This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 13

# Update of ppg at large angle (LNF 20/02/2004) See: C.Bini, S.Ventura KLOE Memo 284 PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Update of ppg at large angle (LNF 20/02/2004) See: C.Bini, S.Ventura KLOE Memo 284 C.Bini, B.Di Micco KLOE Memo 285 (1) Results of the fit (2) Forward-Backward asymmetry (3) Upper limit on h  p + p -. (1) Results of the fit. N(Q) = K  [

Update of ppg at large angle (LNF 20/02/2004) See: C.Bini, S.Ventura KLOE Memo 284

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

#### Presentation Transcript

Update of ppg at large angle (LNF 20/02/2004)

See: C.Bini, S.Ventura KLOE Memo 284

C.Bini, B.Di Micco KLOE Memo 285

(1) Results of the fit

(2) Forward-Backward asymmetry

(3) Upper limit on h p+p-

(1) Results of the fit

N(Q) = K  [

FISR(Q, Mr, Gr, a, b) + FFSR(Q) +

Ff0(Q, gfKK, R, mf0)  FINT(Q) +

gFrp(Q) + dF3p(Q) ]

K = fcoll(Q)  e(Q)  L  b

fcoll(Q) = correction for collinear radiation (EVA)

e(Q)= efficiency

L= integrated luminosity (349 pb-1)

b= bin size (1.2 MeV)

Results stability checked vs.:

Bin size (1.2, 2.4, 6.0, 12.0 MeV)

First point (280 to 660 MeV)

Last point (996 to 1015 MeV)

• 3p background (surviving

• the cuts):

•  p+p-p0

- MC based abs.

normalisation  d

• rp background:

•  rp , r  pg

- Achasov param.

- PDG abs. normalisation

 g

- No interference (??)

- interference

no interference

+ interference

Table with fit results:

compare the 3 hypotheses;

for fit0 hyp. stability estimate (second error)

Attempt to fit “forcing” f0 p0p0 KLOE parameters:

Fit0

c2 = 3700

Fit-

c2 = 1313

f0 p+p- after subtraction (red) vs. f0  p0p0 “raw” spectrum (blue)

2 possible explanations:

(1) p0p0g spectrum has “another contribution”

(2) p+p-g has “another interference scheme”

(2) Forward-backward asymmetry

p+p- system: odd terms (green) and even terms (brown)

A(ISR) C-odd

A(FSR)  C-even

A(f0) C-even

|A(tot)|2 = |A(ISR)|2 + |A(FSR)|2 + |A(f0)|2

+ 2Re[A(ISR) A(FSR)]

+ 2Re[A(ISR) A(f0)]

+ 2Re[A(FSR) A(f0)]

 Asymmetry in p+p-q angle (depending on the cuts)

The integrated FB-asymmetry is (two definitions):

Comparison with MC: Eva + Geanfi reconstruction:

(red) data

(triangles) MC gener.

(open circles) MC recon.

• data-MC discrepancy below 700 MeV

• Clear f0 effect

• Data > MC between 700 and 900 MeV

f0 signal in M(pp) spectrum and in FB asymmetry

(3) Upper limit for h p+p-

• Expected signal:

• Gaussian m = 547.3 MeV

• s = 1.33 MeV

• Ns = -22  24

Ns < 21.1 (90%C.L.)

Nh = 1.43  107

(from 3p0 counting)

 BR( h  p+p-) < 8.9  10-6

• Factor 37 improvement respect to previous limit

• The negative fluctuation helps !

Conclusions:

Perspectives for publication and presentation at conferences:

(1) The fit of the M(pp) spectrum is in “final shape”;

(2) The FB-asymmetry reinforces the f0 signal

BUT

does not add any further insight:

needs “theoretical support”.

(3) The upper limit is also in “final shape”:

discussion on the way to extract the limit are welcome.