|f(q 2 )| 2

1

0.63 30.41(3.62 0.22 ) 10

exp LQCDubV

|f(q2)|2

|VCKM|2

HQS

D ( )2 2 2cs(d)2

|V | |f (q )|q

Kd

d

Importance of Charm Semileptonic Decays

Potentially useful input to Vub from exclusive B semileptonic decays

( ) ~ 6% precision

BABAR/Belle/CLEO(HFAG)

Br B l

Assuming theoretical

form factors Vcs and Vcd

Vub

11- 17% e.g. HPQCD &FNAL

(summer 2008)

1

2

3

22( )B

ubf q V

22( )D

cdf q V

l

B

l

B

D

Assuming Vcs and Vcd known, we can check theoretical calculations of the form factors

Related atsame invariant4 velocity

DPF Jul 30 2009 Charm Semileptonic Ian Shipsey

2 2

Expt. 5%

16q GeV

DPF Jul 30 2009 Charm Semileptonic Ian Shipsey 2

FNAL-MILC-HPQCDPRL 94, 011601 (2005), and arXiv:0906.2498 [hep-lat].

2

2 2 2 2

(0)( )

1 1pole pole

f qq m

f

q m

Modified pole model used for comparison

2

cs2 33 2 22( ) V

24F

KPGd

f qdq

Form factor measures probability hadron will be formed

0 / Form Factor: test of LQCDD K e

2

0

All tags

integrated over q

14121 121

D K ev

Binned likelihood fits to U distributions are performed in each q2 bin and each tag mode

2 2 2q ( )W e vm P P

2

0

All tags

integrated over q

1372 39

D ev

S/N ~40/1S/N ~300/1

| |missmissU E P ��

Shape: experiments compatible with LQCD. Normalization: experiments (1.2% for K-eν and 2.0% for π-eν) consistent with LQCD (10%). LQCD precision lags

arXiv:0906.2983 (accepted PRD Jul 22 2009)

+Normalization: f (0)K+Normalization: f (0)


CLEO-c: the most precise direct determination of Vcs

|Vcs| & |Vcd| Results

*

CLEO-c: νN remains most precise determination (for now)

N

cd cd( V ) / V ~ 3.1%(expt) 10%(theory)

cs cs( V ) / V ~ 1.1%(expt) 10%(theory)

* PDG2000 Fits use Becher-Hill z-expansion

1(818 pb ) 0.985 0.009 0.006

| |

stat syst theor

0.103

y

csCLEO c V

1(818 pb ) 0.234 0.007 0.0

| |

stat syst t

02 0.0

heor

25

y

cdCLEO c V



CLEO-c: the most precise direct determination of Vcs

|Vcs| & |Vcd| Results

*

CLEO-c: νN remains most precise determination (for now)

N

cd cd( V ) / V ~ 3.1%(expt) 10%(theory)

cs cs( V ) / V ~ 1.1%(expt) 10%(theory)

* PDG2000

1(818 pb ) 0.985 0.009 0.006

| |

stat syst theor

0.103

y

csCLEO c V

1(818 pb ) 0.234 0.007 0.0

| |

stat syst t

02 0.0

heor

25

y

cdCLEO c V

THEORY UNCERTAINITY REMOVED


LQCD form factors with improved precision are eagerly awaited

CLEO-c Now

CLEO-c full dataset + 3-4% theoryuncertainties


cd cs

cd cd

cs cs

V & V direct

(D semileptonic decays CLEO)

CLEO-c full data set

( V ) / V ~ 3.1% theory

( V ) / V ~1.1% theory

D semileptonic decays with comparable theory and experimental uncertaintymay lead to interesting competition between direct and indirect constraints We eagerly await new precise lattice calculations

Plots by Sebastien Descortes-Genon & Ian ShipseySee also talk by Descotres-Genon at joint BABAR-Belle-BESIII-CLEO-c Workshop 11/07, Beijing

Unitarity Test: Compatibility of charm & beauty sectors of CKM matrix?

cd cs

ud cs cd us

V & V indirect

1)K & nucleon

V V & V V

2) Bphysics

Indirect= global CKM fit = 1+2


+


Simultaneous fit to D+ 0e , D0 -eRv = 1.40 0.25 0.03R2 = 0.57 0.18 0.06

Form Factors in D → ρeν

q2

cos

cos e

Line is projection for fitted RV, R2

Fix

ed b

ack

gro

und sh

ape a

nd sig

nal ta

ils from

M

C

B(D0 -e+)= (1.560.160.09)10-3

B(D+ 0e+)= (2.320.200.12) 10-3

Isospin average:(D0 -e+) = (0.410.030.02)10-2 ps-1

281pb-1

281pb-1

D+

D0

22

2* 2

( ) /

( ) /ub

cb

Vd B e dq

d B K dq V

r n+ -

G ®µ

G ® l l

Interest: 1st measurement of FF in Cabibbosuppressed charm P V decays +

*Need ,

FF

D

D

K e

er n

n

®

®

PRELIMINARY

Grinstein & Pirjol [hep-ph/0404250]

Update to full data set soon

| |missmissU E c P ��



Explanations of the plots

8

2

0

All tags

integrated over q

14121 121

D K ev

2

0

All tags

integrated over q

1372 39

D ev

S/N ~40/1S/N ~300/1

0 0

2

0

0

Fits to distributions for (left) and (right)

with all tag modes and bins combined.

Points are data. Histograms are fit results.

For , the two major background sources are

U D K e D e

q

D e

D

0 0

0

, which peaks at U~0.13 GeV and

, which peaks at U~0.19 GeV

(K is misidentified as e , the is missing.

The charges are not required to match the tag side,

to accomodate doubly-Cabibbo

K e

D K

-suppressed decays.)

See Figs. 2 and 3 in paper 2 for other details on background components.


Comparisons of form factor normalization parameter f (0)

between CLEO-c and LQCD.

Note that the LQCD results are obtained using the modified pole model,

while the CLEO results are obtained using the 3-p

arameter

Becher-Hill series parametrization.

The LQCD results are from

FNAL MILC HPQCD

[PRL 94,011601 2005 and arXiv : 0906.2498 [hep lat]]

+Normalization: f (0)K+Normalization: f (0)

10

FNAL-MILC-HPQCDPRL 94, 011601 (2005), and arXiv:0906.2498 [hep-lat].

Modified pole model used for comparison

2f(q ) comparisons between isospin conjugate modes

and with LQCD calculations.

The solid lines represent LQCD fits to the modified pole model.

The LQCD results are from

FNAL MILC HPQCD

[PRL 94,011601 2

005 and arXiv : 0906.2498 [hep lat]]

The inner bands show LQCD statistical uncertainties,

and the outer bands the sum in quadrature of

LQCD statistical and systematic uncertainties


*

N

* PDG2000 Fits use Becher-Hill z-expansion

cs cd

cs

Comparisons of determinations of |V | and |V |. For

the determination of |V | with (Kl ) we use PDG2000,

as PDG 2002 and 2004 do not quote a value

from this technique and

subsequent PDG determinatio

ns include

a result obtained from an earlier

CLEO-c measurement.

The f(0)|V | values are obtained from fits using

the Becher-Hill z-expansion.cx


*

N

* PDG2000

THEORY UNCERTAINITY REMOVED

The same plots as on last page,

but with the theory (LQCD) uncertainties removed.

These are plots are used to overlay with the

plots on the last slide,

to make the point that our uncertainties are

dominated by uncertainties from LQCD.

CLEO-c Now

CLEO-c full dataset + 3-4% theoryuncertainties


Plots by Sebastien Descortes-Genon & Ian ShipseySee also talk by Descotres-Genon at joint BABAR-Belle-BESIII-CLEO-c Workshop 11/07, Beijing


+These plots were made by Sebastien Descortes-Genon and Ian Shipsey.In this |Vcs| vs. |Vcd| 2D plane,light blue shows the 95% C.L. limit set by indirect determinations from Kaon and neutrino experiments.Green shows the limit set by indirect determinations from B physics. The yellow area is obtained by combining the indirect determinations.The cross shows the central values determined using the CLEO-c full dataset, with the orange ellipse showing the current 95% C.L. limit set by CLEO-c and red ellipse showing the limit if theory uncertainties can be reduced to 3-4%. The CLEO-c analysis is a direct determination.

14

Fix

ed b

ack

gro

und sh

ape a

nd sig

nal ta

ils from

M

C

281pb-1

281pb-1

D+

D0| |missmissU E c P ��


0 0

*0 0

0 * 0

Fits to distributions in the data for

(top) and (bottom).

The background peaks in the positive U regions

are primarily due to

(for ) and

(for ).

U

D e D e

D K e D e

D K e D e

15

q2

cos

cos e

Line is projection for fitted RV, R2

2

Projections of the data and

the simultaneous fits to isospin conjugate modes

onto q (4-momentum squared of the e pair),

cos (the angle between in the rest frame

and the in the D rest frame),

co

es (the angle between the e in the W rest frame

and the W in the D rest frame)

and (the acoplanarity angle between the planes

of the and the W).

Dots with error bars are the data,

the solid lines ar

e the fits,

and the dashed line shows background contributions.

|f(q 2 )| 2

Documents

d semileptonic decays

c workshop

awaitedcleoc nowcleoc

accepted prd

precise determination

comparison dpf

mcbd0 e

e consistent