1 / 78

B physics in LHCb

B physics in LHCb. Introduction: LHCb physics The experimental challenge: Vertex reconstruction Particle ID Trigger Flavour tagging Systematic effects Hugo Ruiz – Winter meeting 2007 - Santiago. Introduction. CPV in the SM. SM introduces CP violation through:

brennan-stephenson
Download Presentation

B physics in LHCb

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. B physics in LHCb Introduction: LHCb physics The experimental challenge: Vertex reconstruction Particle ID Trigger Flavour tagging Systematic effects Hugo Ruiz – Winter meeting 2007 - Santiago

  2. Introduction

  3. CPV in the SM • SM introduces CP violation through: • the CKM matrix is complex • phases switch sign under CP: VijVij* • After requiring unitarity and removing non-physical phases, the values of Vij are no longer independent • 3 magnitudes + 1 phase fix the matrix: 4 parameters • All measurements related with electroweak quark transitions are coherent with the CKM picture of the SM: • BR, Dm and phases measured fit within a set of values of the 4 CKM parameters • In particular, unitarity triangle closes gently l = 0.2240±0.0036 A = 0.83±0.02 r = 0.168±0.029 h = 0.340±0.017 Wolfenstein parameterization, values from UTFit Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  4. New Physics in B decays? • But there is room for NP in B meson decays • And after all, the CKM picture of CPV does not account for the presence of matter in the Universe… • Some quantities very sensitive to NP are yet to be measured or lacking precise measurement • Four examples accessible to LHCb in this talk: • c  arg(Vts)-pvia phase of Bs mixing • CKM fit prediction much more precise than experimental value • g -arg(Vub) at tree level • Tree-level measurements assumed free of NP • Comparison with measurements from loop processes can reveal NP • Branching ratios of rare decays • Expect large contributions from NP models which fit rest of data • Angular distributions • Sensitive to non-SM operators in interactions Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  5. 1. Phase of Bs oscillation Vts • Prediction from a global fit to CKM measurements (UT fit): fs= -0.037± 0.002 • Very small, so very sensitive to NP! • Recent D0 measurement () : fs= -0.79±0.56(stat)+0.14-0.01(syst) • Note: no Bs produced in B factories • D0 used golden channel Bs→J/y(m+m-)f(K+K-) • The diagram for Bs oscillation in the SM is • The phase of the oscillation in the SM is given by: • fsSM -2  arg (Vts) -2c = -2l2h up to o(l6) Vts* Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  6. 1. Phase of Bs oscillation Bs0 • Bs→J/y(m+m-)f(K+K-) can proceed directly or through mixing Bs0 Bs0 • Measure proper time distribution of events originally tagged as Bs and Bs • Needs flavour tagging! • Build time-dependent CP asymmetry: Tagged Bs Tagged Bs All experimental effects simulated hf = +, - 1 CP eigenstates Strong requirement on vertexing Proper time (ps) Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  7. 1. Phase of Bs oscillation From Z. Ligeti et al hep-ph/0604112 Allowed regions CL > 0.90, 0.32, 0.05 • BR=3·10-5 in one nominal LHCb year (2 fb-1): • 33k of events • s(fs)= 0.023 ( UT fit value: -0.037) • Parameterization of NP effects: M12 = (1 + hse 2iss) MSM12 • MSM12= dispersive part of the BS mixing amplitude in the SM • Then Dms and fs can be used to constrain NP in the oscillation: 180o 2006, After first Dms measurement 90o ss 0o 0.5 1.5 2.5 hs 180o fs= 0.04±0.03 90o ss LHCb, L=2fb-1 0o 0.1 0.3 0.5 hs 7 Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  8. 2. g from tree processes • garg of (Vub)to o(l4) • Measurement (tree-level only): g = (83 ± 19)o • From global CKM fit (incl. loop processes!): (64.1 ± 4.6)o • Most promising method for tree-level determination: measure BR of B- (K+p-)DK- and the charge-conjugated process • 2 diagrams (via D0 and via D0) contributing with similar amplitudes  large interference effects hence large CPV in the decay • No flavour tagging needed   g 8 Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  9. 2. g from tree processes • But several unknowns: relative amplitudes and phases of B, D decays • Need more observables from additional modes to extract g: • CP eigenstates K+K- and p+p-: GLW (Gronau, London, Wiler) • Other decays: ADS (Atwood, Dunietz, Soni) • Current status: B- (K+p-)DK- not yet seen in B factories • Measurement from Dalitz analysis of D0 Ksπ+π– • With LHCb 10fb-1, expected 3.5 K events : • B+: 2500 with B/S ~1.5, B-: 1000 with B/S ~ 4.5 * * Values of rel. amplitudes from Dalitz in B factories Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  10. 2. g from tree processes • Most powerful methods for g measurement in LHCb: s(g) = 2.4o Free from NP Strong requirement on PId (*): with a weak assumption on U-spin symmetry, could be affected by NP

  11. 2. g from tree processes  • Status of g from tree processes now and in ~ 2013: Current from tree processes only g From BDK, Tree process, LHCb10 fb-1  g g From UT fit, quantities affected by loops |Vub/Vcb| from semileptonic BRs NP! 11 11 11 31/05/2007 31/05/2007 This is what we know about CKM if we suspect NP in loop processes! Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  12. 3. BR of Bsm+m- 5 BR (x10-9) SM prediction 3 Integrated Luminosity (fb-1) SM • Occurs via loops: • Small BR in SM: (3.4 ± 0.4) x 10-9 • Sensitive to NP! • Strongly enhanced by some SUSY models • Ex: up to x100 by CMSSM with parameters ‘preferred’ by anomalous m mag. moment in BNL. • Limit from Tevatron at 90% CL: • Current (1 fb-1)< 7·10-8 • Expected final (8 fb-1): < 2·10-8 • ~ x10 higher than SM! MSSM LHCb Sensitivity (signal+bkg is observed) LHCb: with L=2fb-1, 3s observation if SM value Yesterday’s talk by Diego Martinez

  13. 3. BR of Bsm+m- gμ- 2 Bs → μ+μ- SM prediction • An example of complementarity of high-pT & flavour physics: • tan b: ratio of Higgs vacuum expectation values • m½ : gaugino mass • A0: trilinear soft SUSY-breaking parameter • CMSSM:soft SUSY-breaking scalar and gaugino masses are each equal at GUT input scale. Only 4 independent parameters in MSSM, see hep-ph/0411216 Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  14. 4. B0 K*0m+m- AFB(s), theory + B0 q K* – s = (m)2 [GeV2] b s • Forward-backward asymm AFB(s) in  rest-frame sensitive to chiral structure of the process • SM: BR = (1.22+0.38-0.32) 10-6 • 2 fb-1: 7200±2100 evts, B/S < 0.5: d d Bd K* m FBA g m 2 fb-1 s = (m)2 [GeV2] • Other variables (eg. difference  -polarizations) promising (hep-ph/0612166) Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  15. LHCb • The LHCb collaboration: • 619 Scientists • 46 Institutes • 14 Countries • Spain: • Universidade de Santiago de Compostela • Universitat de Barcelona - Universitat Ramon Llull Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  16. Detector overview Muon System RICHES: PID: K, separation VELO: primary vertex impact parameter displaced vertex 0.4 rad PileUp System x mrad Interaction region Calorimeters: PID: e,, 0 Trigger Tracker: p for trigger and Ksreco Tracking Stations: p of charged particles Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  17. A single-arm spectrometer? • (B), rad • (B), rad Direction of bb pairs: Pythia bb production cross-section: • Within LHCb acceptance: ~ 1012 b hadrons per year • ~104 more than in B factories pT (GeV) h b and b very close in direction, important for flavour tagging! Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  18. Experimental issues: A typical bb event: • Vertex reconstruction • Particle identification: distinguish Bdpp, Bs KK • Trigger, especially for hadronic final states • Mass resolution: distinguish Bs & Bd, reduce comb. bckgr. • Flavour tagging Dh~0.7 1 fm <L> ~ 8 mm Primary Vertex (PV): pp interaction Dh~1.4 B meson 1 IP B meson 2 Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  19. Vertex reconstruction

  20. Luminosity • Luminous region(within 1 sigma): • With nominal LHC lumi(1034 cm-2s-1): 23 interactions per bunch crossing  23 PVs • Difficult to find secondary vertices! • LHCb needs a lower luminosity: • Chosen to maximize the probability of a single interaction: 2 – 5 · 1032cm-2s-1 • 50 times lower than LHC design lumi • LHCb will probably reach its ‘design luminosity’ before ATLAS and CMS ~ 1 mm 5 cm Num. of pp collisions LHCb ~ Maximum for detector radiation Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  21. VErtexLOcator: VELO 21 stations 1 m Silicon sensors Interaction region R sensors R sensor: pitch: 38 μm - 103μm thickness: 300μm φ sensor: pitch: 39 μm - 98μm thickness: 300 μm f sensors 8mm Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  22. VELO VELO sensors • The closest to the beam, the less extrapolation distances, and the better IP and vertex resolution • But if too close: unstable beams at fill-up could damage detector • Solution: retractable detector • At 3 cm at beginning of fill • Moved to 8 mm when stable beams declared • Even though lower lumi, higher dose than ATLAS and CMS pixel detectors • Will have to replace in a few years RF Foil Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  23. VELO The 2 VELO modules are assembled: View of the foil separating the secondary vacuum of VELO sensors: Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  24. IP resolution • IP resolution is  1/pT, because of: • Multiple scattering produces dI 1/p for a given amount of material • Material traversed  1/cosq PV dIP≃ 14mm ± 35 mm/pT Signal B IP 1/pt distribution for B tracks Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  25. Secondary vertex resolution Relevant resolution PV resol (~X VELO tracks): σz=47 μm, σx=8 μm z=168 m Bs→DsK B lifetime: z coordinate: • Typical s: 37 fs(2p·Dms-1~350 fs) • ATLAS: 83 fs, CMS: 77 fs • CDF ~ 87 fsfor fully reconstructed decays PRL 242003 (2006) Bs→J/yf Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  26. Particle identification

  27. K-p separation • B physics require separation between final states with p and K • Best example: extraction of g from ACP in BsK+K- and Bd p+p-. What happens if we are p-K blind? • If all tracks considered to be pions: m(B0) = 5279 MeV m(Bs) = 5367 MeV

  28. RICH detectors • Ring Imaging Cherenkov detectors measure angle of Cherenkov emission, a function of velocity of particles • Different radiating materials separate p-K in two different ranges of momentum: Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  29. RICHes 80mm 120mm RICH 1 Hybrid Photo Diodes Typical event (RICH2): HPD arrays out of acceptance. Each containing a 1024 Si pixel Granularity: 2.5 x 2.5 mm2 Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  30. Performance of RICHes Kaon identification: • Effect on Bdp+p-: Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  31. And some RICH pictures… RICH2 HPD Column: RICH2 in the pit: Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  32. MASS RESOLUTION

  33. Momentum measurement • Momentum is measured from curvature of tracks between VELO and main tracking stations • The LHCb (hot) magnet: • ∫B dL = 4 Tm • Field reversal to reduce syst. effects on CP asymmetries

  34. Tracking stations Outer Tracker : 450 cm 595 cm • Occupancy: Inner tracker Silicon detector, 198m pitch Outer tracker 4 layers of straws (0o,-5o,5o,0o) each Track 5mm straws e- e- e- 3 stations (T1 –T3) pitch 5.25 mm e- e- Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  35. Tracking performance • Typical bb event: • 20-50 hits assigned to each long track • 98.7% correctly • For tracks with p>12GeV: • Efficiency >95% • Ghost rate <7% • Robust: if track multiplicity x2… • efficiency 91% • ghost rate 14% Note 1-D missing! Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  36. Mass resolution Momentum resolution: • Mass resolution: Bs m+m- sm=18 MeV dp/p ≃0.35%–0.55% p distribution for B tracks • CMS: 36 MeV (ms have large p) • ATLAS: 77 MeV(lower ∫BdL) • N combinatorial background  sm! Resolution dominated by multiple scattering (over detector resolution) up to 80 GeV Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  37. Trigger

  38. The LHC environment Particles reconstructed • Relevant rates: • LHC: 40 MHz, 2 bunches full: 30 MHz • At least 2 tracks in acceptance 10 MHz • bb:100 KHz • Decay of one B in acceptance:15 KHz • relevant decays BR ~10-4 – 10-9 • cc: 600 KHz Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  39. Trigger overview 10 MHz Calo+ Muon system L0: hightpT+ not too busy • On custom boards • Fully synchr. (40 MHz), 4ms latency Pileup system 1 MHz High Level Trigger (HLT) In PC farm with ~1800 CPUs Refine pT measurement + IP cuts Reconstruct in(ex)clusive decays Whole detector Full detector available (full flexibility) (but no time to process everything for every event). Average latency: 2 ms (ATLAS, CMS: ~ 100 Hz, 1Mb/evt) ~2KHz, ~35Kb/evt Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  40. L0 ET triggers • Fast search for ‘high’ pT particles • Calorimeter: look for high ET candidates in three categories: e±, g and p0 • In regions of 2x2 cells • Particle identification from • ECAL / HCAL energy • PS and SPD information • Muons: • Straight line search in M2-M5 • Look for compatible hits in M1 • Momentum measurement 20% Scintillator Pad Detector (SPD) ECAL HCAL Pre-Shower Detector Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  41. L0: cuts on global variables Interaction region • Require minimum total ET in HCAL • Reduces background from halo-muons • Rejection of multi-PV and busy events: • They tend to fake B signatures (IP, high combinatorics) • Busy events spend trigger resources without being more signal-like • Better throw them early and use bandwidth to relax other cuts • Two ways: • SPD multiplicity • Pileup system: 2 dedicated VELO layers upstream of interaction region that allow a fast search of PVs Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  42. L0 performance • Bandwidth share: • Effinciency (off-line selected evts): e ~ 50 % The only B trigger in ATLAS & CMS, but with pT cut ~ 6 GeV L0 is the bottle-neck of hadronic channels L0 increases B purity 1%  3% Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  43. Trigger: HLT • Disk Hadr. alley ECAL alley Muon alley … Exclusive selections HLT • Robust scheme: • Understand and calibrate trigger • Reduction of systematics, ex: flavour tagging Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  44. Example: di-hadron alley • L0 hadron: 700 KHz • Reconstruct Velo2D, IP cut (~75mm): 350kHz (~3 candidates) • Reco Velo3D, match to L0 object, IP cut (~75mm): 250 kHz (~2 cands.) • Match to T stations, pT>2GeV: 40 kHz (~1.2 cands.) • RecoVelo3D tracks with IP forming good vertex with 1st candidate • Match them to T stations and cut at pT>1 GeV:8-5 kHz (~1 cand. vertex)

  45. Bandwidth share Calibration and systematic studies Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  46. Trigger performance • Overall efficiencies (on offline reconstructed evts): • Hadronic (egBh+h- ): 25 – 35 % • Radiative: 30 – 40% • With dimuons (egBs→J/y(m+m-)f(K+K-)): 60 – 70 % Unbiased B • The unbiased B sample: • 900 Hz of inclusive B  mX, 550 Hz true • ~ 1.5109 fully contained, m-tagged and decay-unbiased B mesons / 2fb-1 • Tagging enhanced: eeff ~ 0.15 • This trigger only: factor of ~10higher yield in BB than B-factories for data mining! PV Trigger m (BR xx) Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  47. Flavour tagging

  48. Flavour tagging • Flavour tagging: determination of the flavour of the signal B at production • At a hadroncollider, information can be obtained from: hadron from fragmentation or B** decay (K±, p±) Same side (SS) Signal B PV vertex charge Dx Tagging B Opposite side (OS) kaon (K±) lepton (m±, e±) Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  49. Wrong tags… • Flavour tagging algorithms are not perfect! • Backgrounds in tagger selections • The tagging B can itself oscillate (unlike in B-factories): • 40% B±,10% baryons: no oscillation  • 40% Bd:Dmd ~ Gd oscillated 17.5% • 10% Bs:Dms >> Gs  oscillated 50%  • Characterization of tagging algorithms: • etag: fraction of events in which the algorithm gives a tag • w  NW/(NW+NR): wrong tag fraction • eeff  etag(1-2w)2: effective tagging efficiency. • Indicates the reduction in number of events that would account for the same statistical degradation as the fraction of wrong tags Average mixing probability: 13% Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

  50. Opposite-side tagging (OS) Dx - Tagging B(b) K+ - n m+, e+ • Tagging objects : • Selection tuned to optimize eeff: vertex charge Momentum and IPS cuts: Particle Id: Hugo Ruiz – Winter Meeting Santiago 2007

More Related