energy processes can still be established implementing specific symmetry properties, such as the MFV hypothesis (Sect. IV). The experimental tests of such correlations allow us to test/establish general features of the new theory which holds independently of the dynamical details of the model. In particular, B , D and K decays are extremely useful in determining the flavor-symmetry breaking pattern of the NP model. The starting points for this analysis is the observation that in several realistic NP models we can neglect non-standard effects in all cases where the corresponding effective operator is gen- erated at the tree-level within the SM. This general assumption implies that the experimental determination of the CKM matrix via tree-level processes is free from the contamination of NP contributions. Using this determination we can unambiguously predict meson-antimeson mixing and FCNC amplitudes within the SM and compare it with data, constraining the couplings of the Δ F = 2 operators in (3.1). Each Δ F = 2 amplitude is then conveniently parametrized in terms of the shift induced in the modulo and the CPV phase, or the real and imaginary part [10, 11]: An updated analysis of these constraints has been presented in [12] (see Fig. 2). The main conclu- sions that can be drawn from this analysis can be summarized as follows: (i) In all the three accessible short-distance amplitudes ( K $^{0}$– K $^{0}$, B$_{d}$ – B$_{d}$ , and B$_{s}$ – B$_{s}$ ) the mag- nitude of the new-physics amplitude cannot exceed, in size, the SM short-distance contribution. The latter is suppressed by both the GIM mechanism and the hierarchical structure of the CKM matrix, where F is a loop function of O (1). As a result, new-physics models with TeV-scale flavored degrees of freedom and O (1) effective flavor-mixing couplings are ruled out. To set explicit bounds, let us consider for instance the subset of left-handed Δ F = 2 operators in the generic effective Lagrangian in (3.1), namely A. Bounds from Δ F = 2 down-type transitions 〈 B$_{q}$ |L eff | B$_{q}$ 〉 B$_{q}$ SM B$_{q}$ = C$_{B}$$_{q}$e 2 iφ$_{B}$$_{q}$ , Re[ 〈 K $^{0}$| L eff | K $^{0}$〉 ] Re[ K SM K ] = C$_{Δ}$$_{m}$$_{K}$ Re → Im −→ C$_{ϵ}$$_{K}$ , (3.2) A Δ F =2 SM ≈ G 2 $_{F}$m 2 t 16 π 2 ( V ∗ $_{ti}$V$_{tj}$ ) 2 × 〈 M | ( Q$_{Li}$γ $^{µ}$Q$_{Lj}$ ) $^{2}$| M 〉 × F ( M 2 W m 2 t ) , (3.3) Δ L Δ F =2 = ∑ i = j c$_{ij}$ Λ $_{2}$( Q$_{Li}$γ $^{µ}$Q$_{Lj}$ ) 2 , (3.4) 7