text:
# Halo Substructure and the Power Spectrum

## 1 Introduction

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{CDM}`$ model of a flat Universe dominated by cold, collisionless dark matter (CDM), and a cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) has emerged as the standard framework for the growth of cosmic structure. With $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}0.3`$, $`h0.7`$, and a nearly scale-invariant primordial spectrum of adiabatic density perturbations ($`P(k)k^n`$, $`n1`$), $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{CDM}`$ is remarkably successful at reproducing large scale observations. In contrast, this paradigm faces several challenges on galactic and sub-galactic scales SAT ; CD . In Zentner & Bullock ZB  (ZB), we emphasized that inflation does not predict exactly scale-invariant (i.e., $`n=1`$) primordial spectra. Many models of inflation predict “tilted” spectra ($`n1`$), spectral index “running” ($`\text{d}n/\text{d}\mathrm{ln}k0`$), or other deviations from scale-invariance that have dramatic consequences on small scales. We showed that spectra with tilts of $`n0.9`$ and/or running and fixed by COBE on large scales can greatly reduce the predicted central densities of dark matter halos, alleviating the “central density problem” plaguing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM. Further, the neighborhood of $`\sigma _80.75`$ implied by these tilts is provocatively close to many recent estimates of “low” $`\sigma _8`$ values SIG8 .

In this proceeding, we report on results from follow-up work to ZB. We study the dependence of CDM halo substructure on the primordial power spectrum (PPS). Our models of the PPS are the same as those in ZB. We COBE normalize all spectra and we assume a cosmological model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h^2=0.02`$, and $`h=0.72`$. The important characteristics of each input spectrum are summarized in Table 1. Numerical simulations cannot have both the resolution and the statistics needed to study substructure so we model substructure semi-analytically using host halo merger histories EPS  and a scheme for approximating subhalo orbits and tidal mass loss. Our model expands on previous work by Bullock et al. BKW  and Taylor and Babul TB . We calibrated our model against available data from N-body simulations; nevertheless, our results must be regarded as preliminary estimates to be verified by extensive N-body work. We present results based on 100 merger tree realizations. We give a detailed description of our model and further results in a forthcoming paper ZB2 .

## 2 Substructure Mass Fractions

Efforts have been made to use flux ratios in multiply-imaged quasars to detect substructure in galactic halos and to use these measurements to constrain cosmology. In particular, Dalal and Kochanek DK  (DK) considered bounds on the PPS. As such, it is important to understand the theoretical predictions for halo substructure as a function of the PPS and, more generally, substructure distributions and characteristics as a function of cosmology.

Our results on the substructure mass fraction and the PPS are summarized in Figure 1. DK took a typical lens mass of $`3\times 10^{12}`$ M and the lenses in their sample have a median redshift of $`z_{\mathrm{}}0.6`$, so we present results for a $`3\times 10^{12}`$ M halo at $`z=0.6`$; however, our results do not change appreciably as a function of mass or redshift. Lensing measurements are sensitive to the mass fraction in substructure projected onto the plane of the lens at a halo-centric distance of order the Einstein radius, $`R_\mathrm{E}5`$ kpc. Consequently, we show in Fig. 1 the mass fraction in substructure for the entire halo and the mass fraction in substructure in a 2D projection of radius $`R=10`$ kpc.

Notice that the substructure mass fraction is not a strong function of tilt and/or running. In tilted models, host halos are less concentrated and accrete their substructure later, and this compensates for the fact that the substructures are more fragile, and more easily destroyed by tides. It will be difficult to use substructure measurements to constrain these parameters. Only the BSI model, with a sharp drop in power at $`10^{10}`$ M, shows deviation from the $`n=1`$ model that is significant compared to the scatter. It may be possible to constrain models with such an abrupt break (e.g., warm dark matter). DK found the halo mass fraction bound up in substructures of mass $`M_{\mathrm{sat}}\stackrel{<}{}10^9`$ M to be $`0.006\stackrel{<}{}f_{\mathrm{sat}}\stackrel{<}{}0.07`$. All of our models are consistent with this bound, but the truncated model is just at the edge of the allowed region.

## 3 The Dwarf Satellites

The “dwarf satellite problem”, namely that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{CDM}`$ predicts roughly an order of magnitude more halos with $`V_{\mathrm{max}}\stackrel{<}{}40`$ km s<sup>-1</sup> than observed Milky Way (MW) satellites, is an often-discussed challenge to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{CDM}`$ SAT . Stoehr et al. S02  (S02) and Hayashi et al. H02  (HO2) proposed that substructure halos may be significantly less concentrated than comparable field halos due to tidal effects. This implies that the values of $`V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ that correspond to the observed central velocity dispersions, $`\sigma _{}`$, of the MW satellites are larger than the values inferred by other authors. One must be cautious. Mass redistribution in subhalos is quite sensitive to the mass resolution of the simulation (S02) and the velocity function (VF) of satellite halos is sensitive to the initial concentrations and accretion times of substructure (H02). Our semi-analytic model represents one extreme; we do not allow for redistribution of mass within a subhalo’s tidal limit. Using our model, we can also quantify the cosmology dependence of the mapping between $`\sigma _{}`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{max}}`$. We have assumed that CDM halos can be well described by NFW NFW  profiles with a particular $`V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{max}}`$ (the radius at which $`V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is attained) and calculated all combinations of $`V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{max}}`$ that lead to the observed values of $`\sigma _{}`$ for each of the MW satellites. We have assumed that the stars have isotropic dispersion tensors and that the stellar distributions are given by King profiles KING  with parameters given by Mateo MATEO .

Results for Carina are shown in Figure 2, along with a scatter plot of $`V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ vs. $`R_{\mathrm{max}}`$ for the surviving satellites in 10 realizations of a $`M_{\mathrm{host}}=1.4\times 10^{12}`$ M host halo at $`z=0`$ for the $`n=1`$ and RM I models. This plot shows how allowing for less concentrated halos helps to alleviate the dwarf satellite problem. Less concentrated halos (larger $`R_{\mathrm{max}}`$) require a larger $`V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ because the outer stellar radius of Carina is much smaller than the radius at which the halo’s rotation curve peaks. Larger halos are intrinsically scarcer objects, helping to explain the paucity of dwarf satellites. Feedback mechanisms (e.g., BKW ) then explain the dearth of smaller halos. Figure 2 also demonstrates that the mapping between $`\sigma _{}`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is dependent upon cosmology, in particular the PPS, and so the same observational data imply a cosmology dependent “observed” VF. Our estimates for dwarf velocities in the $`n=1`$ case compare well to the estimates made by Klypin and collaborators SAT .

In the right panel of Fig. 2 we present the predicted VFs along with separate “observed” velocity functions for the $`n=1`$ and RM I models. The RM I VF is a factor of $`2`$ lower than the $`n=1`$ VF mainly because typical halos are less concentrated in this model, so that $`V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is lower at a given mass. Also notice that the “observed” VF is shifted significantly higher at high $`V_{\mathrm{max}}`$. This suggests that significantly tilted power spectra $`n\stackrel{<}{}0.85`$ may underpredict the number of MW satellites at high $`V_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Moreover, subhalos are likely less centrally concentrated than field halos (as suggested by S02 and H02), and this serves to make the underprediction more pronounced. However, we recommend circumspection. Our results concerning VFs are sensitive to several assumptions such as the isotropy of the dispersion tensor.


format: text

text:
# A Gel’fond type criterion in degree two

## 1. Introduction

Let $`\xi `$ be any real number and let $`n`$ be a positive integer. Defining the height $`H(P)`$ of a polynomial $`P`$ as the largest absolute value of its coefficients, an application of Dirichlet box principle shows that, for any real number $`X1`$, there exists a non-zero polynomial $`P[T]`$ of degree at most $`n`$ and height at most $`X`$ which satisfies

$$|P(\xi )|cX^n$$

for some suitable constant $`c>0`$ depending only on $`\xi `$ and $`n`$. Conversely, Gel’fond’s criterion implies that there are constants $`\tau =\tau (n)`$ and $`c=c(\xi ,n)>0`$ with the property that if, for any real number $`X1`$, there exists a non-zero polynomial $`P[T]`$ with

$$\mathrm{deg}(P)n,H(P)X\text{and}|P(\xi )|cX^\tau $$

then $`\xi `$ is algebraic over $``$ of degree at most $`n`$. For example, Brownawell’s version of Gel’fond’s criterion in  implies that the above statement holds with any $`\tau >3n`$, and the more specific version proved by Davenport and Schmidt as Theorem 2b of  shows that it holds with $`\tau =2n1`$. On the other hand, the above application of Dirichlet box principle implies $`\tau n`$. So, if we denote by $`\tau _n`$ the infimum of all admissible values of $`\tau `$ for a fixed $`n1`$, then we have $`\tau _1=1`$ and, in general

$$n\tau _n2n1.$$

In the case of degree $`n=2`$, the study of a specific class of transcendental real numbers in  provides the sharper lower bound $`\tau _2\gamma ^2`$ where $`\gamma =(1+\sqrt{5})/2`$ denotes the golden ratio (see Theorem 1.2 of ). Our main result below shows that we in fact have $`\tau _2=\gamma ^2`$ by establishing the reverse inequality $`\tau _2\gamma ^2`$:

###### Theorem.

Let $`\xi `$. Assume that for any sufficiently large positive real number $`X`$ there exists a non-zero polynomial $`P[T]`$ of degree at most $`2`$ and height at most $`X`$ such that

(1)
$$|P(\xi )|\frac{1}{4}X^{\gamma ^2}.$$

Then $`\xi `$ is algebraic over $``$ of degree at most $`2`$.

Comparing this statement with Theorem 1.2 of , we see that it is optimal up to the value of the multiplicative constant $`1/4`$ in (1). Although we do not know the best possible value for this constant, our argument will show that it can be replaced by any real number $`c`$ with $`0<c<c_0=(62^{\frac{1}{\gamma }})^{\frac{1}{\gamma }}0.253`$. As the reader will note, our proof, given in Section 3 below, has the same general structure as the proof of the main result of  and the proof of Theorem 1a of .

Following the method of Davenport and Schmidt in  combined with ideas from  and , we deduce the following result of simultaneous approximation of a real number by conjugate algebraic numbers:

###### Corollary.

Let $`\xi `$ be a real number which is not algebraic over $``$ of degree at most $`2`$. Then, there are arbitrarily large real numbers $`Y1`$ for which there exist an irreducible monic polynomial $`P[T]`$ of degree $`3`$ and an irreducible polynomial $`Q[T]`$ of degree 2, both of which have height at most $`Y`$ and admit at least two distinct real roots whose distance to $`\xi `$ is at most $`cY^{(3\gamma )/2}`$, with a constant $`c`$ depending only on $`\xi `$.

The proof of this corollary is postponed to Section 4 below.

## 2. Preliminaries

We collect here several lemmas which we will need in the proof of the theorem. The first one is a special case of the well-known Gel’fond’s lemma for which we computed the optimal values of the constants.

###### Lemma 1.

Let $`L,M[T]`$ be polynomials of degree at most $`1`$. Then we have

$$\frac{1}{\gamma }H(L)H(M)H(LM)2H(L)H(M).$$

The second result is an estimate for the resultant of two polynomials of small degree.

###### Lemma 2.

Let $`m,n\{1,2\}`$, and let $`P`$ and $`Q`$ be non-zero polynomials in $`[T]`$ with $`\mathrm{deg}(P)m`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}(Q)n`$. Then, for any complex number $`\xi `$, we have

$$|\mathrm{Res}(P,Q)|H(P)^nH(Q)^m\left(c(m,n)\frac{|P(\xi )|}{H(P)}+c(n,m)\frac{|Q(\xi )|}{H(Q)}\right)$$

where $`c(1,1)=1`$, $`c(1,2)=3`$, $`c(2,1)=1`$ and $`c(2,2)=6`$.

The proof of the above statement is easily reduced to the case where $`\mathrm{deg}(P)=m`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}(Q)=n`$. The conclusion then follows by writing $`\mathrm{Res}(P,Q)`$ as a Sylvester’s determinant and by arguing as Brownawell in the proof of lemma 1 of  to estimate this determinant.

The third lemma may be viewed, for example, as a special case of Lemma 13 of .

###### Lemma 3.

Let $`P,Q[T]`$ be non-zero polynomials of degree at most $`2`$ with greatest common divisor $`L[T]`$ of degree $`1`$. Then, for any complex number $`\xi `$, we have

$$H(L)|L(\xi )|\gamma \left(H(P)|Q(\xi )|+H(Q)|P(\xi )|\right).$$

###### Proof.

The quotients $`P/L`$ and $`Q/L`$ being relatively prime polynomials of $`[T]`$, their resultant is a non-zero integer. Applying Lemma 2 with $`m=n=1`$ and using Lemma 1, we then deduce, if $`L(\xi )0`$,

$`1|\mathrm{Res}(P/L,Q/L)|`$ $``$ $`H(P/L)\left|(Q/L)(\xi )\right|+H(Q/L)\left|(P/L)(\xi )\right|`$
$``$ $`\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{H(P)}{H(L)}}{\displaystyle \frac{|Q(\xi )|}{|L(\xi )|}}+\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{H(Q)}{H(L)}}{\displaystyle \frac{|P(\xi )|}{|L(\xi )|}}.`$
###### Lemma 4.

Let $`\xi `$ and let $`P,Q,R[T]`$ be arbitrary polynomials of degree at most $`2`$. Then, writing the coefficients of these polynomials as rows of a $`3\times 3`$ matrix, we have

$$|det(P,Q,R)|2H(P)H(Q)H(R)\left(\frac{|P(\xi )|}{H(P)}+\frac{|Q(\xi )|}{H(Q)}+\frac{|R(\xi )|}{H(R)}\right)$$

This above statement follows simply by observing, as in the proof of Lemma 4 of , that the determinant of the matrix does not change if, in this matrix, we replace the constant coefficients of $`P`$, $`Q`$ and $`R`$ by the values of these polynomials at $`\xi `$.

We also construct a sequence of “minimal polynomials” similarly as it is done in §3 of :

###### Lemma 5.

Let $`\xi `$ with $`[(\xi ):]>2`$. Then there exists a strictly increasing sequence of positive integers $`(X_i)_{i1}`$ and a sequence of non-zero polynomials $`(P_i)_{i1}`$ in $`[T]`$ of degree at most $`2`$ such that, for each $`i1`$, we have:

* $`H(P_i)=X_i`$,
* $`|P_{i+1}(\xi )|<|P_i(\xi )|`$,
* $`|P_i(\xi )||P(\xi )|`$ for all $`P[T]`$ with $`deg(P)2`$ and $`0<H(P)<X_{i+1}`$,
* $`P_i`$ and $`P_{i+1}`$ are linearly independent over $``$.

###### Proof.

For each positive integer $`X`$, define $`p_X`$ to be the smallest value of $`|P(\xi )|`$ where $`P[T]`$ is a non-zero polynomial of degree $`2`$ and height $`X`$. This defines a non-decreasing sequence $`p_1p_2p_3\mathrm{}`$ of positive real numbers converging to $`0`$. Consider the sequence $`X_1<X_2<\mathrm{}`$ of indices $`X2`$ for which $`p_{X1}>p_X`$. For each $`i1`$, there exists a polynomial $`P_i[T]`$ of degree $`2`$ and height $`X_i`$ with $`|P_i(\xi )|=p_i`$. The sequences $`(X_i)_{i1}`$ and $`(P_i)_{i1}`$ clearly satisfy the first three conditions. The last condition follows from the fact that the polynomials $`P_i`$ are primitive of distinct height. ∎

###### Lemma 6.

Assume, in the notation of Lemma 5, that

$$\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim}X_{i+1}|P_i(\xi )|=0.$$

Then there exist infinitely many indices $`i2`$ for which $`P_{i1}`$, $`P_i`$ and $`P_{i+1}`$ are linearly independent over $``$.

###### Proof.

Assume on the contrary that $`P_{i1},P_i`$ and $`P_{i+1}`$ are linearly dependent over $``$ for all $`ii_0`$. Then the subspace $`V`$ of $`[T]`$ generated by $`P_{i1}`$ and $`P_i`$ is independent of $`i`$ for $`ii_0`$. Let $`\{P,Q\}`$ be a basis of $`V^3`$. Then, for each $`ii_0`$, we can write

$$P_i=a_iP+b_iQ$$

for some integers $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$ of absolute value at most $`cX_i`$, with a constant $`c>0`$ depending only on $`P`$ and $`Q`$. Since $`P_i`$ and $`P_{i+1}`$ are linearly independent, we get

$$1\begin{array}{cc}a_i& b_i\\ a_{i+1}& b_{i+1}\end{array}=\frac{|a_iP_{i+1}(\xi )a_{i+1}P_i(\xi )|}{|Q(\xi )|}\frac{2c}{|Q(\xi )|}X_{i+1}|P_i(\xi )|$$

in contradiction with the hypothesis as we let $`i`$ tend to infinity. ∎

## 3. Proof of the theorem

Let $`c`$ be a positive real number and let $`\xi `$ be a complex number with $`[(\xi ):]>2`$. Assume that, for any sufficiently large real number $`X`$, there exists a non-zero polynomial $`P[T]`$ of degree $`2`$ and height $`X`$ with $`|P(\xi )|cX^{\gamma ^2}`$. We will show that these conditions imply $`cc_0=(62^{1/\gamma })^{1/\gamma }>1/4`$, thereby proving the theorem.

Let $`c_1`$ be an arbitrary real number with $`c_1>c`$. By virtue of our hypotheses, the sequences $`(X_i)_{i1}`$ and $`(P_i)_{i1}`$ given by Lemma 5 satisfy

$$|P_i(\xi )|cX_{i+1}^{\gamma ^2}$$

for any sufficiently large $`i`$. Then, by Lemma 6, there exists infinitely many $`i`$ such that $`P_{i1}`$, $`P_i`$ and $`P_{i+1}`$ are linearly independent. For such an index $`i`$, the determinant of these three polynomials is a non-zero integer and, applying Lemma 4, we deduce

$`1|det(P_{i1},P_i,P_{i+1})|`$ $``$ $`2X_{i1}X_iX_{i+1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|P_{i1}(\xi )|}{X_{i1}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{|P_i(\xi )|}{X_i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{|P_{i+1}(\xi )|}{X_{i+1}}}\right)`$
$``$ $`2cX_i^\gamma X_{i+1}+4cX_{i+1}^{1\gamma }.`$
Assuming that $`i`$ is sufficiently large, this implies

(2)
$$X_i^\gamma 2c_1X_{i+1}.$$

Suppose first that $`P_i`$ and $`P_{i+1}`$ are not relatively prime. Then, their greatest common divisor is an irreducible polynomial $`L[T]`$ of degree $`1`$, and Lemma 3 gives

(3)
$$H(L)|L(\xi )|\gamma \left(X_i|P_{i+1}(\xi )|+X_{i+1}|P_i(\xi )|\right)2\gamma cX_{i+1}^\gamma .$$

Since $`P_{i1}`$, $`P_i`$ and $`P_{i+1}`$ are linearly independent, the polynomial $`L`$ does not divide $`P_{i1}`$ and so the resultant of $`P_{i1}`$ and $`L`$ is a non-zero integer. Applying Lemma 2 then gives

$`1|\mathrm{Res}(P_{i1},L)|`$ $``$ $`H(P_{i1})H(L)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{|P_{i1}(\xi )|}{H(P_{i1})}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{|L(\xi )|}{H(L)}}\right)`$
$``$ $`cX_i^{\gamma ^2}H(L)^2+3X_{i1}H(L)|L(\xi )|.`$
Combining this with (3) and with the estimate $`H(L)\gamma H(P_i)\gamma X_i`$ coming from Lemma 1, we conclude that, in this case, the index $`i`$ is bounded.

Thus, assuming that $`i`$ is sufficiently large, the polynomials $`P_i`$ and $`P_{i+1}`$ are relatively prime and therefore their resultant is a non-zero integer. Using Lemma 2 we then find

$$1|\mathrm{Res}(P_i,P_{i+1})|6X_iX_{i+1}\left(cX_iX_{i+2}^{\gamma ^2}+cX_{i+1}^\gamma \right)6c_1X_iX_{i+1}^{1\gamma }$$

since from (2), we have $`cX_i(c_1c)X_{i+1}`$ for large $`i`$. Using (2) again, this implies

$$16c_1(2c_1)^{1/\gamma }$$

and thus, $`c_1c_0=(62^{1/\gamma })^{1/\gamma }`$. The choice of $`c_1>c`$ being arbitrary, this shows that $`cc_0`$ as announced.

## 4. Proof of the corollary

Let $`\xi `$ be as in the statement of the corollary and let $`V`$ denote the real vector space of polynomials of degree at most $`2`$ in $`[T]`$. It follows from the theorem that there exist arbitrarily large real numbers $`X`$ for which the convex body $`𝒞(X)`$ of $`V`$ defined by

$$𝒞(X)=\{PV;|P(\xi )|(1/4)X^{\gamma ^2},|P^{}(\xi )|c_1X\text{and}|P^{\prime \prime }(\xi )|c_1X\}$$

with $`c_1=(1+|\xi |)^2`$ contains no non-zero integral polynomial. By Proposition 3.5 of  (a version of Mahler’s theorem on polar reciprocal bodies), this implies that there exists a constant $`c_2>1`$ such that, for the same values of $`X`$, the convex body

$$𝒞^{}(X)=\{PV;|P(\xi )|c_2X^1,|P^{}(\xi )|c_2X^1\text{and}|P^{\prime \prime }(\xi )|c_2X^{\gamma ^2}\}$$

contains a basis of the lattice of integral polynomials in $`V`$.

Fix such an $`X`$ with $`X1`$, and let $`\{P_1,P_2,P_3\}𝒞^{}(X)`$ be a basis of $`V[T]`$. We now argue as in the proof of Proposition 9.1 of . We put

$$B(T)=T^21,r=X^{(1+\gamma ^2)/2}\text{and}s=20c_2X^1,$$

and observe that any polynomial $`SV`$ with $`H(SB)<1/3`$ admits at least two real roots in the interval $`[2,2]`$ as such a polynomial takes positive values at $`\pm 2`$ and a negative value at $`0`$. We also note that, since $`P_i𝒞^{}(X)`$, we have

$$H(P_i(rT+\xi ))c_2X^1,(i=1,2,3).$$

Since $`\{P_1,P_2,P_3\}`$ is a basis of $`V`$ over $``$, we may write

$$(T\xi )^3+sB\left(\frac{T\xi }{r}\right)=T^3+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\theta _iP_i(T)\text{and}sB\left(\frac{T\xi }{r}\right)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\eta _iP_i(T)$$

for some real numbers $`\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3`$ and $`\eta _1,\eta _2,\eta _3`$. For $`i=1,2,3`$, choose integers $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$ with $`|a_i\theta _i|2`$ and $`|b_i\eta _i|2`$ so that the polynomials

$$P(T)=T^3+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}a_iP_i(T)\text{and}Q(T)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}b_iP_i(T)$$

are respectively congruent to $`T^3+2`$ and $`T^2+2`$ modulo $`4`$. Then, by Eisenstein’s criterion, $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are irreducible polynomials of $`[T]`$. Moreover, we find

$`H\left(s^1P(rT+\xi )B(T)\right)`$ $`=`$ $`s^1H\left((rT)^3+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(a_i\theta _i)P_i(rT+\xi )\right)`$
$``$ $`s^1\mathrm{max}\{r^3,6c_2X^1\}`$
$`<`$ $`1/3.`$
Then, $`P(rT+\xi )`$ has at least two distinct real roots in the interval $`[2,2]`$ and so $`P`$ has at least two real roots whose distance to $`\xi `$ are at most $`2r`$. A similar but simpler computation shows that the same is true of the polynomial $`Q`$. Finally, the above estimate implies $`H(P(rT+\xi ))4s/3`$ and so $`H(P)c_3X^{\gamma ^2}`$ for some constant $`c_3>0`$, and the same for $`Q`$. These polynomials thus satisfy the conclusion of the corollary with $`Y=c_3X^{\gamma ^2}`$ and an appropriate choice of $`c`$.


text:
# New Limits on Neutrino Magnetic Moments from the Kuo-Sheng Reactor Neutrino Experiment

Corresponding Author: \] htwong@phys.sinica.edu.tw

TEXONO Collaboration

## Abstract

A laboratory has been set up at the Kuo-Sheng Nuclear Power Station at a distance of 28 m from the 2.9 GW reactor core to study low energy neutrino physics. A detector threshold of 5 keV and a background level of 1 $`\mathrm{kg}^1\mathrm{keV}^1\mathrm{day}^1`$ at 12-60 keV was achieved with a high purity germanium detector of mass 1.06 kg surrounded by anti-Compton detectors with NaI(Tl) and CsI(Tl) crystal scintillators. Using 4712 and 1250 hours of Reactor ON and OFF data, respectively, limits of the neutrino magnetic moment of $`\mu _{\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}}}<1.3(1.0)\times 10^{10}\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ at 90(68)% confidence level were derived. Indirect bounds of the $`\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}}`$ radiative lifetime of $`\mathrm{m}_\nu ^3\tau _\nu >2.8(4.8)\times 10^{18}\mathrm{eV}^3\mathrm{s}`$ can be inferred.

preprint: AS-TEXONO/02-07

The strong evidence of neutrino oscillations from the solar and atmospheric neutrino measurements implies finite neutrino masses and mixings pdg ; nu02 . Their physical origin and experimental consequences are not fully understood. Experimental studies on the neutrino properties and interactions can shed light to these fundamental questions and/or constrain theoretical models. The coupling of neutrinos with the photons are consequences of non-zero neutrino masses. Two of the manifestations of the finite electromagnetic form factors vogelengel  are neutrino magnetic moments and radiative decays. In this paper, we report new limits on these parameters from data of a reactor neutrino experiment taken at a lower energy range than previous measurements.

The searches of neutrino magnetic moments are performed in experiments on neutrino-electron scatterings kaiser : $`\nu _{l_\mathit{1}}+\mathrm{e}^{}\nu _{l_\mathit{2}}+\mathrm{e}^{}.`$ Both diagonal and transition moments are allowed, corresponding to the cases where $`l_1=l_2`$ and $`l_1l_2`$, respectively. The experimental observable is the kinetic energy of the recoil electrons (T). The differential cross section for the magnetic scattering (MS) channel is given by vogelengel :

$$(\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma }{\mathrm{dT}})_{\mathrm{MS}}=\frac{\pi \alpha _{\mathrm{em}}^2\mu _{l}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{e}^2}[\frac{1\mathrm{T}/\mathrm{E}_\nu }{\mathrm{T}}]$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{E}_\nu `$ is the neutrino energy. The neutrino magnetic moment ($`\mu _l`$), often expressed in units of the Bohr magneton($`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$), has an 1/T dependence and dominates at low electron recoil energy over the Standard Model (SM) process. The quantity $`\mu _l`$ is an effective parameter which, in the case of $`\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}}`$, can be expressed as beacom : $`\mu _{\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=_\mathrm{j}\left|_\mathrm{k}\mathrm{U}_{\mathrm{ek}}\mu _{\mathrm{jk}}\right|^2`$ where U is the mixing matrix and $`\mu _{\mathrm{jk}}`$ are the fundamental constants that characterize the couplings between the mass eigenstates $`\nu _\mathrm{j}`$ and $`\nu _\mathrm{k}`$ with the electromagnetic field. In this paper, we write $`\mu _{\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}}}=\kappa _\mathrm{e}\times 10^{10}\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ for simplicity. The neutrino-photon couplings probed by $`\nu `$-e scatterings are related to those giving rise to the neutrino radiative decays rdk : $`\nu _\mathrm{j}\nu _\mathrm{k}+\gamma `$ between $`\nu _\mathrm{j}`$ and $`\nu _\mathrm{k}`$. The decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{jk}}`$ is given by by: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{jk}}=[\mu _{\mathrm{jk}}^2(\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{j}^2\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{k}^2)^3]/[4\pi \mathrm{m}_\mathrm{j}^3]`$, where $`\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{i}`$ is the mass of $`\nu _\mathrm{i}`$.

Reactor neutrinos provide a sensitive probe for “laboratory” searches of $`\mu _{\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}}}`$, taking advantages of the high $`\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}}`$ flux, low $`\mathrm{E}_\nu `$ and the better experimental control via the reactor ON/OFF comparison. A finite $`\mu _{\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}}}`$ would manifest itself as excess events in the ON over OFF periods, where the energy spectra have an 1/T profile. Neutrino-electron scatterings were first observed in the pioneering experiment reines  at Savannah River. A revised analysis of the data by Ref vogelengel  with improved input parameters gave a positive signature consistent with the interpretation of a finite $`\mu _{\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}}}`$ at $`\kappa _\mathrm{e}`$=2$``$4. Other results came from the Kurtchatov kurt  and Rovno rovno  experiments which quoted limits of $`\kappa _\mathrm{e}<2.4`$ and $`<1.9`$ at 90% confidence level (CL), respectively. However, many experimental details, in particular the effects due to the uncertainties in the SM “background”, were not discussed. An on-going experiment MUNU munu  is performed at the Bugey reactor using a time projection chamber with CF4 gas. A preliminary result of $`\kappa _\mathrm{e}<1.3`$ (90% CL) was derived, while excess of events below 1 MeV during reactor ON was also reported.

Neutrino flavor conversion induced by resonant or non-resonant spin-flip transitions in the Sun via its transition magnetic moments has been considered to explain the solar neutrino measurements vogelengel , and were recently shown sfpsnunew  to be consistent with the existing data. Alternatively, the measured solar neutrino $`\nu _{}`$-e spectral shape has been used to set limit of $`\kappa _{}<1.5`$ at 90% CL for the “effective” $`\nu _{}`$ magnetic moment beacom  which is in general different from that of a pure $`\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ state derived in reactor experiments. Astrophysical arguments pdg ; vogelengel , placed bounds of $`\kappa _{\mathrm{astro}}<10^210^3`$, but there are model dependence and implicit assumptions on the neutrino properties involved.

Further laboratory experiments to put the current limits on more solid grounds and to improve on the sensitivities are therefore necessary. The Kuo-Sheng (KS) results described in this article are based on data taken with an ultra-low-background high purity germanium detector (HPGe) during the period June 2001 till April 2002. The HPGe is optimal for magnetic moment searches texono ; munuruss  with its low detection threshold, excellent energy resolution, and robust stability. The strategy is to focus on energy $`<`$100 keV lernu  where the SM background are negligible at the $`10^{10}\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ range considered here. A CsI(Tl) scintillating crystal array of mass 46 kg was operating in parallel, and data were taken by a single readout system.

The KS neutrino laboratory texono  is located at a distance of 28 m from the Core #1 of the Kuo-Sheng Power Station in Taiwan. The nominal thermal power output is 2.9 GW. The laboratory is at the ground floor of the reactor building at a depth of 12 m below sea-level and with about 25 m water equivalence of overburden. The primary cosmic ray hadronic components are eliminated while the muon flux is reduced by a factor of 4. The laboratory is equipped with an outer 50-ton shielding structure, consisting of, from outside in, 2.5 cm thick plastic scintillator panels with photo-multipliers (PMTs) readout for cosmic-ray veto (CRV), 15 cm of lead, 5 cm of stainless steel support structures, 25 cm of boron-loaded polyethylene and 5 cm of OFHC copper. The innermost space has a dimension of 100$`\times `$80$`\times `$75 $`\mathrm{cm}^3`$ where both the HPGe and CsI(Tl) detectors and their inner shieldings were placed. Ambient $`\gamma `$-background at the reactor site is about 20 times higher than that of a typical laboratory, predominantly from radioactive dust with 60Co and 54Mn. The dust can get settled on exposed surfaces within hours and is difficult to remove. Some earlier prototype detectors were contaminated by such. Attempts to clean the surfaces on site resulted in higher contaminations. Accordingly, the various detector and inner shielding components were wrapped by plastic sheets during transportation, to be removed on site only prior to installation. Neutron background is the same as that of a typical surface site, with no observable difference between the ON and OFF period.

The HPGe set-up is schematically shown in Figure 1. It is a coaxial germanium detector with an active target mass of 1.06 kg. The lithium-diffused outer electrode is 0.7 mm thick. The end-cap cryostat, also 0.7 mm thick, is made of OFHC copper. Both of these features provide total suppression to ambient $`\gamma `$-background below 60 keV, such that events below this energy are either due to internal activity or ambient MeV-range $`\gamma `$’s via Compton scattering. The HPGe was surrounded by an anti-Compton (AC) detector system made up of two components: (1) a NaI(Tl) well-detector of thickness 5 cm that fit onto the end-cap cryostat, the inner wall of which is also made of OFHC copper, and (2) a 4 cm thick CsI(Tl) detector at the bottom. Both AC detectors were read out by PMTs with low-activity glass. The assembly was surrounded by 3.7 cm of OFHC copper inner shielding. Another 10 cm of lead provided additional shieldings on the side of the liquid nitrogen dewar and pre-amplifier electronics. The inner shieldings and detectors were covered by a plastic bag connected to the exhaust line of the dewar, serving as a purge for the radioactive radon gas.

The electronics and data acquisition (DAQ) systems of KS laboratory have been described elsewhere eledaq . The HPGe pre-amplifier signals were distributed to two spectroscopy amplifiers at the same 4 $`\mu `$s shaping time but with different gain factors. A low threshold on the output provided the on-line trigger, ensuring all the events down to the electronics noise edge of 5 keV were recorded. The amplifier and the PMT signals from the AC detectors were recorded by 20 MHz Flash Analog to Digital Convertor (FADC) modules for a duration of 10 $`\mu `$s and 25 $`\mu `$s before and after the trigger, respectively. The discriminator output of the CRV PMTs were also recorded. A random trigger was provided by an external clock at 0.1 Hz for sampling the pedestals and for accurate measurements of the efficiency factors. The DAQ system remained active for 2 ms after a trigger to record possible time-correlated signatures. The typical data taking rate for the HPGe sub-system was about 1 Hz. The DAQ dead time was about 10-20 ms per event and the typical system live time was 96%.

Scatterings of $`\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}}`$-e inside the Ge target would manifest as “lone-events” uncorrelated with other detector systems. The selection procedures, suppression factors and efficiencies are summarized in Table 2. The AC and CRV cuts suppressed Compton scattering and cosmic-ray induced events. The pulse shape analysis identified background due to electronic noise as well as the delayed “cascade” events. The survival probabilities of the random events along the various stages of the analysis procedures provided accurate measurements of the DAQ dead time and the analysis efficiencies, and allowed corrections to the residual instabilities of the detector hardware. The various residual $`\gamma `$-lines such as that of 40K provided the energy calibration as well as independent consistency checks to the efficiency factors.

The lone-event spectra from for 4712/1250 live time hours of reactor ON/OFF data are displayed in Figure 2a. The relative normalization is known to $`<`$0.2%. A detector threshold of 5 keV and a background of $``$1 keV-1kg-1day-1 above 12 keV were achieved. This is comparable to the typical range in underground Cold Dark Matter experiments. Several lines can be identified: Ga X-rays at 10.37 keV and 73Ge at 66.7 keV from internal cosmic-induced activities, and 234Th at 63.3 keV and 92.6 keV due to residual ambient radioactivity from the $`{}_{}{}^{238}\mathrm{U}`$ series in the vicinity of the target. The ON and OFF spectra differ only in one significant feature. There is a difference in the Ga X-ray peaks, which originates from the long-lived isotopes (68Ge and 71Ge with half-lives of 271 and 11.4 days, respectively) activated by cosmic-rays prior to installation. The time evolution of the peak intensity can be fit to two exponentials consistent with the two known half-lives. A threshold of 12 keV was therefore adopted for physics analysis. This is also above the energy range where corrections due to atomic effects have to be considered.

The reactor neutrino spectrum and its time dependence were evaluated from reactor operation data using the standard prescriptions on $`\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}}`$ from fissions vogelengel  together with a low energy contribution due to neutron capture on $`{}_{}{}^{238}\mathrm{U}`$ rnule . The total flux at the detector is $`5.8\times 10^{12}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, corresponding to a MS event rate of 5.9 $`\mathrm{kg}^1\mathrm{day}^1`$ above 12 keV at $`\kappa _\mathrm{e}=2`$. The uncertainties of the $`\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}}`$ spectrum at low energy are not well studied lernu . We take the reasonable ranges of 5% and 30% to be the systematic errors above and below 2 MeV, respectively.

The electron recoil spectra from SM and MS interactions at $`\mu _{\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}}}=10^{10}\mu _\mathrm{B}`$, denoted by $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ and $`\varphi _{10}^{\mathrm{MS}}`$, respectively, were evaluated from $`\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}}`$ spectrum. The background in the energy range of 12 to 60 keV are due to Compton scatterings of higher energy $`\gamma `$’s. The OFF spectrum was fitted to a 4th-degree polynomial function $`\varphi _{\mathrm{OFF}}`$, and a $`\chi ^2`$/dof of 80/96 was obtained. The function $`\varphi _{\mathrm{OFF}}`$ and its uncertainties were then used as input to the fit of the ON spectrum to $`\varphi _{\mathrm{OFF}}+ϵ(\varphi ^{\mathrm{SM}}+\kappa _{\mathrm{e}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\varphi _{10}^{\mathrm{MS}})`$, where $`ϵ`$ is the analysis efficiency of Table 2. A best-fit value of $`\kappa _{\mathrm{e}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0.41\pm 1.28(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 0.38(\mathrm{sys}.)`$ at $`\chi ^2`$/dof of 48/49 was obtained. The various systematic errors and their contributions to $`\delta (\kappa _{\mathrm{e}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ are summarized in Table 2. Following the unified approach pdg , the limits on the $`\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}}`$ magnetic moment of $`\mu _{\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}}}<1.3(1.0)\times 10^{10}\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ at 90(68)% CL were derived. The residual plot with the ON spectrum over $`\varphi _{\mathrm{OFF}}`$ and the best-fit 2$`\sigma `$ region are depicted in Figure 2b. It has been checked that positive signals with the correct strength and uncertainties can be reconstructed by the procedures from simulated spectra.

Depicted in Figure 3a is the summary of the results in $`\mu _{\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}}}`$ searches with reactor $`\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}}`$ versus the achieved threshold. The dotted lines are the $`\sigma _{\mathrm{MS}}/\sigma _{\mathrm{SM}}`$ ratio at a particular (T,$`\mu _{\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}}}`$). The KS(Ge) experiment operated at a much lower threshold of 12 keV compared to the other efforts. The large $`\sigma _{\mathrm{MS}}/\sigma _{\mathrm{SM}}`$ ratio implies that the KS results are robust against the uncertainties in the SM cross-sections. In particular, in the case where the excess of events reported in Refs. reines  and munu  are due to unaccounted sources of neutrinos, the limits remain valid.

Indirect bounds on the neutrino radiative decay lifetimes are inferred and displayed in Figure 3b for the simplified scenario where a single channel dominates the transition, which corresponds to $`\tau _\nu \mathrm{m}_\nu ^3>2.8(4.8)\times 10^{18}\mathrm{eV}^3\mathrm{s}`$ at 90(68)% CL in the non-degenerate case. Superimposed are the limits from the previous direct searches of excess $`\gamma `$’s from reactor neutrinos rdkdirect  and from the supernova SN1987a rdksn , as well as the sensitivity level of proposed simulated conversion experiments at accelerators simcon . It can be seen that $`\nu `$-e scatterings give much more stringent bounds than the direct approaches.

The KS experiment continues data taking in 2002-03 using HPGe with improved shieldings and 186 kg of CsI(Tl) crystals. Besides improving on the $`\mu _{\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}}}`$ sensitivities, the goals are to perform a measurement of the $`\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}}`$-e cross-section at the MeV range, and to study various standard and anomalous neutrino interactions. A prototype HPGe with sub-keV threshold is being studied.

The authors are grateful to their technical staff for invaluable contributions, and to the CYGNUS Collaboration for the veto scintillator loan. This work was supported by contracts 90-2112-M-001-037 and 91-2112-M-001-036 from the National Science Council, Taiwan, and 19975050 from the National Science Foundation, China. H.B. Li is supported by contracts NSC 90-2112-M002-028 and MOE 89-N-FA01-1-0 under P.W.Y. Hwang.


text:
# PRISTINE DETERMINATION OF THE UNITARITY TRIANGLE USING B → K 𝐷⁰ PROCESSES

## I Introduction & Motivation: why must we target unitarity triangle with “zero” theory error

The two $`B`$-factories have made considerable progress in determining $`\beta `$ by measurement of the time dependent CP asymmetry in $`B^0(\overline{B}^0)\psi K_s`$ and related modes$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. These machines have also been performing remarkably well. Very soon each of them should have $`10^8`$ $`B`$-$`\overline{B}`$ pairs and with improvements in luminosity to $`>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}^{34}`$ cm-2s-1 that are anticipated, $`10^9`$ $`B`$-$`\overline{B}`$ pairs should become accessible in the next few years. In addition, Tevatron experiments CDF/D$`\mathrm{}`$, and hopefully in the not too distant future $`B`$TeV and LHCB should also enable much larger data samples. Furthermore, encouraged by the success of the two B-factories, there is also considerable interest in very high luminosities ($`10^{36}cm^2sec^1`$) facilities, Super-BELLE and Super-BABAR. With these anticipated experimental developments it is not enough that we can determine $`\beta `$ with essentially negligible theory error (actually $`<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\%`$) we must target $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ extraction also with zero theory error$`^\mathrm{?}`$. Indeed extremely accurate determinations of all 3 unitarity angles is not just desirable but may well be an essential prerequisite for a successful search of the effect of any CP-odd phase in B-decays due to physics beyond the Standard Model.

In this regard it is important to realize that although the CP-odd phase in the CKM picture is of $`O(1)`$ and not small and it leads to large asymmetries in $`B`$-physics, it yields very small CP-asymmetries in $`K`$ decays; recall $`ϵ_K10^3`$ and $`ϵ^{}10^6`$ even though $`a_{CP}(B\psi K_s)75\%`$. There are two important repercussions of this realization.

1. Failure of the ($`bd`$) unitarity triangle \[UT\] due to effects of new physics may well be small and subtle. Therefore, residual theory error in the determination of the angles of the UT may mask the effect of new physics and thwart experimental attempts to find them.
2. Search for effect of any BSM phase(s) may well require very large data samples. A model independent estimate is very difficult to make. If the asymmetry due to new physics is of order $`ϵ_K10^3`$, then even with a branching ratio of $`10^3`$ (there are very few relevant $`B`$-decay modes that have branching ratios this big) we may need $`10^{10}`$ $`B`$’s to find such an effect. Efforts at developing the capabilities for large data samples of $`B`$’s in clean environments and/or specialized $`B`$-detectors are therefore very worthwhile.

These considerations lead us to suggest that while attempts at using proposed methods for $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ via $`\pi \pi `$, $`\rho \pi `$, $`K\pi `$ etc. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ should continue, we should realize that the presence of penguin, especially electroweak penguins (EWP), contributions along with the use of flavor symmetries could easily lead to theory errors of 10% or more due to any model dependence and theoretical assumptions that need be invoked. Clearly on both the theory as well as the experimental front methods for determining$`^\mathrm{?}`$ $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ with zero theory error should be vigorously pursued.

Recall that the current measurements of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ agree very well with theoretical expectations; the experimental world average $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta ^{WA}=0.78\pm .08`$$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ is completely consistent with theoretical expectations, $`(\mathrm{sin}2\beta )^{SM}0.70\pm .10`$$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. See Table 1 for a comparison of some theoretical fits. It is important though to realize that this test of the SM has serious limitations. A lot of theoretical input is used in making these fits as they rely heavily on theoretical evaluations of several of the hadronic matrix elements. Improving the accuracy in these calculations is extremely difficult and painfully slow. To underscore this we mention two problems with the theoretical input being used in these fits.

First, even for the highly matured calculation of $`B_K`$ there are some reasons to believe that the JLQCD (quenched) result, $`\widehat{B}_K^{Staggered}=0.860\pm .058`$$`^\mathrm{?}`$, which has been widely used in the past many years, may well be $`1015\%`$ higher than the true value. This expectation is based on results obtained by using the newer discretization, domain wall quarks (DWQ) which has much better chiral-flavor symmetry properties. With DWQ both CP-PACS$`^\mathrm{?}`$ and RBC$`^\mathrm{?}`$ get smaller values; averaging their numbers one gets $`\widehat{B}_K^{DWF}=0.758\pm 0.033`$; (again this is quenched). This is about $`13\%`$ below the older JLQCD result.

Second problem is with the SU(3) breaking ratio, $`\xi `$, which monitors $`B_s`$ versus $`B_d`$ oscillations. The concern with regard to $`\xi `$ that we have been voicing in the past couple of years $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ is that the widely used central value ($`1.15`$) provided by some lattice calculations, is quite likely an underestimate and even more importantly the quoted error on $`\xi `$ of $`0.05`$ appears too low. This worry is based on the observation that most lattice calculations of $`\xi `$ use the “indirect” method in which the matrix element of the 4-quark operator is parmetrized in terms of a B-parameter and the pseudoscalar decay constant. In actual numerical calculations of the decay constant, the usual practice is to fit linearly to the light quark mass ($`m_q`$) dependence. Since the orginal matrix element of interest depends quadratically on the decay constant, this procedure is unlikely to get the right coefficient, for example, of $`m_q^2`$. Infact, these matrix elements can be calculated directly on the lattice$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. There is no need to introduce B-paramerters. Use of the B-parameters in calculating the $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=2`$ mixing matrix elements is purely a historical accident. Recall that originally B-parameters were introduced in such calculations for dealing with the analogous $`K\overline{K}`$ mixing matrix element. There $`f_K`$ was known experimentally and in the phenomenological literature $`B_K`$ was introduced as a measure of deviation of the matrix element for the idealised case of vacuum saturation. For B-mesons, the decay constant is not known from experiment and determining that from theory becomes the central issue. One can equally well directly calculate (on the lattice) the mixing matrix element without introducing decay constant or B-parameters$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. The direct method seems to give largish central value but within (rather large) errors is consistent with the indirect method. To be on the safe side one ought to use both methods with very good control over errors in each case and then an average of the two methods should be used for $`\xi `$.

Meantime, in light of this observation, we $`^\mathrm{?}`$ adopt a conservative attitude and had used $`\xi =1.16\pm 0.08`$ with an error that is considerably bigger compared to Hocker et al. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and Ciuchini et al$`^\mathrm{?}`$; and we have been stressing for quite sometime that their errors are an underestimate$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. We also examined the effect on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ of an increase in $`\xi `$ (including a larger error) along with a decrease in $`B_K`$, following indications from DWQ. (See Table 2 from $`^\mathrm{?}`$). With the size of uncertainties currently present, $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ is hardly effected with $`(\mathrm{sin}2\beta )^{SM}=0.72\pm .10`$ giving us additional confidence in the comparison of the experimental measurements to the predictions of the SM. However, the point still remains that use of theory input has its limitations and we must try hard to develop methods that can yield angles of the unitarity triangle very “cleanly”, i.e. with zero theory error and with no theoretical assumptions.

We emphasize here that final states containing $`D^0`$, $`\overline{D}^0`$ in decays of charged or neutral B’s can be used very effectively to determine all three angles with essentially zero theory error, i.e. $`<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.1}\%`$.

$`B^\pm `$ and $`B^0`$ decays to (e.g.) $`K^\pm `$ $`D^0(\overline{D}^0)`$ and $`K^0/\overline{K}^0`$ $`D^0(\overline{D}^0)`$ respectively involve only decays via two tree graphs ($`bc`$ and $`bu`$), no penguin strong or electroweak are involved. Methods based on these using direct $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and time dependent $`^\mathrm{?}`$ CP respectively can give all three angles with no theory error or theory assumptions. In the case of $`B^\pm K^\pm D^0(\overline{D}^0)`$, the $`D^0(\overline{D}^0)`$ decays must proceed to CP-non-eigenstates. Using only $`D^0,\overline{D}^0`$ decays to CP eigenstates as advocated in $`^\mathrm{?}`$ has the difficulty that the suppressed branching ratio is not accessible to experiment as $`D^0,\overline{D}^0`$ flavor is difficult to tag in these B-decays$`^\mathrm{?}`$. Estimating this branching ratio with the use of theory input or assumptions defeats our original goal of determination of the UT with zero theory error. A second undesirable feature of using only CP-eigenstates of $`D^0`$ is that the resultant CP asymmetry is small $`0`$ (a few %) $`^\mathrm{?}`$; with CPNES method $`^\mathrm{?}`$ the asymmetries are large.

### I.1 $`\gamma `$ with zero theory error

This is a uniquely clean method with no theoretical assumption and involving no penguin contribution, QCD or EW. Interference between two tree graphs, $`bu`$ and $`bc`$ is exploited. Consequently, the limiting theory error is completely negligible. Furthermore, the interference between the amplitudes contributing to common final states of $`D^0,\overline{D}^0`$ that are not CP-eigenstates is large resulting in large direct CP asymmetry $``$ tens of percents which can be studied, in principle, at any $`B`$-facility$`^\mathrm{?}`$. Furthermore, while only two modes are essential for the analysis, many modes are available. Thus discrete ambiguity in determination of $`\gamma `$ can be removed by use of several modes.

As a specific example one may consider $`B^{}K^{}D^0(\overline{D}^0)`$ with $`D^0(\overline{D}^0)K^+\pi ^{}`$ so the overall reaction being studied is just $`B^{}K^{}K^+\pi ^{}`$. It is important to understand that the suppressed branching ratio $`B^{}K^{}\overline{D}^0`$ is not needed and in fact is an output, i.e. is determined in the analysis along with $`\gamma `$. The FS (e.g. $`K^{}K^+\pi ^{}`$) results from interference between two amplitudes one of which is color allowed ($`B^{}K^{}D^0`$) but doubly-Cabibbo-suppressed ($`D^0K^+\pi ^{}`$) whereas the other is color-suppressed ($`B^{}K^{}\overline{D}^0`$) but Cabibbo allowed ($`\overline{D}^0K^+\pi ^{}`$).

$`B^{}`$ and $`B^+`$ decay amplitudes to two such final states (say, e.g. $`B^\pm K^\pm D^0,\overline{D}^0`$ with $`D^0,\overline{D}^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ and $`K^\pm \pi ^{}`$) result in 4 equations and 4 unknowns $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The four unknowns are the 2 strong phases (one for each final state), the CP-odd weak phase $`\gamma `$ that we are after and the branching ratio (denoted by b) of $`B^{}K^{}\overline{D}^0`$ which is extremely difficult to measure experimentally due to severe backgrounds.

One of the advantages of the method is that it can be applied to many modes e.g. $`B^{}K^{},K^{}D^0,(\overline{D}^0)`$ with $`D^0,\overline{D}^0K^+\pi ^{}`$, $`K^+\rho ^{}`$, $`K^+\pi ^{}`$, $`K^+a_1^{}`$, $`K^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ etc. Another important point is that the method allows to include $`D^0,\overline{D}^0`$ decays to CP-eigenstates $`^\mathrm{?}`$ so long as one CP-non-eigenstate is also included. So as a specific example one could use $`D^0,\overline{D}^0K_s^0\pi ^0`$ (i.e. a CPES) with $`D^0,\overline{D}^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ (a CPNES). The point is that once one CPNES is included sufficient number of observables become available to solve for the branching ratio $`B^{}K^{}\overline{D}^0`$ as an output along with $`\gamma `$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

Fig. 1 illustrates use of only two modes, one CPNES ($`K^+\pi ^{}`$) and one CPES ($`K_s^0\pi ^0`$) of $`D^0,\overline{D}^0`$ assuming $`\widehat{N}_B=(`$\# of $`B`$-$`\overline{B}`$ pairs)$`\times `$(acceptance)$`=10^8`$. Solutions to the equations for the two modes intersect in four places in the $`b`$-$`\gamma `$ plane. Regions with 68%, 90% and 99% CL are shown. Multiple solutions are clearly a limitation. Fig. 2 shows the result when several more modes of $`D^0,\overline{D}^0`$ are also combined. Now the improvement over Fig. 1 is significant and $`\gamma `$ with a (1-sigma) accuracy of about $`7^{}`$ is obtained; in this calculation true value of $`\gamma `$ is assumed to be 60 degrees.

### I.2 Extracting $`\beta `$-$`\alpha `$ with zero theory error

The angle $`\delta \beta \alpha +\pi =2\beta +\gamma `$, can be obtained by time dependent $`\overline{)}CP`$ asymmetry measurements in $`B^0,\overline{B}^0K^0D^0(\overline{D}^0)`$. As in the case of $`B^\pm `$ decays to $`K^\pm D^0(\overline{D}^0)`$ only tree graph decays are involved and no penguin, strong or electroweak, enters. Also once again it is simply a matter of writing down a bunch of equations and providing enough experimental information via observables to render the system completely soluble yielding the unitarity angles that we are after. Indeed there is so much redundancy that not only $`\alpha `$ but also $`\beta `$ can be determined in this way providing a valuable comparison against the $`\beta `$ determined from $`B\psi K_s^0`$.

Some aspects of this method have been previously studied by quite a few authors $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. In principle, time-dependent CP asymmetry (TDCPA) measurements in $`B^0(\overline{B}^0)K_sD^0,K_s\overline{D}^0`$ is all that is needed to extract $`\delta `$. However, as in the case of $`B^\pm K^\pm D^0,(\overline{D}^0)`$, the $`D^0,\overline{D}^0`$ flavor tagging is problematic. The resolution of this problem using CP-non-eigenstates of $`D^0,\overline{D}^0`$ (just as in the case of $`B^\pm `$ decays) has been suggested to give information on $`\delta `$ and also possibly on $`\beta `$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

Actually in this case $`D^0(\overline{D}^0)`$ decays to CP eigenstates can also be used. However, if only an exclusive CPES (e.g. $`K_s\pi ^0`$) is used then the number of observables is 3 and the number of unknowns, including $`\delta `$, is 4 so not information is available for a separate solution.

Combining the CPES and CPNES methods seems very effective as the number of unknowns involved for the CPES case are just a subset of those for the CPNES case. If one exclusive CPNES mode (such as $`K^+\pi ^{}`$) and a CPES mode (e.g. $`K_s\pi ^0`$) are used then we get 9 observables for 5 unknowns; if $`\beta `$ is treated as an unknown even then the system of equations is solvable.

Of course several CPNES modes can be included. For each CPNES that is included we have 6 new observables at the expense of only one additional unknown. Many exclusive modes are available e.g. $`K^{}\pi ^+(Br3.8\%)`$, $`K^{}\rho ^+`$ (10.8%), $`K^{}\pi ^+`$ (5.0%), $`K^0\pi ^0`$ (3.1%), $`K^{}\rho ^+`$ (6.1%), and $`K^{}a_1^+`$ (7.1%), for a total of 36%. A nice 4-body mode with all charged track is $`K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ (BR$`>.6\%`$).

In fact a very nice way to solve for $`\delta `$ (and $`\beta `$ simultaneously) is to generalize the above exclusive (CPNES) case to inclusive CPNES via $`D^0K^{}+X`$. Then the Br$`53\%`$; one has 6 observables and 6 unknowns. So it is a solvable system but with discrete ambiguities. A very promising way to overcome the ambiguities is to combine this inclusive CPNES case with a CPES mode.

Fig. 3 illustrates the results of our study of extracting $`\delta `$ via this method. Combining the inclusive CPNES ($`D^0K^{}+X`$) with exclusive CPES seems to do a very good job of eliminating the ambiguities and give $`\delta `$ with an error of $`\pm 2.5^{}`$ (the true value of $`\delta `$ in this case study is $`110^{}`$). (See also Table 3 $`^\mathrm{?}`$.) In this example we have used $`\widehat{N}_B=`$(number of $`B`$-$`\overline{B}`$ mesons) (acceptance)$`=10^9`$.

A very important feature of this method is that you can also use it to solve for $`\beta `$ very cleanly, i.e. no theory assumptions are involved. Infact this method is even cleaner than the $`B\psi K_s^0`$ method as the latter does receive some (although very small) penguin contributions whereas the former has none. However, it is not as efficient as the $`\psi K_s^0`$ method, i.e. more number of B mesons are needed to get similar quantitaive accuracy on $`\beta `$. Fig.4 illustrates how well the method works for determining $`\beta `$. Here the input used is the one given in the 5th row of Table 3. With $`\widehat{N}_B=10^9`$ the one sigma error on $`\beta `$ is around 2 degrees.

Table 4 shows a brief summary for determination of the three angles of the unitarity triangle. It also highlights the limiting theory error of each method. With the large data samples that should become available, it is reasonable to expect that with these $`BK(K^{})D^0`$ methods all three angles could be determined precisely providing an extremely important test of the CKM paradigm. A notable feature of these methods is that in charged or neutral B-decays final states relevant to extracting all three angles cleanly all contain $`D^0`$ or $`\overline{D}^0`$; this should help in improving the experimental efficiency.

Recall that two prominent methods for $`\alpha `$, both using time dependent CP, have been studied for quite some time. The first method $`^\mathrm{?}`$, requires CP asymmetry measurements in $`B^0(\overline{B}^0)\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ as well as BR for $`B^0,\overline{B}^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ and $`B^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^0`$. Although these measurements should enable one to perform an isospin analysis and remove the penguin contribution the value of $`\alpha `$ thus deduced suffers from contamination from electroweak penguin contribution as EWP evade the isospin analysis. To that extent this method for $`\alpha `$ determination has some residual theory error and has to invoke model dependent estimates in the evaluation of the EWP contribution.

The key experimental difficulty in this set of measurements is the $`2\pi ^0`$ mode due to the small branching ratio ($`2\times 10^7`$) that is expected, made harder by the relative low detection efficiency, perhaps also compounded by the fact that the $`\pi ^0`$’s are very energetic giving rise to a small opening angle between the $`\gamma `$-pairs. Presumably, these experimental difficulties will be surmounted as luminosities improve. Already the two groups have made attempts to measure TDCPA in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ which should become quite accurate relatively shortly. However, the interpretation of this in terms of the angle $`\alpha `$ requires important input from theory.

Another important method wherein isospin analysis, can be used is $`B\rho \pi `$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In this approach one can make use of resonance effects in the Dalitz plot; however, some model dependence is likely to occur in handling the continuum of $`B3\pi `$. Once again, EWP are assumed to be negligible and this is also an important source of the limiting theory error in the $`\rho \pi `$ analysis.

Recently we have also proposed two other methods $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ for extracting $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ that use penguin and tree interference effects and therefore are also not completely clean. Table 5 shows a sample of these methods that uses penguin-tree interference along with the very clean methods of Table 4. It is also important to emphasize that $`BKD^0`$ methods require roughly the same number of B’s as the $`\rho \pi `$ or $`\pi \pi `$ methods.

While our emphasis here has been on $`B^+,B^{},B^0,\overline{B}^0`$ mesons, if time dependent oscillation studies in $`B_s,\overline{B}_s`$ become feasible, then a clean way to get $`\gamma `$ may also be accessible via final states of $`D_s^+(D_s^{})K^{}(K^+)`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$, or their vector counterparts $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Experimental feasibilty especially in a hadronic environment of some of these is studied in $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

Let us briefly remark that there is also a very clean way to get the magnitude of the CP-odd CKM phase directly from $`K_L\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$ $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$.

## Acknowledgements

We thank Jean-Marie Frere and Tran Thanh Van for the invitation. This research was supported by the US DOE contract #DE-AC02-98CH10886(BNL) and DE-FG02-94ER40817(ISU).