Belle II Preprint 2023-006
KEK Preprint 2023-2
The Belle II Collaboration
Measurement of violation in decays at Belle II
Abstract
We report a measurement of the -violating parameters and in decays at Belle II using a sample of events recorded in collisions at a center-of-mass energy corresponding to the resonance. These parameters are determined by fitting the proper decay-time distribution of a sample of 415 signal events. We obtain and , where the first uncertainties are statistical and the second are systematic.
The decay proceeds mainly via the loop amplitude, involving emission and reabsorption of a virtual boson and a top quark, that carries a weak phase arg. Throughout this paper, charge-conjugate modes are implicitly included. Here, denotes Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements CKMmatrix1 ; CKMmatrix2 . The decay is suppressed in the Standard Model (SM) due to the smallness of . As non-SM particles can potentially propagate in the loop, studies of this decay provide sensitivity to physics beyond the SM. Such non-SM physics can manifest itself as an asymmetry in the rates of -conjugate decays, i.e., violation NewPhysics .
In the channel, violation results from either interference between two decay amplitudes, or interference between a decay amplitude and that of a following – mixing. These two phenomena are quantified by the parameters and , respectively. The parameter is also denoted as in the literature. Neglecting subleading amplitudes with a different weak phase and violation in mixing, we expect and , where arg. The parameter is measured to be HFLAV in decays mediated by transitions such as . However, the contribution from a color- and CKM-suppressed tree amplitude, involving the bottom-to-up-quark transition via a boson emission, introduces an extra weak phase BNpaper ; CGRZpaper ; Jchaipaper ; LSpaper ; GLNQpaper ; this shifts the value from . The resulting difference, , is estimated in a number of theoretical approaches. Predictions of based on QCD factorization range between and BNpaper ; beneke , while those based on symmetry provide a less stringent lower bound of CGRZpaper ; GLNQpaper ; GRZpaper . Similarly, the predicted value of due to the color-suppressed tree amplitude ranges from to BNpaper ; CGRZpaper . Deviations of and from their expected values would indicate either large subleading amplitudes or non-SM physics Robert .
The parameters and are determined from the difference between the decay-time distributions of and decays. The BABAR and Belle experiments have measured these asymmetries using and ( or ) events, respectively Babar ; Belle . The corresponding () values are () and ().
In this Letter, we report the first measurement of and in the decay from the Belle II experiment. We use a sample of events collected in collisions at a center-of-mass (c.m.) energy corresponding to the resonance.
At experiments operating near the resonance, pairs of neutral mesons are coherently produced in the process . When one of these mesons decays to a eigenstate such as , and the other to a flavor-specific final state , the time-dependent decay rate is given by
(1) |
where is the difference in proper times between the two decays, is the flavor of the tag-side meson ( for and for ), is the lifetime, and is the – mixing frequency. This study employs a time-dependent analysis method similar to previous measurements Belle ; Babar . The important challenge is determining the location of the decay vertex, which is essential for the determination, in the absence of any charged particle originating from the vertex. The analysis is developed and tested with simulation and validated with a control sample of decays before examining the candidates in the data.
The Belle II detector belle2tdr ; belle2ptp operates at the SuperKEKB asymmetric-energy ( on ) collider supkek . The detector consists of several subdetectors surrounding the interaction region in a cylindrical geometry and is divided into two sections depending on the coverage in polar angle . The two sections are the barrel () and endcap ( or ). The subdetectors most relevant for our study are a silicon-based vertex detector (VXD), a gas-based central drift chamber (CDC), and an electromagnetic calorimeter (ECL) made of CsI(Tl) crystals. The VXD is the innermost component, comprising two layers of pixel sensors surrounded by four layers of double-sided strip sensors svd-paper . The second pixel layer was incomplete, covering one-sixth of the azimuthal acceptance, for the data analyzed here. The VXD samples the trajectories of charged particles (“tracks”) near the interaction region to determine the decay positions of their parent particles. The CDC is the main device for track reconstruction and measurements of particle momenta and charges. The ECL measures photon energies.
