This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

The Belle Collaboration


Study of the lineshape of X(3872)X(3872) using BB decays to D0D¯K0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0}K

H. Hirata  0000-0001-9005-4616    T. Iijima 0000-0002-4271-711X    Y. Kato 0000-0001-6314-4288    K. Tanida 0000-0002-8255-3746    I. Adachi 0000-0003-2287-0173    J. K. Ahn  0000-0002-5795-2243    H. Aihara 0000-0002-1907-5964    S. Al Said 0000-0002-4895-3869    D. M. Asner 0000-0002-1586-5790    H. Atmacan 0000-0003-2435-501X    T. Aushev  0000-0002-6347-7055    R. Ayad 0000-0003-3466-9290    V. Babu  0000-0003-0419-6912    Sw. Banerjee  0000-0001-8852-2409    P. Behera  0000-0002-1527-2266    K. Belous 0000-0003-0014-2589    J. Bennett 0000-0002-5440-2668    M. Bessner  0000-0003-1776-0439    V. Bhardwaj  0000-0001-8857-8621    B. Bhuyan 0000-0001-6254-3594    T. Bilka 0000-0003-1449-6986    D. Biswas  0000-0002-7543-3471    A. Bobrov 0000-0001-5735-8386    D. Bodrov 0000-0001-5279-4787    J. Borah  0000-0003-2990-1913    A. Bozek  0000-0002-5915-1319    M. Bračko 0000-0002-2495-0524    P. Branchini 0000-0002-2270-9673    T. E. Browder 0000-0001-7357-9007    A. Budano 0000-0002-0856-1131    M. Campajola 0000-0003-2518-7134    D. Červenkov  0000-0002-1865-741X    M.-C. Chang 0000-0002-8650-6058    P. Chang 0000-0003-4064-388X    B. G. Cheon  0000-0002-8803-4429    K. Chilikin 0000-0001-7620-2053    H. E. Cho 0000-0002-7008-3759    K. Cho 0000-0003-1705-7399    S.-J. Cho 0000-0002-1673-5664    S.-K. Choi 0000-0003-2747-8277    Y. Choi 0000-0003-3499-7948    S. Choudhury 0000-0001-9841-0216    D. Cinabro 0000-0001-7347-6585    S. Cunliffe  0000-0003-0167-8641    S. Das  0000-0001-6857-966X    G. de Marino  0000-0002-6509-7793    G. De Nardo 0000-0002-2047-9675    G. De Pietro 0000-0001-8442-107X    R. Dhamija 0000-0001-7052-3163    F. Di Capua 0000-0001-9076-5936    J. Dingfelder 0000-0001-5767-2121    Z. Doležal 0000-0002-5662-3675    T. V. Dong 0000-0003-3043-1939    D. Epifanov  0000-0001-8656-2693    T. Ferber  0000-0002-6849-0427    D. Ferlewicz 0000-0002-4374-1234    B. G. Fulsom  0000-0002-5862-9739    V. Gaur  0000-0002-8880-6134    A. Garmash  0000-0003-2599-1405    A. Giri  0000-0002-8895-0128    P. Goldenzweig 0000-0001-8785-847X    E. Graziani  0000-0001-8602-5652    K. Gudkova  0000-0002-5858-3187    C. Hadjivasiliou 0000-0002-2234-0001    S. Halder  0000-0002-6280-494X    T. Hara  0000-0002-4321-0417    K. Hayasaka  0000-0002-6347-433X    H. Hayashii 0000-0002-5138-5903    M. T. Hedges  0000-0001-6504-1872    D. Herrmann 0000-0001-9772-9989    W.-S. Hou  0000-0002-4260-5118    C.-L. Hsu 0000-0002-1641-430X    K. Inami  0000-0003-2765-7072    N. Ipsita  0000-0002-2927-3366    A. Ishikawa 0000-0002-3561-5633    R. Itoh 0000-0003-1590-0266    M. Iwasaki 0000-0002-9402-7559    W. W. Jacobs  0000-0002-9996-6336    E.-J. Jang 0000-0002-1935-9887    S. Jia  0000-0001-8176-8545    Y. Jin 0000-0002-7323-0830    D. Kalita  0000-0003-3054-1222    C. Kiesling  0000-0002-2209-535X    C. H. Kim 0000-0002-5743-7698    D. Y. Kim 0000-0001-8125-9070    K.-H. Kim  0000-0002-4659-1112    Y.-K. Kim  0000-0002-9695-8103    K. Kinoshita  0000-0001-7175-4182    P. Kodyš  0000-0002-8644-2349    T. Konno  0000-0003-2487-8080    A. Korobov 0000-0001-5959-8172    S. Korpar 0000-0003-0971-0968    E. Kovalenko 0000-0001-8084-1931    P. Križan 0000-0002-4967-7675    P. Krokovny  0000-0002-1236-4667    T. Kuhr  0000-0001-6251-8049    R. Kumar  0000-0002-6277-2626    K. Kumara 0000-0003-1572-5365    A. Kuzmin  0000-0002-7011-5044    Y.-J. Kwon  0000-0001-9448-5691    T. Lam  0000-0001-9128-6806    J. S. Lange 0000-0003-0234-0474    M. Laurenza 0000-0002-7400-6013    K. Lautenbach 0000-0003-3762-694X    S. C. Lee  0000-0002-9835-1006    L. K. Li  0000-0002-7366-1307    Y. Li  0000-0002-4413-6247    J. Libby  0000-0002-1219-3247    K. Lieret 0000-0003-2792-7511    Y.-R. Lin 0000-0003-0864-6693    D. Liventsev  0000-0003-3416-0056    T. Luo 0000-0001-5139-5784    Y. Ma 0000-0001-8412-8308    A. Martini  0000-0003-1161-4983    M. Masuda 0000-0002-7109-5583    T. Matsuda 0000-0003-4673-570X    D. Matvienko 0000-0002-2698-5448    S. K. Maurya 0000-0002-7764-5777    F. Meier 0000-0002-6088-0412    M. Merola 0000-0002-7082-8108    F. Metzner 0000-0002-0128-264X    K. Miyabayashi 0000-0003-4352-734X    G. B. Mohanty  0000-0001-6850-7666    M. Mrvar  0000-0001-6388-3005    R. Mussa  0000-0002-0294-9071    I. Nakamura 0000-0002-7640-5456    M. Nakao  0000-0001-8424-7075    Z. Natkaniec  0000-0003-0486-9291    A. Natochii 0000-0002-1076-814X    L. Nayak 0000-0002-7739-914X    M. Nayak 0000-0002-2572-4692    M. Niiyama  0000-0003-1746-586X    N. K. Nisar 0000-0001-9562-1253    S. Nishida 0000-0001-6373-2346    K. Ogawa  0000-0003-2220-7224    S. Ogawa 0000-0002-7310-5079    H. Ono  0000-0003-4486-0064    P. Oskin  0000-0002-7524-0936    P. Pakhlov  0000-0001-7426-4824    G. Pakhlova 0000-0001-7518-3022    T. Pang 0000-0003-1204-0846    S. Pardi 0000-0001-7994-0537    H. Park 0000-0001-6087-2052    J. Park 0000-0001-6520-0028    S.-H. Park 0000-0001-6019-6218    S. Patra  0000-0002-4114-1091    S. Paul 0000-0002-8813-0437    T. K. Pedlar 0000-0001-9839-7373    R. Pestotnik 0000-0003-1804-9470    L. E. Piilonen  0000-0001-6836-0748    T. Podobnik 0000-0002-6131-819X    E. Prencipe  0000-0002-9465-2493    M. T. Prim 0000-0002-1407-7450    N. Rout  0000-0002-4310-3638    G. Russo  0000-0001-5823-4393    S. Sandilya  0000-0002-4199-4369    A. Sangal 0000-0001-5853-349X    L. Santelj 0000-0003-3904-2956    V. Savinov  0000-0002-9184-2830    G. Schnell  0000-0002-7336-3246    C. Schwanda  0000-0003-4844-5028    A. J. Schwartz 0000-0002-7310-1983    Y. Seino  0000-0002-8378-4255    K. Senyo 0000-0002-1615-9118    M. E. Sevior  0000-0002-4824-101X    W. Shan 0000-0003-2811-2218    M. Shapkin 0000-0002-4098-9592    C. Sharma 0000-0002-1312-0429    J.-G. Shiu  0000-0002-8478-5639    B. Shwartz 0000-0002-1456-1496    A. Sokolov  0000-0002-9420-0091    E. Solovieva  0000-0002-5735-4059    M. Starič  0000-0001-8751-5944    Z. S. Stottler 0000-0002-1898-5333    M. Sumihama  0000-0002-8954-0585    W. Sutcliffe  0000-0002-9795-3582    M. Takizawa  0000-0001-8225-3973    U. Tamponi 0000-0001-6651-0706    S. Tanaka 0000-0002-6029-6216    F. Tenchini  0000-0003-3469-9377    R. Tiwary  0000-0002-5887-1883    K. Trabelsi 0000-0001-6567-3036    M. Uchida  0000-0003-4904-6168    T. Uglov  0000-0002-4944-1830    Y. Unno 0000-0003-3355-765X    K. Uno 0000-0002-2209-8198    S. Uno 0000-0002-3401-0480    P. Urquijo 0000-0002-0887-7953    Y. Usov  0000-0003-3144-2920    S. E. Vahsen 0000-0003-1685-9824    G. Varner  0000-0002-0302-8151    A. Vinokurova  0000-0003-4220-8056    A. Vossen  0000-0003-0983-4936    D. Wang  0000-0003-1485-2143    E. Wang 0000-0001-6391-5118    M.-Z. Wang 0000-0002-0979-8341    S. Watanuki  0000-0002-5241-6628    O. Werbycka  0000-0002-0614-8773    E. Won  0000-0002-4245-7442    X. Xu 0000-0001-5096-1182    B. D. Yabsley 0000-0002-2680-0474    W. Yan  0000-0003-0713-0871    S. B. Yang 0000-0002-9543-7971    J. Yelton  0000-0001-8840-3346    J. H. Yin 0000-0002-1479-9349    Y. Yook 0000-0002-4912-048X    C. Z. Yuan 0000-0002-1652-6686    L. Yuan 0000-0002-6719-5397    Y. Yusa 0000-0002-4001-9748    Z. P. Zhang  0000-0001-6140-2044    V. Zhilich 0000-0002-0907-5565    V. Zhukova 0000-0002-8253-641X
Abstract

We present a study of the X(3872)X(3872) lineshape in the decay BX(3872)KD0D¯K0B\to X(3872)K\to D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0}K using a data sample of 772×106772\times 10^{6} BB¯B\overline{B} pairs collected at the Υ(4S)\Upsilon(4S) resonance with the Belle detector at the KEKB asymmetric-energy e+ee^{+}e^{-} collider. The peak near the threshold in the D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} invariant mass spectrum is fitted using a relativistic Breit-Wigner lineshape. We determine the mass and width parameters to be mBW=3873.710.50+0.56(stat)±0.13(syst)MeV/c2m_{\rm BW}=3873.71^{+0.56}_{-0.50}({\rm stat})\pm 0.13({\rm syst})~{\rm MeV}/c^{2} and ΓBW=5.21.5+2.2(stat)±0.4(syst)MeV\Gamma_{\rm BW}=5.2^{+2.2}_{-1.5}({\rm stat})\pm 0.4({\rm syst})~{\rm MeV}, respectively. The branching fraction is found to be (B+X(3872)K+)×(X(3872)D0D¯)0=(0.970.18+0.21(stat)±0.10(syst))×104{\cal B}(B^{+}\to X(3872)K^{+})\times{\cal{B}}(X(3872)\to D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0})=(0.97^{+0.21}_{-0.18}({\rm stat})\pm 0.10({\rm syst}))\times 10^{-4}. The signal from B0B^{0} decays is observed for the first time with 5.2σ5.2\sigma significance, and the ratio of branching fractions between charged and neutral BB decays is measured to be (B0X(3872)K0)/(B+X(3872)K+)=1.340.40+0.47(stat)0.12+0.10(syst){\cal B}(B^{0}\to X(3872)K^{0})/{\cal B}(B^{+}\to X(3872)K^{+})=1.34^{+0.47}_{-0.40}({\rm stat})^{+0.10}_{-0.12}({\rm syst}). The peak is also studied using a Flatté lineshape. We determine the lower limit on the DD¯D\overline{D}{}^{*} coupling constant gg to be 0.0750.075 at 95% credibility in the parameter region where the ratio of gg to the mass difference from the D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} threshold is equal to 15.11GeV1-15.11~{\rm GeV}^{-1}, as measured by LHCb.

I introduction

The charmonium-like X(3872)X(3872) state, also known as χc1(3872)\chi_{c1}(3872) [1], was discovered by the Belle experiment as a narrow peak in the vicinity of the D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} threshold in the J/ψπ+πJ/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-} invariant mass distribution in exclusive B+J/ψπ+πK+B^{+}\to J/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-}K^{+} decays [2]. Its existence has been confirmed by multiple experiments: D0 [3], BABAR [4], CDF [5], LHCb [6], and BESIII [7]. In addition to the J/ψπ+πJ/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-} decay, other decays such as J/ψωJ/\psi\omega [8], J/ψγJ/\psi\gamma, ψ(2S)γ\psi(2S)\gamma [9], D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} [10, 11], D0D¯π00D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{0}\pi^{0} [12], and π0χc0\pi^{0}\chi_{c0} [13] have been observed. The X(3872)X(3872) quantum numbers JPCJ^{PC} have been determined to be 1++1^{++} [14, 15]. Various interpretations such as a loosely bound state [16, 17, 18, 19], an admixture of a molecular state and a pure charmonium resonance [20], a tetraquark [21], and a cusp at the D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} threshold [22, 23, 24] have been proposed, and the structure of the state remains uncertain. Measurement of the lineshape in various decay modes can help to discriminate among different choices for the structure. In this paper, we examine two models for the lineshape in the decay to D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0}: a Breit-Wigner, and a Flatté-inspired parametrization.

The X(3872)X(3872) peak has already been analyzed with the Breit-Wigner lineshape commonly used for resonance states. Based on the analyses of the decays including J/ψJ/\psi, the mass is 3871.65±0.06MeV/c23871.65\pm 0.06~{\rm MeV}/c^{2} and the width is 1.19±0.21MeV1.19\pm 0.21~{\rm MeV} [1], with two measurements at the LHCb experiment [25, 26] contributing significantly to these averages. Analyses of the decay to D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} based on the Breit-Wigner lineshape tend to yield a higher mass and a larger width, with the width measurement subject to large uncertainties [10, 11]. Discrepancies in the lineshape between the decays to the J/ψπ+πJ/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-} and D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} final states can arise near the threshold due to coupled-channel effects [22]. This may be significant for the X(3872)X(3872), as the observed mass coincides with the D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} threshold of 3871.69±0.10MeV/c23871.69\pm 0.10~{\rm MeV}/c^{2}, and a 1++1^{++} state can couple to the D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} channel in S-wave. One model to account for coupled-channel effects is the Flatté-inspired parametrization [22, 27], a Breit-Wigner model with an explicit expression for the energy-dependent partial width. At LHCb, an analysis of the J/ψπ+πJ/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-} invariant mass distribution was performed using this Flatté-inspired model [26]. It is difficult to determine all of the parameters using only this distribution, due to a scaling behavior in which the lineshape near the threshold does not change under a linear transformation of four of the five parameters [26, 28]. To determine all the parameters, it is important to analyze not only the J/ψπ+πJ/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-} decay but also the D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} decay, as proposed in the theoretical analysis [27]. By analyzing the D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} decay, we aim to provide more information on the lineshape, and in particular on the coupling strength of X(3872)D0D¯0X(3872)\to D^{0}\bar{D}^{*0}.

In this paper, we present a study of the X(3872)X(3872) lineshape using a sample of X(3872)D0D¯0X(3872)\to D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} candidates produced in the exclusive decay BD0D¯K0B\to D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0}K using the full Belle dataset. There have been three previous studies [12, 10, 11]. Reference [12] is an analysis of the BD0D¯π00KB\to D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{0}\pi^{0}K decay at Belle, and Refs [10, 11] are analyses of the BD0D¯K0B\to D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0}K decays at BABAR and Belle, respectively. The latter two analyses apply a D0D^{*0} selection and a mass-constrained fit to the D0D^{*0} candidates. While this has the advantage of improving the signal-to-noise ratio, it has the disadvantage of disallowing entries below the D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} threshold, which is important for studying the structure. Given the limited size of our data sample, we adopt a similar technique to the latter analyses, i.e. subtracting the reconstructed D0D^{*0} mass and adding the nominal mass. The disadvantage of requiring the D0D^{*0} is partially compensated for by analyzing the Flatté model, in which we can obtain a lineshape reflecting poles of the scattering amplitude. Compared to Refs [10, 11], additional D0D^{0} decay modes are included, increasing the efficiency to reconstruct D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} decays. Throughout this paper, charge conjugation is always included. We do not distinguish D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} from D¯D00\overline{D}{}^{0}D^{*0} unless otherwise indicated.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, the Belle detector and data set are described. In Sections III and IV, the event selection and the fitted model are presented. In Sec. V, the results of fitting the data with the relativistic Breit-Wigner model and the Flatté model are presented. Section VI contains a discussion of the results, and the conclusions of the paper.

II Detector and Data Set

We use a data sample of 772×106772\times 10^{6} BB¯B\overline{B} pairs, collected at a center-of-mass energy of s=10.58GeV\sqrt{s}=10.58~{\rm GeV}, corresponding to the Υ(4S)\Upsilon(4S) resonance, with the Belle detector at the KEKB asymmetric-energy e+ee^{+}e^{-} collider [29, 30]. The Belle detector is a large-solid-angle magnetic spectrometer that consists of a silicon vertex detector (SVD), a 50-layer central drift chamber (CDC), an array of aerogel threshold Cherenkov counters (ACC), a barrel-like arrangement of time-of-flight scintillation counters (TOF), and an electromagnetic calorimeter comprised of CsI(Tl) crystals (ECL) located inside a super-conducting solenoid coil that provides a 1.5 T magnetic field. An iron flux-return located outside of the coil is installed to detect KL0K_{L}^{0} mesons and to identify muons (KLM). The detector is described in detail elsewhere [31, 32].

To determine the event selection and the detector response, we use a sample of Monte Carlo (MC) simulated events generated using the EvtGen event generator [33]. The detector response is simulated using the GEANT3 package [34].

III Event Selection

The event selection is determined using the MC samples in two steps. First, the selection criteria for the final-state particles are determined based on our previous studies [12, 11]. Second, the selection criteria for the intermediate-state particles are optimized by maximizing the figure-of-merit S/S+BS/\sqrt{S+B}, where SS and BB are the estimated numbers of signal and background events, respectively. The resulting selection is described below.

Tracks are selected using vertex information measured by the tracking system. A track candidate is accepted if its distance along the detector axis from the point of closest approach to the interaction point is less than 4.0 cm, and its distance transverse to the detector axis is less than 1.0 cm. These requirements are not imposed for tracks in KS0π+πK_{S}^{0}\to\pi^{+}\pi^{-} candidates. In addition, pion and kaon candidates are selected using likelihoods π{\cal L}_{\pi} and K{\cal L}_{K} based on the time-of-flight measured by the TOF, the number of Cherenkov photons detected by the ACC, and the ionization loss in the CDC. Tracks with a likelihood ratio π/(π+K)>0.1{\cal L}_{\pi}/({\cal L}_{\pi}+{\cal L}_{K})>0.1 are used as charged pion candidates, and tracks with π/(π+K)<0.9{\cal L}_{\pi}/({\cal L}_{\pi}+{\cal L}_{K})<0.9 are used as charged kaon candidates. The hadron identification efficiency is approximately 97% for both pions and kaons. Tracks satisfying e/(e+e~)>0.95{\cal L}_{e}/({\cal L}_{e}+{\cal L}_{\tilde{e}})>0.95 are identified as electrons and eliminated. Here, e{\cal L}_{e} and e~{\cal L}_{\tilde{e}} are distinct likelihoods for the electron and non-electron hypotheses, based on ECL, tracking, and other information. The particle identification is described in detail elsewhere [35].

KS0K_{S}^{0} candidates are reconstructed from charged pion pairs with opposite charges. The π+π\pi^{+}\pi^{-} invariant mass is required to agree with the known KS0K_{S}^{0} mass [1] within 7MeV/c27~{\rm MeV}/c^{2} (3.6σ\approx 3.6\sigma of the resolution). Candidates are selected using a neural network classifier [36] with various kinematic variables as input. To improve the four-momentum resolution, a mass- and vertex-constrained fit is applied.

Photon candidates are reconstructed from ECL clusters with no matching charged tracks. Candidates are selected based on the ratio, E9/E25E_{9}/E_{25}, of the energy deposited in the 3×33\times 3 array of crystals centered on the crystal with the highest energy deposition to that in the 5×55\times 5 array: we require E9/E25>0.8E_{9}/E_{25}>0.8.

Neutral pions are reconstructed from photon pairs. The photons are required to have energy greater than 30MeV30~{\rm MeV} in the barrel region or 50MeV50~{\rm MeV} in the endcaps. The γγ\gamma\gamma invariant mass is required to agree with the π0\pi^{0} nominal mass [1] within 12MeV/c212~{\rm MeV}/c^{2}. This mass window corresponds to 92% signal efficiency. A mass-constrained fit is applied to improve the momentum resolution.

D0D^{0} candidates are reconstructed in six decay modes: Kπ+K^{-}\pi^{+}, Kπ+π0K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{0}, Kπ+ππ+K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{+}, KS0π+πK_{S}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}, KS0π+ππ0K_{S}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}, and K+KK^{+}K^{-}. The π0\pi^{0} candidates used in this reconstruction are required to have momentum in the center-of-mass system greater than 100MeV/c100~{\rm MeV}/c, and energy in the laboratory system greater than 150MeV150~{\rm MeV}. If a π0\pi^{0} is included, the reconstructed D0D^{0} invariant mass is required to be within 16MeV/c216~{\rm MeV}/c^{2} of the nominal mass [1] corresponding to 85% signal efficiency; otherwise, it is required to be within 8.5MeV/c28.5~{\rm MeV}/c^{2} corresponding to 91% efficiency. To improve the momentum resolution, a mass- and vertex-constrained fit is applied. Candidates where the χ2\chi^{2} probability of the fit is less than 0.0001 are eliminated.

D¯0\overline{D}{}^{*0} candidates are reconstructed in two decay modes: D¯γ0\overline{D}{}^{0}\gamma and D¯π00\overline{D}{}^{0}\pi^{0}. For the D¯γ0\overline{D}{}^{0}\gamma mode, only γ\gamma candidates with an energy greater than 90MeV90~{\rm MeV} in the laboratory system are used. For the D¯π00\overline{D}{}^{0}\pi^{0} mode, only π0\pi^{0} candidates with a momentum in the center-of-mass system of less than 100MeV/c100~{\rm MeV}/c and an energy in the laboratory system of less than 200MeV200~{\rm MeV} are used. The difference in the reconstructed mass between D¯0\overline{D}{}^{*0} and D¯0\overline{D}{}^{0} is required to agree with the nominal value [1] within 9.0MeV/c29.0~{\rm MeV}/c^{2} and 2.0MeV/c22.0~{\rm MeV}/c^{2} for D¯γ0\overline{D}{}^{0}\gamma and D¯π00\overline{D}{}^{0}\pi^{0}, respectively, corresponding to 90% signal efficiency in each case.

BB meson candidates are then reconstructed in the decay modes D0D¯K+0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0}K^{+} and D0D¯KS00D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0}K_{S}^{0}. To reduce wrong combinations, the daughter K+K^{+} is required to have K/(π+K)>0.6{\cal L}_{K}/({\cal L}_{\pi}+{\cal L}_{K})>0.6, corresponding to an identification efficiency of 89%. The BB candidates are selected based on the beam-energy constrained mass, Mbc(Ebeamcms)2(pBcms)2M_{\rm bc}\equiv\sqrt{(E_{\rm beam}^{\rm cms})^{2}-(p_{B}^{\rm cms})^{2}} and the difference of the energy in the center-of-mass system between the BB candidate and the beam, ΔEEBcmsEbeamcms\Delta E\equiv E_{B}^{\rm cms}-E_{\rm beam}^{\rm cms}, where EbeamcmsE_{\rm beam}^{\rm cms} is the beam energy in the center-of-mass system corresponding to half of s\sqrt{s}, and pBcmsp_{B}^{\rm cms} and EBcmsE_{B}^{\rm cms} are the energy and momentum of BB candidates in the center-of-mass system, respectively. We retain events with Mbc>5.2GeV/c2M_{\rm bc}>5.2~{\rm GeV}/c^{2} and |ΔE|<50MeV|\Delta E|<50~{\rm MeV} for later analysis. The MbcM_{\rm bc} signal region is defined as |MbcmB|<4.5MeV/c2|M_{\rm bc}-m_{B}|<4.5~{\rm MeV}/c^{2} (2σ\approx 2\sigma) for D¯0D¯γ0\overline{D}{}^{*0}\to\overline{D}{}^{0}\gamma and |MbcmB|<6.0MeV/c2|M_{\rm bc}-m_{B}|<6.0~{\rm MeV}/c^{2} (2.5σ\approx 2.5\sigma) for D¯0D¯π00\overline{D}{}^{*0}\to\overline{D}{}^{0}\pi^{0}, where mBm_{B} denotes the nominal BB mass [1]. The ΔE\Delta E signal region is defined as |ΔE|<12MeV|\Delta E|<12~{\rm MeV} (2σ\approx 2\sigma). For suppression of continuum events, we use a FastBDT classifier [37] trained on the simulation sample with the following event-shape information as input: modified Fox-Wolfram moments [38], the momentum flow in concentric cones around the thrust axis [39], and thrust-related quantities. Events for which the classifier output is less than 0.15 are eliminated. This requirement retains 96% of the signal candidates and rejects 49% of the candidates of continuum events.

After this selection, the average number of BB candidates per event is 1.8, because D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} and D0D¯0D^{*0}\overline{D}{}^{0} are often indistinguishable and double-counted. To avoid multiple counting of signal events, we select the candidate that has the highest value of the product of the following likelihood {\cal L} and prior probability 𝒫{\cal P}

=M(D0)×M(D¯)0×M(D¯)0M(D¯)0×ΔE[×M(π0)],𝒫=εijkζijk×(D0i)×(D¯0j)×(D¯0k),\begin{split}{\cal L}=&{\cal L}_{M(D^{0})}\times{\cal L}_{M(\overline{D}{}^{0})}\times{\cal L}_{M(\overline{D}{}^{*0})-M(\overline{D}{}^{0})}\\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\times{\cal L}_{\Delta E}~[\times{\cal L}_{M(\pi^{0})}],\\ {\cal P}=&\frac{\varepsilon_{ijk}}{\zeta_{ijk}}\times{\cal B}(D^{0}\to i)\times{\cal B}(\overline{D}{}^{0}\to j)\times{\cal B}(\overline{D}{}^{*0}\to k),\end{split} (1)

where {\cal L} is the product of the likelihoods of the measured D0D^{0}, D¯0\overline{D}{}^{0}, and D¯0\overline{D}{}^{*0} masses, and ΔE\Delta E; and, for the D¯0D¯π00\overline{D}{}^{*0}\to\overline{D}{}^{0}\pi^{0} mode, the likelihood of the measured π0\pi^{0} mass. Each likelihood is obtained using probability density functions (PDFs) determined using the MC samples. The probability 𝒫{\cal P} is obtained from the probability that a signal event can be reconstructed εijk\varepsilon_{ijk}, the average number of BB candidates per event ζijk\zeta_{ijk}, and the decay branching fraction, when D0D^{0}, D¯0\overline{D}{}^{0}, and D¯0\overline{D}{}^{*0} are reconstructed in the ii, jj, and kk modes, respectively. The values of εijk\varepsilon_{ijk} and ζijk\zeta_{ijk} are determined using the MC samples. The (Mbc,ΔE)(M_{\rm bc},\Delta E) distribution of the selected BB candidates is shown in Fig. 1. The red solid (blue dashed) rectangle shows the (Mbc,ΔE)(M_{\rm bc},\Delta E) signal region for D¯0D¯γ0\overline{D}{}^{*0}\to\overline{D}{}^{0}\gamma (D¯π00\overline{D}{}^{0}\pi^{0}): BB candidates used in the lineshape study are selected from this region.

For all events remaining in the selection, the following D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} invariant mass is calculated instead of applying a mass-constrained fit to improve the mass resolution,

M(D0D¯)0={M(D0D¯γ0)M(D¯γ0)+mD¯0forD¯0D¯γ0,M(D0D¯π00)M(D¯π00)+mD¯0forD¯0D¯π00,\begin{split}M&(D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0})\\ &=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}M(D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{0}\gamma)-M(\overline{D}{}^{0}\gamma)+m_{\overline{D}{}^{*0}}&\\ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~{\rm for~}\overline{D}{}^{*0}\to\overline{D}{}^{0}\gamma,\\ M(D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{0}\pi^{0})-M(\overline{D}{}^{0}\pi^{0})+m_{\overline{D}{}^{*0}}&\\ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~{\rm for~}\overline{D}{}^{*0}\to\overline{D}{}^{0}\pi^{0},\\ \end{array}\right.\end{split} (2)

where the reconstructed D¯0\overline{D}{}^{*0} invariant mass, M(D¯γ0)M(\overline{D}{}^{0}\gamma) or M(D¯π00)M(\overline{D}{}^{0}\pi^{0}), is subtracted, and the D¯0\overline{D}{}^{*0} nominal mass, mD¯0m_{\overline{D}{}^{*0}}, is added. The lineshape and signal yield are determined by fitting the distribution in the region below 4.0GeV/c24.0~{\rm GeV}/c^{2}.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 1: Distributions of (Mbc,ΔE)(M_{\rm bc},\Delta E) for B+B^{+} (left) and B0B^{0} (right) candidates in the M(D0D¯)0<3.88GeV/c2M(D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0})<3.88~{\rm GeV}/c^{2} region, where the signal-to-background ratio for X(3872)X(3872) in data is relatively high. The red solid and blue dashed rectangles show the (Mbc,ΔE)(M_{\rm bc},\Delta E) signal regions for D¯0D¯γ0\overline{D}{}^{*0}\to\overline{D}{}^{0}\gamma and D¯π00\overline{D}{}^{0}\pi^{0}, respectively.

IV Fit Strategy and Detector Response

In this work, the obtained M(D0D¯)0M(D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0}) distributions are fitted with two lineshape models: the relativistic Breit-Wigner, and a Flatté-inspired model. The fits with these two models, shown in the next section, are performed with the following procedure.

When signal events are reconstructed correctly, the invariant mass distribution has a peak consisting of the natural lineshape convolved with the mass-dependent detector response. This response, i.e. the mass dependence of the signal efficiency and the mass resolution, is studied and parameterized using a set of X(3872)D0D¯0X(3872)\to D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} MC samples generated with zero width, and a range of mass values from the D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} threshold to 4.0GeV/c24.0~{\rm GeV}/c^{2}. Here, the X(3872)D0D¯0X(3872)\to D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} decays are generated using a uniform phase space model; the D0D^{*0} width is assumed to be around 60 keV [23]. Since the signal-to-noise ratio depends on the D0D^{*0} decay mode, fits are performed separately for D0D0γD^{*0}\to D^{0}\gamma and D0D0π0D^{*0}\to D^{0}\pi^{0}. In addition, fits are performed separately for B0B^{0} and B+B^{+} candidates to determine the ratio of branching fractions between B0X(3872)K0B^{0}\to X(3872)K^{0} and B+X(3872)K+B^{+}\to X(3872)K^{+}.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 2: The detector response for the signal component. (a) The sum of products of the signal efficiency and the branching fraction of the intermediate states D¯0ϵij×ij{\cal B}_{\overline{D}{}^{*0}}\sum\epsilon_{ij}\times{\cal B}_{ij} as a function of the X(3872)X(3872) mass generated in the MC samples for B+X(3872)K+B^{+}\to X(3872)K^{+}; the blue circles and the red squares are for D0D0π0D^{*0}\to D^{0}\pi^{0} and D0D0γD^{*0}\to D^{0}\gamma, respectively. The lines represent the parameterized efficiency functions. For B0X(3872)K0B^{0}\to X(3872)K^{0}, similar structures are obtained with a ratio of B+X(3872)K+B^{+}\to X(3872)K^{+} to B0X(3872)K0B^{0}\to X(3872)K^{0} of almost 4:14:1. (b) The M(D0D¯)0M(D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0}) spread due to the detector response for the X(3872)X(3872) lineshape generated with zero width and masses of 3871.9MeV/c23871.9~{\rm MeV}/c^{2}, 3879.0MeV/c23879.0~{\rm MeV}/c^{2}, 3884.0MeV/c23884.0~{\rm MeV}/c^{2}, and 3950.0MeV/c23950.0~{\rm MeV}/c^{2} for the D0D0π0D^{*0}\to D^{0}\pi^{0} decay mode. The circles show normalized distributions obtained from the MC sample. The curves show the parameterized resolution functions. Similar results are obtained for D0D0γD^{*0}\to D^{0}\gamma.

The fit function for correctly reconstructed X(3872)D0D¯0X(3872)\to D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} decays, which we refer to as “signal”, is constructed as follows. The signal efficiency varies depending on the mass by a few tens of percent, especially around the threshold, as shown in Fig. 2 (a). It is parameterized by the threshold function p0{1p1ep2(MmD0mD0)+p3(MmD0mD0)}p_{0}\{1-p_{1}e^{p_{2}(M-m_{D^{0}}-m_{D^{*0}})}+p_{3}(M-m_{D^{0}}-m_{D^{*0}})\} with parameters p0p_{0}p3p_{3} in the low-mass region, which is continuously connected to a constant value in the high-mass region. The mass resolution for the signal is modeled as the sum of a Gaussian and a reversed Crystal Ball function [40] with a common mean. Figure 2 (b) shows the M(D0D¯)0M(D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0}) spread due to the resolution, and the resolution function used in this work, for several choices of the X(3872)X(3872) mass. As noted in the previous Belle study, the resolution degrades with the square root of the difference between the mass and the threshold [11]. The convolution with the mass-dependent resolution function entails longer computation times. The effect of smearing due to the resolution is small at masses away from the peak, since the natural lineshape is broad [10, 11]. For example, the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the natural lineshape is a few MeV, while the FWHM of the mass resolution near the peak is only about 220 keV. Therefore, instead of convolution with the mass-dependent resolution function, convolution with the specific resolution function at the mass of 3871.9MeV/c23871.9~{\rm MeV}/c^{2} (near the peak) is adopted as an approximation. To reproduce the behavior near threshold, the signal function is multiplied by a soft threshold function that rises from zero to one at the threshold using an error function. The procedure is validated on X(3872)D0D¯0X(3872)\to D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} MC samples generated with a broad lineshape. The effect of the approximation is negligible.

The ratios of signal yields among the decay modes are fixed in the fit using the product of the expected total signal efficiency and the branching fraction of each decay mode. Here the expected signal efficiency depends on the lineshape because of the mass dependence of the signal efficiency. The total signal efficiency is obtained by averaging the signal efficiencies as a function of mass weighted by the values of the lineshape function. It is then corrected by taking account of the signal which may leak out of the fit range, depending on the lineshape, and by taking the ratio of the area of the signal function in the fit range to that from the threshold to mBmKm_{B}-m_{K}. Here, a mass-dependent resolution function is convolved with the signal function, because smearing due to the resolution is important at higher masses. The calculation of the total signal efficiency is validated on MC samples for a broad range of lineshape parameters.

A separate fit function is used for “broken signal”: cases where the D0D^{0} is reconstructed incorrectly, a wrong π0\pi^{0} or γ\gamma is combined in the D¯0\overline{D}{}^{*0} reconstruction, or a D0D¯0{D}^{*0}\overline{D}{}^{0} signal event is misinterpreted as D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} by combining π0\pi^{0} or γ\gamma from D0{D}^{*0} incorrectly with the D¯0\overline{D}{}^{0} to make a fake D¯0\overline{D}{}^{*0}. For the D¯0D¯π00\overline{D}{}^{*0}\to\overline{D}{}^{0}\pi^{0} mode, such events produce a broad peak in the M(D0D¯)0M(D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0}) signal region and possibly distort the lineshape of the signal. The fit function for the broken signal therefore takes account of the mass dependencies of the resolution and the efficiency as in the case of correctly reconstructed signal events. The mass dependence of the efficiency is parameterized using the same threshold function used for the signal. The resolution is reproduced by a triple Gaussian multiplied by a soft threshold function at the D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} threshold, and its mass dependence is studied and parameterized using zero-width MC samples. Since the resolution for the broken signal is several times worse than that for the signal, we do not use approximated convolution: we instead use a discrete convolution with the mass-dependent resolution function. In the fit, the yield of the broken signal relative to the signal is fixed to the value expected from the lineshape and the ratio of the total efficiency of the broken signal to that of the signal.

The broken signal peak due to the D¯0D¯γ0\overline{D}{}^{*0}\to\overline{D}{}^{0}\gamma mode has little sensitivity to the natural lineshape. To reduce the systematic uncertainty due to the shape, we use a histogram PDF depending on the lineshape. This PDF is obtained by plotting the broken-signal histogram for each of the zero-width MC samples, scaling it by the value of the assumed lineshape at the generated mass, and summing up all of the scaled histograms. Here, the bin widths are adjusted to increase as the mass increases to suppress statistical fluctuations.

The background from e+eqq¯e^{+}e^{-}\to q\bar{q} (q=u,d,s,cq=u,d,s,c) continuum events, and e+eΥ(4S)BB¯e^{+}e^{-}\to\Upsilon(4S)\to B\overline{B} events other than signal, is studied using the background MC sample. The shape of the invariant mass distribution is reproduced using a threshold function, M(mD0+mD0)\sqrt{M-(m_{D^{0}}+m_{D^{*0}})}, where mD0m_{D^{0}} and mD0m_{D^{*0}} are the nominal masses of D0D^{0} and D0D^{*0} [1], respectively.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: The M(D0D¯)0M(D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0}) distributions with the fit result with the relativistic Breit-Wigner lineshape for B+X(3872)K+B^{+}\to X(3872)K^{+} (top) and B0X(3872)K0B^{0}\to X(3872)K^{0} (bottom). The left and right rows are for D¯0D¯γ0\overline{D}{}^{*0}\to\overline{D}{}^{0}\gamma and D¯0D¯π00\overline{D}{}^{*0}\to\overline{D}{}^{0}\pi^{0}, respectively. The points with error bars represent data. The blue solid line shows the total fit result. The blue and green dashed lines show the signal contributions and broken signal contributions, respectively. The red dashed line shows the contribution of generic background.

V Fit to Data

V.1 Relativistic Breit-Wigner model

The relativistic Breit-Wigner lineshape function is defined as [1]

fBW(M)=mBWMΓ(M)(M2mBW2)2+mBW2Γ(M)2,f_{\rm BW}(M)=\frac{m_{\rm BW}M\Gamma(M)}{(M^{2}-m_{\rm BW}^{2})^{2}+m_{\rm BW}^{2}\Gamma(M)^{2}}, (3)

where MM is the observed invariant mass, and mBWm_{\rm BW} is the mass of the resonance. The mass-dependent width Γ(M)\Gamma(M) is defined as

Γ(M)=ΓBWmBWM(p(M)p(mBW))2L+1,\Gamma(M)=\Gamma_{\rm BW}\frac{m_{\rm BW}}{M}\biggr{(}\frac{p(M)}{p(m_{\rm BW})}\biggl{)}^{2L+1}, (4)

where ΓBW\Gamma_{\rm BW} and LL are the width of the resonance and the orbital angular momentum, respectively. Taking account of the closeness to the threshold, the decay is assumed to be pure S-wave (L=0L=0) with no D-wave (L=2L=2) admixture. The momentum of one of the daughters in the rest frame of X(3872)X(3872), p(M)p(M), can be calculated as

p(M)=12M(M2(mD0+mD0)2)×(M2(mD0mD0)2).\begin{split}p(M)=&\frac{1}{2M}\sqrt{(M^{2}-(m_{D^{0}}+m_{D^{*0}})^{2})}\\ &\times\sqrt{(M^{2}-(m_{D^{0}}-m_{D^{*0}})^{2})}.\end{split} (5)

Figure 3 presents the M(D0D¯)0M(D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0}) distributions obtained from the data. Here, unbinned maximum likelihood fits are performed simultaneously to the distributions for the D¯0\overline{D}{}^{*0} decay modes, D¯0D¯π0\overline{D}{}^{*0}\to\overline{D}{}\pi^{0} and D¯γ\overline{D}{}\gamma, and for the B+B^{+} and B0B^{0} samples, with common fit parameters mm and Γ0\Gamma_{0}. The PDFs are convolved with the detector response as described in the previous section. Table 1 summarizes the parameters obtained from the fit. The significance is determined from the log-likelihood ratio 2ln(0/)-2\ln({\cal L}_{0}/{\cal L}) accounting for the difference in the number of degrees of freedom, where 0{\cal L}_{0} and {\cal L} are the fit likelihood without and with the peak component; i.e., the yield is constrained to be zero for the significance of each BB mode, and the parameters mm and Γ0\Gamma_{0} are additionally dropped for the combined significance. Here the likelihood is smeared to take account of the systematic uncertainties on the signal yields as described below. The significance is found to be 5.9σ5.9\sigma for B+X(3872)K+B^{+}\to X(3872)K^{+}, and 5.2σ5.2\sigma for B0X(3872)K0B^{0}\to X(3872)K^{0}. The absence of peaks in the M(D0D¯)0M(D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0}) distribution in the (Mbc,ΔE)(M_{\rm bc},\Delta E) sideband region confirms that any contribution from peaking background is small; here the sideband region is defined as 12MeV/c2<|MbcmB|<20MeV/c212~{\rm MeV}/c^{2}<|M_{\rm bc}-m_{B}|<20~{\rm MeV}/c^{2} or 30MeV<|ΔE|<50MeV30~{\rm MeV}<|\Delta E|<50~{\rm MeV}.

Table 1: Results using the relativistic Breit-Wigner lineshape: the fitted mass, width and signal yield, the total signal efficiency, and the significance.
Mode m(MeV/c2)m~({\rm MeV}/c^{2}) Γ0(MeV)\Gamma_{0}~({\rm MeV}) NsigN_{\rm sig} D¯0ϵij×ij{\cal B}_{\overline{D}{}^{*0}}\sum\epsilon_{ij}\times{\cal B}_{ij} Significance
Combined 3873.710.50+0.563873.71^{+0.56}_{-0.50} 5.21.5+2.25.2^{+2.2}_{-1.5} 70.511.5+13.670.5^{+13.6}_{-11.5} 8.70×1048.70\times 10^{-4} 7.5σ7.5\sigma
X(3872)K+X(3872)K^{+} 53.29.8+11.653.2^{+11.6}_{-\phantom{1}9.8} 6.92×1046.92\times 10^{-4} 5.9σ5.9\sigma
X(3872)K0X(3872)K^{0} 17.34.1+4.717.3^{+\phantom{1}4.7}_{-\phantom{1}4.1} 1.78×1041.78\times 10^{-4} 5.2σ5.2\sigma
Table 2: Summary of systematic uncertainty for the mass, width, and branching fractions measurements using the relativistic Breit-Wigner lineshape.
Source m(MeV/c2)m~({\rm MeV}/c^{2}) Γ0(MeV)\Gamma_{0}~({\rm MeV}) X(3872)K+X(3872)K^{+} (%) X(3872)K0X(3872)K^{0} (%) Ratio(K0/K+K^{0}/K^{+}) (%)
(i) Generic BG PDF ±0.07\pm 0.07 ±0.38\pm 0.38 ±8.2\pm\phantom{1}8.2 ±1.4\pm 1.4 ±6.7\pm 6.7
(ii) Mass resolution ±0.02\pm 0.02 0.11-0.11/+0.13+0.13 0.2-0.2/+0.4+0.4 0.3-0.3/+0.4+0.4 0.1-0.1/+0.0+0.0
(iii) Mass dependence of efficiency ±0.02\pm 0.02 0.08-0.08/+0.07+0.07 2.7-2.7/+2.0+2.0 2.3-2.3/+1.7+1.7 0.5-0.5/+0.6+0.6
(iv) Ratio of broken-signal BG to signal ±0.01\pm 0.01 ±0.02\pm 0.02 ±2.1\pm\phantom{1}2.1 ±0.6\pm 0.6 ±2.1\pm 2.1
(v) Fit bias 0.02-0.02/+0.00+0.00 0.02-0.02/+0.00+0.00 1.3-1.3/+0.0+0.0 7.3-7.3/+0.0+0.0 4.5-4.5/+0.0+0.0
(vi) D0D^{*0} and D0D^{0} masses ±0.10\pm 0.10 \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots
(vii) D0D^{*0} width 0.01-0.01/+0.02+0.02 ±0.02\pm 0.02 ±0.0\pm\phantom{1}0.0 ±0.0\pm 0.0 ±0.0\pm 0.0
(viii) Broken-signal shape for D¯0D¯γ0\overline{D}{}^{*0}\to\overline{D}{}^{0}\gamma ±0.00\pm 0.00 ±0.01\pm 0.01 ±0.1\pm\phantom{1}0.1 ±0.1\pm 0.1 ±0.1\pm 0.1
(ix) Signal ratio of D¯0D¯γ0\overline{D}{}^{*0}\to\overline{D}{}^{0}\gamma to D¯π00\overline{D}{}^{0}\pi^{0} ±0.01\pm 0.01 ±0.05\pm 0.05 ±0.8\pm\phantom{1}0.8 ±0.2\pm 0.2 ±0.6\pm 0.6
(x) Tracking efficiency \cdots \cdots ±2.1\pm\phantom{1}2.1 ±2.4\pm 2.4 ±0.3\pm 0.3
(xi) PID efficiency \cdots \cdots ±2.9\pm\phantom{1}2.9 ±2.4\pm 2.4 ±0.4\pm 0.4
(xii) KS0K_{S}^{0} efficiency \cdots \cdots ±0.2\pm\phantom{1}0.2 ±1.0\pm 1.0 ±0.8\pm 0.8
(xiii) π0\pi^{0} reconstruction \cdots \cdots ±1.9\pm\phantom{1}1.9 ±1.9\pm 1.9 \cdots
(xiv) γ\gamma reconstruction \cdots \cdots ±1.5\pm\phantom{1}1.5 ±1.5\pm 1.5 \cdots
(xv) ϵij×ij\sum\epsilon_{ij}\times{\cal B}_{ij} \cdots \cdots ±1.4\pm\phantom{1}1.4 3.1-3.1/+2.3+2.3 1.7-1.7/+0.9+0.9
(xvi) NBB¯N_{B\overline{B}} \cdots \cdots ±1.4\pm\phantom{1}1.4 ±1.4\pm 1.4 \cdots
(xvii) (Υ(4S)BB¯){\cal B}(\Upsilon(4S)\to B\overline{B}) \cdots \cdots ±1.2\pm\phantom{1}1.2 ±1.2\pm 1.2 ±2.4\pm 2.4
Total ±0.13\pm 0.13 ±0.4\pm 0.4\phantom{0} ±10\pm 10\phantom{.0} 9.6-9.6/+5.7+5.7 9.0-9.0/+7.6+7.6

The lineshape parameters are determined to be

mBW=3873.710.50+0.56(stat)±0.13(syst)MeV/c2,ΓBW=5.21.5+2.2(stat)±0.4(syst)MeV.\begin{split}m_{\rm BW}&=3873.71^{+0.56}_{-0.50}({\rm stat})\pm 0.13({\rm syst})~{\rm MeV}/c^{2},\\ \Gamma_{\rm BW}&=5.2^{+2.2}_{-1.5}({\rm stat})\pm 0.4({\rm syst})~{\rm MeV}.\end{split}

The difference between mBWm_{\rm BW} and the D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} threshold is found to be

mBW(mD0+mD0)=2.020.50+0.56(stat)±0.08(syst)MeV/c2.\begin{split}m_{\rm BW}-&(m_{D^{0}}+m_{D^{*0}})\\ &=2.02^{+0.56}_{-0.50}({\rm stat})\pm 0.08({\rm syst})~{\rm MeV}/c^{2}.\end{split}

The systematic uncertainties are listed in Table 2. We consider the following nine sources of uncertainty on the mass, the width, and the signal yield: (i) The uncertainty due to the assumed shape of the generic background is estimated by performing a fit after changing the PDF from the threshold function with a square root to an inverted ARGUS function [41]. (ii) The mass resolution is validated by comparing the data and MC ΔE\Delta E resolution in the B+D¯π+0ππ+B^{+}\to\overline{D}{}^{*0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{+} control sample, which has a similar decay topology to BX(3872)(D0D¯)0KB\to X(3872)(\to D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0})K. The ratios of the mass resolution obtained for MC and data are 1.01±0.101.01\pm 0.10 for D¯0D¯γ0\overline{D}{}^{*0}\to\overline{D}{}^{0}\gamma and 1.08±0.131.08\pm 0.13 for D¯0D¯π00\overline{D}{}^{*0}\to\overline{D}{}^{0}\pi^{0}. This resolution is consistent in data and MC, so no correction is applied, and the associated uncertainty is assigned by performing fits with the resolution varied by the precision, ±1σ±13%\pm 1\sigma\equiv\pm 13\%. (iii, iv) The uncertainties arising from the mass dependence of the efficiency and the ratio of the broken-signal to the signal are evaluated by summing in quadrature the changes induced by ±1σ\pm 1\sigma variations of the relevant parameters. (v) The uncertainty due to possible bias in the fit is evaluated by performing pseudo experiments. The input value of a parameter subtracted from the median of the parameter distribution is regarded as the corresponding uncertainty. (vi) For the mBWm_{\rm BW} measurement only, the uncertainty arising from the finite precision of the D0D^{0} mass and the Δ(mD0mD0)\Delta(m_{D^{*0}}-m_{D^{0}}) mass difference is taken as the ±1σ\pm 1\sigma uncertainty of 2mD0+Δ(mD0mD0)=3871.69±0.10MeV/c22m_{D^{0}}+\Delta(m_{D^{*0}}-m_{D^{0}})=3871.69\pm 0.10~{\rm MeV}/c^{2} following Ref. [1]. (vii) The nonzero D0D^{*0} width (ΓD0\Gamma_{D^{*0}}) leads to three potential sources of bias: a bias arising from the mass difference technique, a bias arising from the consideration of the D0D^{*0} width in the lineshape model, and a bias due to the interference between X(3872)D0D¯0X(3872)\to D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} and D¯D00\overline{D}{}^{0}D^{*0}. Biases from these three sources are evaluated as follows. For the first bias, two M(D0D¯)0M(D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0}) distributions are formed in MC with a broad lineshape: one where mD0m_{D^{*0}} in Eq. (2) is fixed to the nominal value (as in our analysis), and the other where mD0m_{D^{*0}} is replaced by the true D0D^{*0} mass generated by EvtGen, where ΓD0=65.5keV\Gamma_{D^{*0}}=65.5~{\rm keV} [23] is assumed. Each distribution is fitted with the PDF of the signal component, and the largest difference is regarded as the associated uncertainty. For the second bias, the distribution for data is fitted after smearing the assumed lineshape with a Breit-Wigner function of ΓD0=65.5keV\Gamma_{D^{*0}}=65.5~{\rm keV}, and the change from the original result is regarded as the associated uncertainty. The third bias is ignored since the interference effect is negligible above the threshold [42]. The uncertainties associated with the first and second biases are added in quadrature. (viii) Limited MC statistics lead to uncertainty on the shape of the broken-signal for D¯0D¯γ0\overline{D}{}^{*0}\to\overline{D}{}^{0}\gamma. This is evaluated by repeating the fit while varying each bin entry of the MC PDF histogram assuming Poisson distributions. The 68% interval of the distributions of the resulting fit values is used to assign the uncertainty. (ix) The uncertainty arising from the fixed ratio of the signal yields for D¯0D¯γ0\overline{D}{}^{*0}\to\overline{D}{}^{0}\gamma to D¯π00\overline{D}{}^{0}\pi^{0} is evaluated by performing new fits, and varying the ratio of branching fractions between D0D0γD^{*0}\to D^{0}\gamma and D0D0π0D^{*0}\to D^{0}\pi^{0} by ±1σ\pm 1\sigma [1]. The difference from the original result is treated as the uncertainty.

The product branching fraction is calculated as follows:

(BX(3872)K)×(X(3872)D0D¯)0=Nsig2NBB¯(Υ(4S)BB¯)D¯0ϵij×ij,\begin{split}{\cal B}&(B\to X(3872)K)\times{\cal{B}}(X(3872)\to D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0})\\ &\qquad=\frac{N_{\rm sig}}{2N_{B\overline{B}}{\cal B}(\Upsilon(4S)\to B\overline{B}){\cal B}_{\overline{D}{}^{*0}}\sum\epsilon_{ij}\times{\cal B}_{ij}},\\ \end{split} (6)

where D¯{\cal B}_{\overline{D}{}^{*}} is the appropriate D¯0\overline{D}{}^{*0} branching fraction, and ϵij×ij\sum\epsilon_{ij}\times{\cal B}_{ij} is the sum of efficiencies multiplied by the product of branching fractions for the various D0iD^{0}\to i and D¯0j\overline{D}{}^{0}\to j decay modes used. For (Υ(4S)BB¯){\cal B}(\Upsilon(4S)\to B\overline{B}), 0.514 and 0.486 are assigned for the B+BB^{+}B^{-} and B0B¯0B^{0}\overline{B}{}^{0} modes, respectively [1]. The results are

(B+X(3872)K+)×(X(3872)D0D¯)0=(0.970.18+0.21(stat)±0.10(syst))×104,(B0X(3872)K0)×(X(3872)D0D¯)0=(1.300.31+0.36(stat)0.07+0.12(syst))×104.\begin{split}{\cal B}&(B^{+}\to X(3872)K^{+})\times{\cal{B}}(X(3872)\to D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0})\\ &\qquad=(0.97^{+0.21}_{-0.18}({\rm stat})\pm 0.10({\rm syst}))\times 10^{-4},\\ {\cal B}&(B^{0}\to X(3872)K^{0})\times{\cal{B}}(X(3872)\to D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0})\\ &\qquad=(1.30^{+0.36}_{-0.31}({\rm stat})^{+0.12}_{-0.07}({\rm syst}))\times 10^{-4}.\\ \end{split}

Here we consider the following eight sources of systematic uncertainties in addition to those previously described for the lineshape parameters; (x) The uncertainty of the tracking efficiency is estimated using a D+π+D0(π+πKS0)D^{*+}\to\pi^{+}D^{0}(\to\pi^{+}\pi^{-}K_{S}^{0}) sample for tracks with high momentum. The efficiency is consistent in data and MC; the precision of the test, 0.35% per track, is taken as a systematic uncertainty. For tracks with low momentum, the sample of soft π\pi^{-} in DD¯0πD^{*-}\to\overline{D}^{0}\pi^{-} in the B0Dπ+B^{0}\to D^{*-}\pi^{+} decay is used. The ratio of tracking efficiency obtained for MC and data is applied as a correction factor. The uncertainty in the correction factor is regarded as a systematic uncertainty. (xi, xii, xiii) Efficiencies for hadron identification, KS0K_{S}^{0} selection, and π0\pi^{0} detection are evaluated using control samples: D+D0(Kπ+)π+D^{*+}\to D^{0}(\to K^{-}\pi^{+})\pi^{+}, D+D0(KS0π0)π+D^{*+}\to D^{0}(\to K_{S}^{0}\pi^{0})\pi^{+}, and τππ0ντ\tau^{-}\to\pi^{-}\pi^{0}\nu_{\tau}, respectively. In each case a correction factor is applied to the signal efficiency based on the ratio of efficiencies obtained for MC and data, and the uncertainty on the correction factor is taken as the associated systematic uncertainty. (xiv) The uncertainty of the efficiency of γ\gamma detection is evaluated using a B+χc1(J/ψγ)K+B^{+}\to\chi_{c1}(\to J/\psi\gamma)K^{+} sample: 3.0% is assigned for the D0D0γD^{*0}\to D^{0}\gamma decay mode. (xv) The uncertainty on ϵij×ij\sum\epsilon_{ij}\times{\cal B}_{ij} mainly arises from the uncertainties on the D0D^{0} branching fractions, and the limited size of the signal MC sample. In addition, validation of the calculation method for the total signal efficiency shows input-output differences in the B0B^{0} decay mode larger than expected from statistical fluctuations: the largest of these is assigned as a systematic uncertainty. The uncertainties from these sources are added. (xvi) The number of BB¯B\overline{B} pairs in the data set is measured to be (772±11)×106(772\pm 11)\times 10^{6}: the associated uncertainty is set to 1.4%. (xvii) The uncertainties on the branching fractions (Υ(4S)B+B)=(51.4±0.6)%{\cal B}(\Upsilon(4S)\to B^{+}B^{-})=(51.4\pm 0.6)\% and (Υ(4S)B0B¯)0=(48.6±0.6)%{\cal B}(\Upsilon(4S)\to B^{0}\overline{B}{}^{0})=(48.6\pm 0.6)\% [1] are also included.

The ratio of branching fractions between B0X(3872)K0B^{0}\to X(3872)K^{0} and B+X(3872)K+B^{+}\to X(3872)K^{+} is found to be

(B0X(3872)K0)(B+X(3872)K+)=1.340.40+0.47(stat)0.12+0.10(syst),\frac{{\cal B}(B^{0}\to X(3872)K^{0})}{{\cal B}(B^{+}\to X(3872)K^{+})}=1.34^{+0.47}_{-0.40}({\rm stat})^{+0.10}_{-0.12}({\rm syst}),

with the same sources of systematic uncertainty as for the branching fractions; some sources cancel, or partially cancel, in the ratio (see Table 2).

V.2 Flatté model

Refer to caption
Figure 4: The M(D0D¯)0M(D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0}) distributions with the fit result with the Flatté lineshape for B+X(3872)K+B^{+}\to X(3872)K^{+} (top) and B0X(3872)K0B^{0}\to X(3872)K^{0} (bottom). The left and right rows are for D¯0D¯γ0\overline{D}{}^{*0}\to\overline{D}{}^{0}\gamma and D¯0D¯π00\overline{D}{}^{*0}\to\overline{D}{}^{0}\pi^{0}, respectively. The points with error bars represent data. The blue solid line shows the total fit result. The blue and green dashed lines show the signal contributions and broken-signal contributions, respectively. The red dashed line shows the contribution of generic background.

The Flatté-inspired parametrization is defined as follows using the energy from the D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} threshold, E=M(mD0+mD0)E=M-(m_{D^{0}}+m_{D^{*0}}) [22, 27, 43]:

fFlatte(E)=gkD0D¯0|D(E)|2,f_{\rm Flatte}(E)=\frac{gk_{D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0}}}{|D(E)|^{2}}, (7)
D(E)={EEf12gκD+D+i2[gkD0D¯0+Γ(E)]for0<E<δ,EEf+i2[g(kD0D¯0+kD+D)+Γ(E)]forE>δ,D(E)=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}E-E_{f}-\frac{1}{2}g\kappa_{{D^{+}D^{*-}}}+\frac{i}{2}[gk_{D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0}}+\Gamma(E)]&\\ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~{\rm for}~0<E<\delta,\\ E-E_{f}+\frac{i}{2}[g(k_{D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0}}+k_{{D^{+}D^{*-}}})+\Gamma(E)]&\\ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~{\rm for}~E>\delta,\end{array}\right. (8)

where Ef=m0(mD0+mD0)E_{f}=m_{0}-(m_{D^{0}}+m_{D^{*0}}) is the mass difference of this state (m0m_{0}) from the threshold, and gg is the coupling constant for the DD¯D\overline{D}{}^{*} channels; we assume the coupling constants for the D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} and D+DD^{+}D^{*-} channels are the same due to isospin symmetry. The momenta kak_{a} and κa\kappa_{a} for the channel aa are measured in the rest frame of the X(3872)X(3872). They are expressed using the reduced mass μ\mu as

kD0D¯0=2μD0D¯0E,kD+D=2μD+D(Eδ),κD+D=2μD+D(δE),δ=(mD++mD)(mD0+mD0).\begin{split}&k_{D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0}}=\sqrt{2\mu_{D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0}}E},\\ &k_{D^{+}D^{*-}}=\sqrt{2\mu_{D^{+}D^{*-}}(E-\delta)},\\ &\kappa_{D^{+}D^{*-}}=\sqrt{2\mu_{D^{+}D^{*-}}(\delta-E)},\\ &\delta=(m_{D^{+}}+m_{D^{*-}})-(m_{D^{0}}+m_{D^{*0}}).\\ \end{split} (9)

The energy-dependent width Γ(E)\Gamma(E) is defined by

Γ(E)=ΓJ/ψρ(E)+ΓJ/ψω(E)+Γ0,\Gamma(E)=\Gamma_{J/\psi\rho}(E)+\Gamma_{J/\psi\omega}(E)+\Gamma_{0}, (10)

where Γa\Gamma_{a} is the partial width for the channel aa. For the J/ψρJ/\psi\rho and J/ψωJ/\psi\omega channels, the dependence on EE is defined as follows using the phase space and effective coupling constants, fρf_{\rho} and fωf_{\omega} [27]:

ΓJ/ψρ(E)=fρ2mπM(E)mJ/ψdm2πq(m,E)Γρ(mmρ)2+Γρ2/4,\Gamma_{J/\psi\rho}(E)=f_{\rho}\int^{M(E)-m_{J/\psi}}_{2m_{\pi}}\frac{dm^{\prime}}{2\pi}\frac{q(m^{\prime},E)\Gamma_{\rho}}{(m^{\prime}-m_{\rho})^{2}+\Gamma^{2}_{\rho}/4}, (11)
ΓJ/ψω(E)=fω3mπM(E)mJ/ψdm2πq(m,E)Γω(mmω)2+Γω2/4,\Gamma_{J/\psi\omega}(E)=f_{\omega}\int^{M(E)-m_{J/\psi}}_{3m_{\pi}}\frac{dm^{\prime}}{2\pi}\frac{q(m^{\prime},E)\Gamma_{\omega}}{(m^{\prime}-m_{\omega})^{2}+\Gamma^{2}_{\omega}/4}, (12)

where Γρ\Gamma_{\rho} and Γω\Gamma_{\omega} are total widths for the ρ\rho and ω\omega resonances, respectively. The upper bound of the integral is set by the difference between

M(E)=E+(mD0+mD0)M(E)=E+(m_{D^{0}}+m_{D^{*0}}) (13)

and mJ/ψm_{J/\psi}. In each case, q(m,E)q(m^{\prime},E) is the momentum of the two- or three-pion system in the rest frame of the X(3872)X(3872):

q(m,E)=12M(E)M2(E)(m+mJ/ψ)2×M2(E)(mmJ/ψ)2.\begin{split}q(m^{\prime},E)=&\frac{1}{2M(E)}\sqrt{M^{2}(E)-(m^{\prime}+m_{J/\psi})^{2}}\\ &\times\sqrt{M^{2}(E)-(m^{\prime}-m_{J/\psi})^{2}}.\end{split} (14)

The parameter Γ0\Gamma_{0} is the sum of the partial widths of other channels, such as radiative decays. In total, this model has five free parameters, EfE_{f}, gg, fρf_{\rho}, fωf_{\omega}, and Γ0\Gamma_{0}.

To obtain stable results in the fit, we apply two constraints, which were also used in the previous study at LHCb [26]. The first is to fix fωf_{\omega} so that the branching fraction of the J/ψπ+πJ/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-} mode and that of the J/ψωJ/\psi\omega mode are equal, consistent with experimental results to date [44, 45, 46]. Based on the feature that the area under the lineshape for a channel is proportional to the branching fraction, fωf_{\omega} can be uniquely determined by calculating the ratio of the lineshape area in the J/ψπ+πJ/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-} channel to that in J/ψωJ/\psi\omega. The second is a soft constraint on the ratio of branching fractions between the J/ψπ+πJ/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-} and D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} decay modes: for each of the B+B^{+} and B0B^{0} modes, the J/ψπ+πJ/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-} product branching fraction is calculated as follows, and a Gaussian constraint to the measured value [47] is included in the fit,

(BX(3872)K)×(X(3872)J/ψπ+π)=RDD¯×(BX(3872)K)×(X(3872)D0D¯)0={(8.61±0.32)×106for the B+ mode(4.1±1.1)×106for the B0 mode,\begin{split}&{\cal B}(B\to X(3872)K)\times{\cal B}(X(3872)\to J/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-})\\ &=R_{D\overline{D}{}^{*}}\times{\cal B}(B\to X(3872)K)\times{\cal{B}}(X(3872)\to D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0})\\ &=\left\{\begin{array}[]{cc}(8.61\pm 0.32)\times 10^{-6}&\text{for the }B^{+}\text{ mode}\\ (4.1\pm 1.1)\times 10^{-6}&\text{for the }B^{0}\text{ mode}\\ \end{array}\right.,\end{split} (15)

where RDD¯R_{D\overline{D}{}^{*}} is the ratio of the lineshape area in the J/ψπ+πJ/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-} channel to that in D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0}, and the D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} product branching fraction is given by Eq. (6).

There are too few events in our X(3872)D0D¯0X(3872)\to D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} sample to simultaneously determine the four remaining parameters. Therefore, we focus on the parameter regions where scaling behavior was observed at LHCb [26]. We search for the best lineshape fitted to the M(D0D¯)0M(D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0}) distribution when the following ratios of parameters are fixed to the values measured at LHCb: dg/dEfdg/dE_{f} is fixed to 15.11GeV1-15.11~{\rm GeV}^{-1}, and fρ/Eff_{\rho}/E_{f} and Γ0/Ef\Gamma_{0}/E_{f} are fixed based on the measurements fρ=1.8×103f_{\rho}=1.8\times 10^{-3} and Γ0=1.4MeV\Gamma_{0}=1.4~{\rm MeV}, and the assumption Ef=7.2MeVE_{f}=-7.2~{\rm MeV}. Thus, only gg is floated as a free parameter.

We perform a simultaneous unbinned maximum likelihood fit under the above fit conditions. The fit results for the data are shown in Fig. 4 and Table 3. The fitted gg is 0.290.15+2.690.29^{+2.69}_{-0.15}, where the uncertainty is statistical. Systematic uncertainties are summarized in Table 4. The method to evaluate the uncertainties due to the sources (i) to (ix) is the same as in the measurement of the relativistic Breit-Wigner lineshape. Sources (x) to (xvii) also contribute through the constraint on the branching fraction applied in the fit. They are evaluated by performing fits after varying each parameter by ±1σ\pm 1\sigma, and adding the resulting changes in quadrature. Regarding the fitter bias (v), the relationship between input values and medians of output values is evaluated using pseudo experiments, as shown in Fig. 5. This study shows that for this sample size, gg is likely to be underestimated as gg increases, with the median of the output values converging to around 0.14. The main reason is that the lineshape converges to a fixed form for large gg (given the assumed ratios for the other parameters), and fits fail, especially in determining an upper statistical uncertainty.

Since there is no input value for gg for which the median of output values is 0.29, we cannot determine a central value for gg. We can however set a lower limit. The likelihood including the systematic uncertainties listed in Table 4, L(g)L(g), is shown as the black solid line in Fig. 6. Noting that the curve is asymmetric, with a larger integral above than below the best fit value, we conservatively set the lower limit glowerg_{\rm lower} from

glowergbestL(g)𝑑g=={0.80gbestL(g)𝑑g for 90% credibility,0.90gbestL(g)𝑑g for 95% credibility,\begin{split}&\int_{g_{\rm lower}}^{g_{\rm best}}L(g)dg=\\ &\qquad=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}\displaystyle 0.8\int_{0}^{g_{\rm best}}L(g)dg&\text{ for 90\% credibility},\\ \displaystyle 0.9\int_{0}^{g_{\rm best}}L(g)dg&\text{ for 95\% credibility},\end{array}\right.\end{split} (16)

where gbestg_{\rm best} denotes the coupling constant at the maximum likelihood. The effect of fixing dg/dEfdg/dE_{f}, fρf_{\rho}, and Γ0\Gamma_{0} to the values measured by LHCb is studied by varying each parameter by ±1σ\pm 1\sigma. Separate curves of the relative likelihood L/L0L/L_{0} for each case are also shown in Fig. 6, where L=L(g)L=L(g) is the likelihood of the fit and L0L_{0} is the likelihood of the best fit for each parameter set. The corresponding fit results and lower limits are summarized in Table 5. The L0L_{0} values for the different parameter sets vary in a small range around the value for set (1): the best is favoured by only 1.2σ1.2\sigma relative to set (1), and the worst is disfavoured by 3.4σ3.4\sigma. The loosest lower limit is obtained for the parameter set (6), one of the disfavoured scenarios, where fρf_{\rho} is changed by +1σ+1\sigma. We conservatively choose these as the final lower limits for this study:

g>0.094 at 90% credibility,g>0.075 at 95% credibility.\begin{split}g>0.094\text{ at 90\% credibility},\\ g>0.075\text{ at 95\% credibility}.\end{split}

These correspond to upper limits of Ef<6.2MeVE_{f}<-6.2~{\rm MeV} at 90% credibility and Ef<5.0MeVE_{f}<-5.0~{\rm MeV} at 95% credibility, which are derived from dg/dEf=15.11GeV1dg/dE_{f}=-15.11~{\rm GeV}^{-1}.

We investigate which lineshape model fits the M(D0D¯)0M(D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0}) distribution better using the test statistic t=2ln(BW/Flatte)t=-2\ln({\cal L}_{\rm BW}/{\cal L}_{\rm Flatte}). Here, BW{\cal L}_{\rm BW} is the best fit likelihood for the Breit-Wigner lineshape, and Flatte{\cal L}_{\rm Flatte} is the best likelihood without the RDD¯R_{D\overline{D}{}^{*}} constraint term, for the Flatté lineshape with parameter set (1). For data, we obtain t=8.5t=-8.5; i.e. the Breit-Wigner lineshape is favored. Based on the tt distribution obtained from pseudo experiments, the exclusion level for the Flatté lineshape is only 2.2σ2.2\sigma; this level decreases when the systematic uncertainties are taken into account. Thus, neither lineshape can be excluded.

Additionally, the consistency of the two lineshape measurements is confirmed using pseudo experiments. The Breit-Wigner parameters measured for the data are consistent with those obtained from pseudo experiments generated with the observed Flatté lineshape.

Table 3: Results using the Flatté lineshape: the fitted coupling constant gg, and the signal yield.
Mode gg NsigN_{\rm sig}
Combined 0.290.15+2.690.29^{+2.69}_{-0.15} 90.915.9+11.390.9^{+11.3}_{-15.9}
X(3872)K+X(3872)K^{+} 77.913.5+9.677.9^{+\phantom{1}9.6}_{-13.5}
X(3872)K0X(3872)K^{0} 13.02.9+3.013.0^{+\phantom{1}3.0}_{-\phantom{1}2.9}
Table 4: Summary of systematic uncertainties for the coupling constant gg of the Flatté lineshape.
Source gg
(i) Generic BG PDF <O(0.001)<O(0.001)
(ii) Mass resolution 0.011-0.011/+0.003+0.003
(iii) Mass dependence of efficiency 0.012-0.012/+0.024+0.024
(iv) Ratio of broken-signal BG to signal 0.007-0.007/+0.020+0.020
(v) Fit bias 0.000-0.000/++\infty\phantom{20}\,\,
(vi) D0D^{*0} and D0D^{0} masses \cdots
(vii) D0D^{*0} width 0.006-0.006/+0.001+0.001
(viii) Broken-signal shape for D¯0D¯γ0\overline{D}{}^{*0}\to\overline{D}{}^{0}\gamma 0.001-0.001/+0.002+0.002
(ix) Signal ratio of D¯0D¯γ0\overline{D}{}^{*0}\to\overline{D}{}^{0}\gamma to D¯π00\overline{D}{}^{0}\pi^{0} 0.000-0.000/+0.004+0.004
(x)–(xvii) Branching fraction 0.021-0.021/+0.042+0.042
Total 0.029-0.029/++\infty\phantom{20}\,\,
Refer to caption
Figure 5: The median of output values of the coupling constant gg, as a function of the input gg, evaluated using pseudo experiments. The dotted black line represents perfect linearity gout=ging_{\rm out}=g_{\rm in}. The solid blue curve represents the threshold function gout=0.14(1exp(9gin))g_{\rm out}=0.14(1-\exp(-9g_{\rm in})).
Table 5: Summary of the seven parameter sets used in the evaluation of lower limits on the coupling constant gg, showing the gg of the best fit, the gg lower limits, and corresponding EfE_{f} upper limits. The parameter sets are the center values of dg/dEfdg/dE_{f}, Γ0\Gamma_{0}, and fρf_{\rho} measured at LHCb [26] (1), changing dg/dEfdg/dE_{f} by +1σ+1\sigma (2), changing dg/dEfdg/dE_{f} by 1σ-1\sigma (3), changing Γ0\Gamma_{0} by +1σ+1\sigma (4), changing Γ0\Gamma_{0} by 1σ-1\sigma (5), changing fρf_{\rho} by +1σ+1\sigma (6), and changing fρf_{\rho} by 1σ-1\sigma (7). For the parameter set (7), no lower limit is determined, because no best fit is found in the range g<50g<50.
Parameter set (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
dg/dEf(GeV1)dg/dE_{f}~({\rm GeV}^{-1}) 15.11-15.11 14.95(+1σ)-14.95~(+1\sigma) 15.27(1σ)-15.27~(-1\sigma) 15.11-15.11 15.11-15.11 15.11-15.11 15.11-15.11
Γ0/Ef\Gamma_{0}/E_{f} 0.19-0.19 0.19-0.19 0.19-0.19 0.29(+1σ)-0.29~(+1\sigma) 0.09(1σ)-0.09~(-1\sigma) 0.19-0.19 0.19-0.19
fρ/Ef(GeV1)f_{\rho}/E_{f}~({\rm GeV}^{-1}) 0.25-0.25 0.25-0.25 0.25-0.25 0.25-0.25 0.25-0.25 0.38(+1σ)-0.38~(+1\sigma) 0.12(1σ)-0.12~(-1\sigma)
gg of best fit 0.290.29 0.270.27 0.310.31 0.210.21 0.460.46 0.170.17 >50>50
gg lower limit at 90% C.L. >0.143>0.143 >0.136>0.136 >0.151>0.151 >0.105>0.105 >0.212>0.212 >0.094>0.094
        at 95% C.L. >0.113>0.113 >0.108>0.108 >0.119>0.119 >0.082>0.082 >0.167>0.167 >0.075>0.075
EfE_{f} upper limit at 90% C.L. (MeV{\rm MeV}) <9.5<-9.5 <9.0<-9.0 <10.0<-10.0 <6.9<-6.9 <14.0<-14.0 <6.2<-6.2
         at 95% C.L. (MeV{\rm MeV}) <7.6<-7.6 <7.2<-7.2 <7.9<-7.9 <5.5<-5.5 <11.1<-11.1 <5.0<-5.0
Refer to caption
Figure 6: For each of seven parameter sets, the likelihood ratio L/L0L/L_{0} is shown, as a function of the coupling constant gg, where L=L(g)L=L(g) is the fitted likelihood and L0L_{0} is the likelihood of the best fit for that parameter set. The solid black line shows the parameter set (1). The red and blue dotted lines show parameter sets (2) and (3), respectively. The red and blue dashed lines show sets (4) and (5), and the red and blue dot-dashed lines show sets (6) and (7), respectively. The parameter sets are described in Table 5. Circles on the lines show the best fit gg.

VI Discussion and Conclusion

In this paper, we examine the X(3872)D0D¯0X(3872)\to D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} lineshape using the full Belle dataset. When fitting with a relativistic Breit-Wigner lineshape, the mass and width parameters are measured to be

mBW=3873.710.50+0.56(stat)±0.13(syst)MeV/c2,ΓBW=5.21.5+2.2(stat)±0.4(syst)MeV.\begin{split}m_{\rm BW}&=3873.71^{+0.56}_{-0.50}({\rm stat})\pm 0.13({\rm syst})~{\rm MeV}/c^{2},\\ \Gamma_{\rm BW}&=5.2^{+2.2}_{-1.5}({\rm stat})\pm 0.4({\rm syst})~{\rm MeV}.\end{split}

The difference between mBWm_{\rm BW} and the D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} threshold is found to be 2.020.50+0.56(stat)±0.08(syst)MeV/c22.02^{+0.56}_{-0.50}({\rm stat})\pm 0.08({\rm syst})~{\rm MeV}/c^{2}. These values are in good agreement with those measured in previous studies of the D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} decay [10, 11], and the precision of the measurement is improved by at least 22%. The measured branching fractions are as follows:

(B+X(3872)K+)×(X(3872)D0D¯)0=(0.970.18+0.21(stat)±0.10(syst))×104,(B0X(3872)K0)×(X(3872)D0D¯)0=(1.300.31+0.36(stat)0.07+0.12(syst))×104.\begin{split}{\cal B}&(B^{+}\to X(3872)K^{+})\times{\cal{B}}(X(3872)\to D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0})\\ &\qquad=(0.97^{+0.21}_{-0.18}({\rm stat})\pm 0.10({\rm syst}))\times 10^{-4},\\ {\cal B}&(B^{0}\to X(3872)K^{0})\times{\cal{B}}(X(3872)\to D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0})\\ &\qquad=(1.30^{+0.36}_{-0.31}({\rm stat})^{+0.12}_{-0.07}({\rm syst}))\times 10^{-4}.\\ \end{split}

This is the first measurement of X(3872)X(3872) production in B0B^{0} decays with more than 5σ\sigma significance. The ratio of the branching fractions is determined to be

(B0X(3872)K0)(B+X(3872)K+)=1.340.40+0.47(stat)0.12+0.10(syst).\frac{{\cal B}(B^{0}\to X(3872)K^{0})}{{\cal B}(B^{+}\to X(3872)K^{+})}=1.34^{+0.47}_{-0.40}({\rm stat})^{+0.10}_{-0.12}({\rm syst}).

These results are in good agreement with those of previous studies [12, 10, 11].

We compare these results with the analysis of the Breit-Wigner lineshape using the J/ψπ+πJ/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-} decay mode. The measured Breit-Wigner mass is significantly higher than the D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} threshold, while the world-average mass with the J/ψπ+πJ/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-} decay is consistent with the threshold. The measured width and ratio (B0X(3872)K0)/(B+X(3872)K+){\cal B}(B^{0}\to X(3872)K^{0})/{\cal B}(B^{+}\to X(3872)K^{+}) are shifted from the average with the J/ψπ+πJ/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-} decay by 2.6σ2.6\sigma and 2.0σ2.0\sigma, respectively [48]. In previous studies of the D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} decay, it has also been seen that these properties in the X(3872)D0D¯0X(3872)\to D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} decay mode differ from those in J/ψπ+πJ/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-}.

We also fit the lineshape using a Flatté-inspired parameterization. With sufficient data, such a model could be used to simultaneously describe the lineshapes of the decays to the J/ψπ+πJ/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-} and D0D¯0D^{0}\bar{D}^{*0} final states. Given the limited size of the D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} data sample at Belle, and the scaling behaviour observed in the LHCb study of J/ψπ+πJ/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-}, we set various ratios of parameters to their LHCb values, and fit with the coupling constant to the DD¯D\overline{D}{}^{*} channel, gg, as the undetermined parameter. We find that the fitted value of gg is in a region that is relatively insensitive to the underlying value. We determine its lower limits to be

g>0.094 at 90% credibility,g>0.075 at 95% credibility.\begin{split}g>0.094\text{ at 90\% credibility},\\ g>0.075\text{ at 95\% credibility}.\end{split}

These correspond to upper limits of Ef<6.2MeVE_{f}<-6.2~{\rm MeV} at 90% credibility and Ef<5.0MeVE_{f}<-5.0~{\rm MeV} at 95% credibility, which are slightly more stringent than the LHCb measurement, 270MeV<Ef<2.0MeV-270~{\rm MeV}<E_{f}<-2.0~{\rm MeV} [26]. This suggests that analysis using D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} can indeed complement the study of the J/ψπ+πJ/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-} mode in this framework. The limit includes the solution Ef=7.2MeVE_{f}=-7.2~{\rm MeV} assumed in the scattering amplitude analysis at LHCb. There is still uncertainty in the pole positions of the scattering amplitude, because the limit is not especially stringent.

Both Breit-Wigner and Flatté lineshapes fit the invariant mass distribution obtained from the data. Finally, we examine which lineshape model best fits the invariant mass distribution. Based on the likelihood ratio from the fits, the Breit-Wigner lineshape is favored, but the Flatté lineshape is not excluded.

Analysis of the large dataset expected from Belle II will be important, because the statistical uncertainty dominates in both of the lineshape measurements. In the Flatté study, it is essential to reduce systematic uncertainty due to the fit bias and the measurement of parameters fρf_{\rho} and Γ0\Gamma_{0}. Increasing the size of the data sample will also reduce these uncertainties. In addition, a simultaneous fit of the J/ψπ+πJ/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-} and D0D¯0D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0} decay modes will also be useful, because the ratio of branching fractions can further constrain the parameters. In such a fit, the most adequate samples would be an exclusive BX(3872)(J/ψπ+π)KB\to X(3872)(\to J/\psi\pi^{+}\pi^{-})K sample at LHCb and a BX(3872)(D0D¯)0KB\to X(3872)(\to D^{0}\overline{D}{}^{*0})K sample at Belle II. Such an analysis could fully determine the lineshape in the coupled-channel framework, and greatly contribute to determining the internal structure.

acknowledgements

This work, based on data collected using the Belle detector, which was operated until June 2010, was supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) of Japan, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) including in particular the Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows (No.19J23314), the Tau-Lepton Physics Research Center of Nagoya University, and the Advanced Science Research Center of Japan Atomic Energy Agency; the Australian Research Council including grants DP180102629, DP170102389, DP170102204, DE220100462, DP150103061, FT130100303; Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research (FWF) and FWF Austrian Science Fund No. P 31361-N36; the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Contracts No. 11675166, No. 11705209; No. 11975076; No. 12135005; No. 12175041; No. 12161141008; Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Grant No. QYZDJ-SSW-SLH011; Project ZR2022JQ02 supported by Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation; the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic under Contract No. LTT17020; the Czech Science Foundation Grant No. 22-18469S; Horizon 2020 ERC Advanced Grant No. 884719 and ERC Starting Grant No. 947006 “InterLeptons” (European Union); the Carl Zeiss Foundation, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Excellence Cluster Universe, and the VolkswagenStiftung; the Department of Atomic Energy (Project Identification No. RTI 4002) and the Department of Science and Technology of India; the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare of Italy; National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea Grant Nos. 2016R1D1A1B02012900, 2018R1A2B3003643, 2018R1A6A1A06024970, RS202200197659, 2019R1I1A3A01058933, 2021R1A6A1A03043957, 2021R1F1A1060423, 2021R1F1A1064008, 2022R1A2C1003993; 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; 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 14.W03.31.0026, and the HSE University Basic Research Program, Moscow; University of Tabuk research grants S-1440-0321, S-0256-1438, and S-0280-1439 (Saudi Arabia); the Slovenian Research Agency Grant Nos. J1-9124 and P1-0135; Ikerbasque, Basque Foundation for Science, Spain; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan; and the United States Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation. 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 KEKB group for the excellent operation of the accelerator; the KEK cryogenics group for the efficient operation of the solenoid; and the KEK computer group and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL) computing group for strong computing support; and the National Institute of Informatics, and Science Information NETwork 6 (SINET6) for valuable network support.

References