1: Due to the presence of at least one neutrino in the final state, the \bln \xspace decay modes
2: lack the kinematic constraints that are usually exploited in $B$ decay
3: searches to reject both continuum and $\BB$ backgrounds.
4: The strategy adopted for this analysis is to reconstruct exclusively
5: the decay of one of the $B$ mesons in the event, referred to as the ``tag'' $B$.
6: The remaining particle(s) in the event, referred to as the
7: ``signal $B$'', are then compared with the signatures
8: expected for \bln. In order to avoid experimenter bias, the
9: signal region in data is not examined (``blinded'') until the final yield
10: extraction is performed.
11:
12: The tag $B$ is reconstructed in the set of semileptonic $B$ decay modes
13: \btodlnu, where $\ell$ is $e$ or $\mu$ and $X$ can be either nothing or a
14: transition particle from a higher mass charm state decay, which we do not attempt
15: to reconstruct (although those tags consistent with neutral $B$ decays are vetoed).
16: The $\Dz$ is reconstructed in four decay modes:
17: $K^{-}\pi^{+}$, $K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{+}$, $K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{0}$, and
18: $K_{s}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$. The $K_{s}^{0}$ is reconstructed only in the
19: mode $K_{s}^{0} \rightarrow \pi^{+}\pi^{-}$.
20: In a previous search for $\btn$ \cite{babar_sl_btn} we found that the low momentum transition daughter of $D^{*0}$ decays need not be reconstructed. Reconstructing the final state $B\to\Dz\ell\nu X$ provides a higher efficiency but
21: somewhat lower purity than the exclusive reconstruction method of $\btodszlnu$. In this analysis, we employ a technique, known as the ``seeding'' method, to recapture one photon from the $X$ state. The decays $\ben$ and $\bmun$ have not been previously searched for in the recoil of semileptonic tags.
22:
23: Since the $\tau$ decays before reaching active detector elements, the \btn \xspace signal is searched for in
24: both leptonic and hadronic $\tau$ decay modes:
25: $\tautoenunu$, $\tautomununu$, $\tautopinu$, and $\tautopipiznu$. The branching fractions of the above $\tau$ decay
26: modes are listed in Table \ref{tab:TauDecayModes}.
27:
28: \begin{table}[h]
29: \caption{\label{tab:TauDecayModes} Branching fractions for the $\tau$ decay modes used in the \btn\ search~\cite{ref:pdg2006}.}
30: \begin{center}
31: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|}
32: \hline
33: Decay Mode & Branching Fraction (\%) \\
34: \hline
35: $\tautoenunu$ & 17.84 $\pm$ 0.05 \\
36: $\tautomununu$ & 17.36 $\pm$ 0.05 \\
37: $\tautopinu$ & 10.90 $\pm$ 0.07 \\
38: $\tautopipiznu$ & 25.50 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
39: \hline
40: \end{tabular}
41: \end{center}
42: \end{table}
43:
44:
45:
46: \subsection{Tag \boldmath{B} Reconstruction}
47: \label{sec:TagReco}
48:
49: The tag $B$ reconstruction proceeds as follows. First, we reconstruct the
50: $\Dz$ candidates in the aforementioned four decay modes using reconstructed tracks
51: and photons where a $\piz$ is included. The tracks
52: are required to meet particle identification criteria consistent
53: with the particle hypothesis, and are required to converge at a common vertex.
54: The $\piz$ candidate is required to have invariant mass between
55: 0.115--0.150 \gevcc\ and its daughter photon candidates must
56: have a minimum energy of 30 \mev.
57: The mass of the reconstructed $\Dz$ candidates in
58: $K^{-}\pi^{+}$, $K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{+}$, and $K_{s}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$
59: modes are required to be within 20 \mevcc\ of the nominal mass
60: \cite{ref:pdg2006}.
61: In the $K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{0}$ decay mode,
62: the mass is required to be within 35 \mevcc\ of the nominal mass
63: \cite{ref:pdg2006}; this wider mass window accounts for the \babar\ detector' lower mass resolution when reconstructing particle candidates from neutral clusters, as opposed to reconstructing candidates involving charged tracks.
64:
65:
66: Finally, $\Dz\ell$ candidates are reconstructed by combining the
67: $\Dz$ with an identified electron
68: or muon with momentum above 0.8 \gevc\ in the CM frame.
69: The $D^{0}$ and $\ell$ candidates are required to meet at a common vertex. If more than one suitable $\Dz\ell$ candidate is
70: reconstructed in an event, the best candidate is taken to be the
71: one with the highest vertex probability.
72: The uncorrected
73: tag reconstruction efficiency in the signal MC simulation is
74: 1.7\% for $\btn$,
75: 1.1\% for $\bmun$ and
76: 1.1\% for $\ben$.
77:
78:
79: \subsection{Selection of \boldmath{\bln} \xspace signal candidates}
80: \label{sec:SigSelection}
81:
82:
83:
84: After the tag $B$ reconstruction, in the signal $B$, we identify one of the following reconstructed particles: $e^{+}$, $\mu^{+}$, $\pi^{+}$, or $\rho^{+}$. The $e^{+}$ and $\mu^{+}$ can come from $\btn$ or directly from $\bmun$ or $\ben$. Each signal $B$ track must satisfy the following selection criteria: its point of closest approach to the interaction point is
85: less than 2.5~\cm\ along the beam axis and less than 1.5~\cm\ transverse
86: to the beam axis.
87:
88: The different reconstructed particles are assigned using a hierarchical selection involving kinematic constraints and particle identification. All of the signal decay modes for which we search contain only one track from the signal $B$. If more tracks that match the criteria stated above are present after a tag $B$ has been reconstructed, the event is rejected. If the track from the signal $B$ is identified as a kaon, it is rejected. Since we search for only one track in the signal $B$, we classify that track as one of the following in the priority given.
89:
90: \begin{itemize}
91:
92: \item If the track satisfies particle identification as a muon, it is classified as such.
93:
94: \item If the track satisfies particle identification as an electron, it is classified as such. We apply Bremsstrahlung radiation recovery techniques to identify as many electrons as possible.
95:
96: \item If the track can be combined with a $\pi^{0}$ to form a $\rho^{+}$ with a common vertex, it is classified as such. The invariant mass of a $\piz$ candidate
97: must be between 0.115--0.150 \gevc;
98: the shower shape of the daughter photon candidates must be consistent with
99: an electromagnetic shower shape, and the photons
100: must have a minimum energy of 50 \mev\ in the CM frame.
101:
102: \item If the track is not accepted by any of the above filters, it is classified as a $\pi^{+}$ by default.
103:
104: \end{itemize}
105:
106:
107:
108:
109: \noindent Background consists primarily of $B^{+}B^{-}$ events in which the tag
110: $B$ meson has been correctly reconstructed and the recoil side contains
111: one signal candidate track and additional particles which are not
112: reconstructed by the tracking detectors or calorimeters. Typically these
113: events contain $K_{L}^{0}$ candidates and/or neutrinos, and frequently
114: also additional charged or neutral particles which pass outside of the
115: tracking and calorimeter acceptance. Background events also contain
116: $B^{0}\bar{B}^{0}$ events. In addition some excess events in data,
117: most likely from two-photon and QED processes which are not modeled in the MC
118: simulation, are also seen.
119:
120: Multiple variables are used to suppress backgrounds. Most are combined into two likelihood ratios (LHRs), which are probability distributions designed to produce maximum separation between signal and background. Two variables are reserved for individual use due to their discriminating power. They are the momentum of a signal lepton in the $B^{+}$ rest frame ($\pprimesignal$) and the total energy recorded in the detector that is not assigned to the tag or signal $B$ ($\eextra$).
121:
122: Due to the presence of the neutrino in the products of the tag $B$, the direction of neither $B$ can be known accurately.
123: Instead, $\cos \theta_{B-D^{0} \ell}$ (the cosine of the angle between the $\Dz\ell$ candidate and the $B$ meson momenta) is calculated in the $\Upsilon(4S)$ rest frame.
124:
125: \begin{equation}
126: \label{eq:CosBY}
127: \cos\theta_{B-D^{0}\ell} = \frac{2 E_{B} E_{D^{0}\ell} - m_{B}^{2} - m_{D^{0} \ell}^{2}}{2|\vec{p}_{B}||\vec{p}_{D^{0}\ell}|},
128: \end{equation}
129: where ($E_{D^{0}\ell}$, $\vec{p}_{D^{0}\ell}$) and
130: ($E_{B}$, $\vec{p}_{B}$) are the
131: four-momenta in the CM frame, and $m_{D^{0}\ell}$ and $m_{B}$
132: are the masses of the $D^{0}\ell$ candidate and tag $\Bm$ meson, respectively.
133: $E_{B}$ and the magnitude of $\vec{p}_{B}$ are calculated
134: from the beam energy: $E_{B} = E_{\rm{CM}}/2$ and
135: $ | \vec{p}_{B} | = \sqrt{E_{B}^{2} - m_{B}^{2} }$.
136: This definition assumes that the only missing particle in the tag $B$ decay
137: is a massless neutrino.
138: Events in which the tag $B$ daughters include a $D^{0}$ and no higher mass charmed states are more common in the physical region, but other events have a larger tail into the non-physical region $\cos\theta_{B-D^{0}\ell} < -1$.
139:
140: For the reconstructed leptons in the signal $B$, we estimate the momentum of the signal lepton in the signal $B^{+}$ rest frame ($\pprimesignal$) by averaging around the cone formed by $\cos\theta_{B-D^{0}\ell}$. Since $\ben$ and $\bmun$ are two-body decays, for true signal events, $\pprimesignal$ should exhibit a peak at
141: \begin{equation}
142: \pprimesignal = \frac{m_{B}^{2} - m_{\ell}^{2}}{2m_{B}} \approx \frac{m_{B}}{2} = 2.64 \gevc.
143: \end{equation}
144:
145: If an event has a reconstructed signal muon candidate and $\pprimesignal > 2.3 \gevc$, it is classified as a $\bmun$ candidate; otherwise it is classified as a $\tautomununu$ candidate. If an event has a reconstructed signal electron candidate and $\pprimesignal > 2.25 \gevc$, it is classified as a $\ben$ candidate; otherwise it is classified as a $\tautoenunu$ candidate.
146:
147: In an ideal $\bln$ decay, we reconstruct all tracks and clusters associated with the real decay. The only unreconstructed particles would be neutrinos, which leave no energy in the detector. Therefore, we expect our signal to concentrate near zero $\eextra$. We require a minimum energy of $30 \mev$ for any neutral cluster.
148:
149: After the $D^{0}$ has been reconstructed, a ``seeding'' algorithm adds a photon (called the ``seed photon'') to the reconstructed $D^{0}$ and reevaluates $\cos\theta_{B-D^{0}\ell}$. The seeding algorithm performs this procedure with all photons that do not overlap with the tag $B$ and have CM energy less than 300 \mev.
150: If a seed photon causes $\cos\theta_{B-D^{0}\ell}$ to become closer to (but not greater than) 1, it is selected. We seek to move $\cos\theta_{B-D^{0}\ell}$ closer to 1 because events containing real $D^{*}$ mesons usually appear in the low tail of the $\cos\theta_{B-D^{0}\ell}$ distribution. If more than one photon satisfies these conditions, the one which moves $\Delta M \equiv m_{\Dstarz} - m_{\Dz}$ closest to the nominal value of 142.12 \mevcc \cite{ref:pdg2006} is used. The photon is removed from $\eextra$ and the event is stored with the modified $\eextra$ and $\cos\theta_{B-D^{0}\ell}$ variables.
151:
152: We use a single photon to account for decays such as $D^{*0} \to \Dz \gamma$ and $D^{*0} \to \Dz \piz\ (\piz \to \gamma \gamma)$. We studied the possibility of including a second seed photon, but it did not produce a significant improvement in performance.
153:
154: \subsection{Likelihood Ratios}
155: \label{sec:LHRs}
156:
157: To take advantage of shape differences between variables, we use two LHRs that consist of several probability density functions (PDFs). Separate LHRs are generated for $B\bar{B}$ and continuum background suppression. Two PDFs are generated for each variable in a LHR. One uses the
158: signal MC sample and is treated as a probability $P_{s} (x)$, where $x$ is the value of the PDF variable. The other uses the relevant generic MC samples and is treated as a probability $P_{b}(x)$. These two PDFs are combined to form a probability $P_{i} (x)$
159: %
160: \begin{equation}
161: P_{i} (x) = \frac{P_{s} (x)}
162: {P_{s} (x) + P_{b}(x)},
163: \end{equation}
164: %
165: \noindent where each $i$ represents a different variable. Bins in a distribution that are more likely to contain background events have $P_{i} (x)$ closer to 0; bins that are more likely to contain signal events have $P_{i} (x)$ closer to 1. Each LHR is formed by multiplying all $P_{i} (x)$ together:
166:
167: \begin{equation}
168: {\rm LHR}(x) \equiv \prod_{i} P_{i} (x).
169: \end{equation}
170:
171: Ideally, a LHR is a doubly peaked distribution with background events forming a peak near zero and signal events forming a peak near 1. The PDFs are created using MC samples with all tag selection criteria applied. Any given event will have one LHR for $B\bar{B}$ events and one for continuum events, where the PDFs are selected based on the reconstructed decay mode of that event.
