G. Martinelli, Flavor Physics after the Higgs Discovery

Flavor
Physics
a.er
the

Higgs
Discovery

Guido Martinelli
SISSA Trieste &
INFN Roma
BW2013
April 27th 2013

1) Precision Flavor Physics
2) CKM analysis and CP violation in the SM
3) B τ ν & Bs µ µ
4) ΔF = 2 transitions
5) Conclusions
many thanks to M. Bona,
M. Ciuchini & L. Silvestrini
for discussions
I also borrowed
from them a few slides

The
Higgs
Par5cle
has
been

discovered

MH

≈
125
GeV

But
that’s

all:

Higgs

only

Higgs!!

Mass scale [TeV]
-1
10 1 10 2
10
OtherExcit.
ferm.
NewquarksLQV'CIExtradimensions
jjmColor octet scalar : dijet resonance,
µe
m,µ)=1) : SS eµe→
L
±±
(DY prod., BR(HL
±±
H
ll
m),µµll)=1) : SS ee (→L
±±
(DY prod., BR(HL
±±
H
(LRSM, no mixing) : 2-lep + jetsRW
Major. neutr. (LRSM, no mixing) : 2-lep + jets
,WZT
mlll),νTechni-hadrons (LSTC) : WZ resonance (
µµee/mTechni-hadrons (LSTC) : dilepton,
γl
mresonance,γExcited lepton : l-
jjmExcited quarks : dijet resonance,
jetγ
m-jet resonance,γExcited quarks :
llqmVector-like quark : NC,
qνlmVector-like quark : CC,
)
T2
(dilepton, M0
A0
tt + A→Top partner : TT
Zb
mZb+X,→New quark b' : b'b'
WtWt→)5/3T
5/3
generation : b'b'(T
th
4
WbWb→generation : t't'
th
4
jjντjj,ττ=1) : kin. vars. inβScalar LQ pair (
jjνµjj,µµ=1) : kin. vars. inβScalar LQ pair (
jjν=1) : kin. vars. in eejj, eβScalar LQ pair (
µT,e/mW* :
tb
mtb, SSM) :→(RW'
tq
m=1) :
R
tq, g→W' (
µT,e/mW' (SSM) :
ττmZ' (SSM) :
µµee/mZ' (SSM) :
,missTEuutt CI : SS dilepton + jets +
ll
m,µµqqll CI : ee &
)
jj
m(χqqqq contact interaction :
)jjm(χ
Quantum black hole : dijet, F
T
pΣ=3) : leptons + jets,D
M/TH
MADD BH (
ch. part.N=3) : SS dimuon,DM/THMADD BH (
tt,boosted
ml+jets,→tt (BR=0.925) : tt→
KK
RS g
νlν,lTmRS1 : WW resonance,
llll / lljjmRS1 : ZZ resonance,
/ llγγmRS1 : diphoton & dilepton,
llmED : dilepton,2
/Z
1
S
,missTEUED : diphoton +
/ llγγmLarge ED (ADD) : diphoton & dilepton,
,missTELarge ED (ADD) : monophoton +
,missTELarge ED (ADD) : monojet +
Scalar resonance mass1.86 TeV, 7 TeV [1210.1718]
-1
=4.8 fbL
massL
±±
H375 GeV, 7 TeV [1210.5070]
-1
=4.7 fbL
)µµmass (limit at 398 GeV forL
±±
H409 GeV, 7 TeV [1210.5070]
-1
=4.7 fbL
(N) < 1.4 TeV)mmass (RW2.4 TeV, 7 TeV [1203.5420]
-1
=2.1 fbL
) = 2 TeV)R
(WmN mass (1.5 TeV, 7 TeV [1203.5420]
-1
=2.1 fbL
))T
ρ(m) = 1.1T
(am,Wm) +T
π(m) =T
ρ(mmass (T
ρ483 GeV, 7 TeV [1204.1648]
-1
=1.0 fbL
)W
) = MTπ(m) -Tω/T
ρ(mmass (Tω/T
ρ850 GeV, 7 TeV [1209.2535]
-1
=4.9-5.0 fbL
= m(l*))Λl* mass (2.2 TeV, 8 TeV [ATLAS-CONF-2012-146]
-1
=13.0 fbL
q* mass3.84 TeV, 8 TeV [ATLAS-CONF-2012-148]
-1
=13.0 fbL
q* mass2.46 TeV, 7 TeV [1112.3580]
-1
=2.1 fbL
)Q/mν=qQκVLQ mass (charge 2/3, coupling1.08 TeV, 7 TeV [ATLAS-CONF-2012-137]
-1
=4.6 fbL
)Q/mν=qQκVLQ mass (charge -1/3, coupling1.12 TeV, 7 TeV [ATLAS-CONF-2012-137]
-1
=4.6 fbL
) < 100 GeV)0
(AmT mass (483 GeV, 7 TeV [1209.4186]
-1
=4.7 fbL
b' mass400 GeV, 7 TeV [1204.1265]
-1
=2.0 fbL
) mass5/3
b' (T670 GeV, 7 TeV [ATLAS-CONF-2012-130]
-1
=4.7 fbL
t' mass656 GeV, 7 TeV [1210.5468]
-1
=4.7 fbL
gen. LQ mass
rd
3538 GeV, 7 TeV [Preliminary]
-1
=4.7 fbL
gen. LQ mass
nd
2685 GeV, 7 TeV [1203.3172]
-1
=1.0 fbL
gen. LQ mass
st
1660 GeV, 7 TeV [1112.4828]
-1
=1.0 fbL
W* mass2.42 TeV, 7 TeV [1209.4446]
-1
=4.7 fbL
W' mass1.13 TeV, 7 TeV [1205.1016]
