1: \section{ANALYSIS METHOD}
2: \label{sec:Analysis}
3:
4: The $U$ and $I$ coefficients and the $\Btopipipi$ event yield are
5: determined by a maximum-likelihood fit of the signal model to the
6: selected candidate events. Kinematic and event shape variables
7: exploiting the characteristic properties of the events are used
8: in the fit to discriminate signal from background. We limit the
9: size of the data sample that enters the fit by tightening the acceptance
10: requirements for the discriminant variables compared to similar analyses,
11: because the fit model with at least 17 physical parameters is rather involved.
12: With the same goal and because the modeling of the distribution of
13: the continuum events in the Dalitz plot is delicate, we remove the center
14: of the Dalitz plot from the analysis. This requirement does not affect
15: the signal.
16:
17: \subsection{EVENT SELECTION AND BACKGROUND SUPPRESSION}
18: \label{subsec:selection}
19:
20: We reconstruct $\Btopipipi$ candidates from pairs of
21: oppositely-charged tracks, forming a good quality vertex, and a
22: $\pi^0$ candidate.
23: %
24: We use information from the tracking system, EMC, and DIRC to
25: remove tracks for which the PID is consistent with the electron, kaon,
26: or proton hypotheses. In addition, we require that at least one track
27: has a signature in the IFR that is inconsistent with the muon
28: hypothesis.
29: %
30: The $\pi^0$ candidate mass must satisfy $0.11<m(\gamma\gamma)<0.16\gevcc$,
31: where each photon is required to have an energy greater than $50\mev$
32: in the laboratory frame (LAB) and to exhibit a lateral profile of energy
33: deposition in the EMC consistent with an electromagnetic shower.
34:
35: Two requirements are applied on the Dalitz plot. Firstly,
36: the invariant mass of the two tracks $m_0$
37: must be larger than $0.52\gevcc$. This rejects
38: about 80\% of the $B^0 \to \KS(\to\pipi) \pi^0$ background events, which due
39: to the long lifetime of the $\KS$ would require a dedicated $\dt$
40: treatment. This cut retains 98\% (100\%) of signal $B^0 \to \rho^0\pi^0$
41: ($B^0 \to \rho^\pm \pi^\mp$) events. Secondly, we remove the center
42: of the Dalitz plot by requiring that at least one of the three invariant
43: masses, $m_0$, $m_+$ or $m_-$, is lower than $1.5~\mathrm{GeV/c^2}$.
44: % The advantages of this last
45: % cut are twofold: first, it decreases strongly the correlation existing
46: % between the Dalitz plot and the Neural-Network (NN) used to discriminate
47: % between signal and continuum $e^+e^- \to q\bar{q} (q=u,d,s,c)$
48: % events -- see below for details on the NN. Then, it removes 12\%
49: % of continuum background in the sample selection without affecting
50: % the signal events, dominated by the $\rho(770)$ resonance and which
51: % heavily acculumate along the Dalitz plot borders.
52:
53: A $B$-meson candidate is characterized kinematically by the energy-substituted
54: mass $\mes=\lbrack{(\half s+\pvec_0\cdot\pvec_B)^2/E_0^2-\pvec_B^2}\rbrack^\half$
55: and energy difference $\de = E_B^*-\half\sqrt{s}$,
56: where $(E_B,\pvec_B)$ and $(E_0,\pvec_0)$ are the four-vectors
57: of the $B$-candidate and the initial electron-positron system,
58: respectively. The asterisk denotes the \FourS\ frame,
59: and $s$ is the square of the invariant mass of the electron-positron system.
60: We require $5.272 < \mes <5.288\gevcc$, which retains $81\%$
61: of the signal and $8\%$ of the continuum background events.
62: The $\de$ resolution
63: exhibits a dependence on the $\pi^0$ energy and therefore varies
64: across the Dalitz plot. We account for this effect by introducing
65: the transformed quantity $\deprime=(2\de - \demax - \demin)/(\demax - \demin)$,
66: with $\deminmax(\mpm)=c_{\pm}-\left(c_{\pm}\mp\bar c\right)(\mpm/\mpmMax)^2$,
67: where $\mpm$ monitors the $\piz$-energy dependence. We use the values
68: $\bar c = 0.045\gev$, $c_{-} = -0.140\gev$, $c_{+} = 0.080\gev$,
69: $\mpmMax = 5.0\gev$, and require $-1<\deprime<1$.
