Updates from UTfit within and beyond the Standard Model

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Updates from UTfit within and beyond the Standard Model"

Cleopatra Perry
5 years ago
Views:

1 Updates from UTfit within and beyond the Standard Model Marcella Bona Queen Mary, University of London SUSY August 2013 Trieste, Italy

2 unitarity Triangle analysis in the SM SM UT analysis: provide the best determination of CKM parameters test the consistency of the SM ( direct vs indirect determinations) provide predictions for SM observables (ex. sin2β, ms,...).. and beyond NP UT analysis: model independent analysis provides limit on the allowed deviations from the SM updated NP scale analysis 2/45

3 CKM matrix and Unitarity Triangle many observables functions of and : overconstraining normalized: normalized: 3/45

4 A. Bevan, M.B., M. Ciuchini, D. Derkach, E. Franco, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, F. Parodi, M. Pierini, C. Schiavi, L. Silvestrini, A. Stocchi, V. Sordini, C. Tarantino and V. Vagnoni Other UT analyses exist, by: CKMfitter ( Laiho&Lunghi&Van de Water ( Lunghi&Soni ( ) 4/45

5 the method and the inputs: Bayes Theorem }, Standard Model + OPE/HQET/ Lattice QCD to go mt from quarks to hadrons M. Bona et al. (UTfit Collaboration) JHEP 0507:028,2005 hep-ph/ M. Bona et al. (UTfit Collaboration) JHEP 0603:080,2006 hep-ph/ /45

6 Bd and Bs mixing ms/ md md md=(0.507 ± 0.004) ps 1 ms=(17.72 ± 0.04) ps 1 FLAG updated after Lattice'13 BBq and fbq from lattice QCD 6/45

4% ~1.9σ discrepancy UTfit input value: average à la PDG Vub (excl) = (3.42 ± 0.

7 Vcb and Vub Vcb (excl) = (39.55 ± 0.88) 10 3 Vcb (incl) = (41.7 ± 0.7) 10 3 UTfit input value: average à la PDG Vcb = (40.9 ± 1.0) 10 3 uncertainty ~ 2.4% ~1.9σ discrepancy UTfit input value: average à la PDG Vub (excl) = (3.42 ± 0.22) 10 3 Vub = (3.75 ± 0.46) 10 3 Vub (incl) = (4.40 ± 0.31) 10 3 uncertainty ~ 12% ~2.5σ discrepancy 7/45

8 CP violating inputs K εk from K K mixing BK = ± Lattice '13 sin2β from B J/ψK0 + theory sin2β(j/ψk ) = ± HFAG + CPS α from ππ, ρρ, πρ decays: combined: (90.7 ± 7.4) γ from B DK decays (tree level) 8/45

9 and DK trees rb(dk) = ± rb(d*k) = ± = (70.1 ± 7.1)o rb(dk*) = ± /45

10 Unitarity Triangle analysis in the SM: Vcb/Vub K α β md ms/ md 2 + B 10/45

11 Unitarity Triangle analysis in the SM: Observables Accuracy Vub/Vcb ~ 13% εk ~ 0.5% md ~ 1% md/ ms ~ 1% sin2β ~ 3% cos2β ~ 15% α ~ 8% γ ~ 10% BR(B τν) ~ 19% 11/45

Unitarity Triangle analysis in the SM: levels @

12 Unitarity Triangle analysis in the SM: 95% Prob ρ = ± η = ± /45

13 angles vs the others ρ = ± η = ± % Prob ρ = ± η = ± /45

predicted values and the measurements at better than 1, 2,...nσ γ exp = (70.1 ± 7.1) γ UTfit = (64.8 ± 1.

14 compatibility plots A way to measure the agreement of a single measurement with the indirect determination from the fit using all the other inputs: test for the SM description of the flavor physics Color code: agreement between the predicted values and the measurements at better than 1, 2,...nσ γ exp = (70.1 ± 7.1) γ UTfit = (64.8 ± 1.8) The cross has the coordinates (x,y)=(central value, error) of the direct measurement α exp = (90.7 ± 7.4) α UTfit = (92.2 ± 2.3) 14/45

tensions ~2.0σ sin2β exp = 0.680 ± 0.023 sin2β UTfit = 0.771 ± 0.038 Vubexp = (3.76 ± 0.

15 tensions ~2.0σ sin2β exp = ± sin2β UTfit = ± Vubexp = (3.76 ± 0.46) 10 3 VubUTfit = (3.70 ± 0.12) 10 3 BKexp = ± BKUTfit = ± ~1.8σ 15/45

tensions Vub (excl) Vub (incl) ~2.0σ sin2β exp = 0.680 ± 0.023 sin2β UTfit = 0.771 ± 0.038 Vubexp = (3.

16 tensions Vub (excl) Vub (incl) ~2.0σ sin2β exp = ± sin2β UTfit = ± Vubexp = (3.76 ± 0.46) 10 3 VubUTfit = (3.70 ± 0.12) 10 3 BKexp = ± BKUTfit = ± ~1.8σ 16/45

17 Unitarity Triangle analysis in the SM: obtained excluding the given constraint from the fit Observables Measurement Prediction Pull (#σ) sin2β ± ± ~ 2.0 γ 70.1 ± ± 1.8 <1 α 90.7 ± ± 2.3 <1 Vub ± ± 0.12 <1 Vub 103 (incl) 4.40 ± 0.31 ~ 2.0 Vub 103 (excl) 3.42 ± 0.22 ~ 1.1 Vcb ± ± 0.57 ~ 1.3 BK ± ± ~ 1.8 BR(B τν)[10-4] 1.14 ± ± ~ 1.4 BR(Bs ll)[10-9] 2.9 ± ± 0.16 ~ 1.4 BR(Bd ll)[10-9] 0.37 ± ± ~ /45

18 inclusives vs exclusives only exclusive values sin2β UTfit = ± ~1.5σ only inclusive values sin2β UTfit = ± ~2.7σ 18/45

19 inclusives vs exclusives only exclusive values sin2β UTfit = ± ~1.5σ only inclusive values sin2β UTfit = ± ~2.7σ 19/45

20 more standard model predictions: BR(B τν) = (1.14 ± 0.22) 10 4 ~1.4σ indirect determinations from UT BR(B τν) = (0.811 ± 0.071) 10 4 M.Bona et al, [hep ph] 20/45

5) 10 10 indirect determinations from UT BR(Bs ll) = (3.98 ± 0.

21 more standard model predictions: from CMS+LHCb from CMS+LHCb BR(Bs µµ) = (2.9 ± 0.7) 10 9 ~1.4σ BR(Bd µµ) = (3.7 ± 1.5) indirect determinations from UT BR(Bs ll) = (3.98 ± 0.16) 10 9 ~1.7σ BR(Bd ll) = (1.06 ± 0.04) time integration included 21/45

22 UT analysis including new physics fit simultaneously for the CKM and the NP parameters (generalized UT fit) add most general loop NP to all sectors use all available experimental info find out NP contributions to ΔF=2 transitions Bd and Bs mixing amplitudes (2+2 real parameters): Aq =C B e 2i B q q SM q A e 2i SM q = 1 mq/k =C B / m mq/k q Bd J / K S A CP K =sin 2 B d A =Im / Aq q SL q 12 NP SM Aq SM q A e NP SM 2i q q A SM q e SM 2i q SM K K B s J / CP =C A ~sin2 s B s / mq =Re / Aq q q 12 22/45

23 new physics specific constraints semileptonic asymmetries: sensitive to NP effects in both size and phase 3 ASL(Bd)[10 ] = 0.5 ± 5.6, 3 ASL(Bs)[10 ] = 4.1 ± 4.5 B factories, CDF + D0 + LHCb D0 arxiv: same side dilepton charge asymmetry: admixture of Bs and Bd so sensitive to NP effects in both systems 7.9 ± 2.0 lifetime τ FS in flavour specific final states: average lifetime is a function to the width and the width difference (independent data sample) ± HFAG φ s=2β s vs Γ s from Bs J/ψφ angular analysis as a function of proper time and b tagging. Additional sensitivity from the Γs terms LHCb: Gaussian 23/45

NP analysis results ρ = 0.147 ± 0.045 η = 0.368 ± 0.

24 NP analysis results ρ = ± η = ± degeneracy of broken by ASL SM is ρ = ± η = ± /45

25 NP parameter results CεK = 1.05 ± 0.16 dark: 68% light: 95% SM: red cross C mk vs Cε K CBd = 1.00 ± 0.13 φbd = ( 2.0 ± 3.2) Aq =C B e q 2i ϕb q A SM q e SM 2i ϕq CBd vs φ Bd CBs = 1.07 ± 0.08 CBs vs φ Bs φbs = (0.6 ± 2.0) 25/45

amplitudes is: < 20% @68% prob. (34% @95%) in Bd mixing < 18% @68% prob.

