V.Patera CERN seminar 28 March 2006 1 [nb] s [MeV] Recent results of KLOE at DA NE V.Patera Rome I University & Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati

1V.Patera CERN seminar 28 March 2006

[nb]

s [MeV]

Recent results of KLOE Recent results of KLOE at DAat DANENE

V.Patera Rome I University &

Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati (INFN)

V.Patera CERN seminar 28 March 2006

DaphneDaphne DANE(Greek , English laurel, Italian

alloro)daughter of the river god Peneios and

Gaea (goddess of the earth) flew the

courting of Apoll and was metamorphosed into

laurel by her mother; later on the name of

this plant was attributed to Apoll not to be confused with DaphnisDaphnis

– son of Hermes (Mercurius) and a Sicilian nymph

ChloeChloe KLOE – the greening, is a surname of

Demeter (Ceres) Daphnis and ChloeDaphnis and Chloe

– couple of lovers in the hononymous novel

of Logos (~300 a.C.)– made famous by Ravel symphonic

poem

DADANE & KLOE : the NE & KLOE : the originorigin


OutlineOutline

Physics @ peak DANE, the frascati

factory The KLOE detector KLOE recent results:

Kaon physics (mostly)Non Kaon physics

Future of KLOE & DANE Summary and conclusions

Recent results → 2005-2006


Physics at a Physics at a -factory (I)-factory (I)Not only KAON physics

Vus , Medium-Rare KS,L decays, CPT

with Ks , KL charge asymmetries,

Quantum Interferometry, But

also: hadronic cross section ,

radiative decays. “Natural”

luminosity unit: fb-1

A factory is a collider e+e-

running at s = M= 1.02 GeV

(1020)

a0(980)

f0(980)

'

KK

0-

0- 1-

1-

0+

0+

BR 83%

BR

15%

BR 1.3%

decay Produced ev/fb-1

K+K- 1.5x109

KLKS 1.0x109

5x107

’ 2x105


KSKL and K+K- pairs are produced in a pure quantum state (JPC=1--) :

decay ~at rest. Detection of a KS (KL) guarantees the presence of a KL(KS) with known momentum and direction (the same for K+K)

Extensively study all the possible decay channels with a multipurpose detector

Physics at the Physics at the -factory (II)-factory (II)

Kaon physicsKaon physics

pppp ,,,,2

1SLSL KKKKi

# precision measurement of absolute BR’sprecision measurement of absolute BR’s#interference measurements in Kinterference measurements in KSS K KLL systemsystem

#unique feature is the production of pure unique feature is the production of pure and and quasi monochromatic Kquasi monochromatic KSS, K, KLL, K, K++ and K and K-- beamsbeams

BR( K +K ) = 49.2%

BR(K0K0) = 33.8%


Physics at the Physics at the -factory (III)-factory (III)

Radiative decays ( ) M to probe the quark structure of the meson M

Hadronic cross-section measurement using the Initial State Radiation to vary the energy: e+ e

ss

a0

f0

qqqq vs qq

s’

ISR

’ mixing angle

Non-kaon physics Non-kaon physics

For the theoretical estimate of the hadronic contribution (aa

hadrhadr) to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon (a) down to the down to the threshold energy for threshold energy for production production


OutlineOutline






DADANE: the Frascati NE: the Frascati -factory-factory

• ee collider @ s = M= 1019.4 MeV

• 2 interaction regions (KLOE – DEAR/FINUDA)• Separate e, e rings to minimize beam-

beam interactions

• Crossing angle: 12.5 mrad ( px12.5

MeV )


DADANE: the Frascati NE: the Frascati -factory-factory

• 105+105 bunches

• 2.7 ns bunch

spacing

• I-peak ~ 2.4 A

• I+peak ~ 1.5 A

• Injection during

data taking


DANE 24h Performance (Dec. 05)

1.2e-32

8 pb-1

e-

e+ 1 A

2 A


s monitored to within 70 keV

Some variations in 2004

Stable (1019.3-1019.6) in 2005

DADANE: energy stabilityNE: energy stability

2004

2005

s (

MeV

)s

(M

eV

) Run number

Run number

IP position, spot

size and s

monitored on line

by bhabha and KK

events


KLOE@DAKLOE@DANE: the data NE: the data samplesample

Data taking finished

march 2006

• Lpeak= 1.3 × 1032

cms

• Integrated L 2.5 fb-1

• 200 pb-1 off-peak

2001 170 pb-1

2002 280 pb-1

Analysis nearly

complete

2004 734 pb-1

2005 1256 pb-

1

analysis

ongoing


OutlineOutline






Be beam pipe (spherical, 10 cm , 0.5 mm thick) + instrumented permanent magnet quadrupoles (32 PMT’s)

Drift chamber (4 m 3.75 m, CF frame) Gas mixture: 90% He + 10% C4H10

12582 stereo–stereo sense wires almost squared cells

Electromagnetic calorimeter lead/scintillating fibers (1 mm ), 15 X0

4880 PMT’s 98% solid angle coverage

Superconducting coil (B = 0.52 T)

The KLOE design was driven by the measurement of direct CP through the double

ratio:

R = (KL +) (KS 00) / (KS +)(KL00)

KLOE experiment


The KLOE Calorimeter:The KLOE Calorimeter:

9

σ(E)/E = 5.7%/E(GeV)

σ(t) = 54 ps/E(GeV) 50 ps

ε 95% for 20 MeV photons

vtx() ~ 1.5 cm (from KL

)

Lead

• Pb-scintillating fibers matrix: <ρ> ~ 5 g/cm3, <X0>~ 1.6 cm• 4880 PMTs• 98% hermetic coverage


The KLOE Drift Chamber:The KLOE Drift Chamber:

p/p = 0.4 % (tracks with > 45°)

xhit = 150 m (xy), 2 mm (z)

xvertex ~ 1 mm

(M) ~1 MeV (from KS→)

Drift ChamberDrift Chamber

• 90% He, 10% iC4H10 ( X0=900m )

• 12582 stereo sense wires

• structure in C-Fibre (<0.1 X0)

• Non saturated drift velocity

• 2x2 (inner) & 3x3 (outer) cm2

squared cell size


OutlineOutline






K physics at KLOE - taggingK physics at KLOE - tagging

pppp ,,,,2

1SLSL KKKK

Tagging: observation of KS,L signals presence of KL,S ; K+ signals K

pure JPC = 1state

KS, K KL, K BR decay mode

34.1%

KSKL

49.1%

KK

absolute branching ratio measurement: BR=(Nsig/Ntag)(1/εsig)

K+K = 0.245 p* = 127 MeV/c ±= 95 cm

KLKS = 0.22

p* = 110 MeV/cS = 6 mm; L = 3.4 m

The decay at rest provides monochromatic and pure beam of kaons

Clean , normalized K+,K-,KL and KS beams (KS unique!!)

