1: %
2: % Author: Asish Satpathy
3: % University of Texas at Austin
4: % BaBar Collaboration
5: %
6: % Use this class for normal prd format
7: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,aps,prl,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
8: \usepackage{graphicx}
9: \usepackage{dcolumn}
10: \usepackage{amsmath}
11: \usepackage{epsfig}
12: %\usepackage[mathlines,pagewise]{lineno}
13: %\usepackage[pagewise]{lineno}
14:
15: \input pubboard/babarsym
16:
17: \noindent \BABARPubNumber \\
18: \noindent \SLACPubNumber \\
19: %\noindent \LANLNumber \\
20:
21: \begin{center} \end{center}
22:
23: \title{ {\large \bf \boldmath Search for the W-exchange decays {\boldmath $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{(*)-} D_{s}^{(*)+}$}}}
24:
25: %% author list as of 02-Aug-2005 (633 authors)
26: \input pubboard/authors_aug2005
27:
28: \begin{abstract}
29: We report a search for the decays \btodsds, \btodstds ~and \btodstdst ~in a
30: sample of 232 million $\Upsilon(4S)$ decays to \BBb ~pairs
31: collected with the \babar~detector at the PEP-II asymmetric-energy $e^+ e^-$ storage ring.
32: We find no significant signal and set upper bounds for the branching fractions:
33: ${\cal B}(B^{0} \to D_{s}^{-} D_{s}^{+}) < 1.0 \times 10^{-4},
34: {\cal B}(B^{0} \to D_{s}^{*-} D_{s}^{+}) < 1.3 \times 10^{-4}$
35: and ${\cal B}(B^{0} \to D_{s}^{*-} D_{s}^{*+}) < 2.4 \times 10^{-4}$ at
36: 90\% confidence level.
37: \end{abstract}
38:
39: \pacs{ 13.25.Hw}% PACS, the Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme.
40:
41: \maketitle
42:
43: In the Standard Model (SM), $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{(*)-} D_{s}^{(*)+}$ decays
44: are dominated by the W-exchange mechanism $\bar{b} d \to c \bar{c}$ as shown in
45: Figure 1, while the corresponding loop diagram is highly suppressed.
46: The decay rates of W-exchange or annihilation processes
47: are usually argued to be negligibly small due to the suppression from
48: helicity and/or form factors~\cite{fritzsch}; however this
49: assumption has not been well tested experimentally.
50:
51: \begin{figure}[htb]
52: \setlength{\unitlength}{0.4mm}
53: \begin{picture}(70,200)(80,50)
54: %------------------------(1)
55: \put(70,240){\line(1,0){90}}
56: \put(70,190){\line(1,0){90}}
57: \put(62,236){$\bar{b}$}
58: \put(62,186){$d$}
59: \put(40,210.5){$B^0_d~~~~~~~~~~~W^{+}$}
60: \put(163,238){$\bar{c}$}
61: \put(163,187){$c$}
62: \put(163,225){$s$}
63: \put(163,200){$\bar{s}$}
64: \put(176,191){$D_{s}^{(*)+}$}
65: \put(176,230){$D_{s}^{(*)-}$}
66: \put(160,215){\oval(70,25)[l]}
67: \put(85,240){\vector(-1,0){2}}
68: \put(85,190){\vector(1,0){2}}
69: \put(145,240){\vector(-1,0){2}}
70: \put(145,190){\vector(1,0){2}}
71: \put(145,227.5){\vector(1,0){2}}
72: \put(145,202.5){\vector(-1,0){2}}
73: \multiput(100,235.6)(0,-4.1){12}{$>$}
74: \end{picture}
75: \vspace{-5.5cm}
76: \caption{\label{fig:dsds_dia} W-exchange decay diagram
77: for $B^0 \rightarrow D_{s}^{(*)-} D_{s}^{(*)+}$.}
78: \end{figure}
79: Recently, it has been pointed out that it is
80: difficult to calculate these decay amplitudes using the factorization approach,
81: and a perturbative QCD (pQCD)~\cite{ying} model has been used to predict the
82: branching fraction for these decays. Prediction of branching fractions
83: from an alternative model~\cite{eeg} gives
84: an estimate of non-factorizable contributions coming from chiral loops (CL) and
85: tree level amplitudes generated by soft gluon emission forming
86: a gluon condensate (GC) and it differs from pQCD approach
87: by large amounts, as shown in Table~\ref{tab:theory-rev}.
88: \begin{table}[ht]
89: \caption{Summary of theoretical predictions of the branching fractions.}
90: \label{tab:theory-rev}
91: \begin{center}
92: \begin{tabular}{ l c c }
93: \hline \hline
94: \B Decays & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Branching Fraction ($\times 10^{-5}$)} \\
95: %\cline{2-3}
96: & ~~~pQCD~\cite{ying}~~~ & CL-GC~\cite{eeg} \\ \hline
97: &\\[-9pt]
98:
99: $B^0 \rightarrow D_{s}^{-} D_{s}^{+}$ & $7.8 \pm ^{2.0}_{1.6}$ & $25.0$\\
100: $B^0 \rightarrow D_{s}^{*-} D_{s}^{+}$ & $6.0 \pm ^{1.6}_{1.1}$ & $33.0$ \\
101: $B^0 \rightarrow D_{s}^{*-} D_{s}^{*+}$ & $8.5 \pm ^{2.0}_{1.8}$ & $54.0$ \\
102: \hline \hline
103: \end{tabular}
104: \end{center}
105: \end{table}
106:
107: It has been estimated that a $C\!P$ asymmetry of the order of 10\% could arise
108: between $B^0 \rightarrow D_{s}^{-} D_{s}^{+}$ and its charge conjugate~\cite{blok}.
109: A measurement of the decay rates of $B^0 \to D_{s}^{(*)-} D_{s}^{(*)+}$
110: relative to those of $B^{0} \to D^{(*)-} D^{(*)+}$
111: will provide an estimate of the W-exchange contribution to the latter decay, a crucial
112: piece of information for extracting the CKM angle
113: $\gamma$ from $B^{0} \to D^{(*)-} D^{(*)+}$
114: and $B^0 \to D^{(*)-} D_{s}^{(*)+}$ decays~\cite{datta}.
115:
116: Using 211 \invfb\ of data taken on the
117: \FourS\ resonance with the \babar\ detector at the \pep2\ asymmetric $B$
118: factory, we report a search for
119: $B^0 \rightarrow D_{s}^{-} D_{s}^{+}$, $B^0 \rightarrow D_{s}^{*-} D_{s}^{+}$
120: and $B^0 \rightarrow D_{s}^{*-} D_{s}^{*+}$ decays~\cite{charge-conjugate}.
121: We use the $D_{s}^{*-}$ decays into $D_{s}^{-} \gamma $ and $D_{s}^{-}$ decays into $\phi \pi^{-}$,
122: $K_{s}^{0} K^{-}$, and $K^{*0} K^{-}$. The
123: $\phi$, $K_{s}$ and $K^{*0}$ mesons are reconstructed in their decays to
124: $K^{+}K^{-}, \pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ and \ksts, respectively.
125:
126: The \babar\ detector is described in detail
127: elsewhere~\cite{detector}.
128: Tracking of charged particles is provided by a five-layer silicon
129: vertex tracker (SVT) and a 40-layer drift chamber (DCH).
130: Discrimination between charged pions and kaons relies upon ionization energy loss (${\rm d}E/{\rm d}x$)
131: in the DCH and SVT, and upon Cherenkov photons detected in a ring-imaging
132: detector (DIRC). An electromagnetic
133: calorimeter (EMC), consisting of 6580 thallium-doped CsI crystals,
134: is used to identify electrons and photons.
135: These detector sub-systems are mounted inside a 1.5-T solenoidal
136: superconducting magnet. Finally, the instrumented flux return of the
137: magnet allows us to discriminate muons from other particles.
138: We use the GEANT4 Monte Carlo (MC)~\cite{geant4} program to simulate the
139: response of the detector, taking into account the varying
140: accelerator and detector conditions.
141:
142: Charged tracks used in the reconstruction of $\phi$, $K^{*}(892)^{0}$ and
143: $D_{s}$ meson candidates must have a distance of closest approach to the
144: interaction point of less than $1.5$~cm in the transverse plane and less than
145: $10$ cm along the beam axis.
146: All kaon candidates must pass
147: particle identification (PID) criteria, based on a neural-network
148: algorithm which uses measurements of ${\rm d}E/{\rm d}x$ in the DCH and the SVT,
149: Cherenkov angles and the number of Cherenkov photons in the DIRC.
150: No PID requirement is applied to the pion candidates.
151: A $\phi$ candidate is composed of two identified kaons of opposite charge
152: that are consistent with originating from a common vertex. We accept
153: $\phi$ candidates with invariant mass $1.000 < m_{K^{+}K^{-}} < 1.039$~\gev.
154: $K_{s}^{0}$ candidates are composed of two oppositely-charged tracks
155: coming from a common vertex with an invariant mass
156: $0.491 < m_{\pi^{+} \pi^{-}} < 0.505$~\gev.
157: $K^{*}(892)^{0}$ candidates are reconstructed from
158: two oppositely-charged tracks, where one track is identified as a kaon, with
159: an invariant mass $ 0.842 < m_{K^{-}\pi^{+}} < 0.942 $~\gev.
160:
161: We reconstruct $D_{s}^{-}$ mesons from
162: decays to $\phi \pi^{-}$, $K_{s}^{0} K^{-}$, and $K^{*}(892)^0 K^{-}$
163: using tracks coming from a common vertex with a $\chi^2$ probability greater than 0.1\%.
164: The reconstructed mass of $D_{s}^{-}$ candidates is required to
165: be within 2.7 to 3.0 standard deviations of the nominal mass;
166: a typical mass resolution of $D_{s}$ is about 5.1~\mev.
167: The selected $D_{s}$ candidates are then
168: kinematically fit with their masses constrained to the nominal value~\cite{PDG}.
169: In the decays $D_{s}^{-} \to \phi \pi^{-}$ ($K^{*}(892)^0 K^{-}$),
170: the $\phi$ ($K^{*}(892)^0$) mesons are polarized longitudinally. Therefore
171: the cosine of the decay angle $\theta_{H}$ between the direction of
172: the $K^-$ from $\phi$ ($\pi^-$ from $K^{*}(892)^{0}$) and the $D_{s}^{-}$
173: direction in the $\phi$ ($K^{*}(892)^{0}$) rest frame is expected
174: to follow $\cos^{2}\theta_{H}$ distribution.
175: Background events from random combinations are expected to be uniformly
176: distributed in $\cos\theta_{H}$.
177: We place a decay mode-dependent requirement on the minimum value of
178: $|\cos\theta_{H}|$, which varies from 0.3 to 0.5 and
179: rejects 13 to 24\% of the combinatorial background.
180:
181: $D_{s}^{*-}$ candidates are formed by combining
182: $D_{s}^{-}$ and $\gamma $ candidates with a mass
183: difference $\Delta M$ = $M_{D_{s}^{*-}} - M_{D_{s}^{-}} $ in the
184: range of $0.125 < \Delta M <0.160 $ \gev.
185: The photon energy measured in the EMC is required to
186: be more than 100 \mev.
187:
188: $B^{0}$ meson candidates are reconstructed by combining either
189: (i) two oppositely charged $D_{s}$ candidates,
190: (ii) one $D_{s}^{*}$ candidate and an oppositely charged $D_{s}$ candidate
191: or (iii) two oppositely charged $D_{s}^{*}$ candidates.
192: Finally, two quantities are used to discriminate between $B^{0}$-meson signal and
193: background: the beam-energy-substituted mass
194: $\mes = \sqrt{E^{*2}_{b} - ({\bf{p}^{*}_{B}})^{2}} $
195: and the energy difference $\Delta E = E^{*}_B - E^{*}_{b}$,
196: where $E^{*}_{b}$ is the beam energy in the center of mass (CM) frame,
197: and ${\bf{p}^{*}_{B}}$ ($E^{*}_B$) is the CM momentum (energy) of the
198: $B^{0}$-meson candidate.
199: For signal events \mes peaks at the $B^{0}$-meson mass with a typical resolution
200: of 2.5 \mev, dominated by the uncertainty of the
201: beam energy, and $\Delta E$ peaks near zero indicating that the
202: $B$ decay candidate has a total energy consistent with
203: the beam energy in the CM frame. Depending on the particular $B^{0}$ decay mode,
204: the measured resolution for $\Delta E$ is $6.5-13.3$ \mev.
205:
206: Multiple candidates are found in 3\% to 5\%
207: of the selected events in the three different $B^{0}$ decay modes.
208: The best candidate in each event is selected based on the smallest
209: $\chi^2$ combination, where
210: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:chi2}
211: \chi^2\!\equiv \! \sum \left|\frac{m_{D_{s}^{\pm}}\!- \overline{m}_{D_{s}^{\pm}}}{\sigma_{m_{D_{s}^{\pm}}}}\right|^2\!\!+
212: \sum \left|\frac{\Delta M\!- \overline{\Delta M}}{\sigma_{\Delta M}}\right|^2\!\!,
213: \end{eqnarray}
214: and the sum is over $D_{s}^{(*)+}$ and $D_{s}^{(*)-}$ candidates participating in a particular
215: $B^{0}$ decay.
216: The mean values ($\overline{m}_{D_{s}^{\pm}}$ and $\overline{\Delta M}$) are the nominal
217: values given in Ref.~\cite{PDG} and the errors ($\sigma_{m_{D_{s}^{\pm}}}$, $\sigma_{\Delta M}$)
218: are measured in a data control sample of $B^{0} \to D^{-} D_{s}^{(*)+}$ decays.
219:
220: A small source of remaining background is $e^{+} e^{-} \to q \bar{q}$ production,
221: which is suppressed based on event topology.
222: We restrict the angle ($\theta_{T}$) between the thrust axis~\cite{thrust-axis} of the
223: $B^{0}$ meson candidate and the thrust axis of the rest of the particles in the event.
224: In the CM frame, \BBb~pairs are produced approximately at rest and
225: form a nearly uniform distribution in $|\cos\theta_{T}|$. In contrast, hadrons in $q \bar{q}$ events
226: are produced back-to-back in two jets, which results in a $|\cos\theta_{T}|$
227: distribution peaked at 1. Based on the background level of each mode, we require
228: the value of $|\cos\theta_{T}|$ to be less than a mode-dependent upper limit,
229: which ranges from 0.83 and 0.9. We require $R_2 < 0.4$,
230: where $R_2$ is the ratio of the second Fox-Wolfram moment to the zeroth
231: moment~\cite{fox-wolfram}, both determined using charged tracks
232: and unmatched neutral showers in the event.
233:
234: For different $B^{0}$ meson decays, a signal region is
235: defined in a two dimensional scatter plane of \mes and
236: $\Delta E$ as shown in Table~\ref{tab:efficiency}.
237: Optimization of the selection
238: is performed separately for each of the three $B^{0}$ decays~\cite{optimization} by
239: maximizing a figure of merit, $S^{2}/(S + B)$, where $S$ is the number of signal events
240: in the signal box as derived from the MC simulation and $B$ is the number of background events
241: estimated from simulations of generic $B$-decays and $q \bar{q}$ continuum.
242: We use the same selection criteria for different $B^{0}$ decay modes if
243: the figure of merit differs by less than 10\%.
244:
245: After the aforementioned selection, four possible background sources are considered.
246: First, the amount of combinatorial background in the signal region is estimated
247: from the grand sideband region: $-0.25 < \Delta E <0.25$ \gev and $5.20 < m_{ES} < 5.27$ \gev.
248: The second source of backgrounds arises from
249: $B$ meson decays such as $B^{0} \to D^{(*)-} D_{s}^{(*)+}$ and
250: $B^{-} \to D_{s}^{(*)-} D^{(*)0}$.
251: These background events have the same
252: \mes distribution as the signal, but their reconstructed energy is higher than the beam energy.
253: Third, the cross-feed background that may arise among the six combinations of $D_{s} D_{s}$ modes
254: and the three reconstructed $B^{0}$ decay mode
255: was studied with a large sample of signal MC and the corresponding
256: contributions were found to be small.
257: Finally, rare $B$ decays into the same final state particles,
258: such as non-resonant $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{-} K^{0} K^{+}$,
259: have the same \mes and $\Delta E$ distributions as the signal. This source of
260: background is estimated to be negligible.
261:
262: Figure~\ref{fig:scatter} shows the distributions of candidates for
263: (i) $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{-} D_{s}^{+}$ (ii) $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{*-} D_{s}^{+}$
264: and (iii) $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{*-} D_{s}^{*+}$ decays
265: in the $\Delta E$ versus \mes plane after all selection criteria have been applied.
266: \begin{figure}[!htb]
267: \begin{center}
268: \includegraphics[width=8.0cm, height=5.2cm]{prd_dsds.eps}\\
269: \includegraphics[width=8.0cm, height=5.2cm]{prd_dstds.eps}\\
270: \includegraphics[width=8.0cm, height=5.2cm]{prd_dstdst.eps}\\
271: \caption{Distributions of events in the $\Delta E$ versus \mes plane, for
272: (i) $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{-} D_{s}^{+}$ (ii) $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{*-} D_{s}^{+}$
273: and (iii) $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{*-} D_{s}^{*+}$ decays after all selection criteria are applied.
274: The box in each plot is the signal region based on studies with MC simulation as
275: described in the text.}
276: \label{fig:scatter}
277: \end{center}
278: \end{figure}
279: We find 6, 4 and 3 candidate events in the signal boxes
280: that survived the selection criteria for the $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{-} D_{s}^{+}$,
281: $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{*-} D_{s}^{+}$ and $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{*-} D_{s}^{*+}$
282: decay processes, respectively. The combinatorial background
283: in the signal box ($N_{bkg}^{comb}$), is estimated from the number of events
284: in the grand sideband region of the data.
285: We compute the average number of background ($N_{bkg}^{avg}$) within the
286: region $E_{2} < \Delta E <E_{1}$ \gev and $5.20 < m_{ES} < 5.27$ \gev
287: from a fit to the
288: $\Delta E$ distribution of the data events in the grand sideband (described well by
289: a first order polynomial function $P(\Delta E)$) as:
290: $N_{bkg}^{avg} = N_{GSB} \times \int^{E_{2}}_{E_{1}} P(\Delta E)/ \int^{0.25}_{-0.25} P(\Delta E) $,
291: where $E_{1}$ and $E_{2}$ are the $\Delta E$ energy bounds
292: of the signal box as shown in Table~\ref{tab:efficiency} and $ N_{GSB}$ is the
293: total number of events in the grand sideband region.
294: The $m_{ES}$ projection of these background events is modeled with the
295: threshold function~\cite{argus},
296: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:threshold}
297: \frac{dN}{dx} = x\sqrt{1-{x}^2 / E_{b}^{*2}} {~\rm exp} [\xi(1-{x}^2/E_{b}^{*2})],
298: \end{eqnarray}
299: characterized by the shape parameter $\xi$, the
300: endpoint parameter $E_{b}^{*}$ fixed at 5.289 \gev and $x = m_{ES}$.
301: $N_{bkg}^{comb}$ in the signal box is then estimated from $N_{bkg}^{avg}$ scaled
302: by a factor: $\int^{5.29}_{5.27}\frac{dN}{dx}/ \int^{5.27}_{5.2} \frac{dN}{dx}$.
303: We vary $E_{b}^{*}$ by $\pm 2$ \mev
304: to include its effect in the systematic uncertainties in $N_{bkg}^{comb}$.
305: The measured uncertainties due to the choice of threshold parameter $\xi$,
306: endpoint parameter $E_{b}^{*}$, and parameter of the polynomial fit
307: are combined in quadrature with the Poisson fluctuation of the number of events
308: in the grand sideband to obtain the total error on $N_{bkg}^{comb}$.
309: This procedure does not account for any potential
310: backgrounds that are enhanced in the
311: signal region. The simulation indicates that only a
312: small component of the background from the $B^{0} \rightarrow D_{s}^{(*)-}D^{(*)+}$
313: and $B^{0} \rightarrow D_{s}^{(*)-}D^{(*)0}$ decay
314: exhibits a peaking \mes distribution. This component, $N_{bkg}^{peak}$, is
315: extracted from a binned likelihood fit to the \mes distribution of simulated events
316: using a combination of the threshold function and a Gaussian.
317: The $\xi$ parameter in the threshold function is fixed to the
318: value we obtained from the fit to the data grand sideband. The mean
319: and width of the Gaussian component is fixed to the fit values obtained
320: from $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{-} D^{+}$ decays in the data. Uncertainties in $N_{bkg}^{peak}$ arising
321: from the $D_{s}^{(*)-}D^{(*)+}$ and $D_{s}^{(*)-}D^{(*)0}$ branching fractions~\cite{PDG}
322: are added to its statistical error obtained from the fit.
323: $N_{bkg}^{comb}$ and $N_{bkg}^{peak}$ are added
324: to obtain the total estimated background, $N_{bkg}$,
325: as quoted in Table~\ref{tab:efficiency}.
326: \begin{table}[ht]
327: \caption{ The number of signal candidates ($N_{cand}$), total estimated background
328: ($N_{bkg}$), efficiency from MC simulation times the branching fraction
329: ($\epsilon_{i} \times {\cal B}$), and 90\% C.L. upper limit for
330: $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{-} D_{s}^{+}$, $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{*-} D_{s}^{+}$
331: and $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{*-} D_{s}^{*+}$ decay modes.}
332: \label{tab:efficiency}
333: \begin{center}
334: \begin{tabular}{ l l l l }
335: \hline \hline
336: &\\[-9pt]
337: & $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{-} D_{s}^{+}$ & $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{*-} D_{s}^{+}$ & $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{*-} D_{s}^{*+}$ \\
338: \hline
339: &\\[-9pt]
340: $\Delta E $(MeV) &\ -18.0--18.0 &\ -25.0--20.0 &\ -46.0--30.0 \\
341: \hline
342: \mes (GeV) &\ 5.27--5.29 &\ 5.27--5.29 &\ 5.27--5.29 \\
343: \hline
344: $\sum_{i} \epsilon {\cal B}$ &\ 3.51 $\times 10^{-4}$ &\ 1.47 $\times 10^{-4}$ &\ 0.85 $\times 10^{-4}$ \\
345: \hline
346: $N_{cand}$ &\ 6 &\ 4 &\ 3 \\
347: \hline
348: $N_{bkg}$ &\ $3.3\pm 1.0$ &\ $3.9 \pm 1.2$ &\ $2.3 \pm 0.9$ \\
349: \hline
350: U.L. &\ $< 1.0 \times 10^{-4}$ &\ $< 1.3 \times 10^{-4}$ &\ $< 2.4 \times 10^{-4} $ \\
351: &\\[-9pt]
352: \hline \hline
353: \end{tabular}
354: \end{center}
355: \end{table}
356:
357: We consider the following sources of systematic uncertainty for the signal efficiencies.
358: The particle reconstruction and identification efficiencies are obtained from simulation,
359: and cross-checked and corrected using large data control samples. This results in systematic
360: uncertainties of (1) 0.8\% per charged track;
361: (2) 2.5\% per reconstructed $K^{0}_{s}$ candidate; (3) 2.5\% per identified charged kaon
362: and (4) 1.8\% per reconstructed photon.
363: The uncertainty on the number of \BBb ~ events is estimated to be 1.1\%.
364: Depending on the $B$ submodes, the error from the MC statistics is 2\% to 4.5\%.
365: The systematic errors are dominated by the 13.3\%
366: relative uncertainty on ${\cal B}(D_{s}^{-} \to \phi \pi^{-})$~\cite{babar_new},
367: and 15.8\% and 9.8\% errors in ${\cal B}(D_{s}^{-} \to K_{s}^{0} K^{-})$
368: and ${\cal B}(D_{s}^{-} \to K^{*0} K^{-})$ relative to ${\cal B}(D_{s}^{-} \to \phi \pi^{-})$,
369: respectively~\cite{PDG}. The uncertainty in modeling the simulation of the
370: $\Delta E$, $|\cos\theta_{T}|$, $|\cos\theta_{H}|$ distributions
371: is evaluated using a ratio of the signal yield from
372: $B^{0} \to D^{-} D_{s}^{(*)+}$ data control sample and generic \BBb ~MC.
373: Each selection requirement is varied and the resulting relative
374: change in the ratio is assigned as the systematic error.
375: The error due to vertexing is obtained
376: by taking the difference in the ratio with and without the vertex requirement in the
377: $D_{s}$ candidate selection. A summary of the systematic uncertainties in
378: signal efficiency is given in Table~\ref{tab:systematics}.
379: \begin{table}[ht]
380: \caption{Summary of systematic uncertainties for signal efficiencies.}
381: \begin{center}
382: \begin{tabular}{l c c c}
383: \hline \hline
384: &\\[-9pt]
385: Systematics & $D_{s}^{-} D_{s}^{+}$ (\%) & $D_{s}^{*-} D_{s}^{+}$ (\%) & $D_{s}^{*-} D_{s}^{*+}$ (\%) \\
386: \hline
387: %&&&\\[-9pt]
388: Tracking eff. & 4.3 & 4.3 & 4.3 \\
389: $K_{s}$ eff. & 2.7 & 2.7 & 2.7 \\
390: Kaon PID & 9.2 & 9.2 & 9.2 \\
391: Photon eff. & - & 1.8 & 3.6 \\
392: $B$ counting & 1.1 & 1.1 & 1.1 \\
393: MC statistics & 2.0 & 3.5 & 4.5 \\
394: $D_{s}^{(*)}$ b.f. & 26.0 & 26.0 & 26.0 \\
395: Selection & 5.4 & 5.4 & 6.0 \\ \hline
396: Total & 28.7 & 28.8 & 29.3 \\
397: &\\[-9pt]
398: \hline \hline
399: \end{tabular}
400: \end{center}
401: \label{tab:systematics}
402: \end{table}
403: Using the measured signal efficiency ($\sum_{i} \epsilon_{i} {\cal B}_{i}$),
404: 211 $\fb^{-1}$ on-resonance data corresponding to
405: $N_{\B\Bbar}$ = (231.8 $\pm$ 2.6) $\times 10^{6}$, the background estimation along
406: with the uncertainties and the observed candidate events in the signal region $N_{cand}$,
407: we determine the 90\% confidence-level (C.L.) upper limit using the procedure given
408: in~\cite{RogerBarlow}. The systematic
409: uncertainties are included following the prescription in
410: Ref.~\cite{CousinHighLand}. In all branching fraction calculations
411: we assume equal production of \BzBzb
412: and $B^{+}B^{-}$ pairs at the $\Upsilon(4S)$.
413:
414: The search for $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{-} D_{s}^{+}$, $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{*-} D_{s}^{+}$
415: and $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{*-} D_{s}^{*+}$ decays yields
416: the 90\% C.L. upper limits (Table~\ref{tab:efficiency}):
417: \begin{eqnarray*}
418: {\cal B}(B^{0} \to D_{s}^{-} D_{s}^{+}) &<& 1.0 \times 10^{-4}, \\
419: {\cal B}(B^{0} \to D_{s}^{*-} D_{s}^{+}) &<& 1.3 \times 10^{-4}, \\
420: {\cal B}(B^{0} \to D_{s}^{*-} D_{s}^{*+}) &<& 2.4 \times 10^{-4}.
421: \end{eqnarray*}
422: In conclusion, we have performed a measurement of the decay rates for
423: $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{-} D_{s}^{+}$, $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{*-} D_{s}^{+}$
424: and $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{*-} D_{s}^{*+}$ processes with a
425: sensitivity needed to test the SM prediction \cite{BelleDsDs}. Our
426: upper limits disfavor the branching fraction predictions in Ref.~\cite{eeg} for
427: all three $B^{0}$ decays and accommodate the predictions of the pQCD calculation~\cite{ying}
428: for all three $B^{0}$ decay modes. The possible existence of a significant W-exchange component
429: in $B^{0} \to D^{-} {D^{+}}$~\cite{Gobinda} decays is not confirmed
430: in this analysis.
431:
432: \input pubboard/acknowledgements
433: %
434: % --- bibliography
435: %
436: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
437: \bibitem{fritzsch} H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, \jplb {90}, 455 (1980);
438: D. Fakirov and B. Stech, Nucl.~Instr.~Methods~Phys.~Res., Sect.~B {\bf 133}, 315 (1978).
439: \bibitem{ying} Ying Li {\it et al.} J.~Phys. {\bf G \bf 31}, 273 (2005).
440: %A general concept on perturbavite QCD approach
441: %can be found at: Yong-Yeon Keum {\it et al.} \prd {\bf 63}, 054008 (2001).
442: \bibitem{eeg} J. O. Eeg {\it et al.} \epjc {\bf 42}, 29 (2005).
443: \bibitem{blok} B. Blok {\it et al.} \jprl {\bf 78}, 3999 (1997).
444: \bibitem{CKM} The \babar\ Physics Book, P. Harrison and H. Quinn, 1998, SLAC report 504.
445: \bibitem{datta} A. Datta, D. London \jplb {\bf 584}, 81 (2004).
446: \bibitem{charge-conjugate} Inclusion of charge conjugate modes is implied throughout this paper.
447: \bibitem{detector} \babar\ Collaboration, B.~Aubert {\em et al.}, Nucl.~Instr.~Methods~Phys.~Res., Sect.~A {\bf 479}, 1 (2002).
448: \bibitem{geant4} GEANT4 Collaboration, S.~Agostinelli {\em et al.}, Nucl.~Instr.~Methods~Phys.~Res., Sect.~A {\bf 506}, 250 (2003).
449: \bibitem{PDG} Particle Data Group, S.~Eidelman {\it et al.}, \jplb {\bf 592}, 1 (2004).
450: \bibitem{thrust-axis} E. Farhi, \jprl{\bf 39}, 1587 (1977).
451: \bibitem{fox-wolfram} G. C. Fox, S. Wolfram, \jprl {\bf 41}, 1581 (1978).
452: \bibitem{optimization}pQCD predictions for the branching fractions are assumed for the selection optimization.
453: \bibitem{argus} ARGUS Collaboration, H.~Albrecht {\em et al.}, \zp {\bf C48}, 543 (1990).
454: \bibitem{babar_new} \babar\ collaboration, B. Aubert {\it et al.}, \prd {\bf 71}, 091104(R) (2005).
455: \bibitem{RogerBarlow} R. Barlow, Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 149}, 97 (2002).
456: \bibitem{CousinHighLand} R. D. Cousins and V. L. Highland, Nucl.~Instr.~Methods~Phys.~Res., Sect.~A {\bf 320}, 331 (1992).
457: \bibitem{BelleDsDs}While this paper was being written, the Belle Collaboration released an upper limit on the
458: decay rate for $B^{0} \to D_{s}^{-} D_{s}^{+}$ consistent with our result: K. Abe {\it et. al.} hep-ex/0508040.
459: \bibitem{Gobinda}Belle Collaboration, G. Majumder {\it et. al.} \jprl {\bf 95}, 041803 (2005).
460: \end{thebibliography}
461:
462: \end{document}%%%
463:
464: