1: \documentclass[a4paper,11pt,twoside]{scrartcl}

2: 

3: \usepackage{graphicx,epsfig}

4: \usepackage{ifthen}

5: %\usepackage{showlabels}

6: \usepackage{axodraw}

7: \usepackage{amsmath}

8: \setlength{\topmargin}{0cm}

9: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.8cm}

10: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0.8cm}

11: \setlength{\textwidth}{14.2cm}

12: %\setlength{\headwidth}{14.2cm}

13: \graphicspath{{./}}

14: 

15: \usepackage{fancyhdr} 

16: \pagestyle{fancy}

17: \usepackage{calc} 

18: \renewcommand{\sectionmark}[1]{\markright{#1}} 

19: \renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}

20: \fancyhf{} 

21: \fancyfoot[CE,CO]{\bfseries \sffamily -\thepage-} 

22: %\fancyhead[CO]{\bfseries \sffamily \boldmath \rightmark} 

23: %\fancyhead[CE]{\bfseries \sffamily \boldmath \leftmark} 

24: \fancypagestyle{plain}{% 

25: \fancyhead{} % no headers in titlepages

26: \renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt} % and no line 

27: }

28: \makeatletter   %%% no headers or footers in blank pages

29: \def\cleardoublepage{

30: \clearpage

31: \if@twoside 

32:   \ifodd\c@page

33:   \else \hbox{} 

34:   \thispagestyle{empty} 

35:   \newpage 

36:     \if@twocolumn

37:       \hbox{}

38:       \newpage

39:     \fi

40:   \fi

41: \fi

42: } 

43: \makeatother

44: 

45: %\unitlength=2mm

46: \newcommand{\<}{\langle}

47: \renewcommand{\>}{\rangle}

48: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

49: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

50: \newcommand{\beqn}{\begin{eqnarray}}

51: \newcommand{\eeqn}{\end{eqnarray}}

52: \newcommand{\sla}{\hspace{-0.17cm}/}

53: \newcommand{\n}{ \newline }

54: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

55: \newcommand{\tit}{\textit}

56: \newcommand{\tbf}{\textbf}

57: \newcommand{\ov}{\overline}

58: \newcommand{\ti}{\tilde}

59: \newcommand{\al}{\alpha}

60: \newcommand{\be}{\beta}

61: \newcommand{\ga}{\gamma}

62: \newcommand{\de}{\delta}

63: \newcommand{\eps}{\epsilon}

64: \newcommand{\vep}{\varepsilon}

65: \newcommand{\la}{\lambda}

66: \newcommand{\te}{\theta}

67: \newcommand{\ra}{\rightarrow}

68: \newcommand{\mc}{\mathcal}

69: \newcommand{\FA}{\textsf{FeynArts}}

70: \newcommand{\eg}{{\em e.g.} }

71: \newcommand{\ie}{{\em i.e.} }

72: \newcommand{\id}{1 \hspace{1.15mm} \!\!\!\!1}

73: \newcommand{\D}{\Delta}

74: \newcommand{\heff}{\mc H_{\rm eff}^{\D F = 2}}

75: \newcommand{\mystackrel}[2]{\rotatebox{180}{$\stackrel{\mbox{\rotatebox{180}{\tiny#2}}}{\mbox{\rotatebox{180}{#1}}}$}}

76: \def\simge{\mathrel{\rlap{\raise 0.511ex \hbox{$>$}}{\lower 0.511ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}}

77: \def\simle{\mathrel{\rlap{\raise 0.511ex \hbox{$<$}}{\lower 0.511ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}} 

78: 

79: \newcommand{\mpar}[1]{

80: \marginpar{

81: \ifthenelse{\isodd{\value{page}}}

82: {\flushleft {\sffamily {\bfseries {\boldmath #1 \unboldmath}}}}

83: {\flushright {\sffamily {\bfseries {\boldmath #1 \unboldmath}}}}}

84: }

85: 

86: \newcommand{\lines}{

87: \begin{center} 

88: \vspace{-0.1cm} \line(1,0){15}\\ \vspace{-0.4cm} \line(1,0){30}\\

89: \vspace{-0.4cm} \line(1,0){15}\\ \vspace{0.3cm}

90: \end{center}

91: }

92: 

93: \begin{document}

94: 

95: %%%preprint stuff

96: \thispagestyle{empty}

97: \phantom{xxx}

98: \vskip0.3truecm

99: \begin{flushright}

100:  TUM-HEP-665/07

101: \end{flushright}

102: \vskip0.7truecm

103: 

104: 

105: %%%title, authors, affiliations

106: \begin{center}

107: \LARGE{\boldmath \bfseries \sffamily 

108: The MFV limit of the MSSM for low $\tan \be$:\\

109: meson mixings revisited}

110: 

111: \vspace{1.1cm}

112: 

113: \noindent {\bfseries \sffamily \Large Wolfgang~Altmannshofer, Andrzej~J.~Buras \\ and Diego~Guadagnoli}

114: 

115: \vspace{1.1cm}

116: 

117: \normalsize

118: 

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

120: James-Franck-Strasse, D-85748 Garching, Germany}

121: 

122: \vspace{0.5cm}

123: 

124: %\noindent Dated: \today

125: \end{center}

126: 

127: \vspace{0.4cm}

128: 

129: %%%abstract

130: \begin{center}

131: {\bfseries \sffamily Abstract}

132: \end{center}

133: \begin{abstract}

134: \noindent We apply the effective field theory definition of Minimal Flavour Violation (MFV) 

135: to the MSSM. We explicitly show how, by this definition, the new sources of flavour and CP

136: violation present in the MSSM become functions of the SM Yukawa couplings, and cannot be simply set 

137: to zero, as is common wisdom in phenomenological MSSM studies that assume MFV.

138: 

139: \noindent We apply our approach to the MSSM $\Delta B = 2$ Hamiltonian at low $\tan \be$. 

140: The limit of MFV amounts to a striking increase in the predictivity of the model. In particular, 

141: SUSY corrections to meson-antimeson mass differences $\D M_{d,s}$ are always found to be 

142: positive with respect to the SM prediction. This feature is due to an interesting interplay

143: between chargino and gluino box diagrams (the dominant contributions) in the different mass

144: regimes one can consider.

145: 

146: \noindent Finally, we point out that, due to the presence of gluinos, the MFV MSSM does not 

147: belong -- even at low $\tan \be$ -- to the class of models with the so-called

148: `constrained' MFV (CMFV), in which only the SM operator $(V-A)\otimes(V-A)$ contributes to 

149: $\D M_{d,s}$. Consequently, for the MSSM and in the general case of MFV, one should not

150: use the Universal Unitarity Triangle (UUT), relevant for CMFV models, but a MFV-UT

151: constructed from $\be_{\psi K_S}$ and $|V_{ub}|$ or $\ga$ from tree-level decays. In

152: particular, with the measured value of $\be_{\psi K_S}$, MFV implies a testable correlation 

153: between $|V_{ub}|$ and $\ga$. With the present high value of $|V_{ub}|$, MFV favours $\ga

154: > 80^\circ$.

155: \end{abstract}

156: 

157: \newpage

158: %%%table of content

159: \noindent \line(1,0){402.52}

160: \vspace{-0.3cm}

161: \tableofcontents

162: \noindent \line(1,0){402.52}

163: 

164: 

165: \section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}

166: 

167: The analysis of accelerator data over the last two decades established the success 

168: of the Standard Model (SM) {\em pattern} of flavour and CP violation. If the New Physics 

169: (NP) introduced to stabilize the electroweak (EW) breaking scale had a sensibly different 

170: pattern for such violations, it is natural to expect that it would have been already visible 

171: in the considerable amount of precise data on flavour changing neutral current (FCNC)

172: processes available today. The coming years will show whether this picture is altered by

173: new data, in particular CP-violation in the $B_s$-system and rare $K$-decays, where large

174: non-CKM sources of flavour and CP-violation are still possible within the most popular

175: extensions of the SM. 

176: 

177: On the theoretical side, the success of the CKM description of FCNC processes triggered 

178: the idea that the dynamics responsible for the peculiar form of the SM Yukawa couplings 

179: may be relevant only at energy scales much higher than the 

180: one typically introduced to stabilize the EW breaking. Such high-energy dynamics would then 

181: generate only the Yukawa couplings present in the SM and no additional flavour violating 

182: structures. From the low-energy point of view, the SM Yukawa couplings are then the only `building

183: blocks' regulating the amount of FCNC and CP violating processes, and their form is then 

184: raised as a ``symmetry requirement'' for the flavour sector of any candidate 

185: extension of the SM at the EW scale \cite{MFV}.

186: 

187: The above mentioned idea is known in the literature as Minimal Flavour Violation. One

188: could say that this idea in the quark sector has become the more precise, the more 

189: experimental data tended toward it. A phenomenological definition of MFV, that uses (the

190: explicit occurrence of) the CKM matrix as the only source of flavour violation and

191: restricts the set of relevant operators in the low-energy effective Hamiltonian to the SM

192: ones, has been introduced in \cite{BurasMFV}. It implies a set of very special relations

193: \cite{BurasMFV,BurasZakopane} among observables in the flavour sector, that have been

194: extensively tested in the recent years. In particular, the unexpected agreement of the 

195: so-called Universal Unitarity Triangle \cite{BurasMFV} with the available data \cite{UTfit}

196: has brought MFV to the fore, raising the question how to implement it in NP models, whose 

197: flavour sector is {\em a priori unrelated} to the SM one.

198: 

199: Already at this stage, we would like to emphasize that, while pragmatic and

200: phenomenologically useful, the definition of MFV introduced in \cite{BurasMFV}, to be

201: called `constrained MFV' (CMFV) \cite{BBGT} in what follows, is not as general as the one in \cite{MFV}, 

202: and the difference between the two approaches will emerge from our discussion. For this

203: reason, in the present paper we will use the general definition of \cite{MFV} and only at

204: the end we will investigate under which assumptions the limit of CMFV can be reached in

205: the specific framework of the MSSM.

206: 

207: Stated loosely, the basic idea to provide a model independent definition of MFV is

208: as follows. The only low-energy remnant structures responsible for flavour violation are

209: the SM Yukawa couplings, the single ones `required' at present by experiments. Then, the flavour sector 

210: of every extension of the SM at the EW scale should be minimal flavour violating 

211: if its flavour violating `building blocks' are exclusively the SM Yukawa couplings. This idea has

212: been formulated rigorously by the authors of \cite{MFV}.

213: 

214: On the phenomenological side, the idea of MFV has very often been advocated to better 

215: constrain models, whose predictivity is spoiled by the large number of parameters, as is 

216: notably the case for the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM).

217: Focusing on the latter, many studies do already exist in the literature, where the MFV

218: paradigm is explicitly advocated. However, many (most, actually) of such studies 

219: appeared before the ``effective theory'' definition by \cite{MFV} and use assumptions often 

220: not complying with such definition. We stress that the latter is the only one that

221: can be unambiguously applied in extensions of the SM, since MFV is defined through the

222: formal transformation properties of the SM Yukawa couplings and can subsequently be applied to any 

223: {\em new} source of flavour violation.

224: 

225: \bigskip

226: 

227: The aim of this paper is twofold. First, we reconsider the quark flavour sector of the 

228: MSSM and carefully discuss its MFV limit. We explicitly show how the new sources 

229: of flavour and CP violation present in the MSSM become in this limit functions of the SM 

230: Yukawa couplings, and cannot be simply dropped in MFV, as often assumed in the literature. A simplistic

231: but intuitive picture is that the off-diagonal entries in the soft terms -- the genuinely 

232: new sources of flavour violation in the MSSM -- are {\em not} zero in MFV, but instead `CKM-like'.

233: 

234: \noindent We then apply our approach to the specific case of the $\D B = 2$ Hamiltonian in the MSSM

235: at low $\tan \be$. Such Hamiltonian, responsible for $B_{s,d}$ meson mixings, provides a concrete

236: and phenomenologically interesting benchmark for the approach itself. Explicit implementation 

237: of MFV in the MSSM leads to a striking improvement of its predictivity. This is obvious if 

238: one thinks that the sector introducing the largest number of new parameters is notably the

239: {\em soft} sector. The latter is now entirely constrained to be proportional to appropriate 

240: combinations of the SM Yukawa couplings, so that the main unknowns turn out to be the (real) 

241: proportionality factors (`MFV parameters'), amounting to 12 independent dimensionless parameters. 

242: Furthermore, one has to fix some real mass scale parameters (`SUSY scales'): 

243: the $\mu$ parameter, a squark mass scale $\ov m$ and trilinear coupling $A$, gaugino 

244: masses $M_1, M_2$ and $M_{\tilde g}$ and the two Higgs soft terms $m_{H_u}$ and $m_{H_d}$.

245: Hence, the mass scales relevant to the $\D B = 2$ case are in total 8, but we will 

246: see that only a subset of them affects non-trivially the calculations. Finally, also 

247: $\tan \be$ is of course a parameter, but we set it to reference (small) values, whose 

248: choice does not affect our main findings.

249: 

250: \noindent Concerning the new sources of flavour violation specific to the $\D B = 2$ case, 

251: we note that contributions from boxes featuring gluinos and neutralinos, usually assumed not 

252: to enter MFV calculations \cite{gabrielli-giudice,BGGJS,BCRS-NP,BCRS-PL,BCRSbig}, do actually contribute. 

253: The flavour violating structures in their couplings are proportional, as mentioned above, 

254: to appropriate combinations of the SM Yukawa couplings, the combinations being fixed by the 

255: very definition of MFV \cite{MFV}.

256: 

257: The second aim of our paper is a detailed numerical study of the $\D B = 2$ Hamiltonian in

258: the MFV MSSM at low $\tan \be$. In this study, mass scale parameters can be fixed to

259: reference values covering all the physically interesting mass scenarios that low-scale

260: SUSY could have. Concretely, we fixed $\mu$ to a small (200 GeV) or intermediate (500

261: GeV) or large value (1000 GeV), covering both signs. For each choice of $\mu$ we then chose

262: the squark mass scale to four benchmark values in the range 100 $\div$ 1000 GeV and so forth

263: for the other parameters. We considered a total of 48 scenarios. Then, the 12 MFV parameters 

264: which govern proportionality to the Yukawa matrices are left free to float within

265: reasonable intervals. 

266: 

267: \noindent Now, for every mass scenario considered, a random scan of the MFV parameters 

268: allows to generate a range of predictions for the SUSY corrections to the SM 

269: meson-antimeson mass differences $\D M_{s,d}$. The predicted corrections display a number of remarkable 

270: features

271: \begin{itemize}

272: \item[{\bf i)}] For each of the mass scenarios considered, corrections turn out to be

273: always {\em positive} and to float within a relatively narrow range of values when varying MFV

274: parameters. Specifically, in the case of $B_s - \ov B_s$ mixing, corrections are in the

275: range $\D M_s^{\rm SUSY} \cong +(0 \div 2)~{\rm ps}^{-1}$. Given the still large error

276: associated with the computation of the matrix elements entering the $\D M_s$

277: determination, these corrections, at present, are however not large enough to distinguish

278: the SM from the MFV MSSM at low $\tan \beta$.

