FPCP 2007 Outlook: Experiment

1. Andrey Golutvin ITEP/Moscow FPCP 2007 Outlook: Experiment May 12-16, 2007, Bled, Slovenia

2. Search for New Physics is a main topic of this Outlook Community is eagerly waiting for start-up of the LHC where New Particles will hopefully be discovered in direct measurements. Review what is the current status of FPCP and what are perspectives to discover and study the effects of New Particles indirectly through studies flavor decays and CP violation Sorry for not covering in depth spectroscopy, in particular new states This will stay as an important topic forever… Discovery of New Particles is exciting and fun • Spectroscopy session: • Many results on ordinary mesons ( see Claudia Patrignani) • New heavy quark baryons discovered in both charm and bottom sector. Several refined measurements in charm sector (see Michal Kreps)

3. Unexpected New Particles (see Tom Browder and Frank Close) 2190 – m() = 4265 -m(J/) !!?? Y(4260)?

4. Current status of quark and lepton sectors (2 of the mixing parameters are known) 1 >> 1  2 >> 2  3 >> 1  3 1 ~ 1  2 > 2  3 > 1  3 • Quark sector • We already have a good understanding • of quark masses, mixings and CP • violation in SM • Solid basis to search for New Physics: • In CP violation • In Rare processes • Neutrino sector • Understand complete picture • of masses and mixings: • If neutrinos are Majorana particles • What are the masses • 13 mixing angle and phase (if there is a CP violation)

5. MiniBooNE Hot Topic (see Hiro Tanaka)

6. Current status of quark and lepton sectors (2 of the mixing parameters are known) 1 >> 1  2 >> 2  3 >> 1  3 1 ~ 1  2 > 2  3 > 1  3 • Quark sector • We already have a good understanding • of quark masses, mixings and CP • violation in SM • Solid basis to search for New Physics: • In CP violation • In Rare processes • Neutrino sector • Understand complete picture • of masses and mixings: • If neutrinos are Majorana particles • What are the masses • 13 mixing angle and phase (if there is a CP violation)

7. Data samples (present and near future  2012) • Reach of current experiments • BELLE & BaBar (combined 2 ab-1 ) • CDF & D0 (combined 16 fb-1 ) • CLEO-c0.75 pb-1 @ 3.77 GeV 0.75 pb-1 @ 4.17 GeV • Reach of approved experiments • LHCb 10fb-1 • BESIII 20 fb-1 @ 3.77 GeV 12 fb-1 @ 4.17 GeV

8. Search for New Physics in Mixing & CP violation

9. D0 mixing (see Alan Schwartz & Zoltan Ligeti) Consistent evidence for D0 mixing No evidence for CPV

10. D0 mixing • m(D) and (D) can be accomodated by SM • with current accuracy major contribution from NP is not excluded • Identifying NP effects is not easy due to large theor. uncertainties in SM predictions for m(D) and (D) Search for time-dependent CP asymmetries in D0 decays Approaching an interesting level !!!

11. D0 mixing & CP violation : LHCb prospects

12. UT as a standard approach to test the consistency of SM (see Heiko Lacker) Mean values of angles and sides of UT are consistent with SM predictions

13. Standard strategy to search for New Physics Define the apex of UT using at least 2 independent quantities out of 2 sides: and 3 angles: ,  and  Extract quantities Rb and  from the tree-mediated processes, that are expected to be unaffected by NP, and compare computed values for with direct measurements in the processes involving loop graphs. Interpret the difference as a signal of NP

14. Current precision of UT elements • Accuracy of sides is limited by theory: • Extraction of |Vub| for the Rb side • Lattice calculation of for the Rt side Accuracy of angles is limited by experiment: • = ±13° • b = ± 1° • = ± 25°

15. UT Sides

16. (See A.Hauke, Y.Kwon, Heiko Lacker M.Neubert, P.Ball) |Vub| / |Vcb| Looks as a systematic difference between inclusive and exclusive methods

17. Are inclusive and exclusive measurements consistent? (discussed at the discussion session) (see Matthias Neubert) • Errors of inclusive measurements are probably underestimated • Revise the errors to see how large the actual deviation • Closer interaction between exp.& theor. in HFAG  revive Vxb workshops! Some recipes: • Extract shape function from bXs spectrum • Use measurements with higher eff. to minimize uncertainty in shape function (note: high eff. measurements give lower |Vub|) > Better understanding of b  c background

18. |Vub| / |Vcb| exclusive (see Youngjoon Kwon) Present Goal: measure q2- dependence to discriminate between various formfactor models BELLE:

19. Use D  /K e  decays to calibrate LQCD (see Victor Pavlunin)

20. |Vtd| / |Vts| through Bs oscillations CDF Hot topic (see Bruno Larana Casal) ms = 17.77 ± 0.10(stat.) ± 0.07 (syst.) ps-1 0.0081 |Vtd/Vts| = 0.2060 ± 0.0007(exp.) ± (theor.) 0.0060

21. |Vtd| / |Vts| through radiative penguins agree well with that extracted for Bs mixing

22. f(D), f(Ds) from CLEO-c Hot Topic (see John Yelton & Victor Pavlunin) Calibrate LQCD for f(B) / f(Bs) predictions Ds   & ,  Ds, e BR(Ds)=(0.59±0.07±0.03)% BR(Ds,)=(8.0±1.3±0.4)% BR(Ds,e)=(6.29±0.78±0.52)%

23. f(D), f(Ds) from CLEO-c & BaBar

24. B  

25. B   BaBar Hot Topic (see Andrei Gritsan & Stefano Villa) Scaling with statistics not trivial

26. BELLE Hot Topic (see Kai-Feng Chen)

27. B   T. Iijima

28. UT Angles

29. angle  ( 1 ) from b  c c s (see Chih-hsiang Cheng) • is known to 1° precision:  = (21.3 ± 1.0)°

30. angle  ( 3 ) (see Vincent Tisserand) Interference between tree-level decays; theoretically clean Favored: VcbVus* Vcs* Vub: suppressed u s Common final state K(*)- K(*)- s u u b B- B- b c c u f D(*)0 D(*)0 u u Parameters:γ, (rB, δB) per mode • Three methods for exploiting interference (choice of D0 decay modes): • Gronau, London, Wyler (GLW): Use CP eigenstates of D(*)0 decay, e.g. D0 Ksπ0, D0  π+ π- • Atwood, Dunietz, Soni (ADS): Use doubly Cabibbo-suppressed decays, e.g. D0  K+π- • Giri, Grossman, Soffer, Zupan (GGSZ) / Belle: UseDalitz plot analysis of 3-body D0 decays, e.g.Ks π+ π- Currently most precise method 29

31. angle  ( 3 ) Dalitz analysis method A.Giri, Yu. Grossman, A. Soffer, J. Zupan, PRD 68, 054018 (2003) A.Bondar, Proceedings of the Belle Workshop, September (2002) Using 3-bodyfinalstate, identical for D0and D0: Ksπ+π-. Dalitz distribution density: (assuming СР-conservationin D0 decays) is determined fromD*– D0π–, D0 Ksπ+π– decay  model uncertainty of the result Parameters are obtained from the fit to Dalitz distributionsof DKsπ+π–fromB±DK±decays 30

32. 2γ rB angle  ( 3 ) Belle/Babar results on γ • HFAG averages for x± = rB cos( δB ± γ ) , y± = rB sin( δB ± γ ) • Belle/Babar measurements in good agreement • CKMfitter find γ = 77±31° based on B- D(*) K(*)- decays Contours do not include Dalitz model errors Contours do not include Dalitz model errors 31

33. angle  ( 3 ) Model-independent approach D0 decay amplitude: D0-D0 interference from B+ D0K+: is measured directly, is model-dependent If CP-tagged D0 are available (e.g. from ψ’’ D0D0, where tag-side D0decays into CP-eigenstate) phase difference can be measured: 32

34. angle  ( 3 ) (see Gianluca Cavoto) Model-independent approach A.Bondar, A.Poluektov Eur.Phys.J C47,347(2006) hep-ph/0510246 50 ab-1 at SuperB factory should be enough for model-independent γ/φ3 measurement with accuracy below 2° 1fb-1 at ψ(3770) corresponds 2100 CP-tagged KSp+p- events (first estimation based on CLEO-c data by David Asner) ~10 fb-1 at ψ(3770) needed to accompany SuperB measurement 33

35. angle  ( 3 ) =  -  -  (see Alexander Somov) • can be measured in B  ,  and  decays Two types of measurements: tCPV for eff BF , CP asymmetries for  - eff

36. angle  ( 3 ) =  -  -  ,  from B   decays  = 93.5 ± 12.110.0 Currently the best measurement This may however change with time; one of the isospin triangles is not closed

37.  from B   decays

38.  from B   decays The analysis of B final states helps to remove mirror solutions  = 92.0 ± 19.5 Combined result (CKMfitter): One needs the measurement of ACP (B 00 ) for further improvement

39. Comments on current sensitivity of UT approach At present the sensitivity of standard approach is limited due to: - Theoretical uncertainties in sides - Experimental uncertainties in  and  angles - Geometry of UT (UT is almost rectangular) Comparison of precisely measured  with  is not meaningful due to error propagation: 3° window in  corresponds to (245)° window in 

40. Comments on current sensitivity of UT approach Precision comparison of the angle  and side Rt is very meaningful !!! ~5% theoretical precision in Rt is adequate to a few degree experimental precision in the angle  which should be achievable in a couple of years of LHC running For some models a cancellation of short term contributions from NP may take place ! Precision measurement of  will effectively constrain Rt and thus calibrate the lattice calculation of the parameter

41. Complementary strategy Compare |VtsVtb*| and UT angles: ,  and  measured in trees, box and penguin loops (tree+box) is measured in B J/Ks (tree) can be measured in many channels (tree+box) is measured in Bs J/ Theoretical uncertainty in Vub extraction

42. Complementary strategy For |VtsVtb*| (at the moment not theoretically clean): Theoretical input: improved precision of lattice calculations for B×fB and B,,K* formfactors Experimental input: precision measurement of BR(BK*, ) For the angles: (theoretically clean) Measure (peng+tree) in B,, (peng+box) in BKs (peng+box) in Bs New heavy particles, which may contribute to d- and s- penguins, would lead to some phase shifts in all three angles: (NP) = (peng+tree) - (tree) (NP) = (BKs) - (BJ/Ks) (NP) = (Bs) - (BsJ/)

43. Complementary strategy Contribution of NP to processes mediated by loops (present status) To boxes: -  vs Rb is limited by theory (~10% precision in Rb) (d-box) -  not measured (s-box) To penguins: - ((NP)) ~ 30° (d-penguin) - ((NP)) ~8° (2.6 hint) (s-penguin) - ((NP)) not measured (s-penguin) PS (NP) =  (NP) (NP) measured in B and B decays may differ depending on penguin contribution to  and  final states

44. Current hints / inconsistencies & Constraints for New Physics

45.  from J/K0 and b  s penguins(see Jure Zupan & Chih-hsiang Cheng) More statistics is crucial for mode-by-mode studies Current B factories will not be able to solve a problem !!!

46. K decays : ratio of BR’s (see Iain Bertram, Paoti Chang) Interference of dominant and suppressed diagrams In SM: Rc ~ Rn ~ R ~ 1 The ratios are now consistent with SM RC = 1.11 ± 0.07; Rn = 0.97± 0.07

47. K decays: direct CPV asymmetries Direct CPV asymmetries in K-+ and K-0 channels differ by 4.4  • Various interpretations (unlikely to be a “puzzle”) : • factorization in SCET • Large color suppressed tree contribution • pQCD NLO (see Mike Gronau, Iain Stewart, Hsiang-nan Li)

48. fL(BK*) BaBar Hot topic (see Andrei Gritsan) (see Hsiang-nan Li)

49. Direct CPV in B0 D+D- : significant CPV observed by BELLE no signal seen by BaBar

50. b  s inclusive (see Jurgen Kroseberg, Ahmed Ali) Recent estimate of NNLO decay rate (Misiak et al.) (a monumental theoretical effort: 17 authors working for 3 years) The MSSM with MFV, large tan, Light charged Higgs and heavy squarks (Isidori & Paradisi) Constrain NP scale