Kaon momentum is measured with 1 MeV resolution (e.g. p(KL) = p()- p(KS))


Neutral KaonsNeutral Kaons KS semileptonic decays KS → decay

KL dominant BR’s KL lifetime KLe3 form factor slopes KL → -+ and ε

KL,KS and Bell-Steinberger KL,KS Quantun Interferometry


Tagging of KTagging of KS S KKLLbeamsbeams

ε ~ 70% (mainly geometrical)KL angular resolution: ~ 1°KL momentum resolution: ~ 1 MeV

KKSS

KKLL 2 2

ε ~ 30% (largely geometrical)KS angular resolution: ~ 1° (0.3 in )KS momentum resolution: ~ 1 MeV

KKLL “crash”“crash”=0.22 =0.22 (TOF)(TOF)

KKSS ee

KKLL tagged tagged by Kby KSS vertex at IP vertex at IP

KKSS tagged tagged by Kby KLL interaction in interaction in EmCEmC


Analysis of KAnalysis of KSS →→ee decays decays

e

Data MC fit e bad bad

other

50 5000

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Emiss(e) pmiss (MeV)100150

Even

ts/M

eV

Fit distributions of 5 variables in data with various MC sources including e and processes

e

Event selection Event selection (410 pb(410 pb-1-1 ) )

Obtain number of signal Obtain number of signal events from a constrained events from a constrained likelihood fit of multiple data likelihood fit of multiple data distributionsdistributions

Normalize using Normalize using KKSS events in same data setevents in same data set

• KS tagged by KL crash

• 2 tracks from IP to EMC

• Kinematic cuts to reject

background from KS →

• Track-cluster association

• e/ ID from TOF

• Identify the charge of final state


KKSS ee decay – Results decay – Results

BR(KS e+) = (3.529 0.057 0.027) 10-4

BR(KS e-) = (3.518 0.051 0.029) 10-4

BR(BR(ee)) [KLOE ’02, Phys.Lett.B535, 17 pb1]:(6.91 0.34stat 0.15syst) 10-4

BR(KBR(KSS ee) = (7.048 ) = (7.048 0.076 0.076statstat 0.050 0.050systsyst))1010-4-4

Accepted by PLB

Accepted by PLB

Charge asymmetryCharge asymmetry

With 2.5 fb1: AS 3 103 2 Re

Linear form factor slope Linear form factor slope + = (33.8 4.1) 10-3

In good agreement with linear fit from KL semileptonic form factor [ ( 28.6 0.6)×10

AS=AL if CPT and S=QAS AL signals CPT in mixing and/or decay with SQAS-AL=4Re()if CPT holds in decays with SQ

AASSee = (1.5 = (1.5 9.6 9.6 2.9) 2.9)1010-3-3

→ε→ε→ε→ε

A=→ε→ε

A=


KKSS ee: CPT test: CPT test

AS = 2(Re ε Re Re y Re x)

AL = 2(Re ε Re Re y Re x)CPT indecay

CPT inmixing

CP S Q and CPT

Sensitivity to CPT violating effects through charge asymmetry

M11M22 i

mS mL iSL

1

2

(KS,L -e+) (KS,L +e-)

(KS,L -e+) (KS,L +e-)AS,L =

AS AL 0

violates CPT

AL = (3.322 0.058 0.047) 10-3 , KTeV 2002

14

1

LS

SL

eKBR

eKBRx


KKSS →→ee : results : results

Test of S = Q rule

(x+) = ( 0.4 3.1 1.8) × 10(x+) = ( 0.4 3.1 1.8) × 10

Factor 2 improvement w.r.t. current most precise measurement(CPLEAR, )

(KS) PDG

(KL) PDG + KLOE ’05 (avg.)BR(KL→e) KLOE

Test of CPT and S Q:

(x) = ( 0.2 2.4 0.7) × 10(x) = ( 0.2 2.4 0.7) × 10

Factor 5 improvement w.r.t. current most precise measurement (CPLEAR, )

AL KTeV

() CPLEAR

Test of S = Q rule

(KS) = 89.58 0.06 psPDG

(KL) = 51.01 0.20 nsPDG + KLOE ’05 (avg.)

BR(KLe3)

0.40

0.39

KTeV ’04

KLOE ’05

PDG ’04

KLOE KS assuming S = Q

Accepted by PLB

Accepted by PLB


KKSS : first observation: first observation

EmissPmiss (MeV)40-40 0 20-20

2002 Data

KS + +

• Measurement never done before

• More difficult than KSe3:

1) Lower BR: expect

2) Background events from

KS : same

PIDs of the signal• Event counting from the fit to Emiss()

Pmiss distribution:

3% stat error

• Efficiency estimate from KL early decays and from MC + data control samples.


KKSS 000000 – test of CP and CPT – test of CP and CPT

KS 30 is purely CP violating

If CPT conserved, S = L |εε’000|2

BRSM(KS 30) = 1.9 × 109

Best previous result from direct search:

BR < 1.4 × 105 90% CL [SND ’99]

BR< 7.4 107 [interference, NA48, ‘04]

Signature (εpresel ~ 14%):

KL crash + 6 ’s, no tracks from IP

Background rejection:

KS + 2split/accidental clusters

• MC 3 (BR 105)• MC 2

Define signal box in 23 vs.2

2 plane:

3 cluster pairs with best0 mass estimates

2 best cluster pairs - 0 masses, E(KS), p(KS), angle between0’s


Nbkg(MC) = 3.13 ± 0.82 ± 0.37

Nobs = 2

KLOE 450 pb1 ’01+’02 data

BR < 1.2 × 107 90% CL

Prospects for 2.5 fb1:

• 6.5 increase in statistics

(L efficiency)

• 1.5 decrease in background

Potential to reduce limit ~10

MC

Eff. Stat. =

5.3 data

450 pb1

’01+’02 data

KKSS 000000 (II) (II)

PLB 619

(2005)

350 pb-1


Dominant KDominant KLL branching ratios branching ratiosAbsolute BR measurements to 0.5-1%Absolute BR measurements to 0.5-1%from 328 pb-1 data sampleKL tagged by KS :

• 13106 for the measurement• 4106 used to evaluate

efficienciesBR’s to e, , and +-0:

• KL vertex reconstructed in DC

• PID using decay kinematics

• Fit with MC spectra including radiative processes and optimized

EmC response to //KL

BR to 000:

• Photon vertex reconstructed by

TOF using EmC (3 clusters)

• εrec = 99%, background < 1%

Lesser of pmissEmiss in or hyp. (MeV)


Dominant KDominant KLL BR’s and K BR’s and KLL lifetime lifetime Using the constraint BR(KL) = 1 we get:

BR(KBR(KLLee) = 0.4007 ) = 0.4007 0.00060.0006statstat

0.00140.0014systsyst

BR(KBR(KLL) = 0.2698 ) = 0.2698 0.00060.0006statstat


BR(KBR(KLL 3 3) = 0.1997 ) = 0.1997 0.00050.0005statstat 0.00190.0019systsyst

BR(KBR(KLL) = 0.1263 ) = 0.1263 0.00050.0005statstat


Lifetime indirect measurement:Lifetime indirect measurement: LL= 50.72 = 50.72

0.170.170.330.33nsns

L/c (ns)

6 - 24.8 ns40-165 cm

0.37 L

x102

Eve

nts/

0.3

ns

PK = 110 MeVExcellent lever arm

for lifetime measurement

Lifetime direct measurement Lifetime direct measurement [PLB 626 (2005)][PLB 626 (2005)] : : LL = 50.92 = 50.92 0.17 0.17 0.25 ns 0.25 ns

KKLL lifetime, KLOE average lifetime, KLOE average : LL = 50.84 = 50.84 0.23 ns 0.23 ns Vosburg, ’72: L = 51.54 ± 0.44 nsKKLL lifetime, KLOE average lifetime, KLOE average : LL = 50.84 = 50.84 0.23 ns 0.23 ns Vosburg, ’72: L = 51.54 ± 0.44 ns

LL direct measurement from direct measurement from KKLL 400 pb400 pb11))

•Require 3 ’s• ε(LK) ~ 99%, uniform in L•L() ~ 2.5 cm•Background ~ 1.3%Use KL π+π-π0 for: •EmC time scale

•Photon vertex efficiency

[PLB 632 (2006)]


KKLe3 Le3 form factor slopes form factor slopes(*) IS

TR

A+

m /m

0 correction

Phase space integral

Pole model versus Quadratic parameterization:• KLOE: 0.5 per mil difference• KTeV: 6 per mil difference.

103 103 2/dof

e 24.6 2.1 1.9 1.0 152/180e 26.4 2.1 1.0 1.0 173/180All 25.5 1.5 1.4 0.7 325/362

= (25.5 1.5 1.0) 103

= ( 1.4 0.7 0.4) 103

Correlation: (, ) = 0.95

Quadratic fit

Pole model MV = 870(7) MeV

• 328 pb1, 2 106 Ke3 decays

• Kinematic cuts + TOF PID to reduce background ( ~ 0.7% final contamination )• Separate measurement for each charge state (e, e) to check systematics• t measured from and KL momenta: t/m

2 0.3

103 2/dof

e 28.7 0.7 156/181e 28.5 0.6 174/181All 28.6 0.5 330/363

= (28.6 0.5 0.4) 103

Linear fit

Accepted by PLB

Accepted by PLB


BR KBR KLL

Decay CP violating Related to

εK KL beam tagged by KS →

328 pb-1 ’01+’02 data

Selection

• KL vertex reconstructed in DC

• PID using decays kinematics

• Fit with MC spectra including

radiative processes

Normalize using KL

events

(MeV) )( 22missmiss pE BR(KL )= (1.963 0.012 0.017) 10-3

Submitted to PLB

Submitted to PLB


• KLOE in agreement with KTeV

[PRD70 (2004),092006]

BR=(1.975 0.012)

• confirm the discrepancy

(4 standard deviations) with

PDG04

PDG2004

KTeV

KLOE preliminary

BR

(KL

)

10

-3

agreement with prediction from Unitarity Triangle (1.5)

Using BR(KS ) and L

from KLOE and S from PDG04 ε| = (2.216 0.013) 10-3

|ε| PDG04 = (2.280 0.013)10-3

BR KBR KLL and and llεε ll


Measurements of KS KL observables can be used for the

CPT test from unitarity :

f(1 + i tan SW) [Re εi Im ] A*(KS f ) A(KL f )

S

1ff

KS

00KS

KS

kl3 SL B(KLl3) ReεRe yi( ImIm

x)

SL B(KLl3) (AS+AL)/4 i( ImIm

x)SL

KL

SL KL

CPT test: Bell-Steinberger CPT test: Bell-Steinberger relationrelation

f = A(KL →f)/A(KS →f)


KSK

S

KS

KL

KLl

KS

KL

KS

SW= (0.759±0.001)

CPT test: inputs to the Bell-Steinberger CPT test: inputs to the Bell-Steinberger relationrelation

S 0.08958 ± 0.00006 ns

L= 50.84 ± 0.23ns

AL

AS

KL

KL

=0.757 ± 0.012= 0.763 ± 0.014Im x

+ = (0.8 ± 0.7) 10-2KLOE measurements

Im xfrom a combined fit of KLOE + CPLEAR data


Re ε Im

Re ε Im

CPLEAR: Re ε Im

KLOE preliminary:

Re ε

Im

CPT and Bell-Steinberger: CPT and Bell-Steinberger: resultresult

Im

- Uncertainty on Im is now dominated by and

- Semileptonic sector contributes by ~ 10%


no simultaneous decays (t=0) in the samefinal state due to thedestructive quantum interference

t/S

I(t

) (a

.u)

mfrom here

cos2;, 2/ tmeeetI ttt LSSL

Kaon interferometry: KSKL

t2 t1

t=t1-t2

Perfect vertex reolution


KSKL

• Analysed data: L=380 pb

• Fit including t resolution and efficiency effects + regeneration• S, L fixed from PDG

KL regeneration on beam pipe

Data

Fit result

KLOE PRELIMINARY

m = (5.34 0.34) 109 s1

At 2.5 fb-1 m 0.14 109 s1

PDG ’04: (5.290 0.016) 10 s1

Best (Ktev’03)(5.288 0.043) 10 s1


tKKtKK

tKKtKKtI N

0000

200

200

2

,,2

,,;,

• Fit including t resolution and efficiency effects + regeneration• S, L m fixed from PDG

From CPLEAR data, Bertlmann et al. (PR D60 (1999) 114032) obtain:

KLOE preliminary result:with 2.5 fb-1 :

KSKL: test of quantum coherence

6SYSTSTAT00 102.00.24.2

7.04.000

6STAT 108.0

as CP viol. O(high sensitivity to

edecoherenc total 1

QM 0

00

00

Decoherence parameter:

001


Charged KaonsCharged Kaons

K ±

lifetime BR(K+

2 ) K± semileptonic decays


Tagging KTagging K++ K K--

Measurement of absolute BR’s: KMeasurement of absolute BR’s: K beam tagged from K beam tagged from K

pp**(MeV)(MeV)

Kinem. ID

180 200 220 240

1000

3000

2000

101022 Ev/0.5MeV Ev/0.5MeV

Data

— fit:

Two-body decays identified as peaks in the momentum spectrum of secondary tracks in the kaon rest frame: 6x106x1088 tags/fb tags/fb-1-1

Given the tag a dedicated reconstruction of K tracks is performed, correcting for dE/dx losses of charged kaons in the DC

K++ K––0

–

–

++


region

MC includes radiative process

P* [MeV]BR(KBR(K++ ++(()) = 0.6366 )) = 0.6366 0.0009 0.0009stat.stat. 0.0015 0.0015syst.syst. [PLB 632 (2006)][PLB 632 (2006)] BR(KBR(K++ ++(()) = 0.6366 )) = 0.6366 0.0009 0.0009stat.stat. 0.0015 0.0015syst.syst. [PLB 632 (2006)][PLB 632 (2006)]

• (K())/(()) |Vus|2/|Vud|2fK2/f2

• From lattice calculations: fK /f =1.198(3)(+165)

(MILC Coll. PoS (LAT 2005) 025,2005)

|Vus| / |Vud| =0.2294 0.0026|Vus| / |Vud| =0.2294 0.0026

Measurement of BR(KMeasurement of BR(K(())))

• Tag from K--.• 175 pb-1: 1/3 used for signal selection, 2/3 used as efficiency sample• Subtraction of 0 identified background.• Count events in (225,400) MeV window of the momentum distribution in K rest frame ( hypothesis)

Signal selection

• Selection efficiency measured on data• Radiated acceptance measured on MC


Measurement of the KMeasurement of the K lifetime lifetime • Tag events with K2 decay• Kaon decay vertex in the fiducial volume• Measure from PDG not in agreement

Measure the kaon decay length taking into account the energy loss: K = i Li/(iic)• Tracking efficiency and resolution functions measured on data by means of neutral vertex identification.• Fit of the K distribution.

= 12.367 = 12.367 0.044 0.044StatStat 0.065 0.065SystSyst ns nsKLOE preliminary

K (ns)

16-30 ns

PDG = (12.385±0.024)ns

200 pb-1


BR(KBR(Ke3e3) = ) =

(5.047 (5.047 0.019 0.019StatStat 0.039 0.039Syst-Stat Syst-Stat 0.004 0.004SysTagSysTag))××1010-2-2

BR(KBR(K33) = ) =

(3.310 (3.310 0.016 0.016StatStat 0.045 0.045Syst-StatSyst-Stat 0.003 0.003SysTagSysTag))××1010--

22

BR(KBR(Ke3e3) = ) =

(5.047 (5.047 0.019 0.019StatStat 0.039 0.039Syst-Stat Syst-Stat 0.004 0.004SysTagSysTag))××1010-2-2

BR(KBR(K33) = ) =

(3.310 (3.310 0.016 0.016StatStat 0.045 0.045Syst-StatSyst-Stat 0.003 0.003SysTagSysTag))××1010--

22

Measurement of BR(KMeasurement of BR(Kℓℓ3)3) 4 independent-tag samples: K+2, K+2, K2, and K2 keep under control the systematic effects due to the tag selection Kinematical cuts to reject non-semileptonic decays, residual background is about 1.5% of the selected Kl3 sample Constrained likelihood fit of m2 data distributions from ToF measurements count the number of signal events Selection efficiency from MC and correct for Data/MC differences.

KLOE preliminary

Perform the BR measurement on each tag sample, separately normalizing to tag counts in the same data set,and average accounting for correlations:

K nuc.intK00

K0

Ev/(14MeV)2

Ke3 K

3


All Kaons together!All Kaons together!

Test of CKM unitarity: the first row


Unitarity test of CKM matrix – VUnitarity test of CKM matrix – Vus us & & VVus us / V/ Vudud• Most precise test of unitarity possible at present comes from 1st row:

Can test if = 0 at 10-3 level: from super-allowed nuclear -decays: 2|Vud|Vud = 0.0005 from semileptonic kaon decays: 2|Vus|Vus = 0.0009

|Vud|2 + |Vus|2 + |Vub|2 ~ |Vud|2 + |Vus|2 1 –

• Extract |Vus| from Kl3 decays. EM effects must be included:

(K ℓ) |Vus f+K0-(0) |2 I(t) SEW(1 + + SU(2) )

|Vus|

|Vus|

t)

t) f+K0-(0)

f+K0-(0)

= 0.5 0.5 Relative uncertainty:

• Extract |Vus|/ |Vud| from (K())/(()) ratio. Dominated by the

theoretical uncertainity on the fK/f evaluation from lattice QCD

• KLOE can measure almost all experimental inputs for neutral and charged kaons: branching ratios, lifetimes, and form factors (but S).


VVusus from KLOE results (BR’s and from KLOE results (BR’s and LL))

12.384(24) ns89.58(6) ps50.84(23) ns

0.03310(40)0.05047(46)7.046(91)×10-40.2698(15)0.4007(15)BR

K 3K e3KS e3KL 3KL e3

2/dof = 1.9/4

• f+(0)=0.961(8) Leutwyler and Roos Z.

[Phys. C25, 91, 1984]

• Vud=0.97377(27) Marciano and Sirlin

[Phys.Rev.Lett.96 032002,2006]

From unitarity

Vus×f+(0) = 0.2187(22)

(Pole model: KLOE, KTeV, and NA48 ave.)

(KTeV and Istra+ ave.)

Slopes


VVusus around the world and Unitarity around the world and Unitarity

Vus f+(0)

plot: F

.Mescia cou

rtesy

<V<Vusus××ff++(0)>(0)>WORLD AV.WORLD AV. = 0.2164(4) = 0.2164(4)

• L = 50.99(20) ns, average KLOE-PDG

• Including all new measurements

for semileptonic kaon decays (KTeV, NA48, E865, and KLOE)

• f+(0)=0.961(8) Leutwyler and Roos

[Z.Phys. C25, 91, 1984]

• Vud=0.97377(27) Marciano and Sirlin

[Phys.Rev.Lett.96 032002,2006]

From unitarity

Vus×f+(0) = 0.2187(22)

PDG04PDG04


The VThe VususVVudud plane planeunitarity

VVusus = 0.2254 = 0.2254 0.0020 0.0020 Kl3 KLOE, using f+(0)=0.961(8)

VVudud = 0.97377 = 0.97377 0.00027 0.00027 Marciano and Sirlin Phys.Rev.Lett.96 032002,2006

VVusus/V/Vudud = 0.2294 = 0.2294 0.0026 0.0026 K2 KLOE (K())/(()) |Vus|2/|Vud|2fK

2/f2

Inputs:Inputs:

Fit resultsFit results, P(2) = 0.66:

Vus = 0.2246 0.0016 Vud = 0.97377 0.00027

Fit result assuming unitarity, P(2) = 0.23: Vus = 0.2264 0.0009


Non Kaons physicsNon Kaons physics(my personal selection)(my personal selection)

mass ((ee++ee→→)) off peak physics @ 1 GeVoff peak physics @ 1 GeV


After the kinematic fit (p,Etot,cluster times) the mass measurement is almost independent from the energy of the clusters, it is dominated by the cluster positions. The momentum and the vertex position are precisely determined from Bhabha scattering at large angle e+e- → e+e . Absolute scale buy - line shape and mass

measurement:

cross checking:

measurement @ KLOEmeasurement @ KLOE

GEM: M = (547.311 ± 0.028 ± 0.032) MeV/c2 PLB 619 (2005) 281

NA48: M = (547.843 ± 0.030 ± 0.041) MeV/c2 PLB 533 (2002) 196

Large discrepancy between the two most precise measurements

E2E1

E3

measurement measurement methodmethod


measurement @ KLOEmeasurement @ KLOE• Kinematic fit applied on→ events and 0 selected by looking at different Dalitz plot regions

M (MeV)

<m> = ( 547.708 0.014 ) MeV = ( 2.143 0.012 ) MeV

<m = ( 134.956 0.018 ) MeV = ( 1.66 0.005 ) MeV

2/ndf = 304/257

0

2/ndf = 146/161E1<E2<E3

M (MeV)

M (MeV)

0


measurement @ KLOEmeasurement @ KLOE

Data set divided in 8 periods

M(0) = ( 134990 6stat 30syst ) keV

M(0)PDG = ( 134976.6 0.6 ) keV

Systematics mainly from √s and vertex position EMC linearity in

progress NA48 compatibility: 0.24

547.95

547.90

547.85

547.80

547.75

547.70

M (M

eV

)

M (M

eV

)

M() = ( 547822 5stat 69syst ) keVKLOE preliminaryKLOE preliminary

NA48


μ μ and and ((ee++ee→→) @ KLOE) @ KLOE

Process e+e- +- @ s < 1 GeV contributes as much as 66% to ahad

So far, estimates of ahad from:

2) using the spectral function from (LEP, CESR data)

Dispersion integral relates had(vac-pol) to s(e+e- hadrons)

1) measuring (e+e ) vs s at an e+e- collider, varying the beam energy


((ee++ee→→) @ KLOE) @ KLOE

(s’ = s – 2 Es)

Luminosity from e+e() counts, 55 < e < 125, at 0.5% (th) 0.3%(exp)Radiator function H(M

), defined as:

d M

dM

MM

with inclusion of radiative effects, as FSR, from QED MC calculation (PHOKHARA, Karlsuhe Theory Group, Kühn et al.)

At the mass it is possible to measure e+e with high accuracy:

Exploit ISR to extract (e+e +) for s´ from 2m s

M2

FSR


((ee++ee→→) : data samples for ) : data samples for eventsevents

Photons at small angles( < 15o or > 165° )

Photon NOT DETECTED High Statistics for ISR Photons

Low relative contribution of FSR <0.5% in entire M– range

Small amount of other background

Photons at large angle

( 50o < < 130° ) Photon detection required High amount of FSR and background

Allows measurement at threshold

Allows measurement of charge asymmetry Test of FSR


(e+e- ) nb

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.90.3

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

M2 (GeV2)

KLOE

2001 Data

140pb-1

Phys. Lett. B606 (2005) 12

((ee++ee→→) : small angle results) : small angle results

a [10-10 ]

KLOE (‘05)

SND (‘05),

CMD-2 EPS (‘05) preliminary

CMD-2 (‘04)

• fair agreement btw all 4 data sets CMD-2 and KLOE agree within 0.5 • disagreement btw KLOE and SND ca.1.5

2 contribution to ahadr

[0.3

7-0.

93 G

eV2 ]


Changes of online andoffline reconstruction

The goals for the analysis of 2002 data: considerable reduction of errors

Total theoretical error 0.9%

*Goal : Error < 1%

0.5%Radiator Function0.3%FSR Corrections0.2%Vacuum Polarization

<<0.6%Luminosity *

Total experimental error 0.9%0.2%Unfolding Effects0.3%Background0.2%Trackmass Cut0.1%Particle ID

<< 0.6%Reconstruction Filter *<0.3%Vertex 0.3%Tracking

<0.3%Trigger *

0.3%Acceptance

New version ofBABAYAGAwith full NLO

dN

/dM

dN

/dM

22 (ev

ents

/GeV

(ev

ents

/GeV

22 ))

2002Data

Normalisation to Muons

MM22 (GeV (GeV22))

((ee++ee→→) : improvement at small ) : improvement at small angle angle


the threshold region is accessible photon tagging is possible (4-momentum constraints) lower signal statistics large FSR contributions large backgroundirreducible bkg. from decays

PRO & CONTRA

50o<<130o

50o<<130o

L = 240 pb-1

preliminary

MC MC<

By means of dedicated selection cuts it is possible to fight the dominant background Analysis in very advanced state

Threshold region non-trivial due to irreducible FSR-effects,which have to be cut from MCusing phenomenol. Models(interference effects unknown)

ff

FSR f0

MM22 (GeV (GeV22))

((ee++ee→→) : large angle ) : large angle


((ee++ee→→) :) :Forward-backward asymmetry

Using the f0 amplitude from Kaon Loop model, good agreement data-MC* both around the f0 mass and at low masses.

M (MeV) M (MeV)

• data MC: ISR+FSR MC: ISR+FSR+f0(KL)

Phys.Lett.B634 (06), 148

* G. Pancheri, O. Shekhovtsova, G. Venanzoni, hep-ph/0506332

+- system: A(ISR) C-odd while A(FSR) & A(scalar) C-even asymmetry in the variable:

-πθ π

θ

Pion polar angle [o]

90o

MC


@ large angle: looking for f@ large angle: looking for f

The f0 signal is a deviation of M spectrum from the expected ISR + FSR shape. Scalar amplitude from models:

M() (MeV)

f0(980) region

M() (MeV)

Events/1.2 MeV

676000

events1. Kaon-loop KL (Achasov-Ivanchenko, NPB315

1989): for each scalar meson S there are three free parameters of the fit: gS, gSKK, MS

2. No-Structure NS (by G.Isidori and

L.Maiani): a modified BW + a polynomial continuum: gS, gS, gSKK, MS + pol. cont. parameters

SgKK

gSKK

gSPP

K

K

SV

gVS

gSe+

e-


Fit to the m(Fit to the m() spectrum:) spectrum:

(491 bins, 1.2 MeV wide, m() = 420 to 1009 MeV)

Fit : ISR + FSR + + scalar ± interf(SCAL+ FSR)

Kaon-Loop and No-Structure fits:

Good description in both casesof signal and background

“negative” interference;

The introduction of a (600) doesn’t improve the fit.

KL fit NS fit

f0 signal

f0 signal

[PLB634 (2006) 148]


• KLOE Integrated 200pb-1 at s = 1.00 GeV• In addition has been performed a -scan of 4 points, 10pb-1 each

• background-free Radiative Return 200pb-1 allow to be statistically competitive with VEPP-2000 at threshold

• a -scan allows to study the model- dependence in desciption of f0(980)

• background-free - program

s (

MeV

)

s = 1023s = 1023

s = s = 10301030

s = 1018s = 1018

s = 1010s = 1010

s = 1000s = 1000

Run-Nr.

Trackmass [MeV]

Nu

mb

er o

f E

ven

ts /

MeV

10pb-1 ONPEAK

OFFPEAK

First look into off-peak-data

very promising ..... !

- Large photon angle acceptance cuts- PID: both tracks identified as pions

Off resonance run @ 1 GeV Off resonance run @ 1 GeV


KS PLB 538, 21 (02)KL PLB 566, 61 (03)

K+ +00 PLB 597, 49 (04)

KS e PLB 535, 37 (02)

KS 000 PLB 619, 61 (05)

KL main PLB 632, 43 (06)

KL lifetime PLB 626, 15 (05)

KLOE physics papers published to date

K+ +( ) PLB 632, 76 (06)

00 PLB 537, 21 (02)

0 PLB 536, 203 (02)

+0 PLB 561, 55 (03)

' PLB 541, 45 (02)

l+l PLB 608, 199 (05) + PLB 606, 12 (05)

PLB 591, 49 (04)

+ PLB 606, 12 (05)

+ PLB 634, 148 (06)


OutlineOutline






DADANE & KLOE NE & KLOE futurefuture

DANE upgrades physics programphysics program KLOE upgradesKLOE upgrades


DADANE : near term future NE : near term future

2006 – Final KLOE run (up to 2 fb-1)

-shutdown for FINUDA installation

-FINUDA run

2007 – FINUDA run (up to 1 fb-1)

-shutdown for SIDDHARTA installation

-SIDDHARTA run

2008 – SIDDHARTA run (up to 1 fb-1)

-shutdown for FINUDA installation

-Final FINUDA run (up to 2 fb-1)

DAFNE scientific program

scheduled up to 2008.

Upgrades have been

proposed and submitted

to INFN. Explicitely

mentioned in the 3-years

“ROAD-MAP”

of INFN

Only e+e- collider in Europe


DADANE Upgrade – short term (3 years)NE Upgrade – short term (3 years)

Starting from 1.5x1032, 2fb-1/year: Reduction of e- ring beam impedance (by a factor 2) :

Removal and shielding of the broken Ion-Cleaning-Electrodes

Higher positron current (up to 2 A), so far limited to 1.3 A: New injection kickers Ti-Coating against electron cloud

Feedback upgrades

Wigglers modifications to increase Lifetime (by a factor 2): New interaction region Transfer lines upgrade (continuous injection)

To be discussed: Crab cavities, waist modulation (RF quads) Expected a

factor > 3 in

Luminosity


DADANE-2: Long term upgrade NE-2: Long term upgrade (2010(2010))

Change of machine layout, insertion of: Superconducting cavities

Superconducting wigglers Ramping Dipoles New vacuum chamber

Energy (GeV) 1.02 2.4

Integrated Luminosity per year (fbarn-1) >10

Total integrated luminosity (5 years, fbarn-1) >50 >3

Peak luminosity (cm-1sec-2) >8 1032 >1032

Machine can go higherMachine can go higher

in energy (up to 2.4 in energy (up to 2.4

GeV)GeV)TDR in preparation: necessary to submit the project


The KLOE future: KLOE-2 The KLOE future: KLOE-2

An Espression of Interest for

the continuation of the KLOE

has been presented.

The physics program is focused

on KS physics , ’ physics and

quantum interferometry

studies.

Time schedule and luminosity

foreseen are 30fb-1 on tape

within 2014 11 institution x 7 nations involved


KLOE2: perspectives for Kaon physicsKLOE2: perspectives for Kaon physics

KS 0 0 0 CP,CPT < 1.2 10-7 < 5 10-9 seenKS e CPT, S= Q (7.09 0.10)10-4 0.2 10-5 0.1 10-5

As CPT (1.5 11) 10-3 2 10-3 1 10-3KS + - 0 pt (3 1)10-7 0.4 10-7 0.3 10-7 KS e+e- < 1.4 10-7 < 2 10-8 < 9 10-9

KS 0 e+e- KL CP (6 3)10-9 seen 2 10-9 KS pt (2.78 0.07)10-6 0.03 10-6 0.02 10-6

Assuming/extrapolating present KLOE efficiencies/systematics

Present @20fb-1 @50 fb-1

Competitive on rare KS decays, CPT and S= Q violating parameters, interesting for CHPT

Lint= 20-50 fb-1

BR(K±e2)/BR(K±

2) SM test (2.4160.053)10-5 <% rel. err few ‰ rel err


ChPT, study of spectrum expected 3000 events

’ l+l-,lll(‘)l(‘) (Dalitz & double dalitz decays) with high statistics

e+e test of CP violation beyond SM

’ sensitive toexpected

200.000 events

KLOE-2: perspectives for KLOE-2: perspectives for & scalars & scalars physicsphysics

With 20 fb-1 f0 , fK+K- (KK) (expected BR ~ 10-6(-8) ) well measured (105 K+K- and 103 KK), direct measure of the gfKK coupling

-factory = ed ’ factory

BR( ) = 1.3 ×10-2 N(20 fb-1) ~ 9 × 108

BR( ’) = 6.2 ×10-5 N’(20 fb-1) ~ 5 × 106

Monochromatic prompt photon: clear signature


KLOE2: Kaon interferometry: main KLOE2: Kaon interferometry: main observablesobservables

measured quantity parameters

εε

εε

mode

0;,0;,

0;,0;,0000

0000

tItI

tItItA

00 LS KK

LS KK

a

dK

a

cK

LS KK teIteI

teIteItA

;,;,

;,;,

tI ;, LS KK L Sm

adab

A KKL

ε2

0;,0;,

0;,0;,

teeIteeI

teeIteeItACPT


Use of a lower magnetic field. This can increase acceptance for several of the above mentioned channels and ease pattern recognition (.5T→.3T →x 2 gain in acceptance on KSl3)

Insertion of a vertex chamber. At present, first tracking layer is at 30 cm (i.e. 50 S) from the I.P. Increase the KS, K± geometrical acceptance

Increase calorimeter’s readout granularity. Can improve photon counting, as well as particle identification (e//).

A small angle tagger for physics

KLOE2: detector KLOE2: detector upgradesupgrades

The KLOE efficiency/systematics can be improved, increasing

quadratically the collected events both via the tag and via

the signal emisphere. The KLOE experience suggest as

upgrades of the detector


OutlineOutline






ConclusionsConclusions

KLOE has integrated 2.5fb-1 during its data taken at

DANE

During 2005-2006 published results leading to

substantial improvement to VUS, TCPV, hadr

Analysis of approx. 2/3 of the data set on-going

An EoI for the continuation of the KLOE physics

program at an improved DANE has been presented


SPARESSPARES


Magnetic field value dramatically affects signal acceptance. Can improve up to a factor ~ 2

Proper balancing with consequent loss in momentum resolution yet to be studied

B (kG)

ε (KLCrash + Ks DC selection)

Present analysis, MC with detailed field map400 pb MC with LSF=0.5, with uniform axial B field

0.1

0.2

3 540

0.15

0.05

T. Spadaro

Bfield & reconstruction eff:Bfield & reconstruction eff: KKSS ee decaysdecays


KS 30 decays

Background mostly due to photon clusters double splittings

Preliminary studies show that there is room for “algorithmic” improvements in background rejection without big losses in

signal efficiency

Study of the entire KLOE data set crucial for a better assessment of the real potentialities of the analysis

Ideally, with 20 fb1 one can reach a limit ~ 5x109

With With 50 fb50 fb11 one could hope to observe a few events! one could hope to observe a few events!


KS + 0 : a test for ChPT

ChPT predicts B(Ks +0) = (2.4 ± 0.7)x107

The present experimental value (3.3 +1.1 0.9 ) x107 is the average of three different measurement each individually precise at ~ 40%

A preliminary KLOE analysis obtains εsig ~ 1.3%, S/B ~ 2

Assuming

Error on BR @ 2 fb1 (%)



No further effort made to reduce background

~ 60% ~ 20% ~ 12%

Further efforts completely remove background

~ 40% ~ 12% ~ 8%


KS + 0 as a pedagogical example

This is the typical case where analysis would greatly benefit from simple detector upgrades

At least one of the two tracks has low momentum: 65% of signal lost lost only due to acceptanceonly due to acceptance

Acceptance can be increased by the use of a lower B fieldlower B field. Also the use of a vertex chambera vertex chamber could definitely help

Both can be useful also for the rejection of the background due to patological charged kaon events


KS 0 e+e decays

Fundamental to assess indirect CPV contribution to parent KL decay

Measured by NA48 on the basis of 7 events (plus 6 +)

Theoreticians’ dream: measurement at 15% accuracy

BR = (5.8 ± 3) x 10-9

What efficiency can reasonably be expected for KLOE?


KS 0 e+e decays

Further selection based on cuts on 5 independent variables

e+e inv. mass 2 kinem. fit

MC MC

DATA 400 pb1 DATA 400 pb1

signal

signal


KS 0 e+e decays

Cuts tuned on MC: 0 events retained < 4.8 ev / fb1 @ 90% CL

Detailed studies of problematic topologies:

single dalitz : 880 pb1 : 0 events < 2.6 ev / fb1

double dalitz: 4200 pb1 : 0 events < 0.55 ev / fb1

K+K : 880 pb1 : 0 events < 2.6 ev / fb1

Overall efficiency on signal: 4.3%

Check on data (~ 400 pb1) : 0 observed (0.12 expected)

Optimistically (no further bkg) ~ 5 events observed in 20 fb1


Mode Parameter Best measurement

or PDG-04 fit

KLOE-2

L=100 fb-1

m 5.288 ± 0.043 109 s-1

± 0.02STAT

109 s-1

Reε’ε (1.67 ± 0.26) 10-3 ± 0.2STAT 10-3

Imε’ε 0.0012± 0.0023 ± 0.0022STAT

e AL (3322± 58 ± 47 ) 10-6 ± 18STAT 10-6

e e Re() (0.29 ± 0.27) 10-3 ± 0.2STAT 10-3

e e Im() (0.24 ± 0.50) 10-4 ± 20STAT 10-4

Prospectives for InterferometryProspectives for Interferometry


-factory = ed ’ factoryBR( ) = 1.3 ×10-2 N(20 fb-1) ~ 9 × 108

BR( ’) = 6.2 ×10-5 N’(20 fb-1) ~ 5 × 106

Monochromatic prompt photon: clear signature

Mixing – ’: Uncertainty dominated by systematics;improvement can come by measuring main ’ BR’s

decays: (test ChPT; major improvements expected with 20 fb-1)Dalitz decays: e+e-, , e+e-e+e- Transition FF e+e- (Test of CP violation, analogous to KL e+e- )Improvements on forbidden/rare decays

’ decays:Dalitz plot of ’+- scalar amplitude ’ first observation / isospin violation

Perspectives forPerspectives for’ at DA’ at DANE-2NE-2


KKSS ee: CPT test: CPT test

AS = 2(Re ε Re Re y Re x)

AL = 2(Re ε Re Re y Re x)CPT indecay

CPT inmixing

CP S Q and CPT

• Sensitivity to CPT violating effects through charge asymmetry

eHWK = a b

eHWK = a* b*

eHWK = c d

eHWK = c* d*

b=d=0 if CPT holdsc=d=0 if S=Q holds

KS eamplitudes

Re y = Re b/aRe x = Re d*/a

M11M22 i

mS mL iSL

1

2


dcKbaK

dcKbaK

00

00

S=QCPTTCP

=0=0=0=0d=0=0=0c

=0=0=0b=0=0a

Semileptonic decay amplitudes: definitions

a

cx

a

dx

a

by CPT violation:

S=Q violation:

CPT violation & S=Q violation :


Number of KL from fit of Number di KL from fit of

KL CP violation

22 )( missmiss pE

(MeV) 22missmiss pE

)hyp. (missmiss Ep

(MeV) missmiss Ep


We get the following accuracies on each term of the sum:

KS

00KS

KS

SL B(KLl3) AS+AL)/4iIm x

SL KL

SL KL

10-4

Im

Re

CPT test: accuracy on CPT test: accuracy on ii


CPT test: m(K)-m(K)CPT test: m(K)-m(K)

m(K)-m(K)

(K

)-(K

)

(K

)-(K

)

m(K)-m(K)

GeV

GeV GeV

GeV

(m) ~ 210 GeV

() ~ 410 GeV

CPLEAR KLOE

M11M22 i

mS mL iSL

1

2


a [10-10 ]

KLOE (‘05)

SND (‘05),

CMD-2 EPS (‘05) preliminary

CMD-2 (‘04)

MM22 (GeV (GeV22))

/ K

LO

E -

1

• CMD-2 (‘04) and KLOE agree @ high M

• some disagreement btw. KLOE and

CMD-2/SND on the peak

• fair agreement btw all 4 data sets

CMD-2 and KLOE agree within 0.5

• disagreement btw KLOE and SND ca.1.5

interpolation of 60KLOE data points from 0.35

to 0.95 GeV2

Comparison with recent e+e DataComparison of e+e- experiments 2 contribution to a

hadr

[0.3

7-0

.93

GeV

2]JETP, Vol. 101, No 6 (2005) 1053

PLB 578 (2004) 285


mass measurement : the mass measurement : the methodmethod

E1

E2

E3Using the decays:

Px,Py,Pz,Etott-r/c of clusters

A kinematic fit is performed imposing:

conservationcompatible with light velocity

As a consequence of the kinematic fit the mass measurement is almost independent from the energy of the clusters, it is dominated by the cluster positions.

The momentum and the vertex position are precisely determined run by run from the study of the Bhabha scattering at large angle e+e- e+e – (90000 events for each run). Absolute scale determined buy line shape and mass

cross checking purpose


Prospects for small angle analysisProspects for small angle analysis

Many systematics cancel out on

the theory side:

Luminosity, VP , radiatoror reduce to small corrections on

the experimental side

tracking , vtx efficiencies

and trigger veto

Differently from the old analsyis

statistics is an issue, due to the

small cross section in some S bins

′′′′

′′

)(/

/)( s

sdd

sdds Born

obs

obsBorn

Analysis of the new data (2 fb): take advantage of larger statistics!Change strategy normalizing to

Improvements also on Filter/ECL strategies


Neutral kaons tagging: KNeutral kaons tagging: KSS “beam” “beam”

Kinematic closure of the

event

(pS=p-pL):

KS angular resolution: ~ 1° (0.3

in )

KS momentum resolution: ~ 1

MeV/c

*

Clean KS tagging by time-of-flight

identification of KL interactions

in the calorimeter :

tof(KL) ~30 ns tof

(~6 ns)

KL velocity in the rest frame 0.218

Tagging efficiency εtag,total~ 30% 1.4

108 tagged KS

Clean KS tagging by time-of-flight

identification of KL interactions

in the calorimeter :

tof(KL) ~30 ns tof

(~6 ns)

KL velocity in the rest frame 0.218

Tagging efficiency εtag,total~ 30% 1.4

108 tagged KS

KS KL “crash”


@ large angle (@ large angle (50o<<130o, E>50MeV ))

10 times more statistics on tape!The spectrum extends down to the 2-pions threshold

dN

/dM

2 Both the particles not

identified as electrons Cut on 2

in the hyp.

Cut on TrackMass vs. M

2

Cut on angle

L = 240 pb-1

M2 [GeV2]

M2 [GeV2]

KLOE preliminary

KLOE preliminary

missp

γp

– MC

– MC

- MC

M2 [GeV2]

Mtr

k [M

eV

]

m

m

m


Forward-backward asymmetry +- system: A(ISR) C-odd A(FSR) C-even an asymmetry is expected in the variable:

-πθ π

θ

Pion polar angle [o]

90o

MCtest of sQED via comparison data/MC

Issue: to distinguish the effect of the interference (described in our MC by sQED ) and the effect of f0(980).

Czyż, Grzelińska, Kühn, Phys.Lett.B 611(116)2006

M [GeV]

20o<<160o

45o<<135o

f0 kk model f0 ‘no str’ f0 ‘no str’ /2 no f0

A(f0) C-even


The Particle Data Group measures are not in agreement

: experimental picture: experimental picture

= (12.385±0.024)ns

Documents

V.Patera CERN seminar 28 March 2006 1 [nb] s [MeV] Recent results of KLOE at DA NE V.Patera Rome I University & Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati