CKM : Status and Prospects

Transcription

1 Anirban Kundu University of Calcutta February 20, 2014 IIT Guwahati, EWSB2014

2 Plan The CKM matrix V ud, V cd, V cs, V us V tb, V cb, V ub Combinations UT angles: α, β, γ, β s BSM hints? Summary: No spectacular deviation from SM

3 Plan The CKM matrix V ud, V cd, V cs, V us V tb, V cb, V ub Combinations UT angles: α, β, γ, β s BSM hints? Summary: No spectacular deviation from SM

4 The CKM matrix Cabibbo [PRL 10, 532 (1963)] J µ = cos θ(j (0) µ + g (0) µ ) + sin θ(j (1) µ + g (1) µ ) (0): S = 0, I = 1, (1): S = 1, I = the vector coupling constant for β decay is not G, but G cos θ. This gives a correction... in the right direction to eliminate the discrepancy between O 14 and muon lifetimes. Kobayashi and Maskawa [PTP 49, 652 (1973)] d c 1 s 1 c 3 s 1 s 3 s = s 1 c 2 c 1 c 2 c 3 s 2 s 3 e iδ c 1 c 2 s 3 + s 2 c 3 e iδ b s 1 s 2 c 1 s 2 c 3 + c 2 s 3 e iδ c 1 s 2 s 3 c 2 c 3 e iδ d s b

5 The CKM matrix The charged current Lagrangian is L wk = g 2 ū j(u ji D ik)γ µ P L d kw + µ = g 2 V jk ū jγ µ P L d kw + µ + h.c. + h.c. We can measure the elements of V but not the individual elements of U or D Physics depends only on the misalignment between these two bases

6 The CKM matrix The charged current Lagrangian is L wk = g 2 ū j(u ji D ik)γ µ P L d kw + µ = g 2 V jk ū jγ µ P L d kw + µ + h.c. + h.c. We can measure the elements of V but not the individual elements of U or D Physics depends only on the misalignment between these two bases There is no way to know anything about the rotation matrices for right-handed quark fields U and D are unitary, so the neutral current processes, involving U U or D D, do not change generations GIM mechanism

7 The CKM matrix The charged current Lagrangian is L wk = g 2 ū j(u ji D ik)γ µ P L d kw + µ = g 2 V jk ū jγ µ P L d kw + µ + h.c. + h.c. We can measure the elements of V but not the individual elements of U or D Physics depends only on the misalignment between these two bases There is no way to know anything about the rotation matrices for right-handed quark fields U and D are unitary, so the neutral current processes, involving U U or D D, do not change generations GIM mechanism

8 The CKM matrix Q. Does the charged current Lagrangian violate CP? Ans.: If the coupling is real, hermitian conjugation is the same as CP conjugation, so no CP violation unless the coupling is complex. But the gauge coupling is real. Can V be complex? It can be shown that an N N quark mixing matrix has 1 2N(N 1) real angles and 1 2 (N 1)(N 2) complex phases No CP violation for two generations. Only one unique CP violating phase for N = 3 CP violation is not a small effect, but way too small to explain n b /n γ

9 The CKM matrix Q. Does the charged current Lagrangian violate CP? Ans.: If the coupling is real, hermitian conjugation is the same as CP conjugation, so no CP violation unless the coupling is complex. But the gauge coupling is real. Can V be complex? It can be shown that an N N quark mixing matrix has 1 2N(N 1) real angles and 1 2 (N 1)(N 2) complex phases No CP violation for two generations. Only one unique CP violating phase for N = 3 CP violation is not a small effect, but way too small to explain n b /n γ

10 The CKM matrix V = = V ud V us V ub V cd V cs V cb V td V ts V tb λ2 λ Aλ 3 (ρ iη) λ λ2 Aλ 2 + O(λ 4 ) Aλ 3 (1 ρ iη) Aλ 2 1 V td = V td exp( iβ), V ub = V ub exp( iγ) Wolfenstein parametrisation λ = , A = , ρ ρ(1 1 2 λ2 ) = , η η(1 1 2 λ2 ) = ± (CKMfitter 2013)

11 The CKM matrix V = = V ud V us V ub V cd V cs V cb V td V ts V tb λ2 λ Aλ 3 (ρ iη) λ λ2 Aλ 2 + O(λ 4 ) Aλ 3 (1 ρ iη) Aλ 2 1 V td = V td exp( iβ), V ub = V ub exp( iγ) Wolfenstein parametrisation λ = , A = , ρ ρ(1 1 2 λ2 ) = , η η(1 1 2 λ2 ) = ± (CKMfitter 2013)

12 From VV = V V = 1, one can write V ud Vus + V cd Vcs + V td Vts = 0, (1, 1, 5) V ud Vub + V cd Vcb + V td Vtb = 0, (3, 3, 3) V us Vub + V cs Vcb + V ts Vtb = 0, (4, 2, 2) V ud Vcd + V us Vcs + V ub Vcb = 0, (1, 1, 5) V ud Vtd + V us Vts + V ub Vtb = 0, (3, 3, 3) V cd Vtd + V cs Vts + V cb Vtb = 0. (4, 2, 2) Unitarity triangles The entire CKM matrix can in principle be determined from 4 angles, two large, one small, and one even smaller. In practice, the smallest angle is impossible to measure. (Aleksan et al. PRL 1994)

13 ($,%) # & V ud V ub & V cd V cb & V td V tb & V cd V cb! " (0,0) (1,0) All UTs have same area. A nonzero area means CP violation A good check of the 3-gen CKM paradigm is to see whether α + β + γ = π, and whether the sides match J = c 12 c 2 13c 23 s 12 s 23 s 13 sin δ = Im(V ud V usv cdv cs ) Invariant and double the area of any UT (Jarlskog, 1973)

14 Evolution of the UT

15 α β direct β indirect γ

16 The CKM matrix: summary All physical observables are independent of CKM parametrization A(B f ) φ = arg A(B B) A( B f ) B π + π : φ = 2arg(V ud V ub V tbv td ) Direct measurements of sides and angles are consistent with fit results (CKMfitter, UTfit) All such measurements are consistent with the CKM paradigm, except a few minor hiccups

17 The CKM matrix: summary All physical observables are independent of CKM parametrization A(B f ) φ = arg A(B B) A( B f ) B π + π : φ = 2arg(V ud V ub V tbv td ) Direct measurements of sides and angles are consistent with fit results (CKMfitter, UTfit) All such measurements are consistent with the CKM paradigm, except a few minor hiccups Any BSM that may show up at the LHC must have its CP violating sector closely aligned to that of SM (e.g. MFV models)

18 The CKM matrix: summary All physical observables are independent of CKM parametrization A(B f ) φ = arg A(B B) A( B f ) B π + π : φ = 2arg(V ud V ub V tbv td ) Direct measurements of sides and angles are consistent with fit results (CKMfitter, UTfit) All such measurements are consistent with the CKM paradigm, except a few minor hiccups Any BSM that may show up at the LHC must have its CP violating sector closely aligned to that of SM (e.g. MFV models)

19 V ud V ud = ± (Hardy & Towner, ) Average of 20 superallowed β-transitions ft(1 + δ R)(1 + δ NS δ C ) = K 2G 2 V (1 + V R ) K/( c) 6 = GeV 4 -s δ R (E e, Z), δ NS (E e, Z, NS) : transition-dependent part of rad. corr. δ C (NS): isospin-symmetry breaking corrections V R : transition-independent part of rad. corr. G V = G F V ud PIBETA (π + π 0 e + ν): Tiny th. uncertainties but expt error large.

20 V cd ν scattering off nucleon: ν µ N µ cx and ν µ N µ + cx Double differential cross section ν + d µ + c, c s + µ + + ν µ d 2 σ(ν) dx dy [ v cd 2 d(x) + V cs 2 s(x) ] Compare 1µ and 2µ processes (CDHS, CCFR, CHARM-II, CHORUS) V cd = ± Compatible with semileptonic D decays D Klν, πlν V cd = ± ± Second error is theoretical: form factor uncertainties (Indirect from CKM fit: )

21 V cs From semileptonic D and leptonic D s decays: D Klν, D s µν, τν B(D s µν) = (5.90±0.33) 10 3, B(D s τν) = (5.29±0.28) 10 2 Use f Ds = (248.6 ± 3.0) MeV as lattice average, no more tension between µ and τ modes Leptonic and semileptonic average: V cs = ± Can also be obtained, less precisely, from on-shell W decays, assuming lepton universality: V cs = ± 0.13

22 V us K l3 gives V us f + (0), with f + (0) = ± (lattice) Is τ s(ūν) a statistical fluctuation? Compare BaBar: A CP (τ νk S π ) = ( 0.36 ± 0.23 ± 0.11)% with SM: A CP (τ νk S π ) = (0.36 ± 0.01)% σ

23 V us K l3 gives V us f + (0), with f + (0) = ± (lattice) Is τ s(ūν) a statistical fluctuation? Compare BaBar: A CP (τ νk S π ) = ( 0.36 ± 0.23 ± 0.11)% with SM: A CP (τ νk S π ) = (0.36 ± 0.01)% σ

24 V tb Top decays: R = Br(t Wb)/Br(t Wq 1/3 ) = V tb 2 V tb > 0.78 (CDF), [0.90 : 0.99] (D0), > 0.92 (CMS) Assumes unitarity Single top production (does not assume unitarity): V tb = 0.89 ± 0.07 (CDF, D0, CMS average) Z b b : larger errors but consistent with unitarity V tb = (CKMfitter) V td and V ts can only be obtained in combination, unless we have ILC running as a top factory

25 V tb Top decays: R = Br(t Wb)/Br(t Wq 1/3 ) = V tb 2 V tb > 0.78 (CDF), [0.90 : 0.99] (D0), > 0.92 (CMS) Assumes unitarity Single top production (does not assume unitarity): V tb = 0.89 ± 0.07 (CDF, D0, CMS average) Z b b : larger errors but consistent with unitarity V tb = (CKMfitter) V td and V ts can only be obtained in combination, unless we have ILC running as a top factory

26 V cb Consider the decays B D(D )lν Most of the meson momentum is carried by the heavy quark Momentum transfer q 2 (Λ QCD v Λ QCD v ) 2 = 2Λ 2 QCD (v.v 1) with p = mv and v 2 = 1 Define w = v.v = m2 B + m2 D ( ) q 2 2m B m ( ) D B D : h +, h B D : h V, h A1, h A2, h A3 There is only a single form factor ξ(v.v ) in the limit m b, m c Normalized to ξ(v.v = 1) = 1 h +, h V, h A1, h A3 = 1 + O(Λ 2 /m 2 c) +... h, h A2 = O(Λ 2 /m 2 c) +...

27 V cb Consider the decays B D(D )lν Most of the meson momentum is carried by the heavy quark Momentum transfer q 2 (Λ QCD v Λ QCD v ) 2 = 2Λ 2 QCD (v.v 1) with p = mv and v 2 = 1 Define w = v.v = m2 B + m2 D ( ) q 2 2m B m ( ) D B D : h +, h B D : h V, h A1, h A2, h A3 There is only a single form factor ξ(v.v ) in the limit m b, m c Normalized to ξ(v.v = 1) = 1 h +, h V, h A1, h A3 = 1 + O(Λ 2 /m 2 c) +... h, h A2 = O(Λ 2 /m 2 c) +...

28 V cb B D lν: about 2% precision, uncertainty from FF B Dlν: 5% V cb = (39.5 ± 0.8) 10 3 (exclusive) Inclusive b c: uses OPE and explicit quark-hadron duality for m b Λ QCD, inclusive B decay rates are the same as b decay rates Corrections are suppressed by powers of α s and Λ QCD /m b, can be estimated from moments of the distribution E n l (dγ/de l)de l V cb = (42.4 ± 0.9) 10 3 (inclusive) ( ) 10 3 (CKMfitter)

29 V cb B D lν: about 2% precision, uncertainty from FF B Dlν: 5% V cb = (39.5 ± 0.8) 10 3 (exclusive) Inclusive b c: uses OPE and explicit quark-hadron duality for m b Λ QCD, inclusive B decay rates are the same as b decay rates Corrections are suppressed by powers of α s and Λ QCD /m b, can be estimated from moments of the distribution E n l (dγ/de l)de l V cb = (42.4 ± 0.9) 10 3 (inclusive) Marginally consistent: V cb = (40.9 ± 1.5) 10 3 ( ) 10 3 (CKMfitter)

30 V cb B D lν: about 2% precision, uncertainty from FF B Dlν: 5% V cb = (39.5 ± 0.8) 10 3 (exclusive) Inclusive b c: uses OPE and explicit quark-hadron duality for m b Λ QCD, inclusive B decay rates are the same as b decay rates Corrections are suppressed by powers of α s and Λ QCD /m b, can be estimated from moments of the distribution E n l (dγ/de l)de l V cb = (42.4 ± 0.9) 10 3 (inclusive) Marginally consistent: V cb = (40.9 ± 1.5) 10 3 ( ) 10 3 (CKMfitter)

31 V ub Inclusive B X u lν Have to take leptons beyond charm threshold, possibly large nonperturbative effects LO in Λ QCD /m b : Only one parameter, can be extracted from photon energy spectrum of B X s γ. More parameters at higher order, have to be modeled Low-q 2 : can use OPE but have to know B X c lν background V ub = (4.41 ± ) 10 3 (inclusive) Exclusive B π(ρ)lν Form factors from unquenched lattice, reliable at high-q 2 V ub = (3.23 ± 0.31) 10 3 (exclusive) V ub = (4.15 ± 0.49) 10 3 (average) ( ) 10 3 (CKMfitter)

32 V ub Inclusive B X u lν Have to take leptons beyond charm threshold, possibly large nonperturbative effects LO in Λ QCD /m b : Only one parameter, can be extracted from photon energy spectrum of B X s γ. More parameters at higher order, have to be modeled Low-q 2 : can use OPE but have to know B X c lν background V ub = (4.41 ± ) 10 3 (inclusive) Exclusive B π(ρ)lν Form factors from unquenched lattice, reliable at high-q 2 V ub = (3.23 ± 0.31) 10 3 (exclusive) V ub = (4.15 ± 0.49) 10 3 (average) Br(B τν) = (1.67 ± 0.30) 10 4 f B = (190.6 ± 4.6) MeV V ub = (5.10 ± 0.47) 10 3 (BSM hint? H +?) ( ) 10 3 (CKMfitter)

33 V ub Inclusive B X u lν Have to take leptons beyond charm threshold, possibly large nonperturbative effects LO in Λ QCD /m b : Only one parameter, can be extracted from photon energy spectrum of B X s γ. More parameters at higher order, have to be modeled Low-q 2 : can use OPE but have to know B X c lν background V ub = (4.41 ± ) 10 3 (inclusive) Exclusive B π(ρ)lν Form factors from unquenched lattice, reliable at high-q 2 V ub = (3.23 ± 0.31) 10 3 (exclusive) V ub = (4.15 ± 0.49) 10 3 (average) Br(B τν) = (1.67 ± 0.30) 10 4 f B = (190.6 ± 4.6) MeV V ub = (5.10 ± 0.47) 10 3 (BSM hint? H +?) ( ) 10 3 (CKMfitter)

34 V td and V ts No way to determine directly M d = (0.507 ± 0.004) ps 1, V td V tb 2 M s = ( ± 0.043) ps 1, V ts V tb 2 Lattice for f B and V tb = 1 V td = (8.4 ± 0.6) 10 3, V ts = (42.9 ± 2.6) 10 3 Lots of uncertainties cancel in the ratio V td / V ts = ± ± 0.006

35 V td and V ts No way to determine directly M d = (0.507 ± 0.004) ps 1, V td V tb 2 M s = ( ± 0.043) ps 1, V ts V tb 2 Lattice for f B and V tb = 1 V td = (8.4 ± 0.6) 10 3, V ts = (42.9 ± 2.6) 10 3 Lots of uncertainties cancel in the ratio V td / V ts = ± ± Can also use B K γ, B ργ, and their ratio V td / V ts = 0.21 ± 0.04

36 V td and V ts No way to determine directly M d = (0.507 ± 0.004) ps 1, V td V tb 2 M s = ( ± 0.043) ps 1, V ts V tb 2 Lattice for f B and V tb = 1 V td = (8.4 ± 0.6) 10 3, V ts = (42.9 ± 2.6) 10 3 Lots of uncertainties cancel in the ratio V td / V ts = ± ± Can also use B K γ, B ργ, and their ratio V td / V ts = 0.21 ± 0.04 K + π + ν ν gives V tsv td, theoretically clean, need more events

37 V td and V ts No way to determine directly M d = (0.507 ± 0.004) ps 1, V td V tb 2 M s = ( ± 0.043) ps 1, V ts V tb 2 Lattice for f B and V tb = 1 V td = (8.4 ± 0.6) 10 3, V ts = (42.9 ± 2.6) 10 3 Lots of uncertainties cancel in the ratio V td / V ts = ± ± Can also use B K γ, B ργ, and their ratio V td / V ts = 0.21 ± 0.04 K + π + ν ν gives V tsv td, theoretically clean, need more events All numbers consistent with CKM unitarity

38 V td and V ts No way to determine directly M d = (0.507 ± 0.004) ps 1, V td V tb 2 M s = ( ± 0.043) ps 1, V ts V tb 2 Lattice for f B and V tb = 1 V td = (8.4 ± 0.6) 10 3, V ts = (42.9 ± 2.6) 10 3 Lots of uncertainties cancel in the ratio V td / V ts = ± ± Can also use B K γ, B ργ, and their ratio V td / V ts = 0.21 ± 0.04 K + π + ν ν gives V tsv td, theoretically clean, need more events All numbers consistent with CKM unitarity

39 UT angle: α φ 2 α = arg( V td V tb /V udv ub ) From B ππ, πρ, ρρ (B ρρ: f L 1, CP-even) α = ( ) (direct) α = ( ) (CKM fit)

40 UT angle: β φ 1 β = arg( V cd V cb /V tdv tb ) arg(v td) B J/ψK S, φk S,... no discrepancy between c cs and s ss modes sin(2β) = ± 0.019, β = (21.39 ± 0.78) (direct) β = ( ) (CKM fit)

41 UT angle: γ φ 3 Option 1: Consider B D CP K (or excitations), D CP D CP+, D CP Interference between b cūs and b u cs (Gronau,London,Wyler) Rate and CP asymmetries depend on γ, as well as r B = A(b u)/a(b c) and arg(r B ) Option 2: Consider B DK, D K + π and its charge conjugated channels (allowed, suppressed) (suppressed, allowed) (Atwood, Dunietz, Soni) Rate and CP asymmetries depend on γ, r B, arg(r B ), r D, arg(r D ) r D has been measured from D decays 0.06

42 UT angle: γ φ 3 Option 1: Consider B D CP K (or excitations), D CP D CP+, D CP Interference between b cūs and b u cs (Gronau,London,Wyler) Rate and CP asymmetries depend on γ, as well as r B = A(b u)/a(b c) and arg(r B ) Option 2: Consider B DK, D K + π and its charge conjugated channels (allowed, suppressed) (suppressed, allowed) (Atwood, Dunietz, Soni) Rate and CP asymmetries depend on γ, r B, arg(r B ), r D, arg(r D ) r D has been measured from D decays 0.06 Option 3: Use a Dalitz plot analysis for B DK, D K S π + π,... and its charge conjugate Simultaneous determination of γ, r B, arg(r B ) (Giri, Grossman, Sofer, Zupan)

43 UT angle: γ φ 3 Option 1: Consider B D CP K (or excitations), D CP D CP+, D CP Interference between b cūs and b u cs (Gronau,London,Wyler) Rate and CP asymmetries depend on γ, as well as r B = A(b u)/a(b c) and arg(r B ) Option 2: Consider B DK, D K + π and its charge conjugated channels (allowed, suppressed) (suppressed, allowed) (Atwood, Dunietz, Soni) Rate and CP asymmetries depend on γ, r B, arg(r B ), r D, arg(r D ) r D has been measured from D decays 0.06 Option 3: Use a Dalitz plot analysis for B DK, D K S π + π,... and its charge conjugate Simultaneous determination of γ, r B, arg(r B ) (Giri, Grossman, Sofer, Zupan)

44 UT angle: γ φ 3 γ = arg( V ud Vub /V cdvcb ) arg(v ub) γ = ( ) (direct) γ = ( ) (CKM fit)

45 Lesser known angles: β s V ts = 1 2 A(1 2ρ)λ4 iηaλ 4 ( β s = arg V cbvcs ) V tb Vts Comes in B s B s mixing, not to be confused with φ s = arg( M 12 /Γ 12 ) SM: β s = ± Exp: ± (direct), (8) (fit) V us V ub + V cs V cb + V ts V tb = 0 (α s, β s, γ) α s π γ, can be extracted from B s K + K... LHCb? Super-B?

46 Lesser known angles: β s LHCb 1.0 fb 1 + CDF 9.6 fb 1 + D 8 fb 1 + ATLAS 4.9 fb 1 D LHCb HFAG PDG % CL contours ( ) 0.10 Combined 0.05 CDF SM ATLAS = 2β s The mirror image ( Γ s, π φ c cs s ) ruled out by LHCb, Γ s > 0 φ c cs s

47 BSM? What BSM? Nobody knows. Circumstantial evidence is occasionally very convincing, as when you find a trout in the milk. Arthur Conan Doyle

48 BSM? What BSM? Nobody knows. Circumstantial evidence is occasionally very convincing, as when you find a trout in the milk. Arthur Conan Doyle

49 Circumstantial evidence for BSM New physics in mixing? M 12 = M SM 12 exp(i ) 1.5σ from SM, coming from V ub

50 Circumstantial evidence for BSM Even better fit for B s Perfect fit with SM but does not include A b sl from the D0 dimuon result, 3.4σ away

51 Circumstantial evidence for BSM (A b sl ) SM = ( 2.4 ± 0.4) 10 4, (A b sl ) D0 = ( 7.87 ± 1.96) 10 3

52 Circumstantial evidence for BSM R(D ( ) ) = Br(B D( ) τν) Br(B D ( ) lν) SM : R(D) = ± 0.017, R(D ) = ± BaBar : R(D) = 0.440±0.058±0.042, R(D ) = 0.332±0.024± R(D) exp R(D) SM = (1 ± 0.173), R(D ) exp R(D ) SM = (1 ± 0.091).

53 Circumstantial evidence for BSM R(D ( ) ) = Br(B D( ) τν) Br(B D ( ) lν) SM : R(D) = ± 0.017, R(D ) = ± BaBar : R(D) = 0.440±0.058±0.042, R(D ) = 0.332±0.024± R(D) exp R(D) SM = (1 ± 0.173), R(D ) exp R(D ) SM = (1 ± 0.091).

54 Circumstantial evidence for BSM A I = Br(B0 K 0( ) µ + µ ) τ0 τ + Br(B + K +( ) µ + µ ) Br(B 0 K 0( ) µ + µ ) + τ0 τ + Br(B + K +( ) µ + µ ) A I = 0 in naive factorization ISR from spectator can contribute up to 1% unless q 2 is very small B K µµ is consistent with SM B Kµµ: 4.4σ away from zero, integrated over all q 2 [LHCb, ] A I B Kµ µ LHCb q 2 [GeV /c 4 ] A I 0.5 Theory Data 0.4 * + - B K µ µ LHCb q 2 [GeV /c 4 ]

55 Where to? CKM matrix seems to be unitary V uq 2 = ± , q V qd 2 = ± 0.005, q V cq 2 = ± q V qs 2 = ± q Also, α + β + γ = ( ) (direct), consistent with triangle New physics must be aligned Flav. structure a few TeV > a few TeV Anarchy O(1) X small ( < O(1)) Small small tiny misalignment (O(0.1)) (O( )) Alignment tiny out of reach (MFV) (O(0.01)) < O(0.01)

56 Where to? CKM matrix seems to be unitary V uq 2 = ± , q V qd 2 = ± 0.005, q V cq 2 = ± q V qs 2 = ± q Also, α + β + γ = ( ) (direct), consistent with triangle New physics must be aligned Flav. structure a few TeV > a few TeV Anarchy O(1) X small ( < O(1)) Small small tiny misalignment (O(0.1)) (O( )) Alignment tiny out of reach (MFV) (O(0.01)) < O(0.01)

57 Where to? 4th gen (constraint from S and T) V t b can still be significant (Soni et al. PRD 2010) New operator of the form (1/Λ 2 )( qγ µ P L q ) 2 is constrained from mixing: Λ > 100 TeV from B s, 10 4 TeV from K, comparable bounds from other structures If BSM is at 1 TeV, we hardly expect any drastically new source of CP violation β s consistent with SM, more from Super-B? Thank you.

58 Where to? 4th gen (constraint from S and T) V t b can still be significant (Soni et al. PRD 2010) New operator of the form (1/Λ 2 )( qγ µ P L q ) 2 is constrained from mixing: Λ > 100 TeV from B s, 10 4 TeV from K, comparable bounds from other structures If BSM is at 1 TeV, we hardly expect any drastically new source of CP violation β s consistent with SM, more from Super-B? Thank you.