cern.ch

Amplitude analysis of $B^- \to D^+ \pi^- \pi^-$ decays

[to restricted-access page]

Abstract

The Dalitz plot analysis technique is used to study the resonant substructures of $B^{-} \to D^{+} \pi^{-} \pi^{-}$ decays in a data sample corresponding to 3.0 ${\rm fb}^{-1}$ of $pp$ collision data recorded by the LHCb experiment during 2011 and 2012. A model-independent analysis of the angular moments demonstrates the presence of resonances with spins 1, 2 and 3 at high $D^{+}\pi^{-}$ mass. The data are fitted with an amplitude model composed of a quasi-model-independent function to describe the $D^{+}\pi^{-}$ S-wave together with virtual contributions from the $D^{*}(2007)^{0}$ and $B^{*0}$ states, and components corresponding to the $D^{*}_{2}(2460)^{0}$, $D^{*}_{1}(2680)^{0}$, $D^{*}_{3}(2760)^{0}$ and $D^{*}_{2}(3000)^{0}$ resonances. The masses and widths of these resonances are determined together with the branching fractions for their production in $B^{-} \to D^{+} \pi^{-} \pi^{-}$ decays. The $D^{+}\pi^{-}$ S-wave has phase motion consistent with that expected due to the presence of the $D^{*}_{0}(2400)^{0}$ state. These results constitute the first observations of the $D^{*}_{3}(2760)^{0}$ and $D^{*}_{2}(3000)^{0}$ resonances.

Figures and captions

Results of the fit to the $B$ candidate invariant mass distribution shown with (left) linear and (right) logarithmic $y$-axis scales. Contributions are as described in the legend.

Fig1a.pdf [31 KiB]
HiDef png [272 KiB]
Thumbnail [222 KiB]
*.C file
Fig1a.pdf
Fig1b.pdf [31 KiB]
HiDef png [347 KiB]
Thumbnail [254 KiB]
*.C file
Fig1b.pdf

Distribution of $ B ^- \rightarrow D ^+ \pi ^- \pi ^- $ candidates in the signal region over (left) the DP and (right) the SDP.

Fig2a.pdf [626 KiB]
HiDef png [422 KiB]
Thumbnail [361 KiB]
*.C file
Fig2a.pdf
Fig2b.pdf [342 KiB]
HiDef png [643 KiB]
Thumbnail [532 KiB]
*.C file
Fig2b.pdf

The first seven unnormalised angular moments for background-subtracted and efficiency-corrected data (black points) as a function of $m( D ^+ \pi ^- )$ in the range $2.0$--$4.0\mathrm{ Ge V} $. The blue line shows the result of the DP fit described in Sec. 7.

Fig3a.pdf [19 KiB]
HiDef png [167 KiB]
Thumbnail [147 KiB]
*.C file
Fig3a.pdf
Fig3b.pdf [20 KiB]
HiDef png [195 KiB]
Thumbnail [168 KiB]
*.C file
Fig3b.pdf
Fig3c.pdf [19 KiB]
HiDef png [170 KiB]
Thumbnail [148 KiB]
*.C file
Fig3c.pdf
Fig3d.pdf [21 KiB]
HiDef png [192 KiB]
Thumbnail [172 KiB]
*.C file
Fig3d.pdf
Fig3e.pdf [20 KiB]
HiDef png [180 KiB]
Thumbnail [163 KiB]
*.C file
Fig3e.pdf
Fig3f.pdf [22 KiB]
HiDef png [184 KiB]
Thumbnail [177 KiB]
*.C file
Fig3f.pdf
Fig3g.pdf [23 KiB]
HiDef png [179 KiB]
Thumbnail [171 KiB]
*.C file
Fig3g.pdf

Unnormalised angular moments $\left\langle P_7 \right\rangle$ and $\left\langle P_8 \right\rangle$ for background-subtracted and efficiency-corrected data (black points) as a function of $m( D ^+ \pi ^- )$ in the range $2.0$--$4.0\mathrm{ Ge V} $. The blue line shows the result of the DP fit described in Sec. 7.

Fig4a.pdf [24 KiB]
HiDef png [186 KiB]
Thumbnail [181 KiB]
*.C file
Fig4a.pdf
Fig4b.pdf [25 KiB]
HiDef png [182 KiB]
Thumbnail [178 KiB]
*.C file
Fig4b.pdf

Zoomed views of the fourth and sixth unnormalised angular moments for background-subtracted and efficiency-corrected data (black points) as a function of $m( D ^+ \pi ^- )$. The blue line shows the result of the DP fit described in Sec. 7.

Fig5a.pdf [17 KiB]
HiDef png [163 KiB]
Thumbnail [144 KiB]
*.C file
Fig5a.pdf
Fig5b.pdf [19 KiB]
HiDef png [169 KiB]
Thumbnail [156 KiB]
*.C file
Fig5b.pdf

Signal efficiency across the SDP for $ B ^- \rightarrow D ^+ \pi ^- \pi ^- $ decays. The relative uncertainty at each point is typically $5 \%$.

Fig6.pdf [59 KiB]
HiDef png [383 KiB]
Thumbnail [340 KiB]
*.C file
Fig6.pdf

Square Dalitz plot distributions for (left) combinatorial background and (right) $ B ^- \rightarrow D^{(*)+} K ^- \pi ^- $ decays.

Fig7a.pdf [48 KiB]
HiDef png [151 KiB]
Thumbnail [138 KiB]
*.C file
Fig7a.pdf
Fig7b.pdf [50 KiB]
HiDef png [157 KiB]
Thumbnail [148 KiB]
*.C file
Fig7b.pdf

Real and imaginary parts of the S-wave amplitude, shown in an Argand diagram. The knots are shown with statistical uncertainties only, connected by the cubic spline interpolation used in the fit. The leftmost point is that at the lowest value of $m( D ^+ \pi ^- )$, with mass increasing along the connected points. Each point, labelled 1--13, corresponds to the position of a knot in the spline, at values of $m( D ^+ \pi ^- ) = \{ 2.01, 2.10, 2.20, 2.30, 2.40, 2.50, 2.60, 2.70, 2.80, 2.90, 3.10, 4.10, 5.14 \} \mathrm{ Ge V} $. The points at $(0.5,0.0)$ and $(0.0,0.0)$ are fixed. The anticlockwise rotation of the phase at low $m( D ^+ \pi ^- )$ is as expected due to the presence of the $ D ^{*}_{0}(2400)^{0}$ resonance.

Fig8.pdf [55 KiB]
HiDef png [144 KiB]
Thumbnail [148 KiB]
*.C file
Fig8.pdf

Differences between the SDP distribution of the data and fit model, in terms of the normalised residual in each bin. No bin lies outside the $z$-axis limits.

Fig9.pdf [53 KiB]
HiDef png [168 KiB]
Thumbnail [153 KiB]
*.C file
Fig9.pdf

Projections of the data and amplitude fit onto (top) $m( D ^+ \pi ^- )_{\rm min}$, (middle) $m( D ^+ \pi ^- )_{\rm max}$ and (bottom) $m(\pi ^- \pi ^- )$, with the same projections shown (right) with a logarithmic $y$-axis scale. Components are described in the legend.

Fig10a.pdf [57 KiB]
HiDef png [239 KiB]
Thumbnail [178 KiB]
*.C file
Fig10a.pdf
Fig10b.pdf [57 KiB]
HiDef png [388 KiB]
Thumbnail [261 KiB]
*.C file
Fig10b.pdf
Fig10c.pdf [59 KiB]
HiDef png [327 KiB]
Thumbnail [216 KiB]
*.C file
Fig10c.pdf
Fig10d.pdf [58 KiB]
HiDef png [449 KiB]
Thumbnail [286 KiB]
*.C file
Fig10d.pdf
Fig10e.pdf [56 KiB]
HiDef png [292 KiB]
Thumbnail [194 KiB]
*.C file
Fig10e.pdf
Fig10f.pdf [54 KiB]
HiDef png [371 KiB]
Thumbnail [242 KiB]
*.C file
Fig10f.pdf
Fig10g.pdf [12 KiB]
HiDef png [83 KiB]
Thumbnail [68 KiB]
*.C file
Fig10g.pdf

Projections of the data and amplitude fit onto (left) $m( D ^+ \pi ^- )$ and (right) the cosine of the helicity angle for the $ D ^+ \pi ^- $ system in (top to bottom) the low mass threshold region, the $ D ^{*}_{2}(2460)^{0}$ region, the $ D ^{*}_{1}(2680)^{0}$ -- $ D ^{*}_{3}(2760)^{0}$ region and the $ D ^{*}_{2}(3000)^{0}$ region. Components are as shown in Fig. 10.

Fig11a.pdf [52 KiB]
HiDef png [213 KiB]
Thumbnail [169 KiB]
*.C file
Fig11a.pdf
Fig11b.pdf [66 KiB]
HiDef png [222 KiB]
Thumbnail [180 KiB]
*.C file
Fig11b.pdf
Fig11c.pdf [55 KiB]
HiDef png [245 KiB]
Thumbnail [188 KiB]
*.C file
Fig11c.pdf
Fig11d.pdf [69 KiB]
HiDef png [260 KiB]
Thumbnail [191 KiB]
*.C file
Fig11d.pdf
Fig11e.pdf [56 KiB]
HiDef png [264 KiB]
Thumbnail [209 KiB]
*.C file
Fig11e.pdf
Fig11f.pdf [71 KiB]
HiDef png [350 KiB]
Thumbnail [245 KiB]
*.C file
Fig11f.pdf
Fig11g.pdf [55 KiB]
HiDef png [281 KiB]
Thumbnail [201 KiB]
*.C file
Fig11g.pdf
Fig11h.pdf [70 KiB]
HiDef png [328 KiB]
Thumbnail [219 KiB]
*.C file
Fig11h.pdf

Animated gif made out of all figures.

PAPER-2016-026.gif
Thumbnail
thumbnail_PAPER-2016-026.gif

Tables and captions

Measured properties of neutral excited charm states. World averages are given for the 1P resonances (top part), while all measurements are listed for the heavier states (bottom part). Where two uncertainties are given, the first is statistical and second systematic; where a third is given, it is due to model uncertainty. The uncertainties on the averages for the $ D ^{*}_{0}(2400)^{0}$ mass and the $D_1(2420)^0$ and $ D ^{*}_{2}(2460)^{0}$ masses and widths are inflated by scale factors to account for inconsistencies between measurements. The quoted $ D ^{*}_{2}(2460)^{0}$ averages do not include the recent result from Ref. [12].

Table_1.pdf [53 KiB]
HiDef png [120 KiB]
Thumbnail [63 KiB]
tex code
Table_1.pdf

Yields of the various components in the fit to $ B ^- \rightarrow D ^+ \pi ^- \pi ^- $ candidate invariant mass distribution. Note that the yields in the signal region are scaled from the full mass range.

Table_2.pdf [46 KiB]
HiDef png [59 KiB]
Thumbnail [31 KiB]
tex code
Table_2.pdf

Signal contributions to the fit model, where parameters and uncertainties are taken from Ref. [19]. States labelled with subscript $v$ are virtual contributions. The model "MIPW" refers to the quasi-model-independent partial wave approach.

Table_3.pdf [55 KiB]
HiDef png [82 KiB]
Thumbnail [39 KiB]
tex code
Table_3.pdf

Masses and widths determined in the fit to data, with statistical uncertainties only.

Table_4.pdf [44 KiB]
HiDef png [97 KiB]
Thumbnail [44 KiB]
tex code
Table_4.pdf

Complex coefficients and fit fractions determined from the Dalitz plot fit. Uncertainties are statistical only.

Table_5.pdf [56 KiB]
HiDef png [92 KiB]
Thumbnail [43 KiB]
tex code
Table_5.pdf

Breakdown of experimental systematic uncertainties on the fit fractions (%) and masses and widths $(\mathrm{Me V} )$.

Table_6.pdf [62 KiB]
HiDef png [164 KiB]
Thumbnail [82 KiB]
tex code
Table_6.pdf

Breakdown of model uncertainties on the fit fractions (%) and masses and widths $(\mathrm{Me V} )$.

Table_7.pdf [61 KiB]
HiDef png [147 KiB]
Thumbnail [71 KiB]
tex code
Table_7.pdf

Results for the complex amplitudes. The three quoted errors are statistical, experimental systematic and model uncertainties.

Table_8.pdf [55 KiB]
HiDef png [203 KiB]
Thumbnail [106 KiB]
tex code
Table_8.pdf

Results for the \DpiS-wave amplitude at the spline knots. The three quoted errors are statistical, experimental systematic and model uncertainties.

Table_9.pdf [47 KiB]
HiDef png [275 KiB]
Thumbnail [169 KiB]
tex code
Table_9.pdf

Results for the fit fractions. The three quoted errors are statistical, experimental systematic and model uncertainties.

Table_10.pdf [52 KiB]
HiDef png [159 KiB]
Thumbnail [76 KiB]
tex code
Table_10.pdf

Results for the product branching fractions ${\cal B}( B ^- \rightarrow R\pi ^- ) \times {\cal B}(R \rightarrow D ^+ \pi ^- )$. The four quoted errors are statistical, experimental systematic, model and inclusive branching fraction uncertainties.

Table_11.pdf [52 KiB]
HiDef png [146 KiB]
Thumbnail [74 KiB]
tex code
Table_11.pdf

Interference fit fractions (%) and statistical uncertainties. The amplitudes are: ($A_0$) $ D ^{*}_{v}(2007)^{0}$ , ($A_1$) \DpiS-wave , ($A_2$) $ D ^{*}_{2}(2460)^{0}$ , ($A_3$) $ D ^{*}_{1}(2680)^{0}$ , ($A_4$) $B^{*0}_v$, ($A_5$) $ D ^{*}_{3}(2760)^{0}$ , ($A_6$) $ D ^{*}_{2}(3000)^{0}$ . The diagonal elements are the same as the conventional fit fractions.

Table_12.pdf [33 KiB]
HiDef png [46 KiB]
Thumbnail [24 KiB]
tex code
Table_12.pdf

(Top) Experimental and (bottom) model systematic uncertainties on the interference fit fractions (%). The amplitudes are: ($A_0$) $ D ^{*}_{v}(2007)^{0}$ , ($A_1$) \DpiS-wave , ($A_2$) $ D ^{*}_{2}(2460)^{0}$ , ($A_3$) $ D ^{*}_{1}(2680)^{0}$ , ($A_4$) $B^{*0}_{v}$, ($A_5$) $ D ^{*}_{3}(2760)^{0}$ , ($A_6$) $ D ^{*}_{2}(3000)^{0}$ . The diagonal elements are the same as the conventional fit fractions.

Table_13.pdf [27 KiB]
HiDef png [56 KiB]
Thumbnail [24 KiB]
tex code
Table_13.pdf

Created on 16 August 2019.Citation count from INSPIRE on 23 August 2019.