1 / 13

Update of ppg at large angle (LNF 20/02/2004) See: C.Bini, S.Ventura KLOE Memo 284

Update of ppg at large angle (LNF 20/02/2004) See: C.Bini, S.Ventura KLOE Memo 284 C.Bini, B.Di Micco KLOE Memo 285 (1) Results of the fit (2) Forward-Backward asymmetry (3) Upper limit on h  p + p -. (1) Results of the fit. N(Q) = K  [

melia
Download Presentation

Update of ppg at large angle (LNF 20/02/2004) See: C.Bini, S.Ventura KLOE Memo 284

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. Update of ppg at large angle (LNF 20/02/2004) See: C.Bini, S.Ventura KLOE Memo 284 C.Bini, B.Di Micco KLOE Memo 285 (1) Results of the fit (2) Forward-Backward asymmetry (3) Upper limit on h p+p-

  2. (1) Results of the fit N(Q) = K  [ FISR(Q, Mr, Gr, a, b) + FFSR(Q) + Ff0(Q, gfKK, R, mf0)  FINT(Q) + gFrp(Q) + dF3p(Q) ] K = fcoll(Q)  e(Q)  L  b fcoll(Q) = correction for collinear radiation (EVA) e(Q) = efficiency L = integrated luminosity (349 pb-1) b = bin size (1.2 MeV) Results stability checked vs.: Bin size (1.2, 2.4, 6.0, 12.0 MeV) First point (280 to 660 MeV) Last point (996 to 1015 MeV)

  3. 3p background (surviving • the cuts): •  p+p-p0 - MC based abs. normalisation  d • rp background: •  rp , r  pg - Achasov param. - PDG abs. normalisation  g - No interference (??)

  4. - interference no interference + interference

  5. Table with fit results: compare the 3 hypotheses; for fit0 hyp. stability estimate (second error)

  6. Attempt to fit “forcing” f0 p0p0 KLOE parameters: Fit0 c2 = 3700 Fit- c2 = 1313

  7. f0 p+p- after subtraction (red) vs. f0  p0p0 “raw” spectrum (blue) 2 possible explanations: (1) p0p0g spectrum has “another contribution” (2) p+p-g has “another interference scheme”

  8. (2) Forward-backward asymmetry p+p- system: odd terms (green) and even terms (brown) A(ISR) C-odd A(FSR)  C-even A(f0)  C-even |A(tot)|2 = |A(ISR)|2 + |A(FSR)|2 + |A(f0)|2 + 2Re[A(ISR) A(FSR)] + 2Re[A(ISR) A(f0)] + 2Re[A(FSR) A(f0)]  Asymmetry in p+p-q angle (depending on the cuts)

  9. The integrated FB-asymmetry is (two definitions):

  10. Comparison with MC: Eva + Geanfi reconstruction: (red) data (triangles) MC gener. (open circles) MC recon. • data-MC discrepancy below 700 MeV • Clear f0 effect • Data > MC between 700 and 900 MeV

  11. f0 signal in M(pp) spectrum and in FB asymmetry

  12. (3) Upper limit for h p+p- • Expected signal: • Gaussian m = 547.3 MeV • s = 1.33 MeV • Ns = -22  24 Ns < 21.1 (90%C.L.) Nh = 1.43  107 (from 3p0 counting)  BR( h  p+p-) < 8.9  10-6 • Comments: • Factor 37 improvement respect to previous limit • The negative fluctuation helps !

  13. Conclusions: Perspectives for publication and presentation at conferences: (1) The fit of the M(pp) spectrum is in “final shape”; (2) The FB-asymmetry reinforces the f0 signal BUT does not add any further insight: needs “theoretical support”. (3) The upper limit is also in “final shape”: discussion on the way to extract the limit are welcome.

More Related