1. 1# CKM Unitarity angles    and     Recent results from the B factories. ) Hassan Jawahery Univ. of Maryland Lepton-Photon Symposium Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory August 12, 2003 Outline Introduction & definitions Experimental observables related to  and  Experimental results, some discussion of implications for SM & constraints on  and 

2. 2# The Unitarity Test CP Definitions Both involve V ub        

3. 3# Constraints from the CKM fit |V ub |, |V cb |,  K,  m d,  m s At 95% C.L.  Unitarity Tests : Search for deviation from SM  Using direct measurements of angles check:  +  +   Check if B Decays are consistent with the range of angles from the CKM fit? Indirect info on angles oe A. Hoecker et al, Eur. Phys. Jour. C21 (2001) 225, [hep-ph/0104062]

4. 4#                      a 1  …. Tree diagrams are not alone:                 ..  CKM suppressed Penguins (gluonic & E.W) can also lead to the same decays: Main source of info on  and   Decays involving b  u transitions Data indicate gluonic penguins are large & complicate extraction of  I- Charmless B Decays Interference of T & P results in Direct CP violation & sensitivity to  d s

5. 5# + B -  D CP K - II- Decays involving interference of b  u W - & b  c W - Processes (Penguin Free) Involves arg(V ub )=  B  DK:  dependence of rate and direct asymmetry B 0  D     + Direct CP asymmetry sensitive to sin(2  arg(V ub )=  Same final state via B 0 mixing & b  u

6. 6# Experimental Observables With Tree and Penguins both in action: To constrain  requires estimates of: | P  /T  |  & relative strong phase   Branching fractions for various non-charm B decays  Time Integrated (Direct) CP asymmerties

7. 7# More observables: Time – Dependent CP Asymmetries With Tree alone  Time evolution of tagged B 0 decays, e.g. in the case of B 0      CPV due to mixing and decay interference Direct CPV in Decay With Penguin and Tree S=sin2  eff    eff –  C  0 Belle: A f = - C f (BaBar)

8. 8# A few comments on the already established pattern from charmless 2-body decays Connected via Isospin symmetry (Gronau &London) ( Isospin engineering)  With Tree alone,expect: Measurements:  Penguins are significant players P ’ & use SU(3)connections to estimate P (P ’ & T ’ ) (P ’ ) (P & T) (T) (P ’ & T ’ ) Control rescattering effects Constructing these triangles is a major goal of the experiments

9. 9# Goals and Issues on the Measurement Side  The reality ( Considering the presences of large Penguin effects)  No single measurement is expected to lead to determination of  &   Need info from many decay modes and the emerging pattern & connections via symmetries, [isospin, SU(3) ], and eventually more predictive theories [perhaps QCD factorization or perturbative QCD- when verified ] to constrain various components of the problem.  Search for CP violation: Direct (C  0) & Indirect (S  0) deviating from (sin2  i  e. indirect CPV outside of mixing phase.]  Measure/Constrain  using many different modes and exploit the redundancy to resolve the ambiguities. Keep finding the pieces of the charmless puzzle  The job description Eventually

10. 10# Experiments and Data Asymmetric e + e - B Factories: Physics coverage : B d & B u Decays BaBar at SLAC PEP-II Machine 113 fb -1 on  s) ( 126 fb -1 total) 124x10 6 B B events Belle at KEK-B Machine 140 fb -1 on  s) (158 fb -1 total) 152x10 6 B B events CLEO at the CESR Machine – Some results on Br & direct Asymmetries. The pioneer of the field and the first source of information on B decays, Including observation of charmless decays. [~13 fb -1 on peak] The B physics reach of hadron machines & current status covered by Kevin Pitts. Next Talk The focus of this talk

11. 11# Analysis Issues for Rare B Charmless decays -Looking for modes with Br~10 -6 to 10 -5 -Continuum qq(bar) background at 10 3 larger than the signal BKG Suppression using event shape & topology, kinematics, particle ID,.. Kinematic variables:  E=E beam -E B provides separation of KK, K ,  decays Signal Monte Carlo   Other info into analysis:   t=  z/<c   Flavor tag of other side  Particle ID, event shape,..

12. 12# The road to   Measurement of CPV in B          K  BaBar: 81 fb -1 Belle 78 fb -1  K K Isolation of Signals  B      Per experiment K K 

13. 13# Time Dependent CPV in B      (BaBar) Asymmetry Events/1ps ( Belle ) 5-5 0 5 0 B 0 tag Fits to: 81 fb -1 78 fb -1  t(ps)

14. 14# New Results: BaBar Update of CPV measurements with full data sample (Run 1+2+3): 113 fb -1 on Peak data  Reprocessed Run1+2 (82 fb -1 )  Added Run 3 ((31 fb -1 ) New CPV Results Run1+2(reprocessed) S=-0.252±0.27 C=-0.166 ±0.22 Run 3 S=-0.67±0.35 C=-0.33 ±0.34 B 0 tag

15. 15# Summary of CPV in B       Current world average (with BaBar new results) S=-0.58±0.20 C=-0.38 ±0.16 Too early to claim observation of CPV in B       Direct (in decay) or Indirect(mixing & decay) Belle’s update with their full data set awaited S & C not enough to measure  Need  eff – , which requires the other pieces of the isospin analysis.  gnoring the large     ~2  )

16. 16# BaBar: The decay B      Significance: 4.2   Used their full data set (113 fb -1 )  Measured Br(B       Br(B       x10 -6 ] Control over a major background source. Br about half of previous assumed value  qq bkgd Fischer Discriminant signal  Observation

17. 17# Belle : The decay B      Analyzed full data set of 140 fb -1 From a fit to 2-dimensional distribution of Mes and  E Find: Significance:3.4   Evidence

18. 18# Branching ratios (x10 -6 ) Mode CLEOBelleBaBarAverage     4.54.4 0.6 0.34.7 0.6 0.24.6 0.4     4.65.3 1.3 0.55.5 0.65.2 0.8  <4.4 1.7±0.6 ±0.3 2.1 ±0.6 ±0.3 1.97 ±0.47 What about  All but one piece is in place For a full Isospin analysis need: C   direct CPV) & Still some constraint can be set using the measured average Branching fraction: (Quinn- Grossman), With WA Br(B        eff |   at 90% c.l. Not much improvement on QG bound  Not a very useful limit & don’t expect more than ~10 o improvement in future.

19. 19# Summary of measurements of B   Decays See John Fry’s talk this morning for more detail &comparison with Theory Thanks to Heavy flavor averaging group(HFAG): Rare decays: J. Smith (colorado), J. Alexander(Cornell), P.Chang (KEK) Evidence Direct CPV ?

20. 20# What did we learn about   s this all consistent with Standard Model? Does it accommodate the range of UT angles from the global CKM fit?

21. 21# C  vs S  : Allowed range & comparison with SM ( CKM fit) Data consistent with SM (CKM fit) Gronau and Rosner approach (PRD 093012) |P  / T  | estimated using B-> K 0  + & B   l, B   0  + (with use of SU(3) & factorization) Here calculate S & C for |P/T|~0.3 Unconstrained strong phase  BaBar Physical boundary Belle BaBar My Average

22. 22# A more optimal use of information using the CKMfitter tools with various assumptions (LAL 02-103: Authors Hoecker, Lacker, Pivak, Roos). In all scenarios data can accommodate the range of  from the SM CKM fit SU(3) & some use of QCD Factorization to estimate SU(3) breaking effects

23. 23# Useful ratios of branching fractions and ps-asymmetries with sensitivity to  Constraints on  Connecting the B  K  data via symmetries Ratios using HFAG averages: R0= 0.99±0.09 A0= - 0.09 ±0.03 Rc=1.30±0.15 Ac=0.0 ± 0.06 Rn=0.8 ±0.11 An=-0.07 ± 0.03 Rosner, Gronau, Neubert, Fleischer, Mannel,.. All shown to accommodate range of  from CKM fit (Fleischer), (Gronau, Rosner),… Size of EW penguins|T/P|

24. 24# 1  range of R 0 60 <  at 1  level No useful limit at 2  level Consistent with CKM range:  R0R0 A0=-0.06(A0+1  A0=-0.12(A0-1  Gronau & Rosner method hep/ph-0307095 (R0 vs  for fixed A0 R0R0

25. 25# Other channels of reaching  B   CPV studies require isolation of states with specific CP parity: e.g. B  (          using Dalitz plot analysis. Interference between (           can be used to determine  even in the presence of penguins [Quinn-Snyder]  BaBar has presented CPV results based on quasi 2-body decays B 0  ”   “     B 0  ”   ”     updated for this conference with their full data sample.  1 st Belle results on CPV with these modes expected soon.  Components of the Isospin analysis (pentagon) are also being measured. (J. Fry’s talk today) B  (  e.g. B   has been measured and shown to be dominated by the CP even component – good news for CPV studies.

26. 26# CPV Studies with the decay B 0    Not a CP eigenstate & involves more observables: Summing over the  charge: Direct CP violation: C  Indirect CP (mixing and decay): S  Charge Asymmetry: Dilution (Non CP parameters):  C  &  S 

27. 27# BaBar results on CPV in B   : 113 fb -1 N(  )N(  ) C CC S SSA CP (  )A CP (  ) 804.2  49.2 260.4  31.40.35  0.13  0.20  0.13  -0.13  0.18  0.33  0.18  -0.11  0.06  0.18  0.12     

28. 28# 2.5  (2.7  if stat. only) 99% 90% 98.6% Define two asymmetries: New Results PRL 2.3  (Stat. only) Test Of Direct CPV

29. 29# Quinn-Grossman bound applied to the longitudenal polarization component of the rates: The Channel to watch in Future The components of B   are identifeid: B 0       (BaBar), B +       elle & BaBar) Decays nealy 100% longitudinally polarized [CP-even] Limit has been set on B 0       See John Fry’s talk this morning for more detail >2 times more restrictive than B   system A promising channel:the B   system

30. 30#  Reaching   via (b  u(cs) & b  c(us) interference: B  DK Decays Method and observables suggested by Gronau, Wyler,Atwood,Dunietz, Soni,Quinn, Sanda

31. 31# B  DK Modes- No penguins In B -  D CP K -, the diagrams interfere & provide the sensitivity to  : [ D CP =(1/  2)(D 0  D 0 ) ] r DK (~0.1 –0.2) &  DK Also unknown Experimenters are very active in constructing the DK puzzle Observables  DK triangle

32. 32# cos  hel from P→PV MK *- D 0 → K , K ,K  0 B - → D CP K* - 13.1  4.3 4.3  D 1 =K + K -,  +   D 2 =K s  , K s , K s  7.2  3.6 2.4  B - → D* 0 K* - B → D *0 K *- ALL D *0 → D 0  0 D *0 → D 0  B 0 → D K 0

33. 33# R1(CP=+1)A1 (CP=+1)R2(CP=-1)A2 (CP=-1) BaBar 1.06 ± 0.26 ±0.170.17 ± 0.23 ±0.08 Belle 1.21 ± 0.25 ±0.140.06 ± 0.19 ±0.041.41 ± 0.27 ±0.15-0.19 ± 0.17 ±0.05 Average BDoK-BDoK- Br(x10 -4 )R1(CP=+1)A1 (CP=+1)R2(CP=-1)A2 (CP=-1) BaBar 6.3 ±0.7 ±0.4 Belle 5.2 ±0.5 ±0.6 -0.06 ± 0.33 ±0.070.19 ± 0.50 ±0.04 CLEO 6.1 ±1.6 ±1.7 Average B  D o K* - (8.3 ± 1.1(stat) ± 1.0(sys)) x 10 -4 &  L /  0.86 ±0.06 ±0.03 (BaBar) (7.7 ± 2.2(stat) ± 2.6(sys)) x 10 -4 CLEO ModeBr(x10 -5 ) Belle Br(x10 -5 ) BaBar Br(x10 -5 ) Average B 0  D o K* 0 4.8 ±1.1 ±0.53.0 ±1.3 ±0.6 B0DoK0B0DoK0 5.0 ±1.3 ±0.63.4 ±1.3 ±0.6 B 0  D* o K 0 <6.6 (90% c.l.) B 0  D* o K* 0 <6.9 (90% c.l.) B 0  D o K* 0 <1.8 (90% c.l.) B 0  D* o K* 0 <4.0 (90% c.l.) The B  DK puzzle under construction V ub

34. 34# What about   Current errors are still too large to allow for simultaneous extraction of  ratio of (b  c) and (b  u) amplitudes (r dk ) and the strong phase. Need many fold more data. (  may be possible with 500 fb -1 ) With assumptions on (r dk ): mild limits can be extracted. e.g M. Gronau (hep-ph/0306308):    at 1 sigma level.

35. 35#  Reaching sin(2  via (b  u(cd) & b  c(ud) interference (& B 0 mixing) B 0  D (*+)  - Method and observables first suggested by Sachs,Dunietz

36. 36# B 0  D (*+)  - Modes Dominant diagram b  c transition Suppressed diagram b  u transition Time evolution: Small asymmetry expected

37. 37# BaBar II - Fully reconstructed B 0  D (*+)  - Decays Lepton tags kaons tags Belle Fully reconstructed B 0  D (*+)  - Decays I- Partially reconstructed B 0  D *+  - Decays: (number of events) 2 

38. 38# Use measurements of B 0  D (*+) s    to estimate r (*) (Factorization & SU3 correction ) Interpretation:BaBar’s attempt Favors the CKM favored solution to sin 

39. 39# Summary & Conclusions  Major progress made in probing the charmless sector of B decays for information on unitarity angles   New updated measurements of CPV in B      still show no significant evidence for CP violation in this mode.  Observation of B      – a missing component of Tree/Penguin  disentanglement plan.  CPV studies in B   shows hints of direct CP violation.  The decay    is now measured and looks promising for CPV studies and constraining . Indications that penguins are smaller.  Indication of direct CPV in B       WA: Belle, BaBar, CLEO) No indication for large direct CP yet.  The emerging constraints on the angles from the pattern of data are consistent with the favored range from the CKM picture in the Standard Model.  Penguin free modes (B  DK & D*  are beginning to contribute to constraints on CKM parameters & many new B  DK modes identified.  Much more data & major progress in theoretical understanding of hadronic B decays needed to complete the picture and conclusively perform the CKM unitarity test.