Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 103 references

The paper argues that all renormalizable one-loop completions of the b→sνν̄ vector operators reduce to a single irreducible box topology, and that the two most economical resulting models are too constrained to explain the Belle II excess.

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

2026-08-03 08:04 UTC pith:AZRQRS5H

load-bearing objection Useful one-loop catalog and honest constraint analysis, but the completeness claim drops T2-1 and the negative conclusion doesn't cover all minimal models. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.18147 v2 pith:AZRQRS5H submitted 2026-01-26 hep-ph

Radiative generation of chiral vector operators in bto s νbar{ν} transition

Xin-Shuai Yan , Wen-Feng Liu , Qin Chang , Ya-Dong Yang This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords b→sνν̄Belle II anomalyradiative generationone-loop box topologyvector operatorsSMEFT matchingflavor constraintsB→K(*)νν̄
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 tries to establish the complete set of renormalizable one-loop mechanisms that can generate both left- and right-handed vector operators in b→sνν̄ without tree-level mediation, and to determine whether such radiative models can explain the Belle II excess. It argues that the classification collapses to a single irreducible box topology, from which the most economical models contain four or five new fields. Two benchmark models—one scalar-dominated, one fermion-dominated—are built and tested against all relevant flavor and electroweak constraints. The finding is that loop suppression plus constraints from Bs mixing and b→sγ cap the attainable rates: the best case (a decoupled scalar-rich scheme) gives simultaneous constructive interference but reduces the suppressed ratio R by only about 4%, far from the factor-of-five deficit implied by current data. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns the question 'which new physics?' into a sharper statement: within any minimal radiative framework, the anomaly cannot be fully accommodated.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a complete topological classification: after discarding tadpoles, external-leg corrections, non-renormalizable four-point-vertex topologies, and reducible vertex-correction diagrams, the only genuine one-loop realization is the irreducible box diagram T1-1, with six distinct arrangements of the external fields. Promoting these diagrams to models by assigning SM quantum numbers fixes all hypercharges in terms of one free parameter α and yields a catalog of allowed SU(3)c and SU(2)L assignments; diagrams (c) and (d) can source both operator chiralities, (a)/(b) only the right-handed operator, and (e)/(f) only the left-handed operator, unless i

What carries the argument

The irreducible one-loop box topology T1-1 — a four-point diagram built only from renormalizable three-point vertices with two internal fermions and two internal scalars — is the load-bearing structure. It is accompanied by the SU(2)L tensor algebra (ξ and χ tensors) that maps each box contraction onto SMEFT operators Q_ℓq^(1), Q_ℓq^(3), Q_ℓd; the single hypercharge parameter α that fixes all internal hypercharges; the loop integrals J4 and I4; and the η_M factor, which parameterizes the additional crossed diagrams that appear for Majorana fermions or real scalars and which in the fermion-rich case produces an exact (1-η_M) cancellation, making the whole model vanish when the scalar is real.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that for every quantum-number assignment in its classification a symmetry can be imposed that forbids tree-level b→sνν̄ while leaving both the SM quantum numbers and the one-loop box as the leading contribution; no such symmetry is explicitly constructed.

What would settle it

Build any of the Table-I models (e.g., A-V with explicit fields) without adding a new discrete symmetry and compute the tree-level b→sνν̄ amplitude: if it is nonzero, the classification's claim that these are genuine one-loop completions fails. On the observable side, a future measurement with B(B+→K+νν̄) above 4.6×10^-6 while R stays below 2.0 would directly falsify both benchmark models.

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

If this is right

  • Reproducing the Belle II central value for B+→K+νν̄ at the one-loop level requires quark couplings in a narrow window that is largely excluded by Bs mixing and b→sγ; the maximal charged-mode enhancement is roughly 11%.
  • In either benchmark model, the ratio R = B(B0→K*0νν̄)/B(B+→K+νν̄) can move by only a few percent from its SM value of about 2.14, whereas the current central experimental ratio is about 0.38.
  • The fermion-rich model with a real scalar mediator generates identically zero Wilson coefficients; a complex scalar is mandatory for that model to contribute at all.
  • Cancellations between crossed and uncrossed box diagrams are generic when real fields are present, so radiative generation without tree-level contamination generally prefers complex (charged) mediators.
  • Under a flavor-universal coupling assignment, the scalar-rich model produces an exact cancellation in the charged B+→K+νν̄ amplitude, so naive flavor universality can hide the very signal Belle II observes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the Belle II excess persists at its current level, these results argue by elimination that the explanation, if it is new physics, likely involves light invisible states (sterile neutrinos, dark matter, axion-like particles) or tree-level heavy mediators, not minimal radiative generation.
  • The completeness of the classification hinges on the asserted existence of a symmetry that forbids tree-level contributions; making that symmetry explicit for each benchmark—and checking it does not reintroduce tree-level b→sνν̄ or destabilize the loop—would turn an assumption into a theorem.
  • A sharp testable extension of the framework is to scan the four degeneracy schemes against a future precise measurement of both B→Kνν̄ and B→K*νν̄; the paper's anti-correlation predictions (Schemes A-C) versus simultaneous-enhancement (Scheme D) give qualitatively different correlation patterns that data could distinguish.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a bottom-up classification of renormalizable one-loop completions that radiatively generate the LEFT vector operators O_L^V and O_R^V for b→sνν̄ while avoiding tree-level mediation. Six one-loop topologies are reduced to the irreducible box T1-1, for which quantum-number assignments are tabulated. Two minimal benchmark models are constructed—a scalar-rich model (one fermion, four scalars) and a fermion-rich model (one scalar, three fermions)—and their Wilson coefficients are matched to SMEFT/LEFT. The phenomenological analysis imposes constraints from B→K(*)νν̄, b→sτ+τ−, B_s−B̄_s mixing, b→sγ, and Z-pole observables under four coupling schemes. The main result is that the maximal B→K(*)νν̄ enhancements remain small (a few percent), insufficient to explain the Belle II excess, with the largest effect being a 4.22% reduction of R in Scheme D of the scalar-rich model.

Significance. If the classification and the one-loop purity of the benchmarks are accepted, this is a useful, largely self-contained model-building study. The paper provides explicit SMEFT matching coefficients (Tables II, XII–XVIII), analytic loop functions (Appendix A), and a systematic treatment of complementary flavor and electroweak constraints; the negative phenomenological conclusion is clearly stated. The 4.22% reduction claim and the anti-correlation between channels are concrete, falsifiable statements. However, the completeness of the T1-1-only catalog and the existence of the assumed tree-level-forbidding symmetry are load-bearing and not established, so the strength of the no-go-type conclusion is conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Fig. 2] The classification excludes T2-1 because it is 'reducible', yet the text states that 'the diagram T2-1 remains a perfectly viable candidate in models once a symmetry is explicitly imposed to forbid its tree-level counterpart.' Since the paper's framework assumes exactly such symmetries, the claim that one-loop completions are fully classified by the irreducible box T1-1 (Figs. 3–5, Tables I–III) is internally inconsistent. A T2-1-based completion would have different field content and constraints, so the Sec. V conclusion that the benchmark one-loop models cannot explain the Belle II excess is not established for all minimal one-loop completions. Please either include T2-1 in the catalog, prove that the assumed symmetry always forbids it, or explicitly restrict the conclusion to T1-1 models.
  2. [Sec. II and Table III] The assumption that 'a suitable symmetry can always be implemented to forbid the tree-level contributions' is never instantiated. In particular, no discrete or flavor symmetry is written for the two benchmark models whose Lagrangians are given in Eqs. (8) and (12). Without such a symmetry, these Lagrangians may generate tree-level b→sνν̄, in which case the one-loop expressions in Eqs. (10)–(11) and (13)–(14) are not the leading contribution and the constraints derived in Sec. V are not valid. The benchmark models should be presented with explicit symmetry charges, and the classification tables should specify which symmetry (or model-building mechanism) realizes each entry.
  3. [Sec. IV C/E, Eqs. (37)–(46), (63)–(75)] The Wilson coefficients are computed at the NP scale (450 GeV–3.15 TeV) and compared with low-scale observables at μ=4.16 GeV (B_s mixing) and μ=m_Z (Z-pole) without RG evolution. The statement in Sec. IV A that 'neglecting the small RG running effects' applies to the SMEFT→LEFT matching, but the same approximation appears to be used for the ΔF=2 and dipole operators. For B_s mixing, QCD running between the NP scale and 4.16 GeV is not negligible at the precision of the LHCb measurement; this can change the allowed coupling regions in Fig. 9 and thus the maxima in Table IV. Please provide the running factors or a quantitative error estimate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table I] In the SU(2)_L section, the label 'II' is used twice; the cases should be renumbered consecutively.
  2. [Eqs. (10)–(14)] The generation indices (m,n,j,i) and the η_M convention are not defined until after the equations. Please define all indices and the η_M parameter immediately before first use.
  3. [Table IV] Please define x, y, z explicitly in the caption and clarify that the optimization is performed independently for the charged and neutral modes. The 'complementary branching ratio' column is easy to misread as a simultaneous fit result.
  4. [Sec. V] The numerical scan is restricted to real couplings with |g|≤1. A sentence acknowledging that complex phases could modify some constraint regions and, in principle, the maxima would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the one-loop Wilson coefficients are computed from explicit Lagrangians and matched to external observables; the T2-1 caveat is a completeness limitation, not an input-output reduction.

full rationale

The central quantities in this paper—the SMEFT/LEFT Wilson coefficients from Eqs. (8), (10)–(14), (16)–(17), and the resulting B→K(*)νν rates—are obtained from explicit Lagrangians, loop integrals in Appendix A, and standard matching relations. The constraints are external experimental inputs (Belle II, Belle, LHCb, BaBar, LEP, HFLAV), so the numerical finding that the benchmark one-loop models cannot quantitatively explain the Belle II excess is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The reported anti-correlation between B+→K+νν and B0→K*0νν follows from the rate formulae (18)–(19) applied to scanned parameter points, not from fitting the ratio R. The self-citations (Refs. [18], [55], [58]) are contextual or illustrative; none is invoked as a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, and the classification also cites external works [59,60]. The paper itself notes in Sec. II that T2-1 'remains a perfectly viable candidate in models once a symmetry is explicitly imposed to forbid its tree-level counterpart,' which is an internal completeness caveat about the claimed exhaustive classification, but it is not a circular step: the benchmark-model calculations do not depend on excluding T2-1 by definition, and their Wilson coefficients are derived independently. The overall derivation chain is therefore not circular, though the classification claim may be incomplete as a separate correctness concern.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 4 invented entities

The models introduce a modest set of new fields (four or five), each with free masses/couplings. The central conclusion (loop effects are too small) rests on the chosen benchmark masses and the perturbativity bound |g|≤1. The main unproven postulate is the existence of a symmetry forbidding tree-level contributions, which is essential for the one-loop classification to be the leading effect.

free parameters (4)
  • Hypercharge α = α = 0 (scalar-rich); α = -1/3 (fermion-rich)
    Free U(1)_Y parameter of the new fermion Ψ1/Ψ; benchmark values chosen by hand to permit Majorana Ψ or real scalar S, activating the crossed diagrams (η_M=1).
  • Benchmark masses BP-I (scalar-rich) = M_Ψ = M_S2 = M_S4 = 450 GeV; M_S1 = M_S3 = 1.10 TeV
    Chosen by hand to evade LHC direct-search bounds for colored scalars; the loop-suppression conclusion depends on these scales.
  • Benchmark masses BP-II (fermion-rich) = M_S = M_Ψ2 = 450 GeV; M_Ψ1 = M_Ψ3 = 3.15 TeV
    Chosen by hand following Ref. [84] to be safe from LHC colored-fermion bounds.
  • Yukawa couplings g = Scanned within |g|≤1; values at maxima in Table IV (e.g., (1,±0.21,0))
    The branching-ratio maxima and the 4.22% R reduction are obtained by optimizing over five couplings under degeneracy schemes A–D.
axioms (6)
  • ad hoc to paper A suitable symmetry can always be implemented to forbid tree-level contributions to b→sνν̄
    Sec. II ('we proceed with the assumption that a suitable symmetry can always be implemented...'); underpins the claim that one-loop box diagrams are the leading contributions and the classification is complete.
  • domain assumption SM gauge symmetry governs quantum-number assignments; only renormalizable 3- and 4-point vertices are used
    Sec. II topology generation; standard model-building framework.
  • domain assumption Neutrinos are Dirac and purely left-handed; lepton flavor conserved; no right-handed neutrinos
    Sec. IV A; ensures only vector operators O_L,V and O_R,V contribute and the rate formulae (18)–(19) apply.
  • domain assumption NP couples only to third-generation neutrinos (τ)
    Sec. IV A simplified scenario; reduces flavor sum to a single ντ contribution, the basis for constraints (20)–(21).
  • domain assumption RG running from the NP scale to M_W is neglected in the SMEFT→LEFT matching
    Sec. IV A ('Neglecting the small RG running effects'); affects the precision of the Wilson-coefficient constraints.
  • standard math Hadronic form factors and matrix elements are taken from Refs. [2, 67, 76]
    Used in BR predictions (18)–(19) and Bs-mixing constraint (46); accepted external inputs.
invented entities (4)
  • Vector-like fermion Ψ (scalar-rich model) no independent evidence
    purpose: Internal fermion of the box diagrams generating O_R and O_L; Majorana case adds crossed diagrams
    No direct observation; mass set to 450 GeV, safely above LEP/LHC limits for colorless fermions; no unique signature predicted.
  • Scalars S1–S4 (scalar-rich model) no independent evidence
    purpose: Internal scalars carrying color and weak charge, mediating the box diagrams
    Colored S1,S3 at 1.10 TeV chosen to evade LHC pair-production bounds; no observable predicted beyond generic colored scalar signatures.
  • Vector-like fermions Ψ1–Ψ3 (fermion-rich model) no independent evidence
    purpose: Internal fermions; colored ones generate the box diagrams
    Colored fermions at 3.15 TeV chosen from Ref. [84] to evade LHC searches; no independent evidence.
  • Scalar S (fermion-rich model) no independent evidence
    purpose: Internal scalar; real S (α=-1/3) case cancels the Wilson coefficients
    Color singlet at 450 GeV; real-scalar limit is motivated by the cancellation, not by data.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 28652 in / 21183 out tokens · 202850 ms · 2026-08-03T08:04:27.628121+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The recent Belle II evidence for $B^+ \to K^+ \nu \bar{\nu}$, combined with a suppressed branching fraction ratio $R \equiv \mathcal{B}(B^0 \to K^{*0} \nu \bar{\nu}) / \mathcal{B}(B^+ \to K^+ \nu \bar{\nu})$, necessitates new physics contributing to both left- and right-handed vector operators. We perform a systematic topological classification of one-loop completions that radiatively generate both operators without tree-level mediation, and construct two minimal benchmark scenarios: a scalar-rich model and a fermion-rich model. Evaluating these frameworks under specific benchmark mass schemes and four distinct flavor structures, we find a generic anti-correlation where enhancing one decay channel typically suppresses the other. A notable exception is a decoupled flavor configuration within the scalar-rich model, which yields simultaneous constructive interference, reducing $R$ by $4.22\%$ while satisfying all complementary flavor bounds. Under a universal coupling assumption, the scalar-rich model yields exact cancellation in the charged mode, highlighting the non-trivial interplay between flavor structure and loop-generated Wilson coefficients.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.18147 by Qin Chang, Wen-Feng Liu, Xin-Shuai Yan, Ya-Dong Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: One-loop topologies with 3- and 4-point vertices and four external legs. Topologies T1 and T2, highlighted in the red-dashed box, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Possible one-loop diagrams for the topologies T1 and T2, where the dashed lines denote scalars and the solid lines denote fermions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The six distinct diagrams that can be constructed from the T1-1 diagram by permuting the external fields ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the new diagrammatic contribution that becomes possible in the scalar-rich model when the mediating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of additional diagrammatic contributions in the fermion-rich model that arise when the scalar mediator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: One-loop diagrams contributing to Bs − B¯s mixing. The top panel shows diagrams for the scalar-rich model, where the standard box (A) is accompanied by a “crossed-fermion” diagram (A′ ) if the mediator Ψ is a Majorana particle. The bottom panel shows diagrams for the fermion-rich model, where the standard box (B) is accompanied by a “crossed-scalar” diagram (B′ ) if the mediator S is a real scalar. The ind… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: One-loop contributions to b → sγ in the benchmark models. Replacing the photon (wavy green line) with a gluon yields the corresponding diagrams for the chromomagnetic transition b → sg. D. b → sγ The radiative dipole transition b → sγ also provides stringent constraints on our models. This process is described by the effective Hamiltonian Heff = − 4GF √ 2 VtbV ∗ ts X i=7,8 (CiOi + C ′ iO ′ i ), (47) which … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Feynman diagrams modifying the Z ¯fifj vertex with fi,j ∈ {s, b, ℓ, ν}. The theoretical prediction for the branching ratio, including the photon energy cut Eγ > E0 = 1.6 GeV, can be separated into the SM prediction and the NP correction: B(b → sγ) = B(b → sγ) SM + δB(b → sγ). (53) The NP contribution, δB(b → sγ), evaluated at scale µ = 160 GeV is given by [78, 79] δB(b → sγ) = 10−4 × Re −8.100∆C7 − 2.509 ∆… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Allowed regions for the quark couplings in the scalar-rich (BP-I) and fermion-rich (BP-II) models under the four degeneracy schemes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 84 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    •Scheme B:g 2 1 =g 3 1′ =g 2 1′

    Consequently, whileg 3 1 remains effectively unconstrained,g 3 1′ is restricted to a narrow interval, which reaches its minimum width of[−0.10,0.10]atg 3 1 = 0. •Scheme B:g 2 1 =g 3 1′ =g 2 1′. As depicted in the panels labeled BP-I-B and BP-II-B in Fig. 9,g 3 1 remains largely unconstrained within the perturbative limit[−1,1]for both models, while the co...

  2. [2]

    Be ˇcirevi´c, G

    D. Be ˇcirevi´c, G. Piazza, and O. Sumensari, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 252 (2023), arXiv:2301.06990 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Grygieret al.(Belle), Phys

    J. Grygieret al.(Belle), Phys. Rev. D96, 091101 (2017), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 97, 099902 (2018)], arXiv:1702.03224 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    ln m2 4 m2 1 + m2 2 (m2 2 −m 2 1)(m2 2 −m 2 3)(m2 2 −m 2

  5. [5]

    ln m2 4 m2 2 + m2 3 (m2 3 −m 2 1)(m2 3 −m 2 2)(m2 3 −m 2

  6. [6]

    ln m2 4 m2 3 ,(A1) J4(m1, m2, m3, m4)≡ ˆ ddk (2π)di k2 (k2 −m 2 1)(k2 −m 2 2)(k2 −m 2 3)(k2 −m 2 4) = 1 (4π)2 m4 1 (m2 1 −m 2 2)(m2 1 −m 2 3)(m2 1 −m 2

  7. [7]

    ln m2 4 m2 1 + m4 2 (m2 2 −m 2 1)(m2 2 −m 2 3)(m2 2 −m 2

  8. [8]

    ln m2 4 m2 2 + m4 3 (m2 3 −m 2 1)(m2 3 −m 2 2)(m2 3 −m 2

  9. [9]

    gΨ,L M 2 S3 x3 ˜GZ(x3, x3)− 2 3 gΨ,R M 2 S3 ˜FZ(x3, x3) + gΦ1 22 3M 2 Ψ ˜HZ(x3, x3) # ,(63) ∆gsb R (m2 Z) = m2 Z 32π2 g2∗ 1 g3 1

    + 8.93×10 −9(∆C9 + ∆C′ 9)(∆C ∗ 9 + ∆C′∗ 9 ) + 7.47×10 −8Re(∆C9 + ∆C′ 9) ≤2.25×10 −3 .(31) C.B s − ¯Bs mixing Another set of constraints on our models arises from their potential contributions toB s − ¯Bs mixing. At low energies, this process is described by the effective Hamiltonian Heff = X a CaOa +h.c. (32) Adopting the so-called BMU basis [75], the rel...

  10. [10]

    ln m2 4 m2 3 .(A2) Additionally, the analysis of the radiative decayb→sγin Sec. IV D involves the auxiliary loop functionsF 7(x)and eF7(x), which are defined as: F7(x) = x3 −6x 2 + 3x+ 6xlogx+ 2 12(x−1) 4 , eF7(x) =x −1F7(x−1).(A3) Appendix B: One-loop Corrections toZ ¯fifj Couplings In this section, we revisit the radiative corrections to the couplings b...

  11. [11]

    Adachiet al.(Belle-II), Phys

    I. Adachiet al.(Belle-II), Phys. Rev. D109, 112006 (2024), arXiv:2311.14647 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    T. E. Browder, N. G. Deshpande, R. Mandal, and R. Sinha, Phys. Rev. D104, 053007 (2021), arXiv:2107.01080 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    X. G. He and G. Valencia, Phys. Lett. B821, 136607 (2021), arXiv:2108.05033 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Felkl, S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    Felkl, A

    T. Felkl, A. Giri, R. Mohanta, and M. A. Schmidt, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 1135 (2023), arXiv:2309.02940 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Ovchynnikov, M

    M. Ovchynnikov, M. A. Schmidt, and T. Schwetz, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 791 (2023), arXiv:2306.09508 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Gärtner, N

    L. Gärtner, N. Hartmann, L. Heinrich, M. Horstmann, T. Kuhr, M. Reboud, S. Stefkova, and D. van Dyk, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 693 (2024), arXiv:2402.08417 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Rosauro-Alcaraz and L

    S. Rosauro-Alcaraz and L. P. S. Leal, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 795 (2024), arXiv:2404.17440 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Be ˇcirevi´c, S

    D. Be ˇcirevi´c, S. Fajfer, N. Košnik, and L. Pavi ˇci´c, Phys. Lett. B861, 139285 (2025), arXiv:2410.23257 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Datta, D

    A. Datta, D. Marfatia, and L. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. D109, L031701 (2024), arXiv:2310.15136 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    C. Bird, P. Jackson, R. V . Kowalewski, and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 201803 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0401195

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  23. [23]

    Altmannshofer, A

    W. Altmannshofer, A. J. Buras, D. M. Straub, and M. Wick, JHEP04, 022 (2009), arXiv:0902.0160 [hep-ph]. 24 Table X. Possible assignments of quantum numbers under the SU(3)c ⊗SU(2) L ⊗U(1) α symmetry to the mediators in diagram (e) to generate operatorO L V . SU(3)c Ψ1 X2 Ψ3 X4 A 1 ¯31 1 B 3 1 3 3 SU(2)L Ψ1 X2 Ψ3 X4 I 1 2 1 2 II 1 2 3 2 III 2 1 2 3 IV 3 2 ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  24. [24]

    He, X.-D

    X.-G. He, X.-D. Ma, and G. Valencia, JHEP03, 037 (2023), arXiv:2209.05223 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    He, X.-D

    X.-G. He, X.-D. Ma, and G. Valencia, Phys. Rev. D109, 075019 (2024), arXiv:2309.12741 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Hou, X.-Q

    B.-F. Hou, X.-Q. Li, M. Shen, Y .-D. Yang, and X.-B. Yuan, JHEP06, 172 (2024), arXiv:2402.19208 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    He, X.-D

    X.-G. He, X.-D. Ma, M. A. Schmidt, G. Valencia, and R. R. V olkas, JHEP07, 168 (2024), arXiv:2403.12485 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    S.-Y . Ho, J. Kim, and P. Ko, Phys. Rev. D111, 055029 (2025), arXiv:2401.10112 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Abdughani and Y

    M. Abdughani and Y . Reyimuaji, Phys. Rev. D110, 055013 (2024), arXiv:2309.03706 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Berezhnoy and D

    A. Berezhnoy and D. Melikhov, EPL145, 14001 (2024), arXiv:2309.17191 [hep-ph]. 25 Table XIII. Relative strengths of the SMEFT operatorQℓd generated by diagram (b) for the different SU(2)L models. An overall normalization factor, which includes the loop function and couplings, is not presented. Operator Model I II III IV Qℓd -1 -1 -3/2 -3/2 Table XIV . Rel...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Z. G. Berezhiani, M. Y . Khlopov, and R. R. Khomeriki, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.52, 344 (1990)

    1990

  32. [32]

    Z. G. Berezhiani and M. Y . Khlopov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.51, 935 (1990)

    1990

  33. [33]

    Z. G. Berezhiani and M. Y . Khlopov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.51, 739 (1990)

    1990

  34. [34]

    Ferber, A

    T. Ferber, A. Filimonova, R. Schäfer, and S. Westhoff, JHEP04, 131 (2023), arXiv:2201.06580 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Altmannshofer, A

    W. Altmannshofer, A. Crivellin, H. Haigh, G. Inguglia, and J. Martin Camalich, Phys. Rev. D109, 075008 (2024), arXiv:2311.14629 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Altmannshofer and S

    W. Altmannshofer and S. Roy, (2024), arXiv:2411.06592 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Dai, C.-X

    G.-Q. Dai, C.-X. Yue, Y .-Y . Bu, and Y .-H. Wang, Commun. Theor. Phys.76, 095202 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    Calibbi, T

    L. Calibbi, T. Li, L. Mukherjee, and M. A. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D112, 075020 (2025), arXiv:2502.04900 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Filimonova, R

    A. Filimonova, R. Schäfer, and S. Westhoff, Phys. Rev. D101, 095006 (2020), arXiv:1911.03490 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  40. [40]

    Fridell, M

    K. Fridell, M. Ghosh, T. Okui, and K. Tobioka, Phys. Rev. D109, 115006 (2024), arXiv:2312.12507 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Hu, (2024), arXiv:2412.19084 [hep-ph]

    Q.-Y . Hu, (2024), arXiv:2412.19084 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    P. D. Bolton, S. Fajfer, J. F. Kamenik, and M. Novoa-Brunet, Phys. Rev. D110, 055001 (2024), arXiv:2403.13887 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Gabrielli, L

    E. Gabrielli, L. Marzola, K. Müürsepp, and M. Raidal, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 460 (2024), arXiv:2402.05901 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    McKeen, J

    D. McKeen, J. N. Ng, and D. Tuckler, Phys. Rev. D109, 075006 (2024), arXiv:2312.00982 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Davoudiasl and M

    H. Davoudiasl and M. Schnubel, Phys. Rev. D110, 075014 (2024), arXiv:2406.19455 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Athron, R

    P. Athron, R. Martinez, and C. Sierra, JHEP02, 121 (2024), arXiv:2308.13426 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Bause, H

    R. Bause, H. Gisbert, and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D109, 015006 (2024), arXiv:2309.00075 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Allwicher, D

    L. Allwicher, D. Becirevic, G. Piazza, S. Rosauro-Alcaraz, and O. Sumensari, Phys. Lett. B848, 138411 (2024), arXiv:2309.02246 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Chen and C.-W

    C.-H. Chen and C.-W. Chiang, Phys. Rev. D109, 075004 (2024), arXiv:2309.12904 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    F.-Z. Chen, Q. Wen, and F. Xu, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1012 (2024), arXiv:2401.11552 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Marzocca, M

    D. Marzocca, M. Nardecchia, A. Stanzione, and C. Toni, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1217 (2024), arXiv:2404.06533 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Karmakar, A

    S. Karmakar, A. Dighe, and R. S. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D111, 055002 (2025), arXiv:2404.10061 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    C. Hati, J. Leite, N. Nath, and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D111, 015038 (2025), arXiv:2408.00060 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Allwicher, M

    L. Allwicher, M. Bordone, G. Isidori, G. Piazza, and A. Stanzione, Phys. Lett. B861, 139295 (2025), arXiv:2410.21444 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Tian, H.-B

    H.-J. Tian, H.-B. Fu, T. Zhong, Y .-X. Wang, and X.-G. Wu, Phys. Rev. D111, 076013 (2025), arXiv:2411.12141 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    J. Alda, A. Mir, and S. Penaranda, (2024), arXiv:2412.15830 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    P. S. B. Dev, S. Goswami, C. Majumdar, and D. Pachhar, JHEP01, 004 (2025), arXiv:2407.04670 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    A. J. Buras and P. Stangl, (2024), arXiv:2412.14254 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Bhattacharya, A

    B. Bhattacharya, A. Datta, G. Faisel, S. Khalil, and S. Roy, (2024), arXiv:2412.16115 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    Chen and C.-W

    C.-H. Chen and C.-W. Chiang, Phys. Rev. D110, 075036 (2024), arXiv:2403.02897 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    C. S. Kim, D. Sahoo, and K. N. Vishnudath, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 882 (2024), arXiv:2405.17341 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Zhang, J

    C.-Q. Zhang, J. Sun, Z.-P. Xing, and R.-L. Zhu, (2024), arXiv:2501.00512 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    Z.-K. Liu, Y . Li, B.-F. Hou, and Q. Chang, (2025), arXiv:2512.21191 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    Ma, Phys

    E. Ma, Phys. Rev. D73, 077301 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0601225

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  65. [65]

    J. Kubo, E. Ma, and D. Suematsu, Phys. Lett. B642, 18 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0604114

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  66. [66]

    Li, X.-Q

    S.-P. Li, X.-Q. Li, X.-S. Yan, and Y .-D. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 1078 (2022), arXiv:2204.09201 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  67. [67]

    Yao and G.-J

    C.-Y . Yao and G.-J. Ding, Phys. Rev. D97, 095042 (2018), arXiv:1802.05231 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  68. [68]

    Centelles Chuliá, R

    S. Centelles Chuliá, R. Cepedello, E. Peinado, and R. Srivastava, JHEP10, 093 (2019), arXiv:1907.08630 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  69. [69]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V . Manohar, and P. Stoffer, JHEP03, 016 (2018), [Erratum: JHEP 12, 043 (2023)], arXiv:1709.04486 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  70. [70]

    Boet al.(PandaX), Phys

    Z. Boet al.(PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 011805 (2025)

    2025

  71. [71]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 041003 (2023)

    2023

  72. [72]

    Lopez Honorez, E

    L. Lopez Honorez, E. Nezri, J. F. Oliver, and M. H. G. Tytgat, JCAP02, 028 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0612275

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  73. [73]

    Farzan, S

    Y . Farzan, S. Pascoli, and M. A. Schmidt, JHEP03, 107 (2013), arXiv:1208.2732 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  74. [74]

    Arnan, L

    P. Arnan, L. Hofer, F. Mescia, and A. Crivellin, JHEP04, 043 (2017), arXiv:1608.07832 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  75. [75]

    A. J. Buras, J. Girrbach-Noe, C. Niehoff, and D. M. Straub, JHEP02, 184 (2015), arXiv:1409.4557 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  76. [76]

    J. Brod, M. Gorbahn, and E. Stamou, PoSBEAUTY2020, 056 (2021), arXiv:2105.02868 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  77. [77]

    Blake, G

    T. Blake, G. Lanfranchi, and D. M. Straub, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.92, 50 (2017), arXiv:1606.00916 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  78. [78]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 251802 (2017), arXiv:1703.02508 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  79. [79]

    Albrecht, F

    J. Albrecht, F. Bernlochner, M. Kenzie, S. Reichert, D. Straub, and A. Tully, (2017), arXiv:1709.10308 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  80. [80]

    Donget al.(CEPC Study Group), (2018), arXiv:1811.10545 [hep-ex]

    M. Donget al.(CEPC Study Group), (2018), arXiv:1811.10545 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

Showing first 80 references.