New physics effects in $R(K^{(*)})$, $B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-$, and $B^+\to K^+\nu{\bar\nu}$

Jong-Phil Lee

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

New physics effects in $R(K^{(*)})$, $B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-$, and $B^+\to K^+\nu{\bar\nu}$

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the Belle II excess in $B^+\to K^+\nu\bar\nu$ and the SM-like values of $R(K^{(*)})$ and $\mathrm{Br}(B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-)$ together select a finite mass window, $3.17\,\mathrm{TeV}\le M_{\rm NP}\le…

desk verdict A genuinely generic NP-scale fit with an honest caveat, but the lower edge of the headline window looks like a scan artifact. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06370 v2 pith:5S74JLFL submitted 2025-02-10 hep-ph

Jong-Phil Lee This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords B+->K+nuexcessR(K*)B_smu+mubstransitionsnewphysicsscaleleptoquarkZ'bosonWilsoncoefficients

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

Flavor-changing $b\to s$ decays currently send two opposite signals: the ratios $R(K^{(*)})$ and the branching ratio of $B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-$ agree with the Standard Model, while the Belle II measurement of $B^+\to K^+\nu\bar\nu$ exceeds it. This paper asks whether one and the same heavy new-physics mediator can account for both trends, using a generic parametrization in which every Wilson coefficient scales as $A(v/M_{\rm NP})^\alpha$. The answer is a finite mass window: for ordinary tree-level mediators ($\alpha=2$) and reasonable coupling ranges, the fit allows only $3.17\,\mathrm{TeV}\le M_{\rm NP}\le 14.9\,\mathrm{TeV}$. If true, this turns a single excess into a concrete, searchable mass range for leptoquarks, $Z'$ bosons, and related $b\to s$ new-physics models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-scale parametrization $C_{9,10}^{\rm NP}=\lvert\alpha_{\rm em}V_{tb}V_{ts}^*\rvert^{-1}A_{9,10}(v/M_{\rm NP})^\alpha$, together with the analogous linear-plus-quadratic expansion of $\mathrm{Br}(B^+\to K^+\nu\bar\nu)$ in powers of $(v/M_{\rm NP})^\alpha$. The power $\alpha$ encodes the type of new physics: $\alpha=2$ corresponds to a tree-level exchange of a heavy mediator, while non-integer $\alpha$ mimics unparticle-like or other exotic scaling. This single scale carries the argument because the observables constrain it from opposite sides: the SM-like $R(K^{(*)})$ and $\mathrm{Br}(B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-)$ push $M_{\rm NP}$ upward, while the $B^+\to K^+\nu\bar\nu$ excess pushes it downward, producing the window.

What would settle it

A future measurement that brings $\mathrm{Br}(B^+\to K^+\nu\bar\nu)$ back into agreement with the SM would erase the upper bound and collapse the claimed window, while a direct search that excludes a $b\to s\mu\mu$ mediator with couplings inside the scanned ranges across the whole $3.17\text{–}14.9\,\mathrm{TeV}$ interval would rule the window out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that combining these observables selects a narrow window for the new-physics scale rather than only a lower bound. The muonic $b\to s\ell\ell$ Wilson coefficients are written as $C_{9,10}^{\rm NP}=\lvert\alpha_{\rm em}V_{tb}V_{ts}^*\rvert^{-1}A_{9,10}(v/M_{\rm NP})^\alpha$, and the $B^+\to K^+\nu\bar\nu$ branching ratio is expanded through linear and quadratic terms $L$ and $Q$ of the same form. A $\chi^2$ fit over $\alpha\in[0,5]$, $M_{\rm NP}\in[1,50]\,\mathrm{TeV}$, $\lvert A_{9,10}\rvert\le 1$, $\lvert A_L\rvert\le 10$, and $\lvert A_Q\rvert\le 100$ gives a best fit at $\alpha\approx 1.53$ and $M_{\rm NP}\approx 26.4\,\mathrm{TeV}$. Fixing $\alpha=2$, the ordinary tree-level case, the $2\sigma$ allowed region is $3.17\,\mathrm{TeV}\le M_{\rm NP}\le 14.9\,\mathrm{TeV}$; adding $\mathrm{Br}(B^+\to K^+\mu^+\mu^-)$ and the angular observable $P'_5$ widens this to $4.66\,\mathrm{TeV}\le M_{\rm NP}\le 83.7\,\mathrm{TeV}$ and raises the best-fit scale to $47.9\,\mathrm{TeV}$.

