1: \documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,twoside,floatfix,superscriptaddress,preprintnumbers]{revtex4}
2:
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{color}
5:
6: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
7: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
8: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
9: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
10:
11: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
12:
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14: \begin{document}
15: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
16: \preprint{TUM-HEP-694/08}
17:
18:
19: \title{Low Energy Probes of CP Violation in a Flavor Blind MSSM}
20:
21:
22: \author{W.~Altmannshofer}
23: \affiliation{Physik-Department, Technische Universit\"at M\"unchen,
24: D-85748 Garching, Germany}
25:
26: \author{A.J.~Buras}
27: \affiliation{Physik-Department, Technische Universit\"at M\"unchen,
28: D-85748 Garching, Germany}
29: \affiliation{TUM Institute for Advanced Study, Technische Universit\"at M\"unchen,
30: \\Arcisstr.~21, D-80333 M\"unchen, Germany}
31:
32: \author{P.~Paradisi}
33: \affiliation{Physik-Department, Technische Universit\"at M\"unchen,
34: D-85748 Garching, Germany}
35:
36: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
37: \begin{abstract}
38:
39: We analyze the low energy implications of a {\it flavor blind} supersymmetric scenario
40: (where the CKM matrix is the only source of flavor violation) in the presence of new CP
41: violating but flavor conserving phases in the soft sector. We find that the best probes
42: of this rather restricted scenario are i) the electric dipole moments (EDMs) of the
43: electron ($d_e$) and the neutron ($d_n$) and ii) flavor changing and CP violating processes
44: in $B$ systems, like the CP asymmetries in $b\to s\gamma$ and $B\to\phi(\eta^{\prime})K_{S}$,
45: i.e. $A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)$ and $S_{\phi(\eta^{\prime})K_{S}}$, respectively.
46: The non-standard values for $S_{\phi(\eta^{\prime})K_{S}}$, measured at the $B$~factories,
47: can find a natural explanation within our scenario and this would unambiguously imply i)
48: positive and often large (non-standard) values for $A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)$ and ii) a lower bound
49: for the electron and neutron EDMs at the level of $d_{e,n}\gtrsim 10^{-28}\,e\,$cm.
50: Moreover, we predict positive New Physics (NP) contributions to $\epsilon_K$ which could be
51: welcomed in view of the recently lowered Standard Model value for $\epsilon_K$.
52: Interestingly, an explanation for the non-standard values for $S_{\phi(\eta^{\prime})K_{S}}$
53: can also naturally lead to an explanation for the anomaly of the muon anomalous magnetic moment.
54: Finally, we outline the role and the interplay of the direct NP searches at the LHC with the
55: indirect searches performed by low energy flavor physics observables.
56:
57: \end{abstract}
58: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
59:
60: \maketitle
61:
62: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
63: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
64: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
65:
66: In the last years, the two $B$ factories have established that $B_d$ flavor and CP violating
67: processes are well described by the Standard Model (SM) theory up to an accuracy of the
68: $(10-20)\%$ level. Unfortunately, irreducible hadronic uncertainties and the overall good
69: agreement of flavor data with the SM predictions still prevent any conclusive evidence of
70: NP effects in the quark sector.
71:
72: This immediately implies a tension between the solution of the hierarchy problem and the
73: explanation of the Flavor Physics data.
74:
75: An elegant way to simultaneously solve the above problems is provided by the Minimal Flavor
76: Violation (MFV) hypothesis \cite{MFV,MFV_gen}, where flavor and CP violation are still entirely
77: described by the CKM matrix.
78:
79: This framework appears at first sight compatible with all the existing data.
80: On the other hand, a closer look at several CP violating observables indicates
81: that the CKM phase might not be sufficient to describe simultaneously CP violation
82: in $K$, $B_d$ and $B_s$ decays. In particular:
83:
84: i) Modes dominated by Penguin diagrams, such as $B\to (\phi, \eta^{\prime}, \pi^{0}, \omega,
85: K_{S}K_{S})K_{S}$ that, similarly to the golden mode $B\to \psi K_S$, allow the
86: determination of $\sin 2\beta$, result in $\sin 2\beta$ significantly lower than
87: $(\sin 2\beta)_{\psi K_S}= 0.680\pm 0.025$~\cite{hfag} from $B\to \psi K_S$. For the theoretical
88: cleanest modes it is experimentally found that $(\sin 2\beta)_{\phi K_S}= 0.39\pm 0.17$
89: and $(\sin 2\beta)_{\eta^{\prime} K_S}= 0.61\pm 0.07$~\cite{hfag}.
90:
91: ii) With the decreased value of the non-perturbative parameter $\hat{B}_{K}$ from lattice
92: simulations \cite{hatBK} and the inclusion of additional negative contributions to $\epsilon_K$
93: that were neglected in the past \cite{BG}, CP violation in the $B_d-\overline{B}_d$ system,
94: represented by $(\sin 2\beta)_{\psi K_S}$, appears insufficient to describe the experimental
95: value of $\epsilon_K$ within the SM if the $\Delta M_d/\Delta M_s$ constraint is taken into
96: account~\cite{BG}.
97: Alternatively, simultaneous description of $\epsilon_K$ and $\Delta M_d/\Delta M_s$ within
98: the SM requires $\sin 2\beta= 0.88\pm 0.11$~\cite{SL}~\cite{BG}, significantly larger than
99: the measured $(\sin 2\beta)_{\psi K_S}$.
100:
101: iii) There are some hints for the very clean asymmetry $S_{\psi\phi}$ to be significantly
102: larger than the SM value $S_{\psi\phi}\approx 0.04$ \cite{first_evidence}.
103:
104: iv) Finally, there is the muon anomalous magnetic moment anomaly. Most recent analyses converge
105: towards a $3\sigma$ discrepancy in the $10^{-9}$ range~\cite{g_2_th}:
106: $\Delta a_{\mu}\!=\!a_{\mu}^{\rm exp}\!-\!a_{\mu}^{\rm SM}\approx(3\pm 1)\times 10^{-9}$
107: where $a_{\mu}\!=\!(g-2)_{\mu}/2$.
108: Despite substantial progress both on the experimental~\cite{g_2_exp} and on the theoretical sides,
109: the situation is not completely clear yet. However, the possibility that the present discrepancy
110: may arise from errors in the determination of the hadronic leading-order contribution to
111: $\Delta a_{\mu}$ seems to be unlikely, as recently stressed in Ref.~\cite{passera_mh}.
112:
113: There are also other interesting tensions observed in the data, as the rather large difference
114: in the direct CP asymmetries $A_{CP}(B^{-}\to K^{-}\pi^{0})$ and $A_{CP}(\overline{B}^{0}\to K^{-}\pi^{+})$
115: and certain puzzles in $B\to\pi K$ decays. However these tensions could also be due to our
116: insufficient understanding of hadronic effects rather than NP and we postpone their discussion
117: for the future.
118:
119: The problems i)-iii) can easily be solved in any non-MFV framework like general MSSM~\cite{susy}
120: or Little Higgs models with T-parity~\cite{lht} (the MSSM also provides a natural explanation
121: for the problem iv)).
122: However, the large number of parameters in these extensions of the SM, does not allow for clear-cut
123: conclusions.
124:
125:
126: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
127:
128: \begin{table*}
129: %
130: \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
131: \hline
132: Observable & SM Theory & Exp. Current & Exp. Future \\
133: \hline\hline
134: $S_{\phi K_S}$ & $\sin2\beta+0.02 \pm 0.01$~\cite{BDK_CERN} & $0.39 \pm 0.17$~\cite{hfag} &
135: $(2-3)\%$~\cite{superb} \\
136: \hline
137: $S_{\eta^{\prime} K_S}$ & $\sin2\beta+0.01 \pm 0.01$~\cite{BDK_CERN} & $0.61 \pm 0.07$~\cite{hfag} &
138: $(1-2)\%$~\cite{superb} \\
139: \hline
140: $A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)$ & $\left(-0.44 ^{+0.14}_{-0.24}\right)\%$~\cite{hurth}& $\left(-0.4 \pm 3.6\right)\%$~\cite{hfag} & $(0.4-0.5)\%$~\cite{superb} \\
141: \hline
142: $|d_e|~~[e\,$cm] & $\approx 10^{-38}$~\cite{pospelov}& $< 1.6 \times 10^{-27}$ \cite{expedme} &
143: ~$\approx 10^{-31}$~\cite{pospelov} \\
144: \hline
145: $|d_n|~~[e\,$cm] & $\approx 10^{-32}$~\cite{pospelov} & $< 2.9 \times 10^{-26}$ \cite{expedm} &
146: ~$\approx 10^{-28}$~\cite{pospelov} \\
147: \hline
148: \end{tabular}
149: %
150: \caption{SM predictions and current/expected experimental sensitivities for the most relevant
151: observables for our analysis.}
152: \label{tab:observables}
153: \end{table*}
154:
155: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
156:
157:
158: In this context, the question we intend to address in this paper is whether it is possible
159: to solve all these problems within a much more specific framework than a general MSSM,
160: namely a {\it flavor blind} supersymmetric scenario. In this framework, the CKM matrix remains
161: to be the only source of flavor violation but new CP violating, flavor conserving phases
162: are present in the soft sector.
163:
164: In the present paper, we summarize the main results of our study. A more detailed presentation
165: will appear in~\cite{ABP2}.
166:
167: One would naively expect that by far the best probes for CP violation within a {\it flavor blind}
168: MSSM (FBMSSM) are CP violating but flavor conserving observables, as the EDMs. As we will see,
169: this is not always the case and still large CP violating effects in flavor physics can
170: occur at an experimentally visible level. In particular, a large room for CP violating
171: asymmetries in $B$ systems, like $A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)$ and $S_{\phi(\eta^{\prime})K_{S}}$,
172: is still possible, while $S_{\psi\phi}$ appears to remain small.
173:
174: As we will see below, this framework is rather restrictive, when the data on
175: ${\rm BR}(b\to s\gamma)$, ${\rm BR}(B\to X_s\ell^+\ell^-)$, $\Delta M_{s,d}$, $\epsilon_K$,
176: $S_{\psi K_S}$ and $S_{\phi K_S}$ are simultaneously taken into account.
177: Moreover, the presence of flavor conserving but CP violating new phases implies definite
178: correlations between NP effects in the observables described above and striking results
179: for the electric dipole moments of the neutron and the electron and the direct CP asymmetry
180: $A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)$ in the $b\to s\gamma$ decay. As the latter asymmetry is theoretically
181: very clean and very small in the SM, it constitutes similarly to $S_{\psi\phi}$ a very powerful
182: tool to search for new sources of CP violation.
183:
184: Interestingly, this framework links the explanation of the suppression of $S_{\phi K_{S}}$
185: and $S_{\eta^{\prime} K_{S}}$ relative to $S_{\psi K_{S}}$ with the enhancement of
186: $A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)$ over its SM value.
187:
188:
189: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
190: \section{Flavor Blind MSSM}\label{sec:FBMSSM}
191: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
192:
193: The SM sources of CP violation are the QCD theta term $\overline{\theta}$
194: and the unique physical phase contained in the CKM matrix.
195: Natural (order one) values for $\overline{\theta}$ are phenomenologically
196: excluded since they would lead to unacceptably large contributions to the
197: neutron EDM.
198: Thus, a Peccei-Quinn symmetry \cite{peccei} is commonly assumed making $\overline{\theta}$
199: dynamically suppressed. In this way, the hadronic EDMs can be generated only by the
200: CP violating phase of the CKM and they turn out to be highly suppressed at the level
201: of $\sim 10^{-32}\,e\,$cm~\cite{pospelov}, well below the current and expected future
202: experimental resolutions~\cite{expedm}.
203:
204: On the other hand, the physical phase of the CKM successfully describes all the low
205: energy CP and flavor violating transitions so far observed in Nature, both in the
206: $K$ and $B_{d}$ systems except for possible tensions at the $2\sigma-3\sigma$ level
207: listed in i)-iii) that require further confirmations through improved data and theory
208: ($\epsilon_K$).
209:
210: Even though the SM certainly accounts for the bulk of CP violation in the $K$ and $B_{d}$
211: systems, we stress that it is still possible to expect spectacular NP phenomena to appear
212: in $B_s$ systems. In fact, on the one hand, the SM has not been experimentally tested in
213: $B_s$ systems with the same accuracy as in the $K$ and $B_d$ systems. On the other hand,
214: CP violating $b\to s$ transitions are predicted to be very small in the SM thus, any
215: experimental evidence of sizable CP violating effects in $B_s$ mixing would unambiguously
216: point towards a NP evidence.
217:
218: Within a SUSY framework, CP violating sources may naturally appear after SUSY breaking
219: through i) flavor conserving $F$-terms (such as the $B\mu$ parameter in
220: the Higgs potential or the $A_I$ terms for trilinear scalar couplings) and ii) flavor
221: violating $D$-terms (such as the squark and slepton mass terms)~\cite{pospelov}.
222: %In the case (i), the experimental bounds on the EDMs typically constrain the
223: %phases $\phi_{A,m_{12}^2}$ to be very close to zero: this naturalness problem
224: %is commonly referred to as the SUSY CP problem \cite{pospelov}.
225: It seems quite likely that the two categories i) and ii) of CP violation are controlled
226: by different physical mechanisms, thus, they can be distinguished and discussed independently.
227: In this paper we focus our attention on CP violating {\it flavor blind} phases, i.e. on the
228: category i). In such a case, it is always possible to choose a basis where only the $\mu$ and
229: $A_I$ parameters remain complex~\cite{pospelov}
230: and physics observables will depend only on the phases of the combinations
231: $M_i\mu$, $A_I\mu$ and $A_I^{\star}M_i$.
232:
233: The new CP violating phases of the FBMSSM generally lead to too large effects for the electron
234: and neutron EDMs as they are induced already at the one loop level through the virtual exchange
235: of gauginos and sfermions of the 1st and 2nd generations.
236:
237: There exist two natural ways to solve the above problem: i) to decouple the 1st and 2nd generation
238: sfermions, as in effective SUSY models ~\cite{kaplan}, ii) to promote the $A_{I}$ terms as the main
239: source of CP violation and to assume they have a hierarchical structure, i.e. $A_t \gg A_c,A_u$,
240: $A_b\gg A_s,A_d$ and $A_{\tau} \gg A_{\mu},A_e$.
241:
242: In the following, we analyze the latter situation postponing the study of the most general
243: case to our future works.
244:
245: The flavor conserving phases of the FBMSSM are transmitted to the low energy observables by
246: means of the Feynmann diagrams shown in Fig.~\ref{c78}. On the left of Fig.~\ref{c78},
247: we report the dominant SUSY contribution for $S_{\phi K_{S}}$, $S_{\eta^{\prime} K_{S}}$
248: and $A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)$ while, on the right, we show the two loop Barr-Zee type
249: diagram generating the EDM for quarks and leptons.
250:
251: As it is already evident from these diagrams, the SUSY contributions of both $S_{\phi K_{S}}$,
252: $S_{\eta^{\prime} K_{S}}$, $A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)$ and the EDMs are generated by the same CP
253: violating invariant $A_{t}\mu$.
254:
255:
256: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
257: \section{CP violation at the low energy}\label{sec:CP}
258: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
259:
260: In what follows, we discuss the relevant observables for our study. The SM predictions,
261: as well as the current/expected experimental sensitivities of these observables are listed
262: in Table~\ref{tab:observables}.
263:
264: %ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc EDMs cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
265:
266: {\bf 1.} As we have discussed above, one loop induced effects to the electron and neutron EDMs
267: can be always suppressed by assuming heavy 1st and 2nd generation sfermions and/or hierarchical
268: $A_{I}$ terms. However, even in these cases, additional contributions to the EDMs stemming from
269: two loop diagrams involving only the third sfermion generations are unavoidable and typically
270: large~\cite{pilaftsis} (see Fig.~\ref{c78} on the right for the stop contribution).
271: In particular, the expression for these two loop effects reads~\cite{pilaftsis}
272: %
273: \begin{equation}
274: {d_f \over e } = Q_f {3 \alpha_{\rm em} \over 32 \pi^2}
275: {R_f m_f \over m_A^2} \sum_{q=t,b} \xi_q Q_q^2 F
276: \left({m_{\tilde{q}_1}^2\over m_A^2}, {m_{\tilde{q}_2}^2\over m_A^2 }\right)~,
277: \label{edmpil}
278: \end{equation}
279: %
280: %
281: \begin{equation}
282: \xi_t = \frac{m^{2}_{t}}{v^{2} s^{2}_{\beta}}\,
283: \frac{2{\rm Im}(\mu A_{t})}{m^{2}_{\tilde t_1}\!-\!m^{2}_{\tilde t_2}}~, ~~~
284: \xi_b = \frac{m^{2}_{b}}{v^{2} c^{2}_{\beta}}\,
285: \frac{2{\rm Im}(\mu A_{b})}{m^{2}_{\tilde b_1}\!-\!m^{2}_{\tilde b_2}}\,,
286: \end{equation}
287: %
288: where $F(x,y)$ is a two-loop function, $R_{t,b}=\cot\beta\,,\tan\beta$, $c_{\beta}=\cos\beta$, $s_{\beta}=\sin\beta$, $m_{\tilde{t}_{1,2}}$ ($m_{\tilde{b}_{1,2}}$) are the stop (sbottom)
289: masses and $m_A$ is the pseudoscalar Higgs mass.
290: The EDMs, as generated by means of Eq.~\ref{edmpil}, turn out to be large, provided
291: the heavy Higgs and/or 3rd generation squarks are not too heavy.
292:
293: %
294: \begin{figure}[t]
295: \centering
296: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{diagrams_C78_de.eps}
297: \caption{
298: Left: Feynmann diagrams generating the dominant SUSY contributions to $S_{\phi K_{S}}$,
299: $S_{\eta^{\prime}K_{S}}$ and $A_{CP}(b\!\to\!s\gamma)$. Right: two loop Barr-Zee type
300: diagram generating an EDM for quarks ($f=q$) and leptons ($f=\ell$).}
301: \label{c78}
302: \end{figure}
303: %
304:
305: %ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc ACPbsg cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
306:
307: {\bf 2.} A very sensitive observable to CP violating effects is represented by the direct
308: CP violation in $b\to s\gamma$, i.e. $A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)$ \cite{soares}. If NP effects
309: are present, the following expression for $A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)$ holds~\cite{KN,hurth}
310: %
311: \bea
312: A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma) &\equiv&
313: \frac{\Gamma(B \to X_{\bar{s}} \gamma) - \Gamma(\overline{B} \to X_s \gamma)}{\Gamma(B \to X_{\bar{s}}\gamma) + \Gamma(\overline{B} \to X_s\gamma)} \nonumber \\
314: &\simeq&
315: {-1 \over | C_7 |^2 }~\!\bigg(\!1.23\,{\rm Im}[C_2 C_7^*]-9.52\,{\rm Im}[C_8 C_7^*]\nonumber \\
316: &+& 0.10 ~{\rm Im}\,[C_2 C_8^*]\bigg) - 0.5~({\rm in}~\%)~,
317: \label{acp_bsgamma}
318: \eea
319: %
320: where $C_i\!=\!C^{\rm SM}_{i}(m_b)+C^{\rm NP}_{i}(m_b)$, with $C^{\rm SM}_{i}$ real.
321: In our framework, the dominant SUSY contributions to $C_{7,8}$ arise from the one-loop
322: charged Higgs and chargino-squark amplitudes:
323: $C^{\rm NP}_{7,8}=C^{H^\pm}_{7,8}+C^{\tilde{\chi}^\pm}_{7,8}$.
324:
325: In Fig.~\ref{c78}, on the left, we report the Feynmann diagrams for the dominant chargino-squark
326: contributions in the so-called mass insertion approximation. As we can see, it turns out that
327: $C^{\tilde{\chi}^\pm}_{7,8}\sim\mu A_{t}$ thus $C^{\tilde{\chi}^\pm}_{7,8}$ develop an imaginary
328: component when ${\rm Im}\,\mu A_{t}\neq 0$.
329: The corresponding approximate expressions for the charged Higgs and chargino contributions
330: to $C_7$ and $C_8$ read
331: %
332: \bea
333: C_{7,8}^{H^\pm}\simeq f^1_{7,8}(x_t)~,\qquad
334: C^{\tilde{\chi}^\pm}_{7,8}\simeq
335: \frac{m_t^2}{m_{\tilde{q}}^2}\bigg(\frac{A_t\mu}{m_{\tilde{q}}^2}\bigg)t_{\beta}f_{7,8}^{2}(x_\mu)~,
336: \label{C_7}
337: \eea
338: %
339: %
340: %\bea
341: %C_{7,8}^{H^\pm}&\simeq& e^{i\theta_{b}}
342: %\left(\frac{1-\epsilon^{\prime}_{0} t_\beta}{|1+\epsilon_{b}t_\beta|}\right)f^1_{7,8}(x_t)~,
343: %\nonumber\\
344: %C^{\tilde{\chi}^\pm}_{7,8}&\simeq& e^{i\theta_{b}}
345: %\frac{t_\beta}{|1 + \epsilon_{b} t_\beta|}
346: %\bigg[\frac{A_t\mu}{m_{\tilde{q}}^2}\frac{m_t^2}{m_{\tilde{q}}^2}f_{7,8}^{2}(x_\mu)\bigg]~,
347: %\label{C_7}
348: %\eea
349: %
350: where $x_t=m_t^2/M_{H^\pm}^2$, $x_{\mu}=|\mu|^2/m^{2}_{\tilde{q}}$, $f^1_7(1)=-7/36$,
351: $f^1_8(1)=-1/6$, $f^2_7(1)=-5/72$, $f^2_8(1)=-1/24$, $t_{\beta}=\tan\beta$ and
352: $m_{\tilde q}^2$ is an average stop mass.
353:
354: In our numerical analysis, we have also included higher order threshold corrections
355: stemming from $\tan\beta$ enhanced non-holomorphic Yukawa interactions that are not
356: explicitly shown in Eq.~\ref{C_7}.
357:
358: These threshold corrections allow $C^{H^\pm}_{7,8}$, that are purely real at the leading
359: order, to develop an imaginary component and provide additional CP violating contributions
360: to $C^{\tilde{\chi}^\pm}_{7,8}$, that are complex already at the leading order.
361:
362:
363: %ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc SphiKs cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
364:
365: {\bf 3.} The time-dependent CP asymmetries in the decays of neutral $B$ mesons into final CP
366: eigenstates $f$ are described by ${\cal A}_f(t)=S_f\sin(\Delta M t)-C_f\cos(\Delta M t)$,
367: where, within the SM, it is predicted that the $|S_f|$ and $C_f$ parameters relative to all
368: the transitions $\bar b\to\bar q^\prime q^\prime\bar s$ ($q^\prime=c,s,d,u$) are the same.
369: In particular, the SM predicts that $-\eta_f S_f\simeq\sin2\beta$ and $C_f\simeq0$ where
370: $\eta_f=\pm1$ is the CP eigenvalue for the final state $f$, and $\beta\equiv\arg\left[-(V_{cd}V_{cb}^*)/(V_{td}V_{tb}^*)\right]$.
371: In order to define the CP asymmetries in $B\to f$ decays, one introduces the complex quantity
372: $\lambda_f=e^{-i\phi_B}(\overline{A}_f/A_f)$ where $\phi_B$ is the phase of the $B^0-\overline{B}^0$
373: mixing amplitude, $A_f$ ($\overline{A}_f$) is the decay amplitude for $B^0(\overline{B}^0)\to f$
374: and finally
375: %
376: \beq
377: S_f=\frac{2{\rm Im}(\lambda_f)}{1+|\lambda_f|^2}~,\ \ \
378: C_f=\frac{1-|\lambda_f|^2}{1+|\lambda_f|^2}~.
379: \eeq
380: %
381: The decay amplitudes can be calculated from the effective Hamiltonian relevant for
382: $\Delta B=\pm1$ decays~\cite{BBL} through $A_f=\langle f|{\cal H}_{\rm eff}|B^0\rangle~$
383: and $\overline{A}_f=\langle f|{\cal H}_{\rm eff}|\overline{B}^0\rangle$, where the
384: Wilson coefficients depend on the electroweak theory while the matrix elements $\langle f|O_i|B^0(\overline{B}^0)\rangle$ can be evaluated, for instance, by means of QCD factorization.
385:
386: New Physics effects can contribute i) to the $B^0-\overline{B}^0$ mixing amplitude
387: or ii) to the decay amplitudes $\bar b\to\bar qq\bar s$ ($q=s,d,u$)~\cite{grossman}
388: (we assume the tree level transition $\bar b\to\bar cc\bar s$,
389: and thus also the related asymmetry, to be not significantly affected by the NP).
390: In presence of NP contributions, we can write the decay amplitudes in the following way
391: %
392: \beq\label{defbfu}
393: A_f = A_f^c
394: \left[1+a_f^ue^{i\gamma}+\sum_i\left(b_{fi}^c+b_{fi}^ue^{i\gamma}\right)C_i^{\rm NP\,*}(m_W)\right].
395: \eeq
396: %
397: %where $\rm{C_i^{\rm NP}}$ are the Wilson coefficients relative to NP evaluated at the
398: %scale $\rm{m_W}$.
399: The $a_f^u$ parameters have been evaluated in the QCD factorization approach at the leading
400: order and to zeroth order in $\Lambda/m_b$ in Ref.~\cite{buchalla}.
401: Within the SM, it turns out that $S_{\phi K_S}\!\simeq\!S_{\eta^{\prime}K_{S}}\!\simeq\!
402: S_{\psi K_S} \simeq 0.68$ (see Table~\ref{tab:observables}).
403: The $a_f^u$ term provide only a negligible effect to $B\to\psi K_S$, thus
404: $\lambda_{\psi K_S}^{\rm SM}=-e^{-2i\beta}$.
405:
406: Within a FBMSSM scenario, it turns out that the Wilson coefficient $C^{\rm NP}_{8}$ of the
407: chromomagnetic operator provides the dominant NP source for $S_{\phi(\eta^{\prime})K_S}$.
408: In particular, all the Wilson coefficients but the electromagnetic and chromomagnetic ones
409: are not sensitive to the new phases of the FBMSSM.
410: The relevant hadronic parameters entering the $C^{\rm NP}_{8}$ contribution to
411: $S_{\phi(\eta^{\prime})K_S}$ are $b_{\phi K_{S}}^{c}= 1.4$ and $b_{\eta^{\prime}K_{S}}^{c}= 0.86$~\cite{buchalla}, thus, the NP effects in $S_{\phi K_S}$ are significantly larger than
412: those in $S_{\eta^\prime K_S}$. Moreover, the departures from the SM expectations of both
413: $S_{\phi K_S}$ and $S_{\eta^{\prime}K_S}$, due to NP contributions, are expected to be in the
414: same direction.\\
415:
416: %ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc epsK cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
417:
418: {\bf 4.} Also $\epsilon_K$ is a NP sensitive observable of our scenario and it can receive NP
419: effects at the $15\%$ level compared to its SM prediction. Interestingly, the FBMSSM
420: scenario unambiguously predicts $|\epsilon_K|>|\epsilon_K^{\rm SM}|$~\cite{ABP2} and this helps
421: to achieve the agreement with data.
422: The same conclusion is no longer valid for the $B$ systems. However, it is predicted that
423: the ratio $\Delta M_d/\Delta M_s$, as well as $S_{\psi K_S}$, are SM-like to a very good
424: approximation~\cite{ABP2}.\\
425:
426:
427: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
428: \section{Numerical analysis}
429: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
430:
431: In order to establish the allowed CP violating effects in $B$ physics observables, we impose
432: the full set of available theoretical and experimental constraints. In particular, we take
433: into account i) the constraints from direct search, ii) the electroweak precision tests
434: (as the $\rho$--parameter), iii) the requirements of color and electric charge conservation
435: and that the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) has to be neutral, iv) the constraints from the
436: EDM of the electron/neutron, v) all the constraints from flavor changing processes in $K$ and
437: $B$ physics.
438:
439: In our scenario, the EDMs and the branching ratio of $b\to s\gamma$ constitute the two most severe
440: constraints. Concerning the latter, combining the SM prediction at the NNLO~\cite{Misiak} with the
441: experimental average for the branching ratio~\cite{hfag,belle,babar} we obtain
442: %
443: \beq
444: R_{bs\gamma} =
445: \frac{ {\rm BR}(b\to s \gamma)^{\rm exp}}
446: {{\rm BR}(b\to s \gamma)^{\rm SM}}
447: = 1.13\pm 0.12~.
448: \label{bsgamma}
449: \eeq
450: %
451: In our numerical analysis we impose the above constraint at the $2\sigma$ C.L..
452:
453: In our FBMSSM, we assume universal soft masses for different squark generations at
454: the electroweak scale~\footnote{Such a strong assumption gets somewhat relaxed in the
455: framework of the general MFV ansatz~\cite{MFV_gen} where the scalar soft masses receive
456: corrections proportional to $c_i\,Y^\dagger Y$ (where $Y$ denotes a Yukawa
457: matrix and $c_i$ are unknown coefficients typically of order ${\mathcal O}(1)$).
458: These small departures from a complete flavor blindness of the soft terms generate
459: additional FCNC contributions by means of gluino and squark loops. However, these
460: last effects can be safely neglected if the unknown parameters $c_i$ are small
461: and/or if the gluino mass is significantly larger than the chargino/up-squark masses.
462: In this respect, the contributions to FCNC processes discussed in the present work
463: can be regarded as irreducible effects arising in MFV scenarios.}.
464:
465: After imposing the above constraints, we perform a scan over the relevant SUSY parameter space
466: %
467: \bea
468: &(\mu,M_{H^+}, m_{\tilde{t}_{L}}, m_{\tilde{t}_{R}}, m_{\tilde{g}})\leq 1~{\rm TeV}\,,&\nonumber \\
469: &|A_t|^{2}\leq 3 (m^{2}_{\tilde{t}_{L}}+m^{2}_{\tilde{t}_{R}})\,,& \nonumber \\
470: &3\leq t_{\beta}\leq 50\,,& \nonumber \\
471: &0\leq \phi_{\mu}+\phi_{A_t}\leq 2\pi\,.&
472: \label{scan}
473: \eea
474: %
475: In the upper plot of Fig.~\ref{sphiks_cpbsg}, we show $A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)$ vs $S_{\phi K_{S}}$.
476: First, we emphasize that non-standard values for $S_{\phi K_{S}}$ are easily achieved in the
477: FBMSSM framework and the present $S_{\phi K_{S}}$ anomaly can find a natural explanation.
478: Moreover, the sign of $S_{\phi K_{S}}$ is correlated with the sign of $A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)$.
479: In particular, in the preferred experimental region for $S_{\phi K_{S}}$, i.e. for
480: $S_{\phi K_{S}}< S_{\phi K_{S}}^{\rm SM}\approx 0.68$, it turns out that $A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)$ is dominantly {\it positive} and has therefore opposite sign relative to the SM expectation.
481: Interestingly enough, in the region of the parameter space where $S_{\phi K_{S}} \approx 0.4$,
482: as suggested experimentally, $A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)$ is typically predicted to depart significantly
483: from its SM prediction.
484:
485: %
486: \begin{figure}
487: \includegraphics[scale=0.33]{sphiks_acp_v3.eps} \\[16pt]
488: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{sphiks_setapks_v3.eps}
489: \caption{
490: Upper: $A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)$ vs $S_{\phi K_{S}}$.
491: Here, as well as in all the other plots, the grey band corresponds to the current
492: experimental bounds on $S_{\phi K_{S}}$ at the $68\%$ C.L.
493: Lower: $S_{\eta^{\prime}K_{S}}$ vs $S_{\phi K_{S}}$.
494: The SM value for $S_{\phi K_{S}}\simeq S_{\eta^{\prime}K_{S}}\simeq 0.68$ is also
495: indicated. The grey box corresponds to the current $68\%$ C.L.. experimental bounds
496: on $S_{\phi K_{S}}$ and $S_{\eta^{\prime}K_{S}}$.
497: In both plots, the attained values for the electron EDM $d_{e}$ are also shown.
498: }
499: \label{sphiks_cpbsg}
500: \end{figure}
501: %
502:
503: %
504: \begin{figure}
505: \includegraphics[scale=0.41]{sphiks_de_v3.eps}
506: \caption{
507: Electron EDM ($d_e$) vs $S_{\phi K_{S}}$.
508: The colored bands correspond to different values for the pseudoscalar Higgs mass $m_{A}$.
509: }
510: \label{edm_etaphi}
511: \end{figure}
512: %
513:
514: In the lower plot of Fig.~\ref{sphiks_cpbsg}, it is shown the correlation between $S_{\phi K_{S}}$
515: and $S_{\eta^{\prime} K_{S}}$. As we can see, the NP effects in $S_{\phi K_{S}}$ are larger than
516: those in $S_{\eta^{\prime} K_{S}}$ in agreement with the pattern observed in the data.
517:
518: In both plots of Fig.~\ref{sphiks_cpbsg}, the various colored bands show the attained values for
519: the electron EDM $d_e$.
520:
521: We believe that a correlated analysis of the above asymmetries at a Super Flavor Factory
522: would represent a powerful tool to probe or to falsify the FBMSSM scenario.
523:
524: In Fig.~\ref{edm_etaphi}, we show the prediction for the electron EDM $d_e$ vs $S_{\phi K_{S}}$
525: for different values of $m_{A}$. We note that $d_e$ is very sensitive to $m_A$, as the NP
526: contributions to $d_e$ decouple with the heaviest mass between $m_A$ and the stop masses
527: $m_{\tilde{t}_{1,2}}$ (see Eq.~\ref{edmpil}).
528: %in contrast, $S_{\phi K_{S}}$ and $S_{\eta^{\prime} K_{S}}$ are generated at the loop level by
529: %the exchange of charginos and top squarks, thus, sensitive to $m_A$ only through the
530: %indirect constraints of $b\to s\gamma$.
531: Fig.~\ref{edm_etaphi} shows that large (non-standard) effects in $S_{\phi K_{S}}$ unambiguously
532: imply large values for $d_e$.
533: In particular, in the experimentally interesting region where $S_{\phi K_{S}}\approx 0.4$,
534: we obtain the lower bound $d_e\geq 5\times 10^{-28}\,e\,$cm by means of the scan over
535: the SUSY parameter space of Eq.~\ref{scan}. Similar results are found for the neutron EDM
536: $d_n$, in which case, we find the lower bound $d_n\geq 8\times 10^{-28}\,e\,$cm.
537:
538: However, we observe that while $S_{\phi K_{S}}$, $S_{\eta^{\prime}K_{S}}$ and $A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)$
539: are not directly sensitive to $m_{A}$ (they feel $m_{A}$ mainly through the indirect
540: ${\rm BR}(b\to s\gamma)$ constraint), in contrast, $d_{e,n}$ go to zero when $m_{A}$ decouples.
541: In particular, if we enlarge the allowed values for $m_{A}$ up to $m_{A}\!<\!3~\rm{TeV}$ while
542: varying all the other SUSY parameters in the same range as in Eq.~\ref{scan}, the requirement of
543: $S_{\phi K_{S}}\approx 0.4$ would imply the lower bound $d_e\geq (5\,,3\,,2\,,1\,,0.5)\times
544: 10^{-28}\,e\,$cm for $m_{A}\leq(1\,,1.5\,,2\,,2.5\,,3)~\rm{TeV}$, respectively.
545:
546: In Fig.~\ref{sphiks_mstop}, upper plot, we show the dependence of $S_{\phi K_{S}}$ on the
547: lightest stop mass $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ for different values of the $\mu$ parameter. We see
548: that large (non-standard) effects for $S_{\phi K_{S}}$ can be expected even for a SUSY
549: spectrum at the \rm{TeV} scale.
550:
551: In Fig.~\ref{sphiks_mstop}, lower plot, we show $A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)$ as a function of the
552: $\mu$ parameter for different values of the lightest stop mass $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$. We note
553: that, $A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)$ can reach non-standard values $|A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)|\!>\!2\%$
554: only if $\mu \lesssim 600-700$~GeV, well within the LHC reach.
555: %
556: \begin{figure}
557: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{mstop1_sphiks_v3.eps}\\[16pt]
558: \includegraphics[scale=0.32]{mu_acp_v3.eps}
559: \caption{
560: Upper: $S_{\phi K_{S}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$. Lower: $A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)$ vs $\mu$.
561: The dependence of $S_{\phi K_{S}}$ ($A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)$) on the $\mu$ parameter
562: (lightest stop mass $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$) is also shown through different colored bands.
563: }
564: \label{sphiks_mstop}
565: \end{figure}
566: %
567:
568: In Fig.~\ref{epsk}, upper plot, we show again $A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)$ vs $S_{\phi K_{S}}$ selecting
569: the points (red dots) satisfying
570: $\Delta\epsilon_K\!=\!\epsilon^{\rm{SUSY}}_{K}/\epsilon^{\rm{SM}}_{K}\!-1\!\!>\!5\%$.
571: As we can see, in the experimentally interesting region where $S_{\phi K_{S}}\approx 0.4$, there
572: are many points where also $\epsilon_K$ can receive sizable NP effects up to corrections
573: of order $\approx 15\%$ compared to the SM contributions (see the lower plot of Fig.~\ref{epsk}).
574: However, there is not a direct correlation between $S_{\phi K_{S}}$ and $\Delta\epsilon_K$, as the
575: latter is not sensitive to the new phases of the FBMSSM, in contrast to $S_{\phi K_{S}}$~\cite{ABP2}.
576:
577: In the lower plot of Fig.~\ref{epsk}, we show $\Delta\epsilon_K$ as a function of the $\mu$ parameter.
578: Moreover, different colored bands show the dependence of $\Delta\epsilon_K$ on the lightest stop
579: mass $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$. As we can see, sizable NP effects for $\epsilon_K$ at the level of $\Delta\epsilon_K\approx 15\%$ can be still obtained for a light SUSY spectrum
580: $(\mu,\,m_{\tilde{t}_{1}})\approx 200~\rm{GeV}$.
581: %
582: \begin{figure}
583: \includegraphics[scale=0.32]{sphiks_acp_epsk_v3.eps}\\[16pt]
584: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{mu_epsk_v3.eps}
585: \caption{
586: Upper: $A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)$ vs $S_{\phi K_{S}}$. Red dots satisfy $\Delta\epsilon_K\!>\!5\%$.
587: Lower: $\Delta\epsilon_K$ vs $\mu$. The values attained by $\Delta\epsilon_K$ for different
588: lightest stop masses $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ are also shown.}
589: \label{epsk}
590: \end{figure}
591: %
592:
593: Finally, let us briefly discuss the $\Delta a_{\mu}$ anomaly within our scenario.
594: Even though $\Delta a_{\mu}$ does not require in itself any source of CP violation to
595: occur, it is anyway interesting to observe that large NP effects in $B\to\phi K_S$,
596: as required by the current experimental data, typically point towards sizable effects
597: also in $\Delta a_{\mu}$. To see this point explicitly, we report the expression for
598: the SUSY contributions to $\Delta a_{\mu}$~\cite{moroi} in the limit where all the SUSY
599: masses are degenerate with a common mass $m_{\tilde \ell}$. In such a case one finds
600: %
601: \beq
602: \frac{a^{\rm MSSM}_\mu}{ 1 \times 10^{-9}}
603: \simeq 1.5\left(\frac{\tan\beta }{10} \right)
604: \left( \frac{300~\rm GeV}{m_{\tilde \ell}}\right)^2 \rm{sign}(\rm{Re}\,\mu)\,,
605: \label{eq:g_2}
606: \eeq
607: %
608: clearly showing that for SUSY masses of order few hundred $\rm{GeV}$ and moderate to large
609: $\tan\beta$ values, the anomaly $\Delta a_{\mu}\!=\!a_{\mu}^{\rm exp}\!-\!a_{\mu}^{\rm SM}
610: \approx(3\pm 1)\times 10^{-9}$ can be easily explained, provided $\rm{Re}\,\mu\!>\!0$.
611:
612: On the other hand, within a FBMSSM scenario, the chromomagnetic operator $C^{\rm NP}_{8}$ provides
613: the dominant NP source for $S_{\phi(\eta^{\prime})K_S}$ and, in particular, it turns out that
614: ${\rm Im}C^{\rm NP}_{8}\!\sim\!(m_t/m_{\tilde t})^{2}\,\tan\beta\,\sin(\phi_{A_t}+\phi_{\mu})$.
615: Under the mild assumption that $m_{\tilde \ell}$ is not much heavier than $m_{\tilde t}$
616: (as it is the case in most of the SUSY breaking mechanisms), and even assuming maximum CP violation,
617: i.e. $|\sin(\phi_{A_t}+\phi_{\mu})|\sim 1$, we find that $S_{\phi(\eta^{\prime})K_S}\sim 0.4$ naturally
618: leads to $a^{\rm MSSM}_\mu \!>\! 10^{-9}$, in accordance with the experimental data.
619:
620: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
621: \section{Conclusions}
622: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
623:
624: In the present paper we have investigated the low energy implications of a {\it flavor blind}
625: supersymmetric scenario (where the CKM matrix is the only source of flavor violation) in the
626: presence of new CP violating but flavor conserving phases in the soft sector.
627:
628: In particular, we have analyzed their impact on flavor conserving but CP violating transitions
629: like EDMs and also on a large number of flavor and CP violating observables taking into account
630: all the existing theoretical and phenomenological constraints.
631:
632: The NP scenario in question is characterized by a number of NP parameters that is much smaller
633: than encountered in general SUSY models, LHT models and models with a warped extra dimension.
634: This implies striking correlations between various observables that can confirm or exclude this
635: scenario in coming years.
636:
637: We find that $S_{\phi K_{S}}$ and $S_{\eta^{\prime} K_{S}}$ can both differ from $S_{\psi K_{S}}$
638: and can be larger or smaller than $S_{\psi K_{S}}$ with the effect being typically by a factor of
639: $1.5$ larger in $S_{\phi K_{S}}$ in agreement with the pattern observed in the data.
640: Most interestingly, we find that the desire of reproducing the observed low values of $S_{\phi K_{S}}$
641: and $S_{\eta^{\prime} K_{S}}$ implies uniquely:
642:
643: i) Lower bounds on the electron and neutron EDMs $d_{e,n} \gtrsim 10^{-28}\,e\,$cm.
644:
645: ii) Positive and sizable (non-standard) $A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)$ asymmetry in the ballpark
646: of $1\%-5\%$, that is opposite sign to the SM one.
647:
648: iii) The NP effects in $S_{\psi K_{S}}$ and $\Delta M_{d}/\Delta M_{s}$ are very small
649: so that these observables determine the coupling $V_{td}$, its phase $-\beta$ and its
650: magnitude $|V_{td}|$, without significant NP pollution. Therefore, using $S_{\psi K_{S}}$
651: and $\Delta M_{d}/\Delta M_{s}$ we can construct the Unitary Triangle that is characterized
652: by $\beta=21.4^{\circ}\pm 1^\circ$ (from $\sin 2\beta\!=\!0.680 \pm 0.025$~\cite{hfag}),
653: $\gamma=63.5^{\circ}\pm 4.7^\circ$ and $|V_{ub}|\!=\! (3.5\pm 0.2)\cdot 10^{-3}$.
654:
655: iv) $|\epsilon_K|$ turns out to be uniquely enhanced over its SM value up to a level of
656: $< 15\%$. This is welcome in view of the decreased value of the parameter
657: $\hat{B}_{K}$ and the effect is sufficient to reproduce the experimental value of
658: $|\epsilon_K|$ using the experimental value of $(\sin 2\beta)_{\psi K_{S}}$.
659:
660: v) Only small effects in $S_{\psi\phi}$ which could, however, be still visible through
661: the semileptonic asymmetry $A^{s}_{SL}$.
662:
663: vi) A natural explanation of the $\Delta a_{\mu}$ anomaly (under very mild assumptions).
664:
665: Finally, we have emphasized that the synergy of high energy and low energy experiments would
666: provide a unique tool to access information (as the reconstruction of the underlying NP theory)
667: that cannot be obtained from the LHC or the low energy experiments alone.
668:
669: It will be very exciting to monitor the upcoming LHC results together with the improved
670: measurements of $\gamma$, $|V_{ub}|$, $S_{\phi K_{S}}$, $S_{\eta^{\prime} K_{S}}$,
671: $S_{\psi \phi}$, $A^{s}_{SL}$, $A_{CP}(b\to s\gamma)$ and $d_{e,n}$ as well as improved
672: evaluation of $\hat{B}_{K}$ in order to see whether new sources of flavor violation beyond
673: the CKM are required to describe the low energy CP violation in the MSSM framework.\\
674:
675: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
676: \textit{Acknowledgments:}
677: This work has been supported in part by the Cluster of Excellence ``Origin and Structure
678: of the Universe'' and by the German Bundesministerium f{\"u}r Bildung und Forschung under
679: contract 05HT6WOA. We thank M.~Blanke for useful discussions.\\
680:
681: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
682: \textit{Note added:}
683: We thank Dominik Scherer for pointing out the correct expression for the decay amplitude $A_f$~\cite{Hofer:2009xb} in Eq.~(\ref{defbfu}), that enters the calculation of $S_{\phi K_S}$. According to our new definition for the direct CP asymmetry in $b \to s\gamma$, Eq.~(\ref{acp_bsgamma}), the SM prediction of that observable shifts from $A_{CP}^{\rm SM}(b\to s\gamma) \simeq 0.5\%$ to $A_{CP}^{\rm SM}(b\to s\gamma) \simeq -0.5\%$. Correspondingly, the points in the upper plots of Figs.~\ref{sphiks_cpbsg} and~\ref{epsk} as well as in the lower plot of Fig.~\ref{sphiks_mstop} have been shifted downwards by $\simeq 1\%$.
684:
685: We also note that the higher order $\tan\beta$ enhanced gluino contributions to $C_{7,8}$ that have been worked out explicitly in~\cite{Hofer:2009xb} are consistently included in our numerical analysis.
686:
687: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
688: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
689:
690: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% MFV %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
691:
692: \bibitem{MFV}
693: R.~S.~Chivukula and H.~Georgi, Phys. Lett. {\bf B188} (1987) 99;
694: L.~J.~Hall and L.Randall, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 65} (1990) 2939;
695: A.~J.~Buras et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B500} (2001) 161.
696:
697: \bibitem{MFV_gen}
698: G.~D'Ambrosio et al., Nucl. Phys. {\bf B645} (2002) 155.
699:
700: \bibitem{hfag}
701: E.~Barberio {\it et al.} [Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFAG) Collaboration],
702: %``Averages of b-hadron properties at the end of 2006,''
703: arXiv:0704.3575 [hep-ex].
704:
705: \bibitem{hatBK}
706: D.~J.~Antonio {\it et al.} [RBC Collaboration and UKQCD Collaboration],
707: %``Neutral kaon mixing from 2+1 flavor domain wall QCD,''
708: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 100}, 032001 (2008)
709: [arXiv:hep-ph/0702042].
710: %%CITATION = PRLTA,100,032001;%%
711:
712: \bibitem{BG}
713: A.~J.~Buras and D.~Guadagnoli,
714: %``Correlations among new CP violating effects in Delta F = 2 observables,''
715: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 78}, 033005 (2008)
716: [arXiv:0805.3887 [hep-ph]].
717: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D78,033005;%%
718:
719: \bibitem{SL}
720: E.~Lunghi and A.~Soni,
721: %``Possible Indications of New Physics in Bd-mixing and in sin(2 beta)
722: %Determinations,''
723: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 666}, 162 (2008)
724: [arXiv:0803.4340 [hep-ph]].
725: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B666,162;%%
726:
727:
728: \bibitem{first_evidence}
729: A.~Lenz and U.~Nierste,
730: %``Theoretical update of B/s - anti-B/s mixing,''
731: JHEP {\bf 0706}, 072 (2007)
732: [arXiv:hep-ph/0612167];
733: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0706,072;%%
734: M.~Bona {\it et al.} [UTfit Collaboration],
735: %``First Evidence of New Physics in b <--> s Transitions,''
736: arXiv:0803.0659 [hep-ph].
737: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0803.0659;%%
738:
739: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% (g-2) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
740:
741: \bibitem{g_2_th}
742: M.~Passera,
743: %``The standard model prediction of the muon anomalous magnetic moment,''
744: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 31} (2005) R75
745: [hep-ph/0411168];
746: %``Status of the standard model prediction of the muon g-2,''
747: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 155} (2006) 365
748: [hep-ph/0509372].
749:
750: \bibitem{g_2_exp}
751: H.~N.~Brown {\it et al.} [Muon g-2 Collaboration],
752: %``Improved measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment,''
753: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 091101
754: [hep-ex/0009029];
755: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {86}{2001}{2227} [hep-ex/0102017];
756: %``Measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.7-ppm,''
757: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89} (2002) 101804
758: [hep-ex/0208001];
759: %``Measurement of the negative muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.7-ppm,''
760: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92} (2004) 161802
761: [hep-ex/0401008].
762:
763: \bibitem{passera_mh}
764: M.~Passera, W.~J.~Marciano and A.~Sirlin,
765: %``The muon g-2 and the bounds on the Higgs boson mass,''
766: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 78}, 013009 (2008)
767: [arXiv:0804.1142 [hep-ph]].
768: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D78,013009;%%
769:
770: \bibitem{susy}
771: F.~Gabbiani et al.,
772: %``A complete analysis of FCNC and CP constraints in general SUSY extensions
773: %of the standard model,''
774: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 477}, 321 (1996)
775: [arXiv:hep-ph/9604387];
776: % \bibitem{Ciuchini:2007ha}
777: M.~Ciuchini et al.,
778: %``Soft SUSY breaking grand unification: Leptons vs quarks on the flavor
779: %playground,''
780: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 783} (2007) 112
781: [arXiv:hep-ph/0702144].
782: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B783,112;%%
783: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B477,321;%%
784:
785: \bibitem{lht}
786: M.~Blanke et al.,
787: %``Particle antiparticle mixing, epsilon(K), Delta(Gamma(q)), A(SL)(q),
788: %A(CP)(B/d --> psi K(S)), A(CP)(B/s --> psi Phi) and B --> X/s,d gamma in the
789: %littlest Higgs model with T-parity,''
790: JHEP {\bf 0612}, 003 (2006)
791: [arXiv:hep-ph/0605214].
792: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0612,003;%%
793:
794: \bibitem{ABP2}
795: W.~Altmannshofer, A.~J.~Buras, S.~Gori, P.~Paradisi and D.~M.~Straub,
796: %``Anatomy and Phenomenology of FCNC and CPV Effects in SUSY Theories,''
797: arXiv:0909.1333 [hep-ph].
798: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0909.1333;%%
799:
800:
801: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% EDMs %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
802:
803: \bibitem{peccei}
804: R.~D.~Peccei and H.~R.~Quinn, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.{\bf 38}, 1440 (1977).
805:
806: \bibitem{pospelov}
807: %For a review of EDMs please see,
808: M.~Pospelov and A.~Ritz,
809: Annals Phys.\ {\bf 318}, 119 (2005) and therein references.
810:
811: \bibitem{expedm}
812: C.~A.~Baker {\it et al.},
813: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 97}, 131801 (2006).
814:
815: \bibitem{kaplan}
816: A.~G.~Cohen et al., Phys.\ Lett. {\bf B388}, 588 (1996).
817:
818: \bibitem{expedme}
819: B.~C.~Regan, E.~D.~Commins, C.~J.~Schmidt and D.~DeMille,
820: %``New limit on the electron electric dipole moment,''
821: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88}, 071805 (2002).
822: %%CITATION = PRLTA,88,071805;%%
823:
824: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
825:
826: \bibitem{BDK_CERN}
827: M.~Artuso {\it et al.},
828: %``B, D and K decays,''
829: arXiv:0801.1833 [hep-ph].
830: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0801.1833;%%
831:
832: \bibitem{superb}
833: M.~Bona {\it et al.},
834: %``SuperB: A High-Luminosity Asymmetric e+ e- Super Flavor Factory. Conceptual
835: %Design Report,''
836: arXiv:0709.0451 [hep-ex].
837: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0709.0451;%%
838:
839: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
840:
841:
842: \bibitem{pilaftsis}
843: D.~Chang et al., Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 82}, 900 (1999).
844:
845: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% b->sgamma %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
846:
847: \bibitem{soares}
848: J.~M.~Soares,
849: %``CP violation in radiative b decays,''
850: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 367}, 575 (1991).
851: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B367,575;%%
852:
853: \bibitem{KN}
854: A.~Kagan and M.~Neubert,
855: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 58}, 094012 (1998);
856: Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C 7}, 5 (1999).
857:
858: \bibitem{hurth}
859: T.~Hurth, E.~Lunghi and W.~Porod,
860: %``Untagged B --> X/s+d gamma CP asymmetry as a probe for new physics,''
861: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 704}, 56 (2005)
862: [arXiv:hep-ph/0312260].
863: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B704,56;%%
864:
865:
866: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% B -> phi K_S %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
867:
868: \bibitem{BBL}
869: G.~Buchalla et al.,
870: %``Weak Decays Beyond Leading Logarithms,''
871: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 68}, 1125 (1996)
872: [arXiv:hep-ph/9512380].
873: %%CITATION = RMPHA,68,1125;%%
874:
875: \bibitem{grossman}
876: Y.~Grossman and M.~P.~Worah,
877: %``CP asymmetries in B decays with new physics in decay amplitudes,''
878: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 395}, 241 (1997)
879: [arXiv:hep-ph/9612269].
880: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B395,241;%%
881:
882: \bibitem{buchalla}
883: G.~Buchalla et al.,
884: %``The pattern of CP asymmetries in b --> s transitions,''
885: JHEP {\bf 0509}, 074 (2005)
886: [arXiv:hep-ph/0503151].
887: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0509,074;%%
888:
889: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
890:
891: \bibitem{Misiak}
892: M.~Misiak {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 98}, 022002 (2007).
893: % M.~Misiak and M.~Steinhauser, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 764}, 62 (2007);
894: % M.~Misiak and M.~Steinhauser, private communication.
895:
896:
897: \bibitem{belle}
898: P.~Koppenburg {\it et al.} [Belle Collab.],
899: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93} (2004) 061803
900: [hep-ex/0403004].
901: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0403004;%%
902:
903: \bibitem{babar}
904: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BaBar Collab.],
905: %``Measurement of the branching fraction and photon energy moments of B -->
906: %X/s gamma and A(CP)(B --> X(s+d) gamma),''
907: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 97} (2006) 171803
908: [hep-ex/0607071].
909: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0607071;%%
910:
911:
912: \bibitem{moroi}
913: T.~Moroi,
914: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53} (1996) 6565 [hep-ph/9512396].
915:
916:
917: \bibitem{Hofer:2009xb}
918: L.~Hofer, U.~Nierste and D.~Scherer,
919: %``Resummation of tan-beta-enhanced supersymmetric loop corrections beyond the
920: %decoupling limit,''
921: arXiv:0907.5408 [hep-ph].
922: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0907.5408;%%
923:
924:
925: \end{thebibliography}
926:
927:
928: \end{document}
929:
930:
931: