Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Re C10
C9 =
C10 0.64 [0.81, 0.48] [1.00, 0.32] 4.2
C9e = C10
e
+0.78 [+0.56, +1.02] [+0.37, +1.31] 4.3 0.0
SM SM
0.20 0.5
C9 = 1.6 C9 = 1.6
0.15 C9e = +1.6 C9e = +1.6
0.4
C10 = +1.3 C10 = +1.3
e e
0.10 C10 = 1.3 0.3 C10 = 1.3
C9 = C10
= 0.7 C9 = C10
= 0.7
DP40
DP50
0.05 C9e = C10
e
= 0.7 0.2 C9e = C10
e
= 0.7
0.00 0.1
0.0
0.05
0.1
0.10 flavio v0.21 flavio v0.21
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5
q 2 [GeV2 ] q 2 [GeV2 ]
FIG. 2. The B K `+ ` LFU differences DP40 and DP50 in the SM and various NP benchmark models as functions of q 2 .
The error bands contain all theory uncertainties including form factors and non-factorisable hadronic effects. In the region of
narrow charmonium resonances, only the short-distance contribution is shown, without uncertainties.
ment with the data by themselves. As is well known [18], as functions of q 2 in the SM and various NP scenarios
the primed coefficients imply RK > 1 given RK < 1 and are shown in the plots of Fig. 2. The SM predictions are
vice versa. The complementary sensitivity of RK and close to zero with very high accuracy across a wide q 2
RK to right-handed currents is illustrated in the bottom range. In the presence of NP, DP4,5 0 show a non-trivial q 2
plot of Fig. 1 for the example of C9 vs. C90 . In com- dependence. If the discrepancies in RK () are explained
bination with sizable un-primed coefficients, the primed by NP in C9` , we predict a negative DP40 0.1 at low
coefficients can slightly improve the fit. q 2 . 2.5 GeV2 and a sizable positive DP50 +0.5. With
Among the un-primed Wilson coefficients, there are `
NP in C10 we predict instead a positive DP40 +0.15
approximate flat directions. We find that a good de- and a small negative DP50 0.1. We observe that DP50
scription of the experimental results is given by has even the potential to distinguish between NP in C9e
and C9 . For q 2 & 5 GeV2 , a negative C9 leads to a
C9 C9e C10
e
+ C10 ' 1.4 , (8) sizable increase of P50 (B K + ), while a positive
C9e can decrease P50 (B K e+ e ) only slightly, as the
unless some of the individual coefficients are much larger SM prediction for P50 in this q 2 region is already close
than 1 in absolute value. The flat direction is clearly to its model-independent lower bound of 1. The re-
visible in the top and center plot of Fig. 1. In many [1,6]
cent measurements by Belle, DP 0 = +0.498 0.553 and
NP models one has relations among these coefficients. In [1,6]
4
1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9
0.8 SM 0.8 SM
C9 = 1.6 C9 = 1.6
RK
RK
FIG. 3. The LFU ratios RK () in the SM and two NP benchmark models as function of q 2 . Conerning the error bands, the
same comments as for Fig. 2 apply.
In Fig. 3 we show RK () as functions of q 2 in the SM and compatible with the b s fit. We have also per-
in the same NP scenarios as in Fig. 2. In the SM, RK () formed a full fit, taking into account all the observables
are to an excellent approximation q 2 independent. For from the b s fit, the branching ratio of Bs +
very low q 2 ' 4m2 they drop to zero, due to phase space (assuming it not to be affected by scalar NP contribu-
effects. NP contact interactions lead to an approximately tions), and the BaBar measurement of the B Xs e+ e
constant shift in RK . The ratio RK , on the other hand, branching ratio [57]. This fit, shown in red, points to
shows a non-trivial q 2 dependence in the presence of NP. a non-standard C9 ' 1.2 with very high singificance.
In contrast to B K``, the B K `` decays at low q 2 Wilson coefficients other than C9 are constrained by the
are dominated by the photon pole, which gives a lepton global fit.
flavor universal contribution. The effect of NP is there- Compared to the LFU observables, the global b s
fore diluted at low q 2 . Given the current experimental fit depends more strongly on estimates of hadronic uncer-
uncertainties, the measured q 2 shape of RK is compati- tainties in the b s`` transitions. To illustrate the im-
ble with NP in form of a contact interaction. Significant pact of a hypothetical, drastic underestimation of these
discrepancies from the shapes shown in Fig. 3 would im- uncertainties, we also show results of a global fit where
ply the existence of light NP degrees of freedom around uncertainties of non-factorisable hadronic contributions
or below the scale set by q 2 and a breakdown of the ef- are inflated by a factor of 5 with respect to our nominal
fective Hamiltonian framework. estimates. In this case, the global fit becomes dominated
Assuming that the description in terms of contact by the LFU observables, but the b s observables
interactions holds, we translate the best fit values of still lead to relevant constraints. For instance, the best-
the Wilson coefficients into a generic NP scale. Repa-
fit value for C10 in Tab. I would imply a 50% suppresion
NP
rameterizing the effective Hamiltonian (5) as Heff = of the Bs + branching ratio, which is already in
2
P
i Oi /i , one gets tension with current measurements [47], barring cancel-
lations with scalar NP contributions.
4 1 1 v 35 TeV
i = p p ' p . (11) Conclusions. The discrepancies between SM predic-
e
|Vtb Vts | |Ci | 2 |Ci |
tions and experimental results in the LFU ratios RK and
Based on perturbative unitarity we therefore predict the RK can be explained by NP four-fermion contact inter-
with left-handed quark currents. Future
actions (sb)(``)
existence
of NP degrees p of freedom below a scale of
NP 4 35 TeV/ |Ci | 100 TeV. measurements of LFU differences of B K `+ ` angu-
Compatibility with other rare B decay anomalies. It is lar observables can help to identify the chirality struc-
natural to connect the discrepancies in RK () to the other ture of the lepton currents. If the hints for LFU vio-
existing anomalies in rare decays based on the b s lation in rare B decays are first signs of NP, perturba-
transition. In the plots of Fig. 1 we show in dotted gray tive unitarity implies new degrees of freedom below a
the 1, 2, and 3 contours from our global b s fit that scale of NP 100 TeV. These results are robust, i.e.
does not take into account the measurements of the LFU they depend very mildly on assumptions about the size
observables RK () and DP4,5 0 [6]. We observe that the of hadronic uncertainties in the B K () `+ ` decays.
blue regions prefered by the LFU observables are fully Intriguingly, the measured values of RK and RK are
5
fully compatible with NP explanations of various addi- [21] A. Crivellin, G. DAmbrosio, and J. Heeck, Phys. Rev.
tional anomalies in rare B meson decays based on the Lett. 114, 151801 (2015), arXiv:1501.00993 [hep-ph].
b s transition. A combined fit singles out NP in the [22] W. Altmannshofer and I. Yavin, Phys. Rev. D92, 075022
Wilson coefficient C9 as a possible explanation. (2015), arXiv:1508.07009 [hep-ph].
[23] A. Crivellin, G. DAmbrosio, and J. Heeck, Phys. Rev.
D91, 075006 (2015), arXiv:1503.03477 [hep-ph].
[24] A. Celis, J. Fuentes-Martin, M. Jung, and H. Serodio,
Phys. Rev. D92, 015007 (2015), arXiv:1505.03079 [hep-
Acknowledgments ph].
[25] A. Falkowski, M. Nardecchia, and R. Ziegler, JHEP 11,
WA acknowledges financial support by the University 173 (2015), arXiv:1509.01249 [hep-ph].
[26] C. Niehoff, P. Stangl, and D. M. Straub, Phys. Lett.
of Cincinnati. The work of PS and DS was supported by
B747, 182 (2015), arXiv:1503.03865 [hep-ph].
the DFG cluster of excellence Origin and Structure of [27] A. Carmona and F. Goertz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 251801
the Universe. (2016), arXiv:1510.07658 [hep-ph].
[28] E. Megias, G. Panico, O. Pujolas, and M. Quiros, JHEP
09, 118 (2016), arXiv:1608.02362 [hep-ph].
[29] G. Hiller and M. Schmaltz, Phys. Rev. D90, 054014
(2014), arXiv:1408.1627 [hep-ph].
altmanwg@ucmail.uc.edu [30] B. Gripaios, M. Nardecchia, and S. A. Renner, JHEP
peter.stangl@tum.de 05, 006 (2015), arXiv:1412.1791 [hep-ph].
david.straub@tum.de [31] I. de Medeiros Varzielas and G. Hiller, JHEP 06, 072
[1] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), JHEP 06, 133 (2014), (2015), arXiv:1503.01084 [hep-ph].
arXiv:1403.8044 [hep-ex]. [32] M. Bauer and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 141802
[2] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), JHEP 11, 047 (2016), (2016), arXiv:1511.01900 [hep-ph].
arXiv:1606.04731 [hep-ex]. [33] D. Becirevic, S. Fajfer, N. Kosnik, and O. Sumensari,
[3] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), JHEP 09, 179 (2015), Phys. Rev. D94, 115021 (2016), arXiv:1608.08501 [hep-
arXiv:1506.08777 [hep-ex]. ph].
[4] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), JHEP 02, 104 (2016), [34] R. Barbieri, C. W. Murphy, and F. Senia, Eur. Phys. J.
arXiv:1512.04442 [hep-ex]. C77, 8 (2017), arXiv:1611.04930 [hep-ph].
[5] S. Wehle et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 111801 [35] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 151601
(2017), arXiv:1612.05014 [hep-ex]. (2014), arXiv:1406.6482 [hep-ex].
[6] W. Altmannshofer, C. Niehoff, P. Stangl, and D. M. [36] S. Bifani (LHCb), Search for new physics with b
Straub, (2017), arXiv:1703.09189 [hep-ph]. s`+ ` decays at lhcb, CERN Seminar, 18 April 2017.
[7] W. Altmannshofer and D. M. Straub, Eur. Phys. J. C75, [37] T. Hurth, F. Mahmoudi, and S. Neshatpour, JHEP 12,
382 (2015), arXiv:1411.3161 [hep-ph]. 053 (2014), arXiv:1410.4545 [hep-ph].
[8] S. Descotes-Genon, L. Hofer, J. Matias, and J. Virto, [38] S. L. Glashow, D. Guadagnoli, and K. Lane, Phys. Rev.
JHEP 06, 092 (2016), arXiv:1510.04239 [hep-ph]. Lett. 114, 091801 (2015), arXiv:1411.0565 [hep-ph].
[9] T. Hurth, F. Mahmoudi, and S. Neshatpour, Nucl. Phys. [39] D. Ghosh, M. Nardecchia, and S. A. Renner, JHEP 12,
B909, 737 (2016), arXiv:1603.00865 [hep-ph]. 131 (2014), arXiv:1408.4097 [hep-ph].
[10] S. Jager and J. Martin Camalich, Phys. Rev. D93, [40] B. Bhattacharya, A. Datta, D. London, and
014028 (2016), arXiv:1412.3183 [hep-ph]. S. Shivashankara, Phys. Lett. B742, 370 (2015),
[11] S. Descotes-Genon, L. Hofer, J. Matias, and J. Virto, arXiv:1412.7164 [hep-ph].
JHEP 12, 125 (2014), arXiv:1407.8526 [hep-ph]. [41] R. Alonso, B. Grinstein, and J. Martin Camalich, JHEP
[12] J. Lyon and R. Zwicky, (2014), arXiv:1406.0566 [hep-ph]. 10, 184 (2015), arXiv:1505.05164 [hep-ph].
[13] M. Ciuchini, M. Fedele, E. Franco, S. Mishima, A. Paul, [42] A. Greljo, G. Isidori, and D. Marzocca, JHEP 07, 142
L. Silvestrini, and M. Valli, JHEP 06, 116 (2016), (2015), arXiv:1506.01705 [hep-ph].
arXiv:1512.07157 [hep-ph]. [43] D. Becirevic, S. Fajfer, and N. Kosnik, Phys. Rev. D92,
[14] B. Capdevila, S. Descotes-Genon, L. Hofer, and J. Ma- 014016 (2015), arXiv:1503.09024 [hep-ph].
tias, JHEP 04, 016 (2017), arXiv:1701.08672 [hep-ph]. [44] J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D86, 032012 (2012),
[15] V. G. Chobanova, T. Hurth, F. Mahmoudi, arXiv:1204.3933 [hep-ex].
D. Martinez Santos, and S. Neshatpour, (2017), [45] J. T. Wei et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 171801
arXiv:1702.02234 [hep-ph]. (2009), arXiv:0904.0770 [hep-ex].
[16] G. Hiller and F. Kruger, Phys. Rev. D69, 074020 (2004), [46] S. Jager, K. Leslie, M. Kirk, and A. Lenz, (2017),
arXiv:hep-ph/0310219 [hep-ph]. arXiv:1701.09183 [hep-ph].
[17] C. Bobeth, G. Hiller, and G. Piranishvili, JHEP 12, 040 [47] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), (2017), arXiv:1703.05747 [hep-ex].
(2007), arXiv:0709.4174 [hep-ph]. [48] T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF), Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 201801
[18] G. Hiller and M. Schmaltz, JHEP 02, 055 (2015), (2009), arXiv:0901.3803 [hep-ex].
arXiv:1411.4773 [hep-ph]. [49] R. Alonso, B. Grinstein, and J. Martin Camalich, Phys.
[19] M. Bordone, G. Isidori, and A. Pattori, Eur. Phys. J. Rev. Lett. 113, 241802 (2014), arXiv:1407.7044 [hep-ph].
C76, 440 (2016), arXiv:1605.07633 [hep-ph]. [50] W. Altmannshofer, C. Niehoff, and D. M. Straub,
[20] W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, M. Pospelov, and I. Yavin, (2017), arXiv:1702.05498 [hep-ph].
Phys. Rev. D89, 095033 (2014), arXiv:1403.1269 [hep- [51] D. Straub et al., flav-io/flavio v0.20.4, (2017), https:
ph]. //flav-io.github.io/ [doi:10.5281/zenodo.495090].
6