The methods and results of papers (Ⅰ) and (Ⅱ) are applied to the interacting boson model (IBM) of nuclei. With the use of the SU6U5O5O3 representation the matrix elements of the phenomenological IBM Hamiltonian are expressed in terms of some "elementary matrix elements" of d-dosons. In accordance with the existing physical bases for d-boson systems and taking the SU2×SU2 representation as an intermediate representation, two types of formulas are constructed for the elementary matrix elements.
In the recent years, several interesting anomalies emerged in the experimental data of semi-leptonic B-meson decays. The ratios RD(∗)≡B(B→D(∗)τˉν)/B(B→D(∗)ℓˉν) with ℓ=e,μ, obtained by latest averages of the measurements by BaBar [1, 2], Belle [3–6] and LHCb Collaboration [7–9], yield [10]
In comparison to the branching fractions, these ratios have the advantage that, apart from the significant reduction of the experimental systematic uncertainties, the CKM matrix element Vcb cancels out, and the sensitivity to B→D(∗) transition form factors becomes much weaker. The SM predictions read [10]
RSMD=0.299±0.003,RSMD∗=0.258±0.005,
(2)
which are obtained from the arithmetic averages of the most recent calculations performed by several groups [11-14]. The SM predictions for RD and RD∗ have values below the experimental measurements by 2.3σ and 3.0σ, respectively. Taking into account the measurement correlation of −0.203 between RD and RD∗, the combined experimental results exhibit about 3.78σ deviation from the SM predictions [10]. For the Bc→J/ψτˉν decay, which is mediated by the same quark-level process as B→D(∗)τˉν, the recently measured ratio RexpJ/ψ=0.71±0.17(stat.)±0.18(syst.) at the LHCb [15] lies within about 2σ above the SM prediction RSMJ/ψ=0.248±0.006 [16]. In addition, the LHCb measurements of the ratios RK(∗)≡B(B→K(∗)μ+μ−)/B(B→K(∗)e+e−), RexpK=0.745+0.090−0.074±0.036 for q2∈[1.0,6.0]GeV2 [17] and RexpK∗=0.69+0.11−0.07±0.05 for q2∈[1.1,6.0]GeV2 [18], are found to be about 2.6σ and 2.5σ lower than the SM expectation, RSMK(∗)≃1 [19, 20], respectively. These measurements, referred to as the RD(∗), RJ/ψ, and RK(∗) anomalies, may provide hints of the Lepton Flavor University (LFU) violation and have motivated numerous studies of new-physics (NP) both in the effective field theory (EFT) approach [21–34] and in specific NP models [35–60]. We refer to Refs. [61, 62] for recent reviews.
The first measurement on the D∗ longitudinal polarization fraction in the B→D∗τˉν decay has recently been reported by the Belle Collaboration [63, 64]
PD∗L=0.60±0.08(stat.)±0.04(syst.),
which is consistent with the SM prediction of PD∗L=0.46±0.04 [65] at 1.5σ. Previously, the Belle Collaboration also performed measurements on τ polarization in the B→D∗τˉν decay and obtained the result PτL=−0.38±0.51(stat.)+0.21−0.16(syst.) [5, 6]. Angular distributions can provide valuable information about the spin structure of the interaction in B→D(∗)τˉν decays, and they are good observables for the testing of various NP explanations [66–70]. Measurements of angular distributions are expected to significantly improve in the future. For example, Belle II with 50ab−1 data can measure PτL with a precision of ±0.07 [71].
In this work, motivated by these recent experimental progresses, we study the RD(∗) anomalies in the supersymmetry (SUSY) with R-parity violation (RPV). In this scenario, the down-type squarks interact with quarks and leptons via RPV couplings. Therefore, they contribute to the b→cτˉν transition at the tree level and could explain the current RD(∗) anomalies [72–74]. Besides B→D(∗)τˉν, we will also study the Bc→J/ψτˉν, Bc→ηcτˉν, and Λb→Λcτˉν decay. All of them depict the b→cτˉν transition at the quark level, whereas the latter two decays have not been measured yet. Using the latest experimental data of various low-energy flavor processes, we derive the constraints of the RPV couplings. Subsequently, predictions in the RPV SUSY are made for the five b→cτˉν decays, focusing on the q2 distributions of the branching fractions, LFU ratios, and various angular observables. We have also taken into account recent developments regarding the form factors [11, 14, 16, 75, 76]. Implications for future research at the high-luminosity LHC (HL-LHC) and SuperKEKB are briefly discussed.
This paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, we briefly review the SUSY with RPV interactions. In Section 3, we recapitulate the theoretical formulae for various flavor processes, and discuss the SUSY effects. In Section 4, detailed numerical results and discussions are presented. We present the conclusions in Section 5. The relevant form factors are recapitulated in Appendix A.
where L and Q denote the SU(2) doublet lepton and quark superfields, respectively. E and U (D) depict the singlet lepton and quark superfields, respectively. i, j and k indicate generation indices. To ensure the proton stability, we assume the couplings λ′′ijk are zero. In semi-leptonic B meson decays, contribution from the λ term occurs through the exchange of sleptons, and it is much more suppressed than the one from the λ′ term, which occurs through the exchange of right-handed down-type squarks [72]. Therefore, we only consider the λ′ijkLiQjDck term in this work. For the SUSY scenario with the λ term, studies on the RD(∗) anomalies with slepton exchanges can be found in Refs. [79, 80].
The interaction with λ′ijk couplings can be expanded in terms of fermions and sfermions as [72]
where Vij denotes the CKM matrix element. Here, all the SM fermions dL,R, ℓL,R, and νL are in their mass eigenstate. Since we neglect the tiny neutrino masses, the PMNS matrix is not needed for the lepton sector. For the sfermions, we assume that they are in the mass eigenstate. We refer to Ref. [77] for more details about the choice of basis. Finally, we adopt the assumption in Ref. [74] stating that only the third family is effectively supersymmetrized. This case is equivalent to the one where the first two generations are decoupled from the low-energy spectrum, as in Refs. [81, 82]. For the studies including the first two generation sfermions, we refer to Ref. [73], where both the RD(∗) and RK(∗) anomalies are discussed.
The down-type squarks and the scalar leptoquark (LQ) discussed in Ref. [83] have similar interactions with the SM fermions. However, in the most general case, the LQ can couple to the right-handed SU(2)L singlets, which is forbidden in the RPV SUSY. Such right-handed couplings are important to explain the (g−2)μ anomaly in the LQ scenario [83]. Moreover, these couplings can also affect semi-leptonic B decays. In particular, their contributions to the B→D(∗)τˉν decays are found to be small after considering other flavor constraints [52].
with the Higgs vev v = 246 GeV. This Wilson coefficient is at the matching scale μNP∼m˜bR. However, since the corresponding current is conserved, we can obtain the low-energy Wilson coefficient without considering the renormalization group evolution (RGE) effects, i.e., CNPL,i(μb)=CNPL,i(μNP).
For b→cℓˉν transitions, we consider five processes, including B→D(∗)ℓˉν [84-86], Bc→ηcℓˉν [16, 87], Bc→J/ψℓˉν [88–96], and Λb→Λcℓˉν [97-100] decays. All these decays can be uniformly denoted as
M(pM,λM)→N(pN,λN)+ℓ−(pℓ,λℓ)+ˉνℓ(pˉνℓ),
(7)
where (M,N)=(B,D),(Bc,ηc),(B,D∗),(Bc,J/ψ), and (Λb,Λc), and (ℓ,ˉν)=(e,ˉνe),(μ,ˉνμ), and (τ,ˉντ). For each particle i in the above decay, its momentum and helicity are denoted as pi and λi, respectively. In particular, the helicity of pseudoscalar meson is zero, e.g., λD=0. After summation of the helicity of parent hadron M, the differential decay width for this process can be written as [67, 101]
where q=pM−pN, m±=mM±mN, and Q±=m2±−q2. The angle θℓ∈[0,π] denotes the angle between the three-momentum of ℓ and that of N in the ℓ-ˉν center-of-mass frame. The following observables can be derived with the differential decay width:
• The decay width and branching ratio
dBdq2=1ΓMdΓdq2=1ΓM∑λN,λℓdΓλN,λℓdq2,
(9)
where ΓM is the total width of the hadron M.
• The LFU ratio
RN(q2)=dΓ(M→Nτˉντ)/dq2dΓ(M→Nℓˉνℓ)/dq2,
(10)
where dΓ(M→Nℓˉνℓ)/dq2 in the denominator denotes the average of different decay widths of the electronic and muonic modes.
Explicit expressions of the helicity amplitudes MλMλN,λℓ≡⟨Nℓˉνℓ|Heff|M⟩ and all the above observables can be found in Ref. [102] for B→D(∗)τˉν decays, and Ref. [76] for the Λb→Λcτˉν decay. The expressions for Bc→ηcτˉν and Bc→J/ψτˉν are analogical to the ones for B→Dτˉν and B→D∗τˉν, respectively. Since these angular observables are ratios of decay widths, they are largely free of hadronic uncertainties, and thus provide excellent tests of lepton flavor universality. The RPV SUSY effects generate the operator with the same chirality structure as in the SM, as shown in Eq. (5). Derivation of the following relation in all the b→cτˉν decays is straightforward:
RNRSMN=|1+CNPL,2|2,
(13)
for N=D(∗),ηc,J/ψ, and Λc. Here, vanishing contributions to the electronic and muonic channels are assumed.
The hadronic M→N transition form factors are important inputs to calculate the observables introduced above. In recent years, notable progress has been achieved in this field [11-14, 75, 76, 87, 97, 103–110]. For B→D(∗) transitions, it was already emphasized that the Caprini-Lellouch-Neubert (CLN) parameterization [111] does not account for uncertainties in the values of the subleading Isgur-Wise functions at zero recoil obtained with QCD sum rules [112–114], where the number of parameters is minimal [13]. In this work, we don’t use such simplified parameterization, but adopt the conservative approach in Refs. [11, 14], based on the Boyd-Grinstein-Lebed (BGL) parameterization [115]. Furthermore, we use the Bc→ηc,J/ψ transition form factors obtained in the covariant light-front approach [16]. For the Λb→Λc transition form factor, we adopt the recent lattice QCD results from Refs. [75, 76]. Explicit expressions of all the form factors used in our work are recapitulated in Appendix A.
For b→uτˉν transitions, we consider B→τˉν, B→πτˉν and B→ρτˉν decays. Similar to Eq. (13), we have
The SUSY contributions to both b→uτˉν and b→cτˉν transitions depend on the same set of parameters, λ′313, λ′323, and λ′333. Therefore, the ratios RD∗ are related to the B→τˉν decay.
The Flavor-Changing Neutral Current (FCNC) decays B+→K+νˉν and B+→π+νˉν are induced by the b→sνˉν and b→dνˉν transitions, respectively. In the SM, they are forbidden at the tree level and highly suppressed at the one-loop level due to the GIM mechanism. In the RPV SUSY, the sbottoms can contribute to these decays at the tree level, which results in strong constraints on the RPV couplings. Similar to the b→c(u)τˉν transitions, the RPV interactions do not generate new operators beyond the ones presented in the SM. Therefore, we have [73, 74]
where the gauge-invariant function Xt=1.469±0.017 arises from the box and Z-penguin diagrams in the SM [116].
The leptonic W and Z couplings are also important to probe the RPV SUSY effects [26, 117]. In particular, W and Z couplings involving left-handed τ leptons can receive contributions from the loop diagrams mediated by top quark and sbottom. These effects modify the leptonic W and Z couplings as [74]
where ℓ=e,μ and sW=sinθW with θW the weak mixing angle. The loop functions fZ(x) and fW(x) have been calculated in Refs. [26, 74, 117] and are given by fZ(x)=1/(x−1)−logx/(x−1)2 and fW(x)=1/(x−1)−(2−x)logx/(x−1)2. Experimental measurements on the ZτLτL couplings have been performed at the LEP and SLD [118]. Their combined results yield gZτLτL/gZℓLℓL=1.0013±0.0019 [74]. The WτLντ coupling can be extracted from τ decay data. The measured τ decay fractions compared to the μ decay fractions yield gWτLντ/gWℓLνℓ=1.0007±0.0013 [74]. Both the leptonic W and Z couplings are measured at the few permille level. Therefore, they assert strong bounds on the RPV coupling λ′333.
RPV interactions can likewise affect K-meson decays, e.g., K→πνˉν, D-meson decays, e.g., D→τˉν, and τ lepton decays, e.g., τ→πν. However, as discussed in Ref. [74], their constraints are weaker than the ones from the processes discussed above. Moreover, the bound from the Bc lifetime [119, 120] is not relevant, since the RPV SUSY contributions to Bc→τˉν are not chirally enhanced compared to the SM.
Other interesting anomalies arose in the recent LHCb measurements of RK(∗)≡B(B→K(∗)μ+μ−)/B(B→K(∗)e+e−), which exhibit about 2σ deviation from the SM prediction [17, 18] and are refered to as RK(∗) anomalies. The RK(∗) anomalies imply hints of LFU violation in b→sℓ+ℓ− transition. In the RPV SUSY, the left-handed stop can affect this process at the tree level, and the right-handed sbottom can contribute at the one-loop level. However, as discussed in Ref. [73], once all other flavor constraints are taken into account, no parameter space in the RPV SUSY can explain the current RK(∗) anomaly.
Finally, we briefly comment on the direct searches for sbottoms at the LHC. Using data corresponding to 35.9fb−1 at 13 TeV, the CMS collaboration has performed search for heavy scalar leptoquarks in the pp→tˉtτ+τ− channel. The results can be directly re-interpreted in the context of pair-produced sbottoms decaying into top quark and τ lepton pairs via the RPV coupling λ′333. Then, the mass of the sbottom is excluded up to 810 GeV at 95% CL [121].
In this section, we proceed to present our numerical analysis for the RPV SUSY scenario introduced in Section 2. We derive the constraints of the RPV couplings and study their effects on various processes.
The most relevant input parameters used in our numerical analysis are presented in Table 1. Employing the theoretical framework described in Section 3, the SM predictions for the B→D(∗)τˉν, Bc→ηcτˉν, Bc→J/ψτˉν, and Λb→Λcτˉν decays are given in Table 2. To obtain the theoretical uncertainties, we vary each input parameter within its 1σ range and add each individual uncertainty in quadrature. For the uncertainties induced by form factors, we also include the correlations among the fit parameters. In particular, for the Λb→Λcτˉν decay, we follow the treatment of Ref. [75] to obtain the statistical and systematic uncertainties induced by the form factors. From Table 2, we can see that the experimental data on the ratios RD, RD∗ and RJ/ψ deviate from the SM predictions by 2.33σ, 2.74σ and 1.87σ, respectively.
Table 2
Table 2.
Predictions for branching fractions and ratios R of five b→cτˉν channels in SM and RPV SUSY. The sign "–" denotes no available measurements at present. Upper limits are all at 90% CL.
In the RPV SUSY scenario introduced in Section 2, the relevant parameters used to explain the RD(∗) anomalies are (λ′313,λ′323,λ′333) and m˜bR. In Section 3, we know only that the three products of the RPV couplings, (λ′313λ′∗333,λ′323λ′∗333,λ′333λ′∗333), appear in the various flavor processes. In the following analysis, we will assume that these products are real and derive bounds on them. We impose the experimental constraints in the same manner as in Refs. [124, 125], i.e., for each point in the parameter space, if the difference between the corresponding theoretical prediction and experimental data is less than the 2σ(3σ) error bar, which is evaluated by adding the theoretical and experimental errors in quadrature, this point is regarded as allowed at the 2σ(3σ) level. From Section 3, it is known that the RPV couplings always appear in the form of λ′3i3λ′∗333/m2˜bR in all B decays. Therefore, we can assume m˜bR=1TeV without loss of generality, which is equivalent to absorbing m˜bR into λ′3i3λ′∗333. Furthermore, the choice of m˜bR=1TeV is compatible with the direct searches for the sbottoms at CMS [121]. In the SUSY contributions to the couplings gZτLτL and gWτLντ in Eq. (16), additional m˜bR dependence arises in the loop functions fZ(m2t/m2˜bR) and fW(m2t/m2˜bR), respectively. As described in the next subsection, our numerical results show that such m˜bR dependence is weak, and the choice of m˜bR=1TeV does not lose much generality.
As shown in Table 2, the current experimental upper bounds imposed on the branching ratio of B+→K+νˉν and B+→π+νˉν are one order above their SM values. However, since the SUSY contributes to these decays at the tree level, the RPV couplings are strongly constrained as
at 2σ level. For the leptonic W and Z couplings, the current measurements on gWτLντ/gWℓLνℓ and gZτLτL/gZℓLℓL have achieved the precision level of a few permille. We find that the latter can yield a stronger constraint, which reads
λ′333λ′∗333<0.93,(fromgZτLτL/gZℓLℓL)
(18)
or |λ′333|<0.96, at the 2σ level. This upper bound prevents the coupling λ′333 from developing a Landau pole below the GUT scale [126].
As discussed in Section 3, the RPV interactions affect b→cτˉν transitions via the three products (λ′313λ′∗333,λ′323λ′∗333,λ′333λ′∗333). After considering the above individual constraints at 2σ level, the parameter space to explain the current measurements on RD(∗), RJ/ψ, PτL(D∗) and PD∗L is shown in Fig. 1 for m˜bR=1TeV. The B→D(∗)τˉν decays and other flavor observables are observed to put very stringent constraints on the RPV couplings. The combined constraints are slightly stronger than the individual ones in Eqs. (17) and (18). Moreover, after taking into account the bounds from B+→K+νˉν and gZτLτL, the B→D(∗)τˉν decays are very sensitive to the product λ′323λ′∗333. Consequently, current RD(∗) anomalies yield a lower bound on |λ′323λ′∗333|. Finally, the combined bounds in Fig. 1 read numerically,
Figure 1
Figure 1.
(color online) Allowed parameter space of (λ′313λ′∗333,λ′323λ′∗333,λ′333λ′∗333) by all flavor processes at 2σ level with m˜bR=1TeV, plotted in the (λ′313λ′∗333,λ′323λ′∗333) (a), (λ′313λ′∗333,λ′333λ′∗333) (b), and (λ′323λ′∗333,λ′333λ′∗333) (c) plane. Figure (d) shows the allowed region in (m˜bR,λ′333λ′∗333/m2˜bR) plane.
As shown, a weak lower bound on λ′333λ′∗333 is also obtained. Although the constraints from the D∗ polarization fraction PD∗L are much stronger than the ones from the τ polarization fraction PτL, this observable cannot provide further constraints on the RPV couplings. From previous discussions, we show the combined upper bound on λ′333λ′∗333/m2˜bR as a function of m˜bR in Fig. 1(d). The upper limit of λ′333λ′∗333/m2˜bR changes around 20% by varying m˜bR from 800GeV to 2000GeV. Therefore, the allowed parameter space for m˜bR≠1TeV can approximately be obtained from Fig. 1(a)-1(c) by timing a factor of (m˜bR/1TeV)2.
In the parameter space allowed by all the constraints at the 2σ level, correlations among several observables are obtained, as shown in Fig. 2. In these figures, the SUSY predictions are central values without theoretical uncertainties. From Fig. 2(a), we can see that the central values of RD and RD∗ are strongly correlated, as expected from Eq. (13). The SUSY effects can only enhance the central value of RD(∗) by about 8%, such that the ratios RD(∗) approach, but still lie outside, the 2σ range of the HFLAV averages. Therefore, future refined measurements will provide a crucial test to the RPV SUSY explanation of RD(∗) anomalies. At Belle II, precisions of RD(∗) measurements are expected to be about 2%–4% [71] with a luminosity of 50ab−1. Fig. 2(b), it can be seen that both RD∗ and B(B+→K+νˉν) deviate from their SM predictions. The lower bound for the latter is B(B+→K+νˉν)>7.37×10−6, which is due to the lower bound of λ′323λ′∗333>0.018 obtained in the last section. Compared to the SM prediction B(B+→K+νˉν)SM=(3.98±0.47)×10−6, such significant enhancement makes this decay an important probe of the RPV SUSY effects. In the future, Belle II with 50ab−1 data can measure its branching ratio with a precision of 11% [71]. Another interesting correlation arises between B(B+→K+νˉν) and gZτLτL/gZℓLℓL. As shown in Fig. 2(f), the RPV SUSY effects always enhance B(B+→K+νˉν) and suppress gZτLτL/gZℓLℓL simultaneously. When gZτLτL/gZℓLℓL approaches the SM value 1, the branching ratio of B+→K+νˉν maximally deviates from its SM prediction. In Fig. 2(d) and 2(e), we show the correlations involving B→τν decay. The SUSY prediction on B(B→τˉν) is almost in the SM 1σ range. Since the future Belle II sensitivity at 50ab−1 is comparable to the current theoretical uncertainties [71], significantly more precise theoretical predictions are required in the future to probe the SUSY effects.
Figure 2
Figure 2.
(color online) Correlations among various observables. SM predictions correspond to the green cross, while the correlations in the RPV SUSY are depicted by red points. In Fig. 2(a), the current HFLAV averages for RD and RD∗ are shown as the black region, and the 2σ (4σ) experimental region is depicted in gray (light gray). In other figures, the 1σ experimental region is shown in black. The 2σ regions for RD∗ are also depicted in gray.
Using the allowed parameter space at the 2σ level derived in the last subsection, we make predictions on the five b→cτˉν decays, B→D(∗)τˉν, Bc→ηcτˉν, Bc→J/ψτˉν, and Λb→Λcτˉν decays. In Table 2, the SM and SUSY predictions of the various observables in these decays are presented. The SUSY predictions have included the uncertainties induced by the form factors and CKM matrix elements. At present, there are no available measurements on the Bc→ηcτˉν and Λb→Λcτˉν decays. Table 2 shows that, although the SUSY predictions for the branching fractions and the LFU ratios in these two decays overlap with their 1σ SM range, they can be considerably enhanced by the RPV SUSY effects.
Now we start to analyze the q2 distributions of the differential branching fraction B, LFU ratio R, lepton forward-backward asymmetry AFB, polarization fraction of τ lepton PτL, and the polarization fraction of daughter meson (PD∗L, PJ/ψL, PΛcL). For the two “B→P” transitions B→Dτˉν and Bc→ηcτˉν, their differential observables in the SM and RPV SUSY are shown in Fig. 3. All the differential distributions of these two decays are very similar, whereas the observables in Bc→ηcτˉν suffer from larger theoretical uncertainties, which are due to the large uncertainties induced by the Bc→ηc form factors. In the RPV SUSY, the branching fraction of B→Dτˉν decay can be largely enhanced, while the LFU ratio is almost indistinguishable from the SM prediction. Therefore, it is difficult for the differential distribution of RD(q2) to provide testable signature of the RPV SUSY. Moreover, the RPV SUSY does not affect the forward-backward asymmetry AFB and τ polarization fraction PτL in these two decays, as shown in Fig. 3. The reason behind this is that the RPV couplings only modify the Wilson coefficient CL,2, and its effects in the numerator and denominator in Eqs. (11) and (12) cancel out exactly. This feature could be used to distinguish from the NP candidates, which can explain the RD(∗) anomaly, but involves scalar or tensor interactions [83, 127, 128].
Figure 3
Figure 3.
(color online) Differential observables in B→Dτˉν (left) and Bc→ηcτˉν (right) decays. The black curves (gray band) indicate the SM (SUSY) central values with 1σ theoretical uncertainty.
The differential observables in the B→D∗τˉν and Bc→J/ψτˉν decays are shown in Fig. 4. As expected, these two “B→V” processes have very similar distributions. In these two decays, the enhancement by the RPV SUSY effects is not large enough to make the branching ratios deviate from the SM values by more than 1σ. However, the LFU ratios RD∗(q2) and RJ/ψ(q2) are significantly enhanced in the entire kinematical region, especially in the large dilepton invariant mass region. In this end-point region, the theoretical predictions suffer from very small uncertainties compared to the other kinematical region. By this virtue, the LFU ratios RD∗(q2) and RJ/ψ(q2) in the RPV SUSY deviate from the SM predictions by about 2σ. Therefore, future measurements on these differential ratios could provide more information about the RD(∗) anomaly and are important for the indirect searches for SUSY. In addition, as in the B→Dτˉν and Bc→ηcτˉν decays, the angular observables AFB, PτL and PD∗,J/ψL are not affected by the SUSY effects.
Figure 4
Figure 4.
(color online) Differential observables in B→D∗τˉν (left) and Bc→J/ψτˉν (right) decays. The black curves (gray band) indicate the SM (SUSY) central values with 1σ theoretical uncertainty.
Figure 5 shows the differential observables in the Λb→Λcτν decay. The RPV SUSY effects significantly enhance the branching fraction and the LFU ratio. In particular, at the large dilepton invariant mass, the ratio RΛc(q2) in the SUSY exhibits a higher than 2σ discrepancy from the SM values. With large Λb samples at the future HL-LHC, this decay is expected to provide complementary information to the direct SUSY searches. In addition, as in the other decays, the RPV SUSY effects vanish in various angular observables.
Figure 5
Figure 5.
(color online) Differential observables in Λb→Λcτˉν decay. Other captions are the same as in Fig. 3.
Recently, several hints of lepton flavor universality violation have been observed in the experimental data of semi-leptonic B decays. Motivated by the recent measurements of PD∗L, we have investigated the RPV SUSY effects in b→cτˉν transitions. After considering various flavor processes, we obtain strong constraints of the RPV couplings, which are dominated by B(B+→π+νˉν), B(B+→K+νˉν), and gZτLτL. In the surviving parameter space, the RD(∗) anomaly can be explained at the 2σ level, which results in bounds on the coupling products, −0.082<λ′313λ′∗333<0.087, 0.018<λ′323λ′∗333<0.057, and 0.033<λ′333λ′∗333<0.928. The upper bound on the coupling λ′333 prevents this coupling from developing a Landau pole below the GUT scale.
In the parameter space allowed by all the constraints, we make predictions for various flavor processes. For B+→K+νˉν decay, a lower bound B(B+→K+νˉν)>7.37×10−6 is obtained. Compared to the SM prediction (3.98±0.47)×10−6, this decay can provide an important probe of the RPV SUSY effects at Belle II. We also find interesting correlations among RD, RD∗, B(B+→K+νˉν), B(B→τν), and gZτLτL/gZℓLℓL. For example, the RPV SUSY effects always enhance B(B+→K+νˉν) and suppress gZτLτL/gZℓLℓL simultaneously, which makes one of them largely deviate from its SM value.
Furthermore, we systematically investigated the RPV SUSY effects in five b→cτˉν decays, including B→D(∗)τˉν, Bc→ηcτˉν, Bc→J/ψτˉν, and Λb→Λcτˉν decays, while focusing on the q2 distributions of the branching fractions, the LFU ratios, and various angular observables. The differential ratios RD∗(q2), RJ/ψ(q2), and RΛc(q2) are significantly enhanced by the RPV SUSY effects in the large dilepton invariant mass region. Although the integrated ratios RD∗,J/ψ,Λc in the SUSY overlap with the 1σ range of the SM values, the differential ratios RD∗,J/ψ,Λc(q2) in this kinematical region exhibit a higher than 2σ discrepancy between the SM and SUSY predictions. In addition, the SM and RPV SUSY predictions of various angular observables are indistinguishable, since the RPV SUSY scenario does not generate new operators beyond the ones of SM.
The decays B+→K+νˉν and B→τˉν, as well as the differential observables in b→cτˉν decays, have the potential to shed new light on the RD(∗) anomalies and may serve as a test of the RPV SUSY. With the forthcoming SuperKEKB and the future HL-LHC, our results are expected to provide more information on the b→cτˉν transitions and could correlate with the direct searches for SUSY in future high-energy colliders.
We thank Jun-Kang He, Quan-Yi Hu, Xin-Qiang Li, Han Yan, Min-Di Zheng, and Xin Zhang for useful discussions.
For the operator in Eq. (5), the hadronic matrix elements of B→D transition can be parameterized in terms of form factors F+ and F0 [28, 102]. In the BGL parameterization, they can be written as expressions of a+n and a0n [11],
where z=(√w+1−√2)/(√w+1+√2) and r=mD∗/mB. Explicit expressions of the Blaschke factors P1± and B0−, and the outer functions ϕi(z) can be found in Refs. [14, 129]. We also adopt the values of the fit parameters in Refs. [14, 129].
The Λb→Λc hadronic matrix elements can be written in terms of the helicity form factors F0,+,⊥ and G0,+,⊥ [75, 76]. Following Ref. [75], the lattice calculations are fitted to two Bourrely-Caprini-Lellouch z-parameterization [130]. In the so-called “nominal fit”, a form factor has the following form
f(q2)=11−q2/(mfpole)2[af0+af1zf(q2)],
while the form factor in the “higher-order fit” is given by
where zf(q2)=(√tf+−q2−√tf+−t0)/(√tf+−q2+√tf+−t0), t0=(mΛb−mΛc)2, and tf+=(mfpole)2. Values of the fit parameters are taken from Ref. [76].
The form factors for Bc→J/ψ and Bc→ηc transitions are taken from the results in the Covariant Light-Front Approach in Ref. [16].
References
[1]
杨泽森, 高能物理与核物理, 本文中称为(1),6 (1982),630.[2] 杨泽森, 高能物理与核物理, 本文中称为(II),7(1983),245.[3] E. Chacon, M. Moshinsky and R. T. Sharp, J. Math. Phys., 17(1976). 668.[4] E. T. Hecht, Nucl. Phys,, 63(1965), 177.[5] E. Chason and M. Moshinsky, J. Math. Phys., 18(1977), 870.[6] S. Szpikowski and A. Gozdz, Nucl. Phys., A340(1980), 76.[7] 孙洪洲, 高能物理与核物理, 4(1980),478.
References
[1]
杨泽森, 高能物理与核物理, 本文中称为(1),6 (1982),630.[2] 杨泽森, 高能物理与核物理, 本文中称为(II),7(1983),245.[3] E. Chacon, M. Moshinsky and R. T. Sharp, J. Math. Phys., 17(1976). 668.[4] E. T. Hecht, Nucl. Phys,, 63(1965), 177.[5] E. Chason and M. Moshinsky, J. Math. Phys., 18(1977), 870.[6] S. Szpikowski and A. Gozdz, Nucl. Phys., A340(1980), 76.[7] 孙洪洲, 高能物理与核物理, 4(1980),478.
[1]
Hul Ping
. (2+1)-D SU(3)0++ Glueball Wavefunction. Chinese Physics C,
1999, 23(4): 340-346.
[2]
Yu Zhaoxian
, Zhang Dexing
, Liu Yehou
. Inhomogeneous Inverse Differential Realizations of the SU(2) Group. Chinese Physics C,
1998, 22(7): 602-606.
Hui Ping
. Fifth Order Approximate Analytic Calculation of (2+1)-D SU(2) Vacuum Wavefunction. Chinese Physics C,
1998, 22(4): 322-325.
[5]
Hui Ping
, Chen Qizhou
. Fourth Order Approximate Analytic Calculation of (2+1)-D SU(2) Vacuum Wavefunction. Chinese Physics C,
1995, 19(9): 820-825.
[6]
Chen Qizhou
, Li Zhibing
, Li Lei
, Guo Shuohong
. Infrared Vacuum Wavefunction of (2+1)-Dimensional SU(2) Gauge Field. Chinese Physics C,
1994, 18(1): 37-42.
[7]
PAN Feng
. Vector Coherent State Representations of SO5 SU2 SU2 U1 U1 and SO5 U1 U1. Chinese Physics C,
1991, 15(2): 178-186.
[8]
LI Zhi-Bing
, ZHENG Wei-Hong
, GUO Shuo-Hong
. THE MC CALCULATION OF MASS GAP IN 2+1 DIMENSIONAL SU(2) LATTICE GAUGE THEORY. Chinese Physics C,
1989, 13(4): 316-319.
[9]
YAN Wu-Guang
, YU Hong
. THE ANGULAR DISTRIBUTION FOR THE PROCESS e+e-→J/ψ→γB,B→P1P2 AND THE SPIN ANALYSIS OF B. Chinese Physics C,
1989, 13(3): 234-240.
WU Ji-Min
, ZHAO Pei-Ying
. ANALYTIC CALCULATION FOR GLUON CONDENSATION IN SU (2) LATTICE GAUGE THEORY. Chinese Physics C,
1987, 11(1): 64-67.
[12]
WU Ji-Min
, ZHAO Pei-Ying
. THE ANALYTIC RESULTS FOR U1 AND SU2 AVERAGE PLAQUETTE TO THE THIRD ORDER APPROXIMATION IN THE CUMULANT EXPANSION. Chinese Physics C,
1986, 10(3): 297-307.
[13]
XU Fu-Xin
, CUI Ke-Fan
. TRACELESS OPERATORS AND SO6 WAVE FUNCTIONS OF sd BOSONS. Chinese Physics C,
1986, 10(3): 343-348.
[14]
WU DAN-DI
, LI TIE-ZHONG
. HIGGS MIXING AND PROTON DECAY IN THE UNIFIED GAUGE MODEL SU(4)C×SU(2)L×SU(2)R. Chinese Physics C,
1983, 7(6): 702-708.
[15]
YANG Ze-Sen (Tse-sen Yang)
. THE SU2×SU2 BASIS AND THE PHYSICAL BASES FOR THE STATE VECTORS OF d-BOSON SYSTEMS AND THE TRACELESS BOSON OPERATORS (Ⅱ). Chinese Physics C,
1983, 7(2): 245-256.
[16]
YANG ZE-SEN
, TSE-SEN YANG
. THE SU2×SU2 BASIS AND THE PHYSICAL BASES FOR THE STATE VECTORS OF d-BOSON SYSTEMS AND THE TRACELESS BOSON OPERATORS (Ⅰ). Chinese Physics C,
1982, 6(5): 630-641.
[17]
ZENG GAO-JIAN
. THE ACTION OF WIGNER OPERATOR OF SU3 GROUP. Chinese Physics C,
1981, 5(2): 217-226.
[18]
HOU BO-YU
, HOU BO-YUAN
. STATICAL SPHEROSYMMETRICAL SOURCELESS SOLUTION OF SU(2) GAUGE FIELD——THE SELFDUALITY,UNIQUENESS AND THE SELF INDUCED CHARGE CURRENT. Chinese Physics C,
1979, 3(3): 225-265.
[19]
WANG YUN-KONG
, CHANG KUO-TIU
, HOU BO-YU
. A SERIES OF SOURCELESS SOLUTION OF SU(2) GAUGE FIELDS——THE SU(2) AND U(1) POTENTIAL OF STATIC MONOPOLE SYSTEMS. Chinese Physics C,
1978, 2(4): 368-370.
[20]
WU YONG-SHI
, CHEN SHIH
, TU TUNG-SHENG
, GUO HAN-YING
. DUAL CHARGES OF A SUBGROUP IN GAUGE THEORIES——MAGNETIC MONOPOLES OF SU2 & SO3 GAUGE FIELD. Chinese Physics C,
1977, 1(1): 52-64.
Access
Cited by
1.
Afik, Y., Dev, P.S.B., Soni, A. et al. Probing the muon (g − 2) anomaly at the LHC in final states with two muons and two taus[J]. Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138032
2.
Dev, P.S.B., Soni, A., Xu, F. Hints of natural supersymmetry in flavor anomalies?[J]. Physical Review D, 2022, 106(1): 015014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.015014
3.
Li, L., Ruan, M., Wang, Y. et al. Analysis of Bsat CEPC[J]. Physical Review D, 2022, 105(11): 114036. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.114036
4.
Bolton, P.D., Deppisch, F.F., Dev, P.S.B. Neutrinoless double beta decay via light neutralinos in R-parity violating supersymmetry[J]. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2022, 2022(3): 152. doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2022)152
5.
Wang, S.-W.. Ξ b → Ξcτν̄ τ Decay in New Physics Models[J]. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 2021, 60(3): 982-993. doi: 10.1007/s10773-021-04721-3
6.
Altmannshofer, W., Dev, P.S.B., Soni, A. et al. Addressing RD (∗), RK (∗), muon g-2 and ANITA anomalies in a minimal R-parity violating supersymmetric framework[J]. Physical Review D, 2020, 102(1): 015031. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.015031
7.
Hu, Q.-Y., Yang, Y.-D., Zheng, M.-D. Revisiting the B-physics anomalies in R-parity violating MSSM[J]. European Physical Journal C, 2020, 80(5): 365. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7940-8
8.
Wang, S.-W.. Probing the effects of some new physics models in Bs→ Dsτν¯ decay[J]. Nuclear Physics B, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2020.114997
9.
Chang, Q., Wang, X.-L., Zhu, J. et al. Study of b→c Induced b∗→Vℓνℓ Decays[J]. Advances in High Energy Physics, 2020. doi: 10.1155/2020/3079670
Get Citation
YANG Ze-Sen (Tse Sen Yang). THE SU2×SU2 BASIS AND THE PHYSICAL BASES FOR THE STATE VECTORS OF d-BOSON SYSTEM AND THE TRACELESS BOSON OPERATORS(Ⅲ)[J]. Chinese Physics C, 1983, 7(4): 489-499.
YANG Ze-Sen (Tse Sen Yang). THE SU2×SU2 BASIS AND THE PHYSICAL BASES FOR THE STATE VECTORS OF d-BOSON SYSTEM AND THE TRACELESS BOSON OPERATORS(Ⅲ)[J]. Chinese Physics C, 1983, 7(4): 489-499.
Share Article
Milestone
Received: 1900-01-01
Revised: 1900-01-01
Article Metric
Article Views(2056) PDF Downloads(382) Cited by(9)
Policy on re-use
To reuse of subscription content published by CPC, the users need to request permission from CPC, unless the content was published under an Open Access license which automatically permits that type of reuse.
Abstract: The methods and results of papers (Ⅰ) and (Ⅱ) are applied to the interacting boson model (IBM) of nuclei. With the use of the SU6U5O5O3 representation the matrix elements of the phenomenological IBM Hamiltonian are expressed in terms of some "elementary matrix elements" of d-dosons. In accordance with the existing physical bases for d-boson systems and taking the SU2×SU2 representation as an intermediate representation, two types of formulas are constructed for the elementary matrix elements.
YANG Ze-Sen (Tse Sen Yang). THE SU2×SU2 BASIS AND THE PHYSICAL BASES FOR THE STATE VECTORS OF d-BOSON SYSTEM AND THE TRACELESS BOSON OPERATORS(Ⅲ)[J]. Chinese Physics C, 1983, 7(4): 489-499.
Table 2.
Predictions for branching fractions and ratios R of five b→cτˉν channels in SM and RPV SUSY. The sign "–" denotes no available measurements at present. Upper limits are all at 90% CL.