-1
=1.0 fbL
W' mass430 GeV, 7 TeV [1209.6593]
-1
=4.7 fbL
W' mass2.55 TeV, 7 TeV [1209.4446]
-1
=4.7 fbL
Z' mass1.4 TeV, 7 TeV [1210.6604]
-1
=4.7 fbL
Z' mass2.49 TeV, 8 TeV [ATLAS-CONF-2012-129]
-1
=5.9-6.1 fbL
Λ1.7 TeV, 7 TeV [1202.5520]
-1
=1.0 fbL
(constructive int.)Λ13.9 TeV, 7 TeV [1211.1150]
-1
=4.9-5.0 fbL
Λ7.8 TeV, 7 TeV [ATLAS-CONF-2012-038]
-1
=4.8 fbL
=6)δ(DM4.11 TeV, 7 TeV [1210.1718]
-1
=4.7 fbL
=6)δ(DM1.5 TeV, 7 TeV [1204.4646]
-1
=1.0 fbL
=6)δ(DM1.25 TeV, 7 TeV [1111.0080]
-1
=1.3 fbL
massKK
g1.9 TeV, 7 TeV [ATLAS-CONF-2012-136]
-1
=4.7 fbL
= 0.1)PlM/kGraviton mass (1.23 TeV, 7 TeV [1208.2880]
-1
=4.7 fbL
= 0.1)PlM/kGraviton mass (845 GeV, 7 TeV [1203.0718]
-1
=1.0 fbL
= 0.1)PlM/kGraviton mass (2.23 TeV, 7 TeV [1210.8389]
-1
=4.7-5.0 fbL
-1
~ RKKM4.71 TeV, 7 TeV [1209.2535]
-1
=4.9-5.0 fbL
-1
Compact. scale R1.41 TeV, 7 TeV [ATLAS-CONF-2012-072]
-1
=4.8 fbL
=3, NLO)δ(HLZSM4.18 TeV, 7 TeV [1211.1150]
-1
=4.7 fbL
=2)δ(DM1.93 TeV, 7 TeV [1209.4625]
-1
=4.6 fbL
=2)δ(DM4.37 TeV, 7 TeV [1210.4491]
-1
=4.7 fbL
Only a selection of the available mass limits on new states or phenomena shown*
-1
= (1.0 - 13.0) fbLdt∫
= 7, 8 TeVs
ATLAS
Preliminary
ATLAS Exotics Searches* - 95% CL Lower Limits (Status: HCP 2012)
Mass scale [TeV]
-1
10 1 10
RPVLong-lived
particles
EW
direct
3rdgen.squarks
directproduction
3rdgen.sq.
gluinomed.
Inclusivesearches
,missT
E) : 'monojet' +χWIMP interaction (D5, Dirac
Scalar gluon : 2-jet resonance pair
qqq : 3-jet resonance pair→g
~ ,missTE: 4 lep +
e
νµ,eµνee→
0
1
χ
∼
,
0
1
χ
∼
l→Ll
~
,
-
Ll
~+
Ll
~ ,missT
E: 4 lep +
e
νµ,eµνee→
0
1
χ∼,
0
1
χ∼W→
+
1
χ∼,
-
1
χ∼+
1
χ∼
,missTEBilinear RPV CMSSM : 1 lep + 7 j's +
resonanceτ)+µe(→τν∼+X,τν∼→LFV : pp
resonanceµe+→τν∼+X,τν∼→LFV : pp
+ heavy displaced vertexµ(RPV) :µqq→
0
1
χ
∼
τ∼GMSB : stable
(full detector)γβ,βR-hadrons : lowt
~
Stable
(full detector)γβ,βR-hadrons : lowg~Stable
±
1
χ∼pair prod. (AMSB) : long-lived
±
1
χ∼Direct
,missTE: 3 lep +
0
1
χ
∼)
*
(
Z
0
1
χ
∼)
*
(
W→
0
2
χ
∼±
1
χ
∼ ,missT
E) : 3 lep +νν∼l(Ll
~
ν∼), lνν∼l(L
l
~
νL
l
~
→
0
2
χ∼±
1
χ∼ ,missTE: 2 lep +
0
1
χ∼νl→)ν∼(lνl
~
→
+
1
χ∼,
-
1
χ∼+
1
χ∼ ,missTE: 2 lep +
0
1
χ∼l→l
~
,Ll
~
Ll
~ ,missT
Ell) + b-jet +→(natural GMSB) : Z(t
~
t
~ ,missTE: 0/1/2 lep (+ b-jets) +
0
1
χ
∼
t→t
~
,t
~
t
~ ,missTE: 1 lep + b-jet +
0
1
χ
∼
t→t
~
,t
~
t
~ ,missT
E: 2 lep +
±
1
χ∼b→t
~
(medium),t
~
t
~ ,missT
E: 1 lep + b-jet +±
1
χ∼b→t
~
(medium),t
~
t
~ ,missT
E: 1/2 lep (+ b-jet) +
±
1
χ∼b→t
~
(light),t
~
t
~ ,missTE: 3 lep + j's +
±
1
χ∼t→1
b
~
,b
~
b
~ ,missTE: 0 lep + 2-b-jets +
0
1
χ∼b→1
b
~
,b
~
b
~ ,missTE) : 0 lep + 3 b-j's +t
~
(virtual
0
1
χ
∼
tt→g
~ ,missTE) : 0 lep + multi-j's +t
~
(virtual
0
1
χ
∼
tt→g
~ ,missTE) : 3 lep + j's +t
~
(virtual
0
1
χ
∼
tt→g
~ ,missTE) : 2 lep (SS) + j's +t
~
(virtual
0
1
χ
∼
tt→g
~ ,missTE) : 0 lep + 3 b-j's +b
~
(virtual
0
1
χ∼bb→g~
,missTEGravitino LSP : 'monojet' +
,missTEGGM (higgsino NLSP) : Z + jets +
,missT
E+ b +γGGM (higgsino-bino NLSP) :
,missT
E+ lep +γGGM (wino NLSP) :
,missT
E+γγGGM (bino NLSP) :
,missT
E+ 0-1 lep + j's +τNLSP) : 1-2τ∼GMSB (
,missT
ENLSP) : 2 lep (OS) + j's +l
~
GMSB (
,missT
E) : 1 lep + j's +
±
χ∼qq→g~(
±
χ∼Gluino med.
,missTEPheno model : 0 lep + j's +
,missTEPheno model : 0 lep + j's +
,missTEMSUGRA/CMSSM : 1 lep + j's +
,missTEMSUGRA/CMSSM : 0 lep + j's +
M* scale < 80 GeV, limit of < 687 GeV for D8)χm(704 GeV, 8 TeV [ATLAS-CONF-2012-147]
-1
=10.5 fbL
sgluon mass (incl. limit from 1110.2693)100-287 GeV, 7 TeV [1210.4826]
-1
=4.6 fbL
massg
~
666 GeV, 7 TeV [1210.4813]
-1
=4.6 fbL
massl
~
> 0)122
λor121
λ),τl
~
(m)=µl
~
(m)=el
~
(m) > 100 GeV,
0
1
χ
∼
(m(430 GeV, 8 TeV [ATLAS-CONF-2012-153]
-1
=13.0 fbL
mass
+
1
χ
∼
∼
> 0)122
λor121
λ) > 300 GeV,
0
1
χ
∼
-1
=13.0 fbL
massg~=q~ < 1 mm)LSP
τ(c1.2 TeV, 7 TeV [ATLAS-CONF-2012-140]
-1
=4.7 fbL
massτν
∼
=0.05)1(2)33
λ=0.10,
,
311
λ(1.10 TeV, 7 TeV [Preliminary]
-1
=4.6 fbL
massτν
∼
=0.05)132
λ=0.10,
,
311
λ(1.61 TeV, 7 TeV [Preliminary]
-1
=4.6 fbL
massq
~
decoupled)g
~
< 1 m,τ, 1 mm < c
-5
10×< 1.5211
,
λ<
-5
10×(0.3700 GeV, 7 TeV [1210.7451]
-1
=4.4 fbL
massτ∼ < 20)β(5 < tan300 GeV, 7 TeV [1211.1597]
-1
=4.7 fbL
masst
~
683 GeV, 7 TeV [1211.1597]
-1
=4.7 fbL
massg
~
985 GeV, 7 TeV [1211.1597]
-1
=4.7 fbL
mass
±
1
χ
∼
) < 10 ns)
±
1
χ
∼
(τ(1 <220 GeV, 7 TeV [1210.2852]
-1
=4.7 fbL
mass
±
1
χ
∼
) = 0, sleptons decoupled)
0
1
χ
∼
(m),
0
2
χ
∼
(m) =
±
1
χ
∼
(m(140-295 GeV, 8 TeV [ATLAS-CONF-2012-154]
-1
=13.0 fbL
mass
±
1
χ
∼
) as above)ν
∼
,l
~
(m) = 0,
0
1
χ
∼
(m),
0
2
χ
∼
(m) =
±
1
χ
∼
-1
=13.0 fbL
mass
±
1
χ∼ )))
0
1
χ
∼
(m) +
±
1
χ
∼
(m(
2
1) =ν
∼
,l
~
(m) < 10 GeV,
0
1
χ
∼
(m(110-340 GeV, 7 TeV [1208.2884]
-1
=4.7 fbL
massl
~
) = 0)
0
1
χ
∼
(m(85-195 GeV, 7 TeV [1208.2884]
-1
=4.7 fbL
masst
~
) < 230 GeV)
0
1
χ
∼
(m(115 <310 GeV, 7 TeV [1204.6736]
-1
=2.1 fbL
masst
~
) = 0)
0
1
χ
∼
(m(230-465 GeV, 7 TeV [1208.1447,1208.2590,1209.4186]
-1
=4.7 fbL
masst
~
) = 0)
0
1
χ
∼
-1
=13.0 fbL
masst
~
) = 10 GeV)
±
1
χ
∼
(m)-t
~
(m) = 0 GeV,
0
1
χ
∼
-1
=13.0 fbL
masst
~
) = 150 GeV)
±
1
χ
∼
(m) = 0 GeV,
0
1
χ
∼
-1
=13.0 fbL
masst
~
) = 55 GeV)
0
1
χ
∼
(m(167 GeV, 7 TeV [1208.4305, 1209.2102]
-1
=4.7 fbL
massb
~
))
0
1
χ
∼
(m) = 2
±
1
χ
∼
-1
=13.0 fbL
massb
~
) < 120 GeV)
0
1
χ
∼
-1
=12.8 fbL
massg
~
) < 200 GeV)
0
1
χ
∼
(m(1.15 TeV, 8 TeV [ATLAS-CONF-2012-145]
-1
=12.8 fbL
massg
~
) < 300 GeV)
0
1
χ
∼
-1
=5.8 fbL
massg
~
) < 300 GeV)
0
1
χ
∼
-1
=13.0 fbL
massg
~
) < 300 GeV)
0
1
χ
∼
-1
=5.8 fbL
massg
~
) < 200 GeV)
0
1
χ
∼
-1
=12.8 fbL
scale
1/2
F eV)-4
) > 10G
~
-1
=10.5 fbL
massg
~
) > 200 GeV)H
~
-1
=5.8 fbL
massg
~
) > 220 GeV)
0
1
χ
∼
(m(900 GeV, 7 TeV [1211.1167]
-1
=4.8 fbL
massg
~
619 GeV, 7 TeV [ATLAS-CONF-2012-144]
-1
=4.8 fbL
massg
~
) > 50 GeV)
0
1
χ
∼
(m(1.07 TeV, 7 TeV [1209.0753]
-1
=4.8 fbL
massg
~
> 20)β(tan1.20 TeV, 7 TeV [1210.1314]
-1
=4.7 fbL
massg
~
< 15)β(tan1.24 TeV, 7 TeV [1208.4688]
-1
=4.7 fbL
massg
~
))g
~
(m)+
0
χ
∼
(m(
2
1) =
±
χ
∼
(m) < 200 GeV,
0
1
χ
∼
(m(900 GeV, 7 TeV [1208.4688]
-1
=4.7 fbL
massq
~
)
0
1
χ
∼
) < 2 TeV, lightg
~
-1
=5.8 fbL
massg
~
)
0
1
χ
∼
) < 2 TeV, lightq
~
-1
=5.8 fbL
massg
~
=q
~
1.24 TeV, 8 TeV [ATLAS-CONF-2012-104]
-1
=5.8 fbL
massg
~
=q
~1.50 TeV, 8 TeV [ATLAS-CONF-2012-109]
-1
=5.8 fbL
Only a selection of the available mass limits on new states or phenomena shown.*
theoretical signal cross section uncertainty.σAll limits quoted are observed minus 1
-1
= (2.1 - 13.0) fbLdt∫
= 7, 8 TeVs
ATLAS
Preliminary
7 TeV results
8 TeV results
ATLAS SUSY Searches* - 95% CL Lower Limits (Status: Dec 2012)

Lquarks = Lkinetic + Lgauge + LYukawa

Flavor physics
In the SM, the quark mass matrix, from which the
CKM matrix and CP violation originate, is determined
by the coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions.
CP invariant
CP and symmetry breaking
are striclty correlated
EWSB has many accidental
simmetries may violate
accidental
simmetries

Two accidental symmetries:
Absence of FCNC at tree level (& GIM
suppression of FCNC in quantum effects @loops)
No CP violation @ tree level
Flavour Physics is extremely sensitive
to new physics

flavor physics can be used in two “modes”:
1.  “NP Lagrangian reconstruction” mode
-  an external information on the NP scale is required (i.e. LHC)
-  the main tool are correlations among observables
-  needs theoretical control on uncertainties of both SM and NP contributions
2. “Discovery” mode
-  looks for deviation from the SM whatever the origin
-  needs theoretical control of the SM contribution only
-  in general cannot provide precise information on the NP scale, but a positive
result would be a strong evidence that NP is not too far (i.e. in the multi-TeV
region)
flavor physics

the path leading to TeV NP

is narrower after the results of

the LHC at 7 & 8 TeV

in any case will be further

explored in the next run

THE
CKM
See also

-  CKMFitter (http:/ckmﬁtter/in2p3.fr/);

-  Laiho & Lunghi & Van de Water (http://krone.physik.unizh.ch/˜lunghi/webpage/LatAves/page3/page3.html);

-  Lunghi & Soni (1010.67069).

Unitarity Triangle Analysis in the Standard Model
CP invariant
CP and
symmetry
breaking (or new
physics) are
closely related !
-  provide the best determination of CKM parameters

-  test the consistency of the SM (direct vs indirect)

-  provide(d) predictions for SM observables (sin2β,
Δms, ..)

N(N-1)/2 angles and (N-1)(N-2) /2 phases

N=3 3 angles + 1 phase KM
the phase generates complex couplings i.e. CP
violation;
6 masses +3 angles +1 phase = 10 parameters
Vud Vus Vub
Vcd Vcs Vcb
Vtb Vts Vtb

Vud Vus Vub
Vcd Vcs Vcb
Vtd Vts Vtb
Quark masses &
Generation
Mixing
Neutron
Proton
νe
e-
down
up
W
| Vud |

| Vud | = 0.9735(8)

| Vus | = 0.2196(23)

| Vcd | = 0.224(16)

| Vcs | = 0.970(9)(70)

| Vcb | = 0.0406(8)

| Vub | = 0.00409(25)

| Vtb | = 0.99(29)

(0.999)

β-decays

1 - 1/2 λ2 λ A λ3
(ρ - i η)
- λ 1 - 1/2 λ2
A λ2
A λ3
×
(1- ρ - i η)
-A λ2
1
+ O(λ4)
The Wolfenstein Parametrization
λ ~ 0.2 A ~ 0.8
η ~ 0.2 ρ ~ 0.3
Sin θ12 = λ
Sin θ23 = A λ2
Sin θ13 = A λ3(ρ-i η)
Vtd

Vub

For details see:
UTfit Collaboration
http://www.utfit.org

Classical Quantities used in the
Standard UT Analysis
before

only a lower bound

Inclusive vs Exclusive

Opportunity for lattice QCD

see later

Vub/Vcb εK Δmd Δmd/Δms
levels @
68% (95%) CL
f+,F
BK
fBBB
1/2 ξ

New Quantities used in the
UT Analysis
sin2β cos2β α sin(2β+γ)
B→J/ΨK0 B→J/ΨK*0 B→ππ,ρρ B→D
(
*)
π,Dρ
γ
B→D
(
*)
K

Marco Ciuchini Page 16KEK-FF 2013
From Summer 2012 to Winter 2013
* LHCb measurements for ϕs, ΔΓs, aSL
s, Δms, UT
angles included (updated HFAG averages)
* Latest Belle measurement of BR(B → τν)
included
* (SUSY) B parameters updated
* other minor updates
(e.g. top mass, etc)
detailed information at http://www.utfit.org

Δmd = (0.507 ± 0.004) ps-1

Δms = (17.72 ± 0.04) ps-1

Vcb & Vub

Vub (excl) = (3.28 ± 0.30) 10-3

Vub (inc) = (4.40 ± 0.31) 10-3

Vub (com) = (3.82 ± 0.56) 10-3

~2.6σ
difference

Vcb (excl) = (39.5 ± 1.0) 10-3

Vcb (inc) = (41.7 ± 0.7) 10-3

Vcb (com) = (41.0 ± 1.0) 10-3

2.4% uncertainty

AFTER EPS-HEP2011

15% uncertainty

~ 1.8 σ difference

Repeat with several fCP final states

Global Fit within the
SM
SM Fit
CKM matrix is the dominant source of flavour mixing and CP violation
Consistence on an
over constrained fit
of the CKM parameters
ρ = 0.132 ± 0.021
η = 0.350 ± 0.014
In the
hadronic
sector, the
SM CKM
pattern
represents
the
principal
part of the
flavor
structure
and of CP
violation
α = (88.7 ± 3.1 )0
sin2β = 0.693 ± 0.021
β = (21.95 ± 0.87 )0
γ = (69.2 ± 3.2)0
A = 0.827 ± 0.013

λ = 0.2254 ± 0.0007

εK

103

103

103

10-6

10-6

B(B τ ν) 0ld = (167 ± 30) 10-6

inclusives vs exclusives
~0.9σ
sin2βUTfit = 0.76 ± 0.10 ← no semileptonic
only
inclusive
values
only
exclusive
values
~1.3σ
sin2βUTfit =
0.723 ± 0.036
~2.6σ
sin2βUTfit =
0.781 ± 0.034
courtesy of M. Bona

BK lattice = 0.733±0.029
BK fit = 0.866±0.086
~1.5 σ
A larger value of |Vcb| would reduce the deviation:
|Vcb|excl: 1.5 σ → 1.1 σ

* the theory error in sin2β from B → J/YK is small and
under control. A conservative bound obtained from
data is included in the analysis
* BR(B →τν) demands a large value of |Vub|.
The theoretical uncertainty, due to fB, is controlled
by the fit
* The εK deviation is triggered by improvements in BK
from the lattice and the inclusion of the ξ term à
la Buras-Guadagnoli(+Isidori). Yet the εK formula
is not under control at the few percent level
* |Vub| from semileptonic decays is still not theoretically
sound as necessary (incl. vs excl., models, f.f.,…).
Yet a simple shift of the central value alone cannot
reconcile sin2β and BR(B →τν) (and εK )

1) Possible tensions in the present SM Fit ?
2)  Fit of NP-ΔF=2 parameters in a Model “independent” way
3)  “Scale” analysis in ΔF=2
Is the present picture showing a
Model Standardissimo ?
An evidence, an evidence, my kingdom for an evidence
From Shakespeare's Richard III

What for a ``standardissimo” CKM
which agrees so well with the
experimental observations?
New Physics at the EW
scale is “flavor blind”
-> MINIMAL FLAVOR
VIOLATION, namely flavour
originates only from the
Yukawa couplings of the SM
New Physics introduces new
sources of flavour, the
contribution of which, at
most < 20 % , should be
found in the present data,
e.g. in the asymmetries of
Bs decays

…. beyond

the Standard Model

CP VIOLATION
PROVEN IN THE
SM !!
degeneracy of
γ broken by
ASL
Only tree level processes Vub/Vcb and B-> DK(*)

Main Ingredients and General Parametrizations
Neutral Kaon Mixing
Fit simultaneously CKM and NP parameters
(generalized Utﬁt)

Bd and Bs mixing
Cq
Pen and φq
Pen parametrize possible NP contributions to

Γq
12 from b -> s penguins

assumptions:
three generations
no NP in tree level decays
no large NP EWP in B ππ
ρ = 0.147 ± 0.048 (ρSM = 0.133 ± 0.021)
η = 0.370 ± 0.057 (ηSM = 0.350 ± 0.014)

TESTING THE NEW PHYSICS SCALE
Effective Theory Analysis ΔF=2 2
( )
( )
j
j
j
j
C
LF F
C
L
= ⇒ Λ =
Λ
Λ
Λ
L is loop factor and should be :
L=1 tree/strong int. NP
L=α2
s or α2
W for strong/weak
perturb. NP
C(Λ) coefficients are extracted from data
F1=FSM=(VtqVtb*)2
Fj=1=0 MFV
|Fj | =FSM
arbitrary phases NMFV
|Fj | =1
arbitrary phases
Flavour generic
Effective Hamiltonian in the mixing amplitudes

1)  CKM matrix is the dominant source of flavour mixing and CP
violation σ(ρ)~15% & σ(η) ~4%. SM analysis shows a
good overall consistency
2) There are tensions that should be understood : sin2β, Br(Bàτ ν)
and to a lesser extent εK . A single value of Vub cannot resolve
the tensions.

3) In Bs some tension between aµµ and Bs in J/ψϕ which point to
different, large values of ϕs (assuming SM Γ12)
4) The suggestion of a large Bs mixing phase has not survived to
LHCb measurements.

Thus for the time being we have to remain with a
STANDARDISSIMO STANDARD MODEL but …

CONCLUSIONS

b è s & τ èµγ in SUSY GUTS
3
A0 = 0 and the ratio x ⇤ m2
˜g/m2
˜q = 1. Taking these val-
ues we scan over (⌅d
23,13)RR and require ﬁts to the values
of ⌥q and ⌦NP
q as described in the previous section.
FIG. 1: Allowed parameter space for the mass insertion
bounds. Therefore the present bounds have no impact
on the allowed parameter space.
FIG. 5: Predictions for BR(⇥ µ ) from constraints on Bs
mixing. The red points conform to the Ms constraint while
green points show the additional constraint from ⇤s, both at
95% C.L. The present experimental bound is shown by the
solid black horizontal line.
The ratio of the branching fraction of ⇧ ⇤ µ and
ΔMs msq=500 GeV

Φs

Limits from Belle and Babar <
4.5 & 6.8 10-8

We can consider simultaneously LFV, g-2
e EDM,e.g. Isidori, Mescia, Paradisi, Temes in MSSM

QUARK MASSES ARE GENERATED
BY DYNAMICAL SYMMETRY
BREAKING
Charge -1/3
∑i,k=1,N [ mu
i,k (ui
L uk
R )

+md
i,k (di
L dk
R) + h.c. ]

Charge +2/3
Lyukawa ≡ ∑i,k=1,N [ Yi,k (qi
L HC ) Uk
R

+Xi,k (qi
L H ) Dk
R + h.c. ]

Diagonalization of the Mass Matrix

Up to singular cases, the mass matrix can always be
diagonalized by 2 unitary transformations

ui
L  Uik
L uk
L ui
R  Uik
R uk
R

M´= U†
L M UR (M´)† = U†
R (M)† UL

Lmass ≡ mup (uL uR +uR uL ) +mch(cL cR +cR cL )
+mtop(tL tR +tR tL )

Physical quantities correspond to invariants
under phase reparametrization i.e.
|a1 |, |a2 |, … , |e3 | and the area of the
Unitary Triangles
a precise knowledge of the
moduli (angles) would fix J
Vud
*Vub+ Vcd
* Vcb+Vtd
* Vtb = 0

CP ∝ J
J = Im (a1 a2
* ) = |a1 a2 | Sin β
Vud
*Vub

Vtd
*Vtb

Vcd
*Vcb

α
γ β
γ = δCKM

57

VubVud+ VcbVcd+VtbVtd = 0* **

CP Violation is natural with three quark

generations (Kobayashi-Maskawa)

With three generations all CP

phenomena are related to the same

unique parameter ( δ )

NO Flavour Changing Neutral Currents (FCNC)
at Tree Level

(FCNC processes are good candidates for observing
NEW PHYSICS)

sin 2β is measured directly from B J/ψ Ks

decays at Babar & Belle

Γ(Bd
0 J/ψ Ks , t) - Γ(Bd
0 J/ψ Ks , t)

AJ/ψ Ks
=

Γ(Bd
0 J/ψ Ks , t) + Γ(Bd
0 J/ψ Ks , t)

AJ/ψ Ks
= sin 2β sin (Δmd t)

DIFFERENT LEVELS OF THEORETICAL
UNCERTAINTIES (STRONG INTERACTIONS)
1)  First class quantities, with reduced or negligible theor.
uncertainties

2) Second class quantities, with theoretical errors of O(10%)
or less that can be

reliably estimated

3) Third class quantities, for which theoretical predictions
are model dependent (BBNS, charming, etc.)

In case of discrepacies we cannot

tell whether is new physics or

we must blame the model

εΚ

-1.5 σ devation
Three “news” ingredients
(6)
12Im
sin
i
K
M
e
m
ε
ε
φ
ξε φ β
% &
= +' (
Δ* +
K
1)  Buras&Guadagnoli BG&Isidori corrections
à Decrease the SM prediction by 6%
2)  Improved value for BK
à BK=0.731±0.07±0.35
3) Brod&Gorbhan charm-top contribution at NNLO
à enhancement of 3%
(not included yet)

INCLUSIVE Vub = (43.1 ± 3.9) 10-4
Model dependent in the threshold region
(BLNP, DGE, BLL)
But with a different modelling of the
threshold region [U.Aglietti et al.,
0711.0860] Vub = (36.9 ± 1.3 ± 3.9) 10-4
EXCLUSIVE Vub = (34.0 ± 4.0) 10-4
Form factors from LQCD and QCDSR

|Vub/Vcb| εK
Δms/ΔmdΔmd
α
β
2β+γ
γ
Unitarity Triangle analysis in the SM
B τνMain goal:
- determine the UT
apex and the CKM
matrix parameters
Overconstrained:
- predict observables,
hadronic parameters
and constrains NP

Vincenzo Vagnoni ICHEP 06, Moscow, 28th July 2006
The UT-angles fit does not depend on
theoretical calculations (treatement of
errors is not an issue)
η = 0.340± 0.016 η = 0.404 ± 0.039
ANGLES VS LATTICE 2011

ρ = 0.129 ± 0.027
Still imperfect
agreement in η due
to sin2β and Vub
tension
Comparable accuracy
due to the precise sin2β
value and substantial
improvement due to the
new Δms measurement
Crucial to improve
measurements of the
angles, in particular γ
(tree level NP-free
determination)
UT-angles

UT-lattice

ρ = 0.155 ± 0.038

Vincenzo Vagnoni ICHEP 06, Moscow, 28th July 2006

SM predictions
of Δms
SM expectation
Δms = (18.3 ± 1.3 ) ps-1
agreement between the predicted values
and the measurements at better than :
6σ
5σ3σ
4σ
1σ
2σ
Legenda
Δms
10
Prediction “era” Monitoring “era”
Exp
Δms = (17.77 ± 0.12 ) ps-1

Theoretical predictions of Sin 2 β
in the years predictions

exist since '95

experiments

sin 2 βUTA = 0.65 ± 0.12
Prediction 1995 from
Ciuchini,Franco,G.M.,Reina,Silvestrini

Compatibility plots

They are a procedure to ``measure” the agreement of a single
measurement with the indirect determination from the ﬁt

αexp = (91 ± 6)0 γ exp = (76 ± 11)0

Vub incl = 4.40± 0.31 10-3

Vub excl = 3.26± 0.30 10-3

Vcb incl = 41.7± 0.7 10-3

Vcb excl = 39.5± 1.0 10-3

VUB PUZZLE
Inclusive: uses non perturbative parameters most

not from lattice QCD (ﬁtted from the lepton spectrum)

Exclusive: uses non perturbative

form factors

from LQCD and QCDSR

sin2β(excl) = 0.706 ± 0.041
0.8 σ from direct measurement
sin2β(incl) = 0.791 ± 0.041
2.6 σ from direct measurement
no B → τν

Prediction Measurement σ
γ

(69 ±3)° (79 ±10)° 0.9
α

(85 ± 4)° (91 ± 6)° 0.7
sin2β

0.795±0.051 0.667±0.021 2.3
Vub [103] 3.63±0.15 3.83 ±0.57 0.3
Br(Bàll ) 10-9 3.55 ±0.28 18 ±11 +1.3
ΒK [103] 0.88 ±0.09 0.731 ±0.036 1.4
Br(Bàτ ν) 10-4 0.83±0.08 1.64±0.34 2.3
Δms (ps-1) 19.1±1.5 17.70±0.08 1.0
Summary Table of the Pulls

In general the mixing mass matrix of the SQuarks
(SMM) is not diagonal in flavour space analogously
to the quark case We may either
Diagonalize the SMM
z , γ , g

Qj
L

qj
L

FCNC
or Rotate by the same

matrices

the SUSY partners of

the u- and d- like quarks

(Qj
L )´ = Uij
L Qj
L

Uj
L

Ui
L

dk
L

g

In the latter case the Squark Mass
Matrix is not diagonal
(m2
Q )ij = m2
average 1ij + Δmij
2 δij = Δmij
2 / m2
average

New local four-fermion operators are generated
Q1 = (bL
A γµ dL
A) (bL
Bγµ dL
B) SM

Q2 = (bR
A dL
A) (bR
B dL
B)

Q3 = (bR
A dL
B) (bR
B dL
A)

Q4 = (bR
A dL
A) (bL
B dR
B)

Q5 = (bR
A dL
B) (bL
B dR
A)

+ those obtained by L ↔ R

Similarly for the s
quark e.g.

(sR
A dL
A) (sR
B dL
B)

The recently measured direct CP asymmetries in the processes D0 → π+π−
and D0 → K+K− show a signiﬁcant deviation from the naive Standard
Model expectation. Using a general parameterization of the decay
amplitudes, Franco, Mishima and Silvestrini showed, the observed
asymmetries are marginally compatible with the Standard Model. Improving
the experimental accuracy could lead to an indirect signal of new physics.

Bs mixing , a road to New Physics (NP) ?
The Standard Model contribution
to CP violation in Bs mixing is
well predicted and rather small
The phase of the mixing amplitudes can be extracted
from Bs ->J/Ψ φ with a relatively small th.
uncertainty. A phase very different from 0.04 implies
NP in Bs mixing
2009

ρ , η

Cd

ϕd

Cs

ϕs

CεK

γ (DΚ)

X
Vub/Vcb X
Δmd X X
ACP (J/Ψ Κ)

X X
ACP (Dπ(ρ),DKπ)

X X
ASL X X
α (ρρ,ρπ,ππ)

X X
ACH X X X X
τ(Βs), ΔΓs/Γs X X
Δms X
ASL(Bs)

X X
ACP (J/Ψ φ)

~X X
εK X X
Tree
processes
1↔3
family
2↔3
family
1↔2
familiy
0
( , , , ..)
( / , ) sin(2 2 ) ( , , )
( , , )
| | | |
d d
d d
d d
EXP SM
d B d B
CP B B
EXP SM
B B
EXP SM
K K
m C m f C QCD
A J K f
f
Cε
ρ η
β φ ρ η φ
α α φ ρ η φ
ε ε
Δ = Δ
Ψ = +
= −
= ( , , , ..)
( , , , ..)
( / , ) sin(2 2 ) ( , , )
...
s
s s
EXP SM
s B s Bs
CP s B B
f C QCD
m C m f C QCD
A J f
ερ η
ρ η
φ β φ ρ η φ
Δ = Δ
Ψ = −
ΔF=2

NP model independent Fit

Parametrizing NP physics in ΔF=2 processes

2 2 2
2
NP SM
i B B
SM
B
A A
e
A
Δ = Δ =
Δ =
+
=qC dö
CBqe2iφBq

η = 0.353 ± 0.014
ρ = 0.132 ± 0.020
η = 0.392 ± 0.054
ρ = 0.129 ± 0.040
SM analysis NP-ΔF=2 analysis
ρ,η fit quite precisely in NP-ΔF=2 analysis and
consistent with the one obtained on the SM analysis
[error increases]
(main contributors tree-level γ and Vub)
5 new free parameters

Cs,ϕs Bs mixing

Cd,ϕd Bd mixing

CεK K mixing

Today :

ﬁt is overcontrained

Possible to ﬁt 7 free parameters

(ρ, η, Cd,ϕd ,Cs,ϕs, CεK)
Please consider these numbers when you want to get CKM parameters
in the

From Kaon sector @ 95% [TeV]
Scenario Strong/tree αs loop αW loop
MFV
NMFV 107 11 3.2
Generic ~470000 ~47000 ~14000
From Bd&Bs sector @ 95% [TeV]
Scenario Strong/tree αs loop αW loop
MFV
NMFV 8 0.8 0.25
Generic 3300 330 100
Main contribution to present lower bound on NP scale come from
ΔΦ=2 chirality-flipping operators ( Q4) which are RG enhanced

G. Martinelli, Flavor Physics after the Higgs Discovery

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (6)

En vedette

En vedette (9)

Similaire à G. Martinelli, Flavor Physics after the Higgs Discovery

Similaire à G. Martinelli, Flavor Physics after the Higgs Discovery (20)

Plus de SEENET-MTP

Plus de SEENET-MTP (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

G. Martinelli, Flavor Physics after the Higgs Discovery