1: Once the decay amplitudes ${\cal A}_{D}(\mtwo)$
2: for \Dztokspipi and \Dztokskk are known, they are fed into $\Gamma_{\mp}^{(*)}(\mtwo)$
3: and $\Gamma_{s\mp}(\mtwo)$.
4: The extraction of the \CP-violating parameters
5: \xbxbstmp, \ybybstmp, \xsmp, and \ysmp is then performed
6: through a simultaneous unbinned maximum likelihood fit (referred to hereafter as the \CP fit) to the $\Gamma_{\mp}^{(*)}(\mtwo)$ and $\Gamma_{s\mp}(\mtwo)$
7: Dalitz plot distributions of the seven signal modes, in the \DeltaE signal region defined as $|\DeltaE|<30$~\mev.
8: Figures~\ref{fig:dalitz-kspipi} and~\ref{fig:dalitz-kskk} show these distributions separately for \Bm and \Bp decays
9: in a region enriched in signal through the requirements $\mes>5.272$~\gevcc and $\fisher>-0.1$.
10: The efficiency of the Fisher cut in the $|\DeltaE|<30$~\mev and $\mes>5.272$~\gevcc region
11: is around 70\% for signal events, while for continuum background events it is below 1\%.
12:
13:
14: \begin{figure}[hbt!]
15: \begin{tabular}{cc}
16: \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{d0k_DK_KsPiPi_DalitzqAC-qAB_slice_Bminus.eps}&
17: \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{d0k_DK_KsPiPi_DalitzqAC-qAB_slice_Bplus.eps} \\
18: \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{d0k_Dpi0K_KsPiPi_DalitzqAC-qAB_slice_Bminus.eps}&
19: \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{d0k_Dpi0K_KsPiPi_DalitzqAC-qAB_slice_Bplus.eps} \\
20: \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{d0k_DgammaK_KsPiPi_DalitzqAC-qAB_slice_Bminus.eps}&
21: \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{d0k_DgammaK_KsPiPi_DalitzqAC-qAB_slice_Bplus.eps} \\
22: \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{d0k_DKspi_KsPiPi_DalitzqAC-qAB_slice_Bminus.eps}&
23: \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{d0k_DKspi_KsPiPi_DalitzqAC-qAB_slice_Bplus.eps} \\
24: \end{tabular}
25: \caption{\label{fig:dalitz-kspipi} (color online). \Dztildetokspipi Dalitz plot distributions for
26: (a) $\Bm \to \Dztilde \Km$, (b) $\Bp \to \Dztilde \Kp$,
27: (c) $\Bm \to \Dstarztilde[\Dztilde\piz] \Km$, (d) $\Bp \to \Dstarztilde[\Dztilde\piz] \Kp$,
28: (e) $\Bm \to \Dstarztilde[\Dztilde\gamma] \Km$, (f) $\Bp \to \Dstarztilde[\Dztilde\gamma] \Kp$,
29: (g) $\Bm \to \Dztilde \Kstarm$, and (h) $\Bp \to \Dztilde \Kstarp$, for the \DeltaE signal region.
30: The requirements $\mes>5.272$~\gevcc and $\fisher>-0.1$ have been applied to reduce the background contamination,
31: mainly from continuum events.
32: The contours (solid red lines) represent the kinematical limits of the \Dztildetokspipi decay.
33: }
34: \end{figure}
35:
36:
37: \begin{figure}[hbt!]
38: \begin{tabular}{cc}
39: \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{d0k_DK_KsKK_DalitzqAC-qAB_slice_Bminus.eps}&
40: \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{d0k_DK_KsKK_DalitzqAC-qAB_slice_Bplus.eps} \\
41: \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{d0k_Dpi0K_KsKK_DalitzqAC-qAB_slice_Bminus.eps}&
42: \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{d0k_Dpi0K_KsKK_DalitzqAC-qAB_slice_Bplus.eps} \\
43: \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{d0k_DgammaK_KsKK_DalitzqAC-qAB_slice_Bminus.eps}&
44: \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{d0k_DgammaK_KsKK_DalitzqAC-qAB_slice_Bplus.eps} \\
45: \end{tabular}
46: \caption{\label{fig:dalitz-kskk} (color online). \Dztildetokskk Dalitz plot distributions for
47: (a) $\Bm \to \Dztilde \Km$, (b) $\Bp \to \Dztilde \Kp$,
48: (c) $\Bm \to \Dstarztilde[\Dztilde\piz] \Km$, (d) $\Bp \to \Dstarztilde[\Dztilde\piz] \Kp$,
49: (e) $\Bm \to \Dstarztilde[\Dztilde\gamma] \Km$, and (f) $\Bp \to \Dstarztilde[\Dztilde\gamma] \Kp$,
50: for the \DeltaE signal region.
51: The requirements $\mes>5.272$~\gevcc and $\fisher>-0.1$ have been applied to reduce the background contamination,
52: mainly from continuum events.
53: The contours (solid red lines) represent the kinematical limits of the \Dztildetokskk decay.
54: }
55: \end{figure}
56:
57:
58: The log-likelihood function for each of the seven \CP samples generalizes Eq.~(\ref{eq:likehood_sel}) to include the Dalitz plot distributions,
59: \bea
60: \ln {\cal L} = -\eta + \sum_j \ln \left[ \sum_c \frac{N_c}{2} (1\pm A_c) {\cal P}_c({\bf u}_j) {\cal D}_{c,\mp}(\mtwoj) \right].~~~
61: \label{eq:likehood_CP}
62: \eea
63: Here, ${\cal D}_{c,\mp}(\mtwoj)$ is the Dalitz plot PDF for event $j$ satisfying the normalization condition $\int {\cal D}_{c,\mp}(\mtwo){\rm d}\mtwo = 1$,
64: and $A_c$ accounts for any
65: asymmetry in the absolute number of \Bm and \Bp candidates (charge asymmetry) for component $c$.
66:
67: For $\Bmp \to \Dztilde \Kmp$ signal, ${\cal D}_{{\rm sig},\mp}(\mtwo) = \Gamma_\mp(\mtwo) \epsilon(\mtwo)$,
68: where the efficiency map in the Dalitz plot $\epsilon(\mtwo)$
69: is determined as for $\Dstarp \to \Dz\pip$ events (Sec.~\ref{sec:dalitzmodels-analysis}).
70: We replace $r_\B^2$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:ampgen}) by $r_{\Bmp}^2 = x_\mp^2 + y_\mp^2$. The physical condition $\rbm=\rbp$ is recovered
71: in the statistical procedure to extract $\gamma$ from $x_\mp,y_\mp$, as discussed in
72: Sec.~\ref{sec:interpretation}. The same procedure is applied analogously to the other signal samples.
73:
74:
75:
76: We consider the same background components as in the selection fit, with
77: some important modifications. First, events falling into the continuum and \BB background components are
78: divided into events with a real or a fake (combinatorial) \Dztilde meson.
79: Dalitz plot shapes for fake \Dztilde mesons from continuum are extracted as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:dalitzmodels-analysis},
80: using events in the continuum enriched region (\mes and \mD sideband regions), while those from \BB are determined from MC events.
81: Events containing a real \Dztilde are further divided into ``right-sign'' and ``wrong-sign'' flavor
82: categories depending on whether they are combined with a negative or positive
83: kaon (or \Kstar). We pay special attention to this charge-flavor correlation in the background since it can mimic either the
84: $\b \to \c$ or the $\b \to \u$ signal component. Second, we have included a background contribution due to signal events where
85: the kaon (or \Kstar) comes from the other \B decay;
86: this amounts to 9\% of the $\Bm \to \Dztilde \Kstarm$ signal, but is negligible for $\Bm \to \DzDstarztilde \Km$.
87:
88: The \mes, \DeltaE, and \fisher PDF parameters in the \CP fit are the same as those used in or obtained from the selection fit,
89: except for the \mes peaking fractions for \Dztildetokspipi channels, which are allowed to vary since their values depend on
90: the \DeltaE region used for the fit. Other parameters simultaneously determined from the fit, along with the \CP-violating
91: parameters \xbxbstmp, \ybybstmp, \xsmp, and \ysmp, are:
92: signal and background yields,
93: signal charge asymmetries,
94: and fractions of true \Dz mesons for all decay modes and right-sign fractions for \Dztildetokspipi channels in continuum background.
95: Right-sign fractions for the modes with \Dztildetokskk are fixed from MC simulation due to lack of statistics and
96: the limited discriminating power between \Dz and \Dzb Dalitz plot distributions.
97: Similarly, fractions of true \Dztilde mesons and charge-flavor correlation for the \BB component are determined using MC events,
98: because of the lack of \BB background statistics.
99:
100:
101:
102: \subsection{Results and cross-checks}
103: \label{sec:results-crosschecks}
104:
105: We find $600 \pm 31$, $133 \pm 15$, $129 \pm 16$, and $118 \pm 18$ signal events,
106: for
107: $\Bm \to \Dztilde \Km$,
108: $\Bm \to \Dstarztilde[\Dztilde\piz]\Km$,
109: $\Bm \to \Dstarztilde[\Dztilde\gamma]\Km$,
110: and $\Bm\to \Dztilde \Kstarm$ decay modes, respectively, with \Dztildetokspipi.
111: Similarly, for the \Dztildetokskk channels we obtain $112 \pm 13$, $32 \pm 7$, and $21 \pm 7$ signal events,
112: for
113: $\Bm \to \Dztilde \Km$,
114: $\Bm \to \Dstarztilde[\Dztilde\piz]\Km$, and
115: $\Bm \to \Dstarztilde[\Dztilde\gamma]\Km$.
116: Errors are statistical only. No statistically significant charge asymmetries are observed.
117: The results for the \CP-violating parameters $\xbxbstmp$, $\ybybstmp$, $\xsmp$, and $\ysmp$,
118: are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:cp_coord}. The only non-zero statistical correlations %(above 1\%)
119: involving the \CP parameters are
120: for the pairs $(x_-,y_-)$, $(x_+,y_+)$, $(x_-^*,y_-^*)$, $(x_+^*,y_+^*)$, $(x_{s-},y_{s-})$, $(x_{s+},y_{s+})$,
121: which amount to $0.4\%$, $3.5\%$, $-14.0\%$, $-5.6\%$, $-29.9\%$, and $6.8\%$, respectively.
122: Figure~\ref{fig:cart_CL} shows the $39.3\%$ and $86.5\%$ 2-dimensional confidence-level (CL) contours
123: in the $(\xbmp,\ybmp)$, $(\xbstmp,\ybstmp)$, and $(\xsmp,\ysmp)$ planes, corresponding to one- and two-standard deviation
124: regions (statistical only).
125: The separation of the \Bm and \Bp positions in the $(x,y)$ plane is equal to $2 r_B|\sin\gamma|$
126: and is a measurement of direct \CP violation. The angle between the lines connecting
127: the \Bm and \Bp centers with the origin $(0,0)$ is equal to $2\gamma$.
128:
129:
130: \begin{table*}[hbt!]
131: \caption{\label{tab:cp_coord} \CP-violating parameters \xbxbstmp, \ybybstmp, \xsmp, and \ysmp, as obtained from the \CP fit.
132: The first error is statistical, the second is experimental systematic uncertainty and the third is
133: the systematic uncertainty associated with the Dalitz models.}
134: \begin{ruledtabular}
135: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
136: \\[-0.15in]
137: Parameters & $\Bm \to \Dztilde \Km$ & $\Bm \to \Dstarztilde \Km$ & $\Bm \to \Dztilde \Kstarm$ \\ [0.01in] \hline
138: $x_{-}~,~x_{-}^{*}~,~x_{s-}$ & $\phm0.090\pm 0.043\pm 0.015 \pm 0.011$ & $-0.111\pm 0.069\pm 0.014\pm 0.004$ & $\phm0.115\pm0.138\pm0.039\pm0.014$\\
139: $y_{-}~,~y_{-}^{*}~,~y_{s-}$ & $\phm0.053\pm 0.056\pm 0.007 \pm 0.015$ & $-0.051\pm 0.080\pm 0.009\pm 0.010$ & $\phm0.226\pm0.142\pm0.058\pm0.011$\\
140: $x_{+}~,~x_{+}^{*}~,~x_{s+}$ & $-0.067\pm 0.043 \pm 0.014\pm 0.011$ & $\phm0.137\pm 0.068\pm 0.014\pm 0.005$ & $-0.113\pm0.107\pm0.028\pm0.018$ \\
141: $y_{+}~,~y_{+}^{*}~,~y_{s+}$ & $-0.015\pm 0.055\pm 0.006\pm 0.008$ & $\phm0.080\pm 0.102\pm 0.010\pm 0.012$ & $\phm0.125\pm0.139\pm0.051\pm0.010$\\
142: \end{tabular}
143: \end{ruledtabular}
144: \end{table*}
145: %
146: \begin{figure*}[hbt!]