279: \item[{\bf ii)}] The positiveness of the sum of the SUSY contributions turns out to be

280: caused by the interplay between the two dominant of them, namely chargino and gluino

281: boxes. This interplay is mainly dictated by the relative importance of the $\mu$ parameter

282: with respect to the other SUSY scales. This can intuitively be understood by observing

283: that, if $\mu$ is small, it governs the chargino lightest mass eigenvalue, whereas large

284: values of $\mu$ increase the importance of scalar operator contributions coming from 

285: gluino boxes.

286: \item[{\bf iii)}] By analyzing the single box contributions, we identify four main

287: scenarios for the interplay between chargino and gluino contributions. Such scenarios are 

288: ruled basically by the magnitude of $\mu$ and by that of the squark mass scale

289: $\ov m$. Variation of the other SUSY scales plays only a marginal role in the qualitative

290: picture that emerges.

291: \item[{\bf iv)}] Since we restrict our analysis to low $\tan \be$, a naive expectation would 

292: be that most of the contributions be proportional to the SM left-left current operator, since

293: the down-quark Yukawa matrix should be negligible. We find departures from this picture, arising 

294: when $\mu$ is not small in magnitude, and due to gluino contributions. 

295: Responsible for these departures are, in particular, the LR and RR submatrices of the down-squark 

296: mass matrix. If the down Yukawa is set to zero, these submatrices are respectively zero or 

297: proportional to the identity matrix. On the other  hand, when the down Yukawa is kept, they 

298: give rise to the bulk of contributions from operators other than the SM one.

299: \end{itemize}

300: 

301: \medskip

302: 

303: The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:MFV} we recall the

304: effective theory definition of MFV, in the formalism of the MSSM. Then, in Section

305: \ref{sec:MSSM-MFV}, we apply such definition to the flavour sector of the MSSM, in

306: particular to the soft SUSY breaking terms, by discussing their MFV relations to the SM

307: Yukawa couplings. In Section \ref{sec:MSSM-DF2} we then focus on the $\D B = 2$ Hamiltonian in the

308: MSSM at low $\tan \be$. We collect here all the basic formulae and discuss the steps needed

309: to evaluate their MFV limit in the light of the procedure described in the previous

310: sections. Section \ref{sec:MC} presents our numerical strategy to explore the MFV MSSM 

311: predictions for $\D M_{s,d}$ and a detailed accout of our main findings, 

312: in particular the features outlined in the above points {\bf i)} to {\bf iv)}. In Section

313: \ref{sec:discussion}, we then elaborate on our findings, by describing additional numerical 

314: studies performed to clarify the issues emerged, like the role of $\tan \be$. Section

315: \ref{sec:limits-MFV} is devoted to various considerations on the topic of MFV, triggered

316: by what we learned from the study carried out in the previous sections. One of such

317: reflections concerns the definition of the Universal Unitarity Triangle, which turns out

318: not to be a construction always valid in MFV. To this point we devote Section

319: \ref{sec:MFV-UUT}. Finally, Section \ref{sec:conclusions} presents our conclusions and outlook.

320: In the Appendix we collect the complete list of Wilson coefficients for the $\D B = 2$ 

321: Hamiltonian in the MSSM at low $\tan \be$.

322: 

323: \section{Minimal Flavour Violation: effective theory definition} \label{sec:MFV}

324: 

325: In a top-down approach, the question how to build up concretely the MFV hypothesis 

326: in a given NP framework translates into how to {\em define} MFV in the presence of new flavour

327: violating interactions, {\em a priori unrelated} to the SM ones. To understand this point,

328: it is first useful to remind the structure of flavour breaking in the SM. The SM flavour 

329: symmetry group and its breaking have been first elucidated 

330: in \cite{chivukula-georgi-MFV,hall-randall-MFV}.

331: Responsible for such breaking are the SM Yukawa couplings, and their transformation properties 

332: under the flavour group can be identified by requiring (formal) invariance of the Yukawa 

333: interactions. Flavour violation is recovered as the spurion Yukawa ``fields'' assume their 

334: background values. 

335: \noindent MFV then demands the Yukawa background values to be the {\em only} structures 

336: generating the observed flavour (and CP) violation. This definition, which has the

337: advantage to hold model-independently, has been introduced by D'Ambrosio {\em et al.}

338: \cite{MFV}.

339: 

340: Following this approach, in the context of a given NP model, every new flavour violating 

341: ``coupling'' can be classified according to its transformation properties under the SM 

342: flavour group, and -- if MFV holds -- rewritten in terms of combinations of the SM 

343: Yukawa couplings transforming in the same way.

344: 

345: Such procedure has been detailed in \cite{MFV}. We now restate it briefly for the MSSM with 

346: $R$-parity, which is our case of interest. The relevant quantity is the superpotential $W$, 

347: which reads

348: \beqn

349: W = \eps_{ij} \left( Y^{IJ}_u H_u^i Q^{Ij} U^J 

350: + Y^{IJ}_d H_d^i Q^{Ij} D^J + Y^{IJ}_e H_d^i L^{Ij} E^J 

351: + \mu H_u^i H_d^j \right)~,

352: \label{W}

353: \eeqn

354: with the matter superfields $Q$, $U$, $D$, $L$, $E$ (containing SM fermions) and

355: $H_{u,d}$ (containing the Higgs doublets). Here $I,J$ and $i,j$ denote flavour and $SU(2)_L$

356: indices, respectively. The notation and conventions comply entirely with \cite{Rosiek}. 

357: 

358: Out of the largest possible group $G_F$ of field redefinitions that commutes with the gauge

359: group \cite{chivukula-georgi-MFV},

360: \beqn

361: G_F = \left[ SU(3) \otimes U(1) \right]^5 \equiv 

362: \underset{F=Q,U,D,L,E}{\bigotimes} \left[ SU(3) \otimes U(1) \right]_F~,

363: %\mbox{\mystackrel{$\bigotimes$}{$F=Q,U,D,L,E$}}\left[ SU(3) \otimes U(1) \right]_F~,

364: \label{GF}

365: \eeqn

366: the Yukawa interactions in the superpotential (\ref{W}) break the flavour group 

367: $[SU(3)]^5 \otimes U(1)_{E}$ \cite{peccei-quinn,MFV}.

368: The flavour symmetry can formally be recovered in eq. (\ref{W}) by treating $Y_{u,d,e}$ as

369: spurions and requiring them to have indices transforming under $[SU(3)]^5$ as follows

370: \beqn

371: \left[ Y_u \right]_{{\ov 3_Q}{3_U}}~, ~~~~\left[ Y_d \right]_{{\ov 3_Q}{3_D}}~, 

372: ~~~~\left[ Y_e \right]_{{\ov 3_L}{3_E}}~,

373: \label{Yindices}

374: \eeqn

375: with the subscript $Q,U,D,L,E$ referring to an index that transforms as the corresponding

376: representation under $SU(3)_{Q,U,D,L,E}$, respectively, and as a singlet under 

377: all the other group factors. Note that the superfields $U,D,E$ are left-handed but must

378: describe right-handed particles. As a consequence their component fields are defined with

379: a charge conjugation operation and they transform as $\ov 3$ representations under 

380: $SU(3)_{U,D,E}$, respectively.

381: 

382: Using the $[SU(3)]^5$ symmetry, the fermion superfields can be suitably shifted to

383: have Yukawa couplings in the form

384: \beqn

385: Y_u = K^T \hat Y_u~, ~~~~ Y_d = \hat Y_d~, ~~~~ Y_e = \hat Y_e~,

386: \label{Ydiag}

387: \eeqn

388: with the $\hat Y$ diagonal matrices and $K$ the CKM matrix. This form is not the usual 

389: one, since quark mass matrices are not simultaneously diagonal. However, it is very 

390: useful when ranking different flavour changing effects, since the top Yukawa (the 

391: dominant one) displays explicit proportionality to the CKM matrix.

392: 

393: For low $\tan \be \equiv \< H_u \> / \< H_d \>$, all FCNC effects are dominantly 

394: described by one single off-diagonal structure \cite{MFV}

395: \beqn

396: (\la_{\rm FC})_{ij} \equiv

397: \left \{

398: \begin{array}{cl}

399: (Y_u Y_u^\dagger)_{ij} \approx \la_t^2 K_{3 i} K^*_{3 j}~, & i \neq j~, \\

400: [0.2cm]

401: 0~, & i = j~,

402: \end{array}

403: \right.

404: \label{laFC}

405: \eeqn

406: with $\la_t = (\hat{Y}_u)_{33}$.

407: Note in fact that higher powers of $Y_u Y_u^\dagger$ can be rewritten in terms of 

408: $Y_u Y_u^\dagger$ times an appropriate power of $\la_t^2$.

409: Subleading effects on the r.h.s. of eq. (\ref{laFC}) are suppressed by powers of 

410: $m_c/m_t$. 

411: 

412: The main observation \cite{MFV} is now that, if MFV holds, soft SUSY-breaking terms are

413: related to the SM Yukawa couplings (\ref{Ydiag}) and the explicit relations can be constructed 

414: by just using the formal transformation properties of (\ref{laFC}) under the flavour group. 

415: Such derivation will be presented in section \ref{sec:MSSM-MFV}. In section \ref{sec:MSSM-DF2} 

416: we will subsequently use the calculated SUSY parameters to evaluate the MSSM contributions 

417: to the $\D B = 2$ effective Hamiltonian, to which we will restrict the rest of the analysis. 

418: The latter will allow us to quantitatively assess the features of the SUSY contributions 

419: in the MFV limit in a benchmark case like meson oscillations.

420: 

421: In this respect, we anticipate that even if $(\la_{\rm FC})_{ij}$ in eq. (\ref{laFC}) provides 

422: the dominant FC mechanism, a detailed study shows that effects proportional to the 

423: down-quark Yukawa cannot actually be neglected. The latter does not provide by itself an

424: additional FC mechanism -- as one can see from eq. (\ref{Ydiag}) -- but still its effects can correct

425: the magnitude of those provided by $(\la_{\rm FC})_{ij}$. This can be understood by simply looking at the

426: LR entries of the down-squark mass matrix (see eq. (\ref{Md}) below). The latter are 

427: proportional to $\mu Y_d$, and if $\mu$ is not small, the corresponding terms cannot be

428: dropped even if $Y_d \ll Y_u$.

429: 

430: Focusing again on the $\D B = 2$ Hamiltonian, this mechanism also regulates the relative 

431: importance of contributions to operators beyond the SM left-left vector operator $\mc Q_1$. 

432: This can also be naively understood from the down-squark mass matrix, once its MFV limit is

433: performed. In this limit, in fact, the LR and RR sectors are zero or respectively

434: proportional to the identity matrix, if $Y_d \to 0$. As a consequence one would expect the 

435: SUSY contributions to the $\D B = 2$ Hamiltonian be in the Wilson coefficient of $\mc Q_1$ only. 

436: This picture is largely modified or completely spoiled when one includes $Y_d$, depending on 

437: the mass scenario chosen for the SUSY parameters. The main actor in this respect is again 

438: the $\mu$ parameter, for the reason outlined above.

439: 

440: \section{MFV relations of MSSM parameters to SM Yukawa couplings} \label{sec:MSSM-MFV}

441: 

442: We now discuss how the above picture concretely applies to the MSSM with $R$-parity and softly 

443: broken SUSY. In this model, the part of the Lagrangian responsible for flavour violation reads

444: \beqn

445: \mc L_{\rm MSSM}^{\rm f.v.} = [W]_{\te \te} + c.c. + \mc L_{\rm soft}^{\rm f.v.}~,

446: \label{LMSSMfv}

447: \eeqn

448: with $W$ the superpotential of eq. (\ref{W}) and $\mc L_{\rm soft}^{\rm f.v.}$ given as

449: \beqn

450: -\mc{L}^{\rm f.v.}_{\rm soft}= &&\Bigl[ 

451: (m^{IJ}_Q)^2 \left( (\tilde{u}^{I}_L)^* \tilde{u}^J_L

452: + (\tilde{d}^I_L)^* \tilde{d}^J_L \right)

453: + (m^{IJ}_U)^2 \tilde{u}^I_R (\tilde{u}^{J}_R)^* 

454: + (m^{IJ}_D)^2 \tilde{d}^I_R (\tilde{d}^{J}_R)^* \nn \\

455: &&+(m^{IJ}_L)^2 \left( (\tilde{\nu}^I_L)^* \tilde{\nu}^J_L

456: + (\tilde{e}^I_L)^* \tilde{e}^J_L \right) 

457: + (m^{IJ}_E)^2 \tilde{e}^I_R (\tilde{e}^{J}_R)^* \nn \\

458: &&+(m_{H_u})^2 \left( (h^1_u)^* h^1_u + (h^2_u)^* h^2_u \right) 

459: + (m_{H_d})^2 \left( (h^1_d)^* h^1_d + (h^2_d)^* h^2_d \right) \Bigl] \nn \\

460: [0.2cm]

461: &&- \Bigl[ \eps_{ij} \Bigl( A^{IJ}_u h_u^i \tilde{q}_L^{Ij} (\tilde{u}^J_R)^*

462: + A^{IJ}_d h_d^i \tilde{q}_L^{Ij} (\tilde{d}^J_R)^* \nn \\

463: &&+ A^{IJ}_e h_d^i \tilde{\ell}_L^{Ij} (\tilde{e}^J_R)^*

464:  + B_h h_u^i h_d^j \Bigl) ~+~ c.c. \Bigl] ~,

465: \label{LMSSMsoft}

466: \eeqn

467: \ie the usual soft Lagrangian with omitted gaugino mass terms.

468: 

469: The MSSM Lagrangian, with the above superpotential and soft pieces, gives rise to the

470: following $6 \times 6$ squark mass matrices

471: \beqn

472: M_{\tilde u}^2 =

473: \left(

474: \begin{array}{cc}

475: \frac{v_2^2}{2} Y_u Y_u^\dagger + (m_Q^2)^T - \frac{\cos 2 \be}{6}( M_Z^2 - 4 M_W^2 ) \id & 

476: - \mu^* \frac{v_1}{\sqrt 2} Y_u - \frac{v_1}{\sqrt 2} \tan \be A_u\\

477: [0.2cm]

478: - \mu \frac{v_1}{\sqrt 2} Y_u^\dagger - \frac{v_1}{\sqrt 2} \tan \be A_u^\dagger& 

479: \frac{v_2^2}{2} Y_u^\dagger Y_u + m_U^2 + \frac{2}{3} \cos 2 \be M_Z^2 s_{\rm w}^2 \id

480: \end{array}

481: \right)~,\nn \\

482: \label{Mu}

483: \eeqn

484: \beqn

485: M_{\tilde d}^2 =

486: \left(

487: \begin{array}{cc}

488: \frac{v_1^2}{2} Y_d Y_d^\dagger + (m_Q^2)^T - \frac{\cos 2 \be}{6}( M_Z^2 + 2 M_W^2 ) \id & 

489: \mu^* \frac{v_1}{\sqrt 2} \tan \be Y_d + \frac{v_1}{\sqrt 2} A_d\\

490: [0.2cm]

491: \mu \frac{v_1}{\sqrt 2} \tan \be Y_d^\dagger + \frac{v_1}{\sqrt 2} A_d^\dagger& 

492: \frac{v_1^2}{2} Y_d^\dagger Y_d + m_D^2 - \frac{\cos 2 \be}{3} M_Z^2 s_{\rm w}^2 \id

493: \end{array}

494: \right)~.\nn \\

495: \label{Md}

496: \eeqn

497: 

498: If MFV holds, the new sources of flavour violation present in the soft terms must be related 

499: to SM Yukawa couplings. To this end, they can again be formally treated as spurion fields, with indices 

500: transforming under the flavour group as follows:

501: \beqn

502: [m_Q^2]_{3_Q \ov 3_Q}~, ~~ [m_U^2]_{\ov 3_U 3_U}~, ~~[m_D^2]_{\ov 3_D 3_D}~,

503:  ~~[A_u]_{\ov 3_Q 3_U}~, ~~[A_d]_{\ov 3_Q 3_D}~.

504: \eeqn

505: Recalling Yukawa transformations (\ref{Yindices}), one can then write the following MFV relations 

506: \cite{MFV}\footnote{Note that $b_3$ and $b_4$ must be equal, due to the hermiticity of

507: $m_Q^2$.\label{b3b4}}

508: \beqn

509: [m_Q^2]^T &=& \ov m^2 \left( a_1 \id + b_1 Y_u Y_u^\dagger + b_2 Y_d Y_d^\dagger 

510: + b_3 Y_d Y_d^\dagger Y_u Y_u^\dagger + b_4 Y_u Y_u^\dagger Y_d Y_d^\dagger \right)~, \nn\\

511: m_U^2 &=& \ov m^2 \left( a_2 \id + b_5 Y_u^\dagger Y_u \right)~, \nn \\

512: m_D^2 &=& \ov m^2 \left( a_3 \id + b_6 Y_d^\dagger Y_d \right)~, \nn \\

513: A_u &=& A \left( a_4 Y_u + b_7 Y_d Y_d^\dagger Y_u \right)~, \nn \\

514: A_d &=& A \left( a_5 Y_d + b_8 Y_u Y_u^\dagger Y_d \right)~,

515: \label{softMFV}

516: \eeqn

517: where, in the first line, we have reported the transpose of $m_Q^2$, since it is the latter

518: to appear in the squark mass matrix in the usual conventions \cite{Rosiek}. The $a_i, b_i$ 

519: coefficients are real proportionality factors, whose allowed range of values will be

520: studied in section \ref{sec:MC} below. The overall mass scales $\ov m$ and $A$ fix

521: the order of magnitude of the respective soft terms, when the coefficient multiplying them

522: is of O(1). Expansions (\ref{softMFV}) are accurate to all orders in $\la_t$ and $\la_b

523: \equiv (\hat Y_d)_{33}$. Subleading effects are suppressed by powers of $m_c/m_t$

524: and/or $m_s/m_b$.

525: 

526: Starting from the mass matrices (\ref{Mu})-(\ref{Md}), and expressing the soft terms

527: according to expansions (\ref{softMFV}), it is then customary to perform a 

528: superfield redefinition leading to diagonal mass matrices for the quarks. The unitary 

529: matrices adopted are the same as in the SM: here one defines shifts

530: \beqn

531: &&u_L \to V_{Q_1} u_L~, ~~ d_L \to V_{Q_2} d_L~,\nn \\

532: &&u_R \to V_{U} u_R~, ~~~ d_R \to V_{D} d_R~,

533: \label{sCKM} 

534: \eeqn

535: and the fields on the r.h.s. form the CKM basis. In the MSSM, the same shifts are carried

536: out at the superfield level and lead to the so-called super-CKM basis. After performing such 

537: transformations, one gets diagonal Yukawa matrices $\hat Y_u, \hat Y_d$, and can use relations 

538: \beqn

539: \hat m_u = \frac{v_2}{\sqrt 2} \hat Y_u~,~~\hat m_d = -\frac{v_1}{\sqrt 2} \hat Y_d~,

540: \label{mqY}

541: \eeqn

542: in eqs. (\ref{Mu})-(\ref{Md}) to display explicit dependence on the quark mass matrices $\hat m_{u,d}$.

543: 

544: In the super-CKM basis, the matrices $m_{Q,U,D}^2$ and $A_{u,d}$

545: have still off-diagonal entries.\footnote{Such entries are responsible in general for 

546: genuinely supersymmetric flavour violation in the mass matrices (\ref{Mu})-(\ref{Md}). 

547: In our case, as we said, soft term are instead fixed by the MFV expansions (\ref{softMFV}).}

548: Then, in order to have the (hermitian) mass matrices in eqs. (\ref{Mu})-(\ref{Md}) in diagonal form,

549: one needs a second redefinition, performed on the up- and down-squark fields, respectively. 

550: Such redefinition leads from the basis $\tilde u, \tilde d$, to the mass eigenstate basis $U,D$, 

551: which in the conventions of \cite{Rosiek} reads

552: \beqn

553: \tilde u_i = (Z_U)_{ij} U_j~,~~

554: \tilde d_i = (Z_D^*)_{ij} D_j~,

555: \label{Zud}

556: \eeqn

557: with the index $i = 1,2,3$ for $\tilde u_L, \tilde d_L$ and $i = 4,5,6$ for 

558: $\tilde u_R, \tilde d_R$. 

559: 

560: Using transformation (\ref{Zud}), the down-squark mass term in the Lagrangian is

561: diagonalized according to

562: \beqn

563: \tilde d^T \, M_{\tilde d}^2 \, \tilde d^*

564: = D^T \, [ Z_D^\dagger M_{\tilde d}^2 Z_D ] \, D^*

565: = D^T \, \hat M_D^2 \, D^*~, ~~~ \hat M_D^2 = {\rm diag}\{M_{D_1}^2,\,..., M_{D_6}^2\}~,

566: \label{MdtoMD}

567: \eeqn

568: with $M_{\tilde d}^2$ given in eq. (\ref{Md}) and $\tilde d$ ($D$) a column vector built

569: out of the $\tilde d_i$ ($D_i$). An entirely analogous equation holds for the case of up-squarks.

570: 

571: \medskip

572: 

573: In practical calculations, flavour violation is driven either by non-diagonal squark

574: propagator matrices, when working in the $\tilde d, \tilde u$ basis, or by a $Z_{D,U}$ matrix 

575: appearing in vertices with a squark leg (gluino-quark-down squark, neutralino-quark-down

576: squark and chargino-quark-up squark, in our case).

577: In the former case, one usually adopts an expansion in off-diagonal ``mass insertions''

578: and stops to the first non-trivial order, in the well-know Mass Insertion Approximation

579: (MIA) \cite{MIA,GGMS}. The MIA provides a very useful tool to make flavour violation

580: mediated by soft SUSY breaking terms most transparent and manageable, since it

581: `linearizes' the mechanism of flavour violation, but it is an approximation.

582: 

583: In our MFV formulae, we will instead stick to the mass eigenstate basis, \ie to the exact

584: calculation. Among the $M_{\tilde d}^2$ entries in eq. (\ref{Md}), the soft terms will be

585: related through proportionality factors to the SM Yukawa couplings, according to the expansions

586: (\ref{softMFV}). Then the $M_{\tilde d}^2$ mass matrix turns out to depend only on $\mu$

587: (which must be real), on $\tan \be$, on the two squark scale factors $A, \ov m$ 

588: (see eq. (\ref{softMFV})) and on the proportionality factors. Upon rotations of the squark

589: states from the super-CKM basis to the mass eigenbasis, eqs. (\ref{Zud}), the pattern of

590: flavour violation is then transferred from the non-diagonality of the mass matrices, to

591: the off-diagonal entries of the matrices $Z_{D,U}$, entering quark-squark interactions

592: with gluinos and neutralinos.

593: 

594: %% example of Yd->0

595: Let us show with a simple example how flavour violation in the $Z_{D,U}$ becomes `CKM-like', 

596: after MFV expansions are imposed.

597: Let us consider the down-squark mass matrix of eq. (\ref{Md}), with soft SUSY parameters

598: given according to the MFV expansions in eq. (\ref{softMFV}). Adopting the approximation

599: $Y_d \to 0$, one can drop all the corresponding terms in such expansions. One can then

600: perform the super-CKM rotation on the squark fields to have the up Yukawa diagonal. The

601: down-squark mass matrix assumes, in this basis and under these assumptions, the following form

602: \beqn

603: M_{\tilde d}^2 =

604: \left(

605: \begin{array}{cc}

606: \ov m^2(a_1 \id + b_1 (K^\dagger \hat Y^2_u K)^T) 

607: - \frac{\cos 2 \be}{6}( M_Z^2 + 2 M_W^2 ) \id & 0\\

608: [0.2cm]

609: 0 & \ov m^2 a_3 \id - \frac{\cos 2 \be}{3} M_Z^2 s_{\rm w}^2 \id

610: \end{array}

611: \right)~,\nn \\

612: \label{Mdexample}

613: \eeqn

614: whence the unitary transformation (\ref{Zud}) leading to the mass eigenbasis for the

615: down-squarks is obviously

616: \beqn

617: Z_{D} =

618: \left(

619: \begin{array}{cc}

620: K^T & 0 \\

621: 0 & \id

622: \end{array}

623: \right)~.

624: \eeqn

625: As one can see, off-diagonal entries in $Z_D$ are not zero, but CKM-like (in this simple

626: case only in the LL sector). They will appear in the couplings of gluinos and neutralinos

627: with quarks and squarks.

628: 

629: When one includes in the diagonalization the effects of the down-Yukawa matrix, the

630: diagonalization becomes more involved. However, flavour violation in the $Z_{D,U}$ is

631: still encoded in their dependence on the SM Yukawa couplings. 

632: 

633: This observation allows us to comment on a conventional assumption present in most of the 

634: calculations performed in the MFV MSSM to date. This assumption amounts to dropping altogether 

635: flavour violating entries in the $Z_{D,U}$, due to the common wisdom that, if MFV holds, flavour violation 

636: can come only from couplings explicitly displaying proportionality to the CKM matrix.

637: The effective theory definition of MFV \cite{MFV} implies that the correct approach 

638: is instead to think the off-diagonal terms in the $Z_{D,U}$ as being not zero, but instead

639: dictated by the SM Yukawa couplings. In the simple example above, this dependence reconstructs 

640: in (the LL sector of) $Z_{D}$ directly the CKM matrix. 

641: 

642: The bottom line is that, in the MFV MSSM, one has to diagonalize squark matrices {\em after} 

643: imposing expansions (\ref{softMFV}), so that the diagonalization matrices $Z_{D,U}$ bear

644: dependence on such expansions and then use the $Z_{D,U}$ in all vertices where they are

645: required. This point has already been stated in \cite{MFV}.

646: 

647: \medskip

648: 

649: For the sake of completeness, we also report here the chargino, neutralino and charged

650: Higgs mass matrices, since these particles will enter our subsequent calculations. 

651: The notation used is again that of \cite{Rosiek}. Charginos are 

652: two Dirac fermions $\chi_{1,2}$ whose mass matrix reads

653: \beqn

654: \left(

655: \begin{array}{cc}

656: M_{\chi_1} & 0 \\

657: 0 & M_{\chi_2}

658: \end{array}

659: \right) = 

660: Z_-^T

661: \left(

662: \begin{array}{cc}

663: M_2 & \frac{e v_2}{\sqrt 2 s_W}\\

664: \frac{e v_1}{\sqrt 2 s_W} & \mu

665: \end{array}

666: \right)

667: Z_+~,

668: \label{MCha}

669: \eeqn

670: with $Z_{\pm}$ unitary matrices, chosen from the requirement $0 < M_{\chi_1} < M_{\chi_2}$. 

671: Similarly, neutralinos are four Majorana fermions $\chi^0_{1,...,4}$, with mass matrix given by

672: \beqn

673: \left(

674: \begin{array}{ccc}

675: M_{\chi_1^0} & & 0 \\

676:  & \ddots &  \\

677: 0 & & M_{\chi_4^0}

678: \end{array}

679: \right) = 

680: Z_N^T

681: \left(

682: \begin{array}{cccc}

683: M_1 & 0 & \frac{-e v_1}{\sqrt 2 c_W} & \frac{e v_2}{\sqrt 2 c_W}\\

684: 0 & M_2 & \frac{e v_1}{\sqrt 2 s_W} &  \frac{-e v_2}{\sqrt 2 s_W}\\

685: \frac{-e v_1}{\sqrt 2 c_W} & \frac{e v_1}{\sqrt 2 s_W} & 0 & -\mu\\

686: \frac{e v_2}{\sqrt 2 c_W} & \frac{-e v_2}{\sqrt 2 s_W} & -\mu & 0

687: \end{array}

688: \right)

689: Z_N~,

690: \label{MNeu}

691: \eeqn

692: with $Z_N$ a unitary matrix, whose form is again specified after requiring positiveness 

693: and ordering for the eigenvalues.

694: 

695: \noindent Finally, one has two physical charged Higgs scalars $H_1^{\pm}$, with mass

696: \beqn

697: M_{H_1^\pm}^2 = M_W^2 + m_{H_u}^2 + m_{H_d}^2 + 2 |\mu|^2~,

698: \label{MH1}

699: \eeqn

700: where $m_{H_u}^2$ and $m_{H_d}^2$ are soft terms for the corresponding Higgs doublets,

701: given in eq. (\ref{LMSSMsoft}). Away from the unitary gauge, one must also include in the 

702: calculations the $H_2^{\pm}$ fields, which provide the longitudinal degrees of freedom 

703: for the $W$ bosons in the unitary gauge.

704: 

705: When assuming MFV, the gaugino masses $M_{1,2}$ are real.\footnote{$M_{\tilde g}$ can be

706: chosen as real without loss of generality \cite{Rosiek}.} In fact, if one allows

707: non-trivial phases in $M_{1,2}$, they are communicated to the diagonalization matrices

708: $Z_N$ and $Z_{\pm}$, which in turn enter Feynman rules for charginos and neutralinos. One

709: would then have new sources of CP violation, not allowed by the MFV hypothesis.

710: % In fact, in

711: %MFV, CP violation is only dictated by the SM Yukawa's, and to have a complex gaugino mass

712: %one would need to construct a function of such Yukawa's which has a non-trivial phase and

713: %is a singlet,\footnote{Gaugino mass terms are formally singlet `spurions' under the

714: %flavour group.\label{singlets}} which is not possible. 

715: The same argument applies to the Higgs sector parameter $\mu$.

716: 

717: \section{\boldmath $\D B = 2$ in the MFV MSSM at low $\tan \be$} \label{sec:MSSM-DF2}

718: 

719: The MFV limit of the MSSM, as described in the previous sections, can now be applied 

720: to a concrete example, that of the $\D B = 2$ Hamiltonian, which is responsible for 

721: meson-antimeson oscillations. The latter has recently received renewed theoretical

722: interest, in view of the very precise measurement of $B_s - \ov B_s$ oscillations 

723: by the CDF collaboration \cite{CDF-DMs}.

724: 

725: The basic ingredient to describe meson-antimeson oscillations is the quantity 

726: $\mc M^{(M)}_{12}$ $\equiv$ $\< M | \heff | \ov M \>$, with $M = K$, $B_{d,s}$.

727: Within the MSSM, $\heff$ has the form

728: \beqn

729: \heff = \sum_{i=1}^5 C_i \mc Q_i + \sum_{i=1}^3 \tilde C_i \tilde {\mc Q}_i ~+{\rm H.c.}~,

730: \label{heff-MSSM}

731: \eeqn

732: with the $\mc Q_i$ given, in the case of $\ov B_s - B_s$ mixing, by

733: \beqn

734: \mc Q_1 & = & 

735: (\ov s^{i} \gamma_{\mu\,L}\, b^{i}) \, (\ov s^{j} \gamma^\mu_{L}\, b^{j})~,\nn \\

736: \mc Q_2 & = & 

737: (\ov s^{i} P_{L}\, b^{i})\, (\ov s^{j} P_{L}\, b^{j})~,\nn \\

738: \mc Q_3 & = & 

739: (\ov s^{i} P_{L}\, b^{j})\, (\ov s^{j} P_{L}\, b^{i})~,\nn\\

740: \mc Q_4 & = & 

741: (\ov s^{i} P_{L}\, b^{i})\, (\ov s^{j} P_{R}\, b^{j})~,\nn \\

742: \mc Q_5 & = & 

743: (\ov s^{i} P_{L}\, b^{j})\, (\ov s^{j} P_{R}\, b^{i})~.

744: \label{Qbasis}

745: \eeqn

746: The operators $\tilde{\mc Q}_{1,2,3}$ are obtained from $\mc Q_{1,2,3}$ 

747: by the replacement $L \to R$. The left- and right-handed projectors are defined 

748: as $P_{R,L}= (1\pm\gamma_5)/2$ and $\gamma^\mu_{R,L}=\gamma^\mu P_{R,L}$; 

749: $i,j$ are colour indices. In the case of $B_d$, one should replace $s \rightarrow d$

750:  in eq. (\ref{Qbasis}).

751: % In the case of $B_d$, $D$ and $K$ mixings, 

752: %one should respectively replace $\{s,b\}\rightarrow \{d,b\}$, 

753: %$\{s,b\}\rightarrow \{u,c\}$ or $\{s,b\}\rightarrow \{d,s\}$ in eq. (\ref{Qbasis}).

754: 

755: Each of the Wilson coefficients in eq. (\ref{heff-MSSM}) features, 

756: for low $\tan \beta$, the following contributions

757: \beqn

758: C_i = C_i^{\rm SM} + C_i^{H^+ H^+} + C_i^{\chi^+ \chi^+}  

759: + C_i^{\tilde g \tilde g} + C_i^{\tilde g \chi^0} + C_i^{\chi^0 \chi^0} ~,

760: \label{Ci-MSSM}

761: \eeqn

762: where, for simplicity, we have omitted to specify the flavour indices of the 

763: external quarks, as in eq. (\ref{heff-MSSM}). In eq. (\ref{Ci-MSSM}), the first term on

764: the r.h.s. represents contributions from the SM boxes. The additional contributions, that

765: need to be considered within the MSSM, come respectively from boxes with 

766: charged Higgs-up quarks, chargino-up squarks, gluino-down squarks, mixed gluino- and 

767: neutralino-down squarks, and neutralino-down squarks. The possible Feynman diagrams involved 

768: in each case are represented in Fig.~\ref{fig:boxes}. For the SM, charged Higgs and chargino

769: cases, one has Dirac fermions propagating in the diagrams, so that only the boxes in the 

770: first row of Fig.~\ref{fig:boxes} must be considered. The other contributions involve Majorana

771: fermions in the loop, so that also crossed boxes (second row of Fig.~\ref{fig:boxes})

772: need to be calculated. 

773: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

774: %%%% boxes' figure

775: \begin{figure}

776: \vspace{-0.3cm}

777: \begin{center}

778: \SetScale{0.7}

779: \input boxes.tex

780: \end{center}

781: \caption{\small\sl Feynman diagrams describing meson-antimeson oscillations 

782: in the MSSM. The crossed diagrams (second row) are needed only if the 

783: fermion in the loop is a Majorana particle. The notation for the various 

784: lines is the same as in \cite{Rosiek}.}

785: \label{fig:boxes}

786: \end{figure}

787: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

788: 

789: The complete list of Wilson coefficients for the $\D B = 2$ effective Hamiltonian in 

790: the MSSM is reported explicitly in the Appendix.

791: Such coefficients are calculated in terms of loop functions, depending on the particle 

792: masses involved in the loops, and couplings, possibly featuring the rotation matrices 

793: $Z_{U,D}$ (squarks), $Z_{\pm}$ (charginos), $Z_N$ (neutralinos) introduced in the 

794: previous Section to define the respective mass eigenstates. To evaluate the Wilson

795: coefficients in MFV, the procedure to follow is now clear:

796: \begin{enumerate}

797: \item Expand the soft terms as in eq. (\ref{softMFV}) if they transform 

798: non-trivially under the flavour group, or take them as real if they are singlets;

799: \item Plug them into the mass matrices and diagonalize the latter to obtain the mass 

800: eigenvalues and the rotation matrices defining the eigenbases;

801: \item Use the obtained eigenvalues and rotation matrices in the general MSSM 

802: formulae for the Wilson coefficients.

803: \end{enumerate}

804: 

805: Now that we have all the ingredients of the calculation, we conclude by listing 

806: the number of parameters involved in the MFV limit of the $\D B = 2$ MSSM 

807: Hamiltonian for low $\tan \be$. The expansions of the soft terms in the squark 

808: mass matrices, eq. (\ref{softMFV}), 

809: involve 12 real proportionality factors, and 2 overall mass scales: a `generic' 

810: squark mass $\ov m$ and a `generic' trilinear mass term $A$. In addition one has 

811: to fix three real gaugino mass terms $M_1$, $M_2$ and $M_{\tilde g}$ and the 

812: real $\mu$ parameter. Finally, the soft Higgs sector adds 2 more mass 

813: scales, namely $m_{H_u}$ and $m_{H_d}$. Taking into account the requirement of correct

814: EW symmetry breaking, amounting to one constraint, one has a total of 12 + 7 

815: parameters.\footnote{We note that soft terms, expanded according to eq. (\ref{softMFV}), do actually

816: depend on the product between a mass scale and a MFV coefficient, so that the real

817: parametric dependence is on the product between the two. Considering this, the above

818: counting is somehow an overcounting.}

819: Among the latter, actually the dependence of the computed Hamiltonian on 

820: $m_{H_{u,d}}$ can be trivially `factored out' and not considered in MonteCarlo approaches.

821: In fact, $m_{H_{u,d}}$ enter only Higgs boxes, and the latter in turn depend exclusively on

822: $m_{H_{u,d}}$ and on $\mu$, through eq. (\ref{MH1}), which fixes the physical charged Higgs mass 

823: $M_{H_1^{\pm}}$. There is instead no dependence on any of the other SUSY scales and on the 

824: MFV parameters. In addition, considering that $m_{H_{u,d}}^2$ are demanded by the soft

825: Lagrangian (\ref{LMSSMsoft}) to be real, but not necessarily positive, it is clear that, for 

826: every choice of $\mu$, it is always possible to tune $m_{H_{u,d}}^2$ (compatibly with the

827: EW symmetry breaking constraint) so that $M_{H_1^{\pm}}$ assumes any desired value. As a 

828: consequence, one can trade the parametric dependence on $m_{H_{u,d}}^2$ for that on

829: $M_{H_1^{\pm}}$, which is then the only SUSY parameter in the Higgs contributions.

830: 

831: In the next section, we will discuss the MonteCarlo procedure adopted to explore the above

832: parameter space. We will see that the relevant quantities to be scanned turn out to be 

833: only the 12 MFV proportionality factors, so that the predictivity and testability of the 

834: model end up to be dramatically improved.

835: 

836: \section{MFV MSSM predictions for meson mixings} \label{sec:MC}

837: 

838: We are now ready to study the MFV MSSM $\D B = 2$ amplitude, and its predictions for 

839: $\D M_{s,d}$, by varying the SUSY scales as well as the MFV proportionality

840: parameters. To this end, a MonteCarlo approach which generates every (or a subset) of the

841: parameters according to flat distributions within given ranges provides the most

842: systematic and unprejudiced tool. Here below we describe in more details our adopted

843: strategy.

844: 

845: \subsection{Strategy} \label{sec:strategy}

846: 

847: Our reference numerical study was carried out by fixing the mass parameters to

848: `scenarios', and then, for each scenario, scanning with flat distributions the 

849: 12 parameters $(a_i, b_i)$ ruling the MFV expansions (\ref{softMFV}). In addition, 

850: we set $\tan \be = 3$.\footnote{The impact of variations of $\tan \be$ in the range 

851: $[3,10]$ was addressed in a specific set of runs to be described below.}

852: 

853: The choice of the mass parameters was designed to cover, in an exhaustive way, 

854: all the mass scenarios reasonably allowed for low-energy SUSY. To this end, we have 

855: started from considering the information on the ranges permitted to SUSY masses, 

856: that is provided by experiments \cite{PDBook}. On this point we make the following remarks

857: \begin{itemize}

858: 

859: \item Concerning squark masses and $M_{\tilde g}$, the most updated bounds

860: (\cite{CDF-Ms-Mg,D0-Ms-Mg} and updates thereof) are given in the plane 

861: $M_{\tilde q} - M_{\tilde g}$, where $M_{\tilde q}$ denotes a generic squark mass 

862: (see \cite{CDF-Ms-Mg,D0-Ms-Mg}). The profile of the bound is such that when the gluino mass 

863: can be small, then the generic squark mass is constrained to be large, and viceversa. 

864: We have chosen four points in the plane $M_{\tilde q} - M_{\tilde g}$, namely

865: \footnote{The bounds in the $(M_{\tilde q},M_{\tilde g})$ plane provided

866: by Refs. \cite{CDF-Ms-Mg,D0-Ms-Mg} are in fact somehow tighter than the values chosen in eq.

867: (\ref{MsqMg}). We note however that these experimental bounds are obtained assuming a

868: specific mSUGRA scenario. Moreover, in the present study we take the approach of

869: preferring smaller masses, in order to address the possibility of large signals in meson

870: mixings. As it will emerge from the discussion, even in this approach NP signals in the 

871: MFV MSSM are however typically found to be within present errors associated with mixings

872: themselves.}

873: \beqn

874: (M_{\tilde q},M_{\tilde g}) = \{(100,700),(200,500),(300,300),(1000,195)\}~{\rm GeV}~,

875: \label{MsqMg}

876: \eeqn

877: and used them to fix respectively $\ov m$ and $M_{\tilde g}$. We note that $\ov m$ 

878: is strictly a representative quantity for the squark mass only when the $a$-parameter 

879: multiplying it (see eq. (\ref{softMFV})) is of O(1). However, the detailed choice 

880: of $\ov m$ turns out to play a marginal role in our main findings, and the above argument

881: serves only to give a reasonable criterion on choosing the pair of parameters 

882: $\ov m$ and $M_{\tilde g}$. We further note that the case in which both $\ov m$ and

883: $M_{\tilde g}$ are small is `covered' when the $a$-parameter is small.

884: 

885: \item The generic trilinear coupling $A$ was fixed to the value $A = 2 \, \ov m$.

886: \footnote{For $\ov m = 1000$ GeV we chose also $A = 1000$ GeV.}

887: This choice, when $\ov m$ is a representative quantity for squark masses, helps 

888: having a not too low mass for the lightest Higgs \cite{isidori-paradisi}. Again, 

889: the full spectrum of deviations from this relation is actually covered when scanning 

890: the $a$-parameters multiplying $\ov m$ and $A$.

891: 

892: \item Constraints on $\mu$ are generically model-dependent. We then considered small,

893: intermediate and high values for its magnitude by setting the following possibilities

894: \beqn

895: \mu = \{\pm 200,\pm 500,\pm 1000\}~{\rm GeV}~.

896: \label{mu-values}

897: \eeqn

898: 

899: \item $M_1$ and $M_2$, as well as $\mu$, enter chargino and neutralino mass matrices. 

900: The choice of $M_1$ and $M_2$ in connection with that of $\mu$ determines the amount 

901: of gaugino- and higgsino-like components in their field content. In order to have 

902: representative cases with respect to the experimental information \cite{PDBook}, we made 

903: the following choices

904: \beqn

905: \begin{tabular}{lcl}

906: $|\mu| = 200$ & $\Rightarrow$ & $(M_1,M_2)=\{(500,500),(1000,1000)\}$ GeV~,\\

907: $|\mu| = 500$ & $\Rightarrow$ & $(M_1,M_2)=\{(100,200),(500,500)\}$ GeV~,\\

908: $|\mu| = 1000$ & $\Rightarrow$ & $(M_1,M_2)=\{(100,200),(100,500)\}$ GeV~,

909: \end{tabular}

910: \label{M1M2-values}

911: \eeqn

912: \ie two possible choices for every of the six $\mu$ values listed in eq. (\ref{mu-values}). 

913: Choices (\ref{M1M2-values}) translate into values for the masses of the lightest 

914: chargino and neutralino, which in turn tune the importance of the respective box

915: contributions. We note that, in our case, neutralinos have almost no impact on the sum of the

916: contributions, even when they are very light. This applies also to the mixed 

917: gluino-neutralino boxes. In this respect, we observe that, from eqs.

918: (\ref{MsqMg})-(\ref{M1M2-values}), there are unphysical cases among our considered scenarios

919: in which the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) is not a neutralino. However, given the mentioned 

920: marginal impact of neutralino masses on our main findings, one can always lower the value of 

921: $M_1$ in order to have a neutralino as the LSP. The values chosen in eq. (\ref{M1M2-values}) 

922: are intended to ascertain that the impact of the choice of the neutralino masses be in fact minimal.\\

923: Concerning charginos, their contribution is regulated by the

924: lightest between $M_2$ and $|\mu|$ (see eq. (\ref{MCha})), the detailed choice of the

925: other parameters playing basically no role on the main findings we will discuss.

926: 

927: \item The remaining two parameters $m_{H_{u,d}}$ enter exclusively Higgs boxes. 

928: As we also remarked at the end of Section \ref{sec:MSSM-DF2}, the calculation of 

929: the latter can be `factored out', since they depend only on $m_{H_{u,d}}$ 

930: and on $\mu$, through relation (\ref{MH1}), and on no other SUSY scale. 

931: With reference still to the discussion at the end of Section \ref{sec:MSSM-DF2}, it is

932: also clear that the single relevant SUSY scale introduced by the Higgs sector is

933: the physical charged Higgs mass $M_{H_1^{\pm}}$, eq. (\ref{MH1}), and not $m_{H_{u,d}}$ 

934: separately.\\

935: The dependence of Higgs contributions on variations of $M_{H_1^{\pm}}$ and on $\tan \be$ 

936: will be studied in a separate Section below. Here we mention that such contributions are 

937: positive for every allowed value of $M_{H_1^{\pm}}$ if $\tan \be \le 7$, and even for 

938: $\tan \be = 10$, they reach (small) negative values only with very light 

939: $M_{H_1^{\pm}}$. As a consequence, their impact for low $\tan \be$ is just an overall 

940: (positive) shift of the sum of the other contributions.

941: 

942: \end{itemize}

943: 

944: This completes the discussion on the choice of the SUSY scales in our main analysis. 

945: The mass scenarios explored amount to 48. 

946: Taking into account the various remarks made above on every specific subset 

947: of the parameters, we believe that such analysis covers extensively all the 

948: interesting combinations in the SUSY parameter space.

949: 

950: For each of the above scenarios, we then scanned the MFV parameters $a_i,b_i$ 

951: assuming (uncorrelated) flat distributions according to (see also footnote \ref{b3b4})

952: \beqn

953: 0.25 \le a_{1,2,3} \le 1~, ~~~ -1 \le \{a_{4,5}, b_{1,...,8}\} \le 1~.

954: \label{aibi-values}

955: \eeqn

956: The lower bound in $a_{1,2,3}$ was not chosen to be zero, in order not to have 

957: to discard most of the resulting squark matrices because of a negative lowest 

958: eigenvalue.

959: 

960: We finally note that, in our analysis, we do not include other FCNC constraints which

961: could in principle play a role for low $\tan \beta$, in particular $b \to s \gamma$. In

962: this respect we observe that, as already mentioned in the introduction, NP corrections to

963: meson mixings within the MFV MSSM are typically within present errors and the

964: inclusion of additional constraints can only further suppress NP signals. In addition, 

965: as again mentioned in the introduction, our analysis will lead to the identification of mass 

966: regimes, ruled by the interplay between chargino and gluino contributions, with the Higgs

967: contributions discussed separately. Since in $b \to s \gamma$ the main role is played by

968: chargino and Higgs contributions (see e.g. \cite{CDGG}), it is clear that the $b \to s \gamma$ 

969: constraint would not exclude any of the above regimes.

970: 

971: \subsection{Results} \label{sec:results}

972: 

973: We now discuss our results. The latter were all obtained using the MonteCarlo strategy

974: outlined in the previous discussion. We have however also verified the specific findings

975: with alternative runs, designed to uncover possible loopholes. We will refer to them in

976: due course.

977: 

978: Our phenomenological analysis starts from the calculated meson-antimeson oscillation 

979: amplitude

980: \beqn

981: \mc M^{(M)}_{12} \equiv \< M | \heff | \ov M \>~,

982: \label{M12}

983: \eeqn

984: with $M = K$, $B_{d,s}$. Wilson coefficients, evaluated at the matching scale, are 

985: subsequently run to the $m_b$ pole mass or to $2$ GeV, the scales at which the effective 

986: matrix elements are evaluated on the lattice \cite{Bparams-lattice-DB,Bparams-lattice-DS} in 

987: the $B_{d,s}$ and $K$ case, respectively (see also

988: \cite{DB=2-lat1,DB=2-lat2,DB=2-lat3,DB=2-lat4,Dalgic}).

989: In the running, we used NLO formulae from \cite{NLOADM,NLOADMcheck}, with the matching

990: scale chosen to be at $350$ GeV, as a compromise between all the SUSY scales entering the 

991: calculation.\footnote{Variations around this value have basically no effect on the results.}

992: 

993: Then, from twice the amplitude (\ref{M12}), one can calculate the experimentally measured 

994: mass differences by taking the absolute value or respectively the real part in the

995: $B_{d,s}$ or $K$ cases \cite{BurasLH}. In the present study, we restrict to $\D M_{s,d}$.

996: 

997: As a first check, we have verified that the phase of meson-antimeson oscillations in the 

998: MFV MSSM be aligned with the SM one. This feature is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:h2sum3D} for

999: the $\D M_s$ case. In the Figure, we have chosen a specific mass scenario for the SUSY

1000: scales and scanned the MFV parameters $a_i$, $b_i$, obtaining a distribution of

1001: values for $\mc M_{12}$. As expected, values are aligned along a line with slope 

1002: $\tan(\arg \mc M_{12})$.

1003: \begin{figure}[th!]

1004: \begin{center}

1005: \includegraphics[scale=0.50]{Msq200_Mg500_mu1000_M1100_M2500_h2sum3D.eps}

1006: \end{center}

1007: \caption{\small\sl Lego plot showing the alignment of the phase of SUSY contributions to

1008: the SM phase in the MFV MSSM $\mc M_{12}$ for the case of $B_s$.

1009: In this example SUSY scales are (GeV): $\mu=1000$, $\ov m=200$, $M_{\tilde g}=500$,

1010: $M_1=100$, $M_2=500$. In the legend, $\D M_s$ is calculated from the absolute value

1011: formula, keeping the sign of the real part. The percentage gives the integrated number of

1012: hits for which $\D M_s^{\rm NP}>0$.}

1013: \label{fig:h2sum3D}

1014: \end{figure}

1015: 

1016: In MFV, the phase of meson-antimeson oscillations is by definition not a good observable

1017: to search for NP effects. However, the same does not apply to the mass differences. As a

1018: matter of fact, by studying the latter, we found a number of interesting and sometimes

1019: surprising features, which we now discuss.

1020: 

1021: \subsubsection*{i. NP contributions are positive}

1022: 

1023: A first surprising fact emerges by studying the sum of the SUSY contributions to the meson

1024: mass differences. As already mentioned above, for every of the mass scenarios considered,

1025: we have randomly generated the MFV parameters $a_i$, $b_i$. The obtained distribution of values 

1026: in $\mc M_{12}$ translates into a corresponding distribution for the meson mass

1027: differences. As an example, one can look again at Fig. \ref{fig:h2sum3D}, displaying $\mc

1028: M_{12}$ for the $B_s$-meson. In this case, ${\rm Im}(\mc M_{12}) \cong 0$ and an excellent 

1029: estimate of $\D M_s^{\rm NP}$ is provided by the projection of the distribution along the 

1030: ${\rm Re}(\mc M_{12})$. In the left panels of Figs. \ref{fig:sum-mu200} to

1031: \ref{fig:sum-bigMsq} we show how the distribution in $\D M_s^{\rm NP}$ looks like in four

1032: representative scenarios.\footnote{In the plots, the number of `events' obtained after

1033: scanning $a_i$, $b_i$ is set to 1000. We have verified that the distributions are

1034: left qualitatively unchanged when considering subsets of these 1000 points and when changing 

1035: the binning, so that 1000 is a statistically significant number.}

1036: 

1037: %%%small mu

1038: \begin{figure}[t]

1039: \begin{center}

1040: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Msq300_Mg300_mu200_M1500_M2500_c1.eps}

1041: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Msq300_Mg300_mu200_M1500_M2500_c2.eps}

1042: \end{center}

1043: \caption{\small\sl Distribution of values for $\D M_s^{\rm NP}$ in the MFV MSSM: sum of

1044: the contributions (left panel) and separate SUSY contributions (right panel).

1045: The distribution results from scanning the MFV parameters $a_i$, $b_i$, after choosing 

1046: SUSY scales as (GeV): $\mu=200$, $\ov m=300$, $M_{\tilde g}=300$, $M_1=500$, $M_2=500$. 

1047: In the plot and in the legend, $\D M_s$ is calculated from the absolute value formula, keeping 

1048: the sign of the real part. The percentage gives the integrated number of hits for which 

1049: $\D M_s^{\rm NP}>0$. [See also text, mass regime (A).]}

1050: \label{fig:sum-mu200}

1051: \end{figure}

1052: 

1053: %%%intermediate mu

1054: \begin{figure}[t]

1055: \begin{center}

1056: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Msq300_Mg300_mu500_M1100_M2200_c1.eps}

1057: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Msq300_Mg300_mu500_M1100_M2200_c2.eps}

1058: \end{center}

1059: \caption{\small\sl Same as Fig. \ref{fig:sum-mu200} but for SUSY scales chosen as (GeV): 

1060: $\mu=500$, $\ov m=300$, $M_{\tilde g}=300$, $M_1=100$, $M_2=200$. [See also text, mass

1061: regime (B).]}

1062: \label{fig:sum-mu500}

1063: \end{figure}

1064: 

1065: %%%big mu

1066: \begin{figure}[t]

1067: \begin{center}

1068: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Msq300_Mg300_mu1000_M1100_M2500_c1.eps}

1069: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Msq300_Mg300_mu1000_M1100_M2500_c2.eps}

1070: \end{center}

1071: \caption{\small\sl Same as Fig. \ref{fig:sum-mu200} but for SUSY scales chosen as (GeV): 

1072: $\mu=1000$, $\ov m=300$, $M_{\tilde g}=300$, $M_1=100$, $M_2=500$. [See also text, mass

1073: regime (C).]}

1074: \label{fig:sum-mu1000}

1075: \end{figure}

1076: 

1077: %%%big Msq

1078: \begin{figure}[t]

1079: \begin{center}

1080: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Msq1000_Mg195_mu500_M1100_M2200_c1.eps}

1081: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Msq1000_Mg195_mu500_M1100_M2200_c2.eps}

1082: \end{center}

1083: \caption{\small\sl Same as Fig. \ref{fig:sum-mu200} but for SUSY scales chosen as (GeV): 

1084: $\mu=500$, $\ov m=1000$, $M_{\tilde g}=195$, $M_1=100$, $M_2=200$. [See also text, mass

1085: regime (D).]}

1086: \label{fig:sum-bigMsq}

1087: \end{figure}

1088: 

1089: As one can immediately realize, almost the totality of points features $\D M_s^{\rm NP}>0$, 

1090: \ie SUSY contributions to $\D M_s$ in the MFV MSSM at low $\tan \be$ are positive. We

1091: explicitly mention that in Fig. \ref{fig:h2sum3D}, as well as in Figures

1092: \ref{fig:sum-mu200}-\ref{fig:sum-bigMsq} below, charged Higgs boxes are not included. Their

1093: contribution amounts to a further {\em positive} shift of the distribution representing

1094: the sum of the other contributions, since Higgs boxes do not depend on the MFV parameters 

1095: $a_i, b_i$.

1096: 

1097: In the following discussion, we will get further insight on the positiveness of the SUSY

1098: corrections to meson mixings, by analyzing the separate SUSY contributions which sum up 

1099: to give $\D M_s^{\rm NP}$. Their interplay and a number of additional checks turn out to 

1100: provide as many arguments in support of the above statement.

1101: 

1102: \subsubsection*{ii. Mass regimes}

1103: 

1104: The positiveness of the sum of SUSY contributions holds true, irrespective of the mass 

1105: scenario chosen. As a matter of fact, the 48 scenarios we have considered turn out to be

1106: classifiable into 4 main `mass regimes', each characterized by a definite interplay among the

1107: various SUSY contributions. The deciding factors are the choice of the generic squark mass 

1108: $\ov m$ and of the magnitude of $\mu$, the rest of the mass parameters, as well as the

1109: sign of $\mu$, playing only a minor role once these are fixed. Specifically, one can choose a 

1110: `not large' value for the generic squark scale $\ov m$ (\ie $\ov m < 1000$ GeV in our 

1111: eq. (\ref{MsqMg})) {\em and} {\bf (A)} $|\mu|$ small or {\bf (B)} $|\mu|$ intermediate or 

1112: {\bf (C)} $|\mu|$ large. Alternatively, there is one more mass regime {\bf (D)} when one 

1113: chooses a large value for $\ov m$, irrespective of the choice of all the other SUSY scales, 

1114: including $\mu$. The four scenarios displayed in Figs. \ref{fig:sum-mu200} to 

1115: \ref{fig:sum-bigMsq} are representative of such mass regimes, in the order {\bf (A)} to 

1116: {\bf (D)}.

1117: 

1118: \subsubsection*{iii. Interplay between chargino and gluino boxes}

1119: 

1120: Let us now have a closer look into the various mass regimes, by discussing, within each 

1121: of them, the main features of the separate contributions. The latter are displayed in the

1122: right panels of Figs. \ref{fig:sum-mu200} to \ref{fig:sum-bigMsq}. As one can see from the

1123: figures -- and as it will emerge from the subsequent discussion -- the main actors in

1124: determining the sum of SUSY contributions to meson oscillations are chargino and gluino

1125: boxes, the remaining ones playing a minor role. We remind the reader that Higgs 

1126: contributions are not considered in this discussion and not included in 

1127: Figs. \ref{fig:sum-mu200} to \ref{fig:sum-bigMsq}. For low $\tan \be$, Higgs contributions 

1128: trivially amount to a positive shift of the total result. We will address this point in a 

1129: specific section.

1130: 

1131: {\bf Mass regime (A)}. Here, the smallness of $\mu$ implies a low value for the lightest

1132: chargino mass eigenstate (see eq. (\ref{MCha})). As a consequence, contributions from

1133: charginos tend to be large, of the order of $2$ ps$^{-1}$. In addition they are positive, 

1134: being dominated by the SM operator $\mc Q_1$ \cite{gabrielli-giudice}. Gluino contributions 

1135: are negligible in this scenario, and the reason, still related with the smallness of $\mu$,

1136: will be clear from the discussion in mass regime {\bf (C)} below.\\

1137: A decrease in $\ov m$ only reinforces the chargino dominance. One finds in this case that 

1138: gluino boxes remain negligible, while, for chargino ones, the up-squark mass scale gets 

1139: lower and their contribution is correspondingly increased. As a matter of fact, 

1140: Fig. \ref{fig:sum-mu200} shows somehow the `worst' case among the low $|\mu|$ ones within 

1141: our studied scenarios. In the other cases, the chargino dominance is even more evident 

1142: and the number of points with $\D M_s^{\rm NP}>0$ even closer to $100$ \%.

1143: 

1144: {\bf Mass regime (B)}, with $|\mu|$ moderate, is a case of transition, intended to show

1145: the rate of decrease in importance of chargino contributions with increasing $|\mu|$. 

1146: Chargino contributions are still dominant as compared to gluino ones. Hence, in this respect, 

1147: the situation is not qualitatively different from regime {\bf (A)}. 

1148: On the whole, an increase in $\mu$ from $200$ to

1149: $500$ GeV corresponds to a decrease in the total signal from $\approx 2$ to $\approx 1$

1150: ps$^{-1}$, and similarly to regime {\bf (A)}, the total signal drops abruptly beneath the

1151: peak value.

1152: 

1153: {\bf Mass regime (C)} occurs then for large $|\mu|$. In this case, the flavour diagonal LR 

1154: entries in the down-squark mass matrix are large (see eq. (\ref{Md})) and in connection with

1155: the flavour mixing induced by LL entries, enhance contributions from scalar operators in 

1156: gluino boxes. Even if the up-squark mass matrix has in principle the same structure, the 

1157: same mechanism turns out to be not efficient in enhancing chargino

1158: scalar contributions.\footnote{One can provide an intuitive argument for this fact as follows:

1159: gluino contributions to the various operators have the structure 

1160: $Z_D Z_D ({\rm loop~function}) Z_D^\dagger Z_D^\dagger$, with $Z_D$ defined in eq.

1161: (\ref{Zud}). Such structure holds for every operator. On the other hand, chargino

1162: contributions to scalar operators have the structure $V_L V_R ({\rm loop~function})

1163: V_L^\dagger V_R^\dagger$, with $V_{L(R)}$ the left (right) chargino-up squark-down quark

1164: vertex coupling (see Appendix), while a similar structure -- but with four $V_L^{(\dagger)}$ 

1165: vertices -- holds for the contributions to $\mc Q_1$. Now, since $V_L \sim Y_u$ and 

1166: $V_R \sim Y_d$ (see Appendix \ref{app:XN-couplings}), in the case of charginos, 

1167: contributions other than $\mc Q_1$ are always made small by a suppression factor of $(Y_d/Y_u)^2$.}

1168: The main parametric dependence ruling the above mechanism for gluino contributions is then

1169: the product $\mu \times \tan \beta$ (see eq. (\ref{Md})). One should also note that

1170: the increase in the value of $|\mu|$ with respect to the previous regimes largely

1171: suppresses chargino contributions, helping in turn chargino and gluino boxes to become

1172: of comparable size.\\

1173: The right panel of Fig. \ref{fig:sum-mu1000} displays a typical case for mass regime (C),

1174: with gluino contributions amounting to roughly $30 \div 50$ \% positive corrections to the 

1175: chargino signal. We note here the occurrence of another interesting mechanism: in cases

1176: where the squark scale $\ov m$ and/or the mass $M_1$ are small (as in the example of 

1177: Fig. \ref{fig:sum-mu1000}), gluino-neutralino boxes give a {\rm negative} and relatively

1178: important contribution. However, the latter is typically outpaced by the positive

1179: contribution from pure gluino boxes (plus of course that from charginos), with a total

1180: signal around $0.5$ ps$^{-1}$. A similar mechanism can already be recognized in regime 

1181: (B) (see Fig. \ref{fig:sum-mu500}), but in that case is less evident.\\

1182: We mention that, within the set of scenarios corresponding to regime (C), we found `extreme'

1183: cases where scalar contributions from gluino boxes completely overwhelm any other contribution. 

1184: These occur when choosing a very light squark scale, $\ov m = 100$ GeV. In these cases, chargino 

1185: boxes amount to a small positive signal, while gluino-neutralino boxes give a contribution which 

1186: is negative and relatively large. The latter is again significantly counterbalanced by the positive, large 

1187: signal from gluinos and the sum of contributions results in a positive, quite spread signal for 

1188: $\D M_s^{\rm NP}$. However, such extreme cases correspond to very light squark masses, the lightest 

1189: down- and up-squarks being around $30$ and $60$ GeV, respectively, which is very 

1190: unrealistic.\footnote{As a further remark, we note that choosing $|\mu|$ large, with $\ov m$ small, 

1191: causes the squark mass matrices' determinants to be negative for most of the parameter space in the 

1192: MFV parameters $a_i,b_i$, implying in turn an odd number of negative mass squared

1193: eigenvalues. The corresponding point in the parameter space is then discarded as unphysical. As 

1194: a matter of fact, for $|\mu| = 1000$ GeV and $\ov m = 100$ GeV, the ratio of discarded to

1195: valid points is $\approx 125$, but this number drops to $\simle 2$ already for $\ov m = 200$ GeV.}

1196: 

1197: {\bf  Mass regime (D)} is characterized by a large value for the squark

1198: scale $\ov m$, in our case $1000$ GeV, and basically unaffected by the choice of any other

1199: parameter. In this case, the largeness of the squark scale sets to zero gluino-neutralino

1200: contributions, whose negative skewness had some effect in the previous cases. 

1201: On the other hand, both chargino and gluino distributions (positive) are characterized 

1202: by a long tail, as shown on the right panel of Fig. \ref{fig:sum-bigMsq}. The respective 

1203: contributions are comparable in size, with the magnitude of those from gluinos growing 

1204: with $|\mu|$. The average SUSY signal is generically small, $\simle 1$ ps$^{-1}$.

1205: 

1206: \bigskip

1207: 

1208: As a last overall remark, we explicitly note that, in all regimes considered, the magnitude

1209: of contributions coming from the flavour off-diagonal elements in the down-squark matrix,

1210: entering gluino and neutralino boxes, typically does not exceed $0.5$ ps$^{-1}$.

1211: Therefore the latter set of contributions is strictly important only when also chargino 

1212: contributions are small, \ie in regimes (C) and in particular (D). We may add that such

1213: regimes are phenomenologically relevant after the simple observation that the experimental 

1214: measurement of $B_s$ oscillations \cite{CDF-DMs} and its agreement with the SM central value 

1215: undoubtedly favour small NP corrections with respect to large ones. The final word will be 

1216: provided by a substantial decrease of the lattice error, to the level of a few percent.

1217: 

1218: \subsubsection*{iv. Role of charged Higgs boxes}

1219: 

1220: In the above study, we have completely omitted the inclusion of charged Higgs boxes.

1221: Recalling the discussion at the end of Section \ref{sec:MSSM-DF2}, we can now investigate 

1222: their contribution separately, as a function of the single new SUSY scale they introduce, 

1223: namely the physical charged Higgs mass $M_{H^{\pm}_1}$.

1224: 

1225: In Fig. \ref{fig:Higgs} we report the charged Higgs contribution to $\D M_s$ as a function 

1226: of $M_{H^{\pm}_1}$, for values of $\tan \be$ between $3$ and $10$. The hatched area 

1227: on the left of $M_{H^{\pm}_1} \cong 90$ GeV represents the region excluded after direct 

1228: experimental searches \cite{PDBook}.

1229: \begin{figure}[t]

1230: \begin{center}

1231: \includegraphics[scale=0.50]{Higgs.eps}

1232: \end{center}

1233: \caption{\small\sl Charged Higgs boxes contribution to $\D M_s$ as a function of the

1234: physical charged Higgs mass $M_{H^{\pm}_1}$. The different curves correspond to increasing

1235: values of $\tan \be$ from $3$ (uppermost one) to $10$ (lowermost one). The hatched area on

1236: the left of $M_{H^{\pm}_1} = 90$ GeV represents the experimentally excluded region

1237: \cite{PDBook} from direct search only.}

1238: \label{fig:Higgs}

1239: \end{figure}

1240: 

1241: As one can see, for $\tan \be \le 7$ charged Higgs boxes give a positive correction to 

1242: $\D M_s$, irrespective of the value assumed by the physical mass $M_{H^{\pm}_1}$. 

1243: For this reason, we have chosen not to include such correction in the previous study

1244: on our mass scenarios: for each of them, Higgs contributions amount to a constant,

1245: positive shift of the final result. Then, in particular, the plots of Figs. 

1246: \ref{fig:sum-mu200}-\ref{fig:sum-bigMsq} provide only a `lower bound' on $\D M_s^{\rm NP}$, 

1247: to be augmented by the contribution from Higgs boxes.

1248: 

1249: It is interesting to give instead an indicative upper bound on the MFV MSSM contributions

1250: to $\D M_s^{\rm NP}$ for low $\tan \be$. To this aim, we can consider mass regime (A) --

1251: chargino dominated -- which tends to give the largest positive corrections (around $2$

1252: ps$^{-1}$, see Fig. \ref{fig:sum-mu200}), together with Higgs contributions taken at a

1253: small value for $M_{H^{\pm}_1} \approx 100$ GeV. By looking at Fig. \ref{fig:Higgs}, one

1254: can see that Higgs corrections amount to roughly another $2$ ps$^{-1}$. So, one can

1255: estimate MFV MSSM corrections to $\D M_{s}$ not to exceed $4$ ps$^{-1}$. However, they are

1256: typically considerably smaller than this upper bound, as one can see by inspection of the

1257: various mass regimes (see also Fig. \ref{fig:runtb} below). This fact shows, for the case 

1258: of $B_s - \ov B_s$ mixing, that explicit implementation of the MFV limit in the MSSM leads 

1259: to a naturally small correction to the SM prediction: in fact, expansions (\ref{softMFV}) 

1260: analytically realize the condition of ``naturalness of near flavour conservation''

1261: advocated in \cite{hall-randall-MFV}.

1262: 

1263: \subsubsection*{\boldmath v. The case of $\D M_d$}

1264: 

1265: We applied the entire strategy described above also to the case of $\D M_d$. Results are

1266: completely analogous, so we will limit to a few observations.

1267: 

1268: Keeping for the moment aside charged Higgs contributions, the magnitude of SUSY corrections 

1269: $\D M_d^{\rm NP}$, normalized to the SM prediction $\D M_d^{\rm SM}$, is basically the same 

1270: as the corresponding quantity in the $B_s$ case, in all our studied scenarios. Also the

1271: shapes of the distributions of values for the single contributions look very similar in the $B_d$ 

1272: and $B_s$ cases.

1273: 

1274: This leads to the following remark. Even in scenarios where gluinos give important contributions

1275: from scalar operators, the latter do not bring about a sensible dependence on the external

1276: quark flavours. In fact, leading scalar contributions go as $\sim m_b^2$, and those in 

1277: $\sim m_b m_s$ or respectively $\sim m_b m_d$ are subleading ones. The effect of the

1278: latter is moreover completely hidden, in our case, by the lack of knowledge of the SUSY

1279: scales and of the MFV parameters.

1280: 

1281: The inclusion of charged Higgs contributions does instead `distinguish' the case of 

1282: $\D M_d$ with respect to that of $\D M_s$. Now contributions to the LR scalar operator

1283: behave as $\sim m_b m_{s (d)} \, \tan^2 \be$ for $\D M_{s (d)}$ (look at the coefficient

1284: $C_4^{H^+ H^+}$ in the Appendix).\footnote{At the same time, contributions to $C_1^{H^+

1285: H^+}$ are suppressed by $\cot^2 \be$.} For $\tan \be < 10$ , however, effects on the ratio $\D

1286: M_d / \D M_s$ are within $1$ \%. Only for $\tan \be \ge 10$ do they become larger than $3$

1287: \%, and can be visible once the lattice error on $\xi$ is at least halved with respect to

1288: the present value.

1289: 

1290: \section{\boldmath Additional MonteCarlo's and role of $\tan \be$} \label{sec:discussion}

1291: 

1292: In this Section we elaborate on our main findings, as described in the previous study. In

1293: particular, we provide further arguments in support of our results, by verifying them

1294: with a set of additional numerical studies. The latter are designed to explore possible 

1295: loopholes in the above treatment, and to address the question how the picture changes when 

1296: increasing $\tan \be$ from strictly low values.

1297: 

1298: From the above discussion, it is evident that the positiveness of the SUSY correction 

1299: $\D M_s^{\rm NP}$ in the MFV MSSM is due to an interplay among different contributions,

1300: the most important being those from charginos and gluinos. In addition, for 

1301: $\tan \be \le 7$, Higgs boxes further shift the result by a positive amount, depending on 

1302: the chosen $M_{H^{\pm}_1}$.

1303: 

1304: Such findings followed from a MonteCarlo study in which SUSY masses were fixed and MFV

1305: parameters generated with flat distributions. To check for the robustness of our results,

1306: we also performed additional MonteCarlo's.

1307: 

1308: \subsubsection*{$\bullet$ Random scan of both SUSY scales and MFV parameters}

1309: 

1310: \noindent In a first alternative set of runs, we scanned both SUSY scales 

1311: and MFV parameters. In particular SUSY masses were assumed to follow flat distributions in 

1312: the range $M_i \in [100,1000]$ GeV.\footnote{The lower bounds for $M_{\tilde g}$ and for 

1313: $M_{H^{\pm}_1}$ were set to $200$ GeV and $90$ GeV, respectively.} 

1314: In such runs, we also set $\tan \be$ to different values in the range $\tan \be \in [3,15]$. 

1315: This allowed us to study the resulting modifications in the various contributions, in 

1316: particular in those from Higgs boxes, which for a light $M_{H^{\pm}_1}$ tend to be negative 

1317: when $\tan \be > 7$.

1318: 

1319: The results of such global runs are reported in Fig. \ref{fig:runtb} for the cases of

1320: $\tan \be = 3$ and $10$.

1321: \begin{figure}[th!]

1322: \begin{center}

1323: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{c1-tb3.eps}

1324: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{c2-tb3.eps}

1325: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{c1-tb10.eps}

1326: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{c2-tb10.eps}

1327: \end{center}

1328: \caption{\small\sl Distributions of values for $\D M_s^{\rm NP}$ in the MFV MSSM: sum of

1329: the contributions (left panels) and separate SUSY contributions (right panels).

1330: The distributions result from scanning the MFV parameters $a_i$, $b_i$ as well as the

1331: SUSY mass scales (see text for details). First and second row plots refer to $\tan \be =

1332: 3$ and $10$, respectively.}

1333: \label{fig:runtb}

1334: \end{figure}

1335: As the Figure shows, for $\tan \be = 3$ the positiveness of the sum of results is

1336: confirmed by the global run as well.\footnote{We mention that a further verification was

1337: carried out by varying the `B-parameters' for the effective operator matrix elements

1338: within the ranges allowed in \cite{Bparams-lattice-DB}. Neither the 

1339: positiveness of the sum of the results, nor the interplay beween charginos and gluinos, 

1340: resulting in the above regimes (A),...,(D), are touched at all by variations of the

1341: B-parameters.} The right panel of the first row also shows that, if $M_{H^{\pm}_1}$ 

1342: is assumed to be flatly distributed in the range $M_{H^{\pm}_1} \in [90,1000]$ GeV, then 

1343: Higgs contributions tend to give a distribution completely analogous to that for charginos 

1344: (the latter hides almost entirely the former in the plot).

1345: 

1346: The second row of Fig. \ref{fig:runtb} reports then the same distributions, when 

1347: $\tan \be = 10$. As one can see, contributions from charginos, gluinos, neutralinos and

1348: mixed gluino-neutralino are left qualitatively unchanged by the variation in $\tan \be$.

1349: On the other hand, Higgs contributions are very small and negative, as expected

1350: also from the lowermost curve in Fig. \ref{fig:Higgs}. However, this fact has quite a

1351: small impact on the sum of all the results, which remains chiefly positive (see left

1352: panel). We mention that a further increase in $\tan \be$ to $15$ confirms a similar

1353: picture: all contributions but for Higgs boxes build up an almost totally positive

1354: distribution. The negativity of Higgs boxes, however, starts to matter, and the sum of 

1355: all contributions is positive in roughly $86$ \% of the counts. 

1356: 

1357: \subsubsection*{$\bullet$ Changing the ranges for MFV parameters}

1358: 

1359: \noindent A second set of runs was devised to check for possible variations in our findings, when

1360: the MFV parameters defining the expansions (\ref{softMFV}) are varied in ranges different

1361: from those specified in eq. (\ref{aibi-values}). In the latter, the choice of $1$ as the

1362: upper bound is dictated by various considerations. First, on `aesthetical' grounds, 

1363: such bound should be realistic, if the MFV expansion of the soft terms as functions of 

1364: the Yukawa couplings is a `natural' one. The interpretation is that $a_i$ and $b_i$ `couplings' of O(1) 

1365: cause the new flavour violating effects originated by the soft terms to be at the same time 

1366: {\em CKM-like} -- \ie generated by the SM Yukawa couplings, according to the very MFV 

1367: paradigm -- and {\em natural} \cite{hall-randall-MFV,MFV}.

1368: Second, on more technical grounds, enlarging too much the range of variation for the $a_i$

1369: and $b_i$ may lead to a non-efficient exploration of the full parameter space allowed.

1370: However, on this latter point, we have verified that the shape of the distributions

1371: remains stable already after a few hundreds random values for the $a_i, b_i$.

1372: 

1373: In this second MonteCarlo study, we kept SUSY masses fixed to scenarios, as described 

1374: in Section \ref{sec:strategy}, and increased the upper bounds for the MFV parameters from 

1375: $1$ to $5$. The main effect of increasing the ranges of variability is to `smoothen' the

1376: difference between chargino and gluino distributions in the various scenarios and

1377: consequently to make regimes (A),..., (D) more similar to one another. However, the main

1378: features of each of them, as well as the positiveness of the sum of contributions, are 

1379: left unchanged.

1380: %\footnote{A possible explanation of this fact is that, increasing the 

1381: %ranges for the $a_i, b_i$, has primarily an effect on the squark squared-mass scales. 

1382: %The latter are roughly fixed by $a_{1,2,3} \times \ov m^2$ 

1383: %(see eqs. (\ref{Mu})-(\ref{Md}) and (\ref{softMFV})). 

1384: %Increasing the range of variability for squark squared-masses has then the effect of 

1385: %making both gluino and chargino distributions `closer' to scenario (D). We recall that 

1386: %the latter is ruled by the big value of $\ov m$, and chargino and gluino contributions 

1387: %are comparable.}

1388: 

1389: On the whole, a choice of the MFV parameters according to the ranges (\ref{aibi-values})

1390: -- mainly dictated by `naturalness' -- allows a better understanding of the interplay

1391: between chargino and gluino contributions in the different scenarios. It would be interesting 

1392: to adopt a top-down approach to the determination of the MFV parameters $a_i, b_i$, by 

1393: considering \eg SUSY Grand Unified Theories (GUT) which at low energy reproduce the soft SUSY 

1394: breaking structure of the MSSM. If such SUSY GUTs can be constructed to be minimal flavour 

1395: violating \cite{GCIW}, then the $a_i, b_i$ at the EW breaking scale can be {\em fitted} by 

1396: introducing the corresponding constraints (\ref{softMFV}) between soft terms and Yukawa

1397: couplings. 

1398: The latter are both {\em predicted} within such models, in terms of the initial conditions

1399: at the GUT scale and of the running.

1400: 

1401: \bigskip

1402: 

1403: We conclude this section by stressing that the feature of positiveness for the sum of SUSY 

1404: contributions to $\D M_s$ in the MFV MSSM is a precise signature of low 

1405: $\tan \be \simle 10$. It is interesting to address the question whether a similar signature, 

1406: but with sign reversed, applies to the MFV MSSM in the large $\tan \be$ limit. This regime 

1407: requires however consideration of an additional set of contributions, represented by the 

1408: double neutral Higgs penguins \cite{BCRS-NP,isidori-retico,BCRS-PL,BCRSbig,FGH}. This goes 

1409: beyond the scope of the present paper. For an comprehensive related study in the context of

1410: grand unification, see Ref. \cite{LPV}.

1411: 

1412: \newpage

1413: \section{Various considerations on MFV} \label{sec:limits-MFV}

1414: 

1415: The concrete application of the MFV limit to a calculable NP model, like the MSSM, gives us 

1416: now the opportunity to emphasize the main differences between the model independent approach 

1417: of \cite{MFV} and the former, phenomenological definition of MFV by \cite{BurasMFV}.

1418: We will also try and understand in which, among our studied scenarios for the SUSY scales,

1419: MFV contributions to meson oscillations are dominated by $\mc Q_1$, the operator already

1420: present within the SM. This case is referred to as `constrained' MFV (CMFV) \cite{BBGT}

1421: and its study will allow us to understand how natural CMFV is within the MSSM.

1422: 

1423: \subsection{MFV: definition \cite{MFV} versus \cite{BurasMFV}}

1424: 

1425: According to the definition of MFV by \cite{MFV}, all the flavour and CP violation at the

1426: EW scale is generated by the Yukawa couplings present in the SM. As we stressed several times

1427: above, this does not mean that new sources of flavour violation should be set to zero, but 

1428: instead that they should be taken as functions of the SM Yukawa couplings. The functional dependence 

1429: is in turn fixed by their formal transformation properties under the flavour group and gives 

1430: rise to expansions like (\ref{softMFV}).

1431: 

1432: On the other hand, the phenomenological definition of MFV by \cite{BurasMFV} does not

1433: start from the SM Yukawa couplings, but from the CKM matrix. In this approach, a theory is considered 

1434: minimal flavour violating, when only interactions which display {\em explicit} proportionality 

1435: to the CKM matrix are active. In this context, new sources of flavour violation are simply

1436: not considered, since they have a priori ``nothing to do'' with the CKM matrix. 

1437: 

1438: However, in the more general approach by \cite{MFV}, the CKM matrix becomes a {\em by-product} 

1439: of the SM Yukawa couplings. Then the possibility of treating the Yukawa couplings as spurion fields, allows to 

1440: classify in terms of them any {\em new} source of flavour violation, and this is why the 

1441: definition by \cite{MFV} has a completely general applicability. As a matter of fact, it

1442: also provides a framework for systematic routes to beyond-MFV (see \cite{NMFV-FM}).

1443: 

1444: In the general context of \cite{MFV}, let us finally establish a contact with definition

1445: \cite{BurasMFV}. Since in the approach \cite{BurasMFV} new flavour violating structures are 

1446: taken as {\em unrelated} to the SM Yukawa couplings, it is clear that one can reach this 

1447: definition by setting the MFV parameters $b_i \to 0$, in expansions (\ref{softMFV}).

1448: In this respect, an interesting MFV study where effects beyond the less general 

1449: framework \cite{BurasMFV} are not visible has been reported in Ref. \cite{IMPST}.

1450: Specifically, in this case squark flavor mixing effects proportional to Yukawa couplings are 

1451: negligible (in particular there are no gluino contributions) and the $b_i$ coefficients

1452: are consistently set to zero.

1453: 

1454: \subsection{Deviations from `constrained' MFV}

1455: 

1456: In this Section, we finally study -- in the context of the $\D B = 2$ Hamiltonian -- 

1457: the special case in which MFV MSSM contributions are dominated by the operator $\mc Q_1$,

1458: the one already present in the SM. This case corresponds to `constrained' MFV (CMFV)

1459: \cite{BBGT}\footnote{For the sake of clarity, we mention that the definition of MFV

1460: adopted in \cite{BBGT} complies with \cite{BurasMFV}.}. We would like to stress that CMFV 

1461: is a phenomenologically relevant limit: in fact, if MFV is motivated by the observation 

1462: that experiments do not require new sources of flavour violation besides the SM Yukawa

1463: couplings, 

1464: the constrained version of it is analogously justified by the fact that there is no compelling 

1465: experimental evidence for contributions of effective operators other than the 

1466: SM ones. 

1467: 

1468: The latter statement is actually strictly true when one supposes that new effective 

1469: operators be ``strongly coupled'', \ie multiplied by an overall `coupling' factor taken to be $1$

1470: (or $-1$) \cite{LEP-paradox,MFV}. Bounds on new operator contributions are considerably

1471: alleviated, or removed altogether, when such operators are weakly coupled, as is typically

1472: the case for SUSY contributions to the observables considered in the bounds.

1473: 

1474: The limit of CMFV is a useful benchmark case to consider, both because of the

1475: generic argument on new operators mentioned above and because it is a very well satisfied

1476: feature of chargino contributions, which represent an important and sometimes dominating 

1477: ingredient in the various mass regimes of MFV.

1478: In the present Section, we start again from our calculated MFV MSSM contributions 

1479: to meson oscillations. We then compare -- in the different mass scenarios considered -- 

1480: the part of the contributions which bears proportionality to $\mc Q_1$ with the rest 

1481: of the contributions, due to operators besides the SM one. This exercise will allow us 

1482: to understand how `natural' is CMFV within the MSSM.

1483: 

1484: As a first step, we can define the ratio $R_{\rm CMFV}$ as

1485: \beqn

1486: R_{\rm CMFV} \equiv \frac{|\D M_s^{\rm NP}(C_1 \to 0)|}{\D M_s^{\rm NP}({\rm only}~C_1)}~,

1487: \label{R}

1488: \eeqn

1489: where $C_i$ are the Wilson coefficients of the $\D B = 2$ Hamiltonian (see eq.

1490: (\ref{Ci-MSSM})) in the MFV MSSM. The ratio $R_{\rm CMFV}$ provides 

1491: a good `quantitative' understanding of the relative importance of contributions from 

1492: non-SM operators with respect to $\mc Q_1$, in the $B_s$ case.

1493: 

1494: Within every of the mass scenarios considered, the ratio $R_{\rm CMFV}$ is then a

1495: distribution of values depending on the MFV parameters $a_i, b_i$.

1496: In Figs. \ref{fig:CiC1-A}-\ref{fig:CiC1-D} we report such distribution in the four

1497: representative regimes studied in Section \ref{sec:results}. In particular, left panels

1498: display $R_{\rm CMFV}$ for the sum of all contributions, leaving aside, again, those from

1499: charged Higgs, on which we will comment separately. The percentage reported on top of

1500: the plots gives the number of counts satisfying $|R_{\rm CMFV}| \le 0.05$. This bound can

1501: be considered -- in our MFV MSSM case -- a quantitative `definition' of CMFV. According to

1502: it, a given estimate of $\heff$ is taken to be CMFV, if contributions from operators other 

1503: than $\mc Q_1$ do not exceed $5$ \% of the contribution from $\mc Q_1$. We warn the reader 

1504: that this upper bound (and the corresponding definition associated with it) has of course a large 

1505: degree of arbitrariness: we chose $5$ \% in view of the still large hadronic uncertainties 

1506: associated with the estimate of the $\< \mc Q_i \>$.

1507: \begin{figure}[t]

1508: \begin{center}

1509: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Msq300_Mg300_mu200_M1500_M2500_csum.eps}

1510: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Msq300_Mg300_mu200_M1500_M2500_cpart.eps}

1511: \end{center}

1512: \caption{\small\sl Ratio (\ref{R}) of the contributions to $\D M_s^{\rm NP}$ from operators other

1513: than $\mc Q_1$ to that from $\mc Q_1$ alone, for the set of SUSY scales chosen in Fig.

1514: \ref{fig:sum-mu200}, which is representative of mass regime (A). Left panel shows the sum of

1515: all contributions but for charged Higgs boxes, right panel reports the ratio for the

1516: separate contributions.}

1517: \label{fig:CiC1-A}

1518: \end{figure}

1519: \begin{figure}[t]

1520: \begin{center}

1521: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Msq300_Mg300_mu500_M1100_M2200_csum.eps}

1522: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Msq300_Mg300_mu500_M1100_M2200_cpart.eps}

1523: \end{center}

1524: \caption{\small\sl Same as Fig. \ref{fig:CiC1-A}, but for the set of SUSY scales, chosen in

1525: this case as in Fig. \ref{fig:sum-mu500}, which is representative of mass regime (B).}

1526: \label{fig:CiC1-B}

1527: \end{figure}

1528: \begin{figure}[t]

1529: \begin{center}

1530: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Msq300_Mg300_mu1000_M1100_M2500_csum.eps}

1531: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Msq300_Mg300_mu1000_M1100_M2500_cpart.eps}

1532: \end{center}

1533: \caption{\small\sl Same as Fig. \ref{fig:CiC1-A}, but for the set of SUSY scales, chosen in

1534: this case as in Fig. \ref{fig:sum-mu1000}, which is representative of mass regime (C).}

1535: \label{fig:CiC1-C}

1536: \end{figure}

1537: \begin{figure}[t]

1538: \begin{center}

1539: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Msq1000_Mg195_mu500_M1100_M2200_csum.eps}

1540: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Msq1000_Mg195_mu500_M1100_M2200_cpart.eps}

1541: \end{center}

1542: \caption{\small\sl Same as Fig. \ref{fig:CiC1-A}, but for the set of SUSY scales, chosen in

1543: this case as in Fig. \ref{fig:sum-bigMsq}, which is representative of mass regime (D).}

1544: \label{fig:CiC1-D}

1545: \end{figure}

1546: 

1547: As one can see from the left panels of Figs. \ref{fig:CiC1-A}-\ref{fig:CiC1-D}, mass

1548: regimes (A) and (D) satisfy well CMFV. Mass regimes (B) and in particular (C), on the

1549: other hand, do not.\footnote{We mention that the case displayed in Fig. \ref{fig:CiC1-B} is

1550: the one with the highest CMFV percentage among the studied scenarios belonging to mass

1551: regime (B).} Further insight can be gained by looking at the right panels of the

1552: same Figures, where $R_{\rm CMFV}$ is displayed for the single contributions (in this case

1553: the ratio (\ref{R}) was calculated by restricting separately to $C_i^{\tilde g \tilde g}$

1554: for gluino-gluino boxes, and so on for the other contributions). One immediately

1555: recognizes that regime (A) is $\mc Q_1$-dominated, since chargino contributions are the

1556: most important ones. Gluinos are not CMFV, but they are unimportant. 

1557: In regime (D), instead, charginos and gluinos are of the same size, but both $\mc

1558: Q_1$-dominated. Finally, in regimes (B) and especially (C), CMFV does not apply: in fact, while

1559: charginos are always important and $\mc Q_1$-dominated, gluinos are not negligible and not

1560: $\mc Q_1$-dominated. As a matter of fact, $R_{\rm CMFV}$ for gluinos is in these cases

1561: very spread, typical values being in the range $20 \div 40$. We mention that such large 

1562: values are not shown in the plots of Figs. \ref{fig:CiC1-B} and \ref{fig:CiC1-C}.

1563: 

1564: Let us then address how the above picture is modified when adding contributions from charged 

1565: Higgses. The $R_{\rm CMFV}$ for the latter, in the case of $\tan \be = 3$, ranges between 

1566: $0.035$ and $0.015$, for $M_{H_1^\pm} = 90$ GeV and $1000$ GeV respectively. However, 

1567: contributions from scalar operators steadily increase in importance when increasing $\tan \be$: 

1568: for $\tan \be = 4$ Higgs contributions are not CMFV if $M_{H_1^\pm} \simle 500$ GeV and,

1569: already from $\tan \be = 5$, in the full range of masses considered for $M_{H_1^\pm}$.

1570: Then, whether the total sum is CMFV or not, it depends on how large the contribution from 

1571: Higgses is, with respect to the other contributions, \ie on the Higgs mass chosen (see

1572: Fig. \ref{fig:Higgs}).

1573: 

1574: We remark at this point that an increase in importance of scalar contributions affects, 

1575: in general, $\D M_s$ and $\D M_d$ in a different way. However, in the case of Higgs

1576: boxes, we found that the ratio of $\D M_d/\D M_s$ has a sensitivity with respect to 

1577: variations of $M_{H_1^\pm}$ below $1$ \%, when $\tan \be$ is strictly small. Variations

1578: start to be visible only from $\tan \be \simge 10$, when they become $> 3$ \%. This point

1579: was already stated at the end of Section \ref{sec:MC}, when discussing the case of 

1580: $\D M_d$.

1581: 

1582: Concerning contributions other than charged Higgses, we note that large deviations from 

1583: $\mc Q_1$-dominated MFV apply when $\mu$ is not small -- regimes (B) and (C) --. However,

1584: such deviations turn out not to affect $\D M_s$ and $\D M_d$ in a sensibly different way,

1585: so that their impact is not visible in the ratio $\D M_d/\D M_s$. The reason was, again, 

1586: already explained at the end of Section \ref{sec:MC}.

1587: 

1588: However, the above discussion allows us to place a warning message on the

1589: conventional wisdom that, for low $\tan \be$, MFV in the $\D F = 2$ Hamiltonian is 

1590: $\mc Q_1$-dominated. This is clearly not true when Higgs and gluino contributions are included, 

1591: and when $\mu$ is not small in magnitude. In this case, the approximation $Y_d \to 0$, on the 

1592: ground that $\tan \be$ is small, turns out not to work.

1593: 

1594: \subsection[A lower bound on $\D M_{s,d}$ from CMFV]{\boldmath A lower bound on $\D M_{s,d}$ from CMFV}

1595: 

1596: Recently, it has been shown analytically in \cite{BB} that, within the CMFV models, 

1597: the lower bounds on $\D M_{d,s}$ are simply given by $(\D M_{d,s})_{\rm SM}$. The proof

1598: holds, assuming general exchange of charged gauge bosons, Goldstone bosons and physical 

1599: scalars in boxes together with Dirac fermions, and under phenomenologically realistic assumptions 

1600: on their masses. On the other hand, two possible exceptions to the argument were found to arise 

1601: in the presence of Majorana fermions and of $U(1)$ neutral gauge bosons in box diagrams, which could 

1602: individually bring $\D M_{d,s}$ below $(\D M_{d,s})_{\rm SM}$. Within the

1603: model-independent approach of \cite{BB}, it seems impossible to exclude CMFV models involving 

1604: {\em negative} contributions to $\D M_{d,s}$, caused by Majorana fermions and/or $U(1)$ neutral 

1605: gauge bosons, that are not cancelled by the remaining {\em positive} contributions from the 

1606: other possible particle exchanges.

1607: 

1608: Within our study, we found in the previous Section that only mass regimes (A) and (D) are 

1609: $\mc Q_1$-dominated, \ie CMFV. In particular, the above mentioned exception, of a 

1610: CMFV case in which Majorana fermion contributions are not negligible, arises in regime (D) 

1611: (see Fig. \ref{fig:sum-bigMsq}). However in this case, Majorana contributions, represented by the

1612: gluino boxes, are also positive, so that, at least for low $\tan \be$, the lower bounds of 

1613: \cite{BB} still hold.

1614: Finally, regime (A) exactly corresponds to the assumptions made in the proof of \cite{BB},

1615: since Majorana contributions are negligible. In this case we numerically confirm the

1616: positivity of the NP contributions.

1617: 

1618: We find actually remarkable that, within the MFV MSSM at low $\tan \be$, the condition 

1619: $\D M_{s,d} > (\D M_{s,d})_{\rm SM}$ holds even when new operators give non-negligible

1620: contributions.

1621: 

1622: \section{MFV-Unitarity Triangle} \label{sec:MFV-UUT}

1623: 

1624: In this Section, we would like to emphasize that the so-called Universal Unitarity Triangle 

1625: (UUT) \cite{BurasMFV} is valid only within the CMFV models, and not within the general class of

1626: MFV models, like the MSSM considered here.

1627: 

1628: Indeed, the usual construction of the UUT is based on the value of the angle $\be$,

1629: measured by means of the $S_{\psi K_S}$ asymmetry, and on the value of the side $R_t$,

1630: obtained from the ratio $\D M_d/\D M_s$, that within CMFV is independent of any new

1631: physics contributions.

1632: 

1633: As already stressed in \cite{BCRSbig,BBGT}, in the context of the MSSM at large $\tan

1634: \be$, the presence of new operator contributions to $\D M_{s}$ and $\D M_{d}$ generally

1635: modifies the relation between $R_t$ and $\D M_d / \D M_s$, so that it now reads \cite{BCRSbig,BBGT}

1636: \beqn

1637: R_t = 0.913 \left[ \frac{\xi}{1.23} \right] \sqrt{\frac{17.8/{\rm ps}}{\D M_s}}

1638: \sqrt{\frac{\D M_d}{0.507/{\rm ps}}} \sqrt{R_{sd}}~, ~~~~R_{sd} = \frac{1+f_s}{1+f_d}~,

1639: \label{Rt}

1640: \eeqn

1641: with $\D M_q = (\D M_q)_{\rm SM}(1+f_q)$ and $\xi$ being a known non-perturbative

1642: parameter, $\xi = 1.23(6)$.

1643: 

1644: \begin{figure}[t]

1645: \begin{center}

1646: \includegraphics[scale=1.0]{gamma-Rb.eps}

1647: \end{center}

1648: \caption{\small\sl The blue area represents the correlation between $R_b$ and $\ga$, 

1649: valid in MFV. The orange area corresponds to the region with $R_t$ fixed to the value 

1650: in eq. (\ref{Rt}). CMFV occurs in the intersection between the two areas, displayed in

1651: red. Finally, the green dashed box shows the $1\sigma$-allowed range for $R_b$ and $\ga$,

1652: as measured from tree-level decays.}

1653: \label{fig:Rb-vs-gamma}

1654: \end{figure}

1655: Basing on the results of the previous sections, formula (\ref{Rt}) applies to the MSSM at 

1656: low  $\tan \be$ as well, with $R_{sd} \ne 1$, due to the presence of new operators that 

1657: differently affect $\D M_s$ and $\D M_d$. This can already be seen by adding to the SM 

1658: expression for the mass

1659: differences, the contributions from the charged Higgs boxes, which do not depend on the

1660: MFV parameters $a_i, b_i$. As we showed in Section \ref{sec:limits-MFV}, when addressing

1661: deviations from CMFV, the ratio $\D M_d / \D M_s$ is subject to variations at the percent 

1662: level, depending on the value chosen for $M_{H_1^\pm}$. Similar effects occur in

1663: principle when considering the other contributions as well, but in this case the 

1664: variation is completely hidden by the lack of knowledge of the values for the MFV parameters 

1665: $a_i, b_i$ and of course of the SUSY scales. The departure from CMFV is more pronounced

1666: in the MFV MSSM for large $\tan \be$, but such analysis is beyond the scope of the present 

1667: paper.

1668: 

1669: The above argument clearly demonstrates that the MFV MSSM, even at low $\tan \be$,

1670: does not belong to the class of CMFV models, and consequently, the UUT obtained from 

1671: $R_t$ and $\be_{\psi K_S}$ is not generically valid in MFV.

1672: 

1673: This discussion suggests that the unitarity triangle valid for all MFV models is not the

1674: UUT of \cite{BurasMFV} -- and analyzed in detail by \cite{UTfit} -- but a triangle

1675: constructed from the angle $\be_{\psi K_S}$ and the new-physics-independent value of 

1676: $|V_{ub}|$ or $\ga$ from tree-level decays.

1677: 

1678: In this context, the known value $\be_{\psi K_S} = (21.2 \pm 1.0)^\circ$ establishes a

1679: correlation between the side $R_b$,

1680: \beqn

1681: R_b = \left( 1- \frac{\la^2}{2} \right) \frac{1}{\la} 

1682: \left| \frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}} \right|~,

1683: \eeqn

1684: of the unitarity triangle and the angle $\ga$, that is valid for all models with MFV. 

1685: Such correlation is represented in Fig. \ref{fig:Rb-vs-gamma} as a blue area, under the 

1686: assumption $\be = \be_{\psi K_S} = (21.2 \pm 1.0)^\circ$. The orange area in the Figure

1687: displays instead the region characterized by $R_t$ fixed to the value in eq. (\ref{Rt}),

1688: with $R_{sd} = 1$ and $\xi = 1.23(6)$. The intersection between the two areas 

1689: -- displayed in red -- is then the one allowed to CMFV. Fig. \ref{fig:Rb-vs-gamma} also

1690: shows the $1 \sigma$-allowed range from tree-level decays, namely $62^\circ \le \ga \le

1691: 102^\circ$ and $0.40 \le R_b \le 0.45$, as a green dashed box. The latter overlaps with

1692: the higher branch of the MFV area but not with the CMFV one. This indicates, on the one

1693: hand, somehow a `tension' \cite{BBGT} between the tree-level determination of $R_b$ and 

1694: the one favoured by CMFV. On the other hand, the overlap between the green box and the

1695: blue area suggests that this tension disappears within MFV, provided $\ga > 80^\circ$.

1696: 

1697: It will be interesting to monitor with the help of Fig. \ref{fig:Rb-vs-gamma} the progress

1698: in the determination of $R_b$ and of the angle $\ga$ from tree-level decays, and to verify

1699: whether the correlation in question is satisfied by the data.

1700: 

1701: Equivalently, with precise values of $\ga$ and $R_b$, that are used for the construction

1702: of the reference unitarity triangle, it will be possible to find out whether the CMFV UUT

1703: or the MFV-UT is chosen by nature, or instead if one has to introduce non-MFV interactions 

1704: to fit the data. This would occur if the experimental point $(\ga, R_b)$ lies outside the 

1705: blue area in Fig. \ref{fig:Rb-vs-gamma}.

1706: 

1707: \section{Conclusions and Outlook} \label{sec:conclusions}

1708: 

1709: In this paper, we have applied the effective field theory definition of 

1710: Minimal Flavour Violation (MFV) to the MSSM and explicitly shown how, by this definition, 

1711: the new sources of flavour and CP violation present in the MSSM become functions of the SM 

1712: Yukawa couplings. We have subsequently applied the MFV limit to the MSSM $\Delta B = 2$ Hamiltonian 

1713: at low $\tan \be$.

1714: 

1715: Our findings can be summarized in the following main messages:

1716: \begin{enumerate}

1717: 

1718: \item In the MFV limit of the MSSM, the soft breaking terms become functions of the

1719: SM Yukawa couplings. This non-trivial functional dependence causes flavour violation due to 

1720: soft terms to be not zero in MFV, but instead `CKM-like'. The constraints imposed on the

1721: soft terms by the MFV assumption lead to a significant increase in the predictive power of

1722: the model.

1723: 

1724: \item The supersymmetric corrections to $\D M_{s,d}$ at low $\tan \be$ are found to be

1725: always {\em positive} with respect to the SM formula. This feature is due to an

1726: interesting interplay between the chargino and gluino box diagram contributions.

1727: 

1728: \item Even at low $\tan \be$, the MSSM does not in general belong to the class of models 

1729: with CMFV, in contrast to the statements made in the literature. The presence of gluino 

1730: box diagram contributions necessarily brings in new operators beyond the

1731: $(V-A)\otimes(V-A)$ one, whose importance depends on the mass regime chosen.

1732: 

1733: \item The side $R_t$, used in the determination of the Universal Unitarity Triangle, is

1734: actually not a good constant in MFV. Within the MFV MSSM at low $\tan \be$, we have found 

1735: variations that can reach the percent level, depending again on the mass regime chosen, and 

1736: on the value of $\tan \be$. To resolve such variations, one however needs a lattice 

1737: determination for $\xi$ with an error at most half the present value. In the case of the

1738: MFV MSSM at large $\tan \be$ the situation is in this respect `easier', since larger

1739: deviations from the CMFV value of $R_t$ are more likely.

1740: 

1741: \item A unitarity triangle valid in all MFV models (MFV-UT) can be constructed using only 

1742: $|V_{ub}|$ or $\ga$, from tree-level decays, and the angle $\be$, extracted from 

1743: $S_{\psi K_S}$. In particular, with the measured value of $\be_{\psi K_S}$, MFV implies a 

1744: testable correlation between $|V_{ub}|$ and $\ga$. With the present high value of $|V_{ub}|$, 

1745: MFV favours $\ga > 80^\circ$. The LHC program on the measurement of $\gamma$ is then of utmost 

1746: importance to cleanly consolidate -- or disprove -- the MFV paradigm.

1747: 

1748: \end{enumerate}

1749: \medskip

1750: 

1751: \section*{Acknowledgments}

1752: A.J.B. would like to thank Gino Isidori for his critical remarks in connection with the

1753: bound \cite{BB}, that strengthened the motivation to carry out this study. D.G is indebted 

1754: to Gino Isidori for insightful conversations on the topic of MFV, that were precious for

1755: framing the subject of this work.

1756: The authors thank also Monika Blanke for a careful reading of the manuscript and useful

1757: comments. Thanks are also due to Uli Haisch and Federico Mescia for useful comments. 

1758: This work has been supported in part by the Cluster of Excellence ``Origin and 

1759: Structure of the Universe'' and by the German Bundesministerium f{\"u}r Bildung und Forschung

1760: under contract 05HT6WOA.

1761: 

1762: \appendix

1763: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

1764: 

1765: \input appendix.tex

1766: 

1767: \bibliography{biblio} %%bibtex

1768: \bibliographystyle{JHEP}

1769: %amsalpha-dg gives alphabetic ordering

1770: 

1771: \end{document}

1772: