[PPT] - ne L eptoquark T o Rule Them All Martin Bauer, Matthias Neubert, PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

ne L eptoquark T

Rule Them All

Martin Bauer, Matthias Neubert, PRL 116 (2016) 141802 Martin Bauer, Clara Hörner, Matthias Neubert, 16??.?????

Effective Field Theories for Collider Physics, Flavor Phenomena and Electroweak Symmetry Breaking Eltville 2016

SLIDE 2

Anomalies in the B sector: RK

RK = Γ( ¯ B → ¯ Kµ+µ−) Γ( ¯ B → ¯ Ke+e−) = 0.745 +0.090

−0.074 ± 0.036

LHCb, arXiv:1406.6482 hep-ex

Theoretically very

clean

Cannot be

explained by Form Factors or Charm Contributions! 2.6σ

SLIDE 3

1 10

2

10

3

10

4

10

]

2

c ) [MeV/

−

µ

+

µ

+

K ( m

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600

]

4

c /

2

[GeV

2

q

5 10 15 20 25

LHCb (a)

1 10

2

10

3

10

]

2

c ) [MeV/

−

e

+

e

+

K ( m

4800 5000 5200 5400 5600

]

4

c /

2

[GeV

2

q

5 10 15 20 25

LHCb (b)

1226 ± 41 172+20

−19 + 20+16 −14 + (62 ± 13)

Number of muon pairs Number of electron pairs

Anomalies in the B sector: RK

Experimentalists:

LHCb, arXiv:1406.6482 hep-ex

SLIDE 4

Anomalies in the B sector: Semileptonic decays

b → s transitions

Decay

bs.

q2 bin SM pred. measurement pull ¯ B0 → ¯ K⇤0µ+µ FL [2, 4.3] 0.81 ± 0.02 0.26 ± 0.19 ATLAS +2.9 ¯ B0 → ¯ K⇤0µ+µ FL [4, 6] 0.74 ± 0.04 0.61 ± 0.06 LHCb +1.9 ¯ B0 → ¯ K⇤0µ+µ S5 [4, 6] −0.33 ± 0.03 −0.15 ± 0.08 LHCb −2.2 ¯ B0 → ¯ K⇤0µ+µ P 0

5

[1.1, 6] −0.44 ± 0.08 −0.05 ± 0.11 LHCb −2.9 ¯ B0 → ¯ K⇤0µ+µ P 0

5

[4, 6] −0.77 ± 0.06 −0.30 ± 0.16 LHCb −2.8 B → K⇤µ+µ 107 dBR

dq2

[4, 6] 0.54 ± 0.08 0.26 ± 0.10 LHCb +2.1 ¯ B0 → ¯ K0µ+µ 108 dBR

dq2

[0.1, 2] 2.71 ± 0.50 1.26 ± 0.56 LHCb +1.9 ¯ B0 → ¯ K0µ+µ 108 dBR

dq2

[16, 23] 0.93 ± 0.12 0.37 ± 0.22 CDF +2.2 Bs → µ+µ 107 dBR

dq2

[1, 6] 0.48 ± 0.06 0.23 ± 0.05 LHCb +3.1

Altmannshofer, Straub 1503.06199

SLIDE 5

Anomalies in the B sector

| | | Heff = −4 GF √ 2 VtbV ⇤

ts

↵e 4⇡ X

i

Ci(µ)Oi(µ) ,

O9 = [¯ sµPLb] [¯ `µ`] , O10 = [¯ sµPLb] [¯ `µ5`] , OS = [¯ sPRb] [¯ ``] , OP = [¯ sPRb] [¯ `5`] ,

Standard Model:

b

γ, Z

s

t

`+ `− W −

s

b t

ν

`+ `−

+ ⇒ CSM

9

= −CSM

10 = 4.2

SLIDE 6

Anomalies in the B sector

B( ¯ Bs → `+`) B( ¯ Bs → `+`)SM =

1 − 0.24(CNP

10 − C0 10) − y`(CP − C0 P )

2 +
y`(CS − C0

S)

2

yµ = 7.7, ye = 1600

0.7 . Re[

Ce

9 + C0e 9 − Ce 10 − C0e 10

−
e → µ
] . 1.5

RK :

Scalar currents Vector currents

15 . |Ce

S + C0e S |2 + |Ce P + C0e P |2 − (e → µ) . 34

Constraints from

B( ¯ Bs → ee)exp B( ¯ Bs → ee)SM < 3.3 · 106 , B( ¯ Bs → µµ)exp B( ¯ Bs → µµ)SM = 0.79 ± 0.20 .

|Ce

S − C0e S |2 + |Ce P − C0e P |2 . 1.3

0 . Re[Cµ

10 − C0µ 10] . 1.9

µ

b

µ s

Z0

µ b

µ

s

H, A

RK :

SLIDE 7

B+ → K+µ+µ− Bs → µ+µ−

More details: Tobias and Fulvias talks

Anomalies in the B sector

Becirevic et al. 1608.07583

SLIDE 8

B+ → K+µ+µ− Bs → µ+µ−

Much more fits : Tobias Hurths talk

Anomalies in the B sector

Coefficient Best fit 1σ 3σ PullSM CNP

7

−0.02 [−0.04, −0.00] [−0.07, 0.04] 1.1 CNP

9

−1.11 [−1.32, −0.89] [−1.71, −0.40] 4.5 CNP

10

0.58 [0.34, 0.84] [−0.11, 1.41] 2.5 CNP

70

0.02 [−0.01, 0.04] [−0.05, 0.09] 0.7 CNP

90

0.49 [0.21, 0.77] [−0.33, 1.35] 1.8 CNP

100

−0.27 [−0.46, −0.08] [−0.84, 0.28] 1.4 CNP

9

= CNP

10

−0.21 [−0.40, 0.00] [−0.74, 0.55] 1.0 CNP

9

= −CNP

10

−0.69 [−0.88, −0.51] [−1.27, −0.18] 4.1 CNP

9

= −CNP

90

−1.09 [−1.28, −0.88] [−1.62, −0.42] 4.8

DHMV, 1510.04239

Cancels in RK

Becirevic et al. 1608.07583

SLIDE 9

Much more fits : Tobias Hurths talk

Anomalies in the B sector

Need

⇒ M ≈ 35 TeV

DHMV, 1510.04239

CNP

9/10 ≈ CSM 10 /4

⇒ 1 M 2 ✓2VtbV ∗

ts

v2 αe 4π ◆−1 = 1 4

Coefficient Best fit 1σ 3σ PullSM CNP

7

−0.02 [−0.04, −0.00] [−0.07, 0.04] 1.1 CNP

9

−1.11 [−1.32, −0.89] [−1.71, −0.40] 4.5 CNP

10

0.58 [0.34, 0.84] [−0.11, 1.41] 2.5 CNP

70

0.02 [−0.01, 0.04] [−0.05, 0.09] 0.7 CNP

90

0.49 [0.21, 0.77] [−0.33, 1.35] 1.8 CNP

100

−0.27 [−0.46, −0.08] [−0.84, 0.28] 1.4 CNP

9

= CNP

10

−0.21 [−0.40, 0.00] [−0.74, 0.55] 1.0 CNP

9

= −CNP

10

−0.69 [−0.88, −0.51] [−1.27, −0.18] 4.1 CNP

9

= −CNP

90

−1.09 [−1.28, −0.88] [−1.62, −0.42] 4.8

SLIDE 10

T wo Main Candidates

C9 :

C9 = −C10 :

φ

b

s µ

µ

µ b

µ

s

Z0

Vector Currents Leptoquarks

(3, 3)−1/3 (3, 2)1/6 (3, 3)2/3 Fajfer, Kosnik 1511.06024

Hiller, Schmaltz 1408.1627 Crivellin, D’Ambrosio, Heeck 1501.00993

many more! Gauld, Goetz, Haisch, 1310.1082 Altmannshofer, Gori, Pospelov, Yavin, 1403.1269

Becirevic et al. 1608.08501

SLIDE 11

Anomalies in the B sector:

R(D(∗)) = ¯ B → D(∗)⌧ ¯ ⌫ ¯ B → D(∗)`¯ ⌫

Combined

Significance:

Belle II is expected to improve exp.

error by factor ~5 !

HFAG EPS 2015 R(D)

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

R(D*)

0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

BaBar, PRL109,101802(2012) Belle, PRD92,072014(2015) LHCb, PRL115,111803(2015) Belle, arXiv:1603.06711 ) = 67%

2

χ HFAG Average, P( SM prediction

= 1.0

2

χ ∆

R(D), PRD92,054510(2015) R(D*), PRD85,094025(2012)

HFAG

Prel. Winter 2016

4σ Experimentalists:

R(D(∗))

SLIDE 12

R(D(∗)) = ¯ B → D(∗)⌧ ¯ ⌫ ¯ B → D(∗)`¯ ⌫

Combined

Significance:

Belle II is expected to improve exp.

error by factor ~5 !

HFAG EPS 2015 R(D)

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

R(D*)

0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

BaBar, PRL109,101802(2012) Belle, PRD92,072014(2015) LHCb, PRL115,111803(2015) Belle, arXiv:1603.06711 ) = 67%

2

χ HFAG Average, P( SM prediction

= 1.0

2

χ ∆

R(D), PRD92,054510(2015) R(D*), PRD85,094025(2012)

HFAG

Prel. Winter 2016

4σ Experimentalists:

Anomalies in the B sector: R(D(∗))

SLIDE 13

R(D(∗)) = ¯ B → D(∗)⌧ ¯ ⌫ ¯ B → D(∗)`¯ ⌫

SM contribution is tree-level…

b

`−

¯ ν

c

W −

∝ Vcbg2 M 2

W

= ( 0.388 ± 0.047 , D 0.321 ± 0.021 , D∗ 0.300 ± 0.010 , D 0.252 ± 0.005 , D∗ SM Prediction Measurement

…and we want a 10-20% shift Needs a large new physics contribution:

CNP ≈ CSM/10 ⇒ 1 Vcb ⇣ v M ⌘2 = 1 10

⇒ M = 1 − 2 TeV

Anomalies in the B sector: R(D(∗))

SLIDE 14

O0

VL = (¯

τγµPLb)(¯ cγµPLν) O0

VR = (¯

τγµPRb)(¯ cγµPLν)

OSL = (¯ cPLb)(¯ τPLν) OSR = (¯ cPRb)(¯ τPLν)

O

00

SL = (¯

τPLcc)(¯ bcPLν) O

00

SR = (¯

τPRcc)(¯ bcPLν)

8
6
4
2

2 4

4
2

2 4 6

CSR CSL

CSR v CSL

1s, 2s, 3s

L = 1 TeV

2
1

1 2

4
3
2
1

1 2

CVR

¢

CVL

¢

CVR

¢ v CVL ¢

1s, 2s, 3s

L = 1 TeV

8
6
4
2

2

6
4
2

2 4 6

CSR

≤

CSL

≤

CSR

≤ v CSL ≤

1s, 2s, 3s

L = 1 TeV

H = 4GF √ 2 Vcb OVL + 1 Λ2 X

i

C(0,00)

i

O(0,00)

i

Using

Freytsis et al., 1506.08896

Anomalies in the B sector: R(D(∗))

New H+

New W 0

New Leptoquark

SLIDE 15

OSL = (¯ cPLb)(¯ τPLν) OSR = (¯ cPRb)(¯ τPLν)

8
6
4
2

2 4

4
2

2 4 6

CSR CSL

CSR v CSL

1s, 2s, 3s

L = 1 TeV

H = 4GF √ 2 Vcb OVL + 1 Λ2 X

i

C(0,00)

i

O(0,00)

i

Using

Freytsis et al., 1506.08896

Anomalies in the B sector: R(D(∗))

New H+

CSR = −2 √ 2GF M 2

H+

Vcbmbmτ tan β2

b

`−

¯ ν

c

H+

CSL = −2 √ 2GF M 2

H+

Vcbmcmτ 1 tan β2

Hard to get two sizable coefficients

SLIDE 16

O0

VL = (¯

τγµPLb)(¯ cγµPLν) O0

VR = (¯

τγµPRb)(¯ cγµPLν)

OSL = (¯ cPLb)(¯ τPLν) OSR = (¯ cPRb)(¯ τPLν)

8
6
4
2

2 4

4
2

2 4 6

CSR CSL

CSR v CSL

1s, 2s, 3s

L = 1 TeV

2
1

1 2

4
3
2
1

1 2

CVR

¢

CVL

¢

CVR

¢ v CVL ¢

1s, 2s, 3s

L = 1 TeV

C

H = 4GF √ 2 Vcb OVL + 1 Λ2 X

i

C(0,00)

i

O(0,00)

i

Using

Freytsis et al., 1506.08896

Anomalies in the B sector: R(D(∗))

New H+

New W 0

Enhanced SM

perator gives a

good fit

0.2 ≈ g2|Vcb|2 ✓ TeV MW 0 ◆2

but

MW 0 > 1.8 TeV

from LHC searches

SLIDE 17

O0

VL = (¯

τγµPLb)(¯ cγµPLν) O0

VR = (¯

τγµPRb)(¯ cγµPLν)

OSL = (¯ cPLb)(¯ τPLν) OSR = (¯ cPRb)(¯ τPLν)

O

00

SL = (¯

τPLcc)(¯ bcPLν) O

00

SR = (¯

τPRcc)(¯ bcPLν)

8
6
4
2

2 4

4
2

2 4 6

CSR CSL

CSR v CSL

1s, 2s, 3s

L = 1 TeV

2
1

1 2

4
3
2
1

1 2

CVR

¢

CVL

¢

CVR

¢ v CVL ¢

1s, 2s, 3s

L = 1 TeV

8
6
4
2

2

6
4
2

2 4 6

CSR

≤

CSL

≤

CSR

≤ v CSL ≤

1s, 2s, 3s

L = 1 TeV

H = 4GF √ 2 Vcb OVL + 1 Λ2 X

i

C(0,00)

i

O(0,00)

i

Using

Freytsis et al., 1506.08896

Anomalies in the B sector: R(D(∗))

New H+

New W 0

New Leptoquark

SLIDE 18

The situation

Both anomalies in neutral and charged b -> 2nd

generation transition can be described by leptoquark currents

However, one needs leptoquarks with different

properties b → s

b → c

φ

b

ν

c τ

φ

b

µ

s

µ Mφ = 35 TeV × √gsµgbµ

Mφ = 1 TeV × √gbνgcτ

SLIDE 19

One L eptoquark

Add a single leptoquark φ ∼ (3, 1)−1/3

Lφ = (Dµφ)†Dµφ − M 2

φ |φ|2 − ghφ |Φ|2|φ|2

+ ¯ QcλLiτ2L φ∗ + ¯ uc

R λReR φ∗ + h.c.

Lφ 3 ¯ uc

L λL ueeL φ∗ ¯

dc

L λL dννLφ∗ + ¯

uc

R λR ueeR φ∗ + h.c.

Rotation to mass eigenstates V T

CKM λL ue = λL dνV PMNS

with

SLIDE 20

One L eptoquark

Add a single leptoquark φ ∼ (3, 1)−1/3 Lφ 3 ¯ uc

L λL ueeL φ∗ ¯

dc

L λL dννLφ∗ + ¯

uc

R λR ueeR φ∗ + h.c.

with λR

ue ∼

    10−1 − 10−3 W = λL LQD λue = V∗

CKMλL dνVPMNS ≈

    UV Motivation:

SLIDE 21

One L eptoquark

Lφ 3 ¯ uc

L λL ueeL φ∗ ¯

dc

L λL dννLφ∗ + ¯

uc

R λR ueeR φ∗ + h.c.

at tree level gives rise to

τ

φ

c b

ν

s

φ

b

ν

up-quark - charged lepton couplings down-quark - neutrino couplings

SLIDE 22

R(D(∗))

O0

VL = (¯

τγµPLb)(¯ cγµPLν) O0

VR = (¯

τγµPRb)(¯ cγµPLν)

OSL = (¯ cPLb)(¯ τPLν) OSR = (¯ cPRb)(¯ τPLν)

O

00

SL = (¯

τPLcc)(¯ bcPLν) O

00

SR = (¯

τPRcc)(¯ bcPLν)

8
6
4
2

2 4

4
2

2 4 6

CSR CSL

CSR v CSL

1s, 2s, 3s

L = 1 TeV

2
1

1 2

4
3
2
1

1 2

CVR

¢

CVL

¢

CVR

¢ v CVL ¢

1s, 2s, 3s

L = 1 TeV

8
6
4
2

2

6
4
2

2 4 6

CSR

≤

CSL

≤

CSR

≤ v CSL ≤

1s, 2s, 3s

L = 1 TeV

One L eptoquark:

τ

φ

c

b

ν

H = 4GF √ 2 Vcb OVL + 1 Λ2 X

i

C(0,00)

i

O(0,00)

i

Using

Freytsis et al., 1506.08896

SLIDE 23

8
6
4
2

2 4

4
2

2 4 6

CSR CSL

CSR v CSL

1s, 2s, 3s

L = 1 TeV

2
1

1 2

4
3
2
1

1 2

CVR

¢

CVL

¢

CVR

¢ v CVL ¢

1s, 2s, 3s

L = 1 TeV

8
6
4
2

2

6
4
2

2 4 6

CSR

≤

CSL

≤

CSR

≤ v CSL ≤

1s, 2s, 3s

L = 1 TeV

a b c Needs

λL∗

cτ λL bντ

M 2

φ

≈ 0.35 TeV2 , λR∗

cτ λL bντ

M 2

φ

≈ − 0.03 TeV2

4 6 8 10 12

0.1

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 q2 ëGeV2 I1ëGM d Gëd q2

a b c

R(D(∗))

One L eptoquark:

Freytsis et al., 1506.08896

SLIDE 24

One L eptoquark:

R(φ)

ν¯ ν = 1 − 2r

3 Re

λLλL†

bs

VtbV ∗

ts

+ r2 3

λLλL†

bb

λLλL†

ss

VtbV ∗

ts

2

− 1.2 TeV2 < 1 M 2

φ

Re

λLλL†

bs

VtbV ∗

ts

< 2.3 TeV2 .

BaBar
We have

r = s4

W

2α2 1 X0(xt) m2

W

M 2

φ

≈ 1.91 TeV2 M 2

φ

λLλL†

bs =

X

i

λL

bνi λL∗ sνi

with , Using the Schwarz Inequality yields (x y)2 ≤ x2y2

s φ b

ν ν

¯ B → K(∗)ν¯ ν

Rν¯

ν =

Γ ΓSM < 4.3 at 90 %CL

SLIDE 25

Lφ 3 ¯ uc

L λL ueeL φ∗ ¯

dc

L λL dννLφ∗ + ¯

uc

R λR ueeR φ∗ + h.c.

One L eptoquark

at 1-loop gives rise to

µ

φ γ t

µ

φ γ t

µ (τ) µ (τ)

s b

µ

φ

ν

t W

s

b

µ µ φ

ν

t

φ

µ

RK, Bs − ¯ Bs mixing , Bs → µ−µ+

g − 2, τ → µγ, δgZµµ

SLIDE 26

One L eptoquark:

RK

| | | Heff = −4 GF √ 2 VtbV ⇤

ts

↵e 4⇡ X

i

Ci(µ)Oi(µ)

O9 = [¯ sµPLb] [¯ `µ`] , O10 = [¯ sµPLb] [¯ `µ5`] ,

0.0 . Re[Cµ

LR + Cµ RL Cµ LL Cµ RR] . 1.9 ,

0.7 . Re[Cµ

LL + Cµ RL] . 1.5 .

Using

O`

LL ⌘ (O` 9 O` 10)/2 ,

O`

LR ⌘ (O` 9 + O` 10)/2 ,

O`

RL ⌘ (O0` 9 O0` 10)/2 ,

O`

RR ⌘ (O0` 9 + O0` 10)/2 ,

and a good fit is found for Benchmark:

Cµ

LL ' 1 ,

Cµ

ij = 0 otherwise

SLIDE 27

One L eptoquark:

RK

Cµ(φ)

LL

= m2

t

8παM 2

φ

λL

tµ

2 −

1 64πα √ 2 GF M 2

φ

λLλL†

bs

VtbV ∗

ts

λL†λL

µµ ,

Cµ(φ)

LR

= m2

t

16παM 2

φ

λR

tµ

2 

ln M 2

φ

m2

t

− f(xt)

−

1 64πα √ 2 GF M 2

φ

λLλL†

bs

VtbV ∗

ts

λR†λR

µµ ,

We have

s b

µ φ

ν

t W

s b µ

µ

φ ν

t φ µ

The box contributions have the wrong sign, but they are chirally suppressed and inherit a partial GIM-

suppression. Penguins cancel!

W − φ

SLIDE 28

One L eptoquark:

RK

Cµ(φ)

LL

= m2

t

8παM 2

φ

λL

tµ

2 −

1 64πα √ 2 GF M 2

φ

λLλL†

bs

VtbV ∗

ts

λL†λL

µµ ,

Cµ(φ)

LR

= m2

t

16παM 2

φ

λR

tµ

2 

ln M 2

φ

m2

t

− f(xt)

−

1 64πα √ 2 GF M 2

φ

λLλL†

bs

VtbV ∗

ts

λR†λR

µµ ,

For the Benchmark , we need

X

i

λL

uiµ

2 Re
λLλL†

bs

VtbV ∗

ts

− 1.74

λL

tµ

2 ≈ 12.5

M 2

φ

TeV2

Cµ

LL ' 1 ,

Cµ

ij = 0 otherwise

s L

uµ

2 +
L

cµ

2 +

✓ 1 0.77 ˆ M 2

φ

◆ L

tµ

2 > 2.36

Constrained to be < 2.3 by Rνν

⇒

SLIDE 29

One L eptoquark: ¯

Bs − Bs

s

b

φ

ν

φ

ν

b

s

gives a weaker bound than ¯ Bs − Bs Rνν

C(φ)

Bs e2iφ(φ)

Bs = 1 +

1 g4S0(xt) m2

W

M 2

φ

" λLλL†

bs

VtbV ⇤

ts

#2

with

CBs e2iφBs ⌘ hBs| Hfull

eff | ¯

Bsi hBs| HSM

eff | ¯

Bsi

CBs = 1.052 ± 0.084 and φBs = (0.72 ± 2.06)

λLλL†

bs

VtbV ∗

ts

≈ (1.87 + 0.45i) Mφ TeV .

(λLλL†)

VtbV ∗

ts

< 3.6 Mφ

TeV at 90 % CL

SLIDE 30

One L eptoquark:

δgZµµ

µ φ

t µ t µ

Z

µ

Z

gµ

A = gµ,SM A

± 3 32π2 m2

t

M 2

φ

✓ ln M 2

φ

m2

t

− 1 ◆ λA

tµ

2

− 1 32π2 m2

Z

M 2

φ

⇣ λA

uµ

2 +
λA

cµ

2⌘

× "✓ δAL − 4s2

W

3 ◆ ✓ ln M 2

φ

m2

Z

+ iπ + 1 3 ◆ − s2

W

9 # ,

One-loop Corrections to

Z couplings

⇒ q λL

cµ

2 +
λL

uµ

2 < 3.24

b1/2

cu

Mφ TeV ,

λL

tµ

< 1.22

b1/2

t

Mφ TeV ,

bcu = 1 + 0.39 ln Mφ/TeV and bt = 1 + 0.76 ln Mφ/TeV

SLIDE 31

One L eptoquark:

µ φ γ

t µ

φ γ

t

µ

a(φ)

µ

= X

q=t,c

mµmq 4π2M 2

φ

✓ ln M 2

φ

m2

q

7 4 ◆ Re

λR

qµλL⇤ qµ

h

i

X

m2

µ

32π2M 2

φ

h λL†λL

µµ +

λR†λR

µµ

i

One-loop Contribution to

g-2

−37 × 10−11

✓ 1 + 0.17 ln Mφ TeV ◆ Re

λR

cµλL∗ cµ

+ 20.7

✓ 1 + 1.06 ln Mφ TeV ◆ Re

λR

tµλL∗ tµ

≈ 0.08

M 2

φ

TeV2

For |λL

cµ| ∼ 2.4, we need |λR cµ| ∼ 0.03.

(g − 2)µ

∆aµ = (287 ± 80) × 10−11

…wrong sign, but small

SLIDE 32

One L eptoquark: τ → µγ

µ φ γ

t µ

φ γ

t

τ

Leff = CLR ¯ µL σµνF µν τR + CRL ¯ µR σµνF µν τL



ac λR

cτλL∗ cµ + 20.7at λR tτλL∗ tµ − 0.015(λL†λL)µτ

2

+ (L ↔ R) 1/2 < 0.017 M 2

φ

TeV2 .

BR(τ → µγ) < 4.4 · 10−8 at 90% CL ⇒ |λR

tτλL∗ tµ |2 + |λL tτλR∗ tµ |2 < 6 × 10−7

With these values, BR(h → µτ) ≈ 10−9. The central value of the CMS measurement is 0.84%.

SLIDE 33

One L eptoquark

RL

bs ≡ Re

" (λLλL†)bs VtbV †

ts

# Z → µ

+

µ

−

¯ B → K(∗)ν¯ ν

(g − 2)µ

SLIDE 34

One L eptoquark: Full Disclosure

Z → µ

+

µ

−

¯ B → K(∗)ν¯ ν

Becirevic et al. 1608.07583

Potentially problematic: the ratio Not measured, but unlikely to be large from PDG combination of B data to extract Vcb Rµ/e

D

= ¯ B → Dµ¯ ν ¯ B → De¯ ν

SLIDE 35

One L eptoquark to Rule Them All: Conclusions

An extension of the SM with a single leptoquark

can explain and assuming order one generation- diagonal and suppressed off-diagonal couplings

φ ∼ (3, 1)−1/3

RK, R(D(∗)) (g − 2)µ

UV motivation: R-parity violating SUSY with a split

spectrum and TeV scale right-handed sbottoms

Rνν, Bs − ¯ Bs

Correlated effects in mixing unavoidable
Z boson coupling modifications can be probed at TLEP

SLIDE 36

Ancient Times

Γ(K− → µ−νµ) Γ(π− → µ−νµ) =

u s µ νµ u µ νµ d 2 2

Cabibbo

≈ 1 20

✓ u d0 ◆ = ✓ u d cos θ + s sin θ ◆

= sin2 θ cos2 θ

SLIDE 37

One L eptoquark:

D0 → µ+µ−

Γ = f 2

D m3 D

256⇡M 4

✓mD

mc ◆2 µ " 2

µ

L

cµR∗ uµ − R cµL∗ uµ

2

(13) +

L

cµR∗ uµ +R cµL∗ uµ + 2mµmc

m2

D

L

cµL∗ uµ+R cµR∗ uµ

2#

,

c φ

µ µ

u

Leads to the bounds: The experimental limit Br(D0 → µ+µ−) < 7.6 · 10−9

at 95% CL

λL

cµλL∗ uµ + λR cµλR∗ uµ

< 0.052

M 2

φ

TeV2

q λL

cµ

2

λR

uµ

2 +
λR

cµ

2

λL

uµ

2 < 1.2 · 10−3 M 2

φ

TeV2

SLIDE 38

Collider Bounds

[GeV]

LQ3

m

200 300 400 500 600 700 800

[pb]

2

) β (1- ×

LQ3

σ

4 −

10

3 −

10

2 −

10

1 −

10 1 10

2

10

3

10

τ

ν b → LQ3LQ3 production, LQ3

ATLAS

All limits at 95% CL

T miss

bb + E = 0) β (

theory

σ ±

2

) β (1 - ×

LQ3

σ expected limit

bserved limit

σ 1 ± expected σ 2 ± expected

1

=8 TeV, 20.1 fb s

[GeV]

LQ2

m 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 q) µ → (LQ2 β 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

LQ2LQ2 production ATLAS

1

= 8 TeV, 20.3 fb s 2-muons + 2-jets All limits at 95% CL jj ν µ jj+ µ µ expected limit

bserved limit

σ 1 ± expected σ 2 ± expected

1

= 7 TeV, 1.03 fb s

(d)

ATLAS 1508.04735 φ → µc

[GeV]

LQ2

m 400 600 800 1000 1200 [pb]

2

β ×

LQ2

σ

5

10

4

10

3

10

2

10

1

10 1 10

2

10

ATLAS

1

=8 TeV, 20.3 fb s 2-muons + 2-jets All limits at 95% CL q µ → LQ2LQ2 production, LQ2 = 1) β (

theory

σ ±

2

β ×

LQ2

σ expected limit

bserved limit

σ 1 ± expected σ 2 ± expected

(c)

φ → ντb