Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 29 references

Implications of $K\to\pi\nu\bar\nu$ for new physics in $B$ decays

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read The new NA62 K+→π+νν̄ result constrains new physics in B decays under modified-Z and third-generation-dominance assumptions, and predicts a distinctive KL/K+ pattern.

desk verdict Solid incremental update of the U(2)^5 programme with the new NA62 number; the KL/K+ ~1.5 ratio is real arithmetic but only on the BSM-maximising lobe the authors choose to highlight. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24494 v1 pith:DFFGQ2M6 submitted 2026-07-27 hep-ph

Lukas Allwicher , Marzia Bordone This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords KtopinuBFCNCmodifiedZcouplingsMinimalFlavourViolationPartialCompositenessU(2)symmetrySMEFT
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

Rare kaon and B decays share the same flavour-changing currents, so a precise K+→π+νν̄ measurement can test how new physics is distributed across quark generations. This paper folds the latest NA62 result into two complementary pictures: modified Z couplings to down quarks (under Minimal Flavour Violation or Partial Compositeness) and dimension-six semileptonic operators with third-generation dominance under a U(2) flavour symmetry. In the Z-coupling case the kaon mode is especially powerful under Partial Compositeness, helping resolve a double solution and correlating with B→Kνν̄ and Bs→μμ. In the semileptonic case the same datum selects preferred regions that keep K+ near the Standard Model via a cancellation while predicting that the still-unmeasured KL→π0νν̄ rate is enhanced relative to K+ by a factor of about 1.5. Future precision on both kaon modes and on B→K(∗)νν̄ will therefore sharply test which flavour structure, if either, is realised.

What carries the argument

Two effective setups carry the argument: flavour-violating shifts δgL,R in Z–down-quark couplings, scaled by MFV or Partial Compositeness; and SMEFT semileptonic operators Q±ℓq, QS controlled by a single real spurion Ṽ=−ε(Vtd,Vts) and Wilson coefficients C±ℓq that fix all light-generation insertions relative to the third generation.

What would settle it

A KOTO-II measurement of KL→π0νν̄ that finds the ratio of normalised branching fractions far from ∼1.5 while K+ stays near the Standard Model, or a Belle-II B→Kνν̄ rate lying outside the correlation bands predicted under either flavour hypothesis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

With the new NA62 branching fraction, modified-Z scenarios (MFV or Partial Compositeness) and a minimal U(2)^5 third-generation-dominance fit to semileptonic operators are both tightly constrained by the combination of kaon, B, electroweak and high-pT data; the latter scenario yields the concrete prediction that the ratio of normalised KL to K+ dineutrino rates is about 1.5 inside the preferred 68% region.

Load-bearing premise

The clean, testable KL-to-K+ correlation assumes that one universal spurion and one real Wilson coefficient control every light-generation insertion, with no independent coefficients or misalignment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under MFV modified-Z couplings, Bs→μμ remains the strongest FCNC bound and both kaon modes stay largely Standard-Model-like.
  • Under Partial Compositeness, K+→π+νν̄ resolves a double solution for right-handed couplings; B→Kνν̄ pulls toward the Standard-Model-like branch.
  • In the preferred U(2) lobe, K+ stays near the Standard Model by cancellation while larger effects remain allowed in B→Kνν̄ and a relative KL enhancement of ∼1.5 is predicted.
  • Projected NA62 (15%), KOTO-II (25%) and Belle-II (8% on B→Kνν̄) precision can challenge the U(2) scenario if present central values hold.
  • The implied effective scales are ≳8 TeV for modified-Z scenarios and ≳1.8 TeV for the semileptonic U(2) case.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A confirmed KL enhancement near the predicted factor would favour third-generation-dominated operators over pure modified-Z explanations that keep both kaon modes Standard-Model-like.
  • The present Belle-II B→Kνν̄ central value lying above both scenarios’ preferred bands suggests either underestimated systematics or the need for non-minimal spurion misalignment.
  • Because the U(2) effective scale sits near 2 TeV, high-pT mono-tau and di-tau tails at the HL-LHC remain directly complementary probes.
  • Independent or complex spurion components would generically erase the fixed KL/K+ ratio, so a null result on that ratio would still leave less predictive variants viable.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The authors reassess correlations between K→πνν̄ and B-physics FCNC observables in light of the new NA62 K+→π+νν̄ measurement, under two heavy-NP scenarios: (i) modified Z couplings to down-type quarks with MFV or Partial Compositeness flavour assumptions, and (ii) dimension-six semileptonic SMEFT operators with a U(2)^5 third-generation-dominance hypothesis, updating the global fit of Ref. [10] with the new NA62 result and an updated short-distance treatment of b→sμμ. For the Z scenario they present fits in the δg_L–δg_R plane including Z→bb̄, B_s→μμ, K→πνν̄ and B→Kνν̄, finding MFV is B_s-dominated while PC shows a double solution that B→Kνν̄ helps resolve. For the semileptonic scenario they derive explicit K+ and KL branching-ratio formulae (Eq. 4.3) and advertise a correlated enhancement of KL→π⁰νν̄ relative to K+→π+νν̄ by a factor ~1.5 in the preferred fit region, within the Grossman–Nir bound.

Significance. This is a timely and competent analysis of an important new experimental input. Strengths: the observable formulae as functions of the modified Z couplings are given explicitly in Appendix A, making the FCNC part reproducible; the semileptonic fit is built on the published, documented framework of [10] with the two updated inputs clearly identified; the KL→π⁰νν̄ implications are derived rather than postulated (Eq. 4.3), checked against the Grossman–Nir bound, and tied to concrete future sensitivities (NA62 15%, KOTO-II 25%, Belle II 8%), giving the scenarios genuinely falsifiable correlators. If the results hold, the paper usefully quantifies how the flavour hypothesis (MFV vs PC vs U(2)^5) changes which mode is the leading constraint, and provides the sharpest current statement of the K+/KL correlation in the third-generation-dominance framework. The impact is primarily as a precision-update and correlation study rather than a new framework, but that is appropriate for the scope.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2 and §4, Fig. 3.1 right panel, Eq. (4.4)] The advertised ratio ~1.5 is a property of only the upper lobe of the fit. The paper itself states (§3.2) that 'the two green lobes are equally allowed' at 68% C.L., and the lower lobe (ε∼0 or C−_ℓq∼0) predicts both kaon modes SM-like, i.e. ratio ~1. Selecting the upper lobe because it 'maximises the possible BSM effects' is a discretionary choice, and no Δχ² or likelihood ratio between the two branches is quoted. This matters for the central falsifiability claim: a SM-like KL→π⁰νν̄ measurement would not exclude the framework — it would select the lower branch — yet the conclusions call the KL rate 'a genuine prediction of the framework' and the three-mode combination 'a powerful test'. Please (i) quantify the relative likelihood of the two lobes (e.g. Δχ² between their best-fit points), (ii) state explicitly in §4, the abstract and the conclusions that the ~1.5 enhancement is conditiona
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (3.4); §4, Eq. (4.3)] The fixed KL/K+ correlation in Eq. (4.3) (coefficients 2.91 and 3.82) rests entirely on the minimal ansatz q³_L → q³_L + Ṽ_i q^i_L with a single universal real spurion and one coefficient C−_ℓq controlling all light-generation insertions. As the text itself notes (§3.1), generic U(2)_q breaking assigns an independent Wilson coefficient to each insertion, and a complex or misaligned Ṽ would break the correlation. The qualitative remark at the end of §4 (non-minimal breaking 'could be leveraged') does not quantify this. Please add a short statement of which features of Fig. 4.1 survive when the one- and two-insertion coefficients are allowed to differ within the fit bounds — for instance, the resulting range of the ratio in Eq. (4.4) — or point precisely to where this is established in Ref. [10]. This determines how much of the advertised signature is a prediction of U(2)^5 versus of the m
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix A.2, Eq. (A.15)] The experimental value B(K+→π+νν̄)_exp = 9.6^{+1.9}_{−1.8}×10⁻⁹ must be ×10⁻¹¹; as written it exceeds the SM prediction by two orders of magnitude and contradicts the statement in §1 that the result agrees with the SM.
  2. [§4, Eqs. (4.1)–(4.2)] The effective scales Λ^Z_eff ≳ 8 TeV and Λ^{U(2)}_eff ≳ 1.8 TeV are quoted without specifying the matching convention or which coefficient value at the fit boundary they correspond to. One sentence or an explicit formula (e.g. Λ_eff = v/√(δg or C·v²)) would make these numbers reproducible.
  3. [Fig. 4.1 caption vs. §4 text] Left-panel caption says the rates are shown 'as a function of the Wilson coefficient C−_lq', while the text correctly says the relevant combination is ε²C−_ℓq; the subscript also appears as both 'lq' and 'ℓq' in §4. Please align.
  4. [Figs. 2.2 and 2.3 captions] Captions say the regions are 'obtained by varying δg_L and δg_R around their best-fit values' without stating the confidence level or profiling procedure; please specify (e.g. 68% C.L. from the fit).
  5. [§4, paragraph on modified-Z KL predictions] 'we refrain from making any assumption about their size, and assume these couplings to be real' is internally contradictory phrasing; presumably the intended meaning is that Im δg²¹ is set to zero for the KL discussion while noting present constraints are weak.
  6. [Acknowledgments] Typo: 'suggesting this projects' → 'this project'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the KL/K+ ~1.5 correlation is a genuine model forecast from distinct coefficients, not a fit renamed as a prediction.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 3.1, framework paragraph; also ‘for the EFT expansion… we refer to Ref. [10]’]
    "We now turn to the second scenario, closely following the analysis in Ref. [10]. … For all other inputs, as well as for the EFT expansion of the observables included in the fit, we refer to Ref. [10]."

    The global-fit setup, operator basis, and low-energy expansions are imported wholesale from the authors’ own prior paper rather than re-derived. This is ordinary incremental work and is not used to forbid alternatives or to force the KL/K+ ratio; the new NA62 input and the distinct KL coefficients still supply independent content. Minor, non-load-bearing self-citation only.

full rationale

The paper’s two scenarios are standard EFT/flavour analyses. Modified-Z (MFV/PC) bounds are read off independent observables (Z→bb, Bs→μμ, K→πνν, B→Kνν) with explicit flavour scalings; nothing is defined in terms of its own output. In the U(2)^5 semileptonic fit the authors adopt an explicit minimal spurion ansatz (q3→q3+Ṽi qi) and fit C±ℓq, CS, ε to a broad dataset that includes the new NA62 K+ rate; they then evaluate the unmeasured KL mode. Equations (4.3) give different numerical coefficients for the two kaon modes (−2.91 vs −3.82 and the 2/3+1/3 CP structure), so the ratio ~1.5 inside the upper lobe is a nontrivial correlation of the model, not fixed by construction from the K+ input. Selecting the BSM-maximizing lobe is a discretionary phenomenological choice the text states openly; it is not a definitional reduction. Routine citation of the authors’ prior fit paper [10] for the EFT expansion and observable list is incremental, not a uniqueness theorem or self-justifying premise. Score 1 only for that minor self-citation of framework machinery; central claims remain independently constrained by external data.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on two effective Lagrangians (modified Z couplings; SMEFT semileptonic operators), two flavour-scaling hypotheses (MFV, PC), and a U(2)^5 spurion construction with a minimal single-spurion ansatz. All Wilson coefficients and the spurion magnitude ε are free parameters fitted to data; no new particles are postulated. The load-bearing modelling choices are the flavour scalings and the minimal replacement q3→q3+Ṽiqi that collapses an a-priori larger operator basis into four real numbers.

