1 / 40

Recent Belle and Babar Results on CP violation in B 0 → f K s

Recent Belle and Babar Results on CP violation in B 0 → f K s. Slides extracted from : T. Browder’s talk at LP2003 Y.Sakai’s talk at CERN on 13 October 2003 + my personal comments. Yuehong Xie 31 October 2003. Today’s focus: New physics or not?. b → s penguin.

elliot
Download Presentation

Recent Belle and Babar Results on CP violation in B 0 → f K s

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. Recent Belle and Babar Results on CP violation in B0→ f Ks Slides extracted from : T. Browder’s talk at LP2003 Y.Sakai’s talk at CERN on 13 October 2003 + my personal comments Yuehong Xie 31 October 2003

  2. Today’s focus: New physics or not? b→s penguin LP2003: Belle B0fKs “sin2f1” = -0.96  0.50 3.5 σ from SM +0.09 -0.11 LP2003: Babar B0fKs “sin2b” = +0.45  0.43  0.07 2.1 σ discrepancy WA Average B0fKs “sin2b” = -0.14  0.33 2.6 σ from SM b→ccs WA NEW 2003 WA: b  ccs “sin2b” = +0.736  0.049

  3. Kobayasi-Maskawa Scheme CPV: due to a complex phase in the quark mixing matrix CKM matrix Important element of SM Unitarity triangle * VudVub Wolfenstein representation 2 (a) * Vtd Vtb 3 (g) 1(b) Vcd Vcb *

  4. G ® - G ® 0 0 ( B f ) ( B f ) º d CP d CP A CP G ® + G ® 0 0 f ( B ) ( B f ) CP d CP d J/y Vcb B0 Vcs * KS  mixing J/y V* td Vtb 2(a) B0 B0 1(b) 3(g) KS V* Vtb td - Mixing Induced CPV (bccs) B0 fcp fcp = B0 mixing B0 B0 = -xfsin2f1 sin(DmDt)

  5. - q p 2Iml 1+ |l|2 |l|2 -1 |l|2 +1 A A S = A = l = xf SM: bs Penguin phase = (cc) K0 - CP Violation in b sqq ACP = S sin(DmDt) + A cos (DmDt) C(Babar)=-A(Belle) Mixing induced CPV Direct CPV f + + New Physics with New Phase Sbs¹ Sbc , A can¹ 0 Sbs=sin2f1, A=0 “b  ccs: sin2f1” (SM reference)deviation

  6. Flavor Tagging l+ u l- p+ ー d n ー n W+ ー W- c ー ー s ー K+ L b B0 d D* p- slow High-p (primary), low-p (secondary) leptons Strangeness (b  c  s) Fast p, slow p Figure of merit(Q) =ε(1-2 w)2a.k.a effective tagging efficiency Babar: Neural Net based approach, 28.1±0.7 % Belle: Likelihood based approach, 28.7±0.5 %

  7. Flavor Tagging Performance _ B0  D*ln B0 –B0 mixing (OF-SF)/(OF+SF) ~(1-2 w)cos(Δm t) 12 r-bins, 6 divisions in r. B0 and B0 tags treated separately. _ • Efficiency > 99.5% • eeffective = 28.7  0.5% determined by data

  8. Belle 2003 sin2f1: CP samples - 140 fb-1 , 152 x 106 BB pairs 81% CP=+1 2911 events are used in the fit (CP=-1)

  9. sin2f1 Fit Result Preliminary 5417 events @ 140 fb-1 (78 fb-1:0.719±0.074±0.035) consistent with no direct CPV

  10. Compare CP odd and CP even sin2f1 0.730.06 CP=-1 opposite! CP=+1 0.800.13 (statistical errors only) (all r-bins)

  11. Systematic Uncertainty Small uncertainty in analysis procedure stat err. = 0.057

  12. Measurement of sin2f1 (BaBar 2002) 81 fb-1 CP Eigenstate Sample hep-ex/0207042, PRL 89, 201802 (2002)

  13. Current Resultsfor sin2f1 sin2f1 (Belle 2003,140 fb-1) =0.733±0.057±0.028 sin2f1 (BaBar 2002, 81 fb-1)=0.741±0.067±0.033 (no updated yet) sin2f1 (New 2003 World Av.) = 0.736±0.049 [PDG2003: 0.731 ±0.056] Good SM reference

  14. b  s Penguin Decays mode Br(K0: x10-6)* B0fK0 7.8  1.1 theoretically clean B0h’K0 65.2  6.0 unexpected large Br B0 K+K-K0 25.2  2.7 CP=+1: 1.03  0.15  0.05 cf) B0 J/yK0 850 50 much smaller than Golden mode f + e.g.) squark penguin [* HFAG LP03 averages]

  15. Hunting for phases from new physics 110 fb-1 70±9 Theoretically cleanest example: 140 fb-1 68±11 Belle In the SM, sin(2φ1)eff = sin(2φ1) (Bψ KS )

  16. BaBar 2003:CPV in Bφ KS BaBar 2003: 110 fb-1 (A=0.38±0.37±0.12) BaBar 2003: sin2φ1eff (φ KS) = +0.45±0.43±0.07

  17. BaBar 2003:Bφ KS Systematic Issues sin2φ1eff (φ KS) = -0.18±0.51±0.09 81 fb-1: (A=0.80±0.38±0.12) sin2φ1eff (φ KS) = +0.45±0.43±0.07 110 fb-1: (A=0.38±0.37±0.12) Data size increased and was reprocessed. Extensive checks with data and Toy MC. The large change is attributed to a 1σ statistical fluctuation.

  18. BaBar 2003:Bφ KS Systematic Issues Systematics are small and well understood from bc cbar s studies

  19. My comment: Direct CP violation in B±φ K± Acpdir(B±f K±) =+0.04  0.09  0.01 (hep-ex/0309025) Compared with Acpdir(B0f Ks) = +0.38  0.37  0.12 Model independent parameterization (R. Fleischer, hep-ph/0103121 ) [Acpdir(B±f K±) + Acpdir(B0f Ks)]/2 = o(1) + o(l2) [Acpdir(B±f K±) - Acpdir(B0f Ks)]/2= o(l) + o(l2) NPI=0 SM NPI=1 SM Higher precision of A measurement is needed to distinguish new physics from SM contribution

  20. p+p- B0→h’KS p+p-h,rg gg p+p- B0→f KS K+K- p+p- B0→K+K-KS (K+K-¹ f) Penguin: B0h’KS ,fKS ,K+K-KS Nsig(fKS)=68(64%) 106 ev Nsig(K+K-KS)= 199(55%) 361 ev CP=even 103  16% Nsig(h’KS)=244(58%) 421 ev ∫L dt = 140 fb-1

  21. Fit Results Fit sin2f1 B0 fKS B0K+K-KS B0h’KS

  22. Comparison of 78/140fb-1

  23. Systematic Errors

  24. fKs K+K- mass Bφ KS : Systematic Effect of Backgrounds with CPV CP in the background: (7.2±1.7)% K+K- KS (measured) +1.9 : (1.6 )% f0 KS (CP=+1) -1.5 Effects: included in the systematic error S: +0.001/-0.084 Correlation between A and S ? A = -0.15 ±0.29±0.07 ±10MeV If A is fixed to zero, -xfS = -0.99±0.50 • [cf) K+K-KS: +0.54 ± 0.24, hKS: +0.43 ± 0.27]

  25. fKs : Dt distribution Poor tags Good tags

  26. Belle 2003: CP Asymmetry in Bφ KS 140 fb-1 Poor flavor tags Good flavor tags

  27. Belle 2003: CP Asymmetry in Bφ KS 140 fb-1 Belle (A=-0.15±0.29±0.07) +0.09 Belle: sin2φ1eff = -0.96 ±0.50 -0.11 3.5σ off Current WA: sin(2φ1)=0.731±0.056

  28. fKs : sideband asymmetry

  29. B±φ K± Control Sample -xfS No sin-like asymmetry. [ cf) B+ hK+: -xfS = +0.10 ± 0.14 ]

  30. Lifetime Check consistent with PDG values t = 1.537 0.015 B0 t = 1.671 0.018 B

  31. Toy MC Check : fKs [other modes are also reasonable]

  32. Significance • B0K+K-KS, h´KS • Consistent with sin2f1. sin2f1 • B0  f KS • Likelihood curve • 3.5s deviation • from 0.731 (PDG2003) Belle claims “hint for new physics”

  33. My comment on significance What is the uncertainty of the 3.5 s deviation from SM? 1.Theory uncertainty in SM is in the order of o(l2) (see page 38) 3.5 → 3.5 ± ? 2. Statistical fluctuation of “3.5” itself should be reported. From p31, s(d(S)) ≈ 0.1 + 0.9 -0.6 Number of s from SM:3.5 +0.9 -0.6 ± ? ) sdeviation from SM Final report: ( 3.5

  34. “sin2f1” 2002 Status

  35. “sin2f1” 2003 Status “SM” Av = -0.14±0.33 (2.6s away)

  36. _ Summary of CPV in b(c c d) decays: Old Belle value used sin(2φ1eff ) Errors are large for these modes so that it is difficult to verify whether there is large penguin pollution. There is a 2.5 σ “hint” for penguin pollution in Babar’s result for BD* D*

  37. Sensitivity to new physics phases The “Killer App” for the super B Factory

  38. My comment: Precision requirement Acpmix (B0f Ks) - Acpmix (B0J/y Ks) = o(1) + o(l) + o(l2) NPI=1 NPI=0 SM (R. Fleischer, hep-ph/0103121 ) An experimental precision of O(l2) for measurement of mixing induced CP asymmetry is needed to distinguish between SM and new physics contribution in B0f Ks ! Can the B Factories reach this precision? Hopefully no! Can the super B factory do the work? Probably yes, if there will be a B factory one day which will be really super. How much better will LHCb do the work? To be demonstrated …

  39. My comment: credibility • Belle: • Detailed report and many cross checks • Consistent result when using bigger data sample • Lower background with lower efficiency • the 3.5 s deviation includes neither SM theory uncertainty, which is about a few percent, nor fluctuation of error on S • Babar: • No detailed report • More than 1s change toward SM in 2003; • Higher background and higher efficiency • Helicity angle of f is accounted for in the likelihood to distinguish between f KS and combinatorial background, including K+K-KS.

  40. Personal feeling • Statistics for b →s penguin modes are very limited • Purity for b →s penguin is ~ 60%; it is on average >90% for ccs channels. • There is indeed a trend to have a smaller effective sin(2b) in B decays with dominating or big penguin contribution. • So far it is still an experimental problem! Discrepancy between Babar, Belle and SM can still be explained as fluctuation. • Need a huge increase of statistics and more careful study of background, to establish a discovery of new physics or converge to SM!

More Related