Combined explanations of the <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false">→</mml:mo><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi>μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mi>μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>−</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math> and <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false">→</mml:mo><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi>τ</mml:mi><mml:mo>−</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>ν</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math> anomalies: A general model analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are four models of tree-level new physics (NP) that can potentially simultaneously explain the $b\ensuremath{\rightarrow}s{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{+}{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{\ensuremath{-}}$ and $b\ensuremath{\rightarrow}c{\ensuremath{\tau}}^{\ensuremath{-}}\overline{\ensuremath{\nu}}$ anomalies. They are the ${S}_{3}$, ${U}_{3}$ and ${U}_{1}$ leptoquarks (LQs), and a triplet of standard-model-like vector bosons ($VB$'s). Under the theoretical assumption that the NP couples predominantly to the third generation, previous analyses found that, when constraints from other processes are taken into account, the ${S}_{3}$, ${U}_{3}$ and $VB$ models cannot explain the $B$ anomalies, but ${U}_{1}$ is viable. In this paper, we reanalyze these models, but without any assumption about their couplings. We find that, even in this most general case, ${S}_{3}$ and ${U}_{3}$ are excluded. For the ${U}_{1}$ model, constraints from the semileptonic lepton-flavor-violating (LFV) processes $B\ensuremath{\rightarrow}{K}^{(*)}{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}}{\ensuremath{\tau}}^{\ensuremath{\mp}}$, $\ensuremath{\tau}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\ensuremath{\mu}\ensuremath{\phi}$ and $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Upsilon}}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\ensuremath{\mu}\ensuremath{\tau}$, which have been largely ignored previously, are found to be very important. Because of the LFV constraints, the pattern of couplings of the ${U}_{1}$ LQ is similar to that obtained with the above theoretical assumption. Also, the LFV constraints render unimportant those constraints obtained using the renormalization group equations. As for the $VB$ model, it is excluded if the above theoretical assumption is made due to the additional constraints from ${B}_{s}^{0}\text{\ensuremath{-}}{\overline{B}}_{s}^{0}$ mixing, $\ensuremath{\tau}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}3\ensuremath{\mu}$ and $\ensuremath{\tau}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\ensuremath{\mu}\ensuremath{\nu}\overline{\ensuremath{\nu}}$. By contrast, we find a different set of NP couplings that both explains the $b\ensuremath{\rightarrow}s{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{+}{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{\ensuremath{-}}$ anomaly and is compatible with all constraints. However, it does not reproduce the measured values of the $b\ensuremath{\rightarrow}c{\ensuremath{\tau}}^{\ensuremath{-}}\overline{\ensuremath{\nu}}$ anomalies---it would be viable only if future measurements find that the central values of these anomalies are reduced. Even so, this $VB$ model is excluded by the LHC bounds on high-mass resonant dimuon pairs. This conclusion is reached without any assumptions about the NP couplings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.571 | 0.362 |
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".