CKM Fits: What the Data Say

1
CKM Fits What the Data Say

• Stéphane TJampens
• LAPP (CNRS/IN2P3 Université de Savoie)

On behalf of the CKMfitter group http//ckmfitter.
in2p3.fr
2
The CKM Matrix Four Unknowns
Measurement of Wolfenstein parameters
3
Inputs Dms
hep-ex/0603029
17 lt Dms lt 21 ps-1 _at_90 C.L.
hep-ex/0606027
4
Inputs (major changes) Vub (incl.)
Vub (incl.) 10-3 4.48 0.24 0.39 (our
average)
5
Inputs (major changes) sin 2?

• The raison dêtre of the B factories

0.710 0.034 0.019 BABAR(348m) 0.642
0.031 0.017 Belle (532m)
sin2b
0.674 0.026 (0.023 stat-only)
ICHEP 06
0.070 0.028 0.018 BABAR -0.018 0.021
0.014 Belle
C(J/yK0)
0.012 0.022 (0.017 stat-only)

• Conflict with sin2?eff from s-penguin
• modes ? (New Physics (NP)?)

0.55 0.11 0.02 BABAR(347m) 0.64 0.10
0.02 Belle (532m)
sin2b (hK0)
0.60 0.08
0.12 0.34 BABAR(347m) 0.44
0.27 0.05 Belle (386m)
NB a disagreement would falsify the SM. The
interference NP/SM amplitudes introduces hadronic
uncertainties ? Cannot determine the NP
parameters cleanly
sin2b (fK0)
0.31 0.21
NP can contribute differently among the various
s-penguin modes Meaning of the average?
6
Inputs (major changes) angle a

• Time-dependent CP observable

realistic scenario
Time-dependent CP analysis of B0 ? ?? alone
determines ?eff but, we need ? !
(? can be resolved up to an 8-fold ambiguity
within 0,?)
Isospin analysis
7
Isospin Analysis B? pp
BABAR (347m) Belle (532m) Average
S?? 0.53 0.14 0.02 0.61 0.10 0.04 0.58 0.09
C?? 0.16 0.11 0.03 0.55 0.08 0.05 0.39 0.07
agreement 2.6s
BABAR Belle
8
Isospin Analysis B? rr
BABAR (347m) Belle (275m) Average
Srr 0.19 0.21 0.08 0.41 0.09 0.13 0.19
Crr 0.07 0.15 0.06 0.0 0.3 0.09 0.06 0.14
0.05 -0.07
BABAR Belle

• Isospin analysis

9
Isospin Analysis angle aeff B? pp/rr

• Isospin analysis B?pp

• Isospin analysis B?rr

10
Isospin Analysis angle a B?pp /rp /rr
(include new rp Dalitz BABAR)

• B?rr at very large statistics, systematics and
  model-dependence will become an issue
• B??? Dalitz analysis model-dependence is an
  issue !

11
Putting it all together
t h e
g l o b a l C K M f i t
12
The global CKM fit Testing the CKM Paradigm
CP Conserving
CP Violating
CP-insensitive observables imply CP violation !
Angles (no theory)
No angles (with theory)
13
The global CKM fit Testing the CKM Paradigm
(cont.)
ICHEP 2006
Tree (NP-Free)
Loop
No NP in DI3/2 b?d EW penguin amplitude Use a
with b (charmonium) to cancel NP amplitude
CKM mechanism dominant source of CP
violation The global fit is not the whole story
several DF1 rare decays are not yet measured ?
Sensitive to NP
14
Radiative Penguin Decays BR(B?rg)/BR(B?Kg)
15
NP Parameterization in Bs system
Grossman, PL B380, 99 (1996) Dunietz, Fleischer,
Nierste, PRD 63, 114015 (2001)
Hypothesis NP in loop processes only
(negligible for tree processes) Mass difference
Dms (Dms)SM rs2 Width difference DGsCP
(DGs)SMcos2(2c-2qs) Semileptonic asymmetry
AsSL-Re(G12/M12)SM sin(2qs)/rs2 Syf
sin(2c-2qs)

• NP wrt to SM
• reduces DGs
• enhances Dms

UT of Bd system non-degenerated ? (hd,sd)
strongly correlated to the determination of
(r,h) UT of Bs system highly degenerated ?
(hs,ss) almost independent of (r,h)
Bs mixing phase very small in SM c1.050.06
(deg) ?Bs mixing very sensitive probe to NP
16
NP in Bs System
s(Dms) 0.035, s(sin(2c)0.1
Dms, DGs and AsSL
First constraint for NP in the Bs sector Still
plenty of room for NP Large theoretical
uncertainties LQCD
hs lt 3 (hd lt0.3, hK lt 0.6)
17
Prospective LHCb 2fb-1 (2010 ?)?
note expected improvement from Lattice QCD is
taken into account.
assumptions
18
Conclusion

• CKM mechanism success in describing flavor
  dynamics of many constraints from vastly
  different scales.
• With the increase of statistics, lots of
  assumptions will be needed to be reconsidered
  e.g., extraction of a from B?3p,4p, etc., PEW,
  
• Bs an independent chapter in Natures book on
  fundamental dynamics
• there is no reason why NP should have the same
  flavor structure as in the SM
• Bs transitions can be harnessed as powerful
  probes for NP (c NP model killer)
• Before claiming NP discovery, be sure that
  everything is under control
• (assumptions, theoretical uncertainties, etc.)
• There are still plenty of measurements yet to be
  done

19
Do Not Miss hep-ph/0607246 Bayesian
Statistics at Work the Troublesome Extraction
of the CKM Angle a (J. Charles, A. Höcker, H.
Lacker F.R. Le Diberder and S. TJampens)
20
BACKUP SLIDES
21
(No Transcript)
22
G. Isidori Beauty 03
23
Bayes at work
Zero events seen
P(n ?)e-??n/n!
x

?
?
?
P(0 events?) (Likelihood)
Prior uniform
Posterior P(?)

• 3 P(?) d? 0.95
• 0

Same as Frequentist limit - Happy coincidence
24
Bayes at work again
Is that uniform prior really credible?
x

?
?
?
Prior uniform in ln l
P(0 events?)
Posterior P(?)
Upper limit totally different!

• 3 P(?) d? gtgt 0.95
• 0

25
Bayes the bad news

• The prior affects the posterior. It is your
  choice. That makes the measurement subjective.
  This is BAD. (Were physicists, dammit!)
• A Uniform Prior does not get you out of this.