qcd and b and charm physics at the tevatron and b and charm physics at the tevatron stephen wolbers,...

QCD and B and charm Physics at the Tevatron

Stephen Wolbers, Fermilab On behalf of the CDF and DØ Collaborations

PLHC 2012, Vancouver June 6, 2012

Overview

•  Introduction •  Recent QCD results

–  Inclusive jets (DØ) –  γ+b, γ+c jets (DØ, CDF)

•  Heavy quark (b and c) physics –  Fragmentation (CDF) –  CP asymmetries in B and D physics (CDF) –  Rare decays and new states (DØ, CDF) –  Lifetimes (DØ)

•  Summary

PLHC 2012 Stephen Wolbers 2

Tevatron Collider •  The Tevatron Collider ran

from 1985 to 2011 (with intervals of fixed-target running and upgrades)

•  Run 2 covers the years from 2001 to 2011

•  In Run 2 proton-antiproton collisions occurred at center of mass energy 1.96 TeV

•  ≈10 fb-1 luminosity was recorded for each experiment

•  This is a large and well-understood dataset


CDF and DØ Experiments •  The focus today will be on recent

CDF and DØ measurements that satisfy one or more of the following: –  Use the entire ~10 fb-1 dataset –  Update previous results –  Are significant new results in the

areas of QCD or B and charm physics

•  Take advantage of: –  The p-pbar initial state –  Higher luminosity and statistics –  Specialized triggers –  New analysis techniques –  Improved understanding of the

detectors and errors PLHC 2012 Stephen Wolbers 4

CDF

DØ

QCD PHYSICS


QCD

•  The QCD analyses are primarily concerned with: –  Parton Distribution Functions (pdfs) –  Tests of QCD calculations (LO, NLO, NNLO, etc.) –  Higher precision and new kinematic regions –  Rarer processes only accessible now with larger datasets –  Processes where p-pbar allow for interesting and

potentially unique measurements –  Many of the QCD analysis involve heavy quarks, and some

of the heavy quark analyses have natural connections to QCD and fragmentation.


QCD Inclusive Jets •  Inclusive jets with:

•  Probe of parton distributions and qq, qg and gg subprocesses in collisions. –  Contributions depend on the pT of

the jets (xT of partons) –  Measurements are sensitive to

high x gluon distributions •  Agreement with CTEQ6.5M and

MRST2004 pdf’s is seen. •  PRD 85, 052006 (2012)


(GeV)T

p50 60 100 200 300 400

dy(p

b/G

eV)

T/d

p!2 d

-610

-510

-410

-310

-210

-110

110

210

310

410

510

610

710 |y|<0.4 (x32)0.4<|y|<0.8 (x16)0.8<|y|<1.2 (x8)1.2<|y|<1.6 (x4)1.6<|y|<2.0 (x2)2.0<|y|<2.4

s = 1.96 TeV= 0.7coneR

NLO pQCD+non-perturbative corrections

CTEQ6.5M

600

DØ, 0.70 fb-1

!"#" $ #"%&

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

pT (GeV)

Frac

tiona

lcon

tribu

tions

xT = 2pT/sqrt(s)0.05 0.1 0.2 0.4

50 100 200 400

gg ! jets

qq ! jets

gq ! jets

Inclusive jets: Tevatron Run II|y|<0.4

−2.4 < η < 2.4, 50 GeV< pT < 600 GeV

ppDØ

γ + b jets •  DØ analysis uses 8.7 fb-1 •  Contributions from Qg->γQ

(Compton) and qqbar->γQQbar (annihilation)   Probe of quark and gluon

distributions in the proton •  Select central (|y|<1.0) and

forward (1.5<|y|<2.5) photons. •  The differential cross section

is measured as a function of photon pT

•  NLO QCD predictions show good agreement with data up to pT < 70 GeV. Higher order QCD corrections are required at higher pT


(GeV)T

p0 50 100 150 200 250 300

(pb/

GeV

)T

/dp

d

-410

-310

-210

-110

1

| < 1.0data, |y| < 2.5data, 1.5 < |y

NLO (Stavreva, Owens) fact. (Lipatov, Zotov)Tk

SHERPA, v1.3.1PYTHIA, v6.420

>15 GeVjetT

|<1.5, pjet|y

(x0.3)

-1DØ, L = 8.7 fb

DØ

γ + b jets, γ + c jets

Luminosity 9.1 fb-1

Fits to b, c, light quark jet fractions are made using templates from MC simulation. Cross sections for γ+b and γ+c events are measured, taking into account efficiencies, unfolding, and other effects.


30 < EγT < 300, |yγ | < 1.0

EjetT > 20, |yjet| < 1.5

(GeV)SecVtxM0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Even

ts/0

.2

0123456789

310×

(GeV)SecVtxM0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Even

ts/0

.2

0123456789

310× <50 GeVT40<E

-1CDF data, L=9.1 fblight jetsc jetsb jetsfake photon + jets

CDF Run II Preliminary

CDF

γ + b jets, γ + c jets

The NLO calculations match the data at low ET, but fall below the data at high ET, showing the need for higher order terms. -  Similar conclusion to the DØ results in γ+b jets. -  CDF Public Note 10818 PLHC 2012 Stephen Wolbers 10

(GeV)TE50 100 150 200 250 300

(pb/

GeV

)T

/dE

d

-310

-210

-110

1

10-1+jets data, L=9.1 fbCDF

+c+XSystematic uncertaintyNLO (Stavreva, Owens)PYTHIAPYTHIA, mstj(42)=4, mstj(44)=3


(GeV)TE50 100 150 200 250 300

(pb/

GeV

)T

/dE

d

-310

-210

-110

1

10

(GeV)TE50 100 150 200 250 300

(pb/

GeV

)T

/dE

d

-310

-210

-110

1-1+jets data, L=9.1 fbCDF

+b+XSystematic uncertaintyNLO (Stavreva, Owens)PYTHIAPYTHIA, mstj(42)=4, mstj(44)=3


(GeV)TE50 100 150 200 250 300

(pb/

GeV

)T

/dE

d

-310

-210

-110

1

CDF CDF γ+b jets γ+c jets

HEAVY QUARK PHYSICS


Heavy Quark Physics

•  Heavy Quark Physics –  The study of heavy quark physics in p-pbar collisions

provides valuable insight to HEP. –  In particular, beyond standard model physics at higher

energy scales can be accessed using low-energy, well-predicted flavor observables.

–  This talk will cover just a few results in the areas of: •  Fragmentation •  CP asymmetry •  Decay modes •  Lifetimes


Quark fragmentation using K in association with Ds

+ /D+

•  A study of fragmentation looking at the charged K of same and opposite sign associated with D+ and Ds

+ –  Expect to see differences in

rates of opposite-sign and same-sign K

•  ~260,000 Ds+ and 140,000 D+

decaying to KKπ. The impact parameter distribution was used to separate prompt Ds

+/D+ from Ds+/D+

from B decays. •  The results show expected

qualitative behavior of opposite and like-sign K rates as a function of K pT.


-1CDF Run II preliminary - 360 pb

)2) (GeV/c+-K+m(K1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2

2En

tries

per

2 M

eV/c

0

10

20

30

40

50310×

+ s+D

+ +D+-+ K+D

background

CDF

Quark fragmentation using K in association with Ds

+/D+ Big difference between Ds (left) and D (right) in opposite sign K production.

Agrees with models

Ds and D similar in same sign K production

Disagrees with fragmention models

  Valuable input for further tuning of models.


(GeV/c)T

p0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Kaon

frac

tion

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1DataPYTHIAHERWIG

Opposite sign±sPrompt D

(GeV/c)T

p0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Kaon

frac

tion

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

DataPYTHIAHERWIG

Opposite sign±Prompt D

(GeV/c)T

p0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Kaon

frac

tion

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1DataPYTHIAHERWIG

Same sign±sPrompt D

(GeV/c)T

p0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Kaon

frac

tion

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

DataPYTHIAHERWIG

Same sign±Prompt D

D Ds CDF

Ds D

CDF Public Note 10704

CDF Run II Preliminary – 360 pb-1

CP Asymmetry in Heavy Quark Decay: ΔAcp(D0->hh)

•  CDF measured Acp(D0->KK) and ACP(D0->ππ), as well as the difference in the two quantities, ΔAcp(D0->hh) in 5.9 fb-1 –  Acp(D0->KK) = [−0.24 ± 0.22(stat) ± 0.10(sys)]% –  ACP(D0->ππ) = [0.22 ± 0.24(stat) ± 0.11(sys)]% –  ΔAcp(D0->hh) = [-0.46 ± 0.31(stat) ± 0.12(sys)]% (PRD 85, 012009 (2012))

•  The analysis for ΔAcp has been updated with the full Run 2 dataset

•  The event selection is relaxed due to cancellation of systematics in the difference measurement, leading to more signal events

•  D0 flavor is determined by the D*->D0πs decay •  Detector effects are canceled by using the difference of raw

asymmetries of the KK and ππ decays: ΔAcp = A(KK*)-A(ππ*) = Acp(K+K-)-Acp(π+π-) PLHC 2012 Stephen Wolbers 15

ΔAcp(D0->hh)

•  ~550K D* tagged D0->π+π- •  ~1.21M D* tagged D0->K+K- •  Fits were used to extract

the signal, BG, and multibody decays.

•  A(ππ*) = (-1.71±0.15)% •  A(KK*) = (-2.33±0.14)%

–  (Raw quantities) ΔACP=[-0.62±0.21 ±0.10]% 2.7σ different from 0 CDF public note 10784 This result is a confirmation of LHCb measurement: ΔAcp=[-0.83±0.21±0.11]%


5

10

15

20

310×+s) -+ (0 D +D* -

s) -+ (0

D -D*

)-1Data (9.7 fbFit

D decaysMultibody

Random pions


2.005 2.01 2.0150

10

20

30

40

50 +s) -K+ K (0 D +D*

2.005 2.01 2.015 2.02

-s) -K+ K (

0D -D*

]2-mass [GeV/cs0Invariant D

2C

andi

date

s pe

r 0.1

MeV

/c

CDF

Acp in D0->Ksππ

•  Acp is also measured in CDF in D0 decay to Ksππ –  Standard Model

expectations ~10-6 •  D* tag is used to

determine D0 flavor •  Two methods are used:

–  A full Dalitz fit using the isobar model

–  A model independent bin-by-bin comparison of D0 and D0-bar plots.

•  From the fits Acp is extracted


]2) [GeV/c-+0sMass(K

1.8 1.82 1.84 1.86 1.88 1.9 1.92 1.94 1.96 1.98 2

2C

andi

date

s pe

r 1.0

MeV

/c

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

-1CDF Run II preliminary, L = 6.0 fb

353000S 37000B

]2) [MeV/c-+0s)-Mass(K+ -+0

sMass(K140 142 144 146 148 150 152 154 156

2C

andi

date

s pe

r 0.1

MeV

/c

02000400060008000

1000012000140001600018000200002200024000 352000S

38000B

-1CDF Run II preliminary, L = 6.0 fb

CDF

Acp in D0->K0ππ

•  Resonance substructure (amplitude and phases) are measured –  No evidence for CP violation is

found in any sub resonance, with resolutions better than previous experiments.

•  A model-independent difference bin-by-bin subtraction is also measured

•  Integrating over all modes: •  Acp = -0.0005 ± 0.0057 ± 0.0054 Assuming no direct CP asymmetry one can derive: •  Acp

ind = -0.0002+-0.0025+-0.0024


-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

]4/c2 [GeV2(RS)±0

sKM0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

]4/c2

[GeV

2-

+M

00.20.40.60.8

11.21.41.61.8

2-1CDF Run II preliminary, L = 6.0 fb

= 49172

NDF = 5092prob = 0.96

B->µ+µ-

•  Processes involving FCNC are an excellent way to search for new physics

•  SM predictions: BR(Bs->µ+µ-) = (3.2±0.2)x10-9, BR(Bd->µ+µ-) = (1.0±0.1)x10-10

•  CDF published results using 7 fb-1 (PRL 107, 191801 (2011)) –  BR(Bd->µ+µ-) < 6.0 × 10-9 at 95% C.L. –  BR(Bs->µ+µ-) = 1.8+1.1

-0.9 × 10-8 •  The CDF analysis was extended to full Run 2 dataset (9.7 fb-1)

–  No change to analysis methods –  NN to discriminate signal from background –  Normalize to BR(B+->J/ψ K+):


]2Invariant Mass [GeV/c5.15 5.2 5.25 5.3 5.35 5.4

2C

andi

date

s pe

r 5 M

eV/c

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

-1CDF II Preliminary 9.7 fb

CC+CF

267±) = 40225 ±N(B(B)>4 GeV/c

Tp

NN Output0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Can

dida

tes

per 0

.01

-310

-210

-110

1

CC+CF sidebandCC+CF signal MC

-1CDF II Preliminary 9.7 fb

2>5.0GeV/c-µ+µsideband: M

B->µ+µ-

•  The challenge is to reject a large background while keeping most of the signal

•  14 discriminating variables were used to build an optimized neural net classifier to separate signal from background

•  Combinatorial background is estimated from mass sidebands •  Fake muon background estimated from B->hh and D->Kπ


0

10

20

30

< 0.76N0.70 < < 0.85N0.76 < < 0.90N0.85 < < 0.94N0.90 <

-µ+µ0sB

)2 (MeV/cµµm

0

5

10

15

5322 5370 5418 5322 5370 5418 5322 5370 5418 5322 5370 5418

< 0.97N0.94 < < 0.987N0.97 < < 0.995N0.987 < > 0.995N

Background

4.1)×+Signal (SM

2C

andi

date

s pe

r 24

MeV

/c

0

CDF Preliminary 9.7 fb-1 CDF

•  Results: BR(Bd→µ+µ-) < 4.6 × 10-9 (95% CL) BR(Bs → µ+µ-)=(1.3+0.9

-0.7)× 10-8

0.8 × 10-9 < BR(Bs-> µ+µ-) < 3.4 × 10-8

(95% CL) BR(Bs → µ+µ-) < 3.1 × 10-8 (2.7× 10-8) 95% (90%) CL CDF publication is in preparation Getting closer to a measurement of the Bs->µµ

Bs->µ+µ-


@ 95% CL9 10×)-µ+µsBF(B0 20 40

-1D0 6 fbPLB 693 (2010) 539

-1CDF 7 fbPRL 107 (2011) 191801

-1CDF 10 fbwww-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/new/bottom/120209.bmumu10fb/

-1LHCb 1 fbLHCb-PAPER-2012-007

-1CMS 4.9 fbCMS PAS BPH-11-020

-1ATLAS 2.4 fbATLAS-CONF-2012-010

SM Prediction(68% CL region)

March 2012

•  Using the full Run 2 dataset CDF measures the ratio: –  R= (fs * BR(Bs->J/ψ ϕ)/ fd * BR(B0->J/ψ K*))

•  Selection is optimized by maximizing S/√S+B.

•  A binned log likelihood fit is made to signal shape templates and background functions: ~11,000 J/ψϕ ~57,000 J/ψK*

•  Final result, corrected for acceptance: –  R = 0.239±0.003±0.019

•  Using CDF fs/fd and PDG BR(B0->JψK*) we can extract: –  BR(Bs->J/ψϕ) =

(1.18±0.02±0.09±0.014±0.05)*10-3

–  World’s best measurement. PLHC 2012 Stephen Wolbers 22

BR(Bs → J/ψφ) and fs/fd

)2 invariant mass (GeV/c J/5.25 5.3 5.35 5.4 5.45 5.5 5.55 5.6 5.65 5.7

2ca

ndid

ates

per

3 M

eV/c

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

-1CDF Run II Preliminary, 9.6 fb

)2 invariant mass (GeV/c J/5.25 5.3 5.35 5.4 5.45 5.5 5.55 5.6 5.65 5.7

2ca

ndid

ates

per

3 M

eV/c

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800DataTotal Fit

Signal J/ sB K* Bkg. J/ 0B

Bkg.0 f J/ sBComb. Bkg.

)2invariant mass (GeV/c* KJ/5.1 5.15 5.2 5.25 5.3 5.35 5.4 5.45 5.5 5.55 5.6

2ca

ndid

ates

per

3 M

eV/c

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000-1CDF Run II Preliminary, 9.6 fb

)2invariant mass (GeV/c* KJ/5.1 5.15 5.2 5.25 5.3 5.35 5.4 5.45 5.5 5.55 5.6

2ca

ndid

ates

per

3 M

eV/c

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000DataTotal Fit

Signal* K J/ 0B Bkg.* K J/ sB

Bkg. J/ sB Bkg.0 f J/ sB

Comb. Bkg.Part. Recon. Bkg.

CDF

•  The fits to Bs->J/ψϕ and Bs->J/ψK* are performed in 4 pT ranges •  fs/fd(pT) can be extracted using Belle’s latest BR(Bs->J/ψϕ) •  This is the first measurement of fs/fd as a function of pT

•  Averaging over all pT: fs/fd=0.254±0.003±0.020±0.044 •  More generally, the CDF measurement of fs/fd is a function of BR

(Bs->J/ψϕ) and is shown below


)φ ψ J/→sBR(B0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003

dfsf

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5 CDF II measurement

Uncertainty

)φ ψ J/→sBelle BR(B

d/fsPDG f

-4 10⋅ 0.30) ±)=(3.17 φ ψ J/→s BR(B⋅ dfsf


(GeV/c)TB p5 10 15 20 25

dfsf

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45Statistic UncertaintySystematic UncertaintyCorrelated Uncertainty

PDG valued /fsf


BR(Bs → J/ψφ) and fs/fd

CDF

•  CDF has measured the BR’s of Bs decays: –  (Bs->Ds

+Ds+), (Bs->Ds

*+Ds+), (Bs->Ds

*+Ds*+)

•  where: (Ds->ϕπ), (Ds->K*0K) •  These measurements may provide information on ΔΓs •  A neural net is used to separate signal and background

contributions. •  The final sample contains ~750 Bs->Ds

(*)Ds(*) decays

•  A simultaneous fit is made to Bs and Bd decays to separate the decay contributions. BR’s were normalized to well-measured Bd -> DsD BR’s. –  The fitting procedure accounts for partially reconstructed Ds

* decays in the fit using mass shapes.


Bs → D(∗)+s D(∗)−

s

•  World’s best measurements of the BR’s. •  Published in PRL 108, 201801 May

14,2012 •  Br(B0

s→ D+sD-

s) = (0.49 ± 0.06 ± 0.05 ± 0.08)% Br(B0

s→ D*+sD-

s) = (1.13 ± 0.12 ± 0.19 ± 0.09)% Br(B0

s→ D*+sD*-

s) = (1.75 ± 0.19 ± 0.17 ±0.29)% Br(B0

s→ D(*)+sD(*)-

s) = (3.38±0.25±0.30±0.56)%

•  Values are lower than but consistent with recent Belle result.

•  These provide important constraints for indirect searches for new physics.


Bs → D(∗)+s D(∗)−

s

10

20

30

40 )-(-s) D+(+

sD DataFit projectionBackground

-s D+

s D s0B

-s D+*s D s

0B-*s D+*s D s

0B

CDF II Preliminary -16.8 fb

Invariant Mass (GeV/c²)5.0 5.50

20

40

60)-(-

s) D+K0*K(+sD - D+

s D 0B- D*+

s D 0B- D+*s D 0B

- D*+*s D 0B

2C

andi

date

s pe

r 10

MeV

/c

CDF

•  This measurement uses the full Run 2 dataset : 10.4 fb-1 •  Require a 4 track vertex, where the µ+µ- consistent with J/ψ, and

1.35<M(K+K-)<2.0 GeV •  MC templates used to separate contributions from (J/ψ f2’(1525)), (J/

ψ ϕ), (J/ψ K2*(1430)), (J/ψ K0*(1430)) •  Fitting is done as a function of K+K- mass to extract the f2(1525)

contribution. Contributions from K0*(1430) and f2’(1525) are seen.


B0s → J/ψf �

2(1525)

) (GeV)-K+K-µ+µM(5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8

Even

ts /

28 M

eV

0

500

1000

1500

2000 -1DØ Run II, 10.4 fbData

Full Fit

Signal

K*(892)

Bkg

) (GeV)-K+K-µ+µM(5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8

Even

ts /

20 M

eV

0

200

400

600

800 -1DØ Run II, 10.4 fb (a)DataFull FitSignal

(1430)J*K

Bkg

DØ Final Fit Normalization J/ψϕ

•  Spin of K+K- is studied and is consistent with a combination of spin 0 and spin 2 and is inconsistent with spin 1.

•  R = BR(Bs->J/ψ f2’(1525))/BR(Bs->J/ψ ϕ) = 0.22±0.05±0.04 –  arXiv:1204.5723 (submitted to Phys. Rev. D)

•  R(LHCb) = 0.26±0.027±0.024


B0s → J/ψf �

2(1525)DØ

||cos 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Even

ts /0

.2

0

200

400

600 DataJ=2 + J=0J=2J=1J=0

-1DØ Run II, 10.4 fb

) (GeV)-K+M(K1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Even

ts /

50 M

eV

-200

0

200

400

-1DØ Run II, 10.4 fb

ϒ candidates in the mass range 9.1<M<9.7 are combined with photons identified by their conversions into e+e -- pairs. 3 peaks in the mass difference Mµµγ-Mµµ are seen corresponding to χb(1P), χb(2P) and a new state with significance 5.6σ, consistent with a state seen by ATLAS.

M(new state)=10.551±0.014±0.017 arXiv:1203.6034 (Submitted to PRD RC) ATLAS: M=10.530±0.005±0.009 (PRL 108, 152001 (2012))


] 2 [GeV/c(1S) + mµµ - MµµM9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5

2Ev

ents

/ 5

0 M

eV/c

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45 DataFull fitBkg only

(1P)b(2P)

bNew state

-1DØ, 1.3 fb

χb → Υ(1S) + γ

DØ

Λb Lifetime

•  Λb lifetime is a puzzle, measurements don’t agree, deviations from predictions. –  New measurements are needed to help resolve the mystery.

•  New DØ analysis of the Λb lifetime •  Uses full Run 2 Dataset – 10.4 fb-1

•  This analysis measures lifetimes in two similar decay modes: –  Λb->J/ψΛ, B0->J/ψKs

0 •  Separate fits to both Λb and B0 lifetimes in topologically similar

decays

PLHC 2012 Stephen Wolbers 29 ]2c) [GeV/0 /JMass (

5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6

2 cC

andi

date

s pe

r 18

MeV

/

0

100

200

300

400

500

-1(a) DØ, 10.4 fbDataData fitSignalCombinatorialPartially recon-

hadronsbstructed

J/ψΛ

]2c) [GeV/0SK /JMass (

4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7

2 cC

andi

date

s pe

r 12

MeV

/

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

-1(b) DØ, 10.4 fbDataData fitSignalCombinatorialPartially recon-

hadronsbstructed

J/ψKs0 DØ

•  Final fit results: –  τ(Λb) = 1.303 ± 0.075 ± 0.035 ps –  τ(B0) = 1.508 ± 0.025 ± 0.043 ps –  τ(Λb)/τ(B0) = 0.864 ± 0.052 ± 0.033

•  arXiv:1204.2340, accepted by PRD •  Compare to other values (2011):

–  τ(Λb) = 1.425 ± 0.032 ps (PDG 2011) –  τ(Λb) = 1.537 ± 0.045 ± 0.014 ps

(CDF, PRL 106, 121804 (2011)) •  There remains disagreement among the

measurements in the value of τ(Λb) –  Puzzle is not yet resolved

Λb lifetime

PLHC 2012 Stephen Wolbers 30 ) [cm]0

SK /J (-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

m

µC

andi

date

s pe

r 50

1

10

210

310

-1(b) DØ, 10.4 fb

DataData fitSignalBackground

) [cm]0 /J (-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

m

µC

andi

date

s pe

r 50

1

10

210

310

-1(a) DØ, 10.4 fb

DataData fitSignalBackground

DØ

Summary and Prospects

•  DØ and CDF have new and important results on many areas of QCD and heavy quark physics. –  Many results are world’s best or the only measurements

of these quantities. •  Both experiments continue analysis of the full Run 2 dataset. •  The emphasis will be on higher precision and use of the

unique capabilities of the Tevatron datasets. •  You can expect to see important and interesting results for

some time to come.


Backup/Extra topics


Z + b jets •  Full CDF Run 2 dataset is

used (9.1 fb-1) •  Z->µµ and Z->ee events are

selected using an ANN •  Templates are used to fit b

jet, c jet and light jet contributions

•  Total Z+b jet cross section is normalized to Z+inclusive jets and Inclusive Z events

•  The results for the differential cross section is calculated and agrees with MCFM NLO calculations


CDF

[GeV/c] jetT

p20 30 40 50 60 70 80 100

-1 [

GeV

/c]

T/d

pZ+

bjet

d

�• Z 1

/

-710

-610

-510

-410

-1CDF Data - 9.13 fbSystematic uncertainties

2T,Z

+p2Z=M2NLO MCFM Q

MSTW 2008 NLO PDFCorrected to hadron level


1 b-jet )+- l+ l(*Z/

Dat

a/Th

eory

1

2

2T,Z

+p2Z=M2NLO MCFM Q Syst. unc.

0; Q=0.5 Q0Q=2 Q PDF unc.

[GeV/c] jetT

p20 30 40 50 60 70 80 100

Dat

a/Th

eory

1

2

2T,Z

+p2Z=M2NLO MCFM Q 0; Q=0.5 Q0 Q=2 Q

2TH=0.5 2NLO MCFM Q

2T,jet

NLO MCFM Q= p

Z + b jets

•  σ(Z+b-jet)/σ(Z) = [0.261 ± 0.023 ± 0.29]% •  σ(Z+b-jet)/σ(Z) = 0.23% (NLO + MCFM, Q2=mZ

2+pT,Z2)

0.29% (NLO + MCFM, Q2=<pT,jet>2


CDF

•  Analysis uses full CDF dataset

•  Neural-net used to separate signal and background

•  ~11,000 J/ψϕ events are analyzed

•  A Likelihood fit was used to extract parameters: –  ΔΓs and βs

J/ψϕ


BRIEF ARTICLE

THE AUTHOR

Some sentence as a test. x = φ

Bs → J/ψφ

1

CDF

•  CDF update of βsJ/ψϕ

measurement •  The confidence interval

of ϕs is measured to be[-0.60, 0.12] rad at 68% CL, in agreement with the CKM value and recent LHCb and DØ values.


BRIEF ARTICLE

THE AUTHOR

Some sentence as a test. x = φ

Bs → J/ψφ

1

CDF

Z/γ* + jets

•  Full CDF Run 2 dataset (9.4 fb-1) •  Jets are reconstructed using midpoint algorithm with R=0.7

and pT jet>30 GeV and |yjet|<2.1 •  Z/γ*->µµ or ee •  Backgrounds estimated using MC and data-driven techniques


]2 [GeV/cllZM40 60 80 100 120 140

)]

2 [

fb /

(GeV

/cZ

/dM

d

-110

1

10

210

310 -1Data - 9.43 fbTotal PredictionZ+QCD, W + jettt

ZZ, ZW, WW + jet Z

CDF Run II Preliminary1 jet) + -e+ e*(Z/

]2 [GeV/cllZM40 60 80 100 120 140

)]

2 [

fb /

(GeV

/cZ

/dM

d

-110

1

10

210

310-1Data - 9.44 fb

Total PredictionZ+QCD, W + jettt

ZZ, ZW, WW + jet Z

CDF Run II Preliminary1 jet) + -µ+µ *(Z/CDF

Z/γ* + jets

•  Results are unfolded to hadron level and compared to several theoretical predictions

•  Comparisons are made with theory.


[

fb]

je

tsN

1

10

210

310

410


N jets inclusive ) + -l+ l*(Z/2 > 25 GeV/cl

T| < 1.0; pl; |µl = e,

2.1| jet 30 GeV/c, |Y jetT

p

-1 CDF Data L = 9.44 fb

Systematic uncertainties

NLO BLACKHAT+SHERPA

MSTW2008NLO PDF

Corrected to hadron level

)ZT + E

Tj pj (2

1 = ITH 2

1 = 0µ

jetsN1 2 3 4

Dat

a / B

LACK

HAT

1

1.5

2

2.5 NLO BLACKHAT+SHERPA

LO SHERPA (no shower)/2 (NLO)

0µ = µ ;

0µ = 2µ

Dat

a / T

heor

y

1

2

3 ALPGEN+PYTHIA

Tune P2011s Matched

variationsCKKWs - QCD

1

1.5

2 POWHEG+PYTHIA

Tune Perugia 2011/2

0µ = µ ;

0µ = 2µ

jetsN1 2 3 4

1

1.2

NLO LOOPSIM+MCFMn

NLO MCFM/2

0µ = µ ;

0µ = 2µ

Dat

a / T

heor

y

1

2

3-1 CDF Data L = 9.44 fb

Systematic uncertainties

ALPGEN+PYTHIA

Tune P2011s Matched

variationsCKKWs - QCD

1

1.5

2

2.5 POWHEG+PYTHIA

Tune Perugia 2011

/20µ = µ ;

0µ = 2µ

1

1.2NLO LOOPSIM+MCFMn

NLO MCFM/2

0µ = µ ;

0µ = 2µ

jetsN1 2 3 4

1

2

3 NLO BLACKHAT+SHERPA

LO SHERPA (no shower)

/2 (NLO)0µ = µ ;

0µ = 2µ

N jets inclusive ) + -l+ l*(Z/


CDF

ΔAcp(D0->hh)

•  Result: ΔACP=[-0.62±0.21 ±0.10]% 2.7σ different from 0 CDF public note 10784 Using the equation: Acp=Acp

dir+(<t>/τ)Acpind

One can plot: ΔAcp

dir vs Acpind

This result is a confirmation of LHCb measurement: ΔAcp=[-0.83±0.21±0.11]%

P2012 Stephen Wolbers 39

[%]indCPA

-2 0 2

[%]

dir

CPA

-2

0

2

CDFCPARABAB CPA

BelleCPA LHCbCPA

RABAB A BelleA LHCbA

2-dim 68.27% CL2-dim 95.45% CL2-dim 99.73% CL1-dim 68.27% CL

-510×P-value = 8.04No CP violation

CDF

qcd and b and charm physics at the tevatron and b and charm physics at the tevatron stephen wolbers,...

Documents