The impact of flavour data on global fits of the MFV SMEFT

1. L. Silvestrini and M. Valli, Model-independent bounds on the Standard Model effective theory from flavour physics, Phys. Lett. B 799 (2019) 135062 [arXiv:1812.10913] [INSPIRE].

   Google Scholar 

2. G. D’Ambrosio, G.F. Giudice, G. Isidori and A. Strumia, Minimal flavor violation: an effective field theory approach, Nucl. Phys. B 645 (2002) 155 [hep-ph/0207036] [INSPIRE].

   ADS  Google Scholar 

3. T. Hurth, S. Renner and W. Shepherd, Matching for FCNC effects in the flavour-symmetric SMEFT, JHEP 06 (2019) 029 [arXiv:1903.00500] [INSPIRE].

   ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

4. W. Dekens and P. Stoffer, Low-energy effective field theory below the electroweak scale: matching at one loop, JHEP 10 (2019) 197 [arXiv:1908.05295] [INSPIRE].

   ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

5. B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek, Dimension-six terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian, JHEP 10 (2010) 085 [arXiv:1008.4884] [INSPIRE].

   ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

6. D.A. Faroughy, G. Isidori, F. Wilsch and K. Yamamoto, Flavour symmetries in the SMEFT, JHEP 08 (2020) 166 [arXiv:2005.05366] [INSPIRE].

   ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

7. J. de Blas, J.C. Criado, M. Pérez-Victoria and J. Santiago, Effective description of general extensions of the Standard Model: the complete tree-level dictionary, JHEP 03 (2018) 109 [arXiv:1711.10391] [INSPIRE].

   ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

8. E.E. Jenkins, A.V. Manohar and M. Trott, Renormalization group evolution of the Standard Model dimension six operators I: formalism and λ dependence, JHEP 10 (2013) 087 [arXiv:1308.2627] [INSPIRE].

   ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

9. E.E. Jenkins, A.V. Manohar and M. Trott, Renormalization group evolution of the Standard Model dimension six operators II: Yukawa dependence, JHEP 01 (2014) 035 [arXiv:1310.4838] [INSPIRE].

   ADS  Google Scholar 

10. R. Alonso, E.E. Jenkins, A.V. Manohar and M. Trott, Renormalization group evolution of the Standard Model dimension six operators III: gauge coupling dependence and phenomenology, JHEP 04 (2014) 159 [arXiv:1312.2014] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

11. Flavour Lattice Averaging Group collaboration, FLAG review 2019: Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG), Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 113 [arXiv:1902.08191] [INSPIRE].

12. J. Aebischer, J. Kumar and D.M. Straub, Wilson: a Python package for the running and matching of Wilson coefficients above and below the electroweak scale, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 1026 [arXiv:1804.05033] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

13. J. Aebischer, M. Fael, C. Greub and J. Virto, B physics beyond the Standard Model at one loop: complete renormalization group evolution below the electroweak scale, JHEP 09 (2017) 158 [arXiv:1704.06639] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

14. E.E. Jenkins, A.V. Manohar and P. Stoffer, Low-energy effective field theory below the electroweak scale: anomalous dimensions, JHEP 01 (2018) 084 [arXiv:1711.05270] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

15. S. Descotes-Genon, A. Falkowski, M. Fedele, M. González-Alonso and J. Virto, The CKM parameters in the SMEFT, JHEP 05 (2019) 172 [arXiv:1812.08163] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

16. A.J. Buras, P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn, S. Jager and L. Silvestrini, Universal unitarity triangle and physics beyond the Standard Model, Phys. Lett. B 500 (2001) 161 [hep-ph/0007085] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

17. M. Blanke and A.J. Buras, Universal unitarity triangle 2016 and the tension between ∆M_s,d and ε_K in CMFV models, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 197 [arXiv:1602.04020] [INSPIRE].

18. CKMfitter Group collaboration, CP violation and the CKM matrix: assessing the impact of the asymmetric B factories, Eur. Phys. J. C 41 (2005) 1 [hep-ph/0406184] [INSPIRE].

