1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: \usepackage{amssymb,amsmath,bm}

3: \usepackage{epsf}

4: \usepackage{epsfig}

5: \usepackage{psfrag}

6: \usepackage{rotating}

7: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0pt}

8: \setlength{\textwidth}{15.8cm}

9: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.4in}

10: \setlength{\textheight}{23cm}

11: \addtolength{\jot}{5pt}

12: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-3pt}

13: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}

14: 

15: 

16: 

17: \def\OEE{\Omega_{\rm IB}}

18: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{eqnarray}}

19: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{eqnarray}}

20: \newcommand{\nnl}{\nonumber\\}

21: % Weinberg angles

22: \newcommand{\sw}{s_W}

23: \newcommand{\cw}{c_W}

24: 

25: \newcommand{\RE}{{\rm Re}}

26: \newcommand{\IM}{{\rm Im}}

27: \newcommand{\vcb}{|V_{cb}|}

28: \newcommand{\vtd}{|V_{td}|}

29: \newcommand{\vub}{|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|}

30: \newcommand{\vts}{|V_{ts}|}

31: \newcommand{\vus}{|V_{us}|}

32: 

33: 

34: \def\R1{\varepsilon_1}

35: \def\E8{\varepsilon_8}

36: \def\gat{\tilde{\gamma}}

37: \def\gh{\hat{g}}

38: \def\gt{\tilde{g}}

39: \def\gah{\hat{\gamma}}

40: \def\ga{\gamma}

41: \def\gaf{\gamma_{5}}

42:  

43: \def\r#1{(\ref{#1})}

44: \def\eps{\varepsilon}

45: \def\epe{\varepsilon'/\varepsilon}

46: \def\as{\alpha_s}

47: \newcommand{\eqn}{\ref}

48: \def\Heff{{\cal H}_{\rm eff}}

49: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

50: \newcommand{\mt}{m_{\rm t}}

51: \newcommand{\mtb}{\overline{m}_{\rm t}}

52: \newcommand{\mcb}{\overline{m}_{\rm c}}

53: \newcommand{\mc}{m_{\rm c}}

54: \newcommand{\ms}{m_{\rm s}}

55: \newcommand{\md}{m_{\rm d}}

56: \newcommand{\mb}{m_{\rm b}}

57: \newcommand{\mn}{m_{\rm n}}

58: \newcommand{\mw}{M_W}

59: \newcommand{\mz}{M_{\rm Z}}

60: 

61: \newcommand{\gev}{\, {\rm GeV}}

62: \newcommand{\mev}{\, {\rm MeV}}

63: \newcommand{\bsi}{B_6^{(1/2)}}

64: \newcommand{\bei}{B_8^{(3/2)}}

65: \newcommand{\Lms}{\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}}

66: \newcommand{\bsg}{$b \to s \gamma$ }

67: \newcommand{\Bsg}{$B \to X_s \gamma$ }

68: \newcommand{\newsection}[1]{\section{#1}\setcounter{equation}{0}}

69: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

70: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

71: \newcommand{\bd}{\begin{displaymath}}

72: \newcommand{\ed}{\end{displaymath}}

73: \newcommand{\aem}{\alpha}

74: \newcommand{\Bsee}{$B \to X_s e^+ e^-$ }

75: \newcommand{\bsee}{$b \to s e^+ e^-$ }

76: \newcommand{\bcenu}{$b \to c e \bar\nu $ }

77: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

78: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

79: \newcommand{\bi}{\begin{itemize}}

80: \newcommand{\ei}{\end{itemize}}

81: \newcommand{\ord}{{\cal O}}

82: \newcommand{\order}{{\cal O}}

83: \newcommand{\f}{\frac}

84: \newcommand{\Ctilde}{\tilde{C}}

85: 

86: \def\kpn{K^+\rightarrow\pi^+\nu\bar\nu}

87: \def\klpn{K_{\rm L}\rightarrow\pi^0\nu\bar\nu}

88: 

89: \def\klm{K_{\rm L} \to \mu^+\mu^-}

90: \newcommand{\kppn}{K^+ \to \pi^+ \nu \bar \nu}

91: \newcommand{\kmm}{K_{\rm L} \to \mu^+ \mu^-}

92: \newcommand{\kpe}{K_{\rm L} \to \pi^0 e^+ e^-}

93: 

94: 

95: 

96: 

97: \def\aspi{\frac{\as}{4\pi}}

98: \def\gf{\gamma_5}

99: \newcommand{\imlt}{\IM\lambda_t}

100: \newcommand{\relt}{\RE\lambda_t}

101: \newcommand{\relc}{\RE\lambda_c}

102: 

103: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.3}

104: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

105: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}} 

106:  

107:  

108: \begin{document}

109: \thispagestyle{empty}

110: \phantom{xxx}

111: \vskip1truecm

112: \begin{flushright}

113:  TUM-HEP-626/06

114: \end{flushright}

115: \vskip1.5truecm

116: 

117: 

118: 

119: \begin{center}

120:  {\Large\bf Minimal Flavour Violation\vspace{-0.1cm}\\ 

121: Waiting for Precise\vspace{0.2cm}  Measurements\vspace{+0.1cm}\\

122: of \boldmath{$\Delta M_{s}$}, \boldmath{$S_{\psi\phi}$},

123: \boldmath{$A^s_\text{SL}$}, \boldmath{$|V_{ub}|$}, \boldmath{$\gamma$} and \boldmath{$B^0_{s,d}\to \mu^+\mu^-$} 

124: }

125: \end{center}

126: 

127: 

128: \vskip0.8truecm

129: 

130: 

131: \begin{center}

132: {\large\bf Monika Blanke, Andrzej J. Buras,\\ 

133: %\vspace{0.2truecm} 

134: Diego Guadagnoli

135: and Cecilia Tarantino} 

136: \vspace{0.4truecm}

137: 

138: {\sl Physik Department, Technische Universit\"at M\"unchen,

139: D-85748 Garching, Germany}

140: 

141: \vspace{0.2truecm}

142: 

143: \end{center}

144: 

145: 

146: \centerline{\bf Abstract}

147: \noindent

148: We emphasize that the recent measurements of the $B^0_{s}-\bar B^0_{s}$ mass difference 

149: $\Delta M_{s}$ by the CDF and D{\O} collaborations 

150: offer an important {\it model

151: independent} test of  minimal flavour violation (MFV). The improved 

152: measurements of the angle $\gamma$ in the unitarity triangle and of 

153: $|V_{ub}|$ from tree level decays, 

154: combined with future accurate 

155: measurements of $\Delta M_{s}$, $S_{\psi K_S}$, $S_{\psi\phi}$, $Br(B_{d,s}\to\mu^+\mu^-)$, 

156: $Br(B\to X_{d,s}\nu\bar\nu)$, $Br(\kpn)$ and $Br(\klpn)$ and improved

157: values of the relevant non-perturbative parameters, will allow to test the

158: MFV hypothesis in a model independent manner to a high accuracy. 

159: In particular, the difference between 

160: the {\it reference} unitarity triangle obtained from tree level processes

161:  and the  {\it universal}

162:  unitarity triangle (UUT) in MFV models would signal either new flavour 

163: violating interactions and/or new local operators that are suppressed

164: in MFV models with low $\tan \beta$, with the former best tested

165: through $S_{\psi\phi}$ and $K_\text{L}\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu$.  

166:  A brief discussion of non-MFV scenarios is

167: also given. In this context

168: we identify in the recent literature a relative sign error between Standard

169: Model and new physics contributions to $S_{\psi\phi}$, that has an impact on

170: the correlation between $S_{\psi\phi}$ and $A^s_\text{SL}$.

171: We point out that the ratios $S_{\psi \phi}/A^s_\text{SL}$ and $\Delta M_s/\Delta \Gamma_s$ will allow to determine $\Delta M_s/(\Delta M_s)^\text{SM}$. Similar proposals for the determination of $\Delta M_d/(\Delta M_d)^\text{SM}$ are also given.

172: %%% end title page %%%%%%%%%%%%%

173: 

174: 

175: 

176: \newpage

177: 

178: \section{Introduction}\setcounter{equation}{0}

179: 

180: The recent measurement of the $B^0_{s}-\bar B^0_{s}$ mass

181: difference by the CDF collaboration \cite{CDFnew} 

182: \be\label{CDF}

183: \Delta M_{s}=(17.33^{+0.42}_{-0.21}\pm 0.07)/{\rm ps}

184: \ee

185: and the two-sided bound by

186: the D{\O} collaboration \cite{Abazov:2006dm} $17/{\rm ps}\le \Delta M_{s}\le 21/{\rm ps}\; (90\%~~{\rm C.L.})$

187: provided still another constraint on the Standard Model (SM) and its 

188: extensions. In particular, the value of $\Delta M_{s}$ measured by the

189: CDF collaboration turned out to be surprisingly below the SM

190: predictions obtained from other constraints \cite{UTFIT,CKMFIT}

191: \be\label{DMsSM}

192: \left(\Delta

193:   M_s\right)^\text{SM}_\text{UTfit}=(21.5\pm2.6)/\text{ps},\qquad

194: \left(\Delta

195:   M_s\right)^\text{SM}_\text{CKMfitter}=\left(21.7^{+5.9}_{-4.2}\right)/\text{ps}.

196: \ee

197: The tension between \eqref{CDF} and \eqref{DMsSM} is

198: not yet significant, due to the sizable non-perturbative

199: uncertainties.

200: A consistent though slightly smaller value is found for the mass difference

201: directly from its SM expression \cite{BJW90}

202: \be

203: (\Delta M_s)^\text{SM}_\text{direct}=\dfrac{G_F^2}{6\pi^2}

204: \eta_B m_{B_s} \left(\hat B_{B_s} F_{B_s}^2\right) M_W^2 S(x_t) |V_{ts}|^2 = (17.8 \pm 4.8)/\text{ps}\,,

205: \label{DMsSMb}

206: \ee

207: with $|V_{ts}|=0.0409 \pm 0.0009$ and the other input parameters collected in Table \ref{tab:input}.

208: 

209: It should be

210: emphasized that the simplest extensions of the SM favoured  $\Delta

211: M_{s}>(\Delta M_s)^\text{SM}$. A notable exception is the MSSM with

212: minimal flavour violation (MFV) and large $\tan\beta$, where the

213: suppression of $\Delta M_s$ with respect to $(\Delta M_s)^\text{SM}$ has

214: been predicted \cite{BCRS}. In more complicated models, like the MSSM

215: with new flavour violating interactions \cite{Ciuchini:2006dx},

216: $\Delta M_s$ can be smaller or larger than $(\Delta M_s)^\text{SM}$.

217: 

218: In this paper we would like to emphasize that this new result

219: offers an important {\it model independent} test of 

220: models with MFV 

221: \cite{UUT,AMGIISST,Chivukula:1987py}, 

222: within the $B^0_d$ and

223: $B^0_s$ systems. We will summarize its implications for MFV 

224: models 

225: and discuss briefly non-MFV scenarios. The first version of our paper appeared few days before 

226: the announcement of the result in (\ref{CDF}) \cite{CDFnew}, which has

227: considerably reduced the uncertainties and prompted us to extend our analysis.

228: 

229: 

230: 

231: 

232: 

233: We will use first a constrained definition of MFV \cite{UUT}, 

234: to be called CMFV in what follows,

235: in which

236: \begin{itemize}

237: \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt plus1pt minus 1pt}

238: \setlength{\topsep}{0pt plus1pt minus 1pt}

239: \item

240:  flavour and CP violation is

241:  exclusively governed by the CKM matrix \cite{CKM}

242: \item

243: the structure of low energy operators is the same as in the SM.

244: \end{itemize}

245: 

246: The second condition introduces an additional constraint not 

247: present in the general formulation of \cite{AMGIISST}, 

248: but has the virtue that 

249: CMFV can be tested by means of

250: relations between various observables that are independent of the parameters 

251: specific to a given CMFV model \cite{UUT}. The violation of these relations 

252: would indicate the relevance of new low energy operators and/or the presence 

253: of new sources of flavour and CP violation, encountered for instance in general 

254: supersymmetric models \cite{GGMS}. The first studies of the implications 

255: of the $\Delta M_s$ experimental results on the parameters of such models can be found

256: in \cite{Ciuchini:2006dx,Endo:2006dm,Foster:2006ze,Cheung:2006tm,Baek:2006fq,He:2006bk} and the result in

257: \eqref{CDF} has been included in the analyses of the UTfit and

258: CKMfitter collaborations \cite{UTFIT,CKMFIT}.

259: 

260: Our paper is organized as follows: Section 2 is devoted entirely to

261: CMFV and $\Delta B=2$ transitions. In Section 3 we study the

262: implications of \eqref{CDF} on the CMFV relations between $\Delta B=1$

263: and  $\Delta B=2$ processes. In Section 4 we discuss briefly the tests

264: involving both $K$ and $B$ systems. In Section 5 we discuss the impact

265: of new operators still in the context of MFV. In Section 6 we

266: analyse some aspects of non-MFV scenarios, and in Section 7 we have a

267: closer look at the CP asymmetry $S_{\psi\phi}$ and its correlation

268: with $A^s_\text{SL}$. In

269: Section 8 we give a

270: brief summary of our findings.

271: 

272: \section{Basic Relations and their First Tests}\setcounter{equation}{0}

273: 

274: It will be useful to adopt the following sets of fundamental 

275: parameters related to the CKM matrix and the unitarity triangle 

276: shown in  Fig.~\ref{fig:utriangle}:

277: \begin{gather}\label{set1}

278: \vus\equiv\lambda,\qquad \vcb,\qquad R_b,\qquad \gamma,\\

279: \vus\equiv\lambda,\qquad \vcb,\qquad R_t,\qquad \beta.\label{set2}

280: \end{gather}

281: 

282: 

283: 

284: 

285: The following known expressions will turn out to be useful in what 

286: follows:

287: \begin{gather}

288: \label{2.94}

289: R_b \equiv \frac{| V_{ud}^{}V^*_{ub}|}{| V_{cd}^{}V^*_{cb}|}

290: = \sqrt{\bar\varrho^2 +\bar\eta^2}

291: = \left(1-\frac{\lambda^2}{2}\right)\frac{1}{\lambda}

292: \left| \frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}} \right|,\\

293: \label{2.95}

294: R_t \equiv \frac{| V_{td}^{}V^*_{tb}|}{| V_{cd}^{}V^*_{cb}|} =

295:  \sqrt{(1-\bar\varrho)^2 +\bar\eta^2}

296: =\frac{1}{\lambda} \left| \frac{V_{td}}{V_{cb}} \right|.

297: \end{gather}

298: 

299: 

300: \begin{figure}[hbt]

301: \vspace{0.10in}

302: \centerline{

303: \epsfysize=1.8in

304: \epsffile{triangle.eps}

305: }

306: \vspace{0.08in}

307: \caption{Unitarity Triangle.}\label{fig:utriangle}

308: \end{figure}

309: 

310: While  set (\ref{set1}) can be determined entirely from tree level

311: decays and consequently independently of new physics contributions, the 

312: variables $R_t$ and $\beta$ in set (\ref{set2}) can only be determined in

313: one-loop induced processes and are therefore in principle sensitive to new

314: physics. It is the comparison between the values for the two sets of 

315: parameters determined in the respective processes, that offers a powerful 

316: test of CMFV, when the unitarity of the CKM matrix is imposed. One finds

317: then the relations

318: %

319: \be\label{VUBG}

320: R_b=\sqrt{1+R_t^2-2 R_t\cos\beta},\qquad

321: \cot\gamma=\frac{1-R_t\cos\beta}{R_t\sin\beta},

322: \ee

323: %

324: which are profound within CMFV for the following reasons. 

325: The quantities on the l.h.s. 

326: of (\ref{VUBG}) can be determined entirely in tree level processes, whereas 

327: the variables $\beta$ and $R_t$ from one-loop induced processes. The

328: important virtue of CMFV, to be contrasted with other extensions of the SM, 

329: is that the determination of 

330: $\beta$ and $R_t$ does not require the specification of a given CMFV model. 

331: In particular, determining $\beta$ and $R_t$ by means of

332: %

333: \be\label{R1}

334: \sin 2\beta= S_{\psi K_S}, 

335: \ee

336: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber

337: R_t&=&\frac{\xi}{\lambda}\sqrt{\frac{\Delta M_d}{\Delta M_s}}

338:      \sqrt{\frac{m_{B_s}}{m_{B_d}}}

339:     \left[1-\lambda\xi\sqrt{\frac{\Delta M_d}{\Delta M_s}}

340: \sqrt{\frac{m_{B_s}}{m_{B_d}}}\cos\beta+\frac{\lambda^2}{2}+\ord(\lambda^4) 

341: \right]\\

342: \label{RRt}

343: &\approx& 0.923~\left[\frac{\xi}{1.23}\right] 

344: \sqrt{\frac{17.4/\text{ps}}{\Delta M_s}} 

345: \sqrt{\frac{\Delta M_d}{0.507/\text{ps}}}, 

346: \end{eqnarray}

347: where \cite{Hashimoto}

348: \be\label{xi}

349: \xi = 

350: \frac{\sqrt{\hat B_{B_s}}F_{B_s} }{ \sqrt{\hat B_{B_d}}F_{B_d}}=1.23\pm 0.06,

351: \ee

352: allows to construct the UUT \cite{UUT} for all CMFV models that

353: can be compared with the reference unitarity triangle \cite{refut} 

354: following from $R_b$ 

355: and $\gamma$. The difference between these two triangles signals new 

356: sources of flavour violation and/or new low energy operators 

357:  beyond the CMFV scenario. 

358: Here, $S_{\psi K_S}$ stands for the coefficient of 

359: $\sin(\Delta M_d t)$ in the mixing induced CP asymmetry in 

360: $B^0_d(\bar B^0_d)\to \psi K_S$ and, in obtaining the expression

361: (\ref{RRt}) for $R_t$, we have taken into account a small difference between $\vcb$ and $\vts$, 

362: that will play a role once the accuracy on $\xi$ and $\Delta M_s$ 

363: improves.

364: 

365: The values of the input parameters entering in \eqref{RRt} and used in

366: the rest of the paper are collected in Table \ref{tab:input}. In

367: particular, we take as lattice averages of $B$-parameters and

368: decay constants the values quoted in \cite{Hashimoto}, which combine

369: unquenched results obtained with different lattice actions.

370: 

371: \begin{table}[ht]

372: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}\setlength{\arraycolsep}{1pt}

373: \center{\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}

374: \hline 

375: {\small $G_F=1.16637\cdot 10^{-5} \gev^{-2}$} & {\small$|V_{ub}|=0.00423(35)$} \\

376: {\small$\mw= 80.425(38)\gev$} &{\small $\vcb = 0.0416(7)$\hfill\cite{BBpage}}\\\cline{2-2}

377: {\small$\alpha=1/127.9$} &{\small$\lambda=0.225(1)$\hfill\cite{CKM05}} \\\cline{2-2}

378: {\small$\sin^2 \theta_W=0.23120(15)$} &{\small$F_{B_s} \sqrt{\hat B_{B_s}}= 262(35)\mev$}\\

379: {\small$m_\mu= 105.66\mev$} & {\small$\xi=1.23(6)$} \\

380: {\small$\Delta M_K= 3.483(6)\cdot 10^{-15}\gev$}&{\small $\hat B_{B_d}=1.28(10)$}\\

381: {\small$F_K= 159.8(15)\mev$} & {\small $\hat B_{B_s}=1.30(10)$}\\

382: {\small$m_{K^0}= 497.65(2)\mev$}\hfill\cite{PDG} & {\small $\hat B_{B_s}/\hat B_{B_d}=1.02(4)$\hfill\cite{Hashimoto}}\\\hline

383: {\small$m_{B_d}= 5.2793(7)\gev$} &{\small$\eta_1=1.32(32)$\hfill\cite{HNa}}\\ \cline{2-2}

384: {\small$m_{B_s}= 5.370(2)\gev$} & {\small$\eta_3=0.47(5)$\hfill\cite{HNb}}\\\cline{2-2}

385: {\small$\tau(B_d)= 1.530(9)\,\rm{ps}$} &{\small$\eta_2=0.57(1)$}\\

386: {\small$\tau(B_s)= 1.466(59)\,\rm{ps}$} &{\small$\eta_B=0.55(1)$\hfill\cite{BJW90}}\\\cline{2-2}

387: {\small$\tau(B_s)/\tau(B_d)=0.958(39)$}&{\small$\eta_Y=1.012(5)$\hfill\cite{BB99}}\\\cline{2-2}

388: {\small$\Delta M_d=0.507(5)/ \rm{ps}$} &{\small$\mcb= 1.30(5)\gev$}\\

389: {\small $S_{\psi K_S}=0.687(32)$ \hfill\cite{BBpage}}  &{\small$\mtb= 163.8(32)\gev$}\\

390: \hline

391: \end{tabular}  }

392: \caption {{Values of the experimental and theoretical

393:     quantities used as input parameters.}}

394: \label{tab:input} 

395: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}

396: \end{table}

397: 

398: 

399: 

400: 

401: 

402: Until 

403: the recent measurement of $\Delta M_s$ in (\ref{CDF})  \cite{CDFnew}, 

404: none

405: of the relations in (\ref{VUBG})  could be tested in a 

406: model independent manner, even if the imposition of other constraints like 

407: $\varepsilon_K$ and separate information on $\Delta M_d$ and $\Delta M_s$ 

408: implied already interesting results for models with CMFV \cite{UTFIT,CKMFIT,MFVB}.

409: In particular in \cite{AMGIISST} the UUT has been constructed by using 

410: $\varepsilon_K$, $\Delta M_d$ and $\Delta M_s$ and treating the relevant 

411: one-loop function $S$ as a free parameter. A similar strategy has been used 

412: earlier in \cite{AJBRB} to derive a lower bound on $\sin 2\beta$ from CMFV. 

413: While such an approach is clearly legitimate, we think that using only 

414: quantities in which one has fully eliminated the dependence on new physics 

415: parameters allows a more transparent test of CMFV, and in the case of data 

416: indicating 

417: departures from CMFV, to identify clearly their origin. 

418: 

419:  

420: With the measurement of $\Delta M_s$ 

421: in (\ref{CDF}) at hand, $S_{\psi K_S}$ and $\Delta M_d$ known 

422: very precisely \cite{BBpage}, we find using \eqref{R1} and \eqref{RRt}

423: \be\label{input}

424: (\sin 2 \beta)_\text{CMFV}= 0.687\pm 0.032, \qquad (R_t)_{\rm CMFV}=0.923\pm0.044,

425: \ee

426: and subsequently, using (\ref{VUBG}),

427: \be\label{RCMFV}

428: (R_b)_{\rm CMFV}=0.370\pm0.020, \qquad \gamma_{\rm CMFV}=(67.4\pm6.8)^\circ.

429: \ee

430: This should be compared with the values for

431: $R_b$ and $\gamma$ known from tree level semileptonic $B$ decays \cite{BBpage} and 

432: $B\to D^{(*)}K$ \cite{UTFIT}, respectively

433: \be\label{input2}

434: (R_b)_\text{true}=0.440\pm 0.037, \qquad \gamma_\text{true}=(71\pm16)^\circ.

435: \ee

436: The  relations 

437: in (\ref{VUBG}) can then be tested for the first time, even if the quality 

438: of the test is still not satisfactory. 

439: We have dropped in (\ref{input2})  the solution 

440: $\gamma=-(109\pm16)^\circ$ as it is inconsistent with $\beta >0$ within the 

441: MFV framework, unless the new physics contributions to the 

442: one-loop function $S$ in $B^0_d-\bar B^0_d$ mixing reverse its sign 

443: \cite{BF01}. Moreover, it is ruled out by the lower bound on $\Delta M_s$.

444: 

445: 

446: \begin{figure}\begin{minipage}{7cm}

447: \epsfig{file=Rb_versus_beta.eps,scale=1}\end{minipage}\hfill

448: \begin{minipage}{7.7cm}

449: \epsfig{file=gamma_versus_xi.eps,scale=1}\end{minipage}

450: \label{fig:Rb_and_gamma}\vspace{0.2cm}

451: \caption{$R_b$ and $\gamma$ in CMFV as functions  of $\sin 2\beta$ and

452:   $\xi$, respectively.}

453: \end{figure}

454: 

455: 

456: 

457: 

458: 

459: With future improved 

460: measurements of $\Delta M_s$, of $\gamma$ from $B\to D^{(*)}K$ and other 

461: tree level decays, a more accurate 

462: value for $R_b$ from $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$ and a more accurate value of $\xi$, 

463: the important tests of CMFV summarized in (\ref{VUBG}) 

464: will become effective.

465: 

466: In the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:Rb_and_gamma} we show 

467: $R_b$ as a function of 

468: $\sin 2\beta$  

469: for $\xi$ and $\Delta M_s$  varied in the ranges (\ref{xi}) and 

470: (\ref{CDF}) respectively. The lower part of the range (\ref{input2}) obtained for $R_b$ from

471: tree level semileptonic decays is also shown. This plot and the comparison of (\ref{RCMFV}) and 

472: (\ref{input2})

473: show very clearly the tension between 

474: the values for $\sin 2\beta$ and $R_b$ in (\ref{input}) and (\ref{input2}),

475: respectively. We will return to this issue in Section 6. 

476: For completeness we recall here the even stronger tension that exists between

477: the value of $R_b$ in (\ref{input2}) and the measured $(\sin

478: 2\beta)_{\phi K_S}=0.47 \pm 0.19$ \cite{BBpage}

479: coming from the CP asymmetry in $B^0_d(\bar B^0_d)\to \phi K_S$, which is sensitive to new physics in the decay amplitude. 

480: 

481: In  the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:Rb_and_gamma} we show $\gamma$ as a function of $\xi$ with $\Delta M_s$ and $\sin 2\beta$ varied in 

482: the ranges \eqref{CDF} and 

483: (\ref{input}), respectively.

484: As the uncertainty in this plot originates dominantly from $\Delta M_s$, 

485: the main impact of the recent measurement of $\Delta M_s$ in (\ref{CDF})

486:  is to constrain 

487: the angle $\gamma$ in the UUT. With the sizable errors on $\xi$ in (\ref{xi})

488:  and 

489: $\gamma_\text{true}$ in (\ref{input2}),  the second 

490: CMFV relation in (\ref{VUBG}) is satisfied, as seen from \eqref{RCMFV} and \eqref{input2}, but clearly this test is not

491: conclusive at present. It will be interesting to monitor the plots in Fig.~\ref{fig:Rb_and_gamma},  

492:  when the errors 

493: on the  values of the quantities involved in these tests will be reduced with

494: time. 

495: 

496: 

497: Finally, in Fig.~\ref{fig:RUT-UUT} we show the universal unitarity triangle

498: and the reference unitarity triangle, constructed using the central

499: values in \eqref{input} and \eqref{input2}, respectively. The

500: qualitative differences between CMFV and tree determination, to which

501: we will return in Section 6, can

502: clearly be seen in this figure. However, these differences are small

503: and the basic message of Fig.~\ref{fig:RUT-UUT} is that from the point

504: of view of the so-called ``$B_d$-triangle'' of

505: Fig.~\ref{fig:utriangle}, the present measurements exhibit CMFV in a

506: reasonable shape.

507: 

508: \begin{figure}

509: \center{\epsfig{file=rut-uut.eps}}

510: \caption{Reference Unitarity Triangle and Universal Unitarity

511:   Triangle.}

512: \label{fig:RUT-UUT}

513: \end{figure}

514: 

515: 

516: \section{Implications for Rare Decays}\setcounter{equation}{0}

517: 

518: The result for $\Delta M_s$ in (\ref{CDF}) 

519:         has immediately 

520:         four additional profound consequences for CMFV models:

521: \begin{itemize}

522: \item

523:  The ratio

524: \be\label{R1A}

525: \frac{Br(B_{s}\to\mu^+\mu^-)}{Br(B_{d}\to\mu^+\mu^-)}

526: =\frac{\hat B_{B_{d}}}{\hat B_{B_{s}}}

527: \frac{\tau( B_{s})}{\tau( B_{d})} 

528: \frac{\Delta M_{s}}{\Delta M_{d}}= 32.4\pm1.9

529: \ee

530: can be predicted very accurately \cite{AJB03}, 

531: subject to only small non-perturbative 

532: uncertainties in $\hat B_{B_s}/\hat B_{B_d}$ and experimental 

533: uncertainties in $\tau( B_{s})/\tau( B_{d})$.

534: \item

535: Similarly, one can predict

536: \be\label{Bnunu}

537: \frac{Br(B\to X_s\nu\bar\nu)}{Br(B\to X_d\nu\bar\nu)}

538: =\frac{\vts^2}{\vtd^2}

539: =\frac{m_{B_d}}{m_{B_s}}

540: \frac{1}{\xi^2}

541: \frac{\Delta M_s}{\Delta M_d}=22.3\pm2.2,

542: \end{equation}

543: where the second relation will offer a very good test of CMFV, once $\vts$ and 

544: $\vtd$ will be known from the determination of the reference unitarity 

545: triangle and the error on $\xi$ will be decreased.

546: \item

547: From (\ref{Bnunu}) we can also extract

548: \be\label{vtdvts}

549: \frac{\vtd}{\vts}=0.212\pm0.011

550: \ee

551: which, although a bit larger, is still consistent with the results of the UTfit \cite{UTFIT} and CKMfitter \cite{CKMFIT} 

552: collaborations and the recent 

553: determination of this ratio from $B\to V\gamma$ decays \cite{Ball}:

554: \begin{gather}\label{vtds}

555: \frac{\vtd}{\vts}_\text{UTfit}=0.202\pm0.008,\qquad 

556: \frac{\vtd}{\vts}_\text{CKMfitter}=0.2011^{+0.0081}_{-0.0065},\\ 

557: \frac{\vtd}{\vts}^\text{Belle}_{B\to V\gamma}=0.207\pm0.027(\text{exp.})\pm0.016(\text{th.}),

558: \end{gather}

559: where the values given in \eqref{vtds} shifted from $0.198\pm0.010$

560: and $0.195\pm0.010$, respectively, due to the inclusion of the recent

561: measurement of $\Delta M_s$ \eqref{CDF} in the analyses.

562: \item

563: The branching ratios for $B_{s,d}\to\mu^+\mu^-$ can be predicted within the 

564: SM and any CMFV model with much higher accuracy than it is 

565: possible without $\Delta M_{s,d}$. In the SM one has \cite{AJB03}

566: \be\label{R2}

567: Br(B_{q}\to\mu^+\mu^-)

568: =C\frac{\tau(B_{q})}{\hat B_{B_{q}}}

569: \frac{Y^2(x_t)}{S(x_t)} 

570: \Delta M_{q}, \qquad (q=s,d)

571: \ee

572: with 

573: \be

574: C={6\pi}\frac{\eta_Y^2}{\eta_B}

575: \left(\frac{\alpha}{4\pi\sin^2\theta_{W}}\right)^2\frac{m_\mu^2}{\mw^2}

576: =4.39\cdot 10^{-10}

577: \ee

578: and $S(x_t)=2.33\pm 0.07$ and $Y(x_t)=0.95\pm0.03$ being the relevant top mass dependent

579: one-loop functions.

580: \end{itemize}

581: %

582: 

583: 

584: In Fig.~\ref{fig:SMpred} we plot $Br(B_d\to\mu^+\mu^-)$  and 

585: $Br(B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-)$ in the SM 

586: as  functions of $\hat B_{B_d}$ and $\hat B_{B_s}$, respectively,  with the

587: errors in the other quantities entering 

588: (\ref{R2}) added in quadrature. Clearly, a reduction of the uncertainties on $\hat B_{B_q}$ 

589: is very desirable.

590: For $Br(B_d\to\mu^+ \mu^-)$ the updated value  obtained by 

591:  means of (\ref{R2}) reads

592: \be\label{SMd}

593: Br(B_d\to\mu^+ \mu^-)^\text{SM}= (1.03\pm0.09)\cdot 10^{-10},

594: \ee

595: %

596: and with the value for $\Delta M_s$ in (\ref{CDF}), we also obtain

597: \be\label{SMs}

598: Br(B_s\to\mu^+ \mu^-)^\text{SM}= (3.35\pm 0.32)\cdot 10^{-9}.

599: \ee

600: These values should be compared with the most  

601: recent upper bounds 

602: from CDF \cite{CDF}

603: \be

604: Br(B_d\to\mu^+ \mu^-)< 3\cdot 10^{-8}, \qquad

605: Br(B_s\to\mu^+ \mu^-)< 1\cdot 10^{-7} \quad\quad (95\%~ {\rm C.L.}), 

606: \ee

607: implying that there is still a lot of room for new physics 

608: contributions.

609: 

610: 

611: \begin{figure}

612: \begin{minipage}{8cm}

613: \epsfig{file=d-mumu.eps,scale=0.9}

614: \end{minipage}

615: \hfill

616: \begin{minipage}{9cm}

617: \epsfig{file=s-mumu.eps,scale=0.9}

618: \end{minipage}

619: \caption{$Br(B_d\to\mu^+\mu^-)$ and $Br(B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-)$ in the SM

620:   as functions of $\hat B_{B_d}$ and $\hat B_{B_s}$, 

621: respectively.}

622: \label{fig:SMpred}

623: \end{figure}

624: 

625: 

626: 

627: We stress that once LHC is turned on, the accuracy on $\sin 2\beta$ 

628: and $\Delta M_s$  will match the one of $\Delta M_d$, and consequently

629: the accuracy of the predicted values for $R_b$ and $\gamma$ 

630:  in Fig.~\ref{fig:Rb_and_gamma}, 

631: of the ratios in (\ref{R1A})-(\ref{vtdvts})

632: and of the SM predictions in (\ref{SMd}) and (\ref{SMs})  

633: will depend entirely on 

634: the accuracy of $\xi$ and $\hat B_{B_q}$ which therefore has to be improved.

635: The resulting numbers from \eqref{R1A}-\eqref{vtdvts} can be considered 

636: as ``magic numbers of CMFV'' and any deviation of future data 

637: from these numbers  

638: will signal new effects beyond CMFV. We underline

639: the model independent character of these tests. 

640: 

641: Another very important test of CMFV and of MFV in general, still

642: within $B_{s,d}$ decays, will be the measurement of the mixing induced

643: asymmetry in $B^0_s(\bar B^0_s)\to\psi\phi$ that is predicted within

644: the MFV scenario to be $S_{\psi\phi}=0.038\pm0.002$ \cite{UTFIT,CKMFIT}.

645: We will return to this issue in Section 7.

646: 

647: \section{Tests Beyond $\bm{B_{d,s}}$ Decays}\setcounter{equation}{0}

648: 

649: The tests of CMFV considered so far involve only $B_d$ and $B_s$ 

650: mesons. Equally important are the tests of the CMFV hypothesis in $K$ meson

651: decays and even more relevant

652: those involving correlations between $B$ and $K$ decays that

653: are implied by CMFV \cite{UUT}.

654: 

655: The cleanest model independent test of MFV in $K$ decays is offered by

656: $K\to \pi\nu\bar\nu$ decays, 

657: where the measurement of  $Br(\klpn)$ 

658: and $Br(\kpn)$ allows a very clean determination of $\sin 2\beta$ 

659: \cite{BF01,BB4} to be 

660: compared with the one from $B_d(\bar B_d)\to \psi K_S$. 

661: The recent NNLO calculation 

662: of $\kpn$ \cite{BGHN} and the improved calculation of long distance

663: contributions to this decay \cite{Isidori:2005xm} increased significantly the precision of this test. 

664: As the  determination of $\sin{2\beta}$ from  $B_d(\bar B_d)\to \psi K_S$

665: measures the CP-violating phase in $B_d^0-\bar B_d^0$ mixing, while the one

666: through $K\to\pi\nu\bar\nu$ measures the corresponding phase in $Z^0$-penguin diagrams, it is a very non-trivial MFV test. 

667: In fact, similarly to $S_{\psi\phi}$, it is a test of the MFV hypothesis and not only of the CMFV one, 

668: as due to neutrinos in the final state MFV=CMFV in this case.

669: Unfortunately, due

670: to slow progress in measuring these two branching ratios, such a test will

671: only be possible in the next decade.

672: 

673: Thus, for the time being, the only measured quantity in $K$ decays that 

674: could be used in principle for our purposes is the CP-violating parameter 

675: $\varepsilon_K$.

676: As it is the only quantity that is available in the $K^0-\bar K^0$ system, 

677: its explicit dependence on possible new physics contributions entering 

678: through the one-loop function $S$ cannot be eliminated within the $K$ 

679: system alone. For this reason the usual analysis of the UUT involved 

680: so far only $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$, $S_{\psi K_S}$ and the upper bound 

681: on $\Delta M_d/\Delta M_s$ \cite{UTFIT,BUPAST}.

682: 

683: 

684: Here, we would like to point out that in fact the combination of 

685: $\varepsilon_K$ and $\Delta M_d$, used already in \cite{AJBRB} to derive

686: a lower bound on $\sin 2\beta$ from CMFV, can also be used in the 

687: construction of the UUT and generally in the tests of CMFV. Indeed, in all 

688: CMFV models considered, only the term in $\varepsilon_K$ involving 

689: $(V_{ts}^*V_{td})^2$ is affected visibly by new physics with the remaining terms 

690: described by the SM. Eliminating then the one-loop function $S$ in 

691: $\varepsilon_K$ in terms of $\Delta M_d$ one finds following \cite{AJBRB}

692: \be\label{Robert}

693: \sin 2\beta=\frac{0.542}{\kappa}

694: \left[\frac{|\varepsilon_K|}{\vcb^2\hat B_K}

695: -4.97\bar\eta P_c(\varepsilon_K)\right]

696: \ee

697: with

698: \be

699: \kappa=\left[\frac{\Delta M_d}{0.507/\text{ps}}\right]

700: \left[\frac{214\mev}{F_{B_d}\sqrt{\hat B_{B_d}}}\right]^2, 

701: \qquad

702: P_c(\varepsilon_K)=0.29\pm 0.06,

703: \ee

704: that should be compared with $\sin 2\beta$ in (\ref{input}). As 

705: the second term in (\ref{Robert}) is roughly by a factor of three smaller

706: than the first term, the small model dependence in $\bar\eta$ can be

707: neglected for practical purposes. The non-perturbative uncertainties in 

708: $\hat B_K$  and $F_{B_d}\sqrt{\hat B_{B_d}}$ \cite{Hashimoto} 

709: do not allow a precise test

710: at present, but the situation could improve in the future.

711: 

712: 

713: In summary, 

714: CMFV has survived its first model independent tests, although there is

715: some tension between the values of $\beta_\text{true}$ and

716: $\beta_\text{CMFV}$, as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:RUT-UUT}. We will return

717: to this issue in Section 6. Due to the

718: significant experimental error in  the tree level 

719: determinations of $\gamma$ and $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$ and the theoretical error in 

720: $\xi$, these tests are not conclusive at present. We are looking forward to the reduction  of these 

721:  errors. This will allow much more stringent tests of CMFV, 

722: in particular, 

723: if in addition 

724: also the tests of model independent CMFV relations discussed above and in 

725: \cite{UUT,AJB03,REL} that involve rare $B$ and $K$ decays will also be 

726: available. 

727: Future violations of some of these relations would be exciting. 

728: Therefore, let us ask next what would be the impact of new operators

729: within MFV on some of the relations discussed above. 

730: 

731: 

732: \section{The Impact of New Operators}\setcounter{equation}{0}

733: 

734: 

735: In the most general MFV no new phases beyond the CKM one are allowed

736: and consequently (\ref{R1}) remains valid. On the other hand in models with 

737: two Higgs doublets, like the MSSM, new scalar operators originating dominantly 

738: in Higgs penguin diagrams become important at large $\tan\beta$ and, being 

739: sensitive to the external masses, modify $\Delta M_d$ and $\Delta M_s$ 

740: differently \cite{BCRS}

741: \be\label{DMLT}

742: \Delta M_q=(\Delta M_q)^{\rm SM} (1+f_q),\quad 

743: f_{q}\propto -m_b m_{q}\tan^2\beta \qquad (q=d,s).

744: \ee

745: Consequently the CMFV relation between $R_t$ and $\Delta M_d/\Delta

746: M_s$ (\ref{RRt}) is modified to

747: \be\label{R1C}

748: R_t=0.923~\left[\frac{\xi}{1.23}\right] 

749: \sqrt{\frac{17.4/\text{ps}}{\Delta M_s}} 

750: \sqrt{\frac{\Delta M_d}{0.507/\text{ps}}} \sqrt{R_{sd}},

751: \qquad R_{sd}=\frac{1+f_s}{1+f_d}.

752: \ee

753: In the MSSM at large $\tan\beta$,  

754: $f_s<0$ and $f_d\approx 0$ \cite{BCRS}, as indicated in (\ref{DMLT}), but as analyzed in 

755: \cite{AMGIISST}, more generally $f_s$ could also be positive.

756: In Fig.~\ref{fig:Rsd} we show the impact of $R_{sd}\ne1$ on the value

757: of $\gamma$ for different values of $\xi$ with the errors in the

758: remaining quantities added in quadrature. This figure makes clear that

759: in order to be able to determine  $R_{sd}$ from the data in this

760: manner, the error in $\xi$ should be significantly reduced.

761:  

762: \vspace{0.2truecm}

763: \begin{figure}

764: \center{\epsfig{file=Rsd.eps}}

765: \vspace{-0.2cm}

766: \caption{$\gamma$ as a function of $R_{sd}$ for different values of

767:   $\xi$.}

768: \label{fig:Rsd}

769: \end{figure}

770: 

771: The new relation in \eqref{R1C} has to be interpreted with some

772: care. After all, $R_t$ depends only on $\Delta M_d$ and $f_d$ and not on $f_s$ and

773: $\Delta M_s$, which has been primarily used in (\ref{RRt}) and here to reduce the

774: non-perturbative uncertainties due to $\hat B_{B_d} F_{B_d}^2$ in $\Delta

775: M_d$.

776: For instance, if $f_s$ is indeed negative as found in the MSSM with MFV at

777: large $\tan \beta$, the measured value of $\Delta M_s$ will also be smaller

778: cancelling the effect of a negative $f_s$ in calculating $R_t$.

779: Thus in the MSSM at large $\tan \beta$ in which $f_d \simeq 0$, the numerical

780: value of $R_t$ is basically not modified with respect to the SM even if

781: $\Delta M_s$ measured by CDF appears smaller than $(\Delta M_s)^\text{SM}$ as

782: seen in \eqref{DMsSM}.

783: 

784: The fact that $\Delta M_s$ could indeed be smaller than $(\Delta

785: M_s)^\text{SM}$ is very interesting, as most MFV models studied in the

786: literature, with a notable exception of the MSSM at large $\tan \beta$

787: \cite{BCRS}, predicted $\Delta M_s > (\Delta M_s)^\text{SM}$.

788: Unfortunately, finding out whether the experimental value of $\Delta

789: M_s$ is smaller or larger or equal to $(\Delta M_s)^\text{SM}$ would require

790: a considerable reduction of the uncertainty on $F_{B_s} \sqrt{\hat B_{B_s}}$

791: that is, at present, roughly $10-15$\%. We will return to this issue in

792: Section 7.

793: 

794: In this context let us remark that an improved calculation of $F_{B_s}

795: \sqrt{\hat B_{B_s}}$ together with a rather accurate value of $|V_{ts}|$ and

796: $\Delta M_s$ would allow to measure in a model independent manner

797: the function $S(x_t)$ in (\ref{DMsSMb}) and, consequently, to check whether the SM

798: value of this function agrees with the experimental one.

799: 

800: 

801: Of considerable interest is the correlation between new operator effects in 

802: $\Delta M_s$ and $Br(B_{s,d}\to\mu^+\mu^-)$ that has been pointed out 

803: in the MSSM with MFV and large $\tan\beta$ in \cite{BCRS} and subsequently 

804: generalized to arbitrary 

805: MFV models in \cite{AMGIISST}. In particular within the MSSM, the huge

806: enhancement of $Br(B_{s,d}\to\mu^+\mu^-)$ at large $\tan\beta$ 

807: analyzed by many authors in the past

808: \cite{LTANB} is correlated with the suppression of $\Delta M_s$ with 

809: respect to the SM, in contrast to the CMFV relation (\ref{R2}). 

810: Detailed analyses of this correlation can be found in \cite{BCRS,Foster} with 

811: the most recent ones in \cite{Foster:2006ze,Isidori:2006pk,Carlos}. Here we just want

812: to remark that due to the 

813: fact that 

814: $\Delta M_s$ is found  close to the SM prediction, no large enhancements of 

815: $Br(B_{d,s}\to \mu^+\mu^-)$ are expected 

816: within the MSSM with MFV and an observation of $Br(B_{s}\to \mu^+\mu^-)$ and 

817: $Br(B_{d}\to \mu^+\mu^-)$   with  rates  $\text{few}\cdot10^{-8}$ and 

818: $\text{few}\cdot10^{-9}$, respectively, would clearly signal new effects beyond 

819: the MFV framework \cite{MFVB}. Indeed such a correlation between

820: $\Delta M_s$ and $Br(B_{s}\to \mu^+\mu^-)$  can be avoided in the MSSM with new

821: sources of flavour violation \cite{Chankowski:2003xd}.

822: 

823: 

824: On the other hand, the fact that $\Delta M_s$ has been found below its SM

825: expectation keeps the MSSM with MFV and large $\tan \beta$ alive and

826: this version of MSSM would even be favoured if one could convincingly

827: demonstrate that $\Delta M_s < (\Delta M_s)^\text{SM}$.

828: 

829: 

830: Let us remark that in the case of the dominance of scalar operator 

831: contributions to $Br(B_{d,s}\to \mu^+\mu^-)$, the golden relation (\ref{R1A})

832: is modified in the MSSM to \cite{AJB03}

833: \be\label{R1B}

834: \frac{Br(B_{s}\to\mu^+\mu^-)}{Br(B_{d}\to\mu^+\mu^-)}

835: =\frac{\hat B_{d}}{\hat B_{s}}

836: \frac{\tau( B_{s})}{\tau( B_{d})} 

837: \frac{\Delta M_{s}}{\Delta M_{d}}\left[\frac{m_{B_s}}{m_{B_d}}\right]^4

838: \frac{1}{1+f_s}

839: \ee

840: with $f_s$ being a complicated function of supersymmetric parameters. 

841: In view of the theoretical cleanness of this relation the measurement of 

842:  the difference 

843: between (\ref{R1A}) and (\ref{R1B}) is not out of question. On the 

844: other hand, the impact of new operators on relation (\ref{Robert}) 

845: will be difficult to see, as these contributions are small in $\varepsilon_K$ 

846: and $\Delta M_d$ and the non-perturbative uncertainties involved are still 

847: significant. 

848: 

849: 

850: \section{A Brief Look Beyond MFV}\setcounter{equation}{0}

851: 

852: Finally, let us briefly go beyond MFV and admit new flavour

853: violating interactions, in particular new CP-violating phases as well as

854: $f_s\not=f_d$. Extensive model independent numerical studies of the UT 

855: in such general scenarios have been already performed for some time, in 

856: particular in \cite{UTFIT,CKMFIT,Botella:2005fc,NMFV,Velasco-Sevilla,LLNP,Ligeti:2006pm,Ball:2006xx,Khalil:2006pv,Grossman:2006ce,Datta:2006ne}, 

857: where references to earlier literature can be found. The analysis of

858: \cite{NMFV} has recently been updated in \cite{Ligeti:2006pm} in view

859: of the result in \eqref{CDF}. Here we want to look instead at 

860: these scenarios in the spirit of the rest of our paper.

861: 

862: 

863: Let us then first assume as indicated by the plot in 

864: Fig.~\ref{fig:Rb_and_gamma} that indeed 

865: the value of $R_b$  following from (\ref{VUBG}) is smaller  

866: than the one following from tree level decays. 

867: While in the case of the angle $\gamma$, nothing conclusive can be 

868: said at present, let us assume that  $\gamma$ found from tree level 

869: decays is in the ball park of $75^\circ$, say $\gamma= (75\pm 5)^\circ$, 

870: that is larger than roughly $60^\circ$ found from the UT fits 

871: \cite{UTFIT,CKMFIT}.

872: In fact such large values of $\gamma$ from tree level decays have been 

873: indicated by the analyses of $B\to \pi\pi$ and $B\to \pi K$ data in 

874: \cite{SCET,Buras:2005cv}.

875: 

876: 

877: In order to see the implications of such findings in a transparent manner, 

878: let us invert (\ref{VUBG}) to find

879: \be

880: R_t=\sqrt{1+R_b^2-2 R_b\cos\gamma},\qquad

881: \cot\beta=\frac{1-R_b\cos\gamma}{R_b\sin\gamma}.

882: \ee

883: In the spirit of the analysis in \cite{Buras:2005cv} we then set 

884: $\gamma_\text{true}= (75\pm 5)^\circ$ and $(R_b)_\text{true}=0.44\pm0.04$ and determine

885: the true values of $\beta$ and $R_t$, 

886: \be\label{true}

887: \beta_{\rm true}= (25.6\pm 2.3)^\circ ,\qquad   (R_t)_{\rm true}=

888: 0.983\pm 0.038 ,

889: \ee

890: to be compared with 

891: \be\label{CMFV}

892: \beta_{\rm CMFV}= (21.7\pm1.3)^\circ ,\qquad   (R_t)_{\rm CMFV}=

893: 0.923\pm0.044,

894: \ee

895: that follow from (\ref{R1}) and (\ref{RRt}), respectively. The

896: difference between \eqref{true} and  \eqref{CMFV} is similar to the

897: one shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:RUT-UUT}, though we have chosen here

898: $\gamma_\text{true}$ to be larger than the central value in \eqref{input2}.

899: The present data and the assumption about the true value of $\gamma$ made 

900: above then imply that

901: \cite{Buras:2005cv}

902: \be\label{BMFV}

903: \beta_{\psi K_S}=\beta_{\rm CMFV} < \beta_{\rm true}, \qquad 

904: \sin 2(\beta_{\rm true}+\varphi_{B_d}) 

905: = S_{\psi K_S}, \qquad \varphi_{B_d} < 0

906: \ee

907: %

908:  with $\varphi_{B_d}$ being a new complex phase, and 

909: \be\label{BMFV2}

910: (R_t)_{\rm CMFV} < (R_t)_{\rm true}. 

911: \ee

912: The result in \eqref{BMFV} has been first found in

913: \cite{UTFIT} but the values of $R_t$ and $\gamma$ obtained in  \cite{UTFIT} 

914: are significantly lower than in \cite{Buras:2005cv} and here. 

915: The pattern in \eqref{BMFV2} has also been indicated by the analysis 

916: in \cite{Botella:2005fc}, but we underline that the possible ``discrepancy" in the values 

917: of $\beta$ is certainly better visible than in the case of $R_t$. 

918: 

919: In particular we find $\varphi_{B_d}= -(3.9\pm2.6)^\circ$ in

920: agreement with \cite{UTFIT} and  \cite{Buras:2005cv}.

921: Note that now $\sin 2\beta_{\rm true}= 0.780\pm 0.051$ in conflict with 

922: $S_{\psi K_S}=0.687\pm0.032$. 

923: 

924: 

925: 

926: The possibility of a new weak phase in $B_d^0-\bar B_d^0$ mixing, 

927: indicated by (\ref{BMFV}), 

928: could be tested in other decays sensitive to this mixing but could 

929: more generally also imply new weak phases in other processes.

930: The 

931: latter could then be tested through enhanced CP asymmetries, $S_{\psi\phi}$, 

932: $A_{\rm CP}(B\to X_s\gamma)$ and $A^{s,d}_{\rm SL}$ that are strongly suppressed in 

933: MFV models. Such effects could also be clearly seen in $\klpn$.

934: 

935: The origin of a possible  disagreement between $(R_t)_{\rm true}$ and $(R_t)_\text{CMFV}$ is harder to identify 

936: as it could follow from new flavour violating interactions with the

937:  same operator structure as in the SM or/and could imply  new enhanced 

938: operators that are still admitted within the general formulation of 

939: MFV \cite{AMGIISST} as discussed above. 

940: Within the $\Delta F=2$ processes alone, it will 

941: be difficult, if not impossible, to identify which type of violation of 

942: CMFV  

943: takes place, unless one specifies a concrete model. On the other hand 

944: including $\Delta F=1$ transitions in the analysis would allow to 

945: identify better the origin of the violation of CMFV and MFV relations, 

946: but such an analysis is clearly  beyond the scope and the spirit

947:  of our paper. 

948: 

949: 

950: \section{\boldmath Some Aspects of $S_{ \psi\phi}$ and $A^s_\text{SL}$ \unboldmath}\setcounter{equation}{0}

951: \label{sec:seven}

952: In the next years important tests of MFV will come from improved measurements

953: of the time-dependent mixing induced CP asymmetry

954: \be

955: A^s_\text{CP}(\psi\phi,t)= \dfrac{\Gamma(\bar B^0_s(t) \rightarrow 

956: \psi\phi) - \Gamma(B^0_s(t) \rightarrow  \psi\phi)}{\Gamma(\bar B^0_s(t) \rightarrow \psi\phi) + \Gamma(B^0_s(t) \rightarrow \psi\phi)} \equiv S_{ \psi\phi}

957: \sin(\Delta M_s t),

958: \label{7.1}

959: \ee

960: where the CP violation in the decay amplitude is set to zero, and of the

961: semileptonic asymmetry

962: \be

963: A^s_\text{SL} = \dfrac{\Gamma(\bar B_s^0 \rightarrow l^+ X) - \Gamma(B_s^0

964:   \rightarrow l^- X)}{\Gamma(\bar B_s^0 \rightarrow l^+ X) + \Gamma(B_s^0

965:   \rightarrow l^- X)} =

966: \text{Im}\left(\dfrac{\Gamma_{12}^s}{M_{12}^s}\right),

967: \ee

968: where $\Gamma_{12}^s$ represents the absorptive part of the $B_s^0 - \bar

969: B_s^0$ amplitude.

970: The semileptonic asymmetry $A^s_\text{SL}$ has not been measured yet, while

971: its theoretical prediction in the SM has recently improved thanks to advances

972: in lattice studies of $\Delta B = 2$ four-fermion operators

973: \cite{Becirevic:2001xt} and to the NLO perturbative calculations of the corresponding Wilson

974: coefficients \cite{noi,Beneke:2003az}.

975: 

976: Both asymmetries are very small in MFV models but can be enhanced even by an

977: order of magnitude if new complex phases are present.

978: This topic has been extensively discussed in the recent literature, in

979: particular in  \cite{Ligeti:2006pm} where the

980: correlation between $A_\text{SL}^s$

981: and $S_{ \psi\phi}$ has been derived and discussed for the first time.

982: Here we would like to point out that in most recent papers the sign of the new physics

983: contribution to $S_{ \psi\phi}$ is incorrect with an evident consequence on

984: the correlation in question.

985: 

986: Adopting the popular parametrizations of the new physics contributions

987: \cite{UTFIT,LLNP,Ligeti:2006pm}

988: \be

989: \Delta M_s \equiv (\Delta M_s)^\text{SM} |1+h_s e^{2i \sigma_s}| \equiv

990: (\Delta M_s)^\text{SM} C_{B_s} ,

991: \label{eq:CBs}

992: \ee

993: with

994: \be

995: 1+h_s e^{2i \sigma_s} \equiv C_{B_s} e^{2i \varphi_{B_s}},

996: \ee

997: we find

998: \be

999: S_{ \psi\phi} = - \eta_{ \psi\phi} \sin(2\beta_s + 2

1000: \varphi_{B_s})\,,\qquad V_{ts}=-|V_{ts}|e^{-i \beta_s}

1001: \ee

1002: in the parametrization of \cite{UTFIT,LLNP} and

1003: \be

1004: S_{\psi\phi} = - \eta_{ \psi\phi} \left [ h_s \dfrac{\sin 2

1005:     \sigma_s}{C_{B_s}}+\dfrac{\sin{2 \beta_s}(1+h_s \cos 2 \sigma_s)}{C_{B_s}}\right]

1006: \ee

1007: in the parametrization of \cite{Ligeti:2006pm} and setting $\cos 2 \beta_s =

1008: 1$, since $\beta_s \simeq -1^\circ$.

1009: Here $\eta_{\psi\phi}$ is the CP parity of the $ \psi\phi$ final state, for

1010: which we take $\eta_{ \psi\phi}=+1$.

1011: We find then

1012: \be\label{7.7}

1013: S_{\psi\phi}=\sin(2|\beta_s|-2\varphi_{B_s}) \approx -\sin 2

1014: \varphi_{B_s},

1015: \ee

1016: or

1017: \be

1018: S_{\psi\phi}=-\dfrac{h_s \sin 2 \sigma_s}{C_{B_s}}+\sin 2 |\beta_s|

1019: \dfrac{1+h_s \cos 2 \sigma_s}{C_{B_s}} \approx -\dfrac{h_s \sin 2

1020:   \sigma_s}{C_{B_s}}.

1021: \ee

1022: 

1023: While the sign of $(S_{ \psi\phi})^\text{SM}$, obtained from above for

1024: $\sigma_s=0$, $h_s=0$, $C_{B_s}=1$ and $\varphi_{B_s}=0$, agrees with the

1025: recent literature, it is important to clarify that the asymmetry $S_{\psi\phi}$

1026: measures $\sin(2|\beta_s|-2\varphi_{B_s})$ and \emph{not}

1027: $\sin(2|\beta_s|+2\varphi_{B_s})$ as stated in the literature.

1028: This is probably not important for the model independent analysis of

1029: $S_{\psi\phi}$ alone, but it is crucial to have correct signs

1030: when one works with specific new physics models, where the new phase in

1031: $\Delta B=2$ observables is generally correlated with the phases in

1032: $\Delta B=1$ processes, and if different $\Delta B=2$ observables are

1033: considered simultaneously.

1034: 

1035: As an example let us consider $A^s_\text{SL}$, that can be rewritten as

1036: \bea

1037: A^s_\text{SL} &=& \text{Im}\left(\dfrac{\Gamma^s_{12}}{M^s_{12}}\right)^\text{SM}\dfrac{\cos

1038:   2\varphi_{B_s}}{C_{B_s}} -

1039: \text{Re}\left(\dfrac{\Gamma^s_{12}}{M^s_{12}}\right)^\text{SM}\dfrac{\sin 2\varphi_{B_s}}{C_{B_s}}\nn\\

1040:  &\approx&  - \text{Re}\left(\dfrac{\Gamma^s_{12}}{M^s_{12}}\right)^\text{SM}\dfrac{\sin

1041:   2\varphi_{B_s}}{C_{B_s}}.

1042: \eea

1043: Recalling that $\text{Re}(\Gamma^s_{12}/M^s_{12})^\text{SM} <0$ and using \eqref{7.7},

1044: we find the following correlation between $A^s_\text{SL}$ and $S_{ \psi\phi}$

1045: \be

1046: A^s_\text{SL} = -\left |

1047:  \text{Re}\left(\dfrac{\Gamma^s_{12}}{M^s_{12}}\right)^\text{SM}\right|

1048: \dfrac{1}{C_{B_s}}S_{ \psi\phi},

1049: \label{ASLcorr}

1050: \ee

1051: shown in Fig. \ref{fig:ASL}, for different values of $C_{B_s}$ and with

1052: $|\text{Re}(\Gamma^s_{12}/M^s_{12})^\text{SM}|=(2.6 \pm 1.0)\cdot 10^{-3}$

1053: \cite{noi} fixed to its central value.

1054: We would like to stress that already a rather small value of $S_{\psi \phi}

1055: \simeq 0.1$ would lead to an order of magnitude enhancement of $A^s_\text{SL}$

1056: relative to its SM expectation.

1057: %\vspace{0.2truecm}

1058: \begin{figure}

1059: \center{\epsfig{file=ASL.eps}}

1060: \vspace{-0.2cm}

1061: \caption{$A^s_\text{SL}$ as a function of $S_{ \psi\phi}$ for different values

1062:   of $C_{B_s}$.}

1063: \label{fig:ASL}

1064: \end{figure}

1065: 

1066: We note that the theoretical prediction for

1067: $\text{Re}(\Gamma^s_{12}/M^s_{12})^\text{SM}$ obtained in \cite{noi} and used

1068: here is smaller than the value found in \cite{Beneke:1998sy}. 

1069: This difference is mainly due to the contribution of

1070: $\mathcal{O}(1/m_b^4)$ in the Heavy Quark Expansion (HQE), which in \cite{Beneke:1998sy} is

1071: wholly estimated in the vacuum saturation approximation (VSA), while in

1072: \cite{noi} the matrix elements of two dimension-seven operators are expressed

1073: in terms of those calculated on the lattice. 

1074: Moreover, we emphasize that the negative sign in (\ref{ASLcorr}), now

1075: confirmed also in \cite{Ligeti:2006pm}, is model independent as

1076: $C_{B_s}=|1 + h_s \exp{(2 i \sigma_s)}|>0$.

1077: In \cite{Ligeti:2006pm} the effect of $C_{B_s}$ is enclosed in

1078: $\mathcal{O}(h_s^2)$ corrections, as an expansion in $h_s$ is performed.

1079: 

1080: Strictly speaking the formula (\ref{ASLcorr}) is not a correlation between 

1081:  $A^s_\text{SL}$ and $S_{\psi \phi}$ only, but a triple correlation between these two quantities and $C_{B_s}$. It is so general that it cannot be used as a test of any 

1082:  extension of the SM but in any model the knowledge of two among these 

1083:  three quantities allows to predict the third one.

1084: Therefore we would like to point out that (\ref{ASLcorr}) offers

1085: in principle an alternative way to find out whether $\Delta M_s$ differs from $(\Delta M_s)^\text{SM}$.

1086: Indeed, the inversion of (\ref{ASLcorr}) together with (\ref{eq:CBs}) yields

1087: \be

1088: \dfrac{\Delta M_s}{(\Delta M_s)^\text{SM}}= -\left |

1089:  \text{Re}\left(\dfrac{\Gamma^s_{12}}{M^s_{12}}\right)^\text{SM}\right|

1090: \dfrac{S_{ \psi\phi}}{A^s_\text{SL}}\,.

1091: \label{eq:DMsratio}

1092: \ee

1093: With respect to $(\Delta M_s)^\text{SM}$,

1094: $\text{Re}(\Gamma^s_{12}/M^s_{12})^\text{SM}$ is free from the uncertainty coming

1095: from the decay constant $F_{B_s}$.

1096: On the other hand, in $\text{Re}(\Gamma^s_{12}/M^s_{12})^\text{SM}$ significant

1097: cancellations occur at NLO and at $\mathcal{O}(1/m_b^4)$ in the HQE, which make it sensitive to the

1098: dimension-seven operators, whose most matrix elements have never been

1099: estimated out of the VSA.

1100: Future lattice calculations together with experimental measurements of 

1101:  the semileptonic asymmetry $A^s_\text{SL}$ are certainly desired for a

1102:  significant determination of $\Delta M_s/(\Delta M_s)^\text{SM}$ through

1103:  (\ref{eq:DMsratio}).  

1104: 

1105: Similarly, one has in the $B_d$ system

1106: \be

1107: \dfrac{\Delta M_d}{(\Delta M_d)^\text{SM}}= \left |

1108:  \text{Re}\left(\dfrac{\Gamma^d_{12}}{M^d_{12}}\right)^\text{SM}\right|

1109: \dfrac{\sin 2 \varphi_{B_d}}{A^d_\text{SL}}+\text{Im}\left(\dfrac{\Gamma^d_{12}}{M^d_{12}}\right)^\text{SM}

1110: \dfrac{\cos 2 \varphi_{B_d}}{A^d_\text{SL}}\,,

1111: \label{eq:DMdratio}

1112: \ee

1113: where $\varphi_{B_d}$ is the new phase in (\ref{BMFV}).

1114: We note that in this case $\text{Im}(\Gamma^d_{12}/M^d_{12})^\text{SM}= - (6.4

1115: \pm 1.4)\cdot 10^{-4}$ cannot be neglected with respect to

1116: $|\text{Re}(\Gamma^d_{12}/M^d_{12})^\text{SM}|=(3.0 \pm 1.0)\cdot 10^{-3}$

1117: \cite{noi}.

1118: Finally,  one could use

1119: \be

1120: \frac{\Delta M_q}{(\Delta M_q)^\text{SM}} = 

1121: -\left(\dfrac{\Delta M_q}{\Delta \Gamma_q}\right) \text{Re}\left(\dfrac{\Gamma^q_{12}}{M^q_{12}}\right)^\text{SM} \cos 2\varphi_{B_q}\,,

1122: \label{eq:DMqr}

1123: \ee

1124: with $\varphi_{B_q}$ extracted from $S_{\psi\phi}$ and $S_{\psi K_S}$ 

1125: for $q=s$ and $q=d$, respectively.

1126: These proposals have been recently adopted in \cite{Blanke:2006sb} where an extensive

1127: phenomenological analysis in the Littlest Higgs Model with T-parity has been performed.

1128: It remains to be seen whether in the future our proposals to measure the ratios $\Delta

1129: M_q/(\Delta M_q)^\text{SM}$ by means of (\ref{eq:DMsratio})-(\ref{eq:DMqr})

1130: will be more effective than the direct calculations of $(\Delta M_q)^\text{SM}$.

1131: \section{Conclusions}\setcounter{equation}{0}

1132: 

1133: The recent measurements of $\Delta M_s$ by the CDF and D{\O}

1134: collaborations gave another support to the hypothesis of MFV. Even if

1135: possible signals of non-MFV interactions, like $\varphi_{B_d}\ne 0$

1136: and $(R_t)_\text{CMFV}<(R_t)_\text{true}$, are indicated by the data,

1137: they are small as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:RUT-UUT}. However, it should

1138: be emphasized that future measurements of CP violation in $B_s$

1139: decays, in particular of the CP asymmetries $S_{\psi\phi}$ and

1140: $A^s_{\rm SL}$ and of the branching ratios

1141: $Br(B_{d,s}\to\mu^+\mu^-)$, could modify our picture of non-MFV effects

1142: significantly. Also the signals of new weak phases in $B\to\pi K$

1143: decays, discussed in  \cite{Buras:2005cv} and references therein,

1144: should not be forgotten.

1145: 

1146: In the present paper we have concentrated on quantities like ratios of 

1147:  branching ratios, $\Delta M_d/\Delta M_s$ and various CP asymmetries 

1148:  which do not require the direct use of the weak decay constants 

1149:  $F_{B_q}$ that are plagued by large non-perturbative uncertainties. 

1150:  Observables sensitive only to $\xi$ and $\hat B_{B_q}$ have a better 

1151:  chance to help us in identifying new physics contributions. One of 

1152:  the important tasks for the coming years will be to find out whether 

1153: the data favour positive or negative new physics contributions to 

1154: $\Delta M_q$. As seen in (1.3), from the present perspective, this 

1155: will not be soon possible through a direct calculation of $\Delta M_q$. 

1156: Therefore, we have proposed the formulae (\ref{eq:DMsratio})-(\ref{eq:DMqr}) as alternative 

1157: ways to shed light on this important question. We are aware that also these 

1158: routes are very challenging but they definitely should be followed once the 

1159: data on $A^q_\text{SL}$ and improved data on $\Delta\Gamma_q$ 

1160: will be available.

1161: 

1162: Truly exciting times are coming for MFV. We should be able to decide

1163: in about $2-3$ years, whether this simple hypothesis survived all

1164: model independent tests summarized in this paper, with the final

1165: precise tests of the correlations between $B$ and $K$ systems left for

1166: $K\to\pi\nu\bar\nu$ in the first years of the next decade. 

1167: On the other hand if non-MFV interactions will be signalled by the 

1168: data, flavour physics will be even more exciting.

1169: We hope

1170: that the formulae and plots collected above will help in monitoring

1171: these events in a transparent manner.

1172:  

1173: \vspace{0.5truecm}

1174: 

1175: \noindent {\bf Acknowledgements}

1176: 

1177: \noindent We would like to thank Ulrich Haisch, Luca Silvestrini, Selma Uhlig,

1178: Andreas Weiler and Daria Zieminska for critical comments and illuminating discussions.

1179: This research was partially supported by the German `Bundesministerium f\"ur 

1180: Bildung und Forschung' under contract 05HT4WOA/3. D.G. acknowledges the support of `Fondazione Della Riccia', Firenze, Italy.

1181: 

1182: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{0.95}

1183: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1184: 

1185: \bibitem{CDFnew}

1186: G. Gomez-Ceballos [CDF Collaboration], Talk given at FPCP

1187: 2006,\\ http://fpcp2006.triumf.ca/talks/day3/1500/fpcp2006.pdf.

1188: 

1189: 

1190: %\cite{Abazov:2006dm}

1191: \bibitem{Abazov:2006dm}

1192:   V.~Abazov  [D{\O} Collaboration],

1193:   %``First direct two-sided bound on the B/s0 oscillation frequency,''

1194:   arXiv:hep-ex/0603029.

1195:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0603029;%%

1196: 

1197: \bibitem{UTFIT}

1198:   M.~Bona {\it et al.}  [UTfit Collaboration],

1199:   %``The UTfit collaboration report on the status of the unitarity triangle

1200:   %beyond the standard model. I: Model-independent analysis and minimal flavour

1201:   %violation,''

1202:   arXiv:hep-ph/0509219; arXiv:hep-ph/0605213,\\

1203:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509219;%%

1204: http://utfit.roma1.infn.it.

1205: 

1206: 

1207: \bibitem{CKMFIT}

1208:  J.~Charles {\it et al.}  [CKMfitter Group],

1209:   %``CP violation and the CKM matrix: Assessing the impact of the asymmetric  B

1210:   %factories,''

1211:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 41} (2005) 1

1212:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0406184],

1213:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406184;%%

1214:   http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/ckmfitter/.

1215: 

1216: %\cite{Buras:1990fn}

1217: \bibitem{BJW90}

1218: A.~J.~Buras, M.~Jamin and P.~H.~Weisz,

1219:  %``Leading And Next-To-Leading QCD Corrections To Epsilon Parameter And B0 -

1220: %Anti-B0 Mixing In The Presence Of A Heavy Top Quark,''

1221: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B347} (1990) 491.

1222: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B347,491;%%

1223: 

1224: 

1225: \bibitem{BCRS}

1226: %\cite{Buras:2001mb}

1227: %\bibitem{Buras:2001mb}

1228: A.~J.~Buras, P.~H.~Chankowski, J.~Rosiek and L.~Slawianowska,

1229:  %``Delta(M(s))/Delta(M(d)), sin 2beta and the angle gamma in the presence  of

1230: %new Delta(F) = 2 operators,''

1231: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 619}, (2001) 434 [arXiv:hep-ph/0107048];

1232: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107048;%%

1233: %\cite{Buras:2002wq}

1234: %\bibitem{Buras:2002wq}

1235: %A.~J.~Buras, P.~H.~Chankowski, J.~Rosiek and L.~Slawianowska,

1236:  %``Correlation between Delta M(s) and B/(s,d)0 $\to$ mu+ mu- in

1237:  %supersymmetry

1238: %at large tan(beta),''

1239: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 546}, (2002) 96 [arXiv:hep-ph/0207241];

1240: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207241;%%

1241: %\cite{Buras:2002vd}

1242: %\bibitem{Buras:2002vd}

1243: %A.~J.~Buras, P.~H.~Chankowski, J.~Rosiek and L.~Slawianowska,

1244:  %``Delta(M(d,s)), B/(d,s)0 $\to$ mu+ mu- and B $\to$ X/s gamma in supersymmetry

1245: %at large tan(beta),''

1246: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 659}, (2003) 3 [arXiv:hep-ph/0210145].

1247: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210145;%%

1248: 

1249: %\cite{Ciuchini:2006dx}

1250: \bibitem{Ciuchini:2006dx}

1251:   M.~Ciuchini and L.~Silvestrini,

1252:   %``Upper bounds on SUSY contributions to b $\to$ s transitions from B/s -

1253:   %anti-B/s mixing,''

1254:   arXiv:hep-ph/0603114.

1255:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603114;%%

1256: 

1257: 

1258: \bibitem{UUT}

1259: %\cite{Buras:2000dm}

1260: %\bibitem{Buras:2000dm}

1261:   A.~J.~Buras, P.~Gambino, M.~Gorbahn, S.~Jager and L.~Silvestrini,

1262:   %``Universal unitarity triangle and physics beyond the standard model,''

1263:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 500} (2001) 161

1264:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0007085].

1265:   A.~J.~Buras,

1266:   %``Minimal flavor violation,''

1267:   Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 34} (2003) 5615

1268:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0310208].

1269:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310208;%%

1270: 

1271: \bibitem{AMGIISST}

1272:   G.~D'Ambrosio, G.~F.~Giudice, G.~Isidori and A.~Strumia,

1273:   %``Minimal flavour violation: An effective field theory approach,''

1274:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 645} (2002) 155

1275:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0207036].

1276: 

1277: %\cite{Chivukula:1987py}

1278: \bibitem{Chivukula:1987py}

1279: For earlier discussions of the MFV hypothesis see:

1280:   R.~S.~Chivukula and H.~Georgi,

1281:   %``Composite Technicolor Standard Model,''

1282:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 188} (1987) 99.

1283:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B188,99;%%

1284:   %%Cited 63 times in SPIRES-HEP

1285: %\cite{Hall:1990ac}

1286: %\bibitem{Hall:1990ac}

1287:   L.~J.~Hall and L.~Randall,

1288:   %``Weak Scale Effective Supersymmetry,''

1289:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 65} (1990) 2939.

1290:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,65,2939;%%

1291:   %%Cited 72 times in SPIRES-HEP

1292: 

1293: 

1294: 

1295: 

1296: 

1297: \bibitem{CKM}

1298: N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 10},  531 (1963).

1299: { M. Kobayashi and K. Maskawa},

1300:  { Prog. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 49}, 652 (1973).

1301: 

1302: 

1303: 

1304: \bibitem{GGMS}

1305:   F.~Gabbiani, E.~Gabrielli, A.~Masiero and L.~Silvestrini,

1306:   %``A complete analysis of FCNC and CP constraints in general SUSY extensions

1307:   %of the standard model,''

1308:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 477} (1996) 321

1309:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9604387].

1310:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9604387;%%

1311: 

1312: 

1313: 

1314: 

1315: 

1316: %%\cite{Endo:2006dm}

1317: \bibitem{Endo:2006dm}

1318:   M.~Endo and S.~Mishima,

1319:   %``Constraint on Right-Handed Squark Mixings from B_s - B_sbar Mass

1320:   %Difference,''

1321:   arXiv:hep-ph/0603251.

1322:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603251;%%

1323: 

1324: %\cite{Foster:2006ze}

1325: \bibitem{Foster:2006ze}

1326:   J.~Foster, K.~i.~Okumura and L.~Roszkowski,

1327:   %``New Constraints on SUSY Flavour Mixing in Light of Recent Measurements at

1328:   %the Tevatron,''

1329:   arXiv:hep-ph/0604121.

1330:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604121;%%

1331: 

1332: %\cite{Cheung:2006tm}

1333: \bibitem{Cheung:2006tm}

1334:   K.~Cheung, C.~W.~Chiang, N.~G.~Deshpande and J.~Jiang,

1335:   %``Constraints on flavor-changing Z' models by B/s mixing, Z' production, and

1336:   %B/s $\to$ mu+ mu-,''

1337:   arXiv:hep-ph/0604223.

1338: 

1339: %\cite{Baek:2006fq}

1340: \bibitem{Baek:2006fq}

1341:   S.~Baek,

1342:   %``B/s - anti-B/s mixing in the MSSM scenario with large flavor mixing in the

1343:   %LL/RR sector,''

1344:   arXiv:hep-ph/0605182.

1345: 

1346: %\cite{He:2006bk}

1347: \bibitem{He:2006bk}

1348:   X.~G.~He and G.~Valencia,

1349:   %``$B_s-\bar B_s$ Mixing constraints on FCNC and a non-universal $Z^\prime$,''

1350:   arXiv:hep-ph/0605202.

1351:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605202;%%

1352: 

1353: 

1354: \bibitem{Hashimoto}

1355:   S.~Hashimoto,

1356:   %``Recent results from lattice calculations,''

1357:   Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 20} (2005) 5133

1358:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0411126].

1359: 

1360: \bibitem{refut}

1361:  T.~Goto, N.~Kitazawa, Y.~Okada and M.~Tanaka,

1362:   %``Model independent analysis of B anti-B mixing and CP violation in B

1363:   %decays,''

1364:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53}, (1996) 6662

1365:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9506311].

1366: %\cite{Grossman:1997dd}

1367: %\bibitem{Grossman:1997dd}

1368:   Y.~Grossman, Y.~Nir and M.~P.~Worah,

1369:   %``A model independent construction of the unitarity triangle,''

1370:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 407}, (1997) 307

1371:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9704287].

1372: G. Barenboim, G. Eyal and Y. Nir,

1373: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83} (1999) 4486

1374:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9905397].

1375: 

1376: 

1377: 

1378: %\cite{Eidelman:2004wy}

1379: \bibitem{PDG}

1380:   S.~Eidelman {\it et al.}  [Particle Data Group],

1381:   %``Review of particle physics,''

1382:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 592} (2004) 1.

1383:  

1384: \bibitem{BBpage}

1385: The Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFAG),\\

1386: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/.

1387: 

1388: 

1389: %\cite{Blucher:2005dc}

1390: \bibitem{CKM05}

1391:   E.~Blucher {\it et al.},

1392:   %``Status of the Cabibbo angle (CKM2005 - WG 1),''

1393:   arXiv:hep-ph/0512039.

1394: 

1395: \bibitem{HNa}

1396: %\cite{Herrlich:1994yv}

1397: %\bibitem{Herrlich:1994yv}

1398: S.~Herrlich and U.~Nierste,

1399: %``Enhancement of the K(L) - K(S) mass difference by short distance QCD corrections beyond leading logarithms,''

1400: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B419} (1994) 292

1401: [hep-ph/9310311].

1402: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9310311;%%

1403: 

1404: \bibitem{HNb}

1405: %\cite{Herrlich:1995hh}

1406: %\bibitem{Herrlich:1995hh}

1407: S.~Herrlich and U.~Nierste,

1408: %``Indirect CP violation in the neutral kaon system beyond leading logarithms,''

1409: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 52} (1995) 6505

1410: [hep-ph/9507262];

1411: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9507262;%%

1412: %

1413: %\cite{Herrlich:1996vf}

1414: %\bibitem{Herrlich:1996vf}

1415: %S.~Herrlich and U.~Nierste,

1416: %``The Complete |Delta S|=2 Hamiltonian in the Next-To-Leading Order,''

1417: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B476} (1996) 27

1418: [hep-ph/9604330].

1419: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9604330;%%

1420: 

1421: 

1422: 

1423: \bibitem{BB99}

1424: %\cite{Buchalla:1998ba}

1425: %\bibitem{Buchalla:1998ba}

1426:   G.~Buchalla and A.~J.~Buras,

1427:   %``The rare decays K $\to$ pi nu anti-nu, B $\to$ X nu anti-nu and  B $\to$ l+

1428:   %l-: An update,''

1429:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 548} (1999) 309

1430:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9901288].

1431:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9901288;%%

1432: 

1433: 

1434: 

1435: \bibitem{MFVB}

1436: %\cite{Bobeth:2005ck}

1437: %\bibitem{Bobeth:2005ck}

1438:   C.~Bobeth {\it et al.},

1439:   %``Upper bounds on rare K and B decays from minimal flavor violation,''

1440:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 726} (2005) 252

1441:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0505110].

1442:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0505110;%%

1443: 

1444: \bibitem{AJBRB}

1445: %\cite{Buras:2000xq}

1446: %\bibitem{Buras:2000xq}

1447:   A.~J.~Buras and R.~Buras,

1448:   %``A lower bound on sin(2beta) from minimal flavor violation,''

1449:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 501} (2001) 223

1450:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0008273].

1451:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008273;%%

1452: 

1453: 

1454: \bibitem{BF01}

1455: %\cite{Buras:2001af}

1456: %\bibitem{Buras:2001af}

1457: A.~J.~Buras and R.~Fleischer,

1458:  %``Bounds on the unitarity triangle, sin(2beta) and K $\to$ pi nu anti-nu

1459: %decays in models with minimal flavor violation,''

1460: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D64},  (2001) 115010 [arXiv:hep-ph/0104238].

1461: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104238;%%

1462: 

1463: 

1464: 

1465: 

1466: 

1467: \bibitem{AJB03}

1468: %\cite{Buras:2003td}

1469: %\bibitem{Buras:2003td}

1470: A.~J.~Buras,

1471: %``Relations between Delta(M(s,d)) and B/s,d $\to$ mu anti-mu in models with

1472: %minimal flavour violation,''

1473: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B566} (2003) 115 [arXiv:hep-ph/0303060].

1474: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303060;%%

1475: 

1476: 

1477: %\cite{Ball:2006nr}

1478: \bibitem{Ball}

1479:   P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky,

1480:   %``$|$V(td/V_ts)$|$ from B $\to$ V gamma,''

1481:   arXiv:hep-ph/0603232.

1482:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603232;%%

1483: 

1484: 

1485: 

1486: \bibitem{CDF}

1487: http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/new/bottom/060316.blessed-bsmumu3/.

1488: 

1489: \bibitem{BB4}

1490: %\cite{Buchalla:1994tr}

1491: %\bibitem{Buchalla:1994tr}

1492: G. Buchalla and  A.~J.~Buras,

1493: %``Sin2beta from K $\to$ pi neutrino anti-neutrino,''

1494: { Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B333},  (1994) 221 [arXiv:hep-ph/9405259].

1495: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9405259;%%

1496: 

1497: \bibitem{BGHN}

1498: %\cite{Buras:2005gr}

1499: %\bibitem{Buras:2005gr}

1500:   A.~J.~Buras, M.~Gorbahn, U.~Haisch and U.~Nierste,

1501:   %``The rare decay K+ $\to$ pi+ nu anti-nu at the next-to-next-to-leading orde

1502:   %in QCD,''

1503:   arXiv:hep-ph/0508165;

1504:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0508165;%%

1505: %\cite{Buras:2006gb}

1506: %\bibitem{Buras:2006gb}

1507: %  A.~J.~Buras, M.~Gorbahn, U.~Haisch and U.~Nierste,

1508:   %``Charm quark contribution to K+ $\to$ pi+ nu anti-nu at

1509:   %next-to-next-to-leading order,''

1510:   arXiv:hep-ph/0603079.

1511:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603079;%%

1512: 

1513: 

1514: 

1515: %\cite{Isidori:2005xm}

1516: \bibitem{Isidori:2005xm}

1517:   G.~Isidori, F.~Mescia and C.~Smith,

1518:   %``Light-quark loops in K $\to$ pi nu nu,''

1519:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 718} (2005) 319

1520:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0503107].

1521:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503107;%%

1522: 

1523: 

1524: 

1525: 

1526: \bibitem{BUPAST}

1527: %\cite{Buras:2002yj}

1528: %\bibitem{Buras:2002yj}

1529: A.~J.~Buras, F.~Parodi and A.~Stocchi,

1530: %``The CKM matrix and the unitarity triangle: Another look,''

1531: JHEP {\bf 0301}, (2003) 029 [arXiv:hep-ph/0207101].

1532: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207101;%%

1533: 

1534: 

1535: 

1536: \bibitem{REL}

1537:   S.~Bergmann and G.~Perez,

1538:   %``Constraining models of new physics in light of recent experimental  results  %on a(psi K(S)),''

1539:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, (2001) 115009

1540:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0103299].

1541: 

1542: 

1543: 

1544: 

1545: \bibitem{LTANB}

1546: %\bibitem{BabuKolda}

1547: %\cite{Babu:1999hn}

1548: %\bibitem{Babu:1999hn}

1549: K.~S.~Babu and C.~F.~Kolda,

1550: %``Higgs-mediated B0 $\to$ mu+ mu- in minimal supersymmetry,''

1551: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 84} (2000) 228

1552: [arXiv:hep-ph/9909476].

1553: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909476;%%

1554: %

1555: %\cite{Huang:2000sm}

1556: %\bibitem{Huang:2000sm}

1557:   C.~S.~Huang, W.~Liao, Q.~S.~Yan and S.~H.~Zhu,

1558:   %``B/s $\to$ l+ l- in a general 2HDM and MSSM,''

1559:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 114021

1560:   [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 059902]

1561:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0006250].

1562:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006250;%%

1563: %\cite{Dedes:2001fv}

1564: %\bibitem{Dedes:2001fv}

1565: %\cite{Chankowski:2000ng}

1566: %\bibitem{Chankowski:2000ng}

1567:   P.~H.~Chankowski and L.~Slawianowska,

1568:   %``B0/d,s $\to$ mu- mu+ decay in the MSSM,''

1569:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 054012

1570:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0008046].

1571:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008046;%%

1572:   A.~Dedes, H.~K.~Dreiner and U.~Nierste,

1573:   %``Correlation of B/s $\to$ mu+ mu- and (g-2)(mu) in minimal supergravity,''

1574:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 87} (2001) 251804

1575:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0108037].

1576:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108037;%%

1577:   %%Cited 89 times in SPIRES-HEP

1578: %\cite{Bobeth:2001sq}

1579: %\bibitem{Bobeth:2001sq}

1580:   C.~Bobeth, T.~Ewerth, F.~Kruger and J.~Urban,

1581:   %``Analysis of neutral Higgs-boson contributions to the decays anti-B/s  $\to$

1582:   %l+ l- and anti-B $\to$ K l+ l-,''

1583:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 074014

1584:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0104284],

1585:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104284;%%

1586:   %%Cited 98 times in SPIRES-HEP

1587: %\cite{Bobeth:2002ch}

1588: %\bibitem{Bobeth:2002ch}

1589: %  C.~Bobeth, T.~Ewerth, F.~Kruger and J.~Urban,

1590:   %``Enhancement of B(anti-B/d $\to$ mu+ mu-)/B(anti-B/s $\to$ mu+ mu-)  in the

1591:   %MSSM with minimal flavour violation and large tan beta,''

1592:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 074021

1593:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0204225].

1594:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204225;%%

1595:   %%Cited 58 times in SPIRES-HEP

1596: %\cite{Isidori:2001fv}

1597: %\bibitem{Isidori:2001fv}

1598:   G.~Isidori and A.~Retico,

1599:   %``Scalar flavour-changing neutral currents in the large-tan(beta) limit,''

1600:   JHEP {\bf 0111} (2001) 001

1601:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0110121].

1602:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110121;%%

1603: %

1604: %\bibitem{Dedes}

1605: %\cite{Dedes:2004yc}

1606: %\bibitem{Dedes:2004yc}

1607:   A.~Dedes and B.~T.~Huffman,

1608:   %``Bounding the MSSM Higgs sector from above with the Tevatron's B/s $\to$ mu+

1609:   %mu-,''

1610:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 600} (2004) 261

1611:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0407285].

1612:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407285;%%

1613: %\cite{Dedes:2002er}

1614: %\bibitem{Dedes:2002er}

1615:   A.~Dedes and A.~Pilaftsis,

1616:   %``Resummed effective Lagrangian for Higgs-mediated FCNC interactions in the

1617:   %CP-violating MSSM,''

1618:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 015012

1619:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0209306].

1620:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209306;%%

1621: %\bibitem{Kolda04}

1622: %\cite{Kolda:2004sf}

1623: %\bibitem{Kolda:2004sf}

1624: C.~Kolda,

1625: %``Minimal flavor violation at large tan(beta),''

1626: arXiv:hep-ph/0409205.

1627: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409205;%%

1628: 

1629: \bibitem{Foster}

1630: %\cite{Foster:2004vp}

1631: %\bibitem{Foster:2004vp}

1632:   J.~Foster, K.~i.~Okumura and L.~Roszkowski,

1633:   %``New Higgs effects in B physics in supersymmetry with general flavour

1634:   %mixing,''

1635:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 609} (2005) 102

1636:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0410323],

1637:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410323;%%

1638: %\cite{Foster:2005wb}

1639: %\bibitem{Foster:2005wb}

1640: %  J.~Foster, K.~i.~Okumura and L.~Roszkowski,

1641:   %``Probing the flavour structure of supersymmetry breaking with rare

1642:   %B-processes: A beyond leading order analysis,''

1643:   JHEP {\bf 0508} (2005) 094

1644:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0506146].

1645:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0506146;%%

1646: 

1647: %\cite{Isidori:2006pk}

1648: \bibitem{Isidori:2006pk}

1649:   G.~Isidori and P.~Paradisi,

1650:   %``Hints of large tan(beta) in flavour physics,''

1651:   arXiv:hep-ph/0605012.

1652: 

1653: \bibitem{Carlos}

1654:   M.~Carena, A.~Menon, R.~Noriega-Papaqui, A.~Szynkman and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,

1655:   %``Constraints on B and Higgs physics in minimal low energy supersymmetric

1656:   %models,''

1657:   arXiv:hep-ph/0603106.

1658:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603106;%%

1659: 

1660: %\cite{Chankowski:2003xd}

1661:  \bibitem{Chankowski:2003xd}

1662:   P.~H.~Chankowski and L.~Slawianowska,

1663:   %``Scalar flavor changing neutral currents in MFV SUSY at large tan(beta),''

1664:   Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 34} (2003) 4419;

1665:   %%CITATION = APPOA,B34,4419;%%

1666: %\cite{Chankowski:2002wr}

1667: %\bibitem{Chankowski:2002wr}

1668:   P.~H.~Chankowski and J.~Rosiek,

1669:   %``Supersymmetry (at large tan(beta)) and flavor physics,''

1670:   Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 33} (2002) 2329

1671:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0207242].

1672:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207242;%%

1673:   G.~Isidori and A.~Retico,

1674:   %``B/s,d $\to$ l+ l- and K(L) $\to$ l+ l- in SUSY models with non-minimal

1675:   %sources of flavour mixing,''

1676:   JHEP {\bf 0209} (2002) 063

1677:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0208159].

1678:  See also Dedes and Pilaftsis in \cite{LTANB}.

1679: 

1680: 

1681: 

1682: 

1683: %\cite{Botella:2005fc}

1684: \bibitem{Botella:2005fc}

1685:   F.~J.~Botella, G.~C.~Branco, M.~Nebot and M.~N.~Rebelo,

1686:   %``New physics and evidence for a complex CKM,''

1687:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 725} (2005) 155

1688:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0502133].

1689:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502133;%%

1690: 

1691: \bibitem{NMFV}

1692:   K.~Agashe, M.~Papucci, G.~Perez and D.~Pirjol,

1693:   %``Next to minimal flavor violation,''

1694:   arXiv:hep-ph/0509117.

1695: 

1696: %\cite{Velasco-Sevilla:2006dy}

1697: \bibitem{Velasco-Sevilla}

1698:   L.~Velasco-Sevilla,

1699:   %``Impact of Delta(m(B/s)) on the determination of the unitary triangle and

1700:   %bounds on physics beyond the standard model,''

1701:   arXiv:hep-ph/0603115.

1702:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603115;%%

1703: 

1704: \bibitem{LLNP}

1705:   S.~Laplace, Z.~Ligeti, Y.~Nir and G.~Perez,

1706:   %``Implications of the CP asymmetry in semileptonic B decay,''

1707:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, (2002) 094040

1708:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0202010].

1709: 

1710: %\cite{Ligeti:2006pm}

1711: \bibitem{Ligeti:2006pm}

1712:   Z.~Ligeti, M.~Papucci and G.~Perez,

1713:   %``Implications of the measurement of the B^0_s-\bar B^0_s mass difference,''

1714:   arXiv:hep-ph/0604112.

1715:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604112;%%

1716: 

1717: \bibitem{Ball:2006xx}

1718:   P.~Ball and R.~Fleischer,

1719:   %``Probing New Physics through B Mixing: Status, Benchmarks and Prospects,''

1720:   arXiv:hep-ph/0604249.

1721: 

1722: %\cite{Khalil:2006pv}

1723: \bibitem{Khalil:2006pv}

1724:   S.~Khalil,

1725:   %``Supersymmetric contribution to the CP asymmetry of B-> J/\psi \phi in the

1726:   %light of recent B_s -\bar{B}_s measurements,''

1727:   arXiv:hep-ph/0605021.

1728: 

1729: %\cite{Grossman:2006ce}

1730: \bibitem{Grossman:2006ce}

1731:   Y.~Grossman, Y.~Nir and G.~Raz,

1732:   %``Constraining the Phase of B_s- \bar{B}_s Mixing,''

1733:   arXiv:hep-ph/0605028.

1734:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605028;%%

1735: 

1736: %\cite{Datta:2006ne}

1737: \bibitem{Datta:2006ne}

1738:   A.~Datta,

1739:   %``$B_s$ Mixing and New Physics in hadronic $b \to s \bar{q} q$ transitions,''

1740:   arXiv:hep-ph/0605039.

1741:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605039;%%

1742: 

1743: \bibitem{SCET}

1744:   C.~W.~Bauer, I.~Z.~Rothstein and I.~W.~Stewart,

1745:   %``SCET analysis of B $\to$ K pi, B $\to$ K anti-K, and B $\to$ pi pi

1746:   %decays,''

1747:   arXiv:hep-ph/0510241.

1748:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510241;%%

1749:  

1750: %\cite{Buras:2005cv}

1751: \bibitem{Buras:2005cv}

1752:   A.~J.~Buras, R.~Fleischer, S.~Recksiegel and F.~Schwab,

1753:   %``New aspects of B $\to$ pi pi, pi K and their implications for rare

1754:   %decays,''

1755:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 45} (2006) 701

1756:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0512032].

1757:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512032;%%

1758: 

1759: \bibitem{Becirevic:2001xt}

1760:   D.~Becirevic {\it et al.},

1761:   JHEP {\bf 0204}, (2002) 025

1762:   [arXiv:hep-lat/0110091].

1763:   V.~Gimenez and J.~Reyes,

1764:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 94}, (2001) 350

1765:   [arXiv:hep-lat/0010048].

1766:   S.~Hashimoto {\it et al.},  Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, (2000) 114502

1767:   [arXiv:hep-lat/0004022].

1768:   S.~Aoki {\it et al.}  [JLQCD Collaboration],

1769:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, (2003) 014506

1770:   [arXiv:hep-lat/0208038].

1771:   D.~Becirevic {\it et al.},

1772:    Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 18}, (2000) 157

1773:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0006135].

1774:   L.~Lellouch and C.~J.~D.~Lin  [UKQCD Collaboration],

1775:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, (2001) 094501

1776:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0011086].

1777:   N.~Yamada {\it et al.}  [JLQCD Collaboration],

1778:    Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 106}, (2002) 397

1779:   [arXiv:hep-lat/0110087].

1780:    S.~Aoki {\it et al.}  [JLQCD Collaboration],

1781:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 91}, (2003) 212001

1782:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0307039].

1783: 

1784: \bibitem{noi}

1785:   M.~Ciuchini, E.~Franco, V.~Lubicz, F.~Mescia and C.~Tarantino,

1786:   %``Lifetime differences and CP violation parameters of neutral B mesons at

1787:   %the next-to-leading order in QCD,''

1788:   JHEP {\bf 0308}, (2003) 031

1789:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0308029].

1790:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308029;%%

1791: 

1792: %\cite{Beneke:2003az}

1793: \bibitem{Beneke:2003az}

1794:   M.~Beneke, G.~Buchalla, A.~Lenz and U.~Nierste,

1795:   %``CP asymmetry in flavour-specific B decays beyond leading logarithms,''

1796:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 576} (2003) 173

1797:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0307344].

1798: 

1799: %\cite{Beneke:1998sy}

1800: \bibitem{Beneke:1998sy}

1801:   M.~Beneke, G.~Buchalla, C.~Greub, A.~Lenz and U.~Nierste,

1802:   %``Next-to-leading order {QCD} corrections to the lifetime difference of  B/s

1803:   %mesons,''

1804:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 459} (1999) 631

1805:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9808385].

1806:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808385;%%

1807: 

1808: %\cite{Blanke:2006sb}

1809: \bibitem{Blanke:2006sb}

1810:   M.~Blanke, A.~J.~Buras, A.~Poschenrieder, C.~Tarantino, S.~Uhlig and A.~Weiler,

1811:   %``Particle-Antiparticle Mixing, epsilon_K, Delta Gamma_q, A_SL^q, A_CP(B_d

1812:   %$\to$ psi K_S), A_CP(B_s $\to$ psi phi) and B $\to$ X_{s,d} gamma in the

1813:   %Littlest Higgs Model with T-Parity,''

1814:   arXiv:hep-ph/0605214.

1815:  

1816: \end{thebibliography}

1817: 

1818: 

1819: \end{document}

1820: 

1821: 

1822: 

1823: 

1824: 

1825: 

1826: 

1827: