1: \section{Two-dimensional \mx-\Q\ analysis}
2: \label{sec:mxq2}
3: The \mx\ analysis is systematically limited by the dependence on the
4: shape function. This can be overcome by selecting a phase space region where the
5: shape function effects are small, namely the region at large
6: \Q\ values~\cite{Bauer:2001yb}.
7: Therefore we find a trade-off between the statistical
8: and theoretical uncertainties by loosening the \mx\ cut and applying a
9: \Q\ one.
10: Moreover, since most of the theoretical uncertainties are due to the
11: extrapolation from a selected kinematic region to the full phase space,
12: measurements of partial branching fractions in different regions of phase space and their extrapolation to the
13: full phase space can serve as tests of the theoretical calculations and models.
14:
15:
16: In order to extract the partial charmless semileptonic branching ratio in a given region of the
17: \mx-\Q\ plane $\Delta \BR(\Bxulnu)$, we define as signal
18: the events with true values of the kinematic variables in the chosen
19: region, treating as background those that migrate from outside this region
20: because of the resolution.
21: This means that in applying Eq.~\ref{eq:ratioBR} we include
22: the \btoulnu\ events outside the signal region in $BG_u$ and the quoted efficiencies refer only to events
23: generated in the chosen (\mx-\Q) region. These efficiencies are computed on Monte Carlo, and therefore are based on
24: the DFN model. However, the associated theoretical uncertainty on the final result is small compared to the
25: extrapolation error to the full phase space. We divide the events into two-dimensional bins of \mx\ and \Q,
26: we fit the \mes\ distribution to extract the yield in each bin, and
27: we perform a two-dimensional binned fit of the entire \mx-\Q\ distribution in order to extract the signal and background
28: components. The result of the fit
29: is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mxq2fit}.
30: %
31: \begin{figure}
32: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=plots/q2profile.eps,width=16.cm}}
33: \caption{Distributions of \Q\ in bins of \mx. Points are data, the blue, light gray and yellow histograms
34: represent the fitted contributions from \btoulnu\ events with
35: true \mx$<1.7\gevcc$, \Q$>8\gevccsq$ , \btoulnu\
36: events not satisfying these requirements, and background events, respectively.
37: }
38: \label{fig:mxq2fit}
39: \end{figure}
40: %
41:
42: Fig.~\ref{fig:mxq2dbr}a and Table~\ref{tab:partial} show, for $\mx<1.7\gevcc$,
43: the partial branching fraction $\Delta \BR(\Bxulnu)$ as a function of the minimum \Q\ cut.
44:
45:
46:
47: \begin{table}[!b]
48: \begin{center}
49: \caption{Partial branching fraction measurements (in 10$^{-3}$ units) for
50: $\mx<1.7$ \gevcc and $\Q>\Q_{cut}$, as a function of $\Q_{cut}$.
51: The different sources of uncertainty (as described in \ref{sec:sys}) are also reported.}
52: \vspace{0.1in}
53: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
54: \hline
55: $\Q_{cut}>$ & $\Delta \BR(\Bxulnu)$ & $\sigma_{stat}$ & $\sigma_{det}$ & $\sigma_{breco}$ & $\sigma_{bkg}$ & $\sigma_{theo}$ & $\sigma_{ul\nu}$ & $\sigma_{MCstat}$ \\ \hline
56: 0 & 1.68 & 0.22 & 0.15 & 0.08 & 0.12 & -0.045 +0.035 & 0.137 & 0.08 \\
57: 2 & 1.52 & 0.20 & 0.16 & 0.07 & 0.11 & -0.028 +0.036 & 0.110 & 0.07 \\
58: 4 & 1.33 & 0.18 & 0.11 & 0.06 & 0.10 & -0.040 +0.026 & 0.116 & 0.06 \\
59: 6 & 1.10 & 0.16 & 0.14 & 0.05 & 0.08 & -0.022 +0.018 & 0.083 & 0.05 \\
60: 8 & 0.88 & 0.14 & 0.09 & 0.04 & 0.06 & -0.028 +0.009 & 0.053 & 0.05 \\
61: 10 & 0.55 & 0.11 & 0.03 & 0.02 & 0.04 & -0.006 +0.019 & 0.027 & 0.03 \\
62: 12 & 0.41 & 0.09 & 0.04 & 0.02 & 0.03 & -0.010 +0.000 & 0.033 & 0.03 \\
63: 14 & 0.21 & 0.06 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.02 & -0.012 +0.012 & 0.018 & 0.02 \\
64:
65: \hline
66: \end{tabular}
67: \label{tab:partial}
68: \end{center}
69: \end{table}
70:
71:
72: We convert the measured $\Delta \BR(\Bxulnu)$ into \Vub\ by
73: \begin{equation}
74: \label{eq:dbrvub}
75: |V_{ub}| = \sqrt{\frac{192 \pi^3}{\tau_B G_F^2 m_b^5}\frac{\Delta \BR(\Bxulnu)}{G}}
76: \end{equation}
77: where $\tau_B = 1.61 ps$ and $G$ is a theoretical parameter calculated in the BLL approach~\cite{Bauer:2001yb}.
78: The first factor under the square root is
79: 192$\pi^3/(\tau_B G_F^2 m_b^5)=0.00779$.
80: The measured \Vub\ as a function of the \Q\ cut is shown in
81: Fig.~\ref{fig:mxq2dbr}b for the acceptances computed by BLL and by
82: DFN. Note that, since the operator product expansion breaks down when going to low \Q, the BLL calculation is only possible for higher values of
83: \Q.
84:
85:
86: \begin{figure}
87: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=plots/pbf_theworks__s_12.eps,height=7cm}}
88: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=plots/vubpbf_theworks__s_12.eps,height=7cm}}
89: \begin{center}
90: \caption{
91: (a) Measured partial branching ratio for $\mx<1.7$ \gevcc and $\Q>\Q_{cut}$, as a function of $\Q_{cut}$.
92: The error bar is the sum in quadrature
93: of statistical, systematical and theoretical uncertainties.
94: (b) Measured value of \Vub for $\mx<1.7\gevcc$ as a function of the \Q\ cut
95: applied when using acceptances from DFN (open points) and BLL
96: (solid points). The error bars include the statistical, systematic and theoretical
97: uncertainties, added in quadrature.}
98: \label{fig:mxq2dbr}
99: \end{center}
100: \end{figure}
101:
102: The error on the acceptance as computed by BLL increases for tighter cuts on
103: \Q. For smaller values of \Q, the shape function effects increase.
104: In the signal region $\Q>8\gevccsq$, $\mx<1.7\gevcc$
105: we obtain:
106: \begin{equation}
107: \Delta \BR(\Bxulnu,\mx<1.7 \gevcc, \Q>8 \gevccsq) = (0.88 \pm 0.14 (\rm stat.) \pm 0.13 (\rm sys.) \pm 0.02 (\rm theo.)) \times 10^{-3}.
108: \label{mxq2res}
109: \end{equation}
110: To extract \Vub, we take $G$ as computed by BLL and rescale it to the
111: $b$-quark mass as measured by \babar\cite{Aubert:2004aw},
112: obtaining $G = 0.282 \pm 0.053$, corresponding to an acceptance $\epsilon_{BLL}=0.325\pm 0.061$.
113: Eq.~\ref{eq:dbrvub} yields
114: \begin{equation}
115: |V_{ub}| = (4.92 \pm 0.39 (\rm stat.) \pm 0.36 (\rm sys.) \pm 0.46 (\rm theo.)) \times 10^{-3}.
116: \end{equation}
117:
118: In the DFN model the calculated acceptance is $\epsilon = 0.337^{+0.037}_{-0.074}$
119: and by using Equation~\ref{eq:vubextr} we obtain
120: $\Vub= (4.85 \pm 0.39 (\rm stat.) \pm 0.36 (\rm sys.) $ $^{+0.54}_{-0.29} (\rm theo.)) \times 10^{-3}$, in
121: agreement with the extraction based on BLL, as well as with the result form the one-dimensional \mx\ fit.
122: Figure~\ref{fig:mxq2dbr} shows the measured values for \Vub\ as a function of the \Q\ cut for
123: $\mx<1.7$ \gevcc, showing good consistency between the different cuts and theoretical framework.
124: Checks were done also with a looser ($\mx<1.86$ \gevcc)
125: and a tighter ($\mx<1.5$ \gevcc)
126: cut on \mx, and they give consistent results.
127:
128: \section{Results based on Belle's estimate of the SF parameters}
129: \label{sec:belle}
130: We report here the results obtained with the SF parameters as estimated from the $b\ra s \gamma$ photon
131: energy spectrum measured
132: by Belle (see Sec.~\ref{sec:theosys}) and we reinterpret our results by using them in the \mx\ and \mx-\Q\ analyses.
133: The acceptance obtained for the DFN model is lower, and therefore
134: the charmless semileptonic branching fraction and \Vub\ are higher.
135: The theoretical systematics due to the shape function parameters is reduced, due to the
136: significantly better precision.
137:
138:
139: For the \mx\ analysis we get
140:
141: \begin{equation}
142: \rusl=(2.81\pm 0.32(\rm stat.)\pm 0.31(\rm sys.)^{+0.23}_{-0.21} (\rm theo.))\times 10^{-2}
143: \end{equation}
144:
145: which translates into
146:
147: \begin{equation}
148: \Vub=(5.22\pm 0.30(\rm stat.)\pm 0.31 (\rm sys.)^{+0.22}_{-0.20}(\rm SF)\pm
149: 0.25(\rm pert+1/mb^3))10^{-3}.
150: \end{equation}
151: \begin{figure}
152: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{plots/spec_976belle.eps} \hfill
153: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{plots/int_976belle.eps}
154: \caption[Unfolded \mx\ spectrum corrected for bias]{The unfolded spectrum
155: (left) and its cumulative distribution (right) as a function of \mx.
156: The spectrum and the cumulative distribution from MC with the Belle best fit $\lbarsf=
157: 0.66\gevcc$ and $\lonesf = -0.4\gevccsq$ is shown in green.
158: The orange and violet spectra and cumulative distributions correspond to the two extreme points in the
159: Belle ellipse (see Fig.~\ref{fig:ellipses}), $\lbarsf=
160: 0.600\gevcc$ and $\lbarsf=
161: 0.748\gevcc$ and to $\lonesf = -0.66(\gevcc)^2$ and $\lonesf =
162: -0.28(\gevcc)^2$, respectively.
163: In the left plot
164: black errors are only statistical, while the red ones always include systematics.}
165: \label{unf:result2}
166: \end{figure}
167:
168: As far as the unfolding is concerned,
169: Fig.~\ref{unf:result2} compares the measured spectra with the
170: distributions corresponding to the SF parameters measured by Belle.
171:
172: The partial branching fraction measurements as a function of the \Q\ cut obtained by the
173: \mx-\Q analysis are reported, for
174: \mx$<1.7$ \gevcc, in Table~\ref{pbfbelle}.
175:
176: \begin{table}[!b]
177: \begin{center}
178: \caption{BELLE ellipse: Partial branching fraction $\Delta\BR(\Bxulnu)$ measurements (in 10$^{-3}$ units)
179: for different \Q\ cuts. \mx\ is required to be less than 1.7\gevcc.
180: The different sources of uncertainties are also reported.}
181: \vspace{0.1in}
182: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
183: \hline
184: $\Q_{cut}>$ & $\Delta \BR(\Bxulnu)$ & $\sigma_{stat}$ & $\sigma_{det}$ & $\sigma_{breco}$ & $\sigma_{bkg}$ & $\sigma_{theo}$ & $\sigma_{ul\nu}$ & $\sigma_{MCstat}$ \\ \hline
185: 0 & 1.740 & 0.231 & 0.159 & 0.078 & 0.129 & -0.042 +0.026 & 0.158 & 0.078 \\
186: 2 & 1.584 & 0.205 & 0.165 & 0.071 & 0.117 & -0.037 +0.027 & 0.145 & 0.068 \\
187: 4 & 1.381 & 0.186 & 0.113 & 0.062 & 0.102 & -0.036 +0.026 & 0.140 & 0.061 \\
188: 6 & 1.135 & 0.161 & 0.144 & 0.051 & 0.084 & -0.025 +0.017 & 0.105 & 0.053 \\
189: 8 & 0.896 & 0.143 & 0.091 & 0.040 & 0.066 & -0.017 +0.012 & 0.064 & 0.047 \\
190: 10 & 0.566 & 0.113 & 0.026 & 0.025 & 0.042 & -0.006 +0.013 & 0.041 & 0.036 \\
191: 12 & 0.406 & 0.085 & 0.038 & 0.018 & 0.030 & -0.002 +0.003 & 0.034 & 0.026 \\
192: 14 & 0.207 & 0.059 & 0.014 & 0.009 & 0.015 & -0.007 +0.002 & 0.026 & 0.019 \\
193: \hline
194: \end{tabular}
195: \label{pbfbelle}
196: \end{center}
197: \end{table}
198:
199: The measurement of the partial branching fraction $\BR(\Bxulnu)$
200: in the region limited by
201: $\mx < 1.7 \gevcc, ~~~~ \Q>8 (\gevcc)^2$ is
202: \begin{eqnarray*}
203: \Delta\BR(\Bxulnu,\mx<1.7 \gevcc, \Q>8 \gevccsq)=(0.90 \pm 0.14(\rm stat.) \pm 0.14(\rm sys.)^{+0.01}_{-0.02}(\rm theo.))\times 10^{-3}.\\
204: \end{eqnarray*}
205:
206: By using $G = 0.282 \pm 0.053$ from BLL, we get
207: \begin{eqnarray*}
208: |V_{ub}| & = & (4.98 \pm 0.40(\rm stat.) \pm 0.39(\rm syst.) \pm 0.47(\rm theo.)) \times 10^{-3}. \\
209: \end{eqnarray*}
210: The DFN acceptance computed at \mx$<1.7$ \gevcc\ and \Q$>8$ (\gevcc)$^2$ with the Belle SF parameters is
211: $\epsilon = 0.300^{+0.023}_{-0.028}$. This gives in the DFN framework
212: $|V_{ub}| = (5.18 \pm 0.41_{stat} \pm 0.40_{syst} ~^{+0.25}_{-0.20~~~theo}) \times 10^{-3}$.
213:
214:
215: Figure~\ref{vubscanbelle} shows the results for \Vub as a function of the \Q\ cut for \mx$<1.7$ \gevcc, for both DFN and BLL. The
216: two models are still consistent within the present accuracies.
217: The stability of the result and the agreement between the two methods seems to indicate that OPE is still valid in this \Q\ range.
218: \begin{figure}[!t]
219: \begin{centering}
220: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=plots/bellevub.eps,height=7cm}}
221: \caption{BELLE ellipse: Values for $|$V$_{ub}|$ as a function of the \Q\ cut for \mx$<1.7$ \gevcc\ by taking
222: acceptances from Bauer, Ligeti and Luke (points) and De~Fazio-Neubert (squares). The error is the sum
223: in quadrature of the statistical, systematic and theoretical uncertainties.}
224: \label{vubscanbelle}
225: \end{centering}
226: \end{figure}
227:
228: