Paper detail

On the Statistical Treatment of the Cabibbo Angle Anomaly

We point out that testing the equality of the Cabibbo angle as extracted from $Γ(K\rightarrow πlν)$, the ratio $Γ(K\rightarrow lν)/Γ(π\rightarrow lν)$ and nuclear $β$ decays is not identical to a test of first row unitarity of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix. The reason is that a CKM unitarity test involves only two parameters, while the degrees of freedom for the assessment of the goodness-of-fit of the universality of the Cabibbo angle entailed by the Standard Model (SM) is equal to the number of measurements minus one. Beyond the SM all different processes could in principle give different Cabibbo angles. Consequently, the difference between the two tests becomes relevant starting from three observables giving results for the Cabibbo angle that are in tension with each other. With current data, depending on the treatment of the nuclear $β$ decays, we find that New Physics is favored over the SM at $5.1\,σ$ or $3.6\,σ$ while CKM unitarity is rejected at $4.8σ$ or $3.0σ$, respectively. We argue that the best method to test the SM is to test the equality of the Cabibbo angle, because CKM unitarity is only one aspect of the SM.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.