1: % Draft by J. Rosner of PRD article on h_c
2: % Draft 9/27/05 by JLR
3: % Changes 9/22/05 from 8/10/05 version marked by lines beginning with %JR
4: % Further changes 9/26/05 marked %%JR
5: % Figure labels changed 9/27/05 to accommodate Millerized figures
6: % CLEO template prepared by Karl Ecklund September 2002
7: % Questions, Improvements, Comments to kme and CLEOAC
8: %
9: % LATEX 2e Template for CLEO Papers
10: % YOU MUST USE REVTEX4 and latex 2e
11: %
12: % Checklist for Paper Drafts:
13: % ---------------------------
14: % 0) Use appropriate \documentclass line as indicated below
15: % 1) Draft Number: Use latest CBX number, append A for the first vote
16: % (B,C,... for subsequent if any votes)
17: % 2) Don't use CLNS or CLEO numbers - this happens after your vote.
18: % 3) Title; use \\ to break title over several lines.
19: % 4) Abstract
20: % 5) For the Author list use CLEO Collaboration only
21: % 6) Body
22: %
23: % Checklist for Journal Submissions:
24: % ----------------------------------
25: % 0) Use appropriate \documentclass line as indicated below
26: % - For CLNS, hep-ex, preprints, conf. paper use CLNS version
27: % - For PRL submission use PRL version
28: % - For PRD submission use PRD version
29: % AND use \author{(CLEO Collaboration)} instead of \collaboration{CLEO}
30: % SEE PRD_SPECIAL_CHANGEME in author list during step 5 below
31: % 1) CLEO paper number (from CLEOAC)
32: % 2) CLNS preprint number (from CLEOAC)
33: % 3) Title; use \\ to break title over several lines.
34: % 4) Abstract
35: % 5) Author list (from CLEOAC)
36: % 6) PACS codes
37: % 7) Body
38: % 8) Add acknowledgments
39: % 9) Hardcode the \date when ready to submit to journal and hep-ex.
40: %
41: % KNOWN PROBLEMS with template and REVTEX4
42: % - can't have \collaboration in PRD style grouped author list
43: % Using \author{(CLEO Collaboration)} instead
44: % - can't make abstract appear before full author list ala CLNS notes
45: % Abandoning this as the format for CLNS.
46:
47: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
48: % Select one of the \documentclass lines below for your paper
49: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
50: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% Use for CLNS preprint (hep-ex) and Paper Drafts
51: %\documentclass[aps,prd,preprint,superscriptaddress,tightenlines,nofootinbib,
52: %showpacs]{revtex4}
53: \documentclass[aps,prd,preprint,tightenlines,nofootinbib,showpacs]{revtex4}
54:
55: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% Use for PRL
56: %\documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,superscriptaddress,showpacs]{revtex4}
57:
58: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% Use for PRD submission
59: %\documentclass[aps,prd,preprint,nopreprintnumbers,nofootinbib,showpacs]{revtex4}
60: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% Use for PRD formatting tables and figures in 2 column
61: %\documentclass[aps,prd,twocolumn,nofootinbib,showpacs]{revtex4}
62:
63: %%% I need the following on my system. It should be commented out elsewhere.
64: %\topmargin 0in
65:
66: \usepackage{epsfig}
67: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
68: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
69: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
70:
71: %%%%% Special definitions %%%%%
72: % JLR's definitions
73: \def \bdir{{\cal B}({\rm dir})}
74: \def \bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
75: \def \beq{\begin{equation}}
76: % \def \bhc{{\cal B}(\hc)}
77: \def \bhc{\brp\brh}
78: \def \br{{\cal B}}
79: \def \brp{{\cal B}_{\psi}}
80: \def \brh{{\cal B}_h}
81: \def \ec{\eta_c}
82: \def \eea{\end{eqnarray}}
83: \def \eeq{\end{equation}}
84: \def \ege1{E(\gamma_{\rm E1})}
85: \def \gec{\Gamma(\ec)}
86: \def \ggJ{\gamma \gamma}
87: \def \ghc{\Gamma(\hc)}
88: \def \gme1{\gamma_{\rm E1}}
89: \def \hc{h_c}
90: \def \jp{J/\psi}
91: \def \kl{K^0_L}
92: \def \ks{K^0_S}
93: \def \ls{\stackrel{<}{\sim}}
94: \def \mav{\langle M(1^3P) \rangle}
95: \def \mpla#1#2#3{Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
96: \def \npbps#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ B Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
97: \def \plb#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
98: \def \pp{\psi(2S)}
99: \def \prd#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
100: \def \prl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
101: \def \pz{\pi^0}
102:
103: % Datao's definitions
104:
105: \newcommand{\bo}{B^0}
106: \newcommand{\bob}{\bar{B}^0}
107: \newcommand{\bp}{B^+}
108: \newcommand{\barb}{\bar{B}}
109: \newcommand{\bbbar}{B\bar{B}}
110: \newcommand{\ppbar}{p\bar{p}}
111: \newcommand{\kkpp}{K^{+}K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}}
112: \newcommand{\fourpi}{\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}}
113: \newcommand{\kkpizero}{K^{+}K^{-}\pi^{0}}
114: \newcommand{\ppetaone}{\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\eta(\gamma\gamma)}
115: \newcommand{\ppetatwo}{\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\eta(\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0})}
116: \newcommand{\direct}{\pp \to \gamma \ec}
117: \newcommand{\cascade}{\pp \to \pz \hc \to \pz (\gamma \ec)}
118: \newcommand{\Ufs}{\Upsilon(4S)}
119: \newcommand{\GeV}{\rm GeV}
120: \newcommand{\MeV}{\rm MeV}
121: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.}}
122: \newcommand{\kskp}{\ks K^{\pm}\pi^{\mp}}
123: \newcommand{\klkp}{\kl K^{\pm}\pi^{\mp}}
124: \newcommand{\sys}{\rm sys}
125: \newcommand{\stat}{\rm stat}
126:
127: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
128:
129: \begin{document}
130:
131: \preprint{CLNS 05/1920} % for CLNS notes
132: \preprint{CLEO 05-12} % for CLNS notes
133:
134: \title{Observation of the $^1P_1$ State of Charmonium}
135:
136: %-------- INSERT HERE ------------
137: \author{P.~Rubin}
138: \affiliation{George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia 22030}
139: \author{C.~Cawlfield}
140: \author{B.~I.~Eisenstein}
141: \author{G.~D.~Gollin}
142: \author{I.~Karliner}
143: \author{D.~Kim}
144: \author{N.~Lowrey}
145: \author{P.~Naik}
146: \author{C.~Sedlack}
147: \author{M.~Selen}
148: \author{E.~J.~White}
149: \author{J.~Williams}
150: \author{J.~Wiss}
151: \affiliation{University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois 61801}
152: \author{K.~W.~Edwards}
153: \affiliation{Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6 \\
154: and the Institute of Particle Physics, Canada}
155: \author{D.~Besson}
156: \affiliation{University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045}
157: \author{T.~K.~Pedlar}
158: \affiliation{Luther College, Decorah, Iowa 52101}
159: \author{D.~Cronin-Hennessy}
160: \author{K.~Y.~Gao}
161: \author{D.~T.~Gong}
162: \author{J.~Hietala}
163: \author{Y.~Kubota}
164: \author{T.~Klein}
165: \author{B.~W.~Lang}
166: \author{S.~Z.~Li}
167: \author{R.~Poling}
168: \author{A.~W.~Scott}
169: \author{A.~Smith}
170: \affiliation{University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455}
171: \author{S.~Dobbs}
172: \author{Z.~Metreveli}
173: \author{K.~K.~Seth}
174: \author{A.~Tomaradze}
175: \author{P.~Zweber}
176: \affiliation{Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208}
177: \author{J.~Ernst}
178: \author{A.~H.~Mahmood}
179: \affiliation{State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York 12222}
180: \author{H.~Severini}
181: \affiliation{University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019}
182: \author{D.~M.~Asner}
183: \author{S.~A.~Dytman}
184: \author{W.~Love}
185: \author{S.~Mehrabyan}
186: \author{J.~A.~Mueller}
187: \author{V.~Savinov}
188: \affiliation{University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260}
189: \author{Z.~Li}
190: \author{A.~Lopez}
191: \author{H.~Mendez}
192: \author{J.~Ramirez}
193: \affiliation{University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 00681}
194: \author{G.~S.~Huang}
195: \author{D.~H.~Miller}
196: \author{V.~Pavlunin}
197: \author{B.~Sanghi}
198: \author{I.~P.~J.~Shipsey}
199: \affiliation{Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907}
200: \author{G.~S.~Adams}
201: \author{M.~Cravey}
202: \author{J.~P.~Cummings}
203: \author{I.~Danko}
204: \author{J.~Napolitano}
205: \affiliation{Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York 12180}
206: \author{Q.~He}
207: \author{H.~Muramatsu}
208: \author{C.~S.~Park}
209: \author{W.~Park}
210: \author{E.~H.~Thorndike}
211: \affiliation{University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627}
212: \author{T.~E.~Coan}
213: \author{Y.~S.~Gao}
214: \author{F.~Liu}
215: \affiliation{Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275}
216: \author{M.~Artuso}
217: \author{C.~Boulahouache}
218: \author{S.~Blusk}
219: \author{J.~Butt}
220: \author{O.~Dorjkhaidav}
221: \author{J.~Li}
222: \author{N.~Menaa}
223: \author{R.~Mountain}
224: \author{R.~Nandakumar}
225: \author{K.~Randrianarivony}
226: \author{R.~Redjimi}
227: \author{R.~Sia}
228: \author{T.~Skwarnicki}
229: \author{S.~Stone}
230: \author{J.~C.~Wang}
231: \author{K.~Zhang}
232: \affiliation{Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244}
233: \author{S.~E.~Csorna}
234: \affiliation{Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37235}
235: \author{G.~Bonvicini}
236: \author{D.~Cinabro}
237: \author{M.~Dubrovin}
238: \affiliation{Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48202}
239: \author{R.~A.~Briere}
240: \author{G.~P.~Chen}
241: \author{J.~Chen}
242: \author{T.~Ferguson}
243: \author{G.~Tatishvili}
244: \author{H.~Vogel}
245: \author{M.~E.~Watkins}
246: \affiliation{Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213}
247: \author{J.~L.~Rosner}
248: \affiliation{Enrico Fermi Institute, University of
249: Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637}
250: \author{N.~E.~Adam}
251: \author{J.~P.~Alexander}
252: \author{K.~Berkelman}
253: \author{D.~G.~Cassel}
254: \author{V.~Crede}
255: \author{J.~E.~Duboscq}
256: \author{K.~M.~Ecklund}
257: \author{R.~Ehrlich}
258: \author{L.~Fields}
259: \author{R.~S.~Galik}
260: \author{L.~Gibbons}
261: \author{B.~Gittelman}
262: \author{R.~Gray}
263: \author{S.~W.~Gray}
264: \author{D.~L.~Hartill}
265: \author{B.~K.~Heltsley}
266: \author{D.~Hertz}
267: \author{C.~D.~Jones}
268: \author{J.~Kandaswamy}
269: \author{D.~L.~Kreinick}
270: \author{V.~E.~Kuznetsov}
271: \author{H.~Mahlke-Kr\"uger}
272: \author{T.~O.~Meyer}
273: \author{P.~U.~E.~Onyisi}
274: \author{J.~R.~Patterson}
275: \author{D.~Peterson}
276: \author{E.~A.~Phillips}
277: \author{J.~Pivarski}
278: \author{D.~Riley}
279: \author{A.~Ryd}
280: \author{A.~J.~Sadoff}
281: \author{H.~Schwarthoff}
282: \author{X.~Shi}
283: \author{M.~R.~Shepherd}
284: \author{S.~Stroiney}
285: \author{W.~M.~Sun}
286: \author{D.~Urner}
287: \author{T.~Wilksen}
288: \author{K.~M.~Weaver}
289: \author{M.~Weinberger}
290: \affiliation{Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853}
291: \author{S.~B.~Athar}
292: \author{P.~Avery}
293: \author{L.~Breva-Newell}
294: \author{R.~Patel}
295: \author{V.~Potlia}
296: \author{H.~Stoeck}
297: \author{J.~Yelton}
298: \affiliation{University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611}
299: \author{(CLEO Collaboration)} %FOR PRD_SPECIAL_CHANGEME
300: % \collaboration{CLEO Collaboration} %FOR PRL,CLNS
301: \noaffiliation
302:
303: %-------- END INSERT ------------
304:
305: %please hard code the date when you have a final draft and submit to CLEOAC
306: \date{\today}
307:
308: \begin{abstract}
309:
310: The spin-singlet P-wave state of charmonium, $\hc(^1P_1)$, has been observed in
311: the decay $\pp \to \pz \hc$ followed by $\hc \to \gamma \ec$. Inclusive
312: and exclusive analyses of the $M(\hc)$ spectrum have been performed. Two
313: complementary inclusive analyses select either a range of energies for the
314: photon emitted in $\hc \to \gamma \ec$ or a range of values of $M(\ec)$. These
315: analyses, consistent with one another within statistics, yield $M(h_c) =[3524.9
316: \pm 0.7~{\rm (stat)} \pm 0.4~{\rm (sys)}]$ MeV/$c^2$ and a product of the
317: branching ratios $\brp(\pp \to \pz \hc) \times \brh(\hc \to \gamma \ec) =
318: [3.5 \pm 1.0~{\rm (stat)} \pm 0.7~{\rm (sys)}] \times 10^{-4}$. When the $\ec$
319: is reconstructed in seven exclusive decay modes, $17.5 \pm 4.5$ $\hc$ events
320: are seen with an average mass $M(\hc) = [3523.6 \pm 0.9~{\rm (stat)}
321: \pm 0.5~{\rm (sys)}]$ MeV/$c^2$, and $\brp \brh = [5.3 \pm 1.5 {\rm~(stat)} \pm
322: 1.0~{\rm (sys)}] \times 10^{-4}$.
323: %JR changed; explain combination of samples in Section IX
324: %JR Because the inclusive and exclusive data samples are largely independent
325: %%JR "When" replaced by "If"
326: If combined, the inclusive and exclusive data samples
327: yield an overall mass $M(\hc) = [3524.4 \pm 0.6~{\rm (stat)} \pm
328: 0.4~{\rm (sys)}]$ MeV/$c^2$ and product of branching ratios $\brp \brh =
329: [4.0 \pm 0.8~{\rm (stat)} \pm 0.7~{\rm (sys)}] \times 10^{-4}$. The $\hc$ mass
330: implies a P-wave hyperfine splitting $\Delta M_{\rm HF}(1P) \equiv \mav -
331: M(1^1P_1) = [1.0 \pm 0.6~(\stat) \pm 0.4~(\sys)]$ MeV/$c^2$.
332:
333: \end{abstract}
334:
335: \pacs{14.40.Gx, 13.25.Gv, 13.20.Gd, 12.38.Qk}
336: \maketitle
337:
338: Since the discovery of the $J/\psi$, the first bound state of a charmed quark
339: $c$ and charmed antiquark $\bar c$ \cite{Aubert:1974js,Augustin:1974xw}, the $c
340: \bar c$ ({\it charmonium}) spectrum has provided many insights about quarks and
341: the forces holding them together. The charmed quark was the first to be found
342: with a mass larger than the characteristic scale of quantum chromodynamics
343: (QCD). Charmonium bound states thus could be treated starting from a
344: nonrelativistic description \cite{Appelquist:1974zd}. One could calculate
345: decay rates and level splittings and thereby determine the magnitude of the
346: strong coupling constant $\alpha_S$ at the charm mass scale, and the Lorentz
347: structure of the force confining quarks (see, e.g., \cite{Novikov:1977dq,%
348: Kwong:1987mj,Quigg:2004nv} for reviews.)
349:
350: The hyperfine (spin-spin) splittings in charmonium S-wave states are
351: appreciable \cite{Eidelman:2004wy,etacmass}:
352: $$
353: \Delta M_{\rm HF}(1S) \equiv M(\jp) - M(\ec) \simeq 115~{\rm MeV}/c^2,
354: $$
355: \beq
356: \Delta M_{\rm HF}(2S) \equiv M(\pp) - M(\ec') \simeq 49~{\rm MeV}/c^2.
357: \eeq
358:
359: For an interquark potential $V(r) = V_S(r)+V_V(r)$, the sum of vector $V_V(r)$
360: and scalar $V_S(r)$ contributions, only the vector part contributes to the
361: spin-spin splitting \cite{Novikov:1977dq,Kwong:1987mj,Ng:1985uq,Pantaleone:%
362: 1985uf}, giving rise in lowest order of $1/m_c$ ($m_c$ is the mass of the
363: charmed quark) to a spin-spin interaction perturbation
364: \beq
365: V_{\rm SS}({\bf r}) =\frac{{\bf \sigma}_1 \cdot {\bf \sigma}_2}
366: {6 m_c^2} \nabla^2 V_V(r) = \frac{8 \pi \alpha_S {\bf \sigma}_1 \cdot
367: {\bf \sigma}_2}{9 m_c^2} \delta^3({\bf r}).
368: \eeq
369: The second equality on the right-hand side is obtained when one takes $V_V(r) =
370: 4 \alpha_S/(3r)$ and neglects the slow variation of $\alpha_S$ with scale. The
371: resulting local spin-spin interaction then contributes only to splittings in
372: S-wave states. Taking account of the scale dependence of $\alpha_S$
373: \cite{Ng:1985uq,Pantaleone:1985uf} and $\chi_{cJ}$ wave function variations, one
374: finds at most a few MeV/$c^2$ splitting between the $1^1P_1$ state $\hc$ and
375: the spin-weighted average $\mav$ of the $^3P_J$ states $\chi_{cJ}$
376: \cite{Eidelman:2004wy}:
377: $\mav = [M(1^3P_0) + 3 M(1^3P_1) + 5 M(1^3P_2)]/9 = (3525.4 \pm
378: 0.1)$ MeV$/c^2$. Small splittings $\Delta M_{\rm HF}(1P) \equiv \mav
379: - M(1^1P_1)$ are also consistent with a wide variety of estimates in
380: potential models \cite{models} and non-relativistic QCD \cite{NRQCD}, as well
381: as with lattice gauge theory estimates \cite{latt}. Values of $|\Delta M_{\rm
382: HF}(1P)|$ larger than a few MeV/$c^2$ could indicate unexpected behavior of the
383: vector potential $V_V(r)$, unexpectedly large distortions of the masses of the
384: $1^3P_J = \chi_{cJ}$ states due to coupled-channel effects, or -- in lattice
385: theory -- effects of light-quark degrees of freedom.
386:
387: The low-lying charmonium spectrum is illustrated in Fig.\ 1. The $\chi_{cJ}$
388: can be easily populated by radiative transitions from the $\pp$.
389: Their subsequent radiative decays to $\jp$ also are prominent. In contrast,
390: the $h_c = 1^1P_1$ $c \bar c$ state is not easily produced. It can be produced
391: in the $\bar p p$ direct channel, and a few events were seen at
392: the CERN Intersecting Storage Rings (ISR), clustered about $M(\hc) = 3525.4 \pm
393: 0.8$ MeV/$c^2$~\cite{Baglin:1986yd}. The significance of the signal was $2.3
394: \sigma$. Stronger evidence was presented by Fermilab Experiment~E760 in
395: the channel $\bar p p \to h_c \to \pi^0 J/\psi$~\cite{Armstrong:1992ae}, with a
396: combined branching ratio
397: \beq
398: (1.7 \pm 0.4) \times 10^{-7} \le {\cal B}(h_c \to \bar p p) {\cal B}(h_c
399: \to \pi^0 J/\psi) \le (2.3 \pm 0.6) \times 10^{-7}
400: \eeq
401: for $M(h_c) = 3526.2 \pm 0.15 \pm 0.2$ MeV/$c^2$, with an additional possible
402: shift of up to $\pm 0.4$ MeV/$c^2$ due to resonance-continuum interference.
403: However, E835, the sequel to E760 with three times its integrated luminosity,
404: %JR Deleted reference to Patrignani talk; added E835 Phys. Rev. article.
405: %JR Slight change in quoted values
406: did not confirm the E760 signal \cite{Joffe,Andreotti:2005vu}. Instead, a
407: signal with $\sim 3 \sigma$ significance for $\bar p p \to h_c \to \gamma
408: \eta_c \to \gamma \gamma \gamma$ was reported recently
409: \cite{Andreotti:2005vu}, with $M(h_c) = 3525.8 \pm 0.2 \pm 0.2$ MeV/$c^2$,
410: width $\Gamma \le 1$ MeV, and $(10.0 \pm 3.5) {\rm~eV} < \Gamma(h_c \to p \bar
411: p) {\cal B}(h_c \to \eta_c \gamma) < (12.0 \pm 4.5)$ eV.
412:
413: % This is Figure 1
414: \begin{center}
415: \begin{figure}
416: %\includegraphics*[height=4.1in]{charmon.ps}
417: \includegraphics*[height=4.5in]{3960805-012.eps}
418: \caption{The low-lying charmonium ($c \bar c$) spectrum and some observed
419: transitions. The bold-faced lines labeled ``$\pz$'' and ``$\gme1$'' denote the
420: respective transitions $\pp \to \pz \hc$ and $\hc \to \gme1 \ec$ discussed in
421: the present paper.
422: \label{fig:charmon}}
423: \end{figure}
424: \end{center}
425:
426: The decay $\pp \to \pz \hc$ can occur via isospin mixing (e.g., $\pz$--$\eta$
427: mixing) in the neutral pion \cite{Segre:1976wj}. Previous experimental upper
428: limits on the branching ratio for this process are $\brp \equiv \br(\pp \to \pz
429: \hc) < 42$--80 $\times 10^{-4}$ for $M(\hc)$ between 3500 and 3535 MeV/$c^2$,
430: and $\brp \brh \ls 15 \times 10^{-4}$ for $M(\hc) \simeq 3525$ MeV/$c^2$,
431: where $\brh \equiv {\cal B} (\hc \to \gamma \ec)$ \cite{Porter:1982}. Ko
432: \cite{Ko:1994nw} estimated $\brp \simeq 30 \times 10^{-4}$. A recent
433: theoretical range is $\brp \simeq (4$--$13)\times 10^{-4}$ \cite{Kuang:2002hz}.
434:
435: The decay $\hc \to \gamma \ec$ is an electric dipole (E1) transition whose
436: matrix element should be the same as that for the decays $\chi_{cJ} \to \gamma
437: \jp$. Estimates \cite{E1rate}
438: of $\Gamma(\hc \to \gme1 \ec)$ range between 160 and 560 keV; a recent value
439: is 354 keV \cite{Godfrey:2002rp}. The hadronic and photon + hadronic decay
440: rates of $\hc$ are not as well estimated, but the total width $\Gamma(\hc)$ is
441: generally found to be 1 MeV or less, with Ref.\ \cite{Godfrey:2002rp}
442: obtaining 0.94 MeV and hence $\brh \equiv \br(\hc \to \gme1 \ec) = 37.7\%$.
443: In other treatments this branching ratio can be larger; it is rarely smaller.
444: In $\pp \to \pz \hc$ the polarizations of the $\hc$ and $\pp$ should be
445: almost identical, since the spinless $\pz$ is expected to be emitted in an
446: S wave. The subsequent E1 transition $\hc \to \gamma \ec$ should then lead
447: to a photon with distribution $W(\cos \theta) \sim 1 + \cos^2 \theta$
448: with respect to the beam axis.
449:
450: The present paper describes the identification of $\hc$ at the Cornell Electron
451: Storage Ring (CESR), using the CLEO III and CLEO-c detectors, via the
452: sequential process
453: \beq \label{eqn:proc}
454: e^+ e^- \to \pp(3686) \to \pz \hc~~,~~\hc \to \gme1 \ec~~,~~
455: \pz \to \gamma \gamma,
456: \eeq
457: illustrated by the bold arrows in Fig.\
458: \ref{fig:charmon} labeled ``$\pz$'' and ``$\gme1$,'' respectively. Exclusive
459: reconstruction of $\ec$ decays in seven modes permits observation of $\hc$
460: with convincing significance and little background, while
461: inclusive analysis in which the $\ec$ is not reconstructed provides a better
462: measurement of $M(\hc)$ and of the combined branching ratio for $\pp \to \pz
463: \hc,~h_c \to \gamma \eta_c$.
464:
465: We mention relevant aspects of the CLEO detector in Section II. An overview of
466: inclusive and exclusive analysis methods is presented in Section III. We then
467: describe background sources and suppressions (Sec.\ IV), data sample and event
468: selection (Sec.\ V), Monte Carlo samples (Sec.\ VI), the extraction of signal
469: from the data (Sec.\ VII), and systematic errors (Sec.\ VIII). The combined
470: results of the different analyses are presented in Sec.\ IX. A summary
471: and discussion of the results are given in Sec.\ X.
472: \bigskip
473:
474: \centerline{\bf II. THE CLEO DETECTOR}
475: \bigskip
476:
477: The data upon which the present report is based were taken with the CLEO III
478: and CLEO-c detectors, described in detail elsewhere
479: \cite{Kubota:1991ww,Viehhauser:2001ue, Peterson:2002sk,Artuso:2002ya}.
480: Elements critical for the analyses presented here are the calorimeter and,
481: for the exclusive analysis, the charged particle
482: tracking and particle identification systems. The barrel (80\% of $4 \pi$) and
483: endcap (additional 13\% of $4 \pi$) electromagnetic calorimeters consist of a
484: total of 7800 thallium-doped cesium iodide (CsI) crystals. Their excellent
485: resolutions in position and energy (2.2\% at $E_\gamma=1$~GeV and 5\%
486: at 100~MeV) are a major source of sensitivity and discrimination against
487: background in identifying the chain of decays $\pp \to \pz \hc \to \pz
488: \gamma \ec$, and in measuring $M(\hc)$. Pion/kaon separation is performed
489: utilizing the energy loss in the drift chamber, $dE/dx$, and photons in the
490: Ring-Imaging Cherenkov (RICH) counters. The combined $dE/dx$ and RICH particle
491: identification system has an efficiency of $>90\%$ and misidentification rates
492: of $<5\%$ for both $\pi^\pm$ and $K^\pm$. Approximately one-half of the data
493: sample used an upgraded configuration, denoted CLEO-c, with an inner drift
494: chamber detector sensitive to longitudinal position \cite{Briere:2001rn}.
495: % , improving upon track reconstruction.
496: \bigskip
497:
498: \centerline{\bf III. OVERVIEW OF ANALYSES}
499: \bigskip
500:
501: In the analyses described here one starts by looking for the
502: neutral pion emitted in $\pp \to \pz \hc$, expected to have an energy of
503: $E(\pz) \simeq 160$ MeV for $M(\pp) = 3686.111\pm0.025\pm0.009$ MeV/$c^2$
504: \cite{Aulchenko:2003qq} when $M(\hc) \simeq 3525$ MeV/$c^2$, and the
505: E1 photon emitted in $\hc \to \gme1 \ec$, with an expected energy in the $\hc$
506: rest frame of $\ege1 \simeq 502$ MeV for $M(\ec) = 2981.8 \pm 2.0$ MeV/$c^2$
507: \cite{etac}. One takes advantage of the good energy resolution of
508: the CLEO electromagnetic calorimeter by searching for an enhancement in the
509: spectrum of masses $M(\hc)$ recoiling against the $\pz$,
510: \beq \label{eqn:mhc}
511: M(\hc) = [M^2(\pp) - 2 M(\pp) E(\pz) + M^2(\pz)]^{1/2},
512: \eeq
513: reducing background by selecting a range of E1 photon energy $\ege1$ or
514: $\eta_c$ mass $M(\ec)$ in the transition $\hc \to \gamma \ec$, with
515: \beq \label{eqn:mecr}
516: M(\ec) = \left \{ M^2(\hc) - 2 \ege1 [E(\hc) + p(\pz) \cos
517: \theta(\pz,\gme1)] \right \}^{1/2}.
518: \eeq
519: Here $E(\hc)$ and $p(\pz)$ are the $\hc$ energy and the magnitude of the
520: $\pz$ three-momentum in the $\pp$ rest frame, while $\theta(\pz,\gme1)$ is the
521: angle between the $\pz$ and $\gme1$ in that frame.
522:
523: A search that is inclusive with respect to the $\eta_c$~decay, {\it i.e.,}~one
524: that imposes no further requirements on the $\eta_c$~decay products, exploits
525: the full event yield. With a sample of approximately three million $\pp$, an
526: estimated product branching ratio $\brp \brh \simeq 4 \times 10^{-4}$, and an
527: estimated efficiency of about 15\%, one expects about 180 counts in the $\hc$
528: peak in inclusive analyses, albeit on top of a background several times larger.
529:
530: An exclusive analysis, in which specific decay modes of the $\eta_c$ are
531: detected, benefits from much lower backgrounds with reduced efficiency. In the
532: present analysis nearly 10\% of all $\eta_c$ decays are reconstructed, leading
533: one to expect $\sim 18$ events with little background. The method is validated
534: by reconstructing the more abundant $\eta_c$ decays in the direct reaction
535: $\pp \to \gamma \ec$, for which $\br(\pp \to \gamma \ec) = (3.2 \pm 0.6 \pm
536: 0.4) \times 10^{-3}$ \cite{Athar:2004dn}. (The Particle Data Group average of
537: other measurements is $(2.8 \pm 0.6) \times 10^{-3}$ \cite{Eidelman:2004wy}.)
538:
539: The following features are common to both inclusive and exclusive analyses.
540: The sensitivity of the search for $\pp \to \pi^0 h_c \to \pi^0 \gamma \eta_c$
541: depends upon the degree to which the $\pi^0$ peak can be recognized above a
542: background which rises sharply as $\pi^0$ energy increases. Thus understanding
543: of $E(\pi^0)$ resolution is central to observation of the $h_c$ in this
544: process. It is also crucial in pinning down the mass of $h_c$.
545:
546: Because the signal $\pi^0$ in $\pp \to \pi^0 h_c$ is expected to have fairly
547: low momentum, its decay photons tend to be back-to-back in azimuth.
548: Mismeasurements of their energies are partly compensated by the mass constraint
549: used when combining them into a $\pi^0$~candidate and thus affect the $\pi^0$
550: detection probability only minimally, resulting in a narrow distribution in
551: $\pz$ energy and therefore in $M(h_c)$, as will be seen in the specific
552: analyses described below.
553:
554: At $E_\gamma \simeq 500$ MeV (the energy of the expected signal for $\hc \to
555: \gme1 \ec$), the experimental resolution of the photon energy is comparable
556: to that expected from Doppler broadening of the $h_c$ when the photon is
557: observed in the $\pp$~rest frame ($\sim 10$~MeV). One can correct for this
558: broadening using information on $\cos \theta(\pz,\gme1)$ as in Eq.\
559: (\ref{eqn:mecr}).
560:
561: Two complementary inclusive analyses have been pursued. In one, candidates for
562: $\cascade$ are selected by choosing events containing an E1 photon candidate in
563: a range of energies expected for $\hc \to \gme1 \ec$, and displaying a peak in
564: $M(\hc)$. This method has the advantage that backgrounds to the signal photon
565: and $\pz$ are uncorrelated with one another, but it presupposes foreknowledge
566: of the interesting range of $M(\hc)$ values, and does not compensate for the
567: broadening of the photon energy spectrum due to $\hc$ recoil.
568: In a second inclusive method, events are chosen within a given range of
569: $M(\ec)$ as calculated from the energies and relative angle of the $\pz$ and
570: $\gme1$, and displays a peak in $M(\hc)$. This method compensates for the
571: recoil broadening of the $\gme1$ energy spectrum and does not presuppose a
572: value of $M(\hc)$. However, since both photon and $\pz$ energies are needed to
573: calculate $M(\ec)$, backgrounds are correlated, and some subtraction methods
574: appropriate for the first method are not valid for the second.
575:
576: Exclusive reconstruction of decay modes of the $\ec$ offers the potential of
577: significant background reduction. The following $\eta_c$~decay modes were
578: studied:
579: $K_S^0 K^\pm \pi^\mp$,
580: $K_L^0 K^\pm \pi^\mp$,
581: $K^+ K^- \pi^+ \pi^-$,
582: $\pi^+ \pi^- \pi^+ \pi^-$,
583: $K^+ K^- \pi^0$,
584: $\pi^+ \pi^- \eta(\gamma\gamma)$,
585: $\pi^+ \pi^- \eta(\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0)$.
586: They are summarized in Table \ref{tab:ecmodes} together with their branching
587: fractions in $\eta_c$ decay \cite{Eidelman:2004wy}. In order to reduce the
588: effect of the poorly known $\ec$ branching ratios, the ratio of rates of $\pp$
589: decay to $\pi^0 \gamma \eta_{c}$ and $\gamma \eta_{c}$ is measured. The
590: normalizing mode has been recently measured at CLEO \cite{Athar:2004dn}. Its
591: study also permits us to construct and verify event selection criteria in $\ec$
592: reconstruction.
593:
594: % This is Table I
595: \begin{table}[h]
596: \caption{Decay modes of $\ec$ used in the exclusive analysis and their
597: branching fractions ${\cal B}$~\cite{Eidelman:2004wy}.
598: \label{tab:ecmodes}}
599: \begin{center}
600: \begin{tabular}{l c} \hline \hline
601: Mode & ${\cal B}$ (\%) \\ \hline
602: $\ks K^\pm \pi^\mp$ & $1.9 \pm 0.5$ \\
603: $\kl K^\pm \pi^\mp$ & $1.9 \pm 0.5$ \\
604: $K^+ K^- \pi^+ \pi^-$ & $1.5 \pm 0.6$ \\
605: $\pi^+ \pi^- \pi^+ \pi^-$ & $1.2 \pm 0.3$ \\
606: $K^+ K^- \pi^0$ & $1.0 \pm 0.3$ \\
607: $\pi^+ \pi^- \eta(\gamma \gamma)$ & $1.3 \pm 0.5$ \\
608: $\pi^+ \pi^- \eta(\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0)$ & $0.7 \pm 0.3$ \\ \hline
609: Total & $9.5 \pm 1.6$ \\
610: \hline \hline
611: \end{tabular}
612: \end{center}
613: \end{table}
614:
615: \bigskip
616: \centerline{\bf IV. BACKGROUND SOURCES AND SUPPRESSIONS}
617: \bigskip
618:
619: We first describe major backgrounds to the signal, and how they are suppressed,
620: in a qualitative manner. Details of background suppression are described in
621: the next section. Selection criteria are applied in different ways depending on
622: the nature of the analysis.
623:
624: \begin{itemize}
625:
626: \item {\it The transition $\pp \to \pi^+ \pi^- \jp$.}
627: Approximately 1/3 of all $\pp$ decay to the final state $\pi^+ \pi^-
628: \jp$ \cite{Adam:2005uh}. Subsequent decays of $\jp$ can generate both soft
629: $\pz$s (a background to the signal for $\pp \to \pz \hc$) and hard
630: photons in the vicinity of the signal energy $\ege1 \simeq 500$ MeV for the
631: expected E1 transition $\hc \to \gme1 \ec$. Thus, all analyses to be reported
632: here excluded some range of mass $X$ around $M(\jp)$ recoiling against $\pi^+
633: \pi^-$ in the reaction $\pp \to \pi^+ \pi^- X$.
634:
635: \item {\it The transition $\pp \to \pz \pz \jp$.}
636: The decay $\pp \to \pz \pz \jp$ accounts for about 1/6 of all $\pp$ decays
637: \cite{Adam:2005uh}. In addition to the backgrounds mentioned above for charged
638: pion pairs, either of the two neutral pions can be mistaken for that in the
639: signal for $\pp \to \pz \hc$. Thus, in inclusive analyses, a range of masses
640: around $M(\jp)$ in the spectrum recoiling against the dipion pair in
641: $\pp \to \pz \pz X$ was excluded.
642:
643: \item {\it The transition $\pp \to \gamma \chi_{cJ} \to \gamma \gamma \jp$.}
644: The sum of the product branching ratios $\br(\pp \to \gamma \chi_{cJ})
645: \br(\chi_{cJ} \to \gamma \jp)$ exceeds 5\% \cite{Adam:2005uh}. This
646: background can be reduced by excluding events with a range of masses
647: around $M(J/\psi)$ in the spectrum recoiling against $\gamma \gamma$ in
648: $\gamma \gamma X$.
649:
650: \item {\it Candidates for 500 MeV E1 photons which are $\pz$ or $\eta$
651: decay products.}
652: A sufficiently energetic $\pz$ can give rise to a photon which can
653: be mistaken for the signal E1 photon in $\hc \to \gme1 \ec$. It is possible
654: to suppress such photons by rejecting all candidates which can form a
655: candidate $\pz$ if paired with another photon. A similar rejection of $\eta$
656: decay products also can be applied.
657:
658: \item {\it Mis-pairings of candidates for $\pz$ decay.}
659: In general photons from $\pz$ decays are identified by requiring that their
660: energies and directions lead to a reconstructed $\pz$ mass within about
661: 15 MeV/$c^2$ of the nominal value of 135 MeV/$c^2$.
662: If some other pairing gives a better-reconstructed $\pz$ mass,
663: the original pairing is discarded and the better pairing is adopted.
664:
665: \end{itemize}
666: \bigskip
667:
668: \centerline{\bf V. DATA SAMPLE AND EVENT SELECTION}
669: \bigskip
670:
671: The data samples obtained with the CLEO III and CLEO-c configurations are shown
672: in Table \ref{tab:data}, where the number of events was calculated by the method
673: described in \cite{Athar:2004dn} and was estimated to have an uncertainty of
674: $\pm 3\%$.
675:
676: % This is Table II
677: \begin{table}
678: \caption{Conditions under which $\pp$ data were acquired for this
679: analysis. Here $\Delta E_{\rm cm}$ denotes the center-of-mass energy spread,
680: while $\int {\cal L} dt$ denotes integrated luminosity
681: measured using the reaction $e^+e^- \to \gamma\gamma$.
682: \label{tab:data}}
683: \begin{center}
684: \begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
685: Detector & Time & $\Delta E_{\rm cm}$ & $\int {\cal L} dt$ & $N(\pp)$ \\
686: & period &(MeV) &(pb)$^{-1}$ & $(10^6)$ \\ \hline
687: CLEO-III & 2002--3 & 1.5 & 2.74 & 1.56 \\
688: CLEO-c & 2003--4 & 2.3 & 2.89 & 1.52 \\
689: Total & & & 5.63 & 3.08 \\ \hline \hline
690: \end{tabular}
691: \end{center}
692: \end{table}
693: \bigskip
694:
695: Common features of event selection for all analyses are listed in the
696: following. Several other analysis-specific criteria will be described in the
697: corresponding subsections. Selection requirements for all analyses
698: are summarized in Table \ref{tab:evtsel}.
699:
700: \begin{itemize}
701:
702: \item Charged particle selection criteria were standard ones used for other
703: CLEO analyses. The distance of closest approach of a track with respect to the
704: run-averaged collision point was required to be less than 5 cm along the beam
705: line and less than 0.5 cm in the direction transverse to the beam. Each track
706: was required to be fitted with a reduced $\chi^2$ (i.e., per degree of freedom)
707: of less than 20, to give between 50\% and 120\% of the expected number of
708: signals on drift chamber wires, and to make an angle of at least $21.6^\circ =
709: \cos^{-1} (0.93)$ with respect to the beam axis.
710:
711: \item A photon candidate was defined as a shower
712: which does not match a track within
713: 100 mrad, is not in a ``hot'' cell of the electromagnetic calorimeter, and has
714: the transverse distribution of energy consistent with an electromagnetic shower.
715:
716: \item The minimum $\pi^0$ photon candidate energy was set at 30 MeV in the
717: barrel and 50 MeV in the endcaps.
718:
719: \item In kinematic fitting, photon energies and angles for $\pi^0$ candidates
720: were adjusted to give the exact $\pi^0$ mass. This increases precision in the
721: determination of the $\pz$ energy and hence the $h_c$ mass, which is computed
722: from Eq.\ (\ref{eqn:mhc}) using the nominal values of $M(\pp)$ and $M(\pz)$.
723:
724: \item Photon candidates for the E1 transition $\hc \to \gamma \ec$ were
725: subjected to background suppression involving vetoing of candidates which could
726: form a $\pz$.
727:
728: \item Neutral pion candidates were tested for the possibility that one of their
729: showers could form a neutral pion with some other shower, and were rejected if
730: any other pairing was more consistent with a $\pz$ mass.
731:
732: \item Events were flagged if they were candidates for the
733: processes $\pp \to \pi^+ \pi^- \jp$ or $\pp \to \pi^0 \pi^0 \jp$
734: and rejected accordingly.
735:
736: \item When an empirical parametrization of the background shape was needed,
737: the analyses employed a convenient parametrization of backgrounds to the $\pz$
738: recoil spectrum known as an ARGUS function \cite{ARGUSfn}, appropriate for
739: processes such as $\pp \to \pz \hc$ in which there is a kinematic endpoint,
740: equal here to $M(\pp) - M(\pi^0) = 3551.2$ MeV/$c^2$.
741:
742: \item A large generic Monte Carlo sample of $\simeq 39$ million $\pp$ events
743: permitted the optimization of signal-to-background ratio by adding an
744: appropriately normalized sample of signal Monte Carlo events and choosing
745: event selection criteria to maximize the likelihood ratio for fits with and
746: without a resonance signal.
747:
748: \item The distribution of the photon polar angles in both $h_c \to \gamma \ec$
749: and $\pp \to \gamma \ec$ (relevant to the exclusive analysis) was assumed to be
750: $\sim 1 + \cos^2 \theta$. For the former decay this assumption is based on the
751: expectation that the $h_c$ retains the $\pp$ polarization in the
752: (mainly S-wave) process $\pp \to \pz \hc$.
753:
754: \end{itemize}
755:
756: % This is Table III
757: \begin{table}
758: \caption{Comparison of event selection criteria for inclusive and exclusive
759: analyses.
760: \label{tab:evtsel}}
761: \begin{center}
762: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|} \hline \hline
763: Property & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Inclusive analysis specifying:} & Exclusive \\
764: \cline{2-3}
765: or quantity & $\ege1$ range & $M(\ec)$ range & analysis \\ \hline
766: Initial & $\ge 2$ charged & Depends on \# & Hadronic \\
767: event & tracks and & ($\ge 1)$ of charged & selection\\
768: selection & $\ge 3$ showers & tracks (see text) & (see text)\\ \hline
769: $\ege1$ or & $\ege1 = $ & $M(\ec) \pm35$ & $M(\ec) \pm50 $ \\
770: $M(\ec)$range & $503\pm35$ MeV & MeV/$c^2$ & MeV/$c^2$ \\ \hline
771: Photon & 10 most & All & All \\
772: showers & energetic & & \\ \hline
773: Photon & Barrel plus & Barrel & Barrel plus \\
774: acceptance & endcaps & only & endcaps \\ \hline
775: No.\ of $\pz$ in & One and & One and & At least \\
776: signal region (a) & only one & only one & one \\ \hline
777: $\pz$ rejection & Reject best- & Reject all $\pz$ & Reject all $\pz$ \\
778: on $\gme1$ & pull $\pz$ only & with pull $\le 2.5$ & with pull $\le 3$
779: \\ \hline
780: $\eta$ rejection & $M(\gme1 \gamma) =$ & None & None \\
781: on $\gme1$ & $550\pm25$ MeV/$c^2$ & & \\ \hline
782: $|\Delta M(\pi^+\pi^-J/\psi)|$ & $\le 15$ & $\le 8.4$ & $\le 10$ \\
783: excluded & MeV/$c^2$ & MeV/$c^2$ & MeV/$c^2$ \\ \hline
784: $|\Delta M(\pz \pz J/\psi)|$ & $\le 40$ & $\le 32$ & None \\
785: excluded & MeV/$c^2$ & MeV/$c^2$ & \\ \hline
786: $\gamma \gamma J/\psi$ & $M({\rm all~chgd})$ &
787: $|\Delta M(\gamma \gamma J/\psi)|$ & None \\
788: rejection & $\ge 3050$ MeV/$c^2$ & $\ge 40$ MeV/$c^2$ & \\ \hline \hline
789: \end{tabular}
790: \end{center}
791: \leftline{(a) Defined as giving $M(\hc) = 3526 \pm 30$ MeV/$c^2$}
792: \end{table}
793:
794: \bigskip
795: \leftline{\bf A. Inclusive analyses}
796: \bigskip
797:
798: The event selection criteria for the analysis selecting a range of $\ege1$ are
799: summarized in Table \ref{tab:evtsel}. Showers
800: were required to have at least 30 MeV energy if detected in the barrel region
801: of the calorimeter and at least 50 MeV if detected in the endcaps. Only the
802: ten highest-energy showers and tracks in an event were considered, in order to
803: reduce combinatorial background. A maximum of ten neutral pions composed of
804: the ten highest-energy showers was considered.
805:
806: Neutral pions were reconstructed by requiring that the two-photon invariant
807: mass be in the range $M_{\gamma \gamma} = 135 \pm 15$ MeV/$c^2$ or
808: within three standard deviations of the peak. (Resolutions in MeV/$c^2$
809: depend on properties of each candidate, such as energy and calorimeter
810: location.)
811: % If a photon from a $\pz$ also made a $\pz$ with another photon
812: %satisfying the shower criteria mentioned above, only the $\pz$ with the
813: %smallest normalized deviation from the correct mass (in units of Gaussian
814: %width, or ``pull mass'') was accepted.
815:
816: Selection criteria were guided by maximizing the likelihood ratio for fits to
817: Monte Carlo-generated background with and without a simulated signal. In order
818: to reduce the abundant background due to photons and charged particles from the
819: decay of $J/\psi$, the cascades $\pp \to J/\psi X$ were suppressed by excluding
820: candidates for $\pp \to (\pi^+ \pi^- \jp,~\pz \pz \jp, \gamma \gamma \jp)$
821: using the criteria in the second column of Table \ref{tab:evtsel}. Photon
822: candidates for $\gme1$ in $\hc \to \gme1 \ec$
823: were rejected if they could form a $\pz$ or $\eta$ (defined, respectively,
824: by $M_{\gamma\gamma} = 135 \pm 15$ or $550 \pm 25$ MeV/$c^2$) when combined
825: with any other photon. It was demanded that there be only one photon in the
826: event with energy $503 \pm 35$ MeV.
827:
828: In the complementary analysis selecting a range of $M(\ec)$ (Table
829: \ref{tab:evtsel}, third column), events were chosen corresponding to a slight
830: modification of a previously used criterion \cite{Athar:2004dn} for selection
831: of hadronic events at the $\pp$ energy.\footnote{For $1 \le N_{\rm ch} \le 3$
832: ($N_{\rm ch}$ = number of charged tracks), the maximum energy visible in the
833: calorimeter was required to be less than the total center-of-mass energy
834: $E_{\rm CM}$, vs.\ $0.85E_{\rm CM}$ in Ref.\ \cite{Athar:2004dn}. For
835: $N_{\rm ch} \ge 4$ the criteria were the same as in Ref.\ \cite{Athar:2004dn}.}
836: Background suppression techniques were similar in most respects to those of
837: the other inclusive analysis except for the following details:
838:
839: \begin{itemize}
840:
841: \item Photons for $\pi^0$ or $\gme1$ candidates were chosen only in the barrel
842: region of the electromagnetic calorimeter, in an attempt to improve energy
843: resolution.
844:
845: \item Neutral pion candidates were required to have a $\gamma \gamma$ mass
846: within $2.5 \sigma$ of the peak, and were rejected if any other pairing of
847: photons within this same ``pull mass'' (normalized deviation from the correct
848: mass in units of Gaussian width) provided a better fit to the $\pi^0$ mass.
849: Partner photons for this rejection were allowed to be either in endcaps ($E >
850: 50$ MeV) or barrel ($E > 30$ MeV).
851:
852: \item Candidates for the E1 transition photon which could form a $\pi^0$ were
853: vetoed \cite{Athar:2004dn} as in the $\ege1$-selection analysis, rejecting
854: any photon forming a pair with mass less than $2.5 \sigma$ from $M(\pz)$
855: when combined with a photon in endcap regions of the calorimeter with
856: at least 50 MeV or barrel regions with at least 30 MeV. However, Monte Carlo
857: simulations (to be discussed in Sec.\ VI) indicated no need to veto $\eta$
858: mesons.
859:
860: \end{itemize}
861: \newpage
862:
863: % \bigskip
864: \leftline{\bf B. Exclusive analysis}
865: \bigskip
866:
867: The exclusive analysis measures the ratio of the cascade decays $\cascade$ to
868: the direct radiative decays $\direct$ by identifying the decay channels listed
869: in Table I. To design event selection criteria, 20,000 signal
870: Monte Carlo were generated for each mode of the cascade and direct radiative
871: decays. The 39 million generic Monte Carlo $\pp$ decays without $h_{c}$
872: were utilized to study the background to the cascade decay. All reconstructed
873: events were required to have no extra tracks and total extra unmatched shower
874: energy less than 200~MeV. The basic particle selection criteria,
875: in addition to those mentioned at the start of this Section, include the
876: following specific to this analysis:
877:
878: \begin{itemize}
879:
880: \item $\pi^{0}$: Mass less than $3 \sigma$ from nominal value.
881:
882: \item $\ks$: Decay displaced by more than $3 \sigma$ with respect to the
883: run-averaged collision
884: point, mass within 10~MeV/$c^2$ of nominal value
885:
886: \item $\eta(\gamma\gamma)$: Mass within $3 \sigma$ of the nominal $\eta$ value
887:
888: \item $\eta(\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0})$ : $M_{\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}}$ within 20
889: MeV/$c^2$ of the nominal $\eta$ mass
890:
891: \end{itemize}
892:
893: Information from the RICH and $dE/dx$ detectors was combined to distinguish
894: kaons from pions when RICH information was available. RICH information was
895: utilized when a track was in the RICH fiducial volume with $|\cos\theta| <
896: 0.8$, a kaon candidate had momentum at least 600 $\MeV/c$, and three or more
897: photons were detected near the predicted ring location. A combined
898: ``Log-Likelihood'' was defined as
899: $\Delta L = L(\pi)_{\rm RICH}-L(K)_{\rm RICH} + (\sigma_{dE/dx}^{\pi})^{2} -
900: (\sigma_{dE/dx}^{K})^{2}$, where $L(\pi)_{\rm RICH}$ is $-2$ times
901: the natural logarithm of the RICH likelihood
902: for the pion hypothesis, and $L(K)_{\rm RICH}$ is for the kaon hypothesis,
903: while $\sigma_{dE/dx}^{\pi}$ is the deviation of $dE/dx$ from what is expected
904: for the pion hypothesis normalized to the measurement error and
905: $\sigma_{dE/dx}^{K}$ is the same for the kaon hypothesis. If RICH information
906: was not available, a track was identified as a kaon if $|\sigma_{dE/dx}^{K}| <
907: 3$ and $|\sigma_{dE/dx}^{K}| <|\sigma_{dE/dx}^{\pi}|)$. When RICH information
908: was not available and track momentum was above 600 $\MeV/c$, a track was
909: identified as a pion if $|\sigma_{dE/dx}^{\pi}| < 3$. When RICH information
910: was available or track momentum was below 600 $\MeV/c$, charged kaons and pions
911: were well-separated. In the $\kkpp$ and $\kkpizero$ modes, at least one kaon
912: candidate was required to be identified when $K$ and $\pi$ were well-separated.
913:
914: Because the $\pp$ resonance width is only 0.3 MeV, considerably less than the
915: beam energy spread, the beam energy was always assumed to be half of $M(\pp)$
916: when running at the $\pp$.\footnote{The crossing angle is around 4 mrad,
917: corresponding to a transverse momentum of about 3686 $\sin(0.004) =
918: 15$ MeV/$c$.} In $\ec\to \klkp$, the missing mass should equal the $\kl$
919: nominal mass since the $\kl$ is undetected. In this case, a 1C kinematic fit
920: was performed assuming that the missing particle has the mass of $\kl$. In all
921: other modes, $\pp$ final decay particles were fully
922: reconstructed, and the net 4-momentum of reconstructed charged or neutral
923: tracks should equal the 4-momentum of the $\pp$ which is known, permitting
924: 4C kinematic fits. The $\chi^{2}$ values from the fits indicate how well each
925: reconstructed event matches the kinematics of the decay hypothesis. A rather
926: loose requirement of $\chi^{2}$/d.o.f.$<10$ in all modes was imposed.
927: The $\ec$ signal was fully reconstructed in all the modes except $\klkp$. In
928: $\klkp$, the $\eta_{c}$ mass was inferred from the energies of the recoiling E1
929: photon and $\pz$.
930:
931: Generic Monte Carlo studies indicate that photons from $\pz$s in $\pp \to \pz
932: \pz J/\psi$ and $ \pp \to \gamma \chi_{cJ}$ ($\chi_{cJ} \to \pz X$) decays are
933: a large background source to $\gme1$. A photon candidate was vetoed if the
934: absolute value of its best $\pz$ pull mass, when combined with all other
935: photons of energies greater than 30 MeV, was less than 3. This cut greatly
936: reduced the background but also resulted in a 15\% efficiency loss according to
937: signal Monte Carlo. The net effect on the expected sensitivity to $\hc$ was
938: positive.
939: \bigskip
940:
941: \centerline{\bf VI. MONTE CARLO SAMPLES}
942: \bigskip
943:
944: Monte Carlo simulations of background and signal were employed in order to
945: optimize event selection criteria and to estimate backgrounds to data.
946: The generic Monte Carlo sample mentioned earlier was used. Simulations
947: employed hadronization routines embodied in JETSET \cite{JETSET}, with its
948: parameters optimized for $\pp$ decays \cite{Athar:2004dn}. The detector
949: simulation was based on Geant \cite{GEANT}. Hadronization of $h_c$ decays
950: was emulated using Model 14 of the LUND/JETSET fragmentation algorithm.
951: \bigskip
952:
953: \leftline{\bf A. Inclusive analyses}
954: \bigskip
955:
956: \leftline{\it 1. Choice of background shapes.}
957:
958: The $\ege1$-range analysis uses the $\pz$ recoil spectrum from the data itself
959: as background, without demanding a candidate with $E_\gamma = 503 \pm 35$ MeV
960: for the E1 photon. This is feasible since the $h_c$ contribution is invisible,
961: being at the level of $\sim 4 \times 10^{-4}$. The $M(\ec)$-range analysis
962: uses generic Monte Carlo background instead, since the selection of an $\ec$
963: mass range in analyzing the data affects the background shape.
964: \bigskip
965:
966: \leftline{\it 2. Optimization of signal significance.}
967:
968: Monte Carlo samples were employed to choose ranges of selection
969: providing the highest sensitivity to the $\hc$ signal, as judged by
970: maximum likelihood for the resonance hypothesis. These samples also
971: permitted studies of input/output agreement and statistical variation.
972: The optimum event selection criteria determined in these Monte Carlo studies
973: were applied to the data.
974:
975: In the $\ege1$-range analysis, 30,000 signal events were generated for
976: $\cascade$. Assuming $\brp \brh \equiv \br(\pp \to\pi^0h_c) \times
977: \br(h_c\to\gamma\eta_c) = 4.0 \times 10^{-4}$, 15,600 signal events were added
978: to the 39 million generic Monte Carlo
979: sample. The input masses and widths were taken as $M(h_c) = 3526$ MeV/$c^2$,
980: $\Gamma (h_c) = (0.5,~0.9,~1.5) $ MeV, and $M(\ec)=2982$ MeV/$c^2$, $\Gamma
981: (\ec)=24.8$ MeV \cite{etac}. In the $M(\ec)$-range analysis, $185 \times 10^3$
982: events were generated for $\pp \to \pi^0 \hc$, with a 37.7\% branching ratio
983: \cite{Godfrey:2002rp} for the subsequent decay $\hc \to \gamma \ec$. The
984: remaining $\hc$ decays were taken to have a 56.8\% branching ratio to $ggg$
985: and a 5.5\% branching ratio to $\gamma gg$. The mass of $h_c$ was assumed to
986: be 3525.3 MeV/$c^2$, and the $h_c$ width was taken to be 1 MeV. The mass of
987: $\eta_c$ was chosen as 2981.8 MeV/$c^2$ \cite{etac}.
988:
989: The results of the Monte Carlo studies for the $\ege1$-range analysis are
990: summarized in the second and third columns of Table \ref{tab:summ}.
991: Significance levels are obtained as $\sigma\equiv\sqrt{-2\ln(L_0/L_{\rm max})}$,
992: where $L_{\rm max}$ is the maximum likelihood for the resonance fit, and $L_0$
993: is the likelihood for the fit with no $h_c$ resonance. Selection ranges
994: (summarized in the second column of Table \ref{tab:evtsel}) were chosen to
995: maximize the significance for the Monte Carlo sample calculated in this manner.
996: For each effect examined, asterisked values for all other parameters were
997: assumed.
998:
999: % This is Table IV
1000: \begin{table}
1001: \caption{Results of Monte Carlo optimizations using a combined sample of
1002: 39 million generic $\pp$ events and 15,600 signal events for $\ege1$-range
1003: analysis. Asterisks show final selection.
1004: \label{tab:summ}}
1005: \begin{center}
1006: % \footnotesize
1007: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline \hline
1008: & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{MC} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{DATA}\\ \hline
1009: & Signif. $(\sigma)$ & $s^{2}/B$ & Mass, MeV/$c^2$ & Yield & $\brp
1010: \brh \times 10^{4}$ & $\chi^{2}$/DOF & Signif. $(\sigma)$ \\ \hline \hline
1011:
1012: \multicolumn{8}{|c|}{Effect of background shapes} \\ \hline
1013: $\ast$ DATA & & & 3524.4$\pm$0.7 & 139$\pm$41 & 3.4$\pm$1.0 &
1014: 1.36 & 3.6 \\
1015: MC & & & 3524.6$\pm$0.7 & 146$\pm$40 & 3.5$\pm$1.0 &
1016: 1.59 & 3.8 \\ \hline
1017:
1018: \multicolumn{8}{|c|}{All of the following optimizations were done using
1019: background from DATA} \\ \hline
1020:
1021: \multicolumn{8}{|c|}{Effect of changing range of hard $\gamma$ energy,
1022: 503$\pm$, MeV/$c^2$} \\ \hline
1023: $\pm$30 & 16.4 & 1.01 & 3524.0$\pm$0.7 & 120$\pm$38 & 3.1$\pm$0.9 &
1024: 1.19 & 3.3 \\
1025: $\ast$ $\pm$35 & 17.3 & 1.00 & 3524.4$\pm$0.7 & 139$\pm$41 & 3.4$\pm$1.0 &
1026: 1.36 & 3.6 \\
1027: $\pm$40 & 16.1 & 0.96 & 3524.4$\pm$0.6 & 145$\pm$43 & 3.4$\pm$1.0 &
1028: 1.28 & 3.5 \\
1029: $\pm$45 & 16.3 & 0.90 & 3524.8$\pm$0.8 & 134$\pm$45 & 3.0$\pm$1.0 &
1030: 1.24 & 3.1 \\
1031: $\pm$50 & 15.8 & 0.86 & 3524.8$\pm$0.9 & 132$\pm$47 & 2.9$\pm$1.0 &
1032: 1.26 & 2.9 \\ \hline
1033:
1034: \multicolumn{8}{|c|}{Effect of changing mass range for $\pi^+\pi^- J/\psi$
1035: rejection, MeV/$c^2$} \\ \hline
1036: $\pm6$ & 17.2 & 0.97 & $3524.4\pm0.6$ & $158\pm43$ & $3.7\pm1.0$ &
1037: 1.28 & 3.9 \\
1038: $\pm10$ & 17.3 & 0.99 & $3524.3\pm0.6$ & $156\pm42$ & $3.7\pm1.0$ &
1039: 1.36 & 3.9 \\
1040: $\ast$ $\pm15$ & 17.3 & 1.00 & $3524.4\pm0.7$ & $139\pm41$ & $3.4\pm1.0$ &
1041: 1.36 & 3.6 \\
1042: $\pm20$ & 17.1 & 1.00 & $3524.2\pm0.7$ & $132\pm40$ & $3.3\pm1.0$ &
1043: 1.38 & 3.4 \\ \hline
1044:
1045: \multicolumn{8}{|c|}{Effect of changing mass range for $\pi^0\pi^0 J/\psi$
1046: rejection, MeV/$c^2$} \\ \hline
1047: $\pm20$ & 17.2 & 0.99 & $3524.3\pm0.8$ & $140\pm42$ & $3.3\pm1.0$ &
1048: 1.45 & 3.4 \\
1049: $\pm30$ & 17.2 & 1.00 & $3524.5\pm0.8$ & $134\pm41$ & $3.2\pm1.0$ &
1050: 1.30 & 3.4 \\
1051: $\ast$ $\pm40$ & 17.3 & 1.00 & $3524.4\pm0.7$ & $139\pm41$ & $3.4\pm1.0$ &
1052: 1.36 & 3.6 \\
1053: $\pm50$ & 17.3 & 1.00 & $3524.4\pm0.7$ & $147\pm41$ & $3.6\pm1.0$ &
1054: 1.30 & 3.8 \\ \hline
1055:
1056: \multicolumn{8}{|c|}{Effect of number of $\pi^0$s in the signal region}
1057: \\ \hline
1058: $\ast$ $=1$ & 17.3 & 1.00 & $3524.4\pm0.7$ & $139\pm41$ & $3.4\pm1.0$ &
1059: 1.36 & 3.6 \\
1060: $\ge 1$ & 17.2 & 0.95 & $3524.8\pm0.9$ & $122\pm42$ & $2.9\pm1.0$ &
1061: 1.04 & 3.0 \\ \hline
1062:
1063: \multicolumn{8}{|c|}{Effect of endcap $\gamma$s in signal $\pi^0$s} \\ \hline
1064: $\ast$ with & 17.3 & 1.00 & $3524.4\pm0.7$ & $139\pm41$ & $3.4\pm1.0$ &
1065: 1.36 & 3.6 \\
1066: without & 16.0 & 0.91 & $3524.8\pm0.7$ & $123\pm37$ & $3.4\pm1.0$ &
1067: 1.16 & 3.5 \\ \hline
1068:
1069: \multicolumn{8}{|c|}{Effect of $\eta$ suppression on E1 photon} \\ \hline
1070: $\ast$ with & 17.3 & 1.00 & $3524.4\pm0.7$ & $139\pm41$ & $3.4\pm1.0$ &
1071: 1.36 & 3.6 \\
1072: without & 15.8 & 0.91 & $3524.6\pm0.8$ & $135\pm45$ & $3.0\pm1.0$ &
1073: 1.21 & 3.1 \\ \hline
1074:
1075: \multicolumn{8}{|c|}{Effect of $\pp \to \gamma \chi_{1,2} \to
1076: \gamma\gamma J/\psi$ suppression } \\ \hline
1077: $\ast$ without & 17.3 & 1.00 & $3524.4\pm0.7$ & $141\pm41$ & $3.4\pm1.0$ &
1078: 1.36 & 3.6 \\
1079: with & 17.0 & 1.02 & $3524.6\pm0.7$ & $137\pm40$ & $3.4\pm1.0$ &
1080: 1.21 & 3.6 \\ \hline \hline
1081: \end{tabular}
1082: \end{center}
1083: \end{table}
1084:
1085: \begin{center}
1086: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \hline
1087: \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{Table IV, continued} \\ \hline
1088: & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{DATA (no MC entries)}\\ \hline
1089: & Mass, MeV/$c^2$ & yield & $\brp \brh \times 10^{4}$
1090: & $\chi^{2}$/DOF & signif. $(\sigma)$ \\ \hline \hline
1091:
1092: \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{Effect of changing total width of $h_c$, MeV} \\ \hline
1093: $0.5$ & $3524.3\pm0.7$ & $132\pm38$ & $3.2\pm0.9$ & 1.36 & 3.6 \\
1094: $\ast$ 0.9 & $3524.4\pm0.7$ & $139\pm41$ & $3.4\pm1.0$ & 1.36 & 3.6 \\
1095: $1.5$ & $3524.5\pm0.7$ & $149\pm44$ & $3.6\pm1.1$ & 1.39 & 3.6 \\ \hline
1096:
1097: \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{Effect of changing $\pi^0$ resolution widths} \\ \hline
1098: $\ast$ MC & $3524.4\pm0.7$ & $139\pm41$ & $3.4\pm1.0$ & 1.36 & 3.6 \\
1099: MC-25\% & $3524.3\pm0.6$ & $131\pm38$ & $3.2\pm0.9$ & 1.35 & 3.6 \\
1100: MC+25\% & $3524.5\pm0.7$ & $149\pm45$ & $3.6\pm1.1$ & 1.39 & 3.6 \\ \hline
1101:
1102: \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{Effect of binning} \\ \hline
1103: $\ast$ 2 MeV/$c^2$ & $3524.4\pm0.7$ & $139\pm41$ & $3.4\pm1.0$ & 1.36 & 3.6 \\
1104: 1 MeV/$c^2$ & $3524.5\pm0.6$ & $137\pm41$ & $3.3\pm1.0$ & 1.16 & 3.5 \\ \hline
1105:
1106: \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{Effect of changing fit range, MeV/$c^2$} \\ \hline
1107: $\ast$ 3496-3552 & $3524.4\pm0.7$ & $139\pm41$ & $3.4\pm1.0$ & 1.36 & 3.6 \\
1108: 3500-3540 & $3524.4\pm0.7$ & $139\pm42$ & $3.4\pm1.0$ & 0.96 & 3.5 \\ \hline
1109:
1110: \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{CLEO III VERSUS CLEO-c} \\ \hline
1111: CLEO III & $3523.8\pm0.7$ & $94\pm30$ & $4.5\pm1.4$ & 0.96 & 3.3 \\
1112: CLEO-c & $3526.1\pm1.5$ & $56\pm28$ & $2.8\pm1.4$ & 1.55 & 2.1 \\
1113: \hline \hline
1114: \end{tabular}
1115: \end{center}
1116: \bigskip
1117: \bigskip
1118:
1119: \noindent
1120: These choices were found to lead to the same output from the $\pp$ generic
1121: Monte Carlo sample as the input:
1122:
1123: \begin{center}
1124: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline \hline
1125: & Input & Output \\ \hline
1126: $M(h_{c})$ (MeV/$c^2$) & 3526.0 & $3525.9\pm0.1$ \\
1127: $\brp \brh \times 10^4$ & 4.0 & $4.1 \pm 0.3$ \\ \hline \hline
1128: \end{tabular}
1129: \end{center}
1130:
1131: The above choices were based on maximum likelihood in 22 variations with no
1132: contact with the experimental data, i.e., by ``blind'' analysis. The best
1133: choices indeed are mirrored in the data. Table \ref{tab:summ} therefore
1134: lists for the data the values of the likelihood-based significance for
1135: all 22 variations examined in the Monte Carlo sample. It is interesting to
1136: note that these choices do lead to higher significance values in most cases,
1137: although, as is to be expected, because of the factor $\sim13$ smaller
1138: statistics in the data, both the significance level and their variations are
1139: smaller than those in the Monte Carlo sample by a factor close to $\sqrt{13}$.
1140:
1141: The $\pi^0$ recoil mass distribution for the Monte Carlo sample in the
1142: $\ege1$-range analysis is shown in Figure \ref{fig:mchuge}. It was fitted using
1143: the sum of two Gaussians with widths fixed to values determined by the
1144: signal Monte Carlo sample. The background was fitted using a histogram of the
1145: $\pz$ recoil distribution from the generic Monte Carlo as described above. The
1146: dashed line shows the contribution of background without signal.
1147:
1148: % This is Figure 2
1149: \begin{figure}
1150: \begin{center}
1151: %\includegraphics[width=6.3in]{hc_mc.eps}
1152: \includegraphics[width=6.3in]{3960805-013.eps}
1153: \end{center}
1154:
1155: \vspace*{-11.3cm}
1156:
1157: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MC
1158:
1159: \vspace*{10.5cm}
1160:
1161: \caption{Spectrum of masses (in GeV/$c^2$) recoiling against $\pz$ in a sample
1162: of 39 million generic Monte Carlo events plus 15600 signal Monte Carlo events
1163: ($\ege1$-range inclusive analysis). The solid histogram illustrates the fit
1164: described in the text.
1165: \label{fig:mchuge}}
1166: \end{figure}
1167:
1168: In the $M(\ec)$-range analysis, widths in $M(\ec)$ were determined by fits
1169: using a Gaussian plus a low-order polynomial, while fits to $M(\hc)$ used a
1170: Breit-Wigner resonance function with $\Gamma = 1$ MeV convolved with two
1171: Gaussians, a quadratic polynomial
1172: constrained to vanish at the kinematic endpoint, and an ARGUS background
1173: function.
1174: % Using the background suppression criteria noted in Sec.~IV,
1175: %and choosing a window of $M(\hc)$ within 10 MeV/$c^2$ of the generated value,
1176: %the width of the $\eta_c$ mass distribution was found to be $19.7 \pm 0.4$ MeV,
1177: %with a fitted mass of $(2984.2 \pm 0.3)$ MeV/$c^2$ for an assumed mass
1178: %of 2981.8 MeV/$c^2$.
1179:
1180: The best range of $\ec$ masses for optimizing signal significance was
1181: determined via Monte Carlo studies using a likelihood ratio criterion. Five
1182: $M(\ec)$ windows 2940--3020, 2945--3015, 2950--3010, 2955--3005, and
1183: 2960--3000 MeV/$c^2$ were considered. Upper and lower bounds were chosen
1184: symmetrically with respect to $M(\ec) \simeq 2980$ MeV/$c^2$. Detection of the
1185: correct candidate for the E1 photon but assignment of a background $\pz$ with
1186: the wrong energy as a signal $\pz$ candidate can introduce a potential
1187: bias on $M(\hc)$ in the presence of asymmetric $M(\ec)$ limits.
1188:
1189: Selecting events within the above $M(\ec)$ windows, fits were performed for
1190: 3496 MeV/$c^2 \le M(\hc) \le 3551.2$ MeV/$c^2$ to the generated
1191: $h_c$ mass distributions. The signal Monte Carlo was generated using a flat
1192: angular distribution for the E1 photon. A correction to the efficiency was
1193: performed for the expected form $W(\cos \theta) \sim 1 + \cos^2 \theta$ with
1194: respect to the beam axis. The ratio of the two efficiencies when integrating to
1195: a maximum $|\cos \theta_{\rm max}|$ is $R_{\rm eff} = (1/4)(3 + \cos^2
1196: \theta_{\rm max})$. For $|\cos \theta_{\rm max}| = 0.804$, corresponding to
1197: the outermost ring of the barrel calorimeter used in this analysis, the
1198: correction factor is $R_{\rm eff} = 0.912$. The efficiencies were corrected for
1199: $R_{\rm eff}$.
1200:
1201: After fits to the signal Monte Carlo yielded the parameters of its Breit-Wigner
1202: plus Gaussian functions, the generic Monte Carlo distribution was combined with
1203: a weighted signal distribution to emulate a combined branching ratio for the
1204: decay $\pp \to \pz \hc$ followed by $\hc \to \gme1 \ec$ of $\brp \brh = 4
1205: \times 10^{-4}$. The resulting distribution was fitted both with (generic +
1206: weighted signal), and with generic background alone, yielding a ratio of
1207: likelihoods.
1208:
1209: % This is Figure 3
1210: \begin{figure}
1211: %\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{rm_mc_fit_fig3.eps}
1212: \includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{3960805-014.eps}
1213: \caption{Generic Monte Carlo $M(h_c)$ distribution ($M(\ec)$-range inclusive
1214: analysis) for simulated $\pp$ data
1215: of 39 million events with a signal of $69.7 \times 10^3$ $\hc$ decays
1216: corresponding to $15.8 \times 10^3$ events of $h_c \to \gamma \eta_c$ for
1217: 2945 MeV/$c^2 \le M(\eta_c) \le 3015$ MeV/$c^2$. The generated masses were
1218: $[M(\eta_c),M(h_c)] = (2981.8,3525.3)$ MeV/$c^2$. The signal was emulated
1219: using a pair of Gaussians and a Breit-Wigner with $\Gamma = 1$ MeV. The
1220: dashed line shows the contribution of background.
1221: \label{fig:mc}}
1222: \end{figure}
1223:
1224: This process resulted in an optimum range of 2945~MeV/$c^2 \le M(\ec) \le 3015$
1225: MeV/$c^2$. The corresponding $M(\hc)$ distribution is shown in Fig.\
1226: \ref{fig:mc}. For any wider $M(\ec)$ range, the photons from the transition
1227: $\hc \to \gamma \ec$ become contaminated with contributions of
1228: Doppler-broadened photons from the E1 transition $\chi_{c2}(3556) \to \gamma
1229: \jp$. Backgrounds from this transition and others rise steeply as the
1230: upper limit on $M(\ec)$ is increased above 3020 MeV/$c^2$.
1231:
1232: % This is Table V
1233: \begin{table}
1234: \caption{Fits to simulated signal and background using a Breit-Wigner signal
1235: function convolved with a double Gaussian and a generic Monte Carlo background
1236: ($M(\ec)$-range analysis). Branching ratios include an efficency factor
1237: $R_{\rm eff} =0.912$ for the $1 + \cos^2 \theta$ distribution of the E1 photon.
1238: The nominal $M(\ec)$ range is labeled by an asterisk (*).
1239: \label{tab:MCcomp}}
1240: \begin{center}
1241: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \hline
1242: & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{$M(\eta_c)$ range (MeV/$c^2$)} \\ \cline{2-6}
1243: & 2940--3020 & *2945--3015 & 2950--3010 & 2955--3005 & 2960--3000 \\ \hline
1244: $M(h_c)({\rm MeV}/c^2)$ & 3525.24$\pm$0.16 & 3525.23$\pm$0.16
1245: & 3525.22$\pm$0.17 & 3525.21$\pm$0.17 & 3525.18$\pm$0.18 \\
1246: Significance $\sigma$ & 17.08 & 17.30 & 17.20 & 17.05 & 16.45 \\
1247: Efficiency (\%) & 15.3 & 14.6 & 13.5 & 12.2 & 10.6 \\
1248: $\brp \brh \times10^{-4}$ & $4.07\pm0.25$ & $4.07\pm0.25$ & $4.07\pm0.25$
1249: & $4.07\pm0.25$ & $4.07\pm0.26$ \\ \hline \hline
1250: \end{tabular}
1251: \end{center}
1252: \end{table}
1253:
1254: Fits to simulated signal and background in the $M(\ec)$-range analysis are
1255: compared in Table \ref{tab:MCcomp}. The $\eta_c$ mass range 2945--3015
1256: MeV/$c^2$ gives the greatest signal significance for an $h_c$ of mass 3525.3
1257: MeV/$c^2$ produced with ${\cal B}(\pp \to \pi^0 h_c){\cal B}(h_c \to \gamma
1258: \eta_c)=4 \times 10^{-4}$. The extracted
1259: values of $M(h_c)$ are about 0.1 MeV/$c^2$ below the input. This feature is
1260: included in the estimate of systematic errors. The maximum significance of
1261: $17.3 \sigma$ scales to $4.8 \sigma$ for a sample of $3.08 \times 10^6$ events.
1262: \bigskip
1263:
1264: \leftline{\it 3. Variations in output parameters.}
1265:
1266: In the generic Monte Carlo sample, for all the 22 variations of the
1267: $\ege1$-range analysis listed in Table
1268: \ref{tab:summ}, the change in output $M(h_c)$ and $\brp \brh$ were found to
1269: be $\Delta M(h_c) \le 0.1$ MeV/$c^2$, and $\Delta(\brp \brh) \le 0.2
1270: \times 10^{-4}$, i.e., within the statistical errors assigned by the output.
1271: To see the level of statistical variations in Monte Carlo
1272: samples as small as the data (i.e., $\sim3$ million $\pp$),
1273: the total sample of 39~million $\pp$~decays was split into 13~independent
1274: samples, each of 3 million $\pp$. Table \ref{tab:smalla}
1275: summarizes results of the analysis for the choices of the final
1276: selection and for variations of these choices. For the final selection
1277: the limits of variation were found to be $\Delta M = (-0.4,+0.3)$ MeV/$c^2$ and
1278: $\Delta (\brp \brh) = (-1.1,+1.4) \times 10^{-4}$. For $\brp
1279: \brh$ the effect of variations from the final selection is within the
1280: range observed for the final selection. There may be some
1281: evidence of larger than expected variation when one changes
1282: $\Delta \ege1$ to $\pm50$ MeV, and when one includes more than one signal
1283: $\pz$ candidate. A choice of $\Delta \ege1 = 50$ MeV begins to accept photons
1284: on the high-energy tail of the transition $\chi_{c2} \to \gamma J/\psi$ when
1285: detector resolution and recoil effects are taken into account.
1286:
1287: Because the Monte Carlo signal sample was generated with an assumed $M(\hc) =
1288: 3526$ MeV/$c^2$, or $\ege1 =503$ MeV, it is prudent to examine what bias is
1289: introduced in $M(\hc)$ and $\brp \brh$ if the true $M(\hc)$ were to differ
1290: from 3526 MeV/$c^2$. The resulting variation in efficiency
1291: was found to be less than 2.5\% for $M(h_c) = 3526 \pm 14$ MeV/$c^2$.
1292:
1293: % This is Table VI
1294: \begin{table}
1295: \caption{Results for $M(h_c)$ and $\brp \brh$ from trial experiments with 13
1296: independent Monte Carlo samples of 3 million $\pp$ each [$\ege1$-range
1297: analysis]. The inputs were $M(h_c)=3526.0$ MeV/$c^2$ and $\brp \brh = 4.0
1298: \times 10^{-4}$. The full Monte Carlo sample yielded $M(h_c) = 3526.1 \pm 0.1$
1299: MeV/$c^2$ and $\brp \brh = 4.1 \pm 0.3 \times 10^{-4}$.
1300: Variations from the final selection resulted in $\Delta M(h_c) \le
1301: 0.1$ MeV/$c^2$ and $\Delta (\brp \brh) \le 0.2 \times 10^{-4}$ for this large
1302: sample. The second column lists $\Delta M(h_c)\equiv M(h_c)-3526$ MeV/$c^2$
1303: or $\Delta (\brp \brh)\equiv (\brp \brh) - 4.0 \times 10^{-4}$ for the
1304: final selection. The following columns list $\Delta M(h_c)$ or $\Delta (\brp
1305: \brh)$ for the specified variations from the final selection. The statistical
1306: error on all output masses was $\pm0.5$ to $\pm0.6$ MeV/$c^2$ and on all output
1307: $\brp \brh$ was $1.0 \times 10^{-4}$.
1308: \label{tab:smalla}}
1309: \begin{center}
1310: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \hline
1311: & $\Delta M(h_c)$ -- MeV/$c^2$ & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{$\Delta M(h_c)$
1312: -- MeV/$c^2$ with variations from final} \\ \cline{3-6}
1313: & Final selection & $\Delta E_\gamma \pm50$ MeV & $\ge 1 \pz$ & No endcap
1314: & No $\eta$ supp.\ \\ \hline
1315: MC & --0.4/+0.3 & --1.8/+0.7 & --2.1/+0.2 & --0.3/+0.2 & --0.4/+0.3\\
1316: Data & & +0.4 & +0.4 & +0.4 & +0.2\\ \hline
1317: & $\Delta (\brp \brh \times 10^{4})$ &
1318: \multicolumn{4}{c|}{$\Delta (\brp \brh \times 10^{4})$ -- with variations
1319: from final} \\ \cline{3-6}
1320: & Final selection & $\Delta E_\gamma \pm50$ MeV & $\ge 1 \pz$ & No endcap
1321: & No $\eta$ supp.\ \\ \hline
1322: MC & --1.1/+1.4 & --1.2/+0.7 & --0.3/+1.1 & --0.5/+0.3 & --1.1/+0.3\\
1323: Data & & --0.5 & --0.5 & +0.0 & --0.4 \\ \hline \hline
1324: \end{tabular}
1325: \end{center}
1326: \end{table}
1327:
1328: % This is Table VII
1329: \begin{table}
1330: \caption{Results for $M(h_c)$ and $\brp \brh$ from trial experiments with 13
1331: independent Monte Carlo samples of 3 million $\pp$ each [$M(\ec)$-range
1332: analysis]. The inputs were $M(h_c)=3525.3$ MeV/$c^2$ and $\brp \brh
1333: = 4.0 \times 10^{-4}$. The full Monte Carlo sample yielded $M(h_c) = 3525.33
1334: \pm 0.18$ MeV/$c^2$ and $\brp \brh = 3.9 \pm 0.3 \times 10^{-4}$. The second
1335: column lists $\Delta M(h_c)\equiv M(h_c)-3525.3$ MeV/$c^2$ or $\Delta (\brp
1336: \brh)\equiv (\brp \brh) - 4.0 \times 10^{-4}$ for the final selection. The
1337: following columns list $\Delta M(h_c)$ or $\Delta (\brp \brh)$ for variations
1338: from the final selection.
1339: \label{tab:smallb}}
1340: \begin{center}
1341: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \hline
1342: & $\Delta M(h_c)$ (MeV/$c^2$) & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{$\Delta M(h_c)$
1343: (MeV/$c^2$) with variations from final} \\ \cline{3-7}
1344: & Final selection & $\Delta M(\ec) \pm40$ MeV & $\Delta M(\ec) \pm20$ MeV
1345: & $\ge 1 \pz$ & w/endcap & w/$\eta$ supp.\ \\ \hline
1346: MC & --0.5/+0.3 & --0.5/+0.3 & --0.5/+0.4 & --0.4/+0.3 & --0.4/+0.4
1347: & --0.4/+0.5 \\
1348: Data & & +0.4 & --0.3 & +0.0 & +0.5 & --0.4 \\ \hline
1349: & $\Delta (\brp \brh \times 10^{4})$ &
1350: \multicolumn{5}{c|}{$\Delta (\brp \brh \times 10^{4})$ -- with variations
1351: from final} \\ \cline{3-7}
1352: & Final selection & $\Delta M(\ec) \pm40$ MeV & $\Delta M(\ec) \pm20$ MeV
1353: & $\ge 1 \pz$ & w/endcap & w/$\eta$ supp.\ \\ \hline
1354: MC & --0.7/+0.5 & --0.7/+0.4 & --0.6/+0.4 & --0.6/+0.3 & --0.5/+0.4
1355: & --0.5/+0.6 \\
1356: Data & & --0.6 & +0.1 & --0.3 & --1.5 & +0.1 \\ \hline \hline
1357: \end{tabular}
1358: \end{center}
1359: \end{table}
1360:
1361: The corresponding variations in the $M(\ec)$-range analysis were explored by
1362: again forming 13 samples of $\sim 3$ million generic $\pp$ Monte Carlo and
1363: adding 13
1364: samples of 3135 signal Monte Carlo events with ${\cal B}(h_c \to\gamma
1365: \eta_c) = 37.7\%$, ${\cal B}(h_c \to ggg) = 56.8\%$, and ${\cal B}(h_c \to
1366: \gamma g g) = 5.5\%$. This permitted simulation of a combined branching ratio
1367: $\brp \brh = 4 \times 10^{-4}$. Fits were performed using the same functions
1368: used in fitting data. The results are shown in Table \ref{tab:smallb}.
1369: Deviations from the mean were found to be of the expected magnitude for data
1370: samples of this size.
1371: \bigskip
1372:
1373: \leftline{\it 4. Quality of generic Monte Carlo simulation.}
1374:
1375: Because the CLEO generic Monte Carlo is used to determine optimum selection
1376: criteria
1377: for energy ranges and binary choices, one must quantify its level of agreement
1378: with data in emulating the $M(\hc)$ spectrum. The EvtGen \cite{EvtGen}
1379: generator is combined with a JETSET \cite{JETSET} version tuned to match the
1380: relevant low-energy regime \cite{Athar:2004dn}. For photon energies below
1381: 450~MeV and pion momenta below 550~MeV/$c$, the data and Monte Carlo agree
1382: within $\pm5\%$. Above these values the ratio of data to Monte Carlo falls
1383: below 95\%, rising again from $\sim
1384: 90\%$ above $E_\gamma = 600$ MeV and from $\sim 85\%$ above $p(\pz) = 950$
1385: MeV/$c$. For low energy photons in the slow $\pi^0$ from $\pp \to \pz \hc$,
1386: the generic Monte Carlo is satisfactory, but its use over extended ranges of
1387: energy and momenta, as required in determining background shapes, may not be
1388: so. This provides a motivation for basing the background shapes on the
1389: data, i.e., the $\pi^0$ recoil spectrum without requiring $E_\gamma = 503 \pm
1390: 35$~MeV, instead of the $\pi^0$ recoil spectrum from the generic Monte Carlo.
1391: \bigskip
1392:
1393: \leftline{\it 5. Choices in $M(\ec)$ analysis.}
1394:
1395: % This is Table VIII
1396: \begin{table}[t]
1397: \caption{Binary choices of selection and criteria ($M(\ec)$ analysis).
1398: Asterisks denote nominal choices.
1399: \label{tab:bincomp}}
1400: \begin{center}
1401: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \hline
1402: $\ggJ$/ & Range & $\eta$ & MC & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Signal} \\
1403: \cline{5-7}
1404: mTk & & supp & $\sigma$ & Mass (MeV/$c^2$) & Evts.\ in pk.\
1405: & $\br~(10^{-4})$ \\ \hline % Hist ID
1406: *$\ggJ$ & *$M(\ec)$ & *No & 17.3 & $3525.3\pm0.6$ & $159\pm41$ % 3151
1407: &$3.5\pm0.9$ \\ \hline
1408: *$\ggJ$ & *$M(\ec)$ & Yes & 16.9 & $3524.9\pm0.6$ & $132\pm35$ % 3171
1409: & $3.6\pm1.0$ \\ \hline
1410: *$\ggJ$ & $\ege1$ & *No & 16.7 & $3525.3\pm0.7$ & $161\pm44$ % 3055
1411: & $3.4\pm0.9$ \\ \hline
1412: *$\ggJ$ & $\ege1$ & Yes & 16.3 & $3524.8\pm0.6$ & $134\pm37$ % 3075
1413: & $3.6\pm1.0$ \\ \hline
1414: mTk & *$M(\ec)$ & *No & 17.3 & $3525.1\pm0.6$ & $152\pm42$ % 3451
1415: & $3.3\pm0.9$ \\ \hline
1416: mTk & *$M(\ec)$ & Yes & 16.9 & $3524.7\pm0.6$ & $134\pm36$ % 3471
1417: & $3.6\pm1.0$ \\ \hline
1418: mTk & $\ege1$ & *No & 16.6 & $3525.1\pm0.7$ & $145\pm41$ % 3355
1419: & $3.1\pm0.9$ \\ \hline
1420: mTk & $\ege1$ & Yes & 16.2 & $3524.7\pm0.5$ & $136\pm38$ % 3375
1421: & $3.6\pm1.0$ \\ % \hline
1422: \hline \hline
1423: \end{tabular}
1424: \end{center}
1425: \end{table}
1426:
1427: In the $\ege1$ analysis, electromagnetic cascades involving E1
1428: transitions to and from intermediate $\chi_c$ states were suppressed by
1429: excluding events with the effective mass of charged tracks exceeding 3050
1430: MeV/$c^2$ (``mTk'' criterion). In the $M(\ec)$ analysis, the mass
1431: recoiling against $\gamma \gamma$ was reconstructed directly (``$\gamma
1432: \gamma$'' criterion), and events with a recoil mass within $\pm 40$ MeV/$c^2$
1433: of $M(J/\psi)$ were excluded.
1434:
1435: In the $M(\ec)$ analysis, which does not use endcap photons and does
1436: not restrict photons in $\pz$ candidates to the ten most energetic showers,
1437: an advantage in Monte Carlo significance by about $0.6\sigma$ appears when
1438: the $M(\ec)$ range rather than the $\ege1$ range is selected.
1439:
1440: In the $\ege1$ analysis, Monte Carlo likelihood ratios favor suppressing
1441: $\gme1$ candidates which can form an $\eta$ when paired with other photons.
1442: In the $M(\ec)$ analysis, which uses a larger pool of photon candidates for
1443: possible pairings, such a suppression entails a loss of efficiency for
1444: signal detection, leading to decreased significance in Monte Carlo by $0.4
1445: \sigma$. The $M(\ec)$ analysis consequently does not adopt this suppression.
1446:
1447: The above three criteria were compared in a binary manner, leading to the
1448: results shown in Table \ref{tab:bincomp}. The effects of each variation are
1449: largely independent of each other when measured by change in significance.
1450: The first row was chosen over the fifth in the $M(\ec)$ analysis on the basis
1451: of a very slight excess in Monte Carlo (MC) significance $\sigma$;
1452: differences in resulting mass and branching ratio are within statistics.
1453: % \newpage
1454:
1455: \bigskip
1456: \leftline{\it 6. Dependence on branching ratio $\br(\hc \to \gme1 \ec)$ and
1457: $M(\hc)$ in signal Monte Carlo.}
1458:
1459: In the $\ege1$ analysis, Monte Carlo simulations were performed by assuming
1460: $\brh \equiv \br(\hc \to \gme1 \ec) = 100\%$ rather than the value of 37.7\%
1461: \cite{Godfrey:2002rp} used in the $M(\ec)$ analysis. Moreover, slightly
1462: different values of $M(\hc)$ for the signal Monte Carlo were used in the two
1463: analyses. The results of changing just $\brh$ or both $\brh$ and $M(\hc)$ in
1464: the signal Monte Carlo were studied for the $M(\ec)$ analysis.
1465: Several features were notable in this comparison.
1466:
1467: (1) The maximum signal likelihoods in Monte Carlo were less for the choice of
1468: $\brh = 100\%$: (15.5,16.1)$\sigma$ for $M(\hc) = (3525.3,3526.0)$ MeV/$c^2$
1469: versus 17.3$\sigma$ for $\brh = 37.7\%$ and $M(\hc) = 3525.3$ MeV/$c^2$.
1470: (2) For the same $M(\ec)$ range, the values of $M(\hc)$ in data were stable
1471: under variation of $\brh$ or input $M(\hc)$, while the extracted values of
1472: $\brp \brh$ rose by about $0.4 \times 10^{-4}$ when $\brh = 100\%$ was taken
1473: in the signal Monte Carlo.
1474: (3) When $\brh = 100\%$, the maximum signal likelihood in Monte Carlo still
1475: favored no $\eta$ suppression applied to the E1 photon, but to a lesser extent.
1476:
1477: Because the variations in $M(\hc)$ and $\brp \brh$ observed under the above
1478: changes were ascribable to the signal fitting hypothesis rather than to the
1479: data themselves, they were included in estimates of systematic error,
1480: giving $\Delta M(\hc) = -0.1$ MeV/$c^2$ and $\Delta \brp \brh = + 0.4
1481: \times 10^{-4}$.
1482: \bigskip
1483:
1484: \leftline{\it 7. Asymmetric $M(\ec)$ selection windows.}
1485:
1486: The $\ec$ mass windows were chosen symmetric about 2980 MeV/$c^2$ in the
1487: $M(\ec)$ analysis to avoid $M(\hc)$ spectrum distortions
1488: if an E1 photon of the correct energy were paired with a random
1489: pion not associated with the transition $\pp \to \pz \hc$. Slightly higher
1490: Monte Carlo significance (17.5$\sigma$ versus nominal 17.3$\sigma$) occurs with
1491: the asymmetric window 2955--3015 MeV/$c^2$ (versus nominal 2945--3015
1492: MeV/$c^2$). On the other hand, the signal significance in data peaks for the
1493: asymmetric window 2945--3005 MeV/$c^2$ at $4.6\sigma$ (versus
1494: 4.0$\sigma$ for the nominal window), and the value of $M(\hc)$ obtained from
1495: the data is 0.4 MeV/$c^2$ lower. This behavior is
1496: consistent with the lower $\ec$ masses observed in a recent analysis of
1497: $\pp$ radiative decays \cite{Athar:2004dn} and in the exclusive analysis
1498: reported below.
1499: % The deviations in Monte Carlo parameters are small, however.
1500: \bigskip
1501:
1502: \leftline{\bf B. Exclusive analysis}
1503: \bigskip
1504:
1505: The signal Monte Carlo indicates that the reconstructed (or recoil) $\ec$ mass
1506: and width are mode dependent because of the different final decay particles.
1507: The value of $M(\ec)$
1508: calculated after kinematic fitting was required to be within 50 MeV/$c^2$ of
1509: the nominal mass. Monte Carlo events indicate that this is more than 80\%
1510: efficient. The width of the reconstructed $\ec$ mass distribution depends on
1511: both the detector resolution and the intrinsic width, $\gec$. The latter
1512: has not been well measured \cite{Eidelman:2004wy,etac}, and the former is
1513: decay-mode dependent. Because the
1514: requirement that $M(\ec)$ be within 50 MeV/$c^2$ of its nominal value is loose,
1515: the systematic uncertainty of the efficiency due to this requirement is minimal,
1516: however. Measuring the ratio of branching ratios for cascade decay and direct
1517: radiative decay reduces this systematic uncertainty further. In addition to
1518: the other criteria in Table III, this analysis takes the $\pz$ pull mass limit
1519: for signal selection and $\pz$ suppression to be 3, and the reduced $\chi^2$ for
1520: kinematic constraints to be less than 10. The direct radiative decay $\direct$
1521: is studied in the same $\ec$ decay modes, using similar event selection criteria
1522: except that the $M(\ec)$ and signal $\pi^0$ selection criteria are dropped, and
1523: the $\ec$ yield is determined from the fit to the $\gamma$ recoil mass
1524: spectrum.
1525: %\bigskip
1526:
1527: \newpage
1528: \centerline{\bf VII. THE SIGNAL IN THE DATA}
1529: \bigskip
1530:
1531: \leftline{\bf A. Inclusive analyses}
1532: \bigskip
1533:
1534: Figure \ref{fig:orig} shows the spectrum of recoils against $\pi^0$ for the
1535: data in Table \ref{tab:data} with the event selection criteria determined to
1536: optimize the signal sensitivity in the $\ege1$ analysis. These data were
1537: fitted with background as determined in Sec.\ VI plus a Breit-Wigner resonance
1538: of width 0.9 MeV. The background used was the $\pi^0$ recoil spectrum without
1539: % ||| replaces "restriction"
1540: the cut on $\ege1$. The peak shape
1541: consisted of the Breit-Wigner width convolved with an instrumental resolution
1542: function, determined from the signal Monte Carlo simulation, which itself was
1543: fitted with a double Gaussian. The efficiency for the final event selection
1544: was determined to be $\epsilon=13.4\%$. The results are:
1545:
1546: % This is Figure 4
1547: \begin{figure}
1548: \begin{center}
1549: %\includegraphics[width=6.3in]{hc_data.eps}
1550: \includegraphics[width=6.3in]{3960805-015.eps}
1551: \end{center}
1552: \vspace*{-11.3cm}
1553:
1554: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~DATA
1555: \vspace*{10.0cm}
1556:
1557: \caption{$M(h_c)$ distribution from recoil $\pi^0$ for the CLEO III + CLEO-c
1558: data
1559: set corresponding to the final event selection in inclusive analysis based on
1560: selecting a range of $\ege1$. The dashed line denotes the background function.
1561: The $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom for the fit including peak and background is
1562: 34.1/25 = 1.36, as noted in Table \ref{tab:summ}. The corresponding confidence
1563: level is 10.5\%.
1564: \label{fig:orig}}
1565: \end{figure}
1566:
1567: \begin{itemize}
1568:
1569: \item
1570: N(evts) = $139\pm41$, \quad significance = $3.6\sigma$
1571:
1572: \item
1573: $M(h_c)=3524.4\pm 0.7$ MeV/$c^2$
1574:
1575: \item
1576: $\brp \brh \equiv {\cal B}(\pp \to \pi^{0} h_c) \times
1577: {\cal B}(h_c \to \gamma\eta_c)$ = (3.4$\pm$1.0)$\times 10^{-4}$.
1578:
1579: \end{itemize}
1580: %The effects of constraining $M(\ec)$ instead of $\ege1$ were examined,
1581: %leaving all other criteria unchanged from the $\ege1$ analysis, such as the
1582: %inclusion of endcap photons. For $M(\ec) =
1583: %2980 \pm 30$ MeV/$c^2$, the results are shown in Table \ref{tab:eceg}. These
1584: %results were obtained using the same event criteria when selecting a range of
1585: %$\ege1$, but a background based on the generic Monte Carlo spectrum was used,
1586: %since a satisfactory background cannot be extracted from the data when
1587: %$M(\eta_c)$ is constrained.
1588:
1589: When selecting a range of $M(\ec)$from Monte Carlo, choosing events in the
1590: interval 2945--3015 MeV/$c^2$ gave the greatest signal significance, and hence
1591: this interval was used for further analysis.
1592: For the data the significance is slightly greater for a
1593: narrower range of $M(\ec)$, as shown in Table \ref{tab:DATAcomp}.
1594: The resulting $h_c$ mass spectrum is shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:nomdt}.
1595: The results are:
1596: % This is Figure 5
1597: \begin{figure}
1598: %\includegraphics[height=5.5in]{rm_data_fit_fig5.eps}
1599: \includegraphics[height=5.5in]{3960805-016.eps}
1600: \caption{$M(h_c)$ distribution from recoil $\pi^0$
1601: for 2945 MeV/$c^2 \le M(\eta_c) \le 3015$
1602: MeV/$c^2$, fitted over the range 3496 MeV/$c^2 \le M(h_c) \le 3551.2$ MeV/$c^2$
1603: [analysis selecting range of $M(\ec)$]. The curve denotes the
1604: background function based on generic Monte Carlo plus a signal as described
1605: in Sec.\ VI B. The dashed line shows the contribution of background
1606: alone. The peak contains $159 \pm 41$ events. The confidence level of the
1607: fit to signal + background was 34\%, corresponding to $\chi^2 = 55.6$ for
1608: 52 degrees of freedom.
1609: \label{fig:nomdt}}
1610: \end{figure}
1611: \begin{itemize}
1612:
1613: \item
1614: N(evts) = $159\pm41$, \quad significance = $4.0\sigma$
1615:
1616: \item
1617: $M(h_c)=3525.3\pm 0.6$ MeV/$c^2$
1618:
1619: \item
1620: $\brp \brh = (3.5 \pm 0.9) \times 10^{-4}$.
1621:
1622: \end{itemize}
1623: The CLEO-III and CLEO-c data were fitted separately. Results are shown in Table
1624: \ref{tab:summ} for the $\ege1$ analysis and Table \ref{tab:IIIvsC} for the
1625: $M(\ec)$ analysis. The relative weights of the two samples [with values of
1626: $M(\hc)$ differing by about 2 MeV/$c^2$] differ between the two analyses, with
1627: the $\ege1$ analysis finding fewer signal events in the CLEO-c sample while the
1628: $M(\ec)$ analysis finds approximately equal signals in the CLEO III and CLEO-c
1629: samples. This accounts for the major part of the difference between $M(\hc)$
1630: values in the combined samples.
1631: %JR added next sentence
1632: No such difference was found in Monte Carlo simulations of CLEO-c data,
1633: indicating that the observed difference is purely statistical.
1634: \bigskip
1635:
1636: % This is Table IX
1637: \begin{table}
1638: \caption{Same as Table \ref{tab:MCcomp} for fits to CLEO-III and CLEO-c $\pp$
1639: data [$M(\ec)$ analysis].
1640: \label{tab:DATAcomp}}
1641: \begin{center}
1642: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \hline
1643: & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{$M(\eta_c)$ range (MeV/$c^2$)} \\ \cline{2-6}
1644: & 2940--3020 & *2945--3015 & 2950--3010 & 2955--3005 & 2960--3000 \\ \hline
1645: $M(h_c)({\rm MeV}/c^2)$ & 3525.67$\pm$0.85 & 3525.26$\pm$0.60
1646: & 3525.08$\pm$0.55 & 3525.06$\pm$0.57 & 3524.97$\pm$0.58 \\
1647: Signif.\ $\sigma$ & 3.24 & 4.03 & 4.27 & 4.22 & 3.97 \\
1648: $\brp \brh \times 10^4$ & $2.86\pm0.91$ & $3.53\pm0.91$ & $3.76\pm0.92$ &
1649: $3.76\pm0.93$ & $3.65\pm0.97$ \\ \hline \hline
1650: \end{tabular}
1651: \end{center}
1652: \end{table}
1653:
1654: % This is Table X
1655: \begin{table}
1656: \caption{$M(\hc)$ and combined branching ratio $\brp \brh$ for separate
1657: CLEO-III and CLEO-c data samples [$M(\ec)$ analysis, range 2945--3015
1658: MeV/$c^2$].
1659: % Results are shown for no $\eta$ suppression on E1 photon (nominal,
1660: % marked by asterisk) and with such suppression.
1661: \label{tab:IIIvsC}}
1662: \begin{center}
1663: %\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \hline
1664: %Data & $\eta$ & Mass & Events & Branching \\
1665: %sample & supp? & (MeV/$c^2$) & in peak & ratio ($10^{-4}$) \\ \hline
1666: %CLEO-III & *No & $3524.1\pm1.0$ & $86\pm29$ & $3.8\pm1.3$ \\
1667: % & Yes & $3524.2\pm0.8$ & $62\pm25$ & $3.4\pm1.4$ \\
1668: %CLEO-c & *No & $3526.6\pm0.8$ & $93\pm29$ & $4.2\pm1.3$ \\
1669: % & Yes & $3525.9\pm0.8$ & $76\pm24$ & $4.3\pm1.4$ \\
1670: %\hline \hline
1671: %\end{tabular}
1672:
1673: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline \hline
1674: Data & Mass & Events & Branching \\
1675: sample & (MeV/$c^2$) & in peak & ratio ($10^{-4}$) \\ \hline
1676: CLEO-III & $3524.1\pm1.0$ & $86\pm29$ & $3.8\pm1.3$ \\
1677: CLEO-c & $3526.6\pm0.8$ & $93\pm29$ & $4.2\pm1.3$ \\
1678: \hline \hline
1679: \end{tabular}
1680:
1681: \end{center}
1682: \end{table}
1683:
1684: The angular distribution of the $\gme1$ photon in the inclusive analysis was
1685: obtained by fitting separately the $\hc$ peak in the angular ranges $0.0
1686: \le |\cos \theta| \le 0.3$, $0.3 \le |\cos \theta| \le 0.6$, and $0.6 \le
1687: |\cos \theta| \le 0.9$. The results are presented in Fig.\ \ref{fig:cos}. A
1688: $1 + \cos^2 \theta$ distribution, as expected for an E1 transition from a spin
1689: 1 state, gives a satisfactory fit, with $\chi^2 =1.7$ for 2 degrees of freedom.
1690: The angular distribution for the background, obtained in the same way as for
1691: the fit to the signal, corresponds to the dotted histogram in
1692: Fig.\ \ref{fig:orig}, and is flat as expected.
1693:
1694: % This is Figure 6
1695: \begin{figure}
1696: %\includegraphics[height=4.3in]{cth_scale.eps}
1697: \includegraphics[height=4.3in]{3960805-017.eps}
1698: \caption{Angular distribution of the photons with $E_\gamma = 503 \pm 35$ MeV
1699: from the inclusive analysis. Solid points denote yield of photons from
1700: $\hc \to \gamma \eta_c$, while open circles denote background photons. The
1701: curve shows the fit of the $\hc \to \gamma \ec$ points with a $1 + \cos^2
1702: \theta$ distribution. The background photons are seen to be isotropically
1703: distributed. Scales for the three plots are arbitrary.
1704: \label{fig:cos}}
1705: \end{figure}
1706: \bigskip
1707:
1708: \leftline{\bf B. Exclusive analysis}
1709: \bigskip
1710:
1711: There are several ways to search for an $h_{c}$ signal in exclusive modes.
1712: One may observe enhancements in the photon energy spectrum from $\hc \to \gamma
1713: \ec$, the reconstructed $\hc$ mass spectrum, or the recoil $\pz$ energy
1714: spectrum. The photon energy resolution $\sigma(E)/E$ is 2.1\% to 3.8\% for a
1715: photon of energy around 500 MeV, depending on whether it is in the barrel or
1716: endcap CsI~calorimeter. The signal photon energy also has a spread because of
1717: the intrinsic width of $\ec$. The reconstructed $\hc$ mass calculated from the
1718: 4-momenta of the $\eta_{c}$ and the transition photon also has poor resolution,
1719: and depends on $\eta_{c}$ decay modes. In the signal Monte Carlo, both the
1720: photon energy resolution and reconstructed $h_{c}$ mass resolution are larger
1721: than 15 MeV in all modes used. The recoil $\pz$ (from $\pp\to \pz \hc$) has
1722: much better energy resolution because of the $\pz$ mass constraint fit employed
1723: in the $\pi^{0}$ reconstruction algorithm, as mentioned previously.
1724: The $M(h_{c})$ spectrum recoiling against a $\pz$ is also independent of
1725: $\ec$ decay modes, so one can fit the $h_{c}$ signal with the same signal shape
1726: when signals from different modes are added together.
1727:
1728: After all the selection criteria except for $M(\ec)$ are imposed, there is a
1729: clear cluster of events in the plot of $\ec$ candidate mass versus $\pz$ recoil
1730: mass, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:hcetacmass}. Properties of the nineteen events
1731: in the $M(\ec)$ band between the dotted lines and with $M(\hc)$ between
1732: 3516 and 3530 MeV/$c^2$ are summarized in Table \ref{tab:exclevts}.
1733:
1734: % This is Figure 7
1735: \begin{figure}
1736: \begin{center}
1737: %\epsfig{file=hcetacmass.ps,height=6.3in,angle=270}
1738: \epsfig{file=3960805-018,height=4.5in}
1739: \caption{Scatter plot of the reconstructed $\eta_{c}$ mass versus the $\hc$
1740: candidate mass obtained from $\pi^0$ recoil
1741: in data for the exclusive analysis. The
1742: horizontal band near $M(J/\psi) = 3097$ MeV/$c^2$ and the diagonal band at
1743: larger $\ec$
1744: candidate mass correspond to $\pp \rightarrow \pi^0\pi^0 J/\psi$ and $\pp
1745: \rightarrow \gamma \chi_{c0}$, respectively. The dashed lines denote the
1746: region $M(\eta_c) = 2982 \pm 50$ MeV/$c^2$. In this band a cluster of events
1747: is visible around $M(\hc) = 3524$ MeV/$c^2$.
1748: \label{fig:hcetacmass}}
1749: \end{center}
1750: \end{figure}
1751:
1752: % This is Table XI
1753: \begin{table}
1754: \caption{List of exclusive event candidates.
1755: \label{tab:exclevts}}
1756: \begin{center}
1757: \begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
1758: Mode & $M(\hc)$ & $E^*_\gamma$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$M(\ec)$ (MeV/$c^2$)}
1759: \\
1760: & (MeV/$c^2$) & (MeV) & Reconstructed & Recoil \\ \hline
1761: $\kskp$ & 3524.3 & 475.0 & 3018.7 & 3012.0 \\
1762: & 3529.3 & 496.4 & 2995.3 & 2991.9 \\ \hline
1763: $\klkp$ & 3521.7 & 513.4 & -- & 2964.2 \\
1764: & 3521.5 & 541.2 & -- & 2930.8 \\
1765: & 3517.7 & 463.2 & -- & 3019.2 \\
1766: & 3523.5 & 486.1 & -- & 2998.3 \\ \hline
1767: $\kkpp$ & 3525.0 & 499.9 & 2989.2 & 2983.4 \\
1768: & 3524.3 & 474.5 & 2978.8 & 3012.7 \\
1769: & 3526.7 & 507.1 & 2989.5 & 2976.8 \\ \hline
1770: $\fourpi$ & 3527.2 & 494.1 & 2983.3 & 2992.6 \\
1771: & 3520.4 & 475.9 & 2975.3 & 3007.1 \\
1772: & 3523.0 & 471.6 & 2987.5 & 3014.8 \\
1773: & 3530.9 & 523.0 & 2956.5 & 2962.0 \\
1774: & 3519.2 & 498.7 & 2992.6 & 2979.0 \\
1775: & 3519.8 & 463.2 & 3009.1 & 3021.3 \\
1776: & 3524.0 & 473.8 & 3007.6 & 3013.2 \\
1777: & 3524.8 & 517.5 & 2972.5 & 2962.4 \\ \hline
1778: $\kkpizero$ & 3525.4 & 497.7 & 2976.1 & 2986.5 \\ \hline
1779: $\ppetatwo$ & 3521.1 & 414.4 & 3013.0 & 3078.8 \\ \hline \hline
1780: \end{tabular}
1781: \end{center}
1782: \end{table}
1783:
1784: There is a highly populated band at the $J/\psi$ mass in Fig.\
1785: \ref{fig:hcetacmass}. Monte Carlo studies indicate that most of these
1786: events are from $\pi^{0}\pi^{0}J/\psi$ and $\gamma\chi_{cJ}(J=0,1,2)$. When
1787: one soft photon from a $\pz$ of $\pi^{0}\pi^{0}J/\psi$ is missing, neither the
1788: beam energy constraint nor $\pi^{0}$ suppression can remove this background,
1789: but $\eta_{c}$ mass selection is powerful in rejecting such events. Once this
1790: selection is imposed, corresponding to the range $M(\ec) = 2982 \pm 50$
1791: MeV/$c^2$ in Fig.\ \ref{fig:etacmass}, a clearer $h_{c}$ signal appears in the
1792: $\pi^{0}$ recoil mass spectrum around 3525 MeV/$c^2$ (Fig.\
1793: \ref{fig:fithcmass}).
1794: The distribution was fitted using an unbinned maximum likelihood method and
1795: ARGUS background function to obtain the yield and the mass of the observed
1796: $h_{c}$ signal. The double Gaussian signal shape is obtained from signal Monte
1797: Carlo in which the dominant narrower Gaussian width is 3.2 MeV/$c^2$. The
1798: unbinned maximum likelihood fit yields $17.5 \pm 4.5$ $\hc$ candidates with
1799: mass at $3523.6 \pm 0.9$ MeV/$c^2$. The
1800: significance of the signal calculated from the difference in the likelihood
1801: with and without the signal contribution is $6.1 \sigma$.
1802:
1803: A clear $\eta_{c}$ signal also is observed in mass recoiling against the photon
1804: in the study of the radiative
1805: decay $\direct$. This confirms the appropriateness and
1806: effectiveness of the event selection criteria. The recoil mass resolution is
1807: identical for all modes, and independent of track momentum resolution.
1808: The signal shape function, a Breit-Wigner function convolved with a double
1809: Gaussian, is obtained from signal Monte Carlo. The width of the Breit-Wigner
1810: function represents the $\eta_{c}$ intrinsic width. The detector resolution,
1811: represented by a double Gaussian, was obtained by fitting the distribution of
1812: the difference between the generated and reconstructed $\eta_{c}$ candidate
1813: masses.
1814:
1815: A total of $220 \pm 22$ events in all seven modes was observed
1816: (Fig.~\ref{fig:radetacmass}). The ratio of the branching ratios $\br$ for the
1817: cascade ($\cascade$) and direct radiative ($\direct$) decays in each mode is
1818: shown in Table \ref{tb:brratio}. To calculate the resulting event-weighted
1819: average ratio $\bhc/\bdir \equiv {\cal B}(\cascade)/{\cal B}(\direct)$,
1820: one may write the observed number $N(X,\hc)$ of $\ec$ decays via $\cascade$ and
1821: the observed number $N(X,{\rm dir})$ via $\direct$ to an $\ec$ channel $X$ with
1822: ${\cal B}(\ec \to X) \equiv {\cal B}(X)$ respectively as
1823: \beq
1824: N(X,\hc) = \bhc {\cal B}(X) N(\pp) \epsilon(X,\hc)~~,~~~
1825: N(X,{\rm dir}) = \bdir {\cal B}(X) N(\pp) \epsilon(X,{\rm dir}),
1826: \eeq
1827: where $\epsilon(X,{\rm dir})$ and $\epsilon(X,\hc)$ are efficiencies for mode
1828: $X$ for direct and cascade decays (Table \ref{tb:brratio}). One then finds
1829: \beq
1830: \frac{\bhc}{\bdir} = \frac{\sum_X N(X,\hc)}{\sum_X N(X,{\rm dir})}/
1831: \frac{\sum_X \epsilon(X,\hc){\cal B}(X)}{\sum_X \epsilon(X,{\rm dir})
1832: {\cal B}(X)} = 0.178 \pm 0.049~(\stat),
1833: \eeq
1834: where $\sum_X N(X,\hc) = 17.5 \pm 4.5$ and $\sum_X N(X,{\rm dir})=220 \pm 22$.
1835: \bigskip
1836:
1837: % This is Table XII
1838: \begin{table}
1839: \caption{Efficiencies and yields of direct radiative decay ($\direct$) and
1840: cascade decay ($\cascade$) in exclusive analysis, and ratio of branching
1841: ratios, for each mode.} \label{tb:brratio}
1842: \begin{center}
1843: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c| }
1844: \hline
1845: & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{ direct radiative decay} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}
1846: { cascade decay} & ${\cal B}$(cascade)/ \\ \cline{2-5}
1847: \raisebox{1.5ex}[0pt]{Mode} &Eff(\%)&Yield&Eff(\%) & Yield &
1848: ${\cal B}$(direct) \\ \hline
1849: $\kskp$ &12.7&$35.5\pm7.6$&5.6&1.9$\pm$1.4&0.116$\pm$0.090\\ \hline
1850: $\klkp$ &32.6&74.0$\pm$12.0&15.3&3.1$\pm$2.1&0.081$\pm$0.057 \\ \hline
1851: $\kkpp$ & 24.9 & 10.3$\pm$6.9 & 10.8 & 2.8$\pm$1.7 & 0.633$\pm$0.673\\ \hline
1852: $\fourpi$ & 35.6 & 46.0 $\pm$12.0 & 15.1 &7.3$\pm$2.8 & 0.290$\pm$0.132\\
1853: \hline
1854: $\kkpizero$ & 24.2 & 21.6$\pm$6.4 & 10.9 & 0.9$\pm$1.0 & 0.098$\pm$0.114\\
1855: \hline
1856: $\ppetaone$ & 30.6 & 23.7$\pm$6.9&14.8&0.0+1.0%
1857: \footnote{We estimate the error of the yield to be 1 according to
1858: the Poisson distribution.} &0.000+0.083\\
1859: \hline
1860: $\ppetatwo$ &16.4&12.7$\pm$4.8&7.3&1.0$\pm$1.0&0.205$\pm$0.225\\ \hline
1861: Total & - &220$\pm$22&-&17.5$\pm$4.5&0.178$\pm$0.049\\ \hline
1862: \end{tabular}
1863: \end{center}
1864: \end{table}
1865:
1866: % This is Figure 8
1867: \begin{figure}
1868: \begin{center}
1869: %\epsfig{file=etacmass.ps,height=6.5in,angle=270}
1870: \epsfig{file=3960805-019.eps,height=4.6in}
1871: \caption{Data events (open histograms) and Monte Carlo background estimate
1872: (shaded histograms) of reconstructed $\eta_c$ candidate mass projection for
1873: $M(\pi^0\;{\rm recoil}) = 3524 \pm 8 $ MeV/$c^2$.
1874: \label{fig:etacmass}}
1875: \end{center}
1876: \end{figure}
1877:
1878: % This is Figure 9
1879: \begin{figure}
1880: \begin{center}
1881: %\epsfig{file=fithcmass.ps,height=5.1in,angle=270}
1882: \epsfig{file=3960805-020.eps,height=3.4in}
1883: \caption{Fitted $\pi^{0}$ recoil mass of $\hc$ candidate for $M(\ec) = 2982 \pm
1884: 50$ MeV/$c^2$ in exclusive analysis. Data events correspond to open histogram;
1885: Monte Carlo background estimate is denoted by shaded histogram.
1886: The signal shape is a double Gaussian, obtained from signal Monte Carlo.
1887: The background shape is an ARGUS function.
1888: \label{fig:fithcmass}}
1889: \end{center}
1890:
1891: % This is Figure 10
1892: \begin{center}
1893: \vskip 0.1in
1894: %\epsfig{file=radetacmass.ps,height=5.1in,angle=270}
1895: \epsfig{file=3960805-021.eps,height=3.4in}
1896: \caption{Fitted photon recoil mass in data ($\direct$, exclusive analysis).
1897: The signal shape is
1898: a double Gaussian convolved with a Breit-Wigner function. The mass resolution
1899: function is obtained from signal Monte Carlo. The background shape is a
1900: first-order polynomial function. The $\eta_{c}$ mass is fixed at the value
1901: \cite{Eidelman:2004wy} 2979.7 MeV/$c^2$.
1902: \label{fig:radetacmass}}
1903: \end{center}
1904: \end{figure}
1905:
1906: \clearpage
1907: \centerline{\bf VIII. SYSTEMATIC ERRORS}
1908: \bigskip
1909:
1910: The systematic errors on $M(\hc)$ and $\brp \brh$ are summarized in Table
1911: \ref{tab:sys}. The following subsections describe how these errors
1912: were obtained in the individual analyses. When different approaches yield
1913: different results, the most conservative value is entered.
1914:
1915: % This is Table XIII
1916: \begin{table}[h]
1917: \caption{Comparison of systematic errors in $M(\hc)$ and $\brp \brh$ for
1918: inclusive and exclusive analyses. N/A: not applicable.
1919: \label{tab:sys}}
1920: \begin{center}
1921: \begin{tabular}{|l|c c|c c|} \hline \hline
1922: & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$M(h_c)$, MeV/$c^2$}
1923: & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{${\cal B}_1 \times {\cal B}_2 \times 10^4$} \\
1924: Systematics in & Inclusive & Exclusive & Inclusive & Exclusive \\ \hline
1925: Number of $\pp$ & N/A & N/A & 0.1 & N/A \\
1926: ${\cal B}(\pp \to \gamma \eta_c)$ & N/A & N/A & N/A & 0.8 \\ \hline
1927: Background shape & 0.3 & 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.3 \\
1928: $\pi^0$ energy scale & 0.2 & 0.2 & $\sim 0$ & 0.1 \\
1929: Signal shape & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.3 & 0.2 \\
1930: $h_c$ width & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.3 & 0.2 \\
1931: %JR changed (see Sec. VIII B) |
1932: $\pi^0$ efficiency & $\sim 0$ & $\sim 0$ & 0.2 & 0.3 \\
1933: %JR added ``E1''
1934: E1 Photon efficiency & $\sim 0$ & $\sim 0$ & 0.2 & 0.2 \\
1935: Binning, fitting range & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.3 & 0.2 \\
1936: Modeling of $h_c$ decays & 0.1 & 0.3 & 0.3 & $\sim 0$ \\
1937: $\eta_c$ mass & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.1 & 0.1 \\
1938: $\eta_c$ width & $\sim 0$ & $\sim 0$ & 0.2 & 0.1 \\
1939: $\eta_c$ branching ratios & N/A & $\sim 0$ & N/A & 0.1 \\ \hline
1940: Sum in quadrature & $\pm0.4$ & $\pm0.5$ & $\pm0.7$ & $\pm1.0$ \\ \hline \hline
1941: \end{tabular}
1942: \end{center}
1943: \end{table}
1944:
1945: \bigskip
1946: \leftline{\bf A. Inclusive analyses}
1947: \bigskip
1948:
1949: \leftline{\it 1. Choice of background.}
1950:
1951: Final results in the $\ege1$ analysis were obtained using the $\pi^0$ recoil
1952: background generated from the data. To estimate the systematic error due to
1953: choice of background, data were also fitted with a generic Monte Carlo
1954: background shape, yielding systematic uncertainties $\Delta M(\hc) \sim 0.2$
1955: MeV/$c^2$, $\Delta \brp \brh \sim 0.2\times10^{-4}$. A similar value of
1956: $\Delta \brp \brh$ was obtained in the $M(\ec)$ analysis by replacing generic
1957: Monte Carlo background by a second order polynomial plus an ARGUS function.
1958: However, a slightly larger value of $\Delta M(\hc) \sim 0.3 \times
1959: 10^{-4}$ was seen both in data and in Monte Carlo. It is this value we quote
1960: in Table \ref{tab:sys}.
1961:
1962: \bigskip
1963: \leftline{\it 2. Photon energy calibration for $\pz$ energy scale.}
1964:
1965: %The standard CLEO photon energy calibration was used. To determine if the
1966: %uncertainty in this calibration can lead to systematic error in $E(\pz)$,
1967: %the measured photon energies were changed by amounts varying from 0.2\%
1968: %to 1.35\% depending on photon energies below 150 MeV. The resulting shift
1969: %in $M(\hc)$ was found in the $\ege1$ analysis to be $0.00 \pm 0.05$ MeV/$c^2$.
1970:
1971: %In the $M(\ec)$ analysis, for $E_\gamma \simeq 100$ MeV, relevant to
1972: %the signal $\pz$ energy and hence the $\hc$ mass, the calibration error was
1973: %estimated to be $\sim 0.2\%$, and larger for both smaller and larger
1974: %$E_\gamma$ \cite{photonsys}. The total CC energy (charged and neutral) was
1975: %varied in the $M(\ec)$ analysis by $\pm0.4\%$ at reconstruction
1976: %level. The analysis procedure, including fitting, was then repeated with
1977: %Monte Carlo data to check for dependence on absolute calibration of CC energy.
1978: %The small effects found may be ascribed in part to the compensating effect
1979: %of the demand that the two photons in the low-energy $\pz$
1980: %have the correct effective mass. We assign an error of $\pm 0.2$ MeV/$c^2$
1981: %in $M(\hc)$ to the $\pz$ energy scale on the basis of the arguments advanced
1982: %in the subsection on the exclusive analysis.
1983:
1984: The standard CLEO CsI calorimeter calibration was used. To determine if the
1985: uncertainty in this calibration can lead to systematic error in $E(\pz)$,
1986: the total deposited calorimeter energy was varied by amounts estimated by
1987: studies of radiative transitions in $\psi(2S)$ \cite{Athar:2004dn} and
1988: $\pi^0 \to \gamma \gamma$ found in data. The analysis procedure, including
1989: fitting, was then repeated with Monte Carlo data to check for dependence on
1990: absolute calibration of CC energy. The small effects found may be ascribed in
1991: part to the compensating effect of the demand that the two photons in the
1992: low-energy $\pz$ have the correct effective mass. We assign an error of $\pm
1993: 0.2$ MeV/$c^2$ in $M(\hc)$ to the $\pz$ energy scale on the basis of the
1994: arguments advanced in the subsection on the exclusive analysis.
1995:
1996: \bigskip
1997:
1998: \bigskip
1999: \leftline{\it 3. Signal shape.}
2000:
2001: The systematic uncertainty due to uncertainty in the $\pi^0$ line shape was
2002: found
2003: %JR added next two lines
2004: by varying the Gaussian part of the signal shape by 10\% to account for a
2005: possible mis-modeling (via Monte Carlo) of photon energy resolution
2006: to be $\sim0.1$ MeV/$c^2$ in $M(h_c)$,
2007: and $\sim 0.3\times10^{-4}$ in $\brp \brh$.
2008:
2009: \bigskip
2010: \leftline{\it 4. Choice of $h_c$ resonance width.}
2011:
2012: The systematic uncertainty due to variation of $\Gamma(h_{c})$ (0.5, 0.9, 1.5
2013: MeV) was found to be $\sim$0.1 MeV/$c^2$ in $M(h_c)$, and $\sim 0.3
2014: \times10^{-4}$ in $\brp \brh$. Variation of the Gaussian widths by $\pm10\%$
2015: led to negligible changes in mass and combined branching ratio.
2016:
2017: \bigskip
2018: \leftline{\it 5. Binning and fitting range.}
2019:
2020: In the $\ege1$ analysis the systematic uncertainty due to fit using 1 MeV/$c^2$
2021: bins, instead of the usual 2 MeV/$c^2$ bins, and changing the fitting range
2022: from 3496--3552 MeV/$c^2$ to 3500--3540 MeV/$c^2$ (see Table \ref{tab:summ})
2023: was found to be $\le 0.1$ MeV/$c^2$ in $M(h_c)$, and $\le 0.2 \times 10^{-4}$
2024: in $\brp \brh$. The $M(\ec)$ analysis chose 1 MeV/$c^2$ bins to utilize the
2025: good $M(\hc)$ resolution anticipated from Monte Carlo simulations. Results
2026: were compared with those from 2 MeV/$c^2$ bins and agreed with those just
2027: quoted. For the fitting range 3505-3551.2 MeV/$c^2$ in this analysis, however,
2028: $\brp \brh$ in data rose by $0.3 \times 10^{-4}$. This change was included
2029: as a systematic error associated with fitting.
2030:
2031: \bigskip
2032: \leftline{\it 6. Modeling of $h_c$ decays.}
2033:
2034: The signal Monte Carlo used in the $\ege1$ analysis took 100\% of $h_c$
2035: decaying to to $\gamma\eta_c$. An alternative signal Monte Carlo, in which
2036: 37.7\% of $h_c$ were taken to decay to $\gamma \eta_c$ and the rest to
2037: three gluons was generated and used to redetermine efficiency. The resulting
2038: $\brp \brh$ changed by $\sim 0.1 \times 10^{-4}$. However, in the $M(\ec)$
2039: analysis, larger differences were observed in Monte Carlo simulations when
2040: comparing $\br(\hc \to \gamma \ec) = 37.7\%, \br(\hc \to ggg) = 56.8\%,
2041: \br(\hc \to \gamma gg) = 5.5\%$ (nominal) and $\br(h_c \to \gamma \ec) =
2042: 100\%$. The nominal choice gave about 10\% higher efficiency since events of
2043: the form $\pp \to \pz \hc$ with $\hc \to ggg$ or $\hc \to \gamma g g$ sometimes
2044: pass signal selection criteria. The systematic error of $0.3 \times 10^{-4}$
2045: quoted in Table \ref{tab:sys} reflects this larger value.
2046:
2047: \bigskip
2048: \leftline{\it 7. Selected $M(\eta_c)$ range.}
2049:
2050: In the $M(\ec)$ inclusive analysis, the 13 small Monte Carlo samples show that
2051: neither $M(\hc)$ nor $\brp \brh$ is very sensitive to the selected $M(\ec)$
2052: range in the intervals 2940--3020, 2945--3015, 2950--3010, 2955--3005, and
2053: 2960--3000 MeV/$c^2$, leading to errors of $\pm 0.1$ MeV/$c^2$ in $M(\hc)$ and
2054: $\pm 0.1 \times 10^{-4}$ in $\brp \brh$.
2055: % The range 2940--3020 MeV/$c^2$
2056: %could be contaminated by the rapidly rising background from such transitions as
2057: %$\chi_{c2} \to \gamma J/\psi$, and is probably dangerous to use.
2058:
2059: \bigskip
2060:
2061: \leftline{\it 8. Removal of ``pull mass'' requirement on signal $\pi^0$.}
2062:
2063: Instead of requiring that the signal $\pi^0$ possess the best ``pull mass''
2064: within $2.5 \sigma$, {\it all} two-photon combinations with $M(\pz)^2$ within
2065: $2.5 \sigma$ of the correct value were considered in the $M(\ec)$ analysis.
2066: The maximum signal
2067: significance as measured by likelihood difference in Monte Carlo was reduced
2068: from $17.3 \sigma$ (Table \ref{tab:MCcomp}) to $16.1 \sigma$ for the nominal
2069: $M(\ec)$ range 2945--3015 MeV/$c^2$. Although $M(\hc)$ obtained in the data
2070: shifted by $+0.1$ MeV/$c^2$ from the nominal value, while the branching ratio
2071: shifted by $+0.9 \times 10^{-4}$ from the nominal value, these shifts are
2072: within the statistical errors. No such shifts were detected in Monte Carlo
2073: simulations. Consequently, systematic errors were assigned to the effect of
2074: removing the pull mass requirement on the signal $\pz$ of less than
2075: $0.1$ MeV/$c^2$ in $M(\hc)$ and $0.1 \times 10^{-4}$ in $\brp \brh$.
2076: \bigskip
2077:
2078: \leftline{\it 9. Number of neutral pions in signal region.}
2079:
2080: Both inclusive analyses require that there be only one $\pz$ candidate yielding
2081: a recoil
2082: $\hc$ mass within 30 MeV/$c^2$ of 3526 MeV/$c^2$. The effect of relaxing
2083: this condition was noted. In all cases (independently of other selection
2084: choices), it led to Monte Carlo significances which decreased by 0.2--$0.3
2085: \sigma$, a decrease of $M(\hc)$ by about 0.1 MeV/$c^2$ and $\brp \brh$
2086: by $0.3 \times 10^{-4}$ in data, but negligible changes in $M(\hc)$ and
2087: $\brp \brh$ in Monte Carlo. Systematic errors in $M(\hc)$ and $\brp \brh$
2088: from this source were estimated to be less than $\pm 0.1$
2089: MeV/$c^2$ and $\pm 0.1 \times 10^{4}$, respectively.
2090: \bigskip
2091:
2092: \leftline{\it 10. Mass ranges for $\pp \to X J/\psi$ cascade suppression.}
2093:
2094: In the $M(\ec)$ analysis, nominal mass ranges to suppress
2095: $\pi^+ \pi^- J/\psi$, $\pi^0 \pi^0 J/\psi$, and $\gamma \gamma J/\psi$ cascades
2096: involve recoil masses differing from $M(J/\psi)$ respectively by 8.4 MeV/$c^2$
2097: ($\pi^+ \pi^-$), 32 MeV/$c^2$ ($\pi^0 \pi^0$), and 40 MeV/$c^2$ ($\gamma
2098: \gamma$). These values were varied over the respective ranges 6.4--10.4,
2099: 22--42, and 30--50 MeV/$c^2$. The maximum variations from each mode were then
2100: added in quadrature. Possible changes of $\pm 0.2$ MeV/$c^2$ in $M(\hc)$ and
2101: $\pm 0.2\times 10^{-4}$ in $\brp \brh$ were seen in data, but negligible
2102: changes occurred in Monte Carlo simulations. These sources were thus estimated
2103: to lead to systematic errors of $\Delta M(\hc) < 0.1$ MeV/$c^2$ and $\Delta
2104: \brp \brh < 0.1 \times 10^{-4}$.
2105: \bigskip
2106:
2107: \leftline{\it 11. Minimum energy requirements on photons.}
2108:
2109: In suppressing $\pz \pz J/\psi$ cascades, a minimum energy of 50 MeV was taken
2110: for photon daughters in the $M(\ec)$ analysis. The result of reducing this
2111: energy to 40 MeV was a
2112: stronger suppression of both background and signal, leading to an upward shift
2113: of the mass by 0.2 MeV/$c^2$ in data and no change in $\brp \brh$ in data.
2114: Changes in mass and $\brp \brh$ were negligible in Monte Carlo.
2115: \bigskip
2116:
2117: \leftline{\it 12. Correction for updated $M(\pp)$.}
2118:
2119: The $M(\ec)$ analysis was based on the assumption of $M(\pp)=3685.96 \pm 0.09$
2120: MeV/$c^2$, the world average \cite{Hagiwara:2002fs} before the measurement of
2121: Ref.\ \cite{Aulchenko:2003qq}. With the present value of $M(\pp) = 3686.111
2122: \pm0.025 \pm0.009$ MeV/$c^2$, a correction of $+0.15$ MeV/$c^2$ thus was
2123: applied to the final quoted mass in that analysis.
2124: \bigskip
2125:
2126: \leftline{\bf B. Exclusive analysis}
2127: \bigskip
2128:
2129: Because the exclusive cascade rates were measured as ratios to the radiative
2130: decays, systematic uncertainties related to the $\eta_c$~final state cancel.
2131: The systematic studies dealt with estimating the statistical significance of
2132: the $h_{c}$ signal, the $h_{c}$ mass, and the production branching ratio.
2133:
2134: In order to study the background contribution from the non-$\pp$ part of the
2135: data (continuum data), 22 pb$^{-1}$ of continuum data (beam energy $\simeq
2136: 1835~{\rm MeV} = M(\pp)/2 - 7.5$ MeV) were analyzed in the same manner. The
2137: contribution of continuum data was found to be negligible.
2138:
2139: The generic Monte Carlo sample was used to see if any of the known $\pp$ decays
2140: could produce a fake peak which would mimic the signal. No significant peak
2141: was seen in the signal region (8 bins in the $\pi^{0}$ recoil mass histogram,
2142: from 3516 to 3532 MeV/$c^2$) with 39 million generic Monte Carlo events
2143: (13 times the data sample). This implies the
2144: signal seen in data is not due to a reflection of any known charmonium decays.
2145:
2146: The significance can be estimated from the background level in the signal
2147: region using the generic Monte Carlo or data sideband.
2148: Using events from the likelihood values of the fit with and without the
2149: signal contribution, we obtain $s = 6.1 \sigma$; similar calculations with
2150: different $\eta_c$ mass ranges yield $s=5.5-6.6\sigma$. Using events from
2151: the generic Monte Carlo sample, appropriately scaled so as to match event
2152: populations outside the signal region, we obtain an estimate of a mean
2153: background inside the signal window of $2.5 \pm 0.5$ events. Allowing for
2154: Poisson fluctuations of this number results in a probability that background
2155: completely accounts for the observed signal of 19 events of $1 \times 10^{-9}$
2156: ($s = 6.0 \sigma$). The binomial probability that the 47 data
2157: events in Fig.\ \ref{fig:fithcmass} and the 8 data events
2158: in the $\eta_c$ sideband, $2600 \le M(h_c) \le 2860$ MeV/$c^2$, of Fig.\
2159: \ref{fig:etacmass} fluctuate to be greater than the 19 events
2160: in the signal region, $3516 < M(h_c) < 3532$ MeV/$c^2$, of Fig.\
2161: \ref{fig:fithcmass} is $2.2 \times 10^{-7}$, which corresponds to a
2162: significance of $\sim 5.2 \sigma$.
2163: %JR added
2164: Estimates of signal significance are summarized in Table \ref{tb:chksys}.
2165:
2166: % This is Table XIV
2167: \begin{table} %[htbp]
2168: \caption{Checks of significance, $h_{c}$ mass and production branching ratio
2169: ($\br(\cascade)$ stability by varying key selection criteria (exclusive
2170: analysis).} \label{tb:chksys}
2171: \begin{center}
2172: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c| } \hline \hline
2173: Selection & Mass & ${\cal B}$(cascade)/ & Significance \\
2174: & (MeV/$c^2$) & ${\cal B}$(direct) & $(\sigma)$ \\ \hline
2175: \textbf{Default cuts} & \textbf{3523.6$\pm$0.9} & \textbf{0.178$\pm$0.049} &
2176: \textbf{6.1} \\ \hline
2177: Fit $\chi^{2} < 3$ & +0.1&0.192$\pm$0.056 & 6.2\\ \hline
2178: Fit $\chi^{2} < 5$ & +0.5& 0.178$\pm$0.051& 6.1\\ \hline
2179: Fit $\chi^{2} <$ 15 & 0.0&0.169$\pm$0.049 & 5.8\\ \hline
2180: Within 30 $\MeV$ of $\eta_{c}$ mass&+0.7&0.165$\pm$0.50&5.5\\ \hline
2181: Within 40 $\MeV$ of $\eta_{c}$ mass&+0.2&0.172$\pm$0.049&5.9\\ \hline
2182: Within 60 $\MeV$ of $\eta_{c}$ mass&0.0&0.172$\pm$0.049&5.9\\ \hline
2183: Within 80 $\MeV$ of $\eta_{c}$ mass&-0.1&0.188$\pm$0.052&6.6\\ \hline
2184: Transition photon $\pi^{0}$ veto (2$\sigma$)&0.0&0.168$\pm$0.051&5.6\\ \hline
2185: Transition photon $\pi^{0}$ veto (4$\sigma$)&+0.2&0.152$\pm$0.046&5.9\\ \hline
2186: Kinematic fitted $h_{c}$ &+0.4&0.166$\pm$0.049&5.6\\ \hline
2187: CLEOIII only &+0.5&0.158$\pm$0.069&3.9\\ \hline
2188: CLEOc only &-0.3&0.216$\pm$0.083&4.7\\ \hline \hline
2189: \end{tabular} \\
2190: \end{center}
2191: \end{table}
2192:
2193: The mass of $\hc$ is estimated from a $\pi^{0}$ recoil mass calculation. The
2194: systematic uncertainty associated with this estimate depends on the uncertainty
2195: of the $\pi^{0}$ energy scale, which is itself dependent on the energies of the
2196: photon daughters and their shower locations in the detector. Lower-energy
2197: photons and endcap photons have larger associated uncertainties.
2198: %\cite{photonsys}.
2199: The fraction of endcap photons is small ($<$10\%), so the
2200: shower-location effect on energy resolution was ignored. The signal $\pi^0$
2201: energy is around 160 MeV, and the corresponding $\pz$ daughter photon energies
2202: vary from 30 to 130 MeV, with respective uncertainties varying from 1.5\% to
2203: 0.2\%. By changing the
2204: photon energy uniformly by $\pm$1\%, the $\pi^{0}$ energy in the signal Monte
2205: Carlo was found to shift only less than $\pm 0.2$ MeV because of the $\pi^{0}$
2206: mass constraint in the analysis algorithm which fits neutral pions.
2207: Consequently, a 0.2 MeV systematic uncertainty in $M(\hc)$ was ascribed to the
2208: $\pi^{0}$ energy scale.
2209:
2210: %The systematic uncertainty in $M(h_c)$ associated with the $\pi^{0}$ recoil
2211: %mass calculation is the same in the exclusive analysis as in the inclusive
2212: %analyses (Sec.\ VIII A 2), namely, 0.2 MeV/$c^2$. As mentioned earlier,
2213: %reconstruction of the $\eta_c$ has little effect on this systematic error.
2214:
2215: The $\ec$ intrinsic width $\gec$ has not been
2216: accurately measured. In the exclusive signal Monte Carlo, it is set at 27 MeV.
2217: Because the efficiency for detecting $h_{c}$ is estimated from signal Monte
2218: Carlo and a range of $M(\ec)$ is selected, an overestimate of $\gec$ will
2219: result in an underestimated efficiency. On the other hand, it will lead to a
2220: wider signal shape for the $\ec$ signal in $\direct$ and hence to an increased
2221: $\ec$ yield. Thus the systematic error on the measured ratio of rates for
2222: $\cascade$ and $\direct$ is likely to be small because the two effects tend to
2223: cancel each other. A 2.3\% systematic error was assigned to the ratio from the uncertainty in the $\eta_{c}$ intrinsic
2224: width.
2225:
2226: The uncertainties in the $\eta_{c}$ decay branching ratios are large; no
2227: channel is known to better than 25\%. Changing the branching ratio of each
2228: mode 40\%, once per mode, the measured ratio was found to shift less than 1\%.
2229: Consequently, a 1\% systematic error on the ratio of rates was ascribed to
2230: $\eta_{c}$ decay branching ratios uncertainties.
2231:
2232: In the analysis of the photon recoil mass from the direct radiative decay, the
2233: $\eta_{c}$ mass was fixed at $2979.7$ MeV/$c^2$. When this mass was floated
2234: in fitting, the value determined from the fit was $M(\ec) = 2970.3 \pm 4.1$
2235: MeV/$c^2$. This result is lower than, but still consistent with, the CLEO
2236: inclusive photon transition study, in which the measured $\eta_{c}$ mass
2237: is $2976.1 \pm 2.3 \pm 3.3$ \cite{Skwarnicki:2003wn}. Varying the fixed value
2238: of the $\ec$ mass in the fit of the recoil mass distribution between 2970 and
2239: 2984 MeV/$c^2$ resulted in a variation of 3.6\% in the yield. Half of this
2240: value, 1.8\%, was assigned to the systematic uncertainty of the combined
2241: branching ratio due to uncertainty in $M(\ec)$.
2242:
2243: In the decay $\cascade$, the $\eta_c$ mass selection is based on the value
2244: obtained by reconstructing the $\eta_c$. When the $\eta_c$ mass selection
2245: window is shifted by $\pm$ 10 MeV/$c^2$, the measured value of $M(\hc)$ shifts
2246: by less than 0.2 MeV/$c^2$. We assign 0.2 MeV/$c^2$ as the $h_{c}$ mass
2247: systematic uncertainty due to uncertainty in $M(\ec)$.
2248:
2249: Neutral pion reconstruction efficiency has been studied in
2250: measurements of $D$ hadronic branching fractions. The discrepancy between Monte
2251: %JR space inserted |
2252: Carlo and data is less than 5\% \cite{He:2005bs}. We ascribe a 5\% systematic
2253: uncertainty in the ratio of rates to $\pi^{0}$ efficiency uncertainty.
2254: %JR added explanation
2255: This corresponds to an uncertainty in the product branching ratio of $0.27
2256: \times 10^{-4}$ for the exclusive analysis and $0.18 \times 10^{-4}$ for the
2257: inclusive analysis (which finds a slightly smaller product branching ratio).
2258:
2259: In the signal Monte Carlo for the exclusive analysis, $\ghc$ was set to zero, so
2260: the signal shape obtained from Monte Carlo essentially represented detector
2261: resolution. Varying the assumed value of $\ghc$ up to 1.5 MeV changed
2262: the measured $h_{c}$ mass by less than 0.1 MeV/$c^2$ and the branching ratio
2263: by 3.9\%. We also studied the effects of the signal shape by changing detector
2264: resolution by $\pm$ 20\%. The background in the exclusive study is quite small,
2265: so the $\pi^{0}$ recoil mass fit range was chosen
2266: starting from 3400 MeV$/c^2$. The wider background range helped to fit the
2267: background shape better. Varying the starting point of the fit from 3.40 to
2268: 3480 MeV$/c^2$ did not change the mass and branching ratio measurement much.
2269: First- and second-order polynomial background shapes were used to fit the
2270: background and to study the systematics. The mass change was 0.2 MeV/$c^2$ and
2271: the rate change was 4.7\%.
2272: % The total systematic error was found to be 0.4
2273: %MeV/$c^2$ on the $h_{c}$ mass and $10.0\%$ on the ratio of rates for $\direct$
2274: %and $\cascade$ (Table \ref{tab:sys}).
2275:
2276: The $\chi^{2}$ limit in kinematically constrained fits, the selection of the
2277: range for $M(\eta_{c})$, and the veto of E1 transition photon candidates
2278: forming a $\pi^{0}$ were found to be the most useful selection criteria in the
2279: exclusive study. Variation of these selection criteria within reasonable
2280: ranges did not change
2281: the corresponding $h_{c}$ mass and product branching ratios appreciably.
2282: The resolution in $M(\hc)$ obtained using $\pi^0$ momentum after kinematic fits
2283: was slightly better than that from measured $E(\pi^{0})$ by 2--5\%, depending
2284: on modes. Because different mass resolutions lead to difficulty in obtaining
2285: results and the possible gain in the mass measurement is small, momentum
2286: fitting was not used to obtain $M(\hc)$. Using the kinematically fitted
2287: $h_{c}$ mass yielded values of $M(\hc)$ and production branching ratio
2288: consistent with nominal results.
2289: \bigskip
2290:
2291: % \newpage
2292: \centerline{\bf IX. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION}
2293: \bigskip
2294:
2295: \leftline{\bf A. Inclusive analyses: Summary}
2296: \bigskip
2297:
2298: Two inclusive analyses of CLEO data in search of
2299: $\cascade$ yield an enhancement in the mass spectrum for recoils against
2300: $\pi^0$ attributed to the $h_c(1^1P_1)$ resonance of charmonium.
2301: When background is reduced by selecting a range of photon energies
2302: $\ege1 = 503 \pm 35$ MeV, the parameters of the resonance are found to be
2303: \beq
2304: M(h_{c}) = [3524.4 \pm 0.7~(\stat) \pm 0.4~(\sys)]{\rm~MeV}/c^2,
2305: \eeq
2306: \beq
2307: \brp \brh \equiv \br(\pp \to \pz \hc) \times \br(\hc \to \gamma \ec)
2308: = [3.4 \pm 1.0~(\stat) \pm 0.7~(\sys)] \times 10^{-4}.
2309: \eeq
2310: The significance of the resonance signal in this analysis, as determined by the
2311: likelihood method, is $3.6\sigma$. When background is reduced by selecting a
2312: range of $M(\ec) \pm 35$ MeV/$c^2$, to compensate for Doppler broadening of the
2313: photon in the transition $h_c \to \gamma \ec$ arising from the $\hc$ recoil,
2314: one finds
2315: \beq
2316: M(\hc) = [3525.4 \pm 0.6~(\stat) \pm 0.4~(\sys)]{\rm~MeV}/c^2,
2317: \eeq
2318: \beq
2319: %JR changed to symmetric errors
2320: \brp \brh = [3.5 \pm 0.9~(\stat) \pm 0.7~(\sys)] \times 10^{-4}.
2321: \eeq
2322: The significance of the resonance signal is $4.0 \sigma$.
2323: \bigskip
2324:
2325: \leftline{\bf B. Exclusive analysis: Summary}
2326: \bigskip
2327:
2328: The $h_{c}$ produced in the reaction $\cascade$ was studied by reconstructing
2329: $\eta_c$ in seven modes (Table \ref{tab:ecmodes}), leading to $17.5 \pm 4.5
2330: (\stat)$ signal events. The significance as calculated from the difference in
2331: the likelihood with and without the signal contribution is $6.1 \sigma$, and at
2332: least $5.2 \sigma$ as calculated by a variety of methods. The ratio of
2333: $\br(\cascade)$ to $\br(\pp \to \gamma \ec)$ was found to be
2334: \beq \label{eqn:ratio}
2335: \frac{\br(\pp \to \pz \hc) \br(\hc \to \gamma \ec)}{\br(\pp \to \gamma \ec)}
2336: = 0.178 \pm 0.049~(\stat) \pm 0.018~(\sys),
2337: \eeq
2338: with
2339: \beq
2340: %JR | was 0.4 (misprint). OK in PRL.
2341: M(\hc) = [3523.6 \pm 0.9~(\stat) \pm 0.5~(\sys)] {\rm~MeV}/c^2.
2342: \eeq
2343:
2344: In CLEO III $\pp$ data, the branching ratio $\br(\direct)$ was measured to
2345: be $(3.2 \pm 0.4~(\stat) \pm 0.6~(\sys)) \times 10^{-3}$ \cite{Athar:2004dn},
2346: which when combined with previous measurements whose average is $(2.8 \pm 0.6)
2347: \times 10^{-3}$ \cite{Eidelman:2004wy}, gives $\br(\direct) = (2.96 \pm 0.46)
2348: \times 10^{-3}$. Combining this with Eq.\ (\ref{eqn:ratio}), one obtains a
2349: production branching ratio of
2350: \beq
2351: \brp \brh = [5.3 \pm 1.5~(\stat) \pm 0.6~({\rm internal~sys})
2352: \pm 0.8~({\rm ext})]\times10^{-4},
2353: \eeq
2354: where the last error reflects the measurement error of $\br(\direct)$. The
2355: last two errors combine to give a total systematic error of $\Delta \brp \brh
2356: = 1.0 \pm 10^{-4}$.
2357: \bigskip
2358:
2359: \leftline{\bf C. Combination of results}
2360: \bigskip
2361:
2362: The results of the two inclusive analyses, when averaged (taking the larger
2363: systematic and statistical errors in each analysis), yield $M(h_c) = [3524.9
2364: \pm 0.7~(\stat) \pm 0.4~(\sys)$ MeV/$c^2$ and $\brp \brh=[3.5 \pm 1.0~(\stat)
2365: \pm 0.7~(\sys)] \times 10^{-4}$.
2366: %JR added sentence
2367: The average is taken because, as explained in the second-to-last paragraph
2368: of Sec.\ III, each inclusive analysis has its advantages and shortcomings,
2369: without a clear preference for one over the other.
2370: These results, which provide slightly more precise measurements of $M(h_c)$ and
2371: $\brp \brh$, may be combined with the exclusive results, based on
2372: reconstructing the $\ec$ in seven exclusive decay modes with much lower
2373: background.
2374: %%JR provisionally deleted several sentences and changed subsequent text
2375: %JR added sentences
2376: %The inclusive sample in the $\ege1$-selection analysis will contain the full
2377: %sample of the exclusive events since both analyses use both barrel
2378: %and endcap photons. The inclusive sample in the $M(\ec)$-selection analysis
2379: %JR changed 9/22 |||||| |||||
2380: %does not use endcap photons and hence misses three of the exclusive events.
2381: %JR added sentence 9/22
2382: %[The unbinned fit then leads to a signal of $15.0 \pm 4.1$ events and a mass
2383: %$M(h_c) = (3523.8 \pm 0.9)$ MeV/$c^2$ in the exclusive analysis.]
2384: %However, since the systematics of backgrounds are so different in the
2385: %inclusive and exclusive analyses, the information they provide on mass and
2386: %branching ratio may be regarded as independent data points. We therefore
2387: %combine the results to obtain
2388: %JR deleted The combined results are
2389: We have confirmed the independence of the exclusive analysis from the inclusive analyses by removing the exclusive signal events from our $\ege1$ inclusive
2390: sample. The results are indistinguishable from those of the original sample.
2391: We therefore combine them to obtain
2392: $M(\hc) = [3524.4 \pm 0.6~(\rm stat) \pm 0.4~({\rm sys})]$ MeV/$c^2$ and
2393: $\brp \brh = [4.0 \pm 0.8~({\rm stat}) \pm 0.7~{\rm (sys)}] \times 10^{-4}$,
2394: as summarized in Table \ref{tab:comb}.
2395:
2396: % This is Table XV
2397: \begin{table}
2398: \caption{$M(h_c)$ and $\brp \brh$ obtained by the inclusive and exclusive
2399: analyses; combined results.
2400: \label{tab:comb}}
2401: \begin{center}
2402: \begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
2403: Analysis & $M(h_c)$ (MeV/$c^2$) & $\brp \brh$ (units of $10^{-4}$) \\
2404: \hline
2405: Inclusive $\ege1$ & $3524.4\pm0.7\pm0.4$ & $3.4 \pm 1.0 \pm 0.7$ \\
2406: Inclusive $M(\ec)$ & $3525.4\pm0.6\pm0.4$ & $3.5 \pm 0.9^{+0.7}_{-0.4}$ \\
2407: Avg.\ Inclusive & $3524.9 \pm 0.7 \pm 0.4$ & $3.5 \pm 1.0 \pm 0.7$ \\
2408: Exclusive & $3523.6 \pm 0.9 \pm 0.4$ & $5.3 \pm 1.5 \pm 1.0$ \\
2409: Incl.\ + Excl.\ & $3524.4 \pm 0.6 \pm 0.4$ & $4.0 \pm 0.8 \pm 0.7$ \\
2410: \hline \hline
2411: \end{tabular}
2412: \end{center}
2413: \end{table}
2414: \bigskip
2415:
2416: \leftline{\bf D. Discussion}
2417: \bigskip
2418:
2419: The mass of the observed $\hc$ candidate is close to the spin-weighted average
2420: of the $\chi_{cJ}$ states, $(3525.4 \pm 0.1)$ MeV/$c^2$. This leads to
2421: $\Delta M_{\rm HF}(1P)
2422: \equiv \mav - M(1^1P_1) = [1.0 \pm 0.6~(\stat) \pm 0.4~(\sys)]$ MeV/$c^2$,
2423: indicating little contribution of a long-range vector confining force or
2424: coupled-channel effects which could cause a displacement from this value.
2425: It is barely consistent with the (nonrelativistic) bound $\Delta M_{\rm HF}(1P)
2426: \le 0$ \cite{Stubbe:1991qw}. The product of the
2427: branching ratios for its production, $\br(\pp \to \pz \hc)$, and its decay,
2428: $\br(\hc \to \gamma \ec)$, is within the range anticipated theoretically.
2429: \bigskip
2430:
2431: \centerline{\bf ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
2432: \bigskip
2433:
2434: We gratefully acknowledge the effort of the CESR staff
2435: in providing us with excellent luminosity and running conditions.
2436: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation
2437: and the United States Department of Energy. J. Rosner wishes to thank M. Tigner
2438: for extending the hospitality of the Laboratory for Elementary-Particle
2439: Physics at Cornell during part of this work and the John Simon Guggenheim
2440: Foundation for partial support.
2441:
2442: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
2443:
2444: %\cite{Aubert:1974js}
2445: \bibitem{Aubert:1974js}
2446: J.~J.~Aubert {\it et al.} [E598 Collaboration],
2447: %``Experimental Observation Of A Heavy Particle J,''
2448: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 33}, 1404 (1974).
2449: %%CITATION = PRLTA,33,1404;%%
2450:
2451: %\cite{Augustin:1974xw}
2452: \bibitem{Augustin:1974xw}
2453: J.~E.~Augustin {\it et al.} [SLAC-SP-017 Collaboration],
2454: %``Discovery Of A Narrow Resonance In E+ E- Annihilation,''
2455: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 33}, 1406 (1974).
2456: %%CITATION = PRLTA,33,1406;%%
2457:
2458: %\cite{Appelquist:1974zd}
2459: \bibitem{Appelquist:1974zd}
2460: T.~Appelquist and H.~D.~Politzer,
2461: %``Orthocharmonium And E+ E- Annihilation,''
2462: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 34}, 43 (1975);
2463: %%CITATION = PRLTA,34,43;%%
2464: %\cite{Appelquist:1974yr}
2465: %\bibitem{Appelquist:1974yr}
2466: T.~Appelquist, A.~De Rujula, H.~D.~Politzer, and S.~L.~Glashow,
2467: %``Charmonium Spectroscopy,''
2468: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 34}, 365 (1975);
2469: %%CITATION = PRLTA,34,365;%%
2470: %\cite{Eichten:1974af}
2471: %\bibitem{Eichten:1974af}
2472: E.~Eichten, K.~Gottfried, T.~Kinoshita, J.~B.~Kogut, K.~D.~Lane, and T.~M.~Yan,
2473: %``The Spectrum Of Charmonium,''
2474: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 34}, 369 (1975)
2475: [Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf 36}, 1276 (1976)];
2476: %%CITATION = PRLTA,34,369;%%
2477: %\cite{Eichten:1979ms}
2478: %\bibitem{Eichten:1979ms}
2479: E.~Eichten, K.~Gottfried, T.~Kinoshita, K.~D.~Lane, and T.~M.~Yan,
2480: %``Charmonium: Comparison With Experiment,''
2481: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 21}, 203 (1980);
2482: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D21,203;%%
2483: %\cite{Eichten:1978tg}
2484: %\bibitem{Eichten:1978tg}
2485: %E.~Eichten, K.~Gottfried, T.~Kinoshita, K.~D.~Lane, and T.~M.~Yan,
2486: %``Charmonium: The Model,''
2487: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 17}, 3090 (1978)
2488: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 21}, 313 (1980)].
2489: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D17,3090;%%
2490:
2491: %\cite{Novikov:1977dq}
2492: \bibitem{Novikov:1977dq}
2493: V.~A.~Novikov, L.~B.~Okun, M.~A.~Shifman, A.~I.~Vainshtein, M.~B.~Voloshin
2494: and V.~I.~Zakharov,
2495: %``Charmonium And Gluons: Basic Experimental Facts And Theoretical
2496: %Introduction,''
2497: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 41}, 1 (1978);
2498: %%CITATION = PRPLC,41,1;%%
2499: %\cite{Appelquist:1978aq}
2500: %\bibitem{Appelquist:1978aq}
2501: T.~Appelquist, R.~M.~Barnett and K.~D.~Lane,
2502: %``Charm And Beyond,''
2503: Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf 28}, 387 (1978).
2504: %%CITATION = ARNUA,28,387;%%
2505:
2506: %\cite{Kwong:1987mj}
2507: \bibitem{Kwong:1987mj}
2508: W.~Kwong, J.~L.~Rosner, and C.~Quigg,
2509: %``Heavy Quark Systems,''
2510: Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf 37}, 325 (1987).
2511: %%CITATION = ARNUA,37,325;%%
2512:
2513: %\cite{Quigg:2004nv}
2514: \bibitem{Quigg:2004nv}
2515: C.~Quigg, ``Quarkonium: New developments,'' presented at 18th Les Rencontres de
2516: Physique de la Vallee d'Aoste, La Thuile, Aosta Valley, Italy, Feb.\ 29 --
2517: Mar.\ 6, 2004, arXiv:hep-ph/0403187; C. Quigg, presented at 6th International
2518: Conference on Beauty, Charm, and Hyperons, Chicago, June 27 -- July 2, 2004
2519: (unpublished).
2520: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403187;%%
2521:
2522: %\cite{Eidelman:2004wy}
2523: \bibitem{Eidelman:2004wy}
2524: S.~Eidelman {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group Collaboration],
2525: %``Review of particle physics,''
2526: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 592}, 1 (2004).
2527: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B592,1;%%
2528:
2529: \bibitem{etacmass}
2530: Here we take $M(\ec) \simeq 2982$ MeV/$c^2$ based on CLEO measurements to be
2531: discussed subsequently. The average of measurements by the BaBar, Belle, and
2532: CLEO Collaborations is $M(\ec') = 3637.4 \pm 4.4$ MeV/$c^2$. See the review by
2533: K. K. Seth, hep-ex/0501022.
2534:
2535: %\cite{Ng:1985uq}
2536: \bibitem{Ng:1985uq}
2537: Y.~J.~Ng, J.~T.~Pantaleone, and S.~H.~H.~Tye,
2538: %``Spin Dependent Forces In Heavy Quark Systems,''
2539: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 55}, 916 (1985).
2540: %%CITATION = PRLTA,55,916;%%
2541:
2542: %\cite{Pantaleone:1985uf}
2543: \bibitem{Pantaleone:1985uf}
2544: J.~T.~Pantaleone, S.~H.~H.~Tye, and Y.~J.~Ng,
2545: %``Spin Splittings In Heavy Quarkonia,''
2546: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 33}, 777 (1986).
2547: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D33,777;%%
2548:
2549: %\cite{Ablikim:2005yd}
2550: %\bibitem{Ablikim:2005yd}
2551: % M.~Ablikim [BES Collaboration],
2552: %``Precise measurement of spin-averaged chi/cJ(1P) mass using photon
2553: %conversions in psi(2S) $\to$ gamma chi/cJ,''
2554: % arXiv:hep-ex/0502031.
2555: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0502031;%%
2556:
2557: \bibitem{models} % Potential models.
2558: S. Ono and F. Sch\"oberl, \plb{118}{419}{1982};
2559: P. Moxhay and J. L. Rosner, \prd{28}{1132}{1983};
2560: R. McClary and N. Byers, \prd{28}{1692}{1983};
2561: H. Grotch, D. A. Owen, and K. J. Sebastian, \prd{30}{1924}{1984};
2562: S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, \prd{32}{189}{1985};
2563: S. N. Gupta, S. F. Radford, and W. W. Repko, \prd{34}{201}{1986};
2564: K. Igi and S. Ono, \prd{36}{1550}{1987};
2565: D. Lichtenberg, E. Predazzi, and R. Roncaglia, \prd{45}{3268}{1992};
2566: P. J. Franzini, \plb{296}{199}{1992};
2567: F. Halzen, C. Olson, M. G. Olsson, and M. L. Stong, \plb{283}{379}{1992};
2568: %JR reference added
2569: D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, and V. O. Galkin, \prd{67}{014027}{2003};
2570: \mpla{20}{1887}{2005}.
2571:
2572: \bibitem{NRQCD} G. P. Lepage and B. A. Thacker, \npbps{4}{199}{1988};
2573: B. A. Thacker and G. P. Lepage, \prd{43}{196}{1991}.
2574:
2575: \bibitem{latt} % Recent lattice references
2576: T. Manke {\it et al.} [CP-PACS Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 114508
2577: (2000); M. Okamoto {\it et al.} [CP-PACS Collaboration], {\it ibid.} {\bf 65},
2578: 095408 (2002).
2579:
2580: %\cite{Baglin:1986yd}
2581: \bibitem{Baglin:1986yd}
2582: C.~Baglin {\it et al.} [R704 Collaboration],
2583: %``Search For The P Wave Singlet Charmonium State In Anti-P P Annihilations At
2584: %The Cern Intersecting Storage Rings,''
2585: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 171}, 135 (1986).
2586: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B171,135;%%
2587:
2588: %\cite{Armstrong:1992ae}
2589: \bibitem{Armstrong:1992ae}
2590: T.~A.~Armstrong {\it et al.} [Fermilab E-760 Collaboration],
2591: %``Observation of the p wave singlet state of charmonium,''
2592: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 69}, 2337 (1992).
2593: %%CITATION = PRLTA,69,2337;%%
2594:
2595: %\bibitem{Patrignani}
2596: %C. Patrignani, ``E835 at FNAL: Charmonium spectroscopy in $\bar p p$
2597: %annihilations,'' presented at 6th International Conference on
2598: %Hyperons, Charm, and Beauty Hadrons, Chicago, IL, 27 June -- 3 July 2004,
2599: %arXiv:hep-ex/0410085.
2600: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0410085;%%
2601:
2602: \bibitem{Joffe} D. Joffe, Ph.\ D. thesis, Northwestern University, 2004
2603: (unpublished).
2604:
2605: %\cite{Andreotti:2005vu}
2606: \bibitem{Andreotti:2005vu}
2607: M.~Andreotti {\it et al.} Fermilab E835 Collaboration],
2608: %``Results of a search for the h(c) (1)P(1) state of charmonium in the eta(c)
2609: %gamma and J/psi pi0 decay modes,''
2610: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 032001 (2005).
2611: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D72,032001;%%
2612:
2613: %\cite{Segre:1976wj}
2614: \bibitem{Segre:1976wj}
2615: G.~Segre and J.~Weyers,
2616: %``The 1+- State And Psi Spectroscopy,''
2617: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 62}, 91 (1976).
2618: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B62,91;%%
2619:
2620: \bibitem{Porter:1982}
2621: F. C. Porter [for the Crystal Ball Collaboration], in {\it New Flavors:
2622: Proceedings} (17th Rencontre de Moriond, Workshop on New Flavors, Les Arcs,
2623: France, 1982), edited by J. Tran Thanh Van and L. Montanet (Editions
2624: Fronti\`eres, Gif-sur-Yvette, France, 1982), p.\ 27;
2625: %\cite{Bloom:pc}
2626: %\bibitem{Bloom:pc}
2627: E.~D.~Bloom and C.~Peck,
2628: %``Physics With The Crystal Ball Detector,''
2629: Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf 33}, 143 (1983).
2630: %%CITATION = ARNUA,33,143;%%
2631:
2632: %\cite{Ko:1994nw}
2633: \bibitem{Ko:1994nw}
2634: P.~Ko,
2635: %``Search for eta(c)-prime and h(c) (P wave singlet) states in the e+ e-
2636: %annihilations,''
2637: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52}, 1710 (1995).
2638: % [arXiv:hep-ph/9505299].
2639: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9505299;%%
2640:
2641: %\cite{Kuang:2002hz}
2642: \bibitem{Kuang:2002hz}
2643: Y.~P.~Kuang,
2644: %``S-D mixing and searching for the psi(1(1)P(1)) state at BEPC,''
2645: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 094024 (2002).
2646:
2647: \bibitem{E1rate} % Estimates of E1 rate for $\hc \to \gamma \ec$.
2648: F. Renard, Phys.\ Lett. B {\bf 65}, 157 (1976);
2649: V. A. Novikov {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Reports {\bf 41}, 1 (1978);
2650: R. McClary and N. Byers, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 28}, 1692 (1983);
2651: Y. P. Kuang, S. F. Tuan, and T. M. Yan, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 37}, 1210 (1988);
2652: V.~O.~Galkin, A.~Y.~Mishurov, and R.~N.~Faustov,
2653: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 51}, 705 (1990)
2654: [Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 51}, 1101 (1990)];
2655: G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G. P. Lepage, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46}, 1914
2656: (1992); {\it ibid.} {\bf 51}, 1125 (1995);
2657: K. T. Chao {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 301}, 282 (1993);
2658: R. Casalbuoni {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 302}, 95 (1993);
2659: P. Ko, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 47}, 2837 (1993);
2660: S. N. Gupta, J. M. Johnson, W. W. Repko, and C. J. Suchyta III, Phys.\ Rev.\
2661: D {\bf 49}, 1551 (1994).
2662:
2663: %\cite{Godfrey:2002rp}
2664: \bibitem{Godfrey:2002rp}
2665: S.~Godfrey and J.~L.~Rosner,
2666: %``Production of singlet P-wave c anti-c and b anti-b states,''
2667: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 014012 (2002).
2668: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0205255].
2669: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205255;%%
2670:
2671: %\cite{Kubota:1991ww}
2672: \bibitem{Kubota:1991ww}
2673: Y.~Kubota {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
2674: %``The CLEO-II detector,''
2675: Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ A {\bf 320}, 66 (1992).
2676: %%CITATION = NUIMA,A320,66;%%
2677:
2678: %\cite{Viehhauser:2001ue}
2679: \bibitem{Viehhauser:2001ue}
2680: G.~Viehhauser [CLEO Collaboration],
2681: %``CLEO III operation,''
2682: Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ A {\bf 462}, 146 (2001).
2683: %%CITATION = NUIMA,A462,146;%%
2684:
2685: %\cite{Peterson:2002sk}
2686: \bibitem{Peterson:2002sk}
2687: D.~Peterson {\it et al.},
2688: %``The CLEO III drift chamber,''
2689: Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ A {\bf 478}, 142 (2002).
2690: %%CITATION = NUIMA,A478,142;%%
2691:
2692: %\cite{Artuso:2002ya}
2693: \bibitem{Artuso:2002ya}
2694: M.~Artuso {\it et al.},
2695: %``Construction, pattern recognition and performance of the CLEO III LiF-TEA
2696: %RICH detector,''
2697: Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ A {\bf 502}, 91 (2003).
2698: %[arXiv:hep-ex/0209009].
2699: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0209009;%%
2700:
2701: %\cite{Briere:2001rn}
2702: \bibitem{Briere:2001rn}
2703: R.~A.~Briere {\it et al.},
2704: %``{CLEO}--c and {CESR}--c: a new frontier of weak and strong,''
2705: CLNS-01-1742.
2706: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?r=clns-01-1742}{SPIRES entry}
2707:
2708: %\cite{Aulchenko:2003qq}
2709: \bibitem{Aulchenko:2003qq}
2710: V.~M.~Aulchenko {\it et al.} [KEDR Collaboration],
2711: %``New precision measurement of the J/psi and psi' meson masses,''
2712: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 573}, 63 (2003).
2713: %[arXiv:hep-ex/0306050].
2714: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0306050;%%
2715:
2716: \bibitem{etac}
2717: The CLEO Collaboration reports $M(\eta_c) = 2981.8\pm2.0$ MeV/$c^2$ and
2718: $\Gamma(\eta_c) = 24.7 \pm 5.1$ MeV (CLEO II) or $24.8 \pm 4.5$ MeV (CLEO III):
2719: D.~M.~Asner {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92},
2720: 142001 (2004). The BaBar Collaboration quotes $\Gamma(\eta_c) = 34.3 \pm
2721: 2.3 \pm 0.9$ MeV: B. Aubert {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 92}, 142002
2722: (2004).
2723:
2724: %\cite{Athar:2004dn}
2725: \bibitem{Athar:2004dn}
2726: S.~B.~Athar {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
2727: %``Photon transitions in psi(2S) decays to chi/cJ(1P) and eta/c(1S),''
2728: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 112002 (2004).
2729: %[arXiv:hep-ex/0408133].
2730: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0408133;%%
2731:
2732: %\cite{Adam:2005uh}
2733: \bibitem{Adam:2005uh}
2734: N.~E.~Adam [CLEO Collaboration],
2735: %``Branching fractions for psi(2S) to J/psi transitions,''
2736: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 94}, 232002 (2005).
2737:
2738: \bibitem{ARGUSfn}
2739: H. Albrecht {\it et al.} [ARGUS Collaboration], Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 241}, 278
2740: (1990).
2741:
2742: %\bibitem{cleo2etac} G. Brandenburg {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
2743: %Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 85}, 3095 (2000).
2744:
2745: \bibitem{EvtGen}
2746: D. J. Lange, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A
2747: {\bf 462}, 152 (2001).
2748:
2749: \bibitem{JETSET}
2750: T.~Sj\"ostrand et al., Comp.\ Phys.\ Comm.\ 135 (2001) 238;
2751: for more details see T.~Sj\"ostrand, L.\ L\"onnblad and S. Mrenna,
2752: {\it PYTHIA 6.2 Physics and Manual,} hep--ph/0108264.
2753:
2754: \bibitem{GEANT} R.~Brun {\it et al.}, GEANT~3.21, CERN Program Library
2755: Long Writeup W5013 (1993), unpublished.
2756:
2757: %\cite{Hagiwara:2002fs}
2758: \bibitem{Hagiwara:2002fs}
2759: K.~Hagiwara {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group],
2760: %``Review of particle physics,''
2761: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 010001 (2002).
2762: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%
2763:
2764: %\bibitem{photonsys} B. Heltsley, ``Further Adventures with the Calorimeter
2765: %Absolute Energy Calibration," CLEO Internal Note CBX 04-1 (unpublished).
2766:
2767: \bibitem{Skwarnicki:2003wn}
2768: T. Skwarnicki, Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 19}, 1030 (2004).
2769:
2770: \bibitem{He:2005bs}
2771: Q.~He {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
2772: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett {\bf 95}, 121801 (2005).
2773:
2774: %\cite{Stubbe:1991qw}
2775: \bibitem{Stubbe:1991qw}
2776: J.~Stubbe and A.~Martin,
2777: %``Where are the p wave singlet states in heavy quarkonia?,''
2778: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 271}, 208 (1991).
2779: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B271,208;%%
2780:
2781: \end{thebibliography}
2782: \end{document}
2783: