Transcript Document

Heavy Flavour Physics at the
Tevatron
Zero to Z0 Conference: Fermilab, May 12-14 2004
Farrukh Azfar, Oxford University (CDF)
Overview of this presentation:
Preliminary:
1) Tevatron performance, Beauty physics at hadron colliders
2) CDF and D0 detectors, relevance for B-physics
Physics Results & Prospects:
3) Tests of Heavy Quark Expansion (HQE) Masses and Lifetimes of
B hadrons. Hadronic Moments.
4) Search for Flavour Changing Neutral Current (FCNC), Rare
decays…
5) Mixing and CP violation (CPV), Toward Bs-mixing & CKM angle g.
6) Conclusion and Summary
Tevatron pp collider upgrade & performance,
integrated luminosity
Run-IIa
-Goals are Ldt=2fb-1 (x20 Run-I, 1992-96)
Run-II Tevatron Upgrades:
-Main Injector for Tevatron
-Higher proton intensity
-Anti-proton transfer efficiency increased
-Anti-proton recycler (coming after autumn)
Performance Improvement:
-Collision rate: 3.5 ms 396 ns
- Bunches: 6x6 36x36
-Center of Mass energy: 1.81.96 TeV/c2
-Peak luminosity : 2.4x10317.2 x1031cm2s-1
(Below target by x2.5, but improving)
Data taking efficiency~80-90% for CDF & D0
Results in this talk:
CDF analyses ~65-250 pb-1
D analyses ~115-250 pb-1
290 pb-1 on tape at CDF & D0
CDF
Why Beauty at the Hadron-Hadron Colliders ?
s(bb) at (4S) = 1nb (B-factories)
(Compare bb production
s(bb) at Z0 = 7nb (LEP)
cross section)
s(bb) at pp (1.96TeV/c2)=150mb (Tevatron Experiments)
More B @ Tevatron but inelastic s is 103 x s(bb)
-Select b-data online, key: right detector & triggers
-Rewards: all B-hadrons e.g. B, B0, Bs, Bc , b …
(unlike B-factories) & higher s than at Z0
Clever Online B Selection (Triggers):
”Traditional” Use leptons from e.g. BsDs+m-n CDF & D0 (singlelepton) & B  J/yK*, J/y m+m- :CDF & D0 (di-lepton)
”Modern” long B lifetimes large impact parameter (IP)
of daughter tracks : CDF (D0 in progress)
SVT trigger: purely hadronic decays of B and Charm
e.g. D0p+p- , BsDs+p-, Ds+f p+ fK+K- (1st @ hadron machine!)
CDF Apply High IP requirement in single-Lepton data as well
The CDF & D0 Detectors in Run-II
CDF & D0 Detectors are both
Multi-purpose with:
-Axial Solenoid
-Inner Silicon micovertex detectors
-Outer trackers
-Calorimetry
-Muon ID
-Muon Triggering (CDF & D0)
-High IP Track triggering (CDF)
D0: Better calorimetry, better muon &
tracking coverage
CDF: Better momentum measurement,
also can select high IP tracks, some
Hadron ID with dE/dX, TOF
CDF Detector
D0 Detector
Physics Results, Testing HQE: B-hadron lifetimes, masses
Goals, Techniques
Goal: test the HQE Predicted B Lifetime hierarchy :
tBc << tXb0 ~ tb < tBd ~ tBs < t B- < t XbFully Reconstructed B from J/ym+m- di-muon trigger (e.g. Bs J/yf) or
High IP trigger (e.g. BsK+K-)
-Find vertex, 2-d distance: Lxy invariant mass: MB
momentum in 2-d: PtB Find proper time: ct = Lxy. MB/PtB
- Fit mass distribution only or mass and lifetime distributions
Partially Reconstructed e.g. Bs  m+Ds-n, B+ m+nD0
1-lepton (+High IP track CDF )trigger:
-Missing n means: ct = Lxy.MB/PtB =Lxy(D0m+).MBK./Pt(m+D0)
-K= Pt(m+D0) /PtB from MC: high statistics but worse sct
-Decays selected using
SVT trigger have biased ct
-”Turn-on” near low IP cut
-”Turn-off” at high IP cut
-Bias fix underway: Then
measure Lifetimes in BsDs+petc….
Physics Results, HQE: Bs J/y f, Lifetime and Mass:
J/y  m+m- , f  K+K- (using di-muon (J/y) trigger):
Run-I: ~60 at CDF. Run-II: D0~403, CDF~269
Largest sample of fully reconstructed Bs remains at the Tevatron
CDF:M(Bs)=5366.010.73(stat)0.0.33 (sys)MeV/c2 D0:M(Bs)=53605
MeV/c2
CDF: t(Bs)=1.3470.0990.013 ps & t(Bs)/t(Bd)= 0.89 0.072
D0: t(Bs) = 1.1900.180.014 ps (69 events, update in progress)
Mass & Lifetime Results from assorted other fully reconstructed decays:
CDF: t(B)= 1.25±0.26±0.10 ps (bJ/y), M(B)=5619.7±1.2±1.2 MeV/c2
Bs and B mass measurements remain worlds best..
Physics Results (aside): Bs width difference DGs angular
separation of CP eigenstates
CDF & D0 fit 1 lifetime But: there are 2: tCP+,tCP- & DGBs=1/tCP+-1/tCPDGs: predicted to be large ~10%, provides SM consistency check: DGs=A.DMBs
If DMBs is large & DGs is small or vice-versasign of new physics
Need to measure lifetime(s) : can do, and determine CP content: Use angular
analysis…(CDF) and put them together (when we have higher statistics)
Convenient basis: transversity
Allows easy separation of CP content of BVV decays
Analyse: Bs J/y f & Bd J/yK* as a check
(J/ym+m-, fK+K-, K*(892)K+p-)
PDF has 3 angles: f(QT ,FT, QK*) with amplitude parameters A,A A0
so that: A2=CP odd fraction & A2+A02 =CP even fraction
Physics Results (aside): Bs width difference DGs angular
separation of CP eigenstates
Using 176 BsJ/yf & 993 BdJ/yK*(892) (as a check)
Compatible with BaBar & Belle
Polarization analysis indicates CP+ = 0.77±0.10: The larger the dominance
of a CP eigenstate the greater the accuracy of DGs
Analysis will be done at D0 as well !
Physics Results Testing HQE: Charged to Neutral BMeson lifetime ratio (D0)
D0: Charged to Neutral B-Meson Lifetime Ratio: t+/t0 Use:
-B  m+nD*(2010)-X: mostly Bd
-B  m+nD0X : mostly Bu±
-Calculate ratio of events/lifetime bin N+/N0 ~e-(t+/t0-1)t (K-factor)st
-Calculate expected ratio using all BRs in terms of k= t+/t0, and N (overall
normalization) & Minimize c2 determine k and N
D0 Result: t+/t0 = 1.093 ± 0.021 ± 0.022, N=1.001±0.012
BaBar: t(B+)/t(Bd)= 1.064 ±0.031 ±0.026 CDF: t(B+)/t(Bd)= 1.080  0.042
Belle: t(B+)/t(Bd)= 1.091±0.023±0.014
(B+J/yK+ & BdJ/yK*0)
One of the
World’s best single
measurements
Physics Results Testing HQE: More B decays used:
BdJ/y K* (D0)
B+J/y K+(D0)
bJ/y (CDF)
B+J/y K+(CDF)
Physics Results: Hadronic Moments from D** decays
1) HQE: G(BXclnl)~GF2|Vcb|2 mb5.S(Cn/mb)n with Cn = <0|OnHQE|0> (nonperturbative, can extract from data)
2) Free parameters :  at O(1/mb), l1+l2 @ O(1/mb2) , etc….
1 dG
sl
3) Moments M1,M2 of Xc invariant mass distribution:
G sl dsH
1 d G sl
from B-decays : M  s
2
2
ds
(
s
m
)

s

m
1
H
H
H
s
D
D
H max
G sl dsH
H min
M2  
sH max
sH min
dsH
1 d G sl
( sH  - sH ) 2  ( sH - mD 2 ) 2  - M 12
G sl dsH
have expansions similar to 1) i.e..in terms of  & l1+l2
1 d G sl
pdf G ds
sl
H
4) By finding
measurements
(sH=MXc2)
& hence M1, M2 ->constrain , l1 , & improve Vcb
|Vcb|incl= (41.9 ± 0.7exp ± 0.6theo) 10-3
contains , l1
5) Now
First 2 pieces from D*, D0 are well known. f** (sH) comes from narrow &
wide D**+higher order(resonant & non-resonant):
Physics Results : Hadronic Moments
Reconstruct B- D**0 l- n Find m and D**0 consistent with B parent
(vertex). Use lepton + high IP track data.
f**(sH) distribution
**0
*+
**0
+
Reconstruct D D p & D D p
decays are reconstructed, moments: m1,
m2 calculated wrt f**(sH)
In going from m to M assume:
-lepton p in B rest frame >700 MeV
-MD, MD* , Branching ratios from PDG
-Only D** decays to 1p + D, D*
M1 M2 from D, D* & D**
best single measurement !
Rare B decays: B
+ s(d)m m
at CDF
-Use high-mass di-muon data
-BRSM(Bsm+m- )=(3.8 ± 1.0) 10-9 some extensions predict x103 BRSM
- Variables: Mass, lifetime, Df from vertex & Isolation
- 1 background event expected, 1 event seen: no excess->BR limit
“Blind” analysis: cuts optimization before
looking at the signal mass region
Bd result: Belle: 1.6x10-7 & BaBar 2.0x10-7
BR Upper Limit at 95% CL
7.5x10-7 Bs  m+m- (World’s best)
1.9x10-7 Bd  m+mBR Upper Limit at 90% CL
5.8x10-7 (Bs  m+m-)
1.5x10-7 (Bd  m+m-)
Submitted to PRL
Physics Results Bs m+m- limits from D0:
-Use MC for signal data, background for cut optimisation:
-Expect 7.3  1.8 background events in signal region
180 pb-1
The analysis has not
been
unblinded yet (signal
region still hidden).
It is still being
optimized (without bias)
and expected to
improve …
Expected limit (Feldman/Cousins):
Br(Bs  m+ m-) < 9.1  10-7 @ 95 % CL
Br(Bs  m+ m-) < 1.0  10-6 @ 95 % CL
(stat only)
(stat + syst)
(expected signal has been normalised to B  J/ K for
BR limit calculation)
Rare Decays: Bs ff :Observation & BR (SVT Trigger) CDF
1) Bs ff decays via second order weak decay
2) SUSY coupling could enhance the SM BR (10-5)
3) Comparison of angular distributions of various
B VV decays can determine a and g
First “observation” (4.8s) ! Blind analysis
1) Normalization Mode: BsJ/y f
2) Relative Efficiencies from MC
3) N(Bs  J/y f) is corrected for:
Reflections from Bd J/y K*
4) J/y  m+m- fK+K- BsJ/y f BRs
taken from PDG
N(Bs  φφ) ε(ψφ) BR(Bs  ψφ).BR( J /y  m + m - )
BR(Bs  φφ) 

N(Bs  ψφ)corr ε(φφ)
BR(  K + K - )
BR= (1.4 ± 0.6 ± 0.2 ± 0.5 (BR))x10-5 (SM 3.7x10-5)
Upper Limit : <2.7x10-5 @ 95% CL
Mixing and CP violation (CPV) in Bd,s decays, basics:
-Mixing: tag B-flavour at birth, decay to flavour specific state:
asymmetry: Amix~Cos(Dmd,st)
-CPV: tag B at birth, decay to CP eigenstate:
asymmetry(t) Acpv~Acpv,direct.Cos(Dmd,st)+Acpv,mixing.Sin(Dmd,st)
Issues: Tagging Flavour Correctly…
Dilut ion D 
Ncorrect - N wrong
Ncorrect + N wrong
....& being able to tag at all
Efficiency e 
N correct + N wrong
N correct + N wrong + N no tag
Statistical power: N tagged events = eD2N pure events
Opposite side tagging
Same side tagging
Concept:Look for
Concept: Look for p± (K±)
B on opposite side
from hadronization of B (Bs)
of B of interest
of interest, Higher e
-Look for m,e
-Use weighted jetcharge
Disadvantages:
Opposite B not in
acceptance (60%)
or mixes (B0)
Check algorithms in known b-flavour decays eg B±  J/yK±
Prepare for Bs mixing by first doing Bd mixing
Proof of principle: Bd mixing at D0
-Data sample: lepton triggers -Bd m+D*(2010)-X (D*-D0p-,D0 K+p-)
-Find m+, D0,p- consistent with B
-Select events within |DM(D*-,D0)PDG- DM(D*-,D0)|<0.04GeV/c2
-Opposite-side m tags flavour
-Use PDG BRs to calculate expected & observed asymmetry(t)
-DMd & Purity are free parameters & fit
250 pb-1
Preliminary results: Dmd = 0.506  0.055 0.049 ps-1
Consistent with world average: 0.502  0.007 ps-1
Tagging efficiency: 4.8  0.2 %
Tagging Purity:
73.0  2.1 % First D0 mixing Measurement !!
Proof of principle CDF (Run-II) DMd measurement
CDF Run-I Dmd (all methods) = 0.495 ± 0.026 ± 0.025 ps-1
First Run-II mixing result: same side tagging (SST)
Find fragmentation p from B, track near B with lowest relative PT

B+J/y K+, D0p+ to check tag, B0J/y K*0, D p for Dmd
-1.1KB0J/yK*0
(J/y data)

-4.9K B0D p
(SVT Trigger!)
DMd=0.55±0.10 ps-1
Dilution (D) =12.4 %
eD2=1.0±0.5
Work on jet-charge &
opposite side muon
Tagging continues
Physics Prospects: Toward Bs mixing at CDF : fully
reconstructed decays : B0s Dsp
Decays we plan to use:
B0s Dsp,
First observation of mode BsDs+p-with (Ds+ fp+,
f K+K-) ! “Flagship” Mode for Bs mixing !
B0s Dsp+p-p
Proper time resolution:
st = 67 fs  t  sPT/PT
-Need to tag initial B flavour
-projection awaits final eD2
-Currently have reconstructed only Dsfp
-Reconstruct with more Ds decays eg: K*0K, p-p+p
to improve yields…
Physics Prospects: Toward Bs mixing semi-leptonic decays:
Use leptons (CDF: lepton+high IP track) & select Bsm+Ds-X
Find lepton+Ds-fp- f K+K- lepton has charge opp. to Ds
Plots have different mass resolution and S/B
-Also Lifetime measurement provides valuable constraint on DGBs:
t=(tcp+2+tcp-2 )/(tcp++tcp-) as in B0s Dsp
Physics Prospects: CP violation in Bh+h- (SVT data)
decays determining angle g (CDF), Method:
-u
Bh+h- from hadronic trigger
b
b
W
u,c,t
W-
d b
u
s b
u,c,t
WW-
d
Data ! (891 events)
-u
MC
s
u
Tree > penguin in Bp+p- vice-versa in BsK+KFour unknowns In Asymmetry(t):
d=ratio of penguin/tree hadronic matrix
elements
q phase of d
g,b= weak phases
Constrain b from B-factories, measure g by
fitting asymmetry (t)
Proposed by: R.Fleischer, PLB459 1999 306
Lumi~180pb-1
dE/dx check: Use D*±D0p, D0 Kp
1st Stage Statistically Separate Bd p+p-, Bd K+p-,
Bs K+p-, BsK+K- Use: Mpp vs a=(1-p1/p2)q1:6 distinct shapes for p+pK+K-, (Bd,Bs) K+p-, p+K-Use: dE/dX distinguishes Kp to 1.16s in the future use
DmBd DmBs too…
Physics Prospects: CP violation in Bh+h- decays
determining angle g (CDF)
Yields (Results from 65 pb-1)
Results use 65 pb-1 sample, 1.16s dE/dX
Bdp+p- 14817
Kp separation:
BdKp 3914
Update with dE/dX (1.4s) & 180 pb-1 underway ! BsKp
311
BsK+K9017
(BsK+K- First Observation !)
Sanity check (spot on !): Measure Ratio of Branching Ratios
+0.13
CDF : G(Bdp+p-)/G(Bd K+p-) = 0.26 ±0.11±0.055, PDG: 0.29-0.12
+ 0.01
- 0.02
BR(Bdp+p-)
Ratios of BRs (CDF) & ACP(Bdp+p-) (Bfactories): Check SM consistency
(D.London)
BR(BsK+K-)
SM check by comparison with ACP in Bdpp
hep-ph/0404009
0.29
U-Spin
relationship
+0.13 + 0.01
-0.12 - 0.02
58°<g<72°
Finally we expect:
dir
ACP(Bdp+p-)
(Fleischer method) (2fb-1): s(g) =±10(stat) ±3(syst SU(3) breaking)
Conclusions:
1) CDF & D0 are completing 1st phase (~250pb-1) of data taking :
a) Current s(t(Bu+)/t(Bd0) ) surpasses theoretical accuracy. Also tests of
vertexing & tracking (for future DMBs and CPV)
b) Search for FCNC set limits on rare BRs
c) Prepare for Bs mixing: Establish by measuring Bd mixing first !
2) Next phase (>250pb-1 &<500pb-1) will:
a) set limits on (or observe) Bs mixing
b) set limits on DGBs
c) search for CPV in the neutral B system
d) Continue to improve limits of Rare Decay BRs
3) Final Phase (end Run-IIa) (>500pb-1 and <2fb-1) all of the previous &:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Achieve better than 1% accuracy on s(t(Bs)/t(Bd) ) & s(t(Bd)/t(b))
Measure Bs mixing parameter xs expect to measure d(DGs)~5%
Measure CKM angle g
……and search for unexpectedly large CPV in Bs J/yf
Last phase will be mostly complementary to the B-factories
Backup Slides
Aside: Physics Results: Ratio of branching ratios
of BsDsp to BdDp
Interest in BsDsp is mostly due to Bs mixing but:we’ve also
measured the ratio of branching ratios G(BsDsp)/G(BdDp)
Normalization mode is BdDp, D Kp+pKinematically ~ BsDsp, Ds fp, fK+KRatio of Bs to Bd signals is:
N ( Bs ) f s e s Br ( Bs  Ds +p - ) Br ( Ds +  fp + ) Br (f  K + K - )

N ( Bd ) f d e d Br ( Bd  D+p - )
Br ( D+  K -p +p - )
Where e are determined from Monte-Carlo
D, Ds BR are from PDG, obtain:
f s  BR( Bs  Dsp )
f d  BR( Bd  D p )
 0.44  0.11( stat )  0.11( BR)  0.07( syst )
Using fs/fd =0.273±0.034 from PDG obtain:

BR( Bs  Dsp )
f 
 1.61  0.40( stat )  0.40( BR)  0.26(syst )  0.20  PDG s 
BR( Bd  D p )
fd 

…we’re beginning to fill in PDG section on the Bs
Data Samples: B and Charm from the hadronic trigger
0.5M Charm decays at CDF 10-20% come from B: Great Potential for B
and Charm Physics, opens at least as many avenues as J/y trigger
Some charm is prompt
D from direct charm:
Points back to beam spot
..Some charm is from B
D from B has a impact
Parameter wrt beam spot
..to separate prompt Ds from Ds coming from B
D0Kp
D*pD0
DKpp
Dsp
Prompt Charm
86.5  0.4 % (stat)
87.6  1.1 % (stat)
89.1  0.4 % (stat)
72.4  3.4 % (stat)
We have B and tons of Charm as well !
An example of B reconstructed
Using data from this trigger:
Physics Results: Average B-hadron lifetime from
partially reconstructed BJ/yX decays
This is a “sanity check” of our BJ/y sample: Obtain Average B hadron tB
From all BJ/y (+other stuff) decays: B is not fully reconstructed
M
Partially reconstructed B
ct  Lxy 
PT F ( PT )
-Correct for missed daughters:
F(PT) (from by Monte-Carlo)
-tB is an estimate
-it is the average lifetime of
all hadrons decaying to J/y
D0 Inclusive B Lifetime
M  PTB
F (P ) 
M B PT

T
Signal lifetime is modelled by :
Fsignal (t B , t , s t ) 
e( -t /t B )
tB
 g (t , s t )
Complete
function:
Completelikelihood
event probability
density
F (t B , t , s t )  f .Fsignal (t B , t , s t ) + (1 - f ).Fbackground (t )
Background shape from side-bands
Results from D0 and CDF
tB=1.5610.0240.074 ps D0 (40 pb-1)
tB=1.5260.0340.035 ps CDF (18 pb-1)
Both consistent with: PDG: tB = 1.564  0.014
Bs width difference DGs and angular variable separation
Two CP states: transversity
One lifetime(width) has been fit in this mode
1)
But contains two distinct lifetimes: CP+ & CP- Bs,
significant lifetime (width) difference:
DGs=1/tB1-1/tB2
2) Extract DGs : fit two lifetimes, use single angle to
separate CP+ and CP- Bs: (Transversity angle q)
3)
3)
F1 (q ,1)  0.375(1 + cos 2 q )
F2 (q , 2)  0.75(sin 2 q )
Two CP states: lifetime
F1 (t , s t ,t B1 ) 
SM prediction for DGs ~0.10Gs also DGs = A.xs (xs =
Bs mixing parameter) if DGs is small and xs is large
or vice-versa Sign of new physics
F2 (t , s t ,t B 2 ) 
e( -t /t B1 )
t B1
e( - t / t B 2 )
t B2
 g (s t , t )
 g (s t , t )
CDF prediction for 2fb-1 d(DGs)~0.05
Total function and normalization
Fsignal (m, t,q )  [ fCP1.F (t,s t ,t B1).F (q ,1) + (1 - fCP1).F (t,s t ,t B2 ).F (q ,2)].F (m, s m , M B )
Ftotal (m, t,q )  f s .Fsignal (m, t,q ) + (1 - f s ).Fbackround (m, t,q )
 F
total
( m, t ,q ) dmdtdq  1
Current limit (LEP): DGs / Gs <0.31, from branching ratio of BsDs±(*)Ds(*)
Note: SM CP violation in this mode: O(3%), if large new physics
CP asymmetry = sin2e  DGs, measured= DGs,SM.Cos2e (complementary)
Physics Results: lifetime, mass, from fully
reconstructed B J/y X modes: Standard Technique :
Data from J/ym+m- di-muon trigger:
1) Reconstruct vertex according to decay topology
2) Calculate decay proper time mass & errors
3) If fitting for mass:fit mass only
4) If fitting for lifetime:Fit mass and lifetime
using bi-variate Probability density function (PDF)
in likelihood
An Example B+ ->J/y K+ at CDF
Probability Density Function (pdf)
1) Signal Lifetime :
F (t , s t ,t B ) 
e( - t /t B )
tB
 g (s t , t )
2) Signal Mass :
(-
F (m, s m , M B ) 
( m - M B )2
s 2m
e
)
2p s m
3) Signal for Mass only analyses:
Fsignal (m)  F (m, s m , M B )
4) Signal pdf in mass and lifetime:
Fsignal (m, t )  F (t , s t ,t B ).F (m, s m , M B )
5) Signal for lifetime analysis:
Ftotal (m, t )  f s .Fsignal + (1 - f s ).Fbackround (t , m)
Both the mass and lifetime distributions are fit
in a single step. Technique is applied to :
B+ gJ/y K+, B0 gJ/y K0* (K0* g Kp),
Bs g J/y f (f gKK), bgJ/y (gpp)
6) Normalization : mass & lifetime
 F
total
(m, t )dmdt  1
B physics prospects
(with 2fb-1)
Both competitive and complementary
to B -factories
 Bs mixing: Bs →Dsπ(Ds3π) (xs up to 60, with xd meas. one side of U.T.)
 Angle b:
B0→ J/ψ Ks
(refine Run1 meas. up to s(sen2b)  0.05)
 CP violation, angle γ : B0→ ππ(πK), Bs → KK(Kπ)
 Angle bs and DGs/ Gs : Bs→ J/ψ f (probe for New Physics)
 Precise Lifetimes, Masses, BR for all B-hadrons: Bs, Bc, Λb …
(CDF observed: Bc → J/ψ e(m)n. Now hadronic channels Bc → Bs X can be explored)
 HF cross sections (beauty and charm)
 Stringent tests of SM … or evidence for new physics !!
Physics Results: Average B-hadron lifetime from
partially reconstructed BJ/yX decays.
This is a “sanity check” of our BJ/y sample: Obtain Average B hadron tB
From all BJ/y (+other stuff) decays: B is not fully reconstructed
If Fully reconstructed B
-ct = c.(time in B rest frame)
-Lxy = 2-d decay length
-MB = mass
-PT = transverse momentum
D0 Inclusive B Lifetime
MB
ct  Lxy B
PT
If Partially reconstructed B
M
-Correct for missed daughters: ct  Lxy 
PT F ( PT )
F(PT) (from by Monte-Carlo)
-tB is an estimate
M  PTB

F ( PT ) 
-it is the average lifetime of

M
P
B
T
all hadrons decaying to J/y
Signal lifetime is modelled by :
e( -t /t B )
Fsignal (t B , t , s t ) 
 g (t , s t )
tB
Complete
function:
Completelikelihood
event probability
density
F (t B , t , s t )  f .Fsignal (t B , t , s t ) + (1 - f ).Fbackground (t )
Background shape from side-bands
Results from D0 and CDF
tB=1.5610.0240.074 ps D0 (40 pb-1)
tB=1.5260.0340.035 ps CDF (18 pb-1)
Both consistent with: PDG: tB = 1.564  0.014
Sin(2b) in B J/y Ks
0
ACP(t) =
N(B0)(t) - N(B0)(t)
N(B0)(t)
+
In Run1 measured:
N(B0)(t)
=Dsin(2b)sin(Dmd t)
g
a Dms/Dmd
b
B0  J/y Ks ; J/y  mm
sin(2b)=0.79±0.39±0.16 (400 events)
sin(2b)=0.91±0.32±0.18 (+60 B0  y (2S) Ks)
With 2fb-1 can refine this measurement
Although: no way to compete with B-Factories !
N(J/y Ks) from scaling Run I data:
• x 20 luminosity
• x 1.25 tracks at L1 trigger
• x 2 muon acceptance
• Trigger on J/y  e+e-
eD2:
Combined
Same S/B = 1
8,000
10,000
20,000
+ 10,000
from 6.3% to 9.1%
Stat. Error:
d ( sin (2b ) ) 
1
B
1
+
S
eD 2 N
Expect: s(sin2b)  0.05
Systematic ~ 0.5xStatistical
(Kaon b-tag) (scales with control
sample statistics)
Tevatron Performance
Tevatron operations
• Startup slow, but progress steady !
• Now: L ~3.5 x 1031 cm-2s-1
integrating ~ 6. pb-1/week
• … still factor 2-3 below planned values
additional improvements (~10-20%)
expected from Jan. 3weeks shutdown
CDF operations
• Commissioning: Summer 2001
• Physics data since February 2002
• Running with >90% Silicon integrated
since July 2002
Luminosity (on-tape):
 ~20pb-1 until June (analyses in this talk)
 Additional 90pb-1 July – December
 Reach 300- 400 pb-1 by October 2003
3.8 x 1031
Initial Luminosity
July ‘01
Now
On-tape Luminosity
110 pb
-1
July ‘02
Feb ‘02
Quadrant of CDF II Tracker
TIME OF FLIGHT
TOF: 100ps resolution, 2 sigma K/p
separation for tracks below 1.6 GeV/c
(significant improvement of Bs flavor
tag effectiveness)
COT: large radius (1.4 m) Drift C.
•
•
96 layers, 100ns drift time
Precise PT above 400 MeV/c
•
Precise 3D tracking in ||<1
s(1/PT) ~ 0.1%GeV –1; s(hit)~150mm
• dE/dx info provides 1 sigma K/p
separation above 2 GeV
SVX-II + ISL: 6 (7) layers of double-side silicon (3cm < R < 30cm)
• Standalone 3D tracking up to ||= 2
• Very good I.P. resolution: ~30mm (~20 mm with Layer00)
LAYER 00: 1 layer of radiation-hard silicon at very small radius (1.5 cm)
(achievable: 45 fs proper time resolution in Bs  Ds p )
CDF II Trigger System
3 levels : 5 MHz (pp rate)  50 Hz (disk/tape storage rate)
almost no dead time (< 10%)
CAL
COT
MUON
SVX
XFT
CES
XCES
L1
TRACK
2D COT track reconstruction at Level 1
• PT res. DpT/p2T = 2% (GeV-1)
• azimuthal angle res. Df = 8 mrad
Matched to L1 ele. and muons
enhanced J/y samples
XTRP
L1
CAL
XFT: “EXtremely Fast Tracker”
L1
MUON
SVT: “Silicon Vertex Tracker”
precise 2D Silicon+XFT tracking at Level 2
• impact parameter res. sd = 35 mm
GLOBAL
L1
Offline accuracy !!
SVT
L2
CAL
GLOBAL
LEVEL 2
TSI/CLK
CDF II can trigger on secondary
vertices !!
Select large B,D samples !!
SVT: Triggering on impact parameters
~150 VME boards
COT track ( 2 parameters)
5 SVX coordinates
beam spot
d
Impact Parameter
(transverse projection)
• Combines COT tracks (from XFT) with Silicon Hits (via pattern
matching)
• Fits track parameters in the transverse plane (d, f, PT) with offline res.
• All this in ~15ms !
• Allows triggering on displaced impact parameters/vertices
• CDF becomes a beauty/charm factory
B triggers: conventional
s(bb) / s(pp)  10-3
Need specialized triggers
CDF Run1, lepton-based triggers:
 Di-leptons (mm, PT  2 GeV/c): B  J/y X, J/y  mm
 Single high PT lepton ( 8 GeV/c): B  l n D X
Suffer of low BR and not fully rec. final state
Nevertheless, many important measurements by CDF 1:
B0d mixing, sin(2b), B lifetimes, Bc observation, …
Now enhanced, thanks to XFT (precise tracking at L1) :
• Reduced (21.5 GeV/c) and more effective PT thresholds
• Increased muon and electron coverage
• Also J/y  ee
XFT performance
Offline
track
Efficiency curve:
XFT
track
XFT: L1 trigger on tracks
better than design resolution
DpT/p2T = 1.65% (GeV-1)
Df = 5.1 mrad
XFT threshold at PT=1.5 GeV/c
e = 96.1 ± 0.1 % (L1 trigger)
11 pb-1
53.000
J/y  mm
SVT performance
 I.P. resolution as planned
sd = 48 mm = 35 mm  33 mm
intrinsic
transverse beam size
90%
80%
 Efficiency
D0  Kp used as
online monitor of the
hadronic SVT triggers
S/B  1
TOF performance
 TOF resolution (110ps) within
10% of design value
Background reduction in 
KK:
Low PT (< 1.5 GeV/c) track pairs
before and after a cut on TOF
kaon probability
x20 bkg reduction, 80% signal efficiency
S/N = 1/40
with
TOF
PID
S/N = 1/2.5
CDF J/y cross section
0<pt<0.25 GeV 5.0<pt<5.5 GeV
10.0<pt<12.0 GeV
s(ppgJ/y; pT>0; ||<0.6) =240  1 (stat) 35/28(syst) nb
Lots of charm from hadronic triggers:
With ~10 pb-1 of “hadronic trigger” data:
D0 Kp
56320490
Kp mass
D0 KK
5670180
D0 pp
2020110
pp mass
KK mass
Relative Br. Fractions of Cabibbo suppressed D0 decays :
G(DKK)/G(DKp) = 11.17  0.48(stat)  0.98 (syst) %
G(Dp p )/G(DKp) = 3.37  0.20(stat)  0.16(syst) %
Already competitive
with CLEO2 results
(10fb-1 @ (4S))
!!!!!
O(107) fully reconstructed decays in 2fb-1
 Foresee a quite interesting charm physics program:
• D cross sections,
• CP asymmetries and Mixing in D sector, Rare decays, …
B0s mixing: expectations with 2fb-1
Bs  Dsp, Ds p p p
Ds  p, K*K, ppp
xs = Dmst(B0s)
 Signal: 20K (fp only) - 75K (all) events
• with SVT hadronic trigger
• BR (Ds p) = 0.3 % ; BR (Ds p p p) = 0.8 %
 Resolution:
• s(ct) = 45 fs (with Layer00)

eD2 = 11.3% (with TOF)
 S/B: 0.5-2 (based on CDF I data)
1 1 S + B ( Dmss t )2
(s x s ) 
e
2
N eD S
2
5s sensitivity up to:
Xs = 63 (S/B = 2/1)
Xs = 53 (S/B = 1/2)
S.M. allowed range: 20. < Xs < 35.
Can do a precise measurement
… or evidence for new physics !
Data Samples: The J/ym+m- t CDF and D0 (Run-II)
0.5M at CDF (70 pb-1)
75K at D0, completely
new capability ! (40 pb-1)
Two Fully Reconstructed B-hadronJ/y states at CDF &D0
BJ/y KS: CDF:220, D0:45 (Run-II)
(D0 had none in Run-I)
BJ/y : CDF:53, D0:16 (Run-II)
Data Samples: B and Charm Using the high Impact
Parameter (IP) (Hadronic) trigger
Select events by requiring :
-2 tracks with IP>100 mm
- track PT > 2GeV/c
- sum 2-track PT > 5.5 GeV/c
0.5M Charm decays at CDF 10-20% come from B: Great Potential for B
and Charm Physics, opens at least as many avenues as J/y trigger
Data Samples: B(+)l+uD decays using “hybrid” trigger
Select events with 1 lepton (PT>3 GeV/c) & 1 high IP (>120mm)track:
-High IP track means we can go lower in lepton PT ->Much higher than
Run-I due to lower PT thresholds (x4-5 increase)
Used for:
1) High statistics lifetime and mixing analyses
2) calibration samples for tagging (B+l+nD)
Drawback: worse vertex resolution due to missed neutrino
Some numbers:
BglD0X (D0gKp): ~10000 events, BglD+X (D+gKpp): ~5,000 events
also Bs decays (later)
Physics Results: Lifetimes from partially reconstructed
decay
Decays included:
Accounting for missed neutrino
Bs  Dsl, Ds*l (Dsfp, K*0K, p-p+p)
expect ~40K events in 2 fb-1
st is worse due to missed u (K factor) :
st = 60 fs  t  sK/K, sK/K ~ 14%
If one Bs lifetime is fit in any flavour specific mode:
tfit = (tBsCP+2+tBsCP-2)/(tBsCP++tBsCP-)
from which DGs can be determined as well
ct 
K
Lxy ( Bs ) M ( Bs )
Pt ( Bs )

Lxy ( Bs ) M ( Bs )
Pt (l + Ds )
K
Pt (l + Ds )
 from Mont eCarlo
Pt ( Bs )
Use new “hybrid” displaced track+single lepton trigger
Physics Results: B, lepton+displaced track and purely
hadronic data samples (have shown J/y mode already)
b  cln  [pKp] ln
b  cp  [pKp] p
Protons are easiest to separate using Time of Flight
Particle ID in left plot using TOF and dE/dX
Lifetime in hadronic, hadron+lepton modes require
correction for IP cut bias & missing n
Expect results after this summer
Note on B
A search for CP
violation in Baryon
decays is planned
using Bpp
Mixing and CP violation (CPV) at Hadron colliders
Proof of principle:
Run-I, CDF were able to do 2s measurement of sin2b & competitive xd
(Dmd/G) measurements: can tag b-flavours in hadron collider environment
Sin2b=0.79±0.39(stat)±0.16(sys) (CDF 1996)
CDF have not repeated this measurement yet…cannot compare to Bfactories…
CDF: In Run-II with 40-50 x more BdJ/yKS
decays can get d(sin2b)~0.05:
D0: Similar statistics
Can’t be competitive with BaBar (insert
current) and BELLE (insert current)
Redo the measurement because:
-It’s an important benchmark
-Gives credence to other CPV measurements
eg. in Bh+h- & BsJ/yf
Physics Results: Charm physics at CDF: Search
for CP violation (CPV) in Charm decays:
1) c and u quarks don’t couple to t box diagram contributions are tiny
2) CPV in charm decays  due to interference in decay (direct CPV)
3) SM prediction O(0.1-1%) CP violation effects in Charm Decays
How: Compare rate of Decay of D0, D0
to CP eigenstates f=K+K- and p+p-
G( D0  f ) - G( D0  f )
ACP 
G( D0  f ) + G( D0  f )
Method Using data from Hadronic Trigger
-Collect D*±D0p± : sign of p tags flavour of D
-Search for D0 K+K-, D0 p+p-, D0  p+p- & D0 K+K-Correct for tracking efficiency for + vs - p from D*±D0p±
-Count number of decays in each mode after corrections
CPV in charm decays
Cross-check: Measure Ratio of Branching Ratios @CDF
G(D0 p+p-)/G(D0 K+p-)=9.38±0.18±0.10%
G(D0 K+K-)/G(D0 K+p-)=3.686 ± 0.076 ±0.036%
D*±D0p±
93560
with D0K+p-
FOCUS: G(D0 p+p-)/G(D0 K+p-)=9.93±0.14±0.14%
G(D0 K+K-)/G(D0 K+p-)=3.53±0.12±0.06%
CDF accuracy is comparable and consistent
with FOCUS (2003) and World average 2.88±0.15 (PDG)
…8320 D*±D0p±, D0 K+K-
First CPV measurement at CDF in Run-II
ACP(D0 (p+p-))=2.0±1.7±0.6% (PDG 0.5±1.6%)
ACP(D0 (K+K-))=3.0±1.9±0.6%(PDG 2.1±2.6%)
CLEO Result (2001)
ACP(D0 (p+p-))= 0.0±2.2±0.8%
ACP(D0 (K+K-))= 1.9 ±3.2±0.8%
Physics Results: Search for Flavour Changing Neutral
Current decay D0m+mSM predicts a branching ratio (BR) of O(~10-13) for D0m+m-
Some R-parity violating SUSY models predict branching ratios upto O(~10-6)
Technique:
1) D0p+p- BR is well known ~ identical acceptance
to D0 m+m2) Use D0*± D0p± to tag D0 in D0K-p+ (thus no K vs
p ambiguity)
3) See how many ps fake ms per PT
5) Look for D0 m+m- in same sample
6) Subtract D0p+p- faking D0m+m-
0 events found in 2s search
window
CDF Result: BR(D0m+m)  2.4x10-6
better than most recent world average:
( PDG 90%CL: < 4.1 x 10-6 )
Physics Results,Testing HQE: A summary of results:
HQE Predicted B Lifetime hierarchy :
tBc << tXb0 ~ tb < tBd ~ tBs < t B- < t Xb-
D0 (240 pb-1):
CDF (240 pb-1):
t(B+)/t(B0) = 1.093±0.021± 0.022 ps (from semi-leptonics)
t(B+ )= 1.660.030.01 ps, t(B0 )=1.54 0.050.01 ps
 0.042 (B+J/yK+ & BdJ/yK*0)
t(Bs)/t(Bd)= 0.89 0.072(Bs J/yf)
t(B+)/t(Bd)= 1.080
t(B)= 1.25±0.26±0.10 ps (bJ/y)
CDF Mass Measurements:
M(Bs)= 5366.01  0.730.33 MeV/c2 World’s best measurements
M(B)= 5366.01  0.731.2 MeV/c2
of Bs & B masses……………
BELLE (PRL 88 171801 2002)
using BdD(*)-(p+,r+), J/yKS,J/yK*0 and B+D0p+, J/yK+
t(B+)/t(Bd)= 1.091±0.023±0.014
BABAR : fully reconstructed decays
BdD(*)-(p+,r+,a1+), J/yKS,J/yK*0 and B+ D0p+, J/yK+
t(B+)/t(Bd)= 1.082±0.026±0.012
BABAR : partially reconstructed decays(BD,D* l n)
t(B+)/t(Bd)= 1.064 ±0.031 ±0.026
Physics Results: Charm physics at CDF: Search
for CP violation (CPV) in Charm decays:
1) c and u don’t couple to t box diagram contributions are tiny
2) CPV in charm decays  due to direct CPV SM~O(0.1-1%) CPV, good test of SM !
How: Compare N(D0), N(D0)to CP eigenstates K+K- & p+p-
G( D0  f ) - G( D0  f )
ACP 
G( D0  f ) + G( D0  f )
Data from SVT: 1) Find D*±D0p± : sign of p tags flavour of D,
2) Find D0 K+K-, D0 p+p-, D0  p+p- & D0 K+K1) Cross-check:Ratios of BRs (@CDF): G(D0 p+p )/G(D0K+p)=9.38±0.18±0.10%
& G(D0 K+K-)/G(D0 K+p-)=3.686 ± 0.076 ±0.036
FOCUS: 9.93±0.14±0.14% & 3.53±0.12±0.06% CDF consistent with FOCUS & PDG
2.88±0.15
First CPV result at CDF in Run-II
AD0 p+p-=2.0±1.7±0.6%
AD0K+K=3.0±1.9±0.6%
CLEO Result (2001) & PDG
AD0p+p- = 0.0±2.2±0.8%
AD0K+K- = 1.9 ±3.2±0.8%
(0.5±1.6 & 2.1±2.6%)
Physics Prospects: CP violation in Bh+h- decays
determining angle g (CDF)
Bh+h- from hadronic trigger
Includes B p+p-,Bs K+KBs Kp, and Bd Kp
Monte-Carlo:
Bd p+p-, Bs K+K- Bs Kp,
& Bd Kp (From Monte-Carlo)-all pile up
Must disentangle each mode from signal
We (will) use:
-dE/dx based K and p ID
-Kinematical variable: Mpp vs a=(1-p1/p2)q1
-Width of signal
-Frequency of oscillation in CP asymmetry
Physics Prospects: CP violation in Bh+h- decays
determining angle g (CDF), Method:
Tree and penguin graphs for Bp+p- & Bs K+K-
b
b
W-
u,c,t
W-
-u
d b
u
s b
u,c,t
W-
W-
Five observables,
d
-u
s
u
Tree > penguin in Bp+p- vice-versa in
BsK+K-
-CP Asymmetry in Bp+p- =
Sin2(g+b) (without penguin)
-CP Asymmetry in Bs K+K- =
Sin2g (without penguin)
-Assume SU(3) symmetry: replace
sd Hadronic matrix element
ratios : penguin/tree same for
both modes
Proposed by: R.Fleischer, PLB459 1999 306
Four unknowns:
d=ratio of penguin/tree hadronic
matrix elements
q phase of d
g,b= weak phases
Constrain Sin2b from B-factories, &
CDF/D0 results and measure g
Physics Prospects: CP violation in Bh+h- decays
Mpp vs a for each Bh+h- mode
determining angle g (CDF)
Yields (Results from 65 pb-1)
Bdp+p- 14817
BdKp 3914
BsKp
311
BsK+K9017
(BsK+K- First Observation !!)
Numbers from 65 pb-1 sample & 1.16s dE/dX separation
Update from re-calibrated dE/dX (1.4s) & 180 pb-1 in progress
SM check by comparison with A
in B pp
BR(Bdp+p-)
BR(BsK+K-)
CP
d
Sanity check: Measure Ratio of Branching Ratios
+0.13 + 0.01
hep-ph/0404009
CDF : G(Bdp+p-)/G(Bd K+p-) = 0.26 ±0.11±0.055, PDG: 0.29
-0.12 - 0.02
Ratio of BRs along with ACP(Bd p+p- ) from B-factories
Helps constrain g
U-Spin
relationship
58°<g<72°
dir
Fleischer method: Expect (2fb-1): s(g) =±10(stat) ±3(syst
ACPSU(3)
(Bdp+breaking)
p-)
Physics Results, Testing HQET: lifetime, mass, from fully
reconstructed B decays modes, Technique :
Data from J/ym+m- di-muon trigger or High IP trigger:
- Reconstruct vertex
- Calculate decay proper time, mass & errors
- Mass:fit mass distribution only
- Fitting for Lifetime:Fit mass and lifetime distributions in single step
Probability Density Function and normalization:
Ftotal (m, t )  f s .Fsignal (t , m) + (1 - f s ).Fbackround (t , m)
 F
total
(m, t )dmdt  1
Technique applied to several decays : B+ gJ/y K+, B0 gJ/y K0* (K0* g Kp),
Bs g J/y f (f gKK) & bgJ/y (gpp)…etc
-Those Decays selected using
SVT trigger have biased ct
(Also lepton+high IP track data
@CDF)
-Fix bias and then measure
Lifetimes in Bs Ds+p-, and
other purely hadronic decays
High IP track selection efficiency
Physics Results,Testing HQE:Lifetime, mass summary:
HQE Predicted B Lifetime hierarchy :
tBc << tXb0 ~ tb < tBd ~ tBs < t B- < t Xb-
D0 (240 pb-1):
CDF (240 pb-1):
t(B+)/t(B0) = 1.093±0.021± 0.022 (from semi-leptonics)
t(B+ )= 1.660.030.01 ps, t(B0 )=1.54 0.050.01 ps
 0.042 (B+J/yK+ & BdJ/yK*0)
t(Bs)/t(Bd)= 0.89 0.072(Bs J/yf)
t(B+)/t(Bd)= 1.080
t(B)= 1.25±0.26±0.10 ps (bJ/y)
CDF Mass Measurements:
M(Bs)= 5366.01  0.730.33 MeV/c2 World’s best measurements
M(B)= 5366.01  0.731.2 MeV/c2
of Bs & B masses……………
BABAR : exclusive decays
BABAR : inclusive decays
t(B+)/t(Bd)= 1.082±0.026±0.012 t(B+)/t(Bd)= 1.064 ±0.031 ±0.026
BELLE t(B+)/t(Bd)= 1.091±0.023±0.014
-Projection: s(t(Bs)/t(Bd) ) & s(t(Bd)/t(b)) <1% at 2fb-1
-Current s(t(Bu+)/t(Bd0) ) surpasses theoretical accuracy
-Measurements test vertexing & tracking: Crucial for DMBs and CPV
Physics Results: Rare B decays: B
-No observed excess
-Expected backgrounds (events):
1.050.3 (Bs) and 1.07 0.31 (Bd)
-Observed 1 event for both modes 
branching ratio limit is possible
-SM Prediction BR~10-9
+ s(d)m m
BR limits vs. luminosity
BR Upper Limit at 95% CL
7.5x10-7 (Bs  m+m-)
1.9x10-7 (Bd  m+m-)
BR Upper Limit at 90% CL
5.8x10-7 (Bs  m+m-)
1.5x10-7 (Bd  m+m-)
Submitted to PRL
Bs result surpasses previous worlds best result (by x2 CDF)
Bd result: bit better than Belle (1.6x10-7) and BaBar (2.0x10-7)
Rare Decays: Bsff branching ratio:
1) Approach: calculate branching ratio by using N(Bs J/y  f)
in the same data (SVT triggered) sample:
N(Bs  φφ) ε(ψφ) BR(Bs  ψφ).BR( J /y  m + m - )
BR(Bs  φφ) 

N(Bs  ψφ) ε(φφ)
BR(  K + K - )
1) All BRs are taken from PDG
2) Efficiencies calculated from MC
3) N(Bs  J/y f) is corrected for:
a) Reflections from Bd J/y K*(892)
b) Requirement of a muon match (check of signal in SVT data)
Calculate Branching ratio using corrected Ncorr(Bs J/y f):
N(Bs  φφ) ε(ψφ) BR(Bs  ψφ).BR( J /y  m + m - )
BR(Bs  φφ) 

N(Bs  ψφ)corr ε(φφ)
BR(  K + K - )
SM Prediction for branching ratio: 3.7x10-5 hep-ph/0309136
BR= (1.4 ± 0.6 (stat) ± 0.2(syst) ± 0.5 (BR))x10-5
Upper Limit : BR= (1.4 ± 0.6 (stat) ± 0.2(syst) ± 0.5 (BR))x10-5
Physics Results : Hadronic Moments
1 d G sl
Calculating G ds : D, D* are known , measure only f**, contains wide and
narrow D**0 and non-resonant part. Reconstruct only B- D**0 l- n (p0s not
possibe @ CDF).
Find m and D**0 consistent with coming from B (vertex), Mass<5.3 GeV
D**0 D+p, D*+p-, D*0p0, reconstruct or use Isospin for Mass pdf
sl
H
Using Lepton+High IP data:
A) D**0  D*+ pB) Can’t do D**0  D0 p0
But = 0.5A & same shape
C) D**0  D+ pD) D*+  D0 p+
E) D*+  D+ p0 Can’t do: Feeddown to D+ p- & is corrected
for.
F) D**0  D*0 p0 Can’t do
but = 0.5.A (same shape)
Physics Results: Hadronic Moments analysis
D**0 mass distribution….
….gives moments wrt D**0 only
m1  mD2 **  (5.83  0.16)GeV 2
(
m2  mD2 ** - m1
)
2
 (1.30  0.69)GeV 4
Moments from all D, D*
Best single measurement
Of M1 M2 in the world !
And finally from M1 & M2 we get:
Physics Prospects: CP violation in Bh+h- decays
determining angle g (CDF), Method:
-u
+ b
b
W
u,c,t
W-
d b
u
s b
u,c,t
WW-
d
Bh h from hadronic trigger
MC
-u
s
u
Tree > penguin in Bp+p- vice-versa in BsK+KFour unknowns In Asymmetry(t):
d=ratio of penguin/tree hadronic matrix
elements
q phase of d
g,b= weak phases
Constrain Sin2b from B-factories, & CDF/D0
results and measure g by fitting asymmetry
Proposed by: R.Fleischer, PLB459 1999 306
Problem: Separating Bd p+p-, Bd K+p-, Bs K+p-,
Bs K+K-,
Use Mpp vs a=(1-p1/p2)q1, dE/dX, to separate
Bd p+p-, Bd K+p-, Bs K+p-, Bs K+K-, in the future
Will use oscillation frequencies as well……
Lumi~180pb-1
dE/dx check: Use D*±D0p, D0 Kp
Toward Bs Mixing: Proof of principle CDF (Run-II) DMd
CDF Run-I Dmd (all methods) = 0.495 ± 0.026 ± 0.025 ps-1
First Run-II result: Bd-Bd oscillations using same side tagging (SST)
Look for fragmentation p from B, track with lowest relative PT to B
-Use B+J/y K+ (J/y data) & B+D0p+ (SVT data) to tune tagging


-Use B0J/y K*0( K p)and B0D p to measure Dmd
Flavour Tagging
-Look for fragmentation p from B
-Calculate Ptrel variable
-Want maximally collinear B and p
-Pick p candidate with lowest Ptrel
-B flavour is correlated with p sign
Physics Prospects: CP violation in Bh+h- decays
determining angle g (CDF), Method:
-u
+ b
b
W
u,c,t
W-
d b
u
s b
u,c,t
WW-
d
Bh h from hadronic trigger
MC
-u
s
u
Tree > penguin in Bp+p- vice-versa in BsK+KFour unknowns In Asymmetry(t):
d=ratio of penguin/tree hadronic matrix
elements
q phase of d
g,b= weak phases
Constrain Sin2b from B-factories, & CDF/D0
results and measure g by fitting asymmetry
Proposed by: R.Fleischer, PLB459 1999 306
Problem: Separating Bd p+p-, Bd K+p-, Bs K+p-,
Bs K+K-,
Use Mpp vs a=(1-p1/p2)q1, dE/dX, to separate
Bd p+p-, Bd K+p-, Bs K+p-, Bs K+K-, in the future
Will use oscillation frequencies as well……
Lumi~180pb-1
dE/dx check: Use D*±D0p, D0 Kp
Physics Results Testing HQE: Lifetimes from partially
reconstructed decays
Data are selected using high PT leptons (D0) & lepton+high IP track (CDF)
Examples of decays:
Bs  Ds
-l+,
Ds*-l
(Ds+fp+,
Accounting for missed neutrino:
K*0K+,
Bu-  D0l-n, D0l- nX (D0 p+K-)
Advantage: Very high statistics
p-p+p+)
ct 
Lxy ( Bu - ) M ( Bu - )
Pt ( Bu )
Pt (l - + D0 )
K
Pt ( Bu - )

Lxy ( Bu - ) M ( Bu - )
Pt (l - + D0 )
K
 from Monte Carlo
Drawback: st is worse due to missed u (K factor)
However: Large numbers provide opportunities for lifetime & mixing
D0: Charged to Neutral B-Meson Lifetime Ratio: t+/t0
-B  m+nD*(2010)-X decays: mostly Bd
-B  m+nD0X decays: mostly Bu±
-Calculate ratio of events/lifetime bin
-Account for all decays BRs (PDG)
-ratio of events expected :
~N+/N0 ~e-(t+/t0-1)t (K-factor)st
D0 Result: t+/t0 = 1.093 ± 0.021 (stat) ± 0.022 (syst)
Competitive with worlds best results