Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 39 references

No weakly coupled UV model with fields up to doublets can generate a DUNE-visible electron–tau NSI at the experiment's projected sensitivity.

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

2026-08-02 11:32 UTC pith:7ZUHXU4Q

load-bearing objection Careful, honest scan with a reusable pipeline and a credible negative result, but the arXiv abstract claims a tau->e omega bound the paper never derives. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.13983 v2 pith:7ZUHXU4Q submitted 2026-06-12 hep-ph

From DUNE Sensitivities to UV Models: Implications of Flavour Constraints

Adriano Cherchiglia This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords non-standard neutrino interactionsSMEFTDUNElepton flavour violationWilson coefficientsUV completionsflavour constraintstau decays
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 asks a concrete question: if DUNE reports an anomaly in the electron–tau semileptonic neutrino-interaction coefficient, can any ordinary weakly coupled UV completion produce it? Its answer is no. After surveying 338 candidate models with new scalars and/or fermions and keeping the 112 with fields up to SU(2)L doublets, the largest value the target coefficient can reach while still passing a global flavour fit is about 1.3 × 10^-2 TeV^-2 — only 15% of DUNE's projected 90% C.L. sensitivity of 9 × 10^-2 TeV^-2. The result matters because it converts DUNE's expected reach into a diagnostic: a signal at the projected level would point to more exotic new physics, not the usual heavy-mediator menu. The same pipeline is offered as a general route from any future SMEFT-based anomaly to a shortlist of UV models.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the semileptonic Wilson coefficient C_lq,1311^(1) — the SMEFT coefficient that generates the epsilon_{e tau} matter non-standard interaction at DUNE — cannot be made as large as the experiment's projected sensitivity in any of the 112 weakly coupled UV completions surveyed. The best benchmark model reaches about 1.3 × 10^-2 TeV^-2, almost one order of magnitude below the 9 × 10^-2 TeV^-2 DUNE benchmark, and this conclusion survives after removing couplings that would induce baryon-number violation. The abstract adds the sharper statement that the vector combination controlling epsilon_{e tau} is the same combination that enters tau → e omega, yielding a 90%

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the one-loop SMEFT dictionary that maps new scalars and fermions to Wilson coefficients, together with the relation epsilon_{alpha beta} = -2 v^2 C_lq,alpha beta 11 connecting the NSI to the semileptonic coefficient. The search runs in three stages: enumerate candidate models (338 total, 112 with isosinglet/isodoublet fields), use individual coefficient bounds and Monte Carlo seeding to identify promising models, then optimize the target coefficient under a global flavour likelihood with a tolerance of Δχ² = 4. The best benchmark model combines one colour-triplet scalar with two vector-like fermions; its tree-level matching gives C_lq^(1) = -C_lq^(3), and this t

Load-bearing premise

The scan's exhaustiveness for 'usual BSM models' is the load-bearing premise: it allows only isosinglet and isodoublet fields, muonphobic couplings, parameters not appearing in the target set to zero, 1 TeV mediator masses, and one-loop matching — a model outside these restrictions could in principle produce the DUNE-visible coefficient.

What would settle it

A direct disproof would come from running the same search over the full 338-model dictionary (or an extended dictionary with isospin > 1/2 and second-family couplings) and finding any point with mediator masses at 1 TeV, perturbative couplings, C_lq,1311^(1) ≥ 9 × 10^-2 TeV^-2, and a flavour likelihood within 2σ of the Standard Model. A cheaper check: a measured or improved tau → e omega rate that moves the 90% C.L. bound on the relevant operator combination above 9 × 10^-2 TeV^-2 would reopen the window the paper closes.

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

If this is right

  • A DUNE observation of an electron–tau semileptonic NSI at the projected sensitivity would not be explainable by weakly coupled heavy mediators in isosinglet/isodoublet representations.
  • The coefficient's maximal viable value (~1.3 × 10^-2 TeV^-2) is nearly an order of magnitude below DUNE's single-coefficient sensitivity, so single-coefficient projections overstate the realistic reach for this operator.
  • Any model that does evade the scan must pass a web of correlated flavour constraints, because the tree-level relation C_lq^(1) = -C_lq^(3) ties the target operator to others in the same fit.
  • The proposed three-stage pipeline generalizes: any future anomaly expressed as a SMEFT Wilson coefficient can be run through the same enumeration, seeding, and global-fit optimization.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the abstract's tau → e omega connection is right, tau-decay experiments and DUNE probe the same operator combination, so a stronger tau → e omega limit would directly shrink the room left for a DUNE signal.
  • Relaxing the scan's restrictions — allowing second-family couplings, for example — would likely tighten rather than loosen the bound, since it brings in additional lepton-flavour-violating observables.
  • A natural test of the claim is to run the same pipeline on neighbouring coefficients (e.g., the 2311 or 3311 entries) to see whether the one-order-of-magnitude gap is generic or specific to 1311.
  • If DUNE nonetheless reports a signal, this paper's reading is that the new physics must be lighter than the electroweak scale, in a representation with isospin > 1/2, or strongly coupled — all outside the surveyed class.

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 proposes a pipeline that translates a potential DUNE-observed non-standard interaction, represented by a single SMEFT Wilson coefficient, into a search for weakly coupled UV completions. Using the SOLD one-loop dictionary, the authors scan 112 isosinglet/isodoublet models with muonphobic couplings, apply a two-stage selection (fast individual bounds from [39], then a smelli/flavio global likelihood with Δχ²_max = 4), and optimize the target coefficient C^{(1)}_{ℓq,1311} subject to flavour constraints. They identify model 289 as the best candidate, examine its minimal supports, and find that the maximum viable C^{(1)}_{ℓq,1311} is about 1.3×10^{-2} TeV^{-2}, roughly a factor 7 below the assumed DUNE sensitivity of 9×10^{-2} TeV^{-2}. The paper concludes that within the surveyed model class, no viable candidate can produce a DUNE-visible e–τ semileptonic NSI, and that the scalar-exchange contribution dominates.

Significance. If the body's analysis is correct, the paper provides a systematic and transparent pipeline that can be reused for other anomalies. The use of one-loop matching and a global flavour likelihood, the explicit tables of optimized parameters, and the candid discussion of limitations are strengths. The conclusion that the largest reachable C^{(1)}_{ℓq,1311} among the surveyed models is an order of magnitude below DUNE's projected sensitivity is a useful benchmark for model building. However, the arXiv abstract makes a stronger and different claim (the τ→eω connection and an 8.1×10^{-3} TeV^{-2} bound) that is absent from the body; this must be resolved.

major comments (2)
  1. [arXiv metadata abstract; Sec. 3, Eq. (12)] The abstract claims that the vector combination entering ε_{eτ} is precisely the combination entering τ→eω and reports a 90% C.L. bound of 8.1×10^{-3} TeV^{-2}, said to be one order of magnitude stronger than DUNE's sensitivity. The full text never mentions τ→eω, does not derive or quote this bound, and instead quotes in Eq. (12) the bound C^{(1)}_{ℓq,1311} < 1.4×10^{-2} TeV^{-2} from [37]. The body's central quantitative result is C_target ≈ 1.3×10^{-2} TeV^{-2}, which is consistent with Eq. (12) but would be excluded by the abstract's 8.1×10^{-3}. These two versions are irreconcilable as posted. This is load-bearing because the abstract states the paper's central quantitative claim. The authors must either add the τ→eω derivation to the body and reconcile the numbers, or remove the claim from the abstract.
  2. [Sec. 2 and Introduction] The Introduction states 'for the usual BSM models... we could not find any viable candidate.' As the paper itself concedes in Sec. 4, this is not a no-go theorem; the scan is limited to isosinglet/isodoublet fields, muonphobic couplings, parameters not in C_target set to zero in the initial stage, a common mass scale of 1 TeV, and one-loop matching. This is a legitimate scoped analysis, but the wording 'usual BSM models' overreaches. Please qualify the claim to 'the class of models surveyed here' (the full-text abstract does this) and ensure the metadata abstract similarly scopes the statement that UV scenarios are 'very challenging' to build.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (10) and Table 3] The index ordering of λ^S_{ℓq} appears transposed relative to the formula. The tree-level value 1.31×10^{-2} TeV^{-2} matches (λ^S)_{11}(λ^S)_{13}/(4M_S^2) if the matrix rows are quark indices; please clarify the convention.
  2. [Sec. 2, Eq. (3)] Specify the renormalization scale at which the DUNE sensitivity bound from [27] is evaluated and how it is mapped to the 1 TeV scale used in the scan.
  3. [Sec. 3.1] The 'support cut' for k=3 (discarding supports with max C_target < 85% of the full case) is a heuristic; a short justification or a robustness check would strengthen the exhaustive claim.
  4. [Sec. 2, text; Sec. 3.1, support set] There is a typo 'smellidoes' ('smelli does'), and the second support set has a missing parenthesis: '{(λ^S_{ℓq})_{13}, (λ^S_{ℓq})_{33}}'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Body's UV scan is externally benchmarked and non-circular; abstract's tau->e omega / 8.1e-3 TeV^-2 bound is absent from the full text and flagged as omitted proof, not as exhibited circularity.

specific steps
  1. other [Abstract (arXiv metadata, 2606.13983); contrast with Sec. 3 Eq. (12) and Sec. 4 conclusions in the full text]
    "We show that the vector combination controlling the $\epsilon_{e\tau}$ NSI is precisely the combination entering $\tau\to e\omega$. ... We find the bound $8.1\times10^{-3}\,{\rm TeV}^{-2}$ at $90\%$ confidence level, which is one order of magnitude stronger than the DUNE's expected sensitivity."

    This is a stated central result, but the full text never mentions tau->e omega, never derives 8.1e-3 TeV^-2, and quotes instead C(1)_lq,1311 < 1.4e-2 TeV^-2 from [37] as Eq. (12), alongside the scan maximum 1.32e-2 TeV^-2 (Sec. 4). The 8.1e-3 number is ~1.7x stronger than the body's quoted bound, so the posted paper does not support its own abstract claim. I cannot classify this as a specific circular reduction because the alleged 'same combination' argument is absent from the body: it is an omitted proof / version mismatch. Flagged per the reviewing rule as material missing support; it does not by itself make the body's externally benchmarked optimization circular.

full rationale

Derivation chain in the body: (i) Eq. (2) maps the SMEFT target to the NSI parameter via eps_alpha_beta = -2 v^2 C(1)_lq,alpha beta 11, a standard relation in the literature ([14],[27],[28]); the self-citation [32] used here is minor and non-load-bearing because the relation is externally established. (ii) The DUNE sensitivity C(1)_lq,1311 < 9e-2 TeV^-2 (Eq. 3) is an external simulation benchmark [27]; the paper posits an anomaly at that value, it does not fit it. (iii) The scan maximizes C_target subject to external constraints: [39] one-at-a-time bounds in stage 1, the smelli/flavio/wilson global likelihood with Delta chi^2 <= 4 in stage 2, perturbativity |theta| <= 1, mediators at 1 TeV. The maximal value C_target = 1.32e-2 TeV^-2 (model 289, with lambda^S_qq = 0) is the output of this constrained optimization, not an input; it is limited by the exactly correlated operator C(3)_lq = -C(1)_lq (Eq. 10) and other generated WCs hitting flavour bounds, not by a direct pre-bounded C_target. (iv) The conclusion 'almost one order of magnitude below DUNE' is a comparison of the optimization output (1.3e-2) with the external benchmark (9e-2); no target quantity is fitted from the data it is meant to predict. (v) The restrictions (isosinglets/isodoublets only, muonphobic couplings, zeroed parameters, one-loop matching) are transparent assumptions; the paper explicitly disclaims a general no-go ('Although it may not be seen as a no-go result in general'), so incompleteness is admitted rather than disguised. Flagged but non-circular: the arXiv abstract's claim that the eps_e_tau vector combination is 'precisely the combination entering tau->e omega' with a derived 8.1e-3 TeV^-2 bound is absent from the full text, which quotes instead C(1)_lq,1311 < 1.4e-2 TeV^-2 from [37] (Eq. 12) and a scan maximum of 1.32e-2 TeV^-2. Because the correspondence is never derived in the posted text, no specific reduction (Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction) can be exhibited; this is an omitted-proof/version-mismatch concern for correctness, not a demonstrated circularity. It is flagged per the reviewing rule and does not raise the circularity score beyond the minor self-citation at Eq. (2).

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 3 invented entities

Everything in the central claim not imported from external tools: UV coupling tuning and mass choice are free; model content and scan restrictions are assumed; no invented entities with independent observable handles are claimed.

free parameters (4)
  • Mediator mass scale M_S=M_Fa=M_Fb = 1 TeV
    All new states integrated out at 1 TeV; Ctarget scales as 1/M^2, so the absolute TeV^-2 values depend on this choice.
  • Delta_chi^2_max = 4
    Chosen tolerance in eq. (5) to define 'viable' points; not derived from data.
  • Table 3 couplings (13 non-zero) = lambda^S_lq = [[-0.17,0,-0.31],[0,0,0],[0,0,0.06]]; lambda^Fb_phiq = {-0.36,0,0.089}; lambda^Fb_Se = {0.45,0,-0.46}; lam
    Optimized to maximize Ctarget subject to smelli likelihood; these are fitted values, not predictions.
  • Support cut for k=3 = 85% of full maximum
    Subsets achieving <85% of the full-model maximum were discarded; an arbitrary speed/coverage tradeoff.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption New BSM states are heavy and matching is performed at the unbroken phase of SMEFT.
    Sec. 2: SOLD one-loop dictionary applied above EW scale; all masses 1 TeV.
  • domain assumption Only new isosinglet and isodoublet representations under SU(2)_L are considered.
    Sec. 2: reduces 338 SOLD models to 112; central to the 'usual BSM' conclusion.
  • ad hoc to paper BSM states are muonphobic and all couplings not appearing in Ctarget are set to zero.
    Sec. 2: simplifies optimization; not imposed by any symmetry.
  • domain assumption Perturbativity |theta_i|<=1 and diagonal CKM in the NSI mapping.
    Sec. 2: eq. (2); standard but restricts the scan.
  • domain assumption One-loop matching is sufficient; higher-loop corrections can be neglected.
    Used throughout via SOLD; no estimate of omissions.
  • domain assumption The flavour constraints in smelli and in Ref. [39] are accurate and complete.
    External benchmark; if these bounds are wrong, the maximal Ctarget changes.
invented entities (3)
  • Scalar S (3,1,-1/3) under SU(3)_c x SU(2)_L x U(1)_Y no independent evidence
    purpose: Generates C_lq^(1) at tree level via eq. (10)
    Hypothetical BSM scalar; couplings are tuned; no direct observational evidence.
  • Vector-like fermion Fa (1,1,1) no independent evidence
    purpose: One-loop corrections; widens allowed parameter regions
    No direct evidence; tree-level scalar dominates (99%).
  • Vector-like fermion Fb (3,1,2/3) no independent evidence
    purpose: One-loop corrections; permits larger lambda^S_lq via correlations
    No direct evidence; part of benchmark model 289.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 9801 in / 16960 out tokens · 170058 ms · 2026-08-02T11:32:32.215991+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Future neutrino experiments, in particular DUNE, are expected to probe signals of new physics. These effects can be conveniently parametrized in terms of Wilson coefficients in the LEFT, with direct connection to non-standard interactions at production, propagation and detection in the QFT formalism. We revisit the apparent sensitivity of DUNE to semileptonic electron--tau interactions within the Standard Model Effective Field Theory. We show that the vector combination controlling the $\epsilon_{e\tau}$ NSI is precisely the combination entering $\tau\to e\omega$. Therefore, within the dimension-six vector subspace considered in this work, an operator cancellation that suppresses the tau-decay amplitude also suppresses the corresponding NSI. As a concrete example, we focus on the lepton-flavour-violating semileptonic coefficient $(C^{(1)}_{\ell q,1311})$. We find the bound $8.1\times10^{-3}\,{\rm TeV}^{-2}$ at $90\%$ confidence level, which is one order of magnitude stronger than the DUNE's expected sensitivity. In view of this scenario, we further study one illustrative minimal UV completion, showing that it faces even stronger constraints from other sources, making it very challenging to build UV scenarios with heavy mediators that could produce flavour-changing NSIs observable at DUNE.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.13983 by Adriano Cherchiglia.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: figure 1. We also show in the heatmap the value of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Largest SMEFT Wilson coefficients generated at the benchmark points obtained in the full scan, in the two-parameter support (k = 2), and in the three-parameter support (k = 3). The vertical dashed lines indicate the corresponding one-Wilson-coefficient-at-a-time bounds obtained with smelli at 90% C.L. case. This feature can be more clearly seen in figure 4 where we show the values for the 13 free parameter… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Absolute values of the UV parameters at the best benchmark points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 30 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    DUNE collaboration,Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume II: DUNE Physics,2002.03005

    arXiv 2002

  2. [2]

    DUNE collaboration,Long-baseline neutrino oscillation physics potential of the DUNE experiment,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 978 [2006.16043]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    DUNE collaboration,Prospects for beyond the Standard Model physics searches at the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 322 [2008.12769]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Argüelles et al.,New opportunities at the next-generation neutrino experiments I: BSM neutrino physics and dark matter,Rept

    C.A. Argüelles et al.,New opportunities at the next-generation neutrino experiments I: BSM neutrino physics and dark matter,Rept. Prog. Phys.83(2020) 124201 [1907.08311]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Wolfenstein,Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,Phys

    L. Wolfenstein,Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,Phys. Rev. D17(1978) 2369

    1978

  6. [6]

    Mikheyev and A.Y

    S.P. Mikheyev and A.Y . Smirnov,Resonance Amplification of Oscillations in Matter and Spectroscopy of Solar Neutrinos,Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.42(1985) 913

    1985

  7. [7]

    Farzan and M

    Y . Farzan and M. Tortola,Neutrino oscillations and Non-Standard Interactions,Front. in Phys.6(2018) 10 [1710.09360]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Esteban, M.C

    I. Esteban, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler and J. Salvado,Updated constraints on non-standard interactions from global analysis of oscillation data,JHEP08(2018) 180 [1805.04530]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [9]

    Bergmann, Y

    S. Bergmann, Y . Grossman and D.M. Pierce,Can lepton flavor violating interactions explain the atmospheric neutrino problem?,Phys. Rev. D61(2000) 053005 [hep-ph/9909390]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  10. [10]

    Antusch, J.P

    S. Antusch, J.P. Baumann and E. Fernandez-Martinez, Non-Standard Neutrino Interactions with Matter from Physics Beyond the Standard Model,Nucl. Phys. B810 (2009) 369 [0807.1003]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  11. [11]

    Gavela, D

    M.B. Gavela, D. Hernandez, T. Ota and W. Winter,Large gauge invariant non-standard neutrino interactions, Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 013007 [0809.3451]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  12. [12]

    Meloni, T

    D. Meloni, T. Ohlsson, W. Winter and H. Zhang, Non-standard interactions versus non-unitary lepton flavor mixing at a neutrino factory,JHEP04(2010) 041 [0912.2735]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  13. [13]

    Altmannshofer, M

    W. Altmannshofer, M. Tammaro and J. Zupan, Non-standard neutrino interactions and low energy experiments,JHEP09(2019) 083 [1812.02778]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Falkowski, M

    A. Falkowski, M. González-Alonso and Z. Tabrizi, Consistent QFT description of non-standard neutrino interactions,JHEP11(2020) 048 [1910.02971]. 6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Falkowski, M

    A. Falkowski, M. González-Alonso and Z. Tabrizi, Reactor neutrino oscillations as constraints on Effective Field Theory,JHEP05(2019) 173 [1901.04553]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  16. [16]

    Babu, P.S.B

    K.S. Babu, P.S.B. Dev, S. Jana and A. Thapa, Non-Standard Interactions in Radiative Neutrino Mass Models,JHEP03(2020) 006 [1907.09498]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Bischer and W

    I. Bischer and W. Rodejohann,General neutrino interactions from an effective field theory perspective, Nucl. Phys. B947(2019) 114746 [1905.08699]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Davidson and M

    S. Davidson and M. Gorbahn,Charged lepton flavor change and nonstandard neutrino interactions,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 015010 [1909.07406]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Terol-Calvo, M

    J. Terol-Calvo, M. Tórtola and A. Vicente,High-energy constraints from low-energy neutrino nonstandard interactions,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 095010 [1912.09131]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    K.S. Babu, D. Gonçalves, S. Jana and P.A.N. Machado, Neutrino Non-Standard Interactions: Complementarity Between LHC and Oscillation Experiments,Phys. Lett. B 815(2021) 136131 [2003.03383]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    Du, H.-L

