The The TevatronTevatron Physics ProgramPhysics Program““YearYear”” in Reviewin Review

Robert RoserFermilab

My lifeMy life……..

• What I watched over the holidays….– Many College Bowl Games– ESPN Year in Review Show– Autoracing – crashes and spills 2007– Baseball Highlights 2007– …..

Jim Jim ValvanoValvano

• Where you have come from• Where you are • Where you are going…

Recipient of Arthur Ashe Courage Award

Where we came fromWhere we came from……≈≈ 1 year ago1 year ago…… 1 fb-1

CDF

510“Hot Topics”, ICHEP ‘06

D. Glenzinski

TevatronTevatron Run 2: 2001 Run 2: 2001 –– 2009 (2010)2009 (2010)• Proton – Antiproton Collider

with CM energy of 1.96 TeV• 36x36 bunches• Collision rate ~ 2MHz• Two multi-purpose and

complimentary detectors: CDF and D0

• Integrated Luminosity– Delivered 3.3 fb-1

– Recorded 2.8 fb-1– Goal is 5.5 – 6.5 fb-1

delivered in 2009

• 2010 Running under discussion (7 – 8 fb-1 delivered)

Main Injector

Tevatron

D0CDF

Chicago↓

⎯p source

Booster

Wrigley Field

Doing Physics at 2 Doing Physics at 2 TeVTeV

• Need 1010 collisions to produce 1 event with Top quarks

• With 1 fb-1, 10k ttbarevents produced; ~500 for physics (in lepton+jets channel)

• Understanding and reducing backgrounds is the key to success

• We continue to learn and innovate; developing new tools and techniques as needed

Projected Integrated Luminosity in Run II (fb-1) vs time

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

10/1/

2003

4/18/2

004

11/4/

2004

5/23/2

005

12/9/

2005

6/27/2

006

1/13/2

007

8/1/20

07

2/17/2

008

9/4/20

08

3/23/2

009

10/9/

2009

4/27/2

010

11/13

/2010

time since FY04

Inte

grat

ed L

umin

osity

(fb-1

)

extrapolatedfrom FY09

Luminosity projection curves for 2008Luminosity projection curves for 2008--20102010

FY08 start

Real data up to FY07 (included)

8.6 fb-1

7.2 fb-1

Highest Int. Lum

Lowest Int. Lum

FY10 start

FY09 and FY10 integrated luminosities assumed to be identical

Run II Luminosity Run II Luminosity –– Where can we go?Where can we go?

Run II Luminosity Run II Luminosity –– How we got hereHow we got here……• Continuous Progress• Typical (Peak) Initial Inst Lum

2.2 x 1032 cm-2s-1 (2.9 x 1032 cm-2s-1)• Integrated lum/week (month)

43 pb-1 (165 pb-1)• Stacking rate

24.7 mA/hr

Peak Lum

Integrated Lum

Integrated Lum by Fiscal Year

Some Run 2 Physics HighlightsSome Run 2 Physics Highlights

Observation of Bs-mixingΔms = 17.77 +- 0.10 (stat) +- 0.07(sys)

Observation of new baryon states• Σb and Ξb

WZ discovery (6-sigma)• Measured cross section 5.0 (1.7) pb

ZZ evidence• 3-sigma

Single top evidence(3-sigma)) with 1.5 fb-1

• cross section = 2.9• |Vtb|= 1.02 ± 0.18 (exp.) ± 0.07 (th.)‏

Precision W mass measurement• Mw_cdf = 80.413 GeV (48 MeV)

Precision Top mass measurement• Mtop_cdf = 172.7 (2.1) GeV

W-width measurement• 2.032 (.071) GeV

Observation of new charmless B==>hh statesObservation of Do-Dobar mixingConstant improvement in Higgs Sensitivity

Most are world’s best results

Up to ~2 fb-1 analyzedthus far

≈143 CDF Run II publications

thus far

2007 2007 TevatronTevatron Wine and Cheese TalksWine and Cheese Talks

1. January 5: W mass measurement2. February 2: h==>tau,tau search

3. February 9: B_s Mixing Results4. March 6: Searches for New Phenomena5. March 23: Heavy long-lived particle searches

6. March 30: Small x and Diffractive Physics7. April 20: W-width Measurement8. June 8: ZH associated production search

9. June 15: Ξb Observation10. June 22nd: Global analysis of High-Pt data11. July 13: Lambda_b lifetime

12. Aug 10: New results for Lepton-Photon13. Sept 14: SM Higgs Search14. Sept 28: h==>bbb and h==>tau,tau search

15. October 19: Looking for new physics in the b-quark system16. Nov 9: Measurement of W Helicity in Top Events17. Dec 7: Higgs Combination18. Dec 14. Measurement of sin(2beta)

CDF + D0

The CDF CollaborationThe CDF Collaboration

North America♦ 34 institutions

Europe♦ 21 institutions

Asia♦ 8 institutions

The CDF Collaboration♦ 15 Countries♦ 63 institutions♦ 635 authors

The CDF Experiment

Collecting data - happily…

• Sources of inefficiency include:– Trigger dead time and readout ~ 5%

• Intentional - to maximize physics to tape

– Start and end of stores ~5%– Problems (detector, DAQ) ~5%

~<85>% efficient since 2003

1.7 MHz of crossingsCDF 3-tiered trigger:

L1 accepts ~25 kHzL2 accepts ~800 HzL3 accepts ~150 Hz

(event size is ~250 kb)Accept rate ~1:12,000Reject 99.991% of the eventsCDF and D0 Detectors

fine through 2010 ☺

From the start of Run II to First PhysicsFrom the start of Run II to First Physics

• A Time Line– 1999

• Detector incomplete, assembly still on-going• Cosmic Ray Runs and Calibration Runs for installed

components– Sept/Oct 2000 – Commissioning Run with Beam

• Silicon “barrel 4” installed, but not actual silicon– Allowed commissioning of silicon DAQ and established

readout “noise” did not cause problems elsewhere• Many systems installed but only partially connected

– Nov 2000 thru March 2001• Complete Detector Installation• Continue integration work• Daily cosmic runs

– March 2001 – February 2002• Commissioning for “physics quality” data

From the start of Run II to First PhysicsFrom the start of Run II to First Physics

• A few key issues for physics readiness– How do we identify that the beam is stable and the detectors

can be turned on?– Is the detector timed-in properly?

• Is all the charge collected and read-out?– Is the detector properly calibrated?

• Are trigger thresholds where they’re supposed to be?• Is pedestal subtraction working properly?• Do we understand the energy and momentum scales

– Is the detector fully efficient?– Is the detector configuration stable?

• Doing physics with an evolving detector configuration is very painful (though not impossible)

From the start of Run II to First PhysicsFrom the start of Run II to First Physics

• Additional Issues for physics readiness– Calorimeter

• Jet Energy Scale– Tracking

• T0’s, Alignment, Drift Model, efficiencies– Photon Conversions to

understand radialmaterial distribution

August 2001

1pb-1Plots like this require beam!

Unanticipated Problems at CDFUnanticipated Problems at CDF

• Early TeV beam had high losses– Si frequently off for protection– Muon chamber currents very high

• Installed shielding• Power supply failures with beam

– Transistor deaths due to “single event burnout”• Reduced bias/more resistant transistors/shielding

• TDC production problems (bad vias)– Slowly replaced boards (access required)

• Silicon jumper failures– Jumpers rout signals from phi side to z side– Failures due to resonant oscillation from Lorentz forces during

abnormal trigger conditions.– Reduced current through jumper– Lost some z-side sensors

• Beam Incidents– Abort kicker pre-fire– Loss of TeV rf

Similar lists can also be made for offline and physics

Lessons Learned in Detector OpsLessons Learned in Detector Ops

• Downtime accounting is a powerful tool for increasing data taking efficiency

• A good and flexible simulation is worth the effort up front– There will be a lot of work to do when the data arrives

• Don’t believe your simulation until it has been tuned on the data.

• Establish standard data quality monitoring early and produce good run lists in ~real time– Establishing physics readiness would have gone quicker had

we done better at establishing good and bad runs.

• Quick access to key datasets (Z, J/ψ,...) is essential for commissioning

Despite All the Struggles Despite All the Struggles –– Victory!!!Victory!!!

• First Physics Result for Run II Presented at ICHEP, 2002• 1.5 years AFTER first collisions

μν

eν

5547 candidates in 10 pb-1

8% Background:4561 candidates in 16 pb-1

12.5% background:

W cross section:σBR (nb) = 2.63 ± 0.11 ± 0.26 lum

Two Kinds of Physics ResultsTwo Kinds of Physics Results

• Precision Measurements• Searches

• Both test the validity of the Standard Model in their own way – See something unexpected– Precision measurement disagree’s with SM prediction – an

indication that something funny is going on…

• In the remainder of the talk, I will walk you through a small part of our overall physics program

Why Measure Cross Sections?Why Measure Cross Sections?

• They test QCD calculations• They help us to find out content of proton: Gluons, light

quarks, c- and b-quarks• A cross section that disagrees with theoretical prediction

could be first sign of new physics: E.g. quark substructure (highest jet ET)

• They force us to understand the detector

• No one believes anything without us showing we can measure cross sections

DiDi--Jet Production Cross SectionJet Production Cross Section

• Excellent agreement with NLO QCD calculation over 8 orders of magnitude!

• Experimental uncertainties comparable to that of PDF uncertainties

• Tests for heavy quark resonances, compositeness, ….

Highest Mass Dijet Event: M=1.4 Highest Mass Dijet Event: M=1.4 TeVTeV

70% of the total energy went into 2 quarks!!!

W and Z BosonsW and Z Bosons

• Focus on leptonic decays:– Hadronic decays

impossible due to enormous QCD dijetbackground

• Excellent calibration signal for many purposes:– Electron energy scale– Track momentum scale– Lepton ID and trigger

efficiencies– Missing ET resolution– Luminosity …

W Z

WW’’s and Zs and Z’’ss

• Z mass reconstruction– Invariant mass of two leptons

– Sets electron energy scale by comparison to LEP measured value

• W mass reconstruction– Do not know neutrino pZ

– No full mass reconstruction possible

– Transverse mass:

) (GeV)νμ(Tm60 70 80 90 100

even

ts /

0.5

GeV

0

500

1000

) MeVstat 54± = (80349 WM

/dof = 59 / 482χ

-1 200 pb≈ L dt ∫CDF II preliminary

W and Z Cross Section ResultsW and Z Cross Section Results

σTh,NNLO=2687±53pb σTh,NNLO=251.3±5.0pbW Z• Experimental And theoretical errors:

– ~2%• Luminosity

uncertainty:

– ~6%

• Can use these processes to normalize luminosity absolutely– Is theory reliable

enough?

Digging as we go Digging as we go ……

Observation of WZ (update)Observation of WZ (update)

Strategy• Search for events

with 3 leptons and missing energy

• Small XS but very clean signal

• Anomalous XS sensitive to non SM contributions

(NLO XS = 3.7 ± 0.3 pb)

WZ WZ –– A diversionA diversion

• With 800 pb-1 of data

CDF D0

Observed 2 12

Background 0.9 ± 0.2 3.6 ± 0.2

Expected 3.7 ± 0.7 7.5 ± 1.2

+ more triggers+ better selection+ optimize cuts

Before After

2 MET bins:Prob(background only) < 2 × 10-9 (5.9 σ)

Evidence for ZZ ProductionEvidence for ZZ Production

Strategy• Search for events

with either 4 leptons or 2 leptons and significant MET

Calculate a P(WW) or P(ZZ) based on event kinematics and LO cross section

Construct a likelihood ratio

Fit to extract the llνν signal

3σ ZZ Signal Significance

σZZ = 0.75 +0.71– 0.54 pb

ZZ decaying into 4 leptons

ZZ decaying into 2 leptons+MET

Log(1 – LR) used in fit

B baryon ObservationsB baryon Observations

Ξb

bc

Σb

Tevatron is excellent at producing species of particles

containing b,c quarks(Bu, Bd, Bs, Bc, Σb, Ξb,Λb)

BBss Mixing and Mixing and ΔΔmmss

B s Bs

Δms ~ Vts

hep-ex/0609040

Discovery of BDiscovery of Bss OscillationOscillation

Δms = 17.77 ± 0.10 ± 0.07 ps-1|Vtd / Vts| = 0.2060 ± 0.0007 (expt.) ± 0.0081 (theo.)

March 2006 July 2006

- Signal yields- Partially reconstructed decay modes- Added trigger path in lepton+Ds- NN for hadronic selection- Particle id in selection

Improvements:- Flavor tagging

- opposite side kaon tagging- NN to opposite, same side tagging

Charm MixingCharm Mixing

)()(

0

0

+−

−+

→→

=ππ

KDBRKDBRR

Mixing box diagram Mixing long distance diagram

Measure the time-dependent ratio

Fit for the mixing parameters

Charm mixing is small compared to kaon and b mixing

• mixing values larger than SM prediction indicates new physics

Charm MixingCharm Mixing

• Right-Sign: Cabibbo Favored decay• Wrong-Sign: Doubly Cabibbo

Suppressed decay or mixing

No mixing prob. = 0.15% (3.8σ)3.2 σ

Right signWrong sign

Ra

tio

of

Rig

ht

to w

ron

g s

ign

Proper Decay Time

Charge of pion in D* decay determines D0 or D0bar

W Mass MeasurementW Mass Measurement

) (GeV)νμ(Tm60 70 80 90 100

even

ts /

0.5

GeV

0

500

1000

) MeVstat 54± = (80349 WM

/dof = 59 / 482χ

-1 200 pb≈ L dt ∫CDF II preliminary

• The Challenge– Do not know neutrino Pz

– No full mass reconstruction possible

– Extract from a template fit to Pt, Mt, and Missing Et

– Transverse mass:

Worlds most precise single measurement

Uncertainty on world average reduced from 29 to 25 MeV

2 fb-1 analysis in progress

W Width MeasurementW Width Measurement

• Model transverse mass distribution over range 50-200 GeV

• Normalize 50-90 GeV and fit for the width in the high Mt region 90-200 GeV

• The tail region is sensitive to the width of the Breit Wigner line-shape

Why Is the Top Quark Interesting?Why Is the Top Quark Interesting?

• Heaviest known fundamental particle

– Today: • Mtop=170.9+-1.8 GeV

– Before Run 2: • Mtop=178+-4.3 GeV/c2

• Is this large mass telling us something about electroweak symmetry breaking?

• Relationship between mt mW and mH

15%

85%

Production

decay

The Top Physics ProgramThe Top Physics Program

• We want to learn as much as we can about this ephemeral quark– Top quark mass– TT production– Single top production– Top Properties

• Charge, Width, lifetime, helicity, spin, asymmetries, …

– New Physics• FCNC, t’, resonance

production (Mtt)

The Top Cross SectionThe Top Cross Section

• Measured using many different techniques

• Good agreement– between all measurements– Between data and theory

• Data precision starting to challenge theory precision

Top MassTop Mass

• 1.7 fb-1 dataset

• 293 candidate l+4j events

• 10- variable NN to separate signal from background

• Signal likelihood from Matrix Element as a function of Mt and JES

• Utilizing advanced techniques such as matrix elements and neuralnetworks to make “maximal” use of the information in each event.

mt = 172.7 ± 1.3 (stat.) ± 1.2 (JES) ± 1.2 (syst)mt = 172.7 ± 2.1 GeV/c2

Summary of Top MassSummary of Top Mass

New result

Measuring the Properties of the Top QuarkMeasuring the Properties of the Top Quark

Charge AsymmetryW Helicity

T’ search

Top Charge

FCNC XS Event Kinematics

M_ttbarM_ttbar

• Search for X → tt – Γx = 0.012Mx

– Model independent

955 pb-1 sample

347 candidate events

73 ± 9 bckg events

Searching Broadly for New PhysicsSearching Broadly for New PhysicsVista is a model-independent framework which considers gross features of

data to obtain a panoramic view of the bulk of the high-Pt data.

Sleuth is a quasi model-independent framework for new physics searches emphasizing the tails of sum-Pt distributions.

Key is to identify different “objects” in each event (e,μ,ν,τ,γ, jet, b-jet) and make all combinations

Build SM background composition using MC and data

Identify and quantify any excess taking into account trials factorsInvestigate further any anomalies that might be seen

Vista – 3j events, ΔR(j2,j3) Sleuth – b,bbar

Searching for Higgs Beyond the S.M.Searching for Higgs Beyond the S.M.

• Help

Recall…Search for inclusive production A →ττ

No Significant Excess of events above SM bckg is observed

1.8 fb-1

Where is it Hiding?Where is it Hiding?

MH < 182 GeV Preferred MH – 76+33

-24 GeVMw Mw vsvs MtopMtop

s-channelσNLO = 0.88±0.07 pb

Single Top Quark ProductionSingle Top Quark Production

Single top swamped by large backgrounds and hidden behind background uncertainty!→Makes counting experiment impossible!→Need to use more event information→Similar challenge as for Higgs searches (WH)

t-channel

σNLO = 1.98±0.21 pb

Mt=175 GeV/c2

σNLO = 6.7 ± 1.0 pb

Mt=175 GeV/c2

Top-pair production has much better s/b and very distinct final state signature!→ Counting experiment after b-quark tagging ‘fairly easy’

Single Top HistorySingle Top History

First Tevatron Run II result using 162 pb-1

σsingle top < 17.5 pb at 95 % C.L.

2004: Simple analysis while refining Monte Carlo samples and analysis tools 2 Years 2006: Established sophisticated analyses

Check robustness in data control samples

2007: Evidence for single top quark production using 1.5 fb-1

•Development of powerful analysis techniques (Matrix Element, NN, Likelihood Discriminant)•NN Jet-Flavor Separatorto purify sample

•Refined background estimates and modeling

•Increase acceptance (forward electrons)

•10x more data

Phys. Rev. D71 012005

Observed p-value = 0.09% / 3.1σExpected p-value = 0.13%

/ 3.0σ

Single Top ResultsSingle Top Results

σs+t= 3.0 ± 1.2 pbσs= 1.1, σt =1.9 pbσs+t= 3.0 ± 1.2 pbσs= 1.1, σt =1.9 pb

Expected sensitivity: 2.9σObserved significance: 2.7σ

ExpectedSensitivity

3.0σ

σs+t= 2.7 ± 1.2 pbσs= 1.1, σt =1.3 pbσs+t= 2.7 ± 1.2 pbσs= 1.1, σt =1.3 pb

|Vtb|= 1.02 ± 0.18 (expt) ± 0.07 (theory*)

|Vtb|= 1.02 ± 0.18 (expt) ± 0.07 (theory*)

*Z. Sullivan, PRD 70 114012 (2004)

Likelihood Method

Matrix Element Method

3.1 σEvidence

S.M. Higgs Production at the S.M. Higgs Production at the TevatronTevatron

Gluon Fusion– Dominates in Hadron Machines– Large backgrounds makes life

difficult at low higgs mass– Higgs Decay Channel determines

usefulness

Ht

tt

gluon

gluon

q

q’W-

H

W-

Associated Production– Produced much less frequently– Easier to search for in hadron

colliders – we can trigger on events with high pt leptons and MET

WeWe’’ve Come a long wayve Come a long way……..

• Summer of 2006 (300 – 1000 pb data samples)F

ac

tor

aw

ay

in s

en

siti

vity

fr

om

SM

@ 115 ~10x SM@ 160 ~4x SM

CDFCDF’’ss Latest CombinationLatest Combination

)2Higgs Mass (GeV/c120 140 160 180 200

95%

CL

Lim

it/SM

1

10

210

WHlvbb 1.9/fbExpected WHlvbb

ZHvvbb 1.7/fbExpected ZHvvbbZHllbb 1/fbExpected ZHllbbHWWllvv 1.9/fbExpected HWWllvvCDF for 1-1.9/fb

σ 1±Expected CDF

CDF II PreliminaryF

ac

tor

aw

ay

in s

en

siti

vity

fr

om

SM

Latest CombinationLatest Combination

Getting closer to the SM predictions…

What a Difference Each Year MakesWhat a Difference Each Year Makes

160 GeV

115 GeV

Significant progressfrom 2005 to 2007

-At 115 = x1.8 in sensitivity-At 160 = x2.0 in sensitivity

----- 2005 projections- large uncertainty -2007 projections

- grounded in data -

95%

CL

95%

CL

Sensitivity improvementsMinimum = x1.5Further = x2.25

- both achievable -

Same improvements assumed for CDF & D0

Analyzed Lum

Higgs reach Higgs reach -- achievable achievable --

With 7 fb-1

• exclude all masses !!![except real mass]

• 3-sigma sensitivity 150:170LHC’s “sweet spot”

7.0 -- 2010

With 5.5 fb-1 tougher:• Exclude 140:180 range

• 3-sigma in one point: 160

5.5 - 2009

Analyzed Lum.

We think this is compelling

X2.25 improvementCDF+D0 combined

Physics Motivation

Factors in running in 2010 (and beyond?)

Collab/people

Labsupport

P5/funding

LHCschedule

Coach of the YearCoach of the Year

Roger

Most Valuable PlayersMost Valuable Players

Brian, Salah and Cons!!!

All Star TeamAll Star Team

• Tevatron – Ron Moore• Linac and Booster – Eric Prebys• Main Injector Ionais Kourbanis• Recycler – Paul Derwent• Pbar -- Keith Gollwitzer• And…

Hall of FameHall of Fame

Jim Morgan Dave McGinnis

• Run II is making excellent progress• The accelerator and detectors are working well, and the

collaboration is engaged• The physics is coming out – 47 papers submitted this year• We don’t know what the future will hold

– We expect 5.5 fb-1 data sets by the end of 2009– 7.0 fb-1 data sets by the end of 2010 (if allowed)

• What we do know is the present is very exciting; each day we are exploring un-charted waters

• We will continue to have a lot to say about the world we live in before we turn over the “energy frontier” to CERN

• We will be able to find evidence or exclude the SM Higgs in important mass regions

ConclusionsConclusions

Something new could emerge at any time!!!

We will be ready if it does!

BACKUP SlidesBACKUP Slides

History of the Top MassHistory of the Top Mass

0

50

100

150

200

250

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Year

From the EW Fitspp colliders limite+e- colliders limitCDF Run1D0 Run1Run1 World AverageD0 Run2 average resultCDF Run2 average result

Top ForwardTop Forward--Backward Backward Asymmetry (Asymmetry (AAfbfb))

Tevatron direct observation, Harder at LHC since ggfusion is charge symmetric

LO: Afb = 0%NLO: Afb = 4-6%

(J.Kuhn et al.)

LO: Afb = - (9-10)%NLO: Afb = - (0-2)% (P. Uwer et al., hep-ph/070312)

qq → tt qq → tt g

θ

Forward

Backward

Afb= 28 ± 13(stat) ± 5(syst) %(Fully corrected)

Afb= 28 ± 13(stat) ± 5(syst) %(Fully corrected)

Δy ≡ yt − yt = (yt lep− yt had

) ⋅ Ql

New!

Single Top ResultsSingle Top Results

ExpectedSensitivity

3.0σ

2.9σ

2.6σ

2.1σ

1.9σ

2.2σ

ObservedSensitivity

3.1σ

2.7σ

3.4σ

3.2σ

2.7σ

Combined:2.3σ3.6σ

Ex. of improvements not yet on Higgs analysesEx. of improvements not yet on Higgs analyses

Forward trackingM

ista

g ra

te

Tagging Efficiency

Standard secondary vertex

b-tagging

Improved b-tagging Forward b-tagging

BMU muonsImproved Jet E res

On any given roll of the diceOn any given roll of the dice

“further” @ 115 GeV

7 fb-1 => 70% experiments w/2σ30% experiments w/3σ

“further” @ 160 GeV

7 fb-1 => 95% experiments w/2σ75% experiments w/ 3σ

Solid lines = 2.25 improvementDash lines = 1.50 improvement

Analyzed Lum. Analyzed Lum.

Silicon status & lifetimeSilicon status & lifetimeSilicon Aging Like Fine (Italian, French, Spanish, Californian, Silicon Aging Like Fine (Italian, French, Spanish, Californian, Canadian, Japanese, Canadian, Japanese,

Korean, Taiwanese, Swiss, British, Finish, Russian, German) WineKorean, Taiwanese, Swiss, British, Finish, Russian, German) Wine

Silicon should operate well for the duration of Run 2

COT enjoying a breath of fresh air…

Central Outer Tracker

COT Gain vs. Time

Jan.2002 Aug.2005

Inner layer

Outer layer

Leak in part of the Silicon cooling systemLeak in part of the Silicon cooling system

good badhole

Port card cooling ring Manifold

Manifold

Cooling Pipes