Skip to main content
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2017 Oct 13;77(10):678. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5230-x

Improved limit on the branching fraction of the rare decay KS0μ+μ-

R Aaij 40, B Adeva 39, M Adinolfi 48, Z Ajaltouni 5, S Akar 59, J Albrecht 10, F Alessio 40, M Alexander 53, S Ali 43, G Alkhazov 31, P Alvarez Cartelle 55, A A Alves Jr 59, S Amato 2, S Amerio 23, Y Amhis 7, L An 3, L Anderlini 18, G Andreassi 41, M Andreotti 17, J E Andrews 60, R B Appleby 56, F Archilli 43, P d’Argent 12, J Arnau Romeu 6, A Artamonov 37, M Artuso 61, E Aslanides 6, G Auriemma 26, M Baalouch 5, I Babuschkin 56, S Bachmann 12, J J Back 50, A Badalov 38, C Baesso 62, S Baker 55, V Balagura 7, W Baldini 17, A Baranov 35, R J Barlow 56, C Barschel 40, S Barsuk 7, W Barter 56, F Baryshnikov 32, M Baszczyk 27, V Batozskaya 29, V Battista 41, A Bay 41, L Beaucourt 4, J Beddow 53, F Bedeschi 24, I Bediaga 1, A Beiter 61, L J Bel 43, V Bellee 41, N Belloli 21, K Belous 37, I Belyaev 32, E Ben-Haim 8, G Bencivenni 19, S Benson 43, S Beranek 9, A Berezhnoy 33, R Bernet 42, A Bertolin 23, C Betancourt 42, F Betti 15, M-O Bettler 40, M van Beuzekom 43, Ia Bezshyiko 42, S Bifani 47, P Billoir 8, A Birnkraut 10, A Bitadze 56, A Bizzeti 18, T Blake 50, F Blanc 41, J Blouw 11, S Blusk 61, V Bocci 26, T Boettcher 58, A Bondar 36, N Bondar 31, W Bonivento 16, I Bordyuzhin 32, A Borgheresi 21, S Borghi 56, M Borisyak 35, M Borsato 39, F Bossu 7, M Boubdir 9, T J V Bowcock 54, E Bowen 42, C Bozzi 17,40, S Braun 12, T Britton 61, J Brodzicka 56, E Buchanan 48, C Burr 56, A Bursche 16, J Buytaert 40, S Cadeddu 16, R Calabrese 17, M Calvi 21, M Calvo Gomez 38, A Camboni 38, P Campana 19, D H Campora Perez 40, L Capriotti 56, A Carbone 15, G Carboni 25, R Cardinale 20, A Cardini 16, P Carniti 21, L Carson 52, K Carvalho Akiba 2, G Casse 54, L Cassina 21, L Castillo Garcia 41, M Cattaneo 40, G Cavallero 20,40, R Cenci 24, D Chamont 7, M Charles 8, Ph Charpentier 40, G Chatzikonstantinidis 47, M Chefdeville 4, S Chen 56, S F Cheung 57, V Chobanova 39, M Chrzaszcz 27,42, A Chubykin 31, X Cid Vidal 39, G Ciezarek 43, P E L Clarke 52, M Clemencic 40, H V Cliff 49, J Closier 40, V Coco 59, J Cogan 6, E Cogneras 5, V Cogoni 16, L Cojocariu 30, P Collins 40, A Comerma-Montells 12, A Contu 40, A Cook 48, G Coombs 40, S Coquereau 38, G Corti 40, M Corvo 17, C M Costa Sobral 50, B Couturier 40, G A Cowan 52, D C Craik 52, A Crocombe 50, M Cruz Torres 62, R Currie 52, C D’Ambrosio 40, F Da Cunha Marinho 2, E Dall’Occo 43, J Dalseno 48, A Davis 3, K De Bruyn 6, S De Capua 56, M De Cian 12, J M De Miranda 1, L De Paula 2, M De Serio 14, P De Simone 19, C T Dean 53, D Decamp 4, M Deckenhoff 10, L Del Buono 8, H-P Dembinski 11, M Demmer 10, A Dendek 28, D Derkach 35, O Deschamps 5, F Dettori 54, B Dey 22, A Di Canto 40, P Di Nezza 19, H Dijkstra 40, F Dordei 40, M Dorigo 41, A Dosil Suárez 39, A Dovbnya 45, K Dreimanis 54, L Dufour 43, G Dujany 56, K Dungs 40, P Durante 40, R Dzhelyadin 37, M Dziewiecki 12, A Dziurda 40, A Dzyuba 31, N Déléage 4, S Easo 51, M Ebert 52, U Egede 55, V Egorychev 32, S Eidelman 36, S Eisenhardt 52, U Eitschberger 10, R Ekelhof 10, L Eklund 53, S Ely 61, S Esen 12, H M Evans 49, T Evans 57, A Falabella 15, N Farley 47, S Farry 54, R Fay 54, D Fazzini 21, D Ferguson 52, G Fernandez 38, A Fernandez Prieto 39, F Ferrari 15, F Ferreira Rodrigues 2, M Ferro-Luzzi 40, S Filippov 34, R A Fini 14, M Fiore 17, M Fiorini 17, M Firlej 28, C Fitzpatrick 41, T Fiutowski 28, F Fleuret 7, K Fohl 40, M Fontana 16,40, F Fontanelli 20, D C Forshaw 61, R Forty 40, V Franco Lima 54, M Frank 40, C Frei 40, J Fu 22, W Funk 40, E Furfaro 25, C Färber 40, A Gallas Torreira 39, D Galli 15, S Gallorini 23, S Gambetta 52, M Gandelman 2, P Gandini 57, Y Gao 3, L M Garcia Martin 69, J García Pardiñas 39, J Garra Tico 49, L Garrido 38, P J Garsed 49, D Gascon 38, C Gaspar 40, L Gavardi 10, G Gazzoni 5, D Gerick 12, E Gersabeck 12, M Gersabeck 56, T Gershon 50, Ph Ghez 4, S Gianì 41, V Gibson 49, O G Girard 41, L Giubega 30, K Gizdov 52, V V Gligorov 8, D Golubkov 32, A Golutvin 40,55, A Gomes 1, I V Gorelov 33, C Gotti 21, E Govorkova 43, R Graciani Diaz 38, L A Granado Cardoso 40, E Graugés 38, E Graverini 42, G Graziani 18, A Grecu 30, R Greim 9, P Griffith 16, L Grillo 21,40, B R Gruberg Cazon 57, O Grünberg 67, E Gushchin 34, Yu Guz 37, T Gys 40, C Göbel 62, T Hadavizadeh 57, C Hadjivasiliou 5, G Haefeli 41, C Haen 40, S C Haines 49, B Hamilton 60, X Han 12, S Hansmann-Menzemer 12, N Harnew 57, S T Harnew 48, J Harrison 56, M Hatch 40, J He 63, T Head 41, A Heister 9, K Hennessy 54, P Henrard 5, L Henry 69, E van Herwijnen 40, M Heß 67, A Hicheur 2, D Hill 57, C Hombach 56, P H Hopchev 41, Z-C Huard 59, W Hulsbergen 43, T Humair 55, M Hushchyn 35, D Hutchcroft 54, M Idzik 28, P Ilten 58, R Jacobsson 40, J Jalocha 57, E Jans 43, A Jawahery 60, F Jiang 3, M John 57, D Johnson 40, C R Jones 49, C Joram 40, B Jost 40, N Jurik 57, S Kandybei 45, M Karacson 40, J M Kariuki 48, S Karodia 53, M Kecke 12, M Kelsey 61, M Kenzie 49, T Ketel 44, E Khairullin 35, B Khanji 12, C Khurewathanakul 41, T Kirn 9, S Klaver 56, K Klimaszewski 29, T Klimkovich 11, S Koliiev 46, M Kolpin 12, I Komarov 41, R Kopecna 12, P Koppenburg 43, A Kosmyntseva 32, S Kotriakhova 31, M Kozeiha 5, L Kravchuk 34, M Kreps 50, P Krokovny 36, F Kruse 10, W Krzemien 29, W Kucewicz 27, M Kucharczyk 27, V Kudryavtsev 36, A K Kuonen 41, K Kurek 29, T Kvaratskheliya 32,40, D Lacarrere 40, G Lafferty 56, A Lai 16, G Lanfranchi 19, C Langenbruch 9, T Latham 50, C Lazzeroni 47, R Le Gac 6, J van Leerdam 43, A Leflat 33,40, J Lefrançois 7, R Lefèvre 5, F Lemaitre 40, E Lemos Cid 39, O Leroy 6, T Lesiak 27, B Leverington 12, T Li 3, Y Li 7, Z Li 61, T Likhomanenko 35,68, R Lindner 40, F Lionetto 42, X Liu 3, D Loh 50, I Longstaff 53, J H Lopes 2, D Lucchesi 23, M Lucio Martinez 39, H Luo 52, A Lupato 23, E Luppi 17, O Lupton 40, A Lusiani 24, X Lyu 63, F Machefert 7, F Maciuc 30, O Maev 31, K Maguire 56, S Malde 57, A Malinin 68, T Maltsev 36, G Manca 16, G Mancinelli 6, P Manning 61, J Maratas 5, J F Marchand 4, U Marconi 15, C Marin Benito 38, M Marinangeli 41, P Marino 24, J Marks 12, G Martellotti 26, M Martin 6, M Martinelli 41, D Martinez Santos 39, F Martinez Vidal 69, D Martins Tostes 2, L M Massacrier 7, A Massafferri 1, R Matev 40, A Mathad 50, Z Mathe 40, C Matteuzzi 21, A Mauri 42, E Maurice 7, B Maurin 41, A Mazurov 47, M McCann 40,55, A McNab 56, R McNulty 13, B Meadows 59, F Meier 10, D Melnychuk 29, M Merk 43, A Merli 22,40, E Michielin 23, D A Milanes 66, M-N Minard 4, D S Mitzel 12, A Mogini 8, J Molina Rodriguez 1, I A Monroy 66, S Monteil 5, M Morandin 23, M J Morello 24, O Morgunova 68, J Moron 28, A B Morris 52, R Mountain 61, F Muheim 52, M Mulder 43, M Mussini 15, D Müller 56, J Müller 10, K Müller 42, V Müller 10, P Naik 48, T Nakada 41, R Nandakumar 51, A Nandi 57, I Nasteva 2, M Needham 52, N Neri 22,40, S Neubert 12, N Neufeld 40, M Neuner 12, T D Nguyen 41, C Nguyen-Mau 41, S Nieswand 9, R Niet 10, N Nikitin 33, T Nikodem 12, A Nogay 68, A Novoselov 37, D P O’Hanlon 50, A Oblakowska-Mucha 28, V Obraztsov 37, S Ogilvy 19, R Oldeman 16, C J G Onderwater 70, A Ossowska 27, J M Otalora Goicochea 2, P Owen 42, A Oyanguren 69, P R Pais 41, A Palano 14, M Palutan 19, A Papanestis 51, M Pappagallo 14, L L Pappalardo 17, C Pappenheimer 59, W Parker 60, C Parkes 56, G Passaleva 18, A Pastore 14, M Patel 55, C Patrignani 15, A Pearce 40, A Pellegrino 43, G Penso 26, M Pepe Altarelli 40, S Perazzini 40, P Perret 5, L Pescatore 41, K Petridis 48, A Petrolini 20, A Petrov 68, M Petruzzo 22, E Picatoste Olloqui 38, B Pietrzyk 4, M Pikies 27, D Pinci 26, A Pistone 20, A Piucci 12, V Placinta 30, S Playfer 52, M Plo Casasus 39, T Poikela 40, F Polci 8, M Poli Lener 19, A Poluektov 36,50, I Polyakov 61, E Polycarpo 2, G J Pomery 48, S Ponce 40, A Popov 37, D Popov 11,40, B Popovici 30, S Poslavskii 37, C Potterat 2, E Price 48, J Prisciandaro 39, C Prouve 48, V Pugatch 46, A Puig Navarro 42, G Punzi 24, W Qian 50, R Quagliani 7,48, B Rachwal 28, J H Rademacker 48, M Rama 24, M Ramos Pernas 39, M S Rangel 2, I Raniuk 45, F Ratnikov 35, G Raven 44, F Redi 55, S Reichert 10, A C dos Reis 1, C Remon Alepuz 69, V Renaudin 7, S Ricciardi 51, S Richards 48, M Rihl 40, K Rinnert 54, V Rives Molina 38, P Robbe 7, A B Rodrigues 1, E Rodrigues 59, J A Rodriguez Lopez 66, P Rodriguez Perez 56, A Rogozhnikov 35, S Roiser 40, A Rollings 57, V Romanovskiy 37, A Romero Vidal 39, J W Ronayne 13, M Rotondo 19, M S Rudolph 61, T Ruf 40, P Ruiz Valls 69, J J Saborido Silva 39, E Sadykhov 32, N Sagidova 31, B Saitta 16, V Salustino Guimaraes 1, D Sanchez Gonzalo 38, C Sanchez Mayordomo 69, B Sanmartin Sedes 39, R Santacesaria 26, C Santamarina Rios 39, M Santimaria 19, E Santovetti 25, A Sarti 19, C Satriano 26, A Satta 25, D M Saunders 48, D Savrina 32,33, S Schael 9, M Schellenberg 10, M Schiller 53, H Schindler 40, M Schlupp 10, M Schmelling 11, T Schmelzer 10, B Schmidt 40, O Schneider 41, A Schopper 40, H F Schreiner 59, K Schubert 10, M Schubiger 41, M-H Schune 7, R Schwemmer 40, B Sciascia 19, A Sciubba 26, A Semennikov 32, A Sergi 47, N Serra 42, J Serrano 6, L Sestini 23, P Seyfert 21, M Shapkin 37, I Shapoval 45, Y Shcheglov 31, T Shears 54, L Shekhtman 36, V Shevchenko 68, B G Siddi 17,40, R Silva Coutinho 42, L Silva de Oliveira 2, G Simi 23, S Simone 14, M Sirendi 49, N Skidmore 48, T Skwarnicki 61, E Smith 55, I T Smith 52, J Smith 49, M Smith 55, l Soares Lavra 1, M D Sokoloff 59, F J P Soler 53, B Souza De Paula 2, B Spaan 10, P Spradlin 53, S Sridharan 40, F Stagni 40, M Stahl 12, S Stahl 40, P Stefko 41, S Stefkova 55, O Steinkamp 42, S Stemmle 12, O Stenyakin 37, H Stevens 10, S Stoica 30, S Stone 61, B Storaci 42, S Stracka 24, M E Stramaglia 41, M Straticiuc 30, U Straumann 42, L Sun 64, W Sutcliffe 55, K Swientek 28, V Syropoulos 44, M Szczekowski 29, T Szumlak 28, S T’Jampens 4, A Tayduganov 6, T Tekampe 10, G Tellarini 17, F Teubert 40, E Thomas 40, J van Tilburg 43, M J Tilley 55, V Tisserand 4, M Tobin 41, S Tolk 49, L Tomassetti 17, D Tonelli 24, S Topp-Joergensen 57, F Toriello 61, R Tourinho Jadallah Aoude 1, E Tournefier 4, S Tourneur 41, K Trabelsi 41, M Traill 53, M T Tran 41, M Tresch 42, A Trisovic 40, A Tsaregorodtsev 6, P Tsopelas 43, A Tully 49, N Tuning 43, A Ukleja 29, A Ustyuzhanin 35, U Uwer 12, C Vacca 16, V Vagnoni 15,40, A Valassi 40, S Valat 40, G Valenti 15, R Vazquez Gomez 19, P Vazquez Regueiro 39, S Vecchi 17, M van Veghel 43, J J Velthuis 48, M Veltri 18, G Veneziano 57, A Venkateswaran 61, T A Verlage 9, M Vernet 5, M Vesterinen 12, J V Viana Barbosa 40, B Viaud 7, D Vieira 63, M Vieites Diaz 39, H Viemann 67, X Vilasis-Cardona 38, M Vitti 49, V Volkov 33, A Vollhardt 42, B Voneki 40, A Vorobyev 31, V Vorobyev 36, C Voß 9, J A de Vries 43, C Vázquez Sierra 39, R Waldi 67, C Wallace 50, R Wallace 13, J Walsh 24, J Wang 61, D R Ward 49, H M Wark 54, N K Watson 47, D Websdale 55, A Weiden 42, M Whitehead 40, J Wicht 50, G Wilkinson 40,57, M Wilkinson 61, M Williams 40, M P Williams 47, M Williams 58, T Williams 47, F F Wilson 51, J Wimberley 60, M A Winn 7, J Wishahi 10, W Wislicki 29, M Witek 27, G Wormser 7, S A Wotton 49, K Wraight 53, K Wyllie 40, Y Xie 65, Z Xu 4, Z Yang 3, Z Yang 60, Y Yao 61, H Yin 65, J Yu 65, X Yuan 61, O Yushchenko 37, K A Zarebski 47, M Zavertyaev 11, L Zhang 3, Y Zhang 7, A Zhelezov 12, Y Zheng 63, X Zhu 3, V Zhukov 33, S Zucchelli 15; LHCb Collaboration71
PMCID: PMC6956924  PMID: 31997922

Abstract

A search for the decay KS0μ+μ- is performed, based on a data sample of proton-proton collisions corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 3fb-1, collected by the LHCb experiment at centre-of-mass energies of 7 and 8TeV. The observed yield is consistent with the background-only hypothesis, yielding a limit on the branching fraction of B(KS0μ+μ-)<0.8(1.0)×10-9 at 90%(95%) confidence level. This result improves the previous upper limit on the branching fraction by an order of magnitude.

Introduction

In the Standard Model (SM), the unobserved KS0μ+μ- decay proceeds only through a Flavour-Changing Neutral Current (FCNC) transition, which cannot occur at tree level. It is further suppressed by the small amount of CP violation in kaon decays, since the S-wave component of the decay is forbidden when CP is conserved. In the SM, the decay amplitude is expected to be dominated by long distance contributions, which can be constrained using the observed decays KS0γγ and KL0π0γγ, leading to the prediction for the branching fraction B(KS0μ+μ-)=(5.0±1.5)×10-12 [1, 2]. The predicted branching fraction for the KL0 decay is (6.85±0.32)×10-9 [3], in excellent agreement with the experimental world average B(KL0μ+μ-)=(6.84±0.11)×10-9 [4]. The prediction for KS0μ+μ- is currently being updated with a dispersive treatment, which leads to sizeable corrections in other KS0 leptonic decays [5].

Due to its suppression in the SM, the KS0μ+μ- decay is sensitive to possible contributions from dynamics beyond the SM, notably from light scalars with CP-violating Yukawa couplings [1]. Contributions up to one order of magnitude above the SM branching fraction expectation naturally arise in many models and are compatible with the present bounds from other FCNC processes. An upper limit on B(KS0μ+μ-) close to 10-11 could be translated into model-independent bounds on the CP-violating phase of the sd+- amplitude [2]. This would be very useful to discriminate between scenarios beyond the SM if other modes, such as K+π+νν¯, indicate a non-SM enhancement.

The current experimental limit, B(KS0μ+μ-)<9×10-9 at 90% confidence level (CL), was obtained using pp collision data corresponding to 1.0fb-1 of integrated luminosity at a centre-of-mass energy s=7TeV, collected with the LHCb detector in 2011 [6]. This result improved the previous upper limit [7] but is still three orders of magnitude above the predicted SM level.

In this paper, an update of the search for the KS0μ+μ- decay is reported. Its branching fraction is measured using the known KS0π+π- decay as normalisation. The analysis is performed on a data sample corresponding to 2fb-1 of integrated luminosity at s=8TeV, collected in 2012, and the result is combined with that from the previous LHCb analysis [6]. Besides the gain in statistical precision due to the larger data sample, the sensitivity is noticeably increased with respect to the previous result due to a higher trigger efficiency, as well as other improvements to the analysis that are discussed in the following sections.

An overview on how KS0μ+μ- decays are detected and triggered in LHCb is given in Sect. 2, while the strategy for this measurement is outlined in Sect. 3. Details of background suppression and the resulting sensitivity are given in Sects. 4 and 5, respectively. The final result, taking into account the systematic uncertainties discussed in Sect. 6, is given in Sect. 7.

KS0 decays in LHCb

The LHCb detector [8, 9] is a single-arm forward spectrometer covering the pseudorapidity range 2<η<5, designed for the study of particles containing b or c quarks. The detector includes a high-precision tracking system consisting of a silicon-strip vertex locator (VELO) surrounding the pp interaction region, a large-area silicon-strip detector located upstream of a dipole magnet with a bending power of about 4Tm, and three stations of silicon-strip detectors and straw drift tubes placed downstream of the magnet. The tracking system provides a measurement of momentum, p, of charged particles with a relative uncertainty that varies from 0.5% at low momentum to 1.0% at 200GeV/c. The minimum distance of a track to a primary vertex (PV), the impact parameter (IP), is measured with a resolution of (15+29/pT)μm, where pT is the component of the momentum transverse to the beam, in GeV/c. Different types of charged hadrons are distinguished using information from two ring-imaging Cherenkov detectors  (RICH). Photons, electrons and hadrons are identified by a calorimeter system consisting of scintillating-pad and preshower detectors, an electromagnetic calorimeter and a hadronic calorimeter. Muons are identified by five stations which alternate layers of iron and multiwire proportional chambers.

The online event selection is performed by the trigger [10], which consists of a hardware stage, based on information from the calorimeter and muon systems, followed by a two-step software stage, which applies a full event reconstruction. Candidates are subsequently classified as TOS, if the event is triggered on the signal candidate, or TIS, if triggered by other activities in the detector, independently of signal. Only candidates that are classified as TOS at each trigger stage are used to search for KS0μ+μ- decays.

The trigger selection constitutes the main limitation to the efficiency for detecting KS0 decays. A muon is only selected at the hardware stage when it is detected in all muon stations and a rough momentum estimation is provided. Trigger requirements at this stage imply a momentum larger than about 5GeV/c, and a pT above 1.76GeV/c. These thresholds have an efficiency of order 1% for KS0μ+μ- decays.

In the first step of the software trigger, all charged particles with pT>500MeV/c are reconstructed. At this stage most signal decays are triggered either by requiring a reconstructed track loosely identified as a muon [10, 11], with IP>0.1mm and pT>1.0GeV/c, or by finding two oppositely charged muon candidates forming a detached secondary vertex (SV). Since these two categories, hereafter referred to as TOSμ and TOSμμ, induce different kinematic biases on the signal and background candidates, the analysis steps described below are performed independently on each category. The two categories are made mutually exclusive by applying the TOSμμ selection only to candidates not already selected by TOSμ.

In the second software trigger stage, an offline-quality event reconstruction is performed. Signal candidates are selected requiring a dimuon with pT>600MeV/c detached from the primary vertex, with both tracks having pT>300MeV/c. In the 2011 data taking, the dimuon mass was required to be larger than 1GeV/c2 in the second software trigger stage. This excluded the KS0 region, making the use of TIS candidates necessary. Due to the trigger reoptimisation, no mass requirements were applied during 2012 and a lower pT threshold for reconstructed tracks was used. According to simulation, these changes improve the trigger efficiency over the previous analysis [6] by about a factor 2.5.

Due to its large and well-known branching fraction and its similar topology, the KS0π+π- decay is taken as the normalisation mode. A large sample of candidates is obtained from an unbiased trigger, which does not apply any selection requirement.

Despite the low trigger efficiency, the study detailed in this paper profits from the unprecedented number of KS0 produced at the LHC, O(1013) per fb-1 of integrated luminosity within the LHCb acceptance, and from the fact that about 40% of these KS0 decays occur inside the VELO region. For such decays, the KS0 invariant mass is reconstructed with a resolution of about 4MeV/c2.

The analysis makes use of large samples of simulated collisions containing a signal decay, or background decays which can be reconstructed as the signal, and contaminate the μμ invariant mass distribution, such as KS0π+π- or KS0π+μ-ν¯μ.1 In the simulation, pp collisions are generated using Pythia  [12, 13] with a specific LHCb configuration [14]. Decays of hadronic particles are described by EvtGen  [15], in which final-state radiation is generated using Photos  [16]. The interaction of the generated particles with the detector, and its response, are implemented using the Geant4 toolkit [17, 18] as described in Ref. [19].

Selection and search strategy

Common offline preselection criteria are applied to KS0μ+μ- and KS0π+π- candidates to cancel many systematic effects in the ratio. Candidates are required to decay in the VELO region, where the best KS0 mass resolution is achieved. The two reconstructed tracks must have momentum smaller than 100GeV/c and quality requirements are set on the track and secondary vertex fits. The SV must be well detached from the PV by requiring the KS0 decay time to be larger than 8.95ps, 10% of the KS0 mean lifetime. The KS0 IP must be less than 0.4mm, while the two charged tracks are required to be incompatible with originating from any PV, with IP χ2, defined as the difference of the χ2 of the PV fit obtained with and without the considered track, to be larger than 100.

Decays of Inline graphic baryons to pπ- are suppressed by removing candidates close to the expected ellipses in the Armenteros–Podolanski (AP) plane [20]. In this plane the pT of the final-state particles under the pion mass hypothesis is plotted versus the longitudinal momentum asymmetry, defined as α=(pL+-pL-)/(pL++pL-), where pL± is the longitudinal momentum of the charged tracks. Both pT and pL are considered with respect to the direction of the mother particle. The KS0 decays are symmetrically distributed on the AP plane while Inline graphic decays produce two ellipses at low pT and |α|0.7. A kaon veto, based on the response of the RICH detector, is used to suppress K0K+π- decays and other possible final states including a charged kaon.

The preselection reduces the combinatorial background, arising from candidates formed from secondary hadronic collisions in the detector material or from spurious reconstructed SV. The purity of the KS0π+π- sample used for normalisation, whose mass distribution is shown in Fig. 1, is estimated from a fit to the mass spectrum to be 99.8%. The fraction of events with more than one candidate is less than 0.1% for signal and 4% for the normalisation channel, and all candidates are retained. Additional discrimination against backgrounds for the signal mode is achieved through the use of two multivariate discriminants. The first is designed to further suppress combinatorial background, and the second to reduce the number of KS0π+π- decays in which both pions are misidentified as muons.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Reconstructed mass for KS0π+π- decays in trigger-unbiased events, computed assuming the muon (dashed red line) or pion (solid blue line) mass for the final-state tracks. Candidates satisfy the selection criteria described in the text

After requirements on the output of these discriminants have been applied, the number of signal candidates is obtained by fitting the KS0μ+μ- mass spectrum. The number of candidates is converted into a branching fraction using the yield of the KS0π+π- normalisation mode, and the estimated relative efficiency. Events in the KS0 mass region are scrutinised only after fixing the analysis strategy.

Backgrounds

The KS0μ+μ- sample contains two main sources of background. Combinatorial background candidates are expected to exhibit a smooth mass distribution, and can therefore be estimated from the sidebands. The other relevant source of background is due to KS0π+π- decays where both pions pass the loose muon identification requirements after the trigger stage. This can be due either to π+μ+νμ decays or to random association of muon detector hits with the pion trajectory. In such cases the KS0 mass, reconstructed with a wrong mass hypothesis for the final-state particles, is underestimated by 39MeV/c2 on average, as shown in Fig. 1. Despite the excellent mass resolution, the right-hand tail of the reconstructed mass distribution under the dimuon hypothesis extends into the KS0 signal mass range and, given the large branching fraction of the KS0π+π- mode, constitutes a nonnegligible background. Two multivariate discriminants, based on a boosted decision tree (BDT) algorithm [21, 22], are applied on the preselected candidates to improve the signal discrimination with respect to these backgrounds.

The first discriminant, named hereafter BDTcb, aims to reduce the combinatorial background, exploiting the different decay topologies, kinematic spectra and reconstruction qualities of signal and combinatorial candidates. It is optimised separately for each trigger category. The algorithm used for both categories is XGBoost [23], with a learning rate of 0.02 and a maximum depth of 4. The optimal number of estimators is 2000 and 800 for the TOSμ and TOSμμ trigger categories, respectively. A set of ten input variables is used in BDTcb: the KS0 pT and IP, the minimum IP of the two charged tracks, the angle between the positively charged final-state particle in the KS0 rest frame and the axis defined by the KS0 boost direction, the χ2 of the SV fit, the distance of closest approach between the two tracks, an SV isolation variable, defined as the difference in vertex-fit χ2 when the next nearest track is included in the vertex fit, and the SV absolute position coordinates. The SV position is particularly important, since a large fraction of the background is found to originate from interactions in the detector material. This set of variables does not distinguish between KS0μ+μ- and KS0π+π- decays as it does not contain quantities related to muon identification and ignores the KS0 candidate invariant mass distribution.

The signal training sample for BDTcb is composed of about 11800 (TOSμ) and 2400 (TOSμμ) KS0μ+μ- simulated candidates passing the trigger and preselection criteria. A signal training sample consisting of KS0π+π- decays in data is also used as a cross-check, as explained in Sect. 6. The background training sample is made from KS0μ+μ- data candidates surviving the trigger and preselection requirements with reconstructed mass in the range [520,600]MeV/c2, and contains about 15000 and 4000 candidates for the TOSμ and TOSμμ trigger categories, respectively. Since candidates in the same mass region are also used to estimate the residual background, the training is performed using a k-fold cross-validation technique [24] to avoid any possible effect of overtraining.

A loose requirement on the BDTcb output is applied to suppress the combinatorial background. The cut is chosen to remove 99% of the background training candidates. The corresponding signal efficiency is about 56 and 66% for the TOSμ and TOSμμ trigger categories, respectively. To exploit further the information provided by the discriminant, the candidates surviving this requirement are allocated to ten bins according to their BDTcb value, with bounds defined in order to have approximately equal population of signal training candidates in each bin.

The background from misidentified KS0π+π- decays is further reduced with the second multivariate discriminant, called BDTμ. Its input includes the position, time and number of detector hits around the extrapolated track position to each muon detector station, a global match χ2 between the muon hit positions and the track extrapolation, and other variables related to the tracking and the response of the RICH and calorimeter detectors.

To train the BDTμ discriminant, highly pure samples of 1.2 million pions and 0.68 million muons are obtained from TIS-triggered KS0π+π- and B+J/ψK+ decays, respectively. In the latter case, a probe muon from the J/ψ is required to be TIS at all trigger stages, while stringent muon identification requirements are set on the other muon, reaching an estimated purity for muons above 99.9%. The multivariate AdaBoost algorithm implemented in the TMVA package [25] is used, with 850 trees and a maximum depth of 3. Before using it in the BDTμ training, the muon sample is weighted to have the same two-dimensional distribution in p and pT as the pion sample, as well as the same distribution of number of tracks in the event. This is to prevent the BDTμ from discriminating pions and muons using these variables, which are included in the input because of their strong correlation with the identification variables. Weighting also allows optimisation of the discrimination power for the kinematic spectrum relevant to this search.

The level of misidentification of the discriminant for a pion from KS0π+π- decay is found to be 0.4% for 90% muon efficiency. This reduces the level of double misidentification background, for a given efficiency, by about a factor of four with respect to the discriminant used in the previous publication [6], which was not tuned specifically for KS0μ+μ- searches.

The BDTμ discriminant is trained using half of the B+J/ψK+ sample, while the other half is used to evaluate the muon identification efficiency as a function of (p, pT). These values are used to compute the efficiency of a BDTμ requirement on the candidate KS0μ+μ- decays after selection and trigger requirements, in each bin of the BDTcb discriminant. The muon spectra assumed in this calculation are obtained from simulated decays, weighted to better reproduce the KS0 pT spectrum observed in KS0π+π- candidates.

The BDTμ requirement on the signal candidates is optimised by maximising the figure of merit [26] ϵμID/(Nbg+a/2), with a=3, where ϵμID is the signal efficiency and Nbg the expected background yield. The latter is estimated from a fit to the mass distribution, after removing candidates in the range [492,504]MeV/c2 around the KS0 mass, and extrapolating the result into this region. In the fit, the contribution of KS0π+π- decays is modelled with a Crystal Ball function [27] and the combinatorial background with an exponential function, where all the parameters are left free to vary. This optimisation is performed independently for the two trigger categories, with no significant difference found as a function of the BDTcb bin. The optimal threshold corresponds to a signal efficiency of ϵμID98% in both cases.

Other possible sources of background have been explored and found to give negligible contribution to this search. The irreducible background due to KL0μ+μ- decays and from KS0KL0 interference is evaluated from the known KL0μ+μ- branching fraction and lifetime, and by studying the decay-time dependence of the selection efficiency for KS0π+π- decays in data. The yield from this background becomes comparable to the signal for a branching fraction lower than 2×10-11, which is well below the sensitivity of this search.

Semileptonic K¯0π+μ-ν¯μ decays with pion misidentification provide another possible source of background. Simulated events, where the pion is forced to decay to μν within the detector, are used to determine the efficiency of the offline selection requirements. No event survives the trigger selection. Under the very conservative hypothesis that the trigger efficiency is the same as in KS0μ+μ- decays, the expected yields from both KL0 and KS0 semileptonic decays are negligible.

Decays including a dimuon from resonances, like ωπ0μ+μ- and ημ+μ-γ, do not produce peaking structures in the mass distribution, and are accounted for in the combinatorial background.

Search sensitivity

The observed number of KS0μ+μ- candidates is converted into a branching fraction using the normalisation mode and its precisely known branching fraction B(KS0π+π-)=0.6920±0.0005 [4]. The computation is made in every BDTcb bin i and trigger category j as follows

B(KS0μ+μ-)=B(KS0π+π-)·ϵππϵijμμ·NijμμNππαijNijμμ, 1

where Nijμμ and Nππ denote the background-subtracted yields for the signal and normalisation modes, respectively. The total selection efficiencies ϵ can be factorised as

ϵππϵijμμ=ϵselππϵselμμ×ϵtrigππϵtrig;jμμ×1ϵBDT;ijμμ×1ϵμID;ij. 2

The first factor refers to the offline selection requirements, which are applied identically to both modes and cancel to first order in the ratio; the residual difference is mainly due to the different interaction cross-sections for pions and muons with the detector material, and is estimated from simulation. The second factor is the ratio of trigger efficiencies; the efficiency for the signal is determined from simulation, with its systematic uncertainty estimated from data-driven checks, while that for the normalisation mode is the prescale factor of the random trigger used to select KS0π+π-, (9.38±1.01)×10-8. The third factor reflects the fraction of candidates in each BDTcb bin, and is also determined from simulation. Finally, the efficiency of the BDTμ requirement is obtained from the B+J/ψK+ calibration sample described in Sect. 4, for each BDTcb bin and trigger category.

To account for the difference between the kaon pT spectra observed in the KS0π+π- decays in data and simulation, all efficiencies obtained from simulation are computed in six roughly equally populated pT bins. A weighted average of the efficiencies is then performed, where the weights are determined from the yields in each bin observed in data for KS0π+π- candidates.

The resulting values for the single candidate sensitivity αij are reported in Table 1. The quoted uncertainties are statistical only. They are separated between the uncertainty on ϵBDT;ijμμ, due to the limited statistics of simulated data and uncorrelated among BDTcb bins, and all the other statistical uncertainties, which are conservatively considered as fully correlated among bins within the same trigger category. Table 1 also presents the number of candidates around the KS0 mass. The separation between signal and background is presented in Sect. 7.

Table 1.

Values of the single candidate sensitivity αij and the number of candidates NijK compatible with the KS0 mass (reconstructed mass in the range [492,504]MeV/c2), for each BDTcb bin i and trigger category j. Only statistical uncertainties are given. The first uncertainty is uncorrelated, while the second is fully correlated among the BDTcb bins of the same trigger category

Bin i αiTOSμ(×10-10) αiTOSμμ(×10-9) NiTOSμK NiTOSμμK
1 7.48±0.84±0.16 5.30±0.72±0.12 49 13
2 7.72±0.87±0.17 4.71±0.63±0.10 28 9
3 7.85±0.89±0.18 4.88±0.65±0.11 9 14
4 7.93±0.89±0.19 4.66±0.62±0.10 18 10
5 7.53±0.85±0.18 4.65±0.61±0.10 6 3
6 7.78±0.88±0.19 4.95±0.66±0.11 2 2
7 7.56±0.85±0.19 4.60±0.61±0.10 3 1
8 7.90±0.89±0.19 5.00±0.67±0.11 2 1
9 7.81±0.88±0.18 4.72±0.63±0.11 1 1
10 7.75±0.87±0.17 4.66±0.62±0.11 0 0

Systematic uncertainties

Several systematic effects, summarised in Table 2, contribute to the uncertainty on the normalisation factors. Tracking efficiencies are not perfectly reproduced in simulated events. Corrections based on a J/ψμ+μ- data control sample are determined as a function of the muon p and η. The average effect of these corrections on the ratio ϵselππ/ϵselμμ and its standard deviation, added in quadrature, leads to a systematic uncertainty of 0.4%.

Table 2.

Relevant systematic uncertainties on the branching fraction. They are separated, using horizontal lines, into relative uncertainties on (i) αij, (ii) on the signal yield from the signal model used in the mass fit, and (iii) on the branching fraction, obtained combining the two categories, from the background model

Source TOSμ TOSμμ
Tracking (%) 0.4 0.4
Selection (%) 1.9 1.8
Trigger (%) 8.1 11.5
KS0 pT spectrum (%) 4.3 4.3
Muon identification (%) 0.2 0.3
Signal mass shape (%) 0.8 0.8
Background shape (%) 0.9

The distributions of all variables relevant to the selection are compared in data and simulation for KS0π+π- decays. The largest differences are found in the kaon pT and its decay vertex radial position. The effect on ϵselππ/ϵselμμ of applying a two-dimensional weight to account for these discrepancies is taken as a systematic uncertainty, and amounts to a relative 1.9 and 1.8% for the TOSμ and TOSμμ trigger categories, respectively.

The difference between data and simulation in the kaon pT spectrum could also affect the other factors in the computation of αij. An additional uncertainty is assigned by repeating the whole calculation with a finer binning in pT. Due to the limited size of the data samples, this is possible only in the TOSμ category. The average relative change in αij, 4.3%, is assigned as an uncertainty for both categories.

A specific cross-check is performed to validate the efficiencies predicted by the simulation for the BDTcb requirements. An alternative discriminant is made using a signal training sample consisting of trigger-unbiased KS0π+π- decays, selected with additional kinematic criteria which mimic the effect of the muon trigger selections. The distributions of this alternative discriminant in data and simulation are found to agree within the statistical uncertainty, and no systematic uncertainty is assigned.

The uncertainty due to the simulation of TOS selections in the first two trigger stages is assessed by comparing the trigger efficiency in simulation and data, using a control sample of B+J/ψK+ decays. The resulting relative differences, 8.1% for TOSμ and 11.5% for TOSμμ, are assigned as systematic uncertainties. No uncertainty is considered for the selection in the last trigger stage, which is based on the same offline kinematic variables used in the selection, for which a systematic uncertainty is already assigned.

The uncertainty on ϵμID;ij is estimated from half the difference between the values obtained with and without the weighting of the B+J/ψK+ sample used in the determination of the muon identification efficiency. This results in an uncertainty of 0.2 and 0.3% for the TOSμ and TOSμμ categories, respectively, which is comparable to the statistical uncertainties on these efficiencies due to the limited size of the B+J/ψK+ samples.

Systematic uncertainties on the signal yields Nijμμ are related to the assumed models for the reconstructed KS0 mass distribution, determined from simulation. Possible discrepancies from the shape in data are estimated by comparing the shape of the invariant mass distribution in data and simulation for KS0π+π- decays, leading to a relative 0.8% systematic uncertainty on the signal yield. The final fit for the determination of the branching fraction is performed with two different background models, as discussed in Sect. 7. This leads to a relative variation on the branching fraction of 0.9%, which is assigned as a systematic uncertainty.

Results

The μ+μ- mass distribution of the signal candidates is fitted in the range [470,600]MeV/c2 to determine the signal and background yield in each trigger category and BDTcb bin. The mass distribution of simulated signal candidates is best described by a Hypatia function [28]. Its parameters are determined from simulation and fixed in the fit to data. In the background model, a power law function describes the tail of the double-misidentification background from KS0π+π- decays, affecting the mass region below the KS0 mass, while the combinatorial background mass distribution is described by an exponential function. The background model is validated on simulation, and its parameters are left free in the fit to data to account for possible discrepancies. An alternative combinatorial background shape, based on a linear function, is used instead of the exponential function to determine a systematic uncertainty due to the choice of the background shape. The signal yields in each BDT bin for the two trigger categories are all compatible with the absence of KS0μ+μ- candidates. The μ+μ- invariant mass distributions for the two highest BDTcb bins, which exhibit the best signal-to-background ratio and therefore the best sensitivity for a discovery, are shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Fits to the reconstructed kaon mass distributions, for the two most sensitive BDTcb bins in the two trigger categories, TOSμ and TOSμμ. The fitted model is shown as the solid blue line, while the combinatorial background and KS0π+π- double misidentification are overlaid with dotted red and dashed green lines, respectively. For each fit, the pulls are shown on the lower smaller plots

A simultaneous maximum likelihood fit to the dimuon mass in all BDTcb bins is performed, using the values of αij given in Table 1 and the normalization channel yield Nππ, to determine the branching fraction. The KS0π+π- candidates are counted within the mass region [460,530] MeV/c2, leading to Nππ=70318±265. The quoted systematic uncertainties are included in the likelihood computation as nuisance parameters with Gaussian uncertainties. A posterior probability is obtained by multiplying the likelihood by a prior density, which is computed as the product of the likelihood from the 2011 analysis and a flat prior over the positive range of the branching fraction. Limits are obtained by integrating 90%(95%) of the area of the posterior probability distribution provided by the fit, as shown in Fig. 3. Due to the much larger sensitivity achieved with the 2012 data, the inclusion of the 2011 data result does not have a significant effect on the final limit, and a uniform prior would have provided very similar results. The expected upper limit, and the compatibility with background-only hypothesis have been computed by means of pseudoexperiments, where samples of background events are randomly generated according to the mass distribution obtained by the best fit to data. The median expected upper limit and its ±1σ range is B(KS0μ+μ-)<0.95-0.27+0.42(1.17-0.31+0.45)×10-9at90%(95%)CL. The observed limit is

B(KS0μ+μ-)<0.8(1.0)×10-9at90%(95%)CL.

The compatibility of the experimental measurement with the background-only model, expressed in terms of p value is 0.52.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Confidence level of exclusion for each value of the KS0μ+μ- branching fraction. The regions corresponding to 90% and 95% CL are emphasised in green (dark shading) and yellow (light shading), respectively

In conclusion, a search for the KS0μ+μ- decay based on a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 3fb-1 of proton-proton collisions, collected by the LHCb experiment at centre-of-mass energies s=7 and 8TeV, improves the upper limit for this decay by a factor 11 with respect to the previous search published by LHCb  [6], which is superseded by this result.

Acknowledgements

We express our gratitude to our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent performance of the LHC. We thank the technical and administrative staff at the LHCb institutes. We acknowledge support from CERN and from the national agencies: CAPES, CNPq, FAPERJ and FINEP (Brazil); MOST and NSFC (China); CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG and MPG (Germany); INFN (Italy); NWO (The Netherlands); MNiSW and NCN (Poland); MEN/IFA (Romania); MinES and FASO (Russia); MinECo (Spain); SNSF and SER (Switzerland); NASU (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); NSF (USA). We acknowledge the computing resources that are provided by CERN, IN2P3 (France), KIT and DESY (Germany), INFN (Italy), SURF (The Netherlands), PIC (Spain), GridPP (United Kingdom), RRCKI and Yandex LLC (Russia), CSCS (Switzerland), IFIN-HH (Romania), CBPF (Brazil), PL-GRID (Poland) and OSC (USA). We are indebted to the communities behind the multiple open source software packages on which we depend. Individual groups or members have received support from AvH Foundation (Germany), EPLANET, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions and ERC (European Union), Conseil Général de Haute-Savoie, Labex ENIGMASS and OCEVU, Région Auvergne (France), RFBR and Yandex LLC (Russia), GVA, XuntaGal and GENCAT (Spain), Herchel Smith Fund, The Royal Society, Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851 and the Leverhulme Trust (United Kingdom).

Footnotes

1

The inclusion of charge-conjugate processes is implied throughout.

References

  • 1.Ecker G, Pich A. The longitudinal muon polarization in KL0μ+μ- Nucl. Phys. B. 1991;366:189. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(91)90056-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Isidori G, Unterdorfer R. On the short-distance constraints from KL,S0μ+μ- JHEP. 2004;01:009. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2004/01/009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.G. D’Ambrosio, G. Ecker, G. Isidori, H. Neufeld, Radiative nonleptonic kaon decays. in 2nd DAPHNE Physics Handbook, pp. 265–313 (1994). arXiv:hep-ph/9411439
  • 4.Particle Data Group, C. Patrignani et al., Review of particle physics. Chin. Phys. C textbf40, 100001 (2016). doi:10.1088/1674-1137/40/10/100001. http://pdg.lbl.gov/
  • 5.Colangelo G, Stucki R, Tunstall LC. Dispersive treatment of KS0γγ and KS0γ+- Eur. Phys. J. C. 2016;76:604. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4449-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Search for the rare decay KS0μ+μ-. JHEP 01, 090 (2013). doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2013)090. arXiv:1209.4029
  • 7.Gjesdal S, et al. Search for the decay KS02μ. Phys. Lett. B. 1973;44:217. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(73)90525-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.LHCb collaboration, A.A. Alves Jr. et al., The LHCb detector at the LHC. JINST 3, S08005 (2008). doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08005
  • 9.LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., LHCb detector performance. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30, 1530022 (2015). doi:10.1142/S0217751X15300227. arXiv:1412.6352
  • 10.Aaij R, et al. The LHCb trigger and its performance in 2011. JINST. 2013;8:P04022. doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/8/04/P04022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Archilli F, et al. Performance of the muon identification at LHCb. JINST. 2013;8:P10020. doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/8/10/P10020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, P. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual. JHEP 05, 026 (2006). doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026. arXiv:hep-ph/0603175
  • 13.Sjöstrand T, Mrenna S, Skands P. A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1. Comput. Phys. Commun. 2008;178:852. doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2008.01.036. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Belyaev I, et al. Handling of the generation of primary events in Gauss, the LHCb simulation framework. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2011;331:032047. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/331/3/032047. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lange DJ. The EvtGen particle decay simulation package. Nucl. Instrum. Methods A. 2001;462:152. doi: 10.1016/S0168-9002(01)00089-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Golonka P, Was Z. PHOTOS Monte Carlo: A precision tool for QED corrections in Z and W decays. Eur. Phys. J. 2006;C45:97. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s2005-02396-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Geant4 collaboration, J. Allison et al., Geant4 developments and applications. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53, 270 (2006). doi:10.1109/TNS.2006.869826
  • 18.Geant4 collaboration, S. Agostinelli et al., Geant4: a simulation toolkit. Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 506, 250 (2003). doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8
  • 19.Clemencic M, et al. The LHCb simulation application, Gauss: design, evolution and experience. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2011;331:032023. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/331/3/032023. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Podolanski J, Armenteros R. Analysis of V-events. Phil. Mag. 1954;45:13. doi: 10.1080/14786440108520416. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olshen RA, Stone CJ. Classification and regression trees. Belmont: Wadsworth international group; 1984. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Freund Y, Schapire RE. A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 1997;55:119. doi: 10.1006/jcss.1997.1504. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.T. Chen, C. Guestrin, Xgboost: a scalable tree boosting system. in Proceedings of the 22Nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD ’16 (ACM, New York, 2016), pp. 785–794. doi:10.1145/2939672.2939785
  • 24.A. Blum, A. Kalai, J. Langford, Beating the hold-out: bounds for k-fold and progressive cross-validation. in Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory, COLT ’99 (ACM, New York, 1999), pp. 203–208. doi:10.1145/307400.307439
  • 25.A. Hocker et al., TMVA—toolkit for multivariate data analysis. PoS ACAT, 040 (2007). arXiv:physics/0703039
  • 26.G. Punzi, Sensitivity of searches for new signals and its optimization. in Statistical Problems in Particle Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology, ed. by L. Lyons, R. Mount, R. Reitmeyer (2003), p. 79. arXiv:physics/0308063
  • 27.T. Skwarnicki, A study of the radiative cascade transitions between the Upsilon-prime and Upsilon resonances, PhD thesis, Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow, 1986. DESY-F31-86-02. http://inspirehep.net/record/230779/
  • 28.D. Martínez Santos, F. Dupertuis, Mass distributions marginalized over per-event errors. Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 764, 150 (2014). doi:10.1016/j.nima.2014.06.081. arXiv:1312.5000

Articles from The European Physical Journal. C, Particles and Fields are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES