Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 2 cited by

BESIII's complex scalar fix for the D o Kµ u q^{2} anomaly is ruled out by LHC high-pT data; only tiny real-coupling pairs survive.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 17:57 UTC pith:45MHW4SI

load-bearing objection Clean, useful letter that kills the BESIII complex-g_S fix with published LHC data and maps the remaining tiny real two-coupling windows.

arxiv 2603.25837 v2 pith:45MHW4SI submitted 2026-03-26 hep-ph

Interpreting the results on exclusive crightarrow sμν modes

D. Be\v{c}irevi\'c , M. Martines , S. Rosauro-Alcaraz , O. Sumensari This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords c o sµνD o KµνBESIII anomalyLEFT operatorsSMEFT matchinghigh-pT Drell-YanWh productionforward-backward asymmetry
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.

BESIII reported that the finely binned q^{2} distributions of the D o Kµν decay rate and forward-backward asymmetry deviate from the Standard Model by nearly 2σ, and suggested a complex-valued scalar New Physics coupling as the remedy. This paper shows that that complex scalar is incompatible with the LHC bound extracted from the high-pT tail of pp oµν. When the New Physics couplings are required to be real, several two-coupling combinations remain allowed by both the low-energy data (binned D o Kµν plus the precise Ds oµν branching fraction) and the LHC mono-lepton and Wh constraints, yet the allowed windows are so small that integrated observables stay essentially Standard-Model-like. The only realistic experimental handles left are the q^{2}-binned angular coefficients of Ds oϕ(→KK)µν or Λc oΛ(→pπ)µν. The result therefore converts a claimed low-energy anomaly into a tightly constrained set of real-coupling scenarios that can still be tested at high-luminosity LHC and in future charm angular analyses.

Core claim

The complex scalar coupling g_S proposed by BESIII to accommodate the q^{2}-binned D o Kµν data is in almost 2σ tension with the LHC high-pT bound |g_S|<0.014 (95 % CL). Several pairs of real-valued LEFT couplings remain compatible with both the low-energy measurements and the LHC mono-lepton plus Wh constraints, but the allowed values are too small to produce observable shifts in any integrated branching fraction or asymmetry.

What carries the argument

The tree-level SMEFT–LEFT matching of the five charged-current operators (g_VL, g_VR, g_SL, g_SR, g_T) together with three-loop QCD running to 2 GeV, combined with energy-enhanced high-pT tails of pp oµν and pp o Wh that constrain the same Wilson coefficients.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative exclusion of complex g_S (and the size of the remaining real-coupling windows) rests on the HighPT implementation of ATLAS mono-lepton data and on the tree-level matching plus running of the scalar operators; any under-estimate of higher-order or PDF uncertainties in those high-pT tails would reopen the complex-scalar window.

What would settle it

A re-analysis of the ATLAS high-pT mono-lepton spectrum that relaxes the bound |g_S|<0.014 enough to re-admit the BESIII complex-g_S region, or a first measurement of the q^{2}-binned angular coefficients of Ds oϕµν that shows O(10 %) deviations at large q^{2} consistent with one of the allowed real two-coupling scenarios.

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

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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper re-examines the recent BESIII q^{2}-binned measurements of the D o Kµν rate and forward-backward asymmetry, which show a mild (~2σ) cumulative deviation from the SM. Using three independent LQCD form-factor sets (ETMC, FNAL/MILC, HPQCD) and the published BESIII correlations, the authors confirm that the discrepancy is driven by the high-q^{2} bins of the differential rate. They demonstrate that the complex scalar coupling g_S proposed by BESIII is incompatible (nearly 2σ) with the LHC high-p_T mono-lepton bound |g_S|<0.014 (95% CL). Restricting to real couplings, they map the two-dimensional planes allowed by the combination of D o Kµν, D_s oµν and LHC (mono-lepton + Wh) constraints; the surviving windows are too small to affect integrated observables but could produce O(10%) effects in the high-q^{2} angular coefficients of D_s oϕµν or Λ_c oΛµν. HL-LHC projections are also shown.

Significance. The work cleanly closes a proposed BSM explanation of a timely experimental anomaly by confronting it with independent high-energy data, while systematically charting the remaining real-coupling scenarios. Strengths include the use of three independent LQCD form-factor determinations, the published BESIII correlation matrices, the HighPT implementation of ATLAS mono-lepton data, and the complementary Wh STXS constraints that isolate right-handed vector currents. The resulting 2σ contours in Fig. 5 are genuine intersections of external inputs and furnish concrete, falsifiable targets for future angular analyses. The paper therefore supplies a useful, model-independent reference for both low-energy and collider communities working on charged-current charm decays.

minor comments (5)
  1. In Sec. II the angular convention difference with BESIII is noted only in a footnote; a short explicit statement in the main text (or in the caption of Fig. 1) would help readers avoid sign confusion when comparing A_fb.
  2. Eqs. (18)–(19) quote the three-loop QCD running factors without citing the precise numerical source or the residual scale uncertainty; a one-sentence remark on the size of that uncertainty would strengthen the discussion of the complex-g_S exclusion.
  3. Fig. 5 panels would be clearer if the black 2σ contour were drawn with a thicker line or a distinct colour, and if the HL-LHC projection (dashed) were labelled in the legend rather than only in the caption.
  4. The statement that D o K*µν is omitted because of the lack of reliable LQCD form factors is correct, but a brief pointer to the most recent (even if incomplete) lattice efforts would be useful for completeness.
  5. Typographical: “compleX g_S” in the section heading of Sec. III and a few missing spaces around “q^{2}-binned” appear in the arXiv version; these are easily fixed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: low-energy BESIII+LQCD constraints and high-pT LHC bounds are independent external inputs whose intersection is reported, not constructed.

full rationale

The paper takes published BESIII q^{2}-binned rates and A_fb (with correlations), three independent LQCD form-factor sets, the PDG Ds oµν branching fraction and FLAG f_Ds, and ATLAS mono-lepton plus Wh STXS data (via HighPT and the matching/running formulae of the literature). It computes χ^{2} surfaces and overlays the resulting 2σ regions; the black contours of Fig. 5 are simply the intersections of these independent data sets. No parameter is fitted to one observable and then re-used as a “prediction” of a related observable; no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors’ prior work to force the operator basis; the SMEFT matching (Eqs. 17–19) and three-loop QCD running are standard external results. Self-citations ([3,4,6,14]) supply analysis tools and earlier related calculations but are not load-bearing for the central claim that complex g_S is already excluded while real two-coupling windows remain tiny. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central exclusion and the remaining windows rest on standard EFT power counting, published lattice form factors, and published LHC likelihoods; the only free parameters are the Wilson coefficients themselves, which are fitted rather than postulated. No new particles or forces are invented.

free parameters (1)
  • g_VL, g_VR, g_SL, g_SR, g_T (real or complex)
    Wilson coefficients of the five LEFT operators; scanned or fitted to the combined low- and high-energy data sets. Their allowed ranges are the output of the analysis, not inputs fixed by hand.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Dimension-6 LEFT Lagrangian (Eq. 1) with only left-handed neutrinos captures all relevant NP effects below the electroweak scale.
    Standard assumption in charged-current flavor phenomenology; right-handed neutrinos and higher-dimensional operators are neglected throughout.
  • domain assumption Tree-level SMEFT matching (Eqs. 17) plus three-loop QCD + one-loop QED running (Eqs. 18–19) correctly relates high-scale coefficients to the low-energy g_J at µ=2 GeV.
    Taken from the literature (González-Alonso et al.); any large missing higher-order terms would rescale the LHC bounds.
  • domain assumption LQCD form factors of ETMC, FNAL/MILC and HPQCD (and f_Ds from FLAG) are accurate within the quoted uncertainties.
    Used for all SM predictions and χ² tests; the paper shows that the mild anomaly persists for all three sets.
  • domain assumption HighPT implementation of ATLAS mono-lepton and Wh STXS data correctly encodes the energy-enhanced contributions of the ψ⁴ and ψ²DH² operators.
    Sec. IV; the numerical bound |g_S|<0.014 and the black contours in Fig. 5 inherit any residual PDF or higher-order QCD uncertainty of that package.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 16744 in / 2636 out tokens · 29988 ms · 2026-07-13T17:57:31.265775+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We examine the $q^2$-binned distributions of the $D\to K\mu\nu$ decay rate and of the corresponding forward-backward asymmetry which were recently measured by BESIII, showing a mild deviation from the Standard Model predictions. We point out that the proposed solution to remedy the discrepancy by turning on a complex-valued New Physics coupling is in tension with the constraints deduced from the LHC bounds on the high-$p_T$ tail of the relevant Drell-Yan process. We then show that there are several plausible scenarios that are compatible with both the measured low-energy and high-energy constraints but the selected couplings appear to be too small to be observed in the measurements of integrated observables, except for possibly the $q^2$-binned distribution of the angular observables relevant to $D_s\to \phi (\to KK) \mu\nu$ or $\Lambda_c\to \Lambda (\to p \pi) \mu\nu$ modes.

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. Scalar and Tensor Form Factors for $\Lambda \rightarrow p\ell \bar{\nu}_\ell$ from Lattice QCD

    hep-lat 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Lattice QCD yields the scalar and tensor form factors for Λ→pℓν̄ℓ as functions of q², providing a model-independent input to constrain non-standard charged-current interactions via the predicted R^{μe} ratio compared ...

  2. Hunting for new physics in $B$ meson $b \to u$ transitions: A fresh look with Belle II data

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Combined Belle II analysis of b→uℓν modes favors Re(ε_μ^{2})≠0 at 2σ while yielding |V_ub|=(3.79±0.17)×10^{-3} in a global NP fit.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 23 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Mono-lepton Drell-Yan processes which directly probe theψ 4 operators inducing charged-current interactions. At the parton level, these operators induce [3, 5]: ˆσ ui ¯dj →ℓν ˆσ ui ¯dj →ℓν SM = 1 +g ij(H) VL − ˆs m2 W gijℓ(ψ) VL 2 + gij(H) VR 2 + ˆs2 m4 W 3 4 |gij ℓ SR |2 +|g ij ℓ SL |2 + 4|gij ℓ T |2 , (20) where we have taken the limit ˆs≫m 2 W and con-...

  2. [2]

    Higgs +Wboson production allows to directly con- strain the Higgs-current operators. These opera- tors induce an energy enhancement to the cross- section as [6] ˆσ(ui ¯dj →W h) ˆσ(ui ¯dj →W h) SM = 1 + gij(H) VL ˆs m2 W 2 + gij(H) VR ˆs m2 W 2 ,(22) where only the energy-enhanced contributions from d= 6 operators have been kept in the limit ˆs≫ m2 W . Con...

    2020

  3. [3]

    Ablikimet al.(BESIII), (2026), arXiv:2601.21196 [hep-ex]

    M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), (2026), arXiv:2601.21196 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    Ablikimet al.(BESIII), (2026), arXiv:2601.21185 [hep-ex]

    M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), (2026), arXiv:2601.21185 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    Allwicher, D

    L. Allwicher, D. A. Faroughy, F. Jaffredo, O. Sumensari, and F. Wilsch, JHEP03, 064 (2023), arXiv:2207.10714 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Allwicher, D

    L. Allwicher, D. A. Faroughy, F. Jaffredo, O. Sumensari, and F. Wilsch, Comput. Phys. Commun.289, 108749 (2023), arXiv:2207.10756 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Fuentes-Martin, A

    J. Fuentes-Martin, A. Greljo, J. Martin Camalich, and J. D. Ruiz-Alvarez, JHEP11, 080 (2020), arXiv:2003.12421 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    O. J. P. ´Eboli, L. P. S. Leal, M. Martines, and O. Sumen- sari, JHEP03, 054 (2026), arXiv:2509.08437 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Alioli, V

    S. Alioli, V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, and E. Mereghetti, JHEP05, 086 (2017), arXiv:1703.04751 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    Charleset al., Phys

    J. Charleset al., Phys. Rev. D91, 073007 (2015), arXiv:1501.05013 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  11. [11]

    Bonaet al.(UTfit), Rend

    M. Bonaet al.(UTfit), Rend. Lincei Sci. Fis. Nat.34, 37 (2023), arXiv:2212.03894 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    De Santiset al., Phys

    A. De Santiset al., Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 121901 (2025), arXiv:2504.06064 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    De Santiset al., Phys

    A. De Santiset al., Phys. Rev. D112, 054503 (2025), arXiv:2504.06063 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Fajfer, I

    S. Fajfer, I. Nisandzic, and U. Rojec, Phys. Rev. D91, 094009 (2015), arXiv:1502.07488 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    Bolognani, M

    C. Bolognani, M. Reboud, D. van Dyk, and K. K. Vos, JHEP09, 099 (2024), arXiv:2407.06145 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Beˇ cirevi´ c, F

    D. Beˇ cirevi´ c, F. Jaffredo, A. Pe˜ nuelas, and O. Sumen- sari, JHEP05, 175 (2021), arXiv:2012.09872 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    G. Fan, Y. Meng, C. Liu, Z. Liu, T. Shen, T.-X. Wang, K.-L. Zhang, and L. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2510.14478 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Ablikimet al.(BESIII), JHEP12, 072 (2023), arXiv:2307.03024 [hep-ex]

    M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), JHEP12, 072 (2023), arXiv:2307.03024 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys. Rev. D108, L031105 (2023), arXiv:2306.02624 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Meinel, Phys

    S. Meinel, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 082001 (2017), arXiv:1611.09696 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  21. [21]

    Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys. Rev. D108, 112001 (2023), arXiv:2307.14585 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys. Rev. D110, 052002 (2024), arXiv:2407.11727 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    Sirlin, Rev

    A. Sirlin, Rev. Mod. Phys.50, 573 (1978), [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 50, 905 (1978)]

    1978

  25. [25]

    W. J. Marciano and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 3629 (1993)

    1993

  26. [26]

    Aokiet al.(Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)), Phys

    Y. Aokiet al.(Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)), Phys. Rev. D113, 014508 (2026), arXiv:2411.04268 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Lubicz, L

    V. Lubicz, L. Riggio, G. Salerno, S. Simula, and C. Tarantino (ETM), Phys. Rev. D96, 054514 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 99, 099902 (2019), Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 100, 079901 (2019)], arXiv:1706.03017 [hep- lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [28]

    Bazavovet al.(Fermilab Lattice, MILC), Phys

    A. Bazavovet al.(Fermilab Lattice, MILC), Phys. Rev. D107, 094516 (2023), arXiv:2212.12648 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Chakraborty, W

    B. Chakraborty, W. G. Parrott, C. Bouchard, C. T. H. Davies, J. Koponen, and G. P. Lepage ((HPQCD Collab- oration)§, HPQCD), Phys. Rev. D104, 034505 (2021), arXiv:2104.09883 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    W. G. Parrott, C. Bouchard, and C. T. H. Davies ((HPQCD collaboration)§, HPQCD), Phys. Rev. D107, 014510 (2023), arXiv:2207.12468 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Lubicz, L

    V. Lubicz, L. Riggio, G. Salerno, S. Simula, and C. Tarantino (ETM), Phys. Rev. D98, 014516 (2018), arXiv:1803.04807 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [32]

    Buchmuller and D

    W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, Nucl. Phys. B268, 621 (1986)

    1986

  33. [33]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, JHEP10, 085 (2010), arXiv:1008.4884 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  34. [34]

    Gonz´ alez-Alonso, J

    M. Gonz´ alez-Alonso, J. Martin Camalich, and K. Mi- mouni, Phys. Lett. B772, 777 (2017), arXiv:1706.00410 [hep-ph]. 9

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  35. [35]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D100, 052013 (2019), arXiv:1906.05609 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  36. [36]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP04, 075 (2025), arXiv:2410.19611 [hep-ex]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP04, 075 (2025), arXiv:2410.19611 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    de Florianet al.(LHC Higgs Cross Section Work- ing Group), CERN Yellow Rep

    D. de Florianet al.(LHC Higgs Cross Section Work- ing Group), CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr.2, 1 (2017), arXiv:1610.07922 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017