Resolving $R_D$ and $R_{D^*}$ anomalies
Suman Kumbhakar, Ashutosh Kumar Alok, Dinesh Kumar, S Uma Sankar

TL;DR
This paper proposes a method to distinguish different new physics explanations for the observed anomalies in B meson decays by measuring specific polarization and angular asymmetries.
Contribution
It introduces a set of observables in B decay that can uniquely identify the Lorentz structure of potential new physics.
Findings
Measurement of polarization fractions can discriminate between new physics models.
Angular asymmetries provide additional constraints on new physics operators.
The approach can resolve degeneracies among different new physics explanations.
Abstract
The current world averages of the ratios are about away from their Standard Model prediction. These measurements indicate towards the violation of lepton flavor universality in decay. The different new physics operators, which can explain the measurements, have been identified previously. We show that a simultaneous measurement of the polarization fractions of and and the angular asymmetries and in decay can distinguish all the new physics amplitudes and hence uniquely identify the Lorentz structure of new physics.
| NP WCs | Fit values | ||||
| SM | |||||
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
11institutetext: Suman Kumbhakar 22institutetext: Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400076, India, 22email: [email protected] 33institutetext: Ashutosh Kumar Alok 44institutetext: Indian Institute of Technology Jodhpur, Jodhpur 342011, India, 44email: [email protected] 55institutetext: Dinesh Kumar 66institutetext: University of Rajasthan, Jaipur 302004, India, 66email: [email protected] 77institutetext: S Uma Sankar 88institutetext: Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400076, India, 88email: [email protected]
Resolving and anomalies
Suman Kumbhakar
Ashutosh Kumar Alok
Dinesh Kumar and S Uma Sankar
Abstract
The current world averages of the ratios are about away from their Standard Model prediction. These measurements indicate towards the violation of lepton flavor universality in decay. The different new physics operators, which can explain the measurements, have been identified previously. We show that a simultaneous measurement of the polarization fractions of and and the angular asymmetries and in decay can distinguish all the new physics amplitudes and hence uniquely identify the Lorentz structure of new physics.
1 Introduction
In recent years, the evidence for charged lepton universality violation is observed in the charge current process . The experiments, BaBar, Belle and LHCb, made several measurements of the ratios
[TABLE]
The current world averges of these measurements are about away from the Standard Model (SM) predictions Amhis:2016xyh .
All the meson decays in eq. (1) are driven by quark level transitions . These transitions occur at tree level in the SM. The discrepancy between the measured values of and and their respective SM predictions is an indication of presence of new physics (NP) in the transition. The possibility of NP in is excluded by other data Alok:2017qsi . All possible NP four-Fermi operators for transition are listed in ref. Freytsis:2015qca . In ref Alok:2017qsi , a fit was performed between all the data and each of the NP interaction term. The NP terms, which can account for the all data, are identified and their Wilson coefficients (WCs) are calculated. It was found that there are six allowed NP solutions. Among those six solutions, four solutions are distinct with a different Lorentz structure. In ref. Alok:2016qyh it was found that the tensor NP solution could be distinguished from other possibilities provided , the polarization fraction can be measured with an absolute uncertainty of .
Here, we consider four angular observables, ( polarization fraction), ( polarization fraction), (the forward-backward asymmetry), (longitudinal-transverse asymmetry) in the decay . Note that these asymmetries can only be measured if the momentum of the lepton is reconstructed. We show that a measurement of these four quantities can uniquely identify the Lorentz structure of the NP operator responsible for the present discrepancy in and Alok:2018uft .
2 Distinguishing different new physics solutions
The most general effective Hamiltonian for transition can be written as
[TABLE]
where is the Fermi coupling constant, is the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix element and the NP scale is assumed to be 1 TeV. We also assume that neutrino is always left chiral. The effective Hamiltonian for the SM contains only the operator. The explicit forms of the four-fermion operators , and are given in ref Freytsis:2015qca . The NP effects are encoded in the NP WCs and . Each primed and double primed operator can be expressed as a linear combination of unprimed operators through Feirz transformation.
The values of NP WCs which fit the data on the observables , , , and , have been calculated previously Alok:2017qsi . Here is the ratio of to Aaij:2017tyk . The results of these fits are listed in table 1. This table also lists, for each of the NP solutions, the predicted values of the polarization fractions and the angular asymmetries in decay.
Here we compute and in decay, as functions of , where and are the four momenta of and respectively. The predictions for , and are calculated using the framework provided in Sakaki:2013bfa and for we follow ref Alok:2010zd ; Duraisamy:2014sna .
The decay distributions depend upon hadronic form-factors. The form factors for decay are well known in lattice QCD Aoki:2016frl and we use them in our analyses. For decay, the HQET parameters are extracted using data from Belle and BaBar experiments along with lattice inputs. In this work, the numerical values of these parameters are taken from refs. Bailey:2014tva and Amhis:2016xyh .
This table lists six different NP solutions but only the first four solutions are distinct Alok:2017qsi . Thus we have four different NP solutions with different Lorentz structures. We explore methods to distinguish between them.
3 Results and Discussions
The average values of and for all six NP solutions are given in table 1. Not surprisingly, there is a large difference between the predicted values for solution and those for other NP solutions. If either of these observables is measured with an absolute uncertainty of , then the solution is either confirmed or ruled out at level.
We now show that the angular asymmetries and have a good discrimination capability between the three remaining NP WCs. The plots for and as a function of are shown in the bottom row of fig. 1 and their average values are listed in table 1. We see that the plots of both and , for solution, differ significantly from the plots of all other NP solutions as do the average values. If either of these asymmetries is measured with an absolute uncertainty of , then the solution is either confirmed or ruled out at level.
So far we have identified observables which can clearly identify the and the solutions. As we can see from table 1, one needs to measure with an absolute uncertainty of or better to obtain a distinction between and solutions. However, this ability to make the distinction can be improved by observing dependence of for these solutions. We note that for solution has a zero crossing at GeV2 whereas this crossing point occurs at GeV2 for solution. A calculation of in the limited range GeV gives the result for and for . Hence, determining the sign of , for the full range and for the limited higher range, provides a very useful tool for discrimination between these two solutions.
Hence, we find that a clear distinction can be made between the four different NP solutions to the / puzzle by means of polarization fractions and angular asymmetries. Note that only the observables ( and ) isolating do not require the reconstruction of momentum. The reconstruction of momentum is crucial to measure the asymmetries which can distinguish between the other three NP solutions.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1(1) Y. Amhis et al. [HFLAV Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) no.12, 895
- 2(2) A. K. Alok, D. Kumar, J. Kumar, S. Kumbhakar and S. U. Sankar, JHEP 09 (2018) 152
- 3(3) M. Freytsis, Z. Ligeti and J. T. Ruderman, Phys. Rev. D 92 , no. 5, 054018 (2015)
- 4(4) A. K. Alok, D. Kumar, S. Kumbhakar and S. U. Sankar, Phys. Rev. D 95 , no. 11, 115038 (2017)
- 5(5) A. K. Alok, D. Kumar, S. Kumbhakar and S. Uma Sankar, Phys. Lett. B 784 (2018) 16
- 6(6) R. Aaij et al. [LH Cb Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) no.12, 121801
- 7(7) Y. Sakaki, M. Tanaka, A. Tayduganov and R. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. D 88 , no. 9, 094012 (2013)
- 8(8) A. K. Alok, A. Datta, A. Dighe, M. Duraisamy, D. Ghosh and D. London, JHEP 1111 (2011) 121.
