1 / 45

CP Violation and the CKM Matrix —————— Assessing the impact of the asymmetric B Factories

CP Violation and the CKM Matrix —————— Assessing the impact of the asymmetric B Factories. Andreas Höcker (LAL, Orsay) for the CKMfitter Group. SLAC Experimental Seminar, May 09, 2005. http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/ckmfitter / and http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr/. hoecker@lal.in2p3.fr.

tave
Télécharger la présentation

CP Violation and the CKM Matrix —————— Assessing the impact of the asymmetric B Factories

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CP Violation and the CKM Matrix —————— Assessing the impact of the asymmetric B Factories Andreas Höcker (LAL, Orsay) for the CKMfitter Group SLAC Experimental Seminar, May 09, 2005 http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/ckmfitter/ and http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr/ hoecker@lal.in2p3.fr A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  2. Outline Introductory disclaimer: this seminar mainly addresses B-physics experts it discusses/condenses parts of the 2004 publication from the CKMfitter Group Charles et al., EPJ C41, 1–131 (2005) [hep-ph/0406184] Höcker-Lacker-Laplace-Le Diberder, EPJ C21, 225 (2001) Themes : • CKM phase invariance and unitarity • Statistical issues • CKM metrology • the traditional inputs • deep B physics :, ,  • a new star : B+  + • the global CKM fit • Related topics • phenomenological discussion of B  K decays • Preparing the future A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  3. (if there’s too many transparencies in this talk, why must we start with this one ?) • The Universe is empty* ! • The Universe is almost empty* ! Bigi, Sanda, « CP Violation » (2000) • Initial condition ? • Dynamically generated ? Sakharov rules (1967) to explain Baryogenesis • Baryon number violation • CP violation • No thermic equilibrium (non-stationary system) • So, if we believe to have understood CPV in the quark sector, what does it signify ? • A sheer accident of nature ? • and … (less important, but puzzling) is the new physics minimal flavor violating ? If so, why ??? A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  4. Im Im Im Q q W– Q CP Violation (Im[...]  0) VqQ q  J/2 J/2   Re Re Re Jarlskog invariant J = 0  no VCP Jarlskog, PRL 55, 1039 (1985) phase invariant : The CKM Matrix and the Unitarity Triangle d s b u c t    A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  5. If one wishes (not necessary for the analysis), one can Taylor expand in  and finds : The Unitary Wolfenstein Parameterization • The standard parameterization uses Euler angles and one CPV phase  unitary ! • Now, define • And insert into V V is still unitary ! With this one finds (to all orders in ) : where: Buras et al., PRD 50, 3433 (1994) A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  6. The CKMfitter Project • Started development in 2000 with Standard CKM fit – first publication in 2001 • Since then, many additional implementations : • B , ,  isospin analyses, and Dalitz interpretation • B , K, KK isospin + SU(3) analyses • full QCD Factorization (BBNS) for B PP, PV • B D(*)K(*)(ADS, GLW and Dalitz) interpretation • rare B decays: B  () and B  (K*) • CPV and mixing in Bs decays • rare kaon decays: K   • dilepton CP asymmetries • new physics analyses • Features 3 statistical approaches : • Rfit(frequentist) • 90% CL scan method (frequentist) • Bayesian • Code :~ 42k lines at present (40k F vs. 2k C++) – re-foundation meeting in June, 2005 to take future technology decision: full rewrite in C++/Root, or with Mathematica The European Physical Journal C - Publisher: Springer-Verlag GmbH ISSN: 1434-6044 (Paper) 1434-6052 (Online) DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s2005-02169-1 Issue: Volume 41, Number 1 Date:  May 2005 Pages: 1 - 131 CKMfitter Group: from 4 (2000) to 15 (2005) members, mostly experimentalists including BABAR, Belle, LHCb Code is publicly available : • under CVS (still needs BABAR account – will eventually move to sourceforge), • on the web: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/ckmfitter/ A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  7. Fitting Approach Constraints on theoretical parameters Measurement xexp ytheo = (A,,,,mt,, …) Theoretical predictions = (BK,fB,BBd, …) Xtheo(ymodel= ytheo ,yQCD) yQCD Define: “2” = – 2 lnL(ymodel) L(ymodel) =Lexp[– xtheo(ymodel)]Ltheo(yQCD) xexp « Guesstimates » • experimental likelihood • if not available: Gaussian errors • asymmetric errors • correlations between xexp’s Frequentist:Rfit Bayesian Uniform likelihoods: “allowed ranges” Probabilities A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  8. Three Step CKM Analysis using Rfit Probing the SM Metrology Test New Physics • Define: ymod = {a; µ} = {, , A,,yQCD,...} • Set Confidence Levels in {a} space, irrespective of the µvalues • Fit with respect to {µ} ²min;µ(a) = minµ{²(a, µ) } • ²(a)=²min;µ(a)–²min;ymod CL(a) = 1 –Prob(²(a), Ndof) (or toy MC) • If CL(SM) good Obtain limits on New Physics parameters • If CL(SM) bad Try some other model • Test of “Goodness-of-fit” • Evaluate global minimum ²min;ymod(ymod-opt) • Create perfect data set : xexp-opt = xtheo(ymod-opt) generate xexp usingLexp • Perform many toy fits:²min-toy(ymod-opt)  F(²min-toy) AH-Lacker-Laplace-Le Diberder EPJ C21 (2001) 225, [hep-ph/0104062] A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  9. Statistics : Popular Misconceptions See also R. Faccini’s plenary talk at BABAR Collaboration meeting February, 2005 • Use and misuse of Bayesian statistics : • Bayes’ theorem tells us about the convolution of probability densities (the “priors”) • Bayes did not tell us that we should assign probabilities to all quantities in this world • Addresses the problem of Finetuning : • Leaving all ymodel parameters free to vary in the fit (within defined ranges) is certainly conservative, but does not apply any hierarchy between the solutions • If one wishes to introduce a hierarchy to increase the information budget, one has to take care about the origin of the ymodel parameters : The yQCD parameters have prior information: all yQCD may hit at their bounds  finetuning scenario ? The ytheo parameters are unknown:  no finetuning scenario use of PDFs for yQCD suppresses these solutions in a controlled way: • arbitrary suppression strength • not conservative use of PDFs for ytheo suppresses (and enh.) solutions in an uncontrolled way: • arbitrary results (biased) • not conservative A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  10. Popular Misconceptions: Examples (I) • Famous illustrative example: consider observable T with theory prediction a Bayesian approach with a priori PDFs G(yi), generates the a posteriori PDF and using uniform priors for all xi leads to : • Illustration for N=3 and Δ=3 : • Rfit is not weighed within : • Biasian strongly weighs see plot see appendix in: hep-ph/0104062 A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  11. Bayesian: flat priors Bayesian: flat priors Popular Misconceptions: Examples (II) • B  Gronau-London isospin analysis: • there are 8 mirror solutions for   [0,], i.e., 8 different values of  give sameOi • if penguins  0 : two sets of 4 solutions merge with 2 solutions left • nature cannot distinguish between these solutions ! (because the corresp. observables are degenerate) • independent of the param. (polar, cartesian, …) • The Rfit analysis (2 fit) reproduces degenerate 2min() at the mirror solutions • When using PDFs for the ytheo, the Bayesian analysis cannot in general reproduce the mathematical property of the isospin analysis, since it applies arbitrary input weights A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  12. Concluding Remarks • Is the frequentist analysis without approximations ? In principle yes, but not in practice : • Often use Gaussian CL = 1– Prob(Δ2,Ndof) approximation for simplicity • full approach would be toy Monte Carlo analysis to determine CL • Prob(…) is mostly conservative (tested for sin(2+) and B  analyses) • What about the definition of the estimator ? Is this arbitrary ? Source of bias ? • the choice of the estimator is arbitrary; in Gaussian case, maximum likelihood is optimal • using a bad estimator does not create a bias; however, it will give bad constraints • using an optimized estimator is just like optimizing a BABAR data analysis: there is nothing wrong with cut & count, it’s just not optimal M U C H L E S S T E X T F R O M N O W ON ! • Other comments to Bayesian analyses : • In many applications (like, e.g.,  from B DK) there is no obvious (mathematical) way to see the bias from priors • however, in most cases it can still be significant • Does the prior dependence reduces when the measurement is significant ? • not true in general (see example for  from B ) • A serious Bayesian analysis would use priors when there is prior information, and leave parameters free, when there is not digression:Concluding Remarks • Is the frequentist analysis without approximations ? In principle yes, but not in practice : • Often use Gaussian CL = 1– Prob(Δ2,Ndof) approximation for simplicity • full approach would be toy Monte Carlo analysis to determine CL • Prob(…) is mostly conservative (tested for sin(2+) and B  analyses) • What about the definition of the estimator ? Is this arbitrary ? Source of bias ? • the choice of the estimator is arbitrary; in Gaussian case, maximum likelihood is optimal • using a bad estimator does not create a bias; however, it will give bad constraints • using an optimized estimator is just like optimizing a BABAR data analysis: there is nothing wrong with cut & count, it’s just not optimal • Other comments to Bayesian analyses : • In many applications (like, e.g.,  from B DK) there is no obvious (mathematical) way to see the bias from priors • however, in most cases it can still be significant • Does the prior dependence reduce when the measurement is significant ? • not true in general (see  from B ) • The Bayesian analysis should use priors when there is prior information, and leave parameters free, when there is not A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  13. m e t r o l o g y Inputs to the Global CKM Fit • |Vud| and |Vus| [not discussed here] • |Vub| and |Vcb| • CPV in K0 mixing • Bd and Bs mixing • sin2 •  : • B • B • B •  : • ADS, GLW • Dalitz • B+  + A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  14. |Vub /Vcb | sin2 |Vcb| and |Vub| • For|Vcb|and|Vub|existexclusive and inclusive semileptonic approaches d s b exclusive inclusive B Xu ℓ B  ℓ b u u b c c B D* ℓ B Xc ℓ dominant uncertainties t Form factor OPE (|Vcb,ub|) and shape function (|Vub|) • |Vub| ( 2 +2) is crucial for the SM prediction of sin(2 ) • |Vcb| ( A) is important in the kaon system (K, BR(K ), …) A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  15. (|Vub|) = 5% (|Vcb|) = 5% |Vcb| and |Vub| • Inclusive approaches most appealing at present nonperturbative corrections free quark decay • |Vcb| : moments analyses have 1.5–2% precision ! CKM-05 • |Vub| : reduced conflict between excl. and incl. • SF params. from bcl , OPE from Bosch et al. • reduction of central value 4.6  4.110–3 • ℓ result goes up with Lattice FF (unquenched) our average A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  16. no |Vcb| inclusive CPV in the Kaon System effective matrix element • Neutral kaon mixing mediated by box diagrams • Most precise results from amplitude ratio of KL to KS decays to +– and 00 • ij from perturbative QCD • significant improvement on BK from Lattice QCD reported at CKM-05 : 0.79 ± 0.04 ± 0.09 • Direct CPV (י) theory not yet mature for use in CKM fit ( same problem in B physics) A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  17. B0 Mixing • Effective FCNC Processes (CP conserving –– top loop dominates in box diagram): [B=2] [B=2] + Perturbative QCD CKM Matrix Elements Non-perturbative: Lattice (eff. 4 fermion operator) Loop integral (top loop dominates) • Dominant theoretical uncertainties : consider in fit that Lattice results are correlated ! • Improved error indirect via ms : [SU(3) breaking correction] A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  18. No signal yet for Δmsupper limit : Δms > 14.5 ps–1 at 95% CL [ CDF: WA sensitivity 18.1  18.6 ps–1 ] CKM fit predicts : Δmd = 18.3 ps–1 + 6.5 – 2.3 Δms measured B0 Mixing • Δmd = (0.510 ± 0.005) ps–1 [ CKM constraint dominated by theory error ] CKM fit predicts : Δmd = 0.47 ps–1 HFAG – Winter 2005 + 0.23 – 0.12 A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  19. S I N 2  I S N O T A G O L D E N M O D E ! Mannel at CKM 2005 • Conflict with sin2efffrom s-penguin modes ? WG4 at CKM 2005 I T ‘ S P L A T I N U M ! (*) (*)Thomas Mannel at CKM-05 sin(2)eff[s-penguin] careful with this average ! sin2[ first UT input that is not theory limited ! ] • “The” raison d’être of the B factories : Theory uncertainty ? HFAG – Winter 2005 A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  20. Principal modes : Tree : dominant Penguin : competitive ? Not a CP eigenstate  [ next UT input that is not theory limited ]  A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  21. ! Charmless b u Decays : realistic case • “T” and “P” are of the same order of magnitude : [Note that T and P are complex amplitudes !] Direct CP violation can occur : where is the relative strong phase • Time-dependent CP observable : realistic scenario A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  22. digression: what is the meaning of “T” and “P” ? • Example : U - convention unitarity C - convention T - convention “Tree” “Penguin” The “tree” in the (most popular) C - and T - conventions has penguin contributions ! A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  23. Isospin Analysis for B,  Unknowns Observables Constraints Account , T+–, P+–, T+0, P+0, T00, P00 B+–, S , C B+0, ACP B00, (S00),C00 2 isospin triangles and one common side 13unknowns – 7 observ. – 5 constraints – 1 glob. phase = 0  Assumptions: • neglect EW penguins (shifts  by ~ +2o)penguins • neglect SU(2) breaking • in ρρ: Q2B approx. (neglect interference)  can be resolved up to an 8-fold ambiguity within [0,] Refs. for SU(2) analyses : Gronau-London, PRL, 65, 3381 (1990), Lipkin et al., PRD 44, 1454 (1991), a.o. A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  24. digression: Electroweak (EW) Penguins • EW penguins canmediate I = 3/2 transitionsand henceviolatetheSU(2) relations • Use “Fiertz” trick : the effective weak Hamiltonian of the decay B  reads: whereO1andO2are(V–A)(V–A)treeoperators andO7-10 EW penguinsoperators O7andO8have Lorentz structure (V–A)(V+A)whileO9andO10are(V–A)(V–A) but: c7,c8 c9,c10so that one can Fiertz-relatetheEW O9, O10to thetree O1, O2 : Neubert-Rosner, PLB 441, 403 (1998) PRL 81, 5076 (1998) • Hence, if f(…) real, ACP(+0)not sensitive to PEW ! A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  25. CP Results for B0+– • Results for the time-dependent analysis : BABAR, hep-ex/0501071 Belle, hep-ex/0502035 Mediocre (but improved) agreement : 2 = 7.9 (CL = 0.019  2.3σ) A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  26. BABAR & Belle BABAR & Belle note yet updated with new result from Belle σ(S+–)= σ(C+–)~0.01 penguin / tree • Study decay dynamics ... B Isospin Analysis • 2 fit of isospin relations to observables: BABAR A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  27. A “surprise” : B • Nature’s great present : longitudinal polarization dominates  almost no CP dilution • Branching fractions for the B  system : BABAR, hep-ex/0412067 B+– = (30 ± 6)10–6 , B+0 = (26.4 )10–6 ,B00 < 1.110–6 at 90% CL • Small B00/B+0 ratio requires small penguins ! • But: P+– = 0 would mean that : B+-/B+0 2 • Test : input  from CKM fit, and solve isospin analysis without B+0in fit : 8 10–6 <B+0 < 29 10–6 [ 1 region ] A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  28. BABAR toy smaller errors at 1 no difference at >2 1 2 B Isospin Analysis • Results from CP fit : BABAR, hep-ex/0503049 • Isospin analysis : full toy of which 11o is due to penguins penguin / tree As expected: much smaller than in B  A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  29. CP mixing The B System • Dominant mode ρ+– is not a CP eigenstate Aleksan et al, NP B361, 141 (1991) • Q2B Isospin analysis requires to constrain pentagon Lipkin et al., PRD 44, 1454 (1991) • 13 observables vs 12 unknowns  • needs statistics of Super-B  [systematics?] • Better: exploit amplitude interference in Dalitz plot Snyder-Quinn, PRD 48, 2139 (1993) • simultaneous fit of  and strong phases • BABAR determines 16 (27) FF coefficients • correlated 2 fit to determine physics quantities BABAR 00 +– –+ BABAR, hep-ex/0408099 A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  30. Results of B0()0 +–0 Dalitz analysis • From the 16 FF coefficients one determines the physical parameters : Parameters : , |T+–|,T–+,T00,P+–,P–+ Direct CP violation ? Scan in  using the bilinears : Δχ2(no direct CPV) = 14.5 (CL = 0.00070  3.4σ) A+– no direct CPV BABAR A–+ BABAR, hep-ex/0408099 A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  31. similar precision as CKM fit : CKM fit (no ,  in fit) Combination of, ,  : first measurement of  • Combining the three analyses (B   best single measurement) : mirror solution disfavored for the SM solution we find : A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  32. digression : “Color-Suppressed” Amplitudes Famous modes : • The color of the quarks emitted by the virtual W must correspond to the external quark lines to produce color-singlets  suppressionby ~1/Nc(naïve!) [ Suppression  verified in B(B0  D00)/B(B0  D–+) = (1/10.4)exp  (1/Nc)2 ] important non-factorizable contributions when large penguins ? Large u-penguins ? A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  33.  [ next UT input that is not theory limited ] • GLW : D0 decays into CP eigenstate • ADS : D0 decays to K–+ (favored) and K+– (suppressed) • GGSZ : D0 decays to KS+– (interference in Dalitz plot) • All methods fit simultaneously: , rB and  the million dollar Q: Gronau-London, PL B253, 483 (1991); Gronau-Wyler, PL B265, 172 (1991) Atwood-Dunietz-Soni, PRL 78, 3257 (1997) Giri et al, PRD 68, 054018 (2003) No Penguins  relative CKM phase :  Tree: dominant Tree: color-suppressed A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  34. “ADS+GLW” : Constraint on  • BABAR and Belle have measured the observables for GLW and ADS in the modesB– D0K–, D*0K–, D0K*– not yes used • No significant measurement of suppressed amplitude yet  limit : rB(*) 0.2 BABAR, hep-ex/0408082, hep-ex/0408060 hep-ex/0408069, hep-ex/0408028 Belle, Belle-CONF-0443, hep-ex/0307074 hep-ex/0408129 for the SM solution : not yet competitive with CKM fit A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  35. Measurement of amplitude ratio: [ no improved constraint when adding  from CKM fit ] “GGSZ” : Constraint on  • Promising : Increase B decay interference through D decay Dalitz plot with D0 KS+– • huge number of resonances to model: K*(892), (770), (782), f0(980,1370), K0*(1430), ...  • amplitudes of Dalitz plot measured in charm control sample  A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  36. Similarly: golden  mode at LHCb “sin(2 + )” Tree: dominant Tree: doubly CKM-suppressed • Relative weak phase 2 +  but :  dependence of the order of O(10–4) full toys Huge statistics, but small CP asymmetry Unknowns : rB0,  and   needs external input Use SU(3) to estimate rB0(*) (theory error: 30%) therefore not used in global CKM fit BABAR, hep-ex/0408038, hep-ex/0408059 Belle, hep-ex/0408106, PRL 93 (2004) 031802; Erratum-ibid. 93 (2004) 059901 A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  37. B+ + • A new star at the horizon; helicity-suppressed annihilation decay sensitive to fB|Vub| • Powerful together with Δmd : removesfBdependence • Sensitive to charged Higgs replacing the W propagator not to be used as a measurement of fB ! • Best current limit from BABAR : Datta, SLAC seminar 2005 • Prediction from global CKM fit : A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  38. Putting it all together t h e g l o b a l C K M f i t Inputs: Perfect agreement … if it weren’t for the s-penguin decays A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  39. 2nd solution Putting it all together the impact of the unitarity triangle angles  The angle measurements dominate ! A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  40. Consistent Predictions of all CKM-related Observables FOR UPTODATE RESULTS CHECK THE CKMFITTER WEB numerical results at: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/ckmfitter/ and http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr/ (mirror) A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  41. What Else ? Other CKM-related topic not discussed in this seminar : • super rare kaon decays : K  • charged decay already seen by E787, E949) • radiative decays : B , B K*, b  s, … • model-independent analysis of new physics in mixing and decay E787, PRL 88, 041803 (2002) E949, PRL 93, 031801 (2004) Charles et al., EPJ C41, 1–131 (2005) [hep-ph/0406184] Dynamical analysis of B , K, KK decays under different hypotheses Most simple charmless B decays; theory understanding must start here • SU(2)  done for , not fruitful for K at present • SU(3) • QCD Factorization next pages Puzzle ? A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  42. “” from B  00, K00, K+K– • interesting combined constraint in (,) plane • “” from B  +–, K+–, K+K– • Global analyses: • at present: 13 parameters vs. 19 observables • when everything is measured (incl. Bs) : 15 par. vs. ~ 50 obs. Puzzling B, K, KK Decays : SU(3) • Many analyses use assumptions beyond SU(3) • are annihilationgraphs and PEW,C negligible ? Silva-Wolfenstein, 1993 Buras et al. (BFRS), EPJ C32, 45 (2003) Chiang et al, PRD D70, 034020 (2004) Wu-Zhou, hep-ph/0503077 Charles et al., EPJ C21, 225 (2001) Charles-Malclès-Ocariz-AH, in preparation … apologies to the many other interesting works ! • Are there puzzles ? • there is a puzzle: why are “color-suppressed” terms so large ? • there isnoK puzzleusing SU(2) [quadrilateral system not constraining enough – 9 params vs. 9 obs] • there seems to beaK puzzleusing SU(3) when neglecting annihilation terms and PEW,C • Our analysis: add annihilation and PEW,C(via Fierz) • the only analysis so far in strict SU(3) limit A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  43. Puzzling B, K, KK Decays : QCDF • Several theoretical tools exist for nonleptonic B decays. All are based on the concept of Factorization • QCD FA • pQCD • SCET including the treatment of charming penguins by Ciuchini et al. Beneke et al, PRL 83, 1914 (1999); NP B675, 333 (03) Keum et al, PLB 504, 6 (2001); PRD 67, 054009 (03) Bauer et al, PRD 63, 114020 (2001) “Color Transparency” • With conservative error treatment, only a data-driven fit is predictive Is there a puzzle ? A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  44. Zfitter I N S P I R E D CKMfitter MNSfitter Sfitter GUTfitter HEPfitter COSMOfitter instead of conclusions … D R E A M S NA48 t h a n k y o u A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

  45. a p p e n d i x n o n e A. Höcker – CP Violation and the CKM Matrix …

More Related