text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The phenomenon of particle–anti-particle mixing in the neutral $`B`$ meson system was first observed almost fifteen years ago . The oscillation frequency in $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing111The symbol $`B^0`$ refers to the $`B_d`$ meson; charge conjugate modes are implied throughout this paper. has been extensively studied with both time-integrated and time-dependent techniques . In this paper we present a preliminary measurement of time-dependent mixing performed at the PEP-II asymmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ collider, where resonant production of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ provides a copious source of $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ pairs moving along the beam axis ($`z`$ direction) with a Lorentz boost of $`\beta \gamma =0.56`$. The typical separation between the two $`B`$ decay vertices is $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=\beta \gamma c\tau _B=260`$$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$, where $`\tau _B=1.548\pm 0.032`$$`\mathrm{ps}`$ is the $`B^0`$ lifetime . The $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing probability is a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$, the difference between the mass eigenstates $`B_H^0`$ and $`B_L^0`$, and the time between the $`B`$ decays, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=\mathrm{\Delta }z/\beta \gamma c`$:

$$Prob(B^0\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0})\mathrm{e}^{|\mathrm{\Delta }t|/\tau _B}(1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t).$$
(1)
In the Standard Model, $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing occurs through second-order weak diagrams involving the exchange of up-type quarks, with the top quark contributing the dominant amplitude. A measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ is therefore sensitive to the value of the Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix  element $`V_{td}`$. At present the sensitivity to $`V_{td}`$ is not limited by experimental precision on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$, but by other uncertainties in the calculation, in particular the quantity $`f_B^2B_B`$, where $`f_B`$ is the $`B^0`$ decay constant, and $`B_B`$ is the so-called bag factor, representing the strong interaction matrix elements.

In this analysis, we study the time-dependent probability to observe $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$, $`B^0`$$`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$$`\overline{B}^0`$ pairs produced in $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ decay. We reconstruct one $`B`$ in a flavor eigenstate, and use the remaining particles from the decay of the other $`B`$ to identify, or “tag”, its flavor. The charges of identified leptons and kaons are the primary indicators of the flavor of the tagging $`B`$, but other particles also carry flavor information that can be identified with a neural network algorithm. The tagging algorithm used in this analysis is identical to that employed by BABAR in $`CP`$ violation studies, in which one $`B`$ is fully reconstructed in a $`CP`$ eigenstate .

Considering the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ system as a whole, one can classify the tagged events as mixed or unmixed depending on whether the reconstructed $`B`$, referred to as $`B_{rec}`$, has the same or the opposite flavor as the tagging $`B`$, referred to as $`B_{tag}`$. If the flavor tagging were perfect, the asymmetry

$$a(\mathrm{\Delta }t)=\frac{N_{\mathrm{unmix}}N_{\mathrm{mix}}}{N_{\mathrm{unmix}}+N_{\mathrm{mix}}}$$
(2)
plotted as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ would describe a cosine function with unit amplitude. However, the tagging algorithm incorrectly identifies the tag with a probability $`w`$. This mistag rate reduces the amplitude of the oscillation by a “dilution factor” $`𝒟=(12w)`$. When more than one type of flavor tag is employed, each will have its own mistag rate, $`w_i`$. A simultaneous fit to the mixing frequency and its amplitude allows the determination of both $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and the mistag rates, $`w_i`$.

Neglecting any background contributions, the probability density functions (PDF’s) for the mixed $`()`$ and unmixed $`(+)`$ events can be expressed as the convolution of the oscillatory component $`h_\pm `$, with a time resolution function $`(\mathrm{\Delta }t|\widehat{a})`$:

$$_\pm (\mathrm{\Delta }t;\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Delta }m_d,𝒟,\widehat{a})=h_\pm (\mathrm{\Delta }t;\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Delta }m_d,𝒟)(\mathrm{\Delta }t;\widehat{a}),$$
(3)
where $`\widehat{a}`$ are the parameters of the resolution function and

$$h_\pm (\mathrm{\Delta }t;\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Delta }m_d,𝒟)=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left|\mathrm{\Delta }t\right|}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\pm 𝒟\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t\right].$$
(4)
The log-likelihood function is then constructed from the sum of $`_\pm `$ over all mixed and unmixed events, and over the different tag types, $`i`$, each with its own characteristic dilution factor $`𝒟_i`$:

$$\mathrm{ln}=\underset{i}{\overset{\mathrm{tagging}}{}}\left[\underset{\mathrm{unmixed}}{}\mathrm{ln}_+(\mathrm{\Delta }t;\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Delta }m_d,𝒟_i,\widehat{a}_i)+\underset{\mathrm{mixed}}{}\mathrm{ln}_{}(\mathrm{\Delta }t;\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Delta }m_d,𝒟_i,\widehat{a}_i)\right].$$
(5)
The log-likelihood is maximized to extract the dilutions $`𝒟_i`$ and, simultaneously, the mixing parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$. The correlation between these parameters is small, because the rate of mixed events at low values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, where the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing probability is small, is principally governed by the mistag rate. Conversely, the sensitivity to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ increases at larger values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$; when $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is approximately twice the $`B`$ lifetime, half of the neutral $`B`$s will have oscillated.

Alternatively, the mistag rate can be extracted in a time-independent analysis. Neglecting possible background contributions and assuming the $`B_{rec}`$ flavor is correctly identified, one can express the observed time-integrated fraction of mixed events $`\chi _{obs}`$ as a function of the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing probability $`\chi _d`$ :

$$\chi _{obs}=\chi _d+(12\chi _d)w,$$
(6)
where $`\chi _d=\frac{1}{2}x_d^2/(1+x_d^2)`$ and $`x_d=\mathrm{\Delta }m_d/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The current world average for $`\chi _d`$ is $`0.174\pm 0.009`$ . Because decay time information is available in BABAR, we can improve the statistical precision on $`w`$ by selecting only events that fall into an optimized time interval, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }t|<t^{}`$, where $`t^{}`$ is the value of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }t|`$ above which the integrated number of mixed events equals the integrated number of unmixed events. Through the use of an optimized $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ interval this method achieves nearly the same statistical precision on $`w`$ that is obtained in a full time-dependent likelihood fit.

## 2 The BABAR detector and data set

The data used in this analysis were collected with the BABAR detector  at the PEP-II storage ring in the period January–June, 2000. The total integrated luminosity of the data set is 8.9$`\text{ fb}^1`$ collected near the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance and 0.8$`\text{ fb}^1`$ collected 40$`\mathrm{MeV}`$ below the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance (off-resonance data). The corresponding number of produced $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs is estimated to be about $`(10.1\pm 0.4)\times 10^6`$.