70: These settings have been obtained from Monte Carlo (MC) simulation and
71: are tuned to maximize the selection of correctly reconstructed over
72: misreconstructed signal events. The cut retains $75\%$ ($25\%$)
73: of the signal (continuum).
74:
75: Backgrounds arise primarily from random combinations in continuum events.
76: To enhance discrimination between signal and continuum, we
77: use a neural network (NN) to combine four discriminating variables:
78: the angles with respect to the beam axis of the $B$ momentum and $B$ thrust
79: axis in the \FourS\ frame, and the zeroth and second order monomials
80: $L_{0,2}$ of the energy flow about the $B$ thrust axis. The monomials
81: are defined by $ L_j = \sum_i p_i\times\left|\cos\theta_i\right|^j$,
82: where $\theta_i$ is the angle with respect to the $B$ thrust axis of
83: track or neutral cluster $i$, $p_i$ is its momentum, and the sum
84: excludes the $B$ candidate.
85: The NN is trained in the signal region with off-resonance data and
86: simulated signal events. The final sample of signal candidates
87: is selected with a cut on the NN output that retains $77\%$ ($8\%$)
88: of the signal (continuum).
89:
90: The time difference $\deltat$ is obtained from the measured distance between
91: the $z$ positions (along the beam direction) of the $\Bz_{\tpi}$ and
92: $\Bz_{\rm tag}$ decay vertices, and the boost $\beta\gamma=0.56$ of
93: the \epem\ system\footnote
94: {
95: $\deltat$ is defined as: $\deltat = \Delta z/\beta\gamma c$
96: }.
97: To determine the flavor of the $\Bz_{\rm tag}$
98: we use the tagging algorithm of Ref.~\cite{BabarS2b}.
99: This produces four mutually exclusive tagging categories. We also
100: retain untagged events in a fifth category to improve the efficiency
101: of the signal selection and because these events contribute to the
102: measurement of direct \CP violation. Events with multiple \B
103: candidates passing the full selection occur
104: in $16\%$ $(\rho^\pm\pi^\mp)$ and $9\%$ $(\rho^0\pi^0)$
105: of the cases. If the multiple candidates have different $\pi^0$'s,
106: we choose the candidate with the reconstructed $\pi^0$ mass closest
107: to the nominal one; if not, one candidate is selected at random.
108:
109: The signal efficiency determined from MC simulation is $24\%$ for
110: $B^0 \to \rho^\pm\pi^\mp$ and $B^0 \to \rho^0\pi^0$ events, and
111: $11\%$ for non-resonant $\Btopipipi$ events.
112:
113: Of the selected signal events, $22\%$ ($B^0 \to \rho^\pm\pi^\mp$),
114: $13\% $ ($B^0 \to \rho^0\pi^0$), and $6\%$ (non-resonant) are
115: misreconstructed, mostly due to combinatorial background from
116: low-momentum tracks and photons. They concentrate in the corners
117: of the Dalitz plot. The fraction of misreconstructed events strongly
118: varies across the tagging categories.
119:
120: \subsection{BACKGROUND FROM OTHER {\em B} DECAYS}
121:
122: We use MC-simulated events to study the background from other $B$
123: decays. The exclusive \B-background modes are grouped into eighteen
124: classes with similar kinematic and topological properties. More
125: than hundred decay channels have been considered of which thirty-six are
126: retained in the likelihood model. The most significant ones are
127: $B^+ \to \rho^+\rho^0$ with longitudinal polarization ($27 \pm 18$ events
128: expected), $B^+ \to \pi^+\rho^0$
129: ($48 \pm 6$), $B^+ \to \pi^0\rho^+$ ($43 \pm 7$), $B^0 \to \rho^+\rho^-$
130: with longitudinal polarization ($50 \pm 10$), $B^0 \to (a_1\pi)^0$
131: ($29 \pm 11$), $B^0 \to \rho^-K^+$ ($61 \pm 11$), and $B^0 \to$~higher
132: kaon resonances ($6 \pm 1$). The charmed modes
133: $B^0 \to D^- (\to \pi^-\pi^0) \pi^+$ and $B^0 \to \Dzb (\to \pi^+\pi^-) \pi^0$
134: contribute to the selected data sample and are considered
135: in individual classes. They do not interfere with the signal
136: due to the long $D$ lifetime. We also assign classes to the modes
137: $B^0 \rar \Dzb(\rar K^+\pi^-)\pi^0$ and $B^0 \rar J/\psi(\rar\ell^+\ell^-)\pi^0$.
138: In total we expect $49\pm15$ exclusive $b\to c$ events.
139: Two additional classes account for inclusive neutral and charged
140: $b\to c$ decays, where we expect $82 \pm 6$ and $181 \pm 9$ events,
141: respectively.
142:
143: %
144: % ============================ MAXIMUM-LIKELIHOOD FIT =============================
145: %
146:
147: \subsection{THE MAXIMUM-LIKELIHOOD FIT}
148: \label{subsec:ML}
149:
150: We perform an unbinned extended maximum-likelihood fit to extract
151: the inclusive $\Btopipipi$ event yield and the $U$ and $I$ coefficients
152: defined in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:firstObs})--(\ref{eq:lastObs}).
153: The fit uses the variables $\mes$, $\deprime$, the NN output, and the
154: Dalitz plot to discriminate signal from background. The
155: $\dt$ measurement allows to determine mixing-induced \CP violation
156: and provides additional continuum-background rejection.
157:
158: The selected on-resonance data sample is assumed to consist of signal,
159: continuum-background and \B-background components, separated by the
160: flavor and tagging category of the tag side \B decay.
161: The signal likelihood consists of the sum of a correctly
162: reconstructed (``truth-matched'', TM) component and a misreconstructed
163: (``self-cross-feed'', SCF) component.
164:
165: The probability density function (PDF) ${\cal P}_i^\cat$ for an
166: event $i$ in tagging category $\cat$ is the sum of the probability densities
167: of all components, namely
168: %
169: \beqn
170: \label{eq:theLikelihood}
171: {\cal P}_i^\cat
172: &\equiv&
173: N_{\tpi} f^\cat_{\tpi}
174: \left[ (1-\fscfave^\cat){\cal P}_{\tpi-\TM,i}^\cat +
175: \fscfave^\cat{\cal P}_{\tpi-\SCF,i}^\cat
176: \right]
177: \nonumber\\[0.3cm]
178: &&
179: +\; N^\cat_{q\bar q}\frac{1}{2}
180: \left(1 + \Qtagi\Atagqq\right){\cal P}_{q\bar q,i}^\cat
181: \nonumber \\[0.3cm]
182: &&
183: +\; \sum_{j=1}^{N^{B^+}_{\rm class}}
184: N_{B^+j} f^\cat_{B^+j}
185: \frac{1}{2}\left(1 + \Qtagi \Atagj\right){\cal P}_{B^+,ij}^\cat
186: \nonumber \\[0.3cm]
187: &&
188: +\; \sum_{j=1}^{N^{B^0}_{\rm class}}
189: N_{B^0j} f^\cat_{B^0j}
190: {\cal P}_{B^0,ij}^\cat~,
191: \eeqn
192: where:
193: $N_{\tpi}$ is the total number of $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ signal events
194: the data sample;
195: %
196: $f^\cat_{\tpi}$ is the fraction of signal events that are
197: tagged in category $\cat$;
198: %
199: $\fscfave^\cat$ is the fraction of SCF events in tagging category $\cat$,
200: averaged over the Dalitz plot;
201: %
202: ${\cal P}_{\tpi-\TM,i}^\cat$ and ${\cal P}_{\tpi-\SCF,i}^\cat$
203: are the products of PDFs of the discriminating variables used
204: in tagging category $\cat$ for TM and SCF
205: events, respectively;
206: %
207: $N^\cat_{q\bar q}$ is the number of continuum events that are
208: tagged in category $\cat$;
209: %
210: $\Qtagi$ is the tag flavor of the event, defined to be
211: $+1$ for a $\Bz_{\rm tag}$ and $-1$ for a $\Bzb_{\rm tag}$;
212: %
213: $\Atagqq$ parameterizes possible tag asymmetry in continuum events;
214: %
215: ${\cal P}_{q\bar q,i}^\cat$ is the continuum PDF for tagging
216: category $\cat$;
217: %
218: $N^{B^+}_{\rm class}$ ($N^{B^0}_{\rm class}$) is the number of
219: charged (neutral) $B$-related background classes considered in the fit;
220: %
221: $N_{B^+j}$ ($N_{B^0j}$) is the number of expected events in
222: the charged (neutral) $B$-background class $j$;
223: %
224: $f^\cat_{B^+j}$ ($f^\cat_{B^0j}$) is the fraction of
225: charged (neutral) $B$-background events of class $j$
226: that are tagged in category $\cat$;
227: %
228: $\Atagj$ describes a possible tag asymmetry in the charged-$B$ background
229: class $j$;
230: correlations between the tag and the position in the Dalitz plot
231: (the ``charge'') are absorbed in tag-flavor-dependent
232: Dalitz plot PDFs that are used for charged-\B and continuum
233: background;
234: %
235: ${\cal P}_{B^+,ij}^\cat$ is the $B^+$-background PDF for tagging
236: category $\cat$ and class $j$;
237: %
238: finally, ${\cal P}_{B^0,ij}^\cat$ is the neutral-$B$-background
239: PDF for tagging category $\cat$ and class $j$.
240: %
241:
242: The PDFs ${\cal P}_{X}^{\cat}$ are the product of the four PDFs of the
243: discriminating variables,
244: $x_1 = m_{ES}$, $x_2 = \deprime$, $x_3 = {\rm NN output}$, and the triplet
245: $x_4 = \{\mprime, \thetaprime, \deltat\}$:
246: % ($m_{ES}$, $\Delta E$, the NN output,
247: %\{the Dalitz plot and $\Delta t$\}, $x_k$, $k=1,\dots,4$:
248: \beq
249: \label{eq:likVars}
250: {\cal P}_{X,i(j)}^{\cat} \;\equiv\;
251: \prod_{k=1}^4 P_{X,i(j)}^\cat(x_k)~.
252: \eeq
253: The extended likelihood over all tagging categories is given by
254: %
255: \beq
256: {\cal L} \;\equiv\;
257: \prod_{\cat=1}^{5} e^{-\overline N^\cat}\,
258: \prod_{i}^{N^\cat} {\cal P}_{i}^\cat~,
259: \eeq
260: %
261: where $\overline N^\cat$ is the total number of events expected in category
262: $\cat$.
263:
264: A total of 39 parameters, including the inclusive signal yield and the
265: parameters from Eq.~(\ref{eq:dt}), are varied in the fit.
266:
267:
268: \subsubsection{\boldmath THE $\dt$ AND DALITZ PLOT PDFS}
269:
270: \begin{figure}[t]
271: \centerline{\epsfxsize8.2cm\epsffile{figures/effsquareall.eps}
272: \epsfxsize8.2cm\epsffile{figures/effsquarescf.eps}}
273: \vspace{-0.4cm}
274: \caption[.]{\label{fig:effscfDP}
275: Selection efficiency of $\Btopipipi$ events (left)
276: and fraction of misreconstructed events (right)
277: in the (symmetrized) square Dalitz plot for
278: MC-simulated events.}
279: \end{figure}
280:
281: {\bf Signal Parameterization}.
282: The Dalitz plot PDFs require as input the Dalitz plot-dependent
283: relative selection efficiency, $\e=\e(\mprime,\thetaprime)$,
284: and SCF fraction, $\fscf=\fscf(\mprime,\thetaprime)$.
285: Both quantities are taken from MC simulation. They are
286: given in Fig.~\ref{fig:effscfDP} (left plot for $\e$ and right
287: plot for $\fscf$), where the symmetry of the Dalitz plot has been
288: used to fold the upper $\thetaprime$ half into the lower one.
289: Away from the Dalitz plot corners the efficiency is uniform, while it
290: decreases when approaching the corners, where one out of the
291: three bodies in the final state is close to rest so that the
292: acceptance requirements on the particle reconstruction become incisive.
293: Combinatorial backgrounds and hence SCF fractions are large in the corners
294: of the Dalitz plot due to the presence of soft neutral clusters
295: and tracks.
296:
297: For an event~$i$, we define the time-dependent Dalitz plot PDFs
298: \beqn
299: P_{\tpi-\TM,i} &=&
300: \varepsilon_i\,(1 - \fscfi)\,\detJi\,\AmpAll~,
301: \\[0.3cm]
302: P_{\tpi-\SCF,\,i} &=&
303: \varepsilon_i\,\fscfi\,\detJi\,\AmpAll~,
304: \eeqn
305: where $P_{\tpi-\TM,i}$ and $P_{\tpi-\SCF,\,i}$ are normalized. The
306: corresponding phase space integration involves the expectation values
307: $\langle \varepsilon\,(1-\fscf)\,\detJ \,f^\kappa f^{\sigma*}\rangle$
308: and
309: $\langle \varepsilon\,\fscf\,\detJ\, f^\kappa f^{\sigma*}\rangle$
310: for TM and SCF events, where the indices $\kappa$, $\sigma$
311: run over all resonances belonging to the signal model.
312: The expectation values are model-dependent and are
313: computed with the use of MC integration over the square Dalitz plot:
314: \beq
315: \label{eq:normAverage}
316: \langle \varepsilon\,(1-\fscf)\,\detJ\, f^\kappa f^{\sigma*}\rangle
317: \;=\; \frac{\int_0^1\int_0^1
318: \varepsilon\,(1-\fscf)\,\detJ\, f^\kappa f^{\sigma*}
319: \,d\mprime d\thetaprime}
320: {\int_0^1\int_0^1 \varepsilon\,\detJ\, f^\kappa f^{\sigma*}
321: \,d\mprime d\thetaprime}~,
322: \eeq
323: and similarly for
324: $\langle \varepsilon\,\,\detJ\, f^\kappa f^{\sigma*}\rangle$,
325: where all quantities in the integrands are Dalitz plot-dependent.
326:
327: Equation~(\ref{eq:theLikelihood}) invokes the phase
328: space-averaged SCF fraction
329: $\fscfave\equiv\langle\fscf\,\detJ\, f^\kappa f^{\sigma*}\rangle$.
330: As for the PDF normalization, it is decay-dynamics-dependent.
331: It has to be computed iteratively, though the remaining systematic
332: uncertainty after one iteration step is small. We
333: determine the average SCF fractions separately for each tagging category
334: from MC simulation.
335:
336: The width of the dominant $\rho(770)$ resonance is large compared
337: to the mass resolution for TM events (about $8\mevcc$ core Gaussian
338: resolution). We can therefore neglect resolution effects in the TM
339: model.
340: Misreconstructed events have a poor mass resolution that strongly
341: varies across the Dalitz plot. It is described in the fit by a
342: $2\times 2$-dimensional resolution function
343: \begin{figure}[t]
344: \centerline{\epsfxsize8.2cm\epsffile{figures/dpressquaretm.eps}
345: \epsfxsize8.2cm\epsffile{figures/dpressquarescf.eps}}
346: \vspace{-0.4cm}
347: \caption[.]{\label{fig:dpres}
348: Resolution for TM (left) and SCF events (right hand plot)
349: in the square Dalitz plot for two coordinates indicated by
350: the open stars. }
351: \end{figure}
352: \beq
353: \label{eq:rscf}
354: \Rscf(\mprime_r,\thetaprime_r,\mprime_t,\thetaprime_t)~,
355: \eeq
356: which represents the probability to reconstruct at the coordinate
357: $(\mprime_r,\thetaprime_r)$ an event that has the true coordinate
358: $(\mprime_t,\thetaprime_t)$. It obeys the unitarity condition
359: \beq
360: \intl_0^1\intl_0^1
361: \Rscf(\mprime_r,\thetaprime_r,\mprime_t,\thetaprime_t)
362: \,d\mprime_r d\thetaprime_r \;=\; 1~,
363: \hspace{0.5cm} \forall\; (\mprime_t,\thetaprime_t)\in {\rm SDP}~,
364: \eeq
365: and is convolved with the signal model.
366: The $\Rscf$ function is obtained from MC simulation.
367: Figure~\ref{fig:dpres} shows the resolution function of TM (left)
368: and SCF events (right) for two coordinates depicted by the
369: open stars.
370:
371: We use the signal model described in Section~\ref{sec:kinmeatics}.
372: It contains the dynamical information and is connected with $\dt$ via
373: the matrix element~(\ref{eq:dt}), which serves as PDF. It is diluted
374: by the effects of mistagging and the limited vertex
375: resolution~\cite{rhopipaper}.
376: The $\deltat$ resolution function for signal and \B-background
377: events is a sum of three Gaussian distributions, with parameters
378: determined by a fit to fully reconstructed $\Bz$
379: decays~\cite{BabarS2b}.
380: \\[0.3cm]\noindent
381: {\bf Background Parameterization}.
382: The Dalitz plot- and $\dt$-dependent PDFs factorize for the
383: charged-$B$-background modes, but not (necessarily)
384: for the neutral-$B$ background due to $\BzBzb$ mixing.
385:
386: The charged \B-background
387: contribution to the likelihood~(\ref{eq:theLikelihood}) invokes
388: the parameter $\Atag$, multiplied by the tag flavor $\Qtag$ of
389: the event. In the presence of significant tag-``charge''
390: correlation (represented by an effective
391: flavor-tag-versus-Dalitz-coordinate correlation),
392: it parameterizes possible direct \CP violation in these events.
393: We also use distinct square Dalitz plot PDFs for each
394: reconstructed $B$ flavor tag, and a flavor-tag-averaged PDF for
395: untagged events. The PDFs are obtained from MC simulation and are
396: described with the use of non-parametric functions.
397: The $\dt$ resolution parameters are determined by a fit to fully
398: reconstructed $\Bp$ decays. For each $\Bp$-background class we adjust
399: effective lifetimes to account for the misreconstruction of the
400: event that modifies the nominal $\dt$ resolution function.
401:
402: The neutral-$B$ background is parameterized with PDFs that
403: depend on the flavor tag of the event. In the case of \CP
404: eigenstates, correlations between the flavor tag and the Dalitz
405: coordinate are expected to be small. However, non-\CP eigenstates,
406: such as $a_1^\pm\pi^\mp$, may exhibit such correlation. Both types
407: of decays can have direct
408: and mixing-induced \CP violation. A third type of decays
409: involves charged kaons and does not exhibit mixing-induced
410: \CP violation, but usually has a strong correlation between the
411: flavor tag and the Dalitz plot coordinate (the kaon charge), because
412: it consists of $B$-flavor eigenstates.
413: The Dalitz plot PDFs are obtained from MC simulation and are
414: described with the use of non-parametric functions.
415: For neutral $B$ background, the signal $\dt$ resolution model
416: is assumed.
417:
418: The Dalitz plot
419: treatment of the continuum events is similar to the one used
420: for charged-$B$ background.
421: The square Dalitz plot PDF for continuum background is
422: obtained from on-resonance events selected in the
423: $\mes$ sidebands and corrected for feed-through
424: from \B decays. A large number of cross checks has been
425: performed to ensure the high fidelity of the empirical shape
426: parameterization. Analytical models have been found insufficient.
427: The continuum $\deltat$ distribution is parameterized as the sum of
428: three Gaussian distributions with common mean and
429: three distinct widths that scale the $\dt$ per-event error.
430: This yields six shape parameters that are determined by
431: the fit.
432: The model is motivated by the observation that
433: the $\dt$ average is independent of its error, and that the
434: $\dt$ RMS depends linearly on the $\dt$ error.
435:
436: \subsubsection{PARAMETERIZATION OF THE OTHER VARIABLES}
437: \label{sec:likmESanddE}
438:
439: The $\mes$ distribution of TM signal events is
440: parameterized by a bifurcated Crystal Ball function~\cite{PDFsCB},
441: which is a combination of a one-sided Gaussian and
442: a Crystal Ball function. The mean of this function
443: is determined by the fit. A non-parametric
444: function is used to describe the SCF signal component.
445:
446: The $\deprime$ distribution of TM events is
447: parameterized by a double Gaussian function, where
448: all five parameters depend linearly on $\mpm^2$.
449: Misreconstructed events are parameterized by a broad
450: single Gaussian function.
451:
452: Both $\mes$ and $\deprime$ PDFs are parameterized by non-parametric
453: functions for all $B$-background classes.
454:
455: The $\mes$ and $\deprime$ PDFs for continuum events are
456: parameterized with an Argus shape function~\cite{PDFsArgus} and
457: a second order polynomial, respectively, with parameters
458: determined by the fit.
459:
460: We use non-parametric functions to empirically describe the distributions
461: of the NN outputs
462: found in the MC simulation for TM and SCF signal events,
463: and for \B-background events. We distinguish tagging categories
464: for TM signal events to account for differences observed in the
465: shapes.
466:
467: The continuum NN distribution is parameterized by a
468: third order polynomial that is defined to be positive.
469: The coefficients of the polynomial are determined by the fit.
470: Continuum events exhibit a correlation between the Dalitz plot
471: coordinate
472: and the shape of the event that is exploited in the NN. The tight
473: requirement that eliminates the center of the Dalitz plot has the
474: purpose to reduce such correlation. To correct for residual effects,
475: we introduce a linear dependence of the polynomial coefficients
476: on the distance of the Dalitz plot coordinate to the kinematic
477: boundaries of the Dalitz plot. The parameters describing this
478: dependence are determined by the fit.
479:
480: