Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 134 references

Constraints on scalar leptoquarks from lepton and kaon physics

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Tree-level scalar leptoquark exchange generates a definite set of four-fermion operators, and current rare-decay data convert that into 90% C.L.

desk verdict A solid, transparent constraint catalog for scalar leptoquarks with a genuinely new SM–NP interference treatment for K→πℓ+ℓ−, but Table 9's chirality-dependent ranges look misassigned in the rendered version. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11155 v2 pith:PPTT5IH6 submitted 2019-08-29 hep-ph hep-ex

Rusa Mandal , Antonio Pich This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords scalarleptoquarkseffectivefour-fermionLagrangianrarekaondecaysleptonflavourviolationmuon-electronconversionYukawacouplingsWilsoncoefficientslow-energyconstraints
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

The paper tries to establish that rare decays of leptons and kaons already put sharp, model-independent limits on scalar leptoquarks—hypothetical bosons that can convert a quark into a lepton. It constructs the full low-energy four-fermion Lagrangian produced by tree-level scalar leptoquark exchange, writes the Wilson coefficients as products of Yukawa couplings, and converts current experimental upper bounds into a catalog of 90% C.L. limits on those products. The strongest constraints come from $K_L\to\mu^+\mu^-$, $K_L\to\pi^0\ell^+\ell^-$, $K_L\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu$, $\mu\to e\gamma$, and $\mu$-$e$ conversion in gold. If the catalog is right, it tells model builders which leptoquark couplings remain viable at the TeV scale and which future measurements will tighten the limits first.

What carries the argument

The central object is the low-energy effective Lagrangian generated by tree-level scalar leptoquark exchange. Scalar leptoquarks are hypothetical bosons carrying both quark and lepton flavour; after integrating them out, all new physics is encoded in the coefficients (Wilson coefficients) that multiply a fixed set of four-fermion operators: charged-current operators, neutral-current operators with charged leptons, and neutral-current operators with neutrinos. The five scalar leptoquarks—the $SU(2)_L$ singlets $S_1,\tilde S_1$, the doublets $R_2,\tilde R_2$, and the triplet $S_3$—each map onto a distinct subset of these coefficients; for instance, $\tilde S_1$ produces exactly one operator, while $R_2$ and $S_1$ generate both left- and right-handed couplings whose interference is enhanced by the heavy-quark mass in loops. These coefficients, after QCD running of the scalar and tensor currents, feed into the branching-ratio formulas that are compared with data.

What would settle it

Measure the $q^2$ distribution of $K^+\to\pi^+\mu^+\mu^-$ with the current form-factor inputs; the paper predicts a definite interference term between the Standard Model vector amplitude and the leptoquark contribution, so a shape that excludes that interference would rule out the scalar-leptoquark explanation. Alternatively, a confirmed $K_L\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu$ rate above about $7.8\times10^{-10}$ would falsify the lepton-flavour-conserving scalar-leptoquark picture and force the lepton-flavour-violating neutrino channel.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that tree-level scalar leptoquark exchange generates a specific pattern of vector, scalar, and tensor four-fermion operators, and that the present upper bounds on rare lepton and kaon decays can be turned into quantitative limits on the corresponding products of Yukawa couplings. The paper works this out for all five scalar leptoquark types, including loop-induced transitions with only leptons or quarks as external states. It finds that $K_L\to\mu^+\mu^-$ and the $K_L\to\pi^0\ell^+\ell^-$ modes constrain the relevant couplings to order $10^{-5}$ and below (times $(M_\mathrm{LQ}/\mathrm{TeV})^2$), while $\mu\to e\gamma$ forces certain left-right top-quark combinations below $10^{-15}$ in the squared coupling, and gold-nucleus $\mu$-$e$ conversion bounds combinations at the $10^{-11}$ level. The kaon modes are complementary: $K_S$ decays probe the real parts, $K_L$ decays the imaginary parts, and $K^+\to\pi^+\ell^+\ell^-$ the absolute values of the same coupling combinations.

Load-bearing premise

Every numerical bound is obtained by letting one leptoquark coupling combination contribute to a given process at a time; if several couplings are present simultaneously, interference or cancellation could weaken or change those limits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A TeV-mass scalar leptoquark cannot have order-one Yukawa entries in the combinations probed by these modes; the catalog gives the allowed ceiling for each product, so any proposed leptoquark explanation of flavour anomalies must pass these numbers first.
  • The tightest constraints come from $K_L\to\mu^+\mu^-$, $K_L\to\pi^0\ell^+\ell^-$, $K_L\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu$, $\mu\to e\gamma$, and $\mu$-$e$ conversion, so improvements in those channels will most directly shrink the allowed parameter space.
  • Because the Standard Model and leptoquark amplitudes interfere in $K\to\pi\ell^+\ell^-$, the differential distributions predicted here can reveal new physics through the $q^2$ shape even before branching-ratio measurements improve.
  • The limit from $K^+\to\pi^+\nu\bar\nu$ forces $K_L\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu$ below about $7.8\times10^{-10}$ when neutrino flavours are conserved; if the recent candidate events survive, the only scalar-leptoquark way to accommodate them is through neutrino-flavour-violating final states.
  • The limits scale as $(M_\mathrm{LQ}/\mathrm{TeV})^4$ for tree-level processes and $(M_\mathrm{LQ}/\mathrm{TeV})^2$ for loop processes, so for $M_\mathrm{LQ}$ of a few TeV the low-energy bounds weaken but remain competitive with collider searches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The tabulated bounds are derived one coupling combination at a time, so they should be read as ceilings rather than as a global fit; switching on several Yukawa entries at once could, in principle, produce interference or cancellations that relax the individual limits.
  • The operator catalog itself is independent of the leptoquark hypothesis: any new physics that generates the same four-fermion Wilson coefficients inherits the same bounds, provided the matching and running are done at the same scales.
  • The pattern of limits suggests a natural next step: a global fit to all five leptoquark types with simultaneous flavour-structure assumptions, which would convert this catalog into a likelihood and identify which specific Yukawa textures are most constrained.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs the low-energy effective Lagrangian induced by tree-level exchange of the five scalar leptoquarks, lists the resulting Wilson coefficients, runs them to hadronic scales with leading-log QCD, and uses existing upper bounds on rare lepton and kaon processes to derive a catalog of 90% C.L. limits on products of leptoquark Yukawa couplings. It also derives SM differential distributions for K→πℓ+ℓ− and K_L→π0ℓ+ℓ−, including the interference of SM and leptoquark amplitudes, and applies them to extract the bounds in Table 9. The numerical results are summarized in Tables 1-11 at a reference leptoquark mass of 1 TeV.

Significance. If correct, this is a useful model-independent reference for scalar leptoquark searches: the operator basis is complete, the RG treatment is standard, and all numerical inputs are tabulated, making the constraints reproducible. The treatment of SM-NP interference in K_L→π0ℓ+ℓ− is a genuine improvement over earlier kaon analyses. The main caveat is the one-coupling-at-a-time assumption, which the authors explicitly acknowledge but which should be kept in mind when using individual entries of the catalog.

major comments (1)
  1. [§5.2, Table 9] The K_L→π0e+e− and K_L→π0μ+μ− rows in Table 9 are not correctly rendered for the grouped column '˜R2, ˜S1, 4×S3'. Equation (70) contains linear SM-NP interference terms whose signs depend on both the lepton-chirality factor sY (sR=+1, sL=−1) and the overall sign C of the Wilson coefficient g^{XY}_{V,d}. The three types in that grouped column sit in three different classes: ˜S1 is (C>0, sY=+1), S3^{4/3} is (C>0, sY=−1), and ˜R2 is (C<0, sY=−1). The two printed ranges, one labelled '(for ˜S1)' and one unlabelled, cannot cover all three classes: for example, flipping C while keeping sY fixed mirrors the interval through the V0(z) interference term, so the ˜R2 range should differ from the S3 range. As published, the table either misassigns or omits bounds for at least two of the three leptoquark types, and the Section 5.2 statement that the interference is 'fully taken into account' is not reflected in the table structure. Please recompute and present separate ranges for each (C, sY) class, or state explicitly which class each printed range belongs to.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Tables 1 and 2] The column heading '4×S3' is used without a definition; please state explicitly that it refers to the factor 4 appearing in the relevant S3 operator combination, so that readers do not confuse it with the number of leptoquark fields.
  2. [§4.2.4, Table 6] The meaning of the parenthetical second line of numerical coefficients and the superscripts on a^{1,2,3}_1 and a^{1,2,3}_2 is not explained in the text; please define the convention for the two leptoquark charge states and for the bracketed entries.
  3. [§5.2, Eqs. (62)-(63)] Calling the procedure of neglecting the SM contribution in order to derive the K+→π+ℓ+ℓ− bounds 'conservative' is misleading: since the measured rates are dominated by the SM amplitude, a full treatment that allows destructive interference would generally permit larger leptoquark couplings, so the quoted limits may be stronger rather than weaker than a complete fit. Please reword or justify the statement.
  4. [§4.1 and Summary] The statement that the limits assume all other contributions to be absent is easy to miss because the same single-operator assumption underlies most of Tables 1-11; I suggest restating this caveat prominently in the Summary so that the catalog is not over-interpreted as simultaneous bounds on all couplings.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the constraints are inverted from external experimental upper bounds, and the SM inputs cited from prior work are not self-citations of the target result.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external data. Tree-level scalar leptoquark exchange is matched to a low-energy four-fermion Lagrangian (Section 3, Eqs. (8)-(15)), each process rate is computed from the corresponding Wilson coefficients, and the experimental upper bounds are converted into 90% C.L. limits on products of Yukawa couplings. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the g-2 'explanation' ranges in Eqs. (29)-(30) and Table 3 are explicitly presented as allowed 1-sigma intervals that could explain the anomalies, not as predictions of the model. The kaon constraints in Section 5 use Standard Model amplitudes taken from earlier literature, including some papers co-authored by A. Pich (e.g., Refs. [92], [93], [99], [102], [110]); these are independent SM calculations of long-distance and chiral-phenomenology inputs, and they do not incorporate the leptoquark couplings, so their use is not a self-citation chain that determines the advertised result. The stated assumption that only one leptoquark coupling combination contributes at a time (Section 4.1) is an explicit limitation of the bound interpretation, not a circular step. The skeptic's concern about Table 9, namely that the grouped column may not distinguish the chirality and Wilson-sign interference classes of Eq. (70), is a possible correctness or presentation issue, not evidence that the bounds reduce to their inputs by construction. Therefore the paper receives a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central constraints are derived from experimental data with no fitted parameters; the leptoquark mass is set to 1 TeV purely for presentation with scaling provided. The load-bearing assumptions are: a UV symmetry forbids diquark couplings; each bound assumes a single non-zero coupling combination; SM contributions are conservatively neglected in some kaon modes; hadronic inputs are taken from the literature; and QCD leading-log running with neglected electroweak corrections is adequate. These are stated explicitly in the text.

free parameters (1)
  • Reference leptoquark mass M_LQ = 1 TeV (bounds scale as (M_LQ/TeV)^2 or (M_LQ/TeV)^4)
    All numerical bounds are quoted for a 1 TeV leptoquark; the paper provides the scaling to other masses. This is a presentation choice, not fitted to data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A UV symmetry forbids diquark couplings of S1, tilde S1, and S3, so proton decay is avoided.
    Section 2 states 'will assume that there is some symmetry in the UV theory that forbids these terms.' Without it, diquark couplings would induce proton decay and require additional suppression.
  • domain assumption Only one leptoquark coupling combination is assumed non-zero when deriving each bound.
    Section 4.1 and Table footnotes state the limits assume all other contributions absent. This is load-bearing for every quoted upper limit.
  • domain assumption SM contributions are neglected when extracting bounds in K+ -> pi l+ l- and KS -> pi0 l+ l-, so NP alone saturates the measured rates.
    Section 5.2 states 'we take a conservative approach and determine the bounds ... by neglecting the SM effects.' This weakens the bounds but avoids form-factor uncertainties.
  • domain assumption Hadronic inputs (decay constants, form factors, bag parameters) are taken from PDG, FLAG, and cited lattice/phenomenological estimates.
    Appendix A and Section 5 list numerical inputs from references; the bounds inherit their uncertainties.
  • domain assumption The leading-log QCD running of Wilson coefficients is sufficient; electroweak corrections are neglected.
    Section 3.1 states 'Neglecting electroweak corrections, we only need to care about the quark currents' and notes electroweak corrections generate scalar-tensor mixings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraints on scalar leptoquarks from lepton and kaon physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PPTT5IH6

@misc{pith2026190811155,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraints on scalar leptoquarks from lepton and kaon physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PPTT5IH6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11155}
}
read the original abstract

