Precision measurement of the branching fractions of $\eta^\prime$ decays
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, D. W. Bennett, J. V. Bennett, N. Berger, M. Bertani, D. Bettoni,, F. Bianchi, E. Boger, I. Boyko, R. A. Briere, H. Cai

TL;DR
This paper reports precise measurements of the absolute branching fractions of the $ ext{J/} ext{psi}$ and $ ext{eta}^ ext{' }$ decays, providing the first independent determinations of the $ ext{eta}^ ext{' }$ decay channels using a large data sample from BESIII.
Contribution
First independent measurements of the $ ext{eta}^ ext{' }$ decay branching fractions using $J/ ext{psi}$ radiative decays with conversion photon analysis.
Findings
Measured $ ext{J/} ext{psi} ightarrow ext{gamma} ext{eta}^ ext{' }$ branching fraction as $(5.27 extpm0.03 extpm0.05) imes 10^{-3}$.
Determined five dominant $ ext{eta}^ ext{' }$ decay branching fractions with high precision.
Provided new data for $ ext{eta}^ ext{' }$ decay channels for theoretical and experimental studies.
Abstract
Based on a sample of events collected with the BESIII detector, we present measurements of and absolute branching fractions using the process . By analyzing events where the radiative photon converts into an pair, the branching fraction for is measured to be . The absolute branching fractions of the five dominant decay channels of the are then measured independently for the first time and are determined to be = (29.900.030.55)%, = (41.240.081.24)%, = (21.360.100.92)%,…
| Decay Mode | (%) | (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| This measurement | PDG Olive:2016xmw | This measurement | CLEO Pedlar:2009aa | |||
| 9131061052 | 44.11 | 29.900.030.55 | 28.90.51 | 0.7250.0020.0101 | 0.6770.0240.011 | |
| 3122755701 | 27.75 | 41.240.081.24 | 42.60.71 | … | … | |
| 1516802381 | 19.08 | 21.360.100.92 | 22.80.81 | 0.5180.0030.0211 | 0.5550.0430.013 | |
| 1227491631 | 14.98 | 112.4890.0180.074 | 2.620.13 | 0.06040.00050.0012 | 0.0550.0070.001 | |
| 1706693491 | 43.79 | 112.3310.0120.035 | 2.220.08 | 0.05650.00030.0015 | 0.0530.0040.001 | |
| Sources | I | II | III | IV | V | VI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tracking | 1.3 | 2.3 | … | 1.9 | … | … |
| Radiative | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | … |
| detection | 0.5 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 1.0 | … |
| reconstruction | … | … | 2.0 | 1.0 | … | … |
| reconstruction | … | 1.0 | 1.0 | … | … | … |
| Kinematics fit | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1.7 | 0.5 | 0.5 | … |
| Fit range | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
| Signal shape | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
| Background shape | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Peaking background | … | … | … | … | … | 0.2 |
| Physical model | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.5 | … | … | … |
| BFs | … | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.8 | … | … |
| … | … | … | … | … | 0.5 | |
| inclusive | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | … |
| … | … | … | … | … | 0.53 | |
| Total | 1.8 | 3.0 | 4.3 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 0.9 |
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.
Precision measurement of the branching fractions of decays
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, D. W. Bennett22, J. V. Bennett5, N. Berger26, M. Bertani23A, D. Bettoni24A, F. Bianchi55A,55C, E. Boger27,b, I. Boyko27, R. A. Briere5, H. Cai57, X. Cai1,42, A. Calcaterra23A, G. F. Cao1,46, S. A. Cetin45B, J. Chai55C, J. F. Chang1,42, W. L. Chang1,46, G. Chelkov27,b,c, G. Chen1, H. S. Chen1,46, J. C. Chen1, M. L. Chen1,42, P. L. Chen53, S. J. Chen33, X. R. Chen30, Y. B. Chen1,42, W. Cheng55C, X. K. Chu35, G. Cibinetto24A, F. Cossio55C, H. L. Dai1,42, J. P. Dai37,h, 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, P. F. Duan1, 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, Q. Gao1, X. L. Gao52,42, 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, Y. T. Gu13, A. Q. Guo1, L. B. Guo32, R. P. Guo1,46, Y. P. Guo26, A. Guskov27, Z. Haddadi29, S. Han57, X. Q. Hao16, F. A. Harris47, K. L. He1,46, F. H. Heinsius4, T. Held4, Y. K. Heng1,42,46, 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, Z. L. Huang31, 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. Kang34, 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, W. Kühn28, J. S. Lange28, P. Larin15, L. Lavezzi55C, S. Leiber4, H. Leithoff26, C. Li56, Cheng Li52,42, D. M. Li60, F. Li1,42, F. Y. Li35, G. Li1, H. B. Li1,46, H. J. Li1,46, J. C. Li1, J. W. Li40, K. J. Li43, Kang Li14, Ke Li1, L. K. Li1, Lei Li3, P. L. Li52,42, P. R. Li46,7, Q. Y. Li36, T. Li36, W. D. Li1,46, W. G. Li1, X. L. Li36, X. N. Li1,42, X. Q. Li34, Z. B. Li43, H. Liang52,42, Y. F. Liang39, Y. T. Liang28, G. R. Liao12, L. Z. Liao1,46, J. Libby21, C. X. Lin43, D. X. Lin15, 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. L Liu41, H. M. Liu1,46, Huanhuan Liu1, Huihui Liu17, J. B. Liu52,42, J. Y. Liu1,46, K. Y. Liu31, Ke Liu6, L. D. Liu35, Q. Liu46, S. B. Liu52,42, X. Liu30, Y. B. Liu34, Z. A. Liu1,42,46, Zhiqing Liu26, Y. F. Long35, X. C. Lou1,42,46, H. J. Lu18, 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. 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, S. L. Niu1,42, X. Y. Niu1,46, S. L. Olsen46, Q. Ouyang1,42,46, S. Pacetti23B, Y. Pan52,42, M. Papenbrock56, P. Patteri23A, M. Pelizaeus4, J. Pellegrino55A,55C, H. P. Peng52,42, Z. Y. Peng13, K. Peters11,g, J. Pettersson56, J. L. Ping32, R. G. Ping1,46, A. Pitka4, R. Poling49, V. Prasad52,42, H. R. Qi2, M. Qi33, T. Y. Qi2, S. Qian1,42, C. F. Qiao46, N. Qin57, 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, 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, J. J. Song36, W. M. Song36, 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, M. Tiemens29, B. Tsednee25, I. Uman45D, B. Wang1, B. L. Wang46, C. W. Wang33, D. Wang35, D. Y. Wang35, H. H. Wang36, K. Wang1,42, L. L. Wang1, L. S. Wang1, M. Wang36, Meng Wang1,46, P. Wang1, P. L. Wang1, W. P. Wang52,42, X. F. Wang1, Y. Wang52,42, Y. F. Wang1,42,46, Y. Q. Wang16, Z. Wang1,42, Z. G. Wang1,42, Z. Y. Wang1, Zongyuan Wang1,46, T. Weber4, D. H. Wei12, P. Weidenkaff26, S. P. Wen1, U. Wiedner4, M. Wolke56, L. H. Wu1, L. J. Wu1,46, Z. Wu1,42, L. Xia52,42, X. Xia36, Y. Xia20, D. Xiao1, Y. J. Xiao1,46, Z. J. Xiao32, Y. G. Xie1,42, Y. H. Xie6, X. A. Xiong1,46, Q. L. Xiu1,42, G. F. Xu1, J. J. Xu1,46, L. Xu1, Q. J. Xu14, 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, 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, W. J. Zheng36, Y. H. Zheng46, B. Zhong32, L. Zhou1,42, Q. Zhou1,46, X. Zhou57, X. K. Zhou52,42, X. R. Zhou52,42, X. Y. Zhou1, Xiaoyu Zhou20, Xu Zhou20, A. N. Zhu1,46, J. Zhu34, J. Zhu43, K. Zhu1, K. J. Zhu1,42,46, S. Zhu1, S. H. Zhu51, X. L. Zhu44, Y. C. Zhu52,42, Y. S. Zhu1,46, Z. A. Zhu1,46, J. Zhuang1,42, B. S. Zou1, J. H. Zou1
(BESIII Collaboration)
1* 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 Institute of Information Technology, Lahore, 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
Abstract
Based on a sample of events collected with the BESIII detector, we present measurements of and absolute branching fractions using the process . By analyzing events where the radiative photon converts into an pair, the branching fraction for is measured to be . The absolute branching fractions of the five dominant decay channels of the are then measured for the first time and are determined to be = (29.900.030.55)%, = (41.240.081.24)%, = (21.360.100.92)%, = (2.4890.0180.074)%, and = (2.3310.0120.035)%, where the first uncertainties are statistical and the second systematic.
pacs:
13.66.Bc, 14.40.Be
Even though the main properties of the meson are firmly established and its main decay modes are fairly well known, it still attracts both theoretical and experimental attention due to its special role in understanding low energy Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). Decays of the meson have inspired the study of a wide variety of physics issues, mixing, the light quark masses, as well as physics beyond the Standard Model. Hence considerable theoretical effort has been devoted to investigate its decay dynamics and partial decay widths with different approaches th1 ; th2 ; th3 ; th4 ; th5 ; th6 . However, no absolute branching fractions (BFs) of decays have yet been measured due to the difficulty of tagging its inclusive decays. The exclusive BFs of the summarized by the Particle Data Group (PDG) Olive:2016xmw are all relative measurements. The two most precise measurements so far are from the BES and CLEO experiments. The BES experiment Ablikim:2005je reported the relative BFs of and , while the CLEO experiment Pedlar:2009aa measured the branching fractions of its five decay modes by constraining their sum to be . The absolute BF measurement of the five dominant decay modes are also essential in order to improve the precision of the BFs for several decays, which are obtained via normalization to the dominant decay modes.
In this Letter, we develop an approach to measure the absolute BFs of the exclusive decays of the meson using a sample of events Ablikim:2016fal collected with the BESIII detector. The design and performance of the BESIII detector are described in detail in Ref. Ablikim:2009aa . Taking advantage of the excellent momentum resolution of charged tracks in the Main Drift Chamber (MDC), photon conversions to pairs provide a unique tool to reconstruct the inclusive photon spectrum from radiative decays. Take for example, Monte Carlo (MC) study indicates that the energy resolution of the radiative photon could be improved by a factor of three using the photon conversion events. This enables us to tag the inclusive decays and then to measure the absolute BF of , using
[TABLE]
where is the observed yield, is the detection efficiency obtained from MC simulation, and is the number of events. The photon conversion process is simulated with GEANT4 Agostinelli:2002hh , and is a correction factor to account for the difference in the photon conversion efficiencies between data and MC simulation.
After the inclusive measurement, we present precision measurements of decays to , , , and , again using decays to , but with the radiative photon directly detected by the Electromagnetic Calorimeter (EMC) to improve the statistics. With the help of Eq. (1), the BF for each exclusive decay is then calculated using
[TABLE]
where is the number of signal events obtained from a fit to data and is the MC-determined reconstruction efficiency.
For the process where the radiative photon converts to an pair, candidate events are required to have at least two oppositely charged tracks. Each charged track is reconstructed using information from the MDC and is required to have a polar angle in the range and pass within cm of the interaction point along the beam direction. To reconstruct the photon conversions, a photon conversion finder Xu:2012xq is applied to all combinations of track pairs with opposite charge. The photon conversion point (CP) is reconstructed using the two charged track trajectories in the - plane, which is perpendicular to the beam line. The photon conversion length is defined as the distance from the beam line to the CP in the - plane. Photon conversion events accumulate at cm and cm corresponding to the position of the beam pipe and the inner wall of the the MDC. The detail studies illustrate that the distributions of for data and MC simulations are consistent with each other, as presented in Ref. Xu:2012xq .
To reduce the large combinatorial background from decays where one of the photons converts into an pair, the pairs that, when combined with a photon candidate, form a candidate with an invariant mass within 20 MeV/ of the mass (corresponding to times the mass resolution) are not used in the reconstruction. Candidate events with one photon depositing more than 1.2 GeV in the EMC are rejected to suppress background from . A MC study demonstrated that a peaking background contribution is from the electromagnetic Dalitz decay Landsberg:1986fd , which can be effectively removed by requiring 2 cm.
After the above requirements, the recoil mass spectrum of , , is shown in Fig. 1, where a clear peak is observed with low background. To determine the signal yield of the decays followed by the radiative photon converting into an pair, an unbinned extended maximum likelihood fit to is performed. The probability density function (PDF) used in the fit consists of three components to describe the mass spectrum: signal, peaking background from , and combinatorial background. The signal component is modeled by a MC simulated shape convolved with a Gaussian function to account for the small difference of the mass resolution between MC simulation and data. The parameters of the Gaussian function are free in the fit. The magnitude and shape of peaking background are obtained from the MC simulation, while the combinatorial background is modeled as the sum of the background shape obtained from an inclusive MC sample of events, which is generated with the LUNDCHARM and EVTGEN models Ping:2008zz ; Lange:2001uf ; Chen:2000tv , and a second-order Chebychev polynomial function, which accounts for the difference between inclusive MC sample and data. The fit shown in Fig. 1 yields events with the radiative photon converting into an pair.
A MC sample of in which the inclusive decays are generated in accordance with the world average BFs of the established modes. We model and according to the distributions measured in Refs. Ablikim:2017irx ; Ablikim:2016frj ; the events of , , and are simulated in accordance with theoretical models Wess:1971yu ; Witten:1983tw ; pipiee ; Guo:2011ir , which have been validated in the previous measurements Ablikim:2017fll ; Ablikim:2013wfg ; Ablikim:2014eoc ; the others, e.g., and , are generated with the phase space distribution. Then the detection efficiency is determined to be according to the MC simulation. Using this efficiency, we obtained a BF of of in which we only present the statistical uncertainty. Moreover, we applied a correction factor PEC to account for the difference in the photon conversion efficiencies.
For the exclusive measurements of decays to , , , and with and , the final states are composed of , , , and , respectively. Candidate events are required to satisfy the following common selection criteria. (1) Candidate charged tracks and photons are selected with the same method as Ref. Ablikim:2017ixv except that we only use photons hitting the EMC barrel. Since is a two-body decay, the radiative photon from decays is mono-energetic with GeV, which makes it easy to distinguish the photons from decays. The photon with the largest energy is then regarded as the radiative photon from . The other photons combined with the charged tracks are used for reconstruction. (2) Events must have the correct number of charged tracks with zero net charge and at least the minimum number of isolated photons associated with the different final states. (3) The selected events are fitted kinematically. The kinematic fit adjusts the track energy and momentum within the measured uncertainties so as to satisfy energy and momentum conservation for the given event hypothesis. This improves the momentum resolution, selects the correct charged-particle assignment for the tracks, and reduces the background. All possible combinations for each signal mode are tested and the combination with the least is retained.
In the case of , a four-constraint (4C) kinematic fit on the final-state particle candidates is performed and the is required to be less than . In order to remove background events with a in the final states, we require that the invariant mass of is not in the mass region, GeV/, where is the nominal mass of the Olive:2016xmw . A MC study of the inclusive decays reveals that the channels and are the dominant backgrounds, but neither of them produce peaks in the vicinity of the signal in the invariant-mass spectrum.
For , a five-constraint (5C) kinematic fit is performed under the hypothesis with the invariant mass of the two photons being constrained to the mass Olive:2016xmw . After requiring , the remaining data sample contains a very small background level of %, which is estimated by the events in the mass sideband regions. By investigating the inclusive MC sample, the dominant background contributions are found to be from and , but no peaking background appears in the invariant mass distribution around the signal region.
To detect , one-constraint (1C) kinematic fits are performed on the () candidates reconstructed from photon pairs with the invariant mass of the two photons being constrained to the () mass, and is required to be less than 25. Then a seven-constraint (7C) kinematic fit (two and one mass are also constrained in addition to the four energy-momentum constraints) is performed under the hypothesis of and is required. After that the candidate events, as illustrated by the mass spectrum of in Fig. 1, are almost background free. A MC study shows that the background events of contribute to a small peak in the mass distribution around the signal region, which is considered in the signal extraction.
To select candidates, five-constraint (5C) kinematic fits are performed with the invariant mass of all combinations of any two photons being constrained to the mass, and is required to be less than 50. We require the invariant mass is in the signal region, GeV/, where is the nominal mass of the Olive:2016xmw . If the recoil mass of the satisfies GeV/ or GeV/, the events are rejected to suppress background contributions from and . According to a MC study using the inclusive sample, the remaining background events mainly come from with and , but neither of them produces a peak in the mass spectrum near the mass.
For the decay of , a 4C-kinematic fit is applied, and events with are selected. Since there is a small probability that the energy of one photon from the decay is larger than that of the radiative photon, the mass distributions of the three photon pairs for each event are plotted in Fig. 1, where an signal is clearly observed above a smooth background due to wrong combinations plus other background sources.
After applying the above requirements, the mass spectra of , , , and are shown in Figs. 1(b)-(f), where the signals for different exclusive decays are clearly observed. The corresponding signal yields are obtained by performing the extended unbinned maximum likelihood fits to the above mass spectra. The PDF function consists of a signal and various background contributions. The signal component is modeled as the MC simulated signal shape convolved with a Gaussian function to account for the difference in the mass resolution between data and MC simulation. The considered background components are subdivided into two classes: (i) the non-peaking background, which is described with a first-order or second-order Chebychev polynomial function; (ii) the peaking background in , , , , , which is described by the shape determined via a MC simulation and the corresponding magnitude is estimated according to the corresponding branching fraction from PDG Olive:2016xmw . The fit results for the signal yields are listed in Table 1 and the projections of the fit on the mass spectra for different exclusive decays are shown in Figs. 1(b)-(f), respectively.
According to Eq. (2), the BFs for these five dominant decays of are presented in Table 1, where the first uncertainties are statistical and the second systematic.
Sources of systematic uncertainties for the BF measurements for decays can be divided into two categories: those from the exclusive measurements and those from the inclusive measurement.
Systematic uncertainties from the exclusive measurements are mainly from the MDC tracking efficiency, the photon detection efficiency, the kinematic fit, and the fit procedure. The MDC tracking efficiency for the charged pion is studied with a control sample of , and the weighted average uncertainties are obtained using bins of transverse momentum Ablikim:2017fll . The systematic uncertainty due to the photon detection efficiency is studied with a control sample of Ablikim:2015umt . In , the radiative photon carries a unique energy of GeV. The detection efficiency of the radiative photon is studied with . For the uncertainties in the reconstruction of the and , we use the result of a study described in Ref. Ablikim:2010zn . The uncertainty associated with the kinematic fit arises from the inconsistency between the data and the MC simulation. For decay processes including charged tracks in the final states and decay processes with purely neutral particles in the final states, the uncertainties are estimated with helix parameter correction Ablikim:2012pg and photon energy correction Ablikim:2016exh , respectively. The sources of systematic uncertainty in the fit procedures are estimated by varying the fit ranges, background shapes and signal shapes in each fit, uncertainty form peaking background in is negligible. To estimate the systematic uncertainty due to the kinematics of the three-body decays, we generate the , and signal MC samples with parameters from different measurements Dorofeev:2006fb ; Blik:2009zz ; Ablikim:2017irx . The changes in the reconstruction efficiency are taken as the systematic uncertainties.
In addition to the above exclusive systematic sources, the uncertainty from the inclusive measurement is included in the measurement of the BFs. Note that the efficiencies of the electron tracking and the photon conversion reconstruction criteria cancel in the photon conversion efficiency correction. Thus the uncertainties on the inclusive measurement consist of uncertainties in the fit procedure, the number of peaking background events from , the statistical uncertainty on and the uncertainty in the correction factor applied to the photon-conversion efficiency. The total systematic uncertainty from the inclusive measurement is 0.9% and it is indicated as the inclusive uncertainty in Table 2.
In the measurement of the BF for , the sources of systematic uncertainty are the same as those for the inclusive measurement except that the uncertainty of the number of decays Ablikim:2016fal is included instead of the statistical uncertainty of .
Table 2 summarizes all contributions to the systematic uncertainties on the BF measurements. In each case, the total systematic uncertainty is given by the quadratic sum of the individual contributions, assuming all sources to be independent.
In summary, using a data sample of events collected with the BESIII detector, we present a model-independent measurement of the BF for by analyzing events where the radiative photon converts into an pair. The BF of is determined to be , which is in agreement with the world average value Olive:2016xmw , but with a significantly improved precision. Taking advantage of the sample of inclusive decays tagged by events with photon conversion, the absolute BFs of five dominant decays of the are presented in Table 1 and are measured independently for the first time, which are in agreement with the PDG values Olive:2016xmw . In addition, we give the relative BFs for decays as presented in Table 1, which are in agreement with CLEO’s result Pedlar:2009aa within two standard deviations. The precision of our measurements is a factor 2 to 4 better than that of CLEO. The comparisons of the decay widths of and with different theoretical approaches, including the chiral unitary approach th1 , the chiral perturbation theory th5 and the chiral effective field theory th4 , are presented in Table 3. Here the measured decay widths are obtained using the total decay width MeV Olive:2016xmw . Our results are in good agreement with the theoretical estimation. The photon conversion method in this Letter can also be applied in other measurements using radiative decays, such as the decay .
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, 11675184, 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; Shandong Natural Science Funds for Distinguished Young Scholar under Contract No. JQ201402; German Research Foundation DFG under Contracts Nos. Collaborative Research Center CRC 1044, FOR 2359; 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; U. S. Department of Energy under Contracts Nos. DE-FG02-05ER41374, DE-SC-0010118, DE-SC-0010504, 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) N. Beisert et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 716 , 186 (2003).
- 2(2) B. Borasoy et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 19 , 367 (2004).
- 3(3) B. Borasoy et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 740 , 362 (2004).
- 4(4) B. Borasoy et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 26 , 383 (2005).
- 5(5) M. Goodarzi et al. , Int. J. Theor. Phys. 53 , 538 (2014).
- 6(6) A. Faessler et al. , Phys. Rev. C 61 , 035206 (2000).
- 7(7) M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98 , 030001 (2018).
- 8(8) M. Ablikim et al. (BES Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 73 , 052008 (2006).
