Test of lepton flavor universality in $\PBpm\!\to\!\PKpm\MM$ and $\PBpm\!\to\!\PKpm\EE$ decays in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$

In the standard model (SM) of particle physics [1, 2, 3], the charged leptons (electrons \Pe, muons \PGm, and \PGtleptons) have identical couplings to the gauge bosons and thus exhibit a similar behavior, up to the kinematic differences related to their different masses. This is commonly known as lepton flavor universality (LFU). Several tests of LFU have been performed in \PWand \PZboson decays, which are generally found to be in excellent agreement with the SM predictions [4]. The only hint of possible LFU violation (LFUV), at 2.7 standard deviations $(\sigma)$ in the decay of \PWbosons to \PGtvs. light leptons from the CERN LEP era [5], was ruled out by the ATLAS [6] and CMS [7] experiments at the CERN LHC.

Rare \PQbhadron decays provide an excellent and complementary environment to test LFU. In particular, the $\PBp\!\to\!\PKp\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ process where a bottom antiquark (\PAQb) decays into a strange antiquark (\PAQs) and a lepton ($\ell=\PGm$ or $\Pe$) pair is forbidden at tree level and only proceeds via loop diagrams, \eg, the one shown in Fig. 1 (left). Therefore, the SM branching fractions ($\mathcal{B}$) for these decays are very small ($\sim$10${}^{-7}$) [4]. This process is referred to as a $\PAQb\!\to\!\PAQs\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ transition (in what follows, the charge-conjugated states are implied unless explicitly stated otherwise).

Since both the electron and muon masses are negligible with respect to the \PBmeson mass, the available phase space for the two decays ($\PBp\!\to\!\PKp\MM$ and $\PBp\!\to\!\PKp\EE$) is the same to an excellent approximation, which makes the ratio of these branching fractions very close to unity in the SM. On the other hand, beyond-the-SM (BSM) physics processes could modify the corresponding branching fractions differently for different lepton species, as illustrated in Fig. 1 (right) for the case of a leptoquark with flavor-dependent couplings, thus resulting in LFUV in $\PAQb\!\to\!\PAQs\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ transitions. A recent review of various BSM models describing LFUV in \PBmeson decays can be found in Ref. [8] and references therein, as well as in an extensive list of references in Ref. [9].

Over the past decade, the LHCb experiment has reported mounting evidence for LFUV in $\PBp\!\to\!\PKp\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ [10, 11, 9], $\PBz\!\to\!\PK^{\ast}(892)^{0}\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ [12], $\PBz\!\to\!\PKzS\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$, and $\PBp\!\to\!\PK^{\ast}(892)^{+}\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ [13] decays with the significance reaching 3.1$\sigma$ in the first channel [9]. In these analyses the muon decays are measured to be suppressed compared to the electron ones. In addition, multiple measurements of branching fractions of several $\PAQb\!\to\!\PAQs\MM$ decays by LHCb indicate their suppression with respect to the available SM predictions [14, 15, 16, 17]. These predictions, however, are subject to potentially large and poorly understood uncertainties from long-range charm loop contributions [18]. While the claim of possible LFUV in \PBmeson decays has largely disappeared in the latest LHCb publications [19, 20], the interest in $\PAQb\!\to\!\PAQs\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ decays in general and in potential LFUV in these processes remains strong [21].

In this paper we describe a search for LFUV in $\PBp\!\to\!\PKp\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ decays using data collected by the CMS experiment at the LHC in 2018. A special trigger and storage strategy was used to collect a large unbiased sample of $\sim$10 billion \PQbhadron decays. We also report a measurement of the branching fraction of the $\PBp\!\to\!\PKp\MM$ decay, both differentially over the dimuon mass squared $q^{2}$ and integrated over two different $q^{2}$ ranges. The numeric values corresponding to figures and tables in this paper can be found in the HEPdata database [22].

This paper is organized as follows. After discussing the measurement strategy in Section 0.2, followed by the detector description in Section 0.3, we introduce the data and simulated samples in Section 0.4, and event reconstruction in Section 0.5. We discuss the maximum likelihood fit to the $\PKp\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ invariant mass distributions in Section 0.6, followed by the description of the systematic uncertainties in Section 0.7. The results are presented in Section 0.8, followed by the summary of the paper in Section 0.9. Additional plots and details of the $R(\PK)$ measurement formalism can be found in Appendix .10.

To maximize the sensitivity to LFUV in $\PAQb\!\to\!\PAQs\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ decays, it is advantageous to use an observable that minimizes the theoretical uncertainty in its prediction. Given that the absolute $\PAQb\!\to\!\PAQs\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ rates are poorly understood because of the potentially large long-range corrections [18], a more robust variable is the ratio of muon to electron decays within a certain range of the dilepton mass squared, $q^{2}_{\text{min}}<q^{2}<q^{2}_{\text{max}}$: {linenomath}

This ratio is very close to unity in the SM [23, 24, 25, 26] and known to a precision of about 1%. Furthermore, the experimental systematic uncertainties related to signal reconstruction and selection can be reduced by measuring $R(\PK)$ as a double ratio normalized to the corresponding $\PBp\!\to\!\JPsi\PKp$ decay channels: {linenomath}

This definition of $R(\PK)$ benefits from the fact that the branching fractions $\mathcal{B}(\JPsi\!\to\!\MM)$ and $\mathcal{B}(\JPsi\!\to\!\EE)$ are measured to be the same within a precision of about 0.7% [4], which ensures that this extra normalization does not change the value of $R(\PK)$ with respect to the definition in Eq. (1). Additionally, since the leptons from the nonresonant $\PBp\!\to\!\PKp\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ and the resonant $\PBp\!\to\!\JPsi(\ell^{+}\ell^{-})\PKp$ decays occupy a similar phase space, with a similar acceptance and efficiency after the final selection, most of the systematic uncertainties related to the lepton momentum scale and identification cancel in Eq. (2), making it an excellent experimental observable directly related to $R(\PK)_{\text{theory}}$.

The $R(\PK)$ ratio in Eq. (2) is measured in the $q^{2}$ region from 1.1 to 6.0$\GeV^{2}$, referred to as the “low-$q^{2}$” region, which is free of dilepton resonances. This choice is optimized to exclude the contributions of the $\PGfP{1020}$ and lighter resonances at the lower end of the $q^{2}$ spectrum, and the tail of the \JPsiresonance at the higher end. In addition, the chosen lower boundary reduces the kinematic difference between the muon and electron decay channels due to the differences in their masses.

For the differential branching fraction measurement in the $\PBp\!\to\!\PKp\MM$ channel, the $q^{2}$ range is extended downward by adding a $q^{2}<0.98\GeV^{2}$ bin, below the $\PGfP{1020}$ resonance, and upward by introducing nine bins up to the kinematic limit of $q^{2}=22.9\GeV^{2}$, excluding the $\JPsi$ and $\PGyP{2S}$ resonance $q^{2}$ ranges. Furthermore, the low-$q^{2}$ region is split into five finer bins. The definition of the 15 $q^{2}$ bins used for the differential measurement is given in Section 0.8 (Table 0.8.1). The chosen binning ensures a sufficient number of events per bin to reliably extract the branching fraction of the $\PBp\!\to\!\PKp\MM$ decay and is similar to that used in the LHCb analysis [15], which presently dominates the precision of these differential branching fraction measurements [4].

In addition to the low-$q^{2}$ region, part of which is defined as the signal region (SR) as described in Section 0.5, two control regions (CRs) are defined based on the dilepton $q^{2}$, as follows.

• • \JPsi

  CR: the $8.41<q^{2}<10.24\GeV^{2}$ range is used for the $\PBp\!\to\!\JPsi(\ell^{+}\ell^{-})\PKp$ decay, which is the main normalization channel used in the $R(\PK)$ measurement.

• •

  $\PGyP{2S}$ CR: the $12.6<q^{2}<14.44\GeV^{2}$ range is used for the $\PBp\!\to\!\PGyP{2S}(\ell^{+}\ell^{-})\PKp$ decay, which is the secondary normalization channel, used as an additional cross-check, with the $R_{\PGyP{2S}}$ ratio defined as: {linenomath}

  $$R_{\PGyP{2S}}=\left.\frac{\mathcal{B}(\PBp\!\to\!\PGyP{2S}(\MM)\PKp)}{\mathcal{B}(\PBp\!\to\!\JPsi(\MM)\PKp)}\middle/\frac{\mathcal{B}(\PBp\!\to\!\PGyP{2S}(\EE)\PKp)}{\mathcal{B}(\PBp\!\to\!\JPsi(\EE)\PKp)}\right..$$

  (3)

  This ratio is very close to unity in the SM and has been measured to a precision of about 8%, with the uncertainty dominated by the current precision of the measurement of the $\PGyP{2S}\!\to\!\MM$ branching fraction [4].

