1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: \section{ANALYSIS METHOD}
3: \label{sec:Analysis}
4:
5: Due to the presence of multiple neutrinos, the \btn \xspace decay mode
6: lacks the kinematic constraints which are usually exploited in $B$ decay
7: searches in order to reject both continuum and $B\overline{B}$ backgrounds.
8: The strategy adopted for this analysis is to reconstruct exclusively
9: the decay of one of the $B$ mesons in the event, referred to as ``tag'' $B$.
10: The remaining particle(s) in the event, referred to as the
11: ``signal side'', are then compared with the signature
12: expected for \btn. In order to avoid experimenter bias, the
13: signal region in data is not examined (``blinded'') until the final yield
14: extraction is performed.
15:
16: The tag $B$ is reconstructed in the set of semileptonic $B$ decay modes
17: \btodlnux, where $\ell$ is $e$ or $\mu$ and $X$ can be either nothing or a
18: transition particle from a higher mass charm state decay which we do not attempt
19: to reconstruct (although those tags consistent with neutral $B$ decays are vetoed).
20: The $\Dz$ is reconstructed in four decay modes:
21: $K^{-}\pi^{+}$, $K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{+}$, $K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{0}$, and
22: $K_{s}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$. The $K_{s}^{0}$ is reconstructed only in the
23: mode $K_{s}^{0} \rightarrow \pi^{+}\pi^{-}$.
24: These cases where the low momentum transition daughter
25: of $D^{*0}$ decays need not be reconstructed and the final state
26: $B\to\Dz\ell\nu X$ as observed provides a higher efficiency but
27: somewhat lower purity than the exclusive reconstruction method of
28: $\btodszlnu$.
29: The choice of reconstructing the tag $B$ as $\btodlnux$ was optimized
30: by maximizing $s/\sqrt{s+b}$ where $s =$~signal and $b =$~background where
31: a branching fraction for $\btn$ of $1\times10^{-4}$ is assumed.
32:
33: The \btn \xspace signal is searched for in
34: both leptonic and hadronic $\tau$ decay modes:
35: $\tautoenunu$, $\tautomununu$, $\tautopinu$ and $\tautopipiznu$.
36: The branching fractions of the above $\tau$ decay
37: modes are listed in Table \ref{tab:TauDecayModes}.
38: %Kinematic variables used for
39: %event selection and background rejection are measured in the
40: %CM frame.
41:
42:
43: \begin{table}[h]
44: \caption{\label{tab:TauDecayModes} Branching fractions for the $\tau$ decay modes used in the \btn\ search~\cite{ref:pdg2004}.}
45: \begin{center}
46: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|}
47: \hline
48: Decay Mode & Branching Fraction (\%) \\
49: \hline\hline
50: $\tautoenunu$ & 17.84 $\pm$ 0.06 \\ \hline
51: $\tautomununu$ & 17.36 $\pm$ 0.06 \\ \hline
52: $\tautopinu$ & 11.06 $\pm$ 0.11 \\ \hline
53: $\tautopipiznu$ & 25.42 $\pm$ 0.14 \\ \hline
54: %$\tautothreepinu$ & 9.16 $\pm$ 0.10 \\ \hline
55: \end{tabular}
56: \end{center}
57: \end{table}
58:
59:
60:
61: \subsection{Tag \boldmath{B} Reconstruction}
62: \label{sec:TagReco}
63:
64: The tag $B$ reconstruction proceeds as follows. First we reconstruct the
65: $\Dz$ candidates in the aforementioned four decay modes using reconstructed tracks
66: and photons where a $\piz$ is included. The tracks
67: are required to meet particle identification criteria consistent
68: with the particle hypothesis, and are required to converge at a common vertex.
69: The $\piz$ candidate is required to have invariant mass between
70: 0.115--0.150 \gev/$c^2$ and its daughter photon candidates must
71: have a minimum energy of 30 \mev.
72: The mass of the reconstructed $\Dz$ candidates in
73: $K^{-}\pi^{+}$, $K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{+}$, and $K_{s}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$
74: modes are required to be within 20 \mev/$c^2$ of the nominal mass
75: \cite{ref:pdg2004}.
76: %$\KS$ candidates are required to be within a loose mass window of between
77: %300 and 700~MeV/$c^2$. The distance between the $\KS$ decay vertex and the
78: %primary vertex is required to be greater than 0.2~cm.
79: In the $K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{0}$ decay mode
80: the mass is required to be within 35 \mev/$c^2$ of the nominal mass
81: \cite{ref:pdg2004}.
82:
83:
84: Finally $\Dz\ell$ candidates are reconstructed by combining the
85: $\Dz$ with an identified electron
86: or muon with momentum above 0.8 \gev/$c$ in the CM frame.
87: The $D^{0}$ and $\ell$ candidates are required to meet at a common vertex.
88: An additional kinematic constraint is imposed on the reconstructed
89: $\Dz\ell$ candidates:
90: assuming that the massless neutrino is the only missing particle, we
91: calculate the cosine of the angle between the $\Dz\ell$ candidate
92: and the $B$ meson,
93: %
94: \begin{equation}
95: \cos\theta_{B-D^{0}\ell} = \frac{2 E_{B} E_{D^{0}\ell} - m_{B}^{2} - m_{D^{0}
96: \ell}^{2}}{2|\vec{p}_{B}||\vec{p}_{D^{0}\ell}|}.
97: \end{equation}
98: %
99: Here ($E_{D^{0}\ell}$, $\vec{p}_{D^{0}\ell}$) and
100: ($E_{B}$, $\vec{p}_{B}$) are the
101: four-momenta in the CM frame, and $m_{D^{0}\ell}$ and $m_{B}$
102: are the masses of the $D^{0}\ell$ candidate and $B$ meson, respectively.
103: $E_{B}$ and the magnitude of $\vec{p}_{B}$ are calculated
104: from the beam energy: $E_{B} = E_{\rm{CM}}/2$ and
105: $ | \vec{p}_{B} | = \sqrt{E_{B}^{2} - m_{B}^{2} }$, where
106: $E_{B}$ is the $B$ meson energy in the CM frame.
107: Correctly reconstructed candidates
108: populate the range [$-1,1$], whereas combinatorial backgrounds
109: can take unphysical values outside this range.
110: We retain events in the interval
111: $-2.0 < \cos\theta_{B-D^{0}\ell} < 1.1$, where the upper bound takes
112: into account the detector resolution and the loosened lower bound
113: accepts those events where a soft transition particle from a higher mass
114: charm state is missing.
115:
116:
117: If more than one suitable $\Dz\ell$ candidate is
118: reconstructed in an event, the best candidate is taken to be the
119: one with the largest vertex probability.
120: The sum of the charges of all the particles in the event (net charge)
121: must be equal to zero.
122:
123:
124: At this stage of the selection, the observed yield in data and
125: the predicted yield in the MC simulation agree to
126: within approximately 3\%.
127: This discrepancy is corrected by scaling the yield and efficiency
128: obtained from MC simulation.
129: By multiplying the relevant branching fractions and reconstruction
130: efficiencies, from signal MC simulation, $B$ tagging efficiencies are
131: extracted.
132: Scale factors of 1.05, 1.00 and 0.97 are used to correct these efficiencies
133: for Runs 1--3, Run~4 and Run~5 respectively.
134: The systematic error associated with this correction
135: is described in Sec. \ref{sec:Systematics}.
136: The corrected
137: tag reconstruction efficiency in the signal MC simulation is
138: (7.61 $\pm$ 0.05)$\times 10^{-3}$ for Runs 1--3,
139: (6.31 $\pm$ 0.05)$\times 10^{-3}$ for Run 4 and
140: (5.87 $\pm$ 0.06)$\times 10^{-3}$ for Run 5 where the errors are statistical only.
141:
142:
143:
144: \subsection{Selection of \boldmath{\btn} \xspace signal candidates}
145: \label{sec:SigSelection}
146:
147: After the tag $B$ reconstruction, in the signal side
148: the $\tau$ from the $\btn$ decay is identified in one of the following modes:
149: $\tautoenunu$, $\tautomununu$, $\tautopinu$ or $\tautopipiznu$.
150: We select events with one signal-side track
151: which must satisfy the following selection criteria:
152: it must have at least 12 DCH hits, its momentum transverse to the
153: beam axis, $p_{\rm{T}}$, is greater than 0.1 \gev/c, and
154: its point of closest approach to the interaction point is
155: less than 5.0~\cm\ along the beam axis and less than 1.5~\cm\ transverse
156: to the beam axis.
157: The invariant mass of a signal-side $\piz$ candidate
158: must be between 0.115--0.150 \gev/$c^2$,
159: the shower shape of the daughter photon candidates must be consistent with
160: an electromagnetic shower shape and the photons
161: must have a minimum energy of 50 \mev in the CM frame.
162:
163: The different signal tau decay modes are distinguished by their
164: selection criteria.
165: The $\tautoenunu$, $\tautomununu$, $\tautopinu$ and $\tautopipiznu$
166: signal modes, all of which contain one charged track, are separated by
167: particle identification.
168: Both the $\tautopinu$ and the $\tautopipiznu$ modes
169: contain a pion signal track and are characterized by the
170: number of signal-side $\piz$ mesons.
171:
172:
173: \begin{itemize}
174:
175: \item{Particle identification:}
176:
177: \begin{itemize}
178: \item For the $\tautoenunu$ selection the track must be
179: identified as an electron and not identified as a muon.
180:
181: \item For the $\tautomununu$ selection the track must be
182: identified as a muon and not identified as an electron.
183:
184: \item For the $\tautopinu$ selection we require that
185: the track is not identified as an electron or a muon.
186:
187: \item For the $\tautopipiznu$ selection we require that
188: the track is not identified as an electron or a muon or a kaon.
189:
190: %\item For the $\tautothreepinu$ selection each of the tracks
191: %must be identified as a pion and not identified as
192: %an electron or a muon or a kaon.
193:
194: \end{itemize}
195:
196: \item{Signal-side $\piz$ multiplicity:}
197:
198: \begin{itemize}
199:
200: \item For the $\tautopinu$ selection we require the event to contain
201: no signal-side $\piz$.
202:
203: \item For the $\tautopipiznu$ selection we require that the
204: event contains at least one signal-side $\piz$.
205:
206: \end{itemize}
207: \end{itemize}
208:
209: \noindent Background consists primarily of $B^{+}B^{-}$ events in which the tag
210: $B$ meson has been correctly reconstructed and the recoil side contains
211: one signal candidate track and additional particles which are not
212: reconstructed by the tracking detectors or calorimeters. Typically these
213: events contain $K_{L}^{0}$ candidates and/or neutrinos, and frequently
214: also additional charged or neutral particles which pass outside of the
215: tracking and calorimeter acceptance. Background events also contain
216: $B^{0}\bar{B}^{0}$ events. The continuum background contributes to
217: hadronic $\tau$ decay modes. In addition some excess events in data,
218: most likely from two-photon and QED processes which are not modeled in the MC
219: simulation, are also seen. These backgrounds have a distinctive event shape
220: and are suppressed by the
221: following constraints on the kinematics of the $\btn$ candidates.
222:
223: \begin{itemize}
224:
225: \item{Missing mass:} The missing mass is calculated as follows.
226: %
227: \begin{equation}
228: M_{\rm{miss}} = \sqrt{ (E_{\FourS}-E_{\rm{vis}})^2 - ( \vec{p}_{\FourS} - \vec{p}_{\rm{vis}} )^2 }.
229: \end{equation}
230: %
231: Here ($E_{\FourS}$, $\vec{p}_{\FourS}$) is the four-momentum of the $\FourS$,
232: known from the beam energies. The quantities $E_{\rm{vis}}$ and $\vec{p}_{\rm{vis}}$ are the
233: total visible energy and momentum of the event which are calculated by adding the
234: energy and momenta, respectively, of all the reconstructed
235: charged tracks and photons in the event.
236:
237: \begin{itemize}
238:
239: \item For the $\tautoenunu$ selection events with
240: missing mass between 4.6 and 6.7 \gev/$c^2$ are selected.
241:
242: \item For the $\tautomununu$ selection events with
243: missing mass between 3.2 and 6.1 \gev/$c^2$ are selected.
244:
245: \item For the $\tautopinu$ selection
246: the missing mass is required to be greater than 1.6 \gev/$c^2$.
247:
248: \item For the $\tautopipiznu$ selection
249: the missing mass is required to be less than 4.6 \gev/$c^2$.
250:
251: %\item For the $\tautothreepinu$ selection, the missing mass is
252: %required to be greater than 0.5 and less than 4.95 \gev/$c^2$.
253:
254: \end{itemize}
255:
256:
257:
258: \item{Maximum CM momentum of the $\tau$ daughter:}
259:
260: The following maximum CM momentum requirements are applied to
261: the $\tau$ daughter particles.
262:
263: \begin{itemize}
264:
265: \item The electron candidate from the $\tautoenunu$ decay must have a CM momentum of less than 1.5 \gev/c.
266: The CM momentum requirement is not applied to the
267: $\tautomununu$ selection because
268: the momentum spectrum of the muon from $\tau$ decays peaks below 1 \gev/c and
269: the particle identification efficiency for low momentum muons is lower than
270: that for low momentum electrons. Therefore, applying the maximum momentum
271: cut reduces the selection efficiency of the $\tautomununu$ mode
272: significantly.
273:
274:
275: \item For the two hadronic $\tau$ decay modes,
276: the CM momentum of the $\pi$ from $\tautopinu$ must be greater than 1.6 \gev/c.
277: The $\pi \piz$ combination from
278: $\tautopipiznu$ must have CM momentum greater than 1.7 \gev/c.
279: %The $3 \pi$ combination from $\tautothreepinu$
280: %must have CM momenta greater than 1.2 \gev/c.
281:
282: \end{itemize}
283:
284:
285:
286: \item{Continuum Rejection using the $R_{\tau\tau}$ variable:}
287:
288: An effective way to remove $\ep\en\to\taup\taum$
289: background is to place a cut in a plane defined by two variables:
290: the cosine of the angle between the signal candidate and the tag $B$'s thrust
291: vector (in the CM frame), and the minimum invariant mass constructable
292: from any three tracks in an event (regardless of whether they are already used
293: in a tag or signal candidates).
294: For the background, the cosine of the thrust
295: angle peaks at $-1$ and 1, while the minimum invariant mass peaks below $1.5\gevcc$.
296: We transformed this 2-D variable into a 1-D variable using the following empirically derived equation
297: %
298: \begin{equation}
299: R_{\tau\tau} \equiv \sqrt{(3.7-|\cos(\theta_{\vec{T}_{D\ell},\rm{signal}})|)^{2} + (M^{\rm{min}}_{3}-0.75)^{2}},
300: \end{equation}
301: %
302: where $M^{\rm{min}}_3$ is the minimum invariant mass of any three changed tracks and
303: $\theta_{\vec{T}_{D\ell},\rm{signal}}$ is the angle between the thrust
304: axes of the reconstructed $D\ell$ and the signal candidates.
305: Because other continuuum backgrounds also peak in the cosine of the thrust
306: angle, this variable is good at rejecting other similar categories of
307: non-\bbbar\ background.
308: The selection criteria imposed on this quantity are:
309: %
310: %summarised in table~\ref{tab:SigSelSummary}.
311:
312: \begin{itemize}
313: \item For $\tautoe$: $2.78 < R_{\tau\tau} < 4.0$
314: \item For $\tautomu$: $R_{\tau\tau} > 2.74$
315: \item For $\tautopi$: $R_{\tau\tau} > 2.84$
316: \item For $\tautorho$: $R_{\tau\tau} > 2.94$
317: \end{itemize}
318:
319:
320:
321: The $\tautopipiznu$ decay proceeds via an intermediate
322: resonance. For this mode further background rejection can be
323: achieved by applying the following requirements on the intermediate meson.
324:
325: \begin{itemize}
326:
327: \item{$\rho^{+}$ selection:}
328:
329: The signal-side track is combined with a signal-side $\piz$ to form
330: the $\rho^{+}$ candidate.
331: In events with more than one signal-side $\piz$, the candidate with
332: invariant mass closest to the nominal $\piz$ mass \cite{ref:pdg2004}
333: is chosen. The invariant mass of the
334: reconstructed $\rho^{+}$ is required to be within
335: 0.64--0.86 \gev/$c^2$. A quantity similar to $\cos \theta_{B-D^{0} \ell}$,
336: which is defined in section \ref{sec:TagReco}, can be
337: reconstructed for $\tau \to \rho \nu$ as follows:
338: %
339: \begin{equation}
340: \cos\theta_{\tau-\rho} = \frac{2 E_{\tau} E_{\rho} - m_{\tau}^{2} - m_{\rho}^{2}}{2|\vec{p}_{\tau}||\vec{p}_{\rho}|},
341: \end{equation}
342: %
343: where ($E_{\tau}$, $\vec{p}_{\tau}$) and
344: ($E_{\rho}$, $\vec{p}_{\rho}$) are the
345: four-momenta in the CM frame, $m_{\tau}$ and $m_{\rho}$
346: are the masses of the $\tau$ and $\rho$ candidate, respectively.
347: %
348: The quantities $|\vec{p}_{\tau}|$ and $E_{\tau}$ are calculated
349: assuming the $\tau$ is from the $\btn$ decay, and
350: the $B^{+}$ is almost at rest in the CM frame.
351: %
352: We accept candidates with $\cos\theta_{\tau-\rho} > 0.87$.
353:
354:
355: %\item{$\rho^{0}$ and $a_{1}^{+}$ selection:}
356: %
357: %The $\tau$ decays to three charged tracks via two intermediate resonances:
358: %$\tau^{+} \to a_{1}^{+} \nutb$,
359: %$a_{1}^{+} \to \rho^{0} \pi^{+}$, and
360: %$\rho^{0} \to \pi^{+} \pi^{-}$.
361: %The $\pi^{-}\pi^{+}$ combination with an invariant mass closest to the
362: %nominal $\rho^{0}$ mass \cite{ref:pdg2004}
363: %is selected as the best $\rho^{0}$ candidate.
364: %The invariant mass of the selected $\rho^{0}$ must be within
365: %0.61--1.00 \gev/$c^2$. The CM momentum of the
366: %selected $\rho^{0}$ candidate is required to be greater than 0.6 \gev/c
367: %and less than 2.3 \gev/c.
368: %The invariant mass of the three signal tracks must be within
369: %1.0--1.6 \gev/$c^2$. The total CM momentum of the
370: %three tracks has to be greater than 1.0 \gev/c. The
371: %three tracks are also required to converge to a common vertex and the
372: %candidates are rejected if the vertex fit probability is less than 0.1\%.
373: %For $\tau \to a_{1} \nu$ decay the quantity,
374: %%
375: %\begin{equation}
376: %\cos\theta_{\tau-a_{1}} = \frac{2 E_{\tau} E_{a_{1}} - m_{\tau}^{2} - m_{a_{1}}^{2}}{2|\vec{p}_{\tau}||\vec{p}_{a_{1}}|},
377: %\end{equation}
378: %
379: %is obtained using the similar procedure used for calculating
380: %$\cos \theta_{\tau-\rho}$. Here ($E_{\tau}$, $\vec{p}_{\tau}$) and
381: %($E_{a_1}$, $\vec{p}_{a_1}$) are the
382: %four-momenta in the CM frame, $m_{\tau}$ and $m_{a_1}$
383: %are the masses of the $\tau$ and $a_1$ candidate, respectively.
384: %Candidates not satisfying
385: %$-1.1 < \cos\theta_{\tau-a_{1}} < 1.1$ are excluded.
386:
387: \end{itemize}
388:
389:
390: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
391:
392: \item{$E_{\rm{extra}}$ requirement:}
393:
394:
395: The most powerful variable for separating signal
396: and background is the remaining energy ($E_{\rm{extra}}$),
397: calculated by adding the CM energy of the neutral clusters and charged tracks that are not
398: associated with either the tag $B$ or the signal. The photon candidates contributing
399: to the $E_{\rm{extra}}$ variable have minimum cluster energies of 20 \mev in the CM frame.
400: For signal events
401: the neutral clusters contributing to $E_{\rm{extra}}$ arise
402: predominantly from processes such as beam-background, hadronic split-offs and
403: Bremsstrahlung. Signal events tend to peak at
404: low $E_{\rm{extra}}$ values whereas background events, which contain
405: additional sources of neutral clusters, are distributed
406: towards higher $E_{\rm{extra}}$ values.
407: The most signal sensitive region is optimized for each mode and
408: is blinded in on-resonance data until the selection is finalized.
409: The $E_{\rm{extra}} < 0.5$ \gev region is defined as the nominal blinding
410: region which is slightly larger than the signal region for each mode.
411:
412:
413: For all the signal modes $E_{\rm{extra}}$ is optimized for the best signal significance
414: (assuming the branching fraction is $1\times 10^{-4}$).
415: The optimization yields to following requirements:
416:
417: \begin{itemize}
418: \item For $\tautoe$: $\eextra <$0.31 \gev
419: \item For $\tautomu$: $\eextra <$0.26 \gev
420: \item For $\tautopi$: $\eextra <$0.48 \gev
421: \item For $\tautorho$: $\eextra <$0.25 \gev
422: %\item For $\tautothreepi$: $\eextra <$0.25 \gev
423: \end{itemize}
424:
425: \end{itemize}
426:
427:
428: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
429:
430: \noindent The signal selection criteria for all signal modes are summarized in Table
431: \ref{tab:SigSelSummary}.
432:
433:
434: \begin{table}[!htb]
435: \caption{The selection criteria for different signal modes using a $\btodlnu$ tag are listed in this table.}
436: \vspace{-0.2cm}
437: \begin{center}
438: \footnotesize
439: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline
440: $\tau^+ \to e^+ \nu_e \bar{\nu}_{\tau}$ &
441: $\tau^+ \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \bar{\nu}_{\tau}$ &
442: $\tau^+ \to \pi^+ \bar{\nu}_{\tau}$ &
443: $\tau^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^{0} \bar{\nu}_{\tau}$ \\ \hline \hline
444: % \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{0ne remaining track} & Three remaining tracks \\ \hline
445: % \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{ GoodTracksLoose requirement for each signal track } \\ \hline
446: % PidLHElectrons & muNNTight & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{not PidLHElectrons} & piLHTight \\
447: % not muNNTight & not PidLHElectrons & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{not muNNTight} & not PidLHElectrons \\
448: % not KLHTight & not KLHTight & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{not KLHTight} & not muNNTight \\
449: % & & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{} & not KLHTight \\ \hline
450: $4.6 \le M_{miss} \le 6.7$ & $3.2 \le M_{miss} \le 6.1$ & $1.6 \le M_{miss}$ & $M_{miss} \le 4.6$ \\ \hline
451: % -- & -- & No $\pi^{0}$ & Non-zero $\pi^{0}$ \\ \hline
452: $p^{*}_{signal} \le 1.5$ & -- & $1.6 \le p^{*}_{signal}$ & $1.7 \le p^{*}_{signal}$ \\ \hline
453: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{No IFR \KL\ } \\ \hline
454: $2.78 < R_{\tau\tau} < 4.0$ & $2.74 < R_{\tau\tau}$ & $2.84 < R_{\tau\tau}$ & $2.94 < R_{\tau\tau}$ \\ \hline
455: $m_{ee} > 0.1 \gevcc$ & & & \\ \hline
456: $N^{extra}_{\piz} \le 2$ & $N^{extra}_{\piz} \le 2$ & $N_{EMC \KL} \le 2$ & -- \\ \hline
457: -- & -- & -- & $\rho^{\pm}$ selection: \\
458: & & & 0.64 $< M_{\rho^{\pm}}< $ 0.86 $\gev$ \\
459: & & & $0.87 < \cos\theta_{\tau-\rho}$ \\
460: \hline
461:
462: $\eextra < 0.31$ $\gev$ & $\eextra < 0.26$ $\gev$ & $\eextra < 0.48$ $\gev$ & $\eextra < 0.25$ $\gev$ \\ \hline
463: \end{tabular}
464: \label{tab:SigSelSummary}
465: \end{center}
466: \end{table}
467: %
468:
469:
470: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
471:
472: \subsubsection{Signal Efficiency}
473: \label{sec:SigEff}
474:
475:
476: The signal-side selection efficiencies
477: for the $\tau$ decay modes are
478: determined from signal MC simulation and summarized
479: in Table~\ref{tab:signal_eff_dlnux}.
480: The signal efficiencies correspond to the number of events
481: selected in a specific signal decay mode, given that a tag $B$ has
482: been reconstructed.
483:
484:
485: %%
486: %% Total Signal Efficiency, mode-by-mode, for D0lnuX tags
487: %%
488: \noindent \begin{table}[htb]
489: \caption{ The signal efficiencies, mode-by-mode, relative to the number of tags. The branching fraction for the
490: given $\tau$ decay mode selected is included in the efficiency.
491: }
492: \vspace{0in}
493: \centering
494: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|} \hline
495: Mode & Efficiency (BF Included) \\ \hline
496: $\tautoe$& 0.0414 $\pm$ 0.0009 \\
497: $\tautomu$ & 0.0242 $\pm$ 0.0007 \\
498: $\tautopi$ & 0.0492 $\pm$ 0.0010 \\
499: $\tautorho$ & 0.0124 $\pm$ 0.0005 \\
500: \hline
501: \end{tabular}
502: \label{tab:signal_eff_dlnux}
503: \end{table}
504:
505: The selection efficiency for $\tautomununu$ is low compared to that of the
506: $\tautoenunu$ mode because the momentum spectrum
507: of the signal muons peaks below 1 \gev/c, where the muon detection
508: efficiency is low. Since no minimum momentum requirement and no tight pion
509: identification criteria are applied to the
510: $\tautopinu$ signal selection, electron and muon signal tracks
511: that fail particle identification requirement get selected in this mode.
512: Any true $\tautopipiznu$ signal events, with a missed $\piz$
513: also get included in $\tautopinu$ selection mode.
514: Therefore the $\tautopinu$ selection mode has the highest signal efficiency.
515:
516:
517:
518:
519: % ----------------------------------------------------------------------
520: \subsection{Validation of Background Estimation from \boldmath{\eextra} Sidebands}
521: \label{sec:EextraSBExtrapolation}
522:
523: We further study the agreement between simulation and data by using the
524: extra energy sideband region, and the ratio of the yields in this
525: region to that in the signal region.
526: %
527: This is used mainly to test the reliability of
528: the background estimation in the low $\eextra$ region
529: by extrapolation from the higher $\eextra$ region.
530:
531:
532: The $\eextra > 0.5\gev$ region
533: is defined as the ``sideband''~(sb).
534: The ``signal region'' is defined separately for each selection mode.
535: For each control sample after applying appropriate selection cuts,
536: the number of MC events in the signal region ($N_{\mbox{\scriptsize{MC,Sig}}}$)
537: and sideband ($N_{\mbox{\scriptsize{MC,sb}}}$) are counted
538: and their ratio ($R^{\mbox{\scriptsize{MC}}}$) is obtained.
539:
540: \begin{eqnarray}
541: R^{\mbox{\scriptsize{MC}}} & = & \frac{N_{\mbox{\scriptsize{MC,Sig}}}}{N_{\mbox{\scriptsize{MC,sb}}}}
542: \end{eqnarray}
543:
544: \noindent Using the number of data events in the sideband ($N_{\mbox{\scriptsize{data,sb}}}$)
545: and the ratio $R^{\mbox{\scriptsize{MC}}}$, the number of expected background events in the
546: signal region in data ($N_{\mbox{\scriptsize{exp,Sig}}}$) is estimated.
547:
548: \begin{eqnarray}
549: N_{\mbox{\scriptsize{exp,Sig}}} & = & N_{\mbox{\scriptsize{data,sb}}} \cdot R^{\mbox{\scriptsize{MC}}}
550: \end{eqnarray}
551:
552: \noindent The number of expected data events ($N_{\mbox{\scriptsize{exp,Sig}}}$)
553: in the signal region is compared with the observed number of data
554: events ($N_{\mbox{\scriptsize{obs,Sig}}}$) in the signal region. The agreement between
555: the above two quantities provide validation of background estimation in the
556: low $\eextra$ region.
557:
558: Table~\ref{tab:EExtraSB_large} illustrates the level
559: of agreement between the sideband projections in MC and data. In general, the
560: agreement is at the $1\sigma$ level between the direct count in the MC
561: signal region and the projected data. The projections
562: in data are used to predict background for the final extraction, hence
563: we only rely on the data for this.
564:
565: \noindent \begin{table}[htb]
566: \caption{%
567: The sideband-to-signalbox projection computed using a sideband region
568: where $\eextra > 0.5\gev$. The second column corresponds to the ratio
569: of yields in the signal region and sideband as measured in MC.
570: }
571: \vspace{0in}
572: \footnotesize
573: \centering
574: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
575: Mode & ratio (MC) & upper sb (Data) & signal region (Proj)&signal region (MC) \\
576: \hline
577: \hline
578: electron & 0.137 $\pm$ 0.015 & 305.00 $\pm$ 17.46 & 41.91 $\pm$ 5.19 &39.72 $\pm$ 4.07 \\
579: \hline
580: muon & 0.037 $\pm$ 0.004 & 965.00 $\pm$ 31.06 & 35.39 $\pm$ 4.16 &36.13 $\pm$ 4.02\\
581: \hline
582: pion & 0.043 $\pm$ 0.004 & 2288.00 $\pm$ 47.83 & 99.09 $\pm$ 9.10 &87.69 $\pm$ 7.72\\
583: \hline
584: rho & 0.005 $\pm$ 0.001 & 2805.00 $\pm$ 52.96 & 15.30 $\pm$ 3.48 &15.81 $\pm$ 3.58\\
585: \hline
586: %a1 & 0.014 $\pm$ 0.001 & 11255.00 $\pm$ 106.09& 158.15 $\pm$ 8.18 &173.91 $\pm$ 8.77\\
587: %\hline
588: \end{tabular}
589: \label{tab:EExtraSB_large}
590: \end{table}
591:
592:
593:
594: % ----------------------------------------------------------------------
595: \section{VALIDATION OF TAG \boldmath{B} YIELD AND \boldmath{\eextra} SIMULATION}
596: \label{sec:EextraValidation}
597:
598: The tag $B$ yield and $E_{\rm{extra}}$ distribution in signal and background MC simulation
599: are validated using various control samples.
600: The level of agreement between the data and simulation distributions provides
601: validation of the $E_{\rm{extra}}$ modeling in the simulation and corrects
602: for differences in the yield of reconstructed tag $B$'s.
603:
604: ``Double-tagged'' events, for which
605: both of the $B$ mesons are reconstructed in tagging modes,
606: $\btodlnux$~vs. $\B^+ \to \bar{D}^{0} \ell^+ \nul X$ are used as the main control sample.
607: Due to the large branching fraction and high tagging efficiency for these events,
608: a sizable sample of such events is reconstructed in the on-resonance dataset.
609: Due to all of the decay products of the $\Y4S$ being correctly accounted for the double-tagged events
610: reconstructed have a high purity.
611:
612: To select double-tag events
613: we require that the two tag $B$ candidates do not share
614: any tracks or neutrals. If there are more than two such
615: non-overlapping tag $B$ candidates in the event then the
616: best candidates are selected as those with the largest $\Dz$-$\ell$ vertex probability, as with the signal search.
617: %
618: The number of double-tagged events ($N_{2}$) is given by
619: %
620: %
621: \begin{eqnarray}
622: \label{eqn:dbltageff}%
623: N_2 & = & \varepsilon^{2} N.
624: \end{eqnarray}
625: %
626: where $N$ is the number of $B\bar{B}$ events in the sample and $\varepsilon$ is the tag efficiency that is compared
627: between data and MC.
628: Using the expression in equation~\ref{eqn:dbltageff} we calculate the efficiencies $\varepsilon_{\rm{data}}$
629: and $\varepsilon_{\rm{MC}}$.
630: The correction factor, ratio of the efficiencies between data and simulation, from this method is given in equations~\ref{correction_runs1to3},~\ref{correction_run4}~and~\ref{correction_run5} for Runs~1--3, Run~4 and Run~5 respectively.
631: %
632: %
633: \begin{eqnarray}
634: \frac{\varepsilon_{\mbox{\scriptsize{Runs~1--3}}}}{\varepsilon_{\mbox{\scriptsize{MC}}}} & = 1.05 \pm 0.02
635: \label{correction_runs1to3}
636: \end{eqnarray}
637: %
638: %
639: \begin{eqnarray}
640: \frac{\varepsilon_{\mbox{\scriptsize{Run~4}}}}{\varepsilon_{\mbox{\scriptsize{MC}}}} & = 1.00 \pm 0.03
641: \label{correction_run4}
642: \end{eqnarray}
643: %
644: %
645: \begin{eqnarray}
646: \frac{\varepsilon_{\mbox{\scriptsize{Run~5}}}}{\varepsilon_{\mbox{\scriptsize{MC}}}} & = 0.97 \pm 0.03
647: \label{correction_run5}
648: \end{eqnarray}
649: %
650: %
651: \noindent It was directly verified that data taken during Runs~1--3 agreed in both shape
652: and normalized yield whereas during Run~4 and Run~5 data were taken with the machine operating
653: in a mode of continuous injection which may affect detector backgrounds differently. These
654: runs are therefore considered separately.
655:
656:
657: The $E_{\rm{extra}}$ for the double-tagged sample is calculated by summing the
658: CM energy of the photons which are not associated with
659: either of the tag $B$ candidates. The sources of neutrals contributing
660: to the $E_{\rm{extra}}$ distribution in double-tagged events
661: are similar to those contributing to the $E_{\rm{extra}}$ distribution
662: in the signal MC simulation. Therefore the agreement of
663: the $E_{\rm{extra}}$ distribution between data and MC simulation for the
664: double-tagged sample, in figure \ref{fig:DoubleTagEextra},
665: is used as a validation of the $E_{\rm{extra}}$ simulation in the signal
666: MC.
667:
668: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
669: \begin{figure}[htb]
670: \centering
671: \subfigure{
672: \label{fig:Eextra-DoubleTag-run1-3}
673: {\includegraphics[width=.3\textwidth]{figuretex/figures/Eextra_Dtag_run1-3_D0lnu_newDtag.eps}}}
674: \subfigure{
675: \label{fig:Eextra-DoubleTag-run4}
676: {\includegraphics[width=.3\textwidth]{figuretex/figures/Eextra_Dtag_run4_D0lnu_newDtag.eps}}}
677: \subfigure{
678: \label{fig:Eextra-DoubleTag-run5}
679: {\includegraphics[width=.3\textwidth]{figuretex/figures/Eextra_Dtag_run5_D0lnu_newDtag.eps}}}
680: \vspace{-0.4cm}
681: \caption{The distribution of the remaining neutral energy ($\eextra$) for double-tagged events, plotted for
682: generic MC and data: a) Runs 1-3, b) Run 4 and c) Run 5. No off-resonance data events
683: are seen in the $\eextra$ region plotted here. In these events both of the $D^{0} \ell$ candidates from
684: double-tag are required to pass the selection described in section~\ref{sec:TagReco}
685: and best candidate selection.
686: The differences in these distributions are used for obtaining the systematic error for
687: tagging efficiency correction.}
688: \label{fig:DoubleTagEextra}
689: \end{figure}
690: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
691:
692:
693: The simulation is further validated by comparing a sample of events where the signal candidate and
694: tag $B$ candidate are of the ``wrong-sign'' with non-zero net charge. The agreement between
695: data and simulation for all signal modes for the background estimation in the
696: $E_{\rm{extra}}$ signal region provides a useful cross-check.
697:
698:
699:
700: