Diapositive 1

1
Unitarity Triangle fits
Achille Stocchi LAL-Orsay (IN2P3/CNRS)
2
RESULTS BASED ON THE WORK OF
Collaboration
http//www.utfit.org
M. Bona, M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, V. Lubicz,
G. Martinelli, F. Parodi, M. Pierini,
P. Roudeau, C. Schiavi, L. Silvestrini,
A. Stocchi, V.Vagnoni
Recent papers M. Bona et al. hep-ph/0509219
accepted in JHEP M . Bona et al.
(hep-ph/0501199) JHEP 0507 (2005) 028

3
How to fit the UT parameters and fit new physics
From M.H. Schune plenary talk EPS2005
4
Total Fit
Dmd,Dms,Vub,Vcb,ek cos2b b a g 2bg
h 0.347 0.021 0.306, 0.389 _at_ 95 Prob.
r 0.210 0.036 0.137, 0.279 _at_ 95 Prob.
5
(No Transcript)
6
Test of SM (I)
The presence of New Physics might appear as a
disagreement between the new measurements and
what the fit predicts (given by the color code).
a and g (for the moment) are OK. The next
validation will come from Dms for
the b?s sector.
SM solution only
?
SM solution only
7
Test of SM (II)
sin2b0.6870.032 From direct measurement
we have a weak sign of a disagreement
sin2b 0.7910.034 from indirect determination
8
Tension in the fit
exclusive BRs from HFAG form factor from
quenched LQCD Vub(3.800.270.47)10-3
inclusive from HFAG Vub(4.380.190.27)10-3
It can be interpreted as a problem with data,
but it could be evidence of New Physics
incl.excl. Vub (4.22 0.20) 10-3
from all the other inputs Vub (3.48 0.20)
10-3
9
Where do we really are on our knowledge of UT ?
Fit with NP independent variables
Fit in a NP model independent
approach
10
Fit with NP independent variables
If we use only Tree level processes -which can
be assumed to be NP free-
It is very important to improve Vub/Vcb from
s.l decays g from tree level proceses
r (0.18 0.12)
h (0.41 0.05)
(similar plot in Botella et al. hep-ph/0502133)
11
r , h Cd,jd CeK Cs,js
Vub/Vcb X
Dmd X X
eK X X
ACP (J/Y K) X X
a (rr,rp,pp) X X
g (DK) X
Dms X
ACP (J/Y f) X X
g (DsK) X X
5 new free parameters Cs,js Bs mixing
Cd,jd Bd mixing CeK K mixing
Constraints
Not yet available
Today fit possible with 6 contraints and
5 free
parameters (r, h, Cd,jd ,CeK)
12
Using
Vub/Vcb
Dmd
ACP (J/Y K)
g (DK)
eK
ASL
a
cos2b
large NP with arbitrary phase
NP solution 4
SM-like solution 96
SM or small NP with arbitrary phase or large NP
with SM phase.
NLO effects included
13
Fit in a NP model independent approach
fBd -(4.7 2.3)o
Ce 0.95 0.18
CBd 1.27 0.44
NP in DB2 and DS2 could be up to 50 wrt SM
only if has the same phase of the SM
14
ANP/ASM vs fNP
ANP/ASM 1 only if fNP0 ANP/ASM 0-40 _at_95
prob.
15
TWO SCENARIOS seems to be  favourite 
MFV
New CP in b?s
What to do ?
- DF1 Penguins transitions (just 1 transparency)
- Improvements existing measurements
- The Bs physics (LHCb/Tevatron)
- Rare decays (not discussed in this talk)
16
Universal UTfit
Buras et al. hep-ph/0007085
MFV CKM is the only source of flavour mixing.
eK and Dmd are not used (sensitive to NP).
?r 0.258 0.066 UUTfit
Almost as good as the SM !!
Starting point for studies of rare decays see for
instance Bobeth et al. hep-ph/0505110
17
MFV
In models with one Higgs doublet or low/moderate
tanb (DAmbrosio et al.
hep-ph/0207036) NP enters as additional
contribution in top box diagram
L0 is the equivalent SM scale
dS0 -0.03 0.54 -0.90, 1.79 _at_95
Prob.
To be compared with tested scale using for
instance b-gtsg (9-12Tev) DAmbrosio et al.
hep-ph/0207036
18
MFV
2Higgs large tanb ? also bottom Yukawa coupling
must be considered
dS0B ? dS0K
dS0B
dS0K
Could give infomation on the tanb regime not yet
at the present
Correlation coefficient 0.52
19
New physics in b?s transitions
DF1
DF2
W-
s
f
b
s
t
B0d
s
K0
d
d

g


s
b
b
s
other information
The SUSY option
if Dmsgt31(38)ps-1 new physcis
at 3(5)s
20
CKM2010
CKM Matrix in 2010-where we will be
We have supposed that - B Factories will
collect 2ab-1 - two years data taking at LHCb
(4fb-1)
Inputs

• b lt 1 from charmonium
• 7
• 5
• (half B-factories/half LHCb)

fB?BB 5 x 3 BK 5
Vub 5 Vcb 1
Dms at 0.3ps-1 (Tevatron or/and LHCb)
Lattice
sin2c 0.045
Outputs
sin(2b) 0.694 0.012
sin(2a) -0.543 0.093
g? 51.7 3.0
r 0.240 0.017
h 0.307 0.010
21
Parenthesis for Lattice people
Bands are 95 regions from angle measurements
Bands are 95 regions from sides measurements
Contours are 68/95 regions from sides
measurements
Contours are 68/95 regions from angle
measurements
An important point is that the relative
precisions on CP-violating quantities are on
phase with CP-conserving quantities
IF
fB?BB 5 x 3 BK 5
Lattice calculations at few level
22
CKM2010
In the  sad  hypotesis the SM still work in
2010.
fBd (-0.1 1.3)o
CBd 0.98 0.14
fBs (0.0 1.3)o
CBs 0.99 0.12
in 2010 same and impressive precision on b ?d
and b ?s transitions
VERY IMPORTANT
23
SM expectation
New comers soon.. ?
exp. limit
B ? tn
lt 1.8 10-4 _at_ 90 CL
BR(B ? t ?) (1.03 0.32)10-4 (0.47,1.74
_at_ 95 prob.)
Exp. likelkihood BR(B ? t ?) (0.98
0.49)10-4 0.17,2.08 _at_ 95 prob.)
fB 0.178 0.062 GeV from the expUTfitfB
0.192 0.026 0.009 GeV Lattice QCD
24
Conclusions
UTfits are in a mature age with recent precise
measurement of UT sides and angles
The SM CKM picture of CP violation and FCNC is
strongly supported by data
Generic NP in the b ? d start to be quite
constrained
fBd 0
At least in this sector, we are beyond the
alternative to CKM picture, and we should look at
 corrections .
25
(No Transcript)
26
and if SuperB..
See Report INFN-AE 05-08 and related talks at
this conference
27
BACKUP SLIDES
28
BR(B ? rg) BR(B ? Kg)
caveat
SU(3) breaking effect LQCD/mb corrections
B(cosa) to r/w g ( smaller for B0 than B)
Using the Vtd/Vts value from the SM, we can
extract DR.
Vtd/Vts 0.10 0.45 0.02,0.18 _at_ 95 Prob.
DR -0.67 0.24 -0.99, 0.10 _at_ 95
using only B ? r0g
29
D'Ambrosio, Isidori hep-ph/0112135
K ?pnn
with 3 signal events

ellipse centered in (r0, 0)
latest result from E949 BR(K ? pnn) 1.47
10-10
1.30 - 0.89
10 error with UTfit central value (BR 0.83
10-10)
10 error with current central value
30
Using
Fit in a NP model independent approach
Vub/Vcb
Dmd
ACP (J/Y K)
g (DK)
eK
g Cd cos2(bf) sin2(a-f) sin(2bf) ASL
SM-LIKE 60o 1 0.68 -0.23 0.96 OK
NP1 60o 1 -0.68 0.96 -0.23 OK
NP2 120o 0.4 0.68 -0.23 -0.96 10-2
NP3 120o 0.4 -0.68 0.96 0.23 0K
a
a
SM-like
a
a
31
CKM2010
In MFV
Now
? 0.54
2010
? 0.26