Anomalies in global SMEFT analyses. A case study of first-row CKM unitarity
Rattachement africain : us, nl, de. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
A bstract Recent developments in the Standard Model analysis of semileptonic charged-current processes involving light quarks have revealed ~ 3 σ tensions in Cabibbo universality tests involving meson, neutron, and nuclear beta decays. In this paper, we explore beyond the Standard Model explanations of this so-called Cabibbo Angle Anomaly in the framework of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT), including not only low-energy charged current processes (‘L’), but also electroweak precision observables (‘EW’) and Drell-Yan collider processes (‘C’) that probe the same underlying physics across a broad range of energy scales. The resulting ‘CLEW’ framework not only allows one to test explanations of the Cabibbo Angle Anomaly, but is set up to provide near model-independent analyses with minimal assumptions on the flavor structure of the SMEFT operators. Besides the global analysis, we consider a large number of simpler scenarios, each with a subset of SMEFT operators, and investigate how much they improve upon the Standard Model fit. We find that the most favored scenarios, as judged by the Akaike Information Criterion, are those that involve right-handed charged currents. Additional interactions, namely oblique operators, terms modifying the Fermi constant, and operators involving right-handed neutral currents, play a role if the CDF determination of the W mass is included in the analysis.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Anomalies in global SMEFT analyses. A case study of first-row CKM unitarity
- Date Crossref
- 06/03/2024
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.