1. Nouvelle physique dans le mixing des B d,s et approche frequentiste versus Bayesienne

3. Role of b→ ccs transitions B0sB0s B0sB0s u, c, t W, ? B0sB0s b s b s W s b c c s s ψ Φ + Time-evolution: Mixing phase – sensitive to NPTree b→ccs phase ≈ 0 ^

6. ICHEP update

7. Tevatron combination D0 observes a fluctuation consistent with CDF (see J. Ellison just after me) Combine CDF and D0 iso-CL regions previously checked for coverage: 2.2σ consistency with SM. 0.24 < βs < 0.57 OR 0.99 < βs < 1.33 at 68% CL ICHEP update hep.physics.indiana.edu/~rickv/hfag/combine_dGs.html

8. Oscillations Phases SL asymmetries Lifetime diff. CKMfitter New Physics in B d,s mesons mixing Assume that tree-level processes are not affected by NP (SM4FC) Assume that NP only affects the short distance physics in  F=2 transisitons Model-independent parametrisation  Observables affected by NP in mixing :  SM parameters are fixed by : |V ub |, |V cb |, |V ud |, |V us |,  γ(α)=  Observables w/ “Tree” processes Inputs:   |V ub |

20. UTfit claim Arxiv:0803.0658v1[hep-ex] March, 5, 2008 Some caveats: Do not account for non-Gaussian tails. Some ‘guesswork’ to remove from D0 results the assumptions they put in. I do not believe the 3σ significance figure is rigorously derived.

21. Visual effect of constraints Constraining the strong phases greatly increases the regularity of the Likelihood and improves the result. However, no robust theoretical prediction exist for the strong phases. Typical choice is to relate them to the B 0 →J/ψK* 0 phases assuming SU(3) symmetry

22. CKMFitter

24. CKMfitter New Physics in mixing : the B s case Direct constraint on NP phase in B s mixing The CDF/D0 measurement of (  s  s  from the time-dependent angular analysis of the B s  J/  provides a direct constraint on   s Other constraints   m s : consistent with SM expectation  A SL (B s ) : large error wrt SM prediction   FS : weak constraint on   NP relation   tends to push the NP phase   s towards SM. [Lenz,Nierste] … it cannot tell much more on   s than the direct Tevatron measurement Clean analysis : all theoretical uncertainties are in the  SM prediction but… Clean analysis : all theoretical uncertainties are in the  SM prediction but… Using the HFAG combination of CDF and D0 likelihood : Prefered value :

25. CKMfitter New Physics in mixing : the B s case Inputs: hypothesisdeviation hypothesis deviation 2.5 σ (1D) :  = 0 2.5 σ 2.1 σ (2D) : Δ s = 1 2.1 σ Inputs: Constraint in the (  s  s  plane Full SM+NP fit hypothesisdeviation hypothesis deviation 2.4 σ (1D) :  s =  s 2.4 σ 1.9 σ (2D) : (  s  s )  s  s ) 1.9 σ SM Dominant constraint from  m and  s Agreement with SM : SM ss Warning : only 68% CL regions are shown ss

28. The B d case

29. Inputs: CKMfitter Global CKM fit : the overall SM picture Summer 2008 (preliminary) all constraints together 95% CL interval : |V ub | Nice agreement of all constraints at the 2  level The CKM mechanism IS the dominant source of CP violation in the B system

30. CP-violating observables CP-conserving observables Angles (small theor. uncertainties) No angles (large theo. uncertainties) CKMfitter Global CKM fit : testing the CKM paradigm Inputs: |V ub |

31. Assuming there is no NP in  I=3/2 b → d EW penguin amplitude. Use  with  (charmonium) to produce a new  ‘Tree’. Observables w/ “Tree” processes Observables involving Loops CKMfitter Global CKM fit : testing the CKM paradigm Inputs:   |V ub | BR(B  ) sin(2  )2.6  removing sin(2  ) from the fit decreases χ² min by 2.6  BR(B  2.9  removing BR(B  from the fit decreases χ²min by 2.9  Either due to : - Fluctuations (of BR(B  and sin(2  - Fluctuations (of BR(B  and sin(2  - Problem with lattice predictions - Problem with lattice predictions - Conspiration of all other input against BR(B  sin(2  - Conspiration of all other input against BR(B  sin(2  - New Physics - New Physics Tension between sin(2  ) and BR(B  measurements prediction Non trivial correlation in the fit

32. The cartesian parametrization allows for a simple geometrical interpretation of each individual constraints. New Physics in mixing : the B d case hypothesisdeviation hypothesis deviation 0.9 σ (1D) :  =  0.9 σ (2D) : Δ d = 1 0.9σ CKMfitter Inputs: Warning : only 68% CL regions are shown Agreement with SM : dd Dominant constraint from  and  m d. Both agrees with SM. Using ‘ICHEP08 updated’ inputs (except new D0 A SL value presented yesterday morning [T. Moulik]) s BR(B  ) not included

33. New Physics in mixing : the B d case hypothesisdeviation hypothesis deviation 1.5 σ (1D) :  =  1.5 σ 2.1 σ (2D) : Δ d = 1 2.1 σ CKMfitter Inputs: Warning : only 68% CL regions are shown Agreement with SM : dd Including BR(B  )

34. CKMfitter  Helicity-suppressed annihilation decay sensitive to f B  |V ub | BR(B   )x10 4 Belle (hadronic)1.79±0.71 [2006] Belle (semi-leptonic) 1.65±0.52 [ICHEP08] Belle1.70±0.42 BABAR (hadronic)1.80±1.00 [2007] BABAR (semi-leptonic)2.00±0.61 [CKM08] BABAR1.95±0.52 World Average1.80 ± 0.33 Experimental measurements : experimental inputs f Bd =(f Bd /f Bs )xf Bs =(223±15±25) MeV [N. Tantalo CKM2006] Inputs: |V ub | Similar deviation with D s  The various measurements are consistent

35. f Bd =(f Bd /f Bs )xf Bs =(223±15±25) MeV [N. Tantalo CKM2006] B Bd =(B Bd /B Bs )xB Bs =1.29±0.06±0.09 Inputs:   mdmd B Bd |V ud | CKMfitter  Helicity-suppressed annihilation decay sensitive to f B  |V ub |  Powerful together with Δm d : removes f B dependence : theoretical inputs Theory free prediction for B Bd deviation :2.4  The tension is not driven by V ub (SL) nor f Bd (nor  K )

36. CKMfitter A bit more about the tension & LQCD V. Lubicz and C. Tarantino (2008) [arXiv:0807.4605] Tantalo Becirevic [hep-ph/0703241] [hep-ph/0310072] Using RFit errors Using Gaussian errors

37. CKMfitter Is there a common origin ? Leptonic decays

38. CKMfitter Summary  Standard Model CKM fit (preliminary) summer 2008 results (preliminary) summer 2008 results tension between sin(2  ) and BR(B  ) tension between sin(2  ) and BR(B  ) removing BR(B  decreases  ² min  by 2.9   SM + New Physics fit (preliminary) update of NP fit in B d,s mesons mixing (preliminary) update of NP fit in B d,s mesons mixing 2.1  deviations from SM in B d mixing (0.9 without B  2.1  deviations from SM in B d mixing (0.9 without B  something happens with BR(B  ) something happens with BR(B  ) - observable fluctuation ? - problem with lattice predictions ? - conspiration of all other inputs   new physics ? 2.1  deviations from SM in B s mixing 2.1  deviations from SM in B s mixing the bulk is the direct Tevatron  s measurement the bulk is the direct Tevatron  s measurement Hypothesis Hypothesis Deviation 2.1 σ Δ d = 1 2.1 σ 2.1 σ Δ s = 1 2.1 σ 2.9 σ Δ d = Δ s =1 2.9 σ Agreement with SM :  Preliminary summer 2008 SM & NP fit results available on : 95% CL interval : http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr/plots_Summer2008/ Many thanks to Christian Kaufhold