First observation of the decay Λ 0 b → η c ( 1 S ) p K −
Onderwater, C. J. G.; van Veghel, M.; LHCb Collaboration
Published in: Physical Review D DOI:
10.1103/PhysRevD.102.112012
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date: 2020
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Onderwater, C. J. G., van Veghel, M., & LHCb Collaboration (2020). First observation of the decay Λ 0 b → η c ( 1 S ) p K −. Physical Review D, 102(11), [112012]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.112012
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
First observation of the decay Λ
0b→ η
cð1SÞpK
−R. Aaijet al.* (LHCb Collaboration)
(Received 22 July 2020; accepted 3 November 2020; published 22 December 2020)
The decay Λ0b→ ηcð1SÞpK− is observed for the first time using a data sample of proton-proton
collisions, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of5.5 fb−1, collected with the LHCb experiment at a
center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The branching fraction of the decay is measured, using the Λ0b→
J=ψpK−decay as a normalization mode, to beBðΛ0b→ ηcð1SÞpK−Þ ¼ ð1.06 0.16 0.06þ0.22−0.19Þ × 10−4,
where the quoted uncertainties are statistical, systematic and due to external inputs, respectively. A study of theηcð1SÞp mass spectrum is performed to search for the Pcð4312Þþpentaquark state. No evidence is observed and an upper limit ofBðΛ0b→Pcð4312ÞþK−Þ×BðPcð4312Þþ→ηcð1SÞpÞ
BðΛ0
b→ηcð1SÞpK−Þ < 0.24 is obtained at the 95%
con-fidence level.
DOI:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.112012
The existence of baryons comprising four quarks and an antiquark was proposed by Gell-Mann[1]and Zweig [2]. Hereafter, these states are referred to as pentaquarks [3]. Two pentaquark candidates were observed in the J=ψp system of Λ0b→ J=ψpK− decays (charge conjugation is implied throughout the text) in a data sample collected with the LHCb experiment during the 2011–2012 data-taking period[4]. These candidates were labeled Pcð4450Þþ and
Pcð4380Þþ. Using a larger data sample ofΛ0b→ J=ψpK−
decays, a new pentaquark state, Pcð4312Þþ, was observed,
and the broad Pcð4450Þþ structure resolved into two
narrower overlapping structures, labeled Pcð4440Þþ and
Pcð4457Þþ [5]. Many theoretical models have been
pro-posed to describe the dynamics of the observed states, including tightly bound duuc¯c pentaquark states [6–12], baryon-meson molecular states[13–21], or peaking struc-tures due to triangle-diagram processes [22–25]. More experimental and theoretical scrutiny is required to verify these models.
The yet-unobservedΛ0b→ ηcpK−decay, whereηcrefers to the ηcð1SÞ meson, can provide a unique approach to search for new pentaquarks, and to study the observed states. It has been predicted that a ¯DΣcmolecular state, with
a mass of around 4265 MeV=c2, can contribute to the decay Λ0b→ ηcpK− via ηcp final-state interactions [26].
The observed Pcð4312Þþ state could be such a molecular
state[27], since its mass is close to the ¯DΣc threshold[5].
The study of theΛ0b→ ηcpK−decay provides a new way to test the binding mechanism of pentaquark states, as the predicted ratio of the branching fractions for a pentaquark decaying into ηcp compared to the J=ψp final states depends on the pentaquark model. The branching fraction of Pcð4312Þþ→ ηcp is predicted to be 3 times larger than
that of the J=ψp decay mode if the Pcð4312Þþ state is a
¯DΣc molecule[13–15].
This paper presents the first observation of the Λ0
b→ ηcpK−decay, with theηcmeson reconstructed using
the ηc → p ¯p decay mode, and reports a search for the Pcð4312Þþ pentaquark state in the ηcp system. The
analysis uses the decayΛ0b→ J=ψpK− as a normalization channel, where the J=ψ meson decays to p ¯p. The data sample used in this analysis corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 5.5 fb−1, collected with the LHCb experi-ment in proton-proton collisions atpffiffiffis¼ 13 TeV between 2016 and 2018.
In the B-meson sector, heavy quark effective theory
[28,29]predicts that the decay rates of the B → ηcX and
B → J=ψX channels are of the same order of magnitude. Experimental results are in good agreement with this expectation [30]. Studying the branching fraction ratio between theΛ0b→ ηcpK− andΛ0b→ J=ψpK−decays will provide the first comparison of b-baryon decay rates to the ηcX and J=ψX final states, and help to test whether the
presence of an additional spectator quark modifies the final-state interactions in a non-negligible way.
The LHCb detector is a single-arm forward spectro-meter covering the pseudorapidity range2 < η < 5, and is described in detail in Refs.[31,32]. The detector includes a silicon-strip vertex detector surrounding the proton-proton *Full author list given at the end of the article.
Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.
Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation,
interaction region, tracking stations on either side of a dipole magnet, ring-imaging Cherenkov (RICH) detectors, calorimeters and muon chambers. The online event selec-tion is performed by a trigger [33], which consists of a hardware stage, based on information from the calorimeter and muon systems, followed by a software stage, which applies a full event reconstruction. The software trigger requires a two-, three- or four-track secondary vertex with a significant displacement from any primary vertex (PV) that is consistent with originating from the decay of a b hadron [34].
Simulated data samples as described in Refs. [35–40], are used to optimize the event selection, determine the efficiency of the reconstruction and event selection, and to constrain the fit model which determines the signal yield. The simulated Λ0b→ ηcpK− and Λ0b→ J=ψpK− decays are generated based on a uniform phase-space model. The simulated decays are also weighted to match the Λ0b momentum spectrum and Dalitz-plot distribution in the data, as described later in this paper.
The Λ0b→ ηcð→ p ¯pÞpK−, and Λ0b→ J=ψð→ p ¯pÞpK− candidates are reconstructed and selected using the same selection criteria, with a p ¯p mass window of ½2800; 3200 MeV=c2 that covers both the η
c and J=ψ
mass regions. In the following, the notation ½c¯c will be used to refer to both theηcand the J=ψ candidates from Λ0b
baryon decays. Particle identification (PID) variables in the simulation are calibrated using large data samples of kinematically identified protons and kaons, originating from Λ0b→ Λþcð→ pK−πþÞπ− and D0→ K−πþ decays.
The offline event selection is performed using a preselection, followed by a requirement on the response of a boosted decision tree (BDT) classifier [41,42]. In the preselection, each track is required to be of good quality. Kaons and protons are both required to have pT> 300 MeV=c, where pT is the component of the
momentum transverse to the beam. Protons are also required to have a momentum larger than 10 GeV=c2, such that the kaons and protons can be distinguished by the RICH detectors. The sum of the pT of the proton and
kaon from the Λ0b baryon is required to be larger than 900 MeV=c. The ½c¯c candidate is required to have a good-quality vertex.
TheΛ0bcandidate must have a good-quality decay vertex that is significantly displaced from every PV, and have χ2
IP< 25 with respect to the associated PV. Here, χ2IP is
defined as theχ2difference between the vertex fit of a PV reconstructed with or without the particle in question, and the associated PV is the one with the smallestχ2IPvalue. The angle between the reconstructed momentum vector of theΛ0b candidate and the line connecting the associated PVand theΛ0b decay vertex,θΛ0
b, is required to satisfy cosðθΛ0bÞ > 0.9999. Contamination from B0s→p ¯pKþK−and B0→ p ¯pKþπ−
decays, where a kaon or pion is misidentified as a proton, is
removed by applying strict particle identification require-ments on candidates with a mass within 50 MeV=c2 around the known B0sor B0mass[30]after assigning a kaon
or pion mass hypothesis to the proton. Backgrounds from ϕð1020Þ → KþK−and D0→ KþK− decays, where one of
the kaons is misidentified as a proton and theΛ0bcandidate is formed by combining the particles with a½c¯c candidate from elsewhere in the event, are also observed. These contributions are removed by placing stricter particle-identification requirements on candidates with a pK−mass within 10 MeV=c2 (20 MeV=c2) of the known ϕð1020Þ (D0) mass, after assigning a kaon mass hypothesis
[30]to the proton.
After the preselection, further separation between the signal and combinatorial backgrounds originating from a random combination of final-state particles is achieved by using a BDT classifier. The classifier uses the following input variables: the pTof theΛ0bcandidate, and of the kaon
and proton directly from theΛ0b decay; the χ2IP of theΛ0b candidate, the ½c¯c candidate, and the kaon and proton directly from theΛ0bdecay; the smallest values of both the pT
andχ2IP of the½c¯c decay products; the significance of the displacement of theΛ0bvertex with respect to the associated PV; the vertex-fitχ2of theΛ0bcandidate; theθΛ0
b angle; and the PID information of the final-state particles. The BDT is trained using simulatedΛ0b→ ηcpK−decays for the signal, and the data candidates in the p ¯ppK− invariant-mass sideband above 5800 MeV=c2 for the background. The requirement on the BDT response is optimized by maxi-mizing the figure of meritϵsig=ða=2 þ ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiNbkg
p
Þ[43], where
ϵsig is the BDT selection efficiency estimated using the
simulatedΛ0b→ ηcpK−sample, a ¼ 5 is the target signifi-cance for the signal in standard deviations, and Nbkgis the
expected yield of background with p ¯p and p ¯ppK−masses in the ranges mðp ¯pÞ ∈ ½2951.4; 3015.4 MeV=c2 and mðp ¯ppK−Þ ∈ ½5585; 5655 MeV=c2, respectively. The background yields are estimated using the p ¯ppK− and p ¯p invariant-mass sidebands in the data. The BDT response requirement provides about 70% signal efficiency and suppresses the background by a factor of approximately 100. After the BDT selection, a background in the normali-zation channel is observed due to swapping the proton from the Λ0b decay with a proton from the J=ψ decay. This contribution is removed by requiring the invariant mass of the system formed by the proton from theΛ0bbaryon and the antiproton from the J=ψ meson to be inconsistent with the known J=ψ mass[30]. The p ¯ppK− and p ¯p invariant-mass spectra of the selected data are displayed in Fig.1.
A two-dimensional unbinned maximum-likelihood fit to the p ¯ppK− and p ¯p invariant-mass distributions is performed to determine the signal yield. The p ¯ppK− mass spectra of the signal and normalization channels are described using the same model, sharing the shape
parameters. The signal is modeled by the sum of two Crystal Ball (CB) functions [44] with common peak positions. The tail parameters of the CB functions are determined from simulation, while the mean and width of the Gaussian cores are freely varying in the fit to the data. The p ¯p mass spectrum is described with a relativistic Breit-Wigner function[45]convolved with a Gaussian resolution function for theηc, and is described with the sum of two CB functions with common peak positions for the J=ψ decay. When modeling the mðp ¯pÞ spectrum, the correlation between mðp ¯ppK−Þ and mðp ¯pÞ needs to be taken into account. The width (peak) parameter of the resolution function of the signal channel, and the width (peak) parameters of the Gaussian cores for the normalization channel, are parametrized as second-order (first-order) polynomial functions of mðp ¯ppK−Þ; the coefficients of these polynomial functions are calibrated using simulated samples.
For the two-dimensional mass spectrum of the back-ground components, it is assumed that mðp ¯ppK−Þ and mðp ¯pÞ are uncorrelated, which is corroborated using the background-dominated data sample before the BDT selec-tion is applied. For background fromΛ0b→ p ¯ppK−decays but with the p ¯p pair not originating from a ηc or J=ψ
resonance, the mðp ¯pÞ spectrum is described using an exponential function, and the mðp ¯ppK−Þ spectrum is described using the same model as the signal but the parameters of the distribution are allowed to take different values in the fit. For background with a½c¯c → p ¯p process but not from a Λ0b decay, the mðp ¯ppK−Þ distribution is described using an exponential function, and the mðp ¯pÞ spectrum is modeled by Breit-Wigner functions that are each convolved with a separate Gaussian function to describe theηc and J=ψ resonances. In the fit, a Gaussian constraint of 31.9 0.7 MeV=c2 [30] is applied to the natural width of the ηc meson for both the signal and background components. For combinatorial backgrounds, both the mðp ¯ppK−Þ and mðp ¯pÞ spectra are described using exponential functions. The background shape due to
swapping the two protons in the Λ0b→ ηcð→ p ¯pÞpK− decay shares the same shape in mðp ¯ppK−Þ as the signal channel, while the mðp ¯pÞ shape, and the relative yield with respect to the signal component of the signal channel, are determined from simulation. Given the limited yield of Λ0
b→ ηcpK− decays expected in this data sample, the
interference between the Λ0b→ ηcpK− and nonresonant Λ0
b→ p ¯ppK− decays is not considered. An amplitude
analysis of a larger data set is needed to have sensitivity to such interference effects.
The mðp ¯ppK−Þ and mðp ¯pÞ distributions of the selected candidates are presented in Fig. 1, with the one-dimen-sional projections of the fit overlaid. The yields of the signal and normalization modes are NðΛ0b→ ηcpK−Þ ¼
173 25 and NðΛ0
b→ J=ψpK−Þ ¼ 804 31,
respec-tively, where the uncertainties are statistical only. To estimate the signal significance, a two-dimensional fit without the contribution from the Λ0b→ ηcpK− decay is performed. The difference in log-likelihood between this and the nominal fit is found to be 29.4. Based on the assumption of aχ2distribution with one degree of freedom, the statistical significance of theΛ0b→ ηcpK− decay with respect to the background-only hypothesis, expressed in Gaussian standard deviations, is7.7σ.
The ratio of the branching fraction between the Λ0
b→ ηcpK− andΛ0b→ J=ψpK− decays is given by
BðΛ0 b→ ηcpK−Þ BðΛ0 b→ J=ψpK−Þ ¼ NðΛ0b→ ηcpK−Þ NðΛ0b→ J=ψpK−Þ ×ϵðΛ 0 b→ J=ψpK−Þ ϵðΛ0 b→ ηcpK−Þ ×BðJ=ψ → p ¯pÞ Bðηc→ p ¯pÞ ; ð1Þ where N represents the yield of the decay given in the parentheses, determined from a fit to the invariant-mass spectrum andϵ is the efficiency accounting for the detector geometrical acceptance, reconstruction and event
] 2 c ) [MeV/ − pK p p ( m 5500 5550 5600 5650 5700 5750 ) 2 c Candidates / ( 5 MeV/ 0 100 200 Data Total fit − pK c η → 0 b Λ − pK ψ J/ → 0 b Λ − K p NR ] p p [ → 0 b Λ 0 b Λ ] not from c c [ Random comb. Swapped protons
LHCb
(a) ] 2 c ) [MeV/ p p ( m 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200 ) 2c Candidates / ( 8 MeV/ 1 10 2 10LHCb
(b)FIG. 1. Distributions of (a) mðp ¯ppK−Þ and (b) mðp ¯pÞ of the selected candidates. The data are shown as black circles, while the blue solid line shows the fit result. Individual components are given in the legend.
selection. The known values of the branching fractions, B, of the Λ0
b→ J=ψpK−, J=ψ → p ¯p [30] and ηc→ p ¯p
decays[46]are used as external inputs for the measurement of B (Λ0b → ηcpK−).
The efficiencies of the detector geometrical acceptance, reconstruction and event selections are determined from simulation. The agreement between data and simulation is improved by weighting the two-dimensional (p; pT)
dis-tribution of theΛ0b baryons in simulation. The weights are obtained using a comparison between a large sample of data and simulated events from Λ0b→ J=ψpK− decays, where the J=ψ meson is reconstructed through its decay J=ψ → μþμ−. The distributions of mðpK−Þ and mð½c¯cpÞ in the simulation for signal and normalization channels are also weighted to match the corresponding distributions observed in data, where the data distributions are obtained using the sPlot technique[47]with mðp ¯ppK−Þ and mðp ¯pÞ as the discriminating variables. The ratio between the overall efficiencies of the signal and normalization chan-nels is0.95 0.02, where the uncertainty accounts only for the finite yields of the simulated events. The ratio of branching fractions between the Λ0b→ ηcpK− and Λ0b→ J=ψpK− decays is obtained as BðΛ0 b → ηcpK−Þ BðΛ0 b→ J=ψpK−Þ ¼ 0.333 0.050; where the quoted uncertainty is statistical only.
A search for a Pcð4312Þþ → ηcp contribution to the
Λ0
b→ ηcpK− decay is performed by projecting out the
background-subtractedηcp mass spectrum using the sPlot technique. The resultingηcp (and J=ψp) mass distributions are shown in Fig. 2. A weighted unbinned maximum-likelihood fit [48] is applied to the ηcp mass spectrum,
where the data is described as the incoherent sum of Pcð4312Þþ→ ηcp decays and a nonresonant ηcp
contri-bution. The Pcð4312Þþ resonance is modeled using a
relativistic Breit-Wigner function [45], with parameters obtained from Ref. [5], and is convolved with the sum of two Gaussian resolution functions whose shape param-eters are determined from simulation. The contribution fromΛ0b→ ηcpK− decays with a nonresonantηcp system is modeled using simulated events generated with a uni-form phase-space model. The fit projection is shown in
Fig.2(a).
The yield of the Pcð4312Þþ state is determined to be
16þ12
−9 ðstat:Þ 4ðsyst:Þ. The systematic uncertainty on the
yield is estimated by using alternative models to describe theΛ0bcomponent withoutηcp resonances, and varying the mass and width of the Pcð4312Þþ state based on their
uncertainties from Ref. [5]. To consider the potential influence of the interference between the Pcð4312Þþ
com-ponent and reflections fromΛ→ pK−resonances, several Λ0
b→ J=ψpK− samples are generated based on the result
of a full amplitude fit to the Λ0b→ J=ψð→ μþμ−ÞpK− sample used in Ref. [5], with a different scale factor assigned on the Pcð4312Þþ amplitude to account for a
change in its contribution. A fit is performed to these simulated J=ψp mass spectra, using the same description for the Pcð4312Þþ contribution as that in the fit model of
the background-subtractedηcp mass spectrum. The largest relative difference between the Pcð4312Þþ relative
contri-bution obtained from the fit and its true value in the simulated samples is taken as a systematic uncertainty for this potential interference.
The difference of the log-likelihood between the nominal fit and a fit with the Pcð4312Þþ yield fixed to zero is 2.4.
Since all of the shape parameters of the Pcð4312Þþ
component are fixed in the nominal fit, the statistical
] 2 c ) [MeV/ p c η ( m 4000 4500 5000 ) 2c
Weighted candidates / (30 MeV/
10 − 5 − 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Data Simulation Data Simulation + (4312) c P + (4440) c P + (4457) c P (a)
LHCb
] 2 c ) [MeV/ p ψ J/ ( m 4000 4500 5000 ) 2cWeighted candidates / (30 MeV/ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 + (4312) c P + (4440) c P + (4457) c P
LHCb
(b)FIG. 2. The invariant-mass spectra of (a) theηcp system of the Λ0b→ ηcpK−decays and (b) the J=ψp system of the Λ0b→ J=ψpK−
decays. The black points represent the background-subtracted data and the red points correspond to the expectation from a simulation generated according to a uniform phase-space model. The blue solid line in panel (a) shows the fit projection of theηcp mass spectrum
significance of the Pcð4312Þþ state is 2.2σ. Defining the
relative Pcð4312Þþcontribution analogous to that which is
used in Ref. [5]as
R ≡BðΛ0b→ Pcð4312ÞþK−Þ
BðΛ0
b→ ηcpK−Þ
BðPcð4312Þþ → ηcpÞ; ð2Þ
a 95% confidence level upper limit of R < 0.24 is obtained from the likelihood profile distribution. The search to the Pcð4440Þþ and Pcð4457Þþ states is not performed in this
paper, as they will together perform like a broad structure under the limited sample size [4], which cannot be disentangled from the reflections from the Λ0b→ Ληc, Λ→ pK− decay chain without a full amplitude analysis.
Sources of systematic uncertainty on theΛ0b→ ηcpK− branching fraction arise from the fitting procedure and limited knowledge of the efficiencies, and are summarized in Table I. Pseudoexperiments are used to estimate the effects due to parameters determined from simulation. Systematic uncertainties on the fit model are evaluated by using alternative fit models where: the exponential functions are replaced by Chebyshev polynomials; the contributions from genuineΛ0b decays in the mðp ¯ppK−Þ spectrum are modeled by the Hypatia distribution[49]; the resolution of theηcpeaking structure in the mðp ¯pÞ spectrum is replaced by the average resolution of the CB functions describing the J=ψ peak; and the shape parameters of the Λ0b peak in the Λ0
b→ p ¯ppK− decay without theηcor J=ψ resonances are
fixed to be the same as those of the signal and the normalization decays. Pseudoexperiments are used to esti-mate the potential bias of the fit yields, which is found to be negligible compared to the statistical uncertainties. Based on each alternative fit model described above, the significance of the Λ0b→ ηcpK− is reestimated. The smallest signifi-cance found is approximately7.7σ. This is the first obser-vation of this decay mode.
Uncertainties on the efficiency ratio between the signal and normalization channels are largely canceled due to the similarity of these two decay modes. For the estimation of systematic uncertainties related to the weighting procedure
of mð½c¯cpÞ, mðpK−Þ and (p; pT) of the Λ0b decays in
simulation, pseudoexperiments are used to propagate the uncertainties of single-event weights, originating from the finite yield of the samples used to obtain the weights, to the uncertainty of the overall efficiency ratio; an alternative binning scheme is used to estimate the uncertainty due to the choice of binning in the weighting procedure; and the negative weights, given by the sPlot technique due to statistical fluctuations, are set to zero to recalculate the overall efficiency ratio. A systematic uncertainty is also assigned for the finite size of the simulated samples used for the efficiency estimation.
The total systematic uncertainty of the Λ0b→ ηcpK− branching fraction measurement is obtained by adding the above contributions in quadrature, leading to a value of 5.8%, and details are given in Table I. The dominant contribution is the uncertainty related to the fit model. The limited knowledge of the branching fractions of the Λ0
b→ J=ψpK−, J=ψ → p ¯p and ηc→ p ¯p decays [30] is
also considered as an external source that contributes to the total uncertainty.
The background-subtracted data distributions of mð½c¯cpÞ for the signal and normalization channels are shown in Fig.2, with the distributions of simulated events overlaid. The background subtraction is based on the sPlot technique [47], with mðp ¯ppK−Þ and mðp ¯pÞ as the discriminating variables. No significant peaking structures are seen. The fractions of the Pcð4312Þþ, Pcð4440Þþ and Pcð4457Þþ
contributions to theΛ0b→ J=ψpK−decays are only roughly 0.3%, 1.1% and 0.5%, respectively[5], and given the limited Λ0
b→ J=ψpK−yields of this analysis, it is not surprising that
these Pc contributions are not observed.
In summary, the first observation of the decay Λ0
b→ ηcpK− has been reported using proton-proton
collision data collected with the LHCb experiment, corre-sponding to an integrated luminosity of 5.5 fb−1. The significance of this observation, over the background-only hypothesis, is 7.7 standard deviations. The branching fraction ratio between theΛ0b→ ηcpK−andΛ0b→ J=ψpK− decays is measured to be BðΛ0 b→ ηcpK−Þ BðΛ0 b→ J=ψpK−Þ ¼ 0.333 0.050ðstat:Þ 0.019ðsyst:Þ 0.032ðBÞ;
where the first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic, and the last is due to the uncertainty on the branching fractions of theηc → p ¯p and J=ψ → p ¯p decays. Using this ratio, the branching fraction of theΛ0b→ ηcpK− decay is determined to be
BðΛ0
b→ ηcpK−Þ ¼ ð1.06 0.16ðstat:Þ
0.06ðsyst:Þþ0.22
−0.19ðBÞÞ × 10−4;
TABLE I. Summary of the uncertainties on the branching
fraction ratio BðΛ0b→ ηcpK−Þ=BðΛ0b→ J=ψpK−Þ. The total
systematic uncertainty is obtained by summing the individual contributions in quadrature. Source Uncertainty (%) Λ0 b p and pT distributions 1.0 mðpK−Þ and mð½c¯cpÞ distributions 3.2 Fit model 4.0
Finite simulated sample sizes 2.5
Total systematic uncertainty 5.8
Statistical uncertainty 13.6
where the third uncertainty also depends on the branching fraction of theΛ0b→ J=ψpK− decay.
The observation of this decay opens up a new line of investigation in searching for pentaquarks in the ηcp system. If the Pcð4312Þþ state is a ¯DΣc molecule and
the predictions of Refs. [13–15] are accurate, a value of R¯DΣc∼ 0.03 would be expected, based on the Pcð4312Þ
þ
relative contribution inΛ0b→ J=ψpK− decays[5]and the above result forBðΛ0b→ ηcpK−Þ=BðΛ0b→ J=ψpK−Þ. The 95% confidence level upper limit obtained in this analysis, R < 0.24, does not exclude this molecular interpretation for the Pcð4312Þþ state. A further amplitude analysis with a
larger data sample is required for a more quantitative comparison to theoretical predictions [13–15]. By using an upgraded LHCb detector with improved trigger con-ditions and larger data samples collected, there are good prospects for using this decay to shed light on the binding mechanism of the recently observed pentaquark states [5].
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 (Netherlands); MNiSW and NCN (Poland); MEN/ IFA (Romania); MSHE (Russia); MICINN (Spain); SNSF and SER (Switzerland); NASU (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE NP and NSF (USA). We acknowledge the computing resources that are provided by CERN, IN2P3 (France), KIT and DESY (Germany), INFN (Italy), SURF (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 sup-port from AvH Foundation (Germany); EPLANET, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions and ERC (European Union); A*MIDEX, ANR, Labex P2IO and OCEVU, and R´egion Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (France); Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences of CAS, CAS PIFI, Thousand Talents Program, and Sci. & Tech. Program of Guangzhou (China); RFBR, RSF and Yandex LLC (Russia); GVA, XuntaGal and GENCAT (Spain); the Royal Society and the Leverhulme Trust (United Kingdom).
[1] M. Gell-Mann, A schematic model of baryons and mesons,
Phys. Lett. 8, 214 (1964).
[2] G. Zweig, An SU3 model for strong interaction symmetry
and its breaking; Version 2, CERN-TH-412, CERN, Geneva, 1964,http://cds.cern.ch/record/570209.
[3] H. J. Lipkin, New possibilities for exotic hadrons-
anti-charmed strange baryons,Phys. Lett. B 195, 484 (1987).
[4] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Observation of J=ψp
Resonances Consistent with Pentaquark States in Λ0b→
J=ψpK− Decays,Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 072001 (2015).
[5] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Observation of a
Narrow Pentaquark State, Pcð4312Þþ, and of Two-Peak
Structure of the Pcð4450Þþ,Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 222001
(2019).
[6] L. Maiani, A. D. Polosa, and V. Riquer, The new
pentaquarks in the diquark model,Phys. Lett. B 749, 289
(2015).
[7] R. F. Lebed, The pentaquark candidates in the dynamical diquark picture,Phys. Lett. B 749, 454 (2015).
[8] V. V. Anisovich et al., Pentaquarks and resonances in the
pJ=ψ spectrum,arXiv:1507.07652.
[9] G.-N. Li, X.-G. He, and M. He, Some predictions of diquark model for hidden charm pentaquark discovered at the
LHCb,J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2015) 128.
[10] R. Ghosh, A. Bhattacharya, and B. Chakrabarti, A study on Pcð4380Þ and Pcin the quasi particle diquark model,Phys.
Part. Nucl. Lett. 14, 550 (2017).
[11] Z.-G. Wang, Analysis of Pcð4380Þ and Pcð4450Þ as
pentaquark states in the diquark model with QCD sum rules,Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 70 (2016).
[12] R. Zhu and C.-F. Qiao, Pentaquark states in a
diquark-triquark model, Phys. Lett. B 756, 259 (2016).
[13] M. B. Voloshin, Some decay properties of hidden-charm
pentaquarks as baryon-meson molecules,Phys. Rev. D 100,
034020 (2019).
[14] S. Sakai, H.-J. Jing, and F.-K. Guo, Decays of Pcinto J=ψN
andηcN with heavy quark spin symmetry,Phys. Rev. D 100,
074007 (2019).
[15] G.-J. Wang, L.-Y. Xiao, R. Chen, X.-H. Liu, X. Liu, and
S.-L. Zhu, Probing hidden-charm decay properties of Pc
states in a molecular scenario,Phys. Rev. D 102, 036012
(2020).
[16] M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, New Exotic Meson and Baryon Resonances from Doubly-Heavy Hadronic
Mole-cules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 122001 (2015).
[17] R. Chen, X. Liu, X.-Q. Li, and S.-L. Zhu, Identifying Exotic
Hidden-Charm Pentaquarks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 132002
(2015).
[18] H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, T. G. Steele, and S.-L. Zhu,
Towards Exotic Hidden-Charm Pentaquarks in QCD,Phys.
Rev. Lett. 115, 172001 (2015).
[19] L. Roca, J. Nieves, and E. Oset, LHCb pentaquark as a ¯DΣ
c− ¯DΣc molecular state, Phys. Rev. D 92, 094003
[20] J. He, ¯DΣc and ¯DΣc interactions and the LHCb
hidden-charmed pentaquarks,Phys. Lett. B 753, 547 (2016).
[21] H. Huang, C. Deng, J. Ping, and F. Wang, Possible penta-quarks with heavy penta-quarks,Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 624 (2016). [22] F.-K. Guo, U.-G. Meißner, W. Wang, and Z. Yang, How to
reveal the exotic nature of the Pcð4450Þ,Phys. Rev. D 92,
071502 (2015).
[23] U.-G. Meißner and J. A. Oller, Testing theχc1p composite nature of the Pcð4450Þ,Phys. Lett. B 751, 59 (2015).
[24] X.-H. Liu, Q. Wang, and Q. Zhao, Understanding the newly
observed heavy pentaquark candidates,Phys. Lett. B 757,
231 (2016).
[25] M. Mikhasenko, A triangle singularity and the LHCb
pentaquarks,arXiv:1507.06552.
[26] J.-J. Xie, W.-H. Liang, and E. Oset, Hidden charm penta-quark andΛð1405Þ in the Λ0b→ ηcK−pðπΣÞ reaction,Phys.
Lett. B 777, 447 (2018).
[27] J.-J. Wu, T.-S. H. Lee, and B.-S. Zou, Nucleon resonances
with hidden charm in pγ reactions, Phys. Rev. C 100,
035206 (2019).
[28] N. G. Deshpande and J. Trampetic, Exclusive and semi-inclusive B decays based on b → s ηctransition,Phys. Lett.
B 339, 270 (1994).
[29] M. R. Ahmady and R. R. Mendel, A theoretical prediction
for exclusive decays B → KðKÞηc, Z. Phys. C 65, 263
(1995).
[30] M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of
particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018); and
2019 update.
[31] A. A. Alves, Jr. et al. (LHCb Collaboration), The LHCb
detector at the LHC,J. Instrum. 3, S08005 (2008).
[32] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), LHCb detector
performance,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30, 1530022 (2015).
[33] R. Aaij et al., Performance of the LHCb trigger and full
real-time reconstruction in Run 2 of the LHC,J. Instrum. 14,
P04013 (2019).
[34] V. V. Gligorov and M. Williams, Efficient, reliable and fast high-level triggering using a bonsai boosted decision tree,
J. Instrum. 8, P02013 (2013).
[35] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, A brief introduction toPYTHIA8.1,Comput. Phys. Commun. 178, 852 (2008).
[36] I. Belyaev et al., Handling of the generation of primary
events in Gauss, the LHCb simulation framework,J. Phys.
Conf. Ser. 331, 032047 (2011).
[37] D. J. Lange, The EvtGen particle decay simulation package,
Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 462, 152
(2001).
[38] P. Golonka and Z. Was, PHOTOS Monte Carlo: A precision tool for QED corrections in Z and W decays,Eur. Phys. J. C
45, 97 (2006).
[39] J. Allison et al. (Geant4 Collaboration),GEANT4
develop-ments and applications, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53, 270
(2006).
[40] M. Clemencic, G. Corti, S. Easo, C. R. Jones, S. Miglior-anzi, M. Pappagallo, and P. Robbe, The LHCb simulation application, Gauss: Design, evolution and experience,
J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 331, 032023 (2011).
[41] Y. Freund and R. E. Schapire, A decision-theoretic gener-alization of on-line learning and an application to boosting,
J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 55, 119 (1997).
[42] H. Voss, A. Hoecker, J. Stelzer, and F. Tegenfeldt, TMVA, The toolkit for multivariate data analysis with ROOT,Proc.
Sci., ACAT2007 (2007) 040.
[43] G. Punzi, Sensitivity of searches for new signals and its
optimization, eConf C030908, MODT002 (2003), arXiv:
physics/0308063.
[44] T. Skwarnicki, A study of the radiative cascade transitions between the Upsilon-prime and Upsilon resonances, Ph.D. thesis, Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakow, 1986, DESY-F31-86-02, https://inspirehep.net/literature/230779. [45] J. D. Jackson, Remarks on the phenomenological analysis of
resonances,Nuovo Cimento 34, 1644 (1964).
[46] P. A. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of particle
physics,Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2020, 083C01 (2020).
[47] M. Pivk and F. R. Le Diberder, sPlot: A statistical tool to
unfold data distributions, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys.
Res., Sect. A 555, 356 (2005).
[48] Y. Xie, sFit: A method for background subtraction in
maximum likelihood fit,arXiv:0905.0724.
[49] D. Martínez Santos and F. Dupertuis, Mass distributions
marginalized over per-event errors,Nucl. Instrum. Methods
Phys. Res., Sect. A 764, 150 (2014).
R. Aaij,31 C. Abellán Beteta,49T. Ackernley,59 B. Adeva,45 M. Adinolfi,53 H. Afsharnia,9 C. A. Aidala,83S. Aiola,25 Z. Ajaltouni,9S. Akar,64J. Albrecht,14F. Alessio,47M. Alexander,58A. Alfonso Albero,44Z. Aliouche,61G. Alkhazov,37 P. Alvarez Cartelle,47A. A. Alves Jr.,45S. Amato,2Y. Amhis,11L. An,21L. Anderlini,21G. Andreassi,48A. Andreianov,37 M. Andreotti,20F. Archilli,16A. Artamonov,43M. Artuso,67K. Arzymatov,41E. Aslanides,10M. Atzeni,49B. Audurier,11
S. Bachmann,16M. Bachmayer,48J. J. Back,55 S. Baker,60P. Baladron Rodriguez,45 V. Balagura,11,a W. Baldini,20 J. Baptista Leite,1R. J. Barlow,61S. Barsuk,11W. Barter,60M. Bartolini,23,47,bF. Baryshnikov,80J. M. Basels,13G. Bassi,28 V. Batozskaya,35B. Batsukh,67A. Battig,14A. Bay,48M. Becker,14F. Bedeschi,28I. Bediaga,1A. Beiter,67V. Belavin,41 S. Belin,26V. Bellee,48K. Belous,43I. Belov,39I. Belyaev,38G. Bencivenni,22E. Ben-Haim,12A. Berezhnoy,39R. Bernet,49 D. Berninghoff,16H. C. Bernstein,67C. Bertella,47E. Bertholet,12A. Bertolin,27C. Betancourt,49F. Betti,19,cM. O. Bettler,54 Ia. Bezshyiko,49S. Bhasin,53J. Bhom,33L. Bian,72M. S. Bieker,14S. Bifani,52P. Billoir,12M. Birch,60F. C. R. Bishop,54 A. Bizzeti,21,dM. Bjørn,62M. P. Blago,47T. Blake,55F. Blanc,48S. Blusk,67D. Bobulska,58V. Bocci,30J. A. Boelhauve,14 O. Boente Garcia,45T. Boettcher,63A. Boldyrev,81A. Bondar,42,eN. Bondar,37,47S. Borghi,61M. Borisyak,41M. Borsato,16
J. T. Borsuk,33S. A. Bouchiba,48T. J. V. Bowcock,59A. Boyer,47C. Bozzi,20M. J. Bradley,60S. Braun,65 A. Brea Rodriguez,45M. Brodski,47J. Brodzicka,33A. Brossa Gonzalo,55D. Brundu,26A. Buonaura,49C. Burr,47 A. Bursche,26A. Butkevich,40J. S. Butter,31J. Buytaert,47W. Byczynski,47S. Cadeddu,26H. Cai,72R. Calabrese,20,f L. Calefice,14L. Calero Diaz,22S. Cali,22R. Calladine,52M. Calvi,24,gM. Calvo Gomez,44,hP. Camargo Magalhaes,53
A. Camboni,44P. Campana,22D. H. Campora Perez,47A. F. Campoverde Quezada,5 S. Capelli,24,gL. Capriotti,19,c A. Carbone,19,cG. Carboni,29R. Cardinale,23,bA. Cardini,26I. Carli,6P. Carniti,24,gK. Carvalho Akiba,31A. Casais Vidal,45
G. Casse,59M. Cattaneo,47G. Cavallero,47S. Celani,48R. Cenci,28 J. Cerasoli,10A. J. Chadwick,59M. G. Chapman,53 M. Charles,12Ph. Charpentier,47G. Chatzikonstantinidis,52C. A. Chavez Barajas,59M. Chefdeville,8C. Chen,3S. Chen,26 A. Chernov,33S.-G. Chitic,47V. Chobanova,45S. Cholak,48M. Chrzaszcz,33A. Chubykin,37V. Chulikov,37P. Ciambrone,22
M. F. Cicala,55X. Cid Vidal,45 G. Ciezarek,47 P. E. L. Clarke,57M. Clemencic,47H. V. Cliff,54J. Closier,47 J. L. Cobbledick,61V. Coco,47J. A. B. Coelho,11J. Cogan,10E. Cogneras,9 L. Cojocariu,36P. Collins,47 T. Colombo,47 L. Congedo,18A. Contu,26N. Cooke,52G. Coombs,58S. Coquereau,44G. Corti,47C. M. Costa Sobral,55B. Couturier,47 D. C. Craik,63J. Crkovská,66M. Cruz Torres,1,iR. Currie,57C. L. Da Silva,66E. Dall’Occo,14J. Dalseno,45C. D’Ambrosio,47
A. Danilina,38P. d’Argent,47A. Davis,61O. De Aguiar Francisco,47 K. De Bruyn,47S. De Capua,61M. De Cian,48 J. M. De Miranda,1L. De Paula,2M. De Serio,18,jD. De Simone,49P. De Simone,22J. A. de Vries,78C. T. Dean,66W. Dean,83
D. Decamp,8 L. Del Buono,12B. Delaney,54 H.-P. Dembinski,14A. Dendek,34V. Denysenko,49D. Derkach,81 O. Deschamps,9 F. Desse,11F. Dettori,26,kB. Dey,7 P. Di Nezza,22S. Didenko,80L. Dieste Maronas,45H. Dijkstra,47 V. Dobishuk,51A. M. Donohoe,17F. Dordei,26M. Dorigo,28,lA. C. dos Reis,1L. Douglas,58A. Dovbnya,50A. G. Downes,8
K. Dreimanis,59M. W. Dudek,33L. Dufour,47V. Duk,76P. Durante,47J. M. Durham,66 D. Dutta,61M. Dziewiecki,16 A. Dziurda,33A. Dzyuba,37S. Easo,56U. Egede,69V. Egorychev,38S. Eidelman,42,eS. Eisenhardt,57S. Ek-In,48L. Eklund,58 S. Ely,67A. Ene,36E. Epple,66S. Escher,13J. Eschle,49S. Esen,31T. Evans,47A. Falabella,19J. Fan,3Y. Fan,5B. Fang,72 N. Farley,52S. Farry,59D. Fazzini,11P. Fedin,38M. F´eo,47P. Fernandez Declara,47 A. Fernandez Prieto,45F. Ferrari,19,c L. Ferreira Lopes,48F. Ferreira Rodrigues,2S. Ferreres Sole,31M. Ferrillo,49M. Ferro-Luzzi,47S. Filippov,40R. A. Fini,18 M. Fiorini,20,fM. Firlej,34K. M. Fischer,62C. Fitzpatrick,61T. Fiutowski,34F. Fleuret,11,aM. Fontana,47F. Fontanelli,23,b R. Forty,47V. Franco Lima,59M. Franco Sevilla,65M. Frank,47E. Franzoso,20G. Frau,16C. Frei,47D. A. Friday,58J. Fu,25,m Q. Fuehring,14W. Funk,47E. Gabriel,31T. Gaintseva,41A. Gallas Torreira,45D. Galli,19,c S. Gallorini,27S. Gambetta,57
Y. Gan,3 M. Gandelman,2 P. Gandini,25 Y. Gao,4 M. Garau,26 L. M. Garcia Martin,46 P. Garcia Moreno,44 J. García Pardiñas,49B. Garcia Plana,45F. A. Garcia Rosales,11L. Garrido,44D. Gascon,44C. Gaspar,47R. E. Geertsema,31
D. Gerick,16L. L. Gerken,14E. Gersabeck,61M. Gersabeck,61T. Gershon,55 D. Gerstel,10Ph. Ghez,8 V. Gibson,54 M. Giovannetti,22,n A. Gioventù,45P. Gironella Gironell,44 L. Giubega,36C. Giugliano,20,f K. Gizdov,57 E. L. Gkougkousis,47V. V. Gligorov,12C. Göbel,70E. Golobardes,44,h D. Golubkov,38A. Golutvin,60,80 A. Gomes,1,o
S. Gomez Fernandez,44M. Goncerz,33G. Gong,3 P. Gorbounov,38 I. V. Gorelov,39C. Gotti,24,gE. Govorkova,31 J. P. Grabowski,16R. Graciani Diaz,44T. Grammatico,12L. A. Granado Cardoso,47E. Graug´es,44E. Graverini,48 G. Graziani,21A. Grecu,36L. M. Greeven,31P. Griffith,20L. Grillo,61S. Gromov,80L. Gruber,47B. R. Gruberg Cazon,62 C. Gu,3 M. Guarise,20P. A. Günther,16E. Gushchin,40A. Guth,13Y. Guz,43,47T. Gys,47T. Hadavizadeh,69G. Haefeli,48 C. Haen,47J. Haimberger,47S. C. Haines,54T. Halewood-leagas,59P. M. Hamilton,65Q. Han,7X. Han,16T. H. Hancock,62
S. Hansmann-Menzemer,16 N. Harnew,62T. Harrison,59 R. Hart,31C. Hasse,47M. Hatch,47J. He,5 M. Hecker,60 K. Heijhoff,31K. Heinicke,14A. M. Hennequin,47 K. Hennessy,59L. Henry,25,46J. Heuel,13A. Hicheur,68 D. Hill,62
M. Hilton,61S. E. Hollitt,14 P. H. Hopchev,48 J. Hu,16J. Hu,71W. Hu,7 W. Huang,5 X. Huang,72W. Hulsbergen,31 T. Humair,60R. J. Hunter,55 M. Hushchyn,81 D. Hutchcroft,59 D. Hynds,31P. Ibis,14M. Idzik,34 D. Ilin,37P. Ilten,52 A. Inglessi,37A. Ishteev,80K. Ivshin,37R. Jacobsson,47S. Jakobsen,47E. Jans,31B. K. Jashal,46A. Jawahery,65V. Jevtic,14 M. Jezabek,33F. Jiang,3M. John,62D. Johnson,47C. R. Jones,54T. P. Jones,55B. Jost,47N. Jurik,62S. Kandybei,50Y. Kang,3 M. Karacson,47J. M. Kariuki,53N. Kazeev,81M. Kecke,16F. Keizer,54,47M. Kelsey,67M. Kenzie,55T. Ketel,32B. Khanji,47 A. Kharisova,82S. Kholodenko,43K. E. Kim,67T. Kirn,13V. S. Kirsebom,48O. Kitouni,63S. Klaver,31K. Klimaszewski,35 S. Koliiev,51A. Kondybayeva,80 A. Konoplyannikov,38P. Kopciewicz,34R. Kopecna,16P. Koppenburg,31M. Korolev,39 I. Kostiuk,31,51O. Kot,51S. Kotriakhova,37,30P. Kravchenko,37L. Kravchuk,40R. D. Krawczyk,47M. Kreps,55F. Kress,60 S. Kretzschmar,13P. Krokovny,42,e W. Krupa,34W. Krzemien,35 W. Kucewicz,33,pM. Kucharczyk,33V. Kudryavtsev,42,e
H. S. Kuindersma,31G. J. Kunde,66T. Kvaratskheliya,38D. Lacarrere,47G. Lafferty,61A. Lai,26 A. Lampis,26 D. Lancierini,49J. J. Lane,61 R. Lane,53 G. Lanfranchi,22 C. Langenbruch,13J. Langer,14O. Lantwin,49,80T. Latham,55
F. Lazzari,28,qR. Le Gac,10S. H. Lee,83R. Lef`evre,9A. Leflat,39,47S. Legotin,80O. Leroy,10T. Lesiak,33B. Leverington,16 H. Li,71L. Li,62P. Li,16X. Li,66Y. Li,6Y. Li,6 Z. Li,67X. Liang,67T. Lin,60R. Lindner,47V. Lisovskyi,14R. Litvinov,26 G. Liu,71H. Liu,5S. Liu,6X. Liu,3A. Loi,26J. Lomba Castro,45I. Longstaff,58J. H. Lopes,2G. Loustau,49G. H. Lovell,54
Y. Lu,6 D. Lucchesi,27,rS. Luchuk,40M. Lucio Martinez,31V. Lukashenko,31Y. Luo,3 A. Lupato,61E. Luppi,20,f O. Lupton,55A. Lusiani,28,sX. Lyu,5L. Ma,6S. Maccolini,19,cF. Machefert,11F. Maciuc,36V. Macko,48P. Mackowiak,14
S. Maddrell-Mander,53O. Madejczyk,34L. R. Madhan Mohan,53O. Maev,37A. Maevskiy,81D. Maisuzenko,37 M. W. Majewski,34S. Malde,62B. Malecki,47A. Malinin,79T. Maltsev,42,eH. Malygina,16G. Manca,26,kG. Mancinelli,10 R. Manera Escalero,44D. Manuzzi,19,cD. Marangotto,25,m J. Maratas,9,tJ. F. Marchand,8 U. Marconi,19S. Mariani,21,47,u
C. Marin Benito,11M. Marinangeli,48P. Marino,48 J. Marks,16P. J. Marshall,59G. Martellotti,30 L. Martinazzoli,47 M. Martinelli,24,g D. Martinez Santos,45 F. Martinez Vidal,46A. Massafferri,1 M. Materok,13R. Matev,47A. Mathad,49
Z. Mathe,47V. Matiunin,38C. Matteuzzi,24K. R. Mattioli,83A. Mauri,31E. Maurice,11,a J. Mauricio,44M. Mazurek,35 M. McCann,60L. Mcconnell,17T. H. Mcgrath,61 A. McNab,61R. McNulty,17 J. V. Mead,59B. Meadows,64C. Meaux,10 G. Meier,14N. Meinert,75D. Melnychuk,35S. Meloni,24,gM. Merk,31,78A. Merli,25L. Meyer Garcia,2M. Mikhasenko,47 D. A. Milanes,73E. Millard,55M.-N. Minard,8L. Minzoni,20,fS. E. Mitchell,57B. Mitreska,61D. S. Mitzel,47A. Mödden,14
R. A. Mohammed,62 R. D. Moise,60T. Mombächer,14I. A. Monroy,73S. Monteil,9 M. Morandin,27G. Morello,22 M. J. Morello,28,s J. Moron,34A. B. Morris,74A. G. Morris,55R. Mountain,67 H. Mu,3 F. Muheim,57M. Mukherjee,7
M. Mulder,47 D. Müller,47K. Müller,49C. H. Murphy,62 D. Murray,61P. Muzzetto,26P. Naik,53T. Nakada,48 R. Nandakumar,56 T. Nanut,48 I. Nasteva,2 M. Needham,57 I. Neri,20,f N. Neri,25,m S. Neubert,74N. Neufeld,47 R. Newcombe,60T. D. Nguyen,48C. Nguyen-Mau,48,vE. M. Niel,11S. Nieswand,13N. Nikitin,39N. S. Nolte,47C. Nunez,83
A. Oblakowska-Mucha,34V. Obraztsov,43 S. Ogilvy,58D. P. O’Hanlon,53R. Oldeman,26,k C. J. G. Onderwater,77 J. D. Osborn,83A. Ossowska,33 J. M. Otalora Goicochea,2T. Ovsiannikova,38 P. Owen,49A. Oyanguren,46B. Pagare,55
P. R. Pais,47T. Pajero,28,47,sA. Palano,18M. Palutan,22Y. Pan,61G. Panshin,82 A. Papanestis,56M. Pappagallo,57 L. L. Pappalardo,20,f C. Pappenheimer,64W. Parker,65 C. Parkes,61C. J. Parkinson,45B. Passalacqua,20G. Passaleva,21,47 A. Pastore,18M. Patel,60C. Patrignani,19,cC. J. Pawley,78A. Pearce,47A. Pellegrino,31M. Pepe Altarelli,47S. Perazzini,19 D. Pereima,38P. Perret,9K. Petridis,53A. Petrolini,23,bA. Petrov,79S. Petrucci,57M. Petruzzo,25A. Philippov,41L. Pica,28
M. Piccini,76B. Pietrzyk,8 G. Pietrzyk,48M. Pili,62D. Pinci,30J. Pinzino,47F. Pisani,47A. Piucci,16Resmi P. K,10 V. Placinta,36S. Playfer,57J. Plews,52M. Plo Casasus,45F. Polci,12M. Poli Lener,22M. Poliakova,67A. Poluektov,10
N. Polukhina,80,w I. Polyakov,67 E. Polycarpo,2 G. J. Pomery,53S. Ponce,47A. Popov,43D. Popov,5,47S. Popov,41 S. Poslavskii,43K. Prasanth,33L. Promberger,47C. Prouve,45V. Pugatch,51A. Puig Navarro,49H. Pullen,62G. Punzi,28,x W. Qian,5J. Qin,5 R. Quagliani,12B. Quintana,8N. V. Raab,17R. I. Rabadan Trejo,10B. Rachwal,34J. H. Rademacker,53
M. Rama,28M. Ramos Pernas,45M. S. Rangel,2 F. Ratnikov,41,81G. Raven,32M. Reboud,8 F. Redi,48F. Reiss,12 C. Remon Alepuz,46Z. Ren,3 V. Renaudin,62R. Ribatti,28S. Ricciardi,56D. S. Richards,56 K. Rinnert,59P. Robbe,11 A. Robert,12G. Robertson,57A. B. Rodrigues,48E. Rodrigues,59J. A. Rodriguez Lopez,73M. Roehrken,47A. Rollings,62 P. Roloff,47V. Romanovskiy,43 M. Romero Lamas,45A. Romero Vidal,45 J. D. Roth,83M. Rotondo,22M. S. Rudolph,67 T. Ruf,47J. Ruiz Vidal,46A. Ryzhikov,81J. Ryzka,34J. J. Saborido Silva,45N. Sagidova,37N. Sahoo,55B. Saitta,26,k
D. Sanchez Gonzalo,44C. Sanchez Gras,31C. Sanchez Mayordomo,46R. Santacesaria,30C. Santamarina Rios,45 M. Santimaria,22E. Santovetti,29,nD. Saranin,80G. Sarpis,61M. Sarpis,74A. Sarti,30C. Satriano,30,yA. Satta,29M. Saur,5
D. Savrina,38,39 H. Sazak,9 L. G. Scantlebury Smead,62S. Schael,13 M. Schellenberg,14M. Schiller,58H. Schindler,47 M. Schmelling,15T. Schmelzer,14B. Schmidt,47O. Schneider,48A. Schopper,47M. Schubiger,31S. Schulte,48 M. H. Schune,11R. Schwemmer,47B. Sciascia,22A. Sciubba,30S. Sellam,68A. Semennikov,38M. Senghi Soares,32
A. Sergi,52,47N. Serra,49J. Serrano,10L. Sestini,27 A. Seuthe,14P. Seyfert,47D. M. Shangase,83 M. Shapkin,43 I. Shchemerov,80L. Shchutska,48T. Shears,59L. Shekhtman,42,eZ. Shen,4V. Shevchenko,79E. B. Shields,24,gE. Shmanin,80
J. D. Shupperd,67B. G. Siddi,20R. Silva Coutinho,49 L. Silva de Oliveira,2 G. Simi,27S. Simone,18,jI. Skiba,20,f N. Skidmore,74T. Skwarnicki,67M. W. Slater,52J. C. Smallwood,62J. G. Smeaton,54A. Smetkina,38E. Smith,13M. Smith,60
A. Snoch,31M. Soares,19L. Soares Lavra,9 M. D. Sokoloff,64F. J. P. Soler,58A. Solovev,37I. Solovyev,37 F. L. Souza De Almeida,2B. Souza De Paula,2B. Spaan,14E. Spadaro Norella,25,mP. Spradlin,58F. Stagni,47M. Stahl,64
S. Stahl,47P. Stefko,48O. Steinkamp,49,80 S. Stemmle,16O. Stenyakin,43H. Stevens,14S. Stone,67M. E. Stramaglia,48 M. Straticiuc,36D. Strekalina,80S. Strokov,82F. Suljik,62J. Sun,26L. Sun,72Y. Sun,65P. Svihra,61P. N. Swallow,52
E. Thomas,47 K. A. Thomson,59M. J. Tilley,60V. Tisserand,9 S. T’Jampens,8M. Tobin,6 S. Tolk,47L. Tomassetti,20,f D. Torres Machado,1D. Y. Tou,12M. Traill,58M. T. Tran,48E. Trifonova,80C. Trippl,48A. Tsaregorodtsev,10G. Tuci,28,x
A. Tully,48N. Tuning,31A. Ukleja,35 D. J. Unverzagt,16A. Usachov,31A. Ustyuzhanin,41,81U. Uwer,16A. Vagner,82 V. Vagnoni,19A. Valassi,47G. Valenti,19N. Valls Canudas,44M. van Beuzekom,31H. Van Hecke,66E. van Herwijnen,80
C. B. Van Hulse,17M. van Veghel,77 R. Vazquez Gomez,45P. Vazquez Regueiro,45C. Vázquez Sierra,31S. Vecchi,20 J. J. Velthuis,53M. Veltri,21,z A. Venkateswaran,67M. Veronesi,31M. Vesterinen,55D. Vieira,64M. Vieites Diaz,48 H. Viemann,75X. Vilasis-Cardona,44E. Vilella Figueras,59P. Vincent,12G. Vitali,28A. Vitkovskiy,31 A. Vollhardt,49 D. Vom Bruch,12A. Vorobyev,37V. Vorobyev,42,eN. Voropaev,37R. Waldi,75J. Walsh,28C. Wang,16J. Wang,3J. Wang,72
J. Wang,4 J. Wang,6 M. Wang,3 R. Wang,53Y. Wang,7Z. Wang,49 D. R. Ward,54H. M. Wark,59 N. K. Watson,52 S. G. Weber,12 D. Websdale,60C. Weisser,63B. D. C. Westhenry,53D. J. White,61M. Whitehead,53D. Wiedner,14 G. Wilkinson,62M. Wilkinson,67I. Williams,54 M. Williams,63,69 M. R. J. Williams,61F. F. Wilson,56W. Wislicki,35 M. Witek,33L. Witola,16G. Wormser,11S. A. Wotton,54H. Wu,67K. Wyllie,47Z. Xiang,5 D. Xiao,7 Y. Xie,7 H. Xing,71 A. Xu,4J. Xu,5L. Xu,3M. Xu,7Q. Xu,5Z. Xu,5Z. Xu,4D. Yang,3Y. Yang,5Z. Yang,3Z. Yang,65Y. Yao,67L. E. Yeomans,59 H. Yin,7J. Yu,7X. Yuan,67O. Yushchenko,43K. A. Zarebski,52M. Zavertyaev,15,w M. Zdybal,33O. Zenaiev,47M. Zeng,3 D. Zhang,7 L. Zhang,3 S. Zhang,4Y. Zhang,47Y. Zhang,62A. Zhelezov,16Y. Zheng,5 X. Zhou,5 Y. Zhou,5 X. Zhu,3
V. Zhukov,13,39J. B. Zonneveld,57S. Zucchelli,19,cD. Zuliani,27and G. Zunica61 (LHCb Collaboration)
1Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas (CBPF), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
2
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
3Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
4
School of Physics State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
5
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
6Institute Of High Energy Physics (IHEP), Beijing, China
7
Institute of Particle Physics, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei, China
8Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Univ. Savoie Mont Blanc, CNRS, IN2P3-LAPP, Annecy, France
9
Universit´e Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France
10Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS/IN2P3, CPPM, Marseille, France
11
Universit´e Paris-Saclay, CNRS/IN2P3, IJCLab, Orsay, France
12LPNHE, Sorbonne Universit´e, Paris Diderot Sorbonne Paris Cit´e, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France
13
I. Physikalisches Institut, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
14Fakultät Physik, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
15
Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK), Heidelberg, Germany
16Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
17
School of Physics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
18INFN Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy 19
INFN Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
20INFN Sezione di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
21
INFN Sezione di Firenze, Firenze, Italy
22INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy 23
INFN Sezione di Genova, Genova, Italy
24INFN Sezione di Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy
25
INFN Sezione di Milano, Milano, Italy
26INFN Sezione di Cagliari, Monserrato, Italy
27
Universita degli Studi di Padova, Universita e INFN, Padova, Padova, Italy
28INFN Sezione di Pisa, Pisa, Italy 29
INFN Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy
30INFN Sezione di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy
31
Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands
32Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics and VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
33
Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland
34AGH—University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science,
Kraków, Poland
36Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest-Magurele, Romania 37
Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute NRC Kurchatov Institute (PNPI NRC KI), Gatchina, Russia
38Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics NRC Kurchatov Institute (ITEP NRC KI),
Moscow, Russia, Moscow, Russia
39Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University (SINP MSU), Moscow, Russia
40
Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INR RAS), Moscow, Russia
41Yandex School of Data Analysis, Moscow, Russia
42
Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics (SB RAS), Novosibirsk, Russia
43Institute for High Energy Physics NRC Kurchatov Institute (IHEP NRC KI),
Protvino, Russia, Protvino, Russia
44ICCUB, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
45
Instituto Galego de Física de Altas Enerxías (IGFAE), Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
46
Instituto de Fisica Corpuscular, Centro Mixto Universidad de Valencia—CSIC, Valencia, Spain
47European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
48
Institute of Physics, Ecole Polytechnique F´ed´erale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
49Physik-Institut, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland 50
NSC Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology (NSC KIPT), Kharkiv, Ukraine
51Institute for Nuclear Research of the National Academy of Sciences (KINR), Kyiv, Ukraine
52
University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
53H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
54
Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
55Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
56
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
57School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
58
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
59Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
60
Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
61Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
62
Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
63Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
64
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
65University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA
66
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, USA
67Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, USA
68
Laboratory of Mathematical and Subatomic Physics, Constantine, Algeria (associated with Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)
69
School of Physics and Astronomy, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia (associated with Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom)
70
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (associated with Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)
71
Guangdong Provencial Key Laboratory of Nuclear Science, Institute of Quantum Matter, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China
(associated with Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China)
72School of Physics and Technology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
(associated with Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China)
73Departamento de Fisica, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota, Colombia
(associated with LPNHE, Sorbonne Universit´e, Paris Diderot Sorbonne Paris Cit´e, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France)
74
Universität Bonn—Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen und Kernphysik, Bonn, Germany
(associated with Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany)
75
Institut für Physik, Universität Rostock, Rostock, Germany
(associated with Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany)
76
INFN Sezione di Perugia, Perugia, Italy (associated with INFN Sezione di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy)
77
Van Swinderen Institute, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands (associated with Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands)
78
Universiteit Maastricht, Maastricht, Netherlands
79National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia
(associated with Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics NRC Kurchatov Institute (ITEP NRC KI), Moscow, Russia, Moscow, Russia)
80
National University of Science and Technology“MISIS”, Moscow, Russia
(associated with Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics NRC Kurchatov Institute (ITEP NRC KI), Moscow, Russia, Moscow, Russia)
81National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia
(associated with Yandex School of Data Analysis, Moscow, Russia)
82National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
(associated with Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics NRC Kurchatov Institute (ITEP NRC KI), Moscow, Russia, Moscow, Russia)
83
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA
(associated with Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, USA)
a
Also at Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Palaiseau, France.
bAlso at Universit`a di Genova, Genova, Italy. c
Also at Universit`a di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
dAlso at Universit`a di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
e
Also at Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia.
fAlso at Universit`a di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy. g
Also at Universit`a di Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy.
hAlso at DS4DS, La Salle, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain.
i
Also at Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Honduras, Tegucigalpa, Honduras.
jAlso at Universit`a di Bari, Bari, Italy. k
Also at Universit`a di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
lAlso at INFN Sezione di Trieste, Trieste, Italy. m
Also at Universit`a degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy.
nAlso at Universit`a di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy.
o
Also at Universidade Federal do Triângulo Mineiro (UFTM), Uberaba-MG, Brazil.
pAlso at AGH—University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunications,
Kraków, Poland.
qAlso at Universit`a di Siena, Siena, Italy. r
Also at Universit`a di Padova, Padova, Italy.
sAlso at Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, Italy. t
Also at MSU—Iligan Institute of Technology (MSU-IIT), Iligan, Philippines.
uAlso at Universit`a di Firenze, Firenze, Italy. v
Also at Hanoi University of Science, Hanoi, Vietnam.
wAlso at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Russian Academy of Science (LPI RAS), Moscow, Russia.
x
Also at Universit`a di Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
yAlso at Universit`a della Basilicata, Potenza, Italy. z
