1 / 26

Current Status of the CKM (UT Sides) Measurements

CLEO. Current Status of the CKM (UT Sides) Measurements. Giampiero Mancinelli University of Cincinnati BEACH 2006, Lancaster, UK. The CKM Matrix. V= Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa Unitary Matrix Determined by 4 real parameters: l ~0.22 A~0.83 h r.

uyen
Download Presentation

Current Status of the CKM (UT Sides) Measurements

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. CLEO Current Status of the CKM (UT Sides) Measurements Giampiero Mancinelli University of Cincinnati BEACH 2006, Lancaster, UK

  2. The CKM Matrix V=Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa Unitary Matrix Determined by 4 real parameters: l~0.22 A~0.83 h r Prog. Theor. Phys. 49, 652 (1973)

  3. Unitarity Triangle   Sides complementary to angles |Vub/Vcb| complementary to sin2b GOAL: Overconstrain the Apex of the Unitarity Triangle Area proportional to amount of CP violation Angles measured from CP violating asymmetries See previous talks by Marco Bracko, David Hutchcroft, Alexei Garmash Sides measured with rates of various B decays

  4. B Mixing a g b PRD 73, 012004 (2006) new! Asymmetry: B factories: Bd only Δmd= oscillation frequency

  5. Bs Mixing 2006 Probability of random fluctuation ~0.5% Dec 2005 See tomorrow’s talks by Giuseppe Salamanna, James Walder and Kin Yip for details preliminary PDG 2006 Amplitude scan: P(t) ~ (1±ADcosDmst) Fit for A at different Dms: true Dms at A=1, else A~0

  6. |Vtd|/|Vts| from Dms new! See Guillelmo Gomez-Ceballos’s talk, FPCP 2006 QCD corrections ~cancel in ratio preliminary

  7. |Vtd|/|Vts| from bgdg/bgsg d,s Vtd*,Vts* z= 0.850.10 = flavor-SU(3) breaking between r, w and K* hep-ex/0506079 sub to PRL Belle DR= 0.100.10 Annihilation correction ~ 0, small impact BABAR PRL 94 011801 (2005) 90%CL

  8. |Vcb| and |Vub| from BgXc,bln CLEO theoretical input Semileptonic B Decays EXCLUSIVE INCLUSIVE Efficiency good poor Signal/BG poor good |Vub/Vcb| < 0.15 THEORETICAL DIFFICULTIES Stone, LepPho83 (PRL 50, 881 (1983)) Hadron level Parton level

  9. |Vub| Inclusive Dominant error s(mb)~1% Non-perturbative term suppressed by 1/mb2 Perturbative term known to as2 E = lepton energy mX = hadron system mass q2 = nmass squared Operator Product Expansion predicts: Total rate can’t be measured! Partial rates g non-perturbative effects (1/mb) g need to know Shape Functions Much needed Kinematic Selection

  10. Inclusive BgXcln Electron energy, hep-ex/0508056 Hadronic mass, hep-ex/0509013 140 fb-1 140 fb-1 See also: mX2 (GeV2/c4) E (GeV) E (GeV) PLB 614, 27 (2005) Lepton Energy and Hadronic Mass Spectra measured at BABAR, Belle, CDF,CLEO, DELPHI Moments Moments preliminary

  11. Global OPE Fit Exp HQ Gsl Buchmüller, Flächer: hep-ph/0507253 Gambino, Uraltsev: Eur. Phys. J. C34 (2004) 181 OPE predicts G and Xnas functions of Vcb, mb, mc and other non-perturbative parameters Each observable has a different dependence g Global Fit Egspectrum in B Xsgdecays connected directly to the SF (BABAR, Belle, CLEO) b -> sg • Based upon: • Babar: • PRD69, 111103 (2004) • PRD69, 111104 (2004) • PRD72, 052004 (2005) • hep-ex/0507001 • Belle: • PRL93, 061803 (2004) • hep-ex/0508005 • CLEO: • PRD70, 032002 (2004) • PRL87, 251807 (2001) • CDF: • PRD71, 051103 (2005) • DELPHI: • EPJ C45, 35 (2006) s(|Vcb|) < 2% s(mb) < 1% s(mc) = 5% fnew! fnew!

  12. |Vub| from Lepton Endpoint BABAR Data b uln MC BGb cln MC signal data BG subtracted Data MC signalb uln Measure partial BF where S/N is “better” (large pl) new! g BABAR: PRD 73:012006Belle: PLB 621, 28CLEO: PRL 88:231803 Measured lepton spectrum Extract |Vub| from BLNP calculations: Bosch-Lange-Neubert-Paz Nucl. Phys. B 699, 335 (2004) SF from OPE fit Theo from Lange et al. PRD72:073006

  13. Inclusive with Hadronic Tag P+=Ex-|px| 253M BB BABAR:hep-ex/0507017Belle: PRL 95:241801 • Fully reconstructed B in hadronic decays • Use the recoiling Bwith known charge and momentum First measurement Belle: PRL 92,101801(2003) See also:

  14. |Vub| Inclusive Summary l b B u n q q BLNP: Shape Function Vub = (4.45  0.20exp 0.18SF 0.19theo)x 10-3 Andersen-Gardi: DGE Vub = (4.41  0.20exp 0.20theo )x 10-3 PRD72:073006(2005) new! g JHEP 0601:097(2006)

  15. Reduced Model Dependence |Vub| exp uncertainty reconstructed B theory uncertainties Optimal choice: 1.67 mX cut (GeV/c2) v lepton X Before BG subtraction Combine bguln and bgsg in order for the SF to cancels out 80 fb-1 Leibovich, Low, Rothstein: PLB 486, 86 (2000) Neubert: PRD 49 4623 (1994) new! BABAR: hep-ex/0601046 After BG subtraction preliminary LLR : MX < 1.67 GeV: |Vub| = (4.43 ± 0.38stat± 0.25syst± 0.29theo) 10-3 vs OPE: MX < 2.50 GeV: |Vub| = (3.84 ± 0.70stat± 0.30syst± 0.10theo) 10-3 72% 98% acceptance

  16. |Vub|, |Vcb| Exclusive Form Factors are needed: theoretically calculable at kinematical limits but empirical extrapolations are needed to extract Vcb, Vub Bgpln Form Factor BgD*ln G(s) known phase space factorF(s) Form Factor (FF)s = D* boost in B rest frame F(s) can be expressed as a function of: Theoretical parameters: r2, R1, R2 Experimental observables: ql, qV, c gfitted as a function of s Hashimoto et al, PRD 66, 014503 (2002) Caprini-Lellouch-Neubert, Nucl. Phys. B 530, 153 (1998)

  17. BgD*ln Form Factors and |Vcb| s cosql Average 37.6  0.8 c2/dof = 30.2/14 cosqV c New BaBar FF • R1 and R2 improved by a factor 5 over previous CLEO measurement BABAR: hep-ex/0602023 CLEO: PRL 76 (1996) 3898 new! preliminary |Vcb| = (40.9  0.9  1.5F(1))  10-3 Good agreement with inclusive Belle: PRD 72,051109(2005) See also:

  18. Untagged Bgpln data MC signal signal withwrong p b uv b cv other bkg. Reconstruct Bgplninferring the neutrino from the missing 4-momentum of the event. Fit: BABAR: PRD 72:051102 Extract q2 spectrum and compare with FF models: LQCD/LCSR favored over ISGW2(*) See also: CLEO: PRD68, 072003 (2003) (*)Isgur, Scora, Grinstein,Wise, PRD 52, 2783 (1995)

  19. Bgpln with Semileptonic Tag 253 fb-1 p0ln p-ln d/dq2 /tot x 104 d/dq2 /tot x 104 • — Ball’01 • — ISGW2  — UKQCD FF discrimination q2 BABAR: hep-ex/0506064 BABAR: hep-ex/0506065 Belle: hep-ex/0508018 Belle: hep-ex/0604024 new! g D(*)ln large BR, but 2 n in the event Request back-to-back-ness of Bs assuming mB and mn=0 preliminary p-n Signal region: 0 < xB2 < 1 r-n q2

  20. Bgpln with Hadronic Tag Fully reconstruct one B in hadronic decays and analyze the recoiling B: One n (all missing mass) Low statistics because of full reconstruction High phase-space acceptance g reduced model dependence preliminary BF (B  ℓ ) = (1.28  0.23stat  0.16syst)  10-4 hep-ex/0507085 211 fb-1 m2miss [GeV/c2] m(0) [GeV/c2] Tag methods becoming competitive

  21. |Vub| Exclusive (Bgpln) Summary tagged FF LCSR SL tag LQCD untagged LQCD quenched LQCD Incl |Vub|(BLNP) More BABAR, Belle, CLEO measurements available with r, w, h… Experimental error competitive with Inclusive FF limit precision of Exclusive Measurements Exclusive and Inclusive agree within such precision

  22. B+t+nt Helicity suppressed (much less than e,m) B decay constant new! hep-ex/0604018, sub to PRL e+ 21.2 ev (4S) B- B+ ne n n B-X B++, +e+e Reconstruct one B (Btag) in BtagD(*)[p,r,a1,Ds(*)] 680k tags, 55% pure Select candidates for 5 t decay modes (~81% of Gtot) Unassigned calorimeter energy (Eextra) mostly from combinatorial background Eextra Using |Vub|=(4.380.33)x10-3 from HFAG PRL95, 212001 (2005)

  23. B+t+ntand |Vub|/|Vtd| No signal at BABAR new! PRD 73:057101 (2006) fB < 0.34 GeV Given CKM, constrains SUSY tanb = ratio of VEVs in 2 Higgs doublet model Improved lattice calculations

  24. Unitarity Triangle: CP vs CP Fit with CP conserving vs CP violation quantities

  25. Unitarity Triangle: is it all consistent? Sides against all others: Fit results with sides only |Vub| inclusive (*) vs exclusive (+) vs UT fit

  26. Conclusions All results are very consistent with each other The SM stands very (amazingly?) strong Will it stand the next 4 years? 2010?

More Related