This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Sterile neutrino and leptonic decays of the pseudoscalar mesons

Chong-Xing Yue and Ji-Ping Chu
Department of Physics, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116029, P. R. China
E-mail:cxyue@lnnu.edu.cn
(July 29, 2025)
Abstract

We consider a scenario with only one sterile neutrino NN, negligible mixing with the active neutrinos νL\nu_{L}, where its interactions with ordinary particles could be described in a model independent approach based on an effective theory. Under such a framwork, we consider the contributions of the sterile neutrino NN to the pure leptonic decays MlνM\rightarrow l\nu and νν¯\nu\overline{\nu}, and the radiative leptonic decays MlνγM\rightarrow l\nu\gamma with MM denoting the pseudoscalar mesons BB, DD and KK. We find that it can produce significant effects on some of these rare decay processes.

1. Introduction

Discovery of the 125 GeV scalar particle seeming to be the Higgs boson predicted by the standard model (SM) [1, 2] is the crowning achievement of the LHC Run I. Although most of the experimental measurements are in good agreement with the SM predictions, there are still some unexplained discrepancies and theoretical issues that the SM can not solve. Furthermore, experiments in the last decades have confirmed that at least two of the three known neutrinos must have nonzero masses and lepton flavors are mixed [3], which is so far the most clear experimental evidence for the existence of new physics beyond the SM.

In order to naturally explain the tiny neutrino masses, sterile neutrinos are usually introduced in most of the new physics scenarios. The seesaw mechanism is one of the simple paradigms for generating suitable neutrino masses [4]. Different realizations of this mechanism give rise to sterile neutrinos with mass covering various mass ranges. So it is reasonable to search for the direct and indirect signals of the sterile neutrinos with masses in the broad range from eV to TeV.

If the sterile neutrino mass is below the electroweak scale (i.e. mN<mWm_{N}<m_{W}), it can behave as long-lived particle with a measurable decay length, which give us an opportunity to probe its signatures by taking advantage of the displaced vertex techniques. So far there are many studies on searches for long-lived sterile neutrinos in the LHC and future colliders (see for instance [5, 6] and references therein). Furthermore, if the sterile neutrinos are sufficiently light, they may induce important impact on electroweak precision and many other observables. For example, they might be produced via heavy meson decays and further contribute to the rare meson decay processes (see for instance [7, 8, 9] and references therein). In this paper we will consider the effects of the sterile neutrino on the pure leptonic decays MlνM\rightarrow l\nu and νν¯\nu\overline{\nu} with MM denoting the pseudoscalar mesons BB, DD and KK, and the radiative leptonic decays MlνγM\rightarrow l\nu\gamma in the context of a general effective theory framework.

The sterile neutrino interactions can be described in a model independent approach based on an effective theory [10]. We assume that the interactions of the sterile neutrino NN with ordinary particles arise from high dimension effective operators and are dominant in comparison with the mixing with light neutrinos through the Yukawa couplings. The different operators in the effective Lagrangian parameterize a wide variety of UV-compete new physics models. Thus, considering their possible contributions to specific physical processes can give us smoking gun on what kind of new physics at higher energy range is responsible for the observables. The relevant phenomenological researches have been addressed in recent works [11, 12, 13]. The main goal of this paper is to consider a most simple scenario with only one sterile neutrino NN, which has a negligible mixing with the SM neutrinos νL\nu_{L} and interacts with ordinary particles by effective operators of higher dimension, and see whether NN can produce significant contributions to the decay processes MlνM\rightarrow l\nu, lνγl\nu\gamma and νν¯\nu\overline{\nu}.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we first review the relevant effective operators and the existing constraints on the effective coupling constants, and then calculate the contributions of the sterile neutrino NN to the decay processes MlνM\rightarrow l\nu, lνγl\nu\gamma where MM denotes the pseudoscalar meson BB, DD or KK, ll and ν\nu represent the SM charged leptons and neutrinos, respectively. Its effects on the decay processes Mνν¯M\rightarrow\nu\overline{\nu} are studied in section 3. Our conclusions are given in section 4.


2. The sterile neutrino NN and the decay processes MlνM\rightarrow l\nu and lνγl\nu\gamma


2.1 The relevant effective couplings of the sterile neutrino NN


The effects of the new physics involving one sterile neutrino and the SM fields can be parameterized by a set of effective operators OJO_{J} satisfying the SU(2)L×U(1)YSU(2)_{L}\times U(1)_{Y} gauge symmetry [14]. The contributions of these operators to observables are suppressed by inverse powers of the new physics scala Λ\Lambda. The total Lagrangian is written as

\displaystyle\mathcal{L} =\displaystyle= SM+n=51Λn4JαJOJn,\displaystyle\mathcal{L}_{SM}+\sum_{n=5}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\Lambda^{n-4}}\sum_{J}\alpha_{J}O_{J}^{n}, (1)

where OJnO_{J}^{n} are gauge-invariant local operators with mass dimension nn.

In the case of neglecting the sterile-active neutrino mixing, the dimension 5 operators do not contribute to the studied decay processes, we will only consider the contributions of the dimension 6 operators. The decay processes considered in this paper only involve a meson, we can neglect all operators with a tensor Lorentz structure, because of their vanishing hadronic matrix element. Then the effective Lagrangian derived from the relevant operators, which produce main contributions to the decay processes MlνM\rightarrow l\nu, lνγl\nu\gamma and Mνν¯M\rightarrow\nu\overline{\nu}, can be written as

eff\displaystyle\mathcal{L}_{eff} =\displaystyle= 1Λ2{mZv2αZZμNR¯γμNRmWv2αWiW+μNR¯γμlRi\displaystyle\frac{1}{\Lambda^{2}}\{\frac{m_{Z}v}{2}\alpha_{Z}Z^{\mu}\overline{N_{R}}\gamma_{\mu}N_{R}-\frac{m_{W}v}{\sqrt{2}}\alpha_{W}^{i}W^{+\mu}\overline{N_{R}}\gamma_{\mu}l_{R}^{i}
i2v(cWαNBi+sWαNWi)(PμAνLi¯σμνNRAν)\displaystyle-i\sqrt{2}v(c_{W}\alpha_{NB}^{i}+s_{W}\alpha_{NW}^{i})(P^{A}_{\mu}~\overline{\nu_{L}^{i}}\sigma^{\mu\nu}N_{R}~A_{\nu})
+αV0idRi¯γμuRiNR¯γμlRi+αV3iuRi¯γμuRiNR¯γμNR+αV4idRi¯γμdRiNR¯γμNR+h.c.}.\displaystyle\left.+\alpha_{V_{0}}^{i}\overline{d_{R}^{i}}\gamma^{\mu}u_{R}^{i}\overline{N_{R}}\gamma_{\mu}l_{R}^{i}+\alpha_{V_{3}}^{i}\overline{u_{R}^{i}}\gamma^{\mu}u_{R}^{i}\overline{N_{R}}\gamma_{\mu}N_{R}+\alpha_{V_{4}}^{i}\overline{d_{R}^{i}}\gamma^{\mu}d_{R_{i}}\overline{N_{R}}\gamma_{\mu}N_{R}+h.c.\}.\right.

Where αs\alpha^{\prime}s are the effective coupling constants, v246v\approx 246 GeV is the electroweak symmetry breaking scale and a sum over the family index ii is understood. sW=sinθWs_{W}=\sin\theta_{W} and cW=cosθWc_{W}=\cos\theta_{W} with θW\theta_{W} being the Weinberg angle, PA-P^{A} is the 4-momentum of the outgoing photon. Considering the one-loop coupling constants are naturally suppressed by a factor 1/16π21/16\pi^{2} [10, 15], in above equation, we have not shown the terms generated by one-loop operators, because their contributions to the meson decays considered in this paper are much smaller than those of the tree-level operators. However, the sterile neutrino NN might generate significant contributions to the decay MlνγM\rightarrow l\nu\gamma via the process MlNlνγM\rightarrow lN\rightarrow l\nu\gamma. Thus we give the relevant effective Lagrangian terms related the decay NνγN\rightarrow\nu\gamma, although they are induced by one-loop level tensorial operators:

ONB=(L¯σμνN)ϕ~Bμν,ONW=(L¯σμντIN)ϕ~WμνI.\displaystyle O_{NB}=(\overline{L}\sigma^{\mu\nu}N)\widetilde{\phi}B_{\mu\nu},~~~~~O_{NW}=(\overline{L}\sigma^{\mu\nu}\tau^{I}N)\widetilde{\phi}W^{I}_{\mu\nu}. (3)

The first and second terms of Eq.(2) are associated to the following operators:

ONNϕ=i(ϕ+Dμϕ)(N¯γμN),ONlϕ=i(ϕTϵDμϕ)(N¯γμli).\displaystyle O_{NN\phi}=i(\phi^{+}D_{\mu}\phi)(\overline{N}\gamma^{\mu}N),~~~~~O_{Nl\phi}=i(\phi^{T}\epsilon D_{\mu}\phi)(\overline{N}\gamma^{\mu}l_{i}). (4)

Where BμνB_{\mu\nu} and WμνIW^{I}_{\mu\nu} denote the U(1)YU(1)_{Y} and SU(2)LSU(2)_{L} field strengths, respectively. γμ\gamma^{\mu} and σμν\sigma^{\mu\nu} are the Dirac matrices, ϵ=iσ2\epsilon=i\sigma^{2} is the antisymmetric symbol. Taking the scalar doublet as ϕ=(0(v+h)/2)\phi=\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}0\\ (v+h)/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right) with hh being the Higgs field, after spontaneous symmetry breaking of the SM gauge group, the above operators can give Eq.(3) and the terms of Eq.(2) involving the electroweak gauge bosons WW and ZZ.

It is well known that the sterile-active neutrino mixing parameters in various seesaw models are severely contained by electroweak precision measurement data and direct collider searches. Ref. [13] has translated these existing bounds into the constraints on αs\alpha^{\prime}s. They have shown that the most stringent constraints on the couplings involving the first generation fermions come from the 0νββ0\nu\beta\beta decay and there is α0νββ3.2×102(mN/100)\alpha_{0\nu\beta\beta}\leq 3.2\times 10^{-2}\sqrt{(m_{N}/100)} for Λ=1\Lambda=1 TeV, while the other ones should satisfy α0.32\alpha\leq 0.32 given by the electroweak precision data. In our following numerical estimation, we will consider these constraints and take their maximal values.


2.2 The pseudoscalar meson decays MlνM\rightarrow l\nu


In the SM, the leading order amplitude for the Mlνl¯M^{-}\rightarrow l\overline{\nu_{l}} decay is

ASM=4GFVij2lνl¯|lL¯γμνL|00|uLi¯γμdLj|M,\displaystyle A_{SM}=\frac{4G_{F}V_{ij}}{\sqrt{2}}\left\langle{l\overline{\nu_{l}}}\left|\overline{l_{L}}\gamma^{\mu}\nu_{L}\right|{0}\right\rangle\left\langle{0}\left|\overline{u_{L}^{i}}\gamma_{\mu}d_{L}^{j}\right|{M^{-}}\right\rangle, (5)

where ii, jj are the quark flavor indices of the corresponding pseudoscalar meson and VijV_{ij} is the CKM matrix element. Defining the meson decay constant, 0|ui¯γμγ5di|M(P)=iFMPμ\left\langle{0}\left|\overline{u^{i}}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma_{5}d^{i}\right|{M^{-}(P)}\right\rangle=iF_{M}P^{\mu}\ , then the decay width can be written as [16]

Γ(Mlνl¯)=GF28π|Vij|2FM2ml2mM(1ml2mM2)2.\displaystyle\Gamma(M^{-}\rightarrow l\overline{\nu_{l}})=\frac{G_{F}^{2}}{8\pi}\left|V_{ij}\right|^{2}F_{M}^{2}m_{l}^{2}m_{M}(1-\frac{m_{l}^{2}}{m_{M}^{2}})^{2}. (6)

If we include the electroweak and radiative corrections [17], the decay width should be written as Γ(Mlν)=(1+σ)Γ(Mlν)\Gamma^{{}^{\prime}}(M\rightarrow l\nu)=(1+\sigma)\Gamma(M\rightarrow l\nu). However, in this paper, we will focus our attention on the relative correction effects of the sterile neutrino NN on the decay MlνM\rightarrow l\nu, so we will do not include the correction contributions in our numerical estimation. The numerical values of the pseudoscalar meson mass mMm_{M}, the corresponding decay constant FMF_{M}, VijV_{ij}, and the lepton mass mlm_{l} used in our numerical calculations are taken from Ref.[3].

