Investigation of the Decay of Orbitally-Excited B Mesons and First Measurement of the Branching Ratio BR(B*_J->B*pi(X))

From about 4 million hadronic Z decays recorded by the OPAL detector on and near to the Z resonance, we select a sample of more than 570000 inclusively reconstructed B mesons. Orbitally-excited mesons B*J are reconstructed using Bpi+- combinations. Independently, B* mesons are reconstructed using the decay B* ->Bgamma. The selected B* candidates are used to obtain samples enriched or depleted in the decay B*J ->B*pi+-(X), where (X) refers to decay modes with or without additional accompanying decay particles. From the number of signal candidates in the Bpi+- mass spectra of these two samples, we perform the first measurement of the branching ratio of orbitally-excited B mesons decaying into B*pi(X): BR(B*J ->B*pi(X)) = 0.85 +0.36-0.37 +- 0.12, where the first error is statistical and the second systematic. If B*J decay modes other than single pion transitions can be neglected the measured ratio corresponds to the branching ratio BR(B*J->B*pi). In the framework of Heavy Quark Symmetry, a simultaneous fit to the Bpi+- mass spectra of the samples enriched or depleted in B*J->B*pi+-(X) decays yields the mass and the width of the B1(3/2) state, as well as the branching ratio of B*J mesons decaying into B*pi: M(B1(3/2)) = (5.738 +0.005-0.006 +-0.007) GeV/c2 G(B1(3/2)) = (18 +15-13 +29-23) MeV/c BR(B*J->B*pi) = 0.74 +0.12-0.10 +0.21-0.15, where the uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

(Submitted to Eur.Phys.J.) 1 Introduction An important prediction of Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET) is the existence of an approximate spin-flavour symmetry for hadrons containing one heavy quark Q (m Q ≫ Λ QCD ) [1].
In the limit m Q → ∞, mesons composed of a heavy quark Q and a light quark q are characterised by the spin of the heavy quark, S Q , the total angular momentum of the light quark, j q = S q + L, and the total angular momentum, J, where S q and L denote spin and orbital angular momentum of the light quark, respectively.In the heavy quark limit, both S Q and j q are good quantum numbers and the total angular momentum of the meson is given by J = S Q + j q .
For L = 1, there are four states with spin-parity J P = 0 + , 1 + , 1 + and 2 + .If the heavy quark Q is a bottom quark, these states are labelled B * 0 , B 1 for both 1 + states1 and B * 2 [2], respectively.The four states, commonly called B * J , or alternatively B * *2 , are grouped into two sets of degenerate doublets, corresponding to j q = 1/2 and j q = 3/2 as indicated in Table 1.Parity and angular momentum conservation put restrictions on the strong decays of these states to B ( * ) π3 (see Figure 1).The 0 + state can only decay to Bπ via an S-wave transition, the 1 + 1/2 to B * π via an S-wave transition, the 1 + 3/2 to B * π via a D-wave transition, and the 2 + state can decay to both Bπ and B * π via D-wave transitions only.States decaying via an S-wave transition are expected to be much broader than the states decaying via a D-wave transition [3].In addition to the single pion transitions, decays to B * ππ and Bππ are also possible.In the case of di-pion transitions, all four B * J states are allowed to decay to B * as well as to B. Although these decays are phase-space suppressed, intermediate states with large width like B * J → B ( * ) ρ → B ( * ) ππ may cause a significant enhancement of the B * ππ and Bππ final states [4].Additional B * J decay modes with other than one or two accompanying pions are expected to be strongly suppressed but can not be excluded.Therefore, the notations B * π(X) and Bπ(X) are chosen to refer to the final states of B * J decays.Given the HQET predictions listed in Table 1, the four B * J states are expected to overlap in mass.So far, in analyses from LEP experiments [5][6][7][8] and from CDF [9] B * J mesons are reconstructed in the Bπ final state only, observing one single peak in the Bπ mass spectrum.This is not sufficient to resolve any substructure of the four expected B * J states.In addition, for decays to B * π where the photon in the decay B * → Bγ is not detected, the reconstructed Bπ mass is shifted by M B − M B * = −46 MeV/c 2 .A recent analysis [10] tries to cope with these problems by constraining all properties of the four B * J states according to HQET predictions except for the masses and widths of B 1 (1/2) and B * 2 .In this paper a different approach is presented.Using information from the photon in the decay B * → Bγ, the B * J → B * π ± (X) decays are statistically separated from the B * J → Bπ ± (X) decays.This allows a model-independent measurement of the branching ratio BR( B * J → B * π(X)).Assuming that B ( * ) πX decays produce small contributions to the B * J width, this method gives insight into the decomposition of the B * J into the states allowed to decay to Bπ (B * 0 and B * 2 ) from the other states that can only decay to B * π.
The Bπ invariant mass spectrum is also fit in the context of HQET expectations.This requires high statistics, extensive background studies and the tagging of the B * decay.Due to the complexity of the B * J signal and its different decay modes, several constraints provided by predicted properties [3,4,11] Monte Carlo input state J P j mass GeV/c 2 width GeV/c 2 decay mode mass GeV/c 2 width GeV/c  [3,4,[11][12][13] and the corresponding Monte Carlo input values used in the analysis.Recent calculations using a bag model predict widths of Γ(B * 0 ) = 0.141 GeV/c 2 and Γ(B 1 (1/2)) = 0.139 GeV/c 2 for the broad states [14].
HQET are imposed.From the fitting procedure, we obtain model-dependent measurements of the mass and width of B 1 (3/2) as well as BR( B * J → B * π).The paper is organised as follows: the next section describes the data sample and the event simulation.In Section 3, the analysis method is presented.The B reconstruction is described in Section 4. Section 5 contains the photon reconstruction.The pion reconstruction and the total Bπ mass spectrum are presented in Section 6.The BR( B * J → B * π(X)) measurement and results from a simultaneous fit to the Bπ ± mass spectra of the samples enriched or depleted in the decay B * J → B * π ± (X) are presented in Section 7. Systematic uncertainties are evaluated in Section 8.A discussion of the results and conclusions are given in Section 9.

Data sample and event simulation
The data used for this analysis were collected from e + e − collisions at LEP during 1991-1995, with centre-of-mass energies at and around the peak of the Z 0 resonance.The data correspond to an integrated luminosity of about 140 pb −1 .A detailed description of the OPAL detector can be found elsewhere [15,16].
Hadronic events are selected as described in [17], giving a hadronic Z 0 selection efficiency of (98.4 ± 0.4) % and a background of less than 0.2 %.A data sample of about 4 million hadronic events is selected.Each event is divided into two hemispheres by the plane perpendicular to the thrust axis and containing the interaction point of the event.The thrust axis is calculated using tracks and electromagnetic clusters not associated with any tracks.To select events within the fiducial acceptance of the silicon microvertex detector and the barrel electromagnetic calorimeter, the thrust axis direction 4 is required to satisfy | cos θ T | < 0.8.Monte Carlo simulated samples of inclusive hadronic Z 0 decays are used to evaluate efficiencies and backgrounds.The JETSET 7.4 parton shower Monte Carlo generator [18], with parameters tuned by OPAL [19] and with the fragmentation function of Peterson et al. [20] for heavy quarks is used to generate samples of approximately 10 million hadronic Z 0 decays, 2 million Z 0 → cc and 5 million Z 0 → bb decays.The generated events are passed through a program that simulates the response of the OPAL detector [21] before applying the same reconstruction algorithms as for data.All generated Monte Carlo samples contain L = 1 states for bottom and charmed mesons, as well as vector meson partners of the ground states.The generated production rates, masses and widths of all resonant states are consistent with experimental measurements when available and with theoretical predictions elsewhere (see also Table 1).

Analysis overview
The analysis is based on the reconstruction of B * in the Bγ final state and a separate reconstruction of B * J in the Bπ ± final state.A direct reconstruction of B * J decaying to B * π, B * → Bγ giving Bγπ ± in the final state is inappropriate because of the large combinatorial background and the insufficient detector resolution.Therefore, our approach employs a statistical separation of B * J → B * π ± (X) from B * J → Bπ ± (X) decays.B mesons produced in Z 0 → bb events are reconstructed inclusively to achieve high efficiency.No attempt is made to reconstruct specific B decay channels.On the contrary, properties common to all weakly decaying b hadrons are used for the B reconstruction.For each B candidate, a weight W(B * ) is formed where W(B * ) represents the probability for the B to have come from a B * .The probability W(B * ) is based on the reconstruction of photon conversions and of photons detected in the electromagnetic calorimeter.All B candidates are then combined with charged pions to form B * J meson candidates.Using the weight W(B * ), we derive two mutually exclusive subsamples of Bπ ± combinations, one enriched and the other depleted in its B * content.Invariant Bπ ± mass distributions are formed for both samples.The shape of the non-B * J background of the two distributions is taken from Monte Carlo simulation and normalised to the data in the upper sideband region and subtracted from the corresponding data distributions.The branching ratio BR( B * J → B * π(X)) is obtained from the observed number of B * J and the different efficiencies for B * J → B * π ± (X) and B * J → Bπ ± (X) decays in the B * -enriched and the B * -depleted samples.Applying a simultaneous fit to the Bπ mass spectra of both samples several details of the B * J four-state composition and of the B * J decay modes are extracted.
Whereas the BR( B * J → B * π(X)) result obtained from counting the number of B * J signal entries of the samples enriched or depleted in the decay B * J → B * π ± (X) is model-independent and does not rely on the shape of the Bπ signal, the fit to the Bπ mass spectra makes use of HQET assumptions on the composition and the decay modes of the B * J signal.

Selection and reconstruction of B mesons
B mesons are reconstructed using an extended version of the method used in earlier analyses [5,22].Since the reconstructed B mesons are used to form B * and B * J candidates, the B reconstruction is tuned to minimise the uncertainties on the B direction and energy, while maintaining a high reconstruction efficiency.

Tagging of Z 0 → bb events
To achieve optimal b-tagging performance, each event is forced to a 2-jet topology using the Durham jet-finding scheme [23].In calculating the visible energies and momenta of the event and of individual jets, corrections are applied to prevent double counting of energy in the case of tracks with associated clusters [24].A b-tagging algorithm is applied to each jet using three independent methods: lifetime tag, high p T lepton tag and jet-shape tag.A detailed description of the algorithm can be found in [25].The b-tagging discriminants calculated for each of the jets in the event are combined to yield an event b likelihood B event .For each event, B event > 0.6 is required.After this cut, the Z 0 → bb event purity is about 96%.The cut on the direction of the event thrust axis, | cos θ T | < 0.8, as described in Section 2, removes roughly a quarter of all Z 0 → bb events and after the cut on B event , the total b event tagging efficiency with respect to all produced Z 0 → bb events is about 49%, where these numbers are obtained from Monte Carlo simulation.At this stage, about 750 000 b hadron candidates are selected.

Reconstruction of B energy and direction
The primary event vertex is reconstructed using the tracks in the event constrained to the average position and effective spread of the e + e − collision point.For the b hadron reconstruction, tracks and electromagnetic calorimeter clusters with no associated track are combined into jets using a cone algorithm [26] with a cone half-angle of 0.65 rad and a minimum jet energy of 5.0 GeV5 .The two most energetic jets of each event are assumed to contain the b hadrons.For each jet we reconstruct the energy and direction.
In each hemisphere defined by the jet axis, a weight is assigned to each track and each cluster, where the weight corresponds to the probability that any one track or cluster is a product of the b hadron decay.The b hadron is reconstructed by summing the weighted momenta of the tracks and clusters.The reconstruction algorithm is applied to all b hadron species and is 100% efficient.Since this analysis aims at the reconstruction of B u,d mesons which make up about 80% of the b hadron sample, b hadron candidates are referred to as B mesons in the following.Details of the reconstruction method are provided below.

Calculation of track weights
Two different types of weights are assigned to each track: • ω vtx , calculated from the impact parameter significances of the track with respect to both the primary and secondary vertices; • ω NN , the output of a neural network based on kinematics and track impact parameters with respect to the primary vertex.
The calculation of ω vtx requires the existence of a secondary vertex, whereas ω NN does not and is therefore available for all tracks.The search for detached secondary vertices proceeds as follows: Each jet is searched for secondary vertices using a vertexing algorithm similar to that described in [5], making use of the tracking information in both the r − φ and r − z planes if available.If a secondary vertex is found, the primary vertex is re-fitted excluding the tracks assigned to the secondary vertex.Secondary vertex candidates are accepted and called 'good' secondary vertices if they contain at least three tracks and have a decay length greater than 0.2 mm.If there is more than one good secondary vertex attached to a jet, the vertex with the largest number of significant 6 tracks is taken.If there is a tie, the secondary vertex with the larger separation significance with respect to the primary vertex is taken.If a good secondary vertex is determined, a weight is calculated for each track in the hemisphere of the jet using the impact parameter significance of the track with respect to both the primary and secondary vertices.This weight is given by where b and η are the impact parameter and its error with respect to the secondary vertex, and d and σ are the same quantities with respect to the primary vertex.R is a symmetric function describing the impact parameter significance distribution with respect to a fitted vertex.The ω vtx distribution for tracks of hemispheres with a good secondary vertex is shown in Figure 2a and compared with the corresponding Monte Carlo distribution.The weight ω vtx shows a weak correlation with the momentum of the track.
For each track, the weight ω NN is calculated using an artificial neural network [27] trained to discriminate b hadron decay products from fragmentation tracks in a jet.The neural network was trained using as inputs the scaled track momentum x p = p/E beam , the track rapidity relative to the estimated B direction, the impact parameters of the track with respect to the primary vertex in the r − φ and r − z planes and the corresponding errors on the impact parameters [28].As a preliminary estimate, the jet axis is taken as the estimated B direction.The ω NN distribution is shown in Figure 2b.If a good secondary vertex exists, the track weight ω NN is combined with the vertex weight ω vtx using the prescription The weight ω tr in Equation 2 is approximately the probability that the track is a b hadron decay product.In the case where there is no good secondary vertex in the jet, the total track weight ω tr is simply given by ω tr = ω NN .The combined weight ω tr for tracks of all hemispheres is shown in Figure 2c.

Calculation of cluster weights
Similar weights are calculated for energy clusters reconstructed in the electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters to represent the probability the clusters came from a B hadron decay.
Weights ω ecl and ω hcl are assigned to each electromagnetic and hadronic cluster in the hemisphere of the B meson based on their rapidity with respect to the estimated B direction.The weight is equal to the probability, calculated using the Monte Carlo simulation as a function of the cluster energy, that the cluster came from the decay of a B meson.Clusters associated with a track have the estimated energy of the track subtracted.

Calculation of B direction
The B momentum is calculated iteratively by a weighted sum of all tracks and clusters in the hemisphere: where N track , N ecal and N hcal denote the number of tracks, electromagnetic clusters and hadronic clusters, respectively.The rapidity calculation, for both tracks and clusters, is initially per-formed relative to an estimate of the B meson direction 7 .The weights are then recalculated with the rapidity determined using the new B direction estimate.An estimate of the B hadron direction is made for all B candidates based on the weighted momentum sum of the tracks and clusters in the jet.In addition, the vector from the primary vertex to the secondary vertex yields an estimate of the B direction for those jets where a good secondary vertex has been identified.When both estimates are available the weighted average is taken, using the calculated uncertainties of each direction estimate.The covariance matrices of the primary and secondary vertices determine the error on the B flight direction.The error on the momentum sum is estimated by removing each term in turn from the sum in Equation 3, calculating the change in the B direction caused by this omission and adding up in quadrature the corresponding error contributions from each track and cluster.The final estimate of the B direction is obtained by taking the error-weighted sum of the B direction calculated with the momentum sum method and the B direction obtained from the primary and secondary vertex positions.The direction information in the r − z plane of the secondary vertex is only used if the vertex is built with tracks that left at least four hits in the z-layers of the silicon microvertex detector (the maximum number of these hits per track is two).
The error ∆α on the weighted sum of both B direction estimators described in the previous paragraph is a measure for the quality of the B direction8 .To improve the resolution on the B direction, which in turn dominates the Bπ mass resolution, a cut on ∆α is imposed.Since this analysis aims at a separation of some of the B * J states by reconstructing different B * J decay channels rather than obtaining a very good Bπ mass resolution, the cut ∆α < 0.035 is rather loose.This cut removes the 20% of the B candidates with the poorest direction resolution, mainly those with no associated good secondary vertex.

Calculation of B energy
The resolution on the total energy of the B candidate can be significantly improved by constraining the total centre-of-mass energy, E CM , to twice the LEP beam energy.Assuming a two-body decay of the Z 0 , we obtain: where the mass of the b hadron is set to the B meson mass M B = 5.279 GeV/c 2 and M recoil denotes the mass recoiling against the B meson.The recoil mass and the recoil energy E recoil are calculated by summing over all tracks and clusters9 of the event weighted by (1 − ω i ) and assuming the particle masses used in the calculation of E i .To account for the amount of undetected energy mainly due to the presence of neutrinos, the recoil mass is scaled by the ratio of the expected energy in the recoil to the energy actually measured: where E B is taken from Equation 4. The new recoil mass value M recoil,new obtained from Equation 5 is substituted into Equation 4 and the calculation of E B is iterated.After two iterations the uncertainty on the B meson energy is minimised.A minimum B energy of 15 GeV is required to further improve the energy resolution.After all these cuts, the narrower Gaussian from a two Gaussian fit to the difference between the reconstructed and generated B meson energy has σ = 2.3 GeV, and 86% of the entries are contained within 3σ.The distribution of the difference between the reconstructed and generated φ angle of simulated B mesons can be described by a similar fit.The standard deviation of the narrower Gaussian is 14.2 mrad and 88% of the entries lie within 3σ.The corresponding quantities describing the θ resolution are σ = 15.0 mrad and 89%, respectively.
The complete B meson selection applied to the full data sample results in 574 288 tagged jets with a b purity of about 96%, as estimated from Monte Carlo.About 75% of the selected jets contain a good secondary vertex.

The decay B * → Bγ
The photon produced in the decay B * → Bγ has an energy of about 46 MeV in the rest frame of the B * .The mean energy of the photon in the laboratory frame is approximately 350 MeV, with a maximum energy below 800 MeV.Due to the kinematics of the process, these photons are produced predominantly in the core of the jet.The high particle density in this region gives rise to a high background level when identifying the photon.Since a high B * reconstruction efficiency is crucial for this analysis, photons are reconstructed in two ways: from energy deposits in the electromagnetic calorimeter and from converted photons in the tracking volume.The conversion probability within the OPAL tracking system for photons coming from the decay B * → Bγ is approximately 8%.

Reconstruction of photon conversions
The reconstruction of converted photons is optimised for the low energy region.The selection algorithm is partially based on quantities that have been used in earlier analyses [29] but tuned to obtain high efficiency rather than very good angular and momentum resolution.Given the low energy carried by these photons, we ignore calorimetry information and only use tracking information for the reconstruction of converted photons.
Tracks with a total momentum p below 1.0 GeV/c, opposite charge assignment and a measured dE/dx within three standard deviations of the expected value for electrons are combined into pairs.For each pair, the track with the greater scalar momentum is required to have a transverse momentum p t > 50 MeV/c with respect to the beam axis and at least 20 hits in the central jet chamber.For the track with lower momentum, a minimum p t of 20 MeV/c is required.The asymmetric selection cuts for the two tracks in a pair guarantee at least one well measured track and reflect the fact that the electron and the positron of a converted photon tend to have different momenta in the laboratory frame.To suppress random track combinations, the distance of closest approach between the two tracks of a pair in the r − φ plane has to be smaller than 1.0 cm with an opening angle between the tracks at their point of closest approach smaller than 1.0 rad.
In order to make optimal use of all the available information, the following measured quantities for each conversion track pair candidate are fed into a neural network: • the distance of closest approach between the two tracks in the r − φ plane; • the radial distance with respect to the z axis of the first and last measured hits in the inner tracking chambers for each track; • the radial distance with respect to the z axis of the common vertex10 of both tracks obtained from a fit in the r − φ plane; • the impact parameter with respect to the primary vertex in the r − φ plane of the reconstructed photon; • the invariant mass of the track pair assuming both tracks to be electrons; • the transverse momentum relative to the z axis of the lower momentum track.
All conversion candidates with a neural network output greater than 0.7 and a photon energy below 1.5 GeV are called 'good' conversion candidates for a given B meson candidate if the opening angle between the reconstructed B momentum vector and the reconstructed photon momentum vector is smaller than 90 • .At this stage, an average of 0.82 good conversion candidates is selected per B candidate in both data and Monte Carlo.The candidate multiplicity distributions are shown in Figure 3a.The total efficiency to detect photons from the decay B * → Bγ with the conversion algorithm is estimated from simulation to be (2.70 ± 0.01 stat )%.
The efficiency is rather independent of the photon energy from 1.0 GeV down to 200 MeV where it rapidly drops to zero due to track selection requirements.The amount of fake conversions in the selected sample is estimated from Monte Carlo simulation to be (11.75 ± 0.04 stat )%.Fits to the difference between the reconstructed and generated photon energy in Monte Carlo are made using the sum of two Gaussians, both constrained to the same mean value.The narrower Gaussian has a standard deviation of 5 MeV at an energy of 200 MeV, and rises to 13 MeV at an energy of 750 MeV, and about 70% of the entries are contained within 3σ.Similar fits to the φ and θ resolutions give values of 3.4 mrad (70%) and 5.4 mrad (61%), respectively.

Reconstruction of photons in the electromagnetic calorimeter
Photons are also detected as showers in the barrel region of the electromagnetic calorimeter.The location and energy of these showers are obtained from a fit to the energy deposits in the individual lead glass blocks not associated with any track.The whole reconstruction method has been shown to work in the dense environment of hadronic jets down to photon energies as low as 150 MeV.The details of the reconstruction are given in [30].
Showers in the electromagnetic calorimeter are accepted as photon candidates if they have an energy in the range 200 MeV to 850 MeV and a photon probability P γ > 0.20, where P γ is the output of a simplified neural network [30].If the opening angle between such a shower and a reconstructed B candidate is less than 90 • , this shower is considered a 'good' photon candidate for the corresponding B candidate.On average, there are 4.59 (4.38) good calorimeter photon candidates per B candidate selected in the data (Monte Carlo) sample.To correct for the observed discrepancy, the Monte Carlo is reweighted to the data distribution shown in Figure 3b.The efficiency to detect a photon from the decay B * → Bγ in the electromagnetic calorimeter is estimated to be (14.52 ± 0.03 stat )% using Monte Carlo simulated events.The fraction of fake photons arising from tracks and neutral hadrons in the sample ranges from 32% at a photon energy of 850 MeV up to 43% at a photon energy of 200 MeV.If compared with the selected conversion sample, the selection of B * → Bγ photons in the electromagnetic calorimeter has a much higher efficiency but lower purity.
As with the converted photons, the energy resolution has been determined from Monte Carlo simulation using a double Gaussian fit.The narrower Gaussian has a width of 20 MeV at a photon energy of 250 MeV and increases up to 86 MeV at an energy of 800 MeV, and about 75% of the entries are contained within 3σ.Similar fits to the φ and θ resolutions give values of 3.6 mrad (65%) and 3.6 mrad (72%), respectively.In contrast to the conversion sample, photons reconstructed in the electromagnetic calorimeter have much higher energy uncertainties, but a better θ resolution.

Reconstruction of B * → Bγ decays
Each reconstructed B meson candidate is combined with all good conversion and calorimeter candidates to reconstruct B * candidates.The invariant mass of a Bγ combination is defined as where M B is 5.279 GeV/c 2 and α is the measured angle between the B meson and the photon candidate.The mass difference ∆M = M Bγ − M B between the B * candidate and the B is calculated by simply subtracting the nominal B mass of M B = 5.279 GeV/c 2 from M Bγ .The mass difference distributions of the conversion sample observed in the data and the corresponding Monte Carlo background are shown in Figure 4a.The background is normalised to the data in the sideband region 0.09 GeV/c 2 < ∆M < 0.20 GeV/c 2 .The background subtracted signal of Figure 4b is fitted to the sum of two Gaussians fixed to the same mean, where one of the Gaussians is allowed to have asymmetric width.The observed asymmetry of the mass resolution of the conversion sample is well simulated in the Monte Carlo and is due to the very loose track requirements of the lower momentum track of the conversion pair.A mass difference of ∆M = (45.87± 0.25 stat ) MeV/c 2 is obtained from the fit to the data, where the error is statistical only.This result agrees well with the current world average value of (45.78 ± 0.35) MeV/c 2 [2].
The ∆M distribution using calorimeter photons is shown in Figure 5a.The background is taken from Monte Carlo simulation and normalised to the data in the sideband region 0.10 GeV/c 2 < ∆M < 0.20 GeV/c 2 .The same fit function as for the photon conversion sample is used to obtain the mass difference ∆M from the background subtracted signal distribution in Figure 5b.A value of (47.30 ± 0.61 stat ) MeV/c 2 is obtained from this fit, which is consistent within two sigma with the result from the fit to the conversion signal.
For the B * sample reconstructed with photon conversions, the mass resolution is dominated by the uncertainty on the reconstructed B direction.For the calorimeter photon sample, the B * mass resolution suffers in addition from the energy resolution of the calorimeter.Due to the high background of fake photons and the moderate energy resolution at low photon energies, the signal-to-background ratio is rather poor for calorimeter photons.Therefore, uncertainties in the B * reconstruction using these photons are dominated by systematic errors on the background shape and energy calibration.All systematic uncertainties arising from the B * reconstruction will be discussed in Section 8.

The B * probability W(B * )
To select samples enhanced and depleted in B * mesons, a B * probability is assigned to each B candidate.This probability combines information from both conversion and calorimeter photon candidates and represents the probability that a B candidate is the true daughter of a B * meson.Only the best conversion and best calorimeter candidate assigned to any one B candidate are considered in the calculation of this probability, where the best candidate is defined as that which gives ∆M = M Bγ − M B closest to the world average of 45.78 MeV/c 2 [2].
This weight is constructed by parametrising the purity of the mass difference distribution in several variables in Monte Carlo simulation.For calorimeter photon candidates, this parametrisation is performed as a function of the photon probability, P γ (see Section 5.2), and the total number of good calorimeter photon candidates found per B candidate.For each B candidate, a single weight is calculated by taking the simple mean of the weight resulting from each of the above parametrisations.
Similarly, for conversion photon candidates, the parametrisation is performed in ∆M as a function of the total number of conversion candidates, and a weight is extracted as for the calorimeter candidates.The two weights obtained from conversion and calorimeter photons are combined by taking their mean.
The resulting weight W(B * ) is shown in Figure 6a for Monte Carlo and data, and the contributions from jets containing a B * and jets containing no B * as seen in the simulation are shown.The primary features of the W(B * ) distribution are: • a peak at W(B * ) = 0.625, corresponding to B candidates with no associated good conversion or calorimeter photon candidate; • a peak at W(B * ) = 0.632, containing B candidates with no good conversion candidate and a best calorimeter candidate having a Bγ mass far away from the nominal B * mass; • a peak around W(B * ) = 0.656, containing B candidates with the best calorimeter candidate close to the nominal B * mass; • a peak at W(B * ) = 0.715, containing B candidates with the best calorimeter candidate being close to the nominal B * mass and having a high photon probability P γ ; • the tail towards high B * probabilities is made up by best conversion candidates very close to the nominal B * mass.
The assignment of the specific photon candidate samples to the peaks and to the tail of the W(B * ) distribution is based on Monte Carlo information.Figure 6b shows the ratio ε(B * )/ε(B) versus W(B * ).ε(B * ) refers to the efficiency to select a B meson from a true B * → Bγ decay and ε(B) is the efficiency to select a B meson which has not come from a B * .In general, the Monte Carlo simulation of W(B * ) describes the data adequately.A comparison of the Monte Carlo and data distributions yields a χ 2 per degree of freedom of two.A cut on W(B * ) allows the production of samples of B candidates with different B * fractions.Further details and systematic studies concerning W(B * ) are given in Section 8.

Reconstruction of orbitally-excited B mesons
All B * J candidates, even those expected to decay into B * π ± , are reconstructed using the measured four-momenta of the B meson and the pion.B candidates are selected and reconstructed as described in Section 4 and combined with charged pion candidates.Pions produced in the decay of a B * J will be referred to as 'signal pions'.Since the B * J decays strongly, signal pions are expected to be associated to the primary event vertex rather than to a possible secondary vertex.In comparison with other pions created in the fragmentation process, signal pions are expected to have a large longitudinal momentum p l with respect to the jet axis.These are the basic characteristics used to separate signal pions from B decay products and from fragmentation tracks.A significant number of non-resonant fragmentation pions are expected to be produced near a B meson.The kinematics of these pions is similar to the signal pions, giving rise to a combinatorial background in the invariant mass of Bπ candidates.Tracks from B decay also contribute to the background due to the inability to unambiguously associate all B decay tracks with the secondary vertex.

Pion selection
The signal pion selection for this analysis makes use of techniques used in [5] and [8].All tracks that are well measured according to a standard track selection [31] are considered as possible signal pion candidates if they belong to the same jet as the B candidate.Additionally, the following selection cuts are applied in the given order: • The measured ionisation energy loss dE/dx has to be consistent with the expected value for pions within 2.6 standard deviations, if dE/dx information is available for this track.
• To suppress B decay tracks, the track weight ω NN as described in Section 4.2 has to be smaller than 0.9.
• The B decay track rejection is improved by the requirement ω NN2 < 0.7, where ω NN2 is a neural network output defined for jets containing a secondary vertex.The inputs for ω NN2 are similar to the inputs for ω NN , but also the impact parameter significances in the x − y and the z plane with respect to the secondary vertex are used.
• From all tracks that pass the previous selection criteria, only the one with the highest longitudinal momentum with respect to the jet axis, p max l , is kept for each B candidate, • A reduction of B decay track background in the p max l sample is obtained by the requirements ω NN < 0.80 and ω NN2 < 0.5011 .
• Fragmentation tracks in the p max l sample are removed with the requirement ω NN > 0.20.Since ω NN is designed to achieve optimal separation of b hadron decay tracks from fragmentation tracks using impact parameter information and kinematics, the Monte Carlo indicates a fairly flat ω NN distribution for signal pions.On the contrary, fragmentation tracks peak at zero.
• A momentum of p > 1.0 GeV/c is required for signal pion candidates.In the simulation, the momentum distribution of signal pions has a mean value of 2.9 GeV/c with an RMS of 1.3 GeV/c before the cut is applied.The B * J mass spectrum for single pion transitions is not influenced by the momentum requirement.

Bπ ± mass spectrum
The signal pion candidate passing the selection cuts described in Section 6.1 is combined with the corresponding B candidate to form a B * J candidate.The invariant mass is calculated using Equation 6 as for the B * mass, where the photon is replaced by a pion and the appropriate pion mass term is added.The cuts of the signal pion selection have been chosen to obtain an acceptable signal-to-background ratio at high signal efficiency.The order of the non-commuting selection requirements using ω NN , ω NN2 and p max l aims to maximise the difference between the shape of the signal and background contributions to the M Bπ distribution.
Due to the intrinsic widths of the B * J states and the limited detector resolution, only a single peak is seen in the M Bπ spectrum of Figure 7a on top of the combinatorial background.According to the simulation, the M Bπ resolution can be described by the sum of a narrow Gaussian and an asymmetric Gaussian, both constrained to the same mean value (see Figure 8).The mass resolution depends linearly on M Bπ .In the B * J signal region around 5.7 GeV/c 2 , the standard deviation of the narrow Gaussian is σ = 33 MeV/c 2 , and 85% of the resolution function entries are contained within 3σ.The reliability of the simulated B meson energy and direction resolution which dominate the Bπ mass resolution is proven by a well simulated shape and peak position of the B * signal using the conversion photon sample (see Section 5).
The Monte Carlo combinatorial background is checked against data using different test samples strongly enhanced in each of the following physics background sources: 1) Fake B * J candidates from light and charm quark events; 2) Fake B * J arising from true b hadrons combined with a pion from the weak decay of the b hadron itself; 3) Fake B * J formed by combining true b hadrons with fragmentation tracks which have not come from a B * J resonance.The simulation indicates that each test sample is strongly enhanced in the background source under study and that the B * J signal is suppressed by about a factor of eight compared to the original B * J signal selection.The Bπ mass distributions of the background samples in data are compared with the corresponding Monte Carlo mass distributions (see also Section 8.1.2).In the case of a significant deviation, the simulated background is reweighted to the data.The Monte Carlo background distribution so obtained is fitted using a threshold function of the form where Φ is the Landau density function 12 .This background function gives a good empirical fit with only four free parameters C i .The fitted Monte Carlo background is normalised in the sideband region 6.10 GeV/c 2 < M Bπ < 7.10 GeV/c 2 and subtracted from the data distribution.
The obtained B * J signal is shown in Figure 7b.The reconstruction efficiency for B * J depends on the reconstructed mass M Bπ .Monte Carlo studies indicate that the efficiency stays constant at high M Bπ values down to M Bπ = 5.7 GeV/c 2 .Below 5.7 GeV/c 2 , the reconstruction efficiency becomes smaller as M Bπ decreases, mainly due to the p max l requirement.At the Bπ mass threshold, the signal efficiency is close to zero.The B * J distribution of Figure 7b is corrected for efficiency and the resulting signal is shown in Figure 7c.
The mean mass, shape and yield of the observed B * J signal is roughly in agreement with other measurements [5][6][7][8].The structure of the Bπ ± mass spectrum is too broad to stem from a single resonance and leaves room for interpretation.The peak is expected to contain two broad and two narrow B * J states, and part of the true mass spectrum is shifted to lower mass values by 46 MeV/c 2 due to the omission of the photon in the reconstruction of B * J → B * π decays.The peak may also include a small fraction of B * sJ due to the misidentification of kaons as pions.In addition, the peak may contain contributions from B * J → B ( * ) πX giving rise to satellite peaks in the region 5.4 GeV/c 2 < M Bπ < 5.6 GeV/c 2 , since X is not included in the invariant mass calculation.If broad B * J states have masses close to the Bπ threshold, they have an asymmetric signal shape due to phase-space suppression.Radially-excited B mesons (2S) in the decay channels B ( * )′ → B ( * ) π and B ( * )′ → B ( * ) ππ may contribute, although the production rate of B ( * )′ is assumed to be small compared to the B * J production rate according to [10] and [32].Since there are several ambiguities, e.g.due to B * J → B ( * ) ππ, B ( * )′ decays and uncertainties in the combinatorial background, further details of the signal can only be obtained by making additional, model-dependent assumptions.

B *
J transitions to B * and to B In this section, information from the reconstructed Bπ ± mass is combined with the weight W(B * ).The total B * J sample is divided into two samples, one enriched and one depleted in the decay B * J → B * π(X), by applying a cut on W(B * ), as indicated in Figure 6a.These two B * J samples allow a model-independent measurement of the ratio BR( B * J → B * π(X)), where no distinction between decays to B * π and B * πX is possible.Also a fit with BR( B * J → B * π) as an additional free fit parameter is performed.In this fit, only B * J → B ( * ) π and B * J → B ( * ) ππ decays are considered.The fit result of the branching ratio BR( B * J → B * π) does not include the B * ππ final state as the sensitivity of the fit is negligible for di-pion transitions of the B * J .
7.1 Model-independent measurement of BR( B * J → B * π(X)) The branching ratio BR( B * J → B * π(X)) is obtained by counting the number of signal entries of the B * J samples enriched or depleted in the decay B * J → B * π ± (X).The cut value on W(B * ) is chosen to minimise the uncertainty of the measurement.The statistical error on BR( B * J → B * π(X)) is minimal if both subsamples are of the same size.Systematic uncertainties in the Bπ ± background have minimal impact on BR( B * J → B * π(X)) if the signal-to-background ratio is the same for the Bπ ± mass distributions of the B * -enriched and the B * -depleted samples.The optimal cut on W(B * ) is 0.648, fulfilling the minimal systematic error requirement and coming as close as possible to the minimum statistical error requirement (see Figure 6).
The B * enrichment and depletion method can be evaluated by the different selection efficiencies for the transitions B * J → B * π ± and B * J → Bπ ± in the B * -enriched and B * -depleted samples.With the definitions • ε E : B * J → Bπ efficiency of B * -enriched sample; • ε D : B * J → Bπ efficiency of B * -depleted sample; • efficiency ratios : J passing the B selection in the Monte Carlo.Therefore, the numbers reflect the effect of the cut on W(B * ) and the charged pion selection.Also a factor of 2/3 assuming isospin symmetry to account for decays of B * J via neutral pions is included in each of the efficiency values.The errors are statistical only.invariant Bπ ± mass distributions of the B * -enriched and the B * -depleted sample are used.Both mass distributions are independent subsamples of the distribution shown in Figure 7, but contain different compositions of B * J → B * π ± (X) and B * J → Bπ ± (X) decays.Figures 9 and 10 show the Bπ ± mass distributions for the B * -enriched and the B * -depleted sample, respectively.The Monte Carlo background distributions of both samples are corrected using a procedure explained in Sections 6 and 8 and the same fit as for the background of the total B * J sample (see Section 6) is performed.The fitted background functions are normalised in the sideband region 6.10 GeV/c 2 < M Bπ < 7.10 GeV/c 2 and subtracted from the corresponding data distributions.From the resulting signal peaks, BR( B * J → B * π(X)) is obtained.Assuming that B * J decay to B * or B only and with the efficiency ratios defined as above, we derive the following formula: where N E (N D ) denotes the number of B * J signal entries of the B * -enriched (B * -depleted) sample.In the data, N E = (8782 ± 252 stat ) and N D = (12051 ± 295 stat ) B * J candidates are observed in the M Bπ signal window (5.3 − 6.1) GeV/c 2 .Using the numbers for the efficiency ratios e 0 , e and e * presented in Table 2, we calculate BR( B * J → B * π(X)) = 0.85.The statistical errors on N E and N D result in a total error on the branching ratio of ±0.13.Besides this error, statistical uncertainties due to the sideband normalisation have been taken into account.Since the samples are mutually exclusive, the statistical errors of the sideband normalisation of both samples are independent.The contributions of the B * -enriched and the B * -depleted sample sideband normalisation to the statistical error on BR( B * J → B * π(X)) are +0.17−0.18 and ±0.15, respectively.Adding all quoted errors in quadrature, the branching ratio of orbitally-excited B mesons decaying into B * is measured to be where the error is statistical only.This branching ratio includes all decays of the type B * J → B ( * ) πX, as no cut against additional B * J decay products is applied.Consequently, the notation BR( B * J → B * π(X)) is chosen.Systematic uncertainties, especially of the efficiency ratios and the combinatorial Bπ background are discussed in Section 8.
We further investigate the composition of the B * J sample by splitting the sample into B * J → B * π ± (X) and B * J → Bπ ± (X) components.By subtracting from the Bπ mass distribution of the B * -enriched sample the corresponding distribution of the B * -depleted sample multiplied by a scale factor, a Bπ ± mass distribution containing B * J → B * π ± (X) transitions only is obtained.The scale factor is the ratio of the B * J → Bπ ± efficiencies of both samples, e = ε E /ε D .In a similar way, a mass distribution with B * J → B * π ± (X) decays subtracted off is obtained.The corresponding efficiency-corrected Bπ ± mass distributions for pure B * J → B * π ± (X) and pure B * J → Bπ ± (X) transitions are shown in Figure 11.The number of signal entries in the Bπ ± mass distributions of Figures 11a and 11b depends on the ratio BR( B * J → B * π(X)) as well as on the efficiency ratios defined in Table 2.
A significant excess of entries is seen in the pure B * J → B * π ± (X) distribution at masses around 5.7 GeV/c 2 with tails down to 5.5 GeV/c 2 and up to 6.0 GeV/c 2 .The narrow peak in the B * J → B * π ± (X) distribution is most likely due to B 1 (3/2) → B * π ± and B * 2 → B * π ± decays.To obtain the true mass values of the B * π states, the entries have to be shifted to higher masses by 46 MeV/c 2 .
In the pure B * J → Bπ ± (X) mass distribution, a small excess is observed in the region up to 5.85 GeV/c 2 .This excess can be assigned to the decays B * 2 → Bπ ± and B * 0 → Bπ ± .Since the statistical significance of the excess in the B * J → Bπ ± (X) mass distribution is small, no further conclusion is drawn from Figure 11b.

Simultaneous fit to the Bπ ± mass spectra
A simultaneous fit is performed to the background subtracted and efficiency corrected Bπ mass spectra shown in Figures 9c and 10c.Several assumptions are made on the nature of the observed signal to reduce the number of free fit parameters: • The signal excess stems from B * J decays only.Contributions from B * sJ decays, B ( * )′ → B ( * ) π and B ( * )′ → B ( * ) ππ do not exceed a few percent [5,10,33] and are therefore not implemented in the fit but considered as sources of systematic uncertainties.Any other excited state eventually contributing to the signal peak is ignored since there is no experimental evidence for such states and theoretical predictions give negligible production rates.
• The heavy quark limit m Q → ∞ holds to describe the four B * J states.Therefore, according to spin-parity conservation, one expects five different mass peaks from single pion transitions as listed in the first paragraph of Section 1 and shown in Figure 1.Furthermore, the physical B 1 states are B 1 (1/2) and B 1 (3/2) and thus no mixing occurs.
• Partners of the same doublet are assumed to have similar properties.The constraints on masses, widths and production rates used in the fit are presented in Table 3.The mass splitting between the narrow states can be calculated using the corresponding mass splitting of the D * J which has been measured [2].The mass splitting between the broad states is expected to be of about the same size.Also the order of magnitude of the widths of the narrow and broad B * J states can be estimated from experimental D * J results [2,34].
• Only the decay modes listed in • The fraction of narrow states ) is fixed to 0.6.This number is the average of 1/2, 2/3 and 2/3 corresponding to production rates of narrow B * J according to state counting, total spin counting and light quark spin counting, respectively.To justify this constraint, a fit to the total Bπ mass spectrum is performed with f narrow as an additional free parameter.
• The mass splitting between B and B * is fixed to the current world average [2].
• Each of the five single pion decay modes is represented by a Breit-Wigner function convoluted with the M Bπ dependent resolution function explained in Section 6.2 and shown in Figure 8.To take into account the phase-space suppression at threshold, asymmetric Breit-Wigner functions with the threshold factor [35] are used instead of the symmetric Breit-Wigner functions for the broad states.
• For the di-pion transitions, the signal shape including the detector resolution is taken from simulated B * J → B ( * ) ππ decays.Simple Gaussians truncated at threshold give a good description of the simulated satellite peaks.The mean of the Gaussian depends linearly on the mass difference between B * J and B ground state.The width of the Gaussian is also a function of this mass splitting and depends on the width of the B * J state.The functions to parameterise the mean and width of the Gaussians are taken from the simulation.No attempt is made to implement different signal shapes for decays where the two pions form an intermediate resonance or for cascade transitions from high mass B * J states via low mass B * J states to the ground states B * and B 13 .
The different reconstruction efficiencies for B * J → B * π ± and B * J → Bπ ± decays of the B *enriched and B * -depleted signals are taken from Monte Carlo (see Table 2).As the specific peaks that make up the total B * J signal have different sizes in the B * -enriched and B * -depleted mass distributions, different enhancements or depletions are expected for specific regions of the Bπ ± mass spectra according to the assumptions on the nature of the B * J signal.Thus the simultaneous fit provides a non-trivial consistency check of the BR( B * J → B * π(X)) result of Section 7.1 and of some of the constraints used in the fit.
The implementation of BR( B * J → B * π) as a fit parameter causes some complications.Note that the BR( B * J → B * π(X)) result of Section 7.1 includes transitions of narrow B * J and broad B * J via emission of one pion (and perhaps other decay products).The branching fraction to the B * ground state might be different for narrow and broad states and also different for B * π and B * ππ final states.Whereas the result obtained from Equation 8 4.

fit constraint value
Table 4: Additional fit constraints used in the simultaneous fit.
With the constraints discussed above (see also Tables 3 and 4) the remaining free parameters are: sum of the number of entries of the B * -enriched and the B * -depleted signal, M(B [36] is performed to the simulated B * J signals using the full Monte Carlo statistics.All fit results lie within 1σ of the Monte Carlo input value.We fit the Bπ ± mass spectra of Figures 9c and 10c simultaneously.The least squares fit is performed in the Bπ mass region of 5.40 − 6.10 GeV/c 2 with a bin width of 20 MeV/c 2 .The fit results are where the errors are of statistical origin only.The fit probability is 65% and the result is presented in Figures 12 and 13.The fit results are in agreement with the interpretation of the B * J signals of Figure 11 given in Section 7.1.Numbers labelled with (⋆) should be taken with care because of large systematic errors.The robustness of the fit results will be discussed in Section 8.
Note that the statistical error of the BR( B * J → B * π(X)) measurement presented in Section 7.1 includes the errors arising from the sideband normalisation.The statistical errors of the fit results on the other hand do not include the sideband normalisation errors.The latter will be discussed in Section 8.The BR( B * J → B * π) result of the fit does not include decays to B * via di-pion emission.The BR( B * J → B ( * ) ππ) result is corrected by a factor of 0.75 to account for double counting of the B ( * ) π + π − final state.In Table 5 the correlations between all fit parameters are shown.Systematic uncertainties of the fit results are discussed in detail in Section 8. parameter

Systematic uncertainties
In the following sections, the determination of the systematic uncertainties is presented separately for the model-independent BR( B * J → B * π(X)) measurement and for the results obtained from the simultaneous fit to the Bπ ± mass spectra with different B * content.

Systematic error on the BR( B
For the BR( B * J → B * π(X)) measurement, the dominant sources of systematic error are uncertainties in the efficiency ratios, the modelling of the combinatorial Bπ ± background and systematic errors on the sideband normalisation of the B * -enriched and B * -depleted samples.Each contribution to the total error on BR( B * J → B * π(X)) is listed in Table 6.

Reconstruction efficiencies
Monte Carlo simulations are used to calculate the efficiency ratios e, e * and e 0 .The systematic errors on these ratios are dominated by uncertainties in the photon reconstruction.The simulation is checked against data using known properties of B * and π 0 .The latter are formed by a pairwise combination of two good conversion candidates or one good conversion and one good calorimeter candidate assigned to the same B candidate.
• We perform direct checks of the photon reconstruction efficiencies: The yields of the Monte Carlo B * and π 0 mass peaks are consistent with the results observed in data with the simulated B * and π 0 production rates being in agreement with earlier measurements [2].
To account for the statistical error of the number of B * and π 0 peak entries and for possible uncertainties in the simulated production rates, the calculation of efficiency ratios is repeated on Monte Carlo with the reconstruction efficiency of conversion (calorimeter) photons in the decay B * → Bγ changed by ±10% ( +15 −10 %).The variation of +15% reflects a small discrepancy observed in the simulated and measured B * yields of the calorimeter sample.
• In a B * J decay, the helicity angle θ * is the angle between the signal pion momentum measured in the B * J rest frame and the momentum of the B * J in the lab frame.As the signal pion selection acceptance depends on cos θ * , the B * J efficiency is sensitive to the shape of cos θ * .The distributions of helicity angle for B * 0 and B 1 (1/2) decays are assumed to be flat (S-wave transitions) and according to [37] the B 1 (3/2) and the B * 2 are expected to have the same cos θ * distribution for any initial b polarisation: where w 3/2 is the probability that fragmentation leads to a state with the maximum helicity value of 3/2 for the light degrees of freedom.The Monte Carlo cos θ * distributions of B 1 (3/2) and B * 2 have been reweighted to cover the whole range w 3/2 = 0 − 1. • The number of good calorimeter photon candidates N γ ECAL (Figure 3b) is not modelled well in the simulation.Therefore, the Monte Carlo distribution is reweighted to the corresponding data distribution.The reweighting clearly improves the general agreement between data and Monte Carlo and has an impact on the efficiency rations e, e * and e 0 .The central value of BR( B * J → B * π(X)) changes by -0.059 due to the reweighting.To quantify the uncertainty in the reweighting procedure we take half of the total change of the central value as the error on BR( B * J → B * π(X)).• The mass dependent efficiency correction to the B * J signal for both the B * -enriched and B * -depleted samples produces a deviation in BR( B * J → B * π(X)) relative to the result without mass dependent efficiency correction.To account for any mismodelling in the simulated B * J masses and the simulated mass dependence of the efficiency, half of this deviation is taken as the systematic error.
• The calculated efficiency ratios are uncertain due to limited Monte Carlo statistics.
• We check the calibration of the photon energy measurement by comparing the measured and simulated shapes and peak positions of both the B * and the π 0 .There is agreement within the statistical errors.This results in small (negligible) errors on the efficiencies of the calorimeter (conversion) sample.

Background related uncertainties
Uncertainties in the shape of the simulated background have an impact on the number of signal candidates N E and N D .Since the combinatorial backgrounds in both the B * -enriched and the B * -depleted samples are affected by systematic shifts in a similar way, the measurement is rather robust against possible uncertainties in the Monte Carlo background simulation.For the determination of systematic errors, the simulated Bπ background is varied using the methods described below.For each variation, the Monte Carlo background is normalised and subtracted from the data and the number of signal entries N E and N D are counted.
• A purity of at least 90% for the background source under study and a B * J signal fraction smaller than 1.5% is obtained by inverting cuts in the original B * J selection.For the light and charm quark background, also a sample of D * + candidates reconstructed as described in [38] is used as a qualitative cross check.For each test sample, the Bπ ± invariant mass distribution observed in data is compared with the Monte Carlo distribution normalised to the same number of selected B candidates.The mass distributions and their bin-by-bin ratios data/Monte Carlo are shown in Figure 14.The different ratios are fitted with simple polynomials.The latter are used to correct the shape of the original Monte Carlo Bπ ± mass distributions for each background source separately.The systematic uncertainty on each background source is given by the difference in BR( B * J → B * π(X)) between using the corrected and the uncorrected shape of the Bπ ± mass distribution.
• The composition of the Bπ ± background, as seen in the Monte Carlo after the corrections have been applied, is varied for each source.The fraction of each of the three background sources described earlier is varied by ±20%.
• The Peterson fragmentation parameter ǫ b has been varied in the range 0.0028 − 0.0057 to cover uncertainties in the average fraction of the beam energy carried by the weakly decaying b hadron, x E , and in the shape of the fragmentation function.This variation causes a minor change in the Bπ ± background shape.The effect on BR( B * J → B * π(X)) is smaller than 0.002.
• The average charged multiplicity of weakly decaying b hadrons (including K 0 and Λ decay products) is varied in the range 5.375 − 5.865 in the simulation (see [39]).The observed effect on the Bπ ± background shape results in a negligible change of BR( B * J → B * π(X)).

Other sources of systematic uncertainties and consistency checks
The following systematic studies have been performed in addition to the studies described in Sections 8.1.1 and 8.1.2.
• The range of the sideband used for the background normalisation is varied by ±100 MeV/c 2 on each side for both the B * -enriched and B * -depleted sample.This variation is motivated • The whole analysis is repeated using conversion photons only and calorimeter photons only.The obtained BR( B * J → B * π(X)) results and the B * J → B * π ± (X) and B * J → Bπ ± (X) mass distributions are in agreement with each other and with the total sample.
• Varying the cut on B event so that the b purity changes from 92% to 98% produces no systematic deviation in BR( B * J → B * π(X)).
• A neural network has been trained to replace the weight W(B * ) obtained from the Monte Carlo purity parameterisation.The neural network output is strongly correlated with the weight W(B * ) and does not improve the B * /B separation.
All systematic errors considered for BR( B * J → B * π(X)) are added up in quadrature, resulting in a total error on BR( B * J → B * π(X)) of ±0.12 (see Table 6).
8.2 Systematic uncertainties on the results of the simultaneous fit to the B * -enriched and B * -depleted mass spectra All sources of systematic error are varied in turn within the estimated uncertainty range and the fit presented in Section 7.2 is repeated.If not stated otherwise, the observed deviation with respect to the original fit is taken as a systematic error for each fit parameter.The total systematic error on each fit parameter is the quadratic sum of all individual error contributions.This procedure takes into account the correlations between the fit parameters.All systematic uncertainties are listed in Table 7.

Variation of fit constraints
The fit constraints are varied according to the present knowledge of D * J properties [2] and theoretical considerations [3,4,[11][12][13][14]: and the corresponding deviations of the fit parameters are taken as systematic errors.
• The relative production rates f(b • Whereas the mass splitting between the j q = 1/2 and j q = 3/2 doublets was free in the fit, the mass splittings within the doublets were fixed.We allow a variation of • The ratio BR(B * J → B * ππ)/(BR(B * J → B * ππ) + BR(B * J → Bππ)), which was fixed to 0.5, is varied in the range 0.3-0.7.No significant deviation in the fit parameters is observed, since the position and shape of the peaks corresponding to the two final states are very similar.

Reconstruction efficiencies
The B * J reconstruction efficiency is a function of the reconstructed Bπ mass and the angular distribution of the π.The efficiency is taken from the Monte Carlo and possible problems with its simulation are taken into account: • The signal pion selection cuts have been varied.Whereas the Monte Carlo simulation describes the reconstruction efficiency well at high Bπ masses, this statement can not be proven for low Bπ masses.Therefore, we perform the fit to the B * J signal without an acceptance correction of the mass spectrum as shown in Figure 7b.Although the fit result has a low fit probability, we assign half of the total deviations of the fit parameters observed with respect to the original fit as systematic errors.This results in a large systematic error on BR( B * J → B ( * ) ππ).
• Systematic uncertainties arising from the photon reconstruction as well as from the unknown cos θ * distributions are determined using the methods presented in 8.1.1.

Background related uncertainties
• The uncertainties due to the limited data statistics in the upper sideband regions of the B * -enriched and B * -depleted samples produce quite large error contributions on BR( B * J → B * π).For the fit results, these error contributions are treated as systematic errors and have to be compared with the corresponding errors obtained for the model-independent BR( B * J → B * π(X)) measurement.While the sideband range used for the background normalisation is the same for both measurements, the error of the BR( B * J → B * π) fit result is smaller because the fit makes explicit use of the shape and of the composition of the B * J mass distributions.
• The Peterson fragmentation parameter ǫ b and the charged particle multiplicity of weakly decaying b hadrons are varied in the simulation as described in Section 8.1.2.The multiplicity variation has no effect on the fit results.
• To evaluate the uncertainty due to the function used to fit the Monte Carlo background, we directly subtract the corrected Monte Carlo background histograms of the Bπ mass distributions from the corresponding data histograms.
• The range of the sideband used for the background normalisation is varied by ±100 MeV/c 2 on each side and the observed deviations are added in quadrature.
• For the determination of the shape and the composition of the Bπ background, the same methods as presented in Section 8.1.2are used.Table 7: Systematic errors on the fit parameters of the simultaneous fit.The numbers for ∆BR( B * J → B ( * ) ππ) have to be multiplied by 0.75 to account for double counting.The total systematic error of each fit parameter is the quadratic sum of the individual errors.Sources of systematic uncertainty with an error of smaller than 10% of the total systematic error for each fit parameter are excluded from the table.

Contamination of the B *
J signal, other uncertainties and cross checks • Contributions from higher orbital or radial excitations of B mesons decaying to B ( * ) π or B ( * ) ππ may be contained in the signal peaks of the B * -enriched and the B * -depleted samples.The procedure described in Section 8.1.1 is repeated.
• Reflections from B * sJ decays influence the fit results since a small fraction of kaons are misidentified as pions.The B * sJ production rate is varied by ±50% to cover the experimental error [5].
• The range of the fit region is changed by ±80 MeV/c 2 on both sides.
• The whole analysis is performed using bin widths of 16 and 25 MeV/c 2 instead of 20 MeV/c 2 .
• A fit to total Bπ ± mass spectrum produces results for M(B 1 (3/2)), Γ(B 1 (3/2)), M(B * 0 ), Γ(B * 0 ) and BR( B * J → B ( * ) ππ) in good agreement with the fit results obtained from the mass spectra of the B * -enriched and B * -depleted samples.Furthermore, the fit to the total Bπ mass spectrum is repeated with f narrow as an additional fit parameter.The result f narrow = 0.76 + 0.11 − 0.24 stat is in agreement with the fixed value of 0.6 used in the original fit.
• The number of B * J signal entries observed in Figure 7 and the Monte Carlo reconstruction efficiencies produce a total B * J production rate consistent with our measurement presented in [5].

Robustness of fit results
Extensive systematic studies have been performed to test the stability of the fit results.Since the systematic error on BR( B * J → B ( * ) ππ) is large, the existence of B * J → B ( * ) ππ decays can be questioned and the fit is repeated with BR( B * J → B ( * ) ππ) = 0. Furthermore, the functional form of the broad B * J states, which is not precisely known at Bπ threshold, has been varied assuming different theoretical approaches.The fit probability for any fit with BR( B * J → B ( * ) ππ) fixed to zero is always below 4% (to be compared with a fit probability of 65% of the original fit).Depending on the functional form of the broad B * J states, the mass of the broad B * J states lies below or above the B 1 (3/2) mass for BR( B * J → B ( * ) ππ) = 0.Because of this ambiguity, the widths and the mass of the B * 0 as well as BR( B * J → B ( * ) ππ) are not quoted as robust fit results.The mass and the width of the B 1 (3/2) as well as BR( B * J → B * π) stay stable for all fits.The described ambiguity is also observed in the corresponding fit to the total Bπ mass spectrum.In comparison to other measurements, especially [10], this is a rather conservative treatment of the fit results.Experiments with comparable mass resolution are expected to have similar problems in determining B * J properties from a fit to a single Bπ mass peak.

Summary and conclusion
We have analysed orbitally-excited mesons by forming combinations of inclusively reconstructed B mesons and charged pions.A new way to determine the combinatorial Bπ background using data test samples while maintaining high statistics is presented.A high statistics tag of the decay B * → Bγ is used to obtain B * J samples enriched or depleted in their B * content.We present the first measurement of the branching ratio of orbitally-excited B mesons decaying into B * .The result is BR( B * J → B * π(X)) = 0.85 +0.26 −0.27 ± 0.12 , where the first error is statistical and the second systematic.The measurement does not depend on the shape of Bπ mass distributions or on any specific model.It is in agreement with theoretical predictions and the measured B * and B * J production rates at LEP. Making further use of the B * information, a simultaneous fit to the B * J mass spectra of samples enriched or depleted in their B * content is performed.In this fit, the masses, widths and production rates of the B 1 (1/2) and B 2 ) [8].On the other hand, a recent B * J analysis [10] presented masses that disagree with the results of this analysis and with [8].The measured value of BR( B * J → B ( * ) ππ) = 0.25±0.02+ 0.11 − 0.12 is consistent with the range 0.1-0.2predicted by theory [4] and in agreement with an experimental result obtained from the reconstruction of the B ( * ) ππ final state [33].The results for BR( B * J → B * π(X)), BR( B * J → B * π) and BR( B * J → B ( * ) ππ) are in good agreement with each other on the assumption that the decay channels with X = π contributing to BR( B * J → B * π(X)) are small.J → B * π ± (π) decays (see also Figure 13).The fit results of the decays of the broad and narrow B * J for transitions via one and two pions are presented separately.
is the average of the natural composition of the different decay modes, four different parameters have to be considered for this fit: BR(B * J narrow → B * π), BR(B * J broad → B * π), BR(B * J narrow → B * ππ) and BR(B * J broad → B * ππ).Monte Carlo studies indicate that the sensitivity of the fit to BR(B * J narrow → B * ππ) and BR(B * J broad → B * ππ) is negligible since shape and position of the corresponding peaks in the Bπ ± mass spectra are almost the same for the B * ππ and Bππ final states.The sensitivity to BR(B * J broad → B * π) is also smaller than the corresponding sensitivity to BR(B * J narrow → B * π) since a large width but a comparable intra-doublet mass splitting of the B * J states makes a separation of the decay modes of broad B * J to B * π and Bπ difficult.To reduce the number of fit parameters and to keep the correlations between the fit parameters small, BR(B * J narrow → B * ππ)/(BR(B * J narrow → B * ππ) + BR(B * J narrow → Bππ)) and BR(B * J broad → B * ππ)/(BR(B * J broad → B * ππ) + BR(B * J broad → Bππ)) are fixed to 0.5 in the fit.Furthermore, we require BR(B * J narrow → B * π) = 3 2 • BR(B * J broad → B * π) and the fit parameter BR( B * J → B * π) is the weighted mean of both numbers according to the production rates of broad and narrow B * J .The factor 3 2 is based on the assumption of the same production rates for states within the same doublet and BR(B * 2 → B * π)/(BR(B * 2 → B * π) + BR(B * 2 → Bπ)) = 0.5.The fit constraints explained in this paragraph are listed in Table Data test samples are developed in which individual background sources are substantially enhanced to study the Bπ ± combinatorial background.The background is divided into three different classes: tracks combined with mistagged B candidates in light and charm quark events (udsc flavour), b hadron decay tracks combined with true b hadrons (b hadron decay) and b fragmentation tracks combined with true b hadrons (b fragmentation).The selection criteria for each test sample are chosen to cover a large fraction of the kinematic region of the signal pion selection.

* 2
are constrained by the corresponding properties of their doublet partners B * 0 and B 1 (3/2), respectively.The fit yields M(B 1 (3/2)) = ( 5.738 + 0.005 − 0.006 ± 0.007 ) GeV/c 2 Γ(B 1 (3/2)) = ( 18 + 15 + 29 − 13 − 23 ) MeV/c 2 BR( B * J → B * π) = 0.74 + 0.12 + 0.21 − 0.10 − 0.15 .The first error indicates the statistical and the second error the systematic uncertainty.The fit favours a contribution of B * J → B ( * ) ππ decays to the B * J signal and a mass of the broad B * J states about 100 MeV/c 2 above the narrow B * J states.Systematic uncertainties in the reconstruction efficiency and the combinatorial background at low Bπ masses together with the lack of knowledge of the exact functional form of the broad B * J states at Bπ threshold do not allow an unambiguous determination of the width and mass of the B * 0 (or B 1 (1/2)).The fit results are in agreement with predictions from several HQET models.The M(B 1 (3/2)) result agrees well with a measurement of M(B *

MeV/c 2 MeVFigure 1 :
Figure 1: The four B * J states and their dominant decays to the ground state doublet (B, B * ).Strong decays via single pion emission are indicated as solid (D-wave) and dashed (S-wave) lines.The B * decays radiatively because of the small B * -B mass splitting.

Figure 2 :
Figure 2: a) The track weight ω vtx for all tracks in hemispheres with a good secondary vertex.The peaks near 0 and 1 correspond to tracks created by b fragmentation and b hadron decay tracks, respectively.The peak near 0.5 is produced by tracks which are not unambiguously assigned to the primary or the secondary vertex, as in the case of tracks matching both the primary and secondary vertex or matching no vertex at all.b) The track weight ω NN for tracks of all hemispheres (with or without a good secondary vertex).The separation power of ω NN is superior to the separation power of ω vtx .c) The combined track weight ω tr calculated from ω vtx and ω NN for tracks of all hemispheres.Note that ω tr is shown on a logarithmic scale.

Figure 3 :
Figure 3: a) The number of good conversion photon candidates per B candidate observed in data and Monte Carlo.b) The number of good calorimeter photon candidates per B candidate observed in data and Monte Carlo.For the analysis, the Monte Carlo distribution of the latter is reweighted to the data distribution.

Figure 12 :
Figure 12: Simultaneous fit to the Bπ mass distributions of the B * J samples enriched or depleted in B *J → B * π ± (π) decays (see also Figure13).The fit results of the decays of the broad and narrow B * J for transitions via one and two pions are presented separately.

Table 1 :
Masses, widths and dominant decay modes based on theoretical predictions

Table 2 :
depletion.Only the efficiency ratios given in the right column of Table2, not the absolute efficiencies, are needed for the determination of BR( B * J → B * π(X)).For the BR( B * J → B * π(X)) measurement, the Efficiencies for the reconstruction of B * J decaying to B * π and to Bπ.The numbers are calculated with respect to the total number of B * * E , we calculate from Monte Carlo the efficiency values presented in Table2.The numbers reflect the cut on W(B * ) and thus the quality of the B * enrichment versus the B *

Table 3
are taken into account.We explicitly allow the decay via two pions to B * and B for all B * J states.For each B * J state, we set BR(B * J →

Table 3 :
Constraints on production rates, masses and widths used in the fit to the total Bπ mass spectrum.

Table 5 :
Table of correlations of all free parameters in the final fit to the data mass spectra of the B * -enriched and B * -depleted samples.