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 model-independent approach, the possible contributions of NP effects to B_d-B_d, B_s-B_s and K⁰-K⁰ 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

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]
RESULT: CBd = 0.96 ± 0.23	RESULT: φBd = (-2.9 ± 1.9)o
(EPS) [JPG]	(EPS) [JPG]

(EPS) [JPG]	(EPS) [JPG]
RESULT: CBs = 0.94 ± 0.19	RESULT: φBs = (-69 ± 7)o U (-19 ± 8)o
(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 ξ² of the matrix elements entering B_d and B_s mixing amplitudes.

(EPS) [JPG]

The AM+NP amplitude for K⁰-K⁰ mixing can be written in a similar way:

This definition implies a simple relation for |ε_K|:

With respect to the SM analysis, some constraint is modified and new constraints are added.

(EPS) [JPG]	(EPS) [JPG]
RESULT: CΔmK = 0.96 ± 0.34	RESULT: CεK = 0.99 ± 0.16
(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.

(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 tree-level 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 Inami-Lim 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: sin2βs = 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 S₀, the Inami-Lim 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 δS₀ is the shift, a is a parameter related to Wilson coefficients of the effective Hamiltonian, Λ is the New Physics scale and Λ₀=Y_tsin²(θ_W)M_W/α ∼ 2.4 TeV is the reference EW scale. One can extract Λ₀ in two different scenarios:

• MFV models with one Higgs doublet or low/moderate tanβ. In this case, the shift δS₀ is a universal factor for all the mixing processes we are considering (K⁰-K⁰, B⁰-B⁰, and B_s-B_s). The information coming from those mixing processes that are ignored in UUT can be used to bound this universal shift, once the CKM parameters are fixed by the UUT.
• MFV models with large values of tanβ. In this case, it is still true that one can use ε_K and Δm_d to bound the New Physics shift. But, in this case, one cannot simply relate the effect on K⁰-K⁰ to the corresponding quantity in B physics (which remains common to B⁰-B⁰ and B_s-B_s).

Here we show the result in terms of the output distribution of δS₀ (δS₀^B and δS₀^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] δS0 = -0.16 ± 0.32	(EPS) [JPG] δS0B = 0.05 ± 0.67	(EPS) [JPG] δS0K = -0.18 ± 0.37
Λ > 5.5 TeV @95% Prob. for small tanβ	Λ > 5.1 TeV @95% Prob. for large tanβ

• α and New physics in |ΔF|=1
• Constraints on Bs mixing amplitude