1. Anomalies in current data Concezio Bozzi INFN Ferrara May 22 nd, 2014

2. A (partial) list |V ub | B  D ( * )  Observables in EW penguins (  John) a sl  A CP in charm DISCLAIMER: there is a certain level of subjectivity in the above list

3. Inclusive V ub : An example of HFAG average | V ub | = 4.40 ± 0.15 +0.19 -0.21 ~6% total error BLNP +2.1 stat +1.5 exp +1.2 b2c model +1.5 b2u model +2.1 HQE param +0.3 SF func +0.7 sub SF +0.0 WA +3.7 matching = +5.5 tot - 2.2 stat -1.6 exp -1.2 b2c model -1.8 b2u model -3.2 HQE param -0.5 SF func -0.8 sub SF -1.7 WA -3.7 matching = -6.1 tot Error budget: Good consistency between different measurements

4. Good consistency Most inclusive measurements Spread among calculations comparable to quoted theoretical (non ‐ parametric) errors Data from: (Courtesy of G. Ricciardi) Belle multivariate (p*)

5. |V ub |: Tension TM Exclusive and inclusive | V ub | differ at ~2.5  level In the past, B  average called for | V ub |~ 5 10 -3, now compatible with inclusive meas. Similar tension between exclusive and inclusive | V cb | Arithmetic average of inclusive | V ub | =(4.33 ± 0.24 exp ± 0.15 theo ) x10 -3 (Courtesy of G. Ricciardi)

6. The relevance of |V ub | Buras, FLASY12 CMFV (constrained minimal flavour violation) MGFM (maximally gauged flavour models ) 2HDM with MFV and flavour blind phases searching for correlations between the measured observables is a very powerful tool in the indirect searches for NP.

7. Divertissement LR models can explain a difference between inclusive and exclusive V ub determinations [Chen,Nam] Also in MSSM [Crivellin] BUT the RH currents affect predominantly the exclusive V ub, making the conflict between V ub and sin2β (J/ψK S ) stronger... June 11, 2012C. Bozzi - HQL2012 - Prague7

8. Reduce theoretical uncertainties by measuring ratios of B and D semileptonic rates (which depend on form factor ratio) What is the ultimate uncertainty on form factor ratio from Lattice? Semileptonic B decays: outlook Can we improve on exclusive V ub determinations? LHCb has potential for neutrino reconstruction (but also very large backgrounds!)

9. B  D(*)  : NP at tree level? VcbVcb W- (H-)  D (*) B R(D)R(D) R(D*) Combination of D and D* modes shows >3  discrepancy wrt SM 2HDM-typeII excluded with even higher confidence If discrepancies are due to NP, the new states have to be fairly light ( ∼ EW scale) and have likely flavor structures beyond MFV (e.g. Fajfer et al. ’12) angular distributions in B → D ( ∗ ) τν and measurement of B → πτν could help to distinguish between models

10. B 0  K* 0     : new observables Observables with limited dependence on form-factors uncertainty at low q 2 have been proposed by several theorists Different set of observables give different constraints  complementarity! 3.7σ some local discrepancies for others Good agreement for some observables Global analysis, Descotes-‐Genon et al. (arXiv:1307.5683): large New Physics contribution to the Wilson coefficient of the O 9 operator arXiv:1308.1707 SM predictions from J. Matias et al, arXiv:1303.5794. Jaeger et al., JHEP 05 43 (2013), quote larger uncertainties No definitive conclusion. More data and theoretical studies needed Sept. 6th, 2013C. Bozzi - PIC2013 - Beijing10 P4’P4’ P5’P5’ SM o

11. EW and radiative penguins: outlook Full angular analysis of B d  K*  and B +  K +  Differential branching fraction dBr(B +        )/dq 2 Search for K s   Isospin asymmetry in Bd  K*  and B +  K +  A cp (B +   K +  ), A cp (B  K*  ), A cp (B  K +  ) differential BR and angular analysis of B d  K*ee Belle-II: measure also decays with neutrinos: B  K(*) at 20% LHC: triggering at low muon p T mandatory Exploit full set of observables and decay modes:

12. CPV in B d & B s mixing: a SL Mass eigenstates: If CP is conserved: Measure semileptonic asymmetry SM predictions: Hint of a 4  effect from D0 One order of magnitude experimental improvement still far from theory prediction Experimentally challenging: need to control spurious asymmetries at the per- mille level or less

13.  A CP ? Expect largest NP effects in Cabibbo-suppressed decays (see e.g. Grossman-Kagan-Nir arxiv:1204.3557) Define If f is a CP eigenstate Current data for do not show much, though some early measurements gave a 4.5  effect Both SM & NP explanations are prolific

14. Other anomalies (for connoisseurs) “The gap problem” in semileptonic B decays:  (excl) != incl The ½ vs 3/2 puzzle in B SL decays into D** They have been around for nearly 20 years!

15. Discussion Your thoughts here