Bounds on New Physics from the Unitarity Triangle fitsusy06.physics.uci.edu/talks/2/pierini.pdf · 2006. 6. 25. · Maurizio Pierini 1 SUSY06 UC Irvine Bounds on New Physics from

1Maurizio PieriniSUSY06 UC Irvine

Bounds on New Physics from the Unitarity Triangle fit:

Summer'06 update

M. Bona, M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, F. Parodi,

M. P., P. Roudeau, C. Schiavi, L. Silvestrini, A. Stocchi, V. Vagnoni

Maurizio PieriniUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison

on behalf of UTfit Collaborationhttp://www.utfit.org


Unitarity Triangle Using the Unitarity of the CKM matrix in the SM we can build the Unitarity Triangle.

CP violation in SM is ruled only by one parameter.

Determine it in several ways (test of SM) Fit simultaneously for SM and

New Physics quantities

normalized:

+i normalized:

1 +i

UTfit Coll, hepph/0501199

UTfit Coll, hepph/0509219hepph/0605213


|Vub|

|Vcb|

Unitarity Triangle Analysis

∆md

εK

∆md

∆ms

Adding the “Classic” constraints...


Unitarity Triangle Analysis

...to the new measurements of ,, and


Unitarity Triangle fit

ρ

η

η = 0.342 ± 0.022 [0.300, 0.385] @ 95% Prob.

ρ = 0.216 ± 0.036 [0.143, 0.288] @ 95% Prob.

η


Tension in the fit?

Several determinations of Vub available:

(3.80 ± 0.27 ± 0.47)103 from HFAG value of experimental BR+quenched lattice QCD (similar resultsfrom FNAL staggered fermion calculation)

(4.38 ± 0.19 ± 0.27)103 from inclusive determination (HFAG average)

(3.48 ± 0.20)103 using the other bounds on the UTfit andthanks to the over-constraining of the CKMmatrix IN THE STANDARD MODEL

xcombining incl & excl(4.20 ± 0.20)103

Since Summer'05 there is a tension in the fit NP free measurement of Vub vs NP sensitive indirect determination


sin2 =0.7910.034from indirect determination

of and

sin2=0.6870.0320.013From direct measurement

If the Vub value will be confirmed by more precise data and theory calculations (excl vs incl agreement needs to improved) the tension will become a bound on NP phase in Bd mixing

model independent estimation of theoretical error on sin2(Ciuchini,M.P, Silvestrini

hepph/0507290)

We can use the abundanceof constraints to fit NP & SM

parameters together

Tension in the fit?


ρ = ± 0.18 ± 0.11η = ± 0.41 ± 0.05

Assuming no NP at tree level the effect of the D0D0

mixing to is negligible wrt the present error

semileptonic decays are clean

We have a NP free

determination ofρ andη

referencestarting point

for all NP models

First Step: NPindependent fit

UTfit Coll, hepph/0509219hepph/0605213


J. M. Soares and L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 1021; N. G. Deshpande et al. hep-ph/9608231 J. P. Silva and L. Wolfenstein, hep-ph/9610208 A. G. Cohen et al., hep-ph/9610252] Y. Grossman, Y. Nir and M. P. Worah, hep-ph/9704287

model independent assumptions

Second Step: Inclusion of NP

XXα (ρρ,ρπ,ππ)

XXASL Bd

XX∆md

X∆ms

XXsin2β

XXεK

Xγ (DK)

XVub/Vcb

CBs, φBsCεKCBd, φBdρ, η

ACH XX

d/ds/s

X

X

X

X

SM SM+NP

(Vub/Vcb)SM (Vub/Vcb)

SM

SM SM

SM SM+BdSM SM- Bdmd CBdmd

msSM CBsmsSM

sSM sSM+Bs

SMCKSM

tree level

Bd Mixing

Bs Mixing

X

K Mixing


Additional Bounds: ASL

SM prediction(1.060.09)103

Direct measurement(0.35.0)103

Not precise enough to bound CKM in SM, but goodfor reducing allowed parameter space of New Physics

Larger Values in case of contributionfrom New Physics


charge Asymmetry from D0

admixture of Bd and Bsdependent on and and on NP effects(CBd, Bd, CBs, Bs)

=(1.320.8)103

SM peak

NP solution(disfavored by data)


in Bd and Bs sectors

The constraint on Bd is not effective (experimental error~ 10 times the precision from the rest of the fit)

The experimental measurement ofs actually measures scos(s+Bs) (Dunietz et al., hep-ph/0012219)

NP can only DECREASE the experimental result wrt the SM value Experimental WA > SM expectation (NP suppressed) Since all the other parameters are fixed by other constraints, this

gives the first available bound on NP phase in Bs mixing!!!!


The UTfit beyond the SM SUMMER'06

η = 0.37 0.04 ρ = 0.24 0.06

including NPwe go back

to SM

First time wecan bound NP

in Bs

NP parameterspace strongly

constraint for Bd

dark: 65%light:light: 95%dark: 65%light:light: 95%

dark: 65%light:light: 95%


Bounds on C and parameters CBd = 1.17 ± 0.39 CBs = 0.97 ± 0.27 CK = 0.95 ± 0.18

Bd = (-4.2 ± 2.1)o Bs = (-2 ± 15)o U (-93 ± 15)o


Bounds on NP size and phase

The allowed NP amplitude is still large for small phase shiftMFV scenarios are strongly favored at this point, but we still

have some chance to see a NP phase




We can determine and in a universal way for (MFV) NP and SM. εK and ∆md are not used.

ρ = 0.173 0.033 UUTfit

Buras et al. hepph/0007085

η = 0.363 0.020 UUTfit

The UUT & MFV analysis

16


We are testing TeV scales...

NP enters as additional contribution to the top box diagram

Λ0 = 2.4 TeV(equivalent SM scale)

Λ > 5.2 TeV @ 95% for large tan Λ > 5.7 TeV @ 95% for small tan

a = 1 (as a reference)

D'Ambrosio et al. hepph/0207036

Common shift S0

to Inami-Lim functionin B and K mixingfor small tan

Two different shiftsfor large tan(b Youkawa coupling also important)


Future Developments

Assuming the ~500 fb statistics(BaBar physics reach study)

Assuming (s/s)~0.04(achievable @Tevatron)

Assuming (SJ/)~0.3(achievable @Tevatron)

Even better when LHCb (and SuperB?) will start!!!

Adding the benefits of LQCDimprovements (~5% errors)

now2008

now2008




Conclusions The CKM matrix gives a good description of the CP violation observed

in flavor physics The improved experimental precision reveled a >2 discrepancy in

Vub vs since last year. It might be a problem with theory/measurements... but new data might confirm it

In this scenario, we have A model independent parameterization of NP effects Improved measurements from Bd physics New inputs from Bs physics

Bad News: the only allowed solution (@95% probability) is the SM one (New Physics effects cannot be too big)

Good News: we already have a strong bound on NP parameters New result: we can bound the NP phase in Bs mixing with 15o accuracy in

advance respect to the experimental data If we restrict the analysis to MFV scenarios, we can test the presence of New

Physics up to the TeV scale Future improvements will depend on:

Progresses in lattice Calculation B-Factories & Tevatron taking more data New facilities (LHCb and a (maybe?) a superB) to start as soon as possible


Backup


sin2 pull

Documents

Bounds on New Physics from the Unitarity Triangle fitsusy06.physics.uci.edu/talks/2/pierini.pdf · 2006. 6. 25. · Maurizio Pierini 1 SUSY06 UC Irvine Bounds on New Physics from