1: % Prepared by Karl Ecklund September 2002
2: % Revised by David Cassel August 2007
3: % Questions, Improvements, Comments to DGC and CLEOAC
4: %
5: % LATEX 2e Template for CLEO Papers
6: % YOU MUST USE REVTEX4 and latex 2e
7: %
8: % Checklist for Paper Drafts:
9: % ---------------------------
10: % 0) Use appropriate \documetclass line as indicated below
11: % 1) Draft Number: Use latest CBX number, append A for the first vote
12: % (B,C,... for subsequent if any votes)
13: % 2) Don't use CLNS or CLEO numbers - this happens after your vote.
14: % 3) Title; use \\ to break title over several lines.
15: % 4) Abstract
16: % 5) For the Author list use CLEO Collaboration only
17: % 6) Body
18: %
19: % Checklist for Journal Submissions:
20: % ----------------------------------
21: % 0) Use appropriate \documetclass line as indicated below
22: % - For CLNS, hep-ex, preprints, conf. paper use CLNS version
23: % - For PRL submission use PRL version
24: % - For PRD submission use PRD version
25: % 1) CLEO paper number (from CLEOAC)
26: % 2) CLNS preprint number (from CLEOAC)
27: % 3) Title; use \\ to break title over several lines.
28: % 4) Abstract
29: % 5) Author list (from CLEOAC)
30: % 6) PACS codes
31: % 7) Body
32: % 8) Add acknowledgments
33: % 9) Hardcode the \date when ready to submit to journal and hep-ex.
34: %
35: % Checklist for Conference Papers:
36: % --------------------------------
37: % 0) Use appropriate \documetclass line as indicated below
38: % - For conf. paper use CLNS version
39: % 1) CLEO conference paper number (from CLEOAC) (don't use CLNS)
40: % 2) Title; use \\ to break title over several lines.
41: % 3) To \thanks after title, add appropriate conference info.
42: % 4) Abstract
43: % 5) Author list (from CLEOAC)
44: % 6) Body
45: % 7) Add acknowledgments
46: % 8) Hardcode the \date when ready to submit to conference and hep-ex.
47: %
48: % KNOWN PROBLEMS with template and REVTEX4
49: % - can't make abstract appear before full author list ala CLNS notes
50: % Abandoning this as the format for CLNS.
51:
52: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
53: % Select one of the \documentclass lines below for your paper
54: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
55: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% Use for CLNS preprint (arXiv) and Paper Drafts
56: \documentclass[aps,prd,superscriptaddress,preprint,showpacs,tightenlines,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
57: %\documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,tightenlines,superscriptaddress,showpacs,byrevtex]{revtex4}
58: %\documentclass[graphicx,subfigure,12pt]{article}
59: %\documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,tightenlines,superscriptaddress,showpacs,byrevtex]{revtex4}
60: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
61: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
62: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
63: \usepackage{color}
64: \usepackage{relsize}
65: \usepackage{graphicx} % Include figure files
66: \usepackage{dcolumn} % Align table columns on decimal point
67: \usepackage{bm} % bold math
68:
69: %\headheight 2.0cm
70: \newcommand{\rb}[1]{\raisebox{2.0ex}[0pt]{#1}}
71: \newcommand{\rmn}[1]{\uppercase \expandafter {\romannumeral #1}}
72:
73:
74: %\oddsidemargin -1cm
75: \def\de {\Delta E}
76: \def \kkp {D^+\to K^+ K^-\pi^+}
77: \def \kpp {D^+\to K^-\pi^+\pi^+}
78: \def \msm {m_-^2}
79: \def \msp {m_+^2}
80: \def \mbc {m_{\rm BC}}
81: \def \Kb {\overline{K}}
82: \def\Dz{D^{0}}
83: \def\Db {\overline{D}{}^{0}}
84: \def\Dp {D^+}
85: \def \Dm {D^-}
86: \def\simlt{\mathrel{\lower2.5pt\vbox{\lineskip=0pt\baselineskip=0pt
87: \hbox{$<$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
88: \def\babar{\mbox{\slshape B\kern-0.1em{\smaller A}\kern-0.1em
89: B\kern-0.1em{\smaller A\kern-0.2em R }}}
90: \graphicspath{{eps/}}
91: \begin{document}
92:
93: %\preprint line(s) will be ignored for PRL/PRD
94: %\preprint{CLEO Draft YY-NNA} % For paper draft CBX YY-NN -> Draft YY-NNA
95: %\preprint{CLEO CONF YY-NN} % For conference papers
96: %\preprint{ICHEP ABSnnn} % For conference papers
97: \preprint{CLNS 08/2036} % for CLNS notes
98: \preprint{CLEO 08-19} % for CLNS notes
99:
100: \title{Search for $\boldmath CP$ Violation in the Dalitz-Plot Analysis of $\boldmath D^\pm\to K^+K^-\pi^\pm$}
101: %\author{L. Zhang}\affiliation{Syracuse University}
102: %\author{S. Stone}\affiliation{Syracuse University}
103: \author{P.~Rubin}
104: \affiliation{George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia 22030, USA}
105: \author{B.~I.~Eisenstein}
106: \author{I.~Karliner}
107: \author{S.~Mehrabyan}
108: \author{N.~Lowrey}
109: \author{M.~Selen}
110: \author{E.~J.~White}
111: \author{J.~Wiss}
112: \affiliation{University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois
113: 61801, USA}
114: \author{R.~E.~Mitchell}
115: \author{M.~R.~Shepherd}
116: \affiliation{Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA }
117: \author{D.~Besson}
118: \affiliation{University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, USA}
119: \author{T.~K.~Pedlar}
120: \affiliation{Luther College, Decorah, Iowa 52101, USA}
121: \author{D.~Cronin-Hennessy}
122: \author{K.~Y.~Gao}
123: \author{J.~Hietala}
124: \author{Y.~Kubota}
125: \author{T.~Klein}
126: \author{B.~W.~Lang}
127: \author{R.~Poling}
128: \author{A.~W.~Scott}
129: \author{P.~Zweber}
130: \affiliation{University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455,
131: USA}
132: \author{S.~Dobbs}
133: \author{Z.~Metreveli}
134: \author{K.~K.~Seth}
135: \author{B.~J.~Y.~Tan}
136: \author{A.~Tomaradze}
137: \affiliation{Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA}
138: \author{J.~Libby}
139: \author{L.~Martin}
140: \author{A.~Powell}
141: \author{G.~Wilkinson}
142: \affiliation{University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3RH, UK}
143: \author{K.~M.~Ecklund}
144: \affiliation{State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New
145: York 14260, USA}
146: \author{W.~Love}
147: \author{V.~Savinov}
148: \affiliation{University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
149: 15260, USA}
150: \author{H.~Mendez}
151: \affiliation{University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 00681}
152: \author{J.~Y.~Ge}
153: \author{D.~H.~Miller}
154: \author{I.~P.~J.~Shipsey}
155: \author{B.~Xin}
156: \affiliation{Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA}
157: \author{G.~S.~Adams}
158: \author{D.~Hu}
159: \author{B.~Moziak}
160: \author{J.~Napolitano}
161: \affiliation{Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York 12180,
162: USA}
163: \author{Q.~He}
164: \author{J.~Insler}
165: \author{H.~Muramatsu}
166: \author{C.~S.~Park}
167: \author{E.~H.~Thorndike}
168: \author{F.~Yang}
169: \affiliation{University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627,
170: USA}
171: \author{M.~Artuso}
172: \author{S.~Blusk}
173: \author{S.~Khalil}
174: \author{J.~Li}
175: \author{R.~Mountain}
176: \author{S.~Nisar}
177: \author{K.~Randrianarivony}
178: \author{N.~Sultana}
179: \author{T.~Skwarnicki}
180: \author{S.~Stone}
181: \author{J.~C.~Wang}
182: \author{L.~M.~Zhang}
183: \affiliation{Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244, USA}
184: \author{G.~Bonvicini}
185: \author{D.~Cinabro}
186: \author{M.~Dubrovin}
187: \author{A.~Lincoln}
188: \affiliation{Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48202, USA}
189: \author{P.~Naik}
190: \author{J.~Rademacker}
191: \affiliation{University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TL, UK}
192: \author{D.~M.~Asner}
193: \author{K.~W.~Edwards}
194: \author{J.~Reed}
195: \affiliation{Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6}
196: \author{R.~A.~Briere}
197: \author{G.~Tatishvili}
198: \author{H.~Vogel}
199: \affiliation{Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
200: 15213, USA}
201: \author{J.~L.~Rosner}
202: \affiliation{Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago,
203: Illinois 60637, USA}
204: \author{J.~P.~Alexander}
205: \author{D.~G.~Cassel}
206: \author{J.~E.~Duboscq\footnote{Deceased}}
207: \author{R.~Ehrlich}
208: \author{L.~Fields}
209: \author{L.~Gibbons}
210: \author{R.~Gray}
211: \author{S.~W.~Gray}
212: \author{D.~L.~Hartill}
213: \author{B.~K.~Heltsley}
214: \author{D.~Hertz}
215: \author{J.~M.~Hunt}
216: \author{J.~Kandaswamy}
217: \author{D.~L.~Kreinick}
218: \author{V.~E.~Kuznetsov}
219: \author{J.~Ledoux}
220: \author{H.~Mahlke-Kr\"uger}
221: \author{D.~Mohapatra}
222: \author{P.~U.~E.~Onyisi}
223: \author{J.~R.~Patterson}
224: \author{D.~Peterson}
225: \author{D.~Riley}
226: \author{A.~Ryd}
227: \author{A.~J.~Sadoff}
228: \author{X.~Shi}
229: \author{S.~Stroiney}
230: \author{W.~M.~Sun}
231: \author{T.~Wilksen}
232: \affiliation{Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA}
233: \author{S.~B.~Athar}
234: \author{R.~Patel}
235: \author{J.~Yelton}
236: \affiliation{University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA}
237: \collaboration{CLEO Collaboration} \noaffiliation
238:
239: %\date{{\bf\,\today}}
240: \begin{abstract}
241:
242: We report on a search for $CP$ asymmetry in the singly
243: Cabibbo-suppressed decay $\kkp$ using a data sample of 818 pb$^{-1}$
244: accumulated with the CLEO-c detector on the $\psi(3770)$ resonance.
245: A Dalitz-plot analysis is used to determine the amplitudes of the
246: intermediate states. We find no evidence for $CP$ violation either
247: in specific two-body amplitudes or integrated over the entire phase
248: space. The $CP$
249: asymmetry %integrated over the entire phase space in this decay
250: in the latter case is measured to be
251: %$A_{CP}(K^+K^-\pi^\pm)=
252: $(-0.03\pm0.84\pm 0.29)\%$.
253: \end{abstract}
254:
255: \pacs{13.25.Ft, 11.30.Er}
256:
257: \maketitle
258:
259:
260: $D$-meson decays are predicted in the Standard Model (SM) to exhibit
261: $CP$-violating charge asymmetries smaller than ${\mathcal
262: O}(10^{-3})$ \cite{SM}. Measurement of a $CP$ asymmetry in the $D$
263: system with higher rate would clearly signal new physics (NP)
264: \cite{bigi,nir}. Singly Cabibbo-suppressed (SCS) decays via $c\to
265: u\bar{q}q$ transitions are sensitive to NP contributions to the
266: $\Delta C=1$ penguin process. Interestingly, such processes do not
267: contribute to either the Cabibbo-favored ($c\to s\bar{d}u$) or the
268: doubly Cabibbo-suppressed ($c\to d\bar{s}u$) decays. Direct $CP$
269: violation in SCS decays could arise from interference between tree
270: and penguin processes. A non-zero $CP$ asymmetry can occur if
271: %and only if
272: there is both a strong and weak phase difference between
273: the tree and penguin processes. %In charged $D$-meson decays,
274: In charged $D$-meson decays, mixing effects are absent, allowing us
275: to probe direct $CP$ violation and consequently NP.
276:
277: Weak decays of $D$ mesons are expected to be dominated by quasi
278: two-body decays with resonant intermediate states. Dalitz-plot
279: analysis techniques
280: can be used to explore the resonant substructure. %which should be
281: %rich in spin-zero mesons.
282: The intermediate structures of $\kkp$ decay were studied by E687
283: \cite{e687} with a Dalitz-plot analysis and by FOCUS \cite{focus}
284: with a non-parametric technique. \babar searched for direct $CP$
285: asymmetries in this mode using a counting method \cite{babar}. Using
286: 281 pb$^{-1}$ of data, CLEO previously measured the absolute
287: hadronic branching fractions and the $CP$ asymmetries of
288: Cabibbo-favored $D$-meson decay modes and the phase-space integrated
289: asymmetry in the $K^+K^-\pi^+$ mode we study here \cite{cleo281}.
290: The previous investigations of this decay were either limited by
291: statistics, and did not search for $CP$ violation, or did not study
292: the resonant substructure.
293:
294: We present the results of a search for direct $CP$ asymmetry in the
295: decay $D^\pm \to K^+K^-\pi^\pm$. This includes a study of the
296: integrated decay rate, as well as decays through various
297: intermediate states. We perform the present analysis on 818
298: pb$^{-1}$ of $e^+e^-$ collision data collected at a center-of-mass
299: energy of 3774 MeV with the CLEO-c detector \cite{det1,det2,det3} at
300: the Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR). The CLEO-c detector is a
301: general purpose solenoidal detector that includes a tracking system
302: for measuring momentum and specific ionization ($dE/dx$) of charged
303: particles, a Ring Imaging Cherenkov detector (RICH) to aid in
304: particle identification, and a CsI calorimeter for detection of
305: electromagnetic showers. %The CLEO-c detector is described in detail
306: %elsewhere \cite{det1,det2,det3}.
307:
308: We reconstruct $D^+\to K^+ K^-\pi^+$, and the charge-conjugate mode
309: $D^-\to K^+ K^-\pi^-$. (Charge-conjugate modes are included
310: throughout this report unless noted otherwise.) The event
311: reconstruction criteria are the same as that used in
312: Ref.~\cite{cleo281}. Charged tracks are required to be well
313: measured and to satisfy criteria based on the track fit quality.
314: They must also be consistent with coming from the interaction
315: point in three dimensions. Pions and kaons are identified %by
316: %consistency with the expected $dE/dx$ and RICH information,
317: using $dE/dx$ and RICH information, when available. If either
318: $dE/dx$ or RICH information (or both) is missing we still use the
319: track in the analysis. Detail can be found in Ref.~\cite{cleo281}.
320: We define two signal variables:
321: \begin{equation}
322: \Delta E \equiv \sum_iE_i-E_{\rm beam}
323: \end{equation}
324: and %the beam-constrained mass
325: \begin{equation}
326: m_{\rm BC} \equiv \sqrt{E_{\rm beam}^2-|\sum_i \mathbf{p}_i|^2}\,,
327: \end{equation}
328: where $E_i$ and $\mathbf{p}_i$ are the energy and momentum of each
329: $D$ decay product, and $E_{\rm beam}$ is the energy of one of the
330: beams. For a correct combination of particles, $\de$ should be
331: consistent with zero, and $\mbc$ should be consistent with the $D^+$
332: mass. Fig. \ref{de} shows $\de$ distribution of data. We select
333: candidates that have $\de$ within $\pm12$ MeV of zero, corresponding
334: to 2.5 standard deviations ($\sigma$). If in any event there are
335: multiple candidates satisfying the $\de$ criterion using entirely
336: separate combinations of tracks, we accept
337: all of these candidates. %On the other hand,
338: Otherwise if there are multiple candidates sharing tracks we keep
339: only the combination with the smallest $|\Delta E|$.
340:
341:
342: \begin{figure}[!hbtp]
343: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig0.eps}
344: \caption{The $\de$ distributions. Signal ($|\Delta E|<12$~MeV) and
345: sidebands (50~MeV$<|\de|<$ 100~MeV) regions are shown. \label{de}}
346: \end{figure}
347:
348:
349:
350: \begin{figure}[!hbtp]
351: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig1.eps}
352: \caption{The $\mbc$ distributions for (a) $D^+$ and (b) $D^-$
353: candidates. The solid curves show the fits to the data (points with
354: error bars), while the dashed curves indicate the background.
355: \label{mbc}}
356: \end{figure}
357:
358: To determine the signal yields of the $D^+$ and $D^-$ samples, we
359: simultaneously fit the $\mbc$ distributions from the samples and
360: require they have the same signal shape. For the signal, we use a
361: Crystal Ball line shape function \cite{cb}, whose parameters are
362: allowed to float. For the background, an ARGUS function \cite{argus}
363: is used with shape parameters determined from the events in the
364: $\de$ sideband (50 MeV $<|\de|<$ 100 MeV). We find $9757\pm116$
365: $D^+$ and $9701\pm115$ $D^-$. Figure \ref{mbc} shows the $m_{\rm
366: BC}$ distributions of $D^+$ and $D^-$ samples with fit functions
367: superimposed; the total $\chi^2$ is 241 for 180 degrees of freedom
368: (d.o.f.).
369:
370:
371: We obtain the efficiency from a GEANT-based signal Monte Carlo (MC)
372: simulation of the detector. The signal MC requires one of the two
373: $D$ mesons in an event to decay in accordance with all known modes
374: and the other one to decay to the signal mode.
375: %Table \ref{eff} shows the efficiency for each decay mode.
376: For the signal $D$ meson, we generate events that uniformly populate
377: phase space. The average efficiency, accounting for a non-uniform
378: population density of data, is calculated as follows. The Dalitz
379: plot of the data is first divided into 16 bins that are
380: approximately equally populated. The signal yields are obtained from
381: the $m_{\rm BC}$ fits bin by bin and the corresponding efficiencies
382: are calculated from the MC. The average efficiency is the sum of the
383: yields divided by the sum of the efficiency-corrected yields. We
384: find the efficiencies $\epsilon^{\pm}$ for the $D^\pm$ decays are
385: $(44.13\pm0.15)\%$ and $(43.85\pm0.15)\%$, respectively. The $CP$
386: asymmetry, defined as
387: \begin{equation}
388: A_{CP}=\frac{N^+/\epsilon^+ - N^-/\epsilon^-}{N^+/\epsilon^+ +
389: N^-/\epsilon^-},\end{equation} where $N^\pm$ are the measured
390: $D^\pm$ yields, is measured as \begin{equation}
391: A_{CP}=(-0.03\pm0.84\pm0.29)\%~. \label{acp_yield}\end{equation}
392:
393:
394: \begin{table*}[btp]
395: \caption{\label{dpfit}Fit results for three models with different
396: $S$-wave parameterizations. The $K^-\pi^+$ $S$-wave contains
397: contributions from $\overline{K}^*_0(1430)^0$ and a nonresonant term
398: in fit A, from $\overline{K}^*_0(1430)^0$ and $\kappa(800)$ in fit
399: B, and from the LASS amplitude in fit C. The errors are statistical,
400: experimental systematic, and decay-model systematic, respectively. }
401: \begin{tabular}{lccc}\hline\hline
402: &Magnitude &Phase ($^\circ$)&Fit Fraction (\%)\\\hline
403: \multicolumn{4}{c}
404: {Fit A [$\chi^2/$d.o.f. = 898/708]}\\
405: $\overline{K}^{*0}$& 1(fixed)&0(fixed)&$25.0\pm0.6_{-0.3-1.2}^{+0.4+0.2} $\\
406: $\overline{K}_0^*(1430)^0$&$3.7\pm0.5_{-0.1-1.0}^{+0.5+1.0}$&$73\pm9_{-6-38}^{+6+15}$&
407: $12.4\pm3.3_{-0.7-5.8}^{+3.4+7.3}$ \\
408: $\phi$&$1.189\pm0.015_{-0.011-0.010}^{+0.000+0.028}$&$-179\pm4_{-1-5}^{+3+13}$&
409: $28.1\pm0.6_{-0.3-0.4}^{+0.1+0.2}$\\
410: $a_0(1450)^0$&$1.72\pm0.10_{-0.11-0.28}^{+0.11+0.81}$&$123\pm3_{-1-15}^{+1+9}$&
411: $5.9\pm0.7_{-0.6-1.8}^{+0.7+6.7}$\\
412: $\phi(1680)$&$1.9\pm0.2_{-0.1-0.7}^{+0.0+1.3}$&$-52\pm8_{-5-26}^{+0+10}$&
413: $0.51\pm0.11_{-0.04-0.12}^{+0.02+0.85}$\\
414: $\overline{K}_2^*(1430)^0$&$6.4\pm0.9_{-0.4-3.6}^{+0.5+1.9}$&$150\pm6_{-0-13}^{+1+28}$&
415: $1.2\pm0.3_{-0.1-0.6}^{+0.2+0.8}$\\
416: NR&$5.1\pm0.3_{-0.3-0.2}^{+0.0+0.6}$&$53\pm7_{-5-11}^{+1+18}$&$14.7\pm1.8_{-1.6-1.5}^{+0.2+3.9}$\\
417: \multicolumn{4}{c} {Total Fit Fraction = $(88.7\pm2.9)\%$}\\
418: \hline
419: \multicolumn{4}{c}{Fit B [$\chi^2/$d.o.f. = 895/708]}\\
420: $\overline{K}^{*0}$& 1(fixed)&0(fixed)&$25.7\pm0.5_{-0.3-1.2}^{+0.4+0.1}$\\
421: $\overline{K}_0^*(1430)^0$&$4.56\pm0.13_{-0.01-0.39}^{+0.10+0.42}$&$70\pm6_{-6-23}^{+1+16}$&
422: $18.8\pm1.2_{-0.1-3.4}^{+0.6+3.2}$ \\
423: $\phi$&$1.166\pm0.015_{-0.009-0.009}^{+0.001+0.025}$&$-163\pm3_{-1-5}^{+1+14}$&
424: $27.8\pm0.4_{-0.3-0.4}^{+0.1+0.2}$\\
425: $a_0(1450)^0$&$1.50\pm0.10_{-0.06-0.33}^{+0.09+0.92}$&$116\pm2_{-1-14}^{+1+7}$&
426: $4.6\pm0.6_{-0.3-1.8}^{+0.5+7.2}$\\
427: $\phi(1680)$&$1.86\pm0.20_{-0.08-0.77}^{+0.02+0.62}$&$-112\pm6_{-4-12}^{+3+19}$&
428: $0.51\pm0.11_{-0.04-0.15}^{+0.01+0.37}$\\
429: $\overline{K}_2^*(1430)^0$&$7.6\pm0.8_{-0.6-4.8}^{+0.5+2.4}$&$171\pm4_{-2-11}^{+0+24}$&
430: $1.7\pm0.4_{-0.2-0.7}^{+0.3+1.2}$\\
431: $\kappa$(800)&$2.30\pm0.13_{-0.11-0.29}^{+0.01+0.52}$&$-87\pm6_{-3-10}^{+2+15}$&$7.0\pm0.8_{-0.6-1.9}^{+0.0+3.5}$\\
432: \multicolumn{4}{c} {Total Fit Fraction = $(86.1\pm1.1)\%$}\\\hline
433: \multicolumn{4}{c}{Fit C [$\chi^2/$d.o.f. = 912/710]}\\
434: $\overline{K}^{*0}$& 1(fixed)&0(fixed)&$25.3\pm0.5_{-0.4-0.7}^{+0.2+0.2}$\\
435: LASS&$3.81\pm0.06_{-0.05-0.46}^{+0.05+0.13}$&$25.1\pm2_{-2-5}^{+1+6}$&$40.6\pm0.8_{-0.5-9.1}^{+0.4+1.6}$\\
436: $\phi$&$1.193\pm0.015_{-0.010-0.011}^{+0.003+0.021}$&$-176\pm2_{-2-8}^{+0+8}$&
437: $28.6\pm0.4_{-0.3-0.5}^{+0.2+0.2}$\\
438: $a_0(1450)^0$&$1.73\pm0.07_{-0.03-0.38}^{+0.14+0.68}$&$122\pm2_{-1-10}^{+1+8}$&
439: $6.0\pm0.4_{-0.2-2.4}^{+0.9+5.5}$\\
440: $\phi(1680)$&$1.71\pm0.16_{-0.02-0.77}^{+0.02+0.41}$&$-72\pm8_{-2-22}^{+2+10}$&
441: $0.42\pm0.08_{-0.01-0.16}^{+0.02+0.19}$\\
442: $\overline{K}_2^*(1430)^0$&$4.9\pm0.7_{-0.4-2.3}^{+0.1+2.2}$&$146\pm9_{-7-11}^{+0+34}$&
443: $0.7\pm0.2_{-0.1-0.3}^{+0.0+0.7}$\\
444: \multicolumn{4}{c} {Total Fit Fraction = $(101.5\pm0.8)\%$}\\
445: \hline\hline
446: \end{tabular}
447: \end{table*}
448:
449:
450: For the Dalitz-plot analysis, we consider the events from the signal
451: box ($|\de|<$12 MeV and $|\mbc-m_{D^+}|<4.5$ MeV/$c^2$)
452: corresponding to a 2.5$\sigma$ range in each variable. The signal
453: purity is $(84.26\pm0.10)\%$ obtained from the $\mbc$ fit. The
454: $K^+K^-\pi^+$ Dalitz-plot distribution is parameterized using the
455: isobar model formalism
456: %a sum of
457: %spin-dependent Breit-Wigner functions
458: %following
459: %the Breit-Wigner formalism using the unbinned likelihood method as
460: described in Ref.~\cite{kopp}. The decay amplitude as a function of
461: Dalitz-plot variables is expressed as a sum of two-body decay matrix
462: elements,
463: \begin{equation}
464: {\cal M}(m_+^2,m_-^2)=\sum_r a_re^{i\delta_r}{\cal
465: A}_r(m_+^2,m_-^2),
466: \end{equation}
467: where each term is parameterized with a magnitude $a_r$ and a phase
468: $\delta_r$ for the intermediate resonance $r$, and $r$ ranges over
469: all resonances. We choose $m_+^2=m^2_{K^+\pi^+}$ and
470: $m_-^2=m^2_{K^-\pi^+}$ as the two independent Dalitz-plot variables.
471: The partial amplitude ${\cal A}_r(m_+^2,m_-^2)$ is parameterized
472: using the Breit-Wigner shape with Blatt-Weisskopf form factors in
473: the $D$ meson and intermediate resonance vertices \cite{bwform}, and
474: angular dependence taken into account \cite{kopp}.
475:
476: We use an unbinned maximum likelihood fit which maximizes the
477: function
478: \begin{equation}
479: {\cal F}= \sum_{i=1}^N 2 \ln {\cal
480: L}(m_{+,i}^2,m_{-,i}^2)-\left(\frac{f-f_0}{\sigma_{f}}\right)^2,
481: \end{equation}
482: where the index $i$ runs over all $N$ events. The last term is used
483: to constrain the signal fraction $f$ to be the value $f_0$ within
484: its error $\sigma_f$ obtained from the $m_{\rm BC}$ fit. The first
485: term contains the likelihood function
486: \begin{equation}
487: {\cal L}(\msp,\msm)=f \frac{\varepsilon(\msp,\msm)|{\cal M}|^2}{
488: {\cal N}_{\rm sig}}+(1-f)\frac{F_{\rm bg}(\msp,\msm)}{{\cal N}_{\rm
489: bg}},\label{lk}
490: \end{equation}
491: where \begin{equation} {\cal N}_{\rm sig}=\displaystyle \int
492: \varepsilon(\msp,\msm)|{\cal M}|^2\,d{\msp} d{\msm}
493: \end{equation}
494: and
495: \begin{equation}
496: {\cal N}_{\rm bg} =\displaystyle \int F_{\rm bg}(\msp,\msm)\,d{\msp}
497: d{\msm}
498: \end{equation}
499: are the normalization factors, and $\varepsilon(\msp,\msm)$ and
500: $F_{\rm bg}(\msp,\msm)$ are efficiency and background functions. The
501: fit parameters are $a_r$, $\phi_r$ and $f$.
502:
503: We determine the efficiency $\varepsilon(\msp,\msm)$ using the same
504: signal MC sample described before. The efficiency function is
505: parameterized by a cubic polynomial in ($m_+^2$, $m_-^2$) multiplied
506: by threshold factors $T(m^2_{+\,max}-m_+^2;p_{xy}) \times
507: T(m^2_{-\,max}-m_-^2;p_{xy}) \times T(z_{max}-z;p_z)$, where
508: \begin{equation} T(x;p)=\left\{\begin{array}{l@{\quad,\quad}l}
509: \sin(px) & 0<px<\pi/2\\1 & {\rm otherwise}\end{array}\right.,
510: \end{equation}
511: $z \equiv m^2_{K^+K^-}$, $m^2_{\pm\,max}$ or $z_{max}$ is the
512: maximum value of $m^2_{\pm}$ or $z$ in this decay, $p_{xy}$ and
513: $p_z$ are the fit parameters. The threshold factors are used to
514: account for tracking inefficiency at the Dalitz-plot corners, where
515: one of three particles might be produced with very low momentum and
516: escape detection.
517:
518: Figure \ref{mbc} shows that the background is significant. %with the
519: %ratio of signal/background equal to 5.4.
520: %In addition, the background amplitude
521: %does not interfere with the real decay amplitudes.
522: To construct a
523: model of the background shape $F_{\rm bg}(\msp,\msm)$, we select
524: events from the sideband region ($24<|\Delta E|<42$ MeV and $|m_{\rm
525: BC}-m_{D^+}|<9$ MeV/$c^2$). There are 12324 events, %in this region,
526: about 3.5 times the amount of background we estimate in the signal
527: region, which is dominated by random combinations of unrelated
528: tracks. Although the background includes $\phi$ and $K^*$ mesons
529: combined with random tracks, these events will not interfere with
530: each other. Thus the shape is parameterized by a two-dimensional
531: quadratic polynomial with terms representing non-coherent
532: contributions from $\phi$ and $K^*$ meson decays, multiplied by the
533: threshold factors.
534:
535:
536: We consider fifteen intermediate states, $\phi\pi^+$,
537: $\phi(1680)\pi^+$, $\overline{K}^{*0}K^+$,
538: $\overline{K}_0^*(1430)^{0}K^+$, $\overline{K}^*(1410)^{0}K^+$,
539: $\overline{K}_2^*(1430)^{0}K^+$, $\kappa(800) K^+$, $f_0(980)
540: \pi^+$, $f_0(1370)\pi^+$, $f_0(1500)\pi^+$, $f_2(1270)\pi^+$,
541: $f_2^\prime(1525)\pi^+$, $a_0(980)^0\pi^+$, $a_0(1450)^0\pi^+$ and
542: $a_2(1320)^0\pi^+$, as well as a nonresonant (NR) contribution. The
543: parameters of the established resonances are taken from
544: Ref.~\cite{pdg}, except for the $f_0(980)$ which is taken from
545: Ref.~\cite{f0} and the $a_0(980)$ taken from Ref.~\cite{a0}. A
546: complex pole function is used to model the $\kappa(800)$ with pole
547: position at $s_\kappa=(0.71-i0.31)^2$ GeV$^2$ \cite{kappa}. The
548: nonresonant contribution is modeled as a uniform distribution over
549: the allowed phase space. For the $K^-\pi^+$ $S$-wave states in the
550: decays, we also consider the LASS amplitude as described in
551: Ref.~\cite{LASS,BABARLASS}, instead of a coherent sum of the states
552: $\overline{K}_0^*(1430)^{0}K^+$, $\kappa (800) K^+$ and the
553: nonresonant term.
554: %\begin{eqnarray}
555: %&&A_{\rm LASS}(s)=\frac{s}{p_{AB}}\sin\delta(M_{AB})e^{i\delta(M_{AB})},\label{lass1}\\
556: %&&\delta(M_{AB})=\cot^{-1}\left(\frac{1}{a\,p_{AB}}+\frac{b\,p_{AB}}{2}\right)\\
557: %&&+\cot^{-1}\left(\frac{M_0^2-M_{AB}^2}
558: %{M_0\Gamma_0\cdot\frac{M_0}{M_{AB}}\cdot\frac{p_{AB}}{p_0}}\right),\label{lass2}
559: %\end{eqnarray}
560: %where $M_0$ ($\Gamma_0$) refers to the $K_0^*(1430)^0$ mass (width),
561: %$a=1.95\pm0.09$ GeV$^{-1}c$, and $b=1.76\pm0.36$ GeV$^{-1}c$.
562:
563: This study is sensitive only to relative phases and magnitudes. The
564: mode $\overline{K}^{*0}K^+$ is assigned to have zero phase and unit
565: magnitude. We choose the same phase conventions for the intermediate
566: resonances as E687 \cite{e687} used.
567:
568: We begin to fit the data by considering only the three components
569: $\overline{K}^{*0}$, $\phi$, and $\overline{K}_0^*(1430)^0$ and
570: obtain a result consistent with E687. To present a relative
571: goodness-of-fit estimator, we divide the Dalitz-plot region into
572: bins with dimensions 0.05 (GeV/$c^2)^2$ $\times$ 0.05 (GeV/$c^2)^2$
573: and calculate $\chi^2$ as
574: %\begin{equation}
575: %\chi^2=\sum_{i=1}^{721}\frac{|n_i-p_i|^2}{p_i},
576: %\end{equation}
577: \begin{equation}
578: \chi^2=-2\sum_{i=1}^{721}n_i\ln \left(\frac{p_i}{n_i}\right),
579: \end{equation}
580: where $n_i$ ($p_i$) is the observed (expected) number of events in
581: the $i$th bin \cite{pdg}. We find $\chi^2=1292$ for $(721-5)$ d.o.f.
582: in the ``three resonances" fit, where 721 is the
583: number of valid bins inside the kinematically allowed region. %The large
584: %$\chi^2$ implies the fit can not well describe the data.
585:
586: Our twenty times larger statistics than E687 require a better model.
587: We determine which additional resonances to include by the following
588: procedure: starting from the three resonances and adding new
589: resonances one at a time, we choose the best additional one at each
590: iteration, stopping when no additional resonances have fit
591: fractions (FF) more than $3 \sigma$ from zero. The fit
592: fraction is defined as %the integral of a single component divided by
593: %the sum of all components:
594: \begin{equation}
595: {\rm FF_r} = \frac{\displaystyle \int |a_r {\cal A}_r|^2\, dm_+^2
596: dm_-^2} {\displaystyle \int |{\cal M}
597: %\sum_j a_j e^{i\delta_j}{\cal A}_j
598: |^2\,dm_+^2 dm_-^2}.\label{FF}
599: \end{equation}
600:
601:
602: \begin{figure}[!hbtp]
603: \center
604: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig2.eps}
605: \caption{\label{fig:lass}(a) The Dalitz plot for $\kkp$ candidates.
606: (b)-(d) Projections of the results of the fit B (line) and the data
607: (points). The dashed line shows the background
608: contribution.} %The results of fits A and B are similar to fit C. See
609: %text for details of the fits.}
610: \end{figure}
611:
612: The results of our fits are presented in Table \ref{dpfit}. We find
613: that three fits (denoted as A-C) describe the data with similar
614: quality. The only difference among them is in description of the
615: $K^-\pi^+$ $S$-wave contribution, which is represented by the
616: $\overline{K}^*_0(1430)^0$ and NR in fit A, by
617: $\overline{K}^*_0(1430)^0$ and $\kappa(800)$ in fit B, and by the
618: LASS amplitude in fit C. Figure \ref{fig:lass} shows the Dalitz plot
619: for the $\kkp$ candidates and three projections of the data with the
620: result of fit B superimposed.
621:
622: We generate seven sets of GEANT-based signal MC samples with the
623: model from fit A. Each set contains about the same size as in the
624: data. We find that the fits can recover the input magnitudes and
625: phases within their errors.
626:
627: Fit B gives the best agreement with the data; thus we choose it to
628: search for $CP$-violation ($CPV$). The resonances in $D^+$ ($D^-$)
629: decays are allowed to have different magnitudes, $a_r + b_r$
630: ($a_r-b_r$), and phases, $\delta_r + \phi_r$ ($\delta_r - \phi_r$),
631: in the decay amplitude ${\cal M}$ ($\overline{\cal M}$). We perform
632: a simultaneous fit to $D^+$ and $D^-$ samples. In the fit, the
633: signal term in Eq.~(\ref{lk}) is replaced by
634: \begin{equation}
635: {\cal L}_{\rm sig}=\frac{f\varepsilon^+(\msp,\msm)|{\cal
636: M}|^2}{\displaystyle \int \varepsilon^+(\msp,\msm)|{\cal
637: M}|^2\,d{\msp} d{\msm}}
638: \end{equation}
639: for the $D^+$ sample and by
640: \begin{equation}
641: \overline{\cal L}_{\rm
642: sig}=\frac{f\varepsilon^-(\msp,\msm)|\overline{\cal
643: M}|^2}{\displaystyle \int \varepsilon^-(\msp,\msm)|\overline{\cal
644: M}|^2\,d{\msp} d{\msm}}
645: \end{equation}
646: for the $D^-$ sample, where $\varepsilon^\pm$ are efficiency
647: functions obtained from the $D^\pm$ signal MC separately. We cannot
648: determine the relative magnitude and phase between $D^+$ and $D^-$
649: directly, and assume $b=0$ and $\phi=0$ for the $\overline{K}^{*0}$
650: resonance. The free parameters in the fit are $b_r/a_r$, $a_r$,
651: $\delta_r$, $\phi_r$ and $f$.
652:
653: Following Ref.~\cite{ks2p}, we also compute the $CP$-conserving fit
654: fraction as
655: \begin{equation}
656: {\rm FF}(CPC)_r=\frac{\int|2a_r{\cal
657: A}_r|^2\,dm^2_+\,dm^2_-}{\int(|{\cal M}|^2+|\overline{\cal
658: M}|^2)\,dm^2_+\,dm^2_-}, \label{cpcff}
659: \end{equation}
660: the $CPV$ fit fraction as
661: \begin{equation}
662: {\rm FF}(CPV)_r=\frac{\int|2b_r{\cal
663: A}_r|^2\,dm^2_+\,dm^2_-}{\int(|{\cal M}|^2+|\overline{\cal
664: M}|^2)\,dm^2_+\,dm^2_-}, \label{cpvff}
665: \end{equation} and the $CPV$ interference fraction (IF) as
666: \begin{equation}
667: {\rm IF}_r=\frac{\left|\displaystyle\int \sum_{k\ne r} [2 a_k
668: e^{i\delta_k}
669: \cos(\phi_k-\phi_r){\cal A}_k]\,b_r{\cal A}_r^*\,dm^2_+\,dm^2_-\right|}{\int(|{\cal
670: M}|^2+|\overline{\cal M}|^2)\,dm^2_+\,dm^2_-} \label{cpvif}.
671: \end{equation}
672: The $CP$-conserving fit fraction is the same for the $D^+$ and $D^-$
673: by construction. The $CPV$ fit fraction defined by Eq.~(\ref{cpvff})
674: is sensitive to $CP$ violation in the resonant decay. The $CPV$
675: interference fractions of Eq.~(\ref{cpvif}) sum over the
676: contribution proportional to $a_k e^{+i\delta_k}b_r$ so they are
677: sensitive to $CP$ violation in interference between resonances. The
678: phases are important and allow the possibility of cancelation in
679: this sum.
680:
681: In Table \ref{acp:lass}, we report the magnitude asymmetries
682: $b_r/a_r$, phase differences $\phi_r$ and fit fraction asymmetries.
683: The fit fraction asymmetry is computed as the difference between the
684: $D^+$ and $D^-$ fit fractions divided by the sum. The largest fit
685: fraction asymmetry, for the $\overline{K}_2^*(1430)^0$, is
686: 1.7$\sigma$, and occurs because the fit fraction for the
687: $\overline{K}_2^*(1430)^0$ is small. The $CP$-conserving fit
688: fractions and the 95\% confidence level (C.L.) upper limits for
689: $CPV$ fit fraction, $CPV$ interference fraction, and the ratio of
690: $CPV$ interference to $CP$-conserving fit fraction are given in
691: Table \ref{t1}. We notice that the $CP$-conserving fit fractions are
692: consistent with those of fit B
693: in Table \ref{dpfit}. %except $\overline{K}_2^*(1430)^0$ is
694: %$(0.8\pm0.2)\%$.
695: Figure \ref{fig:dif} shows the difference of the Dalitz-plot
696: projections of data and fit between $\Dp$ and $\Dm$ decays.
697:
698:
699: \begin{table}[!hbtp] \caption{\label{acp:lass}
700: The magnitude asymmetries $b_r/a_r$, phase differences $\phi_r$ and
701: asymmetries on the $D^+$ and $D^-$ fit fractions from fit B. The errors are
702: statistical, experimental systematic, and decay-model systematic,
703: respectively.}
704: \begin{tabular}{cccc}\hline\hline
705: $r$&$b/a$ (\%)&
706: $\phi$ ($^\circ$)&FF asymmetry(\%)\\\hline
707: $\overline{K}^{*0}$& 0(fixed)&0(fixed)&$-0.4\pm2.0_{-0.5-0.3}^{+0.2+0.6}$\\
708: $\overline{K}_0^*(1430)^0$&$4\pm3_{-0-1}^{+1+2}$&$-1\pm6_{-3-1}^{+0+6}$&
709: $8\pm6_{-1-1}^{+1+4}$\\
710: $\phi$&$-0.7\pm1.3_{-0.1-0.2}^{+0.2+0.3}$&$3\pm3_{-1-1}^{+0+3}$&
711: $-1.8\pm1.6_{-0.4-0.1}^{+0.0+0.2}$\\
712: $a_0(1450)^0$&$-10\pm7\pm2_{-3}^{+6}$&$4\pm3_{-2-1}^{+1+2}$&
713: $-19\pm12_{-3-11}^{+5+6}$\\
714: $\phi(1680)$&$-4\pm11_{-4-4}^{+5+6}$&$3\pm6\pm2_{-2}^{+3}$&
715: $-9\pm22_{-7-12}^{+10+9}$\\
716: $\overline{K}_2^*(1430)^0$&$23^{+12+1+3}_{-11-7-7}$&$5^{+5+1+3}_{-4-3-1}$&
717: $43\pm19_{-13-12}^{+1+5}$\\
718: $\kappa (800)$
719: &$-6\pm6_{-1-5}^{+3+1}$&$3\pm6_{-2-4}^{+4+1}$&$-12\pm11_{-6-2}^{+0+14}$\\\hline\hline
720: %\multicolumn{4}{c}{}\\ \hline
721: \end{tabular}
722: \end{table}
723:
724:
725: \begin{table}[!hbtp]
726: \center \caption{\label{t1} The $CP$-conserving fit fractions from
727: Eq.~(\ref{cpcff}) and the 95\% confidence level (C.L.) upper limits
728: for $CPV$ fit fraction from Eq.~(\ref{cpvff}), $CPV$ interference
729: fraction from Eq.~(\ref{cpvif}), and the ratio of $CPV$ interference
730: to
731: $CP$-conserving fit fraction. %The $CP$-conserving fit fractions are
732: %almost the same as those of fit B in Table \ref{dpfit}.
733: The 95\% C.L. upper limits include statistical and systematic
734: effects.}
735: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}\hline\hline
736: &&FF($CPV$) & IF &Ratio\\
737: && ($\times10^{-3}$)& ($\times10^{-3}$)&(\%)\\
738: Component&FF($CPC$)(\%)&\multicolumn{3}{c}{(95\% C.L. upper limits)}
739: \\\hline
740: $\overline{K}^{*0}$&$25.7\pm0.5$&0(fixed)&0(fixed)&0(fixed)\\
741: $\overline{K}_0^*(1430)^0$&$18.8\pm1.2$&$<4.3$&$<12.6$&$<8.5$\\
742: $\phi$&$27.8\pm0.4$&$<0.6$&$<0.5$&$<0.17$\\
743: $a_0(1450)^0$&$4.7\pm0.6$&$<10.8$&$<31.6$&$<45$\\
744: $\phi(1680)$&$0.50\pm0.11$&$<0.9$&$<4.6$&$<89$\\
745: $\overline{K}_2^*(1430)^0$&$1.8\pm0.4$&$<6.9$&$<3.9$&$<22$\\
746: $\kappa (800)$&$7.0\pm0.8$&$<4.2$&$<17.2$&$<25$\\\hline\hline
747: \end{tabular}
748: \end{table}
749:
750: \begin{figure}[!hbtp]
751: \center
752: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig3.eps}
753: \caption{\label{fig:dif} The difference of the Dalitz-plot
754: projections of data (points) and fit (line) between $\Dp$ and $\Dm$
755: decays.}
756: \end{figure}
757:
758: We calculate an integrated $CP$ asymmetry across the Dalitz plot,
759: defined as %the asymmetry of the squared coherent sum of all
760: %amplitudes for $D^+$ and $D^-$ integrated over the Dalitz plot,
761: %divided by the area of the Dalitz plot.
762: \begin{equation}
763: {\cal A}_{CP} = \int \frac{|{\cal M}|^2-|\overline{\cal
764: M}|^2}{|{\cal M}|^2+|\overline{\cal M}|^2} \,dm^2_+\,dm^2_- \Big /
765: \int \,dm^2_+\,dm^2_-. \label{ACP}
766: \end{equation}
767: We obtain ${\cal A}_{CP}=(-0.4\pm2.0_{-0.5-0.3}^{+0.2+0.6})\%$,
768: where the errors are statistical, experimental systematic, and
769: decay-model systematic, respectively.
770:
771:
772: Using the same counting technique as in Ref.~\cite{babar}, we
773: examine $CP$ asymmetries ($A_{CP}$) in the $\phi$ and
774: $\overline{K}^{*0}$ regions by requiring the $K^+K^-$ and $K^-\pi^+$
775: invariant mass to be within $15$ and $10$ MeV/$c^2$ of the nominal
776: $\phi$ and $\overline{K}^{*0}$ masses \cite{pdg}. We find $A_{CP}$
777: ($-0.9\pm1.4\pm0.7$)\% and ($0.3\pm1.8\pm0.6$)\% for the $\phi$ and
778: $\overline{K}^{*0}$ region, respectively.
779:
780:
781: Systematic uncertainties from experimental sources and from the
782: decay model are considered separately. Our general procedure is to
783: change some aspect of our fit and interpret the change in the values
784: of the magnitudes, phases, fit fractions, $b_r/a_r$, $\phi_r$, and
785: fit fraction asymmetries as an estimation of the systematic
786: uncertainty.
787:
788: Contributions to the experimental systematic uncertainties arise
789: from our model of the background, the efficiency and the event
790: selection. Our nominal fit fixes the coefficients of the background
791: determined from a sideband region. To estimate the systematic
792: uncertainty on this background shape, a fit is done with the
793: coefficients allowed to float and constrained by the covariance
794: matrix obtained from the background fit. Similarly, to estimate the
795: systematic uncertainty on the efficiency parameters, we perform a
796: fit with the coefficients of efficiency allowed to float constrained
797: by their covariance matrix. To estimate the systematic uncertainty
798: on MC simulation for the particle identification, a fit is done with
799: new efficiency parameters obtained from the weighted MC sample by
800: the efficiency ratios of data to MC depending on each particle's
801: momentum. To estimate the event selection uncertainty, we change the
802: $\de$ and $\mbc$ selection criteria in the analysis. These
803: variations to the standard fit are the largest contribution to our
804: experimental systematic errors. In the $CP$ asymmetry search, we
805: take the background fractions and shapes to be the same for the
806: $D^+$ and $D^-$ samples. To estimate the uncertainty on the
807: supposition, we perform a fit with the background determined
808: separately.
809:
810: The systematic error due to our choice of $\kkp$ decay model is
811: evaluated as follows. We change the standard values of the radial
812: parameter in the Blatt-Weisskopf form factors \cite{bwform} for the
813: intermediate resonance decay vertex (1.5 GeV$^{-1}$) and the $D^+$
814: vertex (5 GeV$^{-1})$ both to 1 GeV$^{-1}$. Fits with constant
815: width in the Breit-Wigner functions are considered. To compute the
816: uncertainty arising from our choice of resonances included in the
817: fit, we compare the result of our standard fit to a series of fits
818: where each of the resonances, $\overline{K}^*(1410)^{0}$,
819: $f_0(980)$, $f_0(1370)$, $f_0(1500)$, $f_2(1270)$,
820: $f_2^\prime(1525)$, $a_0(980)^0$ and $a_2(1320)^0$, is included one
821: at a time. These variations to the standard fit result in the
822: largest contribution to systematic errors associated with our decay
823: model. The masses and widths of the intermediate resonances are
824: allowed to vary within their known uncertainties \cite{pdg}. For fit
825: C, we vary the parameters in the LASS amplitude within their
826: uncertainties.
827:
828: We take the maximum variation of the magnitudes, phases, and fit
829: fractions, $b_r/a_r$, $\phi_r$, and fit fraction asymmetries from
830: the nominal fit compared to the results in this series of fits as a
831: measure of the experimental systematic and decay-model systematic
832: uncertainty. Table \ref{sys-acp} shows the systematic checks on the
833: integrated $CP$ asymmetry defined in Eq.~(\ref{ACP}). Apart from the
834: sources discussed above, we also consider different models from fit
835: A or C; the variations are small.
836:
837:
838: \begin{table}[!hbtp]
839: \center\caption{\label{sys-acp} Sources contributing to systematic
840: uncertainties on the integrated $CP$ asymmetry defined in
841: Eq.~(\ref{ACP}).}
842: \begin{tabular}{lccc}\hline\hline
843: Source& Variation (\%)\\\hline
844: Background shape&$-0.01$\\
845: Efficiency parameters&$+0.02$\\
846: Particle identification&$+0.06$\\
847: Event selection criteria& $+0.18$\\
848: Background (in)dependent fit& $-0.52$\\
849: \hline
850: Form factors&$+0.21$\\
851: Width parameterization&$-0.15$\\
852: Choice of resonances&$^{+0.61}_{-0.33}$\\
853: Resonant masses and widths&$^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$\\
854: Fit A&$+0.07$\\
855: Fit C&$-0.15$
856: \\\hline\hline
857: \end{tabular}
858: \end{table}
859:
860:
861: We estimate the systematic uncertainty on the $CP$ asymmetry defined
862: in Eq.~(\ref{acp_yield}). The contributions from various identified
863: sources are listed in Table \ref{syscp}. The uncertainty due to
864: selection criteria is estimated by doubling the $\de$ signal window.
865: We evaluate an uncertainty for the background shape by floating its
866: parameters in the fit instead of fixing them from the values
867: obtained form the $\de$ sideband. We use the $CP$-conserved channels
868: $D^+\to K^-\pi^+\pi^+$ and $D^0\to K^-\pi^+ \pi^0$ as control modes
869: to assign the systematic uncertainty on MC simulation due to
870: possible efficiency difference on positive and negative charged
871: kaons and pions.
872:
873: \begin{table}[!hbtp]
874: \center\caption{\label{syscp} Systematic uncertainties on the $CP$
875: asymmetry defined in Eq.~(\ref{acp_yield}).}
876: \begin{tabular}{cccc}\\\hline\hline
877: Source&Variation (\%)\\
878: \hline
879: Selection criteria &$\pm0.25$\\
880:
881: %Background shape&0.12&0.79&0.27\\
882: Background shape& $\pm0.02$ \\
883:
884: MC simulation& $\pm0.15$\\\hline
885: Total& $\pm0.29$\\\hline\hline
886: \end{tabular}
887: \end{table}
888:
889:
890: In conclusion, we have analyzed the resonant substructure in $D^+
891: \to K^+K^-\pi^+$ decay and searched for $CP$ violation in the decay
892: and its intermediate resonances. We measure the overall $CP$
893: asymmetry in $D^\pm\to K^+K^-\pi^\pm$ decays %on the numbers of the $D^+$ and $D^-$
894: to be
895: %$A_{CP}(K^+K^-\pi^\pm)=
896: $(-0.03\pm0.84\pm 0.29)\%$. The limit is more restrictive than the
897: one found previously by \babar \cite{babar}. We use five resonances
898: and $K^-\pi^+$ $S$-wave states to model the Dalitz plot with results
899: shown in Table \ref{dpfit}. The $K^-\pi^+$ $S$-wave can be equally
900: well described by a coherent sum of $\overline{K}_0^*(1430)^0$ and
901: nonresonant amplitude or $\overline{K}_0^*(1430)^0$ and
902: $\kappa(800)$, or the LASS amplitude. Choosing the second model % for
903: %the $K^-\pi^+$ S-wave,
904: we measure the $CP$ asymmetries for all submodes, shown in Table
905: \ref{acp:lass} and \ref{t1}. The measured $CP$ asymmetries are
906: consistent with the absence of $CP$ violation. We find ${\cal
907: A}_{CP}$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{ACP}) to be
908: $(-0.4\pm2.0_{-0.5-0.3}^{+0.2+0.6})\%$. The ${\cal A}_{CP}$ is
909: sensitive to an asymmetry in shape between the $D^+$ and $D^-$
910: samples, but does not depend on their yields.
911:
912: %\begin{acknowledgments}
913: We gratefully acknowledge the effort of the CESR staff in providing
914: us with excellent luminosity and running conditions.
915: D.~Cronin-Hennessy and A.~Ryd thank the A.P.~Sloan Foundation. This
916: work was supported by the National Science Foundation, the U.S.
917: Department of Energy, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
918: Council of Canada, and the U.K. Science and Technology Facilities
919: Council.
920: %\end{acknowledgments}
921:
922: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
923: \bibitem{SM} F.~Buccella, M.~Lusignoli, G.~Mangano, G.~Miele,
924: A.~Pugliese, and P.~Santorelli, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 302}, 319 (1993);
925: F.~Buccella, M.~Lusignoli, G.~Miele, A.~Pugliese, and P.~Santorelli,
926: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 51}, 3478 (1995); M.~Golden and B.~Grinstein,
927: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 222}, 501 (1989).
928: \bibitem{bigi} S.~Bianco, F.~L.~Fabbri, D.~Benson, and I.~Bigi, Riv.
929: Nuovo Cimento {\bf 26N7}, 1 (2003).
930: \bibitem{nir}Y.~Grossman, A.~L.~Kagan, Y.~Nir, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 75}, 036008 (2007).
931: \bibitem{e687} P.~L.~Frabetti {\em et al.} (E687 Collaboration), Phys.
932: Lett. B {\bf 351}, 591 (1995).
933: \bibitem{focus} J.~M.~Link {\em et al.} (FOCUS Collaboration),
934: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 648}, 156 (2007).
935: %\bibitem{rosner}Chen-Wei Chiang, Zumin Luo and J.~L.~Rosner, Phys.
936: %Rev. D {\bf 67}, 014001 (2003).
937: \bibitem{babar} B.~Aubert {\em et al.} (\babar Collaboration), Phys.
938: Rev. D {\bf 71}, 091101(R) (2005).
939: \bibitem{cleo281} S.~Dobbs {\em et al.} (CLEO Collaboration), Phys.
940: Rev. D {\bf 76}, 112001 (2007).
941: \bibitem{det1} Y.~Kubota {\em et al.}, Nucl.
942: Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A {\bf 320}, 66 (1992).
943: \bibitem{det2} D.~Peterson {\em et al.}, Nucl.
944: Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A {\bf 478}, 142 (2002).
945: \bibitem{det3} M.~Artuso {\em et al.}, Nucl.
946: Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A {\bf 554}, 147 (2005).
947: %\bibitem{ccnj}Charge-conjugate modes are included throughout this
948: %report unless noted otherwise.
949: \bibitem{cb}T.~ Skwarnicki, Ph.D thesis, Institute for Nuclear
950: Physics, Krakow, Poland (1986).
951: \bibitem{argus}H.~Albrecht {\em et al.} (ARGUS Collaboration), Phys.
952: Lett. B {\bf 229}, 304 (1989).
953: \bibitem{kopp} S.~Kopp {\em et al.} (CLEO Collaboration), Phys.
954: Rev. D {\bf 63}, 092001 (2001).
955: \bibitem{bwform} J.~Blatt and V.~Weisskopf, {\em Theoretical Nuclear
956: Physics} (Wiley, New York, 1952).
957: \bibitem{pdg} W.-M.~Yao {\em et al.} (Particle Data Group), Journal of Physics G \textbf{33}, 1 (2006).
958: \bibitem{f0} M.~Ablikim {\em et al.} (BES Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B {\bf607}, 243 (2005).
959: \bibitem{a0} A.~Abele {\em et al.} (Crystal Barrel Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 3860
960: (1998).
961: \bibitem{kappa} J.~A.~Oller, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71}, 054030 (2005).
962: \bibitem{LASS} D.~Aston {\em et al.} (LASS Collaboration), Nucl.
963: Phys. B {\bf 296}, 493 (1988).
964: \bibitem{BABARLASS} B.~Aubert {\em et al.} (\babar Collaboration), Phys.
965: Rev. D {\bf 76}, 011102(R) (2007).
966: \bibitem{ks2p} D.~M.~Asner {\em et al.} (CLEO Collaboration), Phys.
967: Rev. D {\bf 70}, 091101(R) (2004).
968:
969: \end{thebibliography}
970: \end{document}
971: