Anatomy and phenomenology of FCNC and CPV effects in SUSY theories

By W. Altmannshofer, Andrzej Buras, Stefania Gori, P. Paradisi, David M. Straub. 2009

243 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Abstract We perform an extensive study of FCNC and CP Violation within Supersymmetric (SUSY) theories with particular emphasis put on processes governed by b → s transitions and of their correlations with processes governed by b → d transitions, s → d transitions, D 0 – D ¯ 0 oscillations, lepton flavour violating decays, electric dipole moments and ( g − 2 ) μ . We first perform a comprehensive model-independent analysis of Δ F = 2 observables and we emphasize the usefulness of the R b – γ plane in exhibiting transparently various tensions in the present UT analyses. Secondly, we consider a number of SUSY models: the general MSSM, a flavour-blind MSSM, the MSSM with Minimal Flavour Violation as well as SUSY flavour models based on Abelian and non-Abelian flavour symmetries that show representative flavour structures in the soft SUSY breaking terms. We show how the characteristic patterns of correlations among the considered flavour observables allow to distinguish between these different SUSY scenarios. Of particular importance are the correlations between the CP asymmetry S ψ ϕ and B s → μ + μ − , between the anomalies in S ϕ K S and S ψ ϕ , between S ϕ K S and d e , between S ψ ϕ and ( g − 2 ) μ and also those involving lepton flavour violating decays. In our analysis, the presence of right-handed currents and of the double Higgs penguin contributions to B s mixing plays a very important role. We propose a “DNA-Flavour Test” of NP models including Supersymmetry, the Littlest Higgs model with T-parity and the Randall–Sundrum model with custodial protection, with the aim of showing a tool to distinguish between these NP scenarios, once additional data on flavour-changing processes become available. As a byproduct, we present the SM prediction for BR ( B + → τ + ν ) = ( 0.80 ± 0.12 ) × 10 − 4 that follows solely from an analytical formula for this branching ratio in terms of Δ M s , d and S ψ K S asymmetry and which does not involve V u b and F B uncertainties.

Subfields: Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics, Nuclear and High Energy Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ce66812b4c475a230951c68386889e4dbf7aa8d6

How researchers see this paper

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

In Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics

In Nuclear and High Energy Physics

Citations in the corpus

The anatomy of quark flavour observables in 331 models in the flavour precision era (2012, methodology): “In the literature in order to find the SM prediction for this branching ratio one eliminates these uncertainties by using ∆Md, ∆Md/∆Ms and SψKS [84, 85] and taking experimental values for these three quantities.”
Model-independent constraints on new physics in b → s transitions (2011, methodology): “This is a representative case of many NP models like the MSSM with MFV and flavour blind phases [81, 82], non-MFV SUSY models [83, 84, 102] and also models with dominance of Z penguins;”
Higgs-mediated FCNCs: natural flavour conservation vs. minimal flavour violation (2010, methodology): “This idea cannot be realized in the ordinary MSSM with MFV, as shown in [ 56 ].”
Patterns of flavour violation in the presence of a fourth generation of quarks and leptons (2010, methodology): “This is in contrast to models with right-handed currents, where the AbsγCP asymmetry remains SM3-like [36].”
Charged Lepton Flavour Violation: An Experimental and Theoretical Introduction (2017, background): “((14)) For a general review on SUSY see [127], while for a discussion of its phenomenological implications for flavour observables we refer to [128].”
Electric dipole moments in two-Higgs-doublet models (2013, methodology): “Generally, most of the analyses in the literature are performed within the framework of supersymmetric models (SUSY) (for recent examples, see [33–41] and also the phenomenological analysis in [30]).”