    Y . Du, H.-L. Li, J. Tang, S. Vihonen and J.-H. Yu, Non-standard interactions in SMEFT confronted with terrestrial neutrino experiments,JHEP03(2021) 019 [2011.14292]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Falkowski, M

    A. Falkowski, M. González-Alonso, J. Kopp, Y . Soreq and Z. Tabrizi,EFT at FASERν,JHEP10(2021) 086 [2105.12136]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Du, H.-L

    Y . Du, H.-L. Li, J. Tang, S. Vihonen and J.-H. Yu, Exploring SMEFT induced nonstandard interactions: From COHERENT to neutrino oscillations,Phys. Rev. D 105(2022) 075022 [2106.15800]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    Bresó-Pla, A

    V . Bresó-Pla, A. Falkowski, M. González-Alonso and K. Monsálvez-Pozo,EFT analysis of New Physics at COHERENT,JHEP05(2023) 074 [2301.07036]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Coloma, E

    P. Coloma, E. Fernández-Martínez, J. López-Pavón, X. Marcano, D. Naredo-Tuero and S. Urrea,Improving the global SMEFT picture with bounds on neutrino NSI, JHEP02(2025) 137 [2411.00090]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    J. Kopp, N. Rocco and Z. Tabrizi,Unleashing the power of EFT in neutrino-nucleus scattering,JHEP08(2024) 187 [2401.07902]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    J. Kopp, Z. Tabrizi and S. Urrea,Effective field theory in long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments,JHEP02 (2026) 176 [2509.21537]

    arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    González-Alonso, A

    M. González-Alonso, A. Palavri ´c and S. Prakash,EFT for Neutrino Oscillations: Theory Developments and Application to JUNO,2606.11298

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    de Blas, J.C

    J. de Blas, J.C. Criado, M. Perez-Victoria and J. Santiago,Effective description of general extensions of the Standard Model: the complete tree-level dictionary, JHEP03(2018) 109 [1711.10391]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    Guedes, P

    G. Guedes, P. Olgoso and J. Santiago,Towards the one loop IR/UV dictionary in the SMEFT: One loop generated operators from new scalars and fermions, SciPost Phys.15(2023) 143 [2303.16965]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Guedes and P

    G. Guedes and P. Olgoso,From the EFT to the UV: the complete SMEFT one-loop dictionary,2412.14253

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    Cherchiglia and J

    A. Cherchiglia and J. Santiago,DUNE potential as a new physics probe,JHEP03(2024) 018 [2309.15924]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Cherchiglia,Unveiling New Physics Models Through Meson Decays and Their Impact on Neutrino Experiments,Universe11(2025) 225

    A. Cherchiglia,Unveiling New Physics Models Through Meson Decays and Their Impact on Neutrino Experiments,Universe11(2025) 225

    2025

  34. [34]

    Straub,flavio: a Python package for flavour and precision phenomenology in the Standard Model and beyond,1810.08132

    D.M. Straub,flavio: a Python package for flavour and precision phenomenology in the Standard Model and beyond,1810.08132

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    Aebischer, J

    J. Aebischer, J. Kumar and D.M. Straub,Wilson: a Python package for the running and matching of Wilson coefficients above and below the electroweak scale,Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 1026 [1804.05033]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  36. [36]

    Aebischer, J

    J. Aebischer, J. Kumar, P. Stangl and D.M. Straub,A Global Likelihood for Precision Constraints and Flavour Anomalies,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 509 [1810.07698]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    Fernández-Martínez, X

    E. Fernández-Martínez, X. Marcano and D. Naredo-Tuero,Global lepton flavour violating constraints on new physics,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 666 [2403.09772]

    arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Coloma, M.C

    P. Coloma, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, J.P. Pinheiro and S. Urrea,Global constraints on non-standard neutrino interactions with quarks and electrons,JHEP08(2023) 032 [2305.07698]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    de Blas, A

    J. de Blas, A. Goncalves, V . Miralles, L. Reina, L. Silvestrini and M. Valli,Constraining new physics effective interactions via a global fit of electroweak, Drell-Yan, Higgs, top, and flavour observables,JHEP03 (2026) 013 [2507.06191]. 7

    arXiv 2026