New physics in b → s μ + μ − after the measurement of R K *

By Ashutosh Kumar Alok, Bhubanjyoti Bhattacharya, A. Datta, Dinesh Kumar, Jacky Kumar, D. London. 2017

193 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The recent measurement of $R_{K^*}$ is yet another hint of new physics (NP), and supports the idea that it is present in $b\to s\mu^+\mu^-$ decays. We perform a combined model-independent and model-dependent analysis in order to deduce properties of this NP. Like others, we find that the NP must obey one of two scenarios: (I) $C_9^{\mu\mu}({\rm NP}) < 0$ or (II) $C_9^{\mu\mu}({\rm NP}) = - C_{10}^{\mu\mu}({\rm NP}) < 0$. A third scenario, (III) $C_9^{\mu\mu}({\rm NP}) = - C_{9}^{\prime \mu\mu}({\rm NP})$, is rejected largely because it predicts $R_K = 1$, in disagreement with experiment. The simplest NP models involve the tree-level exchange of a leptoquark (LQ) or a $Z'$ boson. We show that scenario (II) can arise in LQ or $Z'$ models, but scenario (I) is only possible with a $Z'$. Fits to $Z'$ models must take into account the additional constraints from $B^0_s$-${\bar B}^0_s$ mixing and neutrino trident production. Although the LQs must be heavy, O(TeV), we find that the $Z'$ can be light, e.g., $M_{Z'} = 10$ GeV or 200 MeV.

Subfields: Nuclear and High Energy Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0f0df01d47d0adefb86d9a4457fd2d1e5e71949c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Nuclear and High Energy Physics

1. R. Watanabe
2. D. London
3. Jacky Kumar
4. Dinesh Kumar
5. Ashutosh Kumar Alok
6. A. Dighe
7. S. Gangal

Citations in the corpus

• Continuing search for new physics in b → sμμ decays: two operators at a time (2019, methodology): “The scenarios with only-CNP 9 , CNP 9 = −CNP 10 , or CNP 9 = −C ′ 9 fit the data much better than the SM [27], though the last one seems to be disfavored since it predicts RK ≈ 1 [39].”
• Combined explanations of the b→sμ+μ− and b→cτ−ν¯ anomalies: A general model analysis (2018, background): “[17], leading to the constraint on C 9 (LQ) = −C 10 (LQ) given in the Table.”