1: \documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,tightenlines,superscriptaddress,showpacs,byrevtex]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx} % Include figure files
3: \usepackage{dcolumn} % Align table columns on decimal point
4:
5: \graphicspath{{ps}}
6:
7: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
8:
9: \begin{document}
10:
11:
12:
13: \preprint{\vbox{ \hbox{ }
14: \hbox{BELLE-CONF-0460}
15: \hbox{ICHEP04 11-0710}
16: }}
17:
18: \title{ \quad\\[0.5cm] Study of $B^0\to \bar{D}^{(*)0} \pi^+ \pi^-$ decays}
19:
20:
21:
22: %\input{author.tex}
23: \affiliation{Aomori University, Aomori}
24: \affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk}
25: \affiliation{Chiba University, Chiba}
26: \affiliation{Chonnam National University, Kwangju}
27: \affiliation{Chuo University, Tokyo}
28: \affiliation{University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221}
29: \affiliation{University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt}
30: \affiliation{Gyeongsang National University, Chinju}
31: \affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822}
32: \affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba}
33: \affiliation{Hiroshima Institute of Technology, Hiroshima}
34: \affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing}
35: \affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Vienna}
36: \affiliation{Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow}
37: \affiliation{J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana}
38: \affiliation{Kanagawa University, Yokohama}
39: \affiliation{Korea University, Seoul}
40: \affiliation{Kyoto University, Kyoto}
41: \affiliation{Kyungpook National University, Taegu}
42: \affiliation{Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne, EPFL, Lausanne}
43: \affiliation{University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana}
44: \affiliation{University of Maribor, Maribor}
45: \affiliation{University of Melbourne, Victoria}
46: \affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya}
47: \affiliation{Nara Women's University, Nara}
48: \affiliation{National Central University, Chung-li}
49: \affiliation{National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung}
50: \affiliation{National United University, Miao Li}
51: \affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei}
52: \affiliation{H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow}
53: \affiliation{Nihon Dental College, Niigata}
54: \affiliation{Niigata University, Niigata}
55: \affiliation{Osaka City University, Osaka}
56: \affiliation{Osaka University, Osaka}
57: \affiliation{Panjab University, Chandigarh}
58: \affiliation{Peking University, Beijing}
59: \affiliation{Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08545}
60: \affiliation{RIKEN BNL Research Center, Upton, New York 11973}
61: \affiliation{Saga University, Saga}
62: \affiliation{University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei}
63: \affiliation{Seoul National University, Seoul}
64: \affiliation{Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon}
65: \affiliation{University of Sydney, Sydney NSW}
66: \affiliation{Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay}
67: \affiliation{Toho University, Funabashi}
68: \affiliation{Tohoku Gakuin University, Tagajo}
69: \affiliation{Tohoku University, Sendai}
70: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo}
71: \affiliation{Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo}
72: \affiliation{Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo}
73: \affiliation{Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Tokyo}
74: \affiliation{Toyama National College of Maritime Technology, Toyama}
75: \affiliation{University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba}
76: \affiliation{Utkal University, Bhubaneswer}
77: \affiliation{Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061}
78: \affiliation{Yonsei University, Seoul}
79: \author{K.~Abe}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
80: \author{K.~Abe}\affiliation{Tohoku Gakuin University, Tagajo} % TohokuGakuin
81: \author{N.~Abe}\affiliation{Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo} % TIT
82: \author{I.~Adachi}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
83: \author{H.~Aihara}\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo} % Tokyo
84: \author{M.~Akatsu}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
85: \author{Y.~Asano}\affiliation{University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba} % Tsukuba
86: \author{T.~Aso}\affiliation{Toyama National College of Maritime Technology, Toyama} % Toyama
87: \author{V.~Aulchenko}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
88: \author{T.~Aushev}\affiliation{Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow} % ITEP
89: \author{T.~Aziz}\affiliation{Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay} % Tata
90: \author{S.~Bahinipati}\affiliation{University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221} % Cincinnati
91: \author{A.~M.~Bakich}\affiliation{University of Sydney, Sydney NSW} % Sydney
92: \author{Y.~Ban}\affiliation{Peking University, Beijing} % Peking
93: \author{M.~Barbero}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
94: \author{A.~Bay}\affiliation{Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne, EPFL, Lausanne} % Lausanne
95: \author{I.~Bedny}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
96: \author{U.~Bitenc}\affiliation{J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana} % Ljubljana
97: \author{I.~Bizjak}\affiliation{J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana} % Ljubljana
98: \author{S.~Blyth}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
99: \author{A.~Bondar}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
100: \author{A.~Bozek}\affiliation{H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow} % Krakow
101: \author{M.~Bra\v cko}\affiliation{University of Maribor, Maribor}\affiliation{J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana} % Ljubljana
102: \author{J.~Brodzicka}\affiliation{H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow} % Krakow
103: \author{T.~E.~Browder}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
104: \author{M.-C.~Chang}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
105: \author{P.~Chang}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
106: \author{Y.~Chao}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
107: \author{A.~Chen}\affiliation{National Central University, Chung-li} % NCU
108: \author{K.-F.~Chen}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
109: \author{W.~T.~Chen}\affiliation{National Central University, Chung-li} % NCU
110: \author{B.~G.~Cheon}\affiliation{Chonnam National University, Kwangju} % Chonnam
111: \author{R.~Chistov}\affiliation{Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow} % ITEP
112: \author{S.-K.~Choi}\affiliation{Gyeongsang National University, Chinju} % Gyeongsang
113: \author{Y.~Choi}\affiliation{Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon} % Sungkyunkwan
114: \author{Y.~K.~Choi}\affiliation{Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon} % Sungkyunkwan
115: \author{A.~Chuvikov}\affiliation{Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08545} % Princeton
116: \author{S.~Cole}\affiliation{University of Sydney, Sydney NSW} % Sydney
117: \author{M.~Danilov}\affiliation{Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow} % ITEP
118: \author{M.~Dash}\affiliation{Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061} % VPI
119: \author{L.~Y.~Dong}\affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing} % IHEP
120: \author{R.~Dowd}\affiliation{University of Melbourne, Victoria} % Melbourne
121: \author{J.~Dragic}\affiliation{University of Melbourne, Victoria} % Melbourne
122: \author{A.~Drutskoy}\affiliation{University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221} % Cincinnati
123: \author{S.~Eidelman}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
124: \author{Y.~Enari}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
125: \author{D.~Epifanov}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
126: \author{C.~W.~Everton}\affiliation{University of Melbourne, Victoria} % Melbourne
127: \author{F.~Fang}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
128: \author{S.~Fratina}\affiliation{J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana} % Ljubljana
129: \author{H.~Fujii}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
130: \author{N.~Gabyshev}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
131: \author{A.~Garmash}\affiliation{Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08545} % Princeton
132: \author{T.~Gershon}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
133: \author{A.~Go}\affiliation{National Central University, Chung-li} % NCU
134: \author{G.~Gokhroo}\affiliation{Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay} % Tata
135: \author{B.~Golob}\affiliation{University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana}\affiliation{J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana} % Ljubljana
136: \author{M.~Grosse~Perdekamp}\affiliation{RIKEN BNL Research Center, Upton, New York 11973} % RIKEN
137: \author{H.~Guler}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
138: \author{J.~Haba}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
139: \author{F.~Handa}\affiliation{Tohoku University, Sendai} % Tohoku
140: \author{K.~Hara}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
141: \author{T.~Hara}\affiliation{Osaka University, Osaka} % Osaka
142: \author{N.~C.~Hastings}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
143: \author{K.~Hasuko}\affiliation{RIKEN BNL Research Center, Upton, New York 11973} % RIKEN
144: \author{K.~Hayasaka}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
145: \author{H.~Hayashii}\affiliation{Nara Women's University, Nara} % Nara
146: \author{M.~Hazumi}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
147: \author{E.~M.~Heenan}\affiliation{University of Melbourne, Victoria} % Melbourne
148: \author{I.~Higuchi}\affiliation{Tohoku University, Sendai} % Tohoku
149: \author{T.~Higuchi}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
150: \author{L.~Hinz}\affiliation{Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne, EPFL, Lausanne} % Lausanne
151: \author{T.~Hojo}\affiliation{Osaka University, Osaka} % Osaka
152: \author{T.~Hokuue}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
153: \author{Y.~Hoshi}\affiliation{Tohoku Gakuin University, Tagajo} % TohokuGakuin
154: \author{K.~Hoshina}\affiliation{Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Tokyo} % TUAT
155: \author{S.~Hou}\affiliation{National Central University, Chung-li} % NCU
156: \author{W.-S.~Hou}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
157: \author{Y.~B.~Hsiung}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
158: \author{H.-C.~Huang}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
159: \author{T.~Igaki}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
160: \author{Y.~Igarashi}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
161: \author{T.~Iijima}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
162: \author{A.~Imoto}\affiliation{Nara Women's University, Nara} % Nara
163: \author{K.~Inami}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
164: \author{A.~Ishikawa}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
165: \author{H.~Ishino}\affiliation{Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo} % TIT
166: \author{K.~Itoh}\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo} % Tokyo
167: \author{R.~Itoh}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
168: \author{M.~Iwamoto}\affiliation{Chiba University, Chiba} % Chiba
169: \author{M.~Iwasaki}\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo} % Tokyo
170: \author{Y.~Iwasaki}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
171: % \author{M.~Jones}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
172: \author{R.~Kagan}\affiliation{Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow} % ITEP
173: \author{H.~Kakuno}\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo} % Tokyo
174: \author{J.~H.~Kang}\affiliation{Yonsei University, Seoul} % Yonsei
175: \author{J.~S.~Kang}\affiliation{Korea University, Seoul} % Korea
176: \author{P.~Kapusta}\affiliation{H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow} % Krakow
177: \author{S.~U.~Kataoka}\affiliation{Nara Women's University, Nara} % Nara
178: \author{N.~Katayama}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
179: \author{H.~Kawai}\affiliation{Chiba University, Chiba} % Chiba
180: \author{H.~Kawai}\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo} % Tokyo
181: \author{Y.~Kawakami}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
182: \author{N.~Kawamura}\affiliation{Aomori University, Aomori} % Aomori
183: \author{T.~Kawasaki}\affiliation{Niigata University, Niigata} % Niigata
184: \author{N.~Kent}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
185: \author{H.~R.~Khan}\affiliation{Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo} % TIT
186: \author{A.~Kibayashi}\affiliation{Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo} % TIT
187: \author{H.~Kichimi}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
188: \author{H.~J.~Kim}\affiliation{Kyungpook National University, Taegu} % Kyungpook
189: \author{H.~O.~Kim}\affiliation{Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon} % Sungkyunkwan
190: \author{Hyunwoo~Kim}\affiliation{Korea University, Seoul} % Korea
191: \author{J.~H.~Kim}\affiliation{Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon} % Sungkyunkwan
192: \author{S.~K.~Kim}\affiliation{Seoul National University, Seoul} % Seoul
193: \author{T.~H.~Kim}\affiliation{Yonsei University, Seoul} % Yonsei
194: \author{K.~Kinoshita}\affiliation{University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221} % Cincinnati
195: \author{P.~Koppenburg}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
196: \author{S.~Korpar}\affiliation{University of Maribor, Maribor}\affiliation{J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana} % Ljubljana
197: \author{P.~Kri\v zan}\affiliation{University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana}\affiliation{J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana} % Ljubljana
198: \author{P.~Krokovny}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
199: \author{R.~Kulasiri}\affiliation{University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221} % Cincinnati
200: \author{C.~C.~Kuo}\affiliation{National Central University, Chung-li} % NCU
201: \author{H.~Kurashiro}\affiliation{Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo} % TIT
202: \author{E.~Kurihara}\affiliation{Chiba University, Chiba} % Chiba
203: \author{A.~Kusaka}\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo} % Tokyo
204: \author{A.~Kuzmin}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
205: \author{Y.-J.~Kwon}\affiliation{Yonsei University, Seoul} % Yonsei
206: \author{J.~S.~Lange}\affiliation{University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt} % Frankfurt
207: \author{G.~Leder}\affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Vienna} % Vienna
208: \author{S.~E.~Lee}\affiliation{Seoul National University, Seoul} % Seoul
209: \author{S.~H.~Lee}\affiliation{Seoul National University, Seoul} % Seoul
210: \author{Y.-J.~Lee}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
211: \author{T.~Lesiak}\affiliation{H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow} % Krakow
212: \author{J.~Li}\affiliation{University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei} % USTC
213: \author{A.~Limosani}\affiliation{University of Melbourne, Victoria} % Melbourne
214: \author{S.-W.~Lin}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
215: \author{D.~Liventsev}\affiliation{Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow} % ITEP
216: \author{J.~MacNaughton}\affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Vienna} % Vienna
217: \author{G.~Majumder}\affiliation{Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay} % Tata
218: \author{F.~Mandl}\affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Vienna} % Vienna
