A brief review of R-parity-violating couplings

Gautam Bhattacharyya

REVIEW

A brief review of R-parity-violating couplings

Gautam Bhattacharyya

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 18 Sep 1997 · 28 references

Pith's verdict: A genuinely useful, honestly sourced 1997 compilation of RPV limits, but the tables are one-coupling-at-a-time slices at m̃ = 100 GeV and the §3 summary should say so.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 13, 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 →

· 1 major objection · 9 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/9709395 (version 2)

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

CitationGautam Bhattacharyya. "A brief review of R-parity-violating couplings." arXiv:hep-ph/9709395 (1997). https://pith.science/paper/GRXSZLWO

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

The thing to know up front: this is a conference-review table, not a result, and it is a good one. Bhattacharyya collects the indirect upper bounds on all 45 RPV Yukawa couplings into two tables with a named source per entry, adds a third table of product couplings, and recomputes two entries with then-new data — the LEP lineshape bounds in Eq. (13) and the τ → πν bound in §2.11. The recomputations state their inputs (Br(τ→πν), f_π, the R_l^exp values), so the arithmetic is checkable. He also marks the basis-dependent quark-mixing bounds with a ‡ and the perturbative-unitarity entries with a † so nobody mistakes them for phenomenological limits. That labelling is more than most compilations bother with, and it is the reason the tables are usable at all. The formulas in §§2.5–2.9 are the standard ones and are transcribed correctly as far as I can see. Where it is soft, in order of how much it matters. The stress-test note is right about the APV entries. Eq. (9) puts λ'111, λ'121 and λ'131 into C_1d through the same r'_{1j1} term, so APV constrains their combination, not each separately. Table 2 lists λ'121 = 0.035 and λ'131 = 0.035 as independent bounds; both at their tabulated values would overshoot the 2σ window. The author does say 'assuming only one coupling at a time' in §2.5 and §2.6, so this is acknowledged rather than hidden — but the qualifier does not travel into §3 or the abstract, and §3 is the sentence people will quote. One added clause there fixes it. Second, two numbers rest on unpublished talks: ref. 24 (Ward, EPS plenary) for the LEP observables and ref. 16 (Marciano, INT workshop) for Q_W^SM. That is normal for 1997 proceedings and the values are checkable against the published LEP combination, but a reader now cannot follow those citations directly. Third, minor: every entry is fixed at m̃ = 100 GeV with no stated scaling rule. In most cases r ∝ λ²/m̃², so λ ∝ m̃ is trivial, but it is not written down. Same for the LEP bounds, which quote R_l^SM with m_H free — the extracted coupling inherits that dependence. None of this breaks the central claim that these were the strongest indirect bounds then available. It is a working reference and it does that job. Who it is for: anyone building RPV models who needs to know which couplings were already closed in 1997, and anyone tracing where a modern limit originated. Not for someone wanting a derivation. Recommendation: worth a referee if it comes to a journal as a review; the fixes are a qualifier in §3 and a scaling footnote, not a reanalysis.

Referee report

Significance

As a compilation the paper has real value: it is compact, the tables are complete over all 45 couplings, and each entry is tied to a named process. The two recomputed chains are reproducible from the stated inputs — inserting λ_133 = 0.003, m_τ = 1.78 GeV, m̃ = 100 GeV into Eq. (2) gives δm_νe ≈ 3.6 eV, and the analogous λ′_133 chain with N_c = 3 and m_b gives ≈ 3.8 eV, both consistent with the stated δm_νe ≤ 5 eV requirement. Table 3, which collects product-coupling limits (proton decay, μ→3e, ε_K, Δm_K, Δm_B, K_L→μe, μTi→eTi), is a useful addition not always present in reviews of this kind. The paper is a review quoting published results by design, so the appropriate standard is accuracy of transcription and of the two recomputations, not derivation from first principles. On that standard it largely succeeds; the concerns below are about how the tables are labelled and about a handful of entries whose stated source does not quite match the text.

Major objections (1)

[§3 and captions of Tables 1–2] The tables are one-coupling-at-a-time slices, but that qualifier does not travel with them. §2.5 states 'Assuming the presence of only one R-parity coupling at a time' and §2.6 repeats 'assuming only one coupling at a time', yet neither table caption nor the §3 sentence 'the best indirect upper bounds to date on the 45 RPV Yukawa couplings' carries the qualifier. (The mass qualifier is fine: both captions say 'for m̃ = 100 GeV'.) The APV entries make the omission concrete. Eq. (9) puts λ′_111, λ′_121, and λ′_131 into C_1d through the same r′_1j1(q̃_jL) term, so the APV measurement constrains their sum, not each separately. With r′_1j1 = (M_W²/g²)(λ′²/m̃²) ≈ 1.5 λ′² at m̃ = 100 GeV (Eq. 4), each λ′_1j1 = 0.035 gives r′ ≈ 1.9×10⁻³; using Q_W ≈ −2[(2Z+N)C_1u + (Z+2N)C_1d] for Cs (2Z+N = 188, Z+2N = 211) and the +r′_1j1 term in C_1d, each entry shifts Q_W by roughly −0.8, so the two tabulated values together shift it by roughly −1.6 against Q_W^exp − Q_W^SM = +1.06 ± 0.93. The pair λ′_121 = 0.035 and λ′_131 = 0.035 is therefore not jointly attainable at 2σ, and the tables should be read as a set of one-dimensional slices rather than as a boundary of the allowed region. The author already acknowledges the assumption in the body, so this is a labelling gap, not a hidden error; the fix is one clause in each caption and one sentence in §3, and no number needs to change.

Minor objections (9)

[§2.5 vs. Table 1] §2.5 states 'λ_12k ≤ 0.05 (1σ)', but Table 1 marks the three λ_12k entries with (*), which the caption defines as 2σ limits. One of the two labels is wrong; please reconcile. The companion λ′_11k ≤ 0.02 (2σ) is consistent between §2.5 and Table 2.
[§2.10 vs. Table 2] §2.10 reports λ′_ijk ≤ 0.012 (90% CL) from K⁺→π⁺νν̄ for j = 1 and 2, but no Table 2 entry reflects this: the corresponding entries are λ′_112 = 0.02(*), λ′_121 = 0.035(*), λ′_123 = 0.20(‡), and so on. Since the table does use the (‡) marker for basis-dependent bounds elsewhere (λ′_123, λ′_321–323), either add the 0.012(‡) entries or state in §2.10 that the basis-independent bounds are preferred in the table where they exist.
[Table 2, λ′_122 row] The λ′_122 = 0.02 entry is attributed to 'ν_e-mass', but §2.3 derives only λ_133 ≤ 0.003 and λ′_133 ≤ 0.0007; the λ′_122 case (an s-quark loop, which would relax the bound by roughly m_b/m_s relative to λ′_133) is never written down. Please supply the short derivation or correct the source label, which may have been intended as CC universality (the same 0.02 as λ′_112 and λ′_113).
[Eqs. (3) and (5)] In Eq. (3) the middle term of the bracket carries a factor V_ud, '2r′_11k(d̃_kR)V_ud', while the other two terms are dimensionless; the same stray factor appears in Eq. (5) as '2V_ud{r′_11k(d̃_kR) − r′_21k(d̃_kR)}'. Since r′_ijk is defined in Eq. (4) as dimensionless, these factors look like transcription errors. Please check both equations.
[§2.13] The LEP comparison quotes R_l^SM = 20.756 'with m_H treated as a free parameter', but no value or range of m_H is given. Because the SM prediction is m_H-dependent at the level of the shifts being compared, the reader cannot reproduce the λ′_13k ≤ 0.34, λ′_23k ≤ 0.36, λ′_33k ≤ 0.48, and λ″_3jk ≤ 0.50 numbers without knowing which m_H was used. Please state the value or the range scanned.
[§2.11] The input Br(τ⁻→π⁻ν_τ) = 0.113 ± 0.0015 attributed to PDG 1996 [20] should be checked against that reference; the quoted uncertainty appears smaller than the tabulated one. Since the λ′_31k ≤ 0.10 bound is one of the entries the paper explicitly says it has updated, the input should be quoted exactly.
[Abstract and §3] The abstract promises that 'some limits have been updated using recent data', but the tables do not distinguish updated entries from those carried over from ref. [28]. Marking the updated rows (at minimum the §2.8, §2.11, §2.12, and §2.13 entries) would let a reader see what is new in this version.
[§1] The introduction counts 48 additional parameters including the three bilinear μ_i, but the review bounds only the 45 Yukawa couplings. A sentence stating explicitly that the bilinear terms are outside the scope of this review would prevent the reader from expecting μ_i limits in Tables 1–2.
[Table 3, first row] §2.1 restricts the proton-decay bound to λ′_11k λ″_11k ≤ 10⁻²² for k = 2, 3, but Table 3 drops the restriction and lists the combination generically. Please restore the k = 2, 3 qualifier in the table.

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

The paper

The paper claims

This review collects the tightest indirect upper bounds on all 45 R-parity-violating Yukawa couplings of supersymmetry, quoted at one sigma for a 100 GeV sfermion mass, with several entries recomputed from 1997 data.

The reading

Supersymmetry pairs every Standard Model particle with a heavier partner, and a discrete bookkeeping rule called R-parity is what normally keeps the two worlds from mixing. If that rule is not exact, new Yukawa couplings appear that let a single superparticle decay into ordinary matter, and the question becomes how large they can be without contradicting data already in hand. This review answers that by walking through every low-energy probe sensitive to such a coupling — proton decay, neutron–antineutron oscillation, neutrino mass, neutrinoless double $\beta$ decay, lepton and quark universality in weak decays, atomic parity violation, neutrino scattering, kaon and D decays, and the LEP lineshape — computing each as a function of one coupling at a time and converting the measured agreement with the Standard Model into an upper limit. The output is a compact set of tables covering all 45 couplings, with the tightest entries reaching $10^{-6}$ and below and the loosest sitting near $0.5$. The point of the exercise is a map of where new physics could still hide: a coupling outside these ranges would have left a trace in data taken long before any collider search for supersymmetry.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the R-parity-violating superpotential itself, $W = 2^{-1}L_iL_jE^c_k + L_iQ_jD^c_k + U^c_iD^c_jD^c_k + L_iH_u$, and the fact that a single coupling of this kind can be rewritten, by a Fierz transformation or a loop calculation, into the same $(V-A)otimes(V-A)$ form as an ordinary weak amplitude. That is what makes the bounds possible: because the new amplitude and the Standard Model amplitude add coherently, each observable becomes a polynomial in one coupling, and the measured agreement with the Standard Model becomes an interval for that coupling. The paper's contribution is the systematic application of this translation to roughly a dozen observables and the assembly of the results into a single indexed table.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that its Tables 1 and 2 are the best indirect upper bounds available at the time on the 45 R-parity-violating Yukawa couplings — 27 of the $L$-violating $LQD^c$ type, 9 of the $LLE^c$ type, and 9 of the $B$-violating $U^cD^cD^c$ type — all at one $\sigma$ and for a common sfermion mass of 100 GeV, with the LEP and tau-decay entries recomputed from the 1997 data. The representative numbers are concrete: $|V_{ud}|$ universality and atomic parity violation pin $LQD^c$-type couplings with first-generation indices to the few-percent level, with $0.035$ for the atomic-parity-violation entry; neutrinoless double $\beta$ decay forces the purely first-generation coupling to $0.00035$; the electron-neutrino Majorana mass forces the third-generation $LLE^c$ coupling to $0.003$; double nucleon decay forces the baryon-violating coupling to $10^{-6}$ or below; and the LEP hadronic-to-leptonic ratio, with the top quark running in a triangle loop, bounds the third-generation couplings at $0.34$ to $0.50$. Product couplings fare far worse: proton stability requires $10^{-22}$ for the light-generation combination and $10^{-10}$ for any flavour combination, and kaon mixing requires $10^{-9}$. If the compilation is right, no R-parity-violating coupling outside these ranges survives the low-energy data then available.

Load-bearing premise

Every bound in the tables assumes that exactly one R-parity-violating coupling is nonzero at a time and that all sfermions sit at a common 100 GeV, so the numbers describe a one-dimensional slice of the allowed region rather than its full shape.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any coupling whose product would mediate proton decay is forced below $10^{-22}$ for light generations and $10^{-10}$ for any flavour combination, so baryon-number violation in supersymmetry must be either absent or extraordinarily weak.
The couplings with first-generation quark and lepton indices, which are exactly the ones invoked to explain the large-$Q^2$ HERA anomaly, are pushed to about $0.035$ or below by atomic parity violation, leaving little room for that explanation.
Couplings carrying third-generation indices are the least constrained, at $0.34$ to $0.50$, because their leading loop diagrams require top quarks and so their effects are comparatively small.
Because every entry is quoted at a common 100 GeV sfermion mass, a heavier superpartner sector weakens all the bounds, so the table should be read as the boundary of the allowed region for light supersymmetry rather than as a mass-independent statement.

Reading between the lines

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

Every observable here is quadratic in the coupling, so a table of one-coupling-at-a-time limits does not by itself bound the case where two couplings are simultaneously comparable; a dedicated flat-direction analysis would be needed to close that gap, and the paper does not attempt one.
The author marks the kaon-decay and $D^0$–$\bar D^0$ entries as basis-dependent, which means the two numbers $0.012$ and $0.20$ are not physical quantities but artefacts of assuming the CKM matrix equals one or the other of the two mixing rotations; a basis-independent formulation would be the statement worth carrying forward.
The third-generation entries are set by LEP lineshape precision, so the same observables at a future $Z$ factory would tighten them roughly with the square root of the collected statistics — a straightforward experimental upgrade path the review does not spell out.
Since the bounds scale with the assumed sfermion mass, a supersymmetric spectrum heavy enough to evade direct searches would relax the whole table, which means the strongest entries are conditional on light superpartners rather than on the R-parity-violating idea itself.

Original abstract

I review the upper limits on the R-parity-violating Yukawa couplings from indirect searches. Some limits have been updated using recent data.

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, 2,176 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.02 · states limitation 0.12 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.03 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.08 · compares with prior results 0.33 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

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

I review the upper limits on the R-parity-violating Yukawa couplings from indirect searches. Some limits have been updated using recent data.

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	I review the upper limits on the R-parity-violating Yukawa couplings from indirect searches.	contribution 0.98	0.37	0.19	asserted 0.78
s1	Some limits have been updated using recent data.	contribution 0.82	0.42	0.10	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: review 1.00 · evidence from literature 0.87.

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 (28)

[1]

Farrar G and Fayet P 1978 Phys. Lett. B76 575

View on Pith 1978
[2]

Weinberg S 1982 Phys. Rev. D26 287; Sakai N and Yanagida T 1982 Nucl. Phys. B197 533; Aulakh C and Mohapatra R 1982 Phys. Lett. B119 136

View on Pith 1982
[3]

Hall L J and Suzuki M 1984 Nucl. Phys. B231 419; Ellis J et al 1985 Phys. Lett. B150 142; Ross G and Valle J 1985 Phys. Lett. B151 375; Dawson S 1985 Nucl. Phys. B261 297; Barbieri R and Masiero A 1986 Nucl. Phys. B267 679

View on Pith 1984
[4]

Hinchliﬀe I and Kaeding T 1993 Phys. Rev. D47 279

View on Pith 1993
[5]

Carlson C, Roy P and Sher M 1995 Phys. Lett. B357 99

View on Pith 1995
[6]

Smirnov A Y and Vissani F 1996 Phys. Lett. B380 317

View on Pith 1996
[7]

Goity J L and Sher M 1995 Phys. Lett. B346 69

View on Pith 1995
[8]

Dimopoulos S and Hall L J 1987 Phys. Lett. B207 210

View on Pith 1987
[9]

Godbole R, Roy P and Tata X 1993 Nucl. Phys. B401 67

View on Pith 1993
[10]

Mohapatra R N 1986 Phys. Rev. D34 3457

View on Pith 1986
[11]

Hirsch M, these proceedings; Hirsch M, Klapdor-Kleing rothaus H V and Kovalenko S G 1995 Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 17; 1996 Phys. Rev. D53 1329

View on Pith 1995
[12]

Babu K S and Mohapatra R N 1995 Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 2276

View on Pith 1995
[13]

Barger V, Giudice G F and Han T 1989 Phys. Rev. D40 2987

View on Pith 1989
[14]

Dreiner H hep-ph/9707435

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[15]

Davidson S, Bailey D and Campbell B 1994 Z. Phys. C61 613

View on Pith 1994
[16]

Marciano W 1997 Talk at 1997 INT Summer workshop

View on Pith 1997
[17]

Wood C S 1997 Science 275 1759

View on Pith 1997
[18]

For a review of the experimental situation and many theo retical papers attempting to explain the anomaly, see Altarelli G hep-ph/9708437. Also see, Sirois Y, these proceedings; Dreiner H, these proceedi ngs

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[19]

Agashe K and Graesser M 1996 Phys. Rev. D54 4445

View on Pith 1996
[20]

Particle Data Group 1996 Phys. Rev. D54 1

View on Pith 1996
[21]

Bhattacharyya G and Choudhury D 1995 Mod. Phys. Lett. A10 1699

View on Pith 1995
[22]

Bhattacharyya G, Ellis J and Sridhar K 1995 Mod. Phys. Lett. A10 1583

View on Pith 1995
[23]

Bhattacharyya G, Choudhury D and Sridhar K 1995 Phys. Lett. B355 193

View on Pith 1995
[24]

Ward D 1997 Plenary Talk at the EPS meeting, Jerusalem, August 1997

View on Pith 1997
[25]

Choudhury D and Roy P 1996 Phys. Lett. B378 153

View on Pith 1996
[26]

Barbieri R, Strumia A and Berezhiani Z hep-ph/9704275

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[27]

Brahmachari B and Roy P 1994 Phys. Rev. D50 39, 1995 ibid. 51 3974 (E)

View on Pith 1994
[28]

Bhattacharyya G 1997 Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 52A 83. 7 Table 1 . Upper limits (1 σ) on λ- and λ′′-couplings for ˜m = 100 GeV. The numbers with (*) correspond to 2 σ limits and those with ( †) are not phenomenological limits. ijk λ ijk Sources ijk λ ′′ijk Sources 121 0.05(*) CC univ. 112 10 −6 Double nucleon decay 122 0.05(*) CC univ. 113 10 −4 n–¯n osc. ...

View on Pith 1997

Forward citations

Cited by 14 Pith papers

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

Dynamical R-Parity Violation
hep-ph 2013-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

R-parity breaking mediated from a hidden SUSY-breaking sector generates new non-holomorphic RPV operators that are naturally small and predict displaced-vertex LHC signals.
Aspects of the WIMP quality problem and R-parity violation in natural supersymmetry with all axion dark matter
hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

In natural supersymmetry with discrete R-symmetries, R-parity violation at the 1e-7 level can make the lightest supersymmetric particle decay before nucleosynthesis, leaving only axion dark matter, and LHC non-observa...
All axion dark matter from supersymmetric models
hep-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

For Z_4^R and Z_8^R discrete R-symmetries, R-parity violating couplings of order 10^-7 make the lightest supersymmetric particle decay in 10^-3 to 10 seconds, so the dark matter is entirely axion cold dark matter.
Search for massive supersymmetric particles decaying to many jets using the ATLAS detector in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV
hep-ex 2015-02 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

No deviation from Standard Model multi-jet backgrounds is observed in 8 TeV ATLAS data, excluding R-parity-violating gluinos below 917 GeV for six-light-quark decays and up to about 1 TeV for ten-quark cascades.
A Flavor Kit for BSM models
hep-ph 2014-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The authors release an automated pipeline (PreSARAH, SARAH, SPheno) that derives one-loop Wilson coefficients for a fixed operator list and turns them into numerical predictions for about twenty flavor observables in ...

Show 9 more citing papers

MFV SUSY: A Natural Theory for R-Parity Violation
hep-ph 2011-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Imposing holomorphic minimal flavor violation on the R-parity-violating MSSM leaves one baryon-number-violating coupling, making R-parity an accidental symmetry and keeping the proton stable without a discrete symmetry.
Bounds on R-parity Violating Couplings at the Weak Scale and at the GUT Scale
hep-ph 1999-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Renormalising measured weak-scale limits on trilinear R-parity violating couplings up to the grand unification scale tightens them by factors of two to five, and by up to seven orders of magnitude once quark mixing is...
The ABC of RPV III: Classification of R-parity Violating Signatures from LQD Couplings and their Coverage at the LHC
hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The LHC currently excludes gluino and squark LSPs decaying via LQD couplings up to masses above 2 TeV and 1.8 TeV respectively, while direct slepton LSP production and tau-rich electroweakino scenarios remain largely ...
Explaining the Lepton Non-universality at the LHCb and CMS from a Unified Framework
hep-ph 2014-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A specific pair of R-parity-violating supersymmetry couplings, lambda-prime-112 and lambda-prime-113, can simultaneously account for the LHCb R_K anomaly and the CMS eejj excess near 2 TeV.
SARAH 3.2: Dirac Gauginos, UFO output, and more
hep-ph 2012-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

SARAH 3.2 adds UFO model-file output for MadGraph 5, support for Dirac gaugino mass terms, and automated consistency checks, with MSSM cross sections validated against MadGraph's own model files to within numerical error.
R-parity Violation and Light Neutralinos at CODEX-b, FASER, and MATHUSLA
hep-ph 2018-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

For light RPV neutralinos produced in D- and B-meson decays, MATHUSLA reaches roughly five to ten times further into coupling space than CODEX-b or FASER, which perform comparably to each other.
Probing exotic phenomena at the interface of nuclear and particle physics with the electric dipole moments of diamagnetic atoms: A unique window to hadronic and semi-leptonic CP violation
hep-ph 2017-03 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

Combining the mercury EDM limit with new relativistic coupled-cluster calculations constrains the nuclear Schiff moment, the tensor-pseudotensor electron-nucleus coupling, and the QCD theta parameter.
Bounds on R-parity violating supersymmetric couplings from leptonic and semi-leptonic meson decays
hep-ph 2006-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Updated and partly corrected upper bounds on products of R-parity-violating supersymmetric couplings, derived from lepton-flavour- and lepton-number-violating tau, muon, eta, kaon and B decays.
R-parity violating supersymmetry
hep-ph 2004-06 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

A comprehensive review consolidating the theory, phenomenology, and experimental bounds on R-parity-violating supersymmetry, with no new derivation claimed.

How the literature uses it

39 arXiv papers cite this in 48 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 · 21 sentences without a confident label

Uses its data or values 2 papers

Then, the best upper limit on $$ comes from [ref] [equation] and its value is [equation] at 90% C.L..

Can Flavor Physics Hint at Distinctive Signals for R-parity Violation at the LHC? · R-Parity Violation: the Flavor Connection · 0.91
This upper limit weakens to 0.002 and 0.1 for $m_q̃ =$ 200 and 600 GeV [ref] , respectively. $λ_3jk^''$ has been constrained from $R_l = Γ(Z →hadronic)/Γ(Z →l l̅)$ to $≲0.5$ for $m_q̃ = 100 GeV$ [ref] .

Electroweakino searches at the HL-LHC in the baryon number violating MSSM · Introduction · 0.94

Compares with it 1 paper

The limits obtained are looser than those obtained from other experiments [ref] , so it is not possible to obtain upper bounds on RPV interactions from the $^199$Hg EDM experimental data.

R-parity violating supersymmetric contributions to the P, CP-odd electron-nucleon interaction at the one-loop level · Analysis of the P, CP-odd 4-quark interaction within R-parity violation at the one-loop level · 0.93

Cites it as background 23 papers

Phenomenological constraints exist on each of these $λ'_ijk$ couplings and also on many of their products, taken pairwise [ref] .

Can Flavor Physics Hint at Distinctive Signals for R-parity Violation at the LHC? · R-Parity Violation: the Flavor Connection · 0.91
Until now, many of the RPV interactions were constrained by high energy experiments, low energy precision tests, and cosmological phenomenology [ref] .

R-parity violating supersymmetric contributions to the neutron beta decay at the one-loop level · Introduction · 0.82
In this work we focus on the $CP$ violation of the $R$-parity violating (RPV) sector [ref] .

R-parity violating two-loop level rainbowlike contribution to the fermion electric dipole moment · Introduction · 0.97

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]

Farrar G and Fayet P 1978 Phys. Lett. B76 575

View on Pith 1978

[2] [2]

Weinberg S 1982 Phys. Rev. D26 287; Sakai N and Yanagida T 1982 Nucl. Phys. B197 533; Aulakh C and Mohapatra R 1982 Phys. Lett. B119 136

View on Pith 1982

[3] [3]

Hall L J and Suzuki M 1984 Nucl. Phys. B231 419; Ellis J et al 1985 Phys. Lett. B150 142; Ross G and Valle J 1985 Phys. Lett. B151 375; Dawson S 1985 Nucl. Phys. B261 297; Barbieri R and Masiero A 1986 Nucl. Phys. B267 679

View on Pith 1984

[4] [4]

Hinchliﬀe I and Kaeding T 1993 Phys. Rev. D47 279

View on Pith 1993

[5] [5]

Carlson C, Roy P and Sher M 1995 Phys. Lett. B357 99

View on Pith 1995

[6] [6]

Smirnov A Y and Vissani F 1996 Phys. Lett. B380 317

View on Pith 1996

[7] [7]

Goity J L and Sher M 1995 Phys. Lett. B346 69

View on Pith 1995

[8] [8]

Dimopoulos S and Hall L J 1987 Phys. Lett. B207 210

View on Pith 1987

[9] [9]

Godbole R, Roy P and Tata X 1993 Nucl. Phys. B401 67

View on Pith 1993

[10] [10]

Mohapatra R N 1986 Phys. Rev. D34 3457

View on Pith 1986

[11] [11]

Hirsch M, these proceedings; Hirsch M, Klapdor-Kleing rothaus H V and Kovalenko S G 1995 Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 17; 1996 Phys. Rev. D53 1329

View on Pith 1995

[12] [12]

Babu K S and Mohapatra R N 1995 Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 2276

View on Pith 1995

[13] [13]

Barger V, Giudice G F and Han T 1989 Phys. Rev. D40 2987

View on Pith 1989

[14] [14]

Dreiner H hep-ph/9707435

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[15] [15]

Davidson S, Bailey D and Campbell B 1994 Z. Phys. C61 613

View on Pith 1994

[16] [16]

Marciano W 1997 Talk at 1997 INT Summer workshop

View on Pith 1997

[17] [17]

Wood C S 1997 Science 275 1759

View on Pith 1997

[18] [18]

For a review of the experimental situation and many theo retical papers attempting to explain the anomaly, see Altarelli G hep-ph/9708437. Also see, Sirois Y, these proceedings; Dreiner H, these proceedi ngs

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[19] [19]

Agashe K and Graesser M 1996 Phys. Rev. D54 4445

View on Pith 1996

[20] [20]

Particle Data Group 1996 Phys. Rev. D54 1

View on Pith 1996

[21] [21]

Bhattacharyya G and Choudhury D 1995 Mod. Phys. Lett. A10 1699

View on Pith 1995

[22] [22]

Bhattacharyya G, Ellis J and Sridhar K 1995 Mod. Phys. Lett. A10 1583

View on Pith 1995

[23] [23]

Bhattacharyya G, Choudhury D and Sridhar K 1995 Phys. Lett. B355 193

View on Pith 1995

[24] [24]

Ward D 1997 Plenary Talk at the EPS meeting, Jerusalem, August 1997

View on Pith 1997

[25] [25]

Choudhury D and Roy P 1996 Phys. Lett. B378 153

View on Pith 1996

[26] [26]

Barbieri R, Strumia A and Berezhiani Z hep-ph/9704275

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[27] [27]

Brahmachari B and Roy P 1994 Phys. Rev. D50 39, 1995 ibid. 51 3974 (E)

View on Pith 1994

[28] [28]

Bhattacharyya G 1997 Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 52A 83. 7 Table 1 . Upper limits (1 σ) on λ- and λ′′-couplings for ˜m = 100 GeV. The numbers with (*) correspond to 2 σ limits and those with ( †) are not phenomenological limits. ijk λ ijk Sources ijk λ ′′ijk Sources 121 0.05(*) CC univ. 112 10 −6 Double nucleon decay 122 0.05(*) CC univ. 113 10 −4 n–¯n osc. ...

View on Pith 1997