Violation in Mixing

180 Analysis of the time-dependent �È -violating asymmetry in � � � � decays
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
27.78 / 17
P1 22.49 1.968
P2 -0.9736E-02 0.2493E-02
P3 0.2024E-01 0.2116E-02
P4 3.900 0.000
P5 0.000 0.000
P6 0.3500E-01 0.000
0
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0
ΔE SMSl
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
23.60 / 18
P1 110.3 4.129
P2 -0.5636E-02 0.8089E-03
P3 0.1946E-01 0.6985E-03
P4 6.900 0.000
P5 0.000 0.000
P6 0.3500E-01 0.000
0
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0
ΔE SMSl
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Figure 7-6. Distributions of ¡� for � � � � decays in Run 2 (left) and Run 1 + 2 (right).
Variable Sig Func Sig Params Bkg Func Bkg Params
Ñ�Ë Gaussian � ��� � ��Î� ARGUS �; free
� � ����
¡� Gaussian � � �Å�Î quadratic ¡�Ô , ¡�Ô ; free
� � �Å�Î
� Gaussian � � � ��� double Gaussian �� , �� , �� ,
� � � �� �� ,�� ; free
� pulls Gaussian � � ���Ô same as Sig same as Sig
� �
Table 7-11. Summary of PDFs for Ñ�Ë, ¡�, �, and � . The � ��Ö�Ò�ÓÚ angle offsets and resolutions are
functions of track polar angle �.
and resolution parameterizations for Run 2 data (Run 1 parameterizations were given in Sec. 4.6.5). The
global features are similar, with more centered offsets and somewhat better resolution in Run 2. We use
separate parameterizations for the different datasets. Right plots in Fig. 7-8 show example pull distributions
for Run 2. The “satellite” peaks observed in Run 1 appear to be absent in Run 2. Table 7-11 summarizes the
parameterization of the non-¡Ø PDFs.
The signal ¡Ø PDF depends on the flavor and category of the tag side. The functional form for the ��
component is given by Eqs. 7.7 and 7.8, where the resolution function Ê×�� is defined in Table 7-10. We fit
MARCELLA BONA