1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \textwidth 6in
4: \textheight 9in
5: \topmargin 0.3in
6: \hoffset -0.25in
7: \voffset -0.4in
8: \def \bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
9: \def \beq{\begin{equation}}
10: \def \bo{B^0}
11: \def \bra#1{\langle #1 |}
12: \def \do{D^0}
13: \def \eea{\end{eqnarray}}
14: \def \eeq{\end{equation}}
15: \def \ket#1{| #1 \rangle}
16: \def \ko{K^0}
17: \def \mat#1#2{\langle #1 | #2 \rangle}
18: \def \ob{\overline{B}^0}
19: \def \od{\overline{D}^0}
20: \def \ok{\overline{K}^0}
21: \def \s{\sqrt{2}}
22: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}
23: \renewcommand{\thetable}{\Roman{table}}
24: \begin{document}
25:
26: \begin{flushright}
27: EFI 03-07 \\
28: hep-ph/0303117 \\
29: March 2003 \\
30: \end{flushright}
31:
32: \bigskip
33: \medskip
34: \begin{center}
35: \large
36: {\bf Measuring the Relative Strong Phase} \\
37: {\bf in $D^0 \to K^{*+} K^-$ and $D^0 \to K^{*-} K^+$
38: Decays\footnote{To be submitted to Phys.\ Rev.\ D.}}
39:
40: \bigskip
41: \medskip
42:
43: \normalsize
44: {\it Jonathan L. Rosner and Denis A. Suprun \\
45: \medskip
46:
47: Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics \\
48: University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637 } \\
49:
50: \bigskip
51: \bigskip
52: {\bf ABSTRACT}
53:
54: \end{center}
55:
56: \begin{quote}
57: In a recently suggested method for measuring the weak phase $\gamma$
58: in $B^\pm \to K^\pm (KK^*)_D$ decays, the relative strong phase $\delta_D$ in
59: $D^0 \to K^{*+} K^-$ and $D^0 \to K^{*-} K^+$ decays (equivalently,
60: in $D^0 \to K^{*+} K^-$ and $\od \to K^{*+} K^-$) plays a role. It is shown
61: how a study of the Dalitz plot in $D^0 \to K^+ K^- \pi^0$ can yield
62: information on this phase, and the size of the data sample which would give a
63: useful measurement is estimated.
64: \end{quote}
65:
66: \leftline{PACS numbers: 13.25.Ft; 13.25.-k; 14.40.Lb}
67: \bigskip
68:
69: The relative strong phases for charmed particle decays obey patterns which
70: are not easily anticipated from first principles but are subject to detailed
71: experimental study, for example through the construction of amplitude
72: triangles based on experimentally observed decay rates
73: \cite{Suz,JRFSa,JRFSb,JRChZu}.
74: It has also been suggested \cite{Falk,Berg,Lip} that the final-state
75: phase in the doubly Cabibbo-suppressed decay $D^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$ may not
76: be the same as that in the Cabibbo-favored decay $D^0 \to K^- \pi^+$,
77: even though they should be equal in the flavor-SU(3) limit \cite{Wolf}.
78: Methods for measuring their difference have been proposed \cite{Xing,GGY}.
79: A Dalitz-plot method for measuring the corresponding phase difference
80: in $D^0 \to K^{*+} \pi^-$ and $D^0 \to K^{*-} \pi^+$ makes use of the
81: interference between $K^{*+}$ and $K^{*-}$ bands in $D^0 \to K_S \pi^+ \pi^-$
82: and is compatible with zero strong phase difference \cite{CLEODal,Palano}.
83:
84: Recently the question has been raised of the relative strong phase $\delta_D$
85: between $D^0 \to K^{*+} K^-$ and $D^0 \to K^{*-} K^+$ decays (equivalently,
86: in $D^0 \to K^{*+} K^-$ and $\od \to K^{*+} K^-$) \cite{GLS}. This phase
87: is important in a proposed method for measuring the weak phase $\gamma$ in
88: the $B^\pm \to (K K^*)_D K^{\pm}$ decays.
89: In the present note we
90: point out that $\delta_D$ may be measured very directly through the
91: interference of $K^{*+}$ and $K^{*-}$ bands in $D^0 \to K^+ K^- \pi^0$ decays
92: \cite{ADS}. We discuss the size
93: of present and anticipated samples of this final state and indicate the
94: attainable experimental precision for $\delta_D$.
95:
96: We follow the notations of Ref.~\cite{GLS} and define the $D$
97: decay amplitudes
98: \beq
99: A_D\equiv A(D^0 \to K^- K^{*+}), \ \ \ \bar{A}_D\equiv A(\od\to K^- K^{*+} ),
100: \eeq
101: and their ratio
102: \beq
103: \frac{\bar{A}_D}{A_D}=r_D e^{i\delta_D}.
104: \label{eq:rD}
105: \eeq
106: The weak phase of $\od\to K^- K^{*+} $ is negligible, so the CP conjugate
107: amplitude is $A(D^0 \to K^+ K^{*-} )=\bar{A}_D$.
108: We further define
109: \beq
110: A'_D\equiv A(D^0 \to K^- \,(K^+ \pi^0)_{K^{*+}} ), \ \ \
111: \bar{A'}_D\equiv A(D^0 \to K^+ \,(K^- \pi^0)_{K^{*-}} ).
112: \label{eq:rD'}
113: \eeq
114: The amplitudes of the $K^{*+} \to K^+ \pi^0$ and $K^{*-} \to K^- \pi^0$
115: decays are equal. Then the ratio of the amplitudes in~(\ref{eq:rD'}) is
116: \beq
117: \frac{\bar{A'}_D}{A'_D}=\frac{\bar{A}_D}{A_D}=r_D e^{i\delta_D}.
118: \eeq
119:
120: Two channels of $D^0 \to K^+ K^- \pi^0$ go through a resonant decay of an
121: intermediate $K^{*+}$ or $K^{*-}$. They fill two bands in the Dalitz plot
122: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:Dalitz}). The width of these bands is determined by the
123: full width $\Gamma\equiv\Gamma_{K^{*\pm}}=(50.8\pm0.9)$~MeV~\cite{PDG}. Namely,
124: the left vertical line corresponds to
125: $m^2_{K^+\pi^0}=(m_{K^{*+}}-\Gamma/2)^2$, while the right one corresponds to
126: $m^2_{K^+\pi^0}=(m_{K^{*+}}+\Gamma/2)^2$. Analogous expressions determine the
127: values of $m^2_{K^-\pi^0}$ along the bottom and top borders of the horizontal
128: band. For now we will neglect the actual Breit-Wigner distribution of event
129: density across the bands. Instead, we will assume that the resonant decays
130: are equally likely to appear near the central line of a band and near its
131: borders. We will also assume that the resonant decays do not fall in the
132: regions outside the two bands.
133: We will neglect other resonant decays with
134: smaller branching ratios that are not yet detected but may contribute to the
135: Dalitz plot, such as
136: $D^0 \to \pi^0 \,(K^+ K^-)_{\phi}$
137: $D^0 \to \pi^0 \,(K^+ K^-)_{a_0}$,
138: $D^0 \to \pi^0 \,(K^+ K^-)_{f_0}$,
139: $D^0 \to K^- \,(K^+ \pi^0)_{K^*_0(1430)^+}$, and
140: $D^0 \to K^- \,(K^+ \pi^0)_{\kappa(800)^+}$.
141: Some of them are discussed later in the text and in Appendix~B. Non-resonant
142: decays uniformly
143: fill the allowed phase space and provide a small background.
144: For simplicity of the argument we will neglect it as well.
145:
146: % This is Figure 1
147: \begin{figure}[p]
148: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=.65\textwidth]{kkpi1.eps}}
149: \end{figure}
150:
151: \begin{figure}[p]
152: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=.65\textwidth]{kkpi2.eps}}
153: \caption{The Dalitz plots of the $D^0 \to K^+ K^- \pi^0$ decay. Top panel:
154: constructive interference ($\cos\delta_D=1$), 113 events in the square
155: region; bottom panel: destructive interference ($\cos\delta_D=-1$), 4 events
156: in the square region. The total number of events in the bands is
157: $N=1500$ in both cases. }
158: \label{fig:Dalitz}
159: \end{figure}
160:
161: The square at the intersection of the bands is the region where two channels
162: interfere with each other. We denote $\epsilon$ to be the fraction of $D^0
163: \to K^- \,(K^+ \pi^0)_{K^{*+}}$ decays that fall into the square region.
164: This fraction only depends on masses and spins of particles involved in the
165: process and the width $\Gamma=\Gamma_{K^{*\pm}}$. So, the probability of a
166: $D^0 \to K^+ \,(K^- \pi^0)_{K^{*-}}$ decay falling into the square region is
167: $\epsilon$ as well. This probability is calculated in Appendix~A:
168: $\epsilon\approx0.039$.
169:
170: Now we can write the number of decays detected in the square region of the
171: Dalitz diagram:
172: \beq
173: N_s \propto |\sqrt{\epsilon} A'_D+\sqrt{\epsilon}\bar{A'}_D|^2
174: = \epsilon\,(1+2r_D\cos\delta_D+r_D^2)\,|A'_D|^2 \ \ ,
175: \eeq
176: while the rest of the resonant decays contribute to the bands outside the
177: square region:
178: \beq
179: N_{out}\propto (1-\epsilon)\,(|A'_D|^2+|\bar{A'}_D|^2)
180: = (1-\epsilon)\,(1+r_D^2)\,|A'_D|^2 \ \ ,
181: \eeq
182: so that the total number of the events detected in the bands is
183: \beq
184: N=N_s+N_{out} \propto (1+2\epsilon r_D\cos\delta_D+r_D^2)\,|A'_D|^2 \ \ .
185: \eeq
186:
187: Experimental measurements of $N_s$ and $N$ provide a way of measuring the
188: strong phase $\delta_D$:
189: \beq
190: \cos\delta_D=\frac{1+r_D^2}{2\epsilon r_D}\,\frac{N_s/N-\epsilon}{1-N_s/N}
191: \ \ .
192: \label{eq:cos}
193: \eeq
194: The uncertainty in $\epsilon$ can be neglected because it is determined by
195: the uncertainties in particles' masses and width $\Gamma$, which are small.
196: The ratio $r_D$ defined by Eq.~(\ref{eq:rD}) can be calculated from the
197: measured branching ratios: ${\cal B}(D^0 \to K^+ K^{*-})=(2.0\pm1.1) \cdot
198: 10^{-3}$ and ${\cal B}(D^0 \to K^- K^{*+})=(3.8\pm0.8) \cdot
199: 10^{-3}$~\cite{PDG}. Assuming the uncertainties of these two measurements
200: are uncorrelated, $r_D=0.73\pm0.21$.
201: These values are based on a sample of 35~$D^0 \to K K^*$
202: decays~\cite{CLEO_ratios}. For a larger sample, the relative
203: uncertainty in $r_D$ will decrease as $1/\sqrt{N}$.
204: Taking the uncertainties of the decay numbers $N_s$ and $N$ to be their
205: square roots, we can calculate the uncertainty $\sigma(\cos\delta_D)$.
206: One can show that the uncertainty in $\cos\delta_D$ is mostly determined by
207: the uncertainty in $N_s$:
208: \beq
209: \sigma(\cos\delta_D)\approx\left|\frac{\partial \cos\delta_D}
210: {\partial N_s}\right|\,\sigma(N_s)=
211: \frac{(1-\epsilon)\,(1+r_D^2)}{2 \epsilon r_D}\,
212: \frac{\sqrt{N_s/N}}{(1-N_s/N)^2}\,\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \ \ ,
213: \label{eq:sigcos}
214: \eeq
215: Unlike $\cos\delta_D$ itself, the uncertainty of this quantity depends not
216: only on the ratio $N_s/N$ but on the total number $N$ of the events detected
217: in the bands as well.
218:
219: As an aside, note that Eq.~(\ref{eq:cos}) predicts a linear dependence of
220: $\cos\delta_D$
221: on $Z \equiv (N_s/N)/(1-N_s/N)$ with the slope $S=(1-\epsilon)(1+r_D^2)/
222: (2\epsilon r_D)$. We could alternatively write Eq.~(\ref{eq:sigcos}) as
223: \beq
224: \sigma(\cos\delta_D)\approx\left|\frac{\partial \cos\delta_D}
225: {\partial Z}\right|\,\sigma(Z)\approx S\,
226: \frac{\sqrt{N_s/N}}{(1-N_s/N)^2}\,\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \ \ .
227: \label{eq:sigZ}
228: \eeq
229:
230: The maximum possible value of the ratio $N_s/N$ is achieved if the
231: contributions from two bands are fully coherent, i.e., if $\cos\delta_D=1$.
232: In this case
233: \beq
234: \frac{N_s}{N}=\left(\frac{N_s}{N}\right)_{max}= \frac{\epsilon(1+r_D)^2}
235: {1+2\epsilon r_D+r_D^2}=0.074\pm0.003 \ \ .
236: \eeq
237: The minimum possible $N_s/N$ is a result of the fully destructive
238: interference at $\cos\delta_D=-1$. Then,
239: \beq
240: \frac{N_s}{N}=\left(\frac{N_s}{N}\right)_{min}= \frac{\epsilon(1-r_D)^2}
241: {1-2\epsilon r_D+r_D^2}=0.0020\pm0.0035 \ \ .
242: \eeq
243: Thus, if $\cos\delta_D$ is close to $-1$, one may observe no events in
244: the square region.
245: The source of the uncertainties in the maximum and minimum values of the
246: $N_s/N$ ratio is the current 30\% error in $r_D$ which will be improved as
247: more $D^0 \to K K^*$ decays are detected. Within 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, we can
248: expect the $N_s/N$ ratio to lie between $0$ and $0.077$.
249:
250: Figure~\ref{fig:contours} shows the contours of constant
251: $\sigma(\cos\delta_D)$ calculated for this region of $N_s/N$ from
252: Eq.~(\ref{eq:sigcos}) for the total number of band events $N$ between 100
253: and 1500. The uncertainty in $\cos\delta_D$ is an increasing function
254: of $N_s/N$. So, $\cos\delta_D$ will be measured
255: least precisely if it is close to unity. This corresponds to a near maximum
256: value of the $N_s/N$ ratio. To estimate the largest uncertainty for
257: different numbers of band events, we calculate how $\sigma(\cos\delta_D)$
258: decreases with $N$ when $N_s/N$ is fixed at its maximum value of $0.077$:
259: \beq
260: \sigma_{max}(\cos\delta_D)
261: % More precise values of all variables involved:
262: % epsilon = 0.0392
263: % r_D = 0.725
264: % (N-s/N)_max = 0.0767
265: \approx \frac{8.4}{\sqrt{N}} \ \ .
266: \eeq
267:
268: % This is Figure 2
269: \begin{figure}[t]
270: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=.85\textwidth]{kkpi3.eps}}
271: \caption{Contours of $\sigma(\cos\delta_D)$ for $N_s/N$ between $0$ and
272: $0.077$, i.e., for $\cos\delta_D$ between $-1.05$ and $1.09$.}
273: \label{fig:contours}
274: \end{figure}
275:
276: Now we discuss the consequences of the fact that the event density across a
277: resonant decay band is not uniform but follows the Breit-Wigner distribution.
278: The differential cross-section for any point on the Dalitz plot (see
279: Appendix~A) is
280: \beq
281: \frac{d^2\,\Gamma}{dm^2_{K^+\pi^0}\,dm^2_{K^-\pi^0}} \propto
282: \left|\frac{A_1(m_{K^+\pi^0},\,m_{K^-\pi^0})}
283: {m^2_{K^+\pi^0}-m^2_{K^{*+}}+i\,m_{K^{*+}}\Gamma} +
284: \frac{r_D e^{i\delta_D}\,A_2(m_{K^+\pi^0},\,m_{K^-\pi^0})}
285: {m^2_{K^-\pi^0}-m^2_{K^{*-}}+i\,m_{K^{*-}}\Gamma} \right|^2 \ \,
286: \label{eq:dist}
287: \eeq
288: The Breit-Wigner factors in the denominators make the population density
289: nonuniform across the bands while the kinematic factors
290: $A_1(m_{K^+\pi^0},\,m_{K^-\pi^0})$ and \\
291: $A_2(m_{K^+\pi^0},\,m_{K^-\pi^0})$
292: are responsible for a characteristic emptiness in the middle of the bands.
293: The results of a Monte Carlo simulation of the
294: distribution~(\ref{eq:dist}) are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dist}.
295:
296: % This is Figure 3
297: \begin{figure}[p]
298: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=.65\textwidth]{kkpi4.eps}}
299: \end{figure}
300:
301: \begin{figure}[p]
302: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=.65\textwidth]{kkpi5.eps}}
303: \caption{Two examples of realistic Dalitz plots of the
304: $D^0 \to K^+ K^- \pi^0$ decay.
305: Top panel:
306: constructive interference ($\cos\delta_D=1$), 88 events in the square
307: region; bottom panel: destructive interference ($\cos\delta_D=-1$), 18
308: events in the square region. The total number of events in the bands is
309: $N=1500$ in both cases. }
310: \label{fig:dist}
311: \end{figure}
312:
313: We simulated the Dalitz plot distributions 10 times for each of 11 values of
314: $\cos\delta_D$ between $-1$ and $1$. For the purposes of these simulations we
315: assumed that $r_D$ is equal to its current central value of 0.73.
316: The plot of $Z \equiv (N_s/N)/(1-N_s/N)$
317: as a function of $\cos\delta_D$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Z}. To estimate
318: $\sigma(\cos\delta_D)$ we will
319: assume that the linear relationship between the two quantities still holds.
320: Then, the slope is $S=1/(0.0283\pm0.0005)=35.3\pm0.6$ while the maximum
321: value of $N_s/N$ is
322: $0.0637\pm0.0019$ at $\cos\delta_D=1$.
323: Both errors are purely statistical Monte Carlo uncertainties.
324: These new values of the slope $S$ and $(N_s/N)_{max}$
325: can be plugged into Eq.~(\ref{eq:sigZ}) to give
326: our best estimate of the maximum uncertainty in $\cos\delta_D$:
327: $\sigma(\cos\delta_D)=(10.16\pm0.26)/\sqrt{N}$, with the
328: upper bound
329: \beq
330: \sigma_{max}(\cos\delta_D)
331: \approx \frac{10.4}{\sqrt{N}} \ \ .
332: \eeq
333:
334: % This is Figure 4
335: \begin{figure}[t]
336: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=.85\textwidth]{kkpi6.eps}}
337: \caption{$Z \equiv (N_s/N)/(1-N_s/N)$ as a function of $\cos\delta_D$.
338: The solid line with the slope of $0.0283\pm0.0005$ is the best linear
339: fit to the results of the Monte Carlo
340: simulations. The dash-dotted line is the prediction of the simplified
341: model which doesn't take into account the Breit-Wigner resonant shapes
342: (Eq.~(\ref{eq:cos})).}
343: \label{fig:Z}
344: \end{figure}
345:
346: Thus, we see that the most precise measurements will be made if
347: $\cos\delta_D$ is close to $-1$. The
348: uncertainty of the least precise measurements (in case $\cos\delta_D$ is
349: unity) becomes smaller than 0.33 at $N\approx1000$. Although this uncertainty
350: is rather large, it at least allows one to distinguish $\cos\delta_D$ from 0.
351: The measurement of $\cos\delta_D$ will be improved to reach the uncertainty
352: of 0.27 or better when 1500 resonant events are detected in the bands.
353:
354: In fact, 1500 resonant decays in the bands is the largest sample one can
355: expect from CLEO-c. The CESR accelerator will operate at a center-of-mass
356: energy of $\sqrt{s}\sim3.77$~GeV ($\psi''$) for approximately one year. The
357: anticipated integrated luminosity will reach $3$~fb$^{-1}$. This corresponds
358: to a sample of 30~million $D\bar{D}$ pairs, with 17.5~million of them being
359: $D^0 \od$ pairs. The expected sample will exceed the Mark~III experiment
360: dataset by a factor of 300. Approximately 5~million of $D^0$ and $\od$
361: mesons will be flavor tagged~\cite{CLEOc}. The other $D$ of a pair may
362: decay to the $K^+K^-\pi^0$ final state through an intermediate $K^*$.
363: The branching
364: ratios of these resonant decays are
365: ${\cal B}(D^0 \to K^+ \,(K^- \pi^0)_{K^{*-}})=
366: \frac13\,(2.0\pm1.1) \cdot 10^{-3}$ and
367: ${\cal B}(D^0 \to K^- \,(K^+ \pi^0)_{K^{*+}} )=
368: \frac13\,(3.8\pm0.8) \cdot 10^{-3}$, adding up to about $2\cdot 10^{-3}$.
369: Neglect interference effects and the number of decays should be
370: around 10000. The estimated reconstruction efficiency for these 3-body
371: decays is approximately 30\%, so 3000 events will be detected.
372: The Breit-Wigner distribution dictates that the bands of the Dalitz plot
373: will be populated by half of these, i.e., by 1500~events.
374:
375: The method that will be used in data analysis will likely adopt the
376: multi-variable fitting described in~\cite{Kopp} and~\cite{E791 sigma}
377: instead of taking a close look at the number of events in the square region.
378: We hope, however, that
379: this note gives a good estimate of the expected uncertainty and its
380: dependence on the total number of detected $D^0 \to K^+ K^{*-}$ and
381: $D^0 \to K^- K^{*+}$ events.
382: Other resonant decays with smaller branching
383: ratios,
384: $D^0 \to \pi^0 \,(K^+ K^-)_{\phi}$
385: $D^0 \to \pi^0 \,(K^+ K^-)_{a_0}$,
386: $D^0 \to \pi^0 \,(K^+ K^-)_{f_0}$,
387: $D^0 \to K^- \,(K^+ \pi^0)_{K^*_0(1430)^+}$, and
388: $D^0 \to K^- \,(K^+ \pi^0)_{\kappa(800)^+}$,
389: may contribute to the Dalitz plot. The estimate of the uncertainty is most
390: sensitive to the number of events inside the square region.
391: Unless the bands of those decays overlap with it, they should not
392: considerably change our estimate.
393:
394: Among the five decays listed above, only those of the $\kappa(800)^+$
395: have the potential to
396: contribute to the
397: square region. However, the $\kappa$ is not likely to be among the
398: intermediate states that make a significant contribution to
399: $D^0 \to K^- K^+ \pi^0$ decays (see Appendix~B).
400: The $\phi$ meson is a narrow vector resonance which is not much
401: heavier than the combined mass of two charged $K$ mesons.
402: Therefore, it could
403: only produce a narrow diagonal band at the very edge of the Dalitz plot.
404: Its presence would not change the $K^*$ band population. The same is true
405: for $a_0(980)$ and $f_0(980)$ decays.
406: They are lighter and broader ($40-100$~MeV) but yet not broad enough to
407: significantly affect even the outer ends of the $K^*$ bands.
408: Such a possibility is present for $K^*_0(1430)$ decays.
409: The square region lies outside the $K^*_0(1430)$
410: bands and their impact on the number of events $N_s$ inside the square is
411: insignificant. They can only make a relatively small contribution to the
412: total number of band events $N$ which would add just a small correction to
413: the uncertainty in the strong phase $\delta_D$.
414:
415:
416:
417: \section*{Acknowledgments}
418:
419: We wish to thank D. M. Asner and M. Gronau for helpful correspondence.
420: This work was supported in part by the United States Department of
421: Energy through Grant No.\ DE FG02 90ER40560.
422:
423: \section*{Appendix~A: Kinematics and decay amplitudes}
424:
425: The first stage of the $D^0 \to K^- \,(K^+ \pi^0)_{K^{*+}}$ process is the
426: decay of a pseudoscalar meson $D^0$ into a pseudoscalar $K^-$ and a
427: (possibly off-shell) vector $K^{*+}$. Afterwards, the latter decays into $K^+$
428: and $\pi^0$. From angular momentum conservation the helicity of $K^{*+}$ is
429: $0$. The corresponding polarization vector is $\epsilon_{K^{*+}} =
430: \epsilon^{(\lambda=0)} = (|{\bf p}_{K^{*+}}|, 0, 0, E_{K^{*+}})/m_{K^+\pi^0}$.
431: ($m_{K^+\pi^0}$ is the invariant mass of $K^{*+}$ and the $z$ axis is chosen
432: to point in the direction of the $K^{*+}$ momentum ${\bf p}_{K^{*+}}$,
433: see Fig.~\ref{fig:decay}).
434:
435: The amplitude $A_1(m_{K^+\pi^0},\,m_{K^-\pi^0})$ of the
436: $K^{*+}\to K^+ \pi^0$ decay should be Lorentz
437: invariant, i.e., it should contain a product of two 4-vectors.
438: There is only one non-vanishing possibility,
439: $\epsilon_{K^{*+}}\,(p_{K^+}-
440: p_{\pi^0})$, since the other, $\epsilon_{K^{*+}}\,(p_{K^+}+p_{\pi^0})
441: =\epsilon_{K^{*+}}\,p_{K^{*+}}$, is identically zero.
442: Then the former can be written in the rest frame of $K^+$ and $\pi^0$ as
443: \beq
444: A_1(m_{K^+\pi^0},\,m_{K^-\pi^0}) \propto
445: (0, 0, 0, 1)\,
446: (E_{K^+}^*-E_{\pi^0}^*, 2\,{\bf p}_{K^+}^*)=2\,|{\bf p}_{K^+}^*|\,
447: \cos\theta^* \ \ ,
448: \eeq
449: where $\theta^*$ is the angle between the negative direction of
450: the $z$ axis and the direction of the $K^+$ momentum ${\bf p}_{K^+}^*$ in
451: the rest frame of $K^+$ and $\pi^0$. We will keep
452: using the ``*" subscript for quantities determined in this frame.
453: %
454: %This is Figure 7
455: \begin{figure}[t]
456: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{kkpi7.eps}}
457: \caption{The $D^0 \to K^- \,(K^+ \pi^0)_{K^{*+}}$ decay in
458: the rest frame of $K^+$ and $\pi^0$.}
459: \label{fig:decay}
460: \end{figure}
461: %
462: $\cos\theta^*$ is given by
463: \beq
464: \cos\theta^*=\frac{m^2_{K^-\pi^0}- m^2_{K^-}-m^2_{\pi^0}-2E_{K^-}^*E_{\pi^0}^*}
465: {2|{\bf p}_{K^-}^*||{\bf p}_{\pi^0}^*|} \ \ ,
466: \label{eq:coscm}
467: \eeq
468: so
469: \beq
470: A_1(m_{K^+\pi^0},\,m_{K^-\pi^0}) \propto
471: \frac{m^2_{K^-\pi^0}- m^2_{K^-}-m^2_{\pi^0}-2E_{K^-}^*E_{\pi^0}^*}
472: {|{\bf p}_{K^-}^*|} \ \ ,
473: \eeq
474: where
475: \beq
476: E_{K^-}^*=(m^2_{D^0}-m^2_{K^-}-m^2_{K^+\pi^0})/2m_{K^+\pi^0} \ \ ,
477: \eeq
478: \beq
479: E_{\pi^0}^*=(m^2_{K^+\pi^0}-m^2_{K^+}+m^2_{\pi^0})/2m_{K^+\pi^0} \ \ ,
480: \eeq
481: \beq
482: |{\bf p}_{K^-}^*|=\lambda^{1/2}(m^2_{D^0}, m^2_{K^-}, m^2_{K^+\pi^0})/
483: 2m_{K^+\pi^0} \ \ ,
484: \eeq
485: \beq
486: |{\bf p}_{\pi^0}^*|=|{\bf p}_{K^+}^*| \ \ ,
487: \eeq
488: \beq
489: \lambda(x, y, z)\equiv x^2+y^2+z^2-2xy-2xz-2yz \ \ .
490: \eeq
491: Including the finite resonance width $\Gamma_{K^{*+}}$ into the $K^{*+}$
492: propagator, we can
493: write the amplitude of the $D^0 \to K^- \,(K^+ \pi^0)_{K^{*+}}$ decay as
494: \beq
495: A(D^0 \to K^- \,(K^+ \pi^0)_{K^{*+}}) \propto
496: \frac{A_1(m_{K^+\pi^0},\,m_{K^-\pi^0})}
497: {{m^2_{K^+\pi^0}-m^2_{K^{*+}}+i\,m_{K^{*+}}\Gamma}} \ \ .
498: \label{eq:ampl1}
499: \eeq
500: As for the $D^0 \to K^+ \,(K^- \pi^0)_{K^{*-}}$ decay, its amplitude can
501: be derived in a similar way and is equal to
502: \beq
503: A(D^0 \to K^+ \,(K^- \pi^0)_{K^{*-}}) \propto
504: r_D e^{i\delta_D}\,\frac{A_2(m_{K^+\pi^0},\,m_{K^-\pi^0})}
505: {m^2_{K^-\pi^0}-m^2_{K^{*-}}+i\,m_{K^{*-}}\Gamma} \ \ ,
506: \label{eq:ampl2}
507: \eeq
508: with the kinematic factor $A_2$ defined as
509: $A_2(m_{K^+\pi^0},\,m_{K^-\pi^0})\equiv A_1(m_{K^-\pi^0},\,m_{K^+\pi^0})$.
510: The factor $r_D e^{i\delta_D}$ accounts for possible differences in
511: hadronization as vector particles between quarks arising from the virtual
512: $W^+$
513: and spectator quarks.
514:
515: \subsection*{Calculation of the fraction $\epsilon$ of resonant decays that
516: fall into the square region}
517:
518: For the particular case of an on-shell resonant $K^{*+}$ we can neglect
519: the Breit-Wigner denominator of Eq.~(\ref{eq:ampl1}). In this case
520: the amplitude of the
521: $D^0 \to K^- \,(K^+ \pi^0)_{K^{*+}}$ decay is proportional to
522: $A_1(m_{K^{*+}},\,m_{K^-\pi^0})$.
523: The kinematics of the two-body $D^0 \to K^- K^{*+}$ and
524: $K^{*+} \to K^+ \pi^0$ decays
525: determine $E_{K^-}^*=1.37$~GeV, $E_{\pi^0}^*=0.32$~GeV,
526: $|{\bf p}_{K^-}^*|=1.27$~GeV and $|{\bf p}_{\pi^0}^*|=0.29$~GeV.
527: As a result, Eq.~(\ref{eq:coscm}) says:
528: \beq
529: \cos\theta^* = 1.36\,(m^2_{K^-\pi^0}-1.135) \ \ ,
530: \label{eq:bound1}
531: \eeq
532: where $m^2(K^- \pi^0)$ is in GeV$^2$. Thus, the amplitude of
533: the $D^0 \to K^- \,
534: (K^+ \pi^0)_{K^{*+}}$ decays is proportional to $(m^2_{K^-\pi^0}-1.135)$.
535: These resonant decays fill the vertical band in a nonuniform way: no decays
536: happen at the middle of the band where $m^2_{K^-\pi^0}-1.135=0$. The majority
537: of the events will concentrate near both band ends where $|m^2_{K^-\pi^0}-
538: 1.135|$ is the largest.
539:
540: Now we can calculate the fraction of $D^0 \to K^- \,(K^+ \pi^0)_{K^{*+}}$
541: decays that fall into the square region,
542: \beq
543: \epsilon=\left. \int\limits_{0.75}^{0.84} (x-1.135)^2\,dx \right/
544: \int\limits_{0.40}^{1.87} (x-1.135)^2\,dx=0.039 \ \ ,
545: \eeq
546: where $(m_{K^{*+}}-\Gamma/2)^2=0.75$~GeV$^2$ and $(m_{K^{*+}}+\Gamma/2)^2=
547: 0.84$~GeV$^2$ are the boundaries of the square region and $0.40$ and
548: $1.87$ are the boundaries of the whole band. The latter can be derived from
549: Eq.~(\ref{eq:bound1}).
550:
551: This simple calculation implied that the population density of the vertical
552: band is constant along any cross section of the band, i.e., at a fixed
553: $m^2_{K^-\pi^0}$ it is independent of variations of $m^2_{K^+\pi^0}$ across
554: the band. A more precise discussion involves a simulation of the
555: interference between the Breit-Wigner resonant shapes of
556: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:ampl1}) and (\ref{eq:ampl2}).
557:
558: \section*{Appendix~B: Influence of scalar resonance $\kappa$}
559:
560: The existence of broad scalar resonances below $1$~GeV has been a
561: controversial issue for a long time~\cite{theory}. A few experiments
562: have been able
563: to explore the possibility of their presence as intermediate resonant
564: states in three-body $D$ decays. The modes that were studied include
565: $D^+ \to \pi^- \pi^+ \pi^+$~\cite{E791 sigma},
566: $D^+_s \to \pi^- \pi^+ \pi^+$~\cite{E791 f0},
567: $D^+ \to K^- \pi^+ \pi^+$~\cite{E791 kappa} \ (E791 collaboration),
568: $D^0 \to K^0_S \pi^+ \pi^-$~\cite{CLEODal},
569: $D^0 \to K^- \pi^+ \pi^0$~\cite{Kopp} \ (CLEO), and
570: $D^0 \to K^0 K^- \pi^+$~\cite{Babar} \ (BaBar).
571: The first two studies obtained evidence for a light
572: ($478$~MeV) $\sigma$ resonance and measured the properties of the
573: $f_0(980)$. The last four might provide some information on the presence of
574: an intermediate S-wave $K\pi$ resonance. Indeed, the E791 analysis of a Dalitz
575: plot found that the best fit to the data is obtained allowing for the
576: presence of an additional scalar resonance $\kappa(800)^0$. However, neither
577: CLEO studies found evidence for $\kappa^0$ or its isodoublet partner
578: $\kappa^+$. The preliminary BaBar analysis saw $\kappa$ at the level of
579: $1\sigma$ which does not allow the confirmation of its presence.
580: Other types of decays could also provide a glimpse of $\kappa$. The
581: BES collaboration
582: found $\kappa^0$ as an intermediate state in $J/\psi \to \bar{K}^*(892)^0
583: K^+ \pi^-$ decays~\cite{BES}, while the FOCUS collaboration studied the
584: interference phenomena in $D^+ \to K^- \pi^+ \mu^+ \nu$ decays~\cite{FOCUS}.
585: Their data can be described by $\bar{K}^{*0}$ interference with either a
586: constant amplitude or a broad spin zero resonance.
587:
588: The $D^0 \to K^\mp K^{*\pm}$ decays discussed in this note can be affected
589: by the possible presence of $\kappa^\pm$ among the intermediate states. The
590: bands of a broad $\kappa(800)$ would cover more than 50\% of the
591: Dalitz plot, thereby interfering with the $K^*$ bands and affecting their
592: population. One would expect that in this case the total branching ratio of
593: $D^0 \to K^+ K^- \pi^0$ decays would be considerably larger than the sum of
594: the $D^0 \to KK^*$ modes. Indeed, in
595: $D^+ \to K^- \pi^+ \pi^+$ an unusually high fraction (over 90\%) of decays
596: was found to be non-resonant by previous experiments~\cite{previous}. That
597: was unusual as the non-resonant (NR) contribution in three-body decays is small
598: in most other cases. That was an indication of a possible broad scalar
599: contribution and motivated the recent searches for it. It was found that the
600: complex structure of the Dalitz plot was best explained when the $\kappa$
601: presence is assumed \cite{E791 kappa}.
602: Then, intermediate decays through the $\kappa \pi^+$ state account for about
603: 50\% of decays while the NR fraction drops to a value of 13\% more
604: characteristic of other decays.
605:
606: The present knowledge of $D^0 \to K^\mp K^{*\pm}$ decays does not reveal a
607: similar large non-resonant (or broad scalar) contribution. The current data
608: on the resonant~\cite{PDG,CLEO_ratios} and inclusive~\cite{PDG,inclusive}
609: decays comes from CLEO measurements. The inclusive branching ratio is
610: ${\cal B}(D^0 \to K^+ K^- \pi^0)=(1.24\pm0.35) \cdot 10^{-3}$. The branching
611: ratios of the $K\pi$ resonant decays are
612: ${\cal B}(D^0 \to K^+ \,(K^- \pi^0)_{K^{*-}})=
613: \frac13\,(2.0\pm1.1) \cdot 10^{-3}=(0.67\pm0.37) \cdot 10^{-3}$ and
614: ${\cal B}(D^0 \to K^- \,(K^+ \pi^0)_{K^{*+}} )=
615: \frac13\,(3.8\pm0.8) \cdot 10^{-3}=(1.27\pm0.27) \cdot 10^{-3}$.
616: Neglecting the interference between these two channels (it affects just
617: about 4\% of these decays; see Appendix A), the two branching ratios add up
618: to $(1.93\pm0.45) \cdot 10^{-3}$, consistent with the inclusive branching
619: ratio within the current large uncertainties. Basically, there is no room
620: for a broad scalar resonance
621: channel. For example, it cannot negatively interfere with both halves of a
622: $K^*$ band. The phase variation across it would be significant
623: ($\approx90^\circ$) for a $K^*$ channel and much smaller for a broad
624: $\kappa$ one. If this channel is strong enough to cancel half the $K^*$
625: decays it would contribute many times more than that outside the $K^*$ bands.
626: That would contradict the smallness of the inclusive branching ratio.
627: Thus, we conclude that a broad scalar $\kappa$, if present,
628: could only comprise a small fraction of
629: $D^0 \to K^+ K^- \pi^0$ decays and would not significantly affect the
630: estimate of the uncertainty in the strong phase $\delta_D$.
631:
632:
633:
634:
635: % Journal and other miscellaneous abbreviations for references
636: \def \ajp#1#2#3{Am.\ J. Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
637: \def \apny#1#2#3{Ann.\ Phys.\ (N.Y.) {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
638: \def \app#1#2#3{Acta Phys.\ Polonica {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
639: \def \arnps#1#2#3{Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
640: \def \art{and references therein}
641: \def \cmts#1#2#3{Comments on Nucl.\ Part.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
642: \def \cn{Collaboration}
643: \def \cp89{{\it CP Violation,} edited by C. Jarlskog (World Scientific,
644: Singapore, 1989)}
645: \def \efi{Enrico Fermi Institute Report No.\ }
646: \def \epjc#1#2#3{Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
647: \def \f79{{\it Proceedings of the 1979 International Symposium on Lepton and
648: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Fermilab, August 23-29, 1979, ed. by
649: T. B. W. Kirk and H. D. I. Abarbanel (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
650: Batavia, IL, 1979}
651: \def \hb87{{\it Proceeding of the 1987 International Symposium on Lepton and
652: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Hamburg, 1987, ed. by W. Bartel
653: and R. R\"uckl (Nucl.\ Phys.\ B, Proc.\ Suppl., vol.\ 3) (North-Holland,
654: Amsterdam, 1988)}
655: \def \ib{{\it ibid.}~}
656: \def \ibj#1#2#3{~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
657: \def \ichep72{{\it Proceedings of the XVI International Conference on High
658: Energy Physics}, Chicago and Batavia, Illinois, Sept. 6 -- 13, 1972,
659: edited by J. D. Jackson, A. Roberts, and R. Donaldson (Fermilab, Batavia,
660: IL, 1972)}
661: \def \ijmpa#1#2#3{Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
662: \def \ite{{\it et al.}}
663: \def \jhep#1#2#3{JHEP {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
664: \def \jpb#1#2#3{J.\ Phys.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
665: \def \lg{{\it Proceedings of the XIXth International Symposium on
666: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, August 9--14 1999,
667: edited by J. Jaros and M. Peskin (World Scientific, Singapore, 2000)}
668: \def \lkl87{{\it Selected Topics in Electroweak Interactions} (Proceedings of
669: the Second Lake Louise Institute on New Frontiers in Particle Physics, 15 --
670: 21 February, 1987), edited by J. M. Cameron \ite~(World Scientific,
671: Singapore, 1987)}
672: \def \kdvs#1#2#3{{Kong.\ Danske Vid.\ Selsk., Matt-fys.\ Medd.} {\bf #1},
673: No.\ #2 (#3)}
674: \def \ky85{{\it Proceedings of the International Symposium on Lepton and
675: Photon Interactions at High Energy,} Kyoto, Aug.~19-24, 1985, edited by M.
676: Konuma and K. Takahashi (Kyoto Univ., Kyoto, 1985)}
677: \def \mpla#1#2#3{Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
678: \def \nat#1#2#3{Nature {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
679: \def \nc#1#2#3{Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
680: \def \nima#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Instr.\ Meth. A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
681: \def \np#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
682: \def \PDG{Particle Data Group, K. Hagiwara {\it et al.},
683: Phys.~Rev.~D {\bf 66}, 010001 (2002)}
684: \def \pisma#1#2#3#4{Pis'ma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [JETP
685: Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #4 (#3)]}
686: \def \pl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
687: \def \pla#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
688: \def \plb#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
689: \def \pr#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
690: \def \prc#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
691: \def \prd#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
692: \def \prl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
693: \def \prp#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
694: \def \ptp#1#2#3{Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
695: \def \rmp#1#2#3{Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
696: \def \rp#1{~~~~~\ldots\ldots{\rm rp~}{#1}~~~~~}
697: \def \si90{25th International Conference on High Energy Physics, Singapore,
698: Aug. 2-8, 1990}
699: \def \slc87{{\it Proceedings of the Salt Lake City Meeting} (Division of
700: Particles and Fields, American Physical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987),
701: ed. by C. DeTar and J. S. Ball (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987)}
702: \def \slac89{{\it Proceedings of the XIVth International Symposium on
703: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, 1989, edited by M.
704: Riordan (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990)}
705: \def \smass82{{\it Proceedings of the 1982 DPF Summer Study on Elementary
706: Particle Physics and Future Facilities}, Snowmass, Colorado, edited by R.
707: Donaldson, R. Gustafson, and F. Paige (World Scientific, Singapore, 1982)}
708: \def \smass90{{\it Research Directions for the Decade} (Proceedings of the
709: 1990 Summer Study on High Energy Physics, June 25--July 13, Snowmass,
710: Colorado),
711: edited by E. L. Berger (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992)}
712: \def \tasi{{\it Testing the Standard Model} (Proceedings of the 1990
713: Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics, Boulder,
714: Colorado, 3--27 June, 1990), edited by M. Cveti\v{c} and P. Langacker
715: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991)}
716: \def \yaf#1#2#3#4{Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\
717: {\bf #1}, #4 (#3)]}
718: \def \zhetf#1#2#3#4#5#6{Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\
719: Phys.\ - JETP {\bf #4}, #5 (#6)]}
720: \def \zpc#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
721: \def \zpd#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
722:
723: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
724:
725: \bibitem{Suz} M. Suzuki, \prd{58}{111504}{1998}.
726: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808303;%%
727:
728: \bibitem{JRFSa} J. L. Rosner, \prd{60}{074029}{1999}.
729: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903543;%%
730:
731: \bibitem{JRFSb} J. L. Rosner, \prd{60}{114026}{1999}.
732: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905366;%%
733:
734: \bibitem{JRChZu} C.-W. Chiang, Z. Luo, J. L. Rosner, \prd{67}{014001}{2003}.
735: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209272;%%
736:
737: \bibitem{Falk} A. F. Falk, Y. Nir, and A. A. Petrov, \jhep{9912}{019}{1999}.
738: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911369;%%
739:
740: \bibitem{Berg} S. Bergmann, Y. Grossman, Z. Ligeti, Y. Nir, and A. A.
741: Petrov, \plb{486}{418}{2000}.
742: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005181;%%
743:
744: \bibitem{Lip} H. J. Lipkin, \plb{494}{248}{2000}.
745: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009241;%%
746:
747: \bibitem{Wolf} L. Wolfenstein, \prl{75}{2460}{1995}.
748: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9505285;%%
749:
750: \bibitem{Xing} Z. Z. Xing, \prd{53}{204}{1996}; \plb{372}{317}{1996};
751: \plb{379}{257}{1996}; \prd{55}{196}{1997}; \plb{463}{323}{1999}.
752: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9502001;%%
753: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9512216;%%
754: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9512217;%%
755: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9606422;%%
756: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907454;%%
757:
758: \bibitem{GGY} M. Gronau, Y. Grossman, and J. L. Rosner, \plb{508}{37}{2001}.
759: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103110;%%
760:
761: \bibitem{CLEODal} CLEO \cn, H. Muramatsu \ite, \prl{89}{251802}{2002}.
762: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0207067;%%
763:
764: \bibitem{Palano}
765: A.~Palano [BABAR Collaboration], Proceedings of IX International Conference
766: on Hadron Spectroscopy (Hadron 2001), p.\ 53, Protvino, Russia, August 25 --
767: September 1, 2001, AIP Conference Proceedings. No.\ 619, p.\ 53 (2002).
768: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0111003;%%
769:
770: \bibitem{GLS} Y. Grossman, Z. Ligeti, and A. Soffer, \prd{67}{071301}{2003}.
771: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210433;%%
772:
773: \bibitem{ADS} The use of three-body $D$ decays has been proposed by
774: D. Atwood, I. Dunietz, and A. Soni, \prd{63}{036005}{2001}
775: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008090;%%
776: and further developed by
777: %DS update if published
778: A.~Giri, Y.~Grossman, A.~Soffer, and J.~Zupan,
779: hep-ph/0303187 (unpublished).
780: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303187;%%
781:
782: \bibitem{PDG} \PDG.
783: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%
784:
785: \bibitem{CLEO_ratios} CLEO \cn, R.~Ammar, \prd{44}{3383}{1991}.
786: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D44,3383;%%
787:
788: \bibitem{CLEOc} CLEO \cn, R. A. Briere \ite, ``CLEO-c and CESR-c:
789: A New Frontier of Weak and Strong Interactions" (2001), CLNS-01-1742.
790:
791: \bibitem{Kopp} CLEO \cn, S. Kopp \ite, \prd{63}{092001}{2001}.
792: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0011065;%%
793:
794: \bibitem{E791 sigma} E791 \cn, E. M. Aitala \ite, \prl{86}{770}{2001}.
795: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0007028;%%
796:
797: \bibitem{theory}
798: E.~van~Beveren \ite, \zpc{30}{615}{1986};
799: S.~Ishida \ite, Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys. {\bf 98}, 621 (1997);
800: J.~A.~Oller, E.~Oset and J.~R.~Pelaez,
801: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 074001 (1999)
802: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 60}, 099906 (1999)];
803: S.~N.~Cherry and M.~R.~Pennington, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 688}, 823 (2001);
804: F.~E.~Close and N.~A.~Tornqvist, J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 28}, R249 (2002);
805: P.~Minkowski and W.~Ochs, hep-ph/0209225.
806: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C30,615;%%
807: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9705437;%%
808: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804209;%%
809: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005208;%%
810: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204205;%%
811: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209225;%%
812:
813: \bibitem{E791 f0} E791 \cn, E. M. Aitala \ite, \prl{86}{765}{2001}.
814: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0007027;%%
815:
816: \bibitem{E791 kappa} E791 \cn, E. M. Aitala \ite, \prl{89}{121801}{2002}.
817: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0204018;%%
818:
819: %DS update if published
820: \bibitem{Babar} BABAR \cn, B. Aubert \ite, SLAC-PUB-9320, BABAR-CONF-02-031.
821: Contributed to 31st International Conference on High Energy Physics
822: (ICHEP 2002), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 24-31 Jul 2002; hep-ex/0207089.
823: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0207089;%%
824:
825: %DS update if published
826: \bibitem{BES} BES \cn, J. Z. Bai \ite, hep-ex/0304001.
827: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0304001;%%
828:
829: \bibitem{FOCUS} FOCUS \cn, J. M. Link \ite, \plb{535}{43}{2002}.
830: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0203031;%%
831:
832: \bibitem{previous} E691 \cn, J. C. Anjos \ite, \prd{48}{56}{1993};
833: E687 \cn, P.~L.~Frabetti \ite, \plb{331}{217}{1994}.
834: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0204018;%%
835: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B331,217;%%
836:
837: \bibitem{inclusive} CLEO \cn, D. M. Asner \ite, \prd{54}{4211}{1996}.
838: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D54,4211;%%
839:
840: \end{thebibliography}
841: \end{document}
842: #!/bin/csh -f
843: # this uuencoded Z-compressed .tar file created by csh script uufiles
844: # for more information, see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html
845: # if you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself:
846: # strip off any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., kkpi.uu
847: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)
848: # then say csh kkpi.uu
849: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):
850: # uudecode kkpi.uu ; uncompress kkpi.tar.Z ;
851: # tar -xvf kkpi.tar
852: # on some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use an editor to change the
853: # filename in "begin" line below to kkpi.tar_Z , then execute
854: # uudecode kkpi.uu
855: # compress -d kkpi.tar_Z
856: # tar -xvf kkpi.tar
857: #
858: uudecode $0
859: chmod 644 kkpi.tar.Z
860: zcat kkpi.tar.Z | tar -xvf -
861: rm $0 kkpi.tar.Z
862: exit
863:
864: