JHEP09(2017)010 Springer May 2, 2017 : August 11, 2017 August 16, 2017 a,b : : September 4, 2017 : Received , Revised , Accepted ratios alone constrain the Published a ∗ K indicates a deficit with respect R ∗ K Francesco Sannino, measurement R a and ∗ Published for SISSA by https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2017)010 K K astrumia@cern.ch ratio R , R µ/e and Alfredo Urbano Paolo Panci, d,e distributions. Theoretical interpretations in terms a [email protected] , − µ + [email protected] , sµ → level. This conclusion is further corroborated by hints from the [email protected] b σ , Riccardo Torre . 3 ratio. We show that the a,c K Marco Nardecchia, 1704.05438 R a The Authors. c Beyond Standard Model, Technicolor and Composite Models

The LHCb measurement of the , [email protected] -Origins and Danish IAS, University of Southern Denmark, , lepto-quarks, loop mediators, and composite dynamics are discussed. We highlight 3 0 Z INFN, Sezione di Genova, Via Dodecaneso 33, I-16146 Genova, Italy E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Odense, Denmark Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Universit`adi PisaPisa, and Italy INFN, Institut de EPFL, Th´eoriedes Ph´enom`enesPhysiques, Route de la Sorge, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland Theoretical Physics Department, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland CP b c e d a Open Access Article funded by SCOAP Keywords: ArXiv ePrint: theoretically challenging of their distinctive features inobserved anomalies. terms of the chirality and flavour structures relevant to the Abstract: to the Standard Model prediction,observed supporting in earlier the hints ofchiralities lepton of universality the violation statesStandard contributing Model to at these the 4 anomalies, and we find deviations from the Guido D’Amico, Alessandro Strumia, Flavour anomalies after the JHEP09(2017)010 4 8 8 14 (1.3) (1.1) (1.2) . ]. 2 2 2 . 2 2 1 GeV 6 GeV . 1 ] < 1 GeV 6 GeV . 3 2 < 1 < . 2 2 < ) ) < q 2 − − 2 < q µ e < q 2 + + 2 < q ) e µ µ ∗ 2 11 ∗ 23 ) m 1 GeV K µ K . m 1 GeV → . → 2 B B 8 024 (2 047 1 – 1 – . . 0 0 028 (2 . 01 1 19 BR( BR(   0 . 0 19  = 110 070 113 069  . . . . 14 ∗ 16 0 0 0 K +0 − +0 − 906 00 . . Z R ] is reported in two bins of di-lepton invariant mass 0 1 1 660 685 . .    0 0 =    ∗ ∗ K = SM K 3 R ∗ R − K 13 1 µ R 23 + µ ] collaboration presented their results on the measurement of the ratio revisited 1 → K s R B The experimental result [ 4.2 Models4.3 with lepto-quarks Models4.4 with loop mediators Fundamental composite Higgs 3.2 Fit to3.3 the ‘hadronic sensitive’ Global observables fit 4.1 Models with an extra 2.1 2.2 Anatomy of 2.3 3.1 Fit to the ‘clean’ observables only These values have to be compared with the SM predictions [ lepton sector. Taking the(SM) ratio theoretical uncertainties, of as branching suggested ratios for strongly the reduces first the time Standard in ref. Model [ The LHCb [ The aim of this measurement is to test the universality of the gauge interactions in the A List of observables used in the global fit 1 Introduction 5 Conclusions 4 Theoretical interpretations 3 Fits Contents 1 Introduction 2 Effective operators and observables JHEP09(2017)010 . 0 ∗ → 3 K , f R s (2.1) B , a few 4 and (1430) ratios, the 0 K ∗ R ] and ; (1.4) K 5 [ R , φ, K syst , s − K X µ 036 + R . In particular, the . = µ 0 − ) ∗ µ H deviation from the SM (  + K µ σ level, and to point towards ∗ 5 stat . σ ]) shows the most significant 2 K , lepto-quark exchanges, new → ] and in a full global analysis 0 09 7 , with . Z 0 K ∼ B → 11 , R  Y ` B 10 X b 745 . we discuss the relevant observables and O Y 2 ` = 0 ]. X b ) ) c 24 − − , analogous to µ e 2 – 2 – + + X H e `,X,Y µ R + + = K K eff → → L + + B B ] for an incomplete list of references. BR ( BR ( ]. 23 9 – , = with a subset of observables in [ ] 8 K 4 , 14 , 5 K observable (defined for the first time in [ R 7 0 R 5 ]; P 6 ratio [ [ transitions. In fact, anomalous deviations were also observed in the following K − − µ R ]. µ + + 13 φµ so-called discrepancy [ , sµ the angular distributions of the decay rate of the branching ratios of the semi-leptonic decays the The paper is structured as follows. In section Given their reduced sensitivity to theoretical uncertainties in the SM, the The coherence of this pattern of deviations has been pointedFor the out observables in already points 2 after and 3 the the main source of uncertainty is theoretical. It re- At face value, a couple of observables featuring a 12 3. 2. 1. → Upon integrating out heavynear degrees the Fermi of scale, freedom in the terms of relevant the processes effective can Lagrangian be described, some model building directions.theoretical Such interpretations. results prompt We us discussstates to affecting models investigate, the in including observables section via quantum corrections, and models of2 composite Higgs. Effective operators and observables will constitute relevant independent tests [ how they are affected by additionalWe effective show operators. that, We even perform restricting aoverall the global deviation fit analysis from in the to section SM the starts theoretically to clean be significant, at the 4 aspects, see refs. [ observables offer a neat wayFuture data to will establish be potential able to violationaddition, further measurements of reduce of lepton the other flavour statistical ratios uncertainty universality. on these quantities. In measurement of in [ sides in the proper evaluation ofhadronic the corrections. form factors Recently, great and theoretical in effort the went estimate into of the the understanding non-factorizable of these predictions can be attributedfact to that a such results mere might statistical beb fluctuation. part of The a coherent interest picture resides involvingrelated New in measurements: Physics the (NP) in the JHEP09(2017)010 , . 2 } = + L (2.6) ` (2.5) (2.9) (2.2) (2.3) (2.4) 0 10 L L, R b C { C 2, = = 1 GeV ≡ / R R +  ]. To simplify , 2 min . L L 2 | the theoretical q ]
` µ X,Y L 2 R ` | R 2 12 b + L A SM b L C F . b | C 2 6 GeV 2 C + , = 2 2 | ., 0 9 /dq /dq V = 174 GeV is the Higgs c |  | ) ) and . C F R | − -dependence, we have − ` v . Y 2 presenting both the full ex- e µ L ` ) 2. The SM itself contributes SM q 2, b holding in the SM. To make + h 2 , 2 2 + + R | 1 [1 GeV / | b e √ C 2 µ , q R | R R Y . K / ) takes the form [ + C ` + + ) 2 − + K SM 10 F . ` R L . L X L at first order in the beyond-the- K  2.5 I b K C µ e Y µ G Y ,M e R R ≡ L I C Y O P 2 b B X ` + + → -invariant operators, unlike scalar or → µ BSM C b Y I L L L K C ` = 4 L M b b b ≈ − + C ( C ¯ (36 TeV) + `γ X R − 2 2 C C C b / | | B B )( − + 3 and over their chiralities = C b /v SM 9 λ ≡ = + + Γ( Y Γ( I } 2 X C | d µ 2 2 d SM Y I C | | ∗ 2 P ` 2 ts X 10 X 2 C µ 3 b R R R B V `,X,Y – 3 – C dq − −  dq C tb em M 2 sγ L L = L πv V e, µ, τ 5 e b α | µ ) refers to 4 em I 2, { ≡ π . Writing the explicit R 2 max R πv 2 max C 2 min ∗ 2 / 2 min as q 2 em α ts = (¯ + q C q 10 + 4 ) q Y 1.4 R L α 2 = V R ) L I R ∗ b + Y b ts e + 2 F ` tb ` C ` L V C − G C P V | ≡ X µ | µ 18, accidentally implying tb b ( . L ] = b V + 0 = X O = b ) C − I − − 2 − max ` C c K µ P = = = , q R + ( µ R 9 eff ` 001 has a negligible imaginary part, + ≡ 2 min . L C , and 2 q SM 0 b 2 H K [ R q C dq ` K ]. In SM computations one uses the equivalent formulation  → and expanding each coefficient R b is R | + 25 C ]) by L B K ` 040 . L  12 Γ( R SM b d 64 and R . C ` 2, with the approximate relation = 0 L revisited / b = 8 R C ts K − L V L ` |  |  R µ L R SM b L We now summarize the theoretically clean observables, This observation suggests to use the chiral basis, related to the conventional one ` R ` By theoretically clean observables we mean thoseIn ones the predicted limit of in vanishing the lepton SM masses with the decay an rate error in up eq. to ( few b L C 1 2 SM R b C b C percent. the notation, however, in thecontributions from following the we electromagnetic will dipole omitand operator, the justified non-factorizable units by contributions the in from cut brackets.prediction the for Neglecting weak SM effective Hamiltonian, of the lepton system The experimental value cited in eq. ( | standard-model (BSM) contribution, 2.1 The experimental analysis is made by binning the observable in the squared invariant mass − the notation more compact, weC define pressions and the ones in chiral-linear approximation. The latter is defined by neglecting where vacuum expectation value, usually writtenas as 1 (see e.g. ref. [ defining dimensionless coefficients New physics is more conveniently explored in the chiral basis These vector operators cantensor be operators promoted [ to SU(2) where the sum runs over leptons JHEP09(2017)010 ]. 26 (2.7) (2.8) (2.11) (2.12) (2.10) 494 GeV, . 0

2 2 . | ≈ | R R K + + -corrections [ L L M s µ e α R ) } R 2 − − q L ), and non-factorizable L on to the chiral basis. ( b ) {z b 0 ( K 7 C 10 ) C h | | , 0 | C ( 9 factorizable term 279 GeV, . − C + + 5 ), although capturing the 2 2 . | non ≈ | ∗ ], expanded up to quadratic R R + B K − − 2.10 L 24 ) } L M R 2 e µ , q , namely unless quarks are axial. ), R R ( ) we have L − − R 2 T ac ) ], that is defined as L L q f e b b ( omitting higher-order + +
− . 0 7 C C ,T 9 28 bc µ L | | L , ( + C ⊥ C + µ f R g L p p + + SM k b ab 27 7 L , g + BSM {z b C 2( C k 24 ) + ) + C + − g = 892 MeV, the theoretical prediction for the 2 2 2 | | 0 K becomes c ∗ g + R R Re – 4 – distinguishes the various helicities: longitudinal + M b K + + 0 ]. However, it has to be noted that new physics K ) by rotating the coefficients 2 i L L g b 3 m + e R µ M 2 + 2.6 R B R = 2 1 + 2 + + a M L | L ), ( p b , SM electromagnetic dipole contribution b ' ≡ ) C C 2 can induce theoretical errors, bringing back the issue of 2.5 | ) | K q ) + ( e 2 + R + + q ( f 2 2 a, b, c | | +
( . The index = 1. QED corrections give a small departure from unity which, ] and, as we shall discuss next, R f R ∗ λ and 0 10 ) ) is − − 0 9 12 K C L [ K L µ C e ∗ µ R , a number that is not always smaller than 1. This is particularly 1.1 + R R + K K Y + l + 10 9 L R L R X b C C SM b b . Introducing the QCD form factors has spin 1 and mass 3 C C | | − ∗ /C ) follows from eqs. ( )( )( 10 Y K ) = ) = ( p l p 2 2 2.9 × q q X BSM − ( ( b 86 is the “polarization fraction” [ − . A V 58 C 0 . F (1 F (1 40 is the Fermi constant, ≈ are the contributions to the decay rate (integrated over the intermediate bin) of the = F p i | ≈ G ∗ ratio given in eq. ( g ∗ It is important to notice that the approximation in eq. ( In the chiral-linear approximation, ts K ∗ V R K tb V Notice that forNeglecting simplicity SM we electromagnetic wrote dipole contributionscorrections, the (encoded eq. Wilson in ( the coefficient coefficients The different helicities of the where | where Given that the R true in the presencein of detail new physics — inanomalies. large the values electron For sector of this inexpressions the reason, which for Wilson all both — as coefficients the we results are shall presented needed discuss in2.2 to this explain paper the Anatomy make of observed use of the full relevant physics, is not adequate forremains a valid careful for phenomenological the analysis. simplifiedterms The expression same in remark proposed new in physics ref.parameter [ coefficients. The reason is that the expansion is controlled by the indicating that the dominant effect stemsity from of couplings to quarks left-handed works, leptons. as long Any chiral- as it is not orthogonal to and its SM prediction is however, does not exceedwhich few affects percents differently [ hadronic uncertainties. This is a clean observable, meaning that it is not affected by large theoretical uncertainties, JHEP09(2017)010 ) 1 K K =  R R 3.1 µ 9 2.13 = , it is (2.14) (2.13) O ): L 1 µ from 2.5 L BSM b ∗ C K R . The information (red solid line). In the case in which , R L µ 2 2 1 µ L BSM b L BSM b C /dq /dq , we present the different C ) ) 1 might start to discriminate − − points towards the observed µ µ ∗ and R + + K e , . In the chiral-linear limit the µ µ R R ∗ ∗ µ Y L close to the experimental data is ) L,R µ R BSM b e BSM K K b ∗ X − C b L C K and µ µ ( → → C . From the plot in our figure L R R SM K b can be produced by a non-zero value of BSM b B B C R ∗ C ,µ ). In the chiral-linear limit the expression , is defined in analogy with eq. ( BSM 9 Γ( Γ( K and 2 d d ⊥ C Re R q 2 2 K p = is involved at the effective operator level with 4 in i R dq dq – 5 – R − , according to the 1-parameter fits of section K b L 2 2 max max enter, both at the linear and quadratic level, with R 2 2 min min K q q µ q q clean observables. However, with the present data, L R R R Y BSM b 2. The latter refers to the effective operator e ]. In the left panel of figure / C X ' ≡ ) b 29 ] ∗ R only [ C µ K ∗ L BSM b 2 max R K (green dot-dashed line). Finally, notice that the reduced value C ) plane due to turning on the various operators assumed to be , q signals that R ) cannot be explained by L ∗ using µ + K , in a given range of K reveals additional observable consequences related to the presence 2 min L 1.4 R ∗ BSM L b 1 may also provide a good fit of the observed data. However, it q µ ∗ R [ µ K ,R L C ∗ BSM K b L ) and perpendicular ( 40. The formula above clearly shows that, in this approximation, a BSM b R K . K k R C 0 ≈ − C R R = from i ≈ ∗ . = ( and ,µ ), and implies a vector coupling for the muon. The plot suggests that neg- L ∗ BSM K 9 µ µ K R C L µ SM b ,µ R ,µ BSM 9 BSM 9 µγ is possible in the presence of the left-handed operator C C 0. As before, a deviation from simplifies to )(¯ p/C ∗ b measured in eq. ( ∗ and > K L . Notice that, beyond the chiral-linear limit, also , we also show in magenta the direction described by non-zero values of the co- K R L K L K P Before proceeding, another important comment is in order. In the left panel of fig- A closer look to It is also instructive to summarise in the right panel of figure e e R 1 µ R R L R = 0), parallel ( BSM b b i sγ experimental data but they require larger numerical values. of BSM corrections. muon case since thean coefficients opposite sign whenonly compared operator to that can theirC bring analogue the values of C between there is only ausing mild only preference clean for observables. new physics directly affects the electron sector. The result is a mirror-like image of the (¯ ative values is also interesting tomimic notice a that short in distance theclear BSM that non-clean with contribution observables, more the in data hadronic a effects combined analysis might of summarized in this plotan is actual of fit particular to significance theof since data, it the shows new at physics a patterns glance, implied and by before theure combined measurement efficient and order to illustrate the size(see of caption the for required details). correction, the Conversely,signals as arrows the previously correspond presence mentioned, to of a deviationof of the dominant effect still dueis to not left-handed leptons. suitable for As acode already discussed detailed the before, phenomenological full eq. expression study, ( and for predictions we in implement the in ( ourgenerated numerical via new physics in the muon sector. A reduction of the same order in both for where 4 deviation of ( JHEP09(2017)010 bin 2 L L L L ��� µ e µ e L R L R BSM BSM BSM BSM BSM 2 b b b b 9 . C C C C C 1 ��� ���

 � 6] GeV ���

, <

1

� .

�

�

�

0 ���

. ��� 6]  1 , 1 � � . . � � 2 ��� � ��� [1 �� 1). The constraint from �  ∗ pair, for the SM and for  K 8 − . ` 0 R ��� + 2 = ` / ) � � measured in the [1 � � R � � µ ∗ ��� � ��� � ��� �������� �� ��� L   6 BSM K b : a sizeable new physics effect can be . 2 0 C R q are given in GeV + = 1 due to the various chiral operators ��� 2 L q 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 ∗ µ

......

K L ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1). For the sake of clarity we only show the

BSM

b ∗ � � K 1] 1 045 [0 . , . R * R − C = = ( – 6 – K R � ,µ ��� � BSM 9 � = � C μ � � = , the invariant mass of the correlation between μ ��� � 2 � � bin (vertical axis) of ��� � � μ  q ��� � � 2 ��� � ��� � % �� -bin. We assumed real coefficients, and the out-going (in-going) % bin as a function of new-physics coefficients, compared to their 2 � Right: �� μ q 2 � ��� - � ��� 1] GeV 2 - . � μ 1 � � % ��� � , μ σ � � � � �� � �� σ ��� ��� � � - ��� 1] GeV � � .  - 045 6] GeV . 1 as function of ��� �� ��� , , ] � ∗ 1 � . ��� < ��� K � � 045 - . � R � ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� μ μ

- -

�

� � �

� μ ��� � �

������ ��� ��� � ��� [  μ ��� ��� ������� ��  ��� �� � Left:  . Deviations from the SM value is not included in this plot. . ��� µµ �

�

= 1 in the [0

��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���

�� �� �� �� �� �� �

� →

� � ��� �� �

� � * )/ μ μ → ( Γ ] [

� �� � + * - - - ∗ K s two specific values ofR the new-physics coefficients. Theexperimentally inset favoured values. shows iso-contours(horizontal of axis) deviation and from [0 present in the low-energy bin. The numerical values of Figure 2 arrows for the coefficientsarrows involving in left-handed the muons left-side andB plot, electrons that (except refer for to the two magenta Figure 1 possibly generated by new physicsratios in refer the to muon the (leftarrows [1 panel) show and the electron effect (right panel) of sector. coefficients Both equal to +1 ( JHEP09(2017)010 , . ∗ L µ K and R BSM R b 2 , (2.15) C K R 6] GeV ) the relative , 1 L . µ , shaded in blue R 2 BSM b ]. We can instead . as a function of the ,C 30 in the mass-invariant L -bin [1 ) 2 c µ 2 2 ∗ 9, and we superimpose q L 1] GeV I . BSM . b K signal non-zero values for /dq 0 1 ) C + R , 66 can be again explained K . − s 2 ≈ µ I R meson decaying to an on-shell 045 ∗ + in the . (2 SM K µ actually describes the four-body signal non-zero values for B ∗ ∗ 1 4 R 2 K 1] = 0 from K . K = [0 − R 1 ∗ R 2 ) /dq , c K 6]. The results are shown in the right q ) 2 → , I − R 1 045 B . µ . with the + from + [1 [0 ∗ s Γ( 1 ∗ ∗ µ ∗ d , see for example ref. [ I ∗ K V SM K γ SM K ∗ . In this bin, the differential rate is dominated (2 s R K R R – 7 – K 3 4 2 X ) can be written in terms of the so-called transver- → → = , we show in the plane ( → B ) 2.15 2 B − B Γ( 1] with . µ d 1 + , µ boson which later decays into a lepton-antilepton pair. We ∗ , and takes the compact form in eq. ( 2 045 − K 2 . Z , s,c µ is expected from the experimental data. The SM prediction, dq [0 = 1] compared to its SM value + . The solid black line represents the SM prediction, and we show in the low bin than the one preferred by the data. =1 → ∗ . 2 a i 2 µ 1 ∗ SM K I q ) , B K R . At present, all the new physics hypothesis invoked tend to predicts 2 R Γ( Kπ . Sizeable deviations of 045 9, departs from one because of QED effects which distinguish between d . . L 1] GeV . 0 µ [0 → is very neat, and can be summarized as follows: 1 L ( ∗ BSM . Here we learn that the new physics hypotheses predict values larger than confidence contours allowed by the fit of experimental data (without in- , b ≈ ∗ ∗ ] for a comprehensive description of the computation. In the left panel of K are favoured. Sizeable deviations of 1] GeV C 2 K . σ ) taken at the benchmark value of 1. K 1] R 29 L 1 . 045 ). This comparison shows that a 10% reduction of L R . e . The observed central value we shall corroborate this qualitative picture with quantitative fits. , . However invoking NP only the electronic channels does not allow to explain ∗ 1 µ e L → , L BSM R b K 3 e BSM b m C 045 R R B and we show the differential distribution C BSM . b = [0 045 ( . C other anomalies in the muon sector suchThere as exists the an angular interesting observables. [0 correlation between larger value of and we expect a preferencecurrent, for negative values of the operator involving aNew left-handed physics in the electronof sector represents a valid alternative, and positive values New physics in the muon sector can easily explain the observed deficits in 2 2 K L [0 In conclusion, the picture emerging from a simple inspection of the relevant formulas We now focus on the low invariant-mass range and q and a virtual photon or µ R ◦ ◦ ◦ ∗ L ∗ µ BSM SM K b In section the one observed in themeasurements data. are needed However, since to the settle experimental this error issue. is quitefor large, precise with possible effects ofthe new dipole physics. operator, The but natural itcoming suspect can from is be the a shown new inclusive thatcorrelate physics this process the contribution cannot effect to be in verypanel large of because figure of bounds deviation in the 1- and 3- cluding bin R m C with diagonal mesh in theby left the panel SM of photon fig the contribution. inset It plot is in instructive the to left give more panel quantitative of comments. fig In K refer to ref. [ figure dilepton invariant mass in dashed (dotted) red the impact of BSM corrections due to the presence of non-zero process The angular coefficients sity amplitudes describing the decay where the differential decay width JHEP09(2017)010 , ∗ × K and The 6) . R 4 (2.16) 3 0 , ), whose Q K  − ), so that µ R 0 . + µ µ Y -meson decays → bins, using the = (3 µP 0 B ∗ )(¯ B s K exp ) X R ]. − µ bP ¯ 33 + ). For simplicity, in our have reduced theoretical µ , i → 2 P

s Fart R R B − − L L µ µ ). R R − − − L L µ SM b b + C C µ and BR(

9 → − = s B 10 ) given that it only provides constraints. ) SM – 8 – × ) − − µ − µ µ + + 23) . µ + µ 0 µ → →  → s s s 65 B B . B BR( ] code, for consistency we include the observable BR( = (3 BR( 32 [ SM ] argue that the optimised variables ) 7 − . Furthermore, extracting from this reliable theoretical environment µ + − Flavio µ 2.2 µ ). This list includes the branching ratios of semi-leptonic + -mesons. Concerning the hadronic sensitivity of the angular observables, → µ B s A B → observables measured recently by the Belle collaboration [ ]. This BR can also be affected by extra scalar operators ( s 5 31 B the authors ofuncertainties. [ Q pendix as well as physical quantitiesof extracted by the the angular analysis of the decay products to which one can add‘cleanness’ BR( of these observablesPhysics refers larger to theoretical the uncertainties SM are prediction, expected. in We the didn’t presence include of the New [ The ‘hadronic sensitive’ set includes about 100 observables (summarized in the ap- The ‘clean’ set includes the observables discussed in the previous section: Let us start discussing the simplest case, in which we consider one-parameter fits to ) ) 9 When using the fits we combine in quadrature the experimental errors on the two i 3 − ii 2 appreciably if a more precise treatment is used. each NP operator in turn. Apart from itsexperimental simplicity, error this is correlated hypothesis with is the motivated one from on BR( a 3.1 Fit toThe the ‘clean’ formulæ observables summarized only We in wrote the a previous dedicatedχ section Flavour allow Anomaly us Ratehigher to Tool error fit code band the ( when they clean are observables. asymmetric. We checked that our results do not change approach is aligned with theshown spirit of in this section paper, anda can be BSM extremely perspective powerful, asanalyses. could already In be a of secondobservables primary and and third importance combine step all to we observables will set in estimate a the the global stage effect fit. of for the more ‘hadronic complex sensitive’ The rationale is to firstcan limit draw solid the conclusions analysis without to relying the on ‘clean’ large set and of partially observables. uncontrolled effects. In this This way one We divide the experimental data in two sets: ‘clean’ and ‘hadronic sensitive’: 10 it is sometimes omitted from global BSM fits. 3 Fits The rate is predicted as where BR( 2.3 JHEP09(2017)010 R 10 e L C and BSM b , see ∗ ∗ C K K , and R R L involving e 9 , . Allowing decays. In L L with right- BSM C b K e 3 and L C s B R b . In the upper , K O b 1 R : the left-handed are confirmed by , with a significance ∗ 2.2 2.2 K R and K . Three cases — R 1 – 9 – — in the ‘clean’ column in table . We show the corresponding results — best-fit point, 2 best 4 χ − 2 SM χ q . ≡ , although uncertainties do not yet allow to draw sharp conclusions. . To simplify the comparison with the existing literature, we show in L 2 σ 3.2 µ χ L b : both coefficients are fixed by the ‘clean’ data. Operators involving ∆ is favoured by the measured anomalies in R ). As before, we find a statistical preference with respect to the SM case at C ), not much affected by large theoretical uncertainties, we find a preference µ L p − R µ b µ L 2.13 BSM quarks and left-handed muons/electrons as the preferred option. b . We can similarly discuss the hypothesis in which we allow for new physics + C — are equally favoured by the fit. However, only the operator σ C µ s ), ( , R e b → we show the results for new physics in the operators involving left-handed muons, and R the results of 1-parameter fits in the muon sector, this time in the vector-axial basis. BSM b s decays, and not included in the ‘clean’ set used in this section. We shall return to 3 2.10 2 L C We conclude this section with a comment on the size of the theoretical uncertainties in Before moving to the fit with the ‘hadronic sensitive’ observables, we perform several Needless to say, this conclusion, although already very significant, must be supported Effective four-fermions operators that couple left- or right-handed In conclusion, the piece of information that we learn from this simple fit is quite B error, and µ B L σ b turning on only the presence of New Physics.Model While predictions, there is in a the consensustheoretical on presence error, the of small barring New error the of Physics the special the Standard case “clean” observables where have new a physics larger violate flavour universality coefficients. We see thatthis the fit, although key here implicationsfigure wider mentioned regions in in section parameterC space are allowed. Inright-handed muons, the on upper the plot other of hand, do not lead to good fits. A good fit is obtained by two-parameter fits using only ‘clean’ observables.for We new show physics our in results muons inSince only, figure the there combined are best-fit regions feweach are plot, ‘clean’ shown as as observables, indicated yellow we contours. on turn the on axes. only We also two show, new-physics as coefficients rotated in axes, the usual larger numerical values of their Wilson coefficients. by the result of a moreto complete analysis that accounts forthis all point the in other section observables related for the presence ofparticular, new the physics analysis in selectshanded the observed the experimental existence anomalies of in a new neutralhanded current electrons that are couples also left- equally preferred at this level of the analysis, but they require the level of about 4- table sharp: by restricting the analysisBR( to the selected subset of ‘clean’ observables of about 4 in the electron sector,and shown in theleft-handed lower quarks part and of electrons table Wilson coefficient can since explain it dominates theeqs. the observed ( new-physics anomalies corrections to with both an order one we shall discuss in detail in1- section part of the tableis we show evident the that cases thecoefficient in results which of we the allow new fit physics match in the the discussion muon of sector. section It theoretical viewpoint, as it captures most of the relevant features of concrete models, as JHEP09(2017)010 , K R ). As 2 5 2 1 0 6 9 5 2 ...... q all all 2 1 0 1 3 0 3 6 2 best 2 best χ χ 5 7 7 3 9 1 3 6 ...... We did the 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 4 − − ‘HS’ ‘HS’ 2 SM 2 SM χ χ 2 8 3 2 3 2 1 1 ...... Flavio q q 4 0 0 0 4 1 4 4 at large enough ‘clean’ ‘clean’ LL 43 25 25 05 59 55 65 81 07 ...... 04 70 48 30 00 02 30 ...... 4 0 0 4 0 1 2 2 1 all all 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ] find a much larger theoretical − − − − − − − − − 37 70 55 29 83 03 39 68 04 40 01 ...... 18 52 61 29 33 69 ...... range range 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 ‘HS’ ‘HS’ − − − − − − − − − − σ σ 1- 1- 56 97 21 23 10 62 66 23 94 ...... 11 21 08 39 33 17 31 ...... 6 0 0 0 6 1 4 4 0 – 10 – 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 − − − − − − − − − ‘clean’ ‘clean’ 63 14 46 30 30 . . . . . 27 02 99 . . . 3 0 3 0 1 all all 0 0 0 − − − − − ]. These are of the same order or larger than the hadronic ]. However, other groups [ 3 in the Standard Model as predicted by 51 20 70 73 33 . . . . . New physics in the muon sector 10 41 15 . . . ∗ 0 0 1 0 1 36 New physics in the electron sector ), or only the ‘Hadronic Sensitive’ observables (denoted by ‘HS’ in the , 2 0 0 ‘HS’ ‘HS’ K − − − − − − Best-fit Best-fit 35 R µ Therefore, we warn the reader that the statistical significance quoted + , 4 µ K 60 44 15 27 . . . . 05 64 72 , away from the Standard Model our errors are still of a few percent, in . 085 R . . . 5 0 5 1 → . 0 0 1 0 2 − − − − s A ‘clean’ ‘clean’ B L R L R L R R L e e e e µ µ µ µ R L L R L R L R . Best fits assuming a single chiral operator at a time, and fitting only the ‘clean’ BSM BSM BSM BSM BSM BSM BSM BSM b b b b b b b b coeff. coeff. C C C C C C C C Wilson Wilson We didn’t take into account another important source of error: QED radiative cor- , and BR( We thank Joaquim Matias for enlightening discussions about this point. ∗ 4 K in our fits may be smaller with a differentrections, treatment calculated of the in error. ref.uncertainties [ on while maintaining the same chiralshown structure in of figure the SM (mostly agreement with refs. [ error in the presencefactor of uncertainties. New Physics, due to a more conservative treatment of the form Table 1 R table) as discussed in thefind text, in or appendix combining them in a global fit. The full list of observable can be JHEP09(2017)010 code 5 (3.1) 9 6 3 7 . . . . all 0 1 4 6 2 best . . χ 2 7 4 5 Flavio . . . .        j 1 1 2 5 − σ ‘HS’ 03 74 50 ij and the correlation . . . ρ i i 2 SM σ σ χ 5 3 8 9 = 13 0 25 0 50 1 . . . . q . . . 0 0 3 3 ij ) ‘clean’ 2 σ 07 0 . of the 4 Wilson coefficients 25 174 0 0 . . 0 2 01 33 35 14 04 , the errors . . . . . − 50 15 83 i χ . . . 0 0 1 0 1 all µ 0 0 0 − − − − − 07 1 0 . 13 0 03 0 1 ), where ( . . 0 j 0 0 µ − 15 31 98 . . . − 01 28 19 44 69        . . . . . range 0 1 0 j 0 0 0 0 0 ‘HS’ C − − − σ = (1), if one believes that theoretical uncer- ( 1 1- ρ O − ij ) 2 34 37 08 05 σ . . . . 69 11 20 28 . The important message is apparent both from , but in the vector-axial basis. . . . . 0 0 2 1 )( – 11 – i 0 0 0 1 3 1 − − − − µ ‘clean’ − with i C 22 19 ( . . 07 66 . . 0 1 all i,j 0 0 − − P 93 26 31 39 . . . . = 0 0 0 0 2 24 15 . Same as table χ     . . 10 48 . . 0 1 level. 0 0 ‘HS’ as 45 51 33 29 − − . . . . 2 Best-fit σ 1 0 χ − − Table 2 11 08 51 . . . 97 = +0 = = +0 = . 0 0 1 ]. 0 L L R R − − − ‘clean’ New physics in the muon sector (Vector Axial basis) µ µ µ µ 32 [ L R L R BSM BSM BSM b BSM b b b C C C C , µ determine the , µ , µ , µ BSM BSM BSM BSM 10 9 0 0 10 9 ij ρ coeff. C C C C Wilson Flavio The global fit of ‘hadronic sensitive’ observables to new physics in the 4 muon coeffi- Theoretical uncertainties are dominant, and it is difficult to quantify them. We first Given that most ‘hadronic sensitive’ observables involve muons (detailed measurements In general, within the Gaussian approximation, the mean values 5 tainties should be larger or smaller than those adoptedcients is here. also shown as red regions in figure matrix The uncertainties can be rescaled by factors of are much more difficult withinvolving electrons), muons. we present This a is simple tion, a the simple ‘hadronic useful sensitive’ summary observables of determine the the full 4 analysis. muon In Wilson this coefficients approxima- as take theoretical uncertainties into accountwith using the the ‘FastFit’ addition method ofdisfavoured in at all the about the 5 included nuisance parameters. With this choice, the SM is from the Standard Model, but still of the3.2 same order of Fit the QED to corrections. theIn order ‘hadronic to sensitive’ perform observables acode global fit using the ‘hadronic sensitive’ observables we use the public exercise of inflating our hadronic error by a factor of 3, finding indeed a larger error away

JHEP09(2017)010 �

� �

�

- ���

� � �

��� � ��� *

� � ��

� � - ��� ��  � � � �� � µ

�

��� � �

- �

�

-�

�

- � -�

��� �� ������ ���� ����� σ � ����� ������� ���� ������ -� � � � ����� ���� ����� ���� ������

-� -� -�

� � � µ � ��� � � � � � � �� �� � � µ µ � � ��� � ��� � we turn on the extra 4 electron operators too. � � -� -� 5 – 12 – -� -� contours. The yellow regions with dotted contours show the -� -� � � � � � � σ -� -� -� -� -� -�

3 � � � �

� � µ µ

�

� , ��� ��� 2

, �

� � � �

�

- ���

� � ���

�� � � �

� � - � � � �� �� �� � � � µ µ µ ), showing the 1

� � �

��� � ��� � ��� � �

µ

- � � � � Y -� -� -�

P

� µ - � -� -� -�

µγ . Fit to the new-physics contribution to the coefficients of the 4 muon operators � )(¯ s -� -� -� X � � � � � � � � �

-� -� -� -� -� -� -� -� -�

P

� � � � � �

� � � µ µ µ

� �

� µ ��� ��� ��� bγ ¯ all 4 muon operators at the same time. In figure ( best fit to the ‘clean’two coefficients observables only; indicated due on its toto axes. the the scarcity The ‘hadronic of red sensitive’ data, regions observables only, inties; with according each in dashed to plot contours this one we show fit, estimate the turn we ofover best on turn their the global only theoretical on coefficients fit the uncertain- all not 4 shown muon in operators the at plot. the The same green time regions and, show in the each global plot, fit, we again marginalise turning on Figure 3 JHEP09(2017)010 , 1 3 (3.2) ∼ − L � µ L BSM b . C        � �� 33 . 47 25 . . 0 − � μ � � - ��� � 17 0 . 02 25 1 � . . 0 − � 26 0 17 1 0 - . . 47 0 . 0 0 − − � 26 1 33 0 . . 02 - 1 � � � � �

.

0 0

- -

0 � � � �

� , i.e. a negative contribution − − ���        = ρ : ‘clean’ data can be fitted by an anomaly in muons – 13 – � 3 codes. The result is shown as green regions in figure � �� with ‘hadronic sensitive’ observables favour a deviation from the � Fart μ ): � � 54 22 21 33 - ��� � . . . . 0 0 0 0 3.1 � and     � 86 35 44 33 . . . . - 1 0 − − Flavio = +0 = = +0 = � - L L R R � � � � �

, where we allow for a single operator involving muons and a single operator

µ µ

µ µ

- -

� � � �

� L R L R

. Fits allowing one operator involving muons (horizontal axis) and one involving electrons BSM , and provides bounds on the other new-physics coefficients. Using the Gaussian BSM BSM b 4 BSM ��� b b b L C C C C µ L BSM b In view of this preference, and given the scarcity of data in the electron sector, we avoid An anomaly in muons is strongly preferred to an anomaly in electrons, if we adopt the C default estimate of thein theoretical figure uncertainties byinvolving FLAVIO. electrons. This is for example shown presenting a global fit of new physics in electrons only. We instead perform a global com- using both the assuming that new physics affectsin muons only. The global fitapproximation favours for a deviation the in likelihood the of SM the muon coefficients, the global fit is summarized as ‘hadronic sensitive’ observables —favour independently whatever the their same uncertainty pattern is of deviations —3.3 from look the SM. consistent and Global fit We are now ready to combine ‘clean’ and ‘hadronic sensitive’ observables in a global fit, contours have the same meaningor as electrons; in ‘hadronic figure sensitive’ data favour an anomaly in muons. the figure and fromSM eq. in ( the same directionto as the the ‘clean’ Wilson observables coefficient involving left-handed quarks and muons. ‘Clean’ observables and Figure 4 (vertical axis): left-handed in the left panel, and right-handed in the right panel. Regions and JHEP09(2017)010 , L = in 11 [ L L (4.1) (4.2) b µ 2 L g b c ) interaction is generated. as illustrated ` 0 0 2 Y Z (210 TeV) ]. Furthermore, 2 Z / P code to calculate 1 µ 40 /M ], assuming for the /M savagely coupled to ¯ L `γ < L 0 2 µ 38 | µ )( g Z decays) are selected in b g L , b − M X ) bs 10 and 10. In this global L B Flavio g BSM b µ P = − c ν mass mixing with code [ µ | − . µ L s ν ) sγ P . = or a leptoquark. Higher-order L µ B µ L µ at 95% C.L. [ 0 L γ L µ c 2 µ µ Z g P L ν µ b with mass Emcee c )(¯ 0 µγ µ (¯ Z L L P µ µ g (490 GeV) , i.e. the bound µγ / (¯ 2 1 µ ν < L – 14 – | µ contributes to the c µ ν 0 ) + h.c.] + can be satisfied by requiring a large enough L + b Z BSM µ s 2 L c ) | (110 TeV) B anomalies. Left-handed leptons are unified in a SU(2) b P / 0 µ L M − Z , which confirms that — while electrons can be affected by P ` sγ 08) µ (¯ . 5 + 0 bs sγ s` g (¯ [  to explain the anomalies are very popular, see the partial list of ]. L b 0 → L 41 09 Z [ b b . c 0 10 − mass mixing for which the relative measurements, together with CKM ), such that also the neutrino operator − L s 10 ]. Typically these models contain a = ( B , ` · L L 61 b ν – 9) in addition to the clean observables. We used the L BSM b 7 . The bound from ∆ 42  c a. At the same time the , 0 = ( 2 Z 6 6 L M 2 = (24 / The latter result has been obtained by a global Bayesian fit to the observables listed µ 2 bs ]. The second operator is constrained by CCFR data on the neutrino trident cross a g in figure − order to reproduce the doublet However the latter does not yield a strong constraint on Models featuring extra references [ The model can reproduce the flavour anomalies with section, yielding the weaker bound new physics that affects muonsmuon. can contribute Experiments to found the∆ hints anomalous magnetic of moment a of possible the deviation4.1 from the Standard Models Model with an with extra and therefore oneoperator needs affects to considerfits, the imply associated experimental39 constraints. The first We now discuss differentanomalies. theoretical We start interpretations with thatcan the be can observation mediated that accommodate at an treeinduced the effective level mechanisms (¯ flavour by are two also kinds possible. of These particle: models a tend to generate related operators we choose to marginalizelarger only than the over experimental the error parameters on the which observable. give4 a theoretical uncertainty Theoretical interpretations the likelihood, and we sampled8 the Wilson posterior coefficients (at using the the fit, scale we 160 choose GeV) to a marginalize flat overwithin 25 prior reasonable nuisance between parameters limits. only, to The keepthe nuisances computational following times (form way. factors For each related observable,each to we nuisance define within its theoretical uncertainty, uncertainties keeping due the to others changing fixed at their central values. Then, given that ‘hadronic sensitive’ observables arefind dominated the by result theoretical shown uncertainties). innew We figure physics — ‘hadronic sensitive’ data favour an anomalyin in tables muons. bined fit for the muon and electron coefficients (which should be interpreted with caution,

JHEP09(2017)010

8 4 R

e 0 R BSM b

C

4 −

� µ

8 −

9 6 ��

R 3 e L BSM b

C 0

SM µ �

3 −

8 4 L

e 0 R BSM b SM SM

C

4 −

8 −

or a lepto-quark, scalar or vector. 3 0

Z 0 SM SM SM

L 3 − e L BSM b

C

6

− � µ

9 −

0 . 3

��

5

. R 1 – 15 – µ R BSM

b

at tree level: a 0

. C

µ 0 �

SM SM SM SM

5 K .

1 −

R

6

.

1

8 . 0

R

0 . µ

0 L

BSM b SM SM SM SM SM

8

. C

0 −

6

.

1 −

8

.

1

2 . 1

L 6

. µ 0

R

BSM b

0 . C 0

SM SM SM SM SM SM

�

µ

6

.

0 −

��

8

.

0

0 . 0

SM SM SM SM SM SM SM

8

. L 0 − µ µ �

L

. Particles that can mediate

BSM b

6

.

1 − . Global fit to the 8 Wilson coefficients in muons and electrons, combining ‘clean’ and C

4

.

2 −

8 0 3 8 4 0 4 6 9 8 4 0 4 8 9 6 3 0 5 3 0 3 0 6 6 8 0 8 6 0 5 8 2 6

− − − − − − − −

......

3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 − − − −

R R L R R L R L L R L R L R

e b e b e b µ b e b b µ b µ

C C C C C C C

BSM BSM BSM BSM BSM BSM BSM Figure 6 Figure 5 ‘hadronic sensitive’ data. JHEP09(2017)010 ¯ µ × b. µ 6 (4.3) arises → among 0 bs ratios. u g Z Q U → contribution µ/e is dominated e ∗ d pp L † K Q U R u Q . For this reason one U and eγ is presumably not much + h.c. + h.c. . The coupling + h.c. among left-handed down = K q † 2 † 1 † 3 ts g → d ˜ R ) S ], where the V d Q µ ), as illustrated in figure Q branching ratio into invisible U + h.c. 44 U 0 UU QE R QQ S 2 2.1 0 0 0 ˜ Z R y y y + + + model gets severely constrained by 1 2 3 0 ˜ S y DL Z y QL S y DE y UL R ) denote the left-handed (right-handed) SM is anomaly free [ 6) 6) . 3) 3) LQs select a specific chirality of the SM fermions τ – 16 – ∗ / / / / L 1 7 4 1 K , , , , . In addition the LHC bounds on − R 2 2 1 3 L to couple to the 3-rd generation left-handed quarks U, D, E µ , , , , transitions might be due to the exchange of a Lepto- µ ( 0 ¯ 3 ¯ 3 L scalar g (3 (3 ( ( distributions, as well as the − models is that they can mediate effective operators in- Z and ` 0 ∼ ∼ − ∼ ∼ + K Z µ 2 2 Q, L 1 3 s` ˜ ˜ + R S S R R sµ → b anomalies can be determined trough more precise measurements after performing a flavour rotation coupled to L R L R → ` ` ` ` 0 L R L R − b ts b Z b b b ` ) d C C C C + Q s` Coefficient Lepto-Quark Yukawa couplings U gauge quantum numbers, and we follow the notations and conventions ]. and to lighter left-handed quarks with coupling )( and possibly equal to it, if the CKM matrix → q t = 0, the parameter space of the Y 62 g g b ts q ] for LQ names. V − g t 63 U(1) g can be either an electron or a muon. In parentheses we report the SU(3) × ` = ( L The gauge quantum numbers of Unless A characteristic feature of Another possibility is for the bs g where SU(2) from ref. [ quarks and leptons. involved in the new Yukawaator couplings, in and thereby the generate effective aThe Lagrangian unique correspondence in characteristic is the oper- given chiral by basis of eq. ( sizeable couplings of a LQis to severely electrons constrained and by muons the generatestypically lepton time-honoured assumes flavour radiative that violation decay LQs which effect couple which to has either an electrons impactto or on fit muons. the the (Here anomalous anomalies observables). in sizeable means The an coupling to muons allows 4.2 Models with lepto-quarks The anomalous effects in Quark (LQ), namely aflavour, in boson general that a couples LQ to can a couple to lepton both and muons a and quark. electrons. However, Concerning simultaneous lepton volving different chiralities. Inralities: fact, gauge-anomaly for example cancellations a also induceis multiple avoided chi- because LEP putvolved in strong constraints the on 4-electronof operators. ‘clean’ observables The such chiralities as in- left-handed up quarks. combining perturbative bounds on can be relaxed byDM introducing particles extra [ features, such as a with coupling as quarks to their mass-eigenstate basis.larger The than matrix element ( by the rotation among left-handed down quarks, rather than by the rotation JHEP09(2017)010 ] 65 , 64 1, which 3). Their / > 2 . Assuming ] makes use accidentally ∗ , were already 1 1 68 K B , 2 R 3 R ( ]. In refs. [ (4.4b) ∼ 65 1 and U 1 , which is mediated by + h.c. ˜ L S µ ` † 2 R b LQs at tree level, illustrated C 6) and selects a unique scalar lepto- UV has been firstly proposed after / µ . It is remarkable that this is ∗ anomalies of table 3 5 ]. Another motivated pattern of L , (4.4c) S K ¯ 2 − LQs can only fit the anomalies by 66 Qγ -parity violating interactions, this , disfavouring the supersymmetric ` , R vector 00 ∗ 2 3 R + y ( K R s` + h.c. R + ∼ µ 1 µ 2 ]. → 2 and V b and 1 71 EU EV , ˜ S 3), µ µ K / 10 [ (4.4a) 2 – 17 – R ¯ ¯ Dγ , Qγ 0 3 2 K ] using flavour symmetry. Also ref. [ , y y R couples to left-handed leptons, such that the sizeable 67 transition. (3 + + + h.c. 3 in the Lagrangians above) which may induce proton µ µ µ − ∼ 1 3 S 2 0 ] switching on only those couplings needed to reproduce µ (which respects the global symmetry U(1) y 3 10 is the danger of extra renormalizable couplings with di- + 2 U LV LU LU ˜ µ µ µ 3 R sµ S . However, even if it has ¯ ¯ ¯ Qγ Dγ Qγ 2 → ˜ y y y R b in ref. [ = = = ∼ K 3), which is a triplet under SU(2) ] the LQ has been identified as a pseudo-Goldstone boson associated 3 2 1 / R ˜ V Q U U ], the LQ 1 64 , L L L 3 70 , , ¯ 3 ( 69 ∼ c. There are 3 cases: 3 6 S LQ. From the fit, we notice that the as mediator of the 2 ˜ We move now to the discussion of the exchange of We briefly comment on the possible interpretation of a LQ as a supersymmetric particle The situation is different if LQs couple to electrons, rather than to muons, such that A potential issue with Given that each LQ mediates effective operators with a given chirality, we can draw 3 R S relevant interactions are: left-handed squark LQ gives the wronginterpretation correlation of the between anomalies. in figure with the SM. One theinterference other with hand, the SMphysics allows component. to reproduce the observed anomalies with ain smaller the new MSSM. The only sparticle with the same gauge quantum numbers as a LQ is the only the anomalies inbe the reproduced ‘clean’ observables by can allthe be chiralities, reproduced. with the ‘Clean’giving only observables a can exclusion large contribution of tothis the happens Wilson coefficients, because comparable these to the LQs SM couple contributions: to right handed electrons, with little interference this, in refs. [ at the renormalizable level) hasis been now considered disfavoured leading by todisfavoured the the after prediction the LHCb measurement data. of The other two options couplings has been suggestedof in ref. [ quarks (denoted collectively by decay. Baryon number conservation has to be invoked to avoid this issue. Motivated by hypothesis. The explanation of thethe anomalies measurement in of terms of the effect. In ref.to [ the breaking of ait global has symmetry also of been a suggested newbe that strongly a dictated coupled rationale by sector for the the [ mechanism size of of partial the compositeness various flavour [ couplings could conclusions from our one parameternew fits physics of in the thequark: muon sector, theobtained measurement with of justof the the information remaining coming observables from (with ‘clean’ our observables specified while treatment the of inclusion the errors) reinforces this JHEP09(2017)010 or R ` L b C γ might be ; 3 s B U M � � � � .   X X X All 3 . 2 in models with extra ]. Naive dimensional 1 anomalies. � � − U observables � 76 − g ` ℱ µ + s` -meson anomalies as in the B → b X X X can be generated by L ` and the muon L � � � b s ℱ B C new physics in Clean observables M can be generated by e � � are sizeable, dangerous scalar operators may , ∆ � � R 0 ` K   y R R – 18 – b C and � X X X X X X or ℱ y � � L ` L b ], typically as new composite states. The presence of these C new physics in Clean observables ; 75 . In Fundamental Composite Higgs models these diagrams will be 2 – can contribute to the anomalous observables trough multiple 3) 3) 6) 3) 6) 3) 6) S V / / / / / / / 72 1 2 2 5 4 1 1 7 , , , , , , , U 1 3 2 1 2 3 2 � � , , , , , , , � 3 3 ¯ 3 ¯ 3 Number ℱ Quantum ( (3 ( ( (3 ( (3 and . Which lepto-quarks can reproduce which 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 V � � Spin � �   2 2 1 3 1 3 2 ˜ ˜ Table 3 V S S U U R R and extra scalars . Feynman diagrams contributing to F � ℱ can be generated by � � L Similar phenomenological considerations to explain the Models featuring vector LQs models in order to explain the flavour anomalies appeared ` R b states signals that the theoryof in the isolation vectors is are non-renormalizable, UVanalysis meaning divergent, shows for that that a loop recent effects one-loopproblematic. re-discussion contributions A see careful to ref. study [ physicsinformation of observables this on topic such the is UV ∆ a embedding model of dependent the issue LQ and in it a requires complete extra theory. C case of the scalar LQ apply, we summarise the relevantrecently options in in the table literature [ The vector LQ chiral structures. In general,be if both generated. Ifparameter fit, one with of the the following correspondence: two couplings dominates, we can again restrict to our one Figure 7 fermions dressed by further new composite dynamic contributions. JHEP09(2017)010 . is 2, 4 TC / 2 and g 1 g − Q can be and new = F S Y + h.c. (4.5) 5. This also anomalies: a . 5, where c 1 . and ∗ ∗ D 1 K ]. These theories S ∼ S L  82 ,R L . Three generations F 2 y K g = 3 and we list the Q R Q ∼ y ]. Having a fundamental TC L + y N 82 c , forming composite particles D are dressed by the underlying S TC 7 L, E, Q, U, D ) f c c E ) with are obtained from the TC-Yukawa TC In models of fundamental composite F g , where the new gauge coupling d TC U 6 y . ∼ N TC U , F y u /g TC y + T U , ]. In this particular example, one generates y ` c N y Q 78 y F – 19 – D ≈ ] in which the relevant composite techni-baryons D ]. Fundamental theories with a Higgs as a composite u y 66 y 81 , – + ( , at the scale Λ c TC 79 E /g TC S T D and techni-fermions c N N y F fermion is free. We assume the minimal choices S √ Q ] — see also ref. [ y E L π/ E 4 F ≈ 77 y , d ∼ + 39 y ] for (walking) TC theories that didn’t feature a light Higgs. c [ , we will consider renomalizable models of composite dynamics featuring TC 88 ∗ E – g 7 of the = 0. S TC 83 L 4.4 Y /g Y F gauge coupling. T E with Yukawa couplings to SM fermions that allow for the Feynman diagram on L y L L L F anomaly can be reproduced by one loop diagrams involving new scalars y y 2 and K = / ≈ R The matrices of SM Yukawa couplings The gauge group and the field content of a simple model are summarised in table The composite theory does not address the SM naturalness issue and it is fundamental In section ` Y Composite theories including TC scalars attempting to give masses to the SM quarks appeared earlier y 6 = 1 L . The needed extra Yukawa coupling to the muon must be large, in the literature [ couplings as becomes strong, of techni-scalars are introduced inwhile order having to a reproduce renormalizable allhypercharge theory SM with fermion no masses and LandauY mixings, poles below the Planck scale. The theory of composite Higgs, we use it to investigateHere the the flavour anomalies. newgauge strong quantum group numbers iscomposite of Higgs chosen with the Yukawa to couplings to new all be SM vectorial fermions SU( fermions and scalars that can provide a composite Higgs madea of partial techni-particles; compositeness ii) mechanismemerge the as [ SM bound fermion states of masses a are techni-fermion generated and ain via techni-scalar. the sense that it can be extrapolated till the Planck scale [ Models in which the Higgsnew is physics a in the composite flavour state sectorstate [ are that prime are candidates also as able potential tofeature source generate both of SM techni-scalars fermion masses appearedHiggs: in ref. i) [ it is possible to replace the standard model Higgs and Yukawa sectors with a identified with the constituentsthe of source the of the Higgs SM boson,structure. Yukawa couplings, and Then, giving that the rise to one their acomposite loop Yukawa flavour couplings Feynman dynamic. structure diagrams are similar of to figure the SM 4.4 Fundamental composite Higgs explains why the MSSMpossibile does box not diagram allow containing forthe Winos an and SU(2) explanation sleptons of predicts the extra elementary scalars, where we will show that the extra particles The fermions the left in figure an operator involving left-handedL SM quarks and leptons, denoted respectively by 4.3 Models with loop mediators JHEP09(2017)010 ; 7 – L . ) F 89 0 j (4.6) of where D µ θ Y γ j ¯ sin E / )( 0 i TC Q µ γ i SU(3) ¯ L 6(9) TeV ( . 0 3 3 j 11 3 / 3 0 i ], without techni-scalars, 1 ) = 3 − − 2 3 the lightest TC-baryon can − T / D 94 . In view of the resulting A Y 2 = 0 3 1 y – 2 for the hypercharge / Y 2 TC Q m / TC 2 = 2 = − 1 92 1 y / / 6 = Λ Λ ( 1 1 / = − U(1) − , and similarly for quarks. (identified with pseudo Goldstone ij ` 2 2 TC ) TC and − − y = Y g Y f ∗ H E + 1 θ y − Y Y Y TC † Y L g . y sin ( L i ∼ E √ / c y ∼ ) + ) are enhanced the impact on new physics is L j L hFF y SU(2) f y µ – 20 – c ∼ γ 0 0 i 2(5) TeV ¯ . E f 1 1 11 1 3 1 1 1 2 y )( 0 0 SU(3) j = 3 f µ V γ i m ¯ f ( 0 j 0 i and condensates ) 0 f y TC 0 2 TC 2. ) are reduced. Consequently, in this scenario new physics manifests † f . 22 1 1 2 1 E y Λ / / 00 3 3 / ( y 1 1 1 ij 2 TC ) g c c c f c L N y E E D † f F F S S F with conjugated gauge quantum numbers such that the fermion content is vectorial y name spin generations ( c E . Field content of the simplest Fundamental Composite Higgs model. Extra fermions F 0 , L f,f X However, when the TC-Yukawas (say, The TC-Yukawa couplings accidentally conserve lepton and baryon numbers (like in We require TC-scalar masses and TC-quartics to respect flavour symmetries so that F The loop analysis, in the composite scenario, is merely a schematic way to keep track of the relevant and a correspondingly reduced right-handed , 7 ] of the most minimal fundamental composite theories [ is the electroweak embedding angle to be determined by the dynamics, that must be L,E,Q,U,D c N L prevalently in leptons ofprevalently one in left-handed given muons chirality. ity is Because natural data to prefer consider new here an physics enhanced to muon emerge coupling factors stemming from the TC dynamics when writing SM four-fermion interactions. cally viable if thereproduce fundamental the TC-Yukawa SM couplings Yukawa have couplings: the minimal values neededalso to enhanced. The observed SMTC-Yukawas Yukawa couplings (say, are reproduced when the corresponding in the TC-Yukawas one obtains the following operators involving 4 SM fermions All SM fermions and their chiralities are involved. These operators are phenomenologi- the SM) and TC-baryon number;be depending a on neutral the DM value candidate. of the BSM corrections to flavour observables abide the experimental bounds. At one loop have demonstrated the actualbreaking occurrence pattern, and of furthermore chiral providedtechni-resonances symmetry the with breaking spectrum masses of with the theθ spin relevant one vector andsmaller axial than about 0 with mass ofbreaking order of the Λ TC-chiral symmetry, the Higgsbosons doublet of the theory) and91 other composite scalars remain lighter. Lattice simulations [ Table 4 F are implicit. Nameshowever are generic appropriate values assuming are the allowed. value JHEP09(2017)010 , = 11 x (4.7a) (4.7b) bs ) µµ † Q ) y † L 2 bs 2 TC Q ) y 2 TC 2 TC 2 TC y Λ L 2 µ † Q ( ) Λ Λ Λ y y x ( m 2 TC µµ Q 2 2 2 TC TC TC g Z ) y − g g g † L ( y M y y ( 2 L ln 2 g y ) 2 ( y y

�������� ��Δ� �� ���� − (1  ) � + ���� �µ ) /y y y �� (1 ) ) µ − 7 † � � , x Δ� F = � ��� ���� x � ���δ� � ) ( - Y, y µ ln Y ( 2 �� + ) 9 + 2 2 ) x x, y x F y ( L ���� − ) + 2 F 2 F x, x � -> µ y µ ( + 3 bs ( 4 (1 M ) – 21 – ) 7 y F ) y † Q F µµ + L L modifies in the presence of a TC-fermion condensate ) y ln 2 W 2 ���� 2 F F ) − 2 bs 1) ������ ��������(� † s L Q a y ) y 2 y y M M � − † Q ( L 4 � 8 ��� ����������Λ − y − y 2 2 �������� ��ν + 6 Y ( µµ ) 12(1 ) Q 2 ) ���� 2 Z y (1 π π 1 (2 )(1 y † L ( 2  6 ) x y (4 (4 M One-loop result Non-perturbative estimate the coefficients of the relevant flavour-violating effective op- L π − − y µµ L and the loop functions 5 TC ( ) 3 2 F ���� 2(4 � � � � � † L (1 y L N

2 2 is plotted. y µ F � � M �������� ������ TC . g 2 L ) N K y 2 TC /M ( ) = ) = π TC R 2 µ c Λ y E N (4 ( 2 S m 7 x, y TC ( F M /g TC F = N µµ ) , so only y ∗ T E , y K L . Estimates of signals and bounds on the Yukawa couplings of fundamental composite L L 2 L . Coefficients of the low-energy operators generated within a naive perturbative TC- L F R µ y b µ a ( L Zµ L v b b /M ∆ µ c We summarise in table c δg and c D m 2 ]) and Naive Dimensional Analysis (NDA) in the composite theory. We defined S K Coefficient erators, both within a39 naive one-loop approximation (adoptingM the results from refs. [ Figure 8 Higgs models. The modelR generates an effective operator that can simultaneously account for both Table 5 fermion and TC-scalar(third estimate column). (secondto The column) NDA along result with for ∆ their NDA analysis counterpart JHEP09(2017)010 | ≈ µ (4.9) (4.8) L (4.7c) 8, for (4.7d) . The y / | W θ 1 provided . coupling to 6 ∼ that features − ) is diagonal, is compatible τ Z µ (1) = 1 10 L eµ = sin L 9 θ 4 TC y , y ∼ g G  TeV), with W µ e s one has L / y ∼ (4.7e) µ , , y TC 24, ) lepto-quark considered µ . In general, there can L ∼ e µ / max y Λ } L y 1 L , L 2 TeV e 1 ( y anomalies and the muon ˜ y y S 9 y E −  y G − ln(Λ ln 2 TC ` 2 eµ g 2 e, µ, τ + θ p y { 1 ]. We can neglect TC-penguin µ 5 is needed, like in models with matrix is diagonal in the same s` . 6 L 3) + 1)) π/ − 1 1 in the SM. In the fundamental = 95 = diag( y , (1) = TC 2 [ E e 9 − ` Y contribute to the prediction for the → y L N 2 ∼ E ≈ 2 F σ TC < y y 2 y µ b ] is satisfied even for (2 t µ | N L = 1, the Yukawa coupling grows with y for L µ + 11 2 W ∼ y 96 and a small 3 y L [ s 24, at 2 y 4 is the correction to the y e / TC | − TC 2 eµ + 6(2 2 L − 12 1) behaves as a lepto-quark: if light it would 18 5 θ g y µ N 3 and − /g µ · c 3 L − y (1 − ` t 4 6 L y D y E 4 TC y 2 y 16 − 1) S y e y 6 10 Λ 8% – 22 – c ` . ) . 2 E allows for 2 µ implies − + 3 ∗ L − 0 gauge coupling: (1) = 1 36( E y 0 y 7 ( y 3 2 2 6 S m + 9 . y ˜ 9 g < y F v TC y TC max F = ) 6 TC TC | ≤ g N 36( em ` g 1) L y eγ + 45 = πα − Zµ y 4 → + 6 ln (1) = µ µ δg Y 7 | 3 L 36 µ ∼ y ln F (2 ) 2 − ∂y ∂ 2 W . − 7 2 3, s eγ ) µ / 2 , written in terms of the weak mixing angle L π pole is y → L , but only when effects at higher order in the Yukawa couplings are (4 µ ) = ) = ) = µ g = y y Z eγ ( ( . In the presence of the second term a larger 9 9 Y, y µµ 1) = 1 Pl F ( → G ) BR( is diagonal. Then , 9 † L M µ F (1 L y . shows that, in order to reproduce the ]. We can always work in a basis where y L ]. Focusing on effects enhanced by the large coupling F ∼ y 8 11 82 4.2 max Finally, we mention an effect that can enhance the new-physics correction to some Lepton-flavour violation is absent as long as the Figure generates 2 anomaly, a relatively large Yukawa coupling − eµ in section are known, the scalar condensatesfor are example not known by (althoughthe dedicated perhaps accidental lattice they flavour are symmetry simulations). among computable, Goldstone scalars, bosons. Possible leading to scalar The extra condensates lighter statemediate composite at made could tree pseudo- of level break some effective operators, analogously to the The experimental bound BR( that in the electron sector too one has aflavour-violating operators. large While the fermion condensates induced by the strong dynamics basis where be a flavour-violating mixingθ matrix in the leptonincluded sector. [ In particular, the mixing angle with the requirement thatis all similar couplings can to be howcomposite extrapolated the Higgs strong up model, to coupling the the largeHiggs Planck couplings mass scale. parameter in This terms of Λ In the presence ofenergy. the Perturbativity up first to term a scale only,1 Λ setting for Λ g perturbative extra fermions and scalars.coupling In have the composite natural model sizes. suchan This values of extra is TC-Yukawa contribution corroborated involving by the a RGE analysis for degenerate masses. Theleft-handed latter muons entryLEP in bound table at the diagrams [ such that ( that equal JHEP09(2017)010 0 ∗ Z K R , K R anomalies − quarks, a distributions ` + − bs ¯ µ s` + → sµ b favours new physics in → b K searches at LHC and other R − µ + µ → 0 is savagely coupled to Z 0 Z → together with ∗ pp K R – 23 – 30 TeV, the actual new physics can be at a lower ∼ is disfavoured by bb ¯ and vector can give extra new-physics operators that involve all chiralities of program. 0 ss Z we summarize the observables used in addition to the ‘clean’ observables. 7 Flavio and 6 One lepto-quark tends tolarge give flavour violations), effects and in only muons in or oneOne chirality. electron can only add (in extra orderthe fermions desired to new and avoid physics. scalars Their such Yukawa coupling that to they muons must mediate, be at larger one than unity. loop level, One extra SM leptons. The simplest possibilitycoupling motivated by to anomaly leptons. cancellation is acoupled However, vectorial to unless ¯ the contraints. While the effective 4-fermion operators that can account for the We next discussed possible theoretical interpretations of the anomaly. One can build • • • A List of observablesIn used table in the globalAll fit bins are treated in the experimental analyses as independent, even if overlapping. It is Research Foundation Grant DNRF:90, andthe the one Lattice of QCD G. groupcomputing D’A. thanks resources. of Andrea CERN, R.T. Wulzer and and isthe supported grant in CRSII2-160814 by particular the (Sinergia). Agostinoresources, Swiss R.T. Alessandro Patella, National thanks Brunengo for Science INFN for computing Foundation Sezione sharingabout support, under di their and the Genova David for Straub computing for clarifications Acknowledgments We thank Marina Marinkovic,thank Andrea Tesi Javier and Virto Elena forERC Vigiani further grant for useful useful NEO-NAT, comments. discussions. the We one The of work of F.S. A.S. is is partially supported supported by by the the Danish National need to bescale, suppressed with by obvious a consequencesnaturalness. scale for direct observability at the LHC and for Higgs mass by the fact thataffects these muons are differently no from electrons. longer theoretically clean observables,models if compatible new with physics all really other data: We found that theleft-handed new leptons. measurement Furthermore, of adding(affected to by the theoretical fit uncertainties), kinematical the one SM finds in left-handed that muons. theywill However, favour even be if similar reduced, the deviations experimental a from uncertainties precise on determination of the new-physics parameters will be prevented 5 Conclusions JHEP09(2017)010 has a stronger 2 6] GeV has a smaller error than , 1 2 . ] 2 6] GeV ] ] , , even when the information from ] ] [GeV 9 1 2 98 . 97 2 max , q 2017 [ 2015 S [ 6] GeV 2017 [ 2 min , q [ µµ [4 ∗ µµ µµ , ∗ ∗ K 4] K K , [1, 2], [2, 4.3], [4.3, 6], [16, 19] [1, 2], [2, 4.3], [4.3, 6], [16, 19] – 24 – → 5 . → → B [2 B B , 5] . 2 Angular observables [0.04, 2], [2, 4], [4, 6], [0.04, 4], [1.1, 6], [0.04, 6] [0.04, 2], [2, 4], [4, 6], [0.04, 4], [1.1, 6], [0.04, 6] [0.04, 2], [2, 4], [4, 6], [0.04, 4], [1.1, 6], [0.04, 6] [0.04, 2], [2, 4], [4, 6], [0.04, 4], [1.1, 6], [0.04, 6] [0.04, 2], [2, 4], [4, 6], [0.04, 4], [1.1, 6], [0.04, 6] [0.04, 2], [2, 4], [4, 6], [0.04, 4], [1.1, 6], [0.04, 6] [0.04, 2], [2, 4], [4, 6], [0.04, 4], [1.1, 6], [0.04, 6] [0.04, 2], [2, 4], [4, 6], [0.04, 4], [1.1, 6], [0.04, 6] [0.04, 2], [2, 4], [4, 6], [0.04, 4], [1.1, 6], [0.04, 6] [0.04, 2], [2, 4], [4, 6], [0.04, 4], [1.1, 6], [0.04, 6] [0.04, 2], [2, 4], [4, 6], [0.04, 4], [1.1, 6], [0.04, 6] , CMS 1 LHCb ], the result in the bin [1 ATLAS . 9 [1.1, 6], [15, 19], [0.1, 0.98], [1.1, 2.5], [2.5, 4], [4, 6], [15, 17], [17, 19] [1.1, 6], [15, 19], [0.1, 0.98], [1.1, 2.5], [2.5, 4], [4, 6], [15, 17], [17, 19] [1.1, 6], [15, 19], [0.1, 0.98], [1.1, 2.5], [2.5, 4], [4, 6], [15, 17], [17, 19] [1.1, 6], [15, 19], [0.1, 0.98], [1.1, 2.5], [2.5, 4], [4, 6], [15, 17], [17, 19] [1.1, 6], [15, 19], [0.1, 0.98], [1.1, 2.5], [2.5, 4], [4, 6], [15, 17], [17, 19] [1.1, 6], [15, 19], [0.1, 0.98], [1.1, 2.5], [2.5, 4], [4, 6], [15, 17], [17, 19] [1.1, 6], [15, 19], [0.1, 0.98], [1.1, 2.5], [2.5, 4], [4, 6], [15, 17], [17, 19] [1.1, 6], [15, 19], [0.1, 0.98], [1.1, 2.5], [2.5, 4], [4, 6], [15, 17], [17, 19] ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) µµ µµ µµ ∗ µµ µµ µµ µµ µµ µµ µµ µµ µµ µµ µµ µµ µµ µµ µµ µµ µµ µµ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B ( B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B i ( ( . List of angular observables used in the global fit in addition to the ‘clean’ observables. ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( Observable i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 4 5 6 8 3 4 5 7 8 9 3 4 5 7 8 L L FB S S S S S S S S S S S P P P P P P P F F h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h A h Table 6 the measurements in the binsthese [1 three bins isimpact combined. on In our fact, fits weare than verified potentially the that largely three the correlated, smaller bin theunknown bins. largest [1 correlation bin This becomes dominates shows the negligible. that fit, even so if that the the effect measurements of the clear that a correlationthis should exists is between not measurements estimatedour in overlapping by fit bins, the the however measurements experimentalcorrelation in collaborations. beyond all the relevant ones For bins, giventhe this in case even reason of the if the we experimental LHCb overlapping, papers. include analysis without [ Notice in including that, any for instance in JHEP09(2017)010 D 08 and K R Phys. Rev. Phys. Rev. , JHEP , , ]. decays decays SPIRE processes − ]. ` − IN s ` + ` ][ + ` ] → + 0 2 b ∗ SPIRE K K IN → ][ → ] ] + ] ] [GeV ] ] ] ] 5 ] 0 5 5 99 4 B 6 ]. B 100 2 max [1, 6] 101 , q 2014 [ 2014 [ 2014 [ 2016 [ 2014 [ 2015 [ SPIRE 2 min arXiv:1403.8044 2013 [ q 2005 [ ]. µµ [ IN [ µµ ∗ ll ∗ ll ][ s Kee φµµ Kµµ Kµµ s K [0.04, 1], [1, 6], [14.4, 25] K X ]. X → → → → On the Standard Model predictions for → – 25 – SPIRE → → s  arXiv:1605.07633 0  → IN  0 [ B B B B B ][ B B B SPIRE (2014) 133 [1, 6], [0.1, 2], [2, 4.3], [4.3, 6.8], [14.2, 25] [1, 6], [0.1, 2], [2, 4.3], [4.3, 6.8], [14.2, 25] [1, 6], [0.1, 2], [2, 4.3], [4.3, 6.8], [14.2, 25] Branching ratios IN [0.1, 2], [2, 5], [15, 17], [17, 19], [1, 6], [15, 19] 06 ][ LHCb Belle LHCb LHCb LHCb BaBar LHCb ), which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in LHCb [0.1, 2], [2, 4], [4, 6], [15, 17], [17, 22], [1.1, 6], [15, 22] [0.1, 2], [2, 4], [4, 6], [15, 17], [17, 19], [1.1, 6], [15, 19] (2016) 440 [17, 18], [18, 19], [19, 20], [20, 21], [21, 22], [1.1, 6], [15, 22] arXiv:1406.6482 More model-independent analysis of JHEP [0.1, 0.98], [1.1, 2], [2, 3], [3, 4], [4, 5], [5, 6], [15, 16], [16, 17], [ , Test of lepton universality using Differential branching fractions and isospin asymmetries of Test of lepton universality with [0.1, 0.98], [1.1, 2.5], [2.5, 4], [4, 6], [15, 17], [17, 19], [1.1, 6], [15, 19] C 76 hep-ph/0310219 [ ) ) decays CC-BY 4.0 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) µµ − µµ ll ll ee µµ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons ∗ s s ∗ µ s s Kee arXiv:1705.05802 φµµ Kµµ Kµµ + X X K K X X [ (2014) 151601 µ ) → → → → → → → ∗ → → → ( s  0  0  Eur. Phys. J. B B B B K 113 B B B B B , B (2004) 074020 ∗ → . List of differential branching ratios used in the global fit in addition to the ‘clean’ Observable K BR( BR( BR( BR( BR( BR( BR( BR( 2 2 BR( 2 2 BR( R Lett. B (2017) 055 69 2 2 2 d d 2 d d 2 2 d d LHCb collaboration, LHCb collaboration, LHCb collaboration, G. Hiller and F. Kr¨uger, M. Bordone, G. Isidori and A. Pattori, d dq dq d dq dq d dq d dq dq dq dq dq [4] [5] [1] [2] [3] Attribution License ( any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. References Table 7 observables. Open Access. JHEP09(2017)010 , , − ` : 1, B 2 + ] ` ] q 07 D 93 Large ] ∗ ]. ]. K of anomalies ]. 1 → − JHEP SPIRE s`` B , SPIRE ]. ? IN 3 fb ]. IN → SPIRE − ][ Phys. Rev. µ b ][ IN , + decays at high ][ SPIRE µ ∗ SPIRE − IN arXiv:1407.8526 ]. (2013) 048 ` K IN [ arXiv:1101.5118 arXiv:1701.08672 ][ ]. + Charm-loop effect in [ ` [ ]. ][ ) 01 → decay using ∗ ( ]. B SPIRE decay at large hadronic recoil − transitions after LHC run K SPIRE Hadronic uncertainties in µ IN s − SPIRE IN + ` ][ → JHEP Implications from clean observables µ IN + → ][ (2014) 125 , 0 arXiv:1308.1707 SPIRE B arXiv:1006.4945 ∗ ][ b (2017) 016 On the impact of power corrections in Global analysis of [ (2011) 1635 [ K` IN ]. 12 physics beyond the Standard Model K arXiv:1212.2263 ]. ][ 04 [ → → at small dilepton invariant mass, power s`` arXiv:1408.1627 0 B C 71 [ SPIRE B → JHEP arXiv:1512.04442 Hint of lepton flavour non-universality in SPIRE ]. IN ]. Theory of V `` , b [ JHEP IN (2010) 089 , ][ ]. at large recoil → ][ (2013) 043 – 26 – (2013) 191801 − 09 B New physics in µ arXiv:1506.08777 SPIRE SPIRE arXiv:1408.4097 05 + [ [ IN IN SPIRE [ µ 111 arXiv:1512.07157 On Reassessing the discovery potential of the ∗ decays at large recoil in the Standard Model: a theoretical ][ IN [ (2016) 104 arXiv:1411.3161 observables and future Eur. Phys. J. (2014) 054014 K JHEP ][ − [ , , ` − K 02 JHEP ]. γ → + µ R , ∗ ` + ∗ B D 90 µ K (2015) 179 (2014) 131 ∗ K Resonances gone topsy turvy — the charm of QCD or new physics → SPIRE K (2016) 116 arXiv:1211.0234 arXiv:1510.04239 JHEP 09 12 → Measurement of form-factor-independent observables in the decay Angular analysis of the Angular analysis and differential branching fraction of the decay [ [ , IN (2015) 382 B → 06 B ][ Phys. Rev. Lett. B , arXiv:1406.0566 and arXiv:1412.3183 JHEP JHEP − , : a state-of-the-art analysis Phys. Rev. C 75 [ , − µ ? , , − ` JHEP − arXiv:1702.02234 + − µ + ` , µ [ µ (2016) 092 (2013) 010 ` + 0 + + ) ]. ]. ]. µ ∗ ∗ ∗ ( s` 06 02 K φµ K K → → → b → → SPIRE SPIRE SPIRE 0 0 s IN IN IN arXiv:1207.2753 B [ hadronic power corrections or new(2017) physics 025 in the rare decay decays in the large-recoil region:(2016) SM 014028 challenges and BSM opportunities reappraisal in the prediction of [ [ JHEP corrections and new physics JHEP B OPE and quark-hadron duality meson decays Eur. Phys. J. integrated luminosity opportunities B for the binned analysis[ of B B. Capdevila, S. Descotes-Genon, L. Hofer and J. Matias, V.G. Chobanova, T. Hurth, F. Mahmoudi, D. Martinez Santos and S. Neshatpour, S. J¨agerand J. Martin Camalich, M. Ciuchini et al., J. Lyon and R. Zwicky, S. Descotes-Genon, L. Hofer, J. Matias and J. Virto, A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel and Y.M. Wang, S. J¨agerand J. Martin Camalich, A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel, A.A. Pivovarov and Y.-M. Wang, M. Beylich, G. Buchalla and T. Feldmann, D. Ghosh, M. Nardecchia and S.A. Renner, W. Altmannshofer and D.M. Straub, S. Descotes-Genon, L. Hofer, J. Matias and J. Virto, G. Hiller and M. Schmaltz, LHCb collaboration, S. Descotes-Genon, J. Matias, M. Ramon and J. Virto, LHCb collaboration, LHCb collaboration, [9] [7] [8] [6] [22] [23] [20] [21] [18] [19] [16] [17] [14] [15] [11] [12] [13] [10] JHEP09(2017)010 ] , ]. , 04 , (2015) SPIRE Towards 02 ]. and IN JHEP [ ]. . , ¯ `` anomaly ) ]. , − SPIRE ¯ JHEP µ Kπ SPIRE (2014) 091801 , IN + decays IN µ Patterns of new → ][ arXiv:1703.10005 decays SPIRE ∗ ( s`` B ][ [ ]. ∗ IN 113 K ¯ → K Round table: flavour s`` ][ b (2017) 191801 → → gauge invariance and the → B SPIRE (2008) 106 b ¯ B ]. emcee: the MCMC hammer form factors from flavor data IN (2014) 241802 118 arXiv:1704.05340 ? 07 ][ , U(1) K (2017) 01001 × 113 Neutrino trident production: a SPIRE branching fraction and effective → IN − JHEP 137 arXiv:1612.05014 Phys. Rev. Lett. arXiv:1308.4379 B ]. µ ][ , ]. [ , [ + Interpreting hints for lepton flavor µ Loop effects of heavy new scalars and decays in the Standard Model and beyond arXiv:1608.07832 [ − → SPIRE µ SPIRE Phys. Rev. Lett. Understanding the 0 s IN + , IN [ B CP asymmetries in ]. µ arXiv:1202.3665 ][ ∗ [ – 27 – Phys. Rev. Lett. K , Lepton-flavor-dependent angular analysis of (2017) 111801 (2014) 074014 decays decays at NLO (2017) 043 → EPJ Web Conf. SPIRE − , ¯ `` IN ]. arXiv:1307.5683 B µ ) 04 118 [ decays ][ + − D 89 ]. µ (2013) 306 B ]. ]. ]. ]. K Diagnosing lepton-nonuniversality in + Constraints on new physics from radiative → SPIRE K JHEP 0 processes IN 125 https://zenodo.org/record/495090#.WPMUzFJ7FTY , SPIRE , B ][ − SPIRE SPIRE SPIRE SPIRE arXiv:1704.05435 arXiv:0811.1214 → − transitions in the light of recent data IN ` ( Measurement of the , [ µ IN IN IN IN + [ φ ][ − + ` Phys. Rev. ][ ][ ][ s` (2013) 074002 , + Flavio → sµ s s` → Phys. Rev. Lett. → B b , → b , − arXiv:1608.02556 D 88 s ` b [ (2009) 019 ¯ + B ]. ` ∗ collaboration, S. Wehle et al., 01 K arXiv:1411.4773 [ → SPIRE arXiv:1703.05747 arXiv:1406.2332 IN arXiv:0805.2525 arXiv:1407.7044 fermions in powerful probe of new physics[ with neutrino beams physics in Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. the discovery of newarXiv:1704.05446 physics with lepton-universality ratios of universality violation Belle B Phys. Rev. (2017) 027 lifetime and search for [ to QCD and back Symmetries and asymmetries of JHEP anomalies in [ untagged [ 055 shape of new physics[ in rare P. Arnan, L. Hofer, F. Mescia and A. Crivellin, W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, M. Pospelov and I. Yavin, B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin, S. Descotes-Genon, J. Matias and J.D. Virto, Foreman-Mackey, D.W. Hogg, D. Lang and J. Goodman, L.-S. Geng, B. Grinstein, S. J¨ager,J. Martin Camalich, X.-L. Ren and R.-X. Shi, W. Altmannshofer, P. Stangl and D.M. Straub, D. Straub et al., S. Descotes-Genon, J. Matias and J. Virto, A. Paul and D.M. Straub, LHCb collaboration, C. Hambrock, G. Hiller, S. Schacht and R. Zwicky, W. Altmannshofer, P. Ball, A. Bharucha, A.J. Buras, D.M. Straub and M. Wick, C. Bobeth, G. Hiller and G. Piranishvili, R. Alonso, B. Grinstein and J. Martin Camalich, SU(2) T. Blake, M. Gersabeck, L. Hofer, S. J¨ager,Z. Liu and R. Zwicky, G. Hiller and M. Schmaltz, [39] [40] [37] [38] [35] [36] [32] [33] [34] [30] [31] [28] [29] [27] [25] [26] [24] JHEP09(2017)010 ] ] 02 − τ µ B L + - ]. ]. ] µ µ ∗ L JHEP Phys. ] and K , -meson , ]. − anomalous B → SPIRE SPIRE models with µ Phys. Rev. IN IN 0 (2016) 059 data + B , ]. µ τ Z ][ ][ 821 ]. − hep-ex/0602035 ∗ SPIRE L 12 E µ [ - K arXiv:1505.03079 IN µ + [ Phenomenology of an Non-Abelian gauge L ][ SPIRE ]. → sµ SPIRE IN B IN JHEP → arXiv:1604.03088 ][ , , ][ b [ flavor anomalies ∓ SPIRE arXiv:1503.03477 ¯ ` τ [ IN  s` ]. µ ]. ][ (2006) 072003 (2015) 075022 → Lepton flavor violation in exclusive → (2015) 015007 ]. b arXiv:1509.01249 arXiv:1512.08500 Quark flavor transitions in Indirect constraints on the scalar ]. h [ [ Family nonuniversal SPIRE (2016) 214 SPIRE D 73 IN D 92 IN -boson explanation of the arXiv:1510.07658 D 92 ][ 0 SPIRE [ ][ SPIRE Z IN Final report of the muon (2015) 075006 IN B 760 arXiv:1602.00881 ][ models facing new model for arXiv:1503.03865 Lepton flavor non-universality in [ ][ 0 [ (2015) 173 (2016) 187 Explaining Addressing the LHC flavor anomalies with Z Phys. Rev. D 91 arXiv:1403.1269 11 05 ]. Phys. Rev. , Violation of lepton flavour universality in composite [ On the breaking of lepton flavor universality in – 28 – Phys. Rev. , τ , An explicit L (2016) 251801 - Phys. Lett. (2016) 134 µ SPIRE JHEP JHEP , (2015) 182 Predictions for lepton flavor universality violation in rare L , , arXiv:1310.1082 IN [ 116 ]. ]. arXiv:1506.01705 ][ Phys. Rev. [ Lepton flavor and nonuniversality from minimal composite , C 76 in a two-Higgs-doublet model with gauged arXiv:1601.07328 B 747 (2014) 095033 − arXiv:1501.00993 [ e [ SPIRE SPIRE + model with lepton-flavour non-universality IN IN (2014) 069 flavor model Ke ][ ][ D 89 (2015) 142 U(1) → 01 -decay anomalies × B 07 U(2) Phys. Lett. Eur. Phys. J. Phys. Rev. Lett. /B , , , arXiv:1311.6729 − collaboration, G.W. Bennett et al., (2016) 074003 [ µ (2015) 151801 JHEP + ]. ]. ]. ]. SU(2) , Phys. Rev. JHEP , decays × , Kµ 114 D 93 s decays in models with gauged → SPIRE SPIRE SPIRE SPIRE → IN arXiv:1608.01349 arXiv:1508.07009 IN IN IN extensions for [ SU(2) [ Rev. b decays from a Higgs setups di-photon resonance at the LHC decays B [ Higgs models protected flavor-changing interactions [ Lett. horizontal gauge symmetries [ (2014) 112 models B magnetic moment measurement at[ BNL anomaly Muon g-2 S.M. Boucenna, A. Celis, J. Fuentes-Martin, A. Vicente and J. Virto, S.M. Boucenna, A. Celis, J. Fuentes-Martin, A. Vicente and J. Virto, C.-W. Chiang, X.-G. He and G. Valencia, D. Sumensari Beˇcirevi´c,O. and R. Zukanovich Funchal, A. Carmona and F. Goertz, F. Goertz, J.F. Kamenik, A. Katz and M. Nardecchia, W. Altmannshofer and I. Yavin, A. Falkowski, M. Nardecchia and R. Ziegler, A. Celis, J. Fuentes-Martin, M. Jung and H. Serodio, A. Greljo, G. Isidori and D. Marzocca, A. Crivellin, G. D’Ambrosio and J. Heeck, C. Niehoff, P. Stangl and D.M. Straub, W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, M. Pospelov and I. Yavin, A. Crivellin, G. D’Ambrosio and J. Heeck, R. Gauld, F. Goertz and U. Haisch, A.J. Buras, F. De Fazio and J. Girrbach, 331 [56] [57] [54] [55] [52] [53] [50] [51] [48] [49] [46] [47] [44] [45] [42] [43] [41] JHEP09(2017)010 , : , ] ] − ) 0 D ∗ µ ( muon Z (2015) + D 2 R sµ flavour − ] − g → ` D 92 and + b U(2) Phys. Rev. s` K , ]. R and → ]. (2017) 040 ) b ]. ]. ) arXiv:0910.1789 ∗ ( arXiv:1702.08666 [ 03 SPIRE anomalies with vector [ ]. Phys. Rev. D physics in flavored ) ( IN ]. , SPIRE ∗ ( SPIRE R ]. (2017) 119902] SPIRE ][ IN B -decays and (2016) 1 D Interpreting the CMS IN IN ][ B Physics of leptoquarks in arXiv:1505.05164 JHEP R meson decays SPIRE ][ ][ [ , SPIRE IN 641 B (2010) 045 D 95 SPIRE IN ][ and IN ][ [ 02 K models for the LHCb and (2017) 115040 R 0 ]. ]. Z (2015) 184 A natural origin for the LHCb anomalies Lepton universality violation and lepton JHEP Anomalies in ]. ]. D 95 Phys. Rept. , 10 Composite leptoquarks and anomalies in , arXiv:1609.04367 SPIRE SPIRE Erratum ibid. LHCb anomaly and [ IN IN arXiv:1503.09024 -decay anomalies in a composite leptoquark [ arXiv:1512.01560 [ arXiv:1703.06019 SPIRE SPIRE ][ ][ B [ [ JHEP IN IN arXiv:1412.1791 – 29 – Clues for flavor from rare lepton and quark decays Lepton flavor nonuniversality in , [ [ Explaining the ][ ]. arXiv:1611.04930 Phys. Rev. arXiv:1703.09226 Simultaneous explanation of Lepton-flavor universality violation in [ , , (2016) 67 SPIRE (2017) 035027 ]. ]. ]. (2017) 102 IN (2016) 055045 (1991) 259 (2015) 014016 (2015) 006 (2017) 8 ][ Scalar leptoquarks and the rare 07 C 76 -meson decays 05 D 95 SPIRE SPIRE SPIRE D 93 B arXiv:1503.01084 arXiv:1608.02362 IN IN IN D 92 C 77 [ [ B 365 ][ ][ ][ JHEP arXiv:1501.05193 , LHCb anomalies from a natural perspective JHEP [ , Flavor at SSC energies: a new mechanism for dynamically generated fermion Composite leptoquarks at the LHC Phys. Rev. Phys. Rev. Eur. Phys. J. , (2015) 072 (2016) 118 Phys. Rev. , missing transverse energy excess with a leptoquark model , , ]. ]. ]. Nucl. Phys. arXiv:1501.03494 Eur. Phys. J. + 06 09 , [ , jj − (2015) 094019 SPIRE SPIRE SPIRE ` -meson decays + IN IN arXiv:1511.07447 arXiv:1603.04993 IN arXiv:1611.03507 symmetry leptoquarks model 91 flavor conservation in [ ` 055023 processes JHEP the last scalar leptoquarks standing B [ masses [ precision experiments and at particle[ colliders [ from warped space anomalies JHEP [ models with flavored Higgs doublets S. Sahoo, R. Mohanta and A.K. Giri, R. Barbieri, C.W. Murphy and F. Senia, R. Alonso, B. Grinstein and J. Martin Camalich, R. Barbieri, G. Isidori, A. Pattori and F. Senia, D. Fajfer and Beˇcirevi´c,S. N. Koˇsnik, S. Sahoo and R. Mohanta, I. de Medeiros Varzielas and G. Hiller, A. Crivellin, D. and M¨uller T. Ota, B. Allanach, A. Alves, F.S. Queiroz, K. Sinha and A. Strumia, B. Gripaios, D.B. Kaplan, I. Dorˇsner,S. Fajfer, A. Greljo, J.F. Kamenik and N. Koˇsnik, B. Gripaios, M. Nardecchia and S.A. Renner, E. Megias, M. Quir´osand L. Salas, B. Allanach, F.S. Queiroz, A. Strumia and S. Sun, I. Garcia Garcia, P. Ko, Y. Omura, Y. Shigekami and C. Yu, E. Megias, G. Panico, O. Pujol`asand M. Quir´os, [74] [75] [72] [73] [70] [71] [67] [68] [69] [65] [66] [63] [64] [61] [62] [59] [60] [58] JHEP09(2017)010 ] B B Phys. ]. Nucl. , JHEP , Phys. Phys. , Eur. , , , B 136 ), D 94 SU(2) Nucl. Phys. B SPIRE ( gauge theory , ` Phys. Lett. ]. IN , ][ arXiv:1111.1009 SPIRE [ Phys. Lett. Phys. Rev. Uncovering mass IN , , ][ ]. rule and BR 2 Johns Hopkins Workshop on / SPIRE ]. th (2012) 664 (2016) 031301 (2012) 014504 = 1 IN arXiv:1404.2794 I ][ ]. [ ]. Minimal super technicolor Supersymmetric extension of ∆ ]. Minimal conformal technicolor and , in 15 SPIRE D 93 D 85 ]. B 864 IN Massive vectors and loop observables: ]. ]. SPIRE ][ SPIRE arXiv:1001.1361 Fundamental partial compositeness SPIRE Fundamental composite Higgs dynamics on [ IN IN IN SPIRE ][ Linear flavour violation and anomalies in ][ (2014) 116 SPIRE SPIRE Composite Higgs scalars ]. ]. ][ IN IN A dark matter relic from muon anomalies IN breaking by vacuum misalignment 07 ][ Anatomy of a composite Higgs model Phys. Rev. Phys. Rev. ][ , , Nucl. Phys. – 30 – , SPIRE SPIRE (2010) 086 U(1) arXiv:1607.07621 IN IN [ JHEP × Light asymmetric dark matter on the lattice: ][ ][ 10 , arXiv:1509.05020 ]. Ultra minimal technicolor and its dark matter TIMP [ ]. arXiv:1001.2040 ]. JHEP [ arXiv:0809.0713 arXiv:1507.06660 , hep-ph/9504399 (2016) 002 [ [ ]. hep-ph/9409215 [ SPIRE [ SPIRE 10 IN SPIRE IN ]. ][ IN (2016) 083 ][ SPIRE with two flavors [ IN Fermion masses without Higgs: a supersymmetric technicolor model 06 arXiv:1602.06559 arXiv:1607.01659 [ JHEP (2011) 1784 fermion mass generation [ [ , SPIRE (1995) 462 Implications of TeV flavor physics for the IN & SU(2) (2008) 115010 (1995) 6196 (2015) 055021 Recent developments in bosonic technicolor [ case C 71 ]. JHEP 2 (1985) 299 , B 449 − D 78 D 51 D 92 (1984) 183 g (2016) 029 SPIRE arXiv:1109.3513 arXiv:1507.07927 IN (2016) 094507 Rev. precision electroweak tests [ the lattice: with two fundamental flavors: a minimal template for model building generation through Higgs flavor[ violation technicolor with two fundamental flavors Phys. J. technicolor [ Baltimore MD U.S.A., 26–28 August 1991 [ Phys. Rev. B 254 11 Current Problems in Particle Theory: Particle Physics from Underground to Heaven 136 (1984) 187 the physics Rev. T.A. Ryttov and F. Sannino, J. Galloway, J.A. Evans, M.A. Luty and R.A. Tacchi, A. Hietanen, R. Lewis, C. Pica and F. Sannino, R. Arthur, V. Drach, M. Hansen, A. Hietanen, C. Pica and F. Sannino, SU(2) W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, A.L. Kagan, L. Silvestrini and J. Zupan, R. Lewis, C. Pica and F. Sannino, M. Antola, S. Di Chiara, F. Sannino and K. Tuominen, M. Antola, S. Di Chiara, F. Sannino and K. Tuominen, B.A. Dobrescu, A.L. Kagan, F. Sannino, A. Strumia, A. Tesi and E. Vigiani, A. Kagan, D.B. Kaplan and H. Georgi, SU(2) D.B. Kaplan, H. Georgi and S. Dimopoulos, M.J. Dugan, H. Georgi and D.B. Kaplan, B. Gripaios, M. Nardecchia and S.A. Renner, G. B´elanger,C. Delaunay and S. Westhoff, C. Biggio, M. Bordone, L. Di Luzio and G. Ridolfi, [92] [93] [90] [91] [88] [89] [86] [87] [84] [85] [82] [83] [79] [80] [81] [77] [78] [76] JHEP09(2017)010 112 , γ + , CERN, ]. e decays and → − µ + SPIRE + µ µ (2006) 257 IN branching fraction − collisions at ][ ]. π − Phys. Rev. Lett. ` + , pp 427 + K ` (2016) 047 s SPIRE → X 11 IN , CERN, Geneva 0 → B ][ decays in B CMS-PAS-BPH-15-008 , collaborations, S. Schael et al., − Phys. Rept. JHEP µ , , hep-ex/0503044 TeV + L3 [ µ angular parameters of the decay ∗ 0 = 8 ]. 5 and K s P → √ resonance 0 d and SPIRE Z ]. arXiv:1303.0754 B 1 IN [ P ][ (2005) 092005 Improved measurement of the electroweak penguin – 31 – Measurement of the ATLAS-CONF-2017-023 , SPIRE New constraint on the existence of the IN D 72 ][ Fundamental composite (Goldstone) Higgs dynamics ]. (2013) 201801 ]. differential branching fraction − SPIRE 110 Angular analysis of µ Phys. Rev. arXiv:1402.0233 IN SPIRE Measurements of the S-wave fraction in + , [ Measurement of the ][ µ IN − 0 ` ][ in proton-proton collisions at + ` arXiv:1312.5364 s − [ µ (892) X ∗ + µ (2014) 111 K → 0 collaboration, ∗ collaboration, J.P. Lees et al., B TeV with the ATLAS detector collaboration, M. Iwasaki et al., → 04 Phys. Rev. Lett. collaboration, J. Adam et al., K collaboration, 0 , B = 8 → s 0 arXiv:1606.04731 hep-ex/0509008 BaBar and search for direct CP-violation(2014) from 211802 a sum of exclusiveBelle final states process √ Switzerland, (2017). the [ decay CMS B Geneva Switzerland, (2015). ATLAS JHEP SLD Electroweak Group, DELPHI,OPAL, ALEPH, LEP SLD, Electroweak SLD Working HeavyPrecision Group Flavour electroweak measurements Group, on the [ MEG LHCb collaboration, G. Cacciapaglia and F. Sannino, [99] [97] [98] [95] [96] [94] [100] [101]