Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Dinucleon decay, not hyperon oscillations, sets the tightest bound on strangeness-changing baryon-number violation.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 23:26 UTC pith:UFPXBNKZ

load-bearing objection Useful, carefully scoped EFT/chiral paper: the pp→K+K+ bound on δmΛ is the strongest current probe and the ordering is likely robust, but the headline number is an order-of-magnitude estimate with unquantified hadronic uncertainties. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.05657 v2 pith:UFPXBNKZ submitted 2025-11-07 hep-ph

New Avenues for |Delta B| = 2 Processes Beyond Neutron-Antineutron Oscillations

Arnau Bas i Beneito , Svjetlana Fajfer , Alexey A. Petrov This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords baryon number violationΛ–Λ̄ oscillationsneutron–antineutron oscillationsdinucleon decaysix-quark operatorsSMEFTchiral perturbation theorydimension-9 operators
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper extends baryon-number-violating (ΔB=2) physics beyond neutron–antineutron oscillations to the strange baryon Λ, showing that Λ–Λ̄ mixing can be generated at tree level by six-quark operators of the form (uds)^2 that are independent of the (udd)^2 operators behind n–n̄ oscillations. Using the Standard Model Effective Field Theory and scalar-mediated UV completions, the authors derive indirect bounds on the effective Λ mass-mixing parameter δm_Λ from existing limits on n–n̄ oscillations and from the dinucleon decay p p → K+ K+. They find that the dinucleon channel dominates by far, constraining δm_Λ below about 10^-32 GeV — roughly fourteen orders of magnitude stronger than the direct bound from J/ψ→Λ Λ̄ oscillations. The paper thereby establishes pp→K+K+ searches as the most powerful current probe of strangeness-violating ΔB=2 transitions, sensitive to new-physics scales up to ~300 TeV, and argues that Λ–Λ̄ oscillation experiments would need roughly four orders of magnitude improvement to become competitive.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that strangeness-violating |ΔB|=2 baryon-number violation is currently best probed by the dinucleon decay p p→K+ K+, not by Λ–Λ̄ oscillations. Starting from the Standard Model Effective Field Theory, the authors identify 52 six-quark operators of the (uds)^2 type (up from 14 for (udd)^2), classify their tree-level scalar-mediated UV completions, and identify models in which Λ–Λ̄ mixing is generated at tree level while n–n̄ mixing appears only at two loops. Using chiral effective theory to bridge quark operators and baryon observables, they derive indirect bounds on δm_Λ from the measured n–n̄ oscillation limit and from the water-Cherenkov detector's limit on p p→

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective mass mixing δm_Λ, the off-diagonal element in the two-state Hamiltonian for Λ and its antiparticle, generated by six-quark operators (uds)^2 with Wilson coefficients suppressed by the fifth power of a new-physics scale Λ_BNV. The argument is carried by chiral effective theory, which connects δm_Λ to observables: a tree-level diagram converts δm_Λ into n–n̄ mixing via weak vertices, pion and kaon loops give subleading contributions, and a tree-level t-channel diagram produces the amplitude for p p→K+ K+. That amplitude, combined with a nuclear-density estimate of the intranuclear rate, is what turns the dinucleon lifetime limit into the sharp bound on δm_Λ.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative bound on δm_Λ assumes the six-quark matrix element for the Λ equals the lattice neutron value up to O(1) factors, and that logarithmically divergent one-loop chiral integrals are regulated with a hard cutoff at 5 GeV; if those hadronic estimates are severely wrong, the numerical hierarchy among bounds shifts, though the ordering probably survives.

What would settle it

A lattice QCD computation of the Λ→Λ̄ six-quark matrix element that found it to be many orders of magnitude smaller than the neutron value would invalidate the claim that pp→K+K+ constrains δm_Λ at the 10^-32 GeV level; conversely, an improved bound or a first positive signal in pp→K+K+ would directly test the prediction.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, pp→K+K+ searches at water-Cherenkov detectors currently probe |ΔB|=2 at effective scales up to about 300 TeV, far beyond direct collider reach.
  • Models with (uds)^2 operators can yield Λ–Λ̄ oscillations at tree level while n–n̄ mixing is loop-suppressed, so the two channels probe genuinely different operator directions.
  • Improving the pp→K+K+ limit by an order of magnitude would push the new-physics scale into the PeV region.
  • Λ–Λ̄ oscillation experiments would need to improve δm_Λ sensitivity by roughly four orders of magnitude to compete with collider mass bounds, which appears infeasible in the foreseeable future.
  • The classification of 52 LEFT operators and 20 SMEFT operators provides a working basis for future lattice computations of the hadronic matrix elements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If a lattice QCD computation of the Λ six-quark matrix element deviates from the neutron value by more than an order of magnitude, the quantitative hierarchy among bounds would shift, though the qualitative ordering would likely survive because the dinucleon bound is so much stronger.
  • The same chiral machinery could be applied to Ξ− or Ω− hyperon oscillations, or to ΔB=2 processes with charm quarks, extending the operator catalogue to (ucs)^2 or mixed-flavour combinations.
  • A dedicated re-analysis of existing water-Cherenkov data on pp→K+K+ using modern nuclear matrix elements would be the cheapest experimental test of the paper's central claim.
  • The two-loop, GIM-like suppression of n–n̄ relative to Λ–Λ̄ in the simplified model suggests a generic way to hide n–n̄ oscillations while leaving Λ–Λ̄ or dinucleon channels observable.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends the effective-field-theory treatment of |ΔB|=2 baryon-number violation from neutron–antineutron oscillations to strangeness-violating Λ–Λbar oscillations. It classifies dimension-9 LEFT and SMEFT operators relevant for the (uds)^2 sector, enumerates scalar-mediated UV completions (trilinear, quartic, and fermionic topologies), and derives indirect bounds on the mass-mixing parameter δmΛ from n–nbar searches, from Super-Kamiokande pp→K+K+ searches, and from BESIII. In a simplified model with the scalars Sbar1 and Ω4, the paper finds that n–nbar is induced only at two loops while Λ–Λbar appears at tree level, and that pp→K+K+ gives the strongest lower bound on the effective BNV scale, Λ_BNV ≳ 300 TeV. The central claim is that current Λ–Λbar oscillation searches are far from competitive with dinucleon-decay bounds.

Significance. If the hadronic matrix-element assumptions are controlled, this is a useful and original phenomenological guide. The operator classification goes beyond prior n–nbar studies, with machine-checked enumeration via Sym2Int and a systematic survey of UV completions; the appendices on fermionic and quartic completions are valuable. The simplified model is explicit and falsifiable: it predicts that pp→K+K+ at Super-K, not BESIII, is the best probe of strangeness-violating |ΔB|=2 physics. The paper also usefully identifies the need for lattice calculations of ⟨Λ|O|Λ⟩ and two-meson nuclear matrix elements. I find no circularity: the bounds are derived from external experimental limits, with the simplified-model bounds being legitimate parameter translations. The main weakness is that the headline numerical hierarchy relies on hadronic matrix-element identifications that are assumed rather than derived, and the paper gives no uncertainty budget.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (3.27)–(3.30)] The headline bound δmΛ ≲ 1.8×10^-32 GeV from pp→K+K+ is not a model-independent constraint. The BχPT amplitude in Eq. (3.27) inserts the single-baryon mass-mixing operator δmΛ into a long-distance pole diagram. In the hadronic EFT, the same six-quark operator also matches onto local NN→KK operators whose coefficients are not fixed by δmΛ. Eq. (3.32) makes the implicit identification explicit: C_i⟨K+K+|O_i|pp⟩ ≡ δmΛ. If the two-hadron matrix element differs from ⟨Λ|O|Λ⟩, the quoted bound shifts by exactly that ratio. Since the paper presents this as the central result and uses it in Sec. 4 and Table 4, please provide an estimate or a conservative range for R = ⟨K+K+|O|pp⟩/⟨Λ|O|Λ⟩, and show how the claimed fourteen-order separation from BESIII changes under plausible variations. The label 'order-of-magnitude estimate' is not sufficient when the numerical separation is the main quantitative
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (3.31)–(3.35)] The alternative nuclear estimate is not internally consistent as written. In Eq. (3.32), M_A = δmΛ ρpp(0) with ρpp(0) = κ|ρ_p(0)|^2: with densities in fm^-6 and δmΛ in GeV, this amplitude has dimension mass^7. The phase-space integral is quoted in Eq. (3.34) as 4×10^-7 GeV^-1, whereas the standard three-body phase space for this decay has dimension mass^2, and no fm↔GeV conversion factors are displayed in the rate formula. Consequently Eq. (3.35) cannot be reproduced from Eq. (3.31) by a dimensionally consistent calculation. This is load-bearing because Table 5 presents the nuclear estimate as independent confirmation of the chiral estimate. Please rewrite with explicit dimensions and numerical conversions, or clearly label Eq. (3.35) as a parametric dimensional estimate.
  3. [Secs. 2.2, 3.1 and Tables 4–5] The numerical bounds are quoted without any uncertainty budget. The unknown Λ matrix element is replaced by the lattice neutron value in Eq. (2.13), with only a symbolic O(m_u,d/m_s) correction; the one-loop integrals in Eqs. (3.13) and (3.21) are regulated with an ad hoc 5 GeV cutoff; and the chiral couplings a,b in Eq. (3.8) carry fit errors that are not propagated. Since the paper's conclusion is quantitative—fourteen orders of magnitude—please provide a conservative error range for each bound, or at least show how the bounds in Tables 4 and 5 depend on the key inputs. This pass should also fix the dimension/step inconsistency in Eq. (3.22): the quantity δm_n^K is written as 9.8×10^-16 GeV, but the subsequent bound δm_Λ^K ≲ 1.4×10^-18 GeV requires that this be interpreted as the dimensionless coefficient 9.8×10^-16 times δmΛ.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (3.29) and Fig. 5] The amplitude in Eq. (3.27) drops the /q+mΛ numerator of the Λ propagator. This may be an O(1) approximation for nonrelativistic kinematics, but it should be stated. The factor of 2 multiplying 2mp for the u-channel contribution is also not explained in the text.
  2. [Sec. 2.2] The Λ operator basis is not displayed; the reader is told that the number of independent operators is 52 (LEFT) and 20 (SMEFT), with the derivation left to a forthcoming publication. A representative subset or an ancillary file would make the counting reproducible and easier to check.
  3. [Figure 9] The figure caption does not identify the colored regions or the axes beyond 'parameter space'. Please add a legend and define the plotted quantity (e.g., the effective scale Λ_BNV versus scalar mass).
  4. [Sec. 3.1] The hard-cutoff dependence of the one-loop bounds is not discussed. Varying Λχ between ~1 and 5 GeV changes the coefficients in Eqs. (3.14) and (3.22), and the resulting δmΛ bounds are close enough to the BESIII limit that the comparison should include this variation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: all δmΛ bounds are translations of independent experimental limits; only minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The δmΛ limits are obtained by translating independent external limits (ILL/Super-K τ_{n−n̄}, BESIII τ_{Λ−Λ̄}, Super-K τ(pp→K+K+)) through a chiral Lagrangian; δmΛ is never fitted to itself. Eq. (3.10) converts the measured δm_n bound into δmΛ through weak ΔS=1 vertices with external LECs a,b, and Eqs. (3.14)/(3.22) are explicitly cutoff-regulated one-loop estimates that are ancillary. Eq. (3.27) computes pp→K+K+ from a δmΛ insertion and Eq. (3.30) turns the Super-K lifetime into an upper bound on δmΛ; this is an EFT translation, not a tautology, though it rests on the model-dependent saturation assumption that the short-distance NN→KK operator is dominated by the Λ−Λ̄ pole diagram. The alternative nuclear estimate (3.31)–(3.35) sets C_i⟨K+K+|O_i|pp⟩ρ_pp(0) ≡ δmΛ ρ_pp(0); this is an explicitly labelled 'order-of-magnitude estimate' of a missing hadronic/nuclear input, not a self-referential fit, because the input on the right is the independent experimental width. The main acknowledged weakness is Eq. (2.13), where ⟨Λ|O_i|Λ⟩ is equated to the neutron lattice value; this is a missing hadronic computation (also flagged in the text as 'not yet available'), not a circular step. The self-citations [44,71,72] support standard CKM-suppression remarks, an existing SU(5) discussion, and a heavy-neutrino caveat; none carries the central derivation, so the score stays at 1.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles; all exotic scalars and fermions are taken from previous literature (Table 2 and Appendices). The main external inputs are the SMEFT operator basis, chiral low-energy constants, the neutron lattice matrix element used for the Λ, and a set of nuclear modeling approximations. The free parameters listed above are the quantitative handles that set the numerical bounds.

free parameters (5)
  • Chiral LECs a and b in the |ΔS|=1 Lagrangian = a = 1.68×10^-8 GeV, b = -4.26×10^-8 GeV
    Fitted to hyperon nonleptonic decays; enter the tree-level and loop relations between δmn and δmΛ (Eqs 3.8–3.14).
  • Hard cutoff Λχ for divergent chiral loops = 5 GeV
    Regulates logarithmically divergent pion and kaon loop integrals; results shift with the chosen cutoff near the chiral-symmetry-breaking scale.
  • Λ hadronic matrix element ⟨Λ̄|O|Λ⟩ = 10^-5 GeV^6
    Borrowed from lattice neutron matrix elements and assumed equal for the Λ (Eq 2.13); used in all numerical bound conversions.
  • Nuclear density ρN and kaon momentum |k| = ρN ≈ 0.25 fm^-3, |k| ≈ 0.2 GeV
    Inputs to the pp→K+K+ rate estimate (Eqs 3.28–3.29); chosen to represent oxygen-nucleus conditions at order-of-magnitude level.
  • Short-range correlation κ and point-proton density ρp(0) = κ ≈ 4, ρp(0) ≈ 0.08 fm^-3
    Central values used in the alternative three-body nuclear estimate 16O→14C K+K+ (Eqs 3.33–3.35).
axioms (6)
  • standard math The dimension-9 SMEFT ΔB=2 operator basis from Refs [46,47] is complete.
    The paper relies on this classification to generate the (uds)^2 operators and to discuss UV completions.
  • domain assumption The Λ–Λ̄ hadronic matrix element equals the neutron lattice value (Eq 2.13).
    Explicitly stated; SU(3) breaking is treated as an O(mu,d/ms) correction but no numerical error is assigned.
  • domain assumption Lowest-order BχPT (Eq 3.7) and the weak |ΔS|=1 Lagrangian (Eq 3.8) dominate the hadronic transitions.
    All chiral relations between δmn, δmΛ, and pp→K+K+ use this truncation; higher-order terms and counterterms are not included.
  • ad hoc to paper Log-divergent loop integrals are regulated with a hard cutoff at 5 GeV.
    Introduced by hand in Sec 3.1; the resulting pionic and kaonic bounds depend on this prescription.
  • domain assumption Intranuclear pp→K+K+ rate is estimated from the free-proton amplitude using an average nucleon density or ρpp(0)=κ|ρp(0)|^2.
    Nuclear model connecting Super-K's 16O→14C K+K+ bound to the quark-level operator; no full nuclear calculation is available.
  • domain assumption In the simplified model, n–n̄ arises only at two loops via the stated CKM/GIM-suppressed diagram (Sec 4.1).
    The complementarity claim depends on this suppression being numerically correct; other operators or completions could alter the hierarchy.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 27970 in / 15193 out tokens · 135723 ms · 2026-08-03T23:26:33.807490+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We explore baryon-number-violating ($|\Delta B| = 2$) processes beyond the well-known neutron-antineutron ($n - \bar{n}$) oscillations, focusing on the $\Lambda - \bar \Lambda$ system. The presence of a strange quark in the $\Lambda$ baryon introduces a new set of six-quark operators roughly of the form $(uds)^2$, which are different from the $(udd)^2$ operators responsible for $n - \bar{n}$ oscillations. Using the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT), we classify all dimension-9 operators that cause $|\Delta B|=2$ transitions and study their UV completions mediated by exotic scalar fields with trilinear interactions. We demonstrate that in these models, $\Lambda - \bar \Lambda$ oscillations can occur at tree level, with $n - \bar{n}$ mixing potentially appearing at higher loop levels. We employ a chiral effective theory to constrain the effective mass mixing $\delta m_\Lambda$, deriving bounds from current experimental limits on $n - \bar{n}$ oscillations and dinucleon decays such as $p \,p \to K^+ K^+$. These bounds indicate that $\Lambda - \bar{\Lambda}$ oscillations probe a complementary parameter space, sensitive to baryon-number violation at scales up to $10^2-10^3$ TeV. We show that the existing indirect bounds make it challenging to provide a competitive bound on $\delta m_\Lambda$ at BESIII.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Decaying spin-3/2 dark matter from baryon number violation

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Non-supersymmetric spin-3/2 dark matter with baryon-violating portals can explain the relic abundance through UV and Boltzmann-suppressed freeze-in, with viable parameter space constrained by indirect detection, direc...

  2. EFT Pathways to $|\Delta B| =2$: Chiral Constructions and Phenomenology

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A chiral EFT framework is constructed for |ΔB|=2 interactions that matches SMEFT operators to low-energy baryon processes and identifies new dinucleon decay channels sensitive to previously unconstrained operator structures.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 55 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A. D. Sakharov,Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.5(1967) 32–35

    1967

  2. [2]

    V. A. Kuzmin,CP-noninvariance and baryon asymmetry of the universe,Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor.Fiz.12 (1970), no. 6 335–337

    1970

  3. [3]

    Georgi and S

    H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow,Unity of All Elementary Particle Forces,Phys. Rev. Lett.32(1974) 438–441

    1974

  4. [4]

    Fritzsch and P

    H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski,Unified Interactions of Leptons and Hadrons,Annals Phys.93(1975) 193–266

    1975

  5. [5]

    J. C. Pati and A. Salam,Unified Lepton-Hadron Symmetry and a Gauge Theory of the Basic Interactions, Phys. Rev. D8(1973) 1240–1251. [6]Super-KamiokandeCollaboration, K. Abe et al.,Neutron-antineutron oscillation search using a 0.37 megaton-years exposure of Super-Kamiokande,Phys. Rev. D103(2021), no. 1 012008, [arXiv:2012.02607]. [7]Hyper-KamiokandeCollab...

    arXiv 1973

  6. [9]

    Addazi et al.,New high-sensitivity searches for neutrons converting into antineutrons and/or sterile neutrons at the HIBEAM/NNBAR experiment at the European Spallation Source,J

    A. Addazi et al.,New high-sensitivity searches for neutrons converting into antineutrons and/or sterile neutrons at the HIBEAM/NNBAR experiment at the European Spallation Source,J. Phys. G48(2021), no. 7 070501, [arXiv:2006.04907]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [10]

    K. B. Luk,OnΛ– ¯Λoscillation, in Conference talk at the International Workshop on the Search for Baryon and Lepton Number Violations, (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California),

  8. [11]

    Kang, H.-B

    X.-W. Kang, H.-B. Li, and G.-R. Lu,Study of Lambda - anti-Lambda Oscillation in quantum coherent Lambda anti-Lambda state by using J/psi —>Lambda anti-Lambda decay,Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 051901, [arXiv:0906.0230]. [12]BESIIICollaboration, M. Ablikim et al.,Search forΛ-Λ¯oscillation in J/ψ→ΛΛ¯decay, Phys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 5 052014, [arXiv:2410.21841]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  9. [13]

    J. M. Arnold, B. Fornal, and M. B. Wise,Simplified models with baryon number violation but no proton decay,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 075004, [arXiv:1212.4556]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  10. [14]

    J. L. Goity and M. Sher,Bounds on∆B= 1couplings in the supersymmetric standard model,Phys. Lett. B346(1995) 69–74, [hep-ph/9412208]. [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 385, 500 (1996)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  11. [15]

    K. S. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra,Coupling Unification, GUT-Scale Baryogenesis and Neutron-Antineutron Oscillation in SO(10),Phys. Lett. B715(2012) 328–334, [arXiv:1206.5701]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  12. [16]

    M. I. Buchoff and M. Wagman,Perturbative Renormalization of Neutron-Antineutron Operators,Phys. Rev. D93(2016), no. 1 016005, [arXiv:1506.00647]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 98, 079901 (2018)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  13. [17]

    Thomas Arun, S

    M. Thomas Arun, S. M, and R. Pal,RG evolution and effect of intermediate new physics on∆B= 2 six-quark operators,arXiv:2506.10105

    arXiv

  14. [18]

    de Gouvea, J

    A. de Gouvea, J. Herrero-Garcia, and A. Kobach,Neutrino Masses, Grand Unification, and Baryon Number Violation,Phys. Rev. D90(2014), no. 1 016011, [arXiv:1404.4057]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  15. [19]

    Fridell, J

    K. Fridell, J. Harz, and C. Hati,Probing baryogenesis with neutron-antineutron oscillations,JHEP11 (2021) 185, [arXiv:2105.06487]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [20]

    Herrmann,On Baryogenesis andn¯n-Oscillations,arXiv:1408.4455

    E. Herrmann,On Baryogenesis andn¯n-Oscillations,arXiv:1408.4455

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [21]

    Baldes, N

    I. Baldes, N. F. Bell, and R. R. Volkas,Baryon Number Violating Scalar Diquarks at the LHC,Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 115019, [arXiv:1110.4450]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  18. [22]

    K. S. Babu, R. N. Mohapatra, and S. Nasri,Post-Sphaleron Baryogenesis,Phys. Rev. Lett.97(2006) 131301, [hep-ph/0606144]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  19. [23]

    K. S. Babu, P. S. Bhupal Dev, and R. N. Mohapatra,Neutrino mass hierarchy, neutron - anti-neutron oscillation from baryogenesis,Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 015017, [arXiv:0811.3411]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  20. [24]

    K. S. Babu, P. S. Bhupal Dev, E. C. F. S. Fortes, and R. N. Mohapatra,Post-Sphaleron Baryogenesis and an Upper Limit on the Neutron-Antineutron Oscillation Time,Phys. Rev. D87(2013), no. 11 115019, [arXiv:1303.6918]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [25]

    J. L. Barrow, P. Fierlinger, Y. Kamyshkov, B. Meirose, D. Milstead, R. N. Mohapatra, and V. Santoro, Avoiding Blindness in Baryon Number Violating Processes: Free-Beam and Intranuclear Paths to Neutron-Antineutron Transitions,arXiv:2511.01829

    arXiv

  22. [26]

    R. N. Mohapatra and R. E. Marshak,PHENOMENOLOGY OF NEUTRON OSCILLATIONS,Phys. Lett. B94(1980) 183. [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 96, 444–444 (1980)]

    1980

  23. [27]

    Cowsik and S

    R. Cowsik and S. Nussinov,SOME CONSTRAINTS ON DELTA B = 2 n anti-n OSCILLATIONS, Phys. Lett. B101(1981) 237–240

    1981

  24. [28]

    Kuo and S

    T.-K. Kuo and S. T. Love,Neutron Oscillations and the Existence of Massive Neutral Leptons,Phys. Rev. Lett.45(1980) 93

    1980

  25. [29]

    D. G. Phillips, II et al.,Neutron-Antineutron Oscillations: Theoretical Status and Experimental Prospects,Phys. Rept.612(2016) 1–45, [arXiv:1410.1100]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  26. [30]

    R. N. Mohapatra,Neutron-Anti-Neutron Oscillation: Theory and Phenomenology,J. Phys. G36(2009) 104006, [arXiv:0902.0834]. – 28 – [31]Particle Data GroupCollaboration, S. Navas et al.,Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024), no. 3 030001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  27. [32]

    A. A. Petrov,Indirect Searches for New Physics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 5, 2021

    2021

  28. [33]

    Baldo-Ceolin et al.,A New experimental limit on neutron - anti-neutron oscillations,Z

    M. Baldo-Ceolin et al.,A New experimental limit on neutron - anti-neutron oscillations,Z. Phys. C63 (1994) 409–416

    1994

  29. [34]

    Aitken, D

    K. Aitken, D. McKeen, T. Neder, and A. E. Nelson,Baryogenesis from Oscillations of Charmed or Beautiful Baryons,Phys. Rev. D96(2017), no. 7 075009, [arXiv:1708.01259]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  30. [35]

    Rao and R

    S. Rao and R. E. Shrock,Six Fermion (B−L) Violating Operators of Arbitrary Generational Structure, Nucl. Phys. B232(1984) 143–179

    1984

  31. [36]

    L. N. Chang and N. P. Chang,B-L NONCONSERVATION AND NEUTRON OSCILLATION,Phys. Lett. B92(1980) 103–106

    1980

  32. [37]

    Gardner and X

    S. Gardner and X. Yan,Processes that break baryon number by two units and the Majorana nature of the neutrino,Phys. Lett. B790(2019) 421–426, [arXiv:1808.05288]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [38]

    Rinaldi, S

    E. Rinaldi, S. Syritsyn, M. L. Wagman, M. I. Buchoff, C. Schroeder, and J. Wasem,Neutron-antineutron oscillations from lattice QCD,Phys. Rev. Lett.122(2019), no. 16 162001, [arXiv:1809.00246]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [39]

    Rinaldi, S

    E. Rinaldi, S. Syritsyn, M. L. Wagman, M. I. Buchoff, C. Schroeder, and J. Wasem,Lattice QCD determination of neutron-antineutron matrix elements with physical quark masses,Phys. Rev. D99 (2019), no. 7 074510, [arXiv:1901.07519]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  35. [40]

    Rao and R

    S. Rao and R. Shrock,n↔¯nTransition Operators and Their Matrix Elements in the MIT Bag Model, Phys. Lett. B116(1982) 238–242

    1982

  36. [41]

    W. E. Caswell, J. Milutinovic, and G. Senjanovic,MATTER - ANTIMATTER TRANSITION OPERATORS: A MANUAL FOR MODELING,Phys. Lett. B122(1983) 373–377

    1983

  37. [42]

    R. M. Fonseca,The Sym2Int program: going from symmetries to interactions,J. Phys. Conf. Ser.873 (2017), no. 1 012045, [arXiv:1703.05221]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  38. [43]

    R. M. Fonseca,Enumerating the operators of an effective field theory,Phys. Rev. D101(2020), no. 3 035040, [arXiv:1907.12584]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  39. [44]

    Beneke, G

    M. Beneke, G. Finauri, and A. A. Petrov,Indirect constraints on third generation baryon number violation, JHEP09(2024) 090, [arXiv:2404.09642]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [45]

    Kobach,Baryon Number, Lepton Number, and Operator Dimension in the Standard Model,Phys

    A. Kobach,Baryon Number, Lepton Number, and Operator Dimension in the Standard Model,Phys. Lett. B758(2016) 455–457, [arXiv:1604.05726]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  41. [46]

    Liao and X.-D

    Y. Liao and X.-D. Ma,An explicit construction of the dimension-9 operator basis in the standard model effective field theory,JHEP11(2020) 152, [arXiv:2007.08125]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [47]

    H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu, and Y.-H. Zheng,Complete set of dimension-nine operators in the standard model effective field theory,Phys. Rev. D104(2021), no. 1 015025, [arXiv:2007.07899]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [48]

    R. N. Mohapatra and R. E. Marshak,Local B-L Symmetry of Electroweak Interactions, Majorana Neutrinos and Neutron Oscillations,Phys. Rev. Lett.44(1980) 1316–1319. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 44, 1643 (1980)]

    1980

  44. [49]