172:
173:
174: \subsubsection{Variables Included in LHR}
175: \label{sec:LHRvars}
176:
177: Multiple variables were considered for inclusion in the LHRs. For each of the 14 LHRs (7 decay modes $\times$ 2 background types), a fixed signal yield was chosen. Each LHR was tested using signal MC samples and the background MC samples it was designed to reject. The test were performed on MC after the appropriate decay mode was selected and with $\eextra$ required to be less than $1.5 \gev$. For a given LHR, a baseline performance was calculated by using all prospective variables. A cut was placed on the LHR in question to produce the chosen signal yield, and the Punzi Figure of Merit (${\rm FOM_{Punzi}}$) was calculated \cite{Punzi:2003bu}.
178:
179:
180: \begin{equation}
181: \label{eq:punzi}
182: {\rm FOM_{Punzi}} = \frac{\Nsig}{N_{\sigma}/2 + \sqrt{\NBG}},
183: \end{equation}
184: \noindent where $\Nsig$ is the signal yield and $\NBG$ is the background yield. $N_{\sigma}$ is the number of standard deviations desired from the result. We use $N_{\sigma} = 3$.
185:
186: The Punzi FOM is better suited to searches for small signals on small backgrounds. It is designed to prevent optimization algorithms from reducing the background to zero and creating a undesirably low signal yield. We used it for the LHRs for all modes because significance ($\Nsig/\sqrt{(\Nsig+\NBG)}$) sometimes caused our optimization algorithm to reduce the background to zero.
187:
188: Each PDF was tested by removing it (and {\it only} it) from the LHR. The LHR was scanned again until the chosen signal yield was reached, and the FOM was recalculated. If removing the PDF increased the FOM by a statistically significant amount, it was not included in the final LHR. We also removed any variables that should not, for physical reasons, improve the analysis. For instance, variables related to the tag $B$ would not reject $B\bar{B}$ background because the vast majority of it has a properly reconstructed tag $B$. The results of this selection process are shown in Table \ref{tab:PDFsUsed}. Four of these variables were combined to form 2-D PDFs. The remainder were used as 1-D PDFs.
189:
190: \begin{itemize}
191:
192:
193: \item{Separation Between the Signal and Tag $B$ Vertices ($\Delta z / \sigma_{\Delta z}$):}
194:
195: Due to the neutrinos on both sides of the event, the vertices of the reconstructed signal tracks and neutral clusters do not correspond exactly to the true $B$ decay points. However, the reconstructed vertices are still displaced in space while tracks from continuum processes tend to point back to the interaction point.
196:
197: We calculate the displacement between the putative $B$ vertices divided by the uncertainty on that displacement. Continuum events are distributed more strongly towards zero than true $B\bar{B}$ events.
198:
199:
200: \item{Net Event Charge:}
201:
202: In our previous search \cite{babar_sl_btn}, we noted a drop in tag efficiency over the lifetime of the experiment. We found that approximately half of this drop was due to a requirement that the event have zero net charge in order to pass tag selection. To avoid this drop in efficiency while retaining the discriminating power of this variable, the net charge of the event was moved from tag selection to the LHRs.
203:
204: \item{Ratio of the Second to Zeroth Fox-Wolfram Moment ($R2_{\rm All}$):}
205:
206: The Fox-Wolfram moments are rotationally invariant kinematic quantities designed to quantify the shapes of events resulting from $e^{+}e^{-}$ collisions. They are denoted $H_{l}$, where $l$ is the number of the moment.
207: \begin{equation}
208: H_{l} \equiv \frac{4 \pi}{2l + 1} \sum_{m = -l}^{+l}
209: \left|
210: \sum_{i}Y_{l}^{m}(\theta_{i}) \frac{\vec{p_{i}}}{\sqrt{s}}
211: \right|^{2},
212: \end{equation}
213: where $i$ runs over all hadrons in the event, $\vec{p_{i}}$ are the momenta of the hadrons (in the CM frame), $Y_{l}^{m}$ are the spherical harmonics, $\theta$ is the angle of the momentum with respect to the $z$ axis, and $\sqrt{s}$ center-of-mass energy of the collision \cite{r2definition}. This variable is the ratio
214: \begin{equation}
215: R2_{\rm All} \equiv \frac{H_{2}}{H_{0}}.
216: \end{equation}
217:
218: We do not place a cut on this variable. We use it as a PDF in the LHRs of several modes, just as we use all of the other variables in this list.
219:
220: \item{$\cos\theta_{B-D^{0}\ell}$ : }
221:
222: This angular variable is defined in Section \ref{sec:SigSelection} and Equation \ref{eq:CosBY}.
223:
224: \item{$D^0$ Decay Mode:}
225:
226: Each $D^{0}$ decay mode is assigned an integer, and these integers form a distribution for an MC sample. Signal and background events have different distributions of $\Dz$ decay mode. For instance, true signal events are found recoiling against a $\Dz \to \Km \pip$ more often than $B \bar{B}$ background events.
227:
228:
229: \item{Center of Mass Momentum for the Tag $K^{-}$ ($p^{*}_{{\rm Tag} K^{-}}$) and $\ell^{-}$ ($p^{*}_{{\rm Tag} \ell^{-}}$)}
230:
231:
232: \item{Tag $K^{-}$ Selector:}
233:
234: If the tag $\Dz$ decay produces a putative charged $K$, we assign an integer value to the track corresponding to level of $K$ particle identification passed by the track, with increasing values indicating tighter selection criteria. This is an integer value ranging from 10-14; each track is assigned to exactly one of these numbers. The value 16 is assigned to $K_{s}^{0}$ candidates. Signal events concentrate more strongly than background events at higher values.
235:
236: \item{Minimum Invariant Mass of Any 2 Reconstructed Tracks ($M_{2}^{\rm min}$):}
237:
238: Since the minimum invariant mass of any three tracks $M_{3}^{\rm min}$ was a useful variable in our previous search \cite{babar_sl_btn}, we decide to try using $M_{2}^{\rm min}$. As the name suggests, it is the smallest invariant mass produced by any combination of two tracks used to reconstruct the signal $B$.
239:
240: \item{$m_{\ell \ell}$:}
241:
242: If an event contains two putative lepton tracks, their invariant mass is calculated and stored as $m_{\ell \ell}$. This variable was originally developed to remove pair-produced leptons. It is obviously highly correlated with $M_{2}^{\rm min}$, so both variables are never used in the same LHR.
243:
244: \item{Signal $\mu$ Selector:}
245:
246:
247: If the track from the signal $B$ decay passes the particle identification requirements to become a putative $\mu^{+}$, we check if it passes a stricter level of $\mu^{+}$ identification. If so, the event is assigned the value one for this PDF. Otherwise, it is assigned the value zero. More Continuum background than signal accumulates at zero.
248:
249: \item{Signal $K^{+}$ Selector:}
250:
251: We wish to suppress the misreconstruction of $K^{+}$ as pions or leptons from the signal $B$, so we include $K$ selection in the LHR. Specifically, this PDF is set to zero if a signal track passes loose $K^{+}$ particle identification requirements.
252:
253: \item{Vertex Status:}
254:
255: For those $\tau$ modes that involve neutral clusters (i.e $\tautorho$), a vertex is created. The quality of that vertex is reported as an integer from zero through four, which is included as PDF. Zero indicates that the vertex fit was successful. Other values indicate various failure modes for the fit. The only failure mode that occurs in this analysis is that the fit does not converge
256:
257: \item{ Reconstructed Mass of the $\tau$ Daughter ($m_{\rho^{+}}$):}
258:
259: The decay $\tautopipiznu$ often proceeds through the $\rho^{+}$ resonance. For true signal events, a peak at the resonance mass appears in the invariant mass distribution of the signal track and neutrals. Background events yield a flat or linear distribution.
260:
261: \item{Center of Mass Momentum for
262: the $\pip$ and $\piz$ in $\tautopipiznu$ ($p^{*}_{\pip}$, $p^{*}_{\piz}$).
263: }
264:
265: \end{itemize}
266:
267: \label{sec:PDF2D}
268:
269: 2-D PDFs are two-dimensional histograms that contain two variable distributions. We use 2-D PDFs in cases where we want to exploit two variables that are highly correlated or that have a stronger separation when combined than when separate.
270:
271: \begin{itemize}
272:
273: \item{ $m_{\rm unreco} {\rm\ vs.\ } \cos(p_{\theta}^{\rm miss})$ ($m_{\rm unreco}$-dir):}
274:
275: The total invariant mass and initial momentum of each event are well known from beam information. Since neutrinos escape undetected from each event, we expect the total reconstructed invariant mass to be less than what the beam provides. The difference is called the unreconstructed mass ($m_{\rm unreco}$). The missing momentum $(p_{\theta}^{\rm miss})$ is similarly defined, where $\theta$ is the angle with respect to the beam line.
276:
277: The PEP-II beam pipe corresponds to values of $\cos(p_{\theta}^{\rm miss})$ near $\pm 1$. One source of background is events in which real particles are lost down the beam pipe, which is outside of the detector coverage. Since they are not reconstructed, they can be misinterpreted as neutrinos. This PDF allows the LHR to account for background events that have high unreconstructed mass but are likely to have lost particles down the beam pipe.
278:
279: \item{$\cos\theta^{\prime}_{\tau-Y}{\rm\ vs.\ } |\vec{p^{\prime}}_{Y}|$ (Cos$\tau$Y-pY):}
280:
281: $\cos\theta^{\prime}_{\tau-Y}$ is the equivalent of $\cos\theta_{B-D^{0} \ell}$ for the signal $B$. $Y$ represents all of the reconstructed daughters of the signal $B$, and $\theta^{\prime}_{\tau-Y}$ is the calculated angle between $Y$ and $\tau$ momenta in the signal $B$ rest frame. $|\vec{p^{\prime}}_{Y}|$ is the estimated momentum of $Y$ in the signal $B$ rest frame. It is the same as $\pprimesignal$ defined to include the hadronic $\tau$ decay modes; it is calculated with the same average around the cone formed by $\cos\theta_{B-D^{0} \ell}$. Since $\pprimesignal$ is such a powerful variable for selected $\ben$ and $\bmun$, we tested it for $\btn$. We found that it was not very useful unless combined in this PDF. This PDF is not used in $\ben$ or $\bmun$ reconstruction because $\pprimesignal$ is kept as a separate variable.
282:
283: \end{itemize}
284:
285:
286:
287: \begin{table}
288: \caption{This is a list of all variables used as signal PDFs for the various decay modes. Variables in {\bf bold} are used for both Continuum and $B\bar{B}$ background.
289: \label{tab:PDFsUsed}}
290: \footnotesize
291: \begin{center}
292: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
293: \hline
294: $\tautoe$ & $\tautomu$ & $\tautopinu$ & $\tautopipiz$ & $\bmun$ & $\ben$ \\
295: \hline
296: \hline
297: \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{\bf Net Charge} \\
298: \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{\boldmath $R2_{\rm all}$} \\
299: \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{$p^{*}_{{\rm Tag} \ell}$} \\
300: \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{ Tag $K^{-}$ Sel. Level} \\
301: \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{$\Dz$ Dec. Mode} \\
302: \hline
303: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{$p^{*}_{{\rm Tag} K^{-}}$}& - &$p^{*}_{{\rm Tag} K^{-}}$ \\
304: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{$\cos\theta_{B-D^{0}\ell}$} & - & - \\
305: \hline
306: {\boldmath $\Delta z/ \sigma_{\Delta z}$} & {\boldmath $\Delta z/ \sigma_{\Delta z}$} & {\boldmath $\Delta z/ \sigma_{\Delta z}$} & $\Delta z/ \sigma_{\Delta z}$ & $\Delta z/ \sigma_{\Delta z}$ & {\boldmath $\Delta z/ \sigma_{\Delta z}$}\\
307: {\boldmath $m_{\ell \ell}$} & {\boldmath $m_{2}^{\rm min}$} & - & {\boldmath $m_{2}^{\rm min}$} & $m_{\ell \ell}$ &{\boldmath $m_{\ell \ell}$} \\
308: {\boldmath \bf $m_{\rm unreco}$-dir} & {\boldmath \bf $m_{\rm unreco}$-dir} & - & - & {\boldmath \bf $m_{\rm unreco}$-dir} & {\boldmath \bf $m_{\rm unreco}$-dir} \\
309: - & Signal $K^{+}$ Sel. & - & {\bf \boldmath Signal $K^{+}$ Sel.} & - & - \\
310: - & Signal $\mu$ Sel. & - & - & {\bf \boldmath Signal $\mu$ Sel.} & - \\
311: Cos$\tau$Y-pY & {\bf \boldmath Cos$\tau$Y-pY} & {\bf \boldmath Cos$\tau$Y-pY} & - & - & - \\
312: - & - & - & {\boldmath $p^{*}_{\pi^{+}}$} & - & - \\
313: - & - & - & {\boldmath $p^{*}_{\pi^{0}}$} & - & -\\
314: - & - & - & {\boldmath $m_{\rho^{+}}$} & -&- \\
315: - & - & - & {\bf Vertex Status} &- &- \\
316: \hline
317: \end{tabular}
318: \end{center}
319: \end{table}
320:
321:
322:
323: \subsection{Optimization}
324: \label{sec:cutoptimization}
325:
326: We use three ($\eextra$, $\lhrbb$, and $\lhrcont$) variables in our final selection of the five $\tau$ decay modes. For $\ben$ and $\bmun$, we add a fourth variable $\pprimesignal$. The final requirements for these variables are obtained by optimizing on a figure of merit (FOM). For the $\tau$ decay modes, we choose the FOM to be significance ($\Nsig/\sqrt{(\Nsig+\NBG)}$). For the other two leptonic $B$ decay modes, we use the Punzi FOM (Equation \ref{eq:punzi}).
327:
328: In the $\btn$ mode, both signal and background are large enough that optimizations perform well with standard significance. We make this determination based on the $\Nsig$ expected from the SM predictions for the branching fractions. The optimized selection criteria are shown in Table \ref{tab:optimizedcuts}.
329:
330:
331: \begin{table}[htb]
332: \begin{center}
333: \caption{Optimized ranges from which we accept signal candidates, which are mostly given by our optimization procedure. The exceptions are the $\pprimesignal$ ranges for the two leptonic $\tau$ decay modes, which were chosen to separate the leptonic $\tau$ decays from $\ben$ and $\bmun$.
334: \label{tab:optimizedcuts}
335: }
336: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|} \hline
337: Mode & $\eextra$ & $\lhrbb$ & $\lhrcont$ & $\pprimesignal$ \\ \hline
338: $\tautoenunu$ & [0,0.24] $\gev$ & [0.74,1] & [0.16,1] & [0.00,2.25] \gevc \\
339: $\tautomununu$ & [0,0.24] $\gev$ & [0.14,1] & [0.72,1] & [0.00,2.30] \gevc \\
340: $\tautopinu$ & [0,0.35] $\gev$ & [0.57,1] & [0.80,1] & - \\
341: $\tautopipiznu$ & [0,0.24] $\gev$ & [0.97,1] & [0.95,1] & - \\ \hline
342: $\bmun$ & [0,0.72] $\gev$ & [0.33,1] & [0.75,1] & [2.45,2.92] \gevc \\ \hline
343: $\ben$ & [0,0.57] $\gev$ & [0.00,1] & [0.01,1] & [2.52,3.02] \gevc \\ \hline
344: \end{tabular}
345: \end{center}
346: \end{table}
347:
348:
349: After we examined the data in the signal region, we discovered an excess of data above our MC simulations at low values of $m_{\ell \ell}$, which is the minimum invariant mass of any two leptons. These events constitute an unmodeled background and are most likely due to photon pair conversion in the material of the detector. We decided remove all events below a certain value of $m_{\ell \ell}$ after all other analysis cuts had been applied. This value was chosen using only signal and background MC simulations with the optimization technique described in this section. The result excludes events in the $\tautoe$ channel with $m_{\ell \ell}<0.29 \gevcc$, which constitutes less than two percent of our signal MC sample. All efficiencies and yields in this note include the effects of this requirement.
350:
351:
352: \subsection{Signal Efficiency}
353: \label{sec:SigEff}
354:
355:
356: The signal $B$ selection efficiencies
357: for the decay modes are
358: determined from signal MC simulation and summarized
359: in Table~\ref{tab:overalleff}.
360: The signal efficiencies correspond to the number of events
361: selected in a specific signal decay mode, given that a tag $B$ has
362: been reconstructed.
363:
364: \begin{table}[htb]
365: \caption{Overall efficiency $(\eps \equiv \eps_{\rm sig} \times \eps_{\rm tag})$ of optimized signal selection for all modes before systematic corrections.}
366: \label{tab:overalleff}
367: \begin{center}
368: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|} \hline
369: Mode & $\varepsilon_{\mathrm {sig}} $ & $\varepsilon (\times 10^{-4})$ \\ \hline
370: $\tautoenunu$ & $( 1.987 \pm 0.043 ) \% $& 3.38 $\pm$ 0.07 \\
371: $\tautomununu$ & $( 1.610 \pm 0.038 ) \% $& 2.73 $\pm$ 0.06 \\
372: $\tautopinu$ & $( 2.48 \pm 0.05 ) \% $& 4.21 $\pm$ 0.08 \\
373: $\tautopipiznu$ & $( 0.859 \pm 0.028 ) \% $& 1.46 $\pm$ 0.05 \\ \hline
374: $\btn$ & $( 6.94 \pm 0.08 ) \% $& 11.78 $\pm$ 0.13 \\ \hline
375: $\bmun$ & $( 30.92 \pm 0.36 ) \% $& 32.54 $\pm$ 0.36 \\ \hline
376: $\ben$ & $( 36.98 \pm 0.38 ) \% $& 40.43 $\pm$ 0.40 \\ \hline
377: \end{tabular}
378: \end{center}
379: \end{table}
380:
381: The selection efficiency for $\tautomununu$ is low compared to that of the
382: $\tautoenunu$ mode because the momentum spectrum
383: of the signal muons peaks below 1.2 \gevc, where the muon detection
384: efficiency is low. Since no minimum momentum requirement and no tight pion
385: identification criteria are applied to the
386: $\tautopinu$ signal selection, electron and muon signal tracks
387: that fail particle identification requirement get selected in this mode.
388: Any true $\tautopipiznu$ signal events, with a missed $\piz$
389: are also included in $\tautopinu$ selection mode.
390: Therefore, the $\tautopinu$ selection mode has the highest signal efficiency.
391:
392:
393: \subsection{Background Estimation from \boldmath{\eextra} Sidebands}
394: \label{sec:EextraSBExtrapolation}
395:
396:
397: We define the ``sideband'' region as $\eextra \ge 0.6 \gev$, except for $\bmun$ where it is defined as $\eextra \ge 0.72 \gev$.
398: The ``signal region'' is defined separately for each signal mode using the optimized cuts on $\eextra$ given in Table \ref{tab:optimizedcuts}. Distributions of $\eextra$ for the signal decay modes are shown in Figures \ref{fig:eextra_allcuts_unblind_e} - \ref{fig:eextra_allcuts_enu}.
399:
400: For each mode, after applying the optimized final selections (except $\eextra$),
401: the number of MC events in the signal region ($N_{\mbox{\scriptsize{MC,Sig}}}$)
402: and side band ($N_{\mbox{\scriptsize{MC,SideB}}}$) are counted
403: and their ratio ($R^{\mbox{\scriptsize{MC}}}$) is obtained.
404:
405: \begin{eqnarray*}
406: R^{\mbox{\scriptsize{MC}}} & = & \frac{N_{\mbox{\scriptsize{MC,Sig}}}}{N_{\mbox{\scriptsize{MC,SideB}}}}
407: \end{eqnarray*}
408:
409: \noindent Using the number of data events in the side band ($N_{\mbox{\scriptsize{data,SideB}}}$)
410: and the ratio $R^{\mbox{\scriptsize{MC}}}$, the number of expected background events in the
411: signal region in data ($N_{\mbox{\scriptsize{exp,Sig}}}$) is estimated.
412:
413: \begin{eqnarray*}
414: N_{\mbox{\scriptsize{exp,Sig}}} & = & N_{\mbox{\scriptsize{data,SideB}}} \cdot R^{\mbox{\scriptsize{MC}}}
415: \end{eqnarray*}
416:
417:
418: Table \ref{tab:BGpred_EEx} shows the background predictions from the $\eextra$ sideband. We verify that the background predictions given by this sideband are consistent with the $D^{0}$ mass, $\lhrcont$, $\lhrbb$, and $\pprimesignal$ sidebands, where applicable. We also studied the predictions given when the $\eextra$ sideband is loosened to be $\geq 0.8 \gev$ or tightened to include all events but the signal region in each mode. These predictions are also consistent with Table \ref{tab:BGpred_EEx}.
419:
420: \begin{table}
421: \begin{center}
422: \caption{BG Predictions from $\eextra$ sideband.
423: $R_{\rm MC}$ is the ratio of events in the sideband to events in the signal region of $\eextra$ in the background MC.
424: $N_{\rm data,SideB}$ is the number of events in the $\eextra$ sideband in data.
425: $N_{\rm MC,Sig}$ is the number of normalized events in the $\eextra$ signal region of the background MC samples. This is the background prediction taken solely from the MC samples.
426: $N_{\rm exp,Sig}$ is the product of $R_{\rm MC}$ and $N_{\rm data,SideB}$; it is the background prediction extrapolated from the data sideband using the MC samples.
427: }
428: \label{tab:BGpred_EEx}
429: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|}\hline
430: Mode & $R_{\rm MC}$ & $N_{\rm data,SideB}$ & $N_{\rm exp,Sig}$ & $N_{\rm MC,Sig}$ \\ \hline
431: $\tautoenunu$& 0.322 $\pm$ 0.040 & 284 $\pm$ 17& 91 $\pm$ 13 & 98 $\pm$ 11 \\
432: $\tautomununu$ & 0.128 $\pm$ 0.012 & 1070 $\pm$ 33 & 137 $\pm$ 13 &136 $\pm$ 12 \\
433: $\tautopinu$ & 0.033 $\pm$ 0.003 & 6990 $\pm$ 80 & 233 $\pm$ 19 &212 $\pm$ 17 \\
434: $\tautopipiznu$ & 0.035 $\pm$ 0.005 & 1684 $\pm$ 41 & 59 $\pm$ 9 &62 $\pm$ 9 \\ \hline
435: $\bmun$ & 1.1 $\pm$ 0.6 & 14.0 $\pm$ 3.7 & 15 $\pm$ 10 & 12 $\pm$ 5 \\ \hline
436: $\ben$ & 0.57 $\pm$ 0.25 & 42 $\pm$ 6 & 24 $\pm$ 11 & 15 $\pm$ 5 \\
437: \hline
438: \end{tabular}
439: \end{center}
440: \end{table}
441:
442:
443: