Study of the process e+e- -> omega pi0 in the phi-meson mass region with the KLOE detector
KLOE Collaboration, F. Ambrosino, A. Antonelli, M. Antonelli, F. Archilli, P. Beltrame, G. Bencivenni, S. Bertolucci, C. Bini, C. Bloise, S. Bocchetta, F. Bossi, P. Branchini, P. Campana, G. Capon, T. Capussela, F. Ceradini, P. Ciambrone, F. Crucianelli, E. De Lucia, A. De Santis, P. De Simone, G. De Zorzi, A. Denig, A. Di Domenico, C. Di Donato, B. Di Micco, M. Dreucci, G. Felici, M. L. Ferrer, S. Fiore, P. Franzini, C. Gatti, P. Gauzzi, S. Giovannella, E. Graziani, W. Kluge, G. Lanfranchi, J. Lee-Franzini, D. Leone, M. Martini, P. Massarotti, S. Meola, S. Miscetti, M. Moulson, S. Müller, F. Murtas, M. Napolitano, F. Nguyen, M. Palutan, E. Pasqualucci, A. Passeri, V. Patera, F. Perfetto, P. Santangelo, B. Sciascia, A. Sciubba, A. Sibidanov, T. Spadaro, M. Testa, L. Tortora, P. Valente, G. Venanzoni, R. Versaci, G. Xu
aa r X i v : . [ h e p - e x ] S e p Study of the process e + e − → ωπ in the φ -meson mass region with the KLOE detector The KLOE CollaborationF. Ambrosino c , d , A. Antonelli a , M. Antonelli a , F. Archilli h , i ,P. Beltrame b , G. Bencivenni a , S. Bertolucci a , C. Bini f , g ,C. Bloise a , S. Bocchetta j , k , F. Bossi a , P. Branchini k ,P. Campana a , G. Capon a , T. Capussela a , F. Ceradini j , k ,P. Ciambrone a , F. Crucianelli f , E. De Lucia a , A. De Santis f , g , ∗ ,P. De Simone a , G. De Zorzi f , g , A. Denig b , A. Di Domenico f , g ,C. Di Donato d , B. Di Micco j , k , M. Dreucci a , G. Felici a ,M. L. Ferrer a , S. Fiore f , g , P. Franzini f , g , C. Gatti a ,P. Gauzzi f , g , S. Giovannella a , ∗ E. Graziani k , W. Kluge b ,G. Lanfranchi a , J. Lee-Franzini a ,ℓ , D. Leone b , M. Martini a , e ,P. Massarotti c , d , S. Meola c , d , S. Miscetti a , M. Moulson a ,S. M¨uller a , F. Murtas a , M. Napolitano c , d , F. Nguyen j , k ,M. Palutan a , E. Pasqualucci g , A. Passeri k , V. Patera a , e ,F. Perfetto c , d , P. Santangelo a , B. Sciascia a , A. Sciubba a , e ,A. Sibidanov a , T. Spadaro a , M. Testa f , g , L. Tortora k ,P. Valente g , G. Venanzoni a , R.Versaci a , e , G. Xu a , m a Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati dell’INFN, Frascati, Italy. b Institut f¨ur Experimentelle Kernphysik, Universit¨at Karlsruhe, Germany. c Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche dell’Universit`a “Federico II”, Napoli, Italy d INFN Sezione di Napoli, Napoli, Italy e Dipartimento di Energetica dell’Universit`a “La Sapienza”, Roma, Italy. f Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Universit`a “La Sapienza”, Roma, Italy. g INFN Sezione di Roma, Roma, Italy. h Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Universit`a “Tor Vergata”, Roma, Italy. i INFN Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy. j Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Universit`a “Roma Tre”, Roma, Italy. k INFN Sezione di Roma Tre, Roma, Italy. ℓ Physics Department, State University of New York at Stony Brook, USA. m Institute of High Energy Physics of Academica Sinica, Beijing, China.
Preprint submitted to Elsevier 24 October 2018 bstract
We have studied the e + e − → ωπ cross section in the √ s interval 1000-1030 MeVusing the π + π − π π and π π γ final states with a sample of ∼
600 pb − collectedwith the KLOE detector at DAΦNE. By fitting the observed interference patternaround M φ for both final states, we extract the ratio of the decay widths Γ( ω → π γ ) / Γ( ω → π + π − π ) = 0 . ± . ω → π + π − π ) = (90 . ± . ω → π γ ) = (8 . ± . e + e − → π + π − π π reaction around M φ are also used to extract thebranching fraction for the OZI and G-parity violating φ → ωπ decay: BR( φ → ωπ ) = (4 . ± . × − . Key words: e + e − collisions, rare φ decays, VMD, OZI violation, Isospin violation At low energy, below 1.4 GeV, the e + e − → ωπ cross section is largely dom-inated by the non-resonant processes e + e − → ρ/ρ ′ → ωπ . However, in theregion around M φ , a contribution from the OZI and G-parity violating de-cay φ → ωπ is expected. This strongly suppressed decay ( O (10 − )) can beobserved via interference with the non-resonant process, showing up as a dipin the total cross section dependence from √ s .The e + e − → ωπ cross section as a function of √ s is parametrized as [1]: σ ( √ s ) = σ nr ( √ s ) · (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) − Z M φ Γ φ D φ ( √ s ) (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) (1)where σ nr ( √ s ) is the bare cross section for the non-resonant process, Z isthe interference parameter (i.e. the ratio between the φ decay and the non-resonant process amplitudes), while M φ , Γ φ and D φ are the mass, the widthand the inverse propagator of the φ meson respectively. The non-resonantcross section, in the energy range of interest, increases linearly with √ s . Amodel independent parametrization is used to describe the non resonant part: σ nr ( √ s ) = σ + σ ′ ( √ s − M φ ).In this work we study two different final states: π + π − π π and π π γ , corre-sponding to the ω decay in π + π − π ad π γ , respectively. From the π + π − π π ∗ Corresponding author.
Email addresses: [email protected] (A. De Santis), [email protected] (S. Giovannella). φ → ωπ branching ratio (BR). In the case of π π γ we expect contributionsalso from φ → ρπ and φ → Sγ intermediate states, being S a scalar meson.In [2] we have shown that at √ s ∼ M φ the interference between φ → Sγ and e + e − → ωπ events, evaluated by fitting the M ππ - M πγ Dalitz plot, is small.Therefore a fit to the cross section interference pattern for π π γ final statewill provide information about the e + e − → ρ/ρ ′ → ωπ process and the reso-nant decays φ → ωπ and φ → ρπ . Moreover, combining the results we extractthe ratio Γ( ω → π γ ) / Γ( ω → π + π − π ). The KLOE experiment operates at DAΦNE [3], the Frascati φ -factory. DAΦNEis an e + e − collider running at a center of mass energy of ∼ φ meson. Equal energy positron and electron beams collide at anangle of π -25 mrad, producing φ mesons nearly at rest.The KLOE detector consists of a large cylindrical drift chamber, DC, sur-rounded by a lead-scintillating fiber electromagnetic calorimeter, EMC. A su-perconducting coil around the EMC provides a 0.52 T field. The drift cham-ber [4], 4 m in diameter and 3.3 m long, has 12,582 all-stereo tungsten sensewires and 37,746 aluminum field wires. The chamber shell is made of carbonfiber-epoxy composite and the gas used is a 90% helium, 10% isobutane mix-ture. These features maximize transparency to photons and reduce K L → K S regeneration and multiple scattering. The position resolutions are σ xy ∼ µ mand σ z ∼ σ ( p ⊥ ) /p ⊥ ≈ . ∼ ∼ (4.4 × , for a totalof 2440 cells arranged in five layers. The energy deposits are obtained fromthe signal amplitude while the arrival times and the particles positions are ob-tained from the time differences. Cells close in time and space are grouped intocalorimeter clusters. The cluster energy E is the sum of the cell energies. Thecluster time T and position ~R are energy-weighed averages. Energy and timeresolutions are σ E /E = 5 . / q E (GeV) and σ t = 57 ps / q E (GeV) ⊕
100 ps,respectively. The KLOE trigger [6] uses both calorimeter and chamber infor-mation. In this analysis the events are selected by the calorimeter trigger,requiring two energy deposits with
E >
50 MeV for the barrel and
E >
All available statistics collected at the φ peak during 2001–2002 data-takingperiods, corresponding to 450 pb − , have been analyzed. Moreover four scanpoints (at 1010, 1018, 1023 and 1030 MeV) of ∼
10 pb − each and the off-peakrun at 1000 MeV of ∼
100 pb − acquired in 2005-2006 have been includedin this analysis. The luminosity is measured with 0.5% absolute precisioncounting large angle Bhabha scattering events [8]. Data taken at the φ peakare grouped in center of mass energy bins of 100 keV width. For all the otherpoints, close √ s values are grouped together and the average center of massenergy is evaluated by weighting with luminosity.In the following, the visible cross section for a given final state ( j =4 π , ππγ )is defined σ j vis = N j /ε j L int , where N j , ε j and L int , are the number of signalevents, the analysis efficiency and the luminosity, respectively.The visible cross section is related to the bare cross section through the radi-ator function H (see Sec. 4): σ j vis ( √ s ) = Z ds ′ H ( s, s ′ ) σ j ( s ′ ) = σ j ( √ s ) ∗ δ jrad ( √ s ) . e + e − → ωπ → π + π − π π In the π + π − π π analysis, data are filtered by selecting events with the ex-pected final state signature: two tracks with opposite curvature connected toa vertex inside a small cylindrical fiducial volume ( ρ < | z | < | T γ − R γ /c | < MIN(4 σ t , ◦ ≤ θ γ ≤ ◦ .With this selection, at φ resonance, the main background contributions comefrom φ → K S K L → π + π − π π /π π πµν and φ → K + K − , with K ± → π ± π ,which have the same final state signature. Other two resonant backgroundcomponents ( φ → ηγ with η → π + π − π , and φ → π + π − π ) mimic the finalstate signature because of additional clusters due to accidental coincidence ofmachine background events and/or shower fragments (cluster splitting). Anadditional non-resonant background contribution of the order of few percent4rom e + e − → π + π − π π , dominated by the a (1260) π intermediate state, isalso expected for all √ s values [9].A global kinematic fit ( N dof = 8), imposing total four-momentum conservationand proper time of flight (TOF) for photons coming from the charged vertex,improves both the signal/background separation and the determination ofthe photon energies. The resulting χ ( χ ) is used to select signal enriched( χ < evts , and background dominated ( χ > evts , samples. InS evts sample the overall contamination from resonant background at √ s ∼ M φ is about 12% while becomes negligible outside φ resonance. The contributionof the a (1260) π background is about 4% for all √ s values. The signal selectionefficiency in the S evts sample is evaluated by Monte Carlo (MC) and correctedwith data/MC ratios for tracking, vertexing and clustering. The resulting value ε π ∼
38% is dominated by the selection requirements and shows a smalldependence on √ s , which is taken into account in the evaluation of σ π vis .The signal counting is performed for each √ s bin by fitting the π recoilmass ( M rec ) distribution for both, S evts and B evts samples with MC signal andresonant, non-resonant background shapes. The fit procedure is based on alikelihood function which takes into account both data and MC statistics.In Fig. 1.a-d, data-MC comparisons for events in the most populated bin of √ s are shown. In Fig. 1.e-f, the M rec distribution is also shown for the twooutermost center of mass energies.The results are summarized in Tab. 1, where the signal counting ( N π ) and thevisible cross section ( σ π vis ) are reported for all √ s bins. Errors on σ π vis includestatistics, background subtraction and a systematic error of 0.75%, dominatedby the luminosity measurement (0.5%). The other systematics being due tocosmic ray veto, event counting and final state radiation.We have checked the stability of the result by repeating the whole analysischain with a wide variation of the selection criteria on: (a) minimum clusterenergy and angle in the TW definition; (b) value of χ cut used to select S evts and B evts samples; (c) distribution used for the B evts sample when performingsignal counting; (d) data/MC efficiency correction curves. The resulting σ π vis values are then used to estimate the systematic error of the measurement.The fit to the visible cross section as a function of √ s described in Sec. 4is repeated for all of these variations. The quoted systematics uncertainty iscalculated as the quadratic sum of RMS’s obtained from variations (a)-(d). e + e − → ωπ → π π γ The selection for π π γ starts requiring five neutral clusters in the promptTime Window with E γ ≥ | cos θ γ | < .
92. After a first5 a) DataSignal φ Bkga π Bkg χ KFit b) χ KFit c) cos θ ± d) M rec (MeV) e v t/ . M e V e) M rec (MeV) e v t/ . M e V f) M rec (MeV) e v t/ . M e V Fig. 1. Data-MC comparison for π + π − π π events taken at √ s = 1019 .
75 MeV: χ of kinematic fit for S evts (a) and B evts (b) samples, angle between charged pionsin the ω rest frame (c) and π recoil mass (d) for S evts events. The last distributionis shown also at √ s = 1000 .
10 MeV (e) and √ s = 1029 .
95 MeV (f). kinematic fit (Fit1, N dof = 9) imposing total 4-momentum conservation andtime of flight, photons are paired to π ’s by minimizing a χ function, builtusing the invariant mass of the two γγ pairs. A second kinematic fit (Fit2, N dof = 11) imposes also the constraint on π masses.The background is rejected by requiring χ / Ndf ≤ M γγ = | M γγ − M π | ≤ σ γγ , where M γγ and σ γγ are evaluated using the photon momenta fromFit1. After these cuts the remaining sample is dominated by e + e − → ωπ → π π γ and φ → Sγ → π π γ events. Signal is then selected neglecting the in-terference between these two processes and cutting on the intermediate statemass. Defining M πγ as the closest mass to M ω of the two π γ combinations,only events satisfying the requirement 750 < M πγ <
830 MeV are retained.The residual background contamination ( ∼
20% at the φ peak) comes pre-dominantly from φ → ηγ → π π π γ events, where two photons are lost ormerged. 6 Fit2 /ndf
DataSignal φ→ S γ Other backgr. a) ∆ M γγ / σ M b)M πγ (MeV)c) cos Ψ d)M πγ (MeV)e) M πγ (MeV)f) Fig. 2. Data-MC comparison for π π γ events taken at √ s = 1019 .
75 MeV: (a)normalized χ of the second kinematic fit after acceptance cuts (Fit2), (b) normal-ized two-photon invariant mass after χ cut, (c) π γ invariant mass after ∆ M γγ cut, (d) cos ψ distribution after all analysis cuts; M πγ distribution at √ s = 1000 . √ s = 1029 .
95 MeV (f).
In Fig. 2.a-d, data-MC comparison for events in the most populated √ s binare shown. The ψ variable is the minimum angle between the photon andthe π ’s in the di-pion rest frame. A good agreement is observed both afteracceptance selection and after applying analysis cuts. The comparison for the M πγ distribution is also shown for the two outermost center of mass energies,where the background contribution is practically negligible (Fig. 2.e-f).The overall signal selection efficiency is evaluated by applying the whole anal-ysis chain to signal MC events: εππγ ∼ √ s .The value obtained for each bin, together with the corresponding integratedluminosity, has been applied to the signal counting to obtain the visible crosssection ( σππγ vis ). Results are summarized in Tab. 1. Errors on σππγ vis includestatistics, background subtraction and a systematic error of 0.6%, dominatedby the luminosity measurement (0.5%). The other systematic effects, related7o cosmic ray veto and to the event classification filter, have been evaluatedwith downscaled data samples.The stability of the results has been checked by repeating the fit with: (a) avariation of the selection criteria on the TW definition and on χ and M πγ cuts; (b) a rescaling of the background components according to the valueobtained by fitting background-enriched distributions on data with the cor-responding MC components; (c) a subtraction to the visible cross section ofthe interference effect between φ → Sγ and the signal. This interference con-tribution is extracted from a fit to the Dalitz plot of the π π γ final state [2]at the φ peak, which provides the parameters describing the two processes.These values are then used to evaluate for each √ s the interference contribu-tion, which is subtracted to the corresponding σ ππγ vis . The largest contributionis 1.4%. Table 1Signal counting, visible cross section and radiative correction for e + e − → π + π − π π and e + e − → π π γ events. The radiative correction values are calculated using forthe bare cross section parameters in Tab. 2. √ s (MeV) N π σ π vis (nb) δ pirad N ππγ σππγ vis (nb) δππγ rad ±
562 5 . ± .
05 0.885 27110 ±
167 0 . ± .
005 0.8891009.90 25968 ±
173 6 . ± .
06 0.893 2958 ±
56 0 . ± .
012 0.8951017.20 16209 ±
171 5 . ± .
08 0.924 2108 ±
46 0 . ± .
018 0.9231018.15 22167 ±
158 5 . ± .
06 0.933 2557 ±
60 0 . ± .
014 0.9441019.30 4799 ±
90 5 . ± .
12 0.918 322 ±
22 0 . ± .
034 0.9641019.45 58077 ±
340 5 . ± .
06 0.912 6058 ±
101 0 . ± .
009 0.9621019.55 93596 ±
445 5 . ± .
05 0.908 9516 ±
130 0 . ± .
008 0.9601019.65 171571 ±
888 5 . ± .
05 0.904 18349 ±
189 0 . ± .
007 0.9581019.75 326774 ±
872 6 . ± .
05 0.900 34049 ±
282 0 . ± .
006 0.9551019.85 256008 ± . ± .
05 0.896 26124 ±
234 0 . ± .
006 0.9511019.95 35850 ±
263 6 . ± .
07 0.893 3510 ±
74 0 . ± .
011 0.9481020.05 17971 ±
167 6 . ± .
08 0.889 1843 ±
52 0 . ± .
016 0.9441020.15 8190 ±
132 6 . ± .
11 0.886 702 ±
32 0 . ± .
024 0.9401020.45 9657 ±
117 6 . ± .
09 0.878 667 ±
31 0 . ± .
024 0.9281022.30 16931 ±
141 7 . ± .
08 0.869 1891 ±
43 0 . ± .
018 0.8911023.00 29611 ±
177 7 . ± .
07 0.871 3101 ±
61 0 . ± .
013 0.8881029.95 33681 ±
186 7 . ± .
07 0.887 3896 ±
65 0 . ± .
013 0.892 ω branching ratios extraction The measured values of visible cross section, shown in Tab. 1, are fitted withthe parametrization (1) convoluted with the radiator function [10]. The freefit parameters of the bare cross section are: σ j , ℜ ( Z j ), ℑ ( Z j ) and σ ′ j , where j represents either the 4 π or ππγ final state. In Fig. 3 data points with thesuperimposed fit result are shown for both channels. The values of the pa-rameters are reported in Tab. 2. The second error quoted is the systematicuncertainty. It is evaluated as the quadratic sum of the RMS of the param-eters extracted by repeating the fit with different conditions, as described inthe previous section. The resulting χ /N dof are 11.79/13 ( P ( χ ) = 54%) and8.78/13 ( P ( χ ) = 98%) for π π γ and π + π − π π channel, respectively. Thefit has been repeated using a VMD model [1] based on ρ and ρ ′ intermediatestates for the non-resonant term of the cross section. Results are in agreementwith the linear parametrization within one standard deviation. Table 2Fit results for the e + e − → π + π − π π and for e + e − → π π γ cross section.Parameter e + e − → π + π − π π e + e − → π π γσ [nb] 7 . ± . ± .
07 0 . ± . ± . ℜ e ( Z ) 0 . ± . ± .
004 0 . ± . ± . ℑ m ( Z ) − . ± . ± . − . ± . ± . σ ′ [nb/MeV] 0 . ± . ± .
001 0 . ± . ± . After removing common systematics on the luminosity (0.5%), from the twomeasurements we obtain: σ ( ω → π γ ) σ ( ω → π + π − π ) = 0 . ± . ω → π γ )Γ( ω → π + π − π ) = 0 . ± . ω total width, we use theΓ( ω → π γ ) / Γ( ω → π + π − π ) ratio and the sum of rarer BR’s [11] to obtainfrom a fit: The fitting function used for the non-resonant term is: σ jnr ( E ) = σ j m φ E (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) m ρ Π ρ ( E ) + A j m ρ ′ Π ρ ′ ( E ) (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) m ρ Π ρ ( m φ ) + A j m ρ ′ Π ρ ′ ( m φ ) (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) P f ( E ) P f ( m φ )where Π ρ ( ′ ) ( E ) = ( m ρ ( ′ ) − E − iE Γ ρ ( ′ ) ( E )) − is the vector meson propagator while P f ( E ) describes the energy dependence of the phase space volume of the final state.For the latter we assume the approximation of an infinitely narrow ω meson. Thefree parameters in this case are σ j and the real number A j . This parametrizationallows us to compare directly the value of σ j obtained from this model with thevalue in Tab. 2. The width of the ρ meson has a dependence with energy Γ ρ ( E ) =Γ ρ ( m ρ )( m ρ /E )( p π ( E ) /p π ( m ρ )), while the ρ ′ width is assumed fixed. m ρ ( ′ ) and Γ ρ ( ′ ) values are taken from [11]. For the parameter A we obtain: − . ± .
04, where theerror takes into account only the contributions from Tab. 1. Fitted cross section Measured cross section √ s (MeV) σ π v i s ( nb ) √ s (MeV) σ ππ γ v i s ( nb ) Fig. 3. Cross section fit results for the e + e − → π + π − π π (top) and e + e − → π π γ (bottom) channels. Black dots are data, solid line is the resulting fit function. BR( ω → π + π − π ) = (90 . ± . ω → π γ ) = ( 8 . ± . ω → π γ ) is less than the PDGvalue by three standard deviations. It is in good agreement with the recentprediction in [12]. 10 R( ω→π γ ) (%) BR ( ω → π + π - π ) ( % ) PDG 07KLOE
Fig. 4. Branching fraction for the two main ω decay channels. The black square isthe KLOE fit result, while the black dot is the constrained fit result in [11]. Thegray ellipses are the 68% C.L. regions. φ → ωπ ) evaluation The measured σ π and Z π parameters of the π + π − π π final state are relatedto the BR( φ → ωπ ) through the relation:BR( φ → ωπ ) = σ ( m φ ) | Z π | σ φ = σ π | Z π | BR ( ω → π + π − π ) M φ π Γ( φ → e + e − ) , (6)where σ ( m φ ) is the total cross section of the e + e − → ωπ process and σ φ is the peak value of the bare cross section for the φ resonance. Using theparameters obtained from the π + π − π π analysis, the Γ ee measurement fromKLOE [13] for the evaluation of σ φ , and our value for BR( ω → π + π − π ) weextract:BR( φ → ωπ ) = (4 . ± . × − (7)The error is reduced by a factor of two with respect to the best previousmeasurement from the SND experiment [1], which is in agreement with ourresult. 11 Conclusions
Using a sample of 600 pb − collected at center of mass energy between 1000and 1030 MeV, we have measured the cross section parameters for the twoprocesses e + e − → π + π − π π and e + e − → π π γ , obtaining the ratio Γ( ω → π γ ) / Γ( ω → π + π − π ) with an accuracy of 1.8%. This ratio, together withthe unitarity relation and the BR measurements on the other ω decay chan-nels, substantially improves the accuracy on the dominant ω branching frac-tions giving a value for BR( ω → π γ ) which is three standard deviations lowerthan the Particle Data Group fit [11]. Moreover, the parameters describing the e + e − → π + π − π π reaction around M φ are used to extract the most preciseBR measurement of the OZI and G-parity violating decay φ → ωπ . Acknowledgements
We thank the DAFNE team for their efforts in maintaining low backgroundrunning conditions and their collaboration during all data-taking. We want tothank our technical staff: G.F.Fortugno and F.Sborzacchi for their dedicatedwork to ensure an efficient operation of the KLOE Computing Center; M.Anellifor his continuous support to the gas system and the safety of the detec-tor; A.Balla, M.Gatta, G.Corradi and G.Papalino for the maintenance of theelectronics; M.Santoni, G.Paoluzzi and R.Rosellini for the general support tothe detector; C.Piscitelli for his help during major maintenance periods. Thiswork was supported in part by EURODAPHNE, contract FMRX-CT98-0169;by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) contract06-KA-957; by the German Research Foundation (DFG),’Emmy Noether Pro-gramme’, contracts DE839/1-4; and by the EU Integrated Infrastructure Ini-tiative HadronPhysics Project under contract number RII3-CT-2004-506078.
References [1] V. M. Aulchenko et al., J. Exp. Th. Phys. 90 (2000) 927.[2] KLOE Collaboration, F. Ambrosino et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 49 (2007) 473.[3] S. Guiducci et al., Proc. of the 2001 Particle Accelerator Conference (Chicago,Illinois, USA), P. Lucas S. Webber Eds., 2001, 353.[4] KLOE Collaboration, M. Adinolfi et al., Nucl. Inst. and Meth. A 488 (2002) 51.[5] KLOE Collaboration, M. Adinolfi et al., Nucl. Inst. and Meth. A 482 (2002) 363.
6] KLOE Collaboration, M. Adinolfi et al., Nucl. Inst. and Meth. A 492 (2002) 134.[7] KLOE Collaboration, F. Ambrosino et al., Nucl. Inst. and Meth. A 534 (2004)403.[8] KLOE Collaboration, F. Ambrosino et al., European Physiscal Journal C47(2006) 589.[9] R. R. Akhmetshin et al., Phys. Lett. B 466 (1999) 392.[10] M. Greco et al., Phys. Lett. B 318 (1993) 635.[11] W. M. Yao et al., J. Phys. G 33 (2006) and 2007 partial update for 2008 edition( http://pdg.web.cern.ch/pdg )[12] M. Benayoun et al., European Physiscal Journal C55 (2008) 199.[13] KLOE Collaboration, F. Ambrosino et al., Phys. Lett. B 608 (2005) 199.)[12] M. Benayoun et al., European Physiscal Journal C55 (2008) 199.[13] KLOE Collaboration, F. Ambrosino et al., Phys. Lett. B 608 (2005) 199.