Pith.

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · arXiv:hep-ph/0404220 v2 · submitted 24 Apr 2004 · 40 references

b-physics signals of the lightest CP-odd Higgs in the NMSSM at large tan beta

Gudrun Hiller

PDF · arXiv · The abstract, sentence by sentence · Cite

The paper says

“We investigate the low energy phenomenology of the lighter pseudoscalar A10 in the NMSSM. The A10 mass can naturally be small due to a global U(1)R symmetry of the Higgs potential, which is only broken by trilinear soft terms.”

more of the abstract

The A10 mass is further protected from renormalization group effects in the large tanβ limit. We calculate the b → sA10 amplitude at leading order in tanβ and work out the contributions to rare K, B and radiative Υ-decays and B−B̄ mixing. We obtain constraints on the A10 mass and couplings and show that masses down to 𝒪(10) MeV are allowed. The b-physics phenomenology of the NMSSM differs from the MSSM in the appearance of sizeable renormalization effects from neutral Higgses to the photon and gluon dipole operators and the breakdown of the MSSM correlation between the Bs → μ+μ− branching ratio and Bs−B̄s mixing. For A10 masses above the tau threshold the A10 can be searched for in b → sτ+τ− processes with branching ratios $\lsim 10^{-3}$.

from the abstract

Pith says

Machine review · deepseek-v4.1-flash · 13 Nov 2026 · what was read was not recorded · not checked by a person

Reviewed in 2026 with later literature in view.

It can be wrong. Challenge this review or reply to it.

Holds up, with conditions. A clean NMSSM calculation with durable qualitative points, but the O(10) MeV headline is a scan result that should be read as 'not excluded' rather than 'established.' This line is wrong

1 major objection · 5 minor

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Are you an author? What you can do.

Not checked: figures, code, what the 40 references say.

The paper says, at Section 4.2, Eq. (26), Eq. (28), Figure 2

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 1 of 1 · major

The A_1^0 contribution to B − B̄ mixing, C_SRR1 = −(1/4π²) C_A² m_W²/m_A1², scales as 1/m_A1² and is therefore most restrictive at small m_A1, precisely the region where the paper claims O(10) MeV masses are allowed. Figure 2 displays the Δm_d constraint only for m_A ≥ 500 GeV and m_A ≥ 1000 GeV, and Section 4.2 states only that constraints are found 'for larger values of |δ− v/x| and m_A ≥ 500 GeV.'

more of objection 1

The manuscript does not show whether the 1/m_A1² growth is compensated by a sufficiently small C_A in the small-m_A1 region, nor does it explain why the constraint is truncated at m_A ≥ 500 GeV. Since the headline claim (abstract:s4) depends on the O(10) MeV window surviving, the paper should either display the Δm_d constraint across the full m_A1 range or give an explicit argument (e.g., that at small m_A1 the constraint lies inside the rare-K excluded region of Eq. (21), or that C_A is GIM-suppressed there) showing that it does not close the window.

This objection may describe the copy Pith gave the reviewer, not the paper.

5 minor objections

The paper says, at Figure 2

Pith says: minor objection 1 of 5

The caption and text should state explicitly what the Δm_d curves represent (e.g., the f_d = −0.6 contour) and why they are truncated at m_A ≥ 500 GeV, so that the reader can judge whether the small-m_A1 region is constrained or merely not plotted.

This objection may describe the copy Pith gave the reviewer, not the paper.

The paper says, at Section 4.1.2

Pith says: minor objection 2 of 5

The statement that 'all allowed points are at the GIM boundary θ_t ≃ π/2, which is set by our value of the cut-off ε' suggests that the allowed region in this mass range is an artifact of the scan's GIM cut. The paper should quantify the sensitivity of the allowed region to ε.

show 3 more

The paper says, at Section 4.4, Eq. (35)

Pith says: minor objection 3 of 5

The bound |δ− v/x| < 3.7 for m_A1 < 23 MeV/|δ− v/x| < 2m_μ is self-referential, with |δ− v/x| appearing on both sides. The paper should state the self-consistent solution explicitly.

The paper says, at Section 5.1

Pith says: minor objection 4 of 5

The MSSM comparison uses FeynHiggs v2.02, but the scan range and number of points are not given. Stating these would let the reader judge the robustness of the quoted bounds |C_S + C_P|/|C_S − C_P| < 0.2 and |C^b_R| < 1.3 × 10^-3.

The paper says, at Section 4.1.1

Pith says: minor objection 5 of 5

The statement that masses in the range of Eq. (20) are 'disfavored since the B → K A_1^0 decay would happen too rapidly for most of the parameter space, although cannot rigorously be excluded' is vague. The paper should state what fraction of the scanned parameter space is excluded and under what assumptions.

What would settle it

Recompute f_d from Eqs. (26)-(28) at m_{A_1^0} = 10 MeV for the parameter points in Figure 2 with |delta_- v/x| ~ 0.1-0.5 and m_A = 500 GeV, using the same C_A from Eq. (9). If f_d < -0.6 for all such points, the O(10) MeV window is excluded by Delta m_d and the headline claim weakens.

from the skeptic's reading

How the review went

4 readings by deepseek-v4.1-flash · 13 Nov 2026

  1. Reader holds up, with conditions confidence moderate
  2. Skeptic partly agrees 5 min 43 s · 17,298 tokens read, 20,182 written
  3. Editor wrote the verdict above 3 min 12 s · 18,268 tokens read, 10,946 written
  4. Referee major revision: 1 major objection, 5 minor 13 min 10 s · 35,050 tokens read, 44,266 written

Not run on this paper: the simulated authors' defence.

Pith did not check this review's objections against the paper.

The review in full

The review in brief, machine-written

Hiller's paper is a solid, useful contribution to NMSSM flavor phenomenology, and the durable parts are not the headline number. What's actually new: the b → s A10 amplitude at leading order in tan β in the NMSSM (Eqs. 8-11). The MSSM analogue was known; the NMSSM singlet admixture changes the coupling structure, and Hiller works it out cleanly with explicit loop functions in Appendix B. The second durable point is qualitative: the MSSM relation Eq. (1) fails in the NMSSM, so neutral Higgs contributions to the photon and gluon dipole operators don't cancel, and the Bs → μμ / Δm_s correlation breaks down. Both observations are argued well and are worth citing. The headline — A10 masses down to O(10) MeV are allowed — is a scan result, not a theorem. It depends on priors for stop and scharm masses (~1 TeV), a GIM cutoff ε = 0.05, and assumed MSSM ranges for Δm_d. The paper is honest that all FCNC bounds can be evaded by tuning the super-GIM, but the flip side is that the allowed region is partly an artifact of where you put the cutoff. Read the O(10) MeV number as 'not excluded by this scan' rather than 'established.' The stress-test note flags Eq. (26): the B-Bbar mixing contribution grows as 1/mA_1^0², so Δm_d should be most restrictive at small mA_1^0. The scaling is real, but the specific claim that Figure 2 leaves the small-mass region untested doesn't hold up — the Δm_d curves span the full mA_1^0 range; the 'mA ≥ 500 GeV' label refers to the heavy Higgs mass, not the light one. And at the δ_- values required by the K → π and Υ bounds (δ_- v/x ~ 0.5-2 at mA_1^0 = 10 MeV), CA is small enough that Δm_d doesn't bite. Still, Section 4.2's statement that constraints appear 'for larger values of |δ_- v/x|' is loose: CA has a δ_- independent piece (the λ term in Eq. 9), so the constraint doesn't vanish as δ_- → 0. The text should say this more clearly. Smaller things: the B → K missing-energy bound is shaded as excluded in Figure 2 but called 'disfavored' in the text — minor inconsistency. The allowed points in the 2mμ to 2mτ window sit at the GIM boundary set by ε, which is a scan artifact. And the matching contributions to C7,8 from neutral Higgs loops are left for future work, so the RG mixing analysis is an estimate, not a full calculation. Who should read it: anyone working on NMSSM flavor or light pseudoscalar searches. The amplitude and the qualitative MSSM-vs-NMSSM differences are worth citing. The exclusion plot is useful but should be read with the priors in mind. I'd send it to referees — the calculation is checkable and the qualitative points are durable.

The strongest objection

The paper's Eq. (26) gives C_SRR1 = -(1/4pi^2) C_A^2 m_W^2/m_{A_1^0}^2. Since C_A (Eq. 9) is independent of m_{A_1^0}, this contribution grows without bound as m_{A_1^0} -> 0. The constraint f_d > -0.6 (Eq. 28) therefore becomes most restrictive precisely at small m_{A_1^0}. Yet Figure 2 displays the Delta m_d constraint only for m_A >= 500 GeV and m_A >= 1000 GeV, and Section 4.2 says 'We find constraints for larger values of |delta_- v/x| and m_A >= 500 GeV.' The O(10) MeV region sits at small |delta_- v/x| and small m_{A_1^0}; the paper does not show whether the 1/m_{A_1^0}^2 growth of Eq. (26) is compensated by a sufficiently small C_A there. If it is not, the O(10) MeV window is excluded by Delta m_d, not allowed. This is a specific, checkable gap in the scan, distinct from the reader's lifetime concern.

The paper's qualitative MSSM-vs-NMSSM differences (RG mixing to dipoles, breakdown of the Bs -> mu+mu- / Delta m_s correlation) are durable and argued cleanly. The O(10) MeV claim is a scan result, and the reader correctly notes the scan priors and soft exclusions. My concern adds a specific quantitative gap: the 1/m_{A_1^0}^2 growth of the light-A_1^0 Delta m_d contribution is not displayed for small m_{A_1^0}. This is checkable and would settle whether the O(10) MeV window survives. The reader's lifetime concern is related but distinct; both point to the same conclusion that the O(10) MeV number should be read as 'not excluded by this scan' rather than established. The verdict remains CONDITIONAL.

The referee's report

The paper is a careful, comprehensive phenomenology study. The one-loop matching calculation is standard and the loop functions are given explicitly in Appendix B, so the amplitude is checkable. The identification of b → s τ+τ− as a discovery channel and the demonstration that the MSSM B_s → μ+μ− / Δm_s correlation is not a generic SUSY prediction are genuine, useful results. The paper is a solid contribution to the NMSSM phenomenology literature.

Pith's reading of the paper (a machine's summary, not the authors')

Supersymmetry's minimal version ties the CP-odd Higgs mass to the electroweak scale, but the next-to-minimal version adds a gauge-singlet superfield whose Higgs potential carries an approximate global $U(1)_R$ symmetry, broken only by small trilinear soft terms, so one pseudoscalar $A_1^0$ can naturally sit far below the weak scale. Hiller asks whether existing $b$-physics data already exclude such a state. She computes the one-loop $b$ to $s A_1^0$ amplitude at leading order in $1/|1 - 2kx/A_1^0|$... more precisely at leading order in $1/|1 - 2kx/A_1^0|$

What carries the argument. Placeholder.

Core claim. Placeholder.

The premise it rests on. Placeholder.

Check this review

Pith stored no record of this review's passes and took no fingerprint of it. Reviews made by code from 13 Nov 2026 on carry both.

How often reviews like this one are right

Reviews like this one: written by deepseek-v4.1-flash, where what was read was not recorded.

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Every value above, in the review's public record (JSON)

Reviews by people

This review was written by a machine. No person has reviewed this paper on Pith yet. A scientist listed on Pith can review it for a fee, and their review is published here whatever it concludes.

Request a human review

How Pith checks papers · The full audit of this paper

The paper

Abstract

We investigate the low energy phenomenology of the lighter pseudoscalar A10 in the NMSSM. The A10 mass can naturally be small due to a global U(1)R symmetry of the Higgs potential, which is only broken by trilinear soft terms. The A10 mass is further protected from renormalization group effects in the large tanβ limit. We calculate the b → sA10 amplitude at leading order in tanβ and work out the contributions to rare K, B and radiative Υ-decays and B−B̄ mixing. We obtain constraints on the A10 mass and couplings and show that masses down to 𝒪(10) MeV are allowed. The b-physics phenomenology of the NMSSM differs from the MSSM in the appearance of sizeable renormalization effects from neutral Higgses to the photon and gluon dipole operators and the breakdown of the MSSM correlation between the Bs → μ+μ− branching ratio and Bs−B̄s mixing. For A10 masses above the tau threshold the A10 can be searched for in b → sτ+τ− processes with branching ratios $\lsim 10^{-3}$.

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. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23

The authors' main claim, as the classifier picked it out 0.80

“We obtain constraints on the $A_1^0$ mass and couplings and show that masses down to ${\cal{O}}(10)$ MeV are allowed.”

How the main claim is stated: asserted 1.00

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.19 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.12 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.97 · compares with prior results 0.81 · mentions code or data availability 0.02

The abstract, sentence by sentence

This table labels the abstract only (arXiv listing abstract v2). The number is the probability the classifier gave the label.

SentenceRoleThe authors' own workStates the main conclusionStrength
We investigate the low energy phenomenology of the lighter pseudoscalar $A_1^0$ in the NMSSM. contribution 0.97 0.89 0.04 asserted 0.66
The $A_1^0$ mass can naturally be small due to a global $U(1)_R$ symmetry of the Higgs potential, which is only broken by trilinear soft terms. background 0.80 0.22 0.04 asserted 0.51
The $A_1^0$ mass is further protected from renormalization group effects in the large $\tan \beta$ limit. background 0.67 0.25 0.04 asserted 1.00
We calculate the $b \to s A_1^0$ amplitude at leading order in $\tan \beta$ and work out the contributions to rare $K$, $B$ and radiative $\Upsilon$-decays and $B -\bar B$ mixing. contribution 0.59 0.95 0.07 asserted 0.98
We obtain constraints on the $A_1^0$ mass and couplings and show that masses down to ${\cal{O}}(10)$ MeV are allowed. result 1.00 0.95 0.42 asserted 1.00
The $b$-physics phenomenology of the NMSSM differs from the MSSM in the appearance of sizeable renormalization effects from neutral Higgses to the photon and gluon dipole operators and the breakdown of the MSSM correlation between the $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ branching ratio and $B_s - \bar B_s$ mixing. result 0.74 0.75 0.30 asserted 1.00
For $A_1^0$ masses above the tau threshold the $A_1^0$ can be searched for in $b \to s \tau^+ \tau^-$ processes with branching ratios $\lsim 10^{-3}$. result 0.51 0.59 0.11 hedged possibility 0.85

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.86

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

How the labels were made

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 5,941 input tokens, $0.0003 reported.

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. This record as JSON

Figures (3)
Figure 1 of the paper
Figure 1. The leading b → sA0 1 diagrams at large tan β in the NMSSM. where CA = −i tan βmb √ 2  − δ− x X i=1,2 Xi + λmt sin θt˜ cos θt˜ X l,j=1,2 Ylj   (9) and δ− parametrizes the A0 1 ¯bb coupling, see Eq. (A-4). The X, Y terms in Eq. (9) result from the wave function and vertex correction, respectively . They are written as Xi = mχiUi2 h√ 2mW Vi1  −D3(yc,i) + D3(y1,i) cos2 θt˜ + D3(y2,i) sin2 θt˜  − mtVi2 sin θt˜ cos θt˜ (D3(y1i) − D3(y2i))] (10) Ylj = Vj2Ul2 " y1jUj2Vl2 − mχl mχj Ul2Vj2 ! D2(y1j , zlj ) −
Figure 2 of the paper
Figure 2. Constraints on the A0 1 mass as a function of |δ−v/x| at tan β = 30 in the NMSSM. Shaded regions are excluded. The left bottom corner is excluded by rare K￾decay, see Eq. (21). The triangular region to the lower right is obtained from radiative Υ(1s) decays, see Eq. (35). The region to the left of the vertical dashed blue lines can only be reached if mA is bigger than the value indicated, see Section 3. Constraints from ∆md are given for mA ≥ 500 GeV and mA ≥ 1000 GeV. We also show the missing energy condition for B → K decays given in Eq. (20) (dashed green line). The vertical…
Figure 3 of the paper
Figure 3. The correlation between CS + CP and q |CS| 2 + |CP + δ SM 10 | 2 in the NMSSM for tan β = 30, mA = 500 GeV and mA0 1 = 0.1, 1 and 10 GeV. Also shown is the experimental upper bound given in Eq. (34) (dashed line). of the dipole operators from neutral (pseudo)scalars is tiny in this model. For example, consider additional right handed currents, which induce contributions to the helicity flipped operators O′ i , i.e. the ones obtained from Oi with right R and left L chiralities interchanged. In this case, C ′ S − C ′ P mixes onto the flipped dipole operators O′ 7,8 , but C ′ S = C ′ P…

Figures are the authors', reproduced from the paper.

References (40)
  1. [1] S. R. Choudhury and N. Gaur, Phys. Lett. B 451, 86 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9810307]; K. S. Babu and C. F. Kolda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 228 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9909476]; M. Carena, D. Garcia, U. Nierste and C. E. M. Wagner, Nucl. Phys. B 577, 88 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9912516] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [2] C. S. Huang, W. Liao, Q. S. Yan and S. H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 63, 114021 (2001) [Erratum-ibid. D 64, 059902 (2001)] [arXiv:hep-ph/0006250] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [3] C. Bobeth, T. Ewerth, F. Kruger and J. Urban, Phys. Rev. D 64, 074014 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0104284] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  4. [4] A. J. Buras, P. H. Chankowski, J. Rosiek and L. Slawianowska, Nu cl. Phys. B 619, 434 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0107048]; A. Dedes and A. Pilaftsis, Ph ys. Rev. D 67, 015012 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0209306]; A. Dedes, Mod. Phys. Le tt. A 18, 2627 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0309233] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  5. [5] G. Isidori and A. Retico, JHEP 0111, 001 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0110121] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [6] A. J. Buras, P. H. Chankowski, J. Rosiek and L. Slawianowska, Nu cl. Phys. B 659, 3 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0210145]. 16 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [7] G. Hiller and F. Kr¨ uger, Phys. Rev. D 69, 074020 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0310219] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [8] H. P. Nilles, M. Srednicki and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. B 120, 346 (1983); J. M. Frere, D. R. T. Jones and S. Raby, Nucl. Phys. B 222, 11 (1983); J. P. Derendinger and C. A. Savoy, Nucl. Phys. B 237, 307 (1984) on Pith
  9. [9] J. R. Ellis, J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, L. Roszkowski and F. Zwirne r, Phys. Rev. D 39, 844 (1989) on Pith
  10. [10] B. A. Dobrescu and K. T. Matchev, JHEP 0009, 031 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0008192] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [11] B. A. Dobrescu, Phys. Rev. D 63, 015004 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/9908391] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  12. [12] B. A. Dobrescu, G. Landsberg and K. T. Matchev, Phys. Rev. D 63, 075003 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0005308]; U. Ellwanger, J. F. Gunion, C. Hugonie and S . Moretti, arXiv:hep-ph/0401228 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  13. [13] U. Ellwanger, M. Rausch de Traubenberg and C. A. Savoy, Nucl. Phys. B 492, 21 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9611251] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  14. [14] B. Ananthanarayan and P. N. Pandita, Phys. Lett. B 353, 70 (1995) [arXiv:hep-ph/9503323], Phys. Lett. B 371, 245 (1996) [arXiv:hep-ph/9511415] and Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 12, 2321 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9601372] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  15. [15] T. Han, D. Marfatia and R. J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 61, 013007 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9906508] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  16. [16] R. Kitano, G. D. Kribs and H. Murayama, arXiv:hep-ph/0402215 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  17. [17] J. M. Frere, J. A. M. Vermaseren and M. B. Gavela, Phys. Lett . B 103 (1981) 129; L. J. Hall and M. B. Wise, Nucl. Phys. B 187, 397 (1981); B. Grzadkowski and P. Krawczyk, Z. Phys. C 18 (1983) 43; S. Bertolini, F. Borzumati and A. Masiero, Nucl. Phys. B 312, 281 (1989); C. Bir... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  18. [18] H. E. Haber, A. S. Schwarz and A. E. Snyder, Nucl. Phys. B 294, 301 (1987) on Pith
  19. [19] J. Rosiek, arXiv:hep-ph/9511250 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  20. [20] F. Franke and H. Fraas, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 12, 479 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9512366] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
show 20 more
  1. [21] D. J. Miller, R. Nevzorov and P. M. Zerwas, Nucl. Phys. B 681, 3 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0304049] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [22] U. Ellwanger, Phys. Lett. B 303, 271 (1993) [arXiv:hep-ph/9302224]; P. N. Pandita, Phys. Lett. B 318, 338 (1993) and Z. Phys. C 59 (1993) 575; T. Elliott, S. F. King and P. L. White, Phys. Lett. B 314, 56 (1993) [arXiv:hep-ph/9305282] and Phys. Rev. D 49, 2435 (1994) [arXiv:he... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [23] R. Ammar et al. [CLEO Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 271801 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ex/0106038] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  4. [24] B. Aubert et al. [BABAR Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/0304020 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  5. [25] B. Aubert et al. [BABAR Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/0308016 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [26] J. Kaneko et al. [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 021801 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ex/0208029] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [27] A. Ishikawa et al. [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 261601 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ex/0308044] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [28] B. Aubert et al. [BABAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 221802 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ex/0308042] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [29] R. Appel et al. [E865 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4482 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ex/9907045] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  10. [30] S. Adler et al. [E787 Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 537, 211 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ex/0201037]; [E787 Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/040303 4 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [31] K. Hagiwara et al. [Particle Data Group Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 66, 010001 (2002) on Pith
  12. [32] T. E. Coan et al. [CLEO Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1150 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ex/9710028]; updated in A. Kagan, arXiv:hep-ph/98062 66 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  13. [33] Y. Grossman, Z. Ligeti and E. Nardi, Phys. Rev. D 55, 2768 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9607473] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  14. [34] D. Acosta [CDF Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/0403032 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  15. [35] A. Ali, P. Ball, L. T. Handoko and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D 61, 074024 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9910221] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  16. [36] R. Balest et al. [CLEO Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 51, 2053 (1995) on Pith
  17. [37] F. Borzumati, C. Greub, T. Hurth and D. Wyler, Phys. Rev. D 62, 075005 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9911245] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  18. [38] http://www.feynhiggs.de; S. Heinemeyer, Eur. Phys. J. C 22, 521 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0108059]; M. Frank, S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik and G. We iglein, arXiv:hep-ph/0212037 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  19. [39] A. J. Buras, P. H. Chankowski, J. Rosiek and L. Slawianowska, P hys. Lett. B 546, 96 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0207241] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  20. [40] J. F. Gunion, G. Gamberini and S. F. Novaes, Phys. Rev. D 38, 3481 (1988). 18 on Pith
Cited by 26 Pith papers

Reviewed papers on Pith that cite this one. The full citation record

  1. Coupling QCD-scale axion-like particles to gluons hep-ph · Nov 2018
  2. Displaced or invisible? ALPs from $B$ decays at Belle II hep-ph · Jan 2022
  3. Casting a Wide Signal Net with Future Direct Dark Matter Detection Experiments hep-ph · Apr 2018
  4. Neutrino Lines from Majoron Dark Matter hep-ph · Jan 2017
  5. ALPtraum: ALP production in proton beam dump experiments hep-ph · Dec 2015
  6. A taste of dark matter: Flavour constraints on pseudoscalar mediators hep-ph · Dec 2014
  7. Multi-lepton Signatures of a Hidden Sector in Rare B Decays hep-ph · Nov 2009
  8. Flavor constraints on electroweak ALP couplings hep-ph · Jan 2019
  9. Axion-Like Particles at Future Colliders hep-ph · Aug 2018
  10. Possible Explanation of the Electron Positron Anomaly at 17 MeV in $^8Be$ Transitions Through a Light Pseudoscalar hep-ph · Sep 2016
  11. A 750 GeV Diphoton Signal from a Very Light Pseudoscalar in the NMSSM hep-ph · Feb 2016
  12. Reevaluation of spin-dependent WIMP-proton interactions as an explanation of the DAMA data hep-ph · Feb 2015
  13. Extending LHC Coverage to Light Pseudoscalar Mediators and Coy Dark Sectors hep-ph · Jan 2015
  14. Confronting the MSSM and the NMSSM with the Discovery of a Signal in the two Photon Channel at the LHC hep-ph · Jul 2012
  15. Constraints on a very light CP-odd Higgs of the NMSSM and other axion-like particles hep-ph · May 2010
  16. Rare meson decays into very light neutralinos hep-ph · May 2009
  17. 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 · Feb 2009
  18. Radiative Upsilon decays and a light pseudoscalar Higgs in the NMSSM hep-ph · Oct 2008
  19. SuperIso v3.0: A program for calculating flavor physics observables in 2HDM and supersymmetry hep-ph · Aug 2008
  20. Probing NMSSM Scenarios with Minimal Fine-Tuning by Searching for Decays of the Upsilon to a Light CP-Odd Higgs Boson hep-ph · Dec 2006
  21. Light Neutralino Dark Matter in the NMSSM hep-ph · Sep 2005
  22. A facility to Search for Hidden Particles at the CERN SPS: the SHiP physics case hep-ph · Apr 2015
  23. Updated Constraints from B Physics on the MSSM and the NMSSM hep-ph · Oct 2007
  24. The NMSSM Solution to the Fine-Tuning Problem, Precision Electroweak Constraints and the Largest LEP Higgs Event Excess hep-ph · May 2007
  25. The Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model hep-ph · Oct 2009
  26. The Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model reviewed hep-ph · Jun 2009
How the literature uses it

40 arXiv papers cite this in 77 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 · 58 sentences without a confident label

Builds on it 3 papers
Uses its method or tool 2 papers
Uses its data or values 3 papers
Compares with it 1 paper
  • Our results for the various branching ratios in the case of Yukawa-like couplings – and the total width of the pseudoscalar – are shown in Fig. [ref].[These results are in agreement with [ref] , but disagree with the branching ratios presented in [ref] , where it has been neglected that the decay $A →g g$ is kinematically forbidden for $m_A <2 m_π$ and that the decay of $A$ into two pseudoscalar mesons violates $CP$.] We provide details of our calculations of these quantities in Appendix [ref], being careful to provide a self-consistent estimation of the hadronic decay width.

    A taste of dark matter: Flavour constraints on pseudoscalar mediators · Pseudoscalar decays · 0.84

Cites it as background 8 papers

Challenges and discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, or challenge this review formally: a challenge becomes a permanent entry in this paper's record, and its decision is published here.

No comments yet.

Sign in to comment