Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

A U(2)^5-symmetric SMEFT with third-generation new physics constrains the lepton mixing spurion to |δ|<0.051 at 95% CL, using R_K(*) and B_s→μμ data.

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 21:17 UTC pith:7PW65EWD

load-bearing objection A useful new U(2)_ℓ spurion bound, but the headline |δ|<0.051 may be artificially tight because the likelihood likely double-counts the same b→sℓℓ data. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2511.15800 v2 pith:7PW65EWD submitted 2025-11-19 hep-ph

Constraints on lepton-flavor mixing with third-generation new physics

Sebastiano Covone , Pol Morell , Arianna Tinari This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords U(2)^5 flavor symmetrylepton flavor violationSMEFTspurionR_KB_s→μμlepton flavor universalitythird-generation new physics
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.

Many new-physics models at the TeV scale assume an approximate U(2)^5 flavor symmetry, with new particles coupling mainly to the third generation and only weakly to the first two. In such models, the amount of second–third-generation lepton mixing is set by a single spurion parameter δ that breaks the U(2)_ℓ subgroup. This paper asks how large that mixing can be before conflicting with current data. It finds that the lepton-flavor-universality ratios R_K and R_K* in the central and high-q² bins, together with B_s→μμ decay, impose |δ|<0.051 at 95% CL—a value comparable to the quark-sector mixing |V_ts|≈0.04. If the bound is correct, third-generation new physics must keep lepton-flavor mixing small, directly affecting lepton-flavor-violating searches.

Core claim

The paper's central result is the 95% confidence upper limit |δ|<0.051 on the magnitude of the spurion ˜V_ℓ that breaks the U(2)_ℓ subgroup in the left-handed lepton sector. The limit comes from a fit combining four observables—R_K in the [1.1,6] and [14.3,22.9] GeV² bins, R_K* in the [1.1,6] GeV² bin, and B(B_s→μμ)—with a chi-square nuisance from an earlier global fit of the same U(2)^5 framework. A corollary is the ratio bound |˜V_ℓ|/|˜V_q|<0.69 at 95% CL, showing that lepton-sector breaking is no larger than quark-sector breaking, though the data cannot yet distinguish equal magnitudes from a hierarchy. The paper also translates its bound into upper limits for representative LFV decay rat

What carries the argument

The central object is the spurion ˜V_ℓ=(δ sinθ_e, δ cosθ_e), a two-component vector breaking U(2)_ℓ; its magnitude δ sets the size of second–third-generation left-handed lepton mixing, and setting cosθ_e=1 aligns it with the second generation. The paper builds on a SMEFT framework with U(2)^5 flavor symmetry and a single quark-sector spurion, adding this lepton spurion. The bound on δ is obtained from a combined likelihood that adds the chi-square of four selected observables to the chi-square of a previous U(2)^5 fit. After RG evolution from 1 TeV to low energies, the relevant amplitudes scale like C^+_ℓq ϵ (0.005 − δ²) for b→sμμ, which is what makes R_K(*) and B_s→μμ sensitive to δ.

Load-bearing premise

The 95% upper limit on δ assumes that the four R_K and B_s→μμ measurements used to constrain δ were not already included in the earlier global fit whose chi-square is reused as a nuisance term; if they were, the same data would be counted twice and the bound would be artificially strong.

What would settle it

Rebuild the likelihood with a nuisance dataset that provably excludes the R_K and B_s→μμ observables used to extract δ; if the resulting 95% bound on δ weakens significantly, the published limit suffers from double-counting. Separately, an LFV measurement of τ→μμμ above the predicted 95% upper limit of about 1.2×10^-9 would rule out this framework.

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

If this is right

  • If |δ|<0.051 holds, third-generation new physics with U(2)^5 symmetry must have second–third lepton mixing at or below the size of the quark mixing angle |V_ts|.
  • The ratio bound |˜V_ℓ|/|˜V_q|<0.69 means U(2)_ℓ breaking cannot exceed U(2)_q breaking, but it does not settle whether they are equal or hierarchically separated.
  • If Belle II reaches its expected limit on τ→μμμ, that channel alone would lower the δ bound to about 0.033, becoming the leading probe.
  • With LHCb Upgrade II precision on B_s→μμ and R_K(*), the bound could drop to about 0.030.
  • Projected LFV B-meson and quarkonium decay limits lie far below current sensitivity, so those channels are not expected to become leading constraints in the near future.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The statistical strength of the bound assumes that the R_K and B_s→μμ measurements used in the fit were not already part of the earlier global fit that supplied the nuisance chi-square. If those observables appear in both terms, they are counted twice and the limit would be artificially tight; the paper does not state whether they were removed.
  • The result assumes the lepton spurion is aligned with the second generation (θ_e=0). Allowing even a small first-generation component would make the bound on δ dramatically stronger, as the paper notes, so the quoted number is conservative only under that alignment.
  • Because the framework is a generic SMEFT construction, the same δ bound applies to any ultraviolet model that realizes U(2)^5 with third-generation dominance, such as leptoquark or composite-Higgs models, without needing a specific new-physics state.

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. This paper extends the U(2)^5 SMEFT analysis of Ref. [15] by introducing a spurion V~_ℓ that breaks U(2)_ℓ and controls second–third generation left-handed lepton mixing. With the Wilson coefficients C±_ℓq and ε treated as nuisance parameters through a chi-square quoted from Ref. [15], the authors add a chi-square built from R_K[1.1,6], R_K[14.3,22.9], R_K*[1.1,6], and B(B_s→μμ), obtaining the main result |δ|<0.051 at 95% CL (Eq. 17) and |V~_ℓ|/|V~_q|<0.69 (Eq. 18). The same fit is then used to produce predicted upper limits for a set of LFV τ and B decays, with a discussion of future experimental sensitivity. The paper provides explicit low-energy Wilson-coefficient expressions in Appendix B and checks scale dependence of the result.

Significance. If the statistical construction is sound, the bound is a useful quantitative input for model building: it shows that the U(2)_ℓ-breaking spurion is comparable to |V_ts| and no larger than the quark-sector spurion. Strengths of the paper include the detailed appendix expressions, the use of DsixTools with documented matching-scale variations, and the fact that the LFV upper limits in Table IV are derived predictions rather than inputs used to set the constants, so there is no circularity in that part. The central claim, however, rests on a likelihood construction whose independence assumption is not documented. Because the four observables used for χ²_obs are exactly the kind of b→sℓℓ data that a U(2)^5 global fit such as Ref. [15] must have used, the headline bound is currently statistically unprotected.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (16)] The total likelihood adds χ²_obs for R_K[1.1,6], R_K[14.3,22.9], R_K*[1.1,6], and B(B_s→μμ) to a nuisance chi-square χ²_nuis taken from the U(2)^5 global fit of Ref. [15]. The manuscript does not state whether these four measurements were removed from the dataset that produced χ²_nuis. Given the purpose of Ref. [15], it is very likely that they were included. If not removed, the same data are counted twice, and the 1D bound on δ—which is driven by the μ–e difference in R_K and by B(B_s→μμ)—can be artificially tightened, potentially by a large factor in the relevant limit. This must be addressed by using a χ²_nuis from a fit to the complementary dataset or by an explicit subtraction, and all quoted 95% limits (Eqs. 17, 18, 20, 24 and Table IV) must be re-derived.
  2. [Sec. III.A, Table I] χ²_obs is built as a sum of independent Gaussian terms, with no covariance between the four measurements. In particular R_K[1.1,6] and R_K*[1.1,6] are from the same LHCb analysis [41] and cannot be treated as statistically independent without justification. The authors should either include an experimental covariance matrix or demonstrate, e.g. by a conservative alternative treatment, that correlations do not affect the quoted bound on δ. This is a second statistical assumption that is load-bearing for the central claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table IV] The right-hand column is labelled 'Current Bound' but contains factors of improvement relative to the current bounds in Table I. Please re-label it, e.g. 'Improvement factor', to avoid confusion.
  2. [Sec. III.A] The reduced chi-square χ²/d.o.f.≈0.94 is quoted without defining the effective number of degrees of freedom. Please state how the d.o.f. is computed, especially because the nuisance chi-square from Ref. [15] contributes to it.
  3. [Sec. III.A] The claim that the bound is 'numerically equivalent' for all choices of matching and low-energy scales would be easier to verify if the paper reported a small table of the resulting |δ| limits for µm = 70, 91.2, 120 GeV and µlow = 2, 5, 10 GeV.
  4. [Footnote 2] The statement that θ_e ≈ 0.1 would already push the bound down by more than a factor of 10 is interesting but unsupported; a one-line explanation or reference would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the bound on δ is driven by external R_K(*) and B_s→μμ data, not by the paper's own prior results.

full rationale

The paper's central result, |δ| < 0.051, is obtained by fitting the U(2)_ℓ-breaking spurion δ to the external measurements R_K[1.1,6], R_K[14.3,22.9], R_K*[1.1,6], and B(B_s→μμ), combined with the nuisance χ² from Ref. [15] that constrains C±_ℓq and ε. The δ dependence of the observables is derived from the stated SMEFT spurion structure and Wilson-coefficient evolution, not imposed by construction: the same observables would constrain δ in any framework with this flavor structure. The Table IV LFV branching-ratio bounds are genuinely predictive outputs: they are not used as inputs to the fit, but are obtained by propagating the fitted δ, so they do not represent fitted inputs being relabeled as predictions. Ref. [15] is used only to fix nuisance parameters; its authors do not overlap with the present paper, and the δ determination does not reduce to a self-citation chain. The ratio bound |Vℓ|/|Vq| < 0.69 is just a reinterpretation of the δ and ε bounds, presented as such. The only caveat is a potential statistical double-counting: if the four observables in χ²_obs were already included in the Ref. [15] global fit whose χ²_nuis is reused, those measurements would enter the total likelihood twice. However, this is a statistical-construction concern rather than a circular reduction of the derivation, and the paper's own equations do not establish that the central result is equivalent to its inputs by definition. Therefore, no circular step is identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis introduces no new particles; its 'new physics' is encoded in four Wilson/spurion parameters fitted to data. The key uncharged input is the previous fit's chi-square, whose data overlap with the new observable set is not documented.

free parameters (4)
  • C+_ℓq = -0.406 (best-fit)
    Semileptonic operator coefficient; taken from the [15] fit and treated as a Gaussian nuisance parameter.
  • C-_ℓq = 0.0943 (best-fit)
    Semileptonic operator coefficient; nuisance parameter from [15].
  • ε = 2.90 (best-fit)
    Size of the U(2)_q-breaking spurion; nuisance parameter from [15].
  • δ = <0.051 at 95% CL
    U(2)_ℓ-breaking spurion magnitude; the paper's central fitted parameter, constrained by R_K(*) and B_s→μμ.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption U(2)^5 flavor symmetry with NP coupled predominantly to third-generation fermions at Λ_NP=1 TeV
    Framework assumption shaping all operator scaling (Sec. II).
  • domain assumption Minimal U(2)_q breaking aligned with the CKM (V_q = (-ε Vtd, -ε Vts)^T)
    Borrowed from [15]; non-minimal breaking assumed absent (Sec. II).
  • domain assumption Rank-one alignment of NP flavor structure
    All flavor misalignment arises from the spurions (Ref. [20]) (Sec. II).
  • domain assumption Scalar operators are negligible
    Set to zero citing the analysis of [15] (Sec. II).
  • domain assumption cosθ_e = 1 for the lepton spurion (no electron mixing)
    Motivated by strong electron LFV bounds; the paper notes the δ bound strengthens for θ_e≠0 (Sec. II).
  • ad hoc to paper Statistical independence of χ²_nuis and χ²_obs
    The [15] chi-square is reused as a nuisance without describing overlap with the four observables in χ²_obs (Sec. III A).
  • domain assumption Hybrid evolution (LL RGE + one-loop matching) with scheme-dependent terms subdominant
    Needed to connect 1 TeV to the low scale; scale variations show <10% effects (Sec. II A).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17901 in / 16129 out tokens · 152265 ms · 2026-08-03T21:17:34.146656+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the implications of an approximate $U(2)^5$ flavor symmetry at the TeV scale, under the assumption of new physics predominantly coupled to the third-generation fermions, focusing on the breaking of the $U(2)_\ell$ subgroup governing the mixing between second- and third-generation left-handed leptons. We derive constraints on the corresponding spurion parameter $\delta$ from current data on lepton flavor violating (LFV) and lepton flavor universality (LFU) observables, finding that $R_{K^{(*)}}$ and $\mathcal{B}(B_s \to \mu \mu)$ give the most stringent bound on $\delta$, yielding ${|\delta|<0.051}$ at 95% CL. In addition, we provide updated bounds for LFV decay rates and discuss prospects for future sensitivity improvements, finding that future LFV searches could further tighten constraints on the mixing between second- and third-generation leptons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.15800 by Arianna Tinari, Pol Morell, Sebastiano Covone.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Main results of our fit in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Main results of our fit in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

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. Implications of $K\to\pi\nu\bar\nu$ for new physics in $B$ decays

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    Updated NA62 K+→π+νν̄ data tighten modified-Z and U(2)^5 semileptonic fits and predict KL→π0νν̄ enhanced relative to K+ in the preferred U(2) lobe.

  2. Anatomy and Phenomenology of Minimal Flavor Deconstruction in the Lepton Sector

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Next-to-leading order spurion effects in a minimal lepton flavor deconstruction model induce observable charged lepton flavor violation, lepton flavor universality violation, and electric dipole moments at multi-10 Te...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 53 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    LFU tests inb→sℓℓ For the expressions forR K(∗) in the low-q 2, central-q 2 and high-q 2 (onlyR K) bins, defined as RK(∗) [q2 min, q2 max] = R q2 max q2 min d dq2 B(B→K (∗)µ+µ−) R q2max q2 min d dq2 B(B→K (∗)e+e−) , (A1) we have chosen to useFlavio[43] to derive pseudo- analytic expressions in terms of the low-energy Wilson coefficients for theB→K (∗)ℓ+ℓ−...

  2. [2]

    Barbieri, G

    R. Barbieri, G. Isidori, J. Jones-Perez, P. Lodone, and D. M. Straub, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1725 (2011), arXiv:1105.2296 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  3. [3]

    In all cases, we in- clude both possibilities for the lepton pair, i.e.µ −τ + andµ +τ −

    LFVB-meson decays We list the expressions for severalB-meson decays featuring lepton-flavor violating final states, namely Bs →µτ,B s →K (∗)µτ,B s →ϕµτ. In all cases, we in- clude both possibilities for the lepton pair, i.e.µ −τ + andµ +τ −. Their expressions are especially simple in our EFT framework, given that they are mediated by a single relevant Wil...

  4. [4]

    LFV quarkonium decays We consider the branching ratios of the Υ(1S) andJ/ψ quarkonium states intoµτ, for which we combine both µ−τ + andµ +τ −. Their expressions read: B(Υ→µτ) =a Υ LV,LL ed 2333 +L V,LR ed 2333 2 ,(A9) B(J/ψ→µτ) =a J/ψ LV,LL eu 2322 +L V,LR eu 2322 2 ,(A10) with coefficients aΥ = 4.15×10 4 GeV2 , a J/ψ = 194.03 GeV2 . We also include here...

  5. [5]

    For the radiative decays, we include both the tree-level amplitudes with dipole operators and the one- loop penguin-diagram contributions from the four-lepton operators

    LFVτdecays We include here the branching ratios of different non-hadronic LFVτdecays, including radiative de- cays (τ→µγ) and fully leptonic decays (τ→µµµand τ→µee). For the radiative decays, we include both the tree-level amplitudes with dipole operators and the one- loop penguin-diagram contributions from the four-lepton operators. The final expressions...

  6. [6]

    Allwicher, C

    L. Allwicher, C. Cornella, G. Isidori, and B. A. Stefanek, JHEP03, 049 (2024), arXiv:2311.00020 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Larsen, Y

    G. Larsen, Y. Nomura, and H. L. L. Roberts, JHEP06, 032 (2012), arXiv:1202.6339 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Papucci, J

    M. Papucci, J. T. Ruderman, and A. Weiler, JHEP09, 035 (2012), arXiv:1110.6926 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  9. [9]

    Barbieri, D

    R. Barbieri, D. Buttazzo, F. Sala, D. M. Straub, and A. Tesi, JHEP05, 069 (2013), arXiv:1211.5085 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  10. [10]

    Matsedonskyi, JHEP02, 154 (2015), arXiv:1411.4638 [hep-ph]

    O. Matsedonskyi, JHEP02, 154 (2015), arXiv:1411.4638 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  11. [11]

    Panico and A

    G. Panico and A. Pomarol, JHEP07, 097 (2016), arXiv:1603.06609 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  12. [12]

    Covone, J

    S. Covone, J. Davighi, G. Isidori, and M. Pesut, JHEP 01, 041 (2025), arXiv:2407.10950 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Bordone, C

    M. Bordone, C. Cornella, J. Fuentes-Martin, and G. Isidori, Phys. Lett. B779, 317 (2018), arXiv:1712.01368 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  14. [14]

    Fern´ andez Navarro and S

    M. Fern´ andez Navarro and S. F. King, JHEP08, 020 (2023), arXiv:2305.07690 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Davighi and B

    J. Davighi and B. A. Stefanek, JHEP11, 100 (2023), arXiv:2305.16280 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Davighi and G

    J. Davighi and G. Isidori, JHEP07, 147 (2023), arXiv:2303.01520 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Greljo and B

    A. Greljo and B. A. Stefanek, Phys. Lett. B782, 131 (2018), arXiv:1802.04274 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    Fuentes-Martin, G

    J. Fuentes-Martin, G. Isidori, J. M. Lizana, N. Selimovic, and B. A. Stefanek, Phys. Lett. B834, 137382 (2022), arXiv:2203.01952 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Allwicher, M

    L. Allwicher, M. Bordone, G. Isidori, G. Piazza, and A. Stanzione, Phys. Lett. B861, 139295 (2025), arXiv:2410.21444 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Isidori, F

    G. Isidori, F. Wilsch, and D. Wyler, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 015006 (2024), arXiv:2303.16922 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Barbieri, D

    R. Barbieri, D. Buttazzo, F. Sala, and D. M. Straub, JHEP07, 181 (2012), arXiv:1203.4218 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  22. [22]

    Isidori and D

    G. Isidori and D. M. Straub, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 2103 (2012), arXiv:1202.0464 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  23. [23]

    Asadi, H

    P. Asadi, H. Bagherian, K. Fraser, S. Homiller, and Q. Lu, (2025), arXiv:2509.22771 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Marzocca, M

    D. Marzocca, M. Nardecchia, A. Stanzione, and C. Toni, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1217 (2024), arXiv:2404.06533 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and P. Stoffer, JHEP 03, 016 (2018), [Erratum: JHEP 12, 043 (2023)], arXiv:1709.04486 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and P. Stoffer, JHEP 01, 084 (2018), [Erratum: JHEP 12, 042 (2023)], arXiv:1711.05270 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    Fuentes-Martin, P

    J. Fuentes-Martin, P. Ruiz-Femenia, A. Vicente, and J. Virto, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 167 (2021), arXiv:2010.16341 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Dekens and P

    W. Dekens and P. Stoffer, JHEP10, 197 (2019), [Erra- tum: JHEP 11, 148 (2022)], arXiv:1908.05295 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    Naterop and P

    L. Naterop and P. Stoffer, JHEP06, 007 (2025), arXiv:2412.13251 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Aebischer, P

    J. Aebischer, P. Morell, M. Pesut, and J. Virto, (2025), arXiv:2501.08384 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Naterop and P

    L. Naterop and P. Stoffer, JHEP07, 237 (2025), arXiv:2505.03871 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Naterop and P

    L. Naterop and P. Stoffer, (2025), arXiv:2507.08926 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Herrlich and U

    S. Herrlich and U. Nierste, Nucl. Phys. B455, 39 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9412375

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  34. [34]

    Plakias and O

    I. Plakias and O. Sumensari, Phys. Rev. D110, 035016 (2024), arXiv:2312.14070 [hep-ph]. 12

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

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

    2024

  36. [36]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), JHEP03, 078 (2018), arXiv:1710.04111 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), JHEP03, 078 (2018), arXiv:1710.04111 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  37. [37]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 241802 (2019), arXiv:1909.01010 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2019

  38. [38]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), JHEP06, 073 (2023), arXiv:2207.04005 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), JHEP06, 073 (2023), arXiv:2207.04005 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), JHEP06, 143 (2023), arXiv:2209.09846 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), JHEP06, 143 (2023), arXiv:2209.09846 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    Watanukiet al.(Belle), Phys

    S. Watanukiet al.(Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 261802 (2023), arXiv:2212.04128 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Nayaket al.(Belle), JHEP08, 178 (2023), arXiv:2301.10989 [hep-ex]

    L. Nayaket al.(Belle), JHEP08, 178 (2023), arXiv:2301.10989 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    P. A. Zylaet al.(Particle Data Group), PTEP2020, 083C01 (2020)

    2020

  43. [43]

    Calibbi and G

    L. Calibbi and G. Signorelli, Riv. Nuovo Cim.41, 71 (2018), arXiv:1709.00294 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    D. E. Hazard and A. A. Petrov, Phys. Rev. D94, 074023 (2016), arXiv:1607.00815 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  45. [45]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 051803 (2023), arXiv:2212.09152 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), JHEP07, 198 (2025), arXiv:2505.03483 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), JHEP07, 198 (2025), arXiv:2505.03483 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    D. M. Straub, (2018), arXiv:1810.08132 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  48. [48]

    Bordone, G

    M. Bordone, G. Isidori, and A. Pattori, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 440 (2016), arXiv:1605.07633 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  49. [49]

    Isidori, S

    G. Isidori, S. Nabeebaccus, and R. Zwicky, JHEP12, 104 (2020), arXiv:2009.00929 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  50. [50]

    Czaja and M

    M. Czaja and M. Misiak, Symmetry16, 917 (2024), arXiv:2407.03810 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Finauri and P

    G. Finauri and P. Gambino, JHEP02, 206 (2024), arXiv:2310.20324 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Bordone and A

    M. Bordone and A. Juttner, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 129 (2025), arXiv:2406.10074 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Banerjee, V

    S. Banerjee, V. Cirigliano, M. Dam, A. Deshpande, L. Fiorini, K. Fuyuto, C. Gal, T. Husek, E. Mereghetti, K. Mons´ alvez-Pozo, H. Peng, F. Polci, J. Portol´ es, A. Rostomyan, M. H. Villanueva, B. Yan, J. Zhang, and X. Zhou, (2022), arXiv:2203.14919 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  54. [54]

    Bobeth, M

    C. Bobeth, M. Gorbahn, T. Hermann, M. Misiak, E. Sta- mou, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 101801 (2014), arXiv:1311.0903 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  55. [55]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), (2018), arXiv:1808.08865 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), (2018), arXiv:1808.08865 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  56. [56]

    Aggarwalet al.(Belle-II), (2022), arXiv:2207.06307 [hep-ex]

    L. Aggarwalet al.(Belle-II), (2022), arXiv:2207.06307 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    Capdevila, A

    B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin, S. Descotes-Genon, L. Hofer, and J. Matias, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 181802 (2018), arXiv:1712.01919 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  58. [58]

    Bordone, G

    M. Bordone, G. Isidori, C. Mayer, and J.-N. Toelstede, (2025), arXiv:2511.05654 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    ATLAS, Belle-II, CMS, and LHCb, (2025), arXiv:2503.24346 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Cornella, D

    C. Cornella, D. A. Faroughy, J. Fuentes-Martin, G. Isidori, and M. Neubert, JHEP08, 050 (2021), arXiv:2103.16558 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  61. [61]

    Crivellin, S

    A. Crivellin, S. Iguro, and T. Kitahara, (2025), arXiv:2505.05552 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Bauer and M

    M. Bauer and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 141802 (2016), arXiv:1511.01900 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  63. [63]

    Crivellin, D

    A. Crivellin, D. M¨ uller, and T. Ota, JHEP09, 040 (2017), arXiv:1703.09226 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  64. [64]

    Gherardi, D

    V. Gherardi, D. Marzocca, and E. Venturini, JHEP 07, 225 (2020), [Erratum: JHEP 01, 006 (2021)], arXiv:2003.12525 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  65. [65]

    Ishiwata, Z

    K. Ishiwata, Z. Ligeti, and M. B. Wise, JHEP10, 027 (2015), arXiv:1506.03484 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  66. [66]

    Bobeth, A

    C. Bobeth, A. J. Buras, A. Celis, and M. Jung, JHEP 04, 079 (2017), arXiv:1609.04783 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  67. [67]

    J. M. Alves, G. C. Branco, A. L. Cherchiglia, C. C. Nishi, J. T. Penedo, P. M. F. Pereira, M. N. Rebelo, and J. I. Silva-Marcos, Phys. Rept.1057, 1 (2024), arXiv:2304.10561 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024