26 NP parameter results ( Aq = 1+ AqNP A SM q e NP SM ) 2i(ϕq ϕq ) SM q A e SM 2i ϕq dark: 68% light: 95% SM: red cross The ratio of NP/SM amplitudes is: < prob. in Bd mixing < prob. in Bs mixing see also Lunghi & Soni, Buras et al., Ligeti et al. 26/45

testing the new physics scale At the high scale new physics enters according to its specific features At the low scale use OPE to write the most general effective Hamiltonian.

27 testing the new physics scale At the high scale new physics enters according to its specific features At the low scale use OPE to write the most general effective Hamiltonian. the operators have different chiralities than the SM NP effects are in the Wilson Coefficients C NP effects are enhanced up to a factor 10 by the values of the matrix elements especially for transitions among quarks of different chiralities up to a factor 8 by RGE M. M. Bona Bona et et al. al. (UTfit) (UTfit) JHEP JHEP 0803:049, :049,2008 arxiv: arxiv: /45

28 effective BSM Hamiltonian for F=2 transitions The Wilson coefficients Ci have in general the form Putting bounds on the Wilson coefficients give insights into the NP scale in different NP scenarios that enter through Fi and Li Fi: function of the NP flavour couplings Li: loop factor (in NP models with no tree level FCNC) Λ: NP scale (typical mass of new particles mediating F=2 transitions) 28/45

29 testing the TeV scale The dependence of C on Λ changes on flavor structure. We can consider different flavour scenarios: Generic: C(Λ) = α/λ2 Fi~1, arbitrary phase NMFV: C(Λ) = α FSM /Λ2 Fi~ FSM, arbitrary phase MFV: C(Λ) = α FSM /Λ2 F1~ FSM, Fi 1~0, SM phase α (Li) is the coupling among NP and SM α ~ 1 for strongly coupled NP If no NP effect is seen α ~ αw (αs) in case of loop lower bound on NP scale Λ coupling through weak if NP is seen (strong) interactions upper bound on NP scale Λ F is the flavour coupling and so FSM is the combination of CKM factors for the considered process 29/45

results from the Wilson coefficients Generic: C(Λ) = α/λ2, Fi~1, arbitrary phase α ~ 1 for strongly coupled NP To obtain the lower bound for loop mediated contributions, one simply multiplies the

30 results from the Wilson coefficients Generic: C(Λ) = α/λ2, Fi~1, arbitrary phase α ~ 1 for strongly coupled NP To obtain the lower bound for loop mediated contributions, one simply multiplies the bounds by αs ( 0.1) or by αw ( 0.03). α ~ αw in case of loop coupling through weak interactions Lower bounds on NP scale (in TeV at 95% prob.) NP in αw loops Λ > TeV Non perturbative NP Λ > TeV 30/45

results from the Wilson coefficients NMFV: C(Λ) = α FSM /Λ2, Fi~ FSM, arbitrary phase α ~ 1 for strongly coupled NP To obtain the lower bound for loop mediated contributions, one simply multiplies

31 results from the Wilson coefficients NMFV: C(Λ) = α FSM /Λ2, Fi~ FSM, arbitrary phase α ~ 1 for strongly coupled NP To obtain the lower bound for loop mediated contributions, one simply multiplies the bounds by αs ( 0.1) or by αw ( 0.03). α ~ αw in case of loop coupling through weak interactions Lower bounds on NP scale (in TeV at 95% prob.) NP in αw loops Λ > 3.4 TeV Non perturbative NP Λ > 113 TeV 31/45

32 conclusions SM analysis displays good overall consistency Still open discussion on semileptonic inclusive vs exclusive, new discussion on the new lattice averages? UTA provides determination also of NP contributions to F=2 amplitudes. It currently leaves space for NP at the level of 15 20% So the scale analysis points to high scales for the generic scenario and even above LHC reach for weak coupling. Indirect searches become essential. Even if we don't see relevant deviations in the down sector, we might still find them in the up sector. 32/45

33 Back up slides 33/45

Flavour mixing and CP violation in the Standard Model The

Lagrangian at least one phase that cannot be re absorbed

34 Flavour mixing and CP violation in the Standard Model The CP symmetry is violated in any field theory having in the Lagrangian at least one phase that cannot be re absorbed The mass eigenstates are not eigenstates of the weak interaction. This feature of the Standard Model Hamiltonian produces the (unitary) mixing matrix VCKM. u c t d s b 34/45

35 Latest sin2 results: raw asymmetry as function of t LHCb not competitive yet with a 0.07 error BABAR Collaboration PRD 79:072009, 2009 Belle Collaboration PRL 108:171802, 2012 data driven theoretical uncertainty UTfit values sin2 (J/ K ) = ± S = ± M.Ciuchini, M.Pierini, L.Silvestrini Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, (2005) 35/45

36 Theory error on sin2 : V*cbVcs V*tbVts V*ubVus V*cbVcd V*tbVtd V*ubVud 1) Fit the amplitudes in the SU(3) related decay J/ 0 and keep solution compatible with J/ K 3) Fit the amplitudes in J/ K0 imposing the upper bound on the CKM suppressed amplitude and extract the error on sin2 A.Buras, L.Silvestrini Nucl.Phys.B569:3 52(2000) 2) Obtain the upper limit on the penguin amplitude and add 100% error for SU(3) breaking S = ± M.Ciuchini, M.Pierini, L.Silvestrini Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, (2005) 36/45

37 α: CP violation in B0 ππ/ρρ Belle Collaboration CKM2012 preliminary BABAR Collaboration arxiv: [hep ex] LHCb Collaboration LHCb CONF /45

38 α: CP violation in B0 ππ/ρρ α from ππ, ρρ, πρ decays: combined: (91.1 ± 6.7) 38/45

39 and DK trees B D * 0 D * 0 K * decays can proceed both through Vcb and Vub amplitudes Vub= Vub e -i (~ 3) 2 Vcb (~ ) B = strong phase diff. sensitivity to : the amplitude ratio rb hadronic contribution channel-dependent 39/45

40 new physics specific constraints B meson mixing matrix element NLO calculation Ciuchini et al. JHEP 0308:031,2003. Cpen and pen are parameterize possible NP contributions from b s penguins φ s=2β s vs Γ s from Bs J/ψφ angular analysis as a function of proper time and b tagging additional sensitivity from the Γs terms φs and ΓS: 2D experimental likelihood from CDF and D0 φs and ΓS: central values with gaussian errors from LHCb 40/45

41 UT analysis including NP M.Bona et al (UTfit) Phys.Rev.Lett. 97:151803,2006 ρ, η CBd, φbd Vub/Vcb X γ (DK) X εk X sin2β X md X α X X ASL Bd X X X d/ d X X X s/ s X X Cbs, φbs SM X X X (Vub/Vcb) SM SM md SM ms ACH CεK model independent assumptions X X SM+NP tree level SM SM (Vub/Vcb) SM Bd Mixing SM+ Bd SM- Bd CBd md Bs Mixing ms CBs mssm X X SM ssm+ Bs s X K Mixing SM C KSM X X SM 41/45

42 contribution to the mixing amplitutes analytic expression for the contribution to the mixing amplitudes arxiv: : for magic numbers a,b and c, η = αs(λ)/αs(mt) (numerical values updated last in summer'12) analogously for the K system To obtain the p.d.f. for the Wilson coefficients Ci(Λ) at the new physics scale, we switch on one coefficient at a time in each sector and calculate its value from the result of the NP analysis. 42/45

43 Results from the Wilson coefficients the results obtained for the flavour scenarios: In deriving the lower bounds on the NP scale, we assume Li = 1, corresponding to strongly-interacting and/or tree-level NP. To obtain the lower bound for loop-mediated contributions, one simply multiplies the bounds by s 0.1 or by W /45

problems with the size of the Bs effect vs the (insufficient) suppression in Bd and (in particular) K mixing MFV is OK

44 Upper and lower bound on the scale Lower bounds on NP scale from K and Bd physics (TeV at 95% prob.) Upper bounds on NP scale from BS: the general case was already problematic (well known flavour puzzle) NMFV has problems with the size of the Bs effect vs the (insufficient) suppression in Bd and (in particular) K mixing MFV is OK for the size of the effects, but the B s phase cannot be generated Data suggest some hierarchy in NP mixing which is stronger than the SM one 44/45

45 The future of CKM fits /45

Standard Model updates and new physics analysis with the Unitarity Triangle fit

Standard Model updates and new physics analysis with the Unitarity Triangle fit Marcella Bona A. Bevan, M. Bona, M. Ciuchini, D. Derkach, E. Franco, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, F. Parodi, M. Pierini, C.