The BABAR detector is described in more detail elsewhere . For this analysis, the most important detector capabilities include charged-particle tracking, vertexing and particle identification. Charged particles are detected and their momenta measured by a combination of a central drift chamber (DCH) filled with a helium-based gas and a five-layer, double-sided silicon vertex tracker (SVT), immersed in a 1.5 T axial field produced by a superconducting magnet. The charged-particle momentum resolution is given by $`\left(\delta p_T/p_T\right)^2=(0.0015p_T)^2+(0.005)^2`$, where $`p_T`$ is in $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$. The SVT, with typical 10$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ single-hit resolution, provides vertex information in both the transverse plane and in $`z`$. The $`B`$ meson decay vertex resolution is typically 50$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ in $`z`$ for a fully reconstructed $`B`$ meson and about 100 to 150$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ for the companion (unreconstructed) $`B`$ meson in the event. Beyond the outer radius of the DCH is a detector of internally reflected Cherenkov radiation (DIRC) which is used primarily for charged hadron identification. The device consists of quartz bars in which Cherenkov light is produced as relativistic charged particles traverse the material. The light is internally reflected, and the Cherenkov rings are measured with an array of photomultiplier tubes mounted on the rear of the detector. A CsI(Tl) crystal electromagnetic calorimeter (EMC) is used to detect photons, and neutral hadrons, and also for electron identification. The EMC is surrounded by a superconducting coil which provides a 1.5 T magnetic field. The Instrumented Flux Return (IFR) consists of multiple layers of resistive plate chambers interleaved with the flux return iron and is used in the identification of muons and neutral hadrons.

## 3 Particle identification

Identification of electrons, muons and kaons is an essential ingredient of both $`B`$ reconstruction and flavor tagging. As noted above, the BABAR detector has several systems that contribute to particle identification, including the measured $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ in the SVT and the drift chamber, Cherenkov angle determination in the DIRC, electromagnetic energy measurement in the CsI calorimeter and detection of penetrating particles in the IFR. In this section we describe in detail the selections that are employed to identify particles by species, both for the purposes of flavor tagging and for $`B`$ reconstruction, where the latter typically employs looser selection criteria. We also include the preliminary average values for efficiency and pion misidentification probabilities, as determined from data.

### 3.1 Electron identification

For tagging purposes, an electron candidate must be matched to an electromagnetic cluster in the CsI calorimeter consisting of at least three crystals, and the ratio of the cluster energy to the track momentum $`E/p`$ must be between 0.88 and 1.3. Cuts  based on electromagnetic shower shape are also used in identifying electron candidates. In addition the electron candidate track is required to have a specific ionization ($`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$) measurement in the drift chamber consistent with that of an electron, and, if measured, the Cherenkov angle in the DIRC is required to be consistent with that of an ultra-relativistic particle. The electron efficiency and pion misidentification probabilities for this selection are about 92% and 0.3%, respectively.

A somewhat looser electron selection is used in lepton identification for $`B^0D^{}e^+\nu `$ events. In this case, the $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ and $`E/p`$ selections are loosened, while the requirements on electromagnetic shower shape and Cherenkov angle are removed. This looser selection has efficiency for electrons of approximately 97%, while the pion misidentification probability is about 3%.

### 3.2 Muon identification

Muon identification relies mainly on the number of measured interaction lengths $`\lambda `$ traversed by the track in the IFR iron. At least $`2.2\lambda `$ are required, and at higher momenta we require more than $`\lambda _{exp}1`$, where $`\lambda _{exp}`$ is the number of expected interaction lengths as a function of momentum. To reject hadronic showers, we make requirements on the number of hit IFR strips that are parametrized as a function of the penetration length and the distance of the hits from the extrapolated track. In the forward region, which suffers from machine background, extra hit-continuity criteria are applied. In addition, if the particle is in an angular region covered by the EMC, the muon candidate must have an energy deposit in the calorimeter larger than 50$`\mathrm{MeV}`$ and smaller than 400$`\mathrm{MeV}`$.

These same selection criteria are used for both tagging purposes and muon identification in the decay $`B^0D^{}\mu ^+\nu `$. The average efficiency and pion misidentification probability are about 75% and 2.5%, respectively.

### 3.3 Kaon identification

Kaon identification employed for flavor tagging requires the ratio of the combined kaon likelihood to the combined pion likelihood be larger than 15. The combined likelihoods are obtained by multiplying the individual likelihoods from the SVT, DCH and DIRC subsystem information. In the SVT and DCH tracking detectors, the likelihoods are based on the $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ truncated mean measurement compared to the expected value for the $`K`$ and $`\pi `$ hypotheses, assuming a Gaussian distribution. The $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ resolution is estimated on a track by track basis given the direction and momentum of the track and the number of energy deposition samples. In the DIRC, the likelihood is computed by combining the likelihoods computed from the measured Cherenkov angle, in comparison with the expected Cherenkov angle for a given mass hypothesis, and the Poisson probability for the observed number of Cherenkov photons, given the number of expected photons for the same hypothesis. DIRC information is not required below 0.7$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ where the DCH $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ alone provides good $`K/\pi `$ discrimination. The efficiency of this selection for kaons is about 85% and the pion misidentification probability is about 5%.

In the reconstruction of $`B^0`$ decays, some channels require a very loose kaon selection to reduce backgrounds to acceptable levels. The selection criteria are similar those described above, except that the kaon hypothesis is assumed for those subsystems that have no particle identification information. This looser selection results in a higher kaon efficiency of about 95% and an acceptable pion misidentification probability of 20%. In addition, a loose pion selection is employed in reconstructing some $`B`$ decay modes. This requirement consists of rejecting pion candidates if they satisfy the tighter kaon or lepton criteria used for flavor tagging described above.

## 4 Time resolution function

The time difference, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=t_{rec}t_{tag}`$, between $`B`$ decays is determined from the measured separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ between the reconstructed $`B`$ and flavor-tagging decay vertices along the $`z`$ axis using the known boost, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=\mathrm{\Delta }z/\beta \gamma c`$. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ resolution is dominated by the $`z`$ position resolution for the flavor-tagging $`B`$ meson vertex. The $`B_{tag}`$ production point and three-momentum, with its associated error matrix, are derived from the fully reconstructed $`B_{rec}`$ candidate three momentum, decay vertex and error matrix, and from the knowledge of the average position of the interaction point and the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ average boost. These $`B_{tag}`$ parameters are used as input to a geometrical fit to a single vertex, including all other tracks in the event except those used to reconstruct $`B_{rec}`$. In order to reduce bias due to long-lived particles, all possible $`V^0`$ candidates that can be reconstructed are used as input to the fit in place of their daughters. Tracks whose contributions to the $`\chi ^2`$ are greater than 6 are removed from the fit, in an iterative procedure that continues until all remaining tracks satisfy this requirement or all tracks are removed.

The time resolution function can be approximated by a sum of three Gaussian distributions with different means and widths

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }t;\widehat{a})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_i}{\sigma _i\sqrt{2\pi }}}\mathrm{exp}\left((\mathrm{\Delta }t\delta _i)^2/2\sigma _{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right).`$ (7)
Fitting the vertex resolution function with simulated events shows that most of the events ($`f_1=1f_2f_370\%`$) are found in a core Gaussian component, which has a width $`\sigma _10.6\mathrm{ps}`$, while the remaining events reside in the tail Gaussian, which has a width $`\sigma _21.8\mathrm{ps}`$. Tracks from forward-going charm decays included in the reconstruction of the $`B_{tag}`$ vertex introduce a small bias, $`\delta _10.2\mathrm{ps}`$, for the core Gaussian towards negative values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$.

A small fraction of events have large values of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }t|`$, due to incorrectly reconstructed vertices. This is accounted for in the parameterization of the time resolution function by the third Gaussian component, centered at zero with broad fixed width of $`8\mathrm{ps}`$, making it almost constant over the time interval of the fit. The fraction of events populating this component of the resolution function, $`f_wf_3`$ is approximately 2 %.

In the final likelihood fits, we describe the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ resolution by introducing two scale factors $`𝒮_1`$ and $`𝒮_2`$ that are applied to the event-by-event resolution, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }t}`$, calculated the error on $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ provided by the vertex fit. We take the width of the core and the tail Gaussian components for each event to be $`\sigma _1=𝒮_1\times \sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }t}`$ and $`\sigma _2=𝒮_2\times \sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }t}`$, respectively. The scale factor $`𝒮_1`$ and the bias $`\delta _1`$ of the core Gaussian are free parameters in the fit. The scale factor $`𝒮_2`$ and the fraction of events in the core Gaussian $`f_1`$ are fixed to the values estimated from Monte Carlo simulation by a fit to the pull distribution ($`𝒮_2=2.1`$ and $`f_1=0.75`$). The bias of the tail Gaussian, $`\delta _2`$, is fixed at $`0\mathrm{ps}`$. The three free parameters in the likelihood fit are

$`\widehat{a}`$ $`=`$ $`\{𝒮_1,\delta _1,f_w\}.`$ (8)
We observe no significant differences in simulated events between resolution function parameters obtained from samples involving different decay modes for $`B_{rec}`$. This is expected, because $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ resolution is dominated by the precision on the $`B_{tag}`$, rather than the $`B_{rec}`$ vertex. Likewise, the differences in the resolution function parameters for the different tagging categories are also small. Therefore, we use a single set of resolution function parameters $`\widehat{a}`$ for all decay modes. Table 1 shows the values for the vertex parameters obtained in data from a fit to the hadronic $`B^0`$ sample, described below.

## 5 Flavor tagging

After the daughter tracks of the reconstructed $`B`$ are removed, the remaining tracks are analyzed to determine the flavor of the $`B_{tag}`$, and this ensemble is assigned a tag flavor, either $`B^0`$ or $`\overline{B}^0`$.

To illustrate the tagging discriminating power of each tagging category, we use as a figure of merit the effective tagging efficiency $`Q_i=ϵ_i\times \left(12w_i\right)^2`$, where $`ϵ_i`$ is the fraction of events associated to the tagging category $`i`$ and $`w_i`$ is the mistag fraction, the probability of incorrectly assigning the opposite tag to an event of this category.

We use four different types of flavor tag, or tagging categories, in this analysis. Two of these tagging categories rely upon the presence of a prompt lepton or one or several charged kaons in the event. The remaining two categories, called neural network categories, are based upon the output values of a neural network algorithm applied to all the events that have not already been assigned to one of the Lepton or Kaon tagging categories.

### 5.1 Lepton and kaon tags

The Lepton and Kaon tagging categories use the correlation between the charge of a primary lepton from a semileptonic decay or the charge of a kaon, and the flavor of the decaying $`b`$ quark. For the Lepton category we use both electrons and muons. A minimum center-of-mass momentum requirement on the lepton is applied to reduce the contamination from softer opposite-sign leptons coming from charm semileptonic decays. There are no such discriminating kinematic quantities to reduce the contamination of opposite-sign kaons, so the optimization relies principally on the balance between the kaon identification efficiency and the purity of the kaon sample.

A lepton tag is defined by taking the charge of the fastest identified electron or muon with a center of mass momentum greater than 1.1$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$. A kaon tag is defined by taking the sum of the charges of all identified kaons. If both an electron and a muon are identified, the electron tag takes precedence. If the event has a lepton tag and there is no conflicting kaon tag, the event is assigned to the Lepton category. If the event has no lepton tags but has a non-zero kaon tag, the event is assigned to the Kaon category. If the event has both lepton and kaon tags but they conflict, the event is not assigned to either the Lepton or the Kaon category.

### 5.2 Neural network tags

The use of a second tagging algorithm is motivated by the potential flavor-tagging power carried by non-identified leptons and kaons, softer leptons from charm semileptonic decays, soft pions from $`D^{}`$ decays, and more generally, by the momentum spectrum of charged particles from $`B`$ meson decays. The best way to exploit the information contained in a set of correlated quantities is to use multivariate methods, such as neural networks, rather than to apply selection cuts.

We design five different neural networks, called subnets, each with a specific goal. Four of the subnets are track-based: the L and LS subnets are sensitive to the presence of primary and cascade leptons respectively, the K subnet to that of charged kaons and the SoftPi subnet to that of soft pions from $`D^{}`$ decays. In addition the Q subnet exploits the charge of high-momentum particles in the event.

The L and LS subnets share a set of discriminating kinematic variables in addition to the boolean outputs of the standard lepton identification algorithms. The variables are designed to more fully characterize the kinematic features of a true primary lepton from a semileptonic $`B`$ decay. Taking all charged tracks in the event, excluding that under consideration as the lepton, together with all neutral clusters we form the recoiling system $`X`$. Assuming that $`B_{tag}`$ is produced at rest in the center-of-mass frame, and that the excluded track is a primary lepton from the $`B_{tag}`$ semileptonic decay, one can calculate the four-momentum of the neutrino $`p_\nu `$ and the four-momentum $`p_W`$ of the virtual $`W`$ boson in the semileptonic decay. The variables available are the center-of-mass momentum of the lepton candidate track, the mass and energy of the recoil system $`X`$, the cosine of the angle between the excluded track momentum and the direction of the neutrino, the cosine of the angle between the $`W`$ momentum direction and the direction of the closest charged or neutral candidate with energy larger than 50$`\mathrm{MeV}`$, and the total energy flow in the hemisphere around the $`W`$ momentum direction.

The K subnet uses the particle momentum in the laboratory frame, together with the three relative likelihoods $`L_K/(L_\pi +L_K)`$ for the SVT, the DCH and the DIRC.

The SoftPi subnet uses the track with the lowest momentum from the $`B_{tag}`$ decay and the angle it makes with respect to the thrust axis, calculated using all other charged tracks.

The variables of the Q subnet are the momentum of the highest momentum track in the $`B_{tag}`$ system and the sum of momentum-weighted charges normalized by the momentum sum of all tracks with impact parameter less than 1$`\mathrm{mm}`$ and all neutral clusters with energy greater than 50$`\mathrm{MeV}`$.

The variables used as input to the neural network tagger are the highest values of the L, LS and SoftPi subnet outputs each multiplied by the charge of the corresponding tagging track, the highest and the second-highest values of the K subnet output again multiplied by the charge of the corresponding tagging tracks, and the output of the Q subnet.

The output from the full neural network tagger, $`x_{NT}`$, can be mapped onto the interval $`[1,1]`$. The assigned flavor tag is $`B^0`$ if $`x_{NT}`$ is negative, and $`\overline{B}^0`$ otherwise. Events with $`\left|x_{NT}\right|>0.5`$ are assigned to the NT1 tagging category and events with $`0.2<\left|x_{NT}\right|<0.5`$ to the NT2 tagging category. Events with $`\left|x_{NT}\right|<0.2`$ have very little tagging power and are rejected.

## 6 Event selection and sample composition

$`B^0`$ mesons are reconstructed in the hadronic decay modes $`B^0D^{()}\pi ^+`$, $`D^{()}\rho ^+`$, $`D^{()}a_1^+`$, $`J/\psi `$$`K^0`$ and the semileptonic decay mode $`B^0D^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu `$. All final state particles, with the exception of the neutrino in the semileptonic decay, are reconstructed.

Charged tracks measured by the drift chamber and/or SVT are required to originate within 1.5$`\mathrm{cm}`$ in $`xy`$ and 10$`\mathrm{cm}`$ in $`z`$ of the nominal beamspot. Electromagnetic clusters in the calorimeter, that are unassociated with charged tracks and used to reconstruct $`\pi ^0`$ candidates, are required to have an energy greater than 30$`\mathrm{MeV}`$ and a shower shape consistent with a photon interaction.

Neutral pion candidates are formed from pairs of electromagnetic clusters assumed to be photons. The invariant mass of the photon pair is required to be within $`\pm 20`$$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ (2.5 $`\sigma `$ ) of the nominal $`\pi ^0`$ mass, with a minimum summed energy of 200$`\mathrm{MeV}`$. Selected candidates are kinematically fitted with a $`\pi ^0`$ mass constraint.

$`K_S^0`$ candidates are reconstructed in the $`\pi ^+`$$`\pi ^{}`$ mode, with an invariant mass, computed at the vertex of the two tracks, between 462 and 534$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$. The $`\chi ^2`$ of the topological vertex fit is required to have a probability greater than 0.1%. The opening angle between the flight direction and the momentum vector for the $`K_S^0`$ candidate is required to be smaller than 200$`\mathrm{mr}`$. Finally, the transverse flight distance from the primary vertex in the event, $`r_{xy}`$, is required to be greater than 2$`\mathrm{mm}`$.

In order to reject “jet-like” events from $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$ (continuum) background, we require that the normalized second Fox-Wolfram moment  ($`R_2=H_2/H_0`$), calculated with both charged tracks and neutral clusters, be less than 0.5 (0.45) in hadronic (semileptonic) decay modes.

### 6.1 Hadronic $`𝑩^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decays

$`B^0`$ mesons are reconstructed in the hadronic modes $`B^0D^{()}\pi ^+`$, $`B^0D^{()}\rho ^+`$, $`B^0D^{()}a_1^+`$ and $`B^0J/\psi K^0`$. A variety of $`\overline{D}^0`$, $`D^{}`$, and $`D^{}`$ modes are used to achieve reasonable efficiency despite the typically small branching fractions for any given $`B`$ decay channel.

#### 6.1.1 Event selection

We select $`\overline{D}^0`$, $`D^{}`$ and $`D^{}`$ mesons with the following criteria. $`\overline{D}^0`$ candidates are identified in the decays channels $`K^+`$$`\pi ^{}`$, $`K^+`$$`\pi ^{}`$$`\pi ^0`$, $`K^+`$$`\pi ^+`$$`\pi ^{}`$$`\pi ^{}`$ and $`K_S^0`$$`\pi ^+`$$`\pi ^{}`$. $`D^{}`$ candidates are selected using the $`K^+`$$`\pi ^{}`$$`\pi ^{}`$ and $`K_S^0`$$`\pi ^{}`$ modes. The $`D^{}`$ candidates are found using the decay $`D^{}\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{0}\pi _{}^{}`$. Charged and neutral kaons are required to have a momentum greater than 200$`\mathrm{MeV}/c`$. The same criterion was applied to the pion in $`B^0D^{()}\pi ^+`$, $`B^0D^{()}\rho ^+`$ decay. For the decay modes $`B^0D^{()}a_1^+`$, the pions are required to have momentum larger that 150$`\mathrm{MeV}/c`$ . $`\overline{D}^0`$ and $`D^{}`$ candidates are required to lie within $`\pm 3\sigma `$, calculated on an event-per-event basis, of the nominal masses. Pull distributions for the $`\overline{D}^0`$ and $`D^{}`$ meson masses have been measured in data and were found to have rms in the range of 1.1–1.2 when fitted to a Gaussian form. For $`\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{0}K^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$, we only reconstruct the dominant resonant mode $`\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{0}K^+\rho ^{}`$, followed by $`\rho ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$. The $`\pi ^{}`$$`\pi ^0`$ mass is required to lie within $`\pm 150`$$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ of the nominal $`\rho `$ mass and the angle between the $`\pi ^{}`$ and $`\overline{D}^0`$ in the $`\rho `$ rest frame, $`\theta _{D^0\pi }^{}`$, must satisfy $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{D^0\pi }^{}>0.4`$. Finally, all $`\overline{D}^0`$ and $`D^{}`$ candidates are required to have a momentum greater than 1.3$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ frame and a $`\chi ^2`$ probability of the topological vertex fit greater than 0.1%. A mass constrained fit is applied to candidates satisfying aforementioned requirements and is used in the subsequent reconstruction chain.

We form $`D^{}`$ candidates by combining a $`\overline{D}^0`$ with a pion which has momentum greater than 70$`\mathrm{MeV}/c`$. The soft pion is constrained to originate from the beamspot when the $`D^{}`$ vertex is computed . To account for the small energy release in the decay $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)B\overline{B}`$ (resulting in a small transverse flight of the $`B`$ candidates), the assumed vertical size of the beam spot is inflated to 40$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$. Monte Carlo simulation was used to verify that this inflation does not introduce any significant bias in the selection or in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ measurement. $`D^{}`$ candidates are then required to have $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=m(\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{0}\pi _{}^{})m(\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{0})`$ within $`\pm 1.1`$$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ of the nominal value for $`\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{0}K^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ mode and $`\pm 0.8`$$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ for all the other modes. This corresponds to about $`\pm 2.5\sigma `$, where the resolution is estimated by taking a weighted average of the core and broad Gaussian components of the observed $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ distributions.

$`B^0`$ candidates are formed by combining a $`D^{}`$, $`D^{}`$ or $`J/\psi `$ candidate with a $`\pi ^+`$, $`\rho ^+`$, $`a_1^+`$ or $`K^0`$. For $`B^0D^{}\rho ^+`$, the $`\pi ^0`$ from the $`\rho ^+`$ decay is required to have an energy greater than 300$`\mathrm{MeV}`$. For $`B^0D^{}a_1^+`$, the $`a_1^+`$ is reconstructed by combining three charged pions, with invariant mass in the range 1.0 to 1.6$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. In addition, the $`\chi ^2`$ probability of the vertex fit of the $`a_1^+`$ candidate is required to be greater than 0.1%.

As described in Section 3, kaon identification is used to reject background. For most $`B^0`$ modes, no identification or only a loose selection is enough to achieve signal purities of 90%. In the $`B^0D^{}a_1^+`$ mode reconstruction, a tight kaon identification is required to alleviate large combinatorial backgrounds.

In order to suppress continuum background, in addition to the $`R_2`$ requirement, we calculate the thrust angle, $`\theta _{th}`$, defined as the angle between the thrust axis of the particles which form the reconstructed $`B^0`$ candidate and the thrust axis of the remaining tracks and unmatched clusters in the event, computed in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ frame. The two thrust axes are almost uncorrelated in $`B\overline{B}`$ events, because the $`B^0`$ mesons are almost at rest in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ rest frame. In continuum events, which are more jet-like, the two thrust axes tend to have small opening angles. For final states with a $`D^{}`$ and 2 (3) pions we require $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{th}|<0.9`$ (0.8) for the $`\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{0}K^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`K^+`$$`\pi ^{}`$$`\pi ^0`$ modes and 0.8 (0.7) for the $`\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{0}K^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ and $`K_S^0`$$`\pi ^+`$$`\pi ^{}`$. No such requirement is applied in the case of the $`B^0D^{}\pi ^+`$ mode. In modes which contain a $`D`$ and a single (2,3) pion(s) in the final state, we require $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{th}|<0.9`$ (0.8, 0.7).

The $`B^0J/\psi K^0`$ selection is the same as described in Ref. . The $`J/\psi e^+e^{}`$ candidates are formed from pairs of oppositely-charged tracks assumed to be electrons, as explained in Section 3. At least one of the decay products must be positively identified as an electron or, if outside the acceptance of calorimeter, must be consistent with the electron hypothesis from the $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ measurement in the drift chamber. If both tracks are in the calorimeter acceptance and have a value of $`E/p`$ larger than 0.5, an algorithm for the recovery of Bremsstrahlung photons  is used. The $`J/\psi \mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ candidates are formed from oppositely-charged tracks identified as muons, as described in Section 3. At least one of the decay products must be positively identified as a muon, and the other, if in the acceptance of the calorimeter, must be consistent with a minimum ionizing particle. We retain only those $`J/\psi `$ candidates with an invariant mass in the range $`2.95<m(J/\psi )<3.14`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ for the $`e^+e^{}`$ mode and $`3.06<m(J/\psi )<3.14`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ for the $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ mode. We reject events with $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{th}`$ greater than 0.9.

$`B^0`$ candidates are characterized by a pair of nearly uncorrelated kinematic variables, the difference between the energy of the $`B^0`$ candidate and the beam energy in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ center-of-mass frame, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, and the beam energy substituted mass, $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ . In the $`(m_{\mathrm{ES}},\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$ plane the signal region is defined as $`5.270<m_{\mathrm{ES}}<5.290`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|<3\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }E}`$. The sideband region is defined as $`5.2<m_{\mathrm{ES}}<5.26`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|<3\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }E}`$. The value of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }E}`$, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$E resolution, is mode-dependent and varies between 19 to 40 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$. When multiple $`B^0`$ candidates (with $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}>5.2`$$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$) are found in the same event, the candidate with the smallest value of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|`$ is selected.

### 6.2 Sample composition

We use the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ sideband region to measure the combinatorial background fraction, to characterize the background $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distribution, and to measure the fraction of mixed events contributed from background under the $`B^0`$ signal peak. It is therefore useful to check that the background composition in the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ sideband region is similar to that in the signal region. The validity of this background estimation procedure was checked on 2.0 fb-1 of simulated data. We also compared the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ sideband shape in data with the Monte Carlo and found good agreement.

The $`B^0`$ signal yield and sample purity extracted from fits to the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ distribution are summarized in Table 2. The net $`B^0`$ signal sample, before applying any decay vertex requirements, consists of $`2577\pm 59`$ signal candidates with a purity of about 86%.

In order to select $`B^0`$ candidates with well understood $`B`$ decay vertex error, we require the convergence of the topological fit for $`B^0`$ decay vertex. $`B^0`$ candidates with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }z|>3.0`$$`\mathrm{mm}`$ or with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }z}>400`$$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ are removed.

The efficiency for each tagging category is calculated as the number of signal events for each tag, divided by the total number of signal events after vertex cuts are imposed. The tagging efficiency and signal purity for the individual tagging categories in data are extracted from fits to the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ distributions shown in Fig. 1 and are listed in Table 3. The distributions are fitted with a Gaussian distribution for the signal and the ARGUS background function for the background parametrization . All fits have good confidence levels.

### 6.3 Semileptonic $`𝑩`$ decays

The semileptonic decay $`B^0D^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu `$, with a measured branching fraction of $`4.6\pm 0.27\%`$ , is a copious source of $`B^0`$ mesons. We reconstruct the $`D^{}`$ through its decay to $`\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{0}\pi _{}^{}`$, and use the three $`\overline{D}^0`$ decay modes $`K^+\pi ^{}`$, $`K^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ and $`K^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$.

#### 6.3.1 Event selection

We reconstruct $`\overline{D}^0`$ candidates in the three modes listed above. All reconstructed $`\overline{D}^0`$ candidates are required to have an invariant mass within $`\pm 2.5\sigma `$ of the nominal $`D^0`$ mass. The $`\overline{D}^0`$ topological vertex fit is required to have a $`\chi ^2`$ probability greater than 1%; for the $`\overline{D}^0K^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ mode this vertex fit includes a kinematic constraint on the $`\pi ^0`$ mass. There are no additional requirements for $`\overline{D}^0K^+\pi ^{}`$. For $`\overline{D}^0K^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ and $`\overline{D}^0K^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ we require loose $`K`$ and $`\pi `$ particle identification as described in Section 3, and a minimum $`\pi ^0`$ momentum of 200$`\mathrm{MeV}/c`$. In addition, the $`K`$ and $`\pi `$ candidates are required to have momenta greater than 200 and 150$`\mathrm{MeV}/c`$, respectively, for the mode $`\overline{D}^0K^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$. The decay $`\overline{D}^0K^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ occurs mostly through resonant substructures. The $`\rho `$ and $`K^{}`$ resonances dominate and we use the measured Dalitz weights to construct an event-by-event probability and select events using this quantity to suppress combinatorial background222 The Dalitz weights are used in the time-integrated analysis. The time-dependent analysis uses the $`\overline{D}^0K^+\rho ^{}`$ sample only..

$`\overline{D}^0`$ candidates satisfying the above requirements are combined with all charged tracks, having a minimum transverse momentum of 50$`\mathrm{MeV}/c`$ and charge opposite to that of the candidate kaon, to form $`D^{}`$ candidates. The mass difference $`m(D^{})m(\overline{D}^0)`$ is calculated and required to lie within 2.5$`\sigma `$ of the nominal value.

Finally, $`D^{}`$ candidates are combined with electron or muon candidates, with momentum greater than 1.2$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ and satisfying the lepton identification requirements described in Section 3. The $`D^{}`$ – lepton topological vertex fit is required to have a $`\chi ^2`$ probability greater than 1%, and the lepton and $`D^{}`$ candidates must have opposite charge. The $`D^{}`$ and lepton tend to be back-to-back in the $`B^0`$ rest frame, so we require $`\mathrm{cos}\theta (D^{}l)<0`$ where $`\theta (D^{}l)`$ is the angle between the $`D^{}`$ and the lepton in the center-of-mass frame.

The neutrino cannot be reconstructed, but we require that the candidate four-momenta be consistent with a missing particle of zero mass:

$$(p_Bp_D^{}p_l)^2=p_\nu ^2=0.$$
(9)
Solving this equation in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ frame, we obtain a constraint on the angle between the $`B^0`$ and the $`D^{}l`$ system:

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta (B,D^{}l)=\frac{M_B^2+M_{D^{}l}^22E_BE_{D^{}l}}{2|\stackrel{}{p}_B||\stackrel{}{p}_{Dl}|}.$$
(10)
Only the mass and scalar momentum of the initial state $`B^0`$, both of which are known, is required to calculate the angle $`\theta (B,D^{}l)`$ and not the flight direction. In $`B^0D^{}l\nu `$ decay, the cosine of this angle must lie in the region $`(1,+1)`$. Allowing for detector resolution effects in the reconstructed momenta and angles, we require $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta (BD^{}l)|<1.1`$.

After applying these criteria, we obtain a sample of $`7517\pm 104`$ $`BD^{}l\nu `$ events: $`3101\pm 64`$ in the $`\overline{D}^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ mode, $`1986\pm 51`$ in the $`\overline{D}^0K^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ mode, and $`2430\pm 56`$ in the $`\overline{D}^0K^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ mode.

#### 6.3.2 Sample composition

The events are flavor tagged as described in Section 5. The $`D^{}D^0`$ mass difference distributions for each tagging category are shown in Fig. 2.

The backgrounds are evaluated separately for each tag category. Backgrounds are larger for the semileptonic modes than for the hadronic modes and originate from a variety of sources. Each source of background is evaluated using a control sample that is taken from data whenever possible. The background control samples are used to measure the background fractions, to characterize the background $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distribution, and to measure the fraction of mixed events contributed by each source of background.

We divide the backgrounds to $`B^0D^{}l\nu `$ into three types: events with an incorrectly reconstructed $`D^{}`$ (“combinatorial” background), events in which a true $`D^{}`$ is combined with an incorrect lepton candidate (“wrong-lepton” background), and events in which a correctly identified $`D^{}`$-lepton pair originates from semileptonic $`B^+`$ decay, for example from the decay $`B^+\overline{D}^0l^+\nu `$, followed by $`\overline{D}^0D^{}n\pi ^+`$ ( “$`B^+`$ background”). The symbol $`\overline{D}^0`$ refers to an admixture of orbitally or radially excited charmed meson resonances which decay via strong interaction into a $`D^{}`$. Events of the type $`B^0D^{}l^+\nu `$ are considered as signal.

Combinatorial background

The fraction of combinatorial background, due to falsely reconstructed $`D^{}`$ candidates, is estimated by fitting the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m(D^{}D^0)`$ distributions. We use a Gaussian distribution to characterize the signal and a threshold function with a sharp rise followed by an exponential tailoff to characterize the background shape. the signal region is defined to lie within $`\pm 2.5\sigma `$ of the peak in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m(D^{}D^0)`$, while events in the the sideband region $`0.150<\mathrm{\Delta }m(D^{}D^0)<0.160`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ provide the combinatorial background control sample.

Wrong-lepton background

There are four potential sources of background events in which a real $`D^{}`$ is combined with a wrong lepton. We consider each in turn.

First, there are events in which the lepton candidate is not a real lepton, but is misidentified as such. This “fake lepton” background is estimated from data by selecting events in which a track candidate that has failed very loose lepton criteria is substituted for the lepton candidate. These events are weighted with the lepton mis-identification probabilities measured in data to estimate the fraction of fake lepton background, after subtraction of the combinatorial background contribution.

The second type of wrong lepton events is due to a real $`D^{}`$ from one $`B`$ combined with a real lepton from the other $`B`$. These “uncorrelated lepton” backgrounds are due to $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ events where mixing has occurred, yielding the right $`D^{}l`$ sign combination, or events in which a lepton originating from a secondary charm decay is combined with a $`D^{}`$ from the other $`B`$. The $`D^{}`$ and lepton directions are uncorrelated in these events, prior to application of the $`\mathrm{cos}\theta (D^{}l)`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta (BD^{}l)`$ selection criteria.

To estimate this background from data, the lepton momentum vector in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ center-of-mass frame is parity-inverted, prior to the calculation of the $`\theta (D^{}l)`$ and $`\theta (BD^{}l)`$. Events with a correlated back-to-back $`D^{}l`$ pair fail these criteria after the lepton momentum is flipped, but events with a randomly correlated $`D^{}l`$ pair pass with approximately the same efficiency as in the original sample. After removing the remaining signal contribution, and correcting for residual combinatorial background, we estimate the uncorrelated lepton background from the flipped-lepton control sample.

Third, there are decays of the type $`B^0D^{}DX`$, where the $`D`$ decays semileptonically producing a non-primary lepton. The momentum requirement on the lepton rejects most of these “cascade lepton” events; the remaining fraction, estimated from Monte Carlo simulation, is less than 1% and has been neglected.

Finally, $`c\overline{c}`$ events can produce a real $`D^{}`$ and a real lepton in a back-to-back configuration. The $`c\overline{c}`$ background fraction has been estimated using combinatorial-subtracted off-resonance data. We use the off-resonance data as a control sample to characterize the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distribution and the mixed event contribution from this background source.

$`𝑩^\mathbf{+}`$ background

In addition to the well-studied semileptonic decays $`BDl\nu `$ and $`BD^{}l\nu `$, a significant fraction of $`B`$ semileptonic decays involve additional final state particles, either produced through $`D^{}`$ resonances or non-resonantly. These processes of the type $`BD^{}(n\pi )l\nu `$ contribute to both the neutral and charged semileptonic $`B`$ decays.

For the purposes of this analysis, neutral semileptonic decays $`B^0D^{}(n\pi )l\nu `$ that pass our event selection criteria are considered to be part of the signal. They contribute equally to the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$, and the additional low-momentum pion does not affect the tagging algorithm.

However, the charged $`B`$ decays of the type $`B^{}D^+(n\pi )l^{}\nu `$ are considered as background for this analysis. They do not oscillate and must be corrected for in extracting $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$; their mistag rate may differ from that of $`B^0`$ decays as well.

We assume a lifetime and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ resolution for charged $`B`$ events that is the same as that for the $`B^0`$ signal events. The mistag rate is estimated directly from data using fully reconstructed $`B^+`$ decays. It is difficult to accurately estimate the fraction of this background, since it cannot be cleanly separating from the signal. To estimate the fraction of events due to charged $`B`$ decay, we rely on an estimate of their production rate, combined with a Monte Carlo study of the event selection efficiency for these modes.

The inclusive branching fraction, $`(B^+D^{}(n\pi )l^+\nu )=1.25\pm 0.16\%`$ is taken from LEP measurements . We use Monte Carlo simulation to study the efficiency of the event selection criteria for events of this type, averaging over several resonant $`D^{}`$ and non-resonant states. The average efficiency is found to be $`4.25\pm 3.0\%`$, where a conservative systematic error has been assigned due to the lack of knowledge of the relative decay fractions for the possible modes. The product of the branching ratio times the event selection efficiency, $`\times ϵ(B^+)`$, and the corresponding product $`\times ϵ(B^0)`$ for the neutral $`B`$ signal events are computed, where decays of the type $`\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}D^+(n\pi )l^{}\nu `$ are included as part of the signal. By this method, we find:

$$f(B^+)=\frac{ϵ(B^+)}{ϵ(B^+)+ϵ(B^0)}=7.1\pm 5.0\%$$
(11)
Background summary

The background contributions in $`BD^{}l\nu `$ events, averaged over $`D^0`$ decay modes, are summarized by tag category in Table 4.

## 7 Likelihood fit method

In the presence of backgrounds, the probability distribution functions $`_\pm `$ of Eq. 3 must be extended to include a term for each significant background source. The background parameterizations are allowed to differ for each tag category. Each event is identified as being either mixed ($``$) or unmixed ($`+`$) and as belonging to a particular tag category, $`i`$. Thus a distribution must be specified for each possibility $`(+/,i)`$:

$$_{\pm ,i}=f_{sig,i}_\pm (\mathrm{\Delta }t;\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Delta }m_D,𝒟_i,\widehat{a}_i)+\underset{\beta =\mathrm{bkgd}}{}f_{\beta ,i}_{\pm ,i,\beta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t;\widehat{b}_{\pm ,i,\beta })$$
(12)
where the background PDFs, $`_{\pm ,i,\beta }`$, provide an empirical description the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distribution of the background events in the sample. The fraction of background events for each source and tagging category is given by $`f_{\beta ,i}`$, while $`\widehat{b}_{\pm ,i,\beta }`$ are parameters used to characterize each source of background by tagging category for mixed and unmixed events. The signal fraction in each tag category is given by

$$f_{sig,i}=1\underset{\beta }{}f_{\beta ,i}$$
(13)
The distributions are normalized so that for each $`i`$ and $`\beta `$

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }t(_{+,i,\beta }+_{,i,\beta })=1.$$
(14)
### 7.1 Background parameterization

Backgrounds stem from many different sources; we use control samples, derived whenever possible from the data itself, to characterize the background time dependence and dilution. These control samples were described in Section 6. We use an empirical description for the time dependence of the backgrounds in the likelihood fit allowing for three time components for each background, each with its own dilution factor $`𝒟`$ and a common resolution function $``$ :

* Zero lifetime component: $`B_{\pm ,1}=(1\pm 𝒟_1^{})\delta (t)`$
* Non-zero lifetime component, no mixing: $`B_{\pm ,2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{2}(1\pm 𝒟_2^{})\mathrm{e}^{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2|\mathrm{\Delta }t|)}`$
* Non-zero lifetime component, with mixing: $`B_{\pm ,3}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_3}{2}\mathrm{e}^{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_3|\mathrm{\Delta }t|)}(1\pm 𝒟_3\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_3\mathrm{\Delta }t))`$

A likelihood fit to the background control samples is used to determine how much of each time component is present and to fit for the apparent lifetimes, resolution, mixing and dilutions that best describe the background sample. This approach allows for more fit parameters than are absolutely necessary. The goal is to determine the background shapes as well as possible in an empirical sense.

### 7.2 Likelihood fit results

#### 7.2.1 Hadronic decay modes

We extract $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and the mistag rates by fitting the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distributions of the selected $`B`$ candidate events with $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}>5.2`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ with the likelihood function described above. The probability that a $`B`$ candidate is a signal or a background event is determined from a fit to the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ distribution. We describe the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ shape with a single Gaussian $`S(m_{\mathrm{ES}})`$ for the signal and the ARGUS function  $`B(m_{\mathrm{ES}})`$ for the background. Based on this fit, the event-by-event signal probability is determined from:

$$p_{\mathrm{sig}}(m_{\mathrm{ES}})=\frac{S(m_{\mathrm{ES}})}{S(m_{\mathrm{ES}})+B(m_{\mathrm{ES}})}$$
(15)
The contribution of each event to the fitted signal parameters corresponds to this signal probability.

The $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distributions of the combinatorial background are described with a zero lifetime component and a non-oscillatory component with non-zero lifetime. We fit for separate resolution function parameters for the signal and the background in order to minimize correlations between the background parameters and the signal parameters.

We use the data sample described in Section 6, consisting of $`1900`$ fully-reconstructed and tagged $`B^0`$ candidates. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distributions of those candidates, overlaid with the likelihood fit results, are shown in Fig. 3 for the candidates with $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}>5.27`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distributions for the background candidates in data from the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ sideband ($`m_{\mathrm{ES}}<5.27`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$) are shown in Fig. 4. In Fig. 5 the mixing asymmetry of Eq. 2 is plotted; the primordial cosine function is clearly visible. The results from the likelihood fit to data are summarized in Table 5. The tagging separation $`Q=ϵ_{tag}(12w)^2`$ is calculated from the mistag rate and the efficiency quoted in Table 3. Summing over all tagging categories, we measure a combined effective tagging efficiency $`Q28\%`$.

As a validation of these results we have carried out identical analysis procedures on simulated Monte Carlo events generated with a detailed detector simulation, processed through the event reconstruction chain in the same manner as the data. In the signal simulation, the fitted values of the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ oscillation frequency, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d=0.451\pm 0.011`$ $`\mathrm{}`$$`\mathrm{ps}`$-1 (hadronic decays) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d=0.456\pm 0.009`$ $`\mathrm{}`$$`\mathrm{ps}`$-1 (semileptonic decays), are consistent with the value of 0.464 $`\mathrm{}`$$`\mathrm{ps}`$-1 used for Monte Carlo generation. The fitted tagging dilutions and mistag rates are in good agreement with the values obtained from Monte Carlo truth information, confirming an unbiased measurement of those parameters. We apply the observed differences as a correction to the measured values in data, although all parameters as determined from the simulated sample are consistent with the generated values.

#### 7.2.2 Semileptonic decays

The event selection for the $`BD^{}l\nu `$ sample is summarized in Section 6. The yield of tagged $`BD^{}l\nu `$ events and the signal purity are described in Section 6.

The measurement of $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing and the extraction of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and the mistag fractions with $`BD^{}l\nu `$ decays proceeds in two steps. First, we fit the background control samples described in Section 6 and determine their parameters.

Second, we fit the signal events, fixing the background fractions to the values summarized in Table 4 and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ resolutions and dilution parameters to the values obtained from fits to the control samples. The results of the fit and the calculated tagging performance, $`Q=ϵ_{tag}(12w)^2`$, are summarized in Table 5. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distribution of the $`BD^{}l\nu `$ candidates, overlaid with the likelihood fit result, is shown in Fig. 6

### 7.3 Systematic error estimation

The systematic errors for the hadronic and semileptonic $`B`$ samples are summarized in Tables 6 and 7 and can be grouped into three categories:

$`𝚫𝒕`$ reconstruction

We determine the level of any potential systematic bias in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and the mistag rates due to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ resolution function by independently varying the scale factor and the mean of the wide Gaussian and the fraction of events in the wide Gaussian. The variations correspond to a change in the RMS of the total resolution function by one standard deviation as measured in data. The systematic uncertainty due to $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ outliers is estimated from the variation of the fitted parameters with the fraction of outliers and the RMS of their $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distribution in a sample of toy Monte Carlo events. An error in the boost of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ system or in the $`z`$ scale of the detector can bias the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ measurement because those parameters are used to reconstruct a decay length difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ and to convert it to the decay time difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. In the likelihood fit, we fix the $`B^0`$ lifetime to the PDG value  and its uncertainty leads to a systematic error.

Background parameters

The signal probability assigned to each candidate in the hadronic $`B`$ sample has a statistical uncertainty, and these statistical uncertainties lead to systematic uncertainties in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and the mistag rates. We estimate these uncertainties by varying the width and height of the fitted peak in $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ by one standard deviation.

In the semileptonic sample we vary the average background fractions by the statistical uncertainties derived from the control samples. The uncertainty in the fraction of $`D^{}\mathrm{}\nu `$ candidates with a fake lepton includes the uncertainty in the lepton identification rates. To estimate the sensitivity of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and the mistag rates to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ description of the combinatorial background, we repeat the likelihood fit with an additional oscillatory term in the PDF. In the fit to the signal sample we vary the background dilutions obtained from the control samples by one standard deviation. We study the sensitivity to the resolution function of the combinatorial backgrounds by allowing an additional scale factor to account for possible tails in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distribution.

Check with simulated events

Candidate selection criteria can cause systematic biases in the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and the mistag rates. These biases are estimated with fully simulated events and are found to be consistent with zero within their statistical uncertainty. Nevertheless, we correct for the actual differences between the generated and reconstructed values and include the statistical uncertainties in the measured parameters from the simulated events as a contribution to the systematic uncertainties in the result.

## 8 Time-integrated method

### 8.1 Description of the method

As previously described in Section 1, a time-integrated method to measure the mistag fractions in data provides a simple and robust check of the likelihood fit method presented in Section 7. The statistical precision of this method is enhanced by restricting the sample to events in a single optimized $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ interval. Taking into account the BABAR vertex resolution, the optimum interval is found to be $`|\mathrm{\Delta }t|<2.5`$$`\mathrm{ps}`$. This is so because the number of mixed events in this time interval is dominated by the mistag rate rather than by $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing. Events with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }t|>2.5`$$`\mathrm{ps}`$ have on average equal numbers of mixed and unmixed events due to $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ oscillations, and therefore contribute nothing to the determination of the mistag rate. We refer to this time-integrated method using a single optimized $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ interval as the “single-bin” method.

The single-bin analysis uses the reconstructed hadronic and semileptonic $`B^0`$ sample described in Section 6. The number of tagged events in each category were summarized in Table 3 and Table 4. The background fractions were re-evaluated for the sample of tagged signal events with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }t|<2.5`$$`\mathrm{ps}`$.

To correct for the presence of backgrounds, we must add to Equation 6 a term to account for the contribution of each background source to the fraction of mixed events in the sample:

$$\chi _{obs}=f_s(\chi _d+(12\chi _d)w)+\underset{\beta }{}f_\beta \chi _\beta ,$$
(16)
where $`f_s,f_\beta `$ are the fraction of signal and each background source, respectively, $`\chi _\beta `$ is the fraction of mixed events in each background source, and $`\chi _{obs}`$ is the observed fraction of mixed events. We restrict the sample to events with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }t|<2.5`$$`\mathrm{ps}`$; then $`\chi _d`$ must be modified to represent the integrated mixing probability for $`|\mathrm{\Delta }t|<2.5`$ ps. Using the world-average value for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$, $`0.472\pm 0.017\mathrm{}`$ ps$`^1`$, and taking into account the detector resolution function $`(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$, we find

$$\chi _d^{}=\frac{1}{2}[1\frac{_{2.5ps}^{+2.5ps}\{e^{|\mathrm{\Delta }t|/\tau }cos(\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t)(\mathrm{\Delta }t)\}d(\mathrm{\Delta }t)}{_{2.5ps}^{+2.5ps}\{e^{|\mathrm{\Delta }t|/\tau }(\mathrm{\Delta }t)\}d(\mathrm{\Delta }t)}]=0.079.$$
(17)
Solving for Eq. 16 for $`w`$, and using the calculated value for $`\chi _d^{}`$, we obtain

$$w=\frac{\chi _{obs}f_s\chi _d^{}\underset{\beta }{}f_\beta \chi _\beta }{f_s(12\chi _d^{})}.$$
(18)
### 8.2 Results

#### 8.2.1 Hadronic sample

The selection of hadronic $`B`$ mesons was described in Section 6.1. We use all tagged events with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }t|<2.5`$$`\mathrm{ps}`$, and determine the background fraction in the signal sample from a fit to the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ distribution as described in Section 7. The signal region is defined as events with $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}>5.27`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. The fraction of mixed events in the background is determined by tag category using the sideband control sample, $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}<5.27`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$.

We use Eq. 18 to solve for the mistag rate for each tag category, obtaining the results shown in Table 8.

#### 8.2.2 Semileptonic sample

The selection of $`BD^{}l\nu `$ events was described in Section 6.3. We use tagged events with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }t|<2.5`$$`\mathrm{ps}`$ and re-evaluate the backgrounds for events in this time interval, with the control samples described above. The backgrounds are evaluated for each tag category and for each $`D^0`$ decay mode. The mistag fractions are calculated individually by tag category and decay mode using Eq. 18, and the results for the different decay modes are combined, using the statistical errors to weight the individual results. All systematic errors are conservatively taken to be correlated between the different decay modes. The determination of systematic errors will be discussed in the next section. The results are summarized in Table 8.

### 8.3 Systematic errors

The various sources of systematic error in the single-bin method that have been investigated for the hadronic and semileptonic $`B`$ samples are summarized in Tables 9 and 10 and discussed in detail below.

The systematic error due to background in the data samples is taken by varying both the background fractions and the fraction of mixed events associated to each background source, $`\chi _\beta `$. These quantities are varied by one standard deviation of the values measured in the background control samples described in Section 6. For the semileptonic sample, this is the dominant source of systematic error, primarily due to the limited statistics of the background control samples.

The systematics uncertainties introduced by background from the decay $`B^+D^{}X\mathrm{}^+\nu `$ are obtained by varying the fraction described in Section 6.3 as well as the mistag fraction of the charged $`B`$ meson measured on data.

The assumed $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ resolution function is a double-Gaussian where the initial parameters are taken from simulation. The two widths are multiplied by two scale factors which are determined in a fit to the data along with the fraction of events in the narrow Gaussian. The double-Gaussian RMS is consistent with that of the resolution function considered in Section 7. These three parameters are varied in a conservative way within the errors of the fit to the data to determine the systematic uncertainty on the mistag fraction, which is quite small.

Finally, we consider the possibility that wrong tags have worse $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ resolution than correct tags. This effect has been studied in Monte Carlo simulation, where we observe a slightly larger RMS in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distribution for events with wrong-sign tags. We assign a systematic error on the mistag rates by taking the default resolution function and changing the parameters of the resolution function for wrong tags by a corresponding amount.

## 9 Comparison of likelihood and single-bin methods

Combining the results obtained for the hadronic and semileptonic $`B`$ samples for the likelihood fit method described in Section 7 and for the single-bin method described in Section 8, and taking into account the correlated systematic errors, we obtain the preliminary mistag rate results summarized in Table 11. The Monte Carlo corrections to the likelihood fit results summarized in Tables 6 and 7 have been applied to the likelihood fit results of Table 5.

The single-bin fit results use a sub-sample of the events used in the likelihood fit, so the two sets of results are correlated. The systematic errors differ, due to the different sensitivities of the two methods. Overall, the two methods agree well. The effective flavor tagging efficiency of the algorithm described in Section 5 is found to be $`Q0.28`$.

## 10 Summary

In 8.9$`\text{ fb}^1`$ of $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation data collected near the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance, we have obtained a preliminary measurement of the time-dependent $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ oscillation frequency using a sample of $`B^0`$ mesons reconstructed in hadronic decay channels and in the semileptonic decay mode $`B^0D^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu `$.

From the hadronic $`B^0`$ sample we measure the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ oscillation frequency:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d=0.516\pm 0.031(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 0.018(\mathrm{syst}.)\mathrm{}\mathrm{ps}^1`$
From the $`D^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu `$ sample we measure the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ oscillation frequency:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d=0.508\pm 0.020(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 0.022(\mathrm{syst}.)\mathrm{}\mathrm{ps}^1`$
Combining the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ results from the hadronic and semileptonic $`B`$ samples, we obtain the preliminary result :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d=0.512\pm 0.017(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 0.022(\mathrm{syst}.)\mathrm{}\text{ps}^1.`$
In combining the two results, we have taken all systematic error contribution to be fully correlated with the exception of the contribution due to Monte Carlo simulation statistics.

## 11 Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the contributions of our PEP-II colleagues in achieving the excellent luminosity and machine conditions that have made this work possible. We acknowledge support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Canada), Institute of High Energy Physics (China), Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique and Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (France), Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (Germany), Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (Italy), The Research Council of Norway, Ministry of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation, Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (United Kingdom), the Department of Energy (US), and the National Science Foundation (US). In addition, individual support has been received from the Swiss National Foundation, the A. P. Sloan Foundation, the Research Corporation, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. The visiting groups wish to thank SLAC for the support and kind hospitality extended to them.