219: \author{D.~Marlow}\affiliation{Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08545} % Princeton
220: \author{T.~Matsuishi}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
221: \author{H.~Matsumoto}\affiliation{Niigata University, Niigata} % Niigata
222: \author{S.~Matsumoto}\affiliation{Chuo University, Tokyo} % Chuo
223: \author{T.~Matsumoto}\affiliation{Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo} % TMU
224: \author{A.~Matyja}\affiliation{H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow} % Krakow
225: \author{Y.~Mikami}\affiliation{Tohoku University, Sendai} % Tohoku
226: \author{W.~Mitaroff}\affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Vienna} % Vienna
227: \author{K.~Miyabayashi}\affiliation{Nara Women's University, Nara} % Nara
228: \author{Y.~Miyabayashi}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
229: \author{H.~Miyake}\affiliation{Osaka University, Osaka} % Osaka
230: \author{H.~Miyata}\affiliation{Niigata University, Niigata} % Niigata
231: \author{R.~Mizuk}\affiliation{Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow} % ITEP
232: \author{D.~Mohapatra}\affiliation{Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061} % VPI
233: \author{G.~R.~Moloney}\affiliation{University of Melbourne, Victoria} % Melbourne
234: \author{G.~F.~Moorhead}\affiliation{University of Melbourne, Victoria} % Melbourne
235: \author{T.~Mori}\affiliation{Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo} % TIT
236: \author{A.~Murakami}\affiliation{Saga University, Saga} % Saga
237: \author{T.~Nagamine}\affiliation{Tohoku University, Sendai} % Tohoku
238: \author{Y.~Nagasaka}\affiliation{Hiroshima Institute of Technology, Hiroshima} % Hiroshima
239: \author{T.~Nakadaira}\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo} % Tokyo
240: \author{I.~Nakamura}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
241: \author{E.~Nakano}\affiliation{Osaka City University, Osaka} % OsakaCity
242: \author{M.~Nakao}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
243: \author{H.~Nakazawa}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
244: \author{Z.~Natkaniec}\affiliation{H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow} % Krakow
245: \author{K.~Neichi}\affiliation{Tohoku Gakuin University, Tagajo} % TohokuGakuin
246: \author{S.~Nishida}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
247: \author{O.~Nitoh}\affiliation{Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Tokyo} % TUAT
248: \author{S.~Noguchi}\affiliation{Nara Women's University, Nara} % Nara
249: \author{T.~Nozaki}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
250: \author{A.~Ogawa}\affiliation{RIKEN BNL Research Center, Upton, New York 11973} % RIKEN
251: \author{S.~Ogawa}\affiliation{Toho University, Funabashi} % Toho
252: \author{T.~Ohshima}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
253: \author{T.~Okabe}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
254: \author{S.~Okuno}\affiliation{Kanagawa University, Yokohama} % Kanagawa
255: \author{S.~L.~Olsen}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
256: \author{Y.~Onuki}\affiliation{Niigata University, Niigata} % Niigata
257: \author{W.~Ostrowicz}\affiliation{H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow} % Krakow
258: \author{H.~Ozaki}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
259: \author{P.~Pakhlov}\affiliation{Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow} % ITEP
260: \author{H.~Palka}\affiliation{H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow} % Krakow
261: \author{C.~W.~Park}\affiliation{Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon} % Sungkyunkwan
262: \author{H.~Park}\affiliation{Kyungpook National University, Taegu} % Kyungpook
263: \author{K.~S.~Park}\affiliation{Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon} % Sungkyunkwan
264: \author{N.~Parslow}\affiliation{University of Sydney, Sydney NSW} % Sydney
265: \author{L.~S.~Peak}\affiliation{University of Sydney, Sydney NSW} % Sydney
266: \author{M.~Pernicka}\affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Vienna} % Vienna
267: \author{J.-P.~Perroud}\affiliation{Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne, EPFL, Lausanne} % Lausanne
268: \author{M.~Peters}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
269: \author{L.~E.~Piilonen}\affiliation{Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061} % VPI
270: \author{A.~Poluektov}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
271: \author{F.~J.~Ronga}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
272: \author{N.~Root}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
273: \author{M.~Rozanska}\affiliation{H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow} % Krakow
274: \author{H.~Sagawa}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
275: \author{M.~Saigo}\affiliation{Tohoku University, Sendai} % Tohoku
276: \author{S.~Saitoh}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
277: \author{Y.~Sakai}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
278: \author{H.~Sakamoto}\affiliation{Kyoto University, Kyoto} % Kyoto
279: \author{T.~R.~Sarangi}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
280: \author{M.~Satapathy}\affiliation{Utkal University, Bhubaneswer} % Utkal
281: \author{N.~Sato}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
282: \author{O.~Schneider}\affiliation{Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne, EPFL, Lausanne} % Lausanne
283: \author{J.~Sch\"umann}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
284: \author{C.~Schwanda}\affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Vienna} % Vienna
285: \author{A.~J.~Schwartz}\affiliation{University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221} % Cincinnati
286: \author{T.~Seki}\affiliation{Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo} % TMU
287: \author{S.~Semenov}\affiliation{Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow} % ITEP
288: \author{K.~Senyo}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
289: \author{Y.~Settai}\affiliation{Chuo University, Tokyo} % Chuo
290: \author{R.~Seuster}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
291: \author{M.~E.~Sevior}\affiliation{University of Melbourne, Victoria} % Melbourne
292: \author{T.~Shibata}\affiliation{Niigata University, Niigata} % Niigata
293: \author{H.~Shibuya}\affiliation{Toho University, Funabashi} % Toho
294: \author{B.~Shwartz}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
295: \author{V.~Sidorov}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
296: \author{V.~Siegle}\affiliation{RIKEN BNL Research Center, Upton, New York 11973} % RIKEN
297: \author{J.~B.~Singh}\affiliation{Panjab University, Chandigarh} % Panjab
298: \author{A.~Somov}\affiliation{University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221} % Cincinnati
299: \author{N.~Soni}\affiliation{Panjab University, Chandigarh} % Panjab
300: \author{R.~Stamen}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
301: \author{S.~Stani\v c}\altaffiliation[on leave from ]{Nova Gorica Polytechnic, Nova Gorica}\affiliation{University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba} % Tsukuba
302: \author{M.~Stari\v c}\affiliation{J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana} % Ljubljana
303: \author{A.~Sugi}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
304: \author{A.~Sugiyama}\affiliation{Saga University, Saga} % Saga
305: \author{K.~Sumisawa}\affiliation{Osaka University, Osaka} % Osaka
306: \author{T.~Sumiyoshi}\affiliation{Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo} % TMU
307: \author{S.~Suzuki}\affiliation{Saga University, Saga} % Saga
308: \author{S.~Y.~Suzuki}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
309: \author{O.~Tajima}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
310: \author{F.~Takasaki}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
311: \author{K.~Tamai}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
312: \author{N.~Tamura}\affiliation{Niigata University, Niigata} % Niigata
313: \author{K.~Tanabe}\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo} % Tokyo
314: \author{M.~Tanaka}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
315: \author{G.~N.~Taylor}\affiliation{University of Melbourne, Victoria} % Melbourne
316: \author{Y.~Teramoto}\affiliation{Osaka City University, Osaka} % OsakaCity
317: \author{X.~C.~Tian}\affiliation{Peking University, Beijing} % Peking
318: \author{S.~Tokuda}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
319: \author{S.~N.~Tovey}\affiliation{University of Melbourne, Victoria} % Melbourne
320: \author{K.~Trabelsi}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
321: \author{T.~Tsuboyama}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
322: \author{T.~Tsukamoto}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
323: \author{K.~Uchida}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
324: \author{S.~Uehara}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
325: \author{T.~Uglov}\affiliation{Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow} % ITEP
326: \author{K.~Ueno}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
327: \author{Y.~Unno}\affiliation{Chiba University, Chiba} % Chiba
328: \author{S.~Uno}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
329: \author{Y.~Ushiroda}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
330: \author{G.~Varner}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
331: \author{K.~E.~Varvell}\affiliation{University of Sydney, Sydney NSW} % Sydney
332: \author{S.~Villa}\affiliation{Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne, EPFL, Lausanne} % Lausanne
333: \author{C.~C.~Wang}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
334: \author{C.~H.~Wang}\affiliation{National United University, Miao Li} % Lien-Ho
335: \author{J.~G.~Wang}\affiliation{Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061} % VPI
336: \author{M.-Z.~Wang}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
337: \author{M.~Watanabe}\affiliation{Niigata University, Niigata} % Niigata
338: \author{Y.~Watanabe}\affiliation{Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo} % TIT
339: \author{L.~Widhalm}\affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Vienna} % Vienna
340: \author{Q.~L.~Xie}\affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing} % IHEP
341: \author{B.~D.~Yabsley}\affiliation{Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061} % VPI
342: \author{A.~Yamaguchi}\affiliation{Tohoku University, Sendai} % Tohoku
343: \author{H.~Yamamoto}\affiliation{Tohoku University, Sendai} % Tohoku
344: \author{S.~Yamamoto}\affiliation{Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo} % TMU
345: \author{T.~Yamanaka}\affiliation{Osaka University, Osaka} % Osaka
346: \author{Y.~Yamashita}\affiliation{Nihon Dental College, Niigata} % NihonDental
347: \author{M.~Yamauchi}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
348: \author{Heyoung~Yang}\affiliation{Seoul National University, Seoul} % Seoul
349: \author{P.~Yeh}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
350: \author{J.~Ying}\affiliation{Peking University, Beijing} % Peking
351: \author{K.~Yoshida}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
352: \author{Y.~Yuan}\affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing} % IHEP
353: \author{Y.~Yusa}\affiliation{Tohoku University, Sendai} % Tohoku
354: \author{H.~Yuta}\affiliation{Aomori University, Aomori} % Aomori
355: \author{S.~L.~Zang}\affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing} % IHEP
356: \author{C.~C.~Zhang}\affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing} % IHEP
357: \author{J.~Zhang}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
358: \author{L.~M.~Zhang}\affiliation{University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei} % USTC
359: \author{Z.~P.~Zhang}\affiliation{University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei} % USTC
360: \author{V.~Zhilich}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
361: \author{T.~Ziegler}\affiliation{Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08545} % Princeton
362: \author{D.~\v Zontar}\affiliation{University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana}\affiliation{J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana} % Ljubljana
363: \author{D.~Z\"urcher}\affiliation{Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne, EPFL, Lausanne} % Lausanne
364:
365:
366: \collaboration{Belle Collaboration}
367:
368: \noaffiliation
369:
370: \begin{abstract}
371: We report the results of a study of neutral $B$ decays to the $D^0 \pi^+ \pi^-$ and $D^{*0} \pi^+ \pi^-$ final states using complete $D^{(*)0}$ reconstruction. The contributions from two-body $B\to D^{**} \pi$ with narrow ($j_q=3/2$) $D^{**}$ states and $B\to D^{(*)}\rho, D^{(*)} f_2, D^{(*)}\sigma$ decays have been determined. All results are preliminary, and are based on a large data sample collected in the Belle experiment at the KEKB $e^+e^-$ collider.
372: \end{abstract}
373:
374:
375: \pacs{13.25.Hw, 14.40Lb, 14.40.Nd}
376:
377: \maketitle
378:
379: \tighten
380:
381: {\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}}
382: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
383: The decays of $B$ meson
384: to $D\pi$ and $D^*\pi$ final states are two of its
385: dominant hadronic decay modes and have been measured quite
386: well~\cite{PDG}.
387: In this paper we study the production of excited states of $D$-mesons,
388: collectively referred to as
389: $D^{**}$'s, that are P-wave excitations of quark-antiquark systems
390: containing one charmed and one light ($u,d$) quark.
391: The results provide tests of Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET) and
392: QCD sum rules.
393: Figure~\ref{fi:spec} shows the spectrum of
394: $D$-meson excitations. In the heavy quark limit, the heavy quark spin
395: ${\vec s}_c$ decouples from the other degrees of freedom and the total
396: angular momentum of the light quark ${\vec j}_q=\vec{L}+{\vec s}_q$ is a good
397: quantum number.
398: There are four P-wave states with the following spin-parity and light
399: quark angular momenta:
400: $0^+(j_q=1/2),~1^+(j_q=1/2),~1^+(j_q=3/2)$ and $2^+(j_q=3/2)$, which are
401: usually labeled as $D^*_0,~D'_1,~D_1$ and $D^*_2$, respectively.
402: \begin{figure}[h]
403: \begin{center}
404: \begin{tabular}{c}
405: \includegraphics[height=9 cm, width=12 cm]{fig1.eps}
406: \end{tabular}
407: \end{center}
408: \caption{Spectrum of D-meson excitations. Lines show possible one pion
409: transitions.}
410: \label{fi:spec}
411: \end{figure}
412:
413: The two $j_q=3/2$ states are narrow with widths of about 20-40~MeV
414: and were previously observed~\cite{AR1,AR2,AR3,e691,CL15,e687,CL2,dobs,DELPHI,DELPHI1,ALEPH}.
415: The measured values of their masses
416: agree with model predictions~\cite{isgur,rosner,godfrey,falk}.
417: The remaining $j_q=1/2$ states decay via S-waves and are expected to be
418: quite broad.
419:
420: The $B\to D^{(*)}\pi\pi$ decay provides a possibility to study
421: $D^{**}$ production. The fixed spin of the initial state makes
422: it possible to perform an angular analysis of the decay products
423: and to separate final states with different quantum numbers.
424:
425:
426: We have acquired a large sample of $B$ decays using the Belle detector,
427: which has good resolution and particle ID. These data can be
428: used to contribute to an understanding of these problems.
429:
430: Earlier neutral $D^{**}$ production in charged $B$-decays has been studied
431: at Belle~\cite{mybelle}. All four $D^{**}$ states have been
432: observed and the production rate of the broad ($j=1/2$)-states
433: appears to be comparable to that of the narrow ($j=3/2$)-states.
434: This work describes a similar analysis of
435: the decay $\bar{B}^0\to D^{**+}\pi^-$.
436:
437: In the case of neutral $B$ decay the $D^{(*)}\pi\pi$ final state contains
438: two pions of opposite sign that can form several bound
439: states (such as $\rho,~f_0,~f_2$), which should also be taken into account.
440: The presence of $\pi\pi$ bound states complicates the analysis but
441: can give valuable information about
442: the constants and mechanism of these decays.
443:
444: \section{The Belle detector}
445: The Belle detector~\cite{Belle} is a large-solid-angle magnetic spectrometer
446: that consists
447: of a three-layer silicon vertex detector (SVD),
448: a 50-layer central drift chamber
449: (CDC) for charged particle tracking and specific ionization measurement
450: ($dE/dx$), an array of aerogel threshold \v{C}erenkov counters (ACC),
451: time-of-flight scintillation counters (TOF), and an array of 8736 CsI(Tl)
452: crystals for electromagnetic calorimetry (ECL) located inside a superconducting
453: solenoid coil that provides a 1.5~T magnetic field. An iron flux return located
454: outside the coil is instrumented to detect $K_L$ mesons and identify muons
455: (KLM).
456: We use a GEANT-based Monte Carlo (MC) simulation to
457: model the response of the detector and to determine its acceptance~\cite{sim}.
458:
459: Separation of kaons and pions is accomplished by combining the responses of
460: the ACC and the TOF with $dE/dx$ measurements in the CDC
461: to form a likelihood $\cal{L}$($h$) where $h=(\pi)$ or $(K)$.
462: Charged particles
463: are identified as pions or kaons using the likelihood ratio
464: (${\mathcal R}$):
465: \[{\rm {\mathcal R}}(K)=\frac{{\cal{L}}(K)}{{\cal{L}}(K)+{\cal{L}}(\pi)};~~
466: {\rm {\mathcal R}}(\pi)=
467: \frac{{\cal{L}}(\pi)}{{\cal{L}}(K)+{\cal{L}}(\pi)}=1-{\rm {\mathcal R}}(K).\]
468: At large momenta ($>$2.5 GeV/$c$) only the ACC and $dE/dx$ are used since the
469: TOF provides no significant separation of kaons and pions.
470: Electron identification is based on a combination of $dE/dx$ measurements,
471: ACC photoelectron yields and the position, shape and total energy deposition
472: ($E/p$) of the shower detected in the ECL. A more detailed
473: description of the Belle particle identification can be found in
474: Ref.~\cite{PID}.
475:
476: \section{Event selection}
477:
478: A data sample of 140~fb$^{-1}$
479: (152 million~$B\bar{B}$ events) collected at the
480: $\Upsilon (4S)$ resonance with the Belle detector is used.
481: Candidate $\bar{B}^0\to D^0\pi^+\pi^-$ and $\bar{B}^0\to
482: D^{*0}\pi^+\pi^-$
483: events
484: as well as charge conjugate combinations are selected.
485: The $D^0$ and $D^{*0}$ mesons are reconstructed in
486: $D^0\to K^-\pi^+$ and $D^{*0}\to D^0\pi^0$ modes, respectively.
487: $D^0$ from $D^{*0}$ decay is detected in channels $D^0\to K^-\pi^+$ and
488: $D^0\to K^-\pi^+\pi^+\pi^-$.
489: The signal-to-background ratios for other $D$ decay modes are found to be much
490: lower and they are not used in this analysis.
491:
492: Charged tracks are selected with requirements based on the
493: average hit residuals and impact parameters relative to the interaction
494: point. We also require that the polar angle of each track be within
495: the angular range of $17^{\circ}-150^{\circ}$ and that the transverse track
496: momentum be
497: greater than 50 MeV/$c$ for kaons and 25 MeV/$c$ for pions.
498:
499: Charged kaon candidates are selected with the requirement ${\rm {\mathcal R}}(K)>0.6$.
500: This has an efficiency of
501: $90\%$ for kaons
502: and a pion misidentification probability of $10\%$.
503: For pions the requirement \mbox{${\rm {\mathcal R}}(\pi)>0.2$} is used.
504: All tracks that are positively identified as electrons are rejected.
505:
506: $D^{0}$ mesons are reconstructed from
507: $K^{-}\pi^{+}$ combinations with
508: invariant mass within 12~MeV/c$^2$ of the nominal $D^0$ mass, which
509: corresponds to about 2.5\,$\sigma_{K\pi}$.
510: We reconstruct $D^{*0}$ mesons from the $D\pi^0$ combinations
511: with a mass difference of $M_{D\pi^0}-M_{D^0}$ within $2.5~{\rm
512: MeV}/c^2$ of its nominal value.
513:
514:
515: Candidate events are identified
516: by their center of mass (c.m.)\ energy difference,
517: $\Delta E=(\sum_iE_i)-E_{\rm b}$, and
518: beam-constrained mass,
519: $M_{\rm bc}=\sqrt{E^2_{\rm b}-(\sum_i\vec{p}_i)^2}$, where
520: $E_{\rm b}=\sqrt{s}/2$ is the beam energy in the $\Upsilon(4S)$
521: c.m.\ frame, and $\vec{p}_i$ and $E_i$ are the c.m.\ three-momenta and
522: energies of the $B$ meson candidate decay products. We select events with
523: $M_{\rm bc}>5.25$~GeV/$c^2$ and $|\Delta E|<0.10$~GeV.
524:
525: To suppress the large continuum background ($e^+e^-\to q\bar{q}$,
526: where $q=u,d,s,c$), topological variables are used. Since
527: the produced $B$ mesons
528: are almost at rest in the c.m. frame, the angles of the decay products
529: of the two $B$ mesons are uncorrelated and the tracks tend to be
530: isotropic while continuum $q\bar{q}$ events
531: tend to have a two-jet structure. We use the angle between the thrust axis of
532: the $B$ candidate and that of the rest of the event ($\Theta_{\rm thrust}$)
533: to discriminate between these two cases. The distribution of
534: $|\cos\Theta_{\rm thrust}|$ is strongly peaked near $|\cos\Theta_{\rm thrust}|=1$
535: for $q\bar{q}$ events and is nearly flat for $\Upsilon(4S)\to
536: B\bar{B}$ events.
537: We require $|\cos\Theta_{\rm thrust}|<0.8$, which eliminates about
538: 83$\%$ of the continuum background while retaining about 80$\%$ of signal
539: events.
540:
541: There are events for which two or more combinations pass all
542: the selection criteria. According to a MC simulation,
543: this occurs primarily
544: because of the misreconstruction of a low momentum pion from the
545: $D^{**}\to D^{(*)}\pi$ decay. To avoid multiple entries,
546: the combination that has the minimum difference of
547: $Z$ coordinates at the interaction point, $|Z_{\pi_1}-Z_{\pi_2}|$,
548: of the tracks corresponding to the pions from
549: $B\to D^{**}\pi_1$ and $D^{**}\to D^{(*)}\pi_2$ decays
550: is selected~\cite{foot1}.
551: This selection
552: suppresses the combinations that
553: include pions from $K_S$ decays. In the case of multiple $D$
554: combinations, the one with invariant
555: mass closest to the nominal value is selected.
556:
557: \section{$\bar{B}^{0}\to D^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ analysis.}
558: The final state of the $\bar{B}^{0}\to D^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ decay
559: together with three-body and quasi-two-body events
560: includes the two-body decay $\bar{B}^{0}\to D^{*+}\pi^{-}$ followed by the
561: decay $D^{*+}\to D^{0}\pi^{+}$.
562: Using the mass difference of $M_{D\pi}-M_{D}$
563: we subdivide the total sample in two: events with $|M_{D\pi}-M_{D}-0.1455|<0.03~\rm
564: (GeV/c^2)$($\sim6\sigma$) (denoted further
565: as sample (2)) correspond to $D^*\pi$ production and the rest of the events
566: $D\pi\pi$ form sample (1).
567:
568: The $M_{\rm bc}$ and $\Delta E$ distributions
569: for $\bar{B}^{0}\to D^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ events
570: are shown in Fig.~\ref{f:dpmbde}.
571: The distributions are plotted for events that satisfy
572: the selection criteria for the other variable: i.e.,
573: $|\Delta E|<25$~MeV and $|M_{\rm bc}-M_B|<5$~MeV/$c^2$ for the
574: $M_{\rm bc}$ and the $\Delta E$ histograms, respectively. A clear signal
575: is evident in both distributions.
576: The signal yield is obtained by fitting the $\Delta E$
577: distribution to the sum of two Gaussians
578: with the same mean for the signal and a linear
579: function for background. The widths and the relative normalization of the two Gaussians
580: are fixed at values obtained from the MC simulation while
581: the signal normalization as well as the
582: constant term and slope of the background linear function
583: are treated as free parameters.
584: \begin{figure}[h]
585: \begin{tabular}{cc}
586: \includegraphics[height=8 cm]{fig2a.eps}&
587: \includegraphics[height=8 cm]{fig2b.eps}\\
588: \includegraphics[height=8 cm]{fig2c.eps}&
589: \includegraphics[height=8 cm]{fig2d.eps}\\
590: \vspace*{-16 cm} & \\
591: {\bf\large \hspace*{-3cm} a)}&{\bf\large \hspace*{-3cm} b)}\\
592: \vspace*{7. cm} & \\
593: {\bf\large \hspace*{-3cm} c)}&{\bf\large \hspace*{-3cm} d)}\\
594: \vspace*{6.5 cm} & \\
595: \end{tabular}
596: \caption{$M_{\rm bc}$ and $\Delta E$ distributions for
597: $\bar{B}^{0}\to D^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ events.
598: (a),(b) show $M_{\rm bc}$ distributions.
599: (c),(d) show $\Delta E$ distributions.
600: (a),(c) ((b),(d)) distributions are plotted for sample (1)((2)), respectively.
601: }
602: \label{f:dpmbde}
603: \end{figure}
604:
605: The signal yields are $1128\pm51$ and $1521\pm40$
606: for samples (1) and (2), respectively.
607: A detection efficiency of $(16.8\pm 0.4)\%$ and $(18.2\pm 0.4)\%$
608: is determined from a MC
609: simulation that uses a Dalitz plot
610: distribution that is
611: generated according to the model described
612: in the next section.
613: Taking into account the branching fraction
614: ${\cal B}(D^0\to K^-\pi^+)=(3.80\pm0.09)\%$ and ${\cal B}(D^{*+}\to D^0\pi^+)=(67.7\pm0.5)\%$~\cite{PDG},
615: we obtain the following value for the branching fractions:
616: $$
617: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to D^0\pi^+\pi^-) =(1.07\pm0.06\pm0.10)\times10^{-3},
618: $$
619: and
620: $$
621: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to D^{*+}\pi^-)=(2.30\pm0.06\pm0.19)\times10^{-3},
622: $$
623: where the first error is statistical and second error is
624: systematic. The
625: main contributions
626: to the systematic error are listed in
627: Table~\ref{t:sys}.
628: \begin{table}
629: \begin{center}
630: \begin{tabular}{l|l|l}
631: \hline
632: Source &\multicolumn{2}{|c}{$\sigma_{sys},~\%$}\\
633: \hline
634: & sample(1)&sample(2)\\
635: \hline
636: PID & $5\%$ & $5\%$ \\
637: Background & $5\%$ & $1\%$ \\
638: Tracking & $4.4\%$ & $5.4\%$ \\
639: MC & $3\%$ & $3\%$ \\
640: Br($D,D^*$)&$2.4\%$&$2.5\%$ \\
641: \hline
642: Total& $9.2\%$ & $8.1\%$ \\
643: \hline
644: \end{tabular}
645: \end{center}
646: \caption{The systematic uncertainties for $\bar{B}^0\to D^0\pi^+\pi^-$.}
647: \label{t:sys}
648: \end{table}
649: The uncertainty of the background shape
650: was estimated by adding higher order polynomial terms to the approximating
651: function.
652:
653:
654: The values of ${\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to D^0\pi^+\pi^-)$ and ${\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to D^{*+}\pi^-)$
655: are in agreement with a previous result from Belle:
656: $
657: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to D^0\pi^+\pi^-)=(8.0\pm1.6)\times10^{-4}
658: $~\cite{Asish} and a
659: CLEO result: ${\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to
660: D^{*+}\pi^-)=(2.81\pm0.25)\times10^{-4}$~\cite{CLEOd1} and are more precise.
661:
662:
663: \subsection{$B\to D\pi\pi$ Dalitz plot analysis}
664: For a three-body decay of a spin zero particle, two
665: variables are required to describe the decay kinematics;
666: we use the
667: $D^0\pi^+$ and $\pi^+\pi^-$ invariant masses squared, $q^2$ and $q_1^2$,
668: respectively.
669:
670: To analyze the dynamics of $B\to D\pi\pi$ decays, events
671: with $\Delta E$ and $M_{\rm bc}$
672: within the signal region
673: $((\Delta E+\kappa(M_{\rm bc}-M_B))/\sigma_{\Delta E})^2+((M_{\rm
674: bc}-M_B)/\sigma_{M_{\rm bc}})^2<4$
675: are selected. The parameters $\sigma_{\Delta E}=11
676: {\rm MeV}/c^2,~\sigma_{M_{\rm bc}}=2.7~{\rm MeV}/c^2,~\kappa=0.9$ have been
677: obtained from a fit to experimental data; the coefficient $\kappa$ takes into account
678: a correlation between $M_{\rm bc}$ and $\Delta E$.
679:
680: To model the contribution and shape of the background, we use
681: events from the $\Delta E$ sidebands, which are defined as:
682: $((\Delta E\pm65\,{\rm MeV}+\kappa(M_{\rm bc}-M_B))/\sigma_{\Delta E})^2+((M_{\rm
683: bc}-M_B)/\sigma_{M_{\rm bc}})^2<4$. Figure~\ref{f:mbc} shows the
684: signal and sidebands regions in the $ (M_{\rm bc}-\Delta E))$ plane.
685: \begin{figure}[h]
686: \begin{center}
687: \includegraphics[width=8 cm]{fig3.eps}
688: \caption{The experimental event distribution in the $ (M_{\rm bc}-\Delta
689: E))$ plot. The ellipses show a position of the signal (1) and sideband regions (2),(3).}
690: \label{f:mbc}
691: \end{center}
692: \end{figure}
693:
694: The $D\pi$ and $\pi\pi$ mass distributions for the signal and sideband events
695: are shown in Fig.~\ref{f:dpp_M}. In the $D\pi$ mass distribution we
696: can clearly see the narrow peak of the $D_2^*$. The $\pi\pi$ distribution
697: has a signal of the $\rho$ meson as well as a
698: structure at $1.2-1.3\,\rm GeV/c^2$ that can be due to $f_0(1370)$ or
699: $f_2(1270)$ contributions.
700:
701: The distributions of events in the $M^2_{D\pi}$ versus $M^2_{\pi\pi}$
702: Dalitz plot for the signal and sideband regions
703: are shown
704: in Fig.~\ref{f:dpp_DP}.
705: The Dalitz plot boundary is determined by the
706: decay kinematics and the masses of the daughter particles.
707: In order to have the same Dalitz plot boundary for events
708: in both signal and sideband regions,
709: mass-constrained fits
710: of
711: $K\pi$ to $M_D$ and $D\pi\pi$ to
712: $M_B$ are performed.
713: The mass-constrained fits also reduce smearing from
714: detector resolution.
715:
716: \begin{figure}[h]
717: \begin{center}
718: \begin{tabular}{cc}
719: \includegraphics[width=8 cm]{fig4a.eps}&
720: \includegraphics[width=8 cm]{fig4b.eps}\\
721: \vspace*{-8 cm} & \\
722: {\bf\large \hspace*{-3cm} a)}&{\bf\large \hspace*{-3cm} b)}\\
723: \vspace*{6.5 cm} & \\
724: \end{tabular}
725: \caption{$D\pi$ - (a) and $\pi\pi$ -(b) mass distribution. The points
726: with error bars
727: correspond to the signal box events, the hatched
728: histogram --- to the background obtained from sidebands. The open histogram
729: shows the fit function after efficiency correction.
730: }
731: \label{f:dpp_M}
732: \end{center}
733: \end{figure}
734:
735: \begin{figure}[h]
736: \begin{center}
737: \begin{tabular}{cc}
738: \includegraphics[width=8 cm]{fig5a.eps}&
739: \includegraphics[width=8 cm]{fig5b.eps}\\
740: \vspace*{-8 cm} & \\
741: {\bf\large \hspace*{-3cm} a)}&{\bf\large \hspace*{-3cm} b)}\\
742: \vspace*{6.5 cm} & \\
743: \end{tabular}
744: \caption{The Dalitz plot of a)signal events; b)sideband events.}
745: \label{f:dpp_DP}
746: \end{center}
747: \end{figure}
748: To extract the amplitudes and phases of different intermediate states,
749: an unbinned fit to the Dalitz plot is performed using the method
750: described in Ref.~\cite{mybelle}.
751: The event density function in the Dalitz plot is the sum of the signal
752: and background.
753:
754: The background distribution and normalization are obtained from the $\Delta E$ sideband
755: analysis.
756: Since the $D\pi$ mass distributions for the upper
757: and lower halves of the $\Delta E$ sideband have similar shapes, we
758: can expect similar background behavior for the signal and sideband regions.
759: The background Dalitz plot has neither a resonant structure
760: nor non-trivial helicity behavior and is combinatorial in its origin.
761: The background shape
762: is obtained from an unbinned fit of
763: the sideband distribution to a smooth two-dimensional function.
764: The number of background events in the signal region
765: is scaled according to the relative areas of the signal and the
766: sideband regions.
767:
768: There is no generally accepted way to exactly describe a three-body
769: amplitude. In this paper we represent the $D\pi\pi$ amplitude as
770: the sum of Breit-Wigner contributions for different intermediate
771: two-body states. Such
772: an approach cannot be exact since it is neither analytic nor unitary and
773: does not take describe completely possible final state interactions.
774: Nevertheless,
775: the sum of Breit-Wigners describes the main features of the
776: amplitude behavior and allows one to find and distinguish the
777: contributions of various two-body intermediate states, their interference
778: and the effective parameters of these states. We used the same approach
779: in the analysis of charged $B$ decays~\cite{mybelle}.
780:
781: In the $D^0\pi^+\pi^-$ final state
782: a combination of the $D^0$-meson and a pion can form a vector meson $D^{*+}$, a tensor meson
783: $D^{*+}_2$ or a scalar state $D_0^{*+}$; the axial vector mesons $D_1^+$ and
784: $D'^{+}_1$ cannot decay to two pseudoscalars because of angular
785: momentum and parity conservation. The region of the $D^{0}\pi^+$
786: invariant mass
787: corresponding to the $D^{*+}$
788: is excluded from the fitting by requiring $|M_{D\pi}-M_{D^*}|>0.01~\rm
789: GeV/c^2$ but in $B$ decay a
790: virtual $D^{*+}$ (referred to as $D^*_v$) can be produced off-shell
791: with $\sqrt{q^2}$
792: larger than the $D^0\pi^+$ total mass and such a process will
793: contribute to the amplitude.
794: Another virtual hadron that can be produced in this combination is $B^{*-}$ (referred to as $B^{*}_v$):
795: $B\to B^*_v\pi$ and $B^*_v\to D\pi$.
796: For the
797: mass of ${B}^{*-}$ as well as the mass and width of $D^{*+}$, we used the PDG
798: values~\cite{PDG}; the widths of ${B}^{*-}$ are
799: calculated from the width of the $D^{*-}$ in the HQET approach.
800: In the $\pi\pi$ distribution we can see a $\rho$ meson signal and some
801: evidence of resonances around $1300~\rm MeV$, which we describe with the
802: hypothesis
803: of
804: $f_2(1270)$ and $f_0$(1370) mesons. As it is shown in
805: Table~\ref{t:dpp1},
806: the hypothesis of $f_2$ has the best likelihood value. We also include the scalar resonance $f_0$(600) with free mass and width.
807:
808:
809: \begin{table}
810: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
811: \hline
812: &\multicolumn{8}{|c|}{$D^*_2,~D^*_v,~\rho,~f_0(600)$}\\
813: \hline
814: &\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$D^*_0$,}&&\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{$f_2(1270)$}\\
815: \hline
816: &$f_2(1270)$&$f_0$(1370)& -- && $D_0$& $D_1$ & $D_2$& -- \\
817:
818: \hline
819: $ -2\ln{\cal L}/{\cal L}_0$& 0 &49&80&&0&-5&16&31\\
820: \hline
821: \end{tabular}
822: \caption{Comparison of the models with different resonances.}
823: \label{t:dpp1}
824: \end{table}
825:
826:
827: The contributions from the intermediate states listed above
828: are included in the signal-event density ($S(q^2,q^2_1)$)
829: parameterization
830: as a coherent sum of the
831: corresponding amplitudes
832: together with a possible constant amplitude ($a_{ps}$):
833: \begin{eqnarray}
834: S(q^2,q_1^2)&=&|a_2A^2(q^2,q_1^2)+a_0e^{i\phi_0}A^0
835: (q^2,q_1^2)+a_1e^{i\phi_1}A^1(q^2,q_1^2)\nonumber\\
836: &&+a_{\rho}e^{i\phi_{\rho}}A^{\rho}+a_{f_0}e^{i(\phi_{f_0}+\phi_{\rho})}A^{f_0}
837: +a_{f_2}e^{i(\phi_{f_2}+\phi_{\rho})}A^{f_2}\nonumber\\
838: &&+a_{B^*}e^{i\phi_B}A^1(q^2,q_1^2)+a_{ps}e^{i\phi_{ps}}|^2.
839: \end{eqnarray}
840: Each resonance is described by a relativistic Breit-Wigner with a
841: $q^2$ dependent width
842: and angular dependence that corresponds to the spins of the
843: intermediate and final state particles following the approach described
844: in~\cite{mybelle}.
845: We take into account hadronic transition form factors.
846: The Blatt-Weisskopf parameterization~\cite{blat} with
847: a hadron scale $r$=1.6~$\rm(GeV/c)^{-1}$ is used.
848: For the virtual mesons $D^*_v$ and $B^*_v$ that are produced beyond the
849: peak region,
850: another form factor parameterization is used:
851: \begin{equation}
852: \label{eqf1}
853: F_{AB}(\mathbf{p})=e^{-r(\mathbf{p-p_0})};
854: \end{equation}
855: this provides stronger suppression of the Breit-Wigner far from the
856: resonance region.
857:
858: The detector resolution for the invariant mass of
859: the $D\pi $($\pi\pi $) combination is about $2.5$ (3.5)~MeV which is
860: much smaller than the narrowest peak width 30--40~MeV.
861:
862: The masses and widths of the $\pi\pi$ resonances (except $f_0(600)$) are fixed at the PDG~\cite{PDG}
863: values. The mass and width of the broad resonance in $(D\pi)$:
864: $M_{D_0^{*+}}=2308\,\rm MeV/c^2,~\Gamma^0_{D_0^{*+}} =276\,{\rm MeV}/c^2$ have been taken from our
865: measurement for the $D^{**0}$~\cite{mybelle}.
866:
867: The masses and widths of the $D_2^+$ and the $f_0$ as well as the relative amplitudes and
868: phases are free parameters of the
869: fit. The parameters of the the $f_0$ are quite uncertain and it can also be regarded as
870: a nonresonant S-wave structure.
871:
872: Table~\ref{t:dpp} gives the results of the fit for different models.
873: The contributions of different states are characterized by the
874: branching
875: fractions, which are
876: defined as:
877: \begin{equation}
878: \label{e:brf}
879: Br_i= \frac{a_i^2 \int |A_i(Q)|^2 dQ}{\int |\sum_i a_ie^{i\phi_i} A_i(Q)|^2 dQ},
880: \end{equation}
881: where $A_i(Q)$ is the corresponding amplitude, $a_i$ and $\phi_i$ are
882: the amplitude coefficients and phases obtained from the fit. The
883: integration
884: is performed over all the available phase
885: space characterized by the multidimensional vector $Q$ (for decay to 3
886: spinless particles $dQ\equiv dq^2dq_1^2$), and $i$ is one of the intermediate states: $D^{*}_2,~D^{*}_0,~\rho,~f_2,~f_0,~D^*_v,~B^*_v$ or
887: the constant term $a_{ps}$.
888: \begin{table}
889: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
890: \hline
891: & 1 & 2
892: &3 & 4 & 5 \\
893: \hline
894: & $D^*_2,~D^*_0,~D^*_v,$ &
895: $D^*_2,~D^*_0,$
896: &$D^*_2,~D^*_0,~D^*_v,$ & $D^*_2,~D^*_0,~D^*_v,$ & $D^*_2,~D^*_v,$ \\
897: & $\rho,~f_2,~f_0(600)$ &
898: $\rho,~f_2,~f_0(600)$
899: &$\rho,~f_2,~f_0(600),~B^*_v$ & $\rho,~f_2,~f_0(600)+ps$ & $\rho,~f_2,~f_0(600)$ \\
900: \hline
901: $ -2\ln{\cal L}/{\cal L}_0$ & 0 & 66.9 & -9.0 & -7.0 & 37.2 \\
902: \hline
903: $Br_{D_2^*}(10^{-4})$ & 3.08$\pm$ 0.22& 3.23$\pm$ 0.22& 3.19$\pm$ 0.26& 3.07$\pm$ 0.22& 3.33$\pm$ 0.23\\
904: \hline
905: $\phi_{D_0^*}$ & -1.82$\pm$ 0.24& -1.52$\pm$ 0.24&
906: -2.15$\pm$ 0.28& -1.81$\pm$ 0.20& -- \\
907: $Br_{D_0^*}(10^{-4})$ & 0.60$\pm$ 0.17& 0.47$\pm$ 0.15&
908: 0.52$\pm$ 0.18& 0.62$\pm$ 0.15& -- \\
909: \hline
910: $\phi_{D^*_v}$ & -1.57$\pm$ 0.25& --& -2.18$\pm$ 0.29& -1.54$\pm$ 0.22& -1.90$\pm$ 0.30\\
911: $Br_{D^*_v}(10^{-4})$ & 0.70$\pm$ 0.14& --& 0.71$\pm$ 0.14& 0.71$\pm$ 0.12& 0.62$\pm$ 0.13\\
912: \hline
913: $\phi_{\rho}$ & 1.83$\pm$ 0.24& 2.09$\pm$ 0.23& 1.23$\pm$ 0.22& 2.07$\pm$ 0.24& 1.90$\pm$ 0.24\\
914: $Br_{\rho}(10^{-4})$ & 2.91$\pm$ 0.28& 2.82$\pm$ 0.30& 2.50$\pm$ 0.33& 2.55$\pm$ 0.28& 2.97$\pm$ 0.31\\
915: \hline
916: $\phi_{f_2}$ & 2.81$\pm$ 0.20& 3.05$\pm$ 0.19& 2.74$\pm$ 0.19& 2.74$\pm$ 0.19& 2.89$\pm$ 0.20\\
917: $Br_{f_2}(10^{-4})$ & 1.10$\pm$ 0.19& 1.31$\pm$ 0.20& 1.18$\pm$ 0.20& 1.12$\pm$ 0.17& 1.24$\pm$ 0.20\\
918: \hline
919: $\phi_{f_0}$ & 0.34$\pm$ 0.18& 0.60$\pm$ 0.17& 0.34$\pm$ 0.17& 0.23$\pm$ 0.17& 0.50$\pm$ 0.20\\
920: $Br_{f_0}(10^{-4})$ & 1.75$\pm$ 0.26& 1.93$\pm$ 0.31& 2.28$\pm$ 0.31& 1.81$\pm$ 0.26& 1.62$\pm$ 0.28\\
921: \hline
922: $\phi_{B^*_v}$ & --& --& 0.00$\pm$ 0.19& --& --\\
923: $Br_{B^*_v}(10^{-4})$ & --& --& 0.44$\pm$ 0.25& --& --\\
924: \hline
925: $\phi_{ps}$ & --& --& --& 1.00$\pm$ 0.21& --\\
926: $Br_{ps}(10^{-4})$ & --& --& --& 0.06$\pm$ 0.05& --\\
927: \hline
928: $M_{f_0},(GeV/c^2)$ & 0.658$\pm$0.062& 0.681$\pm$0.048& 0.649$\pm$0.056& 0.633$\pm$0.052& 0.676$\pm$0.057\\
929: $\Gamma_{f_0},(GeV/c^2)$ & 0.94$\pm$ 0.22& 0.72$\pm$ 0.14&
930: 1.00$\pm$ 0.20& 0.88$\pm$ 0.19& 0.78$\pm$ 0.17\\
931: \hline
932: \hline
933: \end{tabular}
934: \caption{The fit results for different sets of amplitudes.}
935: \label{t:dpp}
936: \end{table}
937:
938:
939: In addition to the main minimum where the likelihood value is maximal ${\cal L}_0$,
940: there are several local minima with smaller likelihood ${\cal L}$.
941: The value of $(-2\ln{\cal L})$ differs from $(-2\ln{\cal L}_0)$
942: by 1.9-25. To search for local
943: minima we perform 100 minimizations starting from different points, randomly
944: distributed in the space of the minimized parameters.
945: Local minima appear mainly as a result of different phases between the
946: $D\pi$ and $\pi\pi$ structures. We consider the spread of the
947: branching values as a model error. The central values are the
948: parameters obtained for the main minimum. The spread of the
949: relative phases is
950: rather large. In some cases, the phases `''flip'' by close to $\pi$ radians,
951: so that the extraction of relative phases unreliable.
952:
953: The values of the $D_2^{*+}$ resonance mass and width obtained from the fit are:
954: $$
955: M_{D^{*+}_2}=(2459.5\pm2.3\pm0.7^{+4.9}_{-0.5}) {\rm MeV}/c^2,~~\Gamma_{D^{*+}_2}=(48.9\pm5.4\pm4.2\pm1.9){\rm MeV}.
956: $$
957: These parameters are consistent with the measurements from the FOCUS experiment:
958: $
959: M_{D^{*0}_2}=(2467.6\pm1.5\pm0.8)\, {\rm MeV}/c^2,~\Gamma_{D^{*}_2}=34.1\pm6.5\pm4.2)\, \rm{MeV}
960: $~\cite{FOC}.
961:
962:
963: The product of the branching ratios for $D^*_2$ production obtained in the
964: analysis when the amplitudes are included from above is:
965: $$
966: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to D^{*+}_2\pi^-)\times B(D_2^{*+}\to D^{0}\pi^+)=(3.08\pm0.33\pm0.09^{+0.15}_{-0.02})\times10^{-4},
967: $$
968: where the indicated errors are the statistical, systematic and model error.
969:
970: The broad resonance branching fraction assuming $0^+$ quantum numbers is:
971: $$
972: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to D^{*+}_0\pi^-)\times B(D_0^{*+}\to D^{0}\pi^+)=(0.60\pm0.17\pm0.16^{+0.13}_{-0.31})\times10^{-4}.
973: $$
974:
975: The helicity of the $D\pi$
976: distribution for different regions of $q^2$ is shown in
977: Fig.~\ref{f:dpp_hel} together with the efficiency corrected fitting function.
978: The histogram
979: in the region of the $D^*_2$ meson clearly indicates a D-wave. The
980: distributions in the other region
981: show reasonable agreement of the fitting function
982: and the data but the present statistics does not allow confirmation of the
983: quantum numbers of the resonance. Table~\ref{t:dpp1} shows that
984: the likelihood changed significantly if we exclude this resonance but
985: differs only slightly if the broad resonance is replaced with a vector or a
986: tensor.
987: We thus set an upper limit for the
988: branching fraction of the scalar $D_0^+\pi^-$ production:
989: $$
990: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to D^{*+}_0\pi^-)\times B(D_0^{*+}\to D^{0}\pi^+)
991: <1.2\times10^{-4} \rm~at~90\,\%~C.L..
992: $$
993:
994:
995:
996: The uncertainty of the background is one of the main sources of the systematic errors.
997: It is estimated by comparing the fit results for
998: the case when the background shape is taken
999: separately from the lower or upper
1000: sideband in the $\Delta E$ distribution. The fit is also performed
1001: with more
1002: restrictive and loose cuts on $\Delta E$, $M_{\rm bc}$ and $\Delta M_D$
1003: that changes the signal-to-background ratio by more than a factor of 2.
1004: The obtained results are consistent with each other.
1005: The maximum difference is taken as an additional estimate
1006: of the systematic uncertainty.
1007: For the branching fractions, the systematic errors also include
1008: uncertainties on track reconstruction and PID efficiency,
1009: as well as the error in the $D^0\to K^-\pi^+$ absolute
1010: branching fraction.
1011:
1012: The model uncertainties are estimated by comparing fit results
1013: for the case of different models
1014: and for the values of the parameter $r$ of the transition form factor
1015: that range from 0 to 3 (GeV/$c$)$^{-1}$.
1016:
1017: \begin{figure}[h]
1018: \begin{center}
1019: \begin{tabular}[c]{cc}
1020: \includegraphics[height=8 cm]{fig6a.eps}&
1021: \includegraphics[height=8 cm]{fig6b.eps}\\
1022: \vspace*{-8 cm} & \\
1023: {\bf\large \hspace*{-3cm} a)}&{\bf\large \hspace*{-3cm} b)}\\
1024: \vspace*{6.5 cm} & \\
1025: \end{tabular}
1026: \end{center}
1027: \caption{Helicity of the $D\pi$ distribution for experimental events
1028: (points)
1029: and for MC simulation (histogram). The hatched distribution shows
1030: the background from the $\Delta E$ sideband region with
1031: a proper normalization. (a) corresponds to the $D_2$ region
1032: $|M_{D\pi}-2.46|<0.1\rm\,GeV/c^2$; (b) - $D_0$ region $|M_{D\pi}-2.30|<0.1\rm\,GeV/c^2$.
1033: }
1034: \label{f:dpp_hel}
1035: \end{figure}
1036:
1037: The helicities of the $\pi\pi$ system in the $M_{\pi\pi}$ range
1038: of $\rho,~f_2$ and below the $\rho$ where the broad resonance dominates
1039: are shown in Fig.~\ref{f:pp_hel}.
1040: For the positive helicity range where the $D\pi$ contribution is
1041: suppressed, a clear $P$-wave structure for $\rho$ and
1042: $D$-wave for $f_2$ is observed.
1043: The branching ratios for the $f_0(600)$ is
1044: $
1045: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to f_0 D^0){\cal B}(f_0\to \pi^+\pi^-)=
1046: (1.75\pm0.26\pm0.35^{+0.55}_{-0.18})\times10^{-4}.
1047: $ This process can also have a contribution from some nonresonance background.
1048: The branching ratios for the $\rho$ and the $f_2$ are as follows:
1049: $$
1050: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to f_2 D^0){\cal B}(f_2\to \pi^+\pi^-)=
1051: (1.10\pm0.19\pm0.21^{+0.18}_{-0.01})\times10^{-4}.
1052: $$
1053: Taking into account the PDG value of the branching fraction ${\cal B}(f_2\to \pi\pi)=$
1054: $0.848^{+0.025}_{-0.013}$ and Clebsch-Gordan coefficients,we obtain:
1055: $$
1056: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to f_2 D^0)=
1057: (1.95\pm0.34\pm0.38^{+0.32}_{-0.02})\times10^{-4},
1058: $$
1059: $$
1060: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to \rho^0 D^0)=
1061: (2.91\pm0.28\pm{0.33}^{+0.08}_{-0.54})\times10^{-4}.
1062: $$
1063: \begin{figure}[h]
1064: \begin{center}
1065: \begin{tabular}[c]{ccc}
1066: \includegraphics[height=5 cm]{fig7a.eps}&
1067: \includegraphics[height=5 cm]{fig7b.eps}&
1068: \includegraphics[height=5 cm]{fig7c.eps}\\
1069: \vspace*{-5 cm} & \\
1070: {\bf\large \hspace*{-1cm} a)}&{\bf\large \hspace*{-1cm} b)}&{\bf\large \hspace*{-1cm} c)}\\
1071: \vspace*{3 cm} & \\
1072: \end{tabular}
1073: \end{center}
1074: \caption{Helicity distribution for experimental events (points) and for
1075: MC simulation (histogram). The hatched distribution shows
1076: the background distribution from the $\Delta E$ sideband region with
1077: a proper normalization. (a) corresponds to the $\rho$ region $|M_{\pi\pi}-0.78|<0.2
1078: \,$GeV/$c^2$; (b) -- $f_2$ region $|M_{\pi\pi}-1.20|<0.1\,$GeV/$c^2$; (c) -- $f_0$ region $M_{\pi\pi}<0.60\,$GeV/$c^2$.}
1079: \label{f:pp_hel}
1080: \end{figure}
1081:
1082: \section{$\bar{B}^{0}\to D^{*0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ analysis.}
1083:
1084: For $D^*$ reconstruction, the $D^{*0}\to D^0\pi^0$ decay is used with two
1085: decay modes of the $D^0$: $D^0\to K^-\pi^+$ and
1086: $D^0\to K^-\pi^+\pi^+\pi^-$.
1087: The event distributions in $\Delta E$ and $M_{bc}$ are shown
1088: in Fig.~\ref{f:1mb}.
1089: In each mode the number of signal events is obtained in a way similar to
1090: that described for the $D\pi\pi$ selection.
1091: The observed signal yields of
1092: $N_{K\pi}=278\pm23$ and $N_{K3\pi}=269\pm29$ for the $K\pi$ and $K\pi\pi\pi$
1093: modes,
1094: respectively, are consistent when efficiencies determined
1095: from MC, and the following $D$
1096: branching fractions are used:
1097: ($3.80\pm 0.09)\%$ for $K^-\pi^+$ and
1098: $(7.46\pm 0.31)\%$ for $K^-\pi^+\pi^+\pi^-$.
1099: \begin{figure}[h]
1100: \begin{center}
1101: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1102: \includegraphics[height=8 cm]{fig8a.eps}&
1103: \includegraphics[height=8 cm]{fig8b.eps}\\
1104: \includegraphics[height=8 cm]{fig8c.eps}&
1105: \includegraphics[height=8 cm]{fig8d.eps}\\
1106: \vspace*{-16 cm} & \\
1107: {\bf\large \hspace*{-3cm} a)}&{\bf\large \hspace*{-3cm} b)}\\
1108: \vspace*{7. cm} & \\
1109: {\bf\large \hspace*{-3cm} c)}&{\bf\large \hspace*{-3cm} d)}\\
1110: \vspace*{6.5 cm} & \\
1111: $D\to K\pi$&$D\to K3\pi$\\
1112: \end{tabular}
1113: \caption{Distribution of $\bar{B}^{0}\to D^{*0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ events
1114: in $\Delta E$ and $M_{\rm bc}$ plots with $D$ reconstruction in $K\pi$
1115: mode -- (a), (c) and in $K3\pi$ mode -- (b), (d).
1116: (a), (b) $\Delta E$ distributions.
1117: (c), (d) $M_{\rm bc}$ distributions.}
1118: \label{f:1mb}
1119: \end{center}
1120: \end{figure}
1121: The branching fraction of $(D^*\to D\pi)\pi\pi$ events,
1122: calculated from the
1123: weighted average of the values obtained for the two modes, is:
1124: $$
1125: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to D^{*0}\pi^+\pi^-)=(1.09\pm0.08\pm0.16)\times10^{-3},
1126: $$
1127: where the first error is statistical and the second is systematic.
1128: This measurement is about $2.5\,\sigma$ larger than the previous
1129: result~\cite{Asish} of
1130: $
1131: (0.62\pm0.22\pm0.22)\times 10^{-3}.
1132: $
1133: We consider the previous measurement to be a statistical fluctuation.
1134: The systematic error contributions are listed in Table~\ref{t:syss}.
1135:
1136: The background shape uncertainty and the effect of cut boundaries were
1137: estimated in the same way
1138: as for the $D\pi\pi$ analysis.
1139: \begin{table}
1140: \begin{center}
1141: \begin{tabular}{l|l}
1142: \hline
1143: Source &{$\sigma_{sys},~\%$}\\
1144: \hline
1145: $Br({D^{*0},~D^0})$& 5.3\\
1146: Tracking&4.3\\
1147: $\pi^0$&6\\
1148: PID &5\\
1149: MC&3\\
1150: Background&10\\
1151: \hline
1152: Total&14.7\\
1153: \hline
1154: \end{tabular}
1155: \end{center}
1156: \caption{Contributions to the systematic error for $B\to D^*\pi\pi$.}
1157: \label{t:syss}
1158: \end{table}
1159:
1160: \subsection{$B\to D^*\pi\pi$ coherent amplitude analysis}
1161: In this final state we have a decaying vector $D^*$ particle.
1162: There are two additional degrees of freedom and,
1163: in addition to the $D^*\pi$ and $\pi\pi$
1164: invariant masses squared ($q^2,q^2_1$), two other variables
1165: are needed to specify the final state.
1166: The variables are chosen to be
1167: the angle $\alpha$ between
1168: the pions from the $D^{**}$ and $D^*$ decay in the
1169: $D^*$ rest frame, and the azimuthal angle $\gamma$
1170: of the pion from the $D^{*}$
1171: relative to the $B\to D^*\pi\pi$ decay plane.
1172: For the case of the $\pi\pi$ structure analysis another set of
1173: parameters can be chosen: $\pi\pi$ square mass ($q_1^2$); the helicity
1174: angle $\theta'$ of
1175: the $\pi\pi$-meson --- the angle between the positive pion from this
1176: meson decay
1177: and the $D^*$ direction in the $\pi\pi$ meson rest frame; the
1178: helicity angle $\alpha'$ of the $D^*$ meson --- the angle between the pion from the $D^*$
1179: decay
1180: and the $\pi\pi$-meson in the $D^*$ rest frame; and the angle $\gamma'$
1181: between the decay planes of the $D^*$ and the $\pi\pi$-meson.
1182:
1183:
1184: For further analysis, events satisfying
1185: the selection criteria described in the first section
1186: within the signal region
1187: $((\Delta E+\kappa(M_{\rm bc}-M_B))/\sigma_{\Delta E})^2+((M_{\rm
1188: bc}-M_B)/\sigma_{M_{\rm bc}})^2<s$
1189: are selected. The parameters $\sigma_{\Delta E}=11
1190: {\rm MeV}/c^2,~\sigma_{M_{\rm bc}}=2.7~{\rm MeV}/c^2,~\kappa=0.9$ are
1191: obtained from a fit to experimental data, and the coefficient
1192: $\kappa$ takes into account the correlation between $M_{\rm bc}$ and $\Delta E$.
1193: The parameter $s$ is selected to be 4 for the mode with $D\to K\pi$
1194: and 3 for $D\to K\pi\pi\pi$ to have a similar signal-to-background ratio.
1195: To understand the contribution and shape of the background, we use
1196: events in the
1197: sidebands
1198: $((\Delta E\pm65\,{\rm MeV}+\kappa(M_{\rm bc}-M_B))/\sigma_{\Delta E})^2+((M_{\rm
1199: bc}-M_B)/\sigma_{M_{\rm bc}})^2<s$.
1200:
1201: The $D^*\pi$ and $\pi\pi$ mass distributions for the signal and sideband events
1202: are shown in Fig.~\ref{f:dsp_M} and \ref{f:dpp_DS}. There is a clear peak of the narrow states
1203: $D_2^{*+}$ and $D_1^{+}$ with a negligible contribution of the broad
1204: states in the $D\pi$ distribution. In the $\pi\pi$ distribution the peaks of
1205: $\rho$ and $f_2(1270)$ are clearly seen while the peak-like structure around
1206: 2.6~GeV/c$^2$ is the reflection of the $D\pi$ angular distribution.
1207: \begin{figure}[h]
1208: \begin{center}
1209: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1210: \includegraphics[height=8 cm]{fig9a.eps}&
1211: \includegraphics[height=8 cm]{fig9b.eps}\\
1212: \vspace*{-8 cm} & \\
1213: {\bf\large \hspace*{-3cm} a)}&{\bf\large \hspace*{-3cm} b)}\\
1214: \vspace*{6.5 cm} & \\
1215: \end{tabular}
1216: \caption{Mass distribution of $D^*\pi$ and $\pi\pi$ events. Points are the experimental data, the hatched histogram
1217: is the background distribution obtained from the sidebands, the open histogram is MC simulation
1218: with the amplitudes and parameters of the intermediate resonances obtained from the fit.}
1219: \label{f:dsp_M}
1220: \end{center}
1221: \end{figure}
1222: \begin{figure}[h]
1223: \begin{center}
1224: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1225: \includegraphics[height=8 cm]{fig10a.eps}&
1226: \includegraphics[height=8 cm]{fig10b.eps}\\
1227: \vspace*{-8 cm} & \\
1228: {\bf\large \hspace*{-3cm} a)}&{\bf\large \hspace*{-3cm} b)}\\
1229: \vspace*{6.5 cm} & \\
1230: \end{tabular}
1231: \caption{The Dalitz plot of (a) signal events; (b) sideband events.}
1232: \label{f:dpp_DS}
1233: \end{center}
1234: \end{figure}
1235: In order to have the same Dalitz plot boundary for
1236: events from both the signal and the sideband regions as well as to decrease the
1237: smearing effect introduced by the detector resolution,
1238: mass-constrained fits of $D\pi$ to $M_{D^{*+}}$
1239: and $D^*\pi\pi$ to $M_B$ are performed.
1240:
1241: To extract the amplitudes and phases for different intermediate states,
1242: an unbinned likelihood fit in
1243: the four-dimensional phase space is performed.
1244: Assuming that the background distribution ${\cal
1245: B}(q^2,q^2_1,\alpha,\gamma)$
1246: in the signal region has the
1247: same shape as in the $\Delta E$ sideband,
1248: we obtain the
1249: ${\cal B}(q^2,q^2_1,\alpha,\gamma)$ dependence from a fit
1250: of the sideband
1251: distribution to a smooth four-dimensional function.
1252:
1253: The number of background events in the signal region
1254: is normalized according to the relative areas of the signal and the
1255: sideband regions.
1256: The signal is parameterized as a sum of the
1257: amplitudes of an intermediate tensor ($D_2^*$), two axial vector
1258: mesons ($D'_1,~D_1$), and three resonances $\rho,~f_2$ and $f_0(600)$
1259: in the $\pi\pi$ mode. For $\rho$ and $f_2$ there can be three
1260: different amplitudes depending on the relative polarizations of the
1261: decay products:$A_{0},~A_{\perp}$ and $A_{||}$.
1262:
1263: Finally, the signal is expressed as follows:
1264: \begin{eqnarray}
1265: \label{e:4.1}
1266: &&S(q^2,q_1^2,\alpha,\gamma)=|a_2A^{(2)}(q^2,q_1^2,\alpha,\gamma)+
1267: a_1e^{i\phi_1}A^{(n)}(q^2,q_1^2,\alpha,\gamma)
1268: +a_we^{i\phi_w}A^{(w)}(q^2,q_1^2,\alpha,\gamma)\nonumber\\
1269: &&+
1270: a_{\rho}e^{i\phi_{\rho}}((1-a_{||}^{\rho}-a_{\perp}^{\rho})A^{(\rho)}_{0}(q^2,q_1^2,\alpha,\gamma)+a_{||}^{\rho}e^{i\phi^{\rho}_{||}}A^{(\rho)}_{||}(q^2,q_1^2,\alpha,\gamma)\nonumber\\
1271: &&+a_{\perp}^{\rho}e^{i\phi^{\rho}_{\perp}}A^{(\rho)}_{\perp}(q^2,q_1^2,\alpha,\gamma))\nonumber\\
1272: &&+
1273: a_{f_2}e^{i\phi_{f_2}}((1-a_{||}^{f_2}-a_{\perp}^{f_2})A^{(f_2)}_{0}(q^2,q_1^2,\alpha,\gamma)+a_{||}^{f_2}e^{i\phi^{f_2}_{||}}A^{(f_2)}_{||}(q^2,q_1^2,\alpha,\gamma)\nonumber\\
1274: &&+a_{\perp}^{f_2}e^{i\phi^{f_2}_{\perp}}A^{(f_2)}_{\perp}(q^2,q_1^2,\alpha,\gamma))\nonumber\\
1275: &&+
1276: a_{f_0}A^{(f_0)}(q^2,q_1^2,\alpha,\gamma)+
1277: a_{ps}|^2.
1278: \end{eqnarray}
1279: The MC gives the resolution in invariant mass of about $1.9$~MeV/$c^2$,
1280: which is smaller than the resonance widths and can be neglected.
1281:
1282: Each resonance is described by a relativistic Breit-Wigner function
1283: with a width
1284: depending on $q^2$.
1285: The angular dependence for each resonance corresponds
1286: to the spins of the intermediate and final state
1287: particles~\cite{mybelle}.
1288: The amplitudes of $B\to D^*\rho$ and $B\to D^*f_2$ decays have
1289: the following angular distributions:
1290: \begin{eqnarray}
1291: \label{e:3.4}
1292: A^{\rho}_{0}&\sim&\cos{\alpha'}\cos{\theta'}\nonumber\\
1293: A^{\rho}_{||}&\sim&\sin{\alpha'}\sin{\theta'}\cos{\gamma'}\nonumber\\
1294: A^{\rho}_{\perp}&\sim&\sin{\alpha'}\sin{\theta'}\sin{\gamma'}
1295: \end{eqnarray}
1296: \begin{eqnarray}
1297: \label{e:3.4}
1298: A^{f_2}_{0}&\sim&\cos{\alpha'}(\cos^2{\theta'}-1/3)\nonumber\\
1299: A^{f_2}_{||}&\sim&\sin{\alpha'}\sin{\theta'}\cos{\theta'}\cos{\gamma'}\nonumber\\
1300: A^{f_2}_{\perp}&\sim&\sin{\alpha'}\sin{\theta'}\cos{\theta'}\sin{\gamma'}
1301: \end{eqnarray}
1302:
1303:
1304: Table~\ref{t:dpps1} shows the results of the fit for different models.
1305: If we remove the $D'_1$ meson from Eq.~\ref{e:4.1}, the likelihood
1306: does not change significantly. If we remove the $f_2$ instead, the
1307: likelihood increases by 41.
1308: Adding the phase space
1309: term does not improve the likelihood significantly. Replacing the $f_2$
1310: meson with an $f_0$(1370) results in a worse likelihood value as shown
1311: in Table~\ref{t:dpp1s}.
1312: \begin{table}
1313: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
1314: \hline
1315: &\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$D^*_2,~D_1,~D'_1,~\rho,~f_0(600)$}\\
1316: \hline
1317: &$f_2$&$f_0$(1370)& no\\
1318: \hline
1319: $ -2\ln{\cal L}/{\cal L}_0$& 0 &11&41\\
1320: \hline
1321: \end{tabular}
1322: \caption{Comparison of the models with different resonances included in the fits.}
1323: \label{t:dpp1s}
1324: \end{table}
1325:
1326:
1327: The masses and widths of the $\pi\pi$ resonances are fixed at their PDG
1328: values; $M_{D_2^{*+}}$, and $\Gamma^0_{D_2^{*+}}$ are taken from
1329: the $D\pi\pi $ fit; and $ M_{D'_1}=2427\,{\rm MeV}/c^2,~\Gamma_{D'_1}^0=384\,{\rm MeV}/c^2$ have been taken from our
1330: measurement for $D^{**0}$~\cite{mybelle}.
1331: The mass $M_{D_1^+}$ and width $\Gamma_{D_1^+}$ as well as the branching fractions and phases of the amplitudes were free parameters of the
1332: fit.
1333:
1334: \begin{table}
1335: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
1336: \hline
1337: \hline
1338: & $D^*_2,~D_1,~D'_1,$ &
1339: $D^*_2,~D_1,$
1340: &$D^*_2,~D_1,~D'_1,$ & $D^*_2,~D_1,~D'_1,$
1341: \\
1342: &&&&\\
1343: & $\rho,~f_2,~f_0(600)$ &
1344: $\rho,~f_2,~f_0(600)$
1345: &$\rho,~f_0(600)$ & $\rho,~f_2,~f_0(600)+ps$ \\
1346: \hline
1347: $ -2\ln{\cal L}/{\cal L}_0$ & 0 & -4 & +41 & -1 \\
1348: \hline
1349: $Br_{D_2^*}(10^{-4})$ & 2.45$\pm$ 0.42& 2.45$\pm$ 0.42& 2.48$\pm$ 0.43& 2.43$\pm$ 0.41\\
1350: \hline
1351: $\phi_{D_1}$ & 0.908$\pm$0.145& 0.907$\pm$0.145& 0.837$\pm$0.139& 0.766$\pm$0.147\\
1352: $Br_{D_1}(10^{-4})$ & 3.68$\pm$ 0.60& 3.71$\pm$ 0.62& 4.03$\pm$ 0.84& 3.63$\pm$ 0.61\\
1353: \hline
1354: $\phi_{D'_1}$ & -0.197$\pm$0.584& --& -0.316$\pm$0.670& -0.121$\pm$0.556\\
1355: $Br_{D'_1}(10^{-4})$ & 0.14$\pm$ 0.13& --& 0.11$\pm$ 0.12& 0.14$\pm$ 0.14\\
1356: \hline
1357: $\phi_{ps}$ & --& --& --& 2.594$\pm$0.551\\
1358: $Br_{ps}(10^{-4})$ & --& --& --& 0.00$\pm$ 0.17\\
1359: \hline\hline
1360: $\phi_{\rho}$ & 2.566$\pm$0.333& 2.543$\pm$0.337& 2.032$\pm$0.326& 2.560$\pm$0.327\\
1361: $Br_{\rho}(10^{-4})$ & 3.73$\pm$ 0.87& 3.78$\pm$ 0.87& 3.89$\pm$ 0.96& 3.74$\pm$ 0.85\\
1362: \hline
1363: $\phi_{f_2}$ & 0.440$\pm$0.413& 0.411$\pm$0.425& --& 0.429$\pm$0.453\\
1364: $Br_{f_2}(10^{-4})$ & 1.05$\pm$ 0.37& 1.05$\pm$ 0.37& --& 0.98$\pm$ 0.35\\
1365: \hline
1366: $\phi_{f_0}$ & -2.263$\pm$0.646& -2.190$\pm$0.643& -2.823$\pm$0.498& -2.181$\pm$0.597\\
1367: $Br_{f_0}(10^{-4})$ & 0.17$\pm$ 0.11& 0.16$\pm$ 0.11& 0.32$\pm$ 0.17& 0.17$\pm$ 0.11\\
1368: \hline\hline
1369: $a^{\rho}_{||}$ & 0.204$\pm$0.059& 0.198$\pm$0.058& 0.176$\pm$0.061& 0.211$\pm$0.059\\
1370: $a^{\rho}_{\perp}$ & 0.067$\pm$0.038& 0.065$\pm$0.038& 0.105$\pm$0.042& 0.066$\pm$0.038\\
1371: $\phi^{\rho}_{\perp}$& 0.678$\pm$0.348& 0.686$\pm$0.351& 0.693$\pm$0.307& 0.624$\pm$0.358\\
1372: $a^{\rho}_{0}$ & 0.730$\pm$0.058& 0.737$\pm$0.057& 0.719$\pm$0.059& 0.723$\pm$0.058\\
1373: $\phi_{\rho_2}$ & 2.046$\pm$0.229& 2.031$\pm$0.229& 2.269$\pm$0.250& 2.030$\pm$0.225\\
1374: \hline\hline
1375: $a^{f_2}_{0}$ & 0.623$\pm$0.137& 0.616$\pm$0.143& --& 0.646$\pm$0.142\\
1376: $a^{f_2}_{\perp}$ & 0.080$\pm$0.084& 0.092$\pm$0.091& --& 0.082$\pm$0.085\\
1377: $\phi^{f_2}_{\perp}$ & -3.036$\pm$0.687& -2.983$\pm$0.672& --& -3.129$\pm$0.752\\
1378: $a^{f_2}_{||}$ & 0.297$\pm$0.137& 0.292$\pm$0.142& --& 0.273$\pm$0.143\\
1379: $\phi^{f_2}_{||}$ & -0.895$\pm$0.489& -0.846$\pm$0.506& --& -0.926$\pm$0.551\\
1380: \hline\hline
1381: \end{tabular}
1382: \caption{The fit results for different sets of amplitudes.}
1383: \label{t:dpps1}
1384: \end{table}
1385: In addition to the main minimum, there are several local minima that
1386: differ in $-2\ln{\cal L}/{\cal L}_0$ by 2.1 to 25. The main minimum and local
1387: minima are treated in the same way as for $D\pi\pi$.
1388:
1389:
1390: Figs.~\ref{f:dsp_M} and~\ref{f:D1} demonstrate
1391: the comparison of data and the MC simulation generated
1392: according to Eq.~(\ref{e:4.1}) with parameters obtained from the fit.
1393: The distributions of the helicities of
1394: $D^{**}$ and $D^{*}$ and the angle $\gamma$ in different $q^2$ regions
1395: demonstrate reasonable agreement of the experimental data and fit result.
1396: \begin{figure}[h]
1397: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
1398: \includegraphics[height=5 cm]{fig11a.eps}&
1399: \includegraphics[height=5 cm]{fig11b.eps}&
1400: \includegraphics[height=5 cm]{fig11c.eps}\\
1401: \includegraphics[height=5 cm]{fig11d.eps}&
1402: \includegraphics[height=5 cm]{fig11e.eps}&
1403: \includegraphics[height=5 cm]{fig11f.eps}\\
1404: \vspace*{-10 cm} & \\
1405: {\bf\large \hspace*{-1cm} a)}&{\bf\large \hspace*{-1cm} b)}&{\bf\large \hspace*{-1cm} c)}\\
1406: \vspace*{4 cm} & \\
1407: {\bf\large \hspace*{-1cm} d)}&{\bf\large \hspace*{-1cm} e)}&{\bf\large \hspace*{-1cm} f)}\\
1408: \vspace*{3 cm} & \\
1409: \end{tabular}
1410: \caption{The distribution of the data for the $D_1$ region: (a)-(c)
1411: $|M_{D^*\pi}-2.41|<0.03\,GeV/c^2$ and the $D_2^*$ region:
1412: $|M_{D^*\pi}-2.45|<0.025\,GeV/c^2$ (d)-(f).
1413: (a), (d) $\cos\theta$ -- helicity angle of $D^{**}$;
1414: (b), (e) $\cos\alpha$ -- helicity angle of $D^{*}$;
1415: (c), (f) azimuthal angle $\gamma$.
1416: The points are experimental data, the histogram is MC with fitted parameters,
1417: and the hatched histogram is the background contribution (from sideband).}
1418: \label{f:D1}
1419: \end{figure}
1420:
1421: For the $D_1$ meson we obtain the following parameters:
1422: $$
1423: M_{D^{+}_1}=(2428.2\pm2.9\pm1.6\pm0.6)\, {\rm MeV}/c^2,~\Gamma_{D^{+}_1}=(34.9\pm6.6^{+4.1}_{-0.9}\pm4.1)\, \rm{MeV}.
1424: $$
1425: These parameters are in good agreement with the CLEO measurement for $D^0_1$:\\
1426: $
1427: M_{D^{0}_1}=(2425\pm2\pm2)\, {\rm MeV}/c^2,~\Gamma_{D^{0}_1}=(26^{+8}_{-7}\pm4)\, \rm{MeV}
1428: $~\cite{dobs}.
1429:
1430: The preliminary results for the product of the branching ratios of the
1431: $D^{**}$'s are the following:
1432: $$
1433: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to D_1^+\pi^-)\times B(D_1^+\to D^{*0}\pi^+)=(3.68\pm0.60^{+0.71+0.65}_{-0.40-0.30})\times10^{-4},
1434: $$
1435: $$
1436: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to D^{*+}_2\pi^-)\times B(D_2^{*+}\to D^{*0}\pi^+)=(2.45\pm0.42^{+0.35+0.39}_{-0.45-0.17})\times10^{-4},
1437: $$
1438: $$
1439: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to D'^{+}_1\pi^-)\times B(D'^{+}_1\to D^{*0}\pi^+)=(0.14\pm0.13\pm0.12^{+0.00}_{-0.10})\times10^{-4}.
1440: $$
1441: The last value is not statisticaly significant and corresponds to an upper limit:
1442: $$
1443: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to D'^{+}_1\pi^-)\times B(D'^{+}_1\to
1444: D^{*0}\pi^+)<0.7\times10^{-4} \rm~at~90\,\%~C.L.
1445: $$
1446: Including a contact term improves the likelihood but without high significance (see Table~\ref{t:dpps1}).
1447:
1448: The helicity of the $\pi\pi$ system and the $D^*$ as well as the azimuthal
1449: angle $\gamma'$ are plotted in Fig.~\ref{f:dpp_hel_s} for the $M_{\pi\pi}$ range
1450: of the $\rho$ and the $f_2$.
1451:
1452: The branching ratio for the $f_0(600)$ production is comparable with zero:
1453: $
1454: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to f_0 D^0){\cal B}(f_0\to \pi^+\pi^-)=
1455: (0.17\pm0.11\pm0.10^{+0.18}_{-0.05})\times10^{-4}.
1456: $ This contribution can also be regarded as some nonresonance background.
1457:
1458: The branching ratios observed for the $\rho$ and the $f_2$ are as follows:
1459: $$
1460: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to \rho^0 D^{*0})=
1461: (3.73\pm0.87\pm{0.46}^{+0.18}_{-0.08})\times10^{-4},
1462: $$
1463: $$
1464: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to f_2 D^{*0}){\cal B}(f_2\to \pi^+\pi^-)=
1465: (1.05\pm0.37\pm0.34^{+0.45}_{-0.33})\times10^{-4}.
1466: $$
1467: Taking into account the branching fraction of ${\cal B}(f_2\to
1468: \pi^+\pi^-)$ we obtain:
1469: $$
1470: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to f_2 D^{*0})=
1471: (1.86\pm0.65\pm0.60^{+0.80}_{-0.52})\times10^{-4}.
1472: $$
1473:
1474: In spite of the limited statistics, we can determine the
1475: contribution of different polarization amplitudes for $\rho$ and
1476: $f_2$:
1477: $$
1478: a^{\rho}_{0}=0.73\pm0.06\pm0.10\pm0.09
1479: $$
1480: $$
1481: a^{\rho}_{||}=0.20\pm0.06\pm0.03\pm0.10
1482: $$
1483: $$
1484: a^{\rho}_{\perp}=0.07\pm0.04\pm0.05_{-0.03}^{+0.19}
1485: $$
1486:
1487: $$
1488: a^{f_2}_{0}=0.62\pm0.14\pm0.25\pm0.24
1489: $$
1490: $$
1491: a^{f_2}_{||}=0.30\pm0.14^{+0.07+0.09}_{-0.27-0.27}
1492: $$
1493: $$
1494: a^{f_2}_{\perp}=0.08\pm0.08^{+0.21+0.21}_{-0.03-0.02}
1495: $$
1496:
1497:
1498:
1499:
1500: \begin{figure}[h]
1501: \begin{center}
1502: \begin{tabular}[c]{ccc}
1503: \includegraphics[height=5 cm]{fig12a.eps}&
1504: \includegraphics[height=5 cm]{fig12b.eps}&
1505: \includegraphics[height=5 cm]{fig12c.eps}\\
1506: \includegraphics[height=5 cm]{fig12d.eps}&
1507: \includegraphics[height=5 cm]{fig12e.eps}&
1508: \includegraphics[height=5 cm]{fig12f.eps}\\
1509: \vspace*{-10 cm} & \\
1510: {\bf\large \hspace*{-1cm} a)}&{\bf\large \hspace*{-1cm} b)}&{\bf\large \hspace*{-1cm} c)}\\
1511: \vspace*{4 cm} & \\
1512: {\bf\large \hspace*{-1cm} d)}&{\bf\large \hspace*{-1cm} e)}&{\bf\large \hspace*{-1cm} f)}\\
1513: \vspace*{3 cm} & \\
1514: \end{tabular}
1515: \end{center}
1516: \caption{Helicity distribution for the $\rho$ region: (a)-(c)
1517: $|M_{\pi\pi}-.80|<0.20\,GeV/c^2$ and the $D_2^*$ region:
1518: $|M_{\pi\pi}-1.225|<0.125\,GeV/c^2$ (d)-(f).
1519: (a), (d) $\cos\theta$ -- helicity angle of $D^{**}$;
1520: (b), (e) $\cos\alpha$ -- helicity angle of $D^{*}$;
1521: (c), (f) azimuthal angle $\gamma$.experimental events (points) and for
1522: fast MC simulation (histogram). The hatched distribution shows
1523: the background distribution from the $\Delta E$ sideband region with
1524: a proper normalization.
1525: }
1526: \label{f:dpp_hel_s}
1527: \end{figure}
1528: \subsection{Results and discussion}
1529:
1530: The branching-fraction products obtained for the narrow $(j=3/2)$
1531: resonances are similar to
1532: those obtained in the case of charged $B$
1533: decays as shown in Table~\ref{zak}.
1534: \begin{table}
1535: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
1536: \hline
1537: & Neutral $B$ & Charged $B$~\cite{mybelle}\\
1538: \hline
1539: $
1540: {\cal B}(\bar{B}\to D^{*}_2\pi^-){\cal B}(D_2^{*}\to
1541: D^{*}\pi)
1542: $
1543: &
1544: $
1545: (2.45\pm0.42^{+0.35+0.39}_{-0.45-0.17})\times10^{-4}
1546: $
1547: &
1548: $
1549: (1.8\pm0.3\pm0.3\pm0.2)\times10^{-4}
1550: $\\
1551: $
1552: {\cal B}(\bar{B}\to D_1\pi^-){\cal B}(D_1\to
1553: D^{*}\pi)
1554: $
1555: &
1556: $
1557: (3.68\pm0.60^{+0.71+0.65}_{-0.40-0.30})\times10^{-4}
1558: $
1559: &
1560: $
1561: (6.8\pm0.7\pm1.3\pm0.3)\times10^{-4}
1562: $\\
1563: $
1564: {\cal B}(\bar{B}\to D^{*}_2\pi^-){\cal B}(D_2^{*}\to
1565: D\pi)
1566: $
1567: &
1568: $
1569: (3.08\pm0.33\pm0.09^{+0.15}_{-0.02})\times10^{-4}
1570: $
1571: &
1572: $
1573: (3.4\pm0.3\pm0.6\pm0.4)\times10^{-4}
1574: $\\
1575: \hline
1576: $
1577: {\cal B}(\bar{B}\to D'_1\pi^-){\cal B}(D'_1\to
1578: D^{*}\pi)
1579: $
1580: &
1581: $
1582: <0.7\times10^{-4} \rm ~at~90\,\%~C.L.
1583: $
1584: &
1585: $
1586: (5.0\pm0.4\pm1.0\pm0.4)\times10^{-4}
1587: $\\
1588: $
1589: {\cal B}(\bar{B}\to D^{*}_0\pi){\cal B}(D_0^{*}\to D\pi)
1590: $
1591: &
1592: $
1593: <1.2\times10^{-4} \rm~at~90\,\%~C.L.
1594: $
1595: &
1596: $
1597: (6.1\pm0.6\pm0.9\pm1.6)\times10^{-4}
1598: $\\
1599: \hline
1600: \end{tabular}
1601: \caption{Comparison of branching-fraction products for neutral
1602: and charged $B$ decays.}
1603: \label{zak}
1604: \end{table}
1605: The measured values of the branching fractions of the broad resonance
1606: $D^{*+}_0$ and $D'^{+}_1$ production in neutral $B$ decay are, however,
1607: significantly lower than those for charged $B$ decays.
1608: One possible explanation for this phenomenon is that
1609: for charged $B$ decay to $D^{**}\pi$, the amplitude
1610: receives contributions from both tree and the color
1611: suppressed diagrams as shown in Fig.~\ref{f:fd1}.
1612: \begin{figure}[h]
1613: \begin{center}
1614: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
1615: \includegraphics[width=5 cm]{fig13a.eps}&
1616: \includegraphics[width=5 cm]{fig13b.eps}&
1617: \includegraphics[width=5 cm]{fig13c.eps}\\
1618: \vspace*{-4 cm} & \\
1619: {\bf\large \hspace*{-1cm} a)}&{\bf\large \hspace*{-1cm} b)}&{\bf\large
1620: \hspace*{-1cm} c)}\\
1621: \vspace*{3 cm} & \\
1622: \end{tabular}
1623: \caption{Feynman diagrams for charged (a),(b) and neutral (c) $B$ decays.}
1624: \label{f:fd1}
1625: \end{center}
1626: \end{figure}
1627: Production of $D^{**}$ via tree-diagrams is described
1628: by the Isgur-Wise functions $\tau_{1/2}$ and $\tau_{3/2}$.
1629: According to the sum rule~\cite{QCDSR1,QCDSR}, $\tau_{1/2}\ll \tau_{3/2}$ and
1630: one would expect the suppression of the broad state production.
1631: For the color suppressed diagrams, however, $D^{**}$'s are produced by
1632: another
1633: mechanism and the amplitudes are characterized by the constants $f_{D(3/2)}$ and
1634: $f_{D(1/2)}$ and $f_{D(3/2)} \ll f_{D(1/2)}$.
1635: The production of the broad resonances
1636: $D^{*0}_0$ and $D'^{0}_1$ in charged $B$ decay is probably
1637: amplified by
1638: the color suppressed amplitude.
1639:
1640: \section{Conclusion}
1641:
1642: A study of neutral $B$ to $D^0\pi^+\pi^-$ and $D^{*0}\pi^+\pi^-$ decays
1643: has been presented.
1644: We have measured the total branching fractions of the three-body decays:
1645: ${\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to D^0\pi^+\pi^-)
1646: =(1.07\pm0.06\pm0.10)\times10^{-3}$
1647: and
1648: ${\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to
1649: D^{*0}\pi^+\pi^-)=(1.09\pm0.08\pm0.16)\times10^{-3}$
1650: and the two-body decay:
1651: ${\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to D^{*+}\pi^-)=(2.30\pm0.06\pm0.19)\times10^{-3}$.
1652:
1653: The dynamics of these three-body decays has been studied.
1654: The $D^0\pi^+\pi^-$ final state is described by the
1655: production of $D^*_2\pi^-$ with
1656: subsequent decays of $D^{*}_2\to D\pi$ and $D\rho,~Df_2$ and a
1657: broad scalar ($\pi\pi$) structure.
1658: From a Dalitz distribution analysis we have obtained the branching fraction product
1659: for $D^{*+}_2$:
1660: $$
1661: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to D^{*+}_2\pi^-)\times B(D_2^{*+}\to D^{0}\pi^+)=(3.08\pm0.33\pm0.09^{+0.15}_{-0.02})\times10^{-4}.
1662: $$
1663: The values obtained for the mass and width of the tensor meson $D^{*+}_2$ are:
1664: $$
1665: M_{D^{*+}_2}=(2459.5\pm2.3\pm0.7^{+4.9}_{-0.5}) {\rm MeV}/c^2,~~\Gamma_{D^{*+}_2}=(48.9\pm5.4\pm4.2\pm1.9){\rm MeV}.
1666: $$
1667:
1668: The upper limit for the contribution of the scalar $D^{*+}_0$ meson
1669: assuming its mass and width of $D_0^0$ is:
1670: $$
1671: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to D^{*+}_0\pi^-)\times B(D_0^{*+}\to
1672: D^{0}\pi^+)<1.2\times10^{-4} \rm~at~90\,\%~C.L..
1673: $$
1674:
1675: The branching fractions for $D\rho$ and $Df_2$ productions have been measured:
1676: $$
1677: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to \rho^0 D^0)=
1678: (2.91\pm0.28\pm{0.33}^{+0.08}_{-0.54})\times10^{-4}
1679: $$
1680: $$
1681: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to f_2 D^0)=
1682: (1.95\pm0.34\pm0.38^{+0.32}_{-0.02})\times10^{-4}.
1683: $$
1684: The last result represents a first observation.
1685:
1686: The $D^*\pi\pi$ final state is described by the
1687: production of $D^*_2\pi$ and $D_1\pi$ with
1688: subsequent decays of $D^{**}\to D^*\pi$ and $D^*\rho,~D^*f_2$.
1689: From a phase space analysis, we obtain the branching fractions product
1690: for $D^{**0}$:
1691: $$
1692: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to D_1^+\pi^-)\times B(D_1^+\to D^{*0}\pi^+)=(3.68\pm0.60^{+0.71+0.65}_{-0.40-0.30})\times10^{-4},
1693: $$
1694: $$
1695: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to D^{*+}_2\pi^-)\times B(D_2^{*+}\to D^{*0}\pi^+)=(2.45\pm0.42^{+0.35+0.39}_{-0.45-0.17})\times10^{-4}
1696: $$
1697: and set an upper limit on the production of the broad $D'_1$ resonance:
1698: $$
1699: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to D'^{+}_1\pi^-)\times B(D'^{+}_1\to
1700: D^{*0}\pi^+)<0.7\times10^{-4} \rm~at~90\,\%~C.L..
1701: $$
1702: For the $D_1$ meson mass and width we obtain the following values:
1703: $$
1704: M_{D^{+}_1}=(2428.2\pm2.9\pm1.6\pm0.6)\, {\rm MeV}/c^2,~\Gamma_{D^{+}_1}=(34.9\pm6.6^{+4.1}_{-0.9}\pm4.1)\, \rm{MeV}.
1705: $$
1706:
1707:
1708: The branching fraction of $D^*\rho$ and $D^*f_2$ has been measured:
1709: $$
1710: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to \rho^0 D^{*0})=
1711: (3.73\pm0.87\pm{0.46}^{+0.18}_{-0.08})\times10^{-4}
1712: $$
1713: $$
1714: {\cal B}(\bar{B}^0\to f_2 D^{*0})=
1715: (1.86\pm0.65\pm0.60^{+0.80}_{-0.52})\times10^{-4},
1716: $$
1717: These are the first measurements of these processes.
1718: We also observe dominance of the longitudinal polarization amplitude
1719: for $B\to D^*\rho$ and $B\to D^*f_2$.
1720:
1721: All results are preliminary.
1722:
1723: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1724: We thank the KEKB group for the excellent operation of the
1725: accelerator, the KEK Cryogenics group for the efficient
1726: operation of the solenoid, and the KEK computer group and
1727: the National Institute of Informatics for valuable computing
1728: and Super-SINET network support. We acknowledge support from
1729: the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and
1730: Technology of Japan and the Japan Society for the Promotion
1731: of Science; the Australian Research Council and the
1732: Australian Department of Education, Science and Training;
1733: the National Science Foundation of China under contract
1734: No.~10175071; the Department of Science and Technology of
1735: India; the BK21 program of the Ministry of Education of
1736: Korea and the CHEP SRC program of the Korea Science and
1737: Engineering Foundation; the Polish State Committee for
1738: Scientific Research under contract No.~2P03B 01324; the
1739: Ministry of Science and Technology of the Russian
1740: Federation; the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of
1741: the Republic of Slovenia; the National Science Council and
1742: the Ministry of Education of Taiwan; and the U.S.\
1743: Department of Energy.
1744:
1745:
1746: \begin{thebibliography}{120}
1747:
1748: \bibitem{PDG}
1749: S. Eidelman {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 592}, 1 (2004).
1750:
1751: \bibitem{AR1}
1752: H.~Albrecht {\it et al.} (ARGUS Collaboration),
1753: %``Observation OA New Charmed Meson,''
1754: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 56}, 549 (1986).
1755: %%CITATION = PRLTA,56,549;%%
1756:
1757: %\cite{Albrecht:1988dj}
1758: \bibitem{AR2}
1759: H.~Albrecht {\it et al.} (ARGUS Collaboration),
1760: %``Observation Of The D*0 (2459) In E+ E- Annihilation,''
1761: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 221}, 422 (1989).
1762: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B221,422;%%
1763:
1764: %\cite{Albrecht:1989pa}
1765: \bibitem{AR3}
1766: H.~Albrecht {\it et al.} (ARGUS Collaboration),
1767: %``Resonance Decomposition Of The D*0 (2420) Through A Decay Angular Analysis,''
1768: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 232}, 398 (1989).
1769: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B232,398;%%
1770:
1771: %\cite{Anjos:1988uf}
1772: \bibitem{e691}
1773: J.~C.~Anjos {\it et al.} (Tagged Photon Spectrometer Collaboration),
1774: %``Observation Of Excited Charmed Mesons,''
1775: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 62}, 1717 (1989).
1776: %%CITATION = PRLTA,62,1717;%%
1777:
1778: %\cite{Avery:1989ui}
1779: \bibitem{CL15}
1780: P.~Avery {\it et al.} (CLEO Collaboration),
1781: %``P Wave Charmed Mesons In E+ E- Annihilation,''
1782: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 41}, 774 (1990).
1783: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D41,774;%%
1784:
1785: %\cite{Frabetti:1993vv}
1786: \bibitem{e687}
1787: P.~L.~Frabetti {\it et al.} (E687 Collaboration),
1788: %``Measurement of the masses and widths of L = 1 charm mesons,''
1789: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 72}, 324 (1994).
1790: %%CITATION = PRLTA,72,324;%%
1791:
1792: %\cite{Avery:1994yc}
1793: \bibitem{CL2}
1794: P.~Avery {\it et al.} (CLEO Collaboration),
1795: %``Production and decay of D10 (2420) and D2*0 (2460),''
1796: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 331}, 236 (1994)
1797: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 342}, 453 (1995)].
1798: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9403359;%%
1799:
1800: \bibitem{dobs}
1801: %{Observation of $D_1(2420)^+$ and $D_2^*(2460)^+$}
1802: {T. Bergfeld \it et al.} (CLEO Collaboration),
1803: {Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 340}, 194 (1994).}
1804:
1805: \bibitem{DELPHI}{
1806: %Study of D^{**}
1807: %C.Bourdarios {\it et al.}} Narrow D** production in c and b jets.DELPHI Collaboration (
1808: D. Bloch {\it et al.} (DELPHI Collaboration), CERN-OPEN-2000-015,
1809: DELPHI-98-128-CONF-189, Jun 1998. 12pp.
1810: 29th International Conference on High-Energy Physics, Vancouver, Canada, 23-29 Jul 1998.
1811: }
1812:
1813: \bibitem{DELPHI1}{
1814: {
1815: D. Bloch {\it et al.} (DELPHI Collaboration),
1816: DELPHI-2000-106-CONF 405}.
1817: }
1818:
1819:
1820: \bibitem{ALEPH}{
1821: % PRODUCTION OF ORBITALLY EXCITED CHARM MESONS IN SEMILEPTONIC B DECAYS.
1822: D. Buskulic {\it et al.} (ALEPH Collaboration ), Z.\,Phys.\ C {\bf 73}, 601 (1997).
1823: }
1824: \bibitem{isgur}{N.~Isgur and M.B.~Wise, Phys.\ Rev. Lett. {\bf 66}, 1130 (1991).}
1825:
1826: \bibitem{rosner}{J.L.~Rosner, Comm.\,Nucl.\,Part.\,Phys. {\bf 16}, 109 (1986).}
1827:
1828:
1829: \bibitem{godfrey}{S.~Godfrey and R.~Kokoski, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 43},
1830: 1679 (1991).}
1831:
1832: \bibitem{falk}{A.F.~Falk and M.E.~Peskin, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49},
1833: 3320 (1994).}
1834:
1835: \bibitem{mybelle}{K.Abe {\it et al.}{ (Belle Collaboration)}, Phys.\
1836: Rev. D {\bf69}, 112002 (2004).}
1837:
1838: \bibitem{Belle}{A.~Abashian {\it et al.} (Belle Collaboration),
1839: Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A {\bf 479}, 117 (2002).}
1840:
1841: \bibitem{sim}{Events are generated with a modified version of the CLEO group's QQ program
1842: (http://www.lns.cornell.edu/public/CLEO/soft/QQ); the detector
1843: response is simulated using GEANT, R.Brun {\it et al.},
1844: GEANT 3.21, CERN Report DD/EE/84-1, 1984.}
1845:
1846: \bibitem{PID}{E.~Nakano (Belle Collaboration),
1847: Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A {\bf 494}, 402 (2002).}
1848:
1849:
1850:
1851: \bibitem{foot1}{The $z$ coordinate of the track is
1852: defined as the $z$ coordinate of the track point closest to the beam in
1853: the $r-\phi$
1854: plane. The $z$ axis is opposite the positron beam direction.}
1855:
1856:
1857:
1858: \bibitem{Asish}{A.Satpathy {\it et al.}{ (Belle Collaboration)}, Phys.\
1859: Lett.\ B {\bf 553}, 159 (2003).}
1860:
1861: \bibitem{CLEOd1} {G.~Brandenburg {\it et al.} (CLEO Collaboration),
1862: Phys.\ Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 2762 (1998).}
1863:
1864: \bibitem{FOC}{Eric W. Vaandering (FOCUS Collaboration), Jun 2004. 5pp.
1865: To appear in the proceedings of 39th Rencontres de Moriond on QCD and High-Energy Hadronic Interactions, La Thuile, Italy, 28 Mar - 4 Apr 2004.
1866: e-Print Archive: hep-ex/0406044.}
1867:
1868: \bibitem{QCDSR1}{N.~Uraltsev, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 501}, 86 (2001).}
1869:
1870: \bibitem{QCDSR}{A.~Le Yaouanc {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 520}, 25 (2001).}
1871:
1872:
1873:
1874:
1875:
1876:
1877:
1878:
1879:
1880:
1881:
1882:
1883:
1884:
1885: \bibitem{blat}{J.~Blatt and V.~Weisskopf, Theoretical Nuclear Physics, p.361,
1886: New York: John Wiley \& Sons (1952).}
1887:
1888:
1889:
1890:
1891:
1892:
1893:
1894:
1895:
1896:
1897:
1898:
1899: \end{thebibliography}
1900:
1901: \end{document}
1902: