Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 92 references

In the μνSSM, charged-Higgs and chargino penguins set B→X_s l+l− rates within experimental bounds, with the asymmetry governed by C7C10 and C9C10 interference.

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 00:07 UTC pith:ZG3J7YQH

load-bearing objection A legitimate first calculation of B→X_s l+l− in the μνSSM, but the dominance claims rest on a single hand-set flavor-violating parameter that the model does not predict. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15108 v1 pith:ZG3J7YQH submitted 2026-07-16 hep-ph

B to X_(s) l⁺ l⁻ in the μ from ν Supersymmetric Standard Model

Xiao-Jie Hu , Hai-Bin Zhang , Tai-Fu Feng This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 12.60.Jv14.40.Nd
keywords rare B decaysB→X_s l+l−μνSSMWilson coefficientsforward-backward asymmetrymass insertion approximationcharged Higgssupersymmetry
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.

This paper tries to establish that, within the μ from ν Supersymmetric Standard Model (μνSSM) and its adopted benchmark parameter space, the rare inclusive decay B→X_s l+l− gets its dominant new-physics contributions from specific, identifiable sources: the charged-Higgs γ-penguin feeding C7 in the low-q² region, and charged-Higgs and chargino Z-penguins feeding C9 and C10 in the high-q² region. It further claims that the forward-backward asymmetry is controlled almost entirely by the C7C10 and C9C10 interference terms, whose competition explains the observed behavior across both q² windows. A careful reader cares because this gives a concrete, testable fingerprint—not just a consistency check—for the supersymmetric sector behind B decays, and it connects B→X_s l+l− to the already-constrained B→X_s γ and B_s→μ+μ− channels in a single model.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the μνSSM, with flavor violation parametrized by squark mass insertions and with parameters already consistent with B→X_s γ, B_s→μ+μ− and a 125 GeV SM-like Higgs, also reproduces the measured B→X_s l+l− branching ratios in both the low-q² (1–6 GeV²) and high-q² (14.4–25 GeV²) regions. The new-physics effect is dominated by the charged-Higgs contribution to C7 through γ-penguin diagrams at low q², and by C9 and C10 through Z-penguin diagrams at high q². The forward-backward asymmetry is then shown, through a systematic interference decomposition, to be governed by the C7C10 and C9C10 interference terms, with the relative dominance shifting as tan β varies.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective-operator basis for b→sℓ+ℓ−: Wilson coefficients C7, C9, C10 (plus scalar and pseudoscalar operators), evaluated at the electroweak scale and RG-evolved to the hadronic scale. Flavor violation is introduced through the mass-insertion approximation, with δ23LL = δ23RR = δ23LR assumed equal in up- and down-squark sectors. The mechanism that carries the argument is the decomposition of each coefficient into γ-penguin, Z-penguin, scalar-penguin and box-diagram contributions, which lets the paper identify the charged-Higgs γ-penguin as the main driver of C7 and the charged-Higgs/chargino Z-penguin as the main driver of C9 and C10.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the flavor-violating squark mass insertions in the up- and down-squark sectors have identical size and chirality structure (δLL=δRR=δLR), with benchmark values chosen by hand to satisfy B_s→μ+μ− bounds; if these insertions are unrelated, the claimed low-q² C7 dominance and high-q² C9/C10 dominance are not guaranteed.

What would settle it

A precise differential measurement of B→X_s l+l− in fine q² bins at high q², or a high-statistics measurement of the low-q² forward-backward zero-crossing, could falsify the claim: if the rate does not rise with tan β in the charged-Higgs-controlled regime, or if the AFB zero-crossing disagrees with the C7C10/C9C10 interference prediction, the dominance pattern and the assumed flavor-insertion universality collapse.

