1. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 1 Recent Results on B decays Y.Sakai (Belle/KEK) - Rare B Decay Highlights + Belle b  sqq Time-dependent CPV - -

2. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 2 Outline Introduction KEKB and Belle Detector [PEP-II/BaBar: by Giorgi] New Results on Rare decays (Belle/BaBar) (Highlights) Updated/New results on b  s TCPV from Belle Contributed papers available Belle: http://belle.kek.jp/conferences/ICHEP2004/ BaBar: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/BFROOT/ www/Public/ichep2004/ Apology; cannot cover all of the many interesting results from the parallel sessions [Results are preliminary unless references are given]

3. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 3 B Decays & the SM Electro-weak Hadrons Quark level Final state QCD/Lattice New Resonances QCD/Lattice New Resonances b-quark: Heavy  variety of decay modes Rich field for fundamental SM parameters  1   2   3  V td V tb V cd V cb V ud V ub * * *

4. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 4 B decays & New Physics Experimental measurements SM predictions agree? Deeper understanding New Physics ? Yes No Key point: A NP ~ A SM (small/forbidden) b ts,d g, ,Z W Penguin b xs,d + New particle, Phase

5. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 5 KEKB Collider ~1 km in diameter Mt. Tsukuba KEKB Belle 8 GeV e - x 3.5 GeV e + @ 1.2A x 1.6A @ 1.2A x 1.6A L peak = 1.39 x 10 34 sec -1 cm -2  11mrad crossing ~ 287 fb -1 274M BB 253 fb -1 on Y(4S) 28 fb -1 below Y(4S) -

6. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 6 Continuous Injection [CERN courier Jan/Feb 2004] No need to stop run Always at ~max. currents, luminosity ~30% more ∫L dt both KEKB & PEP-II HER current LER current continuous injection (new) normal injection (old) Luminosity 01224 Time ~1 fb -1 /day ! (~1x10 6 BB) -

7. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 7 Belle Detector  / K L detection 14/15 lyr. RPC+Fe C entral D rift C hamber small cell +He/C 2 H 5 CsI(Tl) 16X 0 Aerogel Cherenkov cnt. n=1.015~1.030 Si vtx. det. 3(4) lyr. DSSD TOF conter SC solenoid 1.5T 8 GeV e  3.5 GeV e 

8. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 8 SVD Upgrade SVD1SVD2 1 MRad  >20 MRad 3 layers  4 layers 23º<  <139º  17º<  <150º R bp = 2.0 cm  1.5 cm Better I.P. resolutions 2003 summer Impact parameter resolution rr Z 152M BB pairs with SVD1 + 122M BB pairs with SVD2 _ _

9. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 9 B-meson Reconstruction Energy difference: Beam-constrained mass:  Utilize special Kinematics at Y(4S) (ES)

10. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 10 Continuum Suppression e+e+ e-e- e+e+ e-e- qq Signal B Other B Dominant Background for rare decays: Continuum Jet-like BB spherical e + e  → qq “continuum” (~3x BB) To suppress: use event shape variables   continuum Y (4S)

11. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 11 B   Penguin d b d _ s/d u u W B 0d0d --  + V us/d  V ub Tree Simplest charmless rare decay modes Tree - Penguin interference  Direct CP Violation Key prediction of Kobayashi-Maskawa model Key prediction of Kobayashi-Maskawa model Understanding of Penguin _ _  (B  f )  (B  f ) _ _  (B  f )  (B  f ) A CP = Anomaly (New Physics) B 0d0d d b d u u W g  + -- V ts/d  V tb t s/d

12. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 12 A CP (B 0  K    ) 2 nd Evidence for DCPV at Belle ! [ A (     ) 3.2  ] A CP = -0.101  0.025  0.005 [PID efficiency bias correction:  A = -0.01  0.004] 274M BB New 3.9  significance [submitted to PRL] B 0  K    _ B 0  K    Signal: 2139  53

13. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 13 B 0   +   CPV Result A  = +0.58  0.15(stat)  0.07(syst) S  =  1.00  0.21(stat)  0.07(syst) S  A   t (ps) Direct CPV  3.2  [PRL93,021801 (2004)] good tag 152M BB

14. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 14 A CP (B  K    ) A CP ( K    ) = 0.04  0.05  0.02 274M BB New K    : 728  53 hint that A CP ( K    )  A CP ( K    ) ? (2.4  ) Large EW penguin (Z 0 ) ? New Physics ? [also seen by BaBar] _d_d d  KK u u BB sb

15. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 15 Observation of B 0   0  0 274M BB, New Evidence (LP03)  Observation ! B = (2.32   ) x 10 -6 Large Br established Signal: 82  16 (6.0  ) A CP = 0.43  0.51  uses same Flavor-tagging as TCPV analysis 1 st measurement ! BaBar results &  2 (  )  Giorgi’s talk M bc [Belle-conf-0406] Key mode for  2 (  ) in B   CPV isospin analysis 0.44 0.48 0.22 0.18 0.17 0.16

16. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 16 B 0   First signals for B 0   N sig = 23   2.0 7.7 6.7 (4.5  B = (1.19   0.13) x 10 -6 0.40 0.35 N sig = 41  14  3 (3.5  B = (1.46  0.50  0.07) (<2.35) x 10 -6 B0  00B0  00 B0  0+B0  0+ 224M BB “pure b  d Penguin”

17. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 17 Penguin Anomaly ? New physics effect ?  K*(b  sss) only ? - B  VV : Polarization Puzzle Naïve Factorization :Longitudinal f L = 1 – O(1/m b 2 ) f L (  K*) ~ 0.5 QCD penguin annihilation: O(1/m b 2 )  O(1) f  / f  = 1 + O(1/m b ) ? f L (   K  ) < f L (  K*) ? [   K   : pure b  s Penguin] [e.g. A.Kagan hep-ph/0405134] B +u+u u b u s s W g   *+ V ts  V tb t s             K     f L  1 Tree dominated Penguin only (BaBar/Belle) s u d d   *0

18. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 18   K  Polarization 152M BB -  ,K  mass region peak: 6.3  signif. 2D(M bc,  E,) ML fit M bc,  E signal region simultaneous fit to  K* masses   K  : 26.6  8.7 (Stat. sig: 3.2  ) [Belle-conf-0404] EE M bc   mass K  mass

19. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 19   K  Polarization 2D( ,K* helicity) ML-fit (M bc,  E, mass signal region) f L =0.50  0.19  0.05 0.07 (3.1  away from f L = 1 ) B = (6.6  2.2  0.8 ) x 10 -6 bkg (fixed)   K   (fixed) Transverse Longitudinal   helicity K  helicity [Belle-conf-0404] 152M BB -

20. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 20   K  Polarization 89M BB - Nsig = 141  23 24 (>5  f L =0.79  0.08  0.04  0.02 B = (17.0  2.9  2.9  ) x 10 -6 0.0 1.9 A CP =  0.14  0.17  0.04 [BaBar-conf-04/34] ML fit to all distributions simultaneously BaBar + Belle likely f L < 1 BaBar + Belle likely f L < 1 non-resonant contribution 1 st observation

21. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 21 B   K* : New Physics Search Transversity basis: Angular distribution P  K* (  tr,  tr,  K* ; A 0, A //, A  ) A 0 : longitudinal (CP= +1) A // : transverse CP= +1 A  : transverse CP=  1 2 sets _ (B, B)   = f = (|A | 2 + |A | 2 )/2,  = (|A | 2  |A | 2 )/2    i =  Im(A  A i * +A  A i * ),   i =  Im(A  A i *  A  A i * )   //0 = Re(A  A 0 * +A  A 0 * ),  //0 = Re(A  A 0 *  A  A 0 * ) Direct CPV Triple-prod. (T-violation) ( |A  | 2 + |A  | 2 + |A  | 2 =1 ) “  0”  NP [e.g. London, Sinha 2, PRD69,114013(04)] (i = 0, //) (12-1 parameters)

22. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 22 97  signals 12 11 46  signals 9898 B   K* [Belle-conf-0419] 152M BB - f L =0.51  0.06  0.04 confirm low f L  K *0  K *+

23. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 23 B   K* : New Physics Search “  0”  NP Triple product (T-conserving) Triple product (T-violating) f  / f  ~ 1 FSI [Belle-conf-0419] 152M BB -

24. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 24 B   K* : New Physics Summary arg(A  /A  ) 2.34  0.23  0.05 (-2.34) -2.21  0.22  0.05 arg(A  /A  ) 2.47  0.25  0.05 (0.67) 0.64  0.21  0.06 (* recalculated from fit values) Belle (152M) BaBar (227M) * * No indication of NP except f L puzzle “  0”  NP BaBar/Belle consistent

25. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 25 Radiative & EW Penguins  EW ~1/100 Loops  Sensitive to New Physics K*  TCPV Br, A CP ~SM b  s  penguin b  sl + l  penguin b  d  penguin l+l+ ll

26. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 26 B → K (*) l + l  79  10 signals 82  11 signals [Belle-conf-0415] B (Kll)= (5.50   0.27  0.02) 274M BB 0.75 0.70 B (K*ll)= (16.5   0.9  0.4 ) 2.3 2.2 >10  signals update LP03: B  X s ll, K (*) ll : Belle/BaBar Br, A CP ~SM x 10 -7

27. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 27 B → K* l + l  :FB Asymmetry A FB (K*ll ) : very sensitive to NP that may not be seen in B (b  s  First Look ! [Belle-conf-0415] 274M BB raw A FB K* q2q2 q2q2

28. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 28 274M BB b → d  : B → (  )  B (B  (  ) = (0.72  0.27 )x 10 -6 (1.9  ) [< 1.4 x 10 -6 @90% CL] +0.43  0.39 Suppress K*  with PID and M(‘K’  ) cut [Belle-conf-0401] Simultaneous fit to 3 modes:  (B  (  ) =  (B +  +  ) = 2  (B 0  0  ) = 2  (B 0  ) B (B  (  ) = (0.6  0.3  0.1) x 10 -6 (2.1  ) [< 1.2 x 10 -6 @90% CL] |Vtd|/|Vts| [  A.Ali’s talk] 219M BB [hep-ex/0408034]

29. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 29 b  sqq Penguin CPV Belle @LP03 (140 fb -1 ) “sin2  1 ”=  0.96  0.51 B 0   Ks sin2  1 =0.728  0.06 B 0  J/  Ks etc 3.5  deviation from the SM ! - - [PRL 91, 261602 (2003)]

30. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 30 Time-dependent CP Violation ｆ ｃｐ B0B0 B0B0 mixing = B0B0 B0B0 ｆ ｃｐ  + + New Physics with New Phase S b  s  sin2  1, A can  0 S b  s =sin2  1, A =0 SM: b  s Penguin phase = J/  K S (b  c) tstb VV  Mixing induced CPV Direct CPV A CP (  t) = S sin(  m  t) + A cos (  m  t) (TCPV)

31. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 31 B 0   K 0 Similar to J/  K L recon. + sophisticated continuum suppression includes Ks      (Nsig=13  5) KSKS Nsig=139  14 purity 0.63 pB*pB* Nsig= 36  15 KLKL purity 0.17 274M BB

32. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 32 B 0   K 0 : CPV Result  K 0  K S +  K L : S (  K 0 ) = +0.06 ±0.33 ±0.09 A (  K 0 ) = +0.08 ±0.22 ±0.09 ~2.2  away from SM  K S +  K L : S (  K 0 ) = +0.06 ±0.33 ±0.09 A (  K 0 ) = +0.08 ±0.22 ±0.09 ~2.2  away from SM Good tags Poor tags S = 0.736 fit Good tags 274M BB

33. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 33 Checks: sin2  1 (B 0  J/  K S/L ) SVD1: 152M BB  t (ps) Good tags SVD1 Validation of new data sample (SVD2) SVD2: 122M BB Good tags SVD2 _ S = 0.696  0.061 (stat) A = 0.011  0.043 (stat) S = 0.696  0.061 (stat) A = 0.011  0.043 (stat) S = 0.629  0.069 (stat) A = 0.035  0.044 (stat) S = 0.629  0.069 (stat) A = 0.035  0.044 (stat) _ SVD2: S = +0.78  0.45 A =+0.17  0.33 SVD1: S =  0.68  0.46 A =  0.02  0.28  many systematic checks, all ok ~2.3   K 0

34. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 34 B 0  ’K S  K  K  K S  ’K S KKKSKKKS Nsig=512  27 purity 0.61 Nsig=399  28 purity 0.56 S = +0.65  0.18  0.04  S = +0.49  0.18  0.04 (  ) A =  0.19  0.11  0.05 A =  0.08  0.12  0.07 CP=+1: 1.03  0.15  0.05 “sin2  1 ” Raw Asymmetry Good tags S = 0.736 fit 0.17 0.0 Raw Asymmetry (~0.5  @SM)(~1.0  @SM) high statistics modes (  excluded)  ’       (  ,       ) 274M BB

35. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 35 B 0  K S  f 0 (980)K S KSKS additional modes Nsig=31  7 purity 0.56 Nsig=102  18 purity 0.58 f 0 (980)K S S = +0.75  0.64   S =  0.47  0.41  0.08 A =  0.26  0.48  0.15 A =  0.39  0.27  0.08 “sin2  1 ” Raw Asymmetry Good tags S = 0.736 fit 0.13 0.16 Good tags Raw Asymmetry (~2.9  @SM)(~0  @SM) 274M BB

36. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 36 Ks  0 B 0  Ks  0     Ks track IP profile B vertex   Vertexing by Ks only Ks  0 Nsig=168  18 purity 0.55 S = +0.30  0.59  0.11 A =  0.12  0.20  0.07 Good tags Validated by J/  Ks (use Ks only) S = 0.736 fit Raw Asymmetry “sin2  1 ” (~0.7  @SM) (+low purity: Nsig=83(0.17)) 274M BB

37. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 37 Summary of b  sqq CPV - - 2.4  “sin2  1 ” 274M BB ( A : consistent with 0)

38. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 38 B  K*  TCPV: New Physics SM:   polarized B 0 & B 0 opposite S ≈ 2(m s /m b )sin 2  1 ≈ 4% A ~ 1% New Physics  Large S, A Ks  0 Analysis Technique: similar to B 0  Ks  0 - B 0  K*[Ks  0 ]      Ks track IP profile B vertex    [e.g. Atwood,Gronau,Soni]

39. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 39 B  K*[Ks  0 ]  TCPV Nsig=57  9 purity 0.65 274M BB S = 0 fit 124M BB - [hep-ex/0405082] Nsig=105  14 S =  0.25  0.63  0.14 S =  0.79   0.09 A =  0.57  0.32  0.09 =  C A =  0.00  0.38 0.63 0.50 First step for new era of b  s  !

40. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 40 B decays: many new results from BaBar/Belle - Evidence for Direct CPV, A CP (K +   )  A CP (K +   ) ? - B      decay established, 1 st measurement of A CP (     ) - f L (  K*) Polarization Puzzle: f L (   K *0 ) < 1 No hint of T-violating NP in B   K* - A first look at B  K*ll FB-asymmetry - 1 st B 0  K*[Ks  0 ]  TCPV measurements Summary Belle b  sqq TCPV updates - S (  K 0 ) = +0.06 ±0.33 ±0.09 (~2.2  away from SM) - average of b  sqq : +0.43 ± ( ~2.4  from SM) - (Giorgi’s review for BaBar results) 0.13 0.11 More data needed to conclusively establish New Physics -

41. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 41 Charmless B Br Summary HFAG P.Chang (NTU) J.Alexander (Cornell) J.Smith (Colorado) Complete list (other Br & A CP ) http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/rare/ x10 -6

42. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 42 Backup

43. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 43 B  PP/PV/VV Summary      ’              ’’           observed (>5  ) evidence (>3  ) upper limit Both, BaBar, Belle, C LEO [extend to decays into scalar, axial-vector] DCPV: evidence in     /     only

44. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 44 B 0   K S : Mass & Helicity  Helicity bkg Mass

45. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 45 B 0   K 0 : SVD1,2 SVD2: S = +0.78  0.45 A =+0.17  0.33 SVD1: S =  0.68  0.46 A =  0.02  0.28  many systematic checks, all ok ~2.3  SVD1 only SVD2 only

46. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 46 B 0   K S,  K L : CPV  K L only  K S only S = +0.00 ±0.33 A = +0.06 ±0.22 S = +0.00 ±0.33 A = +0.06 ±0.22 −S= +2.3 ±2.0 A = +0.6 ±1.2 −S= +2.3 ±2.0 A = +0.6 ±1.2

47. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 47 B 0   K  : Validations Lifetime fit w/ B →  K ± /K S B →  K ± B →  K S  B + = 1.67 +0.12 –0.11  B 0 = 1.59 +0.20 –0.19 Asymmetry fit w/  K ± S(  K ± ) = –0.03 ±0.20 A(  K ± ) = +0.22 ±0.15 Control sample

48. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 48 Systematic errors on S Ks  0 K*  Ks  ’ Ks f 0 Ks  K 0 K + K - Ks VTX0.020.060.01 0.020.01 flavor tag0.010.020.040.01 <0.01 resolution0.05 0.070.03 0.040.03 fit bias0.03 +0.01  0.10 0.010.030.01 signal fraction 0.070.020.100.020.05+0.08  0.06 0.02 physics parameters 0.020.01 <0.010.01<0.01 background  t shape 0.040.030.02<0.010.040.01<0.01 tag side interference <0.01 0.01<0.01 TOTAL0.110.10+0.13  0.16 0.040.080.090.04 KKKS: effective sin2  1  0.17 for CP-even fraction

49. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 49 SVD2: lifetime &  m d [ps] [ps  1 ] SVD1 _ (152M BB) SVD2 _ (122M BB) New detector resolution is well understood SVD2 only Belle preliminary D 0  +, J/  K , D –  +, D* –  + /  +, D*l (stat) [Belle-conf-0436]

50. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 50 History of b  sqq CPV -

51. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 51 f 0 (980)K S     Mass didtribution f(f 0 K S ) = 91% f(     K S ) = 2.3% f   K S ) = 4.8% f(f x K S ) = 1.6% fxfx Non-f 0 components are determined from the M(     ) distribution [ 

52. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 52 Continuum Suppression L S /(L s + L B ) Belle: cut on Likelihood Ratio signal continuum Fisher BaBar: loose cut Fisher (or NN) pdf in fit Event-shape variables combine  Fisher Flavor tagging info. also useful

53. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 53 CKM Matrix & UT CKM matrix Wolfenstein representation Complex phase  CP violation  1   2   3  V td V tb V cd V cb V ud V ub * * * Unitarity triangle (  ) (  )(  )

54. ICHEP 2004, Beijing 54 BaBar B   K* use helicity basis angles: Angular distribution P  K* (  1,  2,  ; A 0, A //, A  ) 2 sets _ (B, B) 227M BB B 0   K *0 201 signals cos  1 cos  2 A CP = -0.01  0.09  0.02 [hep-ex/0408017]