19. UTfit collaboration, Model-independent constraints on ∆F = 2 operators and the scale of new physics, JHEP 03 (2008) 049 [arXiv:0707.0636] [INSPIRE].

20. Particle Data Group collaboration, Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 030001 [INSPIRE].

21. L. Di Luzio, M. Kirk, A. Lenz and T. Rauh, ∆M_s theory precision confronts flavour anomalies, JHEP 12 (2019) 009 [arXiv:1909.11087] [INSPIRE].

    Google Scholar 

22. T. Inami and C.S. Lim, Effects of superheavy quarks and leptons in low-energy weak processes K_L → \( \mu \overline{\mu} \), K⁺ → π⁺ \( v\overline{v} \) and K⁰ ↔ \( {\overline{K}}^0 \), Prog. Theor. Phys. 65 (1981) 297 [Erratum ibid. 65 (1981) 1772] [INSPIRE].

23. HFLAV collaboration, Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, and τ-lepton properties as of summer 2016, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 895 [arXiv:1612.07233] [INSPIRE].

24. R.J. Dowdall et al., Neutral B-meson mixing from full lattice QCD at the physical point, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 094508 [arXiv:1907.01025] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

25. A.J. Buras, M. Jamin and P.H. Weisz, Leading and next-to-leading QCD corrections to ϵ parameter and B⁰-\( {\overline{B}}^0 \) mixing in the presence of a heavy top quark, Nucl. Phys. B 347 (1990) 491 [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

26. S. Jäger, M. Kirk, A. Lenz and K. Leslie, Charming new physics in rare B-decays and mixing?, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 015021 [arXiv:1701.09183] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

27. M. Gorbahn and U. Haisch, Effective Hamiltonian for non-leptonic |∆F| = 1 decays at NNLO in QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 713 (2005) 291 [hep-ph/0411071] [INSPIRE].

28. S. Jäger, M. Kirk, A. Lenz and K. Leslie, Charming new B-physics, JHEP 03 (2020) 122 [arXiv:1910.12924] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

29. M. Artuso, G. Borissov and A. Lenz, CP violation in the \( {B}_s^0 \) system, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88 (2016) 045002 [Addendum ibid. 91 (2019) 049901] [arXiv:1511.09466] [INSPIRE].

30. A.J. Buras, D. Guadagnoli and G. Isidori, On ϵ_K beyond lowest order in the operator product expansion, Phys. Lett. B 688 (2010) 309 [arXiv:1002.3612] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

31. G. Buchalla, A.J. Buras and M.E. Lautenbacher, Weak decays beyond leading logarithms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68 (1996) 1125 [hep-ph/9512380] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

32. A.J. Buras, D. Buttazzo and R. Knegjens, K → \( \pi v\overline{v} \) and ε′/ε in simplified new physics models, JHEP 11 (2015) 166 [arXiv:1507.08672] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

33. A.J. Buras, D. Buttazzo, J. Girrbach-Noe and R. Knegjens, K ⁺ → \( {\pi}^{+}v\overline{v} \) and K_L → \( {\pi}^0v\overline{v} \) in the Standard Model: status and perspectives, JHEP 11 (2015) 033 [arXiv:1503.02693] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

34. G. Ruggiero, New results on K ⁺ → \( {\pi}^{+}\overline{v}v \) from the NA62 experiment, talk given at KAON 2019, Perugia, Italy (2019) [J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1526 (2020) 012003] [INSPIRE].

35. KOTO collaboration, Search for the K_L → \( {\pi}^0v\overline{v} \) and K_L → π⁰ X ⁰ decays at the J-PARC KOTO experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 021802 [arXiv:1810.09655] [INSPIRE].

36. A.J. Buras, J. Girrbach-Noe, C. Niehoff and D.M. Straub, B → \( {K}^{\left(\ast \right)}v\overline{v} \) decays in the Standard Model and beyond, JHEP 02 (2015) 184 [arXiv:1409.4557] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

37. BaBar collaboration, Search for B → \( {K}^{\left(\ast \right)}v\overline{v} \) and invisible quarkonium decays, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 112005 [arXiv:1303.7465] [INSPIRE].

38. Belle collaboration, Search for B → \( {h}^{\left(\ast \right)}v\overline{v} \) with the full Belle Υ(4S) data sample, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 111103 [arXiv:1303.3719] [INSPIRE].

39. A. Crivellin and L. Mercolli, B → X_dγ and constraints on new physics, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 114005 [arXiv:1106.5499] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

40. T. Huber, T. Hurth, J. Jenkins, E. Lunghi, Q. Qin and K.K. Vos, Long distance effects in inclusive rare B decays and phenomenology of \( \overline{B} \) → X_dℓ⁺ ℓ⁻, JHEP 10 (2019) 228 [arXiv:1908.07507] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

41. D.M. Straub, flavio: a Python package for flavour and precision phenomenology in the Standard Model and beyond, arXiv:1810.08132 [INSPIRE].

42. J. Aebischer, J. Kumar, P. Stangl and D.M. Straub, A global likelihood for precision constraints and flavour anomalies, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 509 [arXiv:1810.07698] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

43. W. Altmannshofer, C. Niehoff, P. Stangl and D.M. Straub, Status of the B → K^∗ μ⁺ μ⁻ anomaly after Moriond 2017, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 377 [arXiv:1703.09189] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

44. A. Paul and D.M. Straub, Constraints on new physics from radiative B decays, JHEP 04 (2017) 027 [arXiv:1608.02556] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

45. S. Jäger and J. Martin Camalich, On B → Vℓℓ at small dilepton invariant mass, power corrections, and new physics, JHEP 05 (2013) 043 [arXiv:1212.2263] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

46. S. Jäger and J. Martin Camalich, Reassessing the discovery potential of the B → K^∗ ℓ⁺ ℓ⁻ decays in the large-recoil region: SM challenges and BSM opportunities, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 014028 [arXiv:1412.3183] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

47. S. Descotes-Genon, L. Hofer, J. Matias and J. Virto, On the impact of power corrections in the prediction of B → K^∗ μ⁺ μ⁻ observables, JHEP 12 (2014) 125 [arXiv:1407.8526] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

48. M. Ciuchini et al., B → K^∗ ℓ⁺ ℓ⁻ decays at large recoil in the Standard Model: a theoretical reappraisal, JHEP 06 (2016) 116 [arXiv:1512.07157] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

49. B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin, S. Descotes-Genon, J. Matias and J. Virto, Patterns of new physics in b → sℓ⁺ ℓ⁻ transitions in the light of recent data, JHEP 01 (2018) 093 [arXiv:1704.05340] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

50. V.G. Chobanova, T. Hurth, F. Mahmoudi, D. Martinez Santos and S. Neshatpour, Large hadronic power corrections or new physics in the rare decay B → K^∗ μ⁺ μ⁻?, JHEP 07 (2017) 025 [arXiv:1702.02234] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

51. C. Bobeth, M. Chrzaszcz, D. van Dyk and J. Virto, Long-distance effects in B → K^∗ℓℓ from analyticity, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 451 [arXiv:1707.07305] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

52. A. Arbey, T. Hurth, F. Mahmoudi and S. Neshatpour, Hadronic and new physics contributions to b → s transitions, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 095027 [arXiv:1806.02791] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

53. M. Chrzaszcz, A. Mauri, N. Serra, R. Silva Coutinho and D. van Dyk, Prospects for disentangling long- and short-distance effects in the decays B → K^∗ μ⁺ μ⁻, JHEP 10 (2019) 236 [arXiv:1805.06378] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

54. T. Hurth, F. Mahmoudi and S. Neshatpour, Implications of the new LHCb angular analysis of B → K^∗ μ⁺ μ⁻: hadronic effects or new physics?, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 055001 [arXiv:2006.04213] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

55. I. Brivio and M. Trott, Scheming in the SMEFT. . . and a reparameterization invariance!, JHEP 07 (2017) 148 [Addendum ibid. 05 (2018) 136] [arXiv:1701.06424] [INSPIRE].

56. ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group and SLD Heavy Flavour Group collaborations, Precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance, Phys. Rept. 427 (2006) 257 [hep-ex/0509008] [INSPIRE].

57. L3 collaboration, Measurement of the cross section of W -boson pair production at LEP, Phys. Lett. B 600 (2004) 22 [hep-ex/0409016] [INSPIRE].

58. OPAL collaboration, Measurement of the e⁺ e⁻ → W ⁺ W ⁻ cross section and W decay branching fractions at LEP, Eur. Phys. J. C 52 (2007) 767 [arXiv:0708.1311] [INSPIRE].

59. ALEPH collaboration, Measurement of W -pair production in e⁺ e⁻ collisions at centre-of-mass energies from 183 GeV to 209 GeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 38 (2004) 147 [INSPIRE].

60. ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL and LEP Electroweak collaborations, Electroweak measurements in electron-positron collisions at W -boson-pair energies at LEP, Phys. Rept. 532 (2013) 119 [arXiv:1302.3415] [INSPIRE].

61. L. Berthier, M. Bjørn and M. Trott, Incorporating doubly resonant W ^± data in a global fit of SMEFT parameters to lift flat directions, JHEP 09 (2016) 157 [arXiv:1606.06693] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

62. ATLAS and CMS collaborations, Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC pp collision data at \( \sqrt{s} \) = 7 and 8 TeV, JHEP 08 (2016) 045 [arXiv:1606.02266] [INSPIRE].

63. J. Ellis, C.W. Murphy, V. Sanz and T. You, Updated global SMEFT fit to Higgs, diboson and electroweak data, JHEP 06 (2018) 146 [arXiv:1803.03252] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

64. CMS collaboration, Combined measurements of Higgs boson couplings in proton-proton collisions at \( \sqrt{s} \) = 13 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 421 [arXiv:1809.10733] [INSPIRE].

65. ATLAS collaboration, Combined measurements of Higgs boson production and decay using up to 80 fb⁻¹ of proton-proton collision data at \( \sqrt{s} \) = 13 TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 012002 [arXiv:1909.02845] [INSPIRE].

66. ATLAS collaboration, Measurement of the W ⁺ W ⁻ production cross section in pp collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of \( \sqrt{s} \) = 13 TeV with the ATLAS experiment, Phys. Lett. B 773 (2017) 354 [arXiv:1702.04519] [INSPIRE].

67. L. Berthier and M. Trott, Consistent constraints on the Standard Model effective field theory, JHEP 02 (2016) 069 [arXiv:1508.05060] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

68. H. Sagawa, T. Tauchi, M. Tanabashi and S. Uehara, TRISTAN physics at high luminosities, in Proceedings, 3^rd Workshop, Tsukuba, Japan, 16–18 November 1994 [INSPIRE].

69. A.B. Arbuzov et al., ZFITTER: a semi-analytical program for fermion pair production in e⁺ e⁻ annihilation, from version 6.21 to version 6.42, Comput. Phys. Commun. 174 (2006) 728 [hep-ph/0507146] [INSPIRE].

70. P.A. Vetter, D.M. Meekhof, P.K. Majumder, S.K. Lamoreaux and E.N. Fortson, Precise test of electroweak theory from a new measurement of parity nonconservation in atomic thallium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 2658 [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

71. C.S. Wood et al., Measurement of parity nonconservation and an anapole moment in cesium, Science 275 (1997) 1759 [INSPIRE].

    Google Scholar 

72. C.Y. Prescott et al., Further measurements of parity nonconservation in inelastic electron scattering, Phys. Lett. B 84 (1979) 524 [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

73. A. Falkowski, M. González-Alonso and K. Mimouni, Compilation of low-energy constraints on 4-fermion operators in the SMEFT, JHEP 08 (2017) 123 [arXiv:1706.03783] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

74. CHARM collaboration, A precise determination of the electroweak mixing angle from semileptonic neutrino scattering, Z. Phys. C 36 (1987) 611 [INSPIRE].

75. E.J. Beise, M.L. Pitt and D.T. Spayde, The SAMPLE experiment and weak nucleon structure, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 54 (2005) 289 [nucl-ex/0412054] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

76. A. Argento et al., Electroweak asymmetry in deep inelastic muon-nucleon scattering, Phys. Lett. B 120 (1983) 245 [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

77. I. Brivio et al., O new physics, where art thou? A global search in the top sector, JHEP 02 (2020) 131 [arXiv:1910.03606] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

78. N.P. Hartland et al., A Monte Carlo global analysis of the Standard Model effective field theory: the top quark sector, JHEP 04 (2019) 100 [arXiv:1901.05965] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

79. M. Farina, C. Mondino, D. Pappadopulo and J.T. Ruderman, New physics from high energy tops, JHEP 01 (2019) 231 [arXiv:1811.04084] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

80. S. Bißmann, J. Erdmann, C. Grunwald, G. Hiller and K. Kröninger, Constraining top-quark couplings combining top-quark and B decay observables, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 136 [arXiv:1909.13632] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

81. S. Alioli, V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries and E. Mereghetti, Right-handed charged currents in the era of the Large Hadron Collider, JHEP 05 (2017) 086 [arXiv:1703.04751] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

82. V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries and E. Mereghetti, Constraining the top-Higgs sector of the Standard Model effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 034031 [arXiv:1605.04311] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

83. V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries and E. Mereghetti, Is there room for CP-violation in the top-Higgs sector?, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 016002 [arXiv:1603.03049] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

84. J. Brod, A. Greljo, E. Stamou and P. Uttayarat, Probing anomalous \( t\overline{t}Z \) interactions with rare meson decays, JHEP 02 (2015) 141 [arXiv:1408.0792] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

85. J.F. Kamenik, M. Papucci and A. Weiler, Constraining the dipole moments of the top quark, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 071501 [Erratum ibid. 88 (2013) 039903] [arXiv:1107.3143] [INSPIRE].

86. J. Drobnak, S. Fajfer and J.F. Kamenik, Probing anomalous tW b interactions with rare B decays, Nucl. Phys. B 855 (2012) 82 [arXiv:1109.2357] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

87. Y. Jiang and M. Trott, On the non-minimal character of the SMEFT, Phys. Lett. B 770 (2017) 108 [arXiv:1612.02040] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

88. A. Falkowski and D. Straub, Flavourful SMEFT likelihood for Higgs and electroweak data, JHEP 04 (2020) 066 [arXiv:1911.07866] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

89. V. Cirigliano and H. Neufeld, A note on isospin violation in P_ℓ2(γ) decays, Phys. Lett. B 700 (2011) 7 [arXiv:1102.0563] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

90. Belle collaboration, Measurement of the decay B → Dℓν_ℓ in fully reconstructed events and determination of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element |V_cb|, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 032006 [arXiv:1510.03657] [INSPIRE].

91. MILC collaboration, B → Dℓν form factors at nonzero recoil and |V_cb| from 2 + 1-flavor lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 034506 [arXiv:1503.07237] [INSPIRE].

92. A. Sirlin, Large m_W, m_Z behavior of the O(α) corrections to semileptonic processes mediated by W , Nucl. Phys. B 196 (1982) 83 [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

93. M. Moulson, Experimental determination of V_us from kaon decays, PoS(CKM2016)033 (2017) [arXiv:1704.04104] [INSPIRE].

94. J. Aebischer, A. Crivellin, M. Fael and C. Greub, Matching of gauge invariant dimension-six operators for b → s and b → c transitions, JHEP 05 (2016) 037 [arXiv:1512.02830] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

95. J. Drobnak, S. Fajfer and J.F. Kamenik, Interplay of t → bW decay and B_q meson mixing in minimal flavor violating models, Phys. Lett. B 701 (2011) 234 [arXiv:1102.4347] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

96. P. Marquard, A.V. Smirnov, V.A. Smirnov and M. Steinhauser, Quark mass relations to four-loop order in perturbative QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 142002 [arXiv:1502.01030] [INSPIRE].

    ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references