Flavor, Charm, CP Related Physics

PASCOS, Taipei

November 22, 2013

Hai-Yang Cheng

Academia Sinica, Taipei

2

Outline:

Quark and lepton mixing matrices

Baryonic B decays

Direct CP violation in D decays

Direct CP violation in B decays

See the talk of Rodrigues (11/21)

3

Quark & lepton mixing matrices

44

CP Violation in Standard Model

tbtstd

cbcscd

ubusud

CKM

VVV

VVV

VVV

V

VCKM is the only source of CPV in flavor-changing process in the SM. Only charged current interactions can change flavor

323213223121

233213232112

31131

ii

iiKM

eccsscescsccss

escsccesscccsc

ssscc

Vii

ii

s

c

sin

cos

Kobayashi & Maskawa (’72) pointed out that one needs at least six quarks in order to accommodate CPV in SM with one Higgs doublet

Physics is independent of a particular parameterization of CKM matrix, but VKM has some disadvantages :

Determination of 2 & 3 is not very accurate

Some elements have comparable real & imaginary parts

1>>>> >>

5

132313231223121323122312

132313231223121323122312

1313121312

ccscsescsccess

ecsesssccessccs

scscc

Vii

iiiMaiani

Maiani (’77)

advocated by PDG (’86) as a standard parametrization.

However, the coefficient of the imaginary part of Vcb and Vts is O(10-2) rather than O(10-3) as s23 10-2

In 1984 Ling-Lie Chau and Wai-Yee Keung proposed a new parametrization

132313231223121323122312

132313231223121323122312

1313121312

ccescsscesccss

csesssccessccs

escscc

VVii

ii

i

CKMCK

The same as VMaiani except for the phases of t & b quarks. The imaginary part is O(10-3). This new CKM (Chau-Keung-Maiani) matrix is adapted by PDG as a standard parametrization since 1988.

1>>>> >>

s13 ~ 10-3

6

Some simplified parametrizations

1 04.0 008.0

04.0 1 2.0

003.0 2.0 1

1)1(

2/1

)(2/1

23

22

32

AiA

A

iA

VWolf

Wolfenstein (’83) used Vcb=0.04 A2, 0.22

Mixing matrix is expressed in terms of , A ~ 0.8, and Imaginary part = A3 10-3. However, this matrix is valid only up to 3

6

Motivated by the boomerang approach of Frampton & He (’10), Qin & Ma have proposed a different parametrization (’10)

1)(

)(2/1

2/1

23

22

32

QM

QM

QM

i

i

i

QM

heff

hef

eh

V

Wolfenstein parameters A, , QM parameters f, h,

7

Wolfenstein parametrization up to

Wolfenstein parametrization can also be obtained from KM matrix by making rotations: s s ei, c c ei, b b ei(, t t e-i( and replacing A, , by A’, ’ , ’ and ’

The original Wolfenstein parametrization is not adequate for the study of CP violation in charm decays, for example. Hence it should be expanded to higher order of

888

Look quite differently from those of V(CK)Wolf

99

Buras et al. (’94): As in any perturbative expansion, high order terms in are not unique in the Wolfenstein parametrization, though the nonuniquess of the high order terms does not change physics

Now |Vub| ~ 0.00351, |Vcb| ~ 0.0412 |Vub| ~ |Vcb|~ A

'/''~ ,'/''~ ,/~ ,/~

1)1(

2/1

)(2/1

23

22

32

AiA

A

iA

VVV

VVV

VVV

V

tbtstd

cbcscd

ubusud

Wolf

Wolfenstein (’83) used |Vub| ~ 0.2 |Vcb| ~ A

~ 0.129, ~ 0.348 not order of unity !

We define & of order unity~ ~

1010

Most of the discrepancies are resolved via the definition of the parameters , of order unity

Remaining discrepancies can be alleviated through1.Vus = = ’2.from Vcb 3.from Vub

arXiv:1106.0935

Ahn, HYC, Oh

11

Lepton mixing matrix

)1,,(

21

132313231223121323122312

132313231223121323122312

1313121312

321

321

321

ii

ii

ii

ieee

PMNS

eediagP

P

ccescsscesccss

csesssccessccs

escscc

VVV

VVV

VVV

V

= solar mixing angle, = atmospheric mixing angle, = reactor mixing angle

Pontecorvo, Maki,Nakagawa, Sakata

131223132313231223131312

1223231212

131223132313122313231312

ssseccscsescsc

csccs

cssesccscesscc

ii

ii

A different parametrization has been studied:

Huang et al.1108.3906; 1111.3175

~ 19o, ~ 46o, ~ 29o are quite different from ~ 34o, ~ 38o, ~ 9o

12

0.8 0.5 0.3

0.6 0.7 0.4

0.2 0.6 8.0

~

1 0.04 0.009

0.04 1 0.2

0.004 0.2 1

~

PMNS

CKM

U

Vquark:

lepton: ~ 34o, ~ 38o, ~ 9o

~ 13o, ~ 2.4o, ~ 0.2o

1>>>> >>

13

Baryonic B Decays

B baryon + antibaryon B baryon + antibaryon + meson B baryon + antibaryon +

14

A baryon pair is allowed in the final state of

hadronic B decays.

In charm decay, Ds+→pn is the only allowed

baryonic D decay. Its BR ~ 10-3 (CLEO)

1515

2-body charmless baryonic B decays

BelleBaBar

Belle

CLEO

ARGUS

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

1E-7

1E-6

1E-5

1E-4

1E-3

BR

(B->

pp)

year

CLEO

CLEO

Belle

ALEPH

DLPHI

CLEO

Very rare !

16

CZ=Chernyak & Zhitnitsky (’90), CY= Cheng & Yang (’02)

CY

What is the theory expectation of Br(B0 pp) ?

17Talk presented at 7th Particle Physics Phenomenology Workshop, 2007

18

Br(B0 pp)= (1.47+0.62+0.35-0.51-0.14)10-8

Br(Bs0 pp)= (2.84+2.03+0.85

-1.08-0.18)10-8

LHCb (1308.0961)

3.3

The pQCD calculation of B0 pp is similar to the pQCD calculation of B→cp (46 Feynman diagrams) by X.G.He, T.Li, X.Q.Li, Y.M.Wang (’06)

LHCb (1307.6165) observed a resonance (1520) in B- ppK- decays

Br(B- (1520)p)= (3.9+1.0-0.90.10.3)10-7 (1520) pK-

Why is Br(B- (1520)p) >> Br(B0 pp) ?

first evidence

see the talk of Prisciandaro (22C1b)

1919

Angular distribution

Measurement of angular distributions in dibaryon rest frame will provide further insight of the underlying dynamics

SD picture predict a stronger correlation of the meson with the antibaryon than to the baryon in B→B1B2M

B-→pp-

b u

-

p

pB-

-u

B rest frame

p-

p

p

-

p

pp vv

p-

p

p

pp rest frame

Belle(’08) (’13)

2020

Belle(’04)

BaBar(’05)

Angular distribution in penguin-dominated B-ppK-

BaBar measured Dalitz plot

asymmetry

Belle: K- is preferred to move

collinearly with p in pp rest frame !

a surprise in correlation

SD picture predicts a strong correlation between K- and p !

p

K-

p

p_

-

b u

us

K-

p

-

-up

b s

-u

uK-

p

p

unsolved enigma !

(’13)

2121

Angular distribution in B-p-

bs

pB0

-d +

u-

u

SD picture: Both & p picks up energetic s and u quarks, respectively ⇒ on the average, pion has no preference for its correlation with or p ⇒ a symmetric parabola that opens downward

pvv

Belle(’07): M.Z. Wang et al.

shows a slanted straight line

⇒ another surprise !!

Tsai, thesis (’06)

p

p_

+

Correlation enigma occurs in penguin-dominated modes B→ppK, p

Cannot be explained by SD b→ sg* picture

Needs to be checked by LHCb & BaBar

Theorists need to work hard !

2222

Radiative baryonic B decays

At mesonic level, bs electroweak penguin transition manifests in BK*. Can one see the same mechanism in baryonic B decays ?

Consider b pole diagram and apply HQS and static b quark limit to relate the tensor matrix element with b form factors

Br(B-p) Br(B-0-) = 1.210-6

Br(B-0p)= 2.910-9

Penguin-induced B-p and B-0- should be readily accessible to

B factories

Br(B-p) = (2.45+0.44-0.380.22)10-6

Br(B-0p) < 4.610-6

first observation of bs in baryonic B decay

Belle [ Lee & Wang et al. PRL 95, 061802 (’05) ]

HYC,Yang (’02)

23

Extensive studies of baryonic B decays in Taiwan both experimentally and theoretically

B-→ppK- : first observation of charmless baryonic B decay (’01)

B→pp(K,K*,)

→p(,K)

→K

B→pp, , pstringent limits)

B→p: first observation of b→s penguin in baryonic B decays (’04)

Expt.

Theory

Chen, Chua, Geng, He, Hou, Hsiao, Tsai, Yang, HYC,…

Publication after 2000: (hep-ph)

0008079, 0107110, 0108068, 0110263, 0112245, 0112294, 0201015, 0204185, 0204186, 0208185, 0210275, 0211240, 0302110, 0303079, 0306092, 0307307, 0311035, 0405283, 0503264, 0509235, 0511305, 0512335, 0603003, 0603070, 0605127, 0606036, 0606141, 0607061, 0607178, 0608328, 0609133, 0702249, PRD(05,not on hep-ph), 0707.2751, 0801.0022, 0806.1108, 0902.4295, 0902.4831, 1107.0801, 1109.3032, 1204.4771, 1205.0117, 1302.3331

Belle group at NTU (Min-Zu Wang,…)

Taiwan contributes to 86% of theory papers

Publication after 2002:

15 papers (first author) so far: 7PRL, 2PLB, 6PRD; 2 in preparation

24

Direct CP violation in charm decays

2525

Amp = V*cdVud (tree + penguin) + V*csVus (tree’ + penguin)

sin102.1sinsin2sin||

)Im(2 3*

*

2*

**

T

D

T

D

VV

VV

T

D

VV

VVVVa

udcd

ubcb

udcd

uscsudcddirCP

DCPV is expected to be the order of 10-3 10-5 !

: strong phase

DCPV requires nontrival strong and weak phase difference

In SM, DCPV occurs only in singly Cabibbo-suppressed decays.

It is expected to be very small in charm sector within SM

Penguin is needed in order to produce DCPV at tree & loop level

No CP violation in D decays if they proceed only through tree diagrams

CP violation in charm decays

2626

Experiment

))(())((

))(())(())((

tfDtfD

tfDtfDtfACP

Time-dependent CP asymmetry

Time-integrated asymmetry )()()( fat

fafA indCP

dirCPCP

LHCb: (11/14/2011) 0.92 fb-1 based on 60% of 2011 data

ACP ACP(D0 K+K-) – ACP(D0 ) = - (0.820.210.11)%

3.5 effect: first evidence of CPV in charm sector

Belle: (ICHEP2012) 540 fb-1

ACP- (0.870.410.06)%

CDF: (2/29/2012) 9.7 fb-1

ACP= Araw(K+K-) - Araw(-)= - (2.330.14)% - (-1.710.15)%

= - (0.620.210.10)% 2.7 effect

see Mohanty’s talk (11/25)

272727

World averages of LHCb + CDF + BaBar + Belle in 2012

aCPdir = -(0.6780.147)%,

4.6 effect

aCPind = -(0.0270.163)%

Theory estimate is much smaller than the expt’l measurement of |aCP

dir | 0.7% New physics ?

282828

Isidori, Kamenik, Ligeti, Perez [1111.4987]

Brod, Kagan, Zupan [1111.5000]

Wang, Zhu [1111.5196]

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]

Chen, Geng, Wang [1206.5158]

Delaunay, Kamenik, Perez, Randall [1207.0474]

Da Rold, Delaunay, Grojean, Perez [1208.1499]

Lyon, Zwicky [1210.6546]

Atwood, Soni [1211.1026]

Hiller, Jung, Schacht [1211.3734]

Delepine, Faisel, Ramirez [1212.6281]

Li, Lu, Qin, Yu [1305.7021]

Buccella, Lusignoli, Pugliese, Santorelli [1305.7343]

28 theory papers !

292929

All two-body hadronic decays of heavy mesons can be expressed interms of several distinct topological diagrams [Chau (’80); Chau, HYC(’86)]

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.

Diagrammatic Approach

T (tree) C (color-suppressed) E (W-exchange) A (W-annihilation)

P, PcEW S, PEW

PE, PEEWPA, PAEW

HYC, Oh (’11)

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]

Rosner (’99)

Wu, Zhong, Zhou (’04)

Bhattacharya, Rosner (’08,’10)

HYC, Chiang (’10)

T

CA

E

30

Phase between C & T ~ 150o

W-exchange E is sizable with a large phase importance of 1/mc power corrections

W-annihilaton A is smaller than E and almost perpendicular to E

CLEO (’10)

Cabibbo-allowed decays

The great merit & strong point of this approach magnitude and strong phase of each topological tree amplitude are determined

=0.39/d.o.f

3131

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

Larger DCPV at tree level occurs in decay modes with interference between T & C (e.g. Ds

+) or C & E (e.g. D0 )

DCPV at tree level can be reliably estimated in diagrammatic approach as magnitude & phase of tree amplitudes can be extracted from data

3232

Decay theory Decay theory

D0 0 D0 0

D0 0 D0 0

D0 0.82 D0 0

D0’ -0.39 D0 K+K*- 0

D0 -0.28 -0.42 D0 K-K*+ 0

D0’ 0.49 0.38 D0 K0K*0 0.73

D0 K+K- 0 D0 K0K*0 -0.73

D0 -0.73 -1.73 D0 0

D+ 0 D0 0

D+ 0.36 D0 0.19

D+ ’ -0.20 D0 ’ -1.07

D+ K+K0 -0.08 D0 0

Ds++K0 0.08 D0 -0.53

Ds+ K+ 0.01 D0 ’ 0.59

Ds+ K+ -0.70

Ds+ K+’ 0.35

10-3 > adir(tree) > 10-4

Largest tree-level DCPV

PP: D0K0K0, VP: D0 ’

Tree-level DCPV aCP(tree) in units of per mille

aCP(tree) vanishes in

D0 , K+K-

33

Short-distance penguin contributions are very small. How about power corrections to QCD penguin ? SD weak penguin annihilation is also 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

Power corrections to P from PE via final-state rescattering cannot be larger than T

3434

Decay aCPdir

Decay aCP

dir

D0 +- 0.960.04 D0 -0.51

D0 00 0.830.04 D0 -0.27

D0 0 0.060.04 D0 -0.74

D0 0’ 0.010.02 D0 K+K*- 0.50

D0 -0.580.02-0.740.02

D0 K-K*+ 0.29

D0 ’ 0.530.03 0.330.02

D0 K0K*0 0.73

D0 K+K- -0.420.01-0.540.02

D0 K0K*0 -0.73

D0 K0K0 -0.670.01-1.900.01

D0 0.37

D+ + -0.780.06

D0 0

D+ +’ 0.340.07 D0 0.50

D+ K+K0 -0.400.04

D0’ -0.89

Ds+ +K0 0.460.03 D0 0

Ds+ 0K+ 0.980.10 D0 -0.23

Ds+ K+ -

0.610.05D0’ 0.20

Ds+ K+’ -

0.290.12

aCPdir (10-3)

aCPdir= -0.1390.004% (I)

-0.1510.004% (II)

about 3.3 away from -(0.6780.147)%

Even for PE T aCP

dir = -0.27%, an upper bound in SM

A similar result aCPdir=-0.128%

obtained by Li, Lu, Yu

see Hsiang-nan Li’s talk (11/25)

If aCPdir ~ -0.68%, it

is definitely a new physics effect !

35

Attempts for SM interpretation

Golden, Grinstein (’89): hadronic matrix elements enhanced as in I=1/2 rule.

However, D data do not show large I=1/2 enhancement over I=3/2 one.

Moreover, |A0/A2|=2.5 in D decays is dominated by tree amplitudes.

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

We have argued that power corrections to P from PE via final-state

rescattering cannot be larger than T

36

ACP = - (0.340.150.10)% D* tagged ACP = (0.490.300.14)% B D0X, muon tagged

- (0.150.16)% combination

LHCb in 2013:

World average: aCPdir = -(0.3330.120)%, 2.8

aCPind = (0.0150.052)%

Recall that aCPdir = -(0.6780.147)%, 4.6 in 2012 !

It appears that SM always wins !

See D. Tonelli’s talk (11/25)

37

Direct CP violation in charmless B decays

383838

Direct CP asymmetries (2-body)

ACP(K-) – ACP(K-

)

Bu/Bd K-

K- K*0 K*-

K- f2(1270) K-

ACP(%)

-8.20.6

295

-378 195 -236

-68+20-18

3711 -134

S

13.7 5.8 4.6 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.3Bu/Bd K- K*- K-

K-

*

ACP(%)

-145 104 3113 4.02.1

-209

2011

4324

116 4525

S 2.8 2.5 2.4 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8

12.22.2

5.5

Bs K+-

ACP(%)

264

S 7.2

LHCb

K puzzle: AK is naively expected to vanish

39

ACP(B- K-)

BaBar Belle CDF Average

ACP (%) 12.84.41.3

1125 -717+3-2 10.44.2

QCDF pQCD SCET

ACP (%) 0.60.1 1+0 0

LHCb observed CP violation in B- K-K+K- but not around resonance

LHCb (1309.3742) obtained ACP = (2.22.10.9)%

Expt:

Theory:

arXiv:1306.1246

404040

Bu/Bd K-

K- K*0 K*-

K-

ACP(%)

-8.20.6

295 -378 195 -236 3711

-134

S

13.7 5.8 4.6 3.8 3.8 3.4 3.3

mb

Bs K+-

ACP(%)

264

S 7.2

mb

In heavy quark limit, decay amplitude is factorizable, expressed in terms of form factors and decay constants.

See Beneke & Neubert (’03) for mb results

Bu/Bd - K- 0K*- K-0 + +K- 00 -+ K*0

ACP(%) -145

104 3113 4.02.1

-209

2011

4324

116 4525

S 2.8 2.5 2.4 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8

mb

sign

4141

A(B0K-+) ua1+c(a4c+ra6

c)

)(

Imsin2)(

64

1*

*

0

cKccscb

usubFM

FMCP

ara

a

VV

VVr

rKBA

Theory Expt

Br 13.1x10-6 (19.550.54)x10-6

ACP 0.04 -0.0820.006

Im4c 0.013 wrong sign for ACP

penguin annihilation

... ][][ 36464 cLD

ccSD

ccc araaraP

charming penguin, FSI penguin annihilation

1/mb corrections

4c4c

42424242

New CP puzzles in QCDF

Penguin annihilation solves CP puzzles for K-,,…, but in the meantime introduces new CP puzzles for K-, K*0, …

Also true in SCET with penguin annihilation replaced by charming penguinAlso true in SCET with penguin annihilation replaced by charming penguin

Bu/Bd K-

K- K*0 K*-

K-

ACP(%)

-8.20.6

295 -378 195 -236 3711

-134

S

13.7 5.8 4.6 3.8 3.8 3.4 3.3

mb

PA

12.22.2

5.5

3.3

( 1.9)

Bu/Bd - K- 0K*- K-0 + +K- 00 -+ K*0

ACP(%) -145

104 3113 4.02.1 -209

2011

4324

116 4525

S 2.8 2.5 2.4 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8

mb

PA

4343

All “problematic” modes receive contributions from uC+cPEW

PEW (-a7+a9), PcEW (a10+ra8), u=VubV*us, c=VcbV*cs

AK puzzle can be resolved by having a large complex C

(C/T 0.5e–i55 ) or a large complex PEW or the combination

AK 0 if C, PEW, A are negligible AK puzzle

Large complex C Charng, Li, Mishima; Kim, Oh, Yu; Gronau, Rosner; …

Large complex PEW needs New Physics for new strong & weak phases Yoshikawa; Buras et al.; Baek, London; G. Hou et al.; Soni et al.; Khalil et al;…

o

444444

The two distinct scenarios can be tested in tree-dominated modes

where ’cPEW << ’uC. CP puzzles of , & large rates of ,

cannot be explained by a large complex PEW

puzzle: ACP=(4324)%, Br = (1.910.22)10-6

12.22.2

5.5

3.3

( 1.9)

Bu/Bd K- K- K*0 K*- K-

ACP(%) -8.20.6 295 -378 195 -236 3711 -134

S 13.7 5.8 4.6 3.8 3.8 3.4 3.3

mb

PA

large complex a2

Bu/Bd - K- 0K*- K-0 + +K- 00 -+ K*0

ACP(%) -145 104 3113 4.02.1 -209 2011 4324 116 4525

S 2.8 2.5 2.4 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8

mb

PA

large complex a2

45

Direct CP asymmetries (3-body)

LHCb found evidence of inclusive CP asymmetry in B- , K+K-K-, K+K-

BaBar(%) Belle(%) LHCb(%) Average

3.24.4+4.0-3.7 11.72.11.1 10.52.2

K+ K- K- -1.7+1.9-1.41.4 -4.30.90.8 -3.71.0

K- 2.82.02.3 4.92.62.0 3.20.80.8 3.31.0

K+ K- 0103 -14.14.01.9 -11.94.1

Large asymmetries observed in localized regions of p.s.

ACP(KK) = -0.6480.0700.0130.007 for mKK2 <1.5 GeV2

ACP(KKK) = -0.2260.0200.0040.007 for 1.2< mKK, low2 <2.0 GeV2, mKK, high

2 <15 GeV2

ACP() = 0.584+0.082+0.027+0.007 for m, low2 <0.4 GeV2, m, high

2 > 15 GeV2

ACP(K) = 0.6780.0780.0320.007 for 0.08< m, low2 <0.66 GeV2, mK

2 <15 GeV2

46

Correlation:

ACP(K-K+K-) – ACP(K-), ACP(K+K-) – ACP()

Relative signs between CP asymmetries of K-K+K- & , K+K- & K- are consistent with U-spin prediction.

It has been conjectured that CPT theorem & final-state rescattering of K+K- may play important roles

Zhang, Guo, Yang [1303.3676]

Bhattacharya, Gronau, Rosner [1306.2625]

Xu, Li, He [1307.7186]

Bediaga, Frederico, Lourenco [1307.8164]

Cheng, Chua [1308.5139]

Zhang, Guo, Yang [1308.5242]

Lesniak, Zenczykowski [1309.1689]

Xu, Li, He [1311.3714]

47

Conclusion of this section

CP asymmetries are the ideal places to discriminate between different models.

In QCDF one needs two 1/mb power corrections (one to penguin annihilation, one to color-suppressed tree amplitude) to explain decay rates and resolve CP puzzles

Can we understand the correlation ?

ACP(K-K+K-) – ACP(K-), ACP(K+K-) – ACP()

4848

Conclusions

To expand Wolfenstein parametrization to higher order of , it is important to use & parameters order of unity.

First evidence of charmless baryonic B decays: time for updated theory studies. Correlation puzzle in penguin-dominated decays needs to be resolved.

DCPV in charm decays is studied in the diagrammatic approach. It can be reliably estimated at tree level. Our prediction is aCP = -(0.1390.004)%

49

Backup Slides

5050

sin102.1sinsin2sin||

)Im(2 3*

*

2*

**

T

P

T

P

VV

VV

T

P

VV

VVVVa

udcd

ubcb

udcd

uscsudcddirCP

: strong phase

To accommodate aCP one needs PT~ 3 for maximal strong phase, while it is naively expected to be of order s/

Bhattacharya, Gronau, Rosner Brod, Grossman, Kagan, Zupan

Can penguin be enhanced by some nonperturbative effects or unforeseen QCD effects ?

We have argued that power corrections to P from PE via final-state

rescattering cannot be larger than T

51

expt2

0 )1.05.2(332

2

1

CT

PECT

A

A

In D decays

In absence of penguin contribution & SU(3) breaking, this ratio is predicted to be 3.8, larger than the expt’l result. This means P should contribute destructively to A0/A2 .

In kaon decays, the predicted ratio due to tree amplitudes is too small compared to experiment large enhancement of penguin matrix element.

( 22.40.1 in K

52

Before LHCb: Grossman, Kagan, Nir (’07)

Bigi, Paul, Recksiegel (’11)

New Physics interpretation

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

Wang, Zhu; Altmannshofer, Primulando, C. Yu, F. Yu

Hochberg, Nir

Altmannshofer et al; Chen, Geng, Wang

Rozanov, Vysotsky; Feldmann, Nandi, Soni

Tree level (applied to some of SCS modes)

Giudice, Isidori, Paradisi; Altmannshofer, Primulando, C. Yu, F. Yu

Model-independent analysis of NP effects Isidori, Kamenik, Ligeti, Perez

Altmannshofer et al.

Altmannshofer et al.

After LHCb :

53

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(mc

2/v2). Need NP to enhance c8g by O(v/mc)

cGumg

O cs

g

)1(8 528

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.

Giudice, Isidori, Paradisi

Grossman, Kagan, Nir

Giudice, Isidori, Paradisi

Loop level (applied to all SCS modes)

LRc

gNPg m

mxGc

~

8 )(

Hiller, Hochberg, Nir

Delaunay, Kamenik, Perez, Randall

It can be realized in SUSY models

gluino-squark loops

new sources of flavor violation from disoriented A terms, split families

trilinear scalar coupling

RS flavor anarchy warped extra dimension models