1: %%************************************************************

2: %% Shared ones

3: %%************************************************************

4: \newcommand{\BR}{\mathcal{B}}

5: \newcommand{\afs}{\alpha_s}

6: \newcommand{\bgp}{\beta\gamma}

7: \newcommand{\eff}{\varepsilon}

8: \newcommand{\sintht}{\sin{\theta}}

9: \newcommand{\costht}{\cos{\theta}}

10: \newcommand{\Npsp}{N_{\psi^\prime}}

11: \newcommand{\dedx}{dE/dx}

12: 

13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%event selection

14: \newcommand{\probfc}{Prob_{\chi^2}}

15: \newcommand{\probpi}{Prob_{\pi}}

16: \newcommand{\probka}{Prob_{K}}

17: \newcommand{\probpr}{Prob_{p}}

18: \newcommand{\proball}{Prob_{all}}

19: 

20: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%charmonium

21: \newcommand{\chicJ}{\chi_{cJ}}

22: \newcommand{\gchicJ}{\gamma\chi_{cJ}}

23: \newcommand{\hc}{h_c(^1p_1)}

24: \newcommand{\qqb}{q\bar{q}}

25: \newcommand{\uub}{u\bar{u}}

26: \newcommand{\ddb}{d\bar{d}}

27: \newcommand{\ssb}{s\bar{s}}

28: \newcommand{\ccb}{c\bar{c}}

29: %%************************************************************

30: %% Variables: decay modes of psiprime

31: %%************************************************************

32: \newcommand{\psipto}{\psi^{\prime}\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^- J/\psi}

33: \newcommand{\ptomm}{J/\psi\rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-}

34: \newcommand{\ppp}{\pi^+\pi^- \pi^0}

35: \newcommand{\pip}{\pi^+\bar{p}}

36: \newcommand{\ppi}{\pi^- p}

37: \newcommand{\llb}{\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}}

38: \newcommand{\llp}{\llb\pi^0}

39: \newcommand{\lle}{\llb\eta}

40: \newcommand{\lm}{\Lambda}

41: \newcommand{\lmb}{\bar{\Lambda}}

42: \newcommand{\kap}{K^+}

43: \newcommand{\kam}{K^-}

44: \newcommand{\ks}{K^0_s}

45: \newcommand{\pbar}{\bar{p}}

46: \newcommand{\jp}{J/\psi\rightarrow \gamma\pi^0}

47: \newcommand{\je}{J/\psi\rightarrow \gamma\eta}

48: \newcommand{\jep}{J/\psi\rightarrow \gamma\eta^{\prime}}

49: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 2prongs

50: \newcommand{\LL}{\ell^+\ell^-}

51: \newcommand{\EE}{e^+e^-}

52: \newcommand{\MM}{\mu^+\mu^-}

53: \newcommand{\GG}{\gamma\gamma}

54: \newcommand{\pp}{\pi^+\pi^-}

55: \newcommand{\kk}{K^+K^-}

56: \newcommand{\ppb}{p\bar{p}}

57: \newcommand{\gpp}{\gamma \pi^+\pi^-}

58: \newcommand{\gkk}{\gamma K^+K^-}

59: \newcommand{\gppb}{\gamma p\bar{p}}

60: \newcommand{\ggee}{\gamma\gamma e^+e^-}

61: \newcommand{\gguu}{\gamma\gamma\mu^+\mu^-}

62: \newcommand{\ggll}{\gamma\gamma l^+l^-}

63: \newcommand{\ppee}{\pi^+\pi^- e^+e^-}

64: \newcommand{\ppuu}{\pi^+\pi^-\mu^+\mu^-}

65: \newcommand{\etap}{\eta^{\prime}}

66: \newcommand{\gpi}{\gamma\pi^0}

67: \newcommand{\geta}{\gamma\eta}

68: \newcommand{\getap}{\gamma\etap}

69: \newcommand{\splb}{\Sigma^+\pi^-\bar{\Lambda}}

70: \newcommand{\sbpl}{\bar{\Sigma}^-\pi^+\lm}

71: \newcommand{\SSB}{\Sigma^0\bar{\Sigma}^0}

72: \newcommand{\mgg}{M_{\GG}}

73: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 4prongs

74: \newcommand{\pppp}{\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-}

75: \newcommand{\ppkk}{\pi^+\pi^-K^+K^-}

76: \newcommand{\pppr}{\pi^+\pi^-p\bar{p}}

77: \newcommand{\kkkk}{K^+K^-K^+K^-}

78: \newcommand{\kskp}{K^0_s K^+ \pi^- + c.c.}

79: \newcommand{\ppkp}{\pi^+\pi^-K^+ \pi^- + c.c.}

80: \newcommand{\ksks}{K^0_s K^0_s}

81: \newcommand{\dphi}{\phi\phi}

82: \newcommand{\phikk}{\phi K^+K^-}

83: \newcommand{\ppeta}{\pi^+\pi^-\eta}

84: \newcommand{\gpppp}{\gamma \pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-}

85: \newcommand{\gppkk}{\gamma \pi^+\pi^-K^+K^-}

86: \newcommand{\gpppr}{\gamma \pi^+\pi^-p\bar{p}}

87: \newcommand{\gkkkk}{\gamma K^+K^-K^+K^-}

88: \newcommand{\gkskp}{\gamma K^0_s K^+ \pi^- + c.c.}

89: \newcommand{\gppkp}{\gamma \pi^+\pi^-K^+ \pi^- + c.c.}

90: \newcommand{\gksks}{\gamma K^0_s K^0_s}

91: \newcommand{\gphiphi}{\gamma \phi\phi}

92: 

93: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 6prongs

94: \newcommand{\tpp}{3(\pi^+\pi^-)}

95: \newcommand{\tppkk}{2(\pi^+\pi^-)(K^+K^-)}

96: \newcommand{\pptkk}{(\pi^+\pi^-)2(K^+K^-)}

97: \newcommand{\tkk}{3(K^+K^-)}

98: 

99: \newcommand{\gtpp}{\gamma 3(\pi^+\pi^-)}

100: \newcommand{\gtppkk}{\gamma 2(\pi^+\pi^-)(K^+K^-)}

101: \newcommand{\gpptkk}{\gamma (\pi^+\pi^-)2(K^+K^-)}

102: \newcommand{\gtkk}{\gamma 3(K^+K^-)}

103: 

