on behalf of the Collaboration http://www.utfit.org Vincenzo Vagnoni on behalf of the Collaboration http://www.utfit.org M. Bona, M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, F. Parodi, M. Pierini, P. Roudeau, C. Schiavi, L. Silvestrini, V. Sordini, A. Stocchi, V. V. Bologna CP Violation, Rare decays, CKM

The Unitarity Triangle The unitarity relations of the CKM matrix in the SM can be pictured as triangles in the complex plane Amongst several triangles, the so-called Unitarity Triangle has sides of comparable sizes O(3) and is defined by Wolfenstein parametrization of the CKM  4 parameters: l, A, r, h 1-l2/2 l -l u c d s b A l3(1-r-ih) -Al2 t A l3(r-ih) Al2 1 Several measurements (over-)constrain in different ways the CKM parameters in the SM and need to be consistently combined in one fit Consistency of the fit allows to test the SM description of CPV  see V. Vagnoni in the BST session for extended UT fits including New Physics quantities

The UTfit method and the inputs CKM param. of the measurements Experimental Inputs CKM param. of the measurements Theoretical Inputs Standard Model + OPE, HQET, Lattice QCD from quarks to hadrons  see M. Bona in the Lattice session for the impact and importance of Lattice QCD in UT fits ... ... ... For details see: UTfit Collaboration hep-ph/0501199 hep-ph/0509219 hep-ph/0605213 hep-ph/0606167 http://www.utfit.org Mr. Bayes Joint probability density function for , 

Standard constraints for the SM analysis in the r-h plane levels @ 68% (95%) CL Pre-beauty factory era(-like) constraints Vub/Vcb eK Dmd Dmd/Dms Beauty factory era constraints   sin(2b) cos(2b)

 from , ,  All combined SU(2) analysis (neglecting EWP) for  and  All combined Gronau, London Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 3381–3384 (1990) unknowns observables Dalitz analysis for  Snyder, Quinn Phys.Rev.D48, 2139-2144 (1993)

Tree level determination of  from B±D(*)0K(*)± u B- c s K- Vcb W l Interference if same D0 and D0 final states Favoured GLW (Gronau,London,Wyler) Uses CP eigenstates of D0 decays D0 ADS (Atwood, Dunietz, Soni) b u B- K- c s W D 0 Vub = |Vub | e-ig Colour suppressed Dalitz Method – GGSZ analyze D0 three-body decays on the Dalitz plane strong amplitude (the same for Vub and Vcb mediated transitions Break-through of B-factories, but statistically limited and extremely challenging! strong phase difference between Vub and Vcb mediated transitions rB is a crucial parameter - the sensitivity on  depends on it

Tree level determination of  from B±D(*)0K(*)± (II) rDK=0.074±0.033 rD*K=0.059±0.043 rDK*=0.19±0.09 Combination of GLW+ADS+Dalitz methods  = (78 ± 30)o U (-102±30)o Error increased significantly with respect to previous estimates!  rB(D*K) smaller, effect of D*K less relevant  but dominant effect comes from the Dalitz model  we now use the full covariance matrix provided by Belle to account for the error on the Dalitz model since BaBar does not provide it yet Being this measurement basically NP-free, it is crucial to improve it if one wants to disentangle tiny NP effects

cos2 from BJ/K*0 and BD00 an angular analysis allows to extract both sin2 and cos2 BD00  accessible by means of a Dalitz analysis of 3-body D0 decays analogously to the GGSZ method Statistically limited, but useful to remove the ambiguity from sin2, suppressing one of the two allowed bands Non-SM solution excluded at 95% CL

This year’s main novelty: ms measurement at CDF hep-ex/0606027 ms = 17.33 +0.33 (stat.) ± 0.07 (syst.) ps-1 -0.18 16.96 ps-1 < ms < 17.91 ps-1 (95% C.L.) Prediction for ms in SM UT fits without using the measurement as input ms = 19.0 ± 2.4 ps-1 [14.7, 24.2] ps-1 at 95% Experimental measurement much more precise than indirect determination  extremely powerful constraint in SM analysis - improvements in Lattice QCD involved parameters would be important to fully exploit md & ms measurements nowadays known at about 1%... Dmd/Dms Dmd 13% error 5% error

NP free measurement of Vub vs NP sensitive indirect determination Pre-ICHEP06 situation: tension in the fit due to excessive Vub inclusive NP free measurement of Vub vs NP sensitive indirect determination Vub= (3.80 ± 0.27 ± 0.47) 10-3 exclusive from HFAG value of experimental BR + quenched LQCD O.K. 3 Vub= (4.38 ± 0.19 ± 0.27) 10-3 from inclusive determination (HFAG average) x 2.5 Combining Inclusive & exclusive Vub= (4.20 ± 0.20) 10-3 Vub= (3.48 ± 0.20) 10-3 Prediction of UTfit without using Vub as input

from indirect determination From direct measurement Effect of the tension on indirect predictions: sin2 Tension made evident by comparing the measurement of sin2 with its indirect determination from the fit sin2 =0.791±0.034 from indirect determination sin2 compatibility plots with Vub without Vub 2 O.K. OLD input sin2=0.687±0.032 From direct measurement

Tension sligthly reduced with Summer 06 updates on Vub (but still there) updated with current HFAG averages sin2 weight in the fit is increased due to its reduced error and to the increase of the Vub error Vub=(4.09±0.25)10-3 (incl. + excl. average) Error increased central value decreased with Vub without Vub updated sin2=0.675±0.026 From direct measurement (central value and error decreased) 1.5

Fit results with angles vs sides+K Precision on  comparable due to the precise sin2 measurement, while ms induces a smaller error on  Crucial to improve measurements of the angles, in particular  (tree level NP-free determination)  = 0.170 ± 0.052 [0.103, 0.247] @ 95%  = 0.178 ± 0.037 [0.103, 0.247] @ 95% Still imperfect agreement in  due to sin2 and Vub discrepancy  = 0.321 ± 0.023 [0.271, 0.367] @ 95%  = 0.375 ± 0.027 [0.323, 0.427] @ 95%

Fit results with all contraints in Standard Model analysis  = 0.166 ± 0.029 [0.107, 0.222] @ 95% Prob.  = 0.340 ± 0.017 [0.307, 0.372] @ 95% Prob.

Conclusions No clean evidence of deviations from the Standard Model description is emerging so far Slight discrepancies due to an excess in Vub inclusive, but insufficient to claim for significant hints that something is wrong in the SM However, if SM picture is correct, Vub should go down to ~3.5·10-3 sooner or later... sin2 docet! Two of the existing sectors (at least) must be improved in order to test in deep the SM CKM picture In order to fully exploit the great experimental precision of the md and ms measurements, improvements in the Lattice QCD computation of and the SU(3) breaking parameter  are needed see M. Bona at the Lattice session NP-free quantities must improve in particular, in order to disentangle NP effects: Vub/Vcb  from tree level decays See V. Vagnoni in the BST session We are most probably beyond the era of alternatives to the SM description of CP violation, and should instead look for corrections Need very precise measurements in the Bd and Bs sectors to spot out tiny effects (LHCb, SuperB?) The bottle of champagne can still wait in the fridge another little bit...