On the importance of electroweak corrections for B anomalies

By F. Feruglio, P. Paradisi, Andrea Pattori. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2017

164 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The growing experimental indication of Lepton Flavour Universality Violation (LFUV) both in charged- and neutral-current semileptonic B-decays, has triggered many theoretical interpretations of such non-standard phenomena. Focusing on popular scenarios where the explanation of these anomalies requires New Physics at the TeV scale, we emphasise the importance of including electroweak corrections to obtain trustable predictions for the models in question. We find that the most important quantum effects are the modifications of the leptonic couplings of the W and Z vector bosons and the generation of a purely leptonic effective Lagrangian. Although our results do not provide an inescapable no-go theorem for the explanation of the B anomalies, the tight experimental bounds on Z-pole observables and τ decays challenge an explanation of the current non-standard data. We illustrate how these effects arise, by providing a detailed discussion of the running and matching procedure which is necessary to derive the low-energy effective Lagrangian.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Nuclear and High Energy Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/db62b0a168787d2b0441f1f0fb9ab1e79d04f228

How researchers see this paper

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

In Artificial Intelligence

In Nuclear and High Energy Physics

Citations in the corpus

Review of lepton universality tests in B decays (2018, background): “lson coecients at the low-energy scale. At the level of accuracy reached by such computations, electroweak corrections both in the SM and in NP scenarios can also be included and may prove important [27,28]. Moreover, this framework can be easily extended to include NP eects. These will lead either ”
Opportunities in Flavour Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC (2018, unknown): “, bb̄ → ττ [369], bc̄ → τν [378] or h → ττ [1065], while radiative corrections can result in constraints from lepton universality in τ decays [970], lepton-flavor violating decays [970], charged-lepton magnetic moments [1065] and electric dipole moments [1066].”
B-decay discrepancies after Moriond 2019 (2019, background): “op matching onto dipole operators in SMEFT as discussed above.9 This underlines the importance of taking into account loop eects, both in the RG running and in the matching, as emphasized already in [80,102,103]. 8Our analysis includes RG-induced logarithms. Note that the interactions in Eq. (27) an”
Combined explanations of the b→sμ+μ− and b→cτ−ν¯ anomalies: A general model analysis (2018, background): “[35, 47], additional constraints were derived.”
B-physics anomalies: a guide to combined explanations (2017, background): “The main effect, proportional to y2 t , is given by [34, 35]”
Baryon number and lepton universality violation in leptoquark and diquark models (2017, background): “It has been pointed out that generally the condition ∆Cν(M) = 0 is not preserved by renormalization group running of the Wilson coefficients [63].”
What is the scale of new physics behind the B-flavour anomalies? (2017, background): “Other phenomenological issues that have to be taken into account when considering a simplified model are electroweak precision tests and the radiative generation of LFU breaking effects in Z and τ decays [41, 42].”
Charged Lepton Flavour Violation: An Experimental and Theoretical Introduction (2017, background): “physics scale down to low energies – induce other classes of operators that contribute to, among other effects, Z couplings to leptons and τ decays [226, 227].”
Physics beyond colliders at CERN: beyond the Standard Model working group report (2019, background): “Added impetus comes from the recent hints for the violation of lepton universality in B-meson decays, as this phenomenon, in general, implies LFV, with many theorists predicting effects just below the current experimental bounds [122–125].”