gilad perez - struttura

News from the warped flavor frontier

Gilad Perez

Weizmann Institute

Planck 2009 From the Planck Scale to the ElectroWeak Scale

♦ Tests & future predictions.

Outline

♦ The & EDM’s warped “little” CP problems.

.εK

♦ Intro’, Randall-Sundrum (RS) flavor hierarchies & protection. (Andi Weiler’s talk)

♦ Parametric solution - alignment via bulk flavor sym’.

♦ RS enhancement of dipole operators.

♦ Bulk vs. brane Higgs & extra protection ( Y5 >> 1).

Intro’ flavor structure of RS

Flavor protection induced by the mechanism which solves the flavor puzzle = RS-GIMBurdman (03);

Agashe, GP & Soni (04)

♦ Light modes are “far” from Higgs & KK states,

are localized at a region where . .Λ! 104 TeV

Warped Geometrical Understanding of Flavor

Gherghetta & Pomarol; Huber & Shafi (00)

Π2 Π

Φ

f!Φ"Higgs

heavylight

Warped 5D

1st KK

UV IR

(composites)

Simple flavor structure (IR approx’) Agashe, GP & Soni (04)

0-mode/elementarykk-mode/composite

Trivial Inter-Composite Flavor Structure

KK-mode KK-modeHiggs

.Y u,d

5

Trivial Inter-Composite Flavor Structure

KK-mode KK-modeHiggs

.Y u,d

5Anarchic

0-modes connect via IR value of wave function

composite 0-mode

.FQ,u,d

.∝ diag

{exp

[−35

(cQi,ui,di − 1

2

)]}

0-modes connect via IR value of wave function

composite 0-mode

.FQ,u,d

Hierarchic

.∝ diag

{exp

[−35

(cQi,ui,di − 1

2

)]}

Fermion masses follow

Higgs 0-mode0-mode

.F †

QY u,d5 Fu,d

2 Residual “little” CP problems♦ O(100) chiral enhancement for LLRR current yield

a severe bound on IR Higgs, .MKK ! 10− 20 TeV.

UTFit; Davidson, Isidori & Uhlig (07); Blanke et al.; Casagrande et al.; Csaki, Falkowski & Weiler; Agashe, Azatov & Zhu (08)

♦ Contributions to EDM’s are O(20) larger than bounds. Agashe, GP & Soni (04)

.∝ F †

QFQF †dFd ∼ mdms

(Y d5 )2

Solutions

♦ Problem ameliorated with bulk Higgs => larger .Agashe, Azatov & Zhu (08)

Fitzpatrick, GP & Randall (07); GP & Randall; Csaki, Falkowski & Weiler; Santiago (08); Csaki, Grossman, GP, Surujon & Weiler, to appear.

.Y d

5

♦ Gauge the SM approx’ sym’ => aligning with ..Y d

5

.FQ,d

Bulk vs. brane Higgs & some protection

♦ IR-localized Higgs is severely constrained:

.kY u,d

5 ! 2πNKK

! 2× 3NKK

.mt ⇔ kY u

5 ! 12

.[Y u,d

5

]= E−1

.L5D ! Y u,d

5 HQ(u, d)δ(z − zIR

).

(Hebecker’s talk)



.kY u,d

5 ! 2πNKK

! 2× 3NKK

.mt ⇔ kY u

5 ! 12

.[Y u,d

5

]= E−1

.L5D ! Y u,d


).

(Hebecker’s talk)

♦ Bulk Higgs models have a softer UV limit.

Also, light quarks have larger overlap with Higgs.

.⇔√

kY u,d5 ! 2π√

NKK! 4×

√3

NKK



.kY u,d

5 ! 2πNKK

! 2× 3NKK

.mt ⇔ kY u

5 ! 12

.[Y u,d

5

]= E−1

.L5D ! Y u,d


).

.∝ mdms

(Y d5 )2

Agashe, Azatov & Zhu (08)

♦ Can further suppress RS contributions to

(Hebecker’s talk)

♦ Bulk Higgs models have a softer UV limit.

Also, light quarks have larger overlap with Higgs.

.⇔√

kY u,d5 ! 2π√

NKK! 4×

√3

NKK

Nothing for free, radiative decays enhanced

♦Dipole operators (LO at loop level, not suppressed, marginal control):

.∝ F †

QY d5

(Y u,d

5

)†Y u,d

5 Fd ∼ mdi ×(Y d,u

5

)2.


♦Based on 2-site model,

♦O(10) stronger bound is due to

.ε′/εK

Davidson, Isidori & Uhlig (07);Gedalia, Isidori & GP (09).

.εk & b→ sγ .

.Y u,d

5 Agashe et. al derived a bound on via . [Contino, Kramer, Son & Sundrum (06)]

Constraining the KK via .εK + ε′/εK

Gedalia, Isidori & GP (09).

.MKK > 5.5 (7.5) .TeV, for best case (2-site).

Breitenlohner & Freedman (82)

.L5D ! Y u,d

5 HQ(u, d) + CQ,u,d

(Q, u, d

)(Q, u, d) .

Controlled parametric solution via alignment

.L5D ! Y u,d

5 HQ(u, d) + CQ,u,d

(Q, u, d

)(Q, u, d) .


need tobe

aligned

.L5D ! Y u,d

5 HQ(u, d) + CQ,u,d

(Q, u, d

)(Q, u, d) .


need tobe

aligned

♦Avoid arbitrary cutoff-flavor breaking => gauge SM

approx’ flavor currents (cf. the custodial sym’ case). Fitzpatrick, GP & Randall (07); GP & Randall; Csaki, Falkowski & Weiler; Santiago (08); Csaki & Curtin (09); Csaki, Grossman, GP, Surujon & Weiler, to appear.

♦Solving the flavor puzzle => non-universal ‘s. .Ci

5D Minimal Flavors Violation (MFV)

♦ A simplified flavor structure is obtained if the flavor

structure is solely controlled by , 5DMFV. .Y u,d

5

♦ Generically, 5DMFV 4D MFV, where new sources of

flavor & CP violation (CPV) are present (NMFV).

.!=

Fitzpatrick, GP & Randall (07); GP & Randall (08).

♦ If RS flavor & CPV is suppressed..CQ,d ≈ f(Y d

5 )(works for neutrino/lepton sector)

♦ Suppression is accidental unless arise via microscopic

physics (requires a small universal parameter). (Weiler’s talk)

Alignment via shining♦ Idea: flavor is broken only on the UV brane & transmitted

to the bulk+IR brane.

Arkani-Hamed, Hall, Smith & Weiner, (00); Arkani-Hamed & Dimopoulos (98); Rattazzi & Zaffaroni (00);Cacciapaglia et. al (06).

♦ With appropriate bulk field content, can be combined

with the 5DMFV idea to give tree-level alignment. Minimal assumption about unknown Planck physics.

Csaki, Grossman, GP, Surujon & Weiler, to appear.

♦ Very different from 4D MFV models, tends to have

up type anarchy & missalignment from NLO is important.

Quite Predictive

Look

UpLook Down

Predictions & Tests

Fascinating Top Warped Physics @ LHC

t


t top jets, road to KK’s discovery

Agashe, Belyaev, Krupovnickas, GP & Virzi (07); Lillie, Randall, Wang (07).

KK’s decay to boosted tops:





Collimation is a challange





Collimation is a challange

X X

X

Up sector anarchy!

t

top FCNC Díaz-Cruz (89); Eilam, Hewett & Soni (90)

RS

MFV.BR(tL,R → cLγ, Z) ∼ |yb|4 |Vcb|2 ! 10−5

(tan β50

)4.

:

:Kagan, GP, Volansky & Zupan (09)


.D0 − D0 vs. K0 − K0Mixing

Δ

δד

♦ Huge recent progress in measurement of mass splitting

& CP violation (CPV) in the D system:

♦ Powerful constraint on NP:

(i) model indep’ (ii) RS - LLRR operators.

(Nir’s talk)

The power of CPV in the D system





.1

Λ2NP

[zK1 (dLγµsL)(dLγµsL) + zD

1 (uLγµcL)(uLγµcL) + zD4 (uLcR)(uRcL)

].

(Nir’s talk)






.1

Λ2NP



].

Blum, Grossman, Nir & GP (09);

(Nir’s talk)






.1

Λ2NP



].

Gedalia, Grossman, Nir & GP, to appear.Blum, Grossman, Nir & GP (09);

(Nir’s talk)


.

Combining K0 −K0 & D0 −D0 mixings

withCPV

noCPV

♦ Powerful model indep’ bound.

.1

Λ2NP



].

Two generations flavor structure

.XQ

.XQ

One cannot eliminate the constraint from K & D systems simultaneously! Nir (07)


.v3

.v1

.XQ

.XQ



.v3

.v1

.YdY

†d

.XQ

.XQ



.v3

.v1

.YdY

†d

.YuY †

u

).2θC

.XQ

.XQ



.v3

.v1

.YdY

†d

.YuY †

u

).2θC

.XQ

).2θd

.XQ

.XQ


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4x 10−3

sin!

wea

kest

bou

nd o

n "

12

Adding CPV, , yield strong constraint on

Constraining the flavor structure

RS:

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4x 10−3

sin!

wea

kest

bou

nd o

n "

12



RS:

SUSY:

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4x 10−3

sin!

wea

kest

bou

nd o

n "

12



RS:

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4x 10−3

sin!

wea

kest

bou

nd o

n "

12



RS:

Fully composite 3rd gen’ doublet is excluded.

♦ A stronger bound if LLRR operators are present.

.1

Λ2NP



].

.Bound on OD

4 from CPV in D system

noCPV

withCPV

Csaki, Falkowski & Weiler (08).

♦ A stronger bound if LLRR operators are present.

.1

Λ2NP



].

.Bound on OD

4 from CPV in D system

noCPV

withCPV

.Y d

5 > 1.6× 3 TeVMKK

.IR Higgs: (perturbative bound: )

Brane Higgs, best case:.Y d

5 > 0.8× 3 TeVMKK

. [via Gedalia, Isidori & GP (09)]

Csaki, Falkowski & Weiler (08).

♦ The KK flavor gauge bosons & scalars might be

observable.

Alignment, flavor at the LHC (preliminary!)

Csaki, Lee, GP & Weiler, preliminary.mass_t_1_anti_t_1

Entries 400000

Mean 840.6

RMS 252.9

!"#$%&''

(

)*** )+** ,*** ,+** -*** -+**

./0)*#$%

!-)*

!,)*

!))*

)

)*

mass_t_1_anti_t_1

Entries 400000

Mean 840.6

RMS 252.9

tt/dM!d

Thanks to S. Lee.

.gx = gs√

6diag(1, 1,−2)

Conclusions

♦ Warped models integrate solution to the hierarchy

problem with addressing the flavor problem.

♦ Largely consistent with flavor precision test, some

alignment is required.

♦ Generically, flavor violation is expected in the up sector.

♦ Being tested via D physics, soon via top FCNC & high PT.

Backups

.εk vs. b→ sγ .

Actual bound is probably stronger

Flavor “spurions” with a bulk Higgs

♦ 1 loop contribution suppressed in the localized

Higgs case <=> accidental ? Agashe, Blechman & Petriello (06)

gilad perez - struttura

Documents