EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN)
CERN-EP-2016-141 LHCb-PAPER-2016-012 15 June 2016
Measurements of the S-wave fraction in
B
0
→ K
+
π
−
µ
+
µ
−
decays and the
B
0
→ K
∗
(892)
0
µ
+
µ
−
differential branching
fraction
The LHCb collaboration†Abstract
A measurement of the differential branching fraction of the decay
B0 → K∗(892)0µ+µ− is presented together with a determination of the
S-wave fraction of the K+π− system in the decay B0 → K+π−µ+µ−. The analysis
is based on pp-collision data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 3 fb−1
collected with the LHCb experiment. The measurements are made in bins of the
invariant mass squared of the dimuon system, q2. Precise theoretical predictions
for the differential branching fraction of B0 → K∗(892)0µ+µ− decays are available
for the q2 region 1.1 < q2 < 6.0 GeV2/c4. In this q2 region, for the K+π− invariant
mass range 796 < mKπ < 996 MeV/c2, the S-wave fraction of the K+π− system in
B0 → K+π−µ+µ− decays is found to be
FS = 0.101 ± 0.017(stat) ± 0.009(syst),
and the differential branching fraction of B0 → K∗(892)0µ+µ− decays is determined
to be
dB/dq2 = (0.342+0.017−0.017(stat) ± 0.009(syst) ± 0.023(norm)) × 10−7c4/GeV2.
The differential branching fraction measurements presented are the most precise to date and are found to be in agreement with Standard Model predictions.
Published in JHEP 11 (2016) 047
c
CERN on behalf of the LHCb collaboration, licence CC-BY-4.0.
†Authors are listed at the end of this paper.
1
Introduction
The decay B0→ K∗0µ+µ− proceeds via a b → s `+`− flavour-changing neutral-current
transition. In the Standard Model (SM), this transition is forbidden at tree level and must therefore occur via a loop-level process. Extensions to the SM predict new particles that can contribute to the b → s `+`− process and affect the rate and angular distribution
of the decay. Recently, global analyses of measurements involving b → s `+`− processes have reported significant deviations from SM predictions [1–15]. These deviations could be explained either by new particles [3, 4, 10, 11, 14–16] or by unexpectedly large hadronic effects [9, 13, 17].
In this paper, the symbol K∗0 denotes any neutral strange meson in an excited state that decays to a K+ and a π−.1 For invariant masses of the K+π− system in the range
considered in this analysis, the K∗0 decay products are predominantly found in a P- or S-wave state. The fractional size of the scalar (S-S-wave) component of the K+π− system (F
S)
depends on the squared invariant mass of the dimuon system (q2). This dependence is
expected to be similar to that of the longitudinal polarisation fraction (FL) of the K∗(892)0
meson [18–20].
The S-wave fraction is predicted to be maximal in the q2 range
1.0 < q2 < 6.0 GeV2/c4 [18–20]. A previous analysis by the LHCb collaboration set an upper limit of FS < 0.07 at 68% confidence level for invariant masses of the K+π−
system in the range 792 < mKπ < 992 MeV/c2 [21]. The measurement was performed by
exploiting the phase shift of the K∗(892)0 Breit–Wigner function around the corresponding pole mass.
In all previous determinations of the differential branching fraction of B0→ K∗(892)0µ+µ− decays [21–25], the K∗(892)0 was selected by requiring a window of
size 80–380 MeV/c2 around the known K∗(892)0 mass, but no correction was made for the
scalar fraction. This fraction was assumed to be small and was treated as a systematic un-certainty. The measurements of the differential branching fraction of B0→ K∗(892)0µ+µ−
decays are included in global analyses of b → s `+`− processes. As these analyses make use
of theory predictions which are made purely for the resonant P-wave part of the K+π−
system, an accurate assessment of the S-wave component in B0→ K∗0µ+µ− decays is
critical.
In this paper, the first measurement of FS in B0 → K∗0µ+µ− decays is presented.
The measurement is performed through a fit to the kaon helicity angle [21, 26], θK,
and the mKπ spectrum, in the range 644 < mKπ < 1200 MeV/c2. Motivated by
pre-vious estimates of the S-wave fraction [18–21], FS is also determined in a narrower
window of 796 < mKπ < 996 MeV/c2. The values of FS are reported in eight bins of q2
of approximately 2 GeV2/c4 width, and in two larger bins 1.1 < q2 < 6.0 GeV2/c4 and 15.0 < q2 < 19.0 GeV2/c4. The choice of q2 bins is identical to that of Ref. [27].
The measurements of FS allow the determination of the differential branching fraction
of the B0→ K∗(892)0µ+µ− decay. The differential branching fraction is determined by normalising the B0→ K∗(892)0µ+µ− yield in each q2 bin to the total event yield of
the B0→ J/ψ K∗0 control channel, where the J/ψ → µ+µ− decay mode is used. The
measurements are made using a pp-collision data sample recorded by the LHCb experiment in Run 1, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 3 fb−1. These data were collected at centre-of-mass energies of 7 and 8 TeV during 2011 and 2012 respectively. The differential branching fraction measurement is complementary to the angular analysis presented in Ref. [27], and supersedes that of Ref. [21]. The latter analysis was performed on a 1 fb−1 subset of the Run 1 data sample.
This paper is organised as follows. Section 2 describes the angular and mKπdistributions
of B0 → K∗0µ+µ− decays with the K+π− system in a P- or S-wave state. Section 3
describes the LHCb detector and the procedure used to generate simulated data. The reconstruction and selection of B0→ K+π−µ+µ− candidates are described in Sec. 4.
Section 5 describes the parameterisation of the mass distributions and Sec. 6 describes the determination of FS, including the method used to correct for the detection and selection
biases. The measurement of the differential branching fraction of B0→ K∗(892)0µ+µ−
decays is presented in Sec. 7. The systematic uncertainties affecting the measurements are discussed in Sec. 8. Finally, the conclusions are presented in Sec. 9.
2
The angular distribution and F
SThe final state of the B0→ K∗0µ+µ− decay is completely described by q2, and the three
decay angles, ~Ω ≡ (cos θK, cos θ`, φ) [21]. The angle between the µ+(µ−) and the direction
opposite to that of the B0 (B0) meson in the rest frame of the dimuon system is denoted by θ`. The angle between the direction of the K+ (K−) and the B0 (B0) meson in the
rest frame of the K∗0 (K∗0) is denoted by θK. The angle between the plane defined by
the dimuon pair and the plane defined by the kaon and pion in the B0 (B0) rest frame is denoted by φ.
In the limit that the dimuon mass is large compared to the mass of the muons (q2 4m2
µ), this choice of the angular basis allows the differential decay rates of
B0→ K∗0µ+µ− and B0→ K∗0µ+µ− decays to be written as
d5(Γ + Γ) dmKπdq2d~Ω = 9 32π h (I1s+ ¯I1s) sin2θK(1 + 3 cos 2θ`) + (I1c+ ¯I c 1) cos 2 θK(1 − cos 2θ`) +
(I3+ ¯I3) sin2θKsin2θ`cos 2φ + (I4+ ¯I4) sin 2θKsin 2θ`cos φ +
(I5+ ¯I5) sin 2θKsin θ`cos φ + (I6s+ ¯I6s) sin2θKcos θ` +
(I7+ ¯I7) sin 2θKsin θ`sin φ + (I8+ ¯I8) sin 2θKsin 2θ`sin φ +
(I9+ ¯I9) sin2θKsin2θ`sin 2φ + (I10+ ¯I10)(1 − cos 2θ`) +
(I11+ ¯I11) cos θK(1 − cos 2θ`) +
(I14+ ¯I14) sin θKsin 2θ`cos φ + (I15+ ¯I15) sin θKsin θ`cos φ +
(I16+ ¯I16) sin θKsin θ`sin φ + (I17+ ¯I17) sin θKsin 2θ`sin φ
i ,
where Γ and Γ denote the decay rates of the B0 and B0 respectively. The 15 coefficients Ij ( ¯Ij) are bilinear combinations of the K∗0 (K∗0) decay amplitudes and vary with q2
and mKπ. The numbering of the coefficients follows the convention used in Ref. [27].
Coefficients Ij with j ≤ 9 involve P-wave amplitudes only, coefficient I10 involves S-wave
amplitudes only and coefficients with 11 ≤ j ≤ 17 describe the interference between P-and S-wave amplitudes [28].
The polarity of the LHCb dipole magnet, discussed in Sec. 3, is reversed periodically. Coupled with the fact that B0 and B0 decays are studied simultaneously, this results in a
symmetric detection efficiency in φ. Therefore, the angular distribution is simplified by performing a transformation of the φ angle such that
φ0 = (
φ + π if φ < 0
φ otherwise, (2)
which results in the cancellation of terms in Eq. 1 that have a sin φ or cos φ dependence. The remaining Ij and ¯Ij coefficients can be written in terms of the decay amplitudes
given in Ref. [27]. Defining ~Ω0 ≡ (cos θK, cos θ`, φ0), the resulting differential decay rate
has the form d5(Γ + Γ) dmKπdq2d~Ω0 = 1 4πGS|fLASS(mKπ)| 2 (1 − cos 2θ`) + 3 4πG 0 P|fBW(mKπ)|2cos2θK(1 − cos 2θ`) + √ 3 2πRe
GReSP+ iGImSP fLASS(mKπ)fBW∗ (mKπ) cos θK(1 − cos 2θ`) +
9 16πG ⊥k P |fBW(mKπ)|2sin2θK 1 + 1 3cos 2θ` + 3 8πS3(G 0 P+ G ⊥k P ) |fBW(mKπ)| 2
sin2θKsin2θ`cos 2φ0+
3 2πAFB(G 0 P+ G ⊥k P ) |fBW(mKπ)| 2 sin2θKcos θ`+ 3 4πS9(G 0 P+ G ⊥k P ) |fBW(mKπ)| 2
sin2θKsin2θ`sin 2φ0,
(3)
where fBW(mKπ) denotes the mKπ dependence of the resonant P-wave component, which
is modelled using a relativistic Breit–Wigner function. The S-wave component is modelled using the LASS parameterisation [29], fLASS(mKπ). The exact definitions of the P- and
S-wave line shapes are given in Appendix A. The real-valued coefficients GS, GRe SP, GImSP,
G0
P and G ⊥k
P are bilinear combinations of the q2-dependent parts of the K
amplitudes AL,Ri (q2) (AL,R
i (q2)) and are given by
GS = |ALS(q2)|2+ |ARS(q2)|2+ |ALS(q2)|2+ |ARS(q2)|2, GReSP+ iGImSP = ALSAL∗0 + ARSAR∗0 + ALSAL∗0 + ARSAR∗0 , G0P = |AL0(q2)|2+ |AR0(q2)|2+ |AL0(q2)|2+ |AR0(q2)|2, (4) G⊥kP = X i=⊥,k |ALi (q2)|2+ |ARi (q2)|2 + |ALi (q2)|2+ |ARi (q2)|2,
where L and R denote the (left- and right-handed) chiralities of the dimuon system. These coefficients are determined through the extended maximum likelihood fit described in Sec. 6.2. The coefficients S3, AFB and S9 are CP -averaged observables that are defined
in Ref. [27]. The integral of Eq. 3 with respect to cos θ` and φ0 is independent of these
observables. However, detection effects that are either asymmetric or non-uniform in cos θ`
and φ0 introduce a residual dependence on these observables. In this analysis, S3, AFB
and S9 are set to their measured values [27]. The systematic uncertainty associated with
this choice is negligible.
Using the definitions of Eq. 4, the S-wave fraction FS in the range a < mKπ < b can
be determined from the coefficients GS and G0,⊥kP , through
FS|ba= GS RabdmKπ|fLASS(mKπ)| 2 GS Rb a dmKπ|fLASS(mKπ)| 2 + G0 P+ G ⊥k P Rb a dmKπ|fBW(mKπ)| 2. (5)
3
Detector and simulation
The LHCb detector [30,31] is a single-arm forward spectrometer covering the pseudorapidity range 2 < η < 5, designed for the study of particles containing b or c quarks. The detector includes a high-precision tracking system divided into three sub-systems: a silicon-strip vertex detector surrounding the pp interaction region, a large-area silicon-strip detector that is located upstream of a dipole magnet with a bending power of about 4 Tm, and three stations of silicon-strip detectors and straw drift tubes situated downstream of the magnet. The tracking system provides a measurement of the momentum, p, of charged particles with a relative uncertainty that varies from 0.5% at low momentum to 1.0% at 200 GeV/c. The minimum distance of a track to a primary vertex (PV), the impact parameter, is measured with a resolution of (15 + 29/pT) µm, where pT is the component of the momentum
transverse to the beam, in GeV/c. Different types of charged hadrons are distinguished using information from two ring-imaging Cherenkov (RICH) detectors. Photons, electrons and hadrons are identified by a calorimeter system consisting of scintillating-pad and preshower detectors, an electromagnetic calorimeter and a hadronic calorimeter. Muons are identified by a system composed of alternating layers of iron and multiwire proportional chambers. The online event selection is performed by a trigger [32], which consists of a
hardware stage, based on information from the calorimeter and muon systems, followed by a software stage, which applies a full event reconstruction.
A large sample of simulated events is used to determine the effect of the detector geometry, trigger, and the selection criteria on the angular distribution of the signal, and to determine the ratio of efficiencies between the signal and the B0→ J/ψ K∗0 normalisation
mode. In the simulation, pp collisions are generated using Pythia [33] with a specific LHCb configuration [34]. The decay of the B0 meson is described by EvtGen [35], which generates final-state radiation using Photos [36]. As described in Ref. [37], the Geant4 toolkit [38] is used to implement the interaction of the generated particles with the detector and the detector response. Data-driven corrections are applied to the simulation following the procedure of Ref. [27]. These corrections account for the small level of mismodelling of the detector occupancy, the B0 momentum and vertex quality, and the
particle identification (PID) performance.
4
Selection of signal candidates
The B0→ K∗0µ+µ−signal candidates are first required to pass the hardware trigger, which
selects events containing at least one muon with transverse momentum pT > 1.48 GeV/c in
the 7 TeV data or pT > 1.76 GeV/c in the 8 TeV data. In the subsequent software trigger,
at least one of the final-state particles is required to have pT > 1.7 GeV/c in the 7 TeV data
or pT > 1.6 GeV/c in the 8 TeV data, unless the particle is identified as a muon in which
case pT > 1.0 GeV/c is required. The final-state particles that satisfy these transverse
momentum criteria are also required to have an impact parameter larger than 100 µm with respect to all PVs in the event. Finally, the tracks of two or more of the final-state particles are required to form a vertex that is significantly displaced from the PVs.
Signal candidates are formed from a pair of oppositely charged tracks that are identified as muons, combined with a K∗0 meson candidate. The K∗0 candidate is formed from two oppositely charged tracks that are identified as a kaon and a pion. These signal candidates are required to pass a set of loose preselection requirements, which are identical to those described in Ref. [27], with the exception that the K∗0 candidate is required to have an invariant mass in the wider 644 < mKπ < 1200 MeV/c2 range. The preselection
requirements exploit the decay topology of B0→ K∗0µ+µ− transitions and restrict the
data sample to candidates with good quality vertex and track fits. Candidates are required to have a reconstructed B0 invariant mass (m
Kπµµ) in the range 5170 < mKπµµ<
5780 MeV/c2.
The backgrounds formed by combining particles from different b- and c-hadron decays are referred to as combinatorial. Such backgrounds are suppressed with the use of a Boosted Decision Tree (BDT) [39, 40]. The BDT used for the present analysis is identical to that described in Ref. [27] and the same working point is used. The BDT selection has a signal efficiency of 90% while removing 95% of the combinatorial background surviving the preselection. The efficiency of the BDT is uniform with respect to mKπµµ in the above
Specific background processes can mimic the signal if their final states are misidentified or misreconstructed. The requirements of Ref. [27] are reassessed and found to reduce the sum of all backgrounds from such decay processes to a level of less than 2% of the expected signal yield. The only requirement that is modified in the present analysis is that responsible for removing genuine B0→ K∗0µ+µ− decays, where the track of the genuine
pion is reconstructed with the kaon hypothesis and vice versa. These misidentified signal candidates occur more often in the wider mKπ window used for the present analysis, and
are reduced by tightening the requirements made on the kaon and pion PID information provided by the RICH detectors. After the application of all the selection criteria, this specific background process is reduced to less than 1% of the level of the signal.
5
The K
+π
−µ
+µ
−and K
+π
−mass distributions
The K+π−µ+µ− invariant mass is used to discriminate between signal and background.
The distribution of the signal candidates is modelled using the sum of two Gaussian functions with a common mean, each with a power law tail on the lower side. The parameters describing this model are determined from fits to B0→ J/ψ K∗0 data in a q2
range 9.22 < q2 < 9.96 GeV2/c4 and with an mKπ range of 644 < mKπ < 1200 MeV/c2,
shown in Fig. 1. These parameters are fixed for the subsequent fits to the B0→ K∗0µ+µ−
candidates in the same mKπ range. In samples of simulated B0 → K∗0µ+µ− decays,
the mKπµµ resolution is observed to differ from that in B0→ J/ψ K∗0 decays by 2 to 8%
depending on q2. A correction factor is therefore derived from the simulation and is applied
to the widths of the Gaussian functions in the different q2 bins. In the fits to B0→ J/ψ K∗0
decays, an additional component is included to account for the B0s→ J/ψ K∗0process. The
size of this additional component is taken to be 0.8% of the B0→ J/ψ K∗0 signal [41]. The
fit to the B0→ J/ψ K∗0 mode gives 389 577 ± 649 decays. In the fits to B0→ K∗0µ+µ−
decays, the B0s→ K∗0µ+µ−contribution is neglected. The systematic uncertainty related to
ignoring this background process is negligible. For both B0→ J/ψ K∗0 and B0→ K∗0µ+µ−
decays, the combinatorial background in the K+π−µ+µ− invariant mass spectrum is
described by an exponential function. The B0→ K∗0µ+µ− yield integrated over the q2
ranges 0.1 < q2 < 8.0 GeV2/c4, 11.0 < q2 < 12.5 GeV2/c4 and 15.0 < q2 < 19.0 GeV2/c4 is
determined to be 2593 ± 60. The q2 regions 8.0 < q2 < 11.0 GeV2/c4 and 12.5 < q2 <
15.0 GeV2/c4 are dominated by the contributions from B0→ J/ψ K∗0 and B0→ ψ(2S)K∗0
decays respectively and are therefore excluded in the fits to the signal B0→ K∗0µ+µ−
decays.
As discussed in Sec. 2, the K+π− invariant mass distribution of the signal candidates is modelled with two distributions. A relativistic Breit–Wigner function is used for the P-wave component and the LASS parameterisation for the S-wave component. The parameters of these functions are fixed to the values determined in B0→ J/ψ K∗0 decays
using the model described in Ref. [42]. A systematic uncertainty is assigned for this choice. The K+π− invariant mass distribution of the combinatorial background is modelled
] 2 c [MeV/ µ µ π K m 5200 5400 5600 2c Candidates / 15 MeV/ 0 50 100 3 10 × LHCb *0 K ψ / J → 0 B ] 2 c [MeV/ µ µ π K m 5200 5400 5600 2c Candidates / 15 MeV/ 0 500 1000 LHCb -µ + µ *0 K → 0 B
Figure 1: Invariant mass mKπµµ of (left) the B0→ J/ψ K∗0decay and (right) the signal decay
B0→ K∗0µ+µ− integrated over the q2 regions described in the text. The individual signal (blue
shaded area) and background (red hatched area) components are shown. The solid line denotes the total fitted distribution.
using an empirical threshold function of the form
fbkg(mKπ) = (mKπ− mthr)1/α, (6)
where mthr= 634 MeV/c2 is given by the sum of the pion and kaon masses [43], and α is a
parameter determined from fits to the data. This model has been validated on data from the upper mKπµµ sideband, defined as 5350 < mKπµµ< 5780 MeV/c2, where no resonant
structure in the mKπ spectrum is observed.
6
Determination of the S-wave fraction
6.1
Efficiency correction
The trigger, selection, and detector geometry bias the distributions of the decay angles cos θK, cos θ`, φ0, as well as the q2 and mKπ distributions. The dominant sources of bias are
the geometrical acceptance of the detector and the requirements on the track momentum, the impact parameter, and the PID of the hadrons.
The method for obtaining the efficiency correction, described in Ref [27], is extended to also include the mKπ dimension. The detection efficiency is expressed in terms of
orthonormal Legendre polynomials of order n, Pn(x), as
(q2, mKπ, ~Ω0) =
X
g,h,i,j,k
cghijkPg(mKπ)Ph(cos θ`)Pi(cos θK)Pj(φ0)Pk(q2). (7)
As the polynomials are orthonormal over the domain x ∈ [−1, 1], the observables mKπ, φ0,
and q2 are linearly transformed to lie within this domain when evaluating the efficiency. The sum in Eq. 7 runs up to 5th order for cos θ
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 K θ cos 1 − −0.5 0 0.5 1 ] 4 c/ 2 [GeV 2 q 5 10 15 LHCb simulation 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 ] 2 c [GeV/ π K m 800 1000 1200 ] 4 c/ 2 [GeV 2 q 5 10 15 LHCb simulation
Figure 2: Two-dimensional projections of the efficiency (left) in the cos θK–q2 plane and (right)
in the mKπ–q2 plane, determined from a principal moments analysis of simulated four-body
B0→ K+π−µ+µ− phase-space decays. The colour scale denotes the efficiency in arbitrary units.
The lack of entries in the top right corner of the mKπ–q2 distribution is due to the limited phase
space available in the decay of the B0 meson.
order for cos θ`, q2 and mKπ respectively. The coefficients cghijk are determined using a
principal moment analysis of simulated four-body B0→ K+π−µ+µ− phase-space decays.
Two-dimensional projections of the detection efficiency as a function of cos θK–q2 and
mKπ–q2 are shown in Fig. 2.
6.2
Fit to the mass and angular distributions
An extended maximum likelihood fit to mKπµµ, mKπ and cos θK is performed in each bin
of q2 in order to determine the coefficients G
S, GReSP, GImSP and G ⊥k
P averaged over the q2
bin. Given these coefficients, the S-wave fraction FS is extracted using Eq. 5. The angular
distribution of the signal is described by Eq. 3 multiplied by the efficiency model evaluated at the centre of the q2 bin (q2
bc). Integrating over cos θ` and φ0 simplifies the fit, while
retaining the sensitivity to the parameters related to FS. The resulting angular and mKπ
distribution of the signal, Psig, within a bin qmin2 < q2 < q2max, is given by
Psig(mKπ, cos θK) = Z qmax2 q2 min Z π 0 Z 1 −1 dcos θ`dφ0dq2 d5(Γ + Γ) dmKπdq2d~Ω0 × (qbc2 , mKπ, ~Ω0) , (8)
The overall scale of Psig is set by fixing the parameter G0Pto an arbitrary value. The mKπµµ
distribution of the signal is assumed to factorise with Psig(mKπ, cos θK). This assumption
is validated using simulated events.
The cos θK distribution of the combinatorial background is modelled with a second-order
polynomial where all parameters are allowed to vary in the fit. The mKπ, mKπµµand cos θK
distributions of the combinatorial background are assumed to factorise. This assumption has been validated on data from the upper mKπµµsideband. Figure 3 shows the projections
] 2 c [MeV/ µ µ π K m 5200 5400 5600 2c Candidates / 15 MeV/ 0 100 200 300 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 6.0 GeV 2 q 1.1 < ] 2 c [MeV/ π K m 800 1000 1200 2c Candidates / 28 MeV/ 0 100 200 300 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 6.0 GeV 2 q 1.1 < K θ cos 1 − −0.5 0 0.5 1 Candidates / 0.1 0 50 100 150 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 6.0 GeV 2 q 1.1 <
Figure 3: Angular and mass distributions for the q2 bin 1.1 < q2< 6.0 GeV2/c4. The distributions
of cos θK and mKπ are shown for candidates in the signal mKπµµwindow of ±50 MeV/c2 around
the known B0 mass. The solid line denotes the total fitted distribution. The individual
components, signal (blue shaded area) and background (red hatched area), are also shown.
of the probability distribution function on the angular and mass distributions for the q2
bin 1.1 < q2 < 6.0 GeV2/c4. Projections of other q2 bins are provided in Appendix B.
6.3
Result for F
SUsing Eq. 5, FS is determined in the full mKπ region of the fit, FS|1200644 , and in the
narrow mKπ region, FS| 996
796. The statistical uncertainty on FS is determined using the
following procedure. Values of the parameters of the fit are generated according to a multi-dimensional bifurcated Gaussian distribution. This distribution is constructed out of the correlation matrix of the fit and the asymmetric uncertainties obtained from a profile likelihood. For each generated set of parameters of the fit, a value of FS is
computed. The 68% confidence interval is defined by taking the 16th–84th percentiles of
the resulting distribution of FS. The correct coverage of this method is validated using
pseudoexperiments generated with a wide range of FS values.
Figure 4 shows the values of FS|1200644 and FS|996796 in each q2 bin. The uncertainties
] 4 c / 2 [GeV 2 q 0 5 10 15 1200 644 |S F 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 LHCb ] 4 c / 2 [GeV 2 q 0 5 10 15 996 796 |S F 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 LHCb
Figure 4: Results for the S-wave fraction (FS) in bins of q2 in the range (left) 644 < mKπ <
1200 MeV/c2 and (right) 796 < mKπ< 996 MeV/c2. The uncertainties shown are the quadratic
sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The shape of FS is found to be compatible
with the smoothly varying distribution of FL, as measured in Ref. [27].
reported in Table 1. The sources of systematic uncertainty are detailed in Sec. 8. As expected, the shape of the measured FS distribution is found to be compatible with the
smoothly varying distribution of FL measured in Ref. [27].
Table 1: S-wave fraction (FS) in bins of q2for two mKπregions. The first uncertainty is statistical
and the second systematic.
q2 bin (GeV2/c4) FS| 996 796 FS| 1200 644 0.10 < q2 < 0.98 0.021+0.015 −0.011± 0.009 0.052+0.035−0.027± 0.013 1.1 < q2 < 2.5 0.144+0.035−0.030± 0.010 0.304+0.058−0.053± 0.013 2.5 < q2 < 4.0 0.029+0.031 −0.020± 0.010 0.071+0.069−0.049± 0.015 4.0 < q2 < 6.0 0.117+0.027 −0.023± 0.008 0.254+0.048−0.044± 0.012 6.0 < q2 < 8.0 0.033+0.022−0.019± 0.009 0.082+0.049−0.045± 0.016 11.0 < q2 < 12.5 0.021+0.021 −0.016± 0.007 0.049+0.048−0.039± 0.014 15.0 < q2 < 17.0 −0.008+0.033 −0.014± 0.006 −0.016+0.069−0.030± 0.012 17.0 < q2 < 19.0 0.018+0.013−0.017± 0.009 0.034+0.024−0.032± 0.019 1.1 < q2 < 6.0 0.101+0.017−0.017± 0.009 0.224+0.032−0.033± 0.013 15.0 < q2 < 19.0 0.010+0.017 −0.014± 0.007 0.019+0.030−0.025± 0.015
The presence of a nonresonant P-wave component in the K+π− system has been suggested in Refs. [44, 45]. However, no evidence for such a component was found in the current data sample. The effect of neglecting a nonresonant P-wave contribution with a relative phase and magnitude varied within the statistical uncertainties determined in this analysis, was found to be negligible.
7
Differential
branching
fraction
of
the
decay
B
0→ K
∗(892)
0µ
+µ
−The differential branching fraction of the decay B0→ K∗(892)0µ+µ− is estimated by
normalising the signal yield, nK∗0µ+µ−, obtained from the fit described in Sec. 6.2, to
the total event yield of the decay B0→ J/ψ K∗0, n
J/ψ K∗0. The number of B0→ J/ψ K∗0
events is obtained from a fit to the mKπµµ spectrum using the same q2 range as for
the fit to determine the mKπµµ mass shape parameters (Sec. 5), but for an mKπ range
796 < mKπ < 996 MeV/c2. This yield has to be corrected for the S-wave fraction within the
narrow mKπ window of B0→ J/ψ K∗0 decays, F J/ψ K∗0
S . The value of F J/ψ K∗0
S is obtained
from Ref. [46] and is adjusted to the mKπ range 796 < mKπ < 996 MeV/c2. The ratio of
B0→ K∗0µ+µ− and B0→ J/ψ K∗0 events is corrected for the relative efficiency between
the two decays, R = J/ψK∗0/K∗0µ+µ−. This ratio is determined using simulated samples
of B0→ K∗(892)0µ+µ− and B0→ J/ψ K∗(892)0 decays. The angular distributions of these
samples are corrected to account for the presence of P- and S-wave components with a relative abundance given by the measurements of Sec. 6.3 and Ref. [46]. The systematic uncertainty associated with this correction is determined by varying the components within the uncertainties of the measured values and recalculating R. The resulting uncertainty
on R is negligible.
The differential branching fraction of B0→ K∗(892)0µ+µ− decays in a q2 bin of width
(q2
max− qmin2 ) is given by
dB dq2 = R (q2 max− qmin2 ) (1 − FS| 1200 644 )nK∗0µ+µ− (1 − FSJ/ψ K∗0)nJ/ψ K∗0 B(B0→ J/ψ K∗0 )B(J/ψ → µ+µ−), (9)
where FS|1200644 , R and nK∗0µ+µ− correspond to quantities measured within the relevant q2
bin. The branching fraction B(B0 → J/ψ K∗(892)0) obtained from Ref. [47] is
B(B0 → J/ψ K∗(892)0) = (1.19 ± 0.01 ± 0.08) × 10−3,
where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second systematic. The branching fraction for J/ψ → µ+µ− decays is taken from Ref. [43]. The resulting differential branching fraction is shown in Fig. 5. The uncertainties given are a quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties and the bands shown indicate the SM prediction from Refs. [48,49]. The results are also reported in Table 2. The various sources of systematic uncertainties are described in Sec. 8.
]
4c
/
2[GeV
2q
0
5
10
15
]
2/GeV
4c
[
2q
/d
B
d
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
6 −10
×
LHCb
Figure 5: Differential branching fraction of B0→ K∗(892)0µ+µ− decays as a function of q2. The
data are overlaid with the SM prediction from Refs. [48, 49]. No SM prediction is included in the
region close to the narrow c¯c resonances. The result in the wider q2 bin 15.0 < q2 < 19.0 GeV2/c4
is also presented. The uncertainties shown are the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic
uncertainties, and include the uncertainty on the B0→ J/ψ K∗0 and J/ψ → µ+µ− branching
fractions.
Table 2: Differential branching fraction of B0→ K∗(892)0µ+µ− decays in bins of q2. The first
uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic and the third due to the uncertainty on the
B0→ J/ψ K∗0 and J/ψ → µ+µ− branching fractions.
q2 bin (GeV2/c4) dB/dq2× 10−7 (c4/ GeV2) 0.10 < q2 < 0.98 1.016+0.067 −0.073± 0.029 ± 0.069 1.1 < q2 < 2.5 0.326+0.032 −0.031± 0.010 ± 0.022 2.5 < q2 < 4.0 0.334+0.031−0.033± 0.009 ± 0.023 4.0 < q2 < 6.0 0.354+0.027 −0.026± 0.009 ± 0.024 6.0 < q2 < 8.0 0.429+0.028 −0.027± 0.010 ± 0.029 11.0 < q2 < 12.5 0.487+0.031−0.032± 0.012 ± 0.033 15.0 < q2 < 17.0 0.534+0.027 −0.037± 0.020 ± 0.036 17.0 < q2 < 19.0 0.355+0.027 −0.022± 0.017 ± 0.024 1.1 < q2 < 6.0 0.342+0.017 −0.017± 0.009 ± 0.023 15.0 < q2 < 19.0 0.436+0.018−0.019± 0.007 ± 0.030
The total branching fraction of the B0→ K∗(892)0µ+µ− decay is obtained from the
sum over the eight q2 bins. To account for the fraction of signal events in the vetoed q2
regions, a correction factor of 1.532 ± 0.001(stat) ± 0.010(syst) is applied. This factor is determined using the calculation in Ref. [50] and form factors from Ref. [51]. The systematic uncertainty is determined by recalculating the extrapolation factor using the form factors from Ref. [52] and taking the difference to the nominal value. The resulting total branching fraction is
B(B0→ K∗
(892)0µ+µ−) = (0.904+0.016−0.015± 0.010 ± 0.006 ± 0.061) × 10−6,
where the uncertainties, from left to right, are statistical, systematic, from the extrapolation to the full q2region and due to the uncertainty of the branching fraction of the normalisation mode.
8
Systematic uncertainties
The sources of systematic uncertainty considered can alter the angular and mass distribu-tions, as well as the ratio of efficiencies between the signal and control channels. In general, the systematic uncertainties are significantly smaller than the statistical uncertainties. The various sources of systematic uncertainty are discussed in detail below and are summarised in Table 3. Motivated by Eq. 9, the systematic uncertainty for FS is presented for the mKπ
region 644 < mKπ < 1200 MeV/c2. Typical ranges are quoted in order to summarise the
effect the systematic uncertainties have across the various q2 bins. Sources of systematic uncertainty that can affect both FS and the differential branching fraction are treated as
100% correlated.
Table 3: Summary of the main sources of systematic uncertainty on FS|1200644 and dB/dq2. Typical
ranges are quoted in order to summarise the effect the systematic uncertainties have across the
various q2 bins. Source FS| 1200 644 dB/dq 2 ×10−7(c4/GeV2 ) Data-simulation differences 0.008–0.013 0.004–0.021 Efficiency model 0.001–0.010 0.001–0.012 S-wave mKπ model 0.001–0.017 0.001–0.015 B0 → K∗(892)0 form factors – 0.003–0.017 B(B0→ J/ψ (→ µ+µ−)K∗0) – 0.025–0.079
8.1
Systematic uncertainties on the S-wave fraction
The impact of each source of systematic uncertainty on FS is estimated using
pseudoex-periments, where samples are generated varying one or more parameters. The value of FS is determined using both the nominal model and the alternative model. For every
pseudoexperiment, the difference between the two values of FSis computed. In general, the
systematic uncertainty is then taken as the average of this difference over a large number of pseudoexperiments. The exception to this is the statistical uncertainty of the efficiency correction. In order to account for this statistical variation, the standard deviation of the difference between the two values of FS from each pseudoexperiment is used instead.
The systematic uncertainty is evaluated in each q2 bin separately. The pseudodata are
generated with signal and background yields many times larger than those of the data, rendering statistical effects negligible. The main systematic uncertainties on FS originate
from the efficiency correction function and the choice of model used to describe the S-wave component of the mKπ distribution of the signal.
There are two main systematic uncertainties associated with the efficiency correction function used for determining FS. Firstly, an uncertainty arises from residual
data-simulation differences. After all corrections to the data-simulation are applied, a difference at the level of 10% remains in the momentum spectrum of the pions between simulated and genuine B0→ J/ψ K∗0 decays. A new efficiency correction is derived after weighting the
simulated phase-space sample to account for this difference. The second main systematic uncertainty associated with the efficiency correction is due to the order of the polynomials used to describe the efficiency function. To evaluate this uncertainty, a new efficiency correction is derived in which the polynomial order in q2 is increased by two. This change
is motivated by a small residual difference between the q2 dependence of the nominal efficiency correction and the simulated phase-space sample, near the upper kinematic edge of the q2 range. Uncertainties due to the limited size of the simulation sample used to
derive the efficiency correction, as well as due to the evaluation of the efficiency correction at the centre of the q2 bin are also assessed and are found to be negligible.
To assess the modelling of the S-wave component in the mKπ distribution,
pseudoex-periments are produced where the LASS line shape is exchanged for the sum of resonant K0∗(800)0 (also known as the κ resonance) and K∗
0(1430)0 contributions. An additional
variation is considered where the parameters of the LASS distribution, determined in B0 → J/ψ K∗0 decays using the model described in Ref. [42], are exchanged for those
measured by the LASS collaboration [29]. The largest of the two variations is taken as the systematic uncertainty on the S-wave model. Systematic uncertainties associated with the modelling of the P-wave mKπ distribution of the signal are found to be negligible.
Integrating the differential decay rate given in Eq. 3 over cos θ` and φ0 results in the
cancellation of terms involving the angular observables S3, AFB and S9. However the
integral of the product of the differential decay rate with the efficiency correction, given in Eq. 8, results in a residual dependence of the signal distribution on these angular observables. By generating pseudoexperiments with observables S3, AFB and S9 either set
on FS is assessed. Even considering the largest variation observed, the resulting systematic
uncertainty is negligible.
All other sources of systematic uncertainties described in Ref. [27], such as the modelling of the mKπµµ distribution of the signal and background, the choice of the mKπ and cos θK
background models and the effect of residual specific backgrounds, are found to be sub-dominant. The effect of neglecting a possible D-wave K+π− component, arising from the
tail of the K2∗(1430)0, is also assessed and found to be negligible.
8.2
Systematic uncertainties on the differential branching
frac-tion
Systematic uncertainties affecting the differential branching fraction predominantly arise through: the knowledge of R, the ratio of the reconstruction and selection efficiencies
described in Sec. 7; the uncertainty of the branching fraction of the decay B0→ J/ψ K∗0,
which is shown as a separate systematic uncertainty in Table 2; and systematic uncertainties related to the determination of FS, which are propagated to the differential branching
fraction measurement.
The imperfect knowledge of the B → K∗ form-factor model used in the generation of the B0→ K∗0µ+µ− simulated sample affects the determination of the ratio of efficiencies R. A systematic uncertainty is therefore assessed by weighting simulated events to account
for the variations between the models described in Refs. [48] and [52].
As described in Sec. 8.1, after all corrections to the simulation are applied, a small difference remains in the momentum spectrum of the pions between simulated and genuine B0→ J/ψ K∗0 decays. The ratio R
, and consequently dB/dq2, is therefore calculated by
weighting the simulated B0→ K∗(892)0µ+µ− and B0→ J/ψ K∗(892)0 decays to account for the observed differences.
Other sources of systematic uncertainties affecting the determination of the signal yield, such as the choice of model to describe the mKπµµ distribution of the signal and
the background components, the choice of the mKπ and cos θK models to describe the
background, and the effect of residual specific backgrounds, are found to be negligible.
9
Conclusions
This paper presents the first measurement of the S-wave fraction in the K+π− system of
B0→ K∗0µ+µ− decays using a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of
3 fb−1 collected at the LHCb experiment. Accounting for the measured S-wave fraction in the wide mKπ region, the first measurement of the P-wave component of the differential
branching fraction of B0→ K∗(892)0µ+µ− decays is reported in bins of q2. All previous
measurements of the differential branching fraction have compared the combination of S-and wave components to the theory prediction, which is made purely for the resonant P-wave part of the K+π− system. The measurements of the S-wave fraction presented in this
In the absence of any previous measurement, such estimates have been used to assign a systematic uncertainty for a possible S-wave component [21]. The measurements of the S-wave fraction presented in this paper allow these estimates to be replaced with an accurate assessment of the scalar component in B0→ K∗0µ+µ− decays. The resulting
measurements of the differential branching fraction of B0→ K∗(892)0µ+µ− decays are the
most precise to date and are in good agreement with the SM predictions.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Gudrun Hiller and Martin Jung for useful discussions regarding the treatment of the K+π− system. We express our gratitude to our colleagues in the CERN
accelerator departments for the excellent performance of the LHC. We thank the technical and administrative staff at the LHCb institutes. We acknowledge support from CERN and from the national agencies: CAPES, CNPq, FAPERJ and FINEP (Brazil); NSFC (China); CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG and MPG (Germany); INFN (Italy); FOM and NWO (The Netherlands); MNiSW and NCN (Poland); MEN/IFA (Romania); MinES and FANO (Russia); MinECo (Spain); SNSF and SER (Switzerland); NASU (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); NSF (USA). We acknowledge the computing resources that are provided by CERN, IN2P3 (France), KIT and DESY (Germany), INFN (Italy), SURF (The Netherlands), PIC (Spain), GridPP (United Kingdom), RRCKI and Yandex LLC (Russia), CSCS (Switzerland), IFIN-HH (Romania), CBPF (Brazil), PL-GRID (Poland) and OSC (USA). We are indebted to the communities behind the multiple open source software packages on which we depend. Individual groups or members have received support from AvH Foundation (Germany), EPLANET, Marie Sk lodowska-Curie Actions and ERC (European Union), Conseil G´en´eral de Haute-Savoie, Labex ENIGMASS and OCEVU, R´egion Auvergne (France), RFBR and Yandex LLC (Russia), GVA, XuntaGal and GENCAT (Spain), Herchel Smith Fund, The Royal Society, Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851 and the Leverhulme Trust (United Kingdom).
Appendices
A
The m
Kπdistribution of the signal
The K+π− invariant mass distribution of the signal candidates is modelled by two
distri-butions. For the P-wave component, a relativistic Breit-Wigner function is used, given by fBW(mKπ) = p kp k k892 B10(k, k892, d)B00(p, p892, d) m2 Kπ− m2892− im892Γ892(mKπ) , (10)
where√kp is the phase-space factor, Γ892(mKπ) is given by
Γ892(mKπ) = Γ892B10 2(k, k892, d) k k892 3 m 892 mKπ , (11)
and B0 are Blatt–Weisskopf barrier factors as defined in Ref. [43]. The parameter d is the meson radius parameter and is set to 1.6 GeV−1c [42]. The systematic uncertainty associated with the choice of this value is negligible. The parameters m892 and Γ892 are
the pole mass and width of the K∗(892)0 resonance, and k (p) is the momentum of the K+ (K∗0) in the rest frame of the K∗0 (B0) evaluated at a given m
Kπ. The parameters k892
and p892 are the values of k and p evaluated at the pole mass of the K∗(892)0 resonance.
In Eq. 10, the orbital angular momentum between the K∗(892)0 and the dimuon system is considered to be zero. The inclusion of a higher orbital angular momentum component has a negligible effect on the measurements.
The S-wave component of the signal is modelled using the LASS parameterisation [29], given by fLASS(mKπ) = p kpB10(k, k1430, d) k k1430 1 cot δB− i + e2iδB 1 cot δR− i , (12)
where k1430 is the momentum of the K∗0 in the B0 rest frame, evaluated at the pole mass
of the K0∗(1430)0 resonance. The terms cot δB and cot δR are given by
cot δB = 1 ak + rk 2 (13) and cot δR= m2 1430− m2Kπ m1430Γ1430(mKπ) , (14)
with the running width Γ1430(mKπ) in turn given by
Γ1430(mKπ) = Γ1430 k k1430 m1430 mKπ . (15)
The parameters m1430 and Γ1430 are the pole mass and width of the K0∗(1430)0 resonance,
and k1430 is the momentum of the kaon in the K∗0 rest frame, evaluated at the pole mass
of the K0∗(1430)0 resonance. The second term of Eq. 12 is equivalent to a Breit–Wigner
function for the K0∗(1430)0. The first term of Eq. 12 contains two empirical parameters {a, r}. These parameters are fixed to the values a = 3.83 GeV/c−1 and r = 2.86 GeV/c−1, determined in B0→ J/ψ K∗0 decays using the model described in Ref. [42].
In order to assess the systematic effect of this choice, these parameters are also fixed to values from the LASS experiment, a = 1.94 GeV/c−1 and r = 1.76 GeV/c−1. The resulting systematic uncertainty is found to be negligible.
B
Likelihood fit projections
Figures 6–9 show the projections of the fitted probability density function on mKπµµ,
mKπ and cos θK. Figure 6 shows the wider q2 bins of 1.1 < q2 < 6.0 GeV2/c4 and 15.0 <
q2 < 19.0 GeV2/c4, Figs. 7–9 show the m
Kπµµ, mKπ and cos θK projections respectively for
the finer q2 bins. In all figures, the solid line denotes the total fitted distribution. The
individual components, signal (blue shaded area) and background (red hatched area), are also shown. ] 2 c [MeV/ µ µ π K m 5200 5400 5600 2 c Candidates / 15 MeV/ 0 100 200 300 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 6.0 GeV 2 q 1.1 < ] 2 c [MeV/ µ µ π K m 5200 5400 5600 2 c Candidates / 15 MeV/ 0 100 200 300 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 19.0 GeV 2 q 15.0 < ] 2 c [MeV/ π K m 800 1000 1200 2 c Candidates / 28 MeV/ 0 100 200 300 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 6.0 GeV 2 q 1.1 < ] 2 c [MeV/ π K m 800 1000 1200 2 c Candidates / 28 MeV/ 0 100 200 300 400 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 19.0 GeV 2 q 15.0 < K θ cos 1 − −0.5 0 0.5 1 Candidates / 0.1 0 50 100 150 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 6.0 GeV 2 q 1.1 < K θ cos 1 − −0.5 0 0.5 1 Candidates / 0.1 0 20 40 60 80 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 19.0 GeV 2 q 15.0 <
Figure 6: Angular and mass distributions for the q2 bins 1.1 < q2 < 6.0 GeV2/c4 (left) and
15.0 < q2< 19.0 GeV2/c4 (right). The distributions of cos θK and mKπ are shown for candidates
] 2 c [MeV/ µ µ π K m 5200 5400 5600 2 c Candidates / 15 MeV/ 0 50 100 150 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 0.98 GeV 2 q 0.10 < ] 2 c [MeV/ µ µ π K m 5200 5400 5600 2 c Candidates / 15 MeV/ 0 50 100 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 2.5 GeV 2 q 1.1 < ] 2 c [MeV/ µ µ π K m 5200 5400 5600 2 c Candidates / 15 MeV/ 0 50 100 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 4.0 GeV 2 q 2.5 < ] 2 c [MeV/ µ µ π K m 5200 5400 5600 2 c Candidates / 15 MeV/ 0 50 100 150 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 6.0 GeV 2 q 4.0 < ] 2 c [MeV/ µ µ π K m 5200 5400 5600 2 c Candidates / 15 MeV/ 0 50 100 150 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 8.0 GeV 2 q 6.0 < ] 2 c [MeV/ µ µ π K m 5200 5400 5600 2 c Candidates / 15 MeV/ 0 50 100 150 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 12.5 GeV 2 q 11.0 < ] 2 c [MeV/ µ µ π K m 5200 5400 5600 2 c Candidates / 15 MeV/ 0 50 100 150 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 17.0 GeV 2 q 15.0 < ] 2 c [MeV/ µ µ π K m 5200 5400 5600 2 c Candidates / 15 MeV/ 0 50 100 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 19.0 GeV 2 q 17.0 <
] 2 c [MeV/ π K m 800 1000 1200 2 c Candidates / 28 MeV/ 0 50 100 150 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 0.98 GeV 2 q 0.10 < ] 2 c [MeV/ π K m 800 1000 1200 2 c Candidates / 28 MeV/ 0 50 100 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 2.5 GeV 2 q 1.1 < ] 2 c [MeV/ π K m 800 1000 1200 2 c Candidates / 28 MeV/ 0 20 40 60 80 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 4.0 GeV 2 q 2.5 < ] 2 c [MeV/ π K m 800 1000 1200 2 c Candidates / 28 MeV/ 0 50 100 150 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 6.0 GeV 2 q 4.0 < ] 2 c [MeV/ π K m 800 1000 1200 2 c Candidates / 28 MeV/ 0 50 100 150 200 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 8.0 GeV 2 q 6.0 < ] 2 c [MeV/ π K m 800 1000 1200 2 c Candidates / 28 MeV/ 0 50 100 150 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 12.5 GeV 2 q 11.0 < ] 2 c [MeV/ π K m 800 1000 1200 2 c Candidates / 28 MeV/ 0 100 200 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 17.0 GeV 2 q 15.0 < ] 2 c [MeV/ π K m 800 1000 1200 2 c Candidates / 28 MeV/ 0 50 100 150 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 19.0 GeV 2 q 17.0 <
Figure 8: The K+π− invariant mass distributions for the fine q2 bins for candidates in the signal
K θ cos 1 − −0.5 0 0.5 1 Candidates / 0.1 0 10 20 30 40 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 0.98 GeV 2 q 0.10 < K θ cos 1 − −0.5 0 0.5 1 Candidates / 0.1 0 10 20 30 40 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 2.5 GeV 2 q 1.1 < K θ cos 1 − −0.5 0 0.5 1 Candidates / 0.1 0 10 20 30 40 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 4.0 GeV 2 q 2.5 < K θ cos 1 − −0.5 0 0.5 1 Candidates / 0.1 0 20 40 60 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 6.0 GeV 2 q 4.0 < K θ cos 1 − −0.5 0 0.5 1 Candidates / 0.1 0 20 40 60 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 8.0 GeV 2 q 6.0 < K θ cos 1 − −0.5 0 0.5 1 Candidates / 0.1 0 10 20 30 40 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 12.5 GeV 2 q 11.0 < K θ cos 1 − −0.5 0 0.5 1 Candidates / 0.1 0 20 40 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 17.0 GeV 2 q 15.0 < K θ cos 1 − −0.5 0 0.5 1 Candidates / 0.1 0 10 20 30 LHCb 4 c / 2 < 19.0 GeV 2 q 17.0 <
Figure 9: The cos θK angular distributions for the fine q2 bins for candidates in the signal mKπµµ
References
[1] T. Hurth, F. Mahmoudi, and S. Neshatpour, On the anomalies in the latest LHCb data, arXiv:1603.00865.
[2] S. Descotes-Genon, L. Hofer, J. Matias, and J. Virto, Global analysis of b → s`` anomalies, arXiv:1510.04239.
[3] S. Descotes-Genon, J. Matias, and J. Virto, Understanding the B → K∗µ+µ−anomaly, Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 074002, arXiv:1307.5683.
[4] W. Altmannshofer and D. M. Straub, New physics in B → K∗µµ?, Eur. Phys. J. C73 (2013) 2646, arXiv:1308.1501.
[5] F. Beaujean, C. Bobeth, and D. van Dyk, Comprehensive Bayesian analysis of rare (semi)leptonic and radiative B decays, Eur. Phys. J. C74 (2014) 2897, arXiv:1310.2478.
[6] T. Hurth and F. Mahmoudi, On the LHCb anomaly in B → K∗`+`−, JHEP 04 (2014)
097, arXiv:1312.5267.
[7] S. J¨ager and J. Martin Camalich, On B → V `` at small dilepton invariant mass, power corrections, and new physics, JHEP 05 (2013) 043, arXiv:1212.2263.
[8] S. Descotes-Genon, L. Hofer, J. Matias, and J. Virto, On the impact of power corrections in the prediction of B → K∗µ+µ− observables, JHEP 12 (2014) 125,
arXiv:1407.8526.
[9] J. Lyon and R. Zwicky, Resonances gone topsy turvy - the charm of QCD or new physics in b → s`+`−?, arXiv:1406.0566.
[10] W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, M. Pospelov, and I. Yavin, Quark flavor transitions in Lµ− Lτ models, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 095033, arXiv:1403.1269.
[11] A. Crivellin, G. D’Ambrosio, and J. Heeck, Explaining h → µ±τ∓, B → K∗µ+µ− and
B → Kµ+µ−/B → Ke+e− in a two-Higgs-doublet model with gauged L
µ− Lτ, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 151801, arXiv:1501.00993.
[12] R. Gauld, F. Goertz, and U. Haisch, An explicit Z0-boson explanation of the B → K∗µ+µ− anomaly, JHEP 01 (2014) 069, arXiv:1310.1082.
[13] W. Altmannshofer and D. M. Straub, New physics in b → s transitions after LHC run 1, Eur. Phys. J. C75 (2015) 382, arXiv:1411.3161.
[14] F. Mahmoudi, S. Neshatpour, and J. Virto, B → K∗µ+µ− optimised observables in the MSSM, Eur. Phys. J. C74 (2014) 2927, arXiv:1401.2145.
[15] A. Datta, M. Duraisamy, and D. Ghosh, Explaining the B → K∗µ+µ− data with scalar interactions, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 071501, arXiv:1310.1937.
[16] D. Buttazzo, A. Greljo, G. Isidori, and D. Marzocca, Toward a coherent solution of diphoton and flavor anomalies, arXiv:1604.03940.
[17] M. Ciuchini et al., B → K∗`+`− decays at large recoil in the Standard Model: A
theoretical reappraisal, arXiv:1512.07157.
[18] M. D¨oring, U.-G. Meißner, and W. Wang, Chiral dynamics and S-wave contributions in semileptonic B decays, JHEP 10 (2013) 011, arXiv:1307.0947.
[19] C.-D. L¨u and W. Wang, Analysis of B → KJ∗(→ Kπ)µ+µ− in the higher kaon resonance region, Phys. Rev. D85 (2012) 034014, arXiv:1111.1513.
[20] D. Beˇcirevi´c and A. Tayduganov, Impact of B → K0∗`+`− on the New Physics search
in B → K∗`+`− decay, Nucl. Phys. B868 (2013) 368, arXiv:1207.4004.
[21] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Differential branching fraction and angular analysis of the decay B0 → K∗0µ+µ−, JHEP 08 (2013) 131, arXiv:1304.6325.
[22] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Differential branching fractions and isospin asymmetries of B → K(∗)µ+µ− decays, JHEP 06 (2014) 133, arXiv:1403.8044.
[23] CMS collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., Angular analysis of the decay B0 →
K∗0µ+µ− from pp collisions at √s = 8 TeV , Phys. Lett. B753 (2016) 424, arXiv:1507.08126.
[24] Belle collaboration, J.-T. Wei et al., Measurement of the differential branching fraction and forward-backword asymmetry for B → K(∗)`+`−, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 171801, arXiv:0904.0770.
[25] BaBar collaboration, J. P. Lees et al., Measurement of branching fractions and rate asymmetries in the rare decays B → K(∗)`+`−, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 032012, arXiv:1204.3933.
[26] W. Altmannshofer et al., Symmetries and asymmetries of B → K∗µ+µ− decays in the Standard Model and beyond, JHEP 01 (2009) 019, arXiv:0811.1214.
[27] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Angular analysis of the B0 → K∗0µ+µ− decay
using 3 fb−1 of integrated luminosity, JHEP 02 (2016) 104, arXiv:1512.04442. [28] L. Hofer and J. Matias, Exploiting the symmetries of P and S wave for B → K∗µ+µ−,
JHEP 09 (2015) 104, arXiv:1502.00920.
[29] D. Aston et al., A study of K−π+ scattering in the reaction K−p → K−π+n at 11 GeV/c, Nucl. Phys. B296 (1988) 493.
[30] LHCb collaboration, A. A. Alves Jr. et al., The LHCb detector at the LHC, JINST 3 (2008) S08005.
[31] R. Aaij et al., Performance of the LHCb Vertex Locator, JINST 9 (2014) P09007, arXiv:1405.7808.
[32] R. Aaij et al., The LHCb trigger and its performance in 2011, JINST 8 (2013) P04022, arXiv:1211.3055.
[33] T. Sj¨ostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual, JHEP 05 (2006) 026, arXiv:hep-ph/0603175; T. Sj¨ostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1, Comput. Phys. Commun. 178 (2008) 852, arXiv:0710.3820.
[34] I. Belyaev et al., Handling of the generation of primary events in Gauss, the LHCb simulation framework, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 331 (2011) 032047.
[35] D. J. Lange, The EvtGen particle decay simulation package, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A462 (2001) 152.
[36] P. Golonka and Z. Was, PHOTOS Monte Carlo: A precision tool for QED corrections in Z and W decays, Eur. Phys. J. C45 (2006) 97, arXiv:hep-ph/0506026.
[37] M. Clemencic et al., The LHCb simulation application, Gauss: Design, evolution and experience, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 331 (2011) 032023.
[38] Geant4 collaboration, J. Allison et al., Geant4 developments and applications, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53 (2006) 270; Geant4 collaboration, S. Agostinelli et al., Geant4: A simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506 (2003) 250.
[39] L. Breiman, J. H. Friedman, R. A. Olshen, and C. J. Stone, Classification and regression trees, Wadsworth international group, Belmont, California, USA, 1984.
[40] R. E. Schapire and Y. Freund, A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting, J. Comput. and Syst. Sci. 55 (1997) 119.
[41] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of the B0
s → J/ψK ∗0
branching frac-tion and angular amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 071102(R), arXiv:1208.0738. [42] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Observation of the resonant character of the
Z(4430)− state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 222002, arXiv:1404.1903.
[43] Particle Data Group, K. A. Olive et al., Review of particle physics, Chin. Phys. C38 (2014) 090001.
[44] D. Das, G. Hiller, M. Jung, and A. Shires, The B → Kπ`` and B0s → KK`` distributions at low hadronic recoil, JHEP 09 (2014) 109, arXiv:1406.6681.
[45] D. Das, G. Hiller, and M. Jung, B → Kπ`` in and outside the K∗ window, arXiv:1506.06699.
[46] LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of the polarization amplitudes in B0 → J/ψK∗(892)0 decays, Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 052002, arXiv:1307.2782.
[47] Belle collaboration, K. Chilikin et al., Observation of a new charged charmoniumlike state in B0 → J/ψK−π+ decays, Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 112009, arXiv:1408.6457.
[48] A. Bharucha, D. M. Straub, and R. Zwicky, B → V `+`− in the Standard Model from light-cone sum rules, arXiv:1503.05534.
[49] R. R. Horgan, Z. Liu, S. Meinel, and M. Wingate, Lattice QCD calculation of form factors describing the rare decays B → K∗`+`− and B
s → φ`+`−, Phys. Rev. D89
(2014) 094501, arXiv:1310.3722.
[50] A. Ali, P. Ball, L. T. Handoko, and G. Hiller, A comparative study of the decays B → (K, K∗)`+`− in Standard Model and supersymmetric theories, Phys. Rev. D61
(2000) 074024, arXiv:hep-ph/9910221.
[51] P. Ball and R. Zwicky, Bd,s → ρ, ω, K∗, φ decay form-factors from light-cone sum
rules reexamined, Phys. Rev. D71 (2005) 014029, arXiv:hep-ph/0412079.
[52] A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel, A. A. Pivovarov, and Y.-M. Wang, Charm-loop effect in B → K(∗)`+`− and B → K∗γ, JHEP 09 (2010) 089, arXiv:1006.4945.
LHCb collaboration
R. Aaij39, B. Adeva38, M. Adinolfi47, Z. Ajaltouni5, S. Akar6, J. Albrecht10, F. Alessio39,
M. Alexander52, S. Ali42, G. Alkhazov31, P. Alvarez Cartelle54, A.A. Alves Jr58, S. Amato2,
S. Amerio23, Y. Amhis7, L. An40, L. Anderlini18, G. Andreassi40, M. Andreotti17,g,
J.E. Andrews59, R.B. Appleby55, O. Aquines Gutierrez11, F. Archilli1, P. d’Argent12,
A. Artamonov36, M. Artuso60, E. Aslanides6, G. Auriemma26,s, M. Baalouch5, S. Bachmann12,
J.J. Back49, A. Badalov37, C. Baesso61, W. Baldini17, R.J. Barlow55, C. Barschel39, S. Barsuk7,
W. Barter39, V. Batozskaya29, V. Battista40, A. Bay40, L. Beaucourt4, J. Beddow52,
F. Bedeschi24, I. Bediaga1, L.J. Bel42, V. Bellee40, N. Belloli21,i, K. Belous36, I. Belyaev32,
E. Ben-Haim8, G. Bencivenni19, S. Benson39, J. Benton47, A. Berezhnoy33, R. Bernet41,
A. Bertolin23, M.-O. Bettler39, M. van Beuzekom42, S. Bifani46, P. Billoir8, T. Bird55,
A. Birnkraut10, A. Bitadze55, A. Bizzeti18,u, T. Blake49, F. Blanc40, J. Blouw11, S. Blusk60,
V. Bocci26, T. Boettcher57, A. Bondar35, N. Bondar31,39, W. Bonivento16, S. Borghi55,
M. Borisyak67, M. Borsato38, F. Bossu7, M. Boubdir9, T.J.V. Bowcock53, E. Bowen41,
C. Bozzi17,39, S. Braun12, M. Britsch12, T. Britton60, J. Brodzicka55, E. Buchanan47, C. Burr55,
A. Bursche2, J. Buytaert39, S. Cadeddu16, R. Calabrese17,g, M. Calvi21,i, M. Calvo Gomez37,m,
P. Campana19, D. Campora Perez39, L. Capriotti55, A. Carbone15,e, G. Carboni25,j,
R. Cardinale20,h, A. Cardini16, P. Carniti21,i, L. Carson51, K. Carvalho Akiba2, G. Casse53,
L. Cassina21,i, L. Castillo Garcia40, M. Cattaneo39, Ch. Cauet10, G. Cavallero20, R. Cenci24,t,
M. Charles8, Ph. Charpentier39, G. Chatzikonstantinidis46, M. Chefdeville4, S. Chen55,
S.-F. Cheung56, V. Chobanova38, M. Chrzaszcz41,27, X. Cid Vidal38, G. Ciezarek42,
P.E.L. Clarke51, M. Clemencic39, H.V. Cliff48, J. Closier39, V. Coco58, J. Cogan6, E. Cogneras5,
V. Cogoni16,f, L. Cojocariu30, G. Collazuol23,o, P. Collins39, A. Comerma-Montells12,
A. Contu39, A. Cook47, S. Coquereau8, G. Corti39, M. Corvo17,g, B. Couturier39, G.A. Cowan51,
D.C. Craik51, A. Crocombe49, M. Cruz Torres61, S. Cunliffe54, R. Currie54, C. D’Ambrosio39,
E. Dall’Occo42, J. Dalseno47, P.N.Y. David42, A. Davis58, O. De Aguiar Francisco2,
K. De Bruyn6, S. De Capua55, M. De Cian12, J.M. De Miranda1, L. De Paula2, P. De Simone19,
C.-T. Dean52, D. Decamp4, M. Deckenhoff10, L. Del Buono8, M. Demmer10, D. Derkach67,
O. Deschamps5, F. Dettori39, B. Dey22, A. Di Canto39, H. Dijkstra39, F. Dordei39, M. Dorigo40,
A. Dosil Su´arez38, A. Dovbnya44, K. Dreimanis53, L. Dufour42, G. Dujany55, K. Dungs39,
P. Durante39, R. Dzhelyadin36, A. Dziurda39, A. Dzyuba31, N. D´el´eage4, S. Easo50, U. Egede54,
V. Egorychev32, S. Eidelman35, S. Eisenhardt51, U. Eitschberger10, R. Ekelhof10, L. Eklund52,
Ch. Elsasser41, S. Ely60, S. Esen12, H.M. Evans48, T. Evans56, A. Falabella15, N. Farley46,
S. Farry53, R. Fay53, D. Ferguson51, V. Fernandez Albor38, F. Ferrari15,39,
F. Ferreira Rodrigues1, M. Ferro-Luzzi39, S. Filippov34, M. Fiore17,g, M. Fiorini17,g, M. Firlej28,
C. Fitzpatrick40, T. Fiutowski28, F. Fleuret7,b, K. Fohl39, M. Fontana16, F. Fontanelli20,h,
D.C. Forshaw60, R. Forty39, M. Frank39, C. Frei39, M. Frosini18, J. Fu22,q, E. Furfaro25,j,
C. F¨arber39, A. Gallas Torreira38, D. Galli15,e, S. Gallorini23, S. Gambetta51, M. Gandelman2,
P. Gandini56, Y. Gao3, J. Garc´ıa Pardi˜nas38, J. Garra Tico48, L. Garrido37, P.J. Garsed48,
D. Gascon37, C. Gaspar39, L. Gavardi10, G. Gazzoni5, D. Gerick12, E. Gersabeck12,
M. Gersabeck55, T. Gershon49, Ph. Ghez4, S. Gian`ı40, V. Gibson48, O.G. Girard40, L. Giubega30,
K. Gizdov51, V.V. Gligorov8, D. Golubkov32, A. Golutvin54,39, A. Gomes1,a, I.V. Gorelov33,
C. Gotti21,i, M. Grabalosa G´andara5, R. Graciani Diaz37, L.A. Granado Cardoso39,
E. Graug´es37, E. Graverini41, G. Graziani18, A. Grecu30, P. Griffith46, L. Grillo21,
C. Hadjivasiliou60, G. Haefeli40, C. Haen39, S.C. Haines48, S. Hall54, B. Hamilton59, X. Han12,
S. Hansmann-Menzemer12, N. Harnew56, S.T. Harnew47, J. Harrison55, J. He62, T. Head40,
A. Heister9, K. Hennessy53, P. Henrard5, L. Henry8, J.A. Hernando Morata38,
E. van Herwijnen39, M. Heß65, A. Hicheur2, D. Hill56, C. Hombach55, W. Hulsbergen42,
T. Humair54, M. Hushchyn67, N. Hussain56, D. Hutchcroft53, M. Idzik28, P. Ilten57,
R. Jacobsson39, A. Jaeger12, J. Jalocha56, E. Jans42, A. Jawahery59, M. John56, D. Johnson39,
C.R. Jones48, C. Joram39, B. Jost39, N. Jurik60, S. Kandybei44, W. Kanso6, M. Karacson39,
T.M. Karbach39,†, S. Karodia52, M. Kecke12, M. Kelsey60, I.R. Kenyon46, M. Kenzie39,
T. Ketel43, E. Khairullin67, B. Khanji21,39,i, C. Khurewathanakul40, T. Kirn9, S. Klaver55,
K. Klimaszewski29, M. Kolpin12, I. Komarov40, R.F. Koopman43, P. Koppenburg42,
A. Kozachuk33, M. Kozeiha5, L. Kravchuk34, K. Kreplin12, M. Kreps49, P. Krokovny35,
F. Kruse10, W. Krzemien29, W. Kucewicz27,l, M. Kucharczyk27, V. Kudryavtsev35,
A.K. Kuonen40, K. Kurek29, T. Kvaratskheliya32,39, D. Lacarrere39, G. Lafferty55,39, A. Lai16,
D. Lambert51, G. Lanfranchi19, C. Langenbruch49, B. Langhans39, T. Latham49, C. Lazzeroni46,
R. Le Gac6, J. van Leerdam42, J.-P. Lees4, A. Leflat33,39, J. Lefran¸cois7, R. Lef`evre5,
F. Lemaitre39, E. Lemos Cid38, O. Leroy6, T. Lesiak27, B. Leverington12, Y. Li7,
T. Likhomanenko67,66, R. Lindner39, C. Linn39, F. Lionetto41, B. Liu16, X. Liu3, D. Loh49,
I. Longstaff52, J.H. Lopes2, D. Lucchesi23,o, M. Lucio Martinez38, H. Luo51, A. Lupato23,
E. Luppi17,g, O. Lupton56, A. Lusiani24, X. Lyu62, F. Machefert7, F. Maciuc30, O. Maev31,
K. Maguire55, S. Malde56, A. Malinin66, T. Maltsev35, G. Manca7, G. Mancinelli6, P. Manning60,
J. Maratas5,v, J.F. Marchand4, U. Marconi15, C. Marin Benito37, P. Marino24,t, J. Marks12,
G. Martellotti26, M. Martin6, M. Martinelli40, D. Martinez Santos38, F. Martinez Vidal68,
D. Martins Tostes2, L.M. Massacrier7, A. Massafferri1, R. Matev39, A. Mathad49, Z. Mathe39,
C. Matteuzzi21, A. Mauri41, B. Maurin40, A. Mazurov46, M. McCann54, J. McCarthy46,
A. McNab55, R. McNulty13, B. Meadows58, F. Meier10, M. Meissner12, D. Melnychuk29,
M. Merk42, E Michielin23, D.A. Milanes64, M.-N. Minard4, D.S. Mitzel12, J. Molina Rodriguez61,
I.A. Monroy64, S. Monteil5, M. Morandin23, P. Morawski28, A. Mord`a6, M.J. Morello24,t,
J. Moron28, A.B. Morris51, R. Mountain60, F. Muheim51, M. Mulder42, M. Mussini15,
D. M¨uller55, J. M¨uller10, K. M¨uller41, V. M¨uller10, P. Naik47, T. Nakada40, R. Nandakumar50,
A. Nandi56, I. Nasteva2, M. Needham51, N. Neri22, S. Neubert12, N. Neufeld39, M. Neuner12,
A.D. Nguyen40, C. Nguyen-Mau40,n, V. Niess5, S. Nieswand9, R. Niet10, N. Nikitin33,
T. Nikodem12, A. Novoselov36, D.P. O’Hanlon49, A. Oblakowska-Mucha28, V. Obraztsov36,
S. Ogilvy19, R. Oldeman48, C.J.G. Onderwater69, J.M. Otalora Goicochea2, A. Otto39,
P. Owen41, A. Oyanguren68, A. Palano14,d, F. Palombo22,q, M. Palutan19, J. Panman39,
A. Papanestis50, M. Pappagallo52, L.L. Pappalardo17,g, C. Pappenheimer58, W. Parker59,
C. Parkes55, G. Passaleva18, G.D. Patel53, M. Patel54, C. Patrignani15,e, A. Pearce55,50,
A. Pellegrino42, G. Penso26,k, M. Pepe Altarelli39, S. Perazzini39, P. Perret5, L. Pescatore46,
K. Petridis47, A. Petrolini20,h, A. Petrov66, M. Petruzzo22,q, E. Picatoste Olloqui37, B. Pietrzyk4,
M. Pikies27, D. Pinci26, A. Pistone20, A. Piucci12, S. Playfer51, M. Plo Casasus38, T. Poikela39,
F. Polci8, A. Poluektov49,35, I. Polyakov32, E. Polycarpo2, G.J. Pomery47, A. Popov36,
D. Popov11,39, B. Popovici30, C. Potterat2, E. Price47, J.D. Price53, J. Prisciandaro38,
A. Pritchard53, C. Prouve47, V. Pugatch45, A. Puig Navarro40, G. Punzi24,p, W. Qian56,
R. Quagliani7,47, B. Rachwal27, J.H. Rademacker47, M. Rama24, M. Ramos Pernas38,
M.S. Rangel2, I. Raniuk44, G. Raven43, F. Redi54, S. Reichert10, A.C. dos Reis1,
C. Remon Alepuz68, V. Renaudin7, S. Ricciardi50, S. Richards47, M. Rihl39, K. Rinnert53,39,