1: \documentclass[aps,preprint,showpacs,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{epsfig} % Include figure files
3: \usepackage{dcolumn} % Align table columns on decimal point
4:
5: \graphicspath{{ps}}
6:
7: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
8:
9: \begin{document}
10:
11: %\vspace*{-3\baselineskip}
12: %\resizebox{!}{3cm}{\includegraphics{belle.eps}}
13:
14: \newcommand{\gevc}{\ensuremath{\,{\mathrm{GeV}/c^2}}}
15: \newcommand{\mevc}{\ensuremath{\,{\mathrm{MeV}/c^2}}}
16: \newcommand{\gev} {\ensuremath{\,{\mathrm{GeV}}}}
17: \newcommand{\mev} {\ensuremath{\,{\mathrm{MeV}}}}
18: \newcommand{\ee} {\ensuremath{e^+ e^- }}
19: \newcommand{\ds} {\ensuremath{D^+_s}}
20: \newcommand{\dss} {\ensuremath{D^{*+}_s}}
21: \newcommand{\dso} {\ensuremath{D^-_{s1}}}
22: \newcommand{\dst} {\ensuremath{D^-_{s2}}}
23: \newcommand{\dm} {\ensuremath{D^-}}
24: \newcommand{\dsp} {\ensuremath{D^{*+}}}
25: \newcommand{\dsm} {\ensuremath{D^{*-}}}
26: \newcommand{\RM} {\ensuremath{ M_{\mathrm{recoil}} }}
27: \newcommand{\RMD} {\ensuremath{\Delta M_{\mathrm{recoil}} }}
28: \newcommand{\ks} {\ensuremath{K_S^0}}
29: \newcommand{\dstbkm} {\ensuremath{\overline{D}{}^{*0}K^-}}
30: \newcommand{\dstmks} {\ensuremath{D^{*-}\ks}}
31:
32: % FIT RESULTS
33: \newcommand{\yieldone} {\ensuremath{184 \pm 19}} % yield Ds1 -> D*0 K+
34: %\newcommand{\yieldonemc} {\ensuremath{1672 \pm 59}} % yield Ds1 -> D*0 K+ MC
35: \newcommand{\yieldtwo} {\ensuremath{105 \pm 14}} % yield Ds1 -> D*+ Ks
36: %\newcommand{\yieldtwomc} {\ensuremath{2615 \pm 82}} % yield Ds1 -> D*+ Ks MC
37: \newcommand{\yieldthree} {\ensuremath{267 \pm 18}} % yield DS* Ds1 -> D*0 K+
38: %\newcommand{\yieldthreemc} {\ensuremath{ 3337 \pm 64}} % yield DS* Ds1 -> D*0 K+ MC
39:
40: \newcommand{\yieldfour} {\ensuremath{45 \pm 8}} % yield DS* Ds1 -> D*+ Ks
41: %\newcommand{\yieldfourmc} {\ensuremath{1484\pm 45.5 }} % yield DS* Ds1 -> D*+ Ks MC
42: \newcommand{\resultsone} {\ensuremath{ 4.01\pm 0.47(stat)}} % Ds br Ds1 -> D*0 K+
43: \newcommand{\resultstwo} {\ensuremath{ 3.84 \pm 0.83(stat)}} % Ds br Ds1 -> D*+ Ks
44:
45: \newcommand{\results} {\ensuremath{ 4.0 \pm 0.4(stat) \pm 0.4(sys)}} % Ds br
46:
47:
48: \preprint{\vbox{ \hbox{ }
49: \hbox{BELLE-CONF-0612}
50: % \hbox{ICHEP2006-xx}
51: % \hbox{hep-ex nnnn, if available}
52: }}
53:
54: \title{ \quad\\[0.5cm] Measurement of the absolute branching fraction of
55: the $\mathbf{D_s^\pm}$ meson.}
56: \input{author-conf2006.tex}
57: \begin{abstract}
58: The $D_s^{\pm} \to K^{\pm}K^{\mp}\pi^{\pm}$ absolute branching fraction is measured
59: using $e^+e^-\to D_s^{*\pm} D_{s1}^\mp(2536)$ events collected by the
60: Belle detector at the KEKB $e^+ e^-$ asymmetric energy collider. Using the ratio of yields when either the $D_{s1}$ or
61: $D_s^*$ is fully reconstructed, we find $\mathcal{B}(D_s^{\pm} \to K^{\pm}K^{\mp}\pi^{\pm})=(\results)$\%.
62: %The precision of the measurement is
63: %significantly improved compared to previous measurements.
64: \end{abstract}
65:
66: \pacs{14.40.Lb, 13.66.Bc, 13.25.Ft}
67:
68: \maketitle
69:
70: \tighten
71:
72: {\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}}
73: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
74:
75:
76: Knowledge of \ds\ meson\footnote{Charge conjugation is implied through the
77: paper.} absolute branching fractions is important for
78: normalization of many decays involving a \ds\ in a final state. The poor
79: accuracy of the branching fraction ${\cal B}(\ds \to K^+ K^- \pi^+)=(5.2\pm 0.9)\%$
80: \cite{PDG} has been a systematic limitation for some precise measurements. In
81: particular, the recent study of the $CP$ violation in $B^0 \to
82: D^{(*)\pm} \pi^{\mp}$ decays is restricted by the knowledge of the ratio
83: of two amplitudes that determine the
84: $CP$-asymmetry~\cite{belle_dp,babar_dp}. The amplitude $B^0 \to D^{(*)+}
85: \pi^-$ can be calculated from the branching fraction of $B^0 \to
86: D_s^{(*)+} \pi^-$ decays assuming factorization. On the other hand, the factorization hypothesis can be tested by measuring the ratio of $B^0 \to D^{(*)-} \pi^+$ and $B^0 \to D^{(*)-}
87: D_s^+$ decays. Both $\mathcal{B}(B^0 \to D_s^{(*)+} \pi^-)$
88: and $\mathcal{B}(B^0 \to D^{(*)-} D_s^+)$ measurements can be improved with better
89: accuracy in \ds\ absolute branching fractions.
90:
91:
92:
93:
94:
95:
96: %Knowledge of \ds\ ~\footnote{Charge conjugation is implied through the
97: %paper.} meson absolute branching fractions is important for
98: %normalization of many decays involving \ds\ in a final state. Poor
99: %accuracy of the branching fraction ${\cal B}(\ds \to K^+ K^-\pi^+)=5.2\pm
100: %0.9\%$ \cite{PDG} was up to now a limitation on some precise
101: %measurements. In particular, the recent study of the $CP$ violation
102: %in $B^0 \to D^{(*)\pm} \pi^{\mp}$ decays is restricted by the
103: %knowledge of the ratio of two amplitudes resulting in the
104: %$CP$-asymmetry~\cite{belle_dp,babar_dp}. This ratio can be derived
105: %from the branching fractions of $B$-decays with \ds\ in the final
106: %state using factorization assumption. The amplitude of $B^0 \to D^+
107: %\pi^-$ can be related to $B^0 \to D^+ D_s^-$ using the ratio of vacuum
108: %constants for $\pi^-$ and $D_s^-$, providing a precise test of
109: %factorization. The second amplitude, $B^0 \to D^+ \pi^-$, can be
110: %calculated from the decay $B^0 \to D_s^+ \pi^-$. As the latter decay
111: %is Cabibbo favoured, the accuracy in the measurement of its branching
112: %fraction is limited not by the statistical errors in the $B$
113: %reconstruction~\cite{belle_dspi,babar_dspi}, but by the uncertainties
114: %in the absolute branching fractions for \ds\ mesons.
115:
116: Recently, the absolute branching fraction of $\ds \to \phi(\to K^+ K^-)\pi^+$ was
117: measured by the BaBar collaboration, which used partial and full
118: reconstruction of $B \to D^{(*)} D_s^{(*)+}$ decays~\cite{babar_dds}.
119: Another result obtained from a $\sqrt{s}$-scan above $D^+_s D^-_s$
120: threshold was presented by the CLEO-c collaboration \cite{cleo_branching}.
121:
122: In this paper we report on a measurement of the $\ds \to K^+ K^- \pi^+$ branching
123: fraction using two body \ee-continuum annihilation into a $\dss \dso(2536)$
124: final state. The analysis is based on $552.3\, \mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ of data
125: at the $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance and nearby continuum, collected with
126: the Belle detector~\cite{belle} at the KEKB asymmetric energy storage
127: ring~\cite{kekb}.
128:
129: \section{Method}
130:
131: We use the partial reconstruction of the
132: process $\ee \to \dss D_{s1}^-$. In this analysis 4-momentum
133: conservation allows us to infer the 4-momentum of the undetected
134: part. The method used was described in Ref.~\cite{DstDst} and applied to the
135: measurement of the $\ee \to D^{(*)+} D^{(*)-}$ cross sections.
136:
137: Here we reconstruct the process $\ee \to \dss D_{s1}^-$ using two
138: different tagging procedures. The first one (denoted as the \dso\ tag)
139: includes the full reconstruction of the \dso\ meson via $\dso\to
140: \overline{D}{}^* K$ decay and observation of the photon from $\dss \to
141: \ds \gamma$, while the $D_s^+$ is not reconstructed. The measured
142: signal yield with the \dso\ tag is proportional to the branching fractions
143: of the reconstructed $\overline{D}{}^*$ modes. In the second procedure
144: (denoted as the \dss\ tag) we require full reconstruction of \dss\
145: through $\dss \to \ds \gamma$ and observation of the kaon from
146: $D_{s1}^{-}\to \overline{D}{}^{*} K$, but the $\overline{D}{}^{*}$ is
147: not reconstructed. Since the \ds\ meson is reconstructed in the
148: channel of interest, $\ds\to K^+ K^- \pi^+$, the signal yield measured
149: with the \dss\ tag is proportional to this \ds\ branching
150: fraction. The (efficiency-corrected) ratio of the two measured signal
151: yields is equal to the ratio of well-known $\overline{D}{}^{*}$
152: branching fractions and the branching fraction of the \ds.
153:
154: In order to calculate reconstruction efficiencies and optimize event
155: selection criteria, Monte Carlo (MC) signal events are generated and
156: simulated using a GEANT-based full simulator, including initial
157: state radiation (ISR), and assuming no form-factors for \dss\ and \dso\ mesons.
158:
159: To identify the signal we study the mass recoiling against the
160: reconstructed particle (or combination of particles) denoted as $X$. This recoil mass is defined as:
161: \begin{eqnarray}
162: \RM(X) \equiv \sqrt{ {(E_{CM} - E_X)}^2 - P_X^2 },
163: \end{eqnarray}
164: where $E_X$ and $P_X$ are the center-of-mass (CM) energy and momentum of X,
165: respectively; $E_{CM}$ is the CM beam energy. We expect a peak in the \RM\ distribution at the
166: nominal mass of the recoil particle.
167:
168: The resolution in \RM\ is $\sim 50\mevc$ according to the MC, which is not sufficient to separate different final states, {\emph e.g.} $\ds
169: D_{s1}^{-}$, $\dss D_{s1}^{-}$ and non-resonant $D_s^+ \overline{D} K$. To
170: disentangle the contribution of these final states we use another
171: kinematic variable, the recoil mass difference \RMD:
172: \begin{eqnarray}
173: \RMD(D^{-}_{s1} \gamma) \equiv \RM(D^{-}_{s1})-\RM(D^{-}_{s1}\gamma), \\
174: \RMD(D^{*+}_s K) \equiv \RM(D^{*+}_s)-\RM(D^{*+}_s K).
175: \end{eqnarray}
176: In the {\dso\ tag} procedure the signal events make a narrow peak in
177: the $\RMD(D^{-}_{s1} \gamma)$ distribution at the nominal $\dss -\ds$ mass
178: difference with a resolution of $\sigma \sim 5\mevc$, dominated by the
179: $\gamma$ energy resolution according to the MC. The $\RMD(D^{*+}_s K)$
180: spectrum peaks at the $D_{s1}^{-} - \overline{D}{}^{*}$ mass
181: difference with a resolution of $\sigma \sim 2\mevc$.
182:
183: \section{Selection}
184:
185: All primary charged tracks are required to be consistent with
186: originating from the interaction point. Charged kaon candidates are
187: identified using information from $dE/dx$ measurements in the central
188: drift chamber, aerogel Cherenkov counters and time-of-flight
189: system. No identification requirements are applied for pion
190: candidates. \ks\ candidates are reconstructed from $\pi^+
191: \pi^-$ pairs with an invariant mass within $15\mevc$ of the nominal
192: \ks\ mass. The distance between the two pion tracks at the \ks\ vertex
193: is required to be smaller than $1\,\mathrm{cm}$, the flight distance
194: in the plane perpendicular to the beam from the interaction point is
195: required to be greater than $0.1\,\mathrm{cm}$ and the angle between
196: the \ks\ momentum direction and decay path in this plane should be
197: smaller than $0.01\,\mathrm{rad}$. Photons are reconstructed in the
198: electromagnetic calorimeter as showers with energies above $50 \mev$
199: that are not associated with charged tracks. $\pi^0$ candidates are
200: reconstructed by combining pairs of photons with invariant masses
201: within $15\mevc$ of the nominal $\pi^0$ mass.
202:
203: $D^0$ candidates are reconstructed using five decay modes: $K^-
204: \pi^+$, $K^- K^+$, $K^- \pi^- \pi^+ \pi^+$, $\ks \pi^+\pi^-$ and $K^-
205: \pi^+ \pi^0$. $D^+$ candidates are reconstructed using the $K^- \pi^+
206: \pi^+$ channel. \ds\ candidates are reconstructed using the $K^+ K^-
207: \pi^+$ decay mode. A $\pm 15\mevc$ mass window is used for all $D$
208: modes (approximately $2.5\sigma$ in each case) except for the $D^0
209: \to K^- \pi^- \pi^+ \pi^+$ where $\pm 10\mevc$ is applied and $D^0\to
210: K^- \pi^+ \pi^0$ with $\pm 20\mevc$ mass window. All \ds, $D^+$ and
211: $D^0$ candidates are subjected to a mass and vertex constrained fit to
212: improve their momenta and thus the recoil mass resolution.
213:
214: $D^*$ candidates are selected via $D^{*+} \to D^0 \pi^+$ and $D^{*0}
215: \to D^0 \pi^0$ decay modes with $\pm 2\mevc$ mass window. \dss\
216: candidates are reconstructed via $\ds \gamma$ channel with $\pm
217: 10\mevc$ mass window. \dso\ is reconstructed in $\overline{D}{}^{*0}
218: K^-$ and $D^{*-} \ks$ decay modes.
219:
220: In the case of multiple candidates, the candidate with the minimum value of
221: $\chi^2_{tot}$ ($\chi^2_{tot}=\chi^2_{M(D)} + \chi^2_{M(D^*)}$ for \dso\ tag
222: and $\chi^2_{tot}=\chi^2_{M(\ds)}$ for \dss\ tag, respectively) is chosen. Each
223: $\chi^2$ is defined as the square of the ratio of the deviation of the
224: measured mass from the nominal value and the corresponding resolution.
225:
226: \section{Reconstruction}
227: %\section{$\mathbf{\ee \to \dso \dss }$}
228:
229: \subsection{\dso\ tag}
230:
231: As the ratio of $\dso\to\dstbkm$ and $\dso\to
232: \dstmks$ branching fractions is unknown, we perform the analysis for
233: these two channels separately and average the results.
234:
235: The \dstbkm\ and \dstmks\ mass spectra with a preselection requirement
236: on $\RM(\overline{D}{}^*K)~<3~\gevc$ are shown in
237: Fig.~\ref{ds1.mds1}. Clean peaks at the nominal \dso\ mass without
238: substantial combinatorial background are evident in both
239: distributions. We fit these distributions with a sum of two Gaussians with a common mean
240: and the background parametrized with a threshold
241: function:
242: \begin{equation}
243: Bg(m)=(A\cdot m + B )\sqrt{m-M^{PDG}_{\overline{D}{}^*}-M^{PDG}_{K}}.
244: \label{ds1.bg}
245: \end{equation}
246: The fit yields a Gaussian central value of $M=2535.1\pm
247: 0.4\mevc$ for \dstbkm\ and $M=2535.0\pm 0.3\mevc$ for \dstmks\
248: channels, respectively, which is in good agreement with both the PDG
249: and MC values.
250:
251: % The fit results are shown in
252: %%Fig.~\ref{ds1.mds1} as solid lines. The fit to the \dstbkm\
253: %distribution yields the Gaussian parameters to be $M=2535.5\pm
254: %0.08\mevc$ and $\sigma=1.94 \pm 0.04 \mevc$ in a good agreement with
255: %%the MC ($2535.4 \pm 1.4 \mevc$ and $1.96 \pm 0.6 \mevc$,
256: %respectively). The results of the fit to the \dstmks\ spectrum are
257: %$M=2535.0 \pm 0.1 \mevc$ and $\sigma= 1.69\pm 0.04\mevc$ and agree as
258: %well with the MC expectations ($M=2535.3 \pm 1.3$ and $\sigma=1.71 \pm
259: %0.5 \mevc$).
260: \begin{figure}[htb]
261: \begin{center}
262: \epsfig{file=ds1.mass.eps,width=0.7\textwidth}
263: \end{center}
264: \caption{The distribution of invariant mass a) \dstbkm\ and b)
265: \dstmks. The solid curves represent the fit described in the text.}
266: \label {ds1.mds1}
267: \end{figure}
268:
269: The signal and sideband regions for \dso\ are defined as $|M(\dso)-2.5354|<0.005\gevc$ and $0.010\gevc<|M(\dso)-2.5354|<0.015\gevc$, respectively. The $\RM(\dso)$ spectra are
270: shown in Fig.~\ref{ds1.rm}. The significant excess in the region from
271: $1.9$ to $2.2 \gevc$ includes $\ee \to \ds \dso$ and $\ee \to \dss
272: \dso$ processes. The small
273: excess around $2.3 \gevc$ could be interpreted as a
274: contribution from the process $e^+e^-\to D_{sJ}^+\dso$. The excess
275: around $2.5 \gevc$ corresponds to the excited $D_s^{**+}=D_{s1}^+, ~
276: D_{s2}^+$ states.
277:
278: \begin{figure}[htb]
279: \begin{center}
280: \epsfig{file=ds1.recoilmass.eps ,width=0.7\textwidth}
281: \end{center}
282: \caption{a) $\RM(\dso \to \dstbkm)$ distribution; b) $\RM(\dso \to
283: \dstmks )$ distribution. Points with error bars correspond to the
284: events in the signal region. The \dso\ sideband contribution is shown as hatched
285: histogram. The signal windows are indicated by the
286: vertical lines. }
287: \label{ds1.rm}
288: \end{figure}
289:
290: We define the signal $\RM(\dso)$ window as
291: $|\RM(\dso)-2.1121|<0.100\gevc$ (Fig.~\ref{ds1.rm}). As the recoil mass resolution of $\sim50\mevc$ is
292: not sufficient to resolve $\ee \to \ds \dso$ and $\ee \to \dss
293: \dso$ processes, to disentangle them we
294: reconstruct the $\gamma$ from $\dss \to \ds\gamma$ decays. The reconstructed
295: \dso\ candidates from the signal $\RM(\dso)$ region are combined with
296: each photon in the event to calculate the recoil mass difference
297: $\RMD(\dso\gamma)$.
298:
299: To obtain the signal yield and disentangle the signal contribution
300: from the non-resonant $\dss \overline{D}{}^* K$ process, we perform fits to $\overline{D}{}^* K$
301: mass distributions in bins of $\RMD(\dso\gamma)$. The
302: $\RMD(\dso\gamma)$ bin width is chosen to be $4\mevc$. The signal
303: function is the sum of two Gaussians with the mass and width fixed to the corresponding MC
304: values. The background is described with a threshold function
305: (Eq. \ref{ds1.bg}).
306: %The fit results for $\RMD(\dso\gamma)$ bins around
307: %the signal region are presented in Fig.~\ref{ds1dst0.binfit.quality}
308: %AND
309: The signal yield for each bin of the recoil mass difference for the $\dso\to\dstbkm$ and $\dso\to
310: \dstmks$ channels are plotted in Fig.~\ref{ds1.binfit.results}.
311:
312: %\begin{figure}[h!]
313: %\begin{center}
314: %\epsfig{file=ds1dst0.binfit.eps,width=0.95\textwidth}
315: %\end{center}
316: %\caption{The distributions of $M(\dstbkm)$ in bins of $\RMD(\dso\gamma)$.}
317: %\label {ds1dst0.binfit.quality}
318: %\end{figure}
319:
320: %\begin{figure}[h!]
321: %\begin{center}
322: %\epsfig{file=ds1dstp.binfit.eps,width=0.95\textwidth}
323: %\end{center}
324: %\caption{The distributions of $M(\dstmks)$ in bins of $\RMD(\dso\gamma)$.}
325: %\label {ds1dstp.binfit.quality}
326: %\end{figure}
327:
328: \begin{figure}[h!]
329: \begin{center}
330: \epsfig{file=ds1.results.eps,width=0.7\textwidth}
331: \end{center}
332: \caption{The signal yields in bins of $\RMD(\dso\gamma)$: a) for
333: the $\dso \to \dstbkm $ channel; b) for the $\dso \to \dstmks $
334: channel. The solid curves represent the fits described in the text.}
335: \label {ds1.binfit.results}
336: \end{figure}
337:
338: The method used to extract the signal yield guarantees that the
339: signal peak includes only those events that contain both a \dso\
340: meson and a \dss\ decaying to $D_s\gamma$. Thus, the only possible
341: peaking background sources are final states with extra pion(s)
342: ({\emph e.g.} $\ee \to D^{*+}_s D_{s1}^- \pi^0$). The process with one
343: extra $\pi^0$ is suppressed due to isospin conservation. The possible
344: contribution of $\ee \to \dso D_{sJ}^+(2460)$ followed by
345: $D_{sJ}^+(2460)\to \dss\pi^0$ decay, where the isospin violation
346: occurs in the $D_{sJ}$ decay, is suppressed by the recoil mass cut at the $4
347: \sigma$ level. The processes with two pions are also suppressed at
348: the $\sim3.5 \sigma$ level. Therefore, we conclude that the remaining
349: background is negligibly small; the extracted yields are
350: dominated by the signal.
351:
352: The distributions in Fig.~\ref{ds1.binfit.results} are fitted to the
353: sum of a signal Gaussian (with the mass and width fixed to the MC
354: values) and a linear background function. The fits yield
355: \yieldone\ signal events for $\dso \to\dstbkm$ and \yieldtwo\ events
356: for $\dso\to\dstmks$. To determine the reconstruction efficiency the
357: same procedure is applied to the MC signal sample.
358:
359:
360: \subsection{\dss\ tag}
361: In the \dss\ tag, the \dss\ of the process $\ee\to\dss\dso$ is fully reconstructed.
362: The $\ds\gamma$ mass distribution is shown in
363: Fig.~\ref{dsst1.mdsst} and fitted with the sum of a signal Gaussian
364: and a linear background function. The obtained central value of the
365: Gaussian $M=2113.5\pm 0.4\mevc$ is somewhat larger than the PDG value, but
366: in good agreement with the MC expectation, which shows a similar shift. The signal region is
367: chosen to be $|M(\ds\gamma)-2.1121|<0.010\gevc$ while the sidebands
368: are defined as $0.015\gevc<|M(\ds\gamma)-2.1121|<0.025\gevc$.
369:
370: \begin{figure}[htb]
371: \begin{center}
372: \epsfig{file=dsst1.mass.eps,width=0.7\textwidth}
373: \end{center}
374: \caption{ The $\ds \gamma$ invariant mass distribution. The solid curve represents the fit described in the text.}
375: \label {dsst1.mdsst}
376: \end{figure}
377:
378: The $\RM(\dss)$ spectrum for the signal region is shown in
379: Fig.~\ref{dsst1.rm}. A wide enhancement around $2.1\gevc$ is formed by
380: overlapping $D_s^-$ and $D_s^{*-}$ signals. The signal process $\ee\to
381: \dss \dso$ contributes to the bump around $2.55\gevc$ together with the
382: process $\ee \to \dss\dst$. We define the signal region by the
383: requirement $|\RM(\dss)-2.5354|<0.100\gevc$ ($\sim2\sigma$).
384:
385: \begin{figure}[htb]
386: \begin{center}
387: \epsfig{file=dsst1.recoilmass.eps,width=0.7\textwidth}
388: \end{center}
389: \caption{The $\RM(\dss)$ distribution. The events in the \dss\ signal region are shown as points
390: with error bars. The \dss\ sidebands are superimposed as hatched
391: histogram. The $\RM(\dss)$ signal window is indicated by
392: vertical lines. }
393: \label {dsst1.rm}
394: \end{figure}
395:
396: %The $\RMD(\dss K)\equiv \RM(\dss) -\RM(\dss K) $ distribution is shown
397: %in Fig.\ref{dsst1.rmd} for \dstbkm\ (a) and \dstmks\ (b) channels,
398: %respectively. A clear peak around the nominal \dso\ mass is evident
399: %over the combinatorial background.
400: %\begin{figure}[h!]
401: %\begin{center}
402: %\epsfig{file=dsst1.recoilmassdifference.eps,width=0.7\textwidth}
403: %\end{center}
404: %\caption{The distributions of the $\RMD(\dso \gamma)\equiv \RM(\dso) -
405: %\RM(\dso\gamma)$ for \dstbkm\ (a) and \dstmks\ (b) channels,
406: %respectively. }
407: %\label {dsst1.rmd}
408: %\end{figure}
409:
410: To extract the $\ee \to \dss\dso$ signal yield for \dss\ tag, we perform a fit to
411: the $\ds \gamma$ mass distributions in bins of $\RMD(\dss K)$. The
412: signal function is a Gaussian with its parameters fixed to the corresponding MC
413: values. The background is parametrized by a linear function.
414: %The $\ds \gamma$ mass spectra together with the fit results
415: %for bins around the signal region are shown in
416: %Fig.~\ref{dsst1dst0.binfit.quality} for $\dso \to \dstbkm$ decay
417: %mode. Fig.~\ref{dsst1dstp.binfit.quality} shows the similar
418: %distributions for $\dso \to \dstmks$ channel.
419: The yields returned by the fits for $\dso\to\dstbkm$ and $\dso\to
420: \dstmks$ channels are plotted in Fig.~\ref{dsst1.binfit.results}. We
421: fit the resulting distribution with the sum of a signal Gaussian (with
422: fixed mass and width) and a threshold function (Eq. \ref{ds1.bg}). The
423: fits yield \yieldthree\ signal events for the \dstbkm\ channel and
424: \yieldfour\ events for the \dstmks\ channel.
425: \begin{figure}[h!]
426: \begin{center}
427: \epsfig{file=dsst1.results.eps,width=0.7\textwidth}
428: \end{center}
429: \caption{The $\ee\to\dss\dso$ yields for \dss\ tag in bins of $\RMD(\dss K)$: a) for
430: the $\dso \to \dstbkm $ channel; b) for the $\dso \to \dstmks$
431: channel. The solid curves show the fits described in the text.}
432: \label {dsst1.binfit.results}
433: \end{figure}
434:
435: \section{Systematic errors}
436:
437: The systematic uncertainties are summarized in Table \ref{systematics}.
438: \begin{table}[h!]
439: \caption{Contributions to the systematic error.}
440: \begin{tabular}{@{\hspace{0.3cm}}l@{\hspace{0.3cm}}||@{\hspace{0.3cm}}c@{\hspace{0.3cm}}}
441: \hline \hline
442: Source & Estimated error, [\%] \\
443: \hline
444: Production angle & 0.4 \\
445: $\overline{D}{}^*$ polarization & 3.8 \\
446: ISR & 2.3 \\
447: Recoil mass cut & 4.8 \\
448: Fit & 4.3 \\
449: Tracking/$\pi^0$ reconstr. efficiency & 3.0 \\
450: ${\cal B} (\overline{D}{}^{(*)})$ & 5.2 \\
451: MC statistics & 2.3 \\
452: \hline
453: Total & 10.1 \\
454: \hline
455: \hline
456: \end{tabular}
457:
458: \label {systematics}
459: \end{table}
460:
461: Different production and helicity angular distributions result in
462: different ratios of reconstruction efficiencies for the two tagging
463: procedures. A potential source of significant systematic error are the uncertainties,
464: associated with reconstruction efficiencies of the kaon from the \dso\ decay
465: and the photon from the \dss, which strongly depend on the mother particle
466: polarizations. As the kaon and photon are, however, reconstructed in both tags, the
467: systematic uncertainties related to the reconstruction of these
468: particles cancel out. The remaining systematic uncertainty in the
469: efficiency ratio from the production angle $\theta_{\mathrm{prod}}$ (polar angle
470: of the momentum of \dso\ meson) is estimated from MC simulation by
471: comparing the regions $|\cos(\theta_{\mathrm{prod}})|>0.5$ and
472: $|\cos(\theta_{\mathrm{prod}})|<0.5$ and found to be small
473: ($0.4\%$).
474:
475: The systematic error arising from unknown $\overline{D}{}^*$
476: polarizations contributes only to the uncertainty in the efficiency of
477: \dso\ tag and does not cancel out in the efficiency ratio. This
478: contribution is estimated from MC assuming different $\overline{D}{}^*$
479: polarizations.
480:
481: %The efficiency of the requirement on the recoil mass depends on the
482: %fraction of the events with ISR photon. This is conservatively
483: %estimated by changing the fraction of events containing ISR photons in
484: %the whole MC sample by $30\%$. The resulting relative shift of the
485: %$\ds \to K^+K^-\pi^+$ branching fraction is found to be
486: %$2.3$\%. Alternatively, this systematic error is estimated by
487: %variation of the recoil mass window width in the range of
488: %$80-120\mevc$. The difference in calculated ${\cal B}(\ds)$ is
489: %conservatively considered as the systematic error.
490:
491: The efficiency of the requirement on recoil mass depends on the
492: fraction of events with an ISR photon as well as on the recoil mass
493: window cut. The error from the ISR photon is conservatively estimated
494: by changing the fraction of events containing ISR photons in the whole
495: MC sample by $30\%$. The resulting relative shift in ${\cal B}(\ds)$ is
496: found to be $2.3\%$. The error from the recoil mass cut is estimated
497: by varying the recoil mass window width in the range of
498: $80-120\mevc$. The difference in the calculated value of ${\cal B}(\ds)$ ($4.8\%$) is
499: conservatively considered as the systematic error.
500:
501:
502:
503: The fit systematics is estimated assuming different shapes for the
504: signal (single and double Gaussians) and for the background (different
505: order polynomials). The difference in the resulting branching fraction
506: is found to be $4.3$\% and is treated as the systematic uncertainty in the
507: fit.
508:
509: Other contributions come from the uncertainties in the track/$\pi^0$
510: reconstruction efficiencies, $\overline{D}{}^{(*)}$ branching fractions and MC statistics.
511:
512:
513: All of the systematic contributions described above are added in quadrature to give $10.1$\%.
514:
515: \section{Results}
516:
517: Using the measured signal yields $N(\dss)$ and $N(\dso)$ with \dss\
518: and \dso\ tags, respectively, and taking into account the
519: efficiency ratio ($\frac{ \epsilon(\dso)}{\epsilon(\dss)}=0.50$ for
520: \dstbkm\ and $\frac{ \epsilon(\dso)}{\epsilon(\dss)}=1.65$ for
521: \dstmks\ channels, respectively), we obtain the \ds\ absolute
522: branching fraction:
523: \begin{eqnarray}
524: \mathcal{B} (\ds \to K^+ K^- \pi^+ )= \frac{N(\dss)}
525: {N(\dso)}\cdot \frac{ \epsilon(\dso)}{\epsilon
526: (\dss)}\cdot \mathcal{B}(\overline{D}{}^{(*)}),
527: \end{eqnarray}
528: where $\mathcal{B}(\overline{D}{}^{(*)})$ is the product of
529: $\overline{D}{}^*$ branching fraction and those of sub-decays. Separate calculations for the \dstbkm\ and \dstmks\ channels
530: yield $\mathcal{B}(\ds \to K^+ K^- \pi^+)$ of (\resultsone)\% and
531: (\resultstwo)\%, respectively.
532:
533:
534:
535: \section{Summary}
536:
537: In summary, we report a measurement of the $\ds \to K^+ K^- \pi^+ $
538: branching fraction using a new method of double tag partial
539: reconstruction. The branching fraction is measured separately in two channels
540: $\ee \to \dss\dso(\to \dstbkm)$ and $\ee \to \dss\dso(\to \dstmks)$. The average value is $\mathcal{B}(\ds \to K^+ K^-
541: \pi^+)=(\results$)\%.
542:
543: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
544:
545: \bibitem{PDG} W.-M.~Yao {\it et al.} (Particle Data Group), J. Phys. G {\bf 33}, 1 (2006).
546:
547: \bibitem{belle_dp} F.~J.~Ronga {\it et al.} (Belle collaboration), Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73},
548: 092003 (2006).
549:
550: \bibitem{babar_dp} B.~Aubert {\it et al.} (BaBar collaboration), Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71},
551: 112003 (2005).
552:
553: %\bibitem{belle_dspi} P.~Krokovny {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 231804 (2002).
554:
555: %\bibitem{babar_dspi} B.~Aubert {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 181803 (2003).
556:
557:
558:
559: \bibitem{babar_dds} B.~Aubert {\it et al.} (BaBar collaboration), Phys. Rev. D {\bf 74},
560: 031103 (2006).
561:
562: \bibitem{cleo_branching} N.~E.~Adam {\it et al.} (Cleo-c collaboration), hep-ex/0607079.
563:
564:
565: %\bibitem{argus} H.~Albrecht {\it et al.}, DESY 90-157 (1990);
566:
567:
568: \bibitem{belle} A.~Abashian {\it et al.} (Belle collaboration), Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A
569: {\bf 479}, 117 (2002).
570:
571: \bibitem{kekb} S.~Kurokawa and E.~Kikutani,
572: Nucl. Instr. and. Meth. A {\bf 499}, 1 (2003), and other papers included in
573: this volume.
574:
575: \bibitem{DstDst} T.~Uglov, {\it et al.} (Belle collaboration), Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70}, 071101
576: (2004).
577:
578: \end{thebibliography}
579:
580:
581: \end{document}
582: