Flavor Changing Effects in Theories with a Heavy Z' Boson with Family Non-Universal Couplings

Michael Plumacher; Paul Langacker

REVIEW

Flavor Changing Effects in Theories with a Heavy Z' Boson with Family Non-Universal Couplings

Paul Langacker, Michael Plumacher

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 19 Jan 2000 · 40 references

Pith's verdict: A solid, useful formalism paper whose lepton-sector verdicts are robust and whose quark-sector verdicts are not, and it never separates the two.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on October 29, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 2 major objections · 7 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/0001204 (version 2)

Pith IDSDAEZTNL, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationMichael Plumacher, Paul Langacker. "Flavor Changing Effects in Theories with a Heavy Z' Boson with Family Non-Universal Couplings." arXiv:hep-ph/0001204 (2000). https://pith.science/paper/SDAEZTNL

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

This one is worth your time if you work on Z' couplings or on flavor bounds on new neutral currents. The core of it is Section 2 and Section 3: a clean extension of the Durkin-Langacker effective Lagrangian to flavor non-diagonal Z' couplings, with Z-Z' mixing carried through properly, and then a systematic set of rate formulas — lepton decays, radiative decays, leptonic and semileptonic meson decays, mass splittings, epsilon, epsilon'/epsilon. That compilation is the durable part. I have already had reason to look up the epsilon'/epsilon expression (Eq. 47) and the mu-e conversion branching fraction (Eq. 22), and they are stated in a form you can actually use. The three benchmark charge assignments, including the string-model charges in Table 3, are concrete enough to check against, and the qualitative conclusion — that a TeV-scale Z' with all three families carrying different charges is dead, and that first-two-family universality is essentially forced — is a real result, not a slogan. The paper is also honest: Section 5 says outright that the quark-sector effects could be eliminated if the CKM mixing lived entirely in the u-sector. That is the sentence that matters most, and it is in the paper, not something a referee had to extract. On the stress-test note: it holds up. The mu-e conversion prediction sits about 10^6 above SINDRUM-II, so it survives almost any plausible rescaling of the 12 lepton mixing. The B-B (x7), Bs-Bs (x40) and epsilon (x20) numbers do not — they are a factor of a few from the bound, so an O(1) change in the unknown d-sector mixing moves them across it. The paper never says this, and the abstract's 'orders of magnitude' language (abstract:s5) reads as if it covers all of them. That is the one thing I would push on: a short table giving, per process, the scaling with the relevant mixing element would make the robustness hierarchy explicit and would strengthen rather than weaken the argument. Minor: Eq. 52 is dimensionally inconsistent — the first bound is linear in B, the second quadratic, so one of them is missing a square. The reader's circularity worry about the fitted charges in the third benchmark is misplaced; the fit uses electroweak data, not the flavor data being compared against. Send it out. It is a reference paper, and the referee should ask for the robustness table.

Referee report

Significance

The paper's lasting value is the formalism rather than any single number. Equations (9)-(18) give a compact, reusable dictionary from Z' charges and mixing angles to the coefficients of the four-fermion operators, and Eqs. (19)-(47) supply explicit rate formulas for a wide menu of channels that subsequent work could apply without rederiving. The three charge assignments in Table 3 are a useful, concrete benchmark set, and the predictions are falsifiable in the straightforward sense: coherent mu-e conversion, mu -> 3e, and rare K decays are named with the experiments (SINDRUM-II, MEGA, KTeV, BNL E871) that test them. The authors are also candid that the unknown fermion mixing matrices make the numbers model dependent, stating this in the abstract (abstract:s4) and again in Section 5. That candor is a strength, but it also sets the agenda for the comments below: the paper does not tell the reader how much of its quantitative verdict survives a change in the mixing ansatz.

Major objections (2)

[Section 4, first paragraph; Section 5; Eqs. (54)-(56)] The numerical verdicts in Section 4 are all computed under the single ansatz that the fermion mixing matrices equal the CKM matrix, and the paper does not state how each verdict scales with the relevant mixing element. This matters because the verdicts fall into two clearly different classes. The coherent mu-e conversion rate exceeds the SINDRUM-II bound of Eq. (48) by about six orders of magnitude, so it survives even a very large reduction of the 12 lepton mixing; that conclusion is robust. By contrast, the B-B and Bs-Bs mass-difference predictions exceed the bounds of Eqs. (54)-(55) by factors of about 7 and 40, and epsilon_K by about 20, so a reduction of the relevant d-quark mixing elements by factors of only a few would bring them below the experimental limits. Since Section 5 itself notes that these effects 'could be eliminated' if the CKM mixing resided entirely in the u-quark sector (V_dL = V_dR = 1), the reader needs the intermediate information: for each observable, the power of the mixing element that enters and the factor by which that element would have to shrink. Without it, the 'orders of magnitude above the experimental limits' language of Section 4 reads as if it applied uniformly, when in fact it drives the lepton-sector verdicts and not the quark-sector ones on which the 'first two families must be universal' conclusion chiefly rests. A short table listing, per observable, the scaling with the mixing element and the factor by which the prediction exceeds the bound would resolve this at modest cost.
[Section 3.7 and Section 4] The bounds collected in Section 3.7 are derived from the Z-Z' mixing contributions alone, and are quoted in the forms w^2(|B^lL12|^2 + |B^lR12|^2) < 4 x 10^-14 (Eq. 48), y|Re[(B^dR,L12)^2]| < 10^-8 (Eq. 54), and so on. Section 4 then compares the full predictions, which include the pure Z' terms, to these same experimental limits, noting only that the pure Z' contributions 'are of the same order as mixing contributions in the models considered.' As a result, the factors of 7, 40, and 20 quoted in Section 4 cannot be reconstructed from the numbers printed in Section 3.7, and the reader cannot tell which term in Eqs. (12)-(15) dominates each verdict. For the coherent mu-e conversion rate of Eq. (22) in particular, the second term involves the diagonal quark couplings B^u_{11} and B^d_{11}, which are not suppressed by small mixing in the universal-first-two-family models and may well dominate over the w term; the text should say so explicitly. Please state, for each benchmark and each observable, which combination of the w, y, and rho_eff terms is being compared against which experimental number.

Minor objections (7)

[Eq. (52)] The first relation in Eq. (52) is linear in the flavor-changing coupling, w^2|Re B^dR12 - Re B^dL12| < 3 x 10^-11, whereas the second is quadratic, w^2|Im B^dR12 + Im B^dL12|^2 < 5 x 10^-11. Please check whether a square is missing from the first relation, since the two bounds otherwise have different dimensions in the coupling and cannot both follow directly from a rate.
[Eqs. (54)-(56)] The notation B^{dR,L}_{12} and B^{uR,L}_{12} is ambiguous: it is not stated whether the symbol denotes B_R, B_L, or some symmetrized combination of the two, and the bounds are written as if a single object were involved. Please define the symbol once, or write the bounds separately for the L and R couplings.
[Eq. (41) and Appendix A] The mass-splitting formula of Eq. (41) and the K -> pi pi matrix elements of Appendix A rely on the vacuum insertion approximation. Given that the B-B and Bs-Bs verdicts in Section 4 are only factors of 7 and 40 above the measured splittings, the expected accuracy of these matrix elements (for example the deviation of B_K and the B-meson bag parameters from unity) is relevant to how seriously those factors should be taken. A sentence quantifying this, or stating that it does not affect the conclusions, would help.
[Table 3, EW fit model] The charges in the third benchmark are taken from a fit to precision electroweak data that assumes universality of the first two generations as input. That benchmark therefore functions as a consistency check on the framework rather than as an independent test of the paper's central conclusion, and the text should say so, since the conclusion that the first two families must be universal is supported by the string-model variants rather than by this entry.
[Table 3] The EW-fit charges are quoted to three significant figures (for example +848 and -204) without uncertainties, while the derived rates are presented only as order-of-magnitude factors. Either quote the fit errors or round the charges, so that the precision of the input matches the precision of the output.
[Section 3.7] The confidence levels of the quoted bounds are not stated uniformly; the bound on the Bs-Bs mass difference is given at 95% C.L. in the footnote, while the others are quoted without a level. Please state the confidence level for each bound in Section 3.7.
[Section 4, lepton-sector discussion] The statement that the predicted rates are 'six orders of magnitude above the experimental limits' for coherent mu-e conversion should name the experiment and equation at the point of the claim (SINDRUM-II, Eq. 48), as is done elsewhere in the section, so that the comparison is unambiguous.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

A TeV-scale Z' with different charges per family is ruled out by flavor data unless the first two families match.

The reading

The paper asks what happens to a heavy extra neutral gauge boson, a $Z'$, when its charges are not the same for all three fermion families. Even if the charges are diagonal in the gauge basis, rotating to the mass basis turns them into off-diagonal couplings, and $Z$–$Z'$ mixing then contaminates the ordinary $Z$ as well. The authors write down the general low-energy four-fermion Lagrangian for these effects and translate a long list of flavor-changing and CP-violating observables — coherent $mu$–$e$ conversion in a muonic atom, $mu to 3e$, $mu to e gamma$, meson mass splittings, $epsilon$, $epsilon'/epsilon$, rare $K$ and $B$ decays — into constraints on the off-diagonal couplings. They then evaluate three concrete charge assignments, one from a heterotic string construction and one from a fit to precision electroweak data, at $M_{Z'} = 1$ TeV. The conclusion is that a $Z'$ whose three families all carry different charges produces rates orders of magnitude above experiment, and that even the milder case, where only the third family differs, is squeezed by $B$–$bar B$ mixing and CP violation in the kaon system.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the rotated coupling matrix $B_{psi L,ij} = (V_{psi L}, epsilon^{(2)}_{psi L}, V_{psi L}^dagger)_{ij}$, together with its right-handed analog, inserted into the effective Lagrangian of eq. (10). This matrix is what converts a statement about gauge charges into a statement about physical flavor violation, and every bound in the paper is a bound on some product of its entries. The companion machinery is the $Z$–$Z'$ mixing parametrization through $w$ and $y$ in eqs. (16)–(18), which controls how much of the $Z'$ current leaks into the ordinary $Z$ and therefore how tightly the precisely measured $Z$ couplings constrain the new sector. For the loop-induced and CP-violating observables the authors further need the hadronic matrix elements of the four-fermion operators, taken from the vacuum insertion approximation and from chiral perturbation theory in the large-$N_c$ limit, as collected in Appendix A.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that family non-universality in $Z'$ charges is not a harmless decoration: once quark and lepton mixing are accounted for, it generates flavor-changing neutral currents that are already excluded at the TeV scale. The mechanism is a two-step rotation. Charges diagonal but unequal in the gauge basis become non-diagonal matrices $B_{psi L} = V_{psi L}, epsilon^{(2)}_{psi L}, V_{psi L}^dagger$ (and likewise for right-handed fields) in the mass basis, where $V_{psi L}$ are the unknown unitary matrices that diagonalize the fermion Yukawa matrices. A second contribution comes from $Z$–$Z'$ mixing angle $theta$, which lets the ordinary $Z$ carry the $Z'$ current with a coefficient $w propto (g_2/g_1) sin theta cos theta (rho_1 - rho_2)$. The authors assemble these into a general effective Lagrangian with coefficients $C$, $tilde C$, $D$, $tilde D$ and give explicit formulas for each observable, including the hadronic matrix elements needed for $K to pi pi$ in the large-$N_c$ chiral perturbation theory limit. Applied to a string-motivated charge assignment with $M_{Z'} = 1$ TeV, $theta = 10^{-3}$ and $g_2 = 0.105$, the predicted rate for coherent $mu$–$e$ conversion sits six orders of magnitude above the experimental limit, $mu to 3e$ five orders above, and $mu to e gamma$ at the level of the then-current MEGA bound. Setting the first-generation charges to zero by hand still leaves $mu to 3e$ two orders too large and pushes $K$–$bar K$ and $D$–$bar D$ splittings two orders above measurement. The third example, charges fitted to precision electroweak data with the first two families taken equal, overshoots the $B$–$bar B$ and $B_s$–$bar B_s$ mass differences by factors of 7 and 40 and $epsilon_K$ by a factor of 20.

Load-bearing premise

Every numerical verdict rests on setting the unknown quark and lepton mixing matrices equal to the CKM matrix, a choice the authors state explicitly as an example rather than derive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A TeV-scale $Z'$ with three distinct family charges is excluded by existing data, so any such model must assign equal charges to the first two families.
Even with first-two-family universality, mixing with the third family induces first-two-family flavor violation large enough to overshoot $B$–$bar B$ and $B_s$–$bar B_s$ mixing and $epsilon_K$ in the electroweak-fit charge assignment.
The strongest single constraint comes from coherent $mu$–$e$ conversion in a muonic atom, followed by $mu to 3e$ and the lepton-flavor-conserving rare $K$ decays.
Third-generation couplings are weakly constrained by existing data, so rare top, bottom and $tau$ decays are the natural place to look next.
Because the rotated couplings depend on the unknown right-handed mixing matrices, flavor-changing rates are not predictions of a charge assignment alone; they are predictions of a charge assignment plus a mixing ansatz.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's numerical verdicts are all computed at a single point, $V_{psi L} = V_{psi R} = V_{CKM}$; a reader who wants to know whether the exclusion survives a scan over mixing angles will not find the answer here, and the qualitative conclusion could weaken for mixing matrices with suppressed first-second-family entries.
The observation that right-handed mixing matrices are unobservable in the Standard Model but observable in the presence of non-universal $Z'$ couplings suggests a reverse use of the paper's bounds: flavor data could in principle be read as a measurement of the right-handed mixing sector, not only as a constraint on charges.
The same rotation mechanism applies to any extra Abelian gauge factor, including a kinetically mixed dark photon with family-dependent charges, so the bound structure derived here is not specific to grand-unified or string-motivated $Z'$ models.
The paper notes that flavor-changing effects in the $B$ and $K$ systems would vanish if the CKM mixing came entirely from the up-quark sector; that loophole is directly testable through rare top decays, which makes top-flavor physics a sharper discriminator than further kaon measurements.

Original abstract

There are theoretical and phenomenological motivations that there may exist additional heavy Z' bosons with family non-universal couplings. Flavor mixing in the quark and lepton sectors will then lead to flavor changing couplings of the heavy Z', and also of the ordinary Z when Z-Z' mixing is included. The general formalism of such effects is described, and applications are made to a variety of flavor changing and CP-violating tree and loop processes. Results are described for three specific cases motivated by a specific heterotic string model and by phenomenological considerations, including cases in which all three families have different couplings, and those in which the first two families, but not the third, have the same couplings. Even within a specific theory the results are model dependent because of unknown quark and lepton mixing matrices. However, assuming that typical mixings are comparable to the CKM matrix, processes such as coherent mu-e conversion in a muonic atom, K^0-\Bar{K}^0 and B-\Bar{B} mixing, epsilon, and epsilon'/epsilon lead to significant constraints on Z' bosons in the theoretically and phenomenologically motivated range M_{Z'} \sim 1 TeV.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 5,136 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.02 · states limitation 0.94 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.03 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.53 · compares with prior results 0.08 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

There are theoretical and phenomenological motivations that there may exist additional heavy Z' bosons with family non-universal couplings. Flavor mixing in the quark and lepton sectors will then lead to flavor changing couplings of the heavy Z', and also of the ordinary Z when Z-Z' mixing is included. The general formalism of such effects is described, and applications are made to a variety of flavor changing and CP-violating tree and loop processes. Results are described for three specific cases motivated by a specific heterotic string model and by phenomenological considerations, including cases in which all three families have different couplings, and those in which the first two families, but not the third, have the same couplings. Even within a specific theory the results are model dependent because of unknown quark and lepton mixing matrices. However, assuming that typical mixings are comparable to the CKM matrix, processes such as coherent mu-e conversion in a muonic atom, K^0-\Bar{K}^0 and B-\Bar{B} mixing, epsilon, and epsilon'/epsilon lead to significant constraints on Z' bosons in the theoretically and phenomenologically motivated range M_{Z'} \sim 1 TeV.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	There are theoretical and phenomenological motivations that there may exist additional heavy Z' bosons with family non-universal couplings.	background 1.00	0.05	0.03	hedged possibility 1.00
s1	Flavor mixing in the quark and lepton sectors will then lead to flavor changing couplings of the heavy Z', and also of the ordinary Z when Z-Z' mixing is included.	background 0.90	0.15	0.05	asserted 0.73
s2	The general formalism of such effects is described, and applications are made to a variety of flavor changing and CP-violating tree and loop processes.	contribution 0.70	0.81	0.05	asserted 0.98
s3	Results are described for three specific cases motivated by a specific heterotic string model and by phenomenological considerations, including cases in which all three families have different couplings, and those in which the first two families, but not the third, have the same couplings.	contribution 0.83	0.81	0.08	asserted 0.98
s4	Even within a specific theory the results are model dependent because of unknown quark and lepton mixing matrices.	limitation 1.00	0.34	0.04	asserted 0.99
s5	However, assuming that typical mixings are comparable to the CKM matrix, processes such as coherent mu-e conversion in a muonic atom, K^0-\Bar{K}^0 and B-\Bar{B} mixing, epsilon, and epsilon'/epsilon lead to significant constraints on Z' bosons in the theoretically and phenomenologically motivated range M_{Z'} \sim 1 TeV.	result 0.95	0.74	0.80	asserted 0.86

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.99 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.75.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

References

Works cited (40)

[1]

For reviews, see M. Cvetiˇ c and P. Langacker, inPerspectives in Supersymmetry, G. L. Kane, ed. (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1998), p. 312, hep-ph/9707451; P. Langacker, in Par- ticles, Strings, and Cosmology (PASCOS 98) , ed. P. Nath (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1999), p. 587, hep-ph/9805486

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[2]

See, for example, M. Masip and A. Pomarol, Phys. Rev. D 60 , 096005 (1999)

View on Pith 1999
[3]

M. Cvetiˇ c and P. Langacker, Phys. Rev. D 54 , 3570 (1996) and Mod. Phys. Lett. A 11, 1247 (1996); M. Cvetiˇ c, D. A. Demir, J. R. Espinosa, L. Everet t and P. Langacker, Phys. Rev. D 56 , 2861 (1997), Phys. Rev. D 58 , 119905 (1998) (E)

View on Pith 1996
[4]

See [3] and G. Cleaver, M. Cvetiˇ c, J.R. Espinosa, L. Everett an d P. Langacker, Phys. Rev. D57, 2701 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[5]

D. Suematsu and Y. Yamagishi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 10 , 4521 (1995)

View on Pith 1995
[6]

P. Langacker, N. Polonsky and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. D60, 115005 (1999)

View on Pith 1999
[7]

H. Cheng, B. A. Dobrescu and K. T. Matchev, Phys. Lett. B 439 , 301 (1998); Nucl. Phys. B 543 , 47 (1999)

View on Pith 1998
[8]

F. Abe et al. (CDF collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2192 (1997)

View on Pith 1997
[9]

J. Erler and P. Langacker, Phys. Lett. B 456 , 68 (1999); G.C. Cho et al., Nucl. Phys. B 531, 65 (1998), Nucl. Phys. B 555 , 651 (1999) (E); and references therein

View on Pith 1999
[10]

J. Erler and P. Langacker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 212 (2000). Implications of the atomic parity data alone have recently been discussed in [11]

View on Pith 2000
[11]

R. Casalbuoni et al., Phys. Lett. B 460 , 135 (1999); J.L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 61 , 016006 (2000). Earlier references are given in [10]

View on Pith 1999
[12]

For reviews see M. Cvetiˇ c and S. Godfrey, in Proceedings of Electroweak Symmetry Break- ing and Beyond the Standard Model , eds. T. Barklow, S. Dawson, H. Haber and J. Siegrist (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1995); A. Leike, Phys. Rep. 317C, 143 (1999)

View on Pith 1999
[13]

L. Everett, P. Langacker, M. Pl¨ umacher, and J. Wang, hep-ph/0001073

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[14]

Studies that do include nonuniversality and ﬂavor changing eﬀec ts include: T. K. Kuo and N. Nakagawa, Phys. Rev. D 31 , 1161 (1985); Phys. Rev. D 32 , 306 (1985); K. K. Gan, Phys. Lett. B 209 , 95 (1988); E. Nardi, Phys. Rev. D48, 1240 (1993); talk presented at Particles & Fields 92: 7th Meeting of the Division of Particl es Fields of the APS (DPF 92), B...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1985
[15]

S. Chaudhuri, S.W. Chung, G. Hockney, and J. Lykken, Nucl. Ph ys. B 456 , 89 (1995)

View on Pith 1995
[16]

G. Cleaver, M. Cvetiˇ c, J.R. Espinosa, L. Everett, and P. Lan gacker, Nucl. Phys. B 525 , 3 (1998); G. Cleaver, M. Cvetiˇ c, J.R. Espinosa, L. Everett, P. L angacker, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. D59, 055005 (1999), ibid. 115003 (1999)

View on Pith 1998
[17]

C. Caso et al., Eur. Phys. J. C3, 1 (1998) and 1999 oﬀ-year partial update for the 2000 edition available on the PDG WWW pages (URL: http://pdg.lbl.gov/)

View on Pith 1998
[18]

P. Langacker and D. London, Phys. Rev. D 38 , 886 (1988); E. Nardi, E. Roulet and D. Tommasini, Phys. Rev. D 46 , 3040 (1992) and Nucl. Phys. B386, 239 (1992)

View on Pith 1988
[19]

L. S. Durkin and P. Langacker, Phys. Lett. B 166 , 436 (1986); P. Langacker and M. Luo, Phys. Rev. D 45 , 278 (1992)

View on Pith 1986
[20]

N. S. Kroll, T. D. Lee, and B. Zumino, Phys. Rev. 157, 1376 (1967); B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B166, 196 (1986); F. Del Aguila, M. Cvetiˇ c and P. Langacker, Phys. Rev. D52, 37 (1995); F. del Aguila, M. Masip, M. Perez-Victoria, Acta Phys. P olon. B27, 1469 (1996), hep-ph/9603347; K. S. Babu, C. Kolda, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D 54 , 4635 (1996)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1967
[21]

Y. Kuno and Y. Okada, hep-ph/9909265

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[22]

S. Gentile and M. Pohl, Phys. Rep. 274, 287 (1996)

View on Pith 1996
[24]

P. Wintz, in Proceedings of the First Int. Symp. on Lepton and Baryon Numb er Viola- tion, Trento, 1998, (IoP Publishing, Bristol and Philadelphia, 1999), ed s. H. V. Klapdor- Kleingrothaus and I. V. Krivosheina, p. 534

View on Pith 1998
[25]

J. Bernab´ eu, E. Nardi and D. Tommasini, Nucl. Phys. B 409 , 69 (1993)

View on Pith 1993
[26]

G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras and M. E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Ph ys. 68, 1125 (1996)

View on Pith 1996
[27]

J. L. Ritchie and S. G. Wojcicki, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 1149 (1993)

View on Pith 1993
[28]

J. F. Donoghue and F. Gabbiani, Phys. Rev. D 51 , 2187 (1995)

View on Pith 1995
[29]

J. Whitmore, preprint FERMILAB-CONF-99-266-E, To be published in the proceedings of 1999 Chicago Conference on Kaon Physics (K 99), Chicago, IL, 21-26 Jun 1999

View on Pith 1999
[30]

J.-M. G´ erard, W. Grimus, A. Raychaudhuri and G. Zoupanos, Phys. Lett. B 140 , 349 (1984); F. Gabbiani, E. Gabrielli, A. Masiero and L. Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys. B 477 , 321 (1996)

View on Pith 1984
[31]

D. Ambrose et al. (BNL E871 collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5734 (1998). 19

View on Pith 1998
[32]

G. Buchalla, Presented at International Europhysics Conference on High-Energy Phys ics (EPS-HEP 99), Tampere, Finland, 15-21 Jul 1999, hep-ph/9912369

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[33]

R. Godang et al. (CLEO collaboration), report CLEO CONF 98-22 , submitted to the XXIXth Int. Conf. on High Energy Physics (ICHEP 98) , Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 23-29 Jul. 1998

View on Pith 1998
[34]

T. Han, R.D. Peccei, and X. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B 454 , 527 (1995); T. Han, K. Whisnant, B.-L. Young, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 55 , 7241 (1997); J. L. D ´ ıaz-Cruz, M.A. P´ erez, G. Tavares-Velasco, and J.J. Tosc ano, Phys. Rev. D 60 , 115014 (1999)

View on Pith 1995
[35]

T. Han, M. Hosch, K. Whisnant, B. Young and X. Zhang, Phys. R ev. D58, 073008 (1998); F. del Aguila, J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and R. Miquel, Phys. Rev. Lett . 82, 1628 (1999); T. Han and J. Hewett, Phys. Rev. D 60 , 074015 (1999); F. del Aguila, J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and Ll. Ametller, Phys. Lett. B 462 , 310 (1999); F. del Aguila and J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[36]

S. Willocq, presented at the 2000 Aspen Winter Conference on Particle Physics , January 16 - 22, 2000, Aspen, CO

View on Pith 2000
[37]

M. L. Brooks et al. (MEGA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1521 (1999)

View on Pith 1999
[38]

Y. Fukuda et al. (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1562 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[39]

A. Masiero, D. V. Nanopoulos and A. I. Sanda, Phys. Rev. Lett . 57, 663 (1986); G. C. Branco and C. Q. Geng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 969 (1987); E. Nardi, Phys. Rev. D 48 , 3277 (1993); Phys. Rev. D 49 , 4394 (1994); E. Nardi and T. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 50 , 203 (1994)

View on Pith 1986
[40]

R. S. Chivukula, J. M. Flynn and H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. B 171 , 453 (1986)

View on Pith 1986
[41]

A. J. Buras and J.-M. G´ erard, Nucl. Phys. B 264 , 371 (1986); W. A. Bardeen, A. J. Buras and J.-M. G´ erard, Nucl. Phys. B 293 , 787 (1987); G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras and M. K. Harlander, Nucl. Phys. B 337 , 313 (1990). 20

View on Pith 1986

Forward citations

Cited by 24 Pith papers

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

Global Analysis of Leptophilic Z' Bosons
hep-ph 2021-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A global fit to leptophilic Z' couplings using lepton precision observables bounds electron couplings below roughly 0.2 and shows that muon-tau flavour-changing couplings alone can accommodate both the muon g-2 anomal...
Family non-universal Z' models with protected flavor-changing interactions
hep-ph 2015-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Gauging the BGL flavor symmetry yields six anomaly-free Z-prime models with CKM-locked flavor-changing couplings and fixed lepton non-universality, three of which accommodate the LHCb R_K anomaly.
Addressing the LHC flavour anomalies with horizontal gauge symmetries
hep-ph 2015-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A single U(1)' horizontal gauge symmetry with charges (L_mu - L_tau) - a(B1 + B2 - 2B3) can simultaneously account for the B to K* mu mu, R(K), and h to mu tau anomalies, predicting tau to 3mu at a rate within reach o...
The Impact of Flavour Changing Neutral Gauge Bosons on B->X_s gamma
hep-ph 2011-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Two new contributions to B to X_s gamma from flavour-changing neutral gauge bosons are computed, including the first calculation of QCD mixing of neutral current-current operators into the dipole operator, yielding mo...
Observable contributions of new exotic quarks to quark mixing
hep-ph 2000-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Integrating out seven possible types of vector-like quarks yields a fixed set of quark-coupling corrections whose pattern lets experimenters distinguish among the models.

Show 19 more citing papers

Neutrino-Electron Scattering: General Constraints on Z' and Dark Photon Models
hep-ph 2018-02 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

General exact formulas for Z-Z' mixing and neutrino-electron scattering yield bounds on Z' and dark photon models from TEXONO, CHARM-II, and GEMMA data.
Lepton flavor violation with light vector bosons
hep-ph 2016-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

For a sub-GeV Z' with lepton-flavor-violating muon-tau couplings, the two-body decay tau to mu Z' bounded by 1995 ARGUS data gives a stronger limit than tau to 3mu whenever the Z' mass is below twice the muon mass.
Prospects of discovering new physics in rare charm decays
hep-ph 2015-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

New LHCb bounds on D0 to mu+mu- and D+ to pi+mu+mu- cap the allowed new-physics Wilson coefficients, and among four candidate models only leptoquarks can reach an observable size.
An explicit Z'-boson explanation of the B->K*mu+mu- anomaly
hep-ph 2013-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The 3-3-1 model with beta = -sqrt(3) can produce the semileptonic vector Wilson coefficient preferred by the B -> K* mu+ mu- anomaly if its Z' boson has a mass near 7 TeV, though Bs mixing and a low Landau pole squeez...
New physics in $B \to K^*\mu\mu$?
hep-ph 2013-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

New physics in the semileptonic vector operators O9 and O9' with opposite sign fits the B -> K* mu mu angular anomalies best, implying new particles near the TeV scale.
The Anatomy of Z' and Z with Flavour Changing Neutral Currents in the Flavour Precision Era
hep-ph 2012-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

For a tree-level flavour-changing Z-prime, fixing quark couplings from meson-mixing data yields parameter-free predictions for rare K and B decays, and the resulting correlations can separate left-handed, right-handed...
The Anatomy of Quark Flavour Observables in 331 Models in the Flavour Precision Era
hep-ph 2012-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

In the 331 model with a heavy Z-prime, four parameter regions survive current flavour data, and the rare decays B_d to mu mu plus the CP asymmetry in B_s to mu mu can in future identify which one is correct.
Vanishing Minors in the Neutrino Mass Matrix from Abelian Gauge Symmetries
hep-ph 2012-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Anomaly-free U(1) subgroups of U(1)_{B-L} x U(1)_{L_e-L_mu} x U(1)_{L_mu-L_tau} can enforce two-zero textures in the right-handed neutrino mass matrix with one or two singlet scalars, and these zeros survive the seesa...
New Physics Models of Direct CP Violation in Charm Decays
hep-ph 2012-02 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

A systematic survey finds that only a handful of minimal new-physics models, chiefly those with chirally enhanced chromomagnetic penguins, can explain the LHCb charm CP asymmetry without violating D-meson mixing and c...
Direct CP violation in charm and flavor mixing beyond the SM
hep-ph 2012-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A chromomagnetic operator with a large imaginary coefficient is the most viable explanation of the LHCb charm CP anomaly, and supersymmetric models with left-right up-squark mixing can supply it while evading D-meson ...
Model-independent constraints on new physics in b --> s transitions
hep-ph 2011-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Combining all available b to s rare-decay data, the fit finds every 95% confidence region compatible with the Standard Model, excludes several sign-flipped Wilson coefficient scenarios, and caps Bs to mu mu at roughly...
Light Z' Bosons at the Tevatron
hep-ph 2011-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A single leptophobic Z' near 150 GeV, with couplings tuned separately to each channel, can accommodate the Tevatron W+jj, multi-b, and top-asymmetry anomalies and double as a dark matter mediator.
New strategies for New Physics search in B -> K* nu anti-nu, B -> K nu anti-nu and B -> X(s) nu anti-nu decays
hep-ph 2009-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The paper gives updated Standard Model predictions for B to K* neutrino pairs, B to K neutrino pairs and inclusive B to X_s neutrino pairs, and shows all three collapse onto a two-parameter plane whose second coordina...
Implications of D^0-\bar D^0 Mixing for New Physics
hep-ph 2007-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Using the 2007 evidence for D0 mixing, the authors derive upper bounds on new-physics contributions to the charm mass difference for about twenty models, several of which beat competing constraints.
A Call for New Physics : The Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment and Lepton Flavor Violation
hep-ph 2016-10 accept novelty 4.5 of 10

The paper derives general one-loop master integrals linking the muon g-2 and mu to e gamma, then applies them across simplified and UV-complete models to map where signals in one or both observables can survive.
From WIMP to FIMP during reheating: collider vs non-collider probes for p-wave annihilation
hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

Collider experiments can strongly constrain p-wave-suppressed derivative operators and thereby limit reheating temperature, DM mass, and interaction scale needed to match observed DM abundance during reheating.
Z' Mediated Dark Matter Models for the Galactic Center Gamma-Ray Excess
hep-ph 2014-11 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Three classes of Z'-mediated dark matter models survive existing collider and direct-detection constraints while reproducing the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess, and one new anomaly-free axial-leptophobic U(1)' model...
Correlating lepton flavor violating $b \to s$ and leptonic decay modes in a minimal abelian extension of the Standard Model
hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

In the ABCD model, experimental upper bounds on tau to three muons, muon to electron gamma, and related LFV processes constrain branching ratios of LFV B(s) decays in hierarchical order.
Toward Realistic Intersecting D-Brane Models
hep-th 2005-01 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

A structured survey of intersecting D-brane model building: how gauge groups, chiral families, Yukawa couplings and soft terms arise from D-branes wrapping intersecting cycles, and why no fully realistic model exists yet.

How later papers used it

89 later papers cite it

Evidence: some. 84 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 3 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 28 of the 121 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

1 later paper by other authors is listed below: 1 used its method or tool. 1 more paper by the same authors is listed: 1 used its method or tool.

Uses its method or tool 2 of 3 papers with this label · 1 by the same authors

Used the formalism developed in this paper, which presents general expressions for calculating FCNC effects in models predicting one extra neutral gauge boson.

FCNC, CP violation and implications for some rare decays in an SU(4)_L X U(1)_X extension of the standard model (2011) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

By the same authors

Followed the general framework for addressing Z'-induced FCNC developed in this paper and systemized its application to b to s transitions.

$b \to s$ Transitions in Family-dependent $U(1)^\prime$ Models (2009) (same authors) · 0.89 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

82 arXiv papers cite this in 108 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 64 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 3 papers

Firstly, for the meson mixings, we can decompose the contributions to meson mass differences as $Δm_K,B_s,B_d=Δm^SM_K,B_s,B_d+Δm^NP_K,B_s,B_d$, where the SM contributions $Δm^SM_K,B_s,B_d$ are shown in the second column in Table [ref], and the new physics contributions $Δm^NP_K,B_s,B_d$ are estimated by [ref] Δm_K^NP ≃ 23 Re{(C^tree_K)^2-[3 2+ (m_Km_d+m_s)^2]C^tree_KC^'tree_K+(C^'tree_K)^2}m_K f^2_K, Δm_B_s^NP ≃ 2/3 Re{ (C^tree_B_s)^2-[3 2+ (m_B_sm_s+m_b)^2]C^tree_B_sC^'tree_B_s+(C^'tree_B_s)^2}m_B_s f^2_B_s, Δm_B_d^NP ≃ 23 Re{ (C^tree_B_d)^2-[3 2+ (m_B_dm_d+m_b)^2]C^tree_B_dC^'tree_B_d+(C^'tree_B_d)^2}m_B_d f^2_B_d .Note that the SM $Z$-like boson also contributes to meson mass differences due to the mixing of $Z$–$Z'$.

Questions of flavor physics and neutrino mass from a flipped hypercharge · Quark flavor phenomenologies · 0.91
We follow the general framework for addressing $Z'$-induced FCNC as developed in [ref] and systemize its application to $b→s$ transitions.

$b \to s$ Transitions in Family-dependent $U(1)^\prime$ Models · Introduction · 0.89
We will use the formalism developed in Ref. [ref] where general expressions for calculating FCNC effects in models predicting the existence of one extra neutral gauge boson are presented.

FCNC, CP violation and implications for some rare decays in an SU(4)_L X U(1)_X extension of the standard model · The Effective Lagrangian · 1.00

Compares with it 1 paper

While for the current high intensity experiments, this coupling only appears in $μ→eγ$ together with $λ_eμ ×λ_ee$ according to Ref. [ref] , as [equation] where $α$ is the fine structure constant, $G_F$ is the fermi constant, $θ_W$ is the weak mixing angle, $M_Z$, $M_Z'$, $m_μ$ and $m_e$ is the mass of $Z^0$, $Z'$, $μ$ and $e$, respectively.

Study of charged Lepton Flavor Violation in electron muon interactions · Sensitivity result · 0.81

Cites it as support 1 paper

The limits from $K$ and $μ$ decays and interactions are sufficiently strong that only the third family is likely to be non-universal [ref] .

The Physics of New U(1)' Gauge Bosons · Implications · 0.96

Cites it as background 34 papers

While the discussion presented here is quite general, many string-inspired models have extra $U(1)$ gauge symmetries that lead to extra $Z'$-bosons with possible flavor-changing couplings [ref] .

Implications of D^0-\bar D^0 Mixing for New Physics · Generic $Z'$ Models · 0.82
In this work, we explore the decay $B→ϕγ$ and similarly the decay $B_s^0→ρ^0 (ω) γ$ in the non-universal $Z^'$ model [ref] , which could be naturally derived in certain string constructions [ref] , E6 models [ref] and so on.

Annihilation-Type Charmless Radiative Decays of B Meson in Non-universal Z^\prime Model · Introduction · 0.90
This also puts tight bounds on heavy neutral gauge bosons ($Z^'$s), which are predicted by many new physics models (see [ref] ), in case they have sizable couplings to quarks.

Global Analysis of Leptophilic Z' Bosons · Introduction · 0.93

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

For reviews, see M. Cvetiˇ c and P. Langacker, inPerspectives in Supersymmetry, G. L. Kane, ed. (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1998), p. 312, hep-ph/9707451; P. Langacker, in Par- ticles, Strings, and Cosmology (PASCOS 98) , ed. P. Nath (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1999), p. 587, hep-ph/9805486

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[2] [2]

See, for example, M. Masip and A. Pomarol, Phys. Rev. D 60 , 096005 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

[3] [3]

M. Cvetiˇ c and P. Langacker, Phys. Rev. D 54 , 3570 (1996) and Mod. Phys. Lett. A 11, 1247 (1996); M. Cvetiˇ c, D. A. Demir, J. R. Espinosa, L. Everet t and P. Langacker, Phys. Rev. D 56 , 2861 (1997), Phys. Rev. D 58 , 119905 (1998) (E)

View on Pith 1996

[4] [4]

See [3] and G. Cleaver, M. Cvetiˇ c, J.R. Espinosa, L. Everett an d P. Langacker, Phys. Rev. D57, 2701 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[5] [5]

D. Suematsu and Y. Yamagishi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 10 , 4521 (1995)

View on Pith 1995

[6] [6]

P. Langacker, N. Polonsky and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. D60, 115005 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

[7] [7]

H. Cheng, B. A. Dobrescu and K. T. Matchev, Phys. Lett. B 439 , 301 (1998); Nucl. Phys. B 543 , 47 (1999)

View on Pith 1998

[8] [8]

F. Abe et al. (CDF collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2192 (1997)

View on Pith 1997

[9] [9]

J. Erler and P. Langacker, Phys. Lett. B 456 , 68 (1999); G.C. Cho et al., Nucl. Phys. B 531, 65 (1998), Nucl. Phys. B 555 , 651 (1999) (E); and references therein

View on Pith 1999

[10] [10]

J. Erler and P. Langacker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 212 (2000). Implications of the atomic parity data alone have recently been discussed in [11]

View on Pith 2000

[11] [11]

R. Casalbuoni et al., Phys. Lett. B 460 , 135 (1999); J.L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 61 , 016006 (2000). Earlier references are given in [10]

View on Pith 1999

[12] [12]

For reviews see M. Cvetiˇ c and S. Godfrey, in Proceedings of Electroweak Symmetry Break- ing and Beyond the Standard Model , eds. T. Barklow, S. Dawson, H. Haber and J. Siegrist (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1995); A. Leike, Phys. Rep. 317C, 143 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

[13] [13]

L. Everett, P. Langacker, M. Pl¨ umacher, and J. Wang, hep-ph/0001073

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[14] [14]

Studies that do include nonuniversality and ﬂavor changing eﬀec ts include: T. K. Kuo and N. Nakagawa, Phys. Rev. D 31 , 1161 (1985); Phys. Rev. D 32 , 306 (1985); K. K. Gan, Phys. Lett. B 209 , 95 (1988); E. Nardi, Phys. Rev. D48, 1240 (1993); talk presented at Particles & Fields 92: 7th Meeting of the Division of Particl es Fields of the APS (DPF 92), B...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1985

[15] [15]

S. Chaudhuri, S.W. Chung, G. Hockney, and J. Lykken, Nucl. Ph ys. B 456 , 89 (1995)

View on Pith 1995

[16] [16]

G. Cleaver, M. Cvetiˇ c, J.R. Espinosa, L. Everett, and P. Lan gacker, Nucl. Phys. B 525 , 3 (1998); G. Cleaver, M. Cvetiˇ c, J.R. Espinosa, L. Everett, P. L angacker, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. D59, 055005 (1999), ibid. 115003 (1999)

View on Pith 1998

[17] [17]

C. Caso et al., Eur. Phys. J. C3, 1 (1998) and 1999 oﬀ-year partial update for the 2000 edition available on the PDG WWW pages (URL: http://pdg.lbl.gov/)

View on Pith 1998

[18] [18]

P. Langacker and D. London, Phys. Rev. D 38 , 886 (1988); E. Nardi, E. Roulet and D. Tommasini, Phys. Rev. D 46 , 3040 (1992) and Nucl. Phys. B386, 239 (1992)

View on Pith 1988

[19] [19]

L. S. Durkin and P. Langacker, Phys. Lett. B 166 , 436 (1986); P. Langacker and M. Luo, Phys. Rev. D 45 , 278 (1992)

View on Pith 1986

[20] [20]

N. S. Kroll, T. D. Lee, and B. Zumino, Phys. Rev. 157, 1376 (1967); B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B166, 196 (1986); F. Del Aguila, M. Cvetiˇ c and P. Langacker, Phys. Rev. D52, 37 (1995); F. del Aguila, M. Masip, M. Perez-Victoria, Acta Phys. P olon. B27, 1469 (1996), hep-ph/9603347; K. S. Babu, C. Kolda, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D 54 , 4635 (1996)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1967

[21] [21]

Y. Kuno and Y. Okada, hep-ph/9909265

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[22] [22]

S. Gentile and M. Pohl, Phys. Rep. 274, 287 (1996)

View on Pith 1996

[23] [24]

P. Wintz, in Proceedings of the First Int. Symp. on Lepton and Baryon Numb er Viola- tion, Trento, 1998, (IoP Publishing, Bristol and Philadelphia, 1999), ed s. H. V. Klapdor- Kleingrothaus and I. V. Krivosheina, p. 534

View on Pith 1998

[24] [25]

J. Bernab´ eu, E. Nardi and D. Tommasini, Nucl. Phys. B 409 , 69 (1993)

View on Pith 1993

[25] [26]

G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras and M. E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Ph ys. 68, 1125 (1996)

View on Pith 1996

[26] [27]

J. L. Ritchie and S. G. Wojcicki, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 1149 (1993)

View on Pith 1993

[27] [28]

J. F. Donoghue and F. Gabbiani, Phys. Rev. D 51 , 2187 (1995)

View on Pith 1995

[28] [29]

J. Whitmore, preprint FERMILAB-CONF-99-266-E, To be published in the proceedings of 1999 Chicago Conference on Kaon Physics (K 99), Chicago, IL, 21-26 Jun 1999

View on Pith 1999

[29] [30]

J.-M. G´ erard, W. Grimus, A. Raychaudhuri and G. Zoupanos, Phys. Lett. B 140 , 349 (1984); F. Gabbiani, E. Gabrielli, A. Masiero and L. Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys. B 477 , 321 (1996)

View on Pith 1984

[30] [31]

D. Ambrose et al. (BNL E871 collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5734 (1998). 19

View on Pith 1998

[31] [32]

G. Buchalla, Presented at International Europhysics Conference on High-Energy Phys ics (EPS-HEP 99), Tampere, Finland, 15-21 Jul 1999, hep-ph/9912369

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[32] [33]

R. Godang et al. (CLEO collaboration), report CLEO CONF 98-22 , submitted to the XXIXth Int. Conf. on High Energy Physics (ICHEP 98) , Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 23-29 Jul. 1998

View on Pith 1998

[33] [34]

T. Han, R.D. Peccei, and X. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B 454 , 527 (1995); T. Han, K. Whisnant, B.-L. Young, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 55 , 7241 (1997); J. L. D ´ ıaz-Cruz, M.A. P´ erez, G. Tavares-Velasco, and J.J. Tosc ano, Phys. Rev. D 60 , 115014 (1999)

View on Pith 1995

[34] [35]

T. Han, M. Hosch, K. Whisnant, B. Young and X. Zhang, Phys. R ev. D58, 073008 (1998); F. del Aguila, J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and R. Miquel, Phys. Rev. Lett . 82, 1628 (1999); T. Han and J. Hewett, Phys. Rev. D 60 , 074015 (1999); F. del Aguila, J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and Ll. Ametller, Phys. Lett. B 462 , 310 (1999); F. del Aguila and J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[35] [36]

S. Willocq, presented at the 2000 Aspen Winter Conference on Particle Physics , January 16 - 22, 2000, Aspen, CO

View on Pith 2000

[36] [37]

M. L. Brooks et al. (MEGA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1521 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

[37] [38]

Y. Fukuda et al. (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1562 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[38] [39]

A. Masiero, D. V. Nanopoulos and A. I. Sanda, Phys. Rev. Lett . 57, 663 (1986); G. C. Branco and C. Q. Geng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 969 (1987); E. Nardi, Phys. Rev. D 48 , 3277 (1993); Phys. Rev. D 49 , 4394 (1994); E. Nardi and T. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 50 , 203 (1994)

View on Pith 1986

[39] [40]

R. S. Chivukula, J. M. Flynn and H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. B 171 , 453 (1986)

View on Pith 1986

[40] [41]

A. J. Buras and J.-M. G´ erard, Nucl. Phys. B 264 , 371 (1986); W. A. Bardeen, A. J. Buras and J.-M. G´ erard, Nucl. Phys. B 293 , 787 (1987); G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras and M. K. Harlander, Nucl. Phys. B 337 , 313 (1990). 20

View on Pith 1986