1: \documentclass{elsart}

2: \journal{Physics Letters B}

3: 

4: \usepackage{epsfig}

5: \usepackage{rotate}

6: \usepackage{color}

7: 

8: % The amssymb package provides various useful mathematical symbols

9: \usepackage{amssymb}

10: \usepackage{amsmath}

11: \usepackage{amscd}

12: 

13: % A useful Journal macro

14: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, (#4) #3}

15: 

16: % Some useful journal names

17: \def\NCA{\em Nuovo Cimento}

18: \def\NIM{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods}

19: \def\NIMA{{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods} A}

20: \def\NPB{{\em Nucl. Phys.} B}

21: \def\PLB{{\em Phys. Lett.}  B}

22: \def\PRL{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}

23: \def\PRD{{\em Phys. Rev.} D}

24: \def\ZPC{{\em Z. Phys.} C}

25: \def\EPJ{{\em Eur. Phys. J.} C}

26: \def\JPG{\em Journ. Phys. G.}

27: \def\CPC{\em Comp. Phys. Comm.}

28: \def\PRev{\em Phys. Rev.}

29: \def\PR{\em Phys. Rep.}

30: \def\NPBps{{\em Nucl. Phys.} B {\em Proc. Suppl.}}

31: 

32: \bibliographystyle{unsrt}

33: 

34: \newcommand{\bmath}{\begin{displaymath}}

35: \newcommand{\emath}{\end{displaymath}}

36: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

37: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

38: \newcommand{\myplot}[3]{\centerline{\resizebox{#1\textwidth}{!}{\rotatebox{#2}{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{#3}}}}}

39: 

40: \newcommand{\kl}{$\rm K_{L} $}

41: \newcommand{\kezero}{$\rm K^{0}_{e3}$}

42: \newcommand{\ke}{$\rm K_{e3}$}

43: \newcommand{\kelong}{$\rm K_{L}\rightarrow~\pi^{\pm}~e^{\mp}~\nu_{e}$}

44: \newcommand{\kppp}{$\rm K_{3\pi}$}

45: \newcommand{\kppplong}{$\rm K_{L}\rightarrow~\pi^{+}~\pi^{-}~\pi^{0}$}

46: \newcommand{\kpp}{$\rm K_{2\pi}$}

47: \newcommand{\kpplong}{$\rm K_{L}\rightarrow~\pi^{+}~\pi^{-}$}

48: \newcommand{\kmzero}{$\rm K^{0}_{\mu3}$}

49: \newcommand{\km}{$\rm K_{\mu3}$}

50: \newcommand{\kmlong}{$\rm K_{L}\rightarrow~\pi^{\pm}~\mu^{\mp}~\nu_{\mu}$}

51: \newcommand{\kell}{$\rm K_{\ell 3} $}

52: \newcommand{\vus}{$\vert V_{\it us} \vert$}

53: \newcommand{\lp}{$\lambda_{+}$}

54: \newcommand{\lz}{$\lambda_{0}$}

55: 

56: \definecolor{darkred}{rgb}{0.5,0.0,0.0}

57: \newcommand{\darkred}{\color{darkred}}

58: \newcommand{\red}{\color{red}}

59: 

60: \begin{document}

61: \begin{frontmatter}

62:                                                                                 

63: %\centerline{\large EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH}

64: %\bigskip

65: %\rightline{\large CERN-PH-EP/2006-033}

66: %\rightline{\large 15 October 2006}

67: %\medskip

68: 

69: \title{\boldmath {Measurement of \kmzero~ form factors }} 

70: \collab{NA48 Collaboration}

71: 

72: \author{A.~Lai},

73: \author{D.~Marras}

74: \address{Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit\`a e Sezione dell'INFN di Cagliari, \\ 

75: I-09100 Cagliari, Italy} 

76: \author{A.~Bevan},

77: \author{R.S.~Dosanjh\thanksref{threfRAL1}},

78: \author{T.J.~Gershon\thanksref{threfRAL2}},

79: \author{B.~Hay},

80: \author{G.E.~Kalmus},

81: \author{C.~Lazzeroni},

82: \author{D.J.~Munday},

83: \author{E.~Olaiya\thanksref{threfRAL}},

84: \author{M.A.~Parker},

85: \author{T.O.~White},

86: \author{S.A.~Wotton}

87: \address{Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB3~0HE, U.K.\thanksref{thref3}}

88: \thanks[threfRAL1]{Present address: Ottawa-Carleton Institute for Physics, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada}

89: \thanks[threfRAL2]{Present address: High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba, Japan}

90: \thanks[threfRAL]{Present address: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, OX11~0QX, U.K.}

91: \thanks[thref3]{Funded by the U.K.\ Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council}

92: \author{G.~Barr\thanksref{threfZX1}},

93: \author{G.~Bocquet},

94: \author{A.~Ceccucci},

95: \author{T.~Cuhadar-D\"onszelmann\thanksref{threfZX2}},

96: \author{D.~Cundy\thanksref{threfZX}},

97: \author{G.~D'Agostini},

98: \author{N.~Doble\thanksref{threfPisa}},

99: \author{V.~Falaleev},

100: \author{L.~Gatignon},

101: \author{A.~Gonidec},

102: \author{B.~Gorini},

103: \author{G.~Govi},

104: \author{P.~Grafstr\"om},

105: \author{W.~Kubischta},

106: \author{A.~Lacourt},

107: \author{A.~Norton},

108: \author{S.~Palestini},

109: \author{B.~Panzer-Steindel},

110: \author{H.~Taureg},

111: \author{M.~Velasco\thanksref{threfNW}},

112: \author{H.~Wahl\thanksref{threfHW}}

113: \address{CERN, CH-1211 Gen\`eve 23, Switzerland}

114: \thanks[threfZX1]{Present address: Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Denis Wilkinson Building, Keble Road, Oxford, UK, OX1 3RH}

115: \thanks[threfZX2]{Present address: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z1} 

116: \thanks[threfZX]{Present address: Istituto di Cosmogeofisica del CNR di Torino, I-10133~Torino, Italy}

117: \thanks[threfPisa]{Present address: Scuola Normale Superiore e Sezione dell'INFN di Pisa, I-56100~Pisa, Italy}

118: \thanks[threfNW]{Present address: Northwestern University, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Evanston, IL~60208, USA}

119: \thanks[threfHW]{Present address: Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit\`a e Sezione dell'INFN di Ferrara, I-44100~Ferrara, Italy}

120: \author{C.~Cheshkov\thanksref{threfCERN},\thanksref{threfBM}},

121: %%\author{A.~Gaponenko},

122: \author{P.~Hristov\thanksref{threfCERN},\thanksref{threfBM}},

123: \author{V.~Kekelidze},

124: \author{L.~Litov\thanksref{threfBM}},

125: \author{D.~Madigozhin},

126: \author{N.~Molokanova},

127: \author{Yu.~Potrebenikov},

128: \author{S.~Stoynev\thanksref{threfNW},\thanksref{threfBM}},

129: %%\author{G.~Tatishvili\thanksref{threfCM}},

130: %%\author{A.~Tkatchev},

131: \author{A.~Zinchenko}

132: \address{Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, 141980, Russian Federation}  

133: \thanks[threfCERN]{Present address: CERN, CH-1211 Geneva~23, Switzerland}

134: %%\thanks[threfCM]{Present address: Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA~15213, USA}

135: \thanks[threfBM]{Supported by the Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science under contract BY$\Phi$--04/05.}

136: \author{I.~Knowles},

137: \author{V.~Martin\thanksref{threfNW}},

138: \author{R.~Sacco\thanksref{threfSacco}},

139: \author{A.~Walker}

140: \address{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, JCMB King's Buildings, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh, EH9~3JZ, U.K.} 

141: \thanks[threfSacco]{Present address: Department of Physics, Queen Mary, University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS}

142: \newpage

143: \author{M.~Contalbrigo},

144: \author{P.~Dalpiaz},

145: \author{J.~Duclos},

146: \author{P.L.~Frabetti\thanksref{threfFrabetti}},

147: \author{A.~Gianoli},

148: \author{M.~Martini},

149: \author{F.~Petrucci},

150: \author{M.~Savri\'e}

151: \address{Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit\`a e Sezione dell'INFN di Ferrara, I-44100 Ferrara, Italy}

152: \thanks[threfFrabetti]{Present address: Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, 141980, Russian Federation}

153: \author{A.~Bizzeti\thanksref{threfXX}},

154: \author{M.~Calvetti},

155: \author{G.~Collazuol\thanksref{threfPisa}},

156: \author{G.~Graziani},

157: \author{E.~Iacopini},

158: \author{M.~Lenti},

159: \author{G.~Ruggiero},

160: \author{M.~Veltri\thanksref{thref7} $^\star$}

161: \address{Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit\`a e Sezione dell'INFN di Firenze, I-50125~Firenze, Italy}

162: \thanks[threfXX]{Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit\`a di Modena e Reggio Emilia, I-41100~Modena, Italy}

163: \thanks[thref7]{Istituto di Fisica dell'Universit\`a di Urbino, I-61029~Urbino, Italy\\

164: $^\star$ Corresponding author. \\ {\it E--mail address:}  veltri@fis.uniurb.it (M. Veltri) }

165: \author{H.G.~Becker},

166: \author{K.~Eppard},

167: \author{M.~Eppard\thanksref{threfCERN}},

168: \author{H.~Fox\thanksref{threfFB}},

169: \author{A.~Kalter},

170: \author{K.~Kleinknecht},

171: \author{U.~Koch},

172: \author{L.~K\"opke},

173: \author{P.~Lopes da Silva}, 

174: \author{P.~Marouelli},

175: \author{I.~Pellmann\thanksref{threfDESY}},

176: \author{A.~Peters\thanksref{threfCERN}},

177: \author{B.~Renk},

178: \author{S.A.~Schmidt},

179: \author{V.~Sch\"onharting},

180: \author{Y.~Schu\'e},

181: \author{R.~Wanke},

182: \author{A.~Winhart},

183: \author{M.~Wittgen\thanksref{threfSLAC}}

184: \address{Institut f\"ur Physik, Universit\"at Mainz, D-55099~Mainz, Germany\thanksref{thref6}}

185: \thanks[threfFB]{Present address: Physikalisches Institut, D-79104~Freiburg, Germany}

186: \thanks[threfDESY]{Present address: DESY Hamburg, D-22607~Hamburg, Germany}

187: \thanks[threfSLAC]{Present address: SLAC, Stanford, CA~94025, USA}

188: \thanks[thref6]{Funded by the German Federal Minister for Research and Technology (BMBF) 

189: under contract 7MZ18P(4)-TP2}

190: \author{J.C.~Chollet},

191: \author{L.~Fayard},

192: \author{L.~Iconomidou-Fayard},

193: \author{J.~Ocariz},

194: \author{G.~Unal},

195: \author{I.~Wingerter-Seez}

196: \address{Laboratoire de l'Acc\'el\'erateur Lin\'eaire, IN2P3-CNRS,Universit\'e de Paris-Sud, 91898 Orsay, France\thanksref{threfOrsay}}

197: \thanks[threfOrsay]{Funded by Institut National de Physique des Particules et de Physique Nucl\'eaire (IN2P3), France}

198: \author{G.~Anzivino},

199: \author{P.~Cenci},

200: \author{E.~Imbergamo},

201: \author{P.~Lubrano},

202: \author{A.~Mestvirishvili},

203: \author{A.~Nappi},

204: \author{M.~Pepe},

205: \author{M.~Piccini}

206: \address{Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit\`a e Sezione dell'INFN di Perugia, \\ I-06100 Perugia, Italy}

207: \author{L.~Bertanza},

208: \author{R.~Carosi},

209: \author{R.~Casali},

210: \author{C.~Cerri},

211: \author{M.~Cirilli\thanksref{threfCERN}},

212: \author{F.~Costantini},

213: \author{R.~Fantechi},

214: \author{S.~Giudici},

215: \author{I.~Mannelli},

216: \author{G.~Pierazzini},

217: \author{M.~Sozzi}

218: \address{Dipartimento di Fisica, Scuola Normale Superiore e Sezione dell'INFN di Pisa, \\ I-56100~Pisa, Italy} 

219: \author{J.B.~Cheze},

220: \author{J.~Cogan},

221: \author{M.~De Beer},

222: \author{P.~Debu},

223: \author{A.~Formica},

224: \author{R.~Granier de Cassagnac\thanksref{threfEcolePoly}},

225: \author{E.~Mazzucato},

226: \author{B.~Peyaud},

227: \author{R.~Turlay},

228: \author{B.~Vallage}

229: \address{DSM/DAPNIA - CEA Saclay, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France} 

230: \thanks[threfEcolePoly]{Present address: Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet,

231: \'Ecole polytechnique (IN2P3, Palaiseau, 91128 France}

232: \author{R.~Bernhard\thanksref{threfRalf}},

233: \author{M.~Holder},

234: \author{A.~Maier\thanksref{threfCERN}},

235: \author{M.~Ziolkowski}

236: \address{Fachbereich Physik, Universit\"at Siegen, D-57068 Siegen, Germany\thanksref{thref8}}

237: \thanks[threfRalf]{Present address: Physik Institut der Universit\"at Z\"urich, Z\"urich, Switzerland}

238: \thanks[thref8]{Funded by the German Federal Minister for Research and Technology (BMBF) under contract 056SI74}

239: \author{R.~Arcidiacono},

240: \author{C.~Biino},

241: \author{N.~Cartiglia},

242: %\author{R.~Guida}, 

243: \author{F.~Marchetto}, 

244: \author{E.~Menichetti},

245: \author{N.~Pastrone}

246: \address{Dipartimento di Fisica Sperimentale dell'Universit\`a e Sezione dell'INFN di Torino, 

247: I-10125~Torino, Italy} 

248: \author{J.~Nassalski},

249: \author{E.~Rondio},

250: \author{M.~Szleper\thanksref{threfNW}},

251: \author{W.~Wislicki},

252: \author{S.~Wronka}

253: \address{Soltan Institute for Nuclear Studies, Laboratory for High Energy Physics, 

254: PL-00-681~Warsaw, Poland\thanksref{thref9}}

255: \thanks[thref9]{Supported by the KBN under contract SPUB-M/CERN/P03/DZ210/2000 and using computing 

256: resources of the Interdisciplinary Center for Mathematical and Computational Modelling of the University of 

257: Warsaw.}

258: \author{H.~Dibon},

259: \author{G.~Fischer},

260: \author{M.~Jeitler},

261: \author{M.~Markytan},

262: \author{I.~Mikulec},

263: \author{G.~Neuhofer},

264: \author{M.~Pernicka},

265: \author{A.~Taurok},

266: \author{L.~Widhalm}

267: \address{\"Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut f\"ur Hochenergiephysik, A-1050~Wien, Austria\thanksref{thref10}}

268: \thanks[thref10]{Funded by the Federal Ministry of Science and Transportation 

269: under contract GZ~616.360/2-IV GZ 616.363/2-VIII, 

270: and by the Austrian Science Foundation under contract P08929-PHY.}

271: 

272: %\clearpage

273: 

274: \begin{abstract}

275: \noindent This paper reports on a new high precision measurement 

276: of the form factors of the  \kmlong~ decay.

277: The data sample of about 2.3$\times 10^{6}$ events was

278: recorded in 1999 by the NA48 experiment at CERN.

279: \noindent Studying the Dalitz plot density we measured a linear,

280: $\lambda^{'}_{+} = (20.5\pm 2.2_{stat} \pm 2.4_{syst})\times 10^{-3}$, 

281: and a quadratic, 

282: $\lambda^{''}_{+} = (2.6\pm 0.9_{stat} \pm 1.0_{syst})\times 10^{-3}$

283: term in the power expansion of the vector form factor. No evidence

284: was found for a second order term for the scalar form factor;

285: the linear slope was determined to be

286: $\lambda_{0} = (9.5\pm 1.1_{stat} \pm 0.8_{syst})\times 10^{-3}$. 

287: \noindent Using a linear fit our results were:

288: $\lambda_{+} = (26.7\pm 0.6_{stat} \pm 0.8_{syst} )\times 10^{-3}$ and,

289: $\lambda_{0} = (11.7\pm 0.7_{stat} \pm 1.0_{syst} )\times 10^{-3}$.\\

290: \noindent A pole fit of the form factors yields: 

291:  $m_V = ( 905 \pm 9_{stat} \pm 17_{syst} )$ MeV/c$^2$ and

292:  $m_S = (1400 \pm 46_{stat} \pm 53_{syst} )$ MeV/c$^2$.

293: \end{abstract}

294: 

295: \begin{keyword}

296: Kaon semileptonic decays, Kaon form factors

297: \PACS 13.20 Eb 

298: \end{keyword}

299: \end{frontmatter}

300: 

301: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

302: \section{Introduction}

303: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

304: \label{intro}

305: Since long ago~\cite{cgg} ~\kell~ decays 

306: ($\rm K_{L}\rightarrow~\pi^{\pm}~\ell^{\mp}~\nu,~ \ell=e, \mu$) 

307: have offered the opportunity to test several features of the electroweak 

308: interactions such as the  V-A structure of weak currents, current algebra 

309: and the predictions of chiral perturbation theory. 

310: These decays have been the object of a renewed interest both

311: on the experimental and theoretical side since they provide the 

312: cleanest~\cite{leutwyler} way to extract the CKM matrix element \vus. 

313: \kell~decays give access to the product $f_{+}(0)$\vus, where $f_{+}(0)$,

314: the vector form factor at zero momentum transfer, has to be determined 

315: by theory.

316: The recent calculations at $\mathcal{O}(p^{6})$~\cite{bijnens-tala} 

317: in the framework of chiral perturbation theory show how $f_{+}(0)$~could 

318: be experimentally constrained from the slope and the curvature of the 

319: scalar form factor $f_{0}$~of the \km~decay.

320: In addition, the form factors are needed to calculate the phase space 

321: integrals which are another ingredient for the determination of \vus.

322: Finally, very recently it has been pointed out~\cite{stern_paper} how 

323: a precise measurement of the value of $f_{0}$ at the Callan--Treiman

324: point~\cite{CT} could provide a clean test of a small admixture of right

325: handed quark currents (RHCs) coupled to the standard W boson.\\

326: Until recently, the experimental knowledge~\cite{pdg2004} on 

327: \kell~form factors was mainly based on a certain number of old measurements 

328: dating back to the seventies.

329: The slopes obtained from \km~decays were less precise than those determined in 

330:  \ke~decays, and a large difference between the results from charged and 

331: neutral kaon decays was present. 

332: This difference was more pronounced for the slope $\lambda_{0}$ where, in addition, 

333: the situation was confused also by the presence of negative values. 

334: Very recent high precision experiments~\cite{istra-e,istra-m,ktev04,na48ke3ff,kloe} 

335: provided a more accurate determination of these quantities with values

336: smaller than the old PDG averages and agreement between $\rm K^{0}$~and

337: $\rm K^{\pm}$~measurements has been established. 

338: Furthermore, evidence for a quadratic term in the vector form factor was 

339: found, at the level of about 2 $\sigma$, by ISTRA+ in $\rm K_{e3}^{-}$ 

340: and by KLOE in \ke~ decays.  

341: A cleaner indication came also from KTeV, both in \ke~ and \km~ decays,

342: with a significance of about 3 $\sigma$.\\

343: This paper reports on a new high statistics measurement of  \km~form factors.

344: Following this introduction Sec.~\ref{theory} recalls the formalism about

345: the \km~decays, Sec.~\ref{exp} describes the experimental  set--up, 

346: Sec.~\ref{analysis} reports about the analysis, 

347: and Sec.~\ref{results} delineates the fitting procedure and the treatment 

348: of the systematic error.

349: 

350: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

351: \section{The \kmlong~decay}

352: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

353: \label{theory}

354: 

355: Only the vector current contributes to \km~decays. As a result the matrix 

356: element can be written in terms of two dimensionless form factors $f_{\pm}$~:\\

357: \be

358: {\frak M} = \frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}~ V_{us}~ \left[ f_{+}(t)

359:  \left(P_{K}+P_{\pi}\right)^{\mu}

360:  \bar u_{\ell} \gamma_{\mu} (1+\gamma_{5}) u_{\nu} +

361:  f_{-}(t) ~ m_{\ell} \bar u_{\ell} (1+\gamma_{5}) u_{\nu}  \right],

362: \ee

363: where $P_{K}$ and $P_{\pi}$ are the kaon and pion four momenta, respectively,

364: $\bar u_{\ell}$ and $u_{\nu}$ are the lepton spinors, $m_{\ell}$ is the

365: lepton mass and 

366: $t = (P_{K} - P_{\pi})^{2} = m_{K}^{2} +  m_{\pi}^{2} - 2P_{K} \cdot P_{\pi} 

367: = q^{2}$

368: is the square of the four--momentum transfer to the lepton pair.

369: The form factor $f_{-}(t)$ is related to a scalar 

370: term proportional to the lepton mass and can be measured only in  

371: \km~decays.\\

372: The determination of the form factors in this analysis is based on a study

373: of the Dalitz plot density which can be parametrized \cite{cgg} as:

374: \be

375: \label{dalitzparam}

376:   \rho(E_{\mu}^{*},E_{\pi}^{*}) =

377:   { dN^2 (E_{\mu}^{*},E_{\pi}^{*})  \over dE_{\mu}^{*}~ dE_{\pi}^{*} }

378:   \propto A f_{+}^{2}(t)  + B f_{+}(t) f_{-}(t) + C f_{-}^{2}(t),

379: \ee

380: where A, B and C are kinematical terms:

381: \begin{align*}

382: A &= m_{K} ( 2 E_{\mu}^{*} E_{\nu}^{*} - m_{K} E_{\pi}^{'}) + 

383:      m_{\mu}^{2} (1/4~E^{'}_{\pi}-E_{\nu}^{*}),\\

384: B &= m_{\mu}^{2} (E_{\nu}^{*} - 1/2~E_{\pi}^{'}),\\

385: C &= 1/4~m_{\mu}^{2} E_{\pi}^{'}.           

386: \end{align*}

387: $E_{\mu}^{*}, E_{\pi}^{*}$ are the muon and

388: pion energy in the kaon center of mass (CMS) respectively. 

389: For the neutrino we have 

390: $E_{\nu}^{*} = m_{K} - E_{\mu}^{*} - E_{\pi}^{*}$

391: and $E_{\pi}^{'}$ is defined as:\\

392: \begin{equation*}

393: E_{\pi}^{'} = E_{\pi}^{*Max} - E_{\pi}^{*} = 

394:  \frac {m_{K}^{2} + m_{\pi}^{2} - m_{\mu}^{2}} {2m_{K} } - E_{\pi}^{*}.

395: \end{equation*}

396: In an alternative parametrization one can define the form factor $f_{0}(t)$:\\

397: \be

398: f_{0}(t) = f_{+}(t) + {t \over (m_{K}^{2} -  m_{\pi}^{2}) } ~f_{-}(t).

399: \ee

400: This parametrization is preferred because $f_{+}$ and $f_{ 0}$ are related 

401: to the vector ($1^{-}$) and scalar ($0^{+}$) exchange to the lepton system, 

402: respectively and are less correlated than in the previous case.

403: The expansion in powers of $t$ of the form factors is often stopped at

404: the linear term:\\

405: \be

406: \label{linear-exp}

407: f_{\pm, 0}(t) =  f_{\pm, 0}(0) ~

408:    \left( \rule{0mm}{5mm} 1 + \lambda_{\pm, 0}~ t/m_{\pi}^{2} \right).

409: \ee

410: The assumption that $f_{+}$ and $f_{ 0}$ are linear in $t$ implies 

411: that $f_{+}(0) = f_{0}(0) $ so that $f_{-}$ does not diverge at $t=0$.\\

412: The form (\ref{linear-exp}) is usually adopted as consequence of the smallness

413: of data samples from the past experiments rather than on physical 

414: motivations. Nowadays, with higher statistics, it is becoming customary

415: to search for a second order term in the form factors expansion:\\

416: \be

417: f_{+,0}(t) =  f_{+}(0) ~

418:    \left[ \rule{0mm}{5mm} 1 + \lambda^{'}_{+,0}~ t/m_{\pi}^{2} + 

419:    \frac{1}{2}~ \lambda^{''}_{+,0}~ (t/m_{\pi}^{2})^{2} \right].

420: \ee

421: The weak interaction of hadron systems at low energies can also be

422: described in terms of couplings of mesons to the weak gauge bosons

423: (pole model, meson dominance~\cite{MD}). 

424: In this framework the form factors acquire a physical meaning

425: since they can be related to the exchange of the lightest $\rm K^{*}$

426: resonances which have spin--parity $1^{-}$/$0^{+}$ and mass

427: $m_{V}$/$m_{S}$, respectively:\\

428: \be

429: f_{+}(t) =  f_{+}(0) ~\frac{m^{2}_{V}}{m^{2}_{V}-t};~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

430: f_{0}(t) =  f_{+}(0) ~\frac{m^{2}_{S}}{m^{2}_{S}-t}.

431: \ee

432: Recently new parametrizations of the vector~\cite{stern_private} and 

433: scalar~\cite{stern_paper} form factors based on dispersion relations 

434: subtracted twice have been proposed:\\

435: \be

436: f_{+}(t) = f_{+}(0)\exp\Bigl{[}\frac{t}{m^{2}_{\pi}}(\Lambda_{+} + H(t))\Bigr{]};~~~~~

437: f_{0}(t) = f_{+}(0)\exp\Bigl{[}\frac{t}{(m_{K}^{2} -  m_{\pi}^{2})}(\ln C - G(t))\Bigr{]},

438: \ee

439: here $\Lambda_{+}$ is a slope parameter and 

440: $\ln C = \ln[ f_{0}(m_{K}^{2} -  m_{\pi}^{2}) ]$ is the logarithm of

441: the value of the scalar form factor at the Callan--Treiman point. 

442: For the dispersive integrals $H(t)$ and $G(t)$ accurate polynomial approximations 

443: have been derived.

444: 

445: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

446: \section{Experimental set--up}

447: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

448: \label{exp}

449: For the measurement reported here the data were taken during a dedicated 

450: run period in September 1999.

451: A pure $\rm K_{L}$ beam was produced by 450 GeV/c protons from the 

452: CERN SPS hitting a beryllium target. The decay region was contained in

453: a 90 m long  evacuated tube and was located 126 m downstream the 

454: target after the last of three collimators.\\

455: The NA48 detector was originally designed for a precise measurement of 

456: direct CP violation in the neutral kaon decays to two pions. 

457: A detailed description can be found in \cite{na48det}; only the 

458: main components relevant for this measurement are described here:\\

459: {\bf Magnetic Spectrometer.~} It was contained in a helium tank kept

460: at atmospheric pressure and consisted of four drift chambers and a magnet.

461: Each chamber had four views (x, y, u, v) each of which had two planes of 

462: sense wires. The spatial resolution per projection was 100 $\mu$m and the 

463: time resolution was 0.7 ns. The magnet, placed between the second and the 

464: third chamber, was a dipole with a transverse momentum kick of 265 MeV/c.

465: The momentum resolution of the spectrometer was ($p$ in GeV/c):\\

466: \begin{equation*}

467:  \frac {\sigma_{p}} {p} = 0.48 \% \oplus 0.009~p \%. 

468: \end{equation*}

469: {\bf Hodoscope.~} Located downstream of the spectrometer, it was 

470: used to provide a precise time reference for tracks. It consisted 

471: of two orthogonal planes of scintillators segmented in horizontal

472: and vertical strips and arranged in four quadrants. The time resolution 

473: per track was about 200 ps. The coincidence of signals from quadrants was

474: used in the first level trigger for events with charged particles.\\

475: {\bf Electromagnetic calorimeter.~} This was a quasi--homogeneous

476: liquid krypton calorimeter (LKr) with projective tower structure made 

477: by Be--Cu 40 $\mu$m thick ribbons extending from the front to the back of 

478: the device in  a small accordion geometry. 

479: The 13248 read--out cells had a cross-section of $2 \times 2$ cm$^2$. 

480: The energy resolution was parametrized as ($E$ in GeV):\\

481: \begin{equation*}

482:  \frac {\sigma_{E}} {E} = \frac {(3.2\pm0.2)\%}{\sqrt{E}} \oplus

483:              \frac {(9\pm1)\%}{E} \oplus (0.42\pm0.05)\%.  

484: \end{equation*}

485: {\bf Muon system.~} The muon system (MUV) was located between the hadron 

486: calorimeter and the beam dump and consisted of three planes of 

487: scintillators each shielded by a 80 cm thick iron wall. The first two 

488: planes were made of 25 cm wide horizontal and vertical scintillators 

489: strips. The strips overlapped slightly in order to ensure  full coverage 

490: over the whole area of $2.7 \times 2.7 $ m$^{2}$. The third plane had 

491: horizontal strips 44.6 cm wide. The central strip was split with a gap 

492: of 21 cm to  accomodate the beam pipe. All counters (apart the central 

493: ones) were read out at  both sides. The inefficiency of the system was at 

494: the level of one per mill  and the time resolution was below 1 ns. 

495: The passage of particles in the MUV produces ''hits'', i.e. a coincidence

496: between an horizontal and a vertical counter which defines a 

497: $25 \times 25$ cm$^2$  region.\\

498: {\bf Trigger.~} The acquisition of events was driven by a two level

499: trigger. In the first level the presence of at least two hits in the 

500: hodoscope was requested. In the second level trigger the spectrometer

501: was used to reconstruct tracks and a vertex made of opposite charge tracks 

502: in the decay region was required. To measure the trigger efficiency, a

503: control trigger was implemented using the first level trigger 

504: properly downscaled.

505: 

506: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

507: \section{Data analysis}

508: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

509: \label{analysis}

510: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

511: \subsection{Event selection}

512: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

513: \label{selection}

514: The data sample consists of about $10^{8}$ triggers recorded alternating 

515: the polarities of the magnetic field of the spectrometer. 

516: To identify the \km~decays the following selection criteria were applied 

517: to the reconstructed data.\\

518: The events were required to have exactly two tracks of opposite charge

519: forming a vertex in the decay region, defined to be between 7.5 m and 

520: 33.5 m from the exit of the final collimator and within 2.5 cm from the 

521: beam line. The distance of closest approach of these two tracks had to 

522: be less than 2 cm.\\

523: The difference in the track times reconstructed by the spectrometer 

524: had to be less than 6 ns while for the times determined by the hodoscope

525: a maximum difference of 2 ns was admitted.\\ Both tracks were required to be

526: inside the detector acceptance by demanding that their projection had 

527: to be inside the fiducial area of the various subdetectors.

528: Tracks were accepted in the momentum range between 10 and 170 GeV/c. \\

529: In order to allow a clear separation of showers, a minimum distance of 35 cm

530: between the extrapolated impact points of the tracks at the entrance of the 

531: LKr calorimeter was required. Furthermore to avoid problems due to the 

532: misreconstruction of the shower energy a minimum distance of 2 cm from 

533: the track impact point to a dead calorimeter cell was imposed.\\

534: In order to reduce the background from \kppplong~(\kppp) decays the cut 

535: $P_{0}^{'2} < -0.004$ (GeV/c)$^2$ was applied. 

536: The variable $P_{0}^{'2}$, which is computed assuming that 

537: the decay is a \kppp, is defined as:\\

538: \begin{equation*}

539: P_{0}^{'2} = \frac{1}{4(p_{\perp}^{2} + m_{+-}^{2} ) }

540: \left[ \left( m_{K}^{2} - m_{+-}^{2} - m_{\pi^{0}}^{2} \right) ^{2}

541: - 4 \left( m_{+-}^{2}m_{\pi^{0}}^{2} + m_{K}^{2}p_{\perp}^{2} \right) \right].

542: \end{equation*}

543: In the above formula $p_{\perp}~(m_{+-})$ is the transverse momentum 

544: (invariant mass) of the assumed $\pi^{+} \pi^{-}$ system relative to the

545: direction of the \kl. $P_{0}^{'2}$ represents the \kl~momentum in a reference 

546: frame in which the longitudinal component of the pion system is zero. It is

547: positive for \kppp~decays and negative for \kell~decays.\\

548: The \ke~background was suppressed using the ratio $E/p$, where $E$ is

549: the energy of the cluster, reconstructed in the electromagnetic calorimeter 

550: and associated to a track, and $p$ is the track momentum as measured by the 

551: spectrometer.

552: For both tracks $E/p$ had to be less than 0.9. The probability for

553: a $\pi$ to be rejected by this cut was measured to be about 1\%. \\

554: A track was identified as a muon when its extrapolated impact point

555: at the MUV could be spatially associated to a MUV hit. The distance of

556: association was dependent on the momentum of the track to account for multiple

557: scattering and measurement errors.

558: For this analysis in addition, other constraints were imposed: the distance 

559: between the track  extrapolation and the hit had to be less than 30 cm; the 

560: difference between the event time (determined by the charged hodoscope) and 

561: the muon time (determined by the MUV) had to be less than 3 ns, and finally 

562: also a coincidence in the MUV plane 3 was required. 

563: Monte--Carlo (MC) studies indicate that under these conditions

564: the probability to misidentify a $\mu$ for a $\pi$ is at the $10^{-5}$ level.\\

565: A well--known problem with $\rm K_{\ell 3}$ decays is the

566: quadratic ambiguity in the determination of the \kl~energy.

567: The $\nu$ escapes undetected in this decay and while 

568: the transverse component of the momentum 

569: ($p_{\nu T}$) to the \kl~direction of flight (obtained joining 

570: the event vertex to the target position) is determined by the $\mu$ and $\pi$

571: transverse momenta, the longitudinal component ($p^{*}_{\nu L}$) can be 

572: determined only up to a sign representing the two possible orientations of 

573: the $\nu$ in the kaon CMS. 

574: This ambiguity leads to two solutions for kaon energy, called "low" 

575: ($E_{L}$) and "high"($E_{H}$).  

576: As an additional selection criteria we required both kaon energy solutions 

577: to be greater than 70 GeV.\\

578: Finally a cut was applied on the variable $p_{\nu}^{*} - p_{\nu T}$,

579: where $p_{\nu}^{*}$ is the total neutrino momentum in the kaon CMS.

580: This quantity, clearly positive for good \km~events, is highly

581: sensitive to resolution effects which give rise to a moderate negative 

582: tail. We set a cut at $p_{\nu}^{*} - p_{\nu T}  > 7$ MeV/c, selecting

583: a region where the MC simulation accurately reproduces the data behaviour.

584: After the applications of all cuts, 2344382 \km~events were reconstructed 

585: from the data sample.

586: \begin{figure}[ht]

587: \begin{center}

588:    \epsfig{file=fig1.eps,height=100mm,width=120mm}

589: \end{center}

590: \vskip -0.25cm

591: \caption{{\it

592: Comparison data--MC for the low kaon energy solution, 

593: the inset shows the ratio data/MC.}}

594: \label{pl}

595: \end{figure}

596: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

597: \subsection{Monte--Carlo simulation}

598: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

599: \label{MC}

600: The detector response has been simulated in details using a  

601: MC program based on {\tt GEANT}~\cite{geant}. Particle interactions in 

602: the detector  material as well as response functions of the different 

603: detector elements  have been taken into account in the simulation. 

604: Pre--generated shower libraries for photons, electrons and charged pions 

605: are used to describe the response of the  calorimeters. \\

606: To determine the detector acceptance as well as the distortion 

607: and losses of events on the Dalitz plot induced by the radiative effects,

608: the \km~decay has been simulated both at the Born level and

609: at the next--to--leading order (NLO). 

610: The acceptance suffers only from a residual dependence on the values 

611: (and on the type of parametrization) of 

612: the form factors used for the generation of the MC samples. 

613: To avoid any biases the samples were produced, after an iterative procedure, 

614: with values close to the results reported here. 

615: A linear parametrization was used with $\lambda_{+}^{gen}=0.0260$ and

616: $\lambda_{0}^{gen}=0.0120$.\\

617: The NLO sample was obtained using as event generator {\tt KLOR}~\cite{klor}, 

618: a program which numerically evaluates the radiative corrections and generates 

619: MC events. The simulated events underwent the same reconstruction procedure 

620: as the data events and the same selection cuts described in 

621: Sec~\ref{selection} were applied. 

622: These two MC samples provide a statistics which is one  order of magnitude 

623: larger than the data one. \\

624: A third, smaller, \km~sample was generated with full simulation of the 

625: showers in the calorimeters and was used to model the multiple scattering 

626: in the MUV. For detailed studies of the background samples of \ke, 

627: \kppp~and \kpplong~(\kpp) decays decays were  produced.\\

628: The \kl~energy spectrum was extracted from the data by using the data

629: distributions of the low and high energy solutions

630: and the probability matrix, obtained from MC, which relates

631: $E_{L}$ and $E_{H}$ to the true kaon energy.\\

632: To show the quality of the MC simulation the comparison of data and MC 

633: for some relevant kinematical quantities are shown in Fig.~\ref{pl} to 

634: \ref{momentum}.

635: \begin{figure}[htb]

636: \begin{center}

637:   \epsfig{file=fig2.eps,height=100mm,width=120mm}

638: \end{center}

639: \vskip -0.25cm

640: \caption{{\it

641: Comparison data--MC for the high kaon energy solution, 

642: the inset shows the ratio data/MC.}}

643: \label{ph}

644: \end{figure}

645: \begin{figure}[htb]

646: \begin{center}

647:    \epsfig{file=fig3.eps,width=150mm}

648: \end{center}

649: \vskip -0.5cm

650: \caption{{\it

651: Comparison data--MC for the momentum distributions of muons, pions 

652: (lab system) and neutrinos (kaon CMS).}}

653: \label{momentum}

654: \end{figure}

655: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

656: \subsection{Backgrounds}

657: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

658: \label{backgrounds}

659: The \ke, \kppp~and \kpp~decays are the major sources of background.

660: A \ke~event can fake a genuine \km~when the $\pi$~decays into a muon 

661: and the  $e$ has the $E/p$ requested for the identification of a 

662: $\pi~(E/p < 0.9)$.

663: To determine this source of contamination in the selected \km~sample, we 

664: used the $E/p$ distributions of tracks which pass all cuts, but not 

665: considering $E/p$. 

666: The electron signal is obtained by fitting this distribution

667: around  the value of 1. The integration of the fitted function into the 

668: ''pion'' region allows to determine a value for the \ke~contamination of:

669: \be

670: \mathcal{P}^{cont}_{Ke3} = (6.59 \pm 0.09) \times 10^{-4}.

671: \label{ke3cont}

672: \ee

673: The \kppp~decays (followed by the decay of one of the two charged

674: $\pi$) are strongly suppressed by the $P_{0}^{'2}$ cut. 

675: To determine the residual contamination the selected \km~events

676: undergo a \kppp~selection procedure: in the presence of

677: clusters in the LKr not associated to the tracks, an attempt to reconstruct 

678: a $\pi^{0}$ is made. In case the two photons reconstruct the $\pi^{0}$

679: mass within a window of $\pm6$ MeV/c$^2$, the invariant mass of the 

680: two tracks (assumed to be pions) and  the $\pi^{0}$ is evaluated and 

681: if it falls in an interval of $\pm9$ MeV/c$^2$ around the  $K^{0}$ mass 

682: the event is assumed to be a \kppp~decay.

683: The number of these \kppp~background events, corrected for their

684: acceptance, allows to estimate for the \kppp~contamination the value:

685: \be

686: \mathcal{P}^{cont}_{3\pi} = (6.31 \pm 0.16) \times 10^{-4}.

687: \label{k3picont}

688: \ee

689: Another source of background stems from the \kpp~decay with subsequent 

690: $\pi$ decay in flight or pion punch--through in the iron of the MUV. 

691: Using the \kpp~MC sample this contamination is estimated to be:

692: \be

693: \mathcal{P}^{cont}_{2\pi} = (5.63 \pm 0.16) \times 10^{-4}. 

694: \ee

695: This background source turns out to be the most dangerous one since the 

696: \kpp~events populate a narrow region (the top right corner) of the \km~Dalitz plot

697: introducing appreciable distortions. The \kppp~events instead populate the bottom 

698: left region of the plot; being not much concentrated, they induce a smaller effect.

699: Finally the \ke~events are distributed randomly on the plot and their effect 

700: is negligible.\\

701: Background events from \kpp~and \kppp~will be subtracted from the data

702: while the effects of \ke~events will be included in the treatment of the 

703: systematic uncertainty related to the background (Sec.\ref{systematics}).

704: 

705: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

706: \section{Fitting procedure and results}

707: \label{results}

708: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

709: \subsection{Fitting procedure}

710: The measurement reported here is based on the study of the Dalitz

711: plot density. 

712: \begin{figure}[htb]

713: \begin{center}

714:    \epsfig{file=fig4.eps,height=120mm,width=120mm}

715: \end{center}

716: \caption{{\it

717: Dalitz plot distribution of the \km~events corrected for radiative 

718: effects and acceptance; the shaded cells are not used for the fit.}}

719: \label{dplot_fig}

720: \end{figure}

721: As mentioned before, the ambiguity in the determination of

722: the kaon energy leads to two solutions for the \kl~energy and for 

723: the CMS energies of the $\mu$ and the $\pi$. Consequently each event 

724: has a double location on the Dalitz plot.

725: We chose to evaluate $E_{\mu}^{*}$ and $E_{\pi}^{*}$ by using only the 

726: low kaon energy solution. According to the MC simulation,

727: this corresponds to the most probable solution,

728: being in 61\% of cases the correct one. The Dalitz plot was divided

729: into cells with a dimension of about $4 \times 4$ MeV$^2$ 

730: (see Fig.~\ref{dplot_fig}). About 39\% of the events are reconstructed 

731: exactly in the same cell where they were generated, while this figure

732: drops to 22\%  if the high solution is used. 

733: To extract the form factors we fit the data Dalitz plot, corrected

734: for acceptance and radiative effects, to the Born level prediction.

735: The acceptance, in the  $i$--th cell of the plot, $\epsilon_{i}$, 

736: is defined as the ratio of the number of reconstructed events

737: (evaluated using the low energy solution)  to the number of 

738: generated events (evaluated using the true kaon energy) in that cell.

739: We note that this definition of acceptance accounts also for the migration

740: of events induced by the use of the low solution only.\\

741: The correction (for the  $i$--th cell of the plot) due to the radiative

742: effects is $(1 + \delta)_{i}$ and is evaluated by taking the ratio 

743: between the number of reconstructed events from the MC--NLO sample 

744: and the number of reconstructed events from the MC--Born one.\\

745: The number of events, corrected for acceptance and radiative effects, 

746: in a given cell of the plot is therefore:

747: \be

748:  N_{i} =

749:  \frac{ N_{i}^{Rec} }{ \rule{0mm}{3mm} \epsilon_{i} (1 + \delta)_{i} },

750: \ee

751: where $ N_{i}^{Rec}$ is the number of reconstructed and background 

752: subtracted data events.\\

753: The form factors were determined by fitting with the {\tt MINUIT}~\cite{minuit}

754: package the Dalitz plot distribution, corrected for acceptance and 

755: radiative effects, to the parametrization reported in Eq.~\ref{dalitzparam}.

756: The cells crossed by the Dalitz plot boundary are excluded from the fit

757: (see Fig.~\ref{dplot_fig}).

758: Various $t$ dependences of the form factors were considered: linear, 

759: quadratic, pole and dispersive. The fit results are listed in 

760: Table~\ref{table:fit_results}; the correlations among the fitted form factors

761: parameters are shown in Table~\ref{table:correl}. The comparison Data--Fit 

762: are shown in Fig.~\ref{datafit}.\\

763: \begin{table}[h]

764: \begin{tabular}{lccccc}

765:  \hline

766: Linear ($\times 10^{-3}$) &  \lp & \lz  &  & $\chi^2$/ndf \\

767: & 26.7$\pm$0.6 & 11.7$\pm$0.7 & &  604.0/582 \\

768: 

769:  \hline

770: Quadratic ($\times 10^{-3}$) & $\lambda^{'}_{+}$  & $\lambda^{''}_{+}$ & 

771: \lz  & $\chi^2$/ndf \\

772: & 20.5$\pm$2.2 & 2.6$\pm$0.9 & 9.5$\pm$1.1 &  595.9/581 \\

773: 

774:  \hline

775: Pole (MeV/c$^2$) & $m_V$  & $m_S$  & & $\chi^2$/ndf \\ 

776: & 905$\pm$9 & 1400$\pm$46 &  & 596.7/582\\

777: 

778:  \hline

779: Dispersive ($\times 10^{-3}$) & $\Lambda_{+}$  & $\ln C$ &  & $\chi^2$/ndf \\

780:  &  23.3$\pm$0.5  & 143.8$\pm$8.0 & &  595.0/582 \\

781: 

782:  \hline

783: \end{tabular}

784: \medskip

785: \caption{{\it Form factors fit results for linear, quadratic pole and dispersive 

786: parametrizations. The quoted errors are the statistical ones.}}

787: \label{table:fit_results}

788: \end{table}

789: \noindent We also fitted for a possible quadratic term in the scalar form 

790: factor and found 

791: $\lambda^{''}_{0} = (1.1\pm1.3)\times 10^{-3}$

792: indicating that the linear assumption is sufficient to describe 

793: this form factor.

794: \begin{table}[htb]

795: \begin{tabular}{lccc}

796:  \hline

797: Linear &     &  \lz   & \\

798:        & \lp & -0.40 & \\

799:  \hline

800: Quadratic &  &   $\lambda^{''}_{+}$   &    \lz  \\

801:        & $\lambda^{'}_{+}$ & -0.96  &  0.63 \\

802:        & $\lambda^{''}_{+}$ & $-$  &  -0.73 \\

803:  \hline

804: Pole   &       &  $m_S$ & \\

805:        & $m_V$ & -0.47 & \\

806:  \hline

807: Dispersive &     &   $\Lambda_{+}$   & \\

808:        &  $\ln C$ &  -0.44 & \\

809: \hline

810: \end{tabular}

811: \medskip

812: \caption{{\it Correlation coefficients among the fit parameters 

813: for the linear, quadratic, pole and dispersive parametrizations. }}

814: \label{table:correl}

815: \end{table}

816: \noindent In the expansion of the vector form factor instead, evidence is present 

817: for the existence of both a linear and a quadratic term.

818: We notice also a remarkable shift in the value of \lz~as consequence

819: of the presence of the quadratic term in the vector form factor expansion.

820: The value of $m_V$ and $m_S$, obtained with the pole fit 

821: are found to be consistent with the $\rm K^{*}(892)$ and

822: $\rm K^{*}(1430)$ masses, respectively.\\

823: \begin{figure}[hbt]

824:   \hskip -1.5cm

825:   \begin{tabular}{cc}

826:    \mbox{\epsfig{file=fig5a.eps,height=90mm,width=90mm}} &

827:    \mbox{\hskip -1.5cm \epsfig{file=fig5b.eps,height=90mm,width=90mm}}\\

828:    \mbox{\epsfig{file=fig5c.eps,height=90mm,width=90mm}} &

829:    \mbox{\hskip -1.5cm \epsfig{file=fig5d.eps,height=90mm,width=90mm}}\\

830:   \end{tabular}

831:   \caption{\it Comparison Data--Fits and Data/Fit ratios for the four parametrization 

832:   used in the analysis. For visualization purposes the various Dalitz plots

833:   distributions have been projected onto the $E_{\pi}^{*}$ axis.} \label{datafit}

834:  \end{figure}

835: As a cross--check we extracted the linear form factors using a

836: $ \chi^{2} $ built by comparing the data Dalitz plot distribution, 

837: corrected for radiative effects only, with a set of Born 

838: level plots of reconstructed MC events. Each MC Dalitz plot distribution 

839: was produced with different form factors values by proper re--weighting

840: of the events of the reference MC--Born sample. The form factors

841: values are extracted by minimizing the 

842: $ \chi^{2}(\lambda_{+},~\lambda_{0}) $ function constructed in this way.

843: The results obtained with this method are less accurate than those

844: provided by the fit procedure but fully unbiased with respect to the choice 

845: of the form factors values used to generate the MC sample.

846: These results are in perfect agreement with the ones obtained with the

847: fit procedure, indicating the absence of such kind of bias in the analysis procedure.\\ 

848: To check the fit procedure we fitted MC events, using the reference MC sample 

849: (generated with linear parametrization) and smaller samples generated with quadratic 

850: and pole parametrizations. In all the three cases the input form factors were correctly 

851: reproduced at the end of the process, indicating the absence of any bias in the 

852: fit procedure.\\

853: 

854: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

855: \subsection{Systematic uncertainties}

856: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

857: \label{systematics}

858: Various sources of systematic uncertainties in the determination of the 

859: form factors have been investigated. Their individual contributions

860: are reported on Table~\ref{table:syst_error} together with the effects 

861: related to the background contamination. The total error was obtained 

862: by combining the individual errors in quadrature.\\

863: \begin{table}[htb]

864: \hskip -1cm

865: \begin{tabular}{lccccccccc}

866:   \hline

867:  & $\Delta$\lp & $\Delta$\lz & $\Delta \lambda_{+}^{'}$ &

868:    $\Delta \lambda_{+}^{''}$  & $\Delta$\lz &

869:    $\Delta m_{V}$ & $\Delta m_{S}$ &

870:    $\Delta \Lambda_{+}$ & $\Delta \ln C$  \\

871: & \multicolumn{5}{c} {$\times 10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ MeV/c$^{2}$} 

872: & \multicolumn{2}{c} {$\times 10^{-3}$}\\

873:   \hline

874:   & & & & & & & & &\\

875: Background            & $\pm$0.0 & $\pm$0.1 & $\pm$0.2 & $\pm$0.1 & $\pm$0.0 & $\pm$0  & $\pm$5 

876:                       & $\pm$0.0 & $\pm$1.2 \\

877: Acceptance            & $\pm$0.4 & $\pm$0.5 & $\pm$0.7 & $\pm$0.4 & $\pm$0.4 & $\pm$7  & $\pm$22 

878:                       & $\pm$0.4 & $\pm$5.0 \\

879: $TRK_{dist}$ @ LKr    & $\pm$0.4 & $\pm$0.4 & $\pm$0.5 & $\pm$0.4 & $\pm$0.3 & $\pm$10 & $\pm$20 

880:                       & $\pm$0.4 & $\pm$5.4 \\

881: $P_{MIN}$             & $\pm$0.1 & $\pm$0.3 & $\pm$0.4 & $\pm$0.1 & $\pm$0.3 & $\pm$1  & $\pm$20 

882:                       & $\pm$0.1 & $\pm$3.1 \\

883: $P_{\nu}^{*} - P_{\nu T}$ 

884:                       & $\pm$0.2 & $\pm$0.2 & $\pm$0.5 & $\pm$0.2 & $\pm$0.2 & $\pm$6  & $\pm$10 

885:                       & $\pm$0.2 & $\pm$2.2 \\

886: \kl~ spectrum         & $\pm$0.2 & $\pm$0.4 & $\pm$0.0 & $\pm$0.0 & $\pm$0.3 & $\pm$4  & $\pm$20 

887:                       & $\pm$0.2 & $\pm$4.1 \\

888: HIGH solution         & $\pm$0.3 & $\pm$0.0 & $\pm$0.6 & $\pm$0.2 & $\pm$0.2 & $\pm$8  & $\pm$12 

889:                       & $\pm$0.4 & $\pm$1.9 \\

890: MUV reconstruction    & $\pm$0.1 & $\pm$0.1 & $\pm$0.1 & $\pm$0.0 & $\pm$0.1 & $\pm$2  & $\pm$5 

891:                       & $\pm$0.2 & $\pm$0.8 \\

892: Radiative corrections & $\pm$0.2 & $\pm$0.4 & $\pm$2.0 & $\pm$0.7 & $\pm$0.3 & $\pm$2  & $\pm$20 

893:                       & $\pm$0.1 & $\pm$4.3 \\

894: Cell Size             & $\pm$0.3 & $\pm$0.3 & $\pm$0.5 & $\pm$0.3 & $\pm$0.3 & $\pm$5  & $\pm$20 

895:                       & $\pm$0.2 & $\pm$4.0 \\

896:   & & & & & & & & & \\

897:   \hline

898: Total Systematic      & $\pm$0.8 & $\pm$1.0 & $\pm$2.4 & $\pm$1.0 & $\pm$0.8 & $\pm$17 & $\pm$53 

899:                       & $\pm$0.8 & $\pm$11.2 \\

900:   & & & & & & & & &\\

901: Statistical           & $\pm$0.6 & $\pm$0.7 & $\pm$2.2 & $\pm$0.9 & $\pm$1.1 & $\pm$9 & $\pm$46 

902:                       & $\pm$0.5 & $\pm$8.0 \\

903:   & & & & & & & & &\\

904:   \hline

905: Total Error           & $\pm$1.0 & $\pm$1.2 & $\pm$3.3 & $\pm$1.3 & $\pm$1.4 & $\pm$19 & $\pm$70 

906:                       & $\pm$0.9 & $\pm$13.8 \\

907: \end{tabular}

908: \medskip

909: \caption{{\it Systematic and total uncertainties for the four form factor

910: parametrizations analyzed. The systematic and statistical uncertainties 

911: have been added in quadrature to obtain the total error.}}

912: \label{table:syst_error}

913: \end{table}

914: \noindent Effects related to the background have been checked altering

915: the estimated contaminations by 15\% and accounting for the tiny effect 

916: related to \ke~events. The variations in the fit results were taken

917: as the systematic uncertainty.\\

918: Effects related to the acceptance and selection criteria have been 

919: checked by varying the selection cuts in a reasonable range. The largest 

920: fluctuations in the form factors were taken as systematic errors.\\

921: Effects related to the  \kl~ energy spectrum used in the MC simulations

922: were investigated by using the spectrum obtained from a clean sample

923: of \kpp~decays. The simulated events were re--weighted with the ratio

924: of the two spectra, and the differences in the form factor results were taken

925: as the systematic uncertainty.\\

926: To check effects related to the  use of the low kaon energy solution

927: the analysis was repeated using the high solution to determine the 

928: acceptance and radiative corrections. Also in this case the differences

929: with the reference fit results were taken as systematic error.\\

930: The inefficiency of the MUV during this run was measured by identifying the

931: $\mu$ according to its energy deposition in the electromagnetic and hadronic

932: (HAC) calorimeters. 

933: The MUV efficiency was found to vary between 0.97 for a 10 GeV/c and 1 

934: for a $\geq 20$ GeV/c muon with an average of $\epsilon_{MUV} = 0.9987\pm0.0001$.

935: To investigate possible biases, the inefficiency was artificially increased

936: by randomly rejecting events according to the momentum dependence of the efficiency 

937: and its value, without observing any significant effect.\\

938: Effects related to the MUV offline reconstruction were tested by relaxing the cut 

939: between the track extrapolation and the hit position and by accepting also events 

940: for which only plane 1 and 2, but not plane 3, had fired. This produces an increase

941: of 3.2\% in the statistics of the data sample; here again differences from 

942: the reference form factor values were taken as systematic error.\\

943: Effects related to the radiative corrections model used in the analysis

944: were tested by applying the corrections obtained with the Ginsberg~\cite{gins}

945: formalism, amending the error reported in Ref.~\cite{cirigliano} and allowing

946: for a $t$ dependence of the form factors. The differences with the reference

947: results were taken as an estimate of the systematic effect.\\

948: The effects related to the size of the cells in which the Dalitz plot was

949: divided were determind by reducing the cell size down to about 

950: $3 \times 3$ MeV$^2$, the largest fluctuations in the form factors 

951: were taken as systematic errors.\\

952: To estimate the possible influence of accidental particles, tracks outside the 

953: allowed time window for a match in the MUV were studied. No effect was found from 

954: this source. 

955: 

956: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

957: \section{Conclusions}

958: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

959: \label{conclusions}

960: The \km~decay has been studied with the NA48 detector. 

961: A sample of 2.3$\times 10^{6}$ reconstructed events was analyzed

962: in order to extract the decay form factors. 

963: \noindent Studying the Dalitz plot density we measured the following

964: values for the form factors parameters:

965: $\lambda^{'}_{+}  = (20.5\pm 2.2_{stat} \pm 2.4_{syst})\times 10^{-3}$, 

966: $\lambda^{''}_{+} = ( 2.6\pm 0.9_{stat} \pm 1.0_{syst})\times 10^{-3}$ and

967:      $\lambda_{0} = ( 9.5\pm 1.1_{stat} \pm 0.8_{syst})\times 10^{-3}$.\\

968: Our results indicate the presence of a quadratic term in the 

969: expansion of the vector form factor in agreement with other

970: recent analyses of kaon semileptonic decays.

971: Fig.~\ref{ellipse} shows the comparison between the results 

972: of the quadratic fits as reported by the recent experiments

973: \cite{kloe,ktev04,na48ke3ff,istra-e,istra-m}. The 1 $\sigma$~contour plots

974: are shown, both for \ke~and \km~decays; the ISTRA+ results have been

975: multiplied by the ratio $(m_{\pi^{+}}/m_{\pi^{0}})^{2}$.

976: The results are higly correlated, those from this measurement and from

977: KTeV have a larger quadratic term and appear only in partial agreement

978: with the other \ke~experiments. 

979: We notice however that the observed spread in the 

980: $\lambda^{'}_{+}$, $\lambda^{''}_{+}$ figures  is greatly reduced 

981: if the values obtained from the Taylor expansion of the pole 

982: parametrization 

983: ($\lambda^{'}_{+}  = m_{\pi}^{2}/m_{V}^{2}$;

984:  $\lambda^{''}_{+} = 2\lambda^{'2}_{+}$) are used.\\

985: Using a linear fit our results were:

986: $\lambda_{+} = (26.7\pm 0.6_{stat} \pm 0.8_{syst})\times 10^{-3}$ and,

987: $\lambda_{0} = (11.7\pm 0.7_{stat} \pm 1.0_{syst})\times 10^{-3}$.

988: While the result for \lp~ is well compatible with the recent (and most 

989: precise) KTeV measurement, the value of \lz~appears to be shifted towards 

990: lower values.

991: \noindent A pole fit of the form factors yields: 

992: $m_V =  (905\pm 9_{stat} \pm 17_{syst})$ MeV/c$^2$ and 

993: $m_S = (1400\pm 46_{stat} \pm 53_{syst}) $ MeV/c$^2$

994: in agreement with the $\rm K^{*}(892)$ and

995: $\rm K^{*}(1430)$ masses, respectively. 

996: In Fig.~\ref{mvms} is shown a comparison

997: between our results and those of \cite{ktev04} and \cite{kloe}

998: for this parametrization.\\

999: Using the recently proposed parametrization based on a 

1000: dispersive approach, we obtain for the slope of the vector form factor:

1001: $\Lambda_{+}= (23.3\pm 0.5_{stat} \pm 0.8_{syst})\times 10^{-3}$ 

1002: and for the logarithm of the scalar form factor at the Callan--Treiman point:

1003: $\ln C= (143.8\pm 8.0_{stat} \pm 11.2_{syst})\times 10^{-3}$. 

1004: According to the model proposed in~\cite{stern_paper} the value of $\ln C$ 

1005: can be used to test the existence of RHCs by comparing it with the Standard

1006: Model predictions. Taking the value 

1007: of~$\vert F_{K+} V_{us} / F_{\pi+} V_{ud} \vert $ 

1008: from~\cite{Jamin06} and those 

1009: of~$f_{+}(0) \vert V_{us} \vert $ and $ \vert V_{ud} \vert $

1010: from~\cite{pdg2006} we obtain for a combination of the RHCs couplings 

1011: and the Callan--Treiman discrepancy ($\tilde\Delta_{CT}$) the value:

1012: $2 (\epsilon_S - \epsilon_{NS}) + \tilde\Delta_{CT} =

1013: -0.071 \pm0.014_{NA48} \pm0.002_{theo} \pm0.005_{ext}$,

1014: where the first error is the combination in quadrature of the

1015: statistical and systematical uncertainties, the second one refers

1016: to the uncertainties related to the approximations used to replace 

1017: the dispersion integrals and the last one is due to the external

1018: experimental input.

1019: 

1020: \newpage

1021: \begin{figure}[ht]

1022: \vskip -1.8cm

1023: \begin{center}

1024:    \epsfig{file=fig6.eps,width=100mm}

1025: \end{center}

1026: \vskip -0.2cm

1027: \caption{{\it

1028: 1 $\sigma$ contour plots in the plane $\lambda^{'}_{+}$--$\lambda^{''}_{+}$ showing the 

1029: NA48 results together with those of \cite{ktev04,istra-e,kloe} for the quadratic fits of 

1030: the \km~and~\ke~decays. 

1031: The dot represents $\lambda^{'}_{+}$ and $\lambda^{''}_{+}$ as obtained with a Taylor

1032: expansion of the pole parametrization.

1033: The ISTRA+ results have been multiplied by the ratio 

1034: $(m_{\pi^{+}}/m_{\pi^{0}})^{2}$. }}

1035: \label{ellipse}

1036: \end{figure}

1037: \begin{figure}[h]

1038: \vskip -1.25cm

1039: \begin{center}

1040:    \epsfig{file=fig7.eps,width=100mm}

1041: \end{center}

1042: \vskip -0.2cm

1043: \caption{{\it

1044: NA48 pole fits results, together with those of \cite{ktev04} and \cite{kloe},

1045: for \km~and~\ke~decays. \ke~results appear as vertical bands on the $m_V$--$m_S$ 

1046: plane; the ellipses shown for \km~results are the 68\% C.L. contour plots.}} 

1047: \label{mvms}

1048: \end{figure}

1049: 

1050: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1051: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1052: 

1053:  \bibitem{cgg} L.-M. Chounet, J.-M. Gaillard, M.K. Gaillard, 

1054:                \Journal{\PR}{4C}{199}{1972}.

1055: 

1056:  \bibitem{leutwyler} H. Leutwyler, M. Roos, 

1057:                \Journal{\ZPC}{25}{91}{1984}.

1058: 

1059:  \bibitem{bijnens-tala} J. Bijnens, P. Talavera, 

1060:                \Journal{\NPB}{669}{341}{2003}.

1061:  \bibitem{stern_paper} V. Bernard, M. Oertel, E. Passmar and J. Stern, 

1062:                \Journal{\PLB}{638}{480}{2006}.

1063: 

1064:  \bibitem{CT} R. F. Dashen and M. Weinstein, 

1065:                \Journal{\PRL}{22}{1337}{1969}.

1066: 

1067:  \bibitem{pdg2004} S. Eidelman {\it et al.}, 

1068:                \Journal{\PLB}{592}{1}{2004}.

1069: 

1070:  \bibitem{istra-e} O.P. Yushchenko {\it et al.} (ISTRA+ Coll.), 

1071:                \Journal{\PLB}{589}{111}{2004}.

1072: 

1073:  \bibitem{istra-m} O.P. Yushchenko {\it et al.} (ISTRA+ Coll.), 

1074:                \Journal{\PLB}{581}{31}{2004}.

1075: 

1076:  \bibitem{ktev04} T. Alexopoulos {\it et al.} (KTeV Coll.), 

1077:                \Journal{\PRD}{70}{092007}{2004}.

1078: 

1079:  \bibitem{na48ke3ff} A. Lai {\it et al.} (NA48 Coll.), 

1080:                \Journal{\PLB}{604}{1}{2004}.

1081: 

1082:  \bibitem{kloe} F. Ambrosino {\it et al.} (KLOE Coll.), 

1083:                \Journal{\PLB}{636}{166}{2006}. 

1084: 

1085:  \bibitem{MD} P. Lichard, 

1086:                \Journal{\PRD}{55}{5385}{1997}.

1087: 

1088:  \bibitem{stern_private} J. Stern, private communication.

1089: 

1090:  \bibitem{na48det} A. Lai {\it et al.} (NA48 Coll.), 

1091:                \Journal{\EPJ}{22}{231}{2001}.

1092: 

1093:  \bibitem{geant} CERN Program Library Long Writeup, W5013 (1993).

1094: 

1095:  \bibitem{klor} T. Andre, hep-ph/0406006 and \Journal{\NPBps}{142}{58}{2005}.

1096: 

1097:  \bibitem{minuit} F. James,  CERN Program Library Long Writeup, 

1098:                 D506 (1998).

1099: 

1100:  \bibitem{gins} E. Ginsberg, 

1101:                \Journal{\PRD}{1}{229}{1970}.

1102: 

1103:  \bibitem{cirigliano} V. Cirigliano {\it et al.}, 

1104:                \Journal{\EPJ}{23}{121}{2002}.

1105: 

1106:  \bibitem{Jamin06} M. Jamin, J. A. Oller and A. Pich,

1107:                \Journal{\PRD}{74}{074009}{2006}. 

1108: %               arXiv:hep--ph/0605095

1109: 

1110:  \bibitem{pdg2006} W.--M Yao {\it et al.}, 

1111:                \Journal{\JPG}{33}{1}{2006}.

1112: 

1113: \end{thebibliography}

1114: 

1115: \end{document}

1116: 

1117: