Arxiv:1411.2035V1 [Hep-Ex] 7 Nov 2014 Yee Yrevt by Typeset .Drutskoy, A

arXiv:1411.2035v1 [hep-ex] 7 Nov 2014 yee yREVT by Typeset .Drutskoy, A. esrmn of Measurement .Bondar, A. .Grzymkowska, O. .Miyabayashi, K. .Aihara, H. .Vossen, A. .K Pedlar, K. T. .S Lee, S. I. .Mussa, R. .Shebalin, V. .Usov, Y. .Iwasaki, Y. .Cinabro, D. .Schneider, O. .Simon, F. .Gabyshev, N. .S Hou, W.-S. .Chekelian, V. .Ayad, R. .Kawasaki, T. .Ogawa, S. .Wiechczynski, J. .Yook, Y. .Krokovny, P. .Trabelsi, K. .H Kim, H. S. .Sakai, Y. .Watanabe, Y. .Tamponi, U. BELLE 4 13 4 61 19 22 6 58 36, 56 3 38 23, .VnHulse, Van C. .Bonvicini, G. 68 15 .Li, Y. 66 59 1 .A Said, Al S. 44 4 .N Wagner, N. M. .Nakao, M. 5 11 15, .M Bakich, M. A. nvriyo h aqeCutyUVEU 88 Bilbao 48080 UPV/EHU, Country Basque the of University 34 .Yusa, Y. 13 32 .Jaegle, I. .P Shen, P. C. 4 5 11 15, .Dalseno, J. .Okuno, S. 36 46 .Huschle, M. 42 .S Sohn, Y.-S. .Eidelman, S. 4 .Petriˇc,M. E .Ganguly, S. 45 .J Kim, J. Y. .Schnell, G. 1 X 65 .Kuhr, T. .Kichimi, H. .G Cheon, G. B. .Miyata, H. .Sandilya, S. 2 64 22, 25 45 .Haba, J. .Uchida, M. .L Gioi, Li L. .M Williams, M. K. B .Stypula, J. 46 14 .Tanida, K. 5 11 15, 6 28 56, 0 66 2 1 25 .P Zhang, P. Z. ehn nvriy ejn 100191 Beijing University, Beihang 2 .Joffe, D. 3 6 58 36, 24 → .Vanhoefer, P. 26 nvriyo on 31 Bonn 53115 Bonn, of University 68 26 .Bozek, A. .A Shibata, T.-A. 29 55 .Pakhlov, P. ,16 1, 9 5 11 15, 66 .Nanut, T. .Arinstein, K. 4 .E Piilonen, E. L. 46 .Kumita, T. 15 .H Wang, H. C. .Solovieva, E. .J Hyun, J. H. 57 .Kinoshita, K. .Bansal, V. TeBleCollaboration) Belle (The .Farhat, H. D .Garmash, A. 36 62 13 .Danilov, M. .Mizuk, R. .Schwanda, C. .Y Kim, Y. D. .Hara, T. .Santelj, L. 45 s .Libby, J. − .Uglov, T. .Cho, K. 52 27 K .Abdesselam, A. .Tatishvili, G. .K Joo, K. K. 45 fractions 65 S 51 0 24 3 38 23, π .Braˇcko,M. 36 .Won, E. .Zhilich, V. 63 66 48 .Natkaniec, Z. 5 11 15, 3 38 23, 4 + 29 31 62 43 18 23 .Varner, G. 3 38 23, 3 39 23, 24 .E Fast, E. J. .M Asner, M. D. 53 .Kuzmin, A. .Bhardwaj, V. 65 4 7 .Chobanova, V. .Pakhlova, G. .Iijima, T. and .Z Wang, M.-Z. .G Shiu, J.-G. .Liventsev, D. .Stariˇc,M. .Getzkow, D. 21 .R Ko, R. B. .Sanuki, T. .B Kim, B. J. .Ribeˇzl,E. .Hayasaka, K. .B Mohanty, B. G. 6 .Dingfelder, J. .Senyo, K. .Unno, Y. 30 .Julius, T. 48 B 5 24 35, 56 4 .Yamaoka, J. .Teramoto, Y. .Zhulanov, V. + 14 48 .Adachi, I. 1 40 41, 45 4 24 30 44 .E Browder, E. T. → .Vinokurova, A. 24 .Ferber, T. 60 48 30 .J Kwon, Y.-J. .K Nisar, K. N. 42 23 44 13 .Steder, M. 67 9 .Kodyˇs,P. .Shwartz, B. 15 .Ritter, M. .Ishikawa, A. .Aulchenko, V. 37 .Sato, Y. 36 .H Kim, H. J. 41 .Bhuyan, B. .Gillard, R. .W Park, W. C. .Wang, P. .Uno, S. D .Seon, O. .Lukin, P. .H Kang, H. K. 3 .K Choi, S.-K. .Hayashii, H. 57 s − .Doleˇzal,Z. 5 11 15, 48 K .Moll, A. 4 8 47 .Yashchenko, S. 60 + 5 11 15, E rpit2014-27 Preprint KEK 2014-16 Preprint Belle n .Zupanc A. and 5 .Frost, O. 8 .Adamczyk, K. 36 40 68 .Thorne, F. 20 57 K .Kriˇzan,P. 4 .Savinov, V. 29 .Sumihama, M. 4 66 14 17 4 60 .Rostomyan, A. .E Sevior, E. M. .S Lange, S. J. .Sibidanov, A. .Watanabe, M. .Matvienko, D. .Nishida, S. 54 + .Urquijo, P. .J Kim, J. M. .Vorobyev, V. 12 .M Goh, M. Y. 6 58 36, 4 D. .Bobrov, A. .Itoh, R. 31 5 42 .Park, H. .Aushev, T. branching .Choi, Y. .Drásal,Z. .Kato, E. Cervenkov, ˇ .H He, H. X. 8 .Mori, T. .Gaur, V. 3 24 33, 21 50 8 5 11 15, 5 11 15, 24 45 31 3 9 31 54 13 4 10 37 60 55 5 46 4 23 4 8 40 49 5 57 4Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics SB RAS and Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk 630090 5Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, 121 16 Prague 6Chonnam National University, Kwangju 660-701 7University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221 8Deutsches Elektronen–Synchrotron, 22607 Hamburg 9Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen, 35392 Gießen 10Gifu University, Gifu 501-1193 11The Graduate University for Advanced Studies, Hayama 240-0193 12Gyeongsang National University, Chinju 660-701 13Hanyang University, Seoul 133-791 14University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 15High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba 305-0801 16IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for Science, 48011 Bilbao 17Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Assam 781039 18Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036 19Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47408 20Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049 21Institute of High Energy Physics, Vienna 1050 22INFN - Sezione di Torino, 10125 Torino 23Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow 117218 24J. Stefan Institute, 1000 Ljubljana 25Kanagawa University, Yokohama 221-8686 26Institut für Experimentelle Kernphysik, Karlsruher Institut für Technologie, 76131 Karlsruhe 27Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw GA 30144 28Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589 29Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon 305-806 30Korea University, Seoul 136-713 31Kyungpook National University, Daegu 702-701 32Ecole´ Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne 1015 33Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana 34Luther College, Decorah, Iowa 52101 35University of Maribor, 2000 Maribor 36Max-Planck-Institut für Physik, 80805 München 37School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010 38Moscow Physical Engineering Institute, Moscow 115409 39Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow Region 141700 40Graduate School of Science, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-8602 41Kobayashi-Maskawa Institute, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-8602 42Nara Women’s University, Nara 630-8506 43National United University, Miao Li 36003 44Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10617 45H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow 31-342

2 46Niigata University, Niigata 950-2181 47Osaka City University, Osaka 558-8585 48Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington 99352 49Peking University, Beijing 100871 50University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260 51University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026 52Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742 53Soongsil University, Seoul 156-743 54Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 440-746 55School of Physics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 56Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Tabuk, Tabuk 71451 57Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai 400005 58Excellence Cluster Universe, Technische Universität München, 85748 Garching 59Toho University, Funabashi 274-8510 60Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8578 61Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033 62Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo 152-8550 63Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo 192-0397 64University of Torino, 10124 Torino 65CNP, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 66Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48202 67Yamagata University, Yamagata 990-8560 68Yonsei University, Seoul 120-749 Abstract 0 + − 0 + − + + We report a measurement of the B and B meson decays to the Ds KSπ and Ds K K final states, respectively, using 657 × 106BB pairs collected at the Υ(4S) resonance with the Belle + − − − ∗ 0 − detector at the KEKB asymmetric-energy e e collider. Using the Ds → φπ , K (892) K 0 − and KSK decay modes for the Ds reconstruction, we measure the following branching fractions: 0 − 0 + −4 + − + + B(B → Ds KSπ ) = [0.47 ± 0.06(stat) ± 0.05(syst)] × 10 and B(B → Ds K K ) = [0.93 ± −5 + − + + 0.22(stat) ± 0.10(syst)] × 10 . We find the ratio of the branching fraction of B → Ds K K to + − + + that of the analogous Cabibbo favored B → Ds K π decay to be RB = 0.054 ± 0.013(stat) ± 0.006(syst), which is consistent with the na¨ıve factorization model. We also observe a deviation from the three-body phase-space model for both studied decays.

PACS numbers: 13.20.He, 14.40.Nd, 14.40.Lb

3 0 − 0 + + − + + The dominant process for the decays B → Ds KSπ and B → Ds K K [1] is me- diated by the b → c quark transition with subsequent W fragmentation to a charged pion or kaon and includes the production of an additional ss pair, as shown in Fig. 1. As the + − + + process B → Ds K K is Cabibbo suppressed due to the formation of a us¯ pair from the W vertex (Fig. 1a), its branching fraction can be compared to the measured branching + − + + fraction of the Cabibbo favored B → Ds K π decay [2, 3]. Within the framework of na¨ıve

(a) s (b) d K+ W+ W+ u u b c D − b c D − s s s s B+ B0

s + s 0 u u K d d K

+ − + + 0 − 0 + FIG. 1. Dominant Feynman diagram for the (a) B → Ds K K and (b) B → Ds KSπ decay. factorization [4], the ratio of these branching fractions should be proportional to the ratio of the squares of the CKM matrix elements Vud and Vus [5, 6]. Such a comparison allows us to check the validity of existing theoretical descriptions of the three-body hadronic decays. In − 0 + − + + addition, the two-body subsystem of the Ds KSπ and Ds K K final states merits study − + since a significant deviation from the simple phase-space model was observed in the Ds K + − + + invariant mass for the similar process B → Ds K π [2, 3] and also in the semileptonic + (∗)− + + process B → Ds K l νl [7]. This constitutes a potential source of new spectroscopy discoveries. 0 − 0 + + − + + Both B → Ds KSπ and B → Ds K K decay modes have been observed by BaBar [3] and call for confirmation. In this paper, we report measurements of the branching fractions 0 − 0 + + − + + for B → Ds KSπ and B → Ds K K and compare the latter’s with the branching frac- + − + + tion for B → Ds K π . The invariant mass distributions for the two-body subsystems are studied to evaluate the discrepancy from the phase-space model. The analysis is performed on a data sample containing (657 ± 9) × 106 BB pairs collected with the Belle detector at the KEKB asymmetric-energy e+e− collider [8] operating at the Υ(4S) resonance. The production rates of B+B− and B0B0 pairs are assumed to be equal. The Belle detector [9] is a large-solid-angle magnetic spectrometer that consists of a silicon vertex detector (SVD), a 50-layer central drift chamber (CDC), an array of aerogel threshold Cherenkov counters (ACC), a barrel-like arrangement of time-of-flight scintillation counters (TOF), and an electromagnetic calorimeter composed of CsI(Tl) crystals, all located inside a superconducting solenoid coil that provides a 1.5 T magnetic field. An iron flux return 0 located outside of the coil is instrumented to detect KL mesons and to identify muons. Two inner detector configurations were used: a 2.0 cm beam pipe with a 3-layer SVD for the first sample of 152 × 106BB pairs and a 1.5 cm beam pipe with a 4-layer SVD for the remaining 505 × 106BB pairs [10]. Charged tracks are required to have a distance of closest approach to the interaction point of less than 5.0 cm along the positron beam direction (defined to be the z-axis) and less than 0.5 cm in the transverse plane. In addition, charged tracks must have transverse momenta larger than 100 MeV/c. To identify charged hadrons, we combine information from the CDC, ACC and TOF into pion, kaon and proton likelihoods Lπ, LK and Lp, respectively. For a

4 kaon candidate, we require the likelihood ratio LK/π = LK/(LK +Lπ) to be greater than 0.6. Pions are selected from track candidates with low kaon probabilities satisfying LK/π < 0.95. For kaons (pions), we also apply a proton veto criterion: Lp/K(Lp/π) < 0.95. In addition, we reject all charged tracks consistent with an electron (or muon) hypothesis Le(µ) < 0.95, where Le and Lµ are respective lepton likelihoods. The above requirements result in a typical momentum-dependent kaon (pion) identification efficiency ranging from 92% to 97% (94% to 98%) for various channels, with 2-15% of kaon candidates being misidentified as pions and 4-8% of pion candidates being misidentified as kaons. − + − − ∗ 0 The Ds candidates are reconstructed in three final states: φ(→ K K )π , K (892) (→ + − − 0 + − − + − + − ∗ 0 K π )K and KS(→ π π )K . We retain K K (K π ) pairs as φ (K (892) ) candidates if their invariant mass lies within 10 (100) MeV/c2 of the nominal φ (K∗(892)0) mass [11]. This requirement has 91% (95%) efficiency for the respective Ds decay mode. 0 Candidate KS mesons are selected by combining pairs of oppositely charged tracks (treated 2 0 as pions) with an invariant mass within 16 MeV/c (3σ) of the nominal KS mass. In addition, the vertices of these track pairs must be displaced from the interaction point by at least 0.5 cm. 0 A B candidate is reconstructed by combining the Ds candidate with a selected KS and 0 − 0 + + a charged pion for B → Ds KSπ , and with a pair of kaons of the same charge for B → − + + 2 Ds K K . A quality requirement on the B vertex-fit statistic (χB/NDF < 60) to the − + + − 0 + Ds K K (Ds KSπ ) trajectories is applied, where the Ds mass is constrained to its world- average value [11] and NDF is the number of degrees of freedom. The signal decays are identified by three kinematic variables: the Ds invariant mass, the energy difference ∆E = 2 2 2 2 EB − Ebeam, and the beam-energy-constrained mass Mbc = ( Ebeam −|~pB| c )/c . Here, EB and ~pB are the reconstructed energy and momentum of thep B candidate, respectively, + − and Ebeam is the run-dependent beam energy, all calculated in the e e center-of-mass (CM) frame. We retain candidate events in the three-dimensional region defined by 1.91 GeV/c2 < 2 2 2 M(Ds) < 2.03 GeV/c , 5.2 GeV/c < Mbc < 5.3 GeV/c and −0.2 GeV < ∆E < 0.2 GeV. In the fit described later, we use a narrower range −0.08 GeV < ∆E < 0.20 GeV to exclude the possible contamination from B → DsX decays having higher multiplicities. From a GEANT3 [12] based Monte Carlo (MC) simulation, we find the signal peaks in a region 2 2 2 2 defined by 1.9532 GeV/c < M(Ds) < 1.9832 GeV/c , 5.27 GeV/c < Mbc < 5.29 GeV/c and |∆E| < 0.03 GeV. Based on MC simulation, the region 2.88 GeV/c2 < M(cc) < 3.18 2 + + 0 0 GeV/c is excluded to remove background from B → (cc)K or B → (cc)KS decays, where (cc) denotes a charmonium state such as the J/ψ or ηc and M(cc) is the invariant + − + − 0 + − mass of its decay products (K K π π or KSK π for the corresponding Ds mode). 0 − 0 + + − + + We find that, for the B → Ds KSπ (B → Ds K K ) decays, the average number of B candidates per event is 1.14 (1.04). If an event has more than one B candidate, we select 2 the one with the smallest value of χB. We exploit the event topology to discriminate between spherical BB events and the dominant background from jet-like continuum e+e− → qq (q = u, d, s, c) events. We require the event shape variable R2, defined as the ratio of the second- and zeroth-order Fox-Wolfram moments [13], to be less than 0.4 to suppress the continuum background. Large MC samples are used to evaluate possible background from BB¯ and continuum qq¯ 0 − 0 + events for both studied channels. In the B → Ds KSπ analysis, a significant contribution 0 − + + 0 + 0 + from B → Ds D , D → KSπ is identified. We require the quantity |M(KSπ ) − mD+ | 2 0 − + to be less (greater) than 30 MeV/c to select the B → Ds D control sample (to suppress + the charm contribution), where mD+ is the world-average value of the D meson mass.

5 ) )

2 25 2 35 30

30 25 20 25 20 15 20 Events/(10 MeV) 15 Events/(3 MeV/c Events/(4 MeV/c 15 10 10 10 5 5 5

0 0 0 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 5.2 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25 5.26 5.27 5.28 5.29 1.92 1.94 1.96 1.98 2 2.02 ∆ 2 2 E [GeV] Mbc [GeV/c ] M(DS) [GeV/c ] ) )

2 50 2 40 30

35 40 25 30 20 25 30 Events/(10 MeV) 20 Events/(3 MeV/c Events/(4 MeV/c 15 20 15 10 10 10 5 5

0 0 0 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 5.2 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25 5.26 5.27 5.28 5.29 1.92 1.94 1.96 1.98 2 2.02 ∆ 2 2 E [GeV] Mbc [GeV/c ] M(DS) [GeV/c ] ) )

2 2 25 30 30

25 20 25

20 20 15 Events/(10 MeV) Events/(3 MeV/c Events/(4 MeV/c 15 15 10

10 10

5 5 5

0 0 0 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 5.2 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25 5.26 5.27 5.28 5.29 1.92 1.94 1.96 1.98 2 2.02 ∆ 2 2 E [GeV] Mbc [GeV/c ] M(DS) [GeV/c ]

0 − − 0 + FIG. 2. Distributions of ∆E, Mbc and M(Ds) for (top) B → Ds (→ φπ )KS π , (middle) 0 − ∗0 − 0 + 0 − 0 − 0 + B → Ds (→ K K )KSπ , and (bottom) B → Ds (→ KSK )KSπ decays. The distribution for each quantity is shown in the signal region of the remaining two. The blue solid curves show the results of the overall ﬁt described in the text, the green dotted curves correspond to the signal component, the red long-dashed curves indicate the combinatorial background (including 0 the peaking Ds component) and the pink dot-dashed curves represent the peaking B background.

Furthermore, we identify a peaking background arising from the B0 decaying to the same 0 final state of five hadrons (“B peaking background”). Such events do not contain a Ds meson in the decay chain and mainly include (cc¯) states like ψ(2S), ηc(2S), χc1(1P ) and + − + + + (∗)− + + χc0(1P ). We find a significant contribution to B → Ds K K from the B → Ds K π ∗ decays owing to pion misidentification (or a missing photon in the Ds reconstruction). We evaluate the shape of this contribution in the ∆E, Mbc and M(Ds) projections using MC + (∗)− + + + − + + samples of the B → Ds K π processes after subjecting them to the B → Ds K K selection. Finally, we identify an additional background contribution containing good Ds

6 ) ) 16 2 20 2 18 12 14 16 12 10 14

10 12 8 Events/(10 MeV)

8 Events/(3 MeV/c 10 Events/(4 MeV/c 6 8 6 6 4 4 4 2 2 2

0 0 0 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 5.2 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25 5.26 5.27 5.28 5.29 1.92 1.94 1.96 1.98 2 2.02 ∆ 2 2 E [GeV] Mbc [GeV/c ] M(DS) [GeV/c ]

) ) 22 2 2 20 25 25 18

20 20 16 14 12 Events/(10 MeV) 15 15 Events/(3 MeV/c Events/(4 MeV/c 10

10 10 8 6

5 5 4 2 0 0 0 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 5.2 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25 5.26 5.27 5.28 5.29 1.92 1.94 1.96 1.98 2 2.02 ∆ 2 2 E [GeV] Mbc [GeV/c ] M(DS) [GeV/c ]

) ) 22 25 2 20 2 20 18 18 20 16 16 14 14 15 12 12 Events/(10 MeV)

Events/(3 MeV/c 10 Events/(4 MeV/c 10 10 8 8 6 6 5 4 4 2 2 0 0 0 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 5.2 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25 5.26 5.27 5.28 5.29 1.92 1.94 1.96 1.98 2 2.02 ∆ 2 2 E [GeV] Mbc [GeV/c ] M(DS) [GeV/c ]

+ − − + + + FIG. 3. Distributions of ∆E, Mbc and M(Ds) for (top) B → Ds (→ φπ )K K , (middle) B → − ∗0 − + + + − 0 − + + Ds (→ K K )K K , and (bottom) B → Ds (→ KSK )K K decays. The distribution for each quantity is shown in the signal region of the remaining two. The blue solid curves show the results of the overall ﬁt described in the text, the green dotted curves correspond to the signal component, the red long-dashed curves indicate the combinatorial background (including the (∗) peaking Ds component) and the pink dot-dashed curves represent the B → Ds Kπ contribution.

+ + 0 + candidates randomly combined with K K or KSπ (“Ds peaking background”). All aforementioned background contributions are taken into account in our ﬁtting procedures. The signal yields are obtained from unbinned extended maximum-likelihood ﬁts to the [∆E, Mbc, M(Ds)] distributions of the selected candidate events. The likelihood function is given by 1 N L = · exp − N · N Pj , (1) N! j j i Xj Yi=1 Xj

7 ) )

2 25 2

15 20

15 10

5 5 Events/(0.15 GeV/c Events/(0.10 GeV/c

0 0

-5

-5 -10 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 0 2 2 M(DSKS) [GeV/c ] M(DSKlow) [GeV/c ]

− 0 0 − 0 + − + FIG. 4. Invariant mass distributions of (left) Ds KS for the B → Ds KSπ and (right) Ds Klow + − + + for B → Ds K K decay events in the signal region of ∆E, Mbc and MDs after applying all selection criteria. Points with error bars represent the data after subtraction of the background con- 2 2 tribution, estimated from the Mbc sideband (5.22 GeV/c < Mbc < 5.26 GeV/c ). The histograms show the phase-space distribution of the signal MC sample normalized to the data luminosity.

j where j runs over the signal and background components, i is the event index, Nj and Pi denote the yield and probability density functions (PDFs) for each component, respectively, and N is the total number of data events. Neglecting the small correlation between each pair of ﬁt observables, we construct the overall PDF as a product of their individual PDFs. Two components, signal and combinatorial background (j = sig, cmb), are common for B0 → − 0 + + − + + Ds KSπ and B → Ds K K . Their respective PDF parameterizations are constructed as

sig i i sig i (1) (2) sig Pi = G(∆E ; ∆E, σ∆E) × G(Mbc; mB, σMbc ) × G2 M (Ds); mDs , σDs , σDs , fDs (2) and

cmb i i peak bkg i (1) (2) bkg Pi = p2(∆E ; w0,w1,w2) × A(Mbc; ζ) × fDs · G2 M (Ds); mDs , σDs , σDs , fDs h peak i + (1 − fDs ) · p2(M (Ds); v0, v1, v2) . i (3)

Here, we use a Gaussian function (G) to parameterize the signal PDF in ∆E and Mbc and a double-Gaussian function (G2) with a common mean for the M(Ds) distribution. The combinatorial background component utilizes a second-order Chebyshev polynomial (p2) in 2 the ∆E distribution and an ARGUS function [14], A(Mbc,ζ) ∝ Mbc · 1 − (Mbc/Ebeam) · 2 −ζ(1−(Mbc/Ebeam) ) e for the Mbc distribution, where ζ is a ﬁt parameter.p The combinatorial background’s M(Ds) distribution is described by the sum of a double-Gaussian function for the “Ds peaking background” and a second-order Chebyshev polynomial with a relative

8 TABLE I. Signal yields, average reconstruction eﬃciencies, statistical signiﬁcances and branching 0 − 0 + + − + + fractions for B → Ds KSπ and B → Ds K K decays.

Decay Nsig ǫav[%] S[σ] B 0 − − 0 + +7.1 B → Ds (→ φπ )KSπ 34.6−6.3 9.09 ± 0.19 7.4 0.37 ± 0.08 0 − ∗0 − 0 + +8.9 −4 B → Ds (→ K K )KSπ 32.9−8.2 5.99 ± 0.16 4.5 0.46 ± 0.13 × 10 0 − 0 − 0 + +7.4 B → Ds (→ KSK )KS π 29.2−6.7 8.68 ± 0.29 5.7 0.72 ± 0.18 simultaneous: 10.1 0.47 ± 0.06 ± 0.05 + − − + + +5.0 B → Ds (→ φπ )K K 15.2−4.3 11.62 ± 0.14 5.1 0.87 ± 0.29 + − ∗0 − + + +4.7 −5 B → Ds (→ K K )K K 3.8−3.8 10.22 ± 0.13 1.0 0.22 ± 0.31 × 10 + − 0 − + + +6.5 B → Ds (→ KSK )K K 21.5−5.7 12.11 ± 0.29 5.2 2.64 ± 0.78 simultaneous: 6.6 0.93 ± 0.22 ± 0.10

peak fraction fDs of these two components. The double-Gaussian function for component j is deﬁned as

j i (1) (2) j j i (1) G M (Ds); mDs , σ , σ , f = f · G M (Ds); mDs , σ 2 Ds Ds Ds Ds Ds (4) j i (2) + (1 − fDs ) · G M (Ds); mDs , σDs ,

j where fDs denotes the relative contribution of the core over the tail Gaussian in the M(Ds) distribution. (1) (2) In Eqs. (2-4), ∆E, mB, mDs , σ∆E, σMbc , σDs , σDs (the respective mean values and widths peak sig(bkg) of the Gaussians), fDs and fDs are fit parameters. For both channels studied, the (1) (2) sig(bkg) + + 0 parameters σDs , σDs and fDs are fixed to the values obtained from the B → Ds D 0 − + + + 0 control channel. In addition, we use the B → Ds D (B → Ds D ) control sample to determine the signal width values for the ∆E and Mbc distributions that are later fixed in 0 − 0 + + − + + the fit to the B → Ds KSπ (B → Ds K K ) data sample. 0bkg (∗) − 0 + An additional background component j = B (j = Ds Kπ) is introduced for Ds KSπ − + + 0 − 0 + (Ds K K ), according to the results of dedicated MC studies. For the B → Ds KSπ decay, we define

B0bkg i i i Pi = G(∆E ; ∆E, σ∆E) × G(Mbc; mB, σMbc ) × p2(M (Ds); v0, v1, v2), (5)

0 + − + + to model the B peaking background. For the B → Ds K K channel, the respective background PDF contribution is deﬁned by

(∗) C Ds Kπ DsKπ i b b1 b2 DsKπ i C C C Pi = f · Gb(∆E ; ∆E , σ∆E, σ∆E)+(1 − f ) · C(∆E ; ∆E , σ ,α , n ) h i DsKπ i DsKπ i b b1 b2 × f · G(Mbc; mB, σMbc )+(1 − f ) · Gb(Mbc; mB, σMbc , σMbc ) h i i (1) (2) sig × G2 M (Ds); mDs , σDs , σDs , fDs , (6)

9 0 − 0 + TABLE II. Systematic uncertainties (in %) on the branching fractions for B → Ds KSπ and + − + + B → Ds K K decay modes. 0 − 0 + + − + + Source B → Ds KSπ B → Ds K K (a) Selection procedure ±3.6 ±3.6 (b) Background components -3.4 +1.7 (c) Signal shape ±3.4 ±4.6 (d) MC statistics and ﬁt bias ±2.8 ±2.9

(e) Bint ±5.2 ±5.2 (f) Tracking ±3.6 ±4.6 (g) Hadron identiﬁcation ±3.1 ±4.9 0 (h) KS reconstruction ±5.9 ±1.0 (i) Uncertainty in N(BB) ±1.4 ±1.4 Total ±11.3 ±11.0

where a bifurcated Gaussian (Gb) and a Crystal Ball function (C)[15] are used to parameterize + (∗)− + + b b1 b2 b b1 b2 the B → Ds K π component. The relevant parameters (∆E , σ∆E, σ∆E, mB, σMbc , σMbc C C C C + (∗)− + + for Gb and ∆E , σ ,α , n for C) are fixed from a fit to the B → Ds K π MC samples; DsKπ ∗ f , the relative contribution of DsKπ and Ds Kπ events, is evaluated from the DsKπ ∗ and Ds Kπ MC samples for each Ds mode. The values of the remaining quantities are treated 0 − 0 + in a fashion similar to that of the B → Ds KSπ channel. The obtained signal yields (Nsig) are listed in Table I. Figures 2 and 3 show the distributions of ∆E, Mbc and M(Ds) for 0 − 0 + + − + + B → Ds KSπ and B → Ds K K , respectively, together with the fits described above. − 0 − + We study the invariant mass distribution of the Ds KS (Ds Klow) subsystem in the − 0 + − + + + Ds KSπ (Ds K K ) final state, where Klow is the kaon with the lower momentum. These distributions exhibit a surplus in the low DsK mass region with enhancements around 2 2.7 GeV/c (Fig. 4). For each Ds decay mode in both channels, we obtain the respective branching fraction (B) by performing another fit by substituting Nsig in Eq.(1) with

Nsig = B· ǫ(M(DsK)) · NBB¯ · Bint, (7) where NBB¯ denotes the number of B meson pairs in the data sample and Bint is the product of branching fractions for the decays of the intermediate resonances in the respective decay chain. To account for efficiency variations for observed data, we use an efficiency ǫ(M(DsK)) that is measured in bins of M(DsK). The combined branching fraction is calculated by − performing a simultaneous fit to the three Ds decay modes using a common B value. The average reconstruction efficiencies (ǫav), branching fractions and the signal yields, together with their statistical significances (S), are listed in Table I. The significance is

deﬁned as −2ln(L0/Lmax), where Lmax (L0) denotes the maximum likelihood with the signal yieldp at its nominal value (ﬁxed to zero). The ǫav values are calculated from Eq.(7) using the obtained Nsig and B values for each channel, where ǫ(M(DsK)) is replaced by ǫav. The systematic uncertainties, described below, are evaluated for the full data sample for all three Ds decay modes. Systematic uncertainties are listed in Table II. The contribution due to the selection procedure, item (a), is dominated by the R2 requirement. It is estimated in the control

10 channel by comparing the signal ratios for the data and dedicated MC sample. Each ratio is constructed by dividing the nominal signal yield by that without the R2 requirement. The 0 − 0 + uncertainty due to the background components (b) for B → Ds KSπ decay is determined by studying the possible influence of the low-∆E region on the signal yield by adding the respective component to the PDF, which includes a peaking background in the Mbc and + − + + MDs variables. For B → Ds K K , we compare the nominal branching fraction with the + ∗− + + one obtained from the fit with the B → Ds K π component ignored in the PDF. To evaluate the contribution related to the signal shape (c), we repeat the fits while varying the fixed shape parameters by ±1σ. The uncertainty due to limited MC statistics (d) is dominated by the statistical error on the selection efficiency. It is evaluated by varying the 0 ǫ(M(DsK)) values within their statistical errors in the efficiency distributions over M(DsKS) and M(DsK) and comparing the modified branching fractions with the nominal values. This uncertainty also includes a small contribution from the possible fit bias, which is evaluated by comparing the number of MC signal events with the corresponding value obtained from the fit. Contribution (e) is due to uncertainties in the branching fractions for the decays of intermediate particles, predominantly those of the Ds [11]. The overall systematic error is obtained by summing all contributions in quadrature. + − + + Using the branching fraction for the B → Ds K π decay [2] obtained with a method + − + + similar to that of the B → Ds K K studies, we calculate the ratio

+ − + + B(B → Ds K K ) B R ≡ + − + + =0.054 ± 0.013(stat) ± 0.006(syst), (8) B(B → Ds K π ) where the common systematic uncertainties cancel. The value of the ratio is consistent with the theoretical expectation from the na¨ıve factorization model,

2 2 th |Vus| fK V(DsKK) RB = · · =0.066 ± 0.001, (9) |Vud| fπ V(DsKπ) where fh is the decay constant for a given hadron h [11] and V(DsKh) is the phase-space volume for the respective ﬁnal state. In summary, we have determined the following branching fractions:

0 − 0 + −4 B(B → Ds KSπ ) = [0.47 ± 0.06(stat) ± 0.05(syst)] × 10 (10) and + − + + −5 B(B → Ds K K ) = [0.93 ± 0.22(stat) ± 0.10(syst)] × 10 . (11) They are consistent with, and more precise than, the values reported by the BaBar Collab- oration [3]. The comparison of the branching fractions for the Cabibbo-suppressed decay + − + + + − + + B → Ds K K to the Cabibbo-favored B → Ds K π process yields a result com- patible with the na¨ıve factorization hypothesis. We also find a deviation from the simple phase-space model in the DsK invariant-mass distributions for both decays. A similar and significant effect has already been observed in other hadronic [2, 3] and semileptonic [7] decays. This phenomenon may be related to strong interaction effects in thecs ¯ sq¯ quark system (q = d,u) and, in particular, might be explained by the production of charm resonances with (∗) masses below the Ds K threshold [16]. A more detailed analysis of the enhancement (e.g., a study of the angular distribution) requires larger data samples that will be accessible to the LHCb [17] and Belle II [18] experiments.

11 We thank the KEKB group for the excellent operation of the accelerator; the KEK cryogenics group for the eﬃcient operation of the solenoid; and the KEK computer group, the National Institute of Informatics, and the PNNL/EMSL computing group for valuable computing and SINET4 network support. We acknowledge support from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) of Japan, the Japan So- ciety for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), and the Tau-Lepton Physics Research Center of Nagoya University; the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Industry, Innovation, Science and Research; Austrian Science Fund under Grant No. P 22742-N16 and P 26794-N20; the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Contracts No. 10575109, No. 10775142, No. 10825524, No. 10875115, No. 10935008 and No. 11175187; the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic under Contract No. LG14034; the Carl Zeiss Foundation, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the VolkswagenStiftung; the Department of Science and Technology of India; the Isti- tuto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare of Italy; National Research Foundation of Korea Grants No. 2011-0029457, No. 2012-0008143, No. 2012R1A1A2008330, No. 2013R1A1A3007772, No. 2014R1A2A2A01005286, No. 2014R1A2A2A01002734, No. 2014R1A1A2006456; the BRL program under NRF Grant No. KRF-2011-0020333, No. KRF-2011-0021196, Center for Korean J-PARC Users, No. NRF-2013K1A3A7A06056592; the BK21 Plus program and the GSDC of the Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information; the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education and the National Science Center; the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation and the Russian Federal Agency for Atomic Energy; the Slovenian Research Agency; the Basque Foundation for Science (IKERBASQUE) and the UPV/EHU under program UFI 11/55; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the Na- tional Science Council and the Ministry of Education of Taiwan; and the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation. This work is supported by a Grant-in-Aid from MEXT for Science Research in a Priority Area (“New Development of Flavor Physics”) and from JSPS for Creative Scientiﬁc Research (“Evolution of Tau-lepton Physics”).

[1] Throughout the paper, the inclusion of the charge-conjugate decay mode is implied unless otherwise stated. [2] J. Wiechczynski et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 80, 052005 (2009). [3] B. Aubert et al. (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 171803 (2008). [4] M. J. Dugan and B. Grinstein, Phys. Lett. B 255, 583 (1991). [5] N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 531 (1963). [6] M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49, 652 (1973). [7] J. Stypula et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 86, 072007(R) (2012). [8] S. Kurokawa and E. Kikutani, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect., A 499, 1 (2003), and other papers included in this Volume; T. Abe et al., Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. (2013) 03A001 and following articles up to 03A011. [9] A. Abashian et al. (Belle Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 479, 117 (2002); also see the detector section in J. Brodzicka et al., Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. (2012) 04D001. [10] Z. Natkaniec et al. (Belle SVD2 Group), Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 560, 1 (2006). [11] J. Beringer et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 86, 010001 (2012).

12 [12] R. Brun et al., GEANT 3.21, CERN REPORT DD/EE/84-1, 1984. [13] G. C. Fox and S. Wolfram, Phys. Rev. Lett. 41, 1581 (1978). [14] H. Albrecht et al. (ARGUS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 241, 278 (1990). [15] T. Skwarnicki, Ph.D. Thesis, DESY F31-86-02(1986), Appendix E. [16] O. Antipin and G. Valencia, Phys. Lett. B 647, 164 (2007). [17] A. A. Alves Jr. et al. (LHCb Collaboration), JINST 3 S08005 (2008). [18] T. Abe et al., arXiv:1011.0352v1 [physics.ins-det] (2010).