Shaking Penguins & Boxes at LHCb Lyon, le 30 Octobre 2013 Yasmine Amhis LAL, Orsay France If you have questions :

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Studies of open heavy flavour production at LHCb Artur Ukleja (The Andrzej Sołtan Institute for Nuclear Studies, Warsaw) on behalf of the LHCb Collaboration.
Advertisements

Title Gabriella Sciolla Massachusetts Institute of Technology Representing the BaBar Collaboration Beauty Assisi, June 20-24, 2005 Searching for.
1 Rare Decays of B Hadrons at CDF Matthew Jones October 3, 2005.
ICFP 2005, Taiwan Colin Gay, Yale University B Mixing and Lifetimes from CDF Colin Gay, Yale University for the CDF II Collaboration.
16 May 2002Paul Dauncey - BaBar1 Measurements of CP asymmetries and branching fractions in B 0   +  ,  K +  ,  K + K  Paul Dauncey Imperial College,
DPF Victor Pavlunin on behalf of the CLEO Collaboration DPF-2006 Results from four CLEO Y (5S) analyses:  Exclusive B s and B Reconstruction at.
1 B s  J/  update Lifetime Difference & Mixing phase Avdhesh Chandra for the CDF and DØ collaborations Beauty 2006 University of Oxford, UK.
Heavy Flavor Production at the Tevatron Jennifer Pursley The Johns Hopkins University on behalf of the CDF and D0 Collaborations Beauty University.
Chris Barnes, Imperial CollegeWIN 2005 B mixing at DØ B mixing at DØ WIN 2005 Delphi, Greece Chris Barnes, Imperial College.
Peter Fauland (for the LHCb collaboration) The sensitivity for the B S - mixing phase  S at LHCb.
B Production and Decay at DØ Brad Abbott University of Oklahoma BEACH 2004 June 28-July 3.
B 0 s  J/   LHC review Nicolò Magini University and INFN, Firenze For the ATLAS, CMS and LHCb collaborations Oxford, 28 th September 2006 Beauty 2006.
Beauty 2006 R. Muresan – Charm 1 Charm LHCb Raluca Mureşan Oxford University On behalf of LHCb collaboration.
Measurement of the Branching fraction B( B  D* l ) C. Borean, G. Della Ricca G. De Nardo, D. Monorchio M. Rotondo Riunione Gruppo I – Napoli 19 Dicembre.
Donatella Lucchesi1 B Physics Review: Part II Donatella Lucchesi INFN and University of Padova RTN Workshop The 3 rd generation as a probe for new physics.
1 Results on CP Violation in B s Mixing [measurements of ϕ s and ΔΓ s ] Pete Clarke / University of Edinburgh & CERN Presentation on behalf of.
August 20, 2007 Charmless Hadronic B decays at BaBar1 Charmless Hadronic B Decays at BaBar Woochun Park University of South Carolina Representing the BaBar.
W properties AT CDF J. E. Garcia INFN Pisa. Outline Corfu Summer Institute Corfu Summer Institute September 10 th 2 1.CDF detector 2.W cross section measurements.
B c Results from CDF II Satyajit Behari (For the CDF Collab.) Johns Hopkins Univ., Baltimore,USA 23 rd Jul HEP2005 Europhysics Conference, Lisboa,
M. Adinolfi - University of Bristol1/19 Valencia, 15 December 2008 High precision probes for new physics through CP-violating measurements at LHCb M. Adinolfi.
B c mass, lifetime and BR’s at CDF Masato Aoki University of Tsukuba For the CDF Collaboration International Workshop on Heavy Quarkonium BNL.
RooFit toy MC sensitivity studies for  +  s and  m s from B s →D s  /K channels at LHCb Shirit Cohen NIKHEF MSc Colloquium May 11 th 2007.
1 Performance Studies for the LHCb Experiment Performance Studies for the LHCb Experiment Marcel Merk NIKHEF Representing the LHCb collaboration 19 th.
DIS 2004, Strbske Pleso,April LHCb experiment sensitivity to CKM phases and New Physics from mixing and CP violation measurements in B decays LHCb.
CP violation measurements with the ATLAS detector E. Kneringer – University of Innsbruck on behalf of the ATLAS collaboration BEACH2012, Wichita, USA “Determination.
Gavril Giurgiu, Carnegie Mellon, FCP Nashville B s Mixing at CDF Frontiers in Contemporary Physics Nashville, May Gavril Giurgiu – for CDF.
Prompt J/  and b ➝ J/  X production in pp collisions at LHCb Patrick Robbe, LAL Orsay & CERN, 7 Dec 2010 For the LHCb Collaboration KRUGER 2010 Workshop.
Pavel Krokovny Heidelberg University on behalf of LHCb collaboration Introduction LHCb experiment Physics results  S measurements  prospects Conclusion.
1 Rare Bottom and Charm Decays at the Tevatron Dmitri Tsybychev (SUNY at Stony Brook) On behalf of CDF and D0 Collaborations Flavor Physics and CP-Violation.
Radiative penguins at hadron machines Kevin Stenson University of Colorado.
Study of exclusive radiative B decays with LHCb Galina Pakhlova, (ITEP, Moscow) for LHCb collaboration Advanced Study Institute “Physics at LHC”, LHC Praha-2003,
Prospects for B  hh at LHCb Eduardo Rodrigues On behalf of the LHCb Collaboration CKM2008 Workshop, Rome, 9-13 September 2008 LHCb.
Charm Physics Potential at BESIII Kanglin He Jan. 2004, Beijing
LHCb: Xmas 2010 Tara Shears, On behalf of the LHCb group.
3/13/2005Sergey Burdin Moriond QCD1 Sergey Burdin (Fermilab) XXXXth Moriond QCD 3/13/05 Bs Mixing, Lifetime Difference and Rare Decays at Tevatron.
Sergey Burdin FNAL DØ Collaboration 8/12/2005 Chicago Flavor New Bs Mixing Result from DØ.
B Masses and Lifetimes at the Tevatron Satoru Uozumi University of Tsukuba Duke University.
M.N MinardAspen Winter Meeting LHCb Physics Program On behalf of LHCb collaboration M.N Minard (LAPP) Status LHCb ( R.Jacobson) Single arm spectrometer.
Hot Topics at D0 David Buchholz (Northwestern Univ) On behalf of the DØ Collaboration.
Lake Louise Winter Institute Outlook:  Introduction  LHCb performance  Radiative decays: CP violation Bs  Φγ  Backward-forward Asymmetry B 
1 EPS03, July 17-23, 2003Lorenzo Vitale Time dependent CP violation studies in D(*)D(*) and J/ψ K* Lorenzo Vitale INFN Trieste On behalf of BaBar and Belle.
By Henry Brown Henry Brown, LHCb, IOP 10/04/13 1.
1 Heavy Flavor Physics At the Tevatron Cheng-Ju S. Lin (Fermilab ) Aspen Winter Conference Aspen, Colorado 13 February 2006.
LHCb performance for B s  J/   and B d  J/  K s decays Jeroen van Hunen.
CP violation in B decays: prospects for LHCb Werner Ruckstuhl, NIKHEF, 3 July 1998.
RECENT RESULTS FROM THE TEVATRON AND LHC Suyong Choi Korea University.
Mike HildrethEPS/Aachen, July B Physics Results from DØ Mike Hildreth Université de Notre Dame du Lac DØ Collaboration for the DØ Collaboration.
B Production Cross Sections and Fragmentation Fractions at LHCb Laurence Carson (University of Santiago de Compostela) on behalf of the LHCb collaboration.
Hadronic B→DX Decays at LHCb and CDF Laurence Carson, Imperial College on behalf of the LHCb Collaboration CIPANP 2012, St. Petersburg,FL.
Julia Thom, FNALEPS 2003 Aachen Rare Charm and B decays at CDF Julia Thom FNAL EPS 7/18/2003 Tevatron/CDF Experiment Decay Rate Ratios and CP Asymmetries.
Jeroen van Hunen (for the LHCb collaboration) The sensitivity to  s and  Γ s at LHCb.
Sinéad Farrington University of Glasgow for the CDF Collaboration European Physical Society Aachen, 17 th -23 rd July 2003 B Lifetimes and Flavour Tagging.
Jessica Levêque Rencontres de Moriond QCD 2006 Page 1 Measurement of Top Quark Properties at the TeVatron Jessica Levêque University of Arizona on behalf.
1 The use of control channels in the analysis of the B s  μ + μ - decay Tuesday Meeting, 2 June 2009.
Prospects for at LHCb William Reece Imperial College London Physics at the LHC, 3 rd October 2008.
Beauty and charm at the LHC, Jeroen van Tilburg, FOM Veldhoven 2014 Jeroen van Tilburg Beauty and charm at the LHC: searches for TeV scale phenomena in.
CP Asymetries in the B s system Yasmine Amhis LAL, Orsay 16 Avril 2013 Diane Arbus.
Exotic Quarkonium Spectroscopy & Production Jane Nachtman on behalf of the CMS Collaboration University of Iowa, USA Charm 2013, 31 August – 4 Sept, 2013,
B s Mixing Results for Semileptonic Decays at CDF Vivek Tiwari Carnegie Mellon University on behalf of the CDF Collaboration.
Open and Hidden Beauty Production in 920 GeV p-N interactions Presented by Mauro Villa for the Hera-B collaboration 2002/3 data taking:
1 Rare B Decays At CDF Michael Weinberger (Texas A&M University ) For the CDF Collaboration DPF 2006 November 1, 2006.
1 outline ● Part I: some issues in experimental b physics ● why study b quarks? ● what does it take? ● Part II: LHCb experiment ● Part III: LHCb first.
Tree-level New Physics searches in semileptonic decays at Belle
Measurement of the phase of Bs mixing with Bs ϕϕ
Recent B physics results from BABAR and BELLE
Heavy Flavor Results from CMS
CP violation in the charm and beauty systems at LHCb
CP violation in Bs→ff and Bs → K*0K*0
Prospects for quarkonium studies at LHCb
B-physics at the LHC Beyond 2010, february
Presentation transcript:

Shaking Penguins & Boxes at LHCb Lyon, le 30 Octobre 2013 Yasmine Amhis LAL, Orsay France If you have questions :

Sometimes this is how a flavour physics talk in a conference sounds like… 2

3

What is the Process ? A tree, a penguin ? What is the Process ? A tree, a penguin ? What is the observable ? What does it probe ? SM, NP, QCD ? What does it probe ? SM, NP, QCD ? What is the statistics? Is it a rare decay ? What is the statistics? Is it a rare decay ? What is the topology ? Are you ever going to see it? What is the topology ? Are you ever going to see it? What about the systematics? Do we really care about it ? 4 Le Questionnaire de Proust

5 Let’s start shaking things Apologies, I won’t have time to discuss the other experiments….

LHC a Flavour Factory Large cross 7 TeV : o σ inel pp ~ 60 mb [JINST 7 (2012) P01010 o σ inel (pp  charm) ~ 6 mb [LHCb-CONF ] o σ inel (pp  beauty ) ~ 0.3 mb [PLB 694 (2010) 209] 6 Initial motivation for the design In high energy collisions, bb/cc pairs are produced predominantly in the forward or backward directions

The LHCb detector 7

8 Tracking Proper time measurement : Identify b-hadrons (cτ ~ 450 μm), also in the trigger Perform time dependent analyses. 21 modules r-φ sensors VELO active zone : 8mm from the LHC beam : retractable Invariant mass measurement : Identify the signal (B d and B s are only 90 MeV apart) Separate signal from background Δp/p ~ 0.4 %

Particle ID 99

10 Particle ID

11 EnergyBunch spacing Average number of visible interaction per bunch crossing Luminosity Design14 TeV25 ns cm -2 s TeV (σ 14TeV bb /2)50 ns cm -2 s TeV (σ 7TeV bb x 1.15 )50 ns cm -2 s -1 Working with pile up

LHCb detectors efficiency 12

Trigger System in /200 events contain B hadrons → we have to select only these! Hardware: High PT signals in calo and muon systems Software: global reconstruction (very close to offline) Software: partial reconstruction CharmHadr. BMuonic B Global efficiency ~10%~ 20%~80%

14 LHCb 600 people

Indirect Searches – Model Independent Searches Four examples of how to look for New Physics How can New Physics affect a phase ? How can New Physics enhance a suppressed decay ? How can New Physics affect angular observables ? How can New Physics affect a frequency? 15

Boxe diagram 16 Neutral B s meson

Boxe diagram 17 Neutral B s meson

Boxe diagrams 18 Time Evolution : Diagonalizing this Hamiltonian leads to two mass eigenstates with masses M H(L) and decay width Γ H(L) Neutral B s meson

The B 0 (s) neutral system Time Evolution Δm s = M H – M L, ΔΓ s = Γ H – Γ L, Γ s = (Γ L +Γ H )/2 19

Color Suppressed Tree & Penguin(s) When the B s decays… 20

21 ϕ s = ϕ s SM + ϕ s NP Measure relative phase difference ϕ s = ϕ M − 2 ϕ D between two “legs/paths/routes”. In SM + Ignoring penguins ϕ D ~ 0 ϕ s SM ~ ϕ M  is predominantly determined by arg(V ts )  is predicted to be small ~ [Charles et al. Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) ]  New Physics (NP) can add large phases: Phases phases

Theoretically : o b→ccs tree dominance leads to precise prediction of ϕ s in SM. o SP → VV, admixture of CP-odd and CP-even states, measure also ΔΓ s. Experimentally : o Relatively large branching ratio. o Easy to trigger on muons from J/ψ → μ + μ -. The Observables o 3 “P-wave” amplitudes of KK system ( A 0, A perp, A para ) o 1 “S-wave” amplitude (A s ) o 10 terms with all the interferences (see the next slide) o ϕ s, ΔΓ s,, Γ s … 22

How we work together ? 23

How we work together ? 24 Time Angles Flavour Tagging Mass

A few more words Time dependent Angular terms 25

A few more words Time dependent Angular terms 26

La Sainte Trinité du jour 27 ΓsΓs ϕsϕs ΔΓ s

28

Event selection 29 Simple cut based selection kinematics + particle identification Attempts to use MVA, but no significant improvement was observed

Selection Results About signal events with very high purity ! 30

31 Trigger Acceptance (*) “Unbiased” “Very biased” (*) C’est quand même une machine hadronique !

32 Mode acceptances on the decay time Total systematic error on the lifetime is 8.7 fs. Main effect due to the track reconstruction in the Velo. Partly due to the limited size of the control sample. Track Reconstruction Online and Offline Vertexing φ and PV Corrections needed:

33 Decay time resolution We measure from data using prompt J/ψ which decay at t = 0 ps triggered with the unbiased triggers. Model is a triple Gaussian. Width is found to be about 45 fs. sWeights extracted from J/ψ mass sWeights extracted from J/ψ mass fit

34 Angles and their acceptances Forward geometry of LHCb + selections cuts : distorted angular acceptance Determined using MC

35 Flavour Tagging Time dependent CP asymmetry needs to identify the initial flavour of reconstructed B s 0 mesons (initial state a b or b quark). Compare this to e + e - colliders: eD 2 ~ 30%

 m s from B s → D s  + Use flavour tagging to determine flavour at production, pion charge for flavour at decay Very high statistics Low background level Can resolve B s mixing frequency due to high boost 36

37

38

39

 m s from B s → D s  + 40

How can New Physics affect a Phase? CKM Elements Short Distance Contributions QCD corrections Input from Lattice 41

Revenons à nos moutons 42

43 Sticking all the pieces together Results I

44 ΔΓ s > 0 and Φ s compatible with SM – oh well ! Sticking all the pieces together Results II

Putting it all together 45

The Event ! 46 Example of a blind analysis

A very rare FCNC ? b s μ μ 47

A very rare FCNC ? b s μ μ 48

How do we measure a BR ? 49 Integrated luminosity bb cross section Fraction of b quarks that hadronize into a Bs Number of observed decay Efficiency Have large systematic errors

How do we measure a BR ? The trick is to normalize with respect to another decay with a very well known BR: Most of systematic uncertainties cancel in the ratio of efficiency This cancellation is very efficient if you have a normalization channel similar to your signal and selected in the same way! 50

51 The Master Plan Selection – Oppositely charged muons making a good vertex separated from the PV with m µµ in the range [4.9-6] GeV/c 2 – Loose cut on a MVA discriminant – Similar to control channels (B d/s → h + h -, B + →J/ψK + )

52 The Master Plan Selection – Oppositely charged muons making a good vertex separated from the PV with m µµ in the range [4.9-6] GeV/c 2 – Loose cut on a MVA discriminant – Similar to control channels (B d/s → h + h -, B + →J/ψK + ) Signal and background discrimination: – Boosted decision tree combining kinematic and geometrical properties – Invariant mass – Data driven calibration through control channels

53 The Master Plan Selection – Oppositely charged muons making a good vertex separated from the PV with m µµ in the range [4.9-6] GeV/c 2 – Loose cut on a MVA discriminant – Similar to control channels (B d/s → h + h -, B + →J/ψK + ) Signal and background discrimination: – Boosted decision tree combining kinematic and geometrical properties – Invariant mass – Data driven calibration through control channels Normalization using B + → J/ψK + and B d → Kπ

54 The Master Plan Selection – Oppositely charged muons making a good vertex separated from the PV with m µµ in the range [4.9-6] GeV/c 2 – Loose cut on a MVA discriminant – Similar to control channels (B d/s → h + h -, B + →J/ψK + ) Signal and background discrimination: – Boosted decision tree combining kinematic and geometrical properties – Invariant mass – Data driven calibration through control channels Normalization using B + → J/ψK + and B d → Kπ Background estimation – Combinatorial from m µµ sidebands – Double misidentified B d/s → h + h - (h=K,π) – Detailed study on various exclusive background

Mass resolution calibration Interpolation 55

Selection Signal PDF calibrated with B (s)  h + h’ - Main background: combinatorial from bb  μ + μ - X Contribution in signal window only B (s)  h + h’ - Exclusive background parameters used as priors in the fit (allowed to vary within 1σ) 56

Before unblinding 2012 (Up) (Bottom) 57

Branching ratio fit TeV data, 1.0 fb -1 8 BDT bins TeV data, 1.1 fb -1 7 BDT bins

59 B 0 → π - µ + B s → K - µ + B 0/+ → π 0/+ µµ B d/s → h + h’ - B s →  +  - B 0 →  +  - Total Voilà !

“La patience est amère mais son fruit est doux” 60

An other less rare FCNC 61

62 SM : C i : short distance Wilson coefficient (pert. ) O i : long distance operator (non-pert.) Right handed part (suppressed in SM) Interferences between all these diagrams: a large number of observables μ+μ+ μ-μ- K-K- π+π+ Ф B θKθK θℓθℓ System described by q 2 =M 2 (ℓℓ) 3 angles 62

63 As for the measurement of Φ s, the full description is complicated : ℓ+ℓ+ ℓ-ℓ- K π Ф B θℓθℓ θKθK The C (’) are encoded in the I i=1,..9

64 Ф transformation: if Ф < 0 then Ф = Ф+π : keeps cos (2Ф) and sin (2Ф) effects cancels cos(Ф) and sin(Ф) effects (including acceptance effects) ! B d →K * μμ 900 signal events Some tricks have to be found ! B s →J/ΨKK signal events B d →K * μμ 900 signal events

The Spectrum B d →K * μμ 900 signal events B s →J/ΨKK signal events 65

Four parameters to fit (F L, A FB, A T 2 and A T Im ) in bins of q 2 66

Four parameters to fit (F L, A FB, A T 2 and A T Im ) in bins of q 2 F L is the fraction of longitudinal polarization A FB is the lepton Forward Backward asymmetry The q 2 value at which A FB =0 is a sensitive probe to New Physics 67

Fit to the data 68

Fit to the data 69

More fits to the data ! 70

σ tension. What is happening here : - A fluctuation ? -How reliable is the theoretical prediction ? -Is it a sign of New Physics ? -Boh ! we have to understand what is happening.

72 Zupan

73 Zupan

Conclusions If New Physics is playing Hide and Go Seek with us, then it’s really playing well ! This being said, LHCb is the ideal seeker to look for New Physics in boxes and loops ! Thank you for your attention ! Merci à Justine,M.-H, Johannes, Pete mais aussi Stéphane & Stéphane. 74

Main references arXiv: arXiv: arXiv:

76

Systematiques 77

Semileptonic asymmetries 78 LHCb-CONF The observales : How we measure it : Yields 190 k B s 0 candidates in 1.0 fb -1 : Ds+Ds+ Ds-Ds-

79 Semileptonic asymmetries LHCb-CONF Delicate systematic treatement is needed : Obtain any corrections from data/control samples. Pay attention to the π and μ detection asymmetries. Swap magnetic field to help cancel effects.

Semileptonic asymmetries 80 LHCb-CONF Dominant systematic is from limited statistics in control sample. 3 tension with SM in the D0 result, not confirmed or excluded by LHCb. More decay modes, data are needed. But also the B 0 mode! We measure : a sl s = (-0.24 ± 0.54 ± 0.33 ) % Most precise measurement ! And also in agreement with SM as quoted in arXiv: a sl s = ( ± ) % and a sl d = ( ± ) % Not latest D0 result

81 We are now entering in the era of constraining Wilson’s coefficients ! Many preprints out in the last months on this subject (arXiv: , arXiv: …) BR(B→X s γ)B→K*μμB s →μμB →Kμμ Combined A CP (B→K*π 0 γ)B→X s llA CP (b →sγ) arXiv: v2 SM Large bins in q 2 still used (eg 1-6 GeV 2 ) More statistics and finer binning : larger sensitivity

82 How do we make the fit to the data ? Use the mass fit to extract sWeights  Need to model “only the signal component”. Split the data in 6 bins of m KK  increase sensitivity K + K − P-wave : Phase of Breit-Wigner amplitude increases rapidly across φ(1020) mass region K + K − S-wave: Phase of Flatté amplitude for f0(980) relatively flat (similar for non-resonance) Phase difference between S- and P-wave amplitudes Decreases rapidly across φ(1020) mass region “Pheno” work

To improve the precision 83 Combining with the J/Ψππ channel

B s/d →  +  - Excellent momentum and IP resolution: – δp/p ~0.4% to 0.6% for p=5-100 GeV/c – σ(IP) = 25  2GeV/c Excellent muon identification: – Use muon chambers information + global PID likelihood (RICH, CALO, MUON). – ε(µ → µ)~98%, ε(π → µ)~0.6%, ε(K → µ)~0.4%, ε(p → µ)~0.3% 84

85

86