Transcript Document

D-meson results from CLEO
• “Rumors of my death are exaggerated”.
– 2003: CLEO re-incarnated (phoenix-like) into 3-4 GeV electronpositron collider.
– First “CLEO-class” detector at charmonium energies
– Continuing nearly 30 year physics program
• Longevity>U2 (but <Rolling Stones)
– Scheduled to take data into 2008; expect active physics analysis
program for additional five yrs.
• Focus here on updated D+mn (2005 pub.) plus recent
results on semileptonic+hadronic D modes.
• THANKS TO DAVID ASNER, WERNER SUN AND
ALEX SMITH, FROM WHOM I SHAMELESSLY
LIFTED SLIDES WHOLESALE!
CLEO-c Detector/CESR-c Accelerator
• Ability to run at
cms energies from
Mini
Drift J/y up to U(5S)
SVX
SVX
CLEO
III
CLEO-III
CLEO-c
Chamber
y’
y(3770)
Beam Energy (GeV)
Simple conversion of
detector from
U(4S) to y(3770)
running; CESR
reconfiguration now
prohibits return to
Upsilon system.
Silow-mass tracking
Running at the y(3770)
Ecm ~ U(4S)
Ecm ~ y(3770)
CLEO III
• No extra energy for
fragmentation particles
CLEO-c
– Known/coherent initial state
– Clean neutrino reconstruction
– Simple combinatorics
• Large cross section
• Good kinematic particle ID
Overview of D-tagging techniques
• e+e-  y(3770)  DD
• Kinematics analogous to U(4S)"BB: s(MBC) ~ 1.3
MeV, x2 with p0
s(DE) ~ 7—10 MeV, x2 with p0
• Single tag (ST): ni = NDDBiei
• Double tag (DT) : nij = NDDBiBjeij
– Ratio + algebra allows extraction of BR; eff cancels to 1st
order
• Take advantage of low multiplicity, low
backgrounds.
K found
(MC)
MM allows
extraction of
efficiency from
data! (Same tracking
eff technique in
earlier CLEO-II
DKpi analysis)
DKXX
DKp
Dpp
K not found
(MC)
Example:
K- eff
from
D0 " K-p+
e ≈ 91%
Leptonic Decays:
+
+
D →μ ν
2

ml
G 2 2
+
+
 D  l n  
f D + ml M D +  1 - 2
 M +
8p

D
2
F
Compare with lattice
QCD predictions!
2

2
 Vcd

fD+ from Absolute Br(D+  m+n)
Tag D fully
reconstructed
1 additional track (m)
Compute missing mass2:
peaks at 0 for signal
B ( D +  mn )  10-4
MkIII
f D MeV
 7.2
BESII 12.211.1
-53  0.11
 290
~9 pb-1 2390 tags
371+-129
119  25
Mark III PRL 60, 1375 (1988)
BESII Phys.Lett.B610:183-191, (2005)
~33pb-1
5321 tags
D Leptonic Decays:
+
+
D m n
Getting the ABSOLUTE branching fractions... “Other side D” tag
Tag D
e+
e-
m+ Signal D
n
• Tag D decay modes:
–
• Many large BR tag modes
– ~25% efficiency for reconstructing a
tag
• Signal is very pure after tagging
• Roughly 30x BES sample
• (281/pb)
D -  K +p -p D -  K +p -p -p 0
D -  K S0p D -  K S0p -p -p +
D -  K S0p -p 0
• Fit for (“missing mass”)2:

MM 2  Ebeam - Em +
 - - p
2
D
-

- pm +

2
TAG SAMPLE
Compare with previous results & Lattice Calcs
222.6(16.7)(3.4)
Since fD measures w.f.
overlap at origin, expect
comparable (slightly
smaller than) fDs
Phys.Rev.Lett. 95 (2005) 251801
Semileptonic Decays
 D  Pln  
2
2
F
G Vcq p 3
24p
3
 
f+ q
2
2
c
 Test LQCD on shape of
f+(q2)
ne
|Vcs| , |Vcd|
u,d
Use tested Lattice for norm.
 Extract |Vcd|
 Extract B(DXen)
 Dp FF related to Bp FF by HQS
 Precise Dp FF’s can lead to reduced
stheory in |Vub| at B factories
 Same holds for DVln, except 3 FF’s enter
W+
e+
s,d
u,d
Exclusive Semileptonic D Meson Decays
Signal component
from fit to variable U
Technique:
• Reconstruct one D meson in
hadronic tagging channel
–
–
M bc  E
2
beam
-P
2
candidate
0 +
B( D +  K e n ) 
D E  Ebeam - Ecandidate
• Reconstruct the remaining
observable tracks
• Use the missing energy (Emiss) and
missing momentum (|Pmiss|) in the
event to form kinematic fit
variable for the neutrino

U  Emiss - Pmiss
From Monte
Carlo/Data
0 +
N (K e n )
0 +
e (K e n )N (D- )
From fit of Mbc
and DE for
number of tags
Both flavors combined:
B
0 +
N ( K e n ) + N ( K 0 e -n )
0 +
 e ( K e n )  ( N ( D - ) + N ( D + ))
Semileptonic Decays
Semileptonic decays are
reconstructed with no
kinematic ambiguity
Hadronic Tags: 32K D+ 60K D0
K+
pe+
Tagging creates a single D beam
of known 4-momentum
Events / ( 10 MeV )
n
K-
D0  K -e +n
(~1300 events)
U = Emiss– |Pmiss| (GeV)
D+ semileptonic results (including omega!)
D0 semileptonic results – note wrt PDG
Compare CLEO-c to PDG 2004
Double Tag Analysis gives Had BR’s
All D+ DT
1650±42
All D0 DT
2484±51
Mode
MBC (log scale) for ST modes: D+D
ND (103)
ND (103)
eD(%)
Kp
5.11±0.07 5.15±0.07
65.1±0.2
Kpp0
9.51±0.11 9.47±0.11
31.6±0.1
Kppp
7.44±0.09 7.43±0.09
43.8±0.1
Kpp
7.56±0.09 7.56±0.09
51.0±0.1
Kppp0 2.45±0.07 2.39±0.07
25.7±0.1
K0sp
1.10±0.04 1.13±0.04
45.7±0.3
K0spp0 2.59±0.07 2.50±0.07
22.4±0.1
K0sppp 1.63±0.06 1.58±0.06
31.2±0.1
0.64±0.03 0.61±0.03
41.1±0.4
KKp
Double Tag Analysis: Fit Results
• Fit includes both statistical and
systematic errors (with
correlations)
[arXiv:physics/0503050].
• Precision comparable to PDG
WA.
 s(systematic) ~ s(statistical).
– Many systematics measured
in data, will improve w/time.
• Simulation includes FSR, so we
measure B (final state + ng).
– Using efficiencies without
FSR correction would lower
B.
• NDD includes continuum and
resonant production.
Value
no
FSR
(2.01±0.04±0.02)x105
-0.2%
(3.91±0.08±0.09)%
-2.0%
B(K-p+p0)
(14.9±0.3±0.5)%
-0.8%
B(K-p+p+p-)
(8.3±0.2±0.3)%
-1.7%
(1.56±0.04±0.01)x105
-0.2%
B(K-p+p+)
(9.5±0.2±0.3)%
-2.2%
B(K-p+p+p0)
(6.0±0.2±0.2)%
-0.6%
(1.55±0.05±0.06)%
-1.8%
B(K0Sp+p0)
(7.2±0.2±0.4)%
-0.8%
B(K0Sp+p-p+)
(3.2±0.1±0.2)%
-1.4%
(0.97±0.04±0.04)%
-0.9%
s(D0D0)
(3.60±0.07+0.07-0.05) nb
-0.2%
s(D+D-)
(2.79±0.07+0.10-0.04) nb
-0.2%
s(+-)/s(00)
0.776±0.024+0.014-0.008
+0.0%
Parameter
ND0D0
B(K-p+)
ND+D-
B(KS0p+)
B(K+K-p+)
Comparison with PDG 2004
B(D0 " K-p+)
B(D+ " K- p+p+)
• Measurements and errors normalized
to PDG.
• PDG global fit includes ratios to K-p+
or K-p+p+.
• No FSR corrections in PDG
measurements.
Overall
• Our measurements
also correlated
C.L
(statistics and25.9%
efficiency systematics).
Other direct meas.
D→
+
n(p )
0
m(p )
• Study Cabibbo-suppressed D
decays with single tags only.
– Double tag technique not as
profitable—statistics too low.
– Normalize Bs to ref. modes.
• MC tuned to match pp mass
spectra in data.
• Bkgnd from Cabibbo-favored
decays with K0S → p+p-, p0p0.
– Veto M(pp) near K0S mass.
D0
Reference
modes
D+
M(p+p-)
M(p0p0)
MBC distributions
in DE signal region
and DE sidebands
X-checked with
search including
hgg
What’s coming?
• Results on CP-modes,
• Dalitz analyses & rare decay modes,
• Via scan, have found “optimal” run energy for
production of Ds mesons…beginning to accumulate
tag sample; apply D-reconstruction machinery to Ds,
• Immediate Ds goals: high-precision msrmnt of
normalizing mode (fp, tn, semileptonic modes (CF
and CS), rare modes “tailored” for threshold
msmrnts (p-nbar, e.g.)
Tags Invariant Masses from the 4160 & the 4180 MeV DATA
fp-
hr-
23316
22753
KsK-
hp-
15018
7010
hp-
hr-
9719
K * K-
5615
fr-
Total # of Tags = 1219 ± 67(stat)
30422
8215
Impact of CLEO-c Measurements
Electroweak
Physics
n
W+
e+
Strong
Physics
• Calibration and validation of Lattice QCD
• Test theoretical form factor calcs. and models
– Impacts prediction of form factors for B meson decays
• Measurements of |Vcs| and |Vcd|
• Improved decay constants fB possible from
CLEO-c fD measurement + LQCD
• Improved measurement of many important
normalization modes
CLEO-c Impact on Unitarity Triangle
Now: Theory
uncertainties
dominate
With few % theory
errors made
possible by CLEO-c
and 500 fb-1 each
from the B
factories:
Future of Precision Flavor Physics
Goal: Measure all CKM matrix elements and associated
phases in order to over-constrain the unitary triangles
Vud/Vud~0.1%
e
n
n
p
Vcd/Vcd~71.1%
D
l
n
p
Vtd/Vtd~365%
Bd
CLEO-c
Vus/Vus~1%
K
Vub/Vub~155%
l
n
l
B
p
n
p
Vcs/Vcs~161.4% Vcb/Vcb~53%
D
l
n
K
Vts/Vts~395%
Bd Bs
CLEO-c + Lattice
QCD +B factories
Bs
l
B
n
D
Vtb/Vtb~29%
t
W
b
CLEO-c + Lattice QCD
+B factories + ppbar