format: text

text:
# TUM-HEP-484/02 The Physics Potential of Future Long Baseline Neutrino Oscillation Experiments∗

## 1 Introduction

The existing evidence for atmospheric neutrino oscillations includes some sensitivity to the characteristic $`L/E`$ dependence of oscillations , and there is no doubt that the observed flavour transitions are due to neutrino oscillations. Solar neutrinos were also shown to undergo flavour transitions . This solves the long standing solar neutrino problem, even though the characteristic $`L/E`$ dependence of oscillation is in this case not yet established. However, oscillation is under all alternatives by far the most plausible explanation and global oscillation fits clearly favour the so-called LMA solution for the mass splittings and mixings . The CHOOZ reactor experiment  provides moreover currently the most stringent upper bound for the sub-leading $`U_{e3}`$ element of the neutrino mixing matrix. The global pattern of neutrino oscillation parameters seems therefore quite well known and one may ask how precise future experiments will ultimately be able to measure mass splittings and mixings and what can be learned from such precise measurements.

The characteristic length scale $`L`$ of oscillations is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2L/E_\nu =\pi /2`$. The atmospheric $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$-value leads thus to an oscillation length scale $`L_{atm}`$ as a function of energy. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2310^3`$ eV, and for neutrino energies of $`E_\nu 10`$ GeV, one finds $`L_{atm}𝒪(2000)`$ km, i.e. distances and energies which can be realized by sending neutrino beams from one point on the Earth to another. The solar $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ is for the favoured LMA solution about two orders of magnitude smaller than the atmospheric $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$, resulting for the same energies in oscillations at scales $`L_{sol}(101000)L_{atm}`$. Solar oscillations will thus not fully develop in LBL experiments on Earth, but sub-leading effects play nevertheless an important role in precision experiments. Another modification comes from the fact that the neutrino beams of LBL experiments traverse the matter of the Earth. Coherent forward scattering in matter must therefore to be taken into account, which makes the analysis more involved, but it offers also unique opportunities.

The existing K2K experiment as well as MINOS and CNGS, which are both under construction, are a promising first generation of LBL experiments. We will discuss here (based on ) the remarkable potential byond this first generation. One important point is that the increased precision will allow to test in detail the three-flavouredness of oscillations. We will also see that it will be possible to limit or measure $`\theta _{13}`$ drastically better than today. Next it will be possible to study in detail MSW matter effects and to extract in this way $`sign(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2)`$, i.e. the mass ordering of the neutrino states. For the now favoured LMA solution it will be possible to measure leptonic CP violation . The precise neutrino masses, mixings and CP phases which can be obtained in this way are extremely valuable information about flavour physics, since unlike for quarks these parameters are not obscured by hadronic uncertainties. These parameters can be evolved with the renormalization group e.g. to the GUT scale, where the rather precisely known parameters can be compared with mass models neutrino masses and mixings. Leptonic CP violation is moreover related to leptogenesis, the currently most plausible mechanism for the generation of the baryon asymmetry of the universe. LBL experiments offer therefore in a unique way access to precise knowledge on extremely interesting and valuable physics parameters.

## 2 Beams and Detectors

LBL experiments have the advantage that both source and detector can be kept under precise conditions. This includes amongst others for the source a precise knowledge of the mean neutrino energy $`E_\nu `$, the neutrino flux and spectrum, as well as the flavour composition and contamination of the beam. Another important aspect is whether neutrino and anti-neutrino data can be obtained symmetrically such that systematical uncertainties cancel in an analysis. Precise measurements require also a sufficient luminosity and a detector such that enough statistics can be obtained. On the detector side one must include further issues, like the detection threshold function, energy calibration, resolution, particle identification capabilities (flavour, charge, event reconstruction, understanding backgrounds). Another source of uncertainty in the detection process is the knowledge of neutrino cross-sections, especially at low energies . Source and detector combinations of a future LBL experiment are furthermore constraint by the available technology and one should keep potential improvements of source and detector developments in mind. An example is given by liquid argon detectors like ICARUS  which are not included in this study, but might become extremely valuable detectors or detector components in the future, improving the potential even further.

The first type of considered sources are conventional neutrino and anti-neutrino beams. An intense proton beam is typically directed onto a massive target producing mostly pions and some K mesons, which are captured by an optical system of magnets in order to obtain a beam. The pions (and K mesons) decay in a decay pipe, yielding essentially a muon neutrino beam which can undergo oscillations as shown in fig. 1. Most interesting are the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu `$ disappearance channel and the $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ appearance channels.

The neutrino beam is, however, contaminated by approximately $`0.5\%`$ electron neutrinos, which also produce electron reactions in the disappearance channel, limiting thus the precision in the extraction of $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillation parameters. The energy spectrum of the muon beam can be controlled over a wide range: it depends on the incident proton energy, the optical system, and the precise direction of the beam axis compared to the direction of the detector. It is possible to produce broad band high energy beams, such as the CNGS beam , or narrow band lower energy beams, such as in some configurations of the NuMI beam . Reversing the electrical current in the lens system results in an anti-neutrino beam. The neutrino and anti-neutrino beams have significant differences such that errors do not cancel systematically in ratios or differences. The neutrino and anti-neutrino beams must therefore more or less be considered as independent sources with different systematical errors.

So-called “superbeams” are based on the same beam dump techniques for producing neutrino beams, but at much larger luminosities . Superbeams are thus a technological extrapolation of conventional beams, but use a proton beam intensity close to the mechanical stability limit of the target at a typical thermal power of $`0.7\mathrm{MW}`$ to $`4\mathrm{MW}`$. The much higher neutrino luminosity allows the use of the decay kinematics of pions to produce so–called “off–axis beams”, where the detector is located some degrees off the beam axis. This reduces the neutrino flux and the average neutrino energy, but leads to a more mono-energetic beam and a significant suppression of the electron neutrino contamination. Several off–axis superbeams with energies of about $`1\mathrm{GeV}`$ to $`2\mathrm{GeV}`$ have been proposed in Japan , America , and Europe .

The most sensitive neutrino oscillation channel for sub-leading oscillation parameters is the $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ appearance transition. Therefore the detector should have excellent electron and muon charged current identification capabilities. In addition, an efficient rejection of neutral current events is required, because the neutral current interaction mode is flavor blind. With low statistics, the magnitude of the contamination itself limits the sensitivity to the $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ transition severely, while the insufficient knowledge of its magnitude constrains the sensitivity for high statistics. A near detector allows a substantial reduction of the background uncertainties  and plays a crucial role in controlling other systematical errors, such as the flux normalization, the spectral shape of the beam, and the neutrino cross section at low energies. At energies of about $`1\mathrm{GeV}`$, the dominant charge current interaction mode is quasi–elastic scattering, which suggests that water Cherenkov detectors are the optimal type of detector. At these energies, a baseline of about $`300\mathrm{km}`$ would be optimal to measure at the first maximum of the oscillation. At about $`2\mathrm{GeV}`$, there is already a considerable contribution of inelastic scattering to the charged current interactions, which means that it would be useful to measure the energy of the hadronic part of the cross section. This favors low–Z hadron calorimeters, which also have a factor of ten better neutral current rejection capability compared to water Cherenkov detectors . In this case, the optimum baseline is around $`600\mathrm{km}`$. The matter effects are expected to be small for these experiments for two reasons. First of all, an energy of about $`1\mathrm{GeV}`$ to $`2\mathrm{GeV}`$ is small compared to the MSW resonance energy of approximately $`13\mathrm{GeV}`$ in the upper mantle of the Earth. The second reason is that the baseline is too short to produce significant matter effects.

The second type of beam considered are so-called neutrino factories, where muons are stored in the long straight sections of a storage ring. The decaying muons produce muon and electron anti-neutrinos in equal numbers . The muons are produced by pion decays, where the pions are produced by the same technique as for superbeams. After being collected, they have to be cooled and reaccelerated very quickly. This has not yet been demonstrated and it is a major technological challenge. The spectrum and flavor content of the beam are completely characterized by the muon decay and are therefore very precisely known . The only adjustable parameter is the muon energy $`E_\mu `$, which is usually considered in the range from $`20`$ to $`50\mathrm{GeV}`$. In a neutrino factory it would be possible to produce and store anti-muons in order to obtain a CP conjugated beam. The symmetric operation of both beams leads to the cancellation or significant reduction of errors and systematical uncertainties. We will discuss in the following the neutrino beam, which implies always implicitly – unless otherwise stated – the CP conjugate channel.

The decay of the muons and the relevant oscillation channels are shown in fig. 2.

Amongst all flavors and interaction types, muon charged current events are the easiest to detect. The appearance channel with the best sensitivity is thus the $`\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ transition, which produces so called “wrong sign muons”. Therefore, a detector must be able to very reliably identify the charge of a muon in order to distinguish wrong sign muons in the appearance channel from the higher rate of same sign muons in the disappearance channels. The dominant charge current interaction in the multi–GeV range is deep–inelastic scattering, making a good energy resolution for the hadronic energy deposition necessary. Magnetized iron calorimeters are thus the favored choice for neutrino factory detectors. In order to achieve the required muon charge separation, it is necessary to impose a minimum muon energy cut at approximately $`4\mathrm{GeV}`$ . This leads to a significant loss of neutrino events in the range of about $`4\mathrm{GeV}`$ to $`20\mathrm{GeV}`$, which means that a high muon energy of $`E_\mu =50\mathrm{GeV}`$ is desirable. The first oscillation maximum lies then at approximately $`\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}000}\mathrm{km}`$. Matter effects are sizable at this baseline and energy, and the limited knowledge of the Earth’s matter density profile becomes an additional source of errors.

## 3 The Oscillation Framework

The general three neutrino oscillation probabilities in matter are quite lengthy expressions. It is useful to simplify them such that an analytic understanding becomes possible. Quantitative results should, however, be obtained in numerical calculations using the full expressions. The key to an analytic simplification is to expand the oscillation probabilities in small quantities, namely $`\alpha =\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^210^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}0.1`$. The matter effects can be parametrized by the dimensionless quantity $`\widehat{A}=A/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2=2VE/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$, where $`V=\sqrt{2}G_Fn_e`$. Using $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}`$, the leading terms in this expansion are

$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )`$
$`1c_{13}^2\widehat{s}_{23}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Delta }+2\alpha c_{13}^2c_{12}^2\widehat{s}_{23}^2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (1)
$`P(\nu _e\nu _\mu )\widehat{s}_{13}^2s_{23}^2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2((1\widehat{A})\mathrm{\Delta })}{(1\widehat{A})^2}}`$
$`\pm s_\delta \widehat{s}_{13}\alpha \widehat{s}_{12}c_{13}\widehat{s}_{23}\mathrm{sin}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\right){\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{sin}((1\widehat{A})\mathrm{\Delta })}{\widehat{A}(1\widehat{A})}}`$
$`+c_\delta \widehat{s}_{13}\alpha \widehat{s}_{12}c_{13}\widehat{s}_{23}\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\right){\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{sin}((1\widehat{A})\mathrm{\Delta })}{\widehat{A}(1\widehat{A})}}`$
$`+\alpha ^2\widehat{s}_{12}^2c_{23}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Delta })}{\widehat{A}^2}}`$ (2)
where $`s_{ij}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$, $`c_{ij}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$, $`\widehat{s}_{ij}=\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{ij}`$, $`\widehat{c}_{ij}=\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{ij}`$, $`s_\delta =\mathrm{sin}_\delta `$, $`c_\delta =\mathrm{cos}_\delta `$, and where in eq. (2) “$`+`$” stands for neutrinos and “$``$” for anti-neutrinos. The most important feature of eq. (2) is that all interesting effects in the $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ transition depend crucially on $`\theta _{13}`$. The size of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ determines thus if the total transition rate, matter effects, effects due to the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ and CP violating effects are measurable. One of the most important questions for future LBL experiments is therefore how far experiments can push the $`\theta _{13}`$ limit below the current CHOOZ bound of approximately $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}<0.1`$.

Before we discuss further important features of eqs. (1) and (2) in more detail we would like to comment once more on the underlying assumptions and the reliability of these equations. First eqs. (1) and (2) are an expansion in terms of the small quantities $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}`$. Higher order terms are suppressed at least by another power of one of these small parameters and these corrections are thus typically at the percent level. The matter corrections in eqs. (1) and (2) are derived for constant average matter density. Numerical test have shown that this approximation works quite well as long as the matter profile is reasonably smooth. A number of very interesting effects existing in general non-constant matter distributions are therefore only small theoretical uncertainties. An example is given by asymmetric matter profiles, which lead to interesting T-violating effects , but this does not play a role here since the Earth is sufficiently symmetric.

Note that all results which will be shown later are based on numerical simulations of the full problem in matter. These results do therefore not depend on any approximation. Eqs. (1) and (2) will only be used to understand the problem analytically, which is extremely helpful in order to oversee the six (or more) dimensional parameter space. The full numerical analysis and eqs. (1) and (2) depend, however, on the assumption of a standard three neutrino scenario. It is thus assumed that the LSND signal  will not be confirmed by the MiniBooNE experiment . Neutrinos could in principle decay, which would make the analysis much more involved. It is assumed in this article that neutrinos are stable, and a combined treatment of oscillation and decay  would be much more involved. Neutrinos might further have unusual properties and might, for example, violate CPT. In that case neutrinos and anti-neutrinos could have different properties and LBL experiments can give very interesting limits on this possibility , but we will assume in this study that CPT is preserved.

## 4 Correlations and Degeneracies

Eqs. (1) and (2) exhibit certain parameter correlations and degeneracies, which play an important role in the analysis of LBL experiments, and which would be hard to understand in a purely numerical analysis of the high dimensional parameter space. The most important properties are:

* First we observe that eqs. (1) and (2) depend only on the product $`\alpha \mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}`$ or equivalently $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}`$. This are the parameters related to solar oscillations which will be taken as external input. The fact that only the product enters, implies that it may be better determined than the product of the measurements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}`$.
* Next we observe in eq. (2) that the second and third term contain both a factor $`\mathrm{sin}(\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Delta })`$, while the last term contains a factor $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Delta })`$. Since $`\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Delta }=2VL`$, we find that these factors depend only on $`L`$, resulting in a “magic baseline” when $`2VL_{magic}=\pi /4V`$, where $`\mathrm{sin}(\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Delta })`$ vanishes. At this magic baseline only the first term in eq. (2) survives and $`P(\nu _e\nu _\mu )`$ does no longer depend on $`\delta `$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}`$. This is in principle very important, since it implies that $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ can be determined at the magic baseline from the first term of eq. (2) whatever the values and errors of $`\delta `$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}`$ are. For the matter density of the Earth we find

$$L_{magic}=\pi /4V8100\mathrm{km},$$
(3)
which is an amazing number, since the value of $`V`$ could be such that $`L_{magic}`$ is very different from the scales under discussion.
* Next we observe that only the second and third term of eq. (2) depend on the CP phase $`\delta `$, and both terms contain a factor $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}\alpha `$, while the first and fourth term of eq. (2) do not depend on the CP phase $`\delta `$ and contain factors of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ and $`\alpha ^2`$, respectively. The extraction of CP violation is thus always suppressed by the product $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}\alpha `$ and the CP violating terms are furthermore obscured by large CP independent terms if either $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}\alpha ^2`$ or $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}\alpha ^2`$. The determination of the CP phase $`\delta `$ is thus best possible if $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}4\theta _{13}^2\alpha ^2`$.
* The last term in eq. (2), which is proportional to $`\alpha ^2=(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2)^2/(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2)^2`$, dominates for tiny $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$. The error of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ limits therefore for small $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ the parameter extraction.
* Eqs. (1) and (2) suggest the existence of degeneracies, i.e. for given $`L/E`$ parameter sets with identical oscillation probabilities. An example is given by a simultaneous replacement of neutrinos by anti-neutrinos and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$. This is equivalent to changing the sign of the second term of eq. (2) and replacing $`\alpha \alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$, while $`\widehat{A}\widehat{A}`$. Eqs. (1) and (2) are unchanged, but this does not constitute a degeneracy, since neutrinos and anti-neutrinos can be distinguished experimentally.
* The first real degeneracy  can be seen in the disappearance probability eq. (1), which is invariant under $`\theta _{23}\pi /2\theta _{23}`$. Note that the second and third term in eq. (2) are not invariant under this transformation, but this change in the sub-leading appearance probability can approximately be compensated by small parameter shifts. However, the degeneracy can in principle be lifted with precision measurements in the disappearance channels.
* The second degeneracy can be found in the appearance probability eq. (2) in the ($`\delta \theta _{13}`$)-plane . In terms of $`\theta _{13}`$ (which is small) and $`\delta `$ the four terms of eq. (2) have the structure

$`P(\nu _e\nu _\mu )\theta _{13}^2F_1`$
$`+\theta _{13}(\pm \mathrm{sin}\delta F_2+\mathrm{cos}\delta F_3)+F_4`$ (4)
where the quantities $`F_i`$, $`i=1,..,4`$ contain all the other parameters. The requirement $`P(\nu _e\nu _\mu )=const.`$ leads for both neutrinos and anti-neutrinos to parameter manifolds of degenerate or correlated solutions. Having both neutrino and anti-neutrino beams, the two channels can be used independently, which is equivalent to considering simultaneously eq. (4) for $`F_20`$ and $`F_30`$. The requirement that these probabilities are now independently constant, i.e. $`P(\nu _e\nu _\mu )=const.`$ for $`F_20`$ and $`F_30`$, leads to more constraint manifolds in the ($`\delta \theta _{13}`$)-plane, but some degeneracies still survive.
* The third degeneracy  is given by the fact that a change in sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ can essentially be compensated by an offset in $`\delta `$. Therefore we note again that the transformation $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ leads to $`\alpha \alpha `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\widehat{A}\widehat{A}`$. All terms of the disappearance probability, eq. (1), are invariant under this transformation. The first and fourth term in the appearance probability eq. (1), which do not depend on the CP phase $`\delta `$, are also invariant. The second and third term of eq. (1) depend on the CP phase and change by the transformation $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$. The fact that these changes can be compensated by an offset in the CP phase $`\delta `$ is the third degeneracy.
* Altogether there exists an eight-fold degeneracy , as long as only the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu `$, $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu `$, $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ channels and one fixed $`L/E`$ are considered. However, the structure of eqs. (1) and (2) makes clear that the degeneracies can be broken by using in a suitable way information from different $`L/E`$ values. This can be achieved in total event rates by changing $`L`$ or $`E`$ , but it can in principle also be done by using information in the event rate spectrum of a single baseline $`L`$, which requires detectors with very good energy resolution . Another way to break the degeneracies is to include further oscillation channels in the analysis (“silver channels”) .

The discussion shows the strength of the analytic approximations, which allow to understand the complicated parameter interdependence. It also helps to optimally plan experimental setups and to find strategies to resolve the degeneracies.

## 5 Event Rates

The experimentally observed events must be compared with the theoretical expressions, which depend only indirectly on the above oscillation probabilities . Every event can be classified by the information on the flavor of the detected neutrino and the type of interaction. The particles detected in an experiment are produced by neutral current (NC), inelastic charged current (CC) or quasi–elastic charged current (QE) interactions. The contribution to each mode depends on a number of factors, like detector type, the neutrino energy and flavour. To determine realistic event rates we compute first for each neutrino flavor and energy bin the number of events for each type of interaction in the fiducial mass of an ideal detector. Next the deficiencies of a real detector are included, like limited event reconstruction capabilities. The combined description leads to the differential event rate spectrum for each flavor and interaction mode as it would be seen by a detector which is able to separate all these channels. Finally different channels must be combined, if they can not be observed separately. This can be due to physics, e.g., due to the flavor–blindness of NC interactions, or it can be a consequence of detector properties, e.g., due to charge misidentification. In order to include backgrounds, the channels are grouped in an experiment specific way into pairs of signal and background. The considered backgrounds are NC–events which are misidentified as CC–events and CC–events identified with the wrong flavor or charge. For superbeams the background of CC–events coming from an intrinsic contamination of the beam is included. Finally all available signal channels are combined in a global analysis in order to optimally extract the physics parameters. The relevant channels are for a neutrino factory for each polarity of the beam the $`\nu _\mu `$–CC channel (disappearance) and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$–CC channel (appearance) event rate spectra. The backgrounds for these signals are NC events for all flavours and misidentified $`\nu _\mu `$–CC events. For superbeam experiments the signal is for each polarity of the beam given by the $`\nu _\mu `$–QE channel (disappearance) and $`\nu _e`$–CC channel (appearance). The backgrounds are here NC events for all flavors, misidentified $`\nu _\mu `$–CC events, and, for the $`\nu _e`$–CC channel, the $`\nu _e`$–CC beam contamination.

## 6 The Considered LBL Setups

The discussed sources and detectors allow different LBL experiments and it is interesting to compare their physics potential on an equal and as realistic as possible footing. Studies at the level of probabilities are not sufficient and the true potential must be evaluated at the level of event rates as described in section 5, with realistic assumptions about the beams, detectors and backgrounds. We present now the results of such an analysis which is essentially based on reference , where we calculate the oscillation probabilities with the exact three neutrino oscillation formulae in matter numerically, i.e. we use the approximations for the probabilities in eqs. (1) and (2) only for a qualitative understanding. All results shown below are therefore not affected by approximations which were made in the derivation of the approximate analytic oscillation formulae eqs. (1) and (2). Sensitivities etc. are defined by the ability to re-extract the physics parameters from a simulation of event rates. Therefore event rate distributions are generated for any possible parameter set. Subsequently a combined fit to these event rate distributions is performed simultaneously for the appearance and disappearance channels for both polarities. This procedure uses all the available information in an optimal way. It includes spectral distributions when present, and it reduces to a fit of total rates when the total event rates are small. Adequate statistical methods as described in  are used in order to deal with event distributions which have in some regions small event rates per bin. Systematical uncertainties are parametrized and external input from geophysics is used in form of the detailed matter profile and its errors, which are included in the analysis . The ability to re-extract in a simulation of the full experiment the input parameters which were used to generate event rate distributions is used define sensitivities and precision.

It is important to include in the analysis external information. The discussed LBL experiments could in principle measure the solar $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and mixing angle $`\theta _{12}`$. However, the precision which can be obtained can not compete with the expected measurement of KamLand . We include therefore as external input the assumption that KamLand measures the solar parameters in the center of the LMA region with typical errors. Otherwise all unknown parameters (like the CP phase) will not be constrained and are therefore left free, with all parameter degeneracies and error correlations taken into account. All nuisance parameters are integrated out and a projection on the parameter of interest is performed. Altogether we are dealing with six free parameters.

We include the beam characteristics of the three considered sources as well as uncertainties of these beam parameters, i.e. for the conventional JHF and NuMI off-axis beams uncertainties in the $`\nu _e`$–background and for all beams flux uncertainties . As detectors we consider water Cherenkov detectors, low-Z calorimeters and magnetized iron detectors. For magnetized iron calorimeters it is important to include realistic threshold effects. We use a linear rise of the efficiency between $`4\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`20\mathrm{GeV}`$ and we study the sensitivity to the threshold position. We do not include liquid Argon TPCs in our analysis, but they would certainly be an important detector if this technology will work. The considered beams and detectors allow now different interesting combinations which are listed in table 1. JHF-SK is the planned combination of the existing SuperKamiokande detector and the JHF beam, while JHF-HK is the combination of an upgraded JHF beam with the proposed HyperKamiokande detector. With typical parameters, JHF-HK is altogether about $`95`$ times more integrated luminosity than JHF-SK, and we assume that it operates partly with the anti-neutrino beam. Water Cherenkov detectors are ideal for the JHF beam, since charged current quasi elastic scattering is dominating. A low-Z calorimeter is proposed for the NuMI off-axis beam, which is better here, since the energy is higher and there is already a considerable contribution of inelastic charged current interactions. NuFact-I is an initial neutrino factory, while NuFact-II is a fully developed machine, with $`42`$ times the luminosity of NuFact-I . Deep inelastic scattering dominates for these even higher energies and magnetized iron detectors are therefore considered in combination with neutrino factories.

## 7 Results

A realistic analysis of future LBL experiments requires a number of different aspects to be taken into account. It should be clear from the discussion above that it is not sufficient to quote limits which are based on oscillation probabilities or merely on the statistics of a single channel without backgrounds or systematics. Depending on the position in the space of physics parameters the degeneracies or correlations, the backgrounds, the systematics or statistics may be the limiting factor. A reliable comparative study of the discussed LBL setups requires therefore a detailed analysis of the six dimensional parameter space, which includes all these effects on the same footing .

There is excellent precision for the leading oscillation parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$, which will not be further discussed here. The more interesting sensitivity to the sub-leading parameter $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ depends on what will be found for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$. Assuming that the leading parameters are measured to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2=310^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}=0.8`$ and that KamLand measures the solar parameters at the current best fit point of the LMA region, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=610^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}=0.91`$, we can make a comparison of the $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ sensitivity limit for the different setups. The result is shown in fig. 3. The individual contributions of different sources of uncertainties are shown for every experiment and the left edge of every band in fig. 3 corresponds to the sensitivity limit which would be obtained purely on statistical grounds. This limit is successively reduced by adding the systematical uncertainties of each experiment, the correlational errors and finally the degeneracy errors. The right edge of each band constitutes the final error for the experiment under consideration.

It is interesting to see how the errors of the different setups are composed. There are different sensitivity reductions due to systematical errors, correlations and degeneracies. The largest sensitivity loss due to correlations and degeneracies occurs for NuFact-II, which is mostly a consequence of the uncertainty of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$, which translates into an $`\alpha `$ uncertainty, and which dominates the appearance probability eq. (2) for small $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$. Note that it is in principle possible to combine different experiments. If done correctly, this allows to eliminate part or all of the correlational and degeneracy errors .

Another challenge of future LBL experiments is to measure $`sign(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2)`$ via matter effects and the sensitivity which can be obtained for the setups under discussion is shown in fig. 4.

Taking all correlational and degeneracy errors into account we can see that it is very hard to determine $`sign(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2)`$ with the considered superbeam setups. The main problem is the degeneracy with $`\delta `$, which allows always the reversed $`sign(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2)`$ for another CP phase. Note, however, that the situation can in principle be improved if different superbeam experiments were combined such that this degeneracy error could be removed. Neutrino factories perform considerably better on $`sign(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2)`$, particularly for larger baselines. Combination strategies would again lead to further improvements.

Coherent forward scattering of neutrinos and the corresponding MSW matter effects are so far experimentally untested. It is therefore very important to realize that matter effects will not only be useful to extract $`sign(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2)`$, but that they allow also detailed tests of coherent forward scattering of neutrinos. This has been studied in detail in .

The Holy Grail of LBL experiments is the measurement of leptonic CP violation.

The $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ sensitivity range for measurable CP violation is shown in fig. 5 for $`\delta =\pi /2`$ for the different setups and for different values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$. It can be seen that measurements of CP violation are in principle feasible both with high luminosity superbeams as well as advanced neutrino factories. However, the sensitivity depends in a crucial way on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$. For a low value $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=1.110^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$, the sensitivity is almost completely lost, while the situation would be very promising for the largest considered value $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=4.710^4\mathrm{eV}^2`$. For a measurement of leptonic CP violation it would therefore be extremely exciting and promising if KamLand would find $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ on the high side of the LMA solution (the so-called HLMA case). The sensitivities shown in fig. 5 depend on the choice for $`\delta `$. The value which was used here was $`\delta =\pi /2`$ and and the sensitivities become become worse for small CP phases close to zero or $`\pi `$.

## 8 Conclusions

Future long baseline neutrino oscillation experiments will lead to precision neutrino physics. A basic fact which makes this possible is that the atmospheric mass splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$ leads for typical neutrino energies $`E_\nu 1100`$ GeV to oscillation baselines in the range $`100`$ km to $`10000`$ km. Beams have the advantage, that unlike the sun or the atmosphere, they can be controlled very precisely. Combined with equally precise detectors and an adequate oscillation framework (including three neutrinos and matter effects) must be used. There exist different interesting sources for long baseline oscillation experiments, like reactors or $`\beta `$-beams, but we restricted the discussion here to superbeams and neutrino factories. We presented the issues which enter into realistic assessments of the potential of such experiments. The discussed experiments turned out to be very promising and they lead to very precise measurements of the leading oscillation parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$. We discussed in detail how the different setups lead to very interesting measurements or limits $`\theta _{13}`$ and $`\delta `$. It will also be possible to perform impressive tests of Earth matter effects, allowing to extract $`sign(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2)`$. The discussed setups have an increasing potential and increasing technological challenges, but it seems possible to built them in stages. The shown results are valid for each individual setup and future results should of course be included in the analysis. This would be especially important if more LBL experiments were built and depending on previous results there exist different optimization strategies. In the short run the expected results from KamLand are extremely important and will have considerable impact. First it will become clear if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ lies in the LMA regime, which is very important since realistically, CP violation can only be measured then. Within the LMA solution it is also very important if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ lies close to the current best fit, on the high or on the low side. A value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ on the high side (HLMA) would be ideal, since it would guarantee an extremely promising LBL program with a chance to see leptonic CP violation already with the JHF beam in the next decade.


text:
# Landau levels in the case of two degenerate coupled bands: kagomé lattice tight-binding spectrum

## I Two-band Landau levels

Here we will explore a generalization of the usual Landau levels for a charged particle moving in two dimensions in a uniform magnetic field. The new case we consider is where the particle in zero field has two bands that are degenerate at zero momentum. This is the case in the kagomé lattice tight-binding model.

What are the “rules” we will use to generalize the usual one-band case? The particle is moving in two dimensions. We look in the continuum limit of low momentum $`p`$, so only look at the energy to order $`p^2`$. At this order in $`p`$, the spectrum of the particle’s states in zero magnetic field ($`B=0`$) is assumed to be isotropic in momentum space, reflecting an underlying system that has at least three-fold rotational symmetry. The system is time-reversal invariant for $`B=0`$ and the spectrum depends only on $`|B|`$, not on the sign of $`B`$. (Because the motion is two-dimensional, only the normal component of the magnetic field enters.)

For a single band, the only Hamiltonian that satisfies all these constraints is the usual $`H=\mathrm{\Pi }^2/(2m^{})`$, where

$$𝚷=𝐩\frac{q}{c}𝐀$$
(1)
is the gauge-invariant momentum. In a small uniform magnetic field, this gives the usual spectrum of equally-spaced Landau levels $`E_n=\mathrm{}\omega _c(n+\frac{1}{2})`$, with $`\omega _c=|qB|/(m^{}c)`$. The currents are diamagnetic for these standard Landau levels.

If instead we have two bands that are degenerate at $`𝐩=0`$ for $`B=0`$, then in addition to the momentum, the single-particle states are labelled by a band index, which may be treated as a spin-1/2. The general Hamiltonian in this case consists of Hermitian $`2\times 2`$ (Pauli) matrices operating on the band index and Hermitian quadratic combinations of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_y`$. In addition to the zero-angular momentum combination $`\mathrm{\Pi }^2`$ that is allowed in the one-band case, there are two Hermitian operators quadratic in $`𝚷`$ with angular momentum two: $`\mathrm{\Pi }_x\mathrm{\Pi }_y+\mathrm{\Pi }_y\mathrm{\Pi }_x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_x^2\mathrm{\Pi }_y^2`$, as well as the magnetic field itself, which is proportional to the operator combination $`i(\mathrm{\Pi }_x\mathrm{\Pi }_y\mathrm{\Pi }_y\mathrm{\Pi }_x)`$.

We have a number of constraints that restrict our choice of Hamiltonian; let us first look at the simpler case of $`B=0`$. The general Hermitian Hamiltonian that is quadratic in $`𝐩`$ is

$$H=\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}\sigma _iE_i(𝐩),$$
(2)
where the $`\sigma _i`$ are the Pauli matrices, with $`\sigma _0`$ the identity matrix, and the $`E_i`$ are real quadratic functions of $`𝐩`$. This is readily diagonalized, with the resulting eigenenergies

$$E_\pm (𝐩)=E_0\pm \sqrt{E_1^2+E_2^2+E_3^2}.$$
(3)
Our restriction that the $`B=0`$ spectrum is rotationally invariant then dictates that $`E_0(𝐩)=d_0p^2`$ and

$$E_1^2+E_2^2+E_3^2=d_2^2p^4,$$
(4)
with $`d_0`$, $`d_2`$ real constants. Another way of writing the Hamiltonian which explicitly breaks it into its parts with orbital angular momentum quantum numbers $`m_o=0,\pm 2`$ is

$$H=d_0\sigma _0p^2+𝐳\sigma p^2+(𝐱i𝐲)\sigma (p_x+ip_y)^2+(𝐱+i𝐲)\sigma (p_xip_y)^2,$$
(5)
where $`𝐱`$, $`𝐲`$ and $`𝐳`$ are real 3-vectors in the space spanned by the 3 Pauli matrices, $`\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3`$. Eq.(4) requires that these three vectors form a mutually orthogonal triad, with $`𝐱`$ and $`𝐲`$ being of equal magnitude. Thus we may choose the basis for the band index so that this triad $`𝐱`$, $`𝐲`$ and $`𝐳`$ are parallel to the 1, 2 and 3 axes, respectively. This leaves a three real parameter family of $`B=0`$ two-band Hamiltonians:

$$H=d_0\sigma _0p^2+d_3\sigma _3p^2+d_1(\sigma _{}(p_x+ip_y)^2+\sigma _+(p_xip_y)^2),$$
(6)
where $`\sigma _\pm =(\sigma _1\pm i\sigma _2)/2`$ are the usual raising and lowering operators. The spectrum is rotationally invariant, as we required:

$$E_\pm (𝐩)=p^2(d_0\pm \sqrt{d_1^2+d_3^2}).$$
(7)
An important observation about this Hamiltonian Eq.(6) is that it conserves a total angular momentum, provided that we define the particles in the bands to have an “internal” angular momentum whose quantum number $`m_i=\pm 1`$ is the eigenvalue of $`\sigma _3`$ in this basis. \[We will see below that such an “internal” angular momentum $`m_i=\pm 1`$ within each unit cell does indeed exist for the low-energy, low-momentum states of the kagomé lattice tight-binding model.\] The operators $`\sigma _\pm `$ then raise/lower the internal angular momentum by 2 quanta, while $`(p_x\pm ip_y)^2`$ raise/lower the orbital angular momentum by the same amount. Note that the operators $`(p_x\pm ip_y)`$ are not simply the usual orbital angular momentum raising and lowering operators $`L_\pm `$; in addition to changing the orbital angular moentum they also change the radial wavefunctions. If neither band has negative energy states at $`B=0`$, so the ground state is at $`E=0`$, this corresponds to $`d_0\sqrt{d_1^2+d_3^2}0`$.

Now when we add the uniform magnetic field, the momentum operator $`𝐩`$ becomes the gauge-invariant combination $`𝚷=𝐩\frac{q}{c}𝐀`$. For $`B0`$ the two components of $`𝚷`$ are noncommuting variables with a $`c`$-number commutator proportional to the magnetic field:

$$[\mathrm{\Pi }_x,\mathrm{\Pi }_y]=i\frac{qB\mathrm{}}{c}.$$
(8)
Thus we can make harmonic-oscillator-type raising and lowering operators $`a^{}`$ and $`a`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_x=\sqrt{\frac{|qB|\mathrm{}}{2c}}(a^{}+a)$$
(9)
and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_y=i\mathrm{sign}(qB)\sqrt{\frac{|qB|\mathrm{}}{2c}}(a^{}a).$$
(10)
Since the magnetic field itself is quadratic in $`𝚷`$ (Eq.(8)), a term linear in $`B`$ may also be added to the Hamiltonian. This term may not contain the identity Pauli matrix, or it will generate a spectrum that is not invariant under inverting $`B`$, but it is otherwise unrestricted. Thus we end up with the general two-band Hamiltonian satisfying all our “rules”:

$$H=(d_0\sigma _0+d_3\sigma _3)\mathrm{\Pi }^2+d_1(\sigma _{}(\mathrm{\Pi }_x+i\mathrm{\Pi }_y)^2+\sigma _+(\mathrm{\Pi }_xi\mathrm{\Pi }_y)^2)+B𝐛\sigma ,$$
(11)
where $`𝐛`$ is a real 3-vector.

At this point let us note that the current density operator for this Hamiltonian

$$𝐉=c\frac{H}{𝐀}$$
(12)
contains, in additional to conventional-looking terms, a term proportional to $`d_1`$ that is off-diagonal in the band index and linear in the gauge-invariant momentum $`𝚷`$. It is this term that allows Landau levels involving both bands to exhibit paramagnetic currents. These currents arise from an “interference” between the amplitude in one band and the gradient of the amplitude in the other.

The transformation between the $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ operators and the raising and lowering operators $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ is singular at $`B=0`$, so it is simplest to just consider one sign of $`qB`$ at a time. In fact it is for $`qB<0`$ that the raising and lowering operators $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ also raise and lower the orbital angular momentum, so let’s do that case. Since we are motivated by superconductors we will take $`B>0`$ and $`q=e^{}=2e<0`$. This yields

$$H=B[\frac{\mathrm{}e^{}}{c}(d_0\sigma _0+d_3\sigma _3)(2a^{}a+1)+\frac{2\mathrm{}e^{}d_1}{c}(\sigma _{}(a^{})^2+\sigma _+a^2)+𝐛\sigma ].$$
(13)
When the 1 or 2 components of $`𝐛`$ are nonzero, this introduces terms that flip the band index without changing the orbital angular momentum, so do not conserve total angular momentum. We have not found a closed-form solution for this general case, but for the kagomé lattice problem we are considering, these terms are not present. In this case, $`b_1=b_2=0`$, the total angular momentum is conserved. The orbital angular momentum quantum number $`m_o`$ is also the eigenvalue of the number operator $`a^{}a`$ and is restricted to be nonnegative for the case $`qB<0`$ that we are now considering. Thus for total angular momentum $`m`$ of 0 or $`1`$, there is just one state, with internal angular momentum quantum number $`m_i=1`$ and $`m_o=m+1`$. For $`m_i+m_o=m>0`$, on the other hand, there are two states, with $`m_i=\pm 1`$. If $`b_1=b_2=0`$ so that $`m`$ is conserved, the Hamiltonian then reduces to a simple 2$`\times `$2 matrix. The resulting Landau levels are in general not equally spaced in energy, and even when there are no negative energy states at $`B=0`$, some of the Landau levels may be at negative energy for $`B0`$, and thus paramagnetic. Now will look at the kagomé tight-binding model, and show that in the low-momentum limit it realizes this two-band Hamiltonian in the simple case of $`d_0=d_1>0`$, $`d_3=0`$, and $`𝐛=0`$.

## II KAGOMÉ tight-binding Spectrum in Zero Field

The kagomé lattice is a two dimensional periodic array of corner-sharing triangles with three sites per unit cell. As illustrated in Fig.1(a), $`a`$ is the triangle edge length, $`A`$,$`B`$ and $`C`$ denote the three sites in a unit cell . The unit cell can be taken as a rhombus of side $`2a`$ with angles $`\frac{2\pi }{3}`$ and $`\frac{\pi }{3}`$ at its vertices. In the reciprocal space $`𝐤=(k_x,k_y)`$, the first Brillouin zone is a hexagon with a side length of $`\frac{2\pi }{3a}`$. Some points on the edge of the first Brillouin zone are shown in Fig.1(b): $`F(\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}a},0)`$ and $`G(\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}a},\frac{\pi }{3a})`$, and $`H(0,\frac{2\pi }{3a})`$.

We first consider the tight-binding model for a particle making nearest-neighbor hops on the kagomé lattice in zero magnetic field. The hopping matrix element is $`t>0`$. This problem is readily diagonalized. Since there are three sites per unit cell, there are three bands of simultaneous eigenstates of the tight-binding Hamiltonian and the crystal momentum:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ϵ_1(𝐤)& =ϵ_02t,\hfill \\ \hfill ϵ_{2,3}(𝐤)& =ϵ_0+t\pm t\left[1+4\mathrm{cos}^2(k_ya)+4\mathrm{cos}(k_ya)\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{3}k_xa)\right]^{1/2},\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
where $`ϵ_0`$ is the on-site energy of the orbitals.

For simplicity, let us set $`t=1`$ and $`ϵ_0=0`$. The spectrum of the second two bands ($`ϵ_2`$, $`ϵ_3`$) ranges over the interval $`[2,+4]`$ and the edges of this interval are reached for $`𝐤=0`$. Close to $`𝐤=0`$, these two bands are parabolic with an isotropic effective mass. This effective mass is negative $`m^{}=\mathrm{}^2/(2ta^2)`$ at the top of the upper band at $`ϵ=4`$. These two dispersive bands also touch at “Dirac points” at all the corners of the first Brillouin zone (such as $`G`$ and $`H`$ in Fig.1(b)), at energy $`ϵ_2=ϵ_3=1`$.

The first band is completely non-dispersive at energy $`ϵ_1=2`$. Thus the ground state of this particle is highly degenerate. Note also that the bottom of the lower dispersive band is also degenerate with this flat band at $`𝐤=0`$. Thus here at $`𝐤=0`$ and $`ϵ=2`$ we have two degenerate bands of precisely the type discussed in the previous section of this paper. Since one band is flat, we have $`d_0=\sqrt{d_1^2+d_3^2}`$, in the notation of the previous section. The dispersive band, to quadratic order in the momentum, has energy $`ϵ(𝐤)ϵ(\mathrm{𝟎})=tk^2a^2`$, so we have $`d_0=\sqrt{d_1^2+d_3^2}=ta^2/(2\mathrm{}^2)`$.

Some of the degenerate ground states with $`ϵ=2`$ in zero magnetic field are shown in Fig.2. Fig.2(a) and (b) show the states at the Brillouin zone corners, while Fig.2(c) and (d) show the two degenerate states at the zone center with $`𝐤=0`$. For small magnetic field, the lowest Landau levels are composed of linear combinations of smooth envelopes times these latter two $`𝐤=0`$ states. The two states shown are the eigenstates of the band operator $`\sigma _3`$. By looking at their wavefunctions within a unit cell (one triangle) we can see that $`\sigma _3`$ does indeed measure an “internal” angular momentum that has the two possible values $`m_i=\pm 1`$ in this case, as anticipated above.

We can further anticipate the results of applying a magnetic field by considering just these states. In the absence of coupling between the bands (i.e., for $`d_1=0`$), the states at the bottom of the bands are Landau quantized in the standard fashion, and their energy thus increases linearly with $`|B|`$. On the other hand, the degeneracy between the bands is split by the matrix element of the perturbation ($`d_1`$) that couples them. In the present case this perturbation is also linearly proportional to $`|B|`$. Thus whether the lowest-energy states increase or decrease in energy depends on the relative magnitudes of the coupling matrix element and the effective band masses. In terms of currents, a charged particle (here, a Cooper pair) in a given one-band Landau level has a quantized diamagnetic dipole moment that is independent of field. Its energy in a field thus increases with $`|B|`$. For this specific kagomé lattice case, the wavefunctions within one unit cell also have currents and dipole moments as in figure 2 c and d. When these degenerate states are coupled by the perturbation they are admixed and this can produce paramagnetic currents. The sum of this and the Landau diamagnetic current can be either diamagnetic or paramagnetic for the lowest-energy state depending on the relative strength of the parameters. In this case we find net paramagnetism in the ground states.

## III Spectrum in a Magnetic Field

In the presence of a magnetic field $`B`$, the hopping term of the tight-binding Hamiltonian is modified by phase factors from the vector potential $`𝐀`$, i.e., $`tte^{i\gamma _{ij}}`$, where $`\gamma _{ij}`$ is the phase factor between sites $`i`$ and $`j`$:

$$\gamma _{ij}=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}_i^j𝐀𝑑𝐥,$$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=hc/e^{}`$ is the flux quantum.

The (tight-binding) Schrödinger equation in a magnetic field is thus the finite-difference equation:

$$ϵ\varphi _i=t\underset{j}{}e^{i\gamma _{ij}}\varphi _j,$$
(16)
where the sum is over all the nearest neighbors of site $`i`$. It is convenient to measure the magnetic field in units of the flux quantum per elementary triangular plaquette of the kagomé lattice. The flux through one triangle is $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}Ba^2`$. Thus the “filling ratio”, namely the fraction of a flux quantum through each triangle is

$$f=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}\frac{Be^{}a^2}{hc}.$$
(17)
The flux through an elementary hexagon is six times this, $`6f\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, while the total flux through a unit cell of the kagomé lattice is $`8f\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$.

When $`f`$ is a rational number that can be written as $`8f=k/n`$, where $`k`$ and $`n`$ are integers with no common factors, the total flux through $`n`$ unit cells of the kagomé lattice is an integer multiple of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. Then with this magnetic field, a gauge can be chosen so that the Hamiltonian has a discrete translational invariance with a unit cell containing $`n`$ unit cells of the kagomé lattice, and thus $`3n`$ sites. The spectrum of the Hamiltonian then consists of $`3n`$ bands. These can be obtained numerically for any such rational $`f`$ (for $`n`$ not too large); an implementation of this is detailed in Yi Xiao’s Ph.D. thesis.  The resulting spectrum, namely the kagomé version of “Hofstadter’s butterfly”, is shown in Fig.3.

