Abstract
We extend the contents of the standard model (SM) by introducing TeV-scale scalar leptoquarks to generate neutrino masses and explain some current observed deviations from the SM predictions, including the anomalous magnetic moments of charged leptons (electron and muon) and B-physics anomalies (\(R_{K^{(*)}}\) and \(R_{D^{(*)}}\)). The model consists of \(\text {SU}(2)_L\) singlet leptoquark \(S_1\sim ({\bar{3}}, 1, 1/3)\), doublet leptoquark \({\tilde{R}}_2\sim (3, 2, 1/6)\) and triplet leptoquark \(S_3\sim ({\bar{3}}, 3, 1/3)\). We combine the constraints arising from the low-energy lepton flavor violation, meson decay and mixing observables. We perform a detailed phenomenological analysis and identify the minimized texture of leptoquark Yukawa matrices to accommodate a unified explanation of the anomalies and neutrino oscillation data.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The neutrino oscillation experiments have firmly established that neutrinos are massive and have non-trivial mixing between different generations [1,2,3,4]. The experiments also indicate that the neutrino masses are much smaller than that of charged fermions, which suggests that neutrinos may have specific sources of mass generation. In the recent decades, a plethora of models have been proposed to explain the neutrino mass and the natural way is the so called seesaw mechanism [5]. Type-I seasaw model [6,7,8,9,10] provides neutrino masses at the tree-level by extending the particle content of the SM with three \(\text {SU}(2)_L\)-singlet right-handed neutrino fields, while type-II [10,11,12] and type-III [13] models introduce \(\text {SU}(2)_L\)-triplet scalar and \(\text {SU}(2)_L\)-triplet fermions, respectively. Beyond tree level, the tiny neutrino masses could radiatively originate from loop levels [14,15,16,17,18].
Extending the SM to include the source of the origin of neutrino mass and mixing brings new physics, especially to the flavor sector. The intensity frontier precision measurements may pin down the possible connections between neutrino physics and flavor physics. Such as the anomalous magnetic moments of electron and muon, there are long-standing discrepancies between the theoretical predictions and measured values [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. The anomalies also include the ratios \(R_{K^{(*)}}\) and \(R_{D^{(*)}}\) in B-decays, pointing towards the lepton flavor universality violation, measured by BaBar [42, 43], Belle [44,45,46] and LHCb [47,48,49,50,51] collaborations. In this work, we propose a model with scalar leptoquarks to provide a common explanation of neutrino mass and these flavor anomalies.
Leptoquarks (LQs) have been introduced in many new physics models beyond the SM and are very popular to explain B-physics anomalies with one or more leptoquark states [52,53,54]. The unified solution to both \(R_{K^{(*)}}\) and \(R_{D^{(*)}}\) anomalies seems rule out single scalar leptoquark models [55]. Among the scalar leptoquarks, triplet \(S_3\sim ({\bar{3}}, 3, 1/3)\) can accommodate the \(R_{K^{(*)}}\) anomalies, while the \(R_{D^{(*)}}\) anomalies can be resolved by introducing either a singlet \(S_1\sim ({\bar{3}}, 1, 1/3)\) or a doublet \(R_2\sim (3, 2, 7/6)\) leptoquark. The double leptoquarks models were proposed to explain both \(R_{K^{(*)}}\) and \(R_{D^{(*)}}\) anomalies, involving \(S_1\) and \(S_3\) combination [56,57,58,59,60,61] or \(R_2\) and \(S_3\) combination [62,63,64]. Extending with leptoquarks will give contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of charged lepton at one-loop level and the no-chiral scalar leptoquarks \(S_1\) or \(R_2\), which have both left-chiral and right-chiral couplings, can provide good explanations to the \(a_{\mu }\) and \(a_{e}\) deviations [65, 66] simultaneously. The mixing between different type leptoquarks can also generate non-trivial Majorana neutrino mass terms at one-loop level. The minimal model to generate neutrino mass by the scalar leptoquark mixing requires a pair of leptoquarks and the possible combinations are \(S_1-{\tilde{R}}_2 (3, 2, 1/6)\), \(S_3-{\tilde{R}}_2\) and \(S_3 - R_2\) [67,68,69,70,71]. Motivated by the leptoquark abundant phenomenologies, we attempt to extend the SM contents by scalar leptoquarks to generate neutrino mass and explain the flavor anomalies mentioned above.
This paper is organized as follow: In Sect. 2, we briefly introduce the model set-up and the neutrino mass generation mechanism. In Sect. 3, we show how to explain the flavor anomalies in the model, including \(R_{K^{(*)}}\), \(R_{D^{(*)}}\), \(a_{\mu }\) and \(a_{e}\). We discuss the observables constraints on the leptoquark couplings in Sect. 4 and then we perform a detailed analysis of model parameter space and identify two benchmark points in Sect. 5 and we conclude in the final section.
2 The model and neutrino mass generation
2.1 The model
In addition to the SM fields, we introduce three scalar leptoquarks, including an \(\text {SU}(2)_L\) singlet \(S_1\sim ({\bar{3}}, 1, 1/3)\), a doublet \({\tilde{R}}_2\sim (3, 2, 1/6)\) and a triplet \(S_3\sim ({\bar{3}}, 3, 1/3)\). The scalar leptoquarks are denoted as
where \(\tau ^i\) (\(i=1, 2, 3\)) are the Pauli matrices and we define \(S_3^{4/3}=(S_3^1-\text {i} S_3^2)/\sqrt{2}\), \(S_3^{-2/3}=(S_3^1+\text {i} S_3^2)/\sqrt{2}\) and \(S_3^{1/3}=S_3^3\). The corresponding Yukawa terms that describe the interactions between leptoquarks and fermions are given by
where Q and L denote the \(\text {SU}(2)_L\) doublet left-handed quarks and leptons, \(u_R\), \(d_R\) and \(e_R\) denote the \(\text {SU}(2)_L\) singlet right-handed up-type quarks, down-type quarks and charged leptons, respectively. All fields in Eq. (2) are represented in the flavor basis. For phenomenological analysis, it is more convenient that we re-parametrize the couplings in the fermion mass basis. The Yukawa coupling terms are then rewritten in the mass basis of fermions as the following form,
where V is the CKM matrix. Since in our analysis of \((g-2)_{e,\mu }\) and B-physics anomalies, the choice of neutrino mass or flavor basis has negligible effect, the neutrino states in the above equation are kept in flavor basis.
The renormalizable and gauge invariant scalar potential involving H, \(S_1\), \({\tilde{R}}_2\) and \(S_3\) is described by
where H is the SM Higgs doublet. More general interactions of leptoquarks and SM Higgs can be found in Ref. [72]. After the spontaneous electroweak symmetry breaking, the Higgs field H acquires a vacuum expecting value (VEV) with \(\langle H \rangle =v/\sqrt{2}, v=246\,\text {GeV}\). The physical scalar particles include one electric neutral Higgs boson h, three 1/3-charged leptoquarks, two 2/3-charged leptoquarks, and one 4/3-charged leptoquark. In the basis of \(\rho ^{1/3}\equiv (S_1^{1/3}, {\tilde{R}}_{2}^{1/3}, S_3^{1/3})^{T}\) and \(\rho ^{2/3}\equiv ({\tilde{R}}_{2}^{2/3}, S_3^{2/3})^{T}\), the mass matrices for the two groups of charged scalar particles are given by
After diagonalization of the above mass matrices, we obtain the physical scalar fields: charge-1/3 leptoquarks \((\phi _1, \phi _2, \phi _3)\) and charge-2/3 leptoquarks \((\omega _1, \omega _2)\), which satisfy
where \(R^{1/3}\) and \(R^{2/3}\) are the corresponding rotation matrices. The rotation matrix \(R^{2/3}\) can be parametrized as
where the mixing angle is given by
The rotation matrix \(R^{1/3}\) need three rotation angles to be parametrized,
In the limit where off-diagonal elements are much smaller than the diagonal elements, the mixing angle in the rotation matrix \(R^{1/3}\) can be approximatively calculated by
The charge-4/3 component \(S_3^{4/3}\) has no mixing with other scalar fields and we denote the mass by \(m_{S_3}\). In our analysis of the low energy processes, we assume the leptoquark multiplets to be quasi-degenerate and set the LQ masses as \(m_{S_1} = m_{\phi _1}\), \(m_{R_2} = m_{\phi _2}\approx m_{\omega _1}\) and \(m_{S_3} = m_{\phi _3}\approx m_{\omega _2}\).
2.2 Neutrino masses
In our model, the neutrino masses are induced at one-loop level through the Feynman diagrams as shown in Fig. 1, in which the loop is mediated by the down-type quarks and 1/3-charged leptoquarks. The neutrino mass matrix is given by [67]
where \(B_0(0,m_k^2,m_{\phi _i}^2)\) is the Passarino–Veltman function and its finite part is given by
The first term in the bracket of Eq. (13) is associated with the \(S_1-{\tilde{R}}_2\) combination, while the second term is associated with the \(S_3-{\tilde{R}}_2\) combination. To simplify the analysis, we consider one term dominates the other. For example, when \(S_1-{\tilde{R}}_2\) contribution is dominant (\(\mu _1 \gg \mu _2, \lambda _{13}v\)), the neutrino mass matrix can be written as
where we define \({\hat{y}}_{1L} \equiv (V^Ty_{1L})\) and
Using the method of master parametrization [73, 74], we parametrize the coupling matrices \({\hat{y}}_{1L}\) and \(y_{2L}\) as
where U is the \(3 \times 3\) unitary neutrino mixing matrix, which brings the neutrino mass matrix to diagonal form by
The forms of matrix \(\Sigma , W, A, B\) and \({\hat{D}}\) depend on the ranks of neutrino mass matrix \({\mathcal {M}}_{\nu }\) and matrix \(\Lambda \). Neutrino oscillation data requires that \({{\mathcal {M}}}_{\nu }\) should contain two or three non-vanishing eigenvalues. In our numerical analysis of neutrino masses, for simplicity, we neglect the \(d-\)quark contribution in neutrino mass loop \((\Lambda _d=0)\) and consider the normal ordering neutrino mass hierarchy with \(m_1=0\). In this scenario, the ranks of matrices \({\mathcal {M}}_{\nu }\) and \(\Lambda \) are both 2 and the neutrino mass matrix \({\mathcal {M}}_{\nu }\) only depends on the second and third columns of couplings \({\hat{y}}_{1L}\) and \(y_{2L}\). In this case, \(\Sigma \) takes form as \(\text {diag}(\Lambda _{s}, \Lambda _{b})\) and \({\hat{D}}\) takes the form as \(\text {diag}(\kappa , m_{2}, m_{3})\), where \(\kappa \) can be arbitrary value, since it can always be absorbed by rescaling relevant elements in matrices A and B. Equations (17) and (18) give the elements of second and third columns of couplings \({\hat{y}}_{1L}\) and \(y_{2L}\). The matrix W is a \(2 \times 2\) unitary complex matrix that contains 4 real degrees of freedom. The matrices A and B are defined as \(A=TC_1\) and \(B=(T^T)^{-1}(C_1C_2+KC_2)\), where T is an upper-triangular \(2\times 2\) complex matrix with positive real values in the diagonal and contains 4 degrees of freedom, K is a \(2\times 2\) anti-symmetric complex matrix that contains 2 degrees of freedom. The matrices \(C_1\) and \(C_2\) are given by
where \(z_1\) and \(z_2\) are two complex numbers that contains 2 degrees of freedom with the condition \(z_1^2+z_2^2=0\). The possible values of the second and third columns of matrices \({\hat{y}}_{1L}\) and \(y_{2L}\) can be obtained by scanning these 12 real free parameters.
2.3 Effective Lagrangians
The tree-level contributions of leptoquarks to the related phenomenologies can be described by the following effective Lagrangians,
The Wilson coefficients at the leptoquark mass scale are determined by the combinations of Yukawa couplings and summarized in Table 1. To analyze the low-energy processes, these Wilson coefficients are needed to RGE run down to the appropriate scale. We take the low-energy scale at the bottom-quark mass (\(m_{b}=4.18~\text {GeV}\)) and the Wilson coefficients at the leading logarithm approximation can be calculated by the following form [75,76,77,78],
with the QCD running coefficient \(\beta ^{(n_f)}_1=(2n_f-33)/6\), where \(n_f\) is the relevant number of quark flavors at the hadronic scale. The coefficients \(\gamma _1^J\) are the anomalous dimension and given by \(\gamma _1^V=0\), \(\gamma _1^S=2\) and \(\gamma _1^T=-2/3\). In our numerical analysis, we use the package Wilson [79] to calculate the running of Wilson coefficients and obtain the following Wilson coefficient correlations between the two scales,
where we have taken the leptoquark masses scale as \(m_{\text {LQ}}=1~\text {TeV}\). In the following discussion of the various physical processes, we utilize the Flavio package [80] to get the favored region of Wilson coefficients at the leptoquark mass scale.
3 The flavor anomalies
In this section, we present the observed flavor anomalies between current experimental observations and the SM predictions, and explore how to alleviate these tensions by introducing scalar leptoquarks in our framework.
3.1 \(R_K\) and \(R_{K^*}\)
The first observed anomalies we consider are the lepton flavor universality violation ratios \(R_K\) and \(R_{K^*}\), which are defined as
The SM predictions [81, 82] for these two ratios are
The new measurements of \(R_K\) and \(R_{K^*}\) at low \(q^2\) region \([1.1,\, 6.0]\ \mathrm {GeV^2}\) by LHCb are given by [49, 51]
which both give deviation larger than \(2.5\, \sigma \) from the SM prediction values. These two processes are determined by the neutral current, \(b \rightarrow s \ell ^+ \ell ^{-}\). The effective Hamiltonian relevant to our model can be described by [83],
where the \(C_{X}^{\ell \ell }\) and \(C_{X^{\prime }}^{\ell \ell }\) denote the Wilson coefficients and \({\mathcal {O}}_X^{\ell \ell }\) and \({\mathcal {O}}_{X^{\prime }}^{\ell \ell }\) are the corresponding effective operators, which take form as
According to the definition of \(R_K\) and \(R_{K^*}\), the anomalies of \(R_{K^{(*)}}\) indicate new physics contribution to \(C_{9^{(\prime )}}^{ee}\), \(C_{10^{(\prime )}}^{ee}\), \(C_{9^{(\prime )}}^{\mu \mu }\) and \(C_{10^{(\prime )}}^{\mu \mu }\). The solution of \(R_{K^*}\) is favored by new physics coupling to muon instead of electron, with the consideration from other observables fit [84,85,86]. Therefore, we set the new physics contribution related to electron is negligible (i.e., \(C_9^{ee}=C_{10}^{ee}\sim 0\)), and the new physics contributions to \(R_K\) and \(R_{K^*}\) come from the \(C_9^{\mu \mu }\) and \(C_{10}^{\mu \mu }\) in our framework. We show the fit to \(R_{K^{(*)}}\) using \(C_{9^{(\prime )}, 10^{(\prime )}}\) at the scale \(\mu = 1\ \text {TeV}\) in Fig. 2. The upper left panel gives favored regions for \(C_9^{\mu \mu }\) versus \(C_{10}^{\mu \mu }\) as real parameters. We also consider the recent measurements for the ratio \(R_{K^0_S}\) and \(R_{K^{*+}}\) [87]. Note that we combine the constraint from \(B_s \rightarrow \mu \mu \) in the fit. The branching ratio of \(B_s \rightarrow \mu \mu \) is measured to be \(\text {Br}(B_s \rightarrow \mu \mu )^{\text {exp}}=(2.93 \pm 0.35)\times 10^{-9}\) [88], which is the combined result based on measurements from ATLAS, CMS and LHCb [89,90,91,92], while the SM prediction value is \(\text {Br}(B_s \rightarrow \mu \mu )^{\text {SM}}=(3.63\pm 0.13)\times 10^{-9}\) [93]. Taking the relation \(C_9^{\mu \mu } =-C_{10}^{\mu \mu }\) given by our model, the best fit point of \(R_{K^{(*)}}\) is found at \(C_9^{\mu \mu } =-C_{10}^{\mu \mu }=-0.39\), while the best fit point for \(R_{K^0_S}\) and \(R_{K^{*+}}\) is found at \(C_9^{\mu \mu } =-C_{10}^{\mu \mu }=-0.74\). Combining these four experimental ratios and the branching ratio of \(B_s \rightarrow \mu \mu \), the best fit point of \(C_9^{\mu \mu } =-C_{10}^{\mu \mu }\) is \(-0.45\). The upper right panel shows the favored region for the complex case with the assumption \(C_9^{\mu \mu } =-C_{10}^{\mu \mu }\). The bottom panels present the fit to \(R_{K}\) and \(R_{K^{*}}\) using \(C_{9^{\prime }, 10^{\prime }}^{\mu \mu }\) and we find no common solution. Our results are comparable with the global analysis performed in Ref. [94], where some related differential branching ratios and angular observables are included. Relevant analyses are also found in Refs. [95,96,97].
Leptoquark \(S_1\) doesn’t contribute to \(b \rightarrow s \ell ^+ \ell ^{-}\) at tree-level but provides contribution by box-diagrams. However, \(R_K\) and \(R_{K^*}\) anomalies cannot be fully accommodated with leptoquark \(S_1\) only [55, 98]. In our model, we expect that the contributions to solve \(R_K\) and \(R_{K^*}\) anomalies come dominantly from leptoquark \(S_3\). The corresponding Wilson coefficients are given by
Leptoquark \({\tilde{R}}_2\) can also generate contribution to the process \(b \rightarrow s \ell ^+ \ell ^{-}\) at tree-level by \(C_{9^{\prime }}\) and \(C_{10^{\prime }}\) terms. The corresponding Wilson coefficients of \({\tilde{R}}_2\) contribution are given by
It is noted that the parameter space to explain \(R_K\) is incompatible with \(R_{K^*}\) if one only use \(C_{9^{\prime }}\) and \(C_{10^{\prime }}\), as shown in the bottom panel of Fig. 2.
3.2 \(R_D\) and \(R_{D^*}\)
The next lepton flavor universality violation observables we consider are \(R_D\) and \(R_{D^*}\), which are induced by charged current transitions \(b\rightarrow c \ell {\bar{\nu }}_{\ell }\) and defined as
where \(\ell \) denotes electron e or muon \(\mu \). The predicted values of these two observed quantities in the SM are [99,100,101,102]
These two observables have been measured independently by several collaborations, including Babar [42, 43], Belle [44, 45] and LHCb [48, 103, 104]. The average values by combining these measurements are given by [105]
which exceed the SM predictions by \(1.4\sigma \) and \(2.5\sigma \) respectively. To confront the leptoquarks contributions with the above experimental data, we consider the following effective Hamiltonian,
In the Fig. 3, we show the fit of \(g_{S_L}, g_T\) and \(g_{V_L}\) favored region to explain \(R_D\) and \(R_{D^*}\) anomalies at the scale of 1 TeV. The upper left panel presents the fit using real parameters \(g_{S_{L}}\) and \(g_{T}\). With the relation of \(g_{S_L}=-4g_{T}\), which is in our model, the best fit point is \(g_{S_L}=-4g_T = 0.12\) and the allowed \(1\,\sigma \) range is \(g_{S_L}=-4g_T \in [0.08, 0.16]\). If we solely consider the Wilson coefficient \(g_{V_L}\), the best fit point is \(g_{V_L} = 0.08(-2.07)\) and the allowed \(1\, \sigma \) range is \(g_{V_L} \in [0.07, 0.10] \cup [-2.10, -2.05]\). We show the \(\chi ^{2}\) values to fit both \(R_{D}\) and \(R_{D^{*}}\) in the upper right panel. We also present the fit result when the coefficients are taken as complex numbers. Comprehensive analyses including the ratio \(R_{J/\psi }\), the longitudinal polarization of the \(P_{\tau }(D^*)\) and \(F_{L}^{D^*}\) can be found in Refs. [106,107,108]. The best fit values in this work agree with theirs in the \(1\,\sigma \) allowed range.
In the model, both \(S_1\) and \(S_3\) give contributions to \(b \rightarrow c \tau {\bar{\nu }}\) at tree-level, while \({\tilde{R}}_2\) does not. After Fierz transformation to relevant effective Lagrangian, \(g_{S_L}\) and \(g_T\) have relation \(g_{S_L}= -4g_T\). The corresponding Wilson coefficient of \(S_1\) contributions are given by
The contribution from leptoquark \(S_3\) gives
However the contributions of \(g_{V_L}^\ell \) from both leptoquarks \(S_1\) and \(S_3\) can not explain the anomalies of \(R_{D^{(*)}}\) since its favored parameters space is incompatible with B meson decay process \(B \rightarrow K \nu {\bar{\nu }}\). To explain the anomalies of \(R_{D^{(*)}}\), it is required that \(y_{1L,3L}^{33}y_{1L,3L}^{23}\sim 0.1\), but the products of couplings are strongly constrained by the process \(B \rightarrow K \nu {\bar{\nu }}\) with \(|y_{1L,3L}^{33}y_{1L,3L}^{23}| \lesssim 0.03\). Therefore we focus on the Wilson coefficients \(g_{S_L}^\ell \) and \(g_T^\ell \) contribution from the Leptoquark \(S_1\) to explain the anomalies of \(R_{D^{(*)}}\).
3.3 The anomalous magnetic moments of charged leptons
The last observable anomalies we consider are the anomalous magnetic moments of charged leptons, including electron and muon, which both exist long-standing discrepancy between the SM predictions and experimental measurements. The recent combined result of Fermilab [41] and BNL [109] increases the tension of muon \((g-2)\), which gives a \(4.2\, \sigma \) level deviation from the SM prediction. The precise discrepancy between the SM predictions and experimental values reads [19, 41]
We start to discuss the contributions to \((g-2)_{\ell }\) from general scalar Leptoquark interactions, which is described by [68, 110]
Here \(q^i\) denotes quark, \(\ell \) denotes charged leptons, S stands for leptoquarks and F is the fermion number. The contributions to \(\Delta a_{\ell }\equiv (g-2)_{\ell }/2\) from \(F=0\) terms are illustrated in Fig. 4 and given by
where
and the loop functions are calculated by following formulas,
where \(x=m_q^2/m_S^2\) and \(Q_{S}\) is the charge of leptoquark S. The \(|F|=2\) scalar leptoquarks contribution can be obtained by changing the couplings \(y\rightarrow y^{\prime }\) in Eq. (44). It is noted that the no-chiral scalar leptoquarks which have both left-handed and right-handed couplings to quarks can give a chiral-enhanced contributions to \(\Delta a_{\ell }\) by the quark masses. This is revealed by Eq. (44), in which the first term is proportional to the lepton mass, while the second term is proportional to the internal quark mass. Besides, it is worthy to notice that only the second term in Eq. (44) can provide different sign contribution, since the deviation \(\Delta a_{e}\) and \(\Delta a_{\mu }\) have opposite sign. Thereby among all the scalar leptoquarks, only singlet \(S_1\) or doublet \(R_2\) could provide solution to explain \(\Delta a_e\) and \(\Delta a_{\mu }\) simultaneously. However, the constraint from the branching ratio of \(\mu \rightarrow e \gamma \) excludes the one internal quark, such as the top quark, dominating solution [111]. In our model, we choose the scenario that the contributions to \(\Delta a_{e}\) and \(\Delta a_{\mu }\) come from different quarks. The new contribution is mainly coming from the leptoquark \(S_1\) mediated loop and the contribution to \(\Delta a_\ell \) is given by
4 Low energy constraints
In the previous section, we have discussed the solution to the B-physics anomalies, \(R_{K^{(*)}}\) and \(R_{D^{(*)}}\), and the anomalous charged lepton magnetic moments, \(\Delta a_e\) and \(\Delta a_{\mu }\). The model also gives rise to various flavor violating processes and rare meson decays, which are severely constrained by current experiments. In this section, we summarize the most stringent low-energy processes and give the relevant constraints to the leptoquark couplings in the model.
4.1 \(\ell \rightarrow \ell ^{\prime } \gamma \) processes
The lepton flavor violation \(\ell \rightarrow \ell ^{\prime } \gamma \) processes, such as \(\mu \rightarrow e \gamma \), \(\tau \rightarrow e \gamma \) and \(\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma \), can be induced via the one-loop diagrams shown in Fig. 4. The non-chiral leptoquark \(S_1\) contribution to \(\ell \rightarrow \ell ^{\prime } \gamma \) processes is enhanced by the quark mass. On the contrary, the chiral leptoquarks \({\tilde{R}}_2\) and \(S_3\) induce \(\ell \rightarrow \ell ^{\prime } \gamma \) processes without chiral enhancement. The current experimental limits on the lepton flavor violation \(\ell \rightarrow \ell ^{\prime } \gamma \) processes are summarized as following [112, 113],
The branching ratio of the process \(\ell \rightarrow \ell ^{\prime } \gamma \) mediated by the leptoquarks can be calculated by the following formula,
where \(\Gamma (\ell )\) is the total decay width of the lepton \(\ell \) and the form factors \(\sigma _L^{\ell \ell ^{\prime }}\) and \(\sigma _R^{\ell \ell ^{\prime }}\) originating from \(S_1\), \({\tilde{R}}_2\) and \(S_3\) contribution are calculated as
where the loop functions \(f_{S,F}(x)\) and \(g_{S,F}(x)\) are defined in Eqs. (46). The terms above proportional to \(m_q\) arising from the non-chiral leptoquark \(S_1\) give an enhancement and the corresponding couplings are more severely limited. Whereas the chiral leptoquarks \({\tilde{R}}_2\) and \(S_3\) only consist of the terms proportional to \(m_{\ell ^{(\prime )}}\) and get weaker limits. To get the constraints on the couplings, we assume that only the relevant term dominates the contribution. The relevant constraints on the leptoquark Yukawa couplings are summarized in Table 2.
4.2 \(\mu - e\) conversion in nuclei
Besides the charged lepton flavor violating radiative decay processes, \(\mu - e\) conversion in nuclei is also a rare process providing stringent constraints on the strength of leptoquark interactions. The current experimental search on \(\mu - e\) conversion using gold nucleus provides the most stringent upper limits and the upper bound to the branching ratio is set by the SINDRUM experiment as [114]
where the \(\Gamma _{\text {capture}}=8.6 \times 10^{-18}\) GeV denotes the muon capture rate by gold nucleus [115]. The \(\mu - e\) conversion rate in nuclei can be calculated by following formula [116, 117]
The overlap integral values of gold nucleus are \(S^{(p)}=0.0523\), \(S^{(n)}=0.0610\), \(V^{(p)}=0.0859\), \(V^{(n)}=0.108\) [116]. With the effective Lagrangian given in Eq. (21), the coupling constants \({\tilde{g}}\) are defined as
where the coefficients of scalar operators are \(G_S^{u,p}=G_S^{d,n}=5.1\), \(G_S^{d,p}=G_S^{u,n}=4.3\) and \(G_S^{s,p}=G_S^{s,n}=2.5\) [118]. The bounds on the leptoquark couplings from \(\text {Br}(\mu -e)_{\text {Au}}\) are summarized in Table 2.
4.3 Rare meson leptonic decays
Introducing leptoquarks could induce meson rare decay processes. In this subsection, we consider the relevant \(B_s\) meson rare leptonic decays that include leptonic conserving decays, \(B_{s} \rightarrow \mu ^+ \mu ^-/\tau ^+ \tau ^-\), and leptonic flavor violation decay \(B_{s} \rightarrow \mu ^\pm \tau ^\mp \). The corresponding 4-fermion operators \({\mathcal {O}}_{9^{(\prime )}}, {\mathcal {O}}_{10^{(\prime )}}\) are given in the Eq. (30). The recent experimental measurements of these processes are given by [88, 119, 120]
Among these processes, only the \(B_s \rightarrow \mu ^+ \mu ^-\) has been observed by the current experiments and the branching ratio agrees with SM prediction value at a level of \(4\sigma \), \(\text {Br}(B_s \rightarrow \mu \mu )^{\text {SM}}=(3.63\pm 0.13)\times 10^{-9}\) [93], while the current experiments only give upper bounds for the other two processes. The contribution to the decay width of a neutral meson to two charged leptons \(P \rightarrow \ell ^+ \ell ^{\prime -}\) can be written as [121]
where \(f_P\) is the meson decay constant, \(\lambda _{1,2}=m_P^2-(m_{\ell } \pm m_{\ell ^{\prime }})^2\) and \(m_q, m_{q^{\prime }}\) are the masses of the valence quarks in the pseudoscalar meson P. It is noted that the lepton flavor conserving decay process \(P \rightarrow \ell ^+ \ell ^-\) is independent of Wilson coefficients \(C_{9^{(\prime )}}\).
4.4 Rare meson semi-leptonic decays
The meson rare semi-leptonic decays can be induced at the tree-level by the leptoquarks and present constraints on the corresponding parameters. Here we consider \(B \rightarrow K \nu {\bar{\nu }}\) and \(B \rightarrow K^* \nu {\bar{\nu }}\) processes, related to the \(({{\bar{q}}}q{\bar{\nu }}\nu )\) interactions. The corresponding SM predictions are \(\text {Br}(B^0 \rightarrow K^0 \nu \nu )=(4.1\pm 0.5) \times 10^{-6}\) and \(\text {Br}(B^0 \rightarrow K^{*0} \nu \nu )=(9.2\pm 1.0) \times 10^{-6}\) [122, 123], while the current experimental upper limit bounds are given as \(2.6\times 10^{-5}\) and \(1.8 \times 10^{-5}\) by the Belle collaboration [124] respectively. To describe the constraints on new physics from the \(B \rightarrow K \nu {\bar{\nu }}\) and \(B \rightarrow K^* \nu {\bar{\nu }}\) processes, the ratio \(R_{K^{(*)}}^{\nu \nu }\) is introduced and defined as
The latest Belle results [124] imply \(R_{K}^{\nu \nu } < 3.9\) and \(R_{K^{*}}^{\nu \nu }<2.7\,\). As shown in Table 1, the contributions to \(B \rightarrow K^{(*)} \nu {\bar{\nu }}\) from leptoquarks \(S_1\) and \(S_3\) are represented by the Wilson coefficients \(h_{V,d}^{LL}\), while by the Wilson coefficient \(h_{V,d}^{RL}\) for the case of leptoquark \({\tilde{R}}_2\). If the new physics contribution is dominated by the \(h_{V,d}^{LL}\) term, the ratios \(R_{K}\) and \(R_{K^{*}}\) can be calculated by the following formula [122],
where \(C_{L}^{\text {SM}}\) describes the SM contribution and the value is \(C_{L}^{\text {SM}}=-6.35\). Note that since the experiments cannot detect the neutrinos in the final state, we need sum over all the flavor. On the other hand, if the new physics contribution is only originated from the \(h_{V,d}^{RL}\) term, one has \(R_{K}^{\nu \nu } \ne R_{K^{*}}^{\nu \nu }\) and the ratios are then presented by
4.5 Neutral meson mixing
Leptoquarks can induce neutral meson mixing via box diagrams mediated by leptons and leptoquarks. In this subsection we study the constraints from the \(B_s^0-\overline{B_s^0}\) and \(K^0-\overline{K^0}\) mixing. The related effective Hamiltonian can be described by [125]
where \(i,j=3,2\) corresponding to \(B_s^0-\overline{B_s^0}\) mixing and \(i,j=2,1\) related to \(K^0-\overline{K^0}\) mixing. Mapping the contribution of leptoquarks \(S_1, {\tilde{R}}_2\) and \(S_3\), we have the Wilson coefficients at the scale \(\mu =m_{\text {LQ}}\) in the following form,
The transition of the Wilson coefficients from \(\mu =1\,\text {TeV}\) to \(\mu =m_b\) scale are evaluated by the Wilson package [79] and the results are given by
The current measurements of the mass differences in \(B_s^0-\overline{B_s^0}\) and \(K^0-\overline{K^0}\) mixing are [126],
For the mass difference \(\Delta m_{B_s}^{\text {exp}}\), the SM prediction value is \(\Delta m_{B_s}^{\text {SM}} = (18.3 \pm 2.7) \times 10^{12}\, \text {s}^{-1}\) [127,128,129]. But the SM prediction for the mass difference in \(K^0-\overline{K^0}\) mixing has not been precisely estimated [130, 131]. Thereby in our analysis, we take the new physics contribution to \(K^0-\overline{K^0}\) mixing to be compatible with the experimental value. The bounds on the leptoquarks couplings from neutral meson mixing and rare decay processes are summarized in Table 3.
5 Numerical analysis
In this section, we perform a numerical analysis of the model parameter space to supply a common explanation of B-physics anomalies in \(R_{K^{(*)}}\), \(R_{D^{(*)}}\) and the charged leptons anomalous magnetic moment \((g-2)_{e,\mu }\), as well as the neutrino oscillation data. Instead of exploring the entire parameter space, we find the minimal parameters of the model and combine the constraints from the low-energy processes given in the Sect. 4. We fix the components of singlet leptoquark \(S_1\) and triplet leptoquark \(S_3\) mass at 1 TeV (\(m_{S_1}=m_{S_3}=1~\text {TeV}\)) and fix the components of doublet leptoquark \({\tilde{R}}_2\) mass at 2 \(\text {TeV}\) \((m_{R_2}=2~\text {TeV}).\) We use the python package Flavio to obtain the appropriate values of Wilson coefficients that explain the anomalies at the scale of leptoquark masses (\(\mu =1~\text {TeV}\)) and then analyze the model parameter space.
In order to minimize the number of parameters, we adopt the following form of the Yukawa coupling matrices in the analysis.
The coupling combination \((y_{3L}^{22},\ y_{3L}^{32})\) can explain the anomalies of \(R_K\) and \(R_{K^*}\), while the couplings \((y_{2R}^{33},\ y_{2L}^{23})\) can contribute to \(R_D\) and \(R_{D^*}\). The couplings \((y_{1R}^{21},\ y_{1L}^{21})\) and \((y_{1R}^{32},\ y_{1L}^{32})\) give contributions to \(\Delta a_e\) and \(\Delta a_{\mu }\) respectively. The other non-zero couplings are needed to fit the neutrino masses and mixing angles. For a simple illustration, in Fig. 5, we present the allowed parameter space to explain these anomalies and satisfy the relevant processes constraints with taking the coupling as real. Specifically, we provide two concrete benchmark points of the leptoquarks Yukawa couplings. In benchmark point 1, the couplings are chosen as complex number. While for benchmark point 2, we choose the Dirac CP angle in the neutrino mixing matrix as \(180^{\circ }\), which is within \(1\, \sigma \) allowed range [126] and it is possible to take all the leptoquark Yukawa coupling values as real. The corresponding values of observables for these two benchmark points are summarized in Table 4.
Benchmark point 1:
Benchmark point 2:
6 Conclusion
In this paper, we have proposed a simple model by extending SM with three TeV-scale scalar leptoquarks \(S_1\), \({\tilde{R}}_2\) and \(S_3\), where the source of tiny neutrino masses, the lepton flavor anomalies in B-meson decays \((R_{K^{(*)}}\), \(R_{D^{(*)}})\) and the tension in the charged lepton (electron and muon) anomalous magnetic moments have a common solution. In the model, \(R_{K^{(*)}}\) anomalies are resolved by the leptoquark \(S_3\) via the Wilson coefficients \(C_{9, 10}^{\mu \mu }\). Leptoquark \(S_1\) explains the anomalies of \(R_{D^{(*)}}\) through the Wilson coefficients \(g_{S_L}, g_{T}\), as well as the deviations of leptonic magnetic moments \((g-2)_{e,\mu }\) by one-loop level contribution. The small mixing of leptoquarks \(S_1\) with \({\tilde{R}}_2\) or \({\tilde{R}}_2\) with \(S_3\) can generate tiny neutrino masses. We analyze the parameter space of the leptoquark Yukawa couplings and obtain the corresponding viable region. We study the relevant experimental constraints and conclude there is an appropriate parameter space accommodate to combined explanation for these anomalies and deviations.
Data Availability
This manuscript has no associated data or the data will not be deposited. [Authors’ comment: All data generated during this study are already contained in this published paper.]
References
Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos. Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1562 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.1562. arXiv:hep-ex/9807003
SNO Collaboration, Direct evidence for neutrino flavor transformation from neutral current interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory. Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 011301 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.011301. arXiv:nucl-ex/0204008
KamLAND Collaboration, First results from KamLAND: evidence for reactor anti-neutrino disappearance. Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 021802 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.021802. arXiv:hep-ex/0212021
T2K Collaboration, Indication of electron neutrino appearance from an accelerator-produced off-axis muon neutrino beam. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 041801 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.041801. arxiv:1106.2822
E. Ma, Pathways to naturally small neutrino masses. Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1171 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.1171. arXiv:hep-ph/9805219
P. Minkowski, \(\mu \rightarrow e\gamma \) at a rate of one out of \(10^{9}\) muon decays? Phys. Lett. B 67, 421 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(77)90435-X
R.N. Mohapatra, G. Senjanovic, Neutrino mass and spontaneous parity nonconservation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 912 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.44.912
M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, R. Slansky, Complex spinors and unified theories. Conf. Proc. C 790927, 315 (1979). arXiv:1306.4669
S.L. Glashow, The future of elementary particle physics. NATO Sci. Ser. B 61, 687 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-7197-7_15
J. Schechter, J.W.F. Valle, Neutrino masses in SU(2) x U(1) theories. Phys. Rev. D 22, 2227 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.22.2227
R.N. Mohapatra, G. Senjanovic, Neutrino masses and mixings in gauge models with spontaneous parity violation. Phys. Rev. D 23, 165 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.23.165
G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi, C. Wetterich, Proton lifetime and fermion masses in an SO(10) model. Nucl. Phys. B 181, 287 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(81)90354-0
R. Foot, H. Lew, X.G. He, G.C. Joshi, Seesaw neutrino masses induced by a triplet of leptons. Z. Phys. C 44, 441 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01415558
A. Zee, A theory of lepton number violation, neutrino Majorana mass, and oscillation. Phys. Lett. B 93, 389 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(80)90349-4
T.P. Cheng, L.-F. Li, Neutrino masses, mixings and oscillations in SU(2) x U(1) models of electroweak interactions. Phys. Rev. D 22, 2860 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.22.2860
A. Zee, Quantum numbers of Majorana neutrino masses. Nucl. Phys. B 264, 99 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(86)90475-X
K.S. Babu, Model of calculable Majorana neutrino masses. Phys. Lett. B 203, 132 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(88)91584-5
Y. Cai, J. Herrero-García, M.A. Schmidt, A. Vicente, R.R. Volkas, From the trees to the forest: a review of radiative neutrino mass models. Front. Phys. 5, 63 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2017.00063. arXiv:1706.08524
T. Aoyama, T. Kinoshita, M. Nio, Revised and improved value of the QED tenth-order electron anomalous magnetic moment. Phys. Rev. D 97, 036001 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.036001. arXiv:1712.06060
A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura, T. Teubner, Muon \(g-2\) and \(\alpha (M_Z^2)\): a new data-based analysis. Phys. Rev. D 97, 114025 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.114025. arXiv:1802.02995
M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu, Z. Zhang, A new evaluation of the hadronic vacuum polarisation contributions to the muon anomalous magnetic moment and to \( {\varvec {\alpha }} ({\varvec {m}}_{\varvec {Z}}^{2}) \). Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 241 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7792-2. arXiv:1908.00921
T. Aoyama et al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model. Phys. Rep. 887, 1 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2020.07.006. arXiv:2006.04822
T. Aoyama, M. Hayakawa, T. Kinoshita, M. Nio, Complete tenth-order QED contribution to the muon \(g-2\). Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 111808 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.111808. arXiv:1205.5370
T. Aoyama, T. Kinoshita, M. Nio, Theory of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. Atoms 7, 28 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/atoms7010028
A. Czarnecki, W.J. Marciano, A. Vainshtein, Refinements in electroweak contributions to the muon anomalous magnetic moment. Phys. Rev. D 67, 073006 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.67.073006. arXiv:hep-ph/0212229
C. Gnendiger, D. Stöckinger, H. Stöckinger-Kim, The electroweak contributions to \((g-2)_\mu \) after the Higgs boson mass measurement. Phys. Rev. D 88, 053005 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.053005. arXiv:1306.5546
M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu, Z. Zhang, Reevaluation of the hadronic vacuum polarisation contributions to the Standard Model predictions of the muon \(g-2\) and \({\alpha (m_Z^2)}\) using newest hadronic cross-section data. Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 827 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5161-6. arXiv:1706.09436
G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, P. Stoffer, Two-pion contribution to hadronic vacuum polarization. JHEP 02, 006 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2019)006. arXiv:1810.00007
M. Hoferichter, B.-L. Hoid, B. Kubis, Three-pion contribution to hadronic vacuum polarization. JHEP 08, 137 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2019)137. arXiv:1907.01556
A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura, T. Teubner, The \(g-2\) of charged leptons, \(\alpha (M_Z^2)\) and the hyperfine splitting of muonium. Phys. Rev. D 101, 014029 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.014029. arXiv:1911.00367
A. Kurz, T. Liu, P. Marquard, M. Steinhauser, Hadronic contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment to next-to-next-to-leading order. Phys. Lett. B 734, 144 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2014.05.043. arXiv:1403.6400
K. Melnikov, A. Vainshtein, Hadronic light-by-light scattering contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment revisited. Phys. Rev. D 70, 113006 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.70.113006. arXiv:hep-ph/0312226
P. Masjuan, P. Sánchez-Puertas, Pseudoscalar-pole contribution to the \((g_{\mu }-2)\): a rational approach. Phys. Rev. D 95, 054026 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.054026. arXiv:1701.05829
G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, M. Procura, P. Stoffer, Dispersion relation for hadronic light-by-light scattering: two-pion contributions. JHEP 04, 161 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2017)161. arXiv:1702.07347
M. Hoferichter, B.-L. Hoid, B. Kubis, S. Leupold, S.P. Schneider, Dispersion relation for hadronic light-by-light scattering: pion pole. JHEP 10, 141 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2018)141. arXiv:1808.04823
A. Gérardin, H.B. Meyer, A. Nyffeler, Lattice calculation of the pion transition form factor with \(N_f=2+1\) Wilson quarks. Phys. Rev. D 100, 034520 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.034520. arXiv:1903.09471
J. Bijnens, N. Hermansson-Truedsson, A. Rodríguez-Sánchez, Short-distance constraints for the HLbL contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment. Phys. Lett. B 798, 134994 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134994. arXiv:1908.03331
G. Colangelo, F. Hagelstein, M. Hoferichter, L. Laub, P. Stoffer, Longitudinal short-distance constraints for the hadronic light-by-light contribution to \((g-2)_\mu \) with large-\(N_c\) Regge models. JHEP 03, 101 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2020)101. arXiv:1910.13432
T. Blum, N. Christ, M. Hayakawa, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Jung et al., The hadronic light-by-light scattering contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment from lattice QCD. Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 132002 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.132002. arXiv:1911.08123
G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, A. Nyffeler, M. Passera, P. Stoffer, Remarks on higher-order hadronic corrections to the muon \(g-2\). Phys. Lett. B 735, 90 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2014.06.012. arXiv:1403.7512
Muon g-2 Collaboration, Measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.46 ppm. Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 141801 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.141801. arxiv:2104.03281
BaBar Collaboration, Evidence for an excess of \(\bar{B} \rightarrow D^{(*)} \tau ^-\bar{\nu }_\tau \) decays. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 101802 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.101802. arxiv:1205.5442
BaBar Collaboration, Measurement of an excess of \(\bar{B} \rightarrow D^{(*)}\tau ^- \bar{\nu }_\tau \) decays and implications for charged Higgs bosons. Phys. Rev. D 88, 072012 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.072012. arXiv:1303.0571
Belle Collaboration, Measurement of the branching ratio of \(\bar{B} \rightarrow D^{(\ast )} \tau ^- \bar{\nu }_\tau \) relative to \(\bar{B} \rightarrow D^{(\ast )} \ell ^- \bar{\nu }_\ell \) decays with hadronic tagging at Belle. Phys. Rev. D 92, 072014 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.072014. arXiv:1507.03233
Belle Collaboration, Measurement of the \(\tau \) lepton polarization and \(R(D^*)\) in the decay \(\bar{B} \rightarrow D^* \tau ^- \bar{\nu }_\tau \). Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 211801 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.211801. arXiv:1612.00529
Belle Collaboration, Measurement of the branching ratio of \(\bar{B}^0 \rightarrow D^{*+} \tau ^- \bar{\nu }_{\tau }\) relative to \(\bar{B}^0 \rightarrow D^{*+} \ell ^- \bar{\nu }_{\ell }\) decays with a semileptonic tagging method, in 51st Rencontres de Moriond on EW Interactions and Unified Theories (2016). arXiv:1603.06711
LHCb Collaboration, Measurement of the ratio of branching fractions \({\cal{B}}(B_c^+\,\rightarrow \,J/\psi \tau ^+\nu _\tau )\)/\({\cal{B}}(B_c^+\,\rightarrow \,J/\psi \mu ^+\nu _\mu )\). Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 121801 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.121801. arXiv:1711.05623
LHCb Collaboration, Measurement of the ratio of the \(B^0 \rightarrow D^{*-} \tau ^+ \nu _{\tau }\) and \(B^0 \rightarrow D^{*-} \mu ^+ \nu _{\mu }\) branching fractions using three-prong \(\tau \)-lepton decays. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 171802 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.171802. arXiv:1708.08856
LHCb Collaboration, Search for lepton-universality violation in \(B^+\rightarrow K^+\ell ^+\ell ^-\) decays. Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 191801 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.191801. arXiv:1903.09252
LHCb Collaboration, Test of lepton universality with \(B^{0} \rightarrow K^{*0}\ell ^{+}\ell ^{-}\) decays. JHEP 08, 055 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2017)055. arXiv:1705.05802
LHCb Collaboration, Test of lepton universality in beauty-quark decays. Nature Phys. 18, 277 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-021-01478-8arXiv:2103.11769
I. Doršner, S. Fajfer, A. Greljo, J.F. Kamenik, N. Košnik, Physics of leptoquarks in precision experiments and at particle colliders. Phys. Rep. 641, 1 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2016.06.001. arXiv:1603.04993
A. Crivellin, C. Greub, D. Müller, F. Saturnino, Scalar leptoquarks in leptonic processes. JHEP 02, 182 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2021)182. arXiv:2010.06593
A. Carvunis, A. Crivellin, D. Guadagnoli, S. Gangal, The forward–backward asymmetry in \(B\rightarrow D^{*}\ell \nu \): one more hint for scalar leptoquarks? Phys. Rev. D 105, L031701 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.L031701. arXiv:2106.09610
A. Angelescu, D. Bečirević, D.A. Faroughy, O. Sumensari, Closing the window on single leptoquark solutions to the \(B\)-physics anomalies. JHEP 10, 183 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2018)183. arXiv:1808.08179
I. Bigaran, J. Gargalionis, R.R. Volkas, A near-minimal leptoquark model for reconciling flavour anomalies and generating radiative neutrino masses. JHEP 10, 106 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2019)106. arXiv:1906.01870
S. Saad, Combined explanations of \((g-2)_{\mu }\), \(R_{D^{(*)}}\), \(R_{K^{(*)}}\) anomalies in a two-loop radiative neutrino mass model. Phys. Rev. D 102, 015019 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.015019. arXiv:2005.04352
V. Gherardi, D. Marzocca, E. Venturini, Low-energy phenomenology of scalar leptoquarks at one-loop accuracy. JHEP 01, 138 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP01(2021)138. arXiv:2008.09548
A. Greljo, P. Stangl, A.E. Thomsen, A model of muon anomalies. Phys. Lett. B 820, 136554 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136554. arXiv:2103.13991
H.M. Lee, Leptoquark option for B-meson anomalies and leptonic signatures. Phys. Rev. D 104, 015007 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.015007. arXiv:2104.02982
A. Bhaskar, A.A. Madathil, T. Mandal, S. Mitra, Combined explanation of \(W\)-mass, muon \(g-2\), \(R_{K^{(*)}}\) and \(R_{D^{(*)}}\) anomalies in a singlet-triplet scalar leptoquark model. arXiv:2204.09031
C.-H. Chen, T. Nomura, H. Okada, Explanation of \(B \rightarrow K^{(*)} \ell ^+ \ell ^-\) and muon \(g-2\), and implications at the LHC. Phys. Rev. D 94, 115005 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.115005. arXiv:1607.04857
S. Saad, A. Thapa, Common origin of neutrino masses and \(R_{D^{(\ast )}}\), \(R_{K^{(\ast )}}\) anomalies. Phys. Rev. D 102, 015014 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.015014. arXiv:2004.07880
K.S. Babu, P.S.B. Dev, S. Jana, A. Thapa, Unified framework for \(B\)-anomalies, muon \(g-2\) and neutrino masses. JHEP 03, 179 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2021)179. arXiv:2009.01771
I. Doršner, S. Fajfer, S. Saad, \(\mu \rightarrow e \gamma \) selecting scalar leptoquark solutions for the \((g-2)_{e,\mu }\) puzzles. Phys. Rev. D 102, 075007 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.075007. arXiv:2006.11624
I. Bigaran, R.R. Volkas, Getting chirality right: single scalar leptoquark solutions to the \((g-2)_{e,\mu }\) puzzle. Phys. Rev. D 102, 075037 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.075037. arXiv:2002.12544
D. Aristizabal Sierra, M. Hirsch, S.G. Kovalenko, Leptoquarks: neutrino masses and accelerator phenomenology. Phys. Rev. D 77, 055011 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.77.055011. arXiv:0710.5699
I. Doršner, S. Fajfer, N. Košnik, Leptoquark mechanism of neutrino masses within the grand unification framework. Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 417 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4987-2. arXiv:1701.08322
J. Julio, S. Saad, A. Thapa, A tale of flavor anomalies and the origin of neutrino mass. JHEP 08, 270 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2022)270. arXiv:2202.10479
J. Julio, S. Saad, A. Thapa, Marriage between neutrino mass and flavor anomalies. Phys. Rev. D 106, 055003 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.055003. arXiv:2203.15499
T.A. Chowdhury, S. Saad, Leptoquark-vectorlike quark model for \(m_W\) (CDF), \((g-2)_\mu \), \(R_{K^{(\ast )}}\) anomalies and neutrino masses, Phys. Rev. D 106, 055017 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.055017. arXiv:2205.03917
I. Doršner, S. Fajfer, O. Sumensari, Triple-leptoquark interactions for tree- and loop-level proton decays. JHEP 05, 183 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2022)183. arXiv:2202.08287
I. Cordero-Carrión, M. Hirsch, A. Vicente, Master Majorana neutrino mass parametrization. Phys. Rev. D 99, 075019 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.075019. arXiv:1812.03896
I. Cordero-Carrión, M. Hirsch, A. Vicente, General parametrization of Majorana neutrino mass models. Phys. Rev. D 101, 075032 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.075032. arXiv:1912.08858
K.G. Chetyrkin, Quark mass anomalous dimension to O (alpha-s**4). Phys. Lett. B 404, 161 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(97)00535-2. arXiv:hep-ph/9703278
J.A. Gracey, Three loop MS-bar tensor current anomalous dimension in QCD. Phys. Lett. B 488, 175 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00859-5. arXiv:hep-ph/0007171
I. Doršner, S. Fajfer, N. Košnik, I. Nišandžić, Minimally flavored colored scalar in \(\bar{B} \rightarrow D^{(*)} \tau \bar{\nu }\) and the mass matrices constraints. JHEP 11, 084 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2013)084. arXiv:1306.6493
G. Hiller, D. Loose, K. Schönwald, Leptoquark flavor patterns & B decay anomalies. JHEP 12, 027 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2016)027. arXiv:1609.08895
J. Aebischer, J. Kumar, D.M. Straub, Wilson: a Python package for the running and matching of Wilson coefficients above and below the electroweak scale. Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 1026 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6492-7. arXiv:1804.05033
D.M. Straub, flavio: a Python package for flavour and precision phenomenology in the Standard Model and beyond. arXiv:1810.08132
C. Bobeth, G. Hiller, G. Piranishvili, Angular distributions of \(\bar{B} \rightarrow \bar{K} \ell ^+\ell ^-\) decays. JHEP 12, 040 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/12/040. arXiv:0709.4174
M. Bordone, G. Isidori, A. Pattori, On the Standard Model predictions for \(R_K\) and \(R_{K^*}\). Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 440 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4274-7. arXiv:1605.07633
G. Buchalla, A.J. Buras, M.E. Lautenbacher, Weak decays beyond leading logarithms. Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 1125 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.68.1125. arXiv:hep-ph/9512380
B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin, S. Descotes-Genon, J. Matias, J. Virto, Patterns of New Physics in \(b\rightarrow s\ell ^+\ell ^-\) transitions in the light of recent data. JHEP 01, 093 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP01(2018)093. arXiv:1704.05340
T. Hurth, F. Mahmoudi, D. Martinez Santos, S. Neshatpour, Lepton nonuniversality in exclusive \(b{\rightarrow }s{\ell }{\ell }\) decays. Phys. Rev. D 96, 095034 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.095034. arXiv:1705.06274
J. Aebischer, W. Altmannshofer, D. Guadagnoli, M. Reboud, P. Stangl, D.M. Straub, \(B\)-decay discrepancies after Moriond 2019. Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 252 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7817-x. arXiv:1903.10434
LHCb Collaboration, Tests of lepton universality using \(B^0\rightarrow K^0_S \ell ^+ \ell ^-\) and \(B^+\rightarrow K^{*+} \ell ^+ \ell ^-\) decays. Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 191802 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.191802. arXiv:2110.09501
L.-S. Geng, B. Grinstein, S. Jäger, S.-Y. Li, J. Martin Camalich, R.-X. Shi, Implications of new evidence for lepton-universality violation in \(b\rightarrow s\ell +\ell \)- decays. Phys. Rev. D 104, 035029 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.035029. arXiv:2103.12738
ATLAS Collaboration, Study of the rare decays of \(B^0_s\) and \(B^0\) mesons into muon pairs using data collected during 2015 and 2016 with the ATLAS detector. JHEP 04, 098 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2019)098. arXiv:1812.03017
CMS Collaboration, Measurement of properties of B\(^0_{\rm s}\rightarrow \mu ^+\mu ^-\) decays and search for B\(^0\rightarrow \mu ^+\mu ^-\) with the CMS experiment. JHEP 04, 188 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2020)188. arXiv:1910.12127
LHCb Collaboration, Measurement of the \(B^0_s\rightarrow \mu ^+\mu ^-\) decay properties and search for the \(B^0\rightarrow \mu ^+\mu ^-\) and \(B^0_s\rightarrow \mu ^+\mu ^-\gamma \) decays. Phys. Rev. D 105, 012010 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.012010. arXiv:2108.09283
LHCb Collaboration, Analysis of neutral B-meson decays into two muons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 041801 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.041801. arXiv:2108.09284
M. Beneke, C. Bobeth, R. Szafron, Power-enhanced leading-logarithmic QED corrections to \(B_q \rightarrow \mu ^+\mu ^-\). JHEP 10, 232 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2019)232. arXiv:1908.07011
A.K. Alok, N.R.S. Chundawat, S. Gangal, D. Kumar, A global analysis of \(b \rightarrow s \ell \ell \) data in heavy and light \(Z^{\prime }\) models. arXiv:2203.13217
D. Bečirević, S. Fajfer, N. Košnik, Lepton flavor nonuniversality in \(b\rightarrow {}s\ell ^+\ell ^-\) processes. Phys. Rev. D 92, 014016 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.014016. arXiv:1503.09024
A. Carvunis, F. Dettori, S. Gangal, D. Guadagnoli, C. Normand, On the effective lifetime of \(\text{ B}_{s}\rightarrow {\mu }{\mu }{\gamma }\). JHEP 12, 078 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2021)078. arXiv:2102.13390
W. Altmannshofer, P. Stangl, New physics in rare B decays after Moriond 2021. Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 952 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09725-1. arXiv:2103.13370
D. Bečirević, N. Košnik, O. Sumensari, R. Zukanovich Funchal, Palatable leptoquark scenarios for lepton flavor violation in exclusive \(b\rightarrow s\ell _1\ell _2\) modes. JHEP 11, 035 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2016)035. arXiv:1608.07583
D. Bigi, P. Gambino, Revisiting \(B\rightarrow D \ell \nu \). Phys. Rev. D 94, 094008 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.094008. arXiv:1606.08030
F.U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, M. Papucci, D.J. Robinson, Combined analysis of semileptonic \(B\) decays to \(D\) and \(D^*\): \(R(D^{(*)})\), \(|V_{cb}|\), and new physics. Phys. Rev. D 95, 115008 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.115008. arXiv:1703.05330
S. Jaiswal, S. Nandi, S.K. Patra, Extraction of \(|V_{cb}|\) from \(B\rightarrow D^{(*)}\ell \nu _\ell \) and the Standard Model predictions of \(R(D^{(*)})\). JHEP 12, 060 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2017)060. arXiv:1707.09977
D. Bigi, P. Gambino, S. Schacht, \(R(D^*)\), \(|V_{cb}|\), and the Heavy Quark Symmetry relations between form factors. JHEP 11, 061 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2017)061. arXiv:1707.09509
LHCb Collaboration, Measurement of the ratio of branching fractions \({\cal{B}}(\bar{B}^0 \rightarrow D^{*+}\tau ^{-}\bar{\nu }_{\tau })/{\cal{B}}(\bar{B}^0 \rightarrow D^{*+}\mu ^{-}\bar{\nu }_{\mu })\). Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 111803 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.111803. arXiv:1506.08614
LHCb Collaboration, Test of Lepton Flavor Universality by the measurement of the \(B^0 \rightarrow D^{*-} \tau ^+ \nu _{\tau }\) branching fraction using three-prong \(\tau \) decays. Phys. Rev. D 97, 072013 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.072013. arXiv:1711.02505
HFLAV Collaboration, Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, and \(\tau \)-lepton properties as of 2018. Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 226 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8156-7. arXiv:1909.12524
C. Murgui, A. Peñuelas, M. Jung, A. Pich, Global fit to \(b \rightarrow c \tau \nu \) transitions. JHEP 09, 103 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2019)103. arXiv:1904.09311
R.-X. Shi, L.-S. Geng, B. Grinstein, S. Jäger, J. Martin Camalich, Revisiting the new-physics interpretation of the \(b\rightarrow c\tau \nu \) data. JHEP 12, 065 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2019)065. arXiv:1905.08498
K. Cheung, Z.-R. Huang, H.-D. Li, C.-D. Lü, Y.-N. Mao, R.-Y. Tang, Revisit to the \(b\rightarrow c\tau \nu \) transition: in and beyond the SM. Nucl. Phys. B 965, 115354 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2021.115354. arXiv:2002.07272
Muon g-2 Collaboration, Final report of the muon E821 anomalous magnetic moment measurement at BNL. Phys. Rev. D 73, 072003 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.73.072003. arXiv:hep-ex/0602035
K.-M. Cheung, Muon anomalous magnetic moment and leptoquark solutions. Phys. Rev. D 64, 033001 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.64.033001. arXiv:hep-ph/0102238
A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, P. Schmidt-Wellenburg, Combined explanations of \((g-2)_{\mu , e}\) and implications for a large muon EDM. Phys. Rev. D 98, 113002 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.113002. arXiv:1807.11484
MEG Collaboration, Search for the lepton flavour violating decay \(\mu ^+ \rightarrow \rm e^+ \gamma \) with the full dataset of the MEG experiment. Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 434 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4271-x. arXiv:1605.05081
BABAR Collaboration, Searches for Lepton Flavor Violation in the Decays \(\tau \pm \rightarrow \) e\(\pm \gamma \) and \(\tau \pm \rightarrow \mu \pm \gamma \). Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 021802 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.021802. arXiv:0908.2381
SINDRUM II Collaboration, A search for muon to electron conversion in muonic gold. Eur. Phys. J. C 47, 337 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s2006-02582-x
T. Suzuki, D.F. Measday, J.P. Roalsvig, Total nuclear capture rates for negative muons. Phys. Rev. C 35, 2212 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.35.2212
R. Kitano, M. Koike, Y. Okada, Detailed calculation of lepton flavor violating muon electron conversion rate for various nuclei. Phys. Rev. D 66, 096002 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.059902. arXiv:hep-ph/0203110
E. Arganda, M.J. Herrero, A.M. Teixeira, mu-e conversion in nuclei within the CMSSM seesaw: universality versus non-universality. JHEP 10, 104 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/10/104. arXiv:0707.2955
T.S. Kosmas, S. Kovalenko, I. Schmidt, Nuclear muon\(-\) e\(-\) conversion in strange quark sea. Phys. Lett. B 511, 203 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00657-8. arXiv:hep-ph/0102101
LHCb Collaboration, Search for the decays \(B_s^0\rightarrow \tau ^+\tau ^-\) and \(B^0\rightarrow \tau ^+\tau ^-\). Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 251802 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.251802. arXiv:1703.02508
LHCb Collaboration, Search for the lepton-flavour-violating decays \(B^{0}_{s}\rightarrow \tau ^{\pm }\mu ^{\mp }\) and \(B^{0}\rightarrow \tau ^{\pm }\mu ^{\mp }\). Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 211801 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.211801. arXiv:1905.06614
D. Bečirević, O. Sumensari, R. Zukanovich Funchal, Lepton flavor violation in exclusive \(b\rightarrow s\) decays. Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 134 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3985-0. arXiv:1602.00881
A.J. Buras, J. Girrbach-Noe, C. Niehoff, D.M. Straub, \( B\rightarrow {K}^{\left(\ast \right)}\nu \overline{\nu } \) decays in the Standard Model and beyond. JHEP 02, 184 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2015)184. arXiv:1409.4557
W. Altmannshofer, A.J. Buras, D.M. Straub, M. Wick, New strategies for New Physics search in \(B \rightarrow K^{*} \nu \bar{\nu }\), \(B \rightarrow K \nu \bar{\nu }\) and \(B \rightarrow X_{s} \nu \bar{\nu }\) decays. JHEP 04, 022 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2009/04/022. arXiv:0902.0160
Belle Collaboration, Search for \(\varvec {B\rightarrow h\nu \bar{\nu }}\) decays with semileptonic tagging at Belle. Phys. Rev. D 96, 091101 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.091101. arXiv:1702.03224
C. Bobeth, A.J. Buras, Leptoquarks meet \(\varepsilon ^{\prime }/\varepsilon \) and rare Kaon processes. JHEP 02, 101 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2018)101. arXiv:1712.01295
Particle Data Group Collaboration, Review of particle physics. PTEP 2020, 083C01 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptaa104
M. Artuso, G. Borissov, A. Lenz, CP violation in the \(B_s^0\) system. Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 045002 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.88.045002. arXiv:1511.09466
Fermilab Lattice, MILC Collaboration, \(B^0_{(s)}\)-mixing matrix elements from lattice QCD for the Standard Model and beyond. Phys. Rev. D 93, 113016 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.113016. arXiv:1602.03560
T. Jubb, M. Kirk, A. Lenz, G. Tetlalmatzi-Xolocotzi, On the ultimate precision of meson mixing observables. Nucl. Phys. B 915, 431 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2016.12.020. arXiv:1603.07770
J. Brod, M. Gorbahn, Next-to-next-to-leading-order charm-quark contribution to the \(CP\) violation parameter \(\epsilon _K\) and \(\Delta M_K\). Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 121801 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.121801. arXiv:1108.2036
A.J. Buras, J.-M. Gérard, W.A. Bardeen, Large \(N\) approach to kaon decays and mixing 28 years later: \(\Delta I = 1/2\) rule, \(\hat{B}_K\) and \(\Delta M_K\). Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2871 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2871-x. arXiv:1401.1385
Acknowledgements
This work is supported in part by the National Science Foundation of China (12175082, 11775093) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (CCNU22LJ004).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Funded by SCOAP3. SCOAP3 supports the goals of the International Year of Basic Sciences for Sustainable Development.
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, SL., Jiang, Ww. & Liu, ZK. Combined explanations of B-physics anomalies, \((g-2)_{e, \mu }\) and neutrino masses by scalar leptoquarks. Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 959 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10920-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10920-x