Flavor Physics: Gilad Perez CERN & Weizmann Inst

Flavor Physics
Gilad Perez
CERN & Weizmann Inst.
SUMMER SCHOOL on PARTICLE PHYSICS
www.ictp.it
The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP), in collaboration with the Italian
Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN), will hold the
SUMMER SCHOOL on
PARTICLE PHYSICS
10-21 June 2013
Miramare, Trieste, Italy
The goal of the school is to give a detailed overview of particle physics and cover the most
important and perspective areas where signihcant progress has been achieved recentlv. In
2013, the main focus will be on the LHC results, their interpretation and implications for
Phvsics Bevond the Standard model. Lectures will also cover progress in neutrino physics,
dark matter searches and the studv of cosmic radiation.
TOPICS:
Status of the Standard Model
Higgs physics
QCD and collider physics
Quark-Cluon plasma
Flavor physics
Aeutrino physics
Aew physics without new energy scale
Supersymmetry and the LHC
Compositeness and Extra dimensions
Particle physics and multi-messenger astronomy
Dark Matter
Cosmology and Particle Physics
PAR1ICIPA1IOA:
Scientists and students from all countries which are members of the United Nations, UNESCO or IAEA may attend the work-
shop. As a rule, travel and subsistence expenses of the participants should be borne bv the home institution. Every effort should
be made bv candidates to secure support for their fare (or at least half-fare). However, limited funds are available for some
participants who are nationals of, and working in, a developing countrv, and who are not more than 45 vears old. Such support
is available onlv for those who attend the entire activitv. There is no registration fee to be paid.
The Application Form can be accessed at the activity website: http://agenda.ictp.it/smr.php?243. Once in the website,
comprehensive instructions will guide vou step-bv-step, on how to hll out and submit the application form.
Summer School on Particle Physics
(smr 2463 - c/o Ms. Rosanna Sain - Activitv Secretarv)
the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics
Strada Costiera 11, 34151 Trieste, Italv.
1elephone: +39-4-224-231 1elefax: +39-4-224-7231 E-mail: smr243ictp.it
Activity Web page: http://agenda.ictp.it/smr.php?243
IC1P Home Page: http://www.ictp.it/
December 2012
Organizing Committee:
Gino ISIDORI
(LNF, INFN)
Mikhail SHAPOSHNIKOV
(EPFL)
Alexei SMIRNOV
(ICTP)
Giovanni VILLADORO
(SLAC & ICTP)
Scientic Secretary:
Daniel HERNANDEZ
(ICTP)
*DEADLINE*
for requesting participation
15 March 2013
1
Plan
i) Prologue, Intro: avor phys. & the standard model (SM).
ii) SM, global symmetry structure.
iii) Effective eld theory for avor phys. (model independent)
& minimal avor violation.
iv) Flavor @ the LHC era, ex.: Flavorful Naturalness.
Refs.:
Textbook: CP Violation: Branco, Lavoura, Silva.
Reviews: Nir, ph/0109090; 0708.1872; Gedalia & GP, 1005.3106; Isidori, Nir & GP, 1002.0900.
Technical: Gedalia, Mannelli & GP, 1003.3869; Gedalia, Kamenik, Ligeti & GP, 1202.5038;
Blanke, et al. 1302.7232; Mahbubani, et al., 1212.3328.
2
2 pages prologue: current status of Supersymmetry
Putting stops aside, what are the bounds on rst 2-
generation light squarks?
3
1st & 2nd geneneration
squark limits
gluino mass [GeV]
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
s
q
u
a
r
k

m
a
s
s

[
G
e
V
]
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
= 100 fb
SUSY
= 10 fb
SUSY
= 1 fb
SUSY
) = 0 GeV
1
0
Squark-gluino-neutralino model, m(
=7 TeV s ,
-1
L dt = 4.71 fb
Combined
Preliminary ATLAS
observed 95% C.L. limit s CL
median expected limit s CL
1 Expected limit
ATLAS EPS 2011
[GeV]
0
m
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

[
G
e
V
]
1
/
2
m
200
300
400
500
600
700
(600) g
~
(800) g
~
(1000) g
~
(1200) g
~
(6
0
0
)
q~
(
1
0
0
0
)
q ~
(
1
4
0
0
)
q ~
(
1
8
0
0
)
q ~
>0 = 0,
0
= 10, A MSUGRA/CMSSM: tan
=7 TeV s ,
-1
L dt = 4.71 fb
Combined
Preliminary ATLAS
Combined
ATLAS EPS 2011
LSP
LEP Chargino
No EWSB
Figure 7: 95% CL
s
exclusion limits obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitiv-
ity at each point in a simplied MSSM scenario with only strong production of gluinos and rst- and
second-generation squarks, and direct decays to jets and neutralinos (left); and in the (m
0
; m
1/2
) plane of
MSUGRA/CMSSM for tan = 10, A
0
= 0 and > 0 (right). The red lines show the observed limits, the
dashed-blue lines the median expected limits, and the dotted blue lines the 1 variation on the expected
limits. ATLAS EPS 2011 limits are from [17] and LEP results from [59].
7 Summary
This note reports a search for new physics in nal states containing high-p
T
jets, missing transverse
momentum and no electrons or muons, based on the full dataset (4.7 fb
1
) recorded by the ATLAS
experiment at the LHC in 2011. Good agreement is seen between the numbers of events observed in the
data and the numbers of events expected from SM processes.
The results are interpreted in both a simplied model containing only squarks of the rst two genera-
tions, a gluino octet and a massless neutralino, as well as in MSUGRA/CMSSM models with tan = 10,
A
0
= 0 and > 0. In the simplied model, gluino masses below 940 GeV and squark masses be-
low 1380 GeV are excluded at the 95% condence level. In the MSUGRA/CMSSM models, values of
m
1/2
< 300 GeV are excluded for all values of m
0
, and m
1/2
< 680 GeV for low m
0
. Equal mass squarks
and gluinos are excluded below 1400 GeV in both scenarios.
References
[1] L. Evans and P. Bryant, LHC Machine, JINST 3 (2008) S08001.
[2] H. Miyazawa, Baryon Number Changing Currents, Prog. Theor. Phys. 36 (6) (1966) 12661276.
[3] P. Ramond, Dual Theory for Free Fermions, Phys. Rev. D3 (1971) 24152418.
[4] Y. A. Golfand and E. P. Likhtman, Extension of the Algebra of Poincare Group Generators and
Violation of p Invariance, JETP Lett. 13 (1971) 323326. [Pisma
Zh.Eksp.Teor.Fiz.13:452-455,1971].
[5] A. Neveu and J. H. Schwarz, Factorizable dual model of pions, Nucl. Phys. B31 (1971) 86112.
14
Light squarks > 1.4 TeV?
Assumptions?
What is driving the limit?
Holes in the net?
squark limits
gluino mass [GeV]
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
s
q
u
a
r
k

m
a
s
s

[
G
e
V
]
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
= 100 fb
SUSY
= 10 fb
SUSY
= 1 fb
SUSY
) = 0 GeV
1
0
=7 TeV s ,
-1
L dt = 4.71 fb
Combined
Preliminary ATLAS
observed 95% C.L. limit
s
CL
median expected limit
s
CL
1 Expected limit
ATLAS EPS 2011
[GeV]
0
m
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

[
G
e
V
]
1
/
2
m
200
300
400
500
600
700
(600) g
~
(800) g
~
(1000) g
~
(1200) g
~

(
6
0
0
)
q
~

(
1
0
0
0
)
q
~

(
1
4
0
0
)
q
~

(
1
8
0
0
)
q ~
>0 = 0,
0
=7 TeV s ,
-1
L dt = 4.71 fb
Combined
Preliminary ATLAS
Combined
s
CL
s
CL
ATLAS EPS 2011
LSP
LEP Chargino
No EWSB
Figure 7: 95% CL
s
0
; m
1/2
) plane of
0
7 Summary
T
1
A
0
m
1/2
0
, and m
1/2
< 680 GeV for low m
0
References
Zh.Eksp.Teor.Fiz.13:452-455,1971].
14
Assumptions?
Holes in the net?
State of the art from ATLAS & CMS:
3
squark limits
gluino mass [GeV]
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
s
q
u
a
r
k

m
a
s
s

[
G
e
V
]
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
= 100 fb
SUSY
= 10 fb
SUSY
= 1 fb
SUSY
) = 0 GeV
1
0
=7 TeV s ,
-1
L dt = 4.71 fb
Combined
Preliminary ATLAS
1 Expected limit
ATLAS EPS 2011
[GeV]
0
m
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

[
G
e
V
]
1
/
2
m
200
300
400
500
600
700
(600) g
~
(800) g
~
(1000) g
~
(1200) g
~
(6
0
0
)
q~
(
1
0
0
0
)
q ~
(
1
4
0
0
)
q ~
(
1
8
0
0
)
q ~
>0 = 0,
0
=7 TeV s ,
-1
L dt = 4.71 fb
Combined
Preliminary ATLAS
Combined
ATLAS EPS 2011
LSP
LEP Chargino
No EWSB
Figure 7: 95% CL
s
0
; m
1/2
) plane of
0
7 Summary
T
1
A
0
m
1/2
0
, and m
1/2
< 680 GeV for low m
0
References
Zh.Eksp.Teor.Fiz.13:452-455,1971].
14
Assumptions?
Holes in the net?
squark limits
gluino mass [GeV]
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
s
q
u
a
r
k

m
a
s
s

[
G
e
V
]
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
= 100 fb
SUSY
= 10 fb
SUSY
= 1 fb
SUSY
) = 0 GeV
1
0
=7 TeV s ,
-1
L dt = 4.71 fb
Combined
Preliminary ATLAS
s
CL
s
CL
1 Expected limit
ATLAS EPS 2011
[GeV]
0
m
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

[
G
e
V
]
1
/
2
m
200
300
400
500
600
700
(600) g
~
(800) g
~
(1000) g
~
(1200) g
~

(
6
0
0
)
q
~

(
1
0
0
0
)
q
~

(
1
4
0
0
)
q
~

(
1
8
0
0
)
q ~
>0 = 0,
0
=7 TeV s ,
-1
L dt = 4.71 fb
Combined
Preliminary ATLAS
Combined
s
CL
s
CL
ATLAS EPS 2011
LSP
LEP Chargino
No EWSB
Figure 7: 95% CL
s
0
; m
1/2
) plane of
0
7 Summary
T
1
A
0
m
1/2
0
, and m
1/2
< 680 GeV for low m
0
References
Zh.Eksp.Teor.Fiz.13:452-455,1971].
14
Assumptions?
Holes in the net?
State of the art from ATLAS & CMS:
4th lecture: big loop hole, because of misinterpretation of
avor constraints.
Some light squarks can be as light as 400-500 GeV !
3
Natural SUSY all about the stops?
To robustly test naturalness => push bound
on the stops which decay to tops/bottoms:
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1
0
+
m
t
<
m
1 t
~
m
(BR=1)
0
1
t
1
t
~
production,
1
t
~
1
t
~
[GeV]
1
t
~ m

[
G
e
V
]
01

m
ATLAS Preliminary
= 8 TeV s ,
-1
Ldt = 20.5 fb
All hadronic channel

All limits at 95 % CL
)
theory
SUSY
1 Observed limit (
)
exp
1 Expected limit (
Expected limit (2011)
Figure 5: Expected and observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for the model of (pp t
1
t
1

t
0
1
t
0
1
) with 100% branching ratio of t
1
t
0
1
. The top quark produced in the decay has a right-
handed polarization in 95% of the decays. The band around the median expected limit shows
the 1 variations on the median expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical
uncertainties on the signal. The dotted lines around the observed limit indicate the sensitivity
to 1 variations on these theoretical uncertainties. The expected limit from the previous
ATLAS search [29] with the same nal state is also shown.
[GeV]
1
t
~ m
200 300 400 500 600 700 800

[
G
e
V
]
01

m
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
BR = 100 %
BR = 75 %
BR = 60 %
0.6 0.54 0.58 0.67 0.63 0.75 0.9
0.68 0.62 0.61 0.67 0.65 0.76 0.95
0.74 0.64 0.74 0.68 0.79 0.94
0.84 0.82 0.73 0.85
0.95
1
0
+
m
t
<
m
1 t
~
m
0
1
t
1
t
~
production,
1
t
~
1
t
~
=8 TeV s ,
-1
Ldt = 20.5 fb
Observed Excluded Branching Ratio at 95% CL

ATLAS Preliminary
Figure 6: Excluded (at 95% CL) branching fractions for t
1
t
0
1
in the model where pp
t
1
t
1
. The conservative assumption is made here that this analysis is sensitive only to the decay
channel t
1
t
0
1
and has no sensitivity to other decay modes.
13
m
stop
& 700 GeV
SUSY searches, David Stuart, UCSB "
7!
I will focus on stop, gluino and ewkino searches
Papucci, Ruderman, Weiler, arXiv:1110.6926
1.5 TeV
0.5 TeV
0.2 TeV
!m
H
2
=
H
H!
4
Natural SUSY all about the stops?
To robustly test naturalness => push bound
on the stops which decay to tops/bottoms:
4th lecture: loop hole, actually natural SUSY could be
avorful=> stops are lighter with top-charm nal state!
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1
0
+
m
t
<
m
1 t
~
m
(BR=1)
0
1
t
1
t
~
production,
1
t
~
1
t
~
[GeV]
1
t
~ m

[
G
e
V
]
01

m
ATLAS Preliminary
= 8 TeV s ,
-1
Ldt = 20.5 fb

)
theory
SUSY
1 Observed limit (
)
exp
1 Expected limit (
1
t
1

t
0
1
t
0
1
1
t
0
1
[GeV]
1
t
~ m
200 300 400 500 600 700 800

[
G
e
V
]
01

m
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
BR = 100 %
BR = 75 %
BR = 60 %
0.6 0.54 0.58 0.67 0.63 0.75 0.9
0.68 0.62 0.61 0.67 0.65 0.76 0.95
0.74 0.64 0.74 0.68 0.79 0.94
0.84 0.82 0.73 0.85
0.95
1
0
+
m
t
<
m
1 t
~
m
0
1
t
1
t
~
production,
1
t
~
1
t
~
=8 TeV s ,
-1
Ldt = 20.5 fb

ATLAS Preliminary
1
t
0
1
t
1
t
1
channel t
1
t
0
1
13
m
stop
& 700 GeV
SUSY searches, David Stuart, UCSB "
7!
I will focus on stop, gluino and ewkino searches
Papucci, Ruderman, Weiler, arXiv:1110.6926
1.5 TeV
0.5 TeV
0.2 TeV
!m
H
2
=
H
H!
4
Introduction (uniqueness of SM)
SM fermions: 3 x
This brings with it a whole kind of phys. called flavor/gen phys.;
It has a unique structure & thus comes with sharp predictions:
Kobayashi-Maskawa Mechanism: 1 CP violating (CPV) phase;
Mixings is controlled by only 3 real parameters (CKM angles).

5
Introduction (uniqueness of SM)
Flavor is violated dominantly via charged current interactions (ints);
Flavor violation, @leading order, only via left-handed (LH) currents;
Dominantly, flavor violation is controlled by the top ints;
Flavor sector posses an approximate U(2)

Q
x U(2)
U
x U(3)
D
symmetry;
SM lepton sector which posses a global a U(1)

l
3

(beyond our scope).
6
SM Kobayashi-Maskawa (KM) Mechanism of Flavor & CP Violation
We now have an experimental (exp) support that the KM picture

described nature (up to possibly small corrections):
Based on several exp observation (started in 64 many came in the

last 10 years or so).
CPV in the Kaon and B system => within the SM correlated =>
consistent with SM.
Flavor conversion => precision data confirmed the SM.
New bounds on CPV in the D mixing also confirms SM picture.

This implies: Severe bounds on non-SM flavor physics.
(2008 Nobel Prize)
7
Is this the end of the story?
The avor NP hierachy problem (puzzle not a problem)
(otherwise, rapid proton-antip-protons annihilation of yield baryon asym of < 10
-18
)
Baryogenesis => SM cannot be the only source of

CPV
Almost any SM extension give new sources of flavor

and CPV.
What about the up frontier (top-forward-backward anomaly)?
Integrating out new phys.=> dim. 6 Ops.:
Precision measurements=>
(

d
i
d
j
)
2
/
2
NP
NP
10
4
TeV
.
M
W
8
What is flavor phys, in the int basis?
The SM fermions appear in 3 generations.
Flavor phys. describes int that distinguish

between the generations.
The fermions experience 2 types of int:
gauge int, where two fermions couple to a

gauge boson, & Yukawa interactions, where 2
fermions couple to a scalar.
canonical basis: no gauge couplings between

fermions of different gens => int basis.
9
What is flavor phys, in the int basis?
Yuakawa interactions are complicated in

the int basis, inter-gen couplings.
But masses are from the Yukawa int.
Thus, int eigenstates do not have well-

defined masses.
Flavor Phys. refers to the part of the SM

that depends on Yukawa couplings.
10
What is flavor phys, mass basis?
In the mass basis, Yukawa interactions are,
simple, diagonal (not universal/degenerate).
Eigenstates have, well-defined masses.
Gauge interactions related to spontaneously
broken symmetries can be quite complicated!
The SU(2)
L
gauge couplings are not diagonal,
they mix quarks of different generations.
Flavor physics refers to fermion masses
(Yukawa) and mixings (gauge).
11
The SM quark avor sector, int basis
Int basis, the gauge part is trivial:
Yukawa sector is interesting:
global sym:
U(1)
3
D
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
B
global sym:
q
I
Li
D/ q
I
Lj

ij
, q Q, U, D
U(3)
Q
U(3)
U
U(3)
D
.
q
i
U
(33)
ij
q
j
(see later)
12
End of the 1st part
13
How many avor parameters in the SM?
The int basis is not unique !
Ex.: can use avor sym to rotate the elds and get different form of
Yukawa matrices; for ex. we can bring one of them to a diag form.
=> mass basis for up or down quarks. (very useful for neutrino experimental
physics, this is called the neutrino avor basis where the charged lepton are brought
to their mass eigenstate)
Do the counting in 2 ways, int basis (sym oriented)
and mass basis (explicit).
Counting avor parameters, int basis
14
SM avor sym breaking-
How many avor para (Int basis)?
6 masses + 3mixings +1CPVphase
Can use the freedom to eliminate unphysical
parameters and count the physical ones:
Remove: 3U(3)=3(3Re+6Im)=>9Re +(18Im-1 ) parameters U(1)
B
Thus altogether: (18-9)Re+(18-17)Im
U(3)
Q
U(3)
U
U(3)
D
15
Counting avor parameters, mass basis
0
= v/
2 Setting the Higgs field to its vev, we find:

16
avor in weak int(charged current), mass basis
The quarks-W
+-
couplings are now complicated:
17
The form of the CKM matrix (i)
18
The form of the CKM matrix (ii)
19
The quarks-W
+-
couplings are now complicated:
SM: weak int is only source of avor and effectively CPV
remove 6 phases -1
U(1)
B
V
CKM
contains 3 real mixing angles
& 1 CP violating (CPV) phase
i) Only in charged current; ii) Dominantly via LH quarks.
( aside)
.
QCD
The minimal form of the CKM matrix
20
The SM avor parameters
0.23
and A, , 0.8, 0.2, 0.3
~
m
u
=0.001-3; m
d
=0.003-7; m
s
=0.1GeV;
m
c
=1.3; m
b
=4.2; m
t
=170GeV;
m
e
=.00055; m
=0.11; m
=1.8GeV.
masses in GeV <=>
;
;
.
21
The avor puzzle, small & hierarchical parameters
The avor parameters span many order magnitudes
and have a clear hierarchy, why (is it natural)?
= O(10
5
)
= O(10
19
) J = det[Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D
] =
1
v
12 O
10
22
22
End of the 2nd part
23
SM Flavor Structure, Spurion (sym) Analysis
We promote Y
U,D
to spurions, transform
under the avor group avor invariant L
SM
.
The maximal global sym consistent \w SM gauge sym is:
.
Under SM avor group: Q(3, 1, 1), u(1, 3, 1), d(1, 1, 3)
more precisely: G
SM
g
2
/
= U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d U(3)
u
U(3)
d

W

W
(3,
3, 1, 1)
Y
U
(3,
3, 1) , Y
D
(3, 1,
3)
General Minimal Flavor Violation
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
Department of Physics, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221, USA
2
Department of Particle Physics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel
3
YITP, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-3840, USA
4
School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ 08540
5
Theory Division, Department of Physics, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland
6
Faculty of mathematics and physics, University of Ljubljana, Jadranska 19, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
A model independent study of the minimal avor violation (MFV) framework is presented, where
the only sources of avor breaking at low energy are the up and down Yukawa matrices. Two limits
are identied for the Yukawa coupling expansion: linear MFV, where it is truncated at the leading
terms, and nonlinear MFV, where such a truncation is not possible due to large third generation
Yukawa couplings. These are then resummed to all orders using non-linear -model techniques
familiar from models of collective breaking. Generically, avor diagonal CP violating (CPV) sources
in the UV can induce O(1) CPV in processes involving third generation quarks. Due to a residual
U(2) symmetry, the extra CPV in B
d
B
d
mixing is bounded by CPV in B
s
B
s
mixing. If operators
with right-handed light quarks are subdominant, the extra CPV is equal in the two systems, and is
negligible in processes involving only the rst two generations. We nd large enhancements in the
up type sector, both in CPV in D

D mixing and in top avor violation.
G
SM
U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3)
Introduction. Precision avor and CP violation measurements provide very strong constraints on models of new
physics (NP) beyond the Standard Model (SM). For instance,
K
constrains the scale of maximally avor violating
NP to be
>
10
4
TeV. Therefore, TeV scale NP which stabilizes the electroweak scale and is accessible at the LHC has
to have a highly non generic avor structure.
The tension with precision avor tests is relaxed if the SM Yukawa matrices are the only source of avor breaking,
even in the presence of new particles and interactions [13]. This hypothesis goes under the name of Minimal Flavor
Violation (MFV). Sometimes additional assumptions are made that the SM Yukawa couplings are also the only
source of CP violation (CPV ), e.g. in [1], or that NP does not change the Lorentz structure of the eective weak
hamiltonian [4]. We will not make these assumptions, but will discuss their consequences below.
A useful language for discussing MFV was introduced in [1]. It relies on the observation that for vanishing Yukawa
couplings the SM has an enhanced global symmetry. Focusing on the quark sector this is
G
SM
= U(3)
Q
U(3)
u
U(3)
d
, (1)
where Q, u, d stand for quark doublets and up and down type quark singlets respectively. The SM Yukawa couplings
H
u

Q
L
Y
u
u
R
+H
d

Q
L
Y
d
d
R
, (2)
are formally invariant under G
SM
, if the Yukawa matrices are promoted to spurions that transform as Y
u,d
=
V
Q
Y
u,d
V
u,d
, while the quark elds are in the fundamental representations, (Q
, u
, d
) = V
Q,u,d
(Q, u, d). Weak scale NP
models are then of the MFV class if they are formally invariant under G
SM
, when treating the SM Yukawa couplings
as spurions. Similarly, the low energy avor observables are formally invariant under G
SM
. Practically, this means
that only certain insertions of Yukawa couplings are allowed in the quark bilinears. For example, in

QQ bilinears
insertions such as

Q(Y
u
Y
u
)
n
Q are allowed, while

QY
d
(Y
u
Y
u
)
n
Q are not.
The above denition of MFV is only useful if avor invariant operators such as

Qf(
u
Y
u
,
d
Y
d
)Q can be expanded
in powers of Y
u,d
. In the large tan limit both Y
u
and Y
d
have O(1) eigenvalues y
t,b
. The convergence radius is then
given by the size of
u,d
. We distinguish between two limiting cases
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

G
SM
U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3)
K
NP to be
>
10
4
G
SM
= U(3)
Q
U(3)
u
U(3)
d
, (1)
H
u

Q
L
Y
u
u
R
+H
d

Q
L
Y
d
d
R
, (2)
SM
u,d
=
V
Q
Y
u,d
V
u,d
, u
, d
) = V
Q,u,d
SM
SM

QQ bilinears
insertions such as

Q(Y
u
Y
u
)
n

QY
d
(Y
u
Y
u
)
n
Q are not.

Qf(
u
Y
u
,
d
Y
d
)Q can be expanded
in powers of Y
u,d
u
and Y
d
t,b
u,d
MFV (minimal avor violation) theories dened
as an eective theory where only source
of avor breaking is given by powers of Y
U,D
.
24
SM Flavor Structure, Spurion (sym) Analysis
More precisely, in heavy W limit avor group is enhanced:
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

G
SM
= U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
Introduction. Precision avor and CP violation
measurements provide very strong constraints on models
of new physics (NP) beyond the Standard Model (SM).
For instance,
K
constrains the scale of maximally avor
violating NP to be
>
10
4
TeV. Therefore, TeV scale NP
which stabilizes the electroweak scale and is accessible at
the LHC has to have a highly non generic avor structure.
The tension with precision avor tests is relaxed if the
SM Yukawa matrices are the only source of avor break-
ing, even in the presence of new particles and interac-
tions [? ? ? ]. This hypothesis goes under the name of
Minimal Flavor Violation (MFV). Sometimes additional
assumptions are made that the SM Yukawa couplings
are also the only source of CP violation (CPV ), e.g. in [?
], or that NP does not change the Lorentz structure of the
eective weak hamiltonian [? ]. We will not make these
assumptions, but will discuss their consequences below.
A useful language for discussing MFV was introduced
in [? ]. It relies on the observation that for vanishing
Yukawa couplings the SM has an enhanced global sym-
metry. Focusing on the quark sector this is
G
SM
= U(3)
Q
U(3)
u
U(3)
d
, (1)
where Q, u, d stand for quark doublets and up and down
type quark singlets respectively. The SM Yukawa cou-
plings
H
u

Q
L
Y
u
u
R
+H
d

Q
L
Y
d
d
R
, (2)
SM
, if the Yukawa matri-
ces are promoted to spurions that transform as Y
u,d
=
V
Q
Y
u,d
V
u,d
, while the quark elds are in the fundamental
representations, (Q
, u
, d
) = V
Q,u,d
(Q, u, d). Weak scale
NP models are then of the MFV class if they are formally
invariant under G
SM
, when treating the SM Yukawa cou-
plings as spurions. Similarly, the low energy avor ob-
servables are formally invariant under G
SM
. Practically,
this means that only certain insertions of Yukawa cou-
plings are allowed in the quark bilinears. For example, in
QQ bilinears insertions such as

Q(Y
u
Y
u
)
n
Q are allowed,
while

QY
d
(Y
u
Y
u
)
n
Q are not.
The above denition of MFV is only useful if avor
invariant operators such as

Qf(
u
Y
u
,
d
Y
d
)Q can be ex-
panded in powers of Y
u,d
. In the large tan limit both
Y
u
and Y
d
t,b
. The convergence
radius is then given by the size of
u,d
. We distinguish
between two limiting cases
Linear MFV (LMFV):
u,d
1 and the dominant
avor breaking eects are captured by the lowest
order polynomials of Y
u,d
.
Non-linear MFV (NLMFV):
u,d
O(1), higher
powers of Y
u,d
are important, and a truncated ex-
pansion in y
t,b
is not possible.
Examples of NLMFV are: low energy supersymmetric
models in which large tan eects need to be resummed
(large
d
), and models obeying MFV at a UV scale
F

W
, where large
u,d
log(
W
/
F
) are gener-
ated from sizable anomalous dimensions in the renormal-
ization group running [? ]. Another example is warped
extra dimension models with alignment [? ], in cases
where right handed up-quark currents are subdominant.
In this letter we show that even in NLMFV there
is a systematic expansion in small quantities, V
td
, V
ts
,
and light quark masses, while resumming in y
t
, y
b

O(1). This is achieved via a non-linear -modellike
parametrization. Namely, in the limit of vanishing weak
With the following spurions:
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

G
SM
U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3)
K
NP to be
>
10
4
G
SM
= U(3)
Q
U(3)
u
U(3)
d
, (1)
H
u

Q
L
Y
u
u
R
+H
d

Q
L
Y
d
d
R
, (2)
SM
u,d
=
V
Q
Y
u,d
V
u,d
, u
, d
) = V
Q,u,d
SM
SM

QQ bilinears
insertions such as

Q(Y
u
Y
u
)
n

QY
d
(Y
u
Y
u
)
n
Q are not.

Qf(
u
Y
u
,
d
Y
d
)Q can be expanded
in powers of Y
u,d
u
and Y
d
t,b
u,d
Theres a 2-tale story for the quark singlets & doublets.
Since theres no avor conversion involving RH currents =>
quark singlet avor structure is simpler.
25
SM Flavor Structure, Quarks Singlets (RH)
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

G
SM
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Y
U
Y
U
Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3)
K
NP to be
>
10
4
G
SM
= U(3)
Q
U(3)
u
U(3)
d
, (1)
H
u

Q
L
Y
u
u
R
+H
d

Q
L
Y
d
d
R
, (2)
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

G
SM
U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Y
U
Y
U
Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3)
K
NP to be
>
10
4
G
SM
= U(3)
Q
U(3)
u
U(3)
d
, (1)
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

G
SM
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Y
U
Y
U
Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3)
K
NP to be
>
10
4
G
SM
= U(3)
Q
U(3)
u
U(3)
d
, (1)
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

G
SM
U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Y
U
Y
U
Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3)
K
NP to be
>
10
4
G
SM
= U(3)
Q
U(3)
u
U(3)
d
, (1)
Next, LH avor sym structure is more involved
(collective breaking)
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

G
SM
U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3)
K
NP to be
>
10
4
G
SM
= U(3)
Q
U(3)
u
U(3)
d
, (1)
H
u

Q
L
Y
u
u
R
+H
d

Q
L
Y
d
d
R
, (2)
SM
u,d
=
V
Q
Y
u,d
V
u,d
, u
, d
) = V
Q,u,d
SM
SM

QQ bilinears
insertions such as

Q(Y
u
Y
u
)
n

QY
d
(Y
u
Y
u
)
n
Q are not.

Qf(
u
Y
u
,
d
Y
d
)Q can be expanded
in powers of Y
u,d
u
and Y
d
t,b
u,d
6
rst. We can construct polynomial of the Yukawas with simple transformation properties under the avor group. For
instance, consider the transformation tules of the objects
A
U,D
Y
U,D
Y
U,D
1
3
tr
U,D
Y
U,D
I
3
, (22)
under the avor group the A
X
tranform as
A
U,D
V
U,D
A
U,D
V
U,D
. (23)
Thus, A
U,D
are adjoints of U(3)
U,D
and singlets of the rest of the avor group [while tr(Y
U,D
Y
U,D
) are avor sin-
glets]. Via similarity transformation we can bring A
U,D
to a diagonal form, simultaneously. Thus, we learn that the
background value of each of the Yukawa matrices separately breaks the U(3)
U,D
down to a residual U(1)
3
U,D
group,
as illustrated in Fig. 2.
We can, in principle, apply the same analysis in the LH avor group, U(3)
Q
, via dening the adjoints,
A
Q
u
,Q
d Y
U,D
Y
U,D
1
3
tr
Y
U,D
Y
U,D
I
3
, (24)
However, in this case the breaking is more involved since A
Q
u,d are adjoint of the same avor group. This is a direct
consequence of the SU(2) weak gauge interaction which relates the two components of the SU(2) doublets. This
actually motivates one to extend the global avor group as follows. If we switch of the electroweak interactions the
SM global avor group is actually enlarged to
G
SM
weakless
= U(6)
Q
U(3)
U
U(3)
D
, (25)
since now each SU(2) doublet, Q
i
can be split into two independent avors, Q
u,d
i
with identical SU(3) U(1) gauge
quantum numbers [25]. This limit, however is not very illuminating since it does not allow for avor violation at all.
To make a progress it is instructing to distinguish between the W
3
avor universal interactions, which couple up and
down quarks separately, from the W
couplings, g
2
, which links between up and down LH quarks. In the presence
of only W
3
couplings the residual avor group is given by[32]
G
SM
exten
= U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
. (26)
In this limit, even in the presence of the Yukawa matrices avor conversion is forbidden since we have already saw
explicitly that only the charged currents links between dierent avors [see Eq. (7)]. It is thus evident that to
formally characterize avor violation we can extend the avor group from G
SM
G
SM
exten
where now we break the
quark doublets to their isospin components, U
L
, D
L
, and add another spurion, g
2
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3) . (27)
Flavor breaking within the SM occurs only when G
SM
exten
is fully broken via the Yukawa background value but also due
to the fact that g
2
has a background value. Unlike Y
U,D
, g
2
is a special spurion in the sense that its eigen values are
degenerate as required by the weak gauge symmetry hence it breaks the U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d down to a diagonal group
which is nothing but U(3)
Q
. We can identify two bases where g
2
has an interesting background value: The weak
interaction basis where the background value of g
2
is simply a unit matrix
int
1
3
. (28)
The mass basis where (after removing all unphysical parameters) the background value of g
2
is the CKM matrix
mass
V
CKM
. (29)
Now we are at position to understand the way avor conversion is obtained in the SM. Three spurions must be
involved Y
U,D
and g
2
. Since g
2
is involved it is clear that generation transitions has to involve LH charged current
interactions. These transitions can be characterize by the spurions, A
Q
u
,Q
d [see Eq. (24)] which characterize the
breaking of of the individual LH avor symmetries, U(3)
Q
u
,Q
d. Flavor conversion occurs because of the fact that in
general we cannot diagonalize simultaneously A
Q
u
,Q
d and g
2
, this is illustrated in Fig. 3. It shows that the avor
breaking within the SM goes through collective breaking [24] a term often used in the context of little Higgs models
(see e.g [? ] and Refs. therein).
26
SM Flavor Structure, Quarks Doublets (LH)
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

G
SM
U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3)
K
NP to be
>
10
4
G
SM
= U(3)
Q
U(3)
u
U(3)
d
, (1)
H
u

Q
L
Y
u
u
R
+H
d

Q
L
Y
d
d
R
, (2)
SM
u,d
=
V
Q
Y
u,d
V
u,d
, u
, d
) = V
Q,u,d
SM
SM

QQ bilinears
insertions such as

Q(Y
u
Y
u
)
n

QY
d
(Y
u
Y
u
)
n
Q are not.

Qf(
u
Y
u
,
d
Y
d
)Q can be expanded
in powers of Y
u,d
u
and Y
d
t,b
u,d
Y
U
Y
U
Y
D
Y
W
U(3)
Q
(diag.)
U(3)
u
L
U(1)
3
u
L
U(1)
B
U(1)
3
d
L
U(3)
d
L
.
(M
W
= )
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
U(1)
3
Y
U
0
Y
U
Y
D
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
U(1)
3
Y
U
0
Y
U
Y
D
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
U(1)
3
Y
U
0
Y
U
Y
D
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
U(1)
3
Y
U
0
Y
U
Y
D
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

x
23,13
=
1
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
,
1
0 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 0
c
23,13
= O(
2,3
)
V
CKM
x
23
x
13
ud

2
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
cos
ud

B
|
A| |
B|
=
tr
Y
U
Y
tr /
Y
D
Y
tr /
tr
Y
U
Y
2
tr /
tr
Y
D
Y
2
tr /
1 c
4
ud
= O(
2
)
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

x
23,13
=
1
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
,
1
0 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 0
c
23,13
= O(
2,3
)
V
CKM
x
23
x
13
ud

2
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
cos
ud

B
|
A| |
B|
=
tr
Y
U
Y
tr /
Y
D
Y
tr /
tr
Y
U
Y
2
tr /
tr
Y
D
Y
2
tr /
1 c
4
ud
= O(
2
)
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

x
23,13
=
1
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
,
1
0 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 0
c
23,13
= O(
2,3
)
V
CKM
x
23
x
13
ud

2
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
cos
ud

B
|
A| |
B|
=
tr
Y
U
Y
tr /
Y
D
Y
tr /
tr
Y
U
Y
2
tr /
tr
Y
D
Y
2
tr /
1 c
4
ud
= O(
2
)
2
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
cos
ud
A

B
|
A| |
B|
=
tr
Y
U
Y
tr /
Y
D
Y
tr /
tr
Y
U
Y
2
tr /
tr
Y
D
Y
2
tr /
1 c
4
ud
= O(
2
)
(Y
U
Y
U
)
down
= V
CKM
(Y
U
Y
U
)
diag
V
CKM
y
2
t
V
ti
CKM
V
tj
CKM
y
2
t
3
1
3
2
8
+c
13

x
13
+c
23

x
23
(1)
Y
U
Y
U
, Y
D
Y
y
2
t,b
3
1
3
1
2
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
3
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
[Y
U
Y
U
, Y
D
Y
D
] 0
U(2)
D
U(2)
U
U(1)
B
U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
U(2)
Q
u U(2)
U
U(1)
t
U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
U(1)
3
Y
U
0
Y
U
6
A
U,D
Y
U,D
Y
U,D
1
3
tr
U,D
Y
U,D
I
3
, (22)
X
tranform as
A
U,D
V
U,D
A
U,D
V
U,D
. (23)
Thus, A
U,D
U,D
U,D
Y
U,D
) are avor sin-
U,D
U,D
3
U,D
group,
Q
A
Q
u
,Q
d Y
U,D
Y
U,D
1
3
tr
Y
U,D
Y
U,D
I
3
, (24)
Q
G
SM
weakless
= U(6)
Q
U(3)
U
U(3)
D
, (25)
i
u,d
i
3
couplings, g
2
of only W
3
G
SM
exten
= U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
. (26)
SM
G
SM
exten
L
, D
L
2
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3) . (27)
SM
exten
to the fact that g
2
U,D
, g
2
Q
u
U(3)
Q
Q
2
2
int
1
3
. (28)
2
is the CKM matrix
mass
V
CKM
. (29)
involved Y
U,D
and g
2
. Since g
2
Q
u
,Q
Q
u
,Q
Q
u
,Q
d and g
2
6
A
U,D
Y
U,D
Y
U,D
1
3
tr
U,D
Y
U,D
I
3
, (22)
X
tranform as
A
U,D
V
U,D
A
U,D
V
U,D
. (23)
Thus, A
U,D
U,D
U,D
Y
U,D
) are avor sin-
U,D
U,D
3
U,D
group,
Q
A
Q
u
,Q
d Y
U,D
Y
U,D
1
3
tr
Y
U,D
Y
U,D
I
3
, (24)
Q
G
SM
weakless
= U(6)
Q
U(3)
U
U(3)
D
, (25)
i
u,d
i
3
couplings, g
2
of only W
3
G
SM
exten
= U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
. (26)
SM
G
SM
exten
L
, D
L
2
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3) . (27)
SM
exten
to the fact that g
2
U,D
, g
2
Q
u
U(3)
Q
Q
2
2
int
1
3
. (28)
2
is the CKM matrix
mass
V
CKM
. (29)
involved Y
U,D
and g
2
. Since g
2
Q
u
,Q
Q
u
,Q
Q
u
,Q
d and g
2
6
A
U,D
Y
U,D
Y
U,D
1
3
tr
U,D
Y
U,D
I
3
, (22)
X
tranform as
A
U,D
V
U,D
A
U,D
V
U,D
. (23)
Thus, A
U,D
U,D
U,D
Y
U,D
) are avor sin-
U,D
U,D
3
U,D
group,
Q
A
Q
u
,Q
d Y
U,D
Y
U,D
1
3
tr
Y
U,D
Y
U,D
I
3
, (24)
Q
G
SM
weakless
= U(6)
Q
U(3)
U
U(3)
D
, (25)
i
u,d
i
3
couplings, g
2
of only W
3
G
SM
exten
= U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
. (26)
SM
G
SM
exten
L
, D
L
2
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3) . (27)
SM
exten
to the fact that g
2
U,D
, g
2
Q
u U(3)
Q
Q
2
2
int
1
3
. (28)
2
is the CKM matrix
mass
V
CKM
. (29)
involved Y
U,D
and g
2
. Since g
2
Q
u
,Q
Q
u
,Q
Q
u
,Q
d and g
2
6
A
U,D
Y
U,D
Y
U,D
1
3
tr
U,D
Y
U,D
I
3
, (22)
X
tranform as
A
U,D
V
U,D
A
U,D
V
U,D
. (23)
Thus, A
U,D
U,D
U,D
Y
U,D
) are avor sin-
U,D
U,D
3
U,D
group,
Q
A
Q
u
,Q
d Y
U,D
Y
U,D
1
3
tr
Y
U,D
Y
U,D
I
3
, (24)
Q
G
SM
weakless
= U(6)
Q
U(3)
U
U(3)
D
, (25)
i
u,d
i
3
couplings, g
2
of only W
3
G
SM
exten
= U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
. (26)
SM
G
SM
exten
L
, D
L
2
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3) . (27)
SM
exten
to the fact that g
2
U,D
, g
2
Q
u
U(3)
Q
Q
2
2
int
1
3
. (28)
2
is the CKM matrix
mass
V
CKM
. (29)
involved Y
U,D
and g
2
. Since g
2
Q
u
,Q
Q
u
,Q
Q
u
,Q
d and g
2
27
The avor puzzle, breaking & naturalness
Flavor puzzle: The parameters are small and hierarchical!
Is the avor sector ne tuned?
t Hooft definition of technical naturallness: a parameter is natural if when its
set to 0 theres an enhanced sym.
Light masses are protected by residual sym.
2
Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D

y
2
t,b
3
1
3
1
2
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
3
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
[Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D
] 0
U(2)
D
U(2)
U
U(1)
B
U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
U(2)
Q
u U(2)
U
U(1)
t
U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
U(1)
3
Y
U
0
Y

U
Y
D
Y
U
& Y
D
.
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
Mixing angles are protected by sym.
2
(Y
U
Y

U
)
down
= V

CKM
(Y
U
Y

U
)
diag
V
CKM
y
2
t
V
ti
CKM
V
tj
CKM
y
2
t
3
1
3
2
8
+ c
13
x
13
+ c
23
x
23
(1)
Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D

y
2
t,b
3
1
3
1
2
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
3
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
[Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D
] 0
U(2)
D
U(2)
U
U(1)
B
U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
U(2)
Q
u U(2)
U
U(1)
t
U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
U(1)
3
Y
U
0
Y

U
Y
D
Y
U
& Y
D
.
g
2
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

x
23,13
=
1
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
,
1
0 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 0
c
23,13
= O(
2,3
)
V
CKM
U(1)
3
Q
x
23
x
13
ud

2
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
Flavor puzzles => tuning not ne tuning (nothing unnatural)!
28
GIM mechanism (Glashow-Iliopoulos-Maiani, 70) suppression of neutral currents
Gluon & photon protected by gauge univ; Z ??
So far -> Flavor violation (FV) only in CC. What about NC?
Unitarity of CKM implies cancellation of divergencies & absence
of avor changing neutral currents (FCNC).
29
GIM mechanism, SM 1-loop example
d s

W
(a)
g
W
(b)
g W
(c)
g
W
(d)
g,!, Z
W
W
(e)
FIG. 2. One-loop current-current (a)(c), penguin (d) and box (e) diagrams in the full theory. For pure
QCD corrections as considered in this section and e.g. in VI the - and -contributions in diagram (d) and
the diagram (e) are absent. Possible left-right or up-down reected diagrams are not shown.
Under the same conditions, the unrenormalized current-current matrix elements of the opera-
tors and are from g. 3 (a)-(c) found to be
(III.45)
(III.46)
Again, the divergences in the rst terms are eliminated through eld renormalization. However, in
contrast to the full amplitude, the resulting expressions are still divergent. Therefore an additional
multiplicative renormalization, refered to as operator renormalization, is necessary:
(III.47)
Since (III.45) and (III.46) each involve both and , the renormalization constant is in this
case a matrix . The relation between the unrenormalized ( ) and the renormalized
amputated Green functions ( ) is then
(III.48)
From (III.45), (III.46) and (III.15) we read off ( -scheme)
(III.49)
22
Z
K
L

= V
is
d
4
k
k
2
(k
2
m
2
i
)
2
1
k
2
M
2
W
V

id
=

V

diag[f(m
2
i
)] V
12
(i) Div part is m
i
indep 0
(ii) Hard GIM: leading contribution suppressed by V
is
V
id
m
2
ij
30
GIM mechanism & SU(3)
Q
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

x
23,13
=
1
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
,
1
0 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 0
c
23,13
= O(
2,3
)
V
CKM
U(1)
3
Q
x
23
x
13
GIM:
d
i
L
g
2
Y
U
Y

U
ij
g
2
d
j
L
d
i
L
(g
Z
2
)
2
ij
d
j
L
ud

2
In term of spurions, is avor trivial.
Leading contributions to neutral currents (NCs)
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

x
23,13
=
1
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
,
1
0 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 0
c
23,13
= O(
2,3
)
V
CKM
U(1)
3
Q
x
23
x
13
GIM:
d
i
L
g
ij
2
Y
U
Y

U
jl
g
lk
2
d
k
L
d
i
L
(g
Z
2
)
2
ij
d
j
L
ud

2
2
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
cos
ud
A

B
|
A| |
B|
=
tr
Y
U
Y
tr /
Y
D
Y
tr /
tr
Y
U
Y
2
tr /
tr
Y
D
Y
2
tr /
1 c
4
ud
= O(
2
)
(Y
U
Y
U
)
down
= V
CKM
(Y
U
Y
U
)
diag
V
CKM
y
2
t
V
ti
CKM
V
tj
CKM
y
2
t
3
1
3
2
8
+c
13

x
13
+c
23

x
23
(1)
Y
U
Y
U
, Y
D
Y
y
2
t,b
3
1
3
1
2
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
3
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
[Y
U
Y
U
, Y
D
Y
D
] 0
U(2)
D
U(2)
U
U(1)
B
U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
U(2)
Q
u U(2)
U
U(1)
t
U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
U(1)
3
Y
U
0
Y
U
Highly suppressed, at LO need to go through the 3rd
gen. ( )
Within the SM avor changing NCs (FCNCs) are highly
suppressed => good probe of new physics (NP).
31
MFV & quick way to estimate SM strength of
FCNC & constraints
As we saw, flavor structure of NP not generic, similar to SM.
Extra protection is obtained if the NP flavor structure
is controlled by same parameters as the SM
(also, a quick, effortless, way to estimate SM contributions).
(see: DAmbrosio et. al (02).
Y
U
(3,
3, 1) , Y
D
(3, 1,
3)
We promote Y
U,D
SM
.
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

X
Q
d = V

d

Q
V
d
=
12
_
I +
12
V

d

3
V
d
_

12
(I +
12
v ) ,
abs(z
sd
) =
2
12
_
( v
2
1
+ v
2
2
_
=
2
12
(1 v
2
3
) sin
2
X
Q
d
cos
X
Q
d
=
tr
_
_
Y
D
Y

D
_
tr /
(X
Q
)
tr /
_
tr
_
_
Y
D
Y

D
_
2
tr /
_
tr
_
(X
Q
)
2
tr /
_
2gen
ud
2
where
d,u,Q
are diagonal real matrices, V is the CKM matrix, and V
d
is a unitary matrix which parameterizes the
misalignment of X
Q
with the down mass basis.
x
23,13
=
1
2
_
_
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
_
_
,
1
2
_
_
0 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 0
_
_
Allow higher dim avor invariant new ops.
32
Effective eld theory of MFV
The only source of flavor & CPV is due to the SM Yukawas.
The amount of flavor violation is calculated via setting the Ys
to their observed background value.
Thus O
ij
1
= [

Q
i
L
[a(Y
U
Y
U
)
ij
+b(Y
D
Y
D
)
ij
]Q
j
L
]
2
is U(3)
Q
invariant.
Y
U
Y
U
& Y
D
Y
D
transform as 8+1 of the U(3)
Q
avor group
and Q
i
L
(3, 1, 1), U
i
R
(1, 3, 1), D
i
R
(1, 1, 3).
Down quark flavor violation is described in their mass basis:
O
ij,d
1
= {

D
i
L
[
a
v
2
V
CKM
diag(m
2
u
i
)V
CKM
]
ij
+
b
v
2
diag(m
2
d
i
)]D
j
L
}
2
no avor conversion. CKM controls avor & CPV
33
MFV, estimation of amplitudes, SM approx sym
Homework: write the leading RR & LR up type avor violating higher dim
operators, within MFV.
O
ij,d
1
= {

D
i
L
[
a
v
2
V
CKM
diag(m
2
u
i
)V
CKM
]
ij
+
b
v
2
diag(m
2
d
i
)]D
j
L
}
2
In most cases we can use m
2
u
i
,d
i
(0, 0, m
2
t,b
)
Thus, [V
CKM
diag(m
2
u
i
/v
2
)V

CKM
]
ij
y
2
t
V
ti
V

tj
Ex. B
d,s
mass difference, m
d,s
:
H
B=2
e
MFV
O
bd
1
|V
tb
V

td
|
2
/
2
MFV
For B
d,s
system:

H
B=2
e
MFV
O
bd,s
1
(
b
L
d
L
, s
L
)
2
(V
tb
V

td,s
)
2
/
2
MFV
34
MFV, connection with SM
Can use same method to estimate SM contributions!
Top controls the avor violation (like charm via GIM).
m
t
130 GeV Bs Ks-
_
The SM structure is identical,
say for B
d,s
system:

H
B=2
e
SM
O
bd,s
1
(
b
L
d
L
, s
L
)
2
(V
tb
V

td,s
)
2
/
2
SM
What is
2
SM
?
Can guesstimate:
1
2
SM
=
1
M
2
W
1
16
2
Factor of 2 smaller than the LO result,
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

X
Q
d = V
d

Q
V
d
=
12
_
I +
12
V
d

3
V
d
_

12
(I +
12
v ) ,
abs(z
sd
) =
2
12
_
( v
2
1
+ v
2
2
_
=
2
12
(1 v
2
3
) sin
2
X
Q
d
cos
X
Q
d
=
tr
_
_
Y
D
Y
D
_
tr /
(X
Q
)
tr /
_
tr
_
_
Y
D
Y
D
_
2
tr /
_
tr
_
(X
Q
)
2
tr /
_
2gen
ud
2
1
2
SM
M
2
W
G
2
F
16
2
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

X
Q
d = V
d

Q
V
d
=
12
_
I +
12
V
d

3
V
d
_

12
(I +
12
v ) ,
abs(z
sd
) =
2
12
_
( v
2
1
+ v
2
2
_
=
2
12
(1 v
2
3
) sin
2
X
Q
d
cos
X
Q
d
=
tr
_
_
Y
D
Y
D
_
tr /
(X
Q
)
tr /
_
tr
_
_
Y
D
Y
D
_
2
tr /
_
tr
_
(X
Q
)
2
tr /
_
2gen
ud
2
1
2
F=2
M
2
W
G
2
F
16
2
2
SM
F=2
10 TeV
where
d,u,Q
d
misalignment of X
Q
x
23,13
=
1
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
,
1
0 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 0
c
23,13
= O(
2,3
)
V
CKM
U(1)
3
Q
x
23
x
13
GIM:
d
i
L
g
ij
2
Y
U
Y

U
jl
g
lk
2
d
k
L
d
i
L
(g
Z
2
)
2
ij
d
j
L
ud

2
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
L
F=2
=
z
sd
(1 TeV)
2
(d
L
s
L
)
2
+
z
cu
(1 TeV)
2
(c
L
u
L
)
2
+
z
4
sd
(1 TeV)
2
(d
L
s
R
)(d
R
s
L
) +
z
4
cu
(1 TeV)
2
(u
L
c
R
)(u
R
c
L
).
Im(z
sd
, z
4
sd
)
<
(3.4 10
9
, 2.6 10
11
) (
NP
/TeV)
2
, (1)
35
MFV & the SM contributions
Similarly can be applied to CPV in Kaon system, :
H
s=2
e
O
sd
1
= ( s
L
d)
2
(V
ts
V

td
)
2
/
2
MFV
Thus, MFV protection is mostly due to CKM suppression.
Agreement between Exp data & SM implies:
MFV
<
SM
For some LLRR, B, S = 2, operators O(10, 100) enhancement is obtained!
So we can estimate bounds for CP conserving [CPV] (LL)
2
, (RR)
2
operators via
K,B
d,s

SM
(0.1
5
,
3
,
2
) [(2
5
, 4
3
,
2
)]
2
SM
F=2
10 TeV
SM
F=2
<
MFV
F=2
where
d,u,Q
d
misalignment of X
Q
x
23,13
=
1
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
,
1
0 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 0
c
23,13
= O(
2,3
)
V
CKM
U(1)
3
Q
x
23
x
13
GIM:
d
i
L
g
ij
2
Y
U
Y

U
jl
g
lk
2
d
k
L
d
i
L
(g
Z
2
)
2
ij
d
j
L
ud

2
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
L
F=2
=
z
sd
(1 TeV)
2
(d
L
s
L
)
2
+
z
cu
(1 TeV)
2
(c
L
u
L
)
2
+
z
4
sd
(1 TeV)
2
(d
L
s
R
)(d
R
s
L
) +
z
4
cu
(1 TeV)
2
(u
L
c
R
)(u
R
c
L
).
36
End of 3rd Part
37
CPV (Kobayashi-Maskawa)
Note: C, P change the Lorentz rep from SU(2)
L
to SU(2)
R
but not CP
CC
1
= i
c
(

2
)
T
, P(t, x)P
1
=
p
0
(t, x)
If field redef yield basis in where Ys are real => no CPV!
In the SM 3 gen => explicit CP breaking!
Any CPV obser requires going through 3 gen
38
How is CP broken in the SM (avor sector)?
Im(J) = Im{det[Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D
]}
We can ignore the RH avor sector (unbroken ).
Can construct to adjoint of the U(3)
Q
avor group:
CP violation is due to missalignment between the two
(recall each breaks to ).
Y
U
Y
U
& Y
D
Y
D
U(1)
3
q
R
U(1)
3
Q
Also CPV requires complex avor parameters,
in term of reparameterization invariant:
We saw that J is tiny so even though the
phase is large the SM cannot yield baryogenesis.
39
Theory of meson decay and mixings
All the above is obscured by QCD!
We need effective description + identify clean obser (ratios are better)
40
Theory of neutral meson decay and mixings
41
42
43
CPV
44
Three types of CPV
45
Three types of CPV
CPV in interference between mixing & decay.
(occur when both B and

B decay
to a common CP nal state).
46
Three types of CPV
47
Three types of CPV
Tale of 2 phases:
48
tiny smaller by a loop factor
&
2
C
factor,
2
C
5%.
B
is the phase of M
12
the B
d

B
d
mixing amplitude;
Case study: 3rd type CPV in
B !K
S
49
Case study: 3rd type CPV in
B !K
S
e
i2
=
V

tb
V
td
V
cb
V

cd
V
tb
V

td
V

cb
V
cd
, = arg
V

tb
V
td
]
V

cb
V
cd
50
End of the 4th Part
51
squark limits
gluino mass [GeV]
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
s
q
u
a
r
k

m
a
s
s

[
G
e
V
]
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
= 100 fb
SUSY
= 10 fb
SUSY
= 1 fb
SUSY
) = 0 GeV
1
0
=7 TeV s ,
-1
L dt = 4.71 fb
Combined
Preliminary ATLAS
s
CL
s
CL
1 Expected limit
ATLAS EPS 2011
[GeV]
0
m
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

[
G
e
V
]
1
/
2
m
200
300
400
500
600
700
(600) g
~
(800) g
~
(1000) g
~
(1200) g
~

(
6
0
0
)
q
~

(
1
0
0
0
)
q
~

(
1
4
0
0
)
q ~

(
1
8
0
0
)
q ~
>0 = 0,
0
=7 TeV s ,
-1
L dt = 4.71 fb
Combined
Preliminary ATLAS
Combined
s
CL
s
CL
ATLAS EPS 2011
LSP
LEP Chargino
No EWSB
Figure 7: 95% CL
s
0
; m
1/2
) plane of
0
7 Summary
T
1
A
0
m
1/2
0
, and m
1/2
< 680 GeV for low m
0
References
Zh.Eksp.Teor.Fiz.13:452-455,1971].
14
Assumptions?
Holes in the net?
squark limits
gluino mass [GeV]
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
s
q
u
a
r
k

m
a
s
s

[
G
e
V
]
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
= 100 fb
SUSY
= 10 fb
SUSY
= 1 fb
SUSY
) = 0 GeV
1
0
=7 TeV s ,
-1
L dt = 4.71 fb
Combined
Preliminary ATLAS
s
CL
s
CL
1 Expected limit
ATLAS EPS 2011
[GeV]
0
m
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

[
G
e
V
]
1
/
2
m
200
300
400
500
600
700
(600) g
~
(800) g
~
(1000) g
~
(1200) g
~

(
6
0
0
)
q
~

(
1
0
0
0
)
q
~

(
1
4
0
0
)
q
~

(
1
8
0
0
)
q ~
>0 = 0,
0
=7 TeV s ,
-1
L dt = 4.71 fb
Combined
Preliminary ATLAS
Combined
s
CL
s
CL
ATLAS EPS 2011
LSP
LEP Chargino
No EWSB
Figure 7: 95% CL
s
0
; m
1/2
) plane of
0
7 Summary
T
1
A
0
m
1/2
0
, and m
1/2
< 680 GeV for low m
0
References
Zh.Eksp.Teor.Fiz.13:452-455,1971].
14
Assumptions?
Holes in the net?
52
Why really should the rst 2 generation squark need
to be degenerate?
Blum, Grossman, Nir and GP (09);
Gedalia, Grossman, Nir and GP (09);
Gedalia, Kamenik, Ligeti & Perez (12).
M
8 dof
( u,

d)
L
, u
R
,

d
R
,
( c, s)
L
, c
R
, s
R
Everything degenerate
53
Why really should the rst 2 generation squark need
to be degenerate?
Blum, Grossman, Nir and GP (09);
Gedalia, Grossman, Nir and GP (09);
Gedalia, Kamenik, Ligeti & Perez (12).
What if they are not degenerate?
Mahbubani, Papucci, GP, Ruderman & Weiler, PRL (13).
M
8 dof
( u,

d)
L
, u
R
,

d
R
,
( c, s)
L
, c
R
, s
R
M
u
R
, c
R
d
R
, s
R
Split, but MFV !
( u,

d)
L
, ( c, s)
L
M
8 dof
( u,

d)
L
, u
R
,

d
R
,
( c, s)
L
, c
R
, s
R
M
u
R
, c
R
d
R
, s
R
Split, but MFV !
( u,

d)
L
, ( c, s)
L
M
8 dof
( u,

d)
L
, u
R
,

d
R
,
( c, s)
L
, c
R
, s
R
M
u
R
, c
R
d
R
, s
R
Split, but MFV !
( u,

d)
L
, ( c, s)
L
M
8 dof
( u,

d)
L
, u
R
,

d
R
,
( c, s)
L
, c
R
, s
R
M
u
R
, c
R
d
R
, s
R
Split, but MFV !
( u,

d)
L
, ( c, s)
L
M
8 dof
( u,

d)
L
, u
R
,

d
R
,
( c, s)
L
, c
R
, s
R
M
u
R
, c
R
d
R
, s
R
Split, but MFV !
( u,

d)
L
, ( c, s)
L
M
8 dof
( u,

d)
L
, u
R
,

d
R
,
( c, s)
L
, c
R
, s
R
M
u
R
, c
R
d
R
, s
R
Split, but MFV !
( u,

d)
L
, ( c, s)
L
M
8 dof
( u,

d)
L
, u
R
,

d
R
,
( c, s)
L
, c
R
, s
R
M
u
R
, c
R
d
R
, s
R
Split, but MFV !
( u,

d)
L
, ( c, s)
L
M
8 dof
( u,

d)
L
, u
R
,

d
R
,
( c, s)
L
, c
R
, s
R
M
u
R
, c
R
d
R
, s
R
Split, but MFV !
( u,

d)
L
, ( c, s)
L
M
8 dof
( u,

d)
L
, u
R
,

d
R
,
( c, s)
L
, c
R
, s
R
M
u
R
, c
R
d
R
, s
R
Split, but MFV !
( u,

d)
L
, ( c, s)
L
M
8 dof
( u,

d)
L
, u
R
,

d
R
,
( c, s)
L
, c
R
, s
R
M
u
R
, c
R
d
R
, s
R
Split, but MFV !
( u,

d)
L
, ( c, s)
L
M
8 dof
( u,

d)
L
, u
R
,

d
R
,
( c, s)
L
, c
R
, s
R
M
u
R
, c
R
d
R
, s
R
Split, but MFV !
( u,

d)
L
, ( c, s)
L
M
8 dof
( u,

d)
L
, u
R
,

d
R
,
( c, s)
L
, c
R
, s
R
M
u
R
, c
R
d
R
, s
R
Split, but MFV !
( u,

d)
L
, ( c, s)
L
M
8 dof
( u,

d)
L
, u
R
,

d
R
,
( c, s)
L
, c
R
, s
R
M
u
R
, c
R
d
R
, s
R
Split, but MFV !
( u,

d)
L
, ( c, s)
L
M
8 dof
( u,

d)
L
, u
R
,

d
R
,
( c, s)
L
, c
R
, s
R
M
u
R
, c
R
d
R
, s
R
Split, but MFV !
( u,

d)
L
, ( c, s)
L
M
8 dof
( u,

d)
L
, u
R
,

d
R
,
( c, s)
L
, c
R
, s
R
M
u
R
, c
R
d
R
, s
R
Split, but MFV !
( u,

d)
L
, ( c, s)
L
M
8 dof
( u,

d)
L
, u
R
,

d
R
,
( c, s)
L
, c
R
, s
R
M
u
R
, c
R
d
R
, s
R
Split, but MFV !
( u,

d)
L
, ( c, s)
L
M
8 dof
( u,

d)
L
, u
R
,

d
R
,
( c, s)
L
, c
R
, s
R
M
u
R
, c
R
d
R
, s
R
Split, but MFV !
( u,

d)
L
, ( c, s)
L
Everything degenerate Split, but MFV Anarchy!
54
Effective Field Theory (EFT)
Model independent approach
microscopic dynamics above few x 100 GeV is unknown.
Can parameterize our ignorance by set of higher dim
operators suppressed by the scale of new physics (NP).
Almost any NP model can be described at low E by this set
of operators (above Op are most dangerous & yet clean).
H
S,C,B=2
e
=
5
i=1
O
sd
i
/
2
+O
cu
i
/
2
+O
b,sd
i
/
2
(see e.g.: UTFit, 0707.03535)

55
F = 2 status
Isidori, Nir & GP, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. (10)
Operator Bounds on in TeV (c
ij
= 1) Bounds on c
ij
( = 1 TeV) Observables
Re Im Re Im
( s
L
d
L
)
2
9.8 10
2
1.6 10
4
9.0 10
7
3.4 10
9
m
K
;
K
( s
R
d
L
)( s
L
d
R
) 1.8 10
4
3.2 10
5
6.9 10
9
2.6 10
11
m
K
;
K
( c
L
u
L
)
2
1.2 10
3
2.9 10
3
5.6 10
7
1.0 10
7
m
D
; |q/p|,
D
( c
R
u
L
)( c
L
u
R
) 6.2 10
3
1.5 10
4
5.7 10
8
1.1 10
8
m
D
; |q/p|,
D
(
b
L
d
L
)
2
5.1 10
2
9.3 10
2
3.3 10
6
1.0 10
6
m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
R
d
L
)(
b
L
d
R
) 1.9 10
3
3.6 10
3
5.6 10
7
1.7 10
7
m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
L
s
L
)
2
1.1 10
2
7.6 10
5
m
B
s
(
b
R
s
L
)(
b
L
s
R
) 3.7 10
2
1.3 10
5
m
B
s
(
t
L
u
L
)
2
TABLE I: Bounds on representative dimension-six F = 2 operators. Bounds on are quoted assuming an
eective coupling 1/
2
, or, alternatively, the bounds on the respective c
ij
s assuming = 1 TeV. Observables
related to CPV are separated from the CP conserving ones with semicolons. In the B
s
system we only quote
a bound on the modulo of the NP amplitude derived from m
B
s
(see text). For the denition of the CPV
observables in the D system see Ref. [15].
(3.4) where there is an independent constraint on the level of degeneracy [16]. We here briey
explain this point.
Consider operators of the form
1
2
NP
(Q
Li
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
Lj
)(Q
Li
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
Lj
), (3.6)
where X
Q
is an hermitian matrix. Without loss of generality, we can choose to work in the basis
dened in Eq. (2.10):
Y
d
=
d
, Y
u
= V
u
, X
Q
= V
d

Q
V
d
, (3.7)
where
Q
is a diagonal real matrix, and V
d
is a unitary matrix which parametrizes the misalignment
of the operator (3.6) with the down mass basis.
The experimental constraints that are most relevant to our study come from K
0
K
0
and D
0
D
0
mixing, which involve only the rst two generation quarks. When studying new physics eects,
ignoring the third generation is often a good approximation to the physics at hand. Indeed, even
when the third generation does play a role, our two generation analysis is applicable as long as there
are no strong cancellations with contributions related to the third generation. In a two generation
framework, V depends on a single mixing angle (the Cabibbo angle
c
), while V
d
depends on a
9
same sign ts
7.6 10
5
2.5 10
5
1.3 10
5
4 10
6
1.1 10
3
3 10
2
1.1 10
2
3.7 10
2
56
ij
= 1) Bounds on c
ij
Re Im Re Im
( s
L
d
L
)
2
9.8 10
2
1.6 10
4
9.0 10
7
3.4 10
9
m
K
;
K
( s
R
d
L
)( s
L
d
R
) 1.8 10
4
3.2 10
5
6.9 10
9
2.6 10
11
m
K
;
K
( c
L
u
L
)
2
1.2 10
3
2.9 10
3
5.6 10
7
1.0 10
7
m
D
; |q/p|,
D
( c
R
u
L
)( c
L
u
R
) 6.2 10
3
1.5 10
4
5.7 10
8
1.1 10
8
m
D
; |q/p|,
D
(
b
L
d
L
)
2
5.1 10
2
9.3 10
2
3.3 10
6
1.0 10
6
m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
R
d
L
)(
b
L
d
R
) 1.9 10
3
3.6 10
3
5.6 10
7
1.7 10
7
m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
L
s
L
)
2
1.1 10
2
7.6 10
5
m
B
s
(
b
R
s
L
)(
b
L
s
R
) 3.7 10
2
1.3 10
5
m
B
s
(
t
L
u
L
)
2
eective coupling 1/
2
ij
s
B
s
explain this point.
1
2
NP
(Q
Li
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
Lj
)(Q
Li
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
Lj
), (3.6)
where X
Q
Y
d
=
d
, Y
u
= V
u
, X
Q
= V
d

Q
V
d
, (3.7)
where
Q
d
0
K
0
and D
0
D
0
c
), while V
d
depends on a
9
same sign ts
7.6 10
5
2.5 10
5
1.3 10
5
4 10
6
1.1 10
3
3 10
2
1.1 10
2
3.7 10
2
Adding Leptons?
Flavor anecdotes
Daniel Grossman, Yonit Hochberg, Gilad Perez and Yotam Soreq
I. BOUNDS ON EFFECTIVE OPERATORS
Operator c
ij
= 1 [TeV] LMFV [TeV] GMFV [TeV] Observables
Re Im Re Im
( s
L
d
L
)
2
9.8 10
2
1.6 10
4
4.0 10
1
5.6 4.0 10
1
5.6 m
K
;
K
( s
R
d
L
)
2
7.7 10
3
1.3 10
5
1.3 10
3
3.0 10
2
3.6 10
2
6.9 10
1
m
K
;
K
( s
R
d
L
)( s
L
d
R
) 1.7 10
4
3.0 10
5
< GeV 8.8 10
2
1.3 10
2
2.5 10
1
m
K
;
K
( c
L
u
L
)
2
1.2 10
3
2.8 10
3
< GeV < GeV 2.4 10
1
< GeV m
D
; |q/p|,
D
( c
R
u
L
)
2
3.2 10
3
7.4 10
3
m
D
; |q/p|,
D
( c
R
u
L
)( c
L
u
R
) 6.2 10
3
1.5 10
4
m
D
; |q/p|,
D
(
b
L
d
L
)
2
5.1 10
2
9.3 10
2
4.8 4.6 10
1
4.8 8.7 m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
R
d
L
)
2
1.0 10
3
1.8 10
3
3.6 10
1
6.7 10
1
7.9 15 m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
R
d
L
)(
b
L
d
R
) 1.9 10
3
3.5 10
3
1.3 10
2
< GeV 3.5 10
1
6.7 10
1
m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
L
s
L
)
2
1.1 10
2
4.6 5 m
B
s
(
b
R
s
L
)
2
2.1 10
2
5.2 10
3
1.3 10
1
m
B
s
(
b
R
s
L
)(
b
L
s
R
) 4.0 10
2
6.9 10
2
1.7 m
B
s
L
i
e
Rj
HF
1.7 10
4
Br ( e)
3.3 10
2
Br ( )
2.6 10
2
Br ( e)
(
P
L
e) ( u
P
L
u) 1.9 10
2
(
Tie
Ti)
(
Ticapture)
TABLE I: Bounds on the scale of representative dimension-six F = 2 operators in the quark and lepton
sectors. Bounds on are quoted assuming an eective coupling c
ij
/
2
, where the coecients are either
generic or structured via linear MFV (LMFV) or GMFV. Observables related to CPV are separated from
the CP conserving ones with semicolons. In the B
s
system we only quote a bound on the modulo of the NP
amplitude derived from m
B
s
. For the denition of the CPV observables in the D system see Ref. [1]. The
bounds in the lepton sector are on the modulo of the NP amplitude.
The eects of new physics at a high energy scale ( m
W
) on the various meson mixing
systems can be studied in an eective operator language. A complete set of four quark operators
1
57
ij
= 1) Bounds on c
ij
Re Im Re Im
( s
L
d
L
)
2
9.8 10
2
1.6 10
4
9.0 10
7
3.4 10
9
m
K
;
K
( s
R
d
L
)( s
L
d
R
) 1.8 10
4
3.2 10
5
6.9 10
9
2.6 10
11
m
K
;
K
( c
L
u
L
)
2
1.2 10
3
2.9 10
3
5.6 10
7
1.0 10
7
m
D
; |q/p|,
D
( c
R
u
L
)( c
L
u
R
) 6.2 10
3
1.5 10
4
5.7 10
8
1.1 10
8
m
D
; |q/p|,
D
(
b
L
d
L
)
2
5.1 10
2
9.3 10
2
3.3 10
6
1.0 10
6
m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
R
d
L
)(
b
L
d
R
) 1.9 10
3
3.6 10
3
5.6 10
7
1.7 10
7
m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
L
s
L
)
2
1.1 10
2
7.6 10
5
m
B
s
(
b
R
s
L
)(
b
L
s
R
) 3.7 10
2
1.3 10
5
m
B
s
(
t
L
u
L
)
2
eective coupling 1/
2
ij
s
B
s
explain this point.
1
2
NP
(Q
Li
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
Lj
)(Q
Li
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
Lj
), (3.6)
where X
Q
Y
d
=
d
, Y
u
= V
u
, X
Q
= V
d

Q
V
d
, (3.7)
where
Q
d
0
K
0
and D
0
D
0
c
), while V
d
depends on a
9
same sign ts
7.6 10
5
2.5 10
5
1.3 10
5
4 10
6
1.1 10
3
3 10
2
1.1 10
2
3.7 10
2
Adding Leptons?
Flavor anecdotes
Operator c
ij
Re Im Re Im
( s
L
d
L
)
2
9.8 10
2
1.6 10
4
4.0 10
1
5.6 4.0 10
1
5.6 m
K
;
K
( s
R
d
L
)
2
7.7 10
3
1.3 10
5
1.3 10
3
3.0 10
2
3.6 10
2
6.9 10
1
m
K
;
K
( s
R
d
L
)( s
L
d
R
) 1.7 10
4
3.0 10
5
< GeV 8.8 10
2
1.3 10
2
2.5 10
1
m
K
;
K
( c
L
u
L
)
2
1.2 10
3
2.8 10
3
< GeV < GeV 2.4 10
1
< GeV m
D
; |q/p|,
D
( c
R
u
L
)
2
3.2 10
3
7.4 10
3
m
D
; |q/p|,
D
( c
R
u
L
)( c
L
u
R
) 6.2 10
3
1.5 10
4
m
D
; |q/p|,
D
(
b
L
d
L
)
2
5.1 10
2
9.3 10
2
4.8 4.6 10
1
4.8 8.7 m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
R
d
L
)
2
1.0 10
3
1.8 10
3
3.6 10
1
6.7 10
1
7.9 15 m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
R
d
L
)(
b
L
d
R
) 1.9 10
3
3.5 10
3
1.3 10
2
< GeV 3.5 10
1
6.7 10
1
m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
L
s
L
)
2
1.1 10
2
4.6 5 m
B
s
(
b
R
s
L
)
2
2.1 10
2
5.2 10
3
1.3 10
1
m
B
s
(
b
R
s
L
)(
b
L
s
R
) 4.0 10
2
6.9 10
2
1.7 m
B
s
L
i
e
Rj
HF
1.7 10
4
Br ( e)
3.3 10
2
Br ( )
2.6 10
2
Br ( e)
(
P
L
e) ( u
P
L
u) 1.9 10
2
(
Tie
Ti)
(
Ticapture)
ij
/
2
s
B
s
W
1
V
e
ry ve
ry stro
n
g ...
57
F
=
2
s
t
a
t
u
s
Operator
Bounds on
in
TeV
(cij
=
1)
Bounds on
cij
(
=
1
TeV)
Observables
Re
Im
Re
Im
( sL
dL
)
2 9.8
10
2
1.6
10
4
9.0
10
7 3.4
10
9
mK
; K
( sR
dL
)( sL
dR
)
1.8
10
4
3.2
10
5
6.9
10
9 2.6
10
11
mK
; K
( cL
uL
)
2 1.2
10
3
2.9
10
3
5.6
10
7 1.0
10
7
mD
; |q/p|, D
( cR
uL
)( cL
uR
)
6.2
10
3
1.5
10
4
5.7
10
8 1.1
10
8
mD
; |q/p|, D
(
bL
dL
)
2 5.1
10
2
9.3
10
2
3.3
10
6 1.0
10
6
mBd
; SKS
(
bR
dL
)(
bL
dR
)
1.9
10
3
3.6
10
3
5.6
10
7 1.7
10
7
mBd
; SKS
(
bL
sL
)
2
1.1
10
2
7.6
10
5
mBs
(
bR
sL
)(
bL
sR
)
3.7
10
2
1.3
10
5
mBs
(
tL
uL
)
2
TABLE
I:
Bounds on
representative dim
ension-six
F
=
2 operators. Bounds on
are quoted
assum
ing an
eective coupling 1/
2
, or, alternatively, the bounds on the respective cij
s assum
ing
=
1 TeV. Observables
related
to CPV
are separated
from
the CP
conserving ones with
sem
icolons. In
the Bs
system
we only
quote
a
bound
on
the m
odulo
of the NP
am
plitude derived
from
mBs
(see text). For the denition
of the CPV
observables in
the D
system
see Ref. [15].
(3.4)
where
there
is
an
independent
constraint
on
the
level of degeneracy
[16].
W
e
here
briey
explain
this point.
Consider operators of the
form
1
2
NP
(QLi
(XQ
)ij
QLj
)(QLi
(XQ
)ij
QLj
),
(3.6)
where
XQ
is
an
herm
itian
m
atrix.
W
ithout
loss
of generality, we
can
choose
to
work
in
the
basis
dened
in
Eq. (2.10):
Y
d
=
d
,
Y
u
=
V
u
,
XQ
=
V
d
Q
Vd
,
(3.7)
where Q
is a
diagonal real m
atrix, and
Vd
is a
unitary
m
atrix
which
param
etrizes the m
isalignm
ent
of the
operator (3.6) with
the
down
m
ass basis.
The experim
ental constraints that are m
ost relevant to
our study
com
e from
K
0
K
0 and
D
0
D
0
m
ixing, which
involve
only
the
rst
two
generation
quarks.
W
hen
studying
new
physics
eects,
ignoring
the
third
generation
is
often
a
good
approxim
ation
to
the
physics
at
hand.
Indeed, even
when
the third
generation
does play
a
role, our two
generation
analysis is applicable as long
as there
are
no
strong
cancellations with
contributions related
to
the
third
generation. In
a
two
generation
fram
ework, V
depends
on
a
single
m
ixing
angle
(the
Cabibbo
angle
c
), while
Vd
depends
on
a
9
6
What do we conclude ?
SM mechanism to induce avor & CPV
is successful.
The Nobel Prize in Physics
8/31/10 12:55 PM The Nobel Prize in Physics 2008
Page 1 of 1 http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2008/
Nobel Prizes Alfred Nobel Educational Video Player Nobel Organizations Search
About the Nobel Prizes
Facts and Lists
Nobel Prize in Physics
All Nobel Prizes in Physics
Facts on the Nobel Prize in
Physics
Prize Awarder for the Nobel
Prize in Physics
Nomination and Selection of
Physics Laureates
Nobel Medal for Physics
Articles in Physics
Video Nobel Lectures
Nobel Prize in Chemistry
Nobel Prize in Medicine
Nobel Prize in Literature
Nobel Peace Prize
Prize in Economic Sciences
Nobel Prize Award Ceremonies
1901 2009
Sort and list Nobel Prizes and Nobel Laureates Prize category:
2008
Photo: University of Chicago The Nobel Foundation Photo: U.
Montan
The Nobel Foundation Photo: U.
Montan
Yoichiro Nambu Makoto Kobayashi Toshihide Maskawa
Physics
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2008
Yoichiro Nambu, Makoto Kobayashi, Toshihide Maskawa
Nobel Prize Award Ceremony
Yoichiro Nambu
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2008 was divided, one half awarded to Yoichiro
Nambu "for the discovery of the mechanism of spontaneous broken symmetry in
subatomic physics",the other half jointly to Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide
Maskawa "for the discovery of the origin of the broken symmetry which predicts
the existence of at least three families of quarks in nature".
Photos: Copyright The Nobel Foundation
TO CITE THIS PAGE:
MLA style: "The Nobel Prize in Physics 2008". Nobelprize.org. 31 Aug 2010
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2008/
RELATED DOCUMENTS:
ARTICLE
PHYSICS
The Nobel Prize in
Physics
Read more about the
Nobel Prize in Physics 1901-2000.
RECOMMENDED:
EDUCATIONAL
MEDICINE
Diabetic Dog Game
Can you take care of a diabetic
dog properly?
FACTS AND LISTS
NOBEL PRIZES
Nobel Prize
Facts
Find out more
about the oldest,
youngest, most
awarded Nobel Laureates.
FOLLOW US
Youtube
Facebook
Twitter
Newsletter
RSS
About Nobelprize.org Privacy Policy Terms of Use Technical Support Copyright Nobel Web AB 2010
Home FAQ Press Contact Us
Home / Nobel Prizes / Nobel Prize in Physics / The Nobel Prize in Physics 2008
Facts and Lists
Physics
Prize in Physics
Physics Laureates
Articles in Physics
Nobel Peace Prize
1901 2009
2008
Montan
Montan
Physics
Yoichiro Nambu
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
TO CITE THIS PAGE:
RELATED DOCUMENTS:
ARTICLE
PHYSICS
The Nobel Prize in
Physics
Read more about the
RECOMMENDED:
EDUCATIONAL
MEDICINE
Diabetic Dog Game
dog properly?
FACTS AND LISTS
NOBEL PRIZES
Nobel Prize
Facts
Find out more
about the oldest,
youngest, most
FOLLOW US
Youtube
Facebook
Twitter
Newsletter
RSS
58
F
=
2
s
t
a
t
u
s
Operator
Bounds on
in
TeV
(cij
=
1)
Bounds on
cij
(
=
1
TeV)
Observables
Re
Im
Re
Im
( sL
dL
)
2 9.8
10
2
1.6
10
4
9.0
10
7 3.4
10
9
mK
; K
( sR
dL
)( sL
dR
)
1.8
10
4
3.2
10
5
6.9
10
9 2.6
10
11
mK
; K
( cL
uL
)
2 1.2
10
3
2.9
10
3
5.6
10
7 1.0
10
7
mD
; |q/p|, D
( cR
uL
)( cL
uR
)
6.2
10
3
1.5
10
4
5.7
10
8 1.1
10
8
mD
; |q/p|, D
(
bL
dL
)
2 5.1
10
2
9.3
10
2
3.3
10
6 1.0
10
6
mBd
; SKS
(
bR
dL
)(
bL
dR
)
1.9
10
3
3.6
10
3
5.6
10
7 1.7
10
7
mBd
; SKS
(
bL
sL
)
2
1.1
10
2
7.6
10
5
mBs
(
bR
sL
)(
bL
sR
)
3.7
10
2
1.3
10
5
mBs
(
tL
uL
)
2
TABLE
I:
Bounds on
representative dim
ension-six
F
=
are quoted
assum
ing an
eective coupling 1/
2
s assum
ing
=
1 TeV. Observables
related
to CPV
are separated
from
the CP
sem
icolons. In
the Bs
system
we only
quote
a
bound
on
the m
odulo
of the NP
am
plitude derived
from
mBs
of the CPV
observables in
the D
system
see Ref. [15].
(3.4)
where
there
is
an
independent
constraint
on
the
level of degeneracy
[16].
W
e
here
briey
explain
this point.
form
1
2
NP
(QLi
(XQ
)ij
QLj
)(QLi
(XQ
)ij
QLj
),
(3.6)
where
XQ
is
an
herm
itian
m
atrix.
W
ithout
loss
of generality, we
can
choose
to
work
in
the
basis
dened
in
Eq. (2.10):
Y
d
=
d
,
Y
u
=
V
u
,
XQ
=
V
d
Q
Vd
,
(3.7)
where Q
is a
diagonal real m
atrix, and
Vd
is a
unitary
m
atrix
which
param
etrizes the m
isalignm
ent
of the
operator (3.6) with
the
down
m
ass basis.
The experim
ost relevant to
our study
com
e from
K
0
K
0 and
D
0
D
0
m
ixing, which
involve
only
the
rst
two
generation
quarks.
W
hen
studying
new
physics
eects,
ignoring
the
third
generation
is
often
a
good
approxim
ation
to
the
physics
at
hand.
Indeed, even
when
the third
generation
does play
a
role, our two
generation
as there
are
no
strong
cancellations with
to
the
third
generation. In
a
two
generation
fram
ework, V
depends
on
a
single
m
ixing
angle
(the
Cabibbo
angle
c
), while
Vd
depends
on
a
9
6
is successful.
Facts and Lists
Physics
Prize in Physics
Physics Laureates
Articles in Physics
Nobel Peace Prize
1901 2009
2008
Montan
Montan
Physics
Yoichiro Nambu
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
TO CITE THIS PAGE:
RELATED DOCUMENTS:
ARTICLE
PHYSICS
The Nobel Prize in
Physics
Read more about the
RECOMMENDED:
EDUCATIONAL
MEDICINE
Diabetic Dog Game
dog properly?
FACTS AND LISTS
NOBEL PRIZES
Nobel Prize
Facts
Find out more
about the oldest,
youngest, most
FOLLOW US
Youtube
Facebook
Twitter
Newsletter
RSS
Facts and Lists
Physics
Prize in Physics
Physics Laureates
Articles in Physics
Nobel Peace Prize
1901 2009
2008
Montan
Montan
Physics
Yoichiro Nambu
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
TO CITE THIS PAGE:
RELATED DOCUMENTS:
ARTICLE
PHYSICS
The Nobel Prize in
Physics
Read more about the
RECOMMENDED:
EDUCATIONAL
MEDICINE
Diabetic Dog Game
dog properly?
FACTS AND LISTS
NOBEL PRIZES
Nobel Prize
Facts
Find out more
about the oldest,
youngest, most
FOLLOW US
Youtube
Facebook
Twitter
Newsletter
RSS
Bounds are too strong to allow for NP to be directly probed.
X
58
F
=
2
s
t
a
t
u
s
Operator
Bounds on
in
TeV
(cij
=
1)
Bounds on
cij
(
=
1
TeV)
Observables
Re
Im
Re
Im
( sL
dL
)
2 9.8
10
2
1.6
10
4
9.0
10
7 3.4
10
9
mK
; K
( sR
dL
)( sL
dR
)
1.8
10
4
3.2
10
5
6.9
10
9 2.6
10
11
mK
; K
( cL
uL
)
2 1.2
10
3
2.9
10
3
5.6
10
7 1.0
10
7
mD
; |q/p|, D
( cR
uL
)( cL
uR
)
6.2
10
3
1.5
10
4
5.7
10
8 1.1
10
8
mD
; |q/p|, D
(
bL
dL
)
2 5.1
10
2
9.3
10
2
3.3
10
6 1.0
10
6
mBd
; SKS
(
bR
dL
)(
bL
dR
)
1.9
10
3
3.6
10
3
5.6
10
7 1.7
10
7
mBd
; SKS
(
bL
sL
)
2
1.1
10
2
7.6
10
5
mBs
(
bR
sL
)(
bL
sR
)
3.7
10
2
1.3
10
5
mBs
(
tL
uL
)
2
TABLE
I:
Bounds on
representative dim
ension-six
F
=
are quoted
assum
ing an
eective coupling 1/
2
s assum
ing
=
1 TeV. Observables
related
to CPV
are separated
from
the CP
sem
icolons. In
the Bs
system
we only
quote
a
bound
on
the m
odulo
of the NP
am
plitude derived
from
mBs
of the CPV
observables in
the D
system
see Ref. [15].
(3.4)
where
there
is
an
independent
constraint
on
the
level of degeneracy
[16].
W
e
here
briey
explain
this point.
form
1
2
NP
(QLi
(XQ
)ij
QLj
)(QLi
(XQ
)ij
QLj
),
(3.6)
where
XQ
is
an
herm
itian
m
atrix.
W
ithout
loss
of generality, we
can
choose
to
work
in
the
basis
dened
in
Eq. (2.10):
Y
d
=
d
,
Y
u
=
V
u
,
XQ
=
V
d
Q
Vd
,
(3.7)
where Q
is a
diagonal real m
atrix, and
Vd
is a
unitary
m
atrix
which
param
etrizes the m
isalignm
ent
of the
operator (3.6) with
the
down
m
ass basis.
The experim
ost relevant to
our study
com
e from
K
0
K
0 and
D
0
D
0
m
ixing, which
involve
only
the
rst
two
generation
quarks.
W
hen
studying
new
physics
eects,
ignoring
the
third
generation
is
often
a
good
approxim
ation
to
the
physics
at
hand.
Indeed, even
when
the third
generation
does play
a
role, our two
generation
as there
are
no
strong
cancellations with
to
the
third
generation. In
a
two
generation
fram
ework, V
depends
on
a
single
m
ixing
angle
(the
Cabibbo
angle
c
), while
Vd
depends
on
a
9
6
is successful.
Hint for underlying structure of microscopic laws of nature.
Facts and Lists
Physics
Prize in Physics
Physics Laureates
Articles in Physics
Nobel Peace Prize
1901 2009
2008
Montan
Montan
Physics
Yoichiro Nambu
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
TO CITE THIS PAGE:
RELATED DOCUMENTS:
ARTICLE
PHYSICS
The Nobel Prize in
Physics
Read more about the
RECOMMENDED:
EDUCATIONAL
MEDICINE
Diabetic Dog Game
dog properly?
FACTS AND LISTS
NOBEL PRIZES
Nobel Prize
Facts
Find out more
about the oldest,
youngest, most
FOLLOW US
Youtube
Facebook
Twitter
Newsletter
RSS
Facts and Lists
Physics
Prize in Physics
Physics Laureates
Articles in Physics
Nobel Peace Prize
1901 2009
2008
Montan
Montan
Physics
Yoichiro Nambu
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
TO CITE THIS PAGE:
RELATED DOCUMENTS:
ARTICLE
PHYSICS
The Nobel Prize in
Physics
Read more about the
RECOMMENDED:
EDUCATIONAL
MEDICINE
Diabetic Dog Game
dog properly?
FACTS AND LISTS
NOBEL PRIZES
Nobel Prize
Facts
Find out more
about the oldest,
youngest, most
FOLLOW US
Youtube
Facebook
Twitter
Newsletter
RSS
Bounds are too strong to allow for NP to be directly probed.
X
58
Alternatively, assume 1TeV & bound coefcients
2
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
L
F=2
=
z
sd
(1 TeV)
2
(d
L
s
L
)
2
+
z
cu
(1 TeV)
2
(c
L
u
L
)
2
+
z
4
sd
(1 TeV)
2
(d
L
s
R
)(d
R
s
L
) +
z
4
cu
(1 TeV)
2
(u
L
c
R
)(u
R
c
L
).
cos
ud

A

B
|
A| |
B|
=
tr
Y
U
Y

U
tr /
Y
D
Y

D
tr /
tr
Y
U
Y

U
2
tr /
tr
Y
D
Y

D
2
tr /
1 c
4
ud
= O(
2
)
(Y
U
Y

U
)
down
= V

CKM
(Y
U
Y

U
)
diag
V
CKM
y
2
t
V
ti
CKM
V
tj
CKM
y
2
t
3
1
3
2
8
+ c
13

x
13
+ c
23

x
23
(1)
Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D

y
2
t,b
3
1
3
1
2
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
3
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
[Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D
] 0
U(2)
D
U(2)
U
U(1)
B
U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
U(2)
Q
u
U(2)
U
U(1)
t
U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
Flavor structure of TeV NP is highly non-generic!
recent, will be
further improved
2
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
L
F=2
=
z
sd
(1 TeV)
2
(d
L
s
L
)
2
+
z
cu
(1 TeV)
2
(c
L
u
L
)
2
+
z
4
sd
(1 TeV)
2
(d
L
s
R
)(d
R
s
L
) +
z
4
cu
(1 TeV)
2
(u
L
c
R
)(u
R
c
L
).
Im(z
sd
, z
4
sd
)
<
(3.4 10
9
, 2.6 10
11
) (
NP
/TeV)
2
, (1)
Im(z
cu
, z
4
cu
)
<
(1.0 10
7
, 1.1 10
8
) (
NP
/TeV)
2
,
cos
ud

A

B
|
A| |
B|
=
tr
Y
U
Y

U
tr /
Y
D
Y

D
tr /
tr
Y
U
Y

U
2
tr /
tr
Y
D
Y

D
2
tr /
1 c
4
ud
= O(
2
)
(Y
U
Y

U
)
down
= V

CKM
(Y
U
Y

U
)
diag
V
CKM
y
2
t
V
ti
CKM
V
tj
CKM
y
2
t
3
1
3
2
8
+ c
13

x
13
+ c
23

x
23
(2)
Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D

y
2
t,b
3
1
3
1
2
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
3
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
[Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D
] 0
U(2)
D
U(2)
U
U(1)
B
U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
U(2)
Q
u U(2)
U
U(1)
t
U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
59
What kind of NP survives?
Flavor blind/universal NP, for sure, but very restrictive.
(spoiled by RGE)
60
NP avor structure is controlled by SM one, effective minimal
avor violation (MFV) => more exciting than naively guessed
(spoiled by RGE)
60
NP avor structure is controlled by SM one, effective minimal
avor violation (MFV) => more exciting than naively guessed
(spoiled by RGE)
Maybe NP is anarchic but aligned.
Nir-Seiberg (92); Fitzpatrick-Perez-Randall (07); Csaki-Surujon-Perez-Weiler (09).
60
Aligning away NP & the power of the D system
The bounds from are much more severe.
2
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
L
F=2
=
z
sd
(1 TeV)
2
(d
L
s
L
)
2
+
z
cu
(1 TeV)
2
(c
L
u
L
)
2
+
z
4
sd
(1 TeV)
2
(d
L
s
R
)(d
R
s
L
) +
z
4
cu
(1 TeV)
2
(u
L
c
R
)(u
R
c
L
).
Im(z
sd
, z
4
sd
)
<
(3.4 10
9
, 2.6 10
11
) (
NP
/TeV)
2
, (1)
Im(z
cu
, z
4
cu
)
<
(1.0 10
7
, 1.1 10
8
) (
NP
/TeV)
2
,
z
sd
(1, 8, 1, 1) (1, 8, 1, 1), z
cu
(8, 1, 1, 1) (8, 1, 1, 1)
z
4
sd
(1, 8, 1, 8), z
4
cu
(8, 1, 8, 1)
z
4
sd,cu
cos
ud

A

B
|
A| |
B|
=
tr
Y
U
Y

U
tr /
Y
D
Y

D
tr /
tr
Y
U
Y

U
2
tr /
tr
Y
D
Y

D
2
tr /
1 c
4
ud
= O(
2
)
(Y
U
Y

U
)
down
= V

CKM
(Y
U
Y

U
)
diag
V
CKM
y
2
t
V
ti
CKM
V
tj
CKM
y
2
t
3
1
3
2
8
+ c
13

x
13
+ c
23

x
23
(2)
Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D

y
2
t,b
3
1
3
1
2
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
3
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
[Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D
] 0
U(2)
D
U(2)
U
U(1)
B
U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
U(2)
Q
u
U(2)
U
U(1)
t
3
U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
U(1)
3
Y
U
0
Y

U
Y
D
Y
U
& Y
D
.
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
G
SM
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Y

U
Y
U
Y

D
Y
D
3
U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
U(1)
3
Y
U
0
Y

U
Y
D
Y
U
& Y
D
.
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
G
SM
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Y

U
Y
U
Y

D
Y
D
Have singlet part which can be aligned with SM, , .
However,
2
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
L
F=2
=
z
sd
(1 TeV)
2
(d
L
s
L
)
2
+
z
cu
(1 TeV)
2
(c
L
u
L
)
2
+
z
4
sd
(1 TeV)
2
(d
L
s
R
)(d
R
s
L
) +
z
4
cu
(1 TeV)
2
(u
L
c
R
)(u
R
c
L
).
Im(z
sd
, z
4
sd
)
<
(3.4 10
9
, 2.6 10
11
) (
NP
/TeV)
2
, (1)
Im(z
cu
, z
4
cu
)
<
(1.0 10
7
, 1.1 10
8
) (
NP
/TeV)
2
,
z
sd
(1, 8, 1, 1) (1, 8, 1, 1), z
cu
(8, 1, 1, 1) (8, 1, 1, 1)
z
4
sd
(1, 8, 1, 8), z
4
cu
(8, 1, 8, 1)
z
4
sd,cu
cos
ud

A

B
|
A| |
B|
=
tr
Y
U
Y

U
tr /
Y
D
Y

D
tr /
tr
Y
U
Y

U
2
tr /
tr
Y
D
Y

D
2
tr /
1 c
4
ud
= O(
2
)
(Y
U
Y

U
)
down
= V

CKM
(Y
U
Y

U
)
diag
V
CKM
y
2
t
V
ti
CKM
V
tj
CKM
y
2
t
3
1
3
2
8
+ c
13

x
13
+ c
23

x
23
(2)
Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D

y
2
t,b
3
1
3
1
2
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
3
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
[Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D
] 0
U(2)
D
U(2)
U
U(1)
B
U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
U(2)
Q
u
U(2)
U
U(1)
t
2
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
L
F=2
=
z
sd
(1 TeV)
2
(d
L
s
L
)
2
+
z
cu
(1 TeV)
2
(c
L
u
L
)
2
+
z
4
sd
(1 TeV)
2
(d
L
s
R
)(d
R
s
L
) +
z
4
cu
(1 TeV)
2
(u
L
c
R
)(u
R
c
L
).
Im(z
sd
, z
4
sd
)
<
(3.4 10
9
, 2.6 10
11
) (
NP
/TeV)
2
, (1)
Im(z
cu
, z
4
cu
)
<
(1.0 10
7
, 1.1 10
8
) (
NP
/TeV)
2
,
z
sd
(1, 8, 1, 1) (1, 8, 1, 1), z
cu
(8, 1, 1, 1) (8, 1, 1, 1)
z
4
sd
(1, 8, 1, 8), z
4
cu
(8, 1, 8, 1)
z
4
sd,cu
z
sd,cu
z
Q
cos
ud

A

B
|
A| |
B|
=
tr
Y
U
Y

U
tr /
Y
D
Y

D
tr /
tr
Y
U
Y

U
2
tr /
tr
Y
D
Y

D
2
tr /
1 c
4
ud
= O(
2
)
(Y
U
Y

U
)
down
= V

CKM
(Y
U
Y

U
)
diag
V
CKM
y
2
t
V
ti
CKM
V
tj
CKM
y
2
t
3
1
3
2
8
+ c
13

x
13
+ c
23

x
23
(2)
Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D

y
2
t,b
3
1
3
1
2
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
3
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
[Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D
] 0
U(2)
D
U(2)
U
U(1)
B
2
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
L
F=2
=
z
sd
(1 TeV)
2
(d
L
s
L
)
2
+
z
cu
(1 TeV)
2
(c
L
u
L
)
2
+
z
4
sd
(1 TeV)
2
(d
L
s
R
)(d
R
s
L
) +
z
4
cu
(1 TeV)
2
(u
L
c
R
)(u
R
c
L
).
Im(z
sd
, z
4
sd
)
<
(3.4 10
9
, 2.6 10
11
) (
NP
/TeV)
2
, (1)
Im(z
cu
, z
4
cu
)
<
(1.0 10
7
, 1.1 10
8
) (
NP
/TeV)
2
,
z
sd
(1, 8, 1, 1) (1, 8, 1, 1), z
cu
(8, 1, 1, 1) (8, 1, 1, 1)
z
4
sd
(1, 8, 1, 8), z
4
cu
(8, 1, 8, 1)
z
4
sd,cu
z
sd,cu
cos
ud

A

B
|
A| |
B|
=
tr
Y
U
Y

U
tr /
Y
D
Y

D
tr /
tr
Y
U
Y

U
2
tr /
tr
Y
D
Y

D
2
tr /
1 c
4
ud
= O(
2
)
(Y
U
Y

U
)
down
= V

CKM
(Y
U
Y

U
)
diag
V
CKM
y
2
t
V
ti
CKM
V
tj
CKM
y
2
t
3
1
3
2
8
+ c
13

x
13
+ c
23

x
23
(2)
Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D

y
2
t,b
3
1
3
1
2
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
3
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
[Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D
] 0
U(2)
D
U(2)
U
U(1)
B
U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
On the other hand assuming SU(2)
L
expected to
have a common origin, .

4
Y
U
Y
U
Y
D
Y
D
Y
U
Y
U
& Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3)
K
NP to be
>
10
4
G
SM
= U(3)
Q
U(3)
u
U(3)
d
, (3)
H
u

Q
L
Y
u
u
R
+H
d

Q
L
Y
d
d
R
, (4)
SM
u,d
=
V
Q
Y
u,d
V
u,d
, u
, d
) = V
Q,u,d
SM
SM

QQ bilinears
insertions such as

Q(Y
u
Y
u
)
n

QY
d
(Y
u
Y
u
)
n
Q are not.

Qf(
u
Y
u
,
d
Y
d
)Q can be expanded
in powers of Y
u,d
u
and Y
d
t,b
u,d
Linear MFV (LMFV):
u,d
1 and the dominant avor breaking eects are captured by the lowest order
polynomials of Y
u,d
.
u,d
O(1), higher powers of Y
u,d
are important, and a truncated expansion in y
t,b
is not possible.
Examples of NLMFV are: low energy supersymmetric models in which large tan eects need to be resummed (large
d
F

W
, where large
u,d
log(
W
/
F
) are generated from sizable
anomalous dimensions in the renormalization group running [5]. Another example is warped extra dimension models
with alignment [6], in cases where right handed up-quark currents are subdominant.
In this letter we show that even in NLMFV there is a systematic expansion in small quantities, V
td
, V
ts
, and light
quark masses, while resumming in y
t
, y
b
O(1). This is achieved via a non-linear -modellike parametrization.
Namely, in the limit of vanishing weak gauge coupling (or m
W
), U(3)
Q
is enhanced to U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d. The
2
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
L
F=2
=
z
sd
(1 TeV)
2
(d
L
s
L
)
2
+
z
cu
(1 TeV)
2
(c
L
u
L
)
2
+
z
4
sd
(1 TeV)
2
(d
L
s
R
)(d
R
s
L
) +
z
4
cu
(1 TeV)
2
(u
L
c
R
)(u
R
c
L
).
Im(z
sd
, z
4
sd
)
<
(3.4 10
9
, 2.6 10
11
) (
NP
/TeV)
2
, (1)
Im(z
cu
, z
4
cu
)
<
(1.0 10
7
, 1.1 10
8
) (
NP
/TeV)
2
,
z
sd
(1, 8, 1, 1) (1, 8, 1, 1), z
cu
(8, 1, 1, 1) (8, 1, 1, 1)
z
4
sd
(1, 8, 1, 8), z
4
cu
(8, 1, 8, 1)
z
4
sd,cu
z
sd,cu
z
Q
cos
ud

A

B
|
A| |
B|
=
tr
Y
U
Y

U
tr /
Y
D
Y

D
tr /
tr
Y
U
Y

U
2
tr /
tr
Y
D
Y

D
2
tr /
1 c
4
ud
= O(
2
)
(Y
U
Y

U
)
down
= V

CKM
(Y
U
Y

U
)
diag
V
CKM
y
2
t
V
ti
CKM
V
tj
CKM
y
2
t
3
1
3
2
8
+ c
13

x
13
+ c
23

x
23
(2)
Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D

y
2
t,b
3
1
3
1
2
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
3
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
[Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D
] 0
U(2)
D
U(2)
U
U(1)
B
Cannot align simultaneously with both .
Nir (07); Blum, Grossman, Nir, GP (09)
61
Two generation covariance description
X
Q
is 2x2 Hermitian matrix, can be described as a
vector in SU(2) 3D avor space.
The space can be span by using the SM Yukawas (very useful
for CPV, see later):
violation is given in Sec. 3. In Sec. 4 we use our formalism to constrain NP models in an
assumption-free manner, based on third generation F = 1 decays. Sec. 5 similarly deals with
F = 2 processes involving the third generation quarks. For the latter two sections, current
experimental data is used for the down sector constraints, while the up sector bounds are mostly
based on LHC prospects. Secs. 6 and 7 present concrete examples for the application of the
analysis to supersymmetry and warped extra dimension, respectively. Finally, we conclude in
Sec. 8.
2 Two Generations
We start with the simpler two generations case, which is actually very useful in constraining
new physics, as a result of the richer experimental data. Any hermitian traceless 2 2 matrix
can be expressed as a linear combination of the Pauli matrices
i
. This combination can be
naturally interpreted as a vector in three dimensional real space, which applies to A
d
and A
u
.
We can then dene a length of such a vector, a scalar product, a cross product and an angle
between two vectors, all of which are basis-independent
2
:
|
~
A|
r
1
2
tr(A
2
) ,
~
A
~
B
1
2
tr(AB) ,
~
A
~
B
i
2
[A, B] ,
cos(
AB
)
~
A
~
B
|
~
A||
~
B|
=
tr(AB)
p
tr(A
2
)tr(B
2
)
.
(3)
These denitions allow for an intuitive understanding of the avor and CP violation induced
by a new physics source. Consider a dimension six SU(2)
L
-invariant operator, involving only
quark doublets,
z
1
2
NP
O
1
=
1
2
NP
Q
i
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
j

Q
i
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
j
, (4)
where
NP
is some high energy scale and z
1
is the Wilson coecient. X
Q
is a traceless hermitian
matrix, transforming as an adjoint of SU(3)
Q
(or SU(2)
Q
for two generations), so it lives in
the same space as A
d
and A
u
.
3
In the down sector for example, the operator above is relevant
for avor violation through K
0
K
0
mixing. To analyze its contribution, we dene a covariant
basis for each sector, with the following unit vectors
A
u,d

A
u,d
|A
u,d
|
,

J
A
d
A
u
|A
d
A
u
|
,

J
u,d

A
u,d

J . (5)
Then the contribution of the operator in Eq. (4) to c, s = 2 processes is given by the mis-
alignment between X
Q
and A
u,d
, which is equal to
z
D,K
1
X
Q

A
u,d
2
. (6)
This result is manifestly invariant under a change of basis. The meaning of Eq. (6) can be
understood as follows: We can choose an explicit basis, for example the down mass basis,
where A
d
is proportional to
3
. s = 2 transitions are induced by the o-diagonal element of
X
Q
, so that
z
K
1
= |(X
Q
)
12
|
2
. Furthermore, |(X
Q
)
12
| is simply the combined size of the
1
and
2
components of X
Q
. Its size is given by the length of X
Q
times the sine of the angle between
X
Q
and A
d
(see Fig 1). This is exactly what Eq. (6) describes.
2
The factor of i/2 in the cross product is required in order to have the standard geometrical interpretation
~
A
~
B
= |
~
A||
~
B| sin
AB
, with
AB
dened through the scalar product as in Eq. (3).
3
This operator can always be written as a product of two identical adjoints, as explained in Appendix A.
3
Preliminaries
NPKI workshop 5
* OG, L. Mannelli and G. Perez, PLB 693, 301 (2010) [arXiv:1002.0778]; JHEP 1010,
046 (2010) [arXiv:1003.3869]
62
Two generation covariance description, cont
violation is given in Sec. 3. In Sec. 4 we use our formalism to constrain NP models in an
assumption-free manner, based on third generation F = 1 decays. Sec. 5 similarly deals with
F = 2 processes involving the third generation quarks. For the latter two sections, current
experimental data is used for the down sector constraints, while the up sector bounds are mostly
based on LHC prospects. Secs. 6 and 7 present concrete examples for the application of the
analysis to supersymmetry and warped extra dimension, respectively. Finally, we conclude in
Sec. 8.
2 Two Generations
We start with the simpler two generations case, which is actually very useful in constraining
new physics, as a result of the richer experimental data. Any hermitian traceless 2 2 matrix
can be expressed as a linear combination of the Pauli matrices
i
. This combination can be
naturally interpreted as a vector in three dimensional real space, which applies to A
d
and A
u
.
We can then dene a length of such a vector, a scalar product, a cross product and an angle
between two vectors, all of which are basis-independent
2
:
|
~
A|
r
1
2
tr(A
2
) ,
~
A
~
B
1
2
tr(AB) ,
~
A
~
B
i
2
[A, B] ,
cos(
AB
)
~
A
~
B
|
~
A||
~
B|
=
tr(AB)
p
tr(A
2
)tr(B
2
)
.
(3)
These denitions allow for an intuitive understanding of the avor and CP violation induced
by a new physics source. Consider a dimension six SU(2)
L
quark doublets,
z
1
2
NP
O
1
=
1
2
NP
Q
i
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
j

Q
i
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
j
, (4)
where
NP
is some high energy scale and z
1
is the Wilson coecient. X
Q
is a traceless hermitian
matrix, transforming as an adjoint of SU(3)
Q
(or SU(2)
Q
for two generations), so it lives in
the same space as A
d
and A
u
.
3
In the down sector for example, the operator above is relevant
for avor violation through K
0
K
0
mixing. To analyze its contribution, we dene a covariant
basis for each sector, with the following unit vectors
A
u,d

A
u,d
|A
u,d
|
,

J
A
d
A
u
|A
d
A
u
|
,

J
u,d

A
u,d

J . (5)
Then the contribution of the operator in Eq. (4) to c, s = 2 processes is given by the mis-
alignment between X
Q
and A
u,d
, which is equal to
z
D,K
1
X
Q

A
u,d
2
. (6)
This result is manifestly invariant under a change of basis. The meaning of Eq. (6) can be
understood as follows: We can choose an explicit basis, for example the down mass basis,
where A
d
is proportional to
3
. s = 2 transitions are induced by the o-diagonal element of
X
Q
, so that
z
K
1
= |(X
Q
)
12
|
2
. Furthermore, |(X
Q
)
12
1
and
2
components of X
Q
Q
times the sine of the angle between
X
Q
and A
d
(see Fig 1). This is exactly what Eq. (6) describes.
2
The factor of i/2 in the cross product is required in order to have the standard geometrical interpretation
~
A
~
B
= |
~
A||
~
B| sin
AB
, with
AB
dened through the scalar product as in Eq. (3).
3
This operator can always be written as a product of two identical adjoints, as explained in Appendix A.
3
Figure 1: The contribution of X
Q
to K
0
K
0
mixing, m
K
, given by the solid blue line. In
the down mass basis,

A
d
corresponds to
3
,

J is
2
and

J
d
is
1
.
Next we discuss CPV, which is given by
Im
z
K,D
1
= 2
X
Q

J
X
Q

J
u,d
. (7)
The above expression is easy to understand in the down basis, for instance. In addition to
diagonalizing A
d
, we can also choose A
u
to reside in the
1
3
plane (Fig. 2) without loss of
generality, since there is no CPV in the SM for two generations. As a result, all of the potential
CPV originates from X
Q
in this basis. z
K
1
is the square of the o-diagonal element in X
Q
,
(X
Q
)
12
, thus Im
z
K
1
is simply twice the real part (

1
component) times the imaginary part
(
2
component). In this basis we have

J /
1
and

J
d
/
2
, this proves the validity of Eq. (7).
Figure 2: CP violation in the Kaon system induced by X
Q
. Im(z
K
1
) is twice the product of the
two solid orange lines, which are the projections of X
Q
on the

J and

J
d
axes. Note that the
angle between A
d
and A
u
is twice the Cabibbo angle,
C
.
The weakest unavoidable bound coming from measurements in the K and D systems was
derived in [6] using a specic parameterization of X
Q
. In the covariant bases dened in Eq. (5),
X
Q
can be written as
X
Q
= X
u,d

A
u,d
+ X
J

J + X
J
u,d
J
u,d
, (8)
and the two bases are related through
X
u
= cos 2
C
X
d
sin 2
C
X
J
d
, X
J
u
= sin 2
C
X
d
cos 2
C
X
J
d
, (9)
while X
J
remains invariant. Plugging Eqs. (8) and (9) into Eqs. (6) and (7), we obtain explicit
results. It is then easy to see that in the parameterization employed in [6],
12
sin is equal to
X
J
,
12
sin cos is equal to X
J
d
etc., therefore their results coincide with ours.
4
63
Combining K
0
K
0
mixing and D
0
D
0
mixing
to constrain the avor structure of new physics
Kr Blum,
1,
Yuval Grossman,
2,
Yosef Nir,
1,
and Gilad Perez
1,
1
2
Institute for High Energy Phenomenology, Newman Laboratory of
Elementary Particle Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
New physics at high energy scale often contributes to K
0
K
0
and D
0
D
0
mixings in an approxi-
mately SU(2)
L
invariant way. In such a case, the combination of measurements in these two systems
is particularly powerful. The resulting constraints can be expressed in terms of misalignments and
avor splittings.
Introduction. Measurements of avor changing
neutral current processes put strong constraints on new
physics at the TeV scale and provide a crucial guide for
model building. In particular, measurements of the mass
splitting and CP violation in the neutral K system [1],
m
K
/m
K
= (7.01 0.01) 10
15
,
K
= (2.23 0.01) 10
3
, (1)
require a highly non-generic avor structure to any such
theory. Recently, huge progress has been made in mea-
surements of the mass splitting and in the search for CP
violation in the neutral D system [2]:
m
D
/m
D
= (8.6 2.1) 10
15
,
A
= (1.2 2.5) 10
3
. (2)
These measurements are particularly useful in constrain-
ing models where the main avor changing eects occur
in the up sector [3].
By non-generic avor structure we mean either align-
ment or degeneracies or both. Each of the set of con-
straints (1) and (2) can be satised by aligning the new
physics contributions with specic directions in avor
space. However, contributions that involve only quark
doublets cannot be simultaneously aligned in both the
down and the up sectors. Thus, the combination of the
measurements related to K
0
K
0
mixing (1) and to
D
0
D
0
mixing (2) leads to unavoidable bounds on new
physics degeneracies.
In this work, we develop the formalism that is nec-
essary to obtain these unavoidable bounds, explain the
qualitative implications and derive the actual quantita-
tive constraints from the present experimental bounds.
Theoretical and experimental background. The
eects of new physics at a high scale
NP
m
W
on low
energy phenomena can be expressed in terms of an ef-
fective Hamiltonian, composed of Standard Model (SM)
elds and obeying the SM symmetries. In particular,
four-quark operators contribute to S = 2 and C = 2
processes. We are interested in the operators that involve
only quark doublets:
1
2
NP
z
sd
(d
L
s
L
)(d
L
s
L
) +z
cu
(u
L
c
L
)(u
L
c
L
)
.
(3)
We constrain new physics by requiring that contributions
of the form (3) do not exceed the experimental value
of m
K
and the one-sigma upper bounds on m
D
and
on CP violation in D
0
D
0
mixing. As concerns
K
,
since the SM contribution has only little uncertainties
and should be taken into account, we require that the new
physics is smaller than 0.6 times the experimental bound
[4]. We update the calculations of Ref. [5] (the details are
presented in [3]) and obtain the following upper bounds
on |z
sd
| and |z
cu
|:
|z
sd
| z
K
exp
= 8.8 10
7

NP
1 TeV
2
,
|z
cu
| z
D
exp
= 5.9 10
7

NP
1 TeV
2
, (4)
and on Im(z
sd
) and Im(z
cu
):
Im(z
sd
) z
IK
exp
= 3.3 10
9

NP
1 TeV
2
,
Im(z
cu
) z
ID
exp
= 1.0 10
7

NP
1 TeV
2
. (5)
When eects of SU(2)
L
breaking are small, the terms
that lead to z
sd
and z
cu
have the form
1
2
NP
(Q
Li
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
Lj
)(Q
Li
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
Lj
), (6)
where X
Q
is an hermitian matrix. The matrix X
Q
pro-
vides a source of avor violation beyond the Yukawa ma-
trices of the SM, Y
d
and Y
u
:
Q
Li
(Y
d
)
ij
d
j
d
+Q
Li
(Y
u
)
ij
u
j
u
. (7)
Here
d,u
are Higgs doublets of opposite hypercharges.
(Within the SM,
u
=
2
d
.) Without loss of generality,
we can choose to work in a basis where
Y
d
=
d
, Y
u
= V
u
, X
Q
= V
d

Q
V
d
, (8)
Assuming SU(2)
L
:
3
where
v
cos 2
c
0 sin 2
c
0 1 0
sin 2
c
0 cos 2
c
v. (20)
Our formalism is motivated by the fact that it puts all
CPV in v
2
. The v
2
parameter is the projection of X
Q
onto the direction perpendicular to the 13 plane where,
without loss of generality, Y
D
Y

D
and Y
U
Y

U
reside. This
can be clearly seen from the expression for the Jarlskog
invariant for our framework:
J = Tr
Y
D
Y

D
, Y
U
Y

U
(21)
= i(y
2
s
Y
2
D
)(y
2
c
Y
2
U
)
12
sin 2
c
v
2
.
Using this parametrization, we obtain
z
sd
=
2
12
( v
1
i v
2
)
2
, (22)
z
cu
=
2
12
(cos 2
c
v
1
sin 2
c
v
3
i v
2
)
2
. (23)
Note that, among the three v
i
, there are only two inde-
pendent parameters. We thus study the constraints as a
function of
sin v
2
[0, 1], (24)
sin
v
1
v
2
1
+ v
2
3
[1, 1].
In terms of and , we obtain
|z
sd
| =
2
12
cos
2
sin
2
+ sin
2
, (25)
|z
cu
| =
2
12
cos
2
sin
2
( 2
c
) + sin
2
,
Im(z
sd
) =
2
12
sinsin 2,
Im(z
cu
) =
2
12
sin( 2
c
) sin2.
As a rst check of our results, note that when we take
= 0, we reproduce Eq. (13). (The identication of
with 2
d
is correct only in the CPC case.) The bound
(17) remains the weakest bound on the avor degeneracy.
In the presence of a CPV phase in V
d
, the bound becomes
stronger. The weakest
12
-bound as a function of sin
is presented in Fig. 1.
At 0.03
<
| sin|

<
0.98, the constraints from the CPV
observables are dominant, and the combination of z
IK
exp
and z
ID
exp
is responsible for the unavoidable bound on
12
.
Dening
r
I
KD
z
IK
exp
/z
ID
exp
, (26)
the weakest bound on
12
corresponds to
tan =
r
I
KD
sin 2
c
1 + r
I
KD
cos 2
c
, (27)
and is given by
2
12

z
ID
exp
sin 2
c
sin 2
1 + r
I2
KD
+ 2r
I
KD
cos 2
c
. (28)
Using Eq. (5), we nd that the weakest bound occurs at
sin 0.014 and it is given by
12

4.8 10
4
sin 2

NP
1 TeV
. (29)
Eq. (29) explains the sin dependence of the curve in
Fig. 1 in the relevant range.
Comparison with Eq. (17) reveals the power of the
upper bound on CPV in D
0
D
0
mixing in constraining
the avor structure of new physics. For maximal phases
(sin 2 = 1), it implies degeneracy stronger by a fac-
tor of 8 compared to the bound from CPC observables.
For
NP
1 TeV and large phases, the avor-diagonal
and avor-degeneracy factors should provide a suppres-
sion stronger than O(10
3
). With loop suppression of
order
12

2
, the degeneracy should be stronger than
0.02.
Supersymmetry. An explicit example of the con-
straints on new physics parameters obtained by combin-
ing measurements of K
0
K
0
mixing and of D
0
D
0
mixing is provided by supersymmetry. Any supersym-
metric model generates the operator (6) via box diagrams
with intermediate gluinos and squark-doublets. The var-
ious factors that enter z
sd
and z
cu
can be identied as
follows:
NP
= m
Q
(m
Q
1
+ m
Q
2
)/2,
2
12
=

2
s
54
g(m
2
g
/ m
2
Q
),
12
= (m
Q
2
m
Q
1
)/(m
Q
1
+ m
Q
2
), (30)
where m
Q
i
is the squark-doublet mass, m
g
is the gluino
mass, and g(m
2
g
/ m
2
Q
) is a known function (see e.g. [6])
with, for example g(1) = 1. Taking m
Q
1 TeV, and
m
g
m
Q
(which gives
12
0.014), leads to
m
Q
2
m
Q
2
m
Q
1
+ m
Q
2
0.034 maximal phases

0.27 vanishing phases
(31)
FIG. 1: The weakest
12
-bound as function of sin.
Combining K
0
K
0
mixing and D
0
D
0
mixing
to constrain the avor structure of new physics
Kr Blum,
1,
Yuval Grossman,
2,
Yosef Nir,
1,
and Gilad Perez
1,
1
2
Institute for High Energy Phenomenology, Newman Laboratory of
Elementary Particle Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
New physics at high energy scale often contributes to K
0
K
0
and D
0
D
0
mixings in an approxi-
mately SU(2)
L
invariant way. In such a case, the combination of measurements in these two systems
is particularly powerful. The resulting constraints can be expressed in terms of misalignments and
avor splittings.
Introduction. Measurements of avor changing
neutral current processes put strong constraints on new
physics at the TeV scale and provide a crucial guide for
model building. In particular, measurements of the mass
splitting and CP violation in the neutral K system [1],
m
K
/m
K
= (7.01 0.01) 10
15
,
K
= (2.23 0.01) 10
3
, (1)
require a highly non-generic avor structure to any such
theory. Recently, huge progress has been made in mea-
surements of the mass splitting and in the search for CP
violation in the neutral D system [2]:
m
D
/m
D
= (8.6 2.1) 10
15
,
A
= (1.2 2.5) 10
3
. (2)
These measurements are particularly useful in constrain-
ing models where the main avor changing eects occur
in the up sector [3].
By non-generic avor structure we mean either align-
ment or degeneracies or both. Each of the set of con-
straints (1) and (2) can be satised by aligning the new
physics contributions with specic directions in avor
space. However, contributions that involve only quark
doublets cannot be simultaneously aligned in both the
down and the up sectors. Thus, the combination of the
measurements related to K
0
K
0
mixing (1) and to
D
0
D
0
mixing (2) leads to unavoidable bounds on new
physics degeneracies.
In this work, we develop the formalism that is nec-
essary to obtain these unavoidable bounds, explain the
qualitative implications and derive the actual quantita-
tive constraints from the present experimental bounds.
Theoretical and experimental background. The
eects of new physics at a high scale
NP
m
W
on low
energy phenomena can be expressed in terms of an ef-
fective Hamiltonian, composed of Standard Model (SM)
elds and obeying the SM symmetries. In particular,
four-quark operators contribute to S = 2 and C = 2
processes. We are interested in the operators that involve
only quark doublets:
1
2
NP
z
sd
(d
L
s
L
)(d
L
s
L
) +z
cu
(u
L
c
L
)(u
L
c
L
)
.
(3)
We constrain new physics by requiring that contributions
of the form (3) do not exceed the experimental value
of m
K
and the one-sigma upper bounds on m
D
and
on CP violation in D
0
D
0
mixing. As concerns
K
,
since the SM contribution has only little uncertainties
and should be taken into account, we require that the new
physics is smaller than 0.6 times the experimental bound
[4]. We update the calculations of Ref. [5] (the details are
presented in [3]) and obtain the following upper bounds
on |z
sd
| and |z
cu
|:
|z
sd
| z
K
exp
= 8.8 10
7

NP
1 TeV
2
,
|z
cu
| z
D
exp
= 5.9 10
7

NP
1 TeV
2
, (4)
and on Im(z
sd
) and Im(z
cu
):
Im(z
sd
) z
IK
exp
= 3.3 10
9

NP
1 TeV
2
,
Im(z
cu
) z
ID
exp
= 1.0 10
7

NP
1 TeV
2
. (5)
When eects of SU(2)
L
breaking are small, the terms
that lead to z
sd
and z
cu
have the form
1
2
NP
(Q
Li
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
Lj
)(Q
Li
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
Lj
), (6)
where X
Q
is an hermitian matrix. The matrix X
Q
pro-
vides a source of avor violation beyond the Yukawa ma-
trices of the SM, Y
d
and Y
u
:
Q
Li
(Y
d
)
ij
d
j
d
+Q
Li
(Y
u
)
ij
u
j
u
. (7)
Here
d,u
are Higgs doublets of opposite hypercharges.
(Within the SM,
u
=
2
d
.) Without loss of generality,
we can choose to work in a basis where
Y
d
=
d
, Y
u
= V
u
, X
Q
= V
d

Q
V
d
, (8)
Assuming SU(2)
L
:
A 2-gen case, 3 adjoints yield CPV:
3
where
v
cos 2
c
0 sin 2
c
0 1 0
sin 2
c
0 cos 2
c
v. (20)
Our formalism is motivated by the fact that it puts all
CPV in v
2
. The v
2
parameter is the projection of X
Q
onto the direction perpendicular to the 13 plane where,
without loss of generality, Y
D
Y

D
and Y
U
Y

U
reside. This
can be clearly seen from the expression for the Jarlskog
invariant for our framework:
J = Tr
Y
D
Y

D
, Y
U
Y

U
(21)
= i(y
2
s
Y
2
D
)(y
2
c
Y
2
U
)
12
sin 2
c
v
2
.
Using this parametrization, we obtain
z
sd
=
2
12
( v
1
i v
2
)
2
, (22)
z
cu
=
2
12
(cos 2
c
v
1
sin 2
c
v
3
i v
2
)
2
. (23)
Note that, among the three v
i
, there are only two inde-
pendent parameters. We thus study the constraints as a
function of
sin v
2
[0, 1], (24)
sin
v
1
v
2
1
+ v
2
3
[1, 1].
In terms of and , we obtain
|z
sd
| =
2
12
cos
2
sin
2
+ sin
2
, (25)
|z
cu
| =
2
12
cos
2
sin
2
( 2
c
) + sin
2
,
Im(z
sd
) =
2
12
sinsin 2,
Im(z
cu
) =
2
12
sin( 2
c
) sin2.
As a rst check of our results, note that when we take
= 0, we reproduce Eq. (13). (The identication of
with 2
d
is correct only in the CPC case.) The bound
(17) remains the weakest bound on the avor degeneracy.
In the presence of a CPV phase in V
d
, the bound becomes
stronger. The weakest
12
-bound as a function of sin
is presented in Fig. 1.
At 0.03
<
| sin|

<
0.98, the constraints from the CPV
observables are dominant, and the combination of z
IK
exp
and z
ID
exp
is responsible for the unavoidable bound on
12
.
Dening
r
I
KD
z
IK
exp
/z
ID
exp
, (26)
the weakest bound on
12
corresponds to
tan =
r
I
KD
sin 2
c
1 + r
I
KD
cos 2
c
, (27)
and is given by
2
12

z
ID
exp
sin 2
c
sin 2
1 + r
I2
KD
+ 2r
I
KD
cos 2
c
. (28)
Using Eq. (5), we nd that the weakest bound occurs at
sin 0.014 and it is given by
12

4.8 10
4
sin 2

NP
1 TeV
. (29)
Eq. (29) explains the sin dependence of the curve in
Fig. 1 in the relevant range.
Comparison with Eq. (17) reveals the power of the
upper bound on CPV in D
0
D
0
mixing in constraining
the avor structure of new physics. For maximal phases
(sin 2 = 1), it implies degeneracy stronger by a fac-
tor of 8 compared to the bound from CPC observables.
For
NP
1 TeV and large phases, the avor-diagonal
and avor-degeneracy factors should provide a suppres-
sion stronger than O(10
3
). With loop suppression of
order
12

2
, the degeneracy should be stronger than
0.02.
Supersymmetry. An explicit example of the con-
straints on new physics parameters obtained by combin-
ing measurements of K
0
K
0
mixing and of D
0
D
0
mixing is provided by supersymmetry. Any supersym-
metric model generates the operator (6) via box diagrams
with intermediate gluinos and squark-doublets. The var-
ious factors that enter z
sd
and z
cu
can be identied as
follows:
NP
= m
Q
(m
Q
1
+ m
Q
2
)/2,
2
12
=

2
s
54
g(m
2
g
/ m
2
Q
),
12
= (m
Q
2
m
Q
1
)/(m
Q
1
+ m
Q
2
), (30)
where m
Q
i
is the squark-doublet mass, m
g
is the gluino
mass, and g(m
2
g
/ m
2
Q
) is a known function (see e.g. [6])
with, for example g(1) = 1. Taking m
Q
1 TeV, and
m
g
m
Q
(which gives
12
0.014), leads to
m
Q
2
m
Q
2
m
Q
1
+ m
Q
2

(31)
FIG. 1: The weakest
12
-bound as function of sin.
Notice that:
Figure 1: The contribution of X
Q
to K
0
K
0
mixing, m
K
, given by the solid blue line. In
the down mass basis,

A
d
corresponds to
3
,

J is
2
and

J
d
is
1
.
Im
z
K,D
1
= 2
X
Q

J
X
Q

J
u,d
. (7)
The above expression is easy to understand in the down basis, for instance. In addition to
diagonalizing A
d
, we can also choose A
u
to reside in the
1
3
plane (Fig. 2) without loss of
generality, since there is no CPV in the SM for two generations. As a result, all of the potential
CPV originates from X
Q
in this basis. z
K
1
Q
,
(X
Q
)
12
, thus Im
z
K
1

1
component) times the imaginary part
(
2

J /
1
and

J
d
/
2
Figure 2: CP violation in the Kaon system induced by X
Q
. Im(z
K
1
) is twice the product of the
two solid orange lines, which are the projections of X
Q
on the

J and

J
d
axes. Note that the
angle between A
d
and A
u
is twice the Cabibbo angle,
C
.
The weakest unavoidable bound coming from measurements in the K and D systems was
derived in [6] using a specic parameterization of X
Q
. In the covariant bases dened in Eq. (5),
X
Q
can be written as
X
Q
= X
u,d

A
u,d
+ X
J

J + X
J
u,d
J
u,d
, (8)
X
u
= cos 2
C
X
d
sin 2
C
X
J
d
, X
J
u
= sin 2
C
X
d
cos 2
C
X
J
d
, (9)
while X
J
remains invariant. Plugging Eqs. (8) and (9) into Eqs. (6) and (7), we obtain explicit
results. It is then easy to see that in the parameterization employed in [6],
12
sin is equal to
X
J
,
12
sin cos is equal to X
J
d
etc., therefore their results coincide with ours.
4
Projection of X
Q
onto

J is measuring the physical CPV phase.
64
May 18, 2010 22:30 WSPC - Proceedings Trim Size: 9in x 6in TASIavornalws
19
a cross product and an angle between two vectors, all of which are basis
independent
:
|
~
A|
r
1
2
tr(A
2
) ,
~
A
~
B
1
2
tr(AB) ,
~
A
~
B
i
2
[A, B] ,
cos(
AB
)
~
A
~
B
|
~
A||
~
B|
=
tr(AB)
p
tr(A
2
)tr(B
2
)
.
(38)
These denitions allow for an intuitive understanding of the avor and
CP violation induced by a new physics source, based on simple geometric
terms. Consider a dimension six SU(2)
L
quark doublets,
C
1
2
NP
O
1
=
1
2
NP
Q
i
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
j

Q
i
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
j
, (39)
where
NP
is some high energy scale.
X
Q
is a traceless hermitian matrix,
transforming as an adjoint of SU(3)
Q
(or SU(2)
Q
for two generations), so it
lives in the same space as A
Q
d and A
Q
u. In the down sector for example,
the operator above is relevant for avor violation through KK mixing. To
analyze its contribution, we dene a covariant orthonormal basis for each
sector, with the following unit vectors
A
Q
u
,Q
d
A
Q
u
,Q
d
A
Q
u
,Q
d
,

J
A
Q
d A
Q
u
A
Q
d A
Q
u
,

J
u,d

A
Q
u
,Q
d

J . (40)
Then the contribution of the operator in Eq. (39) to c, s = 2 processes is
given by the misalignment between X
Q
and A
Q
u
,Q
d, which is equal to
C
D,K
1
X
Q

A
Q
u
,Q
d
2
. (41)
This result is manifestly invariant under a change of basis. The meaning
of Eq. (41) can be understood as follows: We can choose an explicit basis,
for example the down mass basis, where A
Q
d is proportional to
3
. s = 2
transitions are induced by the o-diagonal element of X
Q
, so that

C
K
1
=
|(X
Q
)
12
|
2
. Furthermore, |(X
Q
)
12
1
and
2
components of X
Q
Q
times the sine of
The factor of i/2 in the cross product is required in order to have the standard
geometrical interpretation
~
A
~
B
= |
~
A||
~
B| sin
AB
, with
AB
dened through the scalar
product as in Eq. (38).
This use of eective eld theory to describe NP contributions will be explained in detail
in the next section. Note also that we employ here a slightly dierent notation, more
suitable for the current needs, than in the next section.
20
the angle between X
Q
and A
Q
d (see Fig. 6). This is exactly what Eq. (41)
describes.
Fig. 6. The contribution of X
Q
to K
0
K
0
mixing, m
K
, given by the solid blue line.
In the down mass basis,

A
Q
d corresponds to
3
,

J is
2
and

J
d
is
1
. The gure is taken
from.
59
Q
to K
0
K
0
mixing, m
K
, given by the solid blue line. In the down mass basis,

A
Q
d corresponds to
3
,

J is
2
and

J
d
is
1
. The gure is taken from.
59
Im
C
K,D
1
= 2
X
Q

J
X
Q

J
u,d
. (42)
The above expression is easy to understand in the down basis, for instance.
In addition to diagonalizing A
Q
d, we can also choose A
Q
u to reside in the
1

3
plane (Fig. 7) without loss of generality, since there is no CPV in
the SM for two generations. As a result, all of the potential CPV originates
from X
Q
in this basis. C
K
1
Q
,
(X
Q
)
12
, thus Im
C
K
1

1
component) times
the imaginary part (
2

J /
1
and
J
d
/
2
An interesting conclusion can be inferred from the analysis above: In
addition to the known necessary condition for CPV in two generation
23
X
J
/ tr
X
Q
A
Q
d, A
Q
u
6= 0 , (43)
we identify a second necessary condition, exclusive for F = 2 processes:
X
J
u,d
/ tr
X
Q
A
Q
u
,Q
d,
A
Q
d, A
Q
u
6= 0 , (44)
19
a cross product and an angle between two vectors, all of which are basis
independent
:
|
~
A|
r
1
2
tr(A
2
) ,
~
A
~
B
1
2
tr(AB) ,
~
A
~
B
i
2
[A, B] ,
cos(
AB
)
~
A
~
B
|
~
A||
~
B|
=
tr(AB)
p
tr(A
2
)tr(B
2
)
.
(38)
These denitions allow for an intuitive understanding of the avor and
CP violation induced by a new physics source, based on simple geometric
terms. Consider a dimension six SU(2)
L
quark doublets,
C
1
2
NP
O
1
=
1
2
NP
Q
i
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
j

Q
i
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
j
, (39)
where
NP
is some high energy scale.
X
Q
is a traceless hermitian matrix,
transforming as an adjoint of SU(3)
Q
(or SU(2)
Q
for two generations), so it
lives in the same space as A
Q
d and A
Q
u. In the down sector for example,
the operator above is relevant for avor violation through KK mixing. To
analyze its contribution, we dene a covariant orthonormal basis for each
sector, with the following unit vectors
A
Q
u
,Q
d
A
Q
u
,Q
d
A
Q
u
,Q
d
,

J
A
Q
d A
Q
u
A
Q
d A
Q
u
,

J
u,d

A
Q
u
,Q
d

J . (40)
Then the contribution of the operator in Eq. (39) to c, s = 2 processes is
given by the misalignment between X
Q
and A
Q
u
,Q
d, which is equal to
C
D,K
1
X
Q

A
Q
u
,Q
d
2
. (41)
This result is manifestly invariant under a change of basis. The meaning
of Eq. (41) can be understood as follows: We can choose an explicit basis,
for example the down mass basis, where A
Q
d is proportional to
3
. s = 2
transitions are induced by the o-diagonal element of X
Q
, so that

C
K
1
=
|(X
Q
)
12
|
2
. Furthermore, |(X
Q
)
12
1
and
2
components of X
Q
Q
times the sine of
The factor of i/2 in the cross product is required in order to have the standard
geometrical interpretation
~
A
~
B
= |
~
A||
~
B| sin
AB
, with
AB
dened through the scalar
product as in Eq. (38).
This use of eective eld theory to describe NP contributions will be explained in detail
in the next section. Note also that we employ here a slightly dierent notation, more
suitable for the current needs, than in the next section.
20
the angle between X
Q
and A
Q
d (see Fig. 6). This is exactly what Eq. (41)
describes.
Q
to K
0
K
0
mixing, m
K
, given by the solid blue line.
In the down mass basis,

A
Q
d
corresponds to
3
,

J is
2
and

J
d
is
1
. The gure is taken
from.
59
Q
to K
0
K
0
mixing, m
K
, given by the solid blue line. In the down mass basis,

A
Q
d
corresponds to
3
,

J is
2
and

J
d
is
1
. The gure is taken from.
59
Im
C
K,D
1
= 2
X
Q

J
X
Q

J
u,d
. (42)
The above expression is easy to understand in the down basis, for instance.
In addition to diagonalizing A
Q
d, we can also choose A
Q
u to reside in the
1

3
plane (Fig. 7) without loss of generality, since there is no CPV in
the SM for two generations. As a result, all of the potential CPV originates
from X
Q
in this basis. C
K
1
Q
,
(X
Q
)
12
, thus Im
C
K
1

1
component) times
the imaginary part (
2

J /
1
and
J
d
/
2
An interesting conclusion can be inferred from the analysis above: In
addition to the known necessary condition for CPV in two generation
23
X
J
/ tr
X
Q
A
Q
d, A
Q
u
6= 0 , (43)
we identify a second necessary condition, exclusive for F = 2 processes:
X
J
u,d
/ tr
X
Q
A
Q
u
,Q
d,
A
Q
d, A
Q
u
6= 0 , (44)
(Sorry A
u,d
A
Q
u
,Q
d)
65
Finding the weakest robust bound
35
mass basis. In general, low energy measurements can only constrain the
product of these two factors. An interesting exception occurs, however, for
the left-left (LL) operators of the type dened in Eq. (39), where there is
an independent constraint on the level of degeneracy.
23
The crucial point
is that operators involving only quark doublets cannot be simultaneously
aligned with both the down and the up mass bases. For example, we can
take X
Q
from Eq. (39) to be proportional to A
Q
d. Then it would be diagonal
in the down mass basis, but it would induce avor violation in the up sector.
Hence, these types of theories can still be constrained by measurements. The
best alignment is obtained by choosing the NP contribution such that it
would minimize the bounds from both sectors. The strength of the resulting
constraint, which is the weakest possible one, is that it is unavoidable in
the context of theories with only one set of quark doublets. Here we briey
discuss this issue, and demonstrate how to obtain such bounds.
5.2.1. Two generation F = 2 transitions
As mentioned before, the strongest experimental constraints involve transi-
tions between the rst two generations. When studying NP eects, ignoring
the third generation is often a good approximation to the physics at hand.
Indeed, even when the third generation does play a role, a two generations
framework is applicable, as long as there are no strong cancelations with
contributions related to the third generation. Hence, for this analysis we
can use the formalism of Sec. (4.1).
The operator dened in Eq. (39), when restricted to the rst two gen-
erations, induces mixing in the K and D systems, and possibly also CP
violation. We can use the covariant bases dened in Eq. (40) to parameter-
ize X
Q
,
X
Q
= L
X
u,d

A
Q
u
,Q
d +X
J

J +X
J
u,d
J
u,d
, (78)
X
u
= cos 2
C
X
d
sin2
C
X
J
d
, X
J
u
= sin2
C
X
d
cos 2
C
X
J
d
, (79)
while X
J
remains invariant. We choose the X
i
coecients to be normalized,
X
d
2
+

X
J
2
+

X
J
d
2
= (X
u
)
2
+

X
J
2
+

X
J
u
2
= 1 , (80)
such that L signies the length of X
Q
under the denitions in Eq. (38),
L = |X
Q
| =

X
2
Q
X
1
Q
/2 , (81)
where X
1,2
Q
are the eigenvalues of X
Q
before removing the trace.
35
mass basis. In general, low energy measurements can only constrain the
product of these two factors. An interesting exception occurs, however, for
the left-left (LL) operators of the type dened in Eq. (39), where there is
an independent constraint on the level of degeneracy.
23
The crucial point
is that operators involving only quark doublets cannot be simultaneously
aligned with both the down and the up mass bases. For example, we can
take X
Q
from Eq. (39) to be proportional to A
Q
d. Then it would be diagonal
in the down mass basis, but it would induce avor violation in the up sector.
Hence, these types of theories can still be constrained by measurements. The
best alignment is obtained by choosing the NP contribution such that it
would minimize the bounds from both sectors. The strength of the resulting
constraint, which is the weakest possible one, is that it is unavoidable in
the context of theories with only one set of quark doublets. Here we briey
discuss this issue, and demonstrate how to obtain such bounds.
5.2.1. Two generation F = 2 transitions
As mentioned before, the strongest experimental constraints involve transi-
tions between the rst two generations. When studying NP eects, ignoring
the third generation is often a good approximation to the physics at hand.
Indeed, even when the third generation does play a role, a two generations
framework is applicable, as long as there are no strong cancelations with
contributions related to the third generation. Hence, for this analysis we
can use the formalism of Sec. (4.1).
The operator dened in Eq. (39), when restricted to the rst two gen-
erations, induces mixing in the K and D systems, and possibly also CP
violation. We can use the covariant bases dened in Eq. (40) to parameter-
ize X
Q
,
X
Q
= L
X
u,d

A
Q
u
,Q
d +X
J

J +X
J
u,d
J
u,d
, (78)
X
u
= cos 2
C
X
d
sin2
C
X
J
d
, X
J
u
= sin2
C
X
d
cos 2
C
X
J
d
, (79)
while X
J
remains invariant. We choose the X
i
coecients to be normalized,
X
d
2
+

X
J
2
+

X
J
d
2
= (X
u
)
2
+

X
J
2
+

X
J
u
2
= 1 , (80)
such that L signies the length of X
Q
under the denitions in Eq. (38),
L = |X
Q
| =

X
2
Q
X
1
Q
/2 , (81)
where X
1,2
Q
are the eigenvalues of X
Q
before removing the trace.
The covariant expansion of the new physics:
66
Finding the weakest robust bound, no CPV
36
Plugging Eqs. (78) and (79) into Eq. (41), we obtain expressions for the
contribution of X
Q
to m
K
and m
D
, without CPV,
C
K
1
= L
2
h
X
J
2
+
X
J
d
2
i
,
C
D
1
=
L
2
2
h
2
X
J
2
+
X
d
2
+
X
J
d
2
+
X
J
d
X
d
cos(4
C
) + 2X
d
X
J
d
sin(4
C
)
i
.
(82)
In order to minimize both contributions, we rst need to set X
J
= 0. Next
we dene
tan
X
J
d
X
d
, r
KD

v
u
u
t
C
K
1
exp
C
D
1
exp
, (83)
where the experimental constraints

C
K
1
exp
and

C
D
1
exp
can be extracted
from Table ??. Then the weakest bound is obtained for
tan =
r
KD
sin(2
C
)
1 +r
KD
cos(2
C
)
, (84)
and is given by
L 3.8 10
3

NP
1 TeV
. (85)
A similar process can be carried out for the CPV in K and D mixing,
by plugging Eqs. (78) and (79) into Eq (42). Now we do not set X
J
= 0,
otherwise there would be no CPV (since X
Q
would reside in the same plane
as A
Q
d and A
Q
u). Moreover, there are many types of models in which we
can tweak the alignment, but we do not control the phase (we do not expect
the NP to be CP-invariant), hence they might give rise to CPV. The weakest
bound in this case, as a function of X
J
, is given by
L
3.4 10
4
h
(X
J
)
2
(X
J
)
4
i
1/4

NP
1 TeV
. (86)
The combination of the above two bounds is presented in Fig. 10.
We should note that L is simply the dierence between the eigenvalues
of X
Q
(see Eq. (81)), thus the bounds above put limits on the degeneracy
of the NP contribution.
.
Y
d
Y
d
.
Y
u
Y
u
)
.
2
C
.
X
Q
)
.
2
d
A
Q
d
J
d
36
contribution of X
Q
to m
K
and m
D
, without CPV,
C
K
1
= L
2
h
X
J
2
+
X
J
d
2
i
,
C
D
1
=
L
2
2
h
2
X
J
2
+
X
d
2
+
X
J
d
2
+
X
J
d
X
d
cos(4
C
) + 2X
d
X
J
d
sin(4
C
)
i
.
(82)
J
= 0. Next
we dene
tan
X
J
d
X
d
, r
KD

v
u
u
t
C
K
1
exp
C
D
1
exp
, (83)

C
K
1
exp
and

C
D
1
exp
can be extracted
tan =
r
KD
sin(2
C
)
1 +r
KD
cos(2
C
)
, (84)
and is given by
L 3.8 10
3

NP
1 TeV
. (85)
J
= 0,
Q
as A
Q
d and A
Q
J
, is given by
L
3.4 10
4
h
(X
J
)
2
(X
J
)
4
i
1/4

NP
1 TeV
. (86)
of X
Q
67
Finding the weakest robust bound, no CPV
36
contribution of X
Q
to m
K
and m
D
, without CPV,
C
K
1
= L
2
h
X
J
2
+
X
J
d
2
i
,
C
D
1
=
L
2
2
h
2
X
J
2
+
X
d
2
+
X
J
d
2
+
X
J
d
X
d
cos(4
C
) + 2X
d
X
J
d
sin(4
C
)
i
.
(82)
J
= 0. Next
we dene
tan
X
J
d
X
d
, r
KD

v
u
u
t
C
K
1
exp
C
D
1
exp
, (83)

C
K
1
exp
and

C
D
1
exp
can be extracted
tan =
r
KD
sin(2
C
)
1 +r
KD
cos(2
C
)
, (84)
and is given by
L 3.8 10
3

NP
1 TeV
. (85)
J
= 0,
Q
as A
Q
d and A
Q
u
). Moreover, there are many types of models in which we
J
, is given by
L
3.4 10
4
h
(X
J
)
2
(X
J
)
4
i
1/4

NP
1 TeV
. (86)
of X
Q
36
contribution of X
Q
to m
K
and m
D
, without CPV,
C
K
1
= L
2
h
X
J
2
+
X
J
d
2
i
,
C
D
1
=
L
2
2
h
2
X
J
2
+
X
d
2
+
X
J
d
2
+
X
J
d
X
d
cos(4
C
) + 2X
d
X
J
d
sin(4
C
)
i
.
(82)
J
= 0. Next
we dene
tan
X
J
d
X
d
, r
KD

v
u
u
t
C
K
1
exp
C
D
1
exp
, (83)

C
K
1
exp
and

C
D
1
exp
can be extracted
tan =
r
KD
sin(2
C
)
1 +r
KD
cos(2
C
)
, (84)
and is given by
L 3.8 10
3

NP
1 TeV
. (85)
J
= 0,
Q
as A
Q
d and A
Q
J
, is given by
L
3.4 10
4
h
(X
J
)
2
(X
J
)
4
i
1/4

NP
1 TeV
. (86)
of X
Q
68
Finding the weakest robust bound, with CPV
36
contribution of X
Q
to m
K
and m
D
, without CPV,
C
K
1
= L
2
h
X
J
2
+
X
J
d
2
i
,
C
D
1
=
L
2
2
h
2
X
J
2
+
X
d
2
+
X
J
d
2
+
X
J
d
X
d
cos(4
C
) + 2X
d
X
J
d
sin(4
C
)
i
.
(82)
J
= 0. Next
we dene
tan
X
J
d
X
d
, r
KD

v
u
u
t
C
K
1
exp
C
D
1
exp
, (83)

C
K
1
exp
and

C
D
1
exp
can be extracted
tan =
r
KD
sin(2
C
)
1 +r
KD
cos(2
C
)
, (84)
and is given by
L 3.8 10
3

NP
1 TeV
. (85)
J
= 0,
Q
as A
Q
d and A
Q
J
, is given by
L
3.4 10
4
h
(X
J
)
2
(X
J
)
4
i
1/4

NP
1 TeV
. (86)
of X
Q
37
Fig. 10. The weakest upper bound on L coming from avor and CPV in the K and D
systems, as a function of the CP violating parameter X
J
, assuming
NP
= 1 TeV. The
gure is taken from.
23
Fig. 10. The weakest upper bound on L coming from avor and CPV in the K and D systems, as a function of the CP violating parameter X
J
, assuming
NP
= 1 TeV. The gure is taken from.
23
5.2.2. Third generation F = 1 transitions
Similar to the analysis of the previous subsection, we can use other types of
processes to obtain model independent constrains on new physics. Here we
consider avor violating decays of third generation quarks in both sectors,
utilizing the three generations framework discussed in Sec. 4.2. Since the
existing bound on top decay is rather weak, we use the projection for the
LHC bound, assuming that no positive signal is obtained.
We focus on the following operator
O
h
LL
= i
Q
i
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
j
h
H
!
D
H
i
+ h.c. , (87)
which contributes at tree level to both top and bottom decays.
83
We omit
an additional operator for quark doublets, O
u
LL
= i
h
Q
3

H
i h
D/

H
Q
2
i
i
h
Q
3
D/

H
i h

H
Q
2
i
, which induces bottom decays only at one loop, but in
principle it should be included in a more detailed analysis.
Blum-Grossman-Nir-Perez (09)
69
q ij (
q
ij
)
MM

q
ij
d 12 0.03 0.002
d 13 0.2 0.07
d 23 0.6 0.2
u 12 0.1 0.008
Table 4: The phenomenological upper bounds on (
q
ij
)
MM
and on
q
ij
, where q = u, d and
M = L, R. The constraints are given for m
q
= 1 TeV and x m
2
g
/ m
2
q
= 1. We assume that
the phases could suppress the imaginary parts by a factor 0.3. The bound on (
d
23
)
RR
is about
3 times weaker than that on (
d
23
)
LL
(given in table). The constraints on (
d
12,13
)
MM
, (
u
12
)
MM
and (
d
23
)
MM
are based on, respectively, Refs. [143], [17] and [144].
q ij (
q
ij
)
LR
d 12 2 10
4
d 13 0.08
d 23 0.01
d 11 4.7 10
6
u 11 9.3 10
6
u 12 0.02
Table 5: The phenomenological upper bounds on chirality-mixing (
q
ij
)
LR
, where q = u, d. The
constraints are given for m
q
= 1 TeV and x m
2
g
/ m
2
q
= 1. The constraints on
d
12,13
,
u
12
,
d
23
and
q
ii
are based on, respectively, Refs. [143], [17], [144] and [147] (with the relation between
the neutron and quark EDMs as in [148]).
For large tan , some constraints are modied from those in Table 4. For instance, the
eects of neutral Higgs exchange in B
s
and B
d
mixing give, for tan = 30 and x = 1 (see [140,
145, 146] and refs. therein for details):
d
13
< 0.01
M
A
0
200 GeV
,
d
23
< 0.04
M
A
0
200 GeV
, (132)
where M
A
0 denotes the pseudoscalar Higgs mass, and the above bounds scale roughly as
(30/ tan )
2
.
The experimental constraints on the (
q
ij
)
LR
parameters in the quark-squark sector are
presented in Table 5. The bounds are the same for (
q
ij
)
LR
and (
q
ij
)
RL
, except for (
d
12
)
MN
,
where the bound for MN = LR is 10 times weaker. Very strong constraints apply for the
phase of (
q
11
)
LR
from EDMs. For x = 4 and a phase smaller than 0.1, the EDM constraints on
(
u,d,
11
)
LR
are weakened by a factor 6.
While, in general, the low energy avor measurements constrain only the combinations of
the suppression factors from degeneracy and from alignment, such as Eq. (130), an interesting
exception occurs when combining the measurements of K
0
K
0
and D
0
D
0
mixing to test the
rst two generation squark doublets (based on the analysis in Sec. 5.2.1). Here, for masses
below the TeV scale, some level of degeneracy is unavoidable [23]:
m
e
Q
2
m
e
Q
1
m
e
Q
2
+m
e
Q
1

(133)
Similarly, using F = 1 processes involving the third generation (Sec. 5.2.2), the following
42
Taking [29] m
Q
=
1
2
( m
Q
1
+ m
Q
2
) and similarly for the SU(2)-singlet squarks, we nd that
we thus have an upper bound on the splitting between the rst two squark generations:
m
Q
2
m
Q
1
m
Q
2
+ m
Q
1
<
0.05 0.14,
m
u
2
m
u
1
m
u
2
+ m
u
1
<
0.02 0.04. (6.12)
The rst bound applies to the up squark doublets, while the second to the average of the
doublet mass splitting and the singlet mass splitting. The range in each of the bounds
corresponds to values of the phase between zero and maximal. We can thus make the
following conclusions concerning models of alignment:
1. The mass splitting between the rst two squark doublet generations should be below
14%. For phases of order one, the bound is about 2 3 times stronger.
2. In the simplest models of alignment, the mass splitting between the rst two squark
generations should be smaller than about four percent.
3. The second (stronger) bound can be avoided in more complicated models of alignment,
where holomorphic zeros suppress the mixing in the singlet sector.
4. While RGE eects can provide some level of universality, even for anarchical boundary
conditions, the upper bound (6.12) requires not only a high scale of mediation [30] but
also that, at the scale of mediation, the gluino mass is considerably higher than the
squark masses.
In any model where the splitting between the rst two squark doublet generations is larger
than O(y
2
c
), |K
u
L
21
K
d
L
21
| = sin
c
= 0.23. Given the constraints from m
K
and
K
on |K
d
L
12
|,
one arrives at a constraint very similar to the rst bound in Eq. (6.12). We conclude that
the constraints on the level of degeneracy between the squark doublets (stronger than ve
to fourteen percent) applies to any supersymmetric model where the mass of the rst two
squark doublet generations is below TeV. It is suggestive that the mechanism that mediates
supersymmetry breaking is avor-universal, as in gauge mediation.
13
(squark doublets, 1TeV)
SUSY implications, naively looks like alignment is dead!!
K.Blum,Y.Grossman,Y.NirandG.Perez,PRL(2009)
However ...
With phases, rst 2 gen squark need to have
almost equal masses.
Looks like squark anarchy/alignment is dead!
What is X
Q
in the SUSY case?
70
Degeneracy of Squarks
NPKI workshop 17
How alignment models work?
Themaximalphasecasedoesnotcorrespondtoan
alignmentmodel.
Alignmentmakesbothrealandimaginarypartssmall.
71
NPKI workshop 18
72
No strong degeneracy required!
Ex.: =1.3 TeV, =550 GeV, =950 GeV
This can be generated by*:
Anarchy at the SUSY breaking mediation scale
SUSY renormalization group flow to the TeV scale
Can lead to modest level of degeneracy
NPKI workshop 19
* Y. Nir and G. Raz, PRD 66, 035007 (2002) [hep-ph/0206064]
Implications of 125 GeV Higgs for Flavor
Physics Beyond Our Universe
Oram Gedalia
1
, Gian F. Giudice
2
, Gilad Perez
1,2
, and Yotam Soreq
1
1
Department of Particle Physics and Astrophysics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel
2
CERN, Theory Division, CH1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland
Abstract
We consider the case where the quark mass hierarchy is determined by avor dynamics
at a high scale. In such a case, under reasonable assumptions, RGE eects yield a binomial
distributions under which there is a preference to obtain either light or heavy fermions.
Assuming a chemistry similar to that of our universe, and imposing the presence of a light
Higgs eld the metastability bound implies that a probable spectrum will include either
six light quarks or ve light ones and a single heavy one with Yukawa coupling close to
the instability bound, consistent with the observed top mass.
1 Introduction
The recent LHC and Tevaron data [9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14] hint for the existence of the Higgs boson
with a mass of about 125 GeV. Such a light Higgs is in agreement with the indirect constraints
derived from precision electroweak data [], assuming no signicant new physics contributions.
It is well known that if the Higgs is suciently lighter than the top quark, electroweak
minimum of the Higgs potential might be destabilized, assuming no new physics beyond the
SM is in eect below the Planck scale []. More precisely, when combining the latest hints about
the Higgs mass with the current data about the top mass and strong coupling, it seems that
the SM vacuum is metastable [5]. In other words, it is not the true minimum of the Higgs
potential, yet its lifetime is longer than the age of the universe.
The interesting fact that the top quark mass is close to the anthropic bound stemming
from electroweak vacuum stability motivates us to nd a mechanism that would account both
for the existence of light quarks and that of a heavy quark. This can be realized in the context
of a multiverse picture, where anthropic bounds constrain the parameter space.
According to the common wisdom, the multiverse may emerge from the combination of...
(eternal ination, string landscape).
While light fermion masses are usually generated by avor models, a heavy quark naturally
emerges as a result of the IR quasi xed point of the SM renormalization group equations
(RGE) []. The latter generates an order 1 Yukawa coupling at the weak scale for a wide range
of initial Yukawa values at some high UV scale. The combination of these two mechanisms
allows us to construct observed pattern of quark masses.
2 Flavor Dynamics
Various mechanisms that address the avor puzzle have been studied in the literature [1, 2, 3],
yet all of them can be summarized in a simple formula for the eective Yukawa couplings:
y /
Q
, (1)
1
Oram Gedalia
1
, Gian F. Giudice
2
, Gilad Perez
1,2
, and Yotam Soreq
1
1
2
Abstract
1 Introduction
2 Flavor Dynamics
y /
Q
, (1)
1
Oram Gedalia
1
, Gian F. Giudice
2
, Gilad Perez
1,2
, and Yotam Soreq
1
1
2
Abstract
1 Introduction
2 Flavor Dynamics
y /
Q
, (1)
1
(non)
Dine, Kagan & Samuel (90); Nir & Raz (02).
73
However is this consistence with the
LHC data??
The relentless march of experiment
Rakhi Mahbubani CERN Flavour vs LHC squark limits 1/14
1
/
14
Mahbubani, Papucci, GP, Ruderman & Weiler, to appear.
SM quark avor symmetry
two sources of breaking:
Implication (2): bounds on degeneracy in SUSY alignment models
viable SUSY spectra can be generated from complete anarchy at
moderate mediation scales (SUSY QCD RGE)
surprising mass hierarchies still viable, e.g.
CERN-PH-TH/2012-030
On the Universality of CP Violation in F = 1 Processes
Oram Gedalia,
1
Jernej F. Kamenik,
2, 3
Zoltan Ligeti,
4
and Gilad Perez
1, 5
1
2
J. Stefan Institute, Jamova 39, P. O. Box 3000, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia
3
Department of Physics, University of Ljubljana, Jadranska 19, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
4
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720
5
We show that new physics that breaks the left-handed SU(3)
Q
quark avor symmetry induces
contributions to CP violation in F = 1 processes which are approximately universal, in that
they are not aected by avor rotations between the up and the down mass bases. Therefore,
such avor violation cannot be aligned, and is constrained by the strongest bound from either
the up or the down sectors. We use this result to show that the bound from
0
/ prohibits an
SU(3)
Q
breaking explanation of the recent LHCb evidence for CP violation in D meson decays.
Another consequence of this universality is that supersymmetric alignment models with a moderate
mediation scale are consistent with the data, and are harder to probe via CP violating observables.
With current constraints, therefore, squarks need not be degenerate. However, future improvements
in the measurement of CP violation in D D mixing will start to probe alignment models.
I. INTRODUCTION
Measurements of avor-changing neutral-current (FCNC) processes in the quark sector put strong constraints on
New Physics (NP) at the TeV scale and provide a crucial guide for model building. Generically, NP models can avoid
existing bounds by aligning the avor structure with one of the quark Yukawa matrices. However, new avor breaking
sources involving only the SU(2)
L
doublet quarks Q
i
(i.e., breaking only the SU(3)
Q
quark avor symmetry) cannot
be simultaneously diagonalized in both the up and the down quark mass bases, and new contributions to FCNCs
are necessarily generated. To constrain such models of avor alignment, processes involving both up and down type
quark transitions need to be measured. Consequently, one would navely conclude that robust constraints on the
corresponding microscopic avor structures come from the weaker of the bounds in the up and the down sectors.
Below we argue, however, that in a large class of models, contrary to avor violation in F = 2 processes [1], in
the case of F = 1 CP violation, it is the strongest of the up and down sector constraints which applies. We show
that in these scenarios, to a good approximation, the sources of F = 1 CP violation are universal, namely they do
not transform under avor rotations between the up and the down mass bases. This is particularly important for the
NP interpretation of the recent LHCb evidence for CP violation in D decays. Employing the
0
/ constraint on new
CP violating s = 1 operators, we exclude sizable contributions of SU(3)
Q
breaking NP operators to the direct CP
asymmetries in singly-Cabibbo-suppressed D decays, in particular to a
CP
measured by the LHCb experiment [2].
Furthermore, applying our argument to rare semileptonic K and B decays, we show how the present and future
measurements of these processes constrain the sources of CP violation in rare semileptonic D decays and FCNC top
decays. In particular, the observation of non-SM CP asymmetries in these processes would, barring cancellations,
signal the presence of new sources of SU(3)
U,D
avor symmetry breaking.
Finally, an additional implication of our result is that in viable avor alignment models the universal avor and CP
violating phases are naturally small. Applying this insight to supersymmetric (SUSY) alignment models leads to the
conclusion that the rst two generation squarks can have mass splittings as large as 30% at the TeV scale, consistent
with mass anarchy at a supersymmetry breaking mediation scale as low as 10 TeV.
II. UNIVERSALITY OF CP VIOLATION WITH TWO GENERATIONS
It is well known that the gauge sector of the Standard Model (SM) respects a large global avor symmetry. In the
quark sector, the corresponding avor group, G
F
= SU(3)
Q
SU(3)
U
SU(3)
D
, is broken by the up and the down
Yukawa matrices Y
u,d
, formally transforming as (3,
3, 1) and (3, 1,
3) under G
F
, respectively. From these, one can
construct two independent sources of SU(3)
Q
breaking,
A
u
(Y
u
Y
u
)
/ tr
, A
d
(Y
d
Y
d
)
/ tr
, (1)
a
r
X
i
v
:
1
2
0
2
.
5
0
3
8
v
1

[
h
e
p
-
p
h
]

2
2

F
e
b

2
0
1
2
CERN-PH-TH/2012-030
On the Universality of CP Violation in F = 1 Processes
Oram Gedalia,
1
Jernej F. Kamenik,
2, 3
Zoltan Ligeti,
4
and Gilad Perez
1, 5
1
2
J. Stefan Institute, Jamova 39, P. O. Box 3000, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia
3
Department of Physics, University of Ljubljana, Jadranska 19, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
4
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720
5
We show that new physics that breaks the left-handed SU(3)
Q
quark avor symmetry induces
contributions to CP violation in F = 1 processes which are approximately universal, in that
they are not aected by avor rotations between the up and the down mass bases. Therefore,
such avor violation cannot be aligned, and is constrained by the strongest bound from either
the up or the down sectors. We use this result to show that the bound from
0
/ prohibits an
SU(3)
Q
breaking explanation of the recent LHCb evidence for CP violation in D meson decays.
Another consequence of this universality is that supersymmetric alignment models with a moderate
mediation scale are consistent with the data, and are harder to probe via CP violating observables.
With current constraints, therefore, squarks need not be degenerate. However, future improvements
in the measurement of CP violation in D D mixing will start to probe alignment models.
I. INTRODUCTION
Measurements of avor-changing neutral-current (FCNC) processes in the quark sector put strong constraints on
New Physics (NP) at the TeV scale and provide a crucial guide for model building. Generically, NP models can avoid
existing bounds by aligning the avor structure with one of the quark Yukawa matrices. However, new avor breaking
sources involving only the SU(2)
L
doublet quarks Q
i
(i.e., breaking only the SU(3)
Q
quark avor symmetry) cannot
be simultaneously diagonalized in both the up and the down quark mass bases, and new contributions to FCNCs
are necessarily generated. To constrain such models of avor alignment, processes involving both up and down type
quark transitions need to be measured. Consequently, one would navely conclude that robust constraints on the
corresponding microscopic avor structures come from the weaker of the bounds in the up and the down sectors.
Below we argue, however, that in a large class of models, contrary to avor violation in F = 2 processes [1], in
the case of F = 1 CP violation, it is the strongest of the up and down sector constraints which applies. We show
that in these scenarios, to a good approximation, the sources of F = 1 CP violation are universal, namely they do
not transform under avor rotations between the up and the down mass bases. This is particularly important for the
NP interpretation of the recent LHCb evidence for CP violation in D decays. Employing the
0
/ constraint on new
CP violating s = 1 operators, we exclude sizable contributions of SU(3)
Q
breaking NP operators to the direct CP
asymmetries in singly-Cabibbo-suppressed D decays, in particular to a
CP
measured by the LHCb experiment [2].
Furthermore, applying our argument to rare semileptonic K and B decays, we show how the present and future
measurements of these processes constrain the sources of CP violation in rare semileptonic D decays and FCNC top
decays. In particular, the observation of non-SM CP asymmetries in these processes would, barring cancellations,
signal the presence of new sources of SU(3)
U,D
avor symmetry breaking.
Finally, an additional implication of our result is that in viable avor alignment models the universal avor and CP
violating phases are naturally small. Applying this insight to supersymmetric (SUSY) alignment models leads to the
conclusion that the rst two generation squarks can have mass splittings as large as 30% at the TeV scale, consistent
with mass anarchy at a supersymmetry breaking mediation scale as low as 10 TeV.
II. UNIVERSALITY OF CP VIOLATION WITH TWO GENERATIONS
It is well known that the gauge sector of the Standard Model (SM) respects a large global avor symmetry. In the
quark sector, the corresponding avor group, G
F
= SU(3)
Q
SU(3)
U
SU(3)
D
, is broken by the up and the down
Yukawa matrices Y
u,d
, formally transforming as (3,
3, 1) and (3, 1,
3) under G
F
, respectively. From these, one can
construct two independent sources of SU(3)
Q
breaking,
A
u
(Y
u
Y
u
)
/ tr
, A
d
(Y
d
Y
d
)
/ tr
, (1)
a
r
X
i
v
:
1
2
0
2
.
5
0
3
8
v
1

[
h
e
p
-
p
h
]

2
2

F
e
b

2
0
1
2
SUSY alignment models
SUSY predictions masses, splittings (degeneracy), mixing angles (e.g., )
& mixing said to imply that alignment not viable w/o degeneracy [arXiv:0903.2118]
Consider NP op.:
is a avor-singlet
One invariant
aligned aligned
e
K
Dm
D
m
g
=1.5TeV
m
g
=1TeV
1 2 3 4 5
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Log
l
a
d
Q 1
2
[Gedalia, Kamenik, ZL, Perez, arXiv:1202.5038]
Maybe surprising spectra viable: , ,
LHC searches using jets MET much less constraining without assuming that
1st2nd generation squarks are degenerate [Mahbubani, Papucci, Perez, Ruderman, Weiler, to appear]
ZL p.14
Important implications for LHC searches
On Universality of CPV in SU(3)
Q
breaking NP
74
End of the 5th Part
75
How do limits change?
Estimate:

1
m
5
q
Decouple 6 dof:
m
max
m
max
= 1 4
1
5
25%
TOO NAIVE!
6
/
14
Limits aected by:
squark multiplicity
signal eciencies
PDFs
7
/
14
Cross-sections vs. mass
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
m
squark
@GeVD
s
@
p
b
D
(gluino decoupled)
300
m
6
pb
NLO xsec (Prospino)
(roughly) (pp ! u
R
u
R
) /
1
m
6
8/m
6
= 6/m
6
H
+ 2/m
6
L
(m
L
/m
H
) = (1/4)
1/6
0.8
76
Eciencies
Signal eciency falls very rapidly with decreasing squark mass
Below 600 GeV = 1
8
/
14
Squark searches
Relaxing degeneracy assumption:
naively: 1/m
6

from 82 light squarks mass limit
change by 4
1/6
-1~ 25%
but:
efficiencies have hard thresholds

(and current limits are on the
thresholds)
P.d.fs have large effects

(u vs. d vs. c vs. s)
large effects on mass limits!!

1000 500 200 300 700
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
m
squark
@GeVD
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
x
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
Efciencies
Searches are inefcient
for light squarks
Example: ATLAS 1/fb
2jet, Meff > 1TeV,
m
LSP
= 0GeV
Do no expect it to be much
better for higher luminosity
searches (> 5 /fb) b/c
even harder cuts used
1000 500 200 300 700
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
ATLAS 1/fb,
2jet M
eff
>1TeV
Tuesday, April 17, 12
meff is the scalar sum of transverse momenta
of the leading N jets with E
miss
.
77
PDFs: all 4 avor sea squarks can be rather light!
(a)
e
e
B
(b)
d s
s d
g g
d
s
s
d
Figure 12: Diagrams which cause avor violation in models with arbitrary soft masses.
Fig. 5g and eq. (3.72)]. There are similar diagrams if the left-handed slepton mass matrix
m
2
L
has arbitrary o-diagonal entries. If m
2
L
or m
2
e
were random, with all entries of
comparable size, then the contributions to BR( e) would be about 5 or 6 orders of
magnitude larger than the current experimental upper limit of 510
11
, even if the sleptons
are as heavy as 1 TeV. Therefore the form of the slepton mass matrices must be severely
constrained.
There are also important experimental constraints on the squark (mass)
2
matrices. The
strongest of these come from the neutral kaon system. The eective hamiltonian for K
0
K
0
mixing gets contributions from the diagram in Fig. 12b, among others, if L
MSSM
soft
contains
(mass)
2
terms which mix down squarks and strange squarks. The gluino-squark-quark
vertices in Fig. 12b are all xed by supersymmetry to be of strong interaction strength;
there are similar diagrams in which the bino and winos are exchanged.
54
If the squark and
gaugino masses are of order 1 TeV or less, one nds that limits on the parameters m
K
and
K
appearing in the neutral kaon system eective hamiltonian severely restrict the amount
of down-strange squark mixing and CP-violating complex phases that one can tolerate in
the soft parameters.
55
Considerably weaker, but still interesting, constraints come from
the D
0
, D
0
and B
0
, B
0
neutral meson systems, and the decay b s.
56
After the Higgs
scalar elds get VEVs, the a
u
, a
d
, a
e
matrices contribute o-diagonal squark and slepton
(mass)
2
terms [for example,

da
d

QH
d
+ c.c. (a
d
)
12
H
0
d
s
L

d
R
+ c.c., etc.], so their form
is also strongly constrained by avor-changing neutral current (FCNC) limits. There are
other signicant constraints on CP-violating phases in the gaugino masses and (scalar)
3
soft
couplings following from limits on the electric dipole moments of the neutron and electron.
57
All of these potentially dangerous FCNC and CP-violating eects in the MSSM can be
evaded if one assumes (or can explain!) that supersymmetry breaking should be suitably
universal. In particular, one can suppose that the squark and slepton (mass)
2
matrices
are avor-blind. This means that they should each be proportional to the 3 3 identity
matrix in family space:
m
2
Q
= m
2
Q
1; m
2
u
= m
2
u
1; m
2
d
= m
2
d
1; m
2
L
= m
2
L
1; m
2
e
= m
2
e
1. (5.14)
If so, then all squark and slepton mixing angles are rendered trivial, because squarks and
sleptons with the same electroweak quantum numbers will be degenerate in mass and can
be rotated into each other at will. Supersymmetric contributions to FCNC processes will
therefore be very small in such an idealized limit, modulo the mixing due to a
u
, a
d
, a
e
.
One can make the further assumption that the (scalar)
3
couplings are each proportional to
the corresponding Yukawa coupling matrix:
a
u
= A
u0
y
u
; a
d
= A
d0
y
d
; a
e
= A
e0
y
e
. (5.15)
38
(a)
e
e
B
(b)
d s
s d
g g
d
s
s
d
m
2
L
2
L
or m
2
e
11
constrained.
2
matrices. The
0
K
0
MSSM
soft
contains
(mass)
2
54
If the squark and
K
and
K
55
the D
0
, D
0
and B
0
, B
0
56
After the Higgs
u
, a
d
, a
e
(mass)
2
terms [for example,

da
d

QH
d
+ c.c. (a
d
)
12
H
0
d
s
L

d
R
3
soft
57
2
matrices
m
2
Q
= m
2
Q
1; m
2
u
= m
2
u
1; m
2
d
= m
2
d
1; m
2
L
= m
2
L
1; m
2
e
= m
2
e
1. (5.14)
u
, a
d
, a
e
.
3
a
u
= A
u0
y
u
; a
d
= A
d0
y
d
; a
e
= A
e0
y
e
. (5.15)
38
(a)
e
e
B
(b)
d s
s d
g g
d
s
s
d
m
2
L
2
L
or m
2
e
11
constrained.
2
matrices. The
0
K
0
MSSM
soft
contains
(mass)
2
54
If the squark and
K
and
K
55
the D
0
, D
0
and B
0
, B
0
56
After the Higgs
u
, a
d
, a
e
(mass)
2
terms [for example,

da
d

QH
d
+ c.c. (a
d
)
12
H
0
d
s
L

d
R
3
soft
57
2
matrices
m
2
Q
= m
2
Q
1; m
2
u
= m
2
u
1; m
2
d
= m
2
d
1; m
2
L
= m
2
L
1; m
2
e
= m
2
e
1. (5.14)
u
, a
d
, a
e
.
3
a
u
= A
u0
y
u
; a
d
= A
d0
y
d
; a
e
= A
e0
y
e
. (5.15)
38
(a)
e
e
B
(b)
d s
s d
g g
d
s
s
d
m
2
L
2
L
or m
2
e
11
constrained.
2
matrices. The
0
K
0
MSSM
soft
contains
(mass)
2
54
If the squark and
K
and
K
55
the D
0
, D
0
and B
0
, B
0
56
After the Higgs
u
, a
d
, a
e
(mass)
2
terms [for example,

da
d

QH
d
+ c.c. (a
d
)
12
H
0
d
s
L

d
R
3
soft
57
2
matrices
m
2
Q
= m
2
Q
1; m
2
u
= m
2
u
1; m
2
d
= m
2
d
1; m
2
L
= m
2
L
1; m
2
e
= m
2
e
1. (5.14)
u
, a
d
, a
e
.
3
a
u
= A
u0
y
u
; a
d
= A
d0
y
d
; a
e
= A
e0
y
e
. (5.15)
38
(a)
e
e
B
(b)
d s
s d
g g
d
s
s
d
m
2
L
2
L
or m
2
e
11
constrained.
2
matrices. The
0
K
0
MSSM
soft
contains
(mass)
2
54
If the squark and
K
and
K
55
the D
0
, D
0
and B
0
, B
0
56
After the Higgs
u
, a
d
, a
e
(mass)
2
terms [for example,

da
d

QH
d
+ c.c. (a
d
)
12
H
0
d
s
L

d
R
3
soft
57
2
matrices
m
2
Q
= m
2
Q
1; m
2
u
= m
2
u
1; m
2
d
= m
2
d
1; m
2
L
= m
2
L
1; m
2
e
= m
2
e
1. (5.14)
u
, a
d
, a
e
.
3
a
u
= A
u0
y
u
; a
d
= A
d0
y
d
; a
e
= A
e0
y
e
. (5.15)
38
t
u c
c u
D
0

D
0 G
(1)
+
+
+ +
u c
c u
t t
t t
D
0

D
0
(b)
d s
s d
g g
d
s
s
d s
s s
s

t
t
u c
c u
D
0

D
0 G
(1)
+
+
+ +
u c
c u
t t
t t
D
0

D
0
u
u
x
4
0.1
0.2
0.5
2
5
10
1
1
500 1000 1500 2000
500
1000
1500
2000
m
s
R
@GeVD
m
u
L
,
R
=
m
d
L
,
R
=
m
c
L
,
R
=
m
s
L
@
G
e
V
D
s
R
v. 7 q
s s
lim
CMS
L = 4.98 fb
-1
m
g
= 1.5 TeV
m
N
= 50 GeV
0.1
0.2
0.5
2
5
10
1
1
500 1000 1500 2000
500
1000
1500
2000
m
c
L,R
= m
s
L,R
@GeVD
m
u
L
,
R
=
m
d
L
,
R
@
G
e
V
D
Sea v. Valence
s s
lim
Dm
D
CMS
L = 4.98 fb
-1
m
g
= 1.5 TeV
m
N
= 50 GeV
0.1
0.2
0.5
2
5
1
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
m
u
R
= m
c
R
@GeVD
m
d
R
=
m
s
R
@
G
e
V
D
U
1,2
v. D
1,2
s s
lim
CMS
L = 4.98 fb
-1
m
g
= 1.5 TeV
m
N
1
= 50 GeV
FIG. 3: Squark mass limits in three phenomenologically interesting scenarios with non-degenerate rst- and second-generation
squarks. The left panel contains the least constrained scenario, with a single second-generation squark avor split from all others;
the middle panel corresponds to an alignment-type scenario with rst-generation squarks split from the second-generation. The
shaded blue region is excluded by avor and CP violation constraints which apply to electroweak doublet squarks only, while
the singlet spectrum remains completely unconstrained; the right panel corresponds to an MFV-type scenario with split up-type
and down-type singlets, and doublets formally decoupled. The red dashed (dotted) lines represent the exclusion contour if the
LO mixed up-down squark production cross section is multiplied by a K-factor of 1.5 (2.0).
plot include the full dependence on the squark masses,
crucial when the splitting is large [29]. Although the sin-
glet squarks are kept degenerate with the corresponding
doublets for simplicity, their splittings are unconstrained
by avor, and they could also be decoupled, resulting
in weaker LHC bounds (corresponding to the contour
/
lim
2), with unchanged avor bounds. The right-
hand panel contains the limits in an MFV-type scenario,
with split up-type and down-type singlets, and doublets
formally decoupled. The red dashed (dotted) lines rep-
resent the exclusion contour if the LO mixed up-down
squark production cross section is multiplied by a K-
factor of 1.5 (2.0).
The surprisingly weak limits, in particular for squarks
of the second generation, demonstrate how ineective
current searches are for light squarks. Re-optimizing
the ATLAS 2-6 jets plus MET search using only the
m
e
cut is not eective: while the background grows
like m
6
e
, the signal grows much more slowly, ensuring
that decreasing the m
e
cut makes things worse. It is
possible that the limits would improve on performing ei-
ther a full re-optimization including all cut variables, or
a shape analysis; such a study, however, is beyond the
scope of this paper. Instead, in Fig. 4, we compare the
limits for squark cross sections from various 7 TeV AT-
LAS and CMS jets plus MET searches (which have limits
for degenerate squarks that are competetive with those
of recent 8 TeV searches [33, 34]). We nd indeed that
the most stringent bounds come from the more complex
shape-based analyses, such as the CMS razor search.
Conclusion: We have argued that a combination of
reduced eciencies and suppression due to PDFs leads
to constraints on non-degenerate squark masses (for the
200 400 600 800 1000
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
1
m
q
@GeVD
s
@
p
b
D
squark limits
8 squarks
1 squark CMS razor
CMS a
T
CMS jets + MET
ATLAS jets + MET
L 5 fb
-1
FIG. 4: Comparison between upper limits on squark pair-
production cross sections with a decoupled gluino and mass-
less neutralino, from 7 TeV 5 fb
1
ATLAS and CMS jets plus
MET searches [15, 3032]. We use the ocial experimental
limits, except for the ATLAS search where we use our esti-
mate of the limit, simulating the search with ATOM (solid)
and PGS (dotted).
rst two generations) that are signicantly weaker than
those assuming eightfold degeneracy. For instance, an
O(400 GeV) squark belonging to the second generation
can be buried in the LHC jets plus MET data. In the
above analysis we have neglected for simplicity the eects
of squark mixing, which could be sizable in alignment
models. In addition, our reinterpreted limits, while as-
suming the bino is the lightest SUSY particle (LSP), are
still applicable for singlino or gravitino LSPs, or when ad-
ditional electroweak (e.g. higgsinos) and leptonic states
are present, but do not drastically alter the light squark
branching ratios. In spite of the dramatic increase of
allowed
allowed
allowed
excluded
excluded
excluded
m
valence
& 1.2 TeV
m
sea
& 600 TeV
sea vs. valence
See also: Heikinheimo, Kellerstein & Sanz (11); Kribs & Martin (12),
GeV
Mahbubani, Papucci, GP, Ruderman & Weiler (12).
78
Single squark can be as light as 400-500 GeV!
4
0.1
0.2
0.5
2
5
10
1
1
500 1000 1500 2000
500
1000
1500
2000
m
s
R
@GeVD
m
u
L
,
R
=
m
d
L
,
R
=
m
c
L
,
R
=
m
s
L
@
G
e
V
D
s
R
v. 7 q
s s
lim
CMS
L = 4.98 fb
-1
m
g
= 1.5 TeV
m
N
= 50 GeV
0.1
0.2
0.5
2
5
10
1
1
500 1000 1500 2000
500
1000
1500
2000
m
c
L,R
= m
s
L,R
@GeVD
m
u
L
,
R
=
m
d
L
,
R
@
G
e
V
D
Sea v. Valence
s s
lim
Dm
D
CMS
L = 4.98 fb
-1
m
g
= 1.5 TeV
m
N
= 50 GeV
0.1
0.2
0.5
2
5
1
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
m
u
R
= m
c
R
@GeVD
m
d
R
=
m
s
R
@
G
e
V
D
U
1,2
v. D
1,2
s s
lim
CMS
L = 4.98 fb
-1
m
g
= 1.5 TeV
m
N
1
= 50 GeV
and down-type singlets and doublets formally decoupled. The red dashed (dotted) lines represent the exclusion contour if the
/
lim
m
e
like m
6
e
e
200 400 600 800 1000
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
1
m
q
@GeVD
s
@
p
b
D
squark limits
8 squarks
1 squark CMS razor
CMS a
T
CMS jets + MET
ATLAS jets + MET
L 5 fb
-1
1
and PGS (dotted).
Mahbubani, Papucci, GP, Ruderman & Weiler (12).
79
Word about: microscopic & macroscopic of alignment models
Macro: successful alignment models are consistent with avor
constraints, due to smallness of physical CP violating phases.
Gedalia, Kamenik, Ligeti & GP (12);
Formalism: Gedalia, Mannelli & GP (10) x2
NPKI workshop 17
wrong correct
Micro: Nir & Seiberg (93) showed existing proof; however,
with ultra high mediation => induce universality & ne tuning.
Progress: avor gauge mediation (Shadmi-Sabo (11)+5 more recent) =>
non-trivial (MFV) avor structure & naturally obtain light scharm.
Galon, GP & Shadmi, to appear.
80
Flavor: only sizable mixing is allowed.
What is the impact of adding avor violation on stop
searches ? (avored naturalness)
Figure 1. Quadratically divergent one-loop contribution to the Higgs mass parameter in the SM
(a), canceled by scalar superpartner contributions in a SUSY model (b).
I. INTRODUCTION
The recent discovery of a Higgs-like boson at the LHC, while being a breakthrough in
the understanding of electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB), leaves a lot of questions
unanswered. One of the most pressing problems is the stabilization of the EWSB scale,
which in the Standard Model requires an unnaturally ne-tuned cancellation between tree-
level and loop contributions to the Higgs potential. One of the most popular solutions to
this problem is supersymmetry, which allows to cancel the dangerous quadratically divergent
contributions from the SM particles by their respective superpartners with opposite spin-
statistics. Most important from the point of view of naturalness is the cancellation of
the top quadratic divergence, which is governed by the large top Yukawa coupling. In
supersymmetry this contribution is canceled by the corresponding loop contribution of its
supersymmetric partners, the stops, as depicted in Figure 1.
While the cancellation of the quadratically divergent contribution is independent of the
stop masses, the remaining logarithmically divergent contributions are mass dependent
therefore naturalness in the Higgs potential generally requires light stops. This common lore
however is being put under severe pressure by the non-observation of stops at the LHC and
the increased bounds on their masses.
This simplied picture however contains the intrinsic assumption of complete alignment
between the up quark and up squark mass bases. While this is a very good approximation
for the left-handed sector, where due to the SU(2)
L
symmetry the stringent constraints from
K and B decays are relevant, the situation is dierent in the right-handed up sector. Here
the only relevant constraints are related to the D system so that the third generation is
much less constrained. In fact it is sucient to assume the 12 and 13 mixings to be samll in
order to comply with data; the mixing angle
R
23
describing stop-scharm mixing. Constraints
from avor violating top decays on the other hand are still fairly weak. There should be
2
Naively sounds crazy ...
t
R
u
R
or

t
R
c
R
Dine, Leigh & Kagan (93); Dimopoulos & Giudice (95).
81
What is the impact of adding avor violation on stop
searches ? (avorful naturalness)
Flavor: only sizable mixing is allowed.
Figure 1. Quadratically divergent one-loop contribution to the Higgs mass parameter in the SM
(a), canceled by scalar superpartner contributions in a SUSY model (b).
I. INTRODUCTION
The recent discovery of a Higgs-like boson at the LHC, while being a breakthrough in
the understanding of electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB), leaves a lot of questions
unanswered. One of the most pressing problems is the stabilization of the EWSB scale,
which in the Standard Model requires an unnaturally ne-tuned cancellation between tree-
level and loop contributions to the Higgs potential. One of the most popular solutions to
this problem is supersymmetry, which allows to cancel the dangerous quadratically divergent
contributions from the SM particles by their respective superpartners with opposite spin-
statistics. Most important from the point of view of naturalness is the cancellation of
the top quadratic divergence, which is governed by the large top Yukawa coupling. In
supersymmetry this contribution is canceled by the corresponding loop contribution of its
supersymmetric partners, the stops, as depicted in Figure 1.
While the cancellation of the quadratically divergent contribution is independent of the
stop masses, the remaining logarithmically divergent contributions are mass dependent
therefore naturalness in the Higgs potential generally requires light stops. This common lore
however is being put under severe pressure by the non-observation of stops at the LHC and
the increased bounds on their masses.
This simplied picture however contains the intrinsic assumption of complete alignment
between the up quark and up squark mass bases. While this is a very good approximation
for the left-handed sector, where due to the SU(2)
L
symmetry the stringent constraints from
K and B decays are relevant, the situation is dierent in the right-handed up sector. Here
the only relevant constraints are related to the D system so that the third generation is
much less constrained. In fact it is sucient to assume the 12 and 13 mixings to be samll in
order to comply with data; the mixing angle
R
23
describing stop-scharm mixing. Constraints
from avor violating top decays on the other hand are still fairly weak. There should be
2
c
R
Naively sounds crazy as worsening the ne tuning problem.
However, just established the scharm can be light.
The production is suppressed by .
t
R
R
!t
R
t
cos
R
23
4
Potentially: new hole in searches, possibly improve naturalness
t
R
u
R
or

t
R
c
R
m
2
Hu
=
3y
2
t
8
2
m
2
t
L
+ cos
2
RR
23
m
2
1
+ sin
2
RR
23
m
2
2
82
Constraining avorful naturalness
RH stops dominates naturalness,
ATLAS (12), now new bound.
m
t
R
& m
0
= 570 GeV
To constrain, look for: tt, cc & tc + MET (very qualitative).
83
m
t
R
& m
0
= 570 GeV
4
0.1
0.2
0.5
2
5
10
1
1
500 1000 1500 2000
500
1000
1500
2000
m
sR
@GeVD
m
u
L
,R
=
m
d
L
,R
=
m
c
L
,R
=
m
s
L
@
G
e
V
D
s
R
v. 7 q
s slim
CMS
L = 4.98 fb
-1
mg
= 1.5 TeV
m
N
= 50 GeV
0.1
0.2
0.5
2
5
10
1
1
500 1000 1500 2000
500
1000
1500
2000
m
cL,R
= m
sL,R
@GeVD
m
u
L
,R
=
m
d
L
,R
@
G
e
V
D
Sea v. Valence
s slim
DmD
CMS
L = 4.98 fb
-1
mg
= 1.5 TeV
m
N
= 50 GeV
0.1
0.2
0.5
2
5
1
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
m
uR
= m
cR
@GeVD
m
d
R
=
m
s
R
@
G
e
V
D
U
1,2
v. D
1,2
s slim
CMS
L = 4.98 fb
-1
mg
= 1.5 TeV
m
N1
= 50 GeV
/
lim
m
e
like m
6
e
e
200 400 600 800 1000
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
1
m
q
@GeVD
s
@
p
b
D
squark limits
8 squarks
1 squark CMS razor
CMS a
T
CMS jets + MET
ATLAS jets + MET
L 5 fb
-1
1
and PGS (dotted).
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1
0
+
m
t
<
m
1 t
~
m
(BR=1)
0
1
t
1
t
~
production,
1
t
~
1
t
~
[GeV]
1
t
~ m

[
G
e
V
]
01

m
ATLAS Preliminary
= 8 TeV s ,
-1
Ldt = 20.5 fb

)
theory
SUSY
1 Observed limit (
)
exp
1 Expected limit (
1
t
1

t
0
1
t
0
1
1
t
0
1
[GeV]
1
t
~ m
200 300 400 500 600 700 800

[
G
e
V
]
01

m
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
BR = 100 %
BR = 75 %
BR = 60 %
0.6 0.54 0.58 0.67 0.63 0.75 0.9
0.68 0.62 0.61 0.67 0.65 0.76 0.95
0.74 0.64 0.74 0.68 0.79 0.94
0.84 0.82 0.73 0.85
0.95
1
0
+
m
t
<
m
1 t
~
m
0
1
t
1
t
~
production,
1
t
~
1
t
~
=8 TeV s ,
-1
Ldt = 20.5 fb

ATLAS Preliminary
1
t
0
1
t
1
t
1
channel t
1
t
0
1
13
83
m
t
R
& m
0
= 570 GeV
??
4
0.1
0.2
0.5
2
5
10
1
1
500 1000 1500 2000
500
1000
1500
2000
m
sR
@GeVD
m
u
L
,R
=
m
d
L
,R
=
m
c
L
,R
=
m
s
L
@
G
e
V
D
s
R
v. 7 q
s slim
CMS
L = 4.98 fb
-1
mg
= 1.5 TeV
m
N
= 50 GeV
0.1
0.2
0.5
2
5
10
1
1
500 1000 1500 2000
500
1000
1500
2000
m
cL,R
= m
sL,R
@GeVD
m
u
L
,R
=
m
d
L
,R
@
G
e
V
D
Sea v. Valence
s slim
DmD
CMS
L = 4.98 fb
-1
mg
= 1.5 TeV
m
N
= 50 GeV
0.1
0.2
0.5
2
5
1
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
m
uR
= m
cR
@GeVD
m
d
R
=
m
s
R
@
G
e
V
D
U
1,2
v. D
1,2
s slim
CMS
L = 4.98 fb
-1
mg
= 1.5 TeV
m
N1
= 50 GeV
/
lim
m
e
like m
6
e
e
200 400 600 800 1000
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
1
m
q
@GeVD
s
@
p
b
D
squark limits
8 squarks
1 squark CMS razor
CMS a
T
CMS jets + MET
ATLAS jets + MET
L 5 fb
-1
1
and PGS (dotted).
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1
0
+
m
t
<
m
1 t
~
m
(BR=1)
0
1
t
1
t
~
production,
1
t
~
1
t
~
[GeV]
1
t
~ m

[
G
e
V
]
01

m
ATLAS Preliminary
= 8 TeV s ,
-1
Ldt = 20.5 fb

)
theory
SUSY
1 Observed limit (
)
exp
1 Expected limit (
1
t
1

t
0
1
t
0
1
1
t
0
1
[GeV]
1
t
~ m
200 300 400 500 600 700 800

[
G
e
V
]
01

m
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
BR = 100 %
BR = 75 %
BR = 60 %
0.6 0.54 0.58 0.67 0.63 0.75 0.9
0.68 0.62 0.61 0.67 0.65 0.76 0.95
0.74 0.64 0.74 0.68 0.79 0.94
0.84 0.82 0.73 0.85
0.95
1
0
+
m
t
<
m
1 t
~
m
0
1
t
1
t
~
production,
1
t
~
1
t
~
=8 TeV s ,
-1
Ldt = 20.5 fb

ATLAS Preliminary
1
t
0
1
t
1
t
1
channel t
1
t
0
1
13
83
m
t
R
& m
0
= 570 GeV
??
c
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
e
4
0.1
0.2
0.5
2
5
10
1
1
500 1000 1500 2000
500
1000
1500
2000
m
sR
@GeVD
m
u
L
,R
=
m
d
L
,R
=
m
c
L
,R
=
m
s
L
@
G
e
V
D
s
R
v. 7 q
s slim
CMS
L = 4.98 fb
-1
mg
= 1.5 TeV
m
N
= 50 GeV
0.1
0.2
0.5
2
5
10
1
1
500 1000 1500 2000
500
1000
1500
2000
m
cL,R
= m
sL,R
@GeVD
m
u
L
,R
=
m
d
L
,R
@
G
e
V
D
Sea v. Valence
s slim
DmD
CMS
L = 4.98 fb
-1
mg
= 1.5 TeV
m
N
= 50 GeV
0.1
0.2
0.5
2
5
1
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
m
uR
= m
cR
@GeVD
m
d
R
=
m
s
R
@
G
e
V
D
U
1,2
v. D
1,2
s slim
CMS
L = 4.98 fb
-1
mg
= 1.5 TeV
m
N1
= 50 GeV
/
lim
m
e
like m
6
e
e
200 400 600 800 1000
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
1
m
q
@GeVD
s
@
p
b
D
squark limits
8 squarks
1 squark CMS razor
CMS a
T
CMS jets + MET
ATLAS jets + MET
L 5 fb
-1
1
and PGS (dotted).
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1
0
+
m
t
<
m
1 t
~
m
(BR=1)
0
1
t
1
t
~
production,
1
t
~
1
t
~
[GeV]
1
t
~ m

[
G
e
V
]
01

m
ATLAS Preliminary
= 8 TeV s ,
-1
Ldt = 20.5 fb

)
theory
SUSY
1 Observed limit (
)
exp
1 Expected limit (
1
t
1

t
0
1
t
0
1
1
t
0
1
[GeV]
1
t
~ m
200 300 400 500 600 700 800

[
G
e
V
]
01

m
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
BR = 100 %
BR = 75 %
BR = 60 %
0.6 0.54 0.58 0.67 0.63 0.75 0.9
0.68 0.62 0.61 0.67 0.65 0.76 0.95
0.74 0.64 0.74 0.68 0.79 0.94
0.84 0.82 0.73 0.85
0.95
1
0
+
m
t
<
m
1 t
~
m
0
1
t
1
t
~
production,
1
t
~
1
t
~
=8 TeV s ,
-1
Ldt = 20.5 fb

ATLAS Preliminary
1
t
0
1
t
1
t
1
channel t
1
t
0
1
13
83
Flavored naturalness, preliminary results
The relevant parameters to constrain are:
Blanke, Giudice, Paride, GP & Zupan (13)
stop,scharm like squark mass, m
1,2
& C cos
RR
23
Dene relative tuning measure: =
m
2
1
c
2
+ m
2
2
s
2
m
2
0
, (m
0
= 570 GeV)
84
Flavored naturalness, preliminary results
The relevant parameters to constrain are:
Blanke, Giudice, Paride, GP & Zupan (13)
stop,scharm like squark mass, m
1,2
& C cos
RR
23
Dene relative tuning measure: =
m
2
1
c
2
+ m
2
2
s
2
m
2
0
, (m
0
= 570 GeV)
x
=
0
.
5
x
=
0
.
6
x
=
0
.
7
x
=
0
.
8
x
=
0
.
9
x
=
1
.
0
c=0.7
c=0.8
c=0.9
c=1.0
350 400 450 500 550 600
350
400
450
500
550
600
m
1
m
2
95%CL mass exclusion
x
=
0
.
7
x
=
0
.
8
x
=
0
.
9
x
=
1
.
0
c=0.7
c=0.8
c=0.9
c=1.0
400 450 500 550 600
400
450
500
550
600
m
1
m
2
95%CL mass exclusion
Can get 0.5 0.8 for
RR
23
45
o
!
I
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

t
c

f
r
o
m

j
e
t
s
+
M
E
T
84
Summary
The SM avor sector is unique
Yields sharp predictions
All so far were veried
Electroweak & avor precision tests => NP has non-generic structure
Unless NP is ~ MFV or aligned
Flavorful naturalness: ex. for linkage between naturalness & avor.
look for buried light squarks, top charm nal states, charm tagging?
Up type FCNC measurements could hold the key
Cannot be the end of the story => baryogenesis
Probably not the end of the story => hierarchy problem
85
SM Flavor Structure, is it ne tuned by itself?
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
U(1)
3
Y
U
0
Y
U
Y
D
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
G
SM
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
G
SM
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Y
U
Y
U
Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3)
K
NP to be
>
10
4
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

Y
U
Y
D
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
G
SM
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Y
U
Y
U
Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

Y
U
Y
D
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
G
SM
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Y
U
Y
U
Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

Y
U
Y
D
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
G
SM
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Y
U
Y
U
Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
Y
U
Y
D
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
G
SM
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Y
U
Y
U
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
Y
U
Y
D
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
G
SM
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Y
U
Y
U
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
Y
U
Y
D
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
G
SM
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
U(1)
3
Y
U
0
Y
U
Y
D
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
G
SM
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
U(1)
3
Y
U
0
Y
U
Y
D
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

x
23,13
=
1
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
,
1
0 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 0
c
23,13
= O(
2,3
)
V
CKM
x
23
x
13
ud

2
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
cos
ud

B
|
A| |
B|
=
tr
Y
U
Y
tr /
Y
D
Y
tr /
tr
Y
U
Y
2
tr /
tr
Y
D
Y
2
tr /
1 c
4
ud
= O(
2
)
6
A
U,D
Y
U,D
Y
U,D
1
3
tr
U,D
Y
U,D
I
3
, (22)
X
tranform as
A
U,D
V
U,D
A
U,D
V
U,D
. (23)
Thus, A
U,D
U,D
U,D
Y
U,D
) are avor sin-
U,D
U,D
3
U,D
group,
Q
A
Q
u
,Q
d Y
U,D
Y
U,D
1
3
tr
Y
U,D
Y
U,D
I
3
, (24)
Q
G
SM
weakless
= U(6)
Q
U(3)
U
U(3)
D
, (25)
i
u,d
i
3
couplings, g
2
of only W
3
G
SM
exten
= U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
. (26)
SM
G
SM
exten
L
, D
L
2
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3) . (27)
SM
exten
to the fact that g
2
U,D
, g
2
Q
u U(3)
Q
Q
2
2
int
1
3
. (28)
2
is the CKM matrix
mass
V
CKM
. (29)
involved Y
U,D
and g
2
. Since g
2
Q
u
,Q
Q
u
,Q
Q
u
,Q
d and g
2
86
What is the avor puzzle (1st ingredient)?
The avor puzzle is of 2 ingredients:
3
u,d
u,d
t,b
is not possible.
d
F

W
, where large
u,d
log(
W
/
F
anomalous dimensions in the renormalization group running [? ]. Another example is warped extra dimension models
with alignment [? ], in cases where right handed up-quark currents are subdominant.
td
, V
ts
, and light
t
, y
b
W
), U(3)
Q
is enhanced to U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d. The
two groups are broken down to U(2) U(1) by large third generation eigenvalues in Y
u,d
Y
u,d
, so that the low energy
theory is described by a [U(3)/U(2)U(1)]
2
non-linear -model. Flavor violation arises due to the misalignment of Y
u
and Y
d
, given by V
td
and V
ts
once the weak interaction is turned on. We can then prove with complete generality that
in MFV: (i) extra CPV can only arise from avor diagonal CPV sources in the UV theory; (ii) the extra CP phases
in B
s

B
s
mixing provide an upper bound on the amount of CPV in B
d

B
d
mixing; (iii) if operators containing
right-handed light quarks are subdominant then the extra CPV is equal in the two systems, and is negligible in
2 1 transitions. Conversely, these operators can break the correlation between CPV in the B
s
and B
d
systems,
and can induce signicant new CPV in
K
. Combinations of observables which are sensitive to LMFV vs. NLMFV
are also identied. Another non-linear parameterization of MFV was presented in [? ]. We focus on exploiting the
general control obtained by our formalism in order to study its model independent implications. A modication of
the formalism is needed for y
b
1, as discussed below.
Formalism. To realize G
SM
non-linearly, we promote the Yukawa matrices to spurions, with the transformation
properties given below Eq. (??). These avor transformations are broken once the Yukawa couplings obtain their
background values. The eigenvalues of the latter are hierarchical and the two matrices are approximately aligned. We
therefore take Y
u
diag (0, 0, y
t
) and Y
d
diag (0, 0, y
b
). The breaking of the avor group is dominated by the top
and bottom Yukawa couplings which break it down to H
SM
= U(2)
Q
U(2)
u
U(2)
d
U(1)
3
.
The broken symmetry generators live in G
SM
/H
SM
cosets. It is useful to factor them out of the Yukawa matrices.
We thus use the parameterization
Y
u,d
= e
i
Q
e
i /2

Y
u,d
e
i
u,d
, (3)
where the reduced Yukawa spurions,

Y
u,d
, are
Y
u,d
=
u,d
0
0 y
t,b
. (4)
Here
u,d
are 2 2 complex spurions, while and
i
, i = Q, u, d, are the 3 3 matrices spanned by the broken
generators. Explicitly,
=
,
i
=
0
i
i

i
, i = Q, u, d, (5)
where and
i
are two dimensional vectors. The
i
shift under the broken generators and therefore play the role
of spurion Goldstone bosons. Thus the
i
have no physical signicance. , on the other hand, parametrizes the
misalignment of the up and down Yukawa couplings and will therefore correspond to V
td
and V
ts
in the low energy
eective theory [see Eq. (??)].
Under the avor group the above spurions transform as,
e
i
i
= V
i
e
i
i
U
i
, e
i
= U
Q
e
i
U
Q
,

Y
i
= U
Q

Y
i
U
i
. (6)
Here U
i
= U
i
(V
i
,
i
) are (reducible) unitary representations of the unbroken avor subgroup U(2)
i
U(1)
3
,
U
i
=
U
22
i
0
0 e
i
3
, i = Q, u, d. (7)
For V
i
H
SM
, U
i
= V
i
. Otherwise the U
i
depend on the broken generators and
i
. They form a nonlinear realization
of the full avor group. In particular, Eq. (??) denes U
i
(V
i
,
i
) by requiring that
i
is of the same form as
i
,
Eq. (??). Consequently
i
is shifted under G
SM
/H
SM
and can be set to a convenient value as discussed below. Under
(i) Smallness of eigenvalues of
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
U(1)
3
Y
U
0
Y

U
Y
D
Y
U
& Y
D
.
g
2
3
u,d
u,d
t,b
is not possible.
d
F

W
, where large
u,d
log(
W
/
F
anomalous dimensions in the renormalization group running [? ]. Another example is warped extra dimension models
with alignment [? ], in cases where right handed up-quark currents are subdominant.
td
, V
ts
, and light
t
, y
b
W
), U(3)
Q
is enhanced to U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d. The
u,d
Y
u,d
2
u
and Y
d
, given by V
td
and V
ts
in B
s

B
s
d

B
d
s
and B
d
systems,
K
are also identied. Another non-linear parameterization of MFV was presented in [? ]. We focus on exploiting the
b
SM
properties given below Eq. (??). These avor transformations are broken once the Yukawa couplings obtain their
therefore take Y
u
diag (0, 0, y
t
) and Y
d
diag (0, 0, y
b
SM
= U(2)
Q
U(2)
u
U(2)
d
U(1)
3
.
SM
/H
SM
Y
u,d
= e
i
Q
e
i /2

Y
u,d
e
i
u,d
, (3)

Y
u,d
, are
Y
u,d
=
u,d
0
0 y
t,b
. (4)
Here
u,d
i
=
,
i
=
0
i
i

i
, i = Q, u, d, (5)
where and
i
i
i
td
and V
ts
in the low energy
eective theory [see Eq. (??)].
e
i
i
= V
i
e
i
i
U
i
, e
i
= U
Q
e
i
U
Q
,

Y
i
= U
Q

Y
i
U
i
. (6)
Here U
i
= U
i
(V
i
,
i
i
U(1)
3
,
U
i
=
U
22
i
0
0 e
i
3
, i = Q, u, d. (7)
For V
i
H
SM
, U
i
= V
i
. Otherwise the U
i
i
of the full avor group. In particular, Eq. (??) denes U
i
(V
i
,
i
) by requiring that
i
i
,
Eq. (??). Consequently
i
is shifted under G
SM
/H
SM
-
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
G
SM
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Y
U
Y
U
Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3)
K
NP to be
>
10
4
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

Y
U
Y
D
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
G
SM
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Y
U
Y
U
Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

Y
U
Y
D
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
G
SM
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Y
U
Y
U
Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

Y
U
Y
D
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
G
SM
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Y
U
Y
U
Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
Y
U
Y
D
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
G
SM
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
U(2)
Q
u
U(2)
U
U(1)
t
U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
U(1)
3
Y
U
0
Y
U
Y
D
Y
U
& Y
D
.
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
U(2)
Q
u
U(2)
U
U(1)
t
U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
U(1)
3
Y
U
0
Y
U
Y
D
Y
U
& Y
D
.
6
A
U,D
Y
U,D
Y
U,D
1
3
tr
U,D
Y
U,D
I
3
, (22)
X
tranform as
A
U,D
V
U,D
A
U,D
V
U,D
. (23)
Thus, A
U,D
U,D
U,D
Y
U,D
) are avor sin-
U,D
U,D
3
U,D
group,
Q
A
Q
u
,Q
d Y
U,D
Y
U,D
1
3
tr
Y
U,D
Y
U,D
I
3
, (24)
Q
G
SM
weakless
= U(6)
Q
U(3)
U
U(3)
D
, (25)
i
u,d
i
3
couplings, g
2
of only W
3
G
SM
exten
= U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
. (26)
SM
G
SM
exten
L
, D
L
2
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3) . (27)
SM
exten
to the fact that g
2
U,D
, g
2
Q
u U(3)
Q
Q
2
2
int
1
3
. (28)
2
is the CKM matrix
mass
V
CKM
. (29)
involved Y
U,D
and g
2
. Since g
2
Q
u
,Q
Q
u
,Q
Q
u
,Q
d and g
2
3
L
F=2
=
z
sd
(1 TeV)
2
(d
L
s
L
)
2
+
z
cu
(1 TeV)
2
(c
L
u
L
)
2
+
z
4
sd
(1 TeV)
2
(d
L
s
R
)(d
R
s
L
) +
z
4
cu
(1 TeV)
2
(u
L
c
R
)(u
R
c
L
).
Im(z
sd
, z
4
sd
)
<
(3.4 10
9
, 2.6 10
11
) (
NP
/TeV)
2
, (1)
Im(z
cu
, z
4
cu
)
<
(1.0 10
7
, 1.1 10
8
) (
NP
/TeV)
2
,
z
sd
(1, 8, 1, 1) (1, 8, 1, 1), z
cu
(8, 1, 1, 1) (8, 1, 1, 1)
z
4
sd
(1, 8, 1, 8), z
4
cu
(8, 1, 8, 1)
z
4
sd,cu
z
sd,cu
z
Q
cos
ud

A

B
|
A| |
B|
=
tr
Y
U
Y

U
tr /
Y
D
Y

D
tr /
tr
Y
U
Y

U
2
tr /
tr
Y
D
Y

D
2
tr /
1 c
4
ud
= O(
2
)
(Y
U
Y

U
)
down
= V

CKM
(Y
U
Y

U
)
diag
V
CKM
y
2
t
V
ti
CKM
V
tj
CKM
y
2
t
3
1
3
2
8
+ c
13

x
13
+ c
23

x
23
(2)
Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D

y
2
t,b
3
1
3
1
2
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
3
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
[Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D
] 0
U(2)
D
U(2)
U
U(1)
Q
U(1)
B
U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
87
Light quarks RH avor group ~ conserved
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
G
SM
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Y
U
Y
U
Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3)
K
NP to be
>
10
4
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

Y
U
Y
D
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
G
SM
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Y
U
Y
U
Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

Y
U
Y
D
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
G
SM
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Y
U
Y
U
Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

Y
U
Y
D
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
G
SM
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Y
U
Y
U
Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
Y
U
Y
D
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
G
SM
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
U(2)
Q
u
U(2)
U
U(1)
t
U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
U(1)
3
Y
U
0
Y
U
Y
D
Y
U
& Y
D
.
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
U(2)
Q
u
U(2)
U
U(1)
t
U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
U(1)
3
Y
U
0
Y
U
Y
D
Y
U
& Y
D
.
RH currents involves the rst 2 gen are very small!
(within the SM even ones involve b are small)
3
L
F=2
=
z
sd
(1 TeV)
2
(d
L
s
L
)
2
+
z
cu
(1 TeV)
2
(c
L
u
L
)
2
+
z
4
sd
(1 TeV)
2
(d
L
s
R
)(d
R
s
L
) +
z
4
cu
(1 TeV)
2
(u
L
c
R
)(u
R
c
L
).
Im(z
sd
, z
4
sd
)
<
(3.4 10
9
, 2.6 10
11
) (
NP
/TeV)
2
, (1)
Im(z
cu
, z
4
cu
)
<
(1.0 10
7
, 1.1 10
8
) (
NP
/TeV)
2
,
z
sd
(1, 8, 1, 1) (1, 8, 1, 1), z
cu
(8, 1, 1, 1) (8, 1, 1, 1)
z
4
sd
(1, 8, 1, 8), z
4
cu
(8, 1, 8, 1)
z
4
sd,cu
z
sd,cu
z
Q
cos
ud

A

B
|
A| |
B|
=
tr
Y
U
Y

U
tr /
Y
D
Y

D
tr /
tr
Y
U
Y

U
2
tr /
tr
Y
D
Y

D
2
tr /
1 c
4
ud
= O(
2
)
(Y
U
Y

U
)
down
= V

CKM
(Y
U
Y

U
)
diag
V
CKM
y
2
t
V
ti
CKM
V
tj
CKM
y
2
t
3
1
3
2
8
+ c
13

x
13
+ c
23

x
23
(2)
Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D

y
2
t,b
3
1
3
1
2
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
3
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
[Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D
] 0
U(2)
D
U(2)
U
U(1)
Q
U(1)
B
U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
88
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

x
23,13
=
1
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
,
1
0 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 0
c
23,13
= O(
2,3
)
x
23
x
13
ud

2
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
cos
ud

A

B
|
A| |
B|
=
tr
Y
U
Y
tr /
Y
D
Y
tr /
tr
Y
U
Y
2
tr /
tr
Y
D
Y
2
tr /
1 c
4
ud
= O(
2
)
(Y
U
Y
U
)
down
= V
CKM
(Y
U
Y
U
)
diag
V
CKM
y
2
t
V
ti
CKM
V
tj
CKM
y
2
t
3
1
3
2
8
+c
13

x
13
+c
23

x
23
(1)
What is the avor puzzle (2nd ingredient)?
(ii) Smallness of the CKM mixing angles (Y
u,d
quasi-alignment) -
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

[Y
U
Y
U
, Y
D
Y
D
] 0
U(2)
D
U(2)
U
U(1)
B
U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
U(2)
Q
u
U(2)
U
U(1)
t
U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
U(1)
3
Y
U
0
Y
U
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
Y
U
Y
U
, Y
D
Y
D

[Y
U
Y
U
, Y
D
Y
D
] 0
U(2)
D
U(2)
U
U(1)
B
U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
U(2)
Q
u U(2)
U
U(1)
t
U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
In diagonal basis can expand Ys via Gel-Mann matrices:
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
Y
U
Y
U
, Y
D
Y
D

y
2
t,b
3
1
3
1
2
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
3
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
[Y
U
Y
U
, Y
D
Y
D
] 0
U(2)
D
U(2)
U
U(1)
B
U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
U(2)
Q
u U(2)
U
U(1)
t
U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
To leading order only the rotation in the (13) & (23)
matters, hence, say in the down mass basis we nd:
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

x
23,13
=
1
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
,
1
0 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 0
x
23
x
13
ud

2
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
cos
ud

A

B
|
A| |
B|
=
tr
Y
U
Y
tr /
Y
D
Y
tr /
tr
Y
U
Y
2
tr /
tr
Y
D
Y
2
tr /
1 c
4
ud
= O(
2
)
Y
U
Y
U
, Y
D
Y
D

y
2
t,b
3
1
3
1
2
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
3
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
[Y
U
Y
U
, Y
D
Y
D
] 0
89
The amount of alignment can be extracted from the
scalar product of two vectors (in any avor basis):
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
cos
ud
A

B
|
A| |
B|
=
tr
Y
U
Y
tr /
Y
D
Y
tr /
tr
Y
U
Y
2
tr /
tr
Y
D
Y
2
tr /
1 c
4
ud
= O(
2
)
Y
U
Y
U
, Y
D
Y
y
2
t,b
3
1
3
1
2
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
3
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
[Y
U
Y
U
, Y
D
Y
D
] 0
U(2)
D
U(2)
U
U(1)
B
U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
U(2)
Q
u U(2)
U
U(1)
t
U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

x
23
x
13
ud

2
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
cos
ud
A

B
|
A| |
B|
=
tr
Y
U
Y
tr /
Y
D
Y
tr /
tr
Y
U
Y
2
tr /
tr
Y
D
Y
2
tr /
1 c
4
ud
= O(
2
)
Y
U
Y
U
, Y
D
Y
y
2
t,b
3
1
3
1
2
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
3
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
[Y
U
Y
U
, Y
D
Y
D
] 0
U(2)
D
U(2)
U
U(1)
B
.
Y
d
Y
d
.
Y
u
Y
u
)
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
cos
ud
A

B
|
A| |
B|
=
tr
Y
U
Y
tr /
Y
D
Y
tr /
tr
Y
U
Y
2
tr /
tr
Y
D
Y
2
tr /
1 c
4
ud
= O(
2
)
Y
U
Y
U
, Y
D
Y
y
2
t,b
3
1
3
1
2
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
3
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
[Y
U
Y
U
, Y
D
Y
D
] 0
U(2)
D
U(2)
U
U(1)
B
U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
U(2)
Q
u U(2)
U
U(1)
t
U(1)
B
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

x
23
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
cos
ud
A

B
|
A| |
B|
=
tr
Y
U
Y
tr /
Y
D
Y
tr /
tr
Y
U
Y
2
tr /
tr
Y
D
Y
2
tr /
1 c
4
ud
= O(
2
)
Y
U
Y
U
, Y
D
Y
y
2
t,b
3
1
3
1
2
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
3
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
[Y
U
Y
U
, Y
D
Y
D
] 0
U(2)
D
U(2)
U
U(1)
B
U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
U(2)
Q
u U(2)
U
U(1)
t
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

x
23
x
13
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
cos
ud
A

B
|
A| |
B|
=
tr
Y
U
Y
tr /
Y
D
Y
tr /
tr
Y
U
Y
2
tr /
tr
Y
D
Y
2
tr /
1 c
4
ud
= O(
2
)
Y
U
Y
U
, Y
D
Y
y
2
t,b
3
1
3
1
2
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
3
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
[Y
U
Y
U
, Y
D
Y
D
] 0
U(2)
D
U(2)
U
U(1)
B
U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
CKM & Quasi alignment
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

x
23,13
=
1
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
,
1
0 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 0
c
23,13
= O(
2,3
)
x
23
x
13
ud

2
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
cos
ud

B
|
A| |
B|
=
tr
Y
U
Y

U
tr /
Y
D
Y

D
tr /
tr
Y
U
Y

U
2
tr /
tr
Y
D
Y

D
2
tr /
1 c
4
ud
= O(
2
)
(Y
U
Y

U
)
dmass

y
2
t
3
1
3
2
8
+ c
13
x
13
+ c
23
x
23
90
The avor puzzle, breaking & naturalness
Flavor puzzle: The parameters are small and hierarchical!
Is the avor sector ne tuned?
t Hooft definition of technical naturallness: a parameter is natural if when its
set to 0 theres an enhanced sym.
Light masses are protected by residual sym.
2
Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D

y
2
t,b
3
1
3
1
2
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
3
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
[Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D
] 0
U(2)
D
U(2)
U
U(1)
B
U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
U(2)
Q
u U(2)
U
U(1)
t
U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
U(1)
3
Y
U
0
Y

U
Y
D
Y
U
& Y
D
.
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
Mixing angles are protected by sym.
2
(Y
U
Y

U
)
down
= V

CKM
(Y
U
Y

U
)
diag
V
CKM
y
2
t
V
ti
CKM
V
tj
CKM
y
2
t
3
1
3
2
8
+ c
13
x
13
+ c
23
x
23
(1)
Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D

y
2
t,b
3
1
3
1
2
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
3
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
[Y
U
Y

U
, Y
D
Y

D
] 0
U(2)
D
U(2)
U
U(1)
B
U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
U(2)
Q
u U(2)
U
U(1)
t
U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
U(1)
3
Y
U
0
Y

U
Y
D
Y
U
& Y
D
.
g
2
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

x
23,13
=
1
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
,
1
0 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 0
c
23,13
= O(
2,3
)
V
CKM
U(1)
3
Q
x
23
x
13
ud

2
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
Flavor puzzles => tuning not ne tuning (nothing unnatural)!
91
Back to the bounds from avor precision
Flavor anecdotes
Operator c
ij
Re Im Re Im
( s
L
d
L
)
2
9.8 10
2
1.6 10
4
4.0 10
1
5.6 4.0 10
1
5.6 m
K
;
K
( s
R
d
L
)
2
7.7 10
3
1.3 10
5
1.3 10
3
3.0 10
2
3.6 10
2
6.9 10
1
m
K
;
K
( s
R
d
L
)( s
L
d
R
) 1.7 10
4
3.0 10
5
< GeV 8.8 10
2
1.3 10
2
2.5 10
1
m
K
;
K
( c
L
u
L
)
2
1.2 10
3
2.8 10
3
< GeV < GeV 2.4 10
1
< GeV m
D
; |q/p|,
D
( c
R
u
L
)
2
3.2 10
3
7.4 10
3
m
D
; |q/p|,
D
( c
R
u
L
)( c
L
u
R
) 6.2 10
3
1.5 10
4
m
D
; |q/p|,
D
(
b
L
d
L
)
2
5.1 10
2
9.3 10
2
4.8 4.6 10
1
4.8 8.7 m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
R
d
L
)
2
1.0 10
3
1.8 10
3
3.6 10
1
6.7 10
1
7.9 15 m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
R
d
L
)(
b
L
d
R
) 1.9 10
3
3.5 10
3
1.3 10
2
< GeV 3.5 10
1
6.7 10
1
m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
L
s
L
)
2
1.1 10
2
4.6 5 m
B
s
(
b
R
s
L
)
2
2.1 10
2
5.2 10
3
1.3 10
1
m
B
s
(
b
R
s
L
)(
b
L
s
R
) 4.0 10
2
6.9 10
2
1.7 m
B
s
L
i
e
Rj
HF
1.7 10
4
Br ( e)
3.3 10
2
Br ( )
2.6 10
2
Br ( e)
(
P
L
e) ( u
P
L
u) 1.9 10
2
(
Tie
Ti)
(
Ticapture)
ij
/
2
s
B
s
W
1
ij
= 1) Bounds on c
ij
Re Im Re Im
( s
L
d
L
)
2
9.8 10
2
1.6 10
4
9.0 10
7
3.4 10
9
m
K
;
K
( s
R
d
L
)( s
L
d
R
) 1.8 10
4
3.2 10
5
6.9 10
9
2.6 10
11
m
K
;
K
( c
L
u
L
)
2
1.2 10
3
2.9 10
3
5.6 10
7
1.0 10
7
m
D
; |q/p|,
D
( c
R
u
L
)( c
L
u
R
) 6.2 10
3
1.5 10
4
5.7 10
8
1.1 10
8
m
D
; |q/p|,
D
(
b
L
d
L
)
2
5.1 10
2
9.3 10
2
3.3 10
6
1.0 10
6
m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
R
d
L
)(
b
L
d
R
) 1.9 10
3
3.6 10
3
5.6 10
7
1.7 10
7
m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
L
s
L
)
2
1.1 10
2
7.6 10
5
m
B
s
(
b
R
s
L
)(
b
L
s
R
) 3.7 10
2
1.3 10
5
m
B
s
(
t
L
u
L
)
2
eective coupling 1/
2
ij
s
B
s
explain this point.
1
2
NP
(Q
Li
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
Lj
)(Q
Li
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
Lj
), (3.6)
where X
Q
Y
d
=
d
, Y
u
= V
u
, X
Q
= V
d

Q
V
d
, (3.7)
where
Q
d
0
K
0
and D
0
D
0
c
), while V
d
depends on a
9
same sign ts
V
e
ry ve
ry stro
n
g ...
92
y
ij
H

F
i
F
j
1
2
UV
F
i
F
j

F
k
F
+ . . .
2
UV
H
H
Standard Model up to some
Hierarchy see-saw
2
UV
1 TeV
4
Rattazzi (12)
With new physics new avor problem arises
93
What about the ne tuning problem ?
What is the ne tuning problem (personal view)?
Imagine that they were equal to 1:10
32
!
sun
moon
Higgs mass & EW scale are ultra sensitive to quantum corrections.

The top & the ne tuning problem
Largest contributions are due to the top couplings.
085 |
,"

,)
, .(
, ,
.
. ,

,
, .

.( )
,

.
,

" " )
(
,( )
.
,
10
109
eV
4

, ,( )

, , .
, 120 10
.(0.001eV)
4

,
,

. -
: , ,

(0.001eV)
4
= (10000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000.000000000001 - 1000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000) eV
4

,

.
.

<<
The moon subtends an angle of ~ 0.54 while the sun of ~ 0.52.
What if they were equal to 1:10
32
??
It would raise two questions:
(i) What set their precise distance? <=> Tuning problem ().
(ii) Why perturbations not destabilize the system? <=> Fine tuning problem
(why is /
max
1 ?)
(why is m
2
H
/m
2
Pl
1 ?)
Coincidence of 1:10
2
- moon subtends an angle
of ~ 0.52 while sun of ~ 0.53.
94
32
!
sun
moon

085 |
,"

,)
, .(
, ,
.
. ,

,
, .

.( )
,

.
,

" " )
(
,( )
.
,
10
109
eV
4

, ,( )

, , .
, 120 10
.(0.001eV)
4

,
,

. -
: , ,

(0.001eV)
4
= (10000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000.000000000001 - 1000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000) eV
4

,

.
.

<<
32
??
(why is /
max
1 ?)
(why is m
2
H
/m
2
Pl
1 ?)
Coincidence of 1:10
2
The most severe problem is due to top coupling:
14 Reinhard Schwienhorst, Michigan State University

Top quork moss
top quark top quark
Higgs Higgs
boson boson
Only Iermion with
coupling strengh
~1
sun
moon

085 |
,"

,)
, .(
, ,
.
. ,

,
, .

.( )
,

.
,

" " )
(
,( )
.
,
10
109
eV
4

, ,( )

, , .
, 120 10
.(0.001eV)
4

,
,

. -
: , ,

(0.001eV)
4
= (10000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000.000000000001 - 1000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000) eV
4

,

.
.

<<
32
??
(why is /
max
1 ?)
(why is m
2
H
/m
2
Pl
1 ?)
The ne tuning problem
(ii) Why perturbations not destabilize system? <=> Fine tuning issue.
(displacing the sun by 10
19
m ) 10
32
)
m
2
W
/m
2
Pl
obs

m
2
H
+m
2
H
/m
2
Pl

! W,Z, higgs top
H H
t
t
-
m
2
H
+
10
32
Additive sensitivity / ne tuning due to top-Higgs coupling:
94
32
!
sun
moon

085 |
,"

,)
, .(
, ,
.
. ,

,
, .

.( )
,

.
,

" " )
(
,( )
.
,
10
109
eV
4

, ,( )

, , .
, 120 10
.(0.001eV)
4

,
,

. -
: , ,

(0.001eV)
4
= (10000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000.000000000001 - 1000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000) eV
4

,

.
.

<<
32
??
(why is /
max
1 ?)
(why is m
2
H
/m
2
Pl
1 ?)
Coincidence of 1:10
2
The most severe problem is due to top coupling:
14 Reinhard Schwienhorst, Michigan State University

Top quork moss
top quark top quark
Higgs Higgs
boson boson
Only Iermion with
coupling strengh
~1
sun
moon

085 |
,"

,)
, .(
, ,
.
. ,

,
, .

.( )
,

.
,

" " )
(
,( )
.
,
10
109
eV
4

, ,( )

, , .
, 120 10
.(0.001eV)
4

,
,

. -
: , ,

(0.001eV)
4
= (10000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000.000000000001 - 1000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000) eV
4

,

.
.

<<
32
??
(why is /
max
1 ?)
(why is m
2
H
/m
2
Pl
1 ?)
19
m ) 10
32
)
m
2
W
/m
2
Pl
obs

m
2
H
+m
2
H
/m
2
Pl

! W,Z, higgs top
H H
t
t
-
m
2
H
+
10
32
ne tuning of worse than 1:100 !
Assume cuto = 7 TeV;
t
m
2
h
=
3
8
2
y
2
t
2
1.4TeV
2
m
2
h,phys
= m
2
tree
+
t
m
2
h
= m
2
tree
+ 1.4 TeV
2
0.01 TeV
2
94
ij
= 1) Bounds on c
ij
Re Im Re Im
( s
L
d
L
)
2
9.8 10
2
1.6 10
4
9.0 10
7
3.4 10
9
m
K
;
K
( s
R
d
L
)( s
L
d
R
) 1.8 10
4
3.2 10
5
6.9 10
9
2.6 10
11
m
K
;
K
( c
L
u
L
)
2
1.2 10
3
2.9 10
3
5.6 10
7
1.0 10
7
m
D
; |q/p|,
D
( c
R
u
L
)( c
L
u
R
) 6.2 10
3
1.5 10
4
5.7 10
8
1.1 10
8
m
D
; |q/p|,
D
(
b
L
d
L
)
2
5.1 10
2
9.3 10
2
3.3 10
6
1.0 10
6
m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
R
d
L
)(
b
L
d
R
) 1.9 10
3
3.6 10
3
5.6 10
7
1.7 10
7
m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
L
s
L
)
2
1.1 10
2
7.6 10
5
m
B
s
(
b
R
s
L
)(
b
L
s
R
) 3.7 10
2
1.3 10
5
m
B
s
(
t
L
u
L
)
2
eective coupling 1/
2
ij
s
B
s
explain this point.
1
2
NP
(Q
Li
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
Lj
)(Q
Li
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
Lj
), (3.6)
where X
Q
Y
d
=
d
, Y
u
= V
u
, X
Q
= V
d

Q
V
d
, (3.7)
where
Q
d
0
K
0
and D
0
D
0
c
), while V
d
depends on a
9
F = 2 status
Operator Bounds on in TeV (cij = 1) Bounds on cij ( = 1 TeV) Observables
Re Im Re Im
( sLdL)2 9.8 102 1.6 104 9.0 107 3.4 109 mK; K
( sR dL)( sLdR) 1.8 104 3.2 105 6.9 109 2.6 1011 mK; K
( cLuL)2 1.2 103 2.9 103 5.6 107 1.0 107 mD; |q/p|, D
( cR uL)( cLuR) 6.2 103 1.5 104 5.7 108 1.1 108 mD; |q/p|, D
(bLdL)2 5.1 102 9.3 102 3.3 106 1.0 106 mBd; SKS
(bR dL)(bLdR) 1.9 103 3.6 103 5.6 107 1.7 107 mBd; SKS
(bLsL)2 1.1 102 7.6 105 mBs
(bR sL)(bLsR) 3.7 102 1.3 105 mBs
( tLuL)2
eective coupling 1/2, or, alternatively, the bounds on the respective cijs assuming = 1 TeV. Observables
related to CPV are separated from the CP conserving ones with semicolons. In the Bs system we only quote
a bound on the modulo of the NP amplitude derived from mBs (see text). For the denition of the CPV
explain this point.
1
2NP(QLi(XQ)ijQLj)(QLi(XQ)ijQLj), (3.6)
where XQ is an hermitian matrix. Without loss of generality, we can choose to work in the basis
Y d = d, Y u = V u, XQ = V d QVd, (3.7)
where Q is a diagonal real matrix, and Vd is a unitary matrix which parametrizes the misalignment
The experimental constraints that are most relevant to our study come from K0K0 and D0D0
framework, V depends on a single mixing angle (the Cabibbo angle c), while Vd depends on a
9
6
However little is known on tFCNC
same sign ts
95
ij
= 1) Bounds on c
ij
Re Im Re Im
( s
L
d
L
)
2
9.8 10
2
1.6 10
4
9.0 10
7
3.4 10
9
m
K
;
K
( s
R
d
L
)( s
L
d
R
) 1.8 10
4
3.2 10
5
6.9 10
9
2.6 10
11
m
K
;
K
( c
L
u
L
)
2
1.2 10
3
2.9 10
3
5.6 10
7
1.0 10
7
m
D
; |q/p|,
D
( c
R
u
L
)( c
L
u
R
) 6.2 10
3
1.5 10
4
5.7 10
8
1.1 10
8
m
D
; |q/p|,
D
(
b
L
d
L
)
2
5.1 10
2
9.3 10
2
3.3 10
6
1.0 10
6
m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
R
d
L
)(
b
L
d
R
) 1.9 10
3
3.6 10
3
5.6 10
7
1.7 10
7
m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
L
s
L
)
2
1.1 10
2
7.6 10
5
m
B
s
(
b
R
s
L
)(
b
L
s
R
) 3.7 10
2
1.3 10
5
m
B
s
(
t
L
u
L
)
2
eective coupling 1/
2
ij
s
B
s
explain this point.
1
2
NP
(Q
Li
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
Lj
)(Q
Li
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
Lj
), (3.6)
where X
Q
Y
d
=
d
, Y
u
= V
u
, X
Q
= V
d

Q
V
d
, (3.7)
where
Q
d
0
K
0
and D
0
D
0
c
), while V
d
depends on a
9
F = 2 status
Re Im Re Im
( sLdL)2 9.8 102 1.6 104 9.0 107 3.4 109 mK; K
( sR dL)( sLdR) 1.8 104 3.2 105 6.9 109 2.6 1011 mK; K
( cLuL)2 1.2 103 2.9 103 5.6 107 1.0 107 mD; |q/p|, D
( cR uL)( cLuR) 6.2 103 1.5 104 5.7 108 1.1 108 mD; |q/p|, D
(bLdL)2 5.1 102 9.3 102 3.3 106 1.0 106 mBd; SKS
(bR dL)(bLdR) 1.9 103 3.6 103 5.6 107 1.7 107 mBd; SKS
(bLsL)2 1.1 102 7.6 105 mBs
(bR sL)(bLsR) 3.7 102 1.3 105 mBs
( tLuL)2
explain this point.
1
Y d = d, Y u = V u, XQ = V d QVd, (3.7)
9
6
However little is known on tFCNC
same sign ts
D
o
n
o
t d
ire
ctly
co
u
p
le
to
3
rd

ge
n
e
ratio
n
!
95
How large of non-univ. cutoff to sustain < 1:100 ne tuning?
sun
moon

085 |
,"

,)
, .(
, ,
.
. ,

,
, .

.( )
,

.
,

" " )
(
,( )
.
,
10
109
eV
4

, ,( )

, , .
, 120 10
.(0.001eV)
4

,
,

. -
: , ,

(0.001eV)
4
= (10000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000.000000000001 - 1000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000) eV
4

,

.
.

<<
32
??
(why is /
max
1 ?)
(why is m
2
H
/m
2
Pl
1 ?)
19
m ) 10
32
)
m
2
W
/m
2
Pl
obs

m
2
H
+m
2
H
/m
2
Pl

! W,Z, higgs top
H H
t
t
-
m
2
H
+
10
32
b,c,s
Reverse the logic with light avors
D. Grossman, Hochberg, GP & Soreq, to appear; see also: Barbieri et al. JHEP (10).
s : )
s
. 2 10
4
TeV
c : )
c
. 2 10
3
TeV
b : )
b
. 4 10
2
TeV
96
sun
moon

085 |
,"

,)
, .(
, ,
.
. ,

,
, .

.( )
,

.
,

" " )
(
,( )
.
,
10
109
eV
4

, ,( )

, , .
, 120 10
.(0.001eV)
4

,
,

. -
: , ,

(0.001eV)
4
= (10000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000.000000000001 - 1000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000) eV
4

,

.
.

<<
32
??
(why is /
max
1 ?)
(why is m
2
H
/m
2
Pl
1 ?)
19
m ) 10
32
)
m
2
W
/m
2
Pl
obs

m
2
H
+m
2
H
/m
2
Pl

! W,Z, higgs top
H H
t
t
-
m
2
H
+
10
32
b,c,s
F = 2 status
ij
= 1) Bounds on c
ij
Re Im Re Im
( s
L
d
L
)
2
9.8 10
2
1.6 10
4
9.0 10
7
3.4 10
9
m
K
;
K
( s
R
d
L
)( s
L
d
R
) 1.8 10
4
3.2 10
5
6.9 10
9
2.6 10
11
m
K
;
K
( c
L
u
L
)
2
1.2 10
3
2.9 10
3
5.6 10
7
1.0 10
7
m
D
; |q/p|,
D
( c
R
u
L
)( c
L
u
R
) 6.2 10
3
1.5 10
4
5.7 10
8
1.1 10
8
m
D
; |q/p|,
D
(
b
L
d
L
)
2
5.1 10
2
9.3 10
2
3.3 10
6
1.0 10
6
m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
R
d
L
)(
b
L
d
R
) 1.9 10
3
3.6 10
3
5.6 10
7
1.7 10
7
m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
L
s
L
)
2
1.1 10
2
7.6 10
5
m
B
s
(
b
R
s
L
)(
b
L
s
R
) 3.7 10
2
1.3 10
5
m
B
s
(
t
L
u
L
)
2
eective coupling 1/
2
ij
s
B
s
explain this point.
1
2
NP
(Q
Li
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
Lj
)(Q
Li
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
Lj
), (3.6)
where X
Q
Y
d
=
d
, Y
u
= V
u
, X
Q
= V
d

Q
V
d
, (3.7)
where
Q
d
0
K
0
and D
0
D
0
c
), while V
d
depends on a
9
F = 2 status
Re Im Re Im
( sLdL)2 9.8 102 1.6 104 9.0 107 3.4 109 mK; K
( sR dL)( sLdR) 1.8 104 3.2 105 6.9 109 2.6 1011 mK; K
( cLuL)2 1.2 103 2.9 103 5.6 107 1.0 107 mD; |q/p|, D
( cR uL)( cLuR) 6.2 103 1.5 104 5.7 108 1.1 108 mD; |q/p|, D
(bLdL)2 5.1 102 9.3 102 3.3 106 1.0 106 mBd; SKS
(bR dL)(bLdR) 1.9 103 3.6 103 5.6 107 1.7 107 mBd; SKS
(bLsL)2 1.1 102 7.6 105 mBs
(bR sL)(bLsR) 3.7 102 1.3 105 mBs
( tLuL)2
explain this point.
1
2NP
(QLi(XQ)ijQLj)(QLi(XQ)ijQLj), (3.6)
Y d = d, Y u = V u, XQ = V d QVd, (3.7)
9
6
s : )
s
. 2 10
4
TeV
c : )
c
. 2 10
3
TeV
b : )
b
. 4 10
2
TeV
96
sun
moon

085 |
,"

,)
, .(
, ,
.
. ,

,
, .

.( )
,

.
,

" " )
(
,( )
.
,
10
109
eV
4

, ,( )

, , .
, 120 10
.(0.001eV)
4

,
,

. -
: , ,

(0.001eV)
4
= (10000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000.000000000001 - 1000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000) eV
4

,

.
.

<<
32
??
(why is /
max
1 ?)
(why is m
2
H
/m
2
Pl
1 ?)
19
m ) 10
32
)
m
2
W
/m
2
Pl
obs

m
2
H
+m
2
H
/m
2
Pl

! W,Z, higgs top
H H
t
t
-
m
2
H
+
10
32
b,c,s
F = 2 status
ij
= 1) Bounds on c
ij
Re Im Re Im
( s
L
d
L
)
2
9.8 10
2
1.6 10
4
9.0 10
7
3.4 10
9
m
K
;
K
( s
R
d
L
)( s
L
d
R
) 1.8 10
4
3.2 10
5
6.9 10
9
2.6 10
11
m
K
;
K
( c
L
u
L
)
2
1.2 10
3
2.9 10
3
5.6 10
7
1.0 10
7
m
D
; |q/p|,
D
( c
R
u
L
)( c
L
u
R
) 6.2 10
3
1.5 10
4
5.7 10
8
1.1 10
8
m
D
; |q/p|,
D
(
b
L
d
L
)
2
5.1 10
2
9.3 10
2
3.3 10
6
1.0 10
6
m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
R
d
L
)(
b
L
d
R
) 1.9 10
3
3.6 10
3
5.6 10
7
1.7 10
7
m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
L
s
L
)
2
1.1 10
2
7.6 10
5
m
B
s
(
b
R
s
L
)(
b
L
s
R
) 3.7 10
2
1.3 10
5
m
B
s
(
t
L
u
L
)
2
eective coupling 1/
2
ij
s
B
s
explain this point.
1
2
NP
(Q
Li
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
Lj
)(Q
Li
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
Lj
), (3.6)
where X
Q
Y
d
=
d
, Y
u
= V
u
, X
Q
= V
d

Q
V
d
, (3.7)
where
Q
d
0
K
0
and D
0
D
0
c
), while V
d
depends on a
9
F = 2 status
Re Im Re Im
( sLdL)2 9.8 102 1.6 104 9.0 107 3.4 109 mK; K
( sR dL)( sLdR) 1.8 104 3.2 105 6.9 109 2.6 1011 mK; K
( cLuL)2 1.2 103 2.9 103 5.6 107 1.0 107 mD; |q/p|, D
( cR uL)( cLuR) 6.2 103 1.5 104 5.7 108 1.1 108 mD; |q/p|, D
(bLdL)2 5.1 102 9.3 102 3.3 106 1.0 106 mBd; SKS
(bR dL)(bLdR) 1.9 103 3.6 103 5.6 107 1.7 107 mBd; SKS
(bLsL)2 1.1 102 7.6 105 mBs
(bR sL)(bLsR) 3.7 102 1.3 105 mBs
( tLuL)2
explain this point.
1
2NP
(QLi(XQ)ijQLj)(QLi(XQ)ijQLj), (3.6)
Y d = d, Y u = V u, XQ = V d QVd, (3.7)
9
6
Tension with LLRR
CP violation (CPV)!
s : )
s
. 2 10
4
TeV
c : )
c
. 2 10
3
TeV
b : )
b
. 4 10
2
TeV
96
How large of cutoff to sustain ne tuning of less than 1:100 ?
sun
moon

085 |
,"

,)
, .(
, ,
.
. ,

,
, .

.( )
,

.
,

" " )
(
,( )
.
,
10
109
eV
4

, ,( )

, , .
, 120 10
.(0.001eV)
4

,
,

. -
: , ,

(0.001eV)
4
= (10000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000.000000000001 - 1000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000) eV
4

,

.
.

<<
32
??
(why is /
max
1 ?)
(why is m
2
H
/m
2
Pl
1 ?)
19
m ) 10
32
)
m
2
W
/m
2
Pl
obs

m
2
H
+m
2
H
/m
2
Pl

! W,Z, higgs top
H H
t
t
-
m
2
H
+
10
32
b,c,s
F = 2 status
ij
= 1) Bounds on c
ij
Re Im Re Im
( s
L
d
L
)
2
9.8 10
2
1.6 10
4
9.0 10
7
3.4 10
9
m
K
;
K
( s
R
d
L
)( s
L
d
R
) 1.8 10
4
3.2 10
5
6.9 10
9
2.6 10
11
m
K
;
K
( c
L
u
L
)
2
1.2 10
3
2.9 10
3
5.6 10
7
1.0 10
7
m
D
; |q/p|,
D
( c
R
u
L
)( c
L
u
R
) 6.2 10
3
1.5 10
4
5.7 10
8
1.1 10
8
m
D
; |q/p|,
D
(
b
L
d
L
)
2
5.1 10
2
9.3 10
2
3.3 10
6
1.0 10
6
m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
R
d
L
)(
b
L
d
R
) 1.9 10
3
3.6 10
3
5.6 10
7
1.7 10
7
m
B
d
; S
K
S
(
b
L
s
L
)
2
1.1 10
2
7.6 10
5
m
B
s
(
b
R
s
L
)(
b
L
s
R
) 3.7 10
2
1.3 10
5
m
B
s
(
t
L
u
L
)
2
eective coupling 1/
2
ij
s
B
s
explain this point.
1
2
NP
(Q
Li
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
Lj
)(Q
Li
(X
Q
)
ij
Q
Lj
), (3.6)
where X
Q
Y
d
=
d
, Y
u
= V
u
, X
Q
= V
d

Q
V
d
, (3.7)
where
Q
d
0
K
0
and D
0
D
0
c
), while V
d
depends on a
9
F = 2 status
Re Im Re Im
( sLdL)2 9.8 102 1.6 104 9.0 107 3.4 109 mK; K
( sR dL)( sLdR) 1.8 104 3.2 105 6.9 109 2.6 1011 mK; K
( cLuL)2 1.2 103 2.9 103 5.6 107 1.0 107 mD; |q/p|, D
( cR uL)( cLuR) 6.2 103 1.5 104 5.7 108 1.1 108 mD; |q/p|, D
(bLdL)2 5.1 102 9.3 102 3.3 106 1.0 106 mBd; SKS
(bR dL)(bLdR) 1.9 103 3.6 103 5.6 107 1.7 107 mBd; SKS
(bLsL)2 1.1 102 7.6 105 mBs
(bR sL)(bLsR) 3.7 102 1.3 105 mBs
( tLuL)2
explain this point.
1
Y d = d, Y u = V u, XQ = V d QVd, (3.7)
9
6
B system: only case with
tension with LLLL operators;
Improvement in Bs will
get us there as well.
s : )
s
. 2 10
4
TeV
c : )
c
. 2 10
3
TeV
b : )
b
. 4 10
2
TeV
97
MFV & quick way to estimate SM strength of
FCNC & constraints
Y
U
(3,
3, 1) , Y
D
(3, 1,
3)
We promote Y
U,D
SM
.
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

X
Q
d = V

d

Q
V
d
=
12
_
I +
12
V

d

3
V
d
_

12
(I +
12
v ) ,
abs(z
sd
) =
2
12
_
( v
2
1
+ v
2
2
_
=
2
12
(1 v
2
3
) sin
2
X
Q
d
cos
X
Q
d
=
tr
_
_
Y
D
Y

D
_
tr /
(X
Q
)
tr /
_
tr
_
_
Y
D
Y

D
_
2
tr /
_
tr
_
(X
Q
)
2
tr /
_
2gen
ud
2
where
d,u,Q
d
misalignment of X
Q
x
23,13
=
1
2
_
_
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
_
_
,
1
2
_
_
0 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 0
_
_
98
GIM mechanism (Glashow-Iliopoulos-Maiani, 70) suppression of neutral currents
Gluon & photon protected by gauge univ; Z ??
So far -> Flavor violation (FV) only in CC. What about NC?
Unitarity of CKM implies cancellation of divergencies & absence
of avor changing neutral currents (FCNC).
99
GIM mechanism, SM 1-loop example
d s

W
(a)
g
W
(b)
g W
(c)
g
W
(d)
g,!, Z
W
W
(e)
FIG. 2. One-loop current-current (a)(c), penguin (d) and box (e) diagrams in the full theory. For pure
QCD corrections as considered in this section and e.g. in VI the - and -contributions in diagram (d) and
the diagram (e) are absent. Possible left-right or up-down reected diagrams are not shown.
Under the same conditions, the unrenormalized current-current matrix elements of the opera-
tors and are from g. 3 (a)-(c) found to be
(III.45)
(III.46)
Again, the divergences in the rst terms are eliminated through eld renormalization. However, in
contrast to the full amplitude, the resulting expressions are still divergent. Therefore an additional
multiplicative renormalization, refered to as operator renormalization, is necessary:
(III.47)
Since (III.45) and (III.46) each involve both and , the renormalization constant is in this
case a matrix . The relation between the unrenormalized ( ) and the renormalized
amputated Green functions ( ) is then
(III.48)
From (III.45), (III.46) and (III.15) we read off ( -scheme)
(III.49)
22
Z
K
L

= V
is
d
4
k
k
2
(k
2
m
2
i
)
2
1
k
2
M
2
W
V

id
=

V

diag[f(m
2
i
)] V
12
(i) Div part is m
i
indep 0
(ii) Hard GIM: leading contribution suppressed by V
is
V
id
m
2
ij
100
MFV & GIM
Y
U
(3,
3, 1) , Y
D
(3, 1,
3)
We promote Y
U,D
SM
.
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

X
Q
d = V

d

Q
V
d
=
12
_
I +
12
V

d

3
V
d
_

12
(I +
12
v ) ,
abs(z
sd
) =
2
12
_
( v
2
1
+ v
2
2
_
=
2
12
(1 v
2
3
) sin
2
X
Q
d
cos
X
Q
d
=
tr
_
_
Y
D
Y

D
_
tr /
(X
Q
)
tr /
_
tr
_
_
Y
D
Y

D
_
2
tr /
_
tr
_
(X
Q
)
2
tr /
_
2gen
ud
2
where
d,u,Q
d
misalignment of X
Q
x
23,13
=
1
2
_
_
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
_
_
,
1
2
_
_
0 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 0
_
_
101
Y
U
Y
U
& Y
D
Y
D
Q
avor group
and Q
i
L
(3, 1, 1), U
i
R
(1, 3, 1), D
i
R
(1, 1, 3).
After symm breaking useful to consider the approx limit
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

G
SM
= U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
Introduction. Precision avor and CP violation
measurements provide very strong constraints on models
of new physics (NP) beyond the Standard Model (SM).
For instance,
K
constrains the scale of maximally avor
violating NP to be
>
10
4
TeV. Therefore, TeV scale NP
which stabilizes the electroweak scale and is accessible at
the LHC has to have a highly non generic avor structure.
The tension with precision avor tests is relaxed if the
SM Yukawa matrices are the only source of avor break-
ing, even in the presence of new particles and interac-
tions [? ? ? ]. This hypothesis goes under the name of
Minimal Flavor Violation (MFV). Sometimes additional
assumptions are made that the SM Yukawa couplings
are also the only source of CP violation (CPV ), e.g. in [?
], or that NP does not change the Lorentz structure of the
eective weak hamiltonian [? ]. We will not make these
assumptions, but will discuss their consequences below.
A useful language for discussing MFV was introduced
in [? ]. It relies on the observation that for vanishing
Yukawa couplings the SM has an enhanced global sym-
metry. Focusing on the quark sector this is
G
SM
= U(3)
Q
U(3)
u
U(3)
d
, (1)
where Q, u, d stand for quark doublets and up and down
type quark singlets respectively. The SM Yukawa cou-
plings
H
u

Q
L
Y
u
u
R
+H
d

Q
L
Y
d
d
R
, (2)
SM
, if the Yukawa matri-
ces are promoted to spurions that transform as Y
u,d
=
V
Q
Y
u,d
V
u,d
, while the quark elds are in the fundamental
representations, (Q
, u
, d
) = V
Q,u,d
NP models are then of the MFV class if they are formally
invariant under G
SM
, when treating the SM Yukawa cou-
plings as spurions. Similarly, the low energy avor ob-
servables are formally invariant under G
SM
. Practically,
this means that only certain insertions of Yukawa cou-
plings are allowed in the quark bilinears. For example, in
QQ bilinears insertions such as

Q(Y
u
Y
u
)
n
Q are allowed,
while

QY
d
(Y
u
Y
u
)
n
Q are not.
The above denition of MFV is only useful if avor
invariant operators such as

Qf(
u
Y
u
,
d
Y
d
)Q can be ex-
panded in powers of Y
u,d
. In the large tan limit both
Y
u
and Y
d
t,b
. The convergence
radius is then given by the size of
u,d
. We distinguish
between two limiting cases
Linear MFV (LMFV):
u,d
1 and the dominant
avor breaking eects are captured by the lowest
order polynomials of Y
u,d
.
u,d
O(1), higher
powers of Y
u,d
are important, and a truncated ex-
pansion in y
t,b
is not possible.
Examples of NLMFV are: low energy supersymmetric
models in which large tan eects need to be resummed
(large
d
F

W
, where large
u,d
log(
W
/
F
) are gener-
ated from sizable anomalous dimensions in the renormal-
ization group running [? ]. Another example is warped
extra dimension models with alignment [? ], in cases
where right handed up-quark currents are subdominant.
In this letter we show that even in NLMFV there
is a systematic expansion in small quantities, V
td
, V
ts
,
and light quark masses, while resumming in y
t
, y
b

O(1). This is achieved via a non-linear -modellike
parametrization. Namely, in the limit of vanishing weak
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

G
SM
U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3)
K
NP to be
>
10
4
G
SM
= U(3)
Q
U(3)
u
U(3)
d
, (1)
H
u

Q
L
Y
u
u
R
+H
d

Q
L
Y
d
d
R
, (2)
SM
u,d
=
V
Q
Y
u,d
V
u,d
, u
, d
) = V
Q,u,d
SM
SM

QQ bilinears
insertions such as

Q(Y
u
Y
u
)
n

QY
d
(Y
u
Y
u
)
n
Q are not.

Qf(
u
Y
u
,
d
Y
d
)Q can be expanded
in powers of Y
u,d
u
and Y
d
t,b
u,d
102
GIM mechanism & SU(3)
Qu
x SU(3)
Qd
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

x
23,13
=
1
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
,
1
0 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 0
c
23,13
= O(
2,3
)
V
CKM
U(1)
3
Q
x
23
x
13
GIM:
d
i
L
g
2
Y
U
Y

U
ij
g
2
d
j
L
d
i
L
(g
Z
2
)
2
ij
d
j
L
ud

2
In term of spurions, is avor trivial.
Leading contributions to neutral currents (NCs)
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

x
23,13
=
1
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
,
1
0 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 0
c
23,13
= O(
2,3
)
V
CKM
U(1)
3
Q
x
23
x
13
GIM:
d
i
L
g
ij
2
Y
U
Y

U
jl
g
lk
2
d
k
L
d
i
L
(g
Z
2
)
2
ij
d
j
L
ud

2
2
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
cos
ud
A

B
|
A| |
B|
=
tr
Y
U
Y
tr /
Y
D
Y
tr /
tr
Y
U
Y
2
tr /
tr
Y
D
Y
2
tr /
1 c
4
ud
= O(
2
)
(Y
U
Y
U
)
down
= V
CKM
(Y
U
Y
U
)
diag
V
CKM
y
2
t
V
ti
CKM
V
tj
CKM
y
2
t
3
1
3
2
8
+c
13

x
13
+c
23

x
23
(1)
Y
U
Y
U
, Y
D
Y
y
2
t,b
3
1
3
1
2
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
3
2
m
2
c,s
m
2
t,b
[Y
U
Y
U
, Y
D
Y
D
] 0
U(2)
D
U(2)
U
U(1)
B
U(2)
Q
d U(2)
D
U(1)
b
U(2)
Q
u U(2)
U
U(1)
t
U(1)
B
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
U(1)
3
Y
U
0
Y
U
Highly suppressed, at LO need to go through the 3rd
gen. ( )
Within the SM avor changing NCs (FCNCs) are highly
suppressed => good probe of new physics (NP).
103
The amount of flavor violation is calculated via setting the Ys
to their observed background value.
Thus O
ij
1
= [

Q
i
L
[a(Y
U
Y
U
)
ij
+b(Y
D
Y
D
)
ij
]Q
j
L
]
2
is U(3)
Q
invariant.
Y
U
Y
U
& Y
D
Y
D
Q
avor group
and Q
i
L
(3, 1, 1), U
i
R
(1, 3, 1), D
i
R
(1, 1, 3).
Down quark flavor violation is described in their mass basis:
O
ij,d
1
= {

D
i
L
[
a
v
2
V
CKM
diag(m
2
u
i
)V
CKM
]
ij
+
b
v
2
diag(m
2
d
i
)]D
j
L
}
2
no avor conversion. CKM controls avor & CPV
104
MFV, estimation of amplitudes, SM approx sym
Homework: write the leading RR & LR up type avor violating higher dim
operators, within MFV.
O
ij,d
1
= {

D
i
L
[
a
v
2
V
CKM
diag(m
2
u
i
)V
CKM
]
ij
+
b
v
2
diag(m
2
d
i
)]D
j
L
}
2
In most cases we can use m
2
u
i
,d
i
(0, 0, m
2
t,b
)
Thus, [V
CKM
diag(m
2
u
i
/v
2
)V

CKM
]
ij
y
2
t
V
ti
V

tj
Ex. B
d,s
mass difference, m
d,s
:
H
B=2
e
MFV
O
bd
1
|V
tb
V

td
|
2
/
2
MFV
For B
d,s
system:

H
B=2
e
MFV
O
bd,s
1
(
b
L
d
L
, s
L
)
2
(V
tb
V

td,s
)
2
/
2
MFV
105
MFV, connection with SM
Can use same method to estimate SM contributions!
Top controls the avor violation (like charm via GIM).
m
t
130 GeV Bs Ks-
_
The SM structure is identical,
say for B
d,s
system:

H
B=2
e
SM
O
bd,s
1
(
b
L
d
L
, s
L
)
2
(V
tb
V

td,s
)
2
/
2
SM
What is
2
SM
?
Can guesstimate:
1
2
SM
=
1
M
2
W
1
16
2
Factor of 2 smaller than the LO result,
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

X
Q
d = V
d

Q
V
d
=
12
_
I +
12
V
d

3
V
d
_

12
(I +
12
v ) ,
abs(z
sd
) =
2
12
_
( v
2
1
+ v
2
2
_
=
2
12
(1 v
2
3
) sin
2
X
Q
d
cos
X
Q
d
=
tr
_
_
Y
D
Y
D
_
tr /
(X
Q
)
tr /
_
tr
_
_
Y
D
Y
D
_
2
tr /
_
tr
_
(X
Q
)
2
tr /
_
2gen
ud
2
1
2
SM
M
2
W
G
2
F
16
2
Alexander L. Kagan,
1
Gilad Perez,
2, 3
Tomer Volansky,
4
and Jure Zupan
5, 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
d
B
d
s
B
s

X
Q
d = V
d

Q
V
d
=
12
_
I +
12
V
d

3
V
d
_

12
(I +
12
v ) ,
abs(z
sd
) =
2
12
_
( v
2
1
+ v
2
2
_
=
2
12
(1 v
2
3
) sin
2
X
Q
d
cos
X
Q
d
=
tr
_
_
Y
D
Y
D
_
tr /
(X
Q
)
tr /
_
tr
_
_
Y
D
Y
D
_
2
tr /
_
tr
_
(X
Q
)
2
tr /
_
2gen
ud
2
1
2
F=2
M
2
W
G
2
F
16
2
F=2
SM
4.4 TeV
106
MFV & the SM contributions
Similarly can be applied to CPV in Kaon system, :
H
s=2
e
O
sd
1
= ( s
L
d)
2
(V
ts
V

td
)
2
/
2
MFV
Thus, MFV protection is mostly due to CKM suppression.
Agreement between Exp data & SM implies:
MFV
<
SM
For some LLRR, B, S = 2, operators O(10, 100) enhancement is obtained!
So we can estimate bounds for CP conserving [CPV] (LL)
2
, (RR)
2
operators via
K,B
d,s

SM
(0.1
5
,
3
,
2
) [(2
5
, 4
3
,
2
)]
2
SM
F=2
10 TeV
SM
F=2
<
MFV
F=2
where
d,u,Q
d
misalignment of X
Q
x
23,13
=
1
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
,
1
0 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 0
c
23,13
= O(
2,3
)
V
CKM
U(1)
3
Q
x
23
x
13
GIM:
d
i
L
g
ij
2
Y
U
Y

U
jl
g
lk
2
d
k
L
d
i
L
(g
Z
2
)
2
ij
d
j
L
ud

2
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
L
F=2
=
z
sd
(1 TeV)
2
(d
L
s
L
)
2
+
z
cu
(1 TeV)
2
(c
L
u
L
)
2
+
z
4
sd
(1 TeV)
2
(d
L
s
R
)(d
R
s
L
) +
z
4
cu
(1 TeV)
2
(u
L
c
R
)(u
R
c
L
).
107
General MFV, non-linear MFV (NLMFV)
If time permit we shall answer last 2 questions.
The top Yukawa is large (possibly also the bottom one) no
justication to treat it perturbatively.
Our LO expansion is valid only for ex. for
5
Y
U
Y
U
& Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3)
K
NP to be
>
10
4
G
SM
= U(3)
Q
U(3)
u
U(3)
d
, (3)
H
u

Q
L
Y
U
u
R
+H
d

Q
L
Y
D
d
R
, (4)
SM
u,d
=
V
Q
Y
u,d
V
u,d
, u
, d
) = V
Q,u,d
SM
SM

QQ bilinears
insertions such as

Q(Y
U
Y
U
)
n

QY
D
(Y
U
Y
U
)
n
Q are not.

Qf(
u
Y
U
,
d
Y
D
)Q can be expanded
in powers of Y
u,d
u
and Y
d
t,b
u,d
Linear MFV (LMFV):
u,d
polynomials of Y
u,d
.
u,d
u,d
t,b
is not possible.
d
F

W
, where large
u,d
log(
W
/
F
td
, V
ts
, and light
t
, y
b
W
), U(3)
Q
is enhanced to U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d. The
u,d
Y
u,d
2
U
and Y
D
, given by V
td
and V
ts
in B
s

B
s
d

B
d
s
and B
d
systems,
5
Y
U
Y
U
& Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3)
K
NP to be
>
10
4
G
SM
= U(3)
Q
U(3)
u
U(3)
d
, (3)
H
u

Q
L
Y
U
u
R
+H
d

Q
L
Y
D
d
R
, (4)
SM
u,d
=
V
Q
Y
u,d
V
u,d
, u
, d
) = V
Q,u,d
SM
SM

QQ bilinears
insertions such as

Q(Y
U
Y
U
)
n

QY
D
(Y
U
Y
U
)
n
Q are not.

Qf(
u
Y
U
,
d
Y
D
)Q can be expanded
in powers of Y
u,d
u
and Y
d
t,b
u,d
Linear MFV (LMFV):
u,d
polynomials of Y
u,d
.
u,d
u,d
t,b
is not possible.
d
F

W
, where large
u,d
log(
W
/
F
td
, V
ts
, and light
t
, y
b
W
), U(3)
Q
is enhanced to U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d. The
u,d
Y
u,d
2
U
and Y
D
, given by V
td
and V
ts
in B
s

B
s
d

B
d
s
and B
d
systems,
5
Y
U
Y
U
& Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3)
K
NP to be
>
10
4
G
SM
= U(3)
Q
U(3)
u
U(3)
d
, (3)
H
u

Q
L
Y
U
u
R
+H
d

Q
L
Y
D
d
R
, (4)
SM
u,d
=
V
Q
Y
u,d
V
u,d
, u
, d
) = V
Q,u,d
SM
SM

QQ bilinears
insertions such as

Q(Y
U
Y
U
)
n

QY
D
(Y
U
Y
U
)
n
Q are not.

Qf(
u
Y
U
,
d
Y
D
)Q can be expanded
in powers of Y
u,d
u
and Y
d
t,b
u,d
Linear MFV (LMFV):
u,d
polynomials of Y
u,d
.
u,d
u,d
t,b
is not possible.
d
F

W
, where large
u,d
log(
W
/
F
td
, V
ts
, and light
t
, y
b
W
), U(3)
Q
is enhanced to U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d. The
u,d
Y
u,d
2
U
and Y
D
, given by V
td
and V
ts
in B
s

B
s
d

B
d
s
and B
d
systems,
Kagan, GP, Volansky & Zupan (09).
We distinguish between 2 cases LMFV & NLMFV:
108
General MFV, non-linear MFV (NLMFV)
6
K
are also identied. Another non-linear parameterization of MFV was presented in [7]. We focus on exploiting the
b
SM
properties given below Eq. (4). These avor transformations are broken once the Yukawa couplings obtain their
therefore take Y
U
diag (0, 0, y
t
) and Y
D
diag (0, 0, y
b
SM
= U(2)
Q
U(2)
U
U(2)
D
U(1)
3
.
SM
/H
SM
Y
u,d
= e
i
Q
e
i /2
Y
u,d
e
i
u,d
, (5)

Y
u,d
, are
Y
u,d
=
u,d
0
0 y
t,b
. (6)
Here
u,d
i
=
,
i
=
0
i
i

i
, i = Q, u, d, (7)
where and
i
i
i
td
and V
ts
in the low energy
eective theory [see Eq. (14)].
e
i
i
= V
i
e
i
i
U
i
, e
i
= U
Q
e
i
U
Q
,

Y
i
= U
Q
Y
i
U
i
. (8)
Here U
i
= U
i
(V
i
,
i
i
U(1)
3
,
U
i
=
U
22
i
0
0 e
i
3
, i = Q, u, d. (9)
For V
i
H
SM
, U
i
= V
i
. Otherwise the U
i
i
of the full avor group. In particular, Eq. (8) denes U
i
(V
i
,
i
) by requiring that
i
i
,
Eq. (7). Consequently
i
is shifted under G
SM
/H
SM
H
SM
, [
i
] are fundamentals of U(2)
Q
[U(2)
i
] carrying charge 1 under the U(1)
3
, while
u,d
are bi-fundamentals of
U(2)
Q
U(2)
u,d
.
As a nal step we also redene the quark elds by moding out the Goldstone spurions,
u
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
u
L
,

d
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
d
L
, (10)
u
R
= e
i
u
u
R
,

d
R
= e
i
d
d
R
. (11)
The latter form reducible representations of H
SM
. Concentrating here and below on the down sector we therefore
dene

d
L,R
= (
d
(2)
L,R
, 0) + (0,
b
L,R
). Under avor transformations

d
(2)
L
= U
22
Q
d
(2)
L
and

b
L
= exp(i
3
)
b
L
. A similar
denition can be made for the up quarks.
With the redenitions above, invariance under the full avor group is captured by the invariance under the unbro-
ken avor subgroup H
SM
[8]. Thus, NLMFV can be described without loss of generality as a formally H
SM
invariant
expansion in
u,d
, . This is a straightforward generalization of the known eective eld theory description of spon-
taneous symmetry breaking [8]. The only dierence in our case is that Y
u,d
are not aligned, as manifested by = 0.
Since the background eld values of the relevant spurions are small, we can expand in them.
We are now in a position to write down the avor structures of quark bilinears from which low energy avor
observables can be constructed. We work to leading order in the spurions that break H
SM
, but to all orders in the
Idea: spearate the small from large eigenvalues, expand
linearly (non-linearly) the small (large) avor breaking.
6
K
b
SM
therefore take Y
U
diag (0, 0, y
t
) and Y
D
diag (0, 0, y
b
SM
= U(2)
Q
U(2)
U
U(2)
D
U(1)
3
.
SM
/H
SM
Y
u,d
= e
i
Q
e
i /2
Y
u,d
e
i
u,d
, (5)

Y
u,d
, are
Y
u,d
=
u,d
0
0 y
t,b
. (6)
Here
u,d
i
=
,
i
=
0
i
i

i
, i = Q, u, d, (7)
where and
i
i
i
td
and V
ts
in the low energy
e
i
i
= V
i
e
i
i
U
i
, e
i
= U
Q
e
i
U
Q
,

Y
i
= U
Q
Y
i
U
i
. (8)
Here U
i
= U
i
(V
i
,
i
i
U(1)
3
,
U
i
=
U
22
i
0
0 e
i
3
, i = Q, u, d. (9)
For V
i
H
SM
, U
i
= V
i
. Otherwise the U
i
i
i
(V
i
,
i
) by requiring that
i
i
,
i
is shifted under G
SM
/H
SM
H
SM
, [
i
Q
[U(2)
i
3
, while
u,d
U(2)
Q
U(2)
u,d
.
u
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
u
L
,

d
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
d
L
, (10)
u
R
= e
i
u
u
R
,

d
R
= e
i
d
d
R
. (11)
SM
dene

d
L,R
= (
d
(2)
L,R
, 0) + (0,
b
L,R

d
(2)
L
= U
22
Q
d
(2)
L
and

b
L
= exp(i
3
)
b
L
. A similar
ken avor subgroup H
SM
SM
invariant
expansion in
u,d
u,d
SM
2
SM
F=2
10 TeV
SM
F=2
<
MFV
F=2
O(Y
0
) ?
where
d,u,Q
d
misalignment of X
Q
x
23,13
=
1
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
,
1
0 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 0
c
23,13
= O(
2,3
)
V
CKM
U(1)
3
Q
x
23
x
13
GIM:
d
i
L
g
ij
2
Y
U
Y
jl
g
lk
2
d
k
L
d
i
L
(g
Z
2
)
2
ij
d
j
L
ud

2
3,8
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2)
4
U(2)
Q
u
U(2)
U
U(1)
t
U(1)
B
V
CKM
= 1
3
+O(
ud
)
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
U(1)
3
Y
U
0
Y
U
Y
D
Y
U
& Y
D
.
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
G
SM
U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Y
U
Y
U
6
in B
s

B
s
d

B
d
s
and B
d
systems,
K
b
SM
therefore take Y
U
diag (0, 0, y
t
) and Y
D
diag (0, 0, y
b
SM
= U(2)
Q
U(2)
U
U(2)
D
U(1)
3
.
SM
/H
SM
Y
u,d
= e
i
Q
e
i /2

Y
u,d
e
i
u,d
, (5)

Y
u,d
, are
Y
u,d
=
u,d
0
0 y
t,b
. (6)
Here
u,d
i
=
,
i
=
0
i
i

i
, i = Q, u, d, (7)
where and
i
i
i
td
and V
ts
in the low energy
e
i
i
= V
i
e
i
i
U
i
, e
i
= U
Q
e
i
U
Q
,

Y
i
= U
Q
Y
i
U
i
. (8)
Here U
i
= U
i
(V
i
,
i
i
U(1)
3
,
U
i
=
U
22
i
0
0 e
i
3
, i = Q, u, d. (9)
For V
i
H
SM
, U
i
= V
i
. Otherwise the U
i
i
i
(V
i
,
i
) by requiring that
i
i
,
i
is shifted under G
SM
/H
SM
H
SM
, [
i
Q
[U(2)
i
3
, while
u,d
U(2)
Q
U(2)
u,d
.
u
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
u
L
,

d
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
d
L
, (10)
u
R
= e
i
u
u
R
,

d
R
= e
i
d
d
R
. (11)
SM
dene

d
L,R
= (
d
(2)
L,R
, 0) + (0,
b
L,R

d
(2)
L
= U
22
Q
d
(2)
L
and

b
L
= exp(i
3
)
b
L
. A similar
ken avor subgroup H
SM
SM
invariant
broken generators
5
Y
D
Y
D
Y
U
Y
U
& Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3)
K
NP to be
>
10
4
G
SM
= U(3)
Q
U(3)
U
U(3)
D
, (3)
H
u

Q
L
Y
U
u
R
+H
d

Q
L
Y
D
d
R
, (4)
SM
u,d
=
V
Q
Y
u,d
V
u,d
, u
, d
) = V
Q,u,d
SM
SM

QQ bilinears
insertions such as

Q(Y
U
Y
U
)
n

QY
D
(Y
U
Y
U
)
n
Q are not.

Qf(
u
Y
U
,
d
Y
D
)Q can be expanded
in powers of Y
u,d
u
and Y
d
t,b
u,d
Linear MFV (LMFV):
u,d
polynomials of Y
u,d
.
u,d
u,d
t,b
is not possible.
d
F

W
, where large
u,d
log(
W
/
F
td
, V
ts
, and light
t
, y
b
W
), U(3)
Q
is enhanced to U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d. The
u,d
Y
u,d
2
U
and Y
D
, given by V
td
and V
ts
5
Y
D
Y
D
Y
U
Y
U
& Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3)
K
NP to be
>
10
4
G
SM
= U(3)
Q
U(3)
U
U(3)
D
, (3)
H
u

Q
L
Y
U
u
R
+H
d

Q
L
Y
D
d
R
, (4)
SM
u,d
=
V
Q
Y
u,d
V
u,d
, u
, d
) = V
Q,u,d
SM
SM

QQ bilinears
insertions such as

Q(Y
U
Y
U
)
n

QY
D
(Y
U
Y
U
)
n
Q are not.

Qf(
u
Y
U
,
d
Y
D
)Q can be expanded
in powers of Y
u,d
u
and Y
d
t,b
u,d
Linear MFV (LMFV):
u,d
polynomials of Y
u,d
.
u,d
u,d
t,b
is not possible.
d
F

W
, where large
u,d
log(
W
/
F
td
, V
ts
, and light
t
, y
b
W
), U(3)
Q
is enhanced to U(3)
Q
u
U(3)
Q
d. The
u,d
Y
u,d
2
U
and Y
D
, given by V
td
and V
ts
(cf. little Higgs models with collective breaking.)
109
The formalism
6
in B
s

B
s
d

B
d
s
and B
d
systems,
K
b
SM
therefore take Y
U
diag (0, 0, y
t
) and Y
D
diag (0, 0, y
b
SM
= U(2)
Q
U(2)
U
U(2)
D
U(1)
3
.
SM
/H
SM
Y
U,D
= e
i
Q
e
i /2

Y
U,D
e
i
u,d
, (5)

Y
U,D
, are
Y
U,D
=
u,d
0
0 y
t,b
. (6)
Here
u,d
i
=
,
i
=
0
i
i

i
, i = Q, u, d, (7)
where and
i
i
i
td
and V
ts
in the low energy
e
i
i
= V
i
e
i
i
U
i
, e
i
= U
Q
e
i
U
Q
,

Y
i
= U
Q
Y
i
U
i
. (8)
Here U
i
= U
i
(V
i
,
i
i
U(1)
3
,
U
i
=
U
22
i
0
0 e
i
3
, i = Q, u, d. (9)
For V
i
H
SM
, U
i
= V
i
. Otherwise the U
i
i
i
(V
i
,
i
) by requiring that
i
i
,
i
is shifted under G
SM
/H
SM
H
SM
, [
i
Q
[U(2)
i
3
, while
u,d
U(2)
Q
U(2)
u,d
.
u
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
u
L
,

d
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
d
L
, (10)
u
R
= e
i
u
u
R
,

d
R
= e
i
d
d
R
. (11)
SM
dene

d
L,R
= (
d
(2)
L,R
, 0) + (0,
b
L,R

d
(2)
L
= U
22
Q
d
(2)
L
and

b
L
= exp(i
3
)
b
L
. A similar
ken avor subgroup H
SM
SM
invariant
6
in B
s

B
s
d

B
d
s
and B
d
systems,
K
b
SM
therefore take Y
U
diag (0, 0, y
t
) and Y
D
diag (0, 0, y
b
SM
= U(2)
Q
U(2)
U
U(2)
D
U(1)
3
.
SM
/H
SM
Y
U,D
= e
i
Q
e
i /2

Y
U,D
e
i
u,d
, (5)

Y
U,D
, are
Y
U,D
=
u,d
0
0 y
t,b
. (6)
Here
u,d
i
=
,
i
=
0
i
i

i
, i = Q, u, d, (7)
where and
i
i
i
td
and V
ts
in the low energy
e
i
i
= V
i
e
i
i
U
i
, e
i
= U
Q
e
i
U
Q
,

Y
i
= U
Q
Y
i
U
i
. (8)
Here U
i
= U
i
(V
i
,
i
i
U(1)
3
,
U
i
=
U
22
i
0
0 e
i
3
, i = Q, u, d. (9)
For V
i
H
SM
, U
i
= V
i
. Otherwise the U
i
i
i
(V
i
,
i
) by requiring that
i
i
,
i
is shifted under G
SM
/H
SM
H
SM
, [
i
Q
[U(2)
i
3
, while
u,d
U(2)
Q
U(2)
u,d
.
u
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
u
L
,

d
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
d
L
, (10)
u
R
= e
i
u
u
R
,

d
R
= e
i
d
d
R
. (11)
SM
dene

d
L,R
= (
d
(2)
L,R
, 0) + (0,
b
L,R

d
(2)
L
= U
22
Q
d
(2)
L
and

b
L
= exp(i
3
)
b
L
. A similar
ken avor subgroup H
SM
SM
invariant
6
in B
s

B
s
d

B
d
s
and B
d
systems,
K
b
SM
therefore take Y
U
diag (0, 0, y
t
) and Y
D
diag (0, 0, y
b
SM
= U(2)
Q
U(2)
U
U(2)
D
U(1)
3
.
SM
/H
SM
Y
U,D
= e
i
Q
e
i /2

Y
U,D
e
i
u,d
, (5)

Y
U,D
, are
Y
U,D
=
u,d
0
0 y
t,b
. (6)
Here
u,d
i
=
,
i
=
0
i
i

i
, i = Q, u, d, (7)
where and
i
i
i
td
and V
ts
in the low energy
e
i
i
= V
i
e
i
i
U
i
, e
i
= U
Q
e
i
U
Q
,

Y
i
= U
Q
Y
i
U
i
. (8)
Here U
i
= U
i
(V
i
,
i
i
U(1)
3
,
U
i
=
U
22
i
0
0 e
i
3
, i = Q, u, d. (9)
For V
i
H
SM
, U
i
= V
i
. Otherwise the U
i
i
i
(V
i
,
i
) by requiring that
i
i
,
i
is shifted under G
SM
/H
SM
H
SM
, [
i
Q
[U(2)
i
3
, while
u,d
U(2)
Q
U(2)
u,d
.
u
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
u
L
,

d
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
d
L
, (10)
u
R
= e
i
u
u
R
,

d
R
= e
i
d
d
R
. (11)
SM
dene

d
L,R
= (
d
(2)
L,R
, 0) + (0,
b
L,R

d
(2)
L
= U
22
Q
d
(2)
L
and

b
L
= exp(i
3
)
b
L
. A similar
ken avor subgroup H
SM
SM
invariant
6
in B
s

B
s
d

B
d
s
and B
d
systems,
K
b
SM
therefore take Y
U
diag (0, 0, y
t
) and Y
D
diag (0, 0, y
b
SM
= U(2)
Q
U(2)
U
U(2)
D
U(1)
3
.
SM
/H
SM
Y
U,D
= e
i
Q
e
i /2

Y
U,D
e
i
u,d
, (5)

Y
U,D
, are
Y
U,D
=
u,d
0
0 y
t,b
. (6)
Here
u,d
i
, i = Q, U, D, are the 3 3 matrices spanned by the broken
=
,
i
=
0
i
i

i
, i = Q, U, D, (7)
where and
i
i
i
td
and V
ts
in the low energy
e
i
i
= V
i
e
i
i
U
i
, e
i
= U
Q
e
i
U
Q
,

Y
i
= U
Q
Y
i
U
i
. (8)
Here U
i
= U
i
(V
i
,
i
i
U(1)
3
,
U
i
=
U
22
i
0
0 e
i
3
, i = Q, u, d. (9)
For V
i
H
SM
, U
i
= V
i
. Otherwise the U
i
i
i
(V
i
,
i
) by requiring that
i
i
,
i
is shifted under G
SM
/H
SM
H
SM
, [
i
Q
[U(2)
i
3
, while
u,d
U(2)
Q
U(2)
u,d
.
u
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
u
L
,

d
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
d
L
, (10)
u
R
= e
i
u
u
R
,

d
R
= e
i
d
d
R
. (11)
SM
dene

d
L,R
= (
d
(2)
L,R
, 0) + (0,
b
L,R

d
(2)
L
= U
22
Q
d
(2)
L
and

b
L
= exp(i
3
)
b
L
. A similar
ken avor subgroup H
SM
SM
invariant
6
in B
s

B
s
d

B
d
s
and B
d
systems,
K
b
SM
therefore take Y
U
diag (0, 0, y
t
) and Y
D
diag (0, 0, y
b
SM
= U(2)
Q
U(2)
U
U(2)
D
U(1)
3
.
SM
/H
SM
Y
U,D
= e
i
Q
e
i /2

Y
U,D
e
i
u,d
, (5)

Y
U,D
, are
Y
U,D
=
u,d
0
0 y
t,b
. (6)
Here
u,d
i
=
0
22

,
i
=
0
22

i
i

i
, i = Q, U, D, (7)
where and
i
i
i
td
and V
ts
in the low energy
e
i
i
= V
i
e
i
i
U
i
, e
i
= U
Q
e
i
U
Q
,

Y
i
= U
Q
Y
i
U
i
. (8)
Here U
i
= U
i
(V
i
,
i
i
U(1)
3
,
U
i
=
U
22
i
0
0 e
i
3
, i = Q, u, d. (9)
For V
i
H
SM
, U
i
= V
i
. Otherwise the U
i
i
i
(V
i
,
i
) by requiring that
i
i
,
i
is shifted under G
SM
/H
SM
H
SM
, [
i
Q
[U(2)
i
3
, while
u,d
U(2)
Q
U(2)
u,d
.
u
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
u
L
,

d
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
d
L
, (10)
u
R
= e
i
u
u
R
,

d
R
= e
i
d
d
R
. (11)
SM
dene

d
L,R
= (
d
(2)
L,R
, 0) + (0,
b
L,R

d
(2)
L
= U
22
Q
d
(2)
L
and

b
L
= exp(i
3
)
b
L
. A similar
ken avor subgroup H
SM
SM
invariant
6
in B
s

B
s
d

B
d
s
and B
d
systems,
K
b
SM
therefore take Y
U
diag (0, 0, y
t
) and Y
D
diag (0, 0, y
b
SM
= U(2)
Q
U(2)
U
U(2)
D
U(1)
3
.
SM
/H
SM
Y
U,D
= e
i
Q
e
i /2

Y
U,D
e
i
u,d
, (5)

Y
U,D
, are
Y
U,D
=
u,d
0
0 y
t,b
. (6)
Here
u,d
i
=
0
22

,
i
=
0
22

i
i

i
, i = Q, U, D, (7)
where and
i
i
i
td
and V
ts
in the low energy
e
i
i
= V
i
e
i
i
U
i
, e
i
= U
Q
e
i
U
Q
,

Y
i
= U
Q
Y
i
U
i
. (8)
Here U
i
= U
i
(V
i
,
i
i
U(1)
3
,
U
i
=
U
22
i
0
0 e
i
3
, i = Q, u, d. (9)
For V
i
H
SM
, U
i
= V
i
. Otherwise the U
i
i
i
(V
i
,
i
) by requiring that
i
i
,
i
is shifted under G
SM
/H
SM
H
SM
, [
i
Q
[U(2)
i
3
, while
u,d
U(2)
Q
U(2)
u,d
.
u
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
u
L
,

d
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
d
L
, (10)
u
R
= e
i
u
u
R
,

d
R
= e
i
d
d
R
. (11)
SM
dene

d
L,R
= (
d
(2)
L,R
, 0) + (0,
b
L,R

d
(2)
L
= U
22
Q
d
(2)
L
and

b
L
= exp(i
3
)
b
L
. A similar
ken avor subgroup H
SM
SM
invariant
6
in B
s

B
s
d

B
d
s
and B
d
systems,
K
b
SM
therefore take Y
U
diag (0, 0, y
t
) and Y
D
diag (0, 0, y
b
SM
= U(2)
Q
U(2)
U
U(2)
D
U(1)
3
.
SM
/H
SM
Y
U,D
= e
i
Q
e
i /2

Y
U,D
e
i
u,d
, (5)

Y
U,D
, are
Y
U,D
=
u,d
0
0 y
t,b
. (6)
Here
u,d
i
=
0
22

,
i
=
0
22

i
i

i
, i = Q, U, D, (7)
where and
i
i
i
td
and V
ts
in the low energy
e
i
i
= V
i
e
i
i
U
i
, e
i
= U
Q
e
i
U
Q
,

Y
i
= U
Q
Y
i
U
i
. (8)
Here U
i
= U
i
(V
i
,
i
i
U(1)
3
,
U
i
=
U
22
i
0
0 e
i
3
, i = Q, u, d. (9)
For V
i
H
SM
, U
i
= V
i
. Otherwise the U
i
i
i
(V
i
,
i
) by requiring that
i
i
,
i
is shifted under G
SM
/H
SM
H
SM
, [
i
Q
[U(2)
i
3
, while
u,d
U(2)
Q
U(2)
u,d
.
u
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
u
L
,

d
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
d
L
, (10)
u
R
= e
i
u
u
R
,

d
R
= e
i
d
d
R
. (11)
SM
dene

d
L,R
= (
d
(2)
L,R
, 0) + (0,
b
L,R

d
(2)
L
= U
22
Q
d
(2)
L
and

b
L
= exp(i
3
)
b
L
. A similar
ken avor subgroup H
SM
SM
invariant
6
in B
s

B
s
d

B
d
s
and B
d
systems,
K
b
SM
therefore take Y
U
diag (0, 0, y
t
) and Y
D
diag (0, 0, y
b
SM
= U(2)
Q
U(2)
U
U(2)
D
U(1)
3
.
SM
/H
SM
Y
U,D
= e
i
Q
e
i /2

Y
U,D
e
i
u,d
, (5)

Y
U,D
, are
Y
U,D
=
u,d
0
0 y
t,b
. (6)
Here
u,d
i
=
0
22

,
i
=
0
22

i
i

i
, i = Q, U, D, (7)
where and
i
i
i
td
and V
ts
in the low energy
e
i
i
= V
i
e
i
i
U
i
, e
i
= U
Q
e
i
U
Q
,

Y
i
= U
Q
Y
i
U
i
. (8)
Here U
i
= U
i
(V
i
,
i
i
U(1)
3
,
U
i
=
U
22
i
0
0 e
i
3
, i = Q, u, d. (9)
For V
i
H
SM
, U
i
= V
i
. Otherwise the U
i
i
i
(V
i
,
i
) by requiring that
i
i
,
i
is shifted under G
SM
/H
SM
H
SM
, [
i
Q
[U(2)
i
3
, while
u,d
U(2)
Q
U(2)
u,d
.
u
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
u
L
,

d
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
d
L
, (10)
u
R
= e
i
u
u
R
,

d
R
= e
i
d
d
R
. (11)
SM
dene

d
L,R
= (
d
(2)
L,R
, 0) + (0,
b
L,R

d
(2)
L
= U
22
Q
d
(2)
L
and

b
L
= exp(i
3
)
b
L
. A similar
ken avor subgroup H
SM
SM
invariant
4
U(2)
Q
u U(2)
U
U(1)
t
U(1)
B
V
CKM
= 1
3
+O(
ud
)
U(1)
3
U
U(1)
3
D
U(3)
Q
U(1)
3
Y
D
0
U(1)
3
Y
U
0
Y
U
Y
D
Y
U
& Y
D
.
g
2
U(3)
U
U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d U(3)
D
G
SM
U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(3)
U
U(1)
3
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
3
D
Y
U
Y
U
5
Y
D
Y
D
Y
U
Y
U
& Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3)
K
NP to be
>
10
4
G
SM
= U(3)
Q
U(3)
U
U(3)
D
, (3)
H
u

Q
L
Y
U
u
R
+H
d

Q
L
Y
D
d
R
, (4)
SM
U,D
=
V
Q
Y
U,D
V
u,d
, u
, d
) = V
Q,u,d
NP models are then of the MFV class if they are formally invariant under G
SM
, when treating the SM Yukawa
couplings as spurions. Similarly, the low energy avor observables are formally invariant under G
SM
. Practically,
this means that only certain insertions of Yukawa couplings are allowed in the quark bilinears. For example, in

QQ
bilinears insertions such as

Q(Y
U
Y
U
)
n

QY
D
(Y
U
Y
U
)
n
Q are not.

Qf(
u
Y
U
,
d
Y
D
)Q can be expanded
in powers of Y
U,D
u
and Y
d
t,b
u,d
Linear MFV (LMFV):
u,d
polynomials of Y
U,D
.
u,d
U,D
are important, and a truncated expansion in
y
t,b
is not possible.
d
F

W
, where large
u,d
log(
W
/
F
td
, V
ts
, and light
t
, y
b
W
), U(3)
Q
is enhanced to U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d. The
U,D
Y
U,D
2
U
and Y
D
, given by V
td
and V
ts
Without loss of generality the Ys can be written as:
110
The formalism
d-type avor violation is obtained by shifting to d-mass basis:
7
expansion in
u,d
U,D
SM
top and bottom Yukawa couplings. Beginning with the left-left (LL) bilinears, to second order in ,
u,d
one nds
(omitting gauge and Lorentz indices)
b
L
b
L
,

d
(2)
L
d
(2)
L
,

d
(2)
L

u
d
(2)
L
, (12)
d
(2)
L

b
L
,

b
L
b
L
,

d
(2)
L

d
(2)
L
. (13)
The rst two bilinears in Eq. (12) are diagonal in the down-quark mass basis and do not induce avor violation. In this
basis the Yukawa couplings take the form Y
U
= V

CKM
diag (m
u
, m
c
, m
t
), Y
D
= diag (m
d
, m
s
, m
b
). This corresponds to
spurions taking the background values
Q
= /2,
u,d
= 0,
d
= diag (m
d
, m
s
)/m
b
, while avor violation is induced
via
= i(V
td
, V
ts
),
u
= V
(2)
CKM
diag
m
u
m
t
,
m
c
m
t
. (14)
V
(2)
CKM
stands for a two generation CKM matrix. In terms of = sin
C
0.23, the avor violating spurions scale as
(
3
,
2
), (
u
)
12

5
. Note that the redened down quark elds, Eqs. (10,11), coincide with the mass-eigenstate
basis,

d
L,R
= d
L,R
, for the above choice of spurion background values.
The left-right (LR) and right-right (RR) bilinears which contribute to avor mixing are in turn (at leading order
in ,
u,d
spurions),
d
(2)
L

b
R
,

d
(2)
L

d

d
(2)
R
,

b
L
d

d
(2)
R
, (15)
d
(2)
R

b
R
,

d
(2)
R

d

d
(2)
R
. (16)
To make contact with the more familiar MFV notation, consider down quark avor violation from LL bilinears. We
can then expand in the Yukawa couplings,
a
1
Y
u
Y

u
+ a
2
(Y
u
Y

u
)
2
Q +
b
2

QY
u
Y

u
Y
d
Y

d
Q + h.c.
+ , (17)
with a
1,2
= O(
2,4
u
), b
2
= O(
2
u
2
d
). Following the discussion in the Introduction, the LMFV limit corresponds to
a
1
a
2
, b
2
, and the NLMFV limit to a
1
a
2
b
2
. While a
1,2
are real, the third operator in Eq. (17) is not
Hermitian and b
2
can be complex [9], introducing a new CP violating phase beyond the SM phase. The leading avor
violating terms in Eq. (17) for the down quarks are
d
i
L
(a
1
+ a
2
y
2
t
)
t
ij
+ a
1
c
ij
d
j
L
+
b
2
y
2
b
d
i
L
t
ib
b
L
+ h.c.
=
c
b
d
(2)
L

b
L
+ h.c
+ c
t

d
(2)
L

d
(2)
L
+ c
c

d
(2)
L

u
u

d
(2)
L
, (18)
where
k
ij
= y
2
k
V

ki
V
kj
with i = j. On the RHS we have used the general parameterization in Eqs. (12,13) with
c
b
(a
1
y
2
t
+a
2
y
4
t
+b
2
y
2
b
), c
t
a
1
y
2
t
+a
2
y
4
t
and c
c
a
1
to leading order. The contribution of the c
c
bilinear in avor
changing transitions is O(1%) compared to the c
t
bilinear, and can be neglected in practice.
LMFV vs. NLMFV. A novel feature of NLMFV is the potential for observable CPV from right-handed currents,
to which we return below. Other important distinctions can be readily understood from Eq. (18). In NLMFV (with
large tan) the extra avor diagonal CPV phase Im(c
b
) can be large, leading to observable deviations in the B
d,s
B
d,s
mixing phases, but none in LMFV. Another example is b s and s d transitions. These receive contributions
only from a single operator in Eq. (18) multiplied by the neutrino currents. Thus, new contributions to B X
s
,
B K vs. K
L

0
, K
+

+
are correlated in LMFV (c
b
c
t
), see e.g., [10], but are independent in
NLMFV with large tan. O(1) eects in the rates would correspond to an eective scale
MFV
3 TeV in the four
fermion operators, with smaller eects scaling like 1/
MFV
due to interference with the SM contributions. Other
interesting NLMFV eects involving the third generation, e.g., large deviations in Br(B
d,s

+
) and b s,
arise in the MSSM at large tan, where resummation is required [11]. Contributions to 1 2 transitions which
proceed through the charm (c
c
) and the top (c
t
) are correlated within LMFV (c
t
c
c
y
2
t
), but are independent in the
7
expansion in
u,d
U,D
SM
u,d
one nds
b
L
b
L
,

d
(2)
L
d
(2)
L
,

d
(2)
L

u
d
(2)
L
, (12)
d
(2)
L

b
L
,

b
L
b
L
,

d
(2)
L

d
(2)
L
. (13)
U
= V

CKM
diag (m
u
, m
c
, m
t
), Y
D
= diag (m
d
, m
s
, m
b
Q
= /2,
u,d
= 0,
d
= diag (m
d
, m
s
)/m
b
via
= i(V
td
, V
ts
),
u
= V
(2)
CKM
diag
m
u
m
t
,
m
c
m
t
. (14)
V
(2)
CKM
C
(
3
,
2
), (
u
)
12

5
basis,

d
L,R
= d
L,R
in ,
u,d
spurions),
d
(2)
L

b
R
,

d
(2)
L

d

d
(2)
R
,

b
L
d

d
(2)
R
, (15)
d
(2)
R

b
R
,

d
(2)
R

d

d
(2)
R
. (16)
a
1
Y
u
Y

u
+ a
2
(Y
u
Y

u
)
2
Q +
b
2

QY
u
Y

u
Y
d
Y

d
Q + h.c.
+ , (17)
with a
1,2
= O(
2,4
u
), b
2
= O(
2
u
2
d
a
1
a
2
, b
2
1
a
2
b
2
. While a
1,2
Hermitian and b
2
d
i
L
(a
1
+ a
2
y
2
t
)
t
ij
+ a
1
c
ij
d
j
L
+
b
2
y
2
b
d
i
L
t
ib
b
L
+ h.c.
=
c
b
d
(2)
L

b
L
+ h.c
+ c
t

d
(2)
L

d
(2)
L
+ c
c

d
(2)
L

u
u

d
(2)
L
, (18)
where
k
ij
= y
2
k
V

ki
V
kj
c
b
(a
1
y
2
t
+a
2
y
4
t
+b
2
y
2
b
), c
t
a
1
y
2
t
+a
2
y
4
t
and c
c
a
1
c
bilinear in avor
t
b
d,s
B
d,s
s
,
B K vs. K
L

0
, K
+

+
b
c
t
MFV
3 TeV in the four
MFV
d,s

+
) and b s,
c
) and the top (c
t
t
c
c
y
2
t
7
expansion in
u,d
U,D
SM
u,d
one nds
b
L
b
L
,

d
(2)
L
d
(2)
L
,

d
(2)
L

u
d
(2)
L
, (12)
d
(2)
L

b
L
,

b
L
b
L
,

d
(2)
L

d
(2)
L
. (13)
U
= V

CKM
diag (m
u
, m
c
, m
t
), Y
D
= diag (m
d
, m
s
, m
b
Q
= /2,
u,d
= 0,
d
= diag (m
d
, m
s
)/m
b
via
= i(V
td
, V
ts
),
u
= V
(2)
CKM
diag
m
u
m
t
,
m
c
m
t
. (14)
V
(2)
CKM
C
(
3
,
2
), (
u
)
12

5
basis,

d
L,R
= d
L,R
in ,
u,d
spurions),
d
(2)
L

b
R
,

d
(2)
L

d

d
(2)
R
,

b
L
d

d
(2)
R
, (15)
d
(2)
R

b
R
,

d
(2)
R

d

d
(2)
R
. (16)
a
1
Y
u
Y

u
+ a
2
(Y
u
Y

u
)
2
Q +
b
2

QY
u
Y

u
Y
d
Y

d
Q + h.c.
+ , (17)
with a
1,2
= O(
2,4
u
), b
2
= O(
2
u
2
d
a
1
a
2
, b
2
1
a
2
b
2
. While a
1,2
Hermitian and b
2
d
i
L
(a
1
+ a
2
y
2
t
)
t
ij
+ a
1
c
ij
d
j
L
+
b
2
y
2
b

d
i
L
t
ib
b
L
+ h.c.
=
c
b
d
(2)
L

b
L
+ h.c
+ c
t

d
(2)
L

d
(2)
L
+ c
c

d
(2)
L

u
d
(2)
L
, (18)
where
k
ij
= y
2
k
V

ki
V
kj
c
b
(a
1
y
2
t
+a
2
y
4
t
+b
2
y
2
b
), c
t
a
1
y
2
t
+a
2
y
4
t
and c
c
a
1
c
bilinear in avor
t
b
d,s
B
d,s
s
,
B K vs. K
L

0
, K
+

+
b
c
t
MFV
3 TeV in the four
MFV
d,s

+
) and b s,
c
) and the top (c
t
t
c
c
y
2
t
7
expansion in
u,d
U,D
SM
u,d
one nds
b
L
b
L
,

d
(2)
L
d
(2)
L
,

d
(2)
L

u
d
(2)
L
, (12)
d
(2)
L

b
L
,

b
L
b
L
,

d
(2)
L

d
(2)
L
. (13)
U
= V

CKM
diag (m
u
, m
c
, m
t
), Y
D
= diag (m
d
, m
s
, m
b
Q
= /2,
u,d
= 0,
d
= diag (m
d
, m
s
)/m
b
via
= i(V
td
, V
ts
),
u
= V
(2)
CKM
diag
m
u
m
t
,
m
c
m
t
. (14)
V
(2)
CKM
C
(
3
,
2
), (
u
)
12

5
basis,

d
L,R
= d
L,R
in ,
u,d
spurions),
d
(2)
L

b
R
,

d
(2)
L

d

d
(2)
R
,

b
L
d

d
(2)
R
, (15)
d
(2)
R

b
R
,

d
(2)
R

d

d
(2)
R
. (16)
a
1
Y
u
Y

u
+ a
2
(Y
u
Y

u
)
2
Q +
b
2

QY
u
Y

u
Y
d
Y

d
Q + h.c.
+ , (17)
with a
1,2
= O(
2,4
u
), b
2
= O(
2
u
2
d
a
1
a
2
, b
2
1
a
2
b
2
. While a
1,2
Hermitian and b
2
d
i
L
(a
1
+ a
2
y
2
t
)
t
ij
+ a
1
c
ij
d
j
L
+
b
2
y
2
b

d
i
L
t
ib
b
L
+ h.c.
=
c
b
d
(2)
L

b
L
+ h.c
+ c
t

d
(2)
L

d
(2)
L
+ c
c

d
(2)
L

u
d
(2)
L
, (18)
where
k
ij
= y
2
k
V

ki
V
kj
c
b
(a
1
y
2
t
+a
2
y
4
t
+b
2
y
2
b
), c
t
a
1
y
2
t
+a
2
y
4
t
and c
c
a
1
c
bilinear in avor
t
b
d,s
B
d,s
s
,
B K vs. K
L

0
, K
+

+
b
c
t
MFV
3 TeV in the four
MFV
d,s

+
) and b s,
c
) and the top (c
t
t
c
c
y
2
t
( )
Magic, avor invariance is obtained by moding-out elds:
6
in B
s

B
s
d

B
d
s
and B
d
systems,
K
b
SM
therefore take Y
U
diag (0, 0, y
t
) and Y
D
diag (0, 0, y
b
SM
= U(2)
Q
U(2)
U
U(2)
D
U(1)
3
.
SM
/H
SM
Y
U,D
= e
i
Q
e
i /2

Y
U,D
e
i
u,d
, (5)

Y
U,D
, are
Y
U,D
=
u,d
0
0 y
t,b
. (6)
Here
u,d
i
=
0
22

,
i
=
0
22

i
i

i
, i = Q, U, D, (7)
where and
i
i
i
td
and V
ts
in the low energy
e
i
i
= V
i
e
i
i
U
i
, e
i
= U
Q
e
i
U
Q
,

Y
i
= U
Q
Y
i
U
i
. (8)
Here U
i
= U
i
(V
i
,
i
i
U(1)
3
,
U
i
=
U
22
i
0
0 e
i
3
, i = Q, u, d. (9)
For V
i
H
SM
, U
i
= V
i
. Otherwise the U
i
i
i
(V
i
,
i
) by requiring that
i
i
,
i
is shifted under G
SM
/H
SM
H
SM
, [
i
Q
[U(2)
i
3
, while
u,d
U(2)
Q
U(2)
u,d
.
u
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
u
L
,

d
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
d
L
, (10)
u
R
= e
i
u
u
R
,

d
R
= e
i
d
d
R
. (11)
SM
dene

d
L,R
= (
d
(2)
L,R
, 0) + (0,
b
L,R

d
(2)
L
= U
22
Q
d
(2)
L
and

b
L
= exp(i
3
)
b
L
. A similar
ken avor subgroup H
SM
SM
invariant
6
in B
s

B
s
d

B
d
s
and B
d
systems,
K
b
SM
therefore take Y
U
diag (0, 0, y
t
) and Y
D
diag (0, 0, y
b
SM
= U(2)
Q
U(2)
U
U(2)
D
U(1)
3
.
SM
/H
SM
Y
U,D
= e
i
Q
e
i /2

Y
U,D
e
i
u,d
, (5)

Y
U,D
, are
Y
U,D
=
u,d
0
0 y
t,b
. (6)
Here
u,d
i
=
0
22

,
i
=
0
22

i
i

i
, i = Q, U, D, (7)
where and
i
i
i
td
and V
ts
in the low energy
e
i
i
= V
i
e
i
i
U
i
, e
i
= U
Q
e
i
U
Q
,

Y
i
= U
Q
Y
i
U
i
. (8)
Here U
i
= U
i
(V
i
,
i
i
U(1)
3
,
U
i
=
U
22
i
0
0 e
i
3
, i = Q, u, d. (9)
For V
i
H
SM
, U
i
= V
i
. Otherwise the U
i
i
i
(V
i
,
i
) by requiring that
i
i
,
i
is shifted under G
SM
/H
SM
H
SM
, [
i
Q
[U(2)
i
3
, while
u,d
U(2)
Q
U(2)
u,d
.
u
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
u
L
,

d
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
d
L
, (10)
u
R
= e
i
u
u
R
,

d
R
= e
i
d
d
R
. (11)
SM
dene

d
L,R
= (
d
(2)
L,R
, 0) + (0,
b
L,R

d
(2)
L
= U
22
Q
d
(2)
L
and

b
L
= exp(i
3
)
b
L
. A similar
ken avor subgroup H
SM
SM
invariant
6
in B
s

B
s
d

B
d
s
and B
d
systems,
K
b
SM
therefore take Y
U
diag (0, 0, y
t
) and Y
D
diag (0, 0, y
b
SM
= U(2)
Q
U(2)
U
U(2)
D
U(1)
3
.
SM
/H
SM
Y
U,D
= e
i
Q
e
i /2

Y
U,D
e
i
u,d
, (5)

Y
U,D
, are
Y
U,D
=
u,d
0
0 y
t,b
. (6)
Here
u,d
i
=
0
22

,
i
=
0
22

i
i

i
, i = Q, U, D, (7)
where and
i
i
i
td
and V
ts
in the low energy
e
i
i
= V
i
e
i
i
U
i
, e
i
= U
Q
e
i
U
Q
,

Y
i
= U
Q
Y
i
U
i
. (8)
Here U
i
= U
i
(V
i
,
i
i
U(1)
3
,
U
i
=
U
22
i
0
0 e
i
3
, i = Q, u, d. (9)
For V
i
H
SM
, U
i
= V
i
. Otherwise the U
i
i
i
(V
i
,
i
) by requiring that
i
i
,
i
is shifted under G
SM
/H
SM
H
SM
, [
i
Q
[U(2)
i
3
, while
u,d
U(2)
Q
U(2)
u,d
.
u
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
u
L
,

d
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
d
L
, (10)
u
R
= e
i
u
u
R
,

d
R
= e
i
d
d
R
. (11)
SM
dene

d
L,R
= (
d
(2)
L,R
, 0) + (0,
b
L,R

d
(2)
L
= U
22
Q
d
(2)
L
and

b
L
= exp(i
3
)
b
L
. A similar
ken avor subgroup H
SM
SM
invariant
5
Y
D
Y
D
Y
U
Y
U
& Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3)
Also
u,d
() form appropriate bi-fundamentals (fundeamental) of H
SM
.
K
NP to be
>
10
4
G
SM
= U(3)
Q
U(3)
U
U(3)
D
, (3)
H
u

Q
L
Y
U
u
R
+H
d

Q
L
Y
D
d
R
, (4)
SM
U,D
=
V
Q
Y
U,D
V
u,d
, u
, d
) = V
Q,u,d
SM
SM
. Practically,

QQ

Q(Y
U
Y
U
)
n

QY
D
(Y
U
Y
U
)
n
Q are not.

Qf(
u
Y
U
,
d
Y
D
)Q can be expanded
in powers of Y
U,D
u
and Y
d
t,b
u,d
Linear MFV (LMFV):
u,d
polynomials of Y
U,D
.
u,d
U,D
y
t,b
is not possible.
d
F

W
, where large
u,d
log(
W
/
F
td
, V
ts
, and light
t
, y
b
W
), U(3)
Q
is enhanced to U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d. The
U,D
Y
U,D
2
U
6
in B
s

B
s
d

B
d
s
and B
d
systems,
K
b
SM
therefore take Y
U
diag (0, 0, y
t
) and Y
D
diag (0, 0, y
b
SM
= U(2)
Q
U(2)
U
U(2)
D
U(1)
3
.
SM
/H
SM
Y
U,D
= e
i
Q
e
i /2

Y
U,D
e
i
u,d
, (5)

Y
U,D
, are
Y
U,D
=
u,d
0
0 y
t,b
. (6)
Here
u,d
i
=
0
22

,
i
=
0
22

i
i

i
, i = Q, U, D, (7)
where and
i
i
i
td
and V
ts
in the low energy
e
i
i
= V
i
e
i
i
U
i
, e
i
= U
Q
e
i
U
Q
,

Y
i
= U
Q
Y
i
U
i
. (8)
Here U
i
= U
i
(V
i
,
i
i
U(1)
3
,
U
i
=
U
22
i
0
0 e
i
3
, i = Q, u, d. (9)
For V
i
H
SM
, U
i
= V
i
. Otherwise the U
i
i
i
(V
i
,
i
) by requiring that
i
i
,
i
is shifted under G
SM
/H
SM
H
SM
, [
i
Q
[U(2)
i
3
, while
u,d
U(2)
Q
U(2)
u,d
.
u
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
u
L
,

d
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
d
L
, (10)
u
R
= e
i
u
u
R
,

d
R
= e
i
d
d
R
. (11)
SM
dene

d
L,R
= (
d
(2)
L,R
, 0) + (0,
b
L,R

d
(2)
L
= U
22
Q
d
(2)
L
and

b
L
= exp(i
3
)
b
L
. A similar
ken avor subgroup H
SM
SM
invariant
6
in B
s

B
s
d

B
d
s
and B
d
systems,
K
b
SM
therefore take Y
U
diag (0, 0, y
t
) and Y
D
diag (0, 0, y
b
SM
= U(2)
Q
U(2)
U
U(2)
D
U(1)
3
.
SM
/H
SM
Y
U,D
= e
i
Q
e
i /2

Y
U,D
e
i
u,d
, (5)

Y
U,D
, are
Y
U,D
=
u,d
0
0 y
t,b
. (6)
Here
u,d
i
=
0
22

,
i
=
0
22

i
i

i
, i = Q, U, D, (7)
where and
i
i
i
td
and V
ts
in the low energy
e
i
i
= V
i
e
i
i
U
i
, e
i
= U
Q
e
i
U
Q
,

Y
i
= U
Q
Y
i
U
i
. (8)
Here U
i
= U
i
(V
i
,
i
i
U(1)
3
,
U
i
=
U
22
i
0
0 e
i
3
, i = Q, u, d. (9)
For V
i
H
SM
, U
i
= V
i
. Otherwise the U
i
i
i
(V
i
,
i
) by requiring that
i
i
,
i
is shifted under G
SM
/H
SM
H
SM
, [
i
Q
[U(2)
i
3
, while
u,d
U(2)
Q
U(2)
u,d
.
u
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
u
L
,

d
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
d
L
, (10)
u
R
= e
i
u
u
R
,

d
R
= e
i
d
d
R
. (11)
SM
dene

d
L,R
= (
d
(2)
L,R
, 0) + (0,
b
L,R

d
(2)
L
= U
22
Q
d
(2)
L
and

b
L
= exp(i
3
)
b
L
. A similar
ken avor subgroup H
SM
SM
invariant
6
in B
s

B
s
d

B
d
s
and B
d
systems,
K
b
SM
therefore take Y
U
diag (0, 0, y
t
) and Y
D
diag (0, 0, y
b
SM
= U(2)
Q
U(2)
U
U(2)
D
U(1)
3
.
SM
/H
SM
Y
U,D
= e
i
Q
e
i /2

Y
U,D
e
i
u,d
, (5)

Y
U,D
, are
Y
U,D
=
u,d
0
0 y
t,b
. (6)
Here
u,d
i
=
0
22

,
i
=
0
22

i
i

i
, i = Q, U, D, (7)
where and
i
i
i
td
and V
ts
in the low energy
e
i
i
= V
i
e
i
i
U
i
, e
i
= U
Q
e
i
U
Q
,

Y
i
= U
Q
Y
i
U
i
. (8)
Here U
i
= U
i
(V
i
,
i
i
U(1)
3
,
U
i
=
U
22
i
0
0 e
i
3
, i = Q, u, d. (9)
For V
i
H
SM
, U
i
= V
i
. Otherwise the U
i
i
i
(V
i
,
i
) by requiring that
i
i
,
i
is shifted under G
SM
/H
SM
H
SM
, [
i
Q
[U(2)
i
3
, while
u,d
U(2)
Q
U(2)
u,d
.
u
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
u
L
,

d
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
d
L
, (10)
u
R
= e
i
u
u
R
,

d
R
= e
i
d
d
R
. (11)
SM
dene

d
L,R
= (
d
(2)
L,R
, 0) + (0,
b
L,R

d
(2)
L
= U
22
Q
d
(2)
L
and

b
L
= exp(i
3
)
b
L
. A similar
ken avor subgroup H
SM
SM
invariant
5
Y
D
Y
D
Y
U
Y
U
& Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3)
Also
u,d
SM
.
K
NP to be
>
10
4
G
SM
= U(3)
Q
U(3)
U
U(3)
D
, (3)
H
u

Q
L
Y
U
u
R
+H
d

Q
L
Y
D
d
R
, (4)
SM
U,D
=
V
Q
Y
U,D
V
u,d
, u
, d
) = V
Q,u,d
SM
SM
. Practically,

QQ

Q(Y
U
Y
U
)
n

QY
D
(Y
U
Y
U
)
n
Q are not.

Qf(
u
Y
U
,
d
Y
D
)Q can be expanded
in powers of Y
U,D
u
and Y
d
t,b
u,d
Linear MFV (LMFV):
u,d
polynomials of Y
U,D
.
u,d
U,D
y
t,b
is not possible.
d
F

W
, where large
u,d
log(
W
/
F
td
, V
ts
, and light
t
, y
b
W
), U(3)
Q
is enhanced to U(3)
Q
u U(3)
Q
d. The
U,D
Y
U,D
2
U
5
Y
D
Y
D
Y
U
Y
U
& Y
D
Y
D
Fields : U
L
(3, 1, 1, 1), D
L
(1, 3, 1, 1), U(1, 1, 3, 1), D(1, 1, 1, 3)
Spurions : g
2
(3,
3, 1, 1), Y
U
(3, 1,
3, 1), Y
D
(1, 3, 1,
3)
Also
u,d
SM
.
NLMFV described via requiring solely H
SM
-invariance!
111
Predictions
LO avor violation come from the following operators:
7
SM
/H
SM
Y
U,D
= e
i
Q
e
i /2
Y
U,D
e
i
u,d
, (5)

Y
U,D
, are
Y
U,D
=
u,d
0
0 y
t,b
. (6)
Here
u,d
i
=
0
22

,
i
=
0
22

i
i

i
, i = Q, U, D, (7)
where and
i
i
i
td
and V
ts
in the low energy
e
i
i
= V
i
e
i
i
U
i
, e
i
= U
Q
e
i
U
Q
,

Y
i
= U
Q
Y
i
U
i
. (8)
Here U
i
= U
i
(V
i
,
i
i
U(1)
3
,
U
i
=
U
22
i
0
0 e
i
3
, i = Q, u, d. (9)
For V
i
H
SM
, U
i
= V
i
. Otherwise the U
i
i
i
(V
i
,
i
) by requiring that
i
i
,
i
is shifted under G
SM
/H
SM
H
SM
, [
i
Q
[U(2)
i
3
, while
u,d
U(2)
Q
U(2)
u,d
.
u
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
u
L
,

d
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
d
L
, (10)
u
R
= e
i
u
u
R
,

d
R
= e
i
d
d
R
. (11)
SM
dene

d
L,R
= (
d
(2)
L,R
, 0) + (0,
b
L,R

d
(2)
L
= U
22
Q
d
(2)
L
and

b
L
= exp(i
3
)
b
L
. A similar
ken avor subgroup H
SM
SM
invariant
expansion in
u,d
U,D
SM
u,d
one nds
b
L
b
L
,

d
(2)
L
d
(2)
L
,

d
(2)
L

u
u

d
(2)
L
, (12)
d
(2)
L

b
L
,

b
L
b
L
,

d
(2)
L

d
(2)
L
. (13)
U
= V

CKM
diag (m
u
, m
c
, m
t
), Y
D
= diag (m
d
, m
s
, m
b
B phys.:
8
Q
= /2,
u,d
= 0,
d
= diag (m
d
, m
s
)/m
b
via
= i(V
td
, V
ts
),
u
= V
(2)
CKM
diag
m
u
m
t
,
m
c
m
t
. (14)
V
(2)
CKM
C
(
3
,
2
), (
u
)
12

5
basis,

d
L,R
= d
L,R
in ,
u,d
spurions),
d
(2)
L

b
R
,

d
(2)
L

d

d
(2)
R
,

b
L
d

d
(2)
R
, (15)
d
(2)
R

b
R
,

d
(2)
R

d

d
(2)
R
. (16)
a
1
Y
u
Y

u
+ a
2
(Y
u
Y

u
)
2
Q +
b
2

QY
u
Y

u
Y
d
Y

d
Q + h.c.
+ , (17)
with a
1,2
= O(
2,4
u
), b
2
= O(
2
u
2
d
a
1
a
2
, b
2
1
a
2
b
2
. While a
1,2
Hermitian and b
2
d
i
L
(a
1
+ a
2
y
2
t
)
t
ij
+ a
1
c
ij
d
j
L
+
b
2
y
2
b
d
i
L
t
ib
b
L
+ h.c.
=
c
b
d
(2)
L

b
L
+ h.c
+ c
t

d
(2)
L

d
(2)
L
+ c
c

d
(2)
L

u
u

d
(2)
L
, (18)
where
k
ij
= y
2
k
V

ki
V
kj
c
b
(a
1
y
2
t
+a
2
y
4
t
+b
2
y
2
b
), c
t
a
1
y
2
t
+a
2
y
4
t
and c
c
a
1
c
bilinear in avor
t
b
d,s
B
d,s
s
,
B K vs. K
L

0
, K
+

+
b
c
t
MFV
3 TeV in the four
MFV
d,s

+
) and b s,
c
) and the top (c
t
t
c
c
y
2
t
NLMFV case, even for small tan. Unfortunately, the smallness of the c
c
bilinear prevents tests of this correlation
in the near future, e.g., via comparison of K
+
+
and the CPV decay K
L

0
.
CP Violation. Assuming MFV, new CPV eects can be signicant if and only if the UV theory contains new
avor-diagonal CP sources. The proof is as follows. If no avor diagonal phases are present, CPV only arises from
the CKM phase. In the exact U(2)
L
limit the CKM phase can be removed and the theory becomes CP invariant (at
all scales). The only spurions that break the U(2)
L
avor symmetry are
u,d
and . CPV in operators linear in
is directly proportional to the CKM phase [cf. Eq. (18)]. Any additional contributions are suppressed by at least
[
u
,
d
] (m
s
/m
b
)
2
(m
c
/m
t
)
2
sin
C
10
9
, and are therefore negligible.
Flavor diagonal weak phases in NLMFV can lead to new CPV eects in 3 1 and 3 2 decays. An example is
B = 1 electromagnetic and chromomagnetic dipole operators constructed from the rst bilinear in Eq. (15). The
operators are not Hermitian, hence their Wilson coecients can contain new CPV phases. Without new phases, the
untagged direct CP asymmetry in B X
d,s
would essentially vanish due to the residual U(2) symmetry, as in
the SM [12], and the B X
s
asymmetry would be less than a percent. However, in the NLMFV limit (large y
b
),
non-vanishing phases can yield signicant CPV in untagged and B X
s
decays, and the new CPV in B X
s
& possibly (B
s
only) from
8
Q
= /2,
u,d
= 0,
d
= diag (m
d
, m
s
)/m
b
via
= i(V
td
, V
ts
),
u
= V
(2)
CKM
diag
m
u
m
t
,
m
c
m
t
. (14)
V
(2)
CKM
C
(
3
,
2
), (
u
)
12

5
basis,

d
L,R
= d
L,R
in ,
u,d
spurions),
d
(2)
L

b
R
,

d
(2)
L

d

d
(2)
R
,

b
L
d

d
(2)
R
, (15)
d
(2)
R

b
R
,

d
(2)
R

d

d
(2)
R
. (16)
a
1
Y
u
Y

u
+ a
2
(Y
u
Y

u
)
2
Q +
b
2

QY
u
Y

u
Y
d
Y

d
Q + h.c.
+ , (17)
with a
1,2
= O(
2,4
u
), b
2
= O(
2
u
2
d
a
1
a
2
, b
2
1
a
2
b
2
. While a
1,2
Hermitian and b
2
d
i
L
(a
1
+ a
2
y
2
t
)
t
ij
+ a
1
c
ij
d
j
L
+
b
2
y
2
b
d
i
L
t
ib
b
L
+ h.c.
=
c
b
d
(2)
L

b
L
+ h.c
+ c
t

d
(2)
L

d
(2)
L
+ c
c

d
(2)
L

u
u

d
(2)
L
, (18)
where
k
ij
= y
2
k
V

ki
V
kj
c
b
(a
1
y
2
t
+a
2
y
4
t
+b
2
y
2
b
), c
t
a
1
y
2
t
+a
2
y
4
t
and c
c
a
1
c
bilinear in avor
t
b
d,s
B
d,s
s
,
B K vs. K
L

0
, K
+

+
b
c
t
MFV
3 TeV in the four
MFV
d,s

+
) and b s,
c
) and the top (c
t
t
c
c
y
2
t
NLMFV case, even for small tan. Unfortunately, the smallness of the c
c
bilinear prevents tests of this correlation
in the near future, e.g., via comparison of K
+
+
and the CPV decay K
L

0
.
CP Violation. Assuming MFV, new CPV eects can be signicant if and only if the UV theory contains new
avor-diagonal CP sources. The proof is as follows. If no avor diagonal phases are present, CPV only arises from
the CKM phase. In the exact U(2)
L
limit the CKM phase can be removed and the theory becomes CP invariant (at
all scales). The only spurions that break the U(2)
L
avor symmetry are
u,d
and . CPV in operators linear in
is directly proportional to the CKM phase [cf. Eq. (18)]. Any additional contributions are suppressed by at least
[
u
,
d
] (m
s
/m
b
)
2
(m
c
/m
t
)
2
sin
C
10
9
, and are therefore negligible.
Flavor diagonal weak phases in NLMFV can lead to new CPV eects in 3 1 and 3 2 decays. An example is
B = 1 electromagnetic and chromomagnetic dipole operators constructed from the rst bilinear in Eq. (15). The
operators are not Hermitian, hence their Wilson coecients can contain new CPV phases. Without new phases, the
untagged direct CP asymmetry in B X
d,s
would essentially vanish due to the residual U(2) symmetry, as in
the SM [12], and the B X
s
asymmetry would be less than a percent. However, in the NLMFV limit (large y
b
),
non-vanishing phases can yield signicant CPV in untagged and B X
s
decays, and the new CPV in B X
s
Kaon phys.:
7
SM
/H
SM
Y
U,D
= e
i
Q
e
i /2
Y
U,D
e
i
u,d
, (5)

Y
U,D
, are
Y
U,D
=
u,d
0
0 y
t,b
. (6)
Here
u,d
i
=
0
22

,
i
=
0
22

i
i

i
, i = Q, U, D, (7)
where and
i
i
i
td
and V
ts
in the low energy
e
i
i
= V
i
e
i
i
U
i
, e
i
= U
Q
e
i
U
Q
,

Y
i
= U
Q
Y
i
U
i
. (8)
Here U
i
= U
i
(V
i
,
i
i
U(1)
3
,
U
i
=
U
22
i
0
0 e
i
3
, i = Q, u, d. (9)
For V
i
H
SM
, U
i
= V
i
. Otherwise the U
i
i
i
(V
i
,
i
) by requiring that
i
i
,
i
is shifted under G
SM
/H
SM
H
SM
, [
i
Q
[U(2)
i
3
, while
u,d
U(2)
Q
U(2)
u,d
.
u
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
u
L
,

d
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
d
L
, (10)
u
R
= e
i
u
u
R
,

d
R
= e
i
d
d
R
. (11)
SM
dene

d
L,R
= (
d
(2)
L,R
, 0) + (0,
b
L,R

d
(2)
L
= U
22
Q
d
(2)
L
and

b
L
= exp(i
3
)
b
L
. A similar
ken avor subgroup H
SM
SM
invariant
expansion in
u,d
U,D
SM
u,d
one nds
b
L
b
L
,

d
(2)
L
d
(2)
L
,

d
(2)
L

u
u

d
(2)
L
, (12)
d
(2)
L

b
L
,

b
L
b
L
,

d
(2)
L

d
(2)
L
. (13)
U
= V

CKM
diag (m
u
, m
c
, m
t
), Y
D
= diag (m
d
, m
s
, m
b
7
SM
/H
SM
Y
U,D
= e
i
Q
e
i /2
Y
U,D
e
i
u,d
, (5)

Y
U,D
, are
Y
U,D
=
u,d
0
0 y
t,b
. (6)
Here
u,d
i
=
0
22

,
i
=
0
22

i
i

i
, i = Q, U, D, (7)
where and
i
i
i
td
and V
ts
in the low energy
e
i
i
= V
i
e
i
i
U
i
, e
i
= U
Q
e
i
U
Q
,

Y
i
= U
Q
Y
i
U
i
. (8)
Here U
i
= U
i
(V
i
,
i
i
U(1)
3
,
U
i
=
U
22
i
0
0 e
i
3
, i = Q, u, d. (9)
For V
i
H
SM
, U
i
= V
i
. Otherwise the U
i
i
i
(V
i
,
i
) by requiring that
i
i
,
i
is shifted under G
SM
/H
SM
H
SM
, [
i
Q
[U(2)
i
3
, while
u,d
U(2)
Q
U(2)
u,d
.
u
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
u
L
,

d
L
= e
i /2
e
i
Q
d
L
, (10)
u
R
= e
i
u
u
R
,

d
R
= e
i
d
d
R
. (11)
SM
dene

d
L,R
= (
d
(2)
L,R
, 0) + (0,
b
L,R

d
(2)
L
= U
22
Q
d
(2)
L
and

b
L
= exp(i
3
)
b
L
. A similar
ken avor subgroup H
SM
SM
invariant
expansion in
u,d
U,D
SM
u,d
one nds
b
L
b
L
,

d
(2)
L
d
(2)
L
,

d
(2)
L

u
u

d
(2)
L
, (12)
d
(2)
L

b
L
,

b
L
b
L
,

d
(2)
L

d
(2)
L
. (13)
U
= V

CKM
diag (m
u
, m
c
, m
t
), Y
D
= diag (m
d
, m
s
, m
b
B: RH currents are non-Hermitians allows for new CPV.
Kaon: contributions from charm & top are decorrelated.
Generically, CPV in B
s
bounds on in B
d
system .
(without light RH currents they are fully correlated)
Generically, large CPV in D & top FCNC (also in LMFV).
(more in the homework)
(SUSY: Colangelo et. al., 0807.0801[ph])
112
Top Diag Flavor Physics @ LHC
Flavor Diagonal Information
113
Flavor at the LHC
If no NP probed t-FCNC & D mixing could be at the frontier,
we have just entered the isospin up avor precision era.
However, what if new particles which couple SM fermions
discovered ?
These may carry microscopical info avor dynamics.
We can look at two entities:
(i) Spectrum or strength of avor diagonal couplings.
(ii) Flavor conversion info.
114
The approximate U(2)
0th order question for a 3x3 adjoint:
Is a residual U(2) conserved?
(In the following plots, S has been taken to be zero. In the context of gauge mediation, the initial
S vanishes and we currently neglect its evolution.) These universal pieces are non-negligible in the
analysis below, since the dierence between y
c
and y
t
dictates a dierence between the resulting
contributions from these terms.
Denote the scale at which SUSY is broken by
0
, and say have universal boundary conditions
in the doublet and up-singlet squark sectors seperately. We can extract the dierence between
the evolution of the 2nd and 3rd generation components of the soft terms in say the LL sector by
considering the ratio between the projection of the RG-evolved mass-squared matrix m
2
Q
L
on the
Gell-Mann matrices
3
and
8
, dened as
r
3/8
=
1
n
3/8
Tr(
3
m
2
Q
L
)
Tr(
8
m
2
Q
L
)
, (2.4)
where
3
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
8
=
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2), (2.5)
and n
3/8
is a normalization to the LMFV relation via
n
3/8
=
Tr(
3
m
2
u
)
Tr(
8
m
2
u
)
1.1 10
5
, m
2
u
= diag(0, m
2
c
, m
2
t
),
m
c
(m
Z
) = 0.619 GeV, m
t
(m
Z
) = 172 GeV.
(2.6)
Due to the presence of the universal terms in the RG equations (2.2)-(2.3), the ratio r
3/8
depends
on the initial values of the gaugino and squark soft terms. To get some avor, consider minimal
models of messenger gauge mediation, say with one set of messengers. The initial soft terms are
given by [8]
M
a
=

a
4
, a = 1, 2, 3,
m
2
i
= 2
2
3
a=1
a
4
2
C
a
(i),
i
= Q
L
, U
R
etc.,
(2.7)
where is the eective SUSY breaking scale (for a messenger supereld S the relation is =
F
S
/S), C
a
(i) are the quadratic Casimir group theory invariants for the supereld
i
, and for
the relevant elds are given by
C
3
(Q
L
, U
R
) = 4/3, C
2
(Q
L
) = 3/4, C
2
(U
R
) = 0, C
1
(
i
) = 3Y
2
i
/5, (2.8)
with Y
i
the hypercharge of the eld.
4
c
and y
t
0
2
Q
L
on the
Gell-Mann matrices
3
and
8
, dened as
r
3/8
=
1
n
3/8
Tr(
3
m
2
Q
L
)
Tr(
8
m
2
Q
L
)
, (2.4)
where
3
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
8
=
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2), (2.5)
and n
3/8
n
3/8
=
Tr(
3
m
2
u
)
Tr(
8
m
2
u
)
1.1 10
5
, m
2
u
= diag(0, m
2
c
, m
2
t
),
m
c
(m
Z
) = 0.619 GeV, m
t
(m
Z
) = 172 GeV.
(2.6)
3/8
depends
given by [8]
M
a
=

a
4
, a = 1, 2, 3,
m
2
i
= 2
2
3
a=1
a
4
2
C
a
(i),
i
= Q
L
, U
R
etc.,
(2.7)
F
S
/S), C
a
i
, and for
C
3
(Q
L
, U
R
) = 4/3, C
2
(Q
L
) = 3/4, C
2
(U
R
) = 0, C
1
(
i
) = 3Y
2
i
/5, (2.8)
with Y
i
4
115
c
and y
t
0
2
Q
L
on the
Gell-Mann matrices
3
and
8
, dened as
r
3/8
=
1
n
3/8
Tr(
3
m
2
Q
L
)
Tr(
8
m
2
Q
L
)
, (2.4)
where
3
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
8
=
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2), (2.5)
and n
3/8
n
3/8
=
Tr(
3
m
2
u
)
Tr(
8
m
2
u
)
1.1 10
5
, m
2
u
= diag(0, m
2
c
, m
2
t
),
m
c
(m
Z
) = 0.619 GeV, m
t
(m
Z
) = 172 GeV.
(2.6)
3/8
depends
given by [8]
M
a
=

a
4
, a = 1, 2, 3,
m
2
i
= 2
2
3
a=1
a
4
2
C
a
(i),
i
= Q
L
, U
R
etc.,
(2.7)
F
S
/S), C
a
i
, and for
C
3
(Q
L
, U
R
) = 4/3, C
2
(Q
L
) = 3/4, C
2
(U
R
) = 0, C
1
(
i
) = 3Y
2
i
/5, (2.8)
with Y
i
4
c
and y
t
0
2
Q
L
on the
Gell-Mann matrices
3
and
8
, dened as
r
3/8
=
1
n
3/8
Tr(
3
m
2
Q
L
)
Tr(
8
m
2
Q
L
)
, (2.4)
where
3
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
8
=
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2), (2.5)
and n
3/8
n
3/8
=
Tr(
3
m
2
u
)
Tr(
8
m
2
u
)
1.1 10
5
, m
2
u
= diag(0, m
2
c
, m
2
t
),
m
c
(m
Z
) = 0.619 GeV, m
t
(m
Z
) = 172 GeV.
(2.6)
3/8
depends
given by [8]
M
a
=

a
4
, a = 1, 2, 3,
m
2
i
= 2
2
3
a=1
a
4
2
C
a
(i),
i
= Q
L
, U
R
etc.,
(2.7)
F
S
/S), C
a
i
, and for
C
3
(Q
L
, U
R
) = 4/3, C
2
(Q
L
) = 3/4, C
2
(U
R
) = 0, C
1
(
i
) = 3Y
2
i
/5, (2.8)
with Y
i
4
115
X
Q
c
and y
t
0
2
Q
L
on the
Gell-Mann matrices
3
and
8
, dened as
r
3/8
=
1
n
3/8
Tr(
3
m
2
Q
L
)
Tr(
8
m
2
Q
L
)
, (2.4)
where
3
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
8
=
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2), (2.5)
and n
3/8
n
3/8
=
Tr(
3
m
2
u
)
Tr(
8
m
2
u
)
1.1 10
5
, m
2
u
= diag(0, m
2
c
, m
2
t
),
m
c
(m
Z
) = 0.619 GeV, m
t
(m
Z
) = 172 GeV.
(2.6)
3/8
depends
given by [8]
M
a
=

a
4
, a = 1, 2, 3,
m
2
i
= 2
2
3
a=1
a
4
2
C
a
(i),
i
= Q
L
, U
R
etc.,
(2.7)
F
S
/S), C
a
i
, and for
C
3
(Q
L
, U
R
) = 4/3, C
2
(Q
L
) = 3/4, C
2
(U
R
) = 0, C
1
(
i
) = 3Y
2
i
/5, (2.8)
with Y
i
4
c
and y
t
0
2
Q
L
on the
Gell-Mann matrices
3
and
8
, dened as
r
3/8
=
1
n
3/8
Tr(
3
m
2
Q
L
)
Tr(
8
m
2
Q
L
)
, (2.4)
where
3
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
8
=
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2), (2.5)
and n
3/8
n
3/8
=
Tr(
3
m
2
u
)
Tr(
8
m
2
u
)
1.1 10
5
, m
2
u
= diag(0, m
2
c
, m
2
t
),
m
c
(m
Z
) = 0.619 GeV, m
t
(m
Z
) = 172 GeV.
(2.6)
3/8
depends
given by [8]
M
a
=

a
4
, a = 1, 2, 3,
m
2
i
= 2
2
3
a=1
a
4
2
C
a
(i),
i
= Q
L
, U
R
etc.,
(2.7)
F
S
/S), C
a
i
, and for
C
3
(Q
L
, U
R
) = 4/3, C
2
(Q
L
) = 3/4, C
2
(U
R
) = 0, C
1
(
i
) = 3Y
2
i
/5, (2.8)
with Y
i
4
115
c
and y
t
0
2
Q
L
on the
Gell-Mann matrices
3
and
8
, dened as
r
3/8
=
1
n
3/8
Tr(
3
m
2
Q
L
)
Tr(
8
m
2
Q
L
)
, (2.4)
where
3
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
8
=
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2), (2.5)
and n
3/8
n
3/8
=
Tr(
3
m
2
u
)
Tr(
8
m
2
u
)
1.1 10
5
, m
2
u
= diag(0, m
2
c
, m
2
t
),
m
c
(m
Z
) = 0.619 GeV, m
t
(m
Z
) = 172 GeV.
(2.6)
3/8
depends
given by [8]
M
a
=

a
4
, a = 1, 2, 3,
m
2
i
= 2
2
3
a=1
a
4
2
C
a
(i),
i
= Q
L
, U
R
etc.,
(2.7)
F
S
/S), C
a
i
, and for
C
3
(Q
L
, U
R
) = 4/3, C
2
(Q
L
) = 3/4, C
2
(U
R
) = 0, C
1
(
i
) = 3Y
2
i
/5, (2.8)
with Y
i
4
c
and y
t
0
2
Q
L
on the
Gell-Mann matrices
3
and
8
, dened as
r
3/8
=
1
n
3/8
Tr(
3
m
2
Q
L
)
Tr(
8
m
2
Q
L
)
, (2.4)
where
3
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
8
=
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2), (2.5)
and n
3/8
n
3/8
=
Tr(
3
m
2
u
)
Tr(
8
m
2
u
)
1.1 10
5
, m
2
u
= diag(0, m
2
c
, m
2
t
),
m
c
(m
Z
) = 0.619 GeV, m
t
(m
Z
) = 172 GeV.
(2.6)
3/8
depends
given by [8]
M
a
=

a
4
, a = 1, 2, 3,
m
2
i
= 2
2
3
a=1
a
4
2
C
a
(i),
i
= Q
L
, U
R
etc.,
(2.7)
F
S
/S), C
a
i
, and for
C
3
(Q
L
, U
R
) = 4/3, C
2
(Q
L
) = 3/4, C
2
(U
R
) = 0, C
1
(
i
) = 3Y
2
i
/5, (2.8)
with Y
i
4
115
Breaking of U(2) => sensation!
Can the LHC answer?
X
Q
c
and y
t
0
2
Q
L
on the
Gell-Mann matrices
3
and
8
, dened as
r
3/8
=
1
n
3/8
Tr(
3
m
2
Q
L
)
Tr(
8
m
2
Q
L
)
, (2.4)
where
3
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
8
=
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2), (2.5)
and n
3/8
n
3/8
=
Tr(
3
m
2
u
)
Tr(
8
m
2
u
)
1.1 10
5
, m
2
u
= diag(0, m
2
c
, m
2
t
),
m
c
(m
Z
) = 0.619 GeV, m
t
(m
Z
) = 172 GeV.
(2.6)
3/8
depends
given by [8]
M
a
=

a
4
, a = 1, 2, 3,
m
2
i
= 2
2
3
a=1
a
4
2
C
a
(i),
i
= Q
L
, U
R
etc.,
(2.7)
F
S
/S), C
a
i
, and for
C
3
(Q
L
, U
R
) = 4/3, C
2
(Q
L
) = 3/4, C
2
(U
R
) = 0, C
1
(
i
) = 3Y
2
i
/5, (2.8)
with Y
i
4
c
and y
t
0
2
Q
L
on the
Gell-Mann matrices
3
and
8
, dened as
r
3/8
=
1
n
3/8
Tr(
3
m
2
Q
L
)
Tr(
8
m
2
Q
L
)
, (2.4)
where
3
=
1
2
diag(1, 1, 0),
8
=
1
6
diag(1, 1, 2), (2.5)
and n
3/8
n
3/8
=
Tr(
3
m
2
u
)
Tr(
8
m
2
u
)
1.1 10
5
, m
2
u
= diag(0, m
2
c
, m
2
t
),
m
c
(m
Z
) = 0.619 GeV, m
t
(m
Z
) = 172 GeV.
(2.6)
3/8
depends
given by [8]
M
a
=

a
4
, a = 1, 2, 3,
m
2
i
= 2
2
3
a=1
a
4
2
C
a
(i),
i
= Q
L
, U
R
etc.,
(2.7)
F
S
/S), C
a
i
, and for
C
3
(Q
L
, U
R
) = 4/3, C
2
(Q
L
) = 3/4, C
2
(U
R
) = 0, C
1
(
i
) = 3Y
2
i
/5, (2.8)
with Y
i
4
115
Illustration
Nir, Planck 2009
116
Summary
The SM avor sector is unique
Yields sharp predictions
All so far were veried
Unless NP is ~ MFV or maybe aligned?
Up type FCNC measurements could hold the key
Electroweak & avor precision tests => NP has non-generic structure
Cannot be the end of the story => baryogenesis
Probably not the end of the story => hierarchy problem
117
End of the 5th lecture
118

Flavor Physics: Gilad Perez CERN & Weizmann Inst

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flavor Physics: Gilad Perez CERN & Weizmann Inst

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flavor Physics

All hadronic channel

Observed Excluded Branching Ratio at 95% CL

All hadronic channel

Observed Excluded Branching Ratio at 95% CL

This brings with it a whole kind of phys. called flavor/gen phys.;

It has a unique structure & thus comes with sharp predictions:

Kobayashi-Maskawa Mechanism: 1 CP violating (CPV) phase;

Mixings is controlled by only 3 real parameters (CKM angles).

Flavor is violated dominantly via charged current interactions (ints);

Flavor violation, @leading order, only via left-handed (LH) currents;

Dominantly, flavor violation is controlled by the top ints;

Flavor sector posses an approximate U(2)

SM lepton sector which posses a global a U(1)

We now have an experimental (exp) support that the KM picture

Based on several exp observation (started in 64 many came in the

Flavor conversion => precision data confirmed the SM.

New bounds on CPV in the D mixing also confirms SM picture.

Baryogenesis => SM cannot be the only source of

Almost any SM extension give new sources of flavor

What about the up frontier (top-forward-backward anomaly)?

Integrating out new phys.=> dim. 6 Ops.:

The SM fermions appear in 3 generations.

Flavor phys. describes int that distinguish

The fermions experience 2 types of int:

gauge int, where two fermions couple to a

canonical basis: no gauge couplings between

Yuakawa interactions are complicated in

But masses are from the Yukawa int.

Thus, int eigenstates do not have well-

Flavor Phys. refers to the part of the SM

2 Setting the Higgs field to its vev, we find:

QQ bilinears insertions such as

(see e.g.: UTFit, 0707.03535)

is simply twice the real part (

0.034 maximal phases

0.034 maximal phases

is simply twice the real part (

is simply twice the real part (

is simply twice the real part (

0.034 maximal phases

Relaxing degeneracy assumption:

efficiencies have hard thresholds

P.d.fs have large effects

large effects on mass limits!!

All hadronic channel

Observed Excluded Branching Ratio at 95% CL

All hadronic channel

Observed Excluded Branching Ratio at 95% CL

All hadronic channel

Observed Excluded Branching Ratio at 95% CL

Higgs mass & EW scale are ultra sensitive to quantum corrections.

Higgs mass & EW scale are ultra sensitive to quantum corrections.

Higgs mass & EW scale are ultra sensitive to quantum corrections.

Higgs mass & EW scale are ultra sensitive to quantum corrections.

Higgs mass & EW scale are ultra sensitive to quantum corrections.

Higgs mass & EW scale are ultra sensitive to quantum corrections.

Higgs mass & EW scale are ultra sensitive to quantum corrections.

Higgs mass & EW scale are ultra sensitive to quantum corrections.

Higgs mass & EW scale are ultra sensitive to quantum corrections.

QQ bilinears insertions such as

You might also like