Skip to main content

Full text of "Measurements of the CKM angle $γ/φ_{3}$ at B-factories"

See other formats


o 
< 



in: 



> 

in 



change/delete REPORT-# 
August 22, 2011 



Measurements of the CKM angle 7/03 at B-factories 



YOSHIYUKI OnUKI on BEHALF OF THE BELLE AND BaBAR COLLABORATIONS 

Department of Physics, Tohoku University, 6-3 Aramaki-Aza, Aoba, Sendai, Miyagi, 

980-8578, Japan 



Abstract 



The CKM angle 7/03 have been measured by two B-factories, the 
_ PEPII coUider for the BaBar experiment and the KEKB coUider for the 

Q ■ Belle experiments. The present paper reports recent progress in 7/03. 



>< 
. P^. ; PRESENTED AT 



The Ninth International Conference on 

Flavor Physics and CP Violation 

(FPCP 2011) 
Maale Hachamisha, Israel, May 23-27, 2011 



1 Introduction 

The CP violation in the Standard Model is explained by the quark mixing ma- 
trix of the charged current weak interaction. The matrix is as known as Cabibbo- 
Kobayashi-Maskawa(CKM) matrix [Ij. The element has the irreducible complex 
phase which causes CP violation in K and B meson systems [21 [Sj H]. The uni- 
tarity of CKM matrix has bring some constrains of the elements V^j- to draw trian- 
gles in the complex plane, where i and j stand for the up-type quark (m, c, t) and 
down type quark {d,s,b), respectively. One of the triangles which has the sides in 
same order of magnitude is suitable place to measure the elements precisely. The 
angles, a/02; P/4'i and 7/03 has been measured by two i?-factories, the PEPII 
collider for the BaBar experiment [5] and the KEKB collider for the Belle experi- 
ments t6j,where a/02 = Arg[-{VtdV{^J/{VudV:,)], (3/(t>i = Arg[-{V,,V:,)/{VuV:,)] 
and 7/03 = Arg[-{Vu,V:,)/{V,,V:,)]. 

Current most worst precision of the angle is angle 7/03. Improvement of the 
precision is eagerly awaited. The 7/03 can be obtained mainly using the process B — > 
/}{*)j^{*) involved with interference with Cabibbo-suppressed h ^ u and Cabibbo- 
favored b ^ c quark transition [7]. Some methods to extract 7/03 had been suggested 
so far: GLW 0, ADS ^, Dahtz [IHl EI] analyses. The GLW analysis uses D meson 
decays to the CP eigenstates. The ADS analysis uses Cabibbo-favored D and doubly 
Cabibbo-suppressed D^ meson decays. The Dalitz method uses Cabibbo-allowed 
three-body D meson decays. 

2 GLW analysis and the recent measurements 



Gronau, London and Wyler (GLW) [8] proposed analysis method to extract the angle 
7/03 with Z?" and D decay into CP eigenstate such as K^K~ or Kstt^, etc. The 
observables, double ratio and asymmetry, are defined as below. 



B{B- -^ Dcp±K-) + B{B+ -> Dcp±K^ 



Rcp± = 2 — — — — =g- 



B{B- -^ D^K-) + B{B+ -^ D K+) 



1 -f r^ ± 2rB cos 5b cos ( 



A 



CP± 



B{B- ^ Dcp±K-) - B{B^ ^ Dcp±K+) 

B{B- -^ DcP±K~) + B{B+ -^ DcP±K+) (2) 

±2rB sin Sp sin 03/-Rcp± 



where the Dcp±, rp and dp represents the D meson decay into the CP eigenstate 



-f:0 



iOt^- 



of even(-l-) and odd(-), ratio of amplitudes between B -^ D K and B — ^ D^K 
defined rp = \A{B^ — t- D K^)/\A{B^ — t- D'^K^)\, the difference of strong phase, 
respectively. 



Acp+ - 


-- 0.25 


± 


0.06 


± 


0.02 


Acp- = 


= -0.09 


± 


0.07 


± 


0.02 


Rcp+ = 


= 1.18 


± 


0.09 


± 


0.05 


Rcp~ = 


= 1.07 


± 


0.08 


± 


0.04 



The B^ -^ D^cl±K^*^^ had been measured BaBar [El [ISl [H] and Belle [15] 
collaboration. The BaBar recently has reported the measurement of B"^ — t- Dcp±K^ 
following Dcp+ — !■ K^K~ and tt+tt— for CP-even, Dcp- — ?■ Kst^^, Ks'k^, Ksoj and 
Ks(t) for CP-odd eigenstate with the full dataset of 467x 10^ T(4S') -^ BB decays [16j. 
The results of combined D sub-decays as for the each CP eigenstate are as below. 



(3) 



where the first error is statistical, the second error is systematic. The parameter 
Acp+ is different from zero with a significance of 3.6a standard deviations. The result 
indicates the direct CP violation followed Dalitz analysis results in the latter Section. 
Also, they remove the Dcp^ -^ Ks4> subsample with those from the B"^ — )• DK^, 
D — )■ Ksh'^h~ to compare the Dalitz analysis [28]. The measured Acp± and Rcp± 
parameters can determine the x± and y± defined in Eq. [12] with the relation as below. 

x± = [Rcp+{ItAcp+)-Rcp-{ItAcp-.)]/^ (4) 

The obtained x± are consistent with the Dalitz analysis result as below. 

(5) 



x+ = 


-- -0.057 


± 0.039 ± 0.015 


X- = 


= 0.132 


± 0.042 ± 0.018 



3 ADS analysis and the recent measurements 

Atwood, Dunietz and Soni (ADS) ^ proposed analysis method to extract the an- 
gle 7/03 with Cabibbo-favored D decay(CPD) and doubly Cabibbo-suppressed 
D^ dec8iy{DCSD) to adjust the interfering amplitudes have comparable magnitudes 

through the B' -^ D^*^K^*^- decays, where D^*^ means D^*^^ and D^*^°. The final 
state / of CFD{DCFD) from D meson can be used for ADS such as D^ — )■ K~tt~^, 
K~7r^7r^ {D^ — )■ K~^tt^, K^tc^tt^), etc. The observables, double ratio and asymmetry, 
are defined as below. 



o ^ ig(P- ^ [fJpK-) + g(P+ ^ [/]z,ir+) 

^^' B(B- ^ [f]DK-) + BiB+ ^ [f]DK+) 

^8 + ^1) + "^tbTd cos{6b + Sd) cos 03 



= Tp 



(6) 



A 



ADS 



B{B- ^ [fJpK-) - B{B^ ^ [f]oK^ 
B{B~ ^ [f]DK-) + B{B+ ^ [f]DK^ 
= 2rBrD sin {6b + Sd) sin (p-i/RADS 



(7) 



where rr, = \A{D^ — )■ f)/A{D — )• /)| and 6d is strong phase difference between 
D° ^ f and D^ -^ f. 

The 5± -^ i^{*)^(*)± had been measured by BaBar [HI [H] and Belle collab- 
oration [19]. The BaBar recently has reported the measurement of B^ — )■ D^*^K^ 
following D* -^ L)7, Dn^ and D ^ Kn with the full dataset of 467 x 10*^ T(4S) -^ BB 
decays [20]. The results are as below. 



Adk = 


= -0.86 


± 


0.47 


+ 


0.12 
0.16 


Rdk = 


= 0.011 


± 


0.006 


± 


0.002 


A* 
RiD-y)K = 


= -0.36 
= 0.013 


± 
± 


0.94 
0.014 


+ 
± 


0.25 
0.41 

0.008 


A* 


= 0.77 


± 


0.35 


± 


0.12 


^*{D-kO)K = 


= 0.018 


± 


0.009 


± 


0.004 



The BaBar also has updated the B^ — )■ DK^ following D — > Kmr^ with dataset 
of 474 X 10^ T(4^) -^ BB decays [21j. The result is 

Rads = (9.1 1 li ± l:'r)y<io-' (9) 

The Belle also has reported the measurement of B^ — )■ DK^ following D — )■ Ktt 
with the full dataset of 772 x 10^ T(4S') — ;■ BB decays [22]. The results are as below. 

A — _n 'iQ + 0.26 + 0.04 

^DK — U.oy _ Q28 _ 0.03 (in\ 

D _ nni«'? + 0.0044 + 0.0007 \^^) 

^DK - U.UiD<J _ 00041 - 0.0013 

The measured Rdk indicates the first evidence of the signal with a significance of 
4.1cr standard deviations. 



4 Dalitz analysis and the recent measurements 

Dalitz analysis with D meson decay into CP eigenstate of three-body decay Ksh^h~ 
proposed by Giri, Grossman, Soffer, Zupan [TU] and Bondar [TT] as a effective method 
to extract the angle 7/03, where h^ represents charged light hadrons such as pion 
and kaon. The advantage of the method is only use of Cabibbo-allowed D decays. 

4.1 Model-dependent Dalitz analysis and measurements 

The BaBar and Belle had reported 7/03 measurement with the mo del- dependent 
Dalitz analysis [231 1211 [25]. The model-dependent Datliz analysis uses the isobar 



model [26] which assume three-body decayed D meson proceed through the inter- 
mediate two-body resonances. The total amplitude of Dalitz plane can be represent 
with two amplitudes of D° and D decays into same final state of Ksh^h~ as below. 

fB+ = foiml, ml) + rBe"f'^+'^^fD{ml, m^) (11) 

where m^ = rn^ ^+, ml = rnj^ ^_. The fD{m\,m1) consists of the summed am- 
plitudes of intermediates which comes in the Dalitz plane and single non-resonant 
amplitude as follows. 

AT 

fD{ml, ml) = ^ aje'^^Ajiml, ml) + a^Re'^^^ (12) 

j=i 

Where aj and ^j are the amplitude and phase of the matrix element, Aj is the matrix 
element of the j-th resonance, and a^R and ^nr are the amplitude and phase of the 
non-resonant component. 

The Belle had reported the result of 5^ — )■ D^*^K^^ Ks7c^7c~ using 18 two-body 
amplitudes of isobar model with the dataset of 657 x 10^ T(4S') — ;■ BB decays [27J . 



03 = (78.4 1 J?:^ ± 3.6 ± 8.9)° (13) 

where the first error is statistical, the second is systematic, the third error is model 
uncertainty. 

The BaBar has reported the resuh of B^ -^ D^*'>K^, D* -^ Dn^ and D'j, D -^ 
KsTT^TT^ and KsK^K~ using isobar model with improved 8 two-body amplitudes in 
each D meson sub-decays with the dataset of 468 x 10^ T(4S') — ^ BB decays [28] . 

7 = (68 ± 14 ± 4 ± 3)° (14) 

where the first error is statistical, the second is systematic, the third error is the 
model uncertainty. 

4.2 Model-independent Dalitz analysis and measurements 

The model-independent Dalitz analysis had proposed by Giri, Grossman, Soffer and 
Zupan [To], and further developed by Bonder and Poluektov [29] [30]. 

Assume that the Dalitz plot is divided into 2A/' bins symmetrically to the exchange 
ml o m^. The bins are denoted by the index i ranging from —M to M (excluding 
0); the exchange m\ ■(-)■ m,l corresponds to the exchange i -H- —i. Then the expected 
number of events in the bins of the Dalitz plot of D from B^ — )■ DK^ is 



iVf = hB{Ki + rlK^i + 2^K;K7i{x±Ci + y±Si)) (15) 



where Ki is the number of events in the bins in the Dahtz plot of the D^ in a flavor 
eigenstate, Kb is the normalization constant, x± and y± are 

x± = rijcos((5B ±03), .^g. 

?/± = rijsin(5B±03). 

Coefficients Cj and Sj, which include the information about the cosine and sine of the 
phase difference given by 



/d- \/vdVd sin( A<5i3 {m\ ,m'i)dV ^ ' 

These averaged strong phases, q and Sj, in each bin can be extracted from the 
quantum- correlated D^ decays from ?/'(3770) — ?■ DD process. The measurement had 
been performed by CLEO collaboration [31] . 

The first model- independent Dalitz analysis of -B^ — ?■ DK^, D — ?■ KsTi^Tr' has 
been performed by Belle [22] • The results are as below 



(1^ 



(77.3 1 \l:l 


± 


4.2 


± 


4.3)° 


0.145 ± 0.030 


± 


0.011 


± 


0.011 


(129.9 ± 15.0 


± 


3.9 


± 


4.7)°, 



x_ = +0.095 ± 0.045 ± 0.014 ± 0.017, 

y_ = +0.137 + []:[]gf ± 0.019 ± 0.029, 

x+ = -0.110 ± 0.043 ± 0.014 ± 0.016, 

y+ = -0.050 J: [];[]i ± 0.011 ± 0.021, 

where the first error is statistical, the second is systematic, the third error is the 
uncertainty from Cj and Sj. The (03, r^, Sb) was extracted from (a;_, ?/_, x+, y^) 
using the frequentist treatment with the Feldman-Cousins. The results are 

03 = 

rB = 0.145 ± 0.030 ± 0.011 ± 0.011 (19) 

5b -- 

where the third error is uncertainty from c, and s,. 



5 Conclusion 

The measurement precision of 7/03 have been progressed according to the data accu- 
mulation at B-factories, and have accelerated by the newly developed efficient physics 
methods and analysis techniques. Though current statistics of ee colliders is over the 
1.2 billion BB pairs, but it is still too small to exploit the 7/03 and the new physics 
over there. Current most precise determination is brought by the Dalitz analyses. 

5 



Both the model-independent and improved model-dependent analysis pushed down 
the systematic limitation and open up the possibilities of much higher precision deter- 
mination at super B factories in near future. Furthermore, the recent updated ADS 
result indicates observation of the Cabibbo-suppressed D decays which may brought 
us the competitive determination with the Dalitz analyses. Needless to say, it is im- 
portant the various approaches including GLW method should be performed since 
single analysis can't constrain the 7/^3 together with the other variables, sufficiently. 

References 

[1] N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 531 (1963); M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, 
Prog. Theor. Phys. 49, 652 (1973) 

[2] L. H. Christenson, J. W. Cronin, V. L. Fitch, and R. Turlay, Phys. Rev. Lett. 
13, 138 (1964) 

[3] B. Aubert et al. (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 091801 (2001); B. 
Aubert et al. (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 66, 032003 (2002) 

[4] K. Abe et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 091802 (2001); K. Abe 
et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 66, 032007 (2002); 

[5] B. Aubert et al. (BaBar Collaboration), Nucl. lustrum. Methods Phys. Res., 
Sect. A 479, 1 (2002) 

[6] A. Abashian et al. (Belle Collaboration), Nucl. lustrum. Methods Phys. Res., 
Sect. A 479, 117 (2002) 

[7] A. B. Carter and A. I. Sanda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 952 (1980); I. I. Bigi and A. 
L Sanda, Phys. Lett. B 211, 213 (1988). 

[8] M. Gronau, D. London, D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. B 253, 483 (1991); M. Gronau, 
D. London, D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. B 265, 172 (1991); 

[9] D. Atwood, I. Dunietz, A. Soni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3257 (1997); Phys. Rev. D 
63 036005 (2001) 

[10] A. Giri, Yu. Grossman, A. Soffer, J. Zupan, Phys. Rev. D 68, 054018 (2003) 

[11] A. Bondar. Proceedings of BINP Special Analysis Meeting on Datliz Analysis, 
24-26 Sep. 2002, unpubhshed. 

[12] B. Aubert et al. (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 77, 111102 (2008) 



[13] B. Aubert et al. (BaBar Collaboration), Pliys. Rev. D 78, 092002 (2008) 

[14] B. Aubert et ai. (BaBar Collaboration), Pliys. Rev. D 80, 092001 (2009) 

[15] K. Abe et ai. (Belle Collaboration), Pliys. Rev. D 73, 051106 (2006) 

[16] P.del Amo Sanchez et ai. (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 82, 072004 (2010) 

[17] B. Aubert et ai. (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 72, 032004 (2005) 

[18] B. Aubert et ai. (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 80, 031102 (2009) 

[19] Y. Horii et ai. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 78, 07190 1(R) (2008) 

[20] P.del Amo Sanchez et ai. (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 82, 072006 (2010) 

[21] J. P. Lees et ai. (BaBar Collaboration). larXiv:1104.4472 k^l (2011) 

[22] Y. Horii et ai. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 231803 (2011) 

[23] B. Aubert et ai. (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 121802 (2005) 

[24] A. Poluektov et ai. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 73, 112009 (2006) 

[25] B. Aubert et ai. (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 78, 034023 (2008) 

[26] S. Kopp et ai. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 63, 092001 (2001); H. Mu- 
ramatsu et ai. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 251802 (2002); 90, 
059901 (2003). 

[27] A. Poluektov et ai. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 81, 112002 (2010) 

[28] P.del Amo Sanchez et ai. (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 121801 
(2010) 

[29] A. Bondar and A. Poluektov, Eur. Phys. J. C 47, 347-353 (2006) 

[30] A. Bondar and A. Poluektov, Eur. Phys. J. C 55, 51-56 (2008) 

[31] R. A. Briere et ai. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 80, 032002 (2009) 

[32] A. Poluektov et ai. (Belle Collaboration), Moriond EW 2011 preliminary