CLEOIII Upsilon results

1. CLEOIII Upsilon results • In principle, includes: • CLEO-III dipion transitions between vectors • Complements CLEO05 results on transitions between L=1 P-states • High-precision measurement of dielectronic width of Y(1S), (2S) (3S) • Many radiative results: • Observation of exclusives already presented: gpp, gKK, • Upper limits on gh and gh’ modes • UL on multibody modes (>=4 charged tracks) • Comparison of inclusive quark/gluon production in radiative decays of Y vs. qq+photon (ISR)

2. CLEOIIICLEAN signals, angular analysis underway.

3. Dipion transitions • Renewed interest in `double-bump’ structure in (3S)pp(1S) following BaBar observation of 4Spp(nS) Goal: spin/parity analysis across invariant mass to determine whether low-mass bump is sigma0 – if not, what is it?

4. Exclusives: Multibody modes • Exclusive radiative events‘bumps’ in the inclusive (scaled to Ebeam) photon spectrum (assume narrow recoil object) • We perform a series of fits to the inclusive  photon spectra as a function of E in order to set an E-dependent upper limit on these radiative events. • Nota bene: ‘bumps’ in the inclusive photon spectra can also be caused by continuum threshold effects (ccbar, e.g.)

5. *→+, →4 MC An example, albeit exaggerated, of signal . . . (10-2)

6. Method (Fitting  Spectrum) • We fit each step to a Gaussian+Chebyshev polynomial • Step along the photon spectra with the Gaussian mean • Fix Gaussian sigma at each step to be the detector resolution (~1% @ 5 GeV) • Looking for narrow resonances so the measured photon energy dist. should be Gaussian with Gaussian width E.

7. Efficiencies (*→+, →?) Worst  Phase Space High Mult.

8. All limits on the order of 10-4

9. In/Out and Sensitivity Check • Embed signals at a given level into data. • We then apply our procedure to the resulting spectra • We construct all signals above our upper limit floor (~10-4) in our accessible recoil mass range

10. A(M)+1.645*A(M)

11. Check of pulls: Continuum data dN/d(A/A)(<(1S)) A/A

12. Results • Our sensitivity is of order 10-4 across all accessible values of M • Above the threshold for any known B((1S)→+pseudoscalar, pseudoscalarh+h-h+h-+neutrals) • We measure for all M: • B((1S)→+,4 charged tracks) < 1.05 x 10-3 • B((2S)→+,4 charged tracks) < 1.65 x 10-3 • B((3S)→+,4 charged tracks) < 5.70 x 10-3

13. Results (2) • Restricting M to 1.5 GeV < M < 5.0 GeV we measure: • B((1S)→+,4 charged tracks) < 1.82 x 10-4 • B((2S)→+,4 charged tracks) < 1.69 x 10-4 • B((3S)→+,4 charged tracks) < 3.00 x 10-4 • We report these upper limits as a function of recoiling mass M (see conf. Paper) • B.R.’s are all ~10-4. • N.B. Not in conflict with any observed two-body radiative decays to-date (due to 4-charged track requirement here)

14. Many modes! Dedicated search for 1Sgh and 1Sgh’; Observed in J/psi decay at 10-4 and 4.7x10-4 level

15. Only upper limits quoted at this time… Suggests dedicated search for (1S)ghc?

16. Quarks v. Gluons • 1981 (CESR): e+e- collisions (ECM ~ 10 GeV) produce ;  ggg allows high-statistics study of gluon fragmentation • Isolate gluons: ggg decay of  Isolate quarks: fragmentation • 1984 Find: more baryons/event in ggg decay than • Weakness: 3 partons (ggg) vs. 2 partons ( ) 3 strings (ggg) vs. 1 string ( ) • Solution: decay of  vs. decay of continuum

17. Y(1S)3gluons, but also 2-gluon source: • e+e- (CLEO) • e+e-(1S) (CLEO) • e+e- Z0 (LEP) Z0

18. Data Sets • Note that for 2S and 3S have not corrected for cascades: • (2S)  (1S) + X • (3S)  (2S) + X (3S)  (1S) + X • Are included as consistency checks, but have subtractions and corrections that have not been included.

19. Method: vs. • Bin according to particle momentum • Count N(Baryon) per bin and normalize to hadronic event count • Enhancement is: • Continuum-subtracted Resonance Yield • Continuum Yield • Enhancement = 1.0  Particle is produced as often on resonance as on continuum

20. Method: vs. • Bin particle yield recoiling against high-E photon according to tagged photon momentum • Count N(Baryon) per bin and normalize to photon count in that bin • Enhancement is: • Continuum-subtracted Resonance Yield • Continuum Yield • Enhancement = 1.0  Particle is produced as often on resonance as on continuum

21. Detector and Generator Level: ggg manageable bias; use correction factor where appropriate; discrepancy in/out used for systematics Λ p p φ

22. Proton L f f2 results • Successfully reproduce CLEO84 indications of baryon enhancement in 1S (ggg) vs. CO ( ) fragmentation • Comparison of baryon production in 1S ggγ vs. e+e- (comparing two gluon to two quark fragmentation)   -1S gg baryons shows much reduced enhancement relative to baryons             -Effect not reproduced in JETSET MC

23. Deuteron Production (Preliminary) B(1S(ggg+ggg))d+X= 2.86(0.30)x10-5 Per event enhancement of deuteron production in gluons vs. quarks ~12.0(2.0). Also: note 1Spsi >> continuumpsi

24. Summary • Radiative decays (in general) continue to be more elusive than for J/psi • Baryon coupling to 3-gluons confirmed (even larger for deuterons!); enhancement in 2-gluons mitigated. • Ramping down these efforts (CLEO-III  CLEOc) • Future improvements/results hopefully to emerge from B-factories with dedicated Upsilon running • Thanks to everyone who did the work!

25. Overview • Reproducing CLEO84 indications of baryon enhancement in 1S(ggg) vs. CO ( ) fragmentation • New comparison of baryon production in 1S ggγ vs. e+e- comparing two gluon to two quark fragmentation               -First time such a comparison has been made • Essential results:               -1S gg baryons shows much reduced enhancement relative to baryons               -Effect not reproduced in JETSET MC • Additional cross-checks (2S, 3S, comparison with mesons) included

26. Data Results: ggg p and p: 2S/3S data corrected

27. Data Results: ggγ Λ: 2S corrected

28. Method (Extracting Limit) • Plot the gaussian area A(x) from fits to inclusive photon spectra • Convert into an upper limit contour with height=A(x)+1.645*A(x) • A(x) is the Gaussian fit sigma • Negative points → 1.645*A(x)

29. The M-Dependent Upper Limits • Divide on-resonance fits by efficiency corrected number of (1S), (2S) and (3S) events (-1events) • Divide off-resonance fits by luminosity of off-resonance running and derive xsct UL’s • Note: +f2(1270) will not show up in this analysis sinceB (f2  4 tracks) is approximately 3% • B ((1S)+, +-, +-0) << 10-4

30. CHECK OF PULL DISTRIBUTIONS

31. Fragmentation Models e+ q e- • Simplistically there are two models: Parton vs. String • Parton: g or q radiates a new particle • String: g and q are connected by a string (gluon). Particles move apart; string stretches and breaks; forms new particles • String model is what is in JetSet MC (CLEO: Jetset 7.4 PYTHIA) Parameters tuned to √s = 90 GeV LEP Data

32. Data Results • Show data and detector level MC enhancements for both ggg and ggγ • “Corrected” data and generator level MC enhancements for those with a low CL fit. • Systematic errors have been introduced based on the correction factor.

33. Data Results: Momentum-Integrated Λ p p φ f2 1 1 Λ p p φ f2