text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Measurements of the branching fractions for the rare charmless decays $`B^0h^+h^{}(h=\pi ,K)`$111Charge conjugate decay modes are assumed throughout this paper. provide important information in the study of charge-parity ($`CP`$) violation. In principle, the $`\pi ^+`$$`\pi ^{}`$ decay mode can be used to extract the angle $`\alpha `$ of the Unitarity Triangle through the phenomenon of $`B^0`$-$`\overline{B}^0`$ mixing. However, in addition to the dominant $`buW^{}`$ tree amplitude, this decay includes the $`bdg`$ penguin amplitude and the determination of $`\alpha `$ is subject to large theoretical uncertainties if the penguin contribution is non-negligible . In the presence of significant “penguin pollution,” additional measurements of the isospin-related decays $`B^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ and $`B\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ provide a means of measuring $`\alpha `$ cleanly in the $`\pi \pi `$ channel .

The decay $`B^0`$$``$$`K^+`$$`\pi ^{}`$ is dominated by the $`bsg`$ penguin amplitude and provides an estimate of the scale of penguin pollution in the $`\pi ^+`$$`\pi ^{}`$ decay. Recent results from the CLEO collaboration indicate that the decay rate for $`B^0`$$``$$`K^+`$$`\pi ^{}`$ is significantly larger than the rate for $`B^0`$$``$$`\pi ^+`$$`\pi ^{}`$ , implying that the penguin contribution in the $`\pi \pi `$ decay is indeed significant and an isospin analysis will be necessary to measure $`\alpha `$ accurately. The apparent enhancement of the penguin amplitude improves the prospects for observing direct $`CP`$ violation as an asymmetry in the decay rates for $`B^0`$$``$$`K^+`$$`\pi ^{}`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$$``$$`K^{}`$$`\pi ^+`$. Precise measurement of the decay rates for $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\pi `$ decays is therefore of central importance. This paper describes preliminary measurements of branching fractions for the decays $`B^0`$$``$$`\pi ^+`$$`\pi ^{}`$, $`K^+`$$`\pi ^{}`$, and $`K^+`$$`K^{}`$ with the first data collected by the BABAR experiment.

## 2 Data sample, BABAR detector, and event selection

The dataset used in this analysis consists of $`8.9\text{ fb}^1`$ collected with the BABAR detector at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center’s PEP-II storage ring between January and June 2000. The PEP-II facility operates nominally at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance, providing asymmetric collisions of $`9.0\mathrm{GeV}`$ electrons on $`3.1\mathrm{GeV}`$ positrons. The dataset includes $`7.7\text{ fb}^1`$ collected in this configuration (on-resonance) and $`1.2\text{ fb}^1`$ collected below the $`B\overline{B}`$ threshold (off-resonance) that are used for continuum background studies. The on-resonance sample corresponds to 8.8 million produced $`B\overline{B}`$ events.

The asymmetric beam configuration in the laboratory frame provides a boost $`(\beta \gamma =0.56)`$ to the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$, allowing separation of the $`B`$ and $`\overline{B}`$ decay products for time-dependent $`CP`$-violation studies. For the analysis described in this paper, the significant effect of the boost relative to symmetric collider experiments is to increase the momentum range of the $`B`$ decay products from a narrow distribution centered at $`2.6\mathrm{GeV}/c`$, to a broad distribution extending from $`1.5`$ to $`4.5\mathrm{GeV}/c`$. Wherever necessary, kinematic quantities evaluated in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ center-of-mass (CM) frame are denoted with an additional superscript asterisk in order to distinguish them from the corresponding quantities evaluated in the laboratory frame.

BABAR is a solenoidal detector optimized for the asymmetric beam configuration at PEP-II and is described in detail elsewhere . Charged particle (track) momenta are measured in a tracking system consisting of a 5-layer, double-sided, silicon vertex tracker and a 40-layer drift chamber filled with a gas mixture of helium and isobutane, both operating within a $`1.5\mathrm{T}`$ superconducting solenoidal magnet. Photons are detected in an electromagnetic calorimeter consisting of 6580 CsI(Tl) crystals arranged in barrel and forward endcap subdetectors that also operates within the magnetic field. The iron used for the magnet yoke is segmented and instrumented with resistive plate chambers, providing muon identification and (in conjunction with the calorimeter) neutral hadron detection.

In this analysis, tracks are identified as pions or kaons by the $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}\mathrm{erenkov}`$ angle $`\theta _c`$ measured by a Detector of Internally Reflected $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}\mathrm{erenkov}`$ light (DIRC). The DIRC system is a unique type of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}\mathrm{erenkov}`$ detector that relies on total internal reflection within the radiator to deliver the $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}\mathrm{erenkov}`$ light outside the tracking and magnetic volumes. The radiator consists of 144 axially aligned synthetic quartz bars located just inside the inner radius of the calorimeter. The bars extend outside the solenoid flux return in the backward direction, where the $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}\mathrm{erenkov}`$ ring is imaged by an array of $`11000`$ photomultiplier tubes.

Hadronic events are selected based on track multiplicity and event topology. Tracks with transverse momentum greater than $`100\mathrm{MeV}/c`$ are required to pass efficient quality cuts, including number of drift chamber hit layers used in the track fit and impact parameter in the $`r`$$`\varphi `$ and $`r`$$`z`$ planes, where the cylindrical coordinate $`z`$ is aligned along the detector axis in the electron beam direction. At least three tracks must pass the above selection. To reduce contamination from Bhabha and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ events the ratio of second to zeroth Fox-Wolfram moments , $`R_2=H_2/H_0`$, is required to be less than $`0.95`$. Residual background from tau hadronic decays is reduced by requiring the sphericity  of the event to be greater than $`0.01`$. The efficiency of the event selection is dominated by the acceptance and efficiency of the track requirement, and is determined to be $`70\%`$ from a detailed Monte Carlo simulation based on Geant321 .

## 3 Selection of $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝒉^\mathbf{+}𝒉^{\mathbf{}}`$candidates

One of the advantages of measuring $`B`$ decay parameters at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance is the kinematic constraint provided by the initial state, where energy conservation determines that the energies of the $`B`$ mesons in the CM frame are equal to $`\sqrt{s}/2`$, where $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the total $`e^+e^{}`$ CM energy. We exploit this constraint by calculating an energy-substituted mass $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$, where $`\sqrt{s}/2`$ is substituted for the $`B`$ candidate energy, and by calculating the energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ between the $`B`$ candidate and $`\sqrt{s}/2`$ in the CM frame.

We define $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}=\sqrt{(\sqrt{s}/2)^2p_B^2}`$, where $`p_B^{}`$ is the $`B`$ candidate momentum evaluated in the CM frame. Because $`p_B^{}`$ is relatively small $`(300\mathrm{MeV}/c)`$, the resolution on $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ is dominated by the uncertainty in $`\sqrt{s}`$, which in turn is determined by the beam energy spread and width of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance. Substitution of the beam energy reduces the mass resolution by one order of magnitude compared to the invariant mass. The mean value of $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ and its Gaussian width $`\sigma (m_{\mathrm{ES}})`$ are determined from a large sample of fully reconstructed $`B`$ decays. We find $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}=(5.2800\pm 0.0005)\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`\sigma (m_{\mathrm{ES}})=(2.6\pm 0.1)\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$, respectively. Our initial selection requires $`5.22<m_{\mathrm{ES}}<5.30\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$.

We define $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=E_B^{}\sqrt{s}/2`$, where $`E_B^{}`$ is the $`B`$ candidate energy in the CM frame. Signal events are Gaussianly distributed in $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ with a mean near zero, while the continuum background falls linearly over the region of interest. For this analysis, the pion mass is assigned to all tracks and the $`K\pi `$ and $`KK`$ decays have $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ shifted from zero by an amount depending on the momentum of the tracks. From Monte Carlo simulation we find shifts of $`45`$ and $`91\mathrm{MeV}`$ for the $`K\pi `$ and $`KK`$ decays, respectively. The resolution on $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is estimated to be $`27\pm 5\mathrm{MeV}`$ based on Monte Carlo simulated $`\pi \pi `$ decays and the observed difference in widths between data and Monte Carlo $`B^{}`$$``$$`D^0`$$`\pi ^{}`$ decays. We require $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }E\right|<0.420\mathrm{GeV}`$.

## 4 Background suppression

Due to the relatively small CM momenta of decay products produced from the quark transition $`bc`$, $`B`$ decays to final states involving charm mesons are not a significant background to charmless two-body decays. After hadronic selection, the background is dominated by continuum production of light quarks, $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}(q=u,d,s,c)`$. In the CM frame, the continuum background typically exhibits a two-jet structure that can produce two high momentum back-to-back tracks with an invariant mass near the $`B`$ mass. In contrast, the low momentum of $`B`$ mesons in the decay $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$$``$$`B\overline{B}`$ leads to a more spherically symmetric event. This topology difference is exploited by constructing the angle $`\theta _S`$ between the sphericity axes, evaluated in the CM frame, of the $`B`$ candidate and the remaining charged and neutral particles in the event. The absolute value of the cosine of this angle is strongly peaked near 1 for continuum events and is approximately uniform for $`B\overline{B}`$ events. We require $`\left|\mathrm{cos}\theta _S\right|<0.9`$, which is $`87\%`$ efficient for signal events and rejects $`66\%`$ of the continuum background.

Further separation power between signal and continuum background is provided by a Fisher discriminant technique . The Fisher discriminant $``$ is calculated from a linear combination of discriminating variables $`x_i`$,

$$=\underset{i=1}{\overset{9}{}}\alpha _ix_i,$$
(1)
where the coefficients $`\alpha _i`$ are chosen to maximize the statistical separation between signal and background events. The nine discriminating variables are constructed from the scalar sum of the momenta of all charged and neutral particles (excluding the candidate daughter tracks) flowing into nine concentric cones centered on the $`B`$-candidate thrust axis in the CM frame. Each cone subtends an angle of $`10^{}`$ and is folded to combine the forward and backward intervals. More energy will be found in the cones nearer the candidate thrust axis in jet-like continuum background events than in the more isotropic $`B\overline{B}`$ events.

Large samples of signal and background Monte Carlo simulated events reconstructed in the $`\pi \pi `$ mode are used to determine the Fisher coefficients. Figure 1 shows the resulting $``$ distributions for signal $`\pi \pi `$ Monte Carlo compared to a sample of $`B^{}`$$``$$`D^0`$$`\pi ^{}`$ decays reconstructed in data, and continuum background Monte Carlo compared to off-resonance data. The $``$ distributions for both signal and background are parameterized by the sum of two Gaussians with separate means and widths. The Gaussian fits are performed on Monte Carlo samples that are independent of the samples used to determine the Fisher coefficients, and the same parameterization is used for all three signal modes.

## 5 Particle identification

Two complementary methods of exploiting the particle identification capabilities of the DIRC are described in this paper. The first method uses measurements of $`\theta _c`$ to derive particle selectors that are used to identify pions and kaons on a per-track basis. The second method uses likelihood functions derived from $`\theta _c`$ measurements directly in a maximum-likelihood fit to extract the relative amount of each decay mode on a statistical basis. After the selection criteria described above, the combined acceptance and efficiency of requiring a $`\theta _c`$ measurement for both tracks is $`76\%`$.

A control sample consisting of $`18141\pm 140`$ $`D^0`$$``$$`K^{}`$$`\pi ^+`$ candidate decays is used to parameterize and assess the performance of both particle identification methods. A $`96\%`$ pure $`D^0`$ sample is obtained through the decay $`D^+D^0\pi _s^+`$, where the slow pion $`\pi _s^+`$ tags the charge of the pion from the $`D^0`$ decay. Requiring a tight window around the $`D^+`$$`D^0`$ mass difference minimizes contamination from incorrectly reconstructed $`D^0`$ mesons, where the two daughter tracks are assigned the incorrect particle hypotheses. The momentum of kaons and pions in the control sample ranges from $`1.75`$$`4.0\mathrm{GeV}/c`$, which covers $`90\%`$ of the momentum range for charmless two-body $`B`$ decays.

The performance of the DIRC is summarized in Fig. 2, where we show plots of (a) $`\theta _c`$ vs. $`p`$ for tracks in the control sample and (b) the statistical separation between pions and kaons as a function of momentum. The separation, defined as $`\left[\theta _c(\pi )\theta _c(K)\right]/\sigma _{\theta _c}`$, where $`\theta _c(h)`$ are the Gaussian means for pion and kaon tracks and $`\sigma _{\theta _c}`$ is the average width, varies from 8 at $`2\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ to $`2.5`$ at $`4\mathrm{GeV}/c`$. Note that the quoted $`\theta _c`$ separation is for a single track and an average over the polar angle of each track is implicit in Fig. 2(b).

The selector method of particle identification attempts to identify pions and kaons on a per-track basis by cutting on likelihood functions. We construct the likelihood for a given mass hypothesis from the Gaussianly-distributed $`\theta _c`$ measurements and the Poissonian probability for the number of measured $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}\mathrm{erenkov}`$ photons compared to its expectation value. Tracks with momentum below the kaon threshold or within $`2\sigma (\theta _c)`$ of the expected value for a proton are explicitly removed, where the measurement error $`\sigma (\theta _c)`$ varies with momentum and the number of photons used in the fit. We calculate the efficiency for one mode to be identified as another using the efficiency and mis-identification probabilities for pions and kaons measured in the $`D^0`$ control sample. The resulting efficiency matrix is shown in Table 1. The matrix includes the probability that a pion or kaon is mis-measured and removed by the proton rejection requirement.

The global likelihood method incorporates the particle identification probabilities for pions and kaons directly in an unbinned maximum likelihood fit. The probability density functions are constructed from $`\theta _c`$ information alone, where Gaussian fits are performed to the distribution of $`\mathrm{measured}\mathrm{expected}`$ $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}\mathrm{erenkov}`$ angle in bins of momentum in the $`D^0`$ control sample. To improve the resolution and minimize the non-Gaussian tails of the $`\theta _c`$ distribution, we require a minimum number of observed $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}\mathrm{erenkov}`$ photons above the expected background. From the control sample we determine the efficiency of this requirement to be $`77\%`$, taking into account the angular correlation between the two daughter tracks from a $`B`$ decay. The proton rejection cut applied in the selector method is also required for the likelihood analysis. After the minimum photon cut, the proton requirement is $`98\%`$ efficient for $`h^+h^{}`$ events.

## 6 Analysis

In this section we present the results of a simple cut-based analysis to determine the $`h^+h^{}`$ yield, followed by two complementary methods for determining the $`\pi \pi `$, $`K\pi `$, and $`KK`$ yields in our data. In the first method we apply background suppression and particle identification cuts to isolate samples of events that are consistent with the $`\pi \pi `$, $`K\pi `$, or $`KK`$ hypotheses. Signal yields are then obtained from an unbinned maximum likelihood fit to $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$. In the second method we perform a global maximum likelihood fit incorporating $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, and $``$, as well as the $`\theta _c`$ probability density functions described in the previous section, to determine signal yields in all three modes simultaneously. The cut-based method is more transparent while the global fit has higher efficiency and statistical significance. In Sec. 7 we calculate branching fractions using the global fit results.

### 6.1 Cut-based analysis

In addition to the selection criteria described in Secs. 3 and 4, we tighten the $`\theta _S`$ requirement, $`\left|\mathrm{cos}\theta _S\right|<0.7`$, and also require $`\left|\mathrm{cos}\theta _B\right|<0.8`$, where $`\theta _B`$ is the CM angle of the $`B`$ candidate with respect to the beam. The variable $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _B`$ is uniform for the continuum background and follows a $`1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _B`$ distribution for signal $`B`$ decays. We determine an optimal selection requirement of $`>0.37`$ by maximizing the statistical significance of the expected signal yield in a sample of Monte Carlo simulated signal and background events. The relative efficiency of these additional cuts is $`44\%`$. Within the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$$`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ plane we define a signal region $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }E\right|<0.140\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}=5.2800\pm 0.0052\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, and sideband regions $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }E\right|>0.140\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}<5.27\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. The signal region in $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is designed to minimize contamination from three-body charmless $`B`$ decays where one of the decay products has low momentum.

Before applying the particle selector we first demonstrate the presence of $`h^+h^{}`$ decays in the signal region. The signal yield is obtained from an unbinned maximum likelihood fit to the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ distribution. The fit includes candidates passing all cuts except the requirement that the tracks have an associated $`\theta _c`$ measurement. The background shape in $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ is parameterized by the empirical formula ,

$$f(m_{\mathrm{ES}})m_{\mathrm{ES}}\sqrt{1x^2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\xi (1x^2)\right],$$
(2)
where $`x=2m_{\mathrm{ES}}/\sqrt{s}`$ and the parameter $`\xi `$ is determined from a fit. Figure 3 shows the results of fitting Eq. 2 to the on-resonance $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ sideband region, where we find $`\xi =22.0\pm 0.5`$. We then fit the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ distribution in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ signal region to a Gaussian with mean and width fixed to $`5.280\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`2.6\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$, respectively, and the background shape fixed to $`\xi =22`$; only the normalizations are free parameters. The result is shown in Fig. 4. The fitted number of $`h^+h^{}`$ candidates is $`67\pm 11`$, where the error is the statistical uncertainty from the fit. Correcting for the total efficiency of the selection criteria ($`27\%`$) and normalizing to the total number of $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs, we determine a branching fraction $`(B^0h^+h^{})=(28\pm 5)\times 10^6`$, where the error is statistical only and we assume equal $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ branching fractions to charged and neutral $`B`$ mesons.

The presence of kaons in the signal region can be demonstrated by plotting the variable $`\left(\theta _c\theta _c(\pi )\right)/\left(\theta _c(\pi )\theta _c(K)\right)`$, where $`\theta _c(\pi )`$ and $`\theta _c(K)`$ are the expected values. This variable peaks at $`0(1)`$ for real pion (kaon) tracks. In Fig. 5 we show the distribution of this variable for $`B`$-candidate tracks in the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ signal region before and after subtracting the distribution obtained from the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ sideband region. A clear kaon peak remains after subtraction.

We now decompose the signal into its constituent components by using the particle selector to separate the sample into three subsamples corresponding to the different channels. We perform three separate fits similar to the $`h^+h^{}`$ fit. After correcting for the efficiency and mis-identification probabilities in Table 1, we find $`25\pm 8`$ $`\pi \pi `$, $`26\pm 8`$ $`K\pi `$, and $`1.2_{1.2}^{+3.8}`$ $`KK`$ decays. In Fig. 6 we show the fit results for $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distribution in the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ signal region for all three modes.

To facilitate comparison with the global maximum likelihood fit, we determine the non-common systematic errors for the cut-based analysis. We vary the mean and width of the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ signal and background distributions within their estimated uncertainties. Systematic uncertainty on the particle identification method is estimated by comparing with various selector definitions, including the probability density functions used in the global fit (below). Uncertainty in the $``$ shape is estimated by varying the cut and by substituting the shape obtained from the $`B^{}D^0\pi ^{}`$ data sample (Fig. 1). Table 2 summarizes these uncertainties.

### 6.2 Global fit

We perform an unbinned maximum likelihood fit using $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, $``$, $`\theta _1(p_1)`$, and $`\theta _2(p_2)`$, where $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$ are the $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}\mathrm{erenkov}`$ angles for each track and $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are the momenta. The likelihood $``$ is defined as

$$=e^N^{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}𝒫_i(m_{\mathrm{ES}},\mathrm{\Delta }E,,\theta _1(p_1),\theta _2(p_2)|N_{\pi \pi },N_{K\pi },N_{\pi K},N_{KK},N_{\mathrm{bkg}}),$$
(3)
where $`N_{\mathrm{bkg}}`$ is the number of continuum background events and $`𝒫_i`$ is the probability for the $`i`$th candidate assuming the total yield

$$N^{}=N_{\pi \pi }+N_{K\pi }+N_{\pi K}+N_{KK}+N_{\mathrm{bkg}}.$$
(4)
In the $`K\pi `$ mode we fit separately for the two possible combinations ($`\pi K`$ or $`K\pi `$). The term $`(e^N^{})`$ derives from the Poissonian probability of observing $`N`$ total events when $`N^{}`$ are expected. The probability for a given candidate is the sum of the signal and background terms

$$𝒫_i(m_{\mathrm{ES}},\mathrm{\Delta }E,,\theta _1(p_1),\theta _2(p_2)|N_{\pi \pi },N_{K\pi },N_{\pi K},N_{KK},N_{\mathrm{bkg}})=\underset{k}{}N_k𝒫_i^k,$$
(5)
where the index $`k`$ represents the five fit components and $`𝒫_i^k`$ is the product of probability density functions for $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, $``$, $`\theta _1(p_1)`$, and $`\theta _2(p_2)`$.

The fit includes all candidates satisfying the selection criteria described in Secs. 2, 3, and 4, as well as the requirement on the number of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}\mathrm{erenkov}`$ photons above background and the proton rejection cut described in Sec. 5. Due to the use of the discriminating variable $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, the global fit is much less susceptible to contamination from three-body $`B`$ decays. The signal region is therefore expanded to $`0.200<\mathrm{\Delta }E<0.140\mathrm{GeV}`$. The quantity $`\mathrm{log}`$ is minimized with respect to the fit parameters. The resulting signal yields are $`29_7^{+8}`$ $`\pi \pi `$, $`38_8^{+9}`$ $`K\pi `$, and $`7_4^{+5}`$ $`KK`$ decays. As a visual cross check, in Fig. 7 we plot the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, and $`\theta _c`$ distributions after the additional requirements on $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _S`$, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _B`$, and $``$ applied in the cut-based analysis, and overlay the global fit results after rescaling by the relative efficiency for these cuts.

Systematic errors on the fit results are estimated by varying the signal and background probability density functions for $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, and $`\theta _c`$ within their errors. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ width is significantly different between data and Monte Carlo simulated $`B^{}D^0\pi ^{}`$ decays and there is evidence for a few $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ shift of the mean value in the negative direction. To be conservative we vary the width by $`\pm 5\mathrm{MeV}`$ and refit assuming $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=5\mathrm{MeV}`$. The uncertainty due to the shape of $``$ is determined by using the shape obtained from data $`B^{}D^0\pi ^{}`$ decays. Table 3 summarizes the systematic errors that are not common to the cut-based analysis.

### 6.3 Comparison and cross-checks

In order to compare results for the two methods, we correct the signal yields obtained in the cut-based analysis by the relative efficiency of the $`\left|\mathrm{cos}\theta _S\right|<0.7`$, $`\left|\mathrm{cos}\theta _B\right|<0.8`$, and $`>0.37`$ cuts ($`44\%`$), and the global likelihood fit yields by the efficiency of the $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}\mathrm{erenkov}`$ photon cut and proton rejection cuts ($`76\%`$). In order to compare total yields to the $`h^+h^{}`$ fit result we also correct by the common requirement that both tracks have an associated $`\theta _c`$ measurement ($`76\%`$). The resulting comparison is summarized in Table 4. Given that the two samples are not $`100\%`$ statistically correlated, we find the agreement to be satisfactory.

As a cross-check we perform the global fit after applying the particle selector and the additional selection criteria used in the cut-based analysis (including $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }E\right|<0.140\mathrm{GeV}`$). The $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and $`\theta _c`$ distributions are used in the fit, the $``$ distribution is not. The results, summarized in Table 5, indicate that there is no significant migration between signal categories. This result confirms the consistency in the use of $`\theta _c`$ in both analyses.

## 7 Determination of branching fractions

We determine branching fractions for $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ decays and an upper limit for the $`K^+K^{}`$ decay using the results of the global likelihood fit. The individual efficiencies were reported in previous sections. The total efficiency is $`0.35\pm 0.02`$, where the error is combined statistical and systematic. Branching fractions are calculated as

$$=\frac{N_S}{ϵN_{B\overline{B}}},$$
(6)
where $`N_S`$ is the central value from the fit, $`ϵ`$ is the total efficiency, and $`N_{B\overline{B}}`$ is the total number of $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs in our dataset. Implicit in Eq. 6 is the assumption of equal branching fractions for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)B^0\overline{B}^0`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)B^+B^{}`$. The results are summarized in Table 6. In addition to the systematic uncertainties listed in Table 3, the total error includes uncertainty on the tracking efficiency ($`2.5\%`$ per track) , the shape of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _S`$ ($`3\%`$), and the number of $`B\overline{B}`$ events ($`3.6\%`$).

The statistical significance of a given signal yield is determined by setting the yield to zero and maximizing the likelihood with respect to the remaining variables. The results are give in Table 6. Fig. 8 shows the $`n\sigma `$ likelihood contour curves, where $`\sigma `$ represents the statistical uncertainty only. The curves are computed by maximizing the likelihood with respect to the remaining variables in the fit. For the $`KK`$ mode we calculate the $`90\%`$ confidence level upper limit yield and decrease the efficiency by the total systematic error $`(24\%)`$ before calculating the upper limit branching fraction.

## 8 Summary

We have performed a search for charmless two-body $`B`$ decays to charged pions and kaons. The statistical significance of the signal yields are $`5.7`$, $`6.7`$, and $`2.1`$ standard deviations for the $`\pi \pi `$, $`K\pi `$, and $`KK`$ decay modes, respectively. For the decay modes $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ we measure preliminary branching fractions of $`(9.3_{2.3}^{+2.6}`$$`{}_{1.4}{}^{+1.2})\times 10^6`$ and $`(12.5_{2.6}^{+3.0}`$$`{}_{1.7}{}^{+1.3})\times 10^6`$, respectively, where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic. Since the $`KK`$ yield is not significant we calculate the $`90\%`$ confidence limit and find $`(B^0K^+K^{})<6.6\times 10^6`$.

## Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the contributions of our PEP-II colleagues in achieving the excellent luminosity and machine conditions that have made this work possible. We acknowledge support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Canada), Institute of High Energy Physics (China), Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique and Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (France), Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (Germany), Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (Italy), The Research Council of Norway, Ministry of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation, Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (United Kingdom), the Department of Energy (US), and the National Science Foundation (US). In addition, individual support has been received from the Swiss National Foundation, the A. P. Sloan Foundation, the Research Corporation, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. The visiting groups wish to thank SLAC for the support and kind hospitality extended to them.


format: text

text:
# On a model of an unconstrained hyperfluid

## 1 Introduction

Recently  the variational model of a hyperfluid has been developed. This is a classical continuous medium, elements of which possess both polarizability and elasticity properties. Such a matter might be a non-quantum source of the metric–affine gravity  within the framework of the gauge theory for the general affine space-time symmetry group. The hyperfluid model in  is constructed as a natural generalization of the phenomenological Weyssenhoff spin fluid , the variational theory of which was elaborated in  (in the Lagrange approach) and in  (in the Euler approach). Although the Weyssenhoff model, in our opinion, provides a reasonable description for a spin fluid, it is well known that there exist different models of continuous media with spin . Likewise, the properties of matter with hypermomentum are not sufficiently well known at present. Thus a study of possible different hyperfluid models appears to be a necessary step in the development of this subject.

In the present paper we discuss a possibility of removing the standard Frenkel type constraints usually imposed on the hypermomentum current.

## 2 Preliminaries: matter currents in metric-affine gravity

Our basic notations and conventions are that of the review , except for the metric signature which assumed here to be $`(+,,,)`$. The field equations of the metric–affine gravity theory are derived from the general Lagrangian four-form $`L=V+L_{\mathrm{mat}}`$, with $`V=V`$($`g_{\alpha \beta }`$, $`\vartheta ^\alpha `$, $`Q_{\alpha \beta }`$, $`T^\alpha `$, $`R_\alpha ^\beta `$) and $`L_{\mathrm{mat}}=L_{\mathrm{mat}}(g_{\alpha \beta },\vartheta ^\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta },\mathrm{\Psi },D\mathrm{\Psi })`$ as the pure gravitational and matter Lagrangians, respectively. Here the metric 0–form $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$, coframe 1–form $`\vartheta ^\alpha `$, and affine connection 1–form $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^\beta `$ are the gravitational potentials, the respective field strengths are nonmetricity 1-form $`Q_{\alpha \beta }:=Dg_{\alpha \beta }`$ and the 2-forms of torsion $`T^\alpha `$ and curvature $`R_\alpha ^\beta `$ . The general field equations read

$$2\frac{\delta V}{\delta g_{\alpha \beta }}=\sigma ^{\alpha \beta },\frac{\delta V}{\delta \vartheta ^\alpha }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ,\frac{\delta V}{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^\beta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta ^\alpha ,$$
(2.1)
where the matter currents are defined as the variational derivatives

$$\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }:=2\frac{\delta L_{\mathrm{mat}}}{\delta g_{\alpha \beta }},\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha :=\frac{\delta L_{\mathrm{mat}}}{\delta \vartheta ^\alpha },\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}:=\frac{\delta L_{\mathrm{mat}}}{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^\beta }.$$
(2.2)
It worthwhile to mention that the standard Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian $`V=\frac{1}{2}R_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }(\vartheta ^\alpha \vartheta _\beta )`$ (considered in the recent paper , e.g.) is a bad choice for metric–affine gravity. Due to an auxilliary (so-called projective, see ) invariance, this Lagrangian is only compatible with the dilaton-free sources for which $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha {}_{\alpha }{}^{}=0`$, and the Weyl 1-form $`Q=g^{\alpha \beta }Q_{\alpha \beta }`$ is not determined by the gravitational field equations (2.1).

The Weyssenhoff type hyperfluid  is described by the following currents:

the metric stress-energy 4-form

$$\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }=\eta \left((\epsilon +p)u^\alpha u^\beta pg^{\alpha \beta }\right)+2u^\gamma u^{(\alpha }D\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma ^{\beta )},$$
(2.3)
the canonical energy-momentum 3-form

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha =uP_\alpha p(\eta _\alpha uu_\alpha ),$$
(2.4)
and the hypermomentum 3-form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta ^\alpha =uJ_\beta ^\alpha ,$$
(2.5)
where $`\epsilon `$ is the energy density, $`p`$ the pressure, $`u`$ the flow $`3`$-form, $`J_\beta ^\alpha `$ the hypermomentum density, and $`P_\alpha `$ the four-momentum

$$P_\alpha =(\epsilon u\vartheta _\alpha 2u^\beta g_{\gamma [\alpha }D\mathrm{\Delta }^\gamma {}_{\beta ]}{}^{}).$$
(2.6)
As usually, $`\eta ^\alpha =\vartheta ^\alpha `$ and $`\eta `$ is the volume $`4`$-form. Components of $`4`$-velocity are defined by $`u=u^\alpha \eta _\alpha `$. Hypermomentum includes as irreducible parts the spin density $`S_{\alpha \beta }=J_{[\alpha \beta ]}`$ and the dilaton charge $`J=J^\alpha _\alpha `$.

Hypermomentum density satisfies the constraint,

$$J_\beta ^\alpha u^\beta =J_\beta ^\alpha u_\alpha =0.$$
(2.7)
This is a natural generalization of the Frenkel condition $`S_{\alpha \beta }u^\beta =0`$.

Recently  it has been suggested that the generalised Frenkel condition could be weakened and, in particular, reduced just to the ordinary Frenkel constraint imposed on the spin part of the hypermomentum density. Below we study the possibility of constructing the completely unconstrained hyperfluid model.

## 3 Variational principle for the unconstrained hyperfluid

We start from the Lagrangian 4-form for the hyperfluid, cf. ,

$$L_{\mathrm{mat}}=\epsilon (\rho ,s,\mu _B^A)\eta \frac{1}{2}\rho \mu _B^Ab_\alpha ^BuDb_A^\alpha $$

$$\rho ud\lambda _1+\lambda _2udX+\lambda _3uds+\lambda _0(uu\eta )+\lambda _B^A(b^Bb_A\eta \delta _A^B).$$
(3.8)
Here the first two terms describe the internal energy density $`\epsilon `$ and the kinetic energy density, respectively. As usually, we assume that the internal energy of hyperfluid depends on the particle density $`\rho `$, the specific entropy $`s`$ and the specific hypermomentum density $`\mu ^A_B`$. It seems worthwhile to notice at this point that the indices $`A,B,\mathrm{}`$, which run from 1 to 3, are merely labels and they have no any geometrical meaning. The material frames $`b^A`$ (which is a 1-form with an expansion $`b^A=b_\alpha ^A\vartheta ^\alpha `$) and $`b_A`$ (which is a 3-form with analogous expansion $`b_A=b_A^\alpha \eta _\alpha `$) have nothing to do with the reference frames which an observer may introduce and change (i.e. rotate and deform) at his own choice. The material frames together with the specific hypermomentum are a sort of internal variables which describe the polarizability and elasticity properties of the fluid elements. Material frames are rigidly attached to elements of the continuum and their evolution is determined by the equations of motion of the fluid. From the geometrical point of view, $`\mu ^A_B`$ is a scalar and $`\epsilon `$ is explicitly a generally coordinate invariant quantity. The energy density cannot be a function of the hypermomentum density tensor, as is incorrectly assumed in , since this is incompatible with the general coordinate invariance of the fluid action.

The remaining terms in (3.8) describe constraints. The first three express the conservation particle number, constancy of entropy, and identity of elements along the flow lines:

$$d(\rho u)=0,$$
(3.9)
$$udX=0,$$
(3.10)
$$uds=0.$$
(3.11)
The last two terms in (3.8) tells that the fluid velocity is timelike and normalized,

$$uu=\eta ,$$
(3.12)
and that material frame variables are dual in the sense

$$b^Bb_A=\delta _A^B\eta .$$
(3.13)
Here is the crucial modification of the hyperfluid model . Recall that the material triad is rigid in the spin fluid model (which can only rotate), while in accordance with the affine gauge approach we assumed that in a hyperfluid the material frame $`b_A^\alpha `$ is elastic and can deform arbitrarily during the motion of the medium. However, in the Weyssenhoff type model  the generalized material tetrad $`(u,b_A)`$ is still constrained in that the material triad is assumed to be orthogonal to the velocity, $`ub_A=0`$. Now, developing the suggestion of , we remove the latter orthogonality condition. Hereafter such a medium is called unconstrained hyperfluid.

The derivation of the Euler-Lagrange equations is analogous to . As before, the independent variables are: the metric-affine gravitational potentials $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$$`\vartheta ^\alpha `$$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta ^\alpha `$, the material variables $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\{b_A,b^B,\rho ,\mu _B^A`$$`s,X\}`$, and the Lagrange multiplier 0-forms $`\lambda _0,\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3,\lambda _B^A`$.

Varying the action (3.8) with respect to the Lagrange multipliers, one finds (3.9)-(3.13). Variations of $`s,X,\rho ,\mu _B^A`$ and $`u`$, $`b^B`$, $`b_A`$ yield the equations, respectively,

$$\eta \left(\frac{\epsilon }{s}\right)+d(\lambda _3u)=0,d(\lambda _2u)=0,$$
(3.14)
$$\eta \left(\frac{\epsilon }{\rho }\right)\frac{1}{2}\mu _B^Ab_\alpha ^BuDb_A^\alpha ud\lambda _1=0,$$
(3.15)
$$\eta \left(\frac{\epsilon }{\mu _B^A}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\rho b_\alpha ^BuDb_A^\alpha ,$$
(3.16)
$$\frac{1}{2}\rho \mu _B^Ab_\alpha ^BDb_A^\alpha \rho d\lambda _1+\lambda _2dX+\lambda _3ds2\lambda _0u=0,$$
(3.17)
$$\frac{1}{2}\rho \mu _B^A(uDb_A^\alpha )\eta _\alpha +\lambda _B^Ab_A=0,$$
(3.18)
$$\frac{1}{2}D(\rho \mu _B^Ab_\alpha ^Bu)vartheta^\alpha +\lambda _B^Ab^B=0.$$
(3.19)
These equations determine the Lagrange multipliers. While $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3`$ satisfy differential evolution equations, one can explicitly solve (3.8)-(3.11) with respect to the other Lagrange multipliers,

$$2\lambda _0=\rho \left(\frac{\epsilon }{\rho }\right),$$
(3.20)
$$\lambda _B^A=\frac{1}{2}\rho \mu _B^C(ub_C^\alpha Db_\alpha ^A).$$
(3.21)
Substituting (3.21) back into (3.18) and (3.19), we get the system of equations of motion of the specific hypermomentum density and the material frames:

$$u(d\mu _B^A+\mu _C^Ab_B^\alpha Db_\alpha ^C\mu _B^Cb_C^\alpha Db_\alpha ^A)=0,$$
(3.22)
$$(\delta _\alpha ^\beta b_\alpha ^Cb_C^\beta )\mu ^A{}_{B}{}^{}uDb_\beta ^B=0,$$
(3.23)
$$(\delta _\alpha ^\beta b_\alpha ^Cb_C^\beta )\mu ^A{}_{B}{}^{}uDb_A^\alpha =0.$$
(3.24)
While (3.22) coincides with the analogous equation of motion for the Weyssenhoff type hyperfluid , equations (3.23)-(3.24) are new. One can rewrite (3.22)-(3.24) in terms of the tensor variables, demonstrating that these equations express the conservation of hypermomentum current. Indeed, contracting (3.22) with $`b_A^\alpha b_\beta ^B`$ and using (3.23)-(3.24), we find

$$uD(\mu ^A{}_{B}{}^{}b_{A}^{\alpha }b_\beta ^B)=0.$$
(3.25)
The matter currents of the unconstrained hyperfluid are derived by direct calculation of variational derivatives (2.2). Denoting as usually ,

$$J_\beta ^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\rho \mu _B^Ab_A^\alpha b_\beta ^B,$$
(3.26)
and introducing the pressure in a standard way,

$$p:=\rho \left(\frac{\epsilon }{\rho }\right)\epsilon ,$$
(3.27)
one obtains (using (3.22)-(3.25)):

$$\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }=\eta \left((\epsilon +p)u^\alpha u^\beta pg^{\alpha \beta }\right),$$
(3.28)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha =\epsilon uu_\alpha p(\eta _\alpha uu_\alpha ),$$
(3.29)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta ^\alpha =uJ_\beta ^\alpha .$$
(3.30)
The most essential difference of the resulting unconstrained model from the Weyssenhoff type hyperfluid  is the complete decoupling of hypermomentum from both energy 3-forms (3.28) and (3.29). This is compatible with the Noether identities  though, as the equation (3.25) (multiply by $`\rho `$ and use (3.11)) actually describes the conservation of the hypermomentum current,

$$D\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta ^\alpha =0.$$
(3.31)
Dynamics of all irreducible parts of hypermomentum is contained in (3.31), and it is indeed unconstrained since neither the Frenkel type conditions (2.7), nor any other are imposed on the hypermomentum density.

The complete decoupling of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta ^\alpha `$ from the energy currents of course does not mean that unconstrained hypermomentum is not affecting the gravitational field: it still enters as the source in the third metric-affine gravity field equation (2.1).

At the first sight, it may seem surprising that such a simple modification of the original hyperfluid model, as the elimination of orthogonality condition of the material triad and velocity, may yield the above described essential change of the equations of motion of hypermomentum and reduce the energy-momentum 3-form to that of the ideal structureless fluid. However, everything becomes clear when one notices that the Lagrangian (3.8) of the unconstrained hyperfluid possesses an extra gauge symmetry besides the usual coordinate and local gravitational frame $`GL(4,R)`$ invariances. Namely, (3.8) is invariant under the simultaneous transformations of the material frames and the affine connection components,

$$b_A^\alpha L_\beta ^\alpha b_A^\beta ,b_\alpha ^Bb_\beta ^BL_\alpha ^{1\beta },\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }L_\sigma ^\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho {}_{}{}^{\sigma }+\delta _\rho ^\sigma d)L_\alpha ^{1\rho },$$
(3.32)
where $`L_\beta ^\alpha GL(4,R)`$. Notice that this is different from the affine gauge gravity transformation, since the gravitational frame $`\vartheta ^\alpha `$ and metric $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ are not transformed. The total Lagrangian $`L=V+L_{\mathrm{mat}}`$ certainly does not possess the symmetry (3.32). Applying to the Lagrangian (3.8) the Noether machinery , one can derive a conservation law corresponding to (3.32). This is exactly (3.31).

## 4 Discussion and conclusion

In the Weyssenhoff type hyperfluid  the generalized Frenkel condition (2.7) plays an important role. It indeed restricts the possible motions of the medium, as well as the very structure of the hypermomentum current. In particular, (2.7) rules out the case of purely dilatonic Weyssenhoff matter. Using the standard decomposition  of hypermomentum into its irreducible parts, $`J^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}=J^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}+\frac{1}{4}J\delta _\beta ^\alpha +S^\alpha _\beta `$, one finds in view of (2.7) that the dilaton charge is expressed in terms of the proper hypermomentum (shear) according to $`J=4J_{\alpha \beta }u^\alpha u^\beta `$. Thus vanishing shear yields also $`J=0`$. Unlike this, the unconstrained hyperfluid may be of the purely dilatonic type. In this case our model gives a description of a physical source for the generalized Einstein-Weyl gravity theory considered recently in .

In  an attempt was made to construct a sort of intermediate model in which the constraint (2.7) reduces to the original Frenkel condition, $`F_\alpha =S_{\alpha \beta }u^\beta =0`$. Technically this can be achieved if one adds to (3.8) the term $`\xi ^\alpha F_\alpha `$ with a Lagrange multiplier (4–form) $`\xi ^\alpha `$. Such a term breaks the symmetry (3.32). However the resulting equations of motion for the fluid and the gravitational currents (2.2) look unusual and their physical interpretation is unclear. Contrary to the expectations of the authors of  (who even failed to solve the highly nontrivial system of constraint equations with respect to $`\xi ^\alpha `$), at the end one does not find a Weyssenhoff type dynamics for the spin part of the hypermomentum.

It should be noted that the described above unconstrained hyperfluid is not a subcase of the general Weyssenhoff hyperfluid model. They are close though, in the sense that the two theories may admit the same particular solutions for the gravitational and matter field equations. The next decisive step will be a comparison of different ideal hyperfluid models  with the real physical media the elements of which display polarizability and/or elasticity properties.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Friedrich W. Hehl for stimulating discussions and useful comments. This research was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under the project He-528/17-1.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The production of the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{()\pm }`$ meson in B decays allows one to study the mechanisms leading to the creation of a $`\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{s}}`$ quark pair. The main diagram contributing to this decay is shown in Fig. 1. Other B decay diagrams also contribute, although at a lower level, but no attempt is made to quantify their rate in this paper. As has been pointed out in Ref. , the $`\mathrm{b}\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}\mathrm{s}`$ decay rate may be large and could help to explain the theoretical difficulties  in accounting simultaneously for the total inclusive B decay rate and the semileptonic branching fraction of the B meson. As a longer term goal, the measurement of the rate and momentum spectrum of $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ meson produced in B decays beyond the kinematic limit for the process $`\mathrm{B}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^+\mathrm{X}_\mathrm{c}`$ could be used to study $`\mathrm{b}\mathrm{u}`$ transitions. Despite the fact that purely hadronic final states are more difficult to understand theoretically, one may use the particular decay described in this paper to extract $`\mathrm{V}_{\mathrm{ub}}/\mathrm{V}_{\mathrm{cb}}`$ . This document reports measurements made with the B A B AR detector of both the inclusive $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{()\pm }`$ production rates and momentum spectra in B decays and the branching fractions of two specific two-body B decay modes involving a $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{()\pm }`$ meson. The latter measurements are made using a partial reconstruction technique.

## 2 The detector and the data sample

A description of the B A B AR detector and the definition of many general analysis procedures can be found in an accompanying paper . Here only the components of the detector most crucial to this analysis are briefly summarized.

Charged particles are detected and their momenta measured by a combination of a central drift chamber (DCH) with a helium-based gas and a five-layer (double-sided) silicon vertex tracker (SVT), embedded in a 1.5 T solenoidal field produced by a superconducting magnet. The charged particle momentum resolution is approximately $`\left(\delta p_T/p_T\right)^2=\left(0.0015p_T\right)^2+\left(0.005\right)^2`$, where $`p_T`$ is in GeV$`/c`$. The SVT, with typically 10$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ single-hit resolution, provides vertex information in both the transverse plane and in $`z`$.

Particles are identified using a combination of measurements from all the B A B AR components. Charged particle identification exploits ionization energy loss measured in the DCH and SVT as well as Cherenkov radiation measured in a ring imaging detector (DIRC). Electrons and photons are identified by the CsI electromagnetic calorimeter.

Multihadronic events produced in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation at the PEP-II collider (SLAC) and collected with the B A B AR detector have been used in this analysis. These data were taken at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) resonance center of mass energy and at an energy about 40$`\mathrm{MeV}`$ below the $`\mathrm{B}\overline{\mathrm{B}}`$ threshold. The integrated luminosity for on resonance data is 7.73 fb-1 and 1.17 fb-1 for off resonance.

## 3 Inclusive $`𝐃_𝐬^\mathbf{\pm }`$ production

### 3.1 $`𝐃_𝐬^\mathbf{\pm }`$ reconstruction

The $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ mesons are reconstructed using the mode $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm \varphi \pi ^\pm `$ with $`\varphi \mathrm{K}^+\mathrm{K}^{}`$. In order to obtain a sufficiently clean sample, particle identification is necessary. To this end, both energy loss ($`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$) information from the Drift Chamber and the Vertex Detector and the DIRC (a Cherenkov imaging detector) are used to identify the kaons produced in the $`\varphi `$ decay.

The selection is based on the likelihoods given by each detector and uses, for each track, the ratio of likelihoods for the pion and the kaon mass hypotheses $`L_\pi /L_K`$. If this ratio is less than unity for at least one of the considered subsystems, the particle is selected as a kaon. The DIRC is used both in the positive identification mode and the veto mode. A tighter level of identification is also available using a total likelihood defined as the product of the likelihoods of each subsystem. In this case the track is tagged as a kaon if the ratio of the total likelihoods for the pion and kaon mass hypotheses is less than unity.

Three charged tracks coming from a common vertex are then combined to form a $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ candidate. Two oppositely-charged tracks have to be identified as kaons, one of these using the basic criteria and the second one using the tighter selection. The $`\mathrm{K}^+\mathrm{K}^{}`$ invariant mass must be within 8$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ of the nominal $`\varphi `$ mass (see Fig. 3). In this particular decay, the $`\varphi `$ meson is polarized longitudinally and therefore the angular distribution of the kaons has a $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _H`$ dependence, where the $`\theta _H`$ is the angle between the $`\mathrm{K}^+`$ in the $`\varphi `$ rest frame and the $`\varphi `$ direction in the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ rest frame. We require $`\left|\mathrm{cos}\theta _H\right|>`$0.3, thereby keeping 97.5% of the signal while rejecting about 30% of the background.

Using the selection criteria described above, a reasonably clean signal of $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ is observed (Fig. 3). The efficiency averaged over all momenta is (40.5$`\pm 1.0`$)%. It varies as a function of the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ momentum and ranges from 30% when the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ is at rest in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) rest frame to 55% for $`p^{}=5`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$. A clear signal of the Cabibbo-suppressed decay mode $`\mathrm{D}^\pm \varphi \pi ^\pm `$ is also observed. A summary of the measured signal properties is given in the Table 1. The final production rates, however, are obtained from the invariant mass spectra fitted separately for different momentum intervals (Section 3.2). The measured mass difference m$`_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm }`$-m$`_{\mathrm{D}^\pm }`$ agrees with the world average value of $`99.2\pm 0.5`$$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ .

### 3.2 Inclusive $`𝐃_𝐬^\mathbf{\pm }`$ momentum spectra

The number of $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ mesons is extracted by fitting the $`\varphi \pi ^\pm `$ invariant mass distribution for different momentum ranges in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) rest frame. The momentum bin width is 200$`\mathrm{MeV}/c`$, which is much larger than the momentum resolution. The $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ momentum resolution averaged over all momenta obtained from the Monte Carlo is $`5.6\pm 0.3`$$`\mathrm{MeV}/c`$. The fit function is a single Gaussian distribution, both for the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ and the $`\mathrm{D}^\pm `$. The width of the Gaussians are constrained to be the same and the combinatorial background is accounted for by an exponential distribution. The number of $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ in the off-resonance data is extracted using the same fit function but with fixed values for M$`_{\mathrm{D}^\pm }`$, M$`_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm }`$ and $`\sigma `$ obtained from the fit to the on-resonance data.

The number of reconstructed $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ as a function of their momentum in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) rest frame is shown in Fig. 5 for on- and off-resonance data. The efficiency-corrected momentum spectrum is shown in Fig. 5.

In order to determine the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ momentum spectrum from the continuum, on-resonance data with momentum higher than 2.45$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ and off-resonance data scaled according to the luminosity ratio have been fitted after efficiency correction using 3 different fragmentation functions (see Table 2). The product of branching fraction, $`\left(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm \varphi \pi ^\pm \right)`$, times cross-section for $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ production from continuum, $`\sigma \left(e^+e^{}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm X\right)`$, is obtained by integrating the function obtained from the fit (Fig. 5). The extracted values and $`\chi ^2`$/dof from the fits are shown in Table 3.

Table 4 shows the contribution of the different sources to the total systematic error for $`\sigma \left(e^+e^{}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm X\right)\left(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm \varphi \pi ^\pm \right)`$. Using the best fit, which is obtained with the Peterson function, we find $`\sigma \left(e^+e^{}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm X\right)\left(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm \varphi \pi ^\pm \right)`$ = 8.29$`\pm `$0.41$`\pm `$0.69 pb. From a comparison of the results obtained using the other two parameterizations, we assign a conservative systematic error of 2% due to the assumed functional form.

The measured values are in good agreement with previously published results . The momentum spectrum of the Ds produced in B decays is obtained by subtracting bin-by-bin the value of the fit function to the on-resonance data after efficiency correction (Fig. 7).

### 3.3 Inclusive $`𝐃_𝐬^\mathbf{\pm }`$ branching fraction in $`𝑩`$ decays

By integrating the efficiency corrected momentum distribution, a total Ds yield from B meson decays of $`37050\pm 950`$ events is found. This corresponds to the inclusive branching fraction of

$$\left(B\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm X\right)=\left[\left(11.90\pm 0.30\pm 1.07\right)\times \frac{3.6\pm 0.9\%}{\left(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm \varphi \pi ^\pm \right)}\right]\%,$$
(1)
where the first error is statistical, the second is systematic and the third is the contribution of the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm \varphi \pi ^\pm `$ branching fraction uncertainty . Recognizing that this last uncertainty is common to all measurements, our result is slightly higher than the world average (10.0$`\pm 0.6`$ ) and in good agreement with the most precise measurement performed by CLEO . The different sources of systematic errors are given in detail in Table 6. The dominant uncertainty comes from knowledge of the tracking efficiency, which is still the subject of detailed study .

As a cross check of the continuum subtraction procedure, we also subtracted directly the off-resonance data scaled by the luminosity ratio for on- and off-resonance. By this means, one obtains an inclusive branching fraction $`\left(B\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm X\right)=12.0\pm 0.5\pm 1.1`$%, in agreement with the value reported above.

## 4 Inclusive $`𝐃_𝐬^\mathbf{}\mathbf{\pm }`$ production

### 4.1 $`𝐃_𝐬^\mathbf{}\mathbf{\pm }`$ reconstruction

$`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ mesons are reconstructed using the decay $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm \mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm \gamma `$ with the subsequent decay $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm \varphi \pi `$. $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ candidates are selected by requiring the $`\varphi \pi `$ invariant mass to be within 2.5 standard deviations ($`\sigma `$) of the peak value. These are then combined with “single photons” from the event. The later are defined by the following criteria:

* $`E_\gamma >50`$$`\mathrm{MeV}`$ where $`E_\gamma `$ is the photon energy in the laboratory frame
* $`E_\gamma ^{}>110`$$`\mathrm{MeV}`$ where $`E_\gamma ^{}`$ is the photon energy in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) frame
* In order to reduce the combinatoric background, the candidate photon should not form a $`\pi ^0`$ with $`E_{\gamma \gamma }^{}>200`$$`\mathrm{MeV}`$ when combined with any other photon in the event. The $`\pi ^0`$ mass window is $`115<M_{\gamma \gamma }<155`$$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$.

The distribution of the mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=M_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm \gamma }M_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm }`$ is shown in the Fig. 7. A clear peak with $`3030\pm 150`$ events is observed. The parameters obtained from the fit are summarized in Table 1.

### 4.2 Inclusive $`𝐃_𝐬^\mathbf{}\mathbf{\pm }`$ momentum spectra

The decay $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm \mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm \gamma `$, $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm \varphi \pi ^\pm `$ is used for the measurement of the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ inclusive branching fraction and the momentum spectrum. The number of $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ mesons is extracted by fitting the $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=M_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}\gamma }M_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ invariant mass distribution for the different momentum ranges in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) rest frame. A momentum bin width of 400$`\mathrm{MeV}/c`$ was chosen.

The efficiency corrected momentum spectrum is shown in Fig. 9. Both on- and off-resonance points corresponding to $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ mesons produced from the continuum have been fit using different fragmentation functions (Table 2). The cross section for $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ produced from continuum and the values of the fit parameters are shown in Table 7.

Fig. 9 shows the momentum spectrum of $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ produced in B decays where the Peterson fragmentation function is used for continuum extrapolation. Using this distribution, we find for the continuum cross section $`\sigma \left(e^+e^{}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm X\right)\left(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm \varphi \pi ^\pm \right)`$ = 3.48$`\pm `$0.39$`\pm `$0.38 pb.

### 4.3 Inclusive $`𝐃_𝐬^\mathbf{}\mathbf{\pm }`$ branching fraction in $`𝑩`$ decays

In the same way as for the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ result, we integrate the efficiency corrected $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ distribution and obtain a total yield from B meson decays of $`19300\pm 1900`$ events. From this we find the inclusive branching fraction to be

$$\left(B\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm X\right)=\left[\left(6.8\pm 0.7\pm 0.8\right)\times \frac{3.6\pm 0.9\%}{\left(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm \varphi \pi ^\pm \right)}\right]\%,$$
(2)
where the systematic errors are given in detail in Table 6.

## 5 Branching fraction for $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}𝐃_𝐬^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}`$ decays

In addition to the measurements of inclusive production rates for $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ and $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$, we have extracted the branching ratios for the decays $`\mathrm{B}^0\mathrm{D}^{}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^+`$ and $`\mathrm{B}^0\mathrm{D}^{}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^+`$ based on a partial reconstruction method.

### 5.1 The partial reconstruction method

As discussed in the introduction, no attempt is made to reconstruct the $`\mathrm{D}^0`$ decays. One combines a pion with the reconstructed $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{()\pm }`$ where the total $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{()\pm }\pi `$ charge is zero and, assuming that their origin is a $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ meson, we calculate the missing invariant mass. This should be the $`\mathrm{D}^0`$ mass if the hypothesis is correct***All calculations in this section are performed in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) rest frame.. Without the constraint of the $`\mathrm{D}^0`$ mass, the direction of the B meson is unknown. Although its angle with respect to $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ direction can be deduced, the angle $`\varphi `$ around this direction is undetermined. Using the beam energy constraint, the missing mass, which still depending on the unknown angle $`\varphi `$ of the $`B^0`$ momentum vector, is computed from:

$$m_{\mathrm{miss}}=\sqrt{\left(E_{\mathrm{beam}}E_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm }E_\pi \right)^2\left(\stackrel{}{p}_B\stackrel{}{p}_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm }\stackrel{}{p}_\pi \right)^2}.$$
(3)
In this analysis the missing mass is defined using an arbitrary choice for the angle $`\varphi `$. We use the convention that the direction of the $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ meson lies in the plane $`\{\stackrel{}{p}_\pi ,\stackrel{}{p}_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{()\pm }}\}`$.

### 5.2 Signal extraction

Fully reconstructed $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ and $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ are selected by requiring the measured $`\varphi \pi ^\pm `$ mass or $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=m_{\varphi \pi ^\pm \gamma }m_{\varphi \pi ^\pm }`$ to be within 2.5 $`\sigma `$ of the fitted mean value. Because of high combinatorial background in the mode with a $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$, one may find several $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ candidates in an event. Therefore, we form a $`\chi ^2`$ for each candidate defined by:

$$\chi ^2=\left(\frac{M_\varphi ^{rec}M_\varphi ^{mean}}{\sigma _\varphi }\right)^2+\left(\frac{M_{D_s}^{rec}M_{D_s}^{mean}}{\sigma _{D_s}}\right)^2+\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{\Delta }m}^{rec}M_{\mathrm{\Delta }m}^{mean}}{\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }m}}\right)^2,$$
(4)
and take the candidate with the lowest value. The $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{()\pm }\pi `$ pairs satisfying the kinematic constraints for the decay $`\mathrm{B}^0\mathrm{D}^{}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{()+}`$ are fitted to a common vertex. To reduce further the continuum background, we use the event shape variable $`R_2`$, defined as the ratio of the second to zeroth order Fox-Wolfram moment, and require $`R_2<0.35`$.

The missing mass distributions for the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm \pi `$ and $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm \pi `$ are shown in Fig. 11 and 11 respectively. A clear signal is observed for both decays. The missing mass distribution is fitted with the sum of a Gaussian distribution for the signal and a background function given by

$$f_B\left(x\right)=\frac{C_1\left(x_0x\right)^{C_2}}{C_3+\left(x_0x\right)^{C_2}},$$
(5)
where $`x`$ is the calculated missing mass, $`C_i`$ are the parameters of the fit and $`x_0`$ is the end point, $`\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{D}^{}\mathrm{m}_\pi =1.871`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. The results of the fits for both decay modes are summarized in Table 8.

### 5.3 Branching fractions for $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}𝐃_𝐬^\mathbf{+}`$ and $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}𝐃_𝐬^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}`$

A Monte Carlo simulation of the $`\mathrm{B}^0\mathrm{D}^{}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{()+}`$decay modes has been used to find the efficiencies. It is important to note that the $`\mathrm{B}^0\mathrm{D}^{}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^+`$ decay mode contributes to the missing mass distribution for the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm \pi `$ system, even though there is a missing photon from the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$. We show in Table 9 the reconstruction efficiencies for the different modes.

Although the amount of feed through from $`\mathrm{B}^0\mathrm{D}^{}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^+`$ to $`\mathrm{B}^0\mathrm{D}^{}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^+`$ depends on the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ polarization, one sees from Table 9 that the variation is small. However the reconstruction efficiency for $`\mathrm{B}^0\mathrm{D}^{}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^+`$ has a much larger dependence on the polarization. Since this polarization is not known, we use the average efficiency of ($`7.5\pm 1.5`$)%, where the systematic error of $`1.5\%`$ is derived by comparing the efficiencies from the two polarization states. This is combined with the other systematic errors which are in common with the inclusive branching fractions presented in the previous sections.

For the measurement of the $`\mathrm{B}^0\mathrm{D}^{}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^+`$ branching fraction, the contribution to the missing mass peak from $`\mathrm{B}^0\mathrm{D}^{}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^+`$, where a random $`\gamma `$ is associated to the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$, is negligible. The contribution of $`\mathrm{B}^0\mathrm{D}^{}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^+`$ to the mode $`\mathrm{B}^0\mathrm{D}^{}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^+`$ is then subtracted to determine the branching fraction for the latter. The results are given in Table 10. The first error is statistical, the third reflects the uncertainty due to the error in the branching ratio for $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm \varphi \pi ^\pm `$, and the second error represents all remaining systematics. This last is dominated by the uncertainty due to the dependence of the efficiency on the polarization of the final state.

Finally, one should note that the reconstructed $`\mathrm{B}^0\mathrm{D}^{}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^+`$ events should allow us to measure the polarization of the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ in these decays and therefore, in future analyses, it will be possible to reduce the systematic error from this source.

### 5.4 Background cross checks

In order to investigate further the shape of the background which is subtracted for estimating the signal, we have compared the Monte Carlo to the data. Several types of backgrounds contribute in the signal region:

1. Fake $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{()\pm }`$ and a random pion (for example coming from the other B).
2. Fake $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{()\pm }`$ and correlated pion (for example coming from the same B).
3. True $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{()\pm }`$ and a random pion.
4. True $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{()\pm }`$ and a correlated pion.

Table 11 shows the different types of backgrounds and the methods which are used to determine their level. Background types 1 + 3 are obtained by flipping the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{()\pm }`$ direction. Background types 1 + 2 are extracted using the sidebands of the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{()\pm }`$ mass distribution. For this purpose, we take 1.89$`<`$ M$`{}_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm }{}^{}<`$1.95 and 1.985$`<`$ M$`{}_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm }{}^{}<`$2.05 GeV$`/c^2`$ for the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$-$`\pi `$ system, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$M$`_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm }`$ 170$`<\mathrm{\Delta }`$M$`{}_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm }{}^{}<`$300 MeV$`/c^2`$ for $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$-$`\pi `$. By flipping the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{()\pm }`$ direction for the sidebands we find the contribution of background type 1. Therefore the difference between the distributions for flipped and non-flipped $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{()\pm }`$ direction for the sidebands gives the type 2 background contribution and thus it is possible to find the contribution of background types 1 + 2 + 3 from data alone. Fig. 13 and 13 show the resulting signal after their subtraction. The remaining background component is quite small and is estimated from the Monte Carlo. To ensure that the simulation reproduce the data well, a systematic comparison is made for the missing mass distribution obtained from the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ signal region, the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ sideband region, and the wrong-sign $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm \pi `$ combinations both in the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ signal and the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ sideband regions. The ratio (Data-Monte Carlo)/Monte Carlo for all these cases are determined as a function of the missing mass. We find good agreement within the errors in all cases. Table 12 summarizes this result by showing the ratio integrated over the missing mass region 1.78 to 1.87$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ for all distributions except that with the signal, for which the range 1.78 to 1.85$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ is used.

## 6 Conclusion

The production of $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{()\pm }`$ at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) energy (and 40$`\mathrm{MeV}`$ below) has been studied with the B A B AR detector. Preliminary measurements of branching fractions for t‘inclusive production and for the exclusive decays $`\mathrm{B}^0\mathrm{D}^{}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^+`$ have been performed. The following cross sections have been found for production in the continuum:

$$\sigma \left(e^+e^{}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm X\right)\left(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm \varphi \pi ^\pm \right)=8.29\pm 0.41\pm 0.69\mathrm{pb},$$

$$\sigma \left(e^+e^{}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm X\right)\left(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm \varphi \pi ^\pm \right)=3.48\pm 0.39\pm 0.38\mathrm{pb}.$$

Using the on-resonance data, the inclusive branching fraction for the B meson decays

$$\left(B\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm X\right)=\left[\left(11.90\pm 0.30\pm 1.07\right)\times \frac{3.6\pm 0.9\%}{\left(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm \varphi \pi ^\pm \right)}\right]\%$$

$$\left(B\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm X\right)=\left[\left(6.8\pm 0.7\pm 0.8\right)\times \frac{3.6\pm 0.9\%}{\left(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm \varphi \pi ^\pm \right)}\right]\%$$

have been measured. Finally the decays $`\mathrm{B}^0\mathrm{D}^{}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^+`$ and $`\mathrm{B}^0\mathrm{D}^{}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{()+}`$ have been observed using a partial reconstruction technique and the following branching fractions have been determined:

$`\left(\mathrm{B}\mathrm{D}_s^+\mathrm{D}^{}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(7.1\pm 2.4\pm 2.5\pm 1.8\right)\times 10^3,`$
$`\left(\mathrm{B}\mathrm{D}_s^+\mathrm{D}^{}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2.54\pm 0.38\pm 0.53\pm 0.64\right)\%.`$
The results obtained are in a good agreement with previous measurements by other experiments. The measurement of inclusive branching fraction of $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^\pm `$ from B decay has been obtained for the first time.

## 7 Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the contributions of our PEP-II colleagues in achieving the excellent luminosity and machine conditions that have made this work possible. We acknowledge support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Canada), Institute of High Energy Physics (China), Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique and Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (France), Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (Germany), Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (Italy), The Research Council of Norway, Ministry of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation, Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (United Kingdom), the Department of Energy (US), and the National Science Foundation (US). In addition, individual support has been received from the Swiss National Foundation, the A. P. Sloan Foundation, the Research Corporation, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. The visiting groups wish to thank SLAC for the support and kind hospitality extended to them.


text:
# Testing the correlation of ultra-high energy cosmic rays with high redshift sources

## Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by the agencies CONICET and ANPCT (through grant PICT 98 No. 03-04881), and by Fundación Antorchas through separate grants to D.F.T. and G.E.R..


text:
# SEQUENTIAL BETHE VECTORS AND THE QUANTUM ERNST SYSTEM 11footnote 1Presented at the 9th Colloquium “Quantum groups and integrable systems”, Prague, 22–24 June 2000

## 1 Functional equations for matrix elements in the quantum Ernst system

In  we proposed a bootstrap approach to describe the quantum theory descending from the Ernst equation of general relativity . In upshot, the quantum theory is described in terms of matrix elements e.g. of the metric operator between spectral-transformed multi-vielbein configurations. Functional equations for these matrix elements were derived from an underlying quadratic algebra similar to the way the form factor axioms  may be derived from an underlying algebra . Eventually the mathematical problem consists in finding sequences of vector-valued functions

$$f_A(\theta ):=f_{a_N\mathrm{}a_1}(\theta _N,\mathrm{},\theta _1),NN_0,$$
(1)
obeying the following system of functional equations:

$`𝒯(\theta _0|\theta )_A^Bf_B(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\tau (\theta _0|\theta )f_A(\theta ),`$ (2)
$`f_A(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`L_k(\theta _{k+1,k})_A^Bf_B(\sigma _k\theta ),`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{Res}_{\theta _{k+1}=\theta _k+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}f_A(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\tau (\theta _k|p_k\theta )C_{a_{k+1}a_k}f_{p_kA}(p_k\theta ),`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{Res}_{\theta _{k+1}=\theta _k\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}C^{a_{k+1}a_k}f_A(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\tau (\theta _k\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}|p_k\theta )f_{p_kA}(p_k\theta ).`$ (5)
Let us briefly describe these equations and the objects featuring. Throughout, we use the rational $`R`$-matrix

$$R(\theta )_{ab}^{cd}:=\frac{r(\theta )}{\theta \mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}\left(\theta \delta _a^c\delta _b^d\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\delta _a^d\delta _b^c\right),$$
(6)
where $`r(\theta )`$ satisfies $`r(\theta )r(\theta \mathrm{i}\mathrm{})=1\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}/\theta `$. Equation (2) results in the diagonalization of the operator $`𝒯`$, for a fixed number of arguments $`N`$. It is basically the familiar transfer matrix

$$𝒯(\theta _0|\theta )_A^B=\mathrm{\Gamma }_b^aR_{c_Na_N}^{bb_N}(\theta _{N,0})R_{c_{N1}a_{N1}}^{c_Nb_{N1}}(\theta _{N1,0})\mathrm{}R_{aa_1}^{c_2b_1}(\theta _{1,0}).$$
(7)
The matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ here denotes a traceless $`SL(2,C)`$ matrix which for simplicity we assume to be diagonalized: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:=\text{diag}(\mathrm{i},\mathrm{i})`$. The operator $`𝒯`$ descends from the central quantum current  in the Yangian double at the critical value of the central extension; the latter appears as part of the underlying quantized algebra of conserved charges .

Equation (3) describes the behavior of the eigenvectors $`f_A`$ under permutation of the arguments; $`L_k`$ acts as

$$L_k(\theta _{k+1,k})_A^B=\delta _{a_N}^{b_N}\mathrm{}R_{a_{k+1}a_k}^{b_kb_{k+1}}(\theta _{k+1,k})\mathrm{}\delta _{a_1}^{b_1},$$
(8)
and $`(\sigma _k\theta )=(\theta _N,\mathrm{},\theta _k,\theta _{k+1},\mathrm{},\theta _1)`$, where by $`\theta _{kl}`$ we denote the difference $`\theta _k\theta _l`$. Solutions to (2) constructed by the Bethe ansatz can naturally be made compatible with (3). In this note we mainly focus on the recursive equations (4) and (5). There, $`C_{ab}`$ denotes the $`sl`$(2) invariant antisymmetric tensor and we have adopted the following notation for contraction: $`p_k\theta =(\theta _N,\mathrm{},\theta _{k+2},\theta _{k1},\mathrm{},\theta _1)`$, $`p_kA=(a_N,\mathrm{},a_{k+2},a_{k1},\mathrm{},a_1)`$. These two equations link solutions of different eigenvector problems (2), with $`N`$ and $`N2`$ arguments, respectively, under the pinching $`\theta _{k+1}\theta _k\pm \mathrm{i}\mathrm{}`$. For the eigenvalues $`\tau (\theta _0)`$ they imply the compatibility condition

$$\tau (\theta _0|\theta )|_{\theta _{k+1}=\theta _k\pm \mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}=\tau (\theta _0|p_k\theta ).$$
(9)
In the following, we subsequently construct solutions to the equations (2)–(5). Equation (2) amounts to diagonalization of the transfer matrix, which is a well studied problem and can be solved by Bethe ansatz techniques . Joint solutions of equations (2), (3) can be obtained from them by a symmetrization procedure. Equations (4), (5) lead to the concept of sequential Bethe vectors, connecting Bethe roots with different number of arguments. From a technical viewpoint the latter might also offer a new recursive approach (cf. ) to issues like completeness of the Bethe vectors. Finally, we discuss the semi-classical limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ of the solutions. For details and further references we refer to .

## 2 Bethe ansatz

In this section we describe the solutions of equation (2). The spectrum of $`𝒯`$ is conveniently organized by the $`SO(2)`$ symmetry that leaves $`𝒯`$ invariant:

$$𝒯(\theta _0|\theta )_A^B\left(_k\mathrm{\Gamma }_k\right)_B^C=\left(_k\mathrm{\Gamma }_k\right)_A^B𝒯(\theta _0|\theta )_B^C,$$
(10)
with

$$(\mathrm{\Gamma }_k)_A^B=\delta _{a_N}^{b_N}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_k}^{b_k}\mathrm{}\delta _{a_1}^{b_1}.$$

The eigenvalue problem (2) hence decomposes into decoupled sectors

$$𝒯(\theta _0|\theta )_A^Bf_{e;B}(\theta )=\tau _e(\theta _0|\theta )f_{e;A}(\theta ),(\mathrm{\Gamma }_k)_A^Bf_{e;B}=\mathrm{i}ef_{e;A},$$
(11)
where $`e=N,N2,\mathrm{},N+2,N`$, denotes the $`SO(2)`$ charge. We denote by $`\pm `$ the $`sl`$(2) indices in the “charged” basis of eigenvectors. For small $`N`$ the eigenvalue problem (11) can be solved by brute force but for generic $`N`$ it is useful to employ the standard techniques of the Bethe ansatz (see e.g. ) and to parameterize the solutions in terms of the roots of the Bethe equations.

Transferred to the present context this construction may be outlined as follows: Denote by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_A:=\delta _{a_N}^+\mathrm{}\delta _{a_1}^+`$ the lowest weight vector of the $`N`$-fold tensor product of the fundamental representation of $`sl`$(2). Following the Bethe Ansatz procedure, candidate eigenstates are generated from $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by the repeated action of

$$B(t|\theta )_A^B:=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^cR_{c_Na_N}^{+b_N}(\theta _{N,0})R_{c_{N1}a_{N1}}^{c_Nb_{N1}}(\theta _{N1,0})\mathrm{}R_{ca_1}^{c_2b_1}(\theta _{1,0}).$$
(12)
The matrix operators $`B(t|\theta )`$ are commuting for different values of $`t`$ and each $`B(t_\alpha |\theta )`$ lowers the $`SO(2)`$ charge $`e`$ of a candidate eigenstate of $`𝒯`$ by two units. The candidate eigenstates can be made proper eigenstates by turning the parameters $`t_\alpha `$ into judiciously chosen functions of the $`\theta _j`$. In upshot one obtains eigenvectors

$$w_e(\theta )=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}B(t_\alpha |\theta )\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Lambda }:=\frac{1}{2}(Ne),$$
(13)
with eigenvalues

$$\tau _e(\theta _0|\theta )=\mathrm{i}\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{\theta _0t_\alpha +\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}/2}{\theta _0t_\alpha +3\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}/2}\underset{j}{}r^1(\theta _{0j})\mathrm{i}\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{\theta _0t_\alpha +5\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}/2}{\theta _0t_\alpha +3\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}/2}\underset{j}{}r(\theta _{0j}+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}),$$
(14)
where the Bethe roots $`t_\alpha `$ are solutions of the following Bethe Ansatz equations (BAE)

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\theta _jt_\alpha i\mathrm{}/2}{\theta _jt_\alpha +i\mathrm{}/2}=\underset{\beta \alpha }{}\frac{t_\beta t_\alpha i\mathrm{}}{t_\beta t_\alpha +i\mathrm{}},\alpha =1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(15)
The only modification of the BAE as compared to the standard case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=I`$ is the sign on the r.h.s. which comes from the ratio of the eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This seemingly innocent modification turns out to have nontrivial consequences in the classical limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ to be described in section 4.

Let us now return to the eigenvectors (13). Clearly any eigenvector is only determined up to multiplication by an arbitrary scalar function. The Bethe eigenvectors as constructed by (13) will in general not obey the exchange relations (3). However, it is not difficult to modify them so that they do. Due to the symmetry $`\tau _e(\theta _0|\sigma \theta )=\tau _e(\theta _0|\theta ),`$ for all permutations $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_N`$, a joint solution of (2), (3) can be obtained simply by symmetrizing with the $`R`$-matrix. In brief, for any given Bethe eigenvector (13) the product

$$f_{e;A}(\theta )\underset{k>l}{}\frac{\mathrm{i}\psi (\theta _{kl})}{\theta _{kl}^2(\mathrm{i}\mathrm{})^2}w_{e;A}(\theta ),$$
(16)
solves both (2) and (3). Here, the function $`\psi `$ satisfies $`\psi (\theta )=r(\theta )\psi (\theta )`$, and $`\psi (\theta )\psi (\theta \mathrm{i}\mathrm{})=1`$ and is explicitly given by

$$\psi (\theta )=\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\pi \theta }{2\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\mathrm{i}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{t}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{t/2}+\mathrm{e}^t}{1+\mathrm{e}^t}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\frac{t}{2\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}+2\theta )}{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{t}{2}}\right\}.$$

The proportionality sign in (16) indicates that this eigenvector may still be multiplied with a scalar function $`\varphi _e(\theta )`$ completely symmetric in $`\theta _N,\mathrm{},\theta _1`$. This freedom will mostly be fixed by further imposing the pinching equations (4), (5).

## 3 Sequential Bethe roots and vectors

Next let us examine the behavior of the Bethe ansatz equations and their solutions under pinching $`\theta _{k+1}\theta _k\pm \mathrm{i}\mathrm{}`$ of the arguments. The relations (4), (5) imply that the $`SO(2)`$ charge $`e`$ of the eigenvectors is conserved under $`\theta _{k+1}\theta _k\pm \mathrm{i}\mathrm{}`$, i.e.

$$NN2,ee,\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }1.$$
(17)
This suggests that the Bethe roots describing these (special) sequences of eigenvectors should likewise be related. Indeed, the BAE (15) are consistent with the following $`NN2`$ reduction of their solutions

$$t_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\theta )|_{\theta _{k+1}=\theta _k\pm \mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}=\theta _k\pm \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{},t_\alpha (\theta )|_{\theta _{k+1}=\theta _k\pm \mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}=t_\alpha (p_k\theta ),\text{for }\alpha <\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(18)
Since the Bethe roots are symmetric in all $`\theta _j`$, it suffices to verify (18) for the $`\theta _{k+1}=\theta _k+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}`$ case. It is easy to check that with (18) the BAE (15) for $`\alpha <\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ reduce to the BAE with $`N2`$ insertions for the $`t_\alpha (p_k\theta )`$. The equation for $`\alpha =\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is slightly more subtle as it requires to specify the limit in which the pinched configuration is approached. Entering with the ansatz

$`t_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\theta )=\theta _k+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}{2}}+\delta /Z(\theta )+𝒪(\delta ^2),\text{for}\theta _{k+1}=\theta _k+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}+\delta ,`$ (19)
into the $`\alpha =\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ BAE one obtains at order $`\delta ^0`$ a linear equation for $`Z(\theta )`$. This can be taken to define $`Z(\theta )`$ and shows that the reduction rule for $`t_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\theta )`$ is consistent as $`\delta 0`$.

Of course, not every solution of the BAE will satisfy (18), in fact the vast majority won’t. The argument shows however that under the same genericity assumptions under which solutions exist at all, there also exists at each recursion step $`N2N`$ at least one $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-tuple of Bethe roots enjoying the property (18). We call a solution of the BAE a “sequential” tuple of Bethe roots, if all roots are distinct and satisfy (18). To justify the terminology one may easily verify that (18) with (14) implies the compatibility equation (9) for the eigenvalue $`\tau _e(\theta _0|\theta )`$.

The corresponding eigenvectors will satisfy equations (4), (5) up to a scalar function. The construction is completed by determining the symmetric function $`\varphi _e(\theta )`$ multiplying (16) such that (4), (5) are identically satisfied; c.f. .

## 4 Semi-classical limit

Finally we study the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ of the joint solutions of (2)–(5). In the context of the quantized Ernst system this corresponds to the semiclassical limit of the matrix elements. The limit of the transfer matrix $`𝒯`$ is given by:

$`𝒯(\theta _0|\theta )_A^B`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_k}{\theta _{0k}}}+(\mathrm{i}\mathrm{})^2\left({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_k}{2\theta _{0k}^2}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_k}{\theta _{0k}}}\right)+𝒪(\mathrm{}^3),`$ (20)
$`\text{with}H_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{lk}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{kl}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_k+\mathrm{\Gamma }_l)}{\theta _{kl}}},(\mathrm{\Omega }_{kl})_A^B=\delta _{a_N}^{b_N}\mathrm{}(\delta _{a_k}^{b_l}\delta _{a_l}^{b_k}\frac{1}{2}\delta _{a_k}^{b_k}\delta _{a_l}^{b_l})\mathrm{}\delta _{a_1}^{b_1}.`$
This expansion is valid either as a formal power series in $`\mathrm{}`$ or, with a numerical $`\mathrm{}`$, in the region $`\mathrm{Im}\theta _{0k}\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{Im}\theta _{lk}\mathrm{}`$, $`lk`$, in order to prevent a mixing of different powers of $`\mathrm{}`$. The absence of a term of order $`\mathrm{}^0`$ in (20) is due to the tracelessness of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and distinguishes this case from the usual situation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=I`$. The matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ and Hamiltonians $`H_k`$ form a family of mutually commuting operators. Simultaneous diagonalization of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ yields eigenvectors with only one nonvanishing component $`(ϵ_N,\mathrm{},ϵ_1)`$

$$w_{e;A}^{\mathrm{cl}}{}_{}{}^{(ϵ)}=0\text{unless}(a_N,\mathrm{},a_1)=(ϵ_N,\mathrm{},ϵ_1),_jϵ_j=e.$$
(21)
On these eigenvectors the $`H_k`$ act diagonally. Thus the first terms in the semiclassical expansion of the eigenvalues $`\tau `$ are

$`\tau (\theta _0|\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_k}{\theta _{0k}}}+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_k}{\theta _{0k}^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{kl}{ϵ_k=ϵ_l}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_k}{\theta _{0k}\theta _{kl}}}\right)+𝒪(\mathrm{})^3.`$ (22)
This phenomenon can also be understood in terms of the Bethe ansatz. In the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$, the symmetry of the solutions of (15) in $`\theta _N,\mathrm{},\theta _1`$ gets lost. Rather, the Bethe roots turn out to behave like

$$t_\alpha (\theta )=\theta _{j(\alpha )}+(\mathrm{i}\mathrm{})^2s_\alpha (\theta )+𝒪(\mathrm{}^3),$$
(23)
for some $`j(\alpha )\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ with $`j(\alpha )j(\beta )`$ for $`\alpha \beta `$ and uniquely defined functions $`s_\alpha (\theta )`$. Generally one can show that the Bethe roots admit a power series expansion in $`\mathrm{}`$ (in the region $`\mathrm{Im}\theta _{kl}\mathrm{},kl`$) whose coefficients are uniquely determined by the assignment $`\alpha j(\alpha )`$ in (23). The limiting behavior (23) drastically differs from the standard case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=I`$, where no minus sign appears in the r.h.s. of the BAE (15) and the latter turn into an identity for $`\mathrm{}0`$. The eigenvector (21) corresponding to (23) is given by

$$w_{e;A}^{\mathrm{cl}}{}_{}{}^{(ϵ)},\text{where}ϵ_k=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \text{if }k=j(\alpha )\text{ for some }\alpha \hfill \\ \hfill +& \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(24)
Summarizing, the semiclassical limit of the eigenvectors is given by

$$f_{e;A}(\theta )=\mathrm{}^\mathrm{\Lambda }f_{e;A}^{\mathrm{cl}}(\theta )+𝒪(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }+1}),\text{with}f_{e;A}^{\mathrm{cl}}(\theta )=\varphi _e^{\mathrm{cl}}(\theta )w_{e;A}^{\mathrm{cl}}{}_{}{}^{(ϵ)}\underset{k>l}{}\frac{1}{\theta _{kl}^2}.$$
(25)
As shown, this expansion refers to a fixed relative size of the variables $`\theta _N,\mathrm{},\theta _1`$, say $`\theta _N>\mathrm{}>\theta _1`$. The results for other orderings then are compatible with the classical limit of the exchange relations in (3), i.e.

$$f_{e;A}^{\mathrm{cl}}(\theta )=f_{e;\sigma _kA}^{\mathrm{cl}}(\sigma _k\theta ).$$
(26)
It remains the natural question for a classical counterpart of the recursive relations (4), (5), i.e. about commutativity of the two limits which we have described in this and the foregoing section. Indeed, it may be shown on the level of the Bethe roots that the classical limit of the $`t_\alpha `$ (23) and the pinching operation (18) commute in the relevant situations. The final relation is

$$\mathrm{Res}_{\theta _{k+1}=\theta _k}f_{e;A}^{\mathrm{cl}}(\theta )=c_0C_{ϵ_{k+1}ϵ_k}f_{e;p_kA}^{\mathrm{cl}}(p_k\theta )\left(_{jk+1,k}\frac{ϵ_j}{\theta _{kj}}\right),$$
(27)
with a constant $`c_0`$. The last factor on the right hand side, when restricted to $`\theta _{k+1}=\theta _k`$ and $`ϵ_{k+1}=ϵ_k`$, equals the leading term in the $`\mathrm{}`$ expansion (22) of the transfer matrix eigenvalues. This is the consistency condition on (27) analogous to (9).

In summary, the solutions of the functional equations (2)–(5) admit a consistent semi-classical expansion. The leading term (25) of this expansion has, for a given ordering of $`\theta _N,\mathrm{},\theta _1`$, only one non-vanishing component; different orderings being related by (26). Further these terms are themselves linked by the recurrence relation (27). It should be interesting to see whether these leading terms have a direct interpretation in the classical theory.

The work of M. N. was supported by NSF grant 97-22097. The work of H. S. was supported by EU contract ERBFMRX-CT96-0012.