possible bug in C7,C7' flavio->EOS conversion

[bednya]

According to (outdated?)

https://wcxf.github.io/assets/pdf/WET.EOS.pdf

and

https://wcxf.github.io/assets/pdf/WET.flavio.pdf

C7_bs (C7p_bs) in Flavio corresponds to the same operator as b->s::c7 (b->s::c7') in EOS.

However, when I run the code

import flavio
import wilson
wcF = flavio.WilsonCoefficients()
wcF.set_initial(scale=3,wc_dict={'C7_bs':1})
wcF.wc.translate('JMS').translate('EOS')

I've got a non-zero c7', i.e,

'b->s::c7': (1.00036571+0j), "b->s::c7'": (-0.01912714+0j)

I would be grateful, if you help me with this issue...

All the best, Alexander P.S. Just tested with flavio-1.3.1, wilson-1.7, wcxf-1.6 from PyPi.

[DavidMStraub]

Thanks for reporting. This is definitely not a flavio bug; indeed I suspect it is just a wrong definition in the basis PDF.

@jasonaebischerGIT & @dvandyk, there is a discrepancy between the definition of the dipole operators in eq. (5.10) of the manual and the WCxf basis file. The translator seems to be correct based on the manual. Right?

[dvandyk]

Thanks indeed for the report!

@DavidMStraub The documentation of the basis in EOS seems correct to me, but I will double check with @cBobeth.

[jasonaebischerGIT]

Thanks for the report also from my side! I just checked the translator and it is compatible with what is given in the EOS manual, so the WCxf basis file is indeed outdated. One would have to add the terms proportional to the charm mass to O7, O7', O8, and O8'.

[DavidMStraub]

@dvandyk informed us that actually the WCxf basis file is correct after all, but the EOS manual is incorrect. Unfortunately, the WCxf translator is based on the definition in the latter, so this is indeed a bug, but in the wilson package. We will continue to track it there.