Study of the reaction
e
þ
e
!
J=
c
þ
via initial-state radiation at
BABAR
J. P. Lees,
1
V. Poireau,
1
V. Tisserand,
1
J. Garra Tico,
2
E. Grauges,
2
A. Palano,
3a,3b
G. Eigen,
4
B. Stugu,
4
D. N. Brown,
5
L. T. Kerth,
5
Yu. G. Kolomensky,
5
G. Lynch,
5
H. Koch,
6
T. Schroeder,
6
D. J. Asgeirsson,
7
C. Hearty,
7
T. S. Mattison,
7
J. A. McKenna,
7
A. Khan,
8
V. E. Blinov,
9
A. R. Buzykaev,
9
V. P. Druzhinin,
9
V. B. Golubev,
9
E. A. Kravchenko,
9
A. P. Onuchin,
9
S. I. Serednyakov,
9
Yu. I. Skovpen,
9
E. P. Solodov,
9
K. Yu. Todyshev,
9
A. N. Yushkov,
9
M. Bondioli,
10
D. Kirkby,
10
A. J. Lankford,
10
M. Mandelkern,
10
H. Atmacan,
11
J. W. Gary,
11
F. Liu,
11
O. Long,
11
G. M. Vitug,
11
C. Campagnari,
12
T. M. Hong,
12
D. Kovalskyi,
12
J. D. Richman,
12
C. A. West,
12
A. M. Eisner,
13
J. Kroseberg,
13
W. S. Lockman,
13
A. J. Martinez,
13
B. A. Schumm,
13
A. Seiden,
13
D. S. Chao,
14
C. H. Cheng,
14
B. Echenard,
14
K. T. Flood,
14
D. G. Hitlin,
14
P. Ongmongkolkul,
14
F. C. Porter,
14
A. Y. Rakitin,
14
R. Andreassen,
15
Z. Huard,
15
B. T. Meadows,
15
M. D. Sokoloff,
15
L. Sun,
15
P. C. Bloom,
16
W. T. Ford,
16
A. Gaz,
16
U. Nauenberg,
16
J. G. Smith,
16
S. R. Wagner,
16
R. Ayad,
17,
*
W. H. Toki,
17
B. Spaan,
18
K. R. Schubert,
19
R. Schwierz,
19
D. Bernard,
20
M. Verderi,
20
P. J. Clark,
21
S. Playfer,
21
D. Bettoni,
22a
C. Bozzi,
22a,22b
R. Calabrese,
22a,22b
G. Cibinetto,
22a,22b
E. Fioravanti,
22a,22b
I. Garzia,
22a,22b
E. Luppi,
22a,22b
M. Munerato,
22a,22b
M. Negrini,
22a,22b
L. Piemontese,
22a
V. Santoro,
22a
R. Baldini-Ferroli,
23
A. Calcaterra,
23
R. de Sangro,
23
G. Finocchiaro,
23
P. Patteri,
23
I. M. Peruzzi,
23,
†
M. Piccolo,
23
M. Rama,
23
A. Zallo,
23
R. Contri,
24a,24b
E. Guido,
24a,24b
M. Lo Vetere,
24a,24b
M. R. Monge,
24a,24b
S. Passaggio,
24a
C. Patrignani,
24a,24b
E. Robutti,
24a
B. Bhuyan,
25
V. Prasad,
25
C. L. Lee,
26
M. Morii,
26
A. J. Edwards,
27
A. Adametz,
28
U. Uwer,
28
H. M. Lacker,
29
T. Lueck,
29
P. D. Dauncey,
30
P. K. Behera,
21
U. Mallik,
31
C. Chen,
32
J. Cochran,
32
W. T. Meyer,
32
S. Prell,
32
A. E. Rubin,
32
A. V. Gritsan,
33
Z. J. Guo,
33
N. Arnaud,
34
M. Davier,
34
D. Derkach,
34
G. Grosdidier,
34
F. Le Diberder,
34
A. M. Lutz,
34
B. Malaescu,
34
P. Roudeau,
34
M. H. Schune,
34
A. Stocchi,
34
G. Wormser,
34
D. J. Lange,
35
D. M. Wright,
35
C. A. Chavez,
36
J. P. Coleman,
36
J. R. Fry,
36
E. Gabathuler,
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
D. N. Brown,
39
C. L. Davis,
39
A. G. Denig,
40
M. Fritsch,
40
W. Gradl,
40
K. Griessinger,
40
A. Hafner,
40
E. Prencipe,
40
R. J. Barlow,
41,
‡
G. Jackson,
41
G. D. Lafferty,
41
E. Behn,
42
R. Cenci,
42
B. Hamilton,
42
A. Jawahery,
42
D. A. Roberts,
42
C. Dallapiccola,
43
R. Cowan,
44
D. Dujmic,
44
G. Sciolla,
44
R. Cheaib,
45
D. Lindemann,
45
P. M. Patel,
45
S. H. Robertson,
45
P. Biassoni,
46a,46b
N. Neri,
46a
F. Palombo,
46a,46b
S. Stracka,
46a,46b
L. Cremaldi,
47
R. Godang,
47,
§
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
M. Martinelli,
50
G. Raven,
50
C. P. Jessop,
51
J. M. LoSecco,
51
W. F. Wang,
51
K. Honscheid,
52
R. Kass,
52
J. Brau,
53
R. Frey,
53
N. B. Sinev,
53
D. Strom,
53
E. Torrence,
53
E. Feltresi,
54a,54b
N. Gagliardi,
54a,54b
M. Margoni,
54a,54b
M. Morandin,
54a,54b
M. Posocco,
54a
M. Rotondo,
54a
G. Simi,
54a
F. Simonetto,
54a,54b
R. Stroili,
54a,54b
S. Akar,
55
E. Ben-Haim,
55
M. Bomben,
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
S. Sitt,
55
M. Biasini,
a56a,56b
E. Manoni,
a56a,56b
S. Pacetti,
a56a,56b
A. Rossi,
a56a,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
B. Oberhof,
57a,57b
E. Paoloni,
57a,57b
A. Perez,
57a
G. Rizzo,
57a,57b
J. J. Walsh,
57a
D. Lopes Pegna,
58
J. Olsen,
58
A. J. S. Smith,
58
A. V. Telnov,
58
F. Anulli,
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
C. Bu
̈
nger,
60
O. Gru
̈
nberg,
60
T. Hartmann,
60
T. Leddig,
60
H. Schro
̈
der,
60
C. Voss,
60
R. Waldi,
60
T. Adye,
61
E. O. Olaiya,
61
F. F. Wilson,
61
S. Emery,
62
G. Hamel de Monchenault,
62
G. Vasseur,
62
Ch. Ye
`
che,
62
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
M. Ebert,
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
P. Kim,
63
M. L. Kocian,
63
D. W. G. S. Leith,
63
P. Lewis,
63
B. Lindquist,
63
S. Luitz,
63
V. Luth,
63
H. L. Lynch,
63
D. B. MacFarlane,
63
D. R. Muller,
63
H. Neal,
63
S. Nelson,
63
M. Perl,
63
T. Pulliam,
63
B. N. Ratcliff,
63
A. Roodman,
63
A. A. Salnikov,
63
R. H. Schindler,
63
A. Snyder,
63
D. Su,
63
M. K. Sullivan,
63
J. Va’vra,
63
A. P. Wagner,
63
W. J. Wisniewski,
63
M. Wittgen,
63
D. H. Wright,
63
H. W. Wulsin,
63
C. C. Young,
63
V. Ziegler,
63
W. Park,
64
M. V. Purohit,
64
R. M. White,
64
J. R. Wilson,
64
A. Randle-Conde,
65
S. J. Sekula,
65
M. Bellis,
66
P. R. Burchat,
66
T. S. Miyashita,
66
M. S. Alam,
67
J. A. Ernst,
67
R. Gorodeisky,
68
N. Guttman,
68
D. R. Peimer,
68
A. Soffer,
68
P. Lund,
69
S. M. Spanier,
69
J. L. Ritchie,
70
A. M. Ruland,
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
L. Lanceri,
73a,73b
L. Vitale,
73a,73b
F. Martinez-Vidal,
74
A. Oyanguren,
74
H. Ahmed,
75
J. Albert,
75
Sw. Banerjee,
75
F. U. Bernlochner,
75
H. H. F. Choi,
75
G. J. King,
75
R. Kowalewski,
75
M. J. Lewczuk,
75
I. M. Nugent,
75
J. M. Roney,
75
R. J. Sobie,
75
PHYSICAL REVIEW D
86,
051102(R) (2012)
RAPID COMMUNICATIONS
1550-7998
=
2012
=
86(5)
=
051102(9)
051102-1
Ó
2012 American Physical Society
N. Tasneem,
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
Y. Pan,
77
R. Prepost,
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
Ruhr Universita
̈
t Bochum, Institut fu
̈
r Experimentalphysik 1, D-44780 Bochum, Germany
7
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z1
8
Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, United Kingdom
9
Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk 630090, Russia
10
University of California at Irvine, Irvine, California 92697, USA
11
University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521, USA
12
University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California 93106, USA
13
University of California at Santa Cruz, Institute for Particle Physics, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA
14
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA
15
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221, USA
16
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
17
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523, USA
18
Technische Universita
̈
t Dortmund, Fakulta
̈
t Physik, D-44221 Dortmund, Germany
19
Technische Universita
̈
t Dresden, Institut fu
̈
r Kern- und Teilchenphysik, D-01062 Dresden, Germany
20
Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole Polytechnique, CNRS/IN2P3, F-91128 Palaiseau, France
21
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, United Kingdom
22a
INFN Sezione di Ferrara, I-44100 Ferrara, Italy
22b
Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita
`
di Ferrara, I-44100 Ferrara, Italy
23
INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, I-00044 Frascati, Italy
24a
INFN Sezione di Genova, I-16146 Genova, Italy
24b
Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita
`
di Genova, I-16146 Genova, Italy
25
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, 781 039, India
26
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA
27
Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, California 91711
28
Universita
̈
t Heidelberg, Physikalisches Institut, Philosophenweg 12, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany
29
Humboldt-Universita
̈
t zu Berlin, Institut fu
̈
r Physik, Newtonstr. 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
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
J. P. LEES
et al.
PHYSICAL REVIEW D
86,
051102(R) (2012)
RAPID COMMUNICATIONS
051102-2
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
a56a
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 11 April 2012; published 12 September 2012)
We study the process
e
þ
e
!
J=
c
þ
with initial-state-radiation events produced at the PEP-II
asymmetric-energy collider. The data were recorded with the
BABAR
detector at center-of-mass energies
10.58 and 10.54 GeV, and correspond to an integrated luminosity of
454 fb
1
. We investigate the
J=
c
þ
mass distribution in the region from 3.5 to
5
:
5 GeV
=c
2
. Below
3
:
7 GeV
=c
2
the
c
ð
2
S
Þ
signal
dominates, and above
4 GeV
=c
2
there is a significant peak due to the
Y
ð
4260
Þ
. A fit to the data in the range
3
:
74
–
5
:
50 GeV
=c
2
yields a mass value
4245
5
ð
stat
Þ
4
ð
syst
Þ
MeV
=c
2
and a width value
114
þ
16
15
ð
stat
Þ
7
ð
syst
Þ
MeV
for this state. We do not confirm the report from the Belle Collaboration
of a broad structure at
4
:
01 GeV
=c
2
. In addition, we investigate the
þ
system which results from
Y
ð
4260
Þ
decay.
DOI:
10.1103/PhysRevD.86.051102
PACS numbers: 13.20.Gd, 13.25.Gv, 13.66.Bc, 14.40.Pq
The observation of the
X
ð
3872
Þ
[
1
], followed by the
discovery of other states such as the
c
2
ð
2
P
Þð
3930
Þ
[
2
],
the
Y
ð
3940
Þ
[
3
], and the
X
ð
3940
Þ
[
4
], has reopened interest
in charmonium spectroscopy. These resonances cannot be
fully explained by a simple charmonium model [
5
]. The
Y
ð
4260
Þ
was discovered [
6
] in the initial-state-radiation
(ISR) process
e
þ
e
!
ISR
Y
ð
4260
Þ
,
Y
ð
4260
Þ!
J=
c
þ
. Since it is produced directly in
e
þ
e
annihi-
lation, it has
J
PC
¼
1
. The observation of the decay
*
Now at the University of Tabuk, Tabuk 71491, Saudi Arabia.
†
Also with Universita
`
di Perugia, Dipartimento di Fisica,
Perugia, Italy.
‡
Now at the University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield HD1
3DH, United Kingdom.
§
Now at University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama
36688, USA.
k
Also with Universita
`
di Sassari, Sassari, Italy.
STUDY OF THE REACTION
...
PHYSICAL REVIEW D
86,
051102(R) (2012)
RAPID COMMUNICATIONS
051102-3
mode
J=
c
0
0
[
7
] established that it has zero isospin.
However it is not observed to decay to
D
D
[
8
], nor to
D
s
D
s
[
9
], so that its properties do not lend themselves to a
simple charmonium interpretation, and its nature is still
unclear. Other interpretations, such as a four-quark state
[
10
,
11
], a baryonium state [
12
], or a hybrid state [
13
], have
been proposed. However if the
Y
ð
4260
Þ
is a four-quark
state it is expected to decay to
D
þ
s
D
s
[
11
], but this has not
been observed [
9
].
An analysis of the reaction
e
þ
e
!
J=
c
þ
[
14
]
which confirms the
Y
ð
4260
Þ
, suggests the existence of a
broad state with mass
m
¼
4008
40
þ
114
28
MeV
=c
2
and
width
¼
226
44
87 MeV
. Two additional
J
PC
¼
1
states, the
Y
ð
4360
Þ
and the
Y
ð
4660
Þ
, have been re-
ported in ISR production, but only in the reaction
e
þ
e
!
c
ð
2
S
Þ
þ
[
15
,
16
].
In this paper we present an ISR study of the reaction
e
þ
e
!
J=
c
þ
in the center-of-mass (c.m.) energy
(
Ecm
) range 3.5–5.5 GeV. In the
J=
c
þ
mass region
below
3
:
7 GeV
=c
2
the signal due to the decay
c
ð
2
S
Þ!
J=
c
þ
dominates. A detailed comparison to
c
ð
2
S
Þ
Monte Carlo (MC) simulation yields values of the cross
section and partial width to
e
þ
e
. The high-mass tail of
the
c
ð
2
S
Þ
MC distribution describes the data up to
4 GeV
=c
2
quite well, and so we perform a maximum
likelihood fit over the
3
:
74
–
5
:
50 GeV
=c
2
mass region in
which the fit function consists of the incoherent superpo-
sition of a nonresonant, decreasing exponential function
describing the
J=
c
þ
mass region above
3
:
74 GeV
=c
2
and a Breit-Wigner (BW) function describing production
and decay of the
Y
ð
4260
Þ
. Non-
J=
c
background is treated
by means of a simultaneous fit to the mass distribution
from the
J=
c
sideband regions.
This analysis uses a data sample corresponding to an
integrated luminosity of
454 fb
1
, recorded by the
BABAR
detector at the SLAC PEP-II asymmetric-energy
e
þ
e
collider operating at c.m. energies 10.58 and 10.54 GeV.
The detector is described in detail elsewhere [
17
].
Charged-particle momenta are measured with a tracking
system consisting of a five-layer, double-sided silicon ver-
tex tracker (SVT), and a 40-layer drift chamber (DCH),
both of which are coaxial with the 1.5-T magnetic field of a
superconducting solenoid. An internally reflecting ring-
imaging Cherenkov detector, and specific ionization
measurements from the SVT and DCH, provide charged-
particle identification (PID). A CsI(Tl) electromagnetic
calorimeter (EMC) is used to detect and identify photons
and electrons, and muons are identified using information
from the instrumented flux-return system.
We reconstruct events corresponding to the reaction
e
þ
e
!
ISR
J=
c
þ
, where
ISR
represents a photon
that is radiated from the initial state
e
, thus lowering
the c.m. energy of the
e
þ
e
collision which produces the
J=
c
þ
system. We do not require observation of the
ISR photon, since it is detectable in the EMC for only
15%
of the events. This is because the ISR photon is
produced predominantly in a direction close to the
e
þ
e
collision axis, and as such is most frequently outside the
fiducial region of the EMC.
We select events containing exactly four charged-
particle tracks, and reconstruct
J=
c
candidates via their
decay to
e
þ
e
or
þ
. For each mode, at least one of the
leptons must be identified on the basis of PID information.
When possible, electron candidates are combined with
associated photons in order to recover bremsstrahlung
energy loss, and so improve the
J=
c
momentum measure-
ment. An
e
þ
e
(
þ
) pair with invariant mass within
ð
75
;
þ
55
Þ
MeV
=c
2
ðð
55
;
þ
55
Þ
MeV
=c
2
Þ
of the nomi-
nal
J=
c
mass [
18
] is accepted as a
J=
c
candidate. We
refer to the combination of these
e
þ
e
and
þ
mass
intervals as ‘‘the
J=
c
signal region’’. Each
J=
c
candidate
is subjected to a geometric fit in which the decay vertex is
constrained to the
e
þ
e
interaction region. The
2
proba-
bility of this fit must be greater than 0.001. An accepted
J=
c
candidate is kinematically constrained to the nominal
J=
c
mass [
18
] and combined with a candidate
þ
pair
in a geometric fit which must yield a vertex-
2
probability
greater than 0.001. At least one pion must be well-
identified by using PID information, and neither can satisfy
our electron identification criteria.
The value of the missing-mass-squared recoiling against
the
J=
c
þ
system must be in the range
ð
0
:
50
;
þ
0
:
75
Þð
GeV
=c
2
Þ
2
in order to be consistent with
the recoil of an ISR photon. We require also that the
transverse component of the missing momentum be less
than
2
:
25 GeV
=c
. If the ISR photon is detected in the
EMC, its momentum vector is added to that of the
J=
c
þ
system in calculating the missing momentum.
The candidate
þ
system has a small residual contami-
nation due to
e
þ
e
pairs from photon conversions. We
compute the pair mass
m
e
þ
e
with the electron mass as-
signed to each candidate pion, and remove events with
m
e
þ
e
<
50 MeV
=c
2
. We estimate the remaining back-
ground by using events that have an
e
þ
e
ð
þ
Þ
mass
in the
J=
c
sideband (2.896, 2.971) or (3.201, 3.256)
((2.936, 2.991) or (3.201, 3.256))
GeV
=c
2
after satisfying
the other signal region selection criteria.
The
J=
c
þ
invariant-mass distribution in the region
below
4 GeV
=c
2
is dominated by the
c
ð
2
S
Þ
signal. The
peak region, after subtraction of background from the
J=
c
sideband regions, is shown in Fig.
1(a)
(solid dots). The
open dots indicate the
c
ð
2
S
Þ
MC distribution, modified as
described below. The data distribution above
3
:
75 GeV
=c
2
[Fig.
1(b)
] may be due to the
c
ð
2
S
Þ
tail
and a possible
J=
c
þ
continuum (i.e. nonresonant)
contribution. In order to investigate this we performed a
detailed comparison of the
c
ð
2
S
Þ
signal in data and in MC
simulation. For the latter, we used the MC generator
VECTORISR
[
19
] and a simulation of the
BABAR
detector
based on Geant4 [
20
]. The resulting MC events were
J. P. LEES
et al.
PHYSICAL REVIEW D
86,
051102(R) (2012)
RAPID COMMUNICATIONS
051102-4
subjected to the reconstruction procedures which were
applied to the data.
We first measured the peak mass position for both dis-
tributions. We performed a
2
-fit of a parabola to the data
and MC distributions in intervals of
0
:
5 MeV
=c
2
for the
region within
5 MeV
=c
2
of the nominal
c
ð
2
S
Þ
mass [
18
].
For the data, this gave a peak mass value of
3685
:
32
0
:
02
ð
stat
Þ
MeV
=c
2
, which is
0
:
77
0
:
04 MeV
=c
2
less
than the nominal value [
18
]. For the MC events, the result
was
3685
:
43
0
:
01
ð
stat
Þ
MeV
=c
2
, which is
0
:
66
0
:
01 MeV
=c
2
smaller than the input value [
18
]. These
deviations are attributed to final-state-radiation effects.
The larger deviation obtained for data may result from
underestimated energy-loss corrections, and/or magnetic
field uncertainty [
21
,
22
]. Each MC event was then dis-
placed by
0
:
11 MeV
=c
2
toward lower mass, and the para-
bolic fit to the new MC distribution was repeated. The MC
distribution was normalized to the data by using the data-to-
MC ratio of the maxima of the fitted functions. In order to
improve the MC-data resolution agreement, a
2
function
incorporating the data-MC histogram differences and
their uncertainties was created for the region within
10 MeV
=c
2
of the peak mass value. In the minimization
procedure each MC event was represented in mass by a
superposition of two Gaussian functions with a common
center, but different fractional contributions, and normal-
ized to one event. The root-mean-squared (r.m.s.)
deviations of the Gaussian functions, and the fractional
contribution of the narrower Gaussian function to the nor-
malized distribution, were allowed to vary in the fit, and the
contribution of each smeared MC event to each histogram
interval was accumulated. This procedure yielded a new
MC histogram to be used in the fit to the data histogram. We
iterated the above procedure until the change in
2
was less
than 0.1, at which point the narrow (broad) Gaussian r.m.s.
deviation was
0
:
7
ð
6
:
3
Þ
MeV
=c
2
, and the fractional contri-
bution was 0.88 (0.12).
In Fig.
1(a)
the final MC distribution is compared to the
data in the fit region, and the agreement is good
(
2
=
NDF
¼
30
:
7
=
35
, probability
¼
67
:
6%
; NDF is the
number of degrees of freedom). We integrate this MC
distribution over the entire lineshape in order to estimate
the
c
ð
2
S
Þ
signal yield in data, and obtain
20893
145
ð
stat
Þ
events. We use the efficiency and the distributed
luminosity (obtained from the nominal integrated luminos-
ity and the second-order radiator function from Ref. [
23
])
to obtain the cross section value
14
:
05
0
:
26
ð
stat
Þ
pb for
radiative return to the
c
ð
2
S
Þ
. This is in agreement with a
previous measurement [
14
]. In addition we extract
ð
c
ð
2
S
Þ!
e
þ
e
Þ¼
2
:
31
0
:
05
ð
stat
Þ
keV
, in excellent
agreement with Ref. [
18
].
In Fig.
1(b)
we compare the modified
c
ð
2
S
Þ
MC distri-
bution to the data in the region below
4
:
0 GeV
=c
2
. The MC
low-mass tail is systematically below the data distribution,
but the high-mass tail provides a good description of the
observed events. However, we note that the extrapolation to
this region requires the use of the
c
ð
2
S
Þ
Breit-Wigner
lineshape at mass values which are as much as 1000 full-
widths beyond the central mass. The existence of many
other measured final state contributions to the
J
PC
¼
1
amplitude in this mass region must call this procedure into
question. Although our model adequately describes the data
between the
c
ð
2
S
Þ
peak and
4
:
0 GeV
=c
2
, we cannot
discount the possibility of a contribution from an
e
þ
e
!
J=
c
þ
continuum cross section in this region. In this
regard, the failure of the MC lineshape to describe the data
in the region of the low-mass tail might be due to the
threshold rise of just such a continuum cross section.
The
J=
c
þ
mass distribution corresponding to the
J=
c
signal region is shown from 3.74 to
5
:
5 GeV
=c
2
in
Fig.
2(a)
. The shaded histogram, which has been obtained
by linear interpolation from the
J=
c
sideband regions,
represents the estimated background contribution to the
J=
c
signal region. The signal distribution shows an excess
of events over background above
3
:
74 GeV
=c
2
which
might result from the
c
ð
2
S
Þ
tail and a possible
J=
c
þ
continuum contribution, as discussed with
respect to Fig.
1(b)
. At higher mass we observe clear
)
2
)(GeV/c
-
π
+
π
ψ
m(J/
3.678
3.682
3.686
3.690
3.694
2
Events/0.5 MeV/c
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
(2S) data
ψ
(2S) MC
ψ
(a)
)
2
)(GeV/c
-
π
+
π
ψ
m(J/
3.5
3.55
3.6
3.65
3.7
3.75
3.8
3.85
3.9
3.95
4
2
Events/20MeV/c
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
data
-
π
+
π
ψ
J/
(2S) MC
ψ
(b)
FIG. 1 (color online). (a) The background-subtracted data, and
MC simulation modified as described in the text, for the
c
ð
2
S
Þ
peak region. (b) The corresponding distribution for the mass
region below
4
:
0 GeV
=c
2
.
STUDY OF THE REACTION
...
PHYSICAL REVIEW D
86,
051102(R) (2012)
RAPID COMMUNICATIONS
051102-5
production of the
Y
ð
4260
Þ
, and beyond
4
:
8 GeV
=c
2
the
data are consistent with background only. There is a small
excess of events near
4
:
5 GeV
=c
2
, which we choose to
attribute to statistical fluctuation. In this regard, we note
that no corresponding excess is observed in Ref. [
14
]. The
background contribution is featureless throughout the mass
region being considered.
In order to extract the parameter values of the
Y
ð
4260
Þ
,
we perform an unbinned, extended-maximum-likelihood
fit in the region
3
:
74
–
5
:
5 GeV
=c
2
to the
J=
c
þ
dis-
tribution from the
J=
c
signal region, and simultaneously
to the background distribution from the
J=
c
sidebands.
The background is fitted using a third-order polynomial in
J=
c
þ
mass,
m
. The mass-dependence of the signal
function is given by
f
ð
m
Þ¼
ð
m
Þ
L
ð
m
Þ
ð
m
Þ
, where
ð
m
Þ
is the mass-dependent signal-selection efficiency
from MC simulation with a
J=
c
þ
phase space distri-
bution, and
L
ð
m
Þ
is the mass-distributed luminosity [
23
],
where we ignore the small corrections due to initial-state
emission of additional soft photons;
ð
m
Þ
increases from
9.5% at
3
:
74 GeV
=c
2
to 15.5% at
5
:
5 GeV
=c
2
, and
L
ð
m
Þ
from
35 pb
1
=
20 MeV
to
61
:
3pb
1
=
20 MeV
over the
same range. The cross section,
ð
m
Þ
, is given by the
incoherent sum
ð
m
Þ¼
NY
ð
m
Þþ
BW
ð
m
Þ
, where we
choose
NY
ð
m
Þ
to be a simple exponential function. This
provides an adequate description of the low-statistics
non-
Y
ð
4260
Þ
(NY) contributions, and approaches zero
from above at mass
4
:
8 GeV
=c
2
(see Fig.
2
). The func-
tion
BW
ð
m
Þ
represents the cross section for the production
of the
Y
ð
4260
Þ
, and is given by
BW
ð
m
Þ¼
12
C
m
2
PS
ð
m
Þ
PS
ð
m
Y
Þ
e
þ
e
B
ð
J=
c
þ
Þ
m
2
Y
Y
ð
m
2
Y
m
2
Þ
2
þ
m
2
Y
2
Y
;
(1)
where
m
Y
and
Y
are the mass and width of the
Y
ð
4260
Þ
,
e
þ
e
is the partial width for
Y
ð
4260
Þ!
e
þ
e
,
B
ð
J=
c
þ
Þ
is the branching fraction for
Y
ð
4260
Þ!
J=
c
þ
, and
C
¼
0
:
3894
10
9
GeV
2
pb
. The func-
tion
PS
ð
m
Þ
represents the mass dependence of
J=
c
þ
phase space, and
PS
ð
m
Y
Þ
is its value at the mass of the
Y
ð
4260
Þ
. In the likelihood function,
BW
ð
m
Þ
is multiplied
by
B
ð
J=
c
!
l
þ
l
Þ
, the branching fraction sum of the
e
þ
e
and
þ
decay modes [
18
], since the fit is to the
observed events. In the fit procedure
f
ð
m
Þ
is convolved with
a Gaussian resolution function obtained from MC simula-
tion. This function has a r.m.s. deviation which increases
linearly from
2
:
1 MeV
=c
2
at
3
:
5 GeV
=c
2
to
5 MeV
=c
2
at
4
:
3 GeV
=c
2
. The results of the fit are shown in Fig.
2(a)
.
The parameter values obtained for the
Y
ð
4260
Þ
are
m
Y
¼
4245
5
ð
stat
Þ
MeV
=c
2
,
Y
¼
114
þ
16
15
ð
stat
Þ
MeV
, and
e
þ
e
B
ð
J=
c
þ
Þ¼
9
:
2
0
:
8
ð
stat
Þ
eV
.
For each
J=
c
þ
mass interval,
i
, we calculate the
e
þ
e
!
J=
c
þ
cross section after background sub-
traction using
i
¼
n
obs
i
n
bkg
i
i
L
i
B
ð
J=
c
!
l
þ
l
Þ
;
(2)
with
n
obs
i
and
n
bkg
i
the number of observed and background
events, respectively, for this interval;
i
, and
L
i
are the
values of
ð
m
Þ
and
L
ð
m
Þ
[
23
] at the center of interval
i
.
The resulting cross section is shown in Fig.
2(b)
, where
the solid curve is obtained from the simultaneous like-
lihood fit. The corresponding estimates of systematic
uncertainty are due to luminosity (1%), tracking (5.1%),
B
ð
J=
c
!
l
þ
l
Þ
(0.7%), efficiency (1%) and PID (1%);
combined in quadrature. These yield a net systematic
uncertainty of 5.4%, as indicated in Table
I
.
The reaction
e
þ
e
!
J=
c
þ
has been studied at
the c.m. energy of the
c
ð
3770
Þ
by the CLEO [
24
] and BES
[
25
] collaborations. The former reported the value
12
:
1
2
:
2pb
for the
e
þ
e
!
c
ð
3770
Þ!
J=
c
þ
cross sec-
tion, after subtraction of the contribution resulting from
radiative return to the
c
ð
2
S
Þ
. The dependence on
Ecm
of
our fitted cross section, shown by the curve in Fig.
2(b)
,
)
2
)(GeV/c
-
π
+
π
ψ
m(J/
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5
5.2
5.4
)
2
Events / (0.020 GeV/c
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
-
)
2
Events / (0.020 GeV/c
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
(a)
(GeV)
cm
E
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5
5.2
5.4
)(pb)
-
π
+
π
ψ
J/
→
-
e
+
(e
σ
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
(b)
FIG. 2 (color online). (a) The
J=
c
þ
mass spectrum from
3
:
74 GeV
=c
2
to
5
:
5 GeV
=c
2
; the points represent the data and
the shaded histogram is the background from the
J=
c
sidebands;
the solid curve represents the fit result, and the dashed curve
results from the simultaneous fit to the background; (b) the
measured
e
þ
e
!
J=
c
þ
cross section as a function of
c.m. energy; the solid curve results from the fit shown in (a).
J. P. LEES
et al.
PHYSICAL REVIEW D
86,
051102(R) (2012)
RAPID COMMUNICATIONS
051102-6
yields the value
31
5
ð
stat
Þ
2
ð
syst
Þ
pb
at the
c
ð
3770
Þ
with no subtraction of a
c
ð
2
S
Þ
contribution. This is com-
patible with the much more precise CLEO result obtained
after subtraction. No cross section value is reported in
Ref. [
25
], but the results of the BES analysis agree within
their significantly larger uncertainties with those from
CLEO.
The systematic uncertainties on the measured values of
the
Y
ð
4260
Þ
parameters include contributions from the
fitting procedure (evaluated by changing the fit range and
the background parametrization), the uncertainty in the
mass scale resulting from the uncertainties associated
with the magnetic field and with our energy-loss correction
procedures, the mass-resolution function, and the change
in efficiency when the dipion distribution is simulated
using the solid histogram in Fig.
3(c)
, which is described
below. In Eq. (
1
) it is assumed that
Y
ð
4260
Þ
decay to a
J=
c
and a scalar dipion occurs in an
S
-wave orbital angular
momentum state. However, a
D
-wave decay between the
J=
c
and the
þ
system can occur also, and for this
hypothesis the fitted central values of mass, width, and
e
þ
e
B
ð
J=
c
þ
Þ
become
4237 MeV
=c
2
, 100 MeV,
and 8.5 eV, respectively. We assign half the change in
central value of each quantity as a conservative estimate
of systematic uncertainty associated with the decay angular
momentum. Uncertainties associated with luminosity,
tracking,
B
ð
J=
c
!
l
þ
l
Þ
, efficiency and PID affect only
e
þ
e
B
, and their net contribution is 5.4%, as we dis-
cussed previously. Our estimates of systematic uncertainty
are summarized in Table
I
, and are combined in quadrature
to obtain the values which we quote for the
Y
ð
4260
Þ
.We
also increase the fitted mass value of the
Y
ð
4260
Þ
to
4245 MeV
=c
2
to reflect the mass shift which we observe
for the
c
ð
2
S
Þ
.
We now consider the
þ
system from
Y
ð
4260
Þ
decay
to
J=
c
þ
. Since the
Y
ð
4260
Þ
has
I
ð
J
PC
Þ¼
0
ð
1
Þ
and
its width indicates strong decay, the
þ
system has
I
ð
J
PC
Þ¼
0
ð
0
þþ
Þ
or
I
ð
J
PC
Þ¼
0
ð
2
þþ
Þ
. For the region
4
:
15
m
ð
J=
c
þ
Þ
4
:
45 GeV
=c
2
, the
þ
mass
distribution after subtraction of that from the
J=
c
sideband
regions is shown in Fig.
3(a)
. The region below
0
:
32 GeV
=c
2
is excluded since it is severely depopulated
by the procedure used to remove
e
þ
e
pair contamination.
The distribution decreases from threshold to near zero at
0
:
6 GeV
=c
2
, rises steadily to a maximum at
0
:
95 GeV
=c
2
, decreases rapidly to near zero again at
1 GeV
=c
2
, and increases thereafter. The distribution is
consistent with previous measurements [
6
,
14
].
We define
as the angle between the
þ
direction and
that of the recoil
J=
c
, both in the dipion rest frame. The
distribution in
cos
is shown in Fig.
3(b)
. The fitted line
represents
S
-wave decay, and provides an adequate
)
2
)(GeV/c
-
π
+
π
m(
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
2
Events / 20 MeV/c
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
(a)
π
θ
cos
-1
-0.8
-0.6 -0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Events /0.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
(b)
)
2
)(GeV/c
-
π
+
π
m(
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
2
Events / 20 MeV/c
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
continuum
-
π
+
π
Interference term
(980) component
0
f
All components
(c)
FIG. 3 (color online). (a) The background-subtracted
þ
mass distribution for the
Y
ð
4260
Þ
signal region; the dashed
vertical line is at the nominal
f
0
ð
980
Þ
mass value [
18
]; (b) the
corresponding
cos
distribution; the fitted line is for an
S
-wave
description; (c) the result of the fit using the model of Eq. (
3
).
TABLE I. Systematic uncertainty estimates for the
Y
ð
4260
Þ
parameter values.
Source
e
þ
e
B
ð
%
Þ
Mass (
MeV
=c
2
)
(
MeV
)
Fit procedure
þ
1
:
5
0
:
5
þ
0
1
þ
2
1
Mass Scale
0
:
6
Mass resolution
1
:
5
MC dipion model
3
:
6
Decay angular momentum
3
:
6
3
:
5
7
Luminosity, etc. (see text)
5
:
4
STUDY OF THE REACTION
...
PHYSICAL REVIEW D
86,
051102(R) (2012)
RAPID COMMUNICATIONS
051102-7
description of the data (
2
=
NDF
¼
12
:
3
=
9
,
probability
¼
19
:
7%
); there is no need for a
D
-wave contribution, e.g.,
from
f
2
ð
1270
Þ!
þ
decay.
The mass distribution near
1 GeV
=c
2
suggests coherent
addition of a nonresonant
þ
amplitude and a resonant
amplitude describing the
f
0
ð
980
Þ
. If the peak near
950 MeV
=c
2
is attributed to a nonresonant amplitude
with phase near 90
, the coherent addition of the resonant
f
0
ð
980
Þ
amplitude, in the context of elastic unitarity, could
result in the observed behavior, which is similar to that of
the
I
¼
0
þ
elastic scattering cross section near 1 GeV
(Fig. 2, p. VII.38, of Ref. [
26
]). However, we have no phase
information with which to support this conjecture.
The distribution in Fig.
3(a)
for
m
<
0
:
9 GeV
=c
2
is
qualitatively similar to that observed for the decay
ð
3
S
Þ!
ð
1
S
Þ
þ
[
27
]. There, the dipion mass distribution de-
creases from a maximum near threshold to a significantly
nonzero minimum at
0
:
6
–
0
:
7 GeV
=c
2
, before rising
steeply toward
0
:
8 GeV
=c
2
before being cut off by the
kinematic limit (
0
:
895 GeV
=c
2
). The CLEO data are
well-described in terms of a QCD multipole expansion
[
28
,
29
]upto
m
0
:
7 GeV
=c
2
, but the sharp rise there-
after is not well-accommodated. This shortcoming is more
readily apparent for the much larger
BABAR
data sample for
this same process [
30
]. There the distribution begins a rapid
rise toward the
f
0
ð
980
Þ
region, as in Fig.
3(a)
, but turns over
at
0
:
85
because of the kinematic limit at
0
:
895 GeV
=c
2
.
The CLEO multipole expansion fit involves two amplitudes
whose relative phase (
155
) causes destructive interfer-
ence, and hence the minimum in the mass distribution at
0
:
6
–
0
:
7 GeV
=c
2
. The amplitudes are of similar magni-
tude in this region, and so a relative phase of
180
could
yield near-zero intensity, as observed in Fig.
3(a)
. This
phase value would result in an approximately real ampli-
tude. However it would contain no explicit
f
0
ð
980
Þ
contri-
bution,which seems necessary to a description of the data of
Fig.
3(a)
, and so we attempt to describe the entire distribu-
tion using the following simple model.
The nonresonant intensity distribution requires three
turning points, as in the CLEO multipole expansion de-
scription, and so we choose to represent it by a fourth-order
polynomial,
T
ð
m
Þ
, where
m
is the invariant mass of
the
þ
system. From the phase requirement discussed
above, it follows that the corresponding amplitude can be
chosen to be real and represented by
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
T
ð
m
p
Þ
. To this
amplitude we add the complex
S
-wave
þ
amplitude
obtained from the
BABAR
analysis of
D
þ
s
!
þ
þ
decay [
31
], which shows clear resonant behavior at the
f
0
ð
980
Þ
. We perform a
2
–fit to the data of Fig.
3(a)
using
f
ð
m
Þ¼
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
T
ð
m
Þ
q
þ
e
i
F
f
0
ð
980
Þ
ð
m
Þ
2
p
q;
(3)
where
F
f
0
ð
980
Þ
is proportional to the complex
þ
ampli-
tude of Ref. [
31
], and the phase
is determined by the fit;
p
is the
þ
momentum in the
þ
rest frame, and
q
is the
J=
c
momentum in the
J=
c
þ
rest frame. We use the
fitted
Y
ð
4260
Þ
mass value in calculating
q
, which implies a
kinematic limit of
1
:
15 GeV
=c
2
for the fit function. The
result is shown in Fig.
3(c)
. The fit is good (
2
=
NDF
¼
33
:
6
=
35
, probability
¼
53
:
6%
), and the interference contri-
bution is important for the description of the region near
1 GeV
=c
2
(
¼
28
24
). The
f
0
ð
980
Þ
amplitude
squared gives
0
:
17
0
:
13
(stat) for the branching ratio
B
ð
J=
c
f
0
ð
980
Þ
;f
0
ð
980
Þ!
þ
Þ
=
B
ð
J=
c
þ
Þ
. This
is somewhat smaller than the prediction of Ref. [
32
], where
it is proposed that the
f
0
ð
980
Þ
contribution should be
dominant.
In summary, we have used ISR events to study the process
e
þ
e
!
J=
c
þ
in the c.m. energyrange3.74–5.50 GeV.
For the
Y
ð
4260
Þ
we obtain
m
Y
¼
4245
5
ð
stat
Þ
4
ð
syst
Þ
MeV
=c
2
,
Y
¼
114
þ
16
15
ð
stat
Þ
7
ð
syst
Þ
MeV
,and
e
þ
e
B
ð
J=
c
þ
Þ¼
9
:
2
0
:
8
ð
stat
Þ
0
:
7
ð
syst
Þ
eV
.
These results represent an improvement in statistical preci-
sion of
30%
over the previous
BABAR
results [
6
], and
agree very well in magnitude and statistical precision with
the results of the Belle fit which uses a single Breit-Wigner
resonance to describe the data [
14
]. We do not confirm the
broad enhancement at
4
:
01 GeV
=c
2
reported in Ref. [
14
].
The dipion system for the
Y
ð
4260
Þ
decay is in a predomi-
nantly
S
-wave state. The mass distribution exhibits an
f
0
ð
980
Þ
signal, for which a simple model indicates a branch-
ing ratio with respect to
J=
c
2
þ
of
0
:
17
0
:
13
(stat).
We are grateful for the excellent luminosity and machine
conditions provided by our PEP-II colleagues, and for the
substantial dedicated effort from the computing organiza-
tions that support
BABAR
. The collaborating institutions
wish to thank SLAC for its support and kind hospitality.
This work is supported by DOE and NSF (USA), NSERC
(Canada), CEA and CNRS-IN2P3 (France), BMBF and
DFG (Germany), INFN (Italy), FOM (The Netherlands),
NFR (Norway), MES (Russia), MICIIN (Spain), STFC
(United Kingdom). Individuals have received support
from the Marie Curie EIF (European Union) and the A. P.
Sloan Foundation (USA).
[1] S. K. Choi
et al.
,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
91
, 262001 (2003)
.
[2] S. Uehara
et al.
,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
96
, 082003 (2006)
.
[3] S. K. Choi
et al.
,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
94
, 182002 (2005)
.
[4] K. Abe
et al.
,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
98
, 082001 (2007)
.
[5] T. Appelquist, R. M. Barnett, and K. D. Lane,
Annu. Rev.
Nucl. Part. Sci.
28
, 387 (1978)
.
J. P. LEES
et al.
PHYSICAL REVIEW D
86,
051102(R) (2012)
RAPID COMMUNICATIONS
051102-8
[6] B. Aubert
et al.
,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
95
, 142001 (2005)
.
[7] T. E. Coan
et al.
Phys. Rev. Lett.
96
, 162003 (2006)
.
[8] B. Aubert
et al.
,
Phys. Rev. D
76
, 111105 (2007)
;
79
, 092001 (2009)
; G. Pakhlova
et al.
,
Phys. Rev.
Lett.
98
, 092001 (2007)
;
Phys. Rev. D
77
, 011103
(2008)
.
[9] P. del Amo Sanchez
et al.
,
Phys. Rev. D
82
, 052004 (2010)
;
J. Libby
et al.
,
Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl.
181–182
, 127
(2008)
.
[10] I. Bigi
et al.
,
Phys. Rev. D
72
, 114016 (2005)
.
[11] L. Maiani
et al.
,
Phys. Rev. D
72
, 031502 (2005)
.
[12] C. -F. Qiao,
J. Phys. G
35
, 075008 (2008)
.
[13] S. -L. Zhu,
Phys. Lett. B
625
, 212 (2005)
.
[14] C. Z. Yuan
et al.
,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
99
, 182004 (2007)
.
[15] B. Aubert
et al.
,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
98
, 212001 (2007)
.
[16] X. L. Wang
et al.
,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
99
, 142002 (2007)
.
[17] B. Aubert
et al.
,
Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect.
A
479
, 1 (2002)
; W. Menges, IEEE Nucl. Sci. Symp. Conf.
Rec.
5
, 1470 (2006).
[18] K. Nakamura
et al.
,
J. Phys. G
37
, 075021 (2010)
, and
partial update for the 2012 edition (
http://pdg.lbl.gov
).
[19] G. Bonneau and F. Martin,
Nucl. Phys.
B27
, 381 (1971)
;
H.Czyz
et al.
,
Eur. Phys. J. C
18
, 497 (2001)
; D. J. Lange,
Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A
462
, 152
(2001)
.
[20] S. Agostinelli
et al.
,
Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res.,
Sect. A
506
, 250 (2003)
.
[21] B. Aubert
et al.
,
Phys. Rev. D
80
, 092005 (2009)
.
[22] B. Aubert
et al.
,
Phys. Rev. D
72
, 052006 (2005)
.
[23] E. A. Kuraev and V. S. Fadin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.
41
, 466
(1985).
[24] N. E. Adam
et al.
,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
96
, 082004 (2006)
.
[25] J. Z. Bai
et al.
,
Phys. Lett. B
605
, 63 (2005)
.
[26] K. Hikasa
et al.
Phys. Rev. D
45
, Part II (1992).
[27] D. Cronin-Hennessy
et al.
Phys. Rev. D
76
, 072001
(2007)
.
[28] L. S. Brown and R. N. Cahn,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
35
, 1 (1975)
.
[29] T. -M. Yan,
Phys. Rev. D
22
, 1652 (1980)
.
[30] E. Guido, Ph.D. thesis, Universita
́
degli Studi di Genova,
2011 (
BABAR
Publications, THESIS-12/003, 2012);
[31] B. Aubert
et al.
,
Phys. Rev. D
79
, 032003 (2009)
.
[32] A. Martinez Torres
et al.
,
Phys. Rev. D
80
, 094012 (2009)
.
STUDY OF THE REACTION
...
PHYSICAL REVIEW D
86,
051102(R) (2012)
RAPID COMMUNICATIONS
051102-9