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

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, the μνSSM parameter space that already satisfies B→X_s γ and B_s→μ+μ− also accounts for the measured B→X_s l+l− rates without invoking extra flavor structure.
  • The low-q² branching ratio falls with tan β while the high-q² rate rises, tying the two regions to distinct mechanisms—C7 versus C9/C10—and giving a smoking-gun correlation for future data.
  • The forward-backward asymmetry switches which interference term dominates as tan β varies, so a precise AFB measurement could act as a diagnostic of the underlying supersymmetric contributions.
  • Variations in κ and the sneutrino VEV mostly rescale the rates without changing the dominance pattern, meaning the mechanism is stable across those parameter changes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves untested whether the δLL=δRR=δLR equality across up- and down-squark sectors is physically justified; a concrete next step is to derive these mass insertions from the soft-breaking terms and check whether the incidence of C7 versus C9/C10 survives.
  • A sharper version of the same argument could be made with exclusive decays like B→K*ℓ+ℓ−, where angular observables translate the C7C10/C9C10 interference into a measurable zero-crossing.
  • If future high-statistics data show the low-q² AFB zero-crossing at a q² very different from what the C7C10 term predicts, it would signal that the assumed equality of chirality insertions is wrong rather than that the model framework is wrong.

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the rare inclusive decay B→X_s l⁺l⁻ in the μνSSM using the mass-insertion approximation. The new-physics Wilson coefficients are decomposed by particle and penguin type, and the branching ratios and forward-backward asymmetries are computed in the low-q² (1–6 GeV²) and high-q² (14.4–25 GeV²) regions. The parameter scan is constrained by B_s→μ⁺μ⁻, B→X_sγ, and the 125 GeV Higgs mass. The main claims are that the low-q² BR is dominated by the charged-Higgs contribution to C7, the high-q² BR by Z-penguin contributions to C9/C10, and that the forward-backward asymmetry is governed by C7C10 and C9C10 interference terms. The paper reports consistency with current experimental ranges and identifies the μνSSM parameter regions that satisfy all constraints.

Significance. If the central hierarchy in Table IV is robust, the paper provides a useful phenomenological characterization of rare B decays in the μνSSM, extending earlier work on B_s→μ⁺μ⁻ and B→X_sγ to B→X_s l⁺l⁻. The paper correctly incorporates external constraints and reproduces the SM limit in Table III, which is a useful sanity check. However, the central claim rests on the ad hoc equality of up/down and LL/RR/LR mass insertions in Eq. (15), and the full Wilson-coefficient expressions are not in the preprint. These gaps mean the claimed dominance pattern and the AFB decomposition are not yet established at the level needed for a journal publication.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III, Eq. (15) and Table IV] The identification of the dominant contributions depends entirely on the assumption δ23^LL = δ23^RR = δ23^LR and δ^U = δ^D. This equality is not implied by the soft Lagrangian in Eq. (9), which contains independent up-type and down-type A-terms and mass-squared matrices. In a generic MIA framework, δ^LR is chirality-flipping and expected to be suppressed by Yukawa couplings relative to δ^LL/δ^RR, and there is no reason for the up- and down-squark insertions to coincide. The benchmark values δ=0.6×10⁻³ and 0.20×10⁻³ are chosen solely to satisfy B_s→μ⁺μ⁻ in Fig. 2, not derived from the model. Since the conclusions in the abstract and Table IV about the dominance of C7, C9, C10, and the C7C10/C9C10 interference are all computed under Eq. (15), the entire numerical message is conditional on this unsupported benchmark. The authors should either justify Eq. (15) from the μνSSM soft terms or, m
  2. [§III, Eqs. (16)–(17) and Supplemental Material] The complete MIA loop expressions for the Wilson coefficients are not included in the manuscript; the text merely states they are 'provided in the Supplemental Material.' This makes it impossible to check the claimed decomposition into charged-Higgs, chargino, neutralino, gluino, γ-, Z-, and box contributions, or the assignment in Table IV. For a paper whose central message is about the dominant new-physics mechanisms, the Wilson-coefficient formulas must be available in the preprint or a readily accessible appendix. Without them, the numerical conclusions are unchecked and the paper is not self-contained.
  3. [§IV, Eq. (34)] The paper discusses at length the hadronic uncertainties of the inclusive high-q² region and then adopts the B→K*µ⁺µ⁻ angular-coefficient/transversity formalism of Ref. [54], with AFB = (3/8)(2S_s^6 + S_c^6). It is not shown that this exclusive formalism can be applied to the inclusive decay B→X_s l⁺l⁻. The relation between the inclusive θ distribution in Eqs. (28)–(33) and the K*-specific angular coefficients S_s^6, S_c^6 is missing. Since the high-q² AFB predictions in Figs. 4(d) and 5(b) rely on this formalism, the validity of those results is unclear. The authors must either derive the mapping or state explicitly that only the inclusive formulas are used and the exclusive formalism serves merely as a cross-check.
  4. [§V, Figs. 4–7] The theoretical curves for BR and AFB are shown without any uncertainty bands. The paper claims consistency with the experimental ranges (e.g., 'within the 3σ experimental ranges' in §V), but without an estimate of theoretical uncertainties—from scale variation, input parameters, unconstrained model parameters, or the variation of δ within the ranges quoted—the consistency statement cannot be assessed. At minimum, the authors should show the spread due to the allowed ranges of the model parameters and the input uncertainties in Table II.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (27)] The matrix elements for C9 and C10 in Eq. (27) contain the wrong chirality structure: (¯s_L γ^μ b_R) should be (¯s_L γ^μ b_L), matching the operators in Eq. (13). The same typo appears for the primed coefficients. Please correct.
  2. [§V, Fig. 4(b) and text] The text states that BR(B→X_s l⁺l⁻)_high increases from 2.3×10⁻⁶ to 2.9×10⁻⁶, but Eq. (47) and the axis label of Fig. 4(b) are in units of 10⁻⁷. If the axis is correct, the text should read 2.3×10⁻⁷ to 2.9×10⁻⁷.
  3. [Fig. 6 caption] Panels (c) and (d) show AFB according to the axis labels, but the caption calls them BR(B→X_s l⁺l⁻). Please correct the caption.
  4. [General] Typos and formatting issues: 'Chin a' on the title page, 'SUMARR Y' in Section VII, and inconsistent use of 'q2' vs 'q²' throughout. Please proofread.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the dominance claims are benchmark-dependent numerical findings checked against external constraints, not outputs that reduce to the fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are numerical predictions in a fixed benchmark parameter space, not derivations from the target observable. The flavor-violating input δ_23^AB is constrained by B_s→μ+μ− (Fig. 2), tan β by ¯B→X_sγ and the 125 GeV Higgs mass (Fig. 3), and κ further by the Higgs mass; none of these is the target observable B→X_s l+l−. The B→X_s l+l− branching ratios and asymmetries are then computed and compared with experimental ranges as a consistency check, which is a legitimate posterior check rather than a circular fit. Equation (15), which assumes δ^U=δ^D and δ^LL=δ^LR=δ^RR, is an explicit model assumption, not a derived result; the paper does not claim to derive these equalities from the μνSSM soft terms. Its load-bearing role is a robustness/correctness concern, not circularity. The AFB decomposition into C7C10 and C9C10 interference terms follows directly from Eq. (31), and the statement that these are dominant is a quantitative outcome of the chosen benchmark, not an input. The self-citations [42–44] are contextual references to previous studies of the same model, and the relevant constraints are recomputed in the present paper (Figs. 2, 3, 7), so they are not load-bearing. The framework is also validated by recovering the SM limit in Table III against independent SM predictions. Overall, the paper is self-contained against external constraints and does not exhibit circular reasoning.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

10 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces; the µνSSM and its right-handed sneutrinos pre-exist. However, the central numerical claims depend on many hand-chosen soft-SUSY parameters and on benchmark δ values fitted to B_s→μ+μ−, so the calculation is a constrained model scan rather than a parameter-free prediction.

