1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3:
4: % Set the following numbers to the correct values for your paper
5: \newcommand{\BABARPubYear} {05}
6: \newcommand{\BABARPubNumber} {00}
7: \newcommand{\BABARConfNumber} {013}
8: \newcommand{\SLACPubNumber} {11433}
9: %\newcommand{\LANLNumber} {0000}
10:
11: % Input the symbols file
12: \input pubboard/babarsym
13:
14: % Additional definitions for this paper
15: \def\Bztohh {\ensuremath{\Bz\to h^+h^{\prime -}}}
16: \def\Btohh {\ensuremath{\B \to h^+h^{\prime -}}}
17: \def\Btopipi {\ensuremath{\B \to \pip\pim}}
18: \def\Bztopipi {\ensuremath{\Bz \to \pip\pim}}
19: \def\Bubtopipiz {\ensuremath{\Bub \to \pim\piz}}
20: \def\Bztopizpiz {\ensuremath{\Bz \to \piz\piz}}
21: \def\Bzbtopizpiz {\ensuremath{\Bzb \to \piz\piz}}
22: \def\Btopipi {\ensuremath{\B \to \pip\pim}}
23: \def\Bztokpi {\ensuremath{\Bz \to \Kp\pim}}
24: \def\Bztokk {\ensuremath{\Bz \to \Kp\Km}}
25: \def\Bztopik {\ensuremath{\Bz \to \Km\pip}}
26: \def\Btokk {\ensuremath{\B \to \Kp\Km}}
27: \def\Bhh {\ensuremath{B_{hh^{\prime}}}}
28: \def\pipi {\ensuremath{\pi\pi}}
29: \def\kpi {\ensuremath{K\pi}}
30: \def\pik {\ensuremath{\pi K}}
31: \def\kk {\ensuremath{KK}}
32: \def\pipic {\ensuremath{\pi^+\pi^-}}
33: \def\kpic {\ensuremath{K^+\pi^-}}
34: \def\pikc {\ensuremath{\pi^+ K^-}}
35: \def\kkc {\ensuremath{K^+K^-}}
36: \def\hh {\ensuremath{h^+h^{\prime -}}}
37: \def\fish {\ensuremath{\cal F}}
38: \def\akpi {\ensuremath{{\cal A}_{K\pi}}}
39: \def\abkpi {\ensuremath{{\cal A}_{bK\pi}}}
40: \def\cerenkov{$\check{\rm C}{\rm erenkov}$ }
41: \def\qq {\ensuremath{q\bar{q}}}
42: \def\fp {\ensuremath{f_+(\deltat)}}
43: \def\fm {\ensuremath{f_-(\deltat)}}
44: \def\fpm {\ensuremath{f_{\pm}(\deltat)}}
45: \def\ilam {\ensuremath{{\cal I}m\lambda}}
46: \def\alam {\ensuremath{\left|\lambda\right|}}
47: \def\tcp {\ensuremath{t_{\CP}}}
48: \def\ttag {\ensuremath{t_{\rm tag}}}
49: \def\alphaeff {\ensuremath{\alpha_{\rm eff}}}
50: \def\spipi {\ensuremath{S_{\pi\pi}}}
51: \def\cpipi {\ensuremath{C_{\pi\pi}}}
52: \def\de {\ensuremath{\Delta E}}
53: \def\cerenkov{$\check{\rm C}{\rm erenkov}$ }
54: \def\wbar {\ensuremath{\bar{w}}}
55: \def\avgD {\ensuremath{\left<D\right>}}
56: \def\diffD {\ensuremath{\Delta D}}
57: \def\fBz {\ensuremath{f_{\Bz \,{\rm tag}}}}
58: \def\fBzb {\ensuremath{f_{\Bzb \,{\rm tag}}}}
59: \def\FBz {\ensuremath{F_{\Bz \,{\rm tag}}}}
60: \def\FBzb {\ensuremath{F_{\Bzb \,{\rm tag}}}}
61: \def\fMixBz {\ensuremath{f_{{\rm mix},\, \Bz \,{\rm tag}}}}
62: \def\fUnMixBz {\ensuremath{f_{{\rm unmix},\, \Bz \,{\rm tag}}}}
63: \def\fMixBzb {\ensuremath{f_{{\rm mix},\, \Bzb \,{\rm tag}}}}
64: \def\fUnMixBzb {\ensuremath{f_{{\rm unmix},\,\Bzb \,{\rm tag}}}}
65: \def\FMixBz {\ensuremath{F_{{\rm mix},\, \Bz \,{\rm tag}}}}
66: \def\FUnMixBz {\ensuremath{F_{{\rm unmix},\, \Bz \,{\rm tag}}}}
67: \def\FMixBzb {\ensuremath{F_{{\rm mix},\, \Bzb \,{\rm tag}}}}
68: \def\FUnMixBzb {\ensuremath{F_{{\rm unmix},\, \Bzb \,{\rm tag}}}}
69: \def\dedx {\ensuremath{dE/dx}}
70: \def\dedxfrac {\ensuremath{\frac{dE}{dx}}}
71: \def\thetac {\ensuremath{\theta_c}}
72: \def\Ema {\ensuremath{\times 10^{-1}}}
73: \def\Emb {\ensuremath{\times 10^{-2}}}
74: \def\Emc {\ensuremath{\times 10^{-3}}}
75: \def\Emd {\ensuremath{\times 10^{-4}}}
76: \def\Eme {\ensuremath{\times 10^{-5}}}
77: \def\Emf {\ensuremath{\times 10^{-6}}}
78: \def\Emg {\ensuremath{\times 10^{-7}}}
79: \def\Emh {\ensuremath{\times 10^{-8}}}
80: \def\Emi {\ensuremath{\times 10^{-9}}}
81:
82: \setlength{\textwidth}{16.5cm}
83: \setlength{\textheight}{22.2cm}
84: \setlength{\hoffset}{-2.0cm}
85: \setlength{\voffset}{-2.3cm}
86:
87: % This is needed to format the full author list
88: \long\def\inst#1{\par\nobreak\kern 4pt\nobreak
89: {\it #1}\par\vskip 10pt plus 3pt minus 3pt}
90:
91: \begin{document}
92: {\pagestyle{empty}
93:
94: \begin{flushright}
95: \babar-CONF-\BABARPubYear/\BABARConfNumber \\
96: SLAC-PUB-\SLACPubNumber \\
97: %hep-ex/\LANLNumber \\
98: %\today \\
99: \end{flushright}
100:
101: \par\vskip 5cm
102:
103: % Title of the paper
104: \begin{center}
105: \Large \bf \boldmath Improved Measurements of Branching Fractions for\\
106: $\Bz\to\pip\pim$, $\Kp\pim$, and Search for $\Kp\Km$
107: at \babar\
108: \end{center}
109: \bigskip
110:
111: \begin{center}
112: \large The \babar\ Collaboration\\
113: \mbox{ }\\
114: \today
115: \end{center}
116: \bigskip \bigskip
117:
118: % Abstract
119: \begin{center}
120: \large \bf Abstract
121: \end{center}
122: We present preliminary measurements of branching fractions
123: for the charmless two-body decays $\Bz\to\pip\pim$ and $\Kp\pim$, and
124: a search for $\Bz\to\Kp\Km$ using a data sample of approximately 227
125: million $\BB$ decays. Signal yields are extracted with
126: a multi-dimensional maximum likelihood fit, and the efficiency is
127: corrected for the effects of final-state radiation. We find the
128: charge-averaged branching fractions (in units of $10^{-6}$):
129: \begin{eqnarray}
130: \BR(\Bz\to\pip\pim) & = & 5.5\pm 0.4\pm 0.3, \\
131: \BR(\Bz\to\Kp\pim) & = & 19.2\pm 0.6\pm 0.6, \\
132: \BR(\Bz\to\Kp\Km) & = & < 0.40.
133: \end{eqnarray}
134: The errors are statistical followed by systematic, and the upper limit on
135: $\Kp\Km$ represents a confidence level of $90\%$.
136:
137: \vfill
138: \begin{center}
139: Presented at the
140: International Europhysics Conference On High-Energy Physics (HEP 2005),
141: 7/21---7/27/2005, Lisbon, Portugal
142: \end{center}
143:
144: \vspace{1.0cm}
145: \begin{center}
146: {\em Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University,
147: Stanford, CA 94309} \\ \vspace{0.1cm}\hrule\vspace{0.1cm}
148: Work supported in part by Department of Energy contract DE-AC03-76SF00515.
149: \end{center}
150:
151: \newpage
152: } % end of pagestyle{empty}
153:
154: % Input author list file
155: \input pubboard/authors_conf05013.tex
156:
157: % The body of the paper starts here
158: \section{INTRODUCTION}
159: \label{sec:Introduction}
160: Charmless hadronic two-body $B$ decays to pions and kaons provide a wealth of
161: information on \CP\ violation in the $B$ system, including all three angles of the
162: unitarity triangle. The time-dependent \CP\ asymmetries in the $\pi\pi$ system can be
163: used to measure the angle $\alpha$~\cite{pipialpha}; the decay rates for the
164: $K\pi$ channels provide information on $\gamma$~\cite{gammaKpi}; and the
165: time-dependent \CP\ asymmetry in $\piz\KS$ approximately measures $\beta$ in the
166: standard model~\cite{kspi0} and is a sensitive probe of new physics in the $b\to s$
167: penguin-decay process~\cite{kspi0NP}. Recently, direct \CP\ violation in decay was
168: established in the $B$ system through observation of a significant rate asymmetry between
169: $\Bz\to\Kp\pim$ and $\Bzb\to\Km\pip$~\cite{babarAkpi,belleAkpi}.
170: As $B$-physics experiments accumulate much larger data sets, charmless two-body $B$ decays
171: will continue to play a critical role in testing the standard model description of
172: \CP\ violation.
173:
174: In order to extract the maximum information from these decays it is necessary to
175: understand the underlying hadron dynamics, and measurements of branching fractions for
176: all of the charmless two-body $B$ decays involving combinations of $\pipm,~\Kpm,~\piz$,
177: and $\KS$ are invaluable in testing the various theoretical
178: approaches~\cite{thy}. We present preliminary measurements of branching fractions
179: for the decays~\cite{cc} $\Bz\to\pip\pim$ and $\Kp\pim$, and a search for the decay $\Bz\to\Kp\Km$
180: using a data set $2.5$ times larger than the one used for our previous measurements of
181: these quantities~\cite{BaBarsin2alpha2002}.
182: Table~\ref{tab:oldresults} summarizes previous experimental
183: measurements~\cite{BaBarsin2alpha2002,belleBR,cleoBR} and current theoretical
184: estimates of the branching fractions for these decays.
185:
186: \begin{table}[!b]
187: \caption{Summary of existing branching fraction measurements (in units of $10^{-6}$) and
188: theoretical estimates for the decays $\Bz\to\pip\pim,~\Kp\pim,~\Kp\Km$. Theory estimates
189: are from Beneke {\em et al.} and Keum in Ref.~\cite{thy}.}
190: \begin{center}
191: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
192: \hline\hline
193: Mode & $\BR({\rm \babar})$~\cite{BaBarsin2alpha2002} & $\BR({\rm Belle})$~\cite{belleBR} & $\BR({\rm CLEO})$~\cite{cleoBR} & Theory\\\hline
194: $\pip\pim$ & $4.7\pm 0.6\pm 0.2$ & $4.4\pm 0.6\pm 0.3$ & $4.5^{+1.4~+0.5}_{-1.2~-0.4}$ & $4.6$-$11.0$\\
195: $\Kp\pim$ & $17.9\pm 0.9\pm 0.7$ & $18.5\pm 1.0\pm 0.7$ & $18.0^{+2.3~-1.2}_{-2.1~-0.9}$ & $12.7$-$21.0$\\
196: $\Kp\Km$ & $<0.6$ & $<0.7$ & $<0.8$ & $0.007$-$0.080$ \\
197: \hline\hline
198: \end{tabular}
199: \label{tab:oldresults}
200: \end{center}
201: \end{table}
202:
203: \section{THE \babar\ DETECTOR AND DATASET}
204: \label{sec:babar}
205: The data sample used for this search contains $(226.6\pm 2.5)\times 10^6$
206: $\Y4S\to\BB$ decays collected by the \babar\ detector~\cite{ref:babar} at the
207: SLAC PEP-II $\epem$ asymmetric-energy storage ring. The primary detector
208: components used in the analysis are a charged-particle tracking system
209: consisting of a five-layer silicon vertex detector and a 40-layer drift chamber
210: surrounded by a $1.5$-T solenoidal magnet, and a dedicated particle-identification
211: system consisting of a detector of internally reflected
212: Cherenkov light (DIRC) providing $K$--$\pi$ separation over the range of laboratory
213: momentum relevant for this analysis ($1.5$--$4.5\gevc$).
214:
215: \section{ANALYSIS METHOD}
216: \label{sec:Analysis}
217: The data sample used in this analysis is similar to that used in the \babar\ measurements
218: of direct \CP\ violation in $\Kp\pim$~\cite{babarAkpi} and time-dependent
219: \CP-violating asymmetry amplitudes $\spipi$ and $\cpipi$~\cite{BaBarsin2alpha2005} (the
220: reader is referred to those references for further details on the analysis
221: technique). Relative to the event selection applied in the \CP\ analyses, we remove
222: the requirement on the difference in the decay times ($\Delta t$) between the two $B$
223: mesons in order to minimize systematic uncertainty on the branching fraction measurements.
224: All other selection criteria are identical to those applied in
225: Refs.~\cite{babarAkpi,BaBarsin2alpha2005}. We identify $B\to h^+h^-$ ($h = \pi$ or $K$) candidates
226: with selection requirements on track and Cherenkov-angle ($\theta_c$) quality, $B$-decay
227: kinematics, and event topology, and determine signal and background yields through a
228: multi-dimensional maximum-likelihood fit. The final sample contains $69264$ events and
229: is defined by requirements on the energy difference, $\left | \de\right | < 150\mev$, and
230: energy-substituted mass, $5.20 < \mes < 5.29\gevcc$, of the selected $B$
231: candidates~\cite{ref:mesdedef}.
232:
233: The efficiency of the selection criteria is determined in large samples of
234: \geant-based Monte Carlo simulated signal decays. We include the
235: effects of electromagnetic radiation from charged particles using the PHOTOS
236: simulation package~\cite{photos}. The addition of final-state radiation (FSR) leads
237: to the development of a low-energy tail in the distribution of $\de$ for $\Bz\to h^+h^-$
238: signal candidates, which can cause some fraction of events to fail the
239: $\left |\de \right | < 150\mev$ requirement. We have implemented a detailed QED
240: calculation~\cite{QED} up to ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ in order to correct the efficiency obtained by the
241: PHOTOS simulation. Table~\ref{tab:eff} summarizes the comparison of the efficiencies for
242: the different modes assuming no FSR, the PHOTOS result, and the QED calculation. For the
243: branching fraction measurement we use the efficiency as determined by the QED calculation,
244: and take the difference with respect to PHOTOS as the systematic uncertainty.
245:
246: \begin{table}[!tbp]
247: \caption{Summary of total detection efficiencies $(\%)$ for signal decays determined in
248: \geant\ Monte Carlo samples without FSR effects, compared with the results using
249: PHOTOS and the leading-order QED calculation. We use the latter result in calculating
250: the branching fraction and take the difference with PHOTOS as the systematic
251: uncertainty. Uncertainties are statistical only.}
252: \begin{center}
253: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
254: \hline\hline
255: Mode & No FSR & PHOTOS & QED\\\hline
256: $\pip\pim$ & $40.9\pm 0.2$ & $39.9\pm 0.2$ & $39.4\pm 0.2$\\
257: $\Kp\pim$ & $39.9\pm 0.2$ & $38.9\pm 0.2$ & $38.4\pm 0.2$\\
258: $\Kp\Km$ & $38.6\pm 0.3$ & $37.8\pm 0.3$ & $37.6\pm 0.3$\\
259: \hline\hline
260: \end{tabular}
261: \label{tab:eff}
262: \end{center}
263: \end{table}
264:
265: In addition to signal $\pip\pim$, $\Kp\pim$, and (possibly) $\Kp\Km$ events, the selected
266: sample includes background from the process $\epem\to q\bar{q}~(q = u,d,s,c)$. Possible backgrounds
267: from other $B$ decays are small relative to the signal yields ($<1\%$), and are treated as a
268: systematic uncertainty. We use an unbinned, extended maximum-likelihood fit to extract
269: simultaneously signal and background yields in the three topologies ($\pi\pi$, $K\pi$, and $KK$).
270: The fit uses the discriminating variables $\mes$, $\de$, $\theta_c$, and the Fisher discriminant
271: ${\cal F}$ described in Ref.~\cite{BaBarsin2alpha2002}, where the likelihood for event $j$ is
272: obtained by summing the product of the event yield $n_i$ and probability ${\cal P}_i$ over the
273: signal and background hypotheses $i$. The total likelihood for the sample is
274: \begin{equation}
275: {\cal L} = \exp{\left(-\sum_{i}n_i\right)}
276: \prod_{j}\left[\sum_{i}n_i{\cal P}_{i}(\vec{x}_j;\vec{\alpha}_i)\right].
277: \end{equation}
278: The probabilities ${\cal P}_i$ are evaluated as the product of
279: the probability density functions (PDFs) with parameters $\vec{\alpha_i}$,
280: for each of the independent variables
281: $\vec{x}_j = \left\{\mes, \de, {\cal F}, \theta_c^+,\theta_c^-\right\}$,
282: where $\theta_c^+$ and $\theta_c^-$ are the Cherenkov angles for the
283: positively- and negatively-charged tracks, respectively. The largest correlation
284: between the $\vec{x}_j$ is $13\%$ for the pair $(\mes,\de)$ and we have confirmed
285: that it has negligible effect on the fitted yields. For both signal and background,
286: the ${\Kpm\pimp}$ yields are parameterized as
287: $n_{\Kpm\pimp} = n_{K\pi}\left(1\mp\akpi\right)/2$, and we fit directly
288: for the total yield $n_{K\pi}$ and the asymmetry $\akpi$. The result for
289: $\akpi$ is used only as a consistency check and does not supersede our previously
290: published result~\cite{babarAkpi}.
291:
292: The eight parameters describing the background shapes for $\mes$, $\de$, and ${\cal F}$ are all
293: allowed to vary freely in the maximum-likelihood fit. We use a threshold function~\cite{argus}
294: for $\mes$ ($1$ parameter), a second-order polynomial for $\de$ ($2$ parameters), and
295: a sum of two Gaussian distributions for ${\cal F}$ ($5$ parameters). For the signal shape in
296: $\mes$, we use a single Gaussian distribution to describe all three channels and allow the mean
297: and width to vary freely in the fit. For $\de$, we use the sum of two Gaussian distributions
298: (core $+$ tail), where the core parameters are common to all channels and allowed to vary freely,
299: and the tail parameters are determined separately for each channel from Monte Carlo simulation
300: and fixed in the fit. Given that the tail is dominated by FSR effects, we take the shape directly
301: from the Monte Carlo samples after correcting for the difference between PHOTOS and the QED
302: calculation. For the signal shape in ${\cal F}$, we use an asymmetric Gaussian function with
303: different widths below and above the mean. All three parameters are determined in Monte Carlo
304: simulation and fixed in the maximum-likelihood fit. The $\theta_c$ PDFs are obtained from a
305: sample of approximately $430000$ $D^{*+}\to D^0\pi^+\,(\Dz\to\Km\pip)$ decays reconstructed in
306: data, where $\Kmp/\pipm$ tracks are identified through the charge correlation with the $\pipm$
307: from the $D^{*\pm}$ decay. The PDFs are constructed separately for $\Kp$, $\Km$, $\pip$, and
308: $\pim$ tracks as a function of momentum and polar angle using the measured and expected values of
309: $\theta_c$, and its uncertainty. We use the same PDFs for signal and background events.
310:
311: Table~\ref{tab:results} summarizes the fitted signal and background yields, and $K\pi$
312: charge asymmetries. We find a value of $\akpi$ consistent with our previously published result,
313: and a background asymmetry consistent with zero. The signal yields are somewhat higher than the
314: values reported in Ref.~\cite{babarAkpi} due to the removal of the $\Delta t$ selection
315: requirement and the addition of the radiative tail in the signal $\de$ PDF. In order to quantify
316: the effect of FSR on the fitted yields, we perform a second fit using a single Gaussian for the
317: $\de$ PDF allowing the mean and width to vary freely. The results are shown in the second column
318: of Table~\ref{tab:results}, where we find that ignoring FSR lowers the $\pi\pi$ yield by $4.5\%$
319: and the $K\pi$ yield by $2.4\%$.
320:
321: \begin{table}[!tbp]
322: \caption{Summary of the branching fraction fit using a sample of approximately $227$ million $\BB$ pairs.
323: For comparison, we show the results using a single Gaussian for the signal $\de$ PDF, which would correspond
324: to an analysis that ignores FSR effects.}
325: \begin{center}
326: \begin{tabular}[!tbp]{ccc}
327: \hline
328: \hline
329: Parameter & Nominal Fit & Ignoring FSR\\
330: \hline
331: $N_{\pi\pi}$ &$ 491 \pm 35 $&$ 469\pm 34 $ \\
332: $N_{K\pi}$ &$ 1674 \pm 53 $&$ 1634\pm 52 $ \\
333: ${\cal A}_{K\pi}$ &$ -0.135\pm 0.030 $&$ -0.135\pm 0.030 $ \\
334: $N_{KK}$ &$ 3.0\pm 13.1 $&$ 5.3\pm 12.6 $ \\
335: $N_{b\pi\pi}$ &$ 32977\pm 194 $&$ 32998\pm 194 $ \\
336: $N_{bK\pi}$ &$ 20761\pm 169 $&$ 20801\pm 169 $ \\
337: ${\cal A}_{bK\pi}$ &$ 0.002\pm 0.008 $&$ 0.002\pm 0.008 $ \\
338: $N_{bKK}$ &$ 13358\pm 126 $&$ 13356\pm 126 $ \\
339: \hline\hline
340: \end{tabular}
341: \label{tab:results}
342: \end{center}
343: \end{table}
344:
345: As a crosscheck, in Figs.~\ref{fig:signal} and~\ref{fig:bkg} we compare the PDF shapes
346: (solid curves) to the data using the event-weighting technique described in
347: Ref.~\cite{sPlots}. For each plot, we perform a fit excluding the variable being plotted and
348: use the fitted yields and covariance matrix to determine a weight that each event is either
349: signal or background. The distribution is normalized to the yield for the given component and
350: can be compared directly to the assumed PDF shape. For $\mes$, $\de$, and ${\cal F}$, we find
351: excellent agreement for signal $\pi\pi$ and $K\pi$ events (Fig.~\ref{fig:signal}), as well as
352: the sum of all channels for background events (Fig.~\ref{fig:bkg}). We have verified separately
353: that the background PDF shapes agree for all three channels. Figure~\ref{fig:lr} shows the
354: likelihood ratio ${\cal L}_S/\sum{{\cal L}_i}$ for all $69264$ events in the fitted sample,
355: where ${\cal L}_S$ is the likelihood for a given signal hypothesis, and the summation in the
356: denominator is over all signal and background components in the fit. We find satisfactory
357: agreement between data (points with error bars) and the distributions obtained by directly
358: generating events from the PDFs (histograms).
359:
360: \begin{figure}[!tbp]
361: \begin{center}
362: \includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/pipi_mes_splot.eps}
363: \includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/pipi_de_splot.eps}
364: \includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/pipi_fisher_splot.eps}
365: \includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/kpi_mes_splot.eps}
366: \includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/kpi_de_splot.eps}
367: \includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/kpi_fisher_splot.eps}
368: \caption{Distributions (points with error bars) of $\mes$, $\de$, and ${\cal F}$ for signal
369: $\pip\pim$ (a,b,c) and $\Kp\pim$ (d,e,f) decays using the weighting technique described in
370: Ref.~\cite{sPlots}. Solid curves represent the corresponding PDFs used in the fit. The
371: distribution of $\de$ for $\Kp\pim$ events is shifted due to the assignment of the pion mass
372: for all tracks.}
373: \label{fig:signal}
374: \end{center}
375: \end{figure}
376:
377: \begin{figure}[!tbp]
378: \begin{center}
379: \includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/bkg_mes_splot.eps}
380: \includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/bkg_de_splot.eps}
381: \includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/bkg_fisher_splot.eps}
382: \caption{Distributions of a) $\mes$, b) $\de$, and c) ${\cal F}$ for $q\bar{q}$ background events
383: (points with error bars) using the weighting technique described in Ref.~\cite{sPlots}. Solid
384: curves represent the corresponding PDFs used in the fit.}
385: \label{fig:bkg}
386: \end{center}
387: \end{figure}
388:
389: \begin{figure}[!tbp]
390: \begin{center}
391: \includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/pipi_lr.eps}
392: \includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/kpi_lr.eps}
393: \includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/kk_lr.eps}
394: \caption{The likelihood ratio ${\cal L}_S/\sum{{\cal L}_i}$, where ${\cal L}_S$ is the
395: likelihood for each event to be a signal $\pi\pi$ (left), $K\pi$ (middle), or $KK$ (right) event.
396: The points with error bars show the distribution obtained on the fitted data sample, while the
397: histograms show the distributions obtained by generating signal (red) and background (blue) events
398: directly from the PDFs.}
399: \label{fig:lr}
400: \end{center}
401: \end{figure}
402:
403: \section{SYSTEMATIC STUDIES}
404: Systematic uncertainties on the branching fractions arise from uncertainties on the selection
405: efficiency, signal yield, and number of $\BB$ events in the sample. Uncertainty on the
406: efficiency is dominated by track reconstruction ($1.6\%$) and the effect of FSR ($1.3\%$), which
407: is taken to be the difference between the efficiency as determined in the PHOTOS simulation and
408: the QED calculation (Table~\ref{tab:eff}).
409: Uncertainty on the fitted signal yields is dominated by the shape of the signal PDF for
410: ${\cal F}$ ($2.9\%$ for $\pi\pi$, $1.5\%$ for $K\pi$) and potential bias
411: ($2.2\%$ for $\pi\pi$, $0.9\%$ for $K\pi$) in the fitting technique determined from large samples
412: of Monte Carlo signal events and a large ensemble of pseudo-experiments generated from the PDF
413: shapes. Uncertainties due to imperfect knowledge of the PDF shapes for $\mes$, $\de$, and
414: $\theta_c$ are all less than $1\%$. Table~\ref{tab:sysbr} summarizes the total uncertainty on
415: the branching fractions, which is calculated as the sum in quadrature of the individual
416: uncertainties.
417:
418: \begin{table}[!tbp]
419: \caption{Summary of relative systematic uncertainties on yields, efficiencies, and
420: number of $\BB$ pairs. For the $\Kp\Km$ yield we show the absolute uncertainty.
421: The total uncertainties for $\pip\pim$ and $\Kp\pim$ are calculated as the sum in
422: quadrature of the individual contributions.}
423: \begin{center}
424: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
425: \hline\hline
426: Source & $\pip\pim$ & $\Kp\pim$ & $\Kp\Km$\\
427: \hline
428: yields &$ 3.8\% $&$ 1.8\% $&$ 6.8 $\\
429: efficiency &$ 2.6\% $&$ 2.5\% $&$ 2.0\% $\\
430: $N_{\BB}$ &$ 1.1\% $&$ 1.1\% $&$ 1.1\% $\\
431: \hline
432: Total &$ 4.7\% $&$ 3.3\% $& n/a \\
433: \hline\hline
434: \end{tabular}
435: \label{tab:sysbr}
436: \end{center}
437: \end{table}
438:
439: \section{RESULTS and SUMMARY}
440: \label{sec:Physics}
441: Table~\ref{tab:brfinalresults} summarizes the preliminary results for the charge-averaged
442: branching fractions. For comparison, we use the efficiencies and signal yields determined under
443: the assumption of no FSR and find $\BR(\Bz\to\pip\pim) = 5.1\times 10^{-6}$ and
444: $\BR(\Bz\to\Kp\pim)= 18.1\times 10^{-6}$, which are consistent with our previously published
445: results~\cite{BaBarsin2alpha2002}. Taking into account FSR effects leads to an increase of the
446: branching fractions by approximately $8\%$ and $6\%$ for $\pi\pi$ and $K\pi$, respectively.
447: The upper limit on the signal yield for $KK$ is given by the value of
448: $N_0$ for which
449: $\int_0^{N_0} {\cal L}_{\rm max}\,dN/\int_0^\infty {\cal L}_{\rm max}\,dN = 0.90$,
450: corresponding to a one-sided $90\%$ confidence interval. Here, ${\cal L}_{\rm max}$ is the
451: likelihood as a function of $N$, maximized with respect to the remaining fit parameters.
452: We find $N_0 = 25.9$, and the branching fraction is calculated by increasing the signal
453: yield upper limit and reducing the efficiency by their respective total errors
454: (Table~\ref{tab:sysbr}). For the purpose of combining with measurements by other experiments, we
455: have also evaluated the central value for the branching fraction and find
456: $\BR(\Bz\to\Kp\Km) = (4\pm 15\pm 8)\times 10^{-8}$.
457:
458: \begin{table}
459: \caption{Summary of branching fraction results in a sample of $(226.6\pm
460: 1.2)\times 10^{6}$ $\BB$ pairs.
461: We show signal yields $N_S$, total detection efficiencies ($\epsilon$) and branching fractions
462: $\BR$ in units of $10^{-6}$. The errors are statistical and systematic, respectively, and
463: the upper limit on $\Bz\to\Kp\Km$ corresponds to the $90\%$ confidence level.}
464: \begin{center}
465: \begin{tabular}{lcccc}
466: \hline\hline
467: Mode & $N_S$ & $\epsilon\,(\%)$ & \BR($10^{-6}$) \\
468: \hline
469: $\pip\pim$ & $491\pm 35\pm 11$ & $39.4\pm 0.2\pm 0.9$ & $5.5\pm 0.4\pm 0.3$ \\
470: $\Kp\pim$ & $1674\pm 53\pm 15$ & $38.4\pm 0.2\pm 0.8$ & $19.2\pm 0.6\pm 0.6$ \\
471: $\Kp \Km$ & $3.0\pm 13.1\pm 6.8\,(<25.9)$ & $37.6\pm 0.3\pm 0.8$ & $<0.40$ ($90\%$ C.L.) \\
472: \hline\hline
473: \end{tabular}
474: \end{center}
475: \label{tab:brfinalresults}
476: \end{table}
477:
478: In summary, we have presented preliminary updated measurements of charge-averaged branching
479: fractions for the decays $\Bz\to\pip\pim$ and $\Bz\to\Kp\pim$, where FSR effects have been
480: taken into account. We find a value of $\akpi$ consistent with the result in
481: Ref.~\cite{babarAkpi}, and branching fractions $6$-$8\%$ higher due to the
482: effect of FSR on the efficiency and signal-yield determination. This difference should be
483: taken into account when comparing with previous measurements of these quantities
484: (Table~\ref{tab:oldresults}) that do not include these effects. Our results are consistent
485: with current theoretical estimates using various techniques~\cite{thy}. We find no
486: evidence for the decay $\Bz\to\Kp\Km$ and set an upper limit of $4.0\times 10^{-7}$ at the
487: $90\%$ confidence level.
488:
489: \section{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
490: \label{sec:Acknowledgments}
491:
492: % Standard acknowledgments paragraph; must always be included.
493: \input pubboard/acknowledgements
494:
495: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
496:
497: % The NIM detector performance paper
498: \bibitem{pipialpha}
499: M.~Gronau, \jprl{63}, 1451 (1989); M.~Gronau and D.~London, \jprl{65}, 3381 (1990).
500:
501: \bibitem{gammaKpi}
502: M.~Gronau, J.~L.~Rosner, and D.~London, \jprl{73}, 21 (1994);
503: R.~Fleischer and T.~Mannel, \jprd{57}, 2752 (1998);
504: M.~Neubert and J.~L.~Rosner, \plb{441}, 403 (1998);
505: A.~J.~Buras and R.~Fleischer, \epjc{11}, 93 (1999);
506: for a recent review see M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner, hep-ph/0311280 (2003).
507:
508: \bibitem{kspi0}
509: R.~Fleischer, \plb{365}, 399 (1996).
510:
511: \bibitem{kspi0NP}
512: M.~Gronau, Y.~Grossman, and J.~L.~Rosner, \plb{579}, 331 (2004).
513:
514: \bibitem{babarAkpi}
515: \babar\ Collaboration, B.~Aubert {\em et al.}, \jprl{93}, 131801 (2004).
516:
517: \bibitem{belleAkpi}
518: Y.~Chao {\em et al.}, \jprl{93}, 191802 (2004).
519:
520: \bibitem{thy}
521: M.~Ciuchini {\em et al.}, \plb{515}, 33 (2001);
522: C.~W.~Bauer, S.~Fleming, D.~Pirjol, and I.~W.~Stewart, \jprd{63}, 114020 (2001);
523: M.~Beneke and M.~Neubert, \npb{675}, 333 (2003);
524: J.~Charles {\em et al.}, \epjc{31}, 503 (2003);
525: Y.-Y.~Keum, Pramana {\bf 63}, 1151 (2004);
526: C.-W.~Chiang, M.~Gronau, J.~L.~Rosner, and D.~A.~Suprun, \jprd{70}, 034020 (2004);
527: A.~J.~Buras, R.~Fleischer, S.~Recksiegel, and F.~Schwab, \npb{697}, 133 (2004).
528:
529: \bibitem{cc}
530: The use of charge conjugate modes is implied throughout this paper unless otherwise
531: stated.
532:
533: \bibitem{BaBarsin2alpha2002}
534: \babar\ Collaboration, B.~Aubert {\em et al.}, \jprl{89}, 281802 (2002).
535:
536: \bibitem{belleBR}
537: Belle Collaboration, Y.~Chao {\em et al.}, \jprd{69}, 111102 (2004).
538:
539: \bibitem{cleoBR}
540: CLEO Collaboration, A.~Bornheim {\em et al.}, \jprd{68}, 052002 (2003).
541:
542: \bibitem{ref:babar}
543: \babar\ Collaboration, B.~Aubert {\em et al.},
544: Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Methods {\bf A479}, 1-116 (2002).
545:
546: \bibitem{BaBarsin2alpha2005}
547: \babar\ Collaboration, B.~Aubert {\em et al.}, hep-ex/0501071, to appear in
548: \jprl (2005).
549:
550: \bibitem{ref:mesdedef}
551: The variables $\de$ and $\mes$ are defined in Ref.~\cite{babarAkpi}.
552:
553: \bibitem{photos}
554: E.~Barberio and Z.~Was, \cpc{79}, 291 (1994). We use version $2.03$.
555:
556: \bibitem{QED}
557: E.~Baracchini and G.~Isidori, hep-ph/0508071.
558:
559: \bibitem{argus}
560: ARGUS Collaboration, H.~Albrecht {\em et al.}, \zpc{48}, 543 (1990).
561:
562: \bibitem{sPlots}
563: M.~Pivk and F.~R.~Le Diberder, physics/0402083, submitted to Nucl. Instr. Methods.
564:
565: \end{thebibliography}
566:
567: \end{document}
568: