Editorial

Supersymmetric largetanβcorrections toΔMd,sandBFreitas1, Gasser2, Haisch3 2007Phys. Rev. D297404View full textAdd to dashboardCite

“…∆M K and |ǫ K | are allowed to differ from their experimental values [21] by ±50% and ±40%, while we reject parameter points that reverse the sign of the amplitude A(b → sγ) with respect to the SM, as they correspond to B(B → X s l + l − ) values higher than the measurements [32] by around 3 σ [33]. In the case of [28]. Notice that, we do not take into account the experimental constraint from (g − 2) µ , because in our scenario the slepton sector parameters are uncorrelated with the ones of the squark sector, so that (g − 2) µ does not lead to any restriction.…”

“…Since the SM prediction of B(B → X s γ) is now lower than the experimental world average [23] by about 1.4 σ, a cancellation between the constructive charged Higgs corrections and the chargino contribution is easier to achieve than in the past, where the theoretical result used to be above the experimental one. As far as B s → µ + µ − is concerned all parameter points are required to satisfy [28], while, in view of the sizable experimental [29] and theoretical uncertainties, we use 0.2 ≤ B(B + → τ + ν τ ) × 10 4 ≤ 2.5 in the case of B + → τ + ν τ . Because the interference between SM and charged Higgs corrections is necessarily destructive [30], B + → τ + ν τ may become the most stringent constraint in the near future, in particular if improved measurements of B(B + → τ + ν τ ) will not differ much from the SM expectation.…”