4.4 Article

Hadronic uncertainties in B → K* μ+μ-: a state-of-the-art analysis

期刊

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

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/JHEP04(2017)016

关键词

Effective Field Theories; Heavy Quark Physics; Beyond Standard Model

资金

  1. Spanish MINECO of ICCUB (Unidad de Excelencia Maria de Maeztu) [MDM-2014-0369]
  2. Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa [SEV-2012-0234]
  3. EU Horizon program [690575, 674896, 692194]
  4. [FPA2013-46570-C2-1-P]
  5. [FPA2014-55613-P]
  6. [2014-SGR-104]
  7. [2014-SGR-1450]
  8. [FPA2014-61478-EXP]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the absence of direct evidence for New Physics at present LHC energies, the focus is set on the anomalies and discrepancies recently observed in rare b -> sll transitions which can be interpreted as indirect hints. Global fits have shown that an economical New Physics solution can simultaneously alleviate the tensions in the various channels and can lead to a significant improvement in the description of the data. Alternative explanations within the Standard Model for part of the observed anomalies have been proposed in terms of (unexpectedly large) hadronic effects at low dilepton invariant mass and attributing tensions in protected observables to statistical fluctuations or experimental errors. We review the treatment of hadronic uncertainties in this kinematic regime for one of the most important channels, B -> K* mu(+)mu(-), in a pedagogical way. We provide detailed arguments showing that factorisable power corrections cannot account for the observed anomalies and that an explanation through long-distance charm contributions is disfavoured. Some optimized observables at very low dilepton invariant mass are shown to be protected against contributions from the semileptonic coefficient C-9 (including any associated long-distance charm effects), enhancing their sensitivity to New Physics contributions to other Wilson coefficients. Finally, we discuss how the recent measurement of Q(5) by Belle (and in the future by LHCb and Belle-II) may provide a robust cross-check of our arguments.

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