text:
# References

## Figure Captions

Figure 1:
The beam-line consists of three parts: (i) the pion transport system up to and including the magnet AEF51; (ii) the pion decay region between the magnets AEF51 and ASL52; (iii) the muon spectrometer from the magnet ASL52 to the beam counter S3. ASZ, ASY, ASL, AEF: dipole magnets; QTH, QTB, QSL, QSE, QSK: quadrupole magnets; FSH, FS, ZBN: passive collimators; S1–S3: beam scintillation counters; V0–V5: active (scintillation counters) and passive (lead jaws) collimators.
Figure 2:
Experimental TOF-distributions with the relevant background event types ( refers to scattered particles). The upper plot (a) shows the situation when the whole beam-line is set to accept pions of 150 MeV/c. Plot (b) shows the situation for the central momentum of a ‘decay muon scan’ (113.5 MeV/c). The horizontal axes indicate the TOF of particles from the production target to the counter S1 relative to the accelerator time structure of 19.75 ns. The vertical axes indicate the TOF between the counters S1 and S3. The events in the box in (b) have the same timing as pions in (a), and thus may contain signal as well as background events. It should be noted that the number of protons for which the data were recorded is seven orders of magnitude higher in (b) than in (a).
Figure 3:
Experimental data of one ‘decay muon scan’. The solid curve is the fit to the data (hyperbola plus Gaussian); the $`\chi ^2`$ is 33.6 for 37 degrees of freedom. The shaded peak indicates the expected effect of the hypothetical decay (1) for $`\eta =5.0`$10<sup>-9</sup>. The shaded band shows the expected level of background from the radiative pion decay, $`\pi ^+\mu ^+\nu _\mu \gamma `$, within computational uncertainties ($`\pm 1\sigma `$). The minimum in the event distribution around 113.5 MeV/c arises from the fact that at this momentum, muons from the normal pion decay (2) have a maximal emission angle and thus a minimal chance to enter the acceptance of the spectrometer.
Figure 4:
Results of the fits to the branching fraction $`\eta `$ for our 28 scans. The weighted mean for $`\eta `$ is indicated by the solid line with the total uncertainty ($`\pm 1\sigma `$) given by the dashed lines.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The $`CP`$-violating phase of the three-generation Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) quark mixing matrix can provide an elegant explanation of the well-established $`CP`$-violating effects seen in $`K_L^0`$ decay . However, studies of $`CP`$ violation in neutral kaon decays and the resulting experimental constraints on the parameters of the CKM matrix  do not in fact provide a test of whether the CKM phase describes $`CP`$ violation .

The unitarity of the three generation CKM matrix can be expressed in geometric form as six triangles of equal area in the complex plane. A nonzero area  directly implies the existence of a $`CP`$-violating CKM phase. The most experimentally accessible of the unitarity relations, involving the two smallest elements of the CKM matrix, $`V_{ub}`$ and $`V_{td}`$, has come to be known as the Unitarity Triangle. Because the lengths of the sides of the Unitarity Triangle are of the same order, the angles can be large, leading to potentially large $`CP`$-violating asymmetries from phases between CKM matrix elements.

The $`CP`$-violating asymmetry in $`bc\overline{c}s`$ decays of the $`B^0`$ meson such as $`B^0/\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}J/\psi K_S^0`$ (or $`B^0/\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}\psi (2S)K_S^0`$) is caused by the interference between mixed and unmixed decay amplitudes. A state initially prepared as a $`B^0`$ ($`\overline{B}^0`$) can decay directly to $`J/\psi K_S^0`$ or can oscillate into a $`\overline{B}^0`$ ($`B^0`$) and then decay to $`J/\psi K_S^0`$. With little theoretical uncertainty, the phase difference between these amplitudes is equal to twice the angle $`\beta =\mathrm{arg}\left[V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}/V_{td}V_{tb}^{}\right]`$ of the Unitarity Triangle. The $`CP`$-violating asymmetry can thus provide a crucial test of the Standard Model. The interference between the two amplitudes, and hence the $`CP`$ asymmetry, is maximal when the mixing probability is at its highest, i.e., when the lifetime $`t`$ is approximately 2.2 $`B^0`$ proper lifetimes.

In $`e^+e^{}`$ storage rings operating at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance a $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ pair produced in $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ decay evolves in a coherent $`P`$-wave until one of the $`B`$ mesons decays. If one of the $`B`$ mesons ($`B_{tag}`$) can be ascertained to decay to a state of known flavor at a certain time $`t_{tag}`$, the other $`B`$ is at that time known to be of the opposite flavor. For this measurement, the other $`B`$ ($`B_{CP}`$) is fully reconstructed in a $`CP`$ eigenstate ($`J/\psi K_S^0`$ or $`\psi (2S)K_S^0`$). By measuring the proper time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=t_{CP}t_{tag}`$ from the $`B_{tag}`$ decay time to the decay of the $`B_{CP}`$, it is possible to determine the time evolution of the initially pure $`B^0`$ or $`\overline{B}^0`$ state. The time-dependent rate of decay of the $`B_{CP}`$ final state is given by

$$f_\pm (\mathrm{\Delta }t;\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Delta }m_d,𝒟\mathrm{sin}2\beta )=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left|\mathrm{\Delta }t\right|}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\pm 𝒟\mathrm{sin}2\beta \times \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t\right],$$
(1)
where the $`+`$ or $``$ sign indicates whether the $`B_{tag}`$ is tagged as a $`B^0`$ or a $`\overline{B}^0`$, respectively. The dilution factor $`𝒟`$ is given by $`𝒟=12w`$, where $`w`$ is the mistag fraction, i.e., the probability that the flavor of the tagging $`B`$ is identified incorrectly. A term proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ would arise from the interference between two decay mechanisms with different weak phases. In the Standard Model, the dominant diagrams (tree and penguin) for the decay modes we consider have no relative weak phase, so no such term is expected.

To account for the finite resolution of the detector, the time-dependent distributions $`f_\pm `$ for $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ tagged events (Eq. 1) must be convoluted with a time resolution function $`(\mathrm{\Delta }t;\widehat{a})`$:

$$_\pm (\mathrm{\Delta }t;\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Delta }m_d,𝒟\mathrm{sin}2\beta ,\widehat{a})=f_\pm (\mathrm{\Delta }t;\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Delta }m_d,𝒟\mathrm{sin}2\beta )(\mathrm{\Delta }t;\widehat{a}),$$
(2)
where $`\widehat{a}`$ represents the set of parameters that describe the resolution function.

In practice, events are separated into different tagging categories, each of which has a different mean dilution $`𝒟_i`$, determined individually for each category.

It is possible to construct a $`CP`$-violating observable

$$𝒜_{CP}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)=\frac{_+(\mathrm{\Delta }t)_{}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)}{_+(\mathrm{\Delta }t)+_{}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)},$$
(3)
which is approximately proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$:

$$𝒜_{CP}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)𝒟\mathrm{sin}2\beta \times \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t.$$
(4)
Since no time-integrated $`CP`$ asymmetry effect is expected, an analysis of the time-dependent asymmetry is necessary. At an asymmetric-energy $`B`$ Factory, the proper decay-time difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is, to an excellent approximation, proportional to the distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ between the two $`B^0`$-decay vertices along the axis of the boost, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{\Delta }z/\mathrm{c}\beta \gamma `$. At PEP-II the average boost of $`B`$ mesons, $`\beta \gamma `$, is $`0.56`$. The distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ is 250$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ per $`B^0`$ lifetime, while the typical $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ resolution for the BABAR detector is about 110$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$.

Since the amplitude of the time-dependent $`CP`$-violating asymmetry in Eq. 4 involves the product of $`𝒟`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$, one needs to determine the dilution factors $`𝒟_i`$ (or equivalently the mistag fractions $`w_i`$) in order to extract the value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$. The mistag fractions can be extracted from the data by studying the time-dependent rate of $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ oscillations in events in which one of the neutral $`B`$ mesons is fully reconstructed in a self-tagging mode and the other $`B`$ (the $`B_{tag}`$) is flavor-tagged using the standard $`CP`$ analysis flavor-tagging algorithm. In the limit of perfect determination of the flavor of the fully-reconstructed neutral $`B`$, the dilution in the mixed and unmixed amplitudes arises solely from the $`B_{tag}`$ side, allowing the values of the mistag fractions $`w_i`$ to be determined.

The value of the single free parameter $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ is extracted from the tagged $`B_{CP}`$ sample by maximizing the likelihood function

$$\mathrm{ln}_{CP}=\underset{i}{}\left[\underset{B^0\mathrm{tag}}{}\mathrm{ln}_+(\mathrm{\Delta }t;\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Delta }m_d,\widehat{a},𝒟_i\mathrm{sin}2\beta )+\underset{\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}\mathrm{tag}}{}\mathrm{ln}_{}(\mathrm{\Delta }t;\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Delta }m_d,\widehat{a},𝒟_i\mathrm{sin}2\beta )\right],$$
(5)
where the outer summation is over tagging categories $`i`$.

### 1.1 Overview of the analysis

The measurement of the $`CP`$-violating asymmetry has five main components :

* Selection of the signal $`B^0/\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}J/\psi K_S^0`$ and $`B^0/\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}\psi (2S)K_S^0`$ events, as described in detail in .
* Measurement of the distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ between the two $`B^0`$ decay vertices along the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ boost axis, as described in detail in  and .
* Determination of the flavor of the $`B_{tag}`$, as described in detail in .
* Measurement of the dilution factors $`𝒟_i`$ from the data for the different tagging categories, as described in detail in .
* Extraction of the amplitude of the $`CP`$ asymmetry and the value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ with an unbinned maximum likelihood fit.

Whenever possible, we determine time and mass resolutions, efficiencies and mistag fractions from the data.

## 2 Sample selection

For this analysis we use a sample of $`9.8\text{ fb}^1`$ of data recorded by the BABAR detector  between January 2000 and the beginning of July 2000, of which $`0.8\text{ fb}^1`$ was recorded 40$`\mathrm{MeV}`$ below the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance (off-resonance data).

A brief description of the BABAR detector and the definition of many general analysis procedures can be found in an accompanying paper . 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, doubled-sided silicon vertex tracker (SVT), in a 1.5 T solenoidal field produced by a superconducting magnet. The charged particle momentum resolution is approximately $`\left(\delta p_T/p_T\right)^2=(0.0015p_T)^2+(0.005)^2`$, where $`p_T`$ is measured 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 the $`z`$ direction. Vertex resolution is typically 50$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ in $`z`$ for a fully reconstructed $`B`$ meson, depending on the decay mode, and of order 100 to 150$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ for a generic $`B`$ decay. Leptons and hadrons are identified with measurements from all the BABAR components, including the energy loss $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ from a truncated mean of up to 40 samples in the DCH and at least 8 samples in the SVT. Electrons and photons are identified in the barrel and the forward regions by the CsI electromagnetic calorimeter (EMC). Muons are identified in the instrumented flux return (IFR). In the central polar region the Cherenkov ring imaging detector (DIRC) provides $`K`$-$`\pi `$ separation with a significance of at least three standard deviations over the full momentum range for $`B`$ decay products above 250$`\mathrm{MeV}/c`$.

### 2.1 Particle identification

An electron candidate must be matched to an electromagnetic cluster of at least three crystals in the CsI calorimeter. The ratio of the cluster energy to the track momentum, $`E/p`$, must be between 0.88 and 1.3. The lateral moment of the cluster must be between 0.1 and 0.6, and the Zernike moment of order (4,2)111Lateral moment and Zernike moment are cluster shape variables introduced in . must be smaller than 0.1. In addition the electron candidate track in the drift chamber must have a $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ measurement consistent with that of an electron and, if measured, the Cherenkov angle in the DIRC must be consistent with that of an ultra-relativistic particle.

Muon identification relies principally on the measured number of interaction lengths, $`N_\lambda `$, penetrated by the candidate in the IFR iron, which must have a minimum value of $`2.2`$ and, at higher momenta, must be larger than $`N_\lambda ^{exp}1`$, where $`N_\lambda ^{exp}`$ is the expected number of interaction lengths for a muon. The number of IFR layers with a “hit” must be larger than two. To reject hadronic showers, we impose criteria on the number of IFR strips with a hit as a function of the penetration length, and on the distance between the strips with hits and the extrapolated track. In the forward region, which suffers from accelerator-related background, extra hit-continuity criteria are applied. In addition, if the muon candidate is in the angular region covered by the EMC, the energy deposited by the candidate in the calorimeter must be larger than 50$`\mathrm{MeV}`$ and smaller than 400$`\mathrm{MeV}`$. (The expected energy deposited by a minimum ionizing particle is about 180$`\mathrm{MeV}`$.)

Particles are identified as kaons if the ratio of the combined kaon likelihood to the combined pion likelihood is greater than 15. The combined likelihoods are the product of the individual likelihoods in the SVT, DCH and DIRC subsystems. In the SVT and DCH tracking detectors, the likelihoods are based on the measured $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ truncated mean compared to the expected mean for the $`K`$ and $`\pi `$ hypotheses, with an assumed Gaussian distribution. The $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ resolution is estimated on a track-by-track basis, based on the direction and momentum of the track and the number of energy deposition samples. For the DIRC, the likelihood is computed by combining the likelihood of the measured Cherenkov angle compared to the expected Cherenkov angle for a given hypothesis, with the Poisson probability of the number of observed Cherenkov photons, given the number of expected photons for the same hypothesis. DIRC information is not required for particles with momentum less than 0.7$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$, where the DCH $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ alone provides good $`K/\pi `$ discrimination.

### 2.2 Data samples

We define three event classes:222Throughout this paper, conjugates of flavor-eigenstate modes are implied.

* A $`CP`$ sample, containing $`B^0`$ candidates reconstructed in the $`CP`$ eigenstates $`J/\psi K_S^0`$ or $`\psi (2S)K_S^0`$. The charmonium mesons $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi (2S)`$ are reconstructed through their decays to $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$. The $`\psi (2S)`$ is also reconstructed through its decay to $`J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. The $`K_S^0`$ is reconstructed through its decay to $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$. The selection criteria for the $`CP`$ sample are described in the next section.
* Fully reconstructed $`B^0`$ samples, containing $`B^0`$ candidates in either semileptonic or hadronic flavor eigenstates. The sample of semileptonic decays contains candidates in the $`B^0D^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ mode ($`\mathrm{}^+=e^+`$ or $`\mu ^+`$); the sample of hadronic neutral decays contains $`B^0`$ candidates in the $`D^{()}\pi ^+`$, $`D^{()}\rho ^+`$ and $`D^{()}a_1^+`$ modes. A control sample of fully reconstructed $`B^+`$ candidates in the $`\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{0}\pi _{}^{+}`$ and $`\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{0}\pi _{}^{+}`$ (with $`\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{0}\pi ^0\overline{D}^0`$) modes is used for validation studies. The selection criteria for these samples are described in  and . We reconstuct $`7500`$ $`B^0D^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ candidates, $`2500`$ candidates in hadronic $`B^0`$ final states, and $`2300`$ candidates in hadronic $`B^+`$ final states.
* Charmonium control samples, containing fully reconstructed neutral or charged $`B`$ candidates in two-body decay modes with a $`J/\psi `$ in the final state, such as $`B^+J/\psi K^+`$ or $`B^0J/\psi K^0(K^0K^+\pi ^{})`$. The selection criteria for these samples are described in . We reconstruct 570 $`B^+J/\psi K^+`$ candidates and 237 $`B^0J/\psi (K^0K^+\pi ^{})`$ candidates. For the purpose of extracting vertex parameters and mistag rates, the $`B^0J/\psi K^0(K^0K^+\pi ^{})`$ events are included as part of the fully reconstructed $`B^0`$ hadronic sample.

Signal event yields and purities for the individual samples are summarized in Table 1.

### 2.3 Selection of events in the $`𝑪𝑷`$ sample

We select events with a minimum of four reconstructed charged tracks in the region defined by $`0.41<\theta _{lab}<2.41`$. Events are required to have a reconstructed vertex within 0.5$`\mathrm{cm}`$ of the average position of the interaction point in the plane transverse to the beamline, and a total energy greater than 5$`\mathrm{GeV}`$ in the fiducial regions for charged tracks and neutral clusters. To reduce continuum background, we require the second-order normalized Fox-Wolfram moment ($`R_2=H_2/H_0`$) of the event to be less than 0.5.

The selection criteria for the $`J/\psi K_S^0`$ and $`\psi (2S)K_S^0`$ events are optimized by maximizing the ratio $`𝒮/\sqrt{𝒮+}`$, where $`𝒮`$ (the number of signal events that pass the selection) is determined from signal Monte Carlo events, and $``$ (the number of background events that pass the selection) is estimated from a luminosity-weighted average of continuum data events and nonsignal $`B\overline{B}`$ Monte Carlo events.

For the $`J/\psi `$ or $`\psi (2S)e^+e^{}`$ candidates, at least one of the decay products is required to be positively identified as an electron or, if outside the acceptance of the calorimeter, to be consistent with an electron according to the drift chamber $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ information. If both tracks are within the calorimeter acceptance and have a value of $`E/p`$ larger than 0.5, an algorithm for the recovery of Bremsstrahlung photons  is used.

For the $`J/\psi `$ or $`\psi (2S)\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ candidates, at least one of the decay products is required to be positively identified as a muon and the other, if within the acceptance of the calorimeter, is required to be consistent with a minimum ionizing particle.

We select $`J/\psi `$ candidates with an invariant mass greater than 2.95$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and 3.06$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ for the $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ modes, respectively, and smaller than 3.14$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ in both cases. The $`\psi (2S)`$ candidates in leptonic modes must have a mass within 50$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ of the $`\psi (2S)`$ mass. The lower bound is relaxed to 250$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ for the $`e^+e^{}`$ mode.

For the $`\psi (2S)J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mode, mass-constrained $`J/\psi `$ candidates are combined with pairs of oppositely charged tracks considered as pions, and $`\psi (2S)`$ candidates with mass between 3.0$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and 4.1$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ are retained. The mass difference between the $`\psi (2S)`$ candidate and the $`J/\psi `$ candidate is required to be within 15$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ of the known mass difference.

$`K_S^0`$ candidates reconstructed in the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mode are required to have an invariant mass, computed at the vertex of the two tracks, between 486$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ and 510$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ for the $`J/\psi K_S^0`$ selection, and between 491$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ and 505$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ for the $`\psi (2S)K_S^0`$ selection.

For the $`J/\psi K_S^0`$ mode, we also consider the decay of the $`K_S^0`$ into $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$. Pairs of $`\pi ^0`$ candidates, with total energy above 800$`\mathrm{MeV}`$ and invariant mass, measured at the primary vertex, between 300 and 700$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$, are considered as $`K_S^0`$ candidates. For each candidate, we determine the most probable $`K_S^0`$ decay point along the path defined by the $`K_S^0`$ momentum vector and the primary vertex of the event. The decay-point probability is the product of the $`\chi ^2`$ probabilities for each photon pair constrained to the $`\pi ^0`$ mass. We require the distance from the decay point to the primary vertex to be between $`10`$ cm and $`+40`$ cm and the $`K_S^0`$ mass measured at this point to be between 470 and 536$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$.

$`B_{CP}`$ candidates are formed by combining mass-constrained $`J/\psi `$ or $`\psi (2S)`$ candidates with mass-constrained $`K_S^0`$ candidates. The cosine of the angle between the $`K_S^0`$ three-momentum vector and the vector that links the $`J/\psi `$ and $`K_S^0`$ vertices must be positive. The cosine of the helicity angle of the $`J/\psi `$ in the $`B`$ candidate rest frame must be less than 0.8 for the $`e^+e^{}`$ mode and 0.9 for the $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ mode.

For the $`\psi (2S)K_S^0`$ candidates, the helicity angle of the $`\psi (2S)`$ must be smaller than 0.9 for both leptonic modes. The $`K_S^0`$ flight length with respect to the $`\psi (2S)`$ vertex is required to be greater than 1$`\mathrm{mm}`$. In the $`\psi (2S)J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mode, the absolute value of the cosine of the angle between the $`B_{CP}`$ candidate three-momentum vector and the thrust vector of the rest of the event, computed in the center-of-mass frame, must be less than 0.9.

$`B_{CP}`$ candidates are identified with a pair of nearly uncorrelated kinematic variables: the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ between the energy of the $`B_{CP}`$ candidate and the beam energy in the center-of-mass frame, and the beam-energy substituted mass $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ . The signal region is defined by $`5.270\mathrm{GeV}/c^2<m_{\mathrm{ES}}<5.290\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and an approximately three-standard-deviation cut on $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ (typically $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }E\right|<35\mathrm{MeV}`$).

Distributions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ are shown in Fig. 1, 2 and 3 for the $`CP`$ samples and in Fig. 4 and 5 for the charmonium control samples. Signal event yields and purities, determined from a fit to the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ distributions after selection on $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, are summarized in Table 1.

The $`CP`$ sample used in this analysis is composed of 168 candidates: 121 in the $`J/\psi K_S^0`$ ($`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$) channel, 19 in the $`J/\psi K_S^0`$ ($`K_S^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$) channel and 28 in the $`\psi (2S)K_S^0`$ ($`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$) channel.

## 3 Time resolution function

The resolution of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ measurement is dominated by the $`z`$ resolution of the tagging vertex. The tagging vertex is determined as follows. The three-momentum of the tagging $`B`$ and its associated error matrix are derived from the fully reconstructed $`B_{CP}`$ candidate three momentum, decay vertex and error matrix, and from the knowledge of the average position of the interaction point and the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ four-momentum. This derived $`B_{tag}`$ three-momentum is fit to a common vertex with the remaining tracks in the event (excluding those from $`B_{CP}`$). In order to reduce the bias due to long-lived particles, all reconstructed $`V^0`$ candidates are used as input to the fit in place of their daughters. Any track whose contribution to the $`\chi ^2`$ is greater than 6 is removed from the fit. This procedure is iterated until there are no tracks contributing more than 6 to the $`\chi ^2`$ or until all tracks are removed. Events are rejected if the fit does not converge for either the $`B_{CP}`$ or $`B_{tag}`$ vertex. We also reject events with large $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ ( $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }z\right|>3\mathrm{mm}`$) or a large error on $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ ($`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }z}>400\mu \mathrm{m}`$).

The time resolution function is described accurately by the sum of two Gaussian distributions, which has five independent parameters:

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }t;\widehat{a})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_i}{\sigma _i\sqrt{2\pi }}}\mathrm{exp}\left((\mathrm{\Delta }t\delta _i)^2/2\sigma _{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right).`$ (6)
A fit to the time resolution function in Monte Carlo simulated events indicates that most of the events ($`f_1=1f_2=70\%`$) are in the core Gaussian, which has a width $`\sigma _10.6\mathrm{ps}`$. The wide Gaussian 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.

A small fraction of events have very large values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$, mostly due to vertex reconstruction problems. This is accounted for in the parametrization of the time resolution function by a very wide unbiased Gaussian with fixed width of $`8\mathrm{ps}`$. The fraction of events populating this component of the resolution function, $`f_w`$, is estimated from Monte Carlo simulation as $`1\%`$.

In likelihood fits, we use the error $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }t}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ that is calculated from the fits to the two $`B`$ vertices for each individual event. However, we introduce two scale factors $`𝒮_1`$ and $`𝒮_2`$ for the width of the narrow and the wide Gaussian distributions ($`\sigma _1=𝒮_1\times \sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }t}`$ and $`\sigma _2=𝒮_2\times \sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }t}`$) to account for the fact that the uncertainty on $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is underestimated due to effects such as the inclusion of particles from $`D`$ decays and possible underestimation of the amount of material traversed by the particles. The scale factor $`𝒮_1`$ and the bias $`\delta _1`$ of the narrow Gaussian are free parameters in the fit. The scale factor $`𝒮_2`$ and the fraction of events in the wide Gaussian, $`f_2`$, are fixed to the values estimated from Monte Carlo simulation by a fit to the pull distribution ($`𝒮_2=2.1`$ and $`f_2=0.25`$). The bias of the wide Gaussian, $`\delta _2`$, is fixed at $`0\mathrm{ps}`$. The remaining set of three parameters:

$`\widehat{a}`$ $`=`$ $`\{𝒮_1,\delta _1,f_w\}`$ (7)
is determined from the observed vertex distribution in data.

Because the time resolution is dominated by the precision of the $`B_{tag}`$ vertex position, we find no significant differences in the Monte Carlo simulation of the resolution function parameters for the various fully reconstructed decay modes, validating our approach of determining the resolution function parameters $`\widehat{a}`$ with the relatively high-statistics fully-reconstructed $`B^0`$ data samples. The differences in the resolution function parameters in the different tagging categories are also small.

Table 2 presents the values of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ resolution parameters obtained, along with the tagging efficiencies and mistag rates described in Section 4 below, from a maximum likelihood fit to the hadronic $`B^0`$ sample. Further details on the procedure and the results can be found in . The vertex parameters are fixed to these values in the final unbinned maximum likelihood fit for $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ in the low-statistics $`CP`$ event sample.

## 4 $`𝑩`$ flavor tagging

Each event with a $`CP`$ candidate is assigned a $`B^0`$ or $`\overline{B}^0`$ tag if the rest of the event (i.e., with the daughter tracks of the $`B_{CP}`$ removed) satisfies the criteria for one of several tagging categories. The figure of merit for each tagging category is the effective tagging efficiency $`Q_i=\epsilon _i\left(12w_i\right)^2`$, where $`\epsilon _i`$ is the fraction of events assigned to category $`i`$ and $`w_i`$ is the probability of misclassifying the tag as a $`B^0`$ or $`\overline{B}^0`$ for this category. $`w_i`$ is called the mistag fraction. The statistical error on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ is proportional to $`1/\sqrt{Q}`$, where $`Q=_iQ_i`$.

Three tagging categories rely on the presence of a fast lepton and/or one or more charged kaons in the event. Two categories, called neural network categories, are based upon the output value of a neural network algorithm applied to events that have not already been assigned to lepton or kaon tagging categories.

In the following, the tag refers to the $`B_{tag}`$ candidate. In other words, a $`B^0`$ tag indicates that the $`B_{CP}`$ candidate was in a $`\overline{B}^0`$ state at $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0`$; a $`\overline{B}^0`$ tag indicates that the $`B_{CP}`$ candidate was in a $`B^0`$ state.

### 4.1 Lepton and kaon tagging categories

The three lepton and kaon categories are called Electron, Muon and Kaon. This tagging technique relies on 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. A requirement on the center-of-mass momentum of the lepton reduces contamination from low-momentum opposite-sign leptons coming from charm semileptonic decays. No similar kinematic quantities can be used to discriminate against contamination from opposite-sign kaons. Therefore, for kaons the optimization of $`Q`$ relies principally on the balance between kaon identification efficiency and the purity of the kaon sample.

The first two categories, Electron and Muon, require the presence of at least one identified lepton (electron or muon) with a center-of-mass momentum greater than 1.1$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$. The momentum cut rejects the bulk of wrong-sign leptons from charm semileptonic decays. The value is chosen to maximize the effective tagging efficiency $`Q`$. The tag is $`B^0`$ for a positively-charged lepton, $`\overline{B}^0`$ for a negatively-charged lepton.

If the event is not assigned to either the Electron or the Muon tagging categories, the event is assigned to the Kaon tagging category if the sum of the charges of all identified kaons in the event, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }Q_K`$, is different from zero. The tag is $`B^0`$ if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }Q_K`$ is positive, $`\overline{B}^0`$ otherwise.

If both lepton and kaon tags are present and provide inconsistent flavor tags, the event is rejected from the lepton and kaon tagging categories.

### 4.2 Neural network categories

The use of a second tagging algorithm is motivated by the potential flavor-tagging power carried by non-identified leptons and kaons, correlations between leptons and kaons, multiple 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. One way to exploit the information contained in a set of correlated quantities is to use multivariate methods such as neural networks.

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

The variables used as input to the neural network tagger are the highest values of the L, LS and SoftPi feature net outputs multiplied by the charge, the highest and the second highest value of the K feature net output multiplied by the charge, and the output of the Q feature net.

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

## 5 Measurement of mistag fractions

The mistag fractions are measured directly in events in which one $`B^0`$ candidate, called the $`B_{rec}`$, is fully reconstructed in a flavor eigenstate mode. The flavor-tagging algorithms described in the previous section are applied to the rest of the event, which constitutes the potential $`B_{tag}`$.

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 $`B_{tag}`$ is tagged with the same flavor as the $`B_{rec}`$ or with the opposite flavor. Neglecting the effect of possible background contributions, and assuming the $`B_{rec}`$ is properly tagged, one can express the measured time-integrated fraction of mixed events $`\chi `$ as a function of the precisely-measured $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing probability $`\chi _d`$ :

$$\chi =\chi _d+(12\chi _d)w$$
(8)
where $`\chi _d=\frac{1}{2}x_d^2/(1+x_d^2)`$, with $`x_d=\mathrm{\Delta }m_d/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Thus one can deduce an experimental value of the mistag fraction $`w`$ from the data.

A time-dependent analysis of the fraction of mixed events is even more sensitive to the mistag fraction. The mixing probability is smallest for small values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=t_{rec}t_{tag}`$ so that the apparent rate of mixed events near $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$=0 is governed by the mistag probability (see Fig. 6). A time-dependent analysis can also help discriminate against backgrounds with different time-dependence.

By analogy with Eq. 2, we can express the density functions for unmixed $`(+)`$ and mixed $`()`$ events as

$$_\pm (\mathrm{\Delta }t;\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Delta }m_d,𝒟,\widehat{a})=h_\pm (\mathrm{\Delta }t;\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Delta }m_d,𝒟)(\mathrm{\Delta }t;\widehat{a}),$$
(9)
where

$$h_\pm (\mathrm{\Delta }t;\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Delta }m_d,𝒟)=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left|\mathrm{\Delta }t\right|}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\pm 𝒟\times \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t\right].$$
(10)
These functions are used to build the log-likelihood function for the mixing analysis:

$$\mathrm{ln}_M=\underset{i}{}\left[\underset{\mathrm{unmixed}}{}\mathrm{ln}_+(t;\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Delta }m_d,\widehat{a},𝒟_i)+\underset{\mathrm{mixed}}{}\mathrm{ln}_{}(t;\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Delta }m_d,\widehat{a},𝒟_i)\right],$$
(11)
which is maximized to extract the estimates of the mistag fractions $`w_i=\frac{1}{2}(1𝒟_i)`$.

The extraction of the mistag probabilities for each tagging category is complicated by the possible presence of mode-dependent backgrounds. We deal with these by adding specific terms in the likelihood functions describing the different types of backgrounds (zero lifetime, non-zero lifetime without mixing, non-zero lifetime with mixing). Details are described in .

A simple time-integrated single-bin method is used as a check of the time-dependent analysis for the determination of dilutions from the fully reconstructed $`B^0`$ sample. The mistag fractions are deduced from the number of unmixed events, $`u`$, and the number of mixed events, $`m`$, in a single optimized $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ interval, $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }t\right|<t_{cut}`$. The bin boundary $`t_{cut}`$, chosen to minimize the statistical uncertainty on the measurement, is equal to 2.5 $`\mathrm{ps}`$, i.e., $`1.6`$ $`B^0`$ lifetimes. ($`t_{cut}`$ is indicated by a dot-dashed line in Fig. 6.) The resulting mistag fractions based on this method are in good agreement with the mistag fractions obtained with the maximum-likelihood fit .

### 5.1 Tagging efficiencies and mistag fractions

The mistag fractions and the tagging efficiencies obtained by combining the results from maximum likelihood fits to the time distributions in the $`B^0`$ hadronic and semileptonic samples are summarized in Table 3. We find a tagging efficiency of $`(76.7\pm 0.5)\%`$ (statistical error only). The lepton categories have the lowest mistag fractions, but also have low efficiency. The Kaon category, despite having a larger mistag fraction (19.7%), has a higher effective tagging efficiency; one-third of events are assigned to this category. Altogether, lepton and kaon categories have an effective tagging efficiency $`Q20.8\%`$. Most of the separation into $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ in the NT1 and NT2 tagging categories derives from the SoftPi and Q feature nets. Simulation studies indicate that roughly 40% of the effective tagging efficiency occurs in events that contain a soft $`\pi `$ aligned with the $`B_{tag}`$ thrust axis, 25% from events which have a track with $`p^{}>1.1\mathrm{GeV}/c`$, 10% from events which contain multiple leptons or kaons with opposite charges and are thus not previously used in tagging, and the remaining 25% from a mixture of the various feature nets. The neural network categories increase the effective tagging efficiency by $`7\%`$ to an overall $`Q=(27.9\pm 0.5)\%`$ (statistical error only).

Of the 168 $`CP`$ candidates, 120 are tagged: 70 as $`B^0`$ and 50 as $`\overline{B}^0`$. The number of tagged events per category is given in Table 4.

## 6 Extracting $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷`$

### 6.1 Systematic uncertainties and cross checks

Systematic errors arise from uncertainties in input parameters to the maximum likelihood fit, incomplete knowledge of the time resolution function, uncertainties in the mistag fractions, and possible limitations in the analysis procedure. We fix the $`B^0`$ lifetime to the nominal PDG  central value $`\tau _{B^0}=1.548\mathrm{ps}`$ and the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ to the nominal PDG value $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d=0.472\mathrm{}\mathrm{ps}^1`$. The errors on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ due to uncertainties in $`\tau _{B^0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ are 0.002 and 0.015, respectively. The remaining systematic uncertainties are discussed in the following sections.

#### 6.1.1 Systematic uncertainties in the resolution function

The time resolution is measured with the high-statistics sample of fully-reconstructed $`B^0`$ events. The time resolution for the $`CP`$ sample should be very similar, especially to that measured for the hadronic sample. We verify that the resolution function extracted in the hadronic sample is consistent with the one extracted in the semileptonic sample. We assign as a systematic error the variation in $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ obtained by changing the resolution parameters by one statistical standard deviation. The corresponding error on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ is 0.019.

We use a full Monte Carlo simulation to verify that the Bremsstrahlung recovery procedure in the $`J/\psi e^+e^{}`$ mode does not introduce any systematic bias in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ measurement, nor does it affect the vertex resolution and pull distributions.

In order to check the impact of imperfect knowledge of the bias in $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ on the measurement, we allow the bias of the second Gaussian to increase to 0.5 $`\mathrm{ps}`$. The resulting change in $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ of 0.047 is assigned as a systematic error. The sensitivity to the bias is due to the different number of events tagged as $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$.

#### 6.1.2 Systematic uncertainties in flavor tagging

The mistag fractions are measured with uncertainties that are either correlated or uncorrelated between tagging categories. We study the effect of uncorrelated errors (including statistical errors) on the asymmetry by varying the mistag fractions individually for each category, using the full covariance matrix. For correlated errors, we vary the mistag fractions for all categories simultaneously.

The main common source of systematic uncertainties in the measurement of mistag fractions is the presence of backgrounds, which are more significant in the semileptonic sample than in the hadronic sample. The largest background is due to random combinations of particles and can be studied with mass sidebands. Additional backgrounds arise in the semileptonic sample from misidentified leptons, from leptons incorrectly associated with a true $`D^{}`$ from $`B`$ decays, and from charm events containing a $`D^{}`$ and a lepton. The details of the procedure for accounting for the backgrounds and the uncertainties on the background levels, and the estimates of resulting systematic errors on the mistag fractions are given in . We estimate the systematic error on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ due to the uncertainties in the measurement of the mistag fractions to be 0.053, for our $`CP`$ sample.

In the likelihood function, we use the same mistag fractions for the $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ samples. However, differences are expected due to effects such as the different cross sections for $`K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$ hadronic interactions. For equal numbers of tagged $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ events, the impact on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ of a difference in mistag fraction, $`\delta w=w_{B^0}w_{\overline{B}^0}`$, is insignificant. From studies of charged and neutral $`B`$ samples, we find that the mistag differences are $`0.02`$ for the NT1 category, $`0.04`$ for the Kaon category, and negligible for the lepton categories. However, for the NT2 category, there is a significant difference between the $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ mistag fractions, $`\delta w=0.16`$, which is not predicted by our simulation. Although this would lead to a negligible systematic shift in $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$, we cover the possibility of different mistag fractions in the $`CP`$ sample and the fully-reconstructed sample used to measure the mistag fractions by assigning as a systematic uncertainty the shift in $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ resulting from using the measured mistag fraction for the NT2 category from the sample of $`J/\psi K^0`$ events only. The resulting conservative systematic uncertainty on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ is 0.050.

For a small sample of events, there can be a significant difference in the number of $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ events, $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=N_{B^0}N_{\overline{B}^0}`$. For a single tagging category, the fractional change in $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ from such a difference is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}2\beta /\mathrm{sin}2\beta \delta w\mathrm{\Delta }N/N`$. In the $`CP`$ sample, $`\mathrm{\Delta }N/N`$ is significant only in the Kaon and NT1 categories (see Table 4). Taking into account their relative weight in the overall result, we assign a fractional systematic error of $`0.005`$ on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$.

The systematic uncertainties on the mistag fractions due to the uncertainties on $`\tau _{B^0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ are negligible.

#### 6.1.3 Systematic uncertainties due to backgrounds

The fraction of background events in the $`CP`$ sample ($`J/\psi K_S^0`$ and $`\psi (2S)K_S^0`$) is estimated to be $`(5\pm 3)\%`$. The portion of this background that occurs at small values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ (e.g., contributions from $`u`$, $`d`$ and $`s`$ continuum events) does not contribute substantially to the determination of the asymmetry. We estimate that this reduces the effective background to $`3\%`$. We correct for the background by increasing the apparent asymmetry by a factor of $`1.03`$. In addition, we assign a fractional systematic uncertainty of $`3\%`$ on the asymmetry, to cover both the uncertainty in the size of the background and the possibility that the background might have some $`CP`$-violating component.

#### 6.1.4 Blind analysis

We have adopted a blind analysis for the extraction of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ in order to eliminate possible experimenter’s bias. We use a technique that hides not only the result of the unbinned maximum likelihood fit, but also the visual $`CP`$ asymmetry in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distribution. The error on the asymmetry is not hidden.

The amplitude of the asymmetry $`𝒜_{CP}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ from the fit is hidden from the experimenter by arbitrarily flipping its sign and adding an arbitrary offset. The sign flip hides whether a change in the analysis increases or decreases the resulting asymmetry. However, the magnitude of the change is not hidden.

The visual $`CP`$ asymmetry in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distribution is hidden by multiplying $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ by the sign of the tag and adding an arbitrary offset.

With these techniques, systematic studies can be performed while keeping the numerical value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ hidden. In particular, we can check that the hidden $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distributions are consistent for $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ tagged events. The same is true for all the other checks concerning tagging, vertex resolution and the correlations between them. For instance, fit results in the different tagging categories can be compared to each other, since each fit is hidden in the same way. The analysis procedure for extracting $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ was frozen, and the data sample fixed, prior to unblinding.

#### 6.1.5 Cross checks of the fitting procedure

We submitted our maximum-likelihood fitting procedure to an extensive series of simulation tests. The tests were carried out with two different implementations of the fitting algorithm to check for software errors. The validation studies were done on two types of simulated event samples.

* “Toy” Monte Carlo simulation tests. In these samples, the detector response is not simulated. Monte Carlo techniques are used with parametrized resolution functions and tagging probabilities. We validated the fitting procedure on large samples of simulated $`CP`$ events, for various numbers of tagging categories, values of mistag fractions and values of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$. We also simulated a large number of 100-event experiments, with the purpose of investigating statistical issues with small samples, including values of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ near unphysical regions. We checked that the fitter performs well in the presence of backgrounds for the extraction of the mistag fractions. We exercised the combined $`CP`$ and mixing fits, and found that although combined fits perform well, they do not significantly improve the statistical sensitivity of the result.
* Full Monte Carlo simulation tests. We studied samples of $`J/\psi K_S^0`$, $`J/\psi K^+`$, $`D^{}\pi `$ and $`D^{}\mathrm{}\nu `$ events produced with the BABAR GEANT3 detector simulation and reconstructed with the BABAR reconstruction program. $`J/\psi K_S^0`$ events were generated with various values of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$. We extracted the “apparent $`CP`$-asymmetry” for the charged $`B`$’s and found it to be consistent with zero. We studied the difference in tagging efficiencies and in mistag fractions between the charged and neutral $`B`$ samples. We also tested the procedure for extracting the mistag fractions from hadronic and semileptonic samples of fully simulated events ($`D^{}\pi `$ and $`D^{}\mathrm{}\nu `$).

### 6.2 Results

The maximum-likelihood fit for $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$, using the full tagged sample of $`B^0/\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}J/\psi K_S^0`$ and $`B^0/\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}\psi (2S)K_S^0`$ events, gives:

$$\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.12\pm 0.37(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.09(\mathrm{syst})(\mathrm{preliminary}).$$
(12)
For this result, the $`B^0`$ lifetime and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ are fixed to the current best values , and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ resolution parameters and the mistag rates are fixed to the values obtained from data as summarized in Tables 2 and 3. The log likelihood is shown as a function of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ in Fig. 7, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distributions for $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ tags in Fig. 8, the raw asymmetry as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ in Fig. 9, and the distribution of an observable $`𝒦`$, as a graphical representation of our result, in Fig. 10. The results of the fit for each type of $`CP`$ sample and for each tagging category are given in Table 5. The contributions to the systematic uncertainty are summarized in Table 6.

We estimate the probability of obtaining the observed value of the statistical uncertainty, 0.37, on our measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ by generating a large number of toy Monte Carlo experiments with the same number of tagged $`CP`$ events, and distributed in the same tagging categories, as in the $`CP`$ sample in the data. We find that the errors are distributed around $`0.32`$ with a standard deviation of $`0.03`$, and that the probability of obtaining a value of the statistical error larger than the one we observe is 5%. Based on a large number of full Monte Carlo simulated experiments with the same number of events as our data sample, we estimate that the probability of finding a lower value of the likelihood than our observed value is 20%.

## 7 Validating analyses

To validate the analysis we use the charmonium control sample, composed of $`B^+J/\psi K^+`$ events and events with self-tagged $`J/\psi K^0`$ ($`K^0K^+\pi ^{}`$) neutral $`B`$’s. We also use the event samples with fully-reconstructed candidates in charged or neutral hadronic modes. These samples should exhibit no time-dependent asymmetry. In order to investigate this experimentally, we define an “apparent $`CP`$ asymmetry”, analogous to $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ in Eq. 3, which we extract from the data using an identical maximum-likelihood procedure.

The events in the control samples are flavor eigenstates and not $`CP`$ eigenstates. They are used for testing the fitting procedure with the same tagging algorithm as for the $`CP`$ sample and, in the case of the $`B^+`$ modes, with self-tagging based on their charge. We also perform the fits for $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ (or $`B^+`$ and $`B^{}`$) events separately to study possible flavor-dependent systematic effects. For the charged $`B`$ modes, we use mistag fractions measured from the sample of hadronic charged $`B`$ decays.

In all fits, including the fits to charged samples, we fix the lifetime $`\tau _{B^0}`$ and the oscillation frequency $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ to the PDG values . The results of a series of validation checks on the control samples are summarized in Table 7.

The two high-statistics samples and the $`J/\psi K^+`$ sample give an apparent $`CP`$ asymmetry consistent with zero. The 1.9 $`\sigma `$ asymmetry in the $`J/\psi K^0`$ is interpreted as a statistical fluctuation.

Other BABAR time-dependent analyses presented at this Conference demonstrate the validity of the novel technique developed for use at an asymmetric $`B`$ Factory. The measurement of the $`B^0`$-$`\overline{B}^0`$ oscillation frequency described in  uses the same time resolution function and tagging algorithm as the $`CP`$ analysis. Fitting for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ in the maximum-likelihood fit for the fully-reconstructed hadronic and semileptonic neutral $`B`$ decays, we measure

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_d=0.512\pm 0.017(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.022(\mathrm{syst})\mathrm{}\mathrm{ps}^1,$$
(13)
which is consistent with the world average $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d=0.472\pm 0.017\mathrm{}\mathrm{ps}^1`$ . The $`B^0`$ lifetime measurement described in  uses the same inclusive vertex reconstruction technique as the $`CP`$ analysis. We measure

$$\tau _{B^0}=1.506\pm 0.052(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.029(\mathrm{syst})\mathrm{ps},$$
(14)
also consistent with the world average $`\tau _{B^0}=1.548\pm 0.032\mathrm{ps}`$ .

## 8 Conclusions and prospects

We have presented BABAR’s first measurement of the $`CP`$-violating asymmetry parameter $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ in the $`B`$ meson system:

$$\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.12\pm 0.37(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.09(\mathrm{syst})(\mathrm{preliminary}).$$
(15)
Our measurement is consistent with the world average $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.9\pm 0.4`$ , 333Based on the OPAL result  $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =3.2_{2.0}^{+1.8}\pm 0.5`$ and the CDF result  $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.79_{0.44}^{+0.41}`$. See also ALEPH’s preliminary result  $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.93_{0.880.24}^{+0.64+0.36}`$. and is currently limited by the size of the $`CP`$ sample. We expect to more than double the present data sample in the near future.

Figure 11 shows the Unitarity Triangle in the ($`\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })`$ plane, with BABAR’s measured central value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ shown as two straight lines. There is a two-fold ambiguity in deriving a value of $`\beta `$ from a measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ . Both choices are shown with cross-hatched regions corresponding to one and two times the one-standard-deviation experimental uncertainty. The ellipses correspond to the regions allowed by all other measurements that constrain the Unitarity Triangle. Rather than make the common, albeit unfounded, assumption that our lack of knowledge of theoretical quantities, or differences between theoretical models, can be parametrized (typically as a Gaussian or flat distribution), we have chosen to display the ellipses corresponding to measurement errors at a variety of representative choices of theoretical parameters. This procedure is discussed in detail in .

While the current experimental uncertainty on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ is large, the next few years will bring substantial improvements in precision, as well as measurements for other final states in which $`CP`$-violating asymmetries are proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$, and measurements for modes in which the asymmetry is proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha `$.

## 9 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.


text:
# Untitled Document

RIGIDITY OF AMN VECTOR SPACES

E. Muñoz Garcia (\*)(\*)U.C.L.A. Department of Mathematics, 405, Hilgard Ave. Los Angeles CA-90095-1555, U.S.A.; e-mail: munoz@math.ucla.edu

Abstract: A metric vector space is asymptotically metrically normable (AMN) if there exists a norm asymptotically isometric to the distance. We prove that AMN vector spaces are rigid in the class of metric vector spaces under asymptotically isometric perturbations. This result follows from a general metric normability criterium. If the distance is translation invariant and satisfies an approximate multiplicative condition then there exists a lipschitz equivalent norm. Furthermore, we give necessary and sufficient conditions for the distance to be asymptotically isometric to the norm.

Mathematics Subject Classification 2000: 46A16.

Key Words: Asymptotically metrically normable vector spaces.

Introduction.

The geometrization of algebraic structures is a fruitful modern idea born from the collusion of synthetic geometry and classical algebra. A successful example is Gromov’s notion of hyperbolic groups that has shed new light on classical group theory (see \[Gr\], \[GH\]). In this article we investigate metric vector spaces from a metrical point of view.

Let $`(E,d)`$ be a metric space. The distance $`d`$ is asymptotically isometric to a distance $`\delta `$ if for any $`C_1>1`$ there exists $`C_20`$ such that for any $`x,yE`$ we have

$$C_1^1\delta (x,y)C_2d(x,y)C_1\delta (x,y)+C_2.$$

Two metric spaces $`(E_1,d_1)`$ and $`(E_2,d_2)`$ are asymptotically isometric if there exists a one-to-one correspondence $`\phi :E_1E_2`$ such that $`d_1`$ is asymptotically isometric to the distance $`\delta =\phi ^{}d_2`$,

$$\delta (x,y)=d_2(\phi (x),\phi (y)).$$

A metric vector space $`(E,d)`$ is a topological vector space whose topology is generated by the distance $`d`$.

Definition 1. A metric space $`(E,d)`$ is asymptotically metrically normable (AMN) if there exists a norm $`||||`$ on $`E`$ such that $`(E,||||)`$ is asymptotically isometric to $`(E,d)`$.

Our main theorem is:

Theorem 1. AMN vector spaces are asymptotically isometrically rigid. More precisely, let $`(E,d)`$ be a metric vector space. If $`E`$ is asymptotically isometric to an AMN vector space, then $`E`$ is AMN.

Theorem 1 is a consequence of a metric normability criterium for metric vector spaces (theorems 2 and 3.)

It is well known that a Hausdorff topological vector space is metrizable if and only if the origin has a countable neighborhood base. In this case there exists a translation invariant distance generating the topology (see for example \[Sch\] p.28.) A Hausdorff topological vector space is normable if and only if the origin has a bounded convex neighborhood (\[Sch\] p.41.) Recall in a topological vector space a set $`A`$ is bounded if for each neighborhood $`U`$ of $`0`$ there exists a scalar $`\lambda `$ such that $`A\lambda U`$.

These conditions are sharp but not always useful. For instance, given a distance $`d`$ defining the topological vector space structure there is no effective way of determining the existence of a convex neighborhood of $`0`$. Also an asymptotically isometric perturbation does not preserve convex sets (even those at ”infinity”.) The purpose of the following theorems is to exhibit explicit metric conditions on the distance that imply the existence of a lipschitz equivalent norm. Similar ideas were used by the author in the study of Hölder absolute values over a field (see \[Mu\].)

From now on we consider vector spaces over a locally compact valued field $`K`$ of characteristic zero ($`𝐐K`$) and such that $`(𝐐,|.|)`$ is archimedian. From the classification of locally compact fields (see for example \[We\] chapter I.3) we have that $`K`$ is an $`𝐑`$-field, i.e. $`K=𝐑`$, $`K=𝐂`$ or $`K=𝐇`$ the field of quaternions. Note that the group of units $`𝐔=\{uK;|u|=1\}`$ is a compact topological group.

All results and proofs as given are valid for modules over a valuated ring $`(A,|.|)`$ with unit such that $`A`$ is of characteristic $`0`$ ($`𝐐A`$), $`(A,|.|)`$ is locally compact and the restriction of the absolute value to $`𝐐`$ is archimedian.

Definition 2. Let $`(E,d)`$ be a metric vector space. Given a constant $`C_00`$ the distance is $`C_0`$-translation invariant if translations are $`C_0`$-isometries, that is for all $`x,y,zE`$,

$$d(x,y)C_0d(x+z,y+z)d(x,y)+C_0.$$

Note that this is equivalent to the right hand side inequality, for all $`x,y,zE`$,

$$d(x+z,y+z)d(x,y)+C_0.$$

Definition 3. A distance $`d`$ on $`E`$ is lipschitz equivalent (or $`(C_1,C_2)`$-lipschitz equivalent) to another distance $`\delta `$ on $`E`$ if there exists $`C_11`$ and $`C_20`$ such that for $`x,yE`$,

$$C_1^1\delta (x,y)C_2d(x,y)C_1\delta (x,y)+C_2$$

Definition 4. A metric vector space $`(E,d)`$ is metrically normable (MN) if $`d`$ is lipschitz equivalent to a norm on $`E`$.

Definition 5. Let $`E`$ be a $`K`$ vector space. A distance $`d`$ on $`E`$ is lipschitz multiplicative (or $`(C_1,C_2,C_3)`$-lipschitz multiplicative) if there are three constants, $`C_11`$, $`C_20`$ and $`C_30`$, such that for any $`\lambda K`$, $`x,yE`$, we have

$$C_1^1|\lambda |d(x,y)C_2|\lambda |C_3d(\lambda x,\lambda y)C_1|\lambda |d(x,y)+C_2|\lambda |+C_3.$$

Notice that a MN vector space is lipschitz multiplicative. More precisely, of $`d`$ is $`(C_1,C_2)`$-lipschitz equivalent to a norm, then $`d`$ is $`(C_1^2,C_1C_2,C_2)`$-lipschitz multiplicative.

We denote by $`\mu `$ the (rigth invariant) Haar measure on the compact group $`(𝐔,.)`$ normalized to have total mass $`1`$.

Theorem 2. Let $`(E,d)`$ be a metric vector space over $`K`$ with the distance $`d`$ $`C_0`$-translation invariant and $`(C_1,C_2,C_3)`$-lipschitz multiplicative.

Let $`E_0`$ be the maximal subspace of $`E`$ where the distance $`d`$ is bounded. Then $`E_0`$ is a closed subspace of $`E`$ and the quotient is a metrizable vector space. The Hausdorff distance on classes modulo $`E_0`$ induced by $`d`$ defines a distance $`D`$ in the quotient.

The vector space $`(E/E_0,D)`$ is metrically normable by a norm $`||.||`$ which is $`(C_1^2,C_2^{})`$-lipschitz equivalent to $`d`$ with $`C_2^{}=C_1C_2+C_1C_3+C_2`$, i.e. for $`x,yE`$,

$$C_1^2d(x,y)C_2^{}xyC_1^2d(x,y)+C_2^{}.$$

Moreover, the norm $`||.||`$ can be defined by

$$\overline{x}=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}_𝐔d(nux,0)𝑑\mu (u).$$

In particular, if the distance $`d`$ is unbounded in all non-trivial subspaces, then $`E_0=\{0\}`$ and $`E`$ is metrically normable with a norm lipschitz equivalent to $`d`$.

As mentioned before, we can construct in any metrizable topological vector space a translation invariant distance generating the topology thus the problem of metric normability is reduced by theorem 2 to construct such a distance that satisfies an approximate scalar multiplicative property and that is unbounded in non-trivial subspaces.

Using similar ideas we can characterize completely those distances that are asymptotically isometric to a norm.

Definition 6. Let $`(E,d)`$ be a vector space over $`K`$. The distance $`d`$ is asymptotically multiplicative if for any $`C_1>1`$, there exists $`C_20`$ and $`C_30`$ such that for $`x,yE`$, we have

$$C_1^1|\lambda |d(x,y)C_2|\lambda |C_3d(\lambda x,\lambda y)C_1|\lambda |d(x,y)+C_2|\lambda |+C_3.$$

Our last theorem gives a necessary and sufficient condition for a distance to be asymptotically isometric to a norm.

Theorem 3. Let $`(E,d)`$ be a metric vector space over $`K`$. The distance $`d`$ is asymptotically isometric to a norm $`||.||`$ if and only if $`d`$ is asymptotically multiplicative, $`d`$ is unbounded in non-trivial subspaces and for any $`C_1>1`$ there exists $`C_00`$ such that for any $`n2`$ and $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y_1,\mathrm{},y_nE`$, we have

$$d(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_i,\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}y_i)C_1\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}d(x_i,y_i)+nC_0.$$

In that case the norm $`||.||`$ can be obtained as described in theorem 2.

It is not difficult to see that the conditions stated are necessary. The last condition is related to the condition of translation invariance in the first theorem in the following way (more precisely see lemma 1 below): All translations are isometries if and only if for any $`x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2E`$,

$$d(x_1+x_2,y_1+y_2)d(x_1,y_1)+d(x_2,y_2).$$

We first prove theorem 2, then theorem 3 follows along the same lines and finally theorem 1 follows from theorem 3.

1) Proof of theorem 2.

For the first part we only need to assume that $`d`$ is $`C_0`$-translation invariant.

Proposition 1. Let $`(E,d)`$ be a metric vector space such that $`d`$ is $`C_0`$-translation invariant. Then for any $`x,yE`$ the following limit exists

$$\delta (x,y)=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}d(nx,ny),$$

and we have

$$\delta (x,y)d(x,y)+2C_0.$$

Lemma 1. Let $`(E,d)`$ be a metric vector space. If the distance $`d`$ is $`C_0`$-translation invariant then we have for any $`x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2E`$,

$$d(x_1+x_2,y_1+y_2)d(x_1,y_1)+d(x_2,y_2)+2C_0.$$

Conversely, if we have the previous inequality then the distance $`d`$ is $`2C_0`$-translation invariant.

Proof Lemma 1. We have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill d(x_1+x_2,y_1+y_2)& d(x_1,y_1+y_2x_2)+C_0\hfill \\ & d(x_1,y_1)+d(y_1,y_1+y_2x_2)+C_0\hfill \\ & d(x_1,y_1)+d(x_2+(y_1x_2),y_2+(y_1x_2))+C_0\hfill \\ & d(x_1,y_1)+d(x_2,y_2)+2C_0\hfill \end{array}$$

Conversely, the inequality with $`x_2=y_2`$ proves that $`d`$ is $`2C_0`$-translation invariant.$`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of proposition 1. Consider for $`n0`$,

$$a_n=d(nx,ny)+2C_0.$$

Lemma 1 shows that the sequence $`(a_n)_{n0}`$ is sub-additive: For $`n,m0`$,

$$a_{n+m}=d(nx+mx,ny+my)+2C_0d(nx,ny)+d(mx,my)+4C_0=a_n+a_m.$$

Thus we have (see lemma 3 below for a more general result)

$$\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\frac{1}{n}a_n=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{n}a_n.$$

Also using $`n`$ times the inequality from lemma 1 we have

$$a_n=d(nx,ny)+2C_0nd(x,y)+2(n+1)C_0.$$

Thus $`(a_n/n)_{n0}`$ is a bounded sequence and has a limit

$$\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}a_n=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}d(nx,ny)d(x,y)+2C_0.$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

Remark.

We need only to use the inequality of lemma 1 for ”large” $`x`$’s and $`y`$’s. This will be exploited in the proof of theorem 2.

Lemma 2. Let $`(E,d)`$ be a metric vector space over $`K`$ with the distance $`d`$ $`C_0`$-translation invariant and $`(C_1,C_2,C_3)`$-lipschitz multiplicative. We define

$$d_0(x,y)=_𝐔d(ux,uy)𝑑\mu (u).$$

Then $`d_0`$ is a distance $`(C_1,C_2+C_3)`$-lipschitz equivalent to $`d`$, $`C_0`$-translation invariant and $`(C_1,C_2,C_3)`$-lipschitz multiplicative. Moreover, $`d`$ and $`d_0`$ define the same topology on $`E`$.

Proof. Obviously $`d_0`$ satisfies the triangle inequality by averaging triangle inequalities. We have for $`x,y,zE`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill d_0(x+z,y+z)& _𝐔d(u(x+z),u(y+z))𝑑\mu (u)\hfill \\ & _𝐔\left(d(ux,uy)+C_0\right)𝑑\mu (u)\hfill \\ & d_0(x,y)+C_0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus $`d_0`$ is $`C_0`$-translation invariant. Also

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill d_0(\lambda x,\lambda y)& _𝐔d(u\lambda x,u\lambda y)𝑑\mu (u)\hfill \\ & C_1|\lambda |_𝐔d(ux,uy)𝑑\mu (u)+C_2|\lambda |+C_3\hfill \\ & C_1|\lambda |d_0(x,y)+C_2|\lambda |+C_3,\hfill \end{array}$$

and the reverse inequality follows in the same way. Finally the integration over $`u𝐔`$ of

$$C_1^1d(x,y)C_2C_3d(ux,uy)C_1d(x,y)+C_2+C_3,$$

shows that $`d_0`$ is $`(C_1,C_2+C_3)`$-Lipschitz equivalent to $`d`$.

The distances $`d`$ and $`d_0`$ define the same topology. Let $`(x_n)`$ such that $`d(x_n,x_0)0`$. Then for all $`u𝐔`$ we have $`d(ux_n,ux_0)0`$ and the sequence of functions $`ud(ux_n,ux_0)`$ are uniformly bounded (the sequence $`(x_n)`$ is $`d`$-bounded and $`𝐔`$ is compact). Thus by Lebesgue dominated convergence we have that $`d_0(x_n,x_0)0`$. Conversely let $`(x_n)`$ such that $`d_0(x_n,x_0)0`$. Then there is a sequence $`u_n𝐔`$ such that $`d(u_nx_n,u_nx_0)0`$. Since $`𝐔`$ is compact we can extract a sub-sequence sucht that $`u_nu`$. Then $`d(ux_n,ux_0)0`$ so $`d(x_n,x_0)0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Definition 7. Under the assumptions of theorem 2 we define

$$\delta _0(x,y)=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}d_0(nx,ny)$$

where $`d_0`$ is defined in lemma 2, and

$$\delta (x,y)=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}d(nx,ny).$$

Lemma 3. We have that $`\delta `$ and $`\delta _0`$ are $`C_0`$-translation invariant.

Proof. It is straightforward from the $`C_0`$-translation invariance of $`d`$ and $`d_0`$.$`\mathrm{}`$

Proposition 2. We have that $`\delta `$ and $`\delta _0`$ satisfy the triangle inequality and are symmetric. Also if $`\lambda K`$ we have,

$$\delta _0(\lambda x,\lambda y)=|\lambda |\delta _0(x,y).$$

Lemma 4. Let $`𝐐_+`$ be the set of non-negative rational numbers. The subset $`𝐐_+𝐔`$ is dense in $`K`$.

Proof of Lemma 4. Given $`\lambda K`$, $`\lambda 0`$, we have $`u=\lambda /|\lambda |𝐔`$. Since the restriction of $`|.|`$ to $`𝐐`$ is archimedian, we have that $`|𝐐|=|𝐐_+|`$ is dense in $`𝐑`$, thus in $`|K|`$. So there exists a sequence of positive rationals $`(p_n/q_n)`$ such that $`p_n/q_n|\lambda |`$. We conclude that

$$\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{p_n}{q_n}u=\lambda .$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of proposition 2. The triangle inequality and the symmetry is immediate from the definition.

Given an integer $`p0`$ we have

$$\delta _0(px,py)=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}d_0(npx,npy)=p\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{np}d_0(npx,npy)=p\delta _0(x,y).$$

Now if $`p/q𝐐`$, $`q1`$, $`p1`$ we have

$$q\delta _0(p/qx,p/qy)=pq\delta _0(1/qx,1/qy)=p\delta _0(x,y).$$

so for any rational number $`r𝐐_+`$,

$$\delta _0(rx,ry)=|r|\delta _0(x,y).$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

Proposition 3. We have

$$\delta _0(x,y)=_𝐔\delta (ux,uy)𝑑\mu (u).$$

Proof of proposition 3. From Lemma 1 and compactness of $`𝐔`$ we have that

$$\frac{1}{n}d(nux,nuy)d(ux,uy)+2C_0M(x,y),$$

where $`M(x,y)`$ is a bound uniform on $`n`$. Thus the functions $`u\frac{1}{n}d(nux,nuy)`$ are uniformly bounded. From Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta _0(x,y)& =\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}d_0(nx,ny)\hfill \\ & =\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}_𝐔d(unx,uny)𝑑\mu (u)\hfill \\ & =\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}_𝐔d(nux,nuy)𝑑\mu (u)\hfill \\ & =_𝐔\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}d(nux,nuy)d\mu (u)\hfill \\ & =_𝐔\delta (ux,uy)𝑑\mu (u)\hfill \end{array}$$

q.e.d.$`\mathrm{}`$

Lemma 5. Any closed (resp. open) set for $`\delta _0`$ is closed (resp. open) set for $`d.`$ So the topology generated by $`d`$ is richer than the topology generated by $`\delta _0.`$

Proof of Lemma 5. Let $`x_n`$ be a sequence of points in $`E`$ such that $`d(x_n,x)0`$.

We have

$$0\delta _0(x_n,x)C_1d(x_n,x)+C_2.$$

Therefore

$$\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\delta _0(x_n,x)C_2.$$

By proposition 2, for all $`\lambda K`$,

$$\delta _0(x_n,x)=\frac{1}{|\lambda |}\delta _0(|\lambda |x_n,|\lambda |x)\frac{1}{|\lambda |}(C_1\delta _0(|\lambda |x_n,|\lambda |x)+C_2).$$

Thus

$$0\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\delta _0(x_n,x)\frac{C_2}{|\lambda |}$$

for all $`\lambda K`$. Taking limit when $`|\lambda |`$ tends to $`+\mathrm{}`$ we obtain

$$0\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\delta _0(x_n,x)0.$$

Thus $`lim_{n+\mathrm{}}\delta _0(x_n,x)=0`$ and the lemma follows.$`\mathrm{}`$

Proposition 4. Let

(i) $`E_0=\{xE;\text{for all }u𝐔,\delta (ux,0)=0\}`$,

(ii) $`E_1=\{xE;\delta _0(x,0)=0\}`$,

(iii) $`E_2`$ maximal subspace where $`d_0`$ is bounded,

(iv) $`E_3`$ maximal subspace where $`d`$ is bounded,

Then $`E_0=E_1=E_2=E_3`$.

Proof of proposition 4. We have

$$\delta _0(x,0)=_𝐔\delta (ux,0)𝑑\mu (u),$$

thus $`E_0=E_1`$. Observe that $`E_1`$ is a subspace of $`E`$, for $`x,yE_1`$, using the translation invariance,

$$\delta _0(x+y,0)\delta _0(x,0)+\delta _0(y,0)=0+0=0.$$

Also $`\delta _0(\lambda x,0)=\lambda \delta _0(x,0)=0`$. Moreover for $`x,yE_1`$ we have

$$d_0(x,y)C_1\left(\delta _0(x,y)+C_2\right)C_1\left(\delta _0(x,0)+\delta _0(y,0)+C_2\right)C_1C_2.$$

Thus $`d_0`$ is bounded in $`E_1`$ and $`E_1E_2`$. From the definition of $`\delta _0`$ it follows that $`E_2E_1`$, thus $`E_1=E_2`$.

Finally $`E_2=E_3`$ because $`d_0`$ and $`d`$ are lipschitz equivalent.$`\mathrm{}`$

Proposition 5. The subspace $`E_0`$ is a closed subspace of $`E`$.

Proof of proposition 5. let $`(x_n)`$ be a converging sequence of points in $`E_0`$, $`x_nx`$. If $`xE_0`$ then $`\delta _0(x,0)0`$. Let $`C=C_1C_2+C_1C_3+C_2`$. Consider

$$y_n=\frac{C+1}{\delta _0(x,0)}x_n.$$

We have $`y_nE_0`$ (since $`E_0`$ is a subspace), $`y_ny`$ with

$$\delta _0(y,0)=\frac{C+1}{\delta _0(x,0)}\delta _0(x,0)>C.$$

Then

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill C<\delta _0(y,0)& \delta _0(yy_n,0)+\delta _0(y_n,0)=\delta _0(yy_n,0)\hfill \\ & C_1d_0(y,y_n)+C_2C_1^2d(y,y_n)+C_1(C_2+C_3)+C_2=C_1^2d(y,y_n)+C.\hfill \end{array}$$

Passing to the limit $`n+\mathrm{}`$, we get $`C<C`$. Contradiction.$`\mathrm{}`$

Proposition 6. We define for a class $`\overline{x}E/E_0`$,

$$\overline{x}=\delta _0(x,0).$$

The definition is independent of the representant $`x`$ of the class $`\overline{x}=x+E_0`$ and $`||.||:E/E_0𝐑_+`$ is a norm.

Proof of proposition 6. If $`y\overline{x}`$ then $`xyE_0`$ thus $`\delta _0(xy,0)=0`$ so by translation invariance $`\delta _0(x,y)=0`$ and

$$\delta _0(x,0)\delta _0(x,y)+\delta _0(y,0)=\delta _0(y,0).$$

In the same way $`\delta _0(y,0)\delta _0(x,0)`$ and finally $`\delta _0(x,0)=\delta _0(y,0)`$. Also if $`\overline{x}=0`$ then $`\delta _0(x,0)=0`$ and $`xE_0`$, i.e. $`\overline{x}=\overline{0}`$. The other properties of a norm follow from the properties of $`\delta _0`$.$`\mathrm{}`$

Definition 8. We denote by $`D:E/E_0𝐑_+`$, resp. $`D_0:E/E_0𝐑_+`$, the Hausdorff distances for $`d`$, resp. $`d_0`$, between classes modulo $`E_0`$,

$$D(x_0+E_0,y_0+E_0)=\mathrm{max}(\underset{x\overline{x}_0}{inf}\underset{y\overline{y}_0}{sup}d(x,y),\underset{y\overline{y}_0}{inf}\underset{x\overline{x}_0}{sup}d(x,y)).$$

Hausdorff distances over non-compact sets do not need to be finite. Also when the distance is zero the sets do not need in general to coincide. In our situation Hausdorff distances define a proper distance on classes modulo $`E_0`$.

Lemma 6. The spaces $`(E/E_0,D)`$ and $`(E/E_0,D_0)`$ are metric spaces, and $`D`$ and $`D_0`$ define the quotient topology on $`E/E_0`$.

Proof of lemma 6. We first prove that $`D`$ and $`D_0`$ do define distances. We carry the proof for $`D`$. The same proof applies to $`D_0`$. If $`x\overline{x}_0`$ and $`y\overline{y}_0`$ we have

$$d(x,y)d(x,x_0)+d(x_0,y_0)+d(y_0,y)d(x_0,y_0)+d(xx_0,0)+d(y_0y,0)+2C_0,$$

and the last two terms are uniformly bounded since $`xx_0E_0`$ and $`y_0yE_0`$. This shows that $`D(\overline{x}_0,\overline{y}_0)<+\mathrm{}`$.

Assume that $`D(\overline{x}_0,\overline{y}_0)=0`$. Then there is a sequence $`(e_n)`$ with $`e_nE_0`$ such that $`y_0+e_nx_0`$. Therefore $`e_nx_0y_0`$. But we have proved that $`E_0`$ is closed, thus $`x_0y_0E_0`$ and $`\overline{x}_0=\overline{y}_0`$.

We denote $`\pi :EE/E_0`$ the quotient map. We prove that each open set $`U`$ for the quotient topology of $`E/E_0`$ is open for $`D`$. Let $`\overline{x}_0U`$ and $`D(\overline{x}_n,\overline{x}_0)0`$. We have to prove that there exists $`N`$ such that for $`nN`$, $`\overline{x}_nU`$. We have that $`x_n+E_0x_0+E_0`$ in Hausdorff metric for $`d`$. Thus there exists a sequence $`x_n^{}x_n+E_0`$ such that $`d(x_n^{},x_0)0`$. Since $`d`$ defines the topology of $`E`$ and $`\pi ^1(U)`$ is open there exists $`N`$ such that for $`nN`$ we have $`x_n^{}\pi ^1(U)`$. Then $`\overline{x}_n=\overline{x}_n^{}=\pi (x_n^{})U`$.q.e.d. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proposition 7. The norm $`||.||`$ is $`(C_1,C_2+C_3)`$-lipschitz equivalent to $`D_0`$ and $`(C_1^2,C_2^{})`$-lipschitz equivalent to $`D`$.

Proof of proposition 7. We have for $`x\overline{x}_0`$, $`y\overline{y}_0`$,

$$C_1^1d_0(x,y)(C_2+C_3)\delta _0(x,y)=\delta _0(x_0,y_0)=\overline{x}_0\overline{y}_0C_1d_0(x,y)+(C_2+C_3).$$

Now letting $`x`$ and $`y`$ run over $`\overline{x}_0`$ and $`\overline{y}_0`$ respectively, and using the definition of $`D`$ we have the result. Same proof for $`D_0`$.$`\mathrm{}`$

2) Proof of theorem 3.

The conditions are necessary.

We assume that $`d`$ is asymptotically isometric to a norm $`||.||`$. Let $`C_1>1`$. Then $`C_1^{1/2}>1`$ and there exists $`C_00`$ such that for $`x,yE`$,

$$C_1^{1/2}xyC_0d(x,y)C_1^{1/2}xy+C_0.$$

Then for any $`\lambda K`$ we have,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill d(\lambda x,\lambda y)C_1^{1/2}\lambda x\lambda y+C_0& =C_1^{1/2}|\lambda |xy+C_0\hfill \\ & C_1^{1/2}|\lambda |\left(C_1^{1/2}d(x,y)+C_1^{1/2}C_0\right)+C_0\hfill \\ & C_1|\lambda |d(x,y)+C_1C_0|\lambda |+C_0\hfill \end{array}$$

The reverse inequality is proved in the same way and $`d`$ is asymptotically multiplicative. Also for $`x_1,\mathrm{}x_n,y_1,\mathrm{},y_nE`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill d(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_i,\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}y_i)& C_1^{1/2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_i\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}y_i+C_0\hfill \\ & C_1^{1/2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_iy_i+C_0\hfill \\ & C_1\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}d(x_i,y_i)+nC_1C_0+C_0\hfill \\ & C_1\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}d(x_i,y_i)+n(2C_1C_0)\hfill \end{array}$$

thus the condition in theorem 2 is necessary.

The conditions are sufficient.

We construct the norm by the same strategy as in theorem 1. We need a refinement on the lemma on sub-additive sequences.

Lemma 7. Let $`(a_n)_{n0}`$ be a sequence of real numbers satisfying the following weak sub-additive property: For any $`C_1>1`$ there exists $`C_00`$ such that for any $`q2`$ and any $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_q0`$,

$$a_{m_1+\mathrm{}+m_q}C_1\underset{i=1}{\overset{q}{}}a_{m_i}+qC_0.$$

Then

$$\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\frac{1}{n}a_n=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{n}a_n.$$

Proof. Fix for the moment $`C_1>1`$. Choose $`n1`$. For any $`m0`$ we can consider the euclidian division $`m=nq+r`$, with $`0r<n`$. We have

$$a_m=a_{nq+r}C_1(qa_n+a_r)+(q+1)C_0.$$

Dividing by $`m`$ and taking the least upper bound for $`m+\mathrm{}`$ ($`q+\mathrm{}`$) we have

$$\underset{m+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{m}a_mC_1\frac{1}{n}a_n+\frac{C_0}{n}.$$

Now taking the greater lower bound for $`n+\mathrm{}`$ we get

$$\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{n}a_nC_1\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\frac{1}{n}a_n.$$

Since this holds for any $`C_1>1`$ the lemma follows.$`\mathrm{}`$

It is simple to check that we have the same lemma as lemma 2 for theorem 1:

Lemma 8. We assume the hypothesis of theorem 2. We define

$$d_0(x,y)=_𝐔d(ux,uy)𝑑\mu (u).$$

Then $`d_0`$ is a distance assymptotically equivalent to $`d`$ and satisfying the hypothesis of theorem 3.

Now we have:

Proposition 8. For any $`x,yE`$, the limit

$$\delta (x,y)=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}d_0(nx,ny)$$

exists.

Proof. The sequence

$$a_n=d_0(nx,ny)$$

is weakly sub-additive:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_{m_1+\mathrm{}+m_q}=& d_0((m_1+\mathrm{}+m_q)x,(m_1+\mathrm{}+m_q)y)\hfill \\ & =d_0(m_1x+\mathrm{}+m_qx,m_1y+\mathrm{}+m_qy)\hfill \\ & C_1\underset{i=1}{\overset{q}{}}a_{m_i}+qC_0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Moreover $`a_n/n`$ is bounded:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_n=d(nx,ny)& =d(x+\mathrm{}+x,y+\mathrm{}+y)\hfill \\ & C_1\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}d(x,y)+nC_0\hfill \\ & =C_1nd(x,y)+nC_0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus

$$\frac{a_n}{n}C_1d(x,y)+C_0.$$

The result follows from lemma 7.$`\mathrm{}`$

Proposition 9. For $`x,yE`$ we define

$$\delta _0(x,y)=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}d_0(nx,ny).$$

Then $`\delta _0`$ is translation invariant. If we define

$$xy=\delta _0(x,y)$$

then $`||.||`$ is a norm that is asymptotically isometric to $`d_0`$, so also to $`d`$.

Proof. We prove the translation invariance. The rest follows the same lines as the proof of proposition 2. Let $`x,y,zE`$. For any $`C_1>1`$, there exists $`C_00`$ such that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill d_0(n(x+z),n(y+z))& =d_0(nx+nz,ny+nz)\hfill \\ & C_1d_0(nx,ny)+C_1d_0(nz,nz)+2C_0\hfill \\ & =C_1d(nx,ny)+2C_0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Now dividing by $`n`$ and passing to the limit $`n+\mathrm{}`$, we get, for any $`C_1>1`$,

$$\delta _0(x+z,y+z)C_1\delta _0(x,y).$$

Therefore making $`C_11`$, for all $`x,y,zE`$,

$$\delta _0(x+z,y+z)\delta _0(x,y).$$

Replacing $`x`$ by $`x+z`$, $`y`$ by $`y+z`$ and $`z`$ by $`z`$, we get the opposite inequality, and the translation invariance.$`\mathrm{}`$

This finishes the proof of theorem 3.

Theorem 3 implies Theorem 1.

Let $`(E,d)`$ be asymptotically isometric to an AMN vector space. Therefore $`d`$ is unbounded in non-trivial subspaces and we have seen that it satisfies the other hypothesis of theorem 3. Thus $`d`$ is asymptotically isometric to a norm of $`E`$.

REFERENCES

\[GH\] E. GHYS, P. DE LA HARPE, Sur les groupes hyperboliques d’après M. Gromov, Progress in Mathematics, 83, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1990.

\[Gr\] M. GROMOV, Hyperbolic groups, ”Essays in group theory”, G. Gernsten editor, Mth. Sci. Res. Inst. Pub., Springer, 1987, p. 75-263.

\[Mu\] E. MUÑOZ GARCIA, Hölder absolute values are equivalent to classical ones, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 127, 1999, p. 1967-1971.

\[Sch\] H.H. SCHAEFER, Topological Vector Spaces, Graduate texts in Mathematics, 3, Springer-Verlag, 1970.

\[We\] A. WEIL, Introduction to number theory, Springer-Verlag.