Arxiv:1708.06350V2 [Hep-Ph] 24 Nov 2017 an Additional Symmetry [8]

Baryon Number and Lepton Universality Violation in Leptoquark and Diquark Models

Nima Assad, Bartosz Fornal, and Benjam´ın Grinstein Department of Physics, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA (Dated: November 27, 2017) We perform a systematic study of models involving leptoquarks and diquarks with masses well below the grand unification scale and demonstrate that a large class of them is excluded due to rapid proton decay. Af- ter singling out the few phenomenologically viable color triplet and sextet scenarios, we show that there exist only two leptoquark models which do not suffer from tree-level proton decay and which have the potential for explaining the recently discovered anomalies in B meson decays. Both of those models, however, contain dimension five operators contributing to proton decay and require a new symmetry forbidding them to emerge at a higher scale. This has a particularly nice realization for the model with the vector leptoquark (3, 1)2/3, which points to a specific extension of the Standard Model, namely the Pati-Salam unification model, where this leptoquark naturally arises as the new gauge boson. We explore this possibility in light of recent B physics measurements. Finally, we analyze also a vector diquark model, discussing its LHC phenomenology and showing that it has nontrivial predictions for neutron-antineutron oscillation experiments.

I. INTRODUCTION which involve the vector leptoquarks (3, 1) 2 and (3, 3) 2 , re- 3 3 spectively. Remarkably, these very same representations have Protons have never been observed to decay. Minimal grand been singled out as giving better fits to B meson decay anoma- unified theories (GUTs) [1, 2] predict proton decay at a rate lies data [11]. An interesting question we consider is whether which should have already been measured. The only four- there exists a UV complete extension of the SM containing dimensional GUTs constructed so far based on a single unify- such leptoquarks in its particle spectrum. ing gauge group with a stable proton require either imposing Finally, although the phenomenology of leptoquarks has specific gauge conditions [3] or introducing new particle rep- been analyzed in great detail, there still remains a gap in resentations [4]. A detailed review of the subject can be found the discussion of diquarks. In particular, neutron-antineutron in [5]. Lack of experimental evidence for proton decay [6] (n − n¯) oscillations have not been considered in the context imposes severe constraints on the form of new physics, es- of vector diquark models. We fill this gap by deriving an esti- pecially on theories involving new bosons with masses well mate for the n − n¯ oscillation rate in a simple vector diquark below the GUT scale. For phenomenologically viable models model and discuss its implications for present and future ex- of physics beyond the Standard Model (SM) the new particle periments. content cannot trigger fast proton decay, which seems like an The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we study the obvious requirement, but is often ignored in the model build- order at which proton decay first appears in models including ing literature. new color triplet and sextet representations and briefly com- Simplified models with additional scalar leptoquarks and ment on their experimental status. In Sec. III we focus on the diquarks not triggering tree-level proton decay were discussed unique vector leptoquark model which does not suffer from in detail in [7], where a complete list of color singlet, triplet tree-level proton decay and has an appealing UV completion. and sextet scalars coupled to fermion bilinears was presented. In particular, we study its implications for B meson decays. An interesting point of that analysis is that there exists only In Sec. IV we analyze a model with a single vector color sex- one scalar leptoquark, namely (3, 2) 7 (a color triplet elec- 6 tet, discussing its LHC phenomenology and implications for troweak doublet with hypercharge 7/6) that does not cause n − n¯ oscillations. Section V contains conclusions. tree-level proton decay. In this model dimension five operators that mediate proton decay can be forbidden by imposing arXiv:1708.06350v2 [hep-ph] 24 Nov 2017 an additional symmetry [8]. In this paper we collect the results of [7] and extend the Field SU(3)c × SU(2)L × U(1)Y reps. analysis to vector particles. This scenario might be regarded 0 Scalar leptoquark (3, 2) 7 as more appealing than the scalar case, since the new fields 6 do not contribute to the hierarchy problem. We do not assume Scalar diquark (3, 1) 2 , (6, 1) 2 , (6, 1) 1 , (6, 1) 4 , (6, 3) 1 any global symmetries, but we do comment on how imposing 3 − 3 3 3 3 a larger symmetry can remove proton decay that is introduced 0 0 Vector leptoquark (3, 1) 2 , (3, 1) 5 , (3, 3) 2 through nonrenormalizable operators, as in the scalar case. 3 3 3 Since many models for the recently discovered B meson Vector diquark (6, 2)− 1 , (6, 2) 5 decay anomalies [9, 10] rely on the existence of new scalar 6 6 or vector leptoquarks, it is interesting to investigate which of the new particle explanations proposed in the literature do not TABLE I. The only leptoquark and diquark models with a triplet or trigger rapid proton decay. Surprisingly, the requirement of no sextet color structure that do not suffer from tree-level proton decay. proton decay at tree level singles out only a few models, two of The primes indicate the existence of dim 5 proton decay channels. 2

II. VIABLE LEPTOQUARK AND DIQUARK MODELS Operator SU(3)c SU(2)L U(1)Y p decay

c µ 3 2 − 5/6 tree-level For clarity, we ﬁrst summarize the combined results of [7] QLγ uRVµ 6¯ 2 − 5/6 – and this work in Table I, which shows the only color triplet and color sextet models that do not exhibit tree-level proton c µ 3 2 1/6 tree-level QLγ dRVµ decay. The scalar case was investigated in [7], whereas in this 6¯ 2 1/6 – paper we concentrate on vector particles. As explained below, Q γµL V 3 1, 3 2/3 dim 5 the representations denoted by primes exhibit proton decay L L µ c µ ∗ through dimension ﬁve operators (see also [8]). We note that QLγ eRVµ 3 2 − 5/6 tree-level c µ ∗ although the renormalizable proton decay channels involving LLγ uRVµ 3 2 1/6 tree-level leptoquarks are well-known in the literature, to our knowl- c µ ∗ LLγ dRVµ 3 2 −5/6 tree-level edge the nonrenormalizable channels have not been consid- µ ered anywhere apart from the scalar case in [8]. uRγ eRVµ 3 1 5/3 dim 7 µ dRγ eRVµ 3 1 2/3 dim 5

A. Proton decay in vector models TABLE II. Possible vector color triplet and sextet representations.

We first enumerate all possible dimension four interactions of the new vector color triplets and sextets with fermion bilinears respecting gauge and Lorentz invariance. A complete set of those operators is listed in Table II [12]. For the vector case there are two sources of proton decay. The first one comes from tree-level diagrams involving a vector color triplet exchange, as shown in Fig. 1. This excludes the representations (3, 2) 1 and (3, 2) 5 , since they would require unnatu- 6 − 6 rally small couplings to SM fermions or very large masses to FIG. 1. Tree-level vector exchange triggering proton decay for remain consistent with proton decay limits. The second source V = (3, 2) 1 and V = (3, 2)− 5 . comes from dimension five operators involving the vector lep- 6 6 toquark representations (3, 1) 2 and (3, 3) 2 : 3 3

1 c 1 c (Q H†)γµd V , (Q τ AH†)γµd V A , (1) Λ L R µ Λ L R µ respectively. Those operators can be constructed if no additional global symmetry forbidding them is imposed and allow for the proton decay channel shown in Fig. 2, resulting in a lepton (rather than an antilepton) in the final state. The corresponding proton lifetime estimate is: FIG. 2. Proton decay through a dimension five interaction for 4 2 V = (3, 1) 2 and V = (3, 3) 2 . 32 M Λ 3 3 τp ≈ 2.5 × 10 years 4 , (2) 10 TeV MPl where the leptoquark tree-level coupling and the coefficient of sent in models with gauged U(1) .1 the dimension five operator were both set to unity. The numer- B−L ical factor in front of Eq. (2) is the current limit on the proton Ultimately, as shown in Table I, there are only five color lifetime from the search for p → K+π+e− [13]. Even in the triplet or sextet vector representations that are free from tree- most optimistic scenario of the largest suppression of proton level proton decay, two of which produce dimension five pro- decay, i.e., when the new physics behind the dimension five ton decay operators. In the scalar case, as shown in [7], there operator does not appear below the Planck scale, those op- are six possible representations with only one suffering from 4 erators are still problematic for M . 10 TeV, which well dimension five proton decay. includes the region of interest for the B meson decay anomalies. The dimension five operators can be removed by embed- ding the vector leptoquarks into UV complete models. As argued in [8] for the scalar case, it is sufficient to impose a 1 We note that the dimension five operators (1) provide a baryon number discrete subgroup Z3 of a global U(1)B−L to forbid the prob- violating channel which may be used to generate a cosmological baryon lematic dimension five operators. They are also naturally ab- number asymmetry. 3

B. Leptoquark phenomenology III. VECTOR LEPTOQUARK MODEL

The phenomenology of scalar and vector leptoquarks has As emphasized in Sec. II B, the SM extended by just the vector leptoquark (3, 1) 2 is a unique model, which, apart been extensively discussed in the literature [14–16] and we do 3 not attempt to provide a complete list of all relevant papers from being free from tree-level proton decay, has a very sim- here. For an excellent review and many references see [12], ple and attractive UV completion, automatically forbidding which is focused primarily on light leptoquarks. dimension five proton decay operators. Low-scale leptoquarks have recently become a very active area of research due to their potential for explaining the experimental hints of new physics in B meson decays, in particular A. Pati-Salam unification B+ → K+`+`− and B0 → K∗0`+`−, for which a deficit in (∗) + − (∗) + − A priori, any of the leptoquarks can originate from an extra the ratios RK(∗) = Br(B →K µ µ )/Br(B →K e e ) with respect to the SM expectations has been reported [9, 10]. GUT irrep, either scalar or vector. In particular, the vector leptoquark (3, 1) 2 could be a component of the vector 40 irrep of A detailed analysis of the anomalies can be found in [17–22]. 3 Several leptoquark models have been proposed to alleviate SU(5). Nevertheless, this generic explanation does not seem to be strongly motivated or predictive. Another interpretation this tension and are favored by a global fit to RK(∗) , RD(∗) of the vector (3, 1) 2 state arises in composite models [52–54]. and other flavor observables. Surprisingly, not all of those 3 models remain free from tree-level proton decay. The third, perhaps the most desirable option, is that the vector leptoquark (3, 1) 2 is the gauge boson of a unified theory. The leptoquark models providing the best fit to data with 3 just a single new representation are: scalar (3, 2) 1 [23], vector Indeed, this scenario is realized if one considers partial unifi- 6 cation based on the Pati-Salam gauge group: (3, 1) 2 [11, 24] and vector (3, 3) 2 [25]. Among those, only 3 3 the models with the vector leptoquarks (3, 1) 2 and (3, 3) 2 3 3 SU(4) × SU(2)L × SU(2)R (3) are naturally free from any tree-level proton decay, since for 2 the scalar leptoquark (3, 2) 1 there exists a dangerous quartic at higher energies [55]. In this case the vector leptoquark 6 (3, 1) 2 emerges naturally as the new gauge boson of the bro- coupling involving three leptoquarks and the SM Higgs [7] 3 which triggers tree-level proton decay. ken symmetry, and is completely independent of the symme- Interestingly, as indicated in Table II, both vector models try breaking pattern. It is also interesting that the Pati-Salam (3, 1) 2 and (3, 3) 2 suffer from dimension five proton decay partial unification model can be fully unified into an SO(10) 3 3 and require imposing an additional symmetry to eliminate it. GUT. An elegant way to do it would be to extend the SM symmetry The fermion irreps of the Pati-Salam model, along with their decomposition into SM fields, are by a gauged U(1)B−L. Actually, such an extended symmetry would eliminate also the tree-level proton decay in the model (4, 2, 1) = (3, 2) 1 ⊕ (1, 2)− 1 with the scalar leptoquark (3, 2) 1 . However, as we will see in 6 2 6 (4) (4¯, 1, 2) = (3¯, 1) 1 ⊕ (3¯, 1) 2 ⊕ (1, 1)1 ⊕ (1, 1)0 . Sec. III, only in the case of the: 3 − 3 Interestingly, the theory is free from tree-level proton decay vector leptoquark (3, 1) 2 I 3 via gauge interactions. The explanation for this is straight- forward. Since SU(4) ⊃ SU(3)c × U(1)B−L, this implies there exists a very appealing SM extension which intrinsically that B−L is conserved. However, after the Pati-Salam group contains such a state in its spectrum, simultaneously forbid- breaks down to the SM, the interactions of the leptoquark ding dimension five proton decay. (3, 1) 2 with quarks and leptons have an accidental B + L 3 global symmetry. Those two symmetries combined result in both baryon and lepton number being conserved in gauge interactions, thus no proton decay can occur via a tree-level ex- C. Diquark phenomenology change of (3, 1) 2 . 3 In addition, there are no gauge-invariant dimension five The literature on the phenomenology of diquarks is much proton decay operators in the Pati-Salam model involving the more limited. It focuses on scalar diquarks [26] and predomi- vector leptoquark (3, 1) 2 . This was actually expected from nantly looks at three aspects: LHC discovery reach for scalar 3 the fact that SU(4) ⊃ SU(3)c × U(1)B−L and, as discussed diquarks [27–40], n − n¯ oscillations mediated by scalar di- in Sec. II B, a U(1)B−L symmetry is sufficient to forbid such quarks [7, 34, 41–46] and baryogenesis [7, 34, 42, 44–46]. operators. Studies of vector diquarks investigate only their LHC phenomenology [35, 47–51], concentrating on their interactions with quarks. In Sec. IV we close the gap in diquark phenomenology by 2 Similar unification models have recently been constructed based on the discussing the implications of a vector diquark model for n−n¯ gauge group SU(4) × SU(2)L × U(1) [56, 57], in which the new gauge bosons also coincide with the vector leptoquark (3, 1) . oscillation experiments. 2/3 4

B. Flavor structure physics (NP) can generate modifications to the Wilson coefficients of the above operators, and, moreover, it can generate The quark and lepton mass eigenstates are related to the additional terms in the effective Lagrangian, gauge eigenstates through nf × nf unitary matrices, with 4GF ∗ 0 0 0 0 ∆L = − √ VtbVts (CSOS + CP OP + CSOS + CP OP ) nf = 3 the number of families of quarks and leptons. Ex- 2 pressing the interactions that couple the (3, 1) 2 vector lepto- (9) 3 quark to the quark and the lepton in each irrep of Eqs. (4) in the form of scalar operators: in terms of mass eigenstates, one must include unitary matri- 2 (0) e ces, similar to the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) ma- OS = 2 sP¯ R(L)b µµ¯ , (10) trix for the quarks in the SM, that measure the misalignment (4π) 2 of the lepton and quark mass eigenstates: (0) e O = sP¯ bµγ¯ µ . (11) P (4π)2 R(L) 5 g4 h u i µ j d ¯i µ j L ⊃ √ Vµ L (¯u γ PLν ) + L (d γ PLe ) Tensor operators cannot arise from short distance NP with the 2 ij ij SM linearly realized and, moreover, under this assumption ¯i µ j i 0 0 + Rij (d γ PR e ) + h.c.. (5) CP = −CS and CP = CS [60]. Exchange of the (3, 1) 2 vector leptoquark gives tree-level 3 The SU(4) gauge coupling constant, g4, is not an indepen- contributions to the Wilson coefficients at its mass scale, M: dent paramter but fixed by the QCD coupling constant at the 2 2 d∗ d 2π g4 LbµLsµ scale M of the masses of the vector bosons of SU(4); to lead- ∆C9(M) = −∆C10(M)=−√ , (12) 2 G M 2 e2 V V ∗ g (M) = p4πα (M) ≈ 0.94 M = 16 F tb ts ing order 4 s at TeV, 2 2 ∗ 2π g R Rsµ where, as will become clear later, this is the maximum value ∆C0 (M) = ∆C0 (M) = −√ 4 bµ , (13) 9 10 2 2 ∗ of M consistent with the RK(∗) anomaly in this model. The 2 GF M e VtbVts u d unitary matrices L and L , the CKM matrix V and the 2 2 d∗ 4π g4 LbµRsµ Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (PMNS) matrix U sat- ∆CS(M) = −√ , (14) 2 e2 V V ∗ isfy Lu = VLdU. 2 GF M tb ts 4π2 g2 R∗ Ld ∆C0 (M) = −√ 4 bµ sµ , (15) S 2 2 ∗ 2 GF M e VtbVts C. B meson decays ij ∆Cν (M) = 0 . (16) The recent B meson decay measurements [9, 10] show In the SM, flavor-changing neutral currents with ∆B = an excess above the SM background in the ratios R (∗) = −∆S = 1 are described by the effective Lagrangian [58, 59]: K Γ(B → K(∗)µµ) / Γ(B → K(∗)ee). Those anomalies are 10 best fit by ∆C9 = −∆C10 ≈ −0.6 [17], which requires 2 2 d∗ d −3 −2 d∗ d 4GF ∗ X X ij ij (g /M )L L ≈ 1.8×10 TeV . Assuming L L = L = − √ V V CkOk + C O + ... , (6) 4 bµ sµ bµ sµ 2 tb ts ν ν 1 k=7 i,j 2 , which is the largest value allowed by unitarity, we obtain the previously quoted leptoquark mass of M ≈ 16 TeV. Lim- where the ellipsis denote four-quark operators, O and O 0 (0) 7 8 its on ∆C9,10 and ∆CS can be accommodated by adjusting are electro- and chromo-magnetic-moment-transition opera- Rsµ and Rbµ. tors, and O9, O10 and Oν are semi-leptonic operators involv- (∗) Experimental bounds on RK(∗)ν = Br(B → K νν¯)/ ing either charged leptons or neutrinos:3 (∗) SM 1 P ij ij SM 2 Br(B → K νν¯) = 3 ij |δ + Cν /Cν | , where SM 2 Cν ' −6.35 [61], severely constrain theoretical models for e µ O = sγ¯ µPLb µγ¯ (γ5)µ , (7) those anomalies. As seen above, the (3, 1) 2 vector leptoquark 9(10) (4π)2 3 evades this constraint by giving no correction at all to Cν ; the 2e2 result holds generally for this type of NP mediator at tree level Oij = sγ¯ µP bν¯iγµP νj . (8) ν (4π)2 L L [11, 62]. It has been pointed out that generally the condition ∆Cν (M) = 0 is not preserved by renormalization group run- Chirally-flipped (bL(R) → bR(L)) versions of all these opera- ning of the Wilson coefficients [63]. Because of the flavor tors are denoted by primes and are negligible in the SM. New structure of the interaction in Eq. (5) there are no “penguin” or wave function renormalization contributions to the running of ∆Cν down to the electroweak scale. The only contribution comes from the renormalization by exchange of SU(2) gauge µ 3 (¯qγ P e)(¯eγ P q) We have assumed the B anomalies in R (∗) arise from a suppression in bosons that mixes the singlet operator L µ L K a µ a the µ channel relative to the SM. The Pati-Salam (3, 1)2/3 vector lepto- into the triplet, (¯q τ γ PLe)(¯e τ γµPLq), resulting in quark model can equally well accommodate an enhancement in the electron 2 ∗ channel, but a suppression in the muon channel is preferred by global fits to ij 3 g4 M SsjSbi ∆C (MW ) = − √ ln , data that include angular moments in B → K∗µµ and various branching ν 2 2 ∗ 4 2 GF M sin θw MW VtbVts fractions in addition to RK(∗) . (17) 5 where S = V †Lu = LdU. The vector contribution to the rate D. Towards a viable UV completion does not interfere with the SM, which implies RK(∗)ν − 1 = 1 P ij SM 2 3 ij |Cν /Cν | ; using RK(∗)ν < 4.3 [64], we obtain the We note that the simplest version of the model is heavily condition M > 0.8 TeV. Since ln(M/MW ) is not large for constrained by meson decay experiments. For generic, or- M ≈ 16 TeV, the leading log term is subject to sizable (≈ der one entries of the flavor matrices, the leptoquark mass is 100%) corrections. However, a complete one-loop calculation forced to be above the 1000 TeV scale [82–86]. Surprisingly, is beyond the scope of this work. all of the kaon decay bounds can be avoided if the unitary We pause to comment on the remarkable cancellation of matrices Lˆd and Rˆ are of the form (see also [86]): the interference term between the SM and NP contributions (∗)     to the rate for B → K νν¯ and the absence of a sum over 0 0 1 0 0 1 generations in the pure NP contribution to the rate. These Lˆd ≈  Ld Ld 0  , Rˆ ≈  R R 0  , (22) observations hold generally for any vector leptoquark model  21 22   21 22  d d R R 0 that couples universally to quark and lepton generations. This L31 L32 0 31 32 can be easily seen by not rotating to the neutrino mass eigen- where it is actually sufficient that the entries labeled as zero state basis, a good approximation for the nearly massless neu- are just 10−4. Although current τ decay constraints are trinos. Vector leptoquark exchange leads to an effective in- . irrelevant for our choice of the leptoquark mass, with un- teraction with flavor structure (¯s γµν2 )(¯ν3 γµb ), while the L L L L suppressed right-handed (RH) currents the B meson decay SM always involves a sum over the same neutrino flavors M 40 TeV P j µ j bounds require & [86]. Interestingly, we find that ∼ j ν¯Lγ νL. There are never common final states to the if a mechanism suppressing the RH currents is realized in na- SM and the NP mediated interactions and therefore no inter- ture, the present bounds from B meson decays are much less ference. Moreover, there is a single flavor configuration in the stringent and require merely M & 19 TeV. final state of the NP mediated interaction (ν¯3ν2) while there j j A possible way to suppress the RH currents is to associate are three configurations in the SM case ( ν¯ ν , j = 1, 2, 3). them with a different gauge group than the left-handed (LH) It has been suggested that the vector leptoquark (3, 1) 2 may 3 ones, and to have the RH group spontaneously broken at a alternatively be used to account for the anomaly in semilep- much higher scale than the LH group. A simple setting is tonic decays to τ-leptons [11, 65]. Defining, as is customary, offered by the gauge group (∗) (∗) RD(∗) = Br(B → D τν)/Br(B → D `ν), the SM predicts [66] (see also [67–70]) RD = 0.299(3) and RD∗ = SU(4)L × SU(4)R × SU(2)L × U(1) (23) 0.257(3). These branching fractions have been measured by Belle [71–73], BaBar [74, 75] and LHCb [76], and the average and does not require introducing any new fermion fields beyond the SM particle content and a RH neutrino: gives [77] RD = 0.403(47) and RD∗ = 0.310(17). The ef- fect of leptoquarks on B semileptonic decays to τ is described (4, 1, 2, 0) = (3, 2) 1 ⊕ (1, 2)− 1 , by the following terms of the effective Lagrangian for charged 6 2 1 current interactions [78, 79]: (1, 4, 1, ) = (3, 1) 2 ⊕ (1, 1)0 , (24) 2 3 1 4G h 1 F j µ j (1, 4, 1, − 2 ) = (3, 1)− ⊕ (1, 1)−1 . L ⊃ − √ Vcb (Uτj + ) (¯cγ PLb)(¯τγµPLν ) 3 2 L + + ∓ ± j j i Such a model predicts rates for B →K e µ and µ → e γ, + (¯c PR b)(¯τ PL ν ) + h.c. (18) sR among others, just above the experimental bounds reported in [87, 88]. The details of the model along with an analysis of with the relevant experimental constraints will be the subject of a 2 u d∗ 2 u ∗ 4 j g LcjLbτ g LcjRbτ future publication [89]. = √ 4 , j =− √ 4 . L 2 sR 2 4 2 GF M Vcb 2 2 GF M Vcb (19) IV. VECTOR DIQUARK MODEL The Bc lifetime [80] and Bc → τν branching fraction [81] impose severe constraints on ; these are accommodated by sR In this section we discuss the properties of a model with abating R . Hence, bτ just one additional representation – the vector color sextet:

RD(∗) h X u d∗i d d∗ !αβ ≈ 1+2 Re L L ≈ 1+2 Re (VL )cτ L R SM cj bτ bτ Vu D(∗) Vµ = = (6, 2) 1 , (25) j − 6 Vd d d∗ µ ≈ 1 + 2 Re Lsτ Lbτ ≤ 1 + , (20) where,

4 g2 2 TeV 2 Shortly after the results of our work became public, two other papers ap- = √ 4 ≈ 0.1 . (21) peared proposing the explanation of B decay anomalies by introducing 2 4 2 GF VcbM M new vector-like ﬁelds either within the Pati-Salam framework [90] or in a model with an extended gauge group [91]. 6 which is obviously free from proton decay. Although in the SM all fundamental vector particles are gauge bosons, we can still imagine that such a vector diquark arises from a vector GUT representation, for instance from a vector 40 irrep of SU(5) [92]. The Lagrangian for the model is given by:

1 † [µ ν] 2 † µ LV = − 4 (D[µVν]) D V + M Vµ V h c i µ j † αβ i − λij (QL)αγ (dR)β(V )µ + h.c. , (26) where α, β = 1, 2, 3 are SU(3)c indices, i, j = 1, 2, 3 are fam- ily indices and there is an implicit contraction of the SU(2)L indices. We assume that the mass term arises from a consistent UV completion. FIG. 3. Process mediating n−n¯ oscillations via the vector diquark V = (6, 2)− 1 . Among the allowed higher dimensional operators, n − n¯ 6 oscillations, as we discuss in Sec. IV B, are mediated by the dimension ﬁve terms: this is that the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the Universe c1 αα0 ββ0 c δ µν δ0 O1 = V V (¯u ) σ d αβδ α0β0δ0 , requires baryon number to be violated at some point during Λ µ ν R R (27) its evolution. If processes with ∆B = 1 are indeed sup- c2 µ αα0 ββ0 ν δδ0 O = ∂ (V ) V (V ) H 0 0 0 . 2 Λ µ ν αβδ α β δ pressed or do not occur in Nature at all, the next simplest case involves ∆B = 2, a baryon number breaking pattern that may result in n − n¯ oscillations without proton decay. A. LHC bounds Moreover, the SM augmented only by RH neutrinos can have an additional U(1)B−L gauge symmetry without introducing Several studies of constraints and prospects for discover- any gauge anomalies. Through this symmetry, processes with ing vector diquarks at the LHC can be found in the literature. ∆B = 2 would be accompanied by ∆L = 2 lepton num- Most of the analyses have focused on the case of a sizable ber violating ones, which in turn are intrinsically connected diquark coupling to quarks [47–49], although an LHC four- to the seesaw mechanism generating naturally small neutrino jet search that is essentially independent of the strength of the masses [100]. diquark coupling to quarks has also been considered [35]. Models constructed so far propose n − n¯ oscillations me- There are severe limits on vector diquark masses arising diated by scalar diquarks, as mentioned in Sec. II C. Those from LHC searches for non-SM dijet signals [93, 94]. For a oscillations proceed through a triple scalar vertex, so that the coupling λij ≈ 1 (i, j = 1, 2) those searches result in a bound process is described at low energies by a local operator of di- on the vector diquark mass mension nine. Below we show that n − n¯ oscillations can also be mediated by vector diquarks, in particular within the model Mλ≈1 & 8 TeV . (28) with just one new representation discussed in this section. The least suppressed channel is via a dimension ﬁve gauge Lowering the value of the coupling to λ ≈ 0.01 com- ij invariant quartic interaction O in Eq. (27) involving two pletely removes the LHC constraints from dijet searches and, 1 vector diquarks (6, 2)− 1 and the SM up and down quarks, at the same time, does not affect the strength of the four-jet 6 signal arising from gluon fusion. Using the results of the as shown in Fig. 3, ultimately leading to n − n¯ oscillations through a low energy effective interaction local operator of analysis of four-jet events at the LHC presented in [35], the 5 currently collected 37 fb−1 of data by the ATLAS experiment dimension nine, as in the case of scalar diquarks. [94] with no evident excess above the SM background con- With the simplifying assumption that c1 ≈1 and neglecting strains the vector diquark mass to be other operators contributing to the signal we now estimate the rate of n − n¯ oscillations in this model. The effective Hamil- Mλ1 & 2.5 TeV . (29) tonian corresponding to the operator O1 is:

2 Additional processes constraining the vector diquark model λ c 0 0 0 H ≈ − 11 (d )αγ dα (uc )βγ dβ (uc )δσµν dδ include neutral meson mixing and radiative B meson decays eﬀ M 4Λ L µ R L ν R R R [95, 96]. The resulting bounds in the case of scalar diquark × ( 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 ) models were calculated in [7, 97, 98] and are similar here. αβδ α β δ α βδ αβ δ αβ δ α βδ αβδ α β δ + h.c.. (30)

B. Neutron-antineutron oscillations

In the light of null results from proton decay searches [6], 5 We note that n−n¯ oscillations occur at the renormalizable level in a model the possibility of discovering n − n¯ oscillations has recently involving the vector diquarks (6, 2)−1/6, (6, 2)5/6, and the scalar diquark (6, 1) , and proceed through a triple sextet interaction. gained increased interest [99]. The most important reason for −2/3 7

Combining this with the results of [7, 101], we obtain an esti- propriate UV completion to remain consistent with experi- mate for the n − n¯ transition matrix element,6 ments. This is especially relevant for the Standard Model extension involving the vector leptoquarks (3, 1) 2 or (3, 3) 2 , 10−4 |λ2 | 3 3 11 6 since those are the only two models with a single new repre- hn¯|Heff |ni ≈ 4 GeV , (32) M Λ sentation that do not suffer from tree-level proton decay and where |ni is the neutron state at zero momentum. Current ex- can explain the recently discovered anomalies in B meson de- perimental limit [102] implies, assuming λ11 ≈ 0.01 (which cays. The property which makes the vector leptoquark (3, 1) 2 is well below the LHC bound from dijet searches, as discussed 3 earlier), that even more appealing is that it fits perfectly into the simplest Pati-Salam unification model, where it can be identified as the 1/4 108 TeV new gauge boson. If such an exciting scenario is indeed re- M 2.5 TeV . (33) & Λ alized in nature, the B physics experiments can be used to actually probe the scale and various properties of grand unifi- An interesting limit on the vector diquark mass is derived cation! if we assume that the physics behind the triple diquark inter- In the second part of the paper we focused on a model with a action with the SM Higgs is related to the physics responsible vector diquark (6, 2) 1 and showed that neutron-antineutron − 6 for providing the diquark its mass, i.e., for Λ ≈ M. In such oscillations can be mediated by such a vector particle. The case the n − n¯ oscillation search provides the bound: model is somewhat constrained by LHC dijet searches; however, it can still yield a sizable neutron-antineutron oscillation M & 90 TeV , (34) signal, that can be probed in current and upcoming experi- much stronger than the LHC limit. If there is new physics ments. It can also give rise to significant four-jet event rates around that energy scale, it should be discovered by future testable at the LHC. n − n¯ oscillation experiments with increased sensitivity [99], It would be interesting to explore whether a vector diquark which are going to probe the vector diquark mass scale up to with a mass at the TeV scale can improve gauge coupling uni- ∼ 175 TeV. This is especially interesting since models with fication in non-supersymmetric grand unified theories, simi- TeV-scale diquarks tend to improve gauge coupling unifica- larly to the scalar case [103], providing even more motivation tion [45, 46]. for upgrading the neutron-antineutron oscillation experimental sensitivity.

V. CONCLUSIONS Acknowledgments We have shown that lack of experimental evidence for proton decay singles out only a handful of phenomenologically We thank Aneesh Manohar for useful conversations and viable leptoquark models. In addition, even leptoquark mod- Pavel Fileviez Perez´ for comments regarding the manuscript. els with tree-level proton stability contain dangerous dimen- This research was supported in part by the DOE Grant sion ﬁve proton decay mediating operators and require an ap- No. DE-SC0009919.

[1] H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, “Unity of all Elementary Particle 317 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0601023 [hep-ph]. Forces,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 32, 438–441 (1974). [6] K. Abe et al. (Super-Kamiokande), “Search for Proton Decay [2] H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, “Unified Interactions of Lep- via p→e+π0 and p→µ+π0 in 0.31 Megaton·years Exposure tons and Hadrons,” Annals Phys. 93, 193–266 (1975). of the Super-Kamiokande Water Cherenkov Detector,” Phys. [3] G. K. Karananas and M. Shaposhnikov, “Gauge Coupling Rev. D95, 012004 (2017), arXiv:1610.03597 [hep-ex]. Unification without Leptoquarks,” Phys. Lett. B771, 332–338 [7] J. M. Arnold, B. Fornal, and M. B. Wise, “Simplified Models (2017), arXiv:1703.02964 [hep-ph]. with Baryon Number Violation but No Proton Decay,” Phys. [4] B. Fornal and B. Grinstein, “SU(5) Unification without Rev. D87, 075004 (2013), arXiv:1212.4556 [hep-ph]. Proton Decay,” accepted by Phys. Rev. Lett. (2017), [8] J. M. Arnold, B. Fornal, and M. B. Wise, “Phenomenol- arXiv:1706.08535 [hep-ph]. ogy of Scalar Leptoquarks,” Phys. Rev. D88, 035009 (2013), [5] P. Nath and P. Fileviez Perez, “Proton Stability in Grand Uni- arXiv:1304.6119 [hep-ph]. fied Theories, in Strings and in Branes,” Phys. Rept. 441, 191– [9] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), “Test of Lepton Universality Using B+ → K+`+`− Decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 151601 (2014), arXiv:1406.6482 [hep-ex]. [10] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), “Test of Lepton Universality with B0 → ∗0 + − 6 The single particle state normalization adopted here is: K ` ` Decays,” JHEP 08, 055 (2017), arXiv:1705.05802 [hep-ex]. E hn(~p )|n(~p 0)i = (2π)3δ(3)(~p − ~p 0) . (31) [11] R. Alonso, B. Grinstein, and J. Martin Camalich, “Lepton m Universality Violation and Lepton Flavor Conservation in 8

B-meson Decays,” JHEP 10, 184 (2015), arXiv:1505.05164 [31] T. Han, I. Lewis, and T. McElmurry, “QCD Corrections to [hep-ph]. Scalar Diquark Production at Hadron Colliders,” JHEP 01, [12] I. Dorsner, S. Fajfer, A. Greljo, J. F. Kamenik, and 123 (2010), arXiv:0909.2666 [hep-ph]. N. Kosnik, “Physics of Leptoquarks in Precision Experiments [32] I. Gogoladze, Y. Mimura, N. Okada, and Q. Shafi, “Color and at Particle Colliders,” Phys. Rept. 641, 1–68 (2016), Triplet Diquarks at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B686, 233–238 arXiv:1603.04993 [hep-ph]. (2010), arXiv:1001.5260 [hep-ph]. [13] C. Patrignani et al. (Particle Data Group), “Review of Particle [33] E. L. Berger, Q. Cao, C. Chen, G. Shaughnessy, and H. Zhang, Physics,” Chin. Phys. C40, 100001 (2016). “Color Sextet Scalars in Early LHC Experiments,” Phys. Rev. [14] W. Buchmuller, R. Ruckl, and D. Wyler, “Leptoquarks in Lett. 105, 181802 (2010), arXiv:1005.2622 [hep-ph]. Lepton-Quark Collisions,” Phys. Lett. B191, 442–448 (1987), [34] I. Baldes, N. F. Bell, and R. R. Volkas, “Baryon Number Vio- [Erratum: Phys. Lett.B448,320(1999)]. lating Scalar Diquarks at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D84, 115019 [15] S. Davidson, D. C. Bailey, and B. A. Campbell, “Model Inde- (2011), arXiv:1110.4450 [hep-ph]. pendent Constraints on Leptoquarks from Rare Processes,” Z. [35] P. Richardson and D. Winn, “Simulation of Sextet Diquark Phys. C61, 613–644 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9309310 [hep-ph]. Production,” Eur. Phys. J. C72, 1862 (2012), arXiv:1108.6154 [16] J. L. Hewett and T. G. Rizzo, “Much Ado About Lepto- [hep-ph]. quarks: A Comprehensive Analysis,” Phys. Rev. D56, 5709– [36] D. Karabacak, S. Nandi, and S. K. Rai, “Diquark Resonance 5724 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9703337 [hep-ph]. and Single Top Production at the Large Hadron Collider,” [17] L.-S. Geng, B. Grinstein, S. Jager, J. Martin Camalich, X.-L. Phys. Rev. D85, 075011 (2012), arXiv:1201.2917 [hep-ph]. Ren, and R.-X. Shi, “Towards the Discovery of New Physics [37] M. Kohda, H. Sugiyama, and K. Tsumura, “Lepton Number with Lepton-Universality Ratios of b → s`` Decays,” Phys. Violation at the LHC with Leptoquark and Diquark,” Phys. Rev. D96, 093006 (2017), arXiv:1704.05446 [hep-ph]. Lett. B718, 1436–1440 (2013), arXiv:1210.5622 [hep-ph]. [18] M. Ciuchini, A. M. Coutinho, M. Fedele, E. Franco, A. Paul, [38] K. Das, S. Majhi, Santosh K. Rai, and A. Shivaji, “NLO QCD L. Silvestrini, and M. Valli, “On Flavourful Easter Eggs for Corrections to the Resonant Vector Diquark Production at the New Physics Hunger and Lepton Flavour Universality Viola- LHC,” JHEP 10, 122 (2015), arXiv:1505.07256 [hep-ph]. tion,” Eur. Phys. J. C77, 688 (2017), arXiv:1704.05447 [hep- [39] R. S. Chivukula, P. Ittisamai, K. Mohan, and E. H. Sim- ph]. mons, “Color Discriminant Variable and Scalar Diquarks at [19] G. Hiller and I. Nisandzic, “RK and RK∗ Beyond the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D92, 075020 (2015), arXiv:1507.06676 the Standard Model,” Phys. Rev. D96, 035003 (2017), [hep-ph]. arXiv:1704.05444 [hep-ph]. [40] Y. Zhan, Z. L. Liu, S. A. Li, C. S. Li, and H. T. Li, “Thresh- [20] G. D’Amico, M. Nardecchia, P. Panci, F. Sannino, A. Strumia, old Resummation for the Production of a Color Sextet (An- R. Torre, and A. Urbano, “Flavour Anomalies After the RK∗ titriplet) Scalar at the LHC,” Eur. Phys. J. C74, 2716 (2014), Measurement,” JHEP 09, 010 (2017), arXiv:1704.05438 [hep- arXiv:1305.5152 [hep-ph]. ph]. [41] R. N. Mohapatra and R. E. Marshak, “Local B-L Symmetry of [21] W. Altmannshofer, P. Stangl, and D. M. Straub, “Interpreting Electroweak Interactions, Majorana Neutrinos and Neutron Hints for Lepton Flavor Universality Violation,” Phys. Rev. Oscillations,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 1316–1319 (1980), [Erra- D96, 055008 (2017), arXiv:1704.05435 [hep-ph]. tum: Phys. Rev. Lett.44,1643(1980)]. [22] B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin, S. Descotes-Genon, J. Matias, and [42] K. S. Babu, P. S. B. Dev, and R. N. Mohapatra, “Neutrino J. Virto, “Patterns of New Physics in b → s`+`− Transitions Mass Hierarchy, Neutron-Antineutron Oscillation from Baryo- in the Light of Recent Data,” (2017), arXiv:1704.05340 [hep- genesis,” Phys. Rev. D79, 015017 (2009), arXiv:0811.3411 ph]. [hep-ph]. [23] D. Becirevic, S. Fajfer, N. Kosnik, and O. Sumensari, “Lep- [43] M. A. Ajaib, I. Gogoladze, Y. Mimura, and Q. Shafi, “Ob- toquark Model to Explain the B-Physics Anomalies, RK and servable nn¯ Oscillations with New Physics at LHC,” Phys. RD,” Phys. Rev. D94, 115021 (2016), arXiv:1608.08501 [hep- Rev. D80, 125026 (2009), arXiv:0910.1877 [hep-ph]. ph]. [44] P.-H. Gu and U. Sarkar, “Baryogenesis and Neutron- [24] D. Buttazzo, A. Greljo, G. Isidori, and D. Marzocca, “B- Antineutron Oscillation at TeV,” Phys. Lett. B705, 170–173 Physics Anomalies: A Guide to Combined Explanations,” (2011), arXiv:1107.0173 [hep-ph]. JHEP 11, 044 (2017), arXiv:1706.07808 [hep-ph]. [45] K. S. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra, “Coupling Unification, GUT- [25] S. Fajfer and N. Kosnik, “Vector Leptoquark Resolution of Scale Baryogenesis and Neutron-Antineutron Oscillation in

RK and RD(∗) Puzzles,” Phys. Lett. B755, 270–274 (2016), SO(10),” Phys. Lett. B715, 328–334 (2012), arXiv:1206.5701 arXiv:1511.06024 [hep-ph]. [hep-ph]. [26] J. L. Hewett and T. G. Rizzo, “Low-Energy Phenomenology [46] K. S. Babu, P. S. B. Dev, E. C. F. S. Fortes, and R. N. Moha- of Superstring Inspired E(6) Models,” Phys. Rept. 183, 193 patra, “Post-Sphaleron Baryogenesis and an Upper Limit on (1989). the Neutron-Antineutron Oscillation Time,” Phys. Rev. D87, [27] H. Tanaka and I. Watanabe, “Color Sextet Quark Produc- 115019 (2013), arXiv:1303.6918 [hep-ph]. tions at Hadron Colliders,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A7, 2679–2694 [47] E. Arik, O. Cakir, S. A. Cetin, and S. Sultansoy, “A Search (1992). for Vector Diquarks at the CERN LHC,” JHEP 09, 024 (2002), [28] S. Atag, O. Cakir, and S. Sultansoy, “Resonance Production of arXiv:hep-ph/0109011 [hep-ph]. Diquarks at the CERN LHC,” Phys. Rev. D59, 015008 (1999). [48] M. Sahin and O. Cakir, “Search for Scalar and Vector Di- [29] O. Cakir and M. Sahin, “Resonant Production of Diquarks at quarks at the LHC,” Balk. Phys. Lett. 17, 132–137 (2009). High Energy pp, ep and e+e− Colliders,” Phys. Rev. D72, [49] H. Zhang, E. L. Berger, Q.-H. Cao, C.-R. Chen, and 115011 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0508205 [hep-ph]. G. Shaughnessy, “Color Sextet Vector Bosons and Same-Sign [30] C. Chen, W. Klemm, V. Rentala, and K. Wang, “Color Sextet Top Quark Pairs at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B696, 68–73 (2011), Scalars at the CERN Large Hadron Collider,” Phys. Rev. D79, arXiv:1009.5379 [hep-ph]. 054002 (2009), arXiv:0811.2105 [hep-ph]. 9

[50] B. Grinstein, A. L. Kagan, M. Trott, and J. Zupan, “Forward- [70] D. Becirevic, N. Kosnik, and A. Tayduganov, “B¯ → Backward Asymmetry in tt¯Production From Flavour Symme- Dτν¯τ vs. B¯ → Dµν¯µ,” Phys. Lett. B716, 208–213 (2012), tries,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 012002 (2011), arXiv:1102.3374 arXiv:1206.4977 [hep-ph]. 0 ∗− + [hep-ph]. [71] A. Matyja et al. (Belle), “Observation of B → D τ ντ [51] B. Grinstein, A. L. Kagan, J. Zupan, and M. Trott, “Fla- Decay at Belle,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 191807 (2007), vor Symmetric Sectors and Collider Physics,” JHEP 10, 072 arXiv:0706.4429 [hep-ex]. + ∗0 + (2011), arXiv:1108.4027 [hep-ph]. [72] A. Bozek et al. (Belle), “Observation of B → D τ ντ [52] B. Gripaios, “Composite Leptoquarks at the LHC,” JHEP 02, + 0 + and Evidence for B → D τ ντ at Belle,” Phys. Rev. D82, 045 (2010), arXiv:0910.1789 [hep-ph]. 072005 (2010), arXiv:1005.2302 [hep-ex]. [53] B. Gripaios, M. Nardecchia, and S. A. Renner, “Composite [73] S. Hirose et al. (Belle), “Measurement of the τ Lepton Polar- Leptoquarks and Anomalies in B-Meson Decays,” JHEP 05, ∗ ∗ − ization and R(D ) in the Decay B¯ → D τ ν¯τ ,” Phys. Rev. 006 (2015), arXiv:1412.1791 [hep-ph]. Lett. 118, 211801 (2017), arXiv:1612.00529 [hep-ex]. [54] R. Barbieri, C. W. Murphy, and F. Senia, “B-Decay Anoma- [74] J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), “Evidence for an Excess of B¯ → lies in a Composite Leptoquark Model,” Eur. Phys. J. C77, 8 (∗) − D τ ν¯τ Decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 101802 (2012), (2017), arXiv:1611.04930 [hep-ph]. arXiv:1205.5442 [hep-ex]. [55] J. C. Pati and A. Salam, “Lepton Number as the Fourth Color,” [75] J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), “Measurement of an Excess of Phys. Rev. D10, 275–289 (1974), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D11, (∗) − B¯ → D τ ν¯τ Decays and Implications for Charged Higgs 703 (1975)]. Bosons,” Phys. Rev. D88, 072012 (2013), arXiv:1303.0571 [56] P. Fileviez Perez and M. B. Wise, “Low Scale Quark- [hep-ex]. Lepton Uniﬁcation,” Phys. Rev. D88, 057703 (2013), [76] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), “Measurement of the Ratio of Branch- arXiv:1307.6213 [hep-ph]. 0 ∗+ − 0 ∗+ − ing Fractions B(B¯ → D τ ν¯τ )/B(B¯ → D µ ν¯µ),” [57] B. Fornal, A. Rajaraman, and T. M. P. Tait, “Baryon Num- Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 111803 (2015), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. ber as the Fourth Color,” Phys. Rev. D92, 055022 (2015), Lett.115, no.15, 159901 (2015)], arXiv:1506.08614 [hep-ex]. arXiv:1506.06131 [hep-ph]. [77] Y. Amhis et al.,“Averages of b-Hadron, c-Hadron, [58] B. Grinstein, M. J. Savage, and M. B. Wise, “B → + − and τ-Lepton Properties as of Summer 2016,” (2016), X(s)e e in the Six Quark Model,” Nucl. Phys. B319, 271– arXiv:1612.07233 [hep-ex]. 290 (1989). [78] W. D. Goldberger, “Semileptonic B Decays as a Probe of New [59] G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras, and M. E. Lautenbacher, “Weak De- Physics,” (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9902311 [hep-ph]. cays Beyond Leading Logarithms,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 1125– [79] V. Cirigliano, M. Gonzalez-Alonso, and M. L. Graesser, 1144 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9512380 [hep-ph]. “Non-Standard Charged Current Interactions: Beta Decays [60] R. Alonso, B. Grinstein, and J. Martin Camalich, “SU(2) × Versus the LHC,” JHEP 02, 046 (2013), arXiv:1210.4553 U(1) Gauge Invariance and the Shape of New Physics [hep-ph]. in Rare B Decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 241802 (2014), [80] R. Alonso, B. Grinstein, and J. Martin Camalich, “Lifetime of arXiv:1407.7044 [hep-ph]. − (∗) Bc Constrains Explanations for Anomalies in B → D τν,” [61] A. J. Buras, J. Girrbach-Noe, C. Niehoff, and D. M. Straub, (∗) Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 081802 (2017), arXiv:1611.06676 [hep- “B → K νν Decays in the Standard Model and Beyond,” ph]. JHEP 02, 184 (2015), arXiv:1409.4557 [hep-ph]. [81] A. G. Akeroyd and C.-H. Chen, “Constraint on the Branching [62] L. Calibbi, A. Crivellin, and T. Ota, “Effective Field The- Ratio of Bc → τν From LEP1 and Consequences for R (∗) ory Approach to b → s``(0), B → K(∗)νν and B → D (∗) Anomaly,” Phys. Rev. D96, 075011 (2017), arXiv:1708.04072 D τν with Third Generation Couplings,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [hep-ph]. 115, 181801 (2015), arXiv:1506.02661 [hep-ph]. [82] G. Valencia and S. Willenbrock, “Quark - Lepton Uniﬁcation [63] F. Feruglio, P. Paradisi, and A. Pattori, “On the Importance and Rare Meson Decays,” Phys. Rev. D50, 6843–6848 (1994), of Electroweak Corrections for B Anomalies,” JHEP 09, 061 arXiv:hep-ph/9409201 [hep-ph]. (2017), arXiv:1705.00929 [hep-ph]. (∗) [83] A. D. Smirnov, “Mass Limits for Scalar and Gauge Lepto- [64] O. Lutz et al. (Belle), “Search for B → h νν¯ with the Full 0 ∓ ± 0 ∓ ± quarks from KL → e µ , B → e τ Decays,” Mod. Belle Υ(4S) Data Sample,” Phys. Rev. D87, 111103 (2013), Phys. Lett. A22, 2353–2363 (2007), arXiv:0705.0308 [hep- arXiv:1303.3719 [hep-ex]. ph]. [65] Y. Sakaki, M. Tanaka, A. Tayduganov, and R. Watanabe, [84] A. D. Smirnov, “Contributions of Gauge and Scalar Lepto- ¯ (∗) “Testing Leptoquark Models in B → D τν¯,” Phys. Rev. quarks to K0 → l+l− and B0 → l+l− Decay and Con- D88, 094012 (2013), arXiv:1309.0301 [hep-ph]. L i j i j straints on Leptoquark Masses from the Decays K0 → e∓µ± [66] F. U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, M. Papucci, and D. J. Robinson, L and B0 → e∓τ ±,” Phys. Atom. Nucl. 71, 1470–1480 (2008), “Combined Analysis of Semileptonic B decays to D and D∗: [Yad. Fiz.71,1498(2008)]. R(D(∗)), |V |, and New Physics,” Phys. Rev. D95, 115008 cb [85] M. Carpentier and S. Davidson, “Constraints on Two-Lepton, (2017), arXiv:1703.05330 [hep-ph]. Two Quark Operators,” Eur. Phys. J. C70, 1071–1090 (2010), [67] D. Bigi, P. Gambino, and S. Schacht, “R(D∗), |V |, and cb arXiv:1008.0280 [hep-ph]. the Heavy Quark Symmetry Relations Between Form Factors,” [86] A. V. Kuznetsov, N. V. Mikheev, and A. V. Serghienko, “The JHEP 11, 061 (2017), arXiv:1707.09509 [hep-ph]. Third Type of Fermion Mixing in the Lepton and Quark Inter- [68] S. Jaiswal, S. Nandi, and S. K. Patra, “Extraction of |V | cb actions with Leptoquarks,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A27, 1250062 From B → D(∗)`ν and the Standard Model Predictions of ` (2012), arXiv:1203.0196 [hep-ph]. R(D(∗)) ,” (2017), arXiv:1707.09977 [hep-ph]. [87] B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), “Measurements of Branching Frac- [69] S. Fajfer, J. F. Kamenik, and I. Nisandzic, “On the B → ∗ tions, Rate Asymmetries, and Angular Distributions in the D τν¯ Sensitivity to New Physics + − ∗ + − τ ,” Phys. Rev. D85, 094025 Rare Decays B → K` ` and B → K ` ` ,” Phys. Rev. (2012), arXiv:1203.2654 [hep-ph]. D73, 092001 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0604007 [hep-ex]. 10

[88] A. M. Baldini et al. (MEG), “Search for the Lepton Flavour 50–91 (2017), arXiv:1606.00916 [hep-ph]. Violating Decay µ+ → e+γ with the Full Dataset of the MEG [97] J. Maalampi, A. Pietila, and I. Vilja, “Constraints for the Di- Experiment,” Eur. Phys. J. C76, 434 (2016), arXiv:1605.05081 quark Couplings from q → q + γ,” Mod. Phys. Lett. 3A, 373 [hep-ex]. (1988). [89] B. Fornal and B. Grinstein, work in progress. [98] D. Chakraverty and D. Choudhury, “b → sγ Confronts B [90] L. Calibbi, A. Crivellin, and T. Li, “A Model of Vector Violating Scalar Couplings: R-parity Violating Supersymme- Leptoquarks in View of the B-Physics Anomalies,” (2017), try or Diquark,” Phys. Rev. D63, 075009 (2001), arXiv:hep- arXiv:1709.00692 [hep-ph]. ph/0008165 [hep-ph]. [91] L. Di Luzio, A. Greljo, and M. Nardecchia, “Gauge Lep- [99] D. G. Phillips, II et al.,“Neutron-Antineutron Oscillations: toquark as the Origin of B-Physics Anomalies,” (2017), Theoretical Status and Experimental Prospects,” Phys. Rept. arXiv:1708.08450 [hep-ph]. 612, 1–45 (2016), arXiv:1410.1100 [hep-ex]. [92] R. Slansky, “Group Theory for Uniﬁed Model Building,” Phys. [100] P. Minkowski, “µ → eγ at a Rate of One Out of 109 Muon Rept. 79, 1–128 (1981). Decays?” Phys. Lett. 67B, 421–428 (1977). [93] A. M Sirunyan et al. (CMS),√ “Search for Dijet Resonances in [101] N. Tsutsui et al. (JLQCD, CP-PACS), “Lattice QCD Cal- Proton-Proton Collisions at s = 13 TeV and Constraints on culation of the Proton Decay Matrix Element in the Con- Dark Matter and Other Models,” Phys. Lett. B769, 520–542 tinuum Limit,” Phys. Rev. D70, 111501 (2004), arXiv:hep- (2017), arXiv:1611.03568 [hep-ex]. lat/0402026 [hep-lat]. [94] M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), “Search for New Phenomena in [102] K. Abe et al. (Super-Kamiokande), “The Search for n − n¯ −1 Dijet√ Events Using 37 fb of pp Collision Data Collected Oscillation in Super-Kamiokande I,” Phys. Rev. D91, 072006 at s =13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector,” Phys. Rev. D96, (2015), arXiv:1109.4227 [hep-ex]. 052004 (2017), arXiv:1703.09127 [hep-ex]. [103] D. C. Stone and P. Uttayarat, “Explaining the tt¯ Forward- [95] G. Isidori, Y. Nir, and G. Perez, “Flavor Physics Constraints Backward Asymmetry from a GUT-Inspired Model,” JHEP 01, for Physics Beyond the Standard Model,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. 096 (2012), arXiv:1111.2050 [hep-ph]. Sci. 60, 355 (2010), arXiv:1002.0900 [hep-ph]. [96] T. Blake, G. Lanfranchi, and D. M. Straub, “Rare B Decays as Tests of the Standard Model,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 92,