1:
2: \documentclass[aps,preprint,tightenlines,superscriptaddress,showpacs,byrevtex]{revtex4}
3: % \documentclass[here,dvips,epsf,12pt]{revtex4}
4:
5: \usepackage{graphicx} % Include figure files
6: \usepackage{dcolumn} % Align table columns on decimal point
7:
8: \newcolumntype{B}{D{B}{\;}{-1}} % align on a character which doesn't appear in the output
9:
10: %%%%%%%%%LOGO and PREPRINT start
11: \def\figonescale{0.7}
12: \def\figtwoscale{0.8}
13: \def\figthreescale{0.8}
14: \def\bellelogo{\vbox to 16mm{
15: \vss\hbox{\resizebox{!}{3cm}{
16: \includegraphics{belle-logo.eps}}}}\vspace{-1cm}}
17: \def\preprintA{\hbox{\hfil Belle Preprint 2005-23}}
18: \def\preprintB{\hbox{\hfil KEK Preprint 2005-34}}
19: \def\preprintC{}
20: %%%%%%%%%LOGO and PREPRINT end
21:
22: \def\baselinestretch{1.5}
23: \textwidth 16cm
24: \textheight 20cm
25: \oddsidemargin 0cm
26: \evensidemargin 0cm
27: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
28: \newcommand{\dpprim}{\ensuremath{D^+_{prim}}}
29: \newcommand{\dzprim}{\ensuremath{D^0_{prim}}}
30: \newcommand{\parj}{\ensuremath{\text{\textbf{PARJ(13)}}}}
31: \newcommand{\Ys}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{\Upsilon(4S)}}}
32: \newcommand{\Zn}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Z}}}
33: \newcommand{\fb}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{fb^{-1}}}}
34: \newcommand{\pb}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{pb^{-1}}}}
35: \newcommand{\fbc}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{fb}}}
36: \newcommand{\pbc}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{pb}}}
37: \newcommand{\nb}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{nb}}}
38: \newcommand{\DZ}{\ensuremath{D^0}}
39: \newcommand{\DP}{\ensuremath{D^+}}
40: \newcommand{\DSZ}{\ensuremath{D^{*0}}}
41: \newcommand{\DSP}{\ensuremath{D^{*+}}}
42: \newcommand{\Ds}{\ensuremath{D_s^+}}
43: \newcommand{\Do}{\ensuremath{D^0_1}}
44: \newcommand{\Dt}{\ensuremath{D^{*0}_2}}
45: \newcommand{\LC}{\ensuremath{\Lambda_c^+}}
46: \newcommand{\Ks}{\ensuremath{K_s^0}}
47: \newcommand{\KP}{\ensuremath{K^+}}
48: \newcommand{\KM}{\ensuremath{K^-}}
49: \newcommand{\PP}{\ensuremath{\pi^+}}
50: \newcommand{\PM}{\ensuremath{\pi^-}}
51: \newcommand{\PZ}{\ensuremath{\pi^0}}
52: \newcommand{\PHI}{\ensuremath{\phi}}
53: \newcommand{\pr}{\ensuremath{p^+}}
54: \newcommand{\TO}{\ensuremath{\to}}
55: \newcommand{\xP}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{x_P}}}
56: \newcommand{\xE}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{x_E}}}
57: \newcommand{\GeV}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{GeV}}}
58: \newcommand{\MeV}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}
59: \newcommand{\epem}{\ensuremath{e^+e^-}}
60: \newcommand{\MC}{MC}
61: \newcommand{\qqbar}{\ensuremath{q\bar q}}
62: \newcommand{\uubar}{\ensuremath{u\bar u}}
63: \newcommand{\ddbar}{\ensuremath{d\bar d}}
64: \newcommand{\ssbar}{\ensuremath{s\bar s}}
65: \newcommand{\ccbar}{\ensuremath{c\bar c}}
66: \newcommand{\frf} {fragmentation function}
67: \newcommand{\EPJ}[3] {Eur.~Phys.~J.\ {\bf C#1}, #3 (#2)}
68: \newcommand{\ZPC}[3] {Z.~Phys.\ {\bf C#1}, #3 (#2)}
69: \newcommand{\hepex}[1] {hep-ex/#1}
70: \newcommand{\PLB}[3] {Phys.~Lett.\ {\bf B#1}, #3 (#2)}
71: \newcommand{\NPB}[3] {Nucl.~Phys.\ {\bf B#1}, #3 (#2)}
72: \newcommand{\CPC}[3] {Comp.~Phys.\ {Comm.~#1}, #3 (#2)}
73: \newcommand{\hepph}[1] {hep-ph/#1}
74: \newcommand{\NIM}[3] {Nucl.~Instr.\ {Meth.~A#1}, #3 (#2)}
75: \newcommand{\PRL}[3] {Phys.~Rev.\ {Lett.~#1}, #3 (#2)}
76: \newcommand{\PRC}[3] {Phys.~Rept.\ {\bf C#1}, #3 (#2)}
77: \newcommand{\NCA}[3] {Nuovo~Cim.\ {\bf A#1}, #3 (#2)}
78: \newcommand{\PRD}[3] {Phys.~Rev.\ {\bf D#1}, #3 (#2)}
79: \newcommand{\JHP}[3] {JHEP\ {#1}, #3 (#2)}
80: \newcommand{\JPG}[3] {J.~Phys.\ {\bf G#1}, #3 (#2)}
81:
82: \begin{document}
83:
84: \preprint{\vbox{
85: \preprintA
86: \preprintB
87: \preprintC
88: }}
89:
90: \title{ \quad\\[0.5cm]
91: Charm Hadrons from Fragmentation and $B$ decays in\\
92: \epem\ Annihilation at $\sqrt{s}=$10.6~\GeV}
93:
94: %%%% >>>>> insert the authorlist here. BEFORE the abstract !!!!! <<<<<
95: %%% Paper: Charm quark fragmentation
96: %%% Journal: Physical Review D
97: %%% Contacts: R. Seuster (seuster@bmail.kek.jp)
98: %%% Non-responding authors or those who said NO are commented out.
99: %%% ====================================================================
100: %%% Click the RELOAD button on your web browser to see the updated file.
101: %%% ====================================================================
102: %%% Use \input{author} to insert this material into your latex file.
103: %%%%% Force institutions to appear in alphabetical order when typeset.
104: %##\affiliation{Aomori University, Aomori}
105: \affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk}
106: \affiliation{Chiba University, Chiba}
107: \affiliation{Chonnam National University, Kwangju}
108: \affiliation{University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221}
109: \affiliation{University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt}
110: %##\affiliation{Gyeongsang National University, Chinju}
111: \affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822}
112: \affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba}
113: \affiliation{Hiroshima Institute of Technology, Hiroshima}
114: \affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing}
115: \affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Vienna}
116: \affiliation{Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow}
117: \affiliation{J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana}
118: \affiliation{Kanagawa University, Yokohama}
119: \affiliation{Korea University, Seoul}
120: %##\affiliation{Kyoto University, Kyoto}
121: \affiliation{Kyungpook National University, Taegu}
122: \affiliation{Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne, EPFL, Lausanne}
123: \affiliation{University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana}
124: \affiliation{University of Maribor, Maribor}
125: \affiliation{University of Melbourne, Victoria}
126: \affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya}
127: %##\affiliation{Nara Women's University, Nara}
128: \affiliation{National Central University, Chung-li}
129: %##\affiliation{National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung}
130: \affiliation{National United University, Miao Li}
131: \affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei}
132: \affiliation{H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow}
133: \affiliation{Nippon Dental University, Niigata}
134: \affiliation{Niigata University, Niigata}
135: \affiliation{Nova Gorica Polytechnic, Nova Gorica}
136: \affiliation{Osaka City University, Osaka}
137: \affiliation{Osaka University, Osaka}
138: \affiliation{Panjab University, Chandigarh}
139: \affiliation{Peking University, Beijing}
140: \affiliation{Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544}
141: %##\affiliation{RIKEN BNL Research Center, Upton, New York 11973}
142: %##\affiliation{Saga University, Saga}
143: \affiliation{University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei}
144: %##\affiliation{Seoul National University, Seoul}
145: %##\affiliation{Shinshu University, Nagano}
146: \affiliation{Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon}
147: \affiliation{University of Sydney, Sydney NSW}
148: \affiliation{Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay}
149: \affiliation{Toho University, Funabashi}
150: \affiliation{Tohoku Gakuin University, Tagajo}
151: \affiliation{Tohoku University, Sendai}
152: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo}
153: \affiliation{Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo}
154: %##\affiliation{Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo}
155: \affiliation{Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Tokyo}
156: %##\affiliation{Toyama National College of Maritime Technology, Toyama}
157: \affiliation{University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba}
158: \affiliation{Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061}
159: \affiliation{Yonsei University, Seoul}
160: \author{R.~Seuster}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
161: % \author{K.~Abe}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
162: \author{K.~Abe}\affiliation{Tohoku Gakuin University, Tagajo} % TohokuGakuin
163: % \author{N.~Abe}\affiliation{Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo} % TIT
164: % \author{I.~Adachi}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
165: \author{H.~Aihara}\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo} % Tokyo
166: % \author{K.~Aoki}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
167: % \author{K.~Arinstein}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
168: \author{Y.~Asano}\affiliation{University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba} % Tsukuba
169: % \author{T.~Aso}\affiliation{Toyama National College of Maritime Technology, Toyama} % Toyama
170: % \author{V.~Aulchenko}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
171: \author{T.~Aushev}\affiliation{Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow} % ITEP
172: % \author{T.~Aziz}\affiliation{Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay} % Tata
173: % \author{S.~Bahinipati}\affiliation{University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221} % Cincinnati
174: \author{A.~M.~Bakich}\affiliation{University of Sydney, Sydney NSW} % Sydney
175: % \author{V.~Balagura}\affiliation{Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow} % ITEP
176: % \author{Y.~Ban}\affiliation{Peking University, Beijing} % Peking
177: % \author{S.~Banerjee}\affiliation{Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay} % Tata
178: % \author{E.~Barberio}\affiliation{University of Melbourne, Victoria} % Melbourne
179: \author{M.~Barbero}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
180: % \author{A.~Bay}\affiliation{Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne, EPFL, Lausanne} % Lausanne
181: \author{I.~Bedny}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
182: \author{U.~Bitenc}\affiliation{J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana} % Ljubljana
183: \author{I.~Bizjak}\affiliation{J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana} % Ljubljana
184: % \author{S.~Blyth}\affiliation{National Central University, Chung-li} % NCU
185: % \author{A.~Bondar}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
186: \author{A.~Bozek}\affiliation{H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow} % Krakow
187: \author{M.~Bra\v cko}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba}\affiliation{University of Maribor, Maribor}\affiliation{J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana} % Ljubljana
188: \author{J.~Brodzicka}\affiliation{H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow} % Krakow
189: % \author{T.~E.~Browder}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
190: % \author{M.-C.~Chang}\affiliation{Tohoku University, Sendai} % Tohoku
191: % \author{P.~Chang}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
192: % \author{Y.~Chao}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
193: \author{A.~Chen}\affiliation{National Central University, Chung-li} % NCU
194: % \author{K.-F.~Chen}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
195: % \author{W.~T.~Chen}\affiliation{National Central University, Chung-li} % NCU
196: \author{B.~G.~Cheon}\affiliation{Chonnam National University, Kwangju} % Chonnam
197: % \author{R.~Chistov}\affiliation{Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow} % ITEP
198: % \author{S.-K.~Choi}\affiliation{Gyeongsang National University, Chinju} % Gyeongsang
199: \author{Y.~Choi}\affiliation{Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon} % Sungkyunkwan
200: % \author{Y.~K.~Choi}\affiliation{Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon} % Sungkyunkwan
201: \author{A.~Chuvikov}\affiliation{Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544} % Princeton
202: \author{S.~Cole}\affiliation{University of Sydney, Sydney NSW} % Sydney
203: \author{J.~Dalseno}\affiliation{University of Melbourne, Victoria} % Melbourne
204: \author{M.~Danilov}\affiliation{Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow} % ITEP
205: \author{M.~Dash}\affiliation{Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061} % VPI
206: \author{L.~Y.~Dong}\affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing} % IHEP
207: % \author{R.~Dowd}\affiliation{University of Melbourne, Victoria} % Melbourne
208: \author{J.~Dragic}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
209: \author{A.~Drutskoy}\affiliation{University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221} % Cincinnati
210: \author{S.~Eidelman}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
211: % \author{Y.~Enari}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
212: % \author{D.~Epifanov}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
213: % \author{C.~W.~Everton}\affiliation{University of Melbourne, Victoria} % Melbourne
214: \author{F.~Fang}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
215: % \author{S.~Fratina}\affiliation{J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana} % Ljubljana
216: % \author{H.~Fujii}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
217: % \author{N.~Gabyshev}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
218: % \author{A.~Garmash}\affiliation{Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544} % Princeton
219: \author{T.~Gershon}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
220: \author{A.~Go}\affiliation{National Central University, Chung-li} % NCU
221: \author{G.~Gokhroo}\affiliation{Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay} % Tata
222: % \author{P.~Goldenzweig}\affiliation{University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221} % Cincinnati
223: \author{B.~Golob}\affiliation{University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana}\affiliation{J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana} % Ljubljana
224: \author{A.~Gori\v sek}\affiliation{J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana} % Ljubljana
225: % \author{M.~Grosse~Perdekamp}\affiliation{RIKEN BNL Research Center, Upton, New York 11973} % RIKEN
226: % \author{H.~Guler}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
227: % \author{R.~Guo}\affiliation{National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung} % Kaohsiung
228: % \author{J.~Haba}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
229: % \author{F.~Handa}\affiliation{Tohoku University, Sendai} % Tohoku
230: % \author{K.~Hara}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
231: % \author{T.~Hara}\affiliation{Osaka University, Osaka} % Osaka
232: % \author{Y.~Hasegawa}\affiliation{Shinshu University, Nagano} % Shinshu
233: % \author{N.~C.~Hastings}\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo} % Tokyo
234: % \author{K.~Hasuko}\affiliation{RIKEN BNL Research Center, Upton, New York 11973} % RIKEN
235: \author{K.~Hayasaka}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
236: % \author{H.~Hayashii}\affiliation{Nara Women's University, Nara} % Nara
237: \author{M.~Hazumi}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
238: % \author{I.~Higuchi}\affiliation{Tohoku University, Sendai} % Tohoku
239: % \author{T.~Higuchi}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
240: % \author{L.~Hinz}\affiliation{Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne, EPFL, Lausanne} % Lausanne
241: % \author{T.~Hojo}\affiliation{Osaka University, Osaka} % Osaka
242: % \author{T.~Hokuue}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
243: \author{Y.~Hoshi}\affiliation{Tohoku Gakuin University, Tagajo} % TohokuGakuin
244: % \author{K.~Hoshina}\affiliation{Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Tokyo} % TUAT
245: \author{S.~Hou}\affiliation{National Central University, Chung-li} % NCU
246: \author{W.-S.~Hou}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
247: % \author{Y.~B.~Hsiung}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
248: % \author{Y.~Igarashi}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
249: \author{T.~Iijima}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
250: \author{K.~Ikado}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
251: % \author{A.~Imoto}\affiliation{Nara Women's University, Nara} % Nara
252: % \author{K.~Inami}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
253: % \author{A.~Ishikawa}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
254: % \author{H.~Ishino}\affiliation{Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo} % TIT
255: % \author{K.~Itoh}\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo} % Tokyo
256: \author{R.~Itoh}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
257: % \author{M.~Iwasaki}\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo} % Tokyo
258: \author{Y.~Iwasaki}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
259: % \author{C.~Jacoby}\affiliation{Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne, EPFL, Lausanne} % Lausanne
260: % \author{M.~Jones}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
261: % \author{R.~Kagan}\affiliation{Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow} % ITEP
262: % \author{H.~Kakuno}\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo} % Tokyo
263: \author{J.~H.~Kang}\affiliation{Yonsei University, Seoul} % Yonsei
264: \author{J.~S.~Kang}\affiliation{Korea University, Seoul} % Korea
265: \author{P.~Kapusta}\affiliation{H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow} % Krakow
266: % \author{S.~U.~Kataoka}\affiliation{Nara Women's University, Nara} % Nara
267: \author{N.~Katayama}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
268: \author{H.~Kawai}\affiliation{Chiba University, Chiba} % Chiba
269: % \author{H.~Kawai}\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo} % Tokyo
270: % \author{N.~Kawamura}\affiliation{Aomori University, Aomori} % Aomori
271: \author{T.~Kawasaki}\affiliation{Niigata University, Niigata} % Niigata
272: % \author{N.~Kent}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
273: \author{H.~R.~Khan}\affiliation{Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo} % TIT
274: % \author{A.~Kibayashi}\affiliation{Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo} % TIT
275: \author{H.~Kichimi}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
276: \author{H.~J.~Kim}\affiliation{Kyungpook National University, Taegu} % Kyungpook
277: % \author{H.~O.~Kim}\affiliation{Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon} % Sungkyunkwan
278: % \author{J.~H.~Kim}\affiliation{Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon} % Sungkyunkwan
279: % \author{S.~K.~Kim}\affiliation{Seoul National University, Seoul} % Seoul
280: \author{S.~M.~Kim}\affiliation{Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon} % Sungkyunkwan
281: % \author{T.~H.~Kim}\affiliation{Yonsei University, Seoul} % Yonsei
282: % \author{K.~Kinoshita}\affiliation{University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221} % Cincinnati
283: % \author{N.~Kishimoto}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
284: % \author{S.~Kobayashi}\affiliation{Saga University, Saga} % Saga
285: % \author{S.~Korpar}\affiliation{University of Maribor, Maribor}\affiliation{J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana} % Ljubljana
286: % \author{Y.~Kozakai}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
287: \author{P.~Kri\v zan}\affiliation{University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana}\affiliation{J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana} % Ljubljana
288: \author{P.~Krokovny}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
289: % \author{T.~Kubota}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
290: \author{R.~Kulasiri}\affiliation{University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221} % Cincinnati
291: \author{C.~C.~Kuo}\affiliation{National Central University, Chung-li} % NCU
292: % \author{H.~Kurashiro}\affiliation{Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo} % TIT
293: % \author{E.~Kurihara}\affiliation{Chiba University, Chiba} % Chiba
294: % \author{A.~Kusaka}\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo} % Tokyo
295: \author{A.~Kuzmin}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
296: \author{Y.-J.~Kwon}\affiliation{Yonsei University, Seoul} % Yonsei
297: \author{J.~S.~Lange}\affiliation{University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt} % Frankfurt
298: % \author{G.~Leder}\affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Vienna} % Vienna
299: % \author{S.~E.~Lee}\affiliation{Seoul National University, Seoul} % Seoul
300: % \author{S.~H.~Lee}\affiliation{Seoul National University, Seoul} % Seoul
301: % \author{Y.-J.~Lee}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
302: \author{T.~Lesiak}\affiliation{H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow} % Krakow
303: \author{J.~Li}\affiliation{University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei} % USTC
304: % \author{A.~Limosani}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
305: \author{S.-W.~Lin}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
306: % \author{D.~Liventsev}\affiliation{Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow} % ITEP
307: % \author{J.~MacNaughton}\affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Vienna} % Vienna
308: % \author{G.~Majumder}\affiliation{Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay} % Tata
309: \author{F.~Mandl}\affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Vienna} % Vienna
310: % \author{D.~Marlow}\affiliation{Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544} % Princeton
311: % \author{H.~Matsumoto}\affiliation{Niigata University, Niigata} % Niigata
312: % \author{T.~Matsumoto}\affiliation{Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo} % TMU
313: % \author{A.~Matyja}\affiliation{H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow} % Krakow
314: % \author{Y.~Mikami}\affiliation{Tohoku University, Sendai} % Tohoku
315: \author{W.~Mitaroff}\affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Vienna} % Vienna
316: % \author{K.~Miyabayashi}\affiliation{Nara Women's University, Nara} % Nara
317: \author{H.~Miyake}\affiliation{Osaka University, Osaka} % Osaka
318: % \author{H.~Miyata}\affiliation{Niigata University, Niigata} % Niigata
319: \author{Y.~Miyazaki}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
320: \author{R.~Mizuk}\affiliation{Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow} % ITEP
321: % \author{D.~Mohapatra}\affiliation{Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061} % VPI
322: % \author{G.~R.~Moloney}\affiliation{University of Melbourne, Victoria} % Melbourne
323: % \author{T.~Mori}\affiliation{Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo} % TIT
324: % \author{A.~Murakami}\affiliation{Saga University, Saga} % Saga
325: \author{T.~Nagamine}\affiliation{Tohoku University, Sendai} % Tohoku
326: \author{Y.~Nagasaka}\affiliation{Hiroshima Institute of Technology, Hiroshima} % Hiroshima
327: % \author{T.~Nakagawa}\affiliation{Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo} % TMU
328: % \author{I.~Nakamura}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
329: \author{E.~Nakano}\affiliation{Osaka City University, Osaka} % OsakaCity
330: \author{M.~Nakao}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
331: % \author{H.~Nakazawa}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
332: % \author{Z.~Natkaniec}\affiliation{H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow} % Krakow
333: % \author{K.~Neichi}\affiliation{Tohoku Gakuin University, Tagajo} % TohokuGakuin
334: \author{S.~Nishida}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
335: \author{O.~Nitoh}\affiliation{Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Tokyo} % TUAT
336: % \author{S.~Noguchi}\affiliation{Nara Women's University, Nara} % Nara
337: % \author{T.~Nozaki}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
338: % \author{A.~Ogawa}\affiliation{RIKEN BNL Research Center, Upton, New York 11973} % RIKEN
339: \author{S.~Ogawa}\affiliation{Toho University, Funabashi} % Toho
340: \author{T.~Ohshima}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
341: \author{T.~Okabe}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
342: \author{S.~Okuno}\affiliation{Kanagawa University, Yokohama} % Kanagawa
343: \author{S.~L.~Olsen}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
344: \author{Y.~Onuki}\affiliation{Niigata University, Niigata} % Niigata
345: % \author{W.~Ostrowicz}\affiliation{H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow} % Krakow
346: \author{H.~Ozaki}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
347: \author{P.~Pakhlov}\affiliation{Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow} % ITEP
348: \author{H.~Palka}\affiliation{H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow} % Krakow
349: \author{C.~W.~Park}\affiliation{Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon} % Sungkyunkwan
350: \author{H.~Park}\affiliation{Kyungpook National University, Taegu} % Kyungpook
351: \author{K.~S.~Park}\affiliation{Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon} % Sungkyunkwan
352: % \author{N.~Parslow}\affiliation{University of Sydney, Sydney NSW} % Sydney
353: % \author{L.~S.~Peak}\affiliation{University of Sydney, Sydney NSW} % Sydney
354: % \author{M.~Pernicka}\affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Vienna} % Vienna
355: \author{R.~Pestotnik}\affiliation{J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana} % Ljubljana
356: % \author{M.~Peters}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
357: \author{L.~E.~Piilonen}\affiliation{Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061} % VPI
358: % \author{A.~Poluektov}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
359: % \author{F.~J.~Ronga}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
360: % \author{N.~Root}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
361: % \author{M.~Rozanska}\affiliation{H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow} % Krakow
362: % \author{M.~Saigo}\affiliation{Tohoku University, Sendai} % Tohoku
363: % \author{S.~Saitoh}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
364: \author{Y.~Sakai}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
365: % \author{H.~Sakamoto}\affiliation{Kyoto University, Kyoto} % Kyoto
366: % \author{H.~Sakaue}\affiliation{Osaka City University, Osaka} % OsakaCity
367: % \author{T.~R.~Sarangi}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
368: \author{N.~Sato}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
369: % \author{N.~Satoyama}\affiliation{Shinshu University, Nagano} % Shinshu
370: % \author{K.~Sayeed}\affiliation{University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221} % Cincinnati
371: \author{T.~Schietinger}\affiliation{Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne, EPFL, Lausanne} % Lausanne
372: \author{O.~Schneider}\affiliation{Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne, EPFL, Lausanne} % Lausanne
373: % \author{P.~Sch\"onmeier}\affiliation{Tohoku University, Sendai} % Tohoku
374: \author{J.~Sch\"umann}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
375: \author{C.~Schwanda}\affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Vienna} % Vienna
376: % \author{A.~J.~Schwartz}\affiliation{University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221} % Cincinnati
377: % \author{T.~Seki}\affiliation{Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo} % TMU
378: % \author{K.~Senyo}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
379: %% \author{R.~Seuster}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
380: \author{M.~E.~Sevior}\affiliation{University of Melbourne, Victoria} % Melbourne
381: % \author{T.~Shibata}\affiliation{Niigata University, Niigata} % Niigata
382: \author{H.~Shibuya}\affiliation{Toho University, Funabashi} % Toho
383: % \author{B.~Shwartz}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
384: \author{V.~Sidorov}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
385: % \author{V.~Siegle}\affiliation{RIKEN BNL Research Center, Upton, New York 11973} % RIKEN
386: % \author{J.~B.~Singh}\affiliation{Panjab University, Chandigarh} % Panjab
387: \author{A.~Somov}\affiliation{University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221} % Cincinnati
388: \author{N.~Soni}\affiliation{Panjab University, Chandigarh} % Panjab
389: \author{R.~Stamen}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
390: \author{S.~Stani\v c}\affiliation{Nova Gorica Polytechnic, Nova Gorica} % NovaGorica
391: \author{M.~Stari\v c}\affiliation{J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana} % Ljubljana
392: % \author{A.~Sugiyama}\affiliation{Saga University, Saga} % Saga
393: % \author{K.~Sumisawa}\affiliation{Osaka University, Osaka} % Osaka
394: % \author{T.~Sumiyoshi}\affiliation{Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo} % TMU
395: % \author{S.~Suzuki}\affiliation{Saga University, Saga} % Saga
396: \author{S.~Y.~Suzuki}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
397: % \author{O.~Tajima}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
398: % \author{N.~Takada}\affiliation{Shinshu University, Nagano} % Shinshu
399: \author{F.~Takasaki}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
400: \author{K.~Tamai}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
401: \author{N.~Tamura}\affiliation{Niigata University, Niigata} % Niigata
402: % \author{K.~Tanabe}\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo} % Tokyo
403: \author{M.~Tanaka}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
404: \author{G.~N.~Taylor}\affiliation{University of Melbourne, Victoria} % Melbourne
405: \author{Y.~Teramoto}\affiliation{Osaka City University, Osaka} % OsakaCity
406: \author{X.~C.~Tian}\affiliation{Peking University, Beijing} % Peking
407: % \author{S.~N.~Tovey}\affiliation{University of Melbourne, Victoria} % Melbourne
408: % \author{K.~Trabelsi}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
409: % \author{Y.~F.~Tse}\affiliation{University of Melbourne, Victoria} % Melbourne
410: % \author{T.~Tsuboyama}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
411: % \author{T.~Tsukamoto}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
412: % \author{K.~Uchida}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
413: \author{S.~Uehara}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
414: \author{T.~Uglov}\affiliation{Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow} % ITEP
415: \author{K.~Ueno}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
416: % \author{Y.~Unno}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
417: \author{S.~Uno}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
418: \author{P.~Urquijo}\affiliation{University of Melbourne, Victoria} % Melbourne
419: % \author{Y.~Ushiroda}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
420: \author{G.~Varner}\affiliation{University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822} % Hawaii
421: % \author{K.~E.~Varvell}\affiliation{University of Sydney, Sydney NSW} % Sydney
422: % \author{S.~Villa}\affiliation{Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne, EPFL, Lausanne} % Lausanne
423: \author{C.~C.~Wang}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
424: \author{C.~H.~Wang}\affiliation{National United University, Miao Li} % Lien-Ho
425: \author{M.-Z.~Wang}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
426: % \author{M.~Watanabe}\affiliation{Niigata University, Niigata} % Niigata
427: % \author{Y.~Watanabe}\affiliation{Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo} % TIT
428: % \author{L.~Widhalm}\affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Vienna} % Vienna
429: \author{Q.~L.~Xie}\affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing} % IHEP
430: \author{B.~D.~Yabsley}\affiliation{Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061} % VPI
431: \author{A.~Yamaguchi}\affiliation{Tohoku University, Sendai} % Tohoku
432: % \author{H.~Yamamoto}\affiliation{Tohoku University, Sendai} % Tohoku
433: % \author{S.~Yamamoto}\affiliation{Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo} % TMU
434: % \author{T.~Yamanaka}\affiliation{Osaka University, Osaka} % Osaka
435: \author{Y.~Yamashita}\affiliation{Nippon Dental University, Niigata} % NihonDental
436: \author{M.~Yamauchi}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
437: % \author{Heyoung~Yang}\affiliation{Seoul National University, Seoul} % Seoul
438: % \author{P.~Yeh}\affiliation{Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei} % Taiwan
439: \author{J.~Ying}\affiliation{Peking University, Beijing} % Peking
440: % \author{S.~Yoshino}\affiliation{Nagoya University, Nagoya} % Nagoya
441: % \author{Y.~Yuan}\affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing} % IHEP
442: \author{Y.~Yusa}\affiliation{Tohoku University, Sendai} % Tohoku
443: % \author{H.~Yuta}\affiliation{Aomori University, Aomori} % Aomori
444: % \author{S.~L.~Zang}\affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing} % IHEP
445: % \author{C.~C.~Zhang}\affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing} % IHEP
446: % \author{J.~Zhang}\affiliation{High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba} % KEK
447: \author{L.~M.~Zhang}\affiliation{University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei} % USTC
448: \author{Z.~P.~Zhang}\affiliation{University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei} % USTC
449: \author{V.~Zhilich}\affiliation{Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk} % BINP
450: % \author{T.~Ziegler}\affiliation{Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544} % Princeton
451: % \author{D.~Z\"urcher}\affiliation{Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne, EPFL, Lausanne} % Lausanne
452: \collaboration{The Belle Collaboration}
453:
454: \begin{abstract}
455: We present an analysis of charm quark fragmentation at 10.6~\GeV,
456: based on a data sample of 103~\fb\
457: collected by the Belle detector at the
458: KEKB accelerator. We consider fragmentation into the main charmed
459: hadron ground states, namely \DZ, \DP, \Ds\ and \LC, as
460: well as the excited states \DSZ\ and \DSP. The fragmentation
461: functions are important to measure as they describe processes at a
462: low energy scale, where calculations in perturbation theory lead to
463: large uncertainties. Fragmentation functions can also be used as
464: input distributions for Monte Carlo generators. Additionally, we
465: determine the average number of these charmed hadrons produced per
466: $B$ decay at the \Ys\ resonance and measure the distribution of their
467: production angle in \epem\ annihilation events and in $B$ decays.
468: \vskip 1cm
469: \end{abstract}
470:
471: \pacs{13.66.Bc, 13.66.Jn, 14.20.Lq, 14.40.Lb}
472:
473: \maketitle
474:
475: %--------------------- End of Title Page ----------------------------%
476:
477: \newpage
478: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
479: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
480:
481: \section{Introduction}
482: Over recent years perturbative quantum chromodynamics (pQCD) has
483: shown impressive agreement with various inclusive measurements at
484: \epem\ colliders at many center-of-mass energies (CME) ranging from
485: 14~GeV up to 206~GeV.
486: These measurements utilised variables called event shapes or jet rates,
487: see \cite{OPAL_PETRAqcd} for such an analysis.
488: These are inclusive variables, whose values are calculated from the
489: four-momenta of all particles in an event.
490:
491: Other properties, such as the momentum spectra of charged or neutral
492: particles, have also been measured, but their prediction has proven to be
493: more difficult. The necessary calculations have to cover the entire
494: energy range
495: from the production of the partons at the CME down to the scale of
496: the hadron masses (typically $1~\GeV/c^2$), at which hadronisation occurs.
497: Typically, powers of the form $\log{(Q^2/m^2)}$ arise when quark masses
498: are taken into account, making pQCD calculations difficult to interpret.
499:
500: Attempts have been made to extend the applicable range of pQCD to
501: lower scales. These attempts have to be validated, for example by comparing
502: so-called fragmentation functions.
503: Due to the scaling violation of QCD, a fundamental property of
504: this theory, the fragmentation function for a given particle depends
505: explicitly on the CME. This energy dependence must follow the
506: Dokshitzer-Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi (DGLAP) \cite{DGLAP}
507: evolution equations.
508:
509: Thus, the fragmentation functions have to be properly evolved.
510: Monte Carlo (MC) generators which include this scaling can be used
511: instead of analytical evolution.
512: Common \MC\ generators which include this scaling are JETSET
513: \cite{JETSET}, (its variant) PYTHIA \cite{PYTHIA} and
514: HERWIG \cite{HERWIG}.
515:
516: These \MC\ generators are also needed to model
517: hadronisation, the transition of partons into hadrons, which
518: cannot be calculated from first principles within QCD.
519: Various models are implemented in MC generators. These
520: can be distinguished by comparing the (identified) heavy
521: hadron momentum spectra predicted by each model to the spectra seen
522: in data.
523:
524: Fragmentation functions for heavy quarks are attractive both
525: experimentally and theoretically. Concerning theory, mass effects in
526: the matrix elements only have to be considered for the heavy quark;
527: in the limit of $m_{light}\rightarrow0$, a pQCD calculation based
528: on an effective Lagrangian reduces the complexity of the calculation
529: compared to the case of light quark fragmentation.
530:
531: Experimentally, it is important to measure heavy quark
532: fragmentation functions as their shapes are different
533: from the corresponding functions for light quarks; such a
534: measurement is furthermore straightforward, as very often hadrons
535: containing heavy quarks can easily be identified.
536: Since the production
537: of heavy quarks is strongly suppressed in both the perturbative splitting
538: of one parton to many partons (the so-called ``parton shower'') and in
539: hadronisation, a heavy quark found in an event will most likely be
540: produced in the primary interaction.
541:
542: At LEP and SLD, $b$ quark fragmentation functions have been measured
543: with high precision \cite{ALEPHb,DELPHIb,OPALb,SLDb}.
544: These measurements found that these fragmentation functions are in fact
545: close to the ones of light quarks, suggesting that one combined model for all
546: five flavours might describe the measured momentum spectra better
547: than functions which have been introduced for heavy quarks alone.
548: These collaborations have also published measurements of $c$ quark
549: fragmentation functions \cite{ALEPHc,OPALc}, but with large
550: statistical uncertainties due to the small product of the branching fraction
551: and reconstruction efficiency for the various final states.
552: Some commonly used \frf s are described by the models of Peterson {\it et
553: al.} \cite{Peterson}, of Kartvelishvili {\it et al.}
554: \cite{Kartvelishvili} and of
555: Collins and Spiller \cite{ColSpi}, as well as by the models of the Lund
556: group \cite{Lundsymm} and one of its variants by Bowler \cite{Bowler}.
557:
558: For charm quark \frf s at lower energies, the most recent published
559: results for \DZ, \DP, \DSZ\ and \DSP\ are those of CLEO \cite{CLEOprel}.
560: The analysis presented here has better statistical precision as the
561: data sample is five times larger.
562: Other measurements are more than 10 years old \cite{CLEOc,ARGUSc};
563: their data sample is over three orders of magnitude smaller than that
564: used in this analysis.
565: The systematic uncertainties are reduced significantly and are
566: comparable to those in \cite{CLEOprel}.
567: For a recent review of \frf\ measurements and theory, see \cite{Biebel}.
568:
569: A measurement of \DZ\ and \DP\ performed by the same
570: experiment on the same data set allows for an easy comparison of
571: charged meson production rates and momentum spectra, as well as a
572: comparison of the momentum-dependent production of secondary- to
573: primary-produced mesons.
574: The measurement of the excited states \DSZ\ and \DSP\ allows the
575: determination of the feed-down contribution to the ground states \DZ\ and
576: \DP\ and also a momentum-dependent determination of $V/(V+P)$,
577: the ratio of the production rates of vector and
578: the sum of vector and pseudo-scalar mesons.
579: A comparison between \Ds\ production, and the production of \DZ\ and
580: \DP, can be used to determine the fraction of $s$ quark production in
581: hadronisation. Comparing the results for the \LC\ to those of the $D$ mesons
582: makes a study of the baryon production mechanism possible.
583:
584: In addition to charm fragmentation in the \epem\TO\ccbar\
585: continuum, charmed hadrons in \epem\ annihilation events can be produced in
586: decays of b-hadrons. The dataset for this analysis includes events
587: above the production threshold for $B\bar{B}$ pairs,
588: at the \Ys\ resonance, so the lower momentum hadrons include
589: contributions from $B^0$ and $B^+$ decays. This allows a measurement
590: of the production rate of charmed hadrons in B-meson decay.
591:
592: \section{Data Sample and Event Selection}
593: This analysis uses data recorded at the Belle detector at the KEKB
594: accelerator.
595: The KEKB \epem\ collider is a pair of storage rings for electrons and
596: positrons with asymmetric energies,
597: $8.0\,\mathrm{GeV}$ ($e^-$) and $3.5\,\mathrm{GeV}$
598: ($e^+$), and a single intersection point with a 22 mrad
599: crossing angle.
600: The beam energies are tuned to produce an available CME of $\sqrt{s}=10.58~\GeV$,
601: corresponding to the mass of the $\Upsilon(\mathrm{4S})$.
602: A detailed description can be found in \cite{KEKB}.
603:
604: The Belle detector covers a solid angle of almost $4\pi$. Closest to
605: the interaction point is a high resolution silicon micro-vertex
606: detector (SVD). It is surrounded by the central drift chamber
607: (CDC). Two dedicated particle identification systems, the aerogel
608: \v{C}erenkov counter (ACC) and the time-of-flight system (TOF), are
609: mounted between the CDC and the CsI(Tl) crystal electromagnetic
610: calorimeter (ECL). All these sub-detectors are located inside a
611: super-conducting coil that provides a magnetic field of 1.5~T. The
612: return yoke of the coil is instrumented as a $K^0_L$ and $\mu$
613: detector.
614: A detailed description can be found in \cite{BelleDet}.
615:
616: This analysis uses 87.7~\fb\ of \epem\ annihilation
617: data taken at the \Ys\ resonance at $\sqrt{s}=10.58~\GeV$ (``on-resonance
618: data''), above the production threshold for $B\bar{B}$ pairs.
619: Additional 15.0~\fb\ are taken 60~\MeV\ below the
620: resonance at $\sqrt{s}=10.52~\GeV$ (``continuum data''), which is also below the production
621: threshold for $B\bar{B}$ pairs.
622: Hadronic events are selected as described in \cite{HadronB}.
623: The selection efficiency of events originating from light quarks
624: \mbox{($d$, $u$ and $s$)} passing this hadronic preselection has been
625: estimated to be 84.0\%, using $9.6 \times 10^6$ MC events.
626: For $c$ quarks, the efficiency has been determined with $6.6 \times
627: 10^6$ MC events to be 93.0\%.
628: The light quark sample contains almost no true candidates, reflecting
629: the small rate for gluon splitting into open charm states, i.e.\ two
630: mesons containing $c$ quarks.
631:
632: To estimate the efficiency of reconstructing charmed hadrons
633: and to correct for distortions due to the finite acceptance of the
634: detector, \MC\ samples of $\epem\to\ccbar$ events
635: corresponding to a data luminosity of 217~\fb\ (approximately 2 1/2
636: times the on-resonance data), and $\epem\to\qqbar$ ($q=u$, $d$ and $s$)
637: events corresponding to 18~\fb\ (approximately 1.2 times the
638: continuum data), have been studied. The \MC~samples were generated
639: using the QQ98 generator \cite{QQ98} employing the Peterson
640: fragmentation function for $c$ quarks and were processed through a detailed
641: detector simulation based on GEANT 3.21 \cite{GEANT}. This sample
642: will be referred to as the generic sample. Special samples of several million
643: $\epem\to\ccbar$ events were generated with the EvtGen
644: \cite{EvtGen} generator using the Peterson as well as the
645: Bowler fragmentation functions and were also run through the detector
646: simulation. These samples will be referred to as reweighted samples;
647: see Section \ref{MC} for details about the reweighting procedure.
648: For each charmed hadron used in this analysis, a sample was
649: generated where that hadron
650: was forced to decay in the same channel as later reconstructed.
651: These samples were reconstructed using the same procedures as for data.
652:
653: \subsection{Particle Identification}
654: To minimise possible kinematic biases due to tight selection criteria
655: for identified particles, only loose cuts on
656: the particle identification of the stable particles have been applied.
657: All
658: particles with mean lifetime longer than $100~\mathrm{ps}$ have been
659: called ``stable''.
660: Apart from reducing a potential kinematic bias, this increased the
661: reconstruction efficiency at the cost of introducing more background,
662: especially in the low momentum region.
663:
664: In general, the identification for each track was based on one or more
665: likelihood ratios, which combined the information from the
666: time-of-flight and \v{C}erenkov counters and the energy loss dE/dx in
667: the drift chamber. Pions and kaons were separated by a single
668: likelihood ratio $\mathcal{L} (K)/ (\mathcal{L} (K)+
669: \mathcal{L}(\pi))$. Charged particles were identified as pions if
670: this ratio was less than 0.95 and as kaons if this ratio was larger
671: than 0.05. This overlap allowed a charged particle to be identified
672: as both a pion and a kaon, potentially resulting in identifying a
673: mother (candidate) particle as its own anti-particle ({\it i.e.,}\ a
674: $D^0\rightarrow K^- \pi^+$\ decay could be identified as a
675: $\overline{D}{}^0 \rightarrow \pi^- K^+$\ decay), and therefore
676: overestimating the number of candidates. As this misidentification
677: was only possible for neutral particles, an additional systematic
678: uncertainty has been assigned for the $D^0$\ and $D^{*0}$; see
679: section \ref{systematics} for details.
680:
681: \begin{sloppypar}
682: For proton identification, similar likelihood ratios were
683: required to fulfil
684: \mbox{${\cal L}(p)/({\cal L}(p)+{\cal L}(\pi))>0.6$} and
685: \mbox{${\cal L}(p)/({\cal L}(p)+{\cal L}(K))>0.6$}.
686: For the \PZ, photon candidates with energies above 30 MeV
687: were combined to form a \PZ\ candidate.
688: Under the assumption that the \PZ\ candidate decayed at the
689: interaction point, it was required to have an invariant mass
690: consistent with the \PZ\ mass.
691: \end{sloppypar}
692:
693: The efficiencies $\epsilon$ and misidentification probabilities
694: $f$ for tracks from
695: signal candidates under these cuts have been measured in
696: data, and are listed in Table \ref{eff}; in all cases except the proton,
697: $\epsilon>95\%$ and $f \leq 26\%$.
698: For kaons and pions the efficiencies and
699: misidentification probabilities
700: have been
701: estimated in bins of the particle's momentum from \DSP\ and
702: subsequent \DZ\TO\KM\PP\ decays; for protons, $\mathrm{\Lambda}$
703: decays have been used. The observed momentum spectra in data have
704: been used to derive the listed numbers.
705: \begin{table}[h]
706: \caption{\label{eff} Typical efficiencies and
707: misidentification probabilities for tracks from
708: signal candidates used in this analysis. The
709: misidentification probabilities listed under
710: $\pi^{\pm}$ means the probability of mis-identifying it as a $K^{\pm}$.}
711: \begin{center}
712: \begin{ruledtabular}
713: \begin{tabular}{rcccccccc}
714: & $\pi^{\pm}$ & $K^{\pm}$ & $p$ \\ \hline
715: \DZ\ $(\epsilon|f)$ & $(96\%|26\%)$ & $(96\%|26\%)$ & $-$ \\
716: \DP\ $(\epsilon|f)$ & $(96\%|12\%)$ & $(97\%|24\%)$ & $-$ \\
717: \Ds\ $(\epsilon|f)$ & $(98\%|17\%)$ & $(97\%|21\%)$ & $-$ \\
718: \LC\ $(\epsilon|f)$ & $(98\%|15\%)$ & $(97\%|21\%)$ & $(81\%|7\%)$ \\
719: \end{tabular}
720: \end{ruledtabular}
721: \end{center}
722: \end{table}
723:
724: In addition to the requirements on the particle identification, all
725: tracks had to be consistent with coming from the interaction point
726: (IP).
727: For the slow pion from the \DSP\TO\DZ\PP\ decay, all track quality and
728: particle identification requirements were removed to increase the
729: efficiency.
730:
731: \subsection{Reconstruction of charmed Hadrons}
732: The reconstructed hadron decay chains used in this
733: analysis are the following:\\
734: \hspace*{0.25cm}
735: $\DZ\to\KM\PP$, $\DP\to\KM\PP\PP$,
736: $\Ds\to\PHI\PP$ $(\PHI\to\KP\KM)$, $\LC\to\pr\KM\PP$, \\
737: \hspace*{0.25cm}
738: $\DSP\to\DZ\PP$ $(\DZ\to\KM\PP)$,
739: $\DSP\to\DP\PZ$ $(\DP\to\KM\PP\PP)$ and \\
740: \hspace*{0.25cm}
741: $\DSZ\to\DZ\PZ$ $(\DZ\to\KM\PP)$.
742:
743: The inclusion of charge-conjugate modes is implied throughout this
744: paper and natural units are used throughout.
745: For all charmed ground state hadrons, candidates whose masses were
746: within 50 $\MeV/c^2$ of their respective nominal mass were considered.
747: For the intermediate \DZ\ and \DP\ coming from the excited states
748: \DSZ\ and \DSP\, a mass window of 15 $\MeV/c^2$ around the nominal masses of
749: the \DZ\ and the \DP was chosen.
750: Additionally, the selection window for the two excited states was
751: tightened to 15 $\MeV/c^2$ around the nominal mass difference between the
752: excited meson and the \DZ\ or \DP. For the
753: intermediate \PHI\ from the \Ds\ decay, the mass window was chosen to
754: be 7 $\MeV/c^2$.
755: Multiple candidates for each particle and anti-particle were removed
756: by a best candidate selection. Most false \DSZ\ and \DSP\ candidates
757: were formed from a true \DZ\ and a random slow pion. Therefore, the slow
758: pions were used to determine the best candidate. For the neutral slow
759: pion, the smallest $\chi^2$ of the vertex fit was used.
760: For the charged slow pion, the smallest distance to the IP of all
761: hits used in the reconstruction was used.
762: For all other charmed mesons, the selection was based on
763: the particle identification of the kaon. In the rare case that
764: multiple candidates were formed with the same kaon, the first
765: candidate was randomly chosen.
766:
767: \begin{table}[h]
768: \caption{\label{pdgvalues}The values for the masses or mass
769: differences and branching
770: fractions for all charmed hadrons used in this analysis. The
771: masses are used only to shift the mass or the mass difference
772: distributions in order to center their peaks near zero, therefore no errors
773: are assigned.
774: The branching fractions are taken from \cite{PDG2004}.}
775: \begin{center}
776: \begin{ruledtabular}
777: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
778: hadron & decay mode & mass [$\GeV/c^2$] & product branching fraction \\ \hline
779: \DZ & \KM\PP\ & $1.8645$ & $0.0380 \pm 0.0009$ \\
780: \DP & \KM\PP\PP\ & $1.8693$ & $0.092 \pm 0.006$ \\
781: \Ds & \PHI\PP\ & $1.9685$ & $(0.036 \pm 0.009) \cdot (0.491 \pm 0.006)$ \\
782: \LC & \pr\KM\PP\ & $2.2849$ & $0.050 \pm 0.013$ \\
783: \DSP & \DZ\PP\ & $0.1455$ & $(0.677 \pm 0.005) \cdot (0.0380 \pm 0.0009)$ \\
784: & \DP\PZ\ & $0.1407$ & $(0.307 \pm 0.005) \cdot (0.092 \pm 0.009)$ \\
785: \DSZ & \DZ\PZ\ & $0.1422$ & $(0.619 \pm 0.029) \cdot (0.0380 \pm 0.0009)$ \\
786: \end{tabular}
787: \end{ruledtabular}
788: \end{center}
789: \end{table}
790:
791:
792: \section{Analysis Procedure}
793: \label{anaproc}
794: There are
795: two variables commonly used in the measurements of fragmentation
796: functions. These are the scaled energy
797: $\mathrm{x_E={E_{candidate}}/{E^{MAX}_{candidate}}}$ and
798: the scaled momentum
799: $\mathrm{x_P={|\vec{p}_{candidate}|}/{|\vec{p}^{MAX}_{candidate}|}}$,
800: where $\mathrm{E^{MAX}_{candidate}}=\sqrt{s}/2$,
801: $\mathrm{|\vec{p}^{MAX}_{candidate}|=\sqrt{s/4-m_H^2}}$, and $\mathrm{m_H}$
802: denotes the mass of the charmed hadron.
803: For $b$ quarks at higher CMEs, the scaled energy \xE\ is often used.
804: In this case, the mass of the $B$ hadron reduces only slightly the
805: allowed range at small \xE. For charmed hadrons at 10.58~\GeV\
806: the range of \xE\ is significantly reduced; hence \xP\ is
807: prefered and will be used in this analysis.
808: Unless otherwise stated,
809: all variables are given in the \epem\ rest frame, taking
810: into account the different beam energies for the on-resonance and the
811: continuum samples.
812:
813: For various bins in the range from 0.0 to 1.1
814: in the scaled momentum $\mathrm{x_P}$, the signal yield has
815: been determined from a fit to the mass or mass difference
816: distributions of all candidates within the aforementioned selection
817: windows.
818: The finite momentum resolution of the detector can result in events
819: being recorded in the region above the na\"{\i}ve limit of \xP=1,
820: however, in the case of $D^*$, the principal contribution is
821: due to the process \mbox{$\epem\TO D^*D$}. See Section
822: \ref{highxp} for details.
823:
824: A bin width of 0.02 in \xP\ has been chosen for all particles as a
825: compromise between the statistical precision in each bin and the
826: momentum resolution, which is a factor of two smaller.
827: Additionally, to investigate the high \xP\ region around and above the
828: na\"{\i}ve limit of \xP=1, the bin width has been decreased to 0.01;
829: an expanded view of the region $0.90<\xP<1.05$ with this binning will
830: be discussed in Section \ref{highxp}.
831: Since this decreased bin width is still larger than, but comparable
832: to, the momentum resolution, an unfolding using the
833: singular-value-decomposition (SVD) approach \cite{SVD} was tried
834: in addition to the normal bin-by-bin correction and
835: is discussed in Section \ref{highxp}.
836:
837: The mass or mass difference distributions were parametrized by a
838: single Gaussian, except for the \DSP\TO\DZ\PP\ decay channel where a
839: double Gaussian was employed. For the mass distributions, the
840: background was parametrized by a quadratic function; for $\xP>0.9$
841: a linear function was found to be sufficient to fit the considerably lower
842: background.
843: For the mass difference distributions of the excited $D$ mesons, a
844: phase-space-like function \mbox{$f(\Delta m)=a(\Delta m-\Delta
845: M_0)^b$} was used with $a$ and $b$ being free parameters and
846: $\Delta M_0$ the nominal difference between the mass of the excited
847: mother particle and that of the ground state charm meson.
848:
849: For all charmed hadrons, the mean mass $m_i$ and the width $\mu_i$ of
850: the signal Gaussian was fitted separately for \MC, continuum and
851: on-resonance data. For these fits, \xP\ was divided into 4 bins from
852: $0.2<\xP<1.0$ with a constant bin size of 0.2.
853: In a second fit, two quadratic functions $m_i(\xP)$ and
854: $\mu_i(\xP)$ were fitted to the results of the first fit in these
855: four bins.
856: For the distributions with a bin width of 0.02 and 0.01 in \xP,
857: the mean and width parameters in the fit were fixed to the values
858: of the quadratic functions $m_i(\xP)$ and $\mu_i(\xP)$ for the
859: appropriate \xP\ value.
860:
861: For the \DSP\TO\DZ\PP\ decay mode full correlations between
862: the two Gaussians of the signal function were taken into account when
863: determining the fit yield.
864:
865: When combining the on-resonance data with the
866: continuum data, two corrections have been applied to the on-resonance
867: data. After normalising
868: using the integrated luminosities of the respective samples, the na\"{\i}ve
869: $1/s$ dependence on the total hadronic cross section has been taken
870: out by multiplying the distributions of the on-resonance sample by the
871: square of the ratio of the CME's, namely by $(10.58~\GeV/10.52~\GeV)^2$.
872: Second, from \MC\ an additional correction of
873: $+0.27\%$ due to different initial state radiation (ISR) at the two
874: energy points has been
875: applied to the on-resonance samples. This correction was based on a
876: \MC\ study of the total cross sections at these two energy points.
877:
878: \subsection{\xP-dependent Mass Fits}
879: Fig.\ \ref{mass-xp-fita} and Fig.\ \ref{mass-xp-fitb} show
880: the mass distributions of all charmed hadrons
881: reconstructed in this analysis for two representive bins in \xP.
882: The \xP\ bins shown are $0.28<\xP<0.30$ in Fig.\ \ref{mass-xp-fita}
883: and $0.68<\xP<0.70$ in Fig.\ \ref{mass-xp-fitb}.
884: They represent a low \xP\ bin with higher background and a bin close
885: to the maximum of the \xP\ distribution with less background,
886: respectively.
887: All mass (mass difference) distributions have been shifted by
888: their nominal mass (mass difference) to center the peaks at zero.
889: See table \ref{pdgvalues} for the masses used.
890: Note that the scale on the $y$-axis does not start at zero in the
891: upper four plots in Fig.\ \ref{mass-xp-fita} and
892: Fig.\ \ref{mass-xp-fitb}.
893:
894: For $0.28<\xP<0.30$ (shown in Fig.\ \ref{mass-xp-fita}), the mass
895: distributions for the \DZ\ and \DP\ ground states and the mass
896: difference distributions for the excited states show clear peaks at
897: the expected value for signal.
898: Compared to higher \xP\ values, the
899: background is higher due to a larger amount of combinatorial
900: background, and the signal-to-background ratio is lower.
901: At higher \xP\ values, such as those shown in Fig.\ \ref{mass-xp-fitb}
902: $(0.68<\xP<0.70)$, the background is considerably reduced,
903: whereas the signal yield is enhanced. This significantly increased the
904: signal-to-background ratio.
905:
906: \begin{center}
907: \pagestyle{empty}
908: \begin{figure}[h]
909: \includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig1a.eps}
910: \includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig1b.eps}\\
911: \includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig1c.eps}
912: \includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig1d.eps}\\
913: \includegraphics[width=0.31\textwidth]{fig1e.eps}
914: \includegraphics[width=0.31\textwidth]{fig1f.eps}
915: \includegraphics[width=0.31\textwidth]{fig1g.eps}
916: \caption{\label{mass-xp-fita}
917: Mass and mass difference distributions for all charmed hadrons
918: reconstructed in this analysis, for $0.28 < \xP < 0.30$ for the
919: continuum sample. The histograms show the data, the dotted
920: line describes only the background, the full line includes the
921: signal.
922: The top row shows the $D^0$\ (left) and the $D^+$\ (right), the
923: middle shows the $D^+_s$\ (left) and the $\Lambda^+_c$\ (right),
924: and the bottom row shows $D^{*+}\to D^0\pi^+$\ (left), the
925: alternative decay mode $D^{*+}\to D^+\pi^0$\ (middle), and the
926: $D^{*0}$ (right).
927: }
928: \end{figure}
929: \end{center}
930:
931: \begin{center}
932: \begin{figure}[h]
933: \includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig2a.eps}
934: \includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig2b.eps}\\
935: \includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig2c.eps}
936: \includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig2d.eps}\\
937: \includegraphics[width=0.31\textwidth]{fig2e.eps}
938: \includegraphics[width=0.31\textwidth]{fig2f.eps}
939: \includegraphics[width=0.31\textwidth]{fig2g.eps}
940: \caption{\label{mass-xp-fitb}
941: Mass and mass difference distributions for all charmed hadrons
942: reconstructed in this analysis, for $0.68<\xP<0.70$.
943: The order of the plots is the same as in Fig.\
944: \ref{mass-xp-fita}. As in the previous figure,
945: the histograms show the data, the dotted
946: lines describe only the background, the full lines include the
947: signal.
948: }
949: \end{figure}
950: \end{center}
951:
952: \subsection{Raw Signal Yield}
953: Fig.\ \ref{signal-yield} shows the signal yields as a function of
954: \xP\ for all charmed hadrons, not corrected for the reconstruction
955: efficiencies and for the branching
956: fractions, denoted with ``B'' in the plots.
957: For all particles, the contribution from $B$ decays is clearly
958: visible in the low \xP\ range, which is $\xP<0.5$ for all charmed
959: mesons containing a light quark as the spectator. For \Ds\ from
960: $B$ decays, the upper bound is approximately
961: $\xP\sim0.4$, reflecting the energy required to produce an additional
962: strange quark. Contributions from the $b\to u$ transition,
963: where the \Ds\ is formed at the upper vertex, can populate the region
964: up to $\xP=0.5$, but are strongly suppressed.
965: For the \LC, the only baryon reconstructed in this
966: analysis, the upper bound is further decreased to approximately
967: $\xP\sim0.37$, due to the production of an additional anti-baryon.
968:
969: All distributions peak around $\xP\sim0.6-0.7$ and show similar
970: shapes.
971:
972: \begin{center}
973: \begin{figure}[h]
974: \includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig3a.eps}
975: \includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig3b.eps}\\
976: \includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig3c.eps}
977: \includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig3d.eps}\\
978: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig3e.eps}
979: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig3f.eps}
980: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig3g.eps}
981: \caption{\label{signal-yield}The signal
982: yield not corrected for efficiencies for the charmed hadrons. The order of the particles is the
983: same as in Fig.\ \ref{mass-xp-fita}.
984: The contribution from $B$ decays in the on-resonance samples
985: (down-left hatching)
986: is clearly visible in the region $\xP<0.5$.
987: The error bars show the statistical uncertainties only.
988: }
989: \end{figure}
990: \end{center}
991:
992: \subsection{Efficiency Correction}
993: The efficiencies were determined from \MC\ and are defined as the
994: appropriate raw signal yield (determined by the same procedure as for
995: data) divided by the generated \MC\ \xP\ distribution.
996: The seven histograms in Fig.\ \ref{efficiency} show the \xP-dependent
997: efficiency of each charmed hadron used in this analysis for continuum
998: data and on-resonance data. The \DZ\ efficiency is close to 50\% and
999: almost constant over the entire \xP\ range.
1000: The efficiency for \DSP\TO\DZ\PP\ approaches the \DZ\ efficiency at
1001: high values of \xP\ and diminishes at lower values of \xP,
1002: reflecting the reduced efficiency of reconstructing low-momentum
1003: pions. The
1004: two $D^{*}$ decay modes that include a neutral slow
1005: pion show a different behaviour: the efficiencies stay constant over
1006: a wide range of about $0.3<\xP<1$ and below $0.3<\xP$ the efficiency
1007: increases for \xP\TO0 due to the increasing
1008: reconstruction efficiency for slow \PZ.
1009: The reconstruction efficiencies for the three-particle decay modes do
1010: not show a strong dependence on \xP, slightly varying between
1011: 15\% and 20\% for the \Ds\ and remaining constant at about 30\% for the \LC.
1012: The decreasing efficiency for particles at values close to the
1013: kinematic limit is an artefact of the decreasing statistics in all
1014: generic \MC\ samples. The reweighted samples, which were generated
1015: with a different fragmentation function than the generic samples,
1016: contain significantly more events in the very high \xP\ region and
1017: do not show such behaviour. This difference between the two
1018: efficiency estimates was added to the systematic uncertainty.
1019:
1020: The efficiency is a function of the production angle, which
1021: differs for charmed hadrons from $B$ decays and from
1022: continuum events. For the
1023: on-resonance samples, the efficiency has been determined by a
1024: luminosity-weighted mixture of charmed \MC\ and dedicated samples
1025: containing decays of charged and neutral $B$ mesons.
1026: For the continuum sample, only charmed \MC\ was used.
1027:
1028: In data, it was verified that \DSP\ produced in \epem\
1029: annihilation are unpolarised by verifying that the distribution of
1030: the cosine of the helicity angle is flat. The helicity angle is
1031: defined as the angle between
1032: the slow charged pion in the \DSP\ rest frame and the flight
1033: direction of the \DSP\ in the center of mass system of the event.
1034: Because the efficiency for \DSP\TO\DZ\PP\ strongly depends on the
1035: momentum distribution of the slow \PP, which in turn depends on the
1036: helicity angle, polarised \DSP\ can introduce a bias into the
1037: efficiency correction.
1038:
1039: \begin{center}
1040: \begin{figure}[h]
1041: \includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig4a.eps}
1042: \includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig4b.eps}\\
1043: \includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig4c.eps}
1044: \includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig4d.eps}\\
1045: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig4e.eps}
1046: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig4f.eps}
1047: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig4g.eps}
1048: \caption{\label{efficiency}
1049: The efficiencies for the charmed hadrons used in this
1050: analysis. The order of the particles is the same as in
1051: Fig.\ \ref{mass-xp-fita}. The different production angle
1052: distributions for the on-resonance (down-left hatching) and the
1053: continuum sample (down-right hatching) result in different
1054: efficiencies for these samples. The error bars show the
1055: statistical uncertainties only.}
1056: \end{figure}
1057: \end{center}
1058:
1059: \section{Systematic Uncertainties}
1060: \label{systematics}
1061: Various sources of systematic uncertainties have been
1062: considered:
1063:
1064: Uncertainties due to tracking were estimated to be 1\% per
1065: track using a sample of partially reconstructed \DSP\ decays.
1066: As the uncertainty increased at very low momentum, the estimated
1067: momentum-dependent uncertainty of the slow charged pion was
1068: folded with the observed momentum spectrum. The
1069: systematic uncertainty due to the slow neutral pion detection
1070: efficiency was assessed by examining the differences in the shapes of
1071: the fragmentation function of the two $D^{*+}$\ decay modes,
1072: $D^{*+}\rightarrow D^0\pi^+$\ and $D^{*+}\rightarrow D^+\pi^0$.
1073:
1074: Uncertainties due to the modeling of ISR
1075: in the MC were determined by restricting the longitudinal momentum
1076: in the laboratory frame
1077: of all candidates to $p_z^{lab} > 0$\ only. This cut preferentially
1078: removed events with ISR photons in the negative $z$ direction,
1079: potentially introducing an artificial asymmetry.
1080: The $z$ direction is defined as being
1081: anti-parallel to the positron beam, which coincides up to corrections
1082: due to the crossing angle with the boost vector into the \epem\
1083: rest-frame.
1084:
1085: The cut on the likelihood ratios for kaon and proton candidates was
1086: tightened to 0.2 and 0.8, respectively, and the difference was taken
1087: into account in the systematic uncertainty.
1088:
1089: Potential differences between the actual signal shape and the fitting
1090: function were estimated by determining the signal yield with a
1091: counting method instead of using the fit. Here, the number of entries
1092: in the mass (mass difference) distribution was counted in a window
1093: about one third the size of the total 50 $\MeV/c^2$ (15 $\MeV/c^2$) window around
1094: the peak position, corresponding to roughly three times the
1095: resolution. The number of background events was subtracted after
1096: integrating the background function of the standard fit within the same
1097: mass window.
1098:
1099: An additional flavour assignment systematic uncertainty was taken
1100: into account for the neutral states $D^0$\ and $D^{*0}$. The loose
1101: cuts on the charged pion and kaon particle identification allowed a
1102: $D^0$\ to be identified as a $\overline{D}{}^0$: the flavour of the
1103: $D^0$\ from $D^{*+}$\ decays was identified by the charge of the slow
1104: pion (except for a small contribution from doubly-Cabibbo-suppressed
1105: decays). In the MC sample, the likelihood ratio of the pion candidate
1106: was larger than that of the kaon candidate for 1.3\% of all $D^0$\
1107: candidates; the corresponding fraction was determined to be 1.1\% for
1108: $D^{*+}$\ decays. The statistical uncertainties on these numbers are
1109: less than 0.05\%. Accordingly, a difference of 0.2\% was assigned
1110: as the uncertainty of the flavour assignment due to the overlap of the
1111: pion and kaon likelihoods of the particle identification.
1112:
1113: The luminosity of the data sample was determined to have an uncertainty
1114: of about 1.4\%. A corresponding scale uncertainty of 1.4\%
1115: was assigned to the normalisation of the shape.
1116: It has been checked that the normalisation of the fragmentation
1117: functions of the on-resonance and continuum sample agree with each
1118: other, and their difference of 0.94\% is well within the scale
1119: uncertainty.
1120:
1121: Finally, the reconstruction efficiencies of the generic and the
1122: reweighted samples differed slightly. This small difference was added
1123: to the systematic uncertainty.
1124:
1125: All systematic uncertainties were added in quadrature to give the
1126: total systematic uncertainty.
1127:
1128: \section{Results}
1129: In this section, various results for the charmed hadrons are presented.
1130:
1131: \subsection{\xP\ Distributions}
1132: Fig.\ \ref{xp-distribc} shows the efficiency-corrected \xP\
1133: distributions for the different particles for \epem\ annihilation
1134: events, {\it i.e.} spectra of hadrons formed in the fragmentation of charm
1135: quarks.
1136: Above $\xP>0.5$, the differential \xP\ distributions of the
1137: on-resonance sample and the continuum sample have been combined by a
1138: weighted average, where the inverse of the squared statistical
1139: uncertainty was used as the weight. As the systematic uncertainties
1140: for both samples are highly correlated, the larger uncertainty of
1141: the on-resonance and the continuum samples was used for the combined
1142: sample.
1143:
1144: As most efficiencies do not depend strongly upon \xP, the
1145: shapes of the efficiency-corrected distributions are similar to those
1146: of the uncorrected distributions. All distributions peak around
1147: $\xP\sim0.6-0.7$.
1148: To determine the peak position, a direct fit of the data to the
1149: Peterson fragmentation function was tried.
1150: The shape of the data agreed very poorly as this model does not include
1151: gluon radiation or decays from higher resonances.
1152: Therefore, a Gaussian function was used to determine the peak position.
1153: The fit ranges were chosen from $\xP=0.4$--$0.8$. The
1154: results of the fits are listed in Table \ref{peak}, together with the
1155: statistical and systematic uncertainties. The statistical uncertainty
1156: was determined by the RMS of the distribution divided by $\sqrt{N}$.
1157:
1158: \begin{center}
1159: \begin{figure}[h]
1160: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig5a.eps}
1161: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig5b.eps} \\
1162: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig5c.eps}
1163: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig5d.eps} \\
1164: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig5e.eps}
1165: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig5f.eps}
1166: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig5g.eps}
1167: \caption{\label{xp-distribc}Efficiency corrected momentum distributions
1168: for the charmed hadrons produced in \epem-annihilation events,
1169: i.e. from fragmentation of charm quarks.
1170: The order of the particles is the same as in
1171: Fig.\ \ref{mass-xp-fita}. For $\xP>0.5$, the on-resonance and
1172: continuum data have been combined by a weighted average.
1173: The inner error bars show the statistical, the outer error bars
1174: the total uncertainties.
1175: }
1176: \end{figure}
1177: \end{center}
1178:
1179: \begin{table}[h]
1180: \caption{\label{peak}The peak positions of all hadrons, fitted with
1181: a Gaussian near the peak position. The fit range was
1182: $0.4<\xP<0.8$. Above $\xP>0.5$, the continuum sample and the
1183: on-resonance sample have been combined.
1184: The given errors are the statistical and systematic uncertainties,
1185: respectively. }
1186: \begin{center}
1187: \begin{ruledtabular}
1188: \begin{tabular}{Bcccc}
1189: & $\xP {}^{\mathrm{PEAK}}$ \\ \hline
1190: \DZ\to B \KM\PP\ & $0.587 \pm 0.001 \pm 0.002$ \\
1191: \DP\to B \KM\PP\PP\ & $0.600 \pm 0.001 \pm 0.001$ \\
1192: \Ds\to B \PHI\PP\ & $0.681 \pm 0.002 \pm 0.003$ \\
1193: \LC\to B \pr\KM\PP\ & $0.612 \pm 0.001 \pm 0.004$ \\
1194: \DSP\to B \DZ\PP\ & $0.631 \pm 0.001 \pm 0.002$ \\
1195: \to B \DP\PZ\ & $0.618 \pm 0.011 \pm 0.023$ \\
1196: \DSZ\to B \DZ\PZ\ & $0.631 \pm 0.001 \pm 0.003$ \\
1197: \end{tabular}
1198: \end{ruledtabular}
1199: \end{center}
1200: \end{table}
1201:
1202: \subsection{Average Number of Charmed Hadrons per $B$ Decay}
1203: The \xP\ distributions of the on-resonance and continuum samples
1204: differ in the contribution from $B$ decays for $\xP<0.5$.
1205: Fig.\ \ref{xp-distribb} shows this difference: the differential \xP\
1206: distribution of the continuum sample was subtracted from that of the
1207: on-resonance sample. Thus, up to statistical fluctuations it contains
1208: only contributions from decays of $B$ mesons.
1209:
1210: Table \ref{average-decay} lists the average number of charmed
1211: hadrons per $B$ meson decay together with the present
1212: world average \cite{PDG2004}.
1213: In order to determine the average number of charmed hadrons produced
1214: per $B$ decay, we take the difference between the production rate in the
1215: on-resonance and the continuum sample and normalise by the
1216: $B$\ meson production cross section, which is estimated to be
1217: \mbox{$(1.073\pm0.019)~\nb$} based on the measured luminosity and the
1218: measured number of $B\overline{B}$ pairs in this sample.
1219: Note that this visible production cross-section depends strongly upon
1220: the energy spread of the accelerator.
1221: The uncertainties in Table \ref{average-decay} are from the limited
1222: statistics (first), the systematics as discussed
1223: in Section \ref{systematics}
1224: (second), and the luminosity measurement and the
1225: uncertainties on the branching fractions (third). Note that the
1226: luminosity measurement and the determination of the number of
1227: $B\bar{B}$ are strongly correlated.
1228: Both values agree well within one standard deviation with each other,
1229: only the average number of produced \DSZ's here is lower
1230: by about one standard deviation and is closer to that of \DSP's.
1231:
1232: The small bump seen in the \xP\ distributions of the charmed mesons
1233: except the \Ds\ at $\xP=0.35$ is due to two body decays of the $B$
1234: mesons such as $B\TO\DZ D^{(*)}$ in case of the \DZ.
1235: \begin{table}[h]
1236: \caption{\label{average-decay}The average number
1237: $N_{B \rightarrow c}$
1238: of charmed
1239: hadrons per $B$ meson decay, corrected for acceptance and
1240: reconstruction efficiencies. The listed uncertainties are
1241: statistical, systematic, and the one due to the
1242: uncertainties on the branching fractions of the decays involved as well
1243: as on the luminosity, respectively.}
1244: \begin{center}
1245: \begin{ruledtabular}
1246: \begin{tabular}{Bcc}
1247: & $N_{B \rightarrow c}$ & PDG(2004) \\ \hline
1248: \DZ\to B\KM\PP & $0.644 \pm 0.003 \pm 0.024 \pm 0.021$ & $0.640 \pm 0.030$ \\
1249: \DP\to B\KM\PP\PP & $0.248 \pm 0.004 \pm 0.033 \pm 0.020$ & $0.235 \pm 0.019$ \\
1250: \Ds\to B\PHI\PP & $0.122 \pm 0.015 \pm 0.033 \pm 0.030$ & $0.105 \pm 0.026$ \\
1251: \LC\to B\pr\KM\PP & $0.042 \pm 0.011 \pm 0.033 \pm 0.018$ & $0.064 \pm 0.011$ \\
1252: \DSZ\to B\DZ\PZ & $0.217 \pm 0.014 \pm 0.020 \pm 0.018$ & $0.260 \pm 0.027$ \\
1253: \DSP\to B\DZ\PP & $0.218 \pm 0.007 \pm 0.020 \pm 0.015$ & $0.225 \pm 0.025$ \\
1254: \to B\DP\PZ & $0.202 \pm 0.014 \pm 0.022 \pm 0.018$ & $0.225 \pm 0.025$ \\
1255: average B \DSP & $0.215 \pm 0.006 \pm 0.022 \pm 0.016$ & $0.225 \pm 0.025$ \\
1256: \end{tabular}
1257: \end{ruledtabular}
1258: \end{center}
1259: \end{table}
1260:
1261: \begin{center}
1262: \begin{figure}[h]
1263: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig6a.eps}
1264: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig6b.eps} \\
1265: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig6c.eps}
1266: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig6d.eps} \\
1267: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig6e.eps}
1268: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig6f.eps}
1269: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig6g.eps}
1270: \caption{\label{xp-distribb}Efficiency corrected and continuum
1271: subtracted momentum distributions for the charmed hadrons from $B$
1272: decays used in this analysis.
1273: The \xP\ range is restricted to $\xP<0.55$.
1274: The order of the particles is the same as in Fig.\ \ref{mass-xp-fita}.
1275: The inner error bars show the statistical, the outer error bars
1276: the total uncertainties.}
1277: \end{figure}
1278: \end{center}
1279:
1280: \subsection{High \xP\ Region}
1281: \label{highxp}
1282: An expanded view of the high \xP\ region is shown in Fig.\
1283: \ref{high-xp}. The downward triangles show the efficiency-corrected data;
1284: the upward triangles show the corrected and unfolded data.
1285:
1286: Unfolding was done using the singular-value-decomposition (SVD)
1287: method \cite{SVD}.
1288: From \MC, we determined the response matrix of the detector for
1289: producing for a certain true input value of $\xP_{,true}$ a
1290: measured value of $\xP_{,measured}$.
1291: This matrix was decomposed using the SVD into two orthogonal and one
1292: diagonal matrices which can easily be inverted.
1293: Inverting the diagonal matrix was limited by a criteria defined
1294: in \cite{SVD} to contain only elements, which are of statistical significance.
1295:
1296: The hatched histogram show the only process
1297: \mbox{$\epem\to\DSP D^{-}$}, the open histogram shows the sum of
1298: the previous process and \mbox{$\epem\to\DSP D^{(*)-}$}.
1299:
1300: The \xP\ distributions for the ground states \DZ, \DP, \Ds\ and \LC\
1301: extend up to the na\"{\i}ve kinematic endpoint $\xP=1$ and no
1302: significant number of events are present for $\xP>1$.
1303:
1304: All three \xP\ distributions for the excited $D$ mesons, however, show an
1305: enhancement at $\xP>1$. These events
1306: above $\xP=1$ correspond to events of the processes \mbox{$\epem\to\DSP
1307: D^{(*)-}$} or \mbox{$\epem\to\DSZ D^{(*)0}$} and are in
1308: good agreement with the measured cross sections \cite{Uglov} of
1309: $0.55\pm0.03\pm0.05~\pbc$ for \mbox{$\epem\to\DSP D^{-}$}
1310: and $0.62\pm0.03\pm0.06~\pbc$ for \mbox{$\epem\to\DSP D^{*-}$}.
1311: Note that these events populate $\xP>1$
1312: only because of the use of the simplified upper limit
1313: $|\mathrm{\vec{p}^{MAX}_{candidate}}|$, for producing two $\mathrm{D^*}$ mesons.
1314: A background fluctuation producing an artificial peak is unlikely for
1315: two reasons. First, at high \xP, the background is negligible, and
1316: second, the unfolding procedure tends to identify signals at the edge
1317: of a distribution as statistical fluctuations rather than real
1318: signals, thus decreasing the significance of the signals.
1319:
1320: \begin{center}
1321: \begin{figure}[h]
1322: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig7a.eps}
1323: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig7b.eps}\\
1324:
1325: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig7c.eps}
1326: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig7d.eps}\\
1327:
1328: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig7e.eps}
1329: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig7f.eps}
1330: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig7g.eps}
1331:
1332: \caption{\label{high-xp}An expanded view of the high \xP\ region.
1333: The downward (upward) triangles show the efficiency-corrected (unfolded)
1334: histograms. Events above the naive limit of \xP = 1 can be produced via
1335: $e^+e^- \to D^{*+}D^{(*)}$; this is shown in the $D^{*+}$ \xP\
1336: distributions
1337: as a hatched (open) histogram for $e^+e^- \to D^{*+}D^-$ (sum of
1338: $e^+e^- \to D^{*+}D^-$ and $e^+e^- \to D^{*+}D^{*-}$).
1339: The order of the particles is the same as in Fig.\
1340: \ref{mass-xp-fita}.
1341: The inner (outer) error bars show the statistical (total) uncertainties.}
1342: \end{figure}
1343: \end{center}
1344:
1345: \subsection{Total Production Cross-Section}
1346: The total production cross-section is given by the integral of the
1347: \xP\ distribution.
1348: This integral was determined for the continuum sample using the
1349: current value of the world average product branching fraction
1350: of each particle, see Table \ref{pdgvalues} and \cite{PDG2004}.
1351: The results are listed in Table \ref{production}, where the third
1352: error component reflects the uncertainty on the product branching
1353: fraction.
1354:
1355: The results by CLEO \cite{CLEOprel}
1356: given in the last column used their own branching
1357: fractions, which differ slightly from the world averages used here.
1358: The results, however, agree well with each other.
1359: Another measurement by BaBar \cite{BaBar_Ds} is given in the same column.
1360: The total production cross-section for the \DSZ\ differs only
1361: slightly from that of the \DSP. This can be understood as resulting
1362: from different feed-down contributions from higher resonances.
1363:
1364: \begin{table}[h]
1365: \caption{\label{production}The total production cross-sections
1366: $\epem\to D X$ (or $\LC X$),
1367: which have been corrected using the current world average of the
1368: respective product branching fractions.
1369: The listed uncertainties are statistical, systematic and the
1370: uncertainty due to the uncertainty on the branching ratios.
1371: Other measurements of production cross-sections are listed.
1372: The third column shows measurements by CLEO \cite{CLEOprel},
1373: BaBar \cite{BaBar_Ds} (marked ${}^{(1)}$) and
1374: an older CLEO measurement \cite{CLEOc} (marked ${}^{(2)}$).
1375: }
1376: \begin{center}
1377: \begin{ruledtabular}
1378: \begin{tabular}{Bcc}
1379: B X & $\sigma_\mathrm{PROD}$ [pb]
1380: & $ \sigma_{PROD(CLEO'04/BaBar)}$ [pb] \\ \hline
1381: \DZ\to B\KM\PP & $ 1449 \pm 2 \pm 64 \pm 38$
1382: & $1521 \pm 16 \pm 62 \pm 36$ \\
1383: \DP\to B\KM\PP\PP & $ 654 \pm 1 \pm 36 \pm 46$
1384: & $ 640 \pm 14 \pm 35 \pm 43$ \\
1385: \Ds\to B\PHI\PP & $ 231 \pm 2 \pm 92 \pm 77$
1386: & $ 210 \pm 6 \pm 9 \pm 52^{(1)}$ \\
1387: \LC\to B\pr\KM\PP & $ 189 \pm 1 \pm 66 \pm 66$ & $ 270 \pm 90 \pm 70^{(2)}$
1388: \\
1389: \DSZ\to B\DZ\PZ & $ 510 \pm 3 \pm 84 \pm 39$
1390: & $ 559 \pm 24 \pm 35 \pm 39$ \\
1391: \DSP\to B\DZ\PP & $ 598 \pm 2 \pm 77 \pm 20$
1392: & $ 583 \pm 8 \pm 33 \pm 14$ \\
1393: \DSP\to B\DP\PZ & $ 590 \pm 5 \pm 78 \pm 53$
1394: & - \\
1395: average B \DSP\ & $ 597 \pm 2 \pm 78 \pm 25$ & -
1396: \end{tabular}
1397: \end{ruledtabular}
1398: \end{center}
1399: \end{table}
1400:
1401: \subsection{Mean Values for \xP\ and Moments}
1402: In addition to the peak position for the seven \xP\ distributions,
1403: the mean and higher moments of these distributions were
1404: determined from distributions in $(\xP)^n$ with a bin width of 0.02
1405: in \xP\ and a bin-by-bin efficiency correction was applied.
1406: The $n^{th}$ moment was determined by the mean of the efficiency
1407: corrected distributions in $(\xP)^n$, and its statistical uncertainty
1408: was determined by $\mathrm{\sigma}/\sqrt{N_0}$, where $N_0$ is the number of
1409: entries in the uncorrected $(\xP)^n$ distribution. Tables \ref{moments1}
1410: and \ref{moments2} show the moments for the different decay modes.
1411:
1412: \begin{table}[h]
1413: \caption{\label{moments1}The first three moments of the \xP\
1414: distribution for the seven particles/decay modes used in this
1415: analysis. The listed uncertainties are statistical and systematic
1416: uncertainties.}
1417: \begin{center}
1418: \begin{ruledtabular}
1419: \begin{tabular}{Bcccc}
1420: & $\langle\xP\rangle \times 1000$ &
1421: $\langle\xP^2\rangle \times 1000$ &
1422: $\langle\xP^3\rangle \times 1000$ \\ \hline
1423: \DZ\TO B \KM\ \PP\ &
1424: $570.33 \pm 0.18 \pm 2.23$ &
1425: $353.98 \pm 0.29 \pm 2.50$ &
1426: $233.85 \pm 0.28 \pm 2.54$ \\
1427: \DP\TO B \KM\ \PP\ \PP\ &
1428: $578.03 \pm 0.18 \pm 1.47$ &
1429: $363.42 \pm 0.29 \pm 1.58$ &
1430: $243.58 \pm 0.27 \pm 1.58$ \\
1431: \Ds\TO B \PHI\ \PP\ &
1432: $635.34 \pm 0.47 \pm 4.22$ &
1433: $442.52 \pm 0.81 \pm 8.64$ &
1434: $323.52 \pm 0.83 \pm11.14$ \\
1435: \LC\TO B \pr\ \KM\ \PP\ &
1436: $582.45 \pm 0.39 \pm 2.53$ &
1437: $364.94 \pm 0.63 \pm 3.40$ &
1438: $239.59 \pm 0.59 \pm 2.24$ \\
1439: \DSP\TO B \DZ\ \PP\ &
1440: $612.17 \pm 0.36 \pm 1.43$ &
1441: $407.96 \pm 0.61 \pm 2.01$ &
1442: $286.97 \pm 0.60 \pm 3.38$ \\
1443: \TO B \DP\ \PZ\ &
1444: $586.06 \pm 0.37 \pm16.10$ &
1445: $380.99 \pm 0.64 \pm17.89$ &
1446: $266.49 \pm 0.62 \pm17.05$ \\
1447: \DSZ\TO B \DZ\ \PZ\ &
1448: $607.63 \pm 0.42 \pm 6.07$ &
1449: $401.98 \pm 0.69 \pm 5.60$ &
1450: $282.65 \pm 0.68 \pm 5.90$ \\
1451: \end{tabular}
1452: \end{ruledtabular}
1453: \end{center}
1454: \end{table}
1455:
1456: \begin{table}[h]
1457: \caption{\label{moments2}The fourth through the sixth moments of the \xP\
1458: distribution for the seven particles/decay modes used in this
1459: analysis. The listed uncertainties are statistical and systematic
1460: uncertainties.}
1461: \begin{center}
1462: \begin{ruledtabular}
1463: \begin{tabular}{Bcccc}
1464: & $\langle\xP^4\rangle \times 1000$ &
1465: $\langle\xP^5\rangle\times 1000$ &
1466: $\langle\xP^6\rangle\times 1000$ \\ \hline
1467: \DZ\TO B\KM\PP\ &
1468: $161.83 \pm 0.25 \pm 2.19$ &
1469: $116.97 \pm 0.22 \pm 1.90$ &
1470: $ 88.08 \pm 0.19 \pm 4.77$ \\
1471: \DP\TO B\KM\PP\PP\ &
1472: $171.54 \pm 0.24 \pm 1.28$ &
1473: $125.62 \pm 0.22 \pm 1.16$ &
1474: $ 95.52 \pm 0.19 \pm 1.11$ \\
1475: \Ds\TO B\PHI\PP\ &
1476: $244.69 \pm 0.81 \pm12.06$ &
1477: $188.72 \pm 0.76 \pm10.64$ &
1478: $150.59 \pm 0.72 \pm 9.75$ \\
1479: \LC\TO B\pr\KM\PP\ &
1480: $163.04 \pm 0.52 \pm 5.11$ &
1481: $115.07 \pm 0.46 \pm 1.94$ &
1482: $ 85.06 \pm 0.41 \pm 2.31$ \\
1483: \DSP\TO B\DZ\PP\ &
1484: $211.55 \pm 0.57 \pm 5.36$ &
1485: $162.26 \pm 0.53 \pm 7.05$ &
1486: $128.24 \pm 0.49 \pm 8.17$ \\
1487: \TO B\DP\PZ\ &
1488: $196.24 \pm 0.58 \pm16.67$ &
1489: $150.28 \pm 0.53 \pm15.30$ &
1490: $118.85 \pm 0.49 \pm13.89$ \\
1491: \DSZ\TO B\DZ\PZ\ &
1492: $215.63 \pm 0.68 \pm12.47$ &
1493: $160.05 \pm 0.59 \pm 7.98$ &
1494: $126.87 \pm 0.54 \pm 8.72$ \\
1495:
1496: \end{tabular}
1497: \end{ruledtabular}
1498: \end{center}
1499: \end{table}
1500:
1501: \subsection{Production Angle}
1502: Taking the interference between the exchange of virtual photons and
1503: \Zn\ bosons into account, the differential cross section for
1504: $\epem\to\ccbar$ is modified from the $1+\cos^2\theta$ form of
1505: the Born amplitude for pure photon exchange:
1506: \begin{equation}
1507: \frac{d \sigma}{d \cos\theta}=
1508: \frac{3}{8}(1+\cos^2\theta)\sigma_T+
1509: \frac{3}{4}\sin^2\theta\sigma_L+
1510: \frac{3}{4}\cos\theta\sigma_A
1511: \end{equation}
1512: Here, $\theta$ describes the angle between the incoming electron beam
1513: and the outgoing hadron containing the charmed quark, as measured in
1514: the CM frame.
1515: The term $\sigma_T$ describes the contribution of pair
1516: production of spin-1/2 particles from transverse polarised vector
1517: bosons, the term $\sigma_L$ the contribution from longitudinal
1518: polarised vector bosons and the term $\sigma_A$ denotes the parity
1519: violating asymmetry due to the interference between \Zn\ bosons and
1520: virtual photons.
1521:
1522: The ${\cal KK}$ \MC\ generator \cite{KK} was used to predict the
1523: production angle distributions for the different charmed hadrons.
1524: This \MC\ generator includes interference between initial and final
1525: state radiation (ISR and FSR) as well as electro-weak corrections.
1526: $10^8$ \ccbar\ events were generated with ${\cal KK}$ and
1527: hadronised with the PYTHIA generator.
1528:
1529: For the generated events, \xP\ was divided into
1530: 20 bins of equal width and a three-parameter fit to the
1531: production angle was performed:
1532: \begin{equation}
1533: \label{equation}
1534: f(\theta,\xP)=a_0(\xP)\left[
1535: \frac{3}{8}
1536: (1+\cos^2\theta)+
1537: \frac{3}{4}
1538: r_S(\xP)\sin^2\theta+
1539: \frac{3}{4}
1540: r_C(\xP)\cos\theta\right]
1541: \end{equation}
1542: where $a_0$ is the normalisation and $r_S$ and $r_C$ are the relative
1543: contributions for the $\sin^2\theta$ and the $\cos\theta$ terms,
1544: respectively. The results of these fits are shown in
1545: Fig.\ \ref{prodAngle} as the solid line, together with the measured
1546: data points.
1547:
1548: \begin{center}
1549: \begin{figure}[h]
1550: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig8a.eps}
1551: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig8b.eps}\\
1552: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig8c.eps}
1553: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig8d.eps}\\
1554: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig8e.eps}
1555: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig8f.eps}
1556: \caption{\label{prodAngle}
1557: The production angle coefficients $r_S$\ (upper distributions) and
1558: $r_C$\ (lower distributions) for the four ground state charmed hadrons:
1559: $D^0$\ and $D^+$\ at the top, $D^+_s$\ and $\Lambda^+_c$\ in the
1560: middle.
1561: The sum of all ground states after efficiency correction
1562: and an excited $D$\ state ($D^{*+} \to D^0 \pi^+$) are shown at
1563: the bottom.
1564: The upwards (downwards) triangles show on-resonance (continuum) data.
1565: The connected points show the results from the $\mathcal{KK}$
1566: generator. For display purposes, the points are slightly separated
1567: in \xP. }
1568: \end{figure}
1569: \end{center}
1570:
1571: \begin{table}[h]
1572: \caption{\label{frf23}
1573: The coefficients in front of the sine-squared term ($r_S$) and the
1574: cosine term ($r_C$) for different \xP\ bins in the continuum sample.}
1575: {\small
1576: \begin{center}
1577: \begin{ruledtabular}
1578: \begin{tabular}{ccrr}
1579: particle & range in \xP\ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_S$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_C$} \\ \hline
1580: $D^0$ & 0.0 - 0.3 &
1581: $ 0.393 \pm 0.178 \pm 0.166 $ & $ 0.048 \pm 0.079 \pm 0.008 $ \\ & 0.3 - 0.5 &
1582: $ 0.035 \pm 0.016 \pm 0.007 $ & $ 0.020 \pm 0.011 \pm 0.003 $ \\ & 0.5 - 0.7 &
1583: $ 0.025 \pm 0.008 \pm 0.014 $ & $ 0.010 \pm 0.006 \pm 0.001 $ \\ & 0.7 - 1.0 &
1584: $ 0.009 \pm 0.010 \pm 0.004 $ & $ 0.013 \pm 0.007 \pm 0.009 $ \\ \hline
1585: $D^+$ & 0.0 - 0.3 &
1586: $ 0.507 \pm 0.443 \pm 0.349 $ & $ -0.076 \pm 0.222 \pm 0.005 $ \\ & 0.3 - 0.5 &
1587: $ 0.039 \pm 0.034 \pm 0.008 $ & $ 0.008 \pm 0.024 \pm 0.002 $ \\ & 0.5 - 0.7 &
1588: $ -0.040 \pm 0.011 \pm 0.006 $ & $ -0.028 \pm 0.008 \pm 0.004 $ \\ & 0.7 - 1.0 &
1589: $ -0.003 \pm 0.012 \pm 0.019 $ & $ -0.042 \pm 0.008 \pm 0.010 $ \\ \hline
1590: $D^+_s$ & 0.3 - 0.5 &
1591: $ 0.063 \pm 0.120 \pm 0.013 $ & $ 0.073 \pm 0.077 \pm 0.029 $ \\ & 0.5 - 0.7 &
1592: $ 0.076 \pm 0.041 \pm 0.004 $ & $ 0.069 \pm 0.026 \pm 0.007 $ \\ & 0.7 - 1.0 &
1593: $ 0.096 \pm 0.038 \pm 0.027 $ & $ 0.107 \pm 0.024 \pm 0.017 $ \\ \hline
1594: $\Lambda^+_c$ & 0.3 - 0.5 &
1595: $ 0.072 \pm 0.112 \pm 0.027 $ & $ 0.104 \pm 0.077 \pm 0.066 $ \\ & 0.5 - 0.7 &
1596: $ -0.023 \pm 0.029 \pm 0.042 $ & $ 0.006 \pm 0.021 \pm 0.004 $ \\ & 0.7 - 1.0 &
1597: $ 0.016 \pm 0.048 \pm 0.037 $ & $ -0.059 \pm 0.031 \pm 0.010 $ \\ \hline
1598: $\mathrm{Sum}$ & 0.0 - 0.3 &
1599: $ 0.654 \pm 0.312 \pm 0.142 $ & $ -0.019 \pm 0.124 \pm 0.039 $ \\ of & 0.3 - 0.5 &
1600: $ 0.042 \pm 0.019 \pm 0.007 $ & $ 0.025 \pm 0.013 \pm 0.008 $ \\ ground & 0.5 - 0.7 &
1601: $ -0.007 \pm 0.007 \pm 0.011 $ & $ -0.006 \pm 0.005 \pm 0.002 $ \\ states & 0.7 - 1.0 &
1602: $ 0.010 \pm 0.008 \pm 0.007 $ & $ -0.007 \pm 0.005 \pm 0.008 $ \\ \hline
1603: $D^{*+}$ & 0.0 - 0.3 &
1604: $ 0.221 \pm 0.157 \pm 0.779 $ & $ 0.069 \pm 0.070 \pm 0.333 $ \\ & 0.3 - 0.5 &
1605: $ 0.051 \pm 0.031 \pm 0.035 $ & $ -0.007 \pm 0.020 \pm 0.017 $ \\ & 0.5 - 0.7 &
1606: $ 0.011 \pm 0.014 \pm 0.013 $ & $ -0.034 \pm 0.010 \pm 0.005 $ \\ & 0.7 - 1.0 &
1607: $ 0.011 \pm 0.015 \pm 0.012 $ & $ -0.056 \pm 0.010 \pm 0.004 $ \\
1608: \end{tabular}
1609: \end{ruledtabular}
1610: \end{center}}
1611: \end{table}
1612:
1613: \begin{table}[h]
1614: \caption{\label{frf22}
1615: The same as in Table \ref{frf23}, but now for the on-resonance sample.}
1616: {\small
1617: \begin{center}
1618: \begin{ruledtabular}
1619: \begin{tabular}{ccrr}
1620: particle & range in \xP\ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_S$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_C$} \\ \hline
1621: $D^0$ & 0.0 - 0.3 &
1622: $ 0.318 \pm 0.023 \pm 0.022 $ & $ -0.013 \pm 0.011 \pm 0.008 $ \\ & 0.3 - 0.5 &
1623: $ 0.191 \pm 0.007 \pm 0.016 $ & $ 0.001 \pm 0.004 \pm 0.004 $ \\ & 0.5 - 0.7 &
1624: $ 0.005 \pm 0.004 \pm 0.004 $ & $ 0.006 \pm 0.003 \pm 0.002 $ \\ & 0.7 - 1.0 &
1625: $ 0.010 \pm 0.005 \pm 0.010 $ & $ 0.023 \pm 0.004 \pm 0.006 $ \\ \hline
1626: $D^+$ & 0.0 - 0.3 &
1627: $ 0.377 \pm 0.063 \pm 0.026 $ & $ 0.093 \pm 0.027 \pm 0.016 $ \\ & 0.3 - 0.5 &
1628: $ 0.202 \pm 0.015 \pm 0.008 $ & $ 0.012 \pm 0.008 \pm 0.001 $ \\ & 0.5 - 0.7 &
1629: $ -0.011 \pm 0.006 \pm 0.005 $ & $ -0.002 \pm 0.004 \pm 0.001 $ \\ & 0.7 - 1.0 &
1630: $ -0.003 \pm 0.006 \pm 0.007 $ & $ -0.014 \pm 0.004 \pm 0.001 $ \\ \hline
1631: $D^+_s$ & 0.0 - 0.3 &
1632: $ 0.428 \pm 0.130 \pm 0.032 $ & $ -0.079 \pm 0.057 \pm 0.030 $ \\ & 0.3 - 0.5 &
1633: $ 0.284 \pm 0.038 \pm 0.011 $ & $ -0.024 \pm 0.019 \pm 0.005 $ \\ & 0.5 - 0.7 &
1634: $ 0.025 \pm 0.017 \pm 0.008 $ & $ 0.005 \pm 0.011 \pm 0.001 $ \\ & 0.7 - 1.0 &
1635: $ 0.026 \pm 0.017 \pm 0.008 $ & $ -0.013 \pm 0.011 \pm 0.008 $ \\ \hline
1636: $\Lambda^+_c$ & 0.0 - 0.3 &
1637: $ 0.336 \pm 0.172 \pm 0.044 $ & $ -0.058 \pm 0.084 \pm 0.009 $ \\ & 0.3 - 0.5 &
1638: $ 0.048 \pm 0.049 \pm 0.027 $ & $ -0.021 \pm 0.033 \pm 0.020 $ \\ & 0.5 - 0.7 &
1639: $ -0.030 \pm 0.014 \pm 0.015 $ & $ -0.023 \pm 0.010 \pm 0.003 $ \\ & 0.7 - 1.0 &
1640: $ -0.037 \pm 0.020 \pm 0.002 $ & $ -0.024 \pm 0.014 \pm 0.004 $ \\ \hline
1641: $\mathrm{Sum}$ & 0.0 - 0.3 &
1642: $ 0.349 \pm 0.030 \pm 0.001 $ & $ 0.014 \pm 0.014 \pm 0.012 $ \\ of & 0.3 - 0.5 &
1643: $ 0.197 \pm 0.008 \pm 0.013 $ & $ 0.004 \pm 0.005 \pm 0.001 $ \\ ground & 0.5 - 0.7 &
1644: $ -0.004 \pm 0.004 \pm 0.001 $ & $ -0.000 \pm 0.002 \pm 0.001 $ \\ states & 0.7 - 1.0 &
1645: $ 0.002 \pm 0.004 \pm 0.006 $ & $ 0.001 \pm 0.003 \pm 0.003 $ \\ \hline
1646: $D^{*+}$ & 0.0 - 0.3 &
1647: $ 0.487 \pm 0.067 \pm 0.049 $ & $ 0.014 \pm 0.030 \pm 0.012 $ \\ & 0.3 - 0.5 &
1648: $ 0.401 \pm 0.021 \pm 0.004 $ & $ -0.004 \pm 0.010 \pm 0.008 $ \\ & 0.5 - 0.7 &
1649: $ 0.037 \pm 0.008 \pm 0.002 $ & $ -0.030 \pm 0.005 \pm 0.001 $ \\ & 0.7 - 1.0 &
1650: $ 0.014 \pm 0.008 \pm 0.001 $ & $ -0.037 \pm 0.005 \pm 0.004 $ \\
1651: \end{tabular}
1652: \end{ruledtabular}
1653: \end{center}}
1654: \end{table}
1655:
1656: For data, the signal yield was determined in bins of \xP\ and
1657: $\cos\theta$, where $\theta$ is the production angle of the
1658: charmed hadron. It should be noted that here, the efficiency correction
1659: depends on \xP\ and $\cos\theta$.
1660:
1661: \xP\ was divided into only 4 bins:
1662: $\xP<0.3$, $0.3<\xP<0.5$, $0.5<\xP<0.7$ and $0.7<\xP$.
1663: The boundaries were chosen in order to roughly equalise the number of
1664: candidates per bin. Two bins each were chosen below and above $\xP=0.5$,
1665: which is the upper kinematic limit for hadrons from $B$ decays.
1666:
1667: $\cos\theta$ was divided into 20 bins.
1668: In each bin of \xP\ and $\cos\theta$, the efficiency corrected signal
1669: yield in the mass or mass difference distributions was fitted
1670: separately for the on-resonance and continuum samples. The same
1671: signal and background functions were used as in the fits which
1672: depended only on \xP.
1673:
1674: In a second step, a three-parameter fit (similar to Eq.\ \ref{equation})
1675: to the signal yields was performed in bins of \xP.
1676: The fit range was restricted to $-0.8<\cos{\theta}<0.8$. As a
1677: systematic check, the range was tightened to $-0.7<\cos{\theta}<0.7$.
1678:
1679: No significant deviation of the $r_S$ and the $r_C$ parameters from
1680: their expectation was found for the continuum sample. The expectation
1681: from the ${\cal KK}$ generator was of the same order as the
1682: statistical uncertainties except for the $r_S$ term in the lowest
1683: \xP\ bin, where gluon radiation introduces a longitudinal momentum
1684: component and therefore smears out the initial distribution of the
1685: production angle. This smearing introduces a significant
1686: $\sin^2\theta$ term,
1687: to which the measured values in this regime agree well.
1688: As the number of entries in the low \xP\ bins also diminish,
1689: the statistical uncertainties increase to roughly the same size as
1690: the expected effect.
1691: The fitted values for $r_S$ and $r_C$ in the lowest \xP\ bin in the
1692: continuum samples suffer from very low statistics (see
1693: Fig.\ \ref{signal-yield}).
1694: For the \Ds\ and the \LC, the lowest bins in the continuum samples
1695: have been neglected as the numbers of entries in these bins were too low
1696: to perform an angular analysis.
1697:
1698: For the on-resonance sample with higher statistics, the $r_S$ terms
1699: significantly deviate from zero for $\xP<0.5$, as $B$ decays with
1700: different production angle distributions also contribute.
1701: The $r_C$ term is again consistent with both zero and the expectation
1702: from the \MC\ generator. Tables \ref{frf23} and \ref{frf22} list the
1703: measured values for the $r_S$ and $r_C$ values for the continuum
1704: and the on-resonance data. The systematic uncertainties here include
1705: the uncertainties discussed in the standard analysis as well as the
1706: uncertainty due to the restricted fit range.
1707:
1708: \section{Interpretation}
1709: \subsection{Contributions from Higher Resonances}
1710: Contributions from excited states have been considered only in the
1711: \xP\ distributions of the \DZ\ and the \DP\, and for these, only
1712: contributions from \DSZ\ and \DSP\ were considered.
1713: For higher resonances, both production cross-section and
1714: branching fractions of {\it e.g.} $D^{**}$ have large uncertainties and have
1715: been neglected.
1716: In order to reduce the statistical uncertainty, a \MC-based
1717: correction was applied:
1718: Three large samples of several million \MC\ events were
1719: generated without a detailed detector simulation. These samples
1720: were required to contain the decay modes \DSP\TO\DZ\PP,
1721: \DSP\TO\DP\PZ\ and \DSZ\TO\DZ\PZ, respectively.
1722: For these events, the \xP\ of the parent \DSP/\DSZ\ vs. the \xP\ of
1723: the daughter \DZ/\DP\ were stored in a two dimensional matrix.
1724: The measured and efficiency corrected \DSZ\ and \DSP\ \xP\
1725: distributions were multiplied with this matrix in order to
1726: estimate the \xP\ distribution for all \DZ's and \DP's coming from
1727: \DSP/\DSZ\ decays.
1728:
1729: The two plots at the top of Fig.\ \ref{primary} show the
1730: contributions of \DSP\ and \DSZ\ decays to the \DZ\ fragmentation
1731: function (left), and the contribution of \DSP\ decays to the \DP\
1732: \frf\ (right). These plots are not corrected for the branching
1733: fraction of the $D$ decay.
1734: The bottom plot in Fig.\ \ref{primary} shows primary \DZ\ and \DP\
1735: fragmentation spectra: the total \DZ\ (\DP) spectrum minus the
1736: contribution from \DSZ\ and \DSP\ (\DSP only) decays.
1737: The difference of 13\% between the sum of primary produced \DZ\ and
1738: \DP\ should be compared to the 6.5\% relative uncertainty in the
1739: \DP\TO\KM\PP\PP\ branching fraction.
1740: Also, as only the contribution from $D^*$ decays has been
1741: considered,
1742: the remaining difference may be due to the contribution of
1743: other resonances. In the generic \MC\ sample, where primary \DZ's and
1744: \DP's were produced in equal amounts, there was an excess of 6\% in
1745: the production of \DZ\ (compared to \DP) mesons in the decay of
1746: resonances other than \DSP.
1747:
1748: \begin{center}
1749: \begin{figure}[h]
1750: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig9a.eps}
1751: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig9b.eps}\\
1752: \includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{fig9c.eps}
1753:
1754: \caption{\label{primary}
1755: Upper plots: The contributions from $D^{*+}$\ (up-right hatching)
1756: and $D^{*0}$\ (up-left hatching) decays to
1757: the $D^0$\ (left) and $D^+$\ (right) \xP\ distributions.
1758: These plots are not corrected for the branching fraction of the $D$ decay.
1759: Lower plot:
1760: The \xP\ distributions for primarily produced $D^0$\ (error bars)
1761: and $D^+$\ (up-right hatching) mesons.
1762: Note that only contributions from $D^{*+}$\ and $D^{*0}$\ decays have
1763: been considered; the exclusion of higher resonance contributions can
1764: partially account for the differences in the \xP\
1765: distributions of the $D^0$\ and $D^+$.
1766: Only statistical uncertainties are shown. }
1767: \end{figure}
1768: \end{center}
1769:
1770: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1771:
1772: \subsection{Ratios}
1773: \label{secratios}
1774: Comparisons of production rates for various particles are useful for
1775: understanding the dynamics of fragmentation,
1776: as systematic errors cancel in the ratio.
1777: In this section we present ratios of both integrated cross-sections
1778: and cross-sections as a function of \xP, to characterise general properties
1779: of fragmentation and to test the agreement between \MC\ simulation and
1780: data.
1781:
1782: Table~\ref{tabratio} presents three ratios of total production cross sections.
1783: Since the production of $D^{*+}$ and $D^{*0}$ is included in
1784: the total $D^+$ and $D^0$ production rate
1785: (all $D^{*+}$ decay to either $D^+$ or $D^0$, and all $D^{*0}$ to $D^0$),
1786: the ratio of $D^*$ to $D$ production measures $V/(V+P)$,
1787: the probability of producing a vector charmed meson.
1788: (Here we write $V$ for vector and $P$ for pseudo-scalar meson production rates.)
1789: A correction is necessary to account for higher resonances decaying
1790: directly to $D^{+,0}$. For example, based on the measured production rates
1791: of the $D_1(2420)$ and $D_2^*(2460)$~\cite{CLEO_Dstst} mesons,
1792: known branching fractions~\cite{PDG2004}, and isospin relations,
1793: we find a correction of $-(3.7 \pm 3.3)\%$ to the first ratio.
1794: In principle, further corrections due to decays of broad $D^{**}$ states and
1795: charmed-strange mesons are also required.
1796: However, no corrections have been applied to the values presented in Table~\ref{tabratio}.
1797:
1798: Similarly, the second ratio measures the production rate of charmed-strange
1799: mesons as a fraction of all charmed mesons, up to corrections for
1800: $D_{s1}(2536)$ and $D_{s2}^*(2573)$ decays. The third ratio measures
1801: the production rate of charmed baryons relative to that of charmed mesons,
1802: excluding the charmed-strange baryon states.
1803: For comparison, see~\cite{Gladilin}.
1804:
1805: Ratios of production rates as a function of \xP\ allow momentum-dependent
1806: effects in fragmentation to be studied, although contributions from decays
1807: of higher states also appear.
1808: Fig.~\ref{ratios} shows the following five ratios as a function of \xP,
1809: for both on-resonance and continuum data:
1810: \begin{itemize}
1811: \item[(a)] $\xP(D^{*+})/\xP(\dpprim)$,
1812: sensitive to the production rate of vector relative to
1813: pseudo-scalar mesons;
1814: \item[(b)] $\xP(\dzprim)/\xP(\dpprim)$,
1815: sensitive to charged relative to neutral pseudo-scalar production;
1816:
1817: \item[(c)] $\xP(D^+_s)/\xP(\dpprim)$,
1818: sensitive to the production of strange quarks;
1819: \item[(d)] $\xP(\Lambda_c^+)/\xP(\dpprim)$,
1820: sensitive to the production of baryons relative to mesons;
1821: \item[(e)] $\xP(D^{*0})/\xP(D^{*+})$,
1822: the relative production rate of the vector mesons.
1823: \end{itemize}
1824: The suffix ``prim'' denotes \xP\ distributions corrected for the contributions
1825: from $D^*$ decays; $D^+$ production has been chosen as the denominator
1826: in (a)--(d), as this correction is smaller than that for $D^0$.
1827: No other corrections for excited states have been applied.
1828:
1829: The production ratios in Fig.~\ref{ratios}(a) and (b) are similar for
1830: on-resonance and continuum data.
1831: In Fig.~\ref{ratios}(c), the contribution of $B$ meson decays to $D_s^+$
1832: production can be clearly seen in the low-\xP\ region.
1833: In Fig.~\ref{ratios}(d), baryon production in $B$ decays
1834: is seen to be suppressed below $\xP \approx 0.4$.
1835: As \xP\ approaches unity, the $\Lambda_c^+ / D^+$ production ratio goes to zero,
1836: consistent with the conservation of baryon number.
1837:
1838: Four similar ratios are shown in Fig.~\ref{MCratios}(a)--(d) for both
1839: continuum data (full squares) and MC simulations, to test the performance
1840: of the MC for various fragmentation function parameters.
1841: In these plots, the total $D^+$ production rate, without $D^*$ subtraction,
1842: is used in the denominator of the ratios.
1843: The open histograms show the generic MC sample, which agrees with the
1844: data only for the highest values of \xP\ of the distributions in
1845: Fig.~\ref{MCratios}(a) and (b), but fails to describe the data
1846: distributions at lower values.
1847: The open squares show a second MC sample generated with the Bowler
1848: fragmentation function, which shows a similar behaviour.
1849:
1850: Noting that the parameter \parj\ in PYTHIA gives the probability
1851: for a charmed hadron produced in fragmentation to have spin one,
1852: 50 MC samples of $10^7$ events each were generated,
1853: with \parj\ values ranging from $0.25$ to the default value $0.75$ given
1854: by spin counting.
1855: These samples were generated in addition to the ``reweighted samples''
1856: used for more refined \MC\ comparisons as described in the next section.
1857: A reduced chi-squared $\tilde{\chi}^2$ was calculated
1858: for these samples and the measured and corrected ratios, and a fourth-order
1859: polynomial in \parj\ was fitted to the results.
1860: The minimum $\tilde{\chi}^2$ was found to occur at
1861: $\parj = 0.592 \pm 0.021$ for the $\xP(D^{*+})/\xP(D^+)$ ratio,
1862: and $0.592 \pm 0.046$ for the $\xP(D^0)/\xP(D^+)$ ratio,
1863: where the uncertainties denote the $1\sigma$ range in the fitted polynomial.
1864: We note that models of hadron production more sophisticated than spin counting
1865: predict values for \parj\ below $0.75$;
1866: see~\cite{VoverPV} and references therein.
1867:
1868: In Fig.~\ref{MCratios}(a)--(d) a third MC sample generated with the
1869: Bowler fragmentation function, and $\parj = 0.59$,
1870: is shown with closed triangles.
1871: This sample and the data agree well within the error bars over almost
1872: the entire range in Fig.~\ref{MCratios}(a) and~(b).
1873: All three MC samples fail to describe the ratios
1874: in Fig.~\ref{MCratios}(c) and~(d): both the endpoints and the shape
1875: disagree. The difference between the MC samples is small compared to the
1876: discrepancy with data for $D_s^+/D^+$ production in Fig.~\ref{MCratios}(c);
1877: while Bowler fragmentation (open squares and triangles) gives an improved
1878: description of $\Lambda_c^+/D^+$ production in Fig.~\ref{MCratios}(d),
1879: the agreement is still poor. There are no obvious parameters in the MC which
1880: can affect these two ratios in such a way as to improve the agreement
1881: between data and MC.
1882:
1883: \subsection{Comparison of \xP\ distributions with predictions from MC generators}
1884: \label{MC}
1885: The models used by MC generators are based on simplified assumptions and
1886: require input from experiment: this is reflected in the models' input
1887: parameters.
1888: \begin{table}[h]
1889: \caption{\label{tabratio}Three ratios of total cross sections, each
1890: of the form $\sigma(\epem\to A X)/\sigma(\epem\to B Y)$
1891: for the continuum sample.
1892: The denominators of all ratios contain the contribution from
1893: $D^* \to D$ and other decays.
1894: For comparison, see \cite{Gladilin}}
1895: \begin{center}
1896: \begin{ruledtabular}
1897: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
1898: A & B & ratio \\ \hline
1899: \DSZ\ + \DSP\ & \DP\ + \DZ\ &
1900: $0.527 \pm 0.013 \pm 0.024$ \\
1901: \Ds\ & \Ds\ + \DP\ + \DZ\ &
1902: $0.099 \pm 0.003 \pm 0.002$ \\
1903: \LC\ & \Ds\ + \DP\ + \DZ\ &
1904: $0.081 \pm 0.002 \pm 0.003$
1905: \end{tabular}
1906: \end{ruledtabular}
1907: \end{center}
1908: \end{table}
1909: The commonly used JETSET/PYTHIA generators are based on the Lund
1910: or string model, in which a coloured string is expanded between two
1911: emerging partons. The energy stored in the string increases with
1912: increasing distance, and eventually allows the production of a new
1913: quark anti-quark pair. The quark (anti-quark) then produces a meson
1914: together with the initial anti-quark (quark). The energy distribution
1915: of the new quark or anti-quark is described by a fragmentation
1916: function. Various fragmentation function models have been
1917: published; see Table \ref{TabFF} for a summary.
1918: These models depend upon up to two independent
1919: variables, these are the transverse mass
1920: $m_{\perp}=\sqrt{m^2+p_{\perp}^2}$ of the newly created hadron, and $z$,
1921: the fraction of the longitudinal energy $E+p_{\parallel}$ which the
1922: meson inherits from the initial quark.
1923:
1924: Not all models listed in Table \ref{TabFF} are implemented in the
1925: JETSET/PYTHIA generator. In order to be able to compare all models to
1926: data, a reweighting technique has been applied. Here, several million
1927: events referred to as ``reweighted samples'' have been generated,
1928: allowing a more elaborate comparison than described in Section \ref{secratios}. For
1929: these events, $z$ and $p_{\perp}$ were stored together with the
1930: event. This allowed each event to be reweighted in order to mimic any
1931: other fragmentation function.
1932: Scans through the parameter space of the five listed fragmentation
1933: functions have been performed on these special samples.
1934: This analysis was performed on five different hadrons;
1935: \DSZ\TO\DZ\PZ\ and \DSP\TO\DP\PZ\ have been omitted because of the
1936: large systematic uncertainty due to the detection efficiency of the
1937: slow neutral pion.
1938: \begin{center}
1939: \begin{figure}[h]
1940: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig10a.eps}
1941: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig10b.eps}\\
1942: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig10c.eps}
1943: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig10d.eps}\\
1944: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig10e.eps}
1945: \caption{\label{ratios}
1946: The ratios \xP($D^{*+}$)/\xP($D^+_{prim}$) and \xP($D^0_{prim}$)/\xP($D^+_{prim}$) at
1947: the top,
1948: \xP($D^+_s$)/\xP($D^+_{prim}$) and \xP($\Lambda^+_c$)/\xP($D^+_{prim}$) in the middle
1949: and \xP($D^{*0}$)/\xP($D^{*+}$) at the bottom. The
1950: open upward triangles represent on-resonance data, and the full squares with
1951: error bars represent continuum data. The inner (outer) error bars show the
1952: statistical (total) uncertainties.}
1953: \end{figure}
1954: \end{center}
1955: \begin{center}
1956: \begin{figure}[h]
1957: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig11a.eps}
1958: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig11b.eps}
1959: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig11c.eps}
1960: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig11d.eps}\\
1961: \caption{\label{MCratios}The ratios
1962: \xP(\DSP)/\xP(\DP) in a), \xP(\DZ)/\xP(\DP) in b),
1963: \xP(\Ds)/\xP(\DP) in c) and \xP(\LC)/\xP(\DP) in d).
1964: The hatched histograms represent the ratio for continuum data, the
1965: open histogram shows the distribution for the corresponding
1966: ratios from generic \MC, the open squares show the predictions
1967: using the Bowler fragmentation function with default parameters.
1968: The full triangles show the predictions
1969: using the Bowler fragmentation function with a tuned value
1970: for the probability of producing a charmed meson with
1971: spin=1: $\mathrm{\bf PARJ(13)}=0.59$ . }
1972: \end{figure}
1973: \end{center}
1974:
1975: \begin{table}[h]
1976: \caption{\label{TabFF}The functional form of the \frf s used in
1977: this analysis. The normalisation $N$ is different for all
1978: functions. The models by Collins and Spiller and by
1979: Kartvelishvili are not included in the JETSET/PYTHIA
1980: generator.
1981: }
1982: \begin{center}
1983: \begin{ruledtabular}
1984: \begin{tabular}{lcr}
1985: fragm. function & functional form & comment \\ \hline
1986: %
1987: Bowler &
1988: $N {1 \over z^{1+bm^2}} (1-z)^a \exp \left(-{b m_\perp^2 \over z}\right)$
1989: & $a$, $b$ identical for all quarks \\
1990: %
1991: Lund &
1992: $N {1 \over z} (1-z)^a \exp \left(-{b m_\perp^2 \over z}\right)$
1993: & $a$, $b$ identical for all quarks \\
1994: %
1995: Kartvelishvili &
1996: $Nz^{\alpha_{c}}(1-z)$ & \\
1997: %
1998: Collins-Spiller &
1999: $N\left({1-z \over z} + {(2-z)\varepsilon_{c}' \over 1-z}\right)
2000: (1+z^2) \left(1-{1 \over z}-{\varepsilon_{c}' \over
2001: 1-z}\right)^{-2}$ \\
2002: %
2003: Peterson &
2004: $N {1 \over z}\left(1-{1\over z}-{\varepsilon_{c} \over
2005: 1-z}\right)^{-2}$ & widely used \\
2006: %
2007: \end{tabular}
2008: \end{ruledtabular}
2009: \end{center}
2010: \end{table}
2011:
2012: \begin{table}[h]
2013: \caption{\label{frf}
2014: The minimum of the chi-squared distribution, $\chi^2_{min}$,
2015: for MC samples reweighted to represent the fragmentation functions
2016: shown, varying their respective parameters. The number of degrees
2017: of freedom (d.o.f.) is also shown for each case.}
2018: \begin{center}
2019: \begin{ruledtabular}
2020: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
2021: & $D^0$ &
2022: $D^+$ &
2023: $D^+_s$ &
2024: $\Lambda^+_c$ &
2025: $D^{*+}$ \\ \hline
2026: &
2027: $\chi_{min}^2/d.o.f.$ &
2028: $\chi_{min}^2/d.o.f.$ &
2029: $\chi_{min}^2/d.o.f.$ &
2030: $\chi_{min}^2/d.o.f.$ &
2031: $\chi_{min}^2/d.o.f.$ \\ \hline
2032: Bowler &
2033: 1327.0 / 59 &
2034: 188.4 / 60 &
2035: 730.7 / 55 &
2036: 269.1 / 60 &
2037: 541.8 / 55 \\
2038: Lund &
2039: 1500.5 / 59 &
2040: 527.1 / 60 &
2041: 513.2 / 55 &
2042: 266.6 / 60 &
2043: 965.6 / 55 \\
2044: Collins and Spiller &
2045: 3032.1 / 58 &
2046: 948.0 / 60 &
2047: 1412.5 / 55 &
2048: 2836.7 / 59 &
2049: 1540.7 / 54 \\
2050: Kartvelishvili &
2051: 3210.4 / 59 &
2052: 861.4 / 60 &
2053: 735.3 / 55 &
2054: 390.7 / 60 &
2055: 1271.1 / 54 \\
2056: Peterson &
2057: 5070.2 / 59 &
2058: 2229.6 / 60 &
2059: 829.6 / 55 &
2060: 1345.0 / 59 &
2061: 3003.0 / 54 \\
2062: \end{tabular}
2063: \end{ruledtabular}
2064: \end{center}
2065: \end{table}
2066: %
2067: \begin{table}[h]
2068: \caption{\label{frf-par}The parameters of the fragmentation functions at
2069: the minimum of the $\chi^2/d.o.f.$ distributions .}
2070: \begin{center}
2071: \begin{ruledtabular}
2072: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
2073: & & $D^0$ &
2074: $D^+$ &
2075: $D^+_s$ &
2076: $\Lambda^+_c$ &
2077: $D^{*+}$ \\ \hline
2078: & parameter
2079: & par$s$ at min.
2080: & par$s$ at min.
2081: & par$s$ at min.
2082: & par$s$ at min.
2083: & par$s$ at min. \\ \hline
2084: Bowler & $a|b$ &
2085: 0.12 $|$ 0.74 &
2086: 0.12 $|$ 0.58 &
2087: 0.12 $|$ 0.68 &
2088: 0.34 $|$ 0.74 &
2089: 0.22 $|$ 0.56 \\
2090: Lund & $a$ &
2091: 0.26 &
2092: 0.45 &
2093: 0.2 &
2094: 0.55 &
2095: 0.58 \\
2096: Collins and Spiller & $\varepsilon_{c}'$ &
2097: 0.04 &
2098: 0.055 &
2099: 0.04 &
2100: 0.04 &
2101: 0.075 \\
2102: Kartvelishvili & $\alpha_{c}$ &
2103: 4.6 &
2104: 4 &
2105: 5.6 &
2106: 3.6 &
2107: 5.6 \\
2108: Peterson & $\varepsilon_{c}$ &
2109: 0.028 &
2110: 0.039 &
2111: 0.008 &
2112: 0.011 &
2113: 0.054 \\
2114: \end{tabular}
2115: \end{ruledtabular}
2116: \end{center}
2117: \end{table}
2118:
2119: For data and \MC, the \xP\ distributions were compared using uncorrected
2120: data and the reweighted special \MC\ samples after full detector
2121: simulation. A $\chi^2$ was calculated based upon the distribution of
2122: the reweighted special sample and the measured data
2123: distribution. Only statistical uncertainties in each \xP\ bin were
2124: taken into account and only bins which contained entries in data or
2125: \MC\ were included. The number of bins minus the number of parameters
2126: of the \frf\ was used as the number of degrees of freedom ($d.o.f.$). The
2127: weights in the reweighting procedure were constructed in such a way
2128: that the number of events before and after reweighting stayed
2129: constant. This way the total value of the $\chi^2$ becomes dependent
2130: on the size of the data and \MC\ samples; the relative $\chi^2$
2131: values, however, allow a direct comparison between the different \frf
2132: s.
2133:
2134: Table \ref{frf} shows the $\chi_{min}^2/d.o.f.$ for all five
2135: particles and five \frf s.
2136: For all five particles a similar trend is visible. The Bowler model
2137: in general agrees best with the data. The Lund models shows a similar
2138: performance in describing the spectra, its $\chi_{min}^2/d.o.f.$
2139: being by factors of 2--3 better than the next best model. For
2140: \DP\ and \DSP\ the $\chi_{min}^2/d.o.f.$ is slightly worse than for the
2141: Bowler model. In the minimum of the $\chi^2/d.o.f.$ distributions the
2142: $a$ parameter deviates
2143: strongly from the default for most of the particles. As the Lund
2144: model is employed for fragmentation of all flavour species, such a large
2145: change in the parameter would also change the particle spectrum of
2146: light mesons. Therefore, further tuning of the second parameter
2147: to the Lund fragmentation function has been omitted.
2148:
2149: The models by Collins and Spiller and by Kartvelishvili show a
2150: similar $\chi_{min}^2$ for all particles, about factors of two to
2151: three worse
2152: than that of the best models.
2153: The last model, that of Peterson, shows the worst agreement with a
2154: reduced $\chi_{min}^2$ of 15 and well above, ruling out this
2155: model for describing data at this CME.
2156:
2157: The input parameters for the \frf s at the minimum of the
2158: $\chi^2/d.o.f.$ distributions are listed in Table \ref{frf-par}.
2159:
2160: In summary, the Bowler model shows the best agreement between data
2161: and \MC, however, large differences are still present. These
2162: differences might be resolved by adjusting other parameters of the
2163: generators as well, but such a task is out of scope for this
2164: analysis. The Lund model shows the second best agreement. The models
2165: by Kartvelishvili and by Collins and Spiller show larger deviations and
2166: the commonly used model by Peterson shows the worst agreement between
2167: data and \MC.
2168:
2169: \section{Summary}
2170: A new determination of the charm fragmentation function at a CME
2171: close to the \Ys\ resonance has been presented.
2172: The measured \xP\ spectra have been compared to those of five different
2173: parametrisations in \MC\ via a reweighting procedure, and the best
2174: input parameters have been found.
2175: The best agreement between data and \MC\ has been found for the
2176: Bowler model and the Lund model.
2177: Additionally, the peak positions and the first six moments of the \xP\
2178: distributions have been measured. These measurements will allow
2179: detailed comparisons between experiment and theory. The total
2180: production cross-section, as well as \xP\ dependent ratios of the
2181: \frf s, place stringent tests on existing \MC\ generators, which so
2182: far completely fail to describe the \xP\ dependent ratios of
2183: $\xP(\Ds)/\xP(\DP)$ and $\xP(\LC)/\xP(\DP)$.
2184: For the first time, the production rates of \DP\ and
2185: \DZ\ excluding the decay of $D^*$ mesons have been measured. They
2186: were found to agree reasonably well with each other.
2187:
2188: The efficiency corrected data points will be made available via
2189: download in the Durham HEP REACTION DATA DataBase \cite{DurhamHEP}.
2190: It is presented in a different way as shown this article. Separate
2191: sets of the continuum and the on-resonance samples are given as
2192: $s B d\sigma/d\xP$, {\it i.e.} scaled by the nominal center-of-mass
2193: energies of 10.52 \GeV\ and 10.58 \GeV, respectively, and not
2194: corrected for the branching ratios.
2195: The on-resonance data includes the additional correction for ISR of
2196: $+0.27\%$, see Section \ref{anaproc} for details.
2197:
2198: \section*{Acknowledgements}
2199: We thank O.~Biebel and A.~Mitov for discussion.
2200: We thank the KEKB group for the excellent operation of the
2201: accelerator, the KEK cryogenics group for the efficient
2202: operation of the solenoid, and the KEK computer group and
2203: the National Institute of Informatics for valuable computing
2204: and Super-SINET network support. We acknowledge support from
2205: the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and
2206: Technology of Japan and the Japan Society for the Promotion
2207: of Science; the Australian Research Council and the
2208: Australian Department of Education, Science and Training;
2209: the National Science Foundation of China under contract
2210: No.~10175071; the Department of Science and Technology of
2211: India; the BK21 program of the Ministry of Education of
2212: Korea and the CHEP SRC program of the Korea Science and
2213: Engineering Foundation; the Polish State Committee for
2214: Scientific Research under contract No.~2P03B 01324; the
2215: Ministry of Science and Technology of the Russian
2216: Federation; the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology
2217: of the Republic of Slovenia; the Swiss National Science Foundation;
2218: the National Science Council and the Ministry of Education of Taiwan;
2219: and the U.S.\ Department of Energy.
2220:
2221: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% B I B L I O G R A P H Y %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2222: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
2223:
2224: \bibitem{OPAL_PETRAqcd} OPAL Coll., G. Abbiendi {\it et al.}:
2225: Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C17}, 19 (2000).
2226:
2227: \bibitem{DGLAP}
2228: G.~Altarelli, G. Parisi: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B126}, 298 (1977);\\
2229: L.N.~Lipatov: Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 20}, 94 (1975);\\
2230: V.N.~Gribov, L.N.~Lipatov: Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 15}, 43 (1972);\\
2231: Yu.L.~Dokshitzer: Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 46}, 641 (1977).
2232:
2233: \bibitem{JETSET}
2234: T.~Sj\"ostrand:
2235: Comput. Phys. Comm. {\bf 82}, 74 (1994).
2236:
2237: \bibitem{PYTHIA}
2238: T.~Sj\"ostrand {\it et al.}:
2239: Comput. Phys. Comm. {\bf 135}, 238 (2001).
2240:
2241: \bibitem{HERWIG}
2242: G.~Corcella {\it et al.}: JHEP {\bf 0101}, 010 (2001), hep-ph/0210213;\\
2243: G.~Marchesini {\it et al.}: Comput. Phys. Comm. {\bf 67}, 465 (1992).
2244:
2245: \bibitem{ALEPHb}
2246: Aleph Coll., A.~Heister {\it et al.}:
2247: Phys. Lett. {\bf B512}, 30 (2001).
2248:
2249: \bibitem{DELPHIb}
2250: Delphi Coll., P.~Abreu {\it et al.}: Z. Phys. {\bf C66}, 323 (1995).
2251:
2252: \bibitem{OPALb}
2253: OPAL Coll., G. Abbiendi {\it et al.}:
2254: Euro. Phys. J {\bf C29}, 463 (2003).
2255:
2256: \bibitem{SLDb}
2257: SLD Coll., K.~Abe {\it et al.}: Phys. Rev. {\bf D65}, 092006 (2002).
2258:
2259: \bibitem{ALEPHc}
2260: Aleph Coll., R.~Barate {\it et al.}:
2261: Euro. Phys. J. {\bf C16}, 597 (2000).
2262:
2263: \bibitem{OPALc}
2264: OPAL Collab., R.~Akers {\it et al.}:
2265: Z. Phys. {\bf C67}, 27 (1995).
2266:
2267: \bibitem{Peterson}{C.~Peterson, D.~Schlatter, I.~Schmitt,
2268: P.M.~Zerwas: \PRD{27}{1983}{105}.}
2269:
2270: \bibitem{Kartvelishvili}{V.G.~Kartvelishvili, A.K.~Likhoded,
2271: V.A.~Petrov: \PLB{78}{1978}{615}.}
2272:
2273: \bibitem{ColSpi}{P.D.B.~Collins, T.P.~Spiller:
2274: \JPG{11}{1985}{1289}.}
2275:
2276: \bibitem{Lundsymm}{B.~Andersson, G.~Gustafson, B.~S\"oderberg:
2277: \ZPC{20}{1983}{317}.}
2278:
2279: \bibitem{Bowler}{M.G.~Bowler: \ZPC{11}{1981}{169}.}
2280:
2281: \bibitem{CLEOprel}
2282: CLEO Coll., M.~Artuso {\it et al.}:
2283: Phys. Rev. {\bf D70 }, 112001 (2004).
2284:
2285: \bibitem{CLEOc}
2286: CLEO Coll., D.~Bortoletto {\it et al.}:
2287: Phys. Rev. {\bf D37}, 1719 (1988);\\
2288: Erratum ibid. D39, 1471 (1989).
2289:
2290: \bibitem{ARGUSc}
2291: ARGUS Coll., H.~Albrecht {\it et al.}:
2292: Z. Phys. {\bf C52}, 353 (1991).
2293:
2294: \bibitem{Biebel}
2295: O.~Biebel, P.~Nason, and B.R.~Webber: hep-ph/0109282;\\
2296: extended version of \cite{PDG2004}.
2297:
2298: \bibitem{KEKB}
2299: S.~Kurokawa, E.~Kikutani: Nucl. Inst. Meth. {\bf A499}, 1 (2003);\\
2300: and other papers included in this Volume.
2301:
2302: \bibitem{BelleDet}
2303: Belle Coll., A.~Abashian {\it et al.}: Nucl. Inst. Meth. {\bf A479}, 117 (2002).
2304:
2305: \bibitem{HadronB}
2306: Belle Coll., K.Abe {\it et al.}: Phys. Rev. {\bf D64}, 072001 (2001).
2307:
2308: \bibitem{QQ98}
2309: see http://www.lns.cornell.edu/public/CLEO/soft/QQ.
2310:
2311: \bibitem{GEANT}
2312: R.~Brun {\it et al.}, GEANT 3.21, CERN Report DD/EE/84-1, 1984.
2313:
2314: \bibitem{EvtGen}
2315: see http://www.slac.stanford.edu/$\sim$lange/EvtGen
2316:
2317: \bibitem{SVD}
2318: A.~Hoecker, V.~Kartvelishvili: Nucl. Inst. Meth. {\bf A372}, 469 (1996).
2319:
2320: \bibitem{PDG2004}
2321: S.~Eidelman {\it et al.}: Phys. Lett. {\bf B592}, 1 (2004).
2322:
2323: \bibitem{Uglov}
2324: Belle Coll., T.~Uglov {\it et al.}: Phys. Rev. {\bf D70}, 071101 (2004).
2325:
2326: \bibitem{BaBar_Ds}
2327: BaBar Coll., B.~Aubert {\it et al.}:
2328: Phys. Rev. {\bf D65}, 091104 (2002).
2329:
2330: \bibitem{KK}{S.~Jadach, B.F.L.~Ward and Z.~W\c{a}s:
2331: Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}, 113009 (2001);\\
2332: S.~Jadach, B.F.L.~Ward and Z.~W\c{a}s:
2333: Comput. Phys. Comm. {\bf 130}, 260 (2000);\\
2334: S.~Jadach, B.F.L.~Ward and Z.~W\c{a}s:
2335: Phys. Lett. {\bf B449}, 97 (1999).}
2336:
2337: \bibitem{CLEO_Dstst}
2338: CLEO Coll., P. Avery {\it et al.}:
2339: Phys. Rev. {\bf D41}, 774 (1990).
2340:
2341: \bibitem{Gladilin}
2342: L.~Gladilin: hep-ex/9912064.
2343:
2344: \bibitem{VoverPV}{
2345: K.~Cheung:
2346: {\it Recent Progress on Perturbative QCD Fragmentation Functions, }
2347: Proceedings of the 1995 PASCOS/Hopkins Workshop, Baltimore, or
2348: hep-ph/9505365; \\
2349: E.~Braaten, K.~Cheung, S.~Fleming, and T.C.~Yuan:
2350: Phys.~Rev.~{\bf D51}, 4819 (1995);\\
2351: Phys.~Rev.~{\bf D48}, 5181 (1993);\\
2352: M.~Suzuki:
2353: Phys.~Rev.~{\bf D33}, 676 (1986);\\
2354: R.~Suaya, J.S.~Townsend:
2355: Phys.~Rev.~{\bf D19}, 1414 (1979).
2356: }
2357:
2358: \bibitem{DurhamHEP}
2359: http://durpdg.dur.ac.uk/HEPDATA/
2360:
2361: \end{thebibliography}
2362:
2363: \end{document}
2364: