Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 71 references

A single light dark sector can explain both the Super-Kamiokande antineutrino excess and the Belle II B-decay excess while producing the observed dark-matter density.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 04:07 UTC pith:XYRZ7CGI

load-bearing objection Solid, non-empty parameter space that unifies two mild excesses plus relic density inside a known U(1)Lμ−Lτ scalar model; the SK window is imported at fixed Δ, so the result is a viable benchmark rather than a prediction. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.03206 v1 pith:XYRZ7CGI submitted 2026-07-03 hep-ph

A Unified Dark Matter Explanation for boldsymbol{B^+ \!to K^+νbar{ν}} and the Super-Kamiokande Antineutrino Excess

Shu-Yu Ho , Jongkuk Kim , Pyungwon Ko This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords dark matterU(1) L_mu - L_tauSuper-Kamiokande excessBelle II B to K nu nudark photondark Higgsthermal relicinvisible Higgs 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.

Two mild experimental excesses sit in different corners of particle physics: Super-Kamiokande sees more electron-antineutrino-like events near 20 MeV than expected, and Belle II measures the rare decay of a B meson into a kaon plus invisible particles at a rate roughly 2.7 sigma above the Standard Model. This paper shows that both can be produced by the same light dark sector built on a gauged L-mu-minus-L-tau symmetry. A complex scalar dark-matter particle of mass about 44 MeV annihilates into a slightly lighter dark photon; the dark photon decays into neutrinos that, after oscillations, appear as the Super-Kamiokande signal. The same dark Higgs that sets the dark-photon mass also mediates the B-meson decay into missing energy that Belle II observes. The construction is ultraviolet-complete, yields the correct thermal relic density, and respects the invisible-Higgs bound from the LHC. If correct, two seemingly unrelated anomalies and the dark-matter abundance become three faces of one economical particle spectrum.

Core claim

The simplest ultraviolet-complete complex-scalar dark-matter model with a gauged U(1)_{L_mu - L_tau} symmetry, supplemented by a dark Higgs, simultaneously accounts for the Super-Kamiokande antineutrino excess near 20 MeV, the Belle II excess in B+ to K+ nu nu-bar, and the observed dark-matter relic density, with all constraints satisfied for dark-matter mass near 44.4 MeV and dark-photon mass near 43 MeV.

What carries the argument

Cascade annihilation XX* to Z' Z' followed by Z' to neutrino pairs (with Delta = 1 - m_Z'/m_X = 0.03), together with the dark-Higgs-mediated B decays B+ to K+ H1 or B+ to K+ XX*; these two processes, controlled by the same portal couplings and small scalar mixing angle, generate the two excesses while setting the thermal relic density.

Load-bearing premise

The Super-Kamiokande excess must truly be cascade annihilation of thermal dark matter with a fixed 3 percent mass splitting and the quoted annihilation-rate window; if the excess is ordinary astrophysics or a fluctuation, the unified parameter space disappears.

What would settle it

A high-statistics Super-Kamiokande-Gd analysis that either confirms a monochromatic-like neutrino spectrum peaking near 20 MeV consistent with 44 MeV cascade annihilation, or rules it out in favor of pure background or conventional diffuse supernova neutrinos; simultaneous Belle II measurement of the q-squared distribution of B+ to K+ plus missing energy that either matches the dark-Higgs hypothesis or excludes it.

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

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a UV-complete complex scalar dark matter model under a gauged U(1)_{L_μ−L_τ} symmetry, extended by a dark Higgs Φ. A complex scalar X with m_X ≃ 44.4 MeV annihilates via XX* o Z'Z' (m_Z' ≃ 43 MeV, Δ = 0.03), with Z' decaying to u_μ/ u_τ pairs; after oscillations a fraction f_e ≃ 0.225 appears as u-bar_e at Super-Kamiokande, matching the mild excess for J_avg ⟨σv⟩ in [2.0 imes 10^{-25}, 2.41 imes 10^{-24}] cm^{3} s^{-1}. The same dark sector supplies the Belle II excess through B^{+} o K^{+} H_1 or the three-body B^{+} o K^{+} XX* (via on- or off-shell H_1), yielding B(B^{+} o K^{+} + /E)_NP ≃ 1.8 imes 10^{-5}, while s_ heta ≲ 10^{-2} satisfies the Higgs invisible-width bound and the thermally averaged cross section (Eq. 16) reproduces the observed relic density. Numerical scans in the (m_H1, λ_ΦX) plane for representative Q_Φ and g_X values illustrate overlapping viable regions.

Significance. If the two mild excesses are confirmed and the imported SK cascade window remains valid for this kinematics, the construction supplies a single, anomaly-free light dark sector that simultaneously addresses relic density, the SK antineutrino excess, and the Belle II missing-energy excess while automatically relaxing CMB bounds (final states are neutrinos). The analytic expressions for ⟨σv⟩, Γ(B o K H_1) and Γ(B o K XX*) are standard and correctly specialized; the parameter-space scan of Fig. 1 is concrete and falsifiable by future SK-Gd and Belle II data. The work therefore offers a compact, testable target rather than an isolated explanation of either anomaly.

major comments (2)
  1. SUPER-KAMIOKANDE ν-bar EXCESS and NUMERICAL ANALYSIS: the central claim anchors m_X = 44.4 MeV, m_Z' ≃ 43 MeV (Δ = 0.03) and the J_avg ⟨σv⟩ window of Eq. (14) directly to the external cascade fit of Ref. [7]. The paper does not recompute the expected positron spectrum at SK for its own Z' kinematics (two nearly monochromatic neutrinos per Z' with E_ u ≃ m_Z'/2, flavor-averaged with f_e ≃ 0.225). Because the cascade energy distribution and the precise Δ dependence of the fit are model-dependent, a mismatch would shift the preferred (m_X, ⟨σv⟩) region relative to the relic-density curves of Fig. 1 and remove the claimed overlap. A short re-derivation or explicit statement that the spectrum is identical to that assumed in Ref. [7] is required for the unified parameter space to be robust.
  2. DARK MATTER RELIC DENSITY, Eq. (16): the thermally averaged cross section is written in the s_ heta ≪ 1 limit and is dominated by s-channel H_1 exchange. For the larger g_X values shown in Fig. 1 (g_X = 4 imes 10^{-4}), the pure-gauge XX* o Z'Z' amplitude is no longer negligible; its omission should be quantified or the curves restricted to the regime where the approximation holds, otherwise the relic-density bands used to claim simultaneous accommodation are incomplete.
minor comments (5)
  1. MODEL OVERVIEW: the charge assignment Q_Φ is left free (examples 1.9 and 2.5 appear only in Fig. 1). A brief statement of the range that forbids dimension-5 DM decay operators would improve clarity.
  2. HIGGS INVISIBLE DECAY: the bound s_ heta ≲ 10^{-2} is stated without an explicit formula for Γ(H_2 o Inv.). Adding the leading partial widths (or a reference to the earlier calculation) would make the constraint self-contained.
  3. Fig. 1 caption: the two panels differ only by Q_Φ and a tiny change in s_ heta; labeling the curves with the corresponding υ_Φ (or m_Z'/g_X) would help the reader assess the three-body Belle II contribution.
  4. TWO- OR THREE-BODY DECAYS: the claim that Γ(B o K Z'Z')/Γ(B o K XX*) ≲ 7 imes 10^{-3} is given without the numerical inputs; a short parenthetical evaluation would strengthen the assertion that the Z'Z' mode is negligible.
  5. Typographical: several section headings contain spurious spaces (“DARK MA TTER”, “NUMERICAL ANAL YSIS”); “anti-νex-cess” is hyphenated mid-word in the text.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Standard parameter accommodation of external SK fit plus self-cited formulas from prior work by same authors; no tautological reduction of the central claim.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [DARK MATTER RELIC DENSITY, Eq. (16); also HIGGS INVISIBLE DECAY and TWO- OR THREE-BODY DECAYS]
    "Following the derivation in Ref. [25], the thermally averaged cross section in the sθ ≪1 limit takes the approximate form ⟨σv⟩ ≃ λ²_ΦX / 16π m²_X (4−4r²_Z′ + 3r⁴_Z′) √(1−r²_Z′) / [(r²_H1 −4)² + r²_H1 γ²_H1 ]. … as obtained in our earlier work [25]"

    The numerical curves that demonstrate simultaneous relic-density + excess accommodation rest on ⟨σv⟩ and partial-width formulas imported wholesale from the authors’ own prior paper rather than re-derived; the present work supplies only the parameter scan. The self-citation is not a uniqueness theorem and the formulas are standard, so the circularity is minor and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper is a typical BSM phenomenology construction: it imports the preferred cascade-annihilation window (mX ≃ 44.4 MeV, Δ = 0.03, Javg⟨σv⟩ range) from the external analysis of Ref. [7], fixes those values, and then varies free parameters (λΦX, gX, sθ, mH1, QΦ) so that the relic-density formula and the B → K + invisible widths simultaneously hit their target numbers while obeying the Higgs invisible bound. This is ordinary fitting, not a claim that the excesses are predicted from first principles independent of the data. The only mild circularity-adjacent feature is heavy reuse of decay-width and ⟨σv⟩ expressions previously derived by the same authors in Ref. [25]; those expressions are not re-derived here, yet they are ordinary tree-level results that remain externally checkable and are not uniqueness theorems or self-definitional identities. No equation reduces to its own input by construction, no fitted quantity is renamed a prediction, and the existence of overlapping parameter space in Fig. 1 is a genuine (if unsurprising) output of the free parameters. Score 2 reflects only the non-load-bearing self-citation of technical formulas.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 4 axioms · 3 invented entities

The central claim rests on a handful of free parameters that are dialed to the two excesses and the relic density, on the standard thermal-freeze-out and oscillation-averaged flux formulae, and on three new dark-sector fields whose only independent handles are the very excesses they are introduced to explain.

free parameters (7)
  • mX = 44.4 MeV
    Fixed by hand to 44.4 MeV so that the cascade spectrum peaks near the SK excess window.
  • mZ′ (or Δ) = ≃43 MeV
    Set to ≃43 MeV (Δ=0.03) to match the preferred cascade-annihilation region of Ref. [7].
  • λΦX = O(0.1) and above
    Scanned to obtain the correct relic density via s-channel H1 exchange (Eq. (16)) while also controlling the three-body B-decay rate.
  • gX = 10^{-5}–4×10^{-4}
    Varied (10−5–4×10−4) to keep Z′ decays invisible and to satisfy relic density after the dark-Higgs resonance.
  • sθ = ≃5×10^{-3}
    Chosen ≲10−2 to satisfy the LHC invisible-Higgs bound while still generating the required B-decay rates.
  • QΦ = 1.9 or 2.5
    Discrete choices (1.9 and 2.5) that set the relation between mZ′ and υΦ and open the three-body Belle II channel.
  • mH1 = varied over ~10 MeV–few GeV
    Free continuous parameter scanned against λΦX to produce the relic-density curves of Fig. 1.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Thermal freeze-out formula Ω h^{2} ≃ 0.1 × (20 TeV)−2 / ⟨σv⟩ for symmetric complex scalar DM.
    Used without derivation in the DARK MATTER RELIC DENSITY section to convert the computed ⟨σv⟩ into the observed abundance.
  • domain assumption After galactic-baseline oscillations the μ/τ neutrino flux appears as electron flavor with fe ≃ 0.225.
    Taken from the PMNS-averaged probability (Eq. (13)) and used to convert the Z′ → νμ,τ flux into the SK ¯νe signal.
  • ad hoc to paper The SK excess is described by the cascade-annihilation window of Ref. [7] with Javg ⟨σv⟩ ∈ [2.0×10−25, 2.41×10−24] cm^{3} s−1.
    Imported as an external fit and used as a hard target for the model parameters; not re-derived from SK data inside the paper.
  • domain assumption Higgs invisible branching fraction B(H2 → Inv.) < 0.11 implies sθ ≲ 10−2 for the light dark sector.
    Taken from LHC measurements and used to restrict the scalar mixing angle throughout the numerical analysis.
invented entities (3)
  • complex scalar DM X with U(1)Lμ−Lτ charge QX=1 no independent evidence
    purpose: Provides the thermally produced dark-matter candidate whose annihilation yields the SK neutrino flux.
    No independent laboratory or astrophysical detection is claimed; its only evidence is the simultaneous fit to relic density and the two excesses.
  • dark Higgs Φ (and its CP-even mass eigenstate H1) no independent evidence
    purpose: Breaks U(1)Lμ−Lτ, generates mZ′, mediates both the s-channel annihilation and the B → K + invisible decays.
    Mass and portal couplings are free parameters adjusted to the data; no collider resonance or other external handle is provided.
  • dark photon Z′ of mass ≃43 MeV no independent evidence
    purpose: Intermediate state in DM annihilation that decays almost exclusively to neutrinos, producing the SK signal while evading CMB bounds.
    Mass fixed by the SK window; kinetic mixing is radiatively generated but kept tiny; no independent detection claimed.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 15502 in / 4036 out tokens · 33571 ms · 2026-07-12T04:07:38.806737+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent results from Super-Kamiokande and Belle II have revealed intriguing excesses over Standard Model expectations. Super-Kamiokande observes a mild excess of $\bar{\nu}_e^{}$-like events near $20\,\,\mathrm{MeV}$, while Belle II reports a branching fraction for $B^+ \!\to K^+\nu\bar{\nu}$ that exceeds the Standard Model prediction by approximately $2.7\sigma$. In this work, we study the simplest UV-complete complex scalar dark matter model with a gauged $\text{U}(1)_{\textsf{L}_\mu - \textsf{L}_\tau}^{}$ symmetry. We demonstrate that a light dark sector can simultaneously reproduce the observed dark matter relic density and accommodate both excesses within a unified framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.03206 by Jongkuk Kim, Pyungwon Ko, Shu-Yu Ho.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Viable parameter space in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 55 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Suzuki, Eur

    Y. Suzuki, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 298 (2019)

    2019

  2. [2]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1027, 166248 (2022), 2109.00360

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1065, 169480 (2024), 2403.07796

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    J. F. Beacom and M. R. Vagins, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 171101 (2004), hep-ph/0309300

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  5. [5]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. D104, 122002 (2021), 2109.11174

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Super-Kamiokande) (2025), 2511.02222

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Granelli, S

    A. Granelli, S. Pascoli, and S. Rosauro-Alcaraz (2026), 2605.20162

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    M. Endo, Y. Mura, and T. Tsuji (2026), 2605.28275

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Adachi et al

    I. Adachi et al. (Belle-II), Phys. Rev. D109, 112006 (2024), 2311.14647

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    W. G. Parrott, C. Bouchard, and C. T. H. Davies (HPQCD), Phys. Rev. D107, 014511 (2023), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 107, 119903 (2023)], 2207.13371

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    X. G. He, G. C. Joshi, H. Lew, and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D43, 22 (1991)

    1991

  12. [12]

    X.-G. He, G. C. Joshi, H. Lew, and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D44, 2118 (1991)

    1991

  13. [13]

    Silveira and A

    V. Silveira and A. Zee, Phys. Lett. B161, 136 (1985)

    1985

  14. [14]

    X.-G. He, T. Li, X.-Q. Li, J. Tandean, and H.-C. Tsai, Phys. Lett. B688, 332 (2010), 0912.4722

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  15. [15]

    He, S.-Y

    X.-G. He, S.-Y. Ho, J. Tandean, and H.-C. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D82, 035016 (2010), 1004.3464

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  16. [16]

    S. Baek, P. Ko, and W.-I. Park, JHEP07, 013 (2013), 1303.4280

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  17. [17]

    Ko, C.-T

    P. Ko, C.-T. Lu, and U. Min (2022), 2202.12648

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Escudero, D

    M. Escudero, D. Hooper, G. Krnjaic, and M. Pierre, JHEP03, 071 (2019), 1901.02010

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    Horiuchi, J

    S. Horiuchi, J. F. Beacom, and E. Dwek, Phys. Rev. D 79, 083013 (2009), 0812.3157

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  20. [20]

    Nakazato, E

    K. Nakazato, E. Mochida, Y. Niino, and H. Suzuki, As- trophys. J.804, 75 (2015), 1503.01236

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  21. [21]

    Kresse, T

    D. Kresse, T. Ertl, and H.-T. Janka, Astrophys. J.909, 169 (2021), 2010.04728

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Tabrizi and S

    Z. Tabrizi and S. Horiuchi, JCAP05, 011 (2021), 2011.10933

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Pakvasa, W

    S. Pakvasa, W. Rodejohann, and T. J. Weiler, JHEP02, 005 (2008), 0711.4517

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  24. [24]

    R. L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  25. [25]

    S.-Y. Ho, J. Kim, and P. Ko, Phys. Rev. D111, 055029 (2025), 2401.10112

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Ovchynnikov, M

    M. Ovchynnikov, M. A. Schmidt, and T. Schwetz, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 791 (2023), 2306.09508. 6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Griest and D

    K. Griest and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D43, 3191 (1991)

    1991

  28. [28]

    S. Baek, J. Kim, and P. Ko, JHEP01, 014 (2025), 2204.04889

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D93, 023527 (2016), 1506.03811

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    Chu and J

    X. Chu and J. Pradler, Phys. Rev. D109, 103510 (2024), 2310.06611

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Athron, R

    P. Athron, R. Martinez, and C. Sierra, JHEP02, 121 (2024), 2308.13426

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Bause, H

    R. Bause, H. Gisbert, and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D109, 015006 (2024), 2309.00075

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Allwicher, D

    L. Allwicher, D. Becirevic, G. Piazza, S. Rosauro- Alcaraz, and O. Sumensari, Phys. Lett. B848, 138411 (2024), 2309.02246

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    He, X.-D

    X.-G. He, X.-D. Ma, and G. Valencia, Phys. Rev. D109, 075019 (2024), 2309.12741

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Hou, X.-Q

    B.-F. Hou, X.-Q. Li, M. Shen, Y.-D. Yang, and X.-B. Yuan, JHEP06, 172 (2024), 2402.19208

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Berezhnoy and D

    A. Berezhnoy and D. Melikhov, EPL145, 14001 (2024), 2309.17191

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Datta, D

    A. Datta, D. Marfatia, and L. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. D 109, L031701 (2024), 2310.15136

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Altmannshofer, A

    W. Altmannshofer, A. Crivellin, H. Haigh, G. Inguglia, and J. Martin Camalich, Phys. Rev. D109, 075008 (2024), 2311.14629

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    McKeen, J

    D. McKeen, J. N. Ng, and D. Tuckler, Phys. Rev. D109, 075006 (2024), 2312.00982

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Fridell, M

    K. Fridell, M. Ghosh, T. Okui, and K. Tobioka, Phys. Rev. D109, 115006 (2024), 2312.12507

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Cheung, Y

    K. Cheung, Y. Kim, Y. Kwon, C. J. Ouseph, A. Soffer, and Z. S. Wang, JHEP05, 094 (2024), 2401.03168

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Gabrielli, L

    E. Gabrielli, L. Marzola, K. M¨ u¨ ursepp, and M. Raidal, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 460 (2024), 2402.05901

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Berezhnoy, W

    A. Berezhnoy, W. Lucha, and D. Melikhov, Eur. Phys. J. Plus141, 495 (2026), 2507.10801

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    Hu and Z.-B

    Q.-Y. Hu and Z.-B. Duan, Phys. Rev. D112, 095007 (2025), 2510.05272

    arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Felkl, A

    T. Felkl, A. Giri, R. Mohanta, and M. A. Schmidt, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 1135 (2023), 2309.02940

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    Z. S. Wang, H. K. Dreiner, and J. Y. G¨ unther, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 66 (2025), 2309.03727

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    He, X.-D

    X.-G. He, X.-D. Ma, M. A. Schmidt, G. Valencia, and R. R. Volkas, JHEP07, 168 (2024), 2403.12485

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    P. D. Bolton, S. Fajfer, J. F. Kamenik, and M. Novoa- Brunet, Phys. Rev. D110, 055001 (2024), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 111, 039903 (2025)], 2403.13887

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Rosauro-Alcaraz and L

    S. Rosauro-Alcaraz and L. P. S. Leal, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 795 (2024), 2404.17440

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    C. S. Kim, D. Sahoo, and K. N. Vishnudath, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 882 (2024), 2405.17341

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    C. Hati, J. Leite, N. Nath, and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D111, 015038 (2025), 2408.00060

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    A. J. Buras, J. Harz, and M. A. Mojahed, JHEP10, 087 (2024), 2405.06742

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Altmannshofer and S

    W. Altmannshofer and S. Roy, Phys. Rev. D111, 075029 (2025), 2411.06592

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Q.-Y. Hu, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 556 (2025), 2412.19084

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Altmannshofer, S

    W. Altmannshofer, S. A. Gadam, and K. Toner, Phys. Rev. D111, 075005 (2025), 2501.10652

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Calibbi, T

    L. Calibbi, T. Li, L. Mukherjee, and M. A. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D112, 075020 (2025), 2502.04900

    arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Lee (2025), 2502.06370

    J.-P. Lee (2025), 2502.06370

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    He, X.-D

    X.-G. He, X.-D. Ma, J. Tandean, and G. Valencia, JHEP 07, 078 (2025), 2502.09603

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Berezhnoy, W

    A. Berezhnoy, W. Lucha, and D. Melikhov, Phys. Rev. D111, 075035 (2025), 2502.14313

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    P. D. Bolton, S. Fajfer, J. F. Kamenik, and M. Novoa- Brunet, Phys. Rev. D112, 035010 (2025), 2503.19025

    arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    T. M. Aliev, A. Elpe, L. Selbuz, and I. Turan, Phys. Rev. D112, 015025 (2025), 2503.22347

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Chen, C.-W

    C.-H. Chen, C.-W. Chiang, and L. M. G. de la Vega, JHEP09, 055 (2025), 2503.22431

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    K. Ding, Y. Li, X. Liu, Y. Liu, C.-T. Lu, and B. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D112, 115034 (2025), 2504.00383

    arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    He, X.-D

    X.-G. He, X.-D. Ma, J. Tandean, and G. Valencia, Phys. Rev. D112, 055025 (2025), 2505.02031

    arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Nardecchia, and C. Toni, Phys. Rev. D 112, 055031 (2025), 2505.11499

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Shaw, Phys

    A. Shaw, Phys. Rev. D113, 095027 (2026), 2509.20027

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    Berezhnoy, W

    A. Berezhnoy, W. Lucha, and D. Melikhov, Universe11, 385 (2025), 2509.23210

    arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    Lee (2025), 2509.26370

    J.-P. Lee (2025), 2509.26370

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Kim and P

    J. Kim and P. Ko, Phys. Rev. D113, 075023 (2026), 2511.20430

    arXiv 2026

  70. [70]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  71. [71]

    W. G. Parrott, C. Bouchard, and C. T. H. Davies ((HPQCD collaboration)§, HPQCD), Phys. Rev. D107, 014510 (2023), 2207.12468

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023