Évidence de Nouvelle Physique dans les transitions b→s                                                                     B → τ ν                                                                     ( B → ρ / ω γ ) / ( B → K * γ )                                                                     Évidence de Nouvelle Physique dans les transitions b→s Achille Stocchi (LAL Orsay/IN2P3-CNRS) arXiv:0803.0659v1 [hep-ph] 5 Mar 2008 Submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett. 19 may 2008 SPP-SACLAY

- The Unitarity Triangle 2 + 2 ξ fBd BBd BK K f+,F(1),… 1 * * The CKM is unitary VudVub + VcdVcb + VtdVtb = 0 * * * a + b + g = p 1 ξ (1– )2 + 2 md/ ms ρ η fBd BBd md 2 BK [(1– ) + P] K f+,F(1),… 2 + 2 (bu)/(bc) b g -

Fit with the Standard Model (SM) funtion(r,h….) Angles Sides + eK ρ = 0.172 ± 0.037 η = 0.365 ± 0.026 r = 0.120 ± 0.038 h = 0.332 ± 0.021

Global Fit Dmd,Dms,Vub,Vcb,ek + cos2b + b + a + g + 2b+g SM Fit r = 0.147 ± 0.029 h = 0.342 ± 0.016

And in case of no observation to establish how much room is left How to look for NP ? And in case of no observation to establish how much room is left for NP effects…? Long story… Some example in next 3 transparencies..

Dms some specific example of NP tests.. SM predictions of Dms SM expectation Δms = (17.5 ± 2.1 ) ps-1 SM predictions of Dms LEP/SLD 2002 LEP/SLD 1999 CDF 2006 CDF only : signal at 5s Δ ms = (17.77 ± 0.12) ps-1

γ = (80 ± 13)o (up to π ambiguity) Direct measurement From fit γ = (80 ± 13)o (up to π ambiguity) γ = (65.1 ± 6.5)o Viola Sordini @ Moriond EW Summer 2007 Legenda agreement between the predicted values and the measurements at better than : Winter 2008 6s 5s 3s 4s 1s 2s

From direct measurement from indirect determination Vub Elisabetta Barberio @ La Thuille 2008 Summer 2007 incl. sin2b=0.668 ± 0.028 From direct measurement we have a weak sign of a disagreement sin2b =0.736 ± 0.042 from indirect determination (all included by sin2b)

Flavour Physics measure NP physics could be always arround the corner coupling WHAT IS REALLY STRANGE IS THAT WE DID NOT SEE ANYTHING…. With masses of New Particles at few hundred GeV effects on measurable quantities should be important Mass scale Problem known as the FLAVOUR PROBLEM Leff <~ 1TeV + flavour-mixing protected by additional symmetries (as MFV) Couplings can be still large if Leff > 1..10..TeV d

Today we concentrate on a Model Independent fit to DF=2 observable which show a more than 3s evidence of NP in the bs transitions

DF=2 Fit in a NP model independent approach Parametrizing NP physics in DF=2 processes

To help with a more specific example : Using the example of the Supersymmetry To help with a more specific example : Example for B oscillations (FCNC-DB=2) : dbd pr upper limit of the relative contribution of NP dbd NP physics coupling Leff NP scale (masses of new particles) If couplings ~ 1 Minimal Flavour Violation all possible intermediate possibilities dbq ~ 1 Leff ~ 10/pr TeV (couplings small as CKM elements) dbs ~1 Leff ~ 2/pr TeV dbq ~ 0.1 Leff ~ 1/pr TeV Leff ~ 0.08/pr TeV dbs ~0.1 Leff ~ 0.2/pr TeV

Constraints r , h Cd jd Cs js CeK g (DK) X Vub/Vcb Dmd ACP (J/Y K) ACP (Dp(r),DKp) ASL a (rr,rp,pp) ACH DGs/Gs Dms ASL(Bs) ACP (J/Y f) ~X eK Tree processes 13 family Constraints 23 family 12 familiy Today : fit possible with 10 contraints and 7 free parameters (r, h, Cd,jd ,Cs,js, CeK) 5 new free parameters Cs,js Bs mixing Cd,jd Bd mixing CeK K mixing

Bd ANP/ASM vs fNP CBd = 1.04± 0.34 fBd = -(3.4 ± 2.2)o With present data ANP/ASM=0 @ 1.5s ANP/ASM ~1 only if fNP~0 ANP/ASM ~0-40% @95% prob.

Bd Actual sensitivity for a generic NP phase in the Bd sector r=ANP/ASM~20% This is not yet a prove that if NP should be MFV violating Just for showing the link between precision and mass scale r upper limit of the relative contribution of NP dbd NP physics coupling Leff NP scale (masses of new particles) Take a case where Leff ~ 80/r GeV Leff ~ 180 GeV MORE PRECISION IS NEEDED

Bs Bs sector : very recent results r , h Cd jd Cs js ACH X t(Bs) ,DGs/Gs Dms ASL(Bs) ACP (J/Y f) ~X D0,CDF (2006-2007) CDF, D0, LEP CDF (~2006),D0, LEP D0 (2007) D0,CDF (2007-2008) Recall that in Bd sector

Flavour specific final states

for the experimental result Nota bene for the experimental result fs = -2bs fs vs of DGs using BsJ/yf Angular (q,j ,y) analysis as a function of the proper time. Similar to measurement of b in BdJ/y K*. Respect to the Bd case, there is additional sensitivity because of DGs term Dunietz,Fleisher and Nierste Phys.ReV D63:114015,2001 Experimentally q and j are well determined from the m from J/y y is the decay plane between the J/y and the f.

Only two-fold ambiguity Tagging is important to separate the time evolution of mesons produced as Bs or anti-Bs. In this way we obtain direct sensitivity to CP-violating phase. This phase enters with terms proportional to cos(2bs) and sin(2bs). Analyses which do not use flavour tagging are sensitive to |cos(2bs)| and |sin(2bs)|, leading to a four-fold ambiguities in the determination of js. Only two-fold ambiguity

Notice that the two measurements Other measurements are 1.35 fb-1 2.8 fb-1 CDF tagged measurement D0 tagged measurement Other measurements tBs,DG/G,ASL,ACH directly from the Likelihood given by CDF No likelihood available from D0 Conservative approach used (for details see appendix) All available measured used with and up-to-date hadronic parameters Notice that the two measurements are in agreement Other measurements are also important

SM CBs = 1.07 ± 0.29 fBs = (-19.9 ± 5.6)o U (-68.2 ± 4.9) o

Looking at the result with a different parametrization js ~ -70o Solution corresponding to js ~ -20o AsNP / AsSM= (0.73 ± 0.35) jsNP = (-51 ± 11)o

- Stability of the result, who is contributing more ? - Is an evidence….How many sigmas ? Without tagged analyses D0 and CDF Including only CDF Including only D0 Gaussian Including only D0 likelihood profile Depending of the approach used (for treating D0 data) js is away from zero from 3s up to 3.7s.

NP mixing phase in the 2-3 transitions In summary Model independent fit to DF=2 r = 0.140± 0.046 CBs = 1.07 ± 0.29 h = 0.384± 0.035 fBs = (-19.9 ± 5.6)o U (-68.2 ± 4.9) o CBd = 1.04± 0.34 More than 3s evidence of NP mixing phase in the 2-3 transitions fBd = -(3.4 ± 2.2)o Ce = 0.88± 0.13

This result, if confirmed, will imply : - of course  NP physics - NP not Minimal Flavour Violation (large couplings..new particles not necessary below the TeV scale NP model must explain why effects on Bd (which can still be as large as 20%) and K systems are smaller  Flavour physics central - Bd sector, for DF=2 but also DF=1 bs transitions - K sector - of course Bs sector PRECISION IS NEEDED

DF=1 PRECISION IS NEEDED b s transitions are very sensitive to NP contributions (DF=1) DF=1 d s b W- B0d t f K0 ~ g ~ ~ b b s s New Physics contribution (2-3 families) S(fK) PRECISION IS NEEDED CFMS Im(d23)LR

- js is a golden measurement for LHCb - D0 and CDF will update their results. They have not used entire dataset. If the NP phase stay so large they could observe it with the full/final dataset - js is a golden measurement for LHCb Simulation done with 4fb-1. φBs = (0.0 ± 1.3)o CBs = 0.99 ± 0.12 But also with much less data, LHCb can observe the effect if will stay so large

BACKUP MATERIAL

The problem is that the singlet Component of the f is ignored. Modeling D0 data (I) Used by UTFit D0 data The problem is that the singlet Component of the f is ignored. WE REINTRODUCE THE AMBIGUITY (mirroring the likelihood) Strong phase taken also From BdJ/y K* + SU(3) NO AMBIGUITY

We have the results with 7x7 correlation matrix. Fit at 7 Modeling D0 data (II) DEFAULT METHOD We have the results with 7x7 correlation matrix. Fit at 7 parameters we extract 2 parameters (DGs and js). Two others approach used to include non-Gaussian tails: Scale errors such they agree with the quoted “2s” ranges -Use the 1D profile likelihood given by D0 (fig 2).

Evolution of this result The two most probable peaks of last summer are now enhanced

Kaon sector