The spectrum has various symmetries: It is only the flux modulo the flux quantum that affects the spectrum, so if $`f`$ is changed to $`f+j`$ with $`j`$ any integer, the spectrum is unchanged. The spectrum is also unchanged on changing $`f`$ to $`f`$, because if $`\psi `$ is an eigenstate with energy $`ϵ`$ for field $`f`$, then its complex conjugate $`\psi ^{}`$ is an eigenstate with the same energy $`ϵ`$ for field $`f`$. These two symmetries are not special to the kagomé lattice. The third symmetry is that if $`f`$ is changed to $`f+\frac{1}{2}`$, this is the same as changing $`t`$ to $`t`$, so the spectrum is inverted. Thus the highest energy states for field near $`f=\frac{1}{2}`$ are equivalent to the lowest energy states near zero field. We will look at the behavior near zero field, but because of this last symmetry, what we find also applies near $`f=\frac{1}{2}`$.

## IV Landau levels in the KAGOMÉ lattice near zero field

For small magnetic field, the spectrum of the kagomé lattice tight-binding Hamiltonian shows standard equally-spaced Landau levels near the top of the bands, as shown in Fig.4. Here there is just the one band in zero field, with negative effective mass $`m^{}=\mathrm{}^2/(2ta^2)`$. The resulting Landau levels, to linear order in the field, should therefore have energy

$$ϵ=t(4\frac{16\pi }{\sqrt{3}}|f|(n+\frac{1}{2})).$$
(18)
The numerical results for this portion of the spectrum are shown in Fig.4 for $`f\frac{1}{120}`$. The first few Landau levels are clearly seen, and the asymptotic slopes at small $`f`$ given by Eq.(18) are shown for comparison for the first 5 Landau levels. At these values of $`f`$ the fit is not wonderful, but it does seem to be improving with decreasing $`f`$, as it should.

More interesting is the bottom of the zero-field spectrum, where there are two degenerate bands. This results in non-standard Landau levels when the field is turned on, as discussed above. An expanded view of this part of the spectrum is shown in Fig.5. It shows some Landau levels whose energies are increasing linearly with field, as is normal, but these levels are not equally-spaced. In addition there are many states whose energies decrease as the field is increased. These latter states are the unusual feature we focus on here. Note that because of the symmetry of the spectrum discussed above, the same features appear at the top of the spectrum near the frustrating value of the magnetic field of $`f=1/2`$.

In the one-band case, knowing the effective mass in zero field and the charge is enough to determine the Landau level spectrum to linear order in the magnetic field. For the two-band case, on the other hand, (eq. 1.11) there is possibly the $`B𝐛\sigma `$ term, which vanishes at zero field, so to determine the values of the three parameters making up $`𝐛`$ for the kagomé tight-binding model, we cannot rely only on our knowledge of the zero-field spectrum. So we will now treat the low-momentum behavior to lowest order in the field. What we will find is that $`𝐛=0`$ and $`d_3=0`$.

The unit cell of the kagomé lattice contains 3 sites around a triangle. We choose a set of 3 basis states within this unit cell that respect as much as possible the three-fold rotational symmetry of this system about the center of the triangle. The wavefunction of a state is a complex number defined at each lattice point, but only its gauge-invariant properties are physical. These are the magnitude of the wavefunction, and the gauge-invariant phase differences between adjacent lattice points. For any wavefunction defined at the corners of the triangle in one unit cell, the total guage-invariant phase difference added up stepping the three steps around the triangle is $`2\pi (f+m_i)`$, where $`m_i`$ is an integer. Note $`m_i`$ measures the state’s “internal” angular momentum. The gauge-invariant phase difference between two adjacent lattice points is only well-defined modulo $`2\pi `$, so let us restrict it to lie in the interval $`[\pi ,\pi ]`$. Thus the three of these phase differences added up must be in the range $`[3\pi ,3\pi ]`$, and for the small fields $`f`$ we consider here, this means the total guage-invariant phase difference around the triangle has to be near one of the three values: $`2\pi `$, 0, or $`2\pi `$ and $`m_i`$ is either -1, 0 or 1. The basis states we will use are those where the guage-invariant phase differences are the same along all edges of the triangle, being $`2\pi (f+m_i)/3`$, while the amplitudes are identical at all three points. In the limit of small momentum and zero field, the upper band near energy $`4t`$ is made out of the $`m_i=0`$ states while the lower bands near energy $`2t`$ are made out of the two $`m_i=\pm 1`$ states.

We take the tight-binding Hamiltonian and rewrite it in terms of these new basis states. This step is done in a specific Landau gauge. We then take the low-field, low-momentum limit, assuming that the (complex scalar) amplitudes of each of the basis states vary little between adjacent unit cells, so a gradient expansion can be made. The resulting three-band Hamiltonian can be written in gauge-invariant form as the matrix

$$H=t\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2+\mathrm{\Pi }^2+\frac{B}{2}& i\sqrt{3}(\mathrm{\Pi }_xi\mathrm{\Pi }_y)& (\mathrm{\Pi }_xi\mathrm{\Pi }_y)^2\\ i\sqrt{3}(\mathrm{\Pi }_x+i\mathrm{\Pi }_y)& 42\mathrm{\Pi }^2& i\sqrt{3}(\mathrm{\Pi }_xi\mathrm{\Pi }_y)\\ (\mathrm{\Pi }_x+i\mathrm{\Pi }_y)^2& i\sqrt{3}(\mathrm{\Pi }_x+i\mathrm{\Pi }_y)& 2+\mathrm{\Pi }^2\frac{B}{2}\end{array}\right),$$
(19)
in units where $`a=\mathrm{}=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=2\pi `$ and where the rows/columns refer to $`m_i=+1,0,1`$ in that order. Here we have gone to the orders in $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`B`$ that contribute to the spectrum to linear order in $`|B|`$ and quadratic order in $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. Note that this continuum three-band Hamiltonian conserves total angular momentum. To reduce this to the two-band Hamiltonian for the lowest bands only, we treat the coupling to the upper band in second-order perturbation theory. This eliminates the terms linear in $`B`$ in the diagonal operators in the above matrix, and the two band Hamiltonian is precisely of the form expected (1.11) with $`𝐛=0`$, $`d_3=0`$ and $`d_0=d_1=ta^2/(2\mathrm{}^2)`$. Finally, the Hamiltonian to this order is simply

$$H=t[2+\frac{4\pi f}{\sqrt{3}}[\sigma _0(2a^{}a+1)+2(\sigma _{}(a^{})^2+\sigma _+a^2)]$$
(20)
for $`f>0`$. This Hamiltonian conserves total angular momentum $`m=m_o+m_i`$. The resulting Landau level spectrum to linear order in the magnetic field is

$$ϵ_\pm =t(2+\frac{8\pi }{\sqrt{3}}|f|(m+\frac{1}{2}\pm \sqrt{m^2+m+1})).$$
(21)
For $`m=1`$ and $`m=0`$ there is only the one state with $`m_i=1`$, because $`m_o`$ cannot be negative. (There are no states with $`m<1`$.) These states’ energies are given by the plus sign in the above equation; they are the two lowest standard one-band Landau levels made out of only the $`m_i=1`$ band. Since they are standard one-band Landau levels, they show diamagnetic currents. For $`m>0`$, on the other hand, both bands enter and the eigenstates are linear combinations of the $`(m+1)`$th Landau level in the $`m_i=1`$ band and the $`(m1)`$th Landau level in the $`m_i=1`$ band. The interaction between the two bands shifts the energies strongly, with the lower energy state being pushed to below energy $`2t`$. The lowest energy state of all is the lower energy (minus sign in the above equation for $`ϵ_\pm `$) state with $`m=1`$, which is at energy

$$ϵ_{min}=t(2+8\pi |f|(1\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}))t(2+3.37|f|).$$
(22)
This state is a linear combination of the lowest Landau level ($`m_o=0`$) in the $`m_i=1`$ band and the third Landau level ($`m_o=2`$) in the $`m_i=1`$ band. And it is the interference between these two bands that allows this state to be paramagnetic, so its energy decreases with increasing $`|B|`$.

The straight lines in Fig.5 correspond to the lowest few of the upper (+ in Eq. 4.4) set of Landau levels. As $`f`$ is decreased, the numerically obtained bands fit well to these expected Landau levels. A more detailed plot of the lower bands below $`ϵ=2t`$ is shown in Fig.6, in which this range of the spectrum is calculated for filling ratio from $`f=1/16`$ down to $`f=1/256`$. For a rational filling ratio $`f=1/8n`$, where $`n`$ is an integer, these lower bands consist of $`n1`$ subbands. Counting the states, we find that in the limit of small magnetic field 1/3 of all the states are in this set of bands below $`ϵ=2t`$, corresponding to the number of states in the flat $`ϵ=2t`$ band at zero field. The lowest few Landau levels are also indicated by the straight lines in Fig.6, and again the numerically obtained bands fit well to these as $`f`$ is reduced.

To examine the very lowest Landau level in more detail, we carried out further numerical calculation of the bottom edge of the spectrum to $`f`$ as low as $`1/840`$. These results are shown in Fig.7 on log-log scales. The straight line corresponds to the small $`f`$ behavior, $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ=3.37f`$, derived above. As can be seen, it gives an excellent fit to the numerical results in this low field limit.

This behavior in the kagomé lattice is certainly different from the low field Landau levels of most other periodic lattices , where the ground state energy increases as the magnetic field is turned on. In the case of the kagomé latice, the presence of two degenerate bands in zero field allows these unusual Landau levels to occur.

## V Application to Superconducting Wire Networks

The network equation for the mean-field phase boundary of a superconducting wire network, derived from linearized Ginzburg-Landau equation, has the same form as that of the tight-binding Schrodinger equation in the same geometry . For a periodic network with equal bond length $`a`$, the superconducting network equation be can expressed as

$$z\mathrm{cos}\frac{a}{\xi }\psi _i=\underset{j}{}\psi _je^{i\gamma _{ij}}$$
(23)
where $`\psi _i`$ is the order parameter at site $`i`$, $`\xi `$ is the superconducting coherence length, $`z`$ is the coordination number of the lattice, and the sum is over all nearest-neighbor sites of $`i`$. Compared to the tight binding equation of Eq.(16), the correspondence between the two system is given by

$$\frac{ϵ}{t}z\mathrm{cos}\frac{a}{\xi }.$$
(24)
The superconducting transition temperature of the network in a magnetic field is given by the upper edge (for $`t>0`$) of the tight-binding spectrum. For the kagomé lattice, $`z=4`$. The upper edge of the kagomé tight-binding spectrum is plotted in Fig.8.

For the phase boundary at the lower field limit (small $`f`$), our previous discussion of the low field Landau levels near $`ϵ=4`$ implies a linear relationship between the transition temperature and the magnetic field

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T_c(f)(\frac{a}{\xi })^2|f|,$$
(25)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c(f)=T_c(0)T_c(f)`$ is the suppression of the critical temperature from its zero field value.

As shown in Fig.8, strong maxima or minima in the superconducting phase boundary appear at magnetic fields $`f=p/8`$ for each integer $`p`$, which correspond to $`p`$ magnetic flux quanta through each unit cell. At each of these fields, the tight-binding model is equivalent to a model in zero magnetic field with the hopping matrix elements within each unit cell being complex. Since there are three sites per unit cell, in each case there are three bands in the spectrum. When the magnetic field is changed slightly to $`f=\frac{p}{8}+\mathrm{\Delta }f`$, the small added magnetic field (of either sign) splits these bands into Landau levels, just like near $`f=0`$. For all of these fields, except the special case $`f=1/2`$, the upper edge of the spectrum is a state at crystal momentum zero in a nondegenerate band. Thus changes in the magnetic field produce conventional Landau levels like near $`f=0`$. This causes the upper edge of the spectrum to decrease linearly in $`|\mathrm{\Delta }f|`$, resulting in a local maximum in the superconductor’s transition temperature vs. field at those fields. The appearance of a local minimum in $`T_c`$ at $`f=1/2`$ is due to the special degeneracy in the highest band that occurs due to the magnetic frustration at that field, resulting in Landau levels whose energy moves linearly away from the band center as the field is changed from this special value, as discussed above.

A local minimum in $`T_c`$ vs. field also occurs at $`f=1/2`$ in the so-called $`𝒯_3`$ or dice lattice , but for quite different reasons from the kagomé lattice case. The dice lattice is the dual to the kagomé lattice. Its elementary plaquettes are all rhombuses, and $`f`$ is the number of flux quanta passing through each such rhombic plaquette. Like the kagomé lattice, the dice lattice has three sites per unit cell. At $`f=1/2`$ in this dice lattice, the spectrum consists of three dispersionless (infinite mass) bands , with no degeneracy between the bands. For the dice lattice, the linear dependence of the upper edge of the spectrum on field near $`f=1/2`$ arises not from the formation of Landau levels, but from an “orbital Zeeman effect”. States with nonzero net magnetic moments of either sign and localized to just a few lattice sites can be formed out of the highest energy states at $`f=1/2`$. The magnetic moments are due to currents circulating around the plaquettes and cause these states to have energies that depend linearly on the magnetic field. Although the kagomé latice spectrum also has such a dispersionless band at $`f=1/2`$, the localized states that can be made from this band in the kagomé case have no net magnetic moment and thus no such orbital Zeeman effect.

We thank Duncan Haldane, Mark J. Higgins, Shobo Bhattacharya, Kyungwha Park, Marc Schreiber, Yeong-Lieh Lin and Franco Nori for helpful discussions. This work was supported by NSF Grants No. DMR 98-09483 , 98-02468, 99-76576 and 02-13706.


text:
# Measurements of time dependent CP asymmetry in 𝐵→𝑉𝑉 decays with BELLE

## 1 Introduction

There are three helicity states in $`BVV`$ decays. Although one of the states is a pure CP even state, CP even and odd states are mixed in other states and the observed CP asymmetry is diluted. By studying decay angles of final state particles, it is possible to project out each CP state in a statistical way. A theoretical expression of differential time-angular decay rate of $`BVV`$ decays consists of components corresponding to three helicity states and also to the interference between them. Each term is expressed as a product of an angular term and an amplitude term. The amplitude term contains CP violating phase(s) as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, the decay time difference between two $`B`$ mesons from an $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ decay. A fit of the expression for the measured decay angles and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ gives the determination of the CP violating phase(s). The interference terms are also rich sources of various interesting physics such as the $`\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _1`$ measurement in $`B^0J/\psi K^0(K_S^0\pi ^0)`$ decays, and the simultaneous determination of $`r`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi _1+\varphi _3)`$ in $`B^0D^{}\rho ^+`$ decays where $`r`$ is the ratio of doubly-Cabibbo-suppressed mode to Cabibbo favored mode contributing to the decay.

In this talk, a study of time dependent angular analysis for $`BJ/\psi K^{}(K_S^0\pi ^0)`$ is discussed. Also reported is status of angular analyses for $`B^0D^+D^{}`$ and $`B^0D^{}\rho ^+`$. The data used in the analyses are taken with the Belle detector in the KEKB accelerator. The KEKB accelerator consists of two separate rings for electrons and positrons. The energies are set at 3.5 GeV for positrons and 8.0 GeV for electrons, respectively. These two beams are collided at the interaction point to produce $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ in motion for the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. The peak luminosity of the machine has reached $`7.4\times 10^{33}cm^2sec^1`$ which is the current world record. The total integrated luminosity up to now is $`89.1fb^1`$. The Belle detector is placed at the interaction point of the KEKB accelerator. It is a general-purpose detector with a wide angle coverage featuring a particle identification using the Aerogel Cherenkov Counter assembly. The data sample used in the analyses corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 78 fb-1 taken on the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance.

## 2 Time dependent angular analysis for $`B^0J/\psi K^{}(K_S^0\pi ^0)`$

Candidate $`B^0`$ mesons are reconstructed by selecting events with a $`J/\psi `$ identified from a pair of oppositely-charged leptons and a $`K^{}`$ from a pair of $`K_S^0`$ and $`\pi ^0`$ candidates. The beam-constrained mass ($`M_{bc}`$), which is the invariant mass of a reconstructed $`J/\psi `$ and $`K^{}`$ calculated taking the energy to be the beam energy, is required to be in the range $`5.275.29\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and the energy difference between $`B`$ candidate and the beam energy ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$) to satisfy $`50\mathrm{MeV}<\mathrm{\Delta }E<30\mathrm{MeV}`$. To eliminate slow $`\pi ^0`$ backgrounds, the angle of the kaon with respect to the $`K^{}`$ direction in the $`K^{}`$ rest frame, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _K^{}`$, is required to satisfy $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _K^{}<0.8`$. When an event contains more than one candidate passing the above requirements, the combination for which $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is closest to zero is selected. The number of events remaining after the selection is 104.

The time dependent angular distribution of the decay is described as:

$$\frac{d^4\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta _{tr},\varphi _{tr},\theta _K^{},\mathrm{\Delta }t)}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tr}d\varphi _{tr}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _K^{}d\mathrm{\Delta }t}$$

$$=\frac{e^{|\mathrm{\Delta }t|/\tau _{B^0}}}{2\tau _{B^0}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}g_i(\theta _{tr},\varphi _{tr},\theta _K^{})a_i(\mathrm{\Delta }t)$$
(1)
where $`g_i`$ are the angular terms and $`a_i`$ are amplitude terms. $`\tau _B`$ is the lifetime of a $`B^0`$ meson. The $`g_i`$ are expressed as:

$`g_1`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _K^{}(1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi _{tr})`$ (2)
$`g_2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _K^{}(1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _{tr})`$ (3)
$`g_3`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _K^{}sin^2\theta _{tr}`$ (4)
$`g_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _K^{}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _{tr}`$ (5)
$`g_5`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _K^{}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{tr}`$ (6)
$`g_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _K^{}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{tr}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{tr}`$ (7)
where $`\theta _{tr}`$, $`\varphi _{tr}`$ and $`\theta _K^{}`$ are the decay angles defined in the transversity basis. The $`a_i`$ are

$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`|A_0|^2(1+\eta \mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ (8)
$`a_2`$ $`=`$ $`|A_{}|^2(1+\eta \mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ (9)
$`a_3`$ $`=`$ $`|A_{}|^2(1\eta \mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ (10)
$`a_4`$ $`=`$ $`Re(A_{}^{}A_0)(1+\eta \mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ (11)
$`a_5`$ $`=`$ $`\eta Im(A_{}^{}A_{})\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ (12)
$`\eta Re(A_{}^{}A_{})\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }t`$
$`a_6`$ $`=`$ $`\eta Im(A_0^{}A_{})\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ (13)
$`\eta Re(A_0^{}A_{})\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }t`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ is the $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing parameter. $`\eta `$ is +1 for $`B^0`$ while -1 for $`\overline{B^0}`$. $`A_0`$, $`A_{}`$ and $`A_{}`$ are the complex decay amplitudes for three helicity states in the transversity basis. Two CP violation parameters, $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _1`$, appear in the formula. The values of these parameters are determined by fitting the formula to the measured angles and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, taking into account the detection efficiency and background. The fit is done using an unbinned maximum likelihood method. The probability density function for an event is defined as

$$PDF=f_{sig}\left(M_{bc}\right)ϵ(\theta _{tr},\varphi _{tr},\theta _K^{})$$

$$\times \frac{d^4\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tr},\varphi _{tr},\mathrm{cos}\theta _K^{},\mathrm{\Delta }t)}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tr}d\varphi _{tr}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _K^{}d\mathrm{\Delta }t}$$

$$+\frac{e^{\left|\mathrm{\Delta }t\right|/\tau _{B^0}}}{2\tau _{B^0}}$$

$$\times \{\underset{i}{}f_{cf}^i\left(M_{bc}\right)ADF_{cf}(\theta _{tr},\varphi _{tr},\theta _K^{})$$

$$+f_{nr}\left(M_{bc}\right)ADF_{nr}(\theta _{tr},\varphi _{tr},\theta _K^{})\}$$

$$+\delta \left(\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)f_{combi}\left(M_{bc}\right)ADF_{combi}(\theta _{tr},\varphi _{tr},\theta _K^{}).$$
(14)
$`f_{sig}`$, $`f_{cf}`$, $`f_{nr}`$ and $`f_{combi}`$ are fractions of the signal, cross feed, non-resonant production, and combinatorial background as a function of $`M_{bc}`$, respectively, while $`ADF_{cf}`$, $`ADF_{nr}`$ and $`ADF_{combi}`$ are corresponding angular shape functions. $`ϵ`$ is a three dimensional detection efficiency function for the signal. The determinations of these functions and the decay amplitudes are described in ref.. Phases in the amplitudes are chosen so as to conserve $`s`$-quark helicity. The $`\tau _B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ are fixed at the PDG values in the fit. The flavor tagging procedure gives the flavor of tag-side $`B`$ meson $`q`$ and the probability of wrong tag $`w`$. To account for the effect of the wrong tagging in the data, $`\eta `$ is replaced with $`q(12w)`$ in the PDF.

Each term in the PDF is then convolved with appropriate resolution functions separately for the signal, the backgrounds with a $`B^0`$ lifetime and the combinatorial background with a $`\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ function shape. The parameters in the resolution functions are calculated event by event. From the fit to the data, we obtain $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1=0.13\pm 0.51\pm 0.06,`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _1=1.40\pm 1.28\pm 0.19`$. The systematic errors include uncertainties in the resolution parameters, wrong tagging fractions, decay amplitudes, background fractions and shapes, and others. The distributions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ measured for the samples tagged as $`q=+1`$ and $`1`$ are shown in Figure 1 together with the predictions by the PDF with obtained CP parameter values.

## 3 Time independent angular analyses

The time dependent angular analysis is applicable for other $`BVV`$ decays such as $`B^0D^+D^{}`$, $`D^{}\rho ^+`$ and $`\rho ^+\rho ^{}`$111The angular analysis for $`B^+\rho ^+\rho ^0`$ is covered in other talk. for the determination of CP violating phases including those other than $`\varphi _1`$. Time dependent analyses for these modes are still in preparation and the status of time independent(integrated) analyses is reported here. The measurement of the decay amplitudes by the time independent angular analysis is essential for the determinations of the CP violating phases.

### 3.1 $`B^0D^+D^{}`$

The reconstruction of a $`D^{}`$ is performed using a $`D\pi `$ decay with a subsequent $`D`$ decay into $`K\pi ,K\pi \pi ,K\pi \pi \pi ,KK`$ and $`KK\pi `$. A $`D`$ meson is identified when the invariant mass of decay particles is within 3 to 6 $`\sigma `$ from the nominal $`D`$ mass depending on the decay mode. A $`D^{}`$ is reconstructed by calculating the mass difference $`M(D\pi )M(D)`$ and those satisfy the difference within $`3.0MeV(D^0)`$ or $`2.25MeV(D^+)`$ are identified as $`D^{}`$. The candidate $`B`$ mesons are selected by applying $`M_{bc}>M_{B^0}3\sigma `$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|<40MeV`$.

The distribution of the transversity angle is measured in the selected $`B^0`$ candidates as shown in Fig. 2. The distribution can be expressed as a function of the fraction of CP-odd component ($`R_T`$) as

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _tr}=\frac{3}{4}\left(1R_T\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{tr}+\frac{3}{2}R_T\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{tr}.$$
(15)
The predictions given by this formula for cases with $`R_T=0`$ and $`R_T=1`$ are also shown in the figure. As seen, the distribution of the data is close to the prediction with $`R_T=0`$.

### 3.2 $`B^0D^{}\rho ^+`$

The reconstruction of a $`D^{}`$ is performed in a similar manner as described above. A $`\rho ^+`$ is reconstructed from a pair of $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^0`$ candidates. The $`M_{bc}`$ of a pair of reconstructed $`D^{}`$ and $`\rho `$ is required to be in the range 5.27 - 5.29 GeV/$`c^2`$ to and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ to satisfy $`100<|\mathrm{\Delta }E|<50MeV`$.

The time independent angular distribution is studied using the helicity basis angles. The decay rates as a function of each of three projected angles (two helicity angles $`\theta _i`$ where $`i=1,2`$, and an angle between two decay planes $`\chi `$) can be expressed as

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _i}=\frac{4\pi }{3}\left|A_0\right|^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _i+\frac{2\pi }{3}\left(\left|A_{}\right|^2+\left|A_{}\right|^2\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _i,$$
(16)
$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\chi }=\left(\frac{4}{9}\left|A_0\right|^2+\frac{8}{9}\left|A_{}\right|^2\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\chi $$

$$+\left(\frac{4}{9}\left|A_0\right|^2+\frac{8}{9}\left|A_{}\right|^2\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\chi +\frac{8}{9}Im\left(A_{}^{}A_{}\right)\mathrm{sin}2\chi $$
(17)
where $`A_0`$, $`A_{}`$ and $`A_{}`$ are the decay amplitudes in the transversity basis. In addition, we also used $`\chi `$-differential decay rates projected in 4 quadrants of a $`\theta _1\theta _2`$ plane (angular regions from 0 to $`\pi /2`$ and $`\pi /2`$ to $`\pi `$ for each of them) to observe the effects in interference terms. The difference in the decay rates between two diagonally-summed quadrants ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) can be written as

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }}{d\chi }=\frac{8}{9\sqrt{2}}Im\left(A_0^{}A_{}\right)\mathrm{sin}\chi +\frac{8}{9\sqrt{2}}Re\left(A_0^{}A_{}\right)\mathrm{cos}\chi .$$
(18)
Fig. 3 shows the distributions of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _i`$ ($`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$ distributions are added), $`\chi `$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\chi )`$. The measurement of the decay amplitudes is now in progress by fitting these distributions with the theoretical formula given above considering effects of the detector acceptance and background contaminations.

## 4 Summary

A full time dependent angular analysis is performed for $`B^0J/\psi K^0(K_S^0\pi ^0)`$ decays collected with the Belle detector at KEK B-factory. The decay angles in the transversity basis ($`\theta _{tr}`$, $`\varphi _{tr}`$ and $`\theta _K^{}`$) and the decay time difference of two $`B`$ mesons ($`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$) are measured for each event with the determination of the flavor of tag-side $`B`$ meson. The values are fitted to the theoretical distribution using an unbinned maximum likelihood method considering the effects of detector acceptance, background contamination, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ resolution and wrong flavor tagging. From the fit, two CP violation parameters are determined to be $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1=+0.13\pm 0.51\pm 0.06`$, and $`\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _1=+1.40\pm 1.28\pm 0.19`$. If we take the s-quark helicity conservation choice of the amplitude phases and the $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$ value measured using other decay modes ($`0.72\pm 0.07\pm 0.04`$), the obtained sign of $`\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _1`$ suggests the $`2\varphi _1`$ to be in the range $`0^{}<2\varphi _1<90^{}`$ and the other choice of $`2\varphi _190^{}`$ is not preferred although the current statistics is not enough to conclude this.

A time independent angular analysis for other decay modes, $`B^0D^+D^{}`$, $`B^0D^{}\rho ^+`$, and $`B^+\rho ^+\rho ^0`$, are now being performed.