4.7 Article

A general effective field theory description of b → sl+l- lepton universality ratios

期刊

PHYSICS LETTERS B
卷 830, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137151

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Research Council (ERC) via the European Union [833280]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [182622, 174182]
  3. European Research Council (ERC) [833280] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We propose an expression for a general lepton flavour universality (LFU) ratio, R-X, in b -> sl(+)l(-) decays, and find that the sensitivity of R-X to a possible LFU violation is limited by a small set of hadronic parameters. By performing a global combination analysis, we obtain a new physics significance of 4.2 sigma and demonstrate that non-exclusive R-X measurements can significantly enhance the discovery potential of the experiment.
We construct an expression for a general lepton flavour universality (LFU) ratio, R-X, in b -> sl(+)l(-) decays in terms of a series of hadronic quantities which can be treated as nuisance parameters. This expression allows to include any LFU ratio in global fits of b -> sl(+)l(-)short-distance parameters, even in the absence of a precise knowledge of the corresponding hadronic structure. The absence of sizeable LFU violation and the approximate left-handed structure of the Standard Model amplitude imply that only a very limited set of hadronic parameters hamper the sensitivity of R-X to a possible LFU violation of short-distance origin. A global b -> sl(+)l(-) combination is performed including the measurement of R-pK for the first time, resulting in a significance of new physics of 4.2 sigma. In light of this, we evaluate the impact on the global significance of new physics using a set of experimentally promising non-exclusive R-X measurements that LHCb can perform, and find that they can significantly increase the discovery potential of the experiment. (C) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.7
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