Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The Belle-II B+→K+νν excess cannot be explained by lepton-number-violating SMEFT operators without fine-tuning neutrino masses; a light sterile neutrino makes the excess natural and testable.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 06:04 UTC pith:WCHW3XEE

load-bearing objection Useful RG estimates, and the νSMEFT seesaw angle is nice, but the headline exclusion is narrower than the abstract says — it covers symmetric scalar operators, not the tensor-only antisymmetric case. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13142 v1 pith:WCHW3XEE submitted 2026-07-14 hep-ph

Challenging Majorana neutrino effects in Bto K^((ast))νν and Kto πνν decays

Asmaa Abada , Claire Chevallier , Luighi P.S.Leal , Anna Llaurad\'o , Olcyr Sumensari , Renata Zukanovich Funchal This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords Belle-II excessB→Kνν decaysK→πνν decaysdimension-seven SMEFT operatorslepton number violationsterile neutrinoneutrino mass naturalnessneutrinoless double beta decay
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.

This paper investigates whether lepton-number-violating (LNV) new physics can account for the Belle-II excess in B+→K+νν decays and the NA62 measurement of K+→π+νν. Through a renormalization-group analysis of SMEFT operators, the authors show that the dimension-seven operators that would distort the kinematic distributions of these decays also induce active-neutrino masses at the one-loop-squared level. For the B-meson transition, the induced mass is about 2.4 keV for couplings at the TeV scale—orders of magnitude above the observed sub-eV masses—so explaining Belle-II requires severe fine-tuning. The paper then demonstrates that adding a single light sterile Majorana neutrino to the SMEFT (the νSMEFT) evades the problem through a seesaw suppression, mν ≈ mD²/mN, yielding a natural explanation with distinctive q²-spectrum distortions, and maps the surviving parameter space against neutrinoless double-beta decay and charged-current meson-decay constraints.

Core claim

The load-bearing result is a quantitative naturalness bound: the dimension-seven LNV operator O_{\bar dlqlH1}, which generates the scalar and tensor pieces of b→sνν and s→dνν, mixes through one-loop RG running into the Weinberg operators that give neutrinos Majorana masses. At leading-log² order the induced mass is δmν ≈ 2.4 keV × C/(Λ/TeV)^3 for the (3,2) flavor combination probed by B→Kνν, four orders of magnitude above the cosmological bound on the sum of neutrino masses, so explaining the Belle-II excess requires UV-scale cancellations. The same operator with (2,1) flavor induces only ≈0.5 eV, keeping K→πνν a viable LNV probe. Adding a light sterile Majorana neutrino to the SMEFT evades

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the one-loop anomalous-dimension matrix of the SMEFT (and its νSMEFT extension) that mixes the dimension-seven operator O_{\bar dlqlH1} with the dimension-five and dimension-seven Weinberg operators O_LH^(5) and O_LH^(7). The dominant contributions arise at second leading-logarithm order, through a two-step mixing O_{\bar dlqlH1} → O_{\bar qullH} → O_LH, with GIM-like Yukawa factors (y_u y_u†)² y_d and CKM suppression. In the νSMEFT, the analogous mixing feeds the Yukawa-like operator O_NH, contributing to the Dirac mass mD; the seesaw relation mν = mD²/mN then suppresses the active-neutrino mass. This contrast—log-enhanced neutrino mass versus seesaw suppression—is

Load-bearing premise

The entire exclusion hinges on the naturalness criterion that RG-induced contributions to neutrino masses must not be cancelled by other operators at the UV scale; if such cancellations are permitted, the SMEFT explanation of the Belle-II excess reopens.

What would settle it

A future measurement of the B→Kνν differential rate showing the scalar/tensor distortion predicted by dimension-seven operators, together with a cosmological bound on the sum of neutrino masses below 0.1 eV and no sign of a sterile neutrino in beam-dump or collider searches, would falsify the paper's exclusion.

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

If this is right

  • If the naturalness criterion is accepted, the Belle-II B→Kνν excess cannot be attributed to dimension-seven LNV SMEFT operators; any such interpretation requires engineered cancellations at the UV scale between the Weinberg and higher-dimensional operator coefficients.
  • The νSMEFT with a light sterile neutrino N provides a natural framework that reproduces the excess while keeping active neutrinos light, with the required size of the Wilson coefficient set by mN; for mN ≳ 100 keV the scenario is fully viable.
  • K→πνν decays remain a viable probe of LNV operators without fine-tuning, but only in UV completions with a specific flavor structure that suppresses the competing dimension-six operators—typically scalar leptoquark models with generation-specific couplings.
  • The νSMEFT scenario predicts a modified q² distribution in B→Kνν (and K→πνν) that can be distinguished from SM and from dimension-six vector operators using the model-agnostic likelihood released by Belle-II.
  • For sterile-neutrino masses near the 100 MeV scale, neutrinoless double-beta decay searches become competitive with flavor constraints for certain operator flavor indices, providing a complementary probe of the same couplings.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the naturalness bound can be read as a model-building veto: weakly-coupled UV completions of the dimension-seven operator that aim to explain Belle-II should steer toward the sterile-neutrino route, since generating O_{\bar dlqlH1} without generating dimension-six operators or tree-level Weinberg contributions is essentially impossible without a flavor fine structure.
  • Editorial inference: the same RG-mixing machinery could be exported to other lepton-number-violating processes—such as rare τ decays or B_s→νν—to derive analogous naturalness constraints, since the operator-mixing structure is flavor-universal.
  • Editorial inference: the restriction to a single sterile neutrino is a simplification; with two or more sterile states the seesaw suppression could be even more efficient, potentially enlarging the allowed window for the B→Kνν excess—a natural next step not taken in this paper.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies lepton-number-violating (LNV) effective operators contributing to the rare decays B→K(*)νν and K→πνν. The authors consider two EFT frameworks: the SMEFT, where the leading LNV contribution is the dimension-seven operator O_{\bar dlqlH1}, and the νSMEFT with an additional light right-handed Majorana neutrino N, where scalar/tensor operators first appear at dimension six. Using one-loop anomalous dimensions from the literature, they compute the leading-log-squared RG-induced contributions to active neutrino masses from the SMEFT operator. For the b→s transition, the induced δmν is of order keV for Wilson coefficients needed to explain the Belle-II excess, implying a strong fine-tuning requirement; for the s→d transition the induced δmν is much smaller, so rare kaon decays remain viable but require special UV flavor patterns. The νSMEFT scenario is shown to evade these constraints via a seesaw-like suppression, and the paper analyzes 0νββ constraints, charged-current meson decays, and scalar-leptoquark UV completions. The central result is a naturalness-based exclusion of the scalar/symmetric-flavor LNV SMEFT interpretation of the Belle-II excess, alongside a viable νSMEFT benchmark with testable kinematic distortions.

Significance. If the RG derivation is correct, this is a valuable and nontrivial constraint: it shows that the dimension-seven LNV SMEFT operator that can distort the B→Kνν spectrum is in tension with the smallness of neutrino masses unless fine-tuned cancellations are invoked. The explicit CKM/Yukawa structure in Eq. (3.15), the numerical estimate in Eq. (3.16), and the identification of the seesaw mechanism as a natural way out in the νSMEFT are strong points. The paper also provides useful 0νββ comparisons and a taxonomy of UV completions. However, the headline statement in the abstract is too broad: the computed bound applies only to the symmetric lepton-flavor component C^[S]; the antisymmetric component C^[A], which matches onto tensor LEFT operators, evades the bound at the order considered and is not excluded by a no-go argument. The paper's main claim therefore needs qualification or additional analysis before it can be accepted as stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3.2.2 and Abstract] The headline claim — that LNV SMEFT operators cannot explain the Belle-II excess without significant fine-tuning — is established only for the symmetric lepton-flavor component C^[S] of O_{\bar dlqlH1}. The RG mixing in Eq. (3.12) and the numerical estimate in Eq. (3.16) are both proportional to C^[S]; the antisymmetric component C^[A], which matches onto the tensor LEFT operator through Eq. (3.7), does not enter δmν at the one-loop-squared order used. Setting C^[S](Λ)=0 with C^[A](Λ)≠0 is not a cancellation between independent Wilson coefficients; it is a choice of the antisymmetric flavor component of a single operator. The sentence in Sec. 3.2.2 acknowledging this possibility and dismissing it as model-dependent is not a substitute for a no-go proof or a systematic scan of UV completions. The abstract should be restricted to scalar/symmetric LNV operators unless this gap is filled.
  2. [Sec. 2.2, Fig. 1 and Sec. 3.4] The numerical fit used to discuss the Belle-II excess considers a single active neutrino flavor, so the tensor operator C_TL is set to zero by construction ('CTL is anti-symmetric in neutrino flavors, thus vanishing for a single neutrino flavor'). With the three active flavors of the SM, C_TL with α≠β contributes to the invisible B→K final state and can in principle accommodate the Belle-II data. Since such a coefficient evades the δmν bound of Eq. (3.16), the exclusion plot in Fig. 5 does not cover this case. The paper should either include the tensor-only scenario in the χ² fit and in the neutrino-mass constraint, or state explicitly in the abstract and conclusions that the exclusion applies only to scalar/symmetric LNV coefficients.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.5] Typo: 'dfmtension' should read 'in tension'.
  2. [Sec. 4.6 and footnote 18] Typo: 'a a factor' should be 'a factor'; 'simplicitly' should be 'simply'.
  3. [Eqs. (2.13) and (2.19)] The definitions of Λ_S^(7) are hard to parse in the typeset equations. Please clarify the power of v and the exact dependence on the Wilson coefficient.
  4. [Sec. 3.2.2] The numerical numbers in Eqs. (3.16) and (3.17) are not accompanied by an uncertainty estimate. A sentence stating that they are order-of-magnitude estimates (the logarithms are evaluated at 1 TeV and SM running is neglected) would prevent readers from interpreting these as precise thresholds.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the fine-tuning bound is derived from independent one-loop anomalous dimensions (Refs. [21,23]) applied to Wilson coefficients fitted to B→Kνν data; self-citations are ancillary and the antisymmetric-flavor loophole is disclosed.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained in the relevant sense. The Belle-II-favoured values of C_{dlqlH1} are obtained from a chi2 fit to B→Kνν and B→K*νν data (Sec. 2.2), and the RG-induced neutrino-mass contribution δmν is computed from Eq. (3.15) using the one-loop anomalous-dimension matrix of the independent Ref. [21], then compared with the external cosmological bound mν < 0.1 eV (Planck). This is a cross-observable constraint, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction: the fit determines C at the low scale, while δmν is a different observable generated by operator mixing. The νSMEFT evasion likewise uses the independent anomalous dimensions of Ref. [23] and a seesaw suppression; it does not reduce to an input. There are self-citations (e.g., Ref. [16] by co-author Leal for the sterile-neutrino EFT scenario, Ref. [18] by co-author Sumensari for SM predictions), but the sterile-neutrino operator content is re-derived from the standard basis of Ref. [75] in Sec. 4.1, and the SM predictions rest on lattice QCD form factors, so these citations are not load-bearing by construction. Sec. 3.2.2 explicitly discloses the two loopholes to the fine-tuning argument — direct C_LH^(5),(7)(Λ) cancellations and fully antisymmetric lepton flavors — so the abstract's exclusion is explicitly conditional on a naturalness convention; whether that convention is too strong is a physics-judgment issue, not a circularity. Overall the result is not equivalent to its inputs by construction, and the few self-citations are minor and non-load-bearing.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

The free parameters are mostly EFT Wilson coefficients fitted to Belle-II/NA62 data, the ad hoc fine-tuning thresholds used to define 'viable' parameter space, and the 0νββ LECs. The axioms are the external RG matrices (Refs. [21,23]) and the naturalness criterion. The only invented entity is the light sterile neutrino N of the νSMEFT, which has clear falsifiable handles.

free parameters (6)
  • Dimension-7 LEFT coefficient C_SXL^(7) best-fit scale = Λ_S^(7) ≈ 2 TeV
    Obtained from χ² fit to B+→K+νν and B0→K*0νν data in Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2.13); used as benchmark for RG constraints.
  • Dimension-6 vector operator best-fit scales = Λ_VL^(6) ≈ 9 TeV, Λ_VR^(6) ≈ 7 TeV
    Eq. (2.12); best-fit scales for lepton-number-conserving vector operators that can accommodate Belle-II data.
  • νSMEFT scalar coefficient ¯C_{lNqd}^{(1)}/Λ^2 = not quoted as a single number; low-energy best-fit scale ¯Λ_S^(6) ≈ 6 TeV (Eq. 2.15)
    Fitted to Belle-II B→Kνν data in Sec. 2.2; enters the δm_D estimates in Eq. (4.14) and the allowed regions in Figs. 10-11.
  • Sterile neutrino mass m_N = scanned; m_N ≈ 100 MeV used for 0νββ illustration, m_N ≈ 0 for low-energy fits
    Controls νSMEFT kinematics and seesaw suppression; no unique fit, but the paper's conclusions for resonant 0νββ depend on the chosen m_N.
  • Fine-tuning thresholds δmν < 1 eV / 10 eV (and 0.1 eV in kaon plots) = 1, 10, 0.1 eV
    Chosen by hand to define 'fine-tuned' vs 'natural' regions in Figs. 5, 6, 10, 11; not derived from data and not propagated from a probability measure.
  • 0νββ low-energy constants (LECs) = not specified; set to NDA order-of-magnitude
    Sec. 3.3.2 uses 'the unknown LECs to the order of magnitude of their absolute values derived from naive dimensional analysis'; limits in Eqs. (3.21)-(3.22) inherit this uncertainty.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption One-loop anomalous dimensions for dimension-5/7 Weinberg and ψ4H operators from Ref. [21] are correct and sufficient at leading-log^2 order.
    Used in Eqs. (3.12)-(3.15) to compute the RG-induced neutrino masses; the paper does not re-derive the matrix.
  • domain assumption νSMEFT one-loop anomalous dimensions from Ref. [23] (and Yukawa running from Ref. [76]) are correct.
    Used in Eqs. (4.9)-(4.13) to compute δm_D in the sterile-neutrino scenario.
  • ad hoc to paper In the SMEFT scenario, dimension-six operators are absent or suppressed so that O_{dlqlH1} dominates.
    Sec. 3.5 shows this requires a specific flavor ansatz in leptoquark UV completions; without it, dimension-six operators dominate and the dimension-seven analysis is irrelevant.
  • ad hoc to paper The naturalness criterion: no fine-tuned cancellation among Wilson coefficients at the UV scale is allowed.
    The central B→Kνν exclusion depends on this criterion; the authors acknowledge cancellations would weaken it (Sec. 3.2.2, 3.4).
  • ad hoc to paper A single light Majorana sterile neutrino is sufficient to capture the relevant phenomenology.
    Footnote 16 notes at least two sterile neutrinos are needed for realistic active masses; the paper uses one for simplicity.
  • domain assumption 0νββ master formula, nuclear matrix elements, and phase-space factors from Refs. [63,64,67,68,69] are valid.
    Used to translate Wilson-coefficient constraints into 0νββ half-life limits in Secs. 3.3 and 4.3.
  • standard math SMEFT operator basis and tree-level matching relations for dimension-seven operators are as established by Refs. [15,57].
    The operator O_{dlqlH1} and its Fierz identities are taken from the cited literature; no independent construction is given.
invented entities (1)
  • Light right-handed Majorana neutrino N ~ (1,1,0) independent evidence
    purpose: Extends SMEFT to νSMEFT; produces dimension-six scalar/tensor operators for b→sνN and s→dνN, evading the dimension-seven fine-tuning constraint while generating observable distortions in B→Kνν and K→πνν spectra.
    The paper provides falsifiable handles: predicted q²-spectrum distortions in B→K+invisible, resonant 0νββ at m_N ~ 100 MeV, active-sterile mixing |U_αN| ≲ 3×10^-7 GeV/m_N, and charged-current meson-decay constraints. It is a standard sterile-neutrino extension rather than a de novo entity.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 34654 in / 15172 out tokens · 144105 ms · 2026-08-02T06:04:28.295085+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the contributions of Lepton Number Violating (LNV) effective operators to the rare decays $B\to K^{(\ast)}\nu\nu$ and $K\to \pi\nu\nu$. Such operators can modify the kinematic distributions of these processes, providing distinctive probes of physics beyond the Standard Model. Through a renormalization-group analysis, we show that the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT) operators responsible for these effects are subject to stringent indirect constraints from neutrino physics. In particular, we find that the mild excess reported by Belle-II in the $B^+\to K^+\nu\nu$ channel cannot be explained by LNV SMEFT operators without introducing significant fine-tuning in neutrino masses. We then show that these constraints can be evaded in the SMEFT minimally extended by a light right-handed neutrino, allowing for sizable effects in rare meson decays. Finally, we explore the implications of this viable scenario for low-energy processes, including neutrinoless double-beta decays.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

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

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    Updated NA62 K+→π+νν̄ data tighten modified-Z and U(2)^5 semileptonic fits and predict KL→π0νν̄ enhanced relative to K+ in the preferred U(2) lobe.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 80 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Adachiet al.[Belle-II], Phys

    I. Adachiet al.[Belle-II], Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no.11, 112006 [arXiv:2311.14647 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Chang [NA62], [arXiv:2604.12649 [hep-ex]]; E

    X. Chang [NA62], [arXiv:2604.12649 [hep-ex]]; E. Cortina Gilet al.[NA62], JHEP02 (2025), 191 [arXiv:2412.12015 [hep-ex]]. – 39 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Buchmuller and D

    W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, Nucl. Phys. B268(1986), 621-653

    1986

  5. [5]

    Allwicher, D

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Bause, H

    R. Bause, H. Gisbert and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no.1, 015006 [arXiv:2309.00075 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Allwicher, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Marzocca, M

    D. Marzocca, M. Nardecchia, A. Stanzione and C. Toni, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) no.11, 1217 [arXiv:2404.06533 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Altmannshofer, A

    W. Altmannshofer, A. Crivellin, H. Haigh, G. Inguglia and J. Martin Camalich, Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no.7, 075008 [arXiv:2311.14629 [hep-ph]]; K. Fridell, M. Ghosh, T. Okui and K. Tobioka, Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no.11, 11 [arXiv:2312.12507 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    J. F. Kamenik and C. Smith, JHEP03(2012), 090 [arXiv:1111.6402 [hep-ph]]; P. D. Bolton, S. Fajfer, J. F. Kamenik and M. Novoa-Brunet, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.5, 055001 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no.3, 039903] [arXiv:2403.13887 [hep-ph]]; P. D. Bolton, S. Fajfer, J. F. Kamenik and M. Novoa-Brunet, Phys. Rev. D 112(2025) no.3, 035010 [arXiv:2503.19025...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  11. [11]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Nardecchia and C. Toni, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.5, 055031 [arXiv:2505.11499 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    X. G. He, X. D. Ma and G. Valencia, JHEP03(2023), 037 [arXiv:2209.05223 [hep-ph]]; X. G. He, X. D. Ma and G. Valencia, Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no.7, 075019 [arXiv:2309.12741 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Felkl, A

    T. Felkl, A. Giri, R. Mohanta and M. A. Schmidt, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) no.12, 1135 [arXiv:2309.02940 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Gorbahn, U

    M. Gorbahn, U. Moldanazarova, K. H. Sieja, E. Stamou and M. Tabet, Eur. Phys. J. C 84(2024) no.7, 680 [arXiv:2312.06494 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Rosauro-Alcaraz and L

    S. Rosauro-Alcaraz and L. P. S. Leal, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) no.8, 795 [arXiv:2404.17440 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    M. Endo, K. Fridell, S. Iwamoto, Y. Mura and K. Yamamoto, [arXiv:2601.16422 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    Bečirević, G

    D. Bečirević, G. Piazza and O. Sumensari, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) no.3, 252 [arXiv:2301.06990 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Abumusabhet al.[Belle-II], Phys

    M. Abumusabhet al.[Belle-II], Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.9, 092016 [arXiv:2507.12393 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, M. L. Graesser and E. Mereghetti, JHEP12 (2017), 082 [arXiv:1708.09390 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  21. [21]

    Zhang, JHEP10(2023), 148 [arXiv:2306.03008 [hep-ph]]

    D. Zhang, JHEP10(2023), 148 [arXiv:2306.03008 [hep-ph]]. – 40 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    N. F. Bell, V. Cirigliano, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, P. Vogel and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. Lett.95(2005), 151802 [arXiv:hep-ph/0504134 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  23. [23]

    Ardu and X

    M. Ardu and X. Marcano, JHEP10(2024), 212 [arXiv:2407.16751 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Inami and C

    T. Inami and C. S. Lim, Prog. Theor. Phys.65(1981), 297 [erratum: Prog. Theor. Phys. 65(1981), 1772]

    1981

  25. [25]

    Buchalla and A

    G. Buchalla and A. J. Buras, Nucl. Phys. B400(1993), 225-239

    1993

  26. [26]

    J. A. M. Vermaseren, S. A. Larin and T. van Ritbergen, Phys. Lett. B405(1997), 327-333 [arXiv:hep-ph/9703284 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  27. [27]

    J. F. Kamenik and C. Smith, Phys. Lett. B680(2009), 471-475 [arXiv:0908.1174 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  28. [28]

    J. A. Bailey, A. Bazavov, C. Bernard, C. M. Bouchard, C. DeTar, D. Du, A. X. El-Khadra, J. Foley, E. D. Freeland and E. Gámiz,et al.Phys. Rev. D93(2016) no.2, 025026 [arXiv:1509.06235 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  29. [29]

    W. G. Parrottet al.[HPQCD], Phys. Rev. D107(2023) no.1, 014511 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D107(2023) no.11, 119903] [arXiv:2207.13371 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Aokiet al.[Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)], Phys

    Y. Aokiet al.[Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)], Phys. Rev. D113(2026) no.1, 014508 [arXiv:2411.04268 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    J. A. Baileyet al.[Fermilab Lattice and MILC], Phys. Rev. D92(2015) no.3, 034506 [arXiv:1503.07237 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  32. [32]

    Y. S. Amhiset al.[HFLAV], Phys. Rev. D107(2023) no.5, 052008 [arXiv:2206.07501 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    A. J. Buras and E. Venturini, Acta Phys. Polon. B53no.6, 6-A1 [arXiv:2109.11032 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [34]

    Kouet al.[Belle-II], PTEP2019(2019) no.12, 123C01 [erratum: PTEP2020(2020) no.2, 029201] [arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]]

    E. Kouet al.[Belle-II], PTEP2019(2019) no.12, 123C01 [erratum: PTEP2020(2020) no.2, 029201] [arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

    Amhis, M

    Y. Amhis, M. Kenzie, M. Reboud and A. R. Wiederhold, JHEP01(2024), 144 [arXiv:2309.11353 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Grygieret al.[Belle], Phys

    J. Grygieret al.[Belle], Phys. Rev. D96(2017) no.9, 091101 [arXiv:1702.03224 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [37]

    Bharucha, D

    A. Bharucha, D. M. Straub and R. Zwicky, JHEP08(2016), 098 [arXiv:1503.05534 [hep-ph]]; N. Gubernari, M. Reboud, D. van Dyk and J. Virto, JHEP12(2023), 153 [erratum: JHEP01(2025), 125] [arXiv:2305.06301 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  38. [38]

    Alonso-Álvarez and M

    G. Alonso-Álvarez and M. Escudero Abenza, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) no.5, 553 [arXiv:2310.13043 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Bečirević, S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  40. [40]

    Doršner, S

    I. Doršner, S. Fajfer, A. Greljo, J. F. Kamenik and N. Košnik, Phys. Rept.641(2016), 1-68 [arXiv:1603.04993 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  41. [41]

    Gärtner, N

    L. Gärtner, N. Hartmann, L. Heinrich, M. Horstmann, T. Kuhr, M. Reboud, S. Stefkova and D. van Dyk, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) no.7, 693 [arXiv:2402.08417 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    J. Brod, M. Gorbahn and E. Stamou, PoSBEAUTY2020(2021), 056 [arXiv:2105.02868 [hep-ph]]. – 41 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Carrasco, P

    N. Carrasco, P. Lami, V. Lubicz, L. Riggio, S. Simula and C. Tarantino, Phys. Rev. D 93(2016) no.11, 114512 [arXiv:1602.04113 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

    Mescia and C

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  45. [45]

    O. J. P. Éboli, L. P. S. Leal, M. Martines and O. Sumensari, JHEP03(2026), 054 [arXiv:2509.08437 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    Di Carlo, D

    M. Di Carlo, D. Giusti, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, C. T. Sachrajda, F. Sanfilippo, S. Simula and N. Tantalo, Phys. Rev. D100(2019) no.3, 034514 [arXiv:1904.08731 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  47. [47]

    Cirigliano, A

    V. Cirigliano, A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter and M. Moulson, Phys. Lett. B838(2023), 137748 [arXiv:2208.11707 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    Bonaet al.[UTfit], Rend

    M. Bonaet al.[UTfit], Rend. Lincei Sci. Fis. Nat.34(2023), 37-57 [arXiv:2212.03894 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Isidori, F

    G. Isidori, F. Mescia and C. Smith, Nucl. Phys. B718(2005), 319-338 [arXiv:hep-ph/0503107 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  50. [50]

    Grossman and Y

    Y. Grossman and Y. Nir, Phys. Lett. B398(1997), 163-168 [arXiv:hep-ph/9701313 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  51. [51]

    J. K. Ahnet al.[KOTO], Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) no.8, 081802 [arXiv:2411.11237 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    S. N. Gninenko, Phys. Rev. D91(2015) no.1, 015004 [arXiv:1409.2288 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  53. [53]

    Abada, D

    A. Abada, D. Bečirević, O. Sumensari, C. Weiland and R. Zukanovich Funchal, Phys. Rev. D95(2017) no.7, 075023 [arXiv:1612.04737 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  54. [54]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], [arXiv:2501.06426 [hep-ex]]

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], [arXiv:2501.06426 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  55. [55]

    Fryet al.[KOTO], [arXiv:2501.14827 [hep-ex]]

    J. Fryet al.[KOTO], [arXiv:2501.14827 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  56. [56]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.43(1979), 1566-1570

    1979

  57. [57]

    Lehman, Phys

    L. Lehman, Phys. Rev. D90(2014) no.12, 125023 [arXiv:1410.4193 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  58. [58]

    Chala and A

    M. Chala and A. Titov, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) no.3, 035002 [arXiv:2104.08248 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  59. [59]

    de Vries, S

    J. de Vries, S. Fajfer, L. P.S. Leal, O. Sumensari, R. Zukanovich Funchal,In preparation

  60. [60]

    A. J. Buras and M. Jung, JHEP06(2018), 067 [arXiv:1804.05852 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  61. [61]

    Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.641(2020), A6 [erratum: Astron. Astrophys.652(2021), C4] [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  62. [62]

    Abeet al.[KamLAND-Zen], Phys

    S. Abeet al.[KamLAND-Zen], Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) no.26, 262501 [arXiv:2406.11438 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, M. L. Graesser and E. Mereghetti, JHEP12 (2018), 097 [arXiv:1806.02780 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  64. [64]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, E. Mereghetti and A. Walker-Loud, Phys. Rev. C97(2018) no.6, 065501 [erratum: Phys. Rev. C100(2019) no.1, 019903] [arXiv:1710.01729 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  65. [65]

    Bhattacharya, V

    T. Bhattacharya, V. Cirigliano, S. Cohen, R. Gupta, H. W. Lin and B. Yoon, Phys. Rev. D94(2016) no.5, 054508 [arXiv:1606.07049 [hep-lat]]. – 42 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  66. [66]

    Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

    S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.3, 030001

    2024

  67. [67]

    Menéndez, J

    J. Menéndez, J. Phys. G45(2018) no.1, 014003 [arXiv:1804.02105 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  68. [68]

    Hyvärinen and J

    J. Hyvärinen and J. Suhonen, Phys. Rev. C91(2015) no.2, 024613

    2015

  69. [69]

    Horoi and A

    M. Horoi and A. Neacsu, [arXiv:1706.05391 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  70. [70]

    X. X. Li, Z. Ren and J. H. Yub, Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no.9, 095041 [arXiv:2307.10380 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    Magg and C

    M. Magg and C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B94(1980), 61-64

    1980

  72. [72]

    Fajfer, L

    S. Fajfer, L. P. S. Leal, O. Sumensari and R. Z. Funchal, JHEP01(2025), 147 [arXiv:2406.20050 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Doršner, S

    I. Doršner, S. Fajfer and O. Sumensari, JHEP05(2022), 183 [arXiv:2202.08287 [hep-ph]]; D. Aristizabal Sierra, M. Hirsch and S. G. Kovalenko, Phys. Rev. D77(2008), 055011 [arXiv:0710.5699 [hep-ph]]; I. Doršner, S. Fajfer and N. Košnik, Eur. Phys. J. C 77(2017) no.6, 417 [arXiv:1701.08322 [hep-ph]]; K. Fridell, L. Gráf, J. Harz and C. Hati, JHEP09(2025), 05...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  74. [74]

    Fajfer, N

    S. Fajfer, N. Košnik and L. Vale Silva, Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) no.4, 275 [arXiv:1802.00786 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  75. [75]

    del Aguila, S

    F. del Aguila, S. Bar-Shalom, A. Soni and J. Wudka, Phys. Lett. B670(2009), 399-402 [arXiv:0806.0876 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  76. [76]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar and M. Trott, JHEP10(2013), 087 [arXiv:1308.2627 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  77. [77]

    A. Atre, T. Han, S. Pascoli and B. Zhang, JHEP05(2009), 030 [arXiv:0901.3589 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  78. [78]

    Abada, V

    A. Abada, V. De Romeri, M. Lucente, A. M. Teixeira and T. Toma, JHEP02(2018), 169 [arXiv:1712.03984 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  79. [79]

    Fernández-Martínez, M

    E. Fernández-Martínez, M. González-López, J. Hernández-García, M. Hostert and J. López-Pavón, JHEP09(2023), 001 [arXiv:2304.06772 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  80. [80]

    Dekens, J

    W. Dekens, J. de Vries, K. Fuyuto, E. Mereghetti and G. Zhou, JHEP06(2020), 097 [arXiv:2002.07182 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

Showing first 80 references.