1 / 23

Measurements of CP asymmetries and branching fractions in B 0 ï‚® p + p - , K + p - , K + K -

Measurements of CP asymmetries and branching fractions in B 0 ï‚® p + p - , K + p - , K + K -. Paul Dauncey Imperial College, University of London For the BaBar Collaboration. CP violation in the Standard Model. CP violation arises due to complex CKM matrix; e.g. Wolfenstein parametrisation:.

bevis
Download Presentation

Measurements of CP asymmetries and branching fractions in B 0 ï‚® p + p - , K + p - , K + K -

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Measurements of CP asymmetries and branching fractions inB0  p+p- ,K+p-,K+K- Paul Dauncey Imperial College, University of London For the BaBar Collaboration Paul Dauncey - BaBar

  2. CP violation in the Standard Model CP violation arises due to complex CKM matrix; e.g. Wolfenstein parametrisation: CKM unitarity; represent as triangle in r,h plane Vtd e-ib Vub e-ig • is third internal angle Paul Dauncey - BaBar

  3. Direct CP violation CP violation requires interference between at least two amplitudes with different phases, e.g. B0  K+p- T Relative weak phaseeig K+p- B0 P CP violation gives a non-zero asymmetry: AKp = G(B0  K-p+)-G(B0  K+p-)/G(B0  K-p+)+G(B0  K+p-) In principle leads tog measurement – – Paul Dauncey - BaBar

  4. Indirect CP violation – Mixing gives two paths if final state accessible from B0 and B0, e.g. B0  J/Y K0S T B0 J/Y K0S Relative weak phaseei2b – T – M B0 CP violation gives a time-dependent asymmetry: Amplitude = Im(ei2b) = sin2b Leads to b measurement: see talk by S. Rahatlou Paul Dauncey - BaBar

  5. CP violation in B0  p+p- B0  p+p-has both effects T P B0 p+p- – Relative weak phaseeia P M – – T B0 No relative weak phase Relative weak phaseei2a If both tree and penguin significant: parametrise as sin2aeff Interpretation also depends on strong amplitudes Paul Dauncey - BaBar

  6. Experimental reality Analysis is different from B0  J/Y K0S… • No clean pp or Kp sample; need to determine particle type • Particle identification needed • Analyse both modes simultaneously; also include KK • No clean signal sample; high backgrounds from udsc • Branching fractions are ~ 10–6– 10–5 • Need to use kinematics and event shapes to distinguish modes • Use unbinned maximum likelihood fit to extract signals …but some elements are identical: • Need to “tag” the other B to find if B0 or B0 • Use lepton charge, K charge or neural networks • Inefficiency and impurity (“dilution”) • Cannot measure time directly • Time difference Dt between two B decays – Paul Dauncey - BaBar

  7. The BaBar detector – Pep-II delivers boosted e+e-  Y(4s)  BB, on and off the Y(4s) Integrated luminosity: 55.6 fb-1 on peak, 60.2  0.7 million BB events – 1.5T solenoid EMC 6580 CsI(Tl) crystals DIRC (PID) 144 quartz bars 11000 PMs e+ (3.1GeV) Drift Chamber 40 stereo layers e- (9 GeV) Silicon Vertex Tracker 5 layers, double sided strips Instrumented Flux Return iron / RPCs (muon / neutral hadrons) Paul Dauncey - BaBar

  8. Particle identification with the DIRC Detector of Internally Reflected Cherenkov light (DIRC): essential for this analysis to distinguish K from p Reconstruct Cherenkov angle cosqC = 1/nb from rings seen in PMTs Cherenkov light transmitted down quartz bars by internal reflection Paul Dauncey - BaBar

  9. Analysis overview Analysis is done in two stages: • Direct CP; extract branching fractions for pp, Kp and KK and also the Kp decay CP asymmetry AKp • Maximum likelihood fit to kinematic/event shape quantities • Requires no tag or vertex measurement • Separate fit reduces systematic error • Indirect CP; extract pp CP asymmetry sin2aeff • Fix branching fractions and AKpto above results • Requires tag to determine if B0 or B0 • Requires vertex information to find time dependence All results are preliminary – Paul Dauncey - BaBar

  10. Kinematic variables - mES B candidate mass using beam “energy substitution” mES = (Ebeam2 – pB2) in CM Select 5.2 < mES < 5.3 GeV/c2 • Depends on reconstructed momentum of B candidate, pB ~ 325 MeV • Same for all signal modes • Resolution dominated by beam energy uncertainty • s(mES) ~ 2.6 MeV/c2 • Signal shape from MC, background from fit Signal Monte Carlo; Gaussian Background; ARGUS threshold function Paul Dauncey - BaBar

  11. Kinematic variables - DE B candidate energy difference from beam energy DE = EB – Ebeam in CM Select | DE | < 0.15 GeV • Depends on masses of B decay products; p mass assumed • Kp and KK shifted to non-zero average; ~ 45 MeV per K • Resolution dominated by tracking • s(DE) ~ 26 MeV • Signal shape parametrised from MC; background from fit Kp KK pp Signals: Gaussian Background; quadratic function Paul Dauncey - BaBar

  12. Particle identification - c DIRC c mean and resolution parametrised from data using D*+ D0+  (K–+)+ decays s(qC) = 2.2 mrad 9s K/p Separation 2.5s Momentum range of decays Paul Dauncey - BaBar

  13. Background suppression - Fisher Cut on angle between B candidate and sphericity of the other tracks in the event: |cos qs| < 0.8 Background Signal Monte Carlo Signal Monte Carlo Background Cut F - optimized linear combination of energy flow into nine cones around candidate (CLEO Fisher discriminant). Signal shape from MC, background from fit Paul Dauncey - BaBar

  14. Branching fraction maximum likelihood fit Five input variables per event; assume independent (uncorrelated) PDFs for each: • mES • F Discriminate signal from background • DE • qC+ Discriminate different signal modes • qC– Eight fit parameters: four for signal, four for background • N(p+p-) • N(K+p-) • N(p+K-) • N(K+ K-) Fit directly for N(Kp) and AKp: N(K+p-) = N(Kp) (1–AKp)/2 N(p+K-) = N(Kp) (1+AKp)/2 Paul Dauncey - BaBar

  15. Branching fraction results Fit results are: No significant direct CP violation seen in B0  K+p- • 90% C.L. –0.14  AKp  0.05 • Main systematics: • Branching fractions – uncertainty in shape of qC PDF • Asymmetry - possible charge bias in track and qC reconstruction Paul Dauncey - BaBar

  16. Branching fraction projections Likelihood projections: remove one variable from fit and cut on fit probabilities to give enhanced signal samples: B0pp B0Kp Fit sample: 17585 candidates, e ~ 38% Background and crossfeed Paul Dauncey - BaBar

  17. Measuring indirect CP violation Extend the branching fraction analysis to extract indirect CP information: • Needs extra information on: • Time of decay (vertexing); reconstruct “other” B decay point and find time difference of B decays • Flavour of the decaying B0 (tagging); use tracks whose charge carries flavour information • Use identical techniques to sin2b analysis • Fit for CP violation asymmetries while holding branching fractions and Kp asymmetry to previously determined values • Vary these parameters within determined errors for systematics; small effect for asymmetries Paul Dauncey - BaBar

  18. Vertexing and Dt Asymmetric beam energies mean Y(4s) is boosted: Best vertex for “other” B Fully reconstructed Bpp p- (4s) Dz p+ bg = 0.55 Dt @Dz/gbc Dt is time difference between the two decays: • Resolution is dominated by the “other” B, s(Dt) ~ 0.8 ps • Independent of signal type • Can use same resolution model as sin2b analysis • Exploit mixing to measure signal performance (dilutions) and efficiencies • Signal resolution determined from large sample of fully reconstructed B’s, background shape determined from fit Paul Dauncey - BaBar

  19. Signal yield time dependences The signal modes depend differently on Dt: • ppgeneral form allows for both tree and penguin: rates • f(Dt) ~ 1 Spp sin(DmdDt) Cpp cos(DmdDt) for B0(B0) tag • Spp = 2Im(l)/(1+|l|2) and Cpp = (1-|l|2)/(1+|l|2) • For pure tree, l = ei2a so Spp = sin2a and Cpp = 0 • With some penguin contribution,Cpp  0andSpp = (1-Cpp2) sin2aeff • Kptime dependence due to B0 mixing: rates • f(Dt) ~ 1 cos(DmdDt) for unmixed (mixed) B0 • KK general form similar to pp in principle • Model with simple exponential • Actual PDFs used in fit: • Diluted due to mistags • Convolved with Dt resolution functions –  Paul Dauncey - BaBar

  20. Flavour tagging Use same flavour tagging as sin2b measurement: Lepton;eeff ~ 8% Fit sample: 9220 tagged candidates Kaon; eeff ~ 14% Separate into tag categories mES Gev/c2 Neural Net 1;eeff ~ 2% Neural Net 2;eeff ~ 1% Untagged events (~ 33%) retained in the fit to determine background shapes Paul Dauncey - BaBar

  21. Time-dependent fit results Fit results in: Spp = –0.01 ± 0.37 ± 0.07 Cpp = –0.02 ± 0.29 ± 0.07 No significant indirect CP violation seen in B0  p+p- • 90% C.L. –0.66  Spp  0.62 • 90% C.L. –0.54  Cpp  0.48 Main systematic: • Uncertainty in shape of qC PDF Fit result Enhanced B pp sample: Dt distributions and asymmetry between mixed and unmixed events. Fitted background Paul Dauncey - BaBar

  22. Time-dependent fit cross checks Fit checked using “toy” studies of simulated experiments • All parameters unbiased • All errors consistent with expectations • Likelihood value (goodness of fit) consistent with expectations Fit holds B lifetime and mixing constant: cross check by fitting • tB = 1.66 ± 0.09 ps (c.f. PDG value 1.54 ± 0.02 ps) • Dmd = 0.517 ± 0.062 ps–1 (c.f. PDG value 0.479 ± 0.012 ps–1) Enhanced B  Kpsample: asymmetry between unmixed and mixed events. Paul Dauncey - BaBar

  23. Summary of BaBar preliminary results Branching fractions: B(B0  p+p-) = (5.4 ± 0.7 ± 0.4)  10–6 B(B0  K+p-) = (17.8 ± 1.1 ± 0.8)  10–6 B(B0  K+K-)=  1.1  10–6 (90% C.L.) CP asymmetries;no evidence for CP violation: Spp = –0.01 ± 0.37 ± 0.07 or 90% C.L. –0.66  Spp  0.62 Cpp = –0.02 ± 0.29 ± 0.07 or 90% C.L. –0.54  Cpp  0.48 AKp = –0.05 ± 0.06 ± 0.01 or 90% C.L. –0.14  AKp  0.05 Paul Dauncey - BaBar

More Related