1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,prl,superscriptaddress,floatfix]{revtex4}
2:
3: \RequirePackage{xspace}
4:
5: \usepackage{dcolumn}
6: \usepackage{epsfig}
7:
8: \input{pubboard/babarsym}
9:
10: \def\Dmix {\Dz-\Dzb \xspace}
11: \def\WSdec {\ensuremath{\Dz\to\Kp\pim\piz} \xspace}
12: \def\xPrime {\ensuremath{x^{\prime}_{K\pi\piz}}\xspace}
13: \def\xPrimeP {\ensuremath{x^{\prime +}_{K\pi\piz}}\xspace}
14: \def\xPrimeM {\ensuremath{x^{\prime -}_{K\pi\piz}}\xspace}
15: \def\yPrime {\ensuremath{y^{\prime }_{K\pi\piz}}\xspace}
16: \def\yPrimeP {\ensuremath{y^{\prime +}_{K\pi\piz}}\xspace}
17: \def\yPrimeM {\ensuremath{y^{\prime -}_{K\pi\piz}}\xspace}
18: \def\dm {\ensuremath{\Delta m}\xspace}
19: \def\mKpp {\ensuremath{m_{K\pi\piz}}\xspace}
20: \def\tKpp {\ensuremath{t_{K\pi\piz}}\xspace}
21:
22: \newcommand{\BABARPubYear} {08}
23: \newcommand{\BABARPubNumber} {026}
24: \newcommand{\SLACPubNumber} {13320}
25:
26: \begin{document}
27:
28: \begin{flushleft}
29: \babar-PUB-\BABARPubYear/\BABARPubNumber\\
30: SLAC-PUB-\SLACPubNumber\\
31: \end{flushleft}
32:
33: \title{\Large \bf \boldmath Measurement of \Dmix mixing from a time-dependent amplitude analysis of \WSdec\ decays}
34:
35: \input{pubboard/authors_jun2008}
36: \date{\today}
37:
38: \begin{abstract}
39: We present evidence of \Dmix mixing using a time-dependent amplitude analysis of the decay \WSdec in a data sample of 384\invfb\ collected with
40: the \babar\ detector at the \pep2 \epem collider at SLAC. Assuming \CP conservation, we measure the mixing parameters \xPrime $=$
41: [2.61 $\mbox{}^{\rm +0.57}_{\rm -0.68}$\,(stat.) $\pm$ 0.39\,(syst.)]\%, \yPrime $=$ [-0.06 $\mbox{}^{\rm +0.55}_{\rm -0.64}$\,(stat.) $\pm$ 0.34\,(syst.)]\%.
42: The confidence level for the data to be consistent with the no-mixing hypothesis is $0.1\%$, including systematic uncertainties. This result is inconsistent with
43: the no-mixing hypothesis with a significance of $3.2$ standard deviations. We find no evidence of \CP violation in mixing.
44: \end{abstract}
45:
46: \pacs{13.25.Ft,11.30.Er,12.15.Mm,14.40.Lb}
47:
48: \maketitle
49: The mixing between the flavor eigenstates $|\Dz\rangle$ and $|\Dzb\rangle$ of the neutral $D$ meson depends upon the mass and width differences of the mass
50: eigenstates. In the standard model (SM), the \Dmix mixing contribution from short-distance effects is negligible~\cite{SMexp}.
51: This is due to Glashow-Iliopoulos-Maiani suppression of the first two quark generations and Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa suppression of the third.
52: Long-distance effects from intermediate states that couple to both \Dz and \Dzb dominate. Their contributions to the mixing parameters are difficult to predict,
53: but are estimated to be of the order $10^{-3}\textrm{--}10^{-2}$~\cite{SMexp}.
54: Several recent studies report evidence for mixing parameters at the $1\%$ level~\cite{expmixing}.
55: This is consistent with some SM expectations and provides constraints on
56: new physics models~\cite{NPexp}. If mixing occurs, the physical eigenstates $ |D_{1,2}\rangle = p|\Dz\rangle \pm q|\Dzb\rangle$ must have different masses
57: $M_{1,2}$ or widths $\Gamma_{1,2}$. Here $|p|^2 + |q|^2 = 1$. Mixing is parametrized using $x \equiv 2\mbox{ }(M_{1} - M_{2})/(\Gamma_{1} + \Gamma_{2})$ and
58: $y \equiv (\Gamma_{1} - \Gamma_{2})/(\Gamma_{1} + \Gamma_{2})$, where 1 (2) refers to the almost \CP-even (odd) eigenstate. If \CP is conserved, then $|p/q|=1$
59: and $\arg(q/p\cdot \bar{A_f}/A_f) = 0$. Here $A_f$ ($\bar{A_f}$) is the amplitude of the transition of the \Dz (\Dzb) to the final state $f$.
60:
61: In this letter, we analyze events in which the flavor of the \Dz~\cite{note} is measured at production. We present the first time-dependent amplitude
62: analysis of the \WSdec Dalitz plot to extract the mixing parameters. Previously, we studied the time dependence of \WSdec decays integrated over large regions
63: of the Dalitz plot. We found no evidence for mixing~\cite{wilson}. However, certain regions of the phase space are more sensitive to mixing than others
64: (see below). Therefore the amplitude analysis is potentially more sensitive than our previous work. The wrong-sign (WS) decays \WSdec and the more copious
65: right-sign (RS) decays \Dz\to\Km\pip\piz are reconstructed. The RS decays proceed through a Cabibbo-favored (CF) amplitude. The WS decays proceed through a
66: coherent sum of a doubly Cabibbo-suppressed (DCS) amplitude and a CF amplitude produced by mixing. We identify RS and WS decays by reconstructing the
67: $\Dstarp \to \Dz\pi_s^{+}, \Dz \to K \pi \piz$ decay chain. The flavor of the \Dz candidate is determined from the charge of the low-momentum pion
68: ($\pi_s^{+}$). The DCS and the CF amplitudes are described with isobar models~\cite{Muramatsu} as outlined below.
69:
70: The time-dependent decay rate is a function of the Dalitz variables $s_{12} = m^2_{\Kp\pim}$ and $s_{13} = m^2_{\Kp\piz}$.
71: It depends on the DCS amplitude $A_{\bar{f}}(s_{12},s_{13}) = \langle\bar{f}|\mathcal{H}|\Dz\rangle $ and the CF amplitude
72: $\bar{A}_{\bar{f}}(s_{12},s_{13}) = \langle\bar{f}|\mathcal{H}|\Dzb\rangle$~\cite{SMexp}, where $\bar{f} = \Kp \pim \piz$. In the limit $|x|,|y| \ll 1$, it is
73: given by:
74: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:wsrate}
75: \frac{dN_{\bar{f}}( s_{12}, s_{13} ,t)}{ds_{12}ds_{13}dt} & = & e^{-\Gamma t} \{ |A_{\bar{f}}|^2 + \nonumber \\
76: & & |A_{\bar{f}}| |\bar{A}_{\bar{f}}| \left[ y\cos\delta_{\bar{f}} - x\sin\delta_{\bar{f}} \right] (\Gamma t) + \nonumber\\
77: & & \frac{x^{2}+y^{2}}{4} |\bar{A}_{\bar{f}}|^2 (\Gamma t)^2 \}
78: \end{eqnarray}
79: where $\delta_{\bar{f}}( s_{12},s_{13}) = \arg[A_{\bar{f}}^{*}( s_{12},s_{13})\bar{A}_{\bar{f}}(s_{12},s_{13})]$. The first term in Eq.~\ref{eq:wsrate} is the DCS
80: contribution to the WS rate; the third term is a pure mixing contribution; the second term arises from the interference between DCS and mixing CF amplitudes.
81: We determine the CF amplitude $\bar{A}_{\bar{f}}$ in a time-independent Dalitz plot analysis of the RS decay sample, and use it in the analysis of the WS sample.
82: The DCS amplitude $A_{\bar{f}}$ is extracted along with the mixing parameters. In the isobar approach, $\bar{A}_{\bar{f}}$ and $A_{\bar{f}}$ are
83: described as a coherent sum of amplitudes, where each amplitude accounts for a resonance contribution. From inspection of the Dalitz plots
84: (Fig.~\ref{fig:plots1}a-b), WS decays proceed primarily through the resonance $\Dz\to \Kstarp\pim$, while RS decays proceed primarily through
85: $\Dz\to \Km\rho^+$~\cite{Muramatsu}. For both $\bar{A}_{\bar{f}}$ and $A_{\bar{f}}$, one complex amplitude must be fixed arbitrarily.
86:
87: The advantage of an amplitude analysis is that the interference term in Eq.~\ref{eq:wsrate} produces a variation in average decay time as a function of position
88: in the Dalitz plot that is sensitive to the complex amplitudes of the resonant isobars as well as the mixing parameters. In this study, the change in the
89: average decay time and the interference between the $\Dz\to \Kstarp\pim$ and $\Dz\to \rho^- \Kp$ amplitudes are the origin of our sensitivity to mixing. Our
90: analysis is sensitive to $x$ and $y$ in the form
91: $\yPrime \equiv y\cos{\delta_{K\pi\piz}} - x\sin{\delta_{K\pi\piz}}$ and $ \xPrime \equiv x\cos{\delta_{K\pi\piz}} + y\sin{\delta_{K\pi\piz}}$ where
92: $\delta_{K\pi\piz}$ is the strong interaction phase difference between the DCS $\Dz\rightarrow \rho^{-}\Kp$ and the CF $\Dzb\rightarrow \Kp\rho^{-}$
93: amplitudes, and cannot be determined in this analysis (note that $\delta_{K\pi\piz}$ is in general different from the analogous phase in other decays).
94: Mixing is implied through a non-zero value of \xPrime or of \yPrime.
95: We define $A_{\bar{f}}( s_{12},s_{13}) = r_{0} A_{\bar{f}}^{DCS}( s_{12},s_{13}) $ and
96: $\bar{A}_{\bar{f}}( s_{12},s_{13}) = \bar{A}_{\bar{f}}^{CF}( s_{12},s_{13}) $. Here
97: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:r0def}
98: r_{0}^{2} = N_{WS}/\left(N_{RS}\cdot\int N_{\bar{f}}( s_{12}, s_{13} ,t)ds_{12}ds_{13}dt\right)
99: \end{eqnarray}
100: where $N_{WS}$ ($N_{RS}$) is the number of WS (RS) events in the sample. The variation of average decay time in the Dalitz plot due to mixing depends on the
101: ratios $\xPrime/r_0$ and $\yPrime/r_0$; these are the parameters that we extract directly from the data and use to determine the significance of the mixing
102: result.
103:
104: The amplitudes entering the WS analysis are described as a sum of isobar components $A_j$ that are parametrized with Breit-Wigner functions,
105: $ A_{\bar{f}}^{CF/DCS} = \sum_{j=1}^{n_{CF/DCS}} a_j e^{i\delta_j} A_j( m^2_{\Kp\pim}, m^2_{\Kp\piz})$, where $a_{j}$ and $\delta_{j}$ are the strong interaction
106: amplitudes and phases of the $j^{th}$ resonant amplitude~\cite{Muramatsu}. For the $K$-$\pi$ S-wave component we use a parametrization derived from $K$-$\pi$
107: scattering data~\cite{lass}, which consists of a $\Kstar_{0}(1430)$ resonance together with an effective non-resonant component.
108:
109: We analyze a data sample of $384$ \invfb collected with the \babar\ detector~\cite{Aubert:2001tu} at the \pep2 \epem collider at SLAC near a center-of-mass
110: energy of $10.58$ \gev. Charged tracks are reconstructed with a silicon-strip detector (SVT) and a drift chamber (DCH), both in a 1.5\,T magnetic field. Particle
111: identification is based on measurements of ionization energy loss (\dedx) in the SVT and DCH together with measurements from a Cherenkov ring-imaging device.
112: Photon energies are measured with a CsI(Tl) calorimeter. All selection criteria, the fit procedure and the systematic error analysis are finalized before we
113: search for evidence of mixing in the data.
114:
115: Selection criteria are based partly on those of Ref.\cite{wilson} and are identical for the RS and WS samples. We require the $\pi_s^{+}$ candidates to have a
116: transverse momentum $p_t^{LAB}> 0.12$\gevc, where $LAB$ indicates the laboratory frame. We reject electrons that mimic $\pi_s^{+}$ using \dedx measurements. We
117: use kinematic selection criteria to eliminate electrons from pair conversions. The energies of photon candidates used to form \piz candidates are required to be
118: greater than $0.1$\gev; the invariant mass of photon pairs forming a \piz must be in the range $0.09 < m_{\piz} < 0.16$ \gevcc. We require the \piz momentum
119: $p_{\piz}^{LAB}$ to
120: be greater than $0.35$\gevc . The reconstructed invariant mass for the \Dz candidates must have $1.74 < \mKpp < 1.98\gevcc$. The \piz and \Dz masses are
121: then set equal to their nominal values \cite{pdg2006} and the \Dstar is refitted \cite{Hulsbergen:2005pu} with the constraint that its production point lies
122: within the beam spot region. The \Dstarp invariant mass and \Dz measured decay time \tKpp are derived from this fit. We require $0.139 < \dm < 0.155\gevcc$ where
123: $\dm \equiv m_{K\pi\piz\pi_{s}} - \mKpp$. To reject \Dstar candidates from $B$ decays, we require the \Dz center-of-mass momentum to be greater than $2.4$\gevc.
124: For events that contain multiple \Dstar candidates with shared tracks, the candidate that yields the largest fit probability for the decay chain is retained.
125: The three-dimensional flight path is used to determine \tKpp and its uncertainty $\sigma_t$. For signal events, the typical value of $\sigma_t$ is 0.23\ps;
126: we accept \Dstar candidates with $\sigma_t < 0.50$ ps.
127:
128: We extract the signal and background yields from a binned extended maximum likelihood fit to the \mKpp and \dm distributions (Fig.~\ref{fig:plots1}c-d).
129: For subsequent analysis, we retain \Dstar candidates in the signal region defined as $0.1449 < \dm\ < 0.1459$ \gevcc and $1.8495 < \mKpp\ < 1.8795$ \gevcc .
130: Our final RS (WS) sample is composed of $658,986$ ($3009$) events with a purity of $99\%$ ($50\%$). The efficiency of the signal region selection is $54.6\%$.
131: \begin{figure}[!ht]
132: \includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{dalitzRS.eps}
133: \includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{dalitzWS.eps}
134: \includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{d0WSmassplot.eps}
135: \includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{d0DMmassplot.eps}
136: \caption{\label{fig:plots1} Dalitz plots for the (a) RS and (b) WS \Dz samples. The reconstructed (c) \Dz mass and (d) \dm distributions for the WS sample
137: requiring respectively (c) $0.1449 < \dm\ < 0.1459$ \gevcc and (d) $1.8495 < \mKpp < 1.8795$ \gevcc. The fit results used to extract the yields are shown by the
138: superimposed curves. The light histogram represents the mistag background, while the dark histogram shows the combinatoric background.}
139: \end{figure}
140:
141: The RS sample is used to determine the CF isobar model parameters $a^{CF}_j$ and $\delta^{CF}_j$, as well as the decay time resolution function, which is
142: parametrized as a sum of three Gaussian functions with a common mean, with widths given by the per-event $\sigma_t$ times a different scale factor for each
143: Gaussian. The reconstructed RS \Dz signal decay time distribution (Fig.~\ref{fig:plots2}a) is described by a probability density function (PDF) consisting of an
144: exponential function convolved with the resolution function. The resolution function parameters and \Dz lifetime are determined in an unbinned maximum likelihood
145: fit. The mean value of the resolution function is found to be $4.2 \pm 0.7$~fs. This value is consistent with the magnitude expected from instrumental effects,
146: and the associated systematic uncertainty is determined by setting the value to zero.
147: As a cross-check we determine the \Dz mean lifetime to be [$409.9 \pm 0.8$ (stat.\ only)]\,fs, in agreement with the world average
148: [$410.1 \pm 1.5$ (stat.\ +\ syst.)]\,fs \cite{pdg2006}.
149:
150: The \Dz candidates in the WS signal region can be divided into three categories: signal events, combinatorial background, and incorrectly tagged RS events
151: (mistag), each one described by its own PDF, whose parameters are determined in an unbinned maximum likelihood fit. During the fit procedure, the number
152: of events in each category is fixed to the value obtained from the fit to the \mKpp and \dm distributions.
153:
154: The PDF describing the WS time-dependent Dalitz plot is given by Eq.~\ref{eq:wsrate} convolved with the \tKpp resolution function. The $\sigma_t$ PDFs for
155: signal and background are taken from the RS data. The DCS amplitudes and phases
156: for each resonance and the mixing parameters are determined in the fit. The CF Dalitz plot amplitudes arising from mixing are taken from the fit to the RS sample
157: described in the previous paragraph. The mistag events are parametrized using an empirical PDF obtained from the RS data, since mistag events contain correctly
158: reconstructed RS \Dz decays. The PDF describing the combinatorial background is constructed by averaging the ($s_{12},s_{13},\tKpp$) distributions obtained from
159: the WS \mKpp sidebands: this accounts for correlations between those three variables that might be present in the data.
160:
161: The results of the time-dependent fit of the WS data, the $a^{DCS}_j$, $\delta^{DCS}_j$ and fit fractions $f_j$ \cite{Muramatsu}, are given in
162: Table~\ref{tbl:results}.
163: The fit fraction of the non-resonant contribution to the $K$-$\pi$ S-wave is absorbed into the $\Kstarp_{0} (1430)$ and $\Kstarz_{0} (1430)$ fit fractions.
164: Projections of the fit results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:plots2}b-d.
165: The change in log likelihood ($-2\Delta\ln{\cal L}$) between the fit with mixing and with no mixing ($\xPrime/r_0 = \yPrime/r_0 = 0$) is $13.5$ units, including
166: systematic uncertainties. For two degrees of freedom, the confidence level that the result is due to no-mixing is $0.1\%$. The significance of the mixing result
167: is equivalent to $3.2$ standard deviations, and thus constitutes evidence for \Dmix mixing.
168: \begin{table}[htbp]
169: \caption{Fit results for the WS \Dz data sample. The total fit fraction is $102\%$ and the $\chi^{2}/ndof$ is $188/215$. The results for $\xPrime/r_0$ and
170: $\yPrime/r_0$ include statistical and systematic errors; their total linear correlation is $-0.34$.}
171: \begin{center}
172: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}
173: \hline
174: Resonance & $a^{DCS}_j$ & $\delta^{DCS}_j$ (degrees) & $f_j$ (\%) \\
175: \hline
176: $\rho (770)$ & 1 (fixed) & 0 (fixed) & $39.8\pm 6.5$ \\
177: $\Kstarz_{2}(1430)$ & $ 0.088\pm 0.017$ & $ -17.2\pm 12.9$ & $2.0\pm 0.7$ \\
178: $\Kstarp_{0} (1430)$ & $ 6.78\pm 1.00$ & $ 69.1\pm 10.9$ & $13.1\pm 3.3$ \\
179: $\Kstarp (892)$ & $ 0.899\pm 0.005$ & $ -171.0\pm 5.9$ & $35.6\pm 5.5$ \\
180: $\Kstarz_{0} (1430)$ & $ 1.65\pm 0.59$ & $ -44.4\pm 18.5$ & $2.8\pm 1.5$ \\
181: $\Kstarz (892)$ & $ 0.398\pm 0.038$ & $ 24.1\pm 9.8$ & $6.5\pm 1.4$ \\
182: $\rho (1700) $ & $ 5.4\pm 1.6$ & $ 157.4\pm 20.3$ & $2.0\pm 1.1$ \\
183: \hline\hline
184: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{$\xPrime/r_0 = 0.353\pm 0.091 \pm 0.052$ } \\
185: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{$\yPrime/r_0 = -0.002\pm 0.090 \pm 0.059$ }\\
186: \hline
187: \end{tabular}
188: \end{center}
189: \label{tbl:results}
190: \end{table}
191:
192: To derive the values of $\xPrime$ and $\yPrime$ we first determine $r^2_0=$ [$5.25^{+0.25}_{-0.31}$ (stat.) $\pm 0.12$ (syst.)] $\times 10^{-3}$ using
193: Eq.~\ref{eq:r0def}. We then generate $10^6$ ($\xPrime/r_0$,$\yPrime/r_0$) points in accordance with the fit covariance matrix, assuming Gaussian errors
194: (width given by the total uncertainty including systematics). For each point, we compute $r_0$ using Eq.~\ref{eq:r0def} and determine values for \xPrime and
195: \yPrime. Using a Bayesian approach, by integrating the likelihood function with respect to \xPrime and \yPrime, assuming a flat prior distribution, we obtain
196: \xPrime=[$2.61^{+0.57}_{-0.68}$ (stat.) $\pm 0.39$ (syst.)]\% and \yPrime = [$-0.06 ^{+0.55}_{-0.64}$ (stat.) $\pm 0.34$ (syst.)]\% with a correlation of $-0.75$.
197: \begin{figure}[!ht]
198: \includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{RStime.eps}
199: \includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{WStime.eps}
200: \includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{ProjdalitzKpi.eps}
201: \includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{ProjdalitzKpi0.eps}
202: \caption{\label{fig:plots2} (a) Proper time distribution for RS events with the fit result superimposed. The distribution of background events is shown by the
203: shaded histogram. (b) Proper time distribution for WS events. (c, d) $m^2_{\Kp\pim}$ and $m^2_{\Kp\piz}$ projections with superimposed fit results (line). The
204: light histogram represents the mistag background, while the dark histogram shows the combinatoric background;}
205: \end{figure}
206:
207: Extensive validation of this fitting procedure is performed using Monte Carlo (MC) experiments based on the PDF shapes and DCS amplitudes extracted from data.
208: The validation studies are performed over a wide range of mixing parameters. These studies demonstrate that the fit correctly determines the mixing parameters to
209: within a small offset of $0.2$-$0.3\sigma$, where $\sigma$ is the statistical uncertainty. These small biases are a consequence of the relatively small size of
210: our data sample and become negligible if MC samples with higher statistics are used. We correct the final result for this offset.
211:
212: Sources of systematic uncertainty for $\xPrime/r_0$($\yPrime/r_0$), related to the choice of the isobar model and the experimental assumptions, are considered.
213: For each effect we refit the data with an alternative assumption and extract the overall correlated uncertainty for the fitted parameters.
214: We estimate the Dalitz model uncertainties [$0.38\sigma$ ($0.35\sigma$)], where $\sigma$ is the statistical uncertainty, by varying the mass and the width of each
215: resonance within their error and by using alternative parametrizations for the isobar components $A_j$ in the fit: the largest error arises from uncertainties in
216: the $\Kstar$ and $\rho$ parameters and from uncertainties in the parametrization of the $K$-$\pi$ S-wave. Systematic uncertainties related to the number
217: of signal and background events [$0.15\sigma$ ($0.22\sigma$)] are evaluated by varying them according to their statistical uncertainties. Similarly, the
218: definition of the signal region, the $\sigma_t$ requirement, and the selection of the best \Dstar candidate are varied. The effect on the mixing parameters is
219: $0.50\sigma$ ($0.37\sigma$). Variations in efficiency across the Dalitz plot contribute systematic uncertainties of $0.09\sigma$ ($0.10\sigma$). The \tKpp
220: resolution function parameters are varied within their errors. The offset is also set to zero. The systematic effect is $0.11\sigma$ ($0.09\sigma$).
221: The total systematic error on $\xPrime/r_0$ ($\yPrime/r_0$) is $0.57\sigma$ ($0.66\sigma$).
222:
223: The same procedure is applied separately to the WS \Dz-tagged ($+$) and \Dzb-tagged ($-$) events to search for \CP violation in mixing. We find
224: $\xPrimeP = (2.53 ^{+0.54}_{-0.63}\pm 0.39)\%$, $\yPrimeP = (-0.05 ^{+0.63}_{-0.67}\pm 0.50)\%$, $\xPrimeM = (3.55 ^{+0.73}_{-0.83}\pm 0.65)\% $ and
225: $\yPrimeM = (-0.54 ^{+0.40}_{-1.16}\pm 0.41)\%$, respectively, and thus observe no evidence for \CP violation. The correlation between \xPrimeP (\xPrimeM) and
226: \yPrimeP (\yPrimeM) is $-0.69$ ($-0.66$).
227:
228: In conclusion, our data are inconsistent with the no-mixing hypothesis with a significance of $3.2$ standard deviations.
229: Our results thus constitute evidence for mixing. For the mixing parameters we find
230: $\xPrime = (2.61^{+0.57}_{-0.68} \pm 0.39)\%$ and $\yPrime =(-0.06 ^{+0.55}_{-0.64}\pm 0.34)\%$ with a correlation of $-0.75$. These values are consistent with
231: our previous result~\cite{wilson} and with some SM estimates for mixing. No evidence for \CP violation is found.
232:
233: \input{pubboard/acknow_PRL.tex}
234:
235: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
236: \bibitem{SMexp}
237: L.~Wolfenstein,
238: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 164}, 170 (1985);
239: J.~F.~Donoghue, E.~Golowich, B.~R.~Holstein and J.~Trampetic,
240: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 33}, 179 (1986);
241: H.~Georgi, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 297}, 353 (1992);
242: A.~F.~Falk, Y.~Grossman, Z.~Ligeti, and A.~A.~Petrov, Phys.\ Rev. {\bf D65}, 054034 (2002);
243: A.~F.~Falk, Y.~Grossman, Z.~Ligeti, Y.~Nir, and A.~A.~Petrov, Phys.\ Rev. {\bf D69}, 114021 (2004).
244: \bibitem{expmixing}
245: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [\babar\ Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 98}, 211802 (2007);
246: M.~Staric {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 98}, 211803 (2007);
247: K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 99}, 131803 (2007);
248: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [\babar Collaboration], arXiv:0712.2249 [hep-ex];
249: T.~Aaltonen {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 100}, 121802 (2008).
250: \bibitem{NPexp}
251: G.~Burdman and I.~Shipsey,
252: Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf 53}, 431 (2003);
253: A.~A.~Petrov,
254: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 21}, 5686 (2006);
255: E.~Golowich, J.~Hewett, S.~Pakvasa and A.~A.~Petrov,
256: arXiv:0705.3650 [hep-ph];
257: S.~Bergmann, Y.~Grossman, Z.~Ligeti, Y.~Nir, and A.~A.~Petrov, Phys. Lett. {\bf B486}, 418 (2000).
258: \bibitem{note}
259: {The use of charge-conjugate modes is implied unless otherwise noted.}
260: \bibitem{wilson}
261: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [\babar Collaboration],
262: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 97}, 221803 (2006).
263: \bibitem{Muramatsu}
264: S.~Kopp {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
265: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 092001 (2001).
266: \bibitem{lass}
267: D.Aston et al. [LASS Collaboration], Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 296}, 493 (1988).
268: \bibitem{Aubert:2001tu}
269: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [\babar Collaboration],
270: Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ A {\bf 479}, 1 (2002).
271: \bibitem{pdg2006}
272: Particle Data Group, W.-M.~Yao {\it et al.},
273: J. Phys. G {\bf 33}, 1 (2006).
274: \bibitem{Hulsbergen:2005pu}
275: W.~D.~Hulsbergen,
276: Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ A {\bf 552}, 566 (2005).
277: \end{thebibliography}
278:
279: \end{document}
280: