New physics in <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false">→</mml:mo><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mi>μ</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mi>μ</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>−</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math>: Distinguishing models through <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math>-violating effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At present, there are several measurements of $B$ decays that exhibit discrepancies with the predictions of the SM, and suggest the presence of new physics (NP) in $b\ensuremath{\rightarrow}s{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{+}{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{\ensuremath{-}}$ transitions. Many NP models have been proposed as explanations. These involve the tree-level exchange of a leptoquark (LQ) or a flavor-changing ${Z}^{\ensuremath{'}}$ boson. In this paper we examine whether it is possible to distinguish the various models via $CP$-violating effects in $B\ensuremath{\rightarrow}{K}^{(*)}{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{+}{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{\ensuremath{-}}$. Using fits to the data, we find the following results. Of all possible LQ models, only three can explain the data, and these are all equivalent as far as $b\ensuremath{\rightarrow}s{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{+}{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{\ensuremath{-}}$ processes are concerned. In this single LQ model, the weak phase of the coupling can be large, leading to some sizable $CP$ asymmetries in $B\ensuremath{\rightarrow}{K}^{(*)}{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{+}{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{\ensuremath{-}}$. There is a spectrum of ${Z}^{\ensuremath{'}}$ models; the key parameter is ${g}_{L}^{\ensuremath{\mu}\ensuremath{\mu}}$, which describes the strength of the ${Z}^{\ensuremath{'}}$ coupling to ${\ensuremath{\mu}}^{+}{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{\ensuremath{-}}$. If ${g}_{L}^{\ensuremath{\mu}\ensuremath{\mu}}$ is small (large), the constraints from ${B}_{s}^{0}\ensuremath{-}{\overline{B}}_{s}^{0}$ mixing are stringent (weak), leading to a small (large) value of the NP weak phase, and corresponding small (large) $CP$ asymmetries. We therefore find that the measurement of $CP$-violating asymmetries in $B\ensuremath{\rightarrow}{K}^{(*)}{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{+}{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{\ensuremath{-}}$ can indeed distinguish among NP $b\ensuremath{\rightarrow}s{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{+}{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{\ensuremath{-}}$ models.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.202 | 0.008 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".