Measurement of the e^{+}e^{-}\to\eta\pi^{+}\pi^{-} cross section with the SND detector at the VEPP-2000 collider

Measurement of the cross section with the SND detector at the VEPP-2000 collider

M. N. Achasov    A. Yu. Barnyakov    K. I. Beloborodov    A. V. Berdyugin    D. E. Berkaev Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, SB RAS, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia    A. G. Bogdanchikov    A. A. Botov Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, SB RAS, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia    T. V. Dimova    V. P. Druzhinin druzhinin@inp.nsk.su    V. B. Golubev    L. V. Kardapoltsev    A. G. Kharlamov Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, SB RAS, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia    I. A. Koop Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, SB RAS, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia Novosibirsk State Technical University, Novosibirsk, 630092, Russia    A. A. Korol Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, SB RAS, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia    D. P. Kovrizhin    S. V. Koshuba Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, SB RAS, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia    A. S. Kupich Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, SB RAS, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia    A. P. Lysenko    K. A. Martin Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, SB RAS, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia    N. A. Melnikova    N. Yu. Muchnoi Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, SB RAS, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia    A. E. Obrazovsky    E. V. Pakhtusova Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, SB RAS, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia    E. A. Perevedentsev    K. V. Pugachev    E. V. Rogozina    S. I. Serednyakov    Z. K. Silagadze    Yu. M. Shatunov    P. Yu. Shatunov Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, SB RAS, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia    D. A. Shtol    I. K. Surin Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, SB RAS, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia    Yu. A. Tikhonov Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, SB RAS, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia    Yu. V. Usov Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, SB RAS, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia    A. V. Vasiljev    I. M. Zemlyansky Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, SB RAS, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia
Abstract

The cross section is measured at the SND detector in the decay mode . The analysis is based on the data sample with an integrated luminosity of 32.7 pb collected at the VEPP-2000 collider in the center-of-mass energy range GeV. The data obtained in the decay mode are found to be in agreement with the previous SND measurements in the mode. Therefore the measurements in the two modes are combined.

I Introduction

In this paper we continue the study of the process with the SND detector at the VEPP-2000 collider begun in Ref. sndvepp2000 (). This isovector process proceeding mainly via the intermediate state sndvepp2000 () is important for spectroscopy of the excited -like states, and , and gives a sizable contribution into the total hadronic cross section at the center-of-mass (c.m.) energy region GeV. The cross-section data can be used to predict the hadronic spectral function in the decay and thus to test the hypothesis of conservation of vector current.

Previously the process was studied in several experiments nd (); dm2 (); cmd2 (); babar (); sndvepp2m (); sndvepp2000 (). The most complete and accurate data were obtained by BABAR babar () and SND at VEPP-2000 sndvepp2000 (). In Ref. sndvepp2000 (), the -meson was reconstructed via its decay mode . The cross section was measured in the energy region from 1.22 to 2.00 GeV. Large background from the and other hadronic processes didn’t allow to perform measurement with comparable accuracy at lower energies. In this work, we use the decay mode , in which the detection efficiency is lower, but the signal-to-background ratio is better, to improve measurement sensitivity below 1.2 GeV.

Ii Detector and experiment

SND is a nonmagnetic detector SND () collecting data at the VEPP-2000 collider VEPP () in the energy range GeV. The direction and vertex position of charged particles are measured by a nine-layer cylindrical drift chamber. Charged particle identification is based on measurements in the drift chamber and information from the system of threshold aerogel Cherenkov counters. The photon energies and directions are measured in a three-layer spherical electromagnetic calorimeter based on NaI(Tl) crystals. The calorimeter covers a solid angle of about 95% of . Its energy resolution for photons is , and the angular resolution is about . Outside the calorimeter, a muon detector consisting of proportional tubes and scintillation counters is placed.

This work is based on a data sample with an integrated luminosity of 32.7 pb collected in 2011-2012 in the c.m. energy range GeV. The energy range was scanned several times with a step of 25 MeV. During the experiment, the beam energy was determined using measurements of the magnetic field in the collider bending magnets. To fix the absolute energy scale, the resonance mass measurement was performed. In 2012 the beam energy was measured in several energy points near 2 GeV by the back-scattering-laser-light system COMPTON1 (); COMPTON2 (). The absolute energy measurements were used for calibration of the momentum measurement in the CMD-3 detector, which collected data at VEPP-2000 simultaneously with SND. The absolute c.m. energies for all scan points were then determined using average momentum in Bhabha and events with accuracy of MeV BEAM1 ().

Simulation of the signal processes is done with the Monte Carlo (MC) event generator based on formulas from Ref. thepp () and uses the model of the intermediate state. The generator takes into account radiative corrections to the initial particles calculated according to Ref. radcor (). The angular distribution of additional photons radiated by the initial particles is simulated according to Ref. BM (). The cross-section energy dependence needed for radiative-correction calculation is taken from Ref. sndvepp2000 (). Interactions of the generated particles with the detector material are simulated using GEANT4 package geant4 (). The simulation takes into account variation of experimental conditions during data taking, in particular, dead detector channels and beam-induced background. The beam background leads to appearance of spurious photons and charged particles in detected events. To take this effect into account, special background events recorded during data taking with a random trigger are used, which are superimposed on simulated events.

The process of Bhabha scattering is used for luminosity measurement. Accuracy of the luminosity measurement is estimated to be 2% sndvepp2000 ().

Iii Event selection

Figure 1: The distribution for data events with GeV selected with the additional condition MeV/ (points with error bars) in comparison with the simulated distributions for signal (solid histogram) and background events (dashed histogram).

In this analysis the meson is reconstructed via its decay . Therefore, we select events with two charged particles originated from the interaction region and at least six photons.

For selected events the vertex fit is performed using parameters of two charged tracks. The of the vertex fit () is required to be less than 200. The found vertex is used to refine the parameters of charged particles and photons. Then the kinematic fit to the hypothesis is performed with the requirement of energy and momentum balance and the mass constraints. The candidate is a two photon pair with invariant mass in the range MeV/. The quality of the kinematic fit is characterized by the parameter , which is required to be less than 45. If more than one photon combination satisfies this condition, the combination with the smallest value is chosen. Photon parameters corrected during the kinematic fit are used to calculate the invariant mass of the three candidates ().

To suppress background from the process , the kinematic fit to the hypothesis is performed, and the condition is applied.

The distribution for data events from the energy region GeV selected with the additional condition MeV/ is shown in Fig. 1 in comparison with the simulated distributions for signal and background events.

Iv Determination of the number of signal events

Figure 2: The spectrum for selected data events with GeV (points with error bars). The solid histogram is the results of the fit by a sum of signal and background distributions. The dashed histogram represents the fitted background spectrum.

The spectrum for selected data events with GeV is shown in Fig. 2. The spectrum is fitted with a sum of signal and background distributions. The signal distribution is described by a sum of three Gaussian functions with parameters determined from the fit to the distribution for simulated signal events. To account for a possible inaccuracy of the signal simulation, two parameters are introduced: mass shift and a width correction . The latter parameter is added to all Gaussian sigmas squared (). These parameters are determined from the fit to the spectrum for data events from the energy interval near the maximum of the cross section ( GeV) and found to be MeV/ and MeV/ for 2011 data set, and MeV/ and MeV/ for 2012 data set.

The background distribution is obtained using simulation of the processes , , and . To calculate expected numbers of background events we use existing data on the cross sections, in particular, the preliminary SND measurement 3pieta () for the cross section. A possible inaccuracy of background calculation is taken into account by introducing a scale factor . For energies below 1.6 GeV, the value of found in the fit is consistent with unity. At higher energies, there is significant background contribution from other hadronic processes, e.g., , or , cross section for which are unknown. In this region, the background is described by a function based on the ARGUS distribution argus (). It has been tested that this function describes well the shape of the spectra for all background processes mentioned above. The example of the fit with ARGUS background is shown in Fig. 3.

Figure 3: The spectrum for selected data events with GeV (points with error bars). The solid curve is the result of the fit by a sum of signal and background distributions. The dashed curve represents the fitted background spectrum.

To study the systematic uncertainty associated with the description of background shape, the spectrum for the energy region GeV is fitted with the function based on the ARGUS distribution. The difference between numbers of signal events obtained with this fit and the fit with the simulated background shape is found to be 6%. This number is taken as an estimate of the systematic uncertainty on the number of fitted signal events.

The numbers of fitted events for different energy points are listed in Table 2.

V Detection efficiency

The detection efficiency is determined using MC simulation and then corrected for data-MC simulation difference in detector response: . The correction for a specific selection criterion is calculated as , where and are the numbers of signal events selected with the standard and loosened criterion.

Effect , %
Condition
Condition
Track reconstruction
Photon conversion
Total
Table 1: Efficiency corrections

The efficiency corrections are listed in Table 1. To obtain the correction for the condition we use data from the energy region GeV and change the boundary of the condition from 45 to 1000. The corrections for the condition and track-reconstruction inefficiency are taken from Ref. sndvepp2000 (). The data-MC simulation difference in photon conversion in detector material before the tracking system is studied using events of the process .

The corrected detection efficiency as a function of the c.m. energy is listed in Table 2. Nonmonotonic behavior of the efficiency is due to variations of experimental conditions (beam background, dead detector channels, etc.). The efficiency decrease above 1.6 GeV is explained by the decrease of the cross section in this energy region and increase of the fraction of events with a hard photon radiated from the initial state, which are rejected by the cut .

The model dependence of the detection efficiency originating from the uncertainty of the cross section used in simulation was studied in Ref. sndvepp2000 (). It was found to be 1.0% at and 4.2% GeV at higher energies.

Vi The Born cross section

(GeV) (nb) (%) for (nb) (nb)
1.075 541 6.0 0.874
1.097 541 6.1 0.876
1.124 528 6.1 0.877
1.151 472 5.9 0.877
1.174 532 6.0 0.876
1.196 536 5.7 0.875
1.223 553 5.8 0.873
1.245 466 5.8 0.871
1.275 1225 6.3 0.867
1.295 484 5.5 0.864
1.323 542 5.5 0.862
1.351 1398 5.5 0.861
1.374 599 5.4 0.863
1.394 643 5.2 0.865
1.423 591 5.4 0.870
1.438 1442 5.1 0.873
1.471 608 5.3 0.883
1.494 731 5.4 0.893
1.517 1395 5.5 0.905
1.543 566 5.3 0.921
1.572 436 5.2 0.943
1.594 446 5.2 0.962
1.623 530 5.2 0.987
1.643 490 5.0 1.004
1.672 1314 5.3 1.021
1.693 472 4.8 1.022
1.720 1022 4.8 1.010
1.751 1197 4.8 1.000
1.774 473 4.6 1.016
1.797 1391 4.8 1.048
1.826 513 4.3 1.095
1.843 1369 4.4 1.120
1.873 1556 4.0 1.164
1.900 2033 3.5 1.200
1.927 1256 3.7 1.234
1.947 1312 3.8 1.260
1.967 724 3.6 1.283
1.984 1125 3.7 1.304
2.005 576 3.2 1.328
Table 2: The c.m. energy (), integrated luminosity (), number of signal events (), detection efficiency (), radiative-correction factor (), Born cross section measured in the decay mode ( for ), and Born cross section combined with the SND measurement sndvepp2000 () in the decay mode (). The quoted errors are statistical. The systematic uncertainties are discussed in the text. For the combined cross section it is 7% below 1.45 GeV, 6% at GeV, and 8% above 1.6 GeV.

The experimental value of the Born cross section for the th energy point is calculated as follows,

(1)

where is the integrated luminosity, is the number of signal events, is the detection efficiency, and is the radiative correction. The latter is determined as a result of the fit to data on the visible cross section

(2)

with the function

(3)

where is the function describing the probability of emission of photons with the energy by the initial electron and positron radcor (), , and and are the and masses.

The vector meson dominance (VMD) model with three intermediate isovector states, , and , decaying into  thepp () is used to describe the Born cross section:

(4)

where is the fine structure constant, is the transition form factor for the vertex , is the function describing the energy dependence of the phase space:

(5)

where and are the mass and width. The transition form factor is parametrized as

(6)

where is the ratio is the coupling constants for the transitions and .

The data on the visible cross section obtained in this work and in the previous SND measurement in the decay mode sndvepp2000 () are fitted simultaneously. The parameters of the resonance are fixed at the current world-average values pdg (). The parameter is calculated using the VMD relation from the decay width and is equal to GeV. The phase is set to zero.

Figure 4: The Born cross section measured by SND in the and decay modes. The curve is the result of the fit described in text.

Following to Ref. sndvepp2000 () we assume that the coupling constants and are real. So the phases and can take values of 0 or . The masses, widths, and the constants and are free fit parameters.

The model with phases and describes data well, , where is the number degrees of freedom. The first (second) numbers in the parentheses represent the contribution from the data obtained in this work (Ref. sndvepp2000 ()). The values of the radiative correction calculated according to Eq. (3) and the values of the Born cross section obtained using Eq. (1) are listed in Table 2. The model uncertainty on the radiative correction is estimated by variation of the model parameters within their errors and is found to be 0.5% below GeV and 2% above. The systematic uncertainty on the cross section includes the systematic uncertainties on the number of signal events (6%), detection efficiency (see Sec. V), radiative correction, and luminosity (2%). It is equal to 7% below 1.6 GeV and 8% above.

The comparison of the SND measurements in the and decay modes are presented in Fig. 4. Since the data of the two measurements are consistent with each other, we combine them. The combined cross section is listed in the last column of the Table 2. For the first six energy points the measurement are done only in the mode. The systematic uncertainty on the combined cross section is 7% below 1.45 GeV, 6% at GeV, and 8% above 1.6 GeV.

Vii Discussion

Figure 5: The Born cross section measured by SND and BABAR babar (). The solid, dashed, and dotted curves are the results of the VMD fit with parameters listed in Table 3 for Models 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

The comparison of the combined SND measurement with the previous most precise data obtained by the BABAR Collaboration babar () is presented in Fig. 5. The two data sets are in agreement, but the SND data have better accuracy.

Parameter Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
(GeV)
(MeV/)
(MeV)
(GeV)
(MeV/)
(MeV)
(GeV)
33/33 55/36 29/32
Table 3: Parameters of the VMD model.

The curves in Fig. 5 represent the results of the fit to the SND data in the three models, which parameters are listed in Table 3. In all the models the phase . The fits with fail to describe data. Model 1 shown by the solid curve is used in the previous section to calculate the radiative correction. It describes data well, but has a “wrong” value of equal to . In the quark model isgur () the and amplitudes are expected to be opposite in sign. The same prediction for the process is confirmed in Ref. ompi (). The fit with the “proper” gives and coincides with Model 2 in Table 3. This model shown in Fig. 5 by the dashed curve describes data significantly worse, . It should be noted that in Ref. sndvepp2000 () Model 2 applied to the data obtained in the mode gave the reasonable value . So, the addition of the new data obtained in the mode strongly increases the significance of the signal.

The reasonable quality of the fit with “proper” can be obtained in the model with an additional resonance (Model 3 in Table 3). The mass and width of this resonance are fixed at the PDG values MeV/ and MeV. The phase is set to zero. The result of the fit is shown in Fig. 5 by the dotted curve. More precise data are needed to choose between Models 1 and 3.

The parameters in the fit can be replaced by the products of the branching fractions

(7)

The following values of the products are obtained

(8)

for Models 1 and 3, respectively. It is interesting that the parameters of the and resonances obtained in the two models with different relative phases of the amplitude are rather close to each other.

Viii Summary

In this paper the cross section for the process has been measured in the c.m. energy range from 1.07 to 2.00 GeV in the decay mode . In the range 1.22–2.00 GeV the measured cross section is found to be in good agreement with the previous SND measurement in the decay mode sndvepp2000 (). Therefore, the two measurements have been combined.

The cross-section energy dependence has been fitted in the VMD model with 2, 3 and 4 -like states. The quality of the fit with two resonances, and , is quite poor, , while the fits with the additional resonance describe data well. The contribution appears as a shoulder on the peak near 1.75 GeV.

The SND data on the cross section are in agreement with the previous most precise data obtained by the BABAR Collaboration babar (), but have better accuracy.

Ix Acknowledgments

Part of this work related to the photon reconstruction algorithm in the electromagnetic calorimeter for multiphoton events is supported by the Russian Science Foundation (project No. 14-50-00080).

References

  • (1) V. M. Aulchenko et al., Phys. Rev. D 91, 052013 (2015).
  • (2) V. P. Druzhinin et al. (ND Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 174, 115 (1986).
  • (3) A. Antonelli et al. (DM2 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 212, 133 (1988).
  • (4) R. R. Akhmetshin et al. (CMD-2 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 489, 125 (2000).
  • (5) B. Aubert et al. (BABAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 76, 092005 (2007); 77, 119902(E) (2008).
  • (6) M.N. Achasov et al. (SND Collaboration), JETP Lett. 92, 80 (2010).
  • (7) M.N. Achasov et al., Nucl.Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 598, 31 (2009); V.M. Aulchenko et al., ibid. 598, 102 (2009); A.Yu. Barnyakov et al., ibid. 598, 163 (2009); V.M. Aulchenko et al., ibid. 598, 340 (2009).
  • (8) A. Romanov et al., in Proceedings of PAC 2013, Pasadena, CA USA, p.14.
  • (9) E. V. Abakumova et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 744, 35 (2014).
  • (10) E. V. Abakumova, M. N. Achasov, A. A. Krasnov, N. Y. Muchnoi and E. E. Pyata, JINST 10, T09001 (2015).
  • (11) D. N. Shemyakin et al. (CMD-3 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 756, 153 (2016).
  • (12) N. N. Achasov and V. A. Karnakov, JETP Lett. 39 342 (1984).
  • (13) E. A. Kuraev and V. S. Fadin, Yad. Fiz. 41, 733 (1985) [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 41, 466 (1985)].
  • (14) G. Bonneau and F. Martin, Nucl. Phys. B 27, 381 (1971).
  • (15) S. Agostinelli et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 506, 250 (2003).
  • (16) V. P. Druzhinin et al., EPJ Web Conf. 130, 05004 (2016) [arXiv:1609.01040 [hep-ex]].
  • (17) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARGUS_distribution
  • (18) K. A. Olive et al. (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C, 38, 090001 (2014).
  • (19) M. N. Achasov et al. (SND Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 94, 112001 (2016).
  • (20) S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 32, 189 (1985).
Comments 0
Request Comment
You are adding the first comment!
How to quickly get a good reply:
  • Give credit where it’s due by listing out the positive aspects of a paper before getting into which changes should be made.
  • Be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements.
  • Your comment should inspire ideas to flow and help the author improves the paper.

The better we are at sharing our knowledge with each other, the faster we move forward.
""
The feedback must be of minimum 40 characters and the title a minimum of 5 characters
   
Add comment
Cancel
Loading ...
171916
This is a comment super asjknd jkasnjk adsnkj
Upvote
Downvote
""
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
Submit
Cancel

You are asking your first question!
How to quickly get a good answer:
  • Keep your question short and to the point
  • Check for grammar or spelling errors.
  • Phrase it like a question
Test
Test description