We analyze collision data recorded at the resonance, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of . We use large samples of simulated and events to optimize the event selection and study background distributions. Simulated events are used to model signal decays and calculate the reconstruction efficiency. We use EvtGen evtgen to generate with the subsequent -meson decays and Photos photos to incorporate final-state radiation from charged particles. The simulation of background relies on the Kkmc generator kkmc interfaced to Pythia pythia . The detector response for final-state particles is simulated with Geant4 geant . Events are reconstructed using the Belle II software BASF2 ; BASF2_link .
Candidate mesons are reconstructed from pairs of oppositely charged tracks, which are assumed to be pions and fit to a common vertex. The resulting invariant mass is required to lie between and , corresponding to a range around the known mass PDG , with being the resolution. We suppress contamination from prompt candidates and decays using two boosted-decision-tree (BDT) classifiers bdt . These BDTs rely mostly on kinematic information from the and its decay products.
Photons are identified as isolated energy deposits in the ECL that are not matched to any track in the CDC. We reconstruct candidates from pairs of photons that have energies greater than 35 (153) if reconstructed in the barrel (endcap) ECL. The different energy thresholds are used to suppress beam background, which is higher in the endcap than in the barrel section. We require the diphoton mass to lie between and ( range in resolution around the mass PDG ). The absolute cosine of the angle between the higher-energy photon’s direction in the rest frame and the direction in the lab frame must also be less than . These criteria reduce contributions from misreconstructed candidates. To improve the momentum resolution, we perform a kinematic fit with the diphoton mass constrained to the known mass PDG .
A neutral -meson candidate is reconstructed by combining a candidate with a candidate. Two kinematic variables are used to select signal candidates: the beam-energy-constrained mass and the energy difference . These are calculated as
(2) | |||||
where is the beam energy, and and are the momentum and energy, respectively, of the meson. All quantities are calculated in the c.m. frame. Correctly reconstructed signal candidates peak in at the known mass PDG , and peak in at zero.
For , the higher-energy photon from the decay causes a significant correlation between and due to leakage of energy deposited in the ECL. To reduce this correlation, when calculating in Eq. (2) we replace the magnitude of the momentum with , where is the momentum in the c.m. frame. Simulation shows that the modified () reduces the linear correlation coefficient from to and has an improved resolution over that of . We retain candidate events satisfying and .
To measure the decay-time difference , we must determine the positions of the signal and tag-side decay vertices. These vertices are obtained using information from the position and spread of the interaction region, which is modeled as a three-dimensional Gaussian distribution. The signal vertex position is obtained by projecting the flight direction, determined from its decay vertex and momentum, back to the interaction region. The intersection of the flight projection with the interaction region provides a good estimate of the signal decay vertex, since both the transverse flight-length of the meson () and the transverse size of the interaction region () are small as compared to the flight length along the boost direction (). The tag-side vertex is reconstructed with tracks that are not associated with the candidate. Such tracks must have a minimum momentum of 50 and at least one hit in each of the PXD, SVD, and CDC subdetectors. We also apply a similar interaction-region constraint as that used for tracks on the signal side. We approximate to be , where is the distance between signal and tag-side vertices along the beam direction, () is the Lorentz boost of the in the lab frame, and () is the Lorentz factor of the meson in the c.m. frame.
We employ a BDT classifier that uses 32 event-topology variables to distinguish the background from -meson decays. The following variables provide the most discrimination: modified Fox–Wolfram moments ksfw , CLEO cones cleo , the thrust value thrust of the rest of the event, and the cosine of the angle between the thrust axis of the signal and that of the rest of the event. The BDT is trained on samples of simulated and signal events, each equivalent to about three times the size of the dataset. The BDT outputs a single variable () that ranges from zero for background-like events to one for signal-like events. We require to be greater than , which rejects about of the background while preserving of the signal. The remainder of the distribution strongly peaks near for signal, leading to difficulty in modeling it with an analytic function. We thus transform it into a new variable, , where () is the minimum (maximum) possible value of the remaining distribution. The distribution can be parametrized with a sum of Gaussian functions, and is later used as a fit variable.
After applying all selection criteria, of the events have more than one candidate. Such multiple candidates come from random combinations of final-state particles. In events with multiple candidates, we choose that with the largest -value resulting from the -mass-constrained fit; if that criterion is ambiguous, we select the candidate with the largest -value from the -vertex fit. This selection retains the correct candidate in of simulated events that have multiple candidates. The signal efficiency after all selection criteria are applied () is . Simulation studies show that of signal candidates are incorrectly reconstructed by including a final-state particle from the tag-side meson. We consider this small component, arising mostly due to misreconstructed , as part of the signal.
The flavor of the tag-side meson, , is determined from the properties of final-state particles that are not associated with the reconstructed decay. We use a category-based multivariate flavor-tagging algorithm for this purpose flavortagger . The algorithm outputs two parameters, the -flavor charge and , which is an event-by-event tagging quality factor ranging from zero for no flavor discrimination to one for unambiguous flavor assignment. The dataset is divided into seven bins that contain similar numbers of events, but have different signal-to-background ratios.
We select events in which is well-measured by requiring and , where is the uncertainty on , estimated event-by-event. The distribution of these events is fitted to determine and . For the remaining events, about , the distribution is not included in the fit. However, these events are still useful to constrain , which is sensitive to the relative yields of and decays. We thus perform a simultaneous extended maximum-likelihood fit to both subsamples in seven bins Babar . For each subsample, the likelihood function includes one-dimensional probability density functions (PDFs) for , , and ; for the first subsample, the likelihood also includes a PDF for that depends on the flavor tag . The PDFs for , , and are taken to be the same for both subsamples, as found in simulation.
The PDFs for the signal component are as follows: is modeled with the sum of a Crystal Ball function CB and a Gaussian function with a common mean; with the sum of a Crystal Ball and two Gaussian functions, all three with a common mean; and with the sum of asymmetric and symmetric Gaussian functions. The PDF is given by
(3) |
where is the fraction of wrongly tagged events; is the difference in between and ; is the asymmetry in their tagging efficiencies, which are the fractions of or signal candidates to which a flavor tag is assigned; and is the resolution function. The resolution function is described by a double Gaussian convolved with an exponential function; the Gaussian means and widths are scaled by . The resolution is dominated by the signal-side . Simulation shows that the distributions for signal and background are the same. We fix and to the world averages of ps and , respectively HFLAV . The tagging parameters (, , and ) are fixed to values obtained from decays flavortagger . The effective tagging efficiency is , where is the tagging efficiency for the -th bin. The and values are in the ranges – and –, respectively. All signal shape parameters are fixed to values obtained from simulation and calibrated with control samples as described below.
For the background, an ARGUS function AG is used for , a straight line for , and the sum of asymmetric and symmetric Gaussian functions for . The distribution is modeled with the signal resolution function , as this background is dominated by prompt decays. We float the background yield, ARGUS curvature parameter, and slope, but fix the ARGUS endpoint, and shape parameters to the values obtained from the data sideband . All shape parameters are taken to be identical for all bins.
For the background, a two-dimensional kernel density estimation PDF 2D is used to model the (, ) distribution, and the sum of asymmetric and symmetric Gaussian functions is used for . The distribution is modeled with an exponential function convolved with . We float the yield of background and fix its shape parameters from a fit to the simulated sample.
We correct the common mean and core width of the signal , , and PDF shapes for possible differences between data and simulation according to values obtained from a control sample of decays. To select these events, we apply the same and criteria as used for the signal channel. To ensure the similar momentum range for signal and control channels, we require a minimum momentum of . We perform an unbinned maximum-likelihood fit to the distributions of , , and , using PDF shapes similar to those employed to describe the signal decay.
To validate the fitting procedure, we use a control sample of decays. To mimic the signal decay, we do not use information from the two muon tracks to reconstruct the signal decay-vertex. We perform an unbinned maximum-likelihood fit to the distributions of and , using PDF shapes and resolution functions similar to those employed in the fit to the signal sample. The measured lifetime, , and are ps, , and , respectively, where the uncertainties are statistical only. These results are consistent with their world-average values HFLAV , thus validating our fitting procedure. The above sample is also used to correct the common mean and core width of the resolution function for possible differences between data and simulation.
Figure 1 shows the , , , and distributions in the data along with the fit projections overlaid. For these plots, the seven bins have been combined, and for all plots except , both data subsamples (described earlier) are included. In addition, for each plot the signal-enhancing criteria , , 10.0 ps, and have been applied except for the variable displayed. Distributions of with fit projections overlaid are shown in the Supplementary Material SupMat . The resulting signal yield , , and are , , and , respectively. The correlation coefficient between two asymmetries is . From the signal yield, we determine the branching fraction as , which is consistent with the world average HFLAV . Here, is the fraction of or production at the resonance f+0belle and all quoted uncertainties are statistical.




The systematic uncertainties contributing to and are listed in Table 1. We estimate the systematic uncertainty due to flavor tagging by individually varying the () parameters by their uncertainties for each bin, while considering correlations. The maximum deviations with respect to the nominal results are taken as systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty due to the resolution function is estimated in a similar fashion. In the nominal fit, we assume the background to be symmetric. To account for a potential asymmetry in the background, we perform a series of fits with the PDF formed by varying the and values for that background from to while fixing the effective lifetime value to that determined from simulation. We then calculate the deviations in signal and from their nominal values; the largest deviation is assigned as the systematic uncertainty. To evaluate the uncertainty due to a possible asymmetry in the background, we perform an alternative fit by fixing the asymmetry to that obtained from the data sideband defined earlier. The uncertainty due to the signal PDF shape is estimated using an alternative model based on kernel-density estimation. Similarly, the uncertainty due to the background PDF shape is calculated by varying all fixed parameters by their uncertainties and taking the maximum deviation from nominal results as the uncertainty.
A potential fit bias is checked for by performing an ensemble test comprising simulated experiments in which signal and background events are drawn from simulated samples and background events are generated according to their PDF shapes. We calculate the mean shifts of the fitted values of and from their input values and assign them as systematic uncertainties. The systematic uncertainty due to multiple candidate selection is evaluated by performing an alternative fit with all candidates and taking the difference with respect to the nominal value. The impact of misreconstructed signal candidates on and is negligible. Uncertainties due to fixed and values are calculated by varying these quantities by their uncertainties and repeating the fit; the resulting maximum variations in and are assigned as systematic uncertainties. Tag-side interference can arise due to the presence of both CKM-favored and CKM-suppressed tree amplitudes contributing to the tag-side decay TSI . The resulting impact is conservatively estimated by positing that all events are tagged with such hadronic decays. The uncertainty due to VXD misalignment is evaluated by reconstructing events with various misalignment hypotheses as done in Ref. VXD . Assuming all systematic sources to be independent, we add their contributions in quadrature to obtain the total systematic uncertainty of for and for .
Source | ||
---|---|---|
Flavor tagging | 0.013 | 0.011 |
resolution function | 0.014 | 0.022 |
background asymmetry | 0.030 | 0.018 |
background asymmetry | 0.028 | < 0.001 |
Signal modeling | 0.004 | 0.003 |
Background modeling | 0.006 | 0.018 |
Fit bias | 0.005 | 0.011 |
Multiple candidate selection | 0.005 | 0.010 |
and | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
Tag-side interference | 0.006 | 0.011 |
VXD misalignment | 0.004 | 0.005 |
Total | 0.047 | 0.040 |
In summary, we measure the -violating parameters and in decays using a sample of events recorded by Belle II in collisions at the resonance. Based on a signal yield of events, we obtain
(4) |
and
(5) |
where the first uncertainties are statistical and the second are systematic. This constitutes the first Belle II measurement of asymmetries in the decay. Our results agree with previous determinations Belle ; Babar , and the precision obtained for is better than (similar to) that achieved at Belle (BABAR), despite using a data sample only – the size of the samples used in those experiments. The results are consistent with SM predictions and can provide useful constraints on non-SM physics.
This work, based on data collected using the Belle II detector, which was built and commissioned prior to March 2019, was supported by Science Committee of the Republic of Armenia Grant No. 20TTCG-1C010; Australian Research Council and research Grants No. DP200101792, No. DP210101900, No. DP210102831, No. DE220100462, No. LE210100098, and No. LE230100085; Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research, Austrian Science Fund No. P 31361-N36 and No. J4625-N, and Horizon 2020 ERC Starting Grant No. 947006 “InterLeptons”; Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Compute Canada and CANARIE; National Key R&D Program of China under Contract No. 2022YFA1601903, National Natural Science Foundation of China and research Grants No. 11575017, No. 11761141009, No. 11705209, No. 11975076, No. 12135005, No. 12150004, No. 12161141008, and No. 12175041, and Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation Project ZR2022JQ02; the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports of the Czech Republic under Contract No. LTT17020 and Charles University Grant No. SVV 260448 and the Czech Science Foundation Grant No. 22-18469S; European Research Council, Seventh Framework PIEF-GA-2013-622527, Horizon 2020 ERC-Advanced Grants No. 267104 and No. 884719, Horizon 2020 ERC-Consolidator Grant No. 819127, Horizon 2020 Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 700525 "NIOBE" and No. 101026516, and Horizon 2020 Marie Sklodowska-Curie RISE project JENNIFER2 Grant Agreement No. 822070 (European grants); L’Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3) du CNRS (France); BMBF, DFG, HGF, MPG, and AvH Foundation (Germany); Department of Atomic Energy under Project Identification No. RTI 4002 and Department of Science and Technology (India); Israel Science Foundation Grant No. 2476/17, U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation Grant No. 2016113, and Israel Ministry of Science Grant No. 3-16543; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare and the research grants BELLE2; Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research Grants No. 16H03968, No. 16H03993, No. 16H06492, No. 16K05323, No. 17H01133, No. 17H05405, No. 18K03621, No. 18H03710, No. 18H05226, No. 19H00682, No. 22H00144, No. 26220706, and No. 26400255, the National Institute of Informatics, and Science Information NETwork 5 (SINET5), and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) of Japan; National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea Grants No. 2016R1D1A1B02012900, No. 2018R1A2B3003643, No. 2018R1A6A1A06024970, No. 2018R1D1A1B07047294, No. 2019R1I1A3A01058933, No. 2022R1A2C1003993, and No. RS-2022-00197659, Radiation Science Research Institute, Foreign Large-size Research Facility Application Supporting project, the Global Science Experimental Data Hub Center of the Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information and KREONET/GLORIAD; Universiti Malaya RU grant, Akademi Sains Malaysia, and Ministry of Education Malaysia; Frontiers of Science Program Contracts No. FOINS-296, No. CB-221329, No. CB-236394, No. CB-254409, and No. CB-180023, and No. SEP-CINVESTAV research Grant No. 237 (Mexico); the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education and the National Science Center; the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, Agreement No. 14.W03.31.0026, and the HSE University Basic Research Program, Moscow; University of Tabuk research Grants No. S-0256-1438 and No. S-0280-1439 (Saudi Arabia); Slovenian Research Agency and research Grants No. J1-9124 and No. P1-0135; Agencia Estatal de Investigacion, Spain Grant No. RYC2020-029875-I and Generalitat Valenciana, Spain Grant No. CIDEGENT/2018/020 Ministry of Science and Technology and research Grants No. MOST106-2112-M-002-005-MY3 and No. MOST107-2119-M-002-035-MY3, and the Ministry of Education (Taiwan); Thailand Center of Excellence in Physics; TUBITAK ULAKBIM (Turkey); National Research Foundation of Ukraine, project No. 2020.02/0257, and Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine; the U.S. National Science Foundation and research Grants No. PHY-1913789 and No. PHY-2111604, and the U.S. Department of Energy and research Awards No. DE-AC06-76RLO1830, No. DE-SC0007983, No. DE-SC0009824, No. DE-SC0009973, No. DE-SC0010007, No. DE-SC0010073, No. DE-SC0010118, No. DE-SC0010504, No. DE-SC0011784, No. DE-SC0012704, No. DE-SC0019230, No. DE-SC0021274, No. DE-SC0022350, No. DE-SC0023470; and the Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology (VAST) under Grant No. DL0000.05/21-23.
These acknowledgements are not to be interpreted as an endorsement of any statement made by any of our institutes, funding agencies, governments, or their representatives.
We thank the SuperKEKB team for delivering high-luminosity collisions; the KEK cryogenics group for the efficient operation of the detector solenoid magnet; the KEK computer group and the NII for on-site computing support and SINET6 network support; and the raw-data centers at BNL, DESY, GridKa, IN2P3, INFN, and the University of Victoria for offsite computing support.
References
- (1) N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 531 (1963).
- (2) M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theo. Phys. 49, 652 (1973).
- (3) Y. Grossman and M. P. Worah, Phys. Lett. B 395, 241 (1997).
- (4) Y. Amhis et al. (Heavy Flavor Averaging Group), Phys. Rev. D 107, 052008 (2023).
- (5) M. Beneke and M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys. B 675, 333 (2003).
- (6) C.-W. Chiang, M. Gronau, and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 68, 074012 (2003); M. Gronau, J. L. Rosner, and J. Zupan, Phys. Lett. B 596, 107 (2004).
- (7) J. Chai, S. Cheng, Y.-h. Ju, D.-C. Yan, C.-D. Lü, and Z.-J. Xiao, Chin. Phys. C 46, 123103 (2022).
- (8) D. London and A. Soni, Phys. Lett. B 407, 61 (1997).
- (9) Y. Grossman, Z. Ligeti, Y. Nir, and H. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D 68, 015004 (2003).
- (10) M. Beneke, Phys. Lett. B 620, 143 (2005).
- (11) M. Gronau, J. L. Rosner, and J. Zupan, Phys. Rev. D 74, 093003 (2006).
- (12) R. Fleischer, R. Jaarsma, and K. Keri Vos, Phys. Lett. B 785, 525 (2018).
- (13) B. Aubert et al. (BABAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 79, 052003 (2009).
- (14) M. Fujikawa et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 81, 011101(R) (2010).
- (15) T. Abe et al. (Belle II Collaboration), KEK Report 2010-1, arXiv:1011.0352.
- (16) E. Kou et al., Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2019, 123C01 (2019).
- (17) K. Akai, K. Furukawa, and H. Koiso (SuperKEKB Group), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 907, 188 (2018).
- (18) K. Adamczyk et al. (Belle II SVD Collaboration), JINST 17, P11042 (2022).
- (19) D. Lange, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 462, 152 (2001).
- (20) E. Barberio, B. van Eijk, and Z. Was, Comp. Phys. Comm. 66, 115 (1991).
- (21) B. Ward, S. Jadach, and Z. Was, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 116, 73 (2003).
- (22) T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, Comp. Phys. Comm. 178, 852 (2008).
- (23) S. Agostinelli et al. (Geant4 Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506, 250 (2003).
- (24) T. Kuhr, C. Pulvermacher, M. Ritter, T. Hauth, and N. Braun (Belle II Framework Software Group), Comput. Software Big Sci. 3, 1 (2019).
- (25) https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5574115
- (26) R. L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2022, 083C01 (2022).
- (27) T. Keck, arXiv:1609.06119.
- (28) G. C. Fox and S. Wolfram, Phys. Rev. Lett. 41, 1581 (1978).
- (29) D. M. Asner et al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 53, 1039 (1996).
- (30) S. Brandt, C. Peyrou, R. Sosnowski, and A. Wroblewski, Phys. Lett. 12, 57 (1964); E. Farhi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 1587 (1977).
- (31) F. Abudinén et al. (Belle II Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 283 (2022).
- (32) T. Skwarnicki, PhD thesis, INP Krakow, DESY-F31-86-02 (1986).
- (33) H. Albrecht et al. (ARGUS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 241, 278 (1990).
- (34) K. S. Cranmer, Comp. Phys. Comm. 136, 198 (2001).
- (35) M. Pivk and F. R. Le Diberder, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 555, 356 (2005).
- (36) See the Supplementary Material at TO_BE_ADDED for the additional plot.
- (37) S. Choudhury et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 107, L031102 (2023).
- (38) O. Long, M. Baak, R. N. Cahn, and D. P. Kirkby , Phys. Rev. D 68, 034010 (2003).
- (39) F. Abudinén et al. (Belle II Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 211801 (2021).