1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %% ws-procs10x7.tex : 23 January 2003 %%
3: %% Text file to use with ws-procs10x7.cls written in Latex2e. %%
4: %% The content, structure, format and layout of this style file is the %%
5: %% property of World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. %%
6: %% Copyright 1995, 2003 by World Scientific Publishing Co. %%
7: %% All rights are reserved. %%
8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
9:
10: %\documentclass[draft]{ws-procs10x7}
11: \documentclass{ws-procs10x7}
12: \usepackage{balance}
13:
14: \def\de{\Delta E}
15: \def\mbc{m_{\rm bc}}
16: \def\ebeam{E_{\rm beam}}
17: \def\ecm{E_{\rm cm}}
18: \def\ipb{{\rm pb}^{-1}}
19: \def\ifb{{\rm fb}^{-1}}
20: \def\mmiss{\rm M_{miss}}
21: \def\bf{{\cal{B}}}
22:
23: %new column type
24: \newcolumntype{d}[1]{D{.}{.}{#1}}
25:
26: % A useful Journal macro
27: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{\it #1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
28:
29: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
30: % BEGINNING OF TEXT %
31: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
32: \makeindex
33: \begin{document}
34:
35: \title{Cabibbo-Allowed and Doubly Cabibbo Suppressed $D\to K\pi$ Decays}
36:
37: \author{Steven R. Blusk}
38:
39: \address{Department of Physics, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244\\
40: E-mail: sblusk@phy.syr.edu}
41:
42:
43: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
44: % You may repeat \author \address as often as necessary %
45: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
46:
47: \twocolumn[\maketitle\abstract{We present measurements of the branching
48: fractions of the decays, $D\to K^0_{S,L}\pi$. The measured asymmetry
49: shows that $\bf(D^0\to K^0_S\pi^0)\ne\bf(D^0\to K^0_L\pi^0)$, as
50: expected. We also find that $\bf(D^+\to K^0_S\pi^+)$ is statistically compatible with $\bf(D^+\to K^0_L\pi^+)$.
51: Lastly, we present a recent measurement of the branching fraction of the doubly Cabibbo-suppressed decay, $D^+\to K^+\pi^0$.}
52: \keywords{Charm; Hadronic.}]
53:
54: \section{Introduction}
55:
56: For over two decades, the $D^0\to K^-\pi^+$ has served as a workhorse
57: in charm and beauty physics. However, there is general interest
58: in measuring all the $D\to K\pi$ branching fractions. In particular,
59: while it is often assumed that ${\cal{B}}(D\to K^0_S\pi)={\cal{B}}(D\to K^0_L\pi)$,
60: interference between $D\to K^0\pi$ and $D\to \overline{K^0}\pi$ can break this
61: equality\cite{bigi}. Although this asymmetry is expected, measuring it has alluded
62: experiments because of the challenge of reconstructing the $K^0_L$. Another
63: $K\pi$ mode which has alluded experiments is the doubly Cabibbo-suppressed (DCS)
64: $D^+\to K^+\pi^0$. The difficult stems primarily from the low rate, but
65: also for hadron machines, the lack of a detectable displaced vertex and the large
66: $\pi^0$ combinatorial background make this mode extremely difficult to detect.
67: These difficult $D\to K\pi$ modes are accessible at CLEO-c due to the
68: low-multiplicity environment and threshold production of $D\bar{D}$.
69:
70: The analyses presented are based on a 281~$\ipb$ sample of data collected
71: at the peak of the $\psi(3770)$ ($\sqrt{s}=3774$ MeV). The resonance is just
72: above threshold for production of $D\bar{D}$, and therefore the final state
73: is in a coherent C=-1 state. For $D^0\bar{D^0}$, these quantum correlations
74: produce deviations in measured branching fractions\cite{asner_sun}, which
75: are maximal when CP eigenstates, $S_{\rm CP}$, are involved. For example, the rate
76: for ($D^0\to S_{\pm},\bar{D}^0\to S_{\pm}$) is zero, and
77: ($D^0\to S_{\pm},\bar{D^0}\to S_{\mp}$) is twice as large with respect
78: to the values obtained when quantum correlations are absent.
79: Four cases of interest that enter into the analyses presented here are:
80: ($D^0\to S_{CP\pm},\bar{D^0}\to X$) and ($D^0\to S_{\pm},\bar{D^0}\to f$), where
81: $f$ represents a flavored final state and $X$ is an unspecified final state.
82: Because of the quantum correlations, the branching fractions are modified as
83: shown in Table~\ref{tab:cpcorr}\cite{asner_sun}, where $x$ and $y$
84: are the mixing parameters, $r_f e^{-i{\delta_f}}\equiv<f|\bar{D^0}>/<f|D^0>$,
85: and $z_f\equiv\cos\delta_f$. In untagged analyses we can easily correct branching
86: fractions using the word-average $y=0.008\pm0.005$\cite{pdg04}. We also note that yields in
87: these and other combinations of final states can be used to measure
88: the $D^0\bar{D}^0$ mixing parameters and the strong phase $\delta_{K\pi}$\cite{asner_sun}.
89:
90: \begin{table}%1
91: \tbl{Quantum correlation factors for four $D^0\bar{D^0}$ final state
92: configurations.\label{tab:cpcorr}}
93: {\begin{tabular}{@{}lcc@{}}
94: \toprule
95: & $S_+$ & $S_-$ \\
96: \hline
97: $f$ & $1+2r_fz_f+r_f^2$ & $1-2r_fz_f+r_f^2$ \\
98: $X$ & $1-y$ & $1+y$ \\
99: \botrule
100: \end{tabular}}
101: \end{table}
102:
103: In reconstructing $D$ mesons, we use two kinematic variables:
104: $\de\equiv E_{D}-\ebeam$ and $\mbc\equiv\sqrt{\ebeam^2-p_D^2}$, where $E_D$
105: is the energy of the $D$ candidate and $p_D$ its momentum. {\it Untagged}
106: analyses reconstruct $D$ mesons in exclusive final states using all
107: charged particles and showers in the event. {\it Tagged} analyses start
108: with events that already have a $D$ candidate {\it ie., a tag},
109: and seek to reconstruct the second $D$ meson (referred to as the {\it signal}).
110: Because of the highly constrained kinematics, the signal $D$ may contain
111: undetected particles, such as a $K^0_L$ (or a $\nu$), which are inferred
112: by energy/momentum conservation. In particular, for the decay $D\to K^0_L\pi$, the
113: signal is a peak in the missing-mass squared, defined using the measured
114: four-momenta as: $\mmiss^2 = (p_{\rm event}-p_{tag}-p_{\pi})^2$.
115:
116: \section{$\bf(D^0\to K^0_{S,L}\pi^0)$}
117:
118: We first measure $\bf(D^0\to K^0_S\pi^0)$ using an untagged analysis.
119: Candidates are formed by combining $K^0_S\to\pi^+\pi^-$
120: and $\pi^0$ candidates and requiring $\de$ and $\mbc$ to be within
121: 3 standard deviations of 0 and $M_{D^0}$, respectively. Combinatorial
122: background and cross-feed from $D^0\to\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ are estimated
123: using $\de$ and $K^0_S\to\pi^+\pi^-$ mass sideband regions, respectively.
124: Combining the signal yield of $7487\pm99$ events with the
125: efficiency of 29.0\% and $N_{D^0\bar{D^0}}=1.015\times10^6$, we find:
126: $\bf(D^0\to K^0_S\pi^0)=(1.260\pm0.02\pm0.054)\%$. Of the 4.2\% systematic
127: uncertainty, 3.8\% is from the $\pi^0$ detection efficiency, which
128: cancels when comparing $K_S^0\pi^0$ and $K_L^0\pi^0$.
129:
130: Measurement of $\bf(D^0\to K^0_L\pi^0)$ requires a tagged analysis, and
131: since $K^0_L\pi^0$ is a CP+ eigenstate, it requires that we determine
132: the factor $1+2r_fz_f+r_f^2$ (which is unknown, since $\delta_f$ is unknown).
133: However, by measuring $\bf(D^0\to K^0_S\pi^0)$ in tagged events, and comparing
134: to the value in untagged events, we can determine $(1-2r_fz_f+r_f^2)$.
135: Along with the measured values of $r_f$,
136: this enables us to compute the factor we want, $(1+2r_fz_f+r_f^2)$. We therefore
137: need $\bf(D^0\to K^0_S\pi^0)$ in flavor-tagged events.
138:
139: The tagged $D^0\to K^0_S\pi^0$ tagged analysis starts with events
140: containing a reconstructed $D$-tag in $\bar{D^0}\to K^+\pi^-$,
141: $\bar{D^0}\to K^+\pi^-\pi^0$ or $\bar{D^0}\to K^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$, and
142: then seeks to reconstruct $D^0\to K^0_S\pi^0$ candidates as described
143: in the untagged analysis. The yields, efficiencies and corresponding
144: products $\bf(D^0\to K_S^0\pi^0)(1-2r_fz_f+r_f^2)$ are shown in
145: Table~\ref{tab:kspi0_sum}. Using the measured value of $\bf(D^0\to K^0_S\pi^0)$
146: from the untagged analysis, we also compute $(1-2r_fz_f+r_f^2)$ and
147: subsequently $(1+2r_fz_f+r_f^2)$ using the most recent
148: $r_f$ values\cite{pdg04,zhang,tian}. That these factors are not unity
149: is a direct consequence of the quantum coherence of the final state.
150:
151: The measurement of $K^0_L\pi^0$ is slightly more complicated. It starts
152: with the same sample of D-tag's as in the $K^0_S\pi^0$ tagged analysis,
153: and, for each candidate, we require the presence of one and
154: only one additional $\pi^0$ candidate, and no extra tracks or
155: $\eta\to\gamma\gamma$ candidates. In these events, we form
156: $\mmiss^2$, which for $K^0_L\pi^0$ events peaks at $M_{K_L^0}^2$.
157: Backgrounds such as $K_S^0\pi^0$ and $\eta\pi^0$ are highly suppressed
158: by the selection requirements, but do peak under the signal. These
159: backgrounds are estimated using simulation. Other backgrounds
160: are estimated using $\mmiss^2$ sidebands in data in combination with
161: shapes from simulation. The distribution of $\mmiss^2$ is shown in
162: Fig.~\ref{fig:klpi0_mmiss} for all tag modes combined;
163: the data are the points with error bars,
164: the solid line is the simulation, and the dashed lines show various
165: background contributions. The data are peaked toward slightly lower missing-mass
166: than simulation. This effect is traced to a 0.5\% difference in the energy
167: scale of $\pi^0$'s, which has only a minor effect in this analysis.
168: Yields, efficiencies and the branching fractions,
169: $\bf(D^0\to K_L^0\pi^0)$, are shown in Table~\ref{tab:klpi0_sum}, where
170: the branching fractions have been corrected by the factor, $(1+2r_fz_f+r_f^2)$.
171: After averaging the three tag modes, we obtain
172: $\bf(D^0\to K_L^0\pi^0)=(0.986\pm0.049\pm0.047)\%$, where the last uncertainty
173: is systematic and dominated by the $\pi^0$ efficiency (3.8\%).
174:
175: Defining an asymmetry:
176: \begin{equation*}
177: R(D) = \frac{\bf(D\to K_S^0\pi)-\bf(D\to K_L^0\pi)}{\bf(D\to K_S^0\pi)+\bf(D\to K_L^0\pi)},
178: \end{equation*}
179:
180: \noindent we find that $R(D^0)=0.122\pm0.025\pm0.019$, establishing the inequality of these
181: branching fractions. Using general arguments involving the contributing
182: Feynman diagrams, one would expect this asymmetry to be
183: $R(D^0)=2\tan^2\theta_C=0.109\pm0.001$, where $\theta_C$ is the Cabibbo angle.
184: This expectation is in good agreement with our measurement.
185:
186:
187: \begin{table*}%1
188: \tbl{Summary of results for the $D^0\to K^0_S\pi^0$ tagged analysis.
189: \label{tab:kspi0_sum}}
190: {\begin{tabular}{@{}lccc@{}}
191: \toprule
192: %\multicolumn{4}{c}{$D^0\to K^0_S\pi^0$} \\
193: %\hline
194: Tag Mode ($f$) & $K^+\pi^-$ & $K^+\pi^-\pi^0$ & $K^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$ \\
195: \hline
196: Tag Yield & 47440 & 64280 & 75113 \\
197: Signal Yield & 155 & 203 & 256 \\
198: Efficiency (\%) & 31.47 & 31.45 & 30.69 \\
199: \hline
200: $\bf(D^0\to K_S^0\pi^0)\times$ & & & \\
201: $(1-2r_fz_f+r_f^2)$ (\%) & $1.04\pm0.09$ & $1.01\pm0.09$ & $1.17\pm0.08$ \\
202: \hline
203: $(1-2r_fz_f+r_f^2)$ &$0.824\pm0.013\pm0.073$ & $0.802\pm0.013\pm0.068$ & $0.932\pm0.015\pm0.063$ \\
204: \hline
205: $(1+2r_fz_f+r_f^2)$ & $1.183\pm0.013\pm0.073$ & $1.203\pm0.013\pm0.068$ & $1.074\pm0.015\pm0.063$ \\
206: \botrule
207: \end{tabular}}
208: \end{table*}
209:
210: \begin{table*}%1
211: \tbl{Summary of results for the $D^0\to K^0_L\pi^0$ tagged analysis.
212: \label{tab:klpi0_sum}}
213: {\begin{tabular}{@{}lccc@{}}
214: \toprule
215: Tag Mode ($f$) & $K^+\pi^-$ & $K^+\pi^-\pi^0$ & $K^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$ \\
216: \hline
217: Tag Yield & 47440 & 64280 & 75113 \\
218: Signal Yield & 334.8 & 363.1 & 418.0 \\
219: Efficiency (\%) & 55.21 & 54.67 & 52.72 \\
220: \hline
221: $\bf(D^0\to K_L^0\pi^0)$ (\%) & $1.029\pm0.011\pm0.088$ & $0.818\pm0.009\pm0.067$ & $0.990\pm0.014\pm0.079$ \\
222: \botrule
223: \end{tabular}}
224: \end{table*}
225:
226:
227: \begin{figure}
228: \includegraphics[height=.23\textheight]{klpi0_mmiss.eps}
229: \caption{Distribution of $\mmiss^2$ for $D^0\to K^0_L\pi^0$ candidates in tagged
230: events. The points with error bars are data, the solid line is the total simulation,
231: and the dashed lines are various backgrounds.
232: \label{fig:klpi0_mmiss}}
233: \end{figure}
234:
235: \section{$\bf(D^+\to K^0_{S,L}\pi^+)$}
236:
237: We look to measure the same asymmetry in charged $D$ decays. The branching
238: fraction, $\bf(D^+\to K^0_S\pi^+)$ has been measured in a separate analysis\cite{dhad}.
239: The measurement of $\bf(D^+\to K^0_L\pi^+)$ requires a tagged analysis, and
240: is strategically similar to the $\bf(D^0\to K^0_L\pi^0)$ measurement. We reconstruct
241: a $D^-$ tag in 6 tag modes: $D^-\to K^+\pi^-\pi^-$, $K^+\pi^-\pi^-\pi^0$, $K^0_S\pi^-$,
242: $K^0_S\pi^-\pi^0$, $K^0_S\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$, and $K^+K^-\pi^-$, by requiring $\de$
243: consistent with zero. Selecting events within $\sim$3$\sigma$ of $M_{D^-}$,
244: we obtain 165,00 $D^-$ tags. For each tag,
245: we query the remainder of the event and require exactly 1 extra charged
246: track, consistent with a pion hypothesis, and no extra $\pi^0$'s. Using the $D^-$
247: tag and the pion, we compute $\mmiss^2$, which is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:klpi_mmiss}
248: for all tag modes combined.
249: The points with error bars show the data, and the colored line passing through the
250: points shows the fit. The prominent $K^0_L$ peak is evident as well as a high-side
251: shoulder from $D^+\to\eta\pi^+$ (this analysis does not veto $\eta\to\gamma\gamma$).
252: The other lines show the individual contributions from $K^0_L\pi^+$ (signal),
253: and various backgrounds, such as $K^0_S\pi^+$, which peaks under $K^0_L\pi^+$;
254: $D^+\to\pi^+\pi^0$ and $D^+\to\mu^+\nu_{\mu}$, which peak near zero; and other non-peaking
255: backgrounds. A total of 2023$\pm$54 $D^+\to K^0_L\pi^+$ signal events are observed
256: from an initial tagged sample of 165,000 $D^-$ tags.
257:
258: The branching fraction is computed for each tag mode and then the results are
259: combined using a weighted average. The efficiency varies slightly depending on
260: the tag mode, but is typically about 82\%. The average branching fraction is
261: found to be: $\bf(D^+\to K^0_L\pi^+)=1.46\pm0.040\pm0.035\pm0.004)$, where the
262: last systematic is due the uncertainty in $\bf(D^+\to K^0_S\pi^+)$.
263:
264: \begin{figure}
265: \includegraphics[height=.23\textheight]{klpi_mmiss.eps}
266: \caption{Distribution of $\mmiss^2$ for $D^+\to K^0_L\pi^+$ candidates in tagged
267: events. The points with error bars are data, the solid line are signal and background
268: contributions as described in the text.
269: \label{fig:klpi_mmiss}}
270: \end{figure}
271:
272: \newpage
273: Using $\bf(D^+\to K^0_S\pi^+)=(1.552\pm0.022\pm0.029)\%$\cite{dhad}, we measure
274: an asymmetry, $R(D^+)=0.031\pm0.016\pm0.016$. This asymmetry is consistent with
275: zero. Because of the larger number of additional Feynman diagrams which contribute
276: to this decay, no simple prediction of this asymmetry can be made.
277: Both this analysis and the $D^0\to K^0_{S,L}\pi^0$ will be submitted for publication
278: soon.
279:
280:
281: \section{$\bf(D^+\to K^+\pi^0)$}
282:
283: Until recently, the DCS $D^+$ decays were limited to modes with only charged
284: particles due to the low rate and large combinatorial background associated with
285: $\pi^0$ reconstruction. The threshold production of $D\bar{D}$ events in CLEO-c
286: make this measurement accessible\cite{cleo_dcs}. CLEO searches for this decay using an untagged
287: analysis by combining $K^+$ and $\pi^0$ candidates and requiring $-40<\de<35$~MeV.
288: We find a yield of $148\pm23$ events. We use $D^+\to K^-\pi^+\pi^+$ as a normalizing
289: mode, for which there are 79612 decays. The efficiencies of the DCS and normalizing
290: mode are 42.30\% and 52.16\%, respectively, yielding a branching fraction,
291: $\bf(D^+\to K^+\pi^0)=(2.28\pm0.36\pm0.15\pm0.08)\times10^{-4}$. This measurement is
292: of substantially better precision than a recent measurement by BaBar\cite{babar},
293: which used data collected near the $\Upsilon$(4S) with $\sim$1000 times larger
294: integrated luminosity than CLEO-c.
295:
296:
297: We gratefully acknowledge the effort of the CESR staff
298: in providing us with excellent luminosity and running conditions,
299: and the National Science Foundation for support of this work.
300:
301:
302:
303: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
304:
305: \bibitem{bigi}
306: I. I. Bigi and H. Yamamoto, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 349}, 363 (1995).
307:
308: \bibitem{asner_sun}
309: D. M. Asner and W. M. Sun, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73}, 034024 (2006).
310:
311: %\bibitem{pdg}
312: %W. M. Yao {\it et. al.}, J. Phys. G {\bf 33}, 1 (2006).
313: %See Section entitled {\it Dalitz Plot Analysis Formalism} and references therein.
314:
315: \bibitem{pdg04}
316: S. Eidelman, {\it et. al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 592}, 1 (2004)
317:
318: \bibitem{zhang}
319: L. M. Zhang {\it et. al.} (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 96}, 151801 (2006).
320:
321: \bibitem{tian}
322: X. C. Tian {\it et. al.} (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 231801 (2005).
323:
324: \bibitem{dhad}
325: Q. He {\it et al.} (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 121801 (2005).
326: Update based on 281~$\ipb$ to be submitted to Phys. Rev. D.
327:
328: \bibitem{cleo_dcs}
329: S. Dytman {\it et. al.} (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D {\bf 74}, 071102 (2006).
330:
331: \bibitem{babar}
332: B. Aubert {\it et. al.} (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D {\bf 74}, 0111107(R) (2006).
333:
334: \end{thebibliography}
335:
336:
337:
338:
339:
340: \end{document}
341: