1:
2: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,aps,prl,superscriptaddress,floatfix]{revtex4}
3:
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5: \usepackage{dcolumn}
6: \usepackage{amsmath}
7: \usepackage{epsfig}
8:
9: \input pubboard/babarsym.tex
10:
11: \newcommand{\BABARPubYear} {05}
12: \newcommand{\BABARPubNumber} {048}
13: \newcommand{\SLACPubNumber} {11600}
14:
15: \begin{document}
16: \noindent
17: \babar-PUB-\BABARPubYear/\BABARPubNumber\\
18: SLAC-PUB-\SLACPubNumber
19: \vskip 0.4cm
20:
21: \title{
22: \large \bf Search for the Rare Decays $B^0\to D_s^{(*)+} a_{0(2)}^-$}
23:
24: \date{\today}% It is always \today, today, but you may specify any date with \date.
25:
26: \input{authors_sep2005.tex}
27:
28: \begin{abstract}
29: We have searched for the decays
30: $B^0\to D_s^{+}a_0^-$, $B^0\to D_s^{*+}a_0^-$, $B^0\to D_s^{+}a_2^-$ and $B^0\to D_s^{*+}a_2^-$
31: in a sample of about 230 million
32: $\FourS\!\to\! B\Bbar$ decays collected with the \babar\ detector at the
33: \pep2\ asymmetric-energy \BF\ at SLAC. We find no evidence for these
34: decays and set upper limits at 90\% C.L. on the branching fractions:
35: ${\cal B}(B^0\to D_s^+ a_0^-) < 1.9\times 10^{-5}$,
36: ${\cal B}(B^0\to D_s^{*+} a_0^-) < 3.6\times 10^{-5}$,
37: ${\cal B}(B^0\to D_s^+ a_2^-) < 1.9 \times 10^{-4}$,
38: and
39: ${\cal B}(B^0\to D_s^{*+} a_2^-) < 2.0\times 10^{-4} $.\\
40: \end{abstract}
41:
42: \pacs{13.25.Hw, 12.15.Hh, 11.30.Er}% PACS, the Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme.
43:
44: \maketitle
45:
46: The time-dependent decay rates for neutral $B$ mesons into a $D$
47: meson and a light meson provide sensitivity to the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM)~\cite{ckm}
48: quark mixing matrix phases $\beta$
49: and $\gamma$~\cite{angles}. A \CP-violating term emerges through the interference
50: between $B^0 \Bbar^0$ mixing mediated and direct decay amplitudes.
51: The time-dependent \CP-asymmetries in the decay modes $B^0\to D^{(*)-}
52: \pi^+$~\cite{chargeconj} have been studied by \babar\ and
53: BELLE~\cite{2b+g-expts-1, 2b+g-expts-2}. In these modes, the \CP-asymmetries arise due to
54: a phase difference between two amplitudes of very different magnitudes:
55: one decay amplitude is suppressed by the product of two small CKM
56: elements $V_{ub}$ and $V_{cd}$, while the other is CKM
57: favored. Therefore, the decay rate is dominated by the CKM-favored part
58: of the amplitude, resulting in a very small \CP-violating asymmetry.
59:
60: Recently it was proposed to consider other types of light mesons in the
61: two-body final states~\cite{yet-another-way}. The idea is that decay
62: amplitudes with light scalar or tensor mesons, such as $a_0^+$ or
63: $a^+_2$, emitted from a weak current, are significantly suppressed
64: because of the small coupling constants $f_{a_{0(2)}}$. In the $SU(2)$
65: limit, $f_{a_0} = 0$ (since the coupling constant of a light scalar is
66: proportional to the mass difference between $u$ and $d$ quarks), and any
67: non-zero value of $f_{a_0}$ is of the order of isospin conservation breaking effects.
68: Since the light tensor meson $a_2^+$ has spin 2, it cannot be emitted by
69: a $W$-boson (i.e.\ $f_{a_2} \equiv 0$), and thus could only appear in a
70: $V_{cb}$-mediated process via final state hadronic interactions and
71: rescattering.
72: Therefore, the absolute values of the CKM-suppressed and favored parts
73: of the decay amplitude (see Figure~\ref{fig:intro}, top two diagrams) could become
74: comparable, potentially resulting in a large \CP-asymmetry.
75: No $B \ra a_{0(2)} X$ transitions have been observed yet.
76: A summary of the theoretical predictions for the values of $V_{ub}$ and $V_{cb}$-mediated
77: parts of the $B^0 \ra D^{(*)-} a_{0(2)}^+$ branching fractions
78: can be found in~\cite{dh}.
79:
80:
81:
82: The $V_{ub}$-mediated amplitudes in~\cite{dh} were
83: computed in the factorization framework. In addition to model
84: uncertainties, significant uncertainty in the theoretical calculations
85: is due to unknown $B \ra a_{0(2)} X$ transition form factors.
86: One way to verify the numerical assumptions and test the validity of
87: the factorization approach experimentally is to measure the branching
88: fractions for the $SU(3)$ conjugated
89: decay modes $B^0 \ra D^{(*)+}_s
90: a_{0(2)}$. These decays are represented by a single tree diagram
91: (Figure~\ref{fig:intro}, bottom diagram) with external $W^+$ emission, without
92: contributions from additional tree or penguin diagrams. The
93: $V_{ub}$-mediated part of the $B^0 \ra D^{(*)+} a_{0(2)}^-$ decay
94: amplitude can be related to $B^0 \ra D^{(*)+}_s a_{0(2)}^-$ using
95: $\tan{(\theta_{\rm Cabibbo})} = |V_{cd}/V_{cs}|$ and the ratio
96: of the decay constants $f_{D_s^{(*)}}/f_{D^{(*)}}$.
97:
98: Branching fractions of $B^0 \ra D^{(*)+}_s a_2^-$ are predicted to be
99: in the range 1.3--1.8 (2.1--2.9) in units of $10^{-5}$~\cite{klo}. Branching fraction estimates for
100: $B^0 \ra D^{(*)+}_s a_0^-$ of approximately $8 \times 10^{-5}$ are obtained using $SU(3)$
101: symmetry from the
102: predictions made for $B^0 \ra D^{(*)+} a_0^-$ in~\cite{dh}.
103:
104: \begin{figure}[h]
105: \begin{center}
106: \begin{minipage}[h]{4.2cm}
107: \epsfysize=2.05cm
108: \epsfbox{eps/fig01a.eps}
109: \end{minipage}
110: \begin{minipage}[h]{4.2cm}
111: \epsfysize=2.05cm
112: \epsfbox{eps/fig01c.eps}
113: \end{minipage}
114: \begin{minipage}[h]{4.2cm}
115: \epsfysize=2.05cm
116: \epsfbox{eps/fig01b.eps}
117: \end{minipage}
118: \end{center}
119: \caption{Top diagrams: tree diagrams contributing to the decay amplitude of $B^0 \ra D^{(*)-} a^+_{0(2)}$
120: (including the $B^0 \Bbar^0$ mixing mediated part of the amplitude). Bottom diagram:
121: tree diagram representing the decay amplitude of $B^0 \ra D^{(*)+}_s a^-_{0(2)}$.}
122: \label{fig:intro}
123: \end{figure}
124:
125:
126:
127:
128:
129:
130: In this paper we present the first search for the decays $B^0\to
131: D_s^{+}a_0^-$, $B^0\to D_s^{*+}a_0^-$, $B^0\to D_s^{+}a_2^-$ and $B^0\to D_s^{*+}a_2^-$.
132: The analysis uses a sample of approximately $210~$\invfb, which corresponds to
133: about 230 million \FourS decays into
134: $B \Bbar$ pairs collected in the years 1999--2004 with the \babar\
135: detector at the asymmetric-energy $B$-factory PEP-II~\cite{pep2}. The \babar\
136: detector is described elsewhere~\cite{babar} and only the components crucial
137: to this analysis are summarized here. Charged particle tracking is
138: provided by a five-layer silicon vertex tracker (SVT) and a 40-layer
139: drift chamber (DCH). For charged-particle identification, ionization
140: energy loss ($dE/dx$) in the DCH and SVT, and Cherenkov radiation
141: detected in a ring-imaging device are used. Photons are identified and
142: measured using the electromagnetic calorimeter, which is comprised of 6580
143: thallium-doped CsI crystals. These systems are located inside a 1.5~T
144: solenoidal superconducting magnet. We use GEANT4~\cite{geant} software to
145: simulate interactions of particles traversing the \babar\ detector,
146: taking into account the varying detector conditions and beam
147: backgrounds.
148:
149:
150: The selection criteria are optimized by maximizing the ratio of
151: expected signal events $S$ to the square-root of the sum of
152: signal and background events $B$. For the calculation
153: of $S$ we assume ${\cal B}(B^0\to D_s^{(*)+}a_2^-)$ to be the mean
154: values of the predicted intervals from~\cite{klo} and
155: an estimate of ${\cal B}(B^0\to D_s^{(*)+}a_0^-)$ is obtained from
156: ${\cal B}(B^0\to D^{(*)+}a_0^-)$ predicted in~\cite{dh} and assuming $SU(3)$ symmetry.
157: The optimal selection
158: criteria as well as the shapes of the distributions of selection
159: variables are determined from simulated Monte Carlo (MC) events. We use
160: MC samples of our signal modes and, to simulate background, inclusive samples of
161: $B^+B^-$ (800~fb$^{-1}$),
162: $B^0 \Bbar^0$ (782~fb$^{-1}$),
163: $c\bar{c}$ (263~fb$^{-1}$), and
164: $q\bar{q},~q = u,d,s$ (279~fb$^{-1}$). In addition, we use large samples of simulated
165: events of rare background modes
166: which have final states similar to the signal.
167:
168:
169: Candidates for \Ds mesons are reconstructed in the modes $\Ds\to
170: \phi\pi^+$, $\Kstarzb K^+$, and $\KS K^+$, with $\phi\to K^+K^-$,
171: $\Kstarzb\to K^-\pi^+$ and $\KS\to\pi^+\pi^-$.
172: The \KS candidates
173: are reconstructed from two oppositely-charged tracks, with an invariant
174: mass close to the nominal \KS mass~\cite{PDG2004}, that come from a
175: common vertex displaced from the $e^+e^-$ interaction point.
176: All other tracks are required to originate less than 1.5~cm away from the
177: $e^+e^-$ interaction point in the transverse plane and less than 10~cm
178: along the beam axis.
179: Charged kaon candidates must satisfy kaon identification criteria
180: that are typically around 95\% efficient, depending on momentum and
181: polar angle, and have a misidentification rate at the 10$\%$ level.
182: The $\phi\to K^+K^-$,
183: $\Kstarzb\to K^-\pi^+$ and $\KS\to\pi^+\pi^-$ candidates are required to have invariant
184: masses close to their nominal masses~\cite{PDG2004}
185: (we require the absolute differences
186: between their measured masses and the nominal values~\cite{PDG2004} to be in the range
187: 12--15~\mev,
188: 35--60~\mev and 7--12~\mev, respectively,
189: depending on the $B^0$ and $D^+_s$ decay modes).
190: The polarizations of the \Kstarzb and $\phi$ mesons in the \Ds decays are
191: used to reject backgrounds through the use of the helicity
192: angle $\theta_H$, defined as the angle between the $K^-$ momentum vector and the
193: direction of flight of the \Ds in the
194: \Kstarzb or $\phi$ rest frame.
195: The \Kstarzb candidates are required to have $|\cos\theta_H|$ greater than 0.25--0.5
196: and $\phi$ candidates are
197: required to have $|\cos\theta_H|$ greater than 0.3--0.5, depending on the $B^0$ decay mode.
198: We also apply a vertex fit to the $D^+_s$ candidates that decay into $\phi \pi^+$
199: and $\Kstarzb K^+$, since all charged daughter tracks of $D^+_s$ are supposed to
200: come from a common vertex. The $\chi^2$ of the vertex fit is required to be less than
201: 10--16 (which corresponds to a probability of better than
202: $0.1\% - 1.9\%$ for the 3 track vertex fit), depending on the reconstructed mode.
203:
204: The $D^{*+}_s$ candidates are reconstructed in the mode $D^{*+}_s \ra D^+_s \gamma$.
205: The photons are required to have an energy greater than 100~\mev.
206: The \Ds and $D^{*+}_s$ candidates are
207: required to have invariant masses less than about $\pm 2\sigma$
208: from their nominal values~\cite{PDG2004}.
209: The invariant mass of the
210: $D^{*+}_s$ is calculated after the mass constraint on the daughter $D^+_s$
211: has been applied.
212: Subsequently, all $D^{*+}_s$ candidates
213: are subjected to a mass-constrained fit.
214:
215: We reconstruct $a_0^-$ and $a_2^-$ candidates in their decay to the
216: $\eta \pi^-$ final state. For reconstructed $\eta\to\gamma\gamma$
217: candidates we require the energy of each photon to be greater than
218: 250~\mev for $a_0^+$ candidates, and greater than 300 -- 400~\mev for
219: $a_2^+$ candidates, depending on the $D^+_s$ mode.
220: The $\eta$
221: mass is required to be within a $\pm 1\sigma$ or $\pm 2\sigma$ interval of the nominal value~\cite{PDG2004},
222: depending on the background conditions in a particular $B^0$, $D^+_s$ decay mode
223: (the $\eta$ mass resolution is measured to be around 15~\mevcc).
224: The $a_0^+$ and $a_2^+$ candidates are required to have a mass
225: $m_{\eta \pi^+}$ in the range 0.9--1.1~\gevcc and 1.2--1.5~\gevcc,
226: respectively.
227: We also require that photons from $\eta$ and $D^{*+}_s$ are inconsistent
228: with $\pi^0$ hypothesis when combined with any other photon in the event
229: (the $\pi^0$ veto window varies from $\pm 10$ to $\pm 15$~\mevcc).
230: Finally, the $B^0$ meson candidates are formed using the reconstructed
231: combinations of $D^+_s a_0^-$, $D^+_s a_2^-$, $D^{*+}_s a_0^-$
232: and $D^{*+}_s a_2^-$.
233:
234: The background from continuum $q\bar{q}$ production (where $q = u,d,s,c$) is
235: suppressed based on the event topology. We calculate the angle ($\theta_T$)
236: between the thrust axis of the $B$ meson candidate and the thrust axis
237: of all other particles in the event. In the center-of-mass frame (c.m.),
238: $B\Bbar$ pairs are produced approximately at rest and have a
239: uniform $\cos\theta_T$ distribution. In contrast, $q\bar{q}$ pairs are
240: produced in the c.m.\ frame with high momentum, which results in a
241: $|\cos\theta_T|$ distribution peaking at 1. Depending on the background
242: level of each mode, $|\cos\theta_T|$ is required to be smaller than
243: 0.70--0.75. We further suppress backgrounds using a Fisher discriminant
244: (${\cal F}$)~\cite{fisher} constructed from the scalar sum of the c.m.\ momenta of all
245: tracks and photons (excluding the $B$ candidate decay products) flowing
246: into 9 concentric cones centered on the thrust axis of the $B$
247: candidate. The more isotropic the event, the larger the value of ${\cal F}$.
248: We require ${\cal F}$ to be larger than a threshold that retains
249: $75\%$ to $86\%$ of the signal while rejecting $78\%$ to $65\%$ of
250: the background, depending on the background level.
251: In addition, the
252: ratio of the second and zeroth order Fox-Wolfram
253: moments~\cite{fox-wolfram} must be less than a threshold in the
254: range 0.25--0.40 depending on the decay mode.
255:
256: We extract the signal using the kinematical variables $\mes =
257: \sqrt{E_{\rm b}^{*2} - (\sum_i {\mathbf p}^*_i)^2}$ and $\Delta E =
258: \sum_i\sqrt{m_i^2+{\mathbf p}_i^{*2}} - E_{\rm b}^*$, where $E_{\rm b}^*$ is
259: the beam energy in the c.m.\ frame, ${\mathbf p}^*_i$ is the c.m.\
260: momentum of the daughter particle $i$ of the $B^0$ meson candidate, and
261: $m_i$ is the mass hypothesis for particle $i$. For signal events, \mes
262: peaks at the $B^0$ meson mass with a resolution of about 2.7~\mevcc and
263: $\Delta E$ peaks near zero with a resolution of 20~MeV, indicating that
264: the $B^0$ candidate has a total energy consistent with the beam energy in
265: the c.m.\ frame. The $B^0$ candidates are required to have $|\Delta E|<
266: 40\ \mev$ and $\mes > 5.2~\gevcc$.
267:
268: The fraction of multiple $B^0$ candidates per event is estimated using the
269: MC simulation and found to be around $2\%$ for $D^+_s a_{0(2)}^-$
270: and $5\%$ for $D^{*+}_s a_{0(2)}^-$ combinations. In each event with
271: more than one $B^0$ candidate that passed the selection requirements, we select
272: the one with the lowest $|\Delta E|$ value.
273:
274:
275: After all selection criteria are applied, we estimate the $B^0$
276: reconstruction efficiencies, excluding the intermediate branching fractions
277: (see Table~\ref{tab:eff}).
278:
279: \begin{table}[!h]
280: \begin{center}
281: \caption{Reconstruction efficiencies for $B^0 \ra D^{(*)+}_s a_{0(2)}^-$ decays (excluding the intermediate
282: branching fractions).}
283: \label{tab:eff}
284: \vspace{\baselineskip}
285: \begin{tabular}{ c c c c c }
286: \hline\\[-7pt]
287: Decay mode & $D_s^+ \ra \phi \pi^+$~ & $D^+_s \ra \Kstarzb K^+$~ &
288: $D^+_s \ra \KS K^+$ \\
289: \hline\\[-7pt]
290: $B^0 \ra D^+_s a_{0}^-$ & 4.7$\%$ & 2.9$\%$ & 2.5$\%$ \\
291: \\[-7pt]
292: $B^0 \ra D^+_s a_{2}^-$ & 1.9$\%$ & 1.1$\%$ & 1.1$\%$ \\
293: \\[-7pt]
294: $B^0 \ra D^{*+}_s a_{0}^-$ & 2.2$\%$ & 1.5$\%$ & 1.3$\%$ \\
295: \\[-7pt]
296: $B^0 \ra D^{*+}_s a_{2}^-$ & 0.9$\%$ & 0.7$\%$ & 0.5$\%$ \\[2pt]
297: \hline
298: \end{tabular}
299: \end{center}
300: \end{table}
301:
302: Background events that pass these selection criteria are mostly
303: from $q\bar{q}$ continuum, and their \mes distribution is described by a
304: threshold function~\cite{Argus}:
305: \begin{equation*}
306: f(m_{\rm ES}) \sim m_{\rm ES} \sqrt{1-x^2} {\rm exp}[-\xi (1-x^2)],
307: \label{eq:argus}
308: \end{equation*}
309: where $x = 2 m_{\rm ES}/\sqrt{s}$, $\sqrt{s}$ is the total energy
310: of the beams in their center of mass frame, and $\xi$ is the
311: fit parameter.
312: A study using simulated events of $B^0$ and $B^+$
313: decay modes with final states similar to our signal mode, including
314: $D^{(*)+}_s \pi^-$ and $D^{(*)+}_s \rho^-$, shows that these modes do not
315: peak in \mes.
316:
317: Figure~\ref{fig:mes-all} shows the \mes
318: distributions for the reconstructed candidates $B^0 \to D_s^{+} a_0^-$, $B^0 \to D_s^{+} a_2^-$,
319: $B^0 \to D_s^{*+} a_0^-$ and $B^0\to
320: D_s^{*+}a_2^-$. For each mode, we perform an
321: unbinned maximum-likelihood fit to the \mes distributions using the
322: candidates from all \Ds decay modes combined. We fit the \mes
323: distributions with the
324: sum of the function $f(m_{ES})$ characterizing
325: the combinatorial background and a Gaussian function to describe the
326: signal.
327: The total signal yield in each $B^0$ decay mode is calculated as
328: a sum over $D^+_s$ modes ($i=\phi \pip$, $\Kstarzb K^+$, $\KS K^+$):
329: \begin{equation*}
330: n_{sig} = {\cal B} \cdot N_{B \bar B} \cdot \sum_i {\cal B}_i \cdot \epsilon_i,
331: \end{equation*}
332: where
333: ${\cal B}$ is the branching fraction of the $B^0$ decay mode,
334: $N_{B \bar B}$ is the number of produced $B\bar B$ pairs,
335: ${\cal B}_i$ is the product of the intermediate
336: branching ratios and $\epsilon_i$ is the reconstruction efficiency.
337: The mean and the width of the Gaussian function are fixed to
338: values obtained from simulated signal events for each decay mode. The threshold
339: shape parameter $\xi$, along with the branching ratio ${\cal B}$
340: are free parameters of the fit.
341: The likelihood function is given by:
342: \begin{equation*}
343: {\cal L} = \frac{e^{-N}}{N!} \prod_{i=1}^N (n_{sig} P_i^{sig} + (N-n_{sig}) P_i^{bkg}),
344: \label{eq:likelihood}
345: \end{equation*}
346: where
347: $P^{sig}_i$ and $P^{bkg}_i$ are the probability density functions
348: for the corresponding hypotheses, $N$ is the total number of events in the fit
349: and $i$ is the index over all events in the fit.
350:
351: \begin{figure}[!h] %
352: \begin{center}%
353: \epsfig{figure=eps/fig02.eps,bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=555,bbury=380,width=1.00\linewidth}%
354: \put(-168,140){\large \boldmath $D^+_s a_0^-$}
355: \put(-218,153){\small $\phi \pi^+$}
356: \put(-218,140){\small $\Kstarzb K^+$}
357: \put(-218,128){\small $\KS K^+$}
358: \put(-50,140){\large \boldmath $D^+_s a_2^-$}
359: \put(-104,153){\small $\phi \pi^+$}
360: \put(-104,140){\small $\Kstarzb K^+$}
361: \put(-104,128){\small $\KS K^+$}
362: \put(-168,60){\large \boldmath $D^{*+}_s a_0^-$}
363: \put(-218,76){\small $\phi \pi^+$}
364: \put(-218,63){\small $\Kstarzb K^+$}
365: \put(-218,51){\small $\KS K^+$}
366: \put(-50,60){\large \boldmath $D^{*+}_s a_2^-$}
367: \put(-104,76){\small $\phi \pi^+$}
368: \put(-104,63){\small $\Kstarzb K^+$}
369: \put(-104,51){\small $\KS K^+$}
370: \put(-75,-11){\small \boldmath \bf ${\rm m_{\rm ES}~~(GeV/c^2)}$}
371: \put(-255,55){\rotatebox{90}{\small \boldmath \bf ${\rm Events/1~MeV/c^2}$}}
372: \caption{
373: Distributions of \mes\ for $B^0\to D_s^{(*)+} a_{0(2)}^-$ candidates
374: overlaid with the projection of the maximum likelihood fit. Contributions from $D^+_s$ modes
375: are shown with a different hatching style. The fit procedure and results are
376: described in the text.}
377: \label{fig:mes-all}
378: \end{center}
379: \end{figure}
380:
381:
382: Table~\ref{tab:fit} (second column) shows the signal event yields from the \mes fit.
383: Due to a lack of entries in the signal region for the $B^0 \to D_s^{*+} a_2^-$ mode,
384: the fit did not yield any central value for the number of signal
385: events in this mode.
386: Accounting for the
387: estimated reconstruction efficiencies and daughter particles branching fractions,
388: we measure the branching fractions shown in the third column of Table~\ref{tab:fit}.
389:
390:
391: \begin{table}[!h]
392: \begin{center}
393: \caption{Signal yields, branching fractions
394: and upper limits on the branching fractions
395: for $B^0 \ra D^{(*)+}_s a_{0(2)}^-$ decays.
396: Numbers in parentheses in the third and fourth columns indicate the branching
397: fractions and the upper limits
398: multiplied by the branching fractions of the decays $D^+_s \ra \phi \pi^+$
399: and $a_{0(2)}^+ \ra \eta \pi^+$.}
400: \label{tab:fit}
401: \vspace{\baselineskip}
402: \begin{tabular}{ l c c c c }
403: \hline\\[-7pt]
404: $B^0$ mode & $n_{sig}$~ & ~${\cal B}~[10^{-5}(10^{-7})]$ &
405: $U.L.\ ~[10^{-5}]$ \\
406: \hline\\[-7pt]
407: $D^+_s a_{0}^-$ & $0.9^{+2.2}_{-1.7}$ & $0.6^{+1.4}_{-1.1} \pm 0.1~~(2.6^{+6.6}_{-5.1} \pm 0.5)$ & $1.9~(0.09)$ \\
408: \\[-7pt]
409: $D^+_s a_{2}^-$ & $0.6^{+1.0}_{-0.6}$ & $6.4^{+10.4}_{-5.7} \pm 1.5~~(4.5^{+7.3}_{-4.0} \pm 0.8)$ & $19~(0.13)$ \\
410: \\[-7pt]
411: $D^{*+}_s a_{0}^-$ & $1.5^{+2.3}_{-1.8}$ & $1.4^{+2.1}_{-1.6} \pm 0.3~~(6.5^{+10.1}_{-7.8} \pm 1.2)$ & $3.6~(0.17)$ \\
412: \\[-7pt]
413: $D^{*+}_s a_{2}^-$ & $-$ & $- ~~(-)$ & $20~(0.13)$ \\[2pt]
414: \hline
415: \end{tabular}
416: \end{center}
417: \end{table}
418:
419: The systematic errors include a 14\% relative uncertainty for
420: $D_s^+$ decay rates~\cite{dsphipi-babar}. Uncertainties in the \mes
421: signal and background shapes result
422: in 11\% relative error in the measured branching fractions.
423: The rest of the systematic error sources, which include uncertainties in
424: photon and $\eta$ reconstruction efficiencies, the $a_0^+$ and $a_2^+$ masses and
425: widths, track and \KS reconstruction, charged kaon identification, range
426: between 3\% and 10\%. We assume the branching fraction for $a_0^+\to
427: \eta\pi^+$ to be 100\% and assign an asymmetric systematic error of
428: $-10\%$ to this assumption. The systematic error in the number of
429: produced $B\Bbar$ pairs is 1.1$\%$.
430: It was checked that the selection of the best candidate based
431: on $|\Delta E|$ does not introduce any significant bias
432: in the $m_{ES}$ fit.
433: The total relative systematic errors are estimated to be around $25\%$ for each mode.
434:
435: We use a Bayesian approach with a flat prior above zero to set 90$\%$ confidence level
436: upper limits on the branching fractions. In a given mode, the upper limit
437: on the branching fraction (${\cal B}_{UL}$) is defined by:
438: \begin{equation*}
439: \int_0^{{\cal B}_{UL}} {\cal L}({\cal B}) d{\cal B} = 0.9 \times \int_0^{\infty} {\cal L}({\cal B}) d{\cal B}
440: \label{eq:uplimit}
441: \end{equation*}
442: where ${\cal L}({\cal B})$ is the likelihood as a function of the branching fraction
443: ${\cal B}$ as determined from the \mes fit described above.
444: We account for systematic uncertainties
445: by numerically convolving ${\cal L}({\cal B})$ with a Gaussian distribution with a width
446: determined by the relative systematic uncertainty multiplied by the
447: branching fraction obtained from the \mes fit.
448: In cases with asymmetric errors we took the larger for the width of this
449: Gaussian function.
450: In case of $D^{*+}_s a_2^-$ (where no central value
451: was determined from the fit) we conservatively estimate the absolute systematic
452: error by taking the numerically calculated $90\%$ confidence level upper limit
453: (without the systematic uncertainties) instead of the fitted branching fraction.
454: The resulting upper limits are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:fit} (fourth column).
455: The likelihood curves are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:scan-all}.
456:
457:
458: We have also calculated upper limits without including the intermediate
459: branching fractions of the decays
460: $D^+_s \ra \phi \pi^+$~\cite{dsphipi-babar}
461: and $a_{0(2)}^+ \ra \eta \pi^+$~\cite{PDG2004}.
462: The relative systematic errors in this case are reduced to $18\%$ for each
463: of the $B^0$ meson decay modes. The results are presented in Table~\ref{tab:fit}
464: (third and fourth columns, numbers in parenthesis).
465:
466: \begin{figure}[!h] %
467: \begin{center}%
468: \epsfig{figure=eps/fig03a.eps,bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=555,bbury=380,width=0.51\linewidth}%
469: \put(-55,60){\boldmath \large $D^+_s a_0^-$}
470: \put(-40,-7){\boldmath \bf ${\cal B} \times 10^4$}
471: \epsfig{figure=eps/fig03b.eps,bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=555,bbury=380,width=0.51\linewidth}%
472: \put(-55,60){\boldmath \large $D^+_s a_2^-$}
473: \put(-40,-7){\boldmath \bf ${\cal B} \times 10^4$}
474:
475: \epsfig{figure=eps/fig03c.eps,bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=555,bbury=385,width=0.51\linewidth}%
476: \put(-55,60){\boldmath \large $D^{*+}_s a_0^-$}
477: \put(-40,-7){\boldmath \bf ${\cal B} \times 10^4$}
478: \epsfig{figure=eps/fig03d.eps,bbllx=0,bblly=0,bburx=555,bbury=385,width=0.51\linewidth}%
479: \put(-55,60){\boldmath\large $D^{*+}_s a_2^-$}
480: \put(-40,-7){\boldmath \bf ${\cal B} \times 10^4$}
481: \caption{
482: Likelihood functions of the fit for the \mes\ distributions of the
483: selected $B^0\to D_s^{(*)+} a_{0(2)}^-$ candidates.
484: Solid curves represent the original likelihood scan from the fit,
485: the dashed lines show the result of the convolution with the systematic
486: errors Gaussian. Vertical lines indicate the 90$\%$~Bayesian C.L. upper limit value.}
487: \label{fig:scan-all}
488: \end{center}
489: \end{figure}
490:
491:
492: In conclusion, we do not observe any evidence for the decays
493: $B^0\to D_s^{+} a_0^-$, $B^0\to D_s^{+} a_2^-$, $B^0\to D_s^{*+} a_0^-$
494: and $B^0\to D_s^{*+} a_2^-$, and set 90\% C.L.\
495: upper limits on their branching fractions. The upper limit value for
496: $B^0\to D_s^{+} a_0^-$ is lower than the theoretical expectation,
497: which might indicate the need to revisit the $B \ra a_0 X$ transition
498: form factor estimate. It might also imply the limited applicability
499: of the factorization approach for this decay mode. The upper limits
500: suggest that the branching ratios of $B^0 \ra D^{(*)+} a_{0(2)}^-$
501: are too small for $CP$-asymmetry measurements given the present
502: statistics of the $B$-factories.
503:
504: \input pubboard/acknow_PRL.tex
505:
506: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
507:
508: \bibitem{ckm} M.~Kobayashi, T.~Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 49}, 652 (1973), N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett.
509: {\bf 10}, 531 (1963).
510: \relax
511:
512: \bibitem{angles} $\beta = \arg(-V_{cd} V^*_{cb}/V_{td} V^*_{tb}), ~\gamma = \arg(-V_{ud} V^*_{ub}/V_{cd} V^*_{cb})$
513: \relax
514:
515: \bibitem{chargeconj}
516: Charge conjugate reactions are implicitly included, throughout this paper.
517:
518: \bibitem{2b+g-expts-1}
519: \babar\ Collaboration, B.~Aubert {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 251801 (2004);
520: \babar\ Collaboration, B.~Aubert {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 251802 (2004);
521: \relax
522:
523: \bibitem{2b+g-expts-2}
524: BELLE Collaboration, K.~Abe {\it al.}, hep-ex/0408106.
525: \relax
526:
527: \bibitem{yet-another-way} M.~Diehl, G.~Hiller, {Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 517}, 125 (2001).
528: \relax
529:
530: \bibitem{dh} M.~Diehl, G.~Hiller, JHEP 0106:067 (2001).
531: \relax
532:
533: \bibitem{klo} C.S.~Kim, J.P.~Lee, and S.~Oh, {Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 67}, 014011 (2003).
534: \relax
535:
536: \bibitem{pep2}
537: PEP-II Conceptual Design Report, SLAC-0418 (1993).
538: \relax
539:
540: \bibitem{babar}
541: \babar\ Collaboration, B.\ Aubert {\em et al.}, Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Methods
542: Phys.\ Res., Sect.\ A {\bf 479}, 1 (2002).
543:
544: \bibitem{geant}
545: Geant4 Collaboration, S.\ Agostinelli {\it et al.},
546: Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Methods
547: Phys.\ Res., Sect.\ A {\bf 506}, 250 (2003).
548: \relax
549:
550: \bibitem{PDG2004}
551: Particle Data Group, S.~Eidelman {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett.
552: {\bf B 592}, 1 (2004).
553: \relax
554:
555: \bibitem{fisher}
556: R.A.~Fisher,
557: Annals of Eugenics 7 Part II, 179 (1936).
558: \relax
559:
560: \bibitem{fox-wolfram}
561: G.C.~Fox and S.~Wolfram, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 41}, 1581 (1978).
562: \relax
563:
564: \bibitem{Argus}
565: ARGUS Collaboration, H.~Albrecht {\em et al.}, \zpc{\bf 48}, 543
566: (1990).
567:
568: \bibitem{dsphipi-babar}
569: \babar\ Collaboration, B.~Aubert {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D71}, 091104 (2005);
570:
571: \end{thebibliography}
572: \end{document}
573:
574:
575:
576:
577:
578:
579:
580:
581:
582:
583:
584:
585:
586:
587:
588:
589:
590:
591:
592: