Post on 22-Dec-2015
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 1
ISR cross sections in e+e- and implications on muon g-2
Bogdan MALAESCU( LAL – Orsay )
( Representing the BaBar Collaboration )
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 2
Outlook
The muon magnetic anomaly
The BaBar ISR (Initial State Radiation) analysis Test of the method: e+e+() Results on e+e+ () (PRL 103, 231801 (2009))
Combination of all e+e data Discussion and conclusion
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 3
Lepton Magnetic Anomaly: from Dirac to QED
Dirac (1928) ge=2 ae=0
anomaly discovered: Kusch-Foley (1948) ae= (1.19 0.05) 103
and explained by O() QED contribution: Schwinger (1948) ae = /2 = 1.16 103
first triumph of QED
ae sensitive to quantum fluctuations of fields
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 4
More Quantum Fluctuations
typical contributions:
QED up to O(4), 5 in progress (Kinoshita et al.)
Hadrons vacuum polarization light-by-light (models)
+ ? a new physics ?
Electroweak new physics at high mass scale
a much more sensitive to high scales
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 5
Hadronic Vacuum Polarization and Muon (g –2)
2
2had
24
( )
( )3
m
a R sK
ss
ds
Dispersion relation
had
2(0)Born: ( ) ( ) / ( )s s s
Im[ ] | hadrons |2
0 [ hadrons ( )]12 Im ( ) ( )FSR
pt
e es R s
Dominant uncertainty from lowest-order HVP pieceCannot be calculated from QCD (low mass scale), but one can use experimental data on e+e hadrons cross section
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 6
The E-821 Direct a Measurement at BNL*Storage ring technique pioneered at CERN (Farley-Picasso…, 1970s), with μ+ and μ- data
a obtained from a ratio of frequenciesresult updated with new value for /p (+0.9 1010) (see new review in RPP2009 (Hoecker-Marciano))
aexp = (11 659 208.9 5.4 3.3) 1010
( 6.3) (0.54 ppm)
precessionrotation
*Bennet et al., 2006, Phys. Rev. D 73, 072003
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 7
Measure [e+ e + (FSR)] with high accuracy for vacuum polarization calculations, using the ISR method e+ e + ISR (add.)
channel contributes 73% of ahad
Dominant uncertainty also from Present systematic precision of ee experiments CMD-2 0.8% SND 1.5% in agreement KLOE (ISR from 1.02 GeV) 2005 1.3% some deviation in shape 2008 0.9% better agreement Big advantage of ISR: all mass spectrum covered at once (from threshold
to 3 GeV in BABAR), with same detector and analysis The ISR method needs a very large amount of data at an energy larger than
the one at which we measure the cross section Measure simultaneously + ISR (add.) and + ISR (add.) Compare the measured + ISR (add.) spectrum with QED prediction Compare to spectral functions from previous e+ e data and decays aim for a measurement with <1% accuracy (syst. errors at per mil level)
Goals of the BaBar Analysis
great interest to clarify the situation as magnitude of possible discrepancy with SM is of the order of SUSY contributions with masses of a few 100 GeV
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 8
ISR FSR
ISR + add. ISR ISR + add. FSR
The Relevant Processes
e+ e + ISR (add.) and + ISR (add.) measured simultaneously
LO FSR negligible for at s(10.6 GeV)2
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 9
BaBar / PEP II
PEP-II is an asymmetric e+e collider operating at CM energy of (4S).
Integrated luminosity = 531 fb-1
BaBar DIRC• particle ID up to 4-5 GeV/c
BaBar IFR: resistive plate chambers
BaBar SVT and DCH• precision tracking
BaBar EMC: 6580 CsI(Tl) crystals,
resolution ~1-2 % high E.
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 10
ISR photon at large angle, detected in the EMC detected tracks of good quality: 1 (for efficiency) or 2 (for physics) identification of the charged particles (DIRC, DCH) separate /KK/ event samples kinematic fit (not using ISR photon energy) including 1 additional photon (discussed later) obtain all efficiencies (trigger, filter, tracking, ID, fit) from same data measure ratio of to cross sections to cancel ee luminosity additional ISR vacuum polarization ISR photon efficiency correct for LO FSR (|FSR|2) contribution in (QED, <1% below 1 GeV) additional FSR photons measured
otherwise ~2% syst error
The Measurement
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 11
Used an integrated luminosity of 232 fb-1 4S) on-peak & off peak)
Geometrical acceptance (using Monte Carlo simulation) All efficiencies measured on data (data/MC corrections) Triggers (L1 hardware, L3 software), background-filter efficiencies Tracking efficiency Particle ID matrix (ID and mis-ID efficiencies): K Kinematic fitting reduce non 2-body backgrounds 2 cut efficiency additional radiation (ISR and FSR) secondary interactions
Unfolding of mass spectraConsistency checks for (QED test, ISR luminosity) and Unblinding R partial (√s`>0.5 GeV) preliminary results (Tau08, Sept. 2008)Additional studies and checksFinal results on cross section and calculation of dispersion integral
(PRL 103, 231801 (2009))
Analysis Steps
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 12
Acceptance and efficiencies determined initially from simulation, with data/MC corrections applied Large simulated samples, typically 10 data, using AfkQed generator
AfkQed: lowest-order (LO) QED with additional radiation: ISR with structure function method, assumed collinear to the beams and with limited energy FSR using PHOTOS Phokhara 4.0: (almost) exact second-order QED matrix element, limited to NLO
Studies comparing Phokhara and AfkQed at 4-vector level with fast simulation
QED test with () cross section requires reliable NLO generator
(FSR) cross section obtained through () / () ratio, rather insensitive to detailed description of radiation in MC
MC Generators
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 13
tag particle (track, ID)
candidate (p, , φ)
γISR
benefit from pair production for tracking and particle ID kinematically constrained events efficiency automatically averaged over running periods measurement in the same environment as for physics, in fact same events! applied to particle ID with samples, tracking… assumes that efficiencies of the 2 particles are uncorrelated in practice not true study of 2-particle overlap in the detector (trigger,tracking, EMC, IFR) required a large effort to reach per mil accuracies
Particle-related Efficiency Measurements
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 14
Kinematic FittingFirst analysis to measure cross sectionwith additional photons (NLO)
Two kinematic fits to X X ISR add
(ISR photon defined as highest energy)
Add. ISR fit: add assumed along beams Add. ‘FSR’ if add detected
Loose 2 cut (outside BG region in plot) for and in central region Tight 2 cut (ln(2+1)add.ISR<3) for in tail region
q q and multi-hadronic ISR background from MC samples + normalization from data using signals from 0ISR (qq), and and (0)
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 15
QED Test with sample
ISR efficiency 3.4 syst.trig/track/PID 4.0
BaBar ee luminosity
absolute comparison of mass spectra in data and in simulation
simulation corrected for data/MC efficiencies
AfkQed corrected for incomplete NLO using Phokhara
strong test (ISR probability drops out for cross section)
(0.2 3 GeV)
BaBar
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 16
Obtaining the (FSR) cross section
Unfolded spectrum
Effective ISR luminosity from () analysis (similar equation + QED)
Acceptance from MC + data/MC corrections
mass spectrum unfolded (B. M. arXiv:0907.3791) for detector response
Additional ISR almost cancels in the procedure (() / () ratio)Correction (2.5 1.0) 103 cross section does not rely on accurate description of NLO in the MC generator
ISR luminosity from () in 50-MeV energy intervals (small compared to variation of efficiency corrections)
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 17
Systematic uncertainties
s` intervals (GeV) errors in 103
Dominated by particle ID (-ID, correlated ‘’, -ID in ISR luminosity)
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 18
BaBar results (arXiv:0908.3589, PRL 103, 231801 (2009) )
e+ e + (FSR) bare (no VP) cross section diagonal errors (stat+syst)
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 19
BaBar results in region2-MeV energy intervals
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 20
BaBar vs. other experiments at larger mass
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 21
VDM fit of the pion form factor
add. FSR Running (VP)
BaBar Preliminary Fit
BaBar Preliminary Fit
BaBar Preliminary Fit
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 22
BaBar vs.other ee data (0.5-1.0 GeV)
CMD-2
SND KLOE
direct relative comparison of cross sections with BaBar fit (stat + syst errors included) (green band)
BaBar
BaBar Preliminary Fit BaBar Preliminary Fit
BaBar Preliminary Fit BaBar Preliminary Fit
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 23
BaBar vs. IB-corrected data (0.5-1.0 GeV)
relative comparison w.r.t. BaBar of spectral functions corrected for isospin-breaking(IB)
IB corrections: radiative corr., masses, - interference, masses/widths
each data normalized to its own BR
ALEPH
CLEO Belle
BaBar Preliminary Fit
BaBar Preliminary Fit BaBar Preliminary Fit
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 24
Computing a
*
* arXiv:0906.5443 M. Davier et al.
0.281.8 (GeV)BABAR 514.1 3.8previous e +e combined 503.5 3.5 * combined 515.2 3.5 *
*
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 25
Including BaBar in the e+e Combination
arXiv: 0908.4300Davier-Hoecker-BM-Yuan-Zhang
Improved procedure and software(HVPTools) for combining cross section data with arbitrary pointspacing/binning, with full covariance matrices and error propagation
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 26
Modes Energy [GeV] e+e –
+ – 20 4m – 1.8 16.8 ± 1.3 ± 0.2rad 21.4 ± 1.3 ± 0.6SU(2)
2 + 2 – (+BaBar) 4m – 1.8 13.1 ± 0.4 ± 0.0rad 12.3 ± 1.0 ± 0.4SU(2)
(782) 0.3 – 0.81 38.0 ± 1.0 ± 0.3rad –
(1020) 1.0 – 1.055 35.7 ± 0.8 ± 0.2rad –
Other excl. (+BaBar) 2m – 1.8 24.3 ± 1.3 ± 0.2rad –
J /, (2S) 3.08 – 3.11 7.4 ± 0.4 ± 0.0rad –
R [QCD] 1.8 – 3.7 33.9 ± 0.5theo –
R [data] 3.7 – 5.0 7.2 ± 0.3 ± 0.0rad –
R [QCD] 5.0 – 9.9 ± 0.2theo –
Other hadronic contributionsfrom Davier-Eidelman-Hoecker-Zhang (2006)
another large long-standing discrepancy in the + 20 channel !
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 27
The Problematic +-20 Contribution
e+e- +20 data (CMD2 discarded)
preliminary ISR BaBar data: A. Petzold, EPS-HEP (2007)
only statistical errors
old contribution 16.8 1.3update 17.6 1.7 probably still underestimated (BaBar) 21.4 1.4
Preliminary
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 28
BaBar Multi-hadronic Published Results
Still more channels under analysis: K+K, KK with K0
Statistical + systematic errors
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 29
Where are we?
• including BaBar 2 results in the e+e combination + estimate of hadronic LBL contribution (Prades-de Rafael-Vainhstein, 2009) yields aSM[e+e] = (11 659 183.4 4.1 2.6 0.2) 1010
HVP LBL EW (4.9)
• E-821 updated result* (11 659 208.9 6.3) 1010
• deviation (ee) (25.5 8.0) 1010
(3.2 )
• updated analysis +Belle +revisited IB corrections• deviation () (15.7 8.2) 1010
(1.9 )
*new proposal submitted to Fermilab to improve accuracy by a factor 4
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 30
Conclusions
BaBar analysis of andISR processes completed Precision goal has been achieved: 0.5% in region (0.6-0.9 GeV) Absolute cross section agrees with NLO QED within 1.1% eecross section very insensitive to MC generator full range of interest covered from 0.3 to 3 GeV Comparison with data from earlier experiments fair agreement with CMD-2 and SND, poor with KLOE agreement with dataContribution to a from BaBar is (514.1 2.23.1)1010 in 0.28-1.8 GeV BaBar result has an accuracy (0.7%) comparable to combined previous results Contribution from multi-hadronic channels will continue to be updated with more results forthcoming from BaBar, particularly +-20
Deviation between BNL measurement and theory prediction reduced using BaBar data a [exp ] – a [SM ] =(19.8 ± 8.4)10–10 +- from BaBar only
25.5 8.0 combined e+e- including BaBar
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 31
Backup Slides
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 32
Data on e+e hadrons
CMD-2 (2004) CMD-2 (2006)
SND (2006) KLOE (2009)
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 33
The Role of Data through CVC – SU(2)
hadrons
W hadrons
e+
e –
CVC: I =1 & V W: I =1 & V,A : I =0,1 & V
Hadronic physics factorizes (spectral Functions)2
( 1) 04I e es
0
0
2
22
0
2
0 BR
1 / 1
1
/
BR e
dN
N d
m
ms me s s
branching fractions mass spectrum kinematic factor (PS)
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 34
SU(2) Breaking
Corrections for SU(2) breaking applied to data for dominant – + contrib.:
Electroweak radiative corrections:
dominant contribution from short distance correction SEW
subleading corrections (small)
long distance radiative correction GEM(s)
Charged/neutral mass splitting:
m – m0 leads to phase space (cross sec.) and width (FF) corrections
- mixing (EM – + decay) corrected using FF model
m – m0 *** and – 0 ***
• Electromagnetic decays: ***, , , l+l –
• Quark mass difference mu md (negligible)
Cirigliano-Ecker-Neufeld’ 02Lopez Castro et al.’ 06
Marciano-Sirlin’ 88
Braaten-Li’ 90
Alemany-Davier-Höcker’ 97, Czyż-Kühn’ 01
Flores-Baez-Lopez Castro’ 08Davier et al.’09
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 35
Situation at ICHEP’06 / 08a
had [ee ] = (690.9 ± 4.4) 10 –10
a [ee ] = (11 659 180.5 ± 4.4had ± 3.5LBL ± 0.2QED+EW) 10 –10
Hadronic HO – ( 9.8 ± 0.1) 10 –10
Hadronic LBL + (12.0 ± 3.5) 10 –10
Electroweak (15.4 ± 0.2) 10 –10
QED (11 658 471.9 ± 0.1) 10 –10
a [exp ] – a [SM ] = (27.5 ± 8.4) 10 –10
3.3 „standard deviations“
Observed Difference with BNL using e+e:
Knecht-Nyffeler (2002), Melnikov-Vainhstein (2003)
.0
Davier-Marciano (2004)
Kinoshita-Nio (2006)
e+e BNL
Estimate using data consistent with E-821
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 36
Revisited Analysis using Data: Belle + new IB
CMD-2, SND KLOE
Relative comparison of and ee spectral functions ( green band)
arXiv:0906.5443 M.Davier et al.
Global test of spectral functions: prediction of BR using ee data
larger disagreement with KLOE
slope…
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 37
Revisited Analysis using Data: including Belle
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 38
Revisited Analysis Data: new IB corrections
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 39
MC
data
MCtrack
datatrack
track ff
ffC
)1(
)1(
30
30
2
m
trackC1
trackC1
m
and similarly for
single track efficiency correlated loss probability f0
probability to produce more than 2 tracks f3
Data/MC Tracking Correction to cross sections
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 40
Particle identification required
to separate XX final processes Define 5 ID classes using cuts and
PID selectors (complete and
orthogonal set) Electrons rejected at track definition
level (Ecal, dE/dx) All ID efficiencies measured
xI
a tighter ID (h) is used for taggingin efficiency measurements and to further reject background in low crosssection regions.
Particle Identification
Barrel
Backward EndcapForward Endcap
ZIFR
IFRXIFR
YIFR
* isolated muons M> 2.5 GeV efficiency maps (p,v1,v2) impurity (1.10.1) 103
* correlated efficiencies/close tracks maps (dv1,dv2)
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 41
Data/MC PID corrections to and cross sections
Two runningperiods withdifferent IFRperformance
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 42
PID separation and Global Test
All ‘xx’ solve for all xx(0) and compare with no-ID spectrum and estimated syst. error
hist: predicted from PIDdots: measured (no ID)
m(GeV)
N(o)ii
BaBar
BaBar
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 43
Backgrounds
background larger with loose 2 cut used in 0.5-1.0 GeV mass range q q and multi-hadronic ISR background from MC samples + normalization from data using signals from 0ISR (qq), and and (0) global test in background-rich region near cut boundary
m (GeV)
multi-hadrons
Fitted BG/predicted = 0.9680.037BG fractions in 10-2 at m values
BaBar
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 44
2 cut Efficiency Correction
depends on simulation of ISR (FSR), resolution effects (mostly ISR direction) for and
2 cut efficiency can be well measured in data because of low background
main correction from lack of angular distribution for additional ISR in AfkQed common correction: 1% for loose 2, 7% for tight
additional loss for because of interactions studied with sample of interacting events much better study now, 2 independent methods
loose
secondary interactions data/MC 1.51 0.03 syst error 0.3 - 0.9 10-3
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 45
Additional ISR
Angular distributionof add. ISR /beams!
Energy cut-off foradd. ISR in AfkQed
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 46
Additional FSR
Angle between add and closest track
Large-angle add.ISR in data AfkQed
Evidence for FSR data AfkQed
FSR
ISR
data/MC 0.960.06 1.210.05
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 47
Checking Known Distributions
Cos* in XX CM /
flat at threshold1+cos2*
sin2*
P>1 GeV track requirement loss at cos*1
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 48
Unfolding Mass Spectrum measured mass spectrum distorted by resolution effects and FSR (m vs. s’) iterative unfolding method (B. M. arXiv:0907-3791) : one step is sufficient mass-transfer matrix from simulation with corrections from data 2 MeV bins in 0.5-1.0 GeV mass range, 10 MeV bins outside most salient effect in - interference region (little effect on a
)
Mass (GeV)
Absolute differenceunfolded(1) raw dataunfolded(2) unfolded(1)Statistical errors (band)
Relative difference
BaBar
BaBar
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 49
Obtaining the () cross section
ratio ISR lumiLO formulashould behave smoothly (HVP effects on resonances cancel)
Use measured lumi in 50-MeV binsaveraged in sliding 250-MeV binsfor smoothing
Unfolded spectrum
Effective ISR luminosity from () analysis (similar equation + QED)
Acceptance from MC + data/MC corrections
Additional ISR almost cancels in the procedure (() / () ratio)Correction (2.5 1.0) 103 cross section does not rely on accurate description of NLO in the MC generator
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 50
Changes since preliminary results at Tau08
preliminary results Sept. 2008: only 0.5-3 GeV (excess/expect. near threshold)
problem explored (Oct. 2008- Feb. 2009): trigger/BGFilter, ee background
`’ re-investigated direct measurement achieved using ID probabilities before: model for correlated loss, no precise direct check significant changes efficiency for ISR lumi +0.9% contamination in `’ sample cross section 1.8% 0.525 GeV 1.0% 0.775 GeV 1.4% 0.975 GeV
other changes: - MC unfolding mass matrix corrected for data/MC differences (small) - ISR lumi now used in 50-MeV sliding bins, instead of global fit - cancellation of add ISR in / ratio studied/corrected
extensive review
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 51
f2 Story
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 52
BaBar vs.other ee data interference region)
CMD-2 SND
mass calibration of BaBar checked with ISR-produced J/expect (0.16 0.16) MeV at peak mass determined through VDM mass fit mω
fit mωPDG = (0.12 0.29) MeV
Novosibirsk data precisely calibrated using resonant depolarization comparison BaBar/CMD-2/SND in - interference region shows no evidence for a mass shift
BaBar Preliminary Fit BaBar Preliminary Fit
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 53
Obtaining the average cross section
• local weighted average performed
• full covariance matrices and error propagation
• local 2 used for error rescaling
• average dominated by BaBar and KLOE, BaBar covering full range
relative weights
integrand (dispersion integral)
error
error scale factor
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 54
Consistency of Experiments with Average
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 55
g-2 Values for Various Mass Intervals
(1010)
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 56
Combined Spectral Functions Comparison
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 57
Discussion
• BaBar 2 data complete and the most accurate, but expected precision improvement on the average not reached because of discrepancy with KLOE • however, previous /ee disagreement strongly reduced 2.9 (2006) 2.4 ( update) 1.5 (including BaBar)• a range of values for the deviation from the SM can be obtained, depending on the 2 data used: BaBar 2.4 all ee 3.2 all ee BaBar 3.7 all ee KLOE 2.9 1.9
• all approaches yield a deviation, but SM test limited by systematic effects not accounted for in the experimental analyses (ee) and/or the corrections to data
• at the moment some evidence for a deviation (24), but not sufficient to establish a contribution from new physics
B.Malaescu ISR e+e- /g-2
HEP 2010 58
Perspectives• first priority is a clarification of the BaBar/KLOE discrepancy: - origin of the ‘slope’ (was very pronounced with the 2004 KLOE results, reduced now with the 2008 results) - normalization difference on peak (most direct effect on a) - Novosibirsk results in-between, closer to BaBar - slope also seen in KLOE/ comparison; BaBar agrees with
• further checks of the KLOE results are possible: as method is based on MC simulation for ISR and additional ISR/FSR probabilities test with analysis
• contribution from multi-hadronic channels will continue to be updated with more results forthcoming from BaBar, particularly 2 20
• more ee data expected from VEPP-2000 in Novosibirsk
• experimental error of E-821 direct a measurement is a limitation, already now new proposal submitted to Fermilab to improve accuracy by a factor 4 project at JPARC