new results from babar: evidence for d 0 -d 0 mixing in d 0 → k - p +

1

New Results from Babar:

Evidence for D0-D0 Mixing In D0 → K+

Moriond EW March 13, 2007

Kevin FloodUniversity of Wisconsin

for

The Babar Collaboration

2

Outline

• Charm mixing formalism

• SM and New Physics predictions

• Mixing analysis methodology

• Results and systematics

• Summary

Moriond EW March 13, 2007Kevin Flood

3

Time Dependence of Mixed Final States: No CP Violation

• Mixing implies that the physical states are not pure flavor states

002,1 DqDpD 1

22 qp,

• Charm mixing values typically quoted using scaled parameters x, y

2

22 yxRM

12 MMM

1221

12

• For |x|, |y| << 1, time-dependence of a hadronic final state with mixing and DCS amplitudes

2

22

4t

yxtRyR

t

tDD

RS

WS

in the limit of no CP violation, and where

KK yxx sincos KK xyy sincos ,with Kp being the relative strong phase between DCS and mixing amplitudes

• Time-integrated mixing rate

2 , y

Mx

Moriond EW March 13, 2007

4

Time Dependence of Mixed Final States: CP Violation

• If CP is not conserved, the time distribution for D0 and D0 differ

2

2221

)(4

)(sincos)(

tyx

q

ptR

q

pxyR

e

tDDt

WS

1pq

DD RR• Direct CP violation in DCS Decay

• CP violation in mixing

• CP violation in interference between decay and mixing:

1cos

2

22

441

1sincos

11

11

1

1)(t

yx

A

Atxy

AA

AARR

A

A

e

t

M

M

MD

MDDD

D

Dt

WS

• Rewrite time dependence to explictly include asymmetries

MA1

Moriond EW March 13, 2007

• Define CP violating observables

MDMD

MDMDMD RR

RRA

,,

,,,

Kevin Flood

5

• Possible enhancements to mixing due to new particles and interactions in new physics models

• Most new physics predictions for x– Extended Higgs, tree-level FCNC– Fourth generation down-type quarks– Supersymmetry: gluinos, squarks– Lepto-quarks

• Large possible SM contributions to mixing require observation of either a CP-violating signal or | x | >> | y | to establish presence of NP

c

u

u

c

H0

FCNC

c

u

u

c

Charm Mixing Predictions

• Box diagram SM charm mixing rate naively expected to be very low (RM~10-10) (Datta & Kumbhakar)

• Z.Phys. C27, 515 (1985)

– CKM suppression → |VubV*cb|2

– GIM suppression → (m2s-m2

d)/m2W

– Di-penguin mixing, RM~10-10 (Petrov)• Phys. Rev. D 56, 1685 (1997)

• Enhanced rate SM calculations generally due to long-distance y contributions:

• Recent SM predictions can accom-modate high mixing rate (Falk et al.)

– x,y ≈ sin2 C x [SU(3) breaking]2 ~1%• y: Phys.Rev. D 65, 054034 (2002)• x: Phys.Rev. D 69, 114021 (2004)

Standard Model New Physics

qq~ ~

g~

g~

supersymmetry

Moriond EW March 13, 2007Kevin Flood

6

Babar Detector and Dataset

• Babar integrated luminosity ~390 fb-1 (Runs 1-5)

• Peak instantaneous luminosity ~1.2 x 1034 cm-1 s-1

Runs 1-4Run 5

Babar Detector

Moriond EW March 13, 2007Kevin Flood

7

Mixing Analysis Strategy

Moriond EW March 13, 2007

• Blind analysis of D*+ → D0(→K) tag

–All event selection, fitting methodology determined before looking at the data

• Four-dimensional unbinned maximum LH fit– First fit M(K), M = M(Ktag) – M(K) [correlated fit]– Fix results of first fit, then fit decay time and errors

• High-statistics RS dataset gives WS signal PDFs–No MC dependence, all PDFs obtained from data

• Fit WS proper time distribution to distinguish DCS and mixing contributions

–Use M(K) and M to separate backgrounds from signal

• Several WS proper time fits–no mixing–mixing, no CP violation–mixing, CP violation

Kevin Flood

8

Event Selection

Moriond EW March 13, 2007

• Beam-constrained simul-taneous fit of K, , tag tracks

– fit probability > 0.001– decay time error < 0.5 ps– -2 < decay time < 4 ps

• D0 selection– CMS p* > 2.5 GeV/c– K, particle identification– DCH hits > 12– 1.81 < M(K) < 1.92 GeV/c2

• tag

– CMS p* < 0.45 GeV/c– lab p > 0.1 GeV/c– SVT hits > 5

beam spot interaction pointx

y

• 0.14 < M < 0.16 GeV/c2

• Select candidate with greatest fit probability for multiple D*+ candidates sharing tracks

Kevin Flood

9

even

ts/0

.1 M

eV

/c2e

ven

ts/1

MeV

/c2

64,000WS candidates

1,229,000 RS candidates

mK

mK

m

m

x103

RS/WS Datasets After Event Selection

Moriond EW March 13, 2007Kevin Flood

10

RS/WS M(K), M Distributions

Moriond EW March 13, 2007

Correlation between m and m in signal events taken into account in PDF

Kevin Flood

11

Signal and Background Kinematic Fit Categories

Moriond EW March 13, 2007

• Fit RS/WS M(K), M distributions with signal and three background PDFs

• RS categories– Signal: peaks in M(K), M– True D0 combined with random tag: peaks in M(K)– Mis-reconstructed D0: peaks in M

• Semileptonic D0 decays; singly mis-identified D0 → , KK

– Purely combinatoric, non-peaking

• WS categories– Signal: peaks in M(K), M– True D0 combined with random tag: peaks in M(K)– Mis-reconstructed D0: peaks in M

• Doubly mis-identified D0 → K

• Singly mis-identified D0 → , KK

– Purely combinatoric, non-peaking

Kevin Flood

12

Simultaneous Fit to RS/WS Data

Moriond EW March 13, 2007

RS signal: 1,141,500±1200

combinations

WS signal: 4030±90

combinations

Kevin Flood

13

Proper Time Analysis

Moriond EW March 13, 2007

• Fix M(K) and M PDF shapes

• Fit RS decay time, error distribution to determine signal lifetime and resolution model

– Signal, background D0 PDF: exponential with sum of three gaussians resolution model fit using per-event lifetime errors

– Random combinatoric PDF: gaussian + Crystal Ball function

• Fix WS resolution and DCS lifetime from RS fit– Signal PDF: theoretical mixed lifetime convoluted with

resolution model from RS fit– Background D0 PDF: shares RS PDF– Random combinatoric PDF: gaussian + Crystal Ball function

separate from RS fit

Kevin Flood

14

RS Decay Time Fit

Moriond EW March 13, 2007

• Varied fit parameters– Fit class normalizations– D0 lifetime– Resolution model– Combinatoric shape

• D0 lifetime is con-sistent within total (stat+sys) error with PDG value

plot selection:

1.843<m<1.883 GeV/c2

0.1445<m< 0.1465 GeV/c2

Kevin Flood

15

WS Mixing Fit: No CP Violation

Moriond EW March 13, 2007

• Varied fit parameters– Mixing parameters– Fit class

normalizations– Combinatoric shape

plot selection:

1.843<m<1.883 GeV/c2

0.1445<m< 0.1465 GeV/c2

Data – No mixing PDF

Mixing – No mixing PDF

Kevin Flood

16Moriond EW March 13, 2007

Systematics

• Sources– Variations in functional form of signal and background PDFs– Variations in the fit parameters– Variations in the event selection

• Single parameter systematic estimates from difference between parameter value from fits with and without variation, expressed in units of the statistical error

systematic source:

RD y’ x’2

PDF: 0.59 0.45 0.40

selection criteria: 0.24 0.55 0.57

Quadrature total: 0.63 0.71 0.70

Kevin Flood

17

Mixing Contours: No CP Violation

Moriond EW March 13, 2007

• Accounting for sys-tematic errors, the no-mixing point is at the 4-sigma contour

best fit best fit, x’2 ≥ 0 X (0,0)

RD: (3.030.160.06) x 10-3 x’2: (-0.220.300.20) x 10-3

y’: (9.74.42.9) x 10-3

• y’, x’2 contours computed by change in log likelihood

– Best-fit point is in non-physical region x’2 < 0, but one-sigma contour is in physical region

– correlation: -0.94

Kevin Flood

18

Mixing Contours: CP Violation

Moriond EW March 13, 2007

• Fit D0 and D0 samples for mixing separately

x'2+ = -0.024+-0.043%y'+ = 0.982+0.637%

x'2– = -0.020+-0.041%y’– = 0.963+0.614%

No evidence for CP violation

Kevin Flood

19

M(K), M Fits in Decay Time Bins

Moriond EW March 13, 2007

• Kinematic fit done independently in five decay time bins• RWS independent of any assumptions on resolution model

Kevin Flood

20

Validation: RS Mixing Fit

Moriond EW March 13, 2007

• Perform mixing fit to RS data– No mixing signal expected

• y’ = (2.6 ± 2.4) x 10-4

• x’2 = (9.2 ± 10.6) x 10-6

• No mixing signal found– -2 (logLHmix – logLHno-mix) = 1.4

Kevin Flood

21

Summary

Moriond EW March 13, 2007

• Assuming CP conservation and including systematic effects, we find a charm mixing signal at the 4 sigma confidence level

– y’ = (9.7 ± 4.4 ± 2.7) x 10-3

– x’2 = (-0.22 ± 0.30 ± 0.20) x 10-3

• No evidence for CP violation• Results consistent with previous analyses

– Babar K, 2003: (-56 < y’ < 39) x 10-3 , x’ < 11 x 10-3 (95% CL)– Belle K, 2006: (-28 < y’ < 21) x 10-3 , x’ < 3.6 x 10-3 (95% CL)– Assuming K ~ 0, can also compare with Babar and Belle

measurements of y using decays to two-body CP eigenstates• Belle, 2003: y = (11.5 ± 6.9 ± 3.8) x 10-3

• Babar, 2003: y = (9 ± 4 ± 5) x 10-3

• New Babar charm mixing result in semileptonic mixing will be discussed in charm mixing review by Marco Staric

– complementary technique to K, but not as sensitive and no significant signal observed

Kevin Flood

22

Additional Slides

Moriond EW March 13, 2007Kevin Flood

23Moriond EW March 13, 2007Kevin Flood

24Moriond EW March 13, 2007Kevin Flood

25Moriond EW March 13, 2007Kevin Flood

26Moriond EW March 13, 2007Kevin Flood

27Moriond EW March 13, 2007Kevin Flood

28Moriond EW March 13, 2007Kevin Flood

29Moriond EW March 13, 2007Kevin Flood

30Moriond EW March 13, 2007Kevin Flood

31Moriond EW March 13, 2007Kevin Flood

32Moriond EW March 13, 2007Kevin Flood

33Moriond EW March 13, 2007Kevin Flood