[PPT] - Unitarity Triangle Sides at e + e - colliders Phillip Urquijo PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Unitarity Triangle Sides at e+e- colliders

Phillip Urquijo University of Bonn On behalf of the Belle Collaboration

SLIDE 2

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Sides of the UT

2

d

m

s

m

&

d

m

ub

V

2

1
3
0.4
0.2

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

excluded area has CL > 0.95

Winter 12

CKM

f i t t e r

VudVub* VcdVcb* VtdVtb* VcdVcb*

Must measure CKM

matrix elements, fundamental parameters of the SM cannot be predicted.

New physics

searches in flavour require precise,

ver-constraining

measurements of sides and angles.

Ru Rt

Limiting test is

|Vub| Vs sin2Φ1

UT CKM Parameter Measurement δV/V Ref.

Vub** (4.4±0.5)10-3 10% Vcb (4.1±0.1)10-2 3% PDG Vtd (Δmd)** (8.4±0.6)10-3 7% PDG Vtd/Vts(mix) 3% Vcd 0.228±0.006 3% 1209.0085 Vtb:single-t ~1.03±0.04 4% 1302.1773

SLIDE 3

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Sides of the UT

2

d

m

s

m

&

d

m

ub

V

2

1
3
0.4
0.2

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

excluded area has CL > 0.95

Winter 12

CKM

f i t t e r

3

2
2
K
K
1
sin 2

(excl. at CL > 0.95) < 0

1

sol. w/ cos 2

2

1
3
0.4
0.2

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

excluded area has CL > 0.95

Winter 12

CKM

f i t t e r

VudVub* VcdVcb* VtdVtb* VcdVcb*

Must measure CKM

matrix elements, fundamental parameters of the SM cannot be predicted.

New physics

searches in flavour require precise,

ver-constraining

measurements of sides and angles.

Ru Rt

Limiting test is

|Vub| Vs sin2Φ1

UT CKM Parameter Measurement δV/V Ref.

Vub** (4.4±0.5)10-3 10% Vcb (4.1±0.1)10-2 3% PDG Vtd (Δmd)** (8.4±0.6)10-3 7% PDG Vtd/Vts(mix) 3% Vcd 0.228±0.006 3% 1209.0085 Vtb:single-t ~1.03±0.04 4% 1302.1773

SLIDE 4

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Access to Ru & Rt through B decays

3

b c,u d,s d b ν e,µ

|Vub|

τ ν b u

B→τν

|Vub| or |Vcb|

d,u d,u

B→Xc,ulν

H+,W+ W

Δmd

|Vtd| |Vtd| |Vtb| |Vtb| |Vtd| or |Vts|

t W+ b γ t t d b _ _ _ _ _ _

B→Xs,dγ

_ _

|Vtb| + some |Vcd| (leptonic&semileptonic) at the end

SLIDE 5

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Ru

ρ α β γ

ud ub cd cb

V V V V

∗ ∗

η

) , ( ) , 1 ( ) , ( η η η η ρ ρ ρ ρ

td tb cd cb

V V V V

∗ ∗

u ,

|Vub| Crisis ➛I will discuss strategies to resolve this anomaly.

inclusive |Vub|GGOU=4.39±0.15+0.12-0.14)10-3 exclusive |Vub|=(3.23 ± 0.30) 10-3

Φ1 Φ2 Φ3

SLIDE 6

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Semileptonic Decays

5

Decay properties depend directly on |Vcb| & |Vub| and mb in the perturbative regime (αsn).

tree level, short distance:

c e ν

b → c e ν

W

b

SLIDE 7

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Semileptonic Decays

5

Decay properties depend directly on |Vcb| & |Vub| and mb in the perturbative regime (αsn).

tree level, short distance:

quarks are bound by soft gluons: non-perturbative long distance interactions of b quark with the light quark in the B.

+ long distance: B → D e ν

W e ν

]D

c

B[

b

SLIDE 8

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Semileptonic Decays

5

Decay properties depend directly on |Vcb| & |Vub| and mb in the perturbative regime (αsn).

tree level, short distance:

quarks are bound by soft gluons: non-perturbative long distance interactions of b quark with the light quark in the B.

+ long distance: B → D e ν

W e ν

]D

c

B[

b

Departure from the heavy quark symmetry can be expressed as (ΛQCD/ mQ)n corrections

SLIDE 9

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

|Vcb| & Heavy Quark Parameters

inclusive

SLIDE 10

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Inclusive |Vcb|

7

mb ,mc: renormalisation scheme enormalisation scheme dependent

ΛQCD2/mb2

μπ2(-λ1) - kinetic energy of b-quark, μG2(λ 2) - chromomagnetic coupling

ΛQCD3/mb3 ρD, ρLS (ρ1,τ1-3) (Spin-orbit, Darwin terms)

b s b

...]

) , , ( ) , , ( ) ( [ ) 1 ( 192

3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 5 2 2

+ + + + × + = Γ

b LS b D b b b pert EW b F cb SL

m m r c m m r c m r c A A m G V

G

ρ ρ µ µ π

π

Non-perturbative suppressed by 1/mb2 QCD Pert. Free quark decay

large phase space needed for quark-hadron duality

Operator Production Expansion predicts the total rate as:

Non perturbative parameters derived from data.

b

SLIDE 11

Υ(4S)

e− e+

B B Xu ` ¯ ν`

recoil

π+ π− . . .

tag

J/ψ

µ+ µ−

K+

π−

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

|Vcb| from Inclusive B→Xcl+ν & B→Xsγ

8

Use hadronic tag Btag→ D(*)Y

(Y=nπ,mπ0,pKs,qK...), to infer signal B: flavour, charge, p4

alculations in “kinetic” and “1S” mass schemes

) , , , , , , ( |

3 3 2 2 LS D G c b E n x B E E n x

m m E f d M M ρ ρ µ µ τ

π

= Γ =

∫

> 

Non-perturbative parameters quark masses Cut-off

Moments can be calculated for cut-off in El

HQE params & |Vcb| from

spectral “moments”

Need high resolution access to B rest frame,

unfolded: Hadronic invariant mass Lepton momentum Photon energy

SLIDE 12

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

|Vcb| Determination

9

(GeV/c)

e *B

p

0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4

Entries per 0.1 GeV/c

100 200 300 400 500 600 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 100 200 300 400 500 600

Belle

data B ν e

c

X → B ν e

u

X → B Secondaries Combinatorial Continuum

Lepton momentum Hadron mass

Belle, PRD.75.032001 (2007) Belle., PRD.75.032005 (2007)

Inclusive SL decay recoiling against Btag
Unfold to true (Belle) or
linear calibration in Xc multiplicity (Babar)
radiative corrections
Extra constraint on mb from radiative moments.

140 fb-1

Truth BABAR, PRD 81, 032003 (2010)

]

2

[GeV/c

X

m 1 2 3 4

2

entries / 80 MeV/c 400 800 1200 1600 2000 ]

2

[GeV/c

X

m 1 2 3 4

2

entries / 80 MeV/c 400 800 1200 1600 2000 350 350

D, D* D**

!"# $!# ! !%# ?

?

& &' &''

X,true

] ]

2

)

2

> [(GeV/c

2 X,true

<m 5 10 15 ]

2

)

2

> [(GeV/c

2 X,reco

<m 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 ] 16

0.05 ≤ Emiss −c| pmiss| < 0.2GeV 6 ≤ NXc ≤ 7

Babar

1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

500 1000 1500

* (GeV)

γ

E Events/0.1 GeV

B B control Continuum control

Babar, PRD 86 112008 (2012)

Photon Energy

SLIDE 13

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

|Vcb| Inclusive

Global fit to Semileptonic (and Radiative) spectra:

66 measured moments → |Vcb|, mb, mc and non-pert. params.

Kinetic: O(αs/mb2) JHEP 1109 (2011) 055
1S: PRD 70, 094017 (2004); PRD 78, 032016 (2008)
Additional constraints needed for mb: Xsγ or mc.

10

[arXiv:1207.1158]

]

2

[GeV/c

1S b

m 4.5 4.6 4.7 |

cb

|V 41 41.5 42 42.5 43

3

10 ×

Xlv

(GeV)

b

m

4.55 4.6

|

cb

|V

0.04 0.041 0.042 0.043 constraint

s

X constraint

c

m HFAG

EOF11

Kinetic scheme Kinetic scheme

Xlv Xlv+mc

]

2

[GeV/c

1S b

m 4.5 4.6 4.7 |

cb

|V 41.5 42 42.5 43 43.5

3

10 ×

1S scheme Xlv Xsγ constraint

[GeV/c] 2 [GeV/c]

l,min *

p 0.5 1 1.5 2 ]

2

)

2

> [(GeV/c

2 X

<m 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7

3

]

6

)

Babar

PRD 81, 032003 (2010)

SLIDE 14

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

|Vcb| Global Fit Results

11

Theory errors dominate the fit, results depend on off diagonal

covariance.

Consistency between Xclν and Xsγ

l=0.5 GeV Standard Model Preliminary Hexp. + theo. uncertaintiesL 4.65 4.7 4.75 4.8 4.85 13 14 15 16 17 mb1 S @GeVêc2D »C7inclVtbVts*» ¥ 103

1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Eg HGeVL

1 C72 dG dEg

NNLL+OHas2L NLL+OHasL

arXiv:1303.0958

New 1S fit to B→Xsγ (only)

for mb. Model- independent description

f shape function
To be extended/applied to

Vub.

χ2 low: further

understanding of errors needed

Scheme Constraint |Vcb|10-3 X2/ndf

kinetic Xsγ 41.94 ± 0.43(fit) ± 0.59(th) 27/59 kinetic mc 41.88 ± 0.44(fit) ± 0.59(th) 24/59 1S Xsγ 41.96 ± 0.45 23/59 1S

42.37 ± 0.65

14/48

SLIDE 15

[GeV]

b

m 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Quark Masses: mc & mb

12

1.22 1.24 1.26 1.28 1.3 1.32 1.34 mc(mc, nf=4) (GeV) HPQCD HISQ 1004.4285 ETMC 1010.3659 nf=2 Chetyrkin et al 0907.2110 Dehnadi et al 1102.2264

u, d, s sea u, d sea contnm

Kinetic scheme 1S scheme b→sγ, b→clν mc, b→clν b→clν b→clν b→sγ, b→clν SIMBA b→sγ (λ=0.5)

HFAG PDG 2012

These mb used for Vub (Kinetic scheme fit result also translated into SF scheme.)

SLIDE 16

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

|Vcb|

exclusive

SLIDE 17

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Exclusive |Vcb|

14

· − ≤ ≤ dΓ(¯ B → D∗` ¯ ⌫) dw d cos ✓` d cos ✓V d = G 2

F |Vcb|2

48⇡3 m3

D∗

p w2 − 1 P(w) |F(w, cos ✓`, cos ✓V , )|2 dΓ(¯ B → D ` ¯ ⌫) dw = G 2

F |Vcb|2

48⇡3 (mB + mD)2 m3

D(w2 − 1)3/2|G(w)|2

B→D(∗)lν differential decay rates proportional to |Vcb|2 & form factors.

48π w ≡ vB · vD(∗) = pB · pD(∗) mB · mD(∗) : D(∗) boost

1 normalisation point from lattice-QCD at 0-recoil (w=1)

ν

D*

}

B

l

b c d q2

From experiment |Vcb| x F .F . @w=1 ρD, ρD* (F .F . slopes)

GB→D(1)=1.074(18)stat(16)sys

[Fermilab/MILC NPPS 140, 461(2005)]

FB→D*(1)=0.9077(51)stat(158)sys

[Fermilab/MILC, arXiv:1011.2166]

SLIDE 18

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

B→D*lν: F(1)|Vcb|

15

Belle PRD82, 112007(2010)

B → D∗lν FF’s, 1.6% accuracy (2.6% in 2008)
772M BBbar events, 123K D*- l+ candidates
FF pars from fit to 1D hists (10 bins) of

w, cosθlep, cosθV, χ

40x40 covariance in F(1)|Vcb| fit

F(1)|Vcb| = (34.7±0.2±1.0)×10−3

ρ2 = 1.21±0.02±0.02

Sys: Limited by track (fast&slow) efficiencies

~0.8%, and B→D**lν

SLIDE 19

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

B→Dlν: G(1)|Vcb|

16

]

2

[GeV

miss 2

m

−0.5 0.5 1 1.5 2

20 40 60 80 100

b)

w>1.54

−0.5 0.5 1 1.5 2

)

2

Events/(0.04 GeV

10 20 30 40 50 60

ν Dl → B ν D*l → B ν D**l → B q + q B B fake lepton

a)

1.24 < w < 1.30

PRL104:011802 (2010)

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 G(w)|Vcb| w z expansion BaBar 2010

CKM2012 J.Laiho

Complementary approach, only 1 FF

.

Experimentally more challenging: large D* feed down @ low w.
but theory more simple (Lattice FF to be updated).

z ≡ √ w+1− √ 2 √ w+1+ √ 2 ; 0 < z < 0.065.

G(1)|Vcb| = (42.5±1.9±1.1)×10−3

ρ2 = 1.18 ± 0.09±0.05

Babar: Hadronic Btag

mmiss2=[pY4S-pBtag-pD-plep]

SLIDE 20

2

ρ

1 2

]

3

| [10

cb

|V × G(1)

20 30 40 50

HFAG

End Of 2011

ALEPH CLEO BELLE BABAR global fit BABAR tagged AVERAGE

= 1

2

χ Δ

/dof = 0.5/ 8 2 χ

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Exclusive |Vcb| Averages

17

B→D*lν B→Dlν

|Vcb|= (39.5±0.1stat±0.4sys±0.7LQCD)10-3

2

ρ

0.5 1 1.5 2

]

3

| [10

cb

|V × F(1)

30 35 40 45

HFAG

End Of 2011

ALEPH CLEO OPAL (part. reco.) OPAL (excl.) DELPHI (part. reco.) DELPHI (excl.) BELLE BABAR (excl.) BABAR (D*0) BABAR (Global Fit) AVERAGE

= 1

2

χ Δ

/dof = 29.7/23 2 χ

]

3

| [10

cb

|V × F(1)

25 30 35 40 45

ALEPH

1.3 ± 1.8 ± 31.3

CLEO

1.6 ± 1.2 ± 40.0

OPAL excl

1.5 ± 1.6 ± 36.6

OPAL partial reco

2.3 ± 1.2 ± 37.2

DELPHI partial reco

2.3 ± 1.4 ± 35.4

DELPHI excl

2.0 ± 1.7 ± 36.2

BELLE

1.0 ± 0.2 ± 34.7

BABAR excl

1.0 ± 0.3 ± 34.1

BABAR D*0

1.3 ± 0.6 ± 35.1

BABAR global fit

1.1 ± 0.2 ± 35.8

Average

0.4 ± 0.1 ± 35.9

HFAG

End Of 2011 /dof = 29.7/23 (CL = 15.70 %) 2 χ

|Vcb|= (39.6±0.7stat±1.3sys±0.9LQCD)10-3

HFAG PDG2013

]

3

| [10

cb

|V × G(1)

10 20 30 40 50

ALEPH

6.09 ± 11.80 ± 38.89

CLEO

3.30 ± 5.97 ± 44.90

BELLE

5.17 ± 4.37 ± 40.84

BABAR global fit

2.08 ± 0.81 ± 43.42

BABAR tagged

1.05 ± 1.88 ± 42.45

Average

1.35 ± 0.72 ± 42.64

HFAG

End Of 2011 /dof = 0.5/ 8 (CL = 100.00 %) 2 χ

Exp: Final B-factory results.
Theory: Unquenched lattice

at non-zero recoil desirable.

Exp: Belle final analysis coming!
Theory: Expect sig. reduction in

LQCD errors.

HFAG PDG2013

SLIDE 21

]

3

10 × | [

cb

|V

38 40 42 44 46

PRD 79 012002(2009) 0.7 ± 1.2 ± (Global Fit):39.7 ν Babar D*l PRD 82 112007(2010) 0.7 ± 1.2 ± :38.4 ν Belle D*l arXiv:1207.1158 0.7 ± 0.5 ± :39.7 ν HFAG D*l arXiv:1207.1158 0.9 ± 1.4 ± :39.7 ν HFAG Dl PRD 78 032016(2008) 0.6 ± 0.7 ± Belle Kinetic:41.6 PRD 78 032016(2008) 0.7 ± Belle 1S:41.6 arXiv:1207.1158 0.6 ± 0.4 ± HFAG Kinetic:41.9 arXiv:1207.1158 0.5 ± HFAG 1S:42.0

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

|Vcb| Summary

18

Small persistent discrepancy, up to ~2.4σ; exclusive - inclusive.
ΔExclusive~2%, ΔInclusive~1-2%

Inclusive Exclusive

± experimental ± lattice ± fit ± theory

} }

mb1S = 4.691±0.037 GeV mbkin = 4.560±0.023 GeV mbkin = 4.543±0.075 GeV mb1S = 4.723±0.055 GeV

HFAG EOF2011

SLIDE 22

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Inclusive-Exclusive Saturation Problem

19

BR(B0→Xclν)=10.14±0.14%

B0→D*lν 5.±0.1% →Dlν 2.1±0.1%

→D**lν 1.4±0.1%

→??? 1.6±0.3%

Measured sum of exclusive mode BR’s ≠ inclusive

1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 m (GeV )

1S

S-wave P-wave D-wave

π,γ D*

D

D‘ * D‘

ππ

2S 1P

π ππ π π π π

π,γ

D1

*

D1 D0

*

D2

*

π ρ π,η π,η ρ π,η π,η π,η ππ ππ ππ π,η π ππ

What is it?
Broad D** resonances & non-resonant
Unmeasured modes
Neutral transitions (π0, η)
Radial excitations (2S)
B→Ds(*)Klν; Disentangling DsKlν & Ds*Klν

gives insights for HQET @ large m.

Persistent jq=1/2 Vs 3/2 puzzle

DsK threshold jq=1/2 jq=3/2

TheorymQ→∞ : BRSL(1/2) BRSL(3/2) ' 1 10

Exp. : BRSL(1/2)0+

BRSL(3/2) ' 1

[Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 094033, arXiv:1202.1834]

SLIDE 23

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

D** Conundrum

20

Only products:

BF(B→D**lν)×BF(D**→D(*)π),

Narrow consistent, Broad

not.

Absolute D** BFs unknown.
B→D(*)πlν consistent with

negligible continuum.

Missing 15% ΓSL. Must

characterise it, efficiency low.

) [%]

π

* +

D →

1

) B(D ν

l

1

D →

B(B

0.5 1

) [%]

π

* +

D →

1

) B(D ν

l

1

D →

B(B

0.5 1

ALEPH 0.07 ± 0.10 ± 0.45 OPAL 0.10 ± 0.21 ± 0.59 CLEO 0.06 ± 0.09 ± 0.35 D0 0.04 ± 0.02 ± 0.22 BELLE B+ 0.06 ± 0.07 ± 0.44 BELLE B0 0.08 ± 0.20 ± 0.60 BABAR Tagged 0.03 ± 0.03 ± 0.28 BABAR Untagged B+ 0.02 ± 0.02 ± 0.29 BABAR Untagged B0 0.03 ± 0.03 ± 0.30 Average 0.02 ± 0.28

HFAG

End Of 2011 /dof = 11.0/ 8 (CL = 13.30 %) 2 χ

a)

) [%]

π

+

D →

*0

) B(D ν

l

*0

D →

B(B
0.2

0.2 0.4

) [%]

π

+

D →

*0

) B(D ν

l

*0

D →

B(B
0.2

0.2 0.4

BELLE Tagged B+

0.06 ± 0.04 ± 0.25

BELLE Tagged B0

0.06 ± 0.08 ± 0.23

BABAR Tagged

0.05 ± 0.04 ± 0.32

Average

0.05 ± 0.29

HFAG

End Of 2011 /dof = 13.2/ 2 (CL = 66.00 %) 2 χ

b)

) [%]

*+

D

’0

1

) B(D

l

’0 1

D

B(B
0.5

0.5 1

) [%]

*+

D

’0

1

) B(D

l

’0 1

D

B(B
0.5

0.5 1

DELPHI

0.18 ± 0.17 ± 0.74

BELLE

0.07 ± 0.06 ±

0.03

BABAR

0.04 ± 0.04 ± 0.27

Average

0.05 ± 0.14

HFAG

End Of 2011 /dof = 18.0/ 2 (CL = 0.00 %) 2

a)

) [%]

π

* +

D →

2

) B(D ν

l

2

D →

B(B
0.2

0.2

) [%]

π

* +

D →

2

) B(D ν

l

2

D →

B(B
0.2

0.2

CLEO 0.01 ± 0.07 ± 0.05 D0 0.02 ± 0.02 ± 0.09 BELLE 0.03 ± 0.06 ± 0.19 BABAR Tagged 0.01 ± 0.01 ± 0.05 BABAR Untagged B+ 0.01 ± 0.01 ± 0.09 BABAR Untagged B0 0.01 ± 0.01 ± 0.07 Average 0.01 ± 0.07

HFAG

End Of 2011 /dof = 7.3/ 5 (CL = 20.00 %) 2 χ

b)

Narrow Broad

D10 D20 D1’0 D0*0

0.28±0.02 0.07±0.01 0.14±0.05

Belle removed

0.29±0.05

B(B+ → D⇡ `+ ⌫`) − B − B(B+ → D⇤⇤(1P),

!D⇡ `+ ⌫`) = (0.10 ± 0.11) %

B → − B(B+ → D⇤⇡ `+ ⌫`) − − B →

!

± − B(B+ → D⇤⇤(1P),

!D⇤⇡ `+ ⌫`) = (0.17 ± 0.11) %

SLIDE 24

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

B→Ds(*)Klν

21

Belle 657M B anti-B

PRD 86 (2012) 072007

Mode

Belle (10-4)

Babar (10-4) (stat±sys)

Ds K l ν (3.0±1.2stat+1.1-0.8 sys)10-4 - Ds* K l ν (2.9±1.6stat+1.1-1.0 sys)10-4 - Combined 5.9±1.2±1.5 6.1±1.0±0.4±0.5(B(Ds))

Bsig→Ds(γ)Kl+ (Ds→Φπ).
Btag loosely consistent / SL.

Minimal signal criteria limits model dependence.

5D fit with Ds*→Ds accounted.

Babar

Ds→Φπ, K*K,KSK

Important background to

Bs→DsXlν at Y(5S) and LHC e.g. (fu+fd)/fs~6

Belle

Xmis = (Ebeam − Evis) − pvis

E2

beam − M2 B

PRL 107 (2011) 014804

Babar 342fb-1

Mm2=(EB−EY)2−|p⃗|2=m2ν , (Y=Ds+K−l−).

BR small due to kinematics, need highly efficient reco.

Signal

SLIDE 25

BF / Error Δ

4
3
2
1

BR [%] 5 10

X X X l X l X X X l X l

ν X l

(*)

D ν l D ν l

+

D ν l

*0

D ν l

*+

D ν l π

(*)

D

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Semi-inclusives

22

GeV

lep

p

1 2 3

Events

100 200 300 400 500

1

710 fb

Data Belle

=9.9, prob=0.27 2 χ 65 ± Fit sig= 2474 41 ± fit bkg= 361 62 ± Total= 2835

}

HFAG WA ∑ measured

Belle Preliminary

[GeV] D m 1.82 1.84 1.86 1.88 1.9 1.92 Events / ( 0.0025 ) 200 400 600 44 ± = 2384 bnotd0 N 46 ± = 499 bsig N 45 ± = 508 notd0 N 57 ± = 2924 sig N

Qconserved Q violated

Assume Isospin symmetry to infer (D(*)π0)

Belle(Prelim.): B±/0→D(*)±/0Xlν (8 modes).
2D fit to mbc/mD in plep bins (for fakes) using NN hadron tag

arXiv: 1305.3846

Missing modes likely D**→D(*) ρ/η/ω/nπ/f0, or D’(2S)→D(*,**)X
Low efficiency / broad → Don’t reconstruct D**, split into charge:
Conserved (B+→D0l+, i.e. missing neutrals, or π+π-)
Violated (B+→D+l+, i.e. missing π+).

Crucial normalisation modes for SL studies @ LHC & Y(5S)

X ν l D →

+

B X ν l

+

D → B X ν l

*0

D →

+

B X ν l

*+

D → B X ν l D → B X ν l

+

D →

+

B X ν l

*0

D → B X ν l

*+

D →

+

B

SLIDE 26

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Semileptonic Bs @ Y(5S)

23

Belle 121fb-1: PRD. 87, 072008 (2013) Babar 3.2fb-1: PRD 85, 011101 (2012)

) [GeV]

+

p(e

1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Events / 0.25 GeV

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

3

10 ×

Belle

1

Y(5S): 121 fb

Data

+

Prompt e

+

Fake e

+

Sec. e

MC error

) [GeV]

+

µ p(

1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Events / 0.25 GeV

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

3

10 ×

Belle

1

Y(5S): 121 fb

Data

+

µ Prompt

+

µ Fake

+

µ Sec. MC error

D+

s

π

`+

Υ(5S)

¯ B0

s

B0

s

φ

X X0

Bs may also give precise exclusive |Vqb|: LQCD w/ heavier spectator, more phase space

at low recoil...

Will help solve HQET j=1/2, 3/2 puzzle → All Ds** are narrow!
Belle: most precise absolute Bs BF (SU3 symmetric)
SL Bs at Y(5S) promising: plans for exclusive modes

) [%] ν X l →

s

BR(B

4 6 8 10 12

0.74 ± 0.46 ± 0.68 ± 11.32 : 2013 µ Belle 0.61 ± 0.37 ± 0.57 ± 10.04 Belle e: 2013 0.67 ± 0.37 ± 0.46 ± 10.61 +e: 2013 µ Belle

2.0 -1.9

+2.5 +1.1

9.5 Babar: 2012 0.84 ± 10.50 Private Average 0.09 ± 0.28 ± 10.26 ) (B τ )/

s

(B τ × ) c.f. BF(B 0.09 ± 0.26 ± 10.11 )

+

(B τ )/

s

(B τ × )

+

c.f. BF(B

SLIDE 27

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

|Vub|

exclusive

SLIDE 28

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Exclusive |Vub| Extraction

Rates determined by |Vub| & Form

Factors

Calculable at kinematical limits with

Light Cone Sum Rules or Lattice QCD

Empirical extrapolation necessary to

extract |Vxb| from measurements

25

LCSR* Fermilab HPQCD ISGW2

ν

π

}

B

l

b u d q2=(mB2+mπ2-2mBEπ)2

∆ζ(0, q2

max) = G2 F

24π3

q2

max

dq2 p3

π|f+(q2)|2

= 1 |Vub|2τB0

q2

max

dq2 dB(B → πℓν)

dq2

One FF for B → πlv with massless lepton

SLIDE 29

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

B →π l ν Results

26

]

3

)[10 ν l π → BF(B 0.5 1 ]

3

)[10 ν l π → BF(B 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 /c >16 GeV q

Untagged S.L. tag

Had. tag

q2<12 GeV2 q2>16 GeV2 Belle π± Babar π± Belle π0 Babar π0 See Talk by C. Beleno

Experimentally robust.
Biggest (recent) advance: improved

hadron tag for m2miss analyses. Reduced model dependence - cross check of untagged.

LQCD safe region LCSR safe region

εtag % BABAR Cut (2008>) Belle Cut Belle NN (2011>)

Modes 1768

~1000

B+tag 0.4 0.14 0.28 B0tag 0.21 0.1 0.18

Efficiency Purity Untagged High Û Low Ü Tag B → D(*)lv Û Low Ü High Tag B → hadrons Low High

SLIDE 30

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Exclusive |Vub|

27

1.|Vub| from partial q2 integral with FF (theory/lattice). 2.Fit data & theory: LCSR or LQCD in q2(2-3 shape pars + |Vub|, data & LQCD correlations) 1.Not precise enough to rule out any theory (other than ISGW2)

Error budget:

2% total rate 4% q2 shape 8% FF normalisation

)

2

(GeV

2

q

5 10 15 20 25

)

2

(GeV

2

q Δ B/ Δ

2 4 6 8 10 12

6

10 ×

)

2

(GeV

2

q

5 10 15 20 25

)

2

(GeV

2

q Δ B/ Δ

2 4 6 8 10 12

6

10 ×

Belle untagged (13 bins) BaBar untagged (12 bins) BaBar untagged (6 bins) BCL fit (3+1 par.) FNAL/MILC

HFAG PDG 2013

q2 (GeV/c)2 |Vub|103 LCSR Siegen <12 3.42±0.06+0.37-0.32 LCSR Ball/Zwicky <16 3.58±0.06+0.59-0.40 LQCD HPQCD >16 3.49±0.09+0.60-0.40 LQCD FNAL/MILC >16 3.33±0.08+0.37-0.31 Global Fit (FNAL) All 3.26±0.29 Global Fit (LCSR) All 3.26±0.19

X2/ndf=41/31 LQCD q2 shape tests in D+ SL

SLIDE 31

|Vub|

inclusive

SLIDE 32

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

|Vub| from Inclusive B→Xulν

Total rate can’t be measured! Too much B→Xclν background.
Remove b→clv: BUT lose part of b→ulv.

29

Cut-dependent constant (theory)

Fraction of the signal that passes the cut → corrected for QCD, motion of b-quark

Measure

Problems: Restriction of phase space creates complication, need models Γ ~|Vub|2 mb5, but partial rates ΔΓ~|Vub|2 mb10

0.5 1 1.5 2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 2.5

El (GeV) Γ dΓ dEl _ 1 __ (GeV-1)

parton model kinematic limit of bc

including fermi motion (model)

SLIDE 33

100 200 300 500 1000 1500 (a) 10 20 q2(GeV2) Entries/bin Entries/2 GeV2

100

100 200 300 1000 2000 3000 4000 (b) 2 4 Mx(GeV) Entries/bin Entries/0.33 GeV

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

B➝Xulν Measurements

30

Need large fraction of the rate to

control theory error.

Use hadronic Btag➝D(*)Y: precisely reconstruct mX, q2.

ts

)

2

(GeV/c

X

M Events 1 2 3 4 500 1000 1500 2000 )

2

/c

2

(GeV

2

q Events 10 20 30 1000 2000

data

0/+

B ν l

u

X → B ν l

c

X → B Secondaries Combinatorial Continuum

Belle PRL 104 021801 (2010) Babar PRD 86 032004 (2012)

Latest results: ~90% phase space (plep*>1 GeV)

Elep>2 GeV q2>8 GeV2 MX<1.7 GeV

fc 25% 38% 65%

SLIDE 34

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

|Vub|: Inclusive

31

“Inclusive” analyses not inclusive enough...
Need much better understanding of Xul+ν

Resonant & non-res., light quark hadronisation. Common techniques used in Belle & Babar mXu>1 GeV (exclusives) next frontier.

Babar pl>1 GeV Belle pl>1 GeV Average tagged Average untagged (endpoint) Average all ]

3

10 × [

ub

V 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

DGE GGOU BLNP

Belle ∆B/B 3.6 1.5 4.0 2.9 5.8 1.7 3.1 3.1 2 8.1 5.6 2.7 1.9

6.5

2.7 3.4

2.1

8.4 Source B → Xu ` ¯ ⌫` (SF) B → Xu ` ¯ ⌫` (g → s¯ s) B → Xu ` ¯ ⌫` exclusive B → Xu ` ¯ ⌫` unmeasured All B → Xu ` ¯ ⌫` B → Xc ` ¯ ⌫` PID and reconstruction BDT Other Total |Vub| global fit (exclusive )

Systematics % Babar Belle

pl*>1 GeV

SLIDE 35

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Modelling: Tests of hadronisation

75% SL width educated guess
Hadronisation: JETSET
Correct kinematics: match

latest theory.

Belle shows inadequacy of

hadronisation/fragmentation.

32

)

2

c (GeV/

π

+

π

M

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

)

2

c Entries/(0.04 GeV/

20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Data ν )l

π

+

π (

u

X →

B

ν l ρ →

B

ν l

u

X → B ν (1270)l

2

f →

B

ν l ω →

B

ν (980)l f →

B

ν )l

π

+

(K

(*)

D →

B

ν )l

π

+

π (

(*)

D →

B

B B q q

)

2

c (GeV/

π

+

π

M

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

)

2

c Entries/(0.06 GeV/

20 40 60 80

Data ν )l π

+

π (

u

X → B ν l

+

ρ → B ν l

u

X → B ν )l π

+

π (

(*)

D → B B B q q

m(MeV) ~BR(ave.) x10-4

π±/π0 139 1.4 η 547 0.4 ρ±/ρ0 775 2.3 ω 783 1.2 η’ 958 0.2 Inc-Σ(Excl) 14.5 Belle Preliminary Belle Preliminary

SLIDE 36

]

3

10 × | [

ub

|V

2 4 6

]

3

10 × | [

ub

|V

2 4 6

)

e

CLEO (E

0.46 + 0.22 - 0.29 ± 3.93

)

2

, q

X

BELLE sim. ann. (m

0.46 + 0.23 - 0.26 ± 4.37

)

e

BELLE (E

0.44 + 0.17 - 0.22 ± 4.75

)

e

BABAR (E

0.24 + 0.18 - 0.24 ± 4.29

BELLE multivariate (p*)

0.27 + 0.10 - 0.11 ± 4.54

<1.55)

X

BABAR (m

0.19 + 0.20 - 0.21 ± 4.08

<1.7)

X

BABAR (m

0.22 + 0.16 - 0.17 ± 3.94

>8)

2

<1.7, q

X

BABAR (m

0.22 + 0.22 - 0.25 ± 4.17

<0.66)

+

BABAR (P

0.23 + 0.30 - 0.32 ± 3.75

fit, p*>1GeV)

2

, q

X

BABAR (m

0.24 + 0.09 - 0.10 ± 4.35

BABAR (p*>1.3GeV)

0.27 + 0.10 - 0.11 ± 4.33

Average +/- exp + theory - theory

0.15 + 0.12 - 0.14 ± 4.39

HFAG

End Of 2011

P. Gambino, P. Giordano, G. Ossola, N. Uraltsev

JHEP 0710:058,2007 (GGOU) /dof = 11.2/10 (CL = 34.00 %)

2

χ

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Inclusive |Vub| Stability

Agreement between experiments!
Theory: Error (5-7%) dominated by mb, μπ2
Expt: Error on B→ρ/ω/ηlν, non-resonant. &

high Xu mass (unmeasured)

33

mb, μπ2 from Global fit: (B→ Xclν, B→ Xsγ, mc)

P)

|Vub| Differential Models BLNP:NP B699, 335 (2004) DGE: JHEP 0601, 096 (2006) GGOU: JHEP 0710, 058 (2007) ADFR: EPJ. C59, 831 (2009) 2004 2006 2008 2010 ]

3

10 × [

ub

V

3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

2004 2006 2008 2010 ]

5

10 ×

5

[GeV

5

)

SF b

1/(m

4.5 5

BLNP , HFAG HFAG EOF Year results

mb stability Cut & experiment stability

SLIDE 37

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

leptonic

|Vub|

SLIDE 38

Enters UT in 2 main ways:
B(B→τν) ∝ ¡ ¡fB2 |Vub|2 (fB very precise)
B(B→τν) / ∆md ∝ ¡|Vub|2 / |Vtd|2, Cancels fB uncertainties.

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

B→τν

35

[GeV]

extra

E 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 /100 MeV

evt

N 50 100 150 200 250 300

(a)

Babar

)

4

/c

2

(GeV

2 miss

M 5 10 15 20 25 30 )

4

/c

2

Events / 1 (GeV 5 10 15 20 25 )

4

/c

2

(GeV

2 miss

M 5 10 15 20 25 30 )

4

/c

2

Events / 1 (GeV 5 10 15 20 25 (Projected in EECL<0.2 GeV.) (GeV)

ECL

E 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Events / 0.05 GeV 20 40 60 80 100 120 (GeV)

ECL

E 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Events / 0.05 GeV 20 40 60 80 100 120 (Projected in all Mmiss2 region.)

signal (3.0σ) background

Belle e,µ,π,ρ e,µ,π,ρ

PRL 110, 131801 (2013). arXiv:1207.0698

New Had tagged results

See Talk by A. Bozek

Belle

SLIDE 39

4

) x 10 ν τ → BR(B

0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4

p-value

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Summer 12

CKM

f i t t e r

) ν τ → CKM fit w/o BR(B Measurements (WA) Measurements (Belle)

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

fB & |Vub| from Leptonic Decays

36

LQCD: ~2.5% error on fB

rom Nakao, ICHEP 2012

Differ by 1.5 σ if error uncorrelated |Vub| (±Exp±LQCD) (x10 | (±Exp±LQCD) (x10-3) Babar 5.3±0.7±0.1 Belle 3.9±0.5±0.1 WA 4.2±0.4±0.1

⊗ =

SLIDE 40

]

3

10 × | [

ub

|V

3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6

>1.3 GeV

*

GGOU:p

0.11

+0.10

0.27 ± Babar:4.33 >1.0 GeV

*

GGOU:p

0.11

+0.10

0.27 ± Belle:4.54 GGOU: HFAG EOF2011

0.14

+0.12

0.15 ± WA:4.39 Untagged, LCSR

0.32

+0.37

0.10 ± Babar:3.44 Untagged, LCSR

0.31

+0.37

0.10 ± Belle:3.44 tagged, LCSR

0.31

+0.37

0.14 ± Belle:3.38 HFAG EOF2011 LCSR

0.32

+0.37

0.07 ± WA:3.40 HFAG EOF2011 Global Fit 0.30 ± WA:3.30 Belle, Lat.Ave. ICHEP 2012 0.09 ± 0.53 ± :3.87 ν τ → B WA (private), Lat.Ave. ICHEP 2012 0.10 ± 0.42 ± :4.21 ν τ → B Summer 2012

0.12

+0.23

CKMfitter:3.42 Summer 2012 0.10 ± UTFIT:3.69

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

|Vub| Summary

37

HFAG PDG2012 Excl. Range

Inclusive Exclusive

HFAG PDG 2012 Incl. Range (BLNP, DGE, GGOU, ADFR)

LCSR: Khodjamirian et al. q2 < 12 PRD 83:094031 (2011) GGOU: Gambino et al. JHEP 0710:058 (2007)

B→τν

CKM Fitters

Arbitrarily selected theory results shown for reference.

SLIDE 41

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

|Vub| Exclusive-Inclusive Puzzle

Inclusive:
|Vub| sensitive to theory framework & b-quark mass.
High mass Xu & fragmentation must be measured.
Exclusive:
Normalisation from theory/Lattice: stat. limited tests
f predictions. complementary tests from D→π/Klν.
Leptonic: In between - no conclusion.
4th way? Double ratios
Right handed current? (arxiv:1303.0958)

38 |Vcb| Exclusive (D*lν) |Vcb| Inclusive

1-2 σ 2-3 σ

|Vub| Exclusive (πlν) |Vub| Inclusive

f (B→⇢`¯

⌫)

f (B→K∗`+`−) × f (D→K∗`¯

⌫)

f (D→⇢`¯

⌫)

SLIDE 42

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Rt

ρ α β γ

ud ub cd cb

V V V V

∗ ∗

η

) , ( ) , 1 ( ) , ( η η η η ρ ρ ρ ρ

td tb cd cb

V V V V

∗ ∗

u ,

Φ1 Φ2 Φ3

SLIDE 43

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Bd Mixing

40

0.47 0.48 0.49 0.5 0.51 0.52 0.53

md (ps-1)

BABAR+BELLE average 0.508 ±0.005 ps-1 BABAR D*l/l,K,NN (23M BB

)

0.492 ±0.018 ±0.013 ps-1 BABAR D*l(part)/l (88M BB

)

0.511 ±0.007 ±0.007 ps-1 ELLE B0

d(full)+D*l/comb

(152M BB

)

0.511 ±0.005 ±0.006 ps-1 BELLE l/l (32M BB

)

0.503 ±0.008 ±0.010 ps-1 BELLE D*(part)/l (31M BB

)

0.509 ±0.017 ±0.020 ps-1 BABAR l/l (23M BB

)

0.493 ±0.012 ±0.009 ps-1 BABAR B0

d(full)/l,K,NN

(32M BB

)

0.516 ±0.016 ±0.010 ps-1

Heavy Flavour Averaging Group

) in ps (B

1.45

1.5 1.55 1.6

1

in ps

d

m

0.48

0.5 0.52 HFAG

PDG 2013

BABAR

l

*

D 23M BB

BABAR

part. reco.
l

*

D 88M BB

BELLE

l

*

full hadr. + D 152M BB

Average

= 1

2

stat only

stat + syst

∆ms ∆md = mBs mBd ξ2

Vts

Vtd

2
Although very precise, leading error on

Δmd from B→D**l ν modelling ;-) Extracted from flavour eigenstate semileptonic samples.

ps-1 Belle/Babar WA(inc LHCb) Δ%

Δmd 0.508±0.005 0.507±0.004 0.8 Δms 17.72±0.04 0.2

SLIDE 44

Form factor ratio Annihilation contribution S = 1 for ρ+, 1/2 for ρ0 or ω.

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Radiative Decays: Exclusive

41

Independent check of Bs vs. Bd mixing Analogous to |Vub|/|Vcb| determination Exclusive well established ~7% theory error;

Belle II golden mode, See talk by B. Golob

)

2

(GeV/c

bc

M 5.2 5.25 5.3

)

2

Entries/(2.5 MeV/c

20 40 60 )

2

(GeV/c

bc

M 5.2 5.25 5.3

)

2

Entries/(2.5 MeV/c

20 40 60

γ ρ → B

E (GeV) Δ

0.5

0.5

Entries/(25 MeV)

20 40 E (GeV) Δ

0.5

0.5

Entries/(25 MeV)

20 40

γ ρ → B

)

Belle PRL 101, 111801 (2008)

Isospin averaged fb-1 Discriminant BF(B→ργ)10-6 BF(B→ωγ) 10-6

Belle PRL 101, 111801 (2008) 651 Fisher/LLH 1.21±0.33±0.17 0.50±0.25±0.09 Babar PRD78, 112001 (2008) 423 BDT 1.73±0.33±0.17 0.40±0.28±0.13

SLIDE 45

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Radiative Decays: Inclusive

Sum-of-exclusive B→Xdγ:

resonant & non-res. modes.

Theory clean.

42

Xd Xs Xd Xs

Large error due to

fragmentation/hadronisation.

No equivalent from Belle.

td ts

Γ(b → dγ) Γ(b → sγ) = ξ 2 Vtd Vts

2

1+ ΔR

( )

Babar Babar

Isospin averaged fb-1 Discriminant BF(b→dγ)10-6

Babar PRD82, 051101 (2010) 423 Sum of 7 modes 9.2±2.0±2.3

SLIDE 46

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

|Vtq| Summary

43

|

ts

|/|V

td

|V 0.15 0.2 0.25

Inclusive Radiative (Δζ*~1%) Exclusive Radiative (Δζ~17%) Mixing (Δζ~2.6%) (PDG 2013)

|Vts|=|Vcb| with UT constraint,
Can extract |Vts| from inclusives Ratio

B(B→Xsγ: Eγ>1.6)/B(B→Xceν ̄)

B(B→Xsγ)=(3.55 ± 0.26)×10−4
B(B→Xclν)=(10.51±0.13)%(PDG2013)
NNLO theory prediction cancels some

HQE uncertainties PRL.98:022002 (2007)

See M. Misiak’s talk.

(Assumes isospin symmetry)

Assuming |Vtb|=1

c.f. |Vcb| (40.9±1.1)10-3

Most precise |V ecise |Vtq| (PDG) |Vtd| (8.4±0.6)10-3 |Vts| (42.9±2.6)10-3 |Vtd|/|Vts| 0.211±0.006 |Vts|/|Vcb| 1.04±0.04±0.03 |Vtb|** ~1.03±0.04

SLIDE 47

0.5

1 1.5 2 2.5 3

q

2 (GeV 2)

1 2 3 4 5

f+(q

2) / f+(0.15 GeV 2)

SU(2) PT

Consistency of lattice and experimental D l form factor shapes

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

|Vcd| Semileptonic

Semileptonic: New BESIII preliminary

results.

Excellent high precision

Lattice (FNAL 2012) - experiment (CLEO-c) consistency check.

44

arXiv: 1301.4515

0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24

f+

(q 2=0) |Vcd|

CLEO-c (2009) BESIII (2012, Preliminary)

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1

f+(q

2=0)

HPQCD: 2012, Preliminary ETMC: 2010, Preliminary FNAL/MILC: 2005 f+

(0)

HPQCD: 2011 f+

K(0)

D#→#πlν#
CLEO-c

J.(Bailey(et(al.((FNAL/MILC)(( LaZce(2012(

SLIDE 48

200 300 400 500 600

MARK-III BES-I BES-II CLEO-c LQCD LQCD QL(QCDSF) QL(Taiwan) QL(UKQCD) QL QSR QSR QSR(1) FC IMS BES-III

(Preliminary) < 290 at 90% C.L.

150-40

+180+80

300 25 ±

119

+129

371 2.6 ± 9.3 ± 209.0 1.97 ± 5.72 ± 203.91 4 ± 213 10 ± 217 22 ± 3 ± 6 ± 206 14 ± 8 ± 235

16

+17

10 ± 210

12

+2

14 ± 211 21 ± 177 23 ± 203 20 ± 195 10 ± 210 29 ± 262

fD+ [MeV]

(b)

0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3 0.32 0.34 Vcd

Leptonic + BES III (2012, Preliminary) Unitarity (PDG ’10) Semileptonic (HPQCD ’11) Leptonic + CLEO (2008) Neutrino exp. (PDG ’10)

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

|Vcd| Leptonic

D+→µν @ (BES III) now leading method;

D+→τν, D+→eν still to come.

fD+ stringent test of LQCD
Ratio: fD/fB greater precision than fD or fB
Confidence in mixing params & leptonic B

45

arXiv: 1209.0085 arXiv: 1301.4515

M2

miss [GeV2/c4]

BESIII:~2.9fb1@3.773GeV
Selection of D @BES-III

SLIDE 49

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Summary

Long campaign of UT side measurements at e+e-,

to continue at SuperKEKB, and BESIII

|Vub| unsettled, ongoing progress:
Errors more meaningful (expt & theory)
Better control of theory assumptions (incl. LQCD)
More cross-checks (theory&expt) in B, D, leptonic

& SL

Now a 3rd way to get |Vub| - leptonic
New precise leptonic D(s)+ @ BESIII
Tests LQCD for mixing and leptonic B
Precise determination of |Vcd|
Similar techniques & theory applied to |Vtq|

extraction from radiative decays

Precision studies @ Belle II

46 UT CKM Parameter Measurement δV/V

|Vub|** (4.4±0.5)10-3 10% |Vcb| (4.1±0.1)10-2 3% |Vtd| (Δmd)** (8.4±0.6)10-3 7% |Vtd|/|Vts| (mix) 3% |Vcd| 0.228±0.006 3% |Vtb|:single-t ~1.03±0.04 4%

SLIDE 50

end

SLIDE 51

0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3

Vcs

with Belle preliminary Semileptonic, HPQCD 2011 Unitarity (PDG ’11) with Belle preliminary Leptonic + Br(Ds ->µ) (HFAG) Leptonic + Br(Ds ->) (HFAG) Semileptonic, HPQCD 2012, preliminary

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

|Vcs|

48

Normalisation in the Bs UT. Leptonic: new results from Belle Semileptonic: awaiting large data sample results from BESIII

0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75

q

2 (GeV 2)

0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25

f+(q

2) / f+(0.10 GeV 2)

FNAL/MILC PRELIMINARY, 14 ens. full QCD (bootstrap errors) CLEO-c, PRD (2009), arXiv:0906.2983 BABAR, PRD (2007), arXiv:0704.0020 SU(2) PT

Consistency of lattice and experimental D Kl form factor shapes

fK

+(0)|Vcs| π

SLIDE 52

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Spectroscopy: Proposed solution to known problems

D’(*), 2S→1S or 2S→1P→1S
If BF(B→ D’(*)lν)~1%
Saturates inclusive rate
Enhances rate to s=1/2 states
m(D2S-D1S)~0.5GeV (hard lepton)
Form F

. estimate can be constrained by hadronic modes (@LHCb).

49

Transition strength indicated by line thickness

’1/2’ vs ’3/2’ problem ← → ← → |Vcb| inclusive vs. exclusive gap inclusive vs exclusive ← → measured 1P states

B(B+ → D∗∗

1/2=broad `+ ⌫)/B(B+ → D∗∗ 3/2=narrow `+ ⌫) ∼ 0.1 − 0.2

[Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 094033, arXiv:1202.1834]

(B → D0(⇤)⇡) = 3⇡2C 2 |Vud|2f 2

π

mB mD0(⇤) d(B → D0(⇤)`¯ ⌫) dw

wmax

SLIDE 53

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Right handed current Fit

50

Standard Model Æ

B Æ rln B Æ wln B Æ Xuln B Æ tn B Æ pln

prel. Belle tagged

BaBar untagged HFAG GGOU HFAG + new Belle HFAG Avg. with Lattice

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

0.1 0.2 0.3 2 3 4 5 6 7 eR' »VubL» ¥ 103

f (✏0

R ):

B ! ⇡ ` ¯ ⌫`: 1 + ✏0

R

B ! ⌧ ¯ ⌫⌧ : 1 ✏0

R

B ! Xu ` ¯ ⌫`: 1 + ✏02

R

Proposed by [hep-ph/0505166] [arXiv:0907.2461] [arXiv:1007.1993] Private Fit Solid: All Dashed: w/o ⇢ & ! Input: see Backup

| |

New physics observable via right-handed currents? |Vub| =

V L

ub

f (✏0

R = ✏R< V R

ub

V L

ub )

del Æ

rln ln ln tn pln tagged untagged GGOU Belle attice 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 2 3 4 5 6 7 e ' 10

F

. Bernlochner et al.

SLIDE 54

[GeV]

γ

E 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 / 50 MeV]

3

Events [10 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 [GeV]

γ

E 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 / 0.1 GeV ]

4

) [10 γ

s

X → B(B Δ 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 [GeV]

γ

E 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 / 0.1 GeV ]

4

) [10 γ

s

X → B(B Δ 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 [GeV]

γ

E 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 / 0.1 GeV ]

4

) [10 γ

s

X → B(B Δ

0.1

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Belle inclusive Babar had-tag Babar semi- exclusive Babar inclusive

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Inclusive |Vcb| Global Fit Dataset

51

BaBar) <En

l>:)n=0,1,2,3)[PRD)69,)111104)(2004),)PRD)81,)032003)(2010)])

<M2n

X>:)n=1,2,)3)[PRD)81,)032003)(2010)])

<En

γ>:)n=1,2)[PRL)97,)171803)(2006),)PRD)72,)052004)(2005)])

Belle) <En

l>:)n=0,1,2,3)[PRD)75,)032001)(2007)])

<M2n

X>:)n=1,2)[PRD)75,)032005)(2007)])

<Enγ>:)n=1,2)[PRL)103,)241801)(2009)]) CDF) <M2n

X>:)n=1,2)[PRD)71,)051103)(2005)])

CLEO) <M2n

X>:)n=1,2)[PRD)70,)032002)(2004)])

<En

γ>:)n=1)[PRL)87,)251807)(2001)])

DELPHI) <En

l>:)n=1,2,3)

<M2n

X>:)n=1,2)[EPJ)C45,)35)(2006)])

66)measurements)used)

(29)from)BaBar,)25)from)Belle)and)12)from)other)expts))

τB)=)()1.582)+/L)0.007)))ps)

SIMBA (currently) uses only the radiative B decay moments

|Cincl

7

VtbV ∗

ts| =

14.83 ± 0.53[exp] ± 0.37[theo]
× 10−3 ,

m1S

b

= 4.77 ± 0.03[exp] ± 0.02[theo] ,

SLIDE 55

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Inclusive |Vub| Summary

52

SLIDE 56

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Simulation of B → Xu l ν

53

bÆu Mass Spectrum p, h, h', r, w Inclusive Hybrid incl. scaled inclusive component p h h' r,w 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 mX @GeVD Arbitrary Units

Simulation steps:

1.Simulate inclusive b→ulν ̄; Hadronisation via JETSET. 2.Reweigh in (mX , q2, El) to match the inclusive B→Xu l ν ̄ QCD calculations 3.Simulate exclusive B → hlν ̄ for h = π,ρ,ω,η,η′; 4.Mix the two: ’Hybrid MC’.

Babar(1,2,3,4), then in (mX <

1.4 GeV) the inclusive prediction is scaled down in (mX , q2 , El ) so that B(B → Xu l ν ̄) is conserved

Belle(3,1,2,4)

SLIDE 57

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Mixing Parameters from Lattice

54

Laiho, Lunghi & Van de Water (Phys.Rev.D81:034503,2010)

fB √BB

245 250 255 260 265 270 275 280 285 290 295 300 305 310 315 320

fBs Sqrt[Bs] (MeV) FNAL/MILC ’11 HPQCD ’09

185 190 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235 240 245 250 255 260 265 270 275 280

fBd Sqrt[Bd] (MeV) FNAL/MILC ’11 HPQCD ’09

ξ

fBs p BBs

2012

A. El-Khadra, IF workshop, ANL, 25-27 April 2013

25

FLAG-2 average in progress
FNAL/MILC’11: preliminary

results from partial data set for all 5 operators (including BSM) final results later this year

ETMC (nf = 2): preliminary

results presented at Lattice 2012

SLIDE 58

UT sides at e+e-, FPCP 2013

Phillip URQUIJO

Semi-exclusive: Belle Preliminary

55

B X0 B(B ! X0`ν)/B(B ! X`ν) B D0X 0.922±0.016stat. ±0.011B(D) ±0.036sys B D+X 0.088±0.004stat. ±0.002B(D) ±0.005sys B0 D0X 0.575±0.016stat. ±0.007B(D) ±0.022sys B0 D+X 0.452±0.007stat. ±0.010B(D) ±0.021sys B D⇤0X 0.597±0.026stat. ±0.007B(D) ±0.024sys B D⇤+X 0.064±0.007stat. ±0.008B(D) ±0.004sys B0 D⇤0X 0.081±0.020stat. ±0.009B(D) ±0.006sys B0 D⇤+X 0.615±0.021stat. ±0.007B(D) ±0.024sys

arXiv: 1305.3846 Systematics dominated by tag efficiency and D** modelling.