1 / 38

Nouvelle physique dans le mixing des B d,s et approche frequentiste versus Bayesienne

Nouvelle physique dans le mixing des B d,s et approche frequentiste versus Bayesienne. Role of b → ccs transitions. ^. W, ?. b. b. s. +. c. ψ. u, c, t. u, c, t. c. W. B 0 s. B 0 s. B 0 s. s. Φ. s. s. s. b. W , ?. Mixing phase – sensitive to NP.

faith
Download Presentation

Nouvelle physique dans le mixing des B d,s et approche frequentiste versus Bayesienne

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Nouvelle physique dans le mixing des Bd,s et approche frequentiste versus Bayesienne

  2. Role of b→ ccs transitions ^ W, ? b b s + c ψ u, c, t u, c, t c W B0s B0s B0s s Φ s s s b W , ? Mixing phase – sensitive to NP Tree b→ccs phase ≈ 0 Time-evolution:

  3. ICHEP update

  4. Tevatron combination ICHEP update D0 observes a fluctuation consistent with CDF (see J. Ellison just after me) Combine CDF and D0 iso-CL regions previously checked for coverage: 2.2σ consistency with SM. 0.24 < βs < 0.57 OR 0.99 < βs < 1.33 at 68% CL hep.physics.indiana.edu/~rickv/hfag/combine_dGs.html

  5. New Physics in Bd,s mesons mixing CKMfitter • Assume that tree-level processes • are not affected by NP (SM4FC) • Assume that NP only affects the short • distance physics in DF=2 transisitons Model-independent parametrisation • SM parameters are fixed by : |Vub|, |Vcb|, |Vud|, |Vus|, g, γ(α)=p-b-a  Observables affected by NP in mixing : Oscillations Phases SL asymmetries Lifetime diff. Observables w/ “Tree” processes Inputs: |Vub | g p-a-b

  6. UTfit claim Arxiv:0803.0658v1[hep-ex] March, 5, 2008 Some caveats: Do not account for non-Gaussian tails. Some ‘guesswork’ to remove from D0 results the assumptions they put in. I do not believe the 3σ significance figure is rigorously derived.

  7. Visual effect of constraints Constraining the strong phases greatly increases the regularity of the Likelihood and improves the result. However, no robust theoretical prediction exist for the strong phases. Typical choice is to relate them to the B0→J/ψK*0 phases assuming SU(3) symmetry

  8. CKMFitter

  9. Clean analysis : all theoretical uncertainties are in the DGSM prediction but… … it cannot tell much more on fDsthan the direct Tevatron measurement New Physics in mixing : the Bs case CKMfitter • Direct constraint on NP phase in Bs mixing The CDF/D0 measurement of (2bs,DGs) from the time-dependent angular analysis of the BsJ/yf provides a direct constraint on fDs Using the HFAG combination of CDF and D0 likelihood : Prefered value : • Other constraints • Dms : consistent with SM expectation • ASL(Bs) : large error wrt SM prediction • tFS : weak constraint on DG • NP relation • tends to push the NP phase fDs towards SM. [Lenz,Nierste]

  10. New Physics in mixing : the Bs case CKMfitter • Constraint in the (fs,DGs) plane Inputs: Agreement with SM : hypothesisdeviation (1D) : bs= bs2.4 σ (2D) : (bs, DGs)=(bs, DGs )1.9 σ SM SM SM • Full SM+NP fit bs Warning : only 68% CL regions are shown Inputs: Dominant constraint from Dm and fs Agreement with SM : hypothesisdeviation (1D) :f= 0 2.5 σ (2D) : Δs= 12.1 σ Ds

  11. The Bd case

  12. Global CKM fit : the overall SM picture CKMfitter Summer 2008 (preliminary) all constraints together Inputs: |Vub | 95% CL interval : Nice agreement of all constraints at the 2s level The CKM mechanism IS the dominant source of CP violation in the B system

  13. Inputs: Global CKM fit : testing the CKM paradigm CKMfitter Inputs: CP-conserving observables CP-violating observables |Vub | Angles (small theor. uncertainties) Inputs: Inputs: No angles (large theo. uncertainties) |Vub |

  14. Global CKM fit : testing the CKM paradigm CKMfitter Observables involving Loops Observables w/ “Tree” processes Inputs: Inputs: |Vub | g p-a-b Assuming there is no NP in DI=3/2 b→d EW penguin amplitude. Use a with b (charmonium) to produce a new g ‘Tree’. measurements BR(Btn) Tension between sin(2b) and BR(Btn) • removing sin(2b) from the fit decreases χ²min by 2.6s • removing BR(Btn) from the fit decreases χ²min by 2.9s Either due to : - Fluctuations (of BR(Btn) and sin(2b)) - Problem with lattice predictions - Conspiration of all other input against BR(Btn) & sin(2b) - New Physics prediction Non trivial correlation in the fit

  15. New Physics in mixing : the Bd case CKMfitter s Using ‘ICHEP08 updated’ inputs (except new D0 ASL value presented yesterday morning [T. Moulik]) Inputs: Warning : only 68% CL regions are shown BR(Btn) not included Dominant constraint from b and Dmd. Both agrees with SM. Agreement with SM : hypothesisdeviation (1D) :f=00.9 σ (2D) : Δd= 10.9σ Dd The cartesian parametrization allows for a simple geometrical interpretation of each individual constraints.

  16. New Physics in mixing : the Bd case CKMfitter Including BR(Btn) Warning : only 68% CL regions are shown Inputs: Agreement with SM : hypothesisdeviation (1D) :f =01.5 σ (2D) : Δd= 12.1 σ Dd

  17. Helicity-suppressed annihilation decay sensitive to fB|Vub| BR(Btn)x104 Belle (hadronic) 1.79±0.71 [2006] Belle (semi-leptonic) 1.65±0.52 [ICHEP08] Belle 1.70±0.42 BABAR (hadronic) 1.80±1.00 [2007] BABAR (semi-leptonic) 2.00±0.61 [CKM08] BABAR 1.95±0.52 World Average 1.80 ± 0.33 : experimental inputs CKMfitter [N. Tantalo CKM2006] Inputs: Experimental measurements fBd=(fBd /fBs )xfBs =(223±15±25) MeV |Vub | The various measurements are consistent Similar deviation with Dstn

  18. Helicity-suppressed annihilation decay sensitive to fB|Vub| • Powerful together with Δmd : removes fBdependence : theoretical inputs CKMfitter [N. Tantalo CKM2006] fBd=(fBd /fBs )xfBs =(223±15±25) MeV BBd=(BBd/BBs)xBBs=1.29±0.06±0.09 Theory free prediction for BBd Inputs: Dmd deviation :2.4s g(=p-b-a) |Vud| BBd The tension is not driven by Vub (SL) nor fBd (noreK)

  19. A bit more about the tension & LQCD CKMfitter [hep-ph/0703241] Tantalo Becirevic [arXiv:0807.4605] V. Lubicz and C. Tarantino (2008) [hep-ph/0310072] Using Gaussian errors Using RFit errors

  20. Leptonic decays CKMfitter Is there a common origin ?

  21. Summary CKMfitter • Standard Model CKM fit • (preliminary) summer 2008 results • tension between sin(2b) and BR(Btn) • removing BR(Btn) decreases c²minby 2.9s 95% CL interval : • SM + New Physics fit • (preliminary) update of NP fit in Bd,s mesons mixing • 2.1s deviations from SM in Bd mixing (0.9 without Btn) • something happens with BR(Btn) • observable fluctuation ? • problem with lattice predictions ? • conspiration of all other inputs ? • new physics ? • 2.1s deviations from SM in Bs mixing • the bulk is the direct Tevatron fs measurement Agreement with SM : Hypothesis Deviation Δd= 1 2.1 σ Δs= 1 2.1 σ Δd= Δs=1 2.9 σ • Preliminary summer 2008 SM & NP fit results available on : http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr/plots_Summer2008/ Many thanks to Christian Kaufhold

More Related