Line: 1 to 1  

Added:  
> > 
Fit results: Summer 2012 (preICHEP)Fit results: PDG 2012  
Fit results: Summer 2011 (postLP 11)Fit results: Summer 2010 (preICHEP)  
Deleted:  
< < 
Line: 1 to 1  

Added:  
> > 
Fit results: Summer 2011 (postLP 11)  
Fit results: Summer 2010 (preICHEP) 
Line: 1 to 1  

Changed:  
< < 
In principle, the presence of New Physics might affect the result of the UT analysis, changing the functional dependencies of the experimental quantities upon ρ and η. On the contrary, two constraints now available, are almost unchanged by the presence of NP: Vub/Vcb from semileptonic B decays and the UT angle γ from B → D(*)K decays. As usual from this fit one can gets predictions for each observable related to the Unitarity Triangle. This set of values is the minimal requirement that each model describing New Physics has to satisfy in order to be taken as a realistic description of physics beyond the Standard Model.
It is possible to generalize the full UTfit beyond the Standard Model to all those NP models characterized by Minimal Flavour Violation, i.e. having quark mixing ruled only by the Standard Model CKM couplings (http://arxiv.org/abs/hepph/0007085). In fact, in this case no additional weak phases are generated and several observables entering into the Standard Model fit (the treelevel processes and the measurement of angles through the use of time dependent CP asymmetries) are not affected by the presence of New Physics. The only sizable effect we are sensitive to is a shift of the InamiLim function of the top contribution in meson mixing. This means that in general εK and Δmd cannot be used in a common SM and MFV framework, but any New Physics contribution disappears in the case of Δmd/Δms. So, simply removing the information related to εK and Δmd from the full UTfit one can obtain a more precise determination of the Universal Unitarity Triangle, which is a common starting point for the Standard Model and any MFV model.
The fit presented here is meant to constrain the NP contributions to Δ F=2 transitions by using the available experimental information on loopmediated processes In general, NP models introduce a large number of new parameters: flavour changing couplings, short distance coefficients and matrix elements of new local operators. The specific list and the actual values of these parameters can only be determined within a given model. Nevertheless mixing processes are described by a single amplitude and can be parameterized, without loss of generality, in terms of two parameters, which quantify the difference of the complex amplitude with respect to the SM one. Thus, for instance, in the case of mixing we define
In this page we present the results obtained for a set of interesting UT parameters in the framework of the Standard Model and some New Physics Models using all the available experimental and theoretical inputs which are available. Inputs to this analysis consist of a large body of both experimental measurements and theoretically determined parameters. All the analyses presented here rely on the several measurements: Vub/Vcb, Δmd, Δms, and the measurements of CPviolating quantities in the kaon (εK) and in the B sectors with the measurements of α (using ππ, ρρ and πρ modes), γ (using D K, DK*, D*K modes), 2β + γ (using Dπ(ρ) modes), and sin2β and cos 2β from B0 → J/ψKS and B0 → J/ψK* respectively. Among the theoretical parameters, Lattice QCD calculations play a central role.
The results are presented in a summary table and in a series of probability density functions. The tables contain three entries per variable : the input ("direct") value, the output value and the prediction ("indirect determination") for this variable in a given model.
The indirect determination of a particular quantity obtained performing the Unitarity Triangle fit in a given Model, including all the available constraints except from the direct measurement of the parameter of interest, gives a prediction of the quantity based on formulas which are valid in that given Model. The interest of this procedure is to quantify the agreement of all the measured quantities by the comparison between indirect parameter determinations and their direct experimental/theortical determinations. Let's consider for example the Standard Model. The comparison between these predictions and a direct measurements can thus quantify the agreement of the single measurement with the overall fit and possibly reveal new physics phenomena.
For some of the quantities we present the so called COMPATIBILITY PLOTS. In Unitarity Triangle fits based on a χ2 minimization, a conventional evaluation of compatibility stems automatically from the value of the χ2 at its minimum. The compatibility between constraints in the Bayesian approach
is simply done by comparing two different p.d.f.’s.
Let us consider, for instance, two p.d.f.’s for a given quantity obtained from the Unitarity Triangle fit, f(x1), and from a direct measurement, f(x2): their compatibility is evaluated by constructing the p.d.f. of the difference variable, x2 − x1, and by estimating the distance of the most probable value from zero in units of standard deviations. The latter is done by integrating this p.d.f. between zero and the most probable value and converting it into the equivalent number of standard deviations for a Gaussian distribution. The advantage of this approach is that no approximation is made on the shape of p.d.f.’s. In the following analysis, f(x1) is the p.d.f. predicted by the Unitarity Triangle fit while the p.d.f of the measured quantity, f(x2), is taken Gaussian for simplicity. The number of standard deviations between the measured value, x2(meas.) ± σ(x2), and the predicted value (distributed according to f(x1)) is plotted as a function of x2(meas.) (xaxis) and σ(x2) (yaxis). The compatibility between x1 and x2 can be then directly estimated on the plot, for any central value and error of the measurement of x2.
The color code indicates the compatibility between direct and indirect determinations, given in terms of standard deviations, as a function of the measured value and its experimental uncertainty. The crosses indicate the direct world average measurement values.
Treatement of Lattice parameters in the fits.
In the Unitarity Triangle fits the non perturbative QCD parameters enter in the expressions of several contraints : . Let's consider schematically the dependence of these observable in terms of the non perturbative QCD parameters :
.
We decide to express these observable in terms of five LQCD parameters
 
> > 
Fit results: Summer 2010 (preICHEP)  
Line: 1 to 1  

%TWISTY{ mode="div" showlink="Fit results: Summer 2010 (preICHEP) "  
Line: 10 to 10  
}% %TWISTY{  
Changed:  
< <  prefix=" "  
> >  prefix=" "  
mode="div" showlink="Standard Model Fit" hidelink="Standard Model Fit"  
Line: 25 to 25  
woops, ordering error: got an ENDTWISTY before seeing a TWISTY
%TWISTY{  
Changed:  
< <  prefix=" "  
> >  prefix=" "  
mode="div" showlink="Tree level Fit" hidelink="Tree Level Fit"  
Line: 39 to 39  
woops, ordering error: got an ENDTWISTY before seeing a TWISTY
%TWISTY{  
Changed:  
< < 
prefix=" "
mode="div"
showlink="NoLattice Fit"
hidelink="NoLattice Fit"
showimgleft="/foswiki/pub/System/DocumentGraphics/toggleopen.png"
hideimgleft="/foswiki/pub/System/DocumentGraphics/toggleclose.png"
suffix=""
remember="on"
}% In the Unitarity Triangle fits the non perturbative QCD parameters enter in the expressions of several contraints : . Let's consider schematically the dependence of these observable in terms of the non perturbative QCD parameters :
.
We decide to express these observable in terms of five LQCD parameters
woops, ordering error: got an ENDTWISTY before seeing a TWISTY
%TWISTY{
prefix=" "  
> >  prefix=" "  
mode="div" showlink="Universal Unitarity Triangle (UUT) Fit" hidelink="Universal Unitarity Triangle (UUT) Fit"  
Line: 77 to 52  
woops, ordering error: got an ENDTWISTY before seeing a TWISTY
%TWISTY{  
Changed:  
< <  prefix=" "  
> >  prefix=" "  
mode="div" showlink="New Physics Fit" hidelink="New Physics Fit"  
Line: 119 to 94  
woops, ordering error: got an ENDTWISTY before seeing a TWISTY
%TWISTY{  
Changed:  
< <  prefix=""  
> >  prefix=" "  
mode="div"  
Changed:  
< <  showlink="Explanation of the page content" hidelink="Explanation of the page content"  
> >  showlink="Explanation of the page content" hidelink="Explanation of the page content"  
showimgleft="/foswiki/pub/System/DocumentGraphics/toggleopen.png" hideimgleft="/foswiki/pub/System/DocumentGraphics/toggleclose.png" suffix=""  
Line: 128 to 103  
suffix="" remember="on" }%  
Deleted:  
< <  
In this page we present the results obtained for a set of interesting UT parameters in the framework of the Standard Model and some New Physics Models using all the available experimental and theoretical inputs which are available. Inputs to this analysis consist of a large body of both experimental measurements and theoretically determined parameters. All the analyses presented here rely on the several measurements: Vub/Vcb, Δmd, Δms, and the measurements of CPviolating quantities in the kaon (εK) and in the B sectors with the measurements of α (using ππ, ρρ and πρ modes), γ (using D K, DK*, D*K modes), 2β + γ (using Dπ(ρ) modes), and sin2β and cos 2β from B0 → J/ψKS and B0 → J/ψK* respectively. Among the theoretical parameters, Lattice QCD calculations play a central role. The results are presented in a summary table and in a series of probability density functions. The tables contain three entries per variable : the input ("direct") value, the output value and the prediction ("indirect determination") for this variable in a given model. The indirect determination of a particular quantity obtained performing the Unitarity Triangle fit in a given Model, including all the available constraints except from the direct measurement of the parameter of interest, gives a prediction of the quantity based on formulas which are valid in that given Model. The interest of this procedure is to quantify the agreement of all the measured quantities by the comparison between indirect parameter determinations and their direct experimental/theortical determinations. Let's consider for example the Standard Model. The comparison between these predictions and a direct measurements can thus quantify the agreement of the single measurement with the overall fit and possibly reveal new physics phenomena.  
Changed:  
< <  For some of the quantities we present the so called COMPATIBILITY PLOTS. In Unitarity Triangle fits based on a χ2 minimization, a conventional evaluation of compatibility stems automatically from the value of the χ2 at its minimum. The compatibility between constraints in the Bayesian approach is simply done by comparing two different p.d.f.’s.  
> >  For some of the quantities we present the so called COMPATIBILITY PLOTS. In Unitarity Triangle fits based on a χ2 minimization, a conventional evaluation of compatibility stems automatically from the value of the χ2 at its minimum. The compatibility between constraints in the Bayesian approach is simply done by comparing two different p.d.f.’s.  
Let us consider, for instance, two p.d.f.’s for a given quantity obtained from the Unitarity Triangle fit, f(x1), and from a direct measurement, f(x2): their compatibility is evaluated by constructing the p.d.f. of the difference variable, x2 − x1, and by estimating the distance of the most probable value from zero in units of standard deviations. The latter is done by integrating this p.d.f. between zero and the most probable value and converting it into the equivalent number of standard deviations for a Gaussian distribution. The advantage of this approach is that no approximation is made on the shape of p.d.f.’s. In the following analysis, f(x1) is the p.d.f. predicted by the Unitarity Triangle fit while the p.d.f of the measured quantity, f(x2), is taken Gaussian for simplicity. The number of standard deviations between the measured value, x2(meas.) ± σ(x2), and the predicted value (distributed according to f(x1)) is plotted as a function of x2(meas.) (xaxis) and σ(x2) (yaxis). The compatibility between x1 and x2 can be then directly estimated on the plot, for any central value and error of the measurement of x2. The color code indicates the compatibility between direct and indirect determinations, given in terms of standard deviations, as a function of the measured value and its experimental uncertainty. The crosses indicate the direct world average measurement values.  
Deleted:  
< < 
woops, ordering error: got an ENDTWISTY before seeing a TWISTY  
Added:  
> > 
Treatement of Lattice parameters in the fits.
In the Unitarity Triangle fits the non perturbative QCD parameters enter in the expressions of several contraints : . Let's consider schematically the dependence of these observable in terms of the non perturbative QCD parameters :
.
We decide to express these observable in terms of five LQCD parameters
woops, ordering error: got an ENDTWISTY before seeing a TWISTY
woops, ordering error: got an ENDTWISTY before seeing a TWISTY  
Line: 1 to 1  

