A precise knowledge of the mass difference between the J/$\psi(1^{--})$ and $\eta_c(0^{-+})$ charmonium states is useful for the determination of the strength of the spin-spin interaction term in non-relativistic potential models. While the $J/\psi$ mass has been determined with high accuracy (1 part in $10^{5}$) to be $3096.88 \pm 0.04$ MeV, the mass of the $\eta_c$ is less well measured. The Particle Data Group (PDG) average of $m_{\eta_c} =2979.8 \pm 2.1$ MeV is based on experiments using the reactions $e^+e^-\to$ J/$\psi\to\gamma\eta_c$ [@dm2; @m3-1; @m3-2; @m3-3; @cball], $e^+e^-\to\psi(2S)\to\gamma\eta_c$ [@cball] and p$\bar{\mbox p}\to\gamma\gamma$ [@e760-1; @e760-2]. These measurements have poor internal consistency, and the PDG fit to the measurements has a confidence level of only 0.001. The most recent result from Fermilab experiment E760 [@e760-1] disagrees with the result from the DM2 group [@dm2] by almost four standard deviations. Measurements of the full width of the $\eta_c$ have been made by four groups: E760 reports a result of $\Gamma_{\eta_c} = 23.9_{-7.1}^{+12.6}$ MeV [@e760-1], which is larger than the results from SPEC ($7.0_{-7.0}^{+7.5}$ MeV) [@e760-2], Mark III ($10.1_{-8.2}^{+33.0}$ MeV) [@m3-1] and Crystal Ball ($11.5\pm 4.5$ MeV)[@cball]. Additional measurements for both $m_{\eta_c}$ and $\Gamma_{\eta_c}$ are needed to improve the situation. An $\eta_c$ mass value of $m_{\eta_c} = 2975.8 \pm 3.9 \pm 1.2$ MeV was reported earlier by the Beijing Spectrometer (BES) collaboration based on an analysis of the reaction $\psi$(2S)$\to\gamma\eta_c$ [@bespsi]. In this paper we report a measurement of the mass of the $\eta_c$ based on a data sample of 7.8 million J/$\psi$ events collected in BES. The reactions J/$\psi\to\gamma\eta_c$, $\eta_c\to K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-$, $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$, $K^\pm K^0_S \pi^\mp$ (with $K^0_S\to\pi^+\pi^-$), $\phi\phi$ (with $\phi\to K^+K^-$) and $K^+K^-\pi^0$ have been used to determine the mass and width of the $\eta_c$.

The Beijing Spectrometer has been described in detail in Ref. [@detect]. Here we describe briefly those detector elements essential to this measurement. Charged particle tracking is provided by a 10 superlayer main drift chamber (MDC). Each superlayer contains four cylindrical layers of sense wires that measure both the position and the ionization energy loss (dE/d$x$) of charged particles. The momentum resolution is $\sigma_P/P = 1.7\%\sqrt{1 + P^2}$, where $P$ is in GeV/$c$. The dE/d$x$ resolution is $9\%$ and provides good $\pi/K$ separation in the low momentum region. An array of 48 scintillation counters surrounding the MDC measures the time-of-flight (TOF) of charged tracks with a resolution of 330 ps for hadrons. Outside of the TOF system is an electromagnetic calorimeter comprised of streamer tubes and lead sheets with a $z$ position resolution of 4 cm. The energy resolution of the shower counter scales as $\sigma_E/E
= 22\%/\sqrt{E}$, where $E$ is in GeV. Outside the shower counter is a solenoidal magnet that produces a 0.4 Tesla magnetic field.

The event selection criteria for each channel are described in detail in previous papers [@dly2kp; @dly2pp; @dlyk3p]. Here we repeat only the essential information and emphasize those considerations that are special to the $m_{\eta_c}$ measurement. Candidates are selected by requiring the correct number of charged track candidates for the given hypothesis. These tracks must be well fit to a helix in the polar angle range $-0.8 < \cos\theta < 0.8$ and have a transverse momentum above $60$ MeV/c. For the four-charged-track channels, at least one photon with energy $E_{\gamma}> 30$ MeV is required in the barrel shower counter; for the $K^+K^-\pi^0$ channel, at least three $E_{\gamma}>30$ MeV photons are required. Showers that can be associated with charged tracks are not considered. Events are fitted kinematically with four constraints (4C) to the hypotheses: $J/\psi \to \gamma K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-$, $J/\psi \to \gamma \pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$, $J/\psi \to \gamma K^\pm\pi^\mp\pi^+\pi^-$, $J/\psi \to \gamma \gamma \gamma K^+K^-$. A one-constraint (1C) fit is done for the $J/\psi \to \gamma_{miss} K^+K^-K^+K^-$ hypothesis, where $\gamma_{miss}$ indicates that this photon is not detected. We select those events for each particular channel that have a confidence level greater than 5%. A cut on the variable, $|U_{miss}|=|E_{miss}-P_{miss}| < 0.10$ GeV (for $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$), $<0.12$ GeV (for $K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-$), $<0.15$ GeV (for $K^\pm K_{S}^{0}\pi^\mp$) and $<0.15$ GeV (for $\phi\phi$) is imposed to reject events with multiphotons and misidentified charged particles. Here, $E_{miss}$ and $P_{miss}$ are, respectively, the missing energy and missing momentum calculated using the measured quantities for the charged tracks. Another cut on the variable, $P_{t\gamma}^2 = 4|P_{miss}|^2\sin^2(\theta_{t\gamma}/2) < 0.006 (\mbox{GeV}/c)^2$ (for $K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-$, $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$ and $K^\pm K_{S}^{0}\pi^\mp$) is used to reduce the backgrounds from $\pi^0$’s, where $\theta_{t\gamma}$ is the angle between the missing momentum and the photon direction. For the $K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-$ and $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$ channels, $|M_{\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0}-M_\omega|>30$ MeV is required to remove the background from $J/\psi\to \omega \pi^+\pi^-$ and $J/\psi\to \omega K^+K^-$; where a $\pi^0$ is associated with the missing momentum. For the $K^\pm K_{S}^{0}\pi^\mp$ (with $K^0_S\to\pi^+\pi^-$) channel, the $\pi^+\pi^-$ invariant mass for the $K^0_S $ candidate is required to be within 25 MeV of $M_{K_{S}^{0}}$. For the $\phi\phi$ (with $\phi\to K^+K^-$) channel, the invariant masses of both candidate $\phi$’s corresponding to $K^+K^-$ pairs are required to be within 30 MeV of the $\phi$ mass. For the $K^+K^-\pi^0$ channel, at least one of the three $\gamma\gamma$ invariant mass combinations is required to be within 40 MeV of the $\pi^0$ mass; for events where this happens for more than one combination, the one with invariant mass closest to the $\pi^0$ mass is taken to be the candidate $\pi^0$.

Using the event selection criteria described above, we determine the invariant mass spectra for each decay mode shown in Figs. \[etac-mass\](a) to \[etac-mass\](e). The curve in each figure indicates the result of a likelihood fit using a Breit-Wigner line shape convoluted with a Gaussian mass resolution function for the $\eta_c$, plus a polynomial function to represent the background. In these fits, the $\eta_c$ total width is fixed at its PDG central value of $\Gamma=13.2$ MeV, and the resolution at the Monte Carlo determined value. The number of fitted events and the mass of the $\eta_c$ determined for each of the channels are listed in Table \[Tab2\]. The experimental resolution, which varies from channel to channel, is also listed in the table.

                         Channel                         No. of events             mass(MeV)             $\Gamma$(MeV)          $\sigma$(MeV)       
  ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
                   $K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-$                    $37.3\pm13.4$           $2976.6\pm6.3$              13.2                   13.7        
                 $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$                  $24.9\pm11.2$           $2975.5\pm7.3$              13.2                   12.8        
   $K^\pm K_{S}^{0}\pi^\mp \to K^\pm\pi^\mp\pi^+\pi^-$   $27.5\pm10.4$           $2978.6\pm5.2$              13.2                   13.1        
               $\phi\phi\to K^+K^-K^+K^-$                $12.4\pm 3.3$           $2978.7\pm6.1$              13.2                   13.2        
                      $K^+K^-\pi^0$                      $39.4\pm15.2$           $2975.1\pm9.9$              13.2                   25.0        

Figure \[etac-mass\](f) shows the combined four-charged-track invariant mass distributions in the $\eta_c$ mass region for the $K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-$, $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$, $K^\pm K_{S}^{0}\pi^\mp$ and $\phi\phi$ channels, which are the those with similar mass resolution. Here, a likelihood fit using a $\Gamma$ fixed at the PDG value and a mass resolution ($\sigma$) fixed at the value averaged over the four channels ($\sigma_{avg}=13.3$MeV) gives a total of $100.9 \pm 19.8$ $\eta_c$ events and a mass $m_{\eta_c} = 2976.7\pm 3.4$ MeV with a $\chi^2/\mbox{dof}=14.2/20$, corresponding to a confidence level of 81.9%. If $\sigma=13.3$ MeV is fixed and the mass, number of events, and $\Gamma$ are allowed to float, the resulting mass value and number of events are $m_{\eta_c}=2976.7\pm3.0$ MeV and $91.5 \pm 21.2$, respectively.

=3.6in

The main systematic errors associated with the $m_{\eta_c}$ determination arise from the mass-scale calibration, the detection efficiency, and the uncertainties associated with the selection of the cut values. In the case of the $\psi(2S)$ measurement [@bespsi], the level of the systematic error on the overall mass scale of BES was estimated as 0.8 MeV by comparing the masses of the $\chi_{c1}$ and $\chi_{c2}$ charmonium states, detected in the same decay channels, with their PDG values. These masses have been measured in a number of experiments, and the reported values have good internal consistency. The systematic error caused by the detection efficiency was determined to be 0.7 MeV by using a Monte Carlo simulation. Systematic errors originating from the cut conditions are mainly from the confidence-level cuts for the constrained kinematic fits and the photon minimum energy requirement. For example, when the accepted confidence level probability is varied between 1% and 10%, the central value of $m_{\eta_c}$ shifts by 0.7 MeV. When the minimum energy of the photon is changed from 30 MeV to 50 MeV, the central value of $m_{\eta_c}$ shifts by 0.2 MeV. The systematic errors associated with the uncertainties in the experimental mass resolution and the full width of the $\eta_c$ are small. When the experimental mass resolution is varied between the extreme values of 11.0 and 15.0 MeV, and the full width is changed from 10.0 to 16.0 MeV, we find that shifts of the mass are less than 0.2 MeV. The total overall systematic error of this measurement is taken to be 1.3 MeV, the sum in quadrature of all contributions.

Combining the weighted average with the result for the $K^+K^-\pi^0$ decay channel (see Table \[Tab2\]), we obtain the result $m_{\eta_c}=2976.6\pm2.9\pm1.3$ MeV for the five channels. Combining this result with that from the BES analysis of $\psi(2S)\to\gamma\eta_c$, namely $m_{\eta_c} = 2975.8\pm 3.9 \pm1.2$ MeV [@bespsi], we obtain a weighted average $m_{\eta_c} = 2976.3\pm2.3\pm1.2 $ MeV. Here, since most of the systematic error in the mass scale is common between the $J/\psi$ and $\psi(2S)$ measurements, we take the systematic error of the combined measurement to be that from the $\psi(2S)$ measurement.

The full width of the $\eta_c$ was determined from a fit to the combined $J/\psi$ and $\psi(2S)$ event samples. Figure \[etac-total\] shows the combined four-charged-track invariant mass distribution in the $\eta_c$ mass region for $J/\psi\to\gamma\eta_c$ (with $\eta_c\to
K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-$, $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$, $K^\pm K_{S}^{0}\pi^\mp$ and $\phi\phi$) and $\psi(2S)\to\gamma\eta_c$ (with $\eta_c \to K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-$, $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$, $K^\pm K_{S}^{0}\pi^\mp$ and $K^+K^-K^+K^-$). An $\eta_c$ full width of $\Gamma = 11.0\pm 8.1$ MeV is given by a likelihood fit performed with the resolution fixed at $\sigma = 13.3$ MeV. This fit gives a total of $168.3\pm26.8$ $\eta_c$ events with a $\chi^2/\mbox{dof}=15.0/21$, corresponding to a confidence level of 82.1%. The systematic error of the width measurement is 4.1 MeV which includes the sum in quadrature of the uncertainty in the mass resolution $\sigma$ (2.5 MeV), the uncertainty associated with the choice of selection cuts (2.5 MeV), and the mass dependence of the detection efficiency (2.0 MeV).

=2.75in

In summary, we have used the BES 7.8 million $J/\psi$ data sample to observe the $\eta_c$ in five different decay modes and determine the $\eta_c$ mass to be $2976.6\pm2.9\pm1.3$ MeV. Combining this result with a prior BES analysis of $\psi(2S)\to\gamma\eta_c$, we find $m_{\eta_c} = 2976.3\pm2.3\pm1.2$ MeV. Combining the two samples, we also obtain $\Gamma_{\eta_c} = 11.0\pm 8.1\pm 4.1$ MeV. The mass measurement of $\eta_c$ from BES is in good agreement with the PDG value of $2979.8\pm2.1$ MeV, but 3.8$\sigma$ below the E760 result of $2988.3_{-3.1}^{+3.3}$ MeV. Figure \[Fig4\] shows the BES results together with the four previous measurements with the smallest errors. The curve in Fig. \[Fig4\] allows a determination of the values of $\chi^2$ versus $m_{\eta_c}$ for a fit including all existing measurements. The minimum value, $\chi^2/\mbox{dof}=22.2/8$ occurs at $2979.2\pm0.9$ MeV. The high $\chi^2$ value is predominantly due to the poor agreement between the DM2 and E760 measurements. The two measurements of BES reduce the new world average for the mass by 0.6 MeV.

=2.75in

The BES collaboration acknowledges financial support from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Ministry of Science & Technology of Korea. It thanks the staff of BEPC for their hard efforts. This work is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under contracts Nos. 19991480, 19825116 and 19605007 and the Chinese Academy of Sciences under contract No. KJ 95T-03(IHEP); by the Department of Energy under Contract Nos. DE-FG03-92ER40701 (Caltech), DE-FG03-93ER40788 (Colorado State University), DE-AC03-76SF00515 (SLAC), DE-FG03-91ER40679 (UC Irvine), DE-FG03-94ER40833 (U Hawaii), DE-FG03-95ER40925 (UT Dallas); and by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Korea under Contract KISTEP I-03-037(Korea). We also acknowledge Prof. D. V. Bugg, Prof. B. S. Zou and Prof. S. F. Tuan for helpful suggestions and discussions.

[10]{} D. Bisello [*[et al.]{}*]{} (DM2), Nucl. Phys, [**B 350**]{}, 1 (1991). K.M. Baltrusaitis [*[et al.]{}*]{} (MARK III), Phys. Rev. [**D 33**]{} , 629 (1986). J.Z. Bai [*[et al.]{}*]{} (MARK III), Phys. Rev. Lett, [**65**]{}, 1309 (1990). T.M. Himmel [*[et al.]{}*]{} (MARK II), Phys. Rev. Lett, [**45**]{}, 1146 (1980). J.E. Gaiser [*[et al.]{}*]{} (Crystal Ball), Phys. Rev. [**D 34**]{}, 711 (1986). T.A. Armstrong [*[et al.]{}*]{} (E760), Phys. Rev. [**D 52**]{}, 4839 (1995). C. Bagelin [*[et al.]{}*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B 187**]{}, 191 (1987). J.Z. Bai [*[et al.]{}*]{} (BES), Phys. Rev. [**D 60**]{}, 72001 (1999). J.Z. Bai [*[et al.]{}*]{} (BES), Nucl. Instr. Methods, [**A 344**]{} (1994) 319. J.Z. Bai [*[et al.]{}*]{} (BES), Phys. Lett. [**B 472**]{}, 200 (2000). J.Z. Bai [*[et al.]{}*]{} (BES), Phys. Lett. [**B 472**]{}, 207 (2000). J.Z. Bai [*[et al.]{}*]{} (BES), Phys. Lett. [**B**]{} (in press).