147: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
148: \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{d0k_ubl-contDzK-DzK.eps}&
149: \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{d0k_ubl-contDstK-DstK.eps}&
150: \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{d0k_ubl-contDzKst-DzKst.eps}\\
151: \end{tabular}
152: \caption{\label{fig:cart_CL} (color online). Contours at $39.3\%$ (dark) and $86.5\%$ (light) 2-dimensional confidence-level (CL) in the (a) $(\xbmp,\ybmp)$,
153: (b) $(\xbstmp,\ybstmp)$, and (c) $(\xsmp,\ysmp)$ planes, corresponding to one- and two-standard deviation regions (statistical only),
154: for \Bm (thick and solid lines) and \Bp (thin and dotted lines) decays.
155: }
156: \end{figure*}
157:
158:
159: A variety of studies using data, parameterized fast Monte Carlo, and full GEANT4-simulated samples have been
160: performed to test the consistency of the results and to verify the analysis chain and fitting procedure, as described below.
161:
162: The \CP fit to the $\Bm \to \DzDstarztilde \Km$ samples has been performed separately for \Dztildetokspipi and \Dztildetokskk samples.
163: Figure~\ref{fig:cart_CL_kspipi_kskk} shows the resulting one- and two-standard deviation regions in
164: the $(\xbxbstmp,\ybybstmp)$ planes. We find statistically consistent results between the different subsets.
165: The same fitting procedure has been applied to the $\Bm \to \DzDstarz \pim$ control samples. In this case we expect
166: $r_{\B,\pi}^{(*)} \approx \mid V_{cd}^{}V_{ub}^{*} \mid / \mid V_{ud}^{}V_{cb}^{*} \mid c_F$ to be approximately $0.01$. Since the
167: experimental resolutions on $(x_{\mp,\pi}^{(*)},y_{\mp,\pi}^{(*)})$ are expected to have the same order of magnitude,
168: the $(x_{\mp,\pi}^{(*)},y_{\mp,\pi}^{(*)})$ contours for \Bm and \Bp decays should be close to the origin
169: up to $\sim 0.01$. Deviations from this pattern could be an indication that the Dalitz plot
170: distributions are not well described by the models.
171: Figure~\ref{fig:cart_CL_Dpi} shows the resulting one- and two-standard deviation regions for
172: $(x_{\mp,\pi}^{(*)},y_{\mp\pi}^{(*)})$, consistent with the expected values. Moreover, we find statistically
173: consistent results between the \Dztokspipi and \Dztokskk samples.
174:
175:
176: \begin{figure}[hbt!]
177: \begin{tabular}{cc}
178: \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{d0k_kspipi_ubl-contDzK-DzK.eps}&
179: \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{d0k_kspipi_ubl-contDstK-DstK.eps} \\
180: \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{d0k_kskk_ubl-DzK.eps}&
181: \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{d0k_kskk_ubl-DstK.eps} \\
182: \end{tabular}
183: \caption{\label{fig:cart_CL_kspipi_kskk} (color online). Contours at $39.3\%$ (dark) and $86.5\%$ (light) 2-dimensional confidence-level (CL) in
184: the (a,c) $(\xbmp,\ybmp)$ and (b,d) $(\xbstmp,\ybstmp)$ planes, corresponding to one- and two-standard deviation regions (statistical only),
185: for $\Bm \to \DzDstarz \Km$ (thick and solid lines) and $\Bp \to \DzDstarz \Kp$ (thin and dotted lines) decays,
186: for (a,b) \Dztildetokspipi and (c,d) \Dztildetokskk only decay modes.
187: }
188: \end{figure}
189:
190:
191: \begin{figure}[hbt!]
192: \begin{tabular}{cc}
193: \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{d0pi_contDzPi-DzPi.eps}&
194: \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{d0pi_contDstPi-DstPi.eps} \\
195: \end{tabular}
196: \caption{\label{fig:cart_CL_Dpi} (color online). Contours at $39.3\%$ (dark) and $86.5\%$ (light) 2-dimensional confidence-level (CL) in
197: the (a) $(x_{\mp,\pi},y_{\mp,\pi})$ and (b) $(x_{\mp,\pi}^*,y_{\mp,\pi}^*)$ planes, corresponding to one- and two-standard deviation
198: regions (statistical only), for $\Bm \to \DzDstarz \pim$ (thick and solid lines) and $\Bp \to \DzDstarzb \pip$ (thin and dotted lines)
199: control sample decays. Note the differences in scale when comparing to Figs.~\ref{fig:cart_CL} and~\ref{fig:cart_CL_kspipi_kskk}.
200: }
201: \end{figure}
202:
203:
204: An additional test of the fitting procedure is performed with parameterized MC simulations consisting of about 500 experiments generated with a
205: sample size and composition corresponding to that of the data. The \CP parameters are generated with values close to those found in
206: the data and the reference \CP fit is performed on each of these experiments. The \rms of the residual distributions
207: for all the \CP parameters (where the residual is defined as the difference between the fitted and generated values)
208: is found to be consistent with the mean (Gaussian) statistical errors reported by the fits. The mean values
209: of the residual distributions are consistent with zero. Only for \xsmp and \ysmp we observe small biases
210: (at 10\% level of the statistical uncertainty), as a consequence of the non-Gaussian behavior of
211: samples with small statistics.
212: This small deviation from Gaussian behavior is
213: also observed in the data, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cart_CL}(c).
214: The statistical errors on the \CP parameters and the calculated
215: correlation coefficients among them extracted from the fit are consistent with the range of
216: values obtained from these experiments.
217: We also observe that the fit errors are independent of the truth values.
218:
219: Finally, samples of signal and background GEANT4-simulated MC events with a full detector simulation are used to validate the measurement.
220: We performed fits to signal samples, using the true and reconstructed \B meson charge and
221: \Dztilde Dalitz plot distributions, obtaining in all cases results consistent with those generated.
222:
223:
224: \subsection{Systematic uncertainties}
225: \label{sec:systematics-cp}
226:
227:
228: \subsubsection{Dalitz model contributions}
229:
230:
231: Dalitz model uncertainties are evaluated by repeating the fit to the tagged \Dz samples
232: with alternative assumptions to those adopted in the reference \Dztokspipi and \Dztokskk amplitude analyses (Sec.~\ref{sec:dalitzmodels-systematics}),
233: and then are propagated to the \CP parameters.
234: %
235: To propagate each systematic uncertainty on ${\cal A}_D(\mtwo)$ to the \CP parameters we have generated samples
236: of $\Bm \to \DzDstarztilde \Km$ and $\Bm \to \Dztilde \Kstarm$ signal events that are one hundred times larger than
237: each measured signal yield in data.
238: These virtually infinite samples reduce to a negligible level statistical differences between the models.
239: The \Dz Dalitz plot distributions are generated according to the reference
240: models and to \CP parameters consistent with the values found in data.
241: The \CP parameters are then extracted by fitting the generated Dalitz plot distributions using the
242: reference or one of the alternative models.
243: The difference is taken as the systematic uncertainty associated with each alternative model, and the sign of
244: the variation is used to estimate whether the different contributions are positively or negatively correlated (Appendix~\ref{sec:covariance}).
245: When two alternative models are built from an up and down variation of the same parameter, we take the maximum variation as the systematic error.
246: Assuming the contributions are uncorrelated, we sum in quadrature to obtain the total systematic uncertainty.
247:
248: The statistical errors in the Dalitz model parameters obtained from the tagged \Dz samples have been propagated to the \CP parameters
249: by repeating the \CP fit with those parameters randomized according to their covariance matrix.
250:
251: Table~\ref{tab:cartesian-model-syst} summarizes the main contributions from all the alternative models
252: considered and discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:dalitzmodels-systematics}. Contributions from other models are found to be negligible.
253:
254: We have also evaluated the effect on the measured \CP parameters when we parameterize the $\pi\pi$ and $K\pi$ S-waves
255: in \Dztokspipi using the isobar model instead of the K-matrix model (plus the non-resonant contribution),
256: as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:dalitzmodels-kspipi}.
257: The variations are found to be smaller than the sum of the $\pi\pi$ and $K\pi$ S-wave systematic uncertainties,
258: and are used as a cross-check of the procedure adopted for assigning this contribution to the total Dalitz model error.
259:
260:
261: \begin{table*}[hbt!]
262: \caption{\label{tab:cartesian-model-syst} Summary of the main contributions to the Dalitz model systematic error on the \CP parameters.}
263: \begin{ruledtabular}
264: \begin{tabular}{lcccccccccccc}
265: \\[-0.15in]
266: Source & \xbm & \ybm & \xbp & \ybp & \xbstm & \ybstm & \xbstp & \ybstp & \xsm & \ysm & \xsp & \ysp \\ [0.01in] \hline
267: Mass and width of Breit-Wigner's & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.002 & 0.001 & 0.002 & 0.001 & 0.003 & 0.003 & 0.001 & 0.002 & 0.002 \\
268: $\pi\pi$ S-wave K-matrix solutions & 0.003 & 0.012 & 0.003 & 0.001 & 0.003 & 0.007 & 0.002 & 0.009 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.013 & 0.003 \\
269: $\K\pi$ S-wave parameterization & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.002 & 0.004 & 0.001 & 0.003 & 0.001 & 0.003 & 0.005 & 0.001 & 0.004 & 0.002 \\
270: Angular dependence & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.002 & 0.001 & 0.003 & 0.001 & 0.003 & 0.001 \\
271: Blatt-Weisskopf radius & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.002 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.003 \\
272: Add/remove resonances & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.002 & 0.001 & 0.002 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.002 \\
273: Dalitz plot efficiency & 0.006 & 0.004 & 0.008 & 0.001 & 0.002 & 0.004 & 0.002 & 0.003 & 0.008 & 0.001 & 0.008 & 0.004 \\
274: Background Dalitz plot shape & 0.003 & 0.002 & 0.004 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.004 & 0.001 & 0.004 & 0.002 \\
275: Normalization and binning & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.002 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.002 & 0.002 & 0.001 & 0.003 & 0.001 \\
276: Mistag rate & 0.008 & 0.006 & 0.006 & 0.005 & 0.002 & 0.001 & 0.002 & 0.003 & 0.008 & 0.010 & 0.004 & 0.007 \\
277: Dalitz plot complex amplitudes & 0.002 & 0.002 & 0.003 & 0.004 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.002 & 0.006 & 0.003 & 0.003 & 0.004 & 0.002 \\ % x
278: \hline
279: Total Dalitz model & 0.011 & 0.015 & 0.011 & 0.008 & 0.004 & 0.010 & 0.005 & 0.012 & 0.014 & 0.011 & 0.018 & 0.010 \\
280: %
281:
282: \end{tabular}
283: \end{ruledtabular}
284: \end{table*}
285:
286:
287:
288: \subsubsection{Experimental contributions}
289:
290: Experimental systematic uncertainties arise from several sources and their main contributions are summarized in
291: Table~\ref{tab:cartesian-exp-syst}. They are small compared to the statistical precision, and their sum is similar to the Dalitz model uncertainty.
292: Other sources of experimental systematic uncertainty, e.g. the assumption of perfect mass resolution for the Dalitz plot variables \mtwo,
293: are found to be negligible.
294:
295:
296: \begin{table*}[hbt!]
297: \caption{\label{tab:cartesian-exp-syst} Summary of the main contributions to the experimental systematic error on the \CP parameters.}
298: \begin{ruledtabular}
299: \begin{tabular}{lcccccccccccc}
300: \\[-0.15in]
301: Source & \xbm & \ybm & \xbp & \ybp & \xbstm & \ybstm & \xbstp & \ybstp & \xsm & \ysm & \xsp & \ysp \\ [0.01in] \hline
302: \mes, \DeltaE, \fisher shapes & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.002 & 0.002 & 0.004 & 0.004 & 0.005 & 0.003 & 0.002 & 0.001 & 0.004 \\ % a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h+l
303: Real \Dz\ fractions & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.004 & 0.001 & 0.002 & 0.004 & 0.001 & 0.001 \\ % i
304: Charge-flavor correlation & 0.002 & 0.002 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.002 & 0.002 & 0.002 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.002 & 0.001 & 0.001 \\ % j+k
305: Efficiency in the Dalitz plot & 0.002 & 0.002 & 0.002 & 0.002 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.002 & 0.003 & 0.001 & 0.005 \\ % o
306: Background Dalitz plot shape & 0.012 & 0.007 & 0.013 & 0.003 & 0.010 & 0.007 & 0.007 & 0.007 & 0.014 & 0.006 & 0.012 & 0.005 \\ % m+n
307: $B^-\to D^{*0}K^-$ cross-feed & -- & -- & -- & -- & 0.003 & 0.002 & 0.007 & 0.001 & -- & -- & -- & -- \\ % q
308: \CP violation in $D\pi$ and \BB bkg & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.005 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.004 & 0.006 & 0.002 & 0.003 & 0.001 \\ % u+v
309: %$\Bm\to\Dztilde\Kstarm$ wrong signal & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & 0.000 & 0.001 & 0.000 & 0.000 \\ % t+s
310: Non-\Kstar $\Bm\to\Dztilde\KS\pim$ decays & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & 0.035 & 0.058 & 0.025 & 0.045 \\ % y+z
311: \hline
312: Total experimental & 0.015 & 0.007 & 0.014 & 0.006 & 0.014 & 0.009 & 0.014 & 0.010 & 0.039 & 0.058 & 0.028 & 0.051 \\
313: %
314: \end{tabular}
315: \end{ruledtabular}
316: \end{table*}
317:
318:
319: Statistical uncertainties due to the \mes, \DeltaE, and \fisher PDF parameters for signal and background
320: extracted from the selection fit (fixed in the reference \CP fit) are estimated
321: by repeating the \CP fit with PDF parameters randomized according to their covariance matrix.
322: Possible bias due to differences in the \mes and \fisher shapes for continuum and \BB background events between the \DeltaE selection and signal
323: regions are evaluated applying the selection fit in the \DeltaE signal region.
324: Other PDF parameters, such as the \mes end-point, \BB \DeltaE peaking fractions, \mes \BB peaking fractions for \Dztildetokskk channels, and \pep2 boost
325: are varied by one standard deviation. We account for \mes and \DeltaE differences in \BB background for true and fake \D mesons, while
326: for continuum events we do not observe differences.
327: We also find the effect of the small correlation between \mes, \DeltaE, and \fisher variables negligible.
328:
329: The uncertainties related to the knowledge of the %real
330: \Dztilde fractions for the small \BB background
331: are estimated from the maximum variations of the \CP parameters when the fractions are
332: varied one $\sigma$ up and down from their MC estimates, or replaced by the values found for the continuum background, or assumed to be zero.
333: Similarly, the uncertainties due to our knowledge of the right-sign fractions for \Dztildetokskk continuum events and \BB events
334: are evaluated from the maximum variations of the \CP parameters after varying
335: these fractions according to their MC values or assuming that the \Dztilde is randomly associated either with a negatively- or
336: positively-charged kaon (absence of correlation).
337:
338: The effect due to reconstruction efficiency variations of the signal across the Dalitz plane, $\epsilon(\mtwo)$, has been evaluated
339: by varying randomly the coefficients of the polynomial parameterization according to their covariance matrix, including the
340: statistical errors due to the limited MC statistics as well as systematic uncertainties arising from the imperfections
341: of the detector simulation, as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:dalitzmodels-systematics-exp}.
342:
343:
344: The uncertainty associated with the knowledge of the Dalitz plot distributions of continuum background events is
345: taken to be the difference
346: in the \CP parameters
347: using background Dalitz plot shapes from sideband data instead of signal region backgrounds from MC.
348: We also account for statistical uncertainties adding in quadrature the \rms of the distributions of \CP parameters
349: when the two sets of profile distributions are randomized. Uncertainties due to the Dalitz plot shapes of
350: combinatorial \D mesons in \BB background are conservatively estimated from the variation of \CP parameters when the
351: reference shapes are replaced by a flat profile.
352:
353:
354: The effect of the remaining cross-feed of $\Bm\to\Dstarztilde[\Dztilde\piz]\Km$ events into the
355: $\Bm\to\Dstarztilde[\Dztilde\gamma]\Km$ sample (5\% of the signal yield) has been evaluated by including in the \CP fit
356: an additional background component to the latter sample with ${\cal P}_{c}(\mtwoj)$ identical to that of the signal
357: component of the former.
358:
359: Possible \CP-violating effects in the background have been evaluated by setting the \CP parameters
360: of the $\Bm \to \DzDstarz \pim$ background component to the values obtained from a \CP fit to
361: the $\Bm \to \DzDstarz \pim$ control samples, and by floating an independent set of \CP parameters for the mixture of \BB background.
362:
363:
364: The $\Bm \to \Dztilde \Kstarm$ sample has two additional sources of uncertainty. The first one comes from
365: signal events where the prompt \Kstarm is replaced by a combinatorial \Kstarm (about 9\% of the signal), with either
366: the same or opposite charge. This systematic uncertainty, evaluated by changing by $\pm 10\%$ the fraction of these events
367: and neglecting the charge-flavor correlation, has been found to be negligible.
368:
369: The second additional uncertainty is due to our knowledge of the parameter $\kappa$, as defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:kappa}),
370: which accounts for the interference between $\Bm \to\Dztilde \Kstarm$ and
371: other $\Bm \to\Dztilde \KS\pim$ (higher \Kstar resonances plus non-resonant) decays.
372: Since this parameter cannot be extracted from
373: the \CP fit and no experimental data analysis is available on the $\Bm \to \Dztilde \KS \pim$ decay,
374: we study a \Bm Dalitz (isobar) model including
375: $K^*(892)^-$, $K^*_0(1410)^-$, $K_2^*(1430)^-$, $D^*(2010)^-$, $D_2^*(2460)^-$ and non-resonant terms,
376: and randomly varying phases in the range $[0,2\pi]$ and magnitudes~\cite{ref:aleksan2003}.
377: The magnitude of the contribution from $\b\to\c$ transitions relative to $\b\to\u$ was fixed to be around 3,
378: while the magnitude of the non-resonant contribution was varied between 0 and 1.
379: Since our model has a large uncertainty we made several alternative models
380: adding/removing resonances and changing ranges for $\b\to\u$ amplitudes, keeping
381: the \Kstar pollution (defined as the non-\Kstar fit fraction) below 5-10\%,
382: since from earlier studies with very similar selection criteria we estimate that,
383: neglecting higher resonances, the non-resonant \Kstar decays
384: contribute about 5\% of the signal events~\cite{ref:BR-BtoDKst}.
385: Evaluating $\kappa$ from Eq.~(\ref{eq:kappa}) for the region within 55~\mevcc of the \Kstar mass
386: and $|\cos\theta_H|\ge 0.35$ we find quite narrow distributions, centered around $0.9$ and
387: with \rms not larger than $0.1$, in agreement with previous studies~\cite{ref:GLW-ADS-D0Kstar}.
388: For this reason we have fixed the value of $\kappa$ to $0.9$
389: in the reference \CP fit, and varied it between $0.8$ and $1$.
390:
391:
392: