1. Hidden charm spectroscopy from B-factories
CHARM 2010, 21 Oct 2010, Beijing
Hidden charm spectroscopy from B-factories
Roman Mizuk (ITEP, Moscow)

2. Contents Conventional charmonium 3940 family 1– – states from ISR
(1S) →  + cc
Conventional charmonium
 → c , c(2S) –
3940 family
Update on B → K J/
1– – states from ISR
e+e- → Ds(*)+ Ds(*)– cross section
J/ states, Z±
X(3872) → talk by Alex Bondar

3.  → c → KsK+- 470 fb-1 Select using kinematics ISR rich sample
PRD81, (2010)
470 fb-1
no tag mode
Select using kinematics
ISR rich sample c
J/
J/
from ISR c
Simultaneous fit 
M (MeV)
 (MeV)
 BF(cKK) (keV)
2982.20.41.5
31.71.20.8
0.3790.0090.031
agree
CLEO : 0.0220.028
PDG’08 : 0.440.04

4.  → c → KsK+- M(c) (c) 470 fb-1 Included in PDG’10:
PRD81, (2010)
470 fb-1
Included in PDG’10:
M(c)
(c)
(c) : dominates world average.

5. Not seen in 4-meson final state (4, 2K2, 4K).
Status of c(2S)
2002
Observed in B → K (KSK-+) confirmed in , double cc.
the only known decay channel (before summer 2010)
Not seen in 4-meson final state (4, 2K2, 4K).
Belle EPJC53, 1 (2008)
M(c)
World average
M = 3637 ± 4MeV
not quite consistent
 = 14 ± 7 MeV
large error
 Motivation to study more final states.

6. Observation of  → c(2S) → 6 prong
Preliminary
no tag mode
Presented at ICHEP2010
923 fb-1
+ – + – + –
K+ K– + – + –
KS K+ – + – c
c0
c2
c(2S)
 pT*<0.1GeV
pT unbalanced
Signals of c , c0 , c2 , c(2S) in pT balanced component only
+ sizeable non-resonant  → 6 prong production.
 from  formation process

7. Observation of  → c(2S) → 6 prong
Preliminary
no tag mode
923 fb-1
+ – + – + –
K+ K– + – + –
KS K+ – + – c
c0
c2
c(2S)
c0
Events/5 MeV
c2
c(2S)

8. Observation of  → c(2S) → 6 prong
Preliminary
no tag mode
923 fb-1
+ – + – + –
K+ K– + – + –
KS K+ – + –
± 1.6 ± 2.3
± 1.6 ± 2.8
±1.8 ± 2.4 MeV
M (c)
10.7 ± 4.9
1.4
15.9 ± 5.7 MeV
 (c)
+6.3
–1.4
  BF
20.1 ± 3.7 ± 3.2
10.2 ± 2.3 ± 3.4
30.7 ± 3.9 ± 3.7 eV
8.5
6.2
8.7
Significance
c.f.   BF(c → KSK+–) = 68  21 eV
estimate from CLEO PRL92, (2004)
reference
c0
Events/5 MeV
c2
c(2S)

9. Observation of  → c(2S) → 6 prong
Preliminary
no tag mode
923 fb-1
+ – + – + –
K+ K– + – + –
KS K+ – + –
± 1.6 ± 2.3
± 1.6 ± 2.8
±1.8 ± 2.4 MeV
M (c)
10.7 ± 4.9
1.4
15.9 ± 5.7 MeV
 (c)
+6.3
–1.4
  BF
20.1 ± 3.7 ± 3.2
10.2 ± 2.3 ± 3.4
30.7 ± 3.9 ± 3.7 eV
8.5
6.2
8.7
Significance
Belle average over 3 decay modes:
M (c) = ± 1.1 ± 2.5 ± 5.0 MeV
 (c) = ± 3.2 ± 2.6 ± 2.0 MeV
last error from interference with continuum
Observation or evidence for new decay modes:
c0 ,  c2 → K+K-2(+-) , KsK+-+ c → KsK+-+-

10.  → c(2S) → KsK+- / K+K-+-0
no tag mode
Presented at ICHEP2010
521 fb-1
Preliminary
KsK+-
c(2S)
c2 c
M=3638.31.50.5 MeV
 = 4.42.5 MeV
N(c)= 6207030
J/
KsK+-
c(2S)
K+K-+-0
first observation
N(c)= 1190130180 c
c0
c2
c(2S)
J/
K+K-+-0

11. M,  – significant improvement in accuracy.
Summary on c(2S)
Average of PDG’10, Belle and BaBar
 (c) = 12.3 ± 3.1 MeV
c.f. (c) = 28.6 ± 2.2 MeV
M,  – significant improvement in accuracy.
 (c) <  (c) ?

12. Search for (1S) →  charmonium
5.7 fb-1
102106 (1S)
C-parity = +
PRD82,051504R (2010)
cJ → J/ 
Expectations: Gao et al., hep-ph/
c1
c0 bb cc
c2
J/ s.b.
State
BF (10-5)
Expect. UL
c0 3
<65
c1 1
<2.3
c2
0.6
<0.76 c 5
<5.7
c → KsK+-
K+K-
2(K+K-)
2(+-)
3(+-)
(90%CL)
J/ c
e+e- → ISR J/
c s.b.
No evidence for (1S) →  charmonium, no contradiction with expectations.

13. Search for (1S) →  charmonium-like states
C-parity = +
PRD82,051504R (2010)
X(3872) → +- J/
State
BF (10-5)
Expect. UL
c0 3
<65
c1 1
<2.3
c2
0.6
<0.76 c 5
<5.7
X(3872) → +- J/
<0.16
X(3872) → +-0 J/
<0.28
X(3915) →  J/
<0.30
Y(4140) →  J/
<0.22
e+e- → ISR 
one X(3872)
(90%CL)
X(3872), X(3915) → +-0 J/
 J/ – no events
No evidence for (1S) →  [X(3872), X(3915) or Y(4110)].
No evidence for excited charmonium states below 4.8 GeV.

14. States near 3940 MeV

15. see talk by Pavel Pakhlov
X(3940)
Y(3940)
Z(3930)
Probably the cc2’
e+e-  J/y DD*
BK wJ/y
gg  DD
PRL94,
PRL96,
JPC=2++
PRL100,
M(wJ/y)
M(DD)
M(DD*)
M=3940 ± 11 MeV
G = 92 ± 24 MeV
M = 3929 ± 5 ± 2 MeV
G = 29 ± 10 ± 2 MeV
M = ± 6 MeV
G = ± 12 MeV -6
-15
+ X(4160)
BaBar: PRL 101,
BaBar: PRD81,
M=3914 ± 5 MeV
G = 33 ± 10 MeV
M = ± 2.7 ± 1.1 MeV
G = 21.3 ± 6.8 ± 3.6 MeV
see talk by Pavel Pakhlov

16. Update on B → K J/ Main modification:
348/fb: PRL 101,
Main modification:
lower M(+-0) threshold  lower M(J/ ) threshold 
426/fb: PRD 82, 
 signal of X(3872)
 update on Y(3940) parameters
M= ±2.0 MeV
G= 31+10±5 MeV
-3.5 -8
M(wJ/y)

17. above open charm threshold.
Peak in gg  wJ/y
2010
PRL104, (2010)
Mass, MeV
X(3940)
X(3915)
7.7s
M = 3914  3  2 MeV
G = 23  MeV -8
c2 3s
Y(3940)
X(3915)
M(wJ/y)
Width, MeV
Assumption X(3915)=Y(3940) is compatible with data.
JY(3940)  1
If X(3915)=Z(3930)=cc2’ 
Huge for charmonium
above open charm threshold.

18. e+e– → 1–– final states via ISR

19. Above DD threshold, decay to open charm?
e+e– → ISR J/ () +- : Y(4008,4260,4360,4660)
PRL99,
670/fb
PRL99,
550/fb
PRL98,
298/fb
arXiv:
454/fb –
Above DD threshold, decay to open charm?

20. without radiative corrections
e+e– → open charm
Y(4008)
ψ(4040)
ψ(4160)
Y(4260)
Y(4360)
ψ(4415)
Y(4660)
ISR
without radiative corrections DD DD
D+D*-
DD*
D*+D*-
D*D*
D0D-π+
Y(4660) –
D0D*-π+
ΛcΛc
X(4630) –
No peaks of Y states, except X(4630) → cc close to Y(4660).
tetraquark?

21. Search for hybrids in their favorite decay mode
hybrid → D** D 1 – –
PRD80, R (2010)
→ (D*π) D
P-wave
Y(4260)
ψ(4415)
DD*
ψ(4415)
Y(4260)
No signal of Y´s
UL at 90% CL

22. e+e– → ISR Ds(*)+Ds(*)–
PRD82, (2010)
PRD80, (2009)
DsDs
Ds* Ds
Ds* Ds*
 (nb)
(4040)
(4160)
(4160)
(4415)
(4415)
 (nb)
Preliminary –
(e+e– → Ds(*)+Ds(*)–) << (e+e– → D(*)D(*))
Ds+Ds*– channel dominates
no Y signals
at 95%C.L.

23. DD DD* D*D* DDπ DD*π Λ+c Λ–c D(*)+s D(*)–s
Inclusive cross-section is now saturated by exclusive contributions.
Efforts to fit are welcome.

24. States decaying into J/

25. Update from CDF is available.
Y(4140)  J/  by CDF
PRL102, (2009)
B+  Y(4140) K+
>3.8
14±5 ev
M = ± 2.9 ± 1.2 MeV
 = ± 3.7 MeV
D*sD*s molecule?
[cscs] tetraquark?
-5.0
Br(B+→Y(4140)K+) Br(Y→J/)
CDF (9.0 ± 3.4 ± 2.9)10-6
Belle <6  at 90% CL
Update from CDF is available.

26. Study of    J/ No Y(4140) Disfavor DS*+DS*- molecule X(4350)
825 fb-1
PRL104,11204 (2010)
X(4350)
No Y(4140)
Disfavor DS*+DS*- molecule
X(4350) 
M = ± 0.7 MeV
Γ= ± 4.1 MeV
-5.1
- 9.1
Y(4140)
JP=0+: Γγγ BF = ± 1.1 eV
JP=2+: Γγγ BF = ± 0.3 eV
-2.3
-0.5
Excited P-wave charmonium?
Tetraquark?
Fl. Stancu, JPG37, (2010)
D*sD*s0 molecule? J.R.Zhang et al., arXiv: –

27. Charged states

28. Z(4430)± → ±  peak “K* Veto” : 45 +35 → 107 +110 MeV -18 - 70
Dalitz plot of B → K ± 
PRL100, (2008)
Z(4430)
M ( ) GeV
M2(±’) GeV2
6.5
M2() GeV2
“K* Veto”
PRD79, (2009)
BaBar: null result, significance ~2. K*
Belle: Dalitz analysis 
PRD80, (2009)
K*(1430)
: → MeV
-18
- 70
Significance ~6.5 is confirmed.

29. BaBar compared Belle and BaBar data and found that they are statistically consistent
Significance of Z(4430) at BaBar is ~2
Clash?
Significance of Z(4430) at Belle is 6.5

30. Belle and BaBar data look very similar…
with K* veto
Belle
BaBar
Result of Belle Dalitz plot analysis.
The same curve
divided by to account for smaller statistics at BaBar.
M ( ) GeV
M ( ) GeV
…clustering in M ( ) is present in both data samples,
only interpretation is different.

31. BaBar analysis of B → K  
Rectangular Dalitz plot
Background shape for 1-dimensional M() fit
background
estimation
procedure
cos K*
M() GeV
M(K) GeV
BaBar performed cross-check:
Result: bump in background with ~160 MeV
Input: Z(4430) signal with =45 MeV
background
estimation
procedure
N(Z) from fit
is 10% lower
than input N(Z)  correction
M() GeV
M() GeV
My comment: this approach is safe for Z(4430)= 45MeV << bump~ 160MeV.
Is it sensitive to wider Z(4430) with = MeV ?
- 70
BaBar considered only Z(4430) = 45 MeV.

32. Input from TEVATRON or LHC-B is needed.
Statistics at B-factories is insufficient to say “final word” about existence of Z(4430)+.
Input from TEVATRON or LHC-B is needed.

33. Dalitz plot for B0 → K- π+ c1– 1 2 3 4
PRD79, (2009)
M(c1)
all low-lying K* + two (π+ c1) resonances
Fit model
M(K)
all low-lying K* 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
No results from other experiments yet. 33

34. Conclusions Status of XYZ states remained unchanged over the last year
no new states were reported at B-factories
no originally reported states were negated
Recent results:
 → c , c(2S) : precise meas. of M and , new decay channels
Update on B → K J/
Meas. of e+e- → Ds(*)+ Ds(*)– cross section
B-factories completed operation, but analysis of their data is crucial for our understanding of hidden charm.
Thank you!