Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The paper identifies the flavor conditions under which a dimension-7 lepton-number-violating operator can produce observable excesses in rare B and K meson decays without erasing the cosmological baryon asymmetry or violating neutrinoless d

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 08:34 UTC pith:PS5MHPQK

load-bearing objection Solid EFT feasibility study whose central claim holds up, but the washout bounds are EFT-only lower bounds, making the viability windows optimistic. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2601.16422 v1 pith:PS5MHPQK submitted 2026-01-23 hep-ph

Feasibility Study of Lepton Number Violation in Rare B and K Meson Decays

Motoi Endo , K{\aa}re Fridell , Sho Iwamoto , Yushi Mura , Kei Yamamoto This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords lepton number violationdimension-7 SMEFTrare meson decaysB→KννK→πννbaryogenesis washoutneutrinoless double beta decayneutrino mass
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.

Rare meson decays like B→Kνν and K→πνν could be windows into lepton-number violation, even though the Standard Model predicts tiny rates. This paper studies the only dimension-7 SMEFT operator (dLQLH) that can produce such decays with lepton-number violation, and asks whether they could be observed while simultaneously not washing out the baryon asymmetry of the Universe and not violating neutrinoless double beta decay bounds. The authors find that observable excesses are possible, but only with a specific flavor structure: at least one lepton flavor must be nearly decoupled from the LNV interactions (for B→Kνν, the first generation; for K_L→π0νν, both electron and electron-neutrino couplings, or a cutoff near the electroweak scale). They also show that the same operator generates neutrino masses only at two loops, too small to explain the data by itself, but a dimension-5 Weinberg operator can be added consistently. If true, this means a future B→Kνν excess at Belle II could be the first direct evidence of lepton-number violation operating above the electroweak scale.

Core claim

At dimension 7, the single dLQLH operator — built from two left-handed lepton doublets, a quark doublet, a right-handed down-type quark, and the Higgs — violates lepton number while changing down-quark flavor. The authors show that its effects on the rare decays B+→K+νν and K→πνν can be large enough to be seen at Belle II (50 ab^-1) and KOTO II, but only if the washout of the primordial baryon asymmetry is avoided. That is possible if at least one lepton flavor is almost decoupled from the operator: the B/3−ℓ charge of that flavor then survives the sphaleron era. For B→Kνν, an excess at Belle II requires the first-generation couplings to be suppressed, with the ratio r of first-generation to

What carries the argument

The central object is the dLQLH operator, the only dimension-7 SMEFT operator that contributes to b→sνν and s→dνν with lepton-number violation. It is built from two left-handed lepton doublets L, a left-handed quark doublet Q, a right-handed down-type quark d, and the Higgs doublet H. In the broken phase it induces scalar and tensor four-fermion LEFT operators whose Wilson coefficients are c_SLL and c_TLL. The paper uses the ratio r to decouple the first-generation couplings, and solves the Boltzmann equations for the charges B/3−ℓα to determine which flavor structures survive the sphaleron era. Two-loop electroweak diagrams give the induced neutrino mass, and an on-shell renormalization of

Load-bearing premise

The washout calculation assumes the baryon asymmetry is created at or above the SMEFT cutoff with an O(1) initial B/3−ℓ asymmetry, and that no additional lepton-number-violating processes operate above the cutoff; if the asymmetry is instead produced later or if extra LNV exists above the cutoff, the viable windows shift.

What would settle it

If a complete calculation of the washout includes LNV interactions from a UV completion above the SMEFT cutoff and finds they erase the B/3−ℓ asymmetry for the parameter region that would otherwise produce an observable B→Kνν excess at Belle II, the paper's feasibility claim for that region would be overturned. Alternatively, a null result for B+→K+νν at Belle II's projected 11% precision with 50 ab^-1 would exclude the r≲10^-3, Λ~1 TeV window the paper identifies.

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

If this is right

  • If the confirmed B+→K+νν excess persists, a measurement at Belle II's 50 ab^-1 reach would point to dimension-7 lepton-number violation with a decoupled first generation, rather than the Standard Model.
  • The flavor-decoherence condition (r≲10^-3) implies that any LNV signal seen in B or K decays should be accompanied by a near-total absence of LNV in first-generation processes—i.e., no observable 0νββ from the same operator.
  • For KOTO II, the reach is mostly in the low-cutoff (Λ≲200 GeV) or decoupled-electron corners, so a K_L→π0νν excess would be a strong hint that new LNV physics is close to the electroweak scale.
  • The consistency of the scenario requires the dimension-5 Weinberg operator to account for neutrino masses, so the LNV operator itself cannot be the sole source of neutrino mass; experiments probing the Weinberg operator remain relevant.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If electroweak baryogenesis generates the asymmetry at T~100 GeV, the washout constraint is largely bypassed, and flavor-universal LNV couplings could produce an observable B→Kνν excess without decoupling—a scenario the paper explicitly sets aside.
  • A future observation of excesses in both B→Kνν and K→πνν would require two separate flavor-suppression patterns (first-generation decoupling for B; electron plus ν_e decoupling for K), which could be tested by comparing the two channels.
  • The two-loop neutrino mass formula could be used to predict the scale of the Weinberg operator from a measured LNV meson-decay signal, giving a consistency check between neutrino masses and collider/flavor probes.
  • The paper's constraints are conservative; if a UV completion adds LNV processes above the cutoff, the viable regions shrink, so a null result at Belle II would not be the end of the story but would push the LNV scale upward.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies dimension-7 dLQLH-type lepton-number-violating (LNV) operators in SMEFT that induce B→Kνν and K→πνν decays. It computes the rare-meson decay rates, solves coupled Boltzmann equations for the flavor-dependent B/3−ℓ_α asymmetries to derive baryon-washout constraints, calculates two-loop neutrino masses generated by these operators, and combines these with long-range 0νββ bounds from KamLAND-Zen. Three scenarios are considered: flavor-universal couplings, couplings proportional to the neutrino mass matrix, and a scenario with the first lepton generation decoupled. The main results are feasibility maps in the Wilson-coefficient/cutoff plane. For Belle II with 50 ab^-1, an excess in B+→K+νν is claimed to be viable if at least one lepton flavor is almost decoupled; for KOTO II, both electron and electron-neutrino couplings must be decoupled, or C_ds must be suppressed and Λ close to the electroweak scale. The Weinberg operator is then introduced to reproduce neutrino masses without spoiling these scenarios.

Significance. If the calculation is correct, the paper provides a useful, largely benchmarked EFT-level feasibility study that combines rare-meson decay searches, early-universe washout, and 0νββ constraints. The flavor-resolved treatment of B/3−ℓ_α washout is an improvement over earlier lepton-number-only analyses, and the explicit two-loop neutrino-mass matching is a nontrivial technical contribution. The central conclusions are testable and falsifiable at Belle II and KOTO II, and the paper is transparent about many of its assumptions. The main value is the identification of the narrow windows in which LNV meson decays could be observed without already being excluded by cosmology or double-beta decay. The chief weakness is that the washout analysis is truncated at the SMEFT cutoff, so the viability claims are conditional on the absence of additional LNV dynamics above Λ; this is acknowledged but not quantified.

major comments (2)
  1. [Secs. 4.2 and 8; Figs. 4–8] The baryon-washout constraints are computed only for T<Λ, starting at z0=1 (T=Λ) with an initial B/3−ℓ_α asymmetry and including only SMEFT dim-5/dim-7 rates. Any UV completion that generates the dLQLH operator will contain LNV interactions active for T>Λ; if those interactions are faster than Hubble above Λ, the initial asymmetry is erased before the EFT evolution begins. The green exclusion lines in Figs. 4–8 are therefore only lower bounds on the washout. Section 8 states that UV LNV is 'likely to spoil the scenarios,' but this is not quantified and does not appear in the abstract or the main conclusion. Since the paper's central feasibility claim — that an excess could be detected if one lepton flavor is decoupled — depends on the absence of such UV washout, this point needs to be addressed explicitly, either by a concrete UV-completion example or by framing all headline statements a
  2. [Sec. 5, Eqs. (5.3)–(5.6)] The two-loop formulas for C7_αβ are presented as final results with only a diagram sketch and definitions in Appendix D. These formulas are then used in Eq. (5.8) to fix the Weinberg coefficient and to argue that the dim-5 contribution to washout and 0νββ is negligible. The renormalization procedure — MS subtraction using only counterterms of the corresponding dim-7 operators — is stated but not demonstrated. Without a more detailed derivation or at least a numerical cross-check (e.g., a limiting case or a comparison with a known simplified model), the reader cannot verify the secondary claim that the Weinberg operator can be introduced consistently without spoiling the scenario. This is especially important because errors in C7 would change the required size of C_νν and could alter the conclusion that the Weinberg-operator effects are small.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Figs. 4–5] The green ηB contours are computed from an initial asymmetry η0Δ(B/3−ℓ_α)=(1,1,1). In regions below the green lines the final asymmetry from such a unit initial condition exceeds the observed value. The text states that the regions above the green lines are excluded, but it should also clarify that the contours are benchmarks for a fixed O(1) initial asymmetry, not predictions of the final baryon asymmetry; smaller initial asymmetries would move the constraints.
  2. [Sec. 5, Eqs. (5.3)–(5.6)] The notation in the two-loop formulas is not fully defined: the symbol D in expressions such as V†D I1(...)V and the ordering of the matrices Y_u, Y_d should be spelled out. Also, the statement that the renormalization scale Q=Λ is 'not far from the electroweak scale' is in tension with the plots that extend Λ to 10^6 GeV; the treatment of large logarithms in those regions should be mentioned.
  3. [Sec. 8] The word 'conservative' on p. 21 is misleading. If UV LNV above the cutoff can only add extra washout, the EFT-based viability regions are optimistic for the feasibility claim, not conservative. Please rephrase, e.g., 'the washout bounds are conservative lower limits while the viability statements are conditional.'
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues: 'bayon number washout' in Sec. 8; 'F orm factors' in the table of contents; the author line rendering 'K ˚ are'; and in Eq. (3.2), the experimental value is written with a space before the parenthesis. A careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the feasibility maps are genuine intersections of independent external constraints; only the neutrino-mass match in eq. (5.8) is input-matching, and it is openly disclosed and not load-bearing.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. 5, eq. (5.8); abstract's 'Weinberg operator can be introduced consistently']
    "we treat Cνν_αβ as a function of the dim. 7 coefficients Cpr_αβ from eq. (5.1) as Cνν_αβ = −C7_αβ ± (1/v^2) mν_αβ ≡ C̃νν_αβ ... Thus, in this parametrization, the experimental results can always be explained for any value of Cpr_αβ."

    Substituting eq. (5.8) into eq. (5.1) returns the observed mν_αβ identically for any Cpr_αβ: the Weinberg coefficient is defined to cancel the computed two-loop dim-7 contribution and deposit the observed mass matrix. The paper's statement that 'the experimental results for the neutrino masses are explained by additionally introducing the Weinberg operator' is therefore true by construction rather than by prediction. This is disclosed input-matching, and it is not load-bearing for the central claims: the feasibility statements in Sec. 8 (Belle II, KOTO II) are set by the meson-decay rates (Sec. 3), the Boltzmann washout computation (Sec. 4), and the KamLAND-Zen 0νββ bound (Sec. 6), all benchmarked against external data. The genuinely derived content in Sec. 5 — the two-loop integrals C7,Ai

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is non-circular. (i) Meson decay rates: Br(B+→K+νν)^NP and Br(K→πνν)^NP are computed from the SMEFT Wilson coefficients via LEFT matching (eqs. 2.4-2.5) and the J-factor formulae of refs. [41,43] (external), benchmarked against external measurements (Belle II [49], NA62 [50], KOTO [51]) and the Belle II model-agnostic likelihood intervals of eq. (3.6). (ii) Baryon washout: the Boltzmann equations (4.4)-(4.8) are solved with the initial asymmetry treated as an explicit assumption, and the final asymmetry is compared with the externally measured ηB (Planck [94]); the flavor-structure dependence (diagonal/mix/decoupled, eq. 4.11) follows from the collision term rather than being imported as a conclusion. (iii) 0νββ: the long-range contributions (Sec. 6) are computed from the same Wilson coefficients and compared with the KamLAND-Zen half-life limit [11]. (iv) The only by-construction step is eq. (5.8), where the Weinberg coefficient is defined to absorb the difference between the observed neutrino masses and the computed two-loop dim-7 contribution; the paper explicitly states 'the experimental results can always be explained for any value of Cpr_αβ', making no predictive claim there. The abstract's 'Weinberg operator can be introduced consistently' refers to the verified negligibility of that operator's washout and 0νββ effects, a genuine check. (v) Self-citations ([21,22,42,48,81,89]) are context, method, or detail references; all load-bearing formulas and bounds are from external literature or derived in this paper (appendices A-D). No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The acknowledged UV caveat (Secs. 4.2 and 8: processes above the SMEFT cutoff 'could wash out the primordial baryon asymmetry... likely to spoil the scenarios') is a limitation on robustness, not circularity: the EFT calculation is exactly what it claims to be, with the truncation stated. Overall, the feasibility maps are honest intersections of independent, externally benchmarked constraints; the single disclosed input-matching step raises the score only mildly.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard SMEFT machinery and early-universe modeling rather than on new postulated particles. The ledger is dominated by a boundary-condition assumption (initial asymmetry at the cutoff) and by hand-chosen scenario parameters (ζ, r), plus an input-matched Weinberg coefficient. No new particle or force is introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • ζ (overall SMEFT coupling scale in Scenarios 1-3) = scanned; benchmark c≈10^-10 GeV^-3 for Br(B→Kνν)≈2.9×10^-5 in Fig. 5
    The dimensionless coupling scale ζ in eqs. (7.1)-(7.3) is chosen by hand and scanned over many orders of magnitude. It sets the meson-decay rates and the washout rates simultaneously.
  • r (first-generation decoupling ratio, Scenario 3) = 10^-1, 10^-3, 10^-5
    The flavor-hierarchy parameter r in eq. (7.3) is introduced ad hoc to suppress the first lepton generation. The main feasibility conclusions require r≲10^-3 to 10^-5 depending on Λ.
  • Cνν αβ (Weinberg operator coefficient) = set by eq. (5.8) using NuFIT5.2 neutrino masses
    The coefficient is adjusted, along with a sign choice, to subtract the computed two-loop C7 contribution and reproduce observed neutrino masses. The paper explicitly states that experimental results can always be explained for any Cpr.
axioms (6)
  • standard math The dLQLH operator is the only dimension-7 SMEFT operator relevant to b→sνν and s→dνν LNV transitions.
    This relies on the complete dimension-7 operator classification of refs. [55-57], which is standard in the EFT literature. Invoked in Sec. 2.
  • domain assumption An O(1) B/3−ℓα asymmetry exists at T=Λ and no LNV washout or regeneration above the SMEFT cutoff is included.
    The Boltzmann solutions in Sec. 4.2 and the green exclusion lines in Figs. 4-8 use the initial condition η0(B/3−ℓα)=(1,1,1) at z0=1. The paper acknowledges that UV effects are omitted and calls the constraints conservative.
  • domain assumption All SM particles are in chemical and kinetic equilibrium, treated as massless for T>T_EW, and Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics are used in the collision terms.
    This is the standard early-universe approximation used in Sec. 4 and Appendix C to derive γeq for the 2-to-3 and 3-to-2 processes.
  • domain assumption The scalar and tensor J factors from refs. [43,101] accurately describe the B→K and K→π hadronic matrix elements.
    The numerical decay-rate constraints in Sec. 3 and Figs. 4-8 use J factors taken verbatim from ref. [43], including form-factor inputs.
  • domain assumption NuFIT5.2 oscillation data with normal ordering and a massless lightest neutrino are correct for the neutrino-mass benchmark in Scenario 2.
    Adopted in Sec. 7 for the mναβ-proportional flavor structure; the choice affects the shape of the red curves in Figs. 4 and 7.
  • standard math Electroweak sphalerons are active throughout Λ>T>100 GeV and preserve B−ℓ while violating B and ℓ individually.
    This is the standard sphaleron setup used in Sec. 4.1 to justify evolving B/3−ℓα rather than ℓα.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 26674 in / 17419 out tokens · 211620 ms · 2026-08-03T08:34:18.116662+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study lepton-number-violating interactions at dimension seven in the Standard Model effective field theory that contribute to the meson decays $B \to K \nu \nu$ and $K \to \pi \nu \nu$. Such interactions could washout the baryon asymmetry of the Universe and also contribute to the neutrinoless double beta decay, even though the interactions involve a change in down-type quark flavors. We clarify conditions under which excesses in meson decay rates over the Standard Model predictions can be successfully observed. We also show that, although these interactions contribute to neutrino masses at the two-loop level, the Weinberg operator can be introduced consistently without spoiling the scenario.

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. Baryon-Meson Sum Rule for $b \to s \nu\bar\nu$

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    An exact sum rule connects branching fractions of Lambda_b -> Lambda nu nubar and B -> K(*) nu nubar decays with coefficients identical to those in the b->c tau semileptonic sum rule.

  2. Challenging Majorana neutrino effects in $B\to K^{(\ast)}\nu\nu$ and $K\to \pi\nu\nu$ decays

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Belle-II's B→Kνν excess cannot be explained by dimension-7 lepton-number-violating SMEFT operators without fine-tuning neutrino masses, while a light sterile-neutrino extension can, with testable decay spectra.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 64 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [2]

    µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of 10 9 Muon Decays?

    P. Minkowski, “µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of 10 9 Muon Decays?” Phys. Lett. B67 (1977) 421–428

    1977

  2. [3]

    Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,

    O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto, eds., “Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,” Conf. Proc. C7902131(1979) 95–99

    1979

  3. [4]

    Complex Spinors and Unified Theories,

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, “Complex Spinors and Unified Theories,” Conf. Proc. C790927(1979) 315–321[arXiv:1306.4669]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1979

  4. [5]

    Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, “Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.44(1980) 912

    1980

  5. [6]

    Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories,

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, “Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories,” Phys. Rev. D 22(1980) 2227

    1980

  6. [7]

    Signal of neutrinoless double beta decay, neutrino spectrum and oscillation scenarios,

    F. Vissani, “Signal of neutrinoless double beta decay, neutrino spectrum and oscillation scenarios,” JHEP06(1999) 022[hep-ph/9906525]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  7. [8]

    Towards a superformula for neutrinoless double beta decay,

    H. Pas, M. Hirsch, H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, and S. G. Kovalenko, “Towards a superformula for neutrinoless double beta decay,” Phys. Lett. B453(1999) 194–198

    1999

  8. [9]

    A Superformula for neutrinoless double beta decay. 2. The Short range part,

    H. Pas, M. Hirsch, H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, and S. G. Kovalenko, “A Superformula for neutrinoless double beta decay. 2. The Short range part,” Phys. Lett. B498(2001) 35–39 [hep-ph/0008182]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  9. [10]

    Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay and Physics Beyond the Standard Model,

    F. F. Deppisch, M. Hirsch, and H. Pas, “Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay and Physics Beyond the Standard Model,” J. Phys. G39(2012) 124007[arXiv:1208.0727]. [11]KamLAND-ZenCollaboration, “Search for Majorana Neutrinos with the Complete KamLAND-Zen Dataset.”arXiv:2406.11438. [12]APPEC CommitteeCollaboration, “Double Beta Decay APPEC Committee Report.” arXiv:...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  10. [13]

    Topology in the Weinberg-Salam Theory,

    N. S. Manton, “Topology in the Weinberg-Salam Theory,” Phys. Rev. D28(1983) 2019

    1983

  11. [14]

    On the Anomalous Electroweak Baryon Number Nonconservation in the Early Universe,

    V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, “On the Anomalous Electroweak Baryon Number Nonconservation in the Early Universe,” Phys. Lett. B155(1985) 36

    1985

  12. [15]

    Sphaleron relaxation temperatures,

    L. Bento, “Sphaleron relaxation temperatures,” JCAP11(2003) 002[hep-ph/0304263]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  13. [16]

    Cosmological baryon and lepton number in the presence of electroweak fermion number violation,

    J. A. Harvey and M. S. Turner, “Cosmological baryon and lepton number in the presence of electroweak fermion number violation,” Phys. Rev. D42(1990) 3344–3349

    1990

  14. [17]

    Upper bound on baryogenesis scale from neutrino masses,

    A. E. Nelson and S. M. Barr, “Upper bound on baryogenesis scale from neutrino masses,” Phys. Lett. B246(1990) 141–143

    1990

  15. [18]

    Falsifying High-Scale Leptogenesis at the LHC,

    F. F. Deppisch, J. Harz, and M. Hirsch, “Falsifying High-Scale Leptogenesis at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. Lett.112(2014) 221601[arXiv:1312.4447]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  16. [19]

    Falsifying High-Scale Baryogenesis with Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay and Lepton Flavor Violation,

    F. F. Deppisch, J. Harz, M. Hirsch, W.-C. Huang, and H. P¨ as, “Falsifying High-Scale Baryogenesis with Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay and Lepton Flavor Violation,” Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 036005[arXiv:1503.04825]. – 26 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  17. [20]

    Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay and the Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe,

    F. F. Deppisch, L. Graf, J. Harz, and W.-C. Huang, “Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay and the Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe,” Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 055029 [arXiv:1711.10432]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [21]

    Constraining lepton number violating interactions in rare kaon decays,

    F. F. Deppisch, K. Fridell, and J. Harz, “Constraining lepton number violating interactions in rare kaon decays,” JHEP12(2020) 186[arXiv:2009.04494]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [22]

    Leptogenesis and neutrino mass with scalar leptoquarks,

    K. Fridell, “Leptogenesis and neutrino mass with scalar leptoquarks,” JHEP05(2025) 096 [arXiv:2411.03282]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [23]

    Effects of Superheavy Quarks and Leptons in Low-Energy Weak ProcessesK L →µ µ,K + →π +νν, andK 0 ↔ K 0,

    T. Inami and C. S. Lim, “Effects of Superheavy Quarks and Leptons in Low-Energy Weak ProcessesK L →µ µ,K + →π +νν, andK 0 ↔ K 0,” Prog. Theor. Phys.65(1981) 297. [Erratum: Prog.Theor.Phys. 65, 1772 (1981)]

    1981

  21. [24]

    QCD corrections to rare K and B decays for arbitrary top quark mass,

    G. Buchalla and A. J. Buras, “QCD corrections to rare K and B decays for arbitrary top quark mass,” Nucl. Phys. B400(1993) 225–239

    1993

  22. [25]

    QCD corrections to the ¯sdZvertex for arbitrary top quark mass,

    G. Buchalla and A. J. Buras, “QCD corrections to the ¯sdZvertex for arbitrary top quark mass,” Nucl. Phys. B398(1993) 285–300

    1993

  23. [26]

    The rare decaysK + →π +ν¯νandK L →µ +µ− beyond leading logarithms,

    G. Buchalla and A. J. Buras, “The rare decaysK + →π +ν¯νandK L →µ +µ− beyond leading logarithms,” Nucl. Phys. B412(1994) 106–142[hep-ph/9308272]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  24. [27]

    Two loop largem t electroweak corrections toK→πν¯νfor arbitrary Higgs boson mass,

    G. Buchalla and A. J. Buras, “Two loop largem t electroweak corrections toK→πν¯νfor arbitrary Higgs boson mass,” Phys. Rev. D57(1998) 216–223[hep-ph/9707243]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  25. [28]

    The rare decaysK→πν¯ν,B→Xν¯νandB→l +l−: An Update,

    G. Buchalla and A. J. Buras, “The rare decaysK→πν¯ν,B→Xν¯νandB→l +l−: An Update,” Nucl. Phys. B548(1999) 309–327[hep-ph/9901288]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  26. [29]

    RareB→K (∗) neutrino anti-neutrino decays atBfactories,

    P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, P. Santorelli, and E. Scrimieri, “RareB→K (∗) neutrino anti-neutrino decays atBfactories,” Phys. Lett. B395(1997) 339–344[hep-ph/9610297]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  27. [30]

    Right-handed currents in rare exclusive B→(K, K ∗)ν¯νdecays,

    D. Melikhov, N. Nikitin, and S. Simula, “Right-handed currents in rare exclusive B→(K, K ∗)ν¯νdecays,” Phys. Lett. B428(1998) 171–178[hep-ph/9803269]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  28. [31]

    New physics effects inB→K (∗)ννdecays,

    C. S. Kim, Y. G. Kim, and T. Morozumi, “New physics effects inB→K (∗)ννdecays,” Phys. Rev. D60(1999) 094007[hep-ph/9905528]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  29. [32]

    QCD corrections to FCNC decays mediated by Z penguins and W boxes,

    M. Misiak and J. Urban, “QCD corrections to FCNC decays mediated by Z penguins and W boxes,” Phys. Lett. B451(1999) 161–169[hep-ph/9901278]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  30. [33]

    Rare B —>K* neutrino anti-neutrino decay beyond standard model,

    T. M. Aliev, A. Ozpineci, and M. Savci, “Rare B —>K* neutrino anti-neutrino decay beyond standard model,” Phys. Lett. B506(2001) 77–84[hep-ph/0101066]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  31. [34]

    Charm quark contribution to K + →π +ν¯νanti-nu at next-to-next-to-leading order,

    A. J. Buras, M. Gorbahn, U. Haisch, and U. Nierste, “Charm quark contribution to K + →π +ν¯νanti-nu at next-to-next-to-leading order,” JHEP11(2006) 002 [hep-ph/0603079]. [Erratum: JHEP 11, 167 (2012)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  32. [35]

    Electroweak Corrections to the Charm Quark Contribution to K + →π +ν¯ν,

    J. Brod and M. Gorbahn, “Electroweak Corrections to the Charm Quark Contribution to K + →π +ν¯ν,” Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 034006[arXiv:0805.4119]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  33. [36]

    Two-Loop Electroweak Corrections for the K→πν¯νDecays,

    J. Brod, M. Gorbahn, and E. Stamou, “Two-Loop Electroweak Corrections for the K→πν¯νDecays,” Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 034030[arXiv:1009.0947]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  34. [37]

    Model-Independent Constraints on New Physics inb→sTransitions,

    W. Altmannshofer, P. Paradisi, and D. M. Straub, “Model-Independent Constraints on New Physics inb→sTransitions,” JHEP04(2012) 008[arXiv:1111.1257]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  35. [38]

    B→K (∗)ννdecays in the Standard Model and beyond,

    A. J. Buras, J. Girrbach-Noe, C. Niehoff, and D. M. Straub, “B→K (∗)ννdecays in the Standard Model and beyond,” JHEP02(2015) 184[arXiv:1409.4557]. – 27 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  36. [39]

    Interplay of dineutrino modes with semileptonic rare B-decays,

    R. Bause, H. Gisbert, M. Golz, and G. Hiller, “Interplay of dineutrino modes with semileptonic rare B-decays,” JHEP12(2021) 061[arXiv:2109.01675]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [40]

    Implication ofK→πν¯νfor generic neutrino interactions in effective field theories,

    T. Li, X.-D. Ma, and M. A. Schmidt, “Implication ofK→πν¯νfor generic neutrino interactions in effective field theories,” Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 055019 [arXiv:1912.10433]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  38. [41]

    A tale of invisibility: constraints on new physics in b→sνν,

    T. Felkl, S. L. Li, and M. A. Schmidt, “A tale of invisibility: constraints on new physics in b→sνν,” JHEP12(2021) 118[arXiv:2111.04327]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [42]

    Probing lepton number violation: a comprehensive survey of dimension-7 SMEFT,

    K. Fridell, L. Gr´ af, J. Harz, and C. Hati, “Probing lepton number violation: a comprehensive survey of dimension-7 SMEFT,” JHEP05(2024) 154[arXiv:2306.08709]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [43]

    Disentangling new physics inK→πν νand B→K(K ∗)ν νobservables,

    A. J. Buras, J. Harz, and M. A. Mojahed, “Disentangling new physics inK→πν νand B→K(K ∗)ν νobservables,” JHEP10(2024) 087[arXiv:2405.06742]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [44]

    Updated Standard Model Prediction forK→πν¯ν andϵ K,

    J. Brod, M. Gorbahn, and E. Stamou, “Updated Standard Model Prediction forK→πν¯ν andϵ K,” PoSBEAUTY2020(2021) 056[arXiv:2105.02868]. [45]HPQCDCollaboration, “Standard Model predictions for B→Kℓ+ℓ-, B→Kℓ1-ℓ2+ and B→Kνν¯using form factors from Nf=2+1+1 lattice QCD,” Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 014511[arXiv:2207.13371]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 107, 119903 (2023)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [46]

    Standard Model predictions for rare K and B decays without new physics infection,

    A. J. Buras, “Standard Model predictions for rare K and B decays without new physics infection,” Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 66[arXiv:2209.03968]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  43. [47]

    Constructing model-agnostic likelihoods, a method for the reinterpretation of particle physics results,

    L. G¨ artner, N. Hartmann, L. Heinrich, M. Horstmann, et al., “Constructing model-agnostic likelihoods, a method for the reinterpretation of particle physics results,” Eur. Phys. J. C 84(2024) 693[arXiv:2402.08417]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [48]

    Decoding the B→Kννexcess at Belle II: Kinematics, operators, and masses,

    K. Fridell, M. Ghosh, T. Okui, and K. Tobioka, “Decoding the B→Kννexcess at Belle II: Kinematics, operators, and masses,” Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 115006 [arXiv:2312.12507]. [49]Belle-IICollaboration, “Evidence forB + →K +ν¯νdecays,” Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 112006[arXiv:2311.14647]. [50]NA62Collaboration, “Observation of theK + →π +ννdecay and measurement of i...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [53]

    Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation,

    W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, “Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation,” Nucl. Phys. B268(1986) 621–653

    1986

  46. [54]

    Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, “Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,” JHEP10(2010) 085[arXiv:1008.4884]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  47. [55]

    Classification of effective neutrino mass operators,

    K. S. Babu and C. N. Leung, “Classification of effective neutrino mass operators,” Nucl. Phys. B619(2001) 667–689[hep-ph/0106054]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  48. [56]

    A Survey of Lepton Number Violation Via Effective Operators,

    A. de Gouvea and J. Jenkins, “A Survey of Lepton Number Violation Via Effective Operators,” Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 013008[arXiv:0708.1344]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  49. [57]

    Extending the Standard Model Effective Field Theory with the Complete Set of Dimension-7 Operators,

    L. Lehman, “Extending the Standard Model Effective Field Theory with the Complete Set of Dimension-7 Operators,” Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 125023[arXiv:1410.4193]. – 28 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  50. [58]

    Renormalization Group Evolution of Dimension-seven Baryon- and Lepton-number-violating Operators,

    Y. Liao and X.-D. Ma, “Renormalization Group Evolution of Dimension-seven Baryon- and Lepton-number-violating Operators,” JHEP11(2016) 043[arXiv:1607.07309]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  51. [59]

    The Standard Model as an Effective Field Theory,

    I. Brivio and M. Trott, “The Standard Model as an Effective Field Theory,” Phys. Rept. 793(2019) 1–98[arXiv:1706.08945]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  52. [60]

    The standard model effective field theory at work,

    G. Isidori, F. Wilsch, and D. Wyler, “The standard model effective field theory at work,” Rev. Mod. Phys.96(2024) 015006[arXiv:2303.16922]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [61]

    Unitary Symmetry and Leptonic Decays,

    N. Cabibbo, “Unitary Symmetry and Leptonic Decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett.10(1963) 531–533

    1963

  54. [62]

    CP Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction,

    M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, “CP Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction,” Prog. Theor. Phys.49(1973) 652–657

    1973

  55. [63]

    B physics Beyond the Standard Model at One Loop: Complete Renormalization Group Evolution below the Electroweak Scale,

    J. Aebischer, M. Fael, C. Greub, and J. Virto, “B physics Beyond the Standard Model at One Loop: Complete Renormalization Group Evolution below the Electroweak Scale,” JHEP09(2017) 158[arXiv:1704.06639]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  56. [64]

    Low-Energy Effective Field Theory below the Electroweak Scale: Operators and Matching,

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and P. Stoffer, “Low-Energy Effective Field Theory below the Electroweak Scale: Operators and Matching,” JHEP03(2018) 016 [arXiv:1709.04486]. [Erratum: JHEP 12, 043 (2023)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  57. [65]

    Low-Energy Effective Field Theory below the Electroweak Scale: Anomalous Dimensions,

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and P. Stoffer, “Low-Energy Effective Field Theory below the Electroweak Scale: Anomalous Dimensions,” JHEP01(2018) 084 [arXiv:1711.05270]. [Erratum: JHEP 12, 042 (2023)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  58. [66]

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

    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

  59. [67]

    Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes,

    S. Weinberg, “Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes,” Phys. Rev. Lett.43(1979) 1566–1570. [68]Belle-IICollaboration, “The Belle II Physics Book,” PTEP2019(2019) 123C01 [arXiv:1808.10567]. [Erratum: PTEP 2020, 029201 (2020)]. [69]Belle-IICollaboration, “A model-agnostic likelihood for the reinterpretation of the B+ →K +ννmeasurement at Belle II.”arXiv:...

    arXiv 1979

  60. [70]

    New Physics in the Visible Final States of B→D (∗)τ ν,

    Z. Ligeti, M. Papucci, and D. J. Robinson, “New Physics in the Visible Final States of B→D (∗)τ ν,” JHEP01(2017) 083[arXiv:1610.02045]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  61. [71]

    Three exceptions in the calculation of relic abundances,

    K. Griest and D. Seckel, “Three exceptions in the calculation of relic abundances,” Phys. Rev. D43(1991) 3191–3203

    1991

  62. [72]

    Neutralino relic density including coannihilations,

    J. Edsjo and P. Gondolo, “Neutralino relic density including coannihilations,” Phys. Rev. D 56(1997) 1879–1894[hep-ph/9704361]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  63. [73]

    Towards a complete theory of thermal leptogenesis in the SM and MSSM,

    G. F. Giudice, A. Notari, M. Raidal, A. Riotto, and A. Strumia, “Towards a complete theory of thermal leptogenesis in the SM and MSSM,” Nucl. Phys. B685(2004) 89–149 [hep-ph/0310123]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  64. [74]

    Equilibration of right-handed electrons,

    D. B¨ odeker and D. Schr¨ oder, “Equilibration of right-handed electrons,” JCAP05(2019) 010[arXiv:1902.07220]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  65. [75]

    Wash-In Leptogenesis,

    V. Domcke, K. Kamada, K. Mukaida, K. Schmitz, and M. Yamada, “Wash-In Leptogenesis,” Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 201802[arXiv:2011.09347]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  66. [76]

    Spontaneous Baryogenesis from Axions with Generic Couplings,

    V. Domcke, Y. Ema, K. Mukaida, and M. Yamada, “Spontaneous Baryogenesis from Axions with Generic Couplings,” JHEP08(2020) 096[arXiv:2006.03148]. – 29 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  67. [77]

    Inverse Beta Processes and Nonconservation of Lepton Charge,

    B. Pontecorvo, “Inverse Beta Processes and Nonconservation of Lepton Charge,” Sov. Phys. JETP7(1958) 172–173

    1958

  68. [78]

    Remarks on the unified model of elementary particles,

    Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, and S. Sakata, “Remarks on the unified model of elementary particles,” Prog. Theor. Phys.28(1962) 870–880

    1962

  69. [79]

    The Standard model effective potential at two loops,

    C. Ford, I. Jack, and D. R. T. Jones, “The Standard model effective potential at two loops,” Nucl. Phys. B387(1992) 373–390[hep-ph/0111190]. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 504, 551–552 (1997)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  70. [80]

    Two Loop Effective Potential for a General Renormalizable Theory and Softly Broken Supersymmetry,

    S. P. Martin, “Two Loop Effective Potential for a General Renormalizable Theory and Softly Broken Supersymmetry,” Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 116003[hep-ph/0111209]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  71. [81]

    Radiative neutrino masses from dim-7 SMEFT: a simplified multi-scale approach,

    K. Fridell, L. Gr´ af, J. Harz, and C. Hati, “Radiative neutrino masses from dim-7 SMEFT: a simplified multi-scale approach,” JHEP09(2025) 050[arXiv:2412.14268]

    arXiv 2025

  72. [82]

    Electroweak Theory. Framework of On-Shell Renormalization and Study of Higher Order Effects,

    K. I. Aoki, Z. Hioki, M. Konuma, R. Kawabe, and T. Muta, “Electroweak Theory. Framework of On-Shell Renormalization and Study of Higher Order Effects,” Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.73(1982) 1–225

    1982

  73. [83]

    On the One Loop Renormalization of the Electroweak Standard Model and Its Application to Leptonic Processes,

    M. Bohm, H. Spiesberger, and W. Hollik, “On the One Loop Renormalization of the Electroweak Standard Model and Its Application to Leptonic Processes,” Fortsch. Phys.34 (1986) 687–751

    1986

  74. [84]

    Renormalization of the Quark Mixing Matrix,

    A. Denner and T. Sack, “Renormalization of the Quark Mixing Matrix,” Nucl. Phys. B347 (1990) 203–216

    1990

  75. [85]

    Techniques for calculation of electroweak radiative corrections at the one loop level and results for W physics at LEP-200,

    A. Denner, “Techniques for calculation of electroweak radiative corrections at the one loop level and results for W physics at LEP-200,” Fortsch. Phys.41(1993) 307–420 [arXiv:0709.1075]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  76. [86]

    Mixing renormalization in Majorana neutrino theories,

    B. A. Kniehl and A. Pilaftsis, “Mixing renormalization in Majorana neutrino theories,” Nucl. Phys. B474(1996) 286–308[hep-ph/9601390]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  77. [87]

    Gauge and scheme dependence of mixing matrix renormalization,

    A. Pilaftsis, “Gauge and scheme dependence of mixing matrix renormalization,” Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 115013[hep-ph/0203210]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  78. [88]

    Higgs coupling constants as a probe of new physics,

    S. Kanemura, Y. Okada, E. Senaha, and C. P. Yuan, “Higgs coupling constants as a probe of new physics,” Phys. Rev. D70(2004) 115002[hep-ph/0408364]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  79. [89]

    Revisiting electroweak radiative corrections to b→sℓℓin SMEFT,

    M. Endo, S. Mishima, and D. Ueda, “Revisiting electroweak radiative corrections to b→sℓℓin SMEFT,” JHEP05(2021) 050[arXiv:2012.06197]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  80. [90]

    Scalar One Loop Integrals,

    G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, “Scalar One Loop Integrals,” Nucl. Phys. B153(1979) 365–401

    1979

Showing first 80 references.