2. Two Important Experimental Novelties: Dipartimento di Fisica di Roma La Sapienza Guido Martinelli Martina Franca 17/6/2007 Utfit & QCD in the Standard Model and beyond sin 2  measured = 0.726  0.037 0.675  0.026 CDF Δm s = (17.77 ± 0.10 ± 0.07) ps -1 BaBar: (0.88 ± 0.11) x 10 -4 + 0.68 - 0.67 Belle: (1.79 ) x 10 -4 + 0.56 - 0.49 + 0.39 - 0.46 Average: (1.31 ± 0.48) x 10 -4

3. STANDARD MODEL 1)Generalities 2)Predictions vs Postdictions 3) Lattice vs angles 4) V ub inclusive, V ub exclusive vs sin 2  5) Experimental determination of lattice parameters Flavor Physics Beyond the SM

4. N(N-1)/2 angles and (N-1)(N-2) /2 phases N=3 3 angles + 1 phase KM the phase generates complex couplings i.e. CP violation; 6 masses +3 angles +1 phase = 10 parameters

5. CP Violation is natural with three quark generations (Kobayashi-Maskawa) With three generations all CP phenomena are related to the same unique parameter (  ) NO Flavour Changing Neutral Currents (FCNC) at Tree Level (FCNC processes are good candidates for observing NEW PHYSICS)

6. Quark masses & Generation Mixing Neutron Proton e e-e- down up W | V ud | | V ud | = 0.9735(8) | V us | = 0.2196(23) | V cd | = 0.224(16) | V cs | = 0.970(9)(70) | V cb | = 0.0406(8) | V ub | = 0.00409(25) | V tb | = 0.99(29) (0.999)  -decays

7. + O( 4 ) The Wolfenstein Parametrization ~ 0.2 A ~ 0.8  ~ 0.2  ~ 0.3 Sin  12 = Sin  23 = A 2 Sin  13 = A 3 (  -i  ) V td V ub

8. a1a1 a2a2 a3a3 b1b1 b2b2 b3b3 d1d1 e1e1 c3c3 The Bjorken-Jarlskog Unitarity Triangle | V ij | is invariant under phase rotations a 1 = V 11 V 12 * = V ud V us * a 2 = V 21 V 22 * a 3 = V 31 V 32 * a 1 + a 2 + a 3 = 0 (b 1 + b 2 + b 3 = 0 etc.) a1a1 a2a2 a3a3    Only the orientation depends on the phase convention

9. Physical quantities correspond to invariants under phase reparametrization i.e. |a 1 |, |a 2 |, …, |e 3 | and the area of the Unitary Triangles a precise knowledge of the moduli (angles) would fix J V ud * V ub + V cd * V cb +V td * V tb = 0 CP  J J = Im (a 1 a 2 * ) = |a 1 a 2 | Sin  V ud * V ub V td * V tb V cd * V cb     =  CKM

10. From A. Stocchi ICHEP 2002

12. For details see: UTfit Collaboration hep-ph/0501199 hep-ph/0509219 hep-ph/0605213 hep-ph/0606167 http://www.utfit.org

13. sin 2  is measured directly from B J/  K s decays at Babar & Belle  (B d 0 J/  K s, t) -  (B d 0 J/  K s, t) A J/  K s =  (B d 0 J/  K s, t) +  (B d 0 J/  K s, t) A J/  K s = sin 2  sin (  m d t)

14. DIFFERENT LEVELS OF THEORETICAL UNCERTAINTIES (STRONG INTERACTIONS) 1)First class quantities, with reduced or negligible uncertainties 2) Second class quantities, with theoretical errors of O(10%) or less that can be reliably estimated 3) Third class quantities, for which theoretical predictions are model dependent (BBNS, charming, etc.) In case of discrepacies we cannot tell whether is new physics or we must blame the model

15. Classical Quantities used in the Standard UT Analysis NEW !! before Only a lower bound Inclusive vs Exclusive Opportunity for lattice QCD see later V ub /V cb KK mdmd md/msmd/ms levels @ 68% (95%) CL

16. K 0 - K 0 mixing Unitary Triangle SM B 0 d,s - B 0 d,s mixingB d Asymmetry 2005 semileptonic decays

17. New Quantities used in the UT Analysis

18. M.Bona, M.Ciuchini, E.Franco, V.Lubicz, G.Martinelli, F.Parodi,M.Pierini, P.Roudeau, C.Schiavi,L.Silvestrini, V. Sordini, A.Stocchi, V.Vagnoni Roma, Genova, Annecy, Orsay, Bologna THE COLLABORATION www.utfit.org 2006 ANALYSIS New quantities e.g. B -> DK included Upgraded exp. numbers (after ICHEP) CDF & Belle new measurements THE CKM

19. contours @ 68% and 95% C.L.  = 0.193  0.029  = 0.355  0.019 at 95% C.L. With the constraint from  m s Results for  and  & related quantities  = 0.164 ± 0.029  = 0.340 ± 0.017  = 0.340 ± 0.017  = (92.7  4.2) 0 sin 2  = 0.697  0.023

20. A closer look to the analysis: 1)Predictions vs Postdictions 2) Lattice vs angles 3) V ub inclusive, V ub exclusive vs sin 2  4) Experimental determination of lattice parameters

21. CKM origin of CP Violation in K 0 K 0 Mixing UTsites εKεK Ciuchini et al. (“pre-UTFit”),2000

22. sin 2  measured = 0.668  0.028 Comparison of sin 2  from direct measurements (Aleph, Opal, Babar, Belle and CDF) and UT analysis sin 2  UTA = 0.759 ± 0.039 Very good agreement no much room for physics beyond the SM !! sin 2  UTA = 0.698 ± 0.066 prediction from Ciuchini et al. (2000) sin 2  tot = 0.701  0.022 correlation (tension) with V ub, see later sin 2  UTA = 0.65 ± 0.12 Prediction 1995 from Ciuchini,Franco,G.M.,Reina,Silvestrini

24. Theoretical predictions of Sin 2  in the years predictions exist since '95 experiments sin 2  UTA = 0.65 ± 0.12 Prediction 1995 from Ciuchini,Franco,G.M.,Reina,Silvestrini

25. NEWS from NEWS (Standard Model)  m s Probability Density

26. CDF Theoretical predictions of  m s in the years predictions exist since '97

27. A closer look to the analysis: 1)Predictions vs Postdictions 2) Lattice vs angles 3) V ub inclusive, V ub exclusive vs sin 2  4) Experimental determination of lattice parameters

28. Vincenzo Vagnoni ICHEP 06, Moscow, 28 th July 2006 The UT-angles fit does not depend on theoretical calculations (treatement of errors is not an issue)  = 0.325± 0.021  = 0.325± 0.021  = 0.188 ± 0.036  = 0.188 ± 0.036  = 0.373 ± 0.027  = 0.373 ± 0.027 ANGLES VS LATTICE UT-latticeUT-angles  = 0.139 ± 0.042  = 0.139 ± 0.042 Still imperfect agreement in  due to sin2  and V ub tension Comparable accuracy due to the precise sin2  value and substantial improvement due to the new  m s measurement Crucial to improve measurements of the angles, in particular  (tree level NP-free determination)

29. A closer look to the analysis: 1)Predictions vs Postdictions 2) Lattice vs angles 3) V ub inclusive, V ub exclusive vs sin 2  4) Experimental determination of lattice parameters

30. sin 2  measured = 0.668  0.028 Correlation of sin 2  with V ub Although compatible, these results show that there is a ``tension”. This is due to the correlation of Vub with sin 2  sin 2  UTA = 0.759 ± 0.039 ~2σ~2σ

31. V UB PUZZLE Inclusive: uses non perturbative parameters most not from lattice QCD (fitted from the lepton spectrum) Exclusive: uses non perturbative form factors from LQCD and QCDSR S.Hashimoto@ ICHEP’04

33. INCLUSIVE EXCLUSIVE

34. INFN Roma I 11/06/2001 Belle: (1.79 ) x 10 -4 + 0.56 - 0.49 + 0.39 - 0.46 BaBar: (0.88 ± 0.11) x 10 -4 + 0.68 - 0.67 Average: (1.31 ± 0.48) x 10 -4 f B = (190 ± 14) MeV [UTA] V ub = (36.7 ± 1.5) 10 -4 [UTA] f B = (189 ± 27) MeV [LQCD] V ub = (35.0 ± 4.0) 10 -4 [Exclusive] f B = (189 ± 27) MeV [LQCD] V ub = (44.9 ± 3.3) 10 -4 [Inclusive] B → τν τ Potentially large NP contributions (i.e. MSSM at large tanβ, Isidori & Paradisi) From BR(B→ τν τ ) and V ub (UTA): (Best SM prediction) (Independent from other NP effects)

35. INFN Roma I 11/06/2001 f k  f  e V us

36. INFN Roma I 11/06/2001

38. Using V ud = 0.97377(27) (marciano) and V us /V ud = 0.2260(5)(31) From f k  f  we obtain V us = 0.2200(5)(30) From Kl 3 = 0.2255(9)

39. A closer look to the analysis: 1)Predictions vs Postdictions 2) Lattice vs angles 3) V ub inclusive, V ub exclusive vs sin 2  4) Experimental determination of lattice parameters Hadronic Parameters From UTfit

40. The new measurements allow the analysis WITHOUT THE LATTICE HADRONIC PARAMETERS (eventually only those entering Vub) with Vub Without Vub

41. IMPACT of the NEW MEASUREMENTS on LATTICE HADRONIC PARAMETERS

42. B K = 0.79  0.04  0.08 Dawson B K = 0.75  0.09 f Bs √B Bs =261  6 MeV UTA 2% ERROR !!  = 1.24  0.08 UTA f Bs √B Bs = 262  35 MeV lattice  = 1.23  0.06 lattice f B = 186  0.11 MeV f B = 189  27 MeV SPECTACULAR AGREEMENT (EVEN WITH QUENCHED LATTICE QCD)

43. Using the lattice determination of the B- parameters B Bd = B Bs = 1.28  0.05  0.09 f B = 190  14 MeV f B = 189  27 MeV f Bs = 229  9 MeV f Bs = 230  30 MeV

44. OLD NEW

45. CP VIOLATION PROVEN IN THE SM !! Only tree level processes  = 65 ± 20 U -115 ± 20  = 82 ± 19 U -98 ± 19

46. CP Violation beyond the Standard Model

47. very important to improve: V ub /V cb from semileptonic decays   from tree level processes Only tree level processes   = 0.00 ± 0.15   = ± 0.41 ± 0.04 CP VIOLATION PROVEN IN THE SM !!

48. Even in the favourable case in which the theory above the cutoff is weakly coupled, such as in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), large contributions to FCNC and CP processes are expected contrary to the increasigly precise experimental measurements. FLAVOUR PUZZLE

49. Model Independent Analysis of  F = 2 transitions

51. Additional contraints Semileptonic decay asymmetry Sensitive to both C Bd and phase shift  Bd SM prediction (-1.06±0.09)10 -3 Direct measurement (-0.3±5.0)10 -3 SM peak NP contribution Not precise enough to bound CKM in SM (experimental error too large)… … but good for reducing NP allowed parameter space

52. Additional contraints CP aymmetry in dimuon events SM peak NP contribution f d ~0.4, f s ~0.1 production fractions of B d and B s Admixture of B d and B s charge asymmetries Sensitive to C Bd,  Bd, C Bs,  Bs !

53. Additional contraints  s /  s The experimental measurement of  s actually measures  s cos(  s +  Bs ) (Dunietz et al., hep-ph/0012219)  NP can only decrease the experimental result with respect to the SM value Since all the other parameters are fixed by other constraints, this gives the first available bound on NP phase in B s mixing!

54. Vincenzo Vagnoni ICHEP 06, Moscow, 28 th July 2006 Bounds on C and  parameters All C parameters compatible with 1 and  with 0  SM works just fine 1.5  shift of  Bd due to the V ub vs sin2  bare agreement  C  K = 0.91 ± 0.15  C B d = 1.24 ± 0.43   B d = -3.0 ± 2.0  C B s = 1.15 ± 0.36   B s = (-3 ± 19) o U (94 ± 19) o UPGRADED

55. ICHEP 06, Moscow, 28 th July 2006Observable ,  C Bd,  Bd CKCKCKCK C Bs,  Bs V ub /V cb X  (DK) X KKKKXX sin2  XX mdmdmdmdXX  ( , ,  ) XX A SL B d XX  d /  d XX msmsmsmsX A CH XXX  s /  s XX  = 0.20 ± 0.07 (  = 0.166 ± 0.029 in SM)  = 0.20 ± 0.07 (  = 0.166 ± 0.029 in SM)  = 0.37 ± 0.04 (  = 0.340 ± 0.017 in SM)  = 0.37 ± 0.04 (  = 0.340 ± 0.017 in SM) Even including NP we are still on the SM solution Using all available constraints in NP generalized analysis

56. Vincenzo Vagnoni ICHEP 06, Moscow, 28 th July 2006 MFV: Universal Unitarity Triangle Fit Just using constraints which are insensitive to NP in MFV scenarios Output of UUT fit In MFV extensions of the SM one can determine CKM parameters independently of NP constributions, but using angles, tree level processes and mixing amplitudes ratio  = 0.153 ± 0.030 (  = 0.166 ± 0.029 in SM)  = 0.153 ± 0.030 (  = 0.166 ± 0.029 in SM)  = 0.347 ± 0.018 (  = 0.340 ± 0.017 in SM)  = 0.347 ± 0.018 (  = 0.340 ± 0.017 in SM)

57. Vincenzo Vagnoni ICHEP 06, Moscow, 28 th July 2006 MFV scenario: translating into a test of the NP scale NP enters the game as additional contribution to the top box diagram (D'Ambrosio et al. hep-ph/0207036)  0 = 2.4 TeV  0 is the equivalent SM scale a = 1 (as a reference) Common shift  S 0 to Inami-Lim function in B and K mixing in case of small tan  while two dinstict shifts for large tan  (bottom Yukawa coupling important)  > 5.4 TeV @ 95% for large tan   > 5.9 TeV @ 95% for small tan  Small tan   S 0 B =  S 0 K Small tan   S 0 B =  S 0 K Large tan   S 0 B ≠  S 0 K Large tan   S 0 B ≠  S 0 K

58. SM Predictions of Bayesian Analysis, using Lattice QCD confirmed by Experiments (sin 2  UTA and  m s ) Extraordinary experimental progresses allow the extraction of several hadronic quantities from the data. It is very important to reduce the lattice errors particularly for B K A special effort must be done for the semileptonic form factors necessary to the extraction of V ub It is crucial to reduce the error on the direct determination of the angle  from B -> DK, D*K and DK* decays CONCLUSIONS