1. Update on the Inclusive Measurement of the b  s  Transition Rate Using a Lepton Tag Philip Bechtle (until 5/07) *, Rainer Bartoldus SLAC Colin Jessop, Kyle Knoepfel , Postdoc (TBD) Notre Dame University Al Eisner, Bruce Schumm, Luke Winstrom  UC Santa Cruz Minghui Lu University of Oregon John Walsh University of Pisa  Students * Now at DESY Bruce Schumm SCIPP 6/07 BaBar Coll. Meeting

2. b  s  is a leading constraint on new Electroweak scale physics… The SM transition is high order (two weak plus one EM vertex… So new physics can enter at leading order Direct searches (LEP) B  s  constraints MSSM Constraints Extra Dimensions SUSY

3. Run1-2 Babar Fully Inclusive BaBar 2006 inclusive result (Run I-II only): B(B  X s  ; 1.9 < E  * < 2.7) = 3.67  0.29  0.34  0.29, where the errors are statistical, experimental uncertainty, and model error. Current Status of b  s  Measurements Phys.Rev.Lett.97:171803,2006 To interpret the partial BF, one must extrapolate from E  * = 1.9 GeV (experimental lower limit) to E  * = 1.6 GeV (where theoretical calcul- ations are done). We are not yet concerning ourselves with that step. BaBar Sum of Exclusive Modes

4. qq + ττ BB XSγXSγ Inclusive b  s  : little effect from long distance physics, but how do you eliminate backgrounds? Continuum: Shape variables (was Fisher discriminant; now Neural Net) Lepton tag indicates heavy flavor in “rest-of-the- event” decay  (4S): Reconstruct (usually asym- metric)  0 and  decays Calorimeter cluster shapes elim- inate merged  0 s, hadrons

5. What are the sources of B/Bbar background? And then… Subtract off small remaining continuum using off-resonance Develop independent estimates B/Bbar backgrounds and subtract them (critical step) Confirm B/Bbar estimates with control region Theorists would love us to push below 1.9 GeV, but B/Bbar backgrounds intimidate… After Selection Cuts B/Bbar background control region BB Cont. Signal Sig. Region

6. Truth MatchParentage Fraction of Total 1.5 < E  * < 1.9 Fraction of Total 1.9 < E  * < 2.7 Photon 00 0.5730.666 Photon  0.1710.156 Photon  0.0370.021 Photon  0.0110.008 PhotonB0.0340.014 Photon J/  0.0050.008 Photonelectron0.0930.047 Photonother0.004 All Photon0.9280.924 00 Any0.000 electronAny0.0480.037 neutron/antineutronAny0.0170.029 proton/antiprotonAny0.0000.001 K0LK0L Any0.0020.001   or K  Any0.002 noneAny0.0020.006 otherAny0.000 All non-photon0.0720.076 All1.000 B/BBar Background Sources (XXX Monte Carlo) 82% of B/Bbar background Electron categories x2 larger than that of prior simulation (was 3.7% combined). This raises questions, in- cluding the modeling of brehmsstrahlung

7. Constraining the  0  Background with a Measurement of Inclusive Production  invariant mass Fits done to both data and MC MC Correction Factors Measure  0 /  yields in on- and off-peak data and MC Determine correction factors in bins of E    : Correction = [(On-peak data) – s*(off-peak data)]/[BB MC] Also need to know recon. eff. of background   s

8. How Do We Reconstruct  0 s and  ’s? Begin with reconstructed high-energy (HE)  with cms energy E  * Search GoodPhotonsLoose list for potential sibling  with the following minimum lab energy (E 2,lab ) requirement: Find potential sibling that, in combination with HE , has invariant mass M  closest to the  0 (  ) mass. Reject event if 115 < M  < 155 (508 < M  < 588) MeV for the best  0 (  ) combination. Reconstruct  0 E 2,lab > 40 MeV for E  * < 2.3 GeVE 2,lab > 80 MeV for E  * > 2.3 GeV Reconstruct  E 2,lab > 175 MeV for E  * < 2.3 GeVE 2,lab > 275 MeV for E  * > 2.3 GeV

9. And with What Efficiency? If high-energy (HE)  truth-matches to a  0 daughter, make succession of requirements on MC truth properties of other (low-energy) daughter cos  lab 1 Require 2 nd photon to be in fiducial volume -.74 < cos  lab <.94 E*E* 2 Require 2 nd photon to be above minimum energy cut E*E* 3 Require 2 nd photon to have a truth match E*E* Of remaining events, almost all make a good  0 candidate with the HE  Observations: Typically reconstruct only about ½ (depends on E  * ) of background  0 s 20% truth-matching efficiency appears to be mostly conversions (only about 6% of background  0 s are merged)  must understand conversion effects to subtract background correctly (not appreciated before)

10. For low-energy photons that are not truth-matched… Distance (m) between truth-matched HE  and true low- energy  sibling Distance (m) between reconstructed HE  and nearest cluster “Merged”  0 s (photons form single cluster)

11. Material and the Inclusive Measurement of b  s  Material enters into the measurement of b  s  in three substantial ways: Conversions (HE  efficiency,  0 reconstruction efficiency) Brehmsstrahlung (electron fake rate) There are complications associated with estimating these effects. For example, a photon converting in the DIRC may or may not be reconstructed as the original photon, depending on its energy, the depth in the DIRC, etc. This must be understood, in addition to the distribution of material in the detector and the brehm/conversion cross-sections.

12. More clever rejection of  0 backgrounds? (  analysis used likelihood based on  mass and E 2,lab )  try NN rejection Signal Efficiency Background Efficiency Ignoring E  * information Run I-II analysis performance Using E  * information Variables considered: M  E  * E 2,lab cos  lab HE  2 nd momentHE  isolation HE  Lat. MomentLE  2nd moment LE  isolationLE  Lat. Moment M  E*E* E 2,lab Most power in M , E 2,lab (already in use) and E  * (dangerous). Will not pursue.

13. % of total Error Statistitical Systematic Model Run I-II Result ( Phys.Rev.Lett.97:171803,2006 ) Br (B  X s  ) = (3.67  0.29  0.34  0.29) x 10 -4 Neural Net Selection: A Word About Run I-II Syst. Errors Different b  s  models (b mass, Fermi motion) E  * [GeV] Important: Run I-V optimi- zation must consider both statistical and systematic error! Selection efficiency vs. E  * for Run I-II selection

14. Four neural net algorithms under consideration: 3 variants using Energy Cones 1 uses Legendre Moments Choose based on best uncertainty (including dominant systematics) Econes I better statistical precision larger model error Eff vs. E Event-Shape NN Selection Legendre Moments more stats in  0 /  control sample reduced model error

15. Neural Net Statistical Error Systematic Error Model Error Total Error ECone3.62.74.36.2 Econe NoP 3.92.63.55.9 Econe Relaxed 3.52.44.25.9 Legendre4.31.93.86.1 Run1-27.99.27.914.5 Differences are relatively small  choose Legendre NN for its small syst. and model errors Expected Partial Branching Fraction Errors (Only uncertainties dominant in Run I-II analysis included)

16. Other Backgrounds: Antineutrons Nominally 2.9% of B/Bbar background Contribution can be constrained by looking at antiprotons. Must understand: Production Rate Two components: fragmentation and  decay; have different isospin relations (p/n fraction) and different momentum spectra Working with hadronics group (D. Muller) to sort out. Signature in ECAL Use  -bar sample (high momentum) Develop dE/dX-identified sample (low momentum) ECAL Lateral Moment Data MC

17. Other Backgrounds:  and  ’ BAD 179 + private updates BAD 163  : nominally 2.1% of B/Bbar background; d  /dp * measured; use to correct rates in MC (correction factor “  ”)  / : nominally 0.8% of B/Bbar background; less well-constrained, but less of a contribution. X  ’ = E  ’ /E beam Range B(B  / ) DataB(B  / ) MC 0.1 = 0.39 (1.54  0.41) x 10 -2 4.15 x 10 -2 0.39 – 0.52 (1.00  0.33) x 10 -3 5.63 x 10 -4

18. Simulation estimates that HE backgrounds photons with B meson parents are twice as common (1.4% of B/Bbar background) than that of Run I-II simulation. These gammas seem to be coming predominantly from SL decay; how well do we understand this number? Other Backgrounds: B   X

19. b  s  Outlook I The lepton-tagged inclusive analysis is gelling… CM2 migration complete Low-energy  truth-matching work-around Shape-variable selection (NN) finalized  0 and  production rates measured  0 background rejection revisited Several other selection cuts established (merged  0 s …) A number of “standard” things remain (on our to-do list from early on) Anti-neutron rejection criteria Final optimization “Control region” test of B/Bbar background contribution Estimation of most sources of systematic errors An admirable goal would be Lepton/Photon – what kind of shape are we in?

20. However, some new considerations have arisen Brehmsstrahlung and conversions (material effects) Non-DST level study of conversion, brehm properties New control samples (radiative Bhabha?) Understanding of direct B   backgrounds. Also, the loss of Philip Bechtle (to DESY) was a set back, but students (Kyle, Luke) now coming up to speed on production code. Initial preliminary results will include measurements of: Partial branching fraction (1.9 < E  * < 2.7)  further tighten constraint on new physics 1 st and 2 nd moments of photon energy distribution  generic constraint on fermi motion of b quark A CP  Independent probe for new physics (current: -.110 .115 .017) We have our work cut out for us… b  s  Outlook II