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)
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)
♦ Bulk Higgs models have a softer UV limit.
Also, light quarks have larger overlap with Higgs.
.⇔√
kY u,d5 ! 2π√
NKK! 4×
√3
NKK
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
).
.∝ 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.
Agashe, GP & Soni (04)
♦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) .
Controlled parametric solution via alignment
need tobe
aligned
.L5D ! Y u,d
5 HQ(u, d) + CQ,u,d
(Q, u, d
)(Q, u, d) .
Controlled parametric solution via alignment
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
Fascinating Top Warped Physics @ LHC
t top jets, road to KK’s discovery
Agashe, Belyaev, Krupovnickas, GP & Virzi (07); Lillie, Randall, Wang (07).
KK’s decay to boosted tops:
Fascinating Top Warped Physics @ LHC
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
Fascinating Top Warped Physics @ LHC
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
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)
Agashe, GP & Soni (06)
.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
♦ 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.
.1
Λ2NP
[zK1 (dLγµsL)(dLγµsL) + zD
1 (uLγµcL)(uLγµcL) + zD4 (uLcR)(uRcL)
].
(Nir’s talk)
The power of CPV in the D system
♦ 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.
.1
Λ2NP
[zK1 (dLγµsL)(dLγµsL) + zD
1 (uLγµcL)(uLγµcL) + zD4 (uLcR)(uRcL)
].
Blum, Grossman, Nir & GP (09);
(Nir’s talk)
The power of CPV in the D system
♦ 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.
.1
Λ2NP
[zK1 (dLγµsL)(dLγµsL) + zD
1 (uLγµcL)(uLγµcL) + zD4 (uLcR)(uRcL)
].
Gedalia, Grossman, Nir & GP, to appear.Blum, Grossman, Nir & GP (09);
(Nir’s talk)
The power of CPV in the D system
.
Combining K0 −K0 & D0 −D0 mixings
withCPV
noCPV
♦ Powerful model indep’ bound.
.1
Λ2NP
[zK1 (dLγµsL)(dLγµsL) + zD
1 (uLγµcL)(uLγµcL) + zD4 (uLcR)(uRcL)
].
Two generations flavor structure
.XQ
.XQ
One cannot eliminate the constraint from K & D systems simultaneously! Nir (07)
Two generations flavor structure
.v3
.v1
.XQ
.XQ
One cannot eliminate the constraint from K & D systems simultaneously! Nir (07)
Two generations flavor structure
.v3
.v1
.YdY
†d
.XQ
.XQ
One cannot eliminate the constraint from K & D systems simultaneously! Nir (07)
Two generations flavor structure
.v3
.v1
.YdY
†d
.YuY †
u
).2θC
.XQ
.XQ
One cannot eliminate the constraint from K & D systems simultaneously! Nir (07)
Two generations flavor structure
.v3
.v1
.YdY
†d
.YuY †
u
).2θC
.XQ
).2θd
.XQ
.XQ
One cannot eliminate the constraint from K & D systems simultaneously! Nir (07)
Two generations flavor structure
.v3
.v1
.YdY
†d
.YuY †
u
).2θC
.XQ
).2θd
.XQ
.XQ
One cannot eliminate the constraint from K & D systems simultaneously! Nir (07)
Two generations flavor structure
.v3
.v1
.YdY
†d
.YuY †
u
).2θC
.XQ
).2θd
.XQ
.XQ
One cannot eliminate the constraint from K & D systems simultaneously! Nir (07)
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
Adding CPV, , yield strong constraint on
Constraining the flavor structure
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
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
Adding CPV, , yield strong constraint on
Constraining the flavor structure
RS:
Fully composite 3rd gen’ doublet is excluded.
♦ A stronger bound if LLRR operators are present.
.1
Λ2NP
[zK1 (dLγµsL)(dLγµsL) + zD
1 (uLγµcL)(uLγµcL) + zD4 (uLcR)(uRcL)
].
.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
[zK1 (dLγµsL)(dLγµsL) + zD
1 (uLγµcL)(uLγµcL) + zD4 (uLcR)(uRcL)
].
.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)