free parameters (4)
  • δg_L, δg_R (MFV and PC normalisations) = Best-fit regions shown in Fig. 2.1; no single central value quoted
    Overall strength of non-standard left- and right-handed Z couplings to the third generation; fitted to Z→bb, Bs→μμ, K→πνν̄, B→Kνν̄.
  • C^+_ℓq, C^−_ℓq (TeV^−2) = Preferred regions in Fig. 3.1; CS consistent with zero
    Wilson coefficients of the two chiral semileptonic operators Q^±_ℓq; profiled in the global U(2) fit.
  • ε (spurion magnitude) = O(1); contours in Fig. 3.1
    Positive O(1) parameter controlling U(2)_q breaking and the size of light-generation couplings; fitted jointly with C^±_ℓq.
  • C_S = ≈0
    Scalar operator coefficient; included then found compatible with zero by high-pT data and dropped from the narrative.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption NP effects in FCNCs can be parametrised by flavour-violating shifts δg^{ij}_{L,R} of the Z couplings to down quarks only, with lepton couplings fixed to SM values.
    Sec. 2, Lagrangian (2.1); excludes direct four-fermion or other gauge-boson contributions in that scenario.
  • domain assumption MFV scaling: δg^{ij}_L ∝ V*_{ti}V_{tj}, δg^{ij}_R ∝ (m_i m_j/m_b²)V*_{ti}V_{tj}.
    Eq. (2.3); standard MFV hypothesis used to relate generations.
  • domain assumption Partial-Compositeness scaling: δg^{ij}_L ∝ |V_{ti}||V_{tj}|, δg^{ij}_R ∝ (m_i m_j/m_b²)/(|V_{ti}||V_{tj}|).
    Eq. (2.4); PC-inspired ansatz that lifts right-handed kaon sensitivity.
  • domain assumption U(2)^5 flavour symmetry with NP couplings only to third-generation fields, broken solely by the quark spurion Ṽ=−ε(V_td,V_ts)^T.
    Sec. 3.1; motivated by current third-generation tensions but is an assumption, not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper Minimal ansatz: every third-generation quark bilinear is replaced by the single combination q3+Ṽ_i q_i, so one Wilson coefficient controls all light-generation insertions.
    Eq. (3.4); explicitly adopted 'in order to obtain a predictive framework' and is the step that fixes the KL/K+ correlation.
  • domain assumption All Wilson coefficients C^±_ℓq, C_S are real; down-aligned left-handed quark basis.
    Sec. 3.1; eliminates CP-violating phases that would otherwise decorrelate K+ and KL.
  • ad hoc to paper Imaginary parts of δg^{21}_{L,R} are set to zero when discussing KL in the Z scenario.
    Sec. 4: 'we refrain from making any assumption... and assume these couplings to be real' because constraints are weak.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Implications of $K\to\pi\nu\bar\nu$ for new physics in $B$ decays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DFFGQ2M6

@misc{pith2026260724494,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Implications of $K\to\pi\nu\bar\nu$ for new physics in $B$ decays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DFFGQ2M6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24494}
}
abstract

The new measurement of the $K^+\to\pi^+\nu\bar\nu$ branching ratio by the NA62 collaboration represents an important milestone in precision flavour physics. Under different flavour assumptions on beyond the standard model physics, this decay mode can be related to many other observables with underlying flavour-changing currents, such as $B\to K\nu\bar\nu$ or $B_s\to\mu\mu$, effectively providing an additional handle in our exploration of flavour-violating new physics effects. We study the impact of this new result, under the hypotheses that deviations from the standard model arise from modified $Z$ couplings, or from effects in semileptonic interactions. Finally, we review the implications of our scenarios for the yet to be measured partner mode $K_L\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24494 by the authors.

Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1. Constraints on effective Z couplings under the assumption of Minimal Flavour Violation (left) and Partial Compositeness (right). In grey the 1- and 2σ allowed region from the combined Z → b ¯b observables, in green from Bs → µµ, and in red from K → πνν¯. In the right plot, the blue regions show the preferred regions from B → Kνν¯, while the black solid (dashed) lines are the 1- and 2σ contours of the full combined f… view at source ↗
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.2. Correlation between B → Kνν¯ and K → πνν¯ branching ratios under MFV (left) and PC (right) hypotheses for the Z couplings to down-type quarks. The regions are obtained by varying δgL and δgR around their best-fit values. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.3. Correlation between b → sνν¯ modes and K+ → π +νν¯ branching ratio, normalised to their SM expectations. The regions are obtained by varying δgL and δgR around their best￾fit values. only. In this framework, this is effectively achieved by introducing the spurion V˜ , that we parametrise as: V˜ = −ϵ  Vtd Vts . (3.1) with ϵ being a positive, O(1) parameter. Furthermore, we have to specify the alignment in flavour s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1: Profiled constraints in the C + ℓq–ϵ plane (left) and in the C − ℓq–ϵ plane (right). The dark- and light-grey regions denote the 68% and 95% preferred regions from the global fit without di-neutrino observables. The blue and red bands show the 68% regions allowed by …
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1: Effects in the two K → πνν¯ modes in the U(2) semileptonic scenario. On the left, predictions of the decay rates as a function of the Wilson coefficient C − lq , with the current best-fit interval (68% C.L.) shown as a grey band. On the right, different correlations …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 28 linked inside Pith

  1. [10]

    Probing third-generation New Physics withK→πν¯νandB→K (∗)ν¯ν,

    L. Allwicher, M. Bordone, G. Isidori, G. Piazza, and A. Stanzione, “Probing third-generation New Physics withK→πν¯νandB→K (∗)ν¯ν,”Phys. Lett. B861 (2025) 139295,arXiv:2410.21444 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [4]

    Rare b decays meet high-mass Drell-Yan,

    A. Greljo, J. Salko, A. Smolkoviˇ c, and P. Stangl, “Rare b decays meet high-mass Drell-Yan,”JHEP05(2023) 087,arXiv:2212.10497 [hep-ph]. [5]Belle-IICollaboration, I. Adachiet al., “Evidence for B+→K+νν¯decays,”Phys. Rev. D109no. 11, (2024) 112006,arXiv:2311.14647 [hep-ex]. [6]NA62Collaboration, S. Alibocuset al., “Measurement of the branching ratio of the...

    arXiv 2023

  3. [7]

    Challenging Majorana neutrino effects inB→K (∗)ννandK→πννdecays,

    A. Abada, C. Chevallier, L. P. S. Leal, A. Llaurad´ o, O. Sumensari, and R. Z. Funchal, “Challenging Majorana neutrino effects inB→K (∗)ννandK→πννdecays,” arXiv:2607.13142 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  4. [8]

    Correlatedb→sands→dRare Semileptonic Transitions in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,

    N. Das, R. Mandal, and P. S. Patil, “Correlatedb→sands→dRare Semileptonic Transitions in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,”arXiv:2605.23759 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  5. [9]

    Discriminating tauphilic leptoquark explanations of the B anomalies via K→πνν¯and B→Kνν¯,

    A. Crivellin, S. Iguro, and T. Kitahara, “Discriminating tauphilic leptoquark explanations of the B anomalies via K→πνν¯and B→Kνν¯,”Phys. Rev. D112no. 9, (2025) 095016,arXiv:2505.05552 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [11]

    Disentangling new physics inK→πν νand B→K(K ∗)ν νobservables,

    A. J. Buras, J. Harz, and M. A. Mojahed, “Disentangling new physics inK→πν νand B→K(K ∗)ν νobservables,”JHEP10(2024) 087,arXiv:2405.06742 [hep-ph]. 14

    arXiv 2024

  7. [12]

    Implications ofB→Kν¯ν under rank-one flavor violation hypothesis,

    D. Marzocca, M. Nardecchia, A. Stanzione, and C. Toni, “Implications ofB→Kν¯ν under rank-one flavor violation hypothesis,”Eur. Phys. J. C84no. 11, (2024) 1217, arXiv:2404.06533 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [13]

    From B-meson anomalies to Kaon physics with scalar leptoquarks,

    D. Marzocca, S. Trifinopoulos, and E. Venturini, “From B-meson anomalies to Kaon physics with scalar leptoquarks,”Eur. Phys. J. C82no. 4, (2022) 320, arXiv:2106.15630 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 29 references
  1. [14]

    Minimal flavor violation: An Effective field theory approach,

    G. D’Ambrosio, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori, and A. Strumia, “Minimal flavor violation: An Effective field theory approach,”Nucl. Phys. B645(2002) 155–187, arXiv:hep-ph/0207036

    2002 arXiv

  2. [15]

    Bulk fields and supersymmetry in a slice of AdS,

    T. Gherghetta and A. Pomarol, “Bulk fields and supersymmetry in a slice of AdS,”Nucl. Phys. B586(2000) 141–162,arXiv:hep-ph/0003129

    2000 arXiv

  3. [16]

    Flavor structure of warped extra dimension models,

    K. Agashe, G. Perez, and A. Soni, “Flavor structure of warped extra dimension models,” Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 016002,arXiv:hep-ph/0408134

    2005 arXiv

  4. [17]

    Warped/composite phenomenology simplified,

    R. Contino, T. Kramer, M. Son, and R. Sundrum, “Warped/composite phenomenology simplified,”JHEP05(2007) 074,arXiv:hep-ph/0612180

    2007 arXiv

  5. [18]

    Solving the flavour problem with hierarchical fermion wave functions,

    S. Davidson, G. Isidori, and S. Uhlig, “Solving the flavour problem with hierarchical fermion wave functions,”Phys. Lett. B663(2008) 73–79,arXiv:0711.3376 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  6. [19]

    On Partial Compositeness and the CP asymmetry in charm decays,

    B. Keren-Zur, P. Lodone, M. Nardecchia, D. Pappadopulo, R. Rattazzi, and L. Vecchi, “On Partial Compositeness and the CP asymmetry in charm decays,”Nucl. Phys. B867 (2013) 394–428,arXiv:1205.5803 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  7. [20]

    U(2) and Minimal Flavour Violation in Supersymmetry,

    R. Barbieri, G. Isidori, J. Jones-Perez, P. Lodone, and D. M. Straub, “U(2) and Minimal Flavour Violation in Supersymmetry,”Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011) 1725, arXiv:1105.2296 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  8. [21]

    Flavor non-universal vector leptoquark imprints in K→πνν¯and ∆F=2 transitions,

    `O. L. Crosas, G. Isidori, J. M. Lizana, N. Selimovic, and B. A. Stefanek, “Flavor non-universal vector leptoquark imprints in K→πνν¯and ∆F=2 transitions,”Phys. Lett. B835(2022) 137525,arXiv:2207.00018 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [22]

    B(B s →µ +µ−) as an electroweak precision test,

    D. Guadagnoli and G. Isidori, “B(B s →µ +µ−) as an electroweak precision test,”Phys. Lett. B724(2013) 63–67,arXiv:1302.3909 [hep-ph]. [23]ATLAS, Belle-II, CMS, LHCbCollaboration, “Projections for Key Measurements in Heavy Flavour Physics,”arXiv:2503.24346 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  10. [24]

    Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,

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

    2010 arXiv

  11. [25]

    HighPT: A tool for high-p T Drell-Yan tails beyond the standard model,

    L. Allwicher, D. A. Faroughy, F. Jaffredo, O. Sumensari, and F. Wilsch, “HighPT: A tool for high-p T Drell-Yan tails beyond the standard model,”Comput. Phys. Commun. 289(2023) 108749,arXiv:2207.10756 [hep-ph]. [26]Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFLA V)Collaboration, S. Banerjee...

    2023 arXiv

  12. [28]

    B physics Beyond the Standard Model at One Loop: Complete Renormalization Group Evolution below the Electroweak Scale,

    J. Aebischer, M. Fael, C. Greub, and J. Virto, “B physics Beyond the Standard Model at One Loop: Complete Renormalization Group Evolution below the Electroweak Scale,” JHEP09(2017) 158,arXiv:1704.06639 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [29]

    Importance of Loop Effects in Explaining the Accumulated Evidence for New Physics in B Decays with a Vector Leptoquark,

    A. Crivellin, C. Greub, D. M¨ uller, and F. Saturnino, “Importance of Loop Effects in Explaining the Accumulated Evidence for New Physics in B Decays with a Vector Leptoquark,”Phys. Rev. Lett.122no. 1, (2019) 011805,arXiv:1807.02068 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [30]

    Confronting the vector leptoquark hypothesis with new low- and high-energy data,

    J. Aebischer, G. Isidori, M. Pesut, B. A. Stefanek, and F. Wilsch, “Confronting the vector leptoquark hypothesis with new low- and high-energy data,”Eur. Phys. J. C83 no. 2, (2023) 153,arXiv:2210.13422 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [31]

    Disentangling short- vs. long-distance dynamics inB→K ∗µ+µ−,

    M. Bordone, G. Isidori, and A. Tinari, “Disentangling short- vs. long-distance dynamics inB→K ∗µ+µ−,”arXiv:2607.09458 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  16. [32]

    Constructing model-agnostic likelihoods, a method for the reinterpretation of particle physics results,

    L. G¨ artner, N. Hartmann, L. Heinrich, M. Horstmann, T. Kuhr, M. Reboud, S. Stefkova, and D. van Dyk, “Constructing model-agnostic likelihoods, a method for the reinterpretation of particle physics results,”Eur. Phys. J. C84no. 7, (2024) 693, arXiv:2402.08417 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [33]

    Constraints on lepton-flavor mixing with third-generation new physics,

    S. Covone, P. Morell, and A. Tinari, “Constraints on lepton-flavor mixing with third-generation new physics,”Phys. Lett. B879(2026) 140582,arXiv:2511.15800 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  18. [34]

    K(L) —>pi0 neutrino anti-neutrino beyond the standard model,

    Y. Grossman and Y. Nir, “K(L) —>pi0 neutrino anti-neutrino beyond the standard model,”Phys. Lett. B398(1997) 163–168,arXiv:hep-ph/9701313. [35]KOTOCollaboration, J. K. Ahnet al., “Search for the KL→π0νν¯Decay at the J-PARC KOTO Experiment,”Phys. Rev. Lett.134no. 8, (2025) 0818...

    1997 arXiv

  19. [36]

    Enhanced electromagnetic correction to the rare B-meson decayB s,d →µ +µ−,

    M. Beneke, C. Bobeth, and R. Szafron, “Enhanced electromagnetic correction to the rare B-meson decayB s,d →µ +µ−,”Phys. Rev. Lett.120no. 1, (2018) 011801, arXiv:1708.09152 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [37]

    Power-enhanced leading-logarithmic QED corrections toB q →µ +µ−,

    M. Beneke, C. Bobeth, and R. Szafron, “Power-enhanced leading-logarithmic QED corrections toB q →µ +µ−,”JHEP10(2019) 232,arXiv:1908.07011 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: JHEP 11, 099 (2022)]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [38]

    RevisitingB→K (∗)ν¯νdecays in the Standard Model and beyond,

    D. Beˇ cirevi´ c, G. Piazza, and O. Sumensari, “RevisitingB→K (∗)ν¯νdecays in the Standard Model and beyond,”Eur. Phys. J. C83no. 3, (2023) 252,arXiv:2301.06990 [hep-ph]. 16

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.