-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
The value of CKM matrix #83
Comments
This feature is beyond the scope of wilson, but is actually provided by smelli. @peterstangl |
@haolinli1991, an explanation of the problem and how it is addressed in smelli can be found in the following slides (starting from page 26): https://indico.in2p3.fr/event/18646/contributions/74406/attachments/54799/71956/straub-lyon-2019.pdf#12 |
@DavidMStraub I was wondering already some time ago, if it might be better to implement this treatment of CKM in SMEFT in |
One problem I can think of: it would make Wilson dependent on Flavio, which would create a circular dependency. |
It could also be contemplated to merge Wilson, Flavio, and smelli altogether :) |
Thanks a lot! This should be what I am finding |
@DavidMStraub @peterstangl , Thanks, |
@haolinli1991, sorry for the late reply. The CKM elements that appear in definitions of EFT operators are actually not fixed. If an EFT operator has a prefactor, this means that this prefactor will appear in the expressions that yield the observable predictions. And the parameter values entering this prefactor can be modified by the user. |
As far as I understand, when iteratively determine the SM parameters at the High scale (the scale one defined the SMEFT Wilson coefficients), the package uses the value of CKM matrix to fix the value of the Yukawa coupling of fermions at EW scale, which further influences the running of the Wilson coefficients in the SMEFT.
Assuming the whole iterative programme works, then how do the CKM in this procedure extracted from the experiments? The inclusion of some of the operators for example phi_q3 and phi_ud will indeed change the W boson and quarks interactions, which may alter the global fit of the CKM in those low energy meson decay experiments. It seems to me that one cannot have a consistent matching between SMEFT and WET without considering running of WET down to the low energy scale to extract the CKM from the low energy flavor observables.
A naive and consistent way I could think of to determine the initial value of Yukawa matrices at the high scale is to find their value such that they minimize the chi2 function of the global fit of the relevant low energy observable taking into account all the running and matching effects, but I know this is computationally inapplicable. So is there any way to analysis the theoretical uncertanties brought by possibly improper value of CKM?
I read a relevant thread #38, but eager more thought and explanation of this problem.
Thanks,
Haolin
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: