Banner
    A 4.3σ Signal Of Dimuon Decays Of The Bs Meson !
    By Tommaso Dorigo | July 19th 2013 05:03 AM | 10 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Tommaso

    I am an experimental particle physicist working with the CMS experiment at CERN. In my spare time I play chess, abuse the piano, and aim my dobson...

    View Tommaso's Profile
    Today I am quite happy to report of a new groundbreaking result from the CMS collaboration at the CERN LHC - the experiment to which I devote 100% of my research time. We published overnight a report on the Cornell arxiv, and will present this week at the EPS conference in Stockholm, of the observation of B_s meson decays to muon pairs, an exceedingly rare process which is of extreme importance for the searches of new physics beyond the standard model. And in so doing, CMS now leads this race, with better results than LHCb and ATLAS. (UPDATE: but see below, at the bottom of the article).

    The B_s meson is a particle made up by a bottom quark and a anti-strange quark (or the opposite: a anti-bottom and a strange quark; the two states are not distinguished in the decay mode we study here). While heavy and fancy -since it contains a bottom quark, a particle not present in ordinary matter- the B_s is not really an exceedingly interesting particle to study in the 21st century: we have studied it in great detail in the course of the past twenty years at hadron and lepton colliders, and we know basically everything that there is to know about it. However...

    The fact is, the B_s is a neutral meson made up by two different quarks. Such particles have a tradition of being an open door to increasing our knowledge in the subatomic world, as exemplified by the various advancements we made by studying the K0 meson - a particle made up by a down and antistrange quark, so quite similar (except for its mass) to the B_s.

    In particular, by studying the K0 meson, physicists in the sixties of last century realized that there had to be some mechanism at work that ought to prevent the decay to a pair of leptons, such as in K0->μμ. That decay was not seen, while simple-minded reasoning in analogy with the copious decay of the K+ meson (made by a up-antistrange quark combination) into μν pairs impled one should find it copiously.

    It appeared that while the charged-current weak interaction naturally coupled quarks of different flavour, and thus allowed the tree-level transmutation of a up-antistrange pair present in the K^+ meson into a positive-charged W meson, which then decayed into the muon-neutrino pair, the similar process in the K0 case was disallowed: flavor-changing neutral currents (FCNC) are null in the standard model at tree level, since the Z0 boson (the neutral counterpart of the W) is unable to do the same trick that the W ordinarily performs (see the impossible diagram on the right).

    Nowadays we know inside out all the details of allowed and disallowed standard model decays, and we can compute with high precision the rate of decay of the B_s meson into muon pairs: this is predicted to occur 3.52 times in a billion, thanks to particle reaction diagrams more complicated than tree-level ones (such as the K+ decay into μν, which one draws by simply collapsing into one point the down and anti-strange quark lines, emitting a single line, the W, which then bifurcates into the μν pair).

    Note two things: One - this process is quite rare!, and Two - it exists only through the exchange of more than one intermediate particle; these intermediate states produce "loops". Example of possible diagrams for the decay of the B_s in two muons are shown on the left.

    In the diagram labeled "(a)" the two quark lines from the B_s enter from the left. The simultaneous emission of two W bosons change the b-quark into a top quark on the upper left vertex, and allow the absorption of the same by the s-quark line on the lower left vertex. The two W bosons then decay each into a muon-neutrino pair, when the neutrino remains an internal line. A "box" is thus formed.

    In the diagram labeled "(b)" we witness a different process. The left part is the same; however, the two W bosons then merge into a Z, and it is the latter which turns into the two muons. Both diagrams are "second-order" weak processes, since they both include four vertex (as opposed to two vertex which are normally all it takes for a two-into-two reaction). Since each vertex implies "paying" a certain small probability (which depends on the strength of the coupling constant involved in the transmutation taking place), diagrams with more vertices are more rare!

    The fact that the standard model predicts a very small rate for the B_s decay to dimuon pairs, coupled to the quite easy experimental signature that two muons provide, means that this is a very proficuous way to test the standard model: It is in fact quite nice to measure something very close to zero. Find a signal larger than the ridiculously low predicted rate, and you are done - new physics!

    But the above would be a really generic motivation. Instead, the fact that the decay occurs through quantum loops means that indeed any -even very heavy- new particle, not predicted by the standard model, could contribute measurably to the decay rate. In particular, supersymmetric particles would, in most versions of SUSY, enhance considerably the rate of the process !

    Because of the above - the chance of indirecly discovering very heavy SUSY particles through the study of a low-energy process- the search for B_s decays to muon pairs has been performed with great care in all past experiments producing large numbers of such particles. You well realize, however, that in order to be sensitive to the predicted standard model decay rate, 3 in a billion, you need to produce billions of B_s mesons. Until recently, this was not possible, but now the LHC luminosity allowed us to reach that goal.

    First came the LHCb experiment, which is well-suited for this search - it "looks" in the forward direction of proton-proton collisions, where many B mesons are produced. However, LHCb could see only a 3.5 sigma signal of B_s mesons in their latest analysis. A signal perfectly compatible with the standard model prediction, but not large enough to be a foul-proof observation.

    The news of today is that  the CMS experiment has analyzed 25 inverse femtobarns of collisions, and has extracted a more significant signal of B_s decays: the signal stands at 4.3 standard deviations above backgrounds. Note that this is not yet above the "5-sigma" mark, but as I have noted several times in the past, that psychological threshold is a convention that applies well to new particle claims, while here we are just measuring a process we know must exist. The CMS publication is positive in its claims: already in the Abstract it says

    "An excess of B_s -> μμ events with respect to backgrounds is observed with a significance of 4.3 standard deviations"

    which is different from saying, as one would have probably done for a new particle, "An excess of events, compatible with the X --> yy hypothesis, is observed...".

    With their data fits, CMS determines the branching fraction in the observed decay mode to be 3.0+1.0-0.9 billionths, which is in great agreement with the standard model alone. This measurement will no doubt be used by phenomenologists to further restrict the allowed parameter space of SUSY theories, since many combinations of SUSY parameters would predict the B_s decay to muon pairs to be several times larger than what is measured by CMS.

    The figure below shows two mass distributions for muon pairs; they refer to alternative multivariate data selection strategies, based on boosted decision trees of different complexity. The default result is the one on the left, yielding a signal with a significance of 4.3 standard deviations; the result on the right instead, based on a more stringent BDT selection, produces a signal with a significance of 4.8 standard deviations. Note that the default selection is the one which should have produced the most significant result (expectation was 4.8 sigma, against 4.7 of the BDT method resulting in the distribution on the right)... Statistics plays these tricks now and then.




    Also worth noting is that the data in the histograms is weighted by the expected signal to noise fraction, which varies across different categories (most notably, the polar angle of the muons, which makes them cross different detector elements and causes backgrounds to differ).

    The fits above allow for backgrounds as well as two distinct signals, one of the B_s meson (in red) and one for the B_d meson (in blue), which I have avoided discussing so far. Maybe a few words on that meson are also needed now!

    While the B_s is made up by a bottom-antistrange combination, the B_d is made up by a bottom-antidown quark pair. The down quark is lighter than the strange quark, so the B_d is lighter than the B_s. Details of the quantum loops producing the rare dimuon decay make the probability that  a B_d turns into two muons even smaller (thirty times more so) than the one for the B_s. So with the available statistics we would not expect to observe that decay as well; however, it is of course reasonable to include the B_d signal in these mass fits: this allows to measure an upper limit for that process, too.

    The B_d signal is not significant in the CMS data, and indeed CMS quotes an upper limit for the B_d -> μμ decay rate, at 1.1 billionths (at 95% confidence level). We are, in other words, still a factor of ten above the standard model rate here. Note that the B_d decay could also be enhanced by supersymmetric particles in the quantum loops, and in a different way from the B_s; so it is very interesting to continue looking for that, and measuring the relative rate. That will be the business best left for the 2015 run of the LHC.

    The last graph, shown above, is more technical than a simple mass distribution. It shows the two-dimensional measurement of the two branching fractions together. The CMS measurement is labeled by the black dot, and the "one-sigma" contour is  a black oval. The oval includes the standard model prediction for the two branching fractions, in red. The insets also show the likelihood profiles for the two separate measurements, which indicate that the significance of the B_s signal is indeed 4.3 sigma, while the significance of the B_d signal is 2.0 sigma. Note that we saw more B_d events than we should have, although only marginally so: the SM prediction is three times lower than our central value; however, as the inset shows, the difference in delta-log-likelihood equates to being just "one sigma" away...

    UPDATE: See also the official statement by CMS on this measurement on the CMS site.

    UPDATE: LHCb just presented their improved results, which bring their signal to 4.0 standard deviations... Still, CMS is the leader here :)

    UPDATE: I stand corrected - LHCb in fact had a slightly better expected sensitivity to B_s than CMS, with 5.0 standard deviations expected. However, they also fluctuated low, by one full sigma, to 4.0 standard deviations, while CMS fluctuated low by only 0.5 sigma, from 4.8 expected to 4.3 observed. The result is that CMS has the most significant observed effect.

    Comments

    Hi, Tommaso. I also read this
    http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/july-2013/discovery-at-lhc-leave...
    Are you really seeing something new or not? It seems that people disagree on their blogs!

    dorigo
    Hi JFGH,

    well, whether we are seeing something new or not depends mostly on who is looking !
    I see two measurements of exceedingly rare processes, found perfectly in line with
    expectations. Others may see that while the Bs is measured at a rate compatible with SM,
    the Bd is found three and a half times above the prediction - but with error bars which
    are way too big to say much yet. Enough to be excited ? I'd say no, but others might
    argue that a higher-than-normal Bd->μμ  decay rate could imply the existence of a fourth
    generation of quarks, with a light t' for example; and a non-standard Higgs boson.

    Maybe I'll post something on that later.

    Cheers,
    T.
    HI, Tommaso.
    Yes, you should clarify the point. I personally find disturbing the way in which some people is claiming to find "evidence" of "new physics" or that we have "another boring SM fit". This issue should be explained. I believe it is the role of us, as bloggers and scientists, be sincere with data at hands. I lost my hopes in that the un-specialized newspapers from my country explain right what T2K has done (sadly, our public information is more and more biased by non experts, a pity). Then, I dislike than some bloggers (not you) are saying that this decay points out to SUSY or new physics when, if you look with care, it is (yet) pretty consistent with the SM.
    Thanks
    PS: Did you send yourself a link to some of your blog entries in your facebook account or was it a "robot"? Let me inform you that I received a mysterious reply to one of my pics. Best, JFGH

    dorigo
    Hello,

    I think I just answered what is my stand in the next blog post... Reload and read it.
    As for the links to posts in facebook, yes, I sometimes add them to my facebook page. About the reply, I have no idea what generated it...

    Cheers,
    T.
    Great post Tommasso. Congrats!

    dorigo
    I don't know who to thank, but thanks!
    T.
    John Duffield
    Good stuff Tommaso. But I'm a bit surprised that all this nice robust plain-vanilla physics doesn't mention the way the B_s meson "flutters" during its ephemeral 1.5 x 10^-13s lifetime. Maybe I missed it, or got confused somewhere, or maybe it's in the pipeline? Sorry if I'm boring you, but I'd feel remiss not saying this: the B_s meson is comprised of a bottom antiquark and a strange quark, so it isn’t really matter or antimatter, it’s both. And it oscillates into its own antiparticle and back in about 18 picoseconds, so again it’s both. Take a look at positronium. It’s an exotic atom, neither matter nor antimatter, but both. Step back from the quarks a moment, draw a 2 x 2 table, and on properties alone, put the electron and the positron, and the antiproton and the proton into the table. Only after you’ve done this should you add the column headings “Matter” and “Antimatter”. Where’s the proton? Look again at that positronium: “it can be regarded as a sort of light hydrogen atom”. Hydrogen is both too! So antimatter isn’t missing, weight for weight, you are 99.95% made of it. Where has all the antihydrogen gone? Imagine a mixed-doubles game of tennis. No matter how evenly matched they are, one side will win in the end, and you will call the winner matter, merely by convention. 
    dorigo
    John, what do you mean, the Hydrogen is both ? Don't get carried away.

    While it's true that calling "matter" a negative electron and "antimatter" a positive one is a convention, it is also true that we find only the former around. So call it however you like,
    there is a asymmetry in the universe.

    As for hadrons: we see protons around, not antiprotons. The former are three quarks, the latter are three antiquarks. Again we could have called quarks the -2/3 ubar instead than the +2/3 u,
    but the conclusion would be the same. The mesons are made by quark-antiquark combinations, so what ? Anything that is not forbidden is compulsory... So they bind. But note, they are not around, we only produce them in collisions.

    Cheers,
    T.
    John Duffield
    I meant what I said. Hydrogen is an "exotic" atom. There's a lepton asymmetry, and a baryon asymmetry. You cannot have a universe with lepton and baryon symmetry. If you know anybody doing simulations, suggest to them that they run a cooking-pot featuring pair production and annihilation plus  "melting in a quark-gluon plasma"  A chance imbalance will be magnified and go runaway, every time.  
    Had you heard the feasibility of Bohr orbit quantization for multi-electron