1:
2: %\documentclass[aps,prd,preprint,tightenlines,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
3: \documentclass[12pt,aps,prd,tightenlines,showkeys,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
4:
5: \usepackage{epsfig,floatflt}
6: \usepackage{amssymb,amsmath,citesort,indentfirst,fancyhdr,enumerate}
7: \usepackage{rotating}
8:
9:
10: \graphicspath{{ps}}
11:
12: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.15}
13: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.90}
14:
15: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
16: %% FRONTMATTER
17: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
18:
19:
20: % A useful Journal macro
21: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
22:
23: % Some useful journal names
24: \def\anp#1#2#3{{ Ann.\ Phys. (NY)} {\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
25: \def\cmp#1#2#3{{ Comm.\ Math.\ Phys.} {\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
26: \def\epjc#1#2#3{{ Eur.\ Phys.\ J.}\ {\bf C#1}, #3 (#2)}
27: \def\ijmp#1#2#3{{ Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.} {\bf A#1}, #3 (#2)}
28: \def\jpb#1#2#3{{ J.\ Phys.} {\bf B#1}, #3 (#2)}
29: \def\mpla#1#2#3{{ Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.} {\bf A#1}, #3 (#2)}
30: \def\nima#1#2#3{{Nucl.\ Instr.\ and Meth.} {\bf A#1}, #3 (#2)}
31: \def\nci#1#2#3{{ Nuovo Cimento} {\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
32: \def\npb#1#2#3{{ Nucl.\ Phys.} {\bf B#1}, #3 (#2)}
33: \def\plb#1#2#3{{ Phys.\ Lett.} {\bf B#1}, #3 (#2)}
34: \def\pla#1#2#3{{ Phys.\ Lett.} {\bf A#1}, #3 (#2)}
35: \def\prb#1#2#3{{ Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf B#1}, #3 (#2)}
36: \def\prc#1#2#3{{ Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf C#1}, #3 (#2)}
37: \def\prd#1#2#3{{ Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf D#1}, #3 (#2)}
38: \def\pr#1#2#3 {{ Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
39: \def\prep#1#2#3{{ Phys.\ Rep.} {\bf C#1}, #3 (#2)}
40: \def\prl#1#2#3{{ Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.} {\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
41: \def\rmp#1#2#3{{ Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.} {\bf #1} #3 (#2)}
42: \def\zpc#1#2#3{{ Zeit.\ Phys.} {\bf C#1}, #3 (#2)}
43:
44: % Some other macros used in the sample text
45: \def\st{\scriptstyle}
46: \def\sst{\scriptscriptstyle}
47: \def\mco{\multicolumn}
48: \def\epp{\epsilon^{\prime}}
49: \def\vep{\varepsilon}
50: \def\ra{\rightarrow}
51: \def\ppg{\pi^+\pi^-\gamma}
52: \def\vp{{\bf p}}
53: \def\ko{K^0}
54: \def\kb{\bar{K^0}}
55: \def\al{\alpha}
56: \def\ab{\bar{\alpha}}
57: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
58: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
59: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
60: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
61: \def\CPbar{\hbox{{\rm CP}\hskip-1.80em{/}}}
62:
63: % Additional user-defined macros
64: \def\bckpp{B^\pm\to K^\pm\pi^\pm\pi^\mp}
65: \def\bckkk{B^\pm\to K^\pm K^+K^-}
66: \def\bpkpp{B^+\to K^+\pi^+\pi^-}
67: \def\bpkkk{B^+\to K^+K^+K^-}
68: \def\bnkpp{B^0\to K^0\pi^+\pi^-}
69: \def\kckk{K^\pm K^+K^-}
70: \def\kcpp{K^\pm\pi^\pm\pi^\mp}
71: \def\kppp{K^+\pi^+\pi^-}
72: \def\kmpp{K^-\pi^-\pi^+}
73: \def\kspp{K^0_S\pi^+\pi^-}
74: \def\kpkk{K^+K^+K^-}
75: \def\Kpp{K\pi\pi}
76: \def\KKK{KKK}
77: \def\de{\Delta E}
78: \def\mb{M_{bc}}
79: \def\bbbar{B\bar{B}}
80: \def\qqbar{q\bar{q}}
81: \def\chic{\chi_{c0}}
82: \def\kpkm{K^+K^-}
83: \def\kcpi{K^+\pi^-}
84: \def\kspi{K^0_S\pi^\pm}
85: \def\pipi{\pi^+\pi^-}
86: \def\pipi{\pi^+\pi^-}
87: \def\ks{K^0_S}
88: \def\BF{{\cal{B}}}
89: \def\Am{{\cal{A}}}
90: \def\ACP{A_{CP}}
91:
92:
93: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
94: % %
95: % BEGINNING OF TEXT %
96: % %
97: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
98:
99: \begin{document}
100:
101: \title{Dalitz Analysis of $B\to Khh$ Decays at Belle}
102:
103: \keywords {charmless $B$ decays, $CP$ violation}
104:
105:
106: \affiliation{Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, U.S.A.}
107: \author{Alexey Garmash}\affiliation{Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, U.S.A.}
108: \collaboration{Representing The Belle Collaboration}
109:
110: \begin{abstract}
111: We report results on the Dalitz analysis of three-body charmless $\bpkpp$,
112: $\bnkpp$ and $\bpkkk$ decays including searches for direct $CP$ violation in
113: the $\bpkpp$ mode. Branching fractions for a number of quasi-two-body
114: intermediate states are reported. We also observe evidence with $3.9\sigma$
115: significance for a
116: large direct $CP$ violation in $B^\pm\to\rho(770)^0K^\pm$ channel.
117: This is the first evidence for $CP$ violation in a charged meson decay. The
118: results are obtained using a Dalitz analysis technique with a large data sample
119: of $B\bar{B}$ pairs collected with the Belle detector operating at the KEKB
120: asymmetric energy $e^+ e^-$ collider.
121: \end{abstract}
122:
123: \maketitle
124:
125: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
126: %% MAINMATTER
127: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
128:
129: \section{Introduction}
130:
131: Decays of $B$ mesons to three-body charmless hadronic final states provide
132: a rich laboratory for studying $B$ meson decay dynamics and provide new
133: possibilities for $CP$ violation searches. In decays to two-body
134: final states ($B\to K\pi$, $\pi\pi$, etc.) direct $CP$ violation can only be
135: observed as a difference in $B$ and $\bar{B}$ decay rates. In decays to
136: three-body final states dominated by quasi-two-body channels,
137: direct $CP$ violation can also manifest itself as a difference in relative
138: phases between two quasi-two-body channels. Large direct $CP$ violation is
139: expected in charged $B$ decays to some quasi-two-body charmless hadronic
140: modes~\cite{beneke-neubert}.
141:
142: \section{Apparatus, Data Sample \& Event Selection}
143:
144: The Dalitz analysis of $\bpkpp$ and $\bpkkk$ decays is performed with a
145: 140\,fb$^{-1}$ data sample; for a Dalitz analysis of the $\bnkpp$ decay and
146: for $CP$ violation searches in the decay $\bpkpp$, we use a data sample of
147: 357\,fb$^{-1}$. The data are collected with the Belle detector~\cite{Belle}
148: operating at the KEKB asymmetric-energy $e^+e^-$ collider with a
149: center-of-mass (c.m.) energy at the $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance.
150:
151: \begin{figure}[!t]
152: \includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{fig-01a.eps} \hspace*{-2mm}
153: \includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{fig-01b.eps} \hspace*{-2mm}
154: \includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{fig-01c.eps}
155: \caption{$\de$ distribution for the (a) $\bpkpp$, (b) $\bnkpp$ and
156: (c) $\bpkkk$ candidate events with
157: $|\mb-M_B|<7.5$~MeV/$c^2$. Points with error bars are data; the
158: upper curve is the fit result; the hatched histograms are various
159: background components.}
160: \label{fig:dE}
161: \end{figure}
162:
163: We identify $B$ candidates using two almost independent kinematic variables:
164: $\de = (\sum_i\sqrt{c^2{\bf p}_i^2 + c^4m_i^2} ) - E^*_{\rm beam}$ and
165: $\mb = \frac{1}{c^2}\sqrt{E^{*2}_{\rm beam}-c^2(\sum_i {\bf p}_i)^2},$
166: where the summation is over all particles from a $B$ candidate; ${\bf p}_i$
167: and $m_i$ are their c.m.\ three-momenta and masses, respectively.
168: The dominant background to studied processes is due to $e^+e^-\to~\qqbar$
169: ($q=u,d,s$ and $c$ quarks) continuum events. This background is
170: suppressed using variables that characterize the event topology.
171: A detailed description of the continuum suppression technique can be found
172: in Ref.~\cite{khh-belle} and references therein. From a MC study we find
173: the dominant background originating from other $B$ decays that peaks in the
174: signal region is due to $B\to Dh$, where $h$ stands for a charged pion or
175: kaon and due to $B\to J/\psi(\psi(2S))[\mu^+\mu^-]K$ decays, where muons are
176: misidentified as pions. We veto these backgrounds by applying requirements on
177: the invariant mass of the appropriate two-particle combination. The most
178: significant background from charmless $B$ decays to $B\to K\pi\pi$ channels
179: originates from $B\to\eta'[\gamma\pipi]K$, from $B^+\to\pi^+\pi^+\pi^-$,
180: where one of the two same charge pions is misidentified as a kaon, and from
181: $B\to K\pi$ processes. These backgrounds cannot be removed and are taken into
182: account when fitting the data. We find no charmless $B$ decay modes that
183: produce a significant background to the $\kpkk$ final state. The $\de$
184: distributions for $\kppp$, $\kspp$ and $\kpkk$ candidates that pass all the
185: selection requirements are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dE}.
186:
187: \section{Dalitz Analysis Results}
188:
189:
190: For the amplitude analysis we select events in the $B$ signal region defined
191: as an ellipse around the $\mb$ and $\de$ mean values:
192: $\left[\frac{\mb-M_B}{7.5~{\rm MeV}/c^2}\right]^2+
193: \left[\frac{\de}{40~{\rm MeV}}\right]^2<1.$ We find that $\bpkpp$ signal is
194: well described by a coherent sum of the $K^*(892)^0\pi^+$,
195: $K^*_0(1430)^0\pi^+$, $\rho(770)^0K^+$, $f_0(980)K^+$, $f_X(1300)K^+$,
196: $\chic K^+$ quasi-two-body channels and a non-resonant component. The channel
197: $f_X(1300)K^+$ (with mass and width of $f_X(1300)$ to be determined from the
198: fit) is added to account for an excess of signal events visible in $M(\pipi)$
199: spectrum near $1.3$~GeV/$c^2$. Results of the best fit are shown in
200: Figs.~\ref{fig:hh-mass} (a,b). The mass and width of the $f_X(1300)$ state
201: obtained from the fit are consistent with those for the $f_0(1370)$, however
202: more data are required for more definite conclusion. To test for the
203: contribution of other possible quasi-two-body intermediate states such as
204: $K^*(1410)^0\pi^+$, $K^*(1680)^0\pi^+$, $K^*_2(1430)^0\pi^+$ or $f_2(1270)K^+$,
205: we include an additional amplitude for each of these channels in the decay
206: amplitude one by one and repeat the fit to data. None of these channels have a
207: statistically significant signal. Branching fraction and upper limit results
208: are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:khh-branch}.
209: For more details see Ref.~\cite{khh-dalitz-belle}.
210:
211: \begin{table}[!t]
212: \caption{Summary of branching fraction results. The first quoted error is
213: statistical, the second is systematic and the third is the model
214: error.}
215: \medskip
216: \label{tab:khh-branch}
217: \centering
218: \begin{tabular}{lcr} \hline
219: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Mode} &
220: \hspace*{0mm}$\BF(B^+\to Rh^+)\times\BF(R\to h^+h^-)\times10^{6}$ &
221: \hspace*{7mm}$\BF(B^+\to Rh^+)\times10^{6}$ \\
222: \hline
223: $\kppp$ charmless total & $-$
224: & $46.6\pm2.1\pm4.3$ \\
225: $~~K^*(892)^0[K^+\pi^-]\pi^+$
226: & $6.55\pm0.60\pm0.60^{+0.38}_{-0.57}$
227: & $9.83\pm0.90\pm0.90^{+0.57}_{-0.86}$ \\
228: $~~K^*_0(1430)^0[K^+\pi^-]\pi^+$
229: & $27.9\pm1.8\pm2.6^{+8.5}_{-5.4}$
230: & $45.0\pm2.9\pm6.2^{+13.7}_{-~8.7}$ \\
231: $~~K^*(1410)^0[K^+\pi^-]\pi^+$
232: & $<2.0$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$-$} \\
233: $~~K^*(1680)^0[K^+\pi^-]\pi^+$
234: & $<3.1$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$-$} \\
235: $~~K^*_2(1430)^0[K^+\pi^-]\pi^+$
236: & $<2.3$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$-$} \\
237: $~~\rho(770)^0[\pi^+\pi^-]K^+$
238: & $4.78\pm0.75\pm0.44^{+0.91}_{-0.87}$
239: & $4.78\pm0.75\pm0.44^{+0.91}_{-0.87}$ \\
240: $~~f_0(980)[\pi^+\pi^-]K^+$
241: & $7.55\pm1.24\pm0.69^{+1.48}_{-0.96}$
242: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$-$} \\
243: $~~f_2(1270)[\pi^+\pi^-]K^+$
244: & $<1.3$ &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$-$} \\
245: ~~Non-resonant
246: & $-$
247: & $17.3\pm1.7\pm1.6^{+17.1}_{-7.8}$ \\
248: $\kspp$ charmless & $-$
249: & $47.5\pm2.4\pm3.7$ \\
250: $~~K^*(892)^+[K^0\pi^+]\pi^-$
251: & $5.61\pm0.72\pm0.43^{+0.43}_{-0.29}$
252: & $8.42\pm1.08\pm0.65^{+0.64}_{-0.43}$ \\
253: $~~K^*_0(1430)^+[K^0\pi^+]\pi^-$
254: & $30.8\pm2.4\pm2.4^{+0.8}_{-3.0}$
255: & $49.7\pm3.8\pm3.8^{+1.2}_{-4.8}$ \\
256: $~~K^*(1410)^+[K^0\pi^+]\pi^-$
257: & $<3.8$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$-$} \\
258: $~~K^*(1680)^+[K^0\pi^+]\pi^-$
259: & $<2.6$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$-$} \\
260: $~~K^*_2(1430)^+[K^0\pi^+]\pi^-$
261: & $<2.1$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$-$} \\
262: $~~\rho(770)^0[\pi^+\pi^-]K^0$
263: & $6.13\pm0.95\pm0.47^{+1.00}_{-1.05}$
264: & $6.13\pm0.95\pm0.47^{+1.00}_{-1.05}$ \\
265: $~~f_0(980)[\pi^+\pi^-]K^0$
266: & $7.60\pm1.66\pm0.59^{+0.48}_{-0.67}$
267: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$-$} \\
268: $~~f_2(1270)[\pi^+\pi^-]K^0$
269: & $<1.4$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$-$} \\
270: ~~Non-resonant
271: & $-$
272: & $19.9\pm2.5\pm1.5^{+0.7}_{-1.2}$ \\
273: $\kckk$ charmless total & $-$
274: & $30.6\pm1.2\pm2.3$ \\
275: $~~\phi [K^+K^-]K^+$
276: & $4.72\pm0.45\pm0.35^{+0.39}_{-0.22}$
277: & $9.60\pm0.92\pm0.71^{+0.78}_{-0.46}$ \\
278: $~~\phi(1680)[K^+K^-]K^+$
279: & $<0.8$
280: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$-$} \\
281: $~~f_0(980)[K^+K^-]K^+$
282: & $<2.9$
283: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$-$} \\
284: $~~f'_2(1525)[K^+K^-]K^+$
285: & $<4.9$
286: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$-$} \\
287: $~~a_2(1320)[K^+K^-]K^+$
288: & $<1.1$
289: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$-$} \\
290: ~~Non-resonant
291: & $-$
292: & $24.0\pm1.5\pm1.8^{+1.9}_{-5.7}$ \\
293: \hline
294: $\chic [\pi^+\pi^-]K^+$
295: & $1.37\pm0.28\pm0.12^{+0.34}_{-0.35}$
296: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$-$} \\
297: $\chic [K^+K^-]K^+$
298: & $0.86\pm0.26\pm0.06^{+0.20}_{-0.05}$
299: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$-$} \\
300: $\chic K^+$ combined & $-$
301: & $196\pm35\pm33^{+197}_{-26}$ \\
302: $\chic [\pi^+\pi^-]K^0$
303: & $<0.56$
304: & $<113$ \\
305: \hline
306: \end{tabular}
307: \end{table}
308:
309:
310: \begin{figure}[!t]
311: \begin{tabular}{lcr}
312: \includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{fig-02a.eps}
313: \includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{fig-02b.eps}
314: \includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{fig-02c.eps}
315: \vspace*{-3mm} \\
316: \includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{fig-02d.eps}
317: \includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{fig-02e.eps}
318: \includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{fig-02f.eps}
319: \end{tabular}
320: \caption{Results of the fit to events in the $B$ signal region for the
321: (a,b) $\kppp$, (c) $\kpkk$, and (d,e,f) $\kspp$ final state.
322: Points with error bars are data, the open histogram is the fit
323: result and hatched histogram is the background component.}
324: \label{fig:hh-mass}
325: \medskip
326: \end{figure}
327:
328: In the fit to $\kspp$ events we use decay amplitude ${\cal{M}}$ similar to
329: those constructed in the analysis of $\bpkpp$ decay. The masses and widths of
330: all resonances are fixed at either their world average values from PDG or at
331: values determined from the analysis of $\bpkpp$ decay (for $f_0(980)$ and
332: $f_X(1300)$). Since in this analysis we do not distinguish between $B$ or
333: $\bar{B}$ decays the signal PDF is a non-coherent sum
334: $ S(\ks\pi^\pm\pi^\mp) = |{\cal{M}}(\ks\pi^+\pi^-)|^2 +
335: |{\cal{M}}(\ks\pi^-\pi^+)|^2.$
336: Results of the best fit are shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:hh-mass} (d-f). All plots
337: demonstrate good agreement between data and the fit. Branching fraction results
338: are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:khh-branch}.
339: For more details see Ref.~\cite{kspp-dalitz-belle}.
340:
341: We find that the $\kckk$ signal is well described by an amplitude that is a
342: coherent sum of the $\phi K^+$, $f_X(1500)K^+$, $\chic K^+$ quasi-two-body
343: channels and a non-resonant component, where the $f_X(1500)K^+$ (with mass
344: and width of $f_X(1500)$ to be determined from the fit) channel is added to
345: describe the excess of signal events visible in $\kpkm$ mass spectrum near
346: $1.5$~GeV/$c^2$. As there are two identical kaons in the final state, the
347: decay amplitude is symmetrized with respect to interchange of two kaons of
348: the same charge
349: $S(K^+K^+K^-) = |{\cal{M}}(K^+_1K^+_2K^-) +
350: {\cal{M}}(K^+_2K^+_1K^-)|^2.$
351: Results of the fit are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:hh-mass}~(c)
352: and summarized in Table~\ref{tab:khh-branch}.
353: For more details see Ref.~\cite{khh-dalitz-belle}.
354:
355:
356: \section{Search for Direct $CP$ Violation in $\bckpp$}
357:
358: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
359: \begin{table}[!t]
360: \caption{Results of the best fit to $\kcpp$ events in the $B$ signal region.
361: The first quoted error is statistical and the second is the model dependent
362: uncertainty. The quoted significance is statistical only.}
363: \medskip
364: \label{tab:kpp-dcpv}
365: \centering
366: \begin{tabular}{lcccc}
367: \hline
368: Channel
369: & $b$
370: & $\varphi$, ($^\circ$)
371: & $\ACP$, (\%)
372: & Significance, ($\sigma$)\\
373: \hline
374: $K^*(892)\pi^\pm$
375: & $0.078\pm0.033^{+0.012}_{-0.003}$
376: & $ -18\pm44^{+5}_{-13}$
377: & $-14.9\pm6.4^{+0.8}_{-0.8}$
378: & $2.6$ \\
379: $K_0(1430)\pi^\pm$
380: & $0.069\pm0.031^{+0.010}_{-0.008}$
381: & $-123\pm16^{+4}_{-5}$
382: & $+7.6\pm3.8^{+2.0}_{-0.9}$
383: & $2.7$ \\
384: $\rho(770)^0K^\pm$
385: & $0.28\pm0.11^{+0.07}_{-0.09}$
386: & $-125\pm32^{+10}_{-85}$
387: & $+30\pm11^{+11}_{-4}$
388: & $3.9$ \\
389: $f_0(980)K^\pm$
390: & $0.30\pm0.19^{+0.05}_{-0.10}$
391: & $-82\pm8^{+2}_{-2}$
392: & $-7.7\pm6.5^{+4.1}_{-1.6}$
393: & $1.6$ \\
394: $f_2(1270)K^\pm$
395: & $0.37\pm0.17^{+0.11}_{-0.04}$
396: & $-24\pm29^{+14}_{-20}$
397: & $-59\pm22^{+3}_{-3}$
398: & $2.7$ \\
399: \hline
400: $\chic K^\pm$
401: & $0.15\pm0.35^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$
402: & $-77\pm94^{+154}_{-11}$
403: & $-6.5\pm19.6^{+2.9}_{-1.4}$
404: & $0.7$ \\
405: \hline
406: \end{tabular}
407: \end{table}
408: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
409:
410: For $CP$ violation studies the amplitude for each quasi-two-body channel is
411: modified from $ae^{i\delta}$ to $ae^{i\delta}(1\pm be^{i\varphi})$, where the
412: plus (minus) sign corresponds to $B^+$ ($B^-$) decay. With such a
413: parameterization, the charge asymmetry, $\ACP$, for a particular quasi-two-body
414: $B\to f$ channel can be calculated as
415: \begin{equation}
416: A_{CP}(f)
417: = \frac{N^--N^+}{N^-+N^+}
418: = -\frac{2b\cos\varphi}{1+b^2}.
419: \label{eq:acp-dcpv}
420: \end{equation}
421: Results of the fit are given in Table~\ref{tab:kpp-dcpv}.
422: The statistical significance of the asymmetry quoted in
423: Table~\ref{tab:kpp-dcpv} is calculated as
424: $\sqrt{-2\ln({\cal L}_0/{\cal L}_{\rm max})}$, where
425: ${\cal L}_{\rm max}$ and ${\cal L}_0$ denote the maximum likelihood with the
426: best fit and with the asymmetry fixed at zero, respectively.
427: Systematic uncertainty for $\ACP$ results in Tbale~\ref{tab:kpp-dcpv} is 3\%.
428: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
429: \begin{figure}[!b]
430: \begin{tabular}{lcr}
431: \includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{fig-03a.eps}
432: \includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{fig-03c.eps}
433: \includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{fig-03e.eps}
434: \vspace*{-3mm} \\
435: \includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{fig-03b.eps}
436: \includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{fig-03d.eps}
437: \includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{fig-03f.eps}
438: \end{tabular}
439: \caption{$\pipi$ mass spectra for $B^-$ (top row) and $B^+$ (bottom row)
440: events for different helicity regions:
441: (a,b) no helicity cuts;
442: (c,d) $\cos\theta_H^{\pi\pi}<0$;
443: (e,f) $\cos\theta_H^{\pi\pi}>0$;
444: Points with error bars are data, the open histogram is the fit
445: result and the hatched histogram is the background component.}
446: \label{fig:kpp-dcpv}
447: \medskip
448: \end{figure}
449: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
450: The only
451: channel where the statistical significance of the asymmetry exceeds the
452: $3\sigma$ level is $B^\pm\to\rho(770)^0K^\pm$, where we find a $3.9\sigma$
453: effect. Figures~\ref{fig:kpp-dcpv}(a,b) show the $M(\pipi)$ distributions for
454: the $\rho(770)^0-f_0(980)$ mass region separately for $B^-$ and $B^+$ events.
455: The effect is more apparent when $M(\pipi)$ spectra for the two helicity
456: angle regions shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:kpp-dcpv}(c-f) are compared.
457: Results on the $\ACP$ measurement are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:kpp-dcpv}.
458: To cross check the asymmetry observed in $B^\pm\to\rho(770)^0K^\pm$ we make an
459: independent fit to $B^-$ and $B^+$ subsamples. We also confirm the significance
460: of the asymmetry observed in $B^\pm\to\rho(770)^0K^\pm$ channels with MC
461: pseudo-experiments. For more details see Ref.~\cite{kpp-dcpv-belle}. The
462: large value of $\ACP$ measured in $B^\pm\to\rho(770)^0K^\pm$ is in agreement
463: with a recent update by BaBar~\cite{kpp-dcpv-babar} and some theoretical
464: predictions~\cite{beneke-neubert}. The statistical significance of the
465: asymmetry varies from $3.7\sigma$ to $4\sigma$ depending
466: on the model used to fit the data. This is the first evidence for $CP$
467: violation in the decay of a charged meson.
468:
469:
470: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
471:
472: % ==========
473: \bibitem{beneke-neubert} See for example:
474: M.~Beneke and M.~Neubert, \npb{675}{2003}{333};
475: C.-W.~Chiang, M.~Gronau, Z.~Luo, J.~Rosner, and D.~Suprun,
476: \prd{69}{2004}{034001} and references therein.
477: % ==========
478: \bibitem{Belle}
479: A.~Abashian {\it et al.}, \nima{479}{2002}{117}.
480: % ==========
481: \bibitem{khh-belle}
482: A.~Garmash {\it et al.} (Belle Collaboration), \prd{69}{2004}{012001}.
483: % ==========
484: \bibitem{khh-dalitz-belle}
485: A.~Garmash {\it et al.} (Belle Collaboration), \prd{71}{2005}{092003}.
486: % ==========
487: \bibitem{kspp-dalitz-belle}
488: K.~Abe {\it et al.} (Belle Collaboration), BELLE-CONF-577, hep-ex/0509047.
489: % ==========
490: \bibitem{kpp-dcpv-belle}
491: K.~Abe {\it et al.} (Belle Collaboration), BELLE-CONF-528, hep-ex/0509001.
492: % ==========
493: \bibitem{kpp-dcpv-babar}
494: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} (BaBar Collaboration), hep-ex/0507004.
495: Submitted to Phys.\ Rev.\ D.
496:
497: \end{thebibliography}
498:
499:
500:
501: \end{document}
502:
503: