-
The Born cross section of
$ e^+e^- \to K^+K^-J/\psi $ at each energy is obtained by$ \begin{equation} \sigma^{\rm B}(\sqrt{s}) = \frac{N^{\rm obs}} {\mathcal{L}_{\rm int} \cdot \varepsilon \cdot (1+\delta)_{\rm ISR} \cdot \dfrac{1}{|1-\Pi|^2} \cdot \mathcal{B}(J/\psi \rightarrow \ell^+\ell^-)}, \end{equation} $
(1) where
$ \dfrac{1}{|1-\Pi|^2} $ is the vacuum polarization factor calculated by QED [45],$ \mathcal{B}(J/\psi \rightarrow \ell^+\ell^-) $ is the branching fraction that is quoted as$ (11.93\pm0.05)\% $ [40],$(1+\delta)_{\rm ISR}$ is the radiative correction factor obtained by an iteration method, described in details in Ref. [46]. The results of Born cross sections are listed in Appendix 2. Compared with the previous BESIII measurements [23], the Born cross sections at the same c.m. energies are consistent, and the precision is slightly improved. The observation of two clear structures in the distribution of the cross sections is due to more data samples used.A maximum likelihood fit is applied to the dressed cross sections (
$ \sigma^D(\sqrt{s}) $ , including vacuum polarization effects) of$ e^+e^- \rightarrow K^+K^-J/\psi $ to determine the parameters of the resonant structures, and the dressed cross sections are shown in Fig. 3. The likelihood is constructed taking the fluctuations of the number of signal events into account. Its definition is described in Appendix 3. The fit function is parameterized as a coherent sum of two relativistic Breit-Wigner ($\rm BW$ ) functionsFigure 3. (color online) Dressed cross sections of
$ e^+e^- \to $ $ K^+K^-J/\psi $ , indicated by error bars with only statistical uncertainties. They are fitted by a coherent sum of two Breit-Wigner functions indicated by red solid curves, and the blue and pink dashed curves are the amplitudes describing the resonances$ Y(4230) $ and$ Y(4500) $ , respectively. (a) corresponds to solution I, (b) corresponds to solution II.$ \begin{equation} \sigma^D(\sqrt{s}) = |{\rm BW}_1(\sqrt{s}) \cdot {\rm e}^{{\rm i}\varphi}+ {\rm BW}_2(\sqrt{s})| ^2, \end{equation} $
(2) where φ is the relative phase angle, and
$ \begin{equation} {\rm BW}(\sqrt{s}) = \frac{M}{\sqrt{s}} \cdot \frac{\sqrt{12 \pi \Gamma_{ee} \Gamma_{\rm tot} \mathcal{B}}}{s-M^2 + {\rm i} M\Gamma_{\rm tot}} \cdot \sqrt{\frac{\Phi(\sqrt{s})}{\Phi(M)}}, \end{equation} $
(3) where
$M,\; \Gamma_{\rm tot},\; \Gamma_{ee}$ , and$ \mathcal{B} $ are the mass, full width, electronic partial width (whose definition includes vacuum polarization effects, that is why the dressed cross sections are fitted to rather than the Born cross sections), and branching fraction of corresponding resonance, respectively.$\Phi(\sqrt{s}) = \int \int \dfrac{1}{(2\pi)^3 32 (\sqrt{s})^3} {\rm d} m_{12}^2 {\rm d} m_{23}^2$ is the three-body phase space [40], where$ m_{ij} $ is the invariant mass of particles i and j. The fitting curve is shown in Fig. 3, and the fit quality is estimated to be$ \chi^2/{\rm n.d.f} $ = 37.45/21, where n.d.f is the number of degrees of freedom. The resonance with lower mass is consistent with the previously established$ Y(4230) $ . Its mass and width are determined to be$ M(Y(4230)) = (4225.3\pm2.3) $ MeV and$ \Gamma(Y(4230)) = (72.9\pm6.1) $ MeV. Since there is no observed state corresponding to the resonance with higher mass, we name it as$ Y(4500) $ . Its mass and width are determined to be$ M(Y(4500)) = (4484.7\pm13.3) $ MeV,$ \Gamma(Y(4500)) = (111.1\pm 30.1) $ MeV, respectively. The statistical significance of$ Y(4230) $ and$ Y(4500) $ have been estimated to be 29σ and 8σ, respectively, via the differences of the likelihood values and the degrees of freedom with and without considering the corresponding resonance by the Wilk's theorem [47]. Two solutions with equal goodness-of-fit qualities are found. The masses and total widths are unchanged in the two solutions, while the amplitudes vary significantly due to constructive and destructive interferences between$ Y(4230) $ and$ Y(4500) $ , which are consistent with the mathematical expectation of multiple solutions [48]. The products of the electron partial width and branching fraction, of the states$ Y(4230) $ and$ Y(4500) $ , are listed in Table 1.Parameters Solution I Solution II $ Y(4230) $ M/MeV $ 4225.3\pm2.3\pm21.5 $ $ \Gamma_{\rm tot}$ /MeV$ 72.9\pm6.1\pm30.8 $ $ \Gamma_{ee}\mathcal{B} $ /eV$ 0.42\pm0.04\pm0.15 $ $ 0.29\pm0.02\pm0.10 $ $ Y(4500) $ M/MeV $ 4484.7\pm13.3\pm24.1 $ $ \Gamma_{\rm tot} $ /MeV$ 111.1\pm30.1\pm15.2 $ $ \Gamma_{ee}\mathcal{B} $ /eV$ 1.35\pm0.14\pm0.07 $ $ 0.41\pm0.08\pm0.13 $ Phase angle φ/rad $ 1.72\pm0.09\pm0.52 $ $ 5.49\pm0.35\pm0.58 $ Table 1. Fitted parameters of the two resonant structures observed in the cross sections of
$ e^+e^- \to K^+K^-J/\psi $ , where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second one is systematic.The main sources of systematic uncertainties of the cross section measurements are: the integrated luminosity
$\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}$ , the tracking and PID efficiency, the branching fraction of$ J/\psi \to \ell^+\ell^- $ , kinematic fit,$ (1 + \delta)_{ISR} $ , the intermediate structures of the$ K^+K^- $ system, the resolution of$ J/\psi $ , and the requirement on the penetration depth in the muon counter. The$ \mathcal{L}_{\rm int} $ is measured with Bhabha events and the uncertainty is found to be 1.0% [29, 30]. The differences between data and MC in the tracking and PID efficiencies are studied by using the process$ e^+e^- \to K^+ K^- \pi^+ \pi^- $ , and 2.5% per charged kaon is quoted [23]. For tracking efficiency of charged leptons, the systematic uncertainty is studied by using the process$ \psi(3686) \to \pi^+ \pi^- J/\psi (J/\psi \to \ell^+\ell^-) $ , and 1.0% uncertainty per lepton is quoted [49]. The uncertainty of the branching fraction of$ J/\psi \to \ell^+\ell^- $ is quoted as 0.4% [40]. The uncertainty of kinematic fit is estimated by correcting the corresponding track parameters, and the difference between the efficiencies with (default) and without this correction is quoted as the relevant uncertainty [50]. Varied line shape of the input cross sections is constructed by connecting each nearby points with a smooth curve. The difference between the final cross sections with this new line shape and the nominal one is taken as the uncertainty of radiation correction. The uncertainty associated with the intermediate structures is estimated by weighting the PHSP MC samples according to the observed$ M(K^+ K^-) $ distribution of data, and the difference between the two efficiencies of the two methods is quoted as the corresponding uncertainty. To estimate the uncertainty according to the difference in the resolutions between data and MC samples, the efficiency is re-obtained by smearing the resolution of the$ J/\psi $ signal of the MC sample. The difference is quoted as the associated uncertainty. To consider the uncertainty of the criteria on the penetration depth in the muon counter, the difference between the final results with and without this criterion is adopted. The total uncertainties are calculated by summing all individual items in quadrature. They are energy dependent and vary from$ 8.6\% $ to$ 11.1\% $ . All the systematic uncertainties, including the individual and total, are listed in Appendix 4.The systematic uncertainties for the parameters of resonances mainly come from c.m. energy measurements, the form and parameterization of the fit function, and the systematic uncertainties in the cross section measurements that will be discussed later. The c.m. energies were measured with
$ e^+e^- \rightarrow \mu^+\mu^- $ events and the uncertainties are determined correspondingly for different data samples [27, 28]. The associated systematic uncertainty is estimated by varying the c.m. energies during the fit. A three-body PHSP shape for a non-resonant component is added to the two coherent$ BW $ sum to estimate the uncertainty of the cross section description in the fit, which turns out to be negligible. The uncertainty of the formalism of the full width is estimated by replacing the$\Gamma_{\rm tot}$ with$\Gamma = \Gamma_{\rm tot} \frac{\Phi(\sqrt{s})}{\Phi(M)}$ in the denominator of Eq. (3), where$\Gamma_{\rm tot}$ is the nominal width of the resonance. The systematic uncertainties due to cross section measurements can be divided into two categories. The first one is uncorrelated among the different c.m. energy points including kinematic fit, radiation correction, intermediate structures, and resolution of$ J/\psi $ . The associated uncertainty is estimated by considering them while doing the fit and comparing to the results obtained only considering statistical uncertainties of the cross sections. The second category of the systematic uncertainties is correlated and common for all data samples (5.1%), therefore only affects the$ \Gamma_{ee}\mathcal{B} $ . All of these uncertainties on the parameters of resonances are listed in Appendix 4. -
In summary, the Born cross sections of
$ e^+e^- \to K^+K^- J/\psi $ at c.m. energy from 4.127 to 4.600 GeV are measured with a new partial reconstruction method and larger data samples compared with Ref. [23]. Two resonances are observed with high significance. One is consistent to the previous observed$ Y(4230) $ , and its mass and width are measured to be$ M(Y(4230)) = (4225.3 \pm 2.3 \pm 21.5) $ MeV,$ \Gamma(Y(4230)) = (72.9 \pm 6.1 \pm 30.8) $ MeV, where the first uncertainties are statistical and the second are systematic. The other one can not be assigned into any experimentally observed resonance, named as$ Y(4500) $ , and its mass and width are determined to be$ M(Y(4500)) = (4484.7 \pm 13.3 \pm 24.1) $ MeV,$ \Gamma(Y(4500)) = (111.1 \pm 30.1 \pm 15.2) $ MeV, respectively. There are also evidences of this new structure in the measurements of the cross sections of$ e^+e^- \to \pi \pi J/\psi $ [7], even in the same channel$ K^+ K^- J/\psi $ [21-23]. But only with additional data samples at BESIII and improved analysis method, this state has been observed with a significance more than$ 5\sigma $ for the first time. The mass of$ Y(4500) $ is consistent with the prediction of the 5S-4D mixing scheme [24], the heavy-antiheavy hadronic molecules model [25] and the lattice quantum chromodynamics result for a$ (cs\bar{c}\bar{s}) $ state [26], while the width is 2σ larger than the prediction of Ref. [24]. More experimental measurements and theoretical studies are needed to reveal its nature.For the first time, the state
$ Y(4230) $ has been observed in the$ K\bar{K}J/\psi $ mode with the significance larger than 5σ. The product of the electronic partial width and the decay branching fraction is measured to be$ \mathcal{B}(Y(4230) \to K^+K^-J/\psi)\Gamma(e^+e^- \to Y(4230)) $ = ($ 0.29 \pm 0.02 \pm 0.10 $ ) eV or ($ 0.42 \pm 0.04 \pm 0.15 $ ) eV, according to different interferences, respectively. The ratio between the branching fractions of the$ Y(4230) $ decaying into$ K\bar{K}J/\psi $ and$ \pi \pi J/\psi $ [7] are calculated and shown in Table 2. Author of Ref. [51] predicts the$ K\bar{K} $ mode should be suppressed if the$ Y(4230) $ is$ \Lambda_c $ baryonium. Even at present, no conclusion can be drawn due to the multiple solutions. However, once the physics solution is determined as done in Ref. [19], it will provide very useful information for understanding the nature of$ Y(4230) $ .$ K\bar{K}J/\psi $ Sol. I$ K\bar{K}J/\psi $ Sol. II$ \pi \pi J/\psi $ Sol. I$ 0.17 \pm 0.02 $ $ 0.25 \pm 0.04 $ $ \pi \pi J/\psi $ Sol. II$ 0.097\pm 0.017 $ $ 0.14 \pm 0.03 $ $ \pi \pi J/\psi $ Sol. III$ 0.035\pm 0.004 $ $ 0.051\pm 0.007 $ $ \pi \pi J/\psi $ Sol. IV$ 0.020\pm 0.002 $ $ 0.028\pm 0.004 $ Table 2. The ratios between the branching fractions of the
$ Y(4230) $ decaying into$ K\bar{K}J/\psi $ and$ \pi \pi J/\psi $ , depending on the various combinations of the multiple solutions. -
Figure. A1 shows the distributions of the invariant mass of lepton pairs,
$ M(\ell^+\ell^-) $ , for data and PHSP signal MC samples at various c.m. energies. Here, the$ J/\psi $ signal and sideband regions are indicated with red and blue arrows, respectively. In addition, the distributions of invariant mass of kaons,$ M(K^+K^-) $ , for data, PHSP signal MC, and weighted MC samples at various c.m. energies are shown in Fig. A2.Figure A1. (color online) The distributions of invariant mass of lepton pairs
$ M(\ell^+\ell^-) $ , where the dots with error bars are data, the blue histogram is PHSP signal MC sample (normalized to data), the red and blue arrows identify the$ J/\psi $ signal and sideband regions, respectively.Figure A2. (color online) The distributions of
$ K^+K^- $ invariant mass of the data, PHSP signal MC and weighted MC samples at each c.m. energy, where the black dots with error bars indicate data from the$ J/\psi $ signal region, the red dashed curves indicate data from$ J/\psi $ sideband regions, the blue histograms indicate PHSP signal MC sample (normalized to data) and the yank dashed-dot curves indicate the weighted signal MC sample (normalized to data). -
The Born cross sections of
$ e^{+}e^{-} \to K^{+}K^{-}J/\psi $ and related quantities such as the c.m. energy, the integrated luminosity, the numbers of observed signal events, the efficiencies, the radiative correction factors, the vacuum polarization factors are listed in Table A1.Data sample $ \sqrt{s} $ /GeV$ \mathcal{L}_{\rm int} $ /pb$ ^{-1} $ $ N^{\rm obs} $ ε $ (1+\delta)_{\rm ISR} $ $ \frac{1}{|1-\Pi|^2} $ $\sigma^{\rm B}$ /pb4130 4.127 401.50 $ 6.5_{-2.4}^{+3.0} $ 0.141 0.896 1.052 $ 1.02_{-0.38}^{+0.47} \pm 0.09 $ 4160 4.157 408.70 $ 6.5_{-2.4}^{+3.0} $ 0.263 0.856 1.053 $ 0.56_{-0.21}^{+0.26} \pm 0.05 $ 4180 4.178 3194.50 $ 72.0_{-9.1}^{+9.7} $ 0.315 0.820 1.054 $ 0.69_{-0.09}^{+0.09} \pm 0.06 $ 4190 4.189 570.10 $ 18.5_{-4.1}^{+4.7} $ 0.335 0.792 1.056 $ 0.97_{-0.22}^{+0.25} \pm 0.08 $ 4200 4.199 526.00 $ 25.0_{-4.6}^{+5.2} $ 0.357 0.787 1.056 $ 1.34_{-0.25}^{+0.28} \pm 0.12 $ 4210 4.209 572.10 $ 33.5_{-5.8}^{+6.4} $ 0.358 0.762 1.057 $ 1.70_{-0.29}^{+0.33} \pm 0.15 $ 4220 4.219 569.20 $ 69.0_{-8.1}^{+8.7} $ 0.379 0.771 1.056 $ 3.29_{-0.39}^{+0.41} \pm 0.37 $ 4230 4.226 1100.90 $ 183.0_{-13.3}^{+14.0} $ 0.395 0.771 1.056 $ 4.33_{-0.31}^{+0.33} \pm 0.38 $ 4237 4.236 530.30 $ 65.5_{-8.3}^{+8.9} $ 0.391 0.789 1.056 $ 3.18_{-0.40}^{+0.43} \pm 0.30 $ 4245 4.242 55.88 $ 8.0_{-2.5}^{+3.2} $ 0.405 0.805 1.055 $ 3.49_{-1.09}^{+1.39} \pm 0.31 $ 4246 4.244 538.10 $ 74.5_{-8.5}^{+9.2} $ 0.393 0.812 1.056 $ 3.44_{-0.39}^{+0.43} \pm 0.30 $ 4260 4.258 828.40 $ 107.5_{-10.3}^{+10.9} $ 0.396 0.866 1.054 $ 3.01_{-0.29}^{+0.31} \pm 0.26 $ 4270 4.267 531.10 $ 45.0_{-6.7}^{+7.4} $ 0.390 0.911 1.053 $ 1.90_{-0.28}^{+0.31} \pm 0.17 $ 4280 4.278 175.70 $ 16.5_{-4.0}^{+4.7} $ 0.372 0.935 1.053 $ 2.15_{-0.52}^{+0.61} \pm 0.19 $ 4290 4.287 502.40 $ 35.0_{-6.3}^{+6.9} $ 0.363 0.937 1.053 $ 1.63_{-0.29}^{+0.32} \pm 0.14 $ 4310 4.308 45.08 $ 3.0_{-1.4}^{+2.1} $ 0.367 0.982 1.052 $ 1.47_{-0.69}^{+1.03} \pm 0.13 $ 4315 4.311 501.20 $ 24.0_{-5.6}^{+6.2} $ 0.358 0.985 1.052 $ 1.08_{-0.25}^{+0.28} \pm 0.10 $ 4340 4.337 505.00 $ 18.5_{-5.6}^{+6.1} $ 0.364 0.963 1.051 $ 0.83_{-0.25}^{+0.28} \pm 0.07 $ 4360 4.358 544.00 $ 26.5_{-5.7}^{+6.3} $ 0.378 0.935 1.051 $ 1.10_{-0.24}^{+0.26} \pm 0.10 $ 4380 4.377 522.70 $ 33.0_{-7.1}^{+7.6} $ 0.379 0.891 1.051 $ 1.49_{-0.32}^{+0.34} \pm 0.13 $ 4390 4.387 55.57 $ 3.0_{-1.4}^{+2.1} $ 0.397 0.865 1.051 $ 1.25_{-0.58}^{+0.88} \pm 0.11 $ 4400 4.395 507.80 $ 16.0_{-6.1}^{+6.6} $ 0.401 0.861 1.051 $ 0.73_{-0.28}^{+0.30} \pm 0.06 $ 4420 4.416 1090.70 $ 57.0_{-8.8}^{+9.4} $ 0.417 0.815 1.052 $ 1.23_{-0.19}^{+0.20} \pm 0.11 $ 4440 4.436 569.90 $ 55.5_{-8.3}^{+8.9} $ 0.436 0.780 1.054 $ 2.28_{-0.34}^{+0.37} \pm 0.20 $ 4470 4.467 111.09 $ 14.0_{-4.0}^{+4.6} $ 0.450 0.738 1.055 $ 3.02_{-0.86}^{+0.99} \pm 0.26 $ 4530 4.527 112.12 $ 23.5_{-4.8}^{+5.4} $ 0.460 0.751 1.054 $ 4.82_{-0.99}^{+1.11} \pm 0.41 $ 4575 4.574 48.93 $ 0.0_{-0.0}^{+2.3} $ 0.430 0.856 1.054 $ 0.00_{-0.00}^{+1.01} \pm 0.00 $ 4600 4.600 586.90 $ 52.0_{-8.2}^{+8.7} $ 0.400 0.899 1.055 $ 1.96_{-0.31}^{+0.33} \pm 0.17 $ Table A1. The Born cross sections of
$ e^{+}e^{-} \to K^{+}K^{-}J/\psi $ and related quantities. Here$ \sqrt{s} $ is the c.m. energy,$\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}$ is the integrated luminosity,$N^{\rm obs}$ is the number of observed signal events, ε is the efficiency,$(1+\delta)_{\rm ISR}$ is the radiative correction factor,$ \frac{1}{|1-\Pi|^2} $ is the vacuum polarization factor, and the$\sigma^{\rm B}$ is the Born cross section, the first uncertainties are statistical, and the second systematic. -
In the maximum likelihood fit to the dressed cross sections of
$ e^+e^- \rightarrow K^+ K^- J/\psi $ , the likelihood is constructed as:$ \begin{equation} L(\mu; \vartheta) = \prod \limits_{i}^{6}L_i (\mu_i;\; \vartheta_i)\prod \limits_j^{22}L_j (\mu_j; \; \vartheta_j), \end{equation}\tag{A1} $
where
$ \mu_i $ and$ \mu_j $ are the numbers of observed signal events,$ \vartheta_i $ and$ \vartheta_j $ are the parameters in the likelihood functions, and$ L_i $ and$ L_j $ are the likelihood functions for the data samples with$ \mu \le 10 $ and$ \mu > 10 $ , respectively.The likelihood functions are defined variously according to the different numbers of observed events. For the data samples with
$ \mu \le 10 $ , the likelihood function is described by a Poisson function:$ \begin{equation} L_i(\mu_i; \vartheta_i) = P_i(\mu_i; \vartheta_i) = \frac{1}{\mu_i!}\vartheta_i^{\mu_i}e^{-\vartheta_i}, \end{equation} \tag{A2}$
While for the data samples with
$ \mu > 10 $ , the likelihood function is described by an asymmetric Gaussian function:$ \begin{aligned}[b] L_j (\mu_j, \; \sigma_{1j},\; \sigma_{2j};\; \vartheta_j) =& G(\mu_j,\; \sigma_{1j},\; \sigma_{2j};\; \vartheta_j) \\=& \left \{ \begin{array}{rcl} \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\; (\sigma_{1j} + \sigma_{2j})}\; {\rm e}^{\textstyle-\frac{(\vartheta_j-\mu_j)^2}{2\sigma_{1j}^2}}, {\vartheta_j > \mu_j;} \; \\\; \\ \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\; (\sigma_{1j} + \sigma_{2j})}\; {\rm e}^{\textstyle-\frac{(\vartheta_j-\mu_j)^2}{2\sigma_{2j}^2}}, {\vartheta_j \leq \mu_j;} \; \\ \; \\ \end{array} \right. \end{aligned}\tag{A3} $
where
$ \sigma_{1} $ and$ \sigma_{2} $ are the upper and lower statistical uncertainties of μ, respectively. -
The systematic uncertainties of the Born cross sections are listed in Table A2 and the systematic uncertainties of the resonance parameters are listed in Table A3. Figure. A3 shows dressed cross sections fitting results with different function forms. Generally, there should be four solutions when three coherent amplitudes are used to describe a lineshape of cross sections. However, only two have been found by us. We suppose that the other solutions are very close to the found ones, then cannot be separated by the scanning method. And one should notice that the fitting results, with the tentatively additional continuum term, only change slightly.
Data sample $ \sqrt{s} $ /GeV$\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}$ Tracking and PID $ \mathcal{B}(J/\psi \rightarrow l^+l^-) $ kinematic fit $ (1+\delta)_{\rm ISR} $ $ M(K^+K^-) $ $ R(J/\psi) $ MUC Total 4130 4.127 1.0 4.5 0.4 0.4 1.2 6.9 0.3 2.1 8.7 4160 4.157 1.0 4.5 0.4 0.7 0.7 6.9 0.3 2.1 8.6 4180 4.178 1.0 4.5 0.4 0.9 2.6 6.9 0.2 2.1 9.0 4190 4.189 1.0 4.5 0.4 1.0 1.0 6.9 0.1 2.1 8.7 4200 4.199 1.0 4.5 0.4 1.1 0.6 6.9 0.3 2.1 8.7 4210 4.209 1.0 4.5 0.4 1.1 1.7 6.9 0.3 2.1 8.8 4220 4.219 1.0 4.5 0.4 1.1 6.9 6.9 0.2 2.1 11.1 4230 4.226 1.0 4.5 0.4 1.1 0.6 6.9 0.4 2.1 8.7 4237 4.236 1.0 4.5 0.4 1.2 3.5 6.9 0.4 2.1 9.3 4245 4.242 1.0 4.5 0.4 1.2 2.4 6.9 0.2 2.1 9.0 4246 4.244 1.0 4.5 0.4 1.2 1.5 6.9 0.2 2.1 8.8 4260 4.258 1.0 4.5 0.4 1.3 1.3 6.9 0.3 2.1 8.8 4270 4.267 1.0 4.5 0.4 1.3 2.7 6.9 0.3 2.1 9.1 4280 4.278 1.0 4.5 0.4 1.3 1.3 6.9 0.4 2.1 8.8 4290 4.287 1.0 4.5 0.4 1.2 1.2 6.9 0.3 2.1 8.7 4310 4.308 1.0 4.5 0.4 1.6 1.3 6.9 0.4 2.1 8.8 4315 4.312 1.0 4.5 0.4 1.6 0.7 6.9 0.4 2.1 8.8 4340 4.337 1.0 4.5 0.4 1.6 1.5 6.9 0.7 2.1 8.9 4360 4.358 1.0 4.5 0.4 1.4 0.5 6.9 0.5 2.1 8.7 4380 4.377 1.0 4.5 0.4 1.4 0.3 6.9 0.6 2.1 8.7 4390 4.387 1.0 4.5 0.4 1.2 1.0 6.9 0.5 2.1 8.7 4400 4.395 1.0 4.5 0.4 1.1 0.9 6.9 0.5 2.1 8.7 4420 4.416 1.0 4.5 0.4 0.9 1.0 6.9 0.7 2.1 8.7 4440 4.436 1.0 4.5 0.4 0.7 1.6 6.9 0.6 2.1 8.8 4470 4.467 1.0 4.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 6.9 0.4 2.1 8.6 4530 4.527 1.0 4.5 0.4 0.3 0.9 6.9 0.6 2.1 8.6 4575 4.574 1.0 4.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 6.9 0.4 2.1 8.6 4600 4.600 1.0 4.5 0.4 0.2 1.2 6.9 0.3 2.1 8.7 Table A2. The systematic uncertainties (in units %) in the measurement of Born cross sections. Here
$ \sqrt{s} $ is the c.m. energy of data samples,$ \mathcal{L}_{\rm int} $ is the integrated luminosity,$ \mathcal{B}(J/\psi \rightarrow l^+l^-) $ is the branching fraction,$ (1+\delta)_{\rm ISR} $ is the radiation correction factor,$ M(K^+K^-) $ is the intermediate structures in$ K^+K^- $ system,$ R(J/\psi) $ is the resolution of$ J/\psi $ , MUC is the criteria applied on the penetration depth in the muon counter.Sources Parameters $ Y(4230) $ $ Y(4500) $ phase angle M/MeV $ \Gamma_{\rm tot} $ /MeV$ \Gamma_{ee}\mathcal{B} $ /eVM/MeV $ \Gamma_{\rm tot} $ /MeV$ \Gamma_{ee}\mathcal{B} $ /eVφ/rad c.m. Energy 0.7 0.1 – 1.8 1.4 – 0.00 (0.02) Non-Resonant – – – – – – 0.13 (0.51) $ \Gamma_{tot} $ 21.5 30.8 0.15 (0.10) 24.1 15.1 0.02 (0.13) 0.50 (0.28) cross section $ _1 $ – – – (–) 0.1 0.1 – (–) – cross section $ _2 $ – – 0.02 (0.01) – – 0.07 (0.02) – Total 21.5 30.8 0.15 (0.10) 24.1 15.2 0.07 (0.13) 0.52 (0.58) Table A3. The systematic uncertainty in the measurement of the resonance parameters for solution I (solution II), where Non-Resonant indicated a three-body PHSP shape is added in the default fit and considering the coherent between them, the cross section
$ _1 $ is uncorrelated systematic uncertainties from the measurement of cross sections, while cross section$ _2 $ is correlated.Figure A3. (color online) The dressed cross sections fitting results with different function forms. (a), (b) are two sets of solutions to the sum of two coherent Breit-Wigner functions and 3-body phase space function fitting, respectively. (c), (d) are two sets of solutions to the two coherent Breit-Wigner functions with an energy-dependent full width fitting, respectively.
Observation of the Y(4230) and a new structure in ${\boldsymbol e^+\boldsymbol e^- \boldsymbol\rightarrow \boldsymbol K^+\boldsymbol K^-\boldsymbol J/\boldsymbol\psi} $
- Received Date: 2022-09-22
- Available Online: 2022-11-15
Abstract: The cross sections of