sign in sign up
<<
Home , Leptoquark

Left-Right SU(4) Vector Leptoquark Model for Flavor Anomalies

Bartosz Fornal, Sri Aditya Gadam, and Benjam´ın Grinstein Department of Physics, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA (Dated: December 5, 2018) Building on our recent proposal to explain the experimental hints of new physics in B decays within the framework of Pati-Salam - unification, through the interactions of the (3, 1)2/3 vector leptoquark, 0 we construct a realistic model of this type based on the gauge group SU(4)L × SU(4)R × SU(2)L × U(1) and consistent with all experimental constraints. The key feature of the model is that SU(4)R is broken at a high scale, which suppresses right-handed lepton flavor changing currents at the low scale and evades the stringent bounds from searches for lepton flavor violation. The mass of the leptoquark can be as low as 10 TeV without the need to introduce mixing of or with new vector-like . We provide a comprehensive list of model-independent bounds from low energy processes on the couplings in the effective Hamiltonian that arises from generic leptoquark interactions, and then apply these to the model presented here. We discuss various meson decay channels that can be used to probe the model and we investigate the prospects for discovering the new gauge at future .

I. INTRODUCTION immediately after our initial work [11–17]. Those models overcome the experimental constraints by mixing all or a sub- The (SM) provides a remarkably success- set of SM quarks and leptons with new vector-like fermions. ful description of nature at the elementary level and, Other approaches to account for the decay anoma- 0 so far, there are only a handful of experimental indications of lies involving scalar leptoquarks or Z rather than vector lep- deviations from its predictions. Perhaps the most significant toquarks have been also proposed (see, e.g. [18–24]). direct hint of physics beyond the SM are the recently observed In App. C we provide a model-independent analysis of the anomalies in B meson decays [1, 2], which suggest that lepton low energy consequences of a (3, 1)2/3 vector leptoquark universality might be violated. Assuming that those anoma- that interacts with both LH and RH fields. We present an ex- lies are not a result of experimental systematics, they are best tensive list of bounds from flavor physics on generic coupling accounted for by the vector leptoquark (3, 1)2/3 or (3, 3)2/3 constants in this model-independent approach; App. C is thus [3]. However, building viable UV complete models involving a resource in its own right, of use to researchers interested in those is challenging, especially in light of very strin- any specific model of this type. Appendix D is one such ex- gent constraints on lepton flavor violation (LFV) from various ample, where we apply the results of App. C to the specific experimental searches. Pati-Salam model constructed in this work. The calculations The first attempt to construct a vector leptoquark model for in App. C update and extend previous results [5–10]. For in- stance, for B decays we use the most recent lattice results for the RK(∗) anomalies was made in [4], where we proposed that the vector leptoquark (3, 1)2/3 explaining the anomalies the form factors [25], which weaken the bounds considerably might be the of a theory with Pati-Salam unifi- compared to assuming the nonphysical values f+ = f0 = 1 cation. The conclusion was that the minimal model based on adopted previously in the literature. SU(4) × SU(2)L × SU(2)R is not capable of this because of strict bounds on and B meson rare decays [5–10]. The underlying problem in that model arises from the interference II. THE MODEL between left-handed (LH) and right-handed (RH) lepton fla- vor changing currents. We outlined a possible solution to this: The theory we propose is based on the gauge group extending the gauge group to SU(4)L × SU(4)R × SU(2)L × arXiv:1812.01603v1 [hep-ph] 4 Dec 2018 0 0 U(1) and breaking SU(4)R at a high scale, such that the RH SU(4)L × SU(4)R × SU(2)L × U(1) . (1) lepton flavor changing currents are suppressed. A viable realization of this idea is the subject of this paper. The crucial feature of the model is that the subgroup SU(4)R We demonstrate that a Pati-Salam gauge leptoquark as light is broken at a much higher scale than SU(4)L, leading to a as 10 TeV can explain the RK(∗) anomalies and remain con- suppression of RH lepton flavor changing currents. sistent with all experimental bounds without introducing any mixing of quarks and leptons with new fermions. We discuss particle content in detail the constraints arising from LFV searches and show The fields in the model, along with their decomposition that the absence of RH lepton flavor changing currents relaxes into SU(3)c × SU(2)L × U(1)Y multiplets, are the bounds considerably. The model is expected to have clean Ψˆ L = (4, 1, 2, 0) = (3, 2) 1 ⊕ (1, 2) 1 , signatures at future colliders, which we investigate in the case 6 − 2 of the prospective 100 TeV machine. ˆ u 1 ΨR = (1, 4, 1, 2 ) = (3, 1) 2 ⊕ (1, 1)0 , Several other models for the flavor anomalies based on Pati- 3 ˆ d 1 Salam unification have been proposed, some appearing almost Ψ = (1, 4, 1, − ) = (3, 1) 1 ⊕ (1, 1)−1 , (2) R 2 − 3 2

χˆL = (4¯, 1, 2, 0) = (3¯, 2) 1 ⊕ (1, 2) 1 , SU(4)L breaking scales. This is also the natural mass scale for − 6 2 the components of Hˆd and Hˆu. However, as shown in App. B, χˆR = (1, 4¯, 2, 0) = (3¯, 2) 1 ⊕ (1, 2) 1 − 6 2 it is possible to fine-tune the parameters of the potential such that only one linear combination of the fields S is light. ˆ ˆ u ˆ d 1,2,3,4 for each generation, where ΨL, ΨR , ΨR contain the SM fields In particular, there exists a choice of parameters for which the QL, LL, uR, dR, eR and a RH νR, whereas χˆL, χˆR light state is given by assure gauge anomaly cancellation and result in two vector- 0 0 0 0 like pairs of fields QL, QR and LL, LR that are heavy and H = − ce S1 − cd S2 + cν S3 + cu S4 , (9) do not mix with SM fermions. This is the minimal fermion content for a consistent theory based on the gauge group (1). where cu ≈ 1  cd  cν and 1  ce  cν , with the ratio cd : ce ≈ mb : mτ . This reduces the scalar sector of the Scalar sector and symmetry breaking model to that of the SM at low energies. The Higgs sector contains the scalar representations Gauge sector ˆ 1 ˆ 1 ˆ ¯ ΣL = (4, 1, 1, 2 ) , ΣR = (1, 4, 1, 2 ) , Σ = (4, 4, 1, 0) , The gauge and kinetic terms are ˆ ¯ 1 ˆ ¯ 1 Hd = (4, 4, 2, 2 ) , Hu = (4, 4, 2, − 2 ) . (3) 1 A Aµν 1 A Aµν 1 a aµν Lg+k = − 4 GLµν GL − 4 GRµν GR − 4 Wµν W The scalar potential is given in App. A. The parameters can be 1 0 0µν ˆ 2 ˆ 2 − Yµν Y + |DµΣL| + |DµΣR| chosen such that the fields Σˆ , Σˆ and Σˆ develop the vacuum 4 L R ˆ 2 ˆ 2 ˆ 2 expectation values (vevs), + |DµΣ| + |DµHd| + |DµHu| ˆ ˆ ˆ u ˆ u ˆ d ˆ d  0   0  + ΨLiD/ ΨL + ΨR iD/ ΨR + ΨR iD/ ΨR , (10) ˆ vL 0 ˆ vR 0 hΣLi = √   , hΣRi = √   , with A = 1, ..., 15 and a = 1, 2, 3. The gauge covariant 2 0  2 0  1 1 derivative takes the form A A A A  1 0 0 0 Dµ = ∂µ + igL G T + igR G T Lµ L Rµ R (11) vΣ 0 1 0 0 a a 0 0 0 hΣˆi = √   , (4) + ig2 Wµ t + ig1 Yµ Y , 20 0 1 0 0 0 0 z A A a 0 where TL , TR , t , Y are the SU(4)L, SU(4)R, SU(2)L, U(1)0 generators. The gauge couplings at the low scale are where z > 0. This results in the symmetry breaking pattern related to the SM strong and hypercharge couplings via 0 SU(4)L × SU(4)R × SU(2)L × U(1) 0 (5) gL gR g1gLgR gs = , g1 = . (12) → SU(3)c × SU(2)L × U(1)Y . p 2 2 q 2 gL + gR 2 0 2 2 2 2 3 g1 (gR + gL) + gL gR The relation between the SM hypercharge Y and the U(1)0 charge Y 0 is given by The new gauge are 0 r XL = (3, 1) 2 ,XR = (3, 1) 2 ,G = (8, 1)0 , 0 2 15 15 3 3 Y = Y + TL + TR , (6) 0 0 3 ZL = (1, 1)0 ,ZR = (1, 1)0 . (13) where 0 √1 p 2 2 1 The mass of G is MG0 = gL + gR vΣ. The squared T 15 = T 15 = √ diag(1, 1, 1, −3) . (7) 2 L R 2 6 mass matrix for the gauge leptoquarks XL, XR is 2  2 2 2  2 ! gL vL + vΣ(1 + z ) − 2 gLgRvΣz The scalar representations decompose into SM fields as 2 1 MX = . 4 2 2  2 2 2  Σˆ L = (3, 1) 2 ⊕ (1, 1)0 , Σˆ R = (3, 1) 2 ⊕ (1, 1)0 , − 2 gLgRvΣz gR vR + vΣ(1 + z ) 3 3 (14) Σˆ = (8, 1)0 ⊕ (3, 1) 2 ⊕ (3¯, 1) 2 ⊕ 2 (1, 1)0 , 3 − 3 ˆ ¯ The leptoquark mass eigenstates can be written as Hd = (8, 2) 1 ⊕ (3, 2) 7 ⊕ (3, 2)− 1 ⊕ 2 (1, 2) 1 2 6 6 2 (8)       † X1 cos θ4 sin θ4 XL ≡ O1 ⊕ T1 ⊕ T2 ⊕ S1 ⊕ S2 , = , (15) X2 − sin θ4 cos θ4 XR Hˆu = (8, 2) 1 ⊕ (3, 2) 1 ⊕ (3¯, 2) 7 ⊕ 2 (1, 2) 1 − 2 6 − 6 − 2 where the mixing angle θ4 depends on the parameters in ≡ O ⊕ T ⊕ T † ⊕ S∗ ⊕ S∗ . 2 3 4 3 4 Eq. (14). In the limit vR  vL and vR  vΣ the mixing vanishes, sin θ4 = 0, and the leptoquark masses become Under the symmetry breaking pattern (5) the Hˆd, Hˆu fields ¯ ¯ q have (4, 4) → (3⊕1)⊗(3⊕1); S1, S3 stand for the singlet in 1 2 2 2 MX1 = gL vL + vΣ(1 + z ) , 1 ⊗ 1, while S2, S4 are the singlets in 3¯ ⊗ 3. The components 2 ˆ ˆ ˆ 1 of ΣR, ΣL, Σ have masses on the order of the SU(4)R and MX2 = 2 gR vR . (16) 3

0 0 The ZL and ZR squared masses are given by the two nonzero mass contributions to the down-type quarks and charged lep- eigenvalues of the matrix tons would then result from loop processes, parameterized via d0 i dj 2 3 the effective dimension five interaction y Ψˆ HˆdΨˆ Φˆ 15/Λ, MZ0 = 8 × (17) ij L R  √  and mediated, e.g., by heavy vector-like fermions, leading to g2 v2 +v2 ( 1 +z2) −g g v2 ( 1 +z2) − √2 g0 g v2 L L Σ 3 L R Σ 3 3 1 L L additional mass splitting.  √   2 1 2 2  2 2 1 2  2 0 2   −gLgRv ( +z ) g v +v ( +z ) − √ g gRv .  Σ 3 R R Σ 3 3 1 R  Flavor structure √ √  2  In terms of SM fermion mass eigenstates, the interactions of − √2 g0 g v2 − √2 g0 g v2 2 g0 (v2 + v2 ) 3 1 L L 3 1 R R 3 1 L R the vector leptoquarks with quarks and leptons are given by gL h u i µ j d ¯i µ j i Taking the limit vR  vL and vR  vΣ yields L ⊃ √ XLµ L (¯u γ PL ν ) + L (d γ PL e ) (21) 2 ij ij v g h i ug02(g2 + g2 ) + 3 g2 g2 q R u i µ j d ¯i µ j u 1 L R 2 L R 2 2 2 + √ XRµ Rij (¯u γ PR ν ) + Rij (d γ PR e ) + h.c., MZ0 = t 3v + v (1 + 3z ) , L 02 3 2 L Σ 2 8(g1 + gR) 2 where Lu/d, R u/d are unitary mixing matrices. They are q 1 02 3 2 related via Lu = VLdU and Ru = VRdU, where V MZ0 = g1 + g vR . (18) R 2 2 R is the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix and U is the Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata matrix. Fermion masses The Yukawa interactions are stability d i dj u i uj i j The (3, 1)2/3 does not mediate [4], LY = y Ψˆ HˆdΨˆ + y Ψˆ HˆuΨˆ + Yij χˆ Σˆ χ ˆ + h.c. ij L R ij L R L R neither does any of the scalars in our model. In particular, for j j j (3, 2) ⊃ yd Li S e + yd Qi S d + yu Li S∗ν the scalar 1/6, which by itself would be problematic [26], ij L 1 R ij L 2 R ij L 3 R gauge invariance forbids tree-level proton decay. In broader j j j u i ∗ √1 0i 0 0i 0  + yij QLS4 uR + YijvΣ QL QR + z LL LR + h.c. terms, the Lagrangian in Eq. (19) is invariant under the global 2 0 0 d symmetries U(1)B and U(1)L, with the matter fields ΨL, ΨR d i j d i j u i ˜ j and Ψu carrying charges B0 = L0 = 1/4 and all scalar fields ⊃ − ce yij LLHeR − cd yij QLHdR + cν yij LLHνR R j j j being neutral. After symmetry breaking the charges under the + c yu Qi Hu˜ + √1 Y v Q0i Q0 + z L0i L0  u ij L R 2 ij Σ L R L R remaining global U(1)B and U(1)L are + h.c., (19) B = B0 + √1 T 15 + T 15 , 6 L R where i, j = 1, 2, 3 are family indices and the coefficients “c” √ (22) L = L0 − 6 T 15 + T 15 , are those in Eq. (9). Typically, in theories with quark-lepton 2 L R unification, the up-type quark and neutrino masses of a given which are simply the SM and . Proton generation are the same at the unification scale, and similarly decay is thus forbidden at all orders in perturbation theory. the down-type quark and charged lepton masses. In our model this is not the case, but since there are only two Yukawa ma- trices yu and yd, without additional mass contributions the III. FLAVOR ANOMALIES hierarchy of the up-type quark masses is, a priori, the same as for the , and the down-type quark mass hierarchy the In this section we discuss how the vector leptoquark of same as for the charged leptons at the unification scale. SU(4)L can explain the recent hints of physics beyond the Regarding the up-type quarks and neutrinos, for which the SM in B meson decays, i.e., the deficit in the ratios experimentally determined mass hierarchies differ consider- BrB+ → K+µ+µ− R = , ably, this is solved by introducing a new scalar representation K BrB+ → K+e+e− Φˆ = (1, 10, 1, −1). If the SM singlet component of Φˆ de- (23) 10 10 BrB0 → K∗0µ+µ− velops a vev v at a high scale, this provides a seesaw mech- 10 RK∗ =  anism for the neutrinos via the interaction Br B0 → K∗0 e+e− yu0 (Ψˆ ui)c Φˆ Ψˆ uj. (20) with respect to SM predictions [1, 2]. For an analysis of the ij R 10 R anomalies at the effective operator level see [27–32]. The contribution to the up-type quarks vanishes. Therefore, u To describe the decays in Eq. (23) quantitatively, it is con- the up-type quark masses are mu ∼ y v, whereas the neutrino u 2 u0 venient to start out from the effective Lagrangian for flavor masses are mν ∼ (cν y v) /(y v10). changing neutral current processes with a b → s transition. The relative mass hierarchies of the down-type quarks ver- Up to four-quark operators, it can be written as sus charged leptons are not in vast disagreement with ex- 10 periment. The running of the masses will largely account 4GF ∗ X h X ij ij(0) ij ij L = √ VtbV C O + C O for m /m . One can also introduce the scalar representa- ts k k ν ν b τ 2 i,j k=7 ˆ tion Φ15 = (15, 1, 1, 0) into the model, with the SM sin- ij(0) ij(0) ij(0) ij(0)i glet component developing the vev v15 diag(1, 1, 1, −3). New + CS OS + CP OP . (24) 4

ij ij The operators O7 and O8 correspond to electromagnetic and IV. EXPERIMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ij(0) ij(0) kl chromomagnetic moment transitions, the O9 , O10 , Oν are the semileptonic operators The leptoquark masses and the mixing matrices are subject to experimental constraints from a number of null searches for e2 Oij = (¯s γ P b)  li γµ(γ ) lj  , LFV, with the most stringent bounds coming from rare decays 9(10) 16π2 µ L 5 of [34–36], [37–42], B [43–50], τ leptons e2 [51–53] and µ − e conversion [54]. Oij 0 = (¯s γ P b)  li γµ(γ ) lj  , (25) 9(10) 16π2 µ R 5 Implications of those constraints for Pati-Salam unification 2 ij e i µ j have been considered in the literature [5–10], but focused on O = (¯s γµPL b) ν¯ γ PLν , ν 8π2 models in which the vector leptoquark (3, 1)2/3 couples to both LH and RH fermion fields with similar strength. The ij(0) ij(0) conclusion of those analyzes, updated with the most recent and OS , OP are the scalar operators experimental bounds [48–50], is that the leptoquark mass has 2 to be 90 TeV [10]. In addition, constraints from searches ij(0) e   i j & OS = 2 s¯ PR(L)b l l , for µ → e γ when both LH and RH leptoquark interactions 16π (26) e2 are present can push this limit much higher due to the bottom Oij(0) = s¯ P b liγ lj. quark mass enhancement of the one-loop diagram (see App. C P 16π2 R(L) 5 and also [55] for a discussion of a similar effect in scalar lep- Tensor operators were neglected since they cannot arise from toquark models). Such a heavy leptoquark would not explain short distance new physics with SM linearly realized [33]. the RK(∗) anomalies, since the required relation, analogous to the one in Eq. (30), could not be satisfied for a perturbative The RK(∗) anomalies are best fit by [27] gauge coupling and unitary mixing matrices. µµ ee µµ ee Re (∆C9 − ∆C9 ) = −Re (∆C10 − ∆C10) ≈ −0.6 In our model, for a sufficiently high scale of SU(4)R break- (27) ing, the constraints arising from the presence of leptoquark RH couplings to fermions are eliminated and the remaining and with the contributions to other Wilson coefficients being bounds on LH interactions can be satisfied for a significantly small. In our model, the vector leptoquarks X1, X2 modify lower leptoquark mass. The tightest limits are listed in the the coefficients by appendix, for arbitrary LH and RH leptoquark interactions in √ App. C and for the case of just LH interactions in App. D. 2 2 d d∗  2 2  d d ij ij 2 π gL L2iL3j cos θ4 sin θ4 If the mixing matrix entries L , L are O(1), the lim- ∆C = −∆C = − + , 11 12 9 10 G e2 V V ∗ M 2 M 2 its from searches for K0 → e±µ∓ and µ − e conversion a F tb ts X1 X2 L √ priori push the leptoquark mass up to hundreds of TeV in 2 π2g2 Rd Rd∗ sin2θ cos2θ  ∆Cij0 = ∆Cij0 = − R 2i 3j 4 + 4 , our model (thousands of TeV for models in which both LH 9 10 G e2 V V ∗ M 2 M 2 F tb ts X1 X2 and RH leptoquark interactions are present, due to the en- ∆Cij = −∆Cij hancement of the scalar current contribution, see App. C). The S √ P bounds, however, are satisfied for a much lighter leptoquark 2 d d∗ 2 π gLgRR L sin 2θ4  1 1  d d d = − 2i 3j − , provided L11,L12  1. Unitarity then implies that L13 ≈ 1 G e2 V V ∗ M 2 M 2 and Ld ,Ld  1, therefore Ld takes the form F tb ts X1 X2 23 33 ij0 ij0 ∆C = ∆C   S √P δ1 δ2 1 2 d d∗   d iφ iφ1 iφ2 2 π gLgRL R sin 2θ4 1 1 L ≈ e e cos θ e sin θ δ3 , (31) = − 2i 3j − ,   G e2 V V ∗ M 2 M 2 −iφ2 −iφ1 F tb ts X1 X2 −e sin θ e cos θ δ4 ij ∆Cν = 0 . (28) where |δi|  1. Note that the suppression of RH flavor chang- ing currents in our model implies that there are no significant Guided by the tightness of the bounds from LFV searches bounds from π0 → νν¯ or K0 → νν¯. (discussed in Sec. IV and App. C), we assume that SU(4) L R Ld is broken at a much higher scale than SU(4) , i.e. The remaining entries of are subject to further con- L straints, mainly from B meson and τ decays. If both LH and RH leptoquark interactions were present, the B0 → µ+µ− vR  vL and vR  vΣ . (29) decay would provide the most stringent bound. However, with This suppresses RH lepton flavor changing currents and re- only LH interactions the tightest limits arise from searches + + ± ∓ sults in the contributions to the Wilson coefficients other than for B → K e µ . We calculated the corresponding ∆Cij being small. The condition in Eq. (27) becomes branching fractions (see App. C) using the most recent lat- 9,10 tice results for the form factors [25] based on the Bourrely- Caprini-Lellouch parameterization [56], which relaxes the MX L ≈ 23 TeV . (30) bounds considerably compared to taking the nonphysical val- q d d∗ d d∗ gL Re L22L32 − L21L31 ues f+ = f0 = 1 [9]. 5

� The resulting bound on MXL is minimized for θ ≈ π/4

and requires merely MXL /gL & 9.2 TeV. Given the relation between the gauge couplings in Eq. (12) and assuming g ≈ √ R � 3π (close to the perturbative limit) implies gL ≈ 1.06 gs, where gs ≈ 0.96 is the strong coupling constant at 10 TeV. This leads to the constraint �

MXL & 10 TeV . (32) √ � (If one chose instead gL = gR = 2 gs, this would result

in the constraint MXL & 14 TeV.) Saturating the bound in Eq. (32), the condition in Eq. (30) for explaining the R (∗) K � anomalies is fulfilled if cos(φ1 + φ2) ≈ 0.18. We also note � � �� �� ��

that for MXL ≈ 10 TeV one could have |δi| ∼ 0.02, so the matrix Ld in Eq. (31) does not need to be highly tuned. Finally, let us note that all loop-level constraints, including FIG. 1. Expected number of events in 250 fb−1 of data collected + − K−K, B−B, Bs−Bs mixing, radiative decays µ → e γ (see by a 100 TeV pp for the SM background p p → j j µ µ − + − App. C), τ → e γ, anomalous magnetic and electric moments (blue) and the leptoquark signal p p → XL j µ → j j µ µ for masses MXL = 10, 12, 14 TeV (red, orange, gray) as a function of leptons, Z → b b and others [57] are satisfied due to the + unitarity of Ld and the leptoquark mass being 10 TeV. of the invariant mass of the highest pT jet and µ . The values of & parameters discussed in Sec. IV were used.

V. COLLIDER PHENOMENOLOGY collider. Not only does the right-hand side of Eq. (30) pro- vide an upper bound on the mass of the vector leptoquark, The aim of this limited phenomenological analysis is to but Eq. (12) shows the strength of the coupling constant gL is simply demonstrate that the leptoquark XL in our model ac- bounded from below, and therefore the height of the resonant counting for the flavor anomalies can be searched for at the signal in Fig. 1 is bounded from below. next generation collider. Focussing on the proposed 100 TeV Future Circular Collider (FCC), we find that one of the best signature to look for is provided by the single leptoquark pro- VI. CONCLUSIONS duction process We have constructed a new model to account for the re- − + − p p → XL j µ → j j µ µ . (33) cently observed anomalies in B meson decays set within the framework of Pati-Salam unification. The theory avoids In an in-depth analysis one could also investigate final states all experimental bounds without introducing any vector-like involving other leptons, which for the case of neutrinos would fields mixing with the Standard Model fermions. This was lead to missing energy signatures. Pair production of 10 TeV achieved by suppressing the leptoquark right-handed interac- leptoquarks is suppressed even at a 100 TeV collider. tions by associating them with a symmetry broken at a high To simulate the SM background and the leptoquark signal scale, which eliminates the most stringent constraints arising for the process (33) we used MadGraph 5 [58] (version 2.6.3) from the simultaneous presence of left- and right-handed lep- with the default cuts apart from the lower cut on the transverse ton flavor changing currents. In some regions of parameter momentum of jets and leptons, which was set to 300 GeV. space the mass of the leptoquark can be as low as 10 TeV The leptoquark model file for MadGraph was implemented while remaining consistent with all experimental data. using FeynRules [59] (version 2.3.32). The tightest constraints on the model come from the exper- Figure 1 plots the number of background (B) and signal imental limits on rare kaon, B meson and τ decays, as well as (S) events for a leptoquark mass 10, 12 and 14 TeV expected µ−e conversion. In the appendix we presented general model- −1 within the first year of FCC running (estimated to be 250 fb independent formulae for the various decay rates and listed the of data [60]) as a function of the invariant mass of the highest corresponding bounds. Those results can be used to read off + transverse momentum jet j and µ . Implementing the invari- the constraints on any model with one or more (3, 1)2/3 vector ant mass cut | M + −M | < Γ , where Γ is the width of jµ XL X X √ leptoquarks with arbitrary left- and right-handed interactions the leptoquark, the significance of the signal, S/ B, is very with Standard Model quarks and leptons. high: 19 σ for MX = 10 TeV, 6.7 σ for 12 TeV and 4.5 σ for L In our analysis we chose parameters to explain the RK(∗) 14 TeV. More sophisticated cuts may make the search more flavor anomalies. Although the vector leptoquark (3, 1)2/3 in efficient. A detailed analysis of the XL vector leptoquark col- our model is too heavy to account also for the RD(∗) anoma- lider phenomenology is beyond the scope of this paper. lies, it has been shown [61] that the scalar leptoquark (3, 2)1/6 Were the B decay anomalies in RK and RK∗ confirmed might be a good candidate for that. This leptoquark appears and established, inspection of Eq. (30) indicates this model in the scalar sector of our model and can be made sufficiently can be ruled out at a future 100 TeV high luminosity light. It would be interesting to investigate this in more detail. 6

Currently, there exist many models that account for the The remaining SU(3) invariance can be utilized to obtain hints of lepton universality violation in B meson decays. If a1 0 0 b1 these anomalies are established, new physics must emerge at 0 a2 0 b2 a scale similar to that of the mass of the “left-handed” lepto- hΣˆi =   . (A3)  0 0 a3 b3 quark in our model. We have demonstrated that simple kine- c1 c2 c3 d matic cuts can isolate clearly observable signals with 250 fb−1 of accumulated data at a 100 TeV pp collider. Further analysis To argue that hΣˆi can be brought to the diagonal form as in is badly required to determine whether such apparatus could Eq. (4), it is sufficient to consider the potential terms |Σˆ|2, distinguished among the many proposed models. ˆ ˆ † 2 ˆ ˆ † 2 ˆ ˆ 2 ˆ † ˆ 2 ˆ ˆ ˆ † (ΣΣ ) , |ΣΣ | , |ΣLΣ| , |ΣRΣ| and ΣLΣ ΣR. Since, 0 ˆ ˆ 2 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 λ13|ΣLΣ| = 2 λ13vL(c1 + c2 + c3 + d ) , Acknowledgments 0 ˆ † ˆ 2 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 λ23|ΣRΣ| = 2 λ23vR(b1 + b2 + b3 + d ) , (A4) 2 ˆ 2 ˆ ˆ † 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 This research was supported in part by the DOE Grant −µ3 |Σ| + λ3(ΣΣ ) = λ3 a1 + a2 + a3 + b1 + b2 + b3 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 No. DE-SC0009919. + c1 + c2 + c3 + d − vΣ − λ3vΣ ,

the potential is minimized for hΣˆi = diag(a1, a2, a3, d). In APPENDIX addition, the terms 0 ˆ ˆ † 2 0 4 4 4 4 λ3|ΣΣ | = λ3 a1 + a2 + a3 + d , Appendix A: SU(4)L × SU(4)R symmetry breaking ˆ ˆ ˆ † 1 κ ΣLΣ ΣR = 2 κ vLvR d (A5) a = a = a The scalar potential of the model is given by imply that the minimum occurs at 1 2 3. Finally, we are free to choose κ to be real and negative, which through an 2 ˆ 2 ˆ 4 2 ˆ 2 ˆ 4 2 ˆ 2 V = − µ1 |ΣL| + λ1|ΣL| − µ2 |ΣR| + λ2|ΣR| − µ3 |Σ| appropriate redefinition of Σˆ leads to real d > 0; therefore ˆ ˆ † 2 0 ˆ ˆ † 2 2 ˆ 2 ˆ ˆ †2   + λ3(ΣΣ ) + λ3|ΣΣ | − µ4 |Hd| + λ4 HdHd 1 0 0 0 2 vΣ 0 1 0 0 + λ0 |Hˆ Hˆ †|2 − µ2 |Hˆ |2 + λ Hˆ Hˆ † + λ0 |Hˆ Hˆ †|2 hΣˆi = √   (A6) 4 d d 5 u 5 u u 5 u u 2  0 0 1 0  2 2 2 2 2 2 + λ12|Σˆ L| |Σˆ R| + λ13|Σˆ L| |Σˆ| + λ14|Σˆ L| |Hˆd| 0 0 0 z 2 2 2 2 2 2 with z being real and positive. Note that only one of the pa- + λ15|Σˆ L| |Hˆu| + λ23|Σˆ R| |Σˆ| + λ24|Σˆ R| |Hˆd| rameters λ0 , λ00 and λ000 can be made real by a field redef- ˆ 2 ˆ 2 ˆ 2 ˆ 2 ˆ 2 ˆ 2 345 345 345 + λ25|ΣR| |Hu| + λ34|Σ| |Hd| + λ35|Σ| |Hu| inition. If any of the other two has a nonzero imaginary part, ˆ 2 ˆ 2 0 ˆ ˆ 2 0 ˆ † ˆ 2 the scalar potential is CP -violating. A rigorous minimization + λ45|Hd| |Hu| + λ13|ΣLΣ| + λ14|ΣLHd| procedure is beyond the scope of this work. 0 ˆ † ˆ 2 0 ˆ † ˆ 2 0 ˆ ˆ 2 + λ15|ΣLHu| + λ23|ΣRΣ| + λ24|ΣRHd| + λ0 |Σˆ Hˆ |2 + λ0 |ΣˆHˆ |2 + λ0 |ΣˆHˆ |2 25 R u 34 d 35 u Appendix B: Scalar masses 0 ˆ † ˆ 2 00 ˆ ˆ ˆ † ˆ † + λ45|HdHu| + λ34 Tr(ΣHdHdΣ ) 00 ˆ ˆ ˆ † ˆ † 00 ˆ † ˆ ˆ † ˆ To show that Eq. (9) can be satisfied, it is again sufficient to + λ35 Tr(ΣHuHuΣ ) + λ45 Tr(H HuHuHd) d consider only a few terms in the scalar potential. In terms of  0 ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ 00 ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ + λ345(ΣHd)(ΣHu) + λ345Tr(ΣHdΣHu) hard masses, the relevant part of the Lagrangian is 000 ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ †  2 ˆ 2 2 ˆ 2 0 ˆ ˆ 2 0 ˆ ˆ 2 + λ345Tr(HdΣΣHu) + κ ΣLΣ ΣR + h.c. , (A1) Lm ⊃ Md |Hd| + Mu |Hu| − λ24|ΣRHd| − λ25|ΣRHu| 0 ˆ ˆ 2 0 ˆ ˆ 2 0 ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ where we have adopted the notation: − λ34|ΣHd| − λ35|ΣHu| − λ345(ΣHd)(ΣHu) . † |Σˆ |2 ≡ (Σˆ ) (Σˆ )αL |Σˆ|2 ≡ (Σ)ˆ αL (Σˆ †)αR (ΣˆHˆ ) ≡ (B1) L L αL L , αR αL , d † (Σ)ˆ αL (Hˆ )αR , |Σˆ Σˆ|2 ≡ (Σˆ ) (Σ)ˆ αL (Σˆ †)αR (Σˆ )βL , αR d αL L L αL αR βL L This results in the masses for the color octets and triplets, 2 αL αR † βL † βR 2 |ΣˆHˆd| ≡ (Σ)ˆ (Hˆd) (Hˆ ) (Σˆ ) , Tr(ΣˆHˆdΣˆHˆu) ≡ αR βL d βR αL mO1 = mT1 = mT2 ≡ Md , β ˆ αL ˆ αR ˆ L ˆ βR 2 (B2) (Σ)α (Hd) (Σ) (Hu)α , etc. R βL βR L mO2 = mT3 = mT4 ≡ Mu .

Let us consider hΣˆ Li, hΣˆ Ri and hΣˆi. Via a suitable SU(4)L The mass squared matrix for the fields S1,2,3,4 is ˆ 2 and SU(4)R transformation, it is possible to bring hΣLi and MS = ˆ √ hΣRi to the form  2 1 0 2 2 3 0 2  M + ad 0 λ345z v λ345z v d √2 Σ 2 Σ  0   0   2 3 0 2 3 0 2   0 Md + bd 2 λ345z vΣ 2 λ345vΣ  vL 0 vR 0  √  , hΣˆ Li = √   , hΣˆ Ri = √   , (A2) 1 0 2 2 3 0 2 2      λ345z v λ345z v Mu + au 0  2 0 2 0  √2 Σ 2 Σ  1 1 3 0 2 3 0 2 2 2 λ345z vΣ 2 λ345vΣ 0 Mu + bu where vL and vR are real and positive. (B3) 7 where where aLR 2 aRL 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 2 3 0 2 X ij(α) X ij(α) ad = λ24vR + λ34z vΣ , bd = λ34vΣ , Aij ≡ + , 2 2 2 M 2 M 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 2 3 0 2 α α α α au = λ v + λ z v , bu = λ v . (B4) 2 25 R 2 35 Σ 2 35 Σ h i Re aLR aRL ∗ We have verified that there exists a class of solutions with only X ij(α) ij(β) B ≡ , one linear combination of the four scalars being light. To re- ij M 2M 2 produce the SM fermion masses while keeping the Yukawas α,β α β perturbative, it is sufficient to have the light mass eigenstate, 0 h LR (KL) 1 Rd Rd ∗ Ld Ld ∗ identified with the SM Higgs, given by a ≡ √ mi f1i(α)f2j(α) + mj f1i(α)f2j(α) ij(α) 2 H = − c S − c S + c S + c S , (B5) 2 e 1 d 2 ν 3 u 4 2 mK0 Q Ld Rd ∗ i + f1i(α)f2j(α) + (1 ↔ 2) , where cu ≈ 1  cd  cν and 1  ce  cν , with the ratio ms + md cd : ce ≈ mb : mτ . LR (B0) Rd ∗ Rd Ld ∗ Ld aij(α) ≡ mi f1i(α)f3j(α) + mj f1i(α)f3j(α) 2 2 mB0 Q Ld ∗ Rd Appendix C: Flavor constraints: Model-independent analysis + f1i(α)f3j(α) , mb + md

LR (B0) The general form of the Lagrangian describing interactions s Rd ∗ Rd Ld ∗ Ld aij(α) ≡ mi f2i(α)f3j(α) + mj f2i(α)f3j(α) of vector leptoquarks (3, 1)2/3 with fermions is given by 2 2 mB0 Q h s Ld ∗ Rd X (α) Lu i µ j Ru i µ j + f2i(α)f3j(α) , L ⊃ Xµ fij(α) (¯u γ PLν ) + fij(α) (¯u γ PRν ) mb + ms α aRL ≡ aLR (L ↔ R) . (C6) Ld ¯i µ j Rd ¯i µ j i ij(α) ij(α) + fij(α) (d γ PL e ) + fij(α) (d γ PR e ) , (C1) In Eq. (C6) the quark masses mq and the factor Q depend X(α) where the field µ corresponds to a leptoquark with mass on the energy scale, mq = mq(µ) and Q = Q(µ), with Q(µ) Mα. The resulting contributions to rare processes are listed given by the formula below, along with the most severe experimental bounds. 4 12 12 The numerical values for particle masses and lifetimes were  (6)  7  (5)  23  (4)  25 α (mt) α (mb) α (µ) adopted from PDG [62]. The single-particle state normaliza- Q(µ) = , (C7) α(6)(M ) α(5)(m ) α(4)(m ) tion chosen is XL t b h ~p | ~p 0i = 2E (2π)3δ(3)(~p − ~p 0) (C2) applicable for mb > µ > mc. The coupling constant α is calculated from and the decay constant fM for a meson consisting of 4 π quarks/antiquarks q1, q2 is defined via (Nf ) α (µ, Λ) = 2 2 , (C8) 2 (11 − 2Nf /3) log(µ /Λ ) 5 mM h0|q¯1γ q2|M(p)i = −ifM , where Nf is the number of quark flavors at a given scale, by mq1 + mq2 (C3) matching µ 5 µ h0|q¯1γ γ q2|M(p)i = ifM p . (6) (6) (5) (5) α (mt) ≡ α (mt, Λ6) = α (mt, Λ5) ≡ α (mt), Values of the meson decay constants, obtained from averaging (C9) (5) (5) (4) (4) the lattice results, were also taken from PDG, α (mb) ≡ α (mb, Λ5) = α (mb, Λ4) ≡ α (mb). f + = 130 GeV , f 0 = f + = 156 GeV , (C4) π KL K The ratio Q(µ)/mq(µ) is a renormalization group invariant. f 0 = 191 GeV , f + = 187 GeV , f 0 = 227 GeV . Adopting the PDG values for the quark masses at µ = 2 GeV B B Bs and for the strong coupling constant at µ = MZ [62], the value of Q depends only on the leptoquark mass scale through (1) Neutral meson decays to two charged leptons 0.45 Q(2 GeV) = . The leptoquark contribution to the decay of a meson M with (6) 4/7 (C10) + − [α (MXL )] mass mM to two charged leptons, li with mass mi and lj with mass mj, is given by As evident from Eq. (C6), the constraints on the leptoquark " contribution to the branching fraction of kaon and B meson 2  m2 + m2  + − mMfM i j decays are much weaker when the leptoquarks have only LH Γ(M → li lj )X = Aij 1 − 2 64 π mM or only RH interactions with SM fermions, as opposed to #s models with both LH and RH interactions. The bounds on 4 m m  (m +m )2   (m −m )2  + B i j 1− i j 1− i j , the branching fraction are milder by a factor of ij m2 m2 m2 M M M q 2 (C5) 2 mMQ/(ml mq) , 8 which is reflected by the much weaker constraints on the lep- (b) Neutral B meson decays toquark mass in our model compared to generic leptoquark 0 0 For most of the B and Bs decays only the limit on the models (see App. D). branching fraction is determined, therefore the bounds on lep- For the majority of decays considered here only the upper toquark parameters are derived using BrX . ∆Br. In the case bound on the rate was experimentally established. However, 0 + − 0 + − of B → µ µ and Bs → µ µ the branching fractions 0 + − 0 + − 0 + − 0 + − +1.6 in the four cases: KL → e e , KL → µ µ , B → µ µ were actually measured, Br(B → µ µ ) = 1.6 × 0 + − −1.4 and Bs → µ µ nonzero rates have been measured. For −10 0 + − +0.3 −9 10 [62] and Br(Bs → µ µ ) = 3.0 ± 0.6−0.2 × 10 those particular decays not only the pure leptoquark contribu- [49], and are dominated by short-distance SM effects. We ar- tion is relevant, but also the interference effects with the SM rive at the following set of constraints, short-distance (SD) contribution. This can be taken into ac- 0 count by making the following substitution in the expressions (B )  0 + −  A11 Br(B → e e ) −4 for Aij and Bij in Eq. (C6), • 2 . −8 (29.4 TeV) , [47] mB0 8.3 × 10 LR s + − SD LR X aij(α) 64 π Γ(M → li lj )SM X aij(α) (C15) 2 −→ 2 δij ± 2 , M m f M (B0) (B0) α α M M α α A + A  Br(B0 → e±µ∓) • 12 21 [48] (C11) 2 . −9 mB0 1.0 × 10 where the +/− depends on the decay considered and corre- × (88.6 TeV)−4 , (C16) sponds to the SM short-distance amplitude for M → l+l− i j 0 being negative/positive. The leptoquark-induced contribution 0(B )  0 + −  A 22 Br(B → µ µ ) −4 is then obtained by subtracting off the pure SM part. • 2 . −10 (140 TeV) , [62] mB0 1.6 × 10 (a) Neutral kaon decays (C17) 0 0 (B ) (B )  0 ± ∓  0 ± ∓ A13 + A31 Br(B → e τ ) The decays KL → e µ are absent in the SM and the • 2 . −5 [46] constraint on the leptoquark mass is derived directly from the mB0 2.8 × 10 experimental bound on the branching fraction, BrX . ∆Br. × (6.4 TeV)−4 , (C18) The rates for K0 → e+e−, µ+µ− were measured [37, 62]. L 0 0 They are dominated by long-distance SM effects [63, 64]. For A(B ) + A(B )  Br(B0 → µ±τ ∓) 0 + − +5.7 • 23 32 [46] KL → e e the experimental branching fraction 8.7−4.1 × m2 . 2.2 × 10−5 −12 B0 10 [37] agrees well with the SM long-distance estimate of −4 (9.0±0.5)×10−12 [63]. In that case we use the experimental × (6.8 TeV) , (C19) 0 0 uncertainty for the measured branching fraction as the upper (B ) (B )  0 + −  0 + − A33 + 0.59 B33 Br(B → τ τ ) bound for the leptoquark contribution. For KL → µ µ the • [50] −9 2 . −3 measured branching fraction is (6.84±0.11)×10 [39], but mB0 2.1 × 10 it was shown that the short-distance SM contribution is only × (2.0 TeV)−4 , (C20) 0.9 × 10−9 [63], whereas the upper bound on the total short- (B0) distance contribution is 2.5 × 10−9 [64]. A s  Br(B0 → e+e−) • 11 s (23.9 TeV)−4 , [47] The constraints below reflect the most conservative bound 2 . −7 mB0 2.8 × 10 on the leptoquark mass obtained using Eq. (C5). The branch- s ing fractions were left in explicitly for easier use of the for- (C21) 0 0 mulae given future experimental improvements. (Bs ) (Bs )  0 ± ∓  A12 + A21 Br(Bs → e µ ) 0 • [48] (KL)  0 + −  2 . −9 A11 Br(KL → e e ) −4 mB0 5.4 × 10 • (672 TeV) , [37] s 2 . −12 −4 mK0 5.7 × 10 × (64.1 TeV) , (C22)

(C12) 0 0(Bs )  0 + −  0 0 A 22 Br(Bs → µ µ ) −4 (KL) (KL)  0 ± ∓  • (107 TeV) , [49] A12 + A21 Br(KL → e µ ) 2 . −9 • [38] mB0 0.7 × 10 m2 . 4.7 × 10−12 s K0 (C23) −4 × (689 TeV) , (C13) 0 0 (Bs ) (Bs )  0 + −  A33 + 0.56 B33 Br(Bs → τ τ ) 0 0 • [50] 0(KL) 0(KL) 0 + − 2 . −3 A + 0.2 B  Br(K → µ µ ) mB0 6.8 × 10 • 22 22 L [64] s 2 . −9 −4 mK0 2.5 × 10 × (1.7 TeV) , (C24) −4 × (140 TeV) , (C14) 0 0 0(B ) (B ) 0 0 where A 22 is given by A22 with the substitution (C11) 0(KL) (KL) 0 + − SD −10 where A 22 is given by A22 with the substitution (C11) with Γ(B → µ µ )SM = 1.6 × 10 , and similarly for 0 0 0 + − SD −9 0(KL) 0(Bs ) 0 + − SD −9 with Γ(KL → µ µ )SM = 0.9×10 ; similarly for B22 . A 22 with Γ(Bs → µ µ )SM = 3.0 × 10 . We listed the 9

0 + − constraint on the leptoquark contribution to Br(Bs → µ µ ) (3) Charged meson three-body decays to a meson and for completeness, but this branching fraction is actually deter- charged leptons mined by the fit that yields ∆C9 and ∆C10 in Eq. (27). When the leptoquark has both LH and RH interactions with (2) Charged meson decays to a charged lepton and neutrino SM fermions, the three-body meson decays are less restrictive than the two-body decays. However, in the case of our model, Decays of mesons to a charged lepton and a neutrino exist with predominantly LH interactions, the bounds arising from in the SM. The leading order leptoquark contribution comes B+ → K+e±µ∓ impose the most severe constraints on the from interference effects. The theoretical uncertainty in the leptoquark mass. The corresponding decay rate is expressed 2 2 SM calculation is reduced by taking ratios of decay rates, in terms of the form factors f+(q ) and f0(q ) defined via + +   Γ(M → li ν) Γ(M → li ν) Di0 − Di = 1 + √ , 0 0 µ + + hM (p )|q¯1γ q2|M(p)i Γ(M → li0 ν) Γ(M → li0 ν) SM 2 GF  ∆M 2  ∆M 2 (C25) = f (q2) pµ + p0µ − qµ + f (q2) qµ , where + q2 0 q2 X 1 h i D ≡ Re dLR + dRL . (C26) i 2 ij(α) ij(α) ∆M 2 Mα 0 0 2 α; j hM (p )|q¯1q2|M(p)i = f0(q ) , (C31) mq1 − mq2 For the case of Dirac neutrinos, 0 LR (π+) Uij where the four-momentum transfer q = p − p and the meson dij(α) ≡ 2 2 2 Vud squared mass difference ∆M = mM − mM0 . The contribu-  2  tion to the decay rate mediated by leptoquarks is Rd Ru ∗ 2 mπ+ Q Ld Ru ∗ × f1i(α)f1j(α) + f1i(α)f1j(α) , mi(md + mu) 0 + − 1 1 + Uij LR (K ) Γ(M → M li lj )X = 3 3 dij(α) ≡ 2048 π mM Vus 2  2  Z (mM−mM0 ) 2 q Rd Ru ∗ 2 mK+ Q Ld Ru ∗ dq 2 2 2 2 2 2 × f1i(α)f2j(α) + f1i(α)f2j(α) , × 4 λ(q , mM, mM0 ) λ(q , mi , mj ) 2 mi(ms + mu) (mi+mj ) q ( RL LR   (m2 − m2)2  dij(α) ≡ dij(α) (L ↔ R) , (C27) 1 + 2 2 2 i j × Nij 2 q − mi − mj − 2 whereas for Majorana neutrinos the only nonzero terms are, 3 q  RL (π+) Uij Ld Lu ∗ RL (K+) Uij Ld Lu ∗ − 2 2 2 2 2 + 2 N mi mj λ(q , m , m 0 ) |f+(q )| dij(α) ≡ f1i(α)f1j(α) , dij(α) ≡ f1i(α)f2j(α) . ij M M Vud Vsd (C28)   (m2 − m2)2  + N + m2 + m2 − i j − 2 N − m m The tightest bounds of this type originate from measurements ij i j q2 ij i j of the branching fraction ratios + 2 2 2 2 − 2 + + + + + 4 Pij q (q − mi − mj ) − 8 Pij q mi mj + Γ(π → e ν) + Γ(K → e ν) R(π ) ≡ + + ,R(K ) ≡ + + . + − 2 2 2 Γ(π → µ ν) Γ(K → µ ν) − 4 Rij + Rij mi q − mi + mj  + − 2 2 2 (a) Charged decays + 4 Rij − Rij mj q + mi − mj The experimental measurement and the SM prediction yield ) 2 2 2 2 2 × m − m 0 |f0(q )| , (C32) R(π+) = (1.2327 ± 0.0023) × 10−4 [62] , M M + −4 R(π )SM = (1.2352 ± 0.0001) × 10 [65] , where which, given Eq. (C25), leads to 2 (π+) (π+) −2 λ(x, y, z) ≡ (x − y − z) − 4 y z , D1 − D2 . (3.9 TeV) . (C29) nLL + nRR 2 nLL − nRR 2 ± X ij(α) ij(α) X ij(α) ij(α) (b) Charged kaon decays N ≡ ± , ij M 2 M 2 α α α α In this case, LR RL 2 LR RL 2 + −5 p + p p − p R(K ) = (2.493 ± 0.031) × 10 [42] , ± X ij(α) ij(α) X ij(α) ij(α) Pij ≡ ± , + −5 M 2 M 2 R(K )SM = (2.477 ± 0.001) × 10 [65] , α α α α which results in h  i Re nLL ± nRR pLR ∗ ± pRL ∗ + + ± X ij(α) ij(α) ij(β) ij(β) D(K ) − D(K ) (3.1 TeV)−2 . R ≡ , 1 2 . (C30) ij M 2 M 2 α,β α β 10

+ + + + LL (K ,π ) Ld Ld ∗ LL( B ,π ) Ld Ld ∗ (a) Charged kaon decays nij(α) = f1i(α)f2j(α) , nij(α) = f1i(α)f3j(α) ,

+ + nLL (B ,K ) = f Ld f Ld ∗ , nRR = nLL (L ↔ R) , Experimental constraints from searches for the processes ij(α) 2i(α) 3j(α) ij(α) ij(α) K+ → π+e±µ∓ yield, Ld Rd ∗ Ld Rd ∗ + + f f Q + + f f Q + + + + LR (K ,π ) 1i(α) 2j(α) LR (B ,π ) 1i(α) 3j(α) • N + (K ,π ) + (0.54 GeV2) P + (K ,π ) [40] pij(α) = , pij(α) = , 12 12 ms − md mb − md + + + + + (0.83 GeV) R+ (K ,π ) − R− (K ,π ) Ld Rd ∗ 12 12 + + f f Q LR (B ,K ) 2i(α) 3j(α) RL LR  + + + −  p = , p = p (L ↔ R) . Br(K → π e µ ) −4 ij(α) ij(α) ij(α) (32.1 TeV) , (C37) mb − ms . 5.2 × 10−10 (C33) + (K+,π+) + (K+,π+) 2 2 2 The form factors f+(q ) and f0(q ) are calculated using • N21 + (0.54 GeV ) P21 [41] + + + + lattice methods. For the K → π form factor we use the − (0.83 GeV) R+ (K ,π ) + R− (K ,π ) linear fit given in [66]. For the B → π and B → K form 21 21  + + − +  factors we adopt the results of [67] and [25], respectively, Br(K → π e µ ) −4 . (80.6 TeV) . (C38) where the interpolating functions were obtained using the 1.3 × 10−11 Bourrely-Caprini-Lellouch parameterization [56]. (b) Charged B meson decays The K → π form factor is [66]  q2  The experimental bounds on the decays B+ → π+e±µ∓, f (q2) = f (0) 1 + λ0 , (C34) {+,0} Kπ + Kπ {+,0} 2 B+ → K+e±µ∓ and B+ → K+µ±τ ∓ give, mπ+ 0 0 + (B+,π+) + (B+,π+) with f+(0)Kπ = 0.9636, λ + = 0.0308 and λ 0 = 0.0198 . 2 • N12 + (138 GeV ) P12 [44] + (B+,π+) − (B+,π+) The B → π and B → K form factors are given by + (0.76 GeV) R12 − R12  Br(B+ → π+e+µ−) N+−1   −4 1 X (n) n . (13.5 TeV) , (C39) f (q2) = b zn − (−1)n−N+ zN+ , 9.2 × 10−8 + P (q2) + N + n=0 + + (B+,π+) 2 + (B+,π+) N0 • N21 + (138 GeV ) P21 [44] 2 X (n) n + + + + f0(q ) = b0 z , (C35) + (B ,π ) − (B ,π ) − (0.76 GeV) R21 + R21 n=0  Br(B+ → π+e−µ+) where √ (13.5 TeV)−4 , (C40) pt − q2 − t − t . 9.2 × 10−8 z ≡ z(q2) = + + 0 . (C36) p 2 √ t+ − q + t+ − t0 + (B+,K+) 2 + (B+,K+) • N12 + (109 GeV ) P12 [43] In the B → π case [67]: + + + + + (1.0 GeV) R+ (B ,K ) − R− (B ,K ) 2 2 12 12 t+ = (mB+ + mπ+ ) , t− = (mB+ − mπ+ ) ,  + + + −  √ √ 2 Br(B → K e µ ) −4 t = (m + + m + )( m + − m + ) , (16.2 TeV) , (C41) 0 B π B π . 9.1 × 10−8 (0) (1) (0) (2) (0) b+ = 0.42, b+ = −1.46 b+ , b+ = −4.7 b+ , + + + + (0) (1) (0) (2) (0) • N + (B ,K ) + (109 GeV2) P + (B ,K ) [43] b0 = 0.516, b0 = −3.94 b0 , b0 = 0.7 b0 , 21 21 + + + + 2 2 2 + (B ,K ) − (B ,K ) P+(q ) = 1 − q /mB∗ , mB∗ = 5.325 GeV, − (1.0 GeV) R21 + R21  Br(B+ → K+e−µ+) whereas for B → K [25]: (14.9 TeV)−4 , (C42) . 1.3 × 10−7 2 2 t+ = (mB+ + mK+ ) , t− = (mB+ − mK+ ) , + + + + √ √ 2 + (B ,K ) 2 + (B ,K ) t0 = (mB+ + mK+ )( mB+ − mK+ ) , • N23 + (96 GeV ) P23 [45] (0) (1) (2) + (B+,K+) − (B+,K+) b+ = 0.432, b+ = −0.65, b+ = −0.97, + (10.3 GeV) R23 − 1.2 R23 (0) (1) (2) (3)  + + + −  b0 = 0.550, b0 = −1.89, b0 = 1.98, b0 = −0.02, Br(B → K µ τ ) −4 2 2 ∗ 2 ∗ . −5 (2.7 TeV) , (C43) P+(q ) = 1 − q /(mB+ + ∆+) , ∆+ = 0.04578 GeV. 7.7 × 10

+ + + + + + (B ,K ) 2 + (B ,K ) The resulting constraints on B decays are much weaker • N32 + (96 GeV ) P32 [45] than the corresponding bounds presented in [9]. This is due + (B+,K+) − (B+,K+) 2 − (10.3 GeV) R23 + 1.2 R23 to the fact that the calculation in [9] assumed f+(q ) = f (q2) = 1. This assumption for the B → π and B → K  Br(B+ → K+µ−τ +) 0 (2.7 TeV)−4 . (C44) form factors is quite far from their actual shape. . 7.7 × 10−5 11

(4) decays If the matrices fij are proportional to unitary matrices, the terms in the first line of Eq. (C51) vanish. The experimental The leptoquark contribution to τ decay rates, neglecting the bounds, neglecting higher order terms, become, mass of the lepton in the final state, is Ld Rd∗ 2 Rd Ld∗ 2 f31(α)f32(α) f31(α)f32(α) 3 2  2 2 2 X 2 X m f 0 m 0 • c + c − 0 − τ M M LR M 2 RL M 2 Γ(τ → M li )X = Ti 1 − 2 , (C45) α α α α 128 π mτ  Br(µ → e γ) (332 TeV)−4 , [68] (C52) where . 4.2 × 10−13 tL 2 tR 2 X i(α) X i(α) Ti ≡ + , Ld Rd∗ 2 Rd Ld∗ 2 M 2 M 2 f31(α)f33(α) f31(α)f33(α) α α α α 2 X 2 X • cLR 2 + cRL 2 2 M M 0 2m Q α α α α tL (π ) ≡ f Rd f Rd ∗ + π0 f Ld f Rd ∗ , i(α) 13(α) 1i(α) m (m + m ) 13(α) 1i(α)  Br(τ → e γ) τ d u (3.1 TeV)−4 , [69] (C53) 2 . 3.3 × 10−8 0  2m 0 Q  L (KS ) 1 Rd Rd ∗ KS Ld Rd ∗ ti(α) ≡ √ f13(α)f2i(α) + f13(α)f2i(α) 2 mτ (ms + md) f Ld f Rd∗ 2 f Rd f Ld∗ 2 − (1 ↔ 2) , 2 X 32(α) 33(α) 2 X 32(α) 33(α) • cLR 2 + cRL 2 Mα Mα R L α α ti(α) ≡ ti(α) (L ↔ R) (C46)   Br(τ → µ γ) −4 √ . −8 (2.9 TeV) . [69] (C54) and fπ0 = fπ+ / 2. The bounds are 4.4 × 10 − 0 − 0  Br(τ → π e ) + + (π ) −4 In our model the leading order terms contributing to li → lj γ • T1 . (5.0 TeV) , [52] 8.0 × 10−8 are O(m2/M 2 ) and the resulting constraints are negligible b XL (C47) compared to tree-level bounds. − 0 − 0  Br(τ → π µ ) • T (π ) (4.7 TeV)−4 , [51] 2 . 1.1 × 10−7 + + (6) li → lj conversion (C48) + + 0  − 0 −  The effective Hamiltonian for the li → lj conversion (KS ) Br(τ → KS e ) −4 • T1 . (8.4 TeV) , [53] consists of the dipole transition part corresponding to 2.6 × 10−8 + + li → lj γ and terms arising from integrating out the heavy (C49) vector leptoquarks, i.e.  − 0 −  (K0 ) Br(τ → K µ ) S S −4 eff e mb X cLR Ld Rd∗ µν • T2 (8.6 TeV) . [53] + + . −8 Hl → l = 2 2 f3j(α)f3i(α) ljR σµν liLF 2.3 × 10 i j 16 π M α α (C50) e mi X 1 + f Ld f Ld∗ l σ l F µν 16 π2 M 2 kj(α) ki(α) jR µν iL (5) Radiative charged lepton decay α, k α

X 1 h Ld Ld∗ µ  k k The vector leptoquark contribution to the process l → l γ is + f f ljLγ liL d γµd i j M 2 mj(α) mi(α) L L induced at the loop level. Unlike for scalar leptoquarks, in α, m α k i the case of vector leptoquarks this effect cannot be computed − 2 Q f Ld f Rd∗ l l d d k in the general case, since the result is infinite and requires mj(α) mi(α) jL iR R L arbitrary subtractions that are well-defined only in a UV + (L ↔ R) + ..., (C55) complete model. We parameterize our ignorance of this UV completion with the coefficients cLR and cRL, where m = 1, 2. The steps required to match the effective Hamiltonian (C55) to the Hamiltonian at the level and 2 5 " f Ld f Ld∗ 2 # + + e mi X kj(α) ki(α) compute the conversion rate are provided in [70, 71]. Γ(li → lj γ)X = 5 2 + (L ↔ R) + + 4096 π Mα The tightest experimental constraint from li − lj conver- α; k sion arises from µ − e conversion on gold [54]. Since the 2 3 2 " f Ld f Rd∗ 2 # resulting bound on the dipole transition contribution is less e mi mb 2 X 3j(α) 3i(α) + cLR + (L ↔ R) + ..., restrictive than the constraint from µ → e γ in Eq. (C52), we 4096 π5 M 2 α α concentrate only on the second part of the Hamiltonian (C55). (C51) Following [70], the µ − e conversion rate is then given by

where k = 1, 2, 3 and we expect c and c to be O(1), 2 LR RL Γ(µ → e) = m5 g˜(p) V +g ˜(n)V +g ˜(p)S +g ˜(n)S with their values dependent on the UV details of the model. µ LV p LV n LS p LS n The ellipsis denotes interference and mass-suppressed terms. + (L ↔ R) , (C56) 12

0 where KL decays 1 (p) 1 (n) X Ld Ld∗ mXL g˜ = g˜ = f12(α)f11(α) , (C57) 21.2 TeV , (D12) LV 2 LV M 2 p d d∗ & α α gL |Re(L11L21)| (p) X 1 h i m g˜ = −2 Q 4.3 f Ld f Rd∗ + 2.5 f Ld f Rd∗ , XL 225 TeV , (D13) LS M 2 12(α) 11(α) 22(α) 21(α) p d d∗ d d∗ & α α gL |L11L22 + L21L12| (n) X 1 h i m g˜ = −2 Q 5.1 f Ld f Rd∗ + 2.5 f Ld f Rd∗ , XL 51.0 TeV . (D14) LS M 2 12(α) 11(α) 22(α) 21(α) p d d∗ & α α gL |Re(L12L22)| with similar relations obtained upon switching (L ↔ R). The 0 197 B decays numerical coefficients were adopted from [72]. For the 79Au nucleus, which provides the most stringent bound, the param- m XL 0.24 TeV , (D15) eters in Eq. (C56) are, p d d∗ & gL |L11L31|

V = 0.0974 ,V = 0.146 ,S = 0.0614 ,S = 0.0918 , mXL p n p n & 8.9 TeV , (D16) g p4 |Ld Ld∗|2 + |Ld Ld∗|2 and are the result of the calculation using “method 1” in Sec. L 11 32 12 31 III A of [70]. The best bound on µ − e conversion is [54], mXL & 10.7 TeV , (D17) g p|Ld Ld∗| Γ(µ → e in Au) L 12 32 < 7 × 10−13 . (C58) m Γ(µ capture in Au) XL 2.6 TeV , (D18) p4 d d∗ 2 d d∗ 2 & gL |L11L33| + |L13L31| The constraints on general (3, 1)2/3 leptoquark models are mX derived by inserting Eq. (C56) into (C58) and using the to- L 2.8 TeV , (D19) p4 d d∗ 2 d d∗ 2 & − 197 gL |L L | + |L L | tal µ capture rate in 79Au, Γ(µ capture in Au) = 8.6 × 12 33 13 32 −18 10 GeV [73]. In the case of our model, with just LH lep- mX L 1.0 TeV . (D20) toquark couplings, the constraint simplifies to p d d∗ & gL |L13L33| f Ld f Ld∗ −1/2 X 12(α) 11(α) 762 TeV . (C59) B0 decays M 2 & s α α m XL 0.2 TeV , (D21) Finally, let us note that the bounds on generic leptoquark p d d∗ & gL |L L | models were considered in [5–10]. Our formulae reproduce 21 31 m those results up to the difference in the adopted values of XL 6.4 TeV , (D22) p4 d d∗ 2 d d∗ 2 & quark masses, meson decay constants and form factors used. gL |L21L32| + |L22L31| m XL 6.0 TeV , (D23) p d d∗ & gL |L22L32|

SU(4) × SU(4) mXL Appendix D: Flavor constraints: L R model 0.7 TeV . (D24) p d d∗ & gL |L23L33| (1) (2) In our model X ≡ X1 and X ≡ X2 given by Eq. (15), therefore the coefficients in Eq. (C1) are π+ decays m Lu gL cos θ4 u Ld gL cos θ4 d XL 2.8 TeV . fij(1) ≡ √ Lij , fij(1) ≡ √ Lij , q &  d d ∗ d d ∗  2 2 gL Re L11(VL )11 − 4.3 L12(VL )12 g sin θ g sin θ f Ru ≡ R√ 4 Ru , f Rd ≡ R√ 4 Rd , (D29) ij(1) 2 ij ij(1) 2 ij (D1) g cos θ g cos θ f Ru ≡ R √ 4 Ru , f Rd ≡ R √ 4 Rd , K+ decays ij(2) 2 ij ij(2) 2 ij m g sin θ g sin θ XL Lu L 4 u Ld L 4 d q & 2.2 TeV , fij(2) ≡ − √ Lij , fij(2) ≡ − √ Lij .  d d ∗ d d ∗  2 2 gL Re L11(VL )21 − 4.3 L12(VL )22 Constraints on the model parameters are obtained by sub- (D30) stituting the expressions in Eq. (D1) into the bounds derived mXL & 27.0 TeV , (D37) in App. C. In the limit vR  vL and vR  vΣ, for which p d d∗ gL |L11L22| sin θ4 ' 0, X1 = XL and X2 = XR, one arrives at the con- m straints listed below. The numbering scheme indicates which XL 67.8 TeV . (D38) p d d∗ & equation in App. C a given constraint originated from. gL |L12L21| 13

B+ decays τ decays

m XL 3.6 TeV , (D47) mXL p d d∗ & 11.4 TeV , (D39) gL |L L | p d d∗ & 11 13 gL |L11L32| m XL 3.3 TeV , (D48) p d d∗ & mXL g |L L | 11.4 TeV , (D40) L 12 13 p d d∗ & gL |L12L31| mXL & 5.0 TeV , (D49) q d d∗ d d∗ mXL gL L L − L L 13.6 TeV , (D41) 21 13 11 23 p d d∗ & gL |L L | 21 32 mXL q & 5.1 TeV . (D50) mX d d∗ d d∗ L 12.5 TeV , (D42) gL L22L13 − L12L23 p d d∗ & gL |L22L31| m XL 2.3 TeV , (D43) µ − e conversion p d d∗ & gL |L L | 22 33 m XL 539 TeV . (D59) mXL p d d∗ & 2.3 TeV . (D44) gL |L12L11| p d d∗ & gL |L23L32|

[1] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Test of Lepton Universality Using [12] L. Calibbi, A. Crivellin, and T. Li, A Model of Vector Lepto- B+ → K+`+`− Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 151601 (2014), quarks in View of the B-Physics Anomalies, arXiv:1709.00692 arXiv:1406.6482 [hep-ex]. [hep-ph]. [2] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Test of Lepton Universality with B0 → [13] M. Bordone, C. Cornella, J. Fuentes-Martin, and G. Isidori, K∗0`+`− Decays, JHEP 08, 055 (2017), arXiv:1705.05802 A Three-Site Gauge Model for Flavor Hierarchies and [hep-ex]. Flavor Anomalies, Phys. Lett. B779, 317–323 (2018), [3] R. Alonso, B. Grinstein, and J. Martin Camalich, Lepton arXiv:1712.01368 [hep-ph]. Universality Violation and Lepton Flavor Conservation in B- [14] R. Barbieri and A. Tesi, B-Decay Anomalies in Pati-Salam Meson Decays, JHEP 10, 184 (2015), arXiv:1505.05164 [hep- SU(4), Eur. Phys. J. C78, 193 (2018), arXiv:1712.06844 [hep- ph]. ph]. [4] N. Assad, B. Fornal, and B. Grinstein, and [15] M. Blanke and A. Crivellin, B Meson Anomalies in a Pati- Lepton Universality Violation in Leptoquark and Mod- Salam Model within the Randall-Sundrum Background, Phys. els, Phys. Lett. B777, 324–331 (2018), arXiv:1708.06350 [hep- Rev. Lett. 121, 011801 (2018), arXiv:1801.07256 [hep-ph]. ph]. [16] A. Greljo and B. A. Stefanek, Third Family Quark-Lepton Uni- [5] G. Valencia and S. Willenbrock, Quark – Lepton Unification fication at the TeV Scale, Phys. Lett. B782, 131–138 (2018), and Rare Meson Decays, Phys. Rev. D50, 6843–6848 (1994), arXiv:1802.04274 [hep-ph]. arXiv:hep-ph/9409201 [hep-ph]. [17] S. Balaji, R. Foot, and M. A. Schmidt, A Chiral SU(4) Expla- [6] A. D. Smirnov, Mass Limits for Scalar and Gauge Leptoquarks nation of the b → s Anomalies, arXiv:1809.07562 [hep-ph]. 0 ∓ ± 0 ∓ ± from KL → e µ , B → e τ Decays, Mod. Phys. Lett. [18] D. Marzocca, Addressing the B-Physics Anomalies in a Fun- A22, 2353–2363 (2007), arXiv:0705.0308 [hep-ph]. damental Composite Higgs Model, JHEP 07, 121 (2018), [7] A. D. Smirnov, Contributions of Gauge and Scalar Leptoquarks arXiv:1803.10972 [hep-ph]. 0 + − 0 + − to KL → li lj and B → li lj Decay and Constraints [19] D. Becirevic, I. Dorsner, S. Fajfer, D. A. Faroughy, N. Kosnik, 0 ∓ ± on Leptoquark Masses from the Decays KL → e µ and and O. Sumensari, Scalar Leptoquarks from GUT to Accommo- B0 → e∓τ ±, Phys. . Nucl. 71, 1470–1480 (2008), [Yad. date the B-Physics Anomalies, Phys. Rev. D98, 055003 (2018), Fiz.71,1498(2008)]. arXiv:1806.05689 [hep-ph]. [8] M. Carpentier and S. Davidson, Constraints on Two-Lepton, [20] D. Guadagnoli, M. Reboud, and O. Sumensari, A Gauged Hori- Two Quark Operators, Eur. Phys. J. C70, 1071–1090 (2010), zontal SU(2) Symmetry and RK(∗) , (2018), arXiv:1807.03285 arXiv:1008.0280 [hep-ph]. [hep-ph]. [9] A. V. Kuznetsov, N. V. Mikheev, and A. V. Serghienko, The [21] S.-P. Li, X.-Q. Li, Y.-D. Yang, and X. Zhang, RD(∗) , RK(∗) Third Type of Fermion Mixing in the Lepton and Quark In- and Neutrino Mass in the 2HDM-III with Right-Handed Neu- teractions with Leptoquarks, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A27, 1250062 trinos, JHEP 09, 149 (2018), arXiv:1807.08530 [hep-ph]. (2012), arXiv:1203.0196 [hep-ph]. [22] T. Faber, M. Hudec, M. Malinsky, P. Meinzinger, W. Porod, and [10] A. D. Smirnov, Vector Leptoquark Mass Limits and Branch- F. Staub, A Unified Leptoquark Model Confronted with Lepton 0 0 + − Non-Universality in B-Meson Decays, Phys. Lett. B787, 159– ing Ratios of KL,B ,Bs → li lj Decays with Account of Fermion Mixing in Leptoquark Currents, Mod. Phys. Lett. A33, 166 (2018), arXiv:1808.05511 [hep-ph]. 1850019 (2018), arXiv:1801.02895 [hep-ph]. [23] J. Heeck and D. Teresi, Pati-Salam Explanations of the B- [11] L. Di Luzio, A. Greljo, and M. Nardecchia, Gauge Leptoquark Meson Anomalies, arXiv:1808.07492 [hep-ph]. as the Origin of B-Physics Anomalies, Phys. Rev. D96, 115011 [24] B. Allanach and J. Davighi, Third Family Hypercharge Model (2017), arXiv:1708.08450 [hep-ph]. for RK(∗) and Aspects of the Fermion Mass Problem, 14

arXiv:1809.01158 [hep-ph]. [44] B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Search for the Rare Decay B → [25] C. Bouchard, G. P. Lepage, C. Monahan, H. Na, and πl+l−, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 051801 (2007), arXiv:hep- J. Shigemitsu (HPQCD), Rare Decay B → K`+`− Form Fac- ex/0703018 [hep-ex]. tors from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D88, 054509 (2013), [Erra- [45] B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Search for the Decay tum: Phys. Rev. D88, no.7, 079901 (2013)], arXiv:1306.2384 B+ → K+τ ∓µ±, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 201801 (2007), [hep-lat]. arXiv:0708.1303 [hep-ex]. [26] J. M. Arnold, B. Fornal, and M. B. Wise, Simplified Models [46] B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Searches for the Decays B0 → `±τ ∓ with Baryon Number Violation but No Proton Decay, Phys. Rev. and B+ → `+ν (l=e, µ) Using Hadronic Tag Reconstruction, D87, 075004 (2013), arXiv:1212.4556 [hep-ph]. Phys. Rev. D77, 091104 (2008), arXiv:0801.0697 [hep-ex]. 0 + − [27] L.-S. Geng, B. Grinstein, S. Jager, J. Martin Camalich, X.-L. [47] T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF), Search for the Decays Bs → e µ 0 + − Ren, and R.-X. Shi, Towards the Discovery of New Physics and Bs → e e in CDF Run II, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 201801 with Lepton-Universality Ratios of b → s`` Decays, Phys. Rev. (2009), arXiv:0901.3803 [hep-ex]. D96, 093006 (2017), arXiv:1704.05446 [hep-ph]. [48] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Search for the Lepton-Flavour Violating 0 ± ∓ [28] M. Ciuchini, A. M. Coutinho, M. Fedele, E. Franco, A. Paul, Decays Bs → e µ , JHEP 03, 078 (2018), arXiv:1710.04111 L. Silvestrini, and M. Valli, On Flavourful Easter Eggs for [hep-ex]. 0 + − New Physics Hunger and Lepton Flavour Universality Viola- [49] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Measurement of the Bs → µ µ tion, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 688 (2017), arXiv:1704.05447 [hep-ph]. Branching Fraction and Effective Lifetime and Search for 0 + − [29] G. Hiller and I. Nisandzic, RK and RK∗ Beyond the Stan- B → µ µ Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 191801 (2017), dard Model, Phys. Rev. D96, 035003 (2017), arXiv:1704.05444 arXiv:1703.05747 [hep-ex]. 0 + − [hep-ph]. [50] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Search for the Decays Bs → τ τ [30] G. D’Amico, M. Nardecchia, P. Panci, F. Sannino, A. Strumia, and B0 → τ +τ −, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 251802 (2017), R. Torre, and A. Urbano, Flavour Anomalies After the RK∗ arXiv:1703.02508 [hep-ex]. Measurement, JHEP 09, 010 (2017), arXiv:1704.05438 [hep- [51] B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Search for Lepton Flavor Violating ph]. Decays τ ± → `±π0, `±η, `±η0, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 061803 [31] W. Altmannshofer, P. Stangl, and D. M. Straub, Interpreting (2007), arXiv:hep-ex/0610067 [hep-ex]. Hints for Lepton Flavor Universality Violation, Phys. Rev. D96, [52] Y. Miyazaki et al. (Belle), Search for Lepton Flavor Violating 055008 (2017), arXiv:1704.05435 [hep-ph]. τ − Decays into ell−η, `−η0 and `−π0, Phys. Lett. B648, 341– [32] B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin, S. Descotes-Genon, J. Matias, 350 (2007), arXiv:hep-ex/0703009 [HEP-EX]. and J. Virto, Patterns of New Physics in b → s`+`− Tran- [53] Y. Miyazaki et al. (Belle), Search for Lepton Flavor Violating − − 0 − 0 0 sitions in the Light of Recent Data, JHEP 01, 093 (2018), τ Decays into ` Ks and ` Ks Ks , Phys. Lett. B692, 4–9 arXiv:1704.05340 [hep-ph]. (2010), arXiv:1003.1183 [hep-ex]. [33] R. Alonso, B. Grinstein, and J. Martin Camalich, SU(2) × [54] W. H. Bertl et al. (SINDRUM II), A Search for to Elec- U(1) Gauge Invariance and the Shape of New Physics tron Conversion in Muonic Gold, Eur. Phys. J. C47, 337–346 in Rare B Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 241802 (2014), (2006). arXiv:1407.7044 [hep-ph]. [55] J. M. Arnold, B. Fornal, and M. B. Wise, Phenomenol- [34] D. I. Britton et al., Measurement of the π+ → e+ν Branching ogy of Scalar Leptoquarks, Phys. Rev. D88, 035009 (2013), Ratio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3000–3003 (1992). arXiv:1304.6119 [hep-ph]. [35] D. I. Britton et al., Measurement of the π+ → e+ν Branching [56] C. Bourrely, I. Caprini, and L. Lellouch, Model-Independent Ratio, Phys. Rev. D49, 28–39 (1994). Description of B → πlν Decays and a Determination of |Vub|, [36] G. Czapek et al., Branching Ratio for the Rare Pion Decay into Phys. Rev. D79, 013008 (2009), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D82, and Neutrino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 17–20 (1993). 099902 (2010)], arXiv:0807.2722 [hep-ph]. [37] D. Ambrose et al. (BNL E871), First Observation of the Rare [57] A. Crivellin, C. Greub, F. Saturnino, and D. Muller, Im- 0 + − Decay Mode KL → e e , Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4309–4312 portance of Loop Effects in Explaining the Accumulated Evi- (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9810007 [hep-ex]. dence for New Physics in B Decays with a Vector Leptoquark, [38] D. Ambrose et al. (BNL), New Limit on Muon and arXiv:1807.02068 [hep-ph]. 0 ± ∓ Lepton Number Violation from KL → µ e Decay, Phys. Rev. [58] J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and Lett. 81, 5734–5737 (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9811038 [hep-ex]. T. Stelzer, MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond, JHEP 06, 128 (2011), [39] D. Ambrose et al. (E871), Improved Branching Ratio Measure- arXiv:1106.0522 [hep-ph]. 0 + − ment for the Decay KL → µ µ , Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1389– [59] A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, and 1392 (2000). B. Fuks, FeynRules 2.0 - A Complete Toolbox for Tree-Level [40] R. Appel et al., Search for Lepton Flavor Violation in K+ Phenomenology, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2250–2300 Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2877–2880 (2000), arXiv:hep- (2014), arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph]. ex/0006003 [hep-ex]. [60] M. Benedikt, FCC Study Overview and Status, talk [41] A. Sher et al., An Improved Upper Limit on the Decay at the FCC Week 2016, Rome, April 11-15, 2016; K+ → π+µ+e−, Phys. Rev. D72, 012005 (2005), arXiv:hep- http://indico.cern.ch/event/438866/contributions/1085016/. ex/0502020 [hep-ex]. [61] D. Becirevic, S. Fajfer, N. Kosnik, and O. Sumensari, Lep- [42] F. Ambrosino et al. (KLOE), Precise Measurement of Γ(K → toquark Model to Explain the B-Physics Anomalies, RK and eν(γ))/Γ(K → µν(γ)) and Study of K → eνγ, Eur. Phys. J. RD, Phys. Rev. D94, 115021 (2016), arXiv:1608.08501 [hep- C64, 627–636 (2009), [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. 65, 703 (2010)], ph]. arXiv:0907.3594 [hep-ex]. [62] M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of Particle [43] B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Measurements of Branching Frac- Physics, Phys. Rev. D98, 030001 (2018). + − tions, Rate Asymmetries, and Angular Distributions in the Rare [63] G. Valencia, Long Distance Contribution to KL → ` ` , Decays B → K`+`− and B → K∗`+`−, Phys. Rev. D73, Nucl. Phys. B517, 339–352 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9711377 092001 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0604007 [hep-ex]. [hep-ph]. 15

[64] G. Isidori and R. Unterdorfer, On the Short Distance Con- Experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 434 (2016), arXiv:1605.05081 + − straints from KL,S → µ µ , JHEP 01, 009 (2004), arXiv:hep- [hep-ex]. ph/0311084 [hep-ph]. [69] B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Searches for Lepton Flavor Violation ± ± ± ± [65] V. Cirigliano and I. Rosell, π/K → eν¯e Branching Ratios to in the Decays τ → e γ and τ → µ γ, Phys. Rev. Lett. O(e2p4) in Chiral Perturbation Theory, JHEP 10, 005 (2007), 104, 021802 (2010), arXiv:0908.2381 [hep-ex]. arXiv:0707.4464 [hep-ph]. [70] R. Kitano, M. Koike, and Y. Okada, Detailed Calculation [66] S. Aoki, G. Cossu, X. Feng, H. Fukaya, S. Hashimoto, of Lepton Flavor Violating Muon Electron Conversion Rate T. Kaneko, J. Noaki, and T. Onogi (JLQCD), Chiral Be- for Various Nuclei, Phys. Rev. D66, 096002 (2002), [Erratum: havior of K → πlν Decay Form Factors in Lattice QCD Phys. Rev. D76, 059902 (2007)], arXiv:hep-ph/0203110 [hep- with Exact Chiral Symmetry, Phys. Rev. D96, 034501 (2017), ph]. arXiv:1705.00884 [hep-lat]. [71] V. Cirigliano, R. Kitano, Y. Okada, and P. Tuzon, On the Model [67] J. M. Flynn, T. Izubuchi, T. Kawanai, C. Lehner, A. Soni, R. S. Discriminating Power of µ → e Conversion in Nuclei, Phys. Van de Water, and O. Witzel, B → π`ν and Bs → K`ν Form Rev. D80, 013002 (2009), arXiv:0904.0957 [hep-ph]. − Factors and |Vub| from 2+1-Flavor Lattice QCD with Domain- [72] T. S. Kosmas, S. Kovalenko, and I. Schmidt, Nuclear µ − Wall Light Quarks and Relativistic Heavy Quarks, Phys. Rev. e− Conversion in Sea, Phys. Lett. B511, 203 D91, 074510 (2015), arXiv:1501.05373 [hep-lat]. (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0102101 [hep-ph]. [68] A. M. Baldini et al. (MEG), Search for the Lepton Flavour Vi- [73] T. Suzuki, D. F. Measday, and J. P. Roalsvig, Total Nu- olating Decay µ+ → e+γ with the Full Dataset of the MEG clear Capture Rates for Negative , Phys. Rev. C35, 2212 (1987).