Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Constraints on invisible B+K+X decays from the Belle II B+K+νν¯ measurement

Lorenz Gärtner1,*, Nikolai Krug1,†, Thomas Kuhr1,‡, Michael A. Schmidt2,§, Slavomira Stefkova3,∥, and Bruce Yabsley4,¶

  • *Contact author: lorenz.gaertner@lmu.de
  • Contact author: nikolai.hartmann@physik.uni-muenchen.de
  • Contact author: thomas.kuhr@lmu.de
  • §Contact author: m.schmidt@unsw.edu.au
  • Contact author: slavomira.stefkova@uni-bonn.de
  • Contact author: bruce.yabsley@sydney.edu.au

Phys. Rev. D 114, 032003 – Published 7 August, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/ggtk-gkx4

Abstract

The Belle II measurement of the branching fraction for B+K+νν¯ shows a 2.7σ excess over the Standard Model prediction and motivates new-physics explanations such as axionlike particles, Higgs-like scalars, or beyond Standard Model gauge bosons. A two-body decay B+K+X with an invisible X provides a natural candidate explanation. This work provides a comprehensive test of this hypothesis using Belle II’s public model-agnostic likelihood. Posterior distributions are derived for the resonance mass mX and the branching fraction, and a modified frequentist upper-limit mass scan is performed. The data favor a resonance with mass mX=2.10.1+0.2GeV and the product B(B+K+X)·PX,inv=9.23.4+1.8×106, where PX,inv is the probability that X (and its decay products) are undetected. Bayes’s factors indicate a very strong preference for the Standard Model plus resonance over the Standard Model-only hypothesis. A frequentist likelihood-ratio test favors the Standard Model plus resonance hypothesis by 3.0σ. A light invisible resonance plus the Standard Model therefore provides a compelling description of the Belle II data.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (58)

  1. I. Adachi et al. (Belle II Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 109, 112006 (2024).
  2. W. Altmannshofer, A. Crivellin, H. Haigh, G. Inguglia, and J. M. Camalich, Phys. Rev. D 109, 075008 (2024).
  3. K. Fridell, M. Ghosh, T. Okui, and K. Tobioka, Phys. Rev. D 109, 115006 (2024).
  4. A. Datta, J. Liao, and D. Marfatia, Phys. Lett. B 768, 265 (2017).
  5. F. Sala and D. M. Straub, Phys. Lett. B 774, 205 (2017).
  6. D. Ghosh, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 694 (2017).
  7. A. K. Alok, B. Bhattacharya, A. Datta, D. Kumar, J. Kumar, and D. London, Phys. Rev. D 96, 095009 (2017).
  8. A. Datta, J. Kumar, J. Liao, and D. Marfatia, Phys. Rev. D 97, 115038 (2018).
  9. W. Altmannshofer, M. J. Baker, S. Gori, R. Harnik, M. Pospelov, E. Stamou, and A. Thamm, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2018) 188.
  10. P. D. Bolton, S. Fajfer, J. F. Kamenik, and M. Novoa-Brunet, Phys. Rev. D 110, 055001 (2024); 111, 039903(E) (2025).
  11. P. D. Bolton, S. Fajfer, J. F. Kamenik, and M. Novoa-Brunet, Phys. Rev. D 112, 035010 (2025).
  12. A. Berezhnoy, W. Lucha, and D. Melikhov, Phys. Rev. D 111, 075035 (2025).
  13. A. Berezhnoy, W. Lucha, and D. Melikhov, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 141, 495 (2026).
  14. M. Abumusabh, G. Dujany, D. Guadagnoli, A. Iohner, and C. Toni, Phys. Rev. Res. 8, 023129 (2026).
  15. M. Abumusabh et al. (Belle II Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 112, 092016 (2025).
  16. Belle II Collaboration, A model-agnostic likelihood for the reinterpretation of the B+K+νν¯ measurement at Belle II, HEPData (collection), 10.17182/hepdata.166082 (2025).
  17. W. Altmannshofer and S. Roy, Phys. Rev. D 111, 075029 (2025).
  18. L. Calibbi, T. Li, L. Mukherjee, and M. A. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 112, 075020 (2025).
  19. Q.-Y. Hu, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 556 (2025).
  20. X. Gao and U. Nierste, Phys. Rev. D 112, 055008 (2025).
  21. A. Davidson and K. C. Wali, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 11 (1982).
  22. F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1549 (1982).
  23. J. Martin Camalich, M. Pospelov, P. N. H. Vuong, R. Ziegler, and J. Zupan, Phys. Rev. D 102, 015023 (2020).
  24. M. Ovchynnikov, M. A. Schmidt, and T. Schwetz, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 791 (2023).
  25. D. McKeen, J. N. Ng, and D. Tuckler, Phys. Rev. D 109, 075006 (2024).
  26. S.-Y. Ho, J. Kim, and P. Ko, Phys. Rev. D 111, 055029 (2025).
  27. J. Kim and P. Ko, Phys. Rev. D 113, 075023 (2026).
  28. R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 161802 (2015).
  29. R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 95, 071101 (2017).
  30. I. Adachi et al. (Belle II Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 108, L111104 (2023).
  31. M. Abdughani and Y. Reyimuaji, Phys. Rev. D 110, 055013 (2024).
  32. A. Berezhnoy and D. Melikhov, Europhys. Lett. 145, 14001 (2024).
  33. A. Datta, D. Marfatia, and L. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. D 109, L031701 (2024).
  34. H. Davoudiasl and M. Schnubel, Phys. Rev. D 110, 075014 (2024).
  35. L. Di Luzio, M. Nardecchia, and C. Toni, Phys. Rev. D 112, 055031 (2025).
  36. P. D. Bolton, J. F. Kamenik, and M. Novoa-Brunet, Phys. Rev. D 113, 115001 (2026).
  37. J. F. Eguren, S. Klingel, E. Stamou, M. Tabet, and R. Ziegler, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2024) 111.
  38. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 842, 137963 (2023).
  39. H. Davoudiasl, H.-S. Lee, and W. J. Marciano, Phys. Rev. D 85, 115019 (2012).
  40. S. Schael et al. (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group, SLD Heavy Flavour Group), Phys. Rep. 427, 257 (2006).
  41. P. Janot and S. Jadach, Phys. Lett. B 803, 135319 (2020).
  42. W. G. Parrott, C. Bouchard, and C. T. H. Davies (HPQCD Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 107, 014511 (2023); 107, 119903(E) (2023).
  43. K. Cranmer, G. Lewis, L. Moneta, A. Shibata, and W. Verkerke (ROOT), HistFactory: A Tool for Creating Statistical Models for Use with RooFit and RooStats, Tech. Rep. (New York University, New York, 2012).
  44. L. Heinrich, M. Feickert, G. Stark, and K. Cranmer, J. Open Source Softwaare 6, 2823 (2021).
  45. L. Heinrich, M. Feickert, and G. Stark, pyhf: v0.7.6 (2024), see also the GitHub webpage.
  46. W. G. Parrott, C. Bouchard, and C. T. H. Davies (HPQCD Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 107, 014510 (2023).
  47. L. Gärtner, N. Hartmann, L. Heinrich, M. Horstmann, T. Kuhr, M. Reboud, S. Stefkova, and D. van Dyk, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 693 (2024).
  48. T. Ferber, A. Filimonova, R. Schäfer, and S. Westhoff, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2023) 131.
  49. M. Feickert, L. Heinrich, and M. Horstmann, EPJ Web Conf. 295, 06004 (2024).
  50. O. Abril-Pla, V. Andreani, C. Carroll, L. Dong, C. J. Fonnesbeck, M. Kochurov, R. Kumar, J. Lao, C. C. Luhmann, O. A. Martin et al., PeerJ Comput. Sci. 9 (2023).
  51. A. L. Read, J. Phys. G 28, 2693 (2002).
  52. Belle and Belle II Collaborations, Presented at the 13th International Workshop on the CKM Unitarity Triangle (CKM 2025), Cagliari, Italy (2025).
  53. K. Cranmer, in 2011 European School of High-Energy Physics (2014), pp. 267–308, arXiv:1503.07622.
  54. A. Gelman, J. Carlin, H. Stern, D. Dunson, A. Vehtari, and D. Rubin, Bayesian Data Analysis, Third Edition, Chapman & Hall/CRC Texts in Statistical Science (Taylor & Francis, London, 2013).
  55. H. Jeffreys, The Theory of Probability, 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1961).
  56. E. Gross and O. Vitells, Eur. Phys. J. C 70, 525 (2010).
  57. L. Gärtner, N. Krug, T. Kuhr, M. Schmidt, S. Stefkova, and B. Yabsley, 10.5281/zenodo.20509926 (2026).
  58. L. Gärtner, 10.5281/zenodo.20528556 (2026).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation