Thanks to the abundance of experimental information, one can determine stringent bounds to NP parameters, simultaneously to the determination of the UT parameters. Starting from the New Physics Free determination of ρ and η, we explore, in a modelindependent approach, the possible contributions of NP effects to B_{d}B_{d}, B_{s}B_{s} and K^{0}K^{0} mixing. Each of these processes can be parameterized in terms of only two new parameters, which we choose to quantify the difference of the amplitude, in absolute value and phase, with respect to the SM one. Thus in the case of B_{q}B_{q} mixings, we define

where H_{eff}^{SM} includes only the SM box diagram, while H_{eff}^{full} includes also the NP contributions. In the second equation we also introduce φ_{q}^{SM} where φ_{d}^{SM} = β and φ_{s}^{SM} = β_{s} These definitions imply that the mass differences and the CP asymmetry are related to the SM counterparts by
Δm_{d}=C_{Bd} ⋅ Δm_{d}^{SM}  Δm_{s}=C_{Bs} ⋅ Δm_{s}^{SM} 
β^{exp} = β^{SM} + φ_{Bd}  α^{exp} = α^{SM}  φ_{Bd} 
β_{s}^{exp} = β_{s}^{SM}  φ_{Bs} 
We can also write

and given the p.d.f. for C_{Bd} and φ_{Bd}, we can derive the p.d.f. in the (A_{NP}/A_{SM}) vs φ_{NP} plane.
(EPS) [JPG] 
(EPS) [JPG] 




(EPS) [JPG] 
(EPS) [JPG] 
(EPS) [JPG] 
(EPS) [JPG] 




(EPS) [JPG] 
(EPS) [JPG] 
The values of C_{Bd} and C_{Bs} show an an interesting correlation (see figure below). This correlation that is present in the general analysis, is due to the fact that lattice QCD determines quite precisely the ratio ξ^{2} of the matrix elements entering B_{d} and B_{s} mixing amplitudes.
(EPS) [JPG] 
The AM+NP amplitude for K^{0}K^{0} mixing can be written in a similar way:


This definition implies a simple relation for ε_{K}:
ε_{K}=C_{εK}ε_{K}^{SM} 
With respect to the SM analysis, some constraint is modified and new constraints are added.
(EPS) [JPG] 
(EPS) [JPG] 




(EPS) [JPG] 
The NP analysis shown above also provides the values of the CKM parameters, from which the angles and sides of the UT can be computed. We list below the result obtained from the simultaneous fit. These values represent the allowed ranges in this generalized framework. We found only one favoured solution, corresponding to the result of the Standard Model fit, while the second region, corresponding to the UT with its vertex in the third quadrant and implying sizable New Physics effects in the B_{d} sector, present in the previous version of this analysis is now excluded at 95% probability.
Results of NP generalized analysis

Parameter

68% probability Region

ρ

0.177 ± 0.044 
η

0.360 ± 0.031 
α

(92 ± 7)^{o} 
β

(24.7 ± 1.8)^{o} 
γ

(63 ± 7)^{o} 
sin2β

0.734 ± 0.038 
sin2β_{s}

0.038 ± 0.003 
10^{5} Re λ_{t}

31.7 ± 1.8 
10^{5} Im λ_{t}

14.1 ± 1.2 
10^{3}V_{ub}

3.87 ± 0.23 
10^{2}V_{cb}

4.12 ± 0.05 
10^{3}V_{td}

8.3 ± 0.5 
V_{td}/V_{ts}

0.206 ± 0.012 
R_{b}

0.404 ± 0.025 
R_{t}

0.897 ± 0.047 
(EPS) [JPG] 
(EPS) [JPG] 
(EPS) [JPG] 
(EPS) [JPG] 
(EPS) [JPG] 
(EPS) [JPG] 
(EPS) [JPG] 
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 ε_{K} and Δm_{d} cannot be used in a common SM and MFV framework, but any New Physics contribution disappear in the case of Δm_{d}/Δm_{s}. So, simply removing the information related to ε_{K} and Δm_{d} 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.
(EPS) [JPG] Result of UUT fit on the (ρ, η) plane 
(EPS) [JPG] ρ = 0.128 ± 0.038 from UUT fit 
(EPS) [JPG] η = 0.350 ± 0.018 from UUT fit 
(EPS) [JPG] PREDICTIONS: α = (88 ± 6)^{o} from UUT fit 
(EPS) [JPG] PREDICTIONS: β = (21.8 ± 0.8)^{o} from UUT fit 
(EPS) [JPG] PREDICTIONS: γ = (70 ± 6)^{o} from UUT fit 
(EPS) [JPG] PREDICTIONS: sin2β_{s} = 0.037 ± 0.002 from UUT fit 
One has to notice that the precision on ρ and η is in practise the same than in the full UTfit. This means that one can go forward in the study of MFV, using the two neglected informations (ε_{K} and Δm_{d}) to bound the scale of New Physics. In fact, the expected contribution is a shift of S_{0}, the InamiLim function associated to top contribution in box diagrams. The shift can than we translated in terms of the tested energy scale for New Particles, using a simple dimensional argument.

where δS_{0} is the shift, a is a parameter related to Wilson coefficients of the effective Hamiltonian, Λ is the New Physics scale and Λ_{0}=Y_{t}sin^{2}(θ_{W})M_{W}/α ∼ 2.4 TeV is the reference EW scale. One can extract Λ_{0} in two different scenarios:
Here we show the result in terms of the output distribution of δS_{0} (δS_{0}^{B} and δS_{0}^{K}) in the case of models with low/moderate (large) values of tanβ and we give the output value in terms of the tested energy scales, quantified at the 95% Probability.
(EPS) [JPG] δS_{0} = 0.16 ± 0.32 
(EPS) [JPG] δS_{0}^{B} = 0.05 ± 0.67 
(EPS) [JPG] δS^{0}_{K} = 0.18 ± 0.37 
for small tanβ 
for large tanβ 