Heiko Lacker (TU Dresden) FPCP07, Bled

Transcription

1 CKM matri fits including Constraints on New Physics Heiko Lacker (TU Dresden) FPCP07, Bled

2 Cabibbo K abibbo Kobayashi M obayashi Maskawa Matri V ud V us V ub A 3 i 1 / 4 V CKM = V cd V cs V cb O 1 / A V td V ts V tb A 3 1 i A Wolfenstein approimation Eact and unitary to all orders in λ: s 3 A s 1 i s 13 e Buras, Lautenbacher & Ostermaier PRD 50, 3433 (1994) 3 A i 1 A i i = Eact and unitary to all orders in λ and phase convention independent: = V V us V us ud A = V 1 [1 A i ] * V cb ud V us i = 4 V ud V ub * V cd V cb 4 CKMfitter group EPJ C41, (005) PDG 006

3 CKM fits with New Physics in Neutral Meson Miing In a large class of NP Models mainly contributions to B miing, e.g.: Fleischer, Isidori & Matias, JHEP 0305, 053 (003) Model independent parametrizations i q rqe = 0 NP 0 B M B q 1 q B 0 q M 1 B 0 q q=d, s : r q=1, q =0 1 hq e i q B M =1 B M 0 q NP 1 0 q 1 B0q B 0 q q=d, s : h q=0, q=0 e.g Soares & Wolfenstein, PRD 47, 101 (1993) Deshpande, Dutta & Oh, PRL77, 4499 (1996) Silva & Wolfenstein, PRD 55, 5331 (1997) Cohen et al., PRL78, 300 (1997) Grossman, Nir & Worah, PLB 407, 307 (1997) e.g. Goto et al., PRD 53, 666 (1996) Agashe et al., hep ph/ Assumption 1: 1 = 1 NP contributions only in dispersive part (Short Distance physics) not in absorptive part (Long Distance physics) Assumption : 33 unitary CKM matri

4 CKM fits with New Physics in Neutral Meson Miing What about NP in decay? Decays with four flavour change (4FC: b q 1 q q 3, q 1 q q 3 ) are dominated by Standard Model contribution (e.g. CKMfitter group, EPJC 41, 1 (005); Goto et al., PRD 53, 666 (1996)) Observables which are not affected by NP then: V ud, V us, V ub, V cb, Observables which are affected by NP in miing: * Miing frequency r q mq * CP violation in Miing A SL r q, q * CP violation in the interference between decay with and w/o miing sin d cos d q = d sin d * Lifetime differences e.g. CP q '= q cos q

5 Some recent analyses with NP in Neutral Meson Miing Reference 0 0d K 0 K B0d B B0s B0s * Laplace et al., PRD65, (00) ASL constraint studied for the first time * CKMfitter group, EPJC 41, 1 (005) First complete B factory analysis; real CKM ecluded * Agashe et al. hep ph/ Net to Minimal Flavour Violation * UTfit collaboration JHEP 0603, 080 (006) Combined K and B miing; Minimal Flavour Violation * Blanke et al., JHEP 0610, 003 (006) () Minimal Flavour Violation * Ball & Fleischer, EPJ C48, 413 (006) Focus: m d,s ; NP from Z' and MS in mass insertion appro. * Ligeti, Papucci & Perez, PRL 97, (006) () Impact of m s & s & AqSL ; NMFV * Grossman, Nir & Raz, PRL 97, (006) Impact of m & & A * UTfit collaboration PRL 97, (006) Combined analysis of the three Neutral Meson systems d,s s s SL

6 Inputs I Vud, Vus and Vcb Super allowed decays: V ud = ± CKM05, hep ph/ V us =0.40± } Moriond07, M. Jamin using: K l : V us =0.44± K / : V us =0.6 decays: V us =0.5± Hyperon decays : V us =0.6± B X c l : V cb = ± Buchmüller & Flächer, PRD73, (006)) V cb = B X c l (average): A V cb =0.0416± Deviation from unitarity:. Error dominated by a recent preliminary LQCD calculation (UKQCD/RBC, hep lat/07006: 0.961±0.005) B D l : * HFAG06 & LQCD, (Hashimoto et al. PRD66, (00))

7 Inputs II(a) Vub B X u l : V ub = 4.5±0.19± V ub = 4.5±0.3± HFAG06, BLNP Add linearily theory errors that are not well under control HFAG06, BLNP B l : V ub = 3.60±0.10± 'Average': V ub = 4.09±0.09± Average using HFAG06 numbers for different FF calculations 3 prediction from CKM fit All errors Gaussian :.6 σ Scan a part of theory errors: 1.85 σ A Retaining the smallest theoretical uncertainty Vub 3

8 Inputs II(b) Vub UTfit: 3 V = 4.49± B X u l : ub B l : V ub = 3.50± 'Weighted mean would give': 'If PDG error rescaling': HFAG06, BLNP Treat all errors Gaussian Average using HFAG06 numbers for different FF calculations Treat all errors Gaussian V ub = 4.09± V = 4.09± ub

9 Inputs III sinβ/cosβ B c c K 0 * (HFAG06): sin d = 0.678±0.05 * b c c s dominated by V cs V cb tree amplitude gluonic penguin OZI suppressed, Z penguin small (Atwood & Hiller, hep ph/030751) miing negligible thanks to K constraint Miing phase from K K cos(β+θd)<0 ecluded at (no average provided by HFAG): BABAR (106 BB) Decay B J / K * Belle (106 BB) CL (88) Not quoted (75) PRD 71, (005) PRL 95, (005) Model dependence eliminated in BABAR 0 h0 B D0 / CL (311) hep CL (386) PRL 97, (006) Dalitz Analysis (*) B D* D* K CL (30) Not measured model dependent (**) hep e/ (*) Bondar, Gershon & Krokovny, PLB 64, 1 (005) (**) Charles et al., PLB45, 375 (1998); 433, 441 (1998) (E); Browder et al., PRD 61, (000)

10 Inputs IV B Miing Observables: m q=m H M L M 1 =r q m q [ q = L H m q SL A =ℑ 1 M 1 = ℜ q 1 ℜ M 1 sin q 1 M 1 1 cos q ℑ M 1 r q ℑ sin q 1 cos q M 1 rq ] NLO calculations: * Beneke et al., PLB576, 173 (003) * Ciuchini et al., JHEP 0308, 031 (003) * Lenz & Nierste, hep ph/ m t mt = 163.8±.0 GeV B =0.551±0.007 Nierste, Beauty006 Buchalla, Buras and Lautenbacher, RMP 68, 115 (1996) f B = 68±17±0 MeV s fb s fb Bs =1.0±0.0±0.05 d B s=1.9±0.05±0.08 Bd =1.00±0.0 * N.~Tantalo, CKM workshop 006 ``Lattice calculations for B and K miing,'' hep ph/ ecept for (*)

11 Inputs IV B miing m d = 0.507±0.005 ps 1 (PDG07: dominated by BABAR & Belle) d A SL = ± (BABAR, Belle, CLEO, BABAR q/p ) prediction: A = Lenz & Nierste d =0.009±0.037 d 10 4 (HFAG06: BABAR, DELPHI; currently no impact on New Physics fits) 1 m s= 17.77±0.1 ps d SL CDF, PRL 97, 4003 (006) 1 s cos s = 0.1±0.08 ps s D0, hep e/ A SL =0.045± D0, hep e/ A SL = 0.008±0.0013± D0, PRD74, (006) d s = 0.58±0.030 ASL 0.418±0.047 ASL prediction

12 Inputs V K miing K =.84± (PDG 04) due to 5.5% reduction of BF(KL >π+π ) (KTeV, KLOE, NA48) K =.3± (PDG 06) B K =0.78±0.0±0.09 N.~Tantalo, CKM workshop 006, hep ph/ tt =0.5765± ct =0.47±0.04 Herrlich & Nierste,NPB 419, 9 (1994) cc m c m c, s Nierste, CKM workshop 001 m c m c = 1.4±0.037±0.095 GeV Buchmüller & Flächer, PRD 73, (006)

13 Input VI γ from B >D(*)K(*) (GLW+ADS+Dalitz) = 77±31 o See review talk on γ by Vincent Tisserand = 8±0 o

14 Input VII α from B > ππ,ρρ (Isospin analysis) * Isospin analysis Gronau & London, PRL65, 3381 (1990) * Gluonic penguins only contribute to I=1/ Etraction insensitive to NP in I=1/ (ecept for α=0) * Assuming no NP in I=3/: = d α etraction in SU() analysis within Bayesian approach not reparametrization invariant: J. Charles et al., hep ph/ UTfit, hep ph/ J. Charles et al., hep ph/

15 Input VII α from B > ππ Isospin Triangles A+ A00 + A A Why are there only 4 solutions visible for the current α analysis? 00 A+0+0 A C + 15

16 Input VII α from B > ρπ (Dalitz analysis) Snyder & Quinn, PRD48, 139 (1993) BABAR, hep e/ ( BB) Dalitz analysis BABAR, hep e/ ( BB) Belle, hep e/ ( BB) Cov(U,I) taken into account (crucial!) Belle, hep e/ ( BB) Dalitz & Isospin analysis BABAR, hep e/ ( BB) Belle, hep e/ ( BB) Cov(U,I) not taken into account

17 Input VII α from B > ππ, ρρ, ρπ (Combination) pred +.9 =

18 fit: Results CKMfitter (95%CL) UTfit (95% prob) fit = A fit = fit =[0.108, 0.43] fit =[0.107, 0.] fit =[0.88, 0.375] fit =[0.307, 0.373] J fit = Note: inputs not identical CKMfitter or CKMfitter (95%CL) V ub ecl = 3.60±0.10± V ubincl = 4.5±0.3± V ubincl = 4.5±0.19± V ubinp = 4.09±0.09± V ub pred = meas = meas =[78.5, 13.8 ] meas=[6.4,19.5 ] pred =[85.4, ] pred=[50.5, 7.9 ] pred = fit =[50.7, 73.1 ] = fit =[84.8, ] fit

19 B τν m G F m B 4 BF B = m 1 f B V ub B = %CL mb f B = 3±15±6 MeV fit V CKM = ub BF B = m BF B = m f B = 191±6±10 MeV BF B = ± m, hot topic talk by A. Gritsan BF B = m f B = 3±15±6 MeV 4

20 New Physics in K miing M K = K M 0 r K e i K NP K0 K 0 =1 h K e i K The only useful constraint comes from εk Only refers to modification of top contribution! Agashe et al., hep ph/ Agashe et al., hep ph/ UTfit collaboration, JHEP 0603, 080 (006) ep K =C K K NP H 1 ℑ K K0 0 C = K 0 0 H ℑ K 1 K

21 New Physics in Miing: Results cos d = d A dsl r d, d A SL r d, d, r s, s A ssl r s, s V ud, V us, V cb, V ub s cos s m s rs md rd sin d Laplace et al., PRD65, (00) CKMfitter group, EPJC 41, 1 (005) Without d A SL r d, d A SL r d, d, r s, s 1

22 New Physics in Miing: Results fb d m d V ts m B 1 r d=r s ms V td m B Bd d V ub sin d = d s cos s meas s s s A SL r s, s Minimal Flavour Violation d r =r, s d= s=0 A SL r d, d, r s, s d A SL r d, d m s r s V ts f B B s r s s See e.g.: Agashe et al., hep ph/ Ligeti, Papucci & Perez PRL 97, (006) Net to Minimal Flavor Violation: hd, hs, h K =O 1 still a possible scenario

23 SUMMARY * α etraction showed significant changes in the last two years New α average leads to significant change in the CKM fit * fit shows no significant deviation from CKM picture Deviation from unitarity due to Vub(pred) Vub(input) hard to quantify * Enormous reduction of NP parameters space in Bd miing due to B factories Interplay between B factories and Hadron colliders in ASL * (Net to )minimal flavour violation scenario (still) possible Constraints at 95% CL fit V cdpred=0.55± pred V ubfit= fit V ud= ± V us =0.57± V cspred= ± pred V cbfit=0.0417± pred V td = V ts =0.0409± V tb = fit = fit =[0.108, 0.43] fit =[0.88, 0.375] J fit = fit = 1= A fit = A few predictions (95% CL): pred m d = ps 1 1 m spred = ps 0.01 spred = pred K = fit = =[84.8, ] fit = 3=[50.7, 73.1 ] Unitarity condition in 1st family with the above mentionned caveat: V us, meas=0.40± V us, pred =0.75±

24 APPENDIX 4

25 fit: Results CP conserving No Angles with theory tree CP Violating Angles without theory loop

26 Inputs: CP violation in B0 B0 miing q/ p d A SL = =ℑ 4 M 1 1 q/ p b B 0 d u c t W+ W u c t : d +1.0 A SL = Lenz, Nierste, hep ph/ See also: Ciuchini et al., JHEP 0308, 031 (003) Beneke, Buchalla, Lenz, Nierste, PLB576, 173 (003) d b B0 Ep. ASLd ± stat ± sys Method Reference CLEO had & dilept. PRL 71, 1680 (1993); PLB490, 36 (000) PRL 86, 5000 (001) BABAR dileptons PRL 96, 5180 (006) 3*106 BB BABAR part. D*lν hep e/ *106 BB BABAR had fully rec PRL 9, (004) Belle dileptons PRD 73, 1100 (006) 86*106 BB ± (CL=0.31) ( q/p =1.00 ± )

27 α etraction * Bayesian credibility intervals depend on the parametrization * Bayesian Credibility intervals and Frequentist CL intervals are different * They become more similar but not identical with increasing probability * They become more similar but not identical with increasing probability J. Charles et al., hep ph/ B Parametr. 68% 95% MA [0 4] U [ ] [0 9] U [86 110] U [ ] RI [0 ] U [ ] [0 9] U [ ] PLD [0 4] U [88 108] U [ ] [0 13] U [80 117] U [ ] ES [0 4] U [88 108] U [ ] [0 13] U [77 117] U [ ] Frequ. [0 4] U [87 107] U [ ] [0 13] U [78 116] U [ ] => Clear prior dependence even for 95% credibility intervals 7