The decay process MlνM\rightarrow l\nu is helicity suppressed in the SM, which is sensitive to new physics effects (for example see Ref. [18]), and thus is of great interest as a probe for new physics beyond the SM. If the sterile neutrino NN is sufficiently light, i.e. mN<mMm_{N}<m_{M}, it can be on-shell produced from meson decays. If its decay length, which can be obtained from its total decay width, is larger than the size of the detector, then it does not decay in the detector and appears as missing energy, which is similar to the active neutrino. In this case, the sterile neutrino NN can change the branching ratio Br(Mlν)Br(M\rightarrow l\nu). In the scenario considered in this paper, using the relevant couplings given by Eq.(2), we can obtain the expression form for the decay width Γ(MlN¯)\Gamma(M^{-}\rightarrow l\overline{N})

Γ(MlN¯)\displaystyle\Gamma(M^{-}\rightarrow l\overline{N}) (7)
=mM3FM28π|Vij|2[GF2(αWlv22Λ2)2+(αV0lΛ2)2]λ12(1,yl,yN)[yl+yNyl2yN2+2ylyN]\displaystyle=\frac{m_{M}^{3}F_{M}^{2}}{8\pi}\left|V_{ij}\right|^{2}[G_{F}^{2}(\frac{\alpha_{W}^{l}v^{2}}{2\Lambda^{2}})^{2}+(\frac{\alpha_{V_{0}}^{l}}{\Lambda^{2}})^{2}]\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}(1,y_{l},y_{N})[y_{l}+y_{N}-y_{l}^{2}-y_{N}^{2}+2y_{l}y_{N}]

with λ(a,b,c)=(a2+b2+c22ab2ac2bc)\lambda(a,b,c)=(a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}-2ab-2ac-2bc), yl=ml2/mM2y_{l}=m_{l}^{2}/m_{M}^{2} and yN=mN2/mM2y_{N}=m_{N}^{2}/m_{M}^{2}. It is obvious that the decay width Γ(M+l+N)\Gamma(M^{+}\rightarrow l^{+}N) has similar fashion.

In order to analyse the relative strength of the SM and the sterile contributions, we define the ratio

R=ΓSM(Mlνl)+Γ(MlN)ΓSM(Mlνl).\displaystyle R=\frac{\Gamma^{SM}(M\rightarrow l\nu_{l})+\Gamma(M\rightarrow lN)}{\Gamma^{SM}(M\rightarrow l\nu_{l})}. (8)

In above equation, we have ignored the interference effects, because the interference term between two kinds of contributions being proportional to the factor mνmNm_{\nu}m_{N} with mν0m_{\nu}\approx 0 [9]. Our numerical results about the positive charged pseudoscalar mesons are summarized in Table 1, which are obtained in the case of Λ=1\Lambda=1 TeV, αWeαV0e=3.2×102(mN/100)\alpha_{W}^{e}\simeq\alpha_{V_{0}}^{e}=3.2\times 10^{-2}\sqrt{(m_{N}/100)} and αWlαV0l=0.32\alpha_{W}^{l}\simeq\alpha_{V_{0}}^{l}=0.32 with l=μl=\mu and τ\tau. In Table 1, we also show the values of the parameter Rexp=Brexp(M+l+ν)/BrSM(M+l+ν)R^{exp}=Br^{exp}(M^{+}\rightarrow l^{+}\nu)/Br^{SM}(M^{+}\rightarrow l^{+}\nu), where Brexp(M+l+ν)Br^{exp}(M^{+}\rightarrow l^{+}\nu) and BrSM(M+l+ν)Br^{SM}(M^{+}\rightarrow l^{+}\nu) express the experimental measurement and SM prediction values of the corresponding branching ratio, respectively, which are taken from Ref. [3]. One can see from Table 1 that the sterile neutrino NN can indeed produce correction effects on the branching ratio Br(M+l+ν)Br(M^{+}\rightarrow l^{+}\nu), and generate large contributions to some specific processes. For example, for the decays B+e+νeB^{+}\rightarrow e^{+}\nu_{e} and Ds+e+νeD_{s}^{+}\rightarrow e^{+}\nu_{e}, the values of the ratio RR can reach 5.4 and 1.22 for mN=3.5m_{N}=3.5 GeV and 1.3 GeV, respectively. However, the contributions of NN to most of these decay processes are much smaller than the corresponding experimental uncertainty, or it can not make the value of the branching ratio Br(M+l+ν)Br(M^{+}\rightarrow l^{+}\nu) reach the experimental measurement value, which can not drive new constraints on the scenario with only one sterile neutrino and negligible mixing with the active neutrinos. The exception is Br(K+μ+νμ)Br(K^{+}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu}), which can exceed the corresponding experimental measurement value, thus might give new constraints on the free parameters αs\alpha^{\prime}s and mNm_{N}, as shown in Fig. 1. For 0.12 GeV mN\leq m_{N}\leq 0.36 GeV, the sterile neutrino NN can make the value of Br(K+μ+νμ)Br(K^{+}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu}) exceed the experimental upper limit.


2.3 The pseudoscalar meson decays MlνγM\rightarrow l\nu\gamma


Contrary to the pure leptonic decays MlνM\rightarrow l\nu, the radiative leptonic decays MlνγM\rightarrow l\nu\gamma are not subject to the helicity suppression due to the presence of a radiative photon, which might be comparable or even larger than the corresponding decay MlνM\rightarrow l\nu. In the SM, the decay width of M+l+νγM^{+}\rightarrow l^{+}\nu\gamma with l=el=e and μ\mu can be general given at tree-level by [19]

Γ(M+l+νγ)=αGF2|Vij|22592π2FM2mM3(xi+xj)\displaystyle\Gamma(M^{+}\rightarrow l^{+}\nu\gamma)=\frac{\alpha G_{F}^{2}\left|V_{ij}\right|^{2}}{2592\pi^{2}}F_{M}^{2}m_{M}^{3}(x_{i}+x_{j}) (9)

with xi=(3mM/mqi)2x_{i}=(3-m_{M}/m_{q_{i}})^{2} and xj=(32mM/mqj)2x_{j}=(3-2m_{M}/m_{q_{j}})^{2}. Since there are IR divergences in these decay processes when the photon is soft or collinear with the emitted lepton, the decay widths depend on the experimental resolution to the photon energy. By using the lifetimes of the relevant mesons, one can obtain the branching ratios for considered decay channels. If one only considers the relative correction effects of new physics on the decays MlνγM\rightarrow l\nu\gamma, then the theoretical uncertainties can be canceled to a large extent. The values of the relative correction parameter R(M+l+νγ)=BrSM+NP(M+l+νγ)/BrSM(M+l+νγ)R^{\prime}(M^{+}\rightarrow l^{+}\nu\gamma)=Br^{SM+NP}(M^{+}\rightarrow l^{+}\nu\gamma)/Br^{SM}(M^{+}\rightarrow l^{+}\nu\gamma) are almost independent of the resolution of the photon energy.

It is well known that the measurement of pure leptonic decays of mesons is very difficult because of the helicity suppression and only one detected final state particle. Since the radiative leptonic decays having an extra real photon emitted in the final state, the reconstruction of these decays is easier to do. Furthermore, the radiative leptonic decays of mesons may be separated properly and compared with measurements directly as long as the theoretical softness of the photon corresponds to the experimental resolutions. In recent years, the experimental studies for the radiative leptonic decays MlνγM\rightarrow l\nu\gamma have been improved greatly, the experimental upper limits for some decay channels are obtained [3]. Certainly, these results depend on the photon threshold energy.

In the scenario considered in this paper, the sterile neutrino NN can decay via two kinds of decay channels for mN<mWm_{N}<m_{W}, which are the three-fermion and photon-neutrino channels. Its decay length can be translated from the total width, which depends on its mass and couplings. If the decay length of the sterile neutrino NN is smaller than or is of the same order of the size of the detector, then it can decay inside the detectors after traveling a macroscopical distance, its possible signals might be detected via taking advantage of displaced vertex techniques. Although the decay channel NνγN\rightarrow\nu\gamma is induced by the effective tensorial operators generated at loop level as shown in Eq.(3), it is the dominant decay mode of the sterile neutrino for low mNm_{N} and there is Br(Nνγ)1Br(N\rightarrow\nu\gamma)\approx 1 for mN<10m_{N}<10 GeV [13]. Thus the sterile neutrino NN can contribute to the decays MlνγM\rightarrow l\nu\gamma via the process MlNlνγM\rightarrow lN\rightarrow l\nu\gamma. In this subsection, we will calculate its contributions to the decay processes M+l+νγM^{+}\rightarrow l^{+}\nu\gamma with MM and ll denoting BB, DD or KK and ee or μ\mu , respectively.

In the case of neglecting the interference effects between the sterile and active neutrinos, using Eq.(7) we can obtain the contributions of NN to the decays M+l+νγM^{+}\rightarrow l^{+}\nu\gamma. Our numerical results show that all of the values of the relative correction parameter R(M+l+νγ)=Br(M+l+νγ)/BrSM(M+l+νγ)R^{\prime}(M^{+}\rightarrow l^{+}\nu\gamma)=Br(M^{+}\rightarrow l^{+}\nu\gamma)/Br^{SM}(M^{+}\rightarrow l^{+}\nu\gamma) are smaller than one in a thousand for l+=e+l^{+}=e^{+} and M+=K+M^{+}=K^{+}, D+D^{+} and B+B^{+}, while their values can be significantly large for l+=μ+l^{+}=\mu^{+}. This is because we have taken the coupling constants involving the first generation leptons equaling to 3.2×102mN/1003.2\times 10^{-2}\sqrt{m_{N}/100} and other ones equaling to 0.32 for Λ=1\Lambda=1 TeV. Our numerical results for M+μ+νμγM^{+}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu}\gamma are shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. One can see from these figures that the maximal values of the parameter RR^{\prime} are 1.08, 2.72 and 5.87 for MM being BB, DD and KK, respectively. Up to now, there is not the experimental measurement value of the branching ratio Br(D+μ+νμγ)Br(D^{+}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu}\gamma), while the experimental uncertainties for the branching ratio Br(K+μ+νμγ)Br(K^{+}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu}\gamma) are very large. The experimental upper limit for the decay B+μ+νμγB^{+}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu}\gamma is 3.4×1063.4\times 10^{-6} at 90%90\% CL [3], the value of the parameter RexpR^{\prime exp} is smaller than 2.124. We hope that the theoretical calculations and experimental measurements about the radiative leptonic decays of the pseudoscalar mesons MlνγM\rightarrow l\nu\gamma will be improved greatly in near future and the correction effects of the sterile neutrino might be detected in the future e+ee^{+}e^{-} colliders.


3. The sterile neutrino NN and the decays Mνν¯M\rightarrow\nu\overline{\nu}


In the SM the decays Mνν¯M\rightarrow\nu\overline{\nu} proceed through ZpenguinZ-penguin and electroweak box diagrams. The effective Hamiltonian is [20]

Heff=4GF2α2πsW2i=e,μ,τkλkXi(xk)(qL¯γμqL)(νLi¯γμνLi),\displaystyle H_{eff}=\frac{4G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\alpha}{2\pi s_{W}^{2}}\sum_{i=e,\mu,\tau}\sum_{k}\lambda_{k}X^{i}(x_{k})(\overline{q_{L}}\gamma^{\mu}q^{\prime}_{L})(\overline{\nu_{L}^{i}}\gamma_{\mu}\nu_{L}^{i}), (10)

where the functions λkXi(xk)\lambda_{k}X^{i}(x_{k}) are relevant combinations of the CKM factors and Inami-Lim functions [21], which depend on the kinds of quarks constituting mesons.

If we take the same assumption as that of subsection 2.2 for the sterile neutrino NN, then it can contribute to the decays Mνν¯M\rightarrow\nu\overline{\nu} via the decay processes MνLNRM\rightarrow\nu_{L}N_{R} and MNN¯M\rightarrow N\overline{N}. In the case of neglecting the sterile-active neutrinos mixing, the ZνLNRZ\nu_{L}N_{R} coupling can only be induced at loop level, thus the contributions of MνLNRM\rightarrow\nu_{L}N_{R} are much smaller than those for the process MNN¯M\rightarrow N\overline{N}, which can be safely ignored. The leading order Feynman diagrams for the quark level process qiqjNN¯q_{i}\rightarrow q_{j}N\overline{N} are shown in Fig. 4, where qi=bq_{i}=b, cc and ss quarks for the BB, DD and KK mesons, respectively.

Using Eq.(2), the expression for the branching ratio Br(BqNN¯)Br(B_{q}\rightarrow N\overline{N}) with q=sq=s or dd quark can be written as

Br(BqNN¯)\displaystyle Br(B_{q}\rightarrow N\overline{N}) =\displaystyle= GF2α2τBq8π3sW4FBq2mBqmN214mN2mBq2\displaystyle\frac{G_{F}^{2}\alpha^{2}\tau_{Bq}}{8\pi^{3}s_{W}^{4}}F_{B_{q}}^{2}m_{B_{q}}m_{N}^{2}\sqrt{1-\frac{4m_{N}^{2}}{m_{B_{q}}^{2}}}
×{λt[v2αZΛ2C0(xt)(αWi)2v4Λ4B0(xt)]+λcxci(αWiv22Λ2)2}2\displaystyle\left.\times\{\lambda_{t}[\frac{v^{2}\alpha_{Z}}{\Lambda^{2}}C_{0}(x_{t})-\frac{(\alpha_{W}^{i})^{2}v^{4}}{\Lambda^{4}}B_{0}(x_{t})]+\lambda_{c}x_{c}^{i}(\frac{\alpha_{W}^{i}v^{2}}{2\Lambda^{2}})^{2}\}^{2}\right.

with

C0(xt)=xt8[3xt+2(xt1)2lnxt+xt6xt1],\displaystyle C_{0}(x_{t})=\frac{x_{t}}{8}[\frac{3x_{t}+2}{(x_{t}-1)^{2}}\ln x_{t}+\frac{x_{t}-6}{x_{t}-1}], (12)
B0(xt)=xt4[lnxt(xt1)21xt1].\displaystyle B_{0}(x_{t})=\frac{x_{t}}{4}[\frac{\ln x_{t}}{(x_{t}-1)^{2}}-\frac{1}{x_{t}-1}]. (13)

Where τBq\tau_{B_{q}} is the lifetime of the pseudoscalar meson BqB_{q}, xt=mt2/mW2x_{t}=m_{t}^{2}/m_{W}^{2}. The CKM combinatorial factors λt\lambda_{t} and λc\lambda_{c} are VtsVtbV_{ts}^{*}V_{tb} and VcbVcsV_{cb}^{*}V_{cs}, VtdVtbV_{td}^{*}V_{tb} and VcbVcdV_{cb}^{*}V_{cd} for the mesons BsB_{s} and BdB_{d}, respectively. In Eq.(11), we have considered the contributions of the box diagrams with the propagating charm quark. The contributions of the ZpenguinZ-penguin diagrams involving the light quarks are neglected. The individual values of xcix_{c}^{i} are obtained from Table 1 of Ref. [22]: xce,μ=11.8×104x_{c}^{e,\mu}=11.8\times 10^{-4}, xcτ=7.63×104x_{c}^{\tau}=7.63\times 10^{-4}. The calculation formula of the branching ratio Br(KLNN¯)Br(K_{L}\rightarrow N\overline{N}) can be easily given from Eq.(10) via replacing BqKLB_{q}\rightarrow K_{L} and λt=VtsVtd\lambda_{t}=V_{ts}^{*}V_{td} , λc=VcsVcd\lambda_{c}=V_{cs}^{*}V_{cd}.

Unlike the decay processes BqNN¯B_{q}\rightarrow N\overline{N} and KLNN¯K_{L}\rightarrow N\overline{N}, which are dominated by top quark contributions, the decay DNN¯D\rightarrow N\overline{N} is mainly induced by the bottom and strange quarks [20, 21]. The expression of the branching ratio Br(DNN¯)Br(D\rightarrow N\overline{N}) are

Br(DNN¯)\displaystyle Br(D\rightarrow N\overline{N}) =\displaystyle= α2GF2τD8π3sW4mDmN2FD214mN2mD2{λb[αZv2Λ2C(xb)\displaystyle\frac{\alpha^{2}G_{F}^{2}\tau_{D}}{8\pi^{3}s_{W}^{4}}m_{D}m_{N}^{2}F_{D}^{2}\sqrt{1-\frac{4m_{N}^{2}}{m_{D}^{2}}}\{\lambda_{b}[\frac{\alpha_{Z}v^{2}}{\Lambda^{2}}C(x_{b})
+(αWi)2v4Λ4B(xb,yi)]+λs[αZv2Λ2C(xs)+(αWi)2v4Λ4B(xs,yi)]}2\displaystyle\left.+\frac{(\alpha_{W}^{i})^{2}v^{4}}{\Lambda^{4}}B(x_{b},y_{i})]+\lambda_{s}[\frac{\alpha_{Z}v^{2}}{\Lambda^{2}}C(x_{s})+\frac{(\alpha_{W}^{i})^{2}v^{4}}{\Lambda^{4}}B(x_{s},y_{i})]\}^{2}\right.

with

C(xq)=xq(xq3)4(xq1)+3xq+24(xq1)2xqlnxq,\displaystyle C(x_{q})=\frac{x_{q}(x_{q}-3)}{4(x_{q}-1)}+\frac{3x_{q}+2}{4(x_{q}-1)^{2}}x_{q}\ln x_{q}, (15)
B(xq,yi)=18(yi4yi1)2xqlnyi+xqyi8yi+168(xq1)2(yixq)xq2lnxq+(yi10)xq8(yi1)(xq1).\displaystyle B(x_{q},y_{i})=-\frac{1}{8}(\frac{y_{i}-4}{y_{i}-1})^{2}x_{q}\ln y_{i}+\frac{x_{q}y_{i}-8y_{i}+16}{8(x_{q}-1)^{2}(y_{i}-x_{q})}x_{q}^{2}\ln x_{q}+\frac{(y_{i}-10)x_{q}}{8(y_{i}-1)(x_{q}-1)}. (16)

Where λq=VcqVuq\lambda_{q}=V_{cq}^{*}V_{uq}, xq=mq2/mW2x_{q}=m_{q}^{2}/m_{W}^{2} and yi=ml2/mW2y_{i}=m_{l}^{2}/m_{W}^{2} with ii being the SM leptons. Although it is possible for all of leptons (ee, μ\mu and τ\tau) appearing in the box diagrams, there is of numerical significance only when considering the lepton τ\tau.

It is well known that the branching ratio Br(Mνν¯)Br(M\rightarrow\nu\overline{\nu}) is zero in the SM. Any nonzero measurement of Br(Mνν¯)Br(M\rightarrow\nu\overline{\nu}) would be a clean signal of new physics beyond the SM. If the light sterile neutrino NN can not further decay to other particles in the detector , its possible signals may be detected via the decay MNN¯M\rightarrow N\overline{N}. In the scenario considered in this paper, the branching ratios Br(BqNN¯)Br(B_{q}\rightarrow N\overline{N}), Br(KLNN¯)Br(K_{L}\rightarrow N\overline{N}) and Br(DNN¯)Br(D\rightarrow N\overline{N}) are plotted as functions of the sterile neutrino mass mNm_{N} in Fig. 5, Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, respectively. In our numerical calculation, we have taken Λ=1\Lambda=1 TeV, αWe=3.2×102(mN/100)\alpha_{W}^{e}=3.2\times 10^{-2}\sqrt{(m_{N}/100)} and αWiαZ=0.32\alpha_{W}^{i}\simeq\alpha_{Z}=0.32 with i=μi=\mu and τ\tau. From these figures, one can see that the maximal value of Br(KLNN¯)Br(K_{L}\rightarrow N\overline{N}) is 3.5×10133.5\times 10^{-13}, which is still smaller than that given by Ref. [9] in the minimal seesaw models with only one sterile neutrino NN and non-negligible active-sterile mixing. For the decay process DNN¯D\rightarrow N\overline{N}, its value is at the order of 101810^{-18}, which is very difficult to be detected in near future. The branching ratio Br(BsNN¯)Br(B_{s}\rightarrow N\overline{N}) is larger than Br(BdNN¯)Br(B_{d}\rightarrow N\overline{N}) by about two orders of magnitude. Its value can reach 4.2×10104.2\times 10^{-10}, which might approach the sensitivity of Belle II.


4. Conclusions


The pure and radiative leptonic decays of the pseudoscalar meson MM are theoretically very clean. The only non-perturbation quantity involved in these decay processes is the meson decay constant FMF_{M}. The decays MlνM\rightarrow l\nu and Mνν¯M\rightarrow\nu\overline{\nu} are helicity suppressed in the SM, and the branching ratio Br(Mνν¯)Br(M\rightarrow\nu\overline{\nu}) is exactly zero with massless neutrinos. The radiative leptonic decays MlνγM\rightarrow l\nu\gamma are not subject to the helicity suppression, which might be comparable or even larger than the corresponding decay MlνM\rightarrow l\nu. Thus, all of these processes are sensitive to new physics effects. It is very interest to study the contributions of new physics to these decay processes and see whether can be detected in future collider experiments.

Many new physics models giving the tiny neutrino masses predict the existence of the sterile neutrinos with mass covering various mass ranges. Recently, the relatively light sterile neutrinos with masses at the GeV scale have been attracting some interests. In this paper we consider a scenario with only one sterile neutrino NN of negligible mixing with the active neutrinos, where the sterile neutrino interactions could be described in a model independent approach based on an effective theory. Under such a framework, we consider the contributions of the sterile neutrino NN to the decays MlνM\rightarrow l\nu, lνγl\nu\gamma and νν¯\nu\overline{\nu} with MM being the pseudoscalar mesons BB, DD and KK. Our numerical results show:

1. The sterile neutrino NN can indeed enhance the values of the branching ratios Br(Mlν)Br(M\rightarrow l\nu) predicted by the SM. However, for most of these decay processes, it can not make Br(Mlν)Br(M\rightarrow l\nu) reach the experimental measurement value. The exception is Br(K+μ+νμ)Br(K^{+}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu}), which can exceed the corresponding current experimental up limit, thus might give new constraints on the free parameters αs\alpha^{\prime}s and mNm_{N}.

