4.4 Article

Disentangling QCD and new physics in D → πl+l-

期刊

JOURNAL OF HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
卷 -, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/JHEP04(2021)158

关键词

Heavy Quark Physics; Beyond Standard Model

资金

  1. OCEVU Labex [ANR-11-LABX-0060]
  2. A*MIDEX project - Investissements d'Avenir [ANR-11IDEX-0001-02]
  3. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2015/20689-9]
  4. CNPq [309847/2018-4]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigates the decay D+ -> pi (+)l(+)l(-), specifically focusing on resonance contributions and weak annihilation diagrams. It includes known QCD factorisation results and adapts calculations for B decays in the Operator Product Expansion. The study extracts parameters of a model using experimental data and examines sensitivity of the channel to physics beyond the Standard Model.
In this paper we consider the decay D+ -> pi (+)l(+)l(-), addressing in particular the resonance contributions as well as the relatively large contributions from the weak annihilation diagrams. For the weak annihilation diagrams we include known results from QCD factorisation at low q(2) and at high q(2), adapting the existing calculation for B decays in the Operator Product Expansion. The hadronic resonance contributions are obtained through a dispersion relation, modelling the spectral functions as towers of Regge-like resonances in each channel, as suggested by Shifman, imposing the partonic behaviour in the deep Euclidean. The parameters of the model are extracted using e(+)e(-) -> (hadrons) and tau -> (hadrons) + nu (tau) data as well as the branching ratios for the resonant decays D+ -> pi R+(R -> l(+)l(-)), with R = rho, omega, and phi. We perform a thorough error analysis, and present our results for the Standard Model differential branching ratio as a function of q(2). Focusing then on the observables F-H and A(FB), we consider the sensitivity of this channel to effects of physics beyond the Standard Model, both in a model independent way and for the case of leptoquarks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据