Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Unifying the weak-isospin copies in Sp(6) predicts six flavour-changing gauge bosons and sets the deconstruction scale far above the TeV.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 17:14 UTC pith:5LGKT7FA

load-bearing objection A transparently-built Sp(6) flavour-unification model whose phenomenology is genuinely new, but whose entire breaking chain rests on a scalar potential the paper openly defers — conditional but worth a serious referee. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.27359 v2 pith:5LGKT7FA submitted 2026-03-28 hep-ph

Deconstructed Weak Isospin from a Symplectic Symmetry

Alastair Gosnay , David J Miller This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords Sp(6) gauge symmetryflavour deconstructionweak isospinflavour-changing neutral currentsmeson mixinglepton flavour violationSMEFTmuon conversion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper aims to show that the generation-specific weak-isospin symmetries of deconstructed weak isospin can be unified into a single Sp(6) gauge group, with the three left-handed doublets forming one fundamental representation. This unification predicts six new gauge bosons that change flavour even when fermion mass and gauge bases align, which ordinary deconstruction would avoid. Using meson mixing, mu->3e, and mu->e conversion data, the authors derive a lower bound on the intermediate breaking scale of about 550 TeV when Sp(6) breaks near it, relaxing to about 150 TeV when the unification scale is an order of magnitude higher. The result matters because it shows a concrete unified group can turn flavour deconstruction into a testable, high-scale theory with a clear experimental future.

Core claim

The central claim is that Sp(6) can act as the UV origin of SU(2)^3 deconstruction, and that the six coset gauge bosons (three SU(2) triplets fW12, fW13, fW23 and three singlets Z12, Z13, Z23) necessarily carry off-diagonal generation couplings. As a direct consequence, flavour-changing processes survive the mass-gauge alignment limit, and precision first-second-generation flavour data (K and D mixing, mu->3e, mu->e conversion) exclude v12 below about 550 TeV for r=vS^2/v12^2 near 1, and below about 150 TeV for r>~100. The paper further shows that future muon conversion experiments could push sensitivity to about 1000 TeV.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through the Sp(6) -> SU(2)^3 -> SU(2)_{1+2} x SU(2)_3 -> SU(2)_L symmetry-breaking chain, driven by antisymmetric 14 scalars S and Phi with vevs aligned to diag(eps,0,-eps), v12 eps, and v23 eps. The central objects are the mass-eigenstate gauge fields and their hermitian flavour-coupling matrices built from the fermion rotation matrices V_u, V_d, V_l; the off-diagonal entries in these matrices generate flavour-changing currents. A final piece is the tree-level matching to dimension-six SMEFT operators and their evolution between scales.

Load-bearing premise

The vacuum alignment of the scalars S and Phi and the vanishing vevs of H1 and H2 are assumed without a potential analysis; if these are not stable minima, the spectrum and every derived bound collapse.

What would settle it

Calculate the tree-level scalar potential for the S, Phi, and H fields and verify that the assumed vev configuration (S ~ diag(eps,0,-eps), phi12=v12 eps, phi23=v23 eps, H1=H2=0) is a local minimum. A negative-direction or a different deeper vacuum would invalidate the model's predictions.

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

If this is right

  • If Sp(6) is real and breaks near the deconstruction scale, first-second-generation flavour data alone forbid v12 below about 550 TeV, making the deconstruction scale much heavier than the TeV.
  • For r >~ 100 (vS more than an order of magnitude above v12), the Sp(6)-origin bosons decouple and the bound falls back to the SU(2)^3 limit of about 150 TeV.
  • The W23 mass depends weakly on r (up to O(10%)), so low-scale constraints on the deconstruction sector survive with small corrections.
  • Future muon-to-electron conversion experiments can probe v12 up to roughly 1000 TeV, offering a near-term test of the unification scale.
  • Only left-handed currents and a handful of SMEFT operators are generated, so the model's flavour predictions are sharp and tightly constrained.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave the scalar potential untouched; if a full minimization of the S and Phi potential destabilises the assumed vev alignment or gives H1/H2 vevs, the entire spectrum and bounds disappear—this is the first open thread.
  • The accidental cancellation at r=4 in mu->3e means a conspiracy between vS and v12 could suppress that channel; the meson-mixing limits then remain the robust constraint.
  • The same Sp(6) flavour structure could extend to the lepton sector's neutrino mass generation; the bounds derived here would then indirectly constrain those mechanisms.
  • Because the light-generation Yukawa couplings are left as higher-order operators, gauge-mediated flavour change is the only controlled contribution; adding those operators would likely introduce competing Higgs-mediated effects.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an Sp(6)_L gauge extension in which the three generations of left-handed doublets are unified in a single 6, and the deconstructed SU(2)_L^3 of an earlier model is embedded as a subgroup. The breaking chain Sp(6)_L → SU(2)^3 → SU(2)_{1+2} × SU(2)_3 → SU(2)_L is driven by assumed vevs of a 14 scalar S and a 14 scalar Φ (with link fields φ12, φ23). The authors derive the mass spectrum of eight BSM gauge bosons (two triplets from the intermediate breakings and six coset states), compute their couplings to quarks, leptons and the Higgs, match to the SMEFT, and derive constraints from K/D mixing, μ→3e, and μ→e conversion. They find v12 ≳ 550 TeV for r≈1 and v12 ≳ 100–150 TeV for r≳100, with future LFV experiments probing up to ~1000 TeV.

Significance. If the assumed vacuum is realizable, the construction is a minimal UV completion of deconstructed weak isospin and gives concrete, falsifiable predictions: six new gauge bosons with off-diagonal flavour couplings, leading to FCNCs even under mass–gauge alignment. The group-theoretic derivation is transparent, and the SMEFT matching is systematic; analytic expressions for Wilson coefficients are provided, and the analysis uses public tools. The main novelty—bounds on the (v12, r) plane from a combination of meson mixing and LFV—is clearly presented. However, the scalar and Yukawa sectors are not specified, and the numerical results are conditional on hand-assigned vacuum alignments and unspecified higher-order operators. These gaps need to be filled before the quoted bounds can be considered robust model predictions.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1 and §2.3, Eqs. (2.24), (2.30), (2.31), Table 1] The entire symmetry-breaking pattern and the resulting mass/coupling matrices are fixed by hand-assigned vevs. The paper explicitly defers the scalar-potential analysis ('we leave an analysis of the scalar potential and vacuum alignment for future work') and acknowledges that the standard H†H potential would give tachyonic H1 and H2, requiring extra structure that is merely asserted. Unless a stable scalar potential realises ⟨S⟩ ∝ diag(ε,0,−ε), ⟨φ12⟩=v12ε, ⟨φ23⟩=v23ε, and ⟨H1⟩=⟨H2⟩=0, the predicted spectrum and every bound in §§4–5 are not consequences of the model. At minimum, the paper should prove existence of such a vacuum or clearly state that the phenomenological analysis is conditional on this assumption, not only in a footnote.
  2. [§2.1, Eq. (2.8)] First- and second-generation masses are assumed to come from unspecified higher-order operators; the renormalisable Lagrangian only gives third-row Yukawas. The unitary rotations Vu, Vd and Vl that enter the flavour-coupling matrices in Eqs. (2.57)/(2.59) are therefore not determined in the model. The paper scans Vu endpoints and a two-parameter Vl hierarchy, so the 'even in alignment' claim is robust, but the absolute numerical bounds (5.1)–(5.3) are not predictions until a Yukawa mechanism is specified.
  3. [§5, Eqs. (5.1)–(5.3) vs Abstract/Conclusions] There is an inconsistency in the headline bounds. Eq. (5.1) gives v12≳100 TeV for u-aligned at large r, Eq. (5.2) gives v12≳150 TeV for d-aligned, and Eq. (5.3) claims the combined 'excluded in both alignments' bound is v12≳100 TeV at large r. The intersection of allowed regions would instead be v12≳150 TeV; the abstract and conclusions quote 150 TeV. This numerical claim must be corrected or the notion of 'conservative' clearly defined.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.4, Eq. (2.52)] In the Z23 term, the second current is written with I3 instead of I2; compare Eq. (2.57) where the 2–3 mixing matrix has identical 2×2 blocks.
  2. [§2.5, Eqs. (2.66)–(2.68)] The singlet fields Z13/Z23 are written with an SU(2) index 'I' (e.g., Zµ13,I), although they are singlets. The notation should distinguish the singlet field from triplet index-carrying fields.
  3. [§4.1, after Eq. (4.4)] A stray 'CK1' appears in the text immediately after the display equation; it should be removed.
  4. [Table 1 caption] The caption contains the typo 'T able 1'.
  5. [§4.2, discussion of r≈4] The text says 'as r becomes small' when describing the weakening of the bound at r=4; it would be clearer to say 'as r approaches 4 from either side'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the Sp(6) spectrum and flavour bounds follow from group theory, assumed vevs, and external experimental constraints; the deferred vacuum-alignment analysis is a model gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity: the gauge-group embedding and field content (2.4)-(2.5), the assumed vevs (2.24) and (2.30), the kinetic terms leading to the mass matrix (2.37), the mass eigenstates (2.39)-(2.44), and the coupling matrices (2.57)/(2.59) are algebraic consequences of the model definition. The flavour observables are then computed through SMEFT matching (§3) and compared with external experimental limits (e.g. (4.16), (4.31), (4.47), (4.48)) using the public tools Wilson and flavio. No parameter is fitted to the observable it is then said to predict; the lepton-mixing benchmarks and the up/down-aligned quark cases are explicitly stated parameter choices, not fits. The central 'flavour transitions even under alignment' claim follows from the off-diagonal gauge-basis couplings in (2.57), which remain off-diagonal after setting Vu = I or Vd = I; this is a derived property, not an input. The r→∞ limit and the W23 mass asymptote correctly recover the SU(2)^3 result [15] from Eq. (2.39), M_W23^2 -> (3/2) g^2 v23^2, so the self-citation to [15] (which shares authors) is a consistency check rather than load-bearing. The most important vulnerability is explicitly acknowledged in §2.1: 'we leave an analysis of the scalar potential and vacuum alignment for future work', together with the admission that a standard H†H potential would make all three Higgs doublets tachyonic and that extra structure is needed to make only H3 tachyonic. This means the entire spectrum and all bounds are conditional on hand-assigned vev directions that are not derived from a potential. That is a real model-completeness and correctness risk, but it is not circularity: the paper does not define its predictions in terms of the flavour data, and the constraints are external. Overall, no load-bearing step reduces to its own output.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 3 invented entities

Everything beyond the SM gauge structure is carried by hand-assumed inputs: four scalar vev alignments with no potential analysis (Eqs. 2.24, 2.30), the third-generation Higgs alignment, the hierarchy v_23 << v_12 < v_S (Eq. 2.20), the benchmark lepton-mixing matrix V_l with alpha of order 0.01-0.1, and the scanned vevs v_12 and r. The Sp(6) group theory (Appendix A) is standard mathematics and the tree-level SMEFT dictionary is standard; these are paid for upstream. The unpaid entries are the scalar-sector assumptions and the Yukawa-generation gap, both disclosed by the authors.

free parameters (4)
  • v_12 (SU(2)^3 intermediate vev) = scanned; excluded below ~550 TeV (r~1) and ~100-150 TeV (r>>1)
    The parameter the paper bounds; not fitted, but scanned across 5-1200 TeV in Figs. 3, 5, 6, 7.
  • r = v_S^2 / v_12^2 = scanned 1-1000
    Ratio of the Sp(6) breaking scale to the intermediate scale; the central axis of the exclusion maps.
  • v_23 (SU(2)_{1+2} x SU(2)_3 link vev) = benchmarked at 25 TeV for LFV plots
    Sets the W_23 mass; in the (v_12, r) plots it is fixed at 25 TeV (§4.2-4.3); constrained at the O(10 TeV) level by [15].
  • alpha (charged-lepton mixing parameter in V_l) = 0.01 and 0.1 (CKM-like hierarchy); 0.01 and 0.08 (theta13 << theta23 = theta12)
    The unphysical lepton rotation (2.60)-(2.61) is parametrised by alpha; all LFV bounds (mu->3e, mu->e) scale with alpha, so the quoted reach is benchmark-dependent; the authors note a full V_l scan is future work.
axioms (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Scalar vacuum alignment: langle S rangle = v_S diag(eps,0,-eps) (2.24), langle phi_12 rangle = v_12 eps, langle phi_23 rangle = v_23 eps (2.30), langle H_1 rangle = langle H_2 rangle = 0
    No scalar-potential analysis is given; the authors state this is deferred (§2.1). The entire breaking chain and the Table 1 spectrum depend on these alignments.
  • domain assumption First/second-generation Yukawa couplings arise from unspecified higher-order operators
    Eq. (2.8) yields mass matrices with entries only in the third row; reproducing y_e, y_mu, y_u, y_c, ... requires extra structure the paper acknowledges but does not specify (§2.1).
  • domain assumption Third-generation alignment: H_3 is the SM Higgs and only H_3 acquires a vev
    Motivated by O(1) third-generation Yukawas (§2.1, citing [13]); load-bearing for the identification of the low-energy theory.
  • domain assumption Hierarchy v_23 << v_12 < v_S (Eq. 2.20)
    Needed for the leading-order mass eigenstates (2.39)-(2.44); consistent with [15] bounds and the r > 1 definition.
  • domain assumption Tree-level SMEFT matching with sequential running is a complete description
    The model is matched onto dimension-six SMEFT at tree level (§3); loop contributions and higher-dimension operators are not considered, standard but an assumed approximation.
  • domain assumption The unphysical charged-lepton rotation V_l is real (no CP phases)
    §2.4 states CP violation in the charged-lepton sector is ignored, restricting V_l to orthogonal matrices; this enters all LFV computations.
invented entities (3)
  • Six BSM gauge bosons: fW12, fW13, fW23 (SU(2)_L triplets) and Z12, Z13, Z23 (singlets) independent evidence
    purpose: Massive states from Sp(6)_L / SU(2)_L^3; generate FCNCs and LFV even under mass-gauge alignment
    Masses and couplings are derived (Table 1) and produce falsifiable flavour signals; the (v_12, r) exclusions and the Mu3e/COMET projections are the independent handles.
  • Antisymmetric scalars S and Phi (two 14s of Sp(6)) with vev components langle S rangle, langle phi_12 rangle, langle phi_23 rangle no independent evidence
    purpose: Drive the three-stage breaking Sp(6) -> SU(2)^3 -> SU(2)_{1+2} x SU(2)_3 -> SU(2)_L
    No scalar-potential analysis and no direct collider signature is considered; only their vev components enter the gauge spectrum; whether such a vacuum exists is open.
  • Heavy Higgs doublets H_1, H_2 (three-Higgs-doublet structure) no independent evidence
    purpose: Fill out the 6 of Sp(6) containing the SM Higgs; assumed heavy with zero vev
    Their phenomenological implications are deliberately not considered (Conclusions); no mechanism enforces langle H_1 rangle = langle H_2 rangle = 0.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 34963 in / 26686 out tokens · 250502 ms · 2026-08-02T17:14:06.898403+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Understanding the origin of flavour hierarchies in the Standard Model remains an open problem, motivating extensions with non-trivial flavour symmetries. We unify deconstructed weak isospin $\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{L}^3$ into an $\mathrm{Sp}(6)_\mathrm{L}$ symmetry at a high scale $v_S$. The three generations of Standard Model (SM) left-handed doublets are unified into a single fundamental representation of $\mathrm{Sp}(6)_\mathrm{L}$. In addition to two BSM triplets from the breaking of $\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{L}^3$, the enlarged symmetry predicts six additional gauge bosons below the unification scale: three $\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{L}$ triplets and three singlets, which induce flavour transitions in both the quark and lepton sectors, even in the presence of mass-gauge alignment. We derive updated bounds on the intermediate breaking scale $v_{12}$ of $\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{L}^3$ in the presence of the unification scale $v_S$, mapping exclusions in the $(v_{12}, r)$ parameter space with $r = v_S^2 / v_{12}^2$. The most stringent constraints arise from precision flavour observables involving first- and second-generation transitions, including neutral meson mixing ($K^0 - \bar{K}^0$, $D^0 - \bar{D}^0$), $\mu \to 3e$ and $\mu \to e$ conversion in nuclei. These measurements probe scales well beyond direct collider reach and imply $v_{12} \gtrsim 550 ~\mathrm{TeV}$ for small $r \approx 1$, while for $r\gtrsim100$ the bound relaxes to $v_{12} \gtrsim 150~\mathrm{TeV}$, recovering the limits of the $\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{L}^3$ model. Additionally we include projections from Mu3e and COMET-I and -II experiments which show promising further reach into the parameter space.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Cosmological History of Flavour Deconstruction Models: Constraints from Monopole Production

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Flavour deconstruction models with semi-simple gauge groups generically produce light monopoles that require low-scale reheating after inflation to satisfy cosmological and astrophysical bounds.

  2. Anatomy and Phenomenology of Minimal Flavor Deconstruction in the Lepton Sector

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Next-to-leading order spurion effects in a minimal lepton flavor deconstruction model induce observable charged lepton flavor violation, lepton flavor universality violation, and electric dipole moments at multi-10 Te...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Feruglio,Pieces of the Flavour Puzzle,Eur

    F. Feruglio,Pieces of the Flavour Puzzle,Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 373 [1503.04071]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    Barbieri, G.R

    R. Barbieri, G.R. Dvali and L.J. Hall,Predictions from a U(2) flavor symmetry in supersymmetric theories,Phys. Lett. B377(1996) 76 [hep-ph/9512388]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  3. [3]

    Kagan, G

    A.L. Kagan, G. Perez, T. Volansky and J. Zupan,General Minimal Flavor Violation,Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 076002 [0903.1794]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  4. [4]

    Allwicher, C

    L. Allwicher, C. Cornella, G. Isidori and B.A. Stefanek,New physics in the third generation. A comprehensive SMEFT analysis and future prospects,JHEP03(2024) 049 [2311.00020]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Froggatt and H.B

    C.D. Froggatt and H.B. Nielsen,Hierarchy of Quark Masses, Cabibbo Angles and CP Violation,Nucl. Phys. B147(1979) 277

    1979

  6. [6]

    Greljo and A.E

    A. Greljo and A.E. Thomsen,Rising through the ranks: flavor hierarchies from a gauged SU(2) symmetry,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 213 [2309.11547]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Fuentes-Mart ´ ın and J.M

    J. Fuentes-Mart ´ ın and J.M. Lizana,Deconstructing flavor anomalously,JHEP07(2024) 117 [2402.09507]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Capdevila, A

    B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin, J.M. Lizana and S. Pokorski,SU(2) L deconstruction and flavour (non)-universality,JHEP08(2024) 031 [2401.00848]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Covone, J

    S. Covone, J. Davighi, G. Isidori and M. Pesut,Flavour deconstructing the composite Higgs, JHEP01(2025) 041 [2407.10950]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Isidori, P

    G. Isidori, P. Paradisi, A. Sainaghi and N. Selimovic,Anarchic neutrinos from flavor deconstruction: phenomenology of the lepton sector,JHEP02(2026) 146 [2510.23703]

    arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    Greljo and G

    A. Greljo and G. Isidori,Neutrino anarchy from flavor deconstruction,Phys. Lett. B856 (2024) 138900 [2406.01696]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Barbieri and G

    R. Barbieri and G. Isidori,Minimal flavour deconstruction,JHEP05(2024) 033 [2312.14004]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Davighi and G

    J. Davighi and G. Isidori,Non-universal gauge interactions addressing the inescapable link between Higgs and flavour,JHEP07(2023) 147 [2303.01520]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Davighi and B.A

    J. Davighi and B.A. Stefanek,Deconstructed hypercharge: a natural model of flavour,JHEP 11(2023) 100 [2305.16280]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Davighi, A

    J. Davighi, A. Gosnay, D.J. Miller and S. Renner,Phenomenology of a Deconstructed Electroweak Force,JHEP05(2024) 085 [2312.13346]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Davighi and G

    J. Davighi and G. Isidori,A Composite Theory of Higgs and Flavour,2512.19650

    arXiv

  17. [17]

    Lizana,A common origin of the Higgs boson and the flavor hierarchies,JHEP05 (2025) 176 [2412.14243]

    J.M. Lizana,A common origin of the Higgs boson and the flavor hierarchies,JHEP05 (2025) 176 [2412.14243]. – 40 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Fern´ andez Navarro, S.F

    M. Fern´ andez Navarro, S.F. King and A. Vicente,Natural neutrino mass hierarchy in a theory of gauge flavour deconstruction,JHEP02(2026) 046 [2506.21687]

    arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Fern´ andez Navarro and S.F

    M. Fern´ andez Navarro and S.F. King,Tri-hypercharge: a separate gauged weak hypercharge for each fermion family as the origin of flavour,JHEP08(2023) 020 [2305.07690]

    arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Fern´ andez Navarro, S.F

    M. Fern´ andez Navarro, S.F. King and A. Vicente,Minimal complete tri-hypercharge theories of flavour,JHEP07(2024) 147 [2404.12442]

    arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Davighi and J

    J. Davighi and J. Tooby-Smith,Electroweak flavour unification,JHEP09(2022) 193 [2201.07245]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Kuo and N

    T.K. Kuo and N. Nakagawa,Sp L(6)×U Y (1)extension of the electroweak theory,Phys. Rev. D30(1984) 2011

    1984

  23. [23]

    Kuo and N

    T. Kuo and N. Nakagawa,The generation problem and the symplectic group,Nuclear Physics B250(1985) 641

    1985

  24. [24]

    Hartmann and W

    F. Hartmann and W. Kilian,Flavour Models with Three Higgs Generations,Eur. Phys. J. C 74(2014) 3055 [1405.1901]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  25. [25]

    Keus, S.F

    V. Keus, S.F. King and S. Moretti,Three-Higgs-doublet models: symmetries, potentials and Higgs boson masses,JHEP01(2014) 052 [1310.8253]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  26. [26]

    Altmannshofer and K

    W. Altmannshofer and K. Toner,Flavor constraints in a generational three-Higgs-doublet model,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 075009 [2502.04579]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Darvishi, M

    N. Darvishi, M. Masouminia and A. Pilaftsis,Maximally symmetric three-higgs-doublet model,Physical Review D104(2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    Das, P.M

    D. Das, P.M. Ferreira, A.P. Morais, I. Padilla-Gay, R. Pasechnik and J.P. Rodrigues,A three Higgs doublet model with symmetry-suppressed flavour changing neutral currents,JHEP11 (2021) 079 [2106.06425]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    de Blas, J.C

    J. de Blas, J.C. Criado, M. Perez-Victoria and J. Santiago,Effective description of general extensions of the Standard Model: the complete tree-level dictionary,JHEP03(2018) 109 [1711.10391]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek,Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,JHEP10(2010) 085 [1008.4884]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  31. [31]

    Aebischer, A.J

    J. Aebischer, A.J. Buras and J. Kumar,SMEFT ATLAS: The Landscape Beyond the Standard Model,2507.05926

    arXiv

  32. [32]

    Aebischer, J

    J. Aebischer, J. Kumar and D.M. Straub,Wilson: a Python package for the running and matching of Wilson coefficients above and below the electroweak scale,Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018) 1026 [1804.05033]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [34]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  35. [35]

    Wolfenstein,Parametrization of the Kobayashi-Maskawa Matrix,Phys

    L. Wolfenstein,Parametrization of the Kobayashi-Maskawa Matrix,Phys. Rev. Lett.51 (1983) 1945

    1983

  36. [36]

    Flavor constraints on NP

    G. Buchalla, A.J. Buras and M.E. Lautenbacher,Weak Decays beyond Leading Logarithms, Rev. Mod. Phys.68(1996) 1125 [hep-ph/9512380]. – 41 – [37]UTFitcollaboration, L. Silvestrini, “Flavor constraints on NP.” https://agenda.infn.it/event/14377/contributions/24434/attachments/17481/ 19830/silvestriniLaThuile.pdf, 2018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  37. [38]

    de Gouvea and P

    A. de Gouvea and P. Vogel,Lepton Flavor and Number Conservation, and Physics Beyond the Standard Model,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.71(2013) 75 [1303.4097]. [39]SINDRUMcollaboration,Search for the Decayµ + →e +e+e−,Nucl. Phys. B299(1988) 1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  38. [40]

    Crivellin, S

    A. Crivellin, S. Najjari and J. Rosiek,Lepton Flavor Violation in the Standard Model with general Dimension-Six Operators,JHEP04(2014) 167 [1312.0634]. [41]Particle Data Groupcollaboration,Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 030001. [42]Mu3ecollaboration,The Mu3e Experiment, inSnowmass 2021, 4, 2022 [2204.00001]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  39. [43]

    Haxton, E

    W.C. Haxton, E. Rule, K. McElvain and M.J. Ramsey-Musolf,Nuclear-level effective theory ofµ→e conversion: Formalism and applications,Phys. Rev. C107(2023) 035504 [2208.07945]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [44]

    Kitano, M

    R. Kitano, M. Koike and Y. Okada,Detailed calculation of lepton flavor violating muon electron conversion rate for various nuclei,Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 096002 [hep-ph/0203110]. [45]SINDRUM IIcollaboration,A Search for muon to electron conversion in muonic gold,Eur. Phys. J. C47(2006) 337

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  41. [46]

    Fujii and the COMET collaboration,A search for a muon to electron conversion in COMET,Journal of Instrumentation18(2023) C10010

    Y. Fujii and the COMET collaboration,A search for a muon to electron conversion in COMET,Journal of Instrumentation18(2023) C10010

    2023

  42. [47]

    Krikler,Sensitivity and Background Estimates for Phase-II of the COMET Experiment, Ph.D

    B.E. Krikler,Sensitivity and Background Estimates for Phase-II of the COMET Experiment, Ph.D. thesis, Imperial Coll., London, 2016. 10.25560/45365. – 42 – A The Sp(6) Lie Algebra A.1 Parametrisation of Lie Algebra Elements From (2.2), the corresponding Lie algebra is defined as sp(6)≃ {X∈ M6×6(C)|X † =X,trX= 0,ΩX=−X TΩ}. (A.1) The basis in which the SU(2)...

    work page doi:10.25560/45365 2016