EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN)

CERN-PH-EP-2014-140LHCb-PAPER-2014-024

24 June 2014

Test of lepton universality usingB+→ K+`+`− decays

The LHCb collaboration†

Abstract

A measurement of the ratio of the branching fractions of the B+ → K+µ+µ− and B+ →K+e+e− decays is presented using proton-proton collision data, corresponding to an integratedluminosity of 3.0 fb−1, recorded with the LHCb experiment at center-of-mass energies of 7 and8 TeV. The value of the ratio of branching fractions for the dilepton invariant mass squaredrange 1 < q2 < 6 GeV2/c4 is measured to be 0.745+0.090

−0.074 (stat) ± 0.036 (syst). This value isthe most precise measurement of the ratio of branching fractions to date and is compatiblewith the SM prediction within 2.6 standard deviations.

Submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett.

c© CERN on behalf of the LHCb collaboration, license CC-BY-3.0.

†Authors are listed on the following pages.

arX

iv:1

406.

6482

v1 [

hep-

ex]

25

Jun

2014

ii

LHCb collaboration

R. Aaij41, B. Adeva37, M. Adinolfi46, A. Affolder52, Z. Ajaltouni5, S. Akar6, J. Albrecht9, F. Alessio38,M. Alexander51, S. Ali41, G. Alkhazov30, P. Alvarez Cartelle37, A.A. Alves Jr25,38, S. Amato2,S. Amerio22, Y. Amhis7, L. An3, L. Anderlini17,g, J. Anderson40, R. Andreassen57, M. Andreotti16,f ,J.E. Andrews58, R.B. Appleby54, O. Aquines Gutierrez10, F. Archilli38, A. Artamonov35, M. Artuso59,E. Aslanides6, G. Auriemma25,n, M. Baalouch5, S. Bachmann11, J.J. Back48, A. Badalov36, V. Balagura31,W. Baldini16, R.J. Barlow54, C. Barschel38, S. Barsuk7, W. Barter47, V. Batozskaya28, V. Battista39,A. Bay39, L. Beaucourt4, J. Beddow51, F. Bedeschi23, I. Bediaga1, S. Belogurov31, K. Belous35,I. Belyaev31, E. Ben-Haim8, G. Bencivenni18, S. Benson38, J. Benton46, A. Berezhnoy32, R. Bernet40,M.-O. Bettler47, M. van Beuzekom41, A. Bien11, S. Bifani45, T. Bird54, A. Bizzeti17,i, P.M. Bjørnstad54,T. Blake48, F. Blanc39, J. Blouw10, S. Blusk59, V. Bocci25, A. Bondar34, N. Bondar30,38,W. Bonivento15,38, S. Borghi54, A. Borgia59, M. Borsato7, T.J.V. Bowcock52, E. Bowen40, C. Bozzi16,T. Brambach9, J. van den Brand42, J. Bressieux39, D. Brett54, M. Britsch10, T. Britton59, J. Brodzicka54,N.H. Brook46, H. Brown52, A. Bursche40, G. Busetto22,r, J. Buytaert38, S. Cadeddu15, R. Calabrese16,f ,M. Calvi20,k, M. Calvo Gomez36,p, P. Campana18,38, D. Campora Perez38, A. Carbone14,d, G. Carboni24,l,R. Cardinale19,38,j , A. Cardini15, L. Carson50, K. Carvalho Akiba2, G. Casse52, L. Cassina20,L. Castillo Garcia38, M. Cattaneo38, Ch. Cauet9, R. Cenci58, M. Charles8, Ph. Charpentier38, S. Chen54,S.-F. Cheung55, N. Chiapolini40, M. Chrzaszcz40,26, K. Ciba38, X. Cid Vidal38, G. Ciezarek53,P.E.L. Clarke50, M. Clemencic38, H.V. Cliff47, J. Closier38, V. Coco38, J. Cogan6, E. Cogneras5,P. Collins38, A. Comerma-Montells11, A. Contu15, A. Cook46, M. Coombes46, S. Coquereau8, G. Corti38,M. Corvo16,f , I. Counts56, B. Couturier38, G.A. Cowan50, D.C. Craik48, M. Cruz Torres60, S. Cunliffe53,R. Currie50, C. D’Ambrosio38, J. Dalseno46, P. David8, P.N.Y. David41, A. Davis57, K. De Bruyn41,S. De Capua54, M. De Cian11, J.M. De Miranda1, L. De Paula2, W. De Silva57, P. De Simone18,D. Decamp4, M. Deckenhoff9, L. Del Buono8, N. Deleage4, D. Derkach55, O. Deschamps5, F. Dettori38,A. Di Canto38, H. Dijkstra38, S. Donleavy52, F. Dordei11, M. Dorigo39, A. Dosil Suarez37, D. Dossett48,A. Dovbnya43, K. Dreimanis52, G. Dujany54, F. Dupertuis39, P. Durante38, R. Dzhelyadin35,A. Dziurda26, A. Dzyuba30, S. Easo49,38, U. Egede53, V. Egorychev31, S. Eidelman34, S. Eisenhardt50,U. Eitschberger9, R. Ekelhof9, L. Eklund51,38, I. El Rifai5, Ch. Elsasser40, S. Ely59, S. Esen11,H.-M. Evans47, T. Evans55, A. Falabella14, C. Farber11, C. Farinelli41, N. Farley45, S. Farry52, RF Fay52,D. Ferguson50, V. Fernandez Albor37, F. Ferreira Rodrigues1, M. Ferro-Luzzi38, S. Filippov33,M. Fiore16,f , M. Fiorini16,f , M. Firlej27, C. Fitzpatrick38, T. Fiutowski27, M. Fontana10, F. Fontanelli19,j ,R. Forty38, O. Francisco2, M. Frank38, C. Frei38, M. Frosini17,38,g, J. Fu21,38, E. Furfaro24,l,A. Gallas Torreira37, D. Galli14,d, S. Gallorini22, S. Gambetta19,j , M. Gandelman2, P. Gandini59, Y. Gao3,J. Garcıa Pardinas37, J. Garofoli59, J. Garra Tico47, L. Garrido36, C. Gaspar38, R. Gauld55, L. Gavardi9,G. Gavrilov30, E. Gersabeck11, M. Gersabeck54, T. Gershon48, Ph. Ghez4, A. Gianelle22, S. Giani’39,V. Gibson47, L. Giubega29, V.V. Gligorov38, C. Gobel60, D. Golubkov31, A. Golutvin53,31,38, A. Gomes1,a,H. Gordon38, C. Gotti20, M. Grabalosa Gandara5, R. Graciani Diaz36, L.A. Granado Cardoso38,E. Grauges36, G. Graziani17, A. Grecu29, E. Greening55, S. Gregson47, P. Griffith45, L. Grillo11,O. Grunberg62, B. Gui59, E. Gushchin33, Yu. Guz35,38, T. Gys38, C. Hadjivasiliou59, G. Haefeli39,C. Haen38, S.C. Haines47, S. Hall53, B. Hamilton58, T. Hampson46, X. Han11, S. Hansmann-Menzemer11,N. Harnew55, S.T. Harnew46, J. Harrison54, J. He38, T. Head38, V. Heijne41, K. Hennessy52, P. Henrard5,L. Henry8, J.A. Hernando Morata37, E. van Herwijnen38, M. Heß62, A. Hicheur1, D. Hill55, M. Hoballah5,C. Hombach54, W. Hulsbergen41, P. Hunt55, N. Hussain55, D. Hutchcroft52, D. Hynds51, M. Idzik27,P. Ilten56, R. Jacobsson38, A. Jaeger11, J. Jalocha55, E. Jans41, P. Jaton39, A. Jawahery58, F. Jing3,M. John55, D. Johnson55, C.R. Jones47, C. Joram38, B. Jost38, N. Jurik59, M. Kaballo9, S. Kandybei43,

iii

W. Kanso6, M. Karacson38, T.M. Karbach38, S. Karodia51, M. Kelsey59, I.R. Kenyon45, T. Ketel42,B. Khanji20, C. Khurewathanakul39, S. Klaver54, K. Klimaszewski28, O. Kochebina7, M. Kolpin11,I. Komarov39, R.F. Koopman42, P. Koppenburg41,38, M. Korolev32, A. Kozlinskiy41, L. Kravchuk33,K. Kreplin11, M. Kreps48, G. Krocker11, P. Krokovny34, F. Kruse9, W. Kucewicz26,o,M. Kucharczyk20,26,38,k, V. Kudryavtsev34, K. Kurek28, T. Kvaratskheliya31, V.N. La Thi39,D. Lacarrere38, G. Lafferty54, A. Lai15, D. Lambert50, R.W. Lambert42, G. Lanfranchi18,C. Langenbruch48, B. Langhans38, T. Latham48, C. Lazzeroni45, R. Le Gac6, J. van Leerdam41,J.-P. Lees4, R. Lefevre5, A. Leflat32, J. Lefrancois7, S. Leo23, O. Leroy6, T. Lesiak26, B. Leverington11,Y. Li3, M. Liles52, R. Lindner38, C. Linn38, F. Lionetto40, B. Liu15, G. Liu38, S. Lohn38, I. Longstaff51,J.H. Lopes2, N. Lopez-March39, P. Lowdon40, H. Lu3, D. Lucchesi22,r, H. Luo50, A. Lupato22,E. Luppi16,f , O. Lupton55, F. Machefert7, I.V. Machikhiliyan31, F. Maciuc29, O. Maev30, S. Malde55,G. Manca15,e, G. Mancinelli6, J. Maratas5, J.F. Marchand4, U. Marconi14, C. Marin Benito36,P. Marino23,t, R. Marki39, J. Marks11, G. Martellotti25, A. Martens8, A. Martın Sanchez7,M. Martinelli41, D. Martinez Santos42, F. Martinez Vidal64, D. Martins Tostes2, A. Massafferri1,R. Matev38, Z. Mathe38, C. Matteuzzi20, A. Mazurov16,f , M. McCann53, J. McCarthy45, A. McNab54,R. McNulty12, B. McSkelly52, B. Meadows57, F. Meier9, M. Meissner11, M. Merk41, D.A. Milanes8,M.-N. Minard4, N. Moggi14, J. Molina Rodriguez60, S. Monteil5, M. Morandin22, P. Morawski27,A. Morda6, M.J. Morello23,t, J. Moron27, A.-B. Morris50, R. Mountain59, F. Muheim50, K. Muller40,M. Mussini14, B. Muster39, P. Naik46, T. Nakada39, R. Nandakumar49, I. Nasteva2, M. Needham50,N. Neri21, S. Neubert38, N. Neufeld38, M. Neuner11, A.D. Nguyen39, T.D. Nguyen39, C. Nguyen-Mau39,q,M. Nicol7, V. Niess5, R. Niet9, N. Nikitin32, T. Nikodem11, A. Novoselov35, D.P. O’Hanlon48,A. Oblakowska-Mucha27, V. Obraztsov35, S. Oggero41, S. Ogilvy51, O. Okhrimenko44, R. Oldeman15,e,G. Onderwater65, M. Orlandea29, J.M. Otalora Goicochea2, P. Owen53, A. Oyanguren64, B.K. Pal59,A. Palano13,c, F. Palombo21,u, M. Palutan18, J. Panman38, A. Papanestis49,38, M. Pappagallo51,C. Parkes54, C.J. Parkinson9,45, G. Passaleva17, G.D. Patel52, M. Patel53, C. Patrignani19,j ,A. Pazos Alvarez37, A. Pearce54, A. Pellegrino41, M. Pepe Altarelli38, S. Perazzini14,d, E. Perez Trigo37,P. Perret5, M. Perrin-Terrin6, L. Pescatore45, E. Pesen66, K. Petridis53, A. Petrolini19,j ,E. Picatoste Olloqui36, B. Pietrzyk4, T. Pilar48, D. Pinci25, A. Pistone19, S. Playfer50, M. Plo Casasus37,F. Polci8, A. Poluektov48,34, E. Polycarpo2, A. Popov35, D. Popov10, B. Popovici29, C. Potterat2,E. Price46, J. Prisciandaro39, A. Pritchard52, C. Prouve46, V. Pugatch44, A. Puig Navarro39, G. Punzi23,s,W. Qian4, B. Rachwal26, J.H. Rademacker46, B. Rakotomiaramanana39, M. Rama18, M.S. Rangel2,I. Raniuk43, N. Rauschmayr38, G. Raven42, S. Reichert54, M.M. Reid48, A.C. dos Reis1, S. Ricciardi49,S. Richards46, M. Rihl38, K. Rinnert52, V. Rives Molina36, D.A. Roa Romero5, P. Robbe7,A.B. Rodrigues1, E. Rodrigues54, P. Rodriguez Perez54, S. Roiser38, V. Romanovsky35,A. Romero Vidal37, M. Rotondo22, J. Rouvinet39, T. Ruf38, F. Ruffini23, H. Ruiz36, P. Ruiz Valls64,J.J. Saborido Silva37, N. Sagidova30, P. Sail51, B. Saitta15,e, V. Salustino Guimaraes2,C. Sanchez Mayordomo64, B. Sanmartin Sedes37, R. Santacesaria25, C. Santamarina Rios37,E. Santovetti24,l, A. Sarti18,m, C. Satriano25,n, A. Satta24, D.M. Saunders46, M. Savrie16,f , D. Savrina31,32,M. Schiller42, H. Schindler38, M. Schlupp9, M. Schmelling10, B. Schmidt38, O. Schneider39, A. Schopper38,M.-H. Schune7, R. Schwemmer38, B. Sciascia18, A. Sciubba25, M. Seco37, A. Semennikov31, I. Sepp53,N. Serra40, J. Serrano6, L. Sestini22, P. Seyfert11, M. Shapkin35, I. Shapoval16,43,f , Y. Shcheglov30,T. Shears52, L. Shekhtman34, V. Shevchenko63, A. Shires9, R. Silva Coutinho48, G. Simi22, M. Sirendi47,N. Skidmore46, T. Skwarnicki59, N.A. Smith52, E. Smith55,49, E. Smith53, J. Smith47, M. Smith54,H. Snoek41, M.D. Sokoloff57, F.J.P. Soler51, F. Soomro39, D. Souza46, B. Souza De Paula2, B. Spaan9,A. Sparkes50, P. Spradlin51, S. Sridharan38, F. Stagni38, M. Stahl11, S. Stahl11, O. Steinkamp40,O. Stenyakin35, S. Stevenson55, S. Stoica29, S. Stone59, B. Storaci40, S. Stracka23,38, M. Straticiuc29,

iv

U. Straumann40, R. Stroili22, V.K. Subbiah38, L. Sun57, W. Sutcliffe53, K. Swientek27, S. Swientek9,V. Syropoulos42, M. Szczekowski28, P. Szczypka39,38, D. Szilard2, T. Szumlak27, S. T’Jampens4,M. Teklishyn7, G. Tellarini16,f , F. Teubert38, C. Thomas55, E. Thomas38, J. van Tilburg41, V. Tisserand4,M. Tobin39, S. Tolk42, L. Tomassetti16,f , D. Tonelli38, S. Topp-Joergensen55, N. Torr55, E. Tournefier4,S. Tourneur39, M.T. Tran39, M. Tresch40, A. Tsaregorodtsev6, P. Tsopelas41, N. Tuning41,M. Ubeda Garcia38, A. Ukleja28, A. Ustyuzhanin63, U. Uwer11, V. Vagnoni14, G. Valenti14, A. Vallier7,R. Vazquez Gomez18, P. Vazquez Regueiro37, C. Vazquez Sierra37, S. Vecchi16, J.J. Velthuis46,M. Veltri17,h, G. Veneziano39, M. Vesterinen11, B. Viaud7, D. Vieira2, M. Vieites Diaz37,X. Vilasis-Cardona36,p, A. Vollhardt40, D. Volyanskyy10, D. Voong46, A. Vorobyev30, V. Vorobyev34,C. Voß62, H. Voss10, J.A. de Vries41, R. Waldi62, C. Wallace48, R. Wallace12, J. Walsh23,S. Wandernoth11, J. Wang59, D.R. Ward47, N.K. Watson45, D. Websdale53, M. Whitehead48, J. Wicht38,D. Wiedner11, G. Wilkinson55, M.P. Williams45, M. Williams56, F.F. Wilson49, J. Wimberley58,J. Wishahi9, W. Wislicki28, M. Witek26, G. Wormser7, S.A. Wotton47, S. Wright47, S. Wu3, K. Wyllie38,Y. Xie61, Z. Xing59, Z. Xu39, Z. Yang3, X. Yuan3, O. Yushchenko35, M. Zangoli14, M. Zavertyaev10,b,L. Zhang59, W.C. Zhang12, Y. Zhang3, A. Zhelezov11, A. Zhokhov31, L. Zhong3, A. Zvyagin38.

1Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fısicas (CBPF), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil2Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil3Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China4LAPP, Universite de Savoie, CNRS/IN2P3, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France5Clermont Universite, Universite Blaise Pascal, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France6CPPM, Aix-Marseille Universite, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France7LAL, Universite Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, France8LPNHE, Universite Pierre et Marie Curie, Universite Paris Diderot, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France9Fakultat Physik, Technische Universitat Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany10Max-Planck-Institut fur Kernphysik (MPIK), Heidelberg, Germany11Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universitat Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany12School of Physics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland13Sezione INFN di Bari, Bari, Italy14Sezione INFN di Bologna, Bologna, Italy15Sezione INFN di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy16Sezione INFN di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy17Sezione INFN di Firenze, Firenze, Italy18Laboratori Nazionali dell’INFN di Frascati, Frascati, Italy19Sezione INFN di Genova, Genova, Italy20Sezione INFN di Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy21Sezione INFN di Milano, Milano, Italy22Sezione INFN di Padova, Padova, Italy23Sezione INFN di Pisa, Pisa, Italy24Sezione INFN di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy25Sezione INFN di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy26Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland27AGH - University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, Krakow, Poland28National Center for Nuclear Research (NCBJ), Warsaw, Poland29Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest-Magurele, Romania30Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute (PNPI), Gatchina, Russia31Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow, Russia32Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University (SINP MSU), Moscow, Russia33Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INR RAN), Moscow, Russia34Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics (SB RAS) and Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia

v

35Institute for High Energy Physics (IHEP), Protvino, Russia36Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain37Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain38European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland39Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland40Physik-Institut, Universitat Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland41Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands42Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics and VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands43NSC Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology (NSC KIPT), Kharkiv, Ukraine44Institute for Nuclear Research of the National Academy of Sciences (KINR), Kyiv, Ukraine45University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom46H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom47Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom48Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom49STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom50School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom51School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom52Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom53Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom54School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom55Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom56Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States57University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States58University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States59Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, United States60Pontifıcia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, associated to 2

61Institute of Particle Physics, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei, China, associated to 3

62Institut fur Physik, Universitat Rostock, Rostock, Germany, associated to 11

63National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia, associated to 31

64Instituto de Fisica Corpuscular (IFIC), Universitat de Valencia-CSIC, Valencia, Spain, associated to 36

65KVI - University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands, associated to 41

66Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey, associated to 38

aUniversidade Federal do Triangulo Mineiro (UFTM), Uberaba-MG, BrazilbP.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Russian Academy of Science (LPI RAS), Moscow, RussiacUniversita di Bari, Bari, ItalydUniversita di Bologna, Bologna, ItalyeUniversita di Cagliari, Cagliari, ItalyfUniversita di Ferrara, Ferrara, ItalygUniversita di Firenze, Firenze, ItalyhUniversita di Urbino, Urbino, ItalyiUniversita di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, ItalyjUniversita di Genova, Genova, ItalykUniversita di Milano Bicocca, Milano, ItalylUniversita di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, ItalymUniversita di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, ItalynUniversita della Basilicata, Potenza, ItalyoAGH - University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunications,Krakow, PolandpLIFAELS, La Salle, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, SpainqHanoi University of Science, Hanoi, Viet NamrUniversita di Padova, Padova, Italy

vi

sUniversita di Pisa, Pisa, ItalytScuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, ItalyuUniversita degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy

vii

The decay B+ → K+`+`−, where ` represents either a muon or an electron, is a b → sflavor-changing neutral current process. Such processes are highly suppressed in the StandardModel (SM) as they proceed through amplitudes involving electroweak loop (penguin and box)diagrams. This makes the branching fraction of B+→ K+`+`−1 decays highly sensitive to thepresence of virtual particles that are predicted to exist in extensions of the SM [1]. The decayrate of B+→ K+µ+µ− has been measured by LHCb to a precision of 5% [2] and, although thecurrent theoretical uncertainties in the branching fraction are O(30%) [3], these largely cancel inasymmetries or ratios of B+→ K+`+`− observables [2, 4, 5].

Owing to the equality of the electroweak couplings of electrons and muons in the SM, knownas lepton universality, the ratio of the branching fractions of B+→ K+µ+µ− to B+→ K+e+e−

decays [6] is predicted to be unity within an uncertainty of O(10−3) in the SM [1,7]. The ratio ofthe branching fractions is particularly sensitive to extensions of the SM that introduce new scalaror pseudoscalar interactions [1]. Models that contain a Z ′ boson have recently been proposed toexplain measurements of the angular distribution and branching fractions of B0→ K∗0µ+µ− andB+→ K+µ+µ− decays [8]. These types of models can also affect the relative branching fractionsof B+→ K+`+`− decays if the Z ′ boson does not couple equally to electrons and muons.

Previous measurements of the ratio of branching fractions from e+e− colliders operating atthe Υ (4S) resonance have measured values consistent with unity with a precision of 20–50% [9].This Letter presents the most precise measurement of the ratio of branching fractions and thecorresponding branching fraction B(B+→ K+e+e−) to date. The data used for these measurementsare recorded in proton-proton (pp) collisions and correspond to 3.0 fb−1 of integrated luminosity,collected by the LHCb experiment at center-of-mass energies of 7 and 8 TeV.

The value of RK within a given range of the dilepton mass squared from q2min to q2max is given by

RK =

∫ q2max

q2min

dΓ[B+→ K+µ+µ−]

dq2dq2∫ q2max

q2min

dΓ[B+→ K+e+e−]

dq2dq2

, (1)

where Γ is the q2-dependent partial width of the decay. We report a measurement of RK for1 < q2 < 6 GeV2/c4. This range is both experimentally and theoretically attractive as it excludesthe B+→ J/ψ (→ `+`−)K+ resonant region, and precise theoretical predictions are possible. Thehigh q2 region, above the ψ(2S) resonance, is affected by broad charmonium resonances that decayto lepton pairs [10].

The value of RK is determined using the ratio of the relative branching fractions of the decaysB+→ K+`+`− and B+→ J/ψ (→ `+`−)K+, with ` = e and µ, respectively. This takes advantageof the large B+→ J/ψK+ branching fraction to cancel potential sources of systematic uncertaintybetween the B+→ K+`+`− and B+→ J/ψ (→ `+`−)K+ decays as the efficiencies are correlatedand the branching fraction to B+→ J/ψK+ is known precisely [11]. This is achieved by using thesame selection for B+→ K+`+`− and B+→ J/ψ (→ `+`−)K+ decays for each leptonic final stateand by assuming lepton universality in the branching fractions of J/ψ mesons to the µ+µ− and

1The inclusion of charge conjugate processes is implied throughout this Letter.

1

e+e− final states [11]. In terms of measured quantities RK is written as

RK =

(NK+µ+µ−

NK+e+e−

)(NJ/ψ (e+e−)K+

NJ/ψ (µ+µ−)K+

)(εK+e+e−

εK+µ+µ−

)(εJ/ψ (µ+µ−)K+

εJ/ψ (e+e−)K+

), (2)

where NX is the observed yield in final state X, and εX is the efficiency to trigger, reconstruct andselect that final state. Throughout this paper the number of K+µ+µ− and K+e+e− candidatesalways refers to the restricted q2 range, 1 < q2 < 6 GeV2/c4.

The LHCb detector is a single-arm forward spectrometer covering the pseudorapidity range2 < η < 5 and is described in detail in Ref. [12]. The simulated events used in this analysis areproduced using the software described in Refs. [13].

Candidate B+→ K+`+`− events are first required to pass the hardware trigger that selectseither muons with a high transverse momentum (pT) or large energy deposits in the electromagneticor hadronic calorimeters, which are a signature of high-pT electrons or hadrons. Events with muonsin the final state are required to be triggered by one or both muons in the hardware trigger. Eventswith electrons in the final state are required to be triggered by either one of the electrons, the kaonfrom the B+ decay, or by other particles in the event. In the subsequent software trigger, at leastone of the final-state particles is required to both have pT > 800 MeV/c and not to originate fromany of the primary pp interaction vertices (PVs) in the event. Finally, the tracks of the final-stateparticles are required to form a vertex that is significantly displaced from the PVs. A multivariatealgorithm [14] is used for the identification of secondary vertices consistent with the decay of a bhadron.

A K+`+`− candidate is formed from a pair of well-reconstructed oppositely charged particlesidentified as either electrons or muons, combined with another track that is identified as a chargedkaon. Each particle is required to have pT > 800 MeV/c and be inconsistent with coming fromany PV. The two leptons are required to originate from a common vertex, which is significantlydisplaced from all of the PVs in the event. The K+`+`− candidate is required to have a goodvertex fit, and the K+`+`− candidate is required to point to the best PV, defined by the lowestimpact parameter (IP).

Muons are initially identified by tracks that penetrate the calorimeters and the iron filters in themuon stations [15]. Further muon identification is performed with a multivariate classifier that usesinformation from the tracking system, the muon chambers, the ring-imaging Cherenkov (RICH)detectors and the calorimeters to provide separation of muons from pions and kaons. Electronidentification is provided by matching tracks to an electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL) cluster,combined with information from the RICH detectors, to build an overall likelihood for separatingelectrons from pions and kaons.

Bremsstrahlung from the electrons can significantly affect the measured electron momentumand the reconstructed B+ candidate mass. To improve the accuracy of the electron momentumreconstruction, a correction for the measured momenta of photons associated to the electron isapplied. If an electron radiates a photon downstream of the dipole magnet, the photon enters thesame ECAL cells as the electron itself and the original energy of the electron is measured by theECAL. However, if an electron radiates a photon upstream of the dipole magnet, the energy of thephoton will not be deposited in the same ECAL cells as the electron. After correction, the ratio ofelectron energy to the momentum measured by the ECAL is expected to be consistent with unity;

2

the ratio is used in the electron identification likelihood. Since there is little material within themagnet for particle interactions to cause additional neutral particles, the ECAL cells without anassociated track are used to look for bremsstrahlung photons. A search is made for photons withtransverse energy greater than 75 MeV within a region of the ECAL defined by the extrapolationof the electron track upstream of the magnet.

The separation of the signal from combinatorial background uses a multivariate algorithmbased on boosted decision trees (BDT) [16]. Independent BDTs are trained to separate thedielectron and dimuon signal decays from combinatorial backgrounds. The BDTs are trained usingB+→ J/ψ (→ µ+µ−)K+ and B+→ J/ψ (→ e+e−)K+ candidates in data to represent the signal,and candidates with K+`+`− masses m(K+`+`−) > 5700 MeV/c2 as the background sample. Thelatter sample is not used in the subsequent analysis. The variables used as input to the BDTs are:the transverse momentum of the B+ candidate and of the final state particles; the B+ decay time;the vertex fit quality; the IP of the B+ candidate; the angle between the B+ candidate momentumvector and direction between the best PV and the decay vertex; the IP of the final-state particlesto the best PV and the track fit quality. The most discriminating variable is the vertex quality forthe B+ and the angle between the B+ candidate and the best PV. The selections are optimized forthe significance of the signal yield for each B+→ K+`+`− decay and accept 60–70% of the signal,depending on the decay channel, whilst rejecting over 95% of the combinatorial background. Theefficiency of the BDT response is uniform across the q2 region of interest and in the J/ψ region,ensuring that the selection is not significantly biased by the use of the B+→ J/ψ (→ `+`−)K+

data.After applying the selection criteria, exclusive backgrounds from b-hadron decays are dominated

by three sources. The first is mis-reconstructed B+→ J/ψ (→ `+`−)K+ and B+→ ψ(2S)(→`+`−)K+ decays where the kaon is mistakenly identified as a lepton and the lepton (of the sameelectric charge) as a kaon. Such events are excluded using different criteria for the muon and theelectron modes owing to the lower momentum resolution in the latter case. The B+→ K+µ+µ−

candidates are kept if the kaon passes through the acceptance of the muon detectors and is notidentified as a muon, or if the mass of the kaon candidate (in the muon mass hypothesis) and theoppositely charged muon candidate pair is distinct from the J/ψ or the ψ(2S) resonances. TheB+→ K+e+e− candidates are kept if the kaon has a low probability of being an electron accordingto the information from the electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters and the RICH system. Thesecond source of background is from semileptonic decays such as B+→ D0(→ K+π−)`+ν`, orB+→ D0π+, with D0→ K+`−ν` or π+`−ν`, which can be selected as signal decays if at least oneof the hadrons is mistakenly identified as a lepton. All of these decays are vetoed by requiring thatthe mass of the K+`− pair, where the lepton is assigned the pion mass, is greater than 1885 MeV/c2.These vetoes result in a negligible loss of signal as measured in simulation. The third source ofbackground is partially reconstructed b-hadron decays that are reconstructed with masses smallerthan the measured B+ mass. In the muon decay modes, this background is excluded by the choiceof m(K+µ+µ−) mass interval, while in the electron modes this background is described in the massfit model. Fully hadronic b-meson decays, such as B+→ K+π+π−, are reduced to O(0.1%) of theB+→ K+µ+µ− and B+→ K+e+e− signals by the electron and muon identification requirements,respectively, and are neglected in the analysis.

The reconstructed B+ mass and dilepton mass of the candidates passing the selection criteria

3

1

10

210

310

410

]2c) [MeV/−µ+µ+K(m4800 5000 5200 5400 5600

]4 c/2 [

GeV

2 q

0

5

10

15

20

25

LHCb (a)

1

10

210

310

]2c) [MeV/−e+e+K(m4800 5000 5200 5400 5600

]4 c/2 [

GeV

2 q

0

5

10

15

20

25

LHCb (b)

Figure 1: Dilepton invariant mass squared, q2, as a function of the K+`+`− invariant mass, m(K+`+`−),for selected (a) B+→ K+µ+µ− and (b) B+→ K+e+e− candidates. The radiative tail of the J/ψ andψ(2S) mesons is most pronounced in the electron mode due to the larger bremsstrahlung and because theenergy resolution of the ECAL is lower compared to the momentum resolution of the tracking system.

are shown in Fig. 1. It is possible to see the pronounced peaks of the J/ψ and ψ(2S) decays alongwith their radiative tail as a diagonal band. Partially reconstructed decays can be seen to lowerK+`+`− masses and the distribution of random combinatorial background at high K+`+`− masses.Only candidates with 5175 < m(K+µ+µ−) < 5700 MeV/c2 or 4880 < m(K+e+e−) < 5700 MeV/c2

are considered. The dilepton mass squared is also restricted to 1 < q2 < 6 GeV2/c4, 8.68 < q2 <10.09 GeV2/c4 and 6 < q2 < 10.09 GeV2/c4 when selecting B+→ K+`+`−, B+→ J/ψ (→ µ+µ−)K+

and B+→ J/ψ (→ e+e−)K+ candidates, respectively.The event yields for the B+→ K+`+`− and the B+→ J/ψ (→ `+`−)K+ modes are determined

using unbinned extended maximum likelihood fits to the K+`+`− mass distributions. The modelis composed of a signal shape, a combinatorial background shape and, for the electron modes, acontribution from partially reconstructed b-hadron decays.

The signal mass model for the muon modes consists of the sum of two Crystal Ball functions [17]with tails above and below the mass peak. This empirical function describes the core of the massdistribution and additional effects from the experimental resolution and the radiative tail. Themean, width and radiative tail parameters for the signal model are obtained from a fit to theB+→ J/ψ (→ µ+µ−)K+ sample and propagated to the fit for the B+→ K+µ+µ− decays. Thevalidity of this approach is verified using simulation. The combinatorial background is describedby an exponential function. There are 667 046 ± 882 B+ → J/ψ (→ µ+µ−)K+ and 1226 ± 41B+→ K+µ+µ− signal decays, where the uncertainties are statistical.

The mass distribution of the electron modes depends strongly on the number of bremsstrahlungphotons that are associated with the electrons, and therefore a more involved parametrization isrequired. The mass distribution also depends on the pT of the electrons and on the occupancy ofthe event. This shape dependence is studied using a selection of B+→ J/ψ (→ e+e−)K+ events inthe data. The data are split into three independent samples according to which particle in the

4

event has fired the hardware trigger; a similar strategy was applied in Ref. [18]. These categoriesare mutually exclusive and consist of events selected either by one of the two electrons, by the K+

meson, or by other particles. Events that are triggered by one of the electrons in the hardwaretrigger typically have larger electron momentum and pT than events triggered by the K+ meson orother particles in the event. Within each of these trigger categories, independent shapes are useddepending on the number of neutral clusters that are added to the dielectron candidate to correctfor the effects of bremsstrahlung: one for candidates where no clusters are added to either electron;one for candidates where a cluster is added to one of the electrons; and one for candidates whereclusters are added to both electrons. The fractions of candidates in each of these categories are37%, 48% and 15%, respectively, for both B+→ J/ψ (→ e+e−)K+ and B+→ K+e+e− candidates.The relative proportion of the three categories for the number of additional clusters is describedwell by the simulation. Candidates with no added clusters have a large radiative tail to smallerm(K+e+e−) values. Candidates with one or more added clusters have a reduced radiative tail, buthave larger tails above the expected B+ mass due to the event occupancy or the resolution of theECAL.

The parametrization of the B+ → K+e+e− mass distribution in each of the three triggercategories is described by a sum of three Crystal Ball functions, each of which has independentvalues for the peak, width and radiative tail, representing the different number of clusters thatare added. The parameters for each of the Crystal Ball functions are found by fitting them(K+e+e−) distribution of the B+ → J/ψ (→ e+e−)K+ candidates. A high-purity sample ofB+→ J/ψ (→ e+e−)K+ candidates is achieved by constraining the mass of the e+e− pair to theknown J/ψ mass. A requirement that m(J/ψK+) is greater than 5175 MeV/c2 removes partiallyreconstructed signal candidates, leaving a prominent signal peak with negligible contribution fromcombinatorial backgrounds without biasing the mass shape.

The mass distribution of the partially reconstructed backgrounds is determined using simulatedHb→ J/ψ (→ e+e−)X decays that satisfy the selection criteria, where Hb is a B+, B0, B0

s orΛ0b hadron. The relative branching fraction of Hb→ J/ψ (→ e+e−)X to Hb→ e+e−X decays is

assumed to be the same as that of B+→ J/ψ (→ e+e−)K+ and B+→ K+e+e− decays, and isconsistent with the observed ratios of B+→ J/ψ (→ µ+µ−)K+ to B+→ K+µ+µ− decays andB0→ J/ψ (→ µ+µ−)K∗0 to B0→ K∗0µ+µ− decays [11].

The ratio of partially reconstructed background to signal for the decay B+ → K+e+e− isdetermined by the ratio measured in B+→ J/ψ (→ e+e−)K+ data for each trigger category, aftercorrecting for two factors. Firstly, the partially reconstructed backgrounds for the B+→ J/ψK+

data may include a contribution from cascade decays of higher cc resonances, e.g., B+→ ψ(2S)(→J/ψπ+π−)K+ or B+→ χc(→ J/ψγ)K+ decays. These decays contribute to the B+→ J/ψK+

background but not to the partially reconstructed backgrounds for the B+→ K+e+e− data. Thelevel of contamination is estimated using simulated inclusive Hb→ J/ψ (→ e+e−)X decays andfound to be (16± 1)%. Secondly, the dominant contribution to the B+→ K+e+e− background isfrom partially reconstructed B0→ K∗0e+e− decays. The relative proportion of B0→ K∗0µ+µ− toB+→ K+µ+µ− decays is known to be 10% higher than the relative proportion of B0→ J/ψK∗0 toB+→ J/ψK+ decays [11]. The fraction of partially reconstructed background to signal is adjustedaccordingly. The partially reconstructed backgrounds account for 16–20% of the signal yieldsdepending on the trigger category.

5

]2c) [MeV/−e+e+K(m5000 5200 5400 5600

)2 cC

andi

date

s / (

40

MeV

/

0

5

10

310×

LHCb

(a)

]2c) [MeV/−e+e+K(m5000 5200 5400 5600

)2 cC

andi

date

s / (

40

MeV

/

0

500

1000

1500LHCb

(b)

]2c) [MeV/−e+e+K(m5000 5200 5400 5600

)2 cC

andi

date

s / (

40

MeV

/

0

1000

2000

LHCb

(c)

]2c) [MeV/−e+e+K(m5000 5200 5400 5600

)2 cC

andi

date

s / (

40

MeV

/

0

10

20

30

40 LHCb

(d)

]2c) [MeV/−e+e+K(m5000 5200 5400 5600

)2 cC

andi

date

s / (

40

MeV

/

0

5

10

15

20 LHCb

(e)

]2c) [MeV/−e+e+K(m5000 5200 5400 5600

)2 cC

andi

date

s / (

40

MeV

/

0

5

10

15 LHCb

(f)

Figure 2: Mass distributions with fit projections overlaid of selected B+→ J/ψ (→ e+e−)K+ candidatestriggered in the hardware trigger by (a) one of the two electrons, (b) by the K+ and (c) by other particlesin the event. Mass distributions with fit projections overlaid of selected B+→ K+e+e− candidates in thesame categories, triggered by (d) one of the two electrons, (e) the K+ and (f) by other particles in theevent. The total fit model is shown in black, the combinatorial background component is indicated by thedark shaded region and the background from partially reconstructed b-hadron decays by the light shadedregion.

The results of the fits for the B+→ J/ψ (→ e+e−)K+ and B+→ K+e+e− channels are shownin Fig. 2. In total there are 172+20

−19 (62 324± 318) B+→ K+e+e− (B+→ J/ψ (→ e+e−)K+) decaystriggered by the electron trigger, 20+16

−14 (9 337± 124) decays triggered by the hadron trigger and62± 13 (16 796± 165) decays that were triggered by other particles in the event.

It is possible for B+ → K+e+e− decays that emit bremsstrahlung to migrate out of the1 < q2 < 6 GeV2/c4 range at the lower edge and in from the upper edge. The effect of thisbin migration on the yield is determined using B+→ K+e+e− simulation and validated withB+ → J/ψ (→ e+e−)K+ data. The corresponding uncertainty due to the dependence of thebranching fraction on non-SM contributions is estimated by independantly varying the B+ → K+

form factors and by adjusting the Wilson coefficients [19]. The overall yield of B+→ K+e+e−

is scaled by (90.9± 1.5)% to account for this migration, where the uncertainty is mainly due tothe model dependence. The quality of the fits to the mass distribution of K+`+`− candidates isinvestigated and found to be acceptable.

The systematic dependence of the signal yield on the signal model is considered negligible forthe muon modes due to the excellent dimuon mass resolution at LHCb [20]. The proportion of thepartially reconstructed backgrounds is changed based on the measurements of the B+→ (J/ψ→e+e−)K+X contribution in Refs. [21, 22] and contributes a systematic uncertainty of 1.6% tothe value of RK . The uncertainty in the signal model for the B+→ K+e+e− mass distribution

6

is assessed by incorporating a resolution effect that takes into account the difference betweenthe mass shape in simulated events for B+→ J/ψ (→ e+e−)K+ and B+→ K+e+e− decays andcontributes a relative systematic uncertainty of 3% to the value of RK .

The efficiency to select B+→ K+µ+µ−, B+→ K+e+e−, B+→ J/ψ (→ µ+µ−)K+ and B+→J/ψ (→ e+e−)K+ decays is the product of the efficiency to reconstruct the final state particles.This includes the geometric acceptance of the detector, the trigger and the selection efficiencies.Each of these efficiencies is determined from simulation and is corrected for known differencesrelative to data. The use of the double ratio of decay modes ensures that most of the possiblesources of systematic uncertainty cancel when determining RK . Residual effects from the triggerand the particle identification that do not cancel in the ratio arise due to different final-stateparticle kinematic distributions in the resonant and non resonant dilepton mass region.

The dependence of the particle identification on the kinematic distributions contributes asystematic uncertainty of 0.2% to the value of RK . The efficiency associated with the hardwaretrigger on B+→ J/ψ (→ e+e−)K+ and B+→ K+e+e− decays depends strongly on the kinematicproperties of the final state particles and does not entirely cancel in the calculation of RK , dueto different electron and muon trigger thresholds. The efficiency associated with the hardwaretrigger is determined using simulation and is cross-checked using B+→ J/ψ (→ e+e−)K+ andB+→ J/ψ (→ µ+µ−)K+ candidates in the data, by comparing candidates triggered by the kaonor leptons in the hardware trigger to candidates triggered by other particles in the event. Thelargest difference between data and simulation in the ratio of trigger efficiencies between theB+→ K+`+`− and B+→ J/ψ (→ `+`−)K+ decays is at the level of 3%, which is assigned as asystematic uncertainty on RK . The veto to remove misidentification of kaons as electrons containsa similar dependence on the chosen binning scheme and a systematic uncertainty of 0.6% on RK isassigned to account for this.

Overall, the efficiency to reconstruct, select and identify an electron is around 50% lower thanthe efficiency for a muon. The total efficiency in the range 1 < q2 < 6 GeV2/c4 is also lower forB+→ K+`+`− decays than the efficiency for the B+→ J/ψ (→ `+`−)K+ decays, due to the softerlepton momenta in this q2 range.

The ratio of efficiency-corrected yields of B+→ K+e+e− to B+→ J/ψ (→ e+e−)K+ is deter-mined separately for each type of hardware trigger and then combined with the ratio of efficiency-corrected yields for the muon decays. RK is measured to have a value of 0.72+0.09

−0.08 (stat)±0.04 (syst),1.84+1.15

−0.82 (stat)± 0.04 (syst) and 0.61+0.17−0.07 (stat)± 0.04 (syst) for dielectron events triggered by elec-

trons, the kaon or other particles in the event, respectively. Sources of systematic uncertainty areassumed to be uncorrelated and are added in quadrature. Combining these three independentmeasurements of RK and taking into account correlated uncertainties from the muon yields andefficiencies, gives

RK = 0.745+0.090−0.074 (stat) ± 0.036 (syst).

The dominant sources of systematic uncertainty are due to the parameterization of the B+→J/ψ (→ e+e−)K+ mass distribution and the estimate of the trigger efficiencies that both contribute3% to the value of RK .

The branching fraction of B+→ K+e+e− is determined in the region from 1 < q2 < 6 GeV2/c4

by taking the ratio of the branching fraction from B+→ K+e+e− and B+→ J/ψ (→ e+e−)K+

decays and multiplying it by the measured value of B(B+→ J/ψK+) and J/ψ→ e+e− [11]. The

7

value obtained is B(B+ → K+e+e−) = (1.56 +0.19−0.15 (stat) +0.06

−0.04 (syst)) × 10−7 . This is the mostprecise measurement to date and is consistent with the SM expectation.

In summary, the ratio of branching fractions for B+→ K+µ+µ− and B+→ K+e+e− decays,RK , is measured in the dilepton invariant mass squared range from 1 < q2 < 6 GeV2/c4 with atotal precision of 10%. A new measurement of the differential branching fraction of B+→ K+e+e−

is also reported. The value of RK is the most precise measurement of this quantity to date. It iscompatible with the SM expectation to within 2.6 standard deviations calculated using the ratioof the likelihoods between central value and the SM prediction.

We express our gratitude to our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for theexcellent performance of the LHC. We thank the technical and administrative staff at the LHCbinstitutes. We acknowledge support from CERN and from the national agencies: CAPES, CNPq,FAPERJ and FINEP (Brazil); NSFC (China); CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, HGF andMPG (Germany); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); FOM and NWO (The Netherlands); MNiSW andNCN (Poland); MEN/IFA (Romania); MinES and FANO (Russia); MinECo (Spain); SNSF andSER (Switzerland); NASU (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); NSF (USA). The Tier1 computingcentres are supported by IN2P3 (France), KIT and BMBF (Germany), INFN (Italy), NWO andSURF (The Netherlands), PIC (Spain), GridPP (United Kingdom). We are indebted to thecommunities behind the multiple open source software packages on which we depend. We are alsothankful for the computing resources and the access to software R&D tools provided by YandexLLC (Russia). Individual groups or members have received support from EPLANET, MarieSk lodowska-Curie Actions and ERC (European Union), Conseil general de Haute-Savoie, LabexENIGMASS and OCEVU, Region Auvergne (France), RFBR (Russia), XuntaGal and GENCAT(Spain), Royal Society and Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851 (United Kingdom).

References

[1] C. Bobeth, G. Hiller, and G. Piranishvili, Angular distributions of B → Kll decays, JHEP 12(2007) 040, arXiv:0709.4174.

[2] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Differential branching fraction and angular analysis of theB+ → K+µ+µ− decay, JHEP 02 (2013) 105, arXiv:1209.4284.

[3] C. Bobeth, G. Hiller, D. van Dyk, and C. Wacker, The decay B → Kl+l− at low hadronicrecoil and model-independent ∆B = 1 constraints, JHEP 01 (2012) 107, arXiv:1111.2558.

[4] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of the CP asymmetry in B+ → K+µ+µ−

decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 151801, arXiv:1308.1340.

[5] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of the isospin asymmetry in B → K(∗)µ+µ−

decays, JHEP 07 (2012) 133, arXiv:1205.3422.

[6] G. Hiller and F. Kruger, More model-independent analysis of b→ s processes, Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 074020, arXiv:hep-ph/0310219.

8

[7] C. Bouchard et al., Standard Model predictions for B → Kl+l− with form factors from latticeQCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 162002, arXiv:1306.0434.

[8] R. Gauld, F. Goertz, and U. Haisch, An explicit Z′-boson explanation of the B → K∗µ+µ−

anomaly, JHEP 01 (2014) 069, arXiv:1310.1082; A. J. Buras, F. De Fazio, J. Girrbach,and M. V. Carlucci, The anatomy of quark flavour observables in 331 models in the flavourprecision era, JHEP 02 (2013) 023, arXiv:1211.1237; W. Altmannshofer and D. M. Straub,New physics in B → K∗µµ ?, Eur. Phys. J. C73 (2013) 2646, arXiv:1308.1501.

[9] BaBar collaboration, J. P. Lees et al., Measurement of branching fractions and rate asym-metries in the rare decays B → K(∗)l+l−, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 032012, arXiv:1204.3933;Belle collaboration, J.-T. Wei et al., Measurement of the differential branching fractionand forward-backward asymmetry for B → K(∗)`+`−, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 171801,arXiv:0904.0770.

[10] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Observation of a resonance in B+ → K+µ+µ− decays atlow recoil, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 112003, arXiv:1307.7595.

[11] Particle Data Group, J. Beringer et al., Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012)010001, and 2013 partial update for the 2014 edition.

[12] LHCb collaboration, A. A. Alves Jr. et al., The LHCb detector at the LHC, JINST 3 (2008)S08005.

[13] T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1, Comput. Phys.Commun. 178 (2008) 852, arXiv:0710.3820; I. Belyaev et al., Handling of the generationof primary events in Gauss, the LHCb simulation framework, Nuclear Science SymposiumConference Record (NSS/MIC) IEEE (2010) 1155; D. J. Lange, The EvtGen particle decaysimulation package, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A462 (2001) 152; P. Golonka and Z. Was, PHOTOSMonte Carlo: a precision tool for QED corrections in Z and W decays, Eur. Phys. J. C45 (2006)97, arXiv:hep-ph/0506026; Geant4 collaboration, J. Allison et al., Geant4 developments andapplications, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53 (2006) 270; Geant4 collaboration, S. Agostinelli et al.,Geant4: a simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506 (2003) 250; M. Clemencic et al.,The LHCb simulation application, Gauss: design, evolution and experience, J. Phys. Conf.Ser. 331 (2011) 032023.

[14] V. V. Gligorov and M. Williams, Efficient, reliable and fast high-level triggering using a bonsaiboosted decision tree, JINST 8 (2013) P02013, arXiv:1210.6861.

[15] F. Archilli et al., Performance of the muon identification at LHCb, JINST 8 (2013) P10020,arXiv:1306.0249.

[16] L. Breiman, J. H. Friedman, R. A. Olshen, and C. J. Stone, Classification and regression trees,Wadsworth international group, Belmont, California, USA, 1984; B. P. Roe et al., Boosteddecision trees as an alternative to artificial neural networks for particle identification, Nucl.Instrum. Meth. A543 (2005) 577, arXiv:physics/0408124.

9

[17] T. Skwarnicki, A study of the radiative cascade transitions between the Upsilon-prime andUpsilon resonances, PhD thesis, Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow, 1986, DESY-F31-86-02.

[18] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of the B0 → K∗0e+e− branching fraction atlow dilepton mass, JHEP 05 (2013) 159, arXiv:1304.3035.

[19] C. Bobeth, G. Hiller, and D. van Dyk, The benefits of B → K∗l+l− decays at low recoil, JHEP07 (2010) 098, arXiv:1006.5013.

[20] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of b-hadron masses, Phys. Lett. B708 (2012)241, arXiv:1112.4896; LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurements of the Λ0

b , Ξ−b andΩ−b baryon masses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 182001, arXiv:1302.1072.

[21] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of relative branching fractions of B decaysto ψ(2S) and J/ψ mesons, Eur. Phys. J. C72 (2012) 2118, arXiv:1205.0918.

[22] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Observation of B0s → χc1φ decay and study of B0 →

χc1,2K∗0 decays, Nucl. Phys. B874 (2013) 663, arXiv:1305.6511.

10