2. The contributions of the sterile neutrino NN to the decays M+e+νeγM^{+}\rightarrow e^{+}\nu_{e}\gamma with M+=B+M^{+}=B^{+}, K+K^{+} and D+D^{+} are very small and the values of the relative correction parameter R(M+e+νeγ)R^{\prime}(M^{+}\rightarrow e^{+}\nu_{e}\gamma) are smaller than one in a thousand. While it can produce significant contributions to M+μ+νμγM^{+}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu}\gamma, which can make the values of the parameters R(B+μ+νμγ)R^{\prime}(B^{+}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu}\gamma), R(K+μ+νμγ)R^{\prime}(K^{+}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu}\gamma) and R(D+μ+νμγ)R^{\prime}(D^{+}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu}\gamma) reach 1.08, 5.87 and 2.72, respectively.

3. All of the branching ratios Br(Mνν¯)Br(M\rightarrow\nu\overline{\nu}) with MM being the pseudoscalar mesons BB, DD and KK can be significant enhanced by the sterile neutrino NN. For the branching ratio Br(Bsνν¯)Br(B_{s}\rightarrow\nu\overline{\nu}), its value can reach 4.2×10104.2\times 10^{-10}, which might approach the sensitivity of Belle II.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 11275088 and 11875157.


References

  • [1] S. Chatrchyan, et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B716, 30 (2012).
  • [2] G. Aad, et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B716, 1 (2012).
  • [3] C. Patrignani, et al. [Particle Data Group], Chin. Phys. C40, 100001 (2016), and updated version.
  • [4] P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B67, 421 (1977); R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 912 (1980); J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D22, 2227 (1980); K. N. Abazajian, et al., arXiv: 1204.5379 [hep-ph].
  • [5] M. Mitra, R. Ruiz, D. J. Scott and M. Spannowsky, Phys. Rev. D94, 095016 (2016); L. Duarte, J. Peressutti, O. A. Sampayo, J. Phys. G45, 025001 (2018); E. Accomando et al., JHEP 1704, 081 (2017); P. S. B. Dev, R. N. Mohapatra and Y. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B923, 179 (2017); S. Antusch, E. Cazzato, and O. Fischer, Phys. Lett. B774, 114 (2017); S. Dube, D. Gadkari, and A. M. Thalapillil, Phys. Rev. D96, 055031 (2017); E. Accomando, L. Delle Rose, S. Moretti, E. Olaiya and C. H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, JHEP 1802, 109 (2018); G. Cottin, J. C. Helo, M. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. D97, 055025(2018); C. O. Dib, C. S. Kim, N. A. Neill, Xing-Bo Yuan, Phys. Rev. D97, 035022 (2018); J. C. Helo, M. Hirsch, Z. S. Wang, JHEP 1807, 056 (2018); S. Jana, N. Okada, D. Raut, arXiv:1804.06828 [hep-ph]; G. Cottin, J. C. Helo, Martin. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. D98, 035012 (2018) ; A. Abada, N. Bernal, M. Losada, X. Marcano, arXiv:1807.10024 [hep-ph]; Xabier Marcano, arXiv:1808.04705 [hep-ph].
  • [6] J. C. Helo, M. Hirsch, S. Kovalenko, Phys. Rev. D89, 073005 (2014); E. Izaguirre and B. Shuve, Phys. Rev. D91, 093010 (2015); A. M. Gago, P. Herna´\acute{a}ndez, J. Jones-Pe´\acute{e}rez, M. Losada, and A. Moreno Bricen~\tilde{n}o, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 470 (2015); S. Antusch, E. Cazzato, O. Fischer, JHEP 1612, 007 (2016); S. Antusch, E. Cazzato, and O. Fischer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A32, 1750078 (2017); A. Das, N. Okada and D. Raut, Phys. Rev. D97, 115023 (2018); A. Das, P. S. B. Dev and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev.D97, 015018 (2018).
  • [7] R. E. Shrock, Phys Lett. B 96, 159 (1980); Phys. Rev. D24, 1232 (1981); R. E. Shrock and M. Suzuki, Phys. Lett. B 112, 382 (1982).
  • [8] C. Dib and C. S. Kim, Phys. Rev. D89, 077301 (2014); G. Cveticˇ\check{c}, C. S. Kim, Phys. Rev. D94, 053001 (2016); G. Cveticˇ\check{c}, C. S. Kim, Phys. Rev. D96, 035025 (2017); G. Cveticˇ\check{c}, F. Halzen, C. S. Kim, S. Oh, Chin. Phys. C41, 113102 (2017); J. Mejia-Guisao, D. Milane´\acute{e}s, N. Quintero, J. D. Ruiz-A´\acute{A}lvarez, Phys. Rev. D96, 015039 (2017); J. Mejia-Guisao, D. Milanes, N. Quintero, J. D. Ruiz-A´\acute{A}lvarez, Phys. Rev. D96, 015039 (2017); Han Yuan, Tian-Hong Wang, Yue Jiang, Qiang Li, Guo-Li Wang, J. Phys. G45, 065002 (2018) ; A. Abada, V. D. Romeri, M. Lucente, A. M. Teixeira, T. Toma, JHEP 1802, 169 (2018); K. Bondarenko, A. Boyarsky, D. Gorbunov, O. Ruchayskiy, arXiv:1805.08567 [hep-ph]; A. Azatov, D. Barducci, D. Ghosh, D. Marzocca, L. Ubaldi, arXiv:1807.10745 [hep-ph].
  • [9] A. Abada, D. Becirevic, O. Sumensari, C. Weiland and R. Z. Funchal, Phys. Rev. D95, 075023 (2017).
  • [10] F. del Aguila, S. Bar-Shalom, A. Soni and J. Wudka, Phys. Lett. B670, 399 (2009).
  • [11] S. Bhattacharya and J. Wudka, Phys. Rev. D94, 055022 (2016), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D95, 039904 (2017)]; P. Ballett, S. Pascoli and M. Ross-Lonergan, JHEP 1704, 102 (2017); Y. Liao and X.-D. Ma, Phys. Rev. D96, 015012 (2017) ; A. Caputo, P. Hernandez, J. Lopez-Pavon and J. Salvado, JHEP 1706, 112 (2017).
  • [12] J. Peressutti, I. Romero and O. A. Sampayo, Phys. Rev. D84, 113002 (2011); J. Peressutti and O. A. Sampayo, Phys. Rev. D90, 013003 (2014); L. Duarte, G. A. Gonza´\acute{a}lez-Sprinberg and O. A. Sampayo, Phys. Rev. D91, 053007 (2015); L. Duarte, J. Peressutti and O. A. Sampayo, J. Phys. G45, 025001 (2018); C. X. Yue, Y. C. Guo, Z. H. Zhao; Nucl. Phys. B925, 186 (2017); L. Duarte, J. Herrera, G. Zapata, O. A. Sampayo, Eur.Phys.J. C78, 352 (2018).
  • [13] L. Duarte, J. Peressutti and O. A. Sampayo, Phys. Rev. D92, 093002 (2015); L. Duarte, I. Romero, J. Peressutti and O. A. Sampayo, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 453 (2016).
  • [14] J. Wudka, AIP Conf. Proc. 531, 81 (2000), hep-ph/0002180.
  • [15] C. Arzt, M. Einhorn, and J. Wudka, Nucl. Phys. B433, 41 (1995).
  • [16] D. Silverman, H. Yao, Phys. Rev. D38, 214 (1988).
  • [17] M. Antonelli et al., Phys. Rept. 494, 197 (2010); V. Cirigliano and I. Rosell, JHEP 0710, 005 (2007); V. Cirigliano, G. Ecker, H. Neufeld, A. Pich, and J. Portoles, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 399 (2012); J. L. Rosner, S. Stone and R. S. Van de Water, Particle Data Book, arXiv: 1509.02220 [hep-ph].
  • [18] Xiao-Gang He, S. Oh, JHEP 0909, 027 (2009) ; A. Filipuzzi, G. Isidori, Eur. Phys. J. C64, 55 (2009); M. Gomez-Bock, G. Lopez-Castro , L. Lopez-Lozano, A. Rosado, Phys. Rev. D80, 055017 (2009); F. J. Botella et al, JHEP 1407, 078 (2014) .
  • [19] C. D. Lu, G. L. Song, Phys. Lett. B562, 75 (2003).
  • [20] For example see: A. Badin, A. A. Petrov, Phys. Rev. D82, 034005 (2010).
  • [21] T. Inami and C. S. Lim, Prog. Theor. Phys. 65, 297 (1981) [Erratum-ibid. 65, 1772 (1981)].
  • [22] G. Buchalla and A. J. Buras, Nucl. Phys. B412, 106 (1994); R. Allahverdi et al., Phys. Rev. D95, 075001 (2017).
mesonmeson modemode mN(GeV)m_{N}(GeV) RR RexpR^{exp}
minmin maxmax
K+K^{+} 0.34 1.00353
e+νee^{+}\nu_{e} 0.38 1.00297 1.001911.00191 1.010811.01081
0.42 1.00184
0.30 1.0033
μ+νμ\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu} 0.34 1.00259 0.9984260.998426 1.001891.00189
0.38 1.00103
D+D^{+} 1.2 1.19442
e+νee^{+}\nu_{e} 1.4 1.17226 {-} 1517.241517.24
1.6 1.0954
1.2 1.03839
μ+νμ\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu} 1.4 1.02887 1.445341.44534 1.5831.583
1.6 1.01337
0.02 1.00083
τ+ντ\tau^{+}\nu_{\tau} 0.04 1.00077 {-} 1.395351.39535
0.06 1.00067
Ds+D_{s}^{+} 1.0 1.1792
e+νee^{+}\nu_{e} 1.3 1.2275 {-} 882.979882.979
1.6 1.15381
1.0 1.04267
μ+νμ\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu} 1.3 1.04136 1.31751.3175 1.43251.4325
1.6 1.02222
0.10 1.00075
τ+ντ\tau^{+}\nu_{\tau} 0.13 1.00067 1.388891.38889 1.510581.51058
0.16 1.00052
B+B^{+} 3.0 5.02811
e+νee^{+}\nu_{e} 3.5 5.38293 {-} 113426113426
4.0 4.77823
3.0 1.31367
μ+νμ\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu} 3.5 1.29235 {-} 2.70272.7027
4.0 1.22025
2.5 1.00179
τ+ντ\tau^{+}\nu_{\tau} 3.0 1.00154 1.025941.02594 1.474061.47406
3.5 1.00012
Table 1: The values of the ratio RR induced by the sterile neutrino NN for the decay       M+l+νM^{+}\rightarrow l^{+}\nu with different mass mNm_{N}. The fifth and sixth columns express the      minimum and maximum values of the parameter RexpR^{exp}, respectively.
Refer to caption
Figure 1: The branching ratio Br(K+μ+νμBr(K^{+}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu}) as a function of the mass mNm_{N}. The        region between horizontal dashed lines correspond 1σ1\sigma allowed region from the        experimental measurement value of Br(K+μ+νμBr(K^{+}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu}).
Refer to caption
Figure 2: The relative correction parameter RR^{\prime} as a function of the mass mNm_{N} for the        decay processes K+μ+νμγK^{+}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu}\gamma (solid line) and D+μ+νμγD^{+}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu}\gamma (dotted line).
Refer to caption
Figure 3: The relative correction parameter RR^{\prime} as a function of the mass mNm_{N} for        the radiative decay process B+μ+νμγB^{+}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\nu_{\mu}\gamma.
Refer to caption Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 4: Leading order Feynman diagrams for the process qiqjNN¯q_{i}\rightarrow q_{j}N\overline{N}
Refer to caption
Figure 5: The branching ratio Br(BqNN¯)Br(B_{q}\rightarrow N\overline{N}) as a function of the mass mNm_{N} for         q=sq=s (solid line) and dd (dashed line) quarks.
Refer to caption
Figure 6: The branching ratio Br(KLNN¯)Br(K_{L}\rightarrow N\overline{N}) as a function of the mass mNm_{N}.
Refer to caption
Figure 7: The branching ratio Br(DNN¯)Br(D\rightarrow N\overline{N}) as a function of the mass mNm_{N}.