free parameters (10)
  • δ^AB_23 (mass insertion) = 0.6×10^{-3} for tanβ scan; 0.20×10^{-3} for κ scan
    Chosen benchmark values that place B_s→μ+μ− within its 2σ experimental band (Fig. 2). This is fitted, not derived from the model.
  • tan β = scanned 5–40; constrained by ¯B→X_sγ and Higgs mass
    Scanned parameter; the allowed window is set by external B→X_sγ and m_h≈125 GeV constraints.
  • κ = scanned 0.01–0.6; Higgs mass restricts to 0.4–0.6
    Scanned parameter; narrow allowed range comes from the Higgs mass constraint.
  • Aλ = 0.05–1 TeV
    Scanned by hand; affects charged-Higgs mass via Eq. (44).
  • υνc (right-handed sneutrino VEV) = 1.8–2.2 TeV
    Scanned by hand; enters sneutrino and Higgs masses.
  • λ = 0.135
    Hand-set benchmark from prior μνSSM scans.
  • Aκ = -300 GeV
    Hand-set benchmark; must satisfy tachyon avoidance Eq. (43).
  • M2 (gaugino mass) = 1 TeV; M1=0.5M2, M3=2.7M2
    Chosen to satisfy gluino mass bound m_gluino≈2.7 TeV and GUT-inspired relations.
  • A_t = 2.6 TeV
    Tuned, together with m_tilde-uc3=3 TeV, to produce m_h≈125 GeV.
  • Soft masses m_tilde-Q, m_tilde-L, m_tilde-uc = 3 TeV, 700 GeV, 3 TeV
    Chosen to satisfy LHC squark limits and Higgs mass requirements.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption µνSSM superpotential Eq. (5) with three singlet neutrino superfields and RPV couplings is the relevant BSM theory.
    The entire calculation assumes this model; no independent experimental evidence for the model is presented.
  • domain assumption Mass insertion approximation: flavor violation is captured by small off-diagonal squark propagator insertions δ^AB_ij, Eq. (14).
    Standard but approximate; assumes perturbative δ and flavor-diagonal gaugino couplings.
  • ad hoc to paper Equal mass insertions in up/down squark sectors and LL=RR=LR, Eq. (15).
    Adopted 'for simplicity'; not derived from the model. This is the load-bearing modeling choice for the numerical dominance patterns.
  • ad hoc to paper Yν and left-handed sneutrino VEVs are set to zero in the numerics.
    Justified by an estimated O(10^{-5}) impact from prior work; suppresses RPV lepton-flavor effects.
  • domain assumption Approximate sneutrino and charged-Higgs mass relations, Eqs. (41)–(45), and the tachyon condition Eq. (43).
    Used to restrict the parameter space; valid only in the limit υνc ≫ υu,d.
  • ad hoc to paper High-q² inclusive B→X_s l+l− can be treated with the B→K* angular-coefficient/transversity formalism, Eq. (34).
    The paper switches from the inclusive OPE formula to the exclusive B→K* formalism without a full demonstration that the same structure applies to the inclusive X_s state.
  • standard math External SM inputs and predictions from Refs. [7,54,65] are correct.
    NNLO SM Wilson coefficients, PDG parameters, and published global fits are used as benchmarks.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23169 in / 14519 out tokens · 153749 ms · 2026-08-02T00:07:22.457725+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the impact of new physics on the rare inclusive decay $B \to X_{\mathrm{s}} l^{+} l^{-}$ within the framework of the $\mu$ from $\nu$ Supersymmetric Standard Model ($\mu\nu$SSM). The dominant contributions to the relevant Wilson coefficients and their corresponding particles are identified and analyzed. By performing a systematic scan over the relevant parameter space, we elucidate the underlying physical mechanisms governing these dominant contributions and demonstrate their consistency with the experimentally allowed regions. Experimental constraints from the decays $\bar{B} \to X_{\mathrm{s}}\gamma$, $B_{\mathrm{s}}^{0} \to \mu^{+} \mu^{-}$, and the $125\,\text{GeV}$ SM-like Higgs boson are also incorporated. We perform a systematic interference decomposition of the Wilson-coefficient contributions to the forward-backward asymmetry, identifying the $C_7C_{10}$ and $C_9C_{10}$ interference terms as the dominant contributions governing its behavior in both the low- and high-$q^2$ regions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15108 by Hai-Bin Zhang, Tai-Fu Feng, Xiao-Jie Hu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Feynman diagrams contributing to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Branching ratio BR( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a) BR( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Decomposition of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Fixed tan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Fixed tan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.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

92 extracted references · 41 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Grinstein, M.J

    B. Grinstein, M.J. Savage and M.B. Wise Nucl. Phys. B319 ( 1989) 271

    1989

  2. [2]

    Misiak, Nucl

    M. Misiak, Nucl. Phys. B 393(1993)23[Erratum-ibid. B 439(1995)461]

    1993

  3. [3]

    A. J. Buras, M. M¨ unz, Phys. Rev. D 52(1995)186

    1995

  4. [4]

    N. G. Deshpande, J. Trampetic, K. Panose, Phys. Rev. D 39(1989)1461

    1989

  5. [5]

    C. S. Lim, T. Morozumi, A. I. Sanda, Phys. Lett. B 218(1989)343

    1989

  6. [6]

    (5.7) of Ref

    , (34) (see Eqs. (5.7) of Ref. [54]). These coefficients are constructed f rom transversity amplitudes, which factorize into short-distance Wilson coefficients and form fac tors in the heavy-quark limit, thereby allowing for a more controlled treatment of hadronic un certainties in the high-q2 region. The SM predictions for BR( B → Xse+e−) and BR( B → Xsµ+µ−)...

  7. [7]

    P. J. O’Donnell, H.K.K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D 43(1991)2067

    1991

  8. [8]

    Huber, T

    T. Huber, T. Hurth, J. Jenkins, E. Lunghi, Q. Qin et al. , JHEP 11 (2024) 130 [arXiv:2404.03517]. [Erratum: JHEP 05 (2025) 099]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. , BABAR collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93(2004)081802

    2004

  10. [10]

    J. P. Lees et al. [BaBar Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 211802 (2014)

    2014

  11. [11]

    Iwasaki et al

    M. Iwasaki et al. , BELLE collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 72(2005)092005

    2005

  12. [12]

    Sato et al

    Y. Sato et al. , BELLE collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 93(2016)032008; ibid.93(2016)059901

    2016

  13. [13]

    Fukae, C

    S. Fukae, C. S. Kim, T. Morozumi and T. Yoshikawa, Phys. R ev. D 59(1999)074013; A. Ali, E. Lunghi, C. Greub, and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D 66(2002)034002

    1999

  14. [14]

    Bertolini, F

    S. Bertolini, F. Borzumati, A. Masiero and G. Ridolfi, Nu cl. Phys. B 353, 591 (1991)

    1991

  15. [15]

    J. L. Hewett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1045 (1993) [hep-ph/9211256]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  16. [16]

    Ciafaloni, A

    P. Ciafaloni, A. Romanino and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B 524 (1998) 361

    1998

  17. [17]

    Ciuchini, G

    M. Ciuchini, G. Degrassi, P. Gambino and G. F. Giudice, N ucl. Phys. B 527 (1998)21

    1998

  18. [18]

    F. M. Borzumati and C. Greub, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 074004

    1998

  19. [19]

    Borzumati, C

    F. Borzumati, C. Greub, T. Hurth and D. Wyler, Phys. Rev. D 62, 075005 (2000)

    2000

  20. [20]

    X. G. He, T. D. Nguyen and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 38, 814 (1988)

    1988

  21. [21]

    Skiba and J

    W. Skiba and J. Kalinowski, Nucl. Phys. B 404, 3 (1993)

    1993

  22. [22]

    S. R. Choudhury and N. Gaur, Phys. Lett. B 451, 86 (1999) [hep-ph/9810307]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  23. [23]

    C. S. Huang, W. Liao, Q. S. Yan and S. H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 63, 114021 (2001) [Erratum-ibid. D 64, 059902 (2001)] [hep-ph/0006250]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  24. [24]

    P. Cho, M. Misiak and D. Wyler, Phys. Rev. D54, 3329-3344 (1996). 29

    1996

  25. [25]

    Feng, Y.-L

    T.-F. Feng, Y.-L. Yan, H.-B. Zhang and S.-M. Zhao, Int. J . Mod. Phys. A 31, 1650092 (2016) [arXiv:1603.07578 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  26. [26]

    Feng, J.-L

    T.-F. Feng, J.-L. Yang, H.-B. Zhang, S.-M. Zhao and R.-F . Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 94, 115034 (2016) [arXiv:1612.02094 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  27. [27]

    J. L. Yang, T. F. Feng, S. M. Zhao, R. F. Zhu, X. Y. Yang and H . B. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no.9, 714 (2018) [arXiv:1803.09904 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    Barbieri and G

    R. Barbieri and G. F. Giudice, Phys. Lett. B 309, 86 (1993)

    1993

  29. [29]

    A. Ali, G. F. Giudice and T. Mannel, Z. Phys. C 67, 417-432 (1995) [arXiv:hep-ph/9408213]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  30. [30]

    Shaw, Phys

    A. Shaw, Phys. Rev. D 99, 115030 (2019) [arXiv:1903.10302]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    A. Ali, P. Ball, L. T. Handoko and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D 61, 074024 (2000) [arXiv:hep- ph/9910221]

    arXiv 2000

  32. [32]

    Huber, T

    T. Huber, T. Hurth, J. Jenkins, E. Lunghi and Q. Qin et al. , JHEP 10 (2020) 088

    2020

  33. [33]

    Masiero and L

    A. Masiero and L. Silvestrini, B Physics and CP Violatio n, Honolulu, p. 172, (1997) [arXiv:hep- ph/9709244]

    arXiv 1997

  34. [34]

    Masiero and L

    A. Masiero and L. Silvestrini, Highlights of Subnuclea r Physics, Erice, p. 404, (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9711401]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  35. [35]

    Lunghi, A

    E. Lunghi, A. Masiero, I. Scimemi and L. Silvestrini, Nu cl. Phys. B 568, 120-144 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9906286]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  36. [36]

    Z. J. Xiao, F. G. Li and W. J. Zou, Commun. Theor. Phys. 46, 687 (2006)

    2006

  37. [37]

    H. E. Haber, G. L. Kane, Phys. Rept. 117 (1985) 75

    1985

  38. [38]

    Rosiek, Phys

    J. Rosiek, Phys. Rev. D 41 (1990) 3464

    1990

  39. [39]

    D. E. L´ opez-Fogliani, C. Mu˜ noz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 041801

    2006

  40. [40]

    Escudero, D

    N. Escudero, D. E. L´ opez-Fogliani, C. Mu˜ noz, R. Ruiz d e Austri, JHEP 12 (2008) 099

    2008

  41. [41]

    Fidalgo, D

    J. Fidalgo, D. E. L´ opez-Fogliani, C. Mu˜ noz, R. Ruiz de Austri, JHEP 10 (2011) 020

    2011

  42. [42]

    J. E. Kim, H. P. Nilles, Phys. Lett. B 138 (1984) 150

    1984

  43. [43]

    Zhang, T.-F

    H.-B. Zhang, T.-F. Feng, L.-N. Kou and S.-M. Zhao, Int. J . Mod. Phys. A 28 (2013) 1350117 [arXiv:1307.6284]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  44. [44]

    Zhang, G.-H

    H.-B. Zhang, G.-H. Luo, T.-F. Feng, S.-M. Zhao, T.-J. Ga o and K.-S. Sun, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 29, 1450196 (2014) [arXiv:1409.6837 [hep-ph]]. 30

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  45. [45]

    K. K. Meng, H. B. Zhang and J. L. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 111, 035036 (2025) [arXiv:2502.05466 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Zhang, T.-F

    H.-B. Zhang, T.-F. Feng, G.-F. Luo, Z.-F. Ge and S.-M. Zh ao, JHEP 07 (2013) 069 [Erratum ibid. JHEP 10 (2013) 173]

    2013

  47. [47]

    Zhang, T.-F

    H.-B. Zhang, T.-F. Feng, S.-M. Zhao, Fei Sun, Int. J. Mod . Phys. A 29 (2014) 1450123

    2014

  48. [48]

    Zhang, T.-F

    H.-B. Zhang, T.-F. Feng, F. Sun, K.-S. Sun, J.-B. Chen an d S.-M. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 115007

    2014

  49. [49]

    R.Grigjanis, P. J. O’Donnell, M. Sutherland and H. Nave let, Phys. Rep. 22, 93 (1993)

    1993

  50. [50]

    Buchalla, A

    G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras and M. E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod . Phys. 68, 1125 (1996)

    1996

  51. [51]

    L. Lin, T. F. Feng and F. Sun, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 24, 2181-2186 (2009)

    2009

  52. [52]

    X. Y. Yang and T. F. Feng, JHEP 1005, 059 (2010)

    2010

  53. [53]

    Goertz and T

    P. Goertz and T. Pfoh, Phys. Rev. D 84, 095016 (2011)

    2011

  54. [54]

    A. J. Buras, M. Misiak, M. Munz and S. Pokorski, Nucl. Phy s. B 424 (1994) 374

    1994

  55. [55]

    Altmannshofer, P

    W. Altmannshofer, P. Ball, A. Bharucha, A. J. Buras, D. M . Straub, and M. Wick, JHEP 0901, 019 (2009) [arXiv:0811.1214 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  56. [56]

    Gambino, M

    P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn and U. Haisch, Nucl. Phys. B 673, 238 (2003)

    2003

  57. [57]

    Y. B. Dai, C. S. Huang and H. W. Huang, Phys. Lett. B 390, 257 (1997) [Erratum-ibid. B 513, 429 (2001)] [arXiv:hep-ph/9607389]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  58. [58]

    Ghincuulov, T

    A. Ghincuulov, T. Hurth, G. Isidori and Y. Yao, Nucl. Ph ys. B 685(2004)351

    2004

  59. [59]

    Buchalla, A

    G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras, M. E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. P hys.68(1996)1125

    1996

  60. [60]

    Scimemi, Nucl

    I. Scimemi, Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. 81, 219 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9911355]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  61. [61]

    Ligeti and F

    Z. Ligeti and F. J. Tackmann, Phys. Lett. B 653, 404-410 (2007), arXiv:0707.1694 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  62. [62]

    Huber, T

    T. Huber, T. Hurth, and E. Lunghi, Nucl. Phys. B 802, 40-62 (2008), arXiv:0712.3009 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  63. [63]

    Beneke, G

    M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, and C.T. Sachrajda, Eur. Phys. J. C 61, 439-449 (2009), arXiv:0902.4446 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  64. [64]

    Isidori, Z

    G. Isidori, Z. Polonsky, and A. Tinari, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.9, 093008 (2023), arXiv:2305.03076 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  65. [65]

    D’Ambrosio, G.F

    G. D’Ambrosio, G.F. Giudice, G.Isidori, A.Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B 645 (2002) 155-187. 31

    2002

  66. [66]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  67. [67]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 87, 012008 (2013)

    2013

  68. [68]

    CMS Collaboration, JHEP 1210, 018 (2012)

    2012

  69. [69]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 11, 1023 (2021), [arXiv:2106.09609]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  70. [70]

    Y. S. Amhis et al. [HFLA V], Phys. Rev. D 107, no.5, 052008 (2023) [arXiv:2206.07501 [hep- ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  71. [71]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS], JHEP 04, 098 (2019) [arXiv:1812.03017 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  72. [72]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], JHEP 04, 188 (2020) [arXiv:1910.12127 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  73. [73]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, no.4, 041801 (2022) [arXiv:2108.09284 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2022

  74. [74]

    Tumasyan et al

    A. Tumasyan et al. [CMS], collisions at √s = 13 TeV,” Phys. Lett. B 842, 137955 (2023) [arXiv:2212.10311 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  75. [75]

    Misiak, A

    M. Misiak, A. Rehman and M. Steinhauser, JHEP 06, 175 (2020) [arXiv:2002.01548 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  76. [76]

    Beneke, C

    M. Beneke, C. Bobeth and R. Szafron, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, no.1, 011801 (2018) [arXiv:1708.09152 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  77. [77]

    Beneke, C

    M. Beneke, C. Bobeth and R. Szafron, JHEP 10, 232 (2019) [erratum: JHEP 11, 099 (2022)] [arXiv:1908.07011 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  78. [78]

    Czaja and M

    M. Czaja and M. Misiak, Ratio,” Symmetry 16, no.7, 917 (2024) [arXiv:2407.03810 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  79. [79]

    Hurth, G

    T. Hurth, G. Isidori, J. F. Kamenik, and F. Mescia, Nucl. Phys. B 808, 326–346 (2009), arXiv:0807.5039[hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  80. [80]

    Altmannshofer, P

    W. Altmannshofer, P. Paradisi, and D. M. Straub, JHEP 04 (2012) 008 [arXiv:1111.1257 [hep-ph]]; W. Altmannshofer and D. M. Straub, JHEP 08 (2012) 121 [arXiv:1206.0273 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

Showing first 80 references.