1. Unitarity Triangle fits
Achille Stocchi
LAL-Orsay (IN2P3/CNRS)

2. Collaboration RESULTS BASED ON THE WORK OF http://www.utfit.org
M. Bona, M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, F. Parodi,
M. Pierini, P. Roudeau, C. Schiavi, L. Silvestrini, A. Stocchi, V.Vagnoni
Recent papers:
M. Bona et al. hep-ph/ accepted in JHEP
M . Bona et al. (hep-ph/ ) JHEP 0507 (2005) 028

3. How to fit the UT parameters and fit new physics
From M.H. Schune
plenary talk EPS2005
BDK : 3/
B// : 2/
bcℓ and buℓ
Bd and Bs mixing
K : CPV in K decays
Bccs : 1 /b

4. Total Fit Dmd,Dms,Vub,Vcb,ek + cos2b + b + a + g + 2b+g
r = ± 0.036
[0.137, 95% Prob.
h = ± 0.021
[0.306, 95% Prob.

5. g sin(b+g) cos2b a b sin(2b) Sides + eK r = 0.218 ± 0.043
h = ± 0.028
[0.,328, 95% Prob.
r = ± 0.043
[0.129, 95% Prob.
Sides + eK
UT with angles only
h = ± 0.025
[0.274, 95% Prob.
r = ± 0.052
[0.090, 95% Prob.
sin(2b) a g
sin(b+g) b
cos2b

6. Test of SM (I) ? The presence of New Physics might appear
as a disagreement between the new
measurements and what the fit predicts
(given by the color code).
a and g (for the moment) are OK.
The next validation will come from
Dms for the bs sector.
SM solution
only ?
SM solution
only

7. From direct measurement from indirect determination
Test of SM (II)
sin2b=0.687±0.032
From direct measurement
we have a weak sign
of a disagreement
sin2b =0.791±0.034
from indirect determination

8. Tension in the fit incl.+excl. Vub = (4.22 ± 0.20) 10-3
exclusive: BRs from HFAG;
form factor from quenched LQCD
Vub=(3.80±0.27±0.47)10-3
inclusive from HFAG
Vub=(4.38±0.19±0.27)10-3
It can be
interpreted
as a problem
with data,
but it could
be evidence
of New Physics
incl.+excl.
Vub = (4.22 ± 0.20) 10-3
from all the other inputs:
Vub = (3.48 ± 0.20) 10-3

9. Where do we really are on our knowledge of UT ?
Fit with NP independent variables
Fit in a NP
model independent approach

10. Fit with NP independent variables
If we use only Tree level processes -which can be assumed to be NP free-
It is very important to improve
Vub/Vcb from s.l decays
g from tree level proceses r
± (0.18± 0.12) h
± (0.41 ± 0.05)
(similar plot in Botella et al. hep-ph/ )

11. DF=2 Fit in a NP model independent approach r , h Cd,jd CeK Cs,js
Parametrizing NP
physics in DF=2 processes
DF=2
Fit in a NP model independent approach
r , h
Cd,jd
CeK
Cs,js
Vub/Vcb X
Dmd eK
ACP (J/Y K)
a (rr,rp,pp)
g (DK)
Dms
ACP (J/Y f) ~X
g (DsK)
5 new free parameters
Cs,js Bs mixing
Cd,jd Bd mixing
CeK K mixing
Constraints
Not yet available
Today : fit possible with 6 contraints and
5 free parameters (r, h, Cd,jd ,CeK)

12. arbitrary phase or large
Using
Fit in a NP model independent approach
Vub/Vcb
Dmd
ACP (J/Y K)
g (DK) eK a
cos2b
ASL
large NP with
arbitrary phase
NP solution 4%
SM-like solution 96%
SM or small NP with
arbitrary phase or large
NP with SM phase.
NLO effects included

13. Fit in a NP model independent approach
CBd = 1.27± 0.44
fBd = -(4.7 ± 2.3)o
Ce = 0.95 ± 0.18
NP in DB=2 and DS=2 could be up to 50% wrt SM only if has the same phase of the SM

14. ANP/ASM vs fNP Artificially removing the present disagreement
With present data
ANP/ASM ~1 only if fNP~0
ANP/ASM prob.
sensitive to small effects
Artificially removing the present disagreement
95% prob for generic fNP

15. MFV New CP in bs What to do ? TWO SCENARIOS seems to be « favourite »
- Improvements existing measurements
- DF=1 Penguins transitions (just 1 transparency)
- Rare decays (not discussed in this talk)
- The Bs physics (LHCb/Tevatron)

16. Universal UTfit Buras et al. hep-ph/0007085
MFV = CKM is the only source of
flavour mixing. eK and Dmd are
not used (sensitive to NP).
h = ± UUTfit
r = ± UUTfit
Almost as good as the SM !!
Starting point for studies of rare decays see for instance : Bobeth et al. hep-ph/

17. 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/

18. 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

19. New physics in bs transitions DF=1 DF=2
B0d s d d K0 ~ g ~ ~ b b s s
other information
The SUSY option if
Dms>31(38)ps-1
new physcis at 3(5)s

20. CKM Matrix in ≤2010-where we will be
We have supposed that
- B Factories will collect 2ab-1
- two years data taking at LHCb (4fb-1)
Inputs
b < 1° from charmonium
~ 7 °
~ 5°
(half B-factories/half LHCb)
fBBB ~ 5%
x ~ 3%
BK ~ 5%
Vub ~ 5%
Vcb ~ 1%
Dms at 0.3ps-1
(Tevatron or/and LHCb)
Lattice
sin2c ± 0.045
Outputs
sin(2b)
0.694 ± 0.012
sin(2a)
± 0.093
g[]
51.7 ± 3.0 r
0.240 ± 0.017 h
0.307 ± 0.010

21. Parenthesis for Lattice people
Bands are 95% regions
from angle measurements
Bands are 95% regions
from sides measurements
Contours are 68%/95% regions
from sides measurements
Contours are 68%/95% regions
from angle measurements
An important point is that the relative precisions on
CP-violating quantities are on phase with CP-conserving quantities IF
fBBB ~ 5%
x ~ 3%
BK ~ 5%
Lattice calculations at
few % level

22. In the « sad » hypotesis the SM still work in 2010….
CKM2010
φBd = (-0.1 ± 1.3)o
CBd = 0.98 ± 0.14
φBs = (0.0 ± 1.3)o
CBs = 0.99 ± 0.12
in ≤ 2010 : same and impressive precision on b d and b s transitions
VERY IMPORTANT

23. B → tn New comers soon.. ? SM expectation < 1.8 10-4 @ 90% CL
exp. limit
B → tn
< % CL
BR(B → τ ν) = (1.03 ± 0.32)10-4
95% prob.)
Exp. likelkihood
BR(B → τ ν) = (0.98 ± 0.49) % prob.)
fB = ± GeV from the exp+UTfit fB = ± ± GeV Lattice QCD

24. Conclusions UTfits are in a mature age with recent
precise measurement of UT sides and angles
The SM CKM picture of CP violation and
FCNC is strongly supported by data
Generic NP in the b  d start to be quite constrained
fBd ~ 0
At least in this sector, we are beyond the alternative
to CKM picture, and we should look at « corrections ».

25. We need precision measurements to test NP and
Studied presented in MFV.
We start to test interesting NP scales.
We need precision measurements to test NP and
to push the NP scale in interesting ranges and to
play the complementarity at LHC
CKM2010
Bd sector
What about the bs DB=2 sector ? Still
large room for NP. LHCb plays the central
role on it.
CKM2010
Bs sector

26. and if SuperB….. See Report INFN-AE 05-08
and related talks at this conference

27. BACKUP SLIDES

28. BR(B → rg) BR(B → K*g) caveat: * SU(3) breaking effect
* LQCD/mb corrections B(~cosa) to r/w g
( smaller for B0 than B+)
Using the |Vtd/Vts| value from
the SM, we can extract DR.
|Vtd/Vts| = 0.10 ± 0.45
95% Prob.
DR = ± 0.24
[-0.99, 95%
using only
B → r0g

29. } K± p±nn latest result from E949: BR(K±  p±nn) = 1.47 10-10
D'Ambrosio, Isidori
hep-ph/
K± p±nn
with 3 signal events }
ellipse centered in (r0, 0)
latest result from E949:
BR(K±  p±nn) =
+1.30
- 0.89
10% error with
UTfit central value
(BR = )
10% error
with current
central value

30. a a a a Using Vub/Vcb Dmd ACP (J/Y K) g (DK) eK SM-like
Fit in a NP model independent approach
Vub/Vcb
Dmd
ACP (J/Y K)
g (DK) eK g Cd
cos2(b+f)
sin2(a-f)
sin(2b+f)
ASL
SM-LIKE
60o 1
0.68
-0.23
0.96 OK
NP1
-0.68
NP2
120o
0.4
-0.96
10-2
NP3
0.23 0K a a
SM-like a a

31. In MFV
CKM2010
Now
 0.54
2010
 0.26