1: \section{Common Analysis Issues}
2: \label{sec:\secname}
3: \subsection{Centre of Mass Energy and Boost}
4: \label{sec:\secname:Boost}
5:
6: The beam energies provided by \pep2\ are obtained with an
7: algorithm capable of tracking variations to
8: within about $1\mev$, and are used to determine the
9: time-dependence of the centre of mass energy.
10: The absolute energy scale is determined from a sample
11: of fully-reconstructed \B\ candidates
12: (a recent measurement of the \B\ mass by CLEO~\cite{cleo-mass}
13: is used).
14:
15: %par
16: %he systematic
17:
18: We define two main coordinate systems:
19: \begin{itemize}
20: \item
21: A \babar\ coordinate system (LAB), linked to the \babar\ detector.
22: The $z$ axis is along the DCH axial wires,
23: the $y$ axis is vertical (upward) and the $x$ axis points
24: towards the exterior of the \pep2\ rings.
25: The \babar\ $z$ axis and the \pep2\ electron beam
26: are not exactly aligned.
27: The former is tilted in the horizontal plane
28: by $19\,{\rm mrad}$ with respect to the beam axis.
29: \item
30: A centre-of-mass coordinate system (CMS), a frame where the two
31: beams have equal energy $E^{*}_b = \sqrt{{\rm s}}/2$ (where
32: $E^{*}_b$ is the centre-of-mass beam energy). The $z$ axis
33: of the CMS lies along the electron beam direction (this is the
34: relevant choice for most physics quantities). The Lorentz
35: transformation from LAB into CMS quantities is
36: the product of a rotation that aligns the $z^\prime$ axis of the
37: rotated frame with the boost direction, and a Lorentz boost along the
38: new $z^\prime$ into the CMS frame. The rotation angles are determined
39: on a run-by-run basis from the opening angle and flight direction of
40: $\mu^+\mu^-$ and $e^+e^-$ events, and are verified against the
41: orientation of the collision spot for the beams. The magnitude of the boost is
42: obtained from the \pep2\ energies.
43: \end{itemize}
44:
45:
46: \subsection{Continuum Rejection Variables}
47: \label{sec:\secname:Continuum}
48:
49: We use common shape variables, computed with charged tracks
50: in the centre of mass frame, to preferenctially reject continuum events.
51: The most important of these variables are
52: thrust, sphericity and $R2$, the ratio of $2^{\rm nd}$
53: to $0^{\rm th}$ Fox-Wolfram moments.
54: \begin{itemize}
55: \item {\bf Thrust:} The thrust axis, $\hat{T}$, of an event is defined to
56: be the direction that maximizes the sum of the longitudinal
57: momenta of the particles. The value of the thrust $T$
58: must lie in the range 0.5 to 1,
59: where $T\sim 1$ corresponds to a highly directional event and $T\sim 0.5$
60: to an isotropic event.
61: \item {\bf Sphericity:} Sphericity is a measure of the sum of
62: squares of transverse momenta for each track with respect to the event axis.
63: Highly directional events have low sphericity whereas isotropic events tend
64: to have sphericities close to one.
65: \item {\bf Fox-Wolfram moments:}
66: The $\ell^{\rm th}$ Fox-Wolfram moment is momentum-weighted sum
67: of Legendre polyomial of the $\ell^{\rm th}$ order computed from the cosine
68: of the angle between all pairs of tracks.
69: The ratio $R2$ of Fox-Wolfram $2^{\rm nd}$
70: to $0^{\rm th}$ moments is the variable which provides the best separation
71: between \BB\ signal and continuum. Jet-like continuum events tend to
72: have higher values of $R2$ than the more spherical \BB\ events.
73: \end{itemize}
74:
75: \subsection{Event Selection and $B$ Counting}
76: \label{sec:\secname:MultiHadron}
77:
78: \subsubsection{Fiducial regions}
79:
80: The acceptance region in polar angle for charged tracks,
81: corresponding to full SVT coverage, ranges from
82: a minimum of 410\mrad\ with respect to the $z$ axis
83: in the forward direction to
84: 602\mrad\ in the backward direction ($0.41<\theta<2.54$).
85: For neutral clusters, the fiducial region is reduced to an
86: angle 732\mrad\ with respect to the $z$ axis in the backward direction
87: ($0.41<\theta<2.41$) to account for the more limited EMC
88: coverage in the backward region.
89:
90: \subsubsection{Multi-Hadron selection}
91:
92: Multi-hadron event selection is designed to have a very high efficiency
93: for \BB\ events while keeping the systematic uncertainties on the
94: determination of that efficiency as low as possible.
95: The contribution of continuum and $\tau$ pair events
96: in the sample is reduced by a cut on $R2$.
97: Using only tracks and clusters in
98: fiducial volume described above, the selection criteria are as follows:
99: \begin{itemize}
100: \item
101: Four or more charged tracks, at least three of which must have associated
102: DCH information
103: \item
104: Primary vertex within $5\mm$ in $x$ and $y$ of the nominal beam spot position,
105: \item
106: $R2$ less than 0.7,
107: \item
108: Total energy greater than 5\gev.
109: \end{itemize}
110: The efficiency for \BB\ events is 96\%, while the contamination due
111: to beam gas, two-photon and tau pair events is approximately 2\%.
112:
113: \subsubsection{Muon pair selection}
114:
115: In the centre of mass frame,
116: events containing
117: two charged tracks with momenta larger than 2\gevc\ and
118: 4\gevc, respectively, and with angle with respect to the
119: beam axis greater than 725\mrad\ are selected. The two tracks
120: must have an acolinearity smaller than $10^\circ$.
121: The mass of the
122: pair must be larger than 7.5\gevcc. The total energy deposited in the
123: calorimeter by the two particles must be smaller than 1\gev. The event is
124: rejected if neither track has an associated energy measurement.
125:
126: \subsection{Offline Luminosity Determination}
127: \label{sec:\secname:Lumi}
128:
129: The integrated luminosity recorded by \babar\ is determined offline
130: using Bhabha, muon pair, and gamma-gamma events.
131: The measurement precision is limited by systematic errors in all cases to
132: the several percent level, although this clearly can be improved to 0.5\% or better.
133: The systematic uncertainty for the Bhabha measurement is dominated by the efficiency
134: corrections for the Bhabha veto by the Level 3 trigger,
135: and by theoretical
136: uncertainties on the differential Bhabha cross section. Likewise,
137: we are still in the process of comparing and understanding Monte Carlo generators for muon pair
138: events, including proper treatment of radiative events.
139: A better understanding of the impact of occasional hot towers in the EMC will improve
140: the systematic error on the gamma-gamma luminosity.
141: The luminosity determinations are consistent at the several percent level, but are much better than
142: this for tracking relative luminosity and the variation with beam conditions.
143:
144: \subsection{\B\ Counting}
145: \label{sec:\secname:BCounting}
146:
147: We estimate the number of \BB\ pairs $N_{\B \Bbar}$
148: %(described in~\ref{sec:\secname:MultiHadron})
149: from the total number of events passing the
150: hadronic event selection $N_{MH}$ and the total number of events passing
151: the muon pair selection $N_{\mu \mu}$:
152: \begin{equation}
153: N_{\B \Bbar} = N^{{\tt on}}_{MH} - \kappa \times N^{{\tt off}}_{MH} \times \frac{ N^{{\tt on}}_{\mu \mu} }{ N^{{\tt off}}_{\mu \mu} } \ \ \ ,
154: \end{equation}
155: where the superscript {\em on} refers to on-resonance data and {\em off} to
156: off-resonance. $\kappa$ is a factor close to 1 that corrects for changes in
157: efficiency and cross section with center of mass energy. It is estimated by
158: Monte Carlo to be 0.9962. The systematic error on $N_{\BB}$ is 1.7\%,
159: dominated by the variation between running periods of the ratio
160: $N^{off}_{MH}/N^{off}_{\mumu}$.
161:
162: Branching fraction
163: measurements frequently use the number of {\em produced} \BB\ pairs. The
164: efficiency for \BB\ events to pass the selection criteria is determined by
165: Monte Carlo to be 96.0\%. The total systematic error on the number of produced
166: \BB\ pairs is 3.6\%.
167:
168: \subsection{Exclusive \B\ Reconstruction Variables}
169: %, side bands and grand side bands}
170: \label{sec:\secname:BVariables}
171: \subsubsection{Kinematic variables}
172:
173: A number of kinematic quantities could be used to
174: characterize the reaction $\epem\to\B\Bbar$ where one of the
175: $B$ mesons is fully reconstructed. However, our goal is to select
176: a pair of such kinematic variables, having little
177: correlation between them, that make
178: use of the maximum available information for optimal background
179: rejection.
180:
181: At the \FourS\ resonance the \B\ mesons are produced with
182: very small $Q$ values. As a result their
183: center-of-mass energy $E^{*}$ and momentum $p^{*}$
184: are very sensitive to fluctuations of the center-of-mass beam energy
185: $E^{*}_b = \sqrt{{\rm s}}/2$.
186: In contrast,
187: the variable ${\rm \Delta}E$ defined as:
188: \begin{equation}
189: {\rm \Delta}E = E^{*} - E^{*}_b \ \ ,
190: \end{equation}
191: is relatively insensitive to $E^{*}_b$ fluctuations.
192:
193: The distribution of ${\rm \Delta}E$ is peaked at zero for $\epem\to\B\Bbar$
194: events,
195: and its width is
196: governed in most cases by the beam energy measurement error $\sigma^2_E$.
197: %except in the case of decay modes with exceptionally
198: %poor measurement resolution.
199: It is not necessary to
200: boost the \B\ candidate to the center-of-mass frame to compute
201: ${\rm \Delta}E$, as can be seen by writing
202: ${\rm \Delta}E$ in an explicitely
203: Lorentz invariant form:
204: \begin{equation}
205: {\rm \Delta}E = \frac{ 2 \, \widetilde{P} . \widetilde{P}_i - {\rm s} }{ 2 \sqrt{ {\rm s } } } \ \ \ ,
206: \end{equation}
207: where $\widetilde{P} $
208: and $\widetilde{P}_i $ are the Lorentz vectors representing the
209: \B\ candidate four momentum and the initial-state four momentum
210: respectively.
211: %and $ {\rm s} = \widetilde{P}^2_i$.
212:
213: The ${\rm \Delta} E$ variable is used in conjunction with either one of
214: the following two mass variables:
215: \begin{itemize}
216: \item
217: {\bf Beam-energy substituted mass} $\mes$, defined
218: as:
219: \begin{equation}
220: \label{eq:mse}
221: \mes = \sqrt{ \left( \frac{ \frac{1}{2} {\rm s} + \overrightarrow{ p} . \overrightarrow{ p}_{\! i}}{E_i} \right)^2 - p^2 } \ \ \ ,
222: \end{equation}
223: where $E_i$ and $\overrightarrow{ p}_{\! i}$ are the total energy
224: and the three momentum of the initial state in the laboratory frame,
225: and $\overrightarrow{ p}$ is the three momentum of the \B\ candidate
226: in the same frame.
227: At a symmetric machine
228: (where $\overrightarrow{ p}_{\! i} = \overrightarrow{0}$)
229: this variable is obtained simply by substituting the beam energy $ E^{*}_b$ from the measured \B\ candidate energy $ E^{*}$:
230: \begin{equation}
231: \mes = \sqrt{ E^{* 2}_b - p^{* 2} } \ \ \ .
232: \end{equation}
233: This is the definition of the variable used
234: in ARGUS and CLEO publications under the name
235: ``beam-constrained'' mass.
236: The advantage of using definition of Eq.~\ref{eq:mse} at an
237: asymmetric machine, where one needs to assign masses to candidates
238: in order to boost to the center of mass frame,
239: is that $\mes$ is
240: computed in the laboratory frame without
241: any prior commitment to the identification of particles
242: among the \B\ daughters.
243: \item
244: {\bf Beam-energy constrained mass} \mec, defined as:
245: \begin{equation}
246: \mec = \sqrt{ \widehat{E}^{\, 2} - \widehat{p}^{\, 2} } \ \ \ ,
247: \end{equation}
248: where $\widehat{E}$ and $\widehat{p}$ are center-of-mass frame quantities
249: obtained by performing a kinematic fit with the $E^* = E_b$ constraint.
250: \end{itemize}
251:
252: The two choices
253: $({\rm \Delta} E, \, \mes )$ and $({\rm \Delta} E, \, \mec )$
254: are almost equivalent.
255: For certain analyses, it may be helpful to
256: exploit the property that $ \mes$ does not require daughter mass assignments,
257: while the kinematical
258: fit performed for $\mec$
259: makes optimal use of the information collected by the detector.
260: in addition, the pair $({\rm \Delta} E, \, \mec )$
261: has the smallest correlation.
262:
263: \subsubsection{Background parametrisation}
264:
265: To describe the background shape in beam-energy constrained mass plots,
266: we use the ARGUS distribution~\cite{Argus} given by:
267: \begin{equation}
268: {\cal A}( \, m \, | \, m_0,\, c \, ) = \frac{{\rm \theta}( m < m_0 )}{N} \times m \sqrt{ 1 - ( m / m_0 )^2 }
269: \times \exp{ \left[ \, c \, ( 1 - m/m_0 )^2 \, \right] } \ \ \ ,
270: \end{equation}
271: where $m_0$ represents the kinematic upper limit and is generally
272: held fixed at the center-of-mass beam energy $ E^{*}_b$.
273:
274:
275: