Recent Results on CP Violation from Belle
Transcript of Recent Results on CP Violation from Belle
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Recent Results on CP Violation from Belle
Particle Physics SeminarCaltech
Daniel Marlow Princeton University
March 17, 2003
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Talk Outline
• Introduction• KEK-B & Belle• Mixing• Indirect CP Violation Measurement/Analysis
– Gold plated mode– Other sin2ϕ1 Modes
• B0→π+π-
• Conclusion
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
The Kobayashi-Maskawa Mixing Scheme
Where the second matrix is the Wolfenstein parameterization.
0* =++ ∗∗tbubtsustdud VVVVVV
Quark mixing is described via
The “d b” unitarity relation yields 3* λAVV ubtd ≈+
⎥⎥⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢⎢⎢
⎣
⎡
−−−−−
−−≅
⎥⎥⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢⎢⎢
⎣
⎡=
1)1(21
)(21
23
22
32
ληρλλλλ
ηρλλλ
AiAA
iA
VVVVVVVVV
M
tbtstd
cbcscd
ubusud
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
The Unitarity Triangle
η
ρ
3λAVtd
( )ηρ ,
( )0,1
3λAVub
∗
2
*
λAVV tsus
1φ
2φ
3φ
The gold-plated mode determines the angle which is also called .
1φ
β
1≈≈ tbud VV
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
KEK B Asymmetric Collider
•Two separate ringse+ (LER) : 3.5 GeVe− (HER) : 8.0 GeV
•ECM : 10.58 GeV at Υ(4S)•Luminosity
•target: 1034 cm-2s-1
•achieved:8.3x1033cm-2s-1
•±11 mrad crossing angle •Small beam sizes:
σy ≈3 µm; σx ≈ 100 µm
asymmetric e+e− collider
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
KEKB Performance
Reported here
Integrated/day
Total Integrated~78 fb-1
pb-1
pb-1
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
KEKB/PEP II Luminosity Bakeoff
1934 pb-13091 pb-17 day
108 fb-1119 fb-1Integrated
309 pb-1462 pb-124 hour
117 pb-1159 pb-1Shift
Peak
PEP-IIKEKB
1233 scm 103.8 −−× 1233 scm 101.5 −−×
As of ~March 15, 2003 Comparisons not quite apples to apples.
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
µ / KL detection14/15 lyr. RPC+Fe
Tracking + dE/dxsmall cell + He/C2H5
CsI(Tl) 16X0
Aerogel Cherenkov cnt.n=1.015~1.030
Si vtx. det.3 lyr. DSSD
TOF counter
SC solenoid1.5T
8GeV e−
3.5GeV e+
Belle Detector
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
An international collaboration involving about 10 Countries, 50 Institutes, & 250 People
The BELLE Collaboration
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Mixing
( ) ( )[ ]022
02
(0 sincos)( BeiBetB mimtmtimi φ−∆∆)/2Γ−− +×=
Neutral B’s exhibit the fascinating phenomenon of mixing, which is where we will start the story.
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Flavor TaggingAs noted, in IDCPV measurements, one needs to know the flavor of the spectator B0. This information can also be used for mixing studies.
• Track level tags
• High momentum leptons
• Medium momentum K±
• High-momentum π± (from e.g., )
• Low-momentum π± (from D*’s).
• Need to take into account multiple tags and correlations.
+−→ π(*)0 DB
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Flavor Tagging: “Hamlet”
yreliabilit tag 10 ;1 ⇔<<±= rq
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
MixingBtdtb
W
tTWBB
Fd BVV
mmSmmfGm
2*222
2
6 ⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛=∆ η
π
[ ])cos(14
)(0
0
tmetP dB
t
OSB
∆∆+=∆
∆−
τ
τ
[ ])cos(14
)(0
0
tmetP dB
t
SSB
∆∆−=∆
∆−
τ
τ
Mixing measurements can be done by counting “same-sign” decays or by observing the timing distributions, or both.
XB +→ l0 XB −→ l0
mll±⇔""OS−−++⇔ llll or ""SS
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
MixingThere are various ways to determine the flavor of the decaying B0. In one method, one side of the event is fully reconstructed using known hadronic decay modes, such as B0→D*−π+
and the other side is tagged using standard flavor tagging algorithm. Timing distributions are then plotted for same-flavor (SF) and opposite-flavor (OF) subsamples.
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Summary of Mixing Results
0.528±0.017±0.011HamletB0→D*-π+Hadronic
0.505±0.017±0.020High-pt l±B0→D*-π+D*- →D0π-
Partial reconstruction
0.494±0.012±0.015HamletB0→D*-l+νSemi-leptonic
0.503±0.008±0.010High-pt l±High-pt l±Dilepton
∆md (ps-1)TagSignalMethod
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
But What About the CP Violating Phase?
( ) ( )[ ]022
02
(0 sincos)( BeiBetB mimtmtimi φ−∆∆)/2Γ−− +×=
As noted, it is there, but we can’t get at it in a standard mixing measurement since it disappears when we “project out” the flavor eigenstates.
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Indirect CP Violation
( ) ( )[ ]02
202
0 sincos )( 1 BieBtB mtimt ∆−∆ +∝ φ
( ) ( )[ ]02
02
20 cos sin)( 1 BBietB mtmti ∆∆ +∝ φ
[ ]000 2
1 BBB ±≅±
LKJB Ψ→+ /0
CP Eigenstates
SKJB Ψ→− /0
CP odd CP even
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Indirect CP ViolationIf we choose ϕ1=45o, then ie i ±=± 12 ϕ
( ) ( ) 02
02
0
sincos
)(
BB
tBmtmt ∆∆ +
∝
( ) ( ) 02
02
0
cossin
)(
BB
tBmtmt ∆∆ +−
∝
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Indirect CP Violation
mt∆2π π
)(tΓ No mixing [ ]φξτ
τ
2sin)sin(1
)(/
mt
et
f
B
t B
∆±×
=Γ−
0B0B f
π mt∆2π
)(tA0B
0B
Mixing Coefficient
Interference from mixing.
CP eigenvalue
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
The Measurement
0B
+µ
−µ
0B
+µtag
CP
z∆
0DNeed to:
•Measure momenta
•ID leptons & K’s
•Measure vertices
−e +e
0K
Ψ/J
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Analysis Flowchart
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Muon Identification
µµµ
side- tagplus
/+−+
++
→
Ψ→
KKJB
The dilepton decay modes are a big part of the reason of why the “gold-plated” modes are given that name.
The gaps are instrumented with RPCs.
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
J/Ψ Reconstruction
• Require one lepton to be positively identified and the other to be consistent with lepton hypothesis.
• For e+e-, add any photon within .05 of electron direction.
29 fb-1
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
B Reconstruction
*beam
*cand EEE −≡∆
( )2
cand
2*beam ⎟
⎠
⎞⎜⎝
⎛−= ∑ pEmbcr
29 fb-1 sample
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
CP Even Mode (B→J/ΨKL) Reconstruction
KL hits
KL
LKJB Ψ→ /0• Assume(2-body) kinematics.
• Look for KL recoiling from J/ψ
• hits in RPCs
• cluster in ECL
• Remove positively tagged background modes: J/ψK+ , J/ψK* , etc.
• Plot
LKJB Ψ→ /0
**/
*LKJB ppp rr
+= Ψ
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
B→J/ΨKL Reconstruction
**/
*LKJB ppp rr
+= Ψ
78 fb-1 Sample
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Charmonium CP Mode Summary
78 fb-1 Sample
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Flavor TaggingTwo measures of tagging performance:
• ε = efficiency
• w = wrong-tag fraction
• r = 1 – 2w
Amplitude of mixing oscillation depends on w
)21( w−
01.027.0eff ±=ε
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Vertexing
0B
+µ
−µ
0B
+µtag
CP
z∆
0D−e +e
0K
Ψ/J
Reality
Cartoon
The B lifetime is of the same order as the vertex resolution, so the effect is quite subtle.
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Effect of Resolution
∆tThe resulting signature of CP violation is mainly a mean shift between the B0 and B0 samples.
∆t
Unsmeared theory Resolution
Smearing
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Test of Vertex Resolution0*0 / KJB Ψ→
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Fitting
)()'( sigsig tRttPLi ∆⊗∆−∆= )1( bgf−×
bgbgbg )()'( ftRttP ×∆⊗∆−∆+
[ ])sin(2sin)21(12
)( 1
/
sig tmwqetP fB
t B
∆∆−−=∆∆−
ϕξτ
τ
Signal
)()1(2
)(/
bkg tfeftPbg
t bg
∆−+=∆∆−
δτ τ
τ
τ Background
Response function
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
The Fitted Result: 78 fb-1 Sample
035.0074.0719.02sin 1 ±±=ϕ
033.0067.0741.02sinBaBar cf ±±=β
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Time-Dependent Asymmetry
One can plot the excess/deficit on a bin-by-bin basis. The plots to the right are notcorrected for dilution effects (wrong tagging, background, etc.).
78 fb-1 Sample
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
What if |λ|≠1 ?
If |λ| is allowed to float, (i.e. a cos(∆m t) term)
074.0720.02sin 1 ±=φThe CPV asymmetry is ~unchanged.
026.0049.0950.0 ±±=λ
In general we have
Note: if |λ|≠1, then the gold-plated mode isn’t really gold plated.
78 fb-1 Sample
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Other ϕ1 Modes b→sss
In the SM, the phase for these decays is ~0, so the IDCPV asymmetry should be ~sin2ϕ1 and no direct CPV. Given the anomalously large rate, however, there might be more to the story . . .
500 108.5)'( −×=→ KBB η
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Other ϕ1 Modes b→sssπ+π−
B0 η’KSπ+π−η, ργ
γγ
π+π−
B0 φKSK+K−
π+π−
B0 K+K−KS(K+K−≠φ)
Mbc (GeV/c2) Mbc (GeV/c2) Mbc (GeV/c2)
BELLE-CONF-0225
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
SφK = −0.73±0.64±0.22
AφK = −0.56±0.41±0.16
−SKKK = +0.49±0.43±0.11
AKKK = −0.40±0.33±0.10
+0.33−0.00+0.00−0.26
−Sη’K = +0.71±0.37
Aη’K = +0.26±0.22±0.03
+0.05−0.06
Uncertainty in CP ± fractionsw = (3 )%+16
−3
(−)S sin2φ1 in b ccs(=0.719±0.074±0.035)
Raw Asymmetries
PreliminaryPreliminary
Other ϕ1 Modes: b→sss
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Onward to φ2
φ2
φ1φ3
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Measuring 2φ2=2(π- φ1- φ3)
)(2sin)sin(
)(2sin)sin( )()()()()(
31
00
00
φφξ
φφξ
+∆∆−=
+∆∆−=→Γ+→Γ→Γ−→Γ
=∆
tm
tmfBfBfBfBtA
f
DMf
CP−+= ππffor
With just one amplitude, CP violating phases will remain hidden. With two, they are revealed in a simple way. Three, alas, is not even better.Ideal Case
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
+
Measuring 2φ2
Interference between the tree level and penguin decay graphs is a little bit too much of a good thing!
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
[ ]) sin(14
)(/
+∆∆+=∆Γ∆−
tmSqetB
t B
ππ
τ
τtmA ∆∆cosππ
Mean shift between q=+1 and q=-1 samples.
Population difference between the q=+1 and q=-1 samples.
22sin and 0 then penguin, no If φππππ == SA
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Particle ID
for π+π–,
π eff. = 0.91
K fake rate = 0.10
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Flavor TaggingUse inclusive flavor-specific properties and correlations
Inclusive Leptons:high-p l−
intermed-p l+
Inclusive Hadrons:high-p π+
intermed-p K+
low-p π−
BB-mixing fit flavor tag performance(“class 6” has the least dilution).
mixing amplitude wrong tag fraction
class 1 class 2
class 3 class 4
class 5 class 6Classify events based on expected dilution
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Continuum Suppression
S
S qq
LLRL L
=+
LRmin 0.825
continuumπ+π−
(MC)class 1 class 2
class 3 class 4
class 5 class 6
Construct likelihood based on:
• Event topology
• Modified Fox-Wolfram
• Fisher Discriminant
• Angular distribution of B flight direction
The likelihood cut depends on the flavor-tagging class.
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Kinematic Selection
mπ±→ KB0
825.0<LR
−+→ ππ0B
825.0>LR
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Vertexing
B0 D+π−, D*+π−, D*+ρ−, J/ψKS and J/ψK*0
B0 lifetime1.551±0.018(stat) ps
Time resolution (rms)1.43ps
(PGD02: 1.542±0.016 ps)
• Same method as sin2ϕ1 analysis
• Resolution determined mainly by tag-side vertex
evts M 85 BB
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
∆t Spectra & Fit Results
08.041.023.108.027.077.0
±±−=±±+=
ππ
ππ
SA
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Cross Checks
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
B0 →K+π– control sample
020406080
100120140160180
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4
∆E (GeV)
Eve
nts/
20 M
eV
(c)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4
∆E (GeV)
Eve
nts/
20 M
eV
(d)
1371 candidates
Positively-identified kaons (opposite use of PID)
LR > 0.825 LRmin < LR ≤ 0.825
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Mixing fit using B0→K+π−
∆md=0.55 ps-1+0.05−0.07
Consistent withthe world average(0.489±0.008) ps-1
PDG2002(OF−
SF)/(
OF+
SF)
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
ππ : τB=(1.42 ± 0.14) ps
Kπ : τB=(1.46 ± 0.08) ps
BG shape fit
Lifetime Measurementsc.f. (PDG2002)(1.542 ± 0.016) ps
Evidence that background treatment is correct
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Null Asymmetry Tests
Null asymmetry
A = −0.015±0.022S = 0.045 ±0.033
SKπ = 0.08 ± 0.16
AKπ =-0.03 ± 0.11
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
MC/Fit Linearity Check
Monte Carlo pseudo experiments are used to check various things. In particular, we studied the linearity of the fitting procedure and the determination of the statistical error.
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Statistical Error
The log likelihood functions are not well behaved (parabolic), which is not surprising since the central values lie outside of the physically allowed region.
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Statistical ErrorThe MINOS errors are significantly smaller than the toy-MC pull distributions. After considerable internal discussion, we decided to adopt the larger MC errors as the most indicative of the actual statistical uncertainty.
Green arrows indicate MINOS errors.
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
How Often Are We Outside the Physical Region?
Probability that we have fluctuation equal to or larger than the fit to data(input values at the physical boundary)
16.6%
Physical regionAππ2 + Sππ2 ≤ 1
Events outside physical region: 60.1% Events outside ellipse: 16.6%
822.0 0.539 ; vs −== ππππππππ SASA
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Systematic Uncertainties
−0.055+0.044−0.048+0.058Background fractions
−0.013+0.010−0.020+0.019Resolution function
−0.002+0.007−0.015+0.003Background shape
−0.022+0.022−0.014+0.021τB, ∆md, AKπ
−0.016+0.015−0.021+0.026Wrong tag fraction
−error+error−error+error
+0.08
+0.016
+0.044
Aππ
−0.07+0.08−0.08Total
−0.020+0.052−0.021Fit bias
−0.012+0.037−0.054Vertexing
Sππ
source
* Actual estimations were done before seeing the fit result, as we adopted a blind analysis technique.
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Confidence Regions; Evidence for CP Violation
• Feldman-Cousins frequentistapproach.• Acceptance regions obtained from MC pseudo-experiments.•Systematic errors also included.• Confidence Level (CL) at each point is calculated.
CL for CP conservation: 3.4σ
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Future Prospects (as seen in the past!)
Oide
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Summary & Conclusions• CP violation in the B system has been observed at the >6σ level.
• We see an indication of CP violation in B→π+π- decay.
• The KEKB accelerator is working very well and now holds the world record for instantaneous and integrated luminosity.
035.0074.0719.02sin 1 ±±=ϕ
08.041.023.1 08.027.077.0 ±±−=±±+= ππππ SA
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Additional Slides
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Answers to FAQsQ: Is the anomalous result due to a problem in PID ?
A: Checks on the PID have been done:
• the amount of Kπ background obtained in the ∆E fit to the ππ sample is consistent with that is expected from the Kπ yield and miss-id probability.
• The fits are repeated with the Kπ fraction varied by estimated uncertainty (±20%). The change of A is +0.003/-0.007 and S +-0.037 which is included in sys. error.
• We repeat the fit to the sample with tighter PID requirement and different Delta-E cuts, where Kpibackground is different. These give consistent results.
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Answers to FAQs
Q: Are the fit errors or results biased when the true value is near the physical boundary ?
•We confirmed with MC pseudo-experiments that there is no sizable bias in the fit results. We conservatively include a possible fit bias near the physical boundary in the systematic error; the values are +0.05/-0.02 for Sππ and ±0.02 for Aππ
• Fit errors (MINOS errors), which are subject to bias in this region, are not used to calculate the confidence intervals.
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Answers to FAQsQ: What happens if the result is constrained to lie in the physical region?
A: The result is the point with the largest likelihood at the boundary (A=0.57, S=-0.82), which is close to the closest point to our fit result (A=0.53, S=-0.83).
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Answers to FAQs
Q: Why have the errors remained the same size even though the data size was doubled?
• We now use rms values of fit output distributions from MC pseudo-experiments.
• In the previous result, we quoted MINOS errors from the fit.
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Answers to FAQsQ: How do you know the background parameterization is correct?
A: We obtained parameters for continuum background by fitting to sideband events. Continuum MC show that the distribution in sideband is same as that in signal region.
Q: How do we know that we have parameterized the tails of distributions?
A: The lifetime fits results for ππ and Kπ are consistent with world averages, indicating that the ∆t distribution is correctly parameterized.
A: for the ∆E shape, double Gaussians were used for both ππand Kπ, yielding results consistent with the single-Gaussianfits.functions for both pipi and Kpi shapes.
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Answers to FAQs
Q: Are the fit values of Aππ and Sππ (anti-) correlated?
A: No. The correlation coefficient for the data is 0.02. Morever, the toy MC results shows no clear correlation between Aππ and Sππ.
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Answers to FAQs
A: What do you obtain when you fit events with B0 and B0 tags separately?
Q: Since A is mainly determined by the counting asymmetry of signal yields between, B0 and B0 tags, when fitting these samples separately, we fix Aππ to 0.77 and fit for Sππ . The result is
The results are consitent with the standard fits at the 2σ level.
034.025.0
059.043.0 for 97.0 and for 57.2 BSBS +
−+− −=−= ππππ
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Answers to FAQs
Q: It looks like it is the background asymmetry that has fluctuated. Could that explain the result?
A: Statistical fluctuations in the background are accounted for in the statistical error. We also confirm null asymmetry with sideband data that is dominated by continuum.
It is true, however, that an overestimate of the background (and other dilution effects) could artificially increase the apparent asymmetry.
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Answers to FAQsQ: Are Belle and BaBar consistent?
A: The values are
Which is a difference of 2.6σ when taken in quadrature. Stranger things have happened.
BaBar 04.025.030.0 and 05.034.002.0 Belle 08.027.077.0 and 08.041.023.1
±±=±±=±±=±±−=
ππππ
ππππ
ASAS
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Answers to FAQsQ: Can the asymmetry be traced to a detector-dependent asymmetry in the particle ID? (This question was posed by Blair Ratcliff.)
Comment: this effect is potentially dangerous, since there is a “magnification” of the asymmetry in the events that feed across from the Kπ to the ππchannel.
This effect is still under discussion within Belle, so what is said here should be considered preliminary.
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Answers to FAQsQ: Can the asymmetry be traced to a detector-dependent asymmetry in the particle ID (cont’d)?
ππ
ππππ
ηΓΓ∆
≈ KKA2
'
Where the A’ππ is an apparent counting asymmetry resulting from feed across from B→Kπ decays and ∆ηKπ is a detector induced asymmetry in the rates for K+ and K- faking π+ and π- This magnification results because misID fakes directly enter the B→ππ sample.
πηK∆
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Answers to FAQsQ: Can the asymmetry be traced to a detector-dependent asymmetry in the particle ID (cont’d)?
• Due to dilution effects, the maginfication is actually more like 2.5, rather than the 4 that one would expect from the measured BRs.
• The charge asymmetry in Belle appears to be very small (surprisingly so), and has conservatively been taken to be <1% based on direct measurements. For example, Brendan Casey’s thesis gives
310)1.19.0()()()()( −
−+
−+
×±−=+−
KNKNKNKN
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Answers to FAQsQ: Can the asymmetry be traced to a detector-dependent asymmetry in the particle ID (cont’d)?
• Due to dilution effects, the maginfication is actually more like 2.5, rather than the 4 that one would expect from the measured BRs.
• The charge asymmetry in Belle appears to be very small (surprisingly so), and has conservatively been taken to be <1% based on direct measurements. For example, Brendan Casey’s thesis gives
310)1.19.0()()()()( −
−+
−+
×±−=+−
KNKNKNKN
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Detector Charge Asymmetry
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Answers to FAQs
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
B→K(*)l+l-
FCNC decays likeB→K(*)l+l- have a long and important history in particle physics. In the SM, they are forbidden at the tree level, but occur through penguins and loops, which are potentially sensitive to beyond-the-SM contributions.
60 fb-1 Sample
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
B→K(*)l+l-
610)06.016.058.0( )(
−
−+
×±±
=→ llKBBR
C.L. 90% 104.1 )(
6
*
−
−+
×<
→ llKBBR
Both results consistent with SM expectations.
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
B→π+π- Checks
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Likelihood Plots
12sin ϕ
ξξ
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
0LK Detection
Θ
LKP
missP
∑± =
−=hi
iS PPP,
4missγ
Inclusive “KL’s”
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Vertexing
• Common track requirements– # of associated SVD hits > 2– Use run-dependent IP
• For CP-side, use J/ψ l+l- tracks– Reject poorly fit events.
• For Tag-side, use tracks with:– |δz|<1.8mm, |σz|<500 µm, |δr|<500 µm– Iterate: discard worst track until fit is acceptable.
• Require |zCP - ztag|<2 mm (≈10τB)
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Test of Vertex Resolution0*0 / KJB Ψ→
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
The Data
The first order effect is a mean shift between positively and negatively tagged samples (Summer ’01 sample).
30 fb-1
sample
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Sources of Systematic Error
±0.035Total
±0.007∆md and τB0 errors
±0.007Fit biases
±0.010KL background fraction
±0.014Resolution function
±0.015Flavor tagging
±0.022Vertex algorithm
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Subsample Dependence
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Subsample Dependence
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Subsample Dependence
r bin
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Comparison to other sin2ϕ1Measurements
It looks like CDF had it right!
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Ψ’ Modes
Both leptons tagged.
29 fb-1 sample
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Other Charmonium Modes
M(l+l−γ) − M(l+l−)
1st observationof inclusiveB→ χc2 X
χc2
χc1
29 fb-1 sample
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Mixing
The effect of the mixing is readily evident when the asymmetry is plotted as a function of ∆t.
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Other ϕ1 Modes: b→ccd
00 / πΨ→ JB 00 / ρΨ→ JB
Belle-Conf-0209
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
Other ϕ1 Modes: b→ccd
06.039.025.0 08.049.093.0
/
/
±±−=±±=−
Ψ
Ψ
π
π
J
J
AS78 fb-1 Sample
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
After cut on Mbc
The background situation is more difficult.
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
0B
0B
0B0B
In the 42 fb-1 sample, we have observed an asymmetry in the rate for vs.At present, this is only a ~3σ effect, but if it persists with higher statistics, it will represent the first observation of direct CP violation in the B system.
−+→ ππ0B −+→ ππ0B
March 17, 2003 CPV at Belle
[ ]) sin(1)(/
+∆∆±=∆Γ∆−
tmSet fB
t B
ππ
τ
ξτ
tmC ∆∆cosππ
Mean shift between q=+1 and q=-1 samples.
Population difference between the q=+1 and q=-1 samples.