BABAR Status and Upgrade Plans David B. MacFarlane for PEP-II MAC Meeting December 13, 2004

BABAR Status and Upgrade Plans

David B. MacFarlanefor PEP-II MAC Meeting

December 13, 2004

MAC - Dec 13, 2004 BABAR Status and Upgrade Plans 2

BABAR CollaborationGathering at SLAC, July 2004

11 Countries80 Institutions593 Physicists

Sep 2004


BABAR & Belle physics results

BABAR Belle

Publications 118 102

Papers submitted to ICHEP

72 70

Parallel session talks at ICHEP

22 21

A hundred flowers blossoming at ICHEP04 from both Collaborations: far too many

results to cover here!

Link to ICHEP04 talks and conference papers from BABAR

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/BFROOT/www/Public/ichep2004/

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/BFROOT/www/Public/ichep2004/


Initial goals for B Factories

Apex at

,

0 0B - B mixing

)B and ( b c

( )b u

0,1 0,0

*arg ; arg ; ubtdV V

2 2 iubud

cbcd

V Ve

V V

2 2(1 ) itbtd

cbcd

V Ve

V V

1

2

3

Exploring CKM picture or alternative origins for CP

violation


sin2 results from charmonium modes

BABAR PUB-04/038Update for ICHEP04

sin 2 0 722 0.040 0.023/ 0.950 0.031 0.013

.A A

0( ) (CP odd) modesScc K

1205 on peak or 227 pairs7730 CP events (tagged signal)fb M BB 1140 on peak or 152 pairs

4347 CP events (tagged signal)fb M BBLimit on

direct CPV

sin 2 0 728 0.056 0.023/ 1.007 0.041 0.033

.A A

BBelleelle20032003BBelleelle20032003

BBAABBARARBBAABBARAR

0

0

( ) +( )

S

L

cc Kcc K

Belle CONF-0436


Summary of constraints on

Mirror solutions

disfavored

o

From combined

, , results:

9100 10

o

indirect constraint fi t: 98 16

CKM

BABAR & BABAR & Belle Belle

combinedcombined


combinedcombined


Combined GLW and ADS constraint on

o

indirect constraint

8fi t: 58 7

CKM

o

From combined

GLW and ADS fi t:

2051 34


combinedcombined


combinedcombined


B Factories have been very successful! First precise test for CKM picture of CPV sin2 = 0.726±0.037, precision measurement

(5%) Progress on other angles

from S and Dalitz

o 2 from from (w/ D Daltiz)

And on sideso Paradigm change!

Now: looking for New Physics as

correction to CKM

(*)B D B DK

, ,cb cb dV V m


Possible New Physics addition: SUSY MSSM parameters > 100! squark/slepton mass matrix

o Sensitive to SUSY breaking mechanism. o New sources of flavor mixing

2q ijm

211m

212m

213m

221m

222m

223m

231m

232m

233m

[masses + mixing angles + phases]

iq jqiq jq

2q 23(13)(m )

Off-diagonal termsFlavor Physics atluminosity frontierDiagonal terms:LHC/ILC atenergy frontier

b and are both 3rd generation:probe both 32, 31 transitions


Potential New Physics contributions

0B

b ss

sd

d

W

g

, ,u c t

“Internal Penguin”

0SK

0B

0SK

0 0 B K

0 0 B K

0SK

0B

b

s

s

sd d

0SK

0B

b

s

s

sd d

SUSY contribution with new phases

New physics in loops?


Averages for sin2 and s-penguin modes

3.6s from s-penguin to sin2b

(cc)

No sign of Direct CP in averages


2004

PEP II Luminosity Projections

2006 1.8 x 1034

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Year

Inte

gra

ted

Lu

min

os

ity

( f

b-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Pe

ak

Lu

min

os

ity

[1

0**

33

]

Yearly Integrated Luminosity [fb-1]

Cumulative Integrated Luminosity [fb-1]

Peak Luminosity [10**33]

Yearly Integrated Luminosity [fb-1] 3 23 41 39 62.6 107.3 109.6 187.8 298.6 331.3 339.5

Cumulative Integrated Luminosity [fb-1] 3 26 67 106 168.6 275.9 385.5 573.3 871.9 1203.2 1542.7

Peak Luminosity [10**33] 1 2 4.4 5 7.5 10 13 18 21 23 23

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0.5 ab-1

Original run plan from Sep

2004

Calendar Year


0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40Ja

n-03

Jul-

03

Jan-

04

Jul-

04

Jan-

05

Jul-

05

Jan-

06

Jul-

06

Jan-

07

Jul-

07

Jan-

08

Jul-

08

Jan-

09

Jul-

09

Err

or

on

sin

e am

pli

tud

eProjections for Penguin Modes

K*

5 discovery region if non-SM physics is 0.30 effect

2004=240 fb-1

2009=1.5 ab-1

Similar projections for Belle as

well

Projections are statistical errors only; but systematic errors at few percent

level

Luminosity expectation

s:

20092004

( ) 0.30S f0KS

KS0

KS

’KS

KKKS


BABAR Detector

DIRC PID)144 quartz

bars11000 PMs

1.5T solenoid

EMC6580 CsI(Tl) crystals

Drift Chamber40 layers

Instrumented Flux Return

iron / RPCs or LSTs (muon / neutral hadrons)

Silicon Vertex Tracker

5 layers, double sided strips

e

(3.1GeV)

e (9GeV)


RPC replacement & DCH readout upgrade Replacing barrel RPCs with Limited-Streamer

Tubeso Major collaboration effort involving SLAC and other west coast

institutions, Princeton, OSU, and Italian institutionso Fast tracked: 1/3rd for installation in summer 2004, 2/3rd in

summer 2005

DCH readout modificationso Potential DAQ bottleneck (deadtime source) in 2005 &

beyond• FADC decimation implemented this summer• Hardware upgrade planned for summer 2005, which could

be implemented in 1 month down

Major hardware intervention: involves significant number of people and resources, originally planned on the basis of

summer 04 & 05 installation


IFR upgrades

o 6 layers: filled with brass

o 12 layers: LSTs replace RPCs

o 2 sectors completed in summer 2004

o 4 more in future

Barrel: in progress

Fwd Endcap: complete

o 6 layers: filled with brass

o 12 layers: RPCs replaced

o New outer RPC, corner coverage


Barrel RPC average efficiency

Overall efficiency trend for barrel has stabilized since 2002 shutdown

But looking in more detail…reduced negative trend is still there

With the current slope, average barrel RPC efficiency could drop to ~20% by summer 2006

Concurrently, the fraction of dead modules is steadily increasing

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Dead module fraction


Muon identification efficiency

— 2000 NN — 2003 NN— 2001 NN — 2004 NN— 2002 NN 2000 cut-based

Improvements in the muon selectors have significantly alleviated the

effect of decreasing RPC efficiency

~90% ~70%


QC & selection of LST modules

CEH assembly area


LST bottom sextant installation

Backward side

Before: Aug 15

After: Sep 4


LST top sextant installation

Brass

z-strips

LST Modules

Installation:Sep 16-29


Cosmic ray muon in new BABAR IFRRecorded Sept 30, 2004


DCH electronics upgrade Motivation:

o Reduce deadtime due to serialization and shipping of data from DIOM to ROM

Upgrade in two steps:o Phase 1 (2004):

Ship only half the waveform information (3216 bytes) firmware change

o Phase 2 (2005): Modify FPGA to do feature extraction before transmission hardware change


DCH electronics upgrade Phase I successful:

o Firmware modifications (new PROMS) tested on Proto-II

o All FEAs taken off the chamber, modified and mounted again

o Cosmics taken at IR2 (EMC trig, no B-field) and put through OPR

o FastMon plots show no problems

Plans for Phase II:o Design review Dec 7o Install one FEA-2 board after

X-mas shutdowno Full system ready for

installation summer 2005


Future shutdown requirements

Installation taskso Open barrel to allow LST installation in remaining 4

sextants (4 months)o Remove and modify DCH front-end assemblies (few weeks

in parallel)o Remove support tube, install new diamond sensors for SVT

radiation monitoring, but not SVT modules (3 months, mostly in parallel)

In process of optimizing timing of shutdown, with constraint of maintaining competitiveness

Have concluded that replacement of horizontal modules in SVT is not

warranted

Long-standing BABAR goal: 500 fb-1 of 4S data by summer 2006 = double present data

sample


SVT L1-Signal/Noise vs dose

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 5 10 15 20 25Dose (Mrad)

No

ise

(ele

ctro

ns)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Sig

nal

/No

iseDetector Leakage

Electronics noiseTotal NoiselS/N

5Mrad limit: Soft S/N deterioration

S/N = 10 at 5 Mrads, S/N = 6 at 10 Mrads

Radiation damage limits of SVT


o Resolutionis degraded

o Roughly6µm/10%

o Double at 20% occupancy

20%

20%

HOT RMS Residuals

Occupancy affects performance both in terms of resolution and efficiency

20% occupancy limit is our working hypothesis

Hit efficiency

Hit efficiency vs. occupancy studied using data collectedduring vacuum leak

SVT occupancy limits


Non-midplane modules: not a problem

Midplane modules: starts to be a problem in 2006

Petersen

4 Mrad

Radiation dose extrapolations

5 Mrad


Studies on the impact of physics results have been performed for a number of scenarios where we lose the functionality of a different number of chips in the mid-plane

35.3%

34.5%

B J/s

Example from most sensitive modes: soft from B D*

56%51%

Set E = 2 midplanechips off inL1& 2 (32 ICs)

Scenarios with mid-plane L1-2modules off:(UNREALISTIC)

Mazur

Impact of middle plane loss


Use fitted background parametrization from present experience to extrapolate to future running conditions

PetersenYEAR 2004

YEAR 2007 For many chips, occupancy

could be the real limiting

factor independent of radiation damage

Extrapolated occupancy


Shutdown length for LSTs and support tube Open detector, clear slots, install LSTs, close

detectoro 11 rigging shifts/week; 6x10 hour LST installation shifts/weeko 3.5 days for brass, 8 days for z-strips + modules, both per

sextanto Total of about 4 months calendar time

Remove and install support tube (not yet integrated)o About 3 weeks in each direction based on previous

experienceo Assume 1+1 week in calendar time can be saved by work in

parallelo Open SVT to allow access to Be bellows, but not module

replacement

Total of 5 months for both tasks


Readiness for LST installation

Modules and brasso LST modules will be

complete in early Januaryo Brass will be on site by

March

Toolingo Requires design load

transfer tooling for EMCo Requires design, testing &

approval of installation platforms

Lateral support arms

EMC installation fixtures

Expect all preparations

complete by July, 2005


Run options under consideration

“Early 2006 shutdown” o Ensure Run 5 is long enough to allow PEP-II to

demonstrate 1.3x1034, accumulate data for Winter 06 before LST shutdown

o Run 5 extends until Dec 2005; shutdown from Jan-May 2006; Run 6 starts Jun 2006

o Advantage: Earliest LST insertion, smaller pressure on FY06 budget, long 06 run

o Disadvantage: Only 400 fb-1 4S data for summer 06, PEP-II runs over summer 06-07 run



“Late 2006 shutdown”o Run 5 extends over 19 months from Jan 05 to Aug 06, with

Dec 05 off for PPS, rf installation; LST shutdown from Sep 06 to Jan 07

o Advantage: Over 530 fb-1 4S data for summer 06o Disadvantage: Very late LST installation, pressure on FY05

and FY06 budgets; PEP-II running in summers of 05, 06, long-term loss of ~60-75 fb-1, short 06 run



“Mid 2006 shutdown”o Run 5 extends until we hit 500 fb-1 goal in April 06;

shutdown from May-Sep 06 (extended summer down); Run 6 starts in Oct 06

o Advantage: ~500 fb-1 4S data for summer 06, PEP-II does not run over summer months, smaller pressure on FY06 budget, summer installation and manpower, more time for PEP-II upgrade components

o Disadvantage: Later LST installation

1. Have not reconciled luminosity predictions with PEP-II; nor have we factored in the detailed PEP-II upgrade schedule

2. Shutdown start dates are flexible and illustrative

Caveats


Delivered Luminosity Comparison

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Oct

-04

Fe

b-0

5

Jun

-05

Oct

-05

Fe

b-0

6

Jun

-06

Oct

-06

Fe

b-0

7

Jun

-07

Oct

-07

Fe

b-0

8

Jun

-08

Belle

Early 06

Late 06

Mid 06

Options for 5 month down period

o Early 06 shutdown = 5 months, Jan-May

o Mid 06 shutdown = 5 months, May-Sep

o Late 06 shutdown = 5 months, Sep-Jan


4S Sample Comparison

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Oct

-04

De

c-0

4

Fe

b-0

5

Ap

r-0

5

Jun

-05

Au

g-0

5

Oct

-05

De

c-0

5

Fe

b-0

6

Ap

r-0

6

Jun

-06

Au

g-0

6

Belle

Early 06

Late 06

Mid 06

Closeup with summer 2006 outlook

o Early 06 shutdown = 5 months, Jan-May

o Mid 06 shutdown = 5 months, May-Sep

o Late 06 shutdown = 5 months, Sep-Jan


Penguin Sum Comparison

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12O

ct-0

4

Ap

r-0

5

Oct

-05

Ap

r-0

6

Oct

-06

Ap

r-0

7

Oct

-07

Ap

r-0

8

Penguin performance comparison

Penguin

modesCharmoni

um modes

BABAR late 06BABAR mid 06

Belle estimate


Impact on muon physics performance

Run 1-4 Run 1-6: 19

month run

Run 1-6: 2005 shutdo

wn

Luminosity 208 530 460

Assume constant RPC efficiency

K+ 18 49 44

K*0 18 51 45

Assume declining RPC efficiency

K+ 18 44 43

K*0 18 46 45

RPC efficiency: 69% (potentially declining to 20%)LST efficiency: 92%


Conclusion

Mid-2006 shutdown looks like best option

Corollary: Run 5 should extend continuously through at least Dec

2005o Allows SLAC, BABAR, PEP-II, DOE and other funding agencies to

plan for calendar 2005 on this basiso Decisions on 2006 run optimization needs further discussion &

studyo May well depend on factors that will not be clear for some time

yet, including budget requirements, LCLS, and success of Run 5

o Advantage: ~500 fb-1 4S data for summer 06, PEP-II does not run over summer months, smaller pressure on FY06 budget, summer installation and manpower, more time for PEP-II upgrade components

o Disadvantage: Later LST installation

Documents

BABAR Status and Upgrade Plans David B. MacFarlane for PEP-II MAC Meeting December 13, 2004