1: \chapter{Data Analysis}
2:
3: In this thesis we investigate the current
4: experimental sensitivity for a CPT-violating signal
5: using data collected by the FOCUS Collaboration during the
6: 1996--97 fixed-target run at Fermilab. The analysis is also described in a journal publication~\cite{ref:abaz}.
7: % FOCUS is an
8: %upgraded version of the E687 spectrometer. Charm particles
9: %are produced by the interaction of high energy photons
10: %(average energy $\approx$ 180 GeV for triggered charm states)
11: %with a segmented
12: %BeO target. In the target region charged particles are
13: %tracked by 16 layers of microstrip detectors. These detectors
14: %provide excellent vertex resolution. Charged particles
15: %are further tracked by a system of five multiwire proportional
16: %chambers and are momentum analyzed by two oppositely
17: %polarized large aperture dipole magnets. Particle
18: %identification is determined by three multi-cell
19: %threshold ${\check{\rm C}}$erenkov detectors, electromagnetic calorimeters,
20: %and muon counters.
21: \section{Analysis Aproach}
22: The data analysis is as follows.
23: We analyze the two right-sign hadronic
24: decays $D^0 \rightarrow K^-\pi^+ $
25: and $\bar{D}^0 \rightarrow K^+\pi^-$.
26: %Contamination by doubly Cabibbo suppressed (wrong-sign) decay
27: %occurs but is small owing to the small branching ratio, and
28: %its effect on the right-sign signal yield estimates in this
29: %analysis is negligible.
30: We use the soft pion from the decay $D^{*+}\rightarrow D^0\pi^+$
31: to tag the flavor of the $D$ at production, and
32: the kaon charge in the decay $D^0\rightarrow K^- \pi^+$
33: to tag the $D$ flavor at the time of decay. (Charge conjugate modes are
34: assumed throughout this thesis.)
35: \section{Analysis Cuts}
36: $D^0\rightarrow K^- \pi^+$ events were selected by requiring
37: a minimum detachment of the secondary (decay) vertex from the
38: primary (production) vertex of 5$\sigma_L$. $\sigma_L$ is the decay length error.
39: The primary vertex was found using a candidate driven vertex
40: finder which nucleated tracks about a ``seed'' track
41: constructed using the secondary vertex and the reconstructed
42: $D$ momentum vector. Both primary and secondary vertices
43: were required to have confidence level fits of greater
44: than 1\%.
45: The $D^*$-tag is accomplished by requiring the
46: $D^*-D^0$ mass difference to be less than 3 MeV/$c^2$ of
47: the nominal value~\cite{pdg2004}.
48:
49:
50: Kaons and pions were identified using
51: the $\check{\rm C}$erenkov particle identification cuts.
52: These cuts are based on likelihood ratios between the
53: various stable particle hypotheses, and are computed for a
54: given track from the observed firing response (``on'' or ``off'')
55: of all cells within the track's ($\beta$ = 1) $\check{\rm C}$erenkov
56: light cone in each of three multi-cell, threshold $\check{\rm C}$erenkov
57: counters as described earlier.
58: %The probability that a given
59: %track wil fire a given cell is computed using
60: %Poisson statistics based on the predicted number of photoelectrons
61: %striking the cell's phototube under each particle
62: %identification hypothesis; the accidental firing rate
63: %of the cells, which depended on beam intensity, was
64: %also used.
65: The product of all firing probabilities
66: for all cells within the three $\check{\rm C}$erenkov cones
67: produces a $\chi^2$-like variable called
68: $W_i \equiv $ -- 2$\times$log(likelihood) where $i$ ranges
69: over electron, pion, kaon and proton hypotheses.
70: For the $K$ and the $\pi$ candidates, we require $W_i$ to be no more
71: than 4 greater than the smallest of the other three hypotheses
72: ($W_i - W_{min} < 4$) which eliminated candidates that are highly to have been
73: misidentified.
74: In addition, $D^0$ daughters must satisfy the slightly stronger
75: $K\pi$ separation criteria $W_\pi - W_K > 0.5$ for the $K$
76: and $W_K - W_\pi > -2 $ for the $\pi$.
77: Doubly misidentified $D^0 \rightarrow K^-\pi^+$ candidates are removed
78: by imposing a hard $\check{\rm C}$erenkov cut on the sum of
79: the two separations
80: $((W_\pi - W_K)_K + (W_K - W_\pi)_\pi > 8)$.
81: Primary vertices that lie in the TR1 region are poorly reconstructed
82: so we exclude events in TR1, by
83: imposing the $z$ coordinate of the primary vertex~$<2$~cm.
84: Fig.~\ref{fig:signal} shows the invariant mass distribution
85: for the two $D^*$-tagged, right-sign decays
86: $D^0\rightarrow K^-\pi^+$ and $\bar{D}^0\rightarrow K^+\pi^-$.
87: Fig.~\ref{fig:dmass_split} shows the invariant mass distributions
88: for right-sign decays split up into particle and antiparticle.
89: A fit to the mass distribution is carried out using a Gaussian
90: function to describe the signal and a second-order polynomial for the
91: background. The fit yields $17\,227 \pm 144$ $D^0$ and
92: $18\,463 \pm 151$ $\d0b$ signal events.
93:
94: \begin{figure}[tbh]
95: %\begin{centering}
96: \centerline{
97: \psfig{figure=cpt_plots/data_mass_d0d0bar.eps,height=3.5in}
98: }
99: \caption{Invariant mass distribution for the sum of $D^0$ and
100: $\overline{D}^0$ right-sign decay candidates.}
101: \label{fig:signal}
102: %\end{centering}
103: \end{figure}
104:
105: \begin{figure}
106: \includegraphics[height=2.5in]{cpt_plots/d0_mass.eps}\\
107: \includegraphics[height=2.5in]{cpt_plots/d0bar_mass.eps}
108: \caption{Invariant mass of (a) $D^0\rightarrow K^-\pi^+$ and (b)
109: $\d0b\rightarrow K^+\pi^-$ for data (points) fitted with a
110: Gaussian signal and quadratic background (solid line).
111: The vertical dashed lines indicate the signal
112: region, and the vertical dotted lines indicate the sideband region.}
113: \label{fig:dmass_split}
114: \end{figure}
115:
116: %\begin{figure}[tbh]
117: %{\hbox
118: %{\psfig{figure=cpt_plots/d0_mass.eps,height=2.0in}
119: %\hskip 0.25in
120: %\psfig{figure=cpt_plots/d0bar_mass.eps,height=2.0in}}
121: %}
122: %\caption{Invariant mass of ($D^0\rightarrow K^-\pi^+$~(a);
123: %$\d0b\rightarrow K^+\pi^-$~(b)) for data (points) fitted with a
124: %Gaussian signal and quadratic background (solid line).
125: %The vertical dashed lines indicate the signal
126: %region, the vertical dotted lines indicate the sideband region}
127: %\label{fig:dmass_split}
128: %\end{figure}
129:
130: Fig. \ref{fig:z_vertexes} shows the primary and secondary vertices for
131: $D^0$'s for the run period 6 which has 4 target segments interwoven with
132: target silicons. Most of the primary vertices lie within the target
133: segments and some in the target silicons. The contours of the
134: target segments and target silicons can be seen. About 60\% of $D^0$ decays occur outside of target segments.
135: \begin{figure}[tbh]
136: {\hbox
137: {\psfig{figure=cpt_plots/z_primary.eps,height=2.5in}
138: \hskip 0.25in
139: \psfig{figure=cpt_plots/z_secondary.eps,height=2.5in}}
140: }
141: \caption{(Left) $z$ position of the primary vertex of $D$'s for
142: $run number > 9750$ and (right) $z$ position of $D$'s secondary vertices for
143: $run number > 9750$. The dashed line is to guide the eye.}
144: \label{fig:z_vertexes}
145: \end{figure}
146:
147:
148: The reduced proper time is a traditional lifetime variable used
149: in fixed-target experiments that uses the detachment between
150: the primary and secondary vertex as the principal tool in
151: reducing non-charm background. The reduced proper time is
152: defined by $t'=(\ell - N\sigma_\ell)/(\beta\gamma c)$ where
153: $\ell$ is the distance between the primary and secondary
154: vertex, $\sigma_\ell$ is the resolution on $\ell$, and $N$
155: is the minimum detachment cut required to tag the charmed
156: particle through its lifetime.
157: Fig.~\ref{fig:ptime} shows reduced proper time distributions
158: for the two right-sign decays:
159: $D^0\rightarrow K^-\pi^+$ and $\bar{D}^0\rightarrow K^+\pi^-$.
160:
161: \begin{figure}[tbh]
162: {\hbox
163: {\psfig{figure=cpt_plots/data_life_d0.eps,height=3.0in}
164: \hskip 0.25in
165: \psfig{figure=cpt_plots/data_life_d0bar.eps,height=3.0in}}
166: }
167: \caption{Background
168: subtracted reduced proper time distributions for
169: $D^0$ and $\d0b$. }
170: \label{fig:ptime}
171: \end{figure}
172:
173: Table~\ref{tab_yields} shows a summary of the fits for
174: $D^0\rightarrow K^-\pi^+$ and $\bar{D}^0\rightarrow K^+\pi^-$. It
175: gives us an overall picture of yields, signal to background ratios,
176: masses and lifetimes.\footnote{From a simple exponential fit.} The above cuts have been chosen to maximize the signal to background ratio.
177: \\
178: \\
179: \begin{table}[t]
180: \centering
181: \caption[Summary of Yields]{Summary of the fits for
182: $D^0\rightarrow K^-\pi^+$ and $\bar{D}^0\rightarrow K^+\pi^-$.
183: \label{tab_yields}}
184: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
185: \hline
186: Parameter&$\overline{D^0}$&$D^0$&$D^0+\overline{D^0}$\\
187: \hline
188: \hline
189: Yield&$18287 \pm 235$&$17085 \pm 224$&$35342 \pm 322$\\
190: \hline
191: $S/B$&$10.24$&$11.11$&$10.12$\\
192: \hline
193: ${\rm Mass}~({\rm MeV}/c^2)$&$1868.50 \pm 0.11$&$1867.80 \pm 0.11$&$1868.10 \pm 0.08$\\
194: \hline
195: $\sigma({\rm MeV}/c^2)$&$13.51 \pm 0.10$&$13.63 \pm 0.10$&$13.57 \pm 0.07$\\
196: \hline
197: $\tau(fs)$&$412.8 \pm 3.8$&$405.7 \pm 3.8$&$409.6 \pm 2.7$\\
198: \hline
199: \end{tabular}
200: \vskip 0.25in
201: \end{table}
202:
203: It is useful to know how how the signal to background ratio is
204: distributed in bins of reduced proper time.
205: We denote $S_{i}$ as the amount of signal in bin $i$ and $B_{i}$ the
206: amount of background in the same bin. When we apply sideband
207: subtraction, each event carries a weight and thus errors of each bin
208: will depend on signal to background ratio. The smaller this ratio, the
209: larger the errors. When there is only signal then the error is equal to the
210: square root of the bin content. Let's see quantitatively what happens.
211: When the sideband lines are chosen as in Fig.~\ref{fig:dmass_split},
212: we get a formula that connects error with signal to background ratio
213: $err_{i}=\sqrt{S_{i}(1+1.5\times B_{i}/S_{i})}$.
214: Based on this formula, we extract signal to background ratio per each
215: bin when we know $err_{i}$ and $S_{i}$.
216: Fig.~\ref{fig:sb_dist} shows the distribution of signal to background
217: ratio in bins of reduced proper time for $\d0b$ and $D^{0}$. Both
218: show that signal to background ratio decreases in large $t'$. This is
219: due to the fact that contamination from other charm mesons is more
220: likely at larger $t'$ values than for smaller values.
221: \begin{figure}[tbh]
222: {\hbox
223: {\psfig{figure=cpt_plots/sb_dist_d0bar.eps,height=2.5in}
224: \hskip 0.25in
225: \psfig{figure=cpt_plots/sb_dist_d0.eps,height=2.5in}}
226: }
227: \caption{ ${S}\over{B}$ in bins of reduced proper time for $\d0b$
228: (left) and $D^{0}$ (right).}
229: \label{fig:sb_dist}
230: \end{figure}
231:
232: \section{Results for the Asymmetry}
233:
234: We plot the difference in right-sign events between $\d0b$ and
235: $D^0$ in bins of reduced proper time $t'$. The background subtracted
236: yields of right-sign $D^0$ and $\d0b$ were extracted by properly
237: weighting the signal region~($-2\sigma, +2\sigma$), the low mass
238: sideband~($-7\sigma, -3\sigma$) and high mass sideband~($+3\sigma,
239: +7\sigma$), where $\sigma$ is the width of the fitted signal Gaussian.
240: For each data point, these yields were used in forming the ratio:
241: \begin{equation}
242: A_{\rm CPT}(t') = {{\overline{Y}(t')-Y(t'){{\overline{f}(t')}\over{f(t')}}}\over{\overline{Y}(t')+Y(t'){{\overline{f}(t')}\over{f(t')}}}},
243: \label{eq:asym_exp}
244: \end{equation}
245: where $\overline{Y}(t')$ and $Y(t')$ are the yields for
246: $\d0b$ and $D^{0}$ and $\overline{f}(t')$, and $f(t')$ are
247: their respective correction functions.
248: In the absence of detector acceptance corrections, this is
249: equivalent to $A_{CPT}$ as defined in Eqn.~\ref{eq:asym}.
250: The functions $\overline{f}(t')$ and $f(t')$
251: account for geometrical acceptance, detector and reconstruction
252: efficiencies, and the absorption of parent and daughter
253: particles in the nuclear matter of the target.
254: The correction functions are determined using a detailed Monte
255: Carlo~(MC) simulation using \textsc{PYTHIA}~\cite{pythia61}.
256: The fragmentation is done using the Bowler modified Lund string model.
257: \textsc{PYTHIA} was tuned using many production
258: parameters to match various data production variables such as charm
259: momentum and primary multiplicity.
260: The shapes of the $f(t^{\prime})$ and $\overline{f}(t^{\prime})$
261: functions are obtained
262: by dividing the reconstructed MC $t^{\prime}$ distribution by a pure
263: exponential with the MC generated lifetime.
264: Fig.~\ref{fig:fot} shows these corrections. Detector resolution effects cause less than 8\% change in the $t'$ distribution as measured by deviations from a pure exponential decay.
265: The ratio of the correction functions, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:main_results}(a),
266: enters explicitly in Eq.~\ref{eq:asym_exp} and its effects on the
267: asymmetry are less than 1.3\% compared to when no corrections are applied.
268: Due to the QCD production mechanism for photoproduced charm mesons,
269: more $\d0b$ than $D^0$ are produced in the FOCUS data sample. This has
270: been previously investigated in photoproduction by
271: E687, in which the production asymmetries were
272: studied in the context of a string fragmentation model~\cite{e687}. The effect
273: on the $A_{CPT}$ distribution is to add a constant, production-related
274: offset, which is accounted for in the fit.
275:
276: The $A_{\rm CPT}$ data in Fig.~\ref{fig:main_results}(b) are fit to a
277: line using the form of Eq.~\ref{eqn:acpt_sim} plus a constant offset.
278: The allowed fit parameters are a constant
279: production asymmetry parameter $\alpha$ and
280: ${\rm Re}\,\xi~y-{\rm Im}\,\xi~x$.
281: The value of $\Gamma$ used in the fit is taken as $\Gamma=1.6\times10^{-12}$~GeV~\cite{pdg2004}.
282: The result of the fit is:
283: \begin{equation}
284: {\rm Re}\,\xi~y-{\rm Im}\,\xi~x=0.0083 \pm 0.0065.
285: \end{equation}
286: We also report $\alpha$ for completeness:
287: \begin{equation}
288: \alpha=0.026 \pm 0.009.
289: \end{equation}
290: If one assumes mixing parameter $x, y$ values of 5\%(current 95\% C.L. upper limits) and Im~$\xi=0$, one obtains for Re~$\xi$, ${\rm Re}\xi=0.17 \pm 0.13$. We infer one
291: standard deviation errors on Re~$\xi$ of
292: $0.13$, and 95\% confidence level upper bounds of $0.26$.
293:
294: \begin{figure}
295: \includegraphics[height=2.5in]{cpt_plots/ft_r.eps}\\
296: \includegraphics[height=2.5in]{cpt_plots/asym_data.eps}\\
297: \includegraphics[height=2.5in]{cpt_plots/sidereal2_dcs.eps}
298: \caption{(a) The ratio of the corrections, and (b) $A_{\rm CPT}$ as a function of reduced proper time. The data
299: points represent the $A_{\rm CPT}$ as given in Eq.~\ref{eq:asym_exp}
300: and the solid line represent the fit given in functional form by
301: Eq.~\ref{eqn:acpt}: (c) ${\rm Re}\,\xi$ as a function of Greenwich Mean
302: Sidereal Time~(GMST).}
303: \label{fig:main_results}
304: \end{figure}
305:
306: \section{Results for Coefficients of Lorentz Violation}
307:
308: Any CPT and Lorentz violation within the Standard Model can be
309: described by the SME
310: proposed by Kosteleck\'y {\em et al.}~\cite{colladay-kostelecky}.
311: In quantum field theory,
312: the CPT-violating parameter $\xi$ must generically depend on lab momentum,
313: spatial orientation,
314: and sidereal time~\cite{kostelecky-prl,kostelecky}.
315: The SME can be used to show that Lorentz violation in the $D$ system
316: is controlled by the four vector $\Delta a_{\mu}$.
317: The precession of the experiment with the earth relative to
318: the spatial vector $\vec{\Delta a}$ would
319: modulate the signal for CPT violation, thus
320: making it possible to separate the components of $\Delta a_{\mu}$.
321: The coefficients for Lorentz violation depend on the flavor of the
322: valence quark states and are model independent.
323: In the case of FOCUS, where $D^0$ mesons in the lab frame
324: are highly collimated in the forward direction and under the
325: assumption that $D^0$ mesons are uncorrelated, the $\xi$ parameter assumes the
326: following form~\cite{kostelecky} outlined earlier:
327: \begin{eqnarray}
328: \xi(\hat{t}, p) & = & {\gamma(p)\over{\Delta\lambda}}[ \Delta a_0 + \beta \Delta a_Z {\rm cos} \chi
329: %\nonumber \\
330: % & &
331: + \beta {\rm sin} \chi (\Delta a_Y {\rm sin} \Omega \hat{t} + \Delta a_X {\rm cos} \Omega \hat{t}) ].
332: \label{eq:xii}
333: \end{eqnarray}
334: $\Omega$ and $\hat{t}$ are the sidereal frequency and time respectively,
335: $X, Y, Z$ are non-rotating coordinates with $Z$ aligned along the
336: Earth's rotation axis, $\Delta\lambda=\Gamma(x-iy)$, and
337: $\gamma(p) = \sqrt{1 + p^2_{D^0}/m_{D^0}^2}$. Binning in sidereal time
338: $\hat{t}$ is very useful because it
339: provides sensitivity to components $\Delta a_X$ and $\Delta a_Y$.
340: Since Eq.~15 of Ref.~\cite{kostelecky} translates into ${\rm Re}\,\xi\,y - {\rm Im}\,\xi\,x = 0$,
341: setting limits on the coefficients of Lorentz violation requires expanding
342: the asymmetry in Eq.~\ref{eq:asym} to higher (non-vanishing) terms.
343: In addition,
344: the interference term of right-sign decays with DCS decays must also be included since it gives a comparable
345: contribution. One can follow the procedure given by equations
346: [16] to [20] of Ref.~\cite{kostelecky} where the basic transition
347: amplitudes $\langle f|T|\overline{P^0}\rangle $ and $\langle \overline{f}|T|P^0\rangle $ are not
348: zero but are DCS amplitudes. After Taylor expansion the asymmetry can be
349: written as:
350: \begin{eqnarray}
351: A_{\rm CPT} &=& \frac{{\rm Re}\,\xi (x^2 + y^2) (t/\tau)^2}{2x}
352: %\nonumber \\
353: % & &
354: \left[ \frac{xy}{3} (t/\tau) + \sqrt{R_{\rm DCS}}\left(
355: x\,\cos{\delta}+ y\,\sin{\delta} \right) \right],
356: \label{eq:new_asym}
357: \end{eqnarray}
358: where $R_{\rm DCS}$ is the branching ratio of DCS relative to
359: right-sign decays and $\delta$ is the strong phase between the DCS
360: and right-sign amplitudes.
361: We searched for a sidereal time dependence by dividing our data sample into
362: four-hour bins in Greenwich Mean Sidereal
363: Time (GMST)~\cite{JeanMeeus}, where for each bin we repeated
364: our fit in $t^\prime$ using the asymmetry given by
365: Eq.~\ref{eq:new_asym} and extracted ${\rm Re}\,\xi$.
366: The resulting distribution, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:main_results}(c),
367: was fit using
368: Eq.~\ref{eq:xii} and the results for the expressions involving
369: coefficients of Lorentz violation in the SME were:
370: %\begin{subequation}
371: \begin{equation}
372: C_{0Z}\equiv N(x,y,\delta)(\Delta a_0 + 0.6\,\Delta a_Z)
373: =(1.0 \pm 1.1)\times 10^{-16}~{\rm GeV},
374: \end{equation}
375: \begin{equation}
376: C_{X}\equiv N(x,y,\delta)\Delta a_X=(-1.6 \pm 2.0)\times 10^{-16}~{\rm GeV},
377: \end{equation}
378: and
379: \begin{equation}
380: C_{Y}\equiv N(x,y,\delta)\Delta a_Y=(-1.6 \pm 2.0)\times 10^{-16}~{\rm GeV},
381: \end{equation}
382: %\end{subequation}
383: where $N(x,y,\delta)=[{xy}/3 + 0.06\,(x\,\cos{\delta}+ y\,\sin{\delta})]$
384: is the normalization factor.
385: The angle between the FOCUS spectrometer axis and the Earth's
386: rotation axis is approximately $\chi = 53^\circ~({\rm cos}{\chi} =
387: 0.6)$. We average over all $D^0$ momentum so $\langle \gamma(p) \rangle
388: \approx \gamma(\langle p \rangle) = 39$ and $\beta \approx 1$. We also
389: compare with the previous measurements
390: for the kaon $r_K$ and $B$ meson $r_B$ by constructing a similar
391: quantity $r_D$~\cite{kostelecky99},
392: $r_D=|\Delta\Lambda|/m_{D^0}=\beta^\mu\Delta a_{\mu}/m_{D^0}=|\overline{\xi}||\Delta\lambda|=\gamma(p)|\Delta
393: a_0 + 0.6\,\Delta a_Z|/m_{D^0}$. The result for $N(x,y,\delta)\,r_D$ is:
394: \begin{equation}
395: N(x,y,\delta)\,r_D=(2.3 \pm 2.3)\times 10^{-16}~{\rm GeV}.
396: \end{equation}
397: Although it may
398: seem natural to report $r_D$, the parameter $r_D$ (and $r_K$, $r_B$) has
399: a serious defect: in quantum field theory, its value changes
400: with the experiment. This is because it is a combination of the
401: parameters $\Delta a_{\mu}$ with coefficients controlled by the $D^0$ meson
402: energy and direction of motion.
403: The sensitivity would have been best if $\chi = 90^\circ$.
404:
405:
406: \section{Monte Carlo}
407: To understand the corrections, we analyzed simulated Monte Carlo
408: events. Our Monte Carlo simulation includes the \textsc{PYTHIA} Model for
409: photon gluon fusion and incorporates a complete simulation of all
410: detectors and trigger systems, with known multiple scattering and
411: absorption effects. The default Monte Carlo flag which is responsible
412: for scattering and absorption effects include a simulation of $D^0$
413: and $\bar{D^0}$ cross sections set at half the cross section for a pion.
414: %Molier scattering and $D$ daughters are wrecked based on the total(elastic
415: %plus inelastic) cross section. Wrecked particles do not produce any
416: %secondaries.
417: The Monte Carlo was prepared such that after trigger
418: requirement and analysis cuts as in the data, we reconstruct
419: 50 times the data statistics.
420: Fig.~\ref{fig:fot} shows the corrections $f(t')$ for $D^0$,
421: $\bar{D^0}$, $D^0$+$\bar{D^0}$ and the ratio of ${\bar{D^0}}\over{D^0}$. The
422: deviations are less than 8\% for individual $f(t')$. Furthermore
423: they cancel out when we take the ratio (of the order of 1.3\%)
424: ${\bar{f(t')}}\over{f(t')}$. The ratio is the only combination used when we form the asymmetry, so our detector corrections on the
425: asymmetry are very small.
426:
427: \begin{figure}[tbh]
428: \centerline{
429: \psfig{figure=cpt_plots/fts22_imcs23.eps,height=3.5in}
430: }
431: \caption{$f(t')$ corrections and their ratio for
432: $D^0$ and $\d0b$. }
433: \label{fig:fot}
434: \end{figure}
435: Fig.~\ref{fig:asym_monte} shows the asymmetry in Monte Carlo by
436: fitting it with the function in Eq.~\ref{eqn:acpt}. There is enough
437: data statistics in the Monte Carlo sample to demonstrate that there is no slope in the
438: asymmetry, i.e., only a small value of $Re\xi =-0.0003 \pm 0.0210$, consistent with zero, could result from these corrections. Thus a significant slope in observed real data should be attributed
439: to CPT. The $D^0$, $\overline{D^0}$ production asymmetry in Monte Carlo is $\alpha=0.052 \pm 0.001$.
440: \begin{figure}[tbh]
441: \centerline{
442: \psfig{figure=cpt_plots/asym2_monte23.eps,height=3.0in}
443: }
444: \caption{Asymmetry in Monte Carlo fitted with Eq.~\ref{eqn:acpt}}
445: \label{fig:asym_monte}
446: \end{figure}
447:
448: \section{Systematic Uncertainties}
449:
450: Previous analyses have shown that MC absorption corrections are very small~\cite{focusycp}.
451: The interactions of pions and
452: kaons with matter have been measured, but no equivalent data exists for
453: charm particles. To check for any systematic effects associated
454: with the fact that the charm particle cross section is unmeasured,
455: we examined several variations of $D^0$ and $\d0b$ cross sections.
456: The standard deviation of these
457: variations returns systematic uncertainties of $ \pm 0.0017$,
458: $\pm 0.3\times 10^{-16}$~GeV, $\pm 0.0\times 10^{-16}$~GeV, and
459: $\pm 0.1\times 10^{-16}$~GeV to our measurements of
460: ${\rm Re}\,\xi~y-{\rm Im}\,\xi~x$, $C_{0Z}$, $C_X$, and $C_Y$ respectively.
461:
462: We also investigated parent ($D^0$,$\d0b$) and daughter $(K,\pi)$
463: absorption separately. The study showed that the flat corrections in
464: MC are small, not only because absorption effects are small, but also
465: because of a cancellation due to two competing effects. The
466: $D^0$ has a slightly higher absorption rate than the $\d0b$, and
467: the net absorption rate of a ($K^-,\pi^+$) from a $D^0$ is slightly
468: lower than the net absorption rate of a ($K^+,\pi^-$) from the $\d0b$.
469:
470: In a manner similar to the S-factor method used by the Particle Data
471: group PDG~\cite{pdg2004}, we made eight statistically independent
472: samples of our data to look for systematic effects. We split
473: the data in four momentum ranges and two years. The split in year was
474: done to look for effects associated with target
475: geometry and reconstruction due to the addition of four silicon planes
476: near the targets in January, 1997~\cite{E831tsil}.
477: We found no contribution to our measurements of ${\rm Re}\,\xi~y-{\rm
478: Im}\,\xi~x$ and $C_{0Z}$. The contributions to
479: $C_X$ and $C_Y$ were $\pm 1.3\times 10^{-16}$~GeV and $\pm 1.6\times 10^{-16}$~GeV respectively.
480: We also varied the bin widths and the position of the sidebands to
481: assess the validity of the background subtraction method and the
482: stability of the fits. The standard deviation of these
483: variations returns systematic uncertainties of $\pm 0.0012$, $\pm 0.3\times
484: 10^{-16}$~GeV, $\pm 0.9\times 10^{-16}$~GeV, and $\pm 0.5\times
485: 10^{-16}$~GeV to our measurements of
486: ${\rm Re}\,\xi~y-{\rm Im}\,\xi~x$, $C_{0Z}$, $C_X$, and $C_Y$ respectively.
487: Finally, to uncover any unexpected systematic uncertainty, we varied
488: our $\ell/\sigma_\ell$ and $W_\pi - W_K$ requirements and
489: the standard deviation of these variations returns systematic uncertainties of
490: $\pm 0.0036$, $\pm 1.5\times 10^{-16}$~GeV, $\pm 1.0\times 10^{-16}$~GeV,
491: and $\pm 1.1\times 10^{-16}$~GeV to our measurements of
492: ${\rm Re}\,\xi~y-{\rm Im}\,\xi~x$, $C_{0Z}$, $C_X$, and $C_Y$ respectively.
493: Contributions to the systematic uncertainty are summarized in
494: Table~\ref{tb_syst1}.
495: Taking contributions to be uncorrelated,
496: we obtain a total systematic uncertainty
497: of $\pm 0.0041$ for ${\rm Re}\,\xi\,y - {\rm Im}\,\xi\,x$,
498: $\pm 1.6\times10^{-16}$~GeV for $C_{0Z}$,
499: $\pm 1.9\times10^{-16}$~GeV for $C_X$, and
500: $\pm 2.0\times10^{-16}$~GeV for $C_Y$.
501:
502: \begin{table}
503: \caption{\label{tb_syst1}Contributions to the systematic uncertainty.}
504: %\begin{ruledtabular}
505: \begin{center}
506: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
507: \hline
508: Contribut. & ${\rm Re}\,\xi\,y - {\rm Im}\,\xi\,x$ & $C_X$~(GeV) &$C_{0Z}$~(GeV) & $C_Y$~(GeV)\\
509: \hline \hline
510: Absorption & $ 0.0017$ & $0.0\times 10^{-16}$ & $0.3\times 10^{-16}$ & $0.1\times 10^{-16}$\\
511: Split sample & $ 0.0000$ & $ 1.3\times 10^{-16}$ & $ 0.0\times 10^{-16}$ & $ 1.6\times 10^{-16}$\\
512: Fit variant & $ 0.0012$ & $ 0.9\times 10^{-16}$ & $ 0.3\times 10^{-16}$ & $ 0.5\times 10^{-16}$\\
513: Cut variant & $ 0.0036$ & $ 1.0\times 10^{-16}$ & $ 1.5\times 10^{-16}$ & $ 1.1\times 10^{-16}$\\
514: \hline
515: {\bf Total} & $ {\bf 0.0041}$ & $ {\bf 1.9\times 10^{-16}}$ & $ {\bf 1.6\times 10^{-16}}$ & $ {\bf 2.0\times 10^{-16}}$\\
516: \hline
517: \end{tabular}
518: \end{center}
519: %\end{ruledtabular}
520: \end{table}
521:
522: \vspace{5mm}
523:
524: %\begin{table}
525: %\caption{\label{tb_syst2}Contributions to the systematic uncertainty.}
526: %\begin{ruledtabular}
527: %\begin{center}
528: %\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
529: %\hline
530: %Contribut. &$C_{0Z}$~(GeV) & $C_Y$~(GeV)\\
531: %\hline \hline
532: %Absorption & $\pm 0.3\times 10^{-16}$ & $\pm0.1\times 10^{-16}$\\
533: %Split sample & $\pm 0.0\times 10^{-16}$ & $\pm1.6\times 10^{-16}$ \\
534: %Fit variant & $\pm 0.3\times 10^{-16}$ & $\pm0.5\times 10^{-16}$ \\
535: %Cut variant & $\pm 1.5\times 10^{-16}$ & $\pm1.1\times 10^{-16}$\\
536: %\hline
537: %{\bf Total} & $\pm {\bf 1.6\times 10^{-16}}$ & $\pm {\bf 2.0\times 10^{-16}}$\\
538: %\hline
539: %\end{tabular}
540: %\end{center}
541: %\end{ruledtabular}
542: %\end{table}
543: To see further details on the assessment of systematic errors, see Appendix~\ref{app:systematics}.
544:
545: