Using 2024 inputs and exclusive |V_cb|, the standard model predicts only about 65% of the measured |epsilon_K|, a gap that vanishes when inclusive |V_cb| is used.
Updated evaluation of $\varepsilon_K$ in the Standard Model with lattice QCD inputs
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
We report a strong tension in $\varepsilon_K$ at the $4\sigma$ level between the experimental value and the theoretical value calculated directly from the standard model using lattice QCD inputs such as $\hat{B}_K$, $|V_{cb}|$, $|V_{us}|$, $\xi_0$, $\xi_2$, $\xi_\text{LD}$, $F_K$, and $m_c$. The standard model with lattice QCD inputs describes only 70% of the experimental value of $\varepsilon_K$, and does not explain its remaining 30%. We also find that this tension disappears when we use the inclusive value of $|V_{cb}|$ (results of the heavy quark expansion based on QCD sum rules) to determine $\varepsilon_K$. This tension is highly correlated with the present discrepancy between the exclusive and inclusive values of $|V_{cb}|$. In order to resolve, in part, the issue with $|V_{cb}|$, it would be highly desirable to have a comprehensive re-analysis over the entire set of experimental data on the $\bar{B} \to D^* \ell \bar{\nu}$ decays using an alternative parametrization of the form factors, such as the BGL parametrization, and a comparison with results of the CLN method.
fields
hep-lat 1years
2024 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
2024 Update on $\varepsilon_K$ with lattice QCD inputs
Using 2024 inputs and exclusive |V_cb|, the standard model predicts only about 65% of the measured |epsilon_K|, a gap that vanishes when inclusive |V_cb| is used.