Observation of the decay $X(3872) \to \pi^0 \chi_{c1}(1P)$
BESIII Collaboration: M. Ablikim, M. N. Achasov, S. Ahmed, M., Albrecht, M. Alekseev, A. Amoroso, F. F. An, Q. An, Y. Bai, O. Bakina, R., Baldini Ferroli, Y. Ban, K. Begzsuren, J. V. Bennett, N. Berger, M. Bertani,, D. Bettoni, F. Bianchi, J. Bloms, I. Boyko, R. A. Briere

TL;DR
This paper reports the first observation of the decay mode $X(3872) o ^0 hi_{c1}$, expanding understanding of the $X(3872)$ particle's decay channels using data from the BESIII detector.
Contribution
It presents the first observation of a new decay mode of $X(3872)$, specifically $X(3872) o ^0 hi_{c1}$, with quantitative measurements of its branching ratio relative to known decays.
Findings
First observation of $X(3872) o ^0 hi_{c1}$ decay with >5$$ significance.
Measured ratio of branching fractions: $0.88^{+0.33}_{-0.27}\u00b1 0.10$.
Upper limits set for decays to $^0 hi_{c0}$ and $^0 hi_{c2}$.
Abstract
Using a total of of collision data with center-of-mass energies between 4.15 and 4.30 GeV collected by the BESIII detector, we search for the processes with for . We report the first observation of , a new decay mode of the , with a statistical significance of more than 5. Normalizing to the previously established process with , we find , where the first error is statistical and the second is systematic. We set 90% confidence level upper limits on the corresponding ratios for the decays to and of 19 and 1.1, respectively.
| Event yield | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Signal significance () | 16.1 | 1.6 | 5.2 | 1.6 |
| Efficiency (no ISR) (%) | 32.3 | 8.8 | 14.1 | 12.8 |
| Efficiency ratio (with ISR) | … | 0.272 | 0.435 | 0.392 |
| (%) | … | 1.3 | 33.5 | 19.0 |
| Total systematic error (%) | … | 17.0 | 11.9 | 9.4 |
| … | (19) | (1.1) |
| (1) Photon efficiencies | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| (2) Track efficiencies | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| (3) Input branching fractions | 4.7 | 3.5 | 3.6 |
| (4) Kinematic fit | 4.6 | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| (5) -dependence of efficiency ratio | 3.2 | 5.2 | 5.2 |
| (6) MC decay models | 8.2 | 8.1 | 2.3 |
| (7) Fitting to determine signal yield | 12.4 | 1.6 | 3.0 |
| Total | 17.0 | 11.9 | 9.4 |
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
BESIII Collaboration
Observation of the decay
M. Ablikim1, M. N. Achasov10,d, S. Ahmed15, M. Albrecht4, M. Alekseev55A,55C, A. Amoroso55A,55C, F. F. An1, Q. An52,42, Y. Bai41, O. Bakina27, R. Baldini Ferroli23A, Y. Ban35, K. Begzsuren25, J. V. Bennett5, N. Berger26, M. Bertani23A, D. Bettoni24A, F. Bianchi55A,55C, J. Bloms50, I. Boyko27, R. A. Briere5, H. Cai57, X. Cai1,42, A. Calcaterra23A, G. F. Cao1,46, N. Cao1,46, S. A. Cetin45B, J. Chai55C, J. F. Chang1,42, W. L. Chang1,46, G. Chelkov27,b,c, D. Y. Chen6, G. Chen1, H. S. Chen1,46, J. C. Chen1, M. L. Chen1,42, S. J. Chen33, Y. B. Chen1,42, W. Cheng55C, G. Cibinetto24A, F. Cossio55C, X. F. Cui34, H. L. Dai1,42, J. P. Dai37,h, X. C. Dai1,46, A. Dbeyssi15, D. Dedovich27, Z. Y. Deng1, A. Denig26, I. Denysenko27, M. Destefanis55A,55C, F. De Mori55A,55C, Y. Ding31, C. Dong34, J. Dong1,42, L. Y. Dong1,46, M. Y. Dong1,42,46, Z. L. Dou33, S. X. Du60, J. Z. Fan44, J. Fang1,42, S. S. Fang1,46, Y. Fang1, R. Farinelli24A,24B, L. Fava55B,55C, F. Feldbauer4, G. Felici23A, C. Q. Feng52,42, M. Fritsch4, C. D. Fu1, Y. Fu1, Q. Gao1, X. L. Gao52,42, Y. Gao53, Y. Gao44, Y. G. Gao6, Z. Gao52,42, B. Garillon26, I. Garzia24A, A. Gilman49, K. Goetzen11, L. Gong34, W. X. Gong1,42, W. Gradl26, M. Greco55A,55C, L. M. Gu33, M. H. Gu1,42, S. Gu2, Y. T. Gu13, A. Q. Guo22, L. B. Guo32, R. P. Guo1,46, Y. P. Guo26, A. Guskov27, S. Han57, X. Q. Hao16, F. A. Harris47, K. L. He1,46, F. H. Heinsius4, T. Held4, Y. K. Heng1,42,46, Y. R. Hou46, Z. L. Hou1, H. M. Hu1,46, J. F. Hu37,h, T. Hu1,42,46, Y. Hu1, G. S. Huang52,42, J. S. Huang16, X. T. Huang36, X. Z. Huang33, N. Huesken50, T. Hussain54, W. Ikegami Andersson56, W. Imoehl22, M. Irshad52,42, Q. Ji1, Q. P. Ji16, X. B. Ji1,46, X. L. Ji1,42, H. L. Jiang36, X. S. Jiang1,42,46, X. Y. Jiang34, J. B. Jiao36, Z. Jiao18, D. P. Jin1,42,46, S. Jin33, Y. Jin48, T. Johansson56, N. Kalantar-Nayestanaki29, X. S. Kang31, R. Kappert29, M. Kavatsyuk29, B. C. Ke1, I. K. Keshk4, T. Khan52,42, A. Khoukaz50, P. Kiese26, R. Kiuchi1, R. Kliemt11, L. Koch28, O. B. Kolcu45B,f, B. Kopf4, M. Kuemmel4, M. Kuessner4, A. Kupsc56, M. Kurth1, M. G. Kurth1,46, W. Kühn28, J. S. Lange28, P. Larin15, L. Lavezzi55C, H. Leithoff26, T. Lenz26, C. Li56, Cheng Li52,42, D. M. Li60, F. Li1,42, F. Y. Li35, G. Li1, H. B. Li1,46, H. J. Li9,j, J. C. Li1, J. W. Li40, Ke Li1, L. K. Li1, Lei Li3, P. L. Li52,42, P. R. Li30, Q. Y. Li36, W. D. Li1,46, W. G. Li1, X. H. Li52,42, X. L. Li36, X. N. Li1,42, X. Q. Li34, Z. B. Li43, H. Liang1,46, H. Liang52,42, Y. F. Liang39, Y. T. Liang28, G. R. Liao12, L. Z. Liao1,46, J. Libby21, C. X. Lin43, D. X. Lin15, Y. J. Lin13, B. Liu37,h, B. J. Liu1, C. X. Liu1, D. Liu52,42, D. Y. Liu37,h, F. H. Liu38, Fang Liu1, Feng Liu6, H. B. Liu13, H. M. Liu1,46, Huanhuan Liu1, Huihui Liu17, J. B. Liu52,42, J. Y. Liu1,46, K. Y. Liu31, Ke Liu6, Q. Liu46, S. B. Liu52,42, T. Liu1,46, X. Liu30, X. Y. Liu1,46, Y. B. Liu34, Z. A. Liu1,42,46, Zhiqing Liu26, Y. F. Long35, X. C. Lou1,42,46, H. J. Lu18, J. D. Lu1,46, J. G. Lu1,42, Y. Lu1, Y. P. Lu1,42, C. L. Luo32, M. X. Luo59, P. W. Luo43, T. Luo9,j, X. L. Luo1,42, S. Lusso55C, X. R. Lyu46, F. C. Ma31, H. L. Ma1, L. L. Ma36, M. M. Ma1,46, Q. M. Ma1, X. N. Ma34, X. X. Ma1,46, X. Y. Ma1,42, Y. M. Ma36, F. E. Maas15, M. Maggiora55A,55C, S. Maldaner26, Q. A. Malik54, A. Mangoni23B, Y. J. Mao35, Z. P. Mao1, S. Marcello55A,55C, Z. X. Meng48, J. G. Messchendorp29, G. Mezzadri24A, J. Min1,42, T. J. Min33, R. E. Mitchell22, X. H. Mo1,42,46, Y. J. Mo6, C. Morales Morales15, N. Yu. Muchnoi10,d, H. Muramatsu49, A. Mustafa4, S. Nakhoul11,g, Y. Nefedov27, F. Nerling11,g, I. B. Nikolaev10,d, Z. Ning1,42, S. Nisar8,k, S. L. Niu1,42, S. L. Olsen46, Q. Ouyang1,42,46, S. Pacetti23B, Y. Pan52,42, M. Papenbrock56, P. Patteri23A, M. Pelizaeus4, H. P. Peng52,42, K. Peters11,g, J. Pettersson56, J. L. Ping32, R. G. Ping1,46, A. Pitka4, R. Poling49, V. Prasad52,42, M. Qi33, T. Y. Qi2, S. Qian1,42, C. F. Qiao46, N. Qin57, X. P. Qin13, X. S. Qin4, Z. H. Qin1,42, J. F. Qiu1, S. Q. Qu34, K. H. Rashid54,i, C. F. Redmer26, M. Richter4, M. Ripka26, A. Rivetti55C, M. Rolo55C, G. Rong1,46, Ch. Rosner15, M. Rump50, A. Sarantsev27,e, M. Savrié24B, K. Schoenning56, W. Shan19, X. Y. Shan52,42, M. Shao52,42, C. P. Shen2, P. X. Shen34, X. Y. Shen1,46, H. Y. Sheng1, X. Shi1,42, X. D Shi52,42, J. J. Song36, Q. Q. Song52,42, X. Y. Song1, S. Sosio55A,55C, C. Sowa4, S. Spataro55A,55C, F. F. Sui36, G. X. Sun1, J. F. Sun16, L. Sun57, S. S. Sun1,46, X. H. Sun1, Y. J. Sun52,42, Y. K Sun52,42, Y. Z. Sun1, Z. J. Sun1,42, Z. T. Sun1, Y. T Tan52,42, C. J. Tang39, G. Y. Tang1, X. Tang1, V. Thoren56, B. Tsednee25, I. Uman45D, B. Wang1, B. L. Wang46, C. W. Wang33, D. Y. Wang35, H. H. Wang36, K. Wang1,42, L. L. Wang1, L. S. Wang1, M. Wang36, M. Z. Wang35, Meng Wang1,46, P. Wang1, P. L. Wang1, R. M. Wang58, W. P. Wang52,42, X. Wang35, X. F. Wang1, Y. Wang52,42, Y. F. Wang1,42,46, Z. Wang1,42, Z. G. Wang1,42, Z. Y. Wang1, Zongyuan Wang1,46, T. Weber4, D. H. Wei12, P. Weidenkaff26, H. W. Wen32, S. P. Wen1, U. Wiedner4, M. Wolke56, L. H. Wu1, L. J. Wu1,46, Z. Wu1,42, L. Xia52,42, Y. Xia20, S. Y. Xiao1, Y. J. Xiao1,46, Z. J. Xiao32, Y. G. Xie1,42, Y. H. Xie6, T. Y. Xing1,46, X. A. Xiong1,46, Q. L. Xiu1,42, G. F. Xu1, J. J. Xu33, L. Xu1, Q. J. Xu14, W. Xu1,46, X. P. Xu40, F. Yan53, L. Yan55A,55C, W. B. Yan52,42, W. C. Yan2, Y. H. Yan20, H. J. Yang37,h, H. X. Yang1, L. Yang57, R. X. Yang52,42, S. L. Yang1,46, Y. H. Yang33, Y. X. Yang12, Yifan Yang1,46, Z. Q. Yang20, M. Ye1,42, M. H. Ye7, J. H. Yin1, Z. Y. You43, B. X. Yu1,42,46, C. X. Yu34, J. S. Yu20, C. Z. Yuan1,46, X. Q. Yuan35, Y. Yuan1, A. Yuncu45B,a, A. A. Zafar54, Y. Zeng20, B. X. Zhang1, B. Y. Zhang1,42, C. C. Zhang1, D. H. Zhang1, H. H. Zhang43, H. Y. Zhang1,42, J. Zhang1,46, J. L. Zhang58, J. Q. Zhang4, J. W. Zhang1,42,46, J. Y. Zhang1, J. Z. Zhang1,46, K. Zhang1,46, L. Zhang44, S. F. Zhang33, T. J. Zhang37,h, X. Y. Zhang36, Y. Zhang52,42, Y. H. Zhang1,42, Y. T. Zhang52,42, Yang Zhang1, Yao Zhang1, Yu Zhang46, Z. H. Zhang6, Z. P. Zhang52, Z. Y. Zhang57, G. Zhao1, J. W. Zhao1,42, J. Y. Zhao1,46, J. Z. Zhao1,42, Lei Zhao52,42, Ling Zhao1, M. G. Zhao34, Q. Zhao1, S. J. Zhao60, T. C. Zhao1, Y. B. Zhao1,42, Z. G. Zhao52,42, A. Zhemchugov27,b, B. Zheng53, J. P. Zheng1,42, Y. Zheng35, Y. H. Zheng46, B. Zhong32, L. Zhou1,42, L. P. Zhou1,46, Q. Zhou1,46, X. Zhou57, X. K. Zhou46, X. R. Zhou52,42, Xiaoyu Zhou20, Xu Zhou20, A. N. Zhu1,46, J. Zhu34, J. Zhu43, K. Zhu1, K. J. Zhu1,42,46, S. H. Zhu51, W. J. Zhu34, X. L. Zhu44, Y. C. Zhu52,42, Y. S. Zhu1,46, Z. A. Zhu1,46, J. Zhuang1,42, B. S. Zou1, J. H. Zou1
Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing 100049, People’s Republic of China
2 Beihang University, Beijing 100191, People’s Republic of China
3 Beijing Institute of Petrochemical Technology, Beijing 102617, People’s Republic of China
4 Bochum Ruhr-University, D-44780 Bochum, Germany
5 Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA
6 Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, People’s Republic of China
7 China Center of Advanced Science and Technology, Beijing 100190, People’s Republic of China
8 COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore Campus, Defence Road, Off Raiwind Road, 54000 Lahore, Pakistan
9 Fudan University, Shanghai 200443, People’s Republic of China
10 G.I. Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics SB RAS (BINP), Novosibirsk 630090, Russia
11 GSI Helmholtzcentre for Heavy Ion Research GmbH, D-64291 Darmstadt, Germany
12 Guangxi Normal University, Guilin 541004, People’s Republic of China
13 Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, People’s Republic of China
14 Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 310036, People’s Republic of China
15 Helmholtz Institute Mainz, Johann-Joachim-Becher-Weg 45, D-55099 Mainz, Germany
16 Henan Normal University, Xinxiang 453007, People’s Republic of China
17 Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang 471003, People’s Republic of China
18 Huangshan College, Huangshan 245000, People’s Republic of China
19 Hunan Normal University, Changsha 410081, People’s Republic of China
20 Hunan University, Changsha 410082, People’s Republic of China
21 Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, India
22 Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA
23 (A)INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, I-00044, Frascati, Italy; (B)INFN and University of Perugia, I-06100, Perugia, Italy
24 (A)INFN Sezione di Ferrara, I-44122, Ferrara, Italy; (B)University of Ferrara, I-44122, Ferrara, Italy
25 Institute of Physics and Technology, Peace Ave. 54B, Ulaanbaatar 13330, Mongolia
26 Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Johann-Joachim-Becher-Weg 45, D-55099 Mainz, Germany
27 Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, 141980 Dubna, Moscow region, Russia
28 Justus-Liebig-Universitaet Giessen, II. Physikalisches Institut, Heinrich-Buff-Ring 16, D-35392 Giessen, Germany
29 KVI-CART, University of Groningen, NL-9747 AA Groningen, The Netherlands
30 Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, People’s Republic of China
31 Liaoning University, Shenyang 110036, People’s Republic of China
32 Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210023, People’s Republic of China
33 Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, People’s Republic of China
34 Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, People’s Republic of China
35 Peking University, Beijing 100871, People’s Republic of China
36 Shandong University, Jinan 250100, People’s Republic of China
37 Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, People’s Republic of China
38 Shanxi University, Taiyuan 030006, People’s Republic of China
39 Sichuan University, Chengdu 610064, People’s Republic of China
40 Soochow University, Suzhou 215006, People’s Republic of China
41 Southeast University, Nanjing 211100, People’s Republic of China
42 State Key Laboratory of Particle Detection and Electronics, Beijing 100049, Hefei 230026, People’s Republic of China
43 Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510275, People’s Republic of China
44 Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, People’s Republic of China
45 (A)Ankara University, 06100 Tandogan, Ankara, Turkey; (B)Istanbul Bilgi University, 34060 Eyup, Istanbul, Turkey; (C)Uludag University, 16059 Bursa, Turkey; (D)Near East University, Nicosia, North Cyprus, Mersin 10, Turkey
46 University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, People’s Republic of China
47 University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA
48 University of Jinan, Jinan 250022, People’s Republic of China
49 University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, USA
50 University of Muenster, Wilhelm-Klemm-Str. 9, 48149 Muenster, Germany
51 University of Science and Technology Liaoning, Anshan 114051, People’s Republic of China
52 University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, People’s Republic of China
53 University of South China, Hengyang 421001, People’s Republic of China
54 University of the Punjab, Lahore-54590, Pakistan
55 (A)University of Turin, I-10125, Turin, Italy; (B)University of Eastern Piedmont, I-15121, Alessandria, Italy; (C)INFN, I-10125, Turin, Italy
56 Uppsala University, Box 516, SE-75120 Uppsala, Sweden
57 Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, People’s Republic of China
58 Xinyang Normal University, Xinyang 464000, People’s Republic of China
59 Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, People’s Republic of China
60 Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, People’s Republic of China
a Also at Bogazici University, 34342 Istanbul, Turkey
b Also at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow 141700, Russia
c Also at the Functional Electronics Laboratory, Tomsk State University, Tomsk, 634050, Russia
d Also at the Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia
e Also at the NRC ”Kurchatov Institute”, PNPI, 188300, Gatchina, Russia
f Also at Istanbul Arel University, 34295 Istanbul, Turkey
g Also at Goethe University Frankfurt, 60323 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
h Also at Key Laboratory for Particle Physics, Astrophysics and Cosmology, Ministry of Education; Shanghai Key Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology; Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics, Shanghai 200240, People’s Republic of China
i Also at Government College Women University, Sialkot - 51310. Punjab, Pakistan.
j Also at Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Ion-beam Application (MOE) and Institute of Modern Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai 200443, People’s Republic of China
k Also at Harvard University, Department of Physics, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA
Abstract
Using a total of of collision data with center-of-mass energies between 4.15 and 4.30 GeV collected by the BESIII detector, we search for the processes with for . We report the first observation of , a new decay mode of the , with a statistical significance of more than 5. Normalizing to the previously established process with , we find , where the first error is statistical and the second is systematic. We set 90% confidence level upper limits on the corresponding ratios for the decays to and of and , respectively.
pacs:
13.25.Gv, 14.40.Pq, 14.40.Rt
In the mass region above open-charm threshold, where charmonium states are heavy enough to decay to open-charm mesons, there are a number of states with features that are yet to be satisfactorily understood reviews . These features likely point towards the existence of non- configurations of charmonium. The (also known as the ) was the first of these unexpected states to be discovered. It was first observed in 2003 by the Belle Collaboration in the process with xbelle . It has since been seen by many other experiments in other processes and decay modes pdg . Its prominent features now include: its width is narrow ( ) xnarrow ; its mass is consistent with the threshold (with an error on the mass difference of 0.18 ) pdg ; it has quantum numbers xjpc ; no isospin partners are currently known xisospin ; it has isospin-violating decays since it decays to both xnarrow and xomegajpsi ; it also decays to xdd , xrad , and xrad . Despite this growing list of experimental facts, the nature of the remains unclear reviews . Measuring pionic transitions of the to the has been proposed to be one way to distinguish between various interpretations. If the were a conventional state, transitions to the should be very small (Ref. voloshin2008 predicts keV); if the were a tetraquark or molecular state, on the other hand, these rates are expected to be sizeable voloshin2008 ; mehen .
The BESIII experiment, operating at the Beijing Electron Positron Collider (BEPCII), previously observed the process with using data collected at four center-of-mass energies (): 4.01, 4.23, 4.26, and 4.36 GeV previous . The cross section was shown to be largest at 4.23 and 4.26 GeV. Since that time, BESIII has collected more data in this energy region, including approximately 3 fb*-1* at 4.18 GeV and 0.5 fb*-1* at each of seven additional points between 4.19 and 4.27 GeV. These additional data sets provide an opportunity to search for new decay modes of the using the same production process . Data collected at different can be combined and new decays can be normalized to with , thereby canceling the production cross section and many systematic uncertainties.
In this Letter, we report the first observation of the decay with a statistical significance of . Like the decay, this final state has an isospin of one. This is the first observation of a decay of the to a -wave charmonium state and its large branching fraction relative to supports a non- interpretation of the voloshin2008 ; mehen .
We search for the processes with () using the decays and , where denotes both and , and and are the initial photon and the photon from the decay, respectively. This is subsequently referred to as the “search” channel and it results in the final state (with ). We also reconstruct the “normalization” channel with and , resulting in the final state . For the signal region, we use all available BESIII data with between 4.15 and 4.30 GeV (), where the cross section was measured to be largest; and for the sideband regions, we use all data with between 4.00 and 4.15 GeV () and between 4.30 and 4.60 GeV ().
The Beijing Spectrometer (BESIII) experiment uses a general purpose magnetic spectrometer BESIIIHardware . A superconducting solenoid magnet provides a 1.0 T magnetic field. Enclosed within the magnet are a helium-gas-based drift chamber (MDC) for charged particle tracking and a CsI(Tl) Electromagnetic Calorimeter (EMC) to measure the energy of electromagnetic showers. Other detector components, such as the plastic scintillator time-of-flight system (TOF), are not used in this analysis.
A geant4-based Geant4 Monte Carlo (MC) simulation package is used to determine detection efficiencies and estimate background rates. The initial collisions, including effects due to Initial State Radiation (ISR), and subsequent decays are simulated using kkmc KKMC and evtgen EvtGen , respectively. Final State Radiation (FSR) is simulated with PHOTOS PHOTOS .
Optimization of the event selection criteria is performed using three categories of data samples: one to estimate signal yields (), and two for background yields ( and ). For , signal MC samples are used. The normalization channel is generated so that pb at each previous ; the search channels are initially scaled assuming . For , background MC samples for processes including a are generated using previously measured cross sections. These include pipijpsi ; pizpizjpsi , pipipsip ; pizpizpsip , etajpsi , etapjpsi , omegachic ; omegachicb , and isr ; psipeewidth . These also include with decays to xomegajpsi , xrad and xrad , each of which is normalized to using previous measurements pdg . For , background modes that do not include a are estimated using sidebands in the reconstructed mass spectrum of candidates in data. Analysis of an inclusive MC sample shows no other background modes with peaks near the , , or masses.
Common charged particle and photon selection criteria are used for the normalization and search channels. Charged particles are selected using their distance of closest approach to the interaction region (within 10 cm along the beam direction and 1 cm transverse to it) and are required to be within the region , where is measured with respect to the beam axis. No particle identification is used for charged pions. Electrons and muons are distinguished using the energy they deposit in the EMC divided by their momentum (): charged tracks are labeled as electrons (muons) in the case (), respectively. Photons must have deposited an energy greater than 25 MeV in the barrel region of the EMC () and greater than 50 MeV in the endcap region (), and must have a hit time within 700 ns of the event start time.
Using the selected charged particles and photons, kinematic fits are then performed for the normalization channel () and search channel () hypotheses. A four-constraint (4C) kinematic fit is used for the normalization channel, where the total measured four-momentum is constrained to the four-momentum of the initial center-of-mass system, and the resulting is required to be less than 10. For the search channel, an extra constraint (1C) is added to constrain a pair to the mass and we require . These criteria are optimized by maximizing , where the sizes of the signal () and background ( and ) are determined from the three data samples described previously. Multiple combinations per event are allowed, but are negligible after event selection. Using signal MC samples, multiply counted events are found to be less than 0.1% and 4% in the normalization and search channels, respectively. In data, no multiply counted events are found.
The signal is selected by requiring to be within 20 of the nominal mass pdg . The sideband regions, used for background estimations, are each 40 wide on either side of the and leave a 20 gap with the signal region.
Several additional criteria are used to select the normalization channel. Radiative Bhabha background events (), where a radiated photon converts to within the detector material and the resulting are mistaken to be , are removed by requiring the opening angle () to satisfy . Further suppression of this background process is obtained by requiring the opening angle of the final-state photon and any charged track () to satisfy . Background events from and are removed by requiring and ( is the nominal mass of the pdg ), respectively.
For the search channel, the background mode is suppressed both by requiring to be 20 away from the mass and by placing the same requirement on the mass of or combined with the higher energy photon from the decay. Background events from decays to , including those from and , are removed by requiring . Finally, background events from are reduced by requiring the mass recoiling against or both to be larger than 3.7 .
The final distributions for the reconstructed mass in the normalization channel are shown in Fig. 1. In order to improve the mass resolution, is calculated using , where is the nominal mass of the . The mass resolution is improved from 7.4 MeV/ to 4.7 MeV/. Figure 1a corresponds to data taken at GeV and shows a clear signal. The data are fitted by a first-order polynomial representing the background and a response function of the signal process that has been obtained from the signal MC simulation. All fits are performed using a binned likelihood method; all significances are obtained by comparing the resulting likelihoods with and without the signal component included. Results are listed in Table 1. Figure 1b shows the same for the other samples. No signal is seen. This pattern is consistent with the previous measurement previous .
The corresponding distributions of for the search channel are shown in Fig. 2. The region is first chosen with a loose requirement on between 3.35 and 3.60 . A clear signal for the is observed for GeV (Fig. 2a); no evidence for the is seen at other (Fig. 2b). The distributions are fit with a first-order polynomial background function and a signal shape derived from the signal MC simulation, where the relative fractions of with are fixed by subsequent fits. There are two entries per event corresponding to the two combinations of and ; the signal MC includes a broad contribution from events with interchanged and . Using the background samples described earlier ( and ), we find no other peaking background events. The fit in Fig. 2a yields events with a statistical significance of .
We next use the distribution to select the , , and mass regions (Fig. 3). The photons and are separated by choosing to be the photon that minimizes , where is the nominal mass of each pdg . We require and . The resulting distributions for with are shown in Fig. 4. Each distribution is fit with a constant background function and a signal shape derived from signal MC simulation. The signal MC samples include events with interchanged and as well as cross-feed among the channels. These effects result in an additional peak below the signal region in the distribution, but are negligible elsewhere. In the distribution, we find a signal with a significance. No significant signals are found in the distributions. Numbers for events, efficiencies, and significances are listed in Table 1. The total yield of signal events in all three channels is , consistent with the fit in Fig. 2a.
Also shown in Table 1 are the final ratios . These are calculated from the ratios of yields of signal events, the ratios of efficiencies (including minor effects due to ISR), and the nominal and branching fractions pdg . Upper limits (at the 90% C.L.) are calculated from the likelihood curve of the fits as a function of signal yield after being convolved with a Gaussian distribution with a width the size of the systematic uncertainty. The branching fractions, integrated luminosities at each , ISR correction factors, as well as a number of systematic uncertainties cancel in the ratios.
The remaining systematic uncertainties are listed in Table 2. (1,2) For uncertainties in the photon and charged track efficiencies, we use 1% per photon Ablikim:2010zn and track etapjpsi that do not cancel between the search and normalization channels. (3) For input branching fractions, uncertainties from the PDG are used pdg . (4) A systematic uncertainty due to the kinematic fit is determined using clean control samples with matching final states: for the search channel and for the normalization channel. (5) The selection criteria that distinguish between and in the search channel introduce some -dependence in the efficiency ratio. To probe this uncertainty, we generate different shapes for the cross section as a function of : the nominal is constant, one is based on the lineshape seen by BESIII pipijpsi , and one is based on the lineshape with parameters from the PDG pdg . We take the largest difference as a systematic uncertainty. (6) Signal MC samples are generated according to realistic spin-dependent amplitudes using evtgen EvtGen . In channels where there is ambiguity (e.g. the presence of both - and -waves in xnarrow or both - and -waves in ), we replace our nominal models by phase space and take the maximum difference as a systematic uncertainty. (7) Fitting uncertainties are evaluated using two fit variations: zeroth- and first-order background polynomials, and a signal shape that is widened by 20% to account for possible differences in mass resolution between data and MC simulation. The significance of the signal for remains above 5 for all variations. The total systematic uncertainty is obtained by adding the individual uncertainties in quadrature.
In summary, we use of collision data with between 4.15 and 4.30 GeV to search for the processes with . We make the first observation of the process , where the statistical significance is greater than for all systematic variations. Normalizing to with , we determine the ratio . Upper limits (at the 90% C.L.) for the corresponding ratios for the and decays are and , respectively. Using pdg (obtained by comparing exclusive exclusive and inclusive inclusive decays) and (obtained by assuming all measured decays add to less than 100%), we find . If the were the state of charmonium, Ref. voloshin2008 predicts keV. Combining this with our result, this would imply a total width of the of only keV, which would be orders of magnitude smaller than all other observed charmonium states. Therefore, our measurement disfavors the interpretation of the .
The BESIII collaboration thanks the staff of BEPCII and the IHEP computing center for their strong support. This work is supported in part by National Key Basic Research Program of China under Contract No. 2015CB856700; National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Contracts Nos. 11335008, 11425524, 11625523, 11635010, 11735014; the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) Large-Scale Scientific Facility Program; the CAS Center for Excellence in Particle Physics (CCEPP); Joint Large-Scale Scientific Facility Funds of the NSFC and CAS under Contracts Nos. U1532257, U1532258, U1732263; CAS Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences under Contracts Nos. QYZDJ-SSW-SLH003, QYZDJ-SSW-SLH040; 100 Talents Program of CAS; INPAC and Shanghai Key Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology; German Research Foundation DFG under Contract No. Collaborative Research Center CRC 1044; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Italy; Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (KNAW) under Contract No. 530-4CDP03; Ministry of Development of Turkey under Contract No. DPT2006K-120470; National Science and Technology fund; The Swedish Research Council; the Knut and Alice Wallenberg foundation; U. S. Department of Energy under Contracts Nos. DE-FG02-05ER41374, DE-SC-0010118, DE-SC-0012069; University of Groningen (RuG) and the Helmholtzzentrum fuer Schwerionenforschung GmbH (GSI), Darmstadt.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1(1) R. F. Lebed, R. E. Mitchell and E. S. Swanson, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 93 , 143 (2017); H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rept. 639 , 1 (2016); A. Esposito, A. Pilloni and A. D. Polosa, Phys. Rept. 668 , 1 (2016); F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U. G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao and B. S. Zou, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 , 015004 (2018); A. Ali, J. S. Lange and S. Stone, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 97 , 123 (2017); S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki and D. Zieminska, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 , 01500
- 2(2) S.-K. Choi et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 , 262001 (2003).
- 3(3) C. Patrignani et al. (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C 40 , 100001 (2016).
- 4(4) S.-K. Choi et al. , Phys. Rev. D 84 , 052004 (2011).
- 5(5) R. Aaij et al. (LH Cb Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 92 , 011102 (2015).
- 6(6) B. Aubert et al. (Ba Bar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 71 , 031501 (2005).
- 7(7) P. del Amo Sanchez et al. (Ba Bar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 82 , 011101 (2010).
- 8(8) G. Gokhroo et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 , 162002 (2006).