    Fajfer and M

    S. Fajfer and M. Sadl,Decay dynamics ofN→ℓπandN→ℓγ, Phys. Rev. D108(2023), no. 1 015011, [arXiv:2304.00825]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [50]

    Doršner, S

    I. Doršner, S. Fajfer, A. Greljo, J. F. Kamenik, and N. Košnik,Physics of leptoquarks in precision experiments and at particle colliders,Phys. Rept.641(2016) 1–68, [arXiv:1603.04993]. – 29 – [51]CMSCollaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al.,Search for high mass dijet resonances with a new background prediction method in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV, JHE...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  46. [52]

    Crivellin and M

    A. Crivellin and M. Hoferichter,Rescattering effects in nucleon-to-meson form factors and application to tau-lepton-induced proton decay,Phys. Lett. B845(2023) 138169, [arXiv:2302.01939]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [53]

    W.-S. Hou, M. Nagashima, and A. Soddu,Baryon number violation involving higher generations,Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 095001, [hep-ph/0509006]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  48. [54]

    Berezhiani and A

    Z. Berezhiani and A. Vainshtein,Neutron-Antineutron Oscillation as a Signal of CP Violation, arXiv:1506.05096

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  49. [55]

    Berezhiani and A

    Z. Berezhiani and A. Vainshtein,Neutron–Antineutron Oscillations: Discrete Symmetries and Quark Operators,Phys. Lett. B788(2019) 58–64, [arXiv:1809.00997]. [56]JLQCDCollaboration, S. Aoki et al.,Nucleon decay matrix elements from lattice QCD,Phys. Rev. D 62(2000) 014506, [hep-lat/9911026]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  50. [57]

    Claudson, M

    M. Claudson, M. B. Wise, and L. J. Hall,Chiral Lagrangian for Deep Mine Physics,Nucl. Phys. B195 (1982) 297–307

    1982

  51. [58]

    Bijnens, H

    J. Bijnens, H. Sonoda, and M. B. Wise,On the Validity of Chiral Perturbation Theory for Weak Hyperon Decays,Nucl. Phys. B261(1985) 185–198

    1985

  52. [59]

    M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Körner, V. E. Lyubovitskij, and Z. Tyulemissov,Analysis of the nonleptonic two-body decays of theΛhyperon, Phys. Rev. D104(2021), no. 7 074004, [arXiv:2107.08831]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  53. [60]

    Tandean and G

    J. Tandean and G. Valencia,CP violation in hyperon nonleptonic decays within the standard model, Phys. Rev. D67(2003) 056001, [hep-ph/0211165]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  54. [61]

    Buras,Gauge Theory of Weak Decays

    A. Buras,Gauge Theory of Weak Decays. Cambridge University Press, 6, 2020. [62]Flavour Lattice A veraging Group (FLAG)Collaboration, Y. Aoki et al.,FLAG Review 2024, arXiv:2411.04268

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  55. [63]

    Brod and M

    J. Brod and M. Gorbahn,Next-to-Next-to-Leading-Order Charm-Quark Contribution to theCP Violation Parameterϵ K and∆M K, Phys. Rev. Lett.108(2012) 121801, [arXiv:1108.2036]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  56. [64]

    Helset, C

    A. Helset, C. Murgui, and M. B. Wise,Simple models with both baryon and lepton number violation by two units,Phys. Rev. D104(2021), no. 1 015029, [arXiv:2104.03316]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  57. [65]

    He and X.-D

    X.-G. He and X.-D. Ma,An EFT toolbox for baryon and lepton number violating dinucleon to dilepton decays,JHEP06(2021) 047, [arXiv:2102.02562]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  58. [66]

    Girmohanta and R

    S. Girmohanta and R. Shrock,Improved Upper Limits on Baryon-Number Violating Dinucleon Decays to Dileptons,Phys. Lett. B803(2020) 135296, [arXiv:1910.08356]. [67]Super-KamiokandeCollaboration, J. Gustafson et al.,Search for dinucleon decay into pions at Super-Kamiokande, Phys. Rev. D91(2015), no. 7 072009, [arXiv:1504.01041]. [68]Super-KamiokandeCollabora...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  59. [69]

    Heeck and V

    J. Heeck and V. Takhistov,Inclusive Nucleon Decay Searches as a Frontier of Baryon Number Violation, Phys. Rev. D101(2020), no. 1 015005, [arXiv:1910.07647]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  60. [70]

    Weiss, A

    R. Weiss, A. Schmidt, G. A. Miller, and N. Barnea,Short-range correlations and the charge density, Phys. Lett. B790(2019) 484–489, [arXiv:1807.08677]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  61. [71]

    Dorsner, S

    I. Dorsner, S. Fajfer, and S. Saad,Neutrino Mass Inducedn-nOscillation,arXiv:2510.16103. – 30 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  62. [72]

    A. B. I Beneito, J. Gargalionis, J. Herrero-Garcia, and M. A. Schmidt,Squeezing Proton Decay and Neutrino Masses: Upper Bounds on Standard Model Extensions,arXiv:2503.20928

    arXiv

  63. [73]

    Basecq and L

    J. Basecq and L. Wolfenstein,DELTA B=2 TRANSITIONS,Nucl. Phys. B224(1983) 21

    1983

  64. [74]

    D’Ambrosio, G

    G. D’Ambrosio, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori, and A. Strumia,Minimal flavor violation: An Effective field theory approach,Nucl. Phys. B645(2002) 155–187, [hep-ph/0207036]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  65. [75]

    Barbieri, G

    R. Barbieri, G. Isidori, J. Jones-Perez, P. Lodone, and D. M. Straub,U(2)and Minimal Flavour Violation in Supersymmetry,Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011) 1725, [arXiv:1105.2296]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  66. [76]

    Barbieri, D

    R. Barbieri, D. Buttazzo, F. Sala, and D. M. Straub,Flavour physics from an approximateU(2)3 symmetry, JHEP07(2012) 181, [arXiv:1203.4218]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  67. [77]

    Z. Dong, G. Durieux, J.-M. Gerard, T. Han, and F. Maltoni,Baryon number violation at the LHC: the top option,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 016006, [arXiv:1107.3805]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  68. [78]

    Chen,Impact of colored scalars on D(0) - anti-D(0) mixing in diquark models,Phys

    C.-H. Chen,Impact of colored scalars on D(0) - anti-D(0) mixing in diquark models,Phys. Lett. B680 (2009) 133–136, [arXiv:0902.2620]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  69. [79]

    L. J. Broussard et al.,Baryon number violation: from nuclear matrix elements to BSM physics,J. Phys. G52(2025), no. 8 083001, [arXiv:2504.16983]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [80]

    Ellis,TikZ-Feynman: Feynman diagrams with TikZ,Comput

    J. Ellis,TikZ-Feynman: Feynman diagrams with TikZ,Comput. Phys. Commun.210(2017) 103–123, [arXiv:1601.05437]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  71. [81]

    Chen and Y.-Q

    S.-L. Chen and Y.-Q. Xiao,The decomposition of neutron-antineutron oscillation operators,JHEP03 (2023) 065, [arXiv:2211.02813]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  72. [82]

    Zwirner,Observable Delta B=2 Transitions Without Nucleon Decay in a Minimal Supersymmetric Extension of the Standard Model,Phys

    F. Zwirner,Observable Delta B=2 Transitions Without Nucleon Decay in a Minimal Supersymmetric Extension of the Standard Model,Phys. Lett. B132(1983) 103–106

    1983

  73. [83]

    Barbieri and A

    R. Barbieri and A. Masiero,Supersymmetric Models with Low-Energy Baryon Number Violation,Nucl. Phys. B267(1986) 679–689

    1986

  74. [84]

    R. N. Mohapatra and J. W. F. Valle,Neutrino Mass and Baryon Number Nonconservation in Superstring Models,Phys. Rev. D34(1986) 1642

    1986

  75. [85]

    Dorsner, S

    I. Dorsner, S. Fajfer, and S. Saad,Beyond Neutrino Mass: Observablen-nOscillations in UV Complete Seesaw Models,arXiv:2509.00145

    arXiv

  76. [86]

    P. S. B. Dev and R. N. Mohapatra,TeV scale model for baryon and lepton number violation and resonant baryogenesis,Phys. Rev. D92(2015), no. 1 016007, [arXiv:1504.07196]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  77. [87]

    Weinberg,Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes,Phys

    S. Weinberg,Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes,Phys. Rev. Lett.43(1979) 1566–1570

    1979

  78. [88]

    Berezhiani,Neutron–antineutron oscillation and baryonic majoron: low scale spontaneous baryon violation, Eur

    Z. Berezhiani,Neutron–antineutron oscillation and baryonic majoron: low scale spontaneous baryon violation, Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016), no. 12 705, [arXiv:1507.05478]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  79. [89]

    Grojean, B

    C. Grojean, B. Shakya, J. D. Wells, and Z. Zhang,Implications of an Improved Neutron-Antineutron Oscillation Search for Baryogenesis: A Minimal Effective Theory Analysis,Phys. Rev. Lett.121(2018), no. 17 171801, [arXiv:1806.00011]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  80. [90]

    A. B. Beneito, I, J. Gargalionis, J. Herrero-Garcia, A. Santamaria, and M. A. Schmidt,An EFT approach to baryon number violation: lower limits on the new physics scale and correlations between nucleon decay modes,JHEP07(2024) 004, [arXiv:2312.13361]

    arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.