text:
# LSND anomaly from 𝐶𝑃𝑇 violation in four-neutrino models

## I Introduction

The LSND experiment has found evidence for $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ oscillations at the $`3.3\sigma `$ level lsnd-dar ; lsnd-final , with indications for $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillations at lesser significance lsnd-final ; lsnd-dif . The combination of the LSND data with the compelling evidence for oscillations in solar, atmospheric, accelerator, and reactor neutrino experiments cannot be adequately explained in the standard three-neutrino picture with $`CPT`$ conservation sterile . Extensions to models with four light neutrinos (with the extra neutrino being sterile) sterile  or $`CPT`$ violation cptv ; cptv2  with three neutrinos have been proposed to accommodate all neutrino data. However, in both cases, recent analyses indicate that neither scenario provides a good description of the data not-four ; not-cptv .

The MiniBooNE experiment miniboone  is now taking data that will test the LSND oscillation parameters111The bulk of the parameter region allowed by $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ data from LSND and KARMEN karmen  and $`\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e`$ data from the Bugey reactor experiment bugey , lies in a narrow band in $`(\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _L,\delta m_L^2)`$ space along the line described approximately by $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _L(\delta m_L^2)^{1.64}=0.0025`$ between $`\delta m_L^20.2`$ and 1 eV2. A small allowed region near $`\delta m_L^27`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _L=0.004`$ also exists church . in the $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ channel. A positive result in MiniBooNE will rule out current versions of $`CPT`$-violating models, while a negative result will rule out four-neutrino models with $`CPT`$ conservation. In either case, the surviving models will still not give a good fit to all data.

In this letter we consider the very speculative possibility of $`CPT`$ violation in four-neutrino models. The $`CPT`$ violation is manifested as different mass matrices for neutrinos and antineutrinos222Whether such a model can be constructed using nonlocality of the interactions without violating Lorentz invariance is still a matter of debate greenberg .. We find that such a scenario can accommodate the data only if the sterile neutrino is weakly coupled to active neutrinos. Thus, while 3 + 1 models are viable, 2 + 2 models (in which the sterile neutrino is strongly coupled to active neutrinos in solar and/or atmospheric oscillations), are not. A hybrid solution (3 + 1 for neutrinos and 2 + 2 for antineutrinos) is also possible.

## II Four neutrinos or $`CPT`$ violation?

There are two types of four-neutrino models: (a) 3 + 1, where active neutrinos have mass-squared differences and mixings similar to the standard three-neutrino model that describes solar and atmospheric data, and (b) 2 + 2, where there are two pairs of closely spaced mass eigenstates, one of which accounts for the solar neutrino data and the other for the atmospheric neutrino data. The 3 + 1 models with $`CPT`$ conservation are disfavored because the Bugey reactor bugey  and CDHSW accelerator cdhsw  experiments put constraints on oscillation amplitudes for $`\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu `$ survival, respectively, which together imply an upper limit on the LSND oscillation amplitude that is below the experimental value not-four ; 4nu-constraints ; our-four . The 2 + 2 models with $`CPT`$ conservation are ruled out because the combination of solar and atmospheric data do not allow enough room for a full sterile neutrino not-four . To resurrect the scenario in which sterile and active states are only weakly coupled, it has been shown that extending 3 + 1 models by an extra sterile neutrino improves the fit to short-baseline data substantially sorel . The constraints on 2 + 2 models may be relaxed by including certain small neglected mixing angles in the analysis pas-song-weiler .

In $`CPT`$-violating models with three neutrinos, the mass spectra, and hence the mass-squared differences, are different for neutrinos and antineutrinos333A comparison of solar and reactor neutrino data can constrain $`CPT`$ violation us ; a 90% C. L. limit of $`|\delta \overline{m}^2\delta m^2|<1.3\times 10^3`$ eV2 was found in Ref. murayama .. In the original versions of these models cptv , the neutrino mass-squared differences accounted for the solar and atmospheric oscillations (but not the weak $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ signal in LSND), while the antineutrino mass-squared differences accounted for the LSND and atmospheric oscillations. With the addition of the KamLAND data indicating $`\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e`$ oscillations at the solar $`\delta m^2`$ scale, the antineutrino mass-squared differences were adjusted to account for the LSND and KamLAND oscillations (but not oscillations of atmospheric antineutrinos) cptv2 . An analysis of the atmospheric data showed that the modified $`CPT`$-violating model did not give a good fit and is excluded at the $`3\sigma `$ level not-cptv . Thus, neither four-neutrino models with $`CPT`$ conservation nor three-neutrino models with $`CPT`$ violation provides a consistent explanation of all the data including LSND.

## III Four neutrinos with $`CPT`$ violation

The neutrino flavor states $`\nu _\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau ,s`$) are related to the mass eigenstates $`\nu _i`$ by a unitary matrix $`U`$, with

$$\nu _\alpha =\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}U_{\alpha i}^{}\nu _i.$$
(1)
If $`CPT`$ is not conserved, then the corresponding unitary matrix $`\overline{U}`$ for antineutrinos, given by

$$\overline{\nu }_\alpha =\underset{i}{}\overline{U}_{\alpha i}\overline{\nu }_i,$$
(2)
will not necessarily be equal to $`U`$. Furthermore, the neutrino and antineutrino eigenmasses will not necessarily be the same. We will assume that there are three different mass-squared difference scales for neutrinos, $`\delta m_s^2\delta m_a^2\delta m_L^2`$, that can explain the solar, atmospheric and LSND data, respectively, and that the corresponding mass-squared differences for antineutrinos are similar to those for neutrinos, i.e., $`\delta \overline{m}_s^2\delta m_s^2`$, $`\delta \overline{m}_a^2\delta m_a^2`$, and $`\delta \overline{m}_L^2\delta m_L^2`$.

### III.1 3 + 1 models

In 3 + 1 models there is one neutrino mass well-separated from the others by $`\delta m_L^2`$, and the sterile neutrino couples strongly only to the isolated state. There are four different mass spectra in 3 + 1 models, depending on whether the isolated state is above or below the others, and whether the other three neutrino states have a normal or inverted mass hierarchy. We consider the case with $`m_4>m_1,m_2,m_3`$ and normal hierarchy, which implies $`\delta m_{41}^2\delta m_{42}^2\delta m_{43}^2=\delta m_L^2\delta m_{31}^2\delta m_{32}^2=\delta m_a^2\delta m_{21}^2=\delta m_s^2`$, with similar relations for $`\delta \overline{m}_{ij}^2`$ (the argument is similar for the other cases). Then the relevant oscillation probabilities for neutrinos are approximately,

$$P(\nu _e\nu _e)_{\mathrm{solar}}14|U_{e1}|^2|U_{e2}|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_s,$$
(3)
$$P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )_{\mathrm{atm}}14|U_{\mu 3}|^2(1|U_{\mu 3}|^2|U_{\mu 4}|^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_a,$$
(4)
$$P(\nu _\mu \nu _e)_{\mathrm{MiniBooNE}}4|U_{e4}|^2|U_{\mu 4}|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_L,$$
(5)
$$P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )_{\mathrm{CDHSW}}14|U_{\mu 4}|^2(1|U_{\mu 4}|^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_L,$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x=\delta m_x^2L/(4E_\nu )`$ is the usual oscillation argument for $`x=s`$, $`a`$, or $`L`$. The relevant oscillation probabilities for antineutrinos are approximately,

$$\overline{P}(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e)_{\mathrm{KamLAND}}14|\overline{U}_{e1}|^2|\overline{U}_{e2}|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_s,$$
(7)
$$\overline{P}(\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu )_{\mathrm{atm}}14|\overline{U}_{\mu 3}|^2(1|\overline{U}_{\mu 3}|^2|\overline{U}_{\mu 4}|^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_a,$$
(8)
$$\overline{P}(\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e)_{\mathrm{LSND}}4|\overline{U}_{e4}|^2|\overline{U}_{\mu 4}|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_L,$$
(9)
$$\overline{P}(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e)_{\mathrm{Bugey}}14|\overline{U}_{e4}|^2(1|\overline{U}_{e4}|^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_L,$$
(10)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_x=\delta \overline{m}_x^2L/(4E_\nu )`$. We note that LSND has already made a measurement for $`P_{\mathrm{miniBooNE}}`$, although at the $`2\sigma `$ level it is consistent with both $`\overline{P}_{\mathrm{LSND}}`$ and zero.

If $`CPT`$ is not conserved444The reason that 3 + 1 models with $`CPT`$ conservation (where $`\overline{U}=U`$) are disfavored is that $`|U_{\mu 4}|^2`$ must be small from a combination of the strict CDHSW limit cdhsw  and the large mixing of atmospheric $`\nu _\mu `$, and $`|U_{e4}|^2`$ must be small from a combination of the strict Bugey limit bugey  and the large mixing of solar $`\nu _e`$ and KamLAND $`\overline{\nu }_e`$, leading to an upper bound on the LSND amplitude $`4|U_{e4}|^2|U_{\mu 4}|^2`$ 4nu-constraints ; our-four . The CDHSW and Bugey limits are $`\delta m_L^2`$ dependent (as is the LSND allowed amplitude), but a comparison at all $`\delta m_L^2`$ shows that nowhere does the LSND+KARMEN 95% C. L. allowed region overlap the 95% C. L. allowed region from the other experiments grimus-schwetz . The most recent comprehensive analysis concludes that the 3 + 1 models have a goodness of fit of at most $`5.6\times 10^3`$ not-four . , then in general $`\overline{U}U`$. The Bugey+CDHSW bound on LSND and MiniBooNE can now be evaded since Bugey limits $`|\overline{U}_{e4}|`$ and CDHSW limits $`|U_{\mu 4}|`$, but $`|\overline{U}_{\mu 4}|`$ and $`|U_{e4}|`$ are no longer tightly constrained. The bounds on the amplitudes for $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillations must be determined separately555Although neutrino telescopes are capable of probing the LSND scale renata , they are unable to test $`CPT`$-violating schemes because neutrino and antineutrino oscillation probabilities are not measured separately.:

1. The best constraint on $`|U_{e4}|`$ comes from $`\nu _e`$ disappearance performed during GALLEX testing with a 51Cr neutrino source hampel ; it does not extend as low in $`\delta m_L^2`$ as the Bugey constraint and is about an order of magnitude weaker at high $`\delta m_L^2`$. (The GALLEX survival probability is given by Eq. 10 with $`\overline{U}_{e4}`$ replaced by $`U_{e4}`$). When combined with the limit on $`|U_{\mu 4}|`$ from CDHSW cdhsw , a range of $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillation amplitudes ($`4|U_{e4}|^2|U_{\mu 4}|^2`$) is excluded; see Fig. 1. A positive MiniBooNE result that exceeds the upper bound in Fig. 1 will rule out 3 + 1 models with $`CPT`$ violation, while a null or positive result that obeys the upper bound is easily accommodated. A MiniBooNE measurement consistent with the region allowed by LSND and KARMEN would mean that the values of $`4|U_{e4}|^2|U_{\mu 4}|^2`$ and $`4|\overline{U}_{e4}|^2|\overline{U}_{\mu 4}|^2`$ are similar, but the Bugey+CDHSW bound demands $`\overline{U}U`$. In fact, a MiniBooNE measurement that lies below the GALLEX+CDHSW upper limit and above the Bugey+CDHSW limit, would place a lower bound on the amount of $`CPT`$ violation.
2. The best accelerator constraint on $`|\overline{U}_{\mu 4}|`$ comes from the CCFR experiment that searched for $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ disappearance ccfr2 ; there is no limit for $`\delta m_L^2<7`$ eV2. Although $`|\overline{U}_{\mu 4}|`$ cannot be so large as to disturb the usual fits to atmospheric data (which indicate the dominant oscillation is at the $`\delta m_a^2`$ scale), $`|\overline{U}_{\mu 4}|^2`$ can probably be of order a few per cent, which allows the LSND amplitude $`4|\overline{U}_{e4}|^2|\overline{U}_{\mu 4}|^2`$ to be large enough to account for the LSND $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ data, at least for the larger values of $`\delta \overline{m}_L^2`$ allowed by LSND (near 1 eV2 and 7 eV2); see Fig. 2.

We note that fits for neutrinos and antineutrinos no longer must agree, so that, e.g., the solar fits are now independent of the KamLAND fits. Thus, any differences that might occur between the KamLAND and solar neutrino allowed regions could be explained by $`CPT`$ violation. Similarly, results for atmospheric neutrinos and antineutrinos (which could perhaps be measured separately in MINOS minos ) could also be different and still be easily accommodated in the model. On the other hand, if there were no discernible difference between the neutrino and antineutrino fits to solar, KamLAND, and atmospheric data, the amount of $`CPT`$ violation needed would be small, since then the only differences between neutrino and antineutrino parameters would occur in the small mixings between the sterile and the active states.

### III.2 2 + 2 models

Constraints on 2 + 2 models are different from those on the 3 + 1 models because they have different expressions for the oscillation probabilities. The difficulty with these models is that the sterile neutrino is strongly coupled to solar and/or atmospheric neutrino oscillations, and there are bounds on the amount of sterile content in each case. In 2 + 2 models, solar $`\nu _e`$ oscillate predominantly to a linear combination of $`\nu _\tau `$ and $`\nu _s`$ and atmospheric $`\nu _\mu `$ oscillate to the orthogonal combination our-four :

$`\nu _e`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha \nu _\tau +\mathrm{cos}\alpha \nu _s,`$ (11)
$`\nu _\mu `$ $``$ $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha \nu _\tau +\mathrm{sin}\alpha \nu _s.`$ (12)
If $`CPT`$ is violated, then there is a similar sterile mixing angle $`\overline{\alpha }`$ for antineutrinos. The amount of sterile content is $`\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha `$ in solar neutrino oscillations, $`\mathrm{cos}^2\overline{\alpha }`$ in KamLAND, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha `$ in atmospheric neutrino oscillations, and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\overline{\alpha }`$ in atmospheric antineutrino oscillations. Fits to solar neutrino data give the 99% C. L. limit not-four ,

$$\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha 0.45;$$
(13)
note that there is no limit on $`\mathrm{cos}^2\overline{\alpha }`$ from KamLAND since the short baseline has negligible matter effects and it therefore does not test the the sterile content. Fits to the atmospheric neutrino data (which do not distinguish between neutrinos and antineutrinos) give the 99% C. L. limit not-four ,

$$\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha +\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\overline{\alpha }0.35,$$
(14)
due to the lack of matter effects that would occur in $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$ oscillations superK-tau . In Eq. (14), neutrinos contribute with twice the strength of antineutrinos because of their larger interaction cross section.

The bounds on 2 + 2 models are shown in Fig. 3 versus $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\overline{\alpha }`$. The $`CPT`$-conserving case $`\alpha =\overline{\alpha }`$ is indicated by the dotted line. A recent comprehensive analysis of 2 + 2 models with $`CPT`$ conservation concludes that the goodness of fit to all data is only $`1.6\times 10^6`$ not-four , which is worse than that of 3 + 1 models with $`CPT`$ conservation666The strong exclusion of the $`CPT`$ conserving case is also evident by adding together the constraints of Eqs. (13) and (14), which for $`\overline{\alpha }=\alpha `$ yields $`\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha +\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha 0.80`$.. When $`CPT`$ is violated, i.e., $`\alpha \overline{\alpha }`$, there is no region that obeys both the solar and atmospheric bounds. Thus even when $`CPT`$ is violated, 2 + 2 models are strongly disfavored.

The analysis that lead to Eq. (13) used the standard solar model (SSM) bahcall  neutrino fluxes, including their theoretical uncertainties. If the 8B neutrino flux is allowed to be free, this bound relaxes to $`\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha 0.61`$ not-four2 . Then the solar constraint in Fig. 3 is $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha 0.39`$, and there is a small allowed region with $`0.39\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha 0.53`$ and small $`\mathrm{sin}^2\overline{\alpha }`$. This can be understood qualitatively as follows: although there is no room for a full sterile neutrino in the solar and atmospheric data when $`CPT`$ is conserved, with $`CPT`$ violation the fact that KamLAND does not test the sterile content means that oscillations of atmospheric antineutrinos can be largely to active neutrinos, which effectively dilutes the constraint on the sterile content in atmospheric neutrino oscillations. However, there is currently no reason to believe that the 8B neutrino flux is not well-described by the SSM.

### III.3 Hybrid models

Since $`CPT`$ is violated, in principle one can have a 3 + 1 model in the neutrino sector and a 2 + 2 model in the antineutrino sector, or vice versa. We now examine these two possibilities:

1. (3 + 1)ν, (2 + 2)$`_{\overline{\nu }}`$. In this case, oscillations in the neutrino sector are predominantly to active neutrinos, and there is no sterile content bound from solar neutrino data. For the atmospheric data, this situation is equivalent to $`\alpha 0`$ in Eq. (14), which leads to no bound on $`\overline{\alpha }`$. Observation of a non-negligible sterile content in the oscillations of atmospheric antineutrinos, but not atmospheric neutrinos, would provide supporting evidence for this model, although such sterile content is not required.
2. (2 + 2)ν, (3 + 1)$`_{\overline{\nu }}`$. In this case, oscillations in the antineutrino sector are predominantly to active species. The bound in Eq. (13) remains the same ($`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha 0.55`$), and the bound from the atmospheric data can be found by setting $`\overline{\alpha }=0`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha 0.53`$. Therefore this hybrid combination, like the pure 2 + 2 model, is strongly disfavored.

Furthermore, it is possible that more general models that do not fit the 3 + 1 and/or 2 + 2 structure can provide a satisfactory fit to the data, although we do not perform such an analysis here.

## IV Summary

We have argued that a four-neutrino model with $`CPT`$ violation can provide an explanation of all neutrino oscillation data if the neutrino sector has a 3 + 1 structure and the antineutrino sector is either 3 + 1 or 2 + 2; a 2 + 2 structure is not allowed in the neutrino sector. If the antineutrino sector is 3 + 1, then $`\delta \overline{m}_L^2`$ must be near 1 or 7 eV2, while if it is 2 + 2, the entire range of $`\delta \overline{m}_L^2`$ allowed by LSND, KARMEN and Bugey is possible.

A detection of $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillations by MiniBooNE with parameters above the solid line in Fig. 1 will require $`CPT`$ violation to be too large and 3 + 1 models with $`CPT`$ violation will be excluded. However, if MiniBooNE has a null oscillation result or finds oscillation parameters that lie below the solid line, such models will remain viable. Even if the MiniBooNE allowed region for neutrinos falls within the LSND+KARMEN allowed region for antineutrinos, the Bugey+CDHSW bound on $`CPT`$ conserving 3 + 1 models (dot-dashed line in Fig. 1) implies $`CPT`$ violation of the size of the LSND effect ($`𝒪(10^3)`$ in terms of oscillation probabilities).

Acknowledgments. This research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grants No. DE-FG02-95ER40896, DE-FG02-01ER41155 and DE-FG02-91ER40676, and in part by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.


format: text

text:
# Nanotube Piezoelectricity

(August 21, 2003)

## Abstract

We combine ab initio, tight-binding methods and analytical theory to study piezoelectric effect of boron nitride nanotubes. We find that piezoelectricity of a heteropolar nanotube depends on its chirality and diameter and can be understood starting from the piezoelectric response of an isolated planar sheet, along with a structure specific mapping from the sheet onto the tube surface. We demonstrate that coupling between the uniaxial and shear deformation are only allowed in the nanotubes with lower chiral symmetry. Our study shows that piezoelectricity of nanotubes is fundamentally different from its counterpart in three dimensional (3D) bulk materials.

The physical properties of a nanotube along its extended direction are controlled by the boundary conditions imposed along its wrapped direction. The existence of both semiconducting and metallic forms of pure carbon nanotubes provides a striking example.book  The recently discovered electric polarization in heteropolar nanotubes (e.g. Boron-Nitride) presents a new physical manifestation of this effect.Mele  Since the polarization can be modulated by elastic strains of the tube, these materials provide a new class of molecular piezoelectrics where mechanical strain is linearly coupled to an electric field. Piezoelectric nanotubes thus hold promise for application in nanometer scale sensors and actuators.

In the modern quantum theory of polarized solids the electric polarization is computed from the geometric phase King-Smith  (Berry’s phase) accumulated by the occupied electronic states as one introduces a potential that adiabatically connects an unpolarized and polarized state of the system. For a BN nanotube the Berry’s phase and hence the polarization is controlled by the periodic boundary condition on electronic wavefunctions.Mele  Piezoelectric effect, on the other hand, is determined by the dependence of macroscopic polarization on the local strain induced effects: redistribution of the valence charge density, curvature induced rehybridization of the electronic orbitals and relaxations of the positions of the atoms on the tube walls which are all short range in character. Here we show that it is this latter character that allows the piezoelectric response to follow a simple transformation rule when the structure changes from a sheet to tube geometry.

The prototypical example of piezoelectric nanotubes is found in the family of BN nanotubes where the alternation of group III(B) and group V(N) elements on the honeycomb lattice lowers the symmetry. A BN nanotube can have a nonzero electric polarization ionic  unlike its planar counterpart where this is forbidden by the threefold rotational symmetry of an isolated two dimensional (2D) BN sheet. However an elastic coplanar deformation of a BN sheet lowers its lattice symmetry, redistributes the valence charge and produces a nonzero polarization. Fig. 1 illustrates the effect of a uniaxial strain ($`\eta _{xx}`$) and a shear strain ($`\eta _{yx}`$) of the BN sheet, with both distortions greatly exaggerated for clarity. These distortions induce the electric dipole moments denoted by the arrows. The linear response of the electric polarization $`P_i`$ to an applied strain $`\eta _{jk}`$ is described by the third rank piezoelectric tensor $`e_{ijk}=P_i/\eta _{jk}`$. The $`3m`$ symmetry of the unstrained sheet requires that the piezoelectric tensor is unchanged by threefold rotations of the lattice and the elements of the piezoelectric tensor obey the symmetry relation $`e_{xxx}=e_{xyy}=e_{yxy}=e_{yyx}`$.

To study the microscopic origin of this behavior we first carried out ab initio calculations of the piezoelectric constants of the flat BN sheet using a planewave pseudopotential method based on density-functional theory within the local density approximation. The calculation is performed with the Abinit package Abinit  using Troullier-Martins pseudopotentials TM  with an energy cutoff of 45 Hartree and $`4\times 4\times 1`$ $`k`$-point grid throughout. To create a computational cell that is periodic in all three spatial dimensions we stacked the BN sheets with an interplanar distance 20 Bohr so that there is negligible wave function overlap between layers. The electronic polarization was computed for a series of strained lattices using the Berry’s phase formulation King-Smith  (discretized on a dense $`k`$-point grid along the direction of the polarization) and the piezoelectric constants were obtained by calculating lattices with strains in the range of $`1\%\eta _{jk}5\%`$. By defining the positive direction to be the bond direction from B atom to N atom as shown in Fig. 1, we find $`e_{xxx}=0.12\mathrm{e}/\mathrm{Bohr}`$. Our calculations for the sheets with a shear strain $`\eta _{xy}`$ have explicitly verified the symmetry relations among the piezoelectric tensor elements and showed that the piezoelectric properties of the sheet are controlled by a single coefficient. To carry out a systematic study of the piezoelectric behavior of a large family of wrapped structures parameterized by integer indices $`(m,n)`$, book  we combine the ab initio DFT method with a computationally less intensive albeit less accurate tight-binding (TB) method. We used a non-orthogonal basis set with four orbitals per site to describe the $`2s`$ and $`2p`$ atomic orbitals. Porezag  We were able to benchmark our tight-binding method by comparing calculations of the piezoelectric constant of the BN sheet using both theories. We find that the TB theory yields $`e_{xxx}=0.086\mathrm{e}/\mathrm{Bohr}`$ which is smaller than the ab initio result, though in acceptable agreement.

Note that the value of piezoelectric constant of a 2D BN sheet has a dimension charge per unit length. A quantitative comparison of the piezoelectric constant of the flat sheet to the piezoelectric coefficients of 3D bulk material requires specification of the interlayer spacing and packing. For example, if we convert the above 2D flat sheet value into a conventional “bulk” piezoelectric constant using the primitive interlayer separation of $`0.34\mathrm{nm}`$,Lu  we find $`e_{3D}=0.76\mathrm{C}/\mathrm{m}^2`$. This value is similar in magnitude to $`e_{33}=0.73\mathrm{C}/\mathrm{m}^2`$ of wultzite nitrides (e.g. GaN)Bernardini  and is larger than $`0.12\mathrm{C}/\mathrm{m}^2`$ of piezoelectric polymer polyvinylidene fluoride(PVDF-TFE).Kocher  Alternatively the piezoelectric constant computed from different dimensional system can be expressed as total dipole per stoichiometric unit. Using this convention, we find that the piezoelectric constant is 1.67 dipole/unit for the BN sheet, smaller than 1.98 dipole/unit for GaN wultzite. As we show below, when a sheet is wrapped to form a tube, there is a unique well defined relation between the piezoelectric constants of a tube and flat sheet.

Two high symmetry families of nanotubes are the zig-zag structures with wrapping indices $`(n,0)`$ and the armchair structures with wrapping indices $`(n,n)`$. The one dimensional(1D) piezoelectric constants are defined as $`e_{11}=P_z/\eta _s`$ and $`e_{14}=P_z/\eta _t`$, where $`P_z`$ is the dipole moment per unit length and the $`(z,s,t)`$ indices in the tube frame refer, respectively, to the tube axis ($`z`$) and the uniaxial ($`s`$) and torsional ($`t`$) strains. In Fig. 2, the top panel shows the structures of two representative small radius members of each family and in the bottom panel we plot their piezoelectric constants in unit comparable with the two dimensional piezoelectric constants. Note that the 1D piezoelectric constant is proportional to the tube circumference $`C`$ through $`e_{1D}=Ce_{2D}`$. We find that zigzag tubes exhibit a longitudinal piezoelectric response for the case of uniaxial strain (extension or compression) but not for torsion. In contrast the armchair tubes have an electric dipole moment linearly coupled to torsion, but not to a uniaxial strain. The complementary strains, i.e. torsion for the zigzag structures and stretch for the armchair structures, produce a purely azimuthal dipole that integrates to zero on the surface of the cylinder.

For large radius tubes, one expects a correction to the piezoelectric constants of tube from its curvature, proportional to the inverse square of the tube radius. This can be seen in Fig. 2 bottom panel where we quantify this scaling behavior by plotting the calculated piezoelectric constants as a function of $`1/n^2`$. The data show that the tube piezoelectric constant rapidly approach the flat sheet values with this scaling relation, but also that curvature effects remain quite small even for relatively small radius tubes. The data also show that the $`\pi `$ and $`\sigma `$ valence electrons have the same sign for both families of structures, with the $`\pi `$ electrons dominating the piezoelectric response, accounting for approximately $`80\%`$ of the total.

For a chiral tube the wrapping vector does not lie along a high symmetry direction of the 2D honeycomb lattice. This leads to a large and low symmetry translational unit cell for the chiral nanotube making a direct calculation of its piezoelectric properties cumbersome. We make use of the results for the high symmetry armchair and zigzag structures to develop an accurate scaling theory of the piezoelectric response of chiral tubes. Ignoring the finite radius corrections arising from the tube curvature the elements of the piezoelectric tensor are specified by rotating the known piezoelectric elements of the flat sheet onto the symmetry axes of the tube. Thus, defining the chiral angle $`\theta `$ as the angle between the axis of the tube and a 2D primitive translation vector we find

$`e_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`Ce_{xxx}\mathrm{sin}(3\theta )`$
$`e_{14}`$ $`=`$ $`Ce_{yxy}\mathrm{cos}(3\theta ).`$ (1)
Finite radius corrections to the predictions of Equation (1) can then be obtained by comparing the results of this mapping to the values obtained from TB calculations on a selected set of chiral structures. Fig. 3a and b shows the result of this comparison, for uniaxial strain on the family of $`(5,m)`$ tubes and for torsion on the families of $`(5,m)`$, $`(6,m)`$ and $`(12,m)`$ families respectively. These data are very well described by the mapping of the 2D results, with surprisingly small corrections due to the tube curvature. The correction is quantified in Fig. 3c where we plot the ratio of the calculated piezoelectric modulus to its flat sheet ($`n\mathrm{}`$) value as a function of $`1/r^2`$ for the family of $`(5,m)`$ tubes. The deviations from the predictions of the flat sheet model are less than $`15\%`$ over the entire range of structures we studied.

Equation (1) also reveals that the chiral tube has allowed linear piezoelectric coupling to both uniaxial strain and torsion, unlike the higher symmetry zigzag or armchair structures. Thus the long wavelength elastic energy of a chiral tube generically has an anomalous cross term containing the product of the uniaxial and torsional strains. This implies that a tensile stress applied to a chiral tube induces torsion and conversely torsion induces a change of its length. Such a coupling is only possible for a chiral molecular structure, and indeed the coefficient of the cross term is a macroscopic manifestation of the underlying microscopic chirality of the nanotube.

Recent progress in the synthesis of nanoscale materials is demonstrating that many three dimensional lamellar phases can be fabricated in compact cylindrical structures.Tenner  The appearance of pyroelectric and piezoelectric effects is a generic feature of these structures, and can be excluded only for special high symmetry wrappings. The methods we have developed and tested here for BN nanotubes should be widely applicable to study piezoelectric effects in this broader family of nanoscale materials.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-ER0145118 and by National Science Foundation under grant DMR-00-79909. We thank J. Bernholc, S. Nakhmanson and P. Lammert for helpful discussions.


text:
# The Spin Liquid State of the Tb2Ti2O7 Pyrochlore Antiferromagnet: A Puzzling State of Affairs

## 1 Introduction

Frustrated magnetism has been actively studied for decades, and interest continues to grow. In models like the antiferromagnetic (AFM) $`J_1`$-$`J_2`$ model on a bipartite lattice, frustration results from a competition between two different ground state spin structures, one favored by $`J_1`$ and the other by $`J_2`$ The $`J_1`$-$`J_2`$ model has motivated many interesting theoretical studies, but the tuning of energy scales to induce frustration is not easily achieved experimentally. Another class of materials and models exhibit frustration at the level of nearest neighbor interactions via a competition imposed by the lattice geometry, creating geometric frustration.  Crystal geometries formed from unit triangles and AFM interactions are frustrated because the spins about a triangle can not arrange themselves so that all pairwise interactions are satisfied (i.e., $`J_1𝐒_i𝐒_j`$ for $`J_1<0`$ can not be minimized for each pair $`(i,j)`$). Hence, the triangular and kagomé lattices are common frustrated geometries in $`2d`$. In three dimensions, lattices of corner sharing triangles (garnet structures) or tetrahedra (pyrochlore and spinel structures) are frustrated with nearest neighbor AFM interactions.

The pyrochlore lattice has received increased attention recently because the $`S=1/2`$ AFM model is predicted to be a collective paramagnet, or spin liquid, in the ground state.  A $`3d`$ spin liquid is unusual,  but the role of lattice dimensionality appears to be reduced in the face of large quantum fluctuations driven by frustration.  The stabilization of a non-collinear long-range ordered state is expected when long-range interactions are included,  or when constraints arising from single-ion anisotropy are imposed.  Magnetic insulating pyrochlores, general formula A2B2O7, where A is a rare earth ion (Ho3+, Dy3+, Tb3+, Gd3+), are a subset of frustrated magnets that are at the focus of much experimental and theoretical work. This family of materials displays long-range order,  a novel “ice like” phase with residual entropy,  and collective paramagnetic behavior at milli-Kelvin temperatures.  The focus of our brief review is the candidate $`3d`$ spin liquid Tb2Ti2O7 The many conflicting experimental results and theoretical predictions of this material are discussed, and the recent progress toward a general picture for Tb2Ti2O7 is presented.

## 2 Experimental Picture of Tb2Ti2O7

The pyrochlore Tb2Ti2O7 has dominant AFM interactions as determined from dc magnetization measurements on a polycrystalline sample, $`\theta _{\mathrm{CW}}20`$K.  Results from muon spin resonance ($`\mu `$SR) clearly indicate dynamic moments down to $`70`$mK despite the development of short-range correlations at approximately $`50`$K, as seen in neutron scattering measurements.  Suppression of an ordering temperature in this material by two orders of magnitude (i.e., $`|\theta _{\mathrm{CW}}|/70\mathrm{m}\mathrm{K}=O(10^2)`$) can be understood in the context of a nearest neighbor AFM. However, Tb2Ti2O7 has a measured spin anisotropy gap of $`\mathrm{\Delta }18`$K,  attributable to crystal field effects, as well as reasonably strong dipolar interactions,  that such a large reduction in $`T_c`$ is quite puzzling.

As a first step to unraveling the mystery of Tb2Ti2O7, one has to determine the single ion properties of Tb3+ in the dense material. From experiments and calculations, Gingras et al. find that the Tb3+ moment is approximately $`5\mu _\mathrm{B}`$, a substantial reduction from the free ion result $`9.6\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ In addition, the crystal field effects on Tb3+ ($`S=3,L=3`$ so $`J=6`$) yield an effective Ising ground state level structure with a quantization axis oriented along the local $`111`$ direction,  with a gap to the next energy levels, an excited doublet, on the order of $`\mathrm{\Delta }18`$K. This $`111`$ anisotropy is significant since for AFM effective nearest neighbor interactions it greatly reduces the frustration from that of a Heisenberg like model.  With a better grip on the dipolar strength and the crystal field levels, a revised Curie-Weiss temperature of $`\theta _{\mathrm{CW}}14`$K for the dipoles and exchange is calculated and an ordering temperature of $`1`$K deduced.  Also, from theoretical work on a dipolar spin ice model ($`111`$ Ising) one is able to show that for the parameters of Tb2Ti2O7, a long-range ordered state with zero net moment about each tetrahedron (an all-in all-out state) is expected at $`T_c1.1`$K.  That experiments prove these predictions wrong is possibly due to the effects of long-range exchange beyond nearest-neighbor or quantum fluctuations.

With the single ion properties suggesting a $`111`$ Ising dipolar model for Tb2Ti2O7 at $`T<10`$K, but the absence of any agreement between this model and experiments on an ordering temperature, a re-evaluation of the model is necessary. Hence, the focus of the discussion shifts to the paramagnetic (PM) regime and the short-range correlations. Early inelastic neutron data on a single crystal found evidence for the partial softening of the lowest energy modes about $`[002]`$ and $`[220]`$ Elastic scattering measurements on a single crystal of Tb2Ti2O7 clearly display diffusive scattering about these same regions in the $`(hhl)`$ plane with the strongest correlations centered about $`[002]`$ The qualitative features of the structure factor ($`S(𝐪)`$) in the PM phase can be roughly fitted with a near neighbor AFM Heisenberg model,  suggesting that the strict Ising anisotropy might not hold for temperatures defining the PM regime of this material, i.e., $`T\stackrel{>}{}0.5`$K. Note, the PM $`S(𝐪)`$ is measured at $`9`$K in Gardner et al.  but at $`0.4`$K in Yasui et al.  A relaxation of the $`111`$ spin anisotropy in a long-range dipolar AFM pyrochlore model does yield good agreement with the PM $`S(𝐪)`$ in this material for temperatures $`T\stackrel{>}{}|\theta _{\mathrm{CW}}|\stackrel{>}{}10`$K.

Recent data for Tb2Ti2O7 in the low temperature regime suggests the existence of a spin glass like state. Hysteresis is observed in the field cooled and zero field cooled neutron scattering data below $`1.5`$K.  Thermodynamic measurements of the static susceptibility also indicate spin glass physics, albeit at a much lower temperature, $`70`$mK. .

Hence, at present the general consensus is that Tb2Ti2O7 remains a collective paramagnet down to $`T=50`$-$`70`$ mK at ambient pressures. Under high pressure, $`28`$ GPa, the material orders at $`T_c2`$K,  but the spin structure is not the $`𝐐=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ all-in all-out structure predicted from a $`111`$ Ising model,  or the “nearby” long-range ordered spin ice state.  An applied field can also induce an ordered state in this material.  Field driven ordered states is a current topic in the spin ice material Dy2Ti2O7, but unlike the spin ice materials moderate field strengths along high symmetry directions indicate weaker spin anisotropy for Tb2Ti2O7 We note that the gap between the ground state doublet and the first excited states in Tb2Ti2O7 is an order of magnitude smaller than the gap measured in the spin ice materials.

## 3 Theoretical Interpretation of Tb2Ti2O7

The Heisenberg AFM on the pyrochlore lattice is defined by the simple Hamiltonian $`H=J_1_{(i,a),(j,b)}𝐒_i^a𝐒_j^b`$ , where $`J_1<0`$, $`(i,a)`$ describes the location of a spin by its fcc lattice position $`𝐑_i`$ and tetrahedral basis point $`𝐫^a`$, and interactions are among nearest neighbors only. The Hamiltonian $`H`$ represents a highly frustrated model that produces a spin liquid ground state for quantum spins ($`𝐒_i^a=1/2`$)  or classical spins ($`𝐒_i^a=\widehat{x}S_i^{a,x}+\widehat{y}S_i^{a,y}+\widehat{z}S_i^{a,z}`$).  In the classical model, an ordered state can be induced by perturbations arising from exchange interactions beyond nearest neighbor or by constraints imposed by spin isotropy.  If the single-ion anisotropy is along the local $`111`$ direction (i.e., $`𝐒_i^a=\widehat{z}^a\sigma _i^a`$ where $`\widehat{z}^a`$ is the local $`111`$ direction and $`\sigma _i^a=\pm 1`$), then it is the nearest neighbor ferromagnetic pyrochlore (nearest neighbor spin ice) that is frustrated.  For rare earth magnets like the spin ice materials and Tb2Ti2O7, long-range dipolar interactions are a significant contribution to the Hamiltonian. Therefore, the basic model for rare earth pyrochlore insulators can be written,

$$H=J_1\underset{(i,a),(j,b)}{}𝐒_i^a𝐒_j^b+D_{\mathrm{dd}}\underset{(i,a)>(j,b)}{}\left(\frac{𝐒_i^a𝐒_j^b}{|𝐑_{ij}^{ab}|^3}\frac{3(𝐒_i^a𝐑_{ij}^{ab})(𝐒_j^b𝐑_{ij}^{ab})}{|𝐑_{ij}^{ab}|^5}\right),$$
(1)
where $`D_{\mathrm{dd}}=DR_{\mathrm{nn}}^3`$ is the nearest neighbor dipole strength, $`D=\mu _o\mu ^2/4\pi R_{\mathrm{nn}}^3`$, $`\mu `$ is the moment on the rare earth ion, $`R_{\mathrm{nn}}`$ is the nearest neighbor distance, and $`𝐑_{ij}^{ab}`$ is the vector separation between spins $`𝐒_i^a`$ and $`𝐒_j^b`$. If the spins in Eq. 1 are constrained to their local $`111`$ Ising axes, then Eq. 1 represents the dipolar $`111`$ Ising model (DIM) that successfully describes the specific heat  and paramagnetic correlations  of spin ice. When the DIM is simulated by a Monte Carlo algorithm employing nonlocal loop moves, a first order transition to a spin ice ground state is found,  with an ordering wave vector and spin structure in agreement with mean-field calculations.

The phase diagram of the DIM on the pyrochlore lattice is generated by defining the sign and magnitude of $`J_1`$ and the strength of the dipole-dipole interaction D.  The DIM exhibits two phases depending on the ratio $`J_1/D`$: For $`J_1/D\stackrel{>}{}4.525`$ a spin ice manifold results (macroscopic degeneracy), where two spins point in and two spins point out along their local $`111`$ axes for each unit tetrahedron. For $`J_1/D<4.525`$, a non-collinear long-range ordered state results, where all spins about a unit tetrahedron point either in or out along their local $`111`$ axes, this $`𝐐=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ structure is replicated over the lattice. We note that going from the PM to the $`𝐐=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ state occurs via a second order phase transition, but the path from the PM to spin ice manifold represents a cross over to a dynamically frozen state without long-range order. In the DIM, the temperature of the phase transition or cross over is signalled by the peak in the calculated specific heat, whose position depends on the value of $`J_1/D`$ Hence, the important energy scale in this model is the effective nearest neighbor exchange, $`J_{\mathrm{eff}}=J_1/3+5D/3`$, where $`1/3`$ and $`5/3`$ are geometric factors arising from the inner product of the local $`111`$ spin quantization axes. With $`J_1/D5.5`$ for Tb2Ti2O7, the prediction is a $`𝐐=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ state at approximately $`1`$K.  The subtle point about Tb2Ti2O7 in the DIM is that it sits near the boundary between the two phases, making it susceptible to fine tuning of the model parameters (exchange or dipolar energy scales and single ion crystal field state wave functions). It is conceivable that Tb2Ti2O7 might sit close to a line of disorder in the phase diagram where fluctuations dominate and a tendency to order is suppressed. The simulation of the DIM near the phase boundary presents some numerical challenges and is not well understood.

As mentioned in Section 2, Tb2Ti2O7 does not order at $`T1`$K, and suggestions from the PM $`S(𝐪)`$ results  that the $`111`$ Ising constraint should be relaxed in this case provides a hint of where to venture next. In considering the symmetry of the DIM, one can show that no strict $`111`$ Ising model on the pyrochlore lattice can reproduce the short-range correlations observed in experiments, but a model in which the rotational symmetry is partially restored is found to admit a solution compatible with experiments.  Mean-field and Monte Carlo calculations make these claims more quantitative.  Hence, in the PM regime the physics of Tb2Ti2O7 can not be ascribed to the same $`111`$ Ising interpretation of the moments that works so well for the spin ice materials.

A pitfall with a classical Heisenberg description for Tb2Ti2O7 is that complete restoration of spin isotropy does not agree with experiments and calculations of the single ion properties of the Tb3+ The g-tensor of Tb3+ in Tb2Ti2O7 exhibits $`111`$ like anisotropy below $`10`$K and a ground state doublet structure that is separated from a first excited doublet by about $`18`$K, which is on the order of the Curie-Weiss temperature for exchange and dipolar interactions ($`\theta _{\mathrm{CW}}=14`$K).  For the spin orbit coupled Tb3+ moments ($`J=6`$), the angular momentum for the two lowest lying doublets is predominately $`|M_J=\pm 4`$ for ground state and $`|M_J=\pm 5`$ for the first excited state.  Hence, transverse fluctuations between these two lowest lying doublets are allowed and non-negligible at the temperatures of the $`S(𝐪)`$ experiments, $`5`$-$`10`$K.

Applying a random phase approximation (RPA) to a model with exchange and long-range dipoles, the fluctuations between the lowest lying crystal field states can be studied, i.e., the $`111`$ Ising limit is recovered when transitions between states $`|\psi _0`$ (ground state) and $`|\psi _1`$ (first excited state) have a vanishing matrix element, $`\psi _1|S^\pm |\psi _0=0`$. Using $`|\psi _0=|M_J=\pm 4`$ and $`|\psi _1=|M_J=\pm 5>`$, the RPA  gives excellent semi-quantitative agreement with the PM $`S(𝐪)`$ and the energy dispersion between the low lying magnetic states of the neutron experiments.  However, the RPA still predicts an ordered state at $`T_c2`$K. Hence, the RPA demonstrates the sensitivity of the PM correlations observed in neutron scattering to quantum fluctuations in this unusual magnetic system ($`|\psi _0=|M_J=\pm 4`$ and $`|\psi _1=|M_J=\pm 5>`$), but it still gives a $`T_c`$ of approximately $`2`$K to the above all-in all-out $`𝐐=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ state.

## 4 Avenues for Future Studies and Conclusions

In order to understand the physics of Tb2Ti2O7 below $`2`$K, we need to go beyond the first order approximation of the RPA and consider quantum effects more rigorously. A reasonable first step would be to employ a more detailed description of the crystal field states of the Tb3+ ion, and then form an effective low energy Hamiltonian from the more complicated model following a procedure similar to that used in the derivation of the t-J or Heisenberg models from the Hubbard model. Experimentally, low temperature neutron scattering (elastic and inelastic) measurements on single crystals are needed to probe the fluctuations between crystal field states.  Exploring these same properties but at hydrostatic pressures below $`2`$GPa could provide a valuable link to the high pressure ordered state of Tb2Ti2O7

In conclusion, there is strong evidence that Tb2Ti2O7 can not be described by a classical $`111`$ Ising Hamiltonian similar to the successful model of the spin ice materials.  Spin fluctuations must be incorporated into any model of Tb2Ti2O7 in order to capture the PM correlations, and a simple description of quantum fluctuations via the RPA is sufficient to achieve good agreement with experiments. However, to study the lack of an ordering transition in Tb2Ti2O7, a more careful treatment of the quantum fluctuations is essential. Finally, we come back to the $`111`$ Ising dipolar model phase diagram and note that Tb2Ti2O7 is very close to the AFM/spin ice phase boundary.  There may be issues with the quantum fluctuations, long-range exchange, microscopic disorder at very low temperatures, or tuning of material or model parameters that places Tb2Ti2O7 on a line or region of disordered semi-classial ground states.

We thank R.G. Melko, S. Bramwell, B. Gaulin, J. Gardner, H. Fukazawa, R. Higashinaka, and Y. Maeno for useful discussions. M.G. acknowledges financial support from NSERC of Canada, the Canada Research Chair Program, Research Corporation, and the Province of Ontario.

## References


text:
# 1 The mass distribution of candidate 𝐷⁰→𝜋⁺𝜋⁻ events. The 𝐷⁰→𝜇⁺𝜇⁻ branching ratio was normalized to the kinematically similar mode 𝐷⁰→𝜋⁺𝜋⁻. The arrows indicate the ±22MeV/𝑐² mass window used for the signal. The curve is a fit over the range 1.82 to 1.90GeV/𝑐² with Gaussian signal plus linear background. The shaded Gaussian represents the effect of reconstructing the events with a 𝜇⁺𝜇⁻ mass assignment. The large K𝜋 signal below 1.82GeV/𝑐² is kinematically separate from the region of interest. The distribution of events in the region above the 𝐷⁰ mass is roughly flat.

Search for the Flavor-Changing Neutral Current Decay $`D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ in $`p\overline{p}`$ Collisions at $`\sqrt{s}`$=1.96 TeV

D. Acosta,14 T. Affolder,7 M.H. Ahn,25 T. Akimoto,52 M.G. Albrow,13 D. Ambrose,40 D. Amidei,30 A. Anastassov,47 K. Anikeev,29 A. Annovi,41 J. Antos,1 M. Aoki,52 G. Apollinari,13 J-F. Arguin,50 T. Arisawa,54 A. Artikov,11 T. Asakawa,52 W. Ashmanskas,2 A. Attal,6 F. Azfar,38 P. Azzi-Bacchetta,39 N. Bacchetta,39 H. Bachacou,26 W. Badgett,13 S. Bailey,18 A. Barbaro-Galtieri,26 G. Barker,23 V.E. Barnes,43 B.A. Barnett,22 S. Baroiant,5 M. Barone,15 G. Bauer,29 F. Bedeschi,41 S. Behari,22 S. Belforte,51 W.H. Bell,17 G. Bellettini,41 J. Bellinger,55 D. Benjamin,12 A. Beretvas,13 A. Bhatti,45 M. Binkley,13 D. Bisello,39 M. Bishai,13 R.E. Blair,2 C. Blocker,4 K. Bloom,30 B. Blumenfeld,22 A. Bocci,45 A. Bodek,44 G. Bolla,43 A. Bolshov,29 P.S.L. Booth,27 D. Bortoletto,43 J. Boudreau,42 S. Bourov,13 C. Bromberg,31 M. Brozovic,12 E. Brubaker,26 J. Budagov,11 H.S. Budd,44 K. Burkett,18 G. Busetto,39 P. Bussey,17 K.L. Byrum,2 S. Cabrera,12 P. Calafiura,26 M. Campanelli,16 M. Campbell,30 A. Canepa,43 D. Carlsmith,55 S. Carron,12 R. Carosi,41 M. Casarsa,51 W. Caskey,5 A. Castro,3 P. Catastini,41 D. Cauz,51 A. Cerri,26 C. Cerri,41 L. Cerrito,21 J. Chapman,30 C. Chen,40 Y.C. Chen,1 M. Chertok,5 G. Chiarelli,41 G. Chlachidze,11 F. Chlebana,13 K. Cho,25 D. Chokheli,11 M.L. Chu,1 J.Y. Chung,35 W-H. Chung,55 Y.S. Chung,44 C.I. Ciobanu,21 M.A. Ciocci,41 A.G. Clark,16 M.N. Coca,44 A. Connolly,26 M.E. Convery,45 J. Conway,47 M. Cordelli,15 G. Cortiana,39 J. Cranshaw,49 R. Culbertson,13 C. Currat,26 D. Cyr,55 D. Dagenhart,4 S. DaRonco,39 S. D’Auria,17 P. de Barbaro,44 S. De Cecco,46 S. Dell’Agnello,15 M. Dell’Orso,41 S. Demers,44 L. Demortier,45 M. Deninno,3 D. De Pedis,46 P.F. Derwent,13 C. Dionisi,46 J.R. Dittmann,13 P. Doksus,21 A. Dominguez,26 S. Donati,41 M. D’Onofrio,16 T. Dorigo,39 V. Drollinger,33 K. Ebina,54 N. Eddy,21 R. Ely,26 R. Erbacher,13 M. Erdmann,23 D. Errede,21 S. Errede,21 R. Eusebi,44 H-C. Fang,26 S. Farrington,17 I. Fedorko,41 R.G. Feild,56 M. Feindt,23 J.P. Fernandez,43 C. Ferretti,30 R.D. Field,14 I. Fiori,41 G. Flanagan,31 B. Flaugher,13 L.R. Flores-Castillo,42 A. Foland,18 S. Forrester,5 G.W. Foster,13 M. Franklin,18 H. Frisch,10 Y. Fujii,24 I. Furic,29 A. Gallas,34 M. Gallinaro,45 J. Galyardt,9 M. Garcia-Sciveres,26 A.F. Garfinkel,43 C. Gay,56 H. Gerberich,12 E. Gerchtein,9 D.W. Gerdes,30 S. Giagu,46 P. Giannetti,41 A. Gibson,26 K. Gibson,9 C. Ginsburg,55 K. Giolo,43 M. Giordani,5 G. Giurgiu,9 V. Glagolev,11 D. Glenzinski,13 M. Gold,33 N. Goldschmidt,30 D. Goldstein,6 J. Goldstein,13 G. Gomez,8 G. Gomez-Ceballos,29 M. Goncharov,48 I. Gorelov,33 A.T. Goshaw,12 Y. Gotra,42 K. Goulianos,45 A. Gresele,3 G. Grim,5 C. Grosso-Pilcher,10 M. Guenther,43 J. Guimaraes da Costa,18 C. Haber,26 K. Hahn,40 S.R. Hahn,13 E. Halkiadakis,44 C. Hall,18 R. Handler,55 F. Happacher,15 K. Hara,52 M. Hare,53 R.F. Harr,30 R.M. Harris,13 F. Hartmann,23 K. Hatakeyama,45 J. Hauser,6 C. Hays,12 E. Heider,53 B. Heinemann,27 J. Heinrich,40 M. Hennecke,23 M. Herndon,22 C. Hill,7 D. Hirschbuehl,23 A. Hocker,44 K.D. Hoffman,10 A. Holloway,18 S. Hou,1 M.A. Houlden,27 B.T. Huffman,38 R.E. Hughes,35 J. Huston,31 K. Ikado,54 J. Incandela,7 G. Introzzi,41 M. Iori,46 Y. Ishizawa,52 C. Issever,7 A. Ivanov,44 Y. Iwata,20 B. Iyutin,29 E. James,30 D. Jang,47 J. Jarrell,33 D. Jeans,46 H. Jensen,13 M. Jones,40 S.Y. Jun,9 T. Junk,21 T. Kamon,48 J. Kang,30 M. Karagoz Unel,34 P.E. Karchin,30 S. Kartal,13 Y. Kato,37 Y. Kemp,23 R. Kephart,13 U. Kerzel,23 D. Khazins,12 V. Khotilovich,48 B. Kilminster,44 B.J. Kim,25 D.H. Kim,25 H.S. Kim,21 J.E. Kim,25 M.J. Kim,9 M.S. Kim,25 S.B. Kim,25 S.H. Kim,52 T.H. Kim,29 Y.K. Kim,10 B.T. King,27 M. Kirby,12 M. Kirk,4 L. Kirsch,4 S. Klimenko,14 B. Knuteson,10 H. Kobayashi,52 P. Koehn,35 K. Kondo,54 J. Konigsberg,14 K. Kordas,50 A. Korn,29 A. Korytov,14 K. Kotelnikov,32 A.V. Kotwal,12 A. Kovalev,40 J. Kraus,21 I. Kravchenko,29 A. Kreymer,13 J. Kroll,40 M. Kruse,12 V. Krutelyov,48 S.E. Kuhlmann,2 N. Kuznetsova,13 A.T. Laasanen,43 S. Lai,50 S. Lami,45 S. Lammel,13 J. Lancaster,12 M. Lancaster,28 R. Lander,5 K. Lannon,21 A. Lath,47 G. Latino,33 R. Lauhakangas,19 I. Lazzizzera,39 Y. Le,22 C. Lecci,23 T. LeCompte,2 J. Lee,25 J. Lee,44 S.W. Lee,48 N. Leonardo,29 S. Leone,41 J.D. Lewis,13 K. Li,56 C.S. Lin,13 M. Lindgren,6 T.M. Liss,21 D.O. Litvintsev,13 T. Liu,13 Y. Liu,16 N.S. Lockyer,40 A. Loginov,32 J. Loken,38 M. Loreti,39 P. Loverre,46 D. Lucchesi,39 P. Lukens,13 L. Lyons,38 J. Lys,26 D. MacQueen,50 R. Madrak,18 K. Maeshima,13 P. Maksimovic,22 L. Malferrari,3 G. Manca,38 R. Marginean,35 A. Martin,56 M. Martin,22 V. Martin,34 M. Martinez,13 T. Maruyama,10 H. Matsunaga,52 M. Mattson,30 P. Mazzanti,3 K.S. McFarland,44 D. McGivern,28 P.M. McIntyre,48 P. McNamara,47 R. McNulty,27 S. Menzemer,23 A. Menzione,41 P. Merkel,13 C. Mesropian,45 A. Messina,46 A. Meyer,13 T. Miao,13 L. Miller,18 R. Miller,31 J.S. Miller,30 R. Miquel,26 S. Miscetti,15 M. Mishina,13 G. Mitselmakher,14 A. Miyamoto,24 Y. Miyazaki,37 N. Moggi,3 R. Moore,13 M. Morello,41 T. Moulik,43 A. Mukherjee,13 M. Mulhearn,29 T. Muller,23 R. Mumford,22 A. Munar,40 P. Murat,13 S. Murgia,31 J. Nachtman,13 S. Nahn,56 I. Nakamura,40 I. Nakano,36 A. Napier,53 R. Napora,22 V. Necula,14 F. Niell,30 J. Nielsen,26 C. Nelson,13 T. Nelson,13 C. Neu,35 M.S. Neubauer,29 C. Newman-Holmes,13 A-S. Nicollerat,16 T. Nigmanov,42 H. Niu,4 L. Nodulman,2 K. Oesterberg,19 T. Ogawa,54 S. Oh,12 Y.D. Oh,25 T. Ohsugi,20 R. Oishi,52 T. Okusawa,37 R. Oldeman,40 R. Orava,19 W. Orejudos,26 C. Pagliarone,41 F. Palmonari,41 R. Paoletti,41 V. Papadimitriou,49 D. Partos,4 S. Pashapour,50 J. Patrick,13 G. Pauletta,51 M. Paulini,9 T. Pauly,38 C. Paus,29 D. Pellett,5 A. Penzo,51 T.J. Phillips,12 G. Piacentino,41 J. Piedra,8 K.T. Pitts,21 A. Pompoš,43 L. Pondrom,55 G. Pope,42 O. Poukhov,11 F. Prakoshyn,11 T. Pratt,27 A. Pronko,14 J. Proudfoot,2 F. Ptohos,15 G. Punzi,41 J. Rademacker,38 A. Rakitine,29 S. Rappoccio,18 F. Ratnikov,47 H. Ray,30 A. Reichold,38 V. Rekovic,33 P. Renton,38 M. Rescigno,46 F. Rimondi,3 K. Rinnert,23 L. Ristori,41 M. Riveline,50 W.J. Robertson,12 A. Robson,38 T. Rodrigo,8 S. Rolli,53 L. Rosenson,29 R. Roser,13 R. Rossin,39 C. Rott,43 J. Russ,9 A. Ruiz,8 D. Ryan,53 H. Saarikko,19 A. Safonov,5 R. St. Denis,17 W.K. Sakumoto,44 D. Saltzberg,6 C. Sanchez,35 A. Sansoni,15 L. Santi,51 S. Sarkar,46 K. Sato,52 P. Savard,50 A. Savoy-Navarro,13 P. Schemitz,23 P. Schlabach,13 E.E. Schmidt,13 M.P. Schmidt,56 M. Schmitt,34 G. Schofield,5 L. Scodellaro,39 A. Scribano,41 F. Scuri,41 A. Sedov,43 S. Seidel,33 Y. Seiya,52 F. Semeria,3 L. Sexton-Kennedy,13 I. Sfiligoi,15 M.D. Shapiro,26 T. Shears,27 P.F. Shepard,42 M. Shimojima,52 M. Shochet,10 Y. Shon,55 A. Sidoti,41 M. Siket,1 A. Sill,49 P. Sinervo,50 A. Sisakyan,11 A. Skiba,23 A.J. Slaughter,13 K. Sliwa,53 J.R. Smith,5 F.D. Snider,13 R. Snihur,28 S.V. Somalwar,47 J. Spalding,13 M. Spezziga,49 L. Spiegel,13 F. Spinella,41 M. Spiropulu,10 H. Stadie,23 B. Stelzer,50 O. Stelzer-Chilton,50 J. Strologas,21 D. Stuart,7 A. Sukhanov,14 K. Sumorok,29 H. Sun,53 T. Suzuki,52 A. Taffard,21 S.F. Takach,30 H. Takano,52 R. Takashima,20 Y. Takeuchi,52 K. Takikawa,52 P. Tamburello,12 M. Tanaka,2 R. Tanaka,36 B. Tannenbaum,6 N. Tanimoto,36 S. Tapprogge,19 M. Tecchio,30 P.K. Teng,1 K. Terashi,45 R.J. Tesarek,13 S. Tether,29 J. Thom,13 A.S. Thompson,17 E. Thomson,35 R. Thurman-Keup,2 P. Tipton,44 V. Tiwari,9 S. Tkaczyk,13 D. Toback,48 K. Tollefson,31 D. Tonelli,41 M. Tönnesmann,31 S. Torre,41 D. Torretta,13 W. Trischuk,50 J. Tseng,29 R. Tsuchiya,54 S. Tsuno,52 D. Tsybychev,14 N. Turini,41 M. Turner,27 F. Ukegawa,52 T. Unverhau,17 S. Uozumi,52 D. Usynin,40 L. Vacavant,26 T. Vaiciulis,44 A. Varganov,30 E. Vataga,41 S. Vejcik III,13 G. Velev,13 G. Veramendi,26 T. Vickey,21 R. Vidal,13 I. Vila,8 R. Vilar,8 I. Volobouev,26 M. von der Mey,6 R. G. Wagner,2 R. L. Wagner,13 W. Wagner,23 N. Wallace,47 T. Walter,23 Z. Wan,47 M.J. Wang,1 S.M. Wang,14 B. Ward,17 S. Waschke,17 D. Waters,28 T. Watts,47 M. Weber,26 W. Wester,13 B. Whitehouse,53 A.B. Wicklund,2 E. Wicklund,13 T. Wilkes,5 H.H. Williams,40 P. Wilson,13 B.L. Winer,35 P. Wittich,40 S. Wolbers,13 M. Wolter,53 M. Worcester,6 S. Worm,47 T. Wright,30 X. Wu,16 F. Würthwein,29 A. Wyatt,28 A. Yagil,13 T. Yamashita,36 K. Yamamoto,37 U.K. Yang,10 W. Yao,26 G.P. Yeh,13 K. Yi,22 J. Yoh,13 P. Yoon,44 K. Yorita,54 T. Yoshida,37 I. Yu,25 S. Yu,40 Z. Yu,56 J.C. Yun,13 L. Zanello,46 A. Zanetti,51 I. Zaw,18 F. Zetti,41 J. Zhou,47 A. Zsenei,16 and S. Zucchelli,3

(CDF Collaboration)

1 Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan 11529, Republic of China

2 Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439

3 Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, University of Bologna, I-40127 Bologna, Italy

4 Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts 02254

5 University of California at Davis, Davis, California 95616

6 University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90024

7 University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California 93106

8 Instituto de Fisica de Cantabria, CSIC-University of Cantabria, 39005 Santander, Spain

9 Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213

10 Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637

11 Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, RU-141980 Dubna, Russia

12 Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708

13 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510

14 University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611

15 Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, I-00044 Frascati, Italy

16 University of Geneva, CH-1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland

17 Glasgow University, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
18 Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

19 The Helsinki Group: Helsinki Institute of Physics; and Division of High Energy Physics, Department of Physical Sciences, University of Helsinki, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland
20 Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima 724, Japan

21 University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801

22 The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218

23 Institut für Experimentelle Kernphysik, Universität Karlsruhe, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany

24 High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan

25 Center for High Energy Physics: Kyungpook National University, Taegu 702-701; Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742; and SungKyunKwan University, Suwon 440-746; Korea

26 Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720

27 University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZE, United Kingdom

28 University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom

29 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

30 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109

31 Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824

32 Institution for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, ITEP, Moscow 117259, Russia

33 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131

34 Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208

35 The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210

36 Okayama University, Okayama 700-8530, Japan
37 Osaka City University, Osaka 588, Japan

38 University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3RH, United Kingdom

39 Universitá di Padova, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Padova-Trento, I-35131 Padova, Italy

40 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104

41 Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, University and Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa, I-56100 Pisa, Italy

42 University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260

43 Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907

44 University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627

45 The Rockefeller University, New York, New York 10021

46 Instituto Nazionale de Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Roma, University di Roma I, ‘‘La Sapienza," I-00185 Roma, Italy
47 Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08855

48 Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843

49 Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409

50 Institute of Particle Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto M5S 1A7, Canada

51 Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Universities of Trieste and Udine, Italy

52 University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan

53 Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 02155

54 Waseda University, Tokyo 169, Japan

55 University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706

56 Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520

We report on a search for the flavor-changing neutral current decay $`D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ in $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}`$=1.96 TeV using 65$`\mathrm{pb}^1`$ of data collected by the CDF II experiment at the Fermilab Tevatron Collider. A displaced-track trigger selects long-lived $`D^0`$ candidates in the $`D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ search channel, the kinematically similar $`D^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ channel used for normalization, the Cabbibo-favored $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ channel used to optimize the selection criteria in an unbiased manner, and their charge conjugates. Finding no signal events in the $`D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ search window, we set an upper limit on the branching fraction $`(D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{})2.5\times 10^6`$ ($`3.3\times 10^6`$) at the $`90\%`$ ($`95\%`$) confidence level.

PACS numbers: 13.20.Fc, 14.40.Lb

The flavor-changing neutral current (FCNC) decay $`D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ chconj  is highly suppressed in the Standard Model (SM) by the nearly exact Glashow-Iliopoulos-Maiani (GIM) gim  cancellation. Observation of this decay at a rate significantly exceeding the SM expectation would indicate the presence of non-SM particles or couplings. In the context of the SM, Burdman et al. burdman  calculate the branching fraction to be $`(D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{})10^{18}`$ from short-distance processes, increasing to $`(D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{})10^{13}`$ when long-distance processes are included. This prediction is many orders of magnitude beyond the reach of the present generation of experiments, whose most stringent published limits are $`4.1\times 10^6`$ from BEATRICE beatrice  and $`4.2\times 10^6`$ from E771 e771  at the 90% confidence level. Thus, a large, unexplored region exists in which to search for new physics.

Burdman et al. consider the effects on $`D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ from a number of extensions to the Standard Model: R-parity violating SUSY, multiple Higgs doublets, extra fermions, extra dimensions, and extended technicolor. They find that the $`D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ branching ratio can be enhanced by orders of magnitude to the range of $`10^8`$ to $`10^{10}`$ in these scenarios, and in the case of R-parity violating SUSY, roughly to the level of the existing experimental limit. Similar enhancements can occur in $`K`$ and $`B`$-decays, but charm decays provide a unique laboratory to search for new physics couplings in the up-quark sector.

This search uses a 65$`\mathrm{pb}^1`$ data sample recorded by the upgraded Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF II) at the Tevatron $`p\overline{p}`$ collider with $`\sqrt{s}=1.96\mathrm{TeV}`$ between February 2002 and January 2003. The components of the CDF II detector pertinent to this analysis are described briefly below. Detailed descriptions can be found elsewhere cdf . CDF uses a cylindrical coordinate system in which $`\varphi `$ is the azimuthal angle, $`r`$ is the radius from the nominal beamline, and $`z`$ points in the proton beam direction and is zero at the center of the detector. The transverse plane is the plane perpendicular to the $`z`$ axis. The pseudorapidity $`\eta `$ is defined as $`\eta \mathrm{tanh}^1(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$, where $`\theta `$ is the polar angle measured from the $`z`$ axis. A silicon microstrip detector (SVX II) svxii  and a cylindrical drift chamber (COT) cot  immersed in a 1.4 T solenoidal magnetic field track charged particles in the range $`|\eta |<1.0`$. The SVX II provides up to five $`r`$-$`\varphi `$ position measurements, each of roughly 15 $`\mu `$m precision, at radii between 2.5 and 10.6 cm. The COT has 96 measurement layers, between 40 cm and 137 cm in radius, organized into alternating axial and $`\pm 2^{}`$ stereo superlayers. The solenoid covers $`r<150`$ cm, and electromagnetic and hadronic calorimetry occupy the region between 150 and 350 cm in radius. Four layers of planar drift chambers (CMU) cmu  outside the hadron calorimeter cover the region $`|\eta |<0.6`$ and detect muons of transverse momentum $`p_T>1.4\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ penetrating the 5 absorption lengths of calorimeter material.

The $`D^0`$ decays used in this analysis are selected with a three-level trigger system. At the first level, charged tracks are reconstructed in the COT transverse plane by a hardware processor (XFT) xft . The trigger requires two oppositely charged tracks with reconstructed transverse momenta $`p_T2`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ and $`p_{T1}+p_{T2}5.5`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$. At the second level, the Silicon Vertex Tracker (SVT) svt  associates SVX II position measurements with XFT tracks. The impact parameter of the track, $`d_0`$, with respect to the beamline, is measured with 50 $`\mu `$m resolution, which includes a $`30\mu \mathrm{m}`$ contribution from the transverse beam size. Requiring two tracks with $`120\mu \mathrm{m}|d_0|1.0\mathrm{mm}`$ selects a sample enriched in heavy flavor. The two trigger tracks must have an opening angle satisfying $`2^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi |90^{}`$ and be consistent with the decay of a particle traveling a transverse distance $`L_{xy}>200\mu \mathrm{m}`$ from the beamline. At the third level, a computing farm performs complete event reconstruction. The sample of $`10^5`$ $`D^{}`$-tagged two-body $`D^0`$ decays selected by the trigger is used to estimate backgrounds, to optimize selection requirements, and to normalize the sensitivity of the search from the data sample itself.

The $`D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ branching ratio, or upper limit, is determined using

$$(D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{})(D^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})\frac{N(\mu \mu )}{N(\pi \pi )}\frac{ϵ(\pi \pi )}{ϵ(\mu \mu )}\frac{a(\pi \pi )}{a(\mu \mu )},$$
(1)
where $`(D^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})=(1.43\pm 0.07)\times 10^3`$ is the measured normalization branching fraction rpp , $`N(\mu \mu )`$ and $`N(\pi \pi )`$ are the numbers of $`D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`D^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ events observed, and $`ϵ`$ and $`a`$ are the efficiency and acceptance for each mode. Except for the requirement of muon identification, and the assignment of different particle masses, the same selection requirements are applied to both modes. In this analysis, we determined the upper limit on the number of signal events observed, $`N(\mu \mu )`$, by assuming that the number of events found in the signal region is the sum of signal and background events, both obeying Poisson statistics. Normalization was made to $`D^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ rather than the more numerous $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ decays. Kinematically, the $`D^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mode is nearly identical to $`D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, minimizing the differences in acceptance and efficiency, and introducing minimal systematic uncertainty to the result. The width of the reconstructed mass peak for two-body decays of the $`D^0`$ in CDF II is about $`10\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$, sufficient to separate $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ kinematically from $`D^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ (Fig. 1).

In the spirit of obtaining an unbiased result, a “blinded” analysis was performed. The data in the signal mass window were hidden and the analysis cuts optimized without knowledge of their actual impact on the result. The optimization was performed on kinematically similar but statistically independent events. Only after all selection criteria had been fixed was the signal region “unblinded” and the final result determined.

We first outline the general event selection requirements common to all the data samples used in the analysis and then discuss how they are used to determine the quantities in Eq. (1). All of the samples consist of $`D^+D^0\pi ^+`$ candidate decays coming from data sets where all requisite detector components were functioning properly, specifically, the SVX, COT, and CMU detectors, and the displaced-track trigger chain. $`D^0`$ candidates were formed from pairs of oppositely charged “trigger tracks” that are “CMU fiducial”. Trigger tracks are tracks reconstructed offline that have been matched to online SVT tracks. A track that intercepts the active region of the CMU when extrapolated from the COT through the magnetic field of the detector is said to be CMU fiducial.

To select $`D^0`$ candidates in a given decay mode, $`K^+\pi ^{}`$, $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, or $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, we evaluated the invariant mass of each pair of trigger tracks using the corresponding mass assignment and kept candidates in the range $`1.840\mathrm{GeV}/c^2<M_{\mathrm{pair}}<1.884\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. This corresponds to slightly more than $`\pm 2\sigma `$ around the mean of the $`D^0`$ mass peak, $`1.862\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. The $`D^{}`$ tag reduces non-$`D^0`$ backgrounds and eliminates the mass peak in the $`K\pi `$ channel due to mis-assignment of the $`K`$ and $`\pi `$ masses. $`D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}D^0\pi _s^+`$ decays were selected by combining an additional pion track ($`\pi _s`$) with the $`D^0`$ candidate and requiring the mass difference $`M_{\mathrm{pair}+\pi _s}M_{\mathrm{pair}}`$ to lie in the range $`144\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ to $`147\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$. The $`\pi _s`$ track was not required to be CMU fiducial or to be a trigger track, but it had to have the Cabbibo-favored charge for the $`K\pi `$ decay.

The ratio $`ϵ(\pi \pi )/ϵ(\mu \mu )`$ was determined from the muon identification efficiency and the pion reconstruction efficiency, measured in other analyses, as follows. From a sample of $`J/\psi \mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decays collected by a trigger requiring one identified muon and one SVT track, the CMU identification efficiency for the unbiased muon was measured offline as a function of its transverse momentum $`p_T`$. We convoluted the efficiency spectrum with the $`p_T`$ spectrum of pions from $`D^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and determined the effective dimuon identification efficiency to be $`ϵ(\mu \mu )=0.800\pm 0.030`$. Using a detailed GEANT geant  detector simulation, the pion reconstruction efficiency was found to be $`95\pm 1\%`$, yielding $`ϵ(\pi \pi )=0.90\pm 0.02`$, where the inefficiency arises primarily from hadronic interactions with detector material. Combining these values we find $`ϵ(\pi \pi )/ϵ(\mu \mu )=1.13\pm 0.04`$. Using the same detector simulation, we find the acceptance ratio $`a(\pi \pi )/a(\mu \mu )=0.96\pm 0.02`$.

The number of $`D^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays, $`N(\pi \pi )`$, was determined by fitting the peak in the $`\pi \pi `$ invariant mass spectrum. We performed a binned $`\chi ^2`$ fit with Gaussian signal plus linear background, as shown in Fig. 1. Both the mean and width of the Gaussian were free parameters in the fit. $`N(\pi \pi )`$ is the integral of the Gaussian over the $`\pm 22\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ mass window around $`1.862\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$.

The background to $`D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ was taken as the sum of two contributions having different mass spectra: a peaked contribution from $`D^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays in which both pions are misidentified as muons, and a relatively flat background due to all other sources. The flat background was estimated from the number of $`\mu \mu `$ candidates in a high mass sideband spanning the range $`1.90\mathrm{GeV}/c^2<M_{\mu \mu }<2.05\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ with both tracks identified as muons. Before muon identification of the tracks is required, the distribution of events in the high mass sideband is found to be roughly constant, and we assume that this remains true after requiring muon identification. The expected flat background is the number of sideband events scaled by the ratio of the width of the signal region to the sideband region, $`44/150`$.

The misidentification background was estimated from the number of $`D^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ events reconstructed with the $`\mu \mu `$ mass assignment and lying in the $`\pm 22\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ signal window (shaded area falling between the arrows in Fig. 1) times the square of the probability for a pion to be misidentified as a muon. The $`\pi `$-misidentification probability was determined from the sample of $`D^{}`$-tagged $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ events. The average $`\pi `$-misidentification probability is $`1.3\pm 0.1\%`$.

Three additional selection requirements were imposed. To remove instances in which the two $`D^0`$ decay daughters extrapolate to the same region of the CMU, potentially correlating the muon identification of the two tracks, we cut on the azimuthal angle $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{CMU}`$ between their projections into the CMU. To suppress combinatoric backgrounds, we cut on the impact parameter with respect to the beamline, $`d_{xy}`$, of the reconstructed $`D^0`$ trajectory. Further, we cut on the transverse decay length of the $`D^0`$ candidate, $`L_{xy}`$. The values of these cuts were optimized as described below.

We determined the optimal cut values by maximizing a figure of merit given by $`S/(1.5+\sqrt{B})`$ Punzi  where $`S`$ and $`B`$ represent the number of signal and background events, respectively. This quantity has desirable properties for an analysis where both the signal and background are small: it behaves as $`S/\sqrt{B}`$ for large $`B`$ and it behaves as $`S`$ as the estimated background approaches zero. The constant in the denominator is chosen to favor cuts that maximize the discovery reach at $`3\sigma `$ significance. To estimate $`S`$ in the optimization, we used the $`D^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ sample. To estimate the misidentification component of $`B`$, we used a sample of $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ decays in which both tracks were found to be misidentified as muons. To estimate all remaining contributions to $`B`$, we used the subset of the high-mass $`\pi \pi `$ sideband sample in which one track was identified as a muon and the other was not. Note that the events used to estimate $`B`$ in the optimization are distinct from the events used in the final background estimate for the result. The resulting selection requirements are: $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{CMU}|>0.085\mathrm{rad},`$ $`|d_{xy}|<150\mu \mathrm{m},\mathrm{and}`$ $`L_{xy}<0.45\mathrm{cm}.`$ When applied to the samples used for optimization these cuts remove approximately $`58\%`$ of the background events and $`12\%`$ of the signal events.

Using the optimized selection requirements, $`5.0\pm 2.2`$ events remain in the high mass sideband, yielding $`1.6\pm 0.7`$ expected from the flat component of the background. The number of $`D^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ events falling in the signal window when reconstructed using the muon mass, multiplied by the square of the $`1.3\%`$ $`\pi `$-misidentification probability, yields $`0.22\pm 0.02`$ expected misidentification events. The total expected background is $`1.8\pm 0.7`$ events. The number of events in the normalization mode is $`N(\pi \pi )=1412\pm 54`$ (Fig. 1). Using this background estimate and normalization, the 90% confidence level sensitivity FandC  is $`4.4\times 10^6`$.

We apply the optimized selection requirements to the signal region of the $`\mu \mu `$ sample and find no events remaining, as displayed in Fig. 2. Conservatively taking the number of background events to equal zero, the 90% (95%) confidence level upper limit on the number of $`D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ events is $`2.3`$ ($`3.0`$). Using Eq. (1) we find an upper limit on the branching fraction of $`(D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{})2.5\times 10^6`$ ($`3.3\times 10^6`$) at the 90% (95%) confidence level.

The uncertainties on $`N(\pi \pi )`$, $`ϵ(\pi \pi )/ϵ(\mu \mu )`$, $`a(\pi \pi )/a(\mu \mu )`$, and $`(D^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ are incorporated into the limit using the prescription of Cousins and Highland CandH . However, all of the uncertainties are smaller than 5% and have a negligible effect on the limit.

In summary, we have searched for the FCNC decay $`D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, using the new displaced-track trigger of the CDF II experiment. This is the first result from CDF in the field of rare charm decays. To minimize bias in the event selection, a blinded search was performed. To minimize dependence on Monte Carlo simulation, most of the needed quantities were determined directly from the data. No events were observed and we set an upper limit on the branching ratio of

$$(D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{})2.5\times 10^6(3.3\times 10^6)$$
(2)
at the 90% (95%) confidence level. This result improves on the best limits published to date.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank the Fermilab staff and the technical staffs of the participating institutions for their vital contributions. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and National Science Foundation; the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare; the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan; the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; the National Science Council of the Republic of China; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the A.P. Sloan Foundation; the Bundesministerium fuer Bildung and Forschung, Germany; the Korean Science and Engineering Foundation and the Korean Research Foundation; the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council and the Royal Society, UK; the Russian Foundation for Basic Research; and the Comision Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnologia, Spain.