1:
2: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,aps,prd,superscriptaddress,floatfix]{revtex4}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{verbatim}
5: \usepackage{dcolumn}
6: \usepackage{bm}
7: \usepackage{amsmath}
8: \usepackage{epsfig}
9:
10: \newcommand{\BaBarYear} {08}
11: \newcommand{\BaBarNumber} {035}
12: \newcommand{\SLACPubNumber} {13340}
13:
14: \newcommand{\BaBarType} {PUB}
15:
16: \input babarsym.tex
17:
18:
19:
20: \def\calL {\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}
21:
22: \def\bcount {\ensuremath {383 \times 10^{6}} }
23: \def\onlumi {\ensuremath { 346 \invfb\ }}
24: \def\offlumi {\ensuremath { 36.3 \invfb\ }}
25:
26: \def\nBB {\ensuremath {383 \times 10^{6}} }
27:
28: \def\btodgam {\ensuremath {b\to d\gamma} }
29: \def\btosgam {\ensuremath {b\to s\gamma} }
30: \def\bbartosbargamma {\ensuremath {\bar{b}\to \bar{s}\gamma} }
31: \def\Xd{\ensuremath{X_d}}
32: \def\Xs{\ensuremath{X_s}}
33: \def\VtdVts {\ensuremath{|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}|}}
34: \def\Btorhoomgam {\ensuremath{B \to (\rho,\omega)\gamma}}
35: \def\BtoKgam {\ensuremath{B\to K^*\gamma}}
36: \def\BtoXsgam {\ensuremath{B\to X_s\gamma}}
37: \def\BtoXdgam {\ensuremath{B\to X_d\gamma}}
38:
39:
40: \def\itypeone {\ensuremath{\Bz \to \pipi \gamma}}
41: \def\itypetwo {\ensuremath{\Bp \to \pip \piz \gamma}}
42: \def\itypethree {\ensuremath{\Bp \to \pipi \pip \gamma}}
43: \def\itypefour {\ensuremath{\Bz \to \pipi \piz \gamma}}
44: \def\itypefive {\ensuremath{\Bz \to \pipi \pipi \gamma}}
45: \def\itypesix {\ensuremath{\Bp \to \pipi \pip \piz \gamma}}
46: \def\itypeseven {\ensuremath{\Bp \to \pip \eta \gamma}}
47:
48: \def\itypesone {\ensuremath{\Bz \to \Kp \pim \gamma}}
49: \def\itypestwo {\ensuremath{\Bp \to \Kp \piz \gamma}}
50: \def\itypesthree{\ensuremath{\Bp \to \Kp \pim \pip \gamma}}
51: \def\itypesfour {\ensuremath{\Bz \to \Kp \pim \piz \gamma}}
52: \def\itypesfive {\ensuremath{\Bz \to \Kp \pim \pipi \gamma}}
53: \def\itypessix {\ensuremath{\Bp \to \Kp \pim \pip \piz \gamma}}
54: \def\itypesseven {\ensuremath{\Bp \to \Kp \eta \gamma}}
55:
56: \def\itypedsone {\ensuremath{\Bz \to (\pip,\Kp) \pim \gamma}}
57: \def\itypedstwo {\ensuremath{\Bp \to (\pip,\Kp) \piz \gamma}}
58: \def\itypedsthree{\ensuremath{\Bp \to (\pip,\Kp) \pipi \gamma}}
59: \def\itypedsfour {\ensuremath{\Bz \to (\pip,\Kp) \pim \piz \gamma}}
60: \def\itypedsfive {\ensuremath{\Bz \to (\pip,\Kp) \pim \pipi \gamma}}
61: \def\itypedssix {\ensuremath{\Bp \to (\pip,\Kp) \pim \pip \piz \gamma}}
62: \def\itypedsseven {\ensuremath{\Bp \to (\pip,\Kp) \eta \gamma}}
63:
64: \def\etal {{\it et al.}}
65: \def\eg {{\it e.g.}}
66: \def\ie {{\it i.e.}}
67: \def\deg {{\rm deg}}
68:
69:
70: \def\figurebox#1#2#3{%
71: \def\arg{#3}%
72: \ifx\arg\empty
73: {\hfill\vbox{\hsize#2\hrule\hbox to #2{\vrule\hfill\vbox to #1{\hsize#2\vfill}\vrule}\hrule}\hfill}%
74: \else
75: {\hfill\epsfbox{#3}\hfill}%
76: \fi}
77:
78: \begin{document}
79:
80: {\pagestyle{empty}
81:
82: \begin{flushleft}
83: \babar-\BaBarType-\BaBarYear/\BaBarNumber \\
84: SLAC-PUB-\SLACPubNumber\\
85: \end{flushleft}
86:
87: \title{
88: {\large \bf \boldmath
89: Measurement of $B \to X \gamma$ Decays and Determination of $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$
90: }
91: }
92:
93: \input authors_jul2008.tex
94:
95: \date{\today}
96:
97:
98:
99: \begin{abstract}
100: \noindent
101: Using a sample of 383 million \BB\ events collected by the \babar\ experiment, we measure
102: sums of seven exclusive final states $B\to X_{d(s)}\gamma$, where $X_d$($X_s$) is a
103: non-strange (strange) charmless
104: hadronic system in the mass range $0.6-1.8$\gevcc.
105: After correcting for unmeasured decay modes in this mass range,
106: we obtain a branching fraction for \btodgam\ of
107: $(7.2\pm 2.7(stat.)\pm 2.3(syst.))\times 10^{-6}$.
108: Taking the ratio of $X_d$ to $X_s$ we
109: find $\Gamma(\btodgam)/\Gamma(\btosgam) = 0.033 \pm 0.013 (stat.) \pm 0.009 (syst.),$
110: from which we determine $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|=0.177\pm 0.043$.
111:
112: \end{abstract}
113:
114: \pacs{13.20.He}
115:
116: \maketitle
117:
118:
119:
120:
121: \pagestyle{plain}
122:
123:
124:
125: The decays \btodgam\ and \btosgam\ are flavor-changing neutral current processes forbidden
126: at tree level in the standard model (SM).
127: The leading-order processes are one-loop electroweak
128: penguin diagrams in which the top quark is the dominant virtual particle.
129: In the SM the inclusive rate for \btodgam\ is suppressed compared to \btosgam\ by a factor
130: of $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|^2$, where $V_{td}$ and $V_{ts}$ are Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix elements.
131: Measurements of $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$ using the exclusive modes
132: $\Btorhoomgam$ and $\BtoKgam$~\cite{babarbellerhog}
133: have theoretical uncertainties of 7\% from weak annihilation and
134: hadronic form factors~\cite{BJZ}. A measurement of the inclusive decay $\btodgam$ relative to
135: $\btosgam$ could determine $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$ with reduced theoretical uncertainties
136: compared to the exclusive modes~\cite{AAG}.
137: In theories beyond the SM~\cite{bsm}, new virtual particles
138: may appear differently in the penguin loop diagrams for \btodgam\ and \btosgam\ and in the
139: box diagrams responsible for $B_d$ and $B_s$ mixing~\cite{PDG}, leading to measurable
140: differences in $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$ extracted from these two methods.
141:
142:
143: We present measurements of the rare decays \BtoXdgam\ using seven exclusive final states
144: (see Table~\ref{tab:itypes}) in the hadronic mass range
145: $0.6<M(X_d)<1.0\gevcc$ (which contains the $\rho$ and $\omega$ resonances),
146: and in the previously unmeasured region $1.0<M(X_d)<1.8\gevcc$.
147: We combine our results in the two mass regions and make corrections for
148: decay modes that are not reconstructed
149: to obtain an inclusive branching fraction for $b\to d\gamma$
150: in the mass range 0.6-1.8\gevcc. We perform a parallel analysis of \BtoXsgam\ using
151: the equivalent seven modes (Table~\ref{tab:itypes}),
152: and determine the ratio of inclusive rates
153: $\Gamma(b\to d\gamma)/\Gamma(b\to s\gamma)$
154: in the hadronic mass range $0.6<M(X_d)<1.8\gevcc$.
155:
156: \begin{table}
157: \newcommand\TTT{\rule{0pt}{2.6ex}}
158: \centering
159: \caption{\label{tab:itypes} The reconstructed decay modes. Charge conjugate states
160: are implied throughout this paper.}
161: \vspace*{2mm}
162: \begin{tabular}{ll}
163: \hline\hline
164: \BtoXdgam\ & \BtoXsgam\ \\ \hline
165: \itypeone\ \TTT &\itypesone\\
166: \itypetwo\ &\itypestwo\\
167: \itypethree\ &\itypesthree\\
168: \itypefour\ &\itypesfour \\
169: \itypefive\ &\itypesfive \\
170: \itypesix\ &\itypessix \\
171: \itypeseven\ &\itypesseven\\
172: \hline\hline
173: \end{tabular}
174: \end{table}
175:
176:
177: These measurements use a sample of \bcount\ \BB\ pairs collected at the \FourS\ resonance
178: with the \babar\ detector~\cite{babar} at the PEP-II $B$ factory.
179: The high-energy photon is reconstructed from an isolated energy cluster in the
180: CsI(Tl) calorimeter, which has a shape consistent with a single photon, and an energy
181: $1.15 < E_\gamma^* < 3.5 \gev$ in the center-of-mass (CM) frame.
182: We remove photons that can form a \piz($\eta$) candidate with
183: another photon of energy greater than 30(250)\mev, if the
184: two-photon invariant mass is in the range $105<m_{\gamma\gamma}<155\mevcc$
185: $(500<m_{\gamma\gamma}<590\mevcc)$.
186:
187: Charged pion and kaon candidates are measured in a 1.5~T magnetic field as
188: tracks in a 5-layer silicon vertex detector and a 40-layer drift chamber,
189: with a minimum momentum in the laboratory frame of 300\mevc.
190: To differentiate pions from kaons we
191: combine information from the detector of internally reflected Cherenkov light
192: with the energy loss measured in the tracking system.
193: At a typical pion energy of 1\gev, the pion
194: selection efficiency is 85\%\ and the kaon mis-identification rate is 3\%.
195: Kaons are selected by inverting the pion selection criteria.
196: We reconstruct $\piz(\eta$) candidates with momenta greater than 300\mevc\
197: from pairs of photons of minimum energy 20 \mev\ with an invariant mass
198: $107<m_{\gamma\gamma}<145\mevcc$ $(470<m_{\gamma\gamma}<620\mevcc)$.
199: The selected charged tracks, $\piz(\eta)$ candidates, and high-energy photons are combined
200: to form \B\ meson candidates consistent with one of the seven \BtoXsgam\ or \BtoXdgam\ decay modes.
201: For \BtoXsgam\ decays one charged kaon is required, with all other tracks required to be pions.
202: For \BtoXdgam\ decays, all tracks are required to be identified as pions.
203: The charged particles are combined to form a common vertex with a vertex fit
204: probability greater than 2\%.
205:
206:
207: Most of the backgrounds in this analysis arise from continuum
208: $e^+e^-\to q\bar{q}$ events, $q=(u,d,s,c)$, in which a
209: high-energy photon comes from either initial state radiation
210: or the decay of a $\piz(\eta)$ meson.
211: We require $R_2<0.9$ and $|\cos\theta_T|<0.8$, where $R_2$ is the
212: ratio of the second to zeroth Fox-Wolfram moments~\cite{fox},
213: and $\theta_T$ is the angle between the photon and the thrust axis of the rest of the
214: event (ROE) in the CM frame.
215: The ROE includes all the charged tracks and neutral energy in the calorimeter
216: not used to reconstruct the $B$ candidate.
217:
218: The quantity $\cos\theta_T$ and twelve other variables that distinguish between
219: signal and continuum events are combined in a neural network (NN). These
220: include the ratio $R'_2$, which is $R_2$ is calculated in the frame recoiling
221: against the photon momentum, the $B$ meson production angle $\theta_B^*$ in the CM frame
222: with respect to the beam axis, and five Legendre moments
223: of the ROE with respect to both the thrust axis of the ROE,
224: and the direction of the high-energy photon.
225: Differences in lepton and kaon
226: production between background and \B\ decays are exploited by including five flavor-tagging
227: variables applied to the ROE~\cite{babartag}.
228: We optimize the NN configuration for maximal discrimination between
229: signal and continuum background, which gives $50\%$ signal efficiency
230: and $0.5\%$ misidentification of continuum background.
231:
232: We use the kinematic variables $\de = E^*_B - E^*_{\mbox{\scriptsize{beam}}}$
233: and $\mes = \sqrt{ E^{*2}_{\rm beam}-{|\vec{p}}_{B}^{\;*2}|}$,
234: where $E^*_B$ and ${\vec{p}}_B^{\;*}$ are the CM energy and momentum of the $B$
235: candidate, and $E^*_{\mbox{\scriptsize{beam}}}$ is the CM energy of one beam.
236: Signal events are expected to have a $\de$ distribution centered at zero
237: with a resolution of about $30\mev$, and an $\mes$ distribution centered at
238: the mass of the $B$ meson with a resolution of about $3~\mevcc$.
239: We consider candidates in the ranges $-0.3\gev < \de <0.2 \gev$
240: and $\mes > 5.22\gevcc$ to incorporate sidebands that allow the
241: combinatorial background yields to be extracted from a fit to the data.
242: On average there are 1.75 candidates per event, and
243: in events with multiple candidates we select the one with the
244: best $\piz (\eta)$ mass, or, where there is no $\piz (\eta)$ we select the
245: candidate with the best vertex fit probability.
246:
247:
248:
249: The signal yields in the data are determined from two-dimensional
250: unbinned maximum likelihood fits to the $\de$ and $\mes$ distributions
251: of the sums of all seven final states listed in Table \ref{tab:itypes}.
252: We consider the following contributions: signal, combinatorial backgrounds
253: from continuum processes, $B\to X\piz/\eta$ decays,
254: backgrounds from other $B$ decays,
255: and cross-feed from mis-reconstructed signal $B\to X\gamma$ decays.
256: The fits to the \BtoXdgam\ samples contain a component from misidentified
257: \BtoXsgam\ decays, but we neglect the small \BtoXdgam\ background in
258: the \BtoXsgam\ samples.
259: The \B\ background yields are determined from a
260: Monte Carlo (MC) simulation, whereas the continuum background is allowed to float in the fit.
261:
262: Each background contribution is modeled by a probability density function (PDF)
263: that is determined from MC.
264: The signal PDFs are the product of one-dimensional $\mes$ and $\de$ distributions
265: determined from fits to the \BtoKgam\ data.
266: For the signal cross-feed component, and the \BtoXsgam\ background
267: in the \BtoXdgam\ fit, we use two-dimensional histogram PDFs to account for correlations.
268: The contributions from $B\to X\piz/\eta$
269: are modeled by Gaussian peaks in both \de\ and \mes, where \de\ is displaced by $-80\mev$
270: due to the missing photon. The \BtoXsgam\ background in the \BtoXdgam\ sample
271: also peaks with \de\ displaced by $-50\mev$ due to the kaon misidentification.
272: Continuum and other non-peaking backgrounds are described by an ARGUS shape~\cite{argus}
273: in \mes and a second-order polynomial in \de.
274:
275:
276: \begin{figure}[bht]
277: \begin{center}
278: \begin{minipage}[htb]{1.65in}
279: \includegraphics[width=1.65in]{low-proj-dE.eps}
280: \end{minipage}
281: \hfill
282: \begin{minipage}[htb]{1.65in}
283: \includegraphics[width=1.65in]{low-proj-mES.eps}
284: \end{minipage}
285: \caption{Projections of the fits to data in the hadronic mass range
286: 0.6-1.0\gevcc.
287: Projection of $\de$ with $5.275<\mes<5.286\gevcc$ for
288: (a) \BtoXsgam\ and (c) \BtoXdgam, and
289: $\mes$ with $-0.1<\de<0.05\gev$ for
290: (b) \BtoXsgam\ and (d) \BtoXdgam.
291: Data points are compared with the sum of all the fit contributions
292: (solid line) including the signal (dashed line).}
293: \label{fig:proj-low}
294: \end{center}
295: \end{figure}
296:
297: \begin{figure}[bht]
298: \begin{center}
299: \begin{minipage}[htb]{1.6in}
300: \includegraphics[width=1.6in]{high-proj-dE.eps}
301: \end{minipage}
302: \hfill
303: \begin{minipage}[htb]{1.6in}
304: \includegraphics[width=1.6in]{high-proj-mES.eps}
305: \end{minipage}
306: \caption{Projections of the fits to data in the hadronic mass range
307: 1.0-1.8\gevcc.
308: Projection of $\de$ with $5.275<\mes<5.286\gevcc$ for
309: (a) \BtoXsgam\ and (c) \BtoXdgam, and
310: $\mes$ with $-0.1<\de<0.05\gev$ for
311: (b) \BtoXsgam\ and (d) \BtoXdgam.
312: Data points are compared with the sum of all the fit contributions
313: (solid line) including the signal (dashed line).}
314: \label{fig:proj}
315: \end{center}
316: \end{figure}
317:
318: We perform fits separately for \BtoXdgam\ and \BtoXsgam\ and in
319: the two hadronic mass ranges.
320: The signal and continuum yields and the ARGUS and polynomial
321: continuum shape parameters are allowed to vary.
322: We scale the cross-feed contribution proportionally to the fitted signal
323: yield, re-fit, and iterate until the fit converges.
324: The fits for \BtoXsgam\ and \BtoXdgam\ are shown in the
325: low- and high-mass regions in Figs.~\ref{fig:proj-low}
326: and~\ref{fig:proj}, respectively.
327:
328:
329: The signal yields, average efficiencies and partial branching fractions for
330: the sums of the seven decay modes are given in Table~\ref{tab:bfs}.
331: The reconstruction efficiency depends on the distribution of
332: the signal yield among the final states. For $X_s$ we measure
333: the distribution of the final states in the data, but for
334: $X_d$ there is no statistically useful information, so we model
335: the distribution using the the phase space fragmentation model implemented in JETSET~\cite{JETSET}.
336:
337:
338: The branching fractions in Table~\ref{tab:bf2} are obtained
339: after correcting for missing final states.
340: The low mass \BtoXsgam\ measurement is found to be consistent
341: with previous measurements of the rate for \BtoKgam~\cite{hfag},
342: after accounting for the 50\% of decays to neutral kaons.
343: For the low mass \BtoXdgam\ region, non-reconstructed $\rho$ and $\omega$ decays
344: are small and we find a
345: branching fraction of $(1.2 \pm 0.5)\times 10^{-6}$,
346: consistent with previous measurements of
347: $\BR(\Btorhoomgam)$~\cite{babarbellerhog}.
348: In the high mass region, we correct
349: for missing final states with $\ge 5$ stable particles,
350: or with multiple $\pi^0$s, using the fragmentation model described above.
351:
352:
353:
354: \begin{table}
355: \centering
356: \caption{\label{tab:bfs}
357: Signal yields ($N_S$), average efficiencies ($\epsilon$) and
358: partial branching fractions (${\cal B}$) for the measured decay modes.
359: The first error is statistical,
360: the second systematic.}
361: \vspace*{2mm}
362: \begin{tabular}{crcr} \hline\hline
363: $M(X)[\gevcc]$ & $N_S$\hspace{3 mm} & $\epsilon$ & ${\cal B} (\times 10^{-6})\hspace{3 mm}$ \\ \hline
364: $0.6 < M(X_s) < 1.0$\ & \ $1543\pm 46$\ & \ 8.5\%\ & \ $23.7 \pm 0.7 \pm 1.7$ \\
365: $0.6 < M(X_d) < 1.0$\ & \ $66\pm 26$\ & \ 7.0\%\ & \ $1.2 \pm 0.5 \pm 0.1$ \\
366: $1.0 < M(X_s) < 1.8$\ & \ $2279\pm 75$\ & \ 6.1\%\ & \ $48.7 \pm 1.6 \pm 4.1$ \\
367: $1.0 < M(X_d) < 1.8$\ & \ $107\pm 47$\ & \ 5.2\%\ & \ $2.7\pm 1.2 \pm 0.4$ \\ \hline \hline
368: \end{tabular}
369: \end{table}
370:
371: \begin{table}
372: \centering
373: \caption{\label{tab:bf2}
374: Branching fractions ${\cal B}(\times 10^{-6})$ in the two
375: hadronic mass regions $M(X)[\gevcc]$,
376: after correcting for missing final states,
377: and the ratios of \BR($b\to d\gamma$) to \BR($b\to s\gamma$).
378: The first errors are statistical, and the second are systematic, including
379: the fragmentation of the hadronic system.}
380: \vspace*{2mm}
381: \begin{tabular}{cccc} \hline\hline
382: $M(X)$ & ${\cal B}(b\to d\gamma)$ & ${\cal B}(b\to s\gamma)$ &
383: ${\cal B}(b\to d\gamma)/{\cal B}(b\to s\gamma)$ \\ \hline
384: $0.6-1.0$ & \ $1.2\pm 0.5\pm 0.1$ & $47\pm 1\pm 3$ & $0.026\pm 0.011\pm 0.002$ \\
385: $1.0-1.8$ & \ $6.0\pm 2.6\pm 2.3$ & $168\pm 14\pm 33$ & $0.036\pm 0.015\pm 0.009$ \\
386: $0.6-1.8$ & \ $7.2\pm 2.7\pm 2.3$ & $215\pm 14\pm 33$ & $0.033\pm 0.013\pm 0.009$ \\ \hline\hline
387: \end{tabular}
388: \end{table}
389:
390: \begin{table}
391: \centering
392: \caption{\label{tab:syst}
393: Systematic errors on the measured partial and total branching fractions ${\cal B}$.
394: The final column shows systematic errors that do not cancel in the ratio
395: of rates $\Gamma(b\to d\gamma)/\Gamma(b\to s\gamma)$.}
396: \vspace*{2mm}
397: \begin{tabular}{lccccc} \hline\hline
398: Systematic & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M(X_s)$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M(X_d)$} & $X_d/X_s$ \\
399: Error Source & 0.6-1.0& 1.0-1.8 & 0.6-1.0 & 1.0-1.8 & Ratio \\ \hline
400: Tracking & 1.7\% & 1.7\% & 1.7\% & 1.7\% & \\
401: High-energy photon & 2.5\% & 2.5\% & 2.5\% & 2.5\% & \\
402: $\pi^0/\eta$ reconstruction & 1.7\% & 1.7\% & 1.7\% & 1.7\% & \\
403: $\pi^0/\eta$ veto & 1.0\% & 1.0\% & 1.0\% & 1.0\% & \\
404: $K/\pi$ identification & 2.0\% & 2.0\% & 2.0\% & 2.0\% & 2.0\% \\
405: Neural network & 5.0\% & 5.0\% & 5.0\% & 5.0\% & \\
406: $\BB$ pair counting & 1.1\% & 1.1\% & 1.1\% & 1.1\% & \\
407: Fit PDFs & 2.4\% & 3.6\% & 7.0\% & 8.3\% & 8.7\% \\
408: Backgrounds & 0.3\% & 0.4\% & 2.4\% & 6.1\% & 5.4\% \\
409: Fit bias & 0.4\% & 1.7\% & 0.4\% & 3.3\% & 3.0\% \\
410: Fragmentation & & 3.6\% & & 7.7\% & 8.5\% \\ \hline
411: Partial ${\cal B}$ & 7.0\% & 11.4\% & 10.0\% & 14.8\% & 13.8\% \\ \hline
412: Missing $\ge 5$ body & & 5.6\% & & 25.8\% & 21.0\% \\
413: Other missing states & & 17.0\% & & 23.8\% & 7.1\% \\
414: Spectrum Model & & 1.8\% & & 1.6\% & \\ \hline
415: Total ${\cal B}$ & 7.0\% & 21.2\% & 10.0\% & 38.1\% & 26.1\% \\ \hline\hline
416: \end{tabular}
417: \end{table}
418:
419:
420: The sources of systematic uncertainties
421: in the measurement of the branching fractions are listed
422: in Table~\ref{tab:syst}.
423: These include uncertainties on track reconstruction efficiency,
424: \g\ and \piz/$\eta$\ reconstruction, the \piz/$\eta$ veto, the NN selection,
425: and the number of $\BB$ pairs. The 2\% uncertainty on
426: correct kaon/pion particle identification, and the 20\% uncertainty on kaon misidentification,
427: which is a systematic on the fixed \btosgam\ background in the \BtoXdgam\ fits, do not cancel in the ratio.
428: The systematic errors associated with the variation of the fit PDFs
429: also do not cancel because of the very different signal to background
430: ratios in the two samples. We vary the signal PDF parameters within the range allowed
431: by the fit to the $\B\to K^{*}\g$ data. The normalization of the signal cross-feed is varied
432: by $\pm 30\%$, and the contribution of $B\to X\piz/\eta$ by $\pm 100\%$, in
433: accordance with MC studies.
434: The remaining peaking $B$ backgrounds, including the \BtoXsgam\ contribution
435: in the \BtoXdgam\ sample, are varied by $\pm 20\%$.
436: We use simulated signal and background event samples to assign a systematic
437: uncertainty due to the potential for
438: bias in the fit method.
439:
440: There is an additional systematic error on the efficiency
441: due to the uncertainties in the measured fragmentation of the
442: $X_s$ hadronic system into the seven \BtoXsgam\ final states.
443: The equivalent error for \BtoXdgam\ is obtained from
444: the difference between our fragmentation model applied to \BtoXdgam\
445: and the fragmentation observed in \BtoXsgam\ data.
446: We assume that these errors are independent and so do not cancel in
447: the ratio of branching fractions.
448:
449: Table~\ref{tab:syst} also shows the systematic errors associated
450: with correcting the partial branching fractions for the missing final states.
451: There is no information from the data on the missing fraction of
452: high multiplicity final states with $\ge 5$ stable hadrons, or
453: on the missing fraction of other final states with $\ge$ 1 $\pi^0$ or $\eta$ mesons.
454: We vary these fractions by $\pm 50\%$ of their values from the default
455: phase space fragmentation.
456: We motivate our choice of a $\pm50\%$ variation using signal models,
457: for which we mix a combination of resonances
458: as 50\% fractions of \BtoXsgam\ and
459: \BtoXdgam\ in the mass range $1.0-1.8\gevcc$. These
460: give missing fractions close to the lower limits from the
461: $\pm 50\%$ variations. The missing fraction errors partially cancel in the ratio
462: when the $\pm 50\%$ variations are made in the same direction for $b\to d\gamma$
463: and $b\to s\gamma$.
464:
465:
466:
467:
468: We take the spectral shape of the high-energy photon from~\cite{kaganneubert}
469: with the kinetic parameters $(m_b,\mu_{\pi}^2) = (4.65\gevcc, -0.52\gev^2)$
470: extracted from fits to $b\to s\gamma$ and
471: $b\to c\ell\nu$ data~\cite{OliverHenning}.
472: We vary these shape parameters in a correlated way between
473: $(m_b,\mu_{\pi}^2) = (4.60\gevcc, -0.60\gev^2)$ and
474: $(m_b,\mu_{\pi}^2) = (4.70\gevcc, -0.45\gev^2)$.
475: There are systematic errors on the branching fractions
476: from these variations, but they are small and cancel in the ratio.
477: The fraction of the spectrum in the mass range 0.6-1.8\gevcc
478: is $(51\pm 4)\%$ for $b\to d\gamma$ and $(50\pm 4)\%$ for $b\to s\gamma$.
479: We do not extrapolate the ratio of branching fractions to $M_X>1.8\gevcc$,
480: so these errors, which mostly cancel in the ratio, are not included in Table~\ref{tab:syst}.
481: If we make this correction, we obtain $\BR(\btodgam)=(1.4 \pm0.5 \pm 0.4 \pm 0.1)\times 10^{-5}$
482: and $\BR(\btosgam) =( 4.3 \pm 0.3 \pm 0.7 \pm 0.2)\times 10^{-4}$,
483: where the first error is statistical, the second systematic and the third accounts
484: for the uncertainty in extrapolating to the full mass range.
485: The result for \BtoXsgam\ is consistent
486: with the measured inclusive \btosgam\ branching
487: fraction of $(3.55\pm 0.24)\times 10^{-4}$~\cite{hfag}.
488:
489: We convert the ratio of branching fractions from the full mass range 0.6-1.8\gevcc,
490: $\Gamma(\btodgam)/\Gamma(\btosgam) = 0.033 \pm 0.013 \pm 0.009 $,
491: into a value for $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$ using Table 1 and
492: Equation (26) of~\cite{AAG}.
493: The result is $|V_{td}/V_{ts}| = 0.177\pm 0.043\pm 0.001$,
494: where the first error is experimental, including systematic errors,
495: and the second error is theoretical. The theoretical error includes
496: uncertainties on the CKM parameters $\bar{\rho}$ and $\bar{\eta}$,
497: and on $1/m_c^2$ and $1/m_b^2$ corrections, but does not include an uncertainty
498: for the restriction of the measurement of the ratio to hadronic masses
499: below 1.8\gevcc.
500:
501: As a check, we use the low mass region to
502: determine $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$ using predictions for exclusive \Btorhoomgam\
503: and \BtoKgam\ from~\cite{BJZ}.
504: We find $|V_{td}/V_{ts}| = 0.214\pm 0.046\pm 0.028$
505: where the first error is experimental and the second is theoretical.
506: This is in good agreement with previously published results~\cite{babarbellerhog}.
507:
508: In summary we have made the first measurement of \BtoXdgam\ decays in
509: the hadronic mass range up to 1.8\gevcc, and have extracted
510: $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$ from an inclusive model with small theoretical uncertainties.
511: These results are consistent with the measurements of $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$ from the
512: exclusive decays \Btorhoomgam~\cite{babarbellerhog},
513: and with $B_s/B_d$ oscillations~\cite{PDG}.
514:
515: \input{acknow_PRL}
516:
517:
518: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
519:
520: \bibitem{babarbellerhog}
521: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [\babar\ Collaboration],
522: Phys.\ Rev \ Lett.\ {\bf 98}, 151802 (2007);
523: D.~Mohapatra {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
524: Phys.\ Rev \ Lett.\ {\bf 96}, 221601 (2006).
525:
526: \bibitem{BJZ}
527: P.~Ball, G.~Jones and R.~Zwicky,
528: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \ {\bf 75}, 054004 (2007).
529:
530: \bibitem{AAG}
531: A.~Ali, H.~Asatrian and C.~Greub,
532: Phys.\ Lett. \ B \ {\bf 429}, 87 (1998).
533:
534: \bibitem{bsm}
535: S.~Bertolini, F.~Borzumati and A.~Masiero, \npb{294}, 321 (1987);
536: H.~Baer and M.~Brhlik, Phys.\ Rev.\ D \ {\bf 55}, 3201 (1997);
537: J.~Hewett and J.~Wells, Phys.\ Rev.\ D \ {\bf 55}, 5549 (1997);
538: M.~Carena {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ B \ {\bf 499}, 141 (2001).
539:
540: \bibitem{PDG} W.-M. Yao {\it et al.}, J.\ Phys. G {\bf 33}, 1 (2006).
541:
542: \bibitem{babar}
543: B.\ Aubert {\em et al.} [\babar\ Collaboration],
544: Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Methods \ A \ {\bf 479}, 1 (2002).
545:
546: \bibitem{fox}
547: G.~C.~Fox and S.~Wolfram, Nucl. \ Phys. \ B \ {\bf 149}, 413 (1979).
548:
549: \bibitem{babartag}
550: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [\babar\ Collaboration],
551: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89}, 201802 (2002).
552:
553:
554: \bibitem{argus} H. Albrecht {\it et al.} [ARGUS Collaboration],
555: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \ {\bf 185}, 218 (1987).
556:
557: \bibitem{JETSET}
558: T. Sj¨ostrand, hep-ph/9508391;
559: T. Sj¨ostrand, Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 82}, 74 (1994).
560:
561: \bibitem{hfag}
562: E.~Barberio {\it et al.} [Heavy Flavor Averaging Group],
563: arXiv:0704.3575 (hep-ex) (2007).
564:
565:
566: \bibitem{kaganneubert}
567: A.~L.~Kagan and M.~Neubert,
568: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \ {\bf 58}, 094012 (1998).
569:
570:
571: \bibitem{OliverHenning}
572: O.~Buchm\"uller and H.~Fl\"acher,
573: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \ {\bf 73}, 073008 (2006).
574:
575:
576: \end{thebibliography}
577:
578: \end{document}
579: