230 likes | 247 Vues
This talk focuses on the unitary test on the second row and measurements of Vcs and Vcd using experimental methods and theoretical tools like Lattice QCD and QCD Sum Rules.
E N D
Status and future perspectives on Vcs and Vcd Marina Artuso Syracuse University Marina Artuso WG1 CKM 2006
Motivation: unitarity constraints weak VCKM mass Wolfenstein eigenstates eigenstates parameterization To l3 in real part & l5 in im. part • CKM unitary described by 4 parameters (3 real, 1 imaginary: e.g. A,l,r,h), but each quark mixing is in principle measurable highly constrained system • This talk focuses on unitary test on the second row Marina Artuso WG1 CKM 2006
Received a lot of attention in recent years because of developments in lattice QCD (see R. Van de Water presentation) Pseudoscalar hadronic final states preferred because they are stable to strong decay e+ W+ Vcs and Vcd from charm semileptonic decays In D rest frame Squared 4-momentum transfer Vcq K,p D • We measure: Theory input Marina Artuso WG1 CKM 2006
Two approaches • Assuming Vcs and Vcd known (Stone’s talk) • DK(K*)ln , Dpln determine form factor shapes & distinguish among models + test lattice QCD predictions (see S. Stone talk, WG2/3 joint session) • Note that lattice checks comparing semileptonic ff & fD can be done independently of knowledge of CKM parameters • Assuming lattice predictions OK (this talk) • measurements of Vcd & Vcs Marina Artuso WG1 CKM 2006
Experimental methods • DD production at threshold: used by Mark III, and more recently by CLEO-c and BES-II. • Unique event properties • Only DD not DDx produced • Large cross sections: s(DoDo) = 3.720.09 nb s(D+D-) = 2.820.09 nb • Ease of B measurements using "double tags“ • B-factories (e+e-) + fixed target & collider experiments at hadron machines • D displaced vertex • D*+ p+D0 tag World Ave Continuum ~14.5 nb p K (ps) D0 e+ e- Marina Artuso WG1 CKM 2006
Theoretical Tools • Lattice QCD • Theory (unquenched QCD), still has moderate systematic errors; however theoretical accuracy can be improved in a controlled fashion. • QCD Sum Rules • Equating phenomenological and theoretical spectral functions; • Determination of theoretical spectral functions by calculating two or three-point correlators in perturbative QCD, including corrections from the OPE Many parameters, difficult to improve their accuracy in a systematic fashion. • Phenomenological models • Important contributions to our understanding of charm decays • No way to improve these predictions in any systematic way Marina Artuso WG1 CKM 2006
Lattice results for DK(p) e ne semileptonic decays • two form factors are needed to describe the vector current matrix element <P|Vm|D> : f+(q2) and f0(q2), (only f+(q2) needed if ml negligible) • Lattice QCD calculates both f+ and f0, since they can be fit simultaneously imposing the constraint f+(0)= f0(0) • Fermilab-MILC-HPQCD reported results using 2+1 flavors of improved staggered quark to implement non-quenched f.f. calculation • Dominant systematic error from heavy quark discretization (7% of the overall 10% uncertainty) Marina Artuso WG1 CKM 2006
A snapshot of theoretical predictions • Other predictions are available from quenched lattice QCD calculations, QCD sum rules and form factor models Marina Artuso WG1 CKM 2006
K- K+ - e+ CLEO-c results – tagged analysis 281 pb-1310K D+ 160K D0 Signal events: U = Emiss– |Pmiss| = 0 Tag allows to determine signal D0 momentum Signal semileptonic decay Marina Artuso WG1 CKM 2006
CLEO-c results untagged analysis • Unspecified other side D decay, collect other showers and tracks • Use neutrino reconstruction like Bp/rln • Higher statistical accuracy, worse systematic error • Samples overlap Marina Artuso WG1 CKM 2006
D K, pen Branching Fractions D → K e+ ν D → π e+ ν FNAL-MILC-HPQCD FNAL-MILC-HPQCD preliminary preliminary preliminary preliminary FNAL-MILC-HPQCD precision lags experiment. Marina Artuso WG1 CKM 2006
Hill & Becher, Phys. Lett. B 633, 61 (2006) Form-Factor Parameterizations • In general • Modified Pole • Series Expansion Marina Artuso WG1 CKM 2006
Form factor data and FNAL-MILC-HPQCD predictions CLEO-c preliminary-tagged • FNAL-MILC-HPQCD calculation uses modified pole model to fit for form factor from “measured”points [PRL 94, 011601 (2005)] • FF predictions: • DKen f+(0)=0.73±0.03±0.07 • a=0.50±0.04±0.07 • Dpen f+(0)=0.64±0.03±0.06 • a=0.44±0.04±0.07 Fnal-MILC-HPQCD Fnal-MILC-HPQCD Marina Artuso WG1 CKM 2006
BELLE: PRL 97, 061804 (2006) [hep-ex/0604049]BaBar: hep-ex/0607077FOCUS: PLB607, 233 (2005) [hep-ex/0410037] Belle,BaBar,FOCUS D K,pℓn form factorsdata Belle, 282fb-1, fully reconstructed events, excellent q2 resolution Aubin et al., PRL94, 011601 (2005)Abada et al., NuclPhys B619, 565 (2001) Unquenched LQCDQuenched LQCDSimple pole model Belle + FOCUS published Kℓn ~2.5k signal events Kℓn Belle FOCUS: ~13k events 75fb-1 FNAL MILC HPQCD: Aubin et al., PRL94, 011601(2005) pℓn 232 signal events q2 (GeV2) Marina Artuso WG1 CKM 2006
Belle . . Belle Summary of lattice-experiment comparison D0 K-e+ne Assuming Vcs=0.9745 D0 p-e+ne Assuming Vcd=0.2238 FNAL.MILC-HPQCD FNAL.MILC-HPQCD Marina Artuso WG1 CKM 2006
Using semileptonic width and form factors • Using the preliminary CLEO-c semileptonic widths G(DKene) =(8.70.16) x10-2 ps-1 and G(Dpene)= (0.76 0.03)x10-2 ps-1 and FNAL-MILC-HRQCD G(DKene)/|Vcs|2 and G(Dpene)/|Vcd|2 • Vcs=0.966 ± 0.008 [exp] ± 0.093 [th] • Vcd=0.225 ± 0.004 [exp] ± 0.022 [th] • Relies on correct shape and normalization of the form factors Marina Artuso WG1 CKM 2006
CLEO-c untagged form factor analysis Combine measured |Vcx|f+ (0) with FNAL-MILC-HPQCD value for f+(0)PRL 94, 011601 (2005) Marina Artuso WG1 CKM 2006
A check on the theory CLEO-c results based on 281 pb-1 (tagged) BR(D mn)=(4.40.70.1)10-4 BR(D en) <2.410-5 BR(D tn) <3.110-3 (more details on Stone’s talk) 50 signal candidates, 2.8 bgd Ratio D+→m+n does not depend upon Vcd Missing mass2 = (Ebeam-Emu)2-(pD-pm)2 (GeV)2 Marina Artuso WG1 CKM 2006
. Comparison with FNAL-MILC-HPQCD predictions Data and theory are consistent within error Marina Artuso WG1 CKM 2006
W branching ratios and Vcs • LEP-2 performed measurements sensitive to |Vcs| from on-shell W± decays: • Using: |Vud|2+|Vus|2+|Vub|2+|Vcd|2+ |Vcb|2=1.0476 ±0.0074 |Vcs| =0.976 ±0.014 • Error includes contributions from uncertainties on as and other CKM parameters, but is dominated by ±0.013 from the measurements of the W branching fractions • DELPHI tagged W+ cs analysis |Vcs| =0.94 ±0.014 +0.32-0.26 Marina Artuso WG1 CKM 2006
Neutrino/anti-neutrino interactions and Vcd • Method: n+dc+m |Vcd|2Bm [average semileptonic branching ratio of charm] <|Vcd|2Bm>=(0.4630.034)x10-2 [pdg 2006] n - Bm= 0.0873 0.0052 |Vcd|2 c d |Vcd|=0.230 0.011 (5% accuracy) Marina Artuso WG1 CKM 2006
Summary • Best Vcs direct determination, using Gexp(Ken) and lattice form factors: • Best Vcd direct determination from n,n interactions • With these inputs and |Vcb|=(41.60.6)x10-3 [pdg 2006] unitarity constraint on the 2nd row gives: Tagged fit Untagged fit Error dominated by theoretical uncertainty in |Vcs| Marina Artuso WG1 CKM 2006
Future prospects • CLEO-c expects to accumulate 750 pb-1 at the y(3770)increased statistics will allow to pin down shape of form factors and constrain theoretical calculations • Further refinements of lattice calculations (now dominating errors) are under way • Goal to determine |Vcs| and |Vcd| down to a few % accuracy Marina Artuso WG1 CKM 2006