1: %\documentstyle[epsfig,aps]{revtex}
2: \documentstyle[prl,aps,floats,psfig,tabularx]{revtex}
3: %\documentstyle[prl,aps,floats,epsf,psfig,colordvi]{revtex}
4: \draft
5: \pagestyle{plain}
6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
7:
8: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
9: \newcommand{\nunub}{\stackrel{{\footnotesize (-)}}{\nu}}
10: \newcommand{\nub}{\overline{\nu}}
11: \newcommand{\cbar}{\overline{c}}
12: \newcommand{\sbar}{\overline{s}}
13: \newcommand{\txnunub}[1]{\nu_{#1}/\nub_{#1}}
14: \newcommand{\ubar}{\overline{u}}
15: \newcommand{\dbar}{\overline{d}}
16: \newcommand{\qbar}{\overline{q}}
17: \newcommand{\alfs}{\mbox{$\alpha_s$}}
18: \newcommand{\mztwo}{\mbox{$M_Z^2$}}
19:
20: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
21: \newcommand{\KS}{K_S}
22: \newcommand{\KO}{K^0}
23: \newcommand{\KOB}{\overline{K}^0}
24: \newcommand{\KSTB}{\overline{K}^{*0}}
25: \newcommand{\LMB}{\Lambda^0}
26: \newcommand{\DP}{D^+}
27: \newcommand{\DS}{D^+_s}
28: \newcommand{\ppp}{\KS \pi^+\pi^+\pi^-}
29: \newcommand{\ws}{\KS K^-\pi^+\pi^+}
30: \newcommand{\rs}{\KS K^+\pi^+\pi^-}
31: \newcommand{\kkp}{\KS K^+K^-\pi^+}
32: \newcommand{\ksk}{\KS K^+}
33: \newcommand{\PPP}{\KOB \pi^+\pi^+\pi^-}
34: \newcommand{\WS}{\KO K^-\pi^+\pi^+}
35: \newcommand{\RS}{\KOB K^+\pi^+\pi^-}
36: \newcommand{\KKP}{\KOB K^+K^-\pi^+}
37: \newcommand{\KSK}{\KOB K^+}
38: %
39: \newcommand{\Ckov}{\v{C}erenkov~}
40: \newcommand{\Mev}{MeV/$c^2\:$}
41: \newcommand{\RAW}{\rightarrow}
42:
43: \newcommand{\ETAL}{{\em et al.},~}
44:
45: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
46: \def\nim#1#2#3 {{\it Nucl. Instr. Meth.} {\bf#1}, #2 (#3). }
47: \def\np#1#2#3 {{\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf#1}, #2 (#3). }
48: \def\pcps#1#2#3 {{\it Proc. Cam. Phil. Soc.} {\bf#1}, #2 (#3). }
49: \def\pl#1#2#3 {{\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf#1}, #2 (#3). }
50: \def\plc#1#2#3 {{\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf#1}, #2 (#3); }
51: \def\prep#1#2#3 {{\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf#1}, #2 (#3). }
52: \def\prev#1#2#3 {{\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf#1}, #2 (#3). }
53: \def\prevv#1#2#3 {{\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf#1}, #2 (#3). }
54: \def\prl#1#2#3 {{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf#1}, #2 (#3). }
55: \def\prs#1#2#3 {{\it Proc. Roy. Soc.} {\bf#1}, #2 (#3). }
56: \def\rmp#1#2#3 {{\it Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf#1}, #2 (#3). }
57: \def\rpp#1#2#3 {{\it Rep. Prog. Phys.} {\bf#1}, #2 (#3). }
58: \def\zp#1#2#3 {{\it Z. Phys.} {\bf#1}, #2 (#3). }
59: \def\zpp#1#2#3 {{\it Z. Phys.} {\bf#1}, #2 (#3). }
60: \def\epj#1#2#3 {{\it Eur. Phys. Jour.} {\bf#1}, #2 (#3). }
61:
62: \newcommand{\linespace}[1]{\protect\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{#1}
63: \footnotesize\normalsize}
64:
65: \begin{document}
66:
67: %\setcounter{secnumdepth}{2} % Number sections and subsections
68:
69: \wideabs{
70: \title{A measurement of the branching ratios of $\DP$ and $\DS$
71: hadronic decays to four-body final states containing a $\KS$}
72:
73: \author{J.~M.~Link,$^{1}$ M.~Reyes,$^{1,}$\cite{a} P.~M.~Yager,$^{1}$
74: J.~C.~Anjos,$^{2}$ I.~Bediaga,$^{2}$ C.~G\"obel,$^{2,}$\cite{b}
75: J.~Magnin,$^{2}$ A.~Massafferi,$^{2}$ J.~M.~de~Miranda,$^{2}$
76: I.~M.~Pepe,$^{2,}$\cite{c} A.~C.~dos~Reis,$^{2}$
77: F.~R.~A.~Sim\~ao,$^{2}$ S.~Carrillo,$^{3}$ E.~Casimiro,$^{3,}$\cite{d}
78: A~S\'anchez-Hern\'andez,$^{3}$ C.~Uribe,$^{3,}$\cite{e}
79: F.~V\'azquez,$^{3}$ L.~Cinquini,$^{4,}$\cite{f} J.~P.~Cumalat,$^{4}$
80: B.~O'Reilly,$^{4}$ J.~E.~Ramirez,$^{4}$
81: E.~W.~Vaandering,$^{4,}$\cite{g} J.~N.~Butler,$^{5}$
82: H.~W.~K.~Cheung,$^{5}$ I.~Gaines,$^{5}$ P.~H.~Garbincius,$^{5}$
83: L.~A.~Garren,$^{5}$ E.~Gottschalk,$^{5}$ P.~H.~Kasper,$^{5}$
84: A.~E.~Kreymer,$^{5}$ R.~Kutschke,$^{5}$ S.~Bianco,$^{6}$
85: F.~L.~Fabbri,$^{6}$ S.~Sarwar,$^{6}$ A.~Zallo,$^{6}$
86: C.~Cawlfield,$^{7}$ D.~Y.~Kim,$^{7}$ A.~Rahimi,$^{7}$ J.~Wiss,$^{7}$
87: R.~Gardner,$^{8}$ Y.~S.~Chung,$^{9}$ J.~S.~Kang,$^{9}$ B.~R.~Ko,$^{9}$
88: J.~W.~Kwak,$^{9}$ K.~B.~Lee,$^{9,}$\cite{h} H.~Park,$^{9,}$\cite{i}
89: G.~Alimonti,$^{10}$ M.~Boschini,$^{10}$ B.~Caccianiga,$^{10}$
90: P.~D'Angelo,$^{10}$ M.~DiCorato,$^{10}$ P.~Dini,$^{10}$
91: M.~Giammarchi,$^{10}$ P.~Inzani,$^{10}$ F.~Leveraro,$^{10}$
92: S.~Malvezzi,$^{10}$ D.~Menasce,$^{10}$ M.~Mezzadri,$^{10}$
93: L.~Milazzo,$^{10}$ L.~Moroni,$^{10}$ D.~Pedrini,$^{10}$
94: C.~Pontoglio,$^{10}$ F.~Prelz,$^{10}$ M.~Rovere,$^{10}$
95: A.~Sala,$^{10}$ S.~Sala,$^{10}$ T.~F.~Davenport~III,$^{11}$
96: L.~Agostino,$^{12,}$\cite{j} V.~Arena,$^{12}$ G.~Boca,$^{12}$
97: G.~Bonomi,$^{12,}$\cite{k} G.~Gianini,$^{12}$ G.~Liguori,$^{12}$
98: M.~Merlo,$^{12}$ D.~Pantea,$^{12,}$\cite{l} S.~P.~Ratti,$^{12}$
99: C.~Riccardi,$^{12}$ I.~Segoni,$^{12,}$\cite{m} L.~Viola,$^{12}$
100: P.~Vitulo,$^{12}$ H.~Hernandez,$^{13}$ A.~M.~Lopez,$^{13}$
101: H.~Mendez,$^{13}$ L.~Mendez,$^{13}$ A.~Mirles,$^{13}$
102: E.~Montiel,$^{13}$ D.~Olaya,$^{13,}$\cite{n} A.~Paris,$^{13}$
103: J.~Quinones,$^{13}$ C.~Rivera,$^{13}$ W.~Xiong,$^{13}$
104: Y.~Zhang,$^{13,}$\cite{o} J.~R.~Wilson,$^{14}$ K.~Cho,$^{15}$
105: T.~Handler,$^{15}$ D.~Engh,$^{16}$ M.~Hosack,$^{16}$
106: W.~E.~Johns,$^{16}$ M.~Nehring,$^{16,}$\cite{p} P.~D.~Sheldon,$^{16}$
107: K.~Stenson,$^{16}$ M.~Webster,$^{16}$ and M.~Sheaff$^{17}$}
108:
109: \address{( The FOCUS Collaboration )\\
110: $^{1}$ University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA\\
111: $^{2}$ Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas F\'isicas, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil\\
112: $^{3}$ CINVESTAV, 07000 M\'exico City, DF, Mexico\\
113: $^{4}$ University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309\\
114: $^{5}$ Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL 60510\\
115: $^{6}$ Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati dell'INFN, Frascati, Italy, I-00044\\
116: $^{7}$ University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL 61801\\
117: $^{8}$ Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405\\
118: $^{9}$ Korea University, Seoul, Korea 136-701\\
119: $^{10}$ INFN and University of Milano, Milano, Italy\\
120: $^{11}$ University of North Carolina, Asheville, NC 28804\\
121: $^{12}$ Dipartimento di Fisica Nucleare e Teorica and INFN, Pavia, Italy\\
122: $^{13}$ University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, PR 00681\\
123: $^{14}$ University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208\\
124: $^{15}$ University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996\\
125: $^{16}$ Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235\\
126: $^{17}$ University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 \\}
127:
128: \date{\today}
129: \maketitle
130: \begin{abstract}
131: We have studied hadronic four-body decays of $\DP$ and $\DS$ mesons
132: with a $\KS$ in the final state using data recorded during the
133: 1996-1997 fixed-target run at Fermilab high energy photoproduction
134: experiment FOCUS. We report a new branching ratio measurement of
135: $\Gamma(\DP\RAW\ws)/\Gamma(\DP\RAW\ppp)=0.0768\pm0.0041\pm0.0032$. We
136: make the first observation of three new decay modes with
137: branching ratios
138: $\Gamma(\DP\RAW\rs)/\Gamma(\DP\RAW\ppp)=0.0562\pm0.0039\pm0.0040$,
139: $\Gamma(\DP\RAW\kkp)/\Gamma(\DP\RAW\ppp)=0.0077\pm0.0015\pm0.0009$, and
140: $\Gamma(\DS\RAW\rs)/\Gamma(\DS\RAW\ws)=0.586\pm0.052\pm0.043$, where
141: in each case the first error is statistical and the second error is
142: systematic.
143: %
144: \end{abstract}
145: \pacs{PACS numbers:13.25.Ft, 14.40.Lb}
146: %\underline {\it UR-1586, submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett.} }
147: \twocolumn
148: }
149: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ARTICLE TEXT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
150: %\section*{Introduction}
151: To understand hadronic decays of a heavy quark system one needs to
152: address final state interactions. These become more complicated as the
153: number of final state hadrons increase, since the signatures of the
154: weak decay of the heavy quark are masked by the hadronic degrees of
155: freedom. Theoretical predictions are still limited to two-body decays,
156: which have been analyzed extensively in the theoretical
157: literature~\cite{REF:bigi,REF:Wise,REF:Orr}. For example, Bauer, Stech
158: and Wirbel~\cite{REF:Bauer} have used a factorization
159: approach. Bedaque, Das, and Mathur~\cite{REF:Bedaque} and Kamal, Verma
160: and Sinha~\cite{REF:Kamal} have used heavy quark effective
161: theory. Much less is known about four-body hadronic decays than about
162: two or three-body decays. More experimental data on higher
163: multiplicity modes is essential to improving our understanding of the
164: decay process in heavy quark systems. In this letter we report on
165: $\DP$ and $\DS$ branching ratios into four-body final states involving
166: a $\KS$. We measure the $\DP$ decay rates into $\ws$, $\rs$, and
167: $\kkp$ relative to $\ppp$ and the decay rate of $\DS\RAW\rs$ relative
168: to $\DS\RAW\ws$ (throughout this letter the charge conjugate state is
169: implied). Among these final states only the $\ws$ final state has been
170: observed previously~\cite{REF:ARGUS}. These final states have several
171: interesting resonant contributions which will be the subject of a
172: future report.
173:
174: We collected the data for this study during the 1996-1997 fixed-target
175: run of the photoproduction experiment, FOCUS at Fermilab. This
176: experiment utilized a forward multi-particle spectrometer to study
177: charmed particles produced by interactions of high energy photons,
178: $\langle E_{\gamma} \rangle \approx$ 180 GeV, with a segmented BeO
179: target. Charged particles were traced by silicon microstrip vertex
180: detectors. These detectors provide excellent separation between the
181: reconstructed production and decay vertices. The vertex resolution is
182: approximately 6 $\mu$m in the transverse direction and 300 $\mu$m in
183: the longitudinal direction. Three multi-cell threshold \Ckov detectors
184: were used to identify charged hadrons.
185:
186: We reconstructed the $\KS$ candidates using the decay
187: $\KS\RAW\pi^+\pi^-$ and calculated the error on the $\KS$ mass for
188: each candidate. We required the $\KS$ mass be within 3$\sigma$ of the
189: nominal $\KS$ mass which rejects nearly all of the $e^+e^-$ pair
190: background. To reduce the $\LMB\RAW p\pi^-$ background we applied a
191: \Ckov particle identification cut of 5 units on the difference in the
192: log likelihoods between the pion and proton hypothesis~\cite{REF:JIM}
193: on the $\KS$ daughter track with higher momentum.
194:
195: We selected the final states using a candidate driven vertexing
196: algorithm~\cite{REF:SVERT}. A secondary vertex was formed from the
197: reconstructed tracks and the momentum vector of the charm candidate
198: was used as a {\em seed} track in finding the primary vertex in the
199: event. We required that the primary and secondary vertices be formed
200: with a confidence level greater than 1\%. The significance of
201: separation between the primary and secondary vertex is called
202: $\ell/\sigma_\ell$. We required $\ell/\sigma_\ell$ $>$ 9 for $\DP$
203: candidates and $\ell/\sigma_\ell$ $>$ 7 for $\DS$ candidates. We also
204: required the proper decay time be less than 5 times the candidate
205: particle's lifetime\cite{REF:PDG}. The vertexing algorithm provides
206: two estimators of the relative isolation of the vertices. The {\em
207: primary vertex isolation} (ISO1) estimator is the confidence level of
208: the hypothesis that a track in the secondary vertex was also in the
209: primary vertex; the {\em secondary vertex isolation} (ISO2) is the
210: confidence level that another track originates from the secondary
211: vertex. We required ISO1 be less than 1\% and ISO2 less than
212: 0.1\%. For the $\DP\RAW\ws$ decay mode, this removes 80\% of the
213: background and retains 70\% of the signal. Further, we required that
214: the decay vertices be out of target material, eliminating backgrounds
215: from interactions which are induced by particles from the primary
216: interaction or from conversions of spurious photons.
217:
218: In addition to the vertexing requirements, we used \Ckov particle
219: identification cuts. For the charged kaon candidates we required the
220: kaon hypothesis be favored over the pion hypothesis by 2 units of
221: likelihood (for the $\DP\RAW\kkp$, we required 2 units for the faster
222: kaon but only 1 unit for the slower kaon).
223:
224: Finally, the charm candidates were required to have a momentum greater
225: than 30 GeV/$c$, which removed combinatoric non-charm backgrounds. For
226: all decay modes we selected cuts by maximizing the figure of merit
227: defined as ${\mathcal N}^2_{\rm signal}/({\mathcal N}_{\rm
228: signal}+{\mathcal N}_{\rm background})$, as well as minimizing
229: reflection background.
230:
231: We investigated several possibilities for contamination of either
232: signal region due to reflections from partly reconstructed charmed
233: particles. We find no evidence in the data for an enhancement due to
234: $\Lambda^+_c\RAW\KS p \pi^+\pi^-$ where the $p$ is misidentified as a
235: $K$ or due to $\Lambda^+_c\RAW\LMB \pi^+ \pi^+ \pi^-$ where the $\LMB$
236: is misidentified as a $\KS$. We also investigated contamination of the
237: $\DS\RAW\ws$ and $\DS\RAW\rs$ signal region due to $\pi$/$K$
238: misidentification of the decay $\DP\RAW\ppp$. This reflection is
239: incorporated in the fit (see Figs.~\ref{FIG:IMDP} and
240: ~\ref{FIG:IMDS}). Double misidentification between the $\ws$ and $\rs$
241: decay modes was found to be negligible.
242:
243: In order to minimize systematic effects we chose normalization channels
244: which have similar topologies to the signal modes, and we applied the
245: same vertex requirements. Fig.~\ref{FIG:IMDP} shows the invariant mass
246: distributions using the $\DP$ selection cuts and Fig.~\ref{FIG:IMDS}
247: shows the invariant mass distributions using the $\DS$ selection
248: cuts. We parameterized the signal with a Gaussian and the background
249: with a quadratic polynomial plus a reflection shape. For the
250: $\DP\RAW\ppp$ normalization mode we used a linear background. The
251: reflections in Figs.~\ref{FIG:IMDP}(a), \ref{FIG:IMDP}(b) and
252: Figs.~\ref{FIG:IMDS}(a), \ref{FIG:IMDS}(b) from $\DP\RAW\ppp$ and
253: Fig.~\ref{FIG:IMDP}(c) from $\DP\RAW\ws(\rs)$ occur due to the
254: misidentification of a $\pi$ as a $K$. The shapes were determined by
255: Monte Carlo simulations and the reflection amplitudes are free
256: parameters in the fit.
257:
258: \begin{figure}[t]
259: \centerline{\psfig{figure=imdp.eps,width=3.5in}}
260: \caption{The invariant mass distributions with $\DP$ selection
261: cuts. (a) shows the final state $\ws$, (b) $\rs$, (c) $\kkp$ and
262: (d) $\ppp$. The data are indicated by points with error bars and the
263: solid line is the fit. The shaded regions are charm reflection
264: backgrounds.}
265: \label{FIG:IMDP}
266: \end{figure}
267: \begin{figure}[t]
268: \centerline{\psfig{figure=imds.eps,width=3.5in}}
269: \caption{The invariant mass distribution with $\DS$ selection
270: cuts. (a) shows the final state $\ws$ and (b) $\rs$. The data are
271: indicated by points with error bars and the solid line is the fit. The
272: shaded regions are charm reflection backgrounds.}
273: \label{FIG:IMDS}
274: \end{figure}
275:
276: The final states in this study have resonant substructure in their
277: decay modes which may affect the reconstruction efficiency. We
278: generated a Monte Carlo for each final state using an incoherent mix
279: of various sub-resonant decay modes and a non-resonant
280: contribution. For the decay $\DP\RAW\ppp$ we used its known sub-decay
281: modes to determine the efficiency. Mini-Monte Carlo studies showed
282: this efficiency is consistent with that of allowing interferences
283: between the states. For the other decay modes, where little is known
284: about the resonant substructure, we determined the efficiencies based
285: on which sub-decay we found to be dominant. The decay mode used for
286: the $\ws$ ($\kkp$) final state was $\KSTB K^{*+}$
287: ($\KS\phi\pi^+$). The $\rs$ final state has contributions from many
288: sub-decay modes; therefore we assumed a non-resonant substructure to
289: obtain the efficiency for this final state. With these Monte Carlo
290: efficiencies, we measured the relative branching ratios which are
291: summarized in Table \ref{TABLE1}. For each of the signal modes we also
292: obtained efficiencies with different resonant and non-resonant
293: substructure combinations. We used the spread of the various resonant
294: and non-resonant efficiencies to determine the systematic error on
295: the efficiency calculation for each state. We estimated the relative
296: uncertainties in efficiencies due to uncertainties in the branching
297: fractions into resonant sub-states to be 3.9\% for $\DP\RAW\ws$, 6.7\%
298: for $\DP\RAW\rs$, 9.8\% for $\DP\RAW\kkp$, 4.6\% for $\DS\RAW\ws$, and
299: 4.6\% for $\DS\RAW\rs$.
300:
301: A study of the stability and behavior for each branching ratio was
302: performed using variations of our analysis cuts; we found no bias from
303: the choice of analysis cuts. Further, we split our data into independent
304: subsamples based on $D$ momentum and the different run periods in
305: which the data were accumulated. This technique is described in detail
306: in reference~\cite{REF:DAN}. We found no systematic uncertainties from
307: splitting our data.
308:
309: The systematic uncertainty for each branching ratio includes
310: efficiency dependencies from sub-resonant states and from variation of
311: the fit parameters (mostly due to background parameterization
312: variation).
313:
314: \begin{table}
315: \newcolumntype{Y}{>{\centering\arraybackslash}X}%
316: \begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}%
317: {>{\setlength{\hsize}{1.15\hsize}}Y%
318: >{\setlength{\hsize}{0.55\hsize}}Y%
319: >{\setlength{\hsize}{1.15\hsize}}Y} \hline \hline
320: Decay Mode &${\mathcal N}_{\rm signal}$&$\Gamma_{\rm rel}$ \\ \hline \hline
321: $\DP\RAW\ws$ &670 $\pm$35 &0.0768$\pm$0.0041$\pm$0.0032 \\
322: $\DP\RAW\rs$ &469 $\pm$32 &0.0562$\pm$0.0039$\pm$0.0040 \\
323: $\DP\RAW\kkp$&35 $\pm$7 &0.0077$\pm$0.0015$\pm$0.0009 \\
324: $\DP\RAW\ppp$&11590$\pm$121 &1 \\ \hline
325: $\DS\RAW\rs$ &476 $\pm$36 &0.586$\pm$0.052$\pm$0.043 \\
326: $\DS\RAW\ws$ &837 $\pm$38 &1 \\ \hline \hline
327: \end{tabularx}
328: \vspace{0.3cm}
329: \caption{Measured branching ratios. $\Gamma_{\rm rel}$ is the branching
330: ratio relative to $\DP\RAW\ppp$
331: for the $\DP$ modes and $\DS\RAW\ws$ for the $\DS$ modes. The errors on
332: the branching ratios are statistical and systematic, respectively.}
333: \label{TABLE1}
334: \end{table}
335:
336: To conclude, we have improved the previous measurements of the
337: $\DP\RAW\ws$ branching ratio and have made the first observation of
338: the $\DP(\DS)\RAW\rs$ and $\DP\RAW\kkp$ decay processes using a high
339: statistics sample of photoproduced charmed particles from the FOCUS
340: experiment at Fermilab.
341:
342: We wish to acknowledge the assistance of the staffs of Fermilab and
343: the INFN of Italy, and the physics departments of the collaborating
344: institutions. This research was supported in part by the
345: U. S. National Science Foundation, the U. S. Department of Energy, the
346: Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare and Ministero
347: dell'Universit\`a e della Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica, the
348: Brazilian Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient\'ifico e
349: Tecnol\'ogico, CONACyT-M\'exico, the Korean Ministry of Education, and
350: the Korean Science and Engineering Foundation.
351:
352: \begin{references}
353: \vspace{-.30in}
354: \bibitem[a]{a}
355: Now at Instituto de Fisica y Mathematicas, Universidad Michoacana de
356: San Nicolas de Hidalgo, Morelia, Mich., Mexico 58040
357:
358: \bibitem[b]{b}
359: Now at Instituto de Fisica, Faculdad de Ingenier\'i a, Univ. de la
360: Rep\'ublica, Montevideo, Uruguay
361:
362: \bibitem[c]{c}
363: Now at Instituto de F\'isica, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador,
364: Brazil
365:
366: \bibitem[d]{d}
367: Now at INFN sezione di Milano, Milano, Italy
368:
369: \bibitem[e]{e}
370: Now at Instituto de F\'isica, Universidad Aut\'onoma de Puebla, Mexico
371:
372: \bibitem[f]{f}
373: Now at National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
374:
375: \bibitem[g]{g}
376: Now at Vanderbilt University, Nashiville, TN 37235
377:
378: \bibitem[h]{h}
379: Now at Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science, P.O.Box 102,
380: Yusong-Ku, Taejon 305-600, Korea
381:
382: \bibitem[i]{i}
383: Now at Center for High Energy Physics, Kyungpook National University,
384: Taegu 702-701, Korea
385:
386: \bibitem[j]{j}
387: Now at University of Colorado, Boulder 80309
388:
389: \bibitem[k]{k}
390: Now at Dipartimento di Chimica e Fisica per l'Ingegneria e per i
391: Materiali, Universit\'a di Brescia and INFN sezione di Pavia
392:
393: \bibitem[l]{l}
394: Now at Nat. Inst. of Phys and Nucl. Eng., Bucharest, Romania
395:
396: \bibitem[m]{m}
397: Now at University of Colorado, Boulder 80309
398:
399: \bibitem[n]{n}
400: Now at University of Colorado, Boulder 80309
401:
402: \bibitem[o]{o}
403: Now at Lucent Technology
404:
405: \bibitem[p]{p}
406: Now at Adams State College, Alamosa, CO 81102
407:
408: \vspace{0.5cm}
409:
410: \bibitem{REF:bigi}
411: I. I. Bigi, in: {\em Proceedings of CCAST Symposium}. Vol. 2 Charm
412: Physics, eds. Ming-han Ye and Tao Huang, Gordan and Breach (1987) 339.
413:
414: \bibitem{REF:Wise}
415: M. Wise, in: {\em Proceedings of the International Symposium on Heavy
416: Flavour Physics}, Montreal 1993, Editions Frontieres (1994) 5.
417:
418: \bibitem{REF:Orr}
419: R. S. Orr, in: {\em Proceedings of Heavy Flavor Decay and Mixing in
420: Selected Topics in Electroweak Interactions}, ed. J. M. Cameron, World
421: Scientific (1987) 1.
422:
423: \bibitem{REF:Bauer}
424: M. Bauer, B. Stech and M. Wirbel, \zpp {C34}{103}{1987}
425:
426: \bibitem{REF:Bedaque} P. Bedaque, A. Das and V. S. Mathur, \prevv
427: {D49}{269}{1994}
428:
429: \bibitem{REF:Kamal} A. N. Kamal, R. C. Verma and N. Sinha, \prev
430: {D43}{843}{1991}
431:
432: \bibitem{REF:ARGUS}
433: H. Albrecht \ETAL \zp {C53}{361}{1992}
434:
435: \bibitem{REF:JIM}
436: J. M. Link \ETAL \pl {B485}{62}{2000}
437:
438: \bibitem{REF:SVERT}
439: P. L. Frabetti \ETAL \nim {A320}{519}{1992}
440:
441: \bibitem{REF:PDG}
442: Particle Data Group, D.E. Groom \ETAL \epj {C15}{1}{2000}
443:
444: \bibitem{REF:DAN}
445: J. M. Link \ETAL \pl {B491}{232}{2000}
446: \end{references}
447: \end{document}
448:
449: