1. 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: v1 [hep-ph] 5 Mar 2008
Submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett.
19 may 2008
SPP-SACLAY

2. - 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– )
md/ ms ρ η
fBd BBd
md 2 BK
[(1– ) + P] K
f+,F(1),…
(bu)/(bc) b g -

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

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

5. 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..

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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)

9. 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 > TeV d

10. 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

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

12. 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

13. 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

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

15. 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

16. 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 ( )
CDF, D0, LEP
CDF (~2006),D0, LEP
D0 (2007)
D0,CDF ( )
Recall that in Bd sector

17. Flavour specific final states

18. 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.

19. 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

20. 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

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

22. 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

23. - 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.

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. - 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

28. BACKUP
MATERIAL

29. 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

30. 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).

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

32. Kaon sector