format: text

text:
# Exclusive non-leptonic 𝐵 meson decays from QCD

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Exclusive non-leptonic decays play a crucial part in the on-going programme to clarify the sources of CP violation and rare flavour-changing phenomena. As regards CP violation this is illustrated by the fact that there exists a fair knowledge of the length of each of the sides of the unitarity triangle from semi-leptonic $`B`$ decays and $`B\overline{B}`$ mixing. Since recently, the angle $`\beta `$ (more precisely, $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$) is determined fairly accurately by the time-dependent CP asymmetry in the non-leptonic decay $`B_dJ/\psi K_S`$ and related ones. However, the direct measurement of the other angle $`\gamma `$, the phase of $`V_{ub}^{}`$ in the standard phase convention, remains a challenge to theory and experiment. Although $`\gamma `$ is determined indirectly through the other measurements, the complementary direct determination is important, since meson mixing and rare non-leptonic decays could be affected by new flavour-changing interactions.

The angle $`\gamma `$ can be determined from decays with some kind of interference of $`bc\overline{u}D`$ (no phase) and $`bu\overline{c}D`$ (phase $`\gamma `$) tree transitions and their conjugates ($`D=d,s`$) or from decays with interference of $`bu\overline{u}D`$ (tree, phase $`\gamma `$) and $`bDq\overline{q}`$ (penguin, phase 0 ($`D=s`$), $`\beta `$ ($`D=d`$)). There exist a few methods that allow one to obtain $`\gamma `$ in a theoretically clean way, which means that no calculation of strong interaction effects is needed, but these methods are all difficult to realize experimentally at present. The more general situation is that some information on the decay amplitudes is required to extract $`\gamma `$ from the interference term in branching fractions or CP asymmetries. In technical terms one needs to compute the matrix elements $`f|O_i|\overline{B}`$, where $`O_i`$ is an operator in the weak effective Hamiltonian and $`f`$ is a particular exclusive final state.

## 2 THEORY OF EXCLUSIVE DECAYS

### 2.1 QCD-improved factorization

The QCD factorization approach  uses heavy quark expansion methods ($`m_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$) and soft-collinear factorization (particle energies $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, “colour-transparency”) to compute the matrix elements $`f|O_i|\overline{B}`$ in an expansion in $`1/m_b`$ and $`\alpha _s`$. Only the leading term in $`1/m_b`$ assumes a simple form. The basic formula is

$`M_1M_2|O_i|\overline{B}`$ $`=`$ $`F^{BM_1}(0){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑uT^I(u)\mathrm{\Phi }_{M_2}(u)`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle 𝑑\xi 𝑑u𝑑vT^{II}(\xi ,u,v)\mathrm{\Phi }_B(\xi )\mathrm{\Phi }_{M_1}(v)\mathrm{\Phi }_{M_2}(u)},`$
valid whenever $`M_2`$ is a light meson (or, at least in principle, a charmonium state) and $`M_1`$ any light or heavy meson. ($`M_1`$ is the meson that picks up the spectator quark from the $`B`$ meson. If $`M_1`$ is heavy the second line is higher order in $`1/m_b`$.) The formula shows that there is no long-distance interaction between the constituents of the meson $`M_2`$ and the $`(BM_1)`$ system at leading order in $`1/m_b`$. This is the precise meaning of factorization. In particular, the hard scattering kernels $`T^{I,II}`$ contain all rescattering phases at this order and include hard interactions with the spectator quark ($`T^{II}`$). The following non-perturbative inputs are needed: $`F^{BM_1}`$ – a $`BM_1`$ form factor; $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{M_i}`$ – the standard light-cone distribution amplitudes for light mesons; $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B`$ – the light-cone distribution amplitude of the $`B`$ meson , some aspects of which remain to be understood. The QCD factorization approach extends the Brodsky-Lepage approach to exclusive hard processes , because it shows factorization also when soft interactions dominate the $`BM_1`$ form factor, as is expected .

### 2.2 Theory status

Leading order in $`1/m_b`$. Proofs of the factorization formula for heavy-light final states exist at two loops  and probably to all orders . These proofs must be extended to charmless final states by including the hard-spectator interaction. In practical applications the calculations are currently done at next-to-leading order in perturbation theory. There exist theoretical uncertainties from input parameters, which can be estimated, the most important of which are $`|V_{ub}|`$ and form factors. The theory is presently complete for flavour non-singlet mesons.

Power corrections in $`1/m_b`$. Factorization does not and is not expected to hold at subleading order. Attempts to compute subleading power corrections to hard spectator-scattering in perturbation theory usually result in infrared divergences, which signal the breakdown of factorization. A subset of power corrections has been parametrized or estimated in . It is common practice in applications of perturbative QCD to not include errors from power corrections. One would wish to do better here, first because non-leptonic decays test fundamental aspects of weak interactions, second because some power corrections related to scalar currents are enhanced by factors such as $`m_\pi ^2/((m_u+m_d)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})`$ . At least these effects should be estimated and included into the error budget. This has been attempted in . All weak annihilation contributions belong to this class of effects.

### 2.3 Overview of applications

QCD-improved factorization has been applied to date to the following final states:

* $`PP`$, where $`P`$ denotes a light pseudo-scalar non-singlet meson . This is the application developed furthest.
* some $`PV`$ final states, where $`V`$ denotes a light vector meson .
* some $`VV`$ final states . (In the heavy quark limit both vector mesons are longitudinally polarized.)
* $`D^{()}L`$, where $`L`$ denotes a light pseudo-scalar or vector meson .
* $`D^{()}X`$, where $`X`$ denotes a scalar or “exotic” meson .
* $`J/\psi K`$ , $`J/\psi K^{}`$ . The factorization approach should apply in the limit $`m_c\mathrm{}`$, but one expects corrections to factorization of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/(m_c\alpha _s)1`$ .
* Radiative final states $`V\gamma `$  and $`Vl^+l^{}`$  including isospin-breaking effects that could cause a different rate for neutral and charged $`B`$ meson decay .
* New physics effects due to a modification of the $`bsg`$ transition  or due to R-parity violating supersymmetry .

Of these final states only $`D^{()}L`$ and $`PP`$ will be discussed below.

### 2.4 Other approaches

Naive factorization . Naive factorization follows from the factorization formula for $`D^{()}L`$, $`L_1L_2`$ final states, when $`\alpha _s0`$ and $`m_b\mathrm{}`$. QCD-improved factorization extends naive factorization in the same sense in which the QCD-improved parton model extends the naive parton model.

The “PQCD” approach . In this approach the decay amplitude is calculated in the Brodsky-Lepage formalism. The main difference with the QCD-improved factorization approach arises through the stronger assumption that Sudakov suppression renders the $`BM_1`$ form factor and many power-suppressed effects (such as weak annihilation) calculable. The advocates of the QCD factorization approach do not agree with the proponents of the PQCD approach on conceptual aspects of the implementation of Sudakov suppression and on the claim that the result is perturbative and accurate .

## 3 SELECTED RESULTS

### 3.1 $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑫^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}𝑳`$

The phenomenology of these decays is discussed in . QCD-improved factorization explains the experimentally well-established fact that the colour-allowed class-I decays to $`D^{()+}L^{}`$ are controlled by an approximately universal coefficient $`|a_1|1.05`$. On the other hand, factorization is not expected to hold for colour-suppressed class-II decays to $`D^{()0}L^0`$. The corresponding coefficient $`a_2`$ is therefore depends on the final state. The precise nature of $`a_2`$ depends, however, on the counting scheme. If the $`D`$ meson is considered as heavy ($`m_c/m_b`$ fixed, $`m_b\mathrm{}`$), $`xa_2/a_1`$ is power-suppressed in the heavy quark limit. The power suppression is due to

$$x\frac{(m_B^2m_\pi ^2)f_DF_0^{B\pi }(m_D^2)}{(m_B^2m_D^2)f_\pi F_0^{BD}(m_\pi ^2)},$$
(2)
but with $`x0.9`$ this suppression is only formal. If the $`D`$ meson is considered as light ($`m_c`$ fixed, $`m_b\mathrm{}`$), $`xa_2/a_1`$ counts as order 1 and becomes calculable. (A crude estimate has been given in .) In this case one expects an important non-universal contribution from spectator-scattering. In both cases $`xa_2/a_1`$ should be smaller than 1 due to colour factors.

The measurement of $`\overline{B}^0D^{()0}\pi ^0`$ allows one for the first time to construct the complete isospin triangle for $`BD^{()}\pi `$ decays and hence to determine the magnitude and rescattering phase of $`xa_2/a_1`$, see Figure 1. The result is that $`|a_2|0.4`$ is sizeable for $`\pi D`$ final states. Together with $`|a_2|0.25`$ for $`KJ/\psi `$ final states this provides clear evidence for the non-universality of colour-suppressed decays, but it is difficult to interpret this result quantitatively since the theory is not expected to be accurate for $`\pi ^0D^0`$ and $`KJ/\psi `$ final states. For further discussion of this result from the perspective of QCD factorization see .

### 3.2 $`𝜸`$ from $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝅𝝅\mathbf{,}𝝅𝑲`$

The possibility to determine the CP-violating angle $`\gamma `$ by comparing the calculation of branching fractions into $`\pi \pi `$ and $`\pi K`$ final states with the corresponding data has been investigated in detail  (see also ). The branching fractions for the modes $`B^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ and $`B^{}\pi ^{}\overline{K}^0`$, which depend only on a single weak phase to very good approximation, are well described by the theory. This demonstrates that the magnitude of the tree and penguin amplitude is obtained correctly, where for the penguin amplitude the 1-loop radiative correction is important to reach this conclusion. There is, however, a relatively large normalization uncertainty for the $`\pi K`$ final states, which are sensitive to weak annihilation and the strange quark mass through the scalar penguin amplitude. This uncertainty can be partially eliminated by taking ratios of branching fractions. The agreement is less good for branching fractions with significant interference of tree and penguin amplitudes, if $`\gamma `$ is assumed to take values around $`55^{}`$ as favoured by indirect constraints. This may indicate an interesting alternative determination of $`\gamma `$, but the CP-averaged branching fractions sensitive to $`\gamma `$ also depend on the strong phase difference of the two interfering amplitudes. This dependence is suppressed as long as the phase difference is small since only its cosine enters the calculation. With some exceptions (such as the final state $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$) QCD-improved factorization predicts that strong phase differences are not large, since they are parametrically of order $`\alpha _s`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$, and it therefore also predicts small direct CP asymmetries, up to $`(1015)\%`$ (with a preference around $`5\%`$) for the $`\pi ^0K^\pm `$, $`\pi ^\pm K^0`$ final states. The current data seem to favour small CP asymmetries, but they are not yet accurate enough to decide upon whether the QCD factorization approach allows one to predict strong phases quantitatively.

The current interpretation of charmless non-leptonic $`B`$ decays can be summarized by a global fit of the Wolfenstein parameters $`\overline{\rho }`$, $`\overline{\eta }`$ to the six CP averaged $`\pi \pi `$, $`\pi K`$ branching fractions shown in Figure 2. The result is consistent with the standard fit based on meson mixing and $`|V_{ub}|`$, but shows a preference for larger $`\gamma `$ or smaller $`|V_{ub}|`$. If the estimate of the theory uncertainty (included in the curves in the Figure) is correct, non-leptonic decays together with $`|V_{ub}|`$ from semi-leptonic decays already imply the existence of a CP-violating phase of $`V_{ub}`$ at the 2-3 $`\sigma `$ level.

### 3.3 $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜶\mathbf{)}`$ or $`𝜸`$ from $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$

The angle $`\alpha `$ (or $`\gamma `$, given the $`B\overline{B}`$ mixing phase), can be determined from the time-dependent CP asymmetry in $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay alone, if the relative magnitude of the penguin amplitude, $`P/T`$, can be computed. The asymmetry is given by

$`A_{\mathrm{CP}}[\pi \pi ](t)`$ $`=`$ $`S_{\pi \pi }\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }M_{B_d}t)`$ (3)
$`+A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}[\pi \pi ]\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }M_{B_d}t),`$
where $`S_{\pi \pi }=\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha )`$, if $`P/T=0`$, in which case the direct CP asymmetry $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{dir}}[\pi \pi ]`$ vanishes. The direct CP asymmetry is proportional to the sine of the strong phase of $`P/T`$ and can be used as a phenomenological check of the computation of $`P/T`$. Figure 3 displays how a measurement of $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ constrains $`(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })`$, when $`P/T`$ is computed in the QCD factorization approach . The Figure illustrates that even if theoretical (or experimental) uncertainties prevent an accurate determination of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha )`$ in this way, the inaccurate result on $`\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha )`$ still translates into a useful constraint in the $`(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })`$ plane. This reflects the fact that other observables do not currently constrain $`\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha )`$ very well.

## 4 CONCLUSION

Interpreting the new data on exclusive two-body decays of $`B`$ mesons in terms of fundamental parameters of the Standard Model requires – at least for the present – control over strong interaction effects. QCD-improved factorization allows us to formulate and discuss the problem systematically in the expansion parameters $`\alpha _s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$. The first comparisons of the theory with data on heavy-light and charmless final states are encouraging, but the theory may not always be accurate or useful. More data and calculations should help understanding where the theory works or fails, and if it fails, why it does. So far no unexpected failures are observed. If the estimates of theoretical uncertainties are correct, $`B\pi \pi ,\pi K`$ together with $`|V_{ub}|`$ from semi-leptonic decay establishes $`\gamma 0`$ at the 2-3$`\sigma `$ level.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to thank the organizers for their generous support and hospitality and V.M. Braun and M. Diehl for comments on the manuscript.

## APPENDIX

In this appendix I address a subtle point in the parameterization of infrared sensitive twist-3 corrections to non-leptonic decays. The point concerns the legitimacy of integrating by parts in convolution integrals with apparently divergent boundary terms. Depending on the procedure the result appears to be either a linear or a logarithmic infrared divergence. The difference is crucial, since a linear divergence compensates the $`1/m_b`$-suppression and hence spoils factorization even in the heavy quark limit, while a logarithmic divergence does not. The results of the following discussion have been used but have not been explained in our previous work .

In order to dispose of the need to introduce $`B`$ meson distribution amplitudes I consider an analogous problem that appears in the calculation of the pion form factor $`\pi ^+(p^{})|\overline{u}\gamma _\mu u|\pi ^+(p)`$ at large momentum transfer $`Q^2=(p^{}p)^2`$. The light-cone expansion in $`1/Q^2`$ can be implemented by multiplying the on-shell four-quark scattering amplitude with a projection operator. For the following discussion it will suffice to restrict the projection to the two-particle quark-antiquark state and to neglect meson mass corrections. The coordinate space definitions

$`\pi ^+\left(p^{}\right)\left|\overline{u}_\alpha \left(y\right)d_\beta \left(x\right)\right|0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{if_\pi }{4}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑ue^{i\left(up^{}y+\overline{u}p^{}x\right)}`$
$`\times \{\overline{)}p^{}\gamma _5\varphi \left(u\right)\mu _\pi \gamma _5\left(\varphi _p\left(u\right)\sigma _{\mu \nu }p^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }z_{}^{\nu }{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\sigma \left(u\right)}{6}}\right)\}_{\beta \alpha }`$
are equivalent to projecting the scattering amplitude with

$`M_{\beta \alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{if_\pi }{4}}\{\overline{)}p^{}\gamma _5\varphi \left(u\right)\mu _\pi \gamma _5(\varphi _p\left(u\right)`$
$`+i\sigma _{\mu \nu }p^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\sigma \left(u\right)}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{k_\nu }})\}_{\beta \alpha }`$
and to integrate over $`u`$ from 0 to 1. (All quark-antiquark operators are assumed to be colour singlets.) I will refer to this projection as “P1”. Here $`k`$ is the momentum of the quark in the pion and the antiquark momentum is $`p^{}k`$. The derivative can be decomposed into a transverse derivative, a term proportional to $`p_\nu ^{}`$, which does not contribute, and a term proportional to $`p_\nu `$. Using $`u=pk/p^{}p`$ one performs an integration by parts on this term and neglecting boundary terms (because $`\varphi _\sigma (u)`$ vanishes at 0 and 1), one obtains the projection “P2”:

$`M_{\beta \alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{if_\pi }{4}}\{\overline{)}p^{}\gamma _5\varphi \left(u\right)\mu _\pi \gamma _5(\varphi _p\left(u\right)`$
$`i\sigma _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{p^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }p_{}^{\nu }}{p^{}p}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\sigma ^{}\left(u\right)}{6}}+i\sigma _{\mu \nu }p^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\sigma \left(u\right)}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{k_{}_\nu }})\}_{\beta \alpha }`$
The calculation of the form factor then gives

$`\pi ^+\left(p^{}\right)\left|\overline{u}\gamma _\mu u\right|\pi ^+\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4g_s^2f_\pi ^2}{9Q^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u𝑑v`$
$`\times \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi \left(u\right)\varphi \left(v\right)}{2\overline{u}\overline{v}}}\left(p+p^{}\right)_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _\pi ^2}{Q^2}}T_4\right\},`$
where the first term in the bracket represents the leading-twist result and $`T_4`$ a twist-4 correction, which is the quantity of interest here.

The explicit form of $`T_4`$ depends on whether P1 or P2 is used for the calculation. With P1 the result is

$`\varphi _p\left(u\right)[\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{u}\overline{v}}}\varphi _p\left(v\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{u}\overline{v}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\sigma \left(v\right)}{6}}\}p_\mu `$
$`+\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{u}\overline{v}^2}}\varphi _p\left(v\right){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\overline{u}\overline{v}^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\sigma \left(v\right)}{6}}\}p_\mu ^{}]`$
$`+(uv,pp^{}),`$
while using P2 leads to

$`\varphi _p\left(u\right)[\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{u}\overline{v}}}\varphi _p\left(v\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{u}\overline{v}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\sigma ^{}\left(v\right)}{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\overline{u}\overline{v}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\sigma \left(v\right)}{6}}\}p_\mu `$
$`+\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{u}\overline{v}^2}}\varphi _p\left(v\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{u}\overline{v}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\sigma ^{}\left(v\right)}{6}}\}p_\mu ^{}]`$
$`+(uv,pp^{}).`$
The two results are identical, when an integration by parts is performed and when the boundary terms are zero. This does not seem to be justified, however, since the boundary terms are non-zero, in fact infinite, when the asymptotic distribution amplitudes $`\varphi _p(w)=1`$, $`\varphi _\sigma (w)=6w\overline{w}`$ are inserted.111In the present approximation that neglects quark-antiquark-gluon amplitudes the asymptotic distribution amplitudes are exact and follow from the equation of motion constraints. A possible caveat here is that the solutions given above also involve an integration by parts in which boundary terms should be zero even when the equation of motion is inserted into any Green function. The following discussion shows that this assumption can be made. Not performing the integration by parts, it is seen that the result from P1 is linearly divergent as $`v1`$, while the result from P2 exhibits only a logarithmic divergence. Since non-perturbative infrared effects regulate the divergence at $`\overline{v}\mathrm{\Lambda }/Q`$ (when the quark momentum becomes of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$), the P1-result is of order $`Q/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, parametrically larger than the P2-result which is only of order $`\mathrm{ln}Q/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This can be made more explicit by regulating the convolution integrals through introducing a gluon mass $`\lambda `$. The main effect of this is to replace $`\overline{u}\overline{v}`$ by $`\overline{u}\overline{v}+\xi `$ where $`\xi =\lambda ^2/Q^2`$. The convolution integrals can then be done with the two results:

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u𝑑vT_4\left(P1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}2\text{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}\right)\right)\left(p+p^{}\right)_\mu `$
$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u𝑑vT_4\left(P2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2\text{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}\right)\left(p+p^{}\right)_\mu `$
The difference $`1/\xi `$ can be attributed to a linearly divergent boundary term

$$\underset{\overline{v}0}{lim}\frac{1}{\overline{v}\left(\overline{u}\overline{v}+\xi \right)}\frac{\varphi _\sigma \left(v\right)}{6}=\frac{1}{\xi }.$$

Now it is clear that was has gone wrong here is that one divides 0 by 0. The numerator is $`\varphi _\sigma (1)=0`$, which is always correct, but the denominator zero arises from the virtuality of a quark propagator, which approaches zero and which is not regularized by introducing a gluon mass. To make the calculation well-defined all small-virtuality regions must be properly regularized. One possibility is to assign a small mass to the quarks as well. Denoting the corresponding parameter by $`\eta `$, this leads to the boundary term

$$\underset{\overline{v}0}{lim}\frac{1}{\left(\overline{v}+\eta \right)\left(\overline{u}\overline{v}+\xi \right)}\frac{\varphi _\sigma \left(v\right)}{6}=0.$$

It is not difficult to see that in this particular case the amplitude has a finite limit for $`\eta 0`$ (but $`\xi `$ still non-zero) after the convolution integrals are performed. The only effect of the complete regularization is therefore to make all integrations by parts well-defined and to eliminate the spurious linearly divergent boundary term. We can therefore conclude that the correct result is

$`T_4\left(P2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\overline{u}\overline{v}}}\left(p+p^{}\right)_\mu ,`$
which exhibits a double logarithmic divergence, one from each convolution integral. This coincides with the result for the chirally-enhanced twist-4 corrections obtained long ago by Geshkenbein and Terentev .

The discussion can be analogously repeated for non-leptonic $`B`$ meson decays, where the problem appears in the computation of $`1/m_b`$-suppressed terms. The conclusion is again that integration by parts is allowed and that the correct result is obtained directly with the projector P2. On the other hand using P1 requires one to regularize carefully all propagators that can go close to mass-shell near the endpoints of the integration region.

There is a deeper reason why the infrared divergence in the twist-4 correction to the pion form factor should not be power-like. There exist two basic scattering mechanisms that contribute to the form factor. One is the hard scattering mechanism, in which all components of a given Fock state of the pion participate in a hard interaction. The other is a soft-overlap contribution, in which case a number of Fock components with small longitudinal momentum fraction does not participate in a hard interaction. A complete asymptotic expansion of the form factor should combine both mechanisms consistently. Recent work on the analogous problem for the $`B\pi `$ form factor  together with the structure of the radiatively corrected QCD sum rule for the $`B\pi `$ form factor  suggests the following factorization formula that incorporates the hard scattering and soft-overlap contribution:

$`F\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Q^2}}T_2\varphi _2\varphi _2`$
$`+C\xi (q^2,\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Q^4}}T_4^{\mathrm{reg}}\left(\mu \right)\varphi _3\varphi _3+O\left(1/Q^6\right)`$
Here $`\varphi _2`$ and $`\varphi _3`$ represent twist-2 and twist-3 light-cone distribution amplitudes and $`\xi (Q^2,\mu )`$ a soft-overlap form factor which scales as $`1/Q^4`$ and which can be defined in an effective theory in which all hard scatterings are integrated out. $`T_4^{\mathrm{reg}}(\mu )`$ denotes the hard-scattering kernel at the twist-4 level discussed above except that the endpoint divergence is factorized into the soft-overlap form factor, such that both terms depend on a factorization parameter $`\mu `$. If this (conjectured) factorization formula is to be correct, the endpoint contribution of the twist-4 term can be at most logarithmically enhanced.


text:
# A mechanism for randomness

## 1 Introduction

Over the last three decades or so, a revolution has happened in the development of science. We are talking about Chaos theory . In the chaotic regime, the behavior of a deterministic system appears random. This finding has forced many experimentalists to re-examine their data to determine whether some of the random behaviors attributed to noise are due to deterministic chaos instead.

Chaos theory has been successfully applied to many scientific and practical situations .

In the philosophical realm, however, the importance of this development was that chaos theory seemed to offer scientists the hope that almost “any” random behavior observed in Nature could be described using low-dimensional chaotic systems. Random-looking information gathered in the past (and shelved because it was assumed to be too complicated) perhaps could now be explained in terms of simple laws.

The known chaotic systems are not random . If the previous values of a time-series determine the future values, then even if the dynamical behavior is chaotic, the future may, to some extent, be predicted from the behavior of past values that are similar to those of the present. The so-called “unpredictability” in the known chaotic systems is the result of the sensitive dependence on initial conditions. It is not an absolute unpredictability.

Truly random systems are different from the chaotic ones. Past sequences of values of a random dynamical variable that are similar to present ones tell as much or little about the next value as about the next hundredth value. The so-called nonlinear forecasting methods for distinguishing chaos from random time-series are based on these ideas .

Recently, we have introduced explicit functions that produce truly random sequences . For instance, let us define the function:

$$X_n=\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\theta \pi z^n\right),$$
(1)
where $`z`$ is a real number and $`\theta `$ is a parameter.

For an integer $`z>1,`$ this is the solution to some chaotic maps  (see Fig. 1(a)). For a non-integer $`z`$, function (1) can produce truly unpredictable random sequences whose values are independent.

Functions (1) with non-integer $`z`$ cannot be expressed as a map of type

$$X_{n+1}=f(X_n,X_{n1},\mathrm{},X_{nr+1}).$$
(2)
In the present letter we address the following question: can an autonomous dynamical system with several variables produce a random dynamics similar to that of function (1)? We will present several dynamical systems with this kind of behavior. We will report the results of real experiments with nonlinear circuits, which contain direct evidence for this new phenomenon. We discuss some applications.

## 2 Random functions

Let us discuss first some properties of function (1). We will present here a short proof of the fact that the sequences generated by functions (1) are unpredictable from the previous values. This proof is presented here for the first time. However, a more detailed discussion of the properties of these functions (including statistical tests) can be found in Ref. .

Let $`z`$ be a rational number expressed as $`z=p/q`$, where $`p`$ and $`q`$ are relative prime numbers.

We are going to show that if we have $`m+1`$ numbers generated by function (1): $`X_0,X_1,X_2,X_3,\mathrm{},X_m`$ ($`m`$ can be as large as we wish), then the next value $`X_{m+1}`$ is still unpredictable. This is valid for any string of $`m+1`$ numbers.

Let us define the following family of sequences:

$$X_n^{(k,m)}=\mathrm{sin}^2\left[\pi \left(\theta _0+q^mk\right)\left(\frac{p}{q}\right)^n\right],$$
(3)
where $`k`$ is an integer. The parameter $`k`$ distinguishes the different sequences.

For all sequences parametrized by $`k`$, the first $`m+1`$ values are the same. This is so because

$$X_n^{(k,m)}=\mathrm{sin}^2\left[\pi \theta _0\left(\frac{p}{q}\right)^n+\pi kp^nq^{(mn)}\right]=\mathrm{sin}^2\left[\pi \theta _0\left(\frac{p}{q}\right)^n\right],$$
(4)
for all $`nm`$. Note that the number $`kp^nq^{(mn)}`$ is an integer for $`nm`$. So we can have infinite sequences with the same first $`m+1`$ values.

Nevertheless, the next value

$$X_{m+1}^{(k,m)}=\mathrm{sin}^2\left[\pi \theta _0\left(\frac{p}{q}\right)^{m+1}+\frac{\pi kp^{m+1}}{q}\right]$$
(5)
is uncertain.

In general, $`X_{m+1}^{(k,m)}`$ can take $`q`$ different values. These $`q`$ values can be as different as $`0,1/2,\sqrt{2}/2,1/e,1/\pi ,`$ or $`1`$. From the observation of the previous values $`X_0,X_1,X_2,X_3,\mathrm{},X_m`$, there is no method for determining the next value.

This result shows that for a given set of initial conditions, there exists always an infinite number of values of $`\theta `$ that satisfy those initial conditions. The time-series produced for different values of $`\theta `$ satisfying the initial conditions is different in most of the cases. Even if the initial conditions are exactly the same, the following values are completely different. This property is, in part, related to the fact that the equation $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =\alpha `$, where $`0\alpha 1`$, possesses infinite solutions for $`\theta `$.

We should stress that from the observation of a string of values $`X_0,X_1,X_2,X_3,\mathrm{},X_m`$ generated by function (1) it is impossible to determine which value of $`\theta `$ was used.

Figures 1(a) and 1(b) show the first-return maps for $`z=5`$ and $`z=7/3`$.

For $`z`$ irrational (we exclude the numbers of type $`z=m^{1/k}`$), the numbers generated by function (1) are completely independent (see Fig. 2(a) that shows the first-return map for $`z=e`$). After any string of $`m+1`$ numbers $`X_0,X_1,X_2,X_3,\mathrm{},X_m`$, the next outcome $`X_{m+1}`$ can take infinite different values.

The numbers produced by function (1) are random but are not distributed uniformly. The probability density behaves as $`P(X)1/\sqrt{X(1X)}`$. If we need uniformly distributed random numbers, we should make the following transformation $`Y_n=\frac{2}{\pi }\mathrm{arcsin}\sqrt{X_n}`$. In this case $`P(Y)=const`$ (see Fig. 2(b)).

It is important to mention here that the argument of function (1) does not need to be exponential all the time, for $`n\mathrm{}`$. In fact, a set of finite sequences (where each element-sequence is unpredictable, and the law for producing a new element-sequence cannot be obtained from the observations) can form an infinite unpredictable sequence. See the discussion in the following paragraph.

So if we wish to produce random sequences of very long length, we can determine a new value of parameter $`\theta `$ after a finite number $`N`$ of values of $`X_n`$. This procedure can be repeated the desired number of times. It is important to have a nonperiodic method for generating the new value of $`\theta `$. For example, we can use the following method in order to change the parameter $`\theta `$ after each set of $`N`$ sequence values. Let us define $`\theta _s=AW_s`$, where $`W_s`$ is produced by a chaotic map of the form $`W_{s+1}=f(W_s)`$; $`s`$ is the order number of $`\theta `$ in a way that $`s=1`$ corresponds to the $`\theta `$ used for the first set of $`N`$ values of $`X_n`$, $`s=2`$ for the second set, etc. The inequality $`A>1`$ should hold to ensure the absolute unpredictability. In this case, from the observation of the values $`X_n`$, it is impossible to determine the real value of $`\theta `$.

After a careful analysis of functions (1), we arrive at the preliminary conclusion that (to produce unpredictable dynamics) the main characteristics for any functions are the following: the function should be able to be re-written in the form

$$X_n=h\left(f\left(n\right)\right),$$
(6)
where the argument function $`f\left(n\right)`$ grows exponentially and the function $`h(y)`$ should be finite and periodic. This result allows us to generalize this behavior to other functions as the following

$$X_n=P\left(\theta z^n\right),$$
(7)
where $`P(t)`$ is a periodic function.

However, a more deep analysis shows that (to produce complex behavior) the function $`f(n)`$ does not have to be exponential all the time, and function $`h(y)`$ does not have to be periodic. In fact, it is sufficient for function $`f(n)`$ to be a finite nonperiodic oscillating function which possesses repeating intervals with finite exponential behavior. For instance, this can be a chaotic function. On the other hand, function $`h(y)`$ should be noninvertible. In other words, it should have different maxima and minima in such a way that equation $`h(y)=\alpha `$ (for some specific interval of $`\alpha `$, $`\alpha _1<\alpha <\alpha _2`$) possesses several solutions for $`y`$.

## 3 Autonomous dynamical systems

The following autonomous dynamical system can produce truly random dynamics:

$$X_{n+1}=\{\begin{array}{cc}aX_n,\hfill & \text{if }X_n<Q\text{,}\hfill \\ bY_n,\hfill & \text{if }X_n>Q\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
$$Y_{n+1}=cZ_n,$$
(9)
$$Z_{n+1}=\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\pi X_n\right),$$
(10)
Here $`a>1`$ can be an irrational number, $`b>1`$, $`c>1`$. We can note that for $`0<X_n<Q`$, the behavior of function $`Z_n`$ is exactly like that of function (1).

For $`X_n>Q`$ the dynamics is reinjected to the region $`0<X_n<Q`$ with a new initial condition. While $`X_n`$ is in the interval $`0<X_n<Q`$, the dynamics of $`Z_n`$ is unpredictable as it is function (1). Thus, the process of producing a new initial condition through the equation (9) is random.

If the only observable is $`Z_n`$, then it is impossible to predict the next values of this sequence using only the knowledge of the past values.

An example of the dynamics produced by the dynamical system (8)-(10) is shown in Fig. 3. If we apply the nonlinear forecasting method analysis to a common chaotic system, then the prediction error increases with the number of time-steps into the future. On the other hand, when we apply this method to the time-series produced by system (8)-(10), the prediction error is independent of the time-steps into the future, as in the case of a random sequence. Other very strong methods, which allow to distinguish between chaos and random noise, produce the same result.

Here we should make an important remark. Mathematical models can be of different types. For instance, natural phenomena can be described by differential equations, difference equations, cellular automata, neural networks, etc.

Even explicit functions can be mathematical models. If we consider function (1) as the mathematical model of some dynamical process, then this process can be completely random. If all we know is the series of outcomes $`X_0,X_1,X_2,\mathrm{}`$, then it does not matter how many values we already have, the next value is unpredictable. However, this is because from the observation of the values $`X_0,X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_m`$, it is impossible to determine the “variable” $`Y_n=\theta \pi z^n`$. This could be considered as a “hidden variable”. Of course, we cannot say that this is just a problem of hidden variables, because not for any hidden variable $`Y_n`$, the function $`X_n=\mathrm{sin}^2\left(Y_n\right)`$ is a random system. Here we have obtained necessary conditions for this phenomenon to occur.

Let us extend this analysis to the dynamical system (8)-(10). In this case the completely random variable is $`Z_n`$. The role of “hidden variable” is played by $`X_n`$. If one could observe the series $`X_n`$, then the complete randomness of the data set is lost. We could say that some projection of the complete set of variables onto a proper subset is necessary for the effect.

It is important to notice that the dynamical system (8)-(10) is a well-posed set of difference equations with unique forward time evolution. Given the initial conditions ($`X_0`$, $`Y_0`$, $`Z_0`$), the future evolution of the dynamics is fully determined. However, if the only observable is $`Z_n`$, then this variable will behave as a completely random time-series. How can one reconcile the unique forward time evolution with this randomness? The answer is related to the fact that only a subset of the variables are observed.

With this result we are uncovering a new mechanism for generating random dynamics. This is a fundamental result because it is very important to understand different mechanisms by which the natural systems can produce truly random (not only chaotic) dynamics.

## 4 Pseudorandom number generators

There is a large literature dedicated to pseudorandom number generators (see e.g.  and references quoted therein). A very fine theory has been developed in this area and this theory has produced many important results.

However, we should say here that the known pseudorandom number generators are not supposed to generate truly random numbers.

In his important review article , James says : “Truly random numbers are unpredictable in advance and must be produced by a random physical process, such as radioactive decay”.

In fact, pseudorandom numbers are produced using recurrence relations, and are therefore not truly random .

D’Souza et al  say in their paper: “Pseudorandom number generators are at best a practical substitute, and should be generally tested for the absence of undesired correlations”.

Many known pseudorandom number generators are based on maps of type:

$$X_{n+1}=f(X_n,X_{n1}\mathrm{},X_{nr+1}).$$
(11)
Now we will present the maps behind some of the most famous and best pseudorandom number generators.

Multiplicative linear congruential generators  are defined by the following equation:

$$X_{n+1}=\left(aX_n+c\right)𝑚𝑜𝑑m$$
(12)
Some famous values for these parameters are the following: $`a=23`$, $`m=10^8+1`$, $`c=0`$; $`a=65539`$, $`m=2^{29}`$, $`c=0`$; $`a=69069`$, $`m=2^{32}`$, $`c=1`$; $`a=16807`$, $`m=2^{31}1`$, $`c=0`$; $`a=1664525`$, $`m=2^{32}`$, $`c=0`$ (this is the best generator for $`m=2^{32}`$, according to the criteria of Knuth ).

The Fibonacci-like generators obey the following equation:

$$X_{n+1}=\left(X_{np}X_{nq}\right)𝑚𝑜𝑑m,$$
(13)
where $``$ is some binary or logical operation. For instance, $``$ can be addition, subtraction or exclusive-or.

Other extended algorithms use equations as the following:

$$X_{n+1}=\left(aX_n+bX_{n1}+c\right)𝑚𝑜𝑑m.$$
(14)
The add-and-carry generators are defined as:

$$X_{n+1}=\left(X_{nr}\pm X_{ns}\pm c\right)𝑚𝑜𝑑m.$$
(15)
Among the high quality generators investigated in the famous paper  are the following

$$X_{n+1}=\left(16807X_n\right)𝑚𝑜𝑑\left(2^{31}1\right),$$
(16)
$$X_{n+1}=(X_{n103}.XOR.X_{n250}),$$
(17)
$$X_{n+1}=(X_{n1063}.XOR.X_{n1279}),$$
(18)
where $`.XOR.`$ is the bitwise exclusive OR operator,

$$X_n=\left(X_{n22}X_{n43}c\right),$$
(19)
here for $`X_n0`$, $`c=0`$, and for $`X_n<0`$, $`X_n=X_n+\left(2^{32}5\right)`$, $`c=1`$.

All known generators (in some specific physical calculations) give rise to incorrect results because they deviate from randomness .

The problem is that these algorithms are predictable.

An example of this can be found in the work of Ferrenberg et al . They found that high quality pseudorandom number generators can yield incorrect answers due to subtle correlations between the generated numbers.

Suppose we have an ideal generator for truly random numbers. In this case, no matter how many numbers we have generated, the value of the next number will be still unknown. That is, there is no way to write down a formula that will give the value of the next number in terms of the previous numbers, no matter how many numbers have been already generated.

The authors of paper  related the errors in the simulations to the dependence in the generated numbers. Indeed, they are all based on maps of type (11).

In the present paper we have shown that both the sequence of numbers $`X_n`$ defined by function (1) and the sequence of numbers $`Z_n`$ defined by the dynamical system (8)-(10) cannot be expressed as a map of type (11). In fact, these numbers are unpredictable and the next value cannot be determined as a function of the previous values.

Recently, simulations of different physical systems have become the “strongest” tests for pseudorandom number generators. Among these systems are the following: the two-dimensional Ising model , ballistic deposition , and random walks .

Nogués et al  have found that using common pseudorandom number generators, the produced random walks present symmetries, meaning that the generated numbers are not independent.

On the other hand, the logarithmic plot of the mean distance versus the number of steps $`N`$ is not a straight line (as expected theoretically) after $`N>10^5`$ (in fact, it is a rapidly decaying function).

D’Souza et al  use ballistic deposition to test the randomness of pseudorandom number generators. They found correlations in the pseudorandom numbers and strong coupling between the model and the generators (even generators that pass extensive statistical tests).

One consequence of the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang theory is that the steady state behavior for the interface fluctuations (in ballistic deposition in one dimension) should resemble a random walk. Thus, a random walk again serves as a good test for pseudorandom numbers.

We have produced random walks using the numbers generated by our systems. The produced random walks possess the correct properties, including the mean distance behavior $`d^2N`$.

The present paper is not about random number generators. In the present paper we discuss a new phenomenon: the fact that unperturbed physical systems can produce truly random dynamics.

Of course, one of the applications of this phenomenon is random number generation.

The art of random number generation requires more than the randomness of the generated numbers. It requires good programming skills and techniques to obtain the desired distributions for the numbers.

The functions and systems described in this paper can be used to create very good random number generators. Algorithms designed for this purpose along with the statistical tests will be published elsewhere.

In this section we only wished to present a theoretical comparison between the sequences produced by the pseudorandom-number-generator algorithms (11)-(19) and the systems described in the present paper.

## 5 Experiments

When the input is a normal chaotic signal and the system is an electronic circuit with the I-V characteristics shown in Figures 4 and 5, then the output will be a very complex signal.

In Ref.  a theory of nonlinear circuits is presented. There we can find different methods to construct circuits with these I-V characteristic curves.

The scheme of this composed system is shown in Fig. 6. A set of equations describing this dynamical system is the following:

$$X_{n+1}=F_1(X_n,Y_n),$$
(20)
$$Y_{n+1}=F_2(X_n,Y_n),$$
(21)
$$Z_{n+1}=g\left(X_n\right),$$
(22)
where the equations (20) and (21) describe a normal chaotic dynamics where the variable $`X_n`$ presents intermittent intervals with a truncated exponential behavior and $`g\left(X_n\right)`$ is a function with several maxima and minima as that shown in Fig. 5.

Figures 7(a) and 7(b) show nonlinear circuits that can be used as the nonlinear system shown on the right of the scheme of Fig. 6.

The system on the left of the scheme can be a chaotic circuit, e.g. the Chua’s circuit .

We have constructed a circuit similar to the one shown in Fig. 7(a). We produced chaotic time-series using a common nonlinear map and then we transformed them into analog signals using a converter. This analog signals were introduced as the voltage-input to the circuit shown in Fig. 7(a). Similar results are obtained when we take the input signal from a chaotic electronic circuit.

The set of equations that describes one of our experimental situations is the following:

$$X_{n+1}=aX_n\left[1\mathrm{\Theta }(X_nq)\right]+bY_n\mathrm{\Theta }(X_nq),$$
(23)
$$Y_{n+1}=\mathrm{sin}^2\left[d\mathrm{arcsin}\sqrt{Y_n}\right],$$
(24)
$$Z_{n+1}=4W_n^33W_n,$$
(25)
where $`W_n=\frac{2X_n}{s}1`$, $`q=\frac{s}{a}`$, $`s=10`$, $`b=7`$, $`a=\frac{\pi }{2}`$, $`d=3`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ is the Heaviside function.

The first-return maps of the sequence $`Z_n`$ produced by the theoretical model (23)-(25) and the experimental time-series produced by the nonlinear system of Figs. 6 and 7(a) are shown in Figures 8(a) and 8(b).

When the nonlinear circuit has an I-V characteristic with many more maxima and minima, e.g. Fig. 5 (and this can be done in practice, see Ref. ), we can produce a much more complex dynamics.

Nonlinear chaotic circuits can be described successfully by discrete maps as the equations (20)-(22) (see e.g. ).

However, in some cases it can be very helpful to have a physical situation with a model based on a set of well-posed ordinary differential equations.

In Ref.  we can find several models for chaotic circuits as the following:

$$\frac{dX}{dt}=\alpha \left[f\left(x\right)Y\right],$$
(26)
$$\frac{dY}{dt}=YXZ,$$
(27)
$$\frac{dZ}{dt}=\beta Y+\gamma Z,$$
(28)
$$\frac{dW}{dt}=g\left(X\right).$$
(29)
where $`f\left(x\right)=X^3+cX`$, $`g\left(X\right)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_ix^i`$.

A comparison of different time-series is shown in Fig. 9. The fixed parameter values are: $`\alpha =285.714`$, $`\beta =1499.25`$, $`c=0.144`$, $`\gamma =0.51325`$. Note that when the I-V characteristic of the circuit shown on the right of Fig. 6 is a function with many extrema, the produced time-series is more complex (see Fig. 9(b)).

Using our theoretical results we can make a very important prediction here. A nonlinear physical system constructed with chaotic circuits and a Josephson junction  can be an ideal experimental setup for the random dynamics that we are presenting here.

It is well-known that the current in a Josephson junction may be written as

$$I=I_c\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,$$
(30)
where

$$\frac{d\varphi }{dt}=kV$$
(31)
Here $`\varphi `$ is the phase and $`V`$ is the voltage across the junction. Note that Nature has provided us with a phenomenon where the sine-function is intrinsic. Although we have already explained that other noninvertible functions can produce similar results, it is remarkable that we can use this very important physical system to investigate the real consequences of our results with function (1). In a superconducting Josephson junction $`k`$ is defined through the fundamental constants $`k=2e/\mathrm{}`$. However, in the last decades there have been a wealth of experimental work dedicated to the creation of electronic analogs that can simulate the Josephson junction . In that case $`k`$ can be a parameter with different numerical values.

We have performed real experiments with a nonlinear chaotic circuit coupled to an analog Josephson junction.

In our experiments we have used the Josephson junction analog constructed by Magerlein . This is a very accurate device that has been found very useful in many experiments for studying junction behavior in different circuits. The junction voltage is integrated using appropriate resetting circuitry to calculate the phase $`\varphi `$, and a current proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ can be generated. The circuit diagram can be found in .

The parameter $`k`$ is related to certain integrator time constant $`RC`$ in the circuit. So we can change its value. This is important for our experiments. We need large values of $`k`$ in order to increase the effective domain of the sine function. In other words, we need the argument of the sine function to take large values in a truncated exponential fashion. This allows us to have a very complex output signal. In our case the value of $`k`$ is 10000.

The voltage $`V(t)`$ across the junction is not taken constant. This voltage will be produced by a chaotic system. In our case we selected the Chua’s circuit . For this, we have implemented the Chua’s circuit following the recipe of Ref. .

The scheme of the Chua’s circuit constructed by us can be found in Fig. 1 of Ref. .

The following components were used: $`C_1=10`$ nF, $`C_2=100`$ nF, $`L=19`$ mH, and $`R`$ is a $`2.0`$ K$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ trimpot.

Chua’s diode was built using a two-operational-amplifier configuration suggested in .

In our experiment, the voltage in $`C_1`$ was used as the driving signal for the Josephson junction. We were interested in the famous double scroll attractor attained with $`R1880`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

The differential equations that describe our experimental system are the following:

$$\frac{dV_1}{dt}=6.3\left(V_2V_1\right)9f(V_1),$$
(32)
$$\frac{dV_2}{dt}=0.7\left(V_1V_2\right)+I_L,$$
(33)
$$\frac{dI_L}{dt}=7V_2,$$
(34)
$$\frac{d\varphi }{dt}=kV_1,$$
(35)
$$\frac{dQ}{dt}=\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,$$
(36)
where $`f(V_1)=0.5\left[V_1+0.3\left(\left|V_1+1\right|\left|V_11\right|\right)\right]`$ and $`k=10^4`$. Notice that this system has been rewritten using adimensional variables (see Ref. ).

The results of the experiments are shown in Fig. 10 which is the first-return map of the time-series data produced by direct measurements of the junction current. The time-intervals between measurements was 10 ms. This system can produce unpredictable dynamics. Figure 11 shows the results of the simulation of dynamical system (32)-(36).

## 6 Conclusions

In conclusion, we have shown that functions of type $`X_n=P\left(\theta z^n\right)`$, where $`P(t)`$ is a periodic function and $`z`$ is a noninteger number, can produce completely random numbers. Certain class of autonomous dynamical systems can generate a similar dynamics. This dynamics presents fundamental differences with the known chaotic systems. We have presented real nonlinear systems that can produce this kind of random time-series. We have reported the results of real experiments with nonlinear circuits containing direct evidence supporting this phenomenon.

Besides the fundamental importance of these findings, these systems possess many practical applications. For instance, game theory tells us that in certain competitive situations the optimal strategy is a random behavior. Specifically, it is necessary to limit the competition’s ability to predict our decisions. We can produce randomness using the discussed systems. Another example is secure communications . In this context, the most important application of our systems is masking messages using random signals . In some cases, when we use the usual chaotic systems, the messages can be cracked because the time-series are not truly unpredictable.

Now we will analyze very general ideas.

Just to facilitate our discussion (because it is always important to have a name), we will call the phenomenon studied in this paper “deterministic randomness”. The words “deterministic randomness” have been used (metaphorically) in the past as a name for chaos. However, the known chaotic systems are not random. So we think this is a good name for the present phenomenon.

Deterministic randomness imposes fundamental limits on prediction, but it also suggests that there could exist causal relationships where none were previously suspected.

Deterministic randomness demonstrates that a system can have the most complicated behavior that emerges as a consequence of simple, nonlinear interaction of only a few effective degrees of freedom.

On one hand, deterministic randomness implies that if there is a phenomenon in the World (whose mechanism from first principles is not known) described by a dynamical system of type (8)-(10) or (20)-(22), and the only observable is a physical variable as $`Z_n`$, then the law of this phenomenon cannot be learnt from the experimental data, or the observations. And, situations in which the fundamental law should be inferred from the observations alone have not been uncommon in physics.

On the other hand, the fact that this random dynamics is produced by a relatively simple, well-defined autonomous dynamical system implies that many random phenomena could be more predictable than have been thought.

Suppose there is a system thought to be completely random. From the observation of some single variable, scientists cannot obtain the generation law. However, suppose that in some cases, studying the deep connections of the phenomenon, we can deduce a dynamical system of type (8)-(10) or (20)-(22). In these cases, some prediction is possible.

In any case, what is certain at this point is that some dynamical systems can generate randomness on their own without the need for any external random input.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The main goal of a $`B`$-factory is to first observe and establish $`CP`$ violation in $`B`$-decays and then to precisely measure the $`CP`$ violation angles of the Unitarity Triangle, as well as the lengths of its sides. The aims is to either confirm the Kobayashi-Maskawa model for the mechanism of $`CP`$ violation or find evidence of physics beyond the Standard Model. Analysis of the proper-time evolution of $`B`$ decays is essential for measuring mixing-induced $`CP`$ violation, and is one of the unique features of an asymmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ collider at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$. By combining a large number of accumulated $`B`$ events with a clean environment to study $`B`$-decays, the asymmetric-collider experiments can now provide the most precise measurements that involve proper-decay time analyses, such as lifetimes and the oscillation frequency in $`B^0`$-$`\overline{B}^0`$ mixing, which is characterized by the mass-difference between the two mass eigenstates of the $`B^0`$-$`\overline{B}^0`$ system ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$).

In this article, we report on the results of proper-time analyses of $`B`$ decays at Belle: measurements of $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$, the lifetime of $`B`$-mesons, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$.

## 2  KEKB Accelerator and Belle

KEKB  is an asymmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ collider of 3 km circumference, which consists of 8 GeV $`e^{}`$ and 3.5 GeV $`e^+`$ storage rings and an injection linear accelerator for them. It has one interaction point where the $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ beams collide with a finite crossing angle of 22 mrad. The collider has been operated with peak beam currents of 1230 mA($`e^+`$) and 780 mA($`e^{}`$), giving a peak luminosity of 5.5$`\times 10^{33}`$/cm2/sec (as of the end of 2001, the target is 1034/cm2/sec). Due to the energy asymmetry, the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ and its daughter $`B`$-pair are produced with $`\beta \gamma =`$0.425 along the electron beam direction (z direction) in the laboratory frame. The average distance between the two decay vertices of $`B`$ mesons is approximately 200 $`\mu `$m. A total integrated luminosity of 47 fb-1 was accumulated during the period between October 1999 and the end of 2001, of which 4.0 fb-1 was taken off-resonance and the rest was taken on the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$. In the analyses reported here, we use a 29.1 fb-1 data sample, which contains 31.3 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs, recorded at $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ between January 2000 and July 2001.

Belle is an international collaboration consisting of $``$300 physicists from $``$50 institutes in 14 countries (U.S.A., Russia, Asia, Australia, and Europe). The Belle detector  is a general purpose large solid angle magnetic spectrometer surrounding the interaction point.

Charged particle tracking is done by a silicon vertex detector (SVD) and a central drift chamber (CDC). The SVD consists of three layers of double-sided silicon strip detectors (DSSD) at radii of 3.0, 4.5 and 6.0 cm. The CDC is a small-cell cylindrical drift chamber consisting of 50 layers of anode wires (18 stereo wire layers), covering $`17^{}<\theta _{lab}<150^{}`$. The CDC is operated with a $`He`$(50%)$`+C_2H_6`$(50%) mixture. The CDC also provides measurements of the energy loss with a resolution of $`\sigma (dE/dx)`$=6.9%.

Particle identification is done by three detectors: $`dE/dx`$ measurements in the CDC, time-of-flight counters (TOF) and aerogel Cherenkov counters (ACC). The TOF system consists of 128 plastic scintillators. The time resolution is 95 psec ($`rms`$). The ACC consists of 1188 aerogel blocks with refractive indices of between 1.01 and 1.03, depending on the polar angle. By combining information from these detectors, the efficiency for $`K^\pm `$ identification is about 90% and the $`\pi `$ fake rate is 6% with the requirement $`P(K/\pi )>0.6`$.

The electromagnetic calorimeter (ECL) consists of 8736 CsI(Tl) crystal blocks, 16.1 radiation length thick, and covering the same angular region as CDC. Electron identification in Belle is based on a combination of $`dE/dx`$ measurements in the CDC, the response of the ACC, and the position, shape and total energy (i.e. $`E/p`$) of its associated CsI shower.

The outermost detector, for the measurement of $`\mu ^\pm `$ and $`K_L`$ (KLM), consists of 14 layers of iron (4.7 cm thick) absorbers alternating with resistive plate counters (RPC).

## 3 Measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$

The Standard Model (SM) predicts a $`CP`$ violating asymmetry in the time-dependent rates for the initial $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ decays to a common $`CP`$ eigenstate, $`f_{CP}`$. In the case where $`f_{CP}=(c\overline{c})K^0`$, the asymmetry is given by

$`A(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R(\overline{B}^0f_{CP})R(B^0f_{CP})}{R(\overline{B}^0f_{CP})+R(B^0f_{CP})}}`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`\xi _f\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t),`$
where $`\xi _f`$ is the $`CP`$-eigenvalue of $`f_{CP}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is proper-time difference of two $`B`$ decays, and $`\varphi _1`$ is one of the three internal angles of the Unitarity Triangle, defined as $`\varphi _1\pi \mathrm{arg}\left(\frac{V_{tb}^{}V_{td}}{V_{cb}^{}V_{cd}}\right)(\beta )`$ .

The measurement requires the reconstruction of $`B^0f_{CP}`$ decays, the determination of the $`b`$-flavor of the accompanying $`B`$-decay ($`f_{\mathrm{tag}}`$), a measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, and a fit of the expected $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distribution to the measured distribution using a maximum-likelihood method.

We reconstruct $`B^0`$ decays to the following $`CP`$ eigenstates : $`J/\psi K_S`$, $`\psi (2S)K_S`$, $`\chi _{c1}K_S`$, $`\eta _cK_S`$ for $`\xi _f=1`$ and $`J/\psi K_L`$ for $`\xi _f=+1`$. The $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi (2S)`$ mesons are reconstructed via their decays to $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ $`(\mathrm{}=\mu ,e)`$. The $`\psi (2S)`$ is also reconstructed via its $`J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay, the $`\chi _{c1}`$ via its $`J/\psi \gamma `$ decay, and the $`\eta _c`$ via its $`K^+K^{}\pi ^0`$ and $`K_S(\pi ^+\pi ^{})K^{}\pi ^+`$ decays. We also use $`B^0J/\psi K^0(K_S\pi ^0)`$ decays, where the final state is a mixture of even and odd $`CP`$. We find that the final state is primarily $`\xi _f=+1`$; the $`\xi _f=1`$ fraction is $`0.19\pm 0.04(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.04(\mathrm{syst})`$ .

Except for $`B^0J/\psi K_L`$, we identify $`B`$ decays using the energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }EE_B^{\mathrm{cms}}E_{\mathrm{beam}}^{\mathrm{cms}}`$ and the beam-energy constrained mass $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}\sqrt{(E_{\mathrm{beam}}^{\mathrm{cms}})^2(p_B^{\mathrm{cms}})^2}`$, where $`E_{\mathrm{beam}}^{\mathrm{cms}}`$ is the cms beam energy, and $`E_B^{\mathrm{cms}}`$ and $`p_B^{\mathrm{cms}}`$ are the cms energy and momentum of the $`B`$ candidate. The $`B`$ meson signal region is defined as $`5.270<M_{\mathrm{bc}}<5.290\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and a mode-dependent window around $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ = 0. Table 1 lists the numbers of observed candidates ($`N_{\mathrm{ev}}`$) and the background ($`N_{\mathrm{bkgd}}`$) determined by extrapolating the rate in the non-signal $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ vs. $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ region into the signal region.

Candidate $`B^0J/\psi K_L`$ decays are selected by requiring ECL and/or KLM hit patterns that are consistent with the presence of a shower induced by a neutral hadron. The quantity $`p_B^{\mathrm{cms}}`$ is calculated with the $`B^0J/\psi K_L`$ two-body decay hypothesis. The $`p_B^{\mathrm{cms}}`$ distribution is fitted to the sum of signal and background distributions. There are 569 entries in the $`0.2p_B^{\mathrm{cms}}0.45(0.40)\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ signal region with KLM (ECL) clusters.

Tracks that are not associated with a reconstructed $`CP`$ eigenstate decay are used for flavor tagging. Initially, the $`b`$-flavor determination is performed at the track level: high momentum leptons from $`b`$ $`c\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$, lower momentum leptons from $`c`$ $`s\mathrm{}^+\nu `$, charged kaons and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ baryons from $`b`$ $`c`$ $`s`$, high momentum pions that originate from decays of $`B^0`$ $`D^{()}(n\pi )^+`$, and slow pions from $`D^+D^0\pi ^+`$. We use the MC to determine a category-dependent variable that ranges from $`1`$ for a reliably identified $`\overline{B}^0`$ to $`+1`$ for a reliably identified $`B^0`$, and depends on the tagging particle’s charge, cms momentum, polar angle and particle-identification probability, as well as other kinematic and event shape quantities. The results from the separate track categories are then combined to take into account correlations in the case of multiple track-level tags. This stage determines two event-level parameters, $`q`$ and $`r`$: $`q`$ takes values $`q=+1(1)`$ when the tag-side $`B`$ meson is more likely to be a $`B^0`$ ($`\overline{B}^0`$); $`r`$ is an event-by-event flavor-tagging dilution factor, which ranges from $`r=0`$ for no flavor discrimination to $`r=1`$ for unambiguous flavor assignment. It is used only to sort data into six intervals of $`r`$, according to the flavor purity.

The wrong-tag probabilities, $`w_l(l=1,6)`$, are determined directly from the data for the six $`r`$ intervals using fully reconstructed, self-tagged decays, as described in Sec. 5.1. The total effective tagging efficiency is $`_lf_l(12w_l)^2=0.270\pm 0.008(\mathrm{stat})_{0.009}^{+0.006}(\mathrm{syst})`$, where $`f_l`$ is the fraction of the events in each $`r`$ interval.

The vertex positions for the $`f_{CP}`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{tag}}`$ decays are reconstructed using tracks that have at least one three-dimensional coordinate determined from associated $`r`$-$`\varphi `$ and $`z`$ hits in the same SVD layer along with one or more additional $`z`$ hits in the other layers. Each vertex position is required to be consistent with the interaction point profile smeared in the $`r`$-$`\varphi `$ plane by the $`B`$ meson decay length. The $`f_{CP}`$ vertex is determined using lepton tracks from $`J/\psi `$ or $`\psi (2S)`$ decays, or prompt tracks from $`\eta _c`$ decays. The $`f_{\mathrm{tag}}`$ vertex is determined from well reconstructed tracks not assigned to $`f_{CP}`$. Tracks that form a $`K_S`$ are not used.

We determine $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$ by performing an unbinned maximum-likelihood fit of a probability density function (pdf) to the observed $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distributions. The pdf is a convolution of the theoretical distribution with a $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ resolution function, including the effect the of background and wrong-tag probabilities. The result is

$`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1=0.99\pm 0.14(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.06(\mathrm{syst}).`$

The systematic error is dominated by the uncertainties in vertex reconstruction and resolution. Figure 1 shows the observed $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distributions for the $`q\xi _f=+1`$ (solid points) and $`q\xi _f=1`$ (open points) event samples.

In Fig. 2(a) we show the asymmetries for the combined data sample that are obtained by applying the fit to the events in each $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ bin separately. The smooth curve is the result of the global unbinned fit. Figures 2(b) and (c) show the corresponding asymmetries for the $`(c\overline{c})K_S`$ ($`\xi _f=1`$) and the $`J/\psi K_L`$ ($`\xi _f=+1`$) modes separately. The fits give $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$ values to be $`0.84\pm 0.17`$(stat) and $`1.31\pm 0.23`$(stat), respectively, which are opposite, as expected. Fitting to the non-$`CP`$ eigenstate self-tagged modes $`B^0D^{()}\pi ^+`$, $`D^{}\rho ^+`$, $`J/\psi K^0(K^+\pi ^{})`$ and $`D^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu `$, yields $`0.05\pm 0.04`$. As shown in Fig. 2(d), no asymmetry is seen, as expected.

## 4  Lifetime Measurements

For lifetime measurements, $`\overline{B}^0`$ and $`B^{}`$ mesons are fully reconstructed in the following hadronic decay modes: $`\overline{B}^0D^+\pi ^{}`$, $`D^+\pi ^{}`$, $`D^+\rho ^{}`$, $`J/\psi K_S`$, $`J/\psi K^0(K^{}\pi ^+)`$, and $`B^{}D^0\pi ^{}`$, $`J/\psi K^{}`$. The reconstruction of $`J/\psi X`$ is made in the way quite similar to that used for the $`CP`$ analysis described above. Neutral and charged $`D`$ candidates are reconstructed in the following channels: $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$, $`K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$, $`K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, and $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$. $`D^+D^0\pi ^+`$ candidates are formed by combining a $`D^0`$ candidate with a positively charged soft pion. To reduce the continuum background, a selection based on the ratio of the second to zeroth Fox-Wolfram moments and the angle between the thrust axes of the reconstructed and associated $`B`$ mesons is applied mode by mode. The vertices for fully reconstructed and associated $`B`$’s are reconstructed using the same algorithm that is used in the $`CP`$ analysis. We find 7863 $`\overline{B}^0`$ and 12047 $`B^{}`$ events within the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$-$`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ signal regions after the vertexing and selections are applied.

We extract the $`\overline{B}^0`$ and $`B^{}`$ lifetimes by performing an unbinned maximum-likelihood fit to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distributions of $`\overline{B}^0`$ and $`B^{}`$ simultaneously. The pdf is similar to the one used in the $`CP`$ analysis. However, we have developed a more elaborate resolution function for lifetime measurements. It is constructed as the convolution of four different contributions: the detector resolutions for the fully reconstructed $`B`$ and associated $`B`$, the additional smearing from the associated $`B`$ due to the inclusion of secondary tracks and the kinematic approximation that the $`B`$ mesons are at rest in the cms. We allow for outliers with a large-width Gaussian to take into account any imperfection of the resolution function. The fit includes 10 free parameters (7 for resolution function and 3 for outliers) besides $`\tau _{\overline{B}^0}`$ and $`\tau _B^{}`$. We obtain:

$`\tau _{\overline{B}^0}=1.554\pm 0.030(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.019(\mathrm{syst})\mathrm{ps},`$

$`\tau _B^{}=1.695\pm 0.026(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.015(\mathrm{syst})\mathrm{ps},`$

$`\tau _B^{}/\tau _{\overline{B}^0}=1.091\pm 0.023(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.014(\mathrm{syst}).`$

Figure 3 shows the distributions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ for $`\overline{B}^0`$ and $`B^{}`$ events in the signal region with the fitted curves superimposed. The dominant sources of the systematic errors are the uncertainties in the background $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ shape and the modeling of resolution function.

## 5  $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ Measurements

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ can be measured from the oscillation pattern of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distributions of the mixed (same flavor, SF) and unmixed (opposite flavor, OF) $`B`$ pairs:

$`N_{\mathrm{SF}}`$ $``$ $`e^{|\mathrm{\Delta }t|/\tau _{B^0}}\left[1\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{}m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t)\right],`$ (2)
$`N_{\mathrm{OF}}`$ $``$ $`e^{|\mathrm{\Delta }t|/\tau _{B^0}}\left[1+\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{}m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t)\right].`$ (3)
We published a result using inclusive dileptons based on an early data sample. Here, we report on the results using three other different samples: fully reconstructed hadronic modes, a fully reconstructed semi-leptonic mode, and a partially reconstructed $`D^\pm \pi ^{}`$ mode.

### 5.1  Fully Reconstructed Modes

We use fully reconstructed, self-tagged decay modes in two categories: hadronic decays ($`D^{()}\pi ^+`$, $`D^{}\rho ^+`$) and semi-leptonic decay ($`B^0D^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu `$). For hadronic modes, the same event samples are used as lifetime measurements. For $`B^0D^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu `$, we use the same $`D^{}`$ decay chains as for the hadronic modes. The $`D^{}`$ candidates are combined with $`\mu ^+`$ or $`e^+`$ candidates having charge opposite to that of the $`D^{}`$ candidate. We exploit the massless character of the neutrino using the missing-mass squared in the cms defined by $`M_{\mathrm{miss}}^2=MMC\mathrm{cos}\theta _{B,D^{}\mathrm{}}`$ where $`MM=(E_BE_D^{}\mathrm{})^2|\stackrel{}{p}_B|^2|\stackrel{}{p}_D^{}\mathrm{}|^2`$, $`C=2|\stackrel{}{p}_B||\stackrel{}{p}_D^{}\mathrm{}|`$. $`E_B`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_B`$ ($`E_D^{}\mathrm{}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_D^{}\mathrm{}`$) are cms energy and momentum of $`B^0`$ ($`D^{}`$ and lepton system). $`\theta _{B,D^{}\mathrm{}}`$ is an angle between vectors $`\stackrel{}{p}_B`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_D^{}\mathrm{}`$. It gives $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{B,D^{}\mathrm{}}=MM/C`$ by setting $`M_{\mathrm{miss}}^2=0`$. We select $`D^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu `$ candidates by requiring $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{B,D^{}\mathrm{}}|<1.1`$. The $`b`$-flavor of the accompanying $`B`$ meson is assigned according to the flavor-tagging algorithm described above. The values of $`w_l`$ are obtained from the amplitudes of the time-dependent $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing oscillations: $`(N_{\mathrm{OF}}N_{\mathrm{SF}})/(N_{\mathrm{OF}}+N_{\mathrm{SF}})=(12w_l)\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$. We perform a maximum-likelihood fit to SF and OF $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distributions simultaneously with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and $`w_l`$’s as free parameters. ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ is fixed at the world average value  when we determine $`w_l`$’s.) We obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d=0.521\pm 0.017(\mathrm{stat}){}_{0.014}{}^{+0.011}(\mathrm{syst})`$ ps-1 (prelim.) for hadronic modes and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d=0.489\pm 0.012(\mathrm{stat}){}_{0.014}{}^{+0.011}(\mathrm{syst})`$ ps-1 (prelim.) for semi-leptonic mode. Dominant sources of systematic errors for hadronic modes are uncertainties in the resolution function and the background components, including mixing. Those for the semi-leptonic mode are uncertainties in the effects of the backgrounds.

### 5.2  Partially Reconstructed $`D^\pm \pi ^{}`$

In this method, $`B^0D^\pm \pi ^{}`$ decays are reconstructed using only the fast pion ($`\pi _f`$) directly from the $`B^0`$ and the soft pion ($`\pi _s`$) from $`D^+D^0\pi ^+`$. Here, we use a method based on reconstructing the $`D^0`$ missing mass. We select a $`\pi _f`$ with cms momentum 2.05 $`<p_{\pi _f}^{}<`$ 2.45 GeV/c and an oppositely charged $`\pi _s`$ with a cms momentum of less than 0.45 GeV/c. The missing mass is then calculated assuming the $`B`$ meson is at rest in the cms. We select events with missing mass larger than 1.85 GeV/c2 as $`D^\pm \pi ^{}`$ candidates. We require $`R_2`$ to be less than 0.5 to reduce the continuum background. In order to identify the flavor of the other $`B`$, we require an additional high momentum lepton with a cms momentum larger than 1.1 GeV/c. To reduce the background from incorrect tags (i.e. $`\pi _f`$ and leptons from the same $`B`$), we further require $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}\pi _f}^{}>0.8`$ where $`\theta _{\mathrm{}\pi _f}^{}`$ is the angle between a $`\pi _f`$ and a lepton in the cms. We select 3686 OF (1213 SF) candidates with 73% (62%) purity after the missing mass cut and lepton-tag. The $`z`$-vertex of leptons is determined from the intersection of the lepton tracks with the profile of $`B_d^0`$ decay vertices. An unbinned maximum likelihood fit is performed to the OF and SF $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ distributions to extract $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$. We obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d=0.505\pm 0.017(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.020(\mathrm{syst})`$ ps-1 (prelim.). The dominant sources of systematic errors are uncertainties in the background fraction and the resolution function.

Figure 4 shows the OF-SF asymmetries as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ for each method mentioned above together with the fit curves.

## 6  Conclusion

Belle (along with BaBar) presented the first significant observation of the $`CP`$ violation in 2001 summer. The measured value is

$`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1=0.99\pm 0.14(\mathrm{stst})\pm 0.06(\mathrm{syst})`$

with more than 6$`\sigma `$ significance. We have also measured the lifetimes of $`\overline{B}^0`$ and $`B^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$. The results are consistent with those of other experiments . We find $`\tau _B^{}/\tau _{\overline{B}^0}`$ is different from 1 with more than 3$`\sigma `$ significance. By combining four different methods, we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d=0.490\pm 0.010`$ ps-1 (prelim.). These are the most precise measurements so far.

### Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the KEKB accelerator group for excellent operation of the collider. I would also like to thank the conference organizers for their efforts.