The analysis is conducted using the “data blinding” concept [27]. In the muon channel, a random scale factor is initially applied to the nonresonant signal yields in each $q^{2}$ bin. In the electron channel, the $\PKp\EE$ invariant mass spectrum in the vicinity of the \PBppeak in the low-$q^{2}$ region is initially kept blind. The entire analysis is optimized using simulated samples and resonant CRs, and the unblinding of the data in both channels is done only as the final step.

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6\unitm internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8\unitT. Within the solenoid volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter, each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward calorimeters extend the pseudorapidity ($\eta$) coverage provided by the barrel and endcap detectors. The ECAL consists of 75 848 lead tungstate crystals, which provide coverage in a barrel region, $\abs{\eta}<1.48$, and two endcap regions, $1.48<\abs{\eta}<3.0$. Muons are measured in gas-ionization detectors embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid. The procedure followed for aligning the detector is described in Ref. [28].

The silicon tracker measures charged particles within the range $\abs{\eta}<3.0$. During the 2018 LHC running period, when the data used in this paper were recorded, the silicon tracker consisted of 1856 silicon pixel [29] and 15 148 silicon strip detector modules. For nonisolated particles with transverse momentum in the $1<\pt<10\GeV$ range, the track resolutions are typically 1.5% in \ptand 20–75\mumin the transverse impact parameter [30]. Muons are measured in the $\abs{\eta}<2.4$ range, with detection planes made using three technologies: drift tubes, cathode strip chambers, and resistive-plate chambers. Matching muons to tracks measured in the silicon tracker results in a relative transverse momentum resolution, for muons with \ptup to 100\GeV, of 1% in the barrel and 3% in the endcaps [31]. The efficiency to reconstruct and identify muons is greater than 96%. The electron momentum is estimated by combining the energy measurement in the ECAL with the momentum measurement in the tracker. The momentum resolution is typically better than 5% for electrons in the range $1<\pt<10\GeV$. It is generally better in the barrel region than in the endcaps, and also depends on the bremsstrahlung energy emitted by the electron as it traverses the material in front of the ECAL [32, 33, 34].

Events of interest are selected using a two-tiered trigger system. The first level (L1), composed of custom hardware processors, uses information from the calorimeters and muon detectors to select events at a rate of around 100\unitkHz within a fixed latency of 4\mus [35]. The second level, known as the high-level trigger (HLT), consists of a farm of processors running a version of the full event reconstruction software optimized for fast processing, and further reduces the event rate before data storage [36].

A more detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic variables, can be found in Ref. [37].

The particle-flow (PF) algorithm [47] aims to reconstruct and identify each individual particle (muon, electron, photon, and charged and neutral hadrons) in an event, with an optimized combination of information from the various elements of the CMS detector.

Muons are identified as tracks in the silicon tracker consistent with either a track or several hits in the muon system, and associated with calorimeter deposits compatible with the muon hypothesis [31]. A muon that triggered the event readout is required to pass the “medium” muon identification criteria of Ref. [31]. As multiple $\Pp\Pp$ collision vertices are reconstructed from each beam crossing, we select a single primary vertex (PV) as the one whose $z$ position is closest to that of the point of closest approach of this muon to the beam line. In addition, for the electron channel, only electron candidates consistent with originating from this PV are considered. This procedure significantly reduces the contamination from pileup interactions. To simplify the trigger efficiency calculations, the muon channel analysis uses only one HLT path, which requires a muon with $\pt>9\GeV$ and $\text{IP}_{\text{sig}}>6$. This trigger was the highest threshold one during early \PBparking data taking, corresponding to $\int\!\!\!\;{\mathcal{L}}{\mathrm{d}}t=6.9\fbinv$, and then the second-highest for the rest of the data taking, accumulating an additional $\int\!\!\!\;{\mathcal{L}}{\mathrm{d}}t=26.7\fbinv$. Therefore, the $\int\!\!\!\;{\mathcal{L}}{\mathrm{d}}t$ used for the muon channel is $33.6\fbinv$, as shown in the second row of Table 0.4.1.

The PF algorithm used for electron reconstruction imposes an implicit minimum electron $\pt$ requirement of $2\GeV$. To recover the efficiency loss for low-\pt(LP) electrons, an additional algorithm (“LP electron reconstruction”) was specifically developed. As is the case for the PF algorithm, in the LP algorithm, the determination of the charged-particle track parameters for electron candidates, in the presence of bremsstrahlung energy loss, relies on the use of a Gaussian sum filter [32]. The LP electron candidate reconstruction is started with a combination of two boosted decision trees (BDTs), which are trained on samples of low-$\pt$ electrons and result in looser reconstruction requirements than for the PF electrons. The LP electrons in this analysis are reconstructed down to 1\GeV, which ensures that they reach the ECAL. In case of duplicates, we preferentially select PF electrons over LP ones. To optimize the performance of the electron identification, several electron candidate characteristics are combined using a BDT into a single discriminating variable, referred to as ID, analogously to what was done in Ref. [32]. The ID BDTs are trained separately for PF and LP electrons. The PF electron ID BDTs were retrained specifically for this analysis to improve the performance at low \pt. The training was done separately for two ranges, $2<\pt<5\GeV$ and $\pt>5\GeV$, while a single training is used for the LP electron ID in the entire \ptrange. The input variables for the ID BDTs include both track-related quantities and calorimetric shower shapes, as well as variables related to the matching of the extrapolated track to the calorimeter cluster and the difference between the track momentum at the innermost and outermost tracker layers. The electron ID BDTs were trained with the XGBoost algorithm [48] on a simulated sample of $\PBp\!\to\!\JPsi(\EE)\PKp$ events. The electron \ptand $\eta$ distributions of the training sample have been reweighted to reproduce those for the background, to avoid biases. The “tag-and-probe” method [49] using $\JPsi\!\to\!\EE$ decays in data is used to check the accuracy of the simulation for the ID BDT input variables, as well as for the output distribution. We find these variables for both the PF and LP electrons in data to be consistent with those in simulation, within statistical uncertainties.

To measure $R(\PK)$, we select events for which either a $\PBp\!\to\!\PKp\MM$ candidate (used in the numerator of the $R(\PK)$ ratio) is found on the tag side, \ie, a muon from the $\PBp\!\to\!\PKp\MM$ candidate must satisfy the trigger conditions, or a $\PBp\!\to\!\PKp\EE$ candidate (used in the denominator of the $R(\PK)$ ratio) is found on the probe side. While using the tag side for the muon channel and probe side for the electron channel complicates the analysis, as the trigger efficiency does not cancel in the $R(\PK)$ ratio, this choice ensures a large number of events collected in the $\PBp\!\to\!\PKp\MM$ channel and not only maximizes the sensitivity of the $R(\PK)$ measurement, but also enables high-precision measurements of the $\PBp\!\to\!\PKp\MM$ branching fraction.

The \PBpcandidates are formed using a pair of opposite-sign (OS) same-flavor leptons with an invariant mass below $5\GeV$ and a positively charged track, to which the kaon mass is assigned. Several quality criteria are applied to each muon, electron, and track candidates to reduce the number of misreconstructed objects. Specifically, tracks are required to pass the “high-purity” track quality criteria [50, 47] with $\pt>1\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<2.4$. Since the triggering object is a muon, to reconstruct the $\PBp\!\to\!\PKp\MM$ decay only one additional muon is needed. This muon is required to have OS with respect to the triggering muon, pass the “medium” muon identification criteria, have $\pt>2\GeV$, and satisfy $\abs{\eta}<2.4$. In the electron channel, in order to increase the purity of the sample, we require at least one of the electrons to be reconstructed with the PF algorithm. Both electrons are required to have $\abs{\eta}<2.4$. The two electrons must have points of origin separated, along the beam line direction, by $\abs{\Delta z}<1\unit{cm}$ and with $\abs{\Delta z}<1\unit{cm}$ of the point of origin of the muon that triggered the event. At this stage, we apply only very loose requirements on the ID BDT output for the electrons, as it is used as an input to the multivariate analysis described below. The transverse momentum of the \PBpcandidate is required to exceed 3 and 1.75\GeVin the muon and electron channels, respectively.

