Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment in The Reduced Minimal 3-3-1 Model
The Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment in The Reduced Minimal 3-3-1 Model
C (2014) 74:2808
DOI 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2808-4
Received: 5 December 2013 / Accepted: 4 March 2014 / Published online: 15 March 2014
© The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract We study the muon anomalous magnetic moment theory quote similar uncertainties, and aμ has been used to
(g − 2)μ in the context of the reduced minimal 3-3-1 model used to constrain physics beyond the standard model. In fact,
the difference, aμ − aμSM = (296 ± 81) × 10−11 , which
exp
recently proposed in the literature. In particular, its spec-
trum contains a doubly charged scalar (H ±± ) and gauge corresponds to a 3.6σ discrepancy, imposes quite stringent
boson (U ±± ), new singly charged vectors (V ± ) and a Z bounds on many particle physics models [2]. A worldwide
boson, each of which might give a sizeable contribution to effort is under way to reduce this uncertainty, with the ulti-
the (g − 2)μ . We compute the 1-loop contributions from all mate hope of either strengthening evidence for the presence
these new particles to the (g − 2)μ . We conclude that the of new physics or refuting the discrepancy through more
doubly charged vector boson provides the dominant contri- accurate SM calculations. It is important to remind ourselves
bution, and by comparing our results with the experimen- that this 3.6σ deviation is reduced to 2.4σ if one uses τ data
tal constraints we derive an expected value for the scale of in the hadronic contributions [1].
SU(3) L ⊗ U (1) N symmetry breaking vχ ∼ 2 TeV. We also One could attempt to interpret this difference as coming
note that, if the discrepancy in the anomalous moment is from theoretical uncertainties. The SM prediction for aμ is
resolved in the future without this model then the constraints generally divided into three parts: electromagnetic (QED)
will tighten to requiring vχ 3.7 TeV with current preci- corrections, electroweak (EW) corrections, and hadronic
sion, and they will entirely rule out the model if the expected contributions. The QED part includes all photonic and lep-
precision is achieved by the future experiment at Fermilab. tonic (e, μ, τ ) loops, and the EW involves W ± , Z and Higgs
graphs. Hadronic contributions are only possible through the
couplings of hadronic matter to color-neutral bosons of the
1 Introduction SM, with the dominant contributions coming from the cou-
plings to the photon. The two main contributions are the
Now that the Higgs discovery has completed the Standard hadronic vacuum polarization and the hadronic contribution
Model (SM), the muon anomalous magnetic moment, one of to the light-by-light scattering graph. The hadronic correc-
the most precisely measured quantities in particle physics, tions give rise to the main theoretical uncertainties, but it
seems to be the most compelling “discrepancy” between the- is expected that those uncertainties will be reduced in the
ory and experiment. A long standing 2–3σ difference from foreseeable future due to improvement in lattice QCD and
the SM predicted value has been observed [1]. This devia- hadronic data [3–6].
tion has triggered numerous speculations about its possible A more popular approach to this anomaly is to treat it as
origin, and the increased experimental precision over time evidence for new physics, as investigated by various authors
inspired a multitude of new theoretical efforts which led to a for multitudes of models [7–13]. In particular, the aμ anomaly
substantial improvement of the prediction of the muon mag- has also been investigated in the context of 3-3-1 models [14–
netic moment, generally written in terms of aμ = (gμ −2)/2. 17], all of which have, among other virtues, a requirement
The comparison between experiment and the SM is a sensi- that there be at least three generations of SM fermions. Here
tive test of new physics. At present, both measurement and we will focus on a specific realization of the 3-3-1 gauge
symmetry with a smaller fermion and scalar sector known
a e-mail: fisicojunior3@gmail.com as the reduced minimal 3-3-1 model [18–20]. This model
123
2808 Page 2 of 9 Eur. Phys. J. C (2014) 74:2808
⎛ ⎞
was proposed with the goal of reducing the scalar content of ⎛ ⎞ di
u1 Q i L = ⎝ −u i ⎠
models based on 3-3-1 gauge symmetries [23,24]. Most 3-3- Q 1L = ⎝ d1 ⎠ ∼ 3, 3, + 23 ,
Ji L
1 models are based on three scalar triplets and one sextet [18] J1 L ∗
∼ 3, 3 , − 13 ,
that totals 30 degrees of freedom. Therefore, one might have
some prejudice against such extensive scalar sectors and try u 1R ∼ 3, 1, + 23 ; d1R ∼ 3, 1, − 13 ; J1R ∼ 3, 1, + 53 ,
to work on more neat and simple 3-3-1 models. In addition
to having fewer matter fields, this model also features doubly u i R ∼ 3, 1, + 23 ; di R ∼ 3, 1, − 13 ; JiR ∼ 3, 1, − 43 ,
charged vector and scalar bosons, which lead to interesting (2)
new phenomenology. As an example, because of these new
charged scalars and gauge bosons, this model might be able where i = 2, 3. Here J fields are new heavy quarks. Note
to reproduce the now faint H → γ γ excess [21], and it also that the right-handed SM leptons are actually charged under
contains bosons that might induce a first order electroweak SU(3) L , but the right-handed SM quarks are not.
phase transition, allowing a window for electroweak baryo- In parentheses we have shown the quantum number of
genesis scenarios [15]. In this work we aim to explore the each field under the gauge group SU(3)C ×SU(3) L ×U (1) N .
implications of the aμ anomaly on the reduced 3-3-1 model. Due to chiral anomaly cancelation conditions, the quark fam-
This issue has been briefly addressed in [22], considering ilies must be placed in different representations of SU(3) L , as
only contributions from the singly and doubly charged gauge shown in Eq. (2). It should be noted that the electric charges
bosons. In this work, we will derive analytical expressions of the J1 and Ji quarks are +5/3 and −4/3, respectively,
for all 1-loop contributions coming from the reduced 3-3-1 making them exotic quarks. The phenomenology of these
model, and we will draw our conclusions based on the total exotics has been explored in [44].
contribution.
This paper is organized as follows: in Sect. 2 we briefly 2.2 Scalars
introduce the model. Section 3 discusses the aμ discrepancy
from the SM, and in Sect. 4 we present the aμ predictions The scalar sector is comprised of two Higgs triplets:
of the reduced 3-3-1 model. Lastly, in Sect. 5 we draw our
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ − ⎞
conclusions. ρ+ χ
ρ = ⎝ ρ 0 ⎠ ∼ (1, 3, 1); χ = ⎝ χ −− ⎠ ∼ (1, 3, −1),
ρ ++ χ0
2 The reduced minimal 3-3-1 model and aµ (3)
The Reduced Minimal 3-3-1 model (hereafter RM331) is and its interactions are described by the potential
based on the SU(3)C × SU(3) L × U (1) N gauge group, and V (χ , ρ) = μ21 ρ † ρ + μ22 χ † χ + λ1 (ρ † ρ)2 + λ2 (χ † χ )2
therefore the left handed fermions must appear in SU(3) L
+λ3 (ρ † ρ)(χ † χ ) + λ4 (ρ † χ )(χ † ρ). (4)
triplets. Right-handed SM fermions can either be singlets
of SU(3) L or may be charged only under the generators of This potential gives rise to the spontaneous symmetry-
SU(3) L which are broken at a fairly high scale to give back breaking mechanism when ρ 0 and χ 0 develop VEVs as fol-
the SM SU(2) L . lows:
1
2.1 Fermions ρ 0 , χ 0 → √ (vρ , χ + Rρ , χ + i Iρ , χ ). (5)
2
In the RM331, the fermions are embedded in the following The constraints on the couplings induced by our definition
multiplets1 : of the VEVs above are
⎛ ⎞ λ3 vχ2
νl μ21 + λ1 vρ2 + = 0,
2
f L = ⎝ l ⎠ ∼ (1, 3, 0), (1)
λ3 vρ2
lc L μ22 + λ2 vχ2 + = 0. (6)
2
This scalar sector is sufficient to induce the correct pattern
where l = e, μ, τ .
of symmetry breaking, where SU(3)C × SU(3) L × U (1) N
breaks into the SM gauge group. This breaking occurs when
1 There are many other 3-3-1 models which are comprised of different the χ scalar develops a vacuum expectation value. The sec-
scalar and fermions sectors. See Refs. [23–42] for some of these. ond spontaneous symmetry breaking happens when the ρ 0
123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2014) 74:2808 Page 3 of 9 2808
component acquires a vev, vρ , breaking the SM gauge group 2.3 Gauge bosons
down to SU(3)C × U (1) Q . Naturally, vρ will be identified
with the SM Higgs vev. At the end of the day, we find the The gauge boson masses due to this symmetry breaking are
mass matrix in the basis (χ ++ , ρ ++ ) to be
g 2 vρ2 g2 2
± = , m 2Z = v ,
2
MW 2 ρ
(14)
2 4 4cW
λ4 vχ2 t t
m 2++ = , (7) g 2 vχ2
2 t 1 MV2 ± = , (15)
4
vρ g 2 vρ2 + vχ2
where t = vχ . Moving to the mass basis gives
MU2 ±± = , (16)
4
2
g 2 cW
λ4 2
m 2h̃ ++ = 0 and m 2h ++ = (v + vρ2 ), (8) m 2Z = vχ2 . (17)
2 χ 3(1 − 4sW
2 )
√
where the corresponding eigenstates are where cW = cos θW , sW = sin θW = t/ 1 + 4t 2 , t =
++ ++ g N /g, tW = tan θW , h W = 1 − 4sW
2 , and θ is the Weinberg
W
h̃ cα −sα χ angle. Due to the spontaneous symmetry-breaking pattern
= , (9)
h ++ sα +cα ρ ++ we can relate the U (1) N and U (1)Y gauge couplings. Using
the fact that g/g = cW /sW we find
with
g 2N 2
sW
vχ vρ = . (18)
cα =
, sα =
. (10) g2 1 − 4sW
2
vχ2 + vρ2 vχ2 + vρ2
Strictly speaking, the couplings and Weinberg angle in
Eq. 18 are functions of arbitrary renormalization scale. This
Hence, h̃ ++ is a (would-be) Goldstone boson, and in the limit 2 to be smaller than 1/4 in order for cou-
equation requires sW
vχ vρ , h ++ ∼ ρ ++ . As for the neutral scalars (Rχ , Rρ )
plings to be finite. This is in agreement with Z pole measure-
we find the mass matrix, 2 (M ) = 0.231. The Weinberg angle
ments which give sW Z
increases with increasing energy scale, and a Landau pole
vχ2
2λ2 λ3 t occurs where it has increased such that sW 2 (M ) = 0.25.
m 20 = , (11) Z
2 λ3 t 2λ1 t 2 In this model that scale has been found to be = 4–5 TeV
[45,51]. For energies greater than this, pertubativity is impos-
which gives sible, and one imagines that additional new physics, or a dif-
ferent description of the same, is more predictive. Because
λ2 λ23 2 of the requirement for such a low cutoff scale, this model is
m 2h 1 = λ1 − 3 vρ2 , m 2h 2 = λ2 vχ2 + v , (12) necessarily within reach of the 14 TeV LHC.
4λ2 4λ2 ρ
Since we will focus on the aμ anomaly, the quark sector
is largely irrelevant, contributing only at higher-loop order.
with Therefore we will restrict our discussion to the couplings of
scalars and gauge bosons to the leptons, which contribute at
h 1 = cβ Rρ − sβ Rχ , h 2 = cβ Rχ + sβ Rρ , (13) one-loop order. We consider three classes of interactions.
λ2 v 2 λ3 vρ
where cβ = cos(β) ≈ 1 − 8λ32 vρ2 and sβ = sin(β) ≈ 2λ2 vχ . 2.4 Charged current interactions
2 χ
h 1 is identified as the SM higgs when sin(β) → 0.
Counting degrees of freedom one can conclude that there The charged and doubly charged current interactions pre-
should remain a doubly charged and two neutral scalars in dicted by the RM331 model are
the spectrum after symmetry breaking. The other scalars are g g
“eaten” as follows (in the limit where vχ vρ ): χ ± is LlCC = √ ν̄a L γ μ VPMNS
l
ea L Wμ+ + √ ec a L O V γ μ νa L Vμ+
2 2
absorbed by the gauge boson V ± , ρ ± by W ± , one combina- g c μ ++
tion of the doubly charged scalars ρ ±± and χ ±± gives rise + √ e a L γ ea L Uμ + h.c, (19)
2
to the massive scalar H ±± while the other is absorbed by the
doubly charged boson U ±± . Moreover, the pseudo-scalars Iρ where a = 1, 2, 3 with VPMNS
l = VLν† being the PMNS mix-
and Iχ are eaten by the Z and Z bosons as aforementioned. ν
ing matrix and O = VL is the matrix which diagonalizes
V
123
2808 Page 4 of 9 Eur. Phys. J. C (2014) 74:2808
the neutrino mass matrix. We will neglect the lepton mix- 3 The muon anomalous magnetic moment
ings in this work because their contribution to the anomalous
magnetic moment of the muon is very small. The muon magnetic moment is related to its intrinsic spin by
the gyromagnetic ratio gμ :
2.5 Neutral current interactions q −
→
−
→
μ μ = gμ S (25)
2m
The neutral currents for leptons are
where gμ , within the framework of the Dirac equation, is
g g hW expected to be equal to two for a structureless spin 1/2 par-
LlNC =− ν̄a L γ μ νa L Z μ − ν̄a γ μ νa L Z μ
2cW 2cW 3 L ticle. However, quantum loop corrections associated with
g
QED, electroweak, and QCD processes lead to a devia-
− ēa γ μ a1 − b1 γ 5 ea Z μ
2cW tion from this value which are parametrized in terms of
−
g
ēa γ μ a2 − b2 γ 5 ea Z μ , (20) aμ = (gμ − 2)/2. The SM prediction for the aμ is gen-
2cW erally divided into three parts: electromagnetic (QED), elec-
troweak (EW) and hadronic contributions. The QED part
where
includes all photonic and leptonic (e, μ, τ ) contributions and
1 1 has been computed up to 4-loops and estimated at the 5-loop
a1 = − h W , b1 = −
2 2 level. The EW involves W ± , Z and Higgs bosons, and it has
1 1 been computed up to three loops. The hadronic contributions
a2 = 3h W , b2 = − 3h W . (21)
2 2 are the most uncertain. The hadronic vacuum polarization
is calculated and inferred either from e+ e− → hadrons or
As we will see, these interactions lead to a negative and τ → hadrons data [1]. The next largest uncertainty is asso-
rather sizable contribution to (g − 2)μ . ciated with hadronic light-by-light scattering, which cannot,
at present, be determined from data, but it rather must be cal-
2.6 Scalar interactions culated using hadronic models that correctly reproduce the
properties of QCD [46]. Ultimately, the final value is found
Here we present only the relevant interactions among charged to be [2],
leptons and scalars. They arise from effective dimension five
operators, which we assume to be suppressed by the Landau aμSM = (116591785 ± 51) × 10−11 . (26)
pole of the theory,
Recently, the E821 experiment has measured [47–49],
G ab
f acL ρ ∗ χ † f bL + h.c. (22) aμE821 = (116592080 ± 63) × 10−11 . (27)
123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2014) 74:2808 Page 5 of 9 2808
We now turn to a consideration of the implications of the dis- As for the doubly charged scalar, the diagrams of Fig. 1a, b
crepancy in aμ from the perspective of the RM331 model. both contribute, and we find
The only new particles which contribute to the muon anoma-
2 1
lous magnetic moment at first order are the bosons, as there ±± qH f H mμ
aμ (H ) = (4) × − 2 dx
are no new leptons in the fermion sector of the RM331 and the 4π M H ±±
quarks will only contribute at higher order. We will explore 0
The reason we have two terms in Eq. (29) is due to the pres- 4.3 Z boson
ence of vector (V) and axial-vector (A) couplings in the
muon–charged boson interaction Lagrangian in Eq. (19). In Now let us consider the contribution of the new neutral gauge
the limit the mass of the singly charged boson running in the boson, which we denote Z . The only diagram which appears
loop is much larger than the neutrino and muon masses we with this particle is in Fig. 1c. We note that the Z contribu-
find tion is negative, pulling the overall result further away from
the experimentally measured value. The result is given in
Ref. [50] as
±
g 2 m 2μ 10
aμ (V ) = . (31)
4π 2 MV2 6 1
1 m 2μ C V2 PV (x) + C 2A PA (x)
aμ (Z (c)) = 2 2 dx ,
8π M Z (1 − x)(1 − λ2 x) + 2 λ2 x
This is the contribution of the singly charged gauge boson to 0
the muon anomalous magnetic moment. (34)
123
2808 Page 6 of 9 Eur. Phys. J. C (2014) 74:2808
√ √
where C V = −g 3h W /4cW and C A = g 3h W /4cW are with ≡ 1, λ = m μ /MU ±± , and
the couplings between the muon and the Z according to
PV (x) = 2x(1 − x) · x
Eq. (21), with ≡ 1, λ = m μ /M Z and
PA (x) = 2x(1 − x) · (x − 4) − 4λ2 · x 3 . (41)
PV (x) = 2x(1 − x) · x
This second contribution simplifies to
PA (x) = 2x(1 − x) · (x − 4) − 4λ2 · x 3 . (35)
4m 2μ fU2
with h W = 1 − 4sW2 and c = cos θ .
W W
aμ (U ±± )(b) = . (42)
These integrals simplify to give a contribution of 3π 2 MU2 ±±
1 2
m 2μ The total doubly charged boson contribution is given by
aμ (Z ( f )) = C − 5C A .
2
(36)
4π 2 M Z2 3
V
aμ (U ±± )(Total) =
aμ (U ±± )(a) +
aμ (U ±± )(b)
(43)
This is the contribution of the Z to the muon anomalous 2
14 fU m μ
magnetic moment. = . (44)
3 π MU ±±
The doubly charged boson, similarly to the doubly charged For the new neutral scalar the only diagram of relevance is
scalar, gives rise to two diagrams that contribute to the (g − shown in Fig. 1a, which gives an irrelevant contribution to
2)μ . The first one, shown in Fig. 1c, is similar to the singly the (g − 2)μ in agreement with [1,16,17,50,56]. Below we
charged gauge boson, with two differences: a multiplying present the analytical expressions for the Higgs and heavy
factor of 4 due to the symmetry factors arising from identical Higgs contributions,
fields in the interaction term, and an additional factor of 2
1
arising from the larger charge of the boson [52]. 1 f h2 m 2μ PS (x)
aμ (h) = dx
8π 2 Mh2 (1 − x)(1 − λ2 x) + 2 λ2 x
aμ (U ±± )(a) = 8 0
1 (45)
fU2 mμ 2 PV (x) + PA (x)
× 2 dx 2 2 where
8π MU ±± λ (1 − x)(1 − −2 x) + x
0
(37) PS (x) = x 2 (1 + − x) (46)
√ which gives
where fU = g/ 2 is the coupling strength between the
muon and the new boson given in Eq. (19), with λ = 1 f h2 m 2μ Mh 14
aμ (h) = 2 ln − (47)
m μ /MU ±± , and 8π 2 Mh2 mμ 12
PV (x) = 2x 2 (x − 1) where
PA (x) = 2x (x + 3) + 4λ · x(1 − x)(x − 1).
2 2
(38)
ml vρ
fh = cos(β) − sin( β) . (48)
These integrals simplify to give vρ vχ
2 f 2 m 2μ 10 Similarly for the heavy Higgs we find
aμ (U ±± )(a) = 2 U 2 . (39)
π MU ±± 6 2 2
1 fh2 m μ Mh 2 14
aμ (h 2 ) = 2 ln − (49)
The second diagram, shown in Fig. 1d, is similar to the Z 8π 2 Mh 2 mμ 12
2
one, but we once again have a factor of 4 due to the identical with
fields, and we also have a relative negative sign due to the
opposite charge of the muon running in the loop. Therefore ml vρ
fh2 = sin(β) + cos(β) . (50)
we find vρ vχ
aμ (U ±± )(b) = (−4) Each of the above contributions given in Eqs. (31), (33),
1 (36), (44), (47), and (49), are displayed in Fig. 2 as a function
1 mμ 2 PV (x) + PA (x)
× 2 dx (40) of the mass of the new particle, and in Fig. 3 as a function of
8π MU ±± (1 − x)(1 − λ2 x)+ 2 λ2 x the SU(3) L ⊗ U (1) N symmetry-breaking scale, which sets
0
123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2014) 74:2808 Page 7 of 9 2808
Fig. 3 The contributions from each of the new bosons in the RM331 turbative choice of parameters. The hierarchy in contributions means
model are labeled in the figure, plotted against the symmetry-breaking that the sum of all contributions lies very slightly above the contribution
scale of the model, which sets the masses of the new particles. The of the doubly charged vector alone. We conclude that if the discrepancy
current experimental range is again shown in solid green lines
aμ = in aμ is to be explained by the new physics of the RM331 model, we
(295 ± 81) × 10−11 . We have assumed a value of λ4 = 1 in calculat- require a symmetry-breaking scale of approximately 2 TeV, and there-
ing the H ±± contribution. The contribution is sensitive to this choice fore with MV ± 650 GeV, M Z 2.4 TeV and MU ±± 660 GeV
quadratically, indicating that the H ±± contribution is small for any per-
the mass of these new particles through spontaneous symme- breaking in Fig. 4. There we clearly see that a scale of symme-
try breaking. The second plot is more physical, as the masses try breaking around 2 TeV is favored. Our results are qual-
are all correlated but not identical. In fact, we can see that itatively consistent with previous works on this topic [14–
some of the contributions evolve differently with symmetry- 16,22]. Complementary results coming from electroweak
breaking scale than others. We find that, if the discrepancy in precision are discussed [57–59].
aμ is to be explained by the new physics of the RM331 model, It is important to note that if we instead suppose that new
we require a symmetry-breaking scale of approximately 1.7– experimental or theoretical results resolve the anomaly in aμ ,
2 TeV and hence favoring 555 GeV MV ± 652 GeV, making the central values of theory and experiment match,
2.35 TeV M Z 2.4 TeV and 600 GeV MU ±± we can then set a lower bound on the scale of SU(3) L ⊗U (1) N
657 GeV. This symmetry-breaking scale is consistent with breaking by requiring that the contribution to the anomalous
recent studies of flavor changing neutral current processes in magnetic moment to not induce a 2σ correction to aμ . For
Ref. [20], which require the scale of symmetry breaking of current data this means requiring 2σ (aμ ) < 162 × 10−11 .
the model to be greater than 940 GeV or 2.5 TeV, depending This requirement is readily converted into a lower bound
on the parametrization used for the quark-mixing matrices. for the breaking scale of 2.6 TeV. Strikingly, under this same
For completeness, we show the total contribution of the assumption that the anomaly is resolved by physics other than
reduced minimal 3-3-1 model to the anomalous magnetic that discussed here, using the proposed Fermilab experiment
moment of the muon as a function of the scale of symmetry and improvements in the calculation to the SM contribution
123
2808 Page 8 of 9 Eur. Phys. J. C (2014) 74:2808
123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2014) 74:2808 Page 9 of 9 2808
22. C.-X. Yue, Q.-Y. Shi, T. Hua, Nucl. Phys. B 876, 747 (2013). (arXiv: 40. P.V. Dong, (Hanoi, Inst. Phys.), H.T. Hung (Hanoi Ed. U.), T.D.
1307.5572 [hep-ph]) Tham. Phys. Rev. D 87, 115003 (2013). (arXiv:1305.0369)
23. H.N. Long, Phys. Rev. D 54, 4691–4693 (1996). (hep-ph/9607439) 41. P.V. Dong, T. Phong Nguyen, D.V. Soa, (arXiv:1308.4097)
24. F. Pisano, V. Pleitez, Phys. Rev. D 46, 410–417 (1992). (hep-ph/ 42. J.G. Ferreira, C.A.d.S. Pires, P.S.R. da Silva, A. Sampieri, Phys.
9206242) Rev. D 88, 105013 (2013). (arXiv:1308.0575)
25. R. Foot, H.N. Long, T.A. Tran, Phys. Rev. D 50, 34–38 (1994). 43. J.M. Cabarcas, J. Duarte, J.-A. Rodriguez, (arXiv:1310.1407)
(hep-ph/9402243) 44. J.M. Cabarcas, D. Gomez, Dumm, R. Martinez, Eur. Phys. J. C 58,
26. C.A. de S.Pires, P.S. Rodrigues da Silva, JCAP 0712, 012 (2007). 569–578 (2008). (arXiv:0809.0821)
(arXiv:0710.2104) 45. A.G. Dias, R. Martinez, V, Pleitez. Eur. Phys. J. C 39, 101–107
27. J.K. Mizukoshi, (ABC Federal U.), C.A. de S. Pires, F.S. Queiroz, (2005). (hep-ph/0407141)
P.S. Rodrigues da Silva. Phys. Rev. D 83, 065024 (2011). (arXiv: 46. R. Boughezal (Argonne), K. Melnikov, Phys. Lett. B 704, 193–196
1010.4097) (2011). (arXiv:1104.4510)
28. F. Queiroz, C.A. de S. Pires, P.S. Rodrigues da Silva. Phys. Rev. D 47. G.W. Bennett et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 101804 (2002) (Erratum.
82, 065018 (2010). (arXiv:1003.1270) Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 129903 (2002))
29. D. Cogollo, A.V. de Andrade, F.S. Queiroz, P. Rebello Teles, Eur. 48. G.W. Bennett et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 161802 (2004)
Phys. J. C 72, 2029 (2012). (arXiv:1201.1268) 49. G.W. Bennett et al., Phys. Rev. D 73, 072003 (2006)
30. J.D. Ruiz-Alvarez, C.A. de S.Pires, F.S. Queiroz, D. Restrepo, P.S. 50. F. Jegerlehner, A. Nyffeler, Phys. Rep. 477, 1–110 (2009). (arXiv:
Rodrigues da Silva, Phys. Rev. D 86, 075011 (2012). (arXiv:1206. 0902.3360)
5779) 51. A.G. Dias, P.R.D. Pinheiro, C.A. de S. Pires, P.S. Rodrigues da
31. J.E.C. Montalvo, R.J.G. Ramrez, G.H.R.r. Ulloa, A.I.R. Mendoza, Silva, (arXiv:1309.6644)
(arXiv:1311.0845) 52. S.R. Moore, K. Whisnant, B.-L. Young, Phys. Rev. D 31, 105
32. A. Alves, E. Ramirez, Barreto, A.G. Dias, C.A. de S. Pires, F.S. (1985)
Queiroz, P.S. Rodrigues da Silva, Phys. Rev. D 84, 115004 (2011). 53. E. Ramirez Barreto, Y.A. Coutinho, J. Sa Borges, (arXiv:1307.
(arXiv:1109.0238) 4683)
33. A. Doff, A.A. Natale, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 27, 1250156 (2012). 54. Y.A. Coutinho, V. Salustino Guimaraes, A.A. Nepomuceno,
(arXiv:1210.3390) (arXiv:1304.7907)
34. P.V. Dong, H.N. Long, H.T. Hung, Phys. Rev. D 86, 033002 (2012). 55. E. Ramirez, Barreto (ABC Federal U.), Y.A. Coutinho. J. Sa Borges
(arXiv:1205.5648) Phys. Rev. D 83, 075001 (2011). (arXiv:1103.1267)
35. S. Profumo, F.S. Queiroz, (arXiv:1307.7802) 56. Jacques P. Leveille, Nucl. Phys. B 137, 63 (1978)
36. A. Alves, S. Profumo, F.S. Queiroz, (arXiv:1312.5281) 57. A.J. Buras, F. De Fazio, J. Girrbach, (arXiv:1311.6729)
37. C. Kelso, C.A.d.S. Pires, S. Profumo, F.S. Queiroz, P.S.R. da Silva, 58. A.J. Buras, F. De Fazio, J. Girrbach, M.V. Carlucci, JHEP 1302,
(arXiv:1308.6630) 023 (2013). (arXiv:1211.1237)
38. F.S. Queiroz, (arXiv:1310.3026) 59. A.E. Carcamo Hernandez, R. Martinez, J. Nisperuza, (arXiv:1401.
39. A. Alves, E. Ramirez, Barreto, A.G. Dias, C.A. de S. Pires, F.S. 0937)
Queiroz, P.S. Rodrigues da Silva, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2288 (2013).
(arXiv:1207.3699)
123