Simultaneous explanation of the R K and R D * $$ {R}_{D^{\left(*\right)}} $$ puzzles: a model analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
R K and $$ {R}_{D^{\left(*\right)}} $$ are two B-decay measurements that presently exhibit discrepancies with the SM. Recently, using an effective field theory approach, it was demonstrated that a new-physics model can simultaneously explain both the R K and $$ {R}_{D^{\left(*\right)}} $$ puzzles. There are two UV completions that can give rise to the effective Lagrangian: (i) V B: a vector boson that transforms as an SU(2) L triplet, as in the SM, (ii) U 1: an SU(2) L -singlet vector leptoquark. In this paper, we examine these models individually. A key point is that V B contributes to $$ {B}_s^0\hbox{-} {\overline{B}}_s^0 $$ mixing and τ → 3μ, while U 1 does not. We show that, when constraints from these processes are taken into account, the V B model is just barely viable. It predicts $$ \mathrm{\mathcal{B}}\left({\tau}^{-}\to {\mu}^{-}{\mu}^{+}{\mu}^{-}\right)\simeq 2.1\times {10}^{-8} $$ . This is measurable at Belle II and LHCb, and therefore constitutes a smoking-gun signal of V B. For U 1, there are several observables that may point to this model. Perhaps the most interesting is the lepton-flavor-violating decay Y(3S) → μτ, which has previously been overlooked in the literature. U 1 predicts $$ {\left.\mathrm{\mathcal{B}}\left(\varUpsilon (3S)\to \mu \tau \right)\right|}_{\max }=8.0\times 1{0}^{-7} $$ . Thus, if a large value of $$ \mathrm{\mathcal{B}}\left(\varUpsilon (3S)\to \mu \tau \right) $$ is observed — and this should be measurable at Belle II — the U 1 model would be indicated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".