Determination of the resonant parameters of excited vector strangenia with e+eηϕ data

Figures(7) / Tables(5)

Get Citation
Wenjing Zhu and Xiaolong Wang. Determination of the resonant parameters of excited vector strangenia with the e+eηϕ data[J]. Chinese Physics C. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/acf034
Wenjing Zhu and Xiaolong Wang. Determination of the resonant parameters of excited vector strangenia with the e+eηϕ data[J]. Chinese Physics C.  doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/acf034 shu
Milestone
Received: 2023-05-23
Article Metric

Article Views(1301)
PDF Downloads(25)
Cited by(0)
Policy on re-use
To reuse of Open Access content published by CPC, for content published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (“CC CY”), the users don’t need to request permission to copy, distribute and display the final published version of the article and to create derivative works, subject to appropriate attribution.
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Email This Article

Title:
Email:

Determination of the resonant parameters of excited vector strangenia with e+eηϕ data

    Corresponding author: Xiaolong Wang, xiaolong@fudan.edu.cn
  • 1. Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Ion-beam Application, Ministry of Education, Shanghai 200443, China
  • 2. Institute of Modern Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai 200443, China

Abstract: We determine the resonant parameters of the vector states ϕ(1680) and ϕ(2170) by performing a combined fit to the e+eηϕ cross sections from the threshold to 2.85GeV measured by the BaBar, Belle, BESIII, and CMD-3 experiments. The mass (1678+53±7)MeV/c2 and width (156±5±9)MeV are obtained for ϕ(1680), and the mass (2169±5±6)MeV/c2 and width (96+1714±9)MeV are obtained for ϕ(2170). The statistical significance of ϕ(2170) is 7.2σ. Depending on the interference between ϕ(1680), ϕ(2170), and a non-resonant ηϕ amplitude in the nominal fit, we obtain four solutions and Γe+eϕ(1680)B[ϕ(1680)ηϕ]=(79±4±16), (127±5±12), (65+54±13) or (215+85±11)eV, and Γe+eϕ(2170)B[ϕ(2170)ηϕ]=(0.56+0.030.02±0.07), (0.36+0.050.03±0.07), (38±1±5) or (41±2±6)eV. We also search for the production of X(1750)ηϕ, and the significance is only 2.0σ. We then determine the upper limit of Γe+eX(1750)B[X(1750)ηϕ] at the 90% confidence level.

    HTML

    I.   INTRODUCTION
    • Hadronic transitions with π+π or η emittance have contributed significantly to discoveries of quarkonium(-like) states, such as Y(4260) in e+eπ+πJ/ψ via initial-state radiation (ISR) by the BaBar experiment [1]. While searching for an sˉs version of Y(4260), BaBar discovered Y(2175) (now called 'ϕ(2170)') in e+eπ+πϕ via ISR [2], which was later confirmed by Belle [3]. While searching for ϕ(2170) in the hadronic transition with η, BaBar studied the e+eηϕ process via ISR using a 232 fb1 data sample and found an excess with a mass of (2125±22±10)MeV/c2 (tens of MeV/c2 lower than the world average value of ϕ(2170) [4]) and a width of (61±50±13)MeV [5, 6]. Hereinafter, the first quoted uncertainties are statistical and the second ones are systematic. Belle measured this process with considerably larger statistics in a 980 fb1 data sample but did not find this excess, and the statistical significance of ϕ(2170) was only 1.7σ [7].

      Interesting measurements have been obtained from the CMD-3 and BESIII experiments over the past years. The CMD-3 experiment measured the process e+eK+Kη from 1.59 to 2.007GeV and found it to be dominated by the ηϕ contribution [8]. CMD-3 then calculated the contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon: aηϕμ(E<1.8GeV)=(0.321±0.015±0.016)×1010, aηϕμ(E<2.0GeV)=(0.440±0.015±0.022)×1010. With a 715 pb1 data sample taken at 22 CM energy points in the range of 2.00 to 3.08GeV, BESIII measured the Born cross sections of e+eηϕ [9] and e+eϕη [10]. BESIII reported the observation of ϕ(2170) in the ηϕ final state and determined its resonant parameters to be mϕ(2170)=(2163.5±6.2±3.0)MeV/c2 and Γϕ(2170)=(31.1+21.111.6±1.1)MeV [9], for which the width was considerably narrower than the world average value of approximately 100 MeV [4]. BESIII also observed a resonance near 2.17GeV/c2 in the ϕη final state with a statistical significance exceeding 10σ [10]. Assuming it is ϕ(2170), one can infer the ratio B[ϕ(2170)ϕη]/B[ϕ(2170)ϕη]=(0.23±0.10±0.18), which is smaller than the prediction of sˉsg hybrid models by several orders of magnitude.

      It is puzzling that ϕ(2170) is not significant in the η transition compared with the π+π transition, and the measurement of ϕ(2170) in the ηϕ final state is still poor. The lineshape of σ(e+eηϕ) is considerably different from that of σ(e+eπ+πϕ) [2, 3], which may help us understand the difference between e+eηJ/ψ and e+eπ+πJ/ψ. In the cˉc sector, σ(e+eηJ/ψ)/σ(e+eπ+πJ/ψ)1 at the peak of Y(4260), whereas σ(e+eηϕ)/σ(e+eπ+πϕ)1 at the peak of ϕ(1680) and 1 at the peak of ϕ(2170) in the sˉs sector. In a recent lattice quantum chromodynamics (QCD) calculation [11], the properties of the two lowest states were found to comply with those of ϕ and ϕ(1680) but had no obvious correspondence to ϕ(2170).

      Besides ϕ(1680), there is one more state, known as 'X(1750),' that is a candidate of the sˉs quarkonium. The observation of ϕ(1680) in K+K and KˉK(892) is sometimes cited as evidence that this state is an sˉs quarkonium, as the radial excitation of ϕ. However, it was argued that the one true evidence for ϕ as an sˉs state should be the large branching fractions to hidden strangeness modes such as ηϕ [12]. The FOCUS experiment reported a high-statistics study of the diffraction photo-production of K+K and observed X(1750) with a mass of (1753.5±1.5±2.3)MeV/c2 and a width of (122.3±6.2±0.8) MeV [13]. Meanwhile, FOCUS observed a slight enhancement below the ϕ(1680) region but no obvious X(1750) signal in the KˉK(892) final state.

      If ϕ(1680) and X(1750) are the same state, the mass measured in e+e collisions and photoproduction experiments typically has a difference of 50100MeV/c2, with KˉK(892) dominance in e+e collisions and K+K dominance in photo-production. This may constitute evidence for two distinct states, although interference with qˉq(q=u,d) vectors may complicate a comparison of these two processes. This issue can be addressed by studying channels in which interference with qˉq(q=u,d) vectors is expected to be unimportant, notably, ηϕ. With a sample of 4.48 million ψ(2S) events, BESIII performed the first partial wave analysis of ψ(2S)K+Kη and simultaneously observed ϕ(1680) and X(1750) in the K+K mass spectrum [14], which indicates that X(1750) is distinct from ϕ(1680). Meanwhile, BESIII determined X(1750) to be a 1 resonance.

      Because the cross sections of e+eηϕ have been effectively measured by the BaBar, Belle, BESIII, and CMD-3 experiments, it is helpful to consider all of them to achieve a better understanding of ϕ(1680), X(1750), and ϕ(2170). In this study, we combine the measured σ(e+eηϕ) from the BaBar, Belle, BESIII, and CMD-3 experiments to gain greater lineshape precision, which is helpful for the study of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. Then, we perform combined fits to these measured cross sections for the resonant parameters of ϕ(1680) and ϕ(2170) and estimate the production of X(1750) in the ηϕ final state.

    II.   MEASUREMENTS OF σ(e+eηϕ)
    • The measurements of σ(e+eηϕ) from the BaBar, Belle, BESIII, and CMD-3 experiments are shown in Fig. 1, where (a) to (f) are the Belle measurement with the ηγγ mode [5], Belle measurement with the ηπ+ππ0 mode [6], BaBar measurement with the ηγγ mode, BaBar measurement with the ηπ+ππ0 mode [7], CMD-3 measurement [8], and BESIII measurement [9], respectively.

      Figure 1.  σ(e+eηϕ) measured in (a) the ηγγ mode at Belle, (b) the ηπ+ππ0 mode at Belle, (c) the ηγγ mode at BaBar, (d) the ηπ+ππ0 mode at BaBar, (e) the ηγγ mode at CMD-3, and (f) the ηγγ mode at BESIII.

      ● We show comparisons of the latest results from Belle and the previous measurements from BaBar, BESIII, and CMD-3 in Fig. 2. The comparisons reveal good agreement between the four experiments.

      Figure 2.  (color online) Measurements of σ(e+eηϕ) from the BaBar, BESIII, and CMD-3 experiments compared with the latest measurements from the Belle experiment. Plots (a) and (b) show the comparison between BaBar and Belle in the ηγγ mode and ηπ+ππ0 mode, respectively; plots (c) and (d) show the comparison between CMD-3 and Belle and between BESIII and Belle, respectively, where the Belle measurement has the ηγγ and ηπ+ππ0 modes combined.

      ● In the BaBar measurements, σ(e+eηϕ) measured in the ηπ+ππ0 mode is slightly lower than that measured in the ηγγ mode; however, both have similar lineshapes, including a small bump around 2.13GeV. The expected J/ψ signal according to the world average value of B(J/ψηϕ) [4] is not clear in the BaBar measurements.

      ● With a considerably larger data sample, the Belle measurements are approximately twice as accurate as those measured in the BaBar experiment. There are clear J/ψ signals in both the ηγγ and π+ππ0 modes, whereas enhancement is not observed around 2.13GeV and 2.17GeV.

      ● BESIII reported the Born cross section of e+eηϕ. We calculate the dressed cross section of e+eηϕ with the vacuum polarization and Born cross sections from Ref. [9], as shown in Fig. 1(f).

      ● The 50MeV interval in the BESIII data sample is a disadvantage in determining the lineshape of a structure with a width of tens of MeV. When determining ϕ(2170), BESIII relied on σ(e+eηϕ) below 2GeV measured by the BaBar experiment, which is dominated by the large contribution from the ϕ(1680) signal.

      σ(e+eηϕ) measured by CMD-3 are below 2GeV, with a precision similar to that of the Belle measurement.

      ● Clear ϕ(1680) signals are observed in the BaBar, Belle, and CMD-3 measurements.

      The measurements of the dressed cross section of e+eηϕ from the four experiments are consistent with each other. Therefore, we combine these measurements to obtain the best precision of σ(e+eηϕ). A precise σ(e+eηϕ) is helpful for studying the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon [8] and may provide hints of ϕ(2170) or X(1750). The calculation for the combination uses

      ˉx=ixi/Δx2ii1/Δx2i,

      (1)

      ˉσ=iσi/Δσ2ii1/Δσ2i,

      (2)

      (Δσ)2=1i1/Δσ2i,

      (3)

      where σi is the value of the ith (i=1,2,3,4,5,6) experimental measurement of the cross section at the energy point xi (si) illustrated in Fig. 1, and Δσi and Δxi are their related uncertainties. The average of xi takes into account the difference in s in the data taking of the BESIII or CMD-3 experiment and the average s reported by BaBar and Belle using ISR technology. The uncertainties of s in the BESIII and CMD-3 experiments are of the 1MeV level, and the two experiments have no overlap in the s region. We take half of the s bin width in the BaBar and Belle measurements as the uncertainty (Δxi). However, there are correlations between the measurements, such as the branching fraction of ϕ or η decay. We revisit the estimation of Eq. (3) according to Ref. [15] and construct the matrices of the statistical uncertainties Cstat and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties Cuncor_syst as

      Cstat/uncor_syst=(S1σ210000S2σ220000S3σ230Siσ2i000S6σ26)

      (4)

      with Si=(δstati)2 or (δuncor_systi)2, where δstati and δuncor_systi are the statistical and uncorrelated systematic relative uncertainties of σi. We then construct the matrix of the correlated systematic uncertainties Ccor_syst as

      Ccor_syst=(a11a12a1ja12a22a2jai1ai2aij)

      (5)

      where aijδcor_systiδcor_systjσiσj. We obtain the effective global covariance matrix

      C=Cstat+Cuncor_sys+Ccor_syst.

      (6)

      According to Ref. [15], we calculate the error of ˉσ using

      (Δσ)2=(ij(C1)ij)1.

      (7)

      We show the results of the combination in Fig. 3 and Table 1.

      Figure 3.  Cross section of e+eηϕ from the combination of the measurements by the BaBar, Belle, BESIII, and CMD-3 experiments.

      sσ(e+eηϕ)sσ(e+eηϕ)sσ(e+eηϕ)sσ(e+eηϕ)
      1.5653±30±12.165376±65±222.76104±38±53.3631±18±2
      1.585143±44±42.179217±17±102.78116±31±73.38821±15±2
      1.596476±60±112.205211±15±82.80103±36±53.4013±8±1
      1.6241068±112±362.225218±53±82.8242±23±13.4244±29±3
      1.6441644±117±532.23415±13±72.8465±30±33.44831±12±1
      1.672341±157±902.265206±56±112.8665±22±33.4641±19±2
      1.682600±144±762.285173±48±72.8838±26±23.4862±22±3
      1.6952226±139±622.31160±11±62.9035±2±23.5055±20±3
      1.7222151±121±592.325108±37±52.91538±22±33.5274±24±4
      1.7421761±124±482.345176±48±92.94827±5±13.548±12±7
      1.7591508±102±402.365230±54±102.96540±16±43.5629±14±1
      1.7791221±100±342.388139±10±52.9826±5±13.5818±13±3
      1.7991182±86±292.399119±5±53.0026±5±13.6032±14±1
      1.828870±94±242.4294±33±73.02821±4±23.6232±19±1
      1.85851±76±242.44162±49±83.04521±4±13.6425±18±1
      1.8651168±120±352.4662±26±83.0629±5±13.6632±21±2
      1.877764±32±122.48113±44±63.08529±2±13.6838±23±2
      1.902864±73±222.5091±33±23.10475±64±243.7031±18±2
      1.923738±63±192.52125±39±43.12224±50±103.727±9±1
      1.945768±61±212.54106±29±63.14870±22±33.7424±12±1
      1.963743±60±192.56167±49±93.1682±28±43.764±6±1
      1.985600±60±162.58113±32±53.1881±28±43.7835±21±3
      2.007509±26±122.60110±36±53.20830±13±23.8013±10±1
      2.025515±86±262.6272±26±23.2228±16±23.826±9±1
      2.045421±41±152.64467±5±33.2415±16±33.8463±20±3
      2.065388±83±292.66105±34±53.26826±12±13.8633±20±2
      2.085410±71±202.6865±30±33.2816±18±13.8820±11±1
      2.105402±24±142.7067±27±33.3044±20±23.9022±11±1
      2.127478±57±122.72171±44±83.32827±15±23.9217±10±1
      2.145384±42±122.74121±32±73.3466±24±33.948±13±1

      Table 1.  Cross section of e+eηϕ versus s calculated with the measurements from the BaBar, Belle, BESIII, and CMD-3 experiments. The first errors are statistical and the second ones are systematic.

    III.   PARAMETERIZATION OF σ(e+eηϕ)
    • ϕ(1680), X(1750), and ϕ(2170) may exist in the e+eηϕ process. We perform combined fits to σ(e+eηϕ) measured by the BaBar, Belle, BESIII and CMD-3 experiments and shown in Fig. 1. The fit range is from the threshold to 2.85GeV/c2. Assuming there are ϕ(1680), X(1750), and ϕ(2170) components and a non-resonant contribution in the ηϕ final state, we take the parameterization of σ(e+eηϕ) similar to that used in the BaBar analysis [5]:

      σ(e+eηϕ)(s)=12πPηϕ(s)|An.r.ηϕ(s)+Aϕ(1680)ηϕ(s)+AX(1750)ηϕ(s)+Aϕ(2170)ηϕ(s)|2,

      (8)

      where Pηϕ is the phase space of the ηϕ final state, the non-resonant amplitude takes the form An.r.ηϕ(s)=a0/sa1, and Aϕ(1680)ηϕ, AX(1750)ηϕ, and Aϕ(2170)ηϕ are the amplitudes of ϕ(1680), X(1750), and ϕ(2170), respectively.

      For Aϕ(1680)ηϕ and AX(1750)ηϕ, we describe the form with a Breit-Wigner (BW) function,

      AηϕX(s)=BηϕXΓe+eXΓX/Pηϕ(MX)eiθXM2XsisΓX(s),

      (9)

      where X is ϕ(1680) or X(1750), the resonant parameters MX, ΓX, and Γe+eX are the mass, total width, and partial width to e+e, respectively, BηϕX is the branching fraction of Xηϕ decay, and θX is the relative phase.

      The BaBar measurement [5] shows that KˉK(892) and ηϕ are two major decays of ϕ(1680) and BKˉK(892)ϕ(1680)3×Bηϕϕ(1680), where BKˉK(892)ϕ(1680) is the branching fraction of the ϕ(1680)KˉK(892) decay. We also take the same form as in Ref. [5]:

      Γϕ(1680)(s)=Γϕ(1680)[PKK(892)(s)PKˉK(892)(Mϕ(1680))BKˉK(892)ϕ(1680)+Pηϕ(s)Pηϕ(Mϕ(1680))Bηϕϕ(1680)+(1Bηϕϕ(1680)BKˉK(892)ϕ(1680))].

      (10)

      Here, PKˉK(892) is the phase space of the ϕ(1680)KˉK(892) decay. The other decays of ϕ(1680) are neglected, and their phase space dependence are correspondingly ignored. Because both the KˉK(892) and ηϕ final states contain a vector meson (V) and pseudoscalar meson (P), the phase space takes the form

      PVP(s)=[(s+M2VM2P)24sM2Vs]3/2.

      (11)

      We take the same form of X(1750) as in the BESIII measurement [14]:

      ΓX(1750)(s)=ΓX(1750)M2X(1750)s[p(s)p(MX(1750))]2l+1,

      (12)

      where p(s) [p(MX(1750))] is the momentum of a daughter particle in the rest frame of the resonance with energy s (mass MX(1750)), and l is the orbital angular momentum of the daughter particle.

      We describe the amplitude of the ϕ(2170)ηϕ decay as in Ref. [7]:

      Aϕ(2170)ηϕ(s)=Bηϕϕ(2170)Γe+eϕ(2170)Γϕ(2170)/Pηϕ[Mϕ(2170)]eiθϕ(2170)M2ϕ(2170)sisΓϕ(2170)B(p)B(p),

      (13)

      where Mϕ(2170) and Γϕ(2170) are the mass and width of ϕ(2170), B(p) is the P-wave Blatt-Weisskopf form factor, and p (p) is the breakup momentum corresponding to s (mass Mϕ(2170)).

    IV.   FIT RESULTS FOR ϕ(1680), ϕ(2170), AND X(1750)
    • We perform several combined fits to σ(e+eηϕ) measured by BaBar, Belle, BESIII, and CMD-3. These are fits with 1) only ϕ(1680), 2) ϕ(1680) and the non-resonant component, 3) ϕ(1680), ϕ(2170), and the non-resonant component, and 4) ϕ(1680), X(1750), ϕ(2170), and the non-resonant component. The input data are σ(e+eηϕ) and the related uncertainties shown in Fig. 1. Based on the fit results, which are described below, we obtain the nominal fit results from the third case.

      The input data of the combined fits are the values of σ(e+eηϕ) measured by the BaBar, Belle, BESIII, and CMD-3 experiments, and a least χ2 method with MINUIT [16] is used. According to Ref. [15], we define χ2k of the kth energy point as

      χ2k=i,j(Δσik)(C1)ij(Δσjk),

      (14)

      where Δσik (Δσjk) is the difference between the measured value from the ith (jth) data sample and the fitted value of σ(e+eηϕ), and the effective global covariance matrix C is described in Eq. (6). The total χ2 is the sum of χ2k over all energy points.

      In the measurement of one experiment, there may be a correlation between the two modes of η decays in one s bin, or a correlation between all s bins. For the first correlation, we calculate

      χ2i=(Cii)(σγγ,imeasuredσifit)(σπ+ππ0,imeasuredσifit)

      (15)

      for the ith s bin. Here, we also use the relative uncertainty (δcor_systi)2 between the two modes of η decays to calculate the elements Cii of the correlation matrix. We obtain χ2=iχ2i for the sum of all the s bins in one experiment. Similarly, we calculate χ2 for the second correlation as

      χ2=i,j(Cij)(σimeasuredσifit)(σjmeasuredσjfit),ij.

      (16)

      Here, the matrix element Cij=δcor_systiδcor_systj is for the correlation between the ith and jth s bins. Note that δcor_systi refers to different correlated systematic uncertainties in the calculations of χ2 and χ2.

      We add χ2 and χ2 to the total χ2 for the constraints owing to the two types of correlations in the combined fits.

    • A.   Fit with only ϕ(1680)

    • Fitting to σ(e+eηϕ) measured by the four experiments with only the Aϕ(1680)ηϕ(s) component in Eq. (8), we obtain reasonably good results with a quality of χ2/ndf=381/254, as illustrated in Fig. 4. Here, ndf is the number of all fitted data points minus the number of free parameters. We obtain the resonant parameters of ϕ(1680)as Mϕ(1680)=(1723±6)MeV/c2, Γϕ(1680)=(376±9)MeV, and Bηϕϕ(1680)Γe+eϕ(1680)=(197±5)eV. The world average values of the mass and width of ϕ(1680) are (1680±20)MeV/c2 and (150±50)MeV [4], respectively. We can see that the mass and width from this fit are considerably different from the world average values, which is due to the absence of several components in our fit, such as the non-resonant contribution and ϕ(2170). We also notice that the world average value of the width has a large uncertainty.

      Figure 4.  (color online) Results of fitting to σ(e+eηϕ) measured by the BaBar, Belle, BESIII, and CMD-3 experiments with only ϕ(1680). The blue solid line shows the fit results, and the red dashed line shows the ϕ(1680) component.

    • B.   Fit with ϕ(1680) and the non-resonant component

    • Fitting to σ(e+eηϕ) with only Aϕ(1680)ηϕ(s) and the non-resonant contribution in Eq. (8), we obtain two solutions of equivalent quality with χ2/ndf=347/251, as illustrated in Fig. 5 and Table 2. Hereinafter, we use all the measured data from the four experiments as input for the combined fits but show only the combined σ(e+eηϕ) from Fig. 3 to represent the data in the plots. We obtain the same resonant parameters Mϕ(1680)=(1676±3)MeV/c2 and Γϕ(1680)=(161+54)MeV while Bηϕϕ(1680)Γe+eϕ(1680)=(88±3) eV or (162+53)eV from the two solutions. The two resonant parameters have good agreement with the world average values, and the precision is effectively improved. Meanwhile, the branching fraction of ϕ(1680)ηϕ is Bηϕϕ(1680)=(20+43)% or (24±3)%, which is close to the value 17% that can be calculated according to the BaBar measurement [6]. We can see that most of the measured σ(e+eηϕ) from the four experiments are above the fit curve around 2.17GeV in Fig. 5, which indicates the requirement of ϕ(2170).

      Figure 5.  (color online) Fitting to σ(e+eηϕ) measured by the BaBar, Belle, BESIII, and CMD-3 experiments, including ϕ(1680) and the non-resonant contribution. The blue solid lines show the fit results, and the red, green, and gray dashed lines show the ϕ(1680) and non-resonant components. The interference between the non-resonant component and ϕ(1680) is not shown.

      Parameterswith ϕ(2170)without ϕ(2170)
      Solution ISolution IISolution IIISolution IVSolution ISolution II
      χ2/ndf284/247347/251
      a00.12±0.024.4±0.21.1±0.25.0±0.20.9+0.10.35.0±0.3
      a14.8+0.20.12.8±0.13.1±0.22.6±0.31.0+0.40.33.0±0.1
      Bηϕϕ(1680))Γe+eϕ(1680)/eV79±4127±565+54215+8588±3162+53
      Mϕ(1680)/(MeV/c2)1678+531676±3
      Γϕ(1680)/MeV156±5161+54
      Bηϕϕ(1680)(%)19+2122±224+4319+2120+4324±3
      Bηϕϕ(2170)Γe+eϕ(2170)/eV0.56+0.030.020.36+0.050.0338±141±2
      Mϕ(2170)/(MeV/c2)2169±5
      Γϕ(2170)/MeV96+1714
      θϕ(1680)/()63±1295±988±6122±7102+7694+116
      θϕ(2170)/()81+14977+105159+1915133+1613

      Table 2.  Results of fitting to σ(e+eηϕ) measured by the BaBar, Belle, BESIII, and CMD-3 experiments with the non-resonant component, ϕ(1680), and ϕ(2170), or without ϕ(2170).

    • C.   Fit with ϕ(1680), ϕ(2170), and the non-resonantcomponent

    • With Aϕ(1680)ηϕ and Aϕ(2170)ηϕ but no AX(1750)ηϕ in Eq. (8), we obtain four solutions of equivalent quality with χ2/ndf= 284/247 from the nominal combined fit, as illustrated in Fig. 6 and Table 2. The four solutions have the same resonant parameters, Mϕ(1680), Γϕ(1680), Mϕ(2170), and Γϕ(2170): Mϕ(1680)=(1678+53±7)MeV/c2, Γϕ(1680)=(156±5±9)MeV, Mϕ(2170)=(2169±5±6)MeV/c2, and Γϕ(2170)=(96+1714±9)MeV. We can see that the mass and width of ϕ(2170) are close to the world average values: mϕ(2170)=(2162±7)MeV/c2 and Γϕ(2170)=(100+3123)MeV [4]. The four solutions show that Bηϕϕ(1680)Γe+eϕ(1680)=(79±4±16), (127±5±12), (65+54±13 or (215+85±11)eV, and Bηϕϕ(2170)Γe+eϕ(2170)=(0.56+0.030.02±0.07), (0.36±0.04±0.07), (38±1±5) or (41±2±6)eV. The branching fraction of ϕ(1680)ηϕ is Bηϕϕ(1680)20%, with uncertainties of less than 5%. Comparing the change of Δχ2=63 and Δndf=4 between the fit with and without ϕ(2170), we obtain the statistical significance of the ϕ(2170) resonance to be 7.2σ. By fixing the mass and width of ϕ(2170) at the world average values [4], we obtain the fit results listed in Table 3, with curves similar to those in Fig. 6. We then estimate the statistical significance of ϕ(2170) to be 7.4σ. We describe the systematic uncertainties in the fit results in Sec. V.

      Figure 6.  (color online) Nominal fit to σ(e+eηϕ) measured by the BaBar, Belle, BESIII, and CMD-3 experiments, including the ϕ(1680), ϕ(2170), and non-resonant components. The blue solid lines show the fit results, and the red, green, and gray dashed lines show the ϕ(1680), ϕ(2170), and non-resonant components, respectively. The interference among the ϕ(1680), ϕ(2170), and non-resonant components is not shown.

      Parameterswith ϕ(2170)
      Solution ISolution IISolution IIISolution IV
      χ2/ndf288/249
      a00.45±0.050.19±0.024.1±0.24.4±0.5
      a10.27+0.050.042.8±0.20.43+0.080.052.6+0.50.3
      Bηϕϕ(1680)Γe+eϕ(1680)/eV85±3123+6453±6193+65
      Mϕ(1680)/(MeV/c2)1677+54
      Γϕ(1680)/MeV158+54
      Bηϕϕ(1680)(%)18+5322±523+5320±5
      Bηϕϕ(2170)Γe+eϕ(2170)/eV0.48+0.040.020.37±0.0338±137+21
      Mϕ(2170)/(MeV/c2)2162(fixed)
      Γϕ(2170)/MeV100(fixed)
      θϕ(1680)/()80±12109±1188+12754±6
      θϕ(2170)/()61+141048+108173+1612165±9

      Table 3.  Results of fitting to σ(e+eηϕ) measured by the BaBar, Belle, BESIII, and CMD-3 experiments with the ϕ(1680), ϕ(2170), and non-resonant components. The mass and width of ϕ(2170) are fixed at the world average values [4].

      As discussed in Ref. [17], there are 2n1 solutions in a fit with n components in the amplitude. They have the same goodness of fit and the same mass and width of a resonance. Unfortunately, we cannot find a proliferation of the solutions as in several previous measurements [3, 1820].

    • D.   Fit with ϕ(1680), X(1750), ϕ(2170), andthe non-resonant component

    • To investigate the production of X(1750) in the e+eηϕ process, we perform the combined fit with Eq. (8). We fix the mass and width of X(1750) at the world average values [4] and obtain eight solutions of an equivalent quality of χ2/ndf=290/245, with the same masses and widths of ϕ(1680) and ϕ(2170). The fit results are listed in Table 4, and the first two solutions are shown in Fig. 7. Comparing Δχ2=6 and Δndf=2 in the fits with and without X(1750), the statistical significance of X(1750) is 2.0σ. Because X(1750) is not significant here, we determine the upper limit (UL) of its production (BηϕX(1750)Γe+eX(1750)) in the eight solutions at the 90% C.L. by integrating the likelihood versus the X(1750) yield, as listed in Table 4.

      ParametersSolution ISolution IISolution IIISolution IVSolution VSolution VISolution VIISolution VIII
      χ2/ndf290/245
      a02.2+0.40.21.2±0.20.15±0.040.12±0.020.62+0.040.030.14±0.041.4+0.30.21.2±0.4
      a12.9+0.30.22.7±0.30.61+0.040.021.2+0.20.11.6±0.30.79±0.041.6±0.22.5±0.2
      Bηϕϕ(1680)Γe+eϕ(1680)/eV247+9793±6107±9159+117244+95170+117114+95280±12
      Mϕ(1680)/(MeV /c2)1680±4
      Γϕ(1680)/MeV147±8
      Bηϕϕ(1680)(%)19±318±319+4321±322±319±321+4222±4
      BηϕX(1750)Γe+eX(1750)/eV210+1814102+1512167+2216172±19227+2016250+2317289±22102+1814
      UL of BηϕX(1750)Γe+eX(1750)/eV249136197214269287322142
      MX(1750)/(MeV/c2)1754 (fixed)
      ΓX(1750)/MeV120 (fixed)
      Bηϕϕ(2170)Γe+eϕ(2170)/eV0.34±0.0238+210.57±0.0439+210.42±0.0237+210.44+0.040.0241±2
      Mϕ(2170)/(MeV/c2)2169+86
      Γϕ(2170)/MeV95+2214
      θϕ(1680)/()98+119109±1788±1697+119134±17119±15125±19109+2014
      θX(1750)/()55±768+181274±14105+201463±1259±14108±15131+1813
      θϕ(2170))/()118±1594+1613108±14132±2183±1769+1511127±24111±17

      Table 4.  Results of fitting to σ(e+eηϕ) measured by the BaBar, Belle, BESIII, and CMD-3 experiments with the ϕ(1680), X(1750), ϕ(2170), and non-resonant components. The mass and width of X(1750) are fixed at the world average values [4].

      Figure 7.  (color online) Two solutions from the fitting to σ(e+eηϕ) measured by the BaBar, Belle, BESIII, and CMD-3 experiments with ϕ(1680), X(1750), and ϕ(2170). The blue solid lines show the best fit results, and the red, orange, green, and gray dashed lines show the ϕ(1680), X(1750), ϕ(2170), and non-resonant components, respectively. The interference among the ϕ(1680), X(1750), ϕ(2170), and non-resonant components is not shown.

    V.   SYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTIES
    • We characterize the following systematic uncertainties for the nominal fit results and estimate the uncertainty of the parameterization in Eq. (9) with two different parameterization methods, which have the forms

      A(M)Γϕ(1680)(s)Γe+esM2+iMΓϕ(1680)

      (17)

      and

      A(M)MsΓϕ(1680)(s)Γe+esM2+iMΓϕ(1680).

      (18)

      By changing the fit range to [1.6,2.9]GeV/c2, we find that the systematic uncertainty due to the fit range is negligible. We use An.r.ηϕ(s)=a0/s to estimate the model dependence of the non-resonant contribution. We obtain the uncertainty in BKˉK(892)ϕ(1680)/Bηϕϕ(1680) by varying 1σ according to the previous measurement [5]. To estimate the uncertainty due to the possible contribution from ϕ(1680)ϕππ, we take B(ϕ(1680)ϕππ)=B(ϕ(1680)ϕη)/2 [3] and modify Eq. (10) to

      Γϕ(1680)(s)=Γϕ(1680)[PKK(892)(s)PKˉK(892)(Mϕ(1680))BKˉK(892)ϕ(1680)

      +Pηϕ(s)Pηϕ(Mϕ(1680))Bηϕϕ(1680)+Pϕππ(s)Pϕππ(Mϕ(1680))Bϕππϕ(1680)+(1Bηϕϕ(1680)Bϕππϕ(1680)BKˉK(892)ϕ(1680))]

      (19)

      in the combined fits. Here, Pϕππ is the phase space of the ϕ(1680)ϕππ decay.

      Assuming all these sources are independent and summing them in quadrature, the total systematic uncertainties are listed in Table 5.

      ParameterSource
      An.r.ηϕ(s)BKˉK(892)ϕ(1680)/Bηϕϕ(1680)Parameterizationϕ(1680)ϕππSum
      Mϕ(1680)23357
      Γϕ(1680)35549
      Γe+eϕ(1680)Bηϕϕ(1680)Sol. I8107616
      Sol. II496212
      Sol. III757613
      Sol. IV654711
      Bηϕϕ(1680)Sol. I0.70.91.312
      Sol. II0.50.91.224
      Sol. III0.91.51.823
      Sol. IV0.70.41.813
      Mϕ(2170)35226
      Γϕ(2170)62639
      Γe+eϕ(2170)Bηϕϕ(2170)Sol. I0.020.030.050.030.07
      Sol. II0.020.040.040.030.07
      Sol. III22325
      Sol. IV33416

      Table 5.  Systematic uncertainties of the resonance parameters for ϕ(1680) and ϕ(2170). M, Γ, Γe+eB, and B are the mass with units of MeV/c2, total width with units of MeV, the production of the branching fraction and the partial width to e+e with units of eV, and the branching fraction (%), respectively.

    VI.   SUMMARY
    • Combining the measurements by the BaBar, Belle, BESIII, and CMD-3 experiments, we calculate σ(e+eηϕ) from the threshold to 3.95GeV with improved precision. There are clear ϕ(1680) and J/ψ signals and lineshape changes around the mass of ϕ(2170) in the ηϕ final state. We perform combined fits to σ(e+eηϕ) measured by the four experiments and obtain the nominal fit results with the ϕ(1680), ϕ(2170), and non-resonant components. The statistical significance of ϕ(2170) is 7.2σ. The mass and width of ϕ(2170) are Mϕ(2170)=(2169±5±6)MeV/c2 and Γϕ(2170)=(96+1714±9)MeV, which are consistent with the world average values [4]. The mass and width of ϕ(1680) are Mϕ(1680)=(1678+53±7)MeV/c2 and Γϕ(1680)=(156±5±9)MeV, with a good precision compared with the world average values [4]. The branching fraction of the ϕ(1680)ηϕ decay is approximately 20%, with uncertainties of less than 6%. We also determine Bηϕϕ(1680)Γe+eϕ(1680) and Bηϕϕ(2170)Γe+eϕ(2170) from the fits. Assuming its existence in the e+eηϕ process, the statistical significance of X(1750) is only 2.0σ. We determine the UL of X(1750) in e+eηϕ at the 90% C.L.

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • We thank Prof. Changzheng Yuan for very helpful discussions.

Reference (20)

目录

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return