Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

New Physics effects with right-handed neutrinos in semileptonic decay $B_c^+ \to B_s \mu^+ \nu_{\mu}$

T0 review · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Right-handed neutrino operators constrained by charm data are predicted to shift the lepton polarization asymmetry and convexity in B_c -> B_s mu nu away from the Standard Model, offering a way to distinguish new physics scenarios.

arxiv 2411.07987 v2 pith:YFJG4JLF submitted 2024-11-12 hep-ph

Priyanka Boora , Dinesh Kumar , Kavita Lalwani This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords physicsexperimentalobservablesasymmetrydecayeffectsmodelneutrinos
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 decay B_c+ -> B_s mu+ nu_mu is a semileptonic process driven by the charm quark turning into a strange quark. It is rare but measurable at hadron colliders. The authors ask whether a simple extension of the Standard Model, adding right-handed neutrinos, could change the decay's measurable patterns. They write down the most general set of low-energy operators for this transition and then use existing measurements of similar charm decays, such as D_s -> mu nu and D -> K mu nu, to constrain the strength of the new operators. With those constraints they compute four observables: the differential branching fraction, the forward-backward asymmetry, the lepton polarization asymmetry, and the convexity parameter.

The paper examines ten different new physics scenarios, each corresponding to a different heavy mediator that could generate the operators. In most scenarios, the lepton polarization asymmetry shows the largest deviation from the Standard Model, and in several cases the location of its zero crossing shifts. The differential branching fraction and forward-backward asymmetry are less sensitive.

The main caveat is that the new physics parameters are not tightly constrained: several fits use as many parameters as data points, and the quoted uncertainties are large. The prediction bands shown in the figures do not include those parameter uncertainties, only the form-factor uncertainties. If the parameter errors are propagated, the deviations may shrink. The authors acknowledge this and say it is premature to make definitive statements. The value of the paper is that it provides concrete, testable predictions for a decay that LHCb may measure after its upgrade.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that, after constraining the Wilson coefficients of right-handed neutrino operators with existing c -> s mu nu data, several observables in B_c+ -> B_s mu+ nu_mu, especially the lepton polarization asymmetry A_lambda_mu and convexity A_pi/3, deviate significantly from the Standard Model and can disentangle different new physics scenarios. Concretely, Table XII marks A_lambda_mu as sensitive in nine of ten scenarios, with zero-crossing shifts reported for scenarios 1, 2, 4a, 4b, 6, 7a and 7b. If correct, future measurements of this decay could distinguish among vector, scalar and leptoquark mediators.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions rest on the assumption that the best-fit values of the NP Wilson coefficients are meaningful representatives of the allowed parameter space. The six WCs in Scenario 1 are fit to only six total branching ratios (Table I), producing errors as large as C_V^LR = -0.367 ± 0.380, C_V^RR = 0.283 ± 3.088 (Scenario 5b), and strong correlations (Tables IV-XI). The plotted NP bands include only form-factor uncertainties and not these WC uncertainties, so the claimed deviations could disappear once WC errors are propagated. A structurally separate premise is the massless right-handed neutrino assumption (Sec. II), which removes left-right interference terms; a massive RHN would change the angular distributions.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis does not introduce new particles; the RHN and the mediator scenarios come from the existing literature (refs [25-37]). The central predictions are controlled by the NP Wilson coefficients, which are underconstrained by the six fitted observables, and by the massless-RHN assumption that removes chirality-interference terms.

free parameters (9)
  • C_V^LL = -0.066 ± 0.141 (Scenario 1); -0.092 ± 0.208 (Scenario 7b)
    Fitted to charm leptonic and semileptonic branching ratios; poorly constrained in several scenarios.
  • C_V^LR = -0.367 ± 0.380 (Scenario 1); -0.193 ± 0.207 (Scenario 2)
    Fitted to charm data; large uncertainty in the general RHN scenarios.
  • C_V^RR = 0.116 ± 0.119 (S1); -0.166 ± 0.077 (S3); 0.283 ± 3.088 (S5b)
    Appears in most scenarios; uncertainty reaches very large values in Scenario 5b.
  • C_S^LL = -0.100 ± 0.007 (S4b)
    Fitted only in Scenario 4b, where it is tightly constrained.
  • C_S^RL = -0.099 ± 0.007 (S4b); -0.069 ± 0.023 (S5b)
    Fitted in scalar and leptoquark scenarios.
  • C_S^LR = -0.097 ± 0.017 (S1); -0.029 ± 0.128 (S4a); -0.006 ± 0.003 (S8)
    Fitted in several scenarios; the value shifts depending on the operator set.
  • C_S^RR = -0.094 ± 0.017 (S1); -0.035 ± 0.128 (S4a)
    Fitted in RHN and scalar scenarios.
  • C_T^LL = -0.026 ± 0.092 (S7b)
    Fitted only in the S1 leptoquark scenario with LHN interactions.
  • C_T^RR = 0.017 ± 0.332 (S1); -0.070 ± 0.032 (S6); -0.067 ± 0.039 (S7a)
    Fitted in tensor/scalar leptoquark scenarios; uncertainty varies strongly.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The low-energy NP is described by the dimension-six operator basis in Eq. (1) with no higher-dimensional contributions.
    Standard EFT assumption; stated in Sec. II.
  • domain assumption Right-handed neutrinos are massless, so left- and right-chirality amplitudes do not interfere.
    Sec. II: 'we consider the massless right-handed neutrinos... With massless neutrino, two different neutrino chiralities will not interfere in the decay probabilities.' This removes interference terms from all rate formulas.
  • domain assumption The B_c -> B_s form factors f+, f0, fT from HPQCD lattice QCD (ref [54]) are accurate over the full q2 range, using the z-expansion coefficients in Table XIII.
    Sec. V and Table XIII.
  • domain assumption The Fierz relations C_S = 4r C_T with r ~ 2 at the b-quark scale (from ref [37]) relate scalar and tensor operators in scenarios 6, 7a and 7b.
    Footnotes in Sec. VI H and I.
  • domain assumption The same hadronic form factors apply to right-handed neutrino operators as to left-handed ones because the hadronic current is unchanged.
    Sec. II: 'the same form factors can be used in the decay amplitude as used for the case of LHN operators'.
  • standard math Experimental branching fractions in Table I are treated as Gaussian measurements with quoted errors.
    Standard statistical treatment, Sec. IV.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New Physics effects with right-handed neutrinos in semileptonic decay $B_c^+ \to B_s \mu^+ \nu_{\mu}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YFJG4JLF

@misc{pith2026241107987,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New Physics effects with right-handed neutrinos in semileptonic decay $B_c^+ \to B_s \mu^+ \nu_\mu$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YFJG4JLF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.07987}
}
abstract

We extend the Standard Model with the general effective Hamiltonian for the quark level transition $c \to s \ell \nu$ with a complete set of four fermion operators including right-handed neutrinos. The current experimental measurements in charm decays are compatible with the Standard Model predictions and are used to constrain the new physics. With the available experimental data, we fit a $\chi^2$ function to get the best-fit values of the NP WCs. We investigate the impact of allowed new physics in the observables such as differential branching fraction, forward-backward asymmetry, lepton polarization asymmetry, and convexity parameter in the semileptonic decay $B_c^+ \to B_s \mu^+ \nu_{\mu}$. The different types of new physics scenarios have significant effects on these considered observables. The future experimental information of these observables can help to disentangle the structure of new physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.07987 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The effects of polarization on the observables in the decay $\Xi_{cc}^{++} \rightarrow \Xi_{c}^{+} \bar{\ell}\nu_{\ell}$

    hep-ph 2026-03 accept novelty 5.5 of 10

    Polarization of the parent baryon, daughter baryon, and muon strongly reshapes branching ratios, forward-backward asymmetries, and newly defined polarization ratios in Ξ_cc++ → Ξ_c+ ℓ ν, while the μ/e LFU ratio stays ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    D → P µ+νµ We consider the semileptonic decays D → Pµ +νµ, where D are the D0,D+ mesons and P denotes the pseu- doscalar K − and ¯K 0 mesons respectively[ 43]. The dif- ferential branching fraction, including right-handed neu- trinos, is given by dB dq2 (D →Pµ +νµ) = G2 FV 2 cs 192m3 Dπ3q2√ λP (q2) ( 1 − m2 µ q2 )2 τD × {( ⏐ ⏐1 +CV LL +CV RL ⏐ ⏐2 + ⏐ ⏐CV ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    D → V µ+νµ We continue to constrain the new physics operators further by considering semileptonic D → V decays, where D are D0, D+ and D+ s mesons and V are the K ∗−, ¯K ∗0 and φ mesons [ 43, 46]. The differential branching fraction for this semileptonic decay with right-handed neutrinos can be given by: dB dq2 (D →Vµ +νµ) = G2 FV 2 cs 192m3 Dπ3q2√ λV (q2)...

    work page 1968

  3. [3]

    However, the differential branching frac- tion and forward-backward asymmetry do not show any significant deviation from the SM

    The lepton polarization asymmetry is the most sensitive observable with a zero crossing symmetry at q2 ∼ 0.18 GeV 2 and on the other hand NP convexity is deviating from SM for q2 > 0.35 GeV 2 values. However, the differential branching frac- tion and forward-backward asymmetry do not show any significant deviation from the SM. 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0....

    work page

  4. [4]

    The lepton polarization asymmetry and convexity parameters give a large deviation from the SM almost for the full q2 region

    The fit value for this scenario are as follows: CT RR = −0.070 ± 0.032 (15) For this scenario as shown in figure 8, the differential branching fraction provides a deviation from SM above q2 ∼ 0.2 GeV 2. The lepton polarization asymmetry and convexity parameters give a large deviation from the SM almost for the full q2 region. The zero crossing for lepton pol...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Scenario 4a × × ✓ × 4b × ✓ ✓ ✓

    work page

  6. [6]

    Scenario 5a × × ✓ × 5b × ✓ ✓ ✓

    work page

  7. [7]

    Scenario 7a ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 7b ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

    work page

  8. [8]

    In our numerical analysis, we work in the general effective field theory considering low energy effective Hamiltonian for c → sµ+νµ with right-handed neutrino

    Scenario 8 × × ✓ × asymmetry, lepton polarization asymmetry, and convex- ity parameter in the decay B+ c →Bsµ+νµ which is gov- erned by the quark level transition c →sℓν. In our numerical analysis, we work in the general effective field theory considering low energy effective Hamiltonian for c → sµ+νµ with right-handed neutrino. We con- strained the allowed ...

    work page 2021

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    D → P The hadronic helicity amplitudes following from [ 55] are given by HP V,0(q2) = √ λP (q2) q2 f+(q2), HP V,s(q2) = m2 D −m2 P √ q2 f0(q2), HP S,s(q2) = m2 D −m2 P mc −ms f0(q2), HP T (q2) = − √ λP (q2) mD +mP fT (q2), HP P,s(q2) = 0, H P V,±(q2) = 0 (B1) For form factor i...

  2. [10]

    D → V The Hadronic helicity amplitude for D →V decays is defined as follows [ 55]. HV V,± = (mD +mV )A1(q2) ∓ √ λV (q2) (mD +mV )V (q2) HV V,0 = (mD +mV ) 2mV √ q2 [−(m2 D −m2 V −q2)A1(q2) + √ λV (q2) (mD +mV )2A2(q2)], HV V,t = √ λV (q2) q2 A0(q2), HV P = − √ λV (q2) mc +ms A0...

  3. [11]

    https://hflav-eos.web.cern.ch/hflav eos/semi/moriond24/html/RDsDsstar/RDRDs.html,

  4. [12]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 121801 (2018) , arXiv:1711.05623 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A. Y. Anisimov, I. M. Narodetsky, C. Semay, and B. Silvestre-Brac, Phys. Lett. B 452, 129 (1999) , arXiv:hep-ph/9812514

    1999 arXiv

  6. [14]

    M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Korner, and P. Santorelli, Phys. Rev. D 73, 054024 (2006) , arXiv:hep-ph/0602050

    2006 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Hernandez, J

    E. Hernandez, J. Nieves, and J. M. Verde-Velasco, Phys. Rev. D 74, 074008 (2006) , arXiv:hep-ph/0607150

    2006 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Huang and F

    T. Huang and F. Zuo, Eur. Phys. J. C 51, 833 (2007) , arXiv:hep-ph/0702147

    2007 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Wang, Y.-L

    W. Wang, Y.-L. Shen, and C.- D. Lu, Phys. Rev. D 79, 054012 (2009) , 14 arXiv:0811.3748 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Wang, Y.-Y

    W.-F. Wang, Y.-Y. Fan, and Z.-J. Xiao, Chin. Phys. C 37, 093102 (2013) , arXiv:1212.5903 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Watanabe, Phys

    R. Watanabe, Phys. Lett. B 776, 5 (2018) , arXiv:1709.08644 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Issadykov and M

    A. Issadykov and M. A. Ivanov, Phys. Lett. B 783, 178 (2018) , arXiv:1804.00472 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    C.-T. Tran, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. K¨ orner, and P. Santorelli, Phys. Rev. D 97, 054014 (2018) , arXiv:1801.06927 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hu, X.-Q

    Q.-Y. Hu, X.-Q. Li, and Y.-D. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 264 (2019) , arXiv:1810.04939 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Wang and R

    W. Wang and R. Zhu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 34, 1950195 (2019) , arXiv:1808.10830 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Hu, S.-P

    X.-Q. Hu, S.-P. Jin, and Z.-J. Xiao, Chin. Phys. C 44, 023104 (2020) , arXiv:1904.07530 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Leljak, B

    D. Leljak, B. Melic, and M. Patra, JHEP 05, 094 , arXiv:1901.08368 [hep-ph]

    1901 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Azizi, Y

    K. Azizi, Y. Sarac, and H. Sundu, Phys. Rev. D 99, 113004 (2019) , arXiv:1904.08267 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    M. Y. Khlopov, SOVIET JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS-USSR 28, 583 (1978)

    1978

  20. [28]

    Gershtein and M

    S. Gershtein and M. Y. Khlopov, JETP Lett 23, 338 (1976)

    1976

  21. [29]

    Abe et al

    F. Abe et al. (CDF), Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2432 (1998) , arXiv:hep-ex/9805034

    1998 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Elahi, G

    F. Elahi, G. Elor, and R. McGe- hee, Phys. Rev. D 105, 055024 (2022) , arXiv:2109.09751 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Elor and R

    G. Elor and R. McGehee, Phys. Rev. D 103, 035005 (2021) , arXiv:2011.06115 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Colangelo, G

    P. Colangelo, G. Nardulli, and N. Paver, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik C Particles and Fields 57, 43 (1993)

    1993

  25. [33]

    Beneke and G

    M. Beneke and G. Buchalla, Phys. Rev. D 53, 4991 (1996) , arXiv:hep-ph/9601249

    1996 arXiv

  26. [34]

    V. V. Kiselev, A. E. Kovalsky, and A. K. Likhoded, Nucl. Phys. B 585, 353 (2000) , arXiv:hep-ph/0002127

    2000 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Beltr´ an, G

    R. Beltr´ an, G. Cottin, J. C. Helo, M. Hirsch, A. Titov, and Z. S. Wang, JHEP 01, 015 , arXiv:2210.02461 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Ligeti, M

    Z. Ligeti, M. Papucci, and D. J. Robinson, JHEP 01, 083 , arXiv:1610.02045 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Asadi, M

    P. Asadi, M. R. Buckley, and D. Shih, JHEP 09, 010 , arXiv:1804.04135 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Greljo, D

    A. Greljo, D. J. Robinson, B. Shakya, and J. Zupan, JHEP 09, 169 , arXiv:1804.04642 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    D. J. Robinson, B. Shakya, and J. Zupan, JHEP 02, 119 , arXiv:1807.04753 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Azatov, D

    A. Azatov, D. Barducci, D. Ghosh, D. Marzocca, and L. Ubaldi, JHEP 10, 092 , arXiv:1807.10745 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    K. S. Babu, B. Dutta, and R. N. Mohapatra, JHEP 01, 168 , arXiv:1811.04496 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Heeck and D

    J. Heeck and D. Teresi, JHEP 12, 103 , arXiv:1808.07492 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Asadi, M

    P. Asadi, M. R. Buckley, and D. Shih, Phys. Rev. D 99, 035015 (2019) , arXiv:1810.06597 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Bardhan and D

    D. Bardhan and D. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. D 100, 011701 (2019) , arXiv:1904.10432 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Shi, L.-S

    R.-X. Shi, L.-S. Geng, B. Grinstein, S. J¨ ager, and J. Mar- tin Camalich, JHEP 12, 065 , arXiv:1905.08498 [hep-ph]

    1905 arXiv

  38. [46]

    J. D. G´ omez, N. Quintero, and E. Ro- jas, Phys. Rev. D 100, 093003 (2019) , arXiv:1907.08357 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Mandal, C

    R. Mandal, C. Murgui, A. Pe˜ nuelas, and A. Pich, JHEP 08 (08), 022, arXiv:2004.06726 [hep-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Colangelo, F

    P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, and F. Loparco, Phys. Rev. D 103, 075019 (2021) , arXiv:2102.05365 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Penalva, E

    N. Penalva, E. Hern´ andez, and J. Nieves,JHEP 10, 122 , arXiv:2107.13406 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Datta, H

    A. Datta, H. Liu, and D. Marfa- tia, Phys. Rev. D 106, L011702 (2022) , arXiv:2204.01818 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Alvarado, L

    F. Alvarado, L. Alvarez-Ruso, E. Hernandez, J. Nieves, and N. Penalva, (2024), arXiv:2407.09325 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Y. Aoki, T. Blum, G. Colangelo, S. Collins, M. D. Morte, P. Dimopoulos, S. D¨ urr, X. Feng, H. Fukaya, M. Golter- man, et al. , The European Physical Journal C 82, 869 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Fleischer, R

    R. Fleischer, R. Jaarsma, and G. Koole, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 153 (2020) , arXiv:1912.08641 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Lubicz, L

    V. Lubicz, L. Riggio, G. Salerno, S. Simula, and C. Tarantino (ETM), Phys. Rev. D 96, 054514 (2017) , [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 99, 099902 (2019), Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 100, 079901 (2019)], arXiv:1706.03017 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Lubicz, L

    V. Lubicz, L. Riggio, G. Salerno, S. Simula, and C. Tarantino (ETM), Phys. Rev. D 98, 014516 (2018) , arXiv:1803.04807 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Leng, X.-L

    X. Leng, X.-L. Mu, Z.-T. Zou, and Y. Li, Chin. Phys. C 45, 063107 (2021) , arXiv:2011.01061 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Y.-L. Wu, M. Zhong, and Y.-B. Zuo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 21, 6125 (2006) , arXiv:hep-ph/0604007

    2006 arXiv

  50. [58]

    K. C. Bowler, N. Hazel, H. Hoeber, R. D. Kenway, D. Richards, L. Lellouch, J. Nieves, C. T. Sachrajda, and H. Wittig, Physical Review D 51, 4905 (1995)

    1995

  51. [59]

    P. D. Group, P. Zyla, R. Barnett, J. Beringer, O. Dahl, D. Dwyer, D. Groom, C.-J. Lin, K. Lugovsky, E. Pianori, et al. , Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2020, 083C01 (2020)

    2020

  52. [60]

    James and M

    F. James and M. Roos, Comput. Phys. Commun. 10, 343 (1975)

    1975

  53. [61]

    James, MINUIT: function minimization and error analysis reference manual , Tech

    F. James, MINUIT: function minimization and error analysis reference manual , Tech. Rep. (CERN, 1998)

    1998

  54. [62]

    Beˇ cirevi´ c, M

    D. Beˇ cirevi´ c, M. Fedele, I. Niˇ sandˇ zi´ c, and A. Tay- duganov, (2019), arXiv:1907.02257 [hep-ph] . 15

    2019 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Beˇ cirevi´ c, F

    D. Beˇ cirevi´ c, F. Jaffredo, A. Pe˜ nuelas, and O. Sumensari, JHEP 05, 175 , arXiv:2012.09872 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  56. [64]

    L. J. Cooper, C. T. H. Davies, J. Harri- son, J. Komijani, and M. Wingate (HPQCD), Phys. Rev. D 102, 014513 (2020) , [Erra- tum: Phys.Rev.D 103, 099901 (2021)], arXiv:2003.00914 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Sakaki, M

    Y. Sakaki, M. Tanaka, A. Tayduganov, and R. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. D 88, 094012 (2013) , arXiv:1309.0301 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.