1: \Bz mesons are exclusively reconstructed by combining two charged \Dstar
2: candidates reconstructed in a number of \Dstar and $D$ decay modes.
3: Events are pre-selected by requiring that there be
4: three or more charged tracks and that the normalized second Fox-Wolfram
5: moment~\cite{ref:fox} of the event be less than 0.6. We also require
6: that the cosine of the angle between the reconstructed $B$ direction
7: and the thrust axis of the rest of the event be less than 0.9.
8:
9: Charged kaon candidates are required to be inconsistent with the pion
10: hypothesis, as inferred from the Cherenkov angle
11: measured by the DIRC and the specific ionization measured by the SVT and DCH.
12: No particle identification requirements are made
13: for the kaon from the decay $\Dz \to \Km \pip$.
14:
15: $\KS \to \pip\pim$ candidates are required to have an invariant mass
16: within 25\mevcc of the nominal \KS mass~\cite{pdg}. The opening angle between the
17: flight direction and the momentum vector of the \KS candidate is
18: required to be less than 200\mrad, and the transverse flight distance
19: from the primary event vertex must be greater than 2\,mm.
20:
21: Neutral pion candidates are formed from
22: pairs of photons in the EMC with energy above 30\mev,
23: an invariant mass within 20\mevcc\ of the nominal \piz\ mass,
24: and a summed energy greater than 200\mev.
25: A mass-constraint fit is then applied to these \piz\ candidates.
26: The \piz from \Dstptopiz decays (``soft'' \piz),
27: however, is required to have an invariant mass within
28: 35\mevcc\ of the nominal \piz\ mass and momentum in the \FourS frame
29: of $70 < p^* < 450\mevc$, with no requirement on the summed
30: photon energies.
31:
32: The decay modes of the \Dz and \Dp used in
33: this analysis were selected
34: by an optimization of \SsqovSpB based on Monte Carlo simulations,
35: where $S$ is the expected number of signal events and $B$ is the
36: expected number of background events.
37: The \Dz and \Dp modes used and their branching fractions are
38: summarized in Table~\ref{dzbr}. \Dz (\Dp) meson candidates are required to
39: have an invariant mass within 20\mevcc of the nominal \Dz (\Dp) mass.
40:
41: \begin{table}[ht]
42: \caption{\label{dzbr} \Dz and \Dp decay modes and branching
43: fractions~\cite{pdg}. The branching fraction for $\KS \to \pipi$ is
44: included for modes containing a \KS.}
45: \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{lc}
46: \\ \hline \hline
47: Decay Mode & Branching Fraction (\%) \\[0.5ex]
48: \hline
49: $\Dz \to \Km \pip$ & $3.83 \pm 0.09$ \\
50: $\Dz \to \Km \pip \piz$ & $13.9 \pm 0.9$ \\
51: $\Dz \to \Km \pip \pip \pim$ & $7.49 \pm 0.31$ \\
52: $\Dz \to \KS \pip \pim$ & $1.85 \pm 0.14$ \\
53: \hline
54: Total \Dz Branching Fraction & 27.1 \\
55: \hline \hline
56: Decay Mode & Branching Fraction (\%) \\[0.5ex]
57: \hline
58: $\Dp \to \Km \pip \pip$ & $9.0 \pm 0.6$ \\
59: $\Dp \to \KS \pip$ & $0.99 \pm 0.09$ \\
60: $\Dp \to \Km \Kp \pip$ & $0.87 \pm 0.07$ \\
61: \hline
62: Total \Dp Branching Fraction & 10.9 \\
63: \hline \hline
64: \end{tabular} \end{center}
65: \end{table}
66:
67: The \Dstarp mesons
68: are reconstructed in their decays \Dstptopip and \Dstptopiz.
69: We include for this analysis the decay combinations \DstDst decaying
70: to (\Dzpip, \Dzpim) or (\Dzpip, \Dmpiz), but not (\Dppiz,\Dmpiz) due to
71: the smaller branching fraction and larger expected backgrounds.
72: The branching fractions for these modes are summarized in Table \ref{dstarbr}.
73: \Dz and \Dp candidates are subjected to a mass-constraint fit and
74: then combined with soft pion candidates. A vertex fit is performed
75: that includes the position of the beam spot to improve the angular
76: resolution of the soft pion.
77:
78: \begin{table}[t]
79: \caption{\label{dstarbr}\Dstar and \Dstarz decay modes and branching fractions~\cite{pdg}.
80: \Dstarz is used for the \Bpmtodstdstz analysis described in Section~\ref{sec:Observation}.}
81:
82:
83: \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{lcc}
84: \hline \hline
85: Particle & Decay Mode & Branching Fraction (\%) \\[0.5ex]
86: \hline
87: \Dstarp & \Dstptopip & $67.7 \pm 0.5$ \\
88: & \Dstptopiz & $30.7 \pm 0.5$ \\
89: Total Visible \Dstarp Branching Fraction & & 98.4 \\
90: \hline \hline
91: \Dstarz & \Dstztopiz & $61.9 \pm 2.9$ \\
92: & \Dstztogam & $38.1 \pm 2.9$ \\
93: Total \Dstarz Branching Fraction & & 100.0 \\
94: %\hline
95: %\Dstarz & \Dstztopiz & $61.9 \pm 2.9$ \\
96: \hline \hline
97: \end{tabular} \end{center}
98: \end{table}
99:
100: To select \Bz candidates with well reconstructed \Dstar and $D$
101: mesons, we construct a $\chi^2$ that includes all measured \Dstar
102: and $D$ masses:
103:
104: \begin{eqnarray*}
105: \chisqM =&
106: \left(\displaystyle \frac{m_D - m_{D_{PDG}}}{\sigma_{m_D}}\right)^2
107: + \left(\displaystyle \frac{m_{\Db} - m_{\Db_{PDG}}}{\sigma_{m_{\Db}}}\right)^2 \\
108: &\quad + \left(\displaystyle\frac{\Delta m_{D^{*}} - \Delta
109: m_{\Dstar_{PDG}}}{\sigma_{\Delta m_{D^{*}}}}\right)^2
110: + \left(\displaystyle\frac{\Delta m_{\overline{D}^*} - \Delta
111: m_{\Dstar_{PDG}}}{\sigma_{\Delta m_{D^{*}}}}\right)^2
112: \end{eqnarray*}
113: where the subscript $PDG$ refers to the nominal value, and $\Delta m_{D^{*}}$
114: is the $\Dstar - D$ mass difference. For $\sigma_{m_D}$ we use
115: values computed for each $D$ candidate, while for $\sigma_{\Delta m_{D^{*}}}$
116: we use fixed values of 0.83\mevcc for \Dstptopip and 1.18\mevcc
117: for \Dstptopiz. A requirement that $\chisqM < 20$ is applied to all \Bz
118: candidates. In events with more than one \Bz candidate, we choose the
119: candidate with the lowest value of \chisqM.
120:
121: A $B$ meson candidate is characterized by two kinematic variables. We
122: use the energy-substituted mass, \mes, defined as
123: $$\mes \equiv \sqrt{{E_{Beam}^{*2}} - {p_B^*}^2}$$
124: and the difference of the $B$ candidate's energy from the beam energy,
125: \DeltaEStd,
126: $$\DeltaEStd \equiv E_{B}^* - E_{Beam}^* $$
127: where $E_{B}^*$ ($p_B^*$) are the energy (momentum) of the \B\ candidate
128: in the center-of-mass frame and $E_{Beam}^*$ is one-half of the
129: center-of-mass energy.
130: The signal region in the \DeltaEStd {\it vs.} \mes plane is defined to be
131: $|\DeltaEStd| < 25\mev$ and $5.273 < \mes < 5.285\gevcc$.
132: The width of this region corresponds to approximately $\pm 2.5\sigma$
133: in both \DeltaEStd and \mes.
134:
135: These values on \chisqM, \mes, and \DeltaEStd were chosen based on
136: an optimization of $S^2/(S+B)$, where S is the expected number
137: of signal events and B is the expected number of background events.
138: The optimization process was done entirely with
139: samples of signal and generic \BB and \ccbar Monte Carlo where the
140: background distribution is taken from a sideband region, defined as
141: $$ |\DeltaEStd| < \DelEHiSide $$
142: $$ \mesLowSide < \mes < \mesMidSide $$
143: and
144: $$ \DelELowSide < |\DeltaEStd| < \DelEHiSide $$
145: $$ 5.26 < \mes < \mesHiSide $$
146: These values were chosen based on a maximization of $S^2/(S+B)$ with a tendency
147: towards looser cut values to reduce any possible systematic error incurred
148: due to the differences in the reconstructed mass resolutions between
149: data and Monte Carlo.
150:
151: To determine the number of signal events in the signal
152: region, we must estimate the expected contribution from background.
153: This is done by scaling the number of events seen in the data sideband
154: (defined above) with a scaling factor which gives a measure of the
155: relative areas of the signal region to the sideband region.
156: We parameterize the shape of the background in the \DeltaEStd {\it vs.}
157: \mes plane as the product of an ARGUS
158: function~\cite{ref:argus} in \mes and a first-order polynomial in \DeltaEStd.
159: Based on this parameterization we estimate that the ratio
160: of the number of background events in the signal region
161: to the number in the sideband region is
162: $(\fsideVal \pm \fsideErr)\times 10^{-2}$.
163: The uncertainty is derived from the observed variation of this ratio
164: under alternative assumptions
165: for the background shape in \mes\ and \DeltaEStd.
166:
167: Figure~\ref{fig:mesdeltae} shows the events in the \DeltaEStd {\it vs.}
168: \mes plane after all selection criteria have been applied. The small
169: box in the figure indicates the signal region defined above, and the
170: sideband is the entire plane excluding the region bounded by the
171: larger box outside the signal region. There are a total of 38 events
172: located in the signal region, with 363 events in the sideband region.
173: The latter, together with the effective ratio of areas of the signal
174: region to the sideband region, implies an expected number of
175: background events in the signal region of $6.24 \pm 0.33(stat) \pm
176: 0.36 (syst)$.
177: The quoted systematic
178: uncertainty comes from the
179: background shape variation discussed previously. Figure~\ref{fig:mes}
180: shows a projection of the data on the \mes axis after requiring
181: $|\DeltaEStd| < 25\mev$.
182:
183: \begin{figure}[!htb]
184: \begin{center}
185: \includegraphics[height=7cm]{offplot_data_mESdeltaE.eps}
186: \put(-105,185){{\large \bf PRELIMINARY}}
187: \caption{Distribution of \Bztodstdst\ events in the \DeltaEStd {\it vs.} \mes plane.
188: The small box indicates the signal region, while the sideband region
189: is everything outside the larger box.
190: }
191: \label{fig:mesdeltae}
192:
193: \end{center}
194: \end{figure}
195:
196: \begin{figure}[!htb]
197: \begin{center}
198: \includegraphics[height=7cm]{offplot_data_mES.eps}
199: \put(-105,200){{\large \bf PRELIMINARY}}
200: \caption{Distribution of \Bztodstdst\ events in \mes plane with a cut of $|\DeltaEStd|
201: < 25\,\mev$ applied. The curve represents a fit to the distribution
202: of the sum of a Gaussian to model the signal and an ARGUS
203: function~\cite{ref:argus} to model the background shape.
204: }
205: \label{fig:mes}
206: \end{center}
207: \end{figure}
208:
209: We use a detailed Monte Carlo simulation of the \babar\ detector to
210: determine the efficiency for reconstructing the signal. This,
211: together with the total number of \BB pairs produced during data
212: collection, allows us to determine a preliminary branching fraction for
213: \Bztodstdst to be
214:
215: $$\BRbztodstdst$$
216:
217: The dominant systematic uncertainty in this measurement comes from our
218: level of understanding of the charged particle tracking efficiency (9.4\%).
219: The high charged particle multiplicity in this decay mode makes this
220: measurement particularly sensitive to tracking efficiency. Systematic errors
221: were assigned on a per track basis for $\pi$, $K$ and slow $\pi$,
222: and were added linearly due to large correlations. The imprecisely
223: known partial-wave content of the \Bztodstdst\ final state
224: is another source of systematic biases.
225: Monte Carlo events in each of the two extremes of transversity amplitudes
226: $(A_{//},\sqrt{2}A_{0},A_{\perp})=(1.,0.,0.)$ and $(0.,1.,0.)$
227: were generated and reconstructed~\cite{transamplitudes}.
228: Although both mixtures correspond to $R_t=0$, the resulting $p_t$
229: distributions of the slow pion
230: represent the two extreme cases of possible $p_t$ distributions.
231: The change in the reconstruction efficiency of
232: these final angular states is quoted as systematic error (6.6\%).
233: Other significant systematic biases arise due to the
234: uncertainties on the ${\Dstar}^+$, \Dz and
235: $D^+$ branching fractions (5.6\%) and the differences in mass
236: resolutions between Monte Carlo and data (4.1\%).
237: Possible contributions from peaking backgrounds was found to
238: be negligable.The total systematic uncertainty from all sources is 14.5\%.
239:
240:
241:
242:
243:
244:
245:
246:
247:
248: