Studies of
!
K
and
!
at
BABAR
and a search for a second-class current
P. del Amo Sanchez,
1
J. P. Lees,
1
V. Poireau,
1
E. Prencipe,
1
V. Tisserand,
1
J. Garra Tico,
2
E. Grauges,
2
M. Martinelli,
3a,3b
A. Palano,
3a,3b
M. Pappagallo,
3a,3b
G. Eigen,
4
B. Stugu,
4
L. Sun,
4
M. Battaglia,
5
D. N. Brown,
5
B. Hooberman,
5
L. T. Kerth,
5
Yu. G. Kolomensky,
5
G. Lynch,
5
I. L. Osipenkov,
5
T. Tanabe,
5
C. M. Hawkes,
6
A. T. Watson,
6
H. Koch,
7
T. Schroeder,
7
D. J. Asgeirsson,
8
C. Hearty,
8
T. S. Mattison,
8
J. A. McKenna,
8
A. Khan,
9
A. Randle-Conde,
9
V. E. Blinov,
10
A. R. Buzykaev,
10
V. P. Druzhinin,
10
V. B. Golubev,
10
A. P. Onuchin,
10
S. I. Serednyakov,
10
Yu. I. Skovpen,
10
E. P. Solodov,
10
K. Yu. Todyshev,
10
A. N. Yushkov,
10
M. Bondioli,
11
S. Curry,
11
D. Kirkby,
11
A. J. Lankford,
11
M. Mandelkern,
11
E. C. Martin,
11
D. P. Stoker,
11
H. Atmacan,
12
J. W. Gary,
12
F. Liu,
12
O. Long,
12
G. M. Vitug,
12
C. Campagnari,
13
T. M. Hong,
13
D. Kovalskyi,
13
J. D. Richman,
13
C. West,
13
A. M. Eisner,
14
C. A. Heusch,
14
J. Kroseberg,
14
W. S. Lockman,
14
A. J. Martinez,
14
T. Schalk,
14
B. A. Schumm,
14
A. Seiden,
14
L. O. Winstrom,
14
C. H. Cheng,
15
D. A. Doll,
15
B. Echenard,
15
D. G. Hitlin,
15
P. Ongmongkolkul,
15
F. C. Porter,
15
A. Y. Rakitin,
15
R. Andreassen,
16
M. S. Dubrovin,
16
G. Mancinelli,
16
B. T. Meadows,
16
M. D. Sokoloff,
16
P. C. Bloom,
17
W. T. Ford,
17
A. Gaz,
17
M. Nagel,
17
U. Nauenberg,
17
J. G. Smith,
17
S. R. Wagner,
17
R. Ayad,
18,
*
W. H. Toki,
18
H. Jasper,
19
T. M. Karbach,
19
J. Merkel,
19
A. Petzold,
19
B. Spaan,
19
K. Wacker,
19
M. J. Kobel,
20
K. R. Schubert,
20
R. Schwierz,
20
D. Bernard,
21
M. Verderi,
21
P. J. Clark,
22
S. Playfer,
22
J. E. Watson,
22
M. Andreotti,
23a,a23b
D. Bettoni,
23a
C. Bozzi,
23a
R. Calabrese,
23a,a23b
A. Cecchi,
23a,a23b
G. Cibinetto,
23a,a23b
E. Fioravanti,
23a,a23b
P. Franchini,
23a,a23b
E. Luppi,
23a,a23b
M. Munerato,
23a,a23b
M. Negrini,
23a,a23b
A. Petrella,
23a,a23b
L. Piemontese,
23a
R. Baldini-Ferroli,
24
A. Calcaterra,
24
R. de Sangro,
24
G. Finocchiaro,
24
M. Nicolaci,
24
S. Pacetti,
24
P. Patteri,
24
I. M. Peruzzi,
24,
†
M. Piccolo,
24
M. Rama,
24
A. Zallo,
24
R. Contri,
25a,25b
E. Guido,
25a,25b
M. Lo Vetere,
25a,25b
M. R. Monge,
25a,25b
S. Passaggio,
25a
C. Patrignani,
25a,25b
E. Robutti,
25a
S. Tosi,
25a,25b
B. Bhuyan,
26
V. Prasad,
26
C. L. Lee,
27
M. Morii,
27
A. Adametz,
28
J. Marks,
28
U. Uwer,
28
F. U. Bernlochner,
29
M. Ebert,
29
H. M. Lacker,
29
T. Lueck,
29
A. Volk,
29
P. D. Dauncey,
30
M. Tibbetts,
30
P. K. Behera,
31
U. Mallik,
31
C. Chen,
32
J. Cochran,
32
H. B. Crawley,
32
L. Dong,
32
W. T. Meyer,
32
S. Prell,
32
E. I. Rosenberg,
32
A. E. Rubin,
32
A. V. Gritsan,
33
Z. J. Guo,
33
N. Arnaud,
34
M. Davier,
34
D. Derkach,
34
J. Firmino da Costa,
34
G. Grosdidier,
34
F. Le Diberder,
34
A. M. Lutz,
34
B. Malaescu,
34
A. Perez,
34
P. Roudeau,
34
M. H. Schune,
34
J. Serrano,
34
V. Sordini,
34,
‡
A. Stocchi,
34
L. Wang,
34
G. Wormser,
34
D. J. Lange,
35
D. M. Wright,
35
I. Bingham,
36
C. A. Chavez,
36
J. P. Coleman,
36
J. R. Fry,
36
E. Gabathuler,
36
R. Gamet,
36
D. E. Hutchcroft,
36
D. J. Payne,
36
C. Touramanis,
36
A. J. Bevan,
37
F. Di Lodovico,
37
R. Sacco,
37
M. Sigamani,
37
G. Cowan,
38
S. Paramesvaran,
38
A. C. Wren,
38
D. N. Brown,
39
C. L. Davis,
39
A. G. Denig,
40
M. Fritsch,
40
W. Gradl,
40
A. Hafner,
40
K. E. Alwyn,
41
D. Bailey,
41
R. J. Barlow,
41
G. Jackson,
41
G. D. Lafferty,
41
T. J. West,
41
J. Anderson,
42
R. Cenci,
42
A. Jawahery,
42
D. A. Roberts,
42
G. Simi,
42
J. M. Tuggle,
42
C. Dallapiccola,
43
E. Salvati,
43
R. Cowan,
44
D. Dujmic,
44
G. Sciolla,
44
M. Zhao,
44
D. Lindemann,
45
P. M. Patel,
45
S. H. Robertson,
45
M. Schram,
45
P. Biassoni,
46a,46b
A. Lazzaro,
46a,46b
V. Lombardo,
46a
F. Palombo,
46a,46b
S. Stracka,
46a,46b
L. Cremaldi,
47
R. Godang,
47,
x
R. Kroeger,
47
P. Sonnek,
47
D. J. Summers,
47
X. Nguyen,
48
M. Simard,
48
P. Taras,
48
G. De Nardo,
49a,49b
D. Monorchio,
49a,49b
G. Onorato,
49a,49b
C. Sciacca,
49a,49b
G. Raven,
50
H. L. Snoek,
50
C. P. Jessop,
51
K. J. Knoepfel,
51
J. M. LoSecco,
51
W. F. Wang,
51
L. A. Corwin,
52
K. Honscheid,
52
R. Kass,
52
J. P. Morris,
52
N. L. Blount,
53
J. Brau,
53
R. Frey,
53
O. Igonkina,
53
J. A. Kolb,
53
R. Rahmat,
53
N. B. Sinev,
53
D. Strom,
53
J. Strube,
53
E. Torrence,
53
G. Castelli,
54a,54b
E. Feltresi,
54a,54b
N. Gagliardi,
54a,54b
M. Margoni,
54a,54b
M. Morandin,
54a
M. Posocco,
54a
M. Rotondo,
54a
F. Simonetto,
54a,54b
R. Stroili,
54a,54b
E. Ben-Haim,
55
G. R. Bonneaud,
55
H. Briand,
55
G. Calderini,
55
J. Chauveau,
55
O. Hamon,
55
Ph. Leruste,
55
G. Marchiori,
55
J. Ocariz,
55
J. Prendki,
55
S. Sitt,
55
M. Biasini,
56a,56b
E. Manoni,
56a,56b
A. Rossi,
56a,56b
C. Angelini,
57a,57b
G. Batignani,
57a,57b
S. Bettarini,
57a,57b
M. Carpinelli,
57a,57b,
k
G. Casarosa,
57a,57b
A. Cervelli,
57a,57b
F. Forti,
57a,57b
M. A. Giorgi,
57a,57b
A. Lusiani,
57a,57c
N. Neri,
57a,57b
E. Paoloni,
57a,57b
G. Rizzo,
57a,57b
J. J. Walsh,
57a
D. Lopes Pegna,
58
C. Lu,
58
J. Olsen,
58
A. J. S. Smith,
58
A. V. Telnov,
58
F. Anulli,
59a
E. Baracchini,
59a,59b
G. Cavoto,
59a
R. Faccini,
59a,59b
F. Ferrarotto,
59a
F. Ferroni,
59a,59b
M. Gaspero,
59a,59b
L. Li Gioi,
59a
M. A. Mazzoni,
59a
G. Piredda,
59a
F. Renga,
59a,59b
T. Hartmann,
60
T. Leddig,
60
H. Schro
̈
der,
60
R. Waldi,
60
T. Adye,
61
B. Franek,
61
E. O. Olaiya,
61
F. F. Wilson,
61
S. Emery,
62
G. Hamel de Monchenault,
62
G. Vasseur,
62
Ch. Ye
`
che,
62
M. Zito,
62
M. T. Allen,
63
D. Aston,
63
D. J. Bard,
63
R. Bartoldus,
63
J. F. Benitez,
63
C. Cartaro,
63
M. R. Convery,
63
J. Dorfan,
63
G. P. Dubois-Felsmann,
63
W. Dunwoodie,
63
R. C. Field,
63
M. Franco Sevilla,
63
B. G. Fulsom,
63
A. M. Gabareen,
63
M. T. Graham,
63
P. Grenier,
63
C. Hast,
63
W. R. Innes,
63
M. H. Kelsey,
63
H. Kim,
63
P. Kim,
63
M. L. Kocian,
63
D. W. G. S. Leith,
63
S. Li,
63
B. Lindquist,
63
S. Luitz,
63
V. Luth,
63
H. L. Lynch,
63
D. B. MacFarlane,
63
H. Marsiske,
63
D. R. Muller,
63
H. Neal,
63
S. Nelson,
63
C. P. O’Grady,
63
I. Ofte,
63
M. Perl,
63
T. Pulliam,
63
B. N. Ratcliff,
63
PHYSICAL REVIEW D
83,
032002 (2011)
1550-7998
=
2011
=
83(3)
=
032002(10)
032002-1
Ó
2011 American Physical Society
A. Roodman,
63
A. A. Salnikov,
63
V. Santoro,
63
R. H. Schindler,
63
J. Schwiening,
63
A. Snyder,
63
D. Su,
63
M. K. Sullivan,
63
S. Sun,
63
K. Suzuki,
63
J. M. Thompson,
63
J. Va’vra,
63
A. P. Wagner,
63
M. Weaver,
63
C. A. West,
63
W. J. Wisniewski,
63
M. Wittgen,
63
D. H. Wright,
63
H. W. Wulsin,
63
A. K. Yarritu,
63
C. C. Young,
63
V. Ziegler,
63
X. R. Chen,
64
W. Park,
64
M. V. Purohit,
64
R. M. White,
64
J. R. Wilson,
64
S. J. Sekula,
65
M. Bellis,
66
P. R. Burchat,
66
A. J. Edwards,
66
T. S. Miyashita,
66
S. Ahmed,
67
M. S. Alam,
67
J. A. Ernst,
67
B. Pan,
67
M. A. Saeed,
67
S. B. Zain,
67
N. Guttman,
68
A. Soffer,
68
P. Lund,
69
S. M. Spanier,
69
R. Eckmann,
70
J. L. Ritchie,
70
A. M. Ruland,
70
C. J. Schilling,
70
R. F. Schwitters,
70
B. C. Wray,
70
J. M. Izen,
71
X. C. Lou,
71
F. Bianchi,
72a,72b
D. Gamba,
72a,72b
M. Pelliccioni,
72a,72b
M. Bomben,
73a,73b
L. Lanceri,
73a,73b
L. Vitale,
73a,73b
N. Lopez-March,
74
F. Martinez-Vidal,
74
D. A. Milanes,
74
A. Oyanguren,
74
J. Albert,
75
Sw. Banerjee,
75
H. H. F. Choi,
75
K. Hamano,
75
G. J. King,
75
R. Kowalewski,
75
M. J. Lewczuk,
75
I. M. Nugent,
75
J. M. Roney,
75
R. J. Sobie,
75
T. J. Gershon,
76
P. F. Harrison,
76
T. E. Latham,
76
E. M. T. Puccio,
76
H. R. Band,
77
S. Dasu,
77
K. T. Flood,
77
Y. Pan,
77
R. Prepost,
77
C. O. Vuosalo,
77
and S. L. Wu
77
(
B
A
B
AR
Collaboration)
1
Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules (LAPP), Universite
́
de Savoie, CNRS/IN2P3,
F-74941 Annecy-Le-Vieux, France
2
Universitat de Barcelona, Facultat de Fisica, Departament ECM, E-08028 Barcelona, Spain
3a
INFN Sezione di Bari, I-70126 Bari, Italy
3b
Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita
`
di Bari, I-70126 Bari, Italy
4
University of Bergen, Institute of Physics, N-5007 Bergen, Norway
5
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
6
University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom
7
Ruhr Universita
̈
t Bochum, Institut fu
̈
r Experimentalphysik 1, D-44780 Bochum, Germany
8
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z1
9
Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, United Kingdom
10
Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk 630090, Russia
11
University of California at Irvine, Irvine, California 92697, USA
12
University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521, USA
13
University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California 93106, USA
14
University of California at Santa Cruz, Institute for Particle Physics, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA
15
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA
16
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221, USA
17
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
18
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523, USA
19
Technische Universita
̈
t Dortmund, Fakulta
̈
t Physik, D-44221 Dortmund, Germany
20
Technische Universita
̈
t Dresden, Institut fu
̈
r Kern- und Teilchenphysik, D-01062 Dresden, Germany
21
Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, Ecole Polytechnique, F-91128 Palaiseau, France
22
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, United Kingdom
23a
INFN Sezione di Ferrara, I-44100 Ferrara, Italy
a23b
Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita
`
di Ferrara, I-44100 Ferrara, Italy
24
INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, I-00044 Frascati, Italy
25a
INFN Sezione di Genova, I-16146 Genova, Italy
25b
Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita
`
di Genova, I-16146 Genova, Italy
26
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, 781 039, India
27
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA
28
Universita
̈
t Heidelberg, Physikalisches Institut, Philosophenweg 12, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany
29
Humboldt-Universita
̈
t zu Berlin, Institut fu
̈
r Physik, Newtonstrasse 15, D-12489 Berlin, Germany
30
Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom
31
University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, USA
32
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011-3160, USA
33
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, USA
34
Laboratoire de l’Acce
́
le
́
rateur Line
́
aire, IN2P3/CNRS et Universite
́
Paris-Sud 11, Centre Scientifique d’Orsay,
B.P. 34, F-91898 Orsay Cedex, France
35
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California 94550, USA
36
University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZE, United Kingdom
37
Queen Mary, University of London, London, E1 4NS, United Kingdom
38
University of London, Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, United Kingdom
P. DEL AMO SANCHEZ
et al.
PHYSICAL REVIEW D
83,
032002 (2011)
032002-2
39
University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40292, USA
40
Johannes Gutenberg-Universita
̈
t Mainz, Institut fu
̈
r Kernphysik, D-55099 Mainz, Germany
41
University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom
42
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA
43
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, USA
44
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Laboratory for Nuclear Science, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA
45
McGill University, Montre
́
al, Que
́
bec, Canada H3A 2T8
46a
INFN Sezione di Milano, I-20133 Milano, Italy
46b
Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita
`
di Milano, I-20133 Milano, Italy
47
University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi 38677, USA
48
Universite
́
de Montre
́
al, Physique des Particules, Montre
́
al, Que
́
bec, Canada H3C 3J7
49a
INFN Sezione di Napoli, I-80126 Napoli, Italy
49b
Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Universita
`
di Napoli Federico II, I-80126 Napoli, Italy
50
NIKHEF, National Institute for Nuclear Physics and High Energy Physics, NL-1009 DB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
51
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, USA
52
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
53
University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403, USA
54a
INFN Sezione di Padova, I-35131 Padova, Italy
54b
Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita
`
di Padova, I-35131 Padova, Italy
55
Laboratoire de Physique Nucle
́
aire et de Hautes Energies, IN2P3/CNRS, Universite
́
Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris6,
Universite
́
Denis Diderot-Paris7, F-75252 Paris, France
56a
INFN Sezione di Perugia, I-06100 Perugia, Italy
56b
Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita
`
di Perugia, I-06100 Perugia, Italy
57a
INFN Sezione di Pisa, I-56127 Pisa, Italy
57b
Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita
`
di Pisa, I-56127 Pisa, Italy
57c
Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, I-56127 Pisa, Italy
58
Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA
59a
INFN Sezione di Roma, I-00185 Roma, Italy
59b
Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita
`
di Roma La Sapienza, I-00185 Roma, Italy
60
Universita
̈
t Rostock, D-18051 Rostock, Germany
61
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0QX, United Kingdom
62
CEA, Irfu, SPP, Centre de Saclay, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
63
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford, California 94309 USA
64
University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208, USA
65
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275, USA
66
Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-4060, USA
67
State University of New York, Albany, New York 12222, USA
68
Tel Aviv University, School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv, 69978, Israel
69
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996, USA
70
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, USA
71
University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 75083, USA
72a
INFN Sezione di Torino, I-10125 Torino, Italy
72b
Dipartimento di Fisica Sperimentale, Universita
`
di Torino, I-10125 Torino, Italy
73a
INFN Sezione di Trieste, I-34127 Trieste, Italy
73b
Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita
`
di Trieste, I-34127 Trieste, Italy
74
IFIC, Universitat de Valencia-CSIC, E-46071 Valencia, Spain
75
University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 3P6
76
Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom
77
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA
(Received 17 November 2010; published 2 February 2011)
We report on analyses of tau lepton decays
!
K
and
!
, with
!
þ
0
,
using
470 fb
1
of data from the
BABAR
experiment at PEP-II, collected at center-of-mass energies at
and near the
ð
4
S
Þ
resonance. We measure the branching fraction for the
!
K
decay mode,
*
Present address: Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA.
†
Also with Universita
`
di Perugia, Dipartimento di Fisica, Perugia, Italy.
‡
Also with Universita
`
di Roma La Sapienza, I-00185 Roma, Italy.
x
Present address: University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL 36688, USA.
k
Also with Universita
`
di Sassari, Sassari, Italy.
STUDIES OF
!
K
AND
...
PHYSICAL REVIEW D
83,
032002 (2011)
032002-3
B
ð
!
K
Þ¼ð
1
:
42
0
:
11
ð
stat
Þ
0
:
07
ð
syst
ÞÞ
10
4
, and report a 95% confidence level upper
limit for the second-class current process
!
,
B
ð
!
Þ
<
9
:
9
10
5
.
DOI:
10.1103/PhysRevD.83.032002
PACS numbers: 13.35.Dx, 14.60.Fg, 11.30.Ly
I. INTRODUCTION
Weak hadronic currents of spin parity
J
P
can be classi-
fied as either first or second class according to their trans-
formation properties under
G
parity (a combination of
charge conjugation and isospin rotation) [
1
]. In hadronic
decays, the first-class currents have
J
PG
¼
0
þþ
,
0
,
1
þ
,or
1
þ
and are expected to dominate. The second-
class currents, which have
J
PG
¼
0
þ
,
0
þ
,
1
þþ
,or
1
,
are associated with a matrix element proportional to the
mass difference between up and down quarks. They vanish
in the limit of perfect isospin symmetry. So, while the
standard model does not prohibit second-class currents,
such
decays are expected to have branching fractions
of the order of
10
5
[
2
], and no evidence has been found
for them to date.
The
lepton provides a clean means to search for
second-class currents, through the decay mode
!
(charge-conjugate reactions are implied through-
out this paper). The
final state must have either
J
PG
¼
0
þ
or
J
PG
¼
1
, both of which can only be
produced via second-class currents. The decay could be
mediated by the
a
0
ð
980
Þ
meson or by the
1
ð
1400
Þ
resonance. The CLEO Collaboration has produced the
most stringent limit so far on
!
decays, finding
B
ð
!
Þ
<
1
:
4
10
4
at the 95% confidence
level [
3
]. In this work we search for the
!
decay, with the
decaying to
þ
0
, using the large
-pair sample available from the
BABAR
experiment.
The
!
K
branching fraction has previously
been measured by the CLEO [
3
], ALEPH [
4
], and Belle
[
5
] Collaborations, giving a world average value of
B
ð
!
K
Þ¼ð
1
:
61
0
:
11
Þ
10
4
[
6
]. The mea-
surement of
B
ð
!
K
Þ
reported here is the first
from the
BABAR
experiment, and its consistency with the
Particle Data Group value helps to validate the method
used for the
!
analysis.
II.
BABAR
EXPERIMENT
The analysis is based on data recorded by the
BABAR
detector [
7
] at the PEP-II asymmetric-energy
e
þ
e
storage rings operated at the SLAC National
Accelerator Laboratory. An integrated luminosity of
470 fb
1
was collected from
e
þ
e
annihilations at and
near the
ð
4
S
Þ
resonance: 91% of the luminosity was
collected at a center-of-mass energy of
ffiffiffi
s
p
¼
10
:
58 GeV
,
while 9% was collected 40 MeV below this. With a cross
section of
ð
0
:
919
0
:
003
Þ
nb
[
8
] for
-pair production at
our luminosity-weighted center-of-mass energy, the data
sample contains about
432
10
6
produced
þ
events.
The
BABAR
detector is described in detail in Ref. [
7
].
Charged-particle (track) momenta are measured with a
5-layer double-sided silicon vertex tracker and a 40-layer
drift chamber. Outside the drift chamber there is a ring-
imaging Cherenkov detector and an electromagnetic calo-
rimeter (EMC) consisting of 6580 CsI(Tl) crystals. These
detectors are all inside a superconducting solenoidal mag-
net that produces a magnetic field of 1.5 T. Outside the
magnet there is an instrumented magnetic flux return. In
the analysis, electrons are identified from the ratio of
calorimeter energy to track momentum (
E=p
), the shape
of the shower in the calorimeter, and the ionization energy
loss in the tracking system (
dE=dx
). Muons are identified
by hits in the instrumented magnetic flux return and by
their small energy deposits in the calorimeter. Pions and
kaons are identified from
dE=dx
in the tracking system
and the Cherenkov angle from the ring-imaging
Cherenkov detector. For the selections used in this analy-
sis, pions are positively identified with a typical efficiency
of 95% and kaons with an efficiency of 90%. The proba-
bility to misidentify a pion as a kaon is typically 1%,
while the probability to misidentify a kaon as a pion is
about 5%.
III. EVENT SELECTION
Tau pairs are produced back to back in the
e
þ
e
center-
of-mass frame, and so each event is divided into hemi-
spheres using the thrust axis [
9
], calculated from all recon-
structed neutral EMC clusters with an energy above
50 MeV in the laboratory frame and all reconstructed
charged particles. Events with four well-reconstructed
tracks and zero net charge are selected. Each track is
required to have a distance of closest approach to the
interaction region of less than 10 cm when projected along
the beam axis and less than 1.5 cm in the transverse plane.
The events are required to have a ‘‘1–3 topology’’ in the
center-of-mass frame, where one track is in one hemi-
sphere (the tag hemisphere) and three tracks are in the
other hemisphere (the signal hemisphere). The charged
particle in the tag hemisphere must be identified as either
an electron (
e
tag) or a muon (
tag), consistent with
coming from a fully leptonic
decay. Hadronic tags
were not used because of the large backgrounds from
e
þ
e
!
q
q
events.
The
candidates are reconstructed in the signal hemi-
sphere using the three tracks and a
0
candidate, which is
reconstructed from two separate EMC clusters, each with
an energy above 30 MeV in the laboratory frame and not
associated with a charged track. The
0
candidates are
required to have an invariant mass within
15 MeV
=c
2
of
P. DEL AMO SANCHEZ
et al.
PHYSICAL REVIEW D
83,
032002 (2011)
032002-4
the nominal
0
mass [
6
] and are then fitted to constrain the
mass. The
0
candidates are also required to have an
energy in the laboratory frame of at least 200 MeV.
Events with exactly one
0
candidate in the signal hemi-
sphere, where both EMC clusters are also in the signal
hemisphere, are selected.
Backgrounds arise from a number of sources, including
e
þ
e
!
q
q
events (where
q
¼
usdc
) that contain
me-
sons, and
-pair events in which a
decays into a channel
containing an
meson. The latter category includes
!
0
,
!
K
0
,
!
K
0
, and
!
K
(background for the
!
mode). These
modes contribute background events when
0
or
K
0
L
mesons are missing or when pions or kaons are
misidentified.
To reduce backgrounds a number of other selections are
applied. The
e
þ
e
!
q
q
events are suppressed by requir-
ing the total visible energy of the event in the lab frame to
be less than 80% of the initial-state energy (
-pair events
have missing energy carried by neutrinos). This back-
ground is also suppressed by requiring the magnitude of
the event thrust in the center-of-mass frame to be greater
than 0.95 (
-pair events at
BABAR
are highly collinear).
The cosine of the angle between the thrust axis and the
beam axis is required to be less than 0.8 to ensure the
selected events are well-reconstructed, without particles
passing through the edges of the active detector region
near the beam pipe. To reduce
background modes con-
taining extra
0
particles or
K
0
L
mesons, events are rejected
if they have any additional neutral EMC clusters in the
signal hemisphere with energy above 100 MeV in the
laboratory frame. After all selections, background from
b
b
events is negligible, due mainly to the effects of the
cuts on the event multiplicity and thrust.
The overall strategy for the analysis is to fit the
þ
0
mass spectra from
!
þ
0
K
and
!
þ
0
candidate events, to determine the numbers
of
!
þ
0
decays in the selected samples.
Monte Carlo event samples are used to estimate the num-
bers of
mesons expected from the background modes,
thus allowing the contribution from the signal modes to be
determined.
The largest source of combinatorial background in the
3
mass spectra comes from the
!
þ
0
channel, which is dominated by
!
ð
782
Þ
, with a sig-
nificant
ð
770
Þ
contribution. In addition, there is a
small background in the
e
-tag sample from Bhabha events.
To avoid any model dependence in the analyses, no addi-
tional cuts are used to remove these backgrounds, since
such cuts would distort the
K
and
mass spectra.
IV. MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS
Monte Carlo (MC) simulations are used to measure the
signal efficiencies as well as the levels of background. The
production of
pairs is simulated with the
KK2F
generator
[
10
], and the decays of the
lepton are modeled with
TAUOLA
[
11
]. In addition to samples of
-pair events in
which the
leptons decay according to known branching
fractions, samples of
pairs are produced for the main
background modes and for the signal modes. In these
dedicated samples, one
in each event is decayed through
the specified mode and the other decays according to
Particle Data Group branching fractions.
Continuum
q
q
events are separated into two samples:
one for
u
u
,
d
d
, and
s
s
(the
uds
sample) and another for
c
c
(the
c
c
sample). Both samples are simulated using
JETSET
[
12
], with
EVTGEN
[
13
] used to simulate the decays of
charmed particles. Production of
ð
4
S
Þ
events and
B
meson decays are simulated using
EVTGEN
. Final-state
radiative effects are simulated using
PHOTOS
[
14
].
The detector response is modeled with
GEANT4
[
15
], and
the MC events are fully reconstructed and analyzed in the
same manner as the data.
V. ANALYSIS
A. The
þ
0
mass spectra
In the analysis, all three charged particles in the signal
hemisphere are initially assumed to be pions, with no
requirements on the particle identification (PID) selectors.
Each event therefore has two possible
þ
0
combina-
tions. The remaining track associated with each combina-
tion in the signal hemisphere is referred to as the
‘‘bachelor’’ track.
For the
!
K
analysis, the bachelor track must
be identified as a kaon and the
þ
0
K
mass is
required to be less than the
mass. The
þ
0
mass
spectra with these selections are shown in Fig.
1
separately
for the
e
-tag and the
-tag samples; clear
peaks are
visible in both spectra. The curves in Fig.
1
show the results
of fits described in Sec.
VC
.
The
K
mass distribution, as shown in Fig.
2
,is
constructed using a sideband subtraction method whereby
the
þ
0
K
mass spectrum for
3
mass in the
sideband regions (0.510–0.525 and
0
:
570
–
0
:
585 GeV
=c
2
)
is subtracted from the spectrum where the
3
mass lies in
the
peak region (
0
:
54
–
0
:
555 GeV
=c
2
). To correct for the
shape of the combinatorial background, the entries for the
sideband region are weighted according to factors found by
integrating over the background functions (discussed in
Sec.
VC
) from the fitted
þ
0
mass spectra. For this
figure, the various MC samples (see Sec.
IV
) are combined
according to expected cross sections and the overall sample
is normalized to the data luminosity. The results show
agreement between data and MC simulations, indicating
that the
!
K
decay mode, which dominates the
distribution, is adequately modeled in
TAUOLA
.
In the search for
!
decays, the bachelor
track must be identified as a pion and the
þ
0
mass is required to be less than the
mass. The resulting
þ
0
mass spectra are shown in Fig.
3
, again
STUDIES OF
!
K
AND
...
PHYSICAL REVIEW D
83,
032002 (2011)
032002-5
separately for
e
-tag and
-tag events. It should be noted
that while the signal
!
K
channel contributes
over 90% to the
peaks in Fig.
1
, the peaks in Fig.
3
come largely or exclusively from backgrounds to the
!
search (as shown in Tables
I
and
II
,tobe
discussed below). Figure
4
shows the
mass distribu-
tion, constructed using the sideband subtraction method, as
described above.
)
2
K mass (GeV/c
η
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
)
2
Entries / (0.08 GeV/c
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
data
Monte Carlo
FIG. 2 (color online). The
K
mass distributions for the data
and MC samples, for
e
- and
-tag events, obtained from the
sideband subtraction method as described in the text. The MC
samples are normalized to the data luminosity; in particular, the
!
K
sample is normalized to luminosity with the
branching fraction reported in this paper.
)
2
mass (GeV/c
0
π
-
π
+
π
0.48
0.5
0.52
0.54
0.56
0.58
0.6
0.62
)
2
Entries / (2 MeV/c
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
(a)
)
2
mass (GeV/c
0
π
-
π
+
π
0.48
0.5
0.52
0.54
0.56
0.58
0.6
0.62
)
2
Entries / (2 MeV/c
300
400
500
600
700
800
(b)
FIG. 3 (color online). Invariant
þ
0
mass distributions
for
!
þ
0
candidates, for (a)
e
-tag data (b)
-tag
data. The curves show the results of the fits described in the text.
Note the suppressed zero on the
y
axes.
)
2
mass (GeV/c
0
π
-
π
+
π
0.48
0.5
0.52
0.54
0.56
0.58
0.6
0.62
)
2
Entries / (2 MeV/c
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
(a)
)
2
mass (GeV/c
0
π
-
π
+
π
0.48
0.5
0.52
0.54
0.56
0.58
0.6
0.62
)
2
Entries / (2 MeV/c
20
40
60
80
100
(b)
FIG. 1 (color online). Mass spectra for
þ
0
in
!
þ
0
K
candidates, for (a)
e
-tag data and (b)
-tag
data. The curves show the results of the fits described in the
text. Note the suppressed zero on the
y
axes.
)
2
mass (GeV/c
π
η
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
)
2
Entries / (0.08 GeV/c
-50
0
50
100
150
200
data
Monte Carlo
FIG. 4 (color online). The
mass distributions for the data
and MC samples, for
e
- and
-tag events, obtained from the
sideband subtraction method as described in the text. The MC
samples are normalized to the data luminosity; in particular,
there are no
!
MC events.
P. DEL AMO SANCHEZ
et al.
PHYSICAL REVIEW D
83,
032002 (2011)
032002-6
B. Fit parameters for the
peaks
To study the shapes of the
peaks in data and MC
simulations, high-statistics samples are examined. The
high-statistics MC sample comprises the sum of
e
- and
-tagged events from the dedicated
!
sample
that are selected as
!
þ
0
candidates and
the
e
- and
-tagged events from the dedicated
!
K
sample that are selected as
!
þ
0
K
candidates. For the data, we define a high-statistics control
sample by replacing the electron and muon tags with a
charged pion tag and loosening the selection criteria on the
thrust magnitude and total event energy. The high-statistics
control sample then comprises all those events that are
selected to be
!
þ
0
candidates or
!
þ
0
K
candidates. The control sample thus de-
fined contains a factor of 20 more
!
þ
0
decays
than the standard data sample, coming mainly from
uds
events.
The shapes of the
peaks in both data and MC simu-
lations are found to be well described by double-Gaussian
functions. Each double-Gaussian function has five parame-
ters: two peak masses, two widths, and a relative contribu-
tion from each Gaussian peak. The values of these
parameters are determined in fits to the high-statistics
samples and are then fixed in the fits to the signal-candidate
data (Figs.
1
and
3
) and MC samples. For the data sample,
the core Gaussian has a width of
ð
3
:
4
0
:
1
Þ
MeV
=c
2
and a
relative contribution of
62
4%
. For the MC sample, the
core Gaussian has a width of
ð
3
:
8
0
:
1
Þ
MeV
=c
2
and a
relative contribution of
71
2%
.
C. Fits to the mass spectra
To measure the number of
mesons in the data and MC
samples, the
þ
0
mass spectra are fitted over the
range
0
:
48
–
0
:
62 GeV
=c
2
using a binned maximum like-
lihood fit. The background is modeled as a second-order
polynomial while the
peak is modeled using the double-
Gaussian function. The number of events in the
peak is a
free parameter in the fits, while the five parameters of the
double-Gaussian function are fixed to the values obtained
by fitting to the high-statistics samples, as described above.
The fit results and errors are given in Tables
I
and
II
, which
are discussed later in Sec.
VI
.
D. Efficiency
The efficiency to reconstruct a signal event is defined as
the probability that a genuine signal event contributes an
entry to the fitted
peak. The
þ
0
mass spectra from
the dedicated
!
and
!
K
MC
samples are fitted to measure the number of reconstructed
mesons in each sample. The
!
K
efficiency is
found to be
0
:
336
0
:
003%
for
e
-tag and
0
:
242
0
:
003%
for
-tag events, giving a total efficiency of
0
:
578
0
:
004%
.For
!
the corresponding values are
0
:
286
0
:
004%
,
0
:
186
0
:
004%
, and
0
:
472
0
:
006%
.
The efficiency for the
!
K
mode is higher mainly
because of a higher efficiency for the cut on the thrust
magnitude.
VI. BACKGROUNDS
As listed in Sec.
IV
, background sources of
mesons
include
q
q
events as well as
decay modes that contain
mesons, such as
!
0
,
!
K
0
, and
!
K
0
. To measure the branching fractions of
!
K
and
!
, the numbers of
me-
sons obtained from the fits must be corrected for contribu-
tions from the background channels.
The number of
!
þ
0
decays contributed by
each background mode is estimated from the MC samples,
as discussed further below, and the results are summarized
in Tables
I
and
II
, where the first errors are statistical and
the second are systematic (the systematic errors come from
the uncertainties on branching fractions).
A. Background from
uds
events
Since inclusive
production in
uds
events at
BABAR
energies has not been well measured and may be poorly
simulated in the
JETSET
Monte Carlo simulation, the high-
statistics data control samples, described above, are used to
correct the MC samples for the level of background from
this source.
To correct the
uds
simulation to better match the
data, scaling factors are evaluated based on ratios of the
numbers of reconstructed
mesons in the high-statistics
(
uds
-enriched) data and MC samples. The scaling factors
TABLE I. The numbers of
mesons, for
K
candidates, that
are expected to come from each background mode and the total
number of
mesons seen in the data sample, as explained in
Secs.
VI
and
VII
. For each entry, the first error is statistical and
the second error is systematic.
Expected number of events
Background contribution
e
-tag
-tag
uds
4
:
5
2
:
7
2
:
38
:
9
4
:
7
4
:
5
c
c
13
:
8
8
:
3
3
:
50
:
7
5
:
5
0
:
2
!
0
13
:
3
3
:
7
0
:
72
:
9
2
:
0
0
:
2
!
K
0
8
:
4
0
:
5
2
:
15
:
0
0
:
4
1
:
3
!
K
0
3
:
9
0
:
5
0
:
72
:
3
0
:
4
0
:
4
Total background
44
10
520
8
5
Combined
e
- and
-tag
64
12
8
Measured in data
Number of events in data
463
44
12 291
30
10
Combined
e
- and
-tag
754
53
16
Signal
Measured data minus background
419
44
16 271
30
13
Combined
e
- and
-tag
690
53
22
STUDIES OF
!
K
AND
...
PHYSICAL REVIEW D
83,
032002 (2011)
032002-7
are found to be
1
:
0
0
:
5
for the
K
channel and
1
:
5
1
:
0
for the
channel. The relatively large uncer-
tainty for the scaling factor in the
channel is a
reflection of the poor simulation of
a
0
!
production
in
uds
events.
B. Background from
c
c
events
The simulation of
meson production in
c
c
events is
more reliable than in
uds
events, since
c
c
events always
contain two charmed particles, whose branching fractions
are well known [
6
]. To calculate a
c
c
scaling factor,
!
þ
0
candidates are selected from the
e
- and
-tagged samples. To enhance the number of
c
c
events
the selection made on the thrust magnitude is removed and
events with a
þ
0
mass greater than the
mass are
selected.
The
mass distribution is constructed using the
sideband subtraction method described above. Peaks are
observed that correspond to the
D
!
and
D
s
!
decays. A scaling factor of
1
:
2
0
:
3
is found to give
best agreement between data and MC simulations in the
numbers of
D
and
D
s
mesons. Although there is no
evidence for poor simulation of
production in
c
c
events,
this is conservatively chosen as the
c
c
scaling factor for the
þ
0
K
and
þ
0
analyses.
C. Background from
decays
The numbers of
mesons in the dedicated MC samples
for each background
-decay mode are calculated by fitting
the
þ
0
mass spectra as previously described. These
numbers, together with the numbers of events before
selections are made, the luminosities of the data, and the
known branching fractions [
6
], are used to calculate the
numbers of
mesons in the data sample that are expected
to come from each background mode.
D. Uncertainties on backgrounds
For each background mode included in Tables
I
and
II
there is a statistical error, which comes from the fits to the
þ
0
mass spectra arising mainly from limited MC
statistics, and a systematic error from uncertainties in
branching fractions or scaling factors. When combining
the
e
-tag and
-tag samples, correlated errors (e.g. due to
branching fraction uncertainties) are taken into account.
The total statistical and systematic errors are combined in
quadrature and propagated as systematic errors on the final
measurements.
VII. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
Tables
I
and
II
give the numbers of
mesons measured
in data, as obtained from the fits (Sec.
VC
), for the
K
and
candidate samples. The first errors are statistical,
while the second are systematic, calculated by varying the
values of the fixed parameters within their uncertainties. In
both channels, the
e
-tag and
-tag analyses are combined
for the final phase of the analyses.
The fits to the
K
data sample yield
754
53
16
mesons, compared to an expected background of
64
12
8
, giving a signal contribution of
690
53
22
mesons. For the
sample, the fits yield
913
134
20
mesons, with an expected background of
778
35
73
, and a signal contribution of
135
134
83
mesons.
The statistical errors on the signals are taken to be the same
as those on the unsubtracted measurements, and the other
error contributions are combined to give the total system-
atic errors.
Additional sources of systematic uncertainties on
the measurements of branching fractions are listed in
Table
III
. The uncertainty in the
0
detection efficiency
is 3% per
0
candidate, while the uncertainty on the
tracking efficiency for charged particles is 0.5% per track,
which is added linearly for the four tracks. The error on the
efficiency due to MC statistics comes from the statistical
error on the fits, as given in Sec.
VD
. The uncertainties on
the PID selectors are calculated from control samples to be
0.7% for electrons, 1.8% for muons, 1.2% for kaons, and
0.2% for pions. The uncertainty on the number of
þ
events is 0.9%.
The branching fraction for
!
K
is measured
to be
B
ð
!
K
Þ
¼ð
1
:
42
0
:
11
ð
stat
Þ
0
:
07
ð
syst
ÞÞ
10
4
:
(1)
TABLE II. The numbers of
mesons, for
candidates,
that are expected to come from each background mode and the
total number of
mesons seen in the data sample, as explained
in Secs.
VI
and
VII
. For each entry, the first error is statistical
and the second error is systematic.
Expected number of events
Background contribution
e
-tag
-tag
uds
20
9
14
64
13
43
c
c
74
20
19
54
15
13
!
0
215
14
12
118
11
7
!
K
0
100
2
17
71
2
12
!
K
35
1
226
1
1
!
K
0
0
:
6
0
:
2
0
:
10
:
2
0
:
2
0
:
1
Total background
445
27
31 333
23
47
Combined
e
- and
-tag
778
35
73
Measured in data
Number of events in data
489
111
15 424
74
13
Combined
e
- and
-tag
913
134
20
Signal
Measured data minus background
44
111
43
91
74
54
Combined
e
- and
-tag
135
134
83
P. DEL AMO SANCHEZ
et al.
PHYSICAL REVIEW D
83,
032002 (2011)
032002-8