1. Matthew Martin Johns Hopkins University for the CDF collaboration andBranching Ratios from Flavor Physics & CP Violation Ecole Polytechnique, Paris, France June 2003

2. M.Martin, Johns Hopkins for CDF, FPCP June 2003 Outline: Motivation Branching Ratios at CDF Results from: Conclusions

3. M.Martin, Johns Hopkins for CDF, FPCP June 2003 Precision study of the : –BR’s, mass and lifetime –Plan to observe or rule out SM mixing –Measure The world’s largest sample: –BR’s, mass and lifetime –CP Violation searches This program just beginning… CDF plans a rich program of B-Physics:

4. M.Martin, Johns Hopkins for CDF, FPCP June 2003 What we know: PDG 2002: NEW ! New results for:

5. M.Martin, Johns Hopkins for CDF, FPCP June 2003 NEW ! What we know: PDG 2002: Nearly New results for:

6. M.Martin, Johns Hopkins for CDF, FPCP June 2003 Hadronic Level 2 Trigger: -500 -250 0 250 500 silicon trigger impact parameter (µm) Tracks per 10 µm 0 4000 8000 0 10 20 30 40 50 Silicon trigger latency (µs) Events per 0.5 µs 0 10000 20000 35  m  33  m resol  beam   = 48  m Interaction rate Reduced to on Level 2 output. Critical component : SVT impact parameter cuts. 2 Tracks with

7. M.Martin, Johns Hopkins for CDF, FPCP June 2003 Branching Ratios at CDF: Cancellation: –Systematics in Trigger and Reconstruction Efficiency. Production fractions ( ): – LEP/CDF Combined. –Aim to measure at CDF. Daughter BR’s : –Rely on existing measurements. –Future : CLEO-C Plan to normalise to same channel Semileptonic Compare search mode to kinematically similar mode, eg:

8. M.Martin, Johns Hopkins for CDF, FPCP June 2003 Normalisation mode: Same mode for: Similar cuts to signal also visible.

9. M.Martin, Johns Hopkins for CDF, FPCP June 2003 Reconstructing: Important Cuts: 2 Tracks required to be Trigger Tracks. mass constrained to PDG value First Observation!

10. M.Martin, Johns Hopkins for CDF, FPCP June 2003 Systematics: Uncertainty in due to fit. Uncertainty in

11. M.Martin, Johns Hopkins for CDF, FPCP June 2003 Results:

12. M.Martin, Johns Hopkins for CDF, FPCP June 2003 Reconstructing Important cuts:

13. M.Martin, Johns Hopkins for CDF, FPCP June 2003 b Reflections: 3 Types of reflection: 4-Prong Decays (eg ) Other decays Everything else. Normalise Reflection shape to measured yield.

14. M.Martin, Johns Hopkins for CDF, FPCP June 2003 Effect of dE/dX:

15. M.Martin, Johns Hopkins for CDF, FPCP June 2003 Expected Systematics:

16. M.Martin, Johns Hopkins for CDF, FPCP June 2003 Current Status: Finalising reflection model measurement for EPS Systematic uncertainty dominated by:

17. M.Martin, Johns Hopkins for CDF, FPCP June 2003 Prospects for improving normalisation: Note : Hadronic Trigger Path

18. M.Martin, Johns Hopkins for CDF, FPCP June 2003 required to be trigger tracks. Optimise offline Cuts on MC signal, data sideband: Reconstructing Isolation: Efficiency from data Defined in a cone about the B axis:

19. M.Martin, Johns Hopkins for CDF, FPCP June 2003 Different signal contributions: Total width due to several different contributions. on top of each other Disentangle using: Invt Mass Relative momentum PID ← Most Important { Kinematic Separation Monte Carlo:

20. M.Martin, Johns Hopkins for CDF, FPCP June 2003 Kinematic separation: Choose 2 variables: Signal Likelihood: Monte Carlo:

21. M.Martin, Johns Hopkins for CDF, FPCP June 2003 Particle ID : calibrated on sample Bachelor charge identifies daughters.

22. M.Martin, Johns Hopkins for CDF, FPCP June 2003 Systematics:

23. M.Martin, Johns Hopkins for CDF, FPCP June 2003 Current Results: Yields: PDG 2002:

24. M.Martin, Johns Hopkins for CDF, FPCP June 2003 Conclusions: First measurement of relative BR First observation of –Measurement of validates extraction procedure Expect and for EPS First steps toward an exciting programme in physics and physics (mixing and CPV). CDF has robust signals in: