1: \section{ANALYSIS METHOD}
2: \label{sec:Analysis}
3:
4: The $U$ and $I$ coefficients and the $\Btopipipi$ event yield are
5: determined by a maximum-likelihood fit of the signal model to the
6: selected candidate events. Kinematic and event shape variables
7: exploiting the characteristic properties of the events are used
8: in the fit to discriminate signal from background.
9:
10: \subsection{EVENT SELECTION AND BACKGROUND SUPPRESSION}
11: \label{subsec:selection}
12:
13: We reconstruct $\Btopipipi$ candidates from pairs of
14: oppositely-charged tracks, which are required to form a good quality vertex,
15: and a $\pi^0$ candidate. In order to ensure that all events are within
16: the Dalitz plot bounaries, we constrain the three-pion invariant mass to the B-mass.
17: %
18: We use information from the tracking system, EMC, and DIRC to
19: remove tracks for which the PID is consistent with the electron, kaon,
20: or proton hypotheses. In addition, we require that at least one track
21: has a signature in the IFR that is inconsistent with the muon
22: hypothesis.
23: %
24: The $\pi^0$ candidate mass must satisfy $0.11<m(\gamma\gamma)<0.16\gevcc$,
25: where each photon is required to have an energy greater than $50\mev$
26: in the laboratory frame (LAB) and to exhibit a lateral profile of energy
27: deposition in the EMC consistent with an electromagnetic shower.
28:
29: A $B$-meson candidate is characterized kinematically by the energy-substituted
30: mass $\mes=\lbrack{(\half s+\pvec_0\cdot\pvec_B)^2/E_0^2-\pvec_B^2}\rbrack^\half$
31: and energy difference $\de = E_B^*-\half\sqrt{s}$,
32: where $(E_B,\pvec_B)$ and $(E_0,\pvec_0)$ are the four-vectors
33: of the $B$-candidate and the initial electron-positron system,
34: respectively. The asterisk denotes the \FourS\ frame,
35: and $s$ is the square of the invariant mass of the electron-positron system.
36: We require $5.272 < \mes <5.288\gevcc$, which retains $81\%$
37: of the signal and $8\%$ of the continuum background events.
38: The $\de$ resolution
39: exhibits a dependence on the $\pi^0$ energy and therefore varies
40: across the Dalitz plot. We account for this effect by introducing
41: the transformed quantity $\deprime=(2\de - \demax - \demin)/(\demax - \demin)$,
42: with $\deminmax(\mpm)=c_{\pm}-\left(c_{\pm}\mp\bar c\right)(\mpm/\mpmMax)^2$,
43: where $\mpm$ is strongly correlated with the energy of $\piz$.
44: We use the values
45: $\bar c = 0.045\gev$, $c_{-} = -0.140\gev$, $c_{+} = 0.080\gev$,
46: $\mpmMax = 5.0\gev$, and require $-1<\deprime<1$.
47: These values have been obtained from Monte Carlo simulation and
48: are tuned to maximize the selection of correctly reconstructed over
49: misreconstructed signal events. The requirement retains $75\%$ ($25\%$)
50: of the signal (continuum).
51:
52: Backgrounds arise primarily from random combinations in continuum events.
53: To enhance discrimination between signal and continuum, we
54: use a neural network (NN)~\cite{NNo} to combine four discriminating variables:
55: the angles with respect to the beam axis of the $B$ momentum and $B$ thrust
56: axis in the \FourS\ frame, and the zeroth and second order monomials
57: $L_{0,2}$ of the energy flow about the $B$ thrust axis. The monomials
58: are defined by $ L_j = \sum_i {\bf p}_i\times\left|\cos\theta_i\right|^j$,
59: where $\theta_i$ is the angle with respect to the $B$ thrust axis of
60: track or neutral cluster $i$, ${\bf p}_i$ is its momentum, and the sum
61: excludes the $B$ candidate.
62: The NN is trained in the signal region with off-resonance data and
63: simulated signal events. The final sample of signal candidates
64: is selected with a requirement on the NN output that retains $77\%$ ($8\%$)
65: of the signal (continuum).
66:
67: The time difference $\deltat$ is obtained from the measured distance between
68: the $z$ positions (along the beam direction) of the $\Bz_{\tpi}$ and
69: $\Bz_{\rm tag}$ decay vertices, and the boost $\beta\gamma=0.56$ of
70: the \epem\ system: $\deltat = \Delta z/\beta\gamma c$.
71: To determine the flavor of the $\Bz_{\rm tag}$
72: we use the $B$ flavor tagging algorithm of Ref.~\cite{BabarS2b}.
73: This produces six mutually exclusive tagging categories. We also
74: retain untagged events in a seventh category to improve the efficiency
75: of the signal selection and because these events contribute to the
76: measurement of direct \CP violation. Events with multiple \B
77: candidates passing the full selection occur
78: in $16\%$ $(\rho^\pm\pi^\mp)$ and $9\%$ $(\rho^0\pi^0)$
79: of the cases. If the multiple candidates have different $\pi^0$'s,
80: we choose the candidate with the reconstructed $\pi^0$ mass closest
81: to the nominal one; in the case that both candidates have the same $\pi^0$,
82: we pick the first one.
83:
84: The signal efficiency determined from MC simulation is $24\%$ for
85: $B^0 \to \rho^\pm\pi^\mp$ and $B^0 \to \rho^0\pi^0$ events, and
86: $11\%$ for non-resonant $\Btopipipi$ events.
87:
88: Of the selected signal events, $22\%$ of $B^0 \to \rho^\pm\pi^\mp$,
89: $13\% $ of $B^0 \to \rho^0\pi^0$, and $6\%$ of non-resonant events are
90: misreconstructed. Misreconstruced events occur when a track or
91: neutral cluster from the tagging $B$ is assigned to the reconstructed signal candidate.
92: This occurs most often for low-momentum tracks and photons and hence the misreconstructed events
93: concentrate in the corners of the Dalitz plot. Since these are also the areas where the $\rho$-mesons
94: overlap strongly, it is important to model the misreconstruced events correctly. The details of the model
95: for misreconstructed events over the Dalitz plot is detailed in Section \ref{sec:deltaT}.
96:
97:
98: \subsection{BACKGROUND FROM OTHER {\em B} DECAYS}
99:
100: \begin{table*}[t]
101: \begin{center}
102: \input{bBackground.tex}
103: \vspace{-0.2cm}
104: \caption{ \label{tab:bbackground}
105: Summary of the \B-background modes taken into account for the
106: likelihood model. They have been grouped in twenty classes:
107: charged charmless (six), neutral charmless (eight),
108: exclusive neutral charmed (four) and inclusive neutral and
109: charged charmed decays. Modes with at least two events expected
110: after final selection have been included.}
111: \end{center}
112: \end{table*}
113:
114: We use MC simulated events to study the background from other $B$
115: decays. More than a hundred channels have been considered in the
116: preliminary studies, of which twenty-nine have been finally included
117: in the likelihood model -- decays with at least two events expected after
118: selection. These exclusive \B-background modes are grouped into eighteen
119: different classes gathering decays with similar kinematic and topological
120: properties: six for charged charmless \B-decays, eight for neutral charmless
121: \B-decays and four for exclusive neutral charmed \B-decays.
122: Two additional classes account for inclusive neutral and charged
123: $b\to c$ decays.
124:
125: Table \ref{tab:bbackground} summarizes the twenty background classes which are
126: used in the fit. For each mode, the expected number of selected events is
127: computed by multiplying the selection efficiency (estimated using MC
128: simulated decays) by the branching fraction scaled up to the dataset
129: luminosity ($310\;\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$). The world average branching ratios have been
130: used for the experimentally known decay modes. When only upper limits are
131: given, they have been translated into branching ratios using all information
132: available such as additional conservative hypotheses (e.g. 100\% longitudinal
133: polarization for $B\to\rho\rho$ decay) if needed.
134:
135:
136: \subsection{THE MAXIMUM-LIKELIHOOD FIT}
137: \label{subsec:ML}
138:
139: We perform an unbinned extended maximum-likelihood fit to extract
140: the inclusive $\Btopipipi$ event yield and the $U$ and $I$ coefficients
141: defined in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:firstObs})--(\ref{eq:lastObs}).
142: The fit uses the variables $\mes$, $\deprime$, the NN output, and the
143: Dalitz plot to discriminate signal from background. The
144: $\dt$ measurement allows to the determination of mixing-induced \CP violation
145: and provides additional continuum-background rejection.
146:
147: The selected on-resonance data sample is assumed to consist of signal,
148: continuum-background and \B-background components, separated by the
149: flavor and tagging category of the tag side \B decay.
150: The signal likelihood consists of the sum of a correctly
151: reconstructed (``truth-matched'', TM) component and a misreconstructed
152: (``self-cross-feed'', SCF) component.
153:
154: The probability density function (PDF) ${\cal P}_i^\cat$ for an
155: event $i$ in tagging category $\cat$ is the sum of the probability densities
156: of all components, namely
157: %
158: \beqn
159: \label{eq:theLikelihood}
160: {\cal P}_i^\cat
161: &\equiv&
162: N_{\tpi} f^\cat_{\tpi}
163: \left[ (1-\fscfave^\cat){\cal P}_{\tpi-\TM,i}^\cat +
164: \fscfave^\cat{\cal P}_{\tpi-\SCF,i}^\cat
165: \right]
166: \nonumber\\[0.3cm]
167: &&
168: +\; N^\cat_{q\bar q}\frac{1}{2}
169: \left(1 + \Qtagi\Atagqq\right){\cal P}_{q\bar q,i}^\cat
170: \nonumber \\[0.3cm]
171: &&
172: +\; \sum_{j=1}^{N^{B^+}_{\rm class}}
173: N_{B^+j} f^\cat_{B^+j}
174: \frac{1}{2}\left(1 + \Qtagi \Atagj\right){\cal P}_{B^+,ij}^\cat
175: \nonumber \\[0.3cm]
176: &&
177: +\; \sum_{j=1}^{N^{B^0}_{\rm class}}
178: N_{B^0j} f^\cat_{B^0j}
179: {\cal P}_{B^0,ij}^\cat~,
180: \eeqn
181: where:
182: $N_{\tpi}$ is the total number of $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ signal events
183: in the data sample;
184: %
185: $f^\cat_{\tpi}$ is the fraction of signal events that are
186: tagged in category $\cat$;
187: %
188: $\fscfave^\cat$ is the fraction of SCF events in tagging category $\cat$,
189: averaged over the Dalitz plot;
190: %
191: ${\cal P}_{\tpi-\TM,i}^\cat$ and ${\cal P}_{\tpi-\SCF,i}^\cat$
192: are the products of PDFs of the discriminating variables used
193: in tagging category $\cat$ for TM and SCF
194: events, respectively;
195: %
196: $N^\cat_{q\bar q}$ is the number of continuum events that are
197: tagged in category $\cat$;
198: %
199: $\Qtagi$ is the tag flavor of the event, defined to be
200: $+1$ for a $\Bz_{\rm tag}$ and $-1$ for a $\Bzb_{\rm tag}$;
201: %
202: $\Atagqq$ parameterizes possible tag asymmetry in continuum events;
203: %
204: ${\cal P}_{q\bar q,i}^\cat$ is the continuum PDF for tagging
205: category $\cat$;
206: %
207: $N^{B^+}_{\rm class}$ ($N^{B^0}_{\rm class}$) is the number of
208: charged (neutral) $B$-related background classes considered in the fit;
209: %
210: $N_{B^+j}$ ($N_{B^0j}$) is the number of expected events in
211: the charged (neutral) $B$-background class $j$;
212: %
213: $f^\cat_{B^+j}$ ($f^\cat_{B^0j}$) is the fraction of
214: charged (neutral) $B$-background events of class $j$
215: that are tagged in category $\cat$;
216: %
217: $\Atagj$ describes a possible tag asymmetry in the charged-$B$ background
218: class $j$;
219: correlations between the tag and the position in the Dalitz plot
220: (the ``charge'') are absorbed in tag-flavor-dependent
221: Dalitz plot PDFs that are used for charged-\B and continuum
222: background;
223: %
224: ${\cal P}_{B^+,ij}^\cat$ is the $B^+$-background PDF for tagging
225: category $\cat$ and class $j$;
226: %
227: finally, ${\cal P}_{B^0,ij}^\cat$ is the neutral-$B$-background
228: PDF for tagging category $\cat$ and class $j$.
229: %
230:
231: The PDFs ${\cal P}_{X}^{\cat}$ ($X=\{TM, SCF, {\rm continuum}, {\rm B-bkg}\}$)
232: are the product of the four PDFs of the discriminating variables,
233: $x_1 = m_{ES}$, $x_2 = \deprime$, $x_3 = {\rm NN output}$, and the triplet
234: $x_4 = \{\mprime, \thetaprime, \deltat\}$:
235: \beq
236: \label{eq:likVars}
237: {\cal P}_{X,i(j)}^{\cat} \;\equiv\;
238: \prod_{k=1}^4 P_{X,i(j)}^\cat(x_k)~.
239: \eeq
240: The extended likelihood over all tagging categories is given by
241: %
242: \beq
243: {\cal L} \;\equiv\;
244: \prod_{\cat=1}^{7} e^{-\overline N^\cat}\,
245: \prod_{i}^{N^\cat} {\cal P}_{i}^\cat~,
246: \eeq
247: %
248: where $\overline N^\cat$ is the total number of events expected in category
249: $\cat$.
250:
251: A total of 68 parameters, including the inclusive signal yield and the
252: parameters from Eq.~(\ref{eq:dt}), are varied in the fit. Most of the
253: parameters describing the continuum distributions are also floated
254: in the fit.
255:
256: \begin{table*}[t]
257: \begin{center}
258: \input{pdfTable.tex}
259: \vspace{-0.2cm}
260: \caption{ \label{tab:pdfparameterization}
261: Summary of PDF parameterizations where G=Gaussian, PX=X-order polynomial, NP=non-parametric, and biCB=bifurcated Crystal Ball. See Section \ref{sec:deltaT} for a detailed description of the Dalitz plot parameterization for signal.}
262: \end{center}
263: \end{table*}
264:
265: \subsubsection{\boldmath THE $\dt$ AND DALITZ PLOT PDFS}
266: \label{sec:deltaT}
267:
268: The Dalitz plot PDFs require as input the Dalitz plot-dependent
269: relative selection efficiency, $\e=\e(\mprime,\thetaprime)$,
270: and SCF fraction, $\fscf=\fscf(\mprime,\thetaprime)$.
271: Both quantities are taken from MC simulation.
272: Away from the Dalitz plot corners the efficiency is uniform, while it
273: decreases when approaching the corners, where one out of the
274: three bodies in the final state is close to rest so that the
275: acceptance requirements on the particle reconstruction become
276: restrictive.
277: Combinatorial backgrounds and hence SCF fractions are large in
278: the corners
279: of the Dalitz plot due to the presence of soft neutral clusters
280: and tracks.
281:
282: For an event~$i$, we define the time-dependent Dalitz plot PDFs
283: \beqn
284: P_{\tpi-\TM,i} &=&
285: \varepsilon_i\,(1 - \fscfi)\,\detJi\,\AmpAll~,
286: \\[0.3cm]
287: P_{\tpi-\SCF,\,i} &=&
288: \varepsilon_i\,\fscfi\,\detJi\,\AmpAll~,
289: \eeqn
290: where $P_{\tpi-\TM,i}$ and $P_{\tpi-\SCF,\,i}$ are normalized. The
291: corresponding phase space integration involves the expectation values
292: $\langle \varepsilon\,(1-\fscf)\,\detJ \,f^\kappa f^{\sigma*}\rangle$
293: and
294: $\langle \varepsilon\,\fscf\,\detJ\, f^\kappa f^{\sigma*}\rangle$
295: for TM and SCF events, where the indices $\kappa$, $\sigma$
296: run over all resonances belonging to the signal model.
297: The expectation values are model-dependent and are
298: computed with the use of MC integration over the square Dalitz plot:
299: \beq
300: \label{eq:normAverage}
301: \langle \varepsilon\,(1-\fscf)\,\detJ\, f^\kappa f^{\sigma*}\rangle
302: \;=\; \frac{\int_0^1\int_0^1
303: \varepsilon\,(1-\fscf)\,\detJ\, f^\kappa f^{\sigma*}
304: \,d\mprime d\thetaprime}
305: {\int_0^1\int_0^1 \varepsilon\,\detJ\, f^\kappa f^{\sigma*}
306: \,d\mprime d\thetaprime}~,
307: \eeq
308: and similarly for
309: $\langle \varepsilon\,\,\detJ\, f^\kappa f^{\sigma*}\rangle$,
310: where all quantities in the integrands are Dalitz plot-dependent.
311:
312: Equation~(\ref{eq:theLikelihood}) invokes the phase
313: space-averaged SCF fraction
314: $\fscfave\equiv\langle\fscf\,\detJ\, f^\kappa f^{\sigma*}\rangle$.
315: The PDF normalization is decay-dynamics-dependent
316: and is computed iteratively. We
317: determine the average SCF fractions separately for each tagging category
318: from MC simulation.
319:
320: The width of the dominant $\rho(770)$ resonance is large compared
321: to the mass resolution for TM events (about $8\mevcc$ core Gaussian
322: resolution). We therefore neglect resolution effects in the TM
323: model.
324: Misreconstructed events have a poor mass resolution that strongly
325: varies across the Dalitz plot. It is described in the fit by a
326: $2\times 2$-dimensional resolution function
327: \beq
328: \label{eq:rscf}
329: \Rscf(\mprime_r,\thetaprime_r,\mprime_t,\thetaprime_t)~,
330: \eeq
331: which represents the probability to reconstruct at the coordinate
332: $(\mprime_r,\thetaprime_r)$ an event that has the true coordinate
333: $(\mprime_t,\thetaprime_t)$. It obeys the unitarity condition
334: \beq
335: \intl_0^1\intl_0^1
336: \Rscf(\mprime_r,\thetaprime_r,\mprime_t,\thetaprime_t)
337: \,d\mprime_r d\thetaprime_r = 1,~
338: \eeq
339: and is convolved with the signal model.
340: The $\Rscf$ function is obtained from MC simulation.
341:
342: We use the signal model described in Section~\ref{sec:kinmeatics}.
343: It contains the dynamical information and is connected with $\dt$ via
344: the matrix element~(\ref{eq:dt}), which serves as PDF. It is diluted
345: by the effects of mistagging and the limited vertex
346: resolution~\cite{rhopipaper}.
347: The $\deltat$ resolution function for signal and \B-background
348: events is a sum of three Gaussian distributions, with parameters
349: determined by a fit to fully reconstructed $\Bz$
350: decays~\cite{BabarS2b}.
351: \\[0.3cm]\noindent
352: The Dalitz plot- and $\dt$-dependent PDFs factorize for the
353: charged-$B$-background modes, but not (necessarily)
354: for the neutral-$B$ background due to $\BzBzb$ mixing.
355:
356: The charged \B-background
357: contribution to the likelihood~(\ref{eq:theLikelihood})
358: involves
359: the parameter $\Atag$, multiplied by the tag flavor $\Qtag$ of
360: the event. In the presence of significant tag-``charge''
361: correlation (represented by an effective
362: flavor-tag-versus-Dalitz-coordinate correlation),
363: it parameterizes possible direct \CP violation in these events.
364: We also use distinct square Dalitz plot PDFs for each
365: reconstructed $B$ flavor tag, and a flavor-tag-averaged PDF for
366: untagged events. The PDFs are obtained from MC simulation and are
367: described with the use of non-parametric functions.
368: The $\dt$ resolution parameters are determined by a fit to fully
369: reconstructed $\Bp$ decays. For each $\Bp$-background class we adjust
370: effective lifetimes to account for the misreconstruction of the
371: event that modifies the nominal $\dt$ resolution function.
372:
373: The neutral-$B$ background is parameterized with PDFs that
374: depend on the flavor tag of the event. In the case of \CP
375: eigenstates, correlations between the flavor tag and the Dalitz
376: coordinate are expected to be small. However, non-\CP eigenstates,
377: such as $a_1^\pm\pi^\mp$, may exhibit such correlation. Both types
378: of decays can have direct
379: and mixing-induced \CP violation. A third type of decays
380: involves charged kaons and does not exhibit mixing-induced
381: \CP violation, but usually has a strong correlation between the
382: flavor tag and the Dalitz plot coordinate (the kaon charge), because
383: it consists of $B$-flavor eigenstates.
384: The Dalitz plot PDFs are obtained from MC simulation and are
385: described with the use of non-parametric functions.
386: For neutral $B$ background, the signal $\dt$ resolution model
387: is assumed.
388:
389: The Dalitz plot
390: treatment of the continuum events is similar to the one used
391: for charged-$B$ background.
392: The square Dalitz plot PDF for continuum background is
393: obtained from on-resonance events selected in the
394: $\mes$ sidebands and corrected for feed-through
395: from \B decays. A large number of cross checks has been
396: performed to ensure the high fidelity of the empirical shape
397: parameterization. Analytical models have been found insufficient.
398: The continuum $\deltat$ distribution is parameterized as the sum of
399: three Gaussian distributions with common mean and
400: three distinct widths that scale the $\dt$ per-event error.
401: This yields six shape parameters that are determined by
402: the fit.
403: The model is motivated by the observation that
404: the $\dt$ average is independent of its error, and that the
405: $\dt$ RMS depends linearly on the $\dt$ error.
406:
407: \subsubsection{PARAMETERIZATION OF THE OTHER VARIABLES}
408: \label{sec:likmESanddE}
409:
410: The $\mes$ distribution of TM signal events is
411: parameterized by a bifurcated Crystal Ball function~\cite{PDFsCB},
412: which is a combination of a one-sided Gaussian and
413: a Crystal Ball function. The mean of this function
414: is determined by the fit. A non-parametric
415: function is used to describe the SCF signal component.
416:
417: The $\deprime$ distribution of TM events is
418: parameterized by a double Gaussian function, where
419: all five parameters depend linearly on $\mpm^2$.
420: Misreconstructed events are parameterized by a broad
421: single Gaussian function.
422:
423: Both $\mes$ and $\deprime$ PDFs are parameterized by non-parametric
424: functions for all $B$-background classes.
425:
426: The $\mes$ and $\deprime$ PDFs for continuum events are
427: parameterized with an Argus shape function~\cite{PDFsArgus} and
428: a second order polynomial, respectively, with parameters
429: determined by the fit.
430:
431: We use non-parametric functions to empirically describe the distributions
432: of the NN outputs
433: found in the MC simulation for TM and SCF signal events,
434: and for \B-background events. We distinguish tagging categories
435: for TM signal events to account for differences observed in the
436: shapes.
437:
438: The continuum NN distribution is parameterized by a
439: third order polynomial that is defined to be positive.
440: The coefficients of the polynomial are determined by the fit.
441: Continuum events exhibit a correlation between the Dalitz plot
442: coordinate
443: and the shape of the event that is exploited in the NN.
444: To correct for residual effects,
445: we introduce a linear dependence of the polynomial coefficients
446: on the distance of the Dalitz plot coordinate to the kinematic
447: boundaries of the Dalitz plot. The parameters describing this
448: dependence are determined by the fit.
449:
450: