Experimental Results on
Flavour Physics
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer
Physikalisches Institut, Heidelberg
on behalf of the LHCb, ATLAS, Babar, Belle, CDF, CMS and D0 collaboration
this talk will describe the measurements, their impact
on NP models is part of the next talk of Jernej Kamenik
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 1
Search for New Physics in the Flavour Sector
New Physics are corrections to Standard Model processes:
Standard Model
ABSM = A0
New Physics
CSM
m2W
+
CN P
λ2N P
What is the scale of λN P ? How much different are CN P and CSM ?
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 2
Loss of Naturalness = Gain in Flavour
◮ Before LHC λN P ∼ 1 TeV seemed “naturally” to
reduce “fine tuning” of the EW energy scale.
◮ Absence of NP effects in flavour physics (even before LHC)
→ “fine tuning” in the flavour sector (MFV)
◮ As LHC pushes the energy scale of NP
higher, hypothesis like MFV less likely
→ chances to see NP in flavour physics
→ have increased!
N. Arkani-Hamed
Intensity Frontier Workshop, 2011
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 3
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 4
◮ Direct CP violation in B decays
◮ Measurement of CKM angle γ
◮ CP violation in B mixing
◮ Tension in B → D(∗) τ ντ
◮ B lifetimes
◮ (Very) rare B decays
◮ Charm physics
◮ Production & spectroscopy
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 4
Time integrated CPV in B
→ Kπ
CDF (CDF public note 10726: 9.3 fb−1 )
ACP (B 0 → K + π − ) = -0.083 ± 0.013 ± 0.003
ACP (Bs → K − π + ) = +0.22 ± 0.07 ± 0.02
LHCb (PRL110(2013)221601: 1 fb−1 )
ACP (B 0 → K + π − ) = -0.080 ± 0.007 ± 0.003
ACP (Bs → K − π + ) = +0.27 ± 0.04 ± 0.01
first observation of CPV in Bs
D → Kπ/KK decays used to get kaon detection asymmetry
Test SM prediction (PLB 221(2005)126)
∆=
ACP (B 0 →K + π − )
ACP (Bs →K − π + )
LHCb:
+
BR(Bs →K − π + ) τd
=0
BR(B 0 →K + π − ) τs
∆ = -0.02 ± 0.05 ± 0.04
0
New LHCb results for time dependent CPV in B(s)
→ hh (penalty of tagging at hadron colliders)
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 5
γ in Trees: B → Dh
Vub
s
− b
B
u
u
c
u
b
−
K
0
D
−
B
u
rB = 0.08 (?)
u
c
D
s
u
K−
0
color suppressed
◮ B → DK still most important channel to measure γ
◮ study D/D meson in final state accessible to both to achieve interference
unknowns: rB , δB , γ , rD , δD (r: ratio, δ : strong phase)
→ simultaneous analysis of several modes
◮ GLW: CP eigenstate (e.g. K + K − , π + π − );
◮ ADS: common flavour state (e.g. K + π − , K + 3π , ...);
◮ GGSZ - “Dalitz”: self-conjugate 3-body final state (e.g. KS hh)
}
no flavour
tagging
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 6
γ in Trees: B → Dh
model independent GGSZ
◮ Variation of strong phases over
Dalitz space from CLEO
(Phys. Rev. D 82 112006)
◮ 4 observables:
x± = rB cos(δB ± γ)
y± = rB sin(δB ± γ)
B+
B−
2γ
LHCb-CONF-2013-004 (2fb−1 )
At B factories, this method is the most powerful way to measure γ !
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 7
γ : Combinations
LHCb result (LHCb-CONF-2013-006)
γ = (67 ± 12)◦
rB = (9.2 ± 0.8) × 10−2
◦
δB = (114+12
)
−13
◦
γ = (68+15
)
−14
BaBar:
(without new ADS result shown at this conference)
arXiv:1301.2033
Prediction UTFit:
γ = (68.6±3.6)◦
◦
γ = (69+17
)
−16
xxx
Ve
di ry g
re o
ct od
m a
ea gr
su ee
re me
m n
en t b
ts et
an we
d en
fit
Belle:
Phys Rev D 87, 052015 (2013)
CKMFitter:
◦
γ = (68.0+4.1
)
−4.6
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 8
Bs − Bs Oscillation
weak eigenstate 6= mass eigenstates
two eigenstates with diff. mass and width
(5 parameters: m, Γ, ∆Γ, ∆ms , φs )
discovery in 2006
Amplitude
PRL 97, 24 2003 (2006) (1 fb−1 )
4
2
data ± 1 σ
Tagged unmixed
400
Fit mixed
Fit unmixed
200
LHCb
DØ Run II
0
0
-2
0
Tagged mixed
data ± 1.645 σ (stat.)
data ± 1.645 σ (stat. ⊕ syst.)
0
-4
candidates / (0.1 ps)
precision measurement 2013
95% CL limit: 14.8ps
-1
Expected limit: 14.1ps
5
10
15
2
3
4
decay time [ps]
1 fb-1
-1
1
20
25
New J. Phys. 15 (2013) 053021 (1 fb−1 )
-1
∆ms [ps ]
Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 121801 (2006)
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 9
Bs Mixing Phase φs
Access to phase via interference of mixing + decay
and direct decay into a CP eigenstate f
Bs0 → J/ΨK + K − - mixture of CP eigenstates, angular analysis needed,
(e.g. Bs0 → J/ψπ + π − - CP odd 95% CL)
(e.g.
SM expectation (Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) 033005, http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr):
∗ /V V ∗ ) = −0.0364 ± 0.0016 rad
φSM
≈ −2 arg(Vts Vtb
cs cb
s
measurement of modulation
observable:
sin φs × sin ∆ms t
in decay time distribution
important tools:
flavour tagging,
decay time resolution
& angular analysis
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 10
Bs → J/ψφ
CDF
D0
LHCb
ATLAS
CMS∗)
9.6
8.0
1.0
4.9
5.0
11k
5.6k
27.6k (7.4k)
22.7k
14.5k
ǫD 2 OS [%]
1.39 ± 0.05
2.48 ± 0.22
2.29±0.22
1.45±0.05
-
ǫD 2 SS [%]
3.5±1.4
-
0.89±0.18
-
-
σt [fs]
100
100
48
100
-
Reference
PRL 109(2012)
PRD85(2012)
PRD87(2013)
ATLAS-CONF-
CMS-PAS
171802
032006
112010
2013.029
BPH-11-006
R
→ J/ψKK(f0 )
∗ CMS:
ATLAS untagged result
0.14
δ constrained to 2.95 ± 0.39 rad
∆ Γ s constrained to > 0
0.12
ATLAS
0.1
∫
s = 7 TeV
-1
L dt = 4.9 fb
68% C.L.
90% C.L.
95% C.L.
Standard Model
∆ Γ s = 2|Γ 12|cos(φs)
uncertainty on φs
improved by 40%
0.14
0.12
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
J/ψ φ
φs
JHEP 12 (2012) 072
1.5
[rad]
∆ Γ s constrained to > 0
68% C.L.
90% C.L.
95% C.L.
Standard Model
∆ Γ s = 2|Γ 12|cos(φ )
ATLAS Preliminary
s = 7 TeV
∫ L dt = 4.9 fb
-1
0.1
0.08
0
-1.5
∆Γ only: 0.048±0.024±0.003 ps−1
ATLAS tagged result
∆Γs [ps-1]
∆Γs [ps-1]
# Bs
L [fb−1 ]
0
-1.5
-1
-0.5
s
0
0.5
1
J/ψ φ
φs
1.5
[rad]
ATLAS-CONF-2013-039
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 11
Results
—1
0.25
—1
LHCb 1.0 fb + CDF 9.6 fb + D
8 fb
—1
+ ATLAS 4.9 fb
—1
HFAG
D
PDG 2013
0.20
68% CL contours
(
)
0.15
LHCb
0.10
Combined
CDF
0.05
0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
SM
0.0
ATLAS
0.5
1.0
1.5
LHCb result (Phys. Rev. D 87 112010 (2013) - 1fb−1 ):
φs = 0.01 ± 0.07 ± 0.01 rad
∆Γs = 0.106 ± 0.011 ± 0.007 ps−1
Γs = 0.661 ± 0.004 ± 0.006 ps−1
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 12
P (Bq → Bq ) 6= P (Bq → Bq )
di-muon asymmetry (B 0
B
B
B
A=
semileptonic (untagged) asymmetry:
µ
assl
µ
B
B
+ Bs )
B
µ+
adsl
+
µ
N (µ+ µ+ )−N (µ− µ− )
N (µ+ µ+ )+N (µ− µ− )
∝
∝
(∗)+
)
(∗)+
)
(∗)−
)−N (µ− Ds
(∗)−
)+N (µ− Ds
N (µ+ Ds
N (µ+ Ds
N (µ+ D (∗)− )−N (µ− D (∗)+ )
N (µ+ D (∗)− )+N (µ− D (∗)+ )
assuming no production asymmetry and
no CP in semileptonic decays
PRD 86, 072009 (2012), PRL, 10, 011801 (2013),
PRD 84, 052007 (2011)
D0 only results:
ACP = (-0.276 ± 0.067 ± 0.063)% (9.0 fb−1 )
3.9 σ
≡ 0.33% compatible with SM
φs , asl as well not compatible in NP models ...
expected sensitivity of 10.4 fb−1 analysis:
ACP = (xxx ± 0.064 ± 0.055)%
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 13
P (Bq → Bq ) 6= P (Bq → Bq )
LHCb:
pp collider → production asymmetry
Ameas =
N (Dq− µ+ )−N (Dq+ µ− )
N (Dq− µ+ )+N (Dq+ µ− )
=
aqsl
2
+ [aprod −
aqsl
2 ]κq
due to fast Bs oscillation time integrated assl measurement possible (κs
however for adsl time dependent analysis required (κd
= 0.2%)
∼ 30%)
assl = (-0.06 ± 0.50 ± 0.36)%
LHCb-PAPER-2013-033-001
single most precise result on adsl
using partial reconstructed
B → D∗ ℓν + kaon tags:
adsl = (0.06 ± 0.16+0.36
−0.32 )%
Babar: arXiv:1305.1575
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 14
Summary of Vub
Access to Vub via inclusive semileptonic
decays, exclusive semileptonic decays
Babar results
or fit to CKM triangle (sin 2β )
Vub
β
ICHEP 2012
BELLE result
on BR(B +
→ τ ν)
(PRL 110 131801)
plot from talk from F. Bernlocher
tensions decreased with recent data
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 15
B → D (∗)τ ν
R(D(∗)) =
Γ(B→D(∗) τ ντ )
Γ(B→D(∗) ℓνℓ )ℓ=e,µ
3.4 σ deviation from SM
3.3 σ deviation from SM
al
k
private combinations :
ne
xt
t
PRL 109, 101802 (2012), arXiv: 1303.0571
M
or
e
combined BABAR + BELLE: 4.8 σ
in
updated result on full data set to come soon
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 16
Lifetime Measurements
Lifetimes are insensitive to BSM effects
→ test of QCD predictions; probe of HQE
theoretical predictions:
———————————–
τ (Bs → KK) = [1.455±0.046±0.006] ps
τ (Λb ) [ps]
predictions using WA of τ (B 0 )
(plot from B. Pal)
[Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 393-400]
τ (Bs → J/Ψf0 ) = [1.700±0.040±0.026] ps
[Phys Rev. Lett. 109.152002 (2012)]
Fleischer, Kneigens [arXiv:1209.3206]
arXiv:1307.2476 - 1fb−1
τΛ
τB +
τBs
b
=
1.06
±
0.03;
=
1.00
±
0.01;
= 0.88±0.05
τB 0
τB 0
τB 0
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 17
b → s Transitions
General description of Hamiltonian in operator product expansion:
b→s
(′ )
transitions are sensitive to O7 ,
(′ )
O9 ,
(′ )
O10
B 0 → K ∗ ℓ+ ℓ− is the most prominent (large statistic and flavour specific) candidate
Studies in statistical limited Bs → φµ+ µ− , Λb → Λµ+ µ− started ...
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 18
Angular analysis
forward
backward
One very famous variable:
AF B ∝
−Re[(2C7ef f
+
ef f
q2
C
)C10 ]
m2b 9
Introduce 3 relative angles to describe angular distribution of final state particles.
Folding φ → φ + π if φ < 0 increase sensitivity for some coefficients.
e.g.
AF B =
3
(1
4
− FL )ARe
T
New: alternative folding give access to form factor independent parameters
(arXiv:1106.3283, arXiv:1106.3283, arXiv:hep-ph/050206, arXiv:0807.2589, arXiv:1105.0376)
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 19
B 0 → K ∗ℓ+ℓ− angular analysis
1.5
Theory
LHCb
Binned
CDF
BaBar
Belle
Theory
LHCb
CMS
FL
dB /dq 2 [10-7 × c 4 GeV-2]
Some example distributions:
BaBar
Belle
ATLAS
CMS
1
0.8
1
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.2
0
0
5
10
15
2
2
20
Theory
LHCb
Binned
CDF
BaBar
Belle
ATLAS
0
0
5
10
4
q [GeV / c ]
AFB
Binned
CDF
CMS
1
15
2
CMS: CMS-PAS-BPH-11-009 (5.2 fb−1 )
2
20
4
q [GeV / c ]
ATLAS: ATLAS-CONF-2013-038 (4.9 fb−1 )
BELLE: Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 171801 (605 fb−1 )
0.5
BABAR: Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) 092001 (208 fb−1 )
0
CDF: Phys. Rev. Lett 108 (2012) 081807 (6.8 fb−1 )
-0.5
(results from CDF Public Note 10894 (9.6 fb−1 ) not included)
-1
0
5
10
15
20
q 2 [GeV2/ c 4]
LHCb: arXiv:1304.6325 (1 fb−1 )
Very good agreement with theory predictions!
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 20
New Observables in B 0
LHCb-PAPER-2013-037
′
′
→ K ∗ µ+ µ−
′
Very good agreement in P4 , P6 , P8
′
some tension in P5 (3.7 σ ):
Discussion at EPS
resulted in an article:
Descotes, Matias, Virto
arXiv:1307.5683
0.5% probability to see such a deviation with 24 independent measurements.
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 21
Inclusive B
Less theoretical uncertainties for inclusive B
statistical uncertainties comparable
36 (18 × 2) modes studied
20 (10 × 2) modes used for final result
≡ 50% of all Xs
→ Xsℓℓ Decays
→ Xs ℓℓ analysis,
∼ 140 B → Xs e+ e− +
∼ 160 B → Xs µ+ µ− candidates
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 22
0
Quest for B(s)
→ µ+ µ−
Start in 1984 by the CLEO experiment ...
SM expectations (FCNC and helicity suppressed):
BR(Bs
→ µ+ µ− ) = 3.34 ± 0.27 × 10−9
BR(B 0
→ µ+ µ− ) = 1.07 ± 0.10 × 10−10
Buras, Girrbach, Guadagnoli, Isodori, Fleischer, Kengjens
time integrated BR taking into account ∆Γs
BR(Bs
→ µ+ µ− ) = 3.56 ± 0.29 × 10−9
Eur Phy J. C72 (2012), 2172 + arXiv: 1303.3820
6=0 (to be compared to experimental results)
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 23
0
Quest for B(s)
→ µ+ µ−
LHCb: Phys Rev Lett 110 (2013) 021801 (2.1 fb−1 )
CMS: J. High Energy Phys 04 (2012) 033 (5.0 fb−1 )
ATLAS: ATLAS-CONF-2013-076 (5.0 fb−1 )
CDF: Phys. Rev. D 87, 072003 (2013) (9.7 fb−1 )
D0: Phys. Rev. D87 07.2006 (2013) (10.4 fb−1 )
CC: two central muons
CC
0.70 < ν N < 0.97
0.97 < ν N < 0.987
0.987 < ν N < 0.995
Events / 25 MeV
CF: one forward muon
10
ν N > 0.995
Candidates per 24 MeV/c2
8
B0s→µ+µ-
6
4
× 0.2
2
0
10
CF
0.70 < ν N < 0.97
0.97 < ν N < 0.987
0.987 < ν N < 0.995
ν N > 0.995
Signal region events
Control region events
B0s → µµ SM × 5
Background estimate
3
2.5 DØ, 10.4 fb-1
2
1.5
8
Background
6
4
3.5
1
+Signal (SM)
4
0.5
× 0.2
2
0
5322
5370
5418 5322
5370
5418 5322
5370
5418 5322
5370
5418
0
4.9
2
mµµ (MeV/c )
95% CL:
BR(Bs
→ µ+ µ− ) < 3.1 × 10−8
5
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8
M(µµ) (GeV)
95% CL:
95% CL:
BR(Bs
→ µ+ µ− ) < 1.5 × 10−8
BR(Bs
→ µ+ µ− ) < 1.5 × 10−8
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 24
Updated Results
◮ 2.1 → 3.0 fb−1
◮ 5.0 → 25 fb−1
◮ more variables in BDT
◮ cut base selection → BDT
◮ new & improved variables (PID)
arXiv:1307.5025
expected sensitivity: 4.8 σ
arXiv:1307.5024
expected sensitivity: 3.7 → 5.0 σ
+0.3
+1.1
(stat)−0.1 (syst))× 10−9
→ µ+ µ− ) = (2.9 −1.0
→4σ
+1.0
× 10−9
→ µ+ µ− ) = 3.0 −0.9
→ 4.3 σ
BR(B 0
BR(B 0
BR(Bs
→ µ+ µ− ) < 7.4 × 10−10 at 95% CL
+0.6
+2.4
BR(B 0 → µ+ µ− ) = (3.7 −2.1 (stat)−0.4 (syst))× 10−10
→ 2.0 σ
BR(Bs
→ µ+ µ− ) < 1.1 × 10−9 at 95% CL
+2.1
BR(B 0 → µ+ µ− ) = 3.5 −1.8 × 10−10
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 25
→ 2.0 σ
Combined LHCb + CMS Result
Observation:
BR(Bs → µ+ µ− ) = (2.9 ± 0.7) × 10−9
−10
×
10
BR(B 0 → µ+ µ− ) = 3.6+1.6
−1.4
LHCb-CONF-2013-012, CMS-PAS-BPH-13-007
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 26
Charm Mixing
9 ×10
Rm (t) =
NW S (t)
NRS (t)
√
= RD + RD y
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxdecay
no mixing:
′
Rm
-3
′
′
t+ y +x
4
interference
′
t2
mixing
′
x = 0, y = 0
CDF Run II preliminary L= 9.6 fb-1
Data
8
Mixing fit
No-mixing fit
7
Prompt fit projection
6
5
y' (10-2)
4
3
BaBar
1.5
0
Belle
2
4
6
LHCb
8
10
t/τ
-1
CDF (9.6 fb )
CDF: 6.1 σ ;
1
0.5
LHCb: 9.1 σ ;
Phys. Rev. Lett 110 (2013) 101802
Babar: 3.9 σ ;
Phys. Rev. Let 98 (2007) 211802
Belle: 2.0 σ ;
0
-0.05
0
x'2 (10-2)
CDF Public Note 10990,
Phys. Rev. Lett 96 (2006) 151801
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 27
∆ACP in D → h+h− decays
ACP =
Γ(D 0 →h+ h− )−Γ(D 0 →h+ h− )
Γ(D 0 →h+ h− )+Γ(D 0 →h+ h− )
Two ways to tag flavour of D 0 with
soft pion tag:xxxxxxx muon tag:
complementary systematics:
D∗+ → D0 π + xxxxB − → D0 µ− X
Detector and production asymmetries hard to control at that level, thus use trick:
Araw = ACP + Areco tag + Aprod
∆ACP = ACP (K + K − ) − ACP (π + π − ) = Araw (K + K − ) − Araw (π + π − )
LHCb:
∆ACP = (-0.15 ± 0.16)%
(LHCB-CONF-2012-003, Phys. Lett B 723 (2013) 33)
WA: ∆ACP = (-0.33 ± 0.12)%
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 28
Further Direct CPV in Charm decays
A|S =
1
(AA
raw
2
B
D
+ AC
raw − Araw − Araw )
LHCb (arXiv: 1303.4906v2):
A(D + → φπ + ) = (-0.04 ± 0.14 ± 0.13)%
A|S (D + → φπ + ) = (-0.18 ± 0.17 ± 0.18)%
A(Ds+ → Ks0 π + ) = (+0.61 ± 0.83 ± 0.13)%
Babar (Phys Rev D87 (2012) 052010)
A(D + → φπ + ) = (0.51 ± 0.28 ± 0.05)%
Further studies (LHCb-PAPER-2013-037):
D0 → K − K + π− π+ & D0 → π− π+ π+ π−
no evidence for asymmetry found
Belle (JHEP 02 (2013) 098)
W
Belle (Phys Rev Lett 108 (2012) 071801)
ith
no cu
C rre
PV n
t
es se
ta ns
bl itiv
is it
he y
d
A(D + → φπ + ) = (-0.3 ± 0.3 ± 0.5)%
A(D + → Ks K + ) = (-0.25 ± 0.28 ± 0.14)%
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 29
Summary
◮ Flavour physics plays an important role in the search for New Physics!
despite or due to no unambiguous New Physics signal has shown up yet
◮ LHC is a flavour factory!
A lot of world best results:
0 → µ+ µ+ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, γ , ∆m , φ
B(s)
s
s
◮ Many competitive results still coming in from Tevatron, Babar & Belle
◮ No striking hint yet, but some tensions exist
′
◮ P5 from K ∗ µ+ µ− analysis (LHCb)
◮ rate of B → D(∗) τ ν (Babar & Belle)
◮ Asl (D0)
◮ CPV in charm
◮ Lot’s of more data and results ahead of us!
◮ Lot’s of additionally xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx results not shown in this talk
Stephanie Hansmann-Menzemer 30