1. Gluonium content of the h'
B. Di Micco

2. Together with In order to fit the gluonium we use our measurement of
𝑅 φ = 𝐵𝑟 φ→η′γ 𝐵𝑟 φ→ηγ = cot 2 φ 𝑃 ⋅ cos 2 φ 𝐺 1− 𝑚 𝑠 𝑚 𝐶 𝑁𝑆 𝐶 𝑆 ⋅tan φ 𝑉 sin2 φ 𝑃  2 ⋅  𝑝 η′ 𝑝 η  3
Together with
Γ η′→γγ Γ π 0 →γγ =  𝑚 η′ 𝑚 π  3  5X η′ 𝑓 𝑞 𝑓 𝑠 𝑌 η′  2 Γ η′→ργ Γ ω→ π 0 γ = 𝐶 𝑁𝑆 cos φ 𝑉 ⋅3  𝑚 η′ 2 − 𝑚 ρ 2 𝑚 ω 𝑚 ω 2 − 𝑚 π 2 𝑚 η′  3 𝑋 η′ 2 Γ η′→ωγ Γ ω→ π 0 γ =  𝑚 η′ 2 − 𝑚 ω 2 𝑚 ω 𝑚 ω 2 − 𝑚 π 2 𝑚 η′  𝐶 𝑁𝑆 𝑋 η′ +2 𝑚 𝑠 𝑚 ˉ 𝐶 𝑠 ⋅tan φ 𝑉 ⋅ 𝑌 η′ 2
These parameters multiply the gluonium component
We took them from a fit to the same quantities + further constraints without assuming gluonium content

3. The Method
Full covariance matrix (correlation comes from the constrained fit to h' Br)
Re-evaluated at each minimization step

4. The MINUIT fit (The original fit was made with excel) Fit result
FCN= FROM MIGRAD STATUS=CONVERGED CALLS TOTAL
EDM= 0.46E STRATEGY= ERROR MATRIX ACCURATE
EXT PARAMETER STEP FIRST
NO. NAME VALUE ERROR SIZE DERIVATIVE
1 z E E E-02
2 PHIP E E-03
EXTERNAL ERROR MATRIX. NDIM= NPAR= ERR DEF= 1.00
0.109E E-01
-0.113E E+00
PARAMETER CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
NO. GLOBAL
This fit
Paper z2
0.140.03
0.140.04 fp
(39.7  0.7)°
(39.7  0.7)°

5. Check of the c2 behaviour Check of the c2 behaviour
Only one minimum in the whole parameters' domain.

6. Check of the Escribano hypothesis
Fit redone using Escribano fit parameters:
CNS =  CS=0.78 0.05
Fit
Paper z2
0.120.03
0.140.04 fp
(40.0  0.7)°
(39.7  0.7)°
The fit is very stable respect to the overlapping parameters
Just mean value and same error

7. 𝑧 𝑞 𝐸𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑜 𝑧 𝑞 𝐾𝐿𝑂𝐸 ~ 𝑧 𝑠 𝐸𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑜 𝑧 𝑠 𝐾𝐿𝑂𝐸 ~0.9
Escribano asserts that this is due to the use of different parameters zq and zs that we take from a fit without assumption of gluonium, we have investigated the dependence of the fit result from the zq and zs parameter.
KLOE zq = 0.91  zs = 0.89  0.07
Escribano zq = 0.83  zs = 0.79  0.05
𝑧 𝑞 𝐸𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑜 𝑧 𝑞 𝐾𝐿𝑂𝐸 ~ 𝑧 𝑠 𝐸𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑜 𝑧 𝑠 𝐾𝐿𝑂𝐸 ~0.9
c2 prob (%) 25 7 1 .1 zq zs
The gluonium is sensitive to a scale factor variation of both overlapping parameters. But to reach the null value we have to go far from the Escribano estimate and we obtain meaningless c2 values

8. 2
Improves the sensitivity

9. Using Br(wp0g)KLOE = 8.40±0.19 % (hep-ex:arXiv:0707.4130)
f P=(40.0 ± 0.7tot)°
|f G| = (21 ± 3)°
CS/CNS = 1.0  0.1
sin2G=Z2=0.13  0.04
C.L 55%
Stress that the fit are different and also the input values