Download - U nitarity T riangle fits
Unitarity Triangle fits
Achille Stocchi LAL-Orsay (IN2P3/CNRS)
Recent papers:M. Bona et al. hep-ph/0509219 accepted in JHEP M . Bona et al. (hep-ph/0501199) JHEP 0507 (2005) 028
http://www.utfit.orgM. Bona, M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, F. Parodi, M. Pierini, P. Roudeau, C. Schiavi, L. Silvestrini, A. Stocchi, V.Vagnoni
Collaboration
RESULTS BASED ON THE WORK OF
bcℓ and buℓ Bd and Bs mixingK : CPV in K decaysBccs : 1 /B// : 2/BDK : 3/
How to fit the UT parameters and fit new physics
From M.H. Schuneplenary talk EPS2005
= 0.347 ± 0.021 [0.306, 0.389] @ 95% Prob.
= 0.347 ± 0.021 [0.306, 0.389] @ 95% Prob.
= 0.210 ± 0.036 [0.137, 0.279] @ 95% Prob.
= 0.210 ± 0.036 [0.137, 0.279] @ 95% Prob.
Total Fitmd,ms,Vub,Vcb,k + cos2 + + + + 2+
UT with angles only
= 0.322 ± 0.025 [0.274, 0.373] @ 95% Prob.
= 0.322 ± 0.025 [0.274, 0.373] @ 95% Prob.
= 0.187 ± 0.052 [0.090, 0.299] @ 95% Prob.
= 0.187 ± 0.052 [0.090, 0.299] @ 95% Prob.
sin(
sin(
cos
= 0.385 ± 0.028 [0.,328, 0.440] @ 95% Prob.
= 0.385 ± 0.028 [0.,328, 0.440] @ 95% Prob.
= 0.218 ± 0.043 [0.129, 0.299] @ 95% Prob.
= 0.218 ± 0.043 [0.129, 0.299] @ 95% Prob.
Sides + K
Test of SM (I)
SM solution only
The presence of New Physics might appear as a disagreement between the new measurements and what the fit predicts (given by the color code). and (for the moment) are OK. The next validation will come from ms for the bs sector.
?SM solution only
Test of SM (II)
sin2 =0.791±0.034from indirect determination sin2 =0.791±0.034
from indirect determination
sin2=0.687±0.032From direct measurementsin2=0.687±0.032
From direct measurementwe have a weak sign
of a disagreement
Tension in the fit
It can be interpreted
as a problemwith data, but it couldbe evidence
of New Physics
exclusive: BRs from HFAG;
form factor from quenched LQCD Vub=(3.80±0.27±0.47)10-3
inclusive from HFAG Vub=(4.38±0.19±0.27)10-3
incl.+excl. Vub = (4.22 ± 0.20) 10-3 from all the other inputs:
Vub = (3.48 ± 0.20) 10-3
Where do we really are on our knowledge of UT ?
Fit with NP independent variables
Fit in a NP model independent approach
± (0.18± 0.12)
± (0.41 ± 0.05)
Fit with NP independent variables
(similar plot in Botella et al. hep-ph/0502133)
It is very important to improve Vub/Vcb from s.l decays
from tree level proceses
If we use only Tree level processes -which can be assumed to be NP free-
5 new free parameters Cs,s Bs mixing
Cd,d Bd mixing
CK K mixing
Cd,d
CK Cs,s
Vub/Vcb X
md X X
K X X
ACPJ X X
X X
D X
ms X
ACPJ ~X X
DsK) X X
Today : fit possible with 6 contraints and 5 free parameters (Cd,d ,CK)
Con
stra
ints
Not yet available
Parametrizing NPphysics in F=2 processes
2 2 2
2
d
NP
q
SMi B B
SMB
CQ Q
eQ
F=2Fit in a NP model independent approach
0( / ) sin(2 2 )
| | | |
EXP SMd q d
CP d
EXP SMd
EXP SMK K
m C m
A J K
C
Vub/Vcb
D
md ACPJ
K
Using
cos2 ASL
NLO effects included
Fit in a NP model independent approach
SM-like solution 96%
NP solution 4% large NP witharbitrary phase
SM or small NP witharbitrary phase or large
NP with SM phase.
NP in B=2 and S=2 could be up to 50% wrt SM only if has the same phase of the SM
CBd = 1.27± 0.44 C = 0.95 ± 0.18
Fit in a NP model independent approach
Bd = -(4.7 ± 2.3)o
sensitive to small effects
Artificially removing the present disagreement ~20% @ 95% prob for generic NP
With present data ANP/ASM=0 @1
ANP/ASM vs NP
ANP/ASM ~1 only if NP~0 ANP/ASM ~0-40% @95% prob.
MFV New CP in bs
- - F=1 Penguins transitions F=1 Penguins transitions (just 1 transparency)(just 1 transparency)
- The B- The Bss physics (LHCb/Tevatron) physics (LHCb/Tevatron)
- Improvements existing measurements- Improvements existing measurements
- Rare decays - Rare decays (not discussed in this talk)(not discussed in this talk)
What to do ?
TWO SCENARIOS seems to be « favourite »
MFV = CKM is the only source of flavour mixing. K and md are not used (sensitive to NP).
= 0.258 ± 0.066 UUTfit = 0.258 ± 0.066 UUTfit
Buras et al. hep-ph/0007085Universal UTfit
= 0.319 ± 0.039 UUTfit
Almost as good as the SM !! Starting point for studies of rare decays see for instance : Bobeth et al. hep-ph/0505110
In models with one Higgs doublet or low/moderate tan (D’Ambrosio et al. hep-ph/0207036)NP enters as additional contribution in top box diagram
0 0 0
2
00 0
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) 4 2.4
t t t
t
S x S x S x
S x a TeV
0 is the equivalent SM scale
0
0
5.1 @95% ( )
3.6 @95% ( )t
t
TeV for positive S x
TeV for negative S x
MFV
S0 = -0.03 ± 0.54 [-0.90, 1.79] @95% Prob.
S0 = -0.03 ± 0.54 [-0.90, 1.79] @95% Prob.
To be compared with tested scale using for instance b->s (9-12Tev)D’Ambrosio et al. hep-ph/0207036
0/ ~ 2
2Higgs + large tan also bottom Yukawa coupling must be considered MFV
S0B ≠ S0
K S0B ≠ S0
K
> 2.6 TeV @ 95% for S0(xt) > 0
> 4.9 TeV @ 95% for S0(xt) < 0
> 3.2 TeV @ 95% for S0(xt) > 0
> 4.9 TeV @ 95% for S0(xt) < 0
S0B S0
K
Could give infomation on the tan regime …not yet at the present
Correlation coefficient =0.52
New physics in bs transitions
The SUSY option
F=1 F=2
if ms>31(38)ps-1
new physcis at 3(5)
d d
sb
W
B0d
t ss
K0
g
sb b s
~
~ ~
LRd
23
4
6
( ) (3.29 0.34) 10
( ) ( 0.02 0.04)
( ) (6.1 1.4 1.3) 10
limit ( )
S
CP S
S
S
BR B X
A B X
BR B X l l
M BR B K
other information
CKM Matrix in ≤2010-where we will beWe have supposed that - B Factories will collect 2ab-1
- two years data taking at LHCb (4fb-1)
< 1° from charmonium ~ 7 ° ~ 5° (half B-factories/half LHCb)
Vub ~ 5%Vcb ~ 1%
ms at 0.3ps-1
(Tevatron or/and LHCb)
Inputs
sin(2) 0.694 ± 0.012
sin(2) -0.543 ± 0.093
51.7 ± 3.0
0.240 ± 0.017
0.307 ± 0.010
Outputs
sin2± 0.045
CKM2010
fBBB ~ 5% ~ 3%BK ~ 5%
Lattice
Bands are 95% regionsfrom angle measurements
Contours are 68%/95% regionsfrom sides measurements
Bands are 95% regionsfrom sides measurements
Contours are 68%/95% regionsfrom angle measurements
An important point is that the relative precisions on CP-violating quantities are on phase with CP-conserving quantities IF
fBBB ~ 5% ~ 3%BK ~ 5%
Lattice calculations at few % level
Parenthesis for Lattice people
φBd = (-0.1 ± 1.3)o CBd = 0.98 ± 0.14 φBs = (0.0 ± 1.3)o CBs = 0.99 ± 0.12
in ≤ 2010 : same and impressive precision on b d and b s transitions
In the « sad » hypotesis the SM still work in 2010…. CKM2010
VERY IMPORTANT
B →
BR(B → τ ν) = (1.03 ± 0.32)10-4 ([0.47,1.74] @ 95% prob.)
fB = 0.178 ± 0.062 GeV from the exp+UTfit
fB = 0.192 ± 0.026 ± 0.009 GeV Lattice QCD
< 1.8 10-4 @ 90% CL
New comers soon.. ?exp. limit
Exp. likelkihoodBR(B → τ ν) = (0.98 ± 0.49)10-4 [0.17,2.08] @ 95% prob.)
SM expectation
UTfits are in a mature age with recent precise measurement of UT sides and angles
The SM CKM picture of CP violation and FCNC is strongly supported by data
At least in this sector, we are beyond the alternativeto CKM picture, and we should look at « corrections ».
Generic NP in the b d start to be quite constrained
Bd ~ 0
Conclusions
Studied presented in MFV.We start to test interesting NP scales.
What about the bs B=2 sector ? Still large room for NP. LHCb plays the central role on it.
CKM2010
Bs sector
We need precision measurements to test NP and to push the NP scale in interesting ranges and to play the complementarity at LHC
CKM2010
Bd sector
and if SuperB…..
See Report INFN-AE 05-08and related talks at this conference
BACKUP SLIDES
BR(B →) BR(B →K*)
caveat: * SU(3) breaking effect* QCD/mb corrections B(~cos) to / ( smaller for B0 than B+)
using onlyB →0
|Vtd/Vts| = 0.10 ± 0.45[0.02,0.18] @ 95% Prob.
Using the |Vtd/Vts| value from the SM, we can extract R.
R = -0.67 ± 0.24[-0.99, 0.10] @ 95%
K± ± with 3 signal events
latest result from E949:BR(K± ±) = 1.47 10-10 +1.30
- 0.89
}
ellipse centered in (0, 0)
D'Ambrosio, Isidorihep-ph/0112135
10% error withUTfit central value(BR = 0.83 10-10)
10% errorwith currentcentral value
Fit in a NP model independent approach
SM-like
Cd cos2() sin2() sin(2) ASL
SM-LIKE 60o 1 0.68 -0.23 0.96 OK
NP1 60o 1 -0.68 0.96 -0.23 OK
NP2 120o 0.4 0.68 -0.23 -0.96 10-2
NP3 120o 0.4 -0.68 0.96 0.23 0K
Vub/Vcb
D
md ACPJ
K
Using
0.26
In MFV CKM2010
0.54
Now
2010