1: \section{ANALYSIS METHOD}
2: \label{sec:Analysis}
3:
4: The $U$ and $I$ coefficients and the $\Btopipipi$ event yield are
5: determined by a maximum-likelihood fit of the signal and background model to the
6: selected candidate events. Kinematic and event shape variables
7: exploiting the characteristic properties of the events are used
8: in the fit to discriminate signal from background.
9:
10: \subsection{EVENT SELECTION AND BACKGROUND SUPPRESSION}
11: \label{subsec:selection}
12:
13: We reconstruct $\Btopipipi$ candidates from pairs of
14: oppositely-charged tracks
15: and a $\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma$ candidate. In order to ensure that all events are within
16: the Dalitz plot boundary, we constrain the three-pion invariant mass to the $B$ mass after final selections have been made.
17: The largest source of background is from continuum $\epem\to q\overline{q}$ production.
18: %
19: We use information from the tracking system, EMC, and DIRC to
20: remove tracks for which the PID is consistent with the electron, kaon,
21: or proton hypotheses. In addition, we require that at least one track
22: has a signature in the IFR that is inconsistent with the muon
23: hypothesis. This selection retains 92\% of signal events while rejecting
24: 42\% of continuum background events.
25: %
26: The $\pi^0$ candidate mass $m(\gamma\gamma)$ must satisfy $0.11<m(\gamma\gamma)<0.16\gevcc$,
27: where each photon, $\gamma$, is required to have an energy greater than $50\mev$
28: in the laboratory frame (LAB) and to exhibit a lateral profile of energy
29: deposition in the EMC consistent with an electromagnetic shower.
30:
31: A $B$-meson candidate is characterized kinematically by the beam-energy substituted
32: mass
33: $\mes=\sqrt{{(E^{\rm cm}_{\rm beam})^2}-(p_B^{\rm cm})^2}$
34: and energy difference $\de = E_B^*-\half\sqrt{s}$,
35: where $(E_B,\pvec_B)$ and $(E_0,\pvec_0)$ are the four-vectors
36: of the $B$-candidate and the initial electron-positron systems
37: respectively. The asterisk denotes the center-of-mass (CM) frame
38: and $s$ is the square of the CM energy.
39: We require $5.272 < \mes <5.288\gevcc$, which retains $81\%$
40: of the signal and $8\%$ of the continuum background events.
41: The $\de$ resolution
42: exhibits a dependence on the $\pi^0$ energy and therefore varies
43: across the Dalitz plot. To avoid bias in the Dalitz plot, we introduce
44: the transformed quantity $\deprime=(2\de - \demax - \demin)/(\demax - \demin)$,
45: with $\deminmax(\mpm)=c_{\pm}-\left(c_{\pm}\mp\bar c\right)(\mpm/\mpmMax)^2$,
46: where $\mpm=\sqrt{s_0}$ is strongly correlated with the energy of the $\piz$.
47: We use the values
48: $\bar c = 0.045\gev$, $c_{-} = -0.140\gev$, $c_{+} = 0.080\gev$,
49: $\mpmMax = 5.0\gev$, and require $-1<\deprime<1$.
50: These values have been obtained from Monte Carlo simulation.
51: The requirement retains $75\%$ ($25\%$) of the signal (continuum) events.
52:
53: Backgrounds arise primarily from random combinations of $\pi^\pm$ and $\pi^0$
54: candidates in continuum events.
55: Continuum events tend to have a more ``jet-like'' structure than
56: $B$ decays which are produced nearly at rest in the CM system.
57: To enhance discrimination between signal and continuum, we
58: use a neural network (NN)~\cite{NNo} to combine four discriminating variables:
59: the angles with respect to the beam axis of the $B$ momentum and $B$ thrust
60: axis in the \FourS\ frame, and the zeroth and second order polynomials
61: $L_{0,2}$ of the energy flow about the $B$ thrust axis. The polynomials
62: are defined by $ L_n = \sum_i {p}_i\cdot\left|\cos\theta_i\right|^n$,
63: where $\theta_i$ is the angle with respect to the $B$ thrust axis of any
64: track or neutral cluster $i$, ${\bf p}_i$ is its momentum, and the sum
65: excludes the $B$ candidate.
66: The NN is trained with off-peak data and
67: simulated signal events. The final sample of signal candidates
68: is selected with a requirement on the NN output that retains $77\%$ ($8\%$)
69: of the signal (continuum) events. A total of 35444 on-peak data events pass the
70: selection.
71:
72: The time difference $\deltat$ is obtained from the measured distance between
73: the $z$ positions (along the beam direction) of the $\Bz_{\tpi}$ and
74: $\Bz_{\rm tag}$ decay vertices, and the boost $\beta\gamma=0.56$ of
75: the \epem\ system: $\deltat = \Delta z/\beta\gamma c$. The $\Bz_{\rm tag}$
76: vertex is determined from the charged particles in the event not included
77: in the signal $B$.
78: To determine the flavor of the $\Bz_{\rm tag}$
79: we use the $B$ flavor-tagging algorithm of Ref.~\cite{BabarS2b}.
80: This produces six mutually exclusive tagging categories. We improve the efficiency
81: of the signal selection by retaining untagged events in a seventh category
82: which contribute to the measurement of direct \CP violation.
83:
84: Multiple \B candidates passing the full selection occur
85: in $16\%$ $(\rho^\pm\pi^\mp)$ and $9\%$ $(\rho^0\pi^0)$
86: of $\rho(770)$ MC events.
87: If the multiple candidates have different $\pi^0$ candidates,
88: we choose the \B candidate with the reconstructed $\pi^0$ mass closest
89: to the nominal $\pi^0$ mass;
90: in the case that more than one candidate have the same $\pi^0$, we
91: arbitrarily chose a reconstructed
92: \B candidates passing the selection (this occurs in $4\%$ of events).
93:
94: The signal efficiency determined from MC simulation is $24\%$ for
95: $B^0 \to \rho^\pm\pi^\mp$ and $B^0 \to \rho^0\pi^0$ events, and
96: $11\%$ for non-resonant $\Btopipipi$ events. The signal efficiency distribution on the SPD is shown in Figure \ref{fig:sigeff}.
97: \begin{figure}[tbh]
98: \centerline{ \epsfxsize8.2cm\epsffile{effsquareall.eps}}
99: \caption{\label{fig:sigeff}
100: The signal efficiency distribution on the square Dalitz plot. Note that
101: the plot is folded in $\thetaprime$ since the distribution
102: is nearly symmetric in this variable. }
103: \end{figure}
104:
105: The signal events passing the event selection are a combination of correctly
106: reconstructed (``truth-matched'', TM) events and mis-reconstructed
107: (``self-cross-feed'', SCF) events.
108: Of the selected signal events, $22\%$ of $B^0 \to \rho^\pm\pi^\mp$,
109: $13\% $ of $B^0 \to \rho^0\pi^0$, and $6\%$ of non-resonant events are
110: mis-reconstructed, according to MC. Mis-reconstructed events occur when a track or
111: neutral cluster from the tagging $B$ is assigned to the reconstructed signal candidate.
112: This occurs most often for low-momentum particles and photons; hence the mis-reconstructed
113: events are concentrated in the corners of the standard Dalitz plot. Since these are also the
114: areas where the $\rho$ resonances overlap strongly, it is important to model
115: the mis-reconstructed events correctly. The details of the model for
116: the distributions of mis-reconstructed
117: events in the Dalitz plot are described in Section \ref{sec:deltaT}.
118:
119:
120: \subsection{BACKGROUND FROM OTHER {\em B} DECAYS}
121:
122: \begin{table*}[t]
123: \begin{center}
124: \caption{ \label{tab:bbackground}
125: Summary of the \B-background modes taken into account for the
126: likelihood model. They have been grouped in 20 classes:
127: charmless $B^+$ (six), charmless $B^0$ (eight),
128: exclusive charmed $B^0$ (four) and inclusive $B^0$ and
129: charmed $B^+$ decays. Modes with at least two events expected
130: after final selection have been included.}
131: \input{bBackground.tex}
132: \vspace{-0.2cm}
133: \end{center}
134: \end{table*}
135:
136: We use MC simulated events to study the background from other $B$
137: decays. More than one-hundred channels were considered in
138: these studies, of which 29 are included
139: in the final likelihood model. These exclusive \B-background modes are grouped into eighteen
140: different classes according to their kinematic and topological
141: properties: six for charmless $\B^+$ decays, eight for charmless $B^0$ decays
142: and four for exclusive charmed $\B^0$ decays.
143: Two additional classes account for inclusive $B^0$ and $B^+$
144: charmed decays.
145:
146: Table \ref{tab:bbackground} summarizes the twenty background classes that are
147: used in the fit. For each mode, the expected number of selected events is
148: computed by multiplying the selection efficiency (estimated using MC
149: simulated decays) by the branching fraction, scaled to the dataset
150: luminosity ($346\;\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$). The world average branching ratios have been
151: used for the experimentally known decay modes\cite{PDG,HFAG}. When only upper limits are
152: given, they have been translated into branching ratios including additional conservative hypotheses
153: (e.g., 100\% longitudinal polarization for $B\to\rho\rho$ decay) if needed.
154:
155:
156: \subsection{THE MAXIMUM-LIKELIHOOD FIT}
157: \label{subsec:ML}
158:
159: We perform an unbinned extended maximum-likelihood fit to extract
160: the total $\Btopipipi$ event yield, and the $U$ and $I$ coefficients
161: defined in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:firstObs})--(\ref{eq:lastObs}).
162: The fit uses the variables $\dt$, $\mprime$, $\thetaprime$, $\mes$, $\deprime$, and NN output
163: to discriminate signal from background. The
164: $\dt$ distribution is sensitive to mixing-induced \CP violation
165: but also provides additional continuum-background rejection.
166:
167: The selected on-resonance data sample is assumed to consist of signal,
168: continuum-background, and \B-background components, separated by the
169: flavor and tagging category of the tag side \B decay.
170: The probability density function ${\cal P}_i^\cat$ for
171: event $i$ in tagging category $\cat$ is the sum of the probability densities
172: of all components, namely
173: %
174: \beqn
175: \label{eq:theLikelihood}
176: {\cal P}_i^\cat
177: &\equiv&
178: N_{\tpi} f^\cat_{\tpi}
179: \left[ (1-\fscfave^\cat){\cal P}_{\tpi-\TM,i}^\cat +
180: \fscfave^\cat{\cal P}_{\tpi-\SCF,i}^\cat
181: \right]
182: \nonumber\\[0.3cm]
183: &&
184: +\; N^\cat_{q\bar q}\frac{1}{2}
185: \left(1 + \Qtagi\Atagqq\right){\cal P}_{q\bar q,i}^\cat
186: \nonumber \\[0.3cm]
187: &&
188: +\; \sum_{j=1}^{N^{B^+}_{\rm class}}
189: N_{B^+j} f^\cat_{B^+j}
190: \frac{1}{2}\left(1 + \Qtagi \Atagj\right){\cal P}_{B^+,ij}^\cat
191: \nonumber \\[0.3cm]
192: &&
193: +\; \sum_{j=1}^{N^{B^0}_{\rm class}}
194: N_{B^0j} f^\cat_{B^0j}
195: {\cal P}_{B^0,ij}^\cat~,
196: \eeqn
197: where
198: $N_{\tpi}$ is the total number of $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ signal events
199: in the data sample;
200: %
201: $f^\cat_{\tpi}$ is the fraction of signal events that are
202: in tagging category $\cat$;
203: %
204: $\fscfave^\cat$ is the fraction of SCF events in tagging category $\cat$,
205: averaged over the Dalitz plot;
206: %
207: ${\cal P}_{\tpi-\TM,i}^\cat$ and ${\cal P}_{\tpi-\SCF,i}^\cat$
208: are the products of PDFs of the discriminating variables used
209: in tagging category $\cat$ for TM and SCF
210: events, respectively;
211: %
212: $N^\cat_{q\bar q}$ is the number of continuum events that are
213: in tagging category $\cat$;
214: %
215: $\Qtagi$ is the tag flavor of the event, defined to be
216: $+1$ for a $\Bz_{\rm tag}$ and $-1$ for a $\Bzb_{\rm tag}$;
217: %
218: $\Atagqq$ parameterizes possible flavor tag asymmetry in continuum events;
219: %
220: ${\cal P}_{q\bar q,i}^\cat$ is the continuum PDF for tagging
221: category $\cat$;
222: %
223: $N^{B^+}_{\rm class}$ ($N^{B^0}_{\rm class}$) is the number of
224: charged (neutral) $B$-related background classes considered in the fit;
225: %
226: $N_{B^+j}$ ($N_{B^0j}$) is the number of expected events in
227: the charged (neutral) $B$-background class $j$;
228: %
229: $f^\cat_{B^+j}$ ($f^\cat_{B^0j}$) is the fraction of
230: charged (neutral) $B$-background events of class $j$
231: that are in tagging category $\cat$;
232: %
233: $\Atagj$ describes a possible flavor tag asymmetry in the $B^+$ background
234: class $j$;
235: %
236: ${\cal P}_{B^+,ij}^\cat$ is the $B^+$-background PDF for tagging
237: category $\cat$ and class $j$;
238: %
239: and ${\cal P}_{B^0,ij}^\cat$ is the neutral-$B$-background
240: PDF for tagging category $\cat$ and class $j$.
241: %
242: Correlations between the flavor tag and the position in the Dalitz plot
243: are absorbed in tag-flavor-dependent
244: Dalitz plot PDFs that are used for $B^+$ and continuum
245: background.
246:
247: The PDFs ${\cal P}_{X}^{\cat}$ ($X=\{{\rm TM, SCF}, {q\overline{q}}, {B^+/B^0}\}$)
248: are the product of the four PDFs of the discriminating variables,
249: $x_1 = m_{ES}$, $x_2 = \deprime$, and $x_3 = {\rm NN~output}$, and the triplet
250: $x_4 = \{\mprime, \thetaprime, \deltat\}$:
251: \beq
252: \label{eq:likVars}
253: {\cal P}_{X,i(j)}^{\cat} \;\equiv\;
254: \prod_{k=1}^4 P_{X,i(j)}^\cat(x_k)~,
255: \eeq
256: where $i$ is the event index and $j$ is a $B$-background class. The extended likelihood over all tagging categories is given by
257: %
258: \beq
259: {\cal L} \;\equiv\;
260: \prod_{\cat=1}^{7} e^{-\overline N^\cat}\,
261: \prod_{i=1}^{N^\cat} {\cal P}_{i}^\cat~,
262: \eeq
263: %
264: where $\overline N^\cat$ is the total number of events expected in category
265: $\cat$.
266:
267: A total of 68 parameters, including the inclusive signal yield $N_{\tpi}$ and the 26
268: $U$ and $I$ coefficients from Eq.~(\ref{eq:dt}), are varied in the fit. Most of the
269: parameters describing the continuum distributions are also free
270: in the fit. The parameterizations of the PDFs are described below and are summarized in Tab. \ref{tab:pdfparameterization}.
271:
272: \begin{table*}[t]
273: \begin{center}
274: \caption{ \label{tab:pdfparameterization}
275: Summary of PDF parameterizations where G=Gaussian, PX=X-order polynomial, NP=non-parametric, and biCB=bifurcated Crystal Ball. See Section \ref{sec:deltaT} for a detailed description of the Dalitz plot parameterization for signal.}
276: \input{pdfTable.tex}
277: \vspace{-0.2cm}
278: \end{center}
279: \end{table*}
280:
281: \subsubsection{\boldmath THE $\dt$ AND DALITZ PLOT PDFS}
282: \label{sec:deltaT}
283:
284: The Dalitz plot PDFs require as input the Dalitz plot-dependent
285: relative selection efficiency $\e=\e(\mprime,\thetaprime)$,
286: and the SCF fraction, $\fscf=\fscf(\mprime,\thetaprime)$.
287: Both quantities are taken from MC simulation.
288: Away from the Dalitz plot corners the efficiency is uniform, while it
289: decreases when approaching the corners where one of the
290: three particles in the final state is almost at rest in the LAB frame so that the
291: acceptance requirements on the particle reconstruction become
292: restrictive.
293: Combinatorial backgrounds, and hence SCF fractions, are large in
294: the corners
295: of the Dalitz plot due to the presence of soft neutral clusters
296: and tracks.
297:
298: For an event~$i$, we define the time-dependent Dalitz plot PDFs
299: \beqn
300: P_{\tpi-\TM,i}^{c} &\equiv&
301: \varepsilon_i\,(1 - \fscfi^{c})\,\detJi\,\AmpAll~,
302: \\[0.3cm]
303: P_{\tpi-\SCF,\,i}^{c} &\equiv&
304: \varepsilon_i\,\fscfi^{c}\,\detJi\,\AmpAll~,
305: \eeqn
306: where $P_{\tpi-\TM,i}$ and $P_{\tpi-\SCF,\,i}$ are normalized. The
307: normalization involves the expectation values
308: $\langle \varepsilon\,(1-\fscf)\,\detJ \,f^\kappa f^{\sigma*}\rangle$
309: and
310: $\langle \varepsilon\,\fscf\,\detJ\, f^\kappa f^{\sigma*}\rangle$
311: for TM and SCF events, where the indices $\kappa$, $\sigma$
312: run over all resonances belonging to the signal model.
313: The expectation values are model-dependent and are
314: computed with the use of MC integration over the square Dalitz plot:
315: \beqn
316: \label{eq:normAverage}
317: \langle \varepsilon\,(1-\fscf)\,\detJ\, f^\kappa f^{\sigma*}\rangle
318: \;=\; \nonumber\\
319: \frac{\int_0^1\int_0^1
320: \varepsilon\,(1-\fscf)\,\detJ\, f^\kappa f^{\sigma*}
321: \,d\mprime d\thetaprime}
322: {\int_0^1\int_0^1 \varepsilon\,\detJ\, f^\kappa f^{\sigma*}
323: \,d\mprime d\thetaprime}~,
324: \eeqn
325: and similarly for
326: $\langle \fscf \varepsilon\,\,\detJ\, f^\kappa f^{\sigma*}\rangle$,
327: where all quantities in the integrands are Dalitz-plot dependent.
328:
329: Equation~(\ref{eq:theLikelihood}) invokes the phase
330: space-averaged SCF fraction
331: $\fscfave\equiv\langle\fscf\,\detJ\, f^\kappa f^{\sigma*}\rangle$.
332: The PDF normalization is decay-dynamics-dependent
333: and is computed iteratively. We
334: determine the average SCF fractions separately for each tagging category
335: from MC simulation.
336:
337: The width of the dominant $\rho(770)$ resonance is large compared
338: to the mass resolution for TM events (about $8\mevcc$ Gaussian
339: resolution). We therefore neglect resolution effects in the TM
340: model.
341: Mis-reconstructed events have a poor mass resolution that strongly
342: varies across the Dalitz plot. These events are described in the fit by a
343: two-dimensional resolution function
344: \beq
345: \label{eq:rscf}
346: \Rscf(\mprime_r,\thetaprime_r,\mprime_t,\thetaprime_t)~,
347: \eeq
348: which represents the probability to reconstruct at the coordinate
349: $(\mprime_r,\thetaprime_r)$ an event that has the true coordinate
350: $(\mprime_t,\thetaprime_t)$. This function obeys the unitary condition
351: \beq
352: \intl_0^1\intl_0^1
353: \Rscf(\mprime_r,\thetaprime_r,\mprime_t,\thetaprime_t)
354: \,d\mprime_r d\thetaprime_r = 1,~
355: \eeq
356: and is convolved with the signal model.
357: The $\Rscf$ function is obtained from MC simulation.
358:
359: % We use the signal model described in Section~\ref{sec:kinmeatics}.
360: The dynamical information in the signal model is described in
361: Section~\ref{sec:kinmeatics} and is connected with $\dt$ via
362: the matrix element in Eq. (\ref{eq:dt}), which serves as the PDF.
363: The PDF is modified by the effects of mistagging and the limited vertex
364: resolution~\cite{rhopipaper}.
365: The $\deltat$ resolution function for signal and \B-background
366: events is a sum of three Gaussian distributions, with parameters
367: determined by a fit to fully reconstructed $\Bz$
368: decays~\cite{BabarS2b}. Since the majority of SCF events
369: arise from mis-reconsructed $\pi^0$ decays which do not
370: affect the vertex resolution, we use the same resolution function for
371: TM and SCF events.
372: %\\[0.3cm]\noindent
373:
374: The Dalitz plot- and $\dt$-dependent PDFs factorize for the
375: charged-\B background modes, but not necessarily
376: for the $B^0$ background due to $\BzBzb$ mixing.
377:
378: The charged \B-background
379: contribution to the likelihood~(\ref{eq:theLikelihood})
380: involves
381: the parameter $\Atag$, multiplied by the tag flavor $\Qtag$ of
382: the event. In the presence of significant ``tag-`charge''
383: correlation (represented by an effective
384: flavor tag versus Dalitz coordinate correlation),
385: it parameterizes possible fake direct \CP violation or
386: asymmetries due to detector effects in these events.
387: We also use separate square Dalitz plot PDFs for
388: $B^0$ and $\overline{B}^0$ flavor tags, and a flavor-tag-averaged PDF for
389: untagged events. The PDFs are obtained from MC simulation and are
390: described with the use of non-parametric functions.
391: The $\dt$ resolution parameters are determined by a fit to fully
392: reconstructed $\Bp$ decays. For each $\Bp$-background class we obtain
393: effective lifetimes from MC to account for the mis-reconstruction of the
394: event that modifies the nominal $\dt$ resolution function.
395:
396: The neutral-$B$ background is parameterized with PDFs that
397: depend on the flavor tag of the event. In the case of \CP
398: eigenstates, correlations between the flavor tag and the Dalitz
399: coordinate are expected to be small. However, non-\CP eigenstates,
400: such as $a_1^\pm\pi^\mp$, may exhibit such correlations. Both types
401: of decays can have direct
402: and mixing-induced \CP violation. A third type of decay
403: involves charged kaons (e.g. $\rho^\pm K^\mp$)
404: and does not exhibit mixing-induced
405: \CP violation, but usually has a strong correlation between the
406: flavor tag and the Dalitz plot coordinate, because
407: these decays correspond to $B$-flavor eigenstates.
408: The Dalitz plot PDFs are obtained from MC simulation and are
409: described with the use of non-parametric functions.
410: For neutral-$B$ background, the signal $\dt$ resolution model
411: is assumed.
412:
413: The Dalitz plot
414: treatment of the continuum events is similar to that used
415: for charged-$B$ background.
416: The square Dalitz plot PDF for continuum background is
417: obtained from on-resonance events selected in the
418: $\mes$ sidebands (defined as $5.225<\mes<5.265$)
419: and corrected for a 5\% feed-through
420: from \B decays. A large number of cross checks have been
421: performed to ensure the high fidelity of the empirical shape
422: parameterization.
423: The continuum $\deltat$ distribution is parameterized as the sum of
424: three Gaussian distributions with common mean and
425: three distinct widths. The widths scale with the estimated $\dt$ uncertainty for each event.
426: This yields six shape parameters that are determined by
427: the fit.
428: The model is motivated by the observation that
429: the $\dt$ average is independent of its error, and that the
430: $\dt$ RMS depends linearly on the $\dt$ error.
431:
432: \subsubsection{PARAMETERIZATION OF THE OTHER VARIABLES}
433: \label{sec:likmESanddE}
434:
435: The $\mes$ distribution of TM signal events is
436: parameterized by a bifurcated Crystal Ball function~\cite{PDFsCB},
437: which is a combination of a one-sided Gaussian and
438: a Crystal Ball function, given as:
439: \beqn
440: f(x) =
441: \begin{cases} C e^{(x-m)^2/2s_R^2} & \hspace{-1.0cm} \text{for $(x-m) > 0$,}
442: \\
443: C e^{(x-m)^2/2s_L^2}&\hspace{-1.5cm} \text{for $0 > \frac{x-m}{s_L} > -A$,}
444: \\
445: C (\frac{b}{A})^b e^{-\frac{A^2}{2}}\left(\frac{b}{A}-A-\frac{x-m}{s_L}\right)^{-b} &\hspace{-0.3cm} \text{for $\frac{x-m}{s_L} < -A$.}
446: \end{cases}
447: \eeqn
448: The peak position of this function, $m$,
449: is determined by the fit to on-peak data while the other parameters are
450: taken from signal MC. A non-parametric
451: function \cite{keys} is used to describe the SCF signal component.
452:
453: The $\deprime$ distribution of TM events is
454: parameterized by a double Gaussian function, where
455: all five parameters depend linearly on $\mpm^2$.
456: The parameters of the narrow Gaussian are determined
457: by the fit to data while the others are obtained from
458: signal MC.
459: Mis-reconstructed events are parameterized by a broad
460: single Gaussian function whose parameters are taken from signal MC.
461:
462: Both $\mes$ and $\deprime$ PDFs are parameterized by non-parametric
463: functions for all $B$-background classes. Continuum events are
464: parameterized with an Argus shape function~\cite{PDFsArgus}
465: \beq
466: f(\mes)=C\frac{\mes}{m_{\rm ES}^{\rm max}}\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{\mes}{m_{\rm ES}^{\rm max}}\right)^2} e^{-\xi(1-\left(\frac{\mes}{m_{\rm ES}^{\rm max}}\right)^2)}
467: \eeq
468: and
469: a second-order polynomial in $\deprime$, with parameters
470: determined by the fit. The value of $m_{ES}^{max}$ is 5.2886 \gevcc.
471:
472: We use non-parametric functions to empirically describe the distributions
473: of the NN outputs
474: found in the MC simulation for TM and SCF signal events,
475: and for \B-background events. We distinguish tagging categories
476: for TM signal events to account for differences observed in the
477: shapes.
478:
479: The continuum NN distribution is parameterized by a
480: third-order polynomial.
481: The coefficients of the polynomial are determined by the fit.
482: Continuum events exhibit a correlation between the Dalitz plot
483: coordinate
484: and the inputs to the NN.
485: To account for this correlation,
486: we introduce a linear dependence of the polynomial coefficients
487: on the distance of the Dalitz plot coordinate from kinematic
488: boundaries of the Dalitz plot. The parameters describing this
489: dependence are determined by the fit.
490:
491: