The $B^{}\to D^{+}K^{}\pi^{}$ decay is observed in a data sample corresponding to $3.0 \rm{fb}^{1}$ of $pp$ collision data recorded by the LHCb experiment during 2011 and 2012. Its branching fraction is measured to be ${\cal B}(B^{}\to D^{+}K^{}\pi^{}) = (7.31 \pm 0.19 \pm 0.22 \pm 0.39) \times 10^{5}$ where the uncertainties are statistical, systematic and from the branching fraction of the normalisation channel $B^{}\to D^{+}\pi^{}\pi^{}$, respectively. An amplitude analysis of the resonant structure of the $B^{}\to D^{+}K^{}\pi^{}$ decay is used to measure the contributions from quasitwobody $B^{}\to D_{0}^{*}(2400)^{0}K^{}$, $B^{}\to D_{2}^{*}(2460)^{0}K^{}$, and $B^{}\to D_{J}^{*}(2760)^{0}K^{}$ decays, as well as from nonresonant sources. The $D_{J}^{*}(2760)^{0}$ resonance is determined to have spin 1.
Results of the fit to the $ B ^ \rightarrow D ^+ \pi ^ \pi ^ $ candidate invariant mass distribution for the (left) TOS and (right) TISonly subsamples. Data points are shown in black, the full fitted model as solid blue lines and the components as shown in the legend. 
Fig1a.pdf [31 KiB] HiDef png [339 KiB] Thumbnail [97 KiB] *.C file 

Fig1b.pdf [30 KiB] HiDef png [348 KiB] Thumbnail [101 KiB] *.C file 

Results of the fit to the $ B ^ \rightarrow D ^+ K ^ \pi ^ $ candidate invariant mass distribution for the (left) TOS and (right) TISonly subsamples. Data points are shown in black, the full fitted model as solid blue lines and the components as shown in the legend. 
Fig2a.pdf [29 KiB] HiDef png [353 KiB] Thumbnail [109 KiB] *.C file 

Fig2b.pdf [29 KiB] HiDef png [335 KiB] Thumbnail [109 KiB] *.C file 

Signal efficiency across the SDP for (left) TOS and (right) TISonly $ B ^ \rightarrow D ^+ K ^ \pi ^ $ decays. The relative uncertainty at each point is typically $5\,\%$. 
Fig3a.pdf [32 KiB] HiDef png [421 KiB] Thumbnail [152 KiB] *.C file 

Fig3b.pdf [31 KiB] HiDef png [408 KiB] Thumbnail [145 KiB] *.C file 

The first seven Legendrepolynomial weighted moments for backgroundsubtracted and efficiencycorrected $ B ^ \rightarrow D ^+ K ^ \pi ^ $ data (black points) as a function of $m( D ^+ \pi ^ )$ in the range $2.0$$3.0\mathrm{\,GeV} $. Candidates from both TOS and TISonly subsamples are included. The blue line shows the result of the DP fit described in Sec. 7. 
Fig4a.pdf [17 KiB] HiDef png [157 KiB] Thumbnail [53 KiB] *.C file 

Fig4b.pdf [17 KiB] HiDef png [180 KiB] Thumbnail [61 KiB] *.C file 

Fig4c.pdf [17 KiB] HiDef png [186 KiB] Thumbnail [64 KiB] *.C file 

Fig4d.pdf [18 KiB] HiDef png [172 KiB] Thumbnail [60 KiB] *.C file 

Fig4e.pdf [17 KiB] HiDef png [168 KiB] Thumbnail [57 KiB] *.C file 

Fig4f.pdf [19 KiB] HiDef png [153 KiB] Thumbnail [59 KiB] *.C file 

Fig4g.pdf [19 KiB] HiDef png [152 KiB] Thumbnail [58 KiB] *.C file 

Distribution of $ B ^ \rightarrow D ^+ K ^ \pi ^ $ candidates in the signal region over (left) the DP and (right) the SDP. Candidates from both TOS and TISonly subsamples are included. 
Fig5a.pdf [34 KiB] HiDef png [144 KiB] Thumbnail [58 KiB] *.C file 

Fig5b.pdf [35 KiB] HiDef png [176 KiB] Thumbnail [84 KiB] *.C file 

Square Dalitz plot distributions used in the Dalitz plot fit for (top) combinatorial background, (middle) $ B ^ \rightarrow D^{(*)+}\pi ^ \pi ^ $ decays and (bottom) $ B ^ \rightarrow D ^+_ s K ^ \pi ^ $ decays. Candidates the TOS (TISonly) subsamples are shown in the left (right) column. 
Fig6a.pdf [17 KiB] HiDef png [143 KiB] Thumbnail [55 KiB] *.C file 

Fig6b.pdf [17 KiB] HiDef png [140 KiB] Thumbnail [54 KiB] *.C file 

Fig6c.pdf [17 KiB] HiDef png [165 KiB] Thumbnail [58 KiB] *.C file 

Fig6d.pdf [17 KiB] HiDef png [167 KiB] Thumbnail [60 KiB] *.C file 

Fig6e.pdf [17 KiB] HiDef png [165 KiB] Thumbnail [61 KiB] *.C file 

Fig6f.pdf [17 KiB] HiDef png [170 KiB] Thumbnail [63 KiB] *.C file 

Differences between the data SDP distribution and the fit model across the SDP, in terms of the perbin pull. 
Fig7.pdf [18 KiB] HiDef png [113 KiB] Thumbnail [42 KiB] *.C file 

Projections of the data and amplitude fit onto (a) $m(D\pi)$, (c) $m(DK)$ and (e) $m(K\pi)$, with the same projections shown in (b), (d) and (f) with a logarithmic $y$axis scale. Components are described in the legend. 
Fig8a.pdf [27 KiB] HiDef png [229 KiB] Thumbnail [68 KiB] *.C file 

Fig8b.pdf [25 KiB] HiDef png [409 KiB] Thumbnail [101 KiB] *.C file 

Fig8c.pdf [26 KiB] HiDef png [301 KiB] Thumbnail [80 KiB] *.C file 

Fig8d.pdf [25 KiB] HiDef png [432 KiB] Thumbnail [103 KiB] *.C file 

Fig8e.pdf [29 KiB] HiDef png [336 KiB] Thumbnail [92 KiB] *.C file 

Fig8f.pdf [28 KiB] HiDef png [401 KiB] Thumbnail [103 KiB] *.C file 

Fig8g.pdf [12 KiB] HiDef png [96 KiB] Thumbnail [33 KiB] *.C file 

Projections of the data and amplitude fit onto $m(D\pi)$ in (a) the threshold region, (b) the $D^*_2(2460)^0$ region and (c) the $D^*_1(2760)^0$ region. Components are as shown in Fig. 8. 
Fig9a.pdf [24 KiB] HiDef png [252 KiB] Thumbnail [84 KiB] *.C file 

Fig9b.pdf [19 KiB] HiDef png [235 KiB] Thumbnail [84 KiB] *.C file 

Fig9c.pdf [30 KiB] HiDef png [287 KiB] Thumbnail [81 KiB] *.C file 

Projections of the data and amplitude fit onto the cosine of the helicity angle for the $D\pi$ system in (a) the threshold region, (b) the $D^*_2(2460)^0$ region and (c) the $D^*_1(2760)^0$ region. Components are as shown in Fig. 8. 
Fig10a.pdf [25 KiB] HiDef png [262 KiB] Thumbnail [82 KiB] *.C file 

Fig10b.pdf [25 KiB] HiDef png [260 KiB] Thumbnail [74 KiB] *.C file 

Fig10c.pdf [27 KiB] HiDef png [314 KiB] Thumbnail [84 KiB] *.C file 

Animated gif made out of all figures. 
PAPER2015007.gif Thumbnail 
Measured properties of neutral $D^{**}$ states. Where more than one uncertainty is given, the first is statistical and the others systematic. 
Table_1.pdf [53 KiB] HiDef png [109 KiB] Thumbnail [18 KiB] tex code 

Yields of the various components in the fit to $ B ^ \rightarrow D ^+ \pi ^ \pi ^ $ candidate invariant mass distribution. 
Table_2.pdf [46 KiB] HiDef png [62 KiB] Thumbnail [11 KiB] tex code 

Yields of the various components in the fit to $ B ^ \rightarrow D ^+ K ^ \pi ^ $ candidate invariant mass distribution. 
Table_3.pdf [53 KiB] HiDef png [85 KiB] Thumbnail [14 KiB] tex code 

Relative systematic uncertainties on the measurement of the ratio of branching fractions for $ B ^ \rightarrow D ^+ K ^ \pi ^ $ and $ B ^ \rightarrow D ^+ \pi ^ \pi ^ $ decays. 
Table_4.pdf [30 KiB] HiDef png [73 KiB] Thumbnail [11 KiB] tex code 

Signal contributions to the fit model, where parameters and uncertainties are taken from Ref. [9]. States labelled with subscript $v$ are virtual contributions. 
Table_5.pdf [56 KiB] HiDef png [91 KiB] Thumbnail [14 KiB] tex code 

Masses and widths determined in the fit to data, with statistical uncertainties only. 
Table_6.pdf [50 KiB] HiDef png [60 KiB] Thumbnail [10 KiB] tex code 

Complex coefficients and fit fractions determined from the Dalitz plot fit. Uncertainties are statistical only. 
Table_7.pdf [55 KiB] HiDef png [90 KiB] Thumbnail [14 KiB] tex code 

Experimental systematic uncertainties on the fit fractions and complex amplitudes. 
Table_8.pdf [47 KiB] HiDef png [66 KiB] Thumbnail [10 KiB] tex code 

Model uncertainties on the fit fractions and complex amplitudes. 
Table_9.pdf [47 KiB] HiDef png [66 KiB] Thumbnail [10 KiB] tex code 

Breakdown of experimental systematic uncertainties on the fit fractions (%) and masses $(\mathrm{MeV} )$ and widths $(\mathrm{MeV} )$. 
Table_10.pdf [61 KiB] HiDef png [112 KiB] Thumbnail [18 KiB] tex code 

Breakdown of model uncertainties on the fit fractions (%) and masses $(\mathrm{MeV} )$ and widths $(\mathrm{MeV} )$. 
Table_11.pdf [61 KiB] HiDef png [96 KiB] Thumbnail [15 KiB] tex code 

Results for the complex amplitudes and their uncertainties. The three quoted errors are statistical, experimental systematic and model uncertainties, respectively. 
Table_12.pdf [53 KiB] HiDef png [96 KiB] Thumbnail [16 KiB] tex code 

Results for the complex amplitudes and their uncertainties. The three quoted errors are statistical, experimental systematic and model uncertainties, respectively. 
Table_13.pdf [53 KiB] HiDef png [99 KiB] Thumbnail [16 KiB] tex code 

Results for the fit fractions and their uncertainties (%). The three quoted errors are statistical, experimental systematic and model uncertainties, respectively. 
Table_14.pdf [51 KiB] HiDef png [123 KiB] Thumbnail [21 KiB] tex code 

Results for the product branching fractions ${\cal B}( B ^ \rightarrow R K ^ ) \times {\cal B}(R \rightarrow D ^+ \pi ^ )$ ($10^{6}$). The four quoted errors are statistical, experimental systematic, model and inclusive branching fraction uncertainties, respectively. 
Table_15.pdf [52 KiB] HiDef png [114 KiB] Thumbnail [20 KiB] tex code 

Results for the fit fractions and complex coefficients for the secondary minima with $2{\rm NLL}$ values 2.8 and 3.3 units greater than that of the global minimum of the NLL function. 
Table_16.pdf [56 KiB] HiDef png [75 KiB] Thumbnail [11 KiB] tex code 

Interference fit fractions (%) and statistical uncertainties. The amplitudes are: ($A_0$) $D^*_v(2007)^0$, ($A_1$) $D^*_0(2400)^0$, ($A_2$) $D^*_2(2460)^0$, ($A_3$) $D^*_1(2760)^0$, ($A_4$) $B^*_v$, ($A_5$) nonresonant Swave, ($A_6$) nonresonant Pwave. The diagonal elements are the same as the conventional fit fractions. 
Table_17.pdf [33 KiB] HiDef png [48 KiB] Thumbnail [8 KiB] tex code 

Experimental systematic uncertainies on the interference fit fractions (%). The amplitudes are: ($A_0$) $D^*_v(2007)^0$, ($A_1$) $D^*_0(2400)^0$, ($A_2$) $D^*_2(2460)^0$, ($A_3$) $D^*_1(2760)^0$, ($A_4$) $B^*_v$, ($A_5$) nonresonant Swave, ($A_6$) nonresonant Pwave. The diagonal elements are the same as the conventional fit fractions. 
Table_18.pdf [27 KiB] HiDef png [84 KiB] Thumbnail [13 KiB] tex code 

Model systematic uncertainies on the interference fit fractions (%). The amplitudes are: ($A_0$) $D^*_v(2007)^0$, ($A_1$) $D^*_0(2400)^0$, ($A_2$) $D^*_2(2460)^0$, ($A_3$) $D^*_1(2760)^0$, ($A_4$) $B^*_v$, ($A_5$) nonresonant Swave, ($A_6$) nonresonant Pwave. The diagonal elements are the same as the conventional fit fractions. 
Table_19.pdf [27 KiB] HiDef png [53 KiB] Thumbnail [8 KiB] tex code 
Created on 23 February 2019.Citation count from INSPIRE on 23 February 2019.