Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Constraints on Dark Photon and Dark $Z$ Model Parameters in the $B$ and $K$ Meson Decays

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that of three dark-Z scenarios, only one—a roughly 30 MeV mediator with a direct muon coupling and a fine-tuned cancellation of its electron coupling—survives every current constraint while improving the fit to b→s μ+μ−…

desk verdict The paper's central claim fails on its own Lagrangian: the vector-only electron coupling cannot cancel the axial term from mass mixing, and the best-fit gμ_D=0.033 violates the paper's own K+→μ+invisible bound. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11438 v1 pith:MKTMVUMS submitted 2024-12-16 hep-ph

Ahmed Rashed This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords darkphotonZbosonflavor-changingneutralcurrentsBmesondecaysKleptonflavoruniversalityatomicparityviolationmuonanomalousmagneticmoment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether a light dark photon or dark Z boson produced in rare flavor-changing B and K decays can explain the observed discrepancies in b→s μ+μ− rates, and which parameter choices survive all other low-energy constraints. It finds that the basic mixing-only model improves the fit to the B-decay data but is excluded mainly by atomic parity violation, K+→μ+ν+invisible, and Bs−B̄s mixing. Adding a direct muon coupling improves the fit further, but the best-fit coupling is excluded by kaon radiative decays and the W-boson width. The only surviving option is a dark Z with mass near 30 MeV, direct muon coupling gμD around 0.033, and an electron coupling tuned to cancel the mixing-induced ZD-electron interaction, leaving all electron-mode observables Standard-Model-like. A sympathetic reader would take this as a map of where a light-mediator explanation of the B anomalies can still live.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the massive dark gauge boson ZD from a broken U(1)D dark sector, coupled to the Standard Model through kinetic mixing (parameter ε) and, in the dark-Z variant, mass mixing (parameter εZ). Flavor-changing neutral-current transitions b→sZD, s→dZD, and b→dZD are generated at one loop, and the resulting effective Hamiltonian feeds q2-dependent Wilson coefficients C9 and C10 through a ZD propagator that becomes resonant when the mediator is on shell. The decisive mechanism in the surviving scenario is a fine-tuned direct coupling geD chosen to cancel the mixing-induced ZD-e+e− vertex, so every electron-mode observable reduces to the Standard Model and atomic parity violation no longer applies; the muon coupling gμD then controls the B and K anomalies.

What would settle it

A dedicated NA62 search for K+→μ+ν+invisible sensitive below the rate predicted at gμD = 0.033 and MZD = 30 MeV would falsify the surviving region; failing that, a cesium weak-charge measurement more precise than the tolerance of the tuned cancellation would bring the atomic parity violation exclusion back.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a parameter-space scan: of three versions of a U(1)D dark Z in the 10 MeV to 2 GeV range, only the version with a direct vector coupling to muons and a fine-tuned direct coupling to electrons that cancels the mixing-induced ZD-e+e− interaction is consistent with the full set of constraints. The fit to binned b→s μ+μ− data prefers MZD = 30.2 MeV and gμD = 0.033, a region that fits the data at 2σ and also evades atomic parity violation, K→μ+invisible, neutrino trident production, Bs mixing, and LHCb dark-photon searches. The muon-only extension needed gμD = 0.28 and was excluded by K+→μ+νX and the W width; the base model was excluded by atomic parity violation below roughly 30 MeV. The paper also notes that at its surviving point the dark Z overshoots the muon g−2 discrepancy, so a complete model needs an additional negative contribution.

Load-bearing premise

The model survives only because the direct electron coupling geD is fine-tuned to cancel the mixing-induced ZD-electron interaction exactly, and the paper offers no symmetry or mechanism enforcing that cancellation; implicitly, it also assumes the K+→μ+ν+invisible bound of Section 4.5 (gμD < 0.01) does not apply to the fitted point gμD = 0.033.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the surviving scenario is correct, a light ZD with MZD near 30 MeV and gμD around 0.033 is compatible with all current B, K, APV, trident, and collider bounds, so future b→s μ+μ− and kaon-decay data will probe exactly this parameter region.
  • The muon-only extension is dead: its best-fit point gμD = 0.28 violates the K+→μ+νX and W-width constraints, so any future light-mediator explanation of the B anomalies must keep the muon coupling at the few-percent level and add another ingredient.
  • Electron-mode observables no longer discriminate among models once the electron coupling is tuned away, so the decisive experimental handles become muon-mode decays, rare kaon decays, and precision width measurements.
  • The surviving point leaves the muon g−2 discrepancy unresolved and in fact overshoots it, implying that additional new physics with a negative contribution must accompany the dark Z in any complete model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The required cancellation is not protected by any symmetry in the paper; radiative corrections will generically regenerate a small ZD-electron coupling, so a UV-complete version must enforce the tuning and would predict tiny but nonzero electron couplings that improved APV or electron-beam searches could detect.
  • The same tuning trick could rescue other light-mediator explanations of the B anomalies that are currently excluded by atomic parity violation or electron-mode experiments, shifting the decisive tests to muon-mode channels such as LHCb dimuon searches and CCFR trident production.
  • The paper's own Section 4.5 quotes gμD < 0.01 from K+→μ+ν+invisible, while the surviving fit uses gμD = 0.033; a dedicated recast of that NA62 limit with the Case C invisible-width assumptions would decide whether the surviving region is as wide as the summary suggests.
  • If a dark Z with gμD around 0.033 exists, its positive contribution to (g−2)μ is large enough to require a second, negative contribution elsewhere, making the model testable through the correlation between a future B-anomaly measurement and a future muon g−2 measurement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a dark U(1)_D model with a dark photon/dark Z boson in the mass range 10 MeV to 2 GeV, applied to flavor-changing neutral-current decays of B and K mesons. Three cases are considered: the base model (Case A), an extension with a direct vector coupling to muons (Case B), and an extension with direct couplings to both muons and electrons, where the electron coupling is fine-tuned to cancel the mixing-induced coupling to electrons (Case C). The authors fit b→sℓ+ℓ− data using the packages Peng4BSM@LO and flavio, and confront the resulting parameter space with constraints from B_s mixing, B_s→μ+μ−, B→K(*)νν̄, kaon decays, atomic parity violation, neutrino trident, and other searches. The central claim, stated in the abstract, is that only Case C remains consistent with all experimental constraints, with a best fit at M_ZD = 30.2 MeV and gμ_D = 0.033.

Significance. If the central claim were correct, the paper would identify a narrow window for a light dark Z with fine-tuned electron coupling that evades low-energy constraints while improving the fit to b→sμ+μ− data. The paper has the merit of combining many constraints—APV, kaon decays, B_s mixing, trident, W width, and LHCb dark-photon searches—and of including hadronic Z_D decays through vector-meson dominance. However, the central claim is undermined by internal inconsistencies: the proposed fine-tuned cancellation cannot remove the axial electron coupling induced by mass mixing, the best-fit gμ_D appears to violate the paper's own K+→μ+ν+invisible bound, and the predicted muon g−2 exceeds the measured discrepancy by orders of magnitude. These are load-bearing flaws, not presentation issues, and they invalidate the abstract's conclusion.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (6); Section 4.7] The fine-tuned cancellation of the Z_D coupling to electrons in Case C is impossible with the interaction written in Eq. (6). The mass-mixing term in Section 2 gives Z_D a coupling to the SM Z current, L ⊃ (g/cosθ_W) ε_Z Z_D^μ J_μ^Z, which contains both vector and axial electron pieces, with axial coefficient (g/cosθ_W) ε_Z g_A^e and g_A^e = −1/2. The direct coupling added in Eq. (6), g_e^D \bar e γ^α e Z_α^D, is purely vector and can only shift the vector coefficient; it cannot change the axial coupling. Therefore, for any ε_Z ≠ 0, an axial electron coupling remains, electron-mode observables are not SM-only, and the APV constraints of Section 4.7 remain active. The statements in Sections 4.7 and 5 that Case C is unconstrained by APV are not supported by the model's own Lagrangian.
  2. [Section 4.5 vs. Section 5] Section 4.5 states that for a directly coupled muonphilic Z_D, the K+ → μ+ν Z_D (→ invisible) branching fraction requires gμ_D < 0.01. In Case C, the electron coupling is cancelled, so for M_Z_D below the dimuon threshold the Z_D decays invisibly (to neutrinos or dark-sector particles), and the same argument should apply. However, the Case C best fit in Section 5 has gμ_D = 0.033, which exceeds this bound. No recast of the K+ → μ+ν+invisible limit for Case C is provided, so the claim in Section 5 that the Case C parameter space 'remains consistent with ... K → μ + invisible' is unsupported.
  3. [Section 6] The predicted contributions to the muon anomalous magnetic moment at the best-fit points are a_A^μ = −3.45×10^−7, a_B^μ = 7.7×10^−4, and a_C^μ = 7.38×10^−6. These exceed the measured discrepancy Δa_μ ≈ 251(59)×10^−11 by one to several orders of magnitude. The paper acknowledges this and appeals to an additional 'dark charged scalar' to cancel the contribution, but that particle is not part of the model and its parameters are not specified. As presented, the model itself is not consistent with all experimental constraints, contradicting the abstract's claim that Case C 'remains consistent with all experimental constraints.'
  4. [Section 4.1 vs. Section 5] Section 4.1 concludes that 'ε_Z ≥ 0.001 is disallowed for M_ZD ≤ 60 MeV' from B_s−B̄_s mixing, yet the Case A best-fit point in Section 5 is M_ZD = 10.07 MeV with ε_Z = 0.002, which lies in the disallowed region. This inconsistency is not addressed, and it casts doubt on how the fit results are combined with the low-energy constraints. If the disallowed statement is meant at a different confidence level or under different assumptions, the text must state this explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2] The effective Hamiltonian expressions contain undefined symbols such as V_c^ν, E0,c couplings, and M1,c couplings; the reader is not told how these are computed or normalized before they are used in Eqs. (2) and (3).
  2. [Section 4.7] The parameters ρ_d and κ_d are introduced but never defined; the formulas relating them to ε, ε_Z, and M_Z_D are omitted, which makes the APV constraint difficult to reproduce.
  3. [Section 5] The fit paragraph refers to 'a further extension with an axial-vector coupling of the dark Z to muons (Case C)', but Eq. (6) defines Case C with only vector couplings; this terminology inconsistency should be resolved.
  4. [Section 4.6] The phrase 'in the mass range 0 < M_X < 33.9 MeVperimental bound is used' appears to be a typographical error; it should read something like 'in the mass range 0 < M_X < 33.9 MeV; the experimental bound is used...'.
  5. [References] Reference [42] is incomplete: 'Review of Particle Physics, .' lacks volume, year, and article number; also, the text has several other typos (e.g., 'flavour' vs. 'flavor' is acceptable, but 'anfluenced' appears broken) that should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper performs an explicit parameter fit and then checks independent experimental constraints.

full rationale

The derivation chain in this paper is a conventional parameter fit followed by external constraint checks, not a prediction that reduces to its inputs. In Section 5 the authors explicitly fit model parameters (MZD, epsilon, epsilonZ, gD^mu) to the binned B -> K(*) l+l-, Bs -> phi mu+mu-, and B -> Xs l+l- data using flavio, and the best-fit points are presented as fits, not as predictions. The constraining observables invoked afterwards are independent measurements: APV weak charges, K+ -> mu+nu X bounds from NA62, PIENU radiative pion decay, Bs-Bsbar mixing, CCFR/CHARM-II trident, COHERENT CE nu NS, W width, and LHCb dark-photon searches. None of these external bounds is constructed from the fitted parameters, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. The fine-tuned cancellation in Case C is stated as an assumption: 'We assume gD^e is fine-tuned so that it cancels the coupling of ZD to electrons via mixing. Then, all observables for the electron mode are described by the SM only.' This is a model-building ansatz, not a derivation presented as a first-principles result; because the paper labels it as an assumption and then finds that the remaining muon-mode fit still passes trident, K -> mu nu X, W-width, and LHCb bounds, the central claim is not equivalent to its input by construction. The muon g-2 values in Section 6 are computed outputs compared after the fit, not used as constraints in the fit. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the cited flavor, lattice, and experimental references are external, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked to forbid alternative scenarios. Questions about whether the vector-only gD^e can actually cancel the axial mixing-induced electron coupling, or whether gD^mu = 0.033 is compatible with the gD^mu < 0.01 kaon bound, are physics-consistency objections, not circularity. Overall, the analysis is self-contained and honest about what is fitted and what is constrained.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on five fitted parameters and several domain assumptions. The most fragile are the ad hoc fine-tuning of g_e_D and the unsupported assumption that Case C evades the K to muon invisible bound. The VMD approximation and the model framework are standard but not derived here.

free parameters (5)
  • kinetic mixing epsilon = 1.6e-5 (Case A best fit); marginalized in other cases
    Controls dark photon coupling to the electromagnetic current; fitted to b to s l+ l- data.
  • mass mixing epsilon_Z = 0.002 (Case A best fit); marginalized in other cases
    Controls dark Z coupling to the Z current; fitted to b to s l+ l- data and constrained by APV, Bs mixing.
  • dark Z mass M_ZD = 10.07 MeV (A), 10.3 MeV (B), 30.2 MeV (C)
    Mass of the dark Z; fitted to decay distributions and constrained by low-energy experiments.
  • direct muon coupling g_mu_D = 0.28 (Case B), 0.033 (Case C)
    Additional direct coupling of ZD to muons in Cases B and C; fitted to b to s mu+ mu- data and constrained by kaon and pion decays.
  • direct electron coupling g_e_D = tuned to cancel mixing-induced electron coupling (no numerical value)
    Introduced in Case C to cancel the ZD-electron coupling from mixing, making electron observables SM-only and evading APV. This is a hand-tuned free choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The dark U(1)_D gauge sector with kinetic mixing epsilon and mass mixing epsilon_Z exists as described in [1,2,3].
    The model Lagrangian in Section 2 is assumed from prior literature; the paper does not derive the gauge structure.
  • domain assumption Hadronic decay widths of ZD use vector meson dominance: Gamma(ZD to hadrons) = Gamma(ZD to mu+ mu-) times R_H^mu from data.
    Section 2 states this approximation; its accuracy is not assessed and it affects branching fractions used in constraints.
  • ad hoc to paper g_e_D is fine-tuned to exactly cancel the mixing-induced ZD-electron coupling in Case C.
    Section 3 states the cancellation is assumed; no symmetry or mechanism is provided. If mistuned, APV constraints reappear and Case C is excluded.
  • ad hoc to paper The K+ to mu+ nu X bound does not exclude g_mu_D=0.033 in Case C.
    Section 5 claims consistency with K to mu + invisible, but Section 4.5 requires g_mu_D<0.01 when ZD decays invisibly. Since Case C has B(ZD to invisible)=1, the bound should be stronger, not weaker. This unsupported assumption is load-bearing for the paper's main conclusion.
invented entities (1)
  • Dark charged scalar
    purpose: Proposed in Section 6 to provide a negative contribution to the muon g-2 and cancel the too-large positive contributions from the dark Z.
    Mentioned as additional new physics needed to reconcile the model with the muon g-2 discrepancy. No mass, coupling, or search strategy is given, so it is a speculative placeholder.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraints on Dark Photon and Dark $Z$ Model Parameters in the $B$ and $K$ Meson Decays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MKTMVUMS

@misc{pith2026241211438,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraints on Dark Photon and Dark $Z$ Model Parameters in the $B$ and $K$ Meson Decays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MKTMVUMS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11438}
}
abstract

The study investigates flavor-changing neutral current (FCNC) decays of $B$ and $K$ mesons in the context of a dark $U(1)_D$ model with a dark photon/dark $Z$ mass between 10 MeV and 2 GeV. While the model improves the fit to certain decay distributions, such as $B \to K^{(*)} \ell^+ \ell^- $ and $ B_s \to \phi \mu^+ \mu^- $, it is ruled out by stringent experimental constraints, including atomic parity violation, $K^+ \to \mu^+ + \text{invisible} $, and $ B_s - \overline{B}_s $ mixing. To address these constraints, the model is extended with three modifications; allowing additional invisible decays of $ Z_D $, introducing a direct vector coupling of $ Z_D $ to muons, and including a direct coupling of $ Z_D $ to both muons and electrons, with fine-tuning to cancel the mixing-induced coupling to electrons. Among these extensions, only the third scenario, involving fine-tuned electron coupling, remains consistent with all experimental constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11438 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sensitivity of B 0 s −B 0 s mixing to εZ as a function of MZD . At leading order ∆mix is independent of ε. The red band is the uncertainty in ∆mix taken to be the 2σ lower uncertainty in ∆MSM Bs . 4.2 Bs → µ +µ − The rare decay Bs → µ +µ − is a crucial probe for new physics. Its branching frac￾tion depends on Standard Model (SM) parameters and possible contributions from new physics. In the ZD model, contributions f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Branching fraction for Bs → µ +µ − for different values of εZ . The horizontal red (light red) band denotes the 1σ (3σ) allowed region from experiment [33]. The decay rate does not depend on ε. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Branching fraction of B → K(∗) νν¯ as a function of the ZD mass for three values of εZ and ε = 0.001. 4.4 Kaon decay and mixing The flavor-changing decays K → πνν¯ are governed by the s → dνν¯ transition. The key decay modes are K+ → π +νν¯ and KL → π 0νν¯. The most recent measurement from the NA62 experiment gives B(K+ → π +νν¯) = (10.6 +4.0 −3.4 ± 0.9) × 10−11 [39], while the KOTO experiment places a 90% confidenc… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dependence of the K+ → µ + + invisible branching fraction on the mixing parameters in Case A (left) and on the direct coupling g µ D in Case B (right). The red shaded region shows the 90% CL upper limit on the branching fraction. gD μ = 0.001 gD μ = 0.01 gD μ = 0.1 0.1…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dependence of the K+ → µ +νe+e − branching fraction on g µ D in Case B. The red shaded region shows the 3σ interval of the branching fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dependence of R πµνX = Γ(π + → µ +νµZD(→ νν¯))/Γ(π + → µ +νµ) on g µ D for εZ = 10−5 (left) and 10−4 (right). The black and red solid curves punctuated with points show the 90% CL upper limit from PIENU for the muon kinetic energy ranges, Tµ > 1.2 MeV and Tµ < 1.2 MeV,…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The 3σ CL upper bound on εZ from measurements of the proton and cesium weak charges in atomic parity violation experiments. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The 1σ (pink), 2σ (brown) and 3σ (dark brown) regions allowed by the data in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The 1σ, 2σ and 3σ allowed regions for Case B with the best fit point marked by a blue circle. However, the entire parameter space is ruled out by measurements of K+ → µ +νX, X = invisible/e+e −) and separately by the W boson width. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The 1σ, 2σ and 3σ allowed regions for Case C with the best fit point marked by a blue circle. Upper limits from neutrino trident production at CCFR (at 95% CL), K → µνX (at 90% CL) and the W width (at 95% CL) are shown by the dashed magenta, yellow and dark blue curve…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Dark $Z$ Implication for Flavor Physics

    F. Xu, Dark Z Implication for Flavor Physics, JHEP 06 (2015) 170 [ 1504.07415]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  2. [1]

    Holdom, Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts, Phys

    B. Holdom, Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts, Phys. Lett. B 166 (1986) 196

    work page 1986

  3. [2]

    Gopalakrishna, S

    S. Gopalakrishna, S. Jung and J.D. Wells, Higgs boson decays to four fermions through an abelian hidden sector, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 055002 [ 0801.3456]

    arXiv 2008

  4. [3]

    Davoudiasl, H.-S

    H. Davoudiasl, H.-S. Lee and W.J. Marciano, ’Dark’ Z implications for Parity Violation, Rare Meson Decays, and Higgs Physics, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 115019 [ 1203.2947]

    arXiv 2012

  5. [4]

    Datta, J

    A. Datta, J. Liao and D. Marfatia, A light Z′ for the RK puzzle and nonstandard neutrino interactions, Phys. Lett. B 768 (2017) 265 [ 1702.01099]

    arXiv 2017

  6. [5]

    A New Light Particle in B Decays?

    F. Sala and D.M. Straub, A New Light Particle in B Decays?, Phys. Lett. B 774 (2017) 205 [ 1704.06188]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  7. [6]

    On Light Resonance Interpretations of the B Decay Anomalies

    F. Bishara, U. Haisch and P.F. Monni, Regarding light resonance interpretations of the B decay anomalies, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 055002 [ 1705.03465]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  8. [7]

    Explaining the $R_K$ and $R_{K^*}$ anomalies

    D. Ghosh, Explaining the RK and RK∗ anomalies, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 694 [1704.06240]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Datta, J

    A. Datta, J. Kumar, J. Liao and D. Marfatia, New light mediators for the RK and RK∗ puzzles, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 115038 [1705.08423]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Altmannshofer, M.J

    W. Altmannshofer, M.J. Baker, S. Gori, R. Harnik, M. Pospelov, E. Stamou et al., Light resonances and the low-q 2 bin of RK∗, JHEP 03 (2018) 188 [ 1711.07494]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Datta, B

    A. Datta, B. Dutta, S. Liao, D. Marfatia and L.E. Strigari, Neutrino scattering and B anomalies from hidden sector portals, JHEP 01 (2019) 091 [1808.02611]. 14

    2019 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Datta, J

    A. Datta, J. Kumar and D. London, The B anomalies and new physics in b → se+e−, Phys. Lett. B 797 (2019) 134858 [1903.10086]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Darm´ e, M

    L. Darm´ e, M. Fedele, K. Kowalska and E.M. Sessolo, Flavour anomalies from a split dark sector, JHEP 08 (2020) 148 [ 2002.11150]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Borah, L

    D. Borah, L. Mukherjee and S. Nandi, Low scale U(1) X gauge symmetry as an origin of dark matter, neutrino mass and flavour anomalies, JHEP 12 (2020) 052 [ 2007.13778]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Darm´ e, M

    L. Darm´ e, M. Fedele, K. Kowalska and E.M. Sessolo, Flavour anomalies and the muon g − 2 from feebly interacting particles, JHEP 03 (2022) 085 [ 2106.12582]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Crivellin, C.A

    A. Crivellin, C.A. Manzari, W. Altmannshofer, G. Inguglia, P. Feichtinger and J. Martin Camalich, Towards excluding a light Z′ explanation of b → sℓ+ℓ−, 2202.12900

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Bertuzzo, S

    E. Bertuzzo, S. Jana, P.A.N. Machado and R. Zukanovich Funchal, Neutrino Masses and Mixings Dynamically Generated by a Light Dark Sector, Phys. Lett. B 791 (2019) 210 [ 1808.02500]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Bertuzzo, S

    E. Bertuzzo, S. Jana, P.A.N. Machado and R. Zukanovich Funchal, Dark Neutrino Portal to Explain MiniBooNE excess, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 241801 [1807.09877]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Link and X.-J

    J.M. Link and X.-J. Xu, Searching for BSM neutrino interactions in dark matter detectors, JHEP 08 (2019) 004 [ 1903.09891]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Bednyakov and c.H

    A.V. Bednyakov and c.H. TanyıLdıZı, A Mathematica Package for Calculation of One-Loop Penguins in FCNC Processes, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 26 (2014) 1550042 [ 1311.5546]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Tulin, New weakly-coupled forces hidden in low-energy QCD, Phys

    S. Tulin, New weakly-coupled forces hidden in low-energy QCD, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 114008 [ 1404.4370]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Ilten, Y

    P. Ilten, Y. Soreq, M. Williams and W. Xue, Serendipity in dark photon searches, JHEP 06 (2018) 004 [ 1801.04847]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Foguel, P

    A.L. Foguel, P. Reimitz and R.Z. Funchal, A robust description of hadronic decays in light vector mediator models, JHEP 04 (2022) 119 [ 2201.01788]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Particle Data Groupcollaboration, Review of Particle Physics, PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01

    2022

  17. [25]

    Artuso, G

    M. Artuso, G. Borissov and A. Lenz, CP violation in the B0 s system, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88 (2016) 045002 [ 1511.09466]. 15

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Fermilab Lattice, MILCcollaboration, B0 (s)-mixing matrix elements from lattice QCD for the Standard Model and beyond, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 113016 [ 1602.03560]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Buchalla, A.J

    G. Buchalla, A.J. Buras and M.E. Lautenbacher, Weak decays beyond leading logarithms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68 (1996) 1125 [hep-ph/9512380]

    1996 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Aoki et al., FLAG Review 2021, 2111.09849

    Y. Aoki et al., FLAG Review 2021, 2111.09849

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Kirk, A. Lenz and T. Rauh, ∆Ms theory precision confronts flavour anomalies, JHEP 12 (2019) 009 [1909.11087]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Flavour Lattice A veraging Groupcollaboration, FLAG Review 2019: Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG), Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 113 [ 1902.08191]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Altmannshofer and P

    W. Altmannshofer and P. Stangl, New physics in rare B decays after Moriond 2021, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 952 [2103.13370]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Guadagnoli, C

    D. Guadagnoli, C. Langenbruch and E. Manoni, WG3 Summary – Rare B, D and K decays, in 11th International Workshop on the CKM Unitarity Triangle, 4, 2022 [2204.03942]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    LHCb collaboration, Measurement of the B0 s → µ+µ− decay properties and search for the B0 → µ+µ− and B0 s → µ+µ−γ decays, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 012010 [ 2108.09283]

    2022

  26. [34]

    Fuyuto, W.-S

    K. Fuyuto, W.-S. Hou and M. Kohda, Z’ -induced FCNC decays of top, beauty, and strange quarks, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 054021 [ 1512.09026]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Ball and R

    P. Ball and R. Zwicky, Bd,s → ρ, ω, K∗, ϕdecay form-factors from light-cone sum rules revisited, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 014029 [ hep-ph/0412079]

    2005 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Felkl, S.L

    T. Felkl, S.L. Li and M.A. Schmidt, A tale of invisibility: constraints on new physics in b → sνν , JHEP 12 (2021) 118 [2111.04327]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Belle-II collaboration, Search for B+ → K+ν ¯ν decays with an inclusive tagging method at the Belle II experiment, in 55th Rencontres de Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, 5, 2021 [ 2105.05754]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Belle collaboration, Search for B → hν ¯ν decays with semileptonic tagging at Belle, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 091101 [ 1702.03224]. 16

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    NA62 collaboration, Measurement of the very rare K +→π+νν decay, JHEP 06 (2021) 093 [ 2103.15389]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    KOTO collaboration, Study of the KL → π0ν ¯ν Decay at the J-PARC KOTO Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 121801 [ 2012.07571]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Buras, D

    A.J. Buras, D. Buttazzo, J. Girrbach-Noe and R. Knegjens, K+ → π+νν and KL → π0νν in the Standard Model: status and perspectives, JHEP 11 (2015) 033 [ 1503.02693]

    2015 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Particle Data Groupcollaboration, Review of Particle Physics,

  35. [43]

    Grossman and Y

    Y. Grossman and Y. Nir, K(L) —> pi0 neutrino anti-neutrino beyond the standard model, Phys. Lett. B 398 (1997) 163 [ hep-ph/9701313]

    1997 arXiv

  36. [44]

    LHCb collaboration, Measurements of the S-wave fraction in B0 → K+π−µ+µ− decays and the B0 → K∗(892)0µ+µ− differential branching fraction, JHEP 11 (2016) 047 [ 1606.04731]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [45]

    LHCb collaboration, Differential branching fractions and isospin asymmetries of B → K(∗)µ+µ− decays, JHEP 06 (2014) 133 [ 1403.8044]

    2014 arXiv

  38. [46]

    LHCb collaboration, Branching Fraction Measurements of the Rare B0 s → ϕµ+µ− and B0 s → f ′ 2(1525)µ+µ−- Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) 151801 [ 2105.14007]

    2021

  39. [47]

    BELLE collaboration, Test of lepton flavor universality and search for lepton flavor violation in B → Kℓℓ decays, JHEP 03 (2021) 105 [ 1908.01848]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    LHCb collaboration, Measurement of the B0 → K∗0e+e− branching fraction at low dilepton mass, JHEP 05 (2013) 159 [ 1304.3035]

    2013 arXiv

  41. [49]

    BaBar collaboration, Measurement of the B → Xsl+l− branching fraction and search for direct CP violation from a sum of exclusive final states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 211802 [ 1312.5364]

    2014 arXiv

  42. [50]

    LHCb collaboration, Measurement of lepton universality parameters in B+ → K+ℓ+ℓ− and B0 → K∗0ℓ+ℓ− decays, 2212.09153. 17

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.