We present a comprehensive analysis of low-energy signals of hypothetical scalar leptoquark interactions in lepton and kaon transitions. We derive the most general effective four-fermion Lagrangian induced by tree-level scalar leptoquark exchange and identify the Wilson coefficients predicted by the five possible types of scalar leptoquarks. The current constraints on the leptoquark Yukawa couplings arising from lepton and kaon processes are worked out, including also loop-induced transitions with only leptons (or quarks) as external states. In the presence of scalar leptoquark interactions, we also derive the differential distributions for flavour-changing neutral-current transitions in semileptonic kaon modes, including all known effects within the Standard Model. Their interference with the new physics contributions could play a significant role in future improvements of those constraints that are currently hampered by poorly-determined non-perturbative parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11155 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Scalar leptoquark (φ) contributions to lepton dipole moments (` 0 = `) and ` → ` 0γ. where the loop functions are defined as F1(xj ) = 1 6 (1 − xj ) 4 (2 + 3 xj − 6 x 2 j + x 3 j + 6 xj ln xj ) , F2(xj ) = 1 6 (1 − xj ) 4 (1 − 6 xj + 3 x 2 j + 2 x 3 j − 6 x 2 j ln xj ) , F3(xj ) = 1 (1 − xj ) 3 (−3 + 4 xj − x 2 j − 2 ln xj ) , F4(xj ) = 1 (1 − xj ) 3 (1 − x 2 j + 2 xj ln xj ) . (28) In the above expression, Qq and Q… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Penguin and box scalar leptoquark (φ) contributions to the decays ` → ` 0 ` 0 ` 00. Diagrams with the leptoquark and quark lines interchanged are not shown. The rare lepton-flavour-violating decays ` → ` 0 ` 0 ` 00 are also induced by the leptoquarks, at the one-loop level. These decays proceed via penguin diagrams with Z and γ exchanges, and via box diagrams with quarks and leptoquarks within the loop, as shown in … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Allowed regions in the plane (Re[x` ],Im[x` ]), arising from leptonic and rare semilep￾tonic kaon decays, for the electron (left panel) and muon (right panel) channels. 5.3 K → πνν¯ Let us now consider the short-distance dominated decays K → πνν¯, which are thus expected to serve as very clean modes to look for BSM effects. These decay modes receive contributions from similar leptoquark couplings, but they involve t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Allowed regions in the plane (sLQ Re[xν],Im[xν]), arising from K → πνν¯ decays. The KOTO collaboration has recently reported the observation of four events in the neutral decay mode [122], with an expected background of only 0.05±0.02 events. Removing one of the events…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

134 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Georgi and S

    H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Lett.32, 438 (1974)

    1974

  2. [2]

    J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. D10, 275 (1974) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D11, 703 (1975)]

    1974

  3. [3]

    Georgi, AIP Conf

    H. Georgi, AIP Conf. Proc.23, 575 (1975); H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, Ann. Phys.93, 193 (1975). 33

    1975

  4. [4]

    Dimopoulos and L

    S. Dimopoulos and L. Susskind, Nucl. Phys. B155, 237 (1979)

    1979

  5. [5]

    Farhi and L

    E. Farhi and L. Susskind, Phys. Rept.74, 277 (1981)

    1981

  6. [6]

    Buchmuller and D

    W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. B177, 377 (1986)

    1986

  7. [7]

    Davidson, D

    S. Davidson, D. C. Bailey and B. A. Campbell, Z. Phys. C61, 613 (1994) [hep-ph/9309310]

    arXiv 1994

  8. [8]

    J. L. Hewett and T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D56, 5709 (1997) [hep-ph/9703337]

    arXiv 1997

Show all 134 references
  1. [9]

    Doršner, S

    I. Doršner, S. Fajfer, A. Greljo, J. F. Kamenik and N. Košnik, Phys. Rept.641, 1 (2016) [arXiv:1603.04993 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    J. M. Arnold, B. Fornal and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D88, 035009 (2013) [arXiv:1304.6119 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Doršner, S

    I. Doršner, S. Fajfer, N. Košnik and I. Nišandžić, JHEP1311, 084 (2013) [arXiv:1306.6493 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Sakaki, M

    Y. Sakaki, M. Tanaka, A. Tayduganov and R. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) no.9, 094012 [arXiv:1309.0301 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Hiller and M

    G. Hiller and M. Schmaltz, Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 054014 [arXiv:1408.1627 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Gripaios, M

    B. Gripaios, M. Nardecchia and S. A. Renner, JHEP1505, 006 (2015) [arXiv:1412.1791 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Bauer and M

    M. Bauer and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. Lett.116 (2016) no.14, 141802 [arXiv:1511.01900 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Alonso, B

    R. Alonso, B. Grinstein and J. Martin Camalich, JHEP1510 (2015) 184 [arXiv:1505.05164 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Freytsis, Z

    M. Freytsis, Z. Ligeti and J. T. Ruderman, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) no.5, 054018 [arXiv:1506.08896 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Barbieri, G

    R. Barbieri, G. Isidori, A. Pattori and F. Senia, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) no.2, 67 [arXiv:1512.01560 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    D. Das, C. Hati, G. Kumar and N. Mahajan, Phys. Rev. D 94, 055034 (2016) [arXiv:1605.06313 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Bečirević, N

    D. Bečirević, N. Košnik, O. Sumensari and R. Zukanovich Funchal, JHEP1611 (2016) 035 [arXiv:1608.07583 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Bečirević, S

    D. Bečirević, S. Fajfer, N. Košnik and O. Sumensari, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) no.11, 115021 [arXiv:1608.08501 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Sahoo, R

    S. Sahoo, R. Mohanta and A. K. Giri, Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 3, 035027 (2017) [arXiv:1609.04367 [hep-ph]]. 34

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Crivellin, D

    A. Crivellin, D. Müller and T. Ota, JHEP1709, 040 (2017) [arXiv:1703.09226 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Bečirević and O

    D. Bečirević and O. Sumensari, JHEP1708 (2017) 104 [arXiv:1704.05835 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Y. Cai, J. Gargalionis, M. A. Schmidt and R. R. Volkas, JHEP 1710, 047 (2017) [arXiv:1704.05849 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    A. K. Alok, J. Kumar, D. Kumar and R. Sharma, Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) no.8, 707 [arXiv:1704.07347 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Buttazzo, A

    D. Buttazzo, A. Greljo, G. Isidori and D. Marzocca, JHEP 1711 (2017) 044 [arXiv:1706.07808 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Choudhury, A

    D. Choudhury, A. Kundu, R. Mandal and R. Sinha, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, no. 15, 151801 (2017) [arXiv:1706.08437 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Crivellin, D

    A. Crivellin, D. Müller, A. Signer and Y. Ulrich, Phys. Rev. D97, no. 1, 015019 (2018) [arXiv:1706.08511 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Calibbi, A

    L. Calibbi, A. Crivellin and T. Li, Phys. Rev. D98, no. 11, 115002 (2018) [arXiv:1709.00692 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bobeth and A

    C. Bobeth and A. J. Buras, JHEP1802 (2018) 101 [arXiv:1712.01295 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bordone, C

    M. Bordone, C. Cornella, J. Fuentes-Martin and G. Isidori, Phys. Lett. B779 (2018) 317 [arXiv:1712.01368 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Blanke and A

    M. Blanke and A. Crivellin, Phys. Rev. Lett.121 (2018) no.1, 011801 [arXiv:1801.07256 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Greljo and B

    A. Greljo and B. A. Stefanek, Phys. Lett. B782 (2018) 131 [arXiv:1802.04274 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Bordone, C

    M. Bordone, C. Cornella, J. Fuentes-Martín and G. Isidori, JHEP 1810 (2018) 148 [arXiv:1805.09328 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Bečirević, I

    D. Bečirević, I. Doršner, S. Fajfer, N. Košnik, D. A. Faroughy and O. Sumensari, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.5, 055003 [arXiv:1806.05689 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Kumar, D

    J. Kumar, D. London and R. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.1, 015007 [arXiv:1806.07403 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Crivellin, C

    A. Crivellin, C. Greub, D. Müller and F. Saturnino, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, no. 1, 011805 (2019) [arXiv:1807.02068 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    de Medeiros Varzielas and S

    I. de Medeiros Varzielas and S. F. King, JHEP1811 (2018) 100 [arXiv:1807.06023 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Angelescu, D

    A. Angelescu, D. Bečirević, D. A. Faroughy and O. Sumensari, JHEP1810 (2018) 183 [arXiv:1808.08179 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Di Luzio, J

    L. Di Luzio, J. Fuentes-Martin, A. Greljo, M. Nardecchia and S. Renner, JHEP1811 (2018) 081 [arXiv:1808.00942 [hep-ph]]. 35

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Faber, M

    T. Faber, M. Hudec, M. Malinský, P. Meinzinger, W. Porod and F. Staub, Phys. Lett. B 787 (2018) 159 [arXiv:1808.05511 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Mandal, S

    T. Mandal, S. Mitra and S. Raz, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) no.5, 055028 [arXiv:1811.03561 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Fornal, S

    B. Fornal, S. A. Gadam and B. Grinstein, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.5, 055025 [arXiv:1812.01603 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Bar-Shalom, J

    S. Bar-Shalom, J. Cohen, A. Soni and J. Wudka, arXiv:1812.03178 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    M. J. Baker, J. Fuentes-Martín, G. Isidori and M. König, Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) no.4, 334 [arXiv:1901.10480 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Cornella, J

    C. Cornella, J. Fuentes-Martin and G. Isidori, arXiv:1903.11517 [hep-ph]

    1903 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Crivellin and F

    A. Crivellin and F. Saturnino, arXiv:1905.08257 [hep-ph]

    1905 arXiv

  41. [49]

    C. Hati, J. Kriewald, J. Orloff and A. M. Teixeira, arXiv:1907.05511 [hep-ph]

    1907 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Cabibbo, Phys

    N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett.10 (1963) 531

    1963

  43. [51]

    Kobayashi and T

    M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys.49 (1973) 652

    1973

  44. [52]

    Pontecorvo, Sov

    B. Pontecorvo, Sov. Phys. JETP6 (1957) 429 [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.33 (1957) 549]

    1957

  45. [53]

    Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata, Prog. Theor. Phys.28 (1962) 870

    1962

  46. [54]

    Pontecorvo, Sov

    B. Pontecorvo, Sov. Phys. JETP26 (1968) 984 [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.53 (1967) 1717]

    1968

  47. [55]

    González-Alonso, J

    M. González-Alonso, J. Martin Camalich and K. Mimouni, Phys. Lett. B772 (2017) 777 [arXiv:1706.00410 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Aebischer, M

    J. Aebischer, M. Fael, C. Greub and J. Virto, JHEP1709 (2017) 158 [arXiv:1704.06639 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Pich, Prog

    A. Pich, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.75 (2014) 41 [arXiv:1310.7922 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  50. [58]

    X. G. He, J. Tandean and G. Valencia, JHEP1907 (2019) 022 [arXiv:1903.01242 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    X. G. He, J. Tandean and G. Valencia, Phys. Lett. B797 (2019) 134842 [arXiv:1904.04043 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  52. [60]

    K. S. Babu, P. S. B. Dev, S. Jana and A. Thapa, arXiv:1907.09498 [hep-ph]

    1907 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Tanabashiet al

    M. Tanabashiet al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) no.3, 030001. http://pdg.lbl.gov/index.html

    2018

  54. [62]

    Choudhury, B

    D. Choudhury, B. Mukhopadhyaya and S. Rakshit, Phys. Lett. B507, 219 (2001) [hep- ph/0102199]

    2001

  55. [63]

    K. m. Cheung, Phys. Rev. D64, 033001 (2001) [hep-ph/0102238]. 36

    2001 arXiv

  56. [64]

    G. W. Bennett et al. [Muon g-2 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 73, 072003 (2006) [hep- ex/0602035]

    2006

  57. [65]

    Davier, A

    M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu and Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) no.12, 827 [arXiv:1706.09436 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Jegerlehner, EPJ Web Conf.166 (2018) 00022 [arXiv:1705.00263 [hep-ph]]

    F. Jegerlehner, EPJ Web Conf.166 (2018) 00022 [arXiv:1705.00263 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Keshavarzi, D

    A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.11, 114025 [arXiv:1802.02995 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Blum et al

    T. Blum et al. [RBC and UKQCD Collaborations], Phys. Rev. Lett.121, no. 2, 022003 (2018) [arXiv:1801.07224 [hep-lat]]

    2018 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Hanneke, S

    D. Hanneke, S. Fogwell and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 120801 [arXiv:0801.1134 [physics.atom-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  62. [70]

    P. J. Mohr, D. B. Newell and B. N. Taylor, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88 (2016) no.3, 035009 [arXiv:1507.07956 [physics.atom-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Aoyama, T

    T. Aoyama, T. Kinoshita and M. Nio, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.3, 036001 [arXiv:1712.06060 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  64. [72]

    R. H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey and H. Müller, Science 360, 191 (2018) [arXiv:1812.04130 [physics.atom-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Davoudiasl and W

    H. Davoudiasl and W. J. Marciano, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) no.7, 075011 [arXiv:1806.10252 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Coluccio Leskow, G

    E. Coluccio Leskow, G. D’Ambrosio, A. Crivellin and D. Müller, Phys. Rev. D95, no. 5, 055018 (2017) [arXiv:1612.06858 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Kowalska, E

    K. Kowalska, E. M. Sessolo and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. D99, no. 5, 055007 (2019) [arXiv:1812.06851 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Doršner, S

    I. Doršner, S. Fajfer and O. Sumensari, arXiv:1910.03877 [hep-ph]

    1910 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Baron et al

    J. Baron et al. [ACME Collaboration], Science 343, 269 (2014) [arXiv:1310.7534 [physics.atom-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  70. [78]

    G. W. Bennett et al. [Muon (g-2) Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 80, 052008 (2009) [arXiv:0811.1207 [hep-ex]]

    2009 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Dekens, J

    W. Dekens, J. de Vries, M. Jung and K. K. Vos, JHEP1901, 069 (2019) [arXiv:1809.09114 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Lavoura, Eur

    L. Lavoura, Eur. Phys. J. C29 (2003) 191 [hep-ph/0302221]

    2003 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Benbrik and C

    R. Benbrik and C. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 075025 [arXiv:0807.4240 [hep-ph]]. 37

    2008 arXiv

  74. [82]

    A. M. Baldini et al. [MEG Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 76, no. 8, 434 (2016) [arXiv:1605.05081 [hep-ex]]

    2016 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. [BaBar Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 021802 (2010) [arXiv:0908.2381 [hep-ex]]

    2010 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Arganda and M

    E. Arganda and M. J. Herrero, Phys. Rev. D73, 055003 (2006) [hep-ph/0510405]

    2006 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Benbrik, M

    R. Benbrik, M. Chabab and G. Faisel, arXiv:1009.3886 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  78. [86]

    Abada, M

    A. Abada, M. E. Krauss, W. Porod, F. Staub, A. Vicente and C. Weiland, JHEP1411, 048 (2014) [arXiv:1408.0138 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  79. [87]

    de Boer and G

    S. de Boer and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D93, no. 7, 074001 (2016) [arXiv:1510.00311 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  80. [88]

    W. H. Bertlet al. [SINDRUM II Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C47, 337 (2006)

    2006

  81. [89]

    Suzuki, D

    T. Suzuki, D. F. Measday and J. P. Roalsvig, Phys. Rev. C35, 2212 (1987)

    1987

  82. [90]

    Kitano, M

    R. Kitano, M. Koike and Y. Okada, Phys. Rev. D66, 096002 (2002) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 76, 059902 (2007)] [hep-ph/0203110]

    2002 arXiv

  83. [91]

    T.S.Kosmas, S.KovalenkoandI.Schmidt, Phys.Lett.B 511, 203(2001)[hep-ph/0102101]

    2001 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Cirigliano, G

    V. Cirigliano, G. Ecker, H. Neufeld, A. Pich and J. Portoles, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 399 (2012) [arXiv:1107.6001 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Ecker and A

    G. Ecker and A. Pich, Nucl. Phys. B366 (1991) 189

    1991

  86. [94]

    Buchalla, A

    G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras and M. E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Phys.68 (1996) 1125 [hep- ph/9512380]

    1996

  87. [95]

    Isidori and R

    G. Isidori and R. Unterdorfer, JHEP0401 (2004) 009 [hep-ph/0311084]

    2004 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Ambrosino et al

    F. Ambrosino et al. [KLOE Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 672 (2009) 203 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.01.037 [arXiv:0811.1007 [hep-ex]]

    2009 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Aaijet al

    R. Aaijet al. [LHCb Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) no.10, 678 [arXiv:1706.00758 [hep-ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Ramos-Pernas (LHCb), talk at Kaon 2019, Perugia (Italy), 10 September 2019

    M. Ramos-Pernas (LHCb), talk at Kaon 2019, Perugia (Italy), 10 September 2019. The LHCb Collaboration, LHCb-CONF-2019-002

    2019

  91. [99]

    Gomez Dumm and A

    D. Gomez Dumm and A. Pich, Phys. Rev. Lett.80 (1998) 4633 [hep-ph/9801298]

    1998 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Ambrose et al

    D. Ambrose et al. [E871 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.84 (2000) 1389

    2000

  93. [101]

    Ambrose et al

    D. Ambrose et al. [BNL E871 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 4309 [hep- ex/9810007]

    1998

  94. [102]

    Ecker, A

    G. Ecker, A. Pich and E. de Rafael, Nucl. Phys. B291 (1987) 692. 38

    1987

  95. [103]

    D’Ambrosio, G

    G. D’Ambrosio, G. Ecker, G. Isidori and J. Portoles, JHEP 9808 (1998) 004 [hep- ph/9808289]

    1998

  96. [104]

    Bijnens, P

    J. Bijnens, P. Dhonte and F. Borg, Nucl. Phys. B648, 317 (2003) [hep-ph/0205341]

    2003 arXiv

  97. [105]

    J. R. Batleyet al. [NA48/2 Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B677 (2009) 246 [arXiv:0903.3130 [hep-ex]]

    2009 arXiv

  98. [106]

    J. R. Batleyet al. [NA48/2 Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B697 (2011) 107 [arXiv:1011.4817 [hep-ex]]

    2011 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Sher et al., Phys

    A. Sher et al., Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 012005 [hep-ex/0502020]

    2005 arXiv

  100. [108]

    J. R. Batleyet al. [NA48/1 Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B576 (2003) 43 [hep-ex/0309075]

    2003 arXiv

  101. [109]

    J. R. Batleyet al. [NA48/1 Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B599 (2004) 197 [hep-ex/0409011]

    2004 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Ecker, A

    G. Ecker, A. Pich and E. de Rafael, Nucl. Phys. B303 (1988) 665

    1988

  103. [111]

    Antonelliet al

    M. Antonelliet al. [FlaviaNet Working Group on Kaon Decays], arXiv:0801.1817 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  104. [112]

    Buchalla, G

    G. Buchalla, G. D’Ambrosio and G. Isidori, Nucl. Phys. B 672, 387 (2003) [hep- ph/0308008]

    2003

  105. [113]

    Alavi-Harati et al

    A. Alavi-Harati et al. [KTeV Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 021805 [hep- ex/0309072]

    2004

  106. [114]

    Alavi-Harati et al

    A. Alavi-Harati et al. [KTEV Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 5279 [hep- ex/0001006]

    2000

  107. [115]

    Abouzaid et al

    E. Abouzaid et al. [KTeV Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 131803 [arXiv:0711.3472 [hep-ex]]

    2008 arXiv

  108. [116]

    A. J. Buras, M. Gorbahn, U. Haisch and U. Nierste, Phys. Rev. Lett.95 (2005) 261805 [hep-ph/0508165]

    2005 arXiv

  109. [117]

    A. J. Buras, M. Gorbahn, U. Haisch and U. Nierste, JHEP0611 (2006) 002 Erratum: [JHEP 1211 (2012) 167] [hep-ph/0603079]

    2006 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Mescia and C

    F. Mescia and C. Smith, Phys. Rev. D76, 034017 (2007) [arXiv:0705.2025 [hep-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Buchalla and A

    G. Buchalla and A. J. Buras, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 6782 [hep-ph/9607447]

    1996 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Ruggiero (NA62), talk at Kaon 2019, Perugia (Italy), 10 September 2019

    G. Ruggiero (NA62), talk at Kaon 2019, Perugia (Italy), 10 September 2019

    2019

  113. [121]

    Fajfer, N

    S. Fajfer, N. Košnik and L. Vale Silva, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no. 4, 275 (2018) [arXiv:1802.00786 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  114. [122]

    Shinohara (KOTO), talk at Kaon 2019, Perugia (Italy), 10 September 2019

    S. Shinohara (KOTO), talk at Kaon 2019, Perugia (Italy), 10 September 2019

    2019

  115. [123]

    Grossman and Y

    Y. Grossman and Y. Nir, Phys. Lett. B398, 163 (1997) [hep-ph/9701313]. 39

    1997 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Kitahara, T

    T. Kitahara, T. Okui, G. Perez, Y. Soreq and K. Tobioka, arXiv:1909.11111 [hep-ph]

    1909 arXiv

  117. [125]

    A. J. Buras, hep-ph/9806471

    arXiv

  118. [126]

    A. J. Buras, D. Guadagnoli and G. Isidori, Phys. Lett. B688, 309 (2010) [arXiv:1002.3612 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  119. [127]

    Aoki et al

    S. Aoki et al. [Flavour Lattice Averaging Group], arXiv:1902.08191 [hep-lat]. http://flag.unibe.ch/2019/

    1902 arXiv

  120. [128]

    Ali and C

    A. Ali and C. Greub, Phys. Rev. D57, 2996 (1998) [hep-ph/9707251]

    1998 arXiv

  121. [129]

    Jansen et al

    K. Jansen et al. [ETM Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D80, 054510 (2009) [arXiv:0906.4720 [hep-lat]]

    2009 arXiv

  122. [130]

    P. Ball, V. M. Braun and N. Kivel, Nucl. Phys. B649, 263 (2003) [hep-ph/0207307]

    2003 arXiv

  123. [131]

    Mateu and J

    V. Mateu and J. Portoles, Eur. Phys. J. C52, 325 (2007) [arXiv:0706.1039 [hep-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  124. [132]

    Cata and V

    O. Cata and V. Mateu, Nucl. Phys. B831, 204 (2010) [arXiv:0907.5422 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  125. [133]

    Kaiser and H

    R. Kaiser and H. Leutwyler, In *Adelaide 1998, Nonperturbative methods in quantum field theory* 15-29 [hep-ph/9806336]

    1998 arXiv

  126. [134]

    Feldmann, Int

    T. Feldmann, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A15, 159 (2000) [hep-ph/9907491]. 40

    2000 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.