BARI-TH/21-728

c → uνν¯ transitions of Bc mesons: 331 model facing Standard Model null tests

Pietro Colangeloa, Fulvia De Fazioa and Francesco Loparcoa,b

aIstituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Bari, Via Orabona 4, I-70126 Bari, Italy bDipartimento Interateneo di Fisica ”Michelangelo Merlin”, Universit`adegli Studi di Bari, via Orabona 4, 70126 Bari, Italy

Abstract The Glashow-Iliopoulos-Maiani mechanism is extremely efficient to suppress the flavour-changing neutral current decays of charmed hadrons induced by the c → u tran- sitions, making such processes particularly sensitive to phenomena beyond the Standard Model. In particular, c → u decays with a neutrino pair in the final state are theoretically appealing due to the small long-distance contributions. Moreover, in the framework of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT), the SU(2)L invariance allows to relate the Wilson coefficients in the effective Hamiltonian governing the c → uνν¯ decays + − (∗)+ to the coefficients in the c → u` ` Hamiltonian. We analyze the Bc → B νν¯ decays, for which branching fractions of at most O(10−16) are predicted in the Standard Model including short- and long-distance contributions, so small that they can be considered as null tests. Using SMEFT and the relation to the c → u`+`− processes we study the largest enhancement achievable in generic new physics scenarios. Then we focus on a particular extension of the Standard Model, the 331 model. SMEFT relations and the + − (∗)+ −6 connection with c → u` ` imply that B(Bc → B νν¯) could even reach O(10 ), an extremely large enhancement. A less pronounced effect is found in the 331 model, with O(10−11) predicted branching fractions. Within the 331 model correlations exist among (∗)+ ∗ the Bc → B νν¯ and K → πνν¯, B → (Xs,K,K )νν¯ channels. arXiv:2107.07291v1 [hep-ph] 15 Jul 2021 1 Introduction

In the Standard Model (SM) the flavour-changing neutral current (FCNC) transitions oc- cur at loop level and are generally characterized by Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) and loop suppressions. The CKM cancellation mechanism is particularly efficient in the processes involving up-type quarks which take place through penguin and box diagrams with internal down-type quark exchanges. This is the case of the charmed hadron decays induced by the c → u`+`− and c → uνν¯ transitions, for which tiny branching fractions are predicted in SM considering the short-distance (SD) amplitude [1]. The modes with charged dileptons are polluted by long-distance (LD) hadronic contributions, and the phase-space regions where such terms are large must be cut to pin down the effects of the short-distance term [2]. In the c → u dineutrino modes long-distance effects are

1 smaller than in the charged dilepton modes, therefore such processes represent genuine null tests of the SM: their observation would be an indication of phenomena beyond the Standard Model (BSM). Among all hadrons, the decays of Bc induced by the c → u transitions are particularly interesting, since in this case the main long-distance contri- butions affect a region of the phase-space near the end-point, differently, e.g., from D, Ds and Λc. Hence, Bc plays an important role in testing the Standard Model [3]. The short-distance low-energy Hamiltonian governing the c → uνν¯ transition has a simple structure. For left-handed neutrinos it consists of two operators,

Heff = CL QL + CR QR , (1) with

µ QL = (¯uγ (1 − γ5)c)(¯νγµ(1 − γ5)ν) µ QR = (¯uγ (1 + γ5)c)(¯νγµ(1 − γ5)ν). (2)

SM In the SM the Hamiltonian comprises only QL. The Wilson coefficient CL is obtained from loop diagrams with down-type quark exchanges,

SM GF α X q C = − √ λ X(xq). (3) L 2 2π sin2 θ W q=d,s,b

In (3) GF is the Fermi constant, α the fine structure constant, θW the Weinberg an- q ∗ gle, λ = Vcq Vuq with Vij the CKM matrix elements. The Inami-Lim function X(xq), 2 2 depending on xq = mq/MW , can be found in [4]. The dominant contribution from the SM −13 intermediate b quark provides |CL | ' O(10 ). Analogously, the transitions s → dνν¯ and b → (s, d)νν¯ are governed by a low-energy Hamiltonian with the structure of (1) and intermediate up-type quarks. BSM phenomena can manifest themselves through the enhancement of CL and through the effects of the operator QR. FCNC dineutrino modes have been extensively studied in the case of strange and + + 0 beauty quarks. The K → π νν¯ and KL → π νν¯ transitions are under strict theoretical control [4] and intense experimental scrutiny [5–7]. In the beauty sector, the modes B → K(∗)νν¯ have been theoretically investigated [8–16] and are within the reach of the present facilities [17–20]. As for the charm sector, a few studies have analyzed the FCNC dineutrino modes (∗)+ in the SM and BSM frameworks [21–24]. Here, we focus on Bc → B νν¯ decays, for which lattice QCD results for the hadronic form factors can be used, with a control of the theoretical uncertainty related to nonperturbative QCD quantities. We shall proceed both in a model-independent way and in a defined BSM framework. In the next Section we apply the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT) to re- late the Wilson coefficients in the low-energy c → uνν¯ Hamiltonian (1) to the coefficients in the c → u`+`− Hamiltonian, as done in [21,22]. This allows us to establish the largest enhancement for the Bc branching fractions achievable in a generic NP scenario, with the numerical results discussed in Section 3. In Section 4 we focus on a definite NP model, the 331 model in four variants. We observe that in this framework it is possible to relate the charm to the strange and beauty quark sectors, and that the c → u processes can be constrained using bounds from ∆S = 2 and ∆B = 2 observables. The correlations among Bc and kaon and B meson dineutrino decays are described in Section 6. In the last Section we draw our conclusions.

2 2 Relating the c → u dineutrino and charged dilepton modes using SMEFT

A relation between the c → u dineutrino and the c → u charged dilepton modes can be established on the basis of SU(2)L invariance using the Standard Model Effective Theory [21,22]. Considering the possibility of lepton flavour violation, one focuses on c → uνiν¯j transitions, with the indices i, j denoting the neutrino flavours. The coefficients CL and i,j CR in the low-energy Hamiltonian (1) become lepton-flavour dependent CL,R, and can be combined giving ± X ˜i,j ˜i,j 2 xU = |CL ± CR | (4) i,j=1,2,3 and x+ + x− x = U U , (5) U 2

GF α with C˜L,R defined by CL,R = − √ C˜L,R. The combinations (4) and (5) account for 2 4π the contributions of both the operators QL and QR. + − The relation of CL,R to the Wilson coefficients in the c → u` ` low-energy Hamil- + − tonian has been proposed in [21,22]. For two generic quarks q1 and q2 the q1 → q2` ` general Hamiltonian reads [25]:   + − q1→q2` ` GF X  0 0  H = −4 √  CiQi + CiQi + CT QT + CT 5QT 5 , (6) eff 2 i=9,10,S,P with the operators α α Q = (¯q γ P q )(`γ¯ µ`) Q0 = (¯q γ P q )(`γ¯ µ`) 9 4π 2 µ L 1 9 4π 2 µ R 1 α α Q = (¯q γ P q )(`γ¯ µγ `) Q0 = (¯q γ P q )(`γ¯ µγ `) 10 4π 2 µ L 1 5 10 4π 2 µ R 1 5 ¯ 0 ¯ QS = (¯q2PR q1)(``) QS = (¯q2PL q1)(``) ¯ 0 ¯ QP = (¯q2PR q1)(`γ5`) QP = (¯q2PL q1)(`γ5`) (7) ¯ µν QT = (¯q2σµν q1)(`σ `) ¯ µν QT 5 = (¯q2σµν q1)(`σ γ5`) 1 ± γ and P = 5 . The relations are obtained using the SMEFT operators classified in R,L 2 Ref. [26]. The tree-level matching of the dimension-6 four-fermion operators invariant under the SM SU(3)C × SU(2)L × U(1)Y gauge group with the Hamiltonian (1) gives the relations: v2 h     i Cc→u = C(1) + C(3) + C(1) − C(3) L 2Λ2 lq lq ϕq ϕq v2   Cc→u = C + C . (8) R 2Λ2 lu ϕu

3 c→u GF c→u C are defined by CL,R = − √ C , with CL,R in (1). The operators corresponding L,R 2 L,R to the coefficients in the rhs of Eq. (8) are expressed in the Warsaw basis [26]. In this equation v is the EW vacuum expectation value and Λ the matching scale of NP with the SMEFT. The relations between the coefficients in the c → u`+`− Hamiltonian (6) and the coefficients of the SMEFT operators can also be worked out: πv2   πv2   Cc→u = C(1) − C(3) + C + (−1 + 4s2 ) C(1) − C(3) 9 αΛ2 lq lq qe αΛ2 W ϕq ϕq πv2   C0 c→u = C + C + (−1 + 4s2 )C 9 αΛ2 eu lu W ϕu πv2   πv2   Cc→u = − C(1) − C(3) − C + C(1) − C(3) 10 αΛ2 lq lq qe αΛ2 ϕq ϕq πv2   C0 c→u = C − C + C 10 αΛ2 eu lu ϕu v2 Cc→u = Cc→u = − C(1) (9) S P 4Λ2 lequ v2 C0c→u = −C0c→u = − C(1)∗ S P 4Λ2 lequ v2 Cc→u = − 2Re[C(3) ] T 4Λ2 lequ v2 Cc→u = − 2i Im[C(3) ] . T 5 4Λ2 lequ The SMEFT operators have generation indices. The coefficients in the rhs of Eqs. (8) and (9) read C = Cij12, with i and j the lepton generation indices and 1, 2 indicating the u and c quark in the first and second generation.1 The coefficients in Eq. (8) also appear in (9). This allows to translate the experimental + − bounds on the c → u` ` modes into an upper bound for the combination xU in Eq. (5). The bound is obtained assuming conservatively that the experimental limits on the charged dilepton branching fractions are saturated by the short-distance Hamiltonian (6). The bound depends on additional assumptions on the structure of the transitions, the most stringent one is obtained assuming lepton universality (LU) and charged lepton flavour conservation (cLFC) [21, 22]: max xU ≤ xU = 34 (LU) (10) max xU ≤ xU = 196 (cLFC) . (11) ± 0 The bounds (10) and (11) have been considered in the analysis of D , D , Ds and + (∗)+ charmed baryon decays induced by c → uνν¯ [21, 22]. Here we focus on Bc → B νν¯. ∗ We use the lattice QCD Bc → Bd form factors in [28], and the Bc → Bd form factors + (∗)+ derived in [3] applying the heavy quark spin symmetry [29, 30]. The Bc → B form factors are obtained invoking the isospin symmetry. 1In Ref. [27] the relations in Eq. (9) are obtained neglecting the contribution of the anomalous gauge boson couplings, which correspond to the SMEFT coefficients with indices ϕ. The relations for the c → u transitions are different from those for b → s [25].

4 + (∗)+ 3 Bc → B νν¯ decays + + 0 + ∗+ 0 In the processes Bc (p) → B (p )ν(k1)¯ν(k2) and Bc (p) → B (p , )ν(k1)¯ν(k2) the 0 ∗ particle momenta are p, p , k1, k2 and  is the B polarization vector. Denoting by Emiss the energy of the neutrino pair in the Bc rest frame, the dimensionless variable 2 E 1 − r √ m (∗)+ x = miss varies in the range ≤ x ≤ 1 − r, with r = B . The hadronic m 2 m2 Bc Bc matrix elements in the decay amplitudes are parametrized in terms of form factors:

 m2 − m2  m2 − m2 hB+(p0)|uγ¯ c|B (p)i = f (q2) p + p0 − Bc B q + f (q2) Bc B q (12) µ c + µ µ q2 µ 0 q2 µ and

2 ∗+ 0 2V (q ) ∗ν α 0β hB (p , )|uγ¯ µc|Bc(p)i = − iµναβ p p , ∗ mBc + mB ∗ ∗+ 0  ∗ ( · q)  2 hB (p , )|uγ¯ γ c|B (p)i = (m + m ∗ )  − q A (q ) (13) µ 5 c Bc B µ q2 µ 1

∗ 2 2 m − m ∗ ∗ ( · q)  0 Bc B  2 ∗ 2mB 2 − (p + p )µ − qµ A2(q ) + ( · q) qµA0(q ) . ∗ 2 2 mBc + mB q q

+ + The Bc → B νν¯ missing energy distribution obtained from (1) involves the form factor 2 f+(q ): dΓ(B+ → B+νν¯) |C + C |2 |f (q2)|2 c = 3 L R + λ3/2(q2, m2 , m2 ) , (14) 3 Bc B dx 48π mBc 0 + ∗+ with q = p − p and λ the K¨all´enfunction. For Bc → B νν¯ the missing energy distributions for longitudinally and transversely polarized B∗ read:

2 0 2m2 2 dΓL |CL − CR| |~p |  0 2 2 Bc 0 2 2  ∗ = 3 (mBc + mB )(mBc E − mB∗ )A1(q ) − |~p | A2(q ) 3 2 ∗ dx 24π mB∗ mBc + mB 0 2 0 2 dΓ± |~p |q 2mBc |~p | 2 2 ∗ = 3 (CL + CR) V (q ) ∓ (CL − CR)(mBc + mB )A1(q ) , (15) 3 ∗ dx 24π mBc + mB

0 0 ∗ with ~p and E the B three-momentum and energy in the Bc rest frame. In Eqs. (14) and (15) the relation q2 = m2 (2x − 1) + m2 is used; the factor 3 is due to the sum Bc B(∗) over the three neutrino flavours. + + + As inferred from (14) and (15), B(Bc → B νν¯) depends on the combination xU + ∗+ − + ∗+ + in Eq. (4), BL(Bc → B νν¯) depends on xU , and BT (Bc → B νν¯) = B+(Bc → ∗+ + ∗+ B νν¯) + B−(Bc → B νν¯) depends on both combinations. Using the parameters in Table 1 and the central values for the form factors [3, 28] we obtain:

+ + 8 2 −9 + B(Bc → B νν¯) = 7.8 × 10 |CL + CR| = 6.9 × 10 xU (16)

5 Constants and quark masses −5 −2 GF = 1.16637(1) × 10 GeV [31] mc(mc) = 1.279(8) GeV [32] MW = 80.385(15) GeV [31] mb(mb) = 4.163(16) GeV [31,33] 2 2.1 sin θW = 0.23121(4) [31] mt(mt) = 162.5 ±1.5 GeV [31] α(MZ ) = 1/127.9 [31] Mt = 172.76(30) GeV [31] (5) αs (MZ ) = 0.1179(10) [31] Meson masses and lifetimes + −8 mK+ = 493.677(13) MeV [31] τ(K ) = 1.2380(20) × 10 s[31] −10 mK0 = 497.611(13) MeV [31] τ(KS) = 0.8954(4) × 10 s [31] −8 τ(KL) = 5.116(21) × 10 s [31]

mBd = 5279.63(20) MeV [31] τ(Bd) = 1.519(4) ps [31] mB+ = 5279.25(26) MeV [31] mB∗+ = 5324.70(21) MeV [31]

mBs = 5366.88(14) MeV [31] τ(Bs) = 1.515(4) ps [31]

mBc = 6274.9(8) MeV [31] τ(Bc) = 0.510(9) ps [31] Decay constants and parameters related to ∆F = 2 observables ˆ FK = 156.1(11) MeV [34] BK = 0.7625(97) [34] −2 −1 −3 ∆MK = 0.5293(9) × 10 ps [31] |K | = 2.228(11) × 10 [31] q ˆ FBd = 190.0(1.3) MeV [34] FBd BBd = 216(10) MeV [34] q ˆ FBs = 230.3(1.3) MeV [34] FBs BBs = 262(10) MeV [34] ηB = 0.55(1) [35,36] −1 ∆Md = 0.5065(19) ps [31] SJ/ψKS = 0.695(19) [31] −1 ∆Ms = 17.756(21) ps [31] SJ/ψφ = 0.054(20) [34] CKM parameters −3 |Vus| = 0.2252(5) [31] |Vcb| = (41.0 ± 1.4) × 10 [31] −3 ◦ |Vub| = 3.72 × 10 [31] γ = 68 [31] |Vcd| = 0.22507 |Vcs| = 0.97348 |Vtd| = 0.00856 |Vts| = 0.04027 Table 1: Parameters used in the analysis. and

+ ∗+ 9 2 −8 − BL(Bc → B νν¯) = 1.2 × 10 |CL − CR| = 1.0 × 10 xU + ∗+ 7 2 8 2 BT (Bc → B νν¯) = 1.9 × 10 |CL + CR| + 7.4 × 10 |CL − CR| −10 + −9 − = 1.7 × 10 xU + 6.5 × 10 xU (17) + ∗+ 7 2 9 2 B(Bc → B νν¯) = 1.9 × 10 |CL + CR| + 1.9 × 10 |CL − CR| −10 + −8 − = 1.7 × 10 xU + 1.7 × 10 xU . + + + ∗+ + The largest values of B(Bc → B νν¯) and B(Bc → B νν¯) correspond to the largest xU − − + and xU , respectively. We scan the branching fractions using xU = 2 xU −xU and varying + max 0 ≤ xU ≤ 2 xU , with xU ≤ xU for the two cases (10) (LU bound) and (11) (cLFC + + bound). In Fig. 1 we show the largest enhancement for the dB(Bc → B νν¯)/dx distri-

6 LU 4 cLFC 4

3 )  10 ν + 2  B c ( B 1 dx d ℬ

0 0.146 0.148 0.150 0.152 0.154 0.156 0.158 x

+ + Figure 1: Missing energy distribution dB(Bc → B νν¯)/dx for the largest value of the coefficients combination xU in Eq. (10) (LU bound - blue curve) and (11) (cFLC bound - red curve). The widths of the curves are obtained varying the form factor parameters [3, 28].

+ bution obtained for xU = 2 xU . In Fig. 2 we depict the maximum enhancement for the missing energy distribution and for the distributions of longitudinally and transversely ∗+ + ∗+ polarized B in Bc → B νν¯. Integrating over x we have:

8 LU

4 cLFC 6 )  10 ν

* + 4  B c ( B 2 dx d ℬ

0 5 LU 4 cLFC 4 )  10

ν L

* + 3  B

c T 2 ( B L L , T T dx ℬ 1 d

0 0.140 0.142 0.144 0.146 0.148 0.150 x

+ ∗+ + Figure 2: Missing energy distributions dB(Bc → B νν¯)/dx (top panel) and dBL,T (Bc → ∗+ max B νν¯)/dx (bottom panel) for xU in Eq. (10) (blue curves) and (11) (red curves). The widths of the curves are obtained varying the form factor parameters.

7 ��� �� (��) ��� 6 �� (����)

5 �

�� ⨯ ) 4 ν ν *+

3 � → �

2 ( � B

1

0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 + � B(� � →� ν ν)⨯ ��

+ + + ∗+ Figure 3: Anti-correlation between B(Bc → B νν¯) and B(Bc → B νν¯), varying the combination of the coefficients xU up to the bounds in Eqs. (10) and (11). Colors from cyan to magenta indicate increasing values of xU . The dark blue line corresponds to the value saturating the LU bound, the dark purple line to the value saturating the cLFC bound.

+ + max −7 B(Bc → B νν¯)LU = (4.7 ± 0.25) × 10 + + max −6 B(Bc → B νν¯)cLFC = (2.7 ± 0.15) × 10 (18) + ∗+ max −6 B(Bc → B νν¯)LU = (1.1 ± 0.06) × 10 + ∗+ max −6 B(Bc → B νν¯)cLFC = (6.5 ± 0.3) × 10 . (19)

The largest values of the branching fractions must be compared with the SM prediction + + SM −18 + ∗+ SM from Eq. (3): B(Bc → B νν¯) = (8.5 ± 0.5) × 10 , B(Bc → B νν¯) = (2.1 ± 0.1) × 10−17, and with the estimate of the long-distance contributions discussed in the appendix: hence, a huge enhancement with respect to tiny SM prediction is possible. + Setting xU below the bounds (10), (11) and varying xU ∈ [0, 2 xU ] the branching fractions can be read in the plot in Fig. 3. The enhancements in Eqs. (18) and (19), achievable in generic NP scenarios, must be taken with caution, since they would be the manifestation of BSM phenomena af- fecting other processes to a level that is necessary to control. For this reason it is worth considering a well defined extension of the Standard Model, as discussed in the next Section.

4 c → uνν¯ transition in the 331 model

Among the extensions of the Standard Model we focus on the 331 models, a class of models based on the gauge group SU(3)C × SU(3)L × U(1)X [37, 38]. The gauge sym-

8 metry is spontaneously broken to the SM group SU(3)C × SU(2)L × U(1)Y , followed by the spontaneous breaking to SU(3)C × U(1)Q. This extension of the gauge group has remarkable features. Left-handed fermions transform under SU(3)L either as triplets or as antitriplets. The requirement of gauge anomaly cancellation imposes that the number of triplets should be equal to the number of antitriplets. This constraint together with the asymptotic freedom of QCD imposes that the number of fermion generations is equal to the number of colors, a hint of why three generations in nature. The quark genera- tions transform differently under SU(3)L, and a possibility is that two left-handed quark generations transform as SU(3)L triplets, one as an antitriplet. Choosing the latter one as the third generation, the different assignment can be a hint of why the large top mass. The electric charge generator Q is defined by

Q = T3 + βT8 + X, (20) with T3 and T8 the diagonal SU(3)L and X the U(1)X generators. The parameter β defines the specific variant of the model. Four new gauge bosons have integer electric 1 √ charges if β is a multiple of √ and 3. The U(1)X gauge coupling gX and the SU(3)L 3 coupling g are related, g2 6 sin2 θ X = W . (21) 2 2 2 g 1 − (1 + β ) sin θW 1 Eq. (21) provides the bound |β| ≤ which corresponds to |β| < 1.737 for tan θW (MZ0 ) the sinus of the Weinberg angle sin θW (MZ0 = 1 TeV) = 0.249. In all the 331 variants there is a neutral gauge boson Z0 mediating tree-level FCNC in the quark sector, with universal and diagonal Z0 couplings to leptons. The extended Higgs sector involves three SU(3)L triplets and one sextet. New heavy fermions are also present in the spectrum. As in the SM, quark mass eigenstates are defined upon rotation of flavour eigenstates through two unitary matrices, UL (for up-type quarks) and VL (for down-type quarks). † The relation VCKM = ULVL holds. However, while in the SM VCKM only enters in charged current interactions and the two rotation matrices do not appear individually, in 331 model only one matrix, either UL or VL, can be expressed in terms of VCKM and of the other one. The remaining rotation matrix affects the Z0 couplings to the quarks. Choosing VL as the surviving rotation matrix, it can be parametrized as  iδ i(δ −δ ) iδ i(δ +δ )  c˜12c˜13 s˜12c˜23e 3 − c˜12s˜13s˜23e 1 2 c˜12c˜23s˜13e 1 +s ˜12s˜23e 2 3 −iδ i(δ −δ −δ ) i(δ −δ ) iδ VL =  −c˜13s˜12e 3 c˜12c˜23 +s ˜12s˜13s˜23e 1 2 3 −s˜12s˜13c˜23e 1 3 − c˜12s˜23e 2  −iδ −iδ −s˜13e 1 −c˜13s˜23e 2 c˜13c˜23 (22) withc ˜i = cos θi,s ˜i = sin θi, and phases δ1,2,3. With this parametrization, considering 0 the Z couplings to the quarks, one finds that the Bd system involves the parameterss ˜13 and δ1, the Bs systems ˜23 and δ2, and the kaon systems ˜13,s ˜23 and δ2 −δ1. This provides remarkable correlations among observables in kaon, Bd, and Bs systems [39–43]. It is interesting to observe that the relation † UL = VL · VCKM (23) allows to bound the Z0 mediated FCNC transitions of up-type quarks using the con- straints established in the down-type quark sector [44]. Such a relation connecting the down-type and up-type quark FCNC processes is a peculiar feature of the 331 model.

9 The Z0 coupling to ordinary fermions, for a generic value of the β parameter, is encoded in the 331 Lagrangian density:

0µ Z0 gZ i Lint = i √ q 2 2 2 3cW 1 − (1 + β )sW

( √ √ X n h 2 i ¯
2 ¯ o 1 − (1 + 3β)sW ν¯` Lγµν` L + `Lγµ`L − 2 3βsW `Rγµ`R `=e,µ,τ

X n β 2  2 ∗ + − 1 + (1 + √ )sW (¯quL)iγµ(quL)jδij + 2cW (¯quL)iγµ(quL)ju3iu3j i,j=1,2,3 3

 β 2  2 ∗ + − 1 + (1 + √ )s (¯qdL)iγµ(qdL)jδij + 2c (¯qdL)iγµ(qdL)jv v3j 3 W W 3i

4 2 2 2 o + √ βs (¯quR)iγµ(quR)jδij − √ βs (¯qdR)iγµ(qdR)jδij , (24) 3 W 3 W where sW = sin θW , cW = cos θW , qu (qd) denotes an up (down)-type quark (i, j are generation indices), and vij and uij are the elements of the VL and UL matrices, respec- 2 1 tively. The models corresponding to β = ±√ and β = ±√ , together with the choice 3 3 of the fermions in the third generation as transforming as SU(3)L antitriplets, satisfy a number of phenomenological constraints [40]. In particular, it is possible to select a region of the parameter space compatible with the constrains from ∆F = 2 observables in the Bd,Bs and K systems and from the electroweak precision observables, provided 2 that the Z0 mass is not lighter than 1 TeV. The variant with β = √ predicts the ratio 3 ε0 closest to the experimental range [42]. ε As shown in [41], the Z − Z0 mixing can be neglected in ∆F = 2 transitions, while it must be taken into account in decays with neutrinos in the final state. The Z − Z0 mixing angle is written as [41] 2  2 √  2 2 cW p sW MZ MZ sin ξ = f(β) 3β 2 + 3a 2 = B(β, a) 2 , (25) 3 cW MZ0 MZ0 where 1 f(β) = 2 2 > 0 (26) 1 − (1 + β )sW and 2 v− − 1 < a = 2 < 1 . (27) v+ 2 v± are given in terms of the vacuum expectation values of two Higgs triplets ρ and η: 2 2 2 2 2 2 v+ = vη + vρ , v− = vη − vρ . (28) v The parameter a is expressed in terms of tan β¯ = ρ as in two Higgs doublet models (we vη use β¯ to distinguish this parameter from β defining the 331 model in (20)) [41]: 1 − tan2 β¯ a = . (29) 1 + tan2 β¯

10 Figure 4: Tree-level Z0 contribution to the c → uνν¯ effective Hamiltonian.

We consider the four variants scrutinized in [40]. For the modes with a neutrino- antineutrino pair in the final state, the Z − Z0 mixing is included replacing

νν¯ 0 νν¯ 0 L ∆L (Z ) → ∆L (Z )(1 + Rνν¯(a)). (30)

L Rνν¯(a) is defined as L ∆νν¯(Z) Rνν¯(a) = B(β, a) νν¯ 0 , (31) ∆L (Z ) with B(β, a) in (25) and ∆νν¯(Z) the SM Z coupling to neutrinos. (∗)+ In the 331 model the Bc → B νν¯ modes present several features. The structure of 331 model allows to use data from B and K decays to constrain c → u modes. Moreover, Z0 mediates FCNC at tree-level only in the case of left-handed quarks, hence the coefficient CR in the Hamiltonian (1) vanishes in all the model variants. Considering the contribution from the tree-level diagram in Fig. 4 and using the 0 coupling of Z to quarks and neutrinos derived from Eq. (24), the coefficient CL in (1) reads: uc 0 νν¯ 0 331 ∆L (Z ) ∆L (Z ) L
CL = 2 1 + Rνν¯(a) , (32) MZ0 where

uc 0 g cW ∗ ∆L (Z ) = √ q u31u32 2 2 3 1 − (1 + β )sW √  2  νν¯ 0 g 1 − (1 + 3β)sW ∆L (Z ) = √ q . (33) 2 2 2 3cW 1 − (1 + β )sW

The elements uij are obtained from Eqs. (22) and (23). As a consequence, CL depends on the parameterss ˜13, δ1,s ˜23, δ2 that in pair control the Bd and Bs decays, respectively, 0 and altogether govern the K decays. CL also depends on the Z − Z mixing parameter + (∗)+ a. The Bc → B νν¯ processes must be studied in such a parameter space.

+ (∗)+ 5 Bc → B νν¯ decays in the 331 model

+ (∗)+ In the numerical analysis of Bc → B νν¯ in the 331 model we follow the method described in [42]. We select the model parameters imposing that ∆MBd , SJ/ψKS and

∆MBs , SJ/ψφ, whose measurements are quoted in Table 1, lie in their experimental

11 Figure 5: Allowed regions in the 331 space of parameterss ˜13, δ1 (top panel) ands ˜23, δ2 (bottom panel) for β = ± √2 (left) and β = ± √1 (right), varying the Z0 mass in the range [1, 5] TeV. 3 3

−3 ranges within 2σ. In the kaon sector we require that εK is in the range [1.6, 2.5] × 10 and ∆MK varies between [0.75, 1.25] × (∆MK )SM , i.e., (∆MK )SM = 0.0047 GeV using Vub in Table 1. The formulae for such observables in the SM and in 331 models can be found in [39]. For εK we use the updated result in [45]. The other input quantities are also collected in Table 1; for the CKM matrix elements the Table displays the four entries chosen as the independent ones, the others are derived. The obtained allowed regions in the parameter spaces ˜13, δ1,s ˜23, δ2 are in Fig. 5 for MZ0 ∈ [1, 5] TeV. The regions (˜s13, δ1) are obtained imposing the constraints on

∆MBd ,SJ/ψKS , the regions (˜s23, δ2) using ∆MBs ,SJ/ψφ. In our computation of the observables in 331 model we varys ˜13, δ1,s ˜23, δ2 in their allowed ranges and select the values for which the constraints from ∆F = 2 processes in the kaon sector are also satisfied. For each value of β Fig. 5 shows the presence of two ranges for the phases δ1,2 which are independent of MZ0 . Choosing the 331 parameters in the allowed ranges, 331 (∗)+ the coefficient CL can be computed and the Bc → B νν¯ branching fractions can be predicted.

12 0.5

11 0.4 )  10 0.3 ν +

0.2 B  c 2 0.1 β=+ ℬ ( B 3

β=+ 1 0.0 3 1.2 β=- 1 3

11 1.0 β=- 2 )  10 0.8 3 ν

* + 0.6

B  0.4 c

ℬ ( B 0.2

0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5

MZ' [TeV]

Figure 6: Branching ratios B(B+ → B+νν¯) and B(B+ → B∗+νν¯) in 331 model for β = ± √2 and c c 3 1 β = ± √ , varying M 0 from 1 to 5 TeV. The results correspond to the values ofs ˜ , δ ,s ˜ , δ and 3 Z 13 1 23 2 a producing the largest rates.

In Fig. 6 we plot the missing energy distributions for the set ofs ˜13, δ1,s ˜23, δ2 and a 0 maximizing the dineutrino Bc branching fractions for each MZ up to 5 TeV. In all cases the choice a = 1 provides the largest enhancement. The central values of the branching fractions are: 4.91 2 B(B+ → B+νν¯) = (β = −√ ) c
4 MZ0 /GeV 3 4.31 2 B(B+ → B+νν¯) = (β = +√ ) c
4 MZ0 /GeV 3 2.60 1 B(B+ → B+νν¯) = (β = −√ ) (34) c
4 MZ0 /GeV 3 2.48 1 B(B+ → B+νν¯) = (β = +√ ) c
4 MZ0 /GeV 3

13 and 12.02 2 B(B+ → B∗+νν¯) = (β = −√ ) c
4 MZ0 /GeV 3 10.56 2 B(B+ → B∗+νν¯) = (β = +√ ) c
4 MZ0 /GeV 3 6.36 1 B(B+ → B∗+νν¯) = (β = −√ ) (35) c
4 MZ0 /GeV 3 6.08 1 B(B+ → B∗+νν¯) = (β = +√ ). c
4 MZ0 /GeV 3 The enhancement with respect to the SM is large, even though the branching fractions do not exceed O(10−11).

6 Correlations between the modes c → uνν¯ and s → dνν¯, b → sνν¯ in the 331 model

We have remarked that a peculiar feature of the 331 model is the possibility of constrain- ing FCNC up-type quark processes using information on FCNC down-type quark tran- (∗)+ sitions. On this basis we can establish the correlations between Bc → B νν¯ and the + + 0 (∗)+ s → dνν¯ induced transitions K → π νν¯ and KL → π νν¯, and between Bc → B νν¯ ∗ and B → {Xs,K,K } νν¯ induced by b → sνν¯. In the SM such transitions proceed through box and Z0 penguin diagrams. The low-energy s → dνν¯ Hamiltonian reads in the SM:

¯ G α Hs¯→dνν¯ = 4 √F (36) eff 2 SM 2 2π sin θW

X h ∗ ` ∗ i VcsVcdXNNL(xc) + VtsVtdX(xt) (¯sγµPLd)(¯ν`γµPLν`) + h.c. , `=e,µ,τ

2 2 ` with xi = mi /MW . XNNL(xc) takes into account the internal charm contribution [46–51], the function   xt xt + 2 3xt − 6 X(xt) = ηX + 2 ln xt (37) 8 xt − 1 (xt − 1) describes the internal top contribution. ηX = 0.994 is a QCD correction computed for + + mt = mt(mt) [47, 52]. In the charged K → π νν¯ mode both contributions must be 0 taken into account, in KL → π νν¯ the top quark contribution dominates. The top quark contribution also dominates in the b → sνν¯ modes governed by the effective Hamiltonian

b→sνν¯ GF α X ∗ µ Heff = 4 √ [VtsVtbX(xt)](¯sγ PLb)(¯ν`γµPLν`) + h.c. . (38) SM 2 2π sin2 θ W `=e,µ,τ

The 331 contribution from the tree-level Z0 exchange can be included in the Hamiltonian replacing X(xt) → X(M), with

i X(M) = X(xt) + ∆X (M) (39)

14 and

" # sd 0 νν¯ 0 GF α ∗ sd ∆L (Z )∆L (Z ) 4 √ 2 VtsVtd ∆X (K) = 2 (40) 2 2π sin θW MZ0

" # bs 0 νν¯ 0 GF α ∗ bs ∆L (Z )∆L (Z ) 4 √ 2 VtsVtb ∆X (B) = 2 . (41) 2 2π sin θW MZ0

0 L The Z − Z mixing is included multiplying the rhs of Eqs. (40)-(41) by (1 + Rνν¯(a)), L with Rνν¯ in (31).

6.1 Correlations with dineutrino kaon modes + + 0 In the SM the decays K → π νν¯ and KL → π νν¯ are predicted with branching ratios of O(10−11). The processes are theoretically well controlled, due to the possibility of relating their hadronic matrix elements to the precisely measured semileptonic K+ → 0 + + π e νe matrix element. The NA62 Collaboration at CERN has measured B(K → + 4.0 −11 π νν¯) = (10.6 ±3.4 |stat ± 0.9syst) × 10 at 68% C.L. [5]. The upper bound for the 0 −9 neutral mode is B(KL → π νν¯) < 3.9 × 10 (at 90% C.L) [6, 7]. Detailed discussions of the dineutrino kaon modes in the SM and in the 331 model are presented in Refs. [4] and [39–43]. The branching ratios are expressed in the form

" # ImX 2 ReX 2 B(K+ → π+νν¯) = κ (1 + ∆ ) eff + eff − P (X) , (42) + EM λ5 λ5 c

ImX 2 B(K → π0νν¯) = κ eff , (43) L L λ5 whith λ = |Vus| in Table 1. The other quantities are

 λ 8 κ = (5.21 ± 0.025) × 10−11 , + 0.2252

 λ 8 κ = (2.247 ± 0.013) × 10−10 , L 0.2252

Pc(X) = 0.405 ± 0.024 , (44)

∆EM = −0.03 , ∗ Xeff = VtsVtd X(K) , with X(K) in Eqs. (39,40) [48–50, 53, 54].

(∗)+ + + In Figs. 7, 8 we show the correlations between B(Bc → B νν¯) and B(K → π νν¯), 0 0 in Figs. 9, 10 the correlations with B(KL → π νν¯). The Z mass is set to MZ0 = 1 TeV,√ 0 the results√ for heavier Z can be obtained by a simple rescaling. For each β = ±1/ 3, ±2/ 3, the parameterss ˜13, δ1,s ˜23, δ2 are varied in their allowed regions in Fig. 5. In each plot the sliding colors represent nine values of the Z −Z0 mixing parameter a in the range [−1, 1] (the colors corresponding to a = −1, 0, 1 are indicated in the legendae).

15 + + + Figure 7: Correlations between the branching fractions B(Bc → B νν¯) and B(K → π νν¯) in the 2 1 2 1 0 331 model with β = √ , √ , − √ , − √ , M 0 = 1 TeV and Z − Z mixing parameter a = −1, 0, 1. 3 3 3 3 Z The black dot is the SM result.

Only for a = −1 the results are compatible with the SM. For a = 1 the branching fractions sizably deviate from the SM prediction, and the largest enhancement of the Bc modes corresponds to a suppression of the kaon modes with respect to the SM.

6.2 Correlations with dineutrino B decays ∗ Let us consider the modes B → Msνν¯ (Ms = Xs,K,K ). The NP effects in scenarios with a Z0 with tree-level flavour-changing couplings only to left-handed fermions can be expressed in the form [10, 39]:

2 B(B → Msνν¯) = B(B → Msνν¯)SM × % , (45)

with |X(B )| % = s (46) X(xt)

and X(Bs) in Eqs. (39),(41). The SM terms are [4, 10, 12]:

−5 B(B → Xsνν¯)SM = (3.0 ± 0.3) × 10 (47) + + −6 B(B → K νν¯)SM = (4.35 ± 0.59) × 10 (48) 0 ∗0 −6 B(B → K νν¯)SM = (9.44 ± 0.89) × 10 . (49)

16 ∗+ + + Figure 8: Correlations between B(Bc → B νν¯) and B(K → π νν¯) in the 331 model with parameters as in Fig. 7. The black dot is the SM result.

They can be compared to the experimental upper bounds (at 90% C.L.) [17, 19]:

+ + −5 B(B → K νν¯)exp ≤ 1.6 × 10 (50) ∗ −5 B(B → K νν¯)exp ≤ 2.7 × 10 . (51)

+ ∗ 2 1 The correlations between B(Bc → B νν¯) and B(B → (Xs,K,K )νν¯) for β = −√ , −√ 3 3 ∗+ are in Fig. 11, 12. The correlations for the vector Bc → B νν¯ mode have the same ∗+ pattern, differing only for the B(Bc → B νν¯) scale factor. The sliding colors describe the variation of a ∈ [−1, 1]; the 331 result is compatible with the SM for a = −1. The + largest enhancements of B(Bc → B νν¯) corresponds to a suppression of b → sνν¯ with respect to the SM.

7 Conclusions

Null tests, like rare FCNC charm decays, are useful to investigate the existence of phe- (∗)+ nomena beyond the Standard Model. The Bc → B νν¯ modes are predicted within the SM with branching ratios not exceeding O(10−16) and can be used for null tests. Exploiting the relations between the Wilson coefficients of c → uνν¯ and c → u`+`− low- energy Hamiltonian obtained from the SMEFT, together with the experimental bounds on the charged dilepton c → u processes, we have derived the largest enhancement for the dineutrino modes in generic NP scenarios, finding branching fractions up to O(10−6). Specific NP scenarios predict smaller effects. In the 331 models the effective c → uνν¯

17 + 0 Figure 9: Correlations between B(Bc → B νν¯) and B(KL → π νν¯) in the 331 model with parame- ters as in Fig. 7. The black dot is the SM result

∗+ 0 Figure 10: Correlations between B(Bc → B νν¯) and B(KL → π νν¯) in the 331 model with parameters as in Fig. 7. The black dot is the SM result.

18 + + + + Figure 11: Correlations between B(Bc → B νν¯) and B(B → Xsνν¯) (left panel), B(B → K νν¯) 0 ∗0 2 (middle) and B(B → K νν¯) (right) for β = − √ , M 0 = 1 TeV. The black dot indicates the SM 3 Z result.

Hamiltonian comprises only one operator, as in the SM, with a modification of the Wilson (∗)+ −11 coefficient enhancing B(Bc → B νν¯) up to O(10 ). In the 331 model a correlation with down-type quark dineutrino processes can be established.√ We have found that the largest branching fractions correspond to β = −2/ 3, and are anticorrelated with + + 0 ∗ K → π νν¯, KL → π νν¯ and B → {Xs,K,K }νν¯.

Acknowledgements

We thank A.J. Buras for enlightening discussions. This study has been carried out within the INFN project (Iniziativa Specifica) QFT-HEP.

+ + + + Figure 12: Correlations between B(Bc → B νν¯) and B(B → Xsνν¯) (left panel), B(B → K νν¯) 0 ∗0 1 (middle) and B(B → K νν¯) (right), for β = − √ , M 0 = 1 TeV. The black dot indicates the SM 3 Z result.

19 (∗)+ A Long-distance contributions to Bc → B νν¯

(∗)+ We estimate the main long-distance contributions to Bc → B νν¯ represented by (∗)+ 0 (∗)+ 0 0 the processes Bc → B V → B νν¯, with V = ρ , ω, φ [2]. The nonleptonic color (∗)+ 0 suppressed Bc → B V amplitude can be estimated using naive factorization in terms (∗) 0 of the Bc → B form factors. The V → ν`ν¯` amplitude involves the hadronic matrix elements µ q q 0 h0|qγ¯ (gV − gAγ5)q|V (q, )i (A.1) q with gV,A the vector and axial-vector couplings constants of the neutral current for quarks. Actually, (A.1) take contribution only from the vector quark current. These 0 µ matrix elements can be obtained from the V matrix element of the em current Jem = X µ eqqγ¯ q, with eq the quark charges, parametrized as q

2 µ 0 mV 0 µ h0|Jem|V (q, )i =  . (A.2) fV 0 Using the V 0 masses, widths and V 0 → e+e−(µ+µ−) branching fractions [31] we have: fρ0 = 4.99 ± 0.03 (5.08 ± 0.16), fω = 16.50 ± 0.25 (16.49 ± 2.01), fφ = 13.51 ± 0.22 + −16 (13.78 ± 0.51). The results for the LD contribution B(Bc → B νν¯)|LD ' 1.0 10 , ∗+ −17 (∗) B(Bc → B νν¯)|LD ' 9.8 10 confirm the role of Bc → B νν¯ as null tests of the SM.

References

[1] H. Gisbert, M. Golz, and D. S. Mitzel, Theoretical and experimental status of rare charm decays, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 36 (2021) 2130002, [arXiv:2011.09478]. [2] G. Burdman, E. Golowich, J. L. Hewett, and S. Pakvasa, Rare charm decays in the standard model and beyond, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 014009, [hep-ph/0112235]. + (∗) ¯ [3] P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, and F. Loparco, Role of Bc → Bs,d ` ν` in the Standard Model and in the search for BSM signals, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 075019, [arXiv:2102.05365]. [4] A. J. Buras, Gauge Theory of Weak Decays. Cambridge University Press, 6, 2020. [5] NA62 Collaboration, E. Cortina Gil et al., Measurement of the very rare K+→π+νν decay, JHEP 06 (2021) 093, [arXiv:2103.15389]. 0 [6] KOTO Collaboration, J. K. Ahn et al., Search for the KL →π νν and 0 0 KL →π X decays at the J-PARC KOTO experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 021802, [arXiv:1810.09655]. 0 [7] KOTO Collaboration, J. K. Ahn et al., Study of the KL → π νν¯ Decay at the J-PARC KOTO Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021), no. 12 121801, [arXiv:2012.07571]. [8] P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, P. Santorelli, and E. Scrimieri, Rare B → K(∗) neutrino anti-neutrino decays at B factories, Phys. Lett. B 395 (1997) 339, [hep-ph/9610297].

20 [9] G. Buchalla, G. Hiller, and G. Isidori, Phenomenology of nonstandard Z couplings in exclusive semileptonic b → s transitions, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2000) 014015, [hep-ph/0006136]. [10] W. Altmannshofer, A. J. Buras, D. M. Straub, and M. Wick, New strategies for ∗ New Physics search in B → K νν¯, B → Kνν¯ and B → Xsνν¯ decays, JHEP 04 (2009) 022, [arXiv:0902.0160]. [11] P. Biancofiore, P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, and E. Scrimieri, Exclusive b → sνν¯ induced transitions in RSc model, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 134, [arXiv:1408.5614]. [12] A. J. Buras, J. Girrbach-Noe, C. Niehoff, and D. M. Straub, B → K(∗)νν decays in the Standard Model and beyond, JHEP 02 (2015) 184, [arXiv:1409.4557]. [13] L. Calibbi, A. Crivellin, and T. Ota, Effective Field Theory Approach to b → s``(0), B → K(∗)νν and B → D(∗)τν with Third Generation Couplings, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 181801, [arXiv:1506.02661]. [14] D. Das, G. Hiller, and I. Nisandzic, Revisiting B → K∗(→ Kπ)νν¯ decays, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 073001, [arXiv:1702.07599]. [15] M. Ahmady, A. Leger, Z. Mcintyre, A. Morrison, and R. Sandapen, Probing transition form factors in the rare B → K∗νν¯ decay, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 053002, [arXiv:1805.02940]. [16] S. Descotes-Genon, S. Fajfer, J. F. Kamenik, and M. Novoa-Brunet, Implications of b → sµµ anomalies for future measurements of B → K(∗)νν¯ and K → πνν¯, Phys. Lett. B 809 (2020) 135769, [arXiv:2005.03734]. [17] BaBar Collaboration, J. P. Lees et al., Search for B → K(∗)νν and invisible quarkonium decays, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 112005, [arXiv:1303.7465]. [18] T. Blake, G. Lanfranchi, and D. M. Straub, Rare B Decays as Tests of the Standard Model, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 92 (2017) 50–91, [arXiv:1606.00916]. [19] Belle Collaboration, J. Grygier et al., Search for B → hνν¯ decays with semileptonic tagging at Belle, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 091101, [arXiv:1702.03224]. [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 97, 099902 (2018)]. [20] Belle-II Collaboration, F. Abudin´enet al., Search for B+ → K+νν¯ decays using an inclusive tagging method at Belle II, arXiv:2104.12624. [21] R. Bause, H. Gisbert, M. Golz, and G. Hiller, Lepton universality and lepton flavor conservation tests with dineutrino modes, arXiv:2007.05001. [22] R. Bause, H. Gisbert, M. Golz, and G. Hiller, Rare charm c → u νν¯ dineutrino null tests for e+e− machines, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 015033, [arXiv:2010.02225]. [23] G. Faisel, J.-Y. Su, and J. Tandean, Exploring charm decays with missing energy in leptoquark models, JHEP 04 (2021) 246, [arXiv:2012.15847]. [24] S. Fajfer and A. Novosel, Coloured Scalars Mediated Rare Charm Meson Decays to Invisible Fermions, arXiv:2101.10712. [25] 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].

21 [26] B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian, JHEP 10 (2010) 085, [arXiv:1008.4884]. [27] J. Fuentes-Martin, A. Greljo, J. Martin Camalich, and J. D. Ruiz-Alvarez, Charm physics confronts high-pT lepton tails, JHEP 11 (2020) 080, [arXiv:2003.12421]. [28] HPQCD Collaboration, L. J. Cooper, C. T. Davies, J. Harrison, J. Komijani, and M. Wingate, Bc → Bs(d) form factors from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 014513, [arXiv:2003.00914]. [29] E. E. Jenkins, M. E. Luke, A. V. Manohar, and M. J. Savage, Semileptonic B(c) decay and heavy quark spin symmetry, Nucl. Phys. B 390 (1993) 463, [hep-ph/9204238]. [30] P. Colangelo and F. De Fazio, Using heavy quark spin symmetry in semileptonic Bc decays, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 034012, [hep-ph/9909423]. [31] Particle Data Group Collaboration, P. Zyla et al., Review of Particle Physics, PTEP 2020 (2020), no. 8 083C01. [32] K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kuhn, A. Maier, P. Maierhofer, P. Marquard, M. Steinhauser, and C. Sturm, Addendum to “Charm and bottom quark masses: An update”, arXiv:1710.04249. [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 96, 116007 (2017)]. [33] K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kuhn, A. Maier, P. Maierhofer, P. Marquard, M. Steinhauser, and C. Sturm, Charm and Bottom Quark Masses: An Update, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 074010, [arXiv:0907.2110]. [34] Flavour Lattice Averaging Group Collaboration, S. Aoki et al., FLAG Review 2019: Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG), Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 113, [arXiv:1902.08191]. [35] A. J. Buras, M. Jamin, and P. H. Weisz, Leading and Next-to-leading QCD Corrections to  Parameter and B0 − B¯0 Mixing in the Presence of a Heavy Top Quark, Nucl. Phys. B 347 (1990) 491. [36] J. Urban, F. Krauss, U. Jentschura, and G. Soff, Next-to-leading order QCD corrections for the B0 anti-B0 mixing with an extended Higgs sector, Nucl. Phys. B 523 (1998) 40, [hep-ph/9710245]. [37] F. Pisano and V. Pleitez, An SU(3) x U(1) model for electroweak interactions, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 410, [hep-ph/9206242]. [38] P. H. Frampton, Chiral dilepton model and the flavor question, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992) 2889. [39] A. J. Buras, F. De Fazio, J. Girrbach, and M. V. Carlucci, The Anatomy of Quark Flavour Observables in 331 Models in the Flavour Precision Era, JHEP 02 (2013) 023, [arXiv:1211.1237]. [40] A. J. Buras, F. De Fazio, and J. Girrbach, 331 models facing new b → sµ+µ− data, JHEP 02 (2014) 112, [arXiv:1311.6729]. [41] A. J. Buras, F. De Fazio, and J. Girrbach-Noe, Z-Z0 mixing and Z-mediated FCNCs in SU(3)C × SU(3)L × U(1)X models, JHEP 08 (2014) 039, [arXiv:1405.3850]. [42] A. J. Buras and F. De Fazio, ε0/ε in 331 Models, JHEP 03 (2016) 010, [arXiv:1512.02869].

22 [43] A. J. Buras and F. De Fazio, 331 Models Facing the Tensions in ∆F = 2 0 + − ∗ + − Processes with the Impact on ε /ε, Bs → µ µ and B → K µ µ , JHEP 08 (2016) 115, [arXiv:1604.02344]. [44] A. J. Buras, P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, and F. Loparco, The charm of 331, in preparation.

[45] J. Brod, M. Gorbahn, and E. Stamou, Standard-Model Prediction of K with Manifest Quark-Mixing Unitarity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 171803, [arXiv:1911.06822]. + + + − [46] G. Buchalla and A. J. Buras, The rare decays K → π νν¯ and KL → µ µ beyond leading logarithms, Nucl. Phys. B412 (1994) 106, [hep-ph/9308272]. [47] G. Buchalla and A. J. Buras, The rare decays K → πνν¯, B → Xνν¯ and B → `+`−: An update, Nucl. Phys. B548 (1999) 309–327, [hep-ph/9901288]. [48] A. J. Buras, M. Gorbahn, U. Haisch, and U. Nierste, The rare decay K+ → π+νν¯ at the next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 261805, [hep-ph/0508165]. [49] A. J. Buras, M. Gorbahn, U. Haisch, and U. Nierste, Charm quark contribution to K+ → π+νν¯ at next-to-next-to-leading order, JHEP 11 (2006) 002, [hep-ph/0603079]. [50] J. Brod and M. Gorbahn, Electroweak Corrections to the Charm Quark Contribution to K+ → π+νν¯, Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 034006, [arXiv:0805.4119]. [51] J. Brod, M. Gorbahn, and E. Stamou, Two-Loop Electroweak Corrections for the K → πνν¯ Decays, Phys.Rev. D83 (2011) 034030, [arXiv:1009.0947]. [52] M. Misiak and J. Urban, QCD corrections to FCNC decays mediated by Z penguins and W boxes, Phys.Lett. B451 (1999) 161, [hep-ph/9901278]. [53] G. Isidori, F. Mescia, and C. Smith, Light-quark loops in K → πνν¯, Nucl. Phys. B718 (2005) 319, [hep-ph/0503107]. [54] F. Mescia and C. Smith, Improved estimates of rare K decay matrix-elements from K`3 decays, Phys. Rev. D76 (2007) 034017, [arXiv:0705.2025].

23