Deleted:  
< < 
In this page we present the results obtained for a set of interesting UT parameters in the framework of the Standard Model and some New Physics Models using all the available experimental and theoretical inputs which are available. Inputs to this analysis consist of a large body of both experimental measurements and theoretically determined parameters. All the analyses presented here rely on the several measurements: Vub/Vcb, Δmd, Δms, and the measurements of CPviolating quantities in the kaon (εK) and in the B sectors with the measurements of α (using ππ, ρρ and πρ modes), γ (using D K, DK*, D*K modes), 2β + γ (using Dπ(ρ) modes), and sin2β and cos 2β from B0 → J/ψKS and B0 → J/ψK* respectively. Among the theoretical parameters, Lattice QCD calculations play a central role.
The results are presented in a summary table and in a series of probability density functions. The tables contain three entries per variable : the input ("direct") value, the output value and the prediction ("indirect determination") for this variable in a given model.
The indirect determination of a particular quantity obtained performing the Unitarity Triangle fit in a given Model, including all the available constraints except from the direct measurement of the parameter of interest, gives a prediction of the quantity based on formulas which are valid in that given Model. The interest of this procedure is to quantify the agreement of all the measured quantities by the comparison between indirect parameter determinations and their direct experimental/theortical determinations. Let's consider for example the Standard Model. The comparison between these predictions and a direct measurements can thus quantify the agreement of the single measurement with the overall fit and possibly reveal new physics phenomena.
For some of the quantities we present the so called COMPATIBILITY PLOTS. In Unitarity Triangle fits based on a χ2 minimization, a conventional evaluation of compatibility stems automatically from the value of the χ2 at its minimum. The compatibility between constraints in the Bayesian approach is simply done by comparing two different p.d.f.’s.
Let us consider, for instance, two p.d.f.’s for a given quantity obtained from the Unitarity Triangle fit, f(x1), and from a direct measurement, f(x2): their compatibility is evaluated by constructing the p.d.f. of the difference variable, x2 − x1, and by estimating the distance of the most probable value from zero in units of standard deviations. The latter is done by integrating this p.d.f. between zero and the most probable value and converting it into the equivalent number of standard deviations for a Gaussian distribution. The advantage of this approach is that no approximation is made on the shape of p.d.f.’s. In the following analysis, f(x1) is the p.d.f. predicted by the Unitarity Triangle fit while the p.d.f of the measured quantity, f(x2), is taken Gaussian for simplicity. The number of standard deviations between the measured value, x2(meas.) ± σ(x2), and the predicted value (distributed according to f(x1)) is plotted as a function of x2(meas.) (xaxis) and σ(x2) (yaxis). The compatibility between x1 and x2 can be then directly estimated on the plot, for any central value and error of the measurement of x2.
The color code indicates the compatibility between direct and indirect determinations, given in terms of standard deviations, as a function of the measured value and its experimental uncertainty. The crosses indicate the direct world average measurement values.
 
%TWISTY{ mode="div" showlink="Fit results: Summer 2010 (preICHEP) "  
Line: 73 to 49  
remember="on" }% In the Unitarity Triangle fits the non perturbative QCD parameters enter in the expressions of several contraints : . Let's consider schematically the dependence of these observable in terms of the non perturbative QCD parameters :  
Changed:  
< < 
 
> > 
 
\epsilon_K \propto B_K \. We decide to express these observable in terms of five LQCD parameters  
Changed:  
< < 
 
> > 
 
Changed:  
< <  The reason of this choice is to maxime the parameters on the Bs sector and parameters which are mostly uncorrelated. To this set of five parameters we should add the non perturbative parameters entering in the expression of (exclusive) and . The "nolattice" fit is performed removing from the fitting procedure the use of the hadronic parameters coming from lattice calculations, leaving them as free parameters of the fit. This approach allows for the possibility of making a full UT analysis without relying at all on theoretical calculations of hadronic matrix elements and on the other hand to obtain the aposteriori p.d.f. for a given hadronic quantity.  
> >  The reason of this choice is to maxime the parameters on the Bs sector and parameters which are mostly uncorrelated. To this set of five parameters we should add the non perturbative parameters entering in the expression of (exclusive) and . The "nolattice" fit is performed removing from the fitting procedure the use of the hadronic parameters coming from lattice calculations, leaving them as free parameters of the fit. This approach allows for the possibility of making a full UT analysis without relying at all on theoretical calculations of hadronic matrix elements.  
woops, ordering error: got an ENDTWISTY before seeing a TWISTY  
Line: 141 to 117  
woops, ordering error: got an ENDTWISTY before seeing a TWISTY  
Added:  
> > 
In this page we present the results obtained for a set of interesting UT parameters in the framework of the Standard Model and some New Physics Models using all the available experimental and theoretical inputs which are available. Inputs to this analysis consist of a large body of both experimental measurements and theoretically determined parameters. All the analyses presented here rely on the several measurements: Vub/Vcb, Δmd, Δms, and the measurements of CPviolating quantities in the kaon (εK) and in the B sectors with the measurements of α (using ππ, ρρ and πρ modes), γ (using D K, DK*, D*K modes), 2β + γ (using Dπ(ρ) modes), and sin2β and cos 2β from B0 → J/ψKS and B0 → J/ψK* respectively. Among the theoretical parameters, Lattice QCD calculations play a central role.
The results are presented in a summary table and in a series of probability density functions. The tables contain three entries per variable : the input ("direct") value, the output value and the prediction ("indirect determination") for this variable in a given model.
The indirect determination of a particular quantity obtained performing the Unitarity Triangle fit in a given Model, including all the available constraints except from the direct measurement of the parameter of interest, gives a prediction of the quantity based on formulas which are valid in that given Model. The interest of this procedure is to quantify the agreement of all the measured quantities by the comparison between indirect parameter determinations and their direct experimental/theortical determinations. Let's consider for example the Standard Model. The comparison between these predictions and a direct measurements can thus quantify the agreement of the single measurement with the overall fit and possibly reveal new physics phenomena.
For some of the quantities we present the so called COMPATIBILITY PLOTS. In Unitarity Triangle fits based on a χ2 minimization, a conventional evaluation of compatibility stems automatically from the value of the χ2 at its minimum. The compatibility between constraints in the Bayesian approach is simply done by comparing two different p.d.f.’s.
Let us consider, for instance, two p.d.f.’s for a given quantity obtained from the Unitarity Triangle fit, f(x1), and from a direct measurement, f(x2): their compatibility is evaluated by constructing the p.d.f. of the difference variable, x2 − x1, and by estimating the distance of the most probable value from zero in units of standard deviations. The latter is done by integrating this p.d.f. between zero and the most probable value and converting it into the equivalent number of standard deviations for a Gaussian distribution. The advantage of this approach is that no approximation is made on the shape of p.d.f.’s. In the following analysis, f(x1) is the p.d.f. predicted by the Unitarity Triangle fit while the p.d.f of the measured quantity, f(x2), is taken Gaussian for simplicity. The number of standard deviations between the measured value, x2(meas.) ± σ(x2), and the predicted value (distributed according to f(x1)) is plotted as a function of x2(meas.) (xaxis) and σ(x2) (yaxis). The compatibility between x1 and x2 can be then directly estimated on the plot, for any central value and error of the measurement of x2.
The color code indicates the compatibility between direct and indirect determinations, given in terms of standard deviations, as a function of the measured value and its experimental uncertainty. The crosses indicate the direct world average measurement values.

Line: 1 to 1  

%TWISTY{ prefix="" mode="div"  
Line: 10 to 10  
remember="on" }%  
Changed:  
< <  In this page we present the results obtained for a set of interesting UT parameters in the framework of the Standard Model and some New Physics Models using all the available experimental and theoretical inputs which are available. Inputs to this analysis consist of a large body of both experimental measurements and theoretically determined parameters. All the analyses presented here rely on the several measurements: Vub/Vcb, Δmd, Δms, and the measurements of CPviolating quantities in the kaon (εK) and in the B sectors with the measurements of α (using ππ, ρρ and πρ modes), γ (using D K, DK*, D*K modes), 2β + γ (using D( )π(ρ) modes), and sin2β and cos 2β from B0 → J/ψKS and B0 → J/ψK respectively. Among the theoretical parameters, Lattice QCD calculations play a central role.  
> >  In this page we present the results obtained for a set of interesting UT parameters in the framework of the Standard Model and some New Physics Models using all the available experimental and theoretical inputs which are available. Inputs to this analysis consist of a large body of both experimental measurements and theoretically determined parameters. All the analyses presented here rely on the several measurements: Vub/Vcb, Δmd, Δms, and the measurements of CPviolating quantities in the kaon (εK) and in the B sectors with the measurements of α (using ππ, ρρ and πρ modes), γ (using D K, DK*, D*K modes), 2β + γ (using Dπ(ρ) modes), and sin2β and cos 2β from B0 → J/ψKS and B0 → J/ψK* respectively. Among the theoretical parameters, Lattice QCD calculations play a central role.  
The results are presented in a summary table and in a series of probability density functions. The tables contain three entries per variable : the input ("direct") value, the output value and the prediction ("indirect determination") for this variable in a given model.  
Line: 18 to 18  
For some of the quantities we present the so called COMPATIBILITY PLOTS. In Unitarity Triangle fits based on a χ2 minimization, a conventional evaluation of compatibility stems automatically from the value of the χ2 at its minimum. The compatibility between constraints in the Bayesian approach is simply done by comparing two different p.d.f.’s.  
Changed:  
< <  Let us consider, for instance, two p.d.f.’s for a given quantity obtained from the Unitarity Triangle fit, f(x1), and from a direct measurement, f(x2): their compatibility is evaluated by constructing the p.d.f. of the difference variable, x2 − x1, and by estimating the distance of the most probable value from zero in units of standard deviations. The latter is done by integrating this p.d.f. between zero and the most probable value and converting it into the equivalent number of standard deviations for a Gaussian distribution 1. The advantage of this approach is that no approximation is made on the shape of p.d.f.’s. In the following analysis, f(x1) is the p.d.f. predicted by the Unitarity Triangle fit while the p.d.f of the measured quantity, f(x2), is taken Gaussian for simplicity. The number of standard deviations between the measured value, x2(meas.) ± σ(x2), and the predicted value (distributed according to f(x1)) is plotted as a function of x2(meas.) (xaxis) and σ(x2) (yaxis). The compatibility between x1 and x2 can be then directly estimated on the plot, for any central value and error of the measurement of x2.  
> >  Let us consider, for instance, two p.d.f.’s for a given quantity obtained from the Unitarity Triangle fit, f(x1), and from a direct measurement, f(x2): their compatibility is evaluated by constructing the p.d.f. of the difference variable, x2 − x1, and by estimating the distance of the most probable value from zero in units of standard deviations. The latter is done by integrating this p.d.f. between zero and the most probable value and converting it into the equivalent number of standard deviations for a Gaussian distribution. The advantage of this approach is that no approximation is made on the shape of p.d.f.’s. In the following analysis, f(x1) is the p.d.f. predicted by the Unitarity Triangle fit while the p.d.f of the measured quantity, f(x2), is taken Gaussian for simplicity. The number of standard deviations between the measured value, x2(meas.) ± σ(x2), and the predicted value (distributed according to f(x1)) is plotted as a function of x2(meas.) (xaxis) and σ(x2) (yaxis). The compatibility between x1 and x2 can be then directly estimated on the plot, for any central value and error of the measurement of x2.  
The color code indicates the compatibility between direct and indirect determinations, given in terms of standard deviations, as a function of the measured value and its experimental uncertainty. The crosses indicate the direct world average measurement values.
woops, ordering error: got an ENDTWISTY before seeing a TWISTY
%TWISTY{
mode="div"  
Changed:  
< <  showlink=" FIT : Summer 2010/before ICHEP " hidelink="FIT : Summer 2010/before ICHEP "  
> >  showlink="Fit results: Summer 2010 (preICHEP) " hidelink="Fit results: Summer 2010 (preICHEP) "  
showimgleft="/foswiki/pub/System/DocumentGraphics/toggleopen.png" hideimgleft="/foswiki/pub/System/DocumentGraphics/toggleclose.png" suffix=""  
Line: 44 to 44  
remember="on" }%  
Changed:  
< < 
 
> >  
 
Deleted:  
< < 
woops, ordering error: got an ENDTWISTY before seeing a TWISTY  
%TWISTY{ prefix=" " 
Line: 1 to 1  

%TWISTY{ prefix="" mode="div"  
Line: 10 to 10  
remember="on" }%  
Changed:  
< <  In this page we present the results obtained for a set of interesting UT parameters in the framework of the Standard Model an some New Physics Models using all the available experimental and theoretical inputs which are available. Inputs to this analysis consist of a large body of both experimental measurements and theoretically determined parameters. All the analyses presented here rely on the several measurements: Vub/Vcb, Δmd, Δms, and the measurements of CPviolating quantities in the kaon (εK) and in the B sectors with the measurements of α (using ππ, ρρ and πρ modes), γ (using D K, DK*, D*K modes), 2β + γ (using D(*)π(ρ) modes), and sin2β and cos 2β from B0 → J/ψKS and B0 → J/ψK* respectively. Among the theoretical parameter, Lattice QCD calculations play a central role  
> >  In this page we present the results obtained for a set of interesting UT parameters in the framework of the Standard Model and some New Physics Models using all the available experimental and theoretical inputs which are available. Inputs to this analysis consist of a large body of both experimental measurements and theoretically determined parameters. All the analyses presented here rely on the several measurements: Vub/Vcb, Δmd, Δms, and the measurements of CPviolating quantities in the kaon (εK) and in the B sectors with the measurements of α (using ππ, ρρ and πρ modes), γ (using D K, DK*, D*K modes), 2β + γ (using D( )π(ρ) modes), and sin2β and cos 2β from B0 → J/ψKS and B0 → J/ψK respectively. Among the theoretical parameters, Lattice QCD calculations play a central role.  
The results are presented in a summary table and in a series of probability density functions. The tables contain three entries per variable : the input ("direct") value, the output value and the prediction ("indirect determination") for this variable in a given model. The indirect determination of a particular quantity obtained performing the Unitarity Triangle fit in a given Model, including all the available constraints except from the direct measurement of the parameter of interest, gives a prediction of the quantity based on formulas which are valid in that given Model. The interest of this procedure is to quantify the agreement of all the measured quantities by the comparison between indirect parameter determinations and their direct experimental/theortical determinations. Let's consider for example the Standard Model. The comparison between these predictions and a direct measurements can thus quantify the agreement of the single measurement with the overall fit and possibly reveal new physics phenomena.  
Changed:  
< <  For some of the quantity we present the so called COMPATIBILITY PLOTS. In Unitarity Triangle fits based on a χ2 minimization, a conventional evaluation of compatibility stems automatically from the value of the χ2 at its minimum. The compatibility between constraints in the Bayesian approach is simply done by comparing two different p.d.f.’s.  
> >  For some of the quantities we present the so called COMPATIBILITY PLOTS. In Unitarity Triangle fits based on a χ2 minimization, a conventional evaluation of compatibility stems automatically from the value of the χ2 at its minimum. The compatibility between constraints in the Bayesian approach is simply done by comparing two different p.d.f.’s.  
Let us consider, for instance, two p.d.f.’s for a given quantity obtained from the Unitarity Triangle fit, f(x1), and from a direct measurement, f(x2): their compatibility is evaluated by constructing the p.d.f. of the difference variable, x2 − x1, and by estimating the distance of the most probable value from zero in units of standard deviations. The latter is done by integrating this p.d.f. between zero and the most probable value and converting it into the equivalent number of standard deviations for a Gaussian distribution 1. The advantage of this approach is that no approximation is made on the shape of p.d.f.’s. In the following analysis, f(x1) is the p.d.f. predicted by the Unitarity Triangle fit while the p.d.f of the measured quantity, f(x2), is taken Gaussian for simplicity. The number of standard deviations between the measured value, x2(meas.) ± σ(x2), and the predicted value (distributed according to f(x1)) is plotted as a function of x2(meas.) (xaxis) and σ(x2) (yaxis). The compatibility between x1 and x2 can be then directly estimated on the plot, for any central value and error of the measurement of x2.  
Line: 72 to 67  
hideimgleft="/foswiki/pub/System/DocumentGraphics/toggleclose.png" suffix="" remember="on"  
Changed:  
< <  }% In principle, the presence of New Physics might affect the result of the UT analysis, changing the functional dependences of the experimental quantities upon ρ and η. On the contrary, two constraints now available, are almost unchanged by the presence of NP: Vub/Vcb from semileptonic B decays and the UT angle γ from B → D(*)K decays. As usual from this fit one can gets predictions for each observable related to the Unitarity Triangle. This set of values is the minimal requirement that each model describing New Physics has to satisfy, in order to be taken as a realistic description of physics beyond the Standard Model.  
> >  }% In principle, the presence of New Physics might affect the result of the UT analysis, changing the functional dependencies of the experimental quantities upon ρ and η. On the contrary, two constraints now available, are almost unchanged by the presence of NP: Vub/Vcb from semileptonic B decays and the UT angle γ from B → D(*)K decays. As usual from this fit one can gets predictions for each observable related to the Unitarity Triangle. This set of values is the minimal requirement that each model describing New Physics has to satisfy in order to be taken as a realistic description of physics beyond the Standard Model.  
Added:  
> > 
 
woops, ordering error: got an ENDTWISTY before seeing a TWISTY  
Deleted:  
< <  
%TWISTY{ prefix=" " mode="div"  
Line: 92 to 81  
hideimgleft="/foswiki/pub/System/DocumentGraphics/toggleclose.png" suffix="" remember="on"  
Changed:  
< <  }% In the Unitarity Triangle fits the non perturbative QCD parameters enter in the expressions of several contraints : . Let's consider schematically the dependence of these observable in terms of the non perturbative QCD parameters :  
> >  }% In the Unitarity Triangle fits the non perturbative QCD parameters enter in the expressions of several contraints : . Let's consider schematically the dependence of these observable in terms of the non perturbative QCD parameters :  
 
Line: 107 to 93  
 
Changed:  
< <  The reason of this choice is to maxime the parameters on the Bs sector and parameters which are mostly uncorrelated. To this set of five parameters we should add the non perturbative parameters entering in the expression of (exclusive) and . The "nolattice" fit is performed removing from the fitting procedure the use of the hadronic parameters coming from lattice calculations, letting them as free parameters of the fit. This approach allows for the possibility of making a full UT analysis without relying at all on theoretical calculations of hadronic matrix elements and on the other hands to obtain the aposteriori p.d.f. for a given hadronic quantity.  
> > 
The reason of this choice is to maxime the parameters on the Bs sector and parameters which are mostly uncorrelated. To this set of five parameters we should add the non perturbative parameters entering in the expression of (exclusive) and . The "nolattice" fit is performed removing from the fitting procedure the use of the hadronic parameters coming from lattice calculations, leaving them as free parameters of the fit. This approach allows for the possibility of making a full UT analysis without relying at all on theoretical calculations of hadronic matrix elements and on the other hand to obtain the aposteriori p.d.f. for a given hadronic quantity.
 
woops, ordering error: got an ENDTWISTY before seeing a TWISTY  
Deleted:  
< <  
%TWISTY{ prefix=" " mode="div"  
Line: 125 to 106  
hideimgleft="/foswiki/pub/System/DocumentGraphics/toggleclose.png" suffix="" remember="on"  
Changed:  
< <  }% It is possible to generalize the full UTfit beyond the Standard Model to all those NP models characterized by Minimal Flavour Violation, i.e. having quark miking ruled only by the Standard Model CKM couplings (http://arxiv.org/abs/hepph/0007085). In fact, in this case no additional weak phases are generated and several observables entering into the Standard Model fit (the treelevel processes and the measurement of angles through the use of time dependent CP asymmetries) are not affected by the presence of New Physics. The only sizable effect we are sensitive to is a shift of the InamiLim function of the top contribution in meson mixing. This means that in general εK and Δmd cannot be used in a common SM and MFV framework, but any New Physics contribution disappear in the case of Δmd/Δms. So, simply removing the information related to εK and Δmd from the full UTfit one can obtain a more precise determination of the Universal Unitarity Triangle, which is a common starting point for the Standard Model and any MFV model.  
> > 
}% It is possible to generalize the full UTfit beyond the Standard Model to all those NP models characterized by Minimal Flavour Violation, i.e. having quark mixing ruled only by the Standard Model CKM couplings (http://arxiv.org/abs/hepph/0007085). In fact, in this case no additional weak phases are generated and several observables entering into the Standard Model fit (the treelevel processes and the measurement of angles through the use of time dependent CP asymmetries) are not affected by the presence of New Physics. The only sizable effect we are sensitive to is a shift of the InamiLim function of the top contribution in meson mixing. This means that in general εK and Δmd cannot be used in a common SM and MFV framework, but any New Physics contribution disappears in the case of Δmd/Δms. So, simply removing the information related to εK and Δmd from the full UTfit one can obtain a more precise determination of the Universal Unitarity Triangle, which is a common starting point for the Standard Model and any MFV model.
 
woops, ordering error: got an ENDTWISTY before seeing a TWISTY  
Deleted:  
< <  
%TWISTY{ prefix=" " mode="div"  
Line: 140 to 119  
hideimgleft="/foswiki/pub/System/DocumentGraphics/toggleclose.png" suffix="" remember="on"  
Changed:  
< < 
}%
The fit presented here is meant to constrain the NP contributions to Δ F=2 transitions by using the available experimental information on
loopmediated processes In general, NP models introduce a large number of new parameters: flavour changing couplings, short distance
coefficients and matrix elements of new local operators. The specific list and the actual values of these parameters can only be determined
within a given model. Nevertheless mixing processes are described by a single amplitude and can be parameterized, without loss of generality,
in terms of two parameters, which quantify the difference of the complex amplitude with respect to the SM one. Thus, for instance, in the
case of mixing we define
 
> > 
}% The fit presented here is meant to constrain the NP contributions to Δ F=2 transitions by using the available experimental information on loopmediated processes In general, NP models introduce a large number of new parameters: flavour changing couplings, short distance coefficients and matrix elements of new local operators. The specific list and the actual values of these parameters can only be determined within a given model. Nevertheless mixing processes are described by a single amplitude and can be parameterized, without loss of generality, in terms of two parameters, which quantify the difference of the complex amplitude with respect to the SM one. Thus, for instance, in the case of mixing we define  
C_{\epsilon_K} = \frac{\mathrm{Im}[\langle K^0H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{full}}\bar{K}^0\rangle]} {\mathrm{Im}[\langle  
Line: 166 to 130  
{\mathrm{Re}[\langle K^0H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{SM}}\bar{K}^0\rangle]}\,. \label{eq:ceps}  
Changed:  
< <  Concerning , to be conservative, we add to the shortdistance contribution a possible longdistance one that varies with a uniform distribution between zero and the experimental value of  
> >  Concerning , to be conservative, we add to the shortdistance contribution a possible longdistance one that varies with a uniform distribution between zero and the experimental value of .  
The experimental quantities determined from the mixings are related to their SM counterparts and the NP parameters by the following relations:  
Changed:  
< < 
 
> > 
 
\Delta m_d^\mathrm{exp} = C_{B_d} \Delta m_d^\mathrm{SM} \,,\; \\sin 2 \beta^\mathrm{exp} = \sin (2 \beta^\mathrm{SM} + 2\phi_{B_d})\,,\; \\ \alpha^\mathrm{exp} = \alpha^\mathrm{SM}  \phi_{B_d}\,, \  
Line: 182 to 142  
\phi_s^\mathrm{exp} = (\beta_s^\mathrm{SM}  \phi_{B_s})\,,\; \\Delta m_K^\mathrm{exp} = C_{\Delta m_K} \Delta m_K^\mathrm{SM} \,,\; \\epsilon_K^\mathrm{exp} = C_{\epsilon_K} \epsilon_K^\mathrm{SM} \,,\; \  
Changed:  
< <  
> >  
in a selfexplanatory notation.  
Changed:  
< <  All the measured observables can be written as a function of these NP parameters and the SM ones ρ and η, and additional parameters such as masses, form factors, and decay constants.  
> >  All the measured observables can be written as a function of these NP parameters and the SM ones ρ and η, and additional parameters such as masses, form factors, and decay constants.  

Line: 1 to 1  

%TWISTY{ prefix="" mode="div"  
Line: 13 to 13  
In this page we present the results obtained for a set of interesting UT parameters in the framework of the Standard Model an some New Physics Models using all the available experimental and theoretical inputs which are available. Inputs to this analysis consist of a large body of both experimental measurements and theoretically determined parameters. All the analyses presented here rely on the several measurements: Vub/Vcb, Δmd, Δms, and the measurements of CPviolating quantities  
Changed:  
< <  in the kaon (εK) and in the B sectors with the measurements of α (using ππ, ρρ and πρ modes), γ (using D()K() modes), 2β + γ (using D(*)π(ρ) modes), and sin2β and cos 2β from B0 → J/ψKS and B0 → J/ψK* respectively. Among the theoretical parameter, LQCD calculations play a central role  
> >  in the kaon (εK) and in the B sectors with the measurements of α (using ππ, ρρ and πρ modes), γ (using D K, DK*, D*K modes), 2β + γ (using D(*)π(ρ) modes), and sin2β and cos 2β from B0 → J/ψKS and B0 → J/ψK* respectively. Among the theoretical parameter, Lattice QCD calculations play a central role  
The results are presented in a summary table and in a series of probability density functions. The tables contain three entries per variable : the input ("direct") value, the output value and the prediction ("indirect determination") for this variable in a given model.  
Line: 126 to 126  
suffix="" remember="on" }%  
Changed:  
< <  It is possible to generalize the full UTfit beyond the Standard Model to all those NP models characterized by Minimal Flavour Violation, i.e. having quark miking ruled only by the Standard Model CKM couplings. In fact, in this case no additional weak phases are generated and several observables entering into the Standard Model fit (the treelevel processes and the measurement of angles through the use of time dependent CP asymmetries) are not affected by the presence of New Physics. The only sizable effect we are sensitive to is a shift of the InamiLim function of the top contribution in meson mixing. This means that in general εK and Δmd cannot be used in a common SM and MFV framework, but any New Physics contribution disappear in the case of Δmd/Δms. So, simply removing the information related to εK and Δmd from the full UTfit one can obtain a more precise determination of the Universal Unitarity Triangle, which is a common starting point for the Standard Model and any MFV model.  
> >  It is possible to generalize the full UTfit beyond the Standard Model to all those NP models characterized by Minimal Flavour Violation, i.e. having quark miking ruled only by the Standard Model CKM couplings (http://arxiv.org/abs/hepph/0007085). In fact, in this case no additional weak phases are generated and several observables entering into the Standard Model fit (the treelevel processes and the measurement of angles through the use of time dependent CP asymmetries) are not affected by the presence of New Physics. The only sizable effect we are sensitive to is a shift of the InamiLim function of the top contribution in meson mixing. This means that in general εK and Δmd cannot be used in a common SM and MFV framework, but any New Physics contribution disappear in the case of Δmd/Δms. So, simply removing the information related to εK and Δmd from the full UTfit one can obtain a more precise determination of the Universal Unitarity Triangle, which is a common starting point for the Standard Model and any MFV model.  
woops, ordering error: got an ENDTWISTY before seeing a TWISTY  
Line: 141 to 141  
suffix="" remember="on" }%  
Changed:  
< <  The fit presented here is meant to constrain the NP contributions to DF=2 transitions by using the available experimental information on  
> >  The fit presented here is meant to constrain the NP contributions to Δ F=2 transitions by using the available experimental information on  
loopmediated processes In general, NP models introduce a large number of new parameters: flavour changing couplings, short distance coefficients and matrix elements of new local operators. The specific list and the actual values of these parameters can only be determined within a given model. Nevertheless mixing processes are described by a single amplitude and can be parameterized, without loss of generality,  
Line: 168 to 168  
\label{eq:ceps}  
Changed:  
< <  Concerning , to be conservative, we add to the shortdistance contribution a possible longdistance one that varies with a uniform distribution between zero and the experimental value of  
> >  Concerning , to be conservative, we add to the shortdistance contribution a possible longdistance one that varies with a uniform distribution between zero and the experimental value of  
The experimental quantities determined from the mixings are related to their SM counterparts and the NP parameters by the following relations:  
Line: 182 to 180  
\alpha^\mathrm{exp} = \alpha^\mathrm{SM}  \phi_{B_d}\,, \\Delta m_s^\mathrm{exp} = C_{B_s} \Delta m_s^\mathrm{SM} \,,\; \\phi_s^\mathrm{exp} = (\beta_s^\mathrm{SM}  \phi_{B_s})\,,\; \  
Added:  
> >  \Delta m_K^\mathrm{exp} = C_{\Delta m_K} \Delta m_K^\mathrm{SM} \,,\; \\epsilon_K^\mathrm{exp} = C_{\epsilon_K} \epsilon_K^\mathrm{SM} \,,\; \  