250 likes | 482 Views
Theory of Direct CP Violation in D hh. Hai-Yang Cheng ( 鄭海揚 ) Academia Sinica, Taipei Diagrammatical approach SU(3) breaking CP violation at tree and loop levels. 2012 年兩岸粒子物理與宇宙學研討會. Chongqing, May 8, 2012. Stratage in search of NP.
E N D
Theory of Direct CP Violation in D hh • Hai-Yang Cheng (鄭海揚) • Academia Sinica, Taipei • Diagrammatical approach • SU(3) breaking • CP violation at tree and loop levels 2012年兩岸粒子物理與宇宙學研討會 Chongqing, May 8, 2012
Stratage in search of NP • Null results in SM: ideal place to look for new physics in BSM • Bs +- • s : CP-odd phase in Bs system • CP violation in B--0 • Lepton number violation ( decay) • CP violation in charmed meson: D0-D0 mixing, DCPV • … • 2. Take a cue form the current anomalies: • B • sin2 • s • B-CP puzzles, especially AK • like-sign dimuon asymmetry • forward-backward asymmetry in B0 K*0+- • polarization puzzle • … 2
Experiment Time-dependent CP asymmetry Time-integrated asymmetry • LHCb: (11/14/2011) 0.92 fb-1based on 60% of 2011 data • ACP ACP(K+K-) - ACP(+-) = - (0.820.210.11)% • 3.5 effect: first evidence of CPV in charm sector CDF: (11/21/2011) 5.9 fb-1 ACP(K+K-)= - (0.240.220.09)%, ACP(+-) = (0.220.240.11)% ACP = - (0.460.310.11)% CDF: (2/29/2012) 9.7 fb-1 ACP= Araw(K+K-) - Araw(+-)= - (2.330.14)% - (-1.710.15)% = - (0.620.210.10)% will measure ACP(K+K-) & ACP(+-) separately
New world averages of LHCb + CDF + BaBar + Belle aCPdir = -(0.6560.154)%, 4.3 effect aCPind = -(0.0250.235)% • Before claiming new physics effects, • it is important to have a reliable SM • estimate of ACP • Can we have reliable estimate of strong • phases and hadronic matrix elements ? • Can the LHCb result be accommodated • in SM ? • Given the expt’l results, can one • predict DCPV in other modes ? 4
Vud Cabibbo favored Vcs D Vud Vus singly Cabibbo-suppressed Vcd Vcs Vus Vcd doubly Cabibbo-suppressed
Why singly Cabibbo-suppressed decays ? In SM, CPV is expected to be very small in charm sector Consider DCPV in singly Cabibbo-suppressed decays Amp = V*cdVud (tree + penguin) + V*csVcs (tree’ + penguin) Penguin is needed in order to produce DCPV at tree & loop level : strong phase DCPV is expected to be the order of 10-3 10-4 Common folklore: CPV is at most 10-3 in SM; 10-2 is a “smoking gun” signature of NP
Isidori, Kamenik, Ligeti, Perez [1111.4987] (11/21/2011) Brod, Kagan, Zupan [1111.5000] (11/21/2011) Wang, Zhu [1111.5196] (11/22/2011) Rozanov, Vysotsky [1111.6949] Hochberg, Nir [1112.5268] Pirtskhalava, Uttayarat [1112.5451] Cheng, Chiang [1201.0785] Bhattacharya, Gronau, Rosner [1201.2351] Chang, Du, Liu, Lu, Yang [1201.2565] Giudice, Isidori, Paradisi [1201.6204] Altmannshofer, Primulando, C. Yu, F. Yu [1202.2866] Chen, Geng, Wang [1202.3300] Feldmann, Nandi, Soni [1202.3795] Li, Lu, Yu [1203.3120] Franco, Mishima, Silvestrini [1203.3131] Brod, Grossman, Kagan, Zupan [1203.6659] Hiller, Hochberg, Nir [1204.1046] Grossman, Kagan, Zupan [1204.3557] Cheng, Chiang [1205.0580] Forthcoming papers: Hiller, Jung, Schacht Delaunay, Kamenik, Perez, Randall … 7
Theoretical framework • Effective Hamiltonian approach pQCD: Li, Tseng (’97); Du, Y. Li, C.D. Lu (’05) QCDF: Du, H. Gong, J.F. Sun (’01) X.Y. Wu, X.G. Yin, D.B. Chen, Y.Q. Guo, Y. Zeng (’04) J.H. Lai, K.C. Yang (’05); D.N. Gao (’06) Grossman, Kagan, Nir (’07) X.Y. Wu, B.Z. Zhang, H.B. Li, X.J. Liu, B. Liu, J.W. Li, Y.Q. Gao (’09) However, it doesn’t make much sense to apply pQCD & QCDF to charm decays due to huge 1/mc power corrections QCD sum rules: Blok, Shifman (’87); Khodjamirian, Ruckl; Halperin (’95) • Lattice QCD: ultimate tool but a formidable task now • Model-independent diagrammatical approach
Diagrammatic Approach All two-body hadronic decays of heavy mesons can be expressed in terms of several distinct topological diagrams [Chau (’80); Chau, HYC(’86)] T (tree) A (W-annihilation) E (W-exchange) C (color-suppressed) HYC, Oh (’11) PA, PAEW PE, PEEW P, PcEW S, PEW All quark graphs are topological and meant to have all strong interactions encoded and hence they are not Feynman graphs. And SU(3) flavor symmetry is assumed. 9
Cabibbo-allowed decays For Cabibbo-allowed D→PP decays (in units of 10-6 GeV) T= 3.14 ± 0.06 (taken to be real) C = (2.61 ± 0.08) exp[i(-152±1)o] E= (1.53+0.07-0.08) exp[i(122±2)o] A= (0.39+0.13-0.09) exp[i(31+20-33)o] CLEO (’10) 2=0.39/d.o.f Rosner (’99) Wu, Zhong, Zhou (’04) Bhattacharya, Rosner (’08,’10) HYC, Chiang (’10) • Phase between C & T ~ 150o • W-exchange Eis sizable with a large phase importance of power corrections 1/mc • W-annihilation A is smaller than Eand almost perpendicular to E E C A T The great merit & strong point of this approach magnitude and strong phase of each topological amplitude are determined 10
1/mc power corrections Sizable 1/mc power corrections are expected in D decays • Color-suppressed amplitude a2= (0.820.02)exp[-i(1521)o] Naïve factorization a2 = c2 + c1/Nc -0.11 • Short-distance (SD) weak annihilation is helicity suppressed. Sizable • long-distance (LD) W-exchange can be induced via FSI’s FSIs: elastic or inelastic : quark exchange, resonance A E 11
SCS DCS 12 12
SU(3) flavor symmetry breaking A long standing puzzle: R=(D0 K+K-)/(D0+-) 2.8 p=V*cpVup Three possible scenarios for seemingly large SU(3) violation: • Large P • (i) If SU(3) symmetry for T & E, a fit to data yields P=1.54 exp(-i202o) • (ii) If (T+E)=(T+E)(1+T/2), (T+E)KK=(T+E)(1-T/2) • with |T| (0, 0.3) |P/T| 0.5 Brod, Grossman, Kagan, Zupan Need large P contributing constructively to K+K- & destructively to +- 13 13
Nominal SU(3) breaking in T plus a small P R=1.6 TKK/T=1.32 P=0.49 exp(-i129o) |P/T| 0.15 Assuming EKK=E Bhattacharya et al. obtained • Nominal SU(3) breaking in both T & E; P negligible SU(3) symmetry must be broken in amplitudes E & PA A(D0 K0K0)=d(Ed + 2PAd) + s(Es+ 2PAs) almost vanishes in SU(3) limit Neglecting P, Ed & Es fixed from D0 K+K-, +-, 00, K0K0 to be Accumulation of several small SU(3) breaking effects leads to apparently large SU(3) violation seen in K+K- and +- modes
Tree-level direct CP violation DCPV can occur even at tree level A(Ds+ K0+) =d(T + Pd+ PEd) + s(A + Ps+ PEs), p=V*cpVup DCPV in Ds+ K0+ arises from interference between T & A 10-4 DCPV at tree level can be reliably estimated in diagrammatic approach as magnitude & phase of tree amplitudes can be extracted from data Large DCPV at tree level occurs in decay modes with interference between T & C (e.g. Ds+K+) or C & E (e.g. D00) 16
Tree-level DCPV aCP(tree) in units of per mille CC: Chiang, HYC LLY: Li, Lu, Yu 10-3 > adir(tree) > 10-4 • Largest tree-level DCPV PP: D0K0K0, VP: D0’ • Signs of aCP(tree) obtained by LLY are opposite to ours E (CC) T Es Eq (LLY)
Penguin-induced CP violation DCPV in D0+-, K+K- arises from interference between tree and penguin In SU(3) limit, aCPdir(+-) = -aCPdir(K+K-) Apply QCD factorization to estimate QCD-penguin amplitude to NLO a(t+p)(+-) - 410-5, a(t+p)(K+K-) 210-5, DCPV from QCD penguin is small for D0 K+K- & +- due to almost trivial strong phase ~ 170o
How about power corrections to QCD penguin ? SD weak penguin annihilation is very small; typically, PE / T 0.04 and PA / T -0.02 Large LD contribution to PE can arise from D0 K+K- followed by a resonantlike final-state rescattering It is reasonable to assume PE ~ E, PEP ~ EP, PEV ~ EV • Two other approaches for PE: • PE=(c3/c1)E+ GF/2(ifDfM1fM2)[c3A3i +(c5+Ncc6)A3f] • A3f -2<P1P2|(uq)S+P|0><0|(qc)S-P|D> • Apply large-Nc argument to get • PE ~ (2Ncc6/c1) E Li, Lu, Yu Brod, Kagan, Zupan valid only for SD contributions !
aCPdir (10-3) aCPdir= -0.1390.004% (I) -0.1510.004% (II) about 3.3 away from -(0.6560.154)% A similar result aCPdir=-0.128% obtained by Li, Lu, Yu Even for PE T aCPdir = -0.27%, an upper bound in SM, still 2 away from data 20
Attempts for SM interpretation Golden, Grinstein (’89): hadronic matrix elements enhanced as in I=1/2 rule. However, D data do not show I=1/2 enhancement over I=3/2 one Brod, Kagan, Zupan: PE and PA amplitudes considered Pirtskhalava, Uttayarat : SU(3) breaking with hadronic m.e. enhanced Bhattacharya, Gronau, Rosner : Pb enhanced by unforeseen QCD effects Feldmann, Nandi, Soni : U-spin breaking with hadronic m.e. enhanced Brod, Grossman, Kagan, Zupan: penguin enhanced Franco, Mishima, Silvestrini: marginally accommodated
New Physics interpretation Before LHCb: Grossman, Kagan, Nir (’07) Bigi, Paul, Recksiegel (’11) After LHCb : • Model-independent analysis of NP effects Isidori, Kamenik, Ligeti, Perez • Tree level (applied to some of SCS modes) • FCNC Z • FCNC Z’ (a leptophobic massive gauge boson) • 2 Higgs-doublet model: charged Higgs • Color-singlet scalar • Color-sextet scalar (diquark scalar) • Color-octet scalar • 4th generation Giudice, Isidori, Paradisi; Altmannshofer, Primulando, C. Yu, F. Yu Wang, Zhu; Altmannshofer, Primulando, C. Yu, F. Yu Altmannshofer et al. Hochberg, Nir Altmannshofer et al; Chen, Geng, Wang Altmannshofer et al. Rozanov, Vysotsky; Feldmann, Nandi, Soni
NP models are highly constrained from D-D mixing, K-K mixing, ’/,… Tree-level models are either ruled out or in tension with other experiments. Loop level (applied to all SCS modes) Large C=1 chromomagnetic operator with large imaginary coefficient is least constrained by low-energy data and can accommodate large ACP.<PP|O8g|D> is enhanced by O(v/mc). However, D0-D0 mixing induced by O8g is suppressed by O(mc2/v2). Need NP to enhance c8g by O(v/mc) Giudice, Isidori, Paradisi • It can be realized in SUSY models • gluino-squark loops • new sources of flavor violation from disoriented A terms, split families • trilinear scalar coupling Grossman, Kagan, Nir Giudice, Isidori, Paradisi Hiller, Hochberg, Nir
Consider two scenarios in which aCPdir is accommodated: (i) large penguin with ½P ~3T (ii) large chromomagnetic dipole operator with c8g =0.012exp(i14o) Bhattacharya, Gronau, Rosner Brod, Grossman, Kagan, Zupan Giudice, Isiori, Paradisi, Altamannshofer et al. Large c.d.o. predicts large CP asymmetry for 00, but small ones for D00’, D++’, K+K0, Ds++K0; other way around in large penguin scenario. 24
Conclusions • The diagrammatical approach is very useful for analyzing hadronic D decays • DCPV in charm decays is studied in the diagrammatic approach. Our prediction is aCPdir= -(0.1390.004)% & -(0.1510.004)% • New physics models are highly constrained by D0-D0 mixing, ’/, … Chromomagnetic dipole operator is least constrained by experiment.