format: text

text:
# Interplay of Three-Body Interactions in the EOS of Nuclear Matter

## I Introduction

It is generally accepted that in order to reproduce the empirical saturation properties of nuclear matter in a non relativistic many-body approach one needs to introduce three-body forces (3BF). Calculations with 3BF have been performed in non-relativistic Brueckner theory  and in variational approaches.Moreover in the relativistic Dirac-Brueckner (DB) approach , 3BF effects are incorporated via the dressed Dirac spinors as already stressed by Brown et al. .

The existing versions of 3BF applied for nuclear matter calculations are based on either a purely phenomenological model with two parameters adjusted on the empirical saturation point of nuclear matter (and/or the $`{}_{}{}^{3}H`$ binding energy) or a microscopic meson-exchange model with nucleonic virtual excitations. In the recent years a general method based on the chiral effective field theory has been developed to systematically generate many-body forces .

In the study of nuclear matter the phenomenological TBF has been applied both in variational calculations  and in Brueckner calculations , the microscopic one only in Brueckner calculations .

The microscopic 3BF is more appropriate to get a deeper understanding of saturation mechanism of nuclear matter and also to extend the study of the equation of state (EOS) to high density. In fact these two aspects of EOS are not necessarily strictly related each other. Moreover it allows to make contact with the DB theory, where the saturation mechanism is interpreted as a purely relativistic effect. It is true in fact that this effect is coming from the $`\overline{N}N`$ virtual excitations in the scalar $`\sigma `$-meson exchange process due to the dressed Dirac spinors in the nuclear medium. But it is just one of the possible contributions to the 3BF and one has to check whether other contributions are important or not.

While the last ten years much studies have been concentrated on the contribution from $`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$ mediated 3BF, in this study we want to emphasize the role played by $`\sigma `$ and $`\omega `$ exchange, and in particular the one played by the excitation of the Roper ($`N^{}`$(1440)) resonance in the medium. This is the main motivation of the present study.

The last years the Brueckner many-body approach has done significant progress as concerns the convergence of the hole-line expansion and the validity of the Brueckner-Hartree-Fock approximation. This goal has been reached by means of an accurate estimate of the three-hole line contributions with both the standard and continuous choice for the auxiliary potential . So it seems to be a suitable basis to extend many-body calculations with two-body forces (2BF) to higher order interactions.

The natural framework for 3BF would be the Bethe-Faddeev equation, describing the interaction of three nucleons in nuclear matter. But one may get rid of such a complicate job by a suitable reduction of the 3BF to an effective 2BF, where the correlation effects with the spectator nucleon are correctly provided by the Brueckner iterative procedure.

The purpose of this paper is to revisiting the Brueckner theory of nuclear matter with the 3BF introduced in Ref.  performing new calculations where the 2BF is the updated charge-dependent Argonne $`V_{18}`$, which reproduces the experimental phase-shifts up to high energy . So we may numerically investigate the role played for the nuclear matter EOS by the different processes giving rise to 3BF and the limitations inherent the relativistic DB approach. Such processes dominate the high density behavior of nuclear matter, which is a basic input in the studies on the evolution of astrophysical compact objects. Moreover the 3BF effects on the nuclear mean field are also discussed in view of a proper description of the single particle motion in the dynamical simulations of central events of heavy-ion collisions (HIC).

## II Microscopic Three-Body Force

The microscopic three-body force adopted in the present calculation is constructed from the meson-exchange current approach as described in Ref. . We refer the reader to this reference for a comprehensive discussion of the model. Let us however recall here its main properties.

In the present understanding of the microscopic structure of nuclei, the NN potential originates from the exchange of mesons. In the OBEP approximation, $`\pi ,\rho ,\sigma `$ and $`\omega `$ mesons are considered. Once the NN potential is determined, i.e. once the meson-nucleon couplings, form factors and meson masses are fixed, many body forces are uniquely fixed as well. The first candidate to 3BF is the well known Fujita-Miyazawa contribution involving a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance in the intermediate state with $`2\pi `$ exchange . Extension of this contribution to $`\rho `$ exchange, together with all other $`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$ exchange contributions have been intensively studied in the past, leading for instance to the Tucson-Melbourne (TM) 3BF . For the present study, we stick to the parametrisation of the TM 3BF, and change only the parameters according to our choice of the NN potential (see below). In terms of meson exchange diagrams, the contributions are shown in Fig. 1a.

More recent studies  have been concentrated on the general structure of the $`2\pi `$ 3BF within the framework of chiral perturbation theory. While these studies are important in order to settle the $`2\pi `$-3BF on first principles according to the symmetry properties of QCD, we do not think they can yet be extended to quantitative investigations of nuclear matter at densities between one to three times normal nuclear matter density. In this domain indeed , the momenta of the exchanged mesons can be large, and the contribution of heavy mesons ($`\sigma `$ and $`\omega `$) are dominating over the $`2\pi `$-3BF . The 3BF associated to these mesons are shown in Figs. 1b and 1d. They are discussed in more details in Ref. . The $`\rho \pi `$ and $`\rho \sigma `$ diagrams, plotted in Fig. 1c, belong to the meson-meson coupling terms which should give a smaller contribution  and will not be considered here. More complicated processes could contribute to the 3BF including other nucleonic excitations, but one may expect that the lowest energy excitations, i.e. the isobar $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ resonance and the Roper $`N^{}(1440)`$, play the major role in the density domain here considered.

The necessary coupling constants $`\sigma NN^{}`$ and $`\omega NN^{}`$ are calculated within the relativistic color dielectric model . The form factors at these vertices are also calculated in this model. Note that because of the orthogonality of the radial wave function of the $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$, these form factors cannot have the usual dipole parametrization (as chosen in Ref.  for instance). According to Ref.  (see Sec. V) they are parametrized as follows:

$`F_{MNN^{}}(\stackrel{}{k}^2)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\alpha \stackrel{}{k}^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\alpha m^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2}}\right)^2`$ (1)
The values of the parameters are reported below ( see Table I).

Once the dynamical origin of the NN potential is determined from one boson exchange (OBE) mechanisms, all the parameters needed to determine the 3BF are extracted from the NN potential itself. In the case this NN potential is directly parametrized in terms of OBE potentials, like the Bonn potentials, these parameters are given directly from the fit to NN observables, or NN phase shifts. Instead, in the case it is given in terms of a purely numerical parametrization, like the Paris potential or the $`AV_{18}`$ potential for instance, one has to extract the equivalent OBE parameters by a direct comparison between various spin-isospin potential in the OBE form and in the parametrized form. This procedure was used in Ref.  in order to extract meson exchange parameters from the Paris potential. The $`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$ exchange parameters were determined from the $`S=1`$ tensor potential (keeping some of the parameters, like masses and coupling constants, to their physical values), while $`\sigma `$ and $`\omega `$ exchange were determined from the central and spin-orbit potentials. In the present calculations, the parameters of the 3BF have been re-determined from the OBE potential model to fulfill the self-consistency with the adopted two-body interaction $`AV_{18}`$. It is found that for the $`\sigma `$ and $`\omega `$ exchange, the parameters derived from the $`AV_{18}`$ force remain the same as those given for the Paris potential . While for the $`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$ exchange, the parameters have to be slightly adjusted in order to fit reasonably both the tensor part and the spin-spin part of the $`AV_{18}`$ potential. The new parameters of the 3BF are collected in Tab. 1. As for the $`\sigma `$-meson mass, the value of $`540`$MeV is still adopted, which has been checked to satisfactorily reproduce the $`AV_{18}`$ interaction from OBE potential. Varying of the $`\sigma `$-meson mass from $`540MeV`$ to $`600MeV`$ does not change significantly the self-consistency with $`AV_{18}`$, so it is also an interesting point to investigate the effect of the $`\sigma `$-meson mass on the nuclear matter EOS, which is underway and will be presented elsewhere.

Our procedure to determine the parameters of OBE models from a NN potential given in a purely numerical form is of course not unique, nor exact. In particular, the short range part of the potentials is not of the same shape because of the ad-hoc regularization used in the $`AV_{18}`$ or Paris potentials as compared to the use of form factors in OBE models. These parts of the potential are however of no importance in the contribution of the 3BF to the binding energy of nuclear matter since there are completely washed out by short range correlations (see next section). This procedure assures however that the OBE models used to determine 3BF have a strength and a range for each meson exchange in agreement with the two-body potential.

## III  Brueckner approach with 3BF

The effect of the 3BF is included in the self-consistent Brueckner procedure along the same line as in , where an effective two-body interaction is constructed without solving the full three-body problem (for a detailed description and justification of the method we refer to Ref. ). Starting from the 3BF interaction discussed in Sec. II one defines the effective 2BF as

$`<\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r}_2|V_3|\stackrel{}{r}_1^{}\stackrel{}{r}_2^{}>={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}Tr{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle d\stackrel{}{r}_3d\stackrel{}{r}_3^{}\varphi _n^{}(\stackrel{}{r}_3^{})(1\eta (r_{13}^{}))(1\eta (r_{23}^{}))}`$ (2)
$`\times W_3(\stackrel{}{r}_1^{},\stackrel{}{r}_2^{}\stackrel{}{r}_3^{}|\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r}_2\stackrel{}{r}_3)\varphi _n(r_3)(1\eta (r_{13}))(1\eta (r_{23}))`$ (3)
where the trace is taken with respect to spin and isospin of the third nucleon. This is nothing else than the average of the three-body force over the wave function of the third particle taking into account via the defect function $`\eta (r)`$ the correlations between this particle and the two others. The dependence on the defect function entails a selfconsistent determination of the effective 2BF along with the $`Gmatrix`$ and auxiliary potential in that we must re-calculate the effective 2BF at each iterative step and then add it to the bare 2BF for the next loop.

The $`\eta (r)`$ is actually the defect function averaged over spin and momenta in the Fermi sea and it incorporates, for the sake of simplicity, only the most important partial l-wave components, i.e., the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ partial waves. Corrections due to higher angular momenta in the defect function are expected to be sizeable at high density. They will be included in forthcoming calculations.

The reduction of the 3BF to an effective 2BF is justified by the fact that three-body correlations are small , but ultimately one would solve the Bethe-Faddeev equations with 3BF to investigate their effect on the rate of convergence of the Brueckner-Bethe-Goldstone expansion.

## IV  Numerical results

The procedure followed in our calculations is the same as in the usual selfconsistent BHF scheme: The $`G`$-matrix is calculated selfconsistently along with the auxiliary potential by solving the Bethe-Goldstone equation . Due to its dependence on the defect function the effective 2BF is calculated selfconsistently at one step of the iterative BHF procedure as said before.

The continuous choice is adopted for the auxiliary potential as it has been already well established that it makes the convergence of the hole-line expansion much faster than the gap choice . It is calculated in a momentum range with cutoff $`k_c=5fm^1`$. As bare NN interaction we used the Argonne $`AV_{18}`$ which gives an excellent fit to NN scattering data as well as to the deuteron binding energy . The partial wave expansion is truncated to $`L_{max}=6`$, but the effects of higher partial waves, specially at high density, are to be estimated with further calculations.

### A $`\sigma ,\omega \overline{N}N`$ 3BF

This subsection is devoted to the discussion of the contribution due to the 2$`\sigma `$ exchange diagram with intermediate virtual excitation of a nucleon-antinucleon ($`N\overline{N}`$) pair (hereafter denoted by $`2\sigma (N\overline{N})`$ 3BF). This contribution is worth of particular attention as it is believed to be the main relativistic effect present in DB approach .

In order to consider separately the effect of the $`2\sigma (N\overline{N})`$ 3BF, the calculations have been done by switching off in the self-consistent Brueckner iterative scheme the other 3BF components, i.e., adding only the $`2\sigma (N\overline{N})`$ part to $`AV_{18}`$. The same procedure has been adopted when calculating the other individual 3BF contributions.

In Fig. 2 the energy shift from the calculation with only bare 2BF due to the $`2\sigma (N\overline{N})`$ 3BF is plotted as a function of the nuclear matter density. As expected it gives a repulsive contribution monotonically increasing with density and approximately fulfills the following power law

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E/A2.4(\rho /\rho _0)^{8/3}(MeV).`$ (4)
When the nucleon-nucleon correlations (ladder diagrams) are switched off the repulsion is enhanced since correlations prevent nucleons from getting closer and experiencing a stronger 3BF. The energy shift due to the $`2\sigma (N\overline{N})`$ 3BF was also calculated in this approximation (indicated by $`\eta =0`$ in the figure) and the results are fit by the same power law but with the prefactor of Eq. (2) enhanced to 3.6 which is close to the value of 4.2 obtained in the crude estimate of Ref. .

In the same figure is also reported the relativistic correction to the energy from DB approach, which is defined as the difference between the full DB calculation and its non-relativistic limit, obtained replacing in the DB context the dressed nucleon mass by the bare one . In spite of the different Bonn potentials the shift is almost the same, implying that it is rather insensitive to the two-body interaction adopted. Since the nuclear EOS of DB approach could be quite different from the non relativistic Brueckner approximation, the only meaningful comparison is in fact between the $`2\sigma (N\overline{N})`$ contribution and the previous DB correction. Around the saturation density they almost overlap each other and differ at most by $`26\%`$ at the highest density. This difference is to be attributed to higher order relativistic effects which become only significant at high density. It is clear from the comparison that the most important relativistic correction to the EOS of nuclear matter in DB approach can be reproduced fairly well by BHF calculation including only the 3BF originated from the scalar coupling to the virtual excitation of a nucleon-antinucleon pair. So the accuracy of the DB prediction to the EOS of nuclear matter depends, especially at high density, on to what the extent the other three-body forces cancel each other, and in particular the diagrams involving the excitation of nucleon resonances like the Roper resonance.

In order to push forward the comparison with DB predictions, in Fig. 2 (right side) is also displayed the full energy per particle in different approximations. The $`2\sigma (N\overline{N})`$ term provides a noticeable improvement of the saturation density in agreement with the DB results (Bonn B) as compared to the BHF approximation using pure two-body force. The agreement between the two calculations is far beyond what we might expect, the high density deviation being attributed to the defect function reducing the $`2\sigma (N\overline{N})`$ 3BF in our calculation. In the same figure is also plotted the result of a complete BHF calculation including all the three-body forces of Fig. 1. Comparing with the BHF EOS it is seen that the full three-body force gives an increasingly strong repulsion to the energy per nucleon in nuclear matter as increasing density. This repulsion is really able to drive the saturation point towards its empirical one. However, looking at the complete Brueckner calculation, i.e. with the full 3BF, one may easily anticipate the importance that processes other than the $`2\sigma (N\overline{N})`$ have to shift the saturation energy of about $`2MeV`$ towards the empirical value.

Besides the scalar $`\sigma `$ meson and the nucleon-antinucleon virtual excitations, vector $`\omega `$ meson will also contribute to 3BF. In Fig. 3 are depicted the energy corrections of the different 3BF components from $`(\sigma ,\omega )(N\overline{N})`$ (left panel) and the corresponding nuclear EOS (right panel). While the $`2\omega (N\overline{N})`$ 3BF adds only a comparatively small attractive contribution, the $`\sigma \omega (N\overline{N})`$ component gives a strong repulsion which is even larger than the $`2\sigma (N\overline{N})`$ one. Consequently the corresponding EOS turns out to be too stiff and the nuclear matter is underbound at the saturation point with a very low saturation density. So we may conclude that relativistic effects associated to the virtual $`N\overline{N}`$ excitations cannot reproduce the empirical saturation properties. The 3BF’s from nucleon resonances are expected to compensate this too strong repulsion.

### B Effects of 3BF with nucleon resonances and full EOS

In Fig. 4 (left panel) are shown the energy corrections of the 3BF components from nucleon resonances represented in Fig. 1 and the corresponding nuclear EOS’s (right panel). The effect of the $`\sigma ,\omega `$-Roper 3BF turns out to be quite sizeable. As already done in Ref. , we include also for consistency the contribution from Roper-Anti-Roper excitations. This contribution is however small, and correct by about 10 % the contribution from the Roper resonance. Their net contribution is attractive and comparable in magnitude to the repulsion from the $`\sigma \omega `$-$`(N\overline{N})`$ 3BF as shown in the same figure for comparison.

In Fig. 4 is also reported the $`\pi ,\rho `$ exchange 3BF, which provides only a relatively small attractive contribution to the energy per nucleon even at high density in agreement with Ref.  and it has a little effect on the nuclear EOS.

The competition between all these 3BF’s from different sources determines the final EOS of nuclear matter which saturates around $`\rho 0.198`$fm-3 with energy per nucleon $`E15.08`$MeV much better than the corresponding value $`\rho 0.265`$fm-3 from the prediction adopting pure $`AV_{18}`$ two-body force. As compared to the DB approach, the present EOS is much softer at high density. At the corresponding equilibrium density the obtained incompressibility $`K`$ is about $`207`$ MeV, in agreement with both the empirical value of $`210\pm 30`$ MeV . This nice property should be attributed to the effect coming from the excitation of the Roper resonance, as compared to the strongly repulsive and density-dependent effect coming from $`N\overline{N}`$ excitations. We recall that this latter effect is the only one present in DB calculations. Despite the BHF EOS exhibits a flatter curvature (see Fig. 2, right side) the compression modulus at the minimum is larger  as an effect of the rather large saturation density.

## V Single particle properties

The nuclear mean field is one of the basic inputs in the dynamical simulations of HIC. Transverse flows and other collective observables have been proven to be very sensitive to whether a mean field is taken from a stiff or soft EOS or whether it is given a momentum dependence or not. In central events of HIC high baryonic densities are reached and 3BF effects could become sizeable. This is the main motivation for calculating the mean field and related quantities in our BHF approximation with 3BF.

In the left part of Fig. 5 is shown the 3BF effect on the mean field for two densities $`\rho =0.17`$ and $`0.34fm^3`$. As expected, the 3BF adds a repulsive contribution to the mean field when increasing the density. The momentum dependence is not much affected because the present 3BF does not introduce any non local effects. This property can be also seen considering the effective mass derived by the slope of the mean field as a function of momentum. It is defined as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}}{m}}={\displaystyle \frac{k}{m}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}e(k)}{\mathrm{d}k}}\right)^1,`$ (5)
where $`e(k)`$ is the single particle energy, i.e., $`e(k)=k^2/2m+U(k)`$ determined self-consistently within the Brueckner approach. The calculated effective mass at the Fermi momentum $`k_F`$ is depicted in the right part of Fig. 5. It is seen that $`m^{}(k_F)`$ decreases as increasing density for both cases with and without the 3BF. At relatively low density, the 3BF force almost has no effect upon $`m^{}(k_F)`$, while at high density ($`\rho 0.2`$fm-3), the 3BF has the effect to saturate $`m^{}(k_F)`$ around a value of 0.72. Therefore the 3BF weakens the depth of the mean field, but does not significantly change the effective mass (around $`k_F`$) even at high density (notice the enlarged scale in Fig. 5).

Both calculations with and without the 3BF predict a larger value of $`m^{}(k_F)`$ at high density than the DB approach ($`m^{}(k_F)=0.4`$ at $`\rho =0.54`$fm-3) and its non-relativistic limit ($`m^{}(k_F)=0.449`$ at $`\rho =0.54`$fm-3. This discrepancy might be related to the ‘reference spectrum approximation’ adopted in the DB approach, which assumes a weak momentum dependence of the relativistic scalar self-energy component and in the non-relativistic limit corresponds to a constant effective mass approximation . It has been shown in Ref.  that the above momentum dependence could be strikingly strong for the Bonn potentials.

Another interesting aspect concerning the single particle properties is the rearrangement contribution $`M_2`$ to the mean field in the hole-line expansion of the mass operator. This term rises from the density functional derivative of the energy per particle in the Brueckner-Hartree-Fock approximation. It brings a sizeable contribution to the Hugenholtz-Van Hove theorem , which controls order by order the consistency of the hole-line expansion . The 3BF effect on the real part $`U_2`$ of the rearrangement term $`M_2`$, shown in the left side of Fig. 6, is a reduction of at most $`6\%`$ in the low momentum range. The most sizeable contribution of TBF to the mean field is coming from the functional derivative of three-body energy per particle. The calculation of this contribution requires some additional investigation.

## VI Overview and conclusions

We have calculated the EOS of symmetric nuclear matter with a microscopic 3BF including the processes depicted in Fig. 1, which are believed to be the most relevant ones. The charge-dependent Argonne $`V_{18}`$ has been chosen as two-body interaction. The main effect of the microscopic 3BF is to provide that extra-repulsion which, on the one hand, pushes the saturation density towards the empirical value, but, on the other hand, is able to keep a satisfactory value for the saturation binding energy . This is a desirable feature since the empirical saturation energy is already well reproduced by only 2BF, as shown in Fig. 7. In the same figure the results with phenomenological 3BF  are plotted for comparison. The latter gives an EOS comparable with the present one but only in the context of the Brueckner formalism . The prediction from the variational approach exhibits a strong discrepancy with the two others in spite of the rather good agreement at the level of two-body force (Argonne $`V_{18}`$). Otherwise the good agreement with our results show that the phenomenological 3BF works quite well in spite of being so simple (only two adjustable parameters). But its applicability is restricted to only the saturation region, since no constraints can be imposed at higher density.

The effects of the three-body forces from different sources on the nuclear EOS have been investigated and their relative importance has been discussed along with the comparison to the DB approach. It is seen that the $`2\sigma (N\overline{N})`$ 3BF alone is able to simulate the most important relativistic correction to the energy per nucleon in the DB approach. The latter can be in fact attributed to a suppression of the attractive $`\sigma `$ exchange two-body force felt by a Dirac dressed spinor in nuclear medium, which corresponds simply to the $`2\sigma (N\overline{N})`$ diagram of Fig. 1d. However the present investigation shows that besides this correction the effects of the 3BF’s from other origins could also be very large (for example, those from $`\sigma \omega `$ exchange and the Roper resonance), and their net contribution is attractive and comparable in magnitude to that of the $`2\sigma (N\overline{N})`$ 3BF. As a consequence the repulsion due to the $`2\sigma (N\overline{N})`$ 3BF suffers a reduction of about $`35\%`$ at high density and the EOS turns much softer as compared to both the predictions of the DB  and relativistic mean field approaches .

Finally, the Brueckner-Hartree-Fock mean field and effective mass have been discussed in the present context. The momentum dependence is not so much affected by the 3BF so that the effective mass at the Fermi momentum is quite insensitive to the 3BF up to high density. The effects of 3BF on the rearrangement contribution to the mean field and to the effective mass are quite modest as well.

Acknowledgments:

One of us (W. Z.) would like to thank INFN-LNS and the Physics Department of the Catania University, Italy, for the hospitality extended to him during the time this work was completed.

This work has been supported in part by the Chinese Academy of Science, within the one Hundred Person Project, the Major State Basic Research Development Program of China under No. G2000077400.

Tab. I - Coupling constants and form factors adopted in the 3BF consistent to the $`AV_{18}`$ two-body interaction, which are slightly different from that given for the Paris potential (see Ref.). The meson masses are $`m_\pi =138`$MeV, $`m_\omega =780`$MeV, $`m_\rho =776`$MeV, and $`m_\sigma =540`$MeV.

|  | $`g^2/4\pi `$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (MeV/$`c`$) | $`\alpha `$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\sigma NN`$ | 11.9 | 1100 |  |
| $`\omega NN`$ | 33.0 | 1300 |  |
| $`\pi NN`$ | 14.4 | 1580 |  |
| $`\rho NN`$ | 0.55 | 1300 |  |
| $`\sigma NN^{}`$ | 2.58 | 1450 | $`2.35`$ |
| $`\omega NN^{}`$ | 4.13 | 1550 | $`2.33`$ |


text:
# Helicity conservation and factorization-suppressed charmless 𝐵 decays

## I Introduction

The BaBar Collaboration recently measured the branching fraction for $`B^0/\overline{B}^0a_0^\pm \pi ^{}`$ to be $`(6.2_{2.5}^{+3.0}\pm 1.1)\times 10^6`$. This is comparable to $`\mathrm{B}(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})4.4\times 10^6`$. The tree interaction does not contribute to $`B^0a_0^+\pi ^{}`$ in the factorization limit since $`a_0^+`$ cannot be produced from the $`VA`$ current. Contrary to what was alluded in Ref. , however, this decay should be strongly suppressed even for the penguin interaction if the perturbative QCD picture is correct. Therefore the observed branching fraction should consist almost entirely of $`B^0a_0^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`\overline{B}^0a_0^+\pi ^{}`$. Consequently the time-dependent $`B^0/\overline{B}^0a_0^\pm \pi ^{}`$ decay will not be suitable for extraction of the angle $`\alpha `$ since there is little $`B^0`$-$`\overline{B}^0`$ interference in these channels.

We shall first show that the $`B^0a_0^+\pi ^{}`$ decay amplitude is power suppressed by $`1/m_B`$ for the penguin interaction if short-distances dominate. A numerical estimate will be given for the decay amplitude. We then examine other factorization-suppressed decays, in particular, production of $`b_1^+`$ that shares the same chiral property with the $`a_0^+`$ production. The chance of measuring the $`B^0`$-$`\overline{B}^0`$ interference is even slimmer for $`b_1^\pm \pi ^{}`$. The underlying assumption leading to these conclusions is that perturbative QCD is valid even for the final-state interactions below $`m_B`$, i.e., the perturbative-QCD-improved factorization. This assumption need to be tested. For this purpose we discuss helicity conservation of light quarks in the $`B`$ decay, in general. It leads us to zero-helicity dominance in the charmless $`B`$ decay into two mesons both with spin. This selection rule provides us the simplest test of perturbative QCD in final-state interactions.

## II Factorization-suppressed process

### A $`B^0a_0^+\pi ^{}`$

We study for definiteness the decay amplitudes of the $`B(\overline{b}q)`$ meson instead of the $`\overline{B}`$ meson. The tree interaction $`𝒪_{1,2}`$, i.e., $`(\overline{b_L}u_L)(\overline{u_L}d_L)`$ and its color-crossing, cannot produce $`\pi ^{}`$ from the factorized current. It cannot produce $`a_0^+`$ either since G-parity does not match between $`a_0^+`$ and $`\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu d`$. It appears therefore that the penguin interaction dominates in this decay. If so, we would have an opportunity to extract the weak angle $`\alpha `$ from the time-dependent decay of $`B^0/\overline{B}^0a_0^\pm \pi ^{}`$. However, the penguin decay amplitude is suppressed by $`1/m_B`$ so that the $`B^0`$-$`\overline{B}^0`$ interference is too small for this purpose.

The QCD penguin operators, normally referred to as $`𝒪_{5,6}`$, generate the scalar density $`\overline{u_L}d_R+\overline{u_R}u_L`$ by crossing. In the quark model its matrix element for the $`a_0^+`$ production is

$$u(𝐤)\overline{d}(𝐤)|\overline{u}d|0=2𝐤𝝈$$
(1)
where $`𝝈=\chi ^{}\sigma \chi ^{}`$ with $`\chi `$ and $`\chi ^{}`$, the Pauli spinors of $`u`$ and $`\overline{d}`$, respectively. Superposing Eq. (1) with the wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐤)`$ of a $`p`$-wave bound state, we define the $`a_0`$ decay constant $`f_{a0}`$ by

$$a_0^+|\overline{u}d|0=f_{a_0}m_{a0}.$$
(2)
In the $`B^0`$ rest frame where $`u`$ and $`\overline{d}`$ fly fast with total momentum $`𝐩=𝐩_u+𝐩_d`$,

$$(u\overline{d})(𝐩)|\overline{u}d|0=2𝐤_{}𝝈_{}+2E_𝐤\beta (2x1)\sigma _{},$$
(3)
where $`\beta =|𝐩|/E_p`$ ($`E_p=\sqrt{m_{u\overline{d}}^2+𝐩^2}`$) and $`x=|𝐩_u|/|𝐩|`$ with $``$ and $``$ referring to the parallel and perpendicular direction to the momentum $`𝐩`$. The right-hand side of Eq. (2) is $`O(1)`$ in $`E_p`$ in the fast moving frame, which is consistent with the right-hand side of Eq. (3) after superposition with the light-cone distribution function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,𝐤_{})`$. It is one power lower in $`E_p`$ than, for instance, the $`\pi ^+`$ production from $`\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5d`$. This difference is due partly to the Lorentz property, but more importantly to the chiral property of quark fields involved, namely, $`\overline{L}R\pm \overline{R}L`$ vs $`\overline{L}L\pm \overline{R}R`$. We can perform the same calculation for the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}`$ state, namely $`a_1`$. The matrix element of quark-pair production $`u\overline{d}|\overline{u}𝜸\gamma _5d|0`$ is equal to $`2i𝐤\times 𝝈`$ in the $`a_1`$ rest frame. If we superpose it with the same $`p`$-wave orbital wave function as $`a_0`$ and boost it to the $`B^0`$ rest frame, we obtain

$$a_1^+(𝐩)|\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5d|0=f_{a1}m_{a1}\epsilon ^\mu (𝐩),$$
(4)
with $`f_{a1}=\sqrt{2/3}f_{a0}`$ in the constituent quark model. Since $`f_{a1}f_\rho `$, we find $`f_{a0}f_\rho (f_\pi )`$. A similar calculation for $`a_2^+(^3P_2)`$ leads us to $`a_2^+(𝐩)|\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{}{^\nu }d|0=f_{a2}m_{a2}^2\epsilon ^{\mu \nu }(𝐩)`$ with $`f_{a2}=\sqrt{1/2}f_{a0}`$.

The formation of $`\pi ^{}`$ by $`𝒪_{5,6}`$ in $`B^0a_0^+\pi ^{}`$ is described by the scalar form factor of $`B^0\pi ^{}`$,

$$\pi ^{}|\overline{b}u|B^0=m_BF_s(q^2).$$
(5)
The relation $`i_\mu (\overline{b}\gamma ^\mu u)=(m_um_b)(\overline{b}u)`$ relates $`F_s(q^2)`$ to the vector form factors of $`B^0\pi ^{}`$ as: $`m_bm_BF_s(q^2)=(m_B^2m_\pi ^2)F_1(q^2)+q^2F_2(q^2)`$ so that $`F_s(q^2)F_1(q^2)`$ for $`|q^2|m_B^2`$.

Expressing the penguin amplitude $`A_p(B^0a_0^+\pi ^{})`$ in terms of the tree amplitude ($`A_t`$) of $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{A_p(B^0a_0^+\pi ^{})}{A_t(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2V_{tb}V_{td}^{}C_p(m_b)f_{a0}m_{a0}m_BF_s(m_{a0}^2)}{V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}C_t(m_b)f_\pi m_B^2F_1(m_\pi ^2)}},`$ (6)
$``$ $`0.04\times [F_s(m_{a0}^2)/F_1(m_\pi ^2)],`$ (7)
where $`C_t`$ and $`C_p`$ are from the Wilson coefficients of the tree and penguin operators, respectively. The value $`|V_{td}|0.01`$ has easily 50% uncertainty. Since the form factors scale as $`1/(1q^2/m_B^2)`$ with a relevant $`B`$-meson mass in the simple pole approximation, we may set $`F_s(m_{a0}^2)F_s(m_\pi ^2)F_1(m_\pi ^2)`$. Then the right-hand side is less than a tenth. The main source of this suppression is the kinematical factor $`1/m_B`$ that is traced to the chiral suppression of $`a_0^+`$ production in the fast moving frame.

In comparison, the tree-allowed decay $`B^0a_0^{}\pi ^+`$ is given for $`f_{a0}f_\pi `$ by

$$\frac{A_t(B^0a_0^{}\pi ^+)}{A_t(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})}\frac{F_1^A(m_\pi ^2)}{F_1(m_\pi ^2)},$$
(8)
where $`F_1^A(q^2)`$ is the axial-vector form factor $`(p_B+p_{a0})^\mu `$ of $`B^0a_0^{}`$. Since $`F_1^A(m_\pi ^2)F_1(m_\pi ^2)`$ is not far out of line, the right-hand side is about unity. Then Eqs. (7) and (8) are in line with the measured branching fraction if it consists almost entirely of $`B^0a_0^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`\overline{B}^0a_0^+\pi ^{}`$. It means little $`B^0`$-$`\overline{B}^0`$ interference in the $`a_0^\pm \pi ^{}`$ channels.

For the decay $`\mathrm{B}(B^0a_0^0\pi ^0)`$, all of $`𝒪_{1,2}`$, $`𝒪_{3,4}`$, and $`𝒪_{5,6}`$ possibly contribute with comparable magnitudes so that their sum involves much a larger uncertainty. Therefore a clean extraction of the weak angles will be difficult from $`B^0/\overline{B}^0a_0^0\pi ^0`$. It is obvious that Eqs. (7) and (8) apply to the ratios of $`B^0a_0^\pm \rho ^{}`$ to $`B^0\pi ^\pm \rho ^{}`$ as well, if we replace the transition form factors appropriately.

The QCD corrections turn the local operator $`\overline{q}(x)\mathrm{\Gamma }q(x)`$ into the nonlocal operator $`\overline{q}(x)q(y)`$. But $`\overline{q}(x)q(y)`$ can be expanded in the Taylor series of local operators in powers of $`(xy)_\mu ^\mu `$. If short-distance interactions dominate, $`|xy|`$ is a fraction of $`1/m_b`$ so that all terms of the Taylor expansion have the same $`1/m_B`$ dependence as the leading term, i.e., the local operator. Evaluation of the higher derivative terms require knowledge of more than a decay constant. When a meson cannot be produced from a local operator appearing in the effective interactions $`𝒪_i`$, it should be noted that the leading contribution is accompanied by $`\alpha _s/\pi `$ due to a QCD loop. This is the case for $`b_1`$ and $`a_2`$. In such a case the amplitude of the leading order in $`1/m_B`$ depends on the shape of the distribution function of the $`p`$-wave bound states of which we know less.

If $`a_0`$ is a four-quark state $`q\overline{q}q\overline{q}`$ instead of a $`q\overline{q}`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$, we can show with a dimension argument of perturbative QCD that the $`B^0a_0^\pm \pi ^{}`$ decay amplitudes are even more suppressed in $`1/m_B`$ than $`A_p(B^0a_0^+\pi ^{})`$. The positive identification of $`B^0/\overline{B}^0a_0^\pm \pi ^{}`$ is an evidence against the four-quark assignment of $`a_0`$ or else for breakdown of perturbative QCD.

### B $`B^0b_1^+\pi ^{}`$

Production of other $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}`$ states, $`a_1^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`a_2^+\pi ^{}`$, is different from that of $`a_0^+`$. They are produced from $`(\overline{u_R}\gamma ^\mu d_R)(\overline{u_L}\gamma ^\mu d_L)`$ and $`(\overline{u_R}\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{}{^\nu }d_R)+(\overline{u_L}\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{}{^\nu }d_L)`$, respectively. While the axial-vector current is found in the tree interaction, the tensor operator must be generated by gluon corrections. Therefore its derivative $`\stackrel{}{^\nu }`$ comes with $`\alpha _s/\pi `$ and also with $`1/E|xy|=O(2/m_b)`$. Since the tree interaction contributes in full strength to production of $`a_1^+`$ and of $`a_2^+`$, these decays are simply related to the tree-dominated $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay as:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{B}(B^0a_1^+\pi ^{})}{\mathrm{B}(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})}}`$ $``$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{f_{a1}F_1(m_{a1}^2)}{f_\pi F_1(m_\pi ^2)}}\right|^21,`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{B}(B^0a_2^+\pi ^{})}{\mathrm{B}(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})}}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(E)}{\pi }}\right)^2\left|{\displaystyle \frac{f_{a2}E_{a2}F_1(m_{a2})}{f_\pi EF_1(m_\pi )}}\right|^2.`$ (10)
While a considerable uncertainty exists in the relevant value of $`\alpha _s`$, we reasonably expect from the second line with $`EE_{a2}`$ that $`\mathrm{B}(B^0a_2^+\pi ^{})10^2\times \mathrm{B}(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$.

Production of $`b_1^+`$ ($`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$) has similarity with $`a_0`$ in the chiral structure and with $`a_2`$ in the $`\alpha _s/\pi `$ suppression. The local operator that matches the quantum numbers of $`b_1^+`$ is $`i(\overline{u}\gamma _5\stackrel{}{^\mu }d)`$, whose chiral property is $`\overline{L}R\overline{R}L`$. In the $`b_1`$ rest frame,

$$u(𝐤)\overline{d}(𝐤)|i\overline{u}\gamma _5\stackrel{}{^\mu }d|0=2E_𝐤𝐤1,$$
(11)
where $`1=\chi ^{}1\chi ^{}`$. Superposing Eq. (11) with the same $`p`$-wave orbital function as the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}`$ mesons, we obtain

$$b_1(𝐩)|i\overline{u}\gamma _5\stackrel{}{^\mu }d|0=f_{b1}m_{b1}^2\epsilon ^\mu (p)$$
(12)
with $`f_{b1}=\frac{1}{2}f_{a1}`$ in the quark model. In the $`B^0`$ rest frame,

$$u\overline{d}(𝐩)|\overline{u}\gamma _5\stackrel{}{^\mu }d|0=\{\begin{array}{cc}2\gamma \beta E_𝐤k_{}1,\hfill & (\mu =0)\hfill \\ 2\gamma E_𝐤k_{}1,\hfill & (\mu =)\hfill \\ 2E_𝐤𝐤_{}1,\hfill & (\mu =),\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
where $`\gamma =(1\beta ^2)^{1/2}`$ so that $`\gamma E_𝐤E_p`$, the $`b_1`$ energy in the $`B^0`$ frame. The right-hand side of Eq. (13) is therefore $`O(E_p)`$ for the time and longitudinal components in the fast moving frame, and $`O(1)`$ for the transverse components, which is consistent with Eq. (12).

As pointed out above, the derivative $`\stackrel{}{^\mu }`$ is accompanied by $`\alpha _s(E)/\pi E`$ so that it does not enhance the high-energy behavior when short distances dominate, i.e., $`E=O(\frac{1}{2}m_b)`$. As in the case of $`a_0^+`$, the high-energy behavior of $`\overline{L}R\overline{R}L`$ is lower by one power of energy in the fast moving frame. Consequently the decay branching fraction $`\mathrm{B}(B^0b_1^+\pi ^{})`$ scales just like $`\mathrm{B}(B^0a_0^+\pi ^{})`$, namely $`1/m_B^2`$ down relative to the allowed-tree branching fraction:

$$\frac{\mathrm{B}(B^0b_1^+\pi ^{})}{\mathrm{B}(B^0a_0^+\pi ^{})}\left(\frac{\alpha _s(E)}{\pi }\right)^2\left|\frac{F_1(m_{b1}^2)}{F_1(m_{a0}^2)}\right|^2\left(\frac{\alpha _s(E)}{\pi }\right)^2,$$
(14)
where $`f_{b1}f_\pi `$ has been used. Eq. (14) is the prediction of short-distance dominance. We should keep in mind that the prediction on $`b_1^\pm \pi ^{}`$ involves the same uncertainties as we have mentioned for $`a_2^\pm \pi ^{}`$ at the end of the preceding section. Nonetheless, it is safe to state with Eqs. (7), (8), and (14) that $`b_1^{}\pi ^+`$ may be produced at the level of $`10^6`$ or so if the perturbative QCD picture is correct for final-state interactions, but that the $`b_1^+\pi ^{}`$ decay should not be seen at any level ($`<10^9`$) in that case.

## III Helicity conservation and spin structure

The predictions in the preceding sections lead us to conclude that the $`B^0`$-$`\overline{B}^0`$ interference can be observed in the $`a_0^\pm \pi ^{}`$ or the $`b_1^\pm \pi ^{}`$ channel only if a very strong enhancement occurs by long-distance interactions in an otherwise suppressed mode. In such a case, the classification of amplitudes by the tree and the penguin interaction becomes a bit blurry.

One powerful test exists for the short-distance dominance. For a two-body decay where both final mesons have spin, $`J`$ and $`J^{}(J)`$, we have $`2J+1`$ independent amplitudes. If short-distance interactions dominate, the decay into the zero-helicity state should dominate over all other helicity states in the charmless $`B`$ decay. Let us explain it briefly since this is a robust prediction of the Standard Model and provides a simple experimental test of short-distance dominance independent of the rate measurement.

For the tree operators in which all quark fields are left-chiral, one of the final mesons must be formed with the fast $`q_L`$ and $`\overline{q_L}`$ without involving the spectator. Since these quarks remember their helicities throughout interactions with hard gluons, the resulting $`q_L\overline{q_L}`$ meson state must be in helicity zero ($`h=0`$) in the approximation of ignoring the quark mass and the higher configuration such as $`q\overline{q}g`$ and $`q\overline{q}q\overline{q}`$. Then the other meson that picks up the spectator is forced to have $`h=0`$ by overall angular momentum conservation. This argument applies to the penguin operators $`𝒪_{3,4}`$ too. In the case of $`𝒪_{5,6}`$, the argument is the same when $`\overline{q}_R`$ and $`q_R`$ from $`𝒪_{5,6}`$ form one meson. If instead $`\overline{d_L}`$ ($`\overline{s_L}`$) and $`q_R`$ form a meson, this meson would have $`h=+1`$, and the other meson, being formed with $`\overline{q_R}`$ and the spectator, can only be in $`h=0`$ or $`1`$. The overall angular conservation therefore forbids this decay. No matter which interaction causes a decay, therefore, the dominant final helicity state is zero.*** Actually, it is sufficient to prove this selection rule for the fundamental weak interaction ($`𝒪_2`$) since all other decay operators are generated from it through hard gluon-loop corrections. Production of $`h=\pm 1`$ is allowed to the extent of the nonzero quark masses and of the transverse motion of quarks inside a meson, i.e., the meson mass.

A remark is in order concerning the quark mass effect in the $`a_0`$ production. The $`a_0^+`$ meson is produced by the operator $`\overline{u_R}d_L`$ of $`𝒪_{5,6}`$ which produces $`h=+1`$, while the spinless $`a_0^+`$ cannot have nonzero helicity. This means that, if we ignore the quark mass, production of $`a_0^+`$ is forbidden. The $`a_0^+`$ production occurs through the small $`h=0`$ component of $`O(\sqrt{m_q^2+𝐤_{}^2}/E_p)`$ that is contained in $`\overline{u_R}d_L`$. This remark applies to $`b_1^+`$ too. That is the reason why the production amplitudes of $`a_0^+`$ and $`b_1^+`$ are suppressed by one power of $`1/m_B`$.

When the mass and $`𝐤_{}`$ corrections are included, the $`h=+1`$ amplitude is generated with $`O(m/E)`$ for the $`B(\overline{b}q)`$ decay while the $`h=1`$ amplitude is generated only with $`O(m^2/E^2)`$. The reason is as follows: The spectator quark can be either in $`h=+\frac{1}{2}`$ or $`\frac{1}{2}`$ with a 50/50 chance. Therefore the $`h=+1`$ decay amplitude can be realized with the small opposite helicity component of a single fast $`q_L`$ (out of $`\overline{q_L}q_L\overline{q_L}`$ from $`𝒪_{14}`$) or $`\overline{q_R}`$ (out of $`\overline{d_L}q_R\overline{q_R}`$ from $`𝒪_{5,6}`$). On the other hand the $`h=1`$ amplitude needs small components of two $`\overline{q_L}`$’s (from $`𝒪_{14}`$) or $`q_R`$ and $`\overline{q_L}`$ (from $`𝒪_{5,6}`$). Since each small component costs $`m_T/E_p2m_T/m_B`$, we obtain the following hierarchy of helicity suppression for the helicity amplitudes ($`A_hM(𝐩,h)M^{}(𝐩,h)|_{int}|B(\overline{b}q)`$):

$`A_{+1}/A_0`$ $``$ $`m/m_B,`$ (15)
$`A_1/A_0`$ $``$ $`mm^{}/m_B^2,`$ (16)
where $`m`$ and $`m^{}`$ are the meson masses. In the first line, $`m`$ stands for the mass of the meson formed with the fast $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ emitted from the current, not with the spectator. Because the small opposite helicity of this meson forces the other meson to have $`h=+1`$ state.

The $`h=0`$ dominance can be easily tested in experiment by measuring the angular distribution of the decay products of either of final mesons although distinguishing between $`h=+1`$ and $`1`$ is much harder. Actually, the zero-helicity dominance holds for some processes involving a charm quark such as $`B^0D^{}\rho ^+`$ for which the tree interaction completely dominates. Since $`\rho ^+`$ is produced from the $`VA`$ current of the tree interaction, its helicity must be zero. Therefore the $`h=0`$ dominance should hold to $`O(m_\rho /m_B)`$ in this case. The percentage of the $`h=0`$ branching was found in experiment as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=(93\pm 5\pm 5)\%`$ for $`\overline{B}^0D^+\rho ^{}`$. The selection rule holds in a modified form for $`BJ/\psi K^{}`$. A significant correction may arise to the $`h=0`$ dominance because of the large $`c`$-quark mass. However, the $`K^{}`$ can only be in $`h=0`$ or $`+1`$ for $`m_K^{}m_B`$ and therefore $`|A_{+1}||A_1|`$ should hold well. Experiment is consistent with $`|A_{+1}||A_1|`$, but cannot distinguish it from $`|A_1||A_{+1}|`$ until more a sophisticated cascade decay measurement is made. The zero-helicity dominance rule is yet to be tested in the charmless $`B`$ decay.

The zero-helicity dominance can be found in the early literature. Ali et al computed the $`BVV`$ decay in the factorization of the tree interaction with the $`U(6)\times U(6)`$ form factors which happen to incorporate helicity conservation. One can read off the suppression pattern of Eq. (16) in their results, as Chen et al., recently pointed out. Körner and Goldstein discussed it for charm decays. If the final-state interaction is included through hadron rescattering, the helicity selection rule breaks down in general. We can show, for instance, that if one computes $`B\pi \pi \rho \rho `$ with $`\omega `$-exchange for $`\pi \pi \rho \rho `$, the final $`\rho `$’s are polarized dominantly in $`h=\pm 1`$. This illustrates that the $`h=0`$ dominance easily breaks down by long-distance final-state interactions. If on the other hand one computes the $`\pi \pi \rho \rho `$ rescattering with $`\pi `$-exchange, the $`\rho `$’s are polarized mostly in $`h=0`$. Whether short-distances dominate or not should be determined eventually by experiment.

Test of the zero-helicity dominance has one clear advantage over the branching fraction measurement. There is a limitation in accuracy even in the short-distance calculation when one evaluates the magnitudes and phases of amplitudes and sum them up. In the hadron picture, it is nearly impossible to compute final-state interactions and predict decay amplitudes reliably. Therefore the branching fraction measurement alone will be inconclusive in determining how much long-distance contributions exist in a given decay process. If we combine it with the zero-helicity dominance test, we can be more confident with our conclusions since the rule should hold to all orders of QCD as long as they are of short distances

## IV Summary

If short-distance physics dominates in final states, it will be nearly impossible to obtain the weak angle from the time-dependent decay $`B^0/\overline{B}^0a_0^\pm \pi ^{}(\rho ^{})`$ or $`b_1^\pm \pi ^{}(\rho ^{})`$. While the flavor-tagged measurement will tell us about short-distance dominance in these decays, more a general and simple test is to examine zero-helicity dominance in the charmless $`B`$ decay with spins.

## V Acknowledgment

This work was supported in part by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics, of the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC03-76SF00098 and in part by the National Science Foundation under grant PHY-0098840.