Models of Flavor Physics: PSI Zuoz Summerschool On Particle Physics Zuoz, 19-25 August 2012

Models of Flavor Physics
PSI Zuoz Summerschool on Particle Physics

Zuoz, 19-25 August 2012
Yossi Nir (Weizmann Institute of Science)
Flavor Physics 1/91
Plan of Lectures
1. Lecture1
(a) What is avor physics?
(b) Why is it interesting?
(c) Flavor in the Standard Model
(d) The SM avor puzzle
(e) Lessons from the B-factories
2. Lecture2
(a) The NP avor puzzle
(b) Minimal Flavor Violation
(c) Flavor models
(d) Flavor@LHC
Flavor Physics 2/91
What is Flavor Physics?
Flavor Physics 3/91
What are avors?
Copies of the same gauge representation:
SU(3)
C
U(1)
EM
Up-type quarks (3)
+2/3
u, c, t
Down-type quarks (3)
1/3
d, s, b
Charged leptons (1)
1
e, ,
Neutrinos (1)
0

1
,
2
,
3
Flavor Physics 4/91
What are avors?
In the interaction basis:
SU(3)
C
SU(2)
L
U(1)
Y
Quark doublets (3, 2)
+1/6
Q
Li
Up-type quark singlets (3, 1)
+2/3
U
Ri
Down-type quark singlets (3, 1)
1/3
D
Ri
Lepton doublets (1, 2)
1/2
L
Li
Charged lepton singlets (1, 1)
1
E
Ri
In QCD:
SU(3)
C
Quarks (3) u, d, s, c, b, t
Flavor Physics 5/91
What is avor physics?
Interactions that distinguish among the generations:
Neither strong nor electromagnetic interactions
Within the SM: Only weak and Yukawa interactions
In the interaction basis:
The weak interactions are also avor-universal
The source of all SM avor physics: Yukawa interactions
among the gauge interaction eigenstates
Flavor parameters:
Parameters with avor index (m
i
, V
ij
)
Flavor Physics 6/91
More avor dictionary
Flavor universal:
Coupling/paremeters 1
ij
in avor space
Example: strong interactions
U
R
G
a
1U
R
Flavor diagonal:
Coupling/paremeters that are diagonal in avor space
Example: Yukawa interactions in mass basis
U
L
u
U
R
H,
u
= diag(y
u
, y
c
, y
t
)
Flavor Physics 7/91
And more avor dictionary
Flavor changing:
Initial avor number = nal avor number
Flavor number = # particles # antiparticles
B K (
b cc s); K
2
(s u
2
)
Flavor changing neutral current processes:
Flavor changing processes that involve either U or D but
not both and/or either
or but not both

e; K (s d ); D
0
D
0
mixing (c u u c)...
FCNC are highly suppressed in the SM
Flavor Physics 8/91
The Flavor Factories
B-factories: Belle and BaBar
Asymmetric e
+
e
colliders producing (4S) B

B
Tevatron: CDF and D0
p p colliders at 2 TeV (B
s
...)
MEG: e
LHC: LHCb, ATLAS, CMS
Future: NA62, Super-B, LHCb-upgrade...
Flavor Physics 9/91
Why is Flavor Physics Interesting?
Flavor Physics 10/91
Motivation
Why is avor physics interesting?
Flavor physics is sensitive to new physics at
NP
E
experiment
The Standard Model avor puzzle:
Why are the avor parameters small and hierarchical?
(Why) are the neutrino avor parameters dierent?
The New Physics avor puzzle:
If there is NP at the TeV scale, why are FCNC so small?
Motivation
A brief history of FV
(K ) (K ) = Charm [GIM, 1970]
m
K
= m
c
1.5 GeV [Gaillard-Lee, 1974]

K
= 0 = Third generation [KM, 1973]
m
B
= m
t
m
W
[Various, 1986]
A recent example of avor@GeV = SUSY@TeV:
m
D
+ m
K
= m
q
/m
q
<
0.04 0.1
[Ciuchini et al, PLB 655, 162 (2007); Nir, JHEP 0705, 102 (2007); Blum et al, PRL 102,
211802 (2009)]
Motivation
What is CP violation?
Interactions that distinguish between particles and antiparticles
(e.g. e
L
e
+
R
)
Neither strong nor electromagnetic interactions
(Comment:
QCD
is irrelevant to our discussion)
Within the SM: Charged current weak interactions (
KM
)
With NP: many new sources of CPV
Manifestations of CP violation:
(B
0
K
S
) = (B
0
K
S
)
K
S
, K
L
= K
+
, K

Motivation
Why is CPV interesting?
Within the SM, a single CP violating parameter :
In addition, QCD = CP invariant (
QCD
irrelevant)
Strong predictive power (correlations + zeros)
Excellent tests of the avor sector
cannot explain the baryon asymmetry a puzzle:
There must exist new sources of CPV
Electroweak baryogenesis? (Testable at the LHC)
Leptogenesis? (Window to
seesaw
)
Motivation
A brief history of CPV
1964 2000
|| = (2.228 0.011) 10
3
; Re(
/) = (1.65 0.26) 10
3
Motivation
A brief history of CPV
1964 2000
|| = (2.228 0.011) 10
3
; Re(
/) = (1.65 0.26) 10
3
2000 2012
S
K
S
= +0.68 0.02
S
K
S
= +0.74 0.12, S
K
S
= +0.59 0.07,
S
f
0
K
S
= +0.69 0.11
S
K
+
K
K
S
= +0.68 0.10
S
= 0.65 0.07, C
= 0.36 0.06
S
0 = 0.93 0.15, S
D
+
D
= 0.98 0.17,
S
D
+
D
= 0.77 0.10
A
K
= 0.087 0.008
A
D
+
K
= +0.19 0.03
The Standard Model
The Standard Model
The Standard Model
G
SM
= SU(3)
C
SU(2)
L
U(1)
Y
(1, 2)
+1/2
= 0 breaks G
SM
SU(3)
C
U(1)
EM
Quarks: 3
Q
L
(3, 2)
+1/6
+U
R
(3, 1)
+2/3
+D
R
(3, 1)
1/3
Leptons: 3
L
L
(1, 2)
1/2
+E
R
(1, 1)
1
L
SM
= L
kinetic+gauge
+L
Higgs
+L
Yukawa
L
SM
depends on 18 parameters
All have been measured
The Standard Model
Flavor Symmetry
L
kinetic+gauge
+L
Higgs
has a large global symmetry:
G
global
= [U(3)]
5
Q
L
V
Q
Q
L
, U
R
V
U
U
R
, D
R
V
D
D
R
,
L
L
V
L
L
L
, E
R
V
E
E
R
Take, for example L
kinetic+gauge
for Q
L
(3, 2)
+1/6
:
iQ
L
i
(
+
i
2
g
s
G
a
a
+
i
2
g
s
W
b
b
+
i
6
g
ij
Q
Lj
Q
L
1Q
L
Q
L
V
Q
1V
Q
Q
L
= Q
L
1Q
L
Take, for example L
kinetic+gauge
for E
R
(1, 1)
1
:
iE
R
i
(
ig
ij
E
Rj
E
R
1E
R
E
R
V
E
1V
E
E
R
= E
R
1E
R
The Standard Model
Quark Flavor Violation
L
q
Yukawa
= Q
L
i
Y
u
ij
U
Rj
+Q
L
i
Y
d
ij
D
Rj
breaks U(3)
Q
U(3)
U
U(3)
D
U(1)
B
Flavor physics:
interactions that break the [SU(3)]
5
symmetry
Q
L
V
Q
Q
L
, U
R
V
U
U
R
, D
R
V
D
D
R
= Change of interaction basis
Y
d
V
Q
Y
d
V
D
, Y
u
V
Q
Y
u
V
U
Can be used to reduce the number of parameters in Y
u
, Y
d
The Standard Model
Kobayashi and Maskawa (I)
CP violation Complex couplings:
Hermiticity: L g
ijk
k
+g
ijk
k
CP transformation:
i
k
CP is a good symmetry if g
ijk
= g
ijk
The number of real and imaginary quark avor parameters:
With two generations:
2 (4
R
+ 4
I
) [3 (1
R
+ 3
I
) 1
I
] = 5
R
+ 0
I
With three generations:
2 (9
R
+ 9
I
) [3 (3
R
+ 6
I
) 1
I
] = 9
R
+ 1
I
The two generation SM is CP conserving
The three generation SM is CP violating
The Standard Model
The quark avor parameters
Convenient (but not unique) interaction basis:
Y
d
V
Q
Y
d
V
D
=
d
, Y
u
V
Q
Y
u
V
U
= V
u

d
,
u
diagonal and real:
d
=
y
d
y
s
y
b
;
u
=
y
u
y
c
y
t
V unitary with 3 real (, A, ) and 1 imaginary () parameters:

V
1 A
3
( +i)
1 A
2
A
3
(1 +i) A
2
1
Another convenient basis: Y

d
V
d
, Y
u
u
The Standard Model
The mass basis
To transform to the mass basis: D
L
D
L
, U
L
V U
L
m
q
= y
q
V = The CKM matrix

L
W
=
g
2
U
L
V
D
L
W
+
+ h.c.
V =
V
ud
V
us
V
ub
V
cd
V
cs
V
cb
V
td
V
ts
V
tb
- the only source of CP violation

The Standard Model
Kobayashi and Maskawa (II)
The achievements:
Predicting the third generation
Suggesting the correct mechanism of CP violation
The Standard Model
Lepton Flavor Violation
L
Yukawa
= L
L
i
Y
e
ij
E
Rj
breaks U(3)
L
U(3)
E
U(1)
e
U(1)
U(1)
Flavor physics:
interactions that break the [SU(3)]
5
symmetry
L
L
V
L
L
L
, E
R
V
E
E
R
= Change of interaction basis
Y
e
V
L
Y
e
V
E
Can be used to make Y
e
e
= diag(Y
e
, Y
, Y
)
No lepton avor changing interactions within the SM
The Standard Model
Intermediate Summary I
Within the Standard Model
The W-mediated quark interactions
the only source of FC and CPV physics:
L
W
=
g
2
U
L
V
D
L
W
+
+ h.c.
All avor changing processes depend on 4 CKM parameters:
, A, ,
All CP violating processes depend on the single KM phase:

The SM Flavor Puzzle
The SM avor puzzle
Smallness and Hierarchy
Y
t
1, Y
c
10
2
, Y
u
10
5
Y
b
10
2
, Y
s
10
3
, Y
d
10
4
Y
10
2
, Y
10
3
, Y
e
10
6
|V
us
| 0.2, |V
cb
| 0.04, |V
ub
| 0.004,
KM
1
For comparison: g
s
1, g 0.6, g
0.3, 1
The SM avor parameters have structure:
smallness and hierarchy
Why? = The SM avor puzzle
Approximate symmetry? [Froggatt-Nielsen]
Strong dynamics? [Nelson-Strassler]
Location in extra dimension? [Arkani-Hamed-Schmaltz]
?
The SM avor puzzle
Neutrino avor parameters
m
2
21
= (7.60.2)10
5
eV
2
, |m
2
32
| = (2.50.1)10
3
eV
2
|U
e2
| = 0.56 0.01, |U
3
| = 0.70 0.04, |U
e3
| = 0.16 0.01
The SM avor puzzle
Neutrino avor parameters
m
2
21
= (7.60.2)10
5
eV
2
, |m
2
32
| = (2.50.1)10
3
eV
2
|U
e2
| = 0.56 0.01, |U
3
| = 0.70 0.04, |U
e3
| = 0.16 0.01
Note:
|U
3
| > any |V
ij
|; |U
e2
| > any |V
ij
| (i = j)
m
2
/m
3
> any m
i
/m
j
for charged fermions
|U
e3
| 1
So far, neither smallness nor hierarchy
Is neutrino avor dierent from charged fermion avor?
The SM avor puzzle
Structure is in the eye of the beholder
|U|
3
=
0.79 0.86 0.50 0.61 0.1 0.2

0.25 0.53 0.47 0.73 0.56 0.79
0.21 0.51 0.42 0.69 0.61 0.83
Tribimaximal-ists:
|U|
TBM
=
2/3
1/3 0
1/6
1/3
1/2
1/6
1/3
1/2
Anarch-ists:
|U|
anarchy
=
O(0.6) O(0.6) O(0.6)

O(0.6) O(0.6) O(0.6)
O(0.6) O(0.6) O(0.6)

The SM Flavor Puzzle
Intermediate Summary II
Why is there smallness and hierarchy in the avor parameters?
Is there a relation Dirac/Majorana hierarchy/anarchy?
Is there a relation Dirac/Majorana Abelian/non-Abelian?
What have we learned?
P
0
f
CP
P
0
A
1
A
2
M
12
12
A
1
A
2
P
0
f
CP
P
0
A
1
A
2
M
12
12
A
1
A
2
1
2
1
3
1 Decay |
A/A| = 1

A
A
=

A
1
+

A
2
A
1
+A
2
A
K
2 Mixing |q/p| = 1
q
p
=
2M
12
i
12
Mi
Re P
0
, P
0
X
3 Interference Im = 0 =
M
12
|M
12
|
A
A
S
K
S
P
0
, P
0
f
CP
S
K
S
B
0
K
S
B
0
Babar/Belle: A
K
S
(t) =
d
dt
[B
0
phys
(t)K
S
]
d
dt
[B
0
phys
(t)K
S
]
d
dt
[B
0
phys
(t)K
S
]+
d
dt
[B
0
phys
(t)K
S
]
Theory: A
K
S
(t) dominated by interference between
A(B
0
K
S
) and A(B
0
B
0
K
S
)
= A
K
S
(t) = S
K
S
sin(m
B
t)
= S
K
S
= Im
A(B
0
B
0
)
|A(B
0
B
0
)|
A(B
0
K
S
)
A(B
0
K
S
)

S
K
S
in the SM
S
K
S
= Im
tb
V
td
V
tb
V
td
V
cb
V
cd
V
cb
V
cd
=
2(1)
2
+(1)
2
In the language of the unitarity triangle:
S
K
S
= sin 2
The approximations involved are better than one percent!
Experiments: S
K
S
= 0.68 0.02
The Unitarity Triangle
A geometrical presentation of V
ub
V
ud
+V
tb
V
td
+V
cb
V
cd
= 0
u
t
c
V =
V
ud
V
us
V
ub
V
cd
V
cs
V
cb
V
td
V
ts
V
tb

The Unitarity Triangle
A geometrical presentation of V
ub
V
ud
+V
tb
V
td
+V
cb
V
cd
= 0
u
t
c
V =
V
ud
V
us
V
ub
V
cd
V
cs
V
cb
V
td
V
ts
V
tb
Rescale and rotate: A

3
[( +i) + (1 i) + (1)] = 0
(0, 0) (1, 0)
( , )
V =
1

2
2
A
3
( i)
1

2
2
A
2
A
3
(1 i) A
2
1
Wolfenstein (83); Buras et al. (94)

2
;
1
;
3
Testing CKM Take I
Assume: CKM matrix is the only source of FV and CPV
known from K
A known from b c
Many observables are f(, ):
b u = |V
ub
/V
cb
|
2

2
+
2
m
B
d
/m
B
s
= |V
td
/V
ts
|
2
(1 )
2
+
2
S
K
S
=
2(1)
(1)
2
+
2
S
()
A
DK
()

K
The B-factories Plot
d
m
K
s
m &
d
m
SL
ub
V

ub
V
sin 2
(excl. at CL > 0.95)
< 0 sol. w/ cos 2
e
x
c
lu
d
e
d

a
t

C
L

>

0
.
9
5
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
excluded area has CL > 0.95
ICHEP 10
CKM
f i t t e r
CKMFitter
Very likely, the CKM mechanism dominates FV and CPV
CPC vs. CPV
d
m
s
m &
d
m
ub
V
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
e
x
c
lu
d
e
d

a
r
e
a

h
a
s

C
L

>

0
.
9
5
ICHEP 10
CKM
f i t t e r
sin 2
(excl. at CL > 0.95)
< 0 sol. w/ cos 2
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
e
x
c
lu
d
e
d

a
r
e
a

h
a
s

C
L

>

0
.
9
5
ICHEP 10
CKM
f i t t e r
Very likely, the KM mechanism dominates CP violation
S
K
S
with NP
Reminder: S
K
S
= Im
A(B
0
B
0
)
|A(B
0
B
0
)|
A(B
0
K
S
)
A(B
0
K
S
)
New physics contributions to the tree level decay amplitude -

negligible
New physics contributions to the loop + CKM suppressed
mixing amplitude could be large
Dene h
d
e
2i
d
=
A
NP
(B
0
B
0
)
A
SM
(B
0
B
0
)
r
d
e
2i
d
= 1 +h
d
e
2i
d
=
A
full
(B
0
B
0
)
A
SM
(B
0
B
0
)
S
K
S
= sin[2( +
d
)] = f(, , h
d
,
d
)
Testing CKM - take II
Assume: New Physics in leading tree decays - negligible
Allow arbitrary new physics in loop processes
Use only tree decays and B
0
B
0
mixing
Use |V
ub
/V
cb
|, A
DK
, S
K
, S
, m
B
d
, A
d
SL
Fit to , , h
d
,
d
Find whether = 0 is allowed
If not = The KM mechanism is at work
Find whether h
d
1 is allowed
If not = The KM mechanism is dominant
= 0?
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
1-CL
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
FPCP 2007
CKM
f i t t e r
The KM mechanism is at work
h
d
1?
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
d
h
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
d
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
1-CL
d
h
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
d
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
FPCP 2007
CKM
f i t t e r
The KM mechanism dominates CP violation
The CKM mechanism is a major player in avor violation
Hints of new physics?
LHCb+CDF+...: A
c
CP
= (0.66 0.15) 10
2
SM(?): A
c
CP

<
10
3
D0: A
b
SL
= (7.9 1.7 0.9) 10
3
SM: A
b
SL
= (0.23 0.06) 10
3
CDF+D0: Forward-backward asymmetry in t
t production
Observable Experiment SM
A
t
FB
0.18 0.04 0.08
A
FB
0.15 0.04 0.02
A
t
FB
(m
t
t
> 450) 0.28 0.06 0.10 0.15
Intermediate summary III
The KM phase is dierent from zero (SM violates CP)
The KM mechanism is the dominant source of the CP violation
observed in meson decays
Complete alternatives to the KM mechanism are excluded
(Superweak, Approximate CP)
CP violation in D, B
s
may still hold surprises
No evidence for corrections to CKM
NP contributions to the observed FCNC are at most
comparable to the CKM contributions
NP contributions are very small in s d, c u, b d, b s
Plan of Lectures
1. Lecture1
(a) What is avor physics?
(b) Why is it interesting?
(c) Flavor in the Standard Model
(d) The SM avor puzzle
(e) Lessons from the B-factories
2. Lecture2
(a) The NP avor puzzle
(b) Minimal Flavor Violation
(c) Models of Flavor Physics
(d) Flavor@LHC
The NP Flavor Puzzle
The NP avor puzzle
The SM = Low energy eective theory
1. Gravity =
Planck
10
19
GeV
2. m
= 0 =
Seesaw
10
15
GeV
3. m
2
H
-ne tuning; Dark matter =
NP
TeV
The SM = Low energy eective theory

Must write non-renormalizable terms suppressed by
d4
NP
L
d=5
=
y
ij
seesaw
L
i
L
j
L
d=6
contains many avor changing operators
The NP avor puzzle
New Physics
The eects of new physics at a high energy scale
NP
can be
presented as higher dimension operators
For example, we expect the following dimension-six operators:
z
sd
2
NP
(d
L
s
L
)
2
+
z
cu
2
NP
(c
L
u
L
)
2
+
z
bd
2
NP
(d
L
b
L
)
2
+
z
bs
2
NP
(s
L
b
L
)
2
New contribution to neutral meson mixing, e.g.
m
B
m
B
f
2
B
3

|z
bd
|
2
NP
Generic avor structure z
ij
1 or, perhaps, loop factor
The NP avor puzzle
Some data
m
K
/m
K
7.0 10
15
m
D
/m
D
8.7 10
15
m
B
/m
B
6.3 10
14
m
B
s
/m
B
s
2.1 10
12
K
2.3 10
3
A
0.2
S
K
S
0.68 0.02
S
1
The NP avor puzzle
High Scale?
For z
ij
1 (and Im(z
ij
) 1),
NP
>
10
4
m/m
TeV
NP
>
m
K
/m
K
7.0 10
15
1000 TeV
m
D
/m
D
8.7 10
15
1000 TeV
m
B
/m
B
6.3 10
14
400 TeV
m
B
s
/m
B
s
2.1 10
12
70 TeV
K
2.3 10
3
20000 TeV
A
0.004 3000 TeV

S
K
S
0.67 0.02 800 TeV
S
1 70 TeV
The NP avor puzzle
High Scale
For z
ij
1,
NP
1000 TeV
For z
ij

2
2
,
NP
100 TeV
The NP avor puzzle
High Scale
For z
ij
1,
NP
1000 TeV
For z
ij

2
2
,
NP
100 TeV
Did we misinterpret the Higgs ne tuning problem?

Did we misinterpret the dark matter puzzle?
The NP avor puzzle
Small (hierachical?) avor parameters?
For
NP
1 TeV , z
ij
<
10
8
(m
ij
/m)
z
ij
<
m
K
/m
K
7.0 10
15
9 10
7
m
D
/m
D
8.7 10
15
6 10
7
m
B
/m
B
6.3 10
14
5 10
6
m
B
s
/m
B
s
2.1 10
12
2 10
4
Im(z
ij
)
<
K
2.3 10
3
4 10
9
A
0.004 1 10
7
S
K
S
0.67 0.02 1 10
6
S
1 2 10
4
The NP avor puzzle
Small (hierachical?) avor parameters
For
NP
TeV , Im(z
sd
) < 6 10
9
For
NP
TeV , |z
bs
| < 2 10
4
The NP avor puzzle
Small (hierachical?) avor parameters
For
NP
TeV , Im(z
sd
) < 6 10
9
For
NP
TeV , |z
bs
| < 2 10
4
The avor structure of NP@TeV must be highly non-generic

Degeneracies/Alignment
How? Why? = The NP avor puzzle
The NP avor puzzle
How does the SM (
SM
m
W
) do it?
z
ij
z
SM
ij
m
K
/m
K
7.0 10
15
5 10
9
2
2
y
2
c
|V
cd
V
cs
|
2
m
D
/m
D
8.7 10
15
5 10
9
Long Distance
m
B
/m
B
6.3 10
14
7 10
8
2
2
y
2
t
|V
td
V
tb
|
2
m
B
s
/m
B
s
2.1 10
12
2 10
6
2
2
y
2
t
|V
ts
V
tb
|
2
Im(z
ij
)
|z
ij
|

Im(z
SM
ij
)
|z
SM
ij
|
K
2.3 10
3
O(0.01) Im
y
2
t
(V
td
V
ts
)
2
y
2
c
(V
cd
V
cs
)
2
0.01
A
0.004 0.2 0
S
K
S
0.67 0.02 O(1) Im
V
tb
V
td
V
tb
V
td
V
cb
V
cd
V
cb
V
cd
0.7
S
1 1 Im
V
tb
V
ts
V
tb
V
ts
V
cb
V
cs
V
cb
V
cs
0.02
Does the new physics know the SM Yukawa structure? (MFV)
The NP avor puzzle
Supersymmetry for Phenomenologists
FV CPV
Y + +
+
A + +
m
g
+
m
2
f
+ +
B +
80 real + 44 imaginary parameters
The NP avor Puzzle
The D
0
D
0
mixing challenge
Take, for example, the contribution from the rst two generations
of squark doublets to D

D mixing:
u c
c u
u
1,2
u
1,2
g
g
NP
= m
Q
z
cu
3.8 10
5
(m
2
Q
)
2
m
4
Q
(K
u
L
21
K
u
L
11
)
2
=
TeV
m
m
2
Q
m
2
Q
sin 2
u
0.05 0.10
The NP avor Puzzle
How can Supersymmetry do it?
TeV
m

m
2
ij
m
2
K
ij
1
Why? = The SUSY avor puzzle
The NP avor Puzzle
How can Supersymmetry do it?
TeV
m

m
2
ij
m
2
K
ij
1
Why? = The SUSY avor puzzle
Solutions:
Heaviness: m 1 TeV
Degeneracy: m
2
ij
m
2
Alignment: K
ij
1
Split Supersymmetry
Gauge-mediation
Horizontal symmetries
The NP avor Puzzle
Gauge Mediated Supersymmetry Breaking
Gauge interactions generate universal soft squark and slepton
masses:

M
2
q
L
= m
2
1 +D
q
L
1 +v
2
q
Y
q
Y
q
RGE: m
2
Q
L
(m
Z
) = m
2
(r
3
1 +c
u
Y
u
Y
u
+c
d
Y
d
Y
d
)
Strong [O(10
4
)] degeneracy between

Q
L1

Q
L2
;
CKM-size alignment
The only source of avor violation = The SM Yukawa couplings
An example of minimal avor violation (MFV)
MFV solves all SUSY avor problems
The NP avor Puzzle
Intermediate Summary IV
How does new physics at TeV suppress its avor violation?
Degeneracy? Alignment?
Is the avor structure of the NP related to the SM Yukawa
structure?
Are the solutions of the NP and SM avor puzzles related?
Minimal Flavor Violation
Minimal Flavor Violation
Spurions
L
SM
gauge
has a global symmetry,
G
q
avor
= SU(3)
Q
SU(3)
U
SU(3)
D
, under which
Q
L
(3, 1, 1), U
R
(1, 3, 1), D
R
(1, 1, 3)
L
q
Yukawa
= Q
L
i
Y
u
ij
U
Rj
+Q
L
i
Y
d
ij
D
Rj
breaks G
q
avor
G
q
avor
would be a good symmetry if Y
q
were elds
transforming as Y
u
(3,
3, 1), Y
d
(3, 1,
3)
We say that Y
u
, Y
d
are spurions that break G
q
avor
Minimal Flavor Violation (MFV)
MFV: Denition
A class of models that obey the following principle:
The only breaking of avor universality comes from
Y
u
, Y
d
(
d
,
u
, V )
The only spurions that break SU(3)
Q
SU(3)
U
SU(3)
D
are
Y
u
(3,
3, 1) and Y
d
(3, 1,
3)
In MFV models, the NP avor puzzle is solved
Operationally...
1. SM = Low energy eective theory:
All higher dimensional operators, constructed from SM elds
and the Y
q
-spurions are formally invariant under [SU(3)]
3
2. A new high energy physics theory:
All operators, constructed from SM and NP elds and the
Y
q
-spurions are formally invariant under [SU(3)]
3
Example: Gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking (GMSB)
Example (1)
Consider
z
sd
2
NP
(s
L
d
L
)
2
s
L
(
3, 1, 1), d
L
(3, 1, 1) = (s
L
d
L
) (8, 1, 1)
Y
d
Y
d
= (3, 1,
3) (
3, 1, 3) (8, 1, 1)
Y
u
Y
u
= (3,
3, 1) (
3, 3, 1) (8, 1, 1)
But we are in the down mass basis: Y
d
=
d
=(Y
d
Y
d
)
12
= 0
Must be (Y
u
Y
u
)
12
= (V
2
u
V )
12
y
2
t
V
td
V
ts
z
sd
y
4
t
(V
td
V
ts
)
2
z
cu
y
4
b
(V
ub
V
cb
)
2
z
bd
y
4
t
(V
td
V
tb
)
2
z
bs
y
4
t
(V
ts
V
tb
)
2
With the help of a loop factor, phenomenologically OK!
Example (2)
Q
L
= (
3, 1, 1) (3, 1, 1) = (1 + 8, 1, 1)
= m
2
Q
L
= 1 +a
u
Y
u
Y
u
+a
d
Y
d
Y
d
Y
d
Y
d
FC in u-basis; Y
u
Y
u
FC in d-basis
U
R
= (1,
3, 1) (1, 3, 1) = (1, 1 + 8, 1)
= m
2
U
R
= 1 +b
u
Y
u
Y
u
no FC!
D
R
= (1, 1,
3) (1, 1, 3) = (1, 1, 1 + 8)
= m
2
D
R
= 1 +b
d
Y
d
Y
d
no FC!
Example (2 1)
GMSB, two generations:
m
2
d
L
m
2
d
L
y
2
c
, K
d
L
21
K
d
L
11
= V
cd
V
cs
= z
GMSB
sd
y
4
c
(V
cd
V
cs
)
2
m
2
u
L
m
2
u
L
y
2
c
, K
u
L
21
K
u
L
11
=
y
2
s
y
2
c
V
us
V
cs
= z
GMSB
cu
y
4
s
(V
us
V
cs
)
2
MFV contributions to CPV
Deviations from SM:
y
b
1 y
b
1
i S
S
K

K
S
S
K

K
1 small small large small small large
2,3 large large small large large small
4,5 large small large small small large
MFV will be excluded if
S
K
-large and S
-small
S
K
, S
,
K
all large
V
CKM
, with apologies to BABAR and BELLE
The CKM matrix a-la BABAR/BELLE:
V
CKM
=
0.97383 0.00024 0.2272 0.0010 (3.96 0.09) 10

3
0.2271 0.0010 0.97296 0.00024 (4.221
+0.010
0.080
) 10
2
(8.14
+0.32
0.64
) 10
3
(4.161
+0.012
0.078
) 10
2
0.999100
+0.000034
0.000004

V
CKM
, with apologies to BABAR and BELLE
The CKM matrix a-la BABAR/BELLE:
V
CKM
=
0.97383 0.00024 0.2272 0.0010 (3.96 0.09) 10

3
0.2271 0.0010 0.97296 0.00024 (4.221
+0.010
0.080
) 10
2
(8.14
+0.32
0.64
) 10
3
(4.161
+0.012
0.078
) 10
2
0.999100
+0.000034
0.000004
The CKM matrix a-la ATLAS/CMS:

V
CKM
=
1 0.2 0
0.2 1 0
0 0 1

MFV predictions: Mixing
The only source of mixing the CKM matrix:
V
LHC
CKM
=
1 0.2 0
0.2 1 0
0 0 1
New particles will decay to either 3rd generation

or non-3rd generation quarks but not to both
ATLAS/CMS can exclude MFV by observing Br(q
3
) Br(q
1,2
)
Examples of new particles: Vector-like quarks; squarks...
MFV + SUSY
Squarks:
Spectrum: 2 + 1
Decays: 2 u, d, s, c, 1 t, b
Sleptons,
seesaw
>
mediation
:
spectrum: 3
Decays: avor diagonal
Sleptons,
seesaw
<
mediation
:
Y
N
, M
R
may leave a footprint on the slepton spectrum and
avor decomposition
Intermediate summary V: MFV
A class of NP models where...
The only violation of the global [SU(3)]
3
q
symmetry =
The Yukawa-spurions: Y
u
(3,
3, 1), Y
d
(3, 1,
3)
Solution to the NP avor puzzle
Examples: Gauge-, anomaly-, gaugino-mediated susy breaking
Probably, only an approximation
The NP is subject to an approximate [SU(2)]
3
symmetry
All FC processes V
CKM
Testable at avor factories (LHCb) and at ATLAS/CMS
Has nothing to say about the SM avor puzzle
Flavor Models
Flavor models
Reminder: The SM avor puzzle
Y
t
1, Y
c
10
2
, Y
u
10
5
Y
b
10
2
, Y
s
10
3
, Y
d
10
4
Y
10
2
, Y
10
3
, Y
e
10
6
|V
us
| 0.2, |V
cb
| 0.04, |V
ub
| 0.004,
KM
1
For comparison: g
s
1, g 0.6, g
0.3, 1
The SM avor parameters have structure:
smallness and hierarchy
Why? = The SM avor puzzle
Approximate symmetry? [Froggatt-Nielsen]
Flavor models
The Froggatt-Nielsen (FN) mechanism
Approximate horizontal symmetry (e.g. U(1)
H
)
Small breaking parameter = S
1
/ 1
(1) is a spurion that breaks U(1)
H
Selection rules:
Y
d
ij

H(Q
i
)+H(
d
j
)+H(
d
)
Y
u
ij

H(Q
i
)+H( u
j
)+H(
u
)
Y
ij

H(L
i
)+H(
j
)+H(
d
)
Y
ij

H(L
i
)+H(L
j
)+2H(
u
)
Flavor models
The FN mechanism: An example
H(Q
i
) = 3, 2, 0, H( u
j
) = 4, 1, 0, H(
u
) = 0
Y
u
4
1
Y
t
: Y
c
: Y
u
1 :
3
:
7
(V
u
L
)
12
, (V
u
L
)
23

2
, (V
u
L
)
13

3
A good t with || 0.2
Flavor models
The FN mechanism: another example
U(1)
H
broken by (1) 0.05
10(2, 1, 0),

5(0, 0, 0)
Y
t
: Y
c
: Y
u
1 :
2
:
4
Y
b
: Y
s
: Y
d
1 : :
2
Y
: Y
: Y
e
1 : :
2
|V
us
| |V
cb
| , |V
ub
|
2
,
KM
1
+
m
3
: m
2
: m
1
1 : 1 : 1
|U
e2
| 1, |U
3
| 1, |U
e3
| 1
Flavor models
The FN mechanism: Predictions (quarks)
In the quark sector: 8 FN charges, 9 observables
One prediction that is independent of charge assignments:
|V
ub
| |V
us
V
cb
|
Experimentally correct to within a factor of 2
In addition, six inequalities:
|V
us
|

>
m
d
m
s
,
m
u
m
c
; |V
ub
|

>
m
d
m
b
,
m
u
m
t
; |V
cb
|

>
m
s
m
b
,
m
c
m
t
Experimentally fullled
When ordering the quarks by mass:
V
CKM
1 (diagonal terms not suppressed parameterically)
Experimentally fullled
Flavor models
The FN mechanism: Predictions (leptons)
In the lepton sector: 5 FN charges, 9 observables
Four predictions that are independent of charge assignments:
m
i
/m
j
|U
ij
|
2
|U
e3
| |U
e2
U
3
|
In addition, three inequalities:
|U
e2
|

>
m
e
m
; |U
e3
|

>
m
e
m
; |U
3
|

>
m
When ordering the leptons by mass:

U 1
Flavor models
Testing FN with Neutrinos
m
2
21
= (7.60.2)10
5
eV
2
, |m
2
32
| = (2.50.1)10
3
eV
2
|U
e2
| = 0.56 0.01, |U
3
| = 0.70 0.04, |U
e3
| = 0.16 0.01
Attempting a FN explanation:
s
23
1, m
2
/m
3

x
?
Inconsistent with FN
s
23
1, s
12
1, s
13

x
?
sin
2
2
23
= 1
x
?
Flavor models
Neutrino Mass Anarchy
m
2
21
= (7.60.2)10
5
eV
2
, |m
2
32
| = (2.50.1)10
3
eV
2
|U
e2
| = 0.56 0.01, |U
3
| = 0.70 0.04, |U
e3
| = 0.16 0.01
Possible interpretation:
Neutrino parameters are all of O(1) (no structure):
Neutrino mass anarchy
Consistent with FN
Close to GUT+FN predictions:
s
23

m
s
/m
b
|V
cb
|
1; s
12

m
d
/m
s
|V
us
|
0.2; s
13

m
d
/m
b
|V
ub
|
0.5
Flavor models
The FN mechanism and supersymmetry
Assume: SUSY breaking terms subject to FN selection rules
Sfermion masses are non-degenerate
(except for RGE eects if mediation scale is high)
Alignment: gluino-quark-squark mixing angles are small
Example:
H(Q
i
) = 3, 2, 0, H( u
i
) = 4, 1, 0, H(
u
) = 0
m
Q
1
, m
Q
2
, m
Q
3
= O(1) m (anarchy)

L
12
,
L
23

2
,
L
13

3
R
12

3
,
R
23
,
R
13

4
General prediction:
L
ij
|V
ij
|,
R
ij

m
i
/m
j
|V
ij
|
Structure of susy avor:
related to, but not the same as, SM Yukawa
Flavor models
Intermediate Summary VI: FN
The SM avor puzzle can be explained by an approximate
Abelian symmetry
The NP avor puzzle can be solved by the same mechanism
(with a little help from RGE)
The NP avor parameters are related to, but not the same as,
the SM avor parameters
If we discover new particles, and measure their spectrum and
avor decomposition, we can test various solutions to the avor
puzzles
Flavor@ATLAS/CMS
The LHC
Exploring the unknown
Energy 0.6 4 TeV
Distance 10
19
10
20
m
Time 10
11
10
13
s
The LHC
Questions for the LHC
What is the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking?
What separates the electroweak scale from the Planck scale?
What happened at the electroweak phase transition
(10
11
second after the big bang)?
What are the dark matter particles?
How was the baryon asymmetry generated?
What are the solutions of the avor puzzles?
The LHC
Experimentalists: Flavor at ATLAS/CMS???
ATLAS/CMS are not optimized for avor
The LHC
Experimentalists: Flavor at ATLAS/CMS???
ATLAS/CMS are not optimized for avor
But...
They can identify e, , ()
They can tell 3rd generation quarks (b, t) from light quarks
The LHC
Theorists: Flavor at ATLAS/CMS???
The scale of avor dynamics is unknown
Very likely, it is well above the LHC direct reach
The LHC
Theorists: Flavor at ATLAS/CMS???
The scale of avor dynamics is unknown
Very likely, it is well above the LHC direct reach
But...
If new particles that couple to the SM fermions are discovered
= New avor parameters can be measured
Spectrum (degeneracies?)
Flavor decomposition (alignment?)
In combination with avor factories, we may...
Understand how the NP avor puzzle is (not) solved
= Probe NP at
NP
TeV
Get hints about the solution to the SM avor puzzle
What will we learn?
Solving the SUSY Flavor Puzzle
If ATLAS/CMS observe squarks and sleptons...
Determine the sfermion mass scale ( m)
Determine the sfermion mass splitting (m
f
j
m
f
i
)
Determine the sfermion avor decomposition (K
ij
)
Learn how the SUSY avor suppression is obtained

What will we learn?
The role of avor factories (FF)
ATLAS/CMS and avor factories give complementary information
In the absence of NP at ATLAS/CMS:
avor factories will be crucial to nd
NP
Consistency between ATLAS/CMS and FF:
necessary to understand the NP avor puzzle
NP in c u? s d? b d? b s? t c? t u?
e? ? e?
MFV?
Structure related to SM?
Structure unrelated to SM?
Anarchy?
[Hiller, Hochberg, Nir, JHEP0903(09)115; JHEP1003(10)079]]
What will we learn?
Intermediate summary VII
Excluded
1
1
K
ij
0
0
m
j
-m
i
m
j
+m
i
Flavor Factories
What will we learn?
Intermediate summary VII
Excluded
1
1
K
ij
0
0
m
j
-m
i
m
j
+m
i
Flavor Factories
K
ij
1
1
0
0
Flavor
Factory
ATLAS/
CMS
m
j
-m
i
m
j
+m
i
FF+ATLAS/CMS
[Grossman, Ligeti, Nir, PTP122(09)125 [0904.4262]]
Flavor models
Summary
Past:
The CKM mechanism of avor violation has passed
successfully numerous experimental tests
The KM mechanism was proven to dominate the observed
CP violation
Present:
The SM avor puzzle: Why smallness and hierarchy?
The NP avor puzzle: Why degeneracy and/or alignment?
Future:
Progress on NP avor puzzle guaranteed
Progress on SM avor puzzle possible if there is accessible
new physics with avor structure related to the SM
Flavor models
The SM avor puzzle with strong dynamics
At high scale > M
>
, anarchy: Y (M
>
) = O(1)
A range of scales, M
>
> > M
<
, where rst two generations
couple to a conformal sector:
Y (M <) = Y (M
>
)
M
<
M
>
1
2
(
Li
+
Rj
)
Mi
= the anomalous dimension of the eld
Mi
Generates a small parameter (M
<
/M
>
)
1/2
m
i
/m
j

Li
+
Ri
Lj
Rj
|V
ij
|
Li
Lj
For SM avor parameters, predictions similar to FN
Flavor models
The NP avor puzzle with strong dynamics
For the SUSY avor problems, various options:
Supersymmetry broken by the conformal sector
m
1,2
directly from conformal sector
m
3
from gauge mediation
= Heavy rst two sfermion generations: m
1,2
m
3
Supersymmetry breaking at scale higher than M
>
m
1,2
0 at M
<
m
1,2
from RGE between M
<
m
Z
= Degenerate rst two sfermion generations: m
1
m
2
Flavor models
The SM avor puzzle with extra dimension
Anarchical 5d Yukawa couplings: Y
5d
ij
= O(1)
Higgs eld located near the IR brane
Wave functions of light fermions located near the UV brane
Wave functions of heavy fermions located near the IR brane
4d Yukawa couplings proportional to overlap of Higgs and
fermion wave functions: Y
4d
ij
f
Li
f
Rj
f
Mi
= wave function of
Mi
at the IR brane
m
i
/m
j

f
Li
f
Ri
f
Lj
f
Rj
|V
ij
| f
Li
/f
Lj
For SM avor parameters, predictions similar to FN
Flavor models
The NP avor puzzle with extra dimension
Main problem: Flavor changing couplings of the rst KK level
gluon
However, its wave function located at the IR brane, similar to
the Higgs eld
FC operators involving rst two generations suppressed;
e.g. (s
L
d
R
)(s
R
d
L
)
m
s
m
d
M
2
KK
FC operators involving the top not strongly suppressed;
e.g. (t cZ) orders of magnitude above the SM prediction

Models of Flavor Physics: PSI Zuoz Summerschool On Particle Physics Zuoz, 19-25 August 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Models of Flavor Physics: PSI Zuoz Summerschool On Particle Physics Zuoz, 19-25 August 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Models of Flavor Physics

PSI Zuoz Summerschool on Particle Physics

or but not both

colliders producing (4S) B

Flavor Physics 13/91

V unitary with 3 real (, A, ) and 1 imaginary () parameters:

Another convenient basis: Y

V = The CKM matrix

- the only source of CP violation

Flavor Physics 25/91

0.79 0.86 0.50 0.61 0.1 0.2

O(0.6) O(0.6) O(0.6)

Flavor Physics 29/91

Flavor Physics 33/91

Flavor Physics 35/91

Rescale and rotate: A

Wolfenstein (83); Buras et al. (94)

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

New physics contributions to the tree level decay amplitude -

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

The SM = Low energy eective theory

0.004 3000 TeV

Did we misinterpret the Higgs ne tuning problem?

The avor structure of NP@TeV must be highly non-generic

0.97383 0.00024 0.2272 0.0010 (3.96 0.09) 10

Flavor Physics 68/91

0.97383 0.00024 0.2272 0.0010 (3.96 0.09) 10

The CKM matrix a-la ATLAS/CMS:

Flavor Physics 68/91

New particles will decay to either 3rd generation

When ordering the leptons by mass:

Learn how the SUSY avor suppression is obtained

You might also like