The tracks of the three particles forming the \PBpcandidate are fitted to a common vertex, using their measured momentum vectors with the corresponding uncertainties, to improve the mass measurement accuracy for both the \PBpcandidate and the lepton pair. The kinematic fit algorithm [51] constrains the tracks belonging to the \PBpcandidates to originate from a single vertex, and provides the vertex position, covariance matrix, and $\chi^{2}$ of the fit. After the vertexing is performed, the particle trajectories are refitted using this secondary vertex (SV) as an additional constraint, and their momenta are recomputed. The masses of the particles (leptons and kaon) are fixed to their nominal values [4]. A loose set of criteria is imposed on the SV fit probability, as well as the $L_{xy}/\sigma_{xy}$ and $\cos\alpha_{\text{2D}}(\PBp)$ variables described in Table 0.5. The invariant mass of the \PBpcandidate is required to be in the range 5.0–5.6 (4.7–5.7)\GeVfor the muon (electron) channel. In addition, in the electron channel, the two electron candidates are fitted to a common vertex (“dielectron vertex”), which is used later in the analysis to define one of the discriminating variables, $\abs{d_{\text{3D}}(\PKp,\,\EE)}$, described in Table 0.5.

A significant fraction of semileptonic decays of heavy-flavor hadrons, containing a semileptonic charm meson decay or a hadronic $\PDz\!\to\!\PKm\PGpp$ decay, remains in the preselected sample. The hadronic \PDzdecays enter the sample because of misidentification of the \PKmor \PGppmeson as a lepton. Therefore, a charm veto is applied by requiring that, for a \PBpcandidate, the invariant mass of the track, using the pion mass assignment, and the OS lepton, using the kaon mass assignment, is larger than 2\GeV. In the electron channel, we additionally require the invariant mass of the track, using the kaon mass assignment, and the OS electron, using the pion mass assignment, to also be larger than 2\GeV. This additional selection is not applied in the muon channel, as the probability to reconstruct charged pions as muons is significantly smaller than that for kaons. Finally, to suppress events where a muon is misreconstructed as a kaon candidate, the track under the muon mass hypothesis and the OS muon belonging to a \PBpcandidate are required to have an invariant mass away from known dimuon resonances.

The selected \PBpcandidates are binned in $q^{2}$, as described in Section 0.2. Events in each $q^{2}$ bin can be further divided in regions based on the invariant mass of the \PBpcandidate. The region where genuine \PBpcandidates are expected, $5.07<m_{\PKp\ell\ell}<5.49\GeV$, is denoted as the SR. The adjacent mass regions $4.90<m_{\PKp\MM}<5.07$ ($4.91<m_{\PKp\EE}<5.07$)\GeVand $5.49<m_{\PKp\ell\ell}<5.65\GeV$ are designated as sidebands (SBs). The low-mass SB has a significant contamination from partially reconstructed \PBmeson decays, while the high-mass SB is dominated by combinatorial background.

The final selection in each channel is based on a BDT, which combines several variables into a classifier built using the XGBoost package. The input variables used in the BDT are selected based on the forward elimination method (\ie, by adding one variable at a time and either keeping or dropping it based on the observed improvement in the performance) and are summarized in Table 0.5. In the electron channel, two independent BDTs are trained for the PF-PF and PF-LP categories using the same input variables. Given the significantly higher background in the electron channel, the corresponding BDTs have more input variables and have all the momenta variables normalized to the \PBpcandidate mass $m_{\PKp\EE}$ to ensure that a BDT score selection does not introduce peaks in the invariant mass distributions (“mass sculpting”). Both muon and electron BDTs are tested thoroughly using data and simulated events to ensure that they do not introduce any mass sculpting. The BDTs are trained in a supervised manner with simulated $\PBp\!\to\!\PKp\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ decays in the low-$q^{2}$ bin as signal and data events from the low-$q^{2}$ bin SBs as background.

It is checked that the simulation describes the data well. The comparisons are performed for all BDT input variables, as well as the BDT output, using the ${}_{s}\mathcal{P}\text{lot}$ technique [52], where the reconstructed \PBpcandidate invariant mass is used as the discriminating variable. The test is performed on the $\PBp\!\to\!\JPsi(\ell^{+}\ell^{-})\PKp$ CRs, and good agreement between data and simulation is found for all three channels (muon, PF-PF, and PF-LP). After training, the BDT output is a continuous function, as shown in Fig. 2, where high (low) values correspond to signal-like (background-like) events. In this figure, the background sample is obtained by using the SR selection, with the inversion of the OS requirement for the two leptons (the same-sign CR). The optimal BDT working point (WP) is chosen to maximize the expected significance of the $\PBp\!\to\!\PKp\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ signal in the low-$q^{2}$ region. In the muon channel, the same BDT selection is applied to the $\JPsi$ and $\PGyP{2S}$ CRs to allow for maximum cancellation of the systematic uncertainties, while in the electron channel, where the dominant uncertainty is statistical, a looser BDT WP is used for the resonance CRs to maximize the number of events in the normalization channel. The muon, PF-PF, and PF-LP channels are then combined statistically for the $R(\PK)$ extraction.

The product of the detector acceptance $\mathcal{A}$ and efficiency $\epsilon$ is evaluated using simulated samples without the trigger requirements. For the muon channel, the trigger efficiency $\epsilon_{\text{trig}}$, determined from simulated samples with and without the trigger requirement and no reconstruction requirements, is found to be approximately 0.4%. The low value of the trigger efficiency is mainly due to the muon \ptand displacement requirements. In the electron channel, since the $\PBp\!\to\!\PKp\EE$ candidates are found on the probe side, the $\epsilon_{\text{trig}}$ component does not enter in the $R(\PK)$ extraction, as it is measured to be the same for the low-$q^{2}$ and the \JPsiregions and hence cancels completely in the $R(\PK)$ ratio.

Slight differences between data and simulation in the muon channel are mitigated with scale factors (SFs) applied to simulated events, and the correction for the following effects are applied.

• •

  Trigger efficiency: The difference in the trigger response is corrected for by an SF, as a function of muon $\eta$, \pt, and the SV displacement significance $L_{xy}/\sigma_{xy}$. The SF is measured with a tag-and-probe method [49], exploiting the $\JPsi\!\to\!\MM$ decays.

• •

  Muon identification efficiency: The quality criteria imposed on the muons may have different performance in data and simulation. This SF is measured with the tag-and-probe method.

• •

  BDT efficiency: The BDT is using input variables that have small differences between data and simulation. The corresponding SF is measured by comparing the BDT output for the $\PBp\!\to\!\JPsi(\MM)\PKp$ events in data and simulation.

• •

  Pileup: Simulated events are reweighted to match the evolving pileup conditions of the analyzed data.

• •

  Higher-order corrections: Leading-order \PYTHIAsimulation is reweighted at the generator-level so that the \PBmeson \ptand rapidity spectra match those from fixed-order perturbative quantum chromodynamics calculations with resummation of large logarithms that arise from soft and collinear emissions [53, 54]. The reweighting is done using the fixed-order plus next-to-leading logarithmic (FONLL) calculations [55, 56], which are known to reproduce these spectra in data with high accuracy.

It was found that applying the analogous SFs to the electron channel changes the measured value of $R(\PK)$ by less than 1.2%, which has a negligible effect on the final result given the large statistical uncertainty in the electron channel. Therefore, the SFs are not applied in the electron channel. The measured $\mathcal{A}\epsilon\epsilon_{\text{trig}}$ in the muon channel for all $q^{2}$ bins, after applying these corrections, is shown in Fig. .10.1. The $\mathcal{A}\epsilon\epsilon_{\text{trig}}$ or $\mathcal{A}\epsilon$ values in the low-$q^{2}$ regions and two resonant CRs for the muon or electron channel are listed in Table 0.5 .

In each channel, the $\PBp\!\to\!\PKp\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ signal yield is extracted from an unbinned maximum likelihood fit to the invariant mass spectrum of all \PBpcandidates that pass the selection criteria. Signal and background shapes are described by analytical functions or templates based on studies of simulated events, with their normalization factors free to vary in the fit to data. To allow a better description of the data, some parameters of the analytical functions are constrained within the uncertainties obtained from a fit to simulated samples, rather than being fixed. The same functional forms describing the various contributions are shown to work well in all $q^{2}$ bins in simulation; hence they are kept the same in the fit to data as well.