1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: \section{Analysis Method}
3: \label{sec:Analysis}
4:
5: The \ppK\ final state can be represented in a Dalitz plot \cite{Dalitz}.
6: The many resonant $B$ decay modes form bands in such a plot. These
7: resonances often overlap and interfere so the whole Dalitz plot should
8: be considered before assigning a branching fraction to a specific mode.
9: This analysis divides the Dalitz plot into regions, each of which is expected
10: to be dominated by a particular contribution. First the yields in
11: these regions are determined, using a maximum--likelihood fit, with no
12: assumption on the form of the intermediate resonances. We then interpret
13: these yields as branching fractions, assuming a model for the
14: contributions to the Dalitz plot. We also consider the uncertainty of
15: the model and the effect of overlap and interference between these
16: contributions.
17:
18: \subsection{Dalitz Plot Regions}
19:
20: The \ppK\ Dalitz plot is divided into eight regions.
21: Each region is designed to contain a large proportion of the decays of the
22: expected dominant resonance (if any) and to
23: minimize contributions from neighboring modes.
24: The definitions of the regions are given in
25: Table \ref{tab:regions} and they are illustrated in
26: Figure \ref{fig:regions}.
27:
28: Regions I, II and III are characterized by narrow bands in the invariant
29: mass of the $K^+\pi^-$ system, $m_{K\pi}$. Region I is expected to be
30: dominated by the
31: $K^{*0}(892)$. The primary resonance contribution to region II, labeled
32: ``higher $K^{*0}$'', is not currently known.
33: The areas where these bands cross the $\pi\pi$ resonances ($\rho
34: (770), \fz$, ``higher $f$'' and $\chi_{c0}$) are excluded to limit
35: biases from interference. Region III is dominated by the production
36: of $\Dzb \pi^+$. The relatively high branching fraction for this mode
37: allows it to be used to correct for differences between data and
38: simulated events and evaluate systematic uncertainties.
39:
40: Regions IV, V and VI are characterized by narrow bands in the $\pi^+\pi^-$ invariant mass, $m_{\pi\pi}$.
41: Regions IV and V are expected to be dominated by the $\rho (770)$ and \fz,
42: respectively.
43: The resonance contributions to region VI (``higher $f$'') are not well
44: defined.
45: The area where these regions would intersect the \Dzb\ band, $1.8<m_{K\pi}<1.9\gevcc$, is excluded from regions IV, V and VI.
46: The area where the other $K\pi$ resonances cross is not excluded from regions IV, V
47: and VI as the overall interference uncertainty
48: on $\calB(\BpmfzK)$ and $\calB(\BpmRhoK)$ was estimated to be smaller
49: when this area is excluded.
50: Region VII, denoted ``high mass'', could contain higher charmless and charmonium
51: resonances as well as a non--resonant contribution.
52:
53: Region VIII is dominated by \ChiczK.
54: A lower limit on $m_{K\pi}$ ensures that this region is free of
55: contamination from resonances in regions I, II and III. The area
56: $3.355<m_{\pi\pi}<3.475\gevcc$ is removed from all other regions to
57: avoid this charmonium background.
58:
59:
60: \input{DalitzTable.tex}
61:
62: \input{DalitzPlot.tex}
63:
64: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------
65: \subsection{Candidate Selection}
66: \label{sec:Selection}
67:
68: \B\ candidates are reconstructed from charged tracks that have at least 12
69: hits in the DCH, a maximum momentum of 10~\gevc, a minimum transverse
70: momentum of 100~\mevc, and originate from the beam--spot. The \B\ candidates
71: are formed from three--charged--track combinations and particle
72: identification selections are applied. Mass hypotheses are assigned
73: accordingly and the \B\ candidates' energies and momenta are required to
74: satisfy appropriate kinematic constraints.
75:
76: Two kinematic variables are defined that are included in the
77: maximum--likelihood fit described later. The first of these is the
78: beam--energy--substituted mass $\mes = \sqrt{(E^2_b - \pvec^2_B)}$. The
79: energy of the \B\ candidate is defined as $E_b = (\half s + \pvec_0
80: \cdot \pvec_B)/E_0$, where $\sqrt{s}$ and $E_0$ are the total energies
81: of the \epem\ system in the center--of--mass (CM) and laboratory frames,
82: respectively, and $\pvec_0$ and $\pvec_B$ are the three--momenta in the
83: laboratory frame of the \epem\ system and the \B\ candidate,
84: respectively. The $\mes$ value should be close to the nominal \B\ mass
85: for signal events.
86:
87: The second variable used is the energy difference, $\DE$, between the
88: energy in the CM of the reconstructed \B\ candidate, $E_B^*$, and the
89: beam energy, $\DE = E_B^* - \sqrt{s}/2$. \DE\ is dependent on the mass
90: hypotheses of the tracks. To each track a mass is assigned appropriate
91: for the particle identification selections applied.
92: For signal events, \DE\ should be centered at zero.
93:
94:
95: To identify charged pions and kaons, we use \dedx information from the
96: SVT and DCH for tracks with momenta below 700~\mevc,
97: the number of photons measured by the DIRC for tracks with momenta
98: above 500~\mevc, and the Cherenkov angle for tracks with momenta
99: above 700~\mevc. Kaons are selected with requirements on the product of
100: likelihood ratios determined from these measurements and pions are
101: required to fail the kaon selection. The average selection
102: efficiency for kaons in our final state that have passed the tracking
103: requirements is $\sim 80\%$ including geometrical acceptance, while the
104: misidentification probability of pions as kaons is below 5\% at all
105: momenta. The kaon veto on pions in our final state is $\sim 98\%$
106: efficient. We veto electron candidates by requiring that they fail a
107: selection based on information from \dedx, shower shapes in the EMC and
108: the ratio of the shower energy and track momentum. The probability of
109: misidentifying electrons as pions is approximately 5\%, while the
110: probability of misidentifying pions as electrons is $\sim 0.2\%$.
111:
112:
113: \subsection{Background Suppression and Characterization}
114: \label{sec:suppression}
115:
116: The dominant background in this analysis is from light quark and charm
117: continuum production. This background is suppressed by imposing
118: requirements on topological event shape variables, and the remainder is
119: characterized and parameterized in the maximum--likelihood fits used to
120: extract the signal yield from the data. There are also backgrounds from
121: $B$ decays which, although contributing far fewer events, can be
122: more difficult to separate from the signal and must also be
123: parameterized in the fit, which is described in detail later.
124:
125: The event shape variables used to suppress continuum background are calculated in the $\FourS$ rest frame.
126: The first is the cosine of the angle $\theta_T$ between the thrust axis
127: of the selected $B$ candidate and the thrust
128: axis of the rest of the event, {\em i.e.}, of all charged tracks and neutral
129: particles not in the $B$ meson candidate. For continuum backgrounds,
130: the directions of the two axes tend to be aligned because the
131: daughters of the reconstructed candidate generally lie along the dijet
132: axis of such events so the distribution of $\cos\theta_T$
133: is strongly peaked towards $\pm 1$. For $B$ events, however, the
134: distribution is isotropic because the decay products from the two
135: $B$ mesons are independent of each other and the \B\
136: mesons have very low momenta in the $\FourS$ rest frame.
137: To improve the signal--to--background ratio, the criterion
138: $|\cos\theta_T| < 0.9$ is applied to all regions except
139: region III (\Dzb). This selection removes about 60\% of the
140: continuum background while retaining over 90\% of the signal. The
141: $\cos\theta_T$ requirement in the \Dzb\ region is varied to estimate
142: a systematic uncertainty on the efficiency of this criterion in the
143: other regions.
144:
145: We also make use of a Fisher discriminant~\cite{Fisher},
146: using a linear combination of the angle between the \B\ candidate
147: momentum and the beam direction; the angle between the \B\ candidate
148: thrust axis and the beam direction; and the energy flow of the rest of
149: the event into each of 9 independent concentric $10^{\circ}$ cones around the
150: thrust axis of the reconstructed $B$ \cite{CLEOCones}.
151: The variables and weights of the Fisher discriminant were chosen to
152: optimize the separation of our final state and the continuum background
153: after the $\cos\theta_T$ criterion has been applied. The resulting
154: Fisher variable, ${\cal{F}}$, is used in the maximum--likelihood fit.
155:
156: The $B$ decay backgrounds are from four main sources: combinatorial
157: background from three unrelated tracks; three-- and four-body $B\ra D$
158: decays; charmless four--body decays with a missing track and
159: three--body decays with one or more particles misidentified. These
160: backgrounds are reduced by the particle identification selections and,
161: where possible, removed by vetoing regions of the invariant--mass
162: spectra of pairs of the final--state particles. The influence of
163: remaining specific backgrounds on the signal yield obtained from the
164: maximum--likelihood fit was established using test fits with
165: Monte--Carlo simulated data (MC) with the expected number of signal,
166: continuum background and $B$ background events.
167: Background modes that significantly contributed to the signal
168: yields in these tests are parameterized for the final fit to the data.
169: However, if the background contributes only a few events, it is instead
170: subtracted from the signal yield.
171:
172: The combinatorial background from $B$ decays is less than 2\% of the
173: continuum background. The shape of its \DE\ and \mes\ distributions are
174: similar to the continuum background and these events were found to be
175: fitted as such in the test fits so no additional parameterisation was
176: required.
177:
178: The particle--misidentification background has several sources. $B^+
179: \to \jpsi K^+$ and $B^+ \to \Psi (2S) K^+$ decays which contribute
180: through muon/pion misidentification are removed completely by
181: excluding events with $2.97<m_{\pi\pi}<3.17\gevcc$ or
182: $3.56<m_{\pi\pi}<3.76\gevcc$. This also excludes other \B\ backgrounds
183: containing \jpsi\ or $\Psi (2S)$, such as $B^+ \to \jpsi K^{*+}$.
184: The contributions from $B^+\ra K^+e^+e^-$
185: are negligible due to the electron veto. Non--resonant $B^+\ra
186: K^+\mu^+\mu^-$ decays contribute with $18\pm 7$ events uniformly
187: distributed over the Dalitz plot, using the branching fraction from
188: \cite{KllConf}. Events are expected only in regions II, VI and VII where
189: they are subtracted from the yields. Contributions from the $B^+\ra
190: \pi^+\pi^-\pi^+$ and $B^+\ra K^+K^-\pi^+$ final states may affect
191: regions I, II, IV, VI and VII. The channels concerned have not yet been
192: observed and so
193: an additional negative uncertainty is added to the signal yield equal to
194: the number of events expected in the fit corresponding to the upper
195: limit measured in \cite{JohnConf}. This is 20 events for region VII and
196: 6 events or fewer for all other regions.
197:
198: The decay $\BpmDzpi, \Dzb \ra \Kp\pim\piz$ contributes to the measured
199: signal yield when not parameterized in the test fits in regions II and
200: VII, while $B^+ \rightarrow \Dzb \rho^+(770)$ with $\Dzb \rightarrow K^+
201: \pi^-$ and $\rho^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^0$ has a significant effect on
202: the test fits in region VII. These modes are therefore parameterized in
203: the final fit for the affected regions.
204:
205: The decay $B^+ \rightarrow \eta' K^+ $ with $\eta' \rightarrow \rho^0
206: (770) \gamma$, $ \rho^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ is the only charmless channel
207: with a four--body final state found to contribute significantly. The
208: expected number of events is 31 and 12 in regions IV and V, respectively,
209: using the branching ratio measured in \cite{etapPRL}. If not
210: parameterized, these contribute to the signal yields in the test fits.
211: This mode is therefore included in the final fit for those regions.
212:
213:
214: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------
215: \subsection{The Maximum--Likelihood Fit}
216: \label{sec:FitVariables}
217:
218: We form Probability Density Functions (PDFs) for the 3 variables \mes,
219: \DE\ and $\mathcal{F}$ in each region. For each hypothesis $l$ (signal,
220: continuum background, and if applicable, $B$ background) these three
221: PDFs form a product $P_{l}$, which models that particular hypothesis.
222: These products are functions of the variables $\vec{x}$ and parameters
223: $\vec{\alpha}$ of the PDFs. The likelihood for an event $j$ is formed
224: by summing the products over the $M$ hypotheses, with each product
225: weighted by the number of events in that hypothesis $n_l$. A product
226: over the $N$ events in the data sample of the per--event likelihoods
227: along with a Poisson factor forms the total likelihood function
228: $\mathcal{L}$, written in equation~(\ref{eq:Likelihood}).
229:
230: \begin{equation}
231: \label{eq:Likelihood}
232: \mbox{$\mathcal{L}$} \,=\, \exp\left(-\sum_{i=1}^{M} n_i\right)\, \prod_{j=1}^N
233: \,\left(\sum_{l=1}^M n_{l} \, P_{l}(\vec{\alpha},\vec{x_j})\right).
234: \end{equation}
235:
236: The fit is
237: performed in two stages for each region. First, one--dimensional fits
238: are performed on the particular data samples detailed below in order to
239: determine the PDF parameters. Then the multivariate fit is performed on
240: the final data samples to extract the signal and continuum background
241: yields.
242:
243: The signal PDF parameters, particularly the width of the \DE\
244: distribution, vary across the Dalitz plane. Therefore, they are found
245: for each region separately using Monte--Carlo--simulated signal of the
246: expected dominant resonance where available and, otherwise, non--resonant \ppK\
247: selected for that region.
248: Some differences have been observed between MC and data in the distributions
249: of the \mes, \DE\ and $\mathcal{F}$ variables.
250: These differences are measured in the high--statistics $B^+\ra\Dzb\pip$
251: dominated region and are used to correct all regions where all the signal
252: PDF parameters are fixed in the final fits.
253: The \mes\ PDF is a Crystal Ball function\cite{CBall}, the \DE\ PDF
254: is two Gaussians with equal
255: means and the $\cal{F}$ PDF is a ``bifurcated'' Gaussian (a Gaussian
256: with different widths above and below the mean).
257:
258: The background PDF parameters are also found to vary across the Dalitz
259: plane and so are determined individually for each region. The $\cal{F}$
260: PDF is a bifurcated Gaussian where the parameters are determined using
261: data sidebands defined by $0.1 < |\DE | <0.35 \gev$ except in
262: regions II and VII where, due to $B$ background, only the positive \DE\
263: sideband is used. The \mes\ variable is parameterized by the Argus threshold
264: function~\cite{ref:Argus} with two parameters: a fixed kinematic
265: endpoint and a shape parameter which is left to float
266: in the final fits. The \DE\ PDF is a first--order polynomial where the
267: gradient is also left to float in the final fits.
268:
269:
270:
271:
272:
273:
274:
275:
276:
277:
278:
279:
280:
281:
282:
283:
284:
285: