in Higgs effective field theory, JHEP 04 (2023) 086, [2210.14939]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Sun, M.-L

    H. Sun, M.-L. Xiao and J.-H. Yu, Complete NLO operators in the Higgs effective field theory, JHEP 05 (2023) 043, [2206.07722]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    C.-Q. Song, H. Sun and J.-H. Yu, Systematic Spurion Matching between Low Energy EFT and Chiral Lagrangian, 2501.09787

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Grimus and M

    W. Grimus and M. N. Rebelo, Automorphisms in gauge theories and the definition of CP and P, Phys. Rept. 281 (1997) 239–308, [hep-ph/9506272]

    1997 arXiv

  40. [48]

    I. L. Buchbinder, D. M. Gitman and A. L. Shelepin, Discrete symmetries as automorphisms of the proper Poincare group, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 41 (2002) 753–790, [hep-th/0010035]

    2002 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Chau and W.-Y

    L.-L. Chau and W.-Y . Keung,Comments on the Parametrization of the Kobayashi-Maskawa Matrix, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53 (1984) 1802

    1984

  42. [50]

    J. M. Gerard, Fermion mass spectrum insu(2)l×u(1), Zeitschrift f¨ur Physik C Particles and Fields 18 (1983) 145–154

    1983

  43. [51]

    Wyler, Discrete symmetries in the six-quark su(2) × u(1) model, Phys

    D. Wyler, Discrete symmetries in the six-quark su(2) × u(1) model, Phys. Rev. D 19 (Jun, 1979) 3369–3379. 56

    1979

  44. [52]

    G. C. Branco, H. P. Nilles and V . Rittenberg,Fermion masses and hierarchy of symmetry breaking, Phys. Rev. D 21 (Jun, 1980) 3417–3422

    1980

  45. [53]

    P. H. Frampton and T. W. Kephart, Simple nonAbelian finite flavor groups and fermion masses, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 10 (1995) 4689–4704, [hep-ph/9409330]

    1995 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Henning, X

    B. Henning, X. Lu, T. Melia and H. Murayama, Operator bases, S-matrices, and their partition functions, JHEP 10 (2017) 199, [1706.08520]

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    L. Graf, B. Henning, X. Lu, T. Melia and H. Murayama, 2, 12, 117, 1959, 45171, 1170086, . . . : a Hilbert series for the QCD chiral Lagrangian, JHEP 01 (2021) 142, [2009.01239]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Sun, Y .-N

    H. Sun, Y .-N. Wang and J.-H. Yu,Hilbert Series and Operator Counting on the Higgs Effective Field Theory, 2211.11598

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    Jarlskog, Commutator of the Quark Mass Matrices in the Standard Electroweak Model and a Measure of Maximal CP Nonconservation, Phys

    C. Jarlskog, Commutator of the Quark Mass Matrices in the Standard Electroweak Model and a Measure of Maximal CP Nonconservation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55 (1985) 1039

    1985

  50. [58]

    Jarlskog, A Basis Independent Formulation of the Connection Between Quark Mass Matrices, CP Violation and Experiment, Z

    C. Jarlskog, A Basis Independent Formulation of the Connection Between Quark Mass Matrices, CP Violation and Experiment, Z. Phys. C 29 (1985) 491–497

    1985

  51. [59]

    Bernabeu, G

    J. Bernabeu, G. C. Branco and M. Gronau, CP Restrictions on Quark Mass Matrices, Phys. Lett. B 169 (1986) 243–247

    1986

  52. [60]

    E. E. Jenkins and A. V . Manohar,Algebraic Structure of Lepton and Quark Flavor Invariants and CP Violation, JHEP 10 (2009) 094, [0907.4763]

    2009 arXiv

  53. [61]

    C.-Q. Song, H. Sun and J.-H. Yu, Complete CP-eigen bases of meson-baryon chiral lagrangian up to p5-order, JHEP 09 (2024) 171, [2404.15047]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Grinstein, X

    B. Grinstein, X. Lu, L. Merlo and P. Qu´ılez, Hilbert series for covariants and their applications to minimal flavor violation, JHEP 2024 (2024) 154, [2312.13349]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    A. L. Kagan, G. Perez, T. V olansky and J. Zupan,General Minimal Flavor Violation, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 076002, [0903.1794]

    2009 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Feldmann and T

    T. Feldmann and T. Mannel, Large Top Mass and Non-Linear Representation of Flavour Symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 171601, [0801.1802]

    2008 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Greljo, A

    A. Greljo, A. Palavri ´c and A. E. Thomsen, Adding Flavor to the SMEFT, JHEP 10 (2022) 010, [2203.09561]

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Kobayashi, H

    T. Kobayashi, H. Otsuka, M. Tanimoto and K. Yamamoto, Modular symmetry in the SMEFT, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 055022, [2112.00493]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Cal `o, C

    S. Cal `o, C. Marinissen and R. Rahn, Discrete symmetries and efficient counting of operators, JHEP 05 (2023) 215, [2212.04395]

    2023 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Kobayashi and M

    T. Kobayashi and M. Tanimoto, Modular flavor symmetric models, 7, 2023. 2307.03384

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Loisa and J

    E. Loisa and J. Talbert, Froggatt-Nielsen meets the SMEFT, JHEP 10 (2024) 017, [2402.16940]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Palavri ´c, Discrete leptonic flavor symmetries: UV mediators and phenomenology, Phys

    A. Palavri ´c, Discrete leptonic flavor symmetries: UV mediators and phenomenology, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 115025, [2408.16044]. 57

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.