Load-bearing premise

The $B^+\to K^+\nu\bar\nu$ excess is assumed to come from the same heavy, tree-level new physics whose scale the scan varies, and the chosen coupling ranges ($\lvert A_{9,10}\rvert\le 1$, $\lvert A_L\rvert\le 10$, $\lvert A_Q\rvert\le 100$) are set by hand; if light new states or an underestimated SM prediction produce the excess, the upper bound on $M_{\rm NP}$ disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any tree-level mediator of $b\to s$ transitions—leptoquark, $Z'$, new scalar—that is to explain the $B^+\to K^+\nu\bar\nu$ excess while keeping $R(K^{(*)})$ and $\mathrm{Br}(B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-)$ SM-like must have mass inside the $3.17\text{–}14.9\,\mathrm{TeV}$ window for the scanned coupling ranges.
The HL-LHC is expected to exclude leptoquark masses only up to about $1.7\text{–}2.8\,\mathrm{TeV}$, below the window's lower edge, so leptoquarks in this scenario could remain invisible at the HL-LHC, while $Z'$ searches reaching about $6.5\,\mathrm{TeV}$ would probe the window's interior.
The best-fit $\alpha\approx 1.5$ differs from $\alpha=2$, leaving room for non-ordinary scaling of the new-physics effects; the paper notes that larger $\alpha$ would prefer smaller $M_{\rm NP}$.
Including $\mathrm{Br}(B^+\to K^+\mu^+\mu^-)$ and $P'_5$ worsens the fit and widens the mass window to $4.66\text{–}83.7\,\mathrm{TeV}$, pushing the preferred scale beyond the direct reach of the HL-LHC.

Reading between the lines

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

Read as a mass selector, the $B^+\to K^+\nu\bar\nu$ excess does nearly all the work of bounding $M_{\rm NP}$ from above; if future Belle II data pull the excess toward the SM prediction, the window will widen or disappear, making the $14.9\,\mathrm{TeV}$ ceiling the most fragile number in the analysis.
The numerical window is set by the chosen coupling ranges as much as by the data: scaling the allowed $\lvert A_L\rvert$ and $\lvert A_Q\rvert$ ranges up would roughly scale the upper bound up, so the window is best read as an order-of-magnitude target rather than a sharp physical threshold.
The same parametrization could be applied immediately to $B^0\to K^{*0}\nu\bar\nu$ and other $b\to s\nu\bar\nu$ modes with only upper bounds today; these would give independent cross-checks of whether the required neutrino couplings are flavor-universal.

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

The genuinely new piece is putting R(K^(*)) and Bs→μμ together with the Belle II B+→Kνν excess into one fit using your power-law NP parametrization, then extracting an allowed M_NP window. That is a legitimate extension of the earlier R(K^(*)) studies, and the paper is transparent about its central assumption: the νν excess must come from the same heavy NP, not from light states. The decay formulas are standard, and the model checks against Z', leptoquarks, and HL-LHC reach are a useful illustration.

The soft spots are in the headline number. The upper end of the window has some physical content: if M_NP is too large, the NP effect cannot reach the νν excess within the assumed coupling ranges. The lower end does not. Because A9,A10 (muon sector) and AL,AQ (neutrino sector) are independent in Eq. (35), a point with A9=A10=0 and small AL,AQ at M_NP≈1 TeV keeps R(K^(*)) and Bs→μμ at their SM values—all within about one sigma of experiment—and still reproduces the νν excess. That point should be inside any 2σ region, so the quoted 3.17 TeV lower bound looks like a scan-grid or Δχ² artifact rather than a constraint from the data. The paper never specifies its χ² definition or how theory errors enter the pulls, which makes the window hard to reproduce.

The coupling ranges |A9,10|≤1, |AL|≤10, |AQ|≤100 are ad hoc and directly set both ends of the window; the paper admits as much. Adding B+→Kμμ and P5' broadens the window to 4.66–83.7 TeV and worsens the fit, which shows how strongly the headline depends on the observable set. I also think the B+→Kνν upper bound is only as solid as the assumption that no light NP contributes to missing energy; the paper flags this explicitly, which deserves credit.

Bottom line: this is a useful organizing framework for flavor model-builders, not a robust numerical prediction. The parametrization is clean and the question is worth asking. I would send it to peer review, but a referee should require a reproducible χ² setup and a demonstration that the lower bound is not a scan artifact.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper constructs a generic effective parametrization for new physics in b→s transitions, writing the NP Wilson coefficients as C_NP = N A (v/M_NP)^α for the charged-lepton operators C9, C10 and for the neutrino-sector contributions L and Q. It fits R(K), R(K*), Br(Bs→μ+μ−), and Br(B+→K+νν), and finds that for α=2 the allowed region implies 3.17 TeV ≤ M_NP ≤ 14.9 TeV. Including Br(B+→K+μ+μ−) and P5'(B+→K*+μ+μ−) widens this to 4.66 TeV ≤ M_NP ≤ 83.7 TeV. The paper also compares the window with specific Z′ and leptoquark models and with HL-LHC reach.

Significance. If the claimed mass window were robust, it would provide a useful phenomenological bridge between b→s flavor anomalies and direct LHC searches. The explicit M_NP dependence in Eq. (35) is a practical feature, and the simultaneous treatment of the charged-lepton and neutrino b→s modes is a sensible strategy. The paper is also honest in several places about its limitations, notably the statement in Sec. II that light NP states contributing to B+→K+νν are outside the framework. However, the central quantitative claim is not established: the lower bound in Eq. (40) is not supported by the data once the decoupling limit A9=A10=0 is admitted, and the numerical window as a whole is set by ad hoc coupling ranges. The framework is useful, but the headline window requires substantial revision.

major comments (3)

[Sec. III, Eq. (40), Fig. 3] The lower bound M_NP ≥ 3.17 TeV is not implied by the fitted observables. Consider α=2, M_NP=1 TeV, A9=A10=0, AL=−0.08, and AQ=0.0015. Equations (35)–(39) then give C9,10^NP=0, L≈+2.4, Q≈+1.4, so Br(B+→K+νν)≈2.1×10−5 while all four R(K^(*)) values and Br(Bs→μ+μ−) sit at their SM predictions. These predictions are within about 1.1σ of the experimental values quoted in Eqs. (2), (3), (6), and (8). This point satisfies every stated scan bound (1 TeV ≤ M_NP ≤ 50 TeV, |A9,10| ≤ 1, |AL| ≤ 10, |AQ| ≤ 100) and should therefore appear in the 2σ allowed region of Fig. 3. Its absence indicates that the lower bound is generated by the numerical grid or by an undocumented Δχ² cut rather than by the data or the physics of the parametrization.
[Sec. III, chi-square definition] The fit that produces Eq. (40) is not fully specified. The text says only that a χ² fit is implemented, without giving the covariance matrix, the treatment of asymmetric experimental errors, the inclusion of theoretical uncertainties from form factors or CKM parameters, or the Δχ² threshold used to define the 2σ contours. This matters directly for the central claim, because the point described above must be tested against the same criterion. Please provide the explicit χ² function, the error model, and the contour definition used in Figs. 1–5.
[Sec. III, Eqs. (35), (39), scan ranges] The quantitative window in Eq. (40) is fixed by the ad hoc scan ranges |A9,10| ≤ 1, |AL| ≤ 10, and |AQ| ≤ 100. No perturbativity, naturalness, or model-based argument is given for these ranges, and the paper itself notes that the window varies with the coupling ranges. As a result, the numerical window is a conditional artifact of the scan prior rather than a model-independent prediction. The claim should be reframed, or the analysis should show explicitly how Eq. (40) changes under physically motivated alternatives, for example all couplings bounded by 1 or by 4π.

minor comments (6)

[Sec. II, Eq. (38)] The expansion Br(B+→K+νν)=Br_SM |1+L+Q| should define more precisely how L and Q are related to the complex neutrino Wilson coefficients in Eq. (37), including whether real coefficients are assumed and how the phase conventions are fixed.
[Sec. III, text near Fig. 3] There is a typo in the text, “for those vales of α ≳ 1.6”, which should read “values”.
[Sec. II, text near Eq. (35)] The sentence referring to “the B+ → K ++ missing energy” contains a typographical artifact and should read “B+ → K+ missing energy”.
[Eq. (4)] The SM predictions used for R(K)L in the experimental bin [0.1,1.1] GeV² are not listed; only R(K)SM for [1.0,6.0] GeV² is given. Please specify the exact SM values used for all experimental bins.
[Sec. III, Table I] Best-fit values in Tables I and II are quoted without uncertainties; reporting 1σ ranges for the fitted parameters would make the results more useful.
[Sec. III, Fig. 3] The color coding in Fig. 3 (“free α” vs. “fixed α=2”) is hard to read in grayscale; using different markers or line styles would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MNP window is a fit-derived allowed region, not an out-of-sample prediction, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper performs a chi-square fit of its NP parametrization, Eqs. (35) and (39), to the same observables it discusses, and the quoted window 3.17 TeV <= MNP <= 14.9 TeV is the resulting 2-sigma allowed region rather than a prediction from independent data. The derivation chain is self-contained: decay-rate formulas and SM inputs are taken from external literature, the Wilson coefficients are defined explicitly in Eqs. (35) and (39), and the allowed region follows from a numerical scan. The upper bound arises algebraically from needing an enhanced B+ -> K+ nu nubar rate, while the lower bound comes from keeping R(K(*)) and Br(Bs -> mu+ mu-) near their SM values; neither bound is an input that has been renamed as an output. The self-citations [41,42] introduce the same power-law ansatz, but the parametrization is restated and used directly in this paper, not invoked as an external uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification for the central claim. The claim that the allowed window can be used to test specific NP models is a legitimate use of a fit result, not circularity. A possible numerical fragility of the lower bound, e.g. the A9=A10=0 decoupling point at small MNP, would be a correctness or scan-resolution concern rather than a circularity of the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, fields, or mediators are introduced; the analysis uses a generic operator parameterization. The central claim rests on several domain assumptions: muon-only NP, no C7 NP, and heavy NP as the source of the B+→Kνν excess.

free parameters (7)

α = 1.53 (best fit); 1.36 with extra observables
Power of v/MNP in Eq. (35), fitted to the b→s data; the window in Eq. (40) uses α=2 instead.
MNP = 26.4 TeV best fit; window 3.17-14.9 TeV for α=2; 4.66-83.7 TeV with extra observables
New-physics scale, the primary fitted quantity; the quoted window is the 2σ allowed interval at fixed α=2.
A9 = 0.064 (Table I); -0.239 (Table II)
Muon-sector NP coefficient for C9^NP in Eq. (35), fitted to R(K) and R(K*).
A10 = 0.115 (Table I); 0.019 (Table II)
Muon-sector NP coefficient for C10^NP, strongly constrained by Br(Bs→μ+μ−).
AL = 0.0791 (AL×10=0.791 in Table I); 0.0107 (Table II)
Linear neutrino-sector coefficient in Eq. (39), fitted to Br(B+→K+νν).
AQ = -0.00722 (AQ×10^2=-0.722 in Table I); -0.00991 (Table II)
Quadratic neutrino-sector coefficient in Eq. (39), fitted; large scan range |AQ|≤100.
coupling scan ranges = |A9,10|≤1, |AL|≤10, |AQ|≤100
Chosen by hand as 'reasonable'; the MNP window and its bounds depend directly on these ranges.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption NP enters only in the muon sector for C9,C10; Ae_9,10=0
Section II after Eq. (35): non-zero electron couplings would affect (g−2)_e, which agrees with SM; hence electron NP is dropped.
domain assumption NP in C7 is negligible
Section II: B→Xsγ strongly constrains C7, so C7 NP is omitted.
domain assumption The B+→K+νν excess is due to heavy NP described by Eq. (35)/(39), not light NP or SM theory error
Section II after Eq. (35): light NP such as sterile neutrinos or dark fermions is declared beyond scope; without this, the upper bound is invalid.
domain assumption SM predictions for R(K), R(K*), Br(Bs→μμ), and Br(B+→Kνν) are correct within quoted errors
Used as the baseline in the χ2 fit; any error here shifts the NP window.
domain assumption Form factors from Ali et al. with exponential parametrization Eq. (17) are used without propagating their uncertainties
Section II: F(ŝ)=F(0) exp(...); no theory-error propagation is described in the fit.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New physics effects in $R(K^{(*)})$, $B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-$, and $B^+\to K^+\nu{\bar\nu}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5S74JLFL

@misc{pith2026250206370,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New physics effects in $R(K^(*))$, $B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-$, and $B^+\to K^+\nu\bar\nu$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5S74JLFL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06370}
}

abstract

We analyze possible new physics (NP) effects on $b\to s$ transition processes, $R(K^{(*)})$, $B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-$, and $B^+\to K^+\nu{\bar\nu}$ decays. Though recent data for $R(K^{(*)})$ and ${\rm Br}(B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-)$ are compatible with the standard model (SM), there are still rooms for NP beyond the SM. Especially ${\rm Br}(B^+\to K^+\nu{\bar\nu})$ is measured to exceed the theoretical predictions. We parameterize the NP effects in a generic way with explicit NP scale $M_{\rm NP}$ and some possible powers of it. For reasonable ranges of NP fermionic couplings we find a window of $3.17~{\rm TeV} \le M_{\rm NP}\le 14.9~{\rm TeV}$ for new particles. When including ${\rm Br}(B^+\to K^+\mu^+\mu^-)$ and the angular observable $P_5'(B^+\to K^{*+}\mu^+\mu^-)$ we have a wider range of the window. Implications of our analysis about specific NP models are discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06370 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Allowed regions of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Allowed regions (at the 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Allowed regions of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Allowed regions of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

A Unified Dark Matter Explanation for $\boldsymbol{B^+ \!\to K^+\nu\bar{\nu}}$ and the Super-Kamiokande Antineutrino Excess
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A UV-complete complex scalar DM model under gauged U(1)Lμ−Lτ accommodates the SK antineutrino excess, the Belle II B+→K+νν̄ excess, and the DM relic density with one light dark sector.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], JHEP 08 (2017), 055

work page 2017
[2]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Nature Phys. 18, no.3, 277-282 (2022)

work page 2022
[3]

L. S. Geng, B. Grinstein, S. J¨ ager, S. Y. Li, J. Martin Camalich and R. X. Shi, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.3, 035029 (2021)

work page 2021
[4]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, no.5, 051803 (2023)

work page 2023
[5]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 108, no.3, 032002 (2023)

work page 2023
[6]

Hiller and F

G. Hiller and F. Kruger, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004), 074020

work page 2004
[7]

Bobeth, G

C. Bobeth, G. Hiller and G. Piranishvili, JHEP 12 (2007), 040

work page 2007
[9]

Bordone, G

M. Bordone, G. Isidori and A. Pattori, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, no.8, 440 (2016)

work page 2016

Show all 64 references

[10]

CMS Collaboration, Test of lepton flavor universality in B+ → K+ℓ+ℓ− decays, CMS- PAS=BPH-22-005 (2023)

2023
[11]

Navas et al

S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 110, no.3, 030001 (2024)

2024
[12]

Czaja and M

M. Czaja and M. Misiak, Symmetry 16, no.7, 917 (2024)

2024
[13]

Adachi et al

I. Adachi et al. [Belle-II], Phys. Rev. D 109, no.11, 112006 (2024)

2024
[14]

Beˇ cirevi´ c, G

D. Beˇ cirevi´ c, G. Piazza and O. Sumensari, Eur. Phys. J. C83, no.3, 252 (2023)

2023
[15]

Altmannshofer, P

W. Altmannshofer, P. S. B. Dev, A. Soni and Y. Sui, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) no.1, 015031

2020
[16]

Bardhan, D

D. Bardhan, D. Ghosh and D. Sachdeva, Nucl. Phys. B 986, 116059 (2023)

2023
[17]

M. D. Zheng, Q. L. Wang, L. F. Lai and H. H. Zhang, [arXiv:2410.04348 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[18]

Hiller and M

G. Hiller and M. Schmaltz, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014), 054014

2014
[19]

Dorˇ sner, S

I. Dorˇ sner, S. Fajfer, A. Greljo, J. F. Kamenik and N. Koˇ snik, Phys. Rept.641 (2016), 1-68

2016
[20]

Bauer and M

M. Bauer and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) no.14, 141802

2016
[21]

C. H. Chen, T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Lett. B 774 (2017), 456-464

2017
[22]

Crivellin, D

A. Crivellin, D. M¨ uller and T. Ota, JHEP 09 (2017), 040

2017
[23]

Calibbi, A

L. Calibbi, A. Crivellin and T. Li, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.11, 115002. 17

2018
[24]

Blanke and A

M. Blanke and A. Crivellin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) no.1, 011801

2018
[25]

Nomura and H

T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.3, 035042 (2021)

2021
[26]

Angelescu, D

A. Angelescu, D. Beˇ cirevi´ c, D. A. Faroughy, F. Jaffredo and O. Sumensari, Phys. Rev. D104, no.5, 055017 (2021)

2021
[27]

M. Du, J. Liang, Z. Liu and V. Tran, [arXiv:2104.05685 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[28]

So we simply assume that the NP appears only in the muon sector putting Ae 9,10 = 0, and we drop the superscript ℓ or µ in what follows

the leptoquark couplings X LR 31 can contribute both to the electron anomalous moment and R(K (∗)). So we simply assume that the NP appears only in the muon sector putting Ae 9,10 = 0, and we drop the superscript ℓ or µ in what follows. Our parametrization encodes explicitly t...

2024
[29]

Cheung, W

K. Cheung, W. Y. Keung and P. Y. Tseng, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.1, 015029 (2022)

2022
[30]

Crivellin, G

A. Crivellin, G. D’Ambrosio and J. Heeck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015), 151801

2015
[31]

Crivellin, G

A. Crivellin, G. D’Ambrosio and J. Heeck, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) no.7, 075006

2015
[32]

C. W. Chiang, X. G. He, J. Tandean and X. B. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) no.11, 115022

2017
[33]

S. F. King, JHEP 08 (2017), 019

2017
[34]

R. S. Chivukula, J. Isaacson, K. A. Mohan, D. Sengupta and E. H. Simmons, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) no.7, 075012

2017
[35]

J. Y. Cen, Y. Cheng, X. G. He and J. Sun, Nucl. Phys. B 978, 115762 (2022)

2022
[36]

Davighi, JHEP 08, 101 (2021)

J. Davighi, JHEP 08, 101 (2021)

2021
[37]

Q. Y. Hu, X. Q. Li and Y. D. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) no.3, 190

2017
[38]

Crivellin, D

A. Crivellin, D. M¨ uller and C. Wiegand, JHEP 06 (2019), 119

2019
[39]

Delle Rose, S

L. Delle Rose, S. Khalil, S. J. D. King and S. Moretti, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.11, 115009

2020
[40]

S. Y. Ho, J. Kim and P. Ko, [arXiv:2401.10112 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[41]

J. P. Lee, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 37, no.32, 2250214 (2022)

2022
[42]

J. P. Lee, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 80, no.1, 13-19 (2022)

2022
[43]

J. P. Lee, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 38, no.16n17, 2350080 (2023)

2023
[44]

Alonso, B

R. Alonso, B. Grinstein and J. Martin Camalich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014), 241802

2014
[45]

L. S. Geng, B. Grinstein, S. J¨ ager, J. Martin Camalich, X. L. Ren and R. X. Shi, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) no.9, 093006

2017
[46]

A. Ali, P. Ball, L. T. Handoko and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000), 074024

2000
[47]

Chang, X

Q. Chang, X. Q. Li and Y. D. Yang, JHEP 04, 052 (2010)

2010
[48]

Becirevic, N

D. Becirevic, N. Kosnik, F. Mescia and E. Schneider, Phys. Rev. D 86, 034034 (2012)

2012
[49]

D’Alise, G

A. D’Alise, G. Fabiano, D. Frattulillo, D. Iacobacci, F. Sannino, P. Santorelli and N. Vignaroli, Nucl. Phys. B 1006, 116631 (2024)

2024
[50]

M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. D 76, 035008 (2007)

2007
[51]

J. P. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 79, 076002 (2009). 18

2009
[52]

F. Z. Chen, Q. Wen and F. Xu, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1012 (2024)

2024
[53]

Allwicher, D

L. Allwicher, D. Becirevic, G. Piazza, S. Rosauro-Alcaraz and O. Sumensari, Phys. Lett. B 848, 138411 (2024)

2024
[54]

Sumensari, [arXiv:2406.00218 [hep-ph]]

O. Sumensari, [arXiv:2406.00218 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[55]

[ATLAS Collaboration], Snowmass White Paper Contribution: Physics with the Phase-2 AT- LAS and CMS Detectors,’ ATL-PHYS-PUB-2022-018

2022
[56]

[CMS Collaboration], Snowmass White Paper Contribution: Physics with the Phase-2 ATLAS and CMS Detectors,’ CMS-PAS-FTR-22-001
[57]

Desai and A

N. Desai and A. Sengupta, [arXiv:2301.01754 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[58]

Bause, H

R. Bause, H. Gisbert and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.1, 015006 (2024)

2024
[59]

Aebischer, J

J. Aebischer, J. Kumar, P. Stangl and D. M. Straub, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, no.6, 509 (2019)

2019
[60]

Alguer´ o, A

M. Alguer´ o, A. Biswas, B. Capdevila, S. Descotes-Genon, J. Matias and M. Novoa-Brunet, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, no.7, 648 (2023)

2023
[61]

Hurth, F

T. Hurth, F. Mahmoudi and S. Neshatpour, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.11, 115037 (2023)

2023
[62]

Mahmoudi and Y

F. Mahmoudi and Y. Monceaux, Symmetry 16, no.8, 1006 (2024)

2024
[63]

Gubernari, M

N. Gubernari, M. Reboud, D. van Dyk and J. Virto, JHEP 09, 133 (2022)

2022
[64]

Capdevila, A

B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin and J. Matias, Eur. Phys. J. ST 1, 20 (2023)

2023
[65]

Grygier et al

J. Grygier et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. D 96, no.9, 091101 (2017). 19

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], JHEP 08 (2017), 055

work page 2017

[2] [2]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Nature Phys. 18, no.3, 277-282 (2022)

work page 2022

[3] [3]

L. S. Geng, B. Grinstein, S. J¨ ager, S. Y. Li, J. Martin Camalich and R. X. Shi, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.3, 035029 (2021)

work page 2021

[4] [4]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, no.5, 051803 (2023)

work page 2023

[5] [5]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 108, no.3, 032002 (2023)

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Hiller and F

G. Hiller and F. Kruger, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004), 074020

work page 2004

[7] [7]

Bobeth, G

C. Bobeth, G. Hiller and G. Piranishvili, JHEP 12 (2007), 040

work page 2007

[8] [9]

Bordone, G

M. Bordone, G. Isidori and A. Pattori, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, no.8, 440 (2016)

work page 2016