104: %%************************************************************

105: %%  Variables and Formula

106: %%************************************************************

107: \newcommand{\psp}{\psi(2S)}

108: \newcommand{\jpsi}{J/\psi}

109: \newcommand{\ar}{\rightarrow}

110: \newcommand{\lra}{\longrightarrow}

111: \newcommand{\jpsito}{J/\psi \rightarrow }

112: \newcommand{\ptoppjp}{J/\psi \rightarrow\pi^+\pi^- J/\psi}

113: \newcommand{\pspto}{\psi^\prime \rightarrow }

114: \newcommand{\ptop}{\psi'\rightarrow\pi^0 J/\psi}

115: \newcommand{\ptoeta}{\psi'\rightarrow\eta J/\psi}

116: %\newcommand{\ptoeta}{\psi'\rightarrow

117: %\newcommand{\ptoeta}{\psi'\rightarrow

118: \newcommand{\ecto}{\eta_c \rightarrow }

119: \newcommand{\ecpto}{\eta_c^\prime \rightarrow }

120: \newcommand{\xto}{X(3594) \rightarrow }

121: \newcommand{\chicJto}{\chi_{cJ} \rightarrow }

122: \newcommand{\chiczto}{\chi_{c0} \rightarrow }

123: \newcommand{\chicoto}{\chi_{c1} \rightarrow }

124: \newcommand{\chictto}{\chi_{c2} \rightarrow }

125: \newcommand{\pspp}{\psi^{\prime\prime}}

126: \newcommand{\ptochic}{\psi(2S)\ar \gamma\chi_{c1,2}}

127: \newcommand{\ppjpsi}{\psi(2S)\ar\pi^0\pi^0 J/\psi}    

128: \newcommand{\utoeta}{\Upsilon^{\prime}\ar\eta\Upsilon} 

129: \newcommand{\ww}{\omega\omega}

130: \newcommand{\ff}{\phi\phi}

131: %%=================================================

132: %% abbreviated commands of LaTeX

133: %%=================================================

134: \def\ctup#1{$^{\cite{#1}}$}

135: \newcommand{\bfg}{\begin{figure}}

136: \newcommand{\efg}{\end{figure}}

137: \newcommand{\bitm}{\begin{itemize}}

138: \newcommand{\eitm}{\end{itemize}}

139: \newcommand{\bnum}{\begin{enumerate}}

140: \newcommand{\enum}{\end{enumerate}}

141: \newcommand{\btbl}{\begin{table}}

142: \newcommand{\etbl}{\end{table}}

143: \newcommand{\btbu}{\begin{tabular}}

144: \newcommand{\etbu}{\end{tabular}}

145: %\newcommand{\ol}{\overline}

146: \newcommand{\bcl}{\begin{center}}

147: \newcommand{\ecl}{\end{center}}

148: \newcommand{\bbt}{\bibitem}

149: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

150: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

151: \newcommand{\beqr}{\begin{eqnarray}}

152: \newcommand{\eeqr}{\end{eqnarray}}

153: %%===========================================

154: %%  color setting

155: %%===========================================

156: \newcommand{\red}{\color{red}}

157: \newcommand{\blue}{\color{blue}}

158: \newcommand{\yellow}{\color{yellow}}

159: \newcommand{\green}{\color{green}}

160: \newcommand{\purple}{\color{purple}}

161: \newcommand{\brown}{\color{brown}}

162: \newcommand{\black}{\color{black}}

163: \documentclass[twocolumn,tightenlines,showpacs,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

164: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

165: \usepackage{rotating,epsfig,graphicx}

166: \usepackage{flafter}

167: \include{def-com}

168: \textwidth=180truemm

169: %\textheight=230truemm

170: \topmargin -1.0cm

171: %\hoffset -2cm

172: \normalsize

173: \parskip=5pt plus 1pt minus 1pt

174: \begin{document}

175: \title{\boldmath \bf Measurements of $\jpsi$ and $\psp$ decays into $\llp$ and $\lle$ }

176: \author{

177: M.~Ablikim$^{1}$,              J.~Z.~Bai$^{1}$, Y.~Ban$^{12}$,

178: X.~Cai$^{1}$,                  H.~F.~Chen$^{17}$, H.~S.~Chen$^{1}$,

179: H.~X.~Chen$^{1}$, J.~C.~Chen$^{1}$, Jin~Chen$^{1}$,

180: Y.~B.~Chen$^{1}$, Y.~P.~Chu$^{1}$, Y.~S.~Dai$^{19}$,

181: L.~Y.~Diao$^{9}$, Z.~Y.~Deng$^{1}$, Q.~F.~Dong$^{15}$,

182: S.~X.~Du$^{1}$, J.~Fang$^{1}$, S.~S.~Fang$^{1}$$^{a}$,

183: C.~D.~Fu$^{15}$, C.~S.~Gao$^{1}$, Y.~N.~Gao$^{15}$, S.~D.~Gu$^{1}$,

184: Y.~T.~Gu$^{4}$, Y.~N.~Guo$^{1}$, Z.~J.~Guo$^{16}$$^{b}$,

185: F.~A.~Harris$^{16}$, K.~L.~He$^{1}$, M.~He$^{13}$, Y.~K.~Heng$^{1}$,

186: J.~Hou$^{11}$, H.~M.~Hu$^{1}$, J.~H.~Hu$^{3}$ T.~Hu$^{1}$,

187: G.~S.~Huang$^{1}$$^{c}$, X.~T.~Huang$^{13}$, X.~B.~Ji$^{1}$,

188: X.~S.~Jiang$^{1}$, X.~Y.~Jiang$^{5}$,             J.~B.~Jiao$^{13}$,

189: D.~P.~Jin$^{1}$, S.~Jin$^{1}$, Y.~F.~Lai$^{1}$, G.~Li$^{1}$$^{d}$,

190: H.~B.~Li$^{1}$, J.~Li$^{1}$, R.~Y.~Li$^{1}$, S.~M.~Li$^{1}$,

191: W.~D.~Li$^{1}$, W.~G.~Li$^{1}$, X.~L.~Li$^{1}$,

192: X.~N.~Li$^{1}$, X.~Q.~Li$^{11}$, Y.~F.~Liang$^{14}$,

193: H.~B.~Liao$^{1}$, B.~J.~Liu$^{1}$, C.~X.~Liu$^{1}$, F.~Liu$^{6}$,

194: Fang~Liu$^{1}$, H.~H.~Liu$^{1}$, H.~M.~Liu$^{1}$,

195: J.~Liu$^{12}$$^{e}$, J.~B.~Liu$^{1}$, J.~P.~Liu$^{18}$, Jian

196: Liu$^{1}$, Q.~Liu$^{16}$, R.~G.~Liu$^{1}$, Z.~A.~Liu$^{1}$,

197: Y.~C.~Lou$^{5}$, F.~Lu$^{1}$, G.~R.~Lu$^{5}$, J.~G.~Lu$^{1}$,

198: C.~L.~Luo$^{10}$, F.~C.~Ma$^{9}$, H.~L.~Ma$^{2}$,

199: L.~L.~Ma$^{1}$$^{f}$,           Q.~M.~Ma$^{1}$, Z.~P.~Mao$^{1}$,

200: X.~H.~Mo$^{1}$, J.~Nie$^{1}$, S.~L.~Olsen$^{16}$, R.~G.~Ping$^{1}$,

201: N.~D.~Qi$^{1}$, H.~Qin$^{1}$, J.~F.~Qiu$^{1}$, Z.~Y.~Ren$^{1}$,

202: G.~Rong$^{1}$, X.~D.~Ruan$^{4}$, L.~Y.~Shan$^{1}$, L.~Shang$^{1}$,

203: C.~P.~Shen$^{16}$, D.~L.~Shen$^{1}$,              X.~Y.~Shen$^{1}$,

204: H.~Y.~Sheng$^{1}$, H.~S.~Sun$^{1}$,               S.~S.~Sun$^{1}$,

205: Y.~Z.~Sun$^{1}$,               Z.~J.~Sun$^{1}$, X.~Tang$^{1}$,

206: G.~L.~Tong$^{1}$, G.~S.~Varner$^{16}$, D.~Y.~Wang$^{1}$$^{g}$,

207: L.~Wang$^{1}$, L.~L.~Wang$^{1}$, L.~S.~Wang$^{1}$, M.~Wang$^{1}$,

208: P.~Wang$^{1}$, P.~L.~Wang$^{1}$, W.~F.~Wang$^{1}$$^{h}$,

209: Y.~F.~Wang$^{1}$, Z.~Wang$^{1}$,                 Z.~Y.~Wang$^{1}$,

210: Zheng~Wang$^{1}$, C.~L.~Wei$^{1}$,               D.~H.~Wei$^{1}$,

211: Y.~Weng$^{1}$, N.~Wu$^{1}$,                   X.~M.~Xia$^{1}$,

212: X.~X.~Xie$^{1}$, G.~F.~Xu$^{1}$,                X.~P.~Xu$^{6}$,

213: Y.~Xu$^{11}$, M.~L.~Yan$^{17}$,              H.~X.~Yang$^{1}$,

214: Y.~X.~Yang$^{3}$,              M.~H.~Ye$^{2}$, Y.~X.~Ye$^{17}$,

215: G.~W.~Yu$^{1}$, C.~Z.~Yuan$^{1}$,              Y.~Yuan$^{1}$,

216: S.~L.~Zang$^{1}$,              Y.~Zeng$^{7}$, B.~X.~Zhang$^{1}$,

217: B.~Y.~Zhang$^{1}$,             C.~C.~Zhang$^{1}$, D.~H.~Zhang$^{1}$,

218: H.~Q.~Zhang$^{1}$, H.~Y.~Zhang$^{1}$,             J.~W.~Zhang$^{1}$,

219: J.~Y.~Zhang$^{1}$,             S.~H.~Zhang$^{1}$,

220: X.~Y.~Zhang$^{13}$,            Yiyun~Zhang$^{14}$,

221: Z.~X.~Zhang$^{12}$, Z.~P.~Zhang$^{17}$, D.~X.~Zhao$^{1}$,

222: J.~W.~Zhao$^{1}$, M.~G.~Zhao$^{1}$,              P.~P.~Zhao$^{1}$,

223: W.~R.~Zhao$^{1}$, Z.~G.~Zhao$^{1}$$^{i}$, H.~Q.~Zheng$^{12}$,

224: J.~P.~Zheng$^{1}$, Z.~P.~Zheng$^{1}$,             L.~Zhou$^{1}$,

225: K.~J.~Zhu$^{1}$, Q.~M.~Zhu$^{1}$,               Y.~C.~Zhu$^{1}$,

226: Y.~S.~Zhu$^{1}$, Z.~A.~Zhu$^{1}$, B.~A.~Zhuang$^{1}$,

227: X.~A.~Zhuang$^{1}$,            B.~S.~Zou$^{1}$

228: \\

229: \vspace{0.2cm}

230: (BES Collaboration)\\

231: \vspace{0.2cm}

232: {\it

233: $^{1}$ Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing 100049, People's Republic of China\\

234: $^{2}$ China Center for Advanced Science and Technology(CCAST), Beijing 100080, People's Republic of China\\

235: $^{3}$ Guangxi Normal University, Guilin 541004, People's Republic of China\\

236: $^{4}$ Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, People's Republic of China\\

237: $^{5}$ Henan Normal University, Xinxiang 453002, People's Republic of China\\

238: $^{6}$ Huazhong Normal University, Wuhan 430079, People's Republic of China\\

239: $^{7}$ Hunan University, Changsha 410082, People's Republic of China\\

240: $^{8}$ Jinan University, Jinan 250022, People's Republic of China\\

241: $^{9}$ Liaoning University, Shenyang 110036, People's Republic of China\\

242: $^{10}$ Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097, People's Republic of China\\

243: $^{11}$ Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, People's Republic of China\\

244: $^{12}$ Peking University, Beijing 100871, People's Republic of China\\

245: $^{13}$ Shandong University, Jinan 250100, People's Republic of China\\

246: $^{14}$ Sichuan University, Chengdu 610064, People's Republic of China\\

247: $^{15}$ Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, People's Republic of China\\

248: $^{16}$ University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA\\

249: $^{17}$ University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, People's Republic of China\\

250: $^{18}$ Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, People's Republic of China\\

251: $^{19}$ Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310028, People's Republic of China\\

252: \vspace{0.2cm}

253: $^{a}$ Current address: DESY, D-22607, Hamburg, Germany\\

254: $^{b}$ Current address: Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA\\

255: $^{c}$ Current address: University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019, USA\\

256: $^{d}$ Current address: Universite Paris XI, LAL-Bat. 208--BP34,

257: 91898 ORSAY Cedex, France\\

258: $^{e}$ Current address: Max-Plank-Institut fuer Physik, Foehringer Ring 6,

259: 80805 Munich, Germany\\

260: $^{f}$ Current address: University of Toronto, Toronto M5S 1A7, Canada\\

261: $^{g}$ Current address: CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland\\

262: $^{h}$ Current address: Laboratoire de l'Acc$\acute{e}$l$\acute{e}$rateur Lin$\acute{e}$aire, Universit$\acute{e}$ Paris-Sud 11, $\hat{B}$atiment 208, BP34, 91898 Orsay, France\\

263: $^{i}$ Current address: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA\\}

264: }

265: \date{\today}

266: \begin{abstract}

267: Using 58 million $\jpsi$ and 14 million $\psi(2S)$ events collected by

268: the BESII detector at the BEPC, branching fractions or upper limits

269: for the decays $\jpsi$ and $\psp\ar\llp$ and $\lle$ are measured. For

270: the isospin violating decays, the upper limits are determined to be

271: ${\cal B}(\jpsi\ar\llp)<6.4\times 10^{-5}$ and ${\cal

272: B}(\psp\ar\llp)<4.9\times 10^{-5}$ at the 90\% confidence level. The

273: isospin conserving process $\jpsi\ar\lle$ is observed for the first

274: time, and its branching fraction is measured to be ${\cal

275: B}(\jpsi\ar\lle)=(2.62\pm 0.60\pm 0.44)\times 10^{-4}$, where the

276: first error is statistical and the second one is systematic. No $\lle$

277: signal is observed in $\psp$ decays, and ${\cal

278: B}(\psp\ar\lle)<1.2\times 10^{-4}$ is set at the 90\% confidence

279: level. Branching fractions of $\jpsi$ decays into $\splb$ and $\sbpl$

280: are also reported, and the sum of these branching fractions is

281: determined to be ${\cal B}(\jpsi\ar\Sigma^+\pi^-

282: \bar{\Lambda}+c.c.)=(1.52\pm 0.08\pm 0.16)\times 10^{-3}$.

283: \end{abstract}

284: \pacs{13.25.Gv, 12.38.Qk, 14.20.Gk, 14.40.Cs}

285: \maketitle

286: \section{Introduction}

287: Several charmonium decay modes containing $\lm\lmb$ pairs have been

288: reported~\cite{np1,np2,np3,np4,np5,np6,np7,np8}. Among these decays,

289: the isospin violating process $\jpsi\ar\llp$ has been studied by

290: DM2~\cite{np3} and BESI~\cite{np4}, and its average branching fraction

291: is determined to be ${\cal B}(\jpsi\ar\llp)=(2.2\pm 0.6)\times

292: 10^{-4}$~\cite{np12}. However, the isospin conserving process

293: $\jpsi\ar\lle$ has not been reported, and there are no measurements

294: for $\llp$ and $\lle$ decays of $\psp$.

295: 

296: In this paper, we study $\jpsi$ and $\psp\ar\llp$, $\lle$ using 58 M

297: $\jpsi$ events and 14 M $\psp$ events taken with the BESII detector at

298: the BEPC storage ring. We find that the $\jpsi\ar\llp$ branching

299: fraction is much smaller than those measured by DM2 and BESI. In

300: addition, we observe the isospin conserving process $\jpsi\ar\lle$ and

301: measure its branching fraction for the first time. Analyses of $\llp$

302: and $\lle$ in $\psp$ decays are also performed, but no obvious signals

303: are observed for these two channels.

304: 

305: \section{The BESII Detector and Monte Carlo simulation}

306: BESII is a conventional solenoidal magnet detector that is described

307: in detail in Ref.~\cite{np9}. A 12-layer vertex chamber (VTC)

308: surrounding the beam pipe provides trigger and track information. A

309: forty-layer main drift chamber (MDC), located radially outside the

310: VTC, provides trajectory and energy loss ($dE/dx$) information for

311: charged tracks over $85\%$ of the total solid angle.  The momentum

312: resolution is $\sigma _p/p = 0.0178 \sqrt{1+p^2}$ ($p$ in

313: $\hbox{GeV}/c$), and the $dE/dx$ resolution for hadron tracks is $\sim

314: 8\%$. An array of 48 scintillation counters surrounding the MDC

315: measures the time-of-flight (TOF) of charged tracks with a resolution

316: of $\sim 200$ ps for hadrons.  Radially outside the TOF system is a 12

317: radiation length, lead gas-tube barrel shower counter (BSC). This measures

318: the energies of electrons and photons over $\sim 80\%$ of the total

319: solid angle with an energy resolution of $\sigma_E/E=21\%/\sqrt{E}$

320: ($E$ in GeV). Outside of the solenoidal coil, which provides a

321: 0.4~Tesla magnetic field over the tracking volume, is an iron flux

322: return that is instrumented with three double layers of counters that

323: identify muons of momentum greater than 0.5~GeV/$c$.

324: 

325: In this analysis, a GEANT3 based Monte Carlo (MC) simulation

326: program~\cite{np10} with detailed consideration of real detector

327: responses (such as dead electronic channels) is used. The consistency

328: between data and Monte Carlo has been carefully checked in many

329: high-purity physics channels, and the agreement is quite

330: reasonable~\cite{np11}.

331: 

332: \section{Event selection}

333: The decay channels investigated in this paper are $\jpsi\ar\llp$,

334: $\jpsi\ar\lle$, $\psp\ar\llp$, and $\psp\ar\lle$, where $\lm$ decays

335: to $\pi^- p$ and $\pi^0$ and $\eta$ to $\GG$. The final states in which

336: we are interested contain two photons and four charged tracks

337: ($\pppr$). Candidate events are required to satisfy the following

338: common selection criteria:

339: \begin{enumerate}

340: \item Events must have four good charged tracks with net charge

341: zero. A good charged track is a track that is well fitted to a helix

342: in the MDC and has a polar angle, $\theta$, in the range

343: $|\costht|<0.8$.

344: \item The TOF and $\dedx$ measurements of the charged tracks are used

345: to calculate $\chi^{2}_{PID}$ values for the hypotheses that the

346: particle is a pion, kaon, or proton. Only the two proton tracks must

347: be identified with the requirement that $\chi^{2}_{PID}$ for

348: the proton hypothesis is less than those for the $\pi$ or $K$

349: hypotheses.

350: \item Isolated photons are those that have an energy deposit in the BSC

351: greater than 50 MeV and have the angle between the photon entering the BSC,

352: and the shower development direction in the BSC less than

353: $37^{\circ}$. In order to remove the fake photons produced by

354: $\bar{p}$ annihilation and those produced by hadronic interactions of

355: tracks with the shower counter, the angle between the photon and

356: antiproton is required to be larger than $25^{\circ}$ and those

357: between the photon and other charged tracks larger than $8^{\circ}$.

358: \item The selected events are subjected to four constraint (4C)

359: kinematic fits. When there are more than two candidate photons in an

360: event, all combinations are tried and the combination with the

361: smallest $\chi^{2}_{4C}$ is retained. The selection requirement on

362: $\chi^{2}_{4C}$ is optimized by maximizing $S/\sqrt{S+B}$, where

363: $S$ and $B$ are the expected numbers of signal and background events,

364: respectively.

365: \item To select $\lm$ and $\lmb$, the difference between the measured

366: $\pi p$ mass and the expected mass ($M(\lm)$) should be less than

367: 10 MeV/$c^2$ (three times the $\lm$ mass resolution).

368: \end{enumerate}

369: 

370: 

371: \section{Event analysis}

372: \subsection{\boldmath $\jpsi\ar\llp$}

373: \subsubsection{Event Selection}

374: Only events with two good photons are selected, and 4C kinematic fits

375: under the $\GG \pppr$ hypothesis are performed. To select clean

376: $\llb$ events, we require the $\lm$ and $\lmb$ secondary vertices to be

377: reconstructed successfully, and the decay lengths of $\lm$ and $\lmb$

378: in the $x-y$ plane must be larger than 0.05 m.

379: 

380: \bfg

381: \centerline{\psfig{file=newfig1/nfig1.epsi,width=8cm,height=6cm} }

382: \caption{Distribution of $M(\llb)$ for $\jpsi\ar\llb\GG$ candidates.

383: Dots with error bars are data, the shaded histogram is background from

384: MC simulated $\jpsi\ar\SSB$, normalized according to the branching

385: fraction in the PDG, and the dashed histogram is the MC simulated

386: $\jpsi\ar\llp$ signal,  normalized according to the branching

387: fraction in the PDG.}

388: \label{nnfig1}

389: \efg

390: 

391: Figure ~\ref{nnfig1} shows the $\llb$ invariant mass ($M(\llb)$)

392: distribution after

393: the above selection. The large peak near 2.9 GeV/$c^2$ is background

394: from $\jpsi\ar\SSB$, in agreement with the expectation from the MC

395: simulation, normalized to its branching fraction~\cite{np12}, shown as

396: the shaded histogram in Fig.~\ref{nnfig1}. To reject such background,

397: $M(\llb)$ is required to be less than 2.8 GeV/$c^2$.  With this

398: selection, Fig.~\ref{nnfig3} shows the $\chi^{2}_{4C}$ distribution

399: for data and Monte Carlo simulation. To suppress potential

400: backgrounds, $\chi^{2}_{4C}<$ 10 is required.

401: 

402: \bfg

403: \centerline{\psfig{file=newfig1/nfig2.epsi,width=8cm,height=6cm}}

404: \caption{Distribution of $\chi^{2}_{4C}$ for $\jpsi\ar\llb\GG$

405:   candidate events (solid histogram) and Monte Carlo simulated $\jpsi\ar\llp$ events

406:   (dashed histogram). Here, $M(\llb)$ is required to be less than 2.8

407:   GeV/$c^2$.}

408: \label{nnfig3}

409: \efg

410: 

411: \bfg

412: \centerline{\psfig{file=newfig1/nfig3.eps,width=8cm,height=4cm}}

413: \caption{Scatter plot of  $M(\pi^+ \bar{p})$ versus

414: $M(\pi^- p)$ invariant mass for (a) $\jpsi\ar\splb

415: ~(+c.c.)$ candidate events and (b) MC simulation.}

416: \label{nnfig14}

417: \efg

418: \subsubsection{Background Analysis}

419: To explore other possible backgrounds, we generate MC events for the

420: following channels: $\jpsi\ar\gamma\llb$, $\SSB$,

421: $\Sigma(1385)^0\bar{\Sigma}(1385)^0$, $\Xi^0\bar{\Xi}^0$,

422: $\Xi(1530)^0\bar{\Xi}^0$, $\Sigma^0\pi^0\lmb+c.c.$, and

423: $\Sigma^+\pi^-\lmb+c.c.$. Only the last two channels give significant

424: contributions to the $\pi^0$ signal. In particular, the decay mode

425: $\jpsi\ar\Sigma^0\pi^0\lmb+c.c.$, which contains $\llp$ with an

426: additional photon in the final state, could contribute

427: to the observed number of $\llp$ candidates. Because direct

428: measurements of $\jpsi\ar\Sigma^0\pi^0\lmb+c.c.$ are difficult, we measure the

429: branching fractions of their isospin partners and estimate their

430: branching fractions by assuming isospin symmetry. To estimate the

431: contamination from $\jpsi\ar\Sigma^0\pi^0\lmb+c.c.$, a high precision

432: measurement of $\jpsi\ar\Sigma^+\pi^-\lmb+c.c.$ is very important.

433: 

434: \bfg

435: \centerline{\psfig{file=newfig1/nfig4.eps,width=8cm,height=4cm}}

436: \caption{Scatter plot of $M(\GG)$ versus $M(\pi^+ \bar{p})$ for (a)

437:   $\jpsi\ar\splb$ candidate events and (b) MC simulation of

438:   $\jpsi\ar\splb$, both satisfying $\chi^{2}_{4C}<$15. The central box in

439:   the figure is the signal region defined by $|M(\GG)-M(\pi^0)|<0.03$

440:   GeV/$c^2$ and $|M(\pi^+ \bar{p})-M(\lmb)|<0.006$ GeV/$c^2$. The

441:   $\pi^0$ sideband is defined by $|M(\GG)-0.06|<0.03$ MeV/$c^2$ and

442:   $|M(\GG)-0.21|<0.03$ GeV/$c^2$ (The two boxes located above and

443:   below the signal region), and the $\lmb$ sideband region by

444:   $|M(\pi^+ \bar{p})-1.101)|<0.006$ GeV/$c^2$ and $|M(\pi^+

445:   \bar{p})-1.131)|<0.006$ GeV/$c^2$ (The two boxes on the left and

446:   right of the signal region). The four boxes at the corners are used

447:   to estimate the phase space contribution.}

448: \label{nnfig15}

449: \efg

450: 

451: \bfg

452: \centerline{\hbox{\psfig{file=newfig1/nfig5-1.eps,width=4cm,height=4cm}

453: \psfig{file=newfig1/nfig5-2.eps,width=4cm,height=4cm}}}

454: \caption{(a) $M(\pi^0p)$ of $\jpsi\ar\pi^0p\pi^-\lmb$ candidate

455:   events from the signal region of Fig.~\ref{nnfig15} and (b)

456:   $M(\pi^0\bar{p})$ of $\jpsi\ar\pi^0\bar{p}\pi^+\lm$ candidate

457:   events. Dots with error bars are data, the solid histograms are the

458:   best fits described in the text, and the dashed histograms are

459:   backgrounds estimated from  $\lm$ and $\pi^0$ sidebands.}

460: \label{nnfig17}

461: \efg

462: \subsubsection{Measurement of $\jpsi\ar\Sigma^+\pi^-\lmb+c.c.$}

463: The $\jpsi\ar\splb+c.c.$ events, where $\Sigma^+ \ar

464: \pi^0 p$ and $\lmb\ar\pi^+ \bar{p}$, have the same final states as the

465: signal channel $\llp$. Candidate events are required to satisfy

466: $\chi^{2}_{4C}<$15, in addition to the common selection criteria in

467: Section III, except for the $\lm$ and $\lmb$ mass

468: requirements. Figure~\ref{nnfig14} is a scatter plot of $M(\pi^+

469: \bar{p})$ versus $M(\pi^- p)$ invariant mass for data and MC

470: simulation. The two bands are the $\jpsi\ar\splb+c.c.$ events. In

471: order to select $\jpsi\ar\splb$, $M(\pi^- p)>$ 1.15 GeV/$c^2$ is

472: required. Figure~\ref{nnfig15} shows the scatter plot of $M(\GG)$ versus

473: $M(\pi^+ \bar{p})$. The intersection region (central box) of the

474: $\pi^0$ and $\lmb$ bands corresponds to the $\jpsi\ar\splb$

475: signal. The dots with error bars in Fig.~\ref{nnfig17} (a) show the

476: distribution of $M(\pi^0 p)$ invariant mass of the events in the

477: central box ($|M(\GG)-M(\pi^0)|<30$ MeV/$c^2$ and $|M(\pi^+

478: \bar{p})-M(\lm)|<6$ MeV/$c^2$), and a clear $\Sigma^+$ signal is

479: observed. The dashed histogram is the background coming from sidebands

480: of $\pi^0$ and $\lmb$. To obtain the number of $\Sigma^+$ events, we

481: fit the $\Sigma^+$ signal with a histogram of the signal shape from MC

482: simulation plus the background shape determined from the $\pi^0$ and

483: $\lmb$ sidebands. $335\pm22$ $\Sigma^+$ events are obtained from the

484: fit. We do a similar analysis to measure $\jpsi\ar\sbpl$. The

485: signal for $\bar{\Sigma}^-$ and the fitting result are shown in

486: Fig.~\ref{nnfig17} (b). The fit yields $254 \pm 19$ events.

487: 

488: The efficiencies for $\jpsi\ar\splb$ and $\jpsi\ar\sbpl$ are determined

489: to be 2.3\% and 1.8\% using $2\times 10^{5}$ MC simulated signal

490: events, respectively. The branching fractions are calculated to be

491: ${\cal B}(\jpsi\ar\splb)=(7.70\pm 0.51)\times 10^{-4}$ and ${\cal

492: B}(\jpsi\ar\sbpl)=(7.47\pm 0.56)\times 10^{-4}$, where the errors are

493: statistical. The total branching fraction of the two conjugate modes is ${\cal B}(\jpsi\ar\splb+c.c.)=(15.17\pm 0.76)\times 10^{-4}$.

494: 

495: \bfg

496: \centerline{\psfig{file=newfig1/nfig66.epsi,width=8cm,height=7cm}}

497: \caption{Invariant mass distribution of $M(\GG)$ for $\jpsi\ar\llb\GG$

498:   candidates (dots with error bars) and normalized backgrounds (solid

499:   histogram). The dashed curves shows the $\pi^0$ signal from MC

500:   simulated $\jpsi\ar\llp$. The arrows denote the region of the

501:   $\pi^0$ signal defined in the text. We use different histogram

502:   styles to indicate leading backgrounds from

503:   $\jpsi\ar\Sigma^0\pi^0\lmb~(+c.c.)$ (circles),

504:   $\jpsi\ar\Sigma^+\pi^-\lmb~(+c.c.)$ (squares),

505:   $\jpsi\ar\Xi^0\bar{\Xi}^0$ (triangles),

506:   $\jpsi\ar\Sigma(1385)^0\bar{\Sigma}(1385)^0$ (stars) and

507:   $\jpsi\ar\SSB$ (rhombi), which contribute $46.0 \pm5.4$,

508:   $11.2\pm1.3$, $1.9 \pm 0.4$, $1.0 \pm0.3$, and 0 events in the

509:   defined $\pi^0$ region.  }

510: \label{nnfig5}

511: \efg

512: \subsubsection{Background determination and upper limit on the number of signal events}

513: Using the branching fractions for $\jpsi\ar\Sigma^+\pi^-\lmb+c.c.$

514: measured above and branching fractions available in the

515: PDG~\cite{np12}, we obtain $29.2$, $14.3$, $14.2$, $125.0$, and

516: $11.9$ background events from $\jpsi\ar\Xi^0\bar{\Xi}^0$, $\jpsi\ar\SSB$,

517: $\jpsi\ar\Sigma(1385)^0\bar{\Sigma}(1385)^0$,

518: $\jpsi\ar\Sigma^0\pi^0\lmb~(+c.c.)$, and

519: $\jpsi\ar\Sigma^+\pi^-\lmb~(+c.c.)$ for the $\jpsi\ar\llp$ selection,

520: respectively. We also studied backgrounds from other

521: possible channels listed in the PDG~\cite{np12} that might contaminate

522: the $\pi^0$ signal, but their contamination was found to be negligible.

523: The histogram in Fig.~\ref{nnfig5} shows normalized backgrounds from

524: all background channels. The normalized $M(\GG)$

525: distribution of the background events is in reasonable agreement

526: with the data. The dashed line in the figure shows the $\pi^0$ signal

527: from MC simulated $\jpsi\ar\llp$. To estimate the expected number of

528: signal events, we define the $\pi^0$ mass region as

529: $|M(\GG)-M(\pi^0)|<0.045$ GeV/$c^2$, which is indicated in the figure

530: and selects most of the $\pi^0$ signal events. The numbers of $\pi^0$

531: events in the mass region are found to be $54.0 \pm 7.4$ and $60.1 \pm

532: 9.5$ for data and normalized backgrounds, respectively. By using the

533: POLE method~\cite{np13,np14}, the upper limit on the number of $\pi^0$

534: events from $\jpsi\ar\llp$ is calculated to be 11.2 at the 90\%

535: confidence level (C.L.).

536: \bfg

537: \centerline{\psfig{file=newfig1/nfig7.eps,width=8cm,height=6cm}}

538: \caption{The $\llb$ invariant mass distribution for $\jpsi\ar\llb\GG$

539: candidates (dots with error bars), background from MC simulated

540: $\jpsi\ar\SSB$ (hatched histogram), background from MC simulated

541: $\jpsi\ar\Xi^0\bar{\Xi}^0$ (dashed histogram), and MC simulated

542: $\jpsi\ar\lle$ signal (solid histogram). The backgrounds are

543: normalized according to the branching fractions in the PDG and the $\lle$ signal is normalized using the branching fraction measured in this paper. The arrow indicates the $M(\llb)$ requirement, and events below the arrow are selected as $\jpsi\ar\lle$ candidates.}

544: \label{nnfig6}

545: \efg

546: \subsection{\boldmath $\jpsi\ar\lle$}

547: Candidate events with two or three good photons are selected, and the

548: $\chi^{2}_{4C}$ is required to be less than 15. Since the momenta of

549: $\lm$ and $\lmb$ are low in this channel, no requirement is made on

550: the decay lengths of $\lm$ and $\lmb$; otherwise the efficiency would

551: be extremely low. This is demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{nnfig5}, where a

552: decay length requirement is made and no $\eta$ signal is

553: seen. Figure~\ref{nnfig6} shows the $\llb$ invariant mass distribution

554: after the above selection. To remove the backgrounds from

555: $\jpsi\ar\SSB$ and $\jpsi\ar\Xi^0\bar{\Xi}^0$, events with $M(\llb)>

556: 2.55$ GeV/$c^2$ are rejected, since for the signal process, they are

557: kinematically prohibited .  Dots with error bars in Fig.~\ref{nnfig9}

558: show the invariant mass of $M(\GG)$, and a clear $\eta$ signal is

559: observed.  \bfg

560: \centerline{\psfig{file=newfig1/nfig88.epsi,width=8cm,height=6cm}}

561: \caption{Fit to the $\GG$ invariant mass distribution of

562: $\jpsi\ar\llb\GG$ candidate events selected in Fig.~\ref{nnfig6}. Dots

563: with error bars are data, the hatched histogram is the normalized

564: background from all the channels considered, and the

565: solid histogram is the fit to data using a histogram of the signal

566: shape from MC simulation plus a second order polynomial for

567: background.}

568: \label{nnfig9}

569: \efg

570: 

571: To investigate possible backgrounds, we consider the following

572: channels with $\lm$ or $\Xi$ production: $\jpsi\ar\gamma\llb$, $\SSB$,

573: $\Sigma(1385)^0\bar{\Sigma}(1385)^0$, $\Xi^0\bar{\Xi}^0$,

574: $\Xi(1530)^0\bar{\Xi}^0$, $\Sigma^0\pi^0\lmb+c.c.$, and

575: $\Sigma^+\pi^-\lmb+c.c.$. Using available branching fractions of these decay modes,

576: we obtain 7.8, 27.6, 6.2, and 20.4 background events from $\jpsi\ar\Xi^0\bar{\Xi}^0$,

577: $\jpsi\ar\Sigma(1385)^0\bar{\Sigma}(1385)^0$, $\jpsi\ar\Xi(1530)^0\bar{\Xi}^0$, and $\Sigma^0\pi^0\lmb+c.c.$ in

578: the mass region $M(\GG)>0.4$ GeV/$c^2$, respectively. The background

579: contribution from the $\llb$ sidebands ($|M(\pi p)-1.141|<0.01$

580: GeV/$c^2$) is evaluated to be $3 \pm 2$ events. Contamination from

581: other possible channels listed in the PDG~\cite{np12} that might

582: contaminate the $\eta$ signal is negligible. The shaded histogram in

583: Fig.~\ref{nnfig9} shows the normalized backgrounds from the above

584: channels. We fit the $\GG$ invariant mass distribution with a MC

585: simulated signal shape and a second order polynomial background. The

586: fit yields $44 \pm 10$ events with a statistical significance of

587: 4.8$\sigma$.

588: 

589: \subsection{\boldmath $\psp\ar\llp$ and $\lle$}

590: The selection criteria for these two decays are similar to those for

591: $\jpsi$ decays. A 4C kinematic fit to the hypothesis $\psp\ar\GG\pppr$

592: for candidate events with two good photons is performed, and the

593: $\chi^{2}_{4C}$ is required to be less than 15. Backgrounds from

594: $\psp\ar\pi^+\pi^-\jpsi$ are rejected with the requirement

595: $|M^{recoil}_{\pi^+ \pi^-}-M(\jpsi)|>0.04$ GeV/$c^2$, where

596: $M^{recoil}_{\pi^+ \pi^-}$ is the recoiling mass of $\pi^+

597: \pi^-$. Figure~\ref{nnfig12} (d) depicts the invariant mass distribution

598: of the charged tracks. The peak around 3.1 GeV/$c^2$ is from

599: $\psp\ar neutral+\jpsi$. In order to veto such background,

600: $|M(\llb)-M(\jpsi)|>0.05$ GeV/$c^2$ is required. Furthermore, to

601: suppress the background from $\psp\ar\SSB$ shown in

602: Fig.~\ref{nnfig12}, the invariant mass of $\llb$ is required

603: to be less than 3.3 GeV/$c^2$.

604: \bfg

605: \centerline{\psfig{file=newfig1/2.eps,width=8cm,height=6cm}}

606: \caption{$M(\llb)$ distribution for MC simulated events: (a)

607: $\psp\ar\llp$, (b) $\psp\ar\lle$, and (c) $\psp\ar\SSB$. (d) The $M(\llb)$

608: distribution for data. The arrow denotes the

609: selection $M(\llb)<$ 3.3 GeV/$c^2$.}

610: \label{nnfig12}

611: \efg

612: \bfg

613: \centerline{\psfig{file=newfig1/nfig1010.epsi,width=8cm,height=6cm}}

614: \caption{The $\GG$ invariant mass distribution for candidate

615: $\psp\ar\GG\llb$ events. Dots with error bars are data, and the

616: histograms are MC simulated signal events. The arrows indicate the

617: signal region of $\pi^0$ and $\eta$ described in the text.}

618: \label{nnfig13}

619: \efg

620: 

621: Figure~\ref{nnfig13} shows the $\GG$ invariant mass distribution

622: after the above selection, and we see no significant

623: $\pi^0$ or $\eta$ signals. In order to estimate the number of signal events,

624: we define the signal regions as 0.09 $<M(\GG)<$ 0.18 and

625: 0.50 $<M(\GG)<$ 0.60 (GeV/$c^2$) for $\pi^0$ and $\eta$,

626: respectively. The number of signal events is found to be 4 in both

627: regions. To estimate the backgrounds from the sidebands of

628: $\pi^0$ and $\eta$, (0.03 - 0.08) and (0.19 - 0.25) (GeV/$c^2$) are taken

629: as the sidebands of $\pi^0$, and (0.43 - 0.49), (0.61 - 0.67) (GeV/$c^2$)

630: are taken as the sidebands of $\eta$. The numbers of background events from

631: the sidebands of $\pi^0$ and $\eta$ are estimated to be 1 and

632: 1.5. With the POLE method~\cite{np13,np14}, the upper limits on the

633: numbers of signal events at the 90\% C.L. are calculated to be 7.0 and

634: 7.6, respectively.

635: \begin{table*}

636: \caption{Summary of systematic errors (\%).}

637: \bcl

638: \begin{tabular}{l|cc|cc|cc}\hline\hline

639: Source&$\jpsi\ar\llp$&$\jpsi\ar\lle$&$\psp\ar\llp$&$\psp\ar\lle$&$\jpsi\ar\splb$&$\jpsi\ar\sbpl$ \\ \hline

640: Tracking and PID&7.0&14.0&6.0&12.0&7.0&6.0\\

641: Photon efficiency&4.0&4.0&4.0&4.0&4.0&4.0\\

642: Kinematic fit&5.0&5.0&5.0&5.0&5.0&5.0\\

643: $\lm$ vertex requirement&3.7&-&-&-&-&-\\

644: Background shape&-&3.0&-&-&2.2&1.5 \\

645: Number of good photons&3.0&3.0&3.0&3.0&-&- \\

646: Total number of events&4.7&4.7&4.0&4.0&4.7&4.7\\

647: Total&11.6&16.6&10.1&14.5&10.8&10.1 \\ \hline

648: \end{tabular}

649: \label{syserrors}

650: \ecl

651: \end{table*}

652: 

653: \section{Systematic errors}

654: The systematic errors on the branching fractions are mainly from the

655: efficiency differences between data and MC simulation in the MDC

656: tracking, particle identification (PID), photon detection, kinematic

657: fitting, the $\lm$ vertex finding, and the decay length requirement

658: and the uncertainties on the

659: total number of $\jpsi$ and $\psp$ events.

660: 

661: The MDC tracking and particle identification (PID) systematic errors

662: are estimated from the difference of the selection efficiencies of

663: protons and antiprotons between data and MC simulation~\cite{np15}. The

664: efficiencies are measured using samples of $\jpsi\ar\pppr$ and

665: $\psp\ar\pppr$, which are selected using PID for three tracks,

666: allowing one proton or antiproton at a time to be missing in the

667: fit~\cite{np15}. The efficiency difference between data and MC

668: simulation for one proton is from 2\% to 5\% depending on the

669: proton momentum of the decay channels.

670: 

671: The photon detection efficiency is studied using $\jpsi\ar\rho^0\pi^0$

672: in Ref.~\cite{np16}. The results indicate that the systematic error is

673: about 2\% for each photon. Therefore, 4\% is taken as the systematic

674: error on the photon efficiency for all the decays.

675: 

676: \begin{table*}

677: \caption{Measured branching fractions or upper limits at 90\% confidence level (C.L.) for all the studied channels. Here, ${\cal B}(\Lambda\ar\pi^- p)=63.9\%$,

678:  ${\cal B}(\Sigma^+\ar\pi^0 p)=51.6\%$ and ${\cal

679:  B}(\eta\ar\GG)=39.4\%$ are taken from the PDG.}

680: \bcl

681: %\doublerulesep 2pt

682: \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}\hline\hline

683: Channels&Number of events&MC efficiency(\%)&Branching fraction ($\times 10^{-4}$)\\ \hline

684: $\jpsi\ar\llp$&$<11.2$&0.75&$<0.64$\\

685: $\jpsi\ar\lle$&$44\pm 10$&$1.8$&$2.62\pm 0.60\pm 0.44$\\ \hline

686: $\psp\ar\llp$&$<7.0$&2.5&$<0.49$\\

687: $\psp\ar\lle$&$<7.6$&2.9&$<1.2$\\ \hline

688: $\jpsi\ar\splb$&$335 \pm 22$&2.3&$7.70\pm 0.51\pm 0.83$ \\

689: $\jpsi\ar\sbpl$&$254 \pm 19$&1.8&$7.47\pm 0.56\pm 0.76$ \\ \hline

690: $\jpsi\ar\splb+c.c.$& & &$15.17\pm 0.76\pm 1.59$ \\  \hline

691: \end{tabular}

692: \label{branresult}

693: \ecl

694: \end{table*}

695: The uncertainty due to the kinematic fit is studied using many

696: channels which can be selected purely without a kinematic

697: fit~\cite{np15,np16,np17}. It is found that the MC simulates the

698: kinematic fit efficiency at the 5\% level for almost all channels

699: tested. Therefore, we take 5\% as the systematic error due to the

700: kinematic fit.

701: 

702: The $\lm$ reconstruction systematic errors are

703: studied using $\jpsi\ar\llb$~\cite{np7,np8}. The $\lm$

704: secondary vertex finding gives a systematic error of 0.7\%

705: for each $\lm$ vertex, and the decay length requirement

706: contributes 1.7\%. The total percentage error arising from $\lm$ and

707: $\lmb$ vertex requirements is 3.7\%.

708: 

709: The systematic error of the background shape can be determined by

710: fitting the observed $\Sigma^+$, $\bar{\Sigma^-}$ and $\eta$ signal

711: events with different background shapes. For $\jpsi\ar\splb$

712: and $\jpsi\ar\sbpl$, the background shape in fitting the $\Sigma^+$

713: and $\bar{\Sigma^-}$ is changed to a second order polynomial. The

714: differences in the numbers of fitted $\Sigma^+$ and $\bar{\Sigma^-}$

715: events are found to be 2.2\% and 1.5\%, respectively. For

716: $\jpsi\ar\lle$, the background shape is changed from a second order

717: polynomial to a first order one, and the difference in the number of

718: fitted signal events is about 3\%.

719: 

720: The uncertainty caused by the requirement of two good photons is

721: estimated by considering the percentage of events without fake photons

722: in the sample of $\jpsi\ar\llb$. It is found that the difference in

723: the percentages of events without fake photons between data and MC

724: simulation is 3\%, which is taken as the systematic error for the

725: requirement of two good photons.

726: 

727: Finally, the results reported here are based on a total of 58 M

728: $\jpsi$ events and 14 M $\psp$ events. The uncertainties on the number

729: of $\jpsi$ and $\psp$ events are 4.7\% and 4.0\%, respectively. Table

730: ~\ref{syserrors} lists the systematic errors from all sources. Adding

731: all errors in quadrature, the total percentage errors

732: range from 10\% to 17\% for all the studied decay channels.

733: 

734: \section{Results and Discussion}

735: Table ~\ref{branresult} lists the results for $\jpsi$ and $\psp$ decay

736: into $\llp$ and $\lle$, as well as $\jpsi\ar\splb+c.c.$. We also list the total branching fraction

737: for the conjugate modes, where the common systematic errors have been taken out. Except for

738: $\jpsi\ar\llp$ and $\jpsi\ar\splb+c.c.$, the results are first

739: measurements. Interestingly, the result of $\jpsi\ar\llp$

740: presented here is much smaller than those of DM2 and

741: BESI~\cite{np3,np4}. In previous experiments, the large contaminations

742: from $\jpsi\ar\Sigma^0\pi^0\lmb+c.c.$ and

743: $\jpsi\ar\Sigma^+\pi^-\lmb+c.c.$ were not considered, resulting in a

744: large value of branching fraction for $\jpsi\ar\llp$. The small

745: branching fraction of $\jpsi\ar\llp$ and relatively large branching

746: fraction of $\jpsi\ar\lle$ measured here indicate that the isospin

747: violating decay in $\jpsi$ decays is suppressed while isospin

748: conserving decays are favored, which is consistent with

749: expectation.

750: 

751: \section{Acknowledgment}

752: The BES collaboration thanks the staff of BEPC and computing center

753: for their hard efforts. This work is supported in part by the National

754: Natural Science Foundation of China under contracts Nos. 10491300,

755: 10225524, 10225525, 10425523,10625524, 10521003, the Chinese Academy

756: of Sciences under contract No. KJ 95T-03, the 100 Talents Program of

757: CAS under Contract Nos. U-11, U-24, U-25, and the Knowledge Innovation

758: Project of CAS under Contract Nos. U-602, U-34 (IHEP), U-612(IHEP),

759: the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Contract

760: Nos. 10225522, 10491305 (Tsinghua University), MOE of China under

761: contract No. IRT0624 (CCNU), and the Department of Energy under

762: Contract No. DE-FG02-04ER41291 (U. Hawaii).

763: \begin{thebibliography}{**}

764: \bbt{np1}MarkI Collaboration, I.~Peruzzi {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 17}, 2901 (1978).

765: \bbt{np2}MarkII Collaboration, M.~W.~Eaton {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 29}, 804 (1984).

766: \bbt{np3}DM2 Collaboration, P.~Henrard {\em et al.}, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 292}, 670 (1987).

767: \bbt{np4}BES Collaboration, J.~Z.~Bai {\em et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 424}, 213 (1998).

768: \bbt{np5}BES Collaboration, J.~Z.~Bai {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 032002 (2001).

769: \bbt{np6}CLEO Collaboration, T.~K.~Pedlar {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 72}, 051108 (2005).

770: \bbt{np7}BES Collaboration, M.~Ablikim {\em et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 632}, 181 (2006).

771: \bbt{np8}BES Collaboration, M.~Ablikim {\em et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 648}, 149 (2007).

772: \bbt{np12}Particle Physics Group, W.~M.~Yao {\em et al.}, J. Phys. G {\bf 33}, 1 (2006).

773: \bbt{np9}BES Collaboration, J.~Z.~Bai {\em et al.}, Nucl. Inst. Meths. A {\bf 458}, 627 (2001).

774: \bbt{np10}CERN Application Software Group, GEANT Detector Description and Simulation Tool, CERN Program Library Long Writeup W 5013, Geneva(1994).

775: \bbt{np11}BES Collaboration, M.~Ablikim {\em et al.}, Nucl. Inst. Meths. A {\bf 552}, 344 (2005).

776: \bbt{np13}J.~Conrad {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67}, 012002 (2003).

777: \bbt{np14}Y.~S.~Zhu, Nucl. Inst. Meths. A {\bf 578}, 322 (2007).

778: \bbt{np15}BES Collaboration, M.~Ablikim {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71}, 072006 (2005).

779: \bbt{np16}BES Collaboration, J.~Z.~Bai {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70}, 012005 (2004).

780: \bbt{np17}BES Collaboration, J.~Z.~Bai {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 092001 (2004).

781: \end{thebibliography}

782: \end{document}

783: