1. 4 Extraction of the Unitarity triangle parameters
Search for New Physics

2. … g a sin(2b) How measurements constraint UT parameters the angles..
sin(b+g)
the angles..
sin(2b)
Dms
Dmd
Vub/Vcb
the sides...
CP asymmetries in charmless
BK*(r)g
Btn …
Rare decays...
sensitive to NP

3. An example on how to fit the UT parameters and fit new physics
BDK : 3/
B// : 2/
K : CPV in K decays
Bd and Bs mixing
bcℓ and buℓ
Bccs : 1 /b

4. In ~2000 the first fundamental test of agreement between
From Childhood
In ~2000 the first fundamental
test of agreement between
direct and indirect sin2b
To precision era
WE HAVE TO GO ON…

5. Crucial Test of the SM in the quarks sector (historical..)
DONE!!
determination of CP violating parameters
measuring CP-conserving observables
CP-violating
observables
was/is the strong
motivation of the
B-Factories
sin2b = ± 0.037
B  J/y K0
Coherent picture of CP
Violation in SM
from sides-only
We are probably beyond the era of « alternatives» to the CKM picture.
NP should appear as «corrections» to the CKM picture

6. TODAY SITUATION Total Fit
Dmd,Dms,Vub,Vcb,ek + cos2b + b + a + g + 2b+g
r = 0.164± 0.029
h = ± 0.017

7. Comparison measurements “with angles” wrt “with sides”

8. SM Fit Are there evidence of disagreement in the actual fit ?
agreement between the predicted values and the measurements at better than : 6s 5s 3s 4s 1s 2s
No disagreement for g et Dms

9. From direct measurement from indirect determination
Some discrepencies observed between Vub and sin2b
sin2b=0.675±0.026
From direct measurement
We should keep an eyes on these kinds
of disagreements. Could be NP
sin2b =0.764± 0.039
from indirect determination
(all included by sin2b)

10. The problem of particle physics today is :
where is the NP scale L ~ 0.5, 1…1016 TeV
The quantum stabilization of the Electroweak Scale
suggest that L ~ 1 TeV
LHC will search on this range
What happens if the NP scale is at TeV
…naturalness is not at loss yet…
Flavour Physics explore also this range
We want to perform flavour measurements such that :
- if NP particles are discovered at LHC we able
study the flavour structure of the NP
- we can explore NP scale beyond the LHC reach
If there is NP at scale L, it will generate new operator of
dimension D with coefficents proportional to L4-D
You could demonstrate that only operator of D=6 contribute
So that in fact you have a dependence on 1/ L2

11. To help with a more specific example :
(MFV),
no new sources of flavour and CP violation
NP contributions governed by SM Yukawa couplings.
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

12. WHAT IS REALLY STRANGE IS THAT WE DID NOT SEE ANYTHING….
NP physics could be always arround the corner
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
Problem known as the FLAVOUR PROBLEM
Leff <~ 1TeV + flavour-mixing
protected by additional
symmetries (as MFV)
Couplings can be still large if
Leff > TeV

13. DF=2 Fit in a NP model independent approach Constraints
Parametrizing NP
physics in DF=2 processes
r , h Cd jd Cs js
CeK
g (DK) X
Vub/Vcb
Dmd
ACP (J/Y K)
ASL
a (rr,rp,pp)
ACH
DGs/Gs
Dms eK
In future :
ACP (J/Y f) ~X
ASL(Bs)
g (DsK)
Tree
processes
5 new free parameters
Cs,js Bs mixing
Cd,jd Bd mixing
CeK K mixing
13
family
Constraints
23
family
Today :
fit possible with 10 contraints
and 7 free parameters
(r, h, Cd,jd ,Cs,js, CeK)
12
familiy

14. ANP/ASM vs fNP ANP/ASM ~1 only if fNP~0 ANP/ASM ~0-40% @95% prob.
CBd = 1.24 ± 0.43
φBd = (-3.0 ± 2.0)o
ANP/ASM vs fNP
With present data 2s
ANP/ASM ~1 only if fNP~0
ANP/ASM prob.

15. obtained at a superB ~100 times present B-factory
Complementarity LHC/precise measurments
today
r = 20%  Leff ~ 180 GeV
tomorrow
Leff ~ 0.08/r TeV
r = 10%  Leff ~ 250 GeV
after tomorrow
electroweak scale
r = 1%  Leff ~ 800 GeV
You need to improve 20 times your precision if you want to span
the region from the EW scale to the TeV scale.
As could be
obtained at a superB ~100 times present B-factory
luminosity
NP scale ~200GeV
with MFV couplings
NP~800 GeV
This is really the most costly way of reaching high NP scale….

16. Adjusting the central values so that they are all compatible
Keeping the central values as measured today
with errors at the SuperB

17. tanb Higgs-mediated NP in MFV at large tanb Similar formula in MSSM.
Excl. 2s
Bln
MH (TeV)
tanb
2ab-1
MH~ TeV
for tanb~30-60
SuperB
MH~ TeV
for tanb~30-60

18. Constraints on b -> s transitions:d s b W-
B0d t f K0 ~ g ~ ~ b b s s
New Physics contribution (2-3 families)

19. With the today precision we do not have 3s exclusion
Example on how precise measurements
could allow o explore NP scale
beyond the TeV scale ~ g
MSSM ~ ~
New Physics contribution
(2-3 families) b b s s 1
10-1
10-2
In the red regions the d
are measured with a
significance >3s away
from zero
ACP(bsg)
With the today precision
we do not have 3s exclusion
for any set of parameters

20. APPENDIX
Part IV
1) More details on MFV

21. MFV = CKM is the only source of CP violation
eK and Dmd are sensitive to NP
MFV = CKM is the only source of CP violation
The previous fits  MFV ? j(Bd) ~0
Fit without eK and Dmd
valid in SM and MFV
Almost as good as the SM !!
Buras et al. hep-ph/
Universal UTfit
Very tiny space for
see effects beyond
the SM
Starting point for studies of rare decays see for instance : Bobeth et al. hep-ph/

22. Very interesting the AFB asymmetry of BK*ll
RARE DECAYS in the framework of MFV
Upper limits :
Branching fractions
MFV(95%)
SM (95%)
exp
Br(K+p+nn) 1011
<11.9
[ ]
Br(KLp0nn) 1011
<4.59
[ ]
<5.9  104
Br(KLmm)  109
<1.36
[ ]
Br(BXsnn)  105
<5.17
[ ]
<64
Br(BXdnn)  106
<2.17
[ ]
Br(Bsmm)  109
<7.42
[ ]
<2.7  102
Br(Bdmm)  1010
<2.20
[ ]
<1.5  103
K physics
B physics
Very interesting the AFB asymmetry of BK*ll

23. MFV
In models with one Higgs doublet or low/moderate tanb
(D’Ambrosio et al. hep-ph/ )
NP enters as additional contribution in top box diagram
L0 is the equivalent SM scale
dS0 = ± 0.54
[-0.90, Prob.
To be compared with tested scale using for instance b->sg (9-12Tev)
D’Ambrosio et al. hep-ph/

24. MFV
2Higgs + large tanb  also bottom Yukawa coupling must be considered
dS0B ≠ dS0K
dS0B
dS0K
Could give infomation on the tanb regime …not yet at the present
L > % for dS0(xt) > 0
L > % for dS0(xt) < 0
L > % for dS0(xt) > 0
L > % for dS0(xt) < 0
Correlation coefficient =0.52

25. Two crucial questions :
Can NP be flavour blind ?
No : NP couples to SM which violates flavour
Can we define a “worst case” scenario
Yes : the class of model with Minimal Flavour Violation (MFV),
namely : no new sources of flavour and CP violation
and so : NP contributions governed by SM Yukawa couplings.
Today
L(MFV) >
NP masses >200GeV
SuperB
L(MFV)
NP masses >600GeV

26. In Bs sector we are not yet at the same level of precision as in Bd sector