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

Transcription

1 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. Schiavi, L. Silvestrini, A. Stocchi, V. Sordini, C. Tarantino and V. Vagnoni 4th Capri Workshop on Flavour Physics Capri, Italy June 11th, 2012

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-indipendent analysis provides limit on the allowed deviations from the SM NP scale analysis update 2

3 CP-conserving inputs Vcb/Vub Vub / Vcb ~Rb (tree-level) Bd-Bd and Bs-Bs mixing md ms/ md md=(0.507 ± 0.005) ps-1 ms=(17.69 ± 0.08) ps-1 world average from CDF and LHCb (HFAG) 3

4 Vcb and Vub UTfit input value: average à la PDG Laiho et al Vcb (excl) = (39.5 ± 1.0) 10-3 HFAG Vcb = (41.0 ± 1.0) 10 3 uncertainty ~ 2.4% Vcb (incl) = (41.7 ± 0.7) 10-3 ~2.6σ discrepancy UTfit input value: average à la PDG Laiho et al Vub (excl) = (3.28 ± 0.30) 10-3 UTfit from HFAG Vub (incl) = (4.40 ± 0.31) 10-3 Vub = (3.82 ± 0.56) 10 3 uncertainty ~ 15% ~1.8σ discrepancy 4

5 CP-violating inputs εk α β ε K from K-K mixing BK = ± γ sin2β from B J/ψK0 + theory α from ππ, ρρ, πρ decays: combined: (91 ± 6)º γ from B DK decays (tree level) 5

6 Latest sin2β results: BABAR Collaboration Physical Review D 79:072009, 2009 BaBar with BB pairs sin2β = ± ± Belle with BB pairs sin2β = ± ± Belle Collaboration Moriond EW 2011 UTfit input value sin2β(j/ψk0) = ± data driven theoretical uncertainty S = ± M.Ciuchini, M.Pierini, L.Silvestrini Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, (2005) 6

7 γ and DK trees rb(dk) = 0.10 ± 0.01 rb(dk*)0 = 0.26 ± 0.08 rb(d*k) = 0.10 ± 0.03 rb(dk*) = 0.12 ± 0.06 γ = (75.5 ± 10.5)o 7

8 Unitarity Triangle analysis in the SM 95% Prob ρ ρ == ±± η η == ±± ββ == (22 (22 ±± 1) 1) γγ == (70 (70 ±± 3) 3) αα == (88 (88 ±± 3) 3) 8

9 angles vs the others ρ = ± η = ± % Prob ρ = ± η = ±

10 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 postlp11 γ exp = (75.5 ± 10.5) γ UTfit = (70 ± 3) <1σ The cross has the coordinates (x,y)=(central value, error) of the direct measurement postlp11 α exp = (91 ± 6) α UTfit = (88 ± 3) <1σ 10

11 tensions ~1.5σ Vub (excl) Vub (incl) postlp11 postlp11 ~2.3σ sin2β exp = ± sin2β UTfit = ± postlp11 Vubexp = (3.86 ± 0.56) 10-3 VubUTfit = (3.61 ± 0.14) 10-3 BKexp = ± BKUTfit = ± BKnolattice = 0.85 ±

12 only exclusive values sin2β UTfit = ± only inclusive values posteps11 posteps11 ~0.8σ sin2β UTfit = ± ~2.6σ sin2β UTfit = 0.76 ± 0.10 no semileptonic ~0.9σ 12

13 inclusives vs exclusives only exclusive values only inclusive values sin2β UTfit = ± sin2β UTfit = ± ~0.8σ ~2.6σ sin2β UTfit = 0.76 ± 0.10 no semileptonic ~0.9σ 13

14 more standard model predictions: current HFAG world average BR(B τν) = (1.67 ± 0.30) 10 4 best limit from LHCb BR(Bs µµ) < LHCb [10 9] ~2.7σ indirect determinations from UT BR(Bs ll) = (3.54 ± 0.28) 10 9 BR(B τν) = (0.83 ± 0.09) 10 4 M.Bona et al [hep ph] 14

15 UTfit beyond the MFV: 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 A Bd J / K S CP K =sin 2 B AqSL=Im q12 / Aq NP d 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 q / mq =Re q12 / Aq 15

16 new physics specific constraints semileptonic asymmetry: sensitive to NP effects in both size and phase D0 Phys.Rev.D82:012003, ± 0.91 same-side dilepton charge asymmetry: admixture of Bs and Bd so sensitive to NP effects in both systems 7.9 ± 2.0 D0 arxiv: 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 φs and ΓS: 2D experimental likelihood from CDF and D0 φs and ΓS: central values with gaussian errors from LHCb 16

17 new physics specific constraints 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 φ s = 0.13 ± 0.10 φs and ΓS: central values with gaussian errors from LHCb 17

18 NP analysis results ρ ρ == ±± η η == ±± degeneracy of γ broken by ASL SM is ρ ρ == ±± η η == ±±

19 NP parameter results CεK = 0.99 ± 0.17 C mk = 0.97 ± 0.33 CBd = 0.81 ± 0.12 φbd = (-3.4 ± 3.6) dark: 68% light: 95% C mk vs Cε K X SM expectation CBd vs φ Bd CBs vs φ Bs CBs = 0.87 ± 0.09 φbs = (-7 ± 5) SM at ~1.4σ SM at ~1.3σ 19

20 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:

21 Effective BSM Hamiltonian for F=2 transitions Most general form of the effective Hamiltonian for F=2 processes The Wilson coefficients Ci have in general the form Putting Putting bounds bounds on on the the Wilson Wilson coefficients coefficients give give insights insights into into the the NP NP scale scale in in different different NP NP scenarios scenarios that that enter enter through through FFii and and LLii 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) 21

22 Contribution to the mixing amplitutes analytic expression for the contribution to the mixing amplitudes arxiv: : for magic numbers a,b and c, η = α S(Λ)/α S(mt) 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. 22

23 Testing the TeV scale The dependence of C on Λ changes on flavor structure. we can consider different flavour scenarios: Generic: C(Λ) = α/λ 2 Fi~1, arbitrary phase NMFV: C(Λ) = α FSM /Λ 2 Fi~ FSM, arbitrary phase MFV: C(Λ) = α FSM /Λ 2 F1~ FSM, Fi 1~0, SM phase α (Li) is the coupling among NP and SM α ~ 1 for strongly coupled NP α ~ α W (α S) in case of loop If no NP effect is seen lower bound on NP scale Λ coupling through weak if NP is seen (strong) interactions FSM is the combination of CKM factors for the considered process upper bound on NP scale Λ 23

24 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. pr el im To obtain the lower bound for loop-mediated contributions, one simply multiplies the bounds by αs ( 0.1) or by αw ( 0.03). in a ry Lower bounds on NP scale (in TeV at 95% prob.) 24

25 conclusions SM analysis displays good overall consistency but some tension in sin2β, Bk and B τν Extraction of SM predictions with different scenarios: still open discussion on semileptonic inclusive vs exclusive General UTA provides a precise determination of CKM parameters and NP contributions to F=2 amplitudes 25

26 backup 26

27 Lattice QCD parameters current BK = ± fbs = ± fbs/fbd = ± Bs/Bd = 1.05 ± 0.07 BBs1 = 0.87 ± 0.04 running update BK = ± fbs = ± fbs/fbd = ± Bs/Bd = 1.05 ± 0.07 BBs1 = 0.87 ±

28 more standard model determinations: Bd τν current HFAG world average BR(B τν) = (1.64 ± 0.34) 10 4 SM prediction enhanced or reduced by factor rh: indirect determination from UTb BR(B τν) = (0.79 ± 0.08) 10 4 M.Bona et al [hep ph] 28

29 more standard model determinations: Bs µµ latest CDF result: BR(Bs µµ) 9 = ( ) 10 9 indirect determination from UT BR(Bs ll) = (3.54 ± 0.29)

30 M. M. Bona Bona et et al. al. (UTfit) (UTfit) Phys.Lett.B Phys.Lett.B 687, 687, (2010) (2010) B τν Consider MFV models Define a Universal Unitarity Triangle using only observables unaffected by MFV-NP: Rb & angles Define BR as the prediction obtained assuming NO NP effect in the decay amplitude BR(B τν)exp = (1.74 ± 0.34) 10-4 BR(B τν)utfit = (0.79 ± 0.07) 10-4 ~2.7σ exp UUT R RexpUUT = 2.1 ± 0.5 where = BRexp / BRUUT to be compared with the Vub - and fb-independent theory calculation of RUUT in specific MFV models 30

31 M. M. Bona Bona et et al. al. (UTfit) (UTfit) Phys.Lett.B Phys.Lett.B 687, 687, (2010) (2010) B τν Consider Two Higgs Doublet model II bounds on tan /mh+ Two regions selected: 1. small tan /mh+: R < 1 disfavoured at ~2σ 2. fine-tuned region for tanβ/mh+ ~ 0.3: positive correction, R ~ Rexp can be obtained incompatible with semileptonic decays BR(B Dτν)/BR(B Dℓν) = (49±10)% B Xsγ gives a lower bound on mh+: mh+>295 GeV 31

32 B τν M. M. Bona Bona et et al. al. (UTfit) (UTfit) Phys.Lett.B Phys.Lett.B 687, 687, (2010) (2010) Consider Two Higgs Doublet model II bounds on tan /mh+ 32