1: \documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,tightenlines,superscriptaddress,showpacs,byrevtex]{revtex4}

2: %\documentclass[aps,prl,showpacs,twocolumn,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

3: \usepackage{graphicx}

4: \usepackage{xspace}

5: \usepackage{epsfig}

6: \usepackage{multirow}

7: 

8: \newcommand{\mb}{\ensuremath{M_{\mathrm{bc}}}\xspace}

9: \newcommand{\de}{\ensuremath{\Delta E}\xspace}

10: 

11: \newcommand{\thr}{\ensuremath{\theta_{\mathrm{thr}}}\xspace}

12: \newcommand{\acp}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}_{CP}}\xspace}

13: \newcommand{\br}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}\xspace}

14: \newcommand{\lr}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{LR}}\xspace}

15: \newcommand{\ks}{\ensuremath{K^0_S}\xspace}

16: \newcommand{\bb}{\ensuremath{B \overline{B}}\xspace}

17: \newcommand{\wq}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}_q}}

18: 

19: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

20: \def\myspecial#1{}                   %%  to print official version

21: %\def\myspecial#1{\special{#1}}       %%  to print DRAFT version

22: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

23: \def\nbb{\mbox{$275$}}

24: \def\Nbb{\mbox{$274.8\aer{3.1}{3.1}$}}

25: \def\YIELDWOSYST{

26:   \mbox{$25.6^{+9.3}_{-8.4}$}}

27: \def\YIELD{

28:   \mbox{$25.6^{+9.3}_{-8.4} ({\rm stat}) ^{+1.6}_{-1.4} ({\rm syst})$}}

29: \def\SIGMAWORHOPI{\mbox{$3.5$}}

30: \def\SIGMA{\mbox{$5.4$}}

31: \def\EFF{\mbox{$12.9\%$}}

32: \def\BR{

33:   %\mbox{$(2.32^{+0.44+0.22}_{-0.48-0.18}

34:   \mbox{$(1.1 \pm 0.3({\rm stat.}) \pm 0.1({\rm syst.})

35:   % \pm 0.6 ({\rm stat}) \pm 0.2 ({\rm syst})

36:   )\times 10^{-6}$}}

37: \def\BRA{

38:   \mbox{$2.0 \times 10^{-6}$}}

39: \def\BabarBR{

40:   \mbox{$(2.1 \pm 0.6 \pm 0.3) \times 10^{-6}$}}

41:  

42: \def\UL{\mbox{$2.6\times 10^{-6}$}}

43:  

44: \def\fb{\mbox{fb$^{-1}$}}

45: \def\bb{\mbox{$B\overline{B}$}}

46: \def\qq{\mbox{$q\overline{q}$}}

47: \def\mbc{\mbox{$M_{\rm bc}$}}

48: \def\de{\mbox{$\Delta E$}}

49: \def\acp{\mbox{${\cal A}_{CP}$}}

50: \def\br{\mbox{${\cal B}$}}

51:  

52: \def\bz{\mbox{$B^0$}}

53: \def\bzb{\mbox{$\overline{B}{}^0$}}

54: \def\bp{\mbox{$B^+$}}

55: \def\bm{\mbox{$B^-$}}

56: \def\bpm{\mbox{$B^{\pm}$}}

57: \def\bmp{\mbox{$B^{\mp}$}}

58:  

59: \def\ks{\mbox{$K^0_S$}}

60:  

61: \def\dz{\mbox{$D^0$}}

62: \def\dzb{\mbox{$\overline{D}{}^0$}}

63: \def\dplus{\mbox{$D^+$}}

64: \def\dminus{\mbox{$D^-$}}

65: \def\dpm{\mbox{$D^{\pm}$}}

66: \def\dmp{\mbox{$D^{\mp}$}}

67:  

68: \def\kk{\mbox{$K\overline{K}$}}

69: %-- kppim

70: \def\kppim{\mbox{$K^+ \pi^-$}}

71: \def\kmpip{\mbox{$K^- \pi^+$}}

72: \def\kpmpimp{\mbox{$K^{\pm} \pi^{\mp}$}}

73: \def\kmppipm{\mbox{$K^{\mp} \pi^{\pm}$}}

74: %-- kppiz

75: \def\kppiz{\mbox{$K^+ \pi^0$}}

76: \def\kmpiz{\mbox{$K^- \pi^0$}}

77: \def\kpmpiz{\mbox{$K^{\pm} \pi^0$}}

78: \def\kmppiz{\mbox{$K^{\mp} \pi^0$}}

79: %-- kzpip

80: \def\kzpip{\mbox{$K^0 \pi^+$}}

81: \def\kzpim{\mbox{$K^0 \pi^-$}}

82: \def\kzpipm{\mbox{$K^0 \pi^{\pm}$}}

83: \def\kzpimp{\mbox{$K^0 \pi^{\mp}$}}

84: \def\kspip{\mbox{$\ks \pi^+$}}

85: \def\kspim{\mbox{$\ks \pi^-$}}

86: \def\kspipm{\mbox{$\ks \pi^{\pm}$}}

87: \def\kspimp{\mbox{$\ks \pi^{\mp}$}}

88: %-- kzpiz

89: \def\kzpiz{\mbox{$K^0 \pi^0$}}

90: %-- pippim

91: \def\pippim{\mbox{$\pi^+ \pi^-$}}

92: %-- pippiz

93: \def\pippiz{\mbox{$\pi^+ \pi^0$}}

94: \def\pimpiz{\mbox{$\pi^- \pi^0$}}

95: \def\pipmpiz{\mbox{$\pi^{\pm} \pi^0$}}

96: \def\pimppiz{\mbox{$\pi^{\mp} \pi^0$}}

97: %-- pizpiz

98: \def\pizpiz{\mbox{$\pi^0 \pi^0$}}

99: %-- kpkm

100: \def\kpkm{\mbox{$K^+ K^-$}}

101: %-- kpkzb

102: \def\kpkzb{\mbox{$K^+ \overline{K}{}^0$}}

103: \def\kmkz{\mbox{$K^- K^0$}}

104: \def\kpmkz{\mbox{$K^{\pm} K^0$}}

105: \def\kskp{\mbox{$\ks K^+$}}

106: \def\kskm{\mbox{$\ks K^-$}}

107: \def\kskpm{\mbox{$\ks K^{\pm}$}}

108: \def\kskmp{\mbox{$\ks K^{\mp}$}}

109: %-- kzkzb

110: \def\kzkzb{\mbox{$K^0 \overline{K}{}^0$}}

111: \def\ksks{\mbox{$\ks\ks$}}

112:  

113: \def\dzbpip{\mbox{$\dzb(\to\kppim\pi^0)\pi^+$}}

114: \def\dzpim{\mbox{$\dz(\to\kmpip)\pi^-$}}

115: \def\dzpimp{\mbox{$\dz(\to\kmppipm)\pi^{\mp}$}}

116: \def\dzpipm{\mbox{$\dz(\to\kmppipm)\pi^{\mp}$}}

117: 

118: \begin{document}

119: 

120: \myspecial{!userdict begin /bop-hook{gsave 300 50 translate 5 rotate

121:     /Times-Roman findfont 18 scalefont setfont

122:     0 0 moveto 0.70 setgray

123:     (\mySpecialText)

124:     show grestore}def end}

125: 

126: %% Path to search for included postscript graphics files

127: %\graphicspath{{figures/}}

128: 

129: \vspace*{-3\baselineskip}

130: \resizebox{!}{3cm}{\includegraphics{belle.eps}}

131: 

132: \preprint{\vbox{ \hbox{   }

133:                  \hbox{   }

134:                  \hbox{   }

135:                 \hbox{BELLE-CONF-0677}

136: %                 \hbox{KEK Prerpint 2004-28}

137: }}

138: 

139: \title{\quad\\[0.5cm] 

140: Improved measurement of $B^0 \to \pi^0 \pi^0$}

141: 

142: \input{author-conf2006.tex}

143: %\tighten

144: %%% Paper:    Acp in B -> hh

145: %%% Journal:  Physical Review Letters

146: %%% Contacts: Y. Chao (john@hep1.phys.ntu.edu.tw)

147: %%% Non-responding authors or those who said NO are commented out.

148: %%% ====================================================================

149: %%% Click the RELOAD button on your web browser to see the updated file.

150: %%% ====================================================================

151: %%% Use \input{author} to insert this material into your latex file.

152: %%%%% Force institutions to appear in alphabetical order when typeset.

153: %%%\affiliation{Aomori University, Aomori}

154: 

155: \begin{abstract}

156:   We report an improved measurement of the decay $\bz\to\pizpiz$, using a

157: data sample of 535 $\times 10^6 B\bar{B}$ pairs collected

158: at the $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance with the Belle detector at the 

159: KEKB asymmetric-energy $e^+ e^-$ collider.

160:   The measured branching fraction is ${\cal B}(\bz\to\pizpiz) = \BR$,

161:   with a significance of $\SIGMA$ standard deviations including

162:   systematic uncertainties.

163:   We also report the partial rate asymmetry: $\acp(\bz\to\pizpiz)$ = 0.44 $^{+0.73}_{-0.62}$(stat.)$^{+0.04}_{-0.06}$(syst.).

164: \end{abstract}

165: 

166: \pacs{11.30.Er, 12.15.Hh, 13.25.Hw, 14.40.Nd}

167: \maketitle

168: 

169: {\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}} 

170: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

171: %\newpage

172: 

173: \normalsize

174: 

175: \newpage

176: Measurements of the mixing-induced $CP$ violation parameter

177: $\rm{sin} 2\phi_1$~\cite{phi1_belle,phi1_babar} at $B$ factories

178: are in good agreement with the Kobayashi-Maskawa (KM)

179: mechanism~\cite{km}. % of the Standard Model (SM).

180: To confirm this theory, one now has to measure

181: the other two angles of the unitarity triangle, $\phi_2$ and $\phi_3$.

182: %~\cite{pdg}.

183: %

184: One technique for measuring $\phi_2$ is to

185: study time-dependent $CP$ asymmetries

186: in $B^0 \to \pi^+\pi^-$ decay, where both Belle~\cite{phi2_belle} and 

187: BaBar~\cite{phi2_babar} recently 

188: reported the observation of mixing-induced $CP$ violation. 

189: Belle observed direct $CP$ violation while BaBar found no direct $CP$ violation.

190: The extraction of

191: $\phi_2$, however, is complicated by the presence of both tree and

192: penguin amplitudes, each with different weak phases. An isospin

193: analysis of the $\pi\pi$ system is necessary~\cite{isospin}, and

194: one essential ingredient is the branching

195: fraction for the decay $B^0 \to \pi^0\pi^0$.

196:  

197:  

198: QCD-based factorization predictions for ${\cal B}(B^0 \to

199: \pi^0\pi^0)$ are typically around or below $1 \times

200: 10^{-6}$~\cite{pi0pi0_predictions}, but phenomenological models

201: incorporating large rescattering effects can accommodate larger

202: values~\cite{theory}. Observation for $B^0 \to \pi^0\pi^0$ was 

203: previously reported by Belle

204: with the value of $(2.3^{+0.4}_{-0.5}({\rm stat.})$$^{+0.2}_{-0.3}({\rm syst.}))\times 10^{-6}$ for the branching 

205: fraction~\cite{pi0pi0_Belle}.

206: If such a high value persists, an isospin

207: analysis for $\phi_2$ extraction would become feasible in the near

208: future. To complete the program, one would need to measure both the

209: $B^0$ and $\overline{B}{}^0$ decay rates, i.e. direct $CP$ violation.

210:  

211:  

212: %%%\section{Data Set and Experimental Apparatus}

213: In this paper we report the improved measurement of the decay

214: $\bz\to\pizpiz$. We also provide a measurement of the direct $CP$

215: violating asymmetry in this mode. The results are based on a 535 $\times 10^6

216: \bb$ pairs, collected  with the Belle detector at the KEKB asymmetric-energy

217: $e^+e^-$ (3.5 on 8~GeV) collider~\cite{KEKB}. 

218:  

219: The Belle detector is a large-solid-angle magnetic

220: spectrometer that

221: consists of a silicon vertex detector (SVD),

222: a 50-layer central drift chamber (CDC), an array of

223: aerogel threshold \v{C}erenkov counters (ACC),

224: a barrel-like arrangement of time-of-flight

225: scintillation counters (TOF), and an electromagnetic calorimeter

226: comprised of CsI(Tl) crystals (ECL) located inside

227: a super-conducting solenoid coil that provides a 1.5~T

228: magnetic field.  An iron flux-return located outside of

229: the coil is instrumented to detect $K_L^0$ mesons and to identify

230: muons (KLM).  The detector

231: is described in detail elsewhere~\cite{Belle}.

232: Two inner detector configurations were used. A 2.0 cm beampipe

233: and a 3-layer silicon vertex detector were used for the first sample

234: of 152 $\times 10^6 B\bar{B}$ pairs (Set I), while a 1.5 cm beampipe, a 4-layer

235: silicon detector and a small-cell inner drift chamber~\cite{SVD2}  

236: were used to record the remaining 383 $\times 10^6 B\bar{B}$ pairs (Set II).

237: 

238:  

239: %%%\section{Analysis}

240: Pairs of photons with invariant masses in the range $115 \ {\rm

241: MeV}/c^2 < m_{\gamma\gamma} < 152 \ {\rm MeV}/c^2$ are used to

242: form $\pi^0$ mesons and $\pi^0$ mass constraint is implemented; this corresponds to a window of $\pm

243: 2.5\sigma$ about the nominal $\pi^0$ mass, where $\sigma$ denotes

244: the experimental resolution, approximately $8 \ {\rm MeV}/c^2$.

245: The measured energy of each photon in the laboratory frame is

246: required to be greater than $50 \ {\rm MeV}$ in the barrel region,

247: defined as $32^{\circ} < \theta_{\gamma} < 129^{\circ}$, and

248: greater than $100 \ {\rm MeV}$ in the end-cap regions, defined as

249: $17^{\circ} \le \theta_{\gamma} \le 32^{\circ}$ and $129^{\circ}

250: \le \theta_{\gamma} \le 150^{\circ}$, where $\theta_{\gamma}$

251: denotes the polar angle of the photon with respect to the positron beam

252: line. To further reduce the combinatorial background, $\pi^0$

253: candidates with small decay angles ($\cos\theta^* >0.95$) are

254: rejected, where $\theta^*$ is the angle between the $\pi^0$ boost

255: direction from the laboratory frame and one of its $\gamma$ daughters

256: in the $\pi^0$ rest frame.

257:  

258: Signal $B$ candidates are formed from pairs of $\pi^0$ mesons and

259: are identified by their beam energy constrained mass $\mbc =

260: \sqrt{E_{\rm beam}^{*2}/c^4 - p_B^{*2}/c^2}$ and energy difference $\de =

261: E_B^* - E_{\rm beam}^*$, where $E_{\rm beam}^*$ denotes the run-dependent beam

262: energy, $p_B^*$ and $E_B^*$ are the reconstructed momentum and energy of the 

263: $B$ candidates, all  in the $e^+e^-$ CM frame. 

264: We require $\mbc > 5.2 \ {\rm GeV}/c^2$ and $-0.45 \ {\rm GeV} < \de < 0.5 \ {\rm GeV}$.

265: The signal

266: efficiency is estimated using

267: GEANT-based~\cite{geant} Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. The resolution for signal is approximately $3.6 \ {\rm

268: MeV}/c^2$ in $\mbc$. The distribution in $\de$ is asymmetric due to

269: energy leakage from the CsI(Tl) crystals.

270: 

271: We consider background from other $B$ decays and from

272: $e^+e^-\to\qq$ ($q = u$, $d$, $s$, $c$) continuum processes. A

273: large generic MC sample shows that backgrounds from $b\to c$

274: decays are negligible. Among charmless $B$ decays, the only

275: significant background is $B^\pm \to \rho^\pm\pi^0$ with a

276: missing low momentum $\pi^\pm$. This background populates the negative

277: $\de$ region, and is taken into account in the signal extraction

278: described below.

279:  

280: The dominant background is due to the continuum processes. We use

281: event topology to discriminate signal events from this $\qq$

282: background, and follow the continuum rejection technique

283: from our previous publication~\cite{pi0pi0_Belle}. 

284: We combine a set of modified Fox-Wolfram moments \cite{fw} into a

285: Fisher discriminant~\cite{fisher}. 

286: A signal/background likelihood is formed, based on a

287: Monte Carlo (MC) simulation for signal and events in the $\mbc$ sideband region ($5.20 \ {\rm GeV}/c^2 < \mbc < 5.26 \ {\rm GeV}/c^2$) for the $\qq$ background,

288:  from the product of the probability density

289: functions (PDFs) for the Fisher discriminant and that for the cosine of the

290: angle between the $B$-meson flight direction and the positron beam. The 

291: continuum suppression is achieved by applying a requirement on a likelihood 

292: ratio ${\mathcal R}_{\rm sig} = {\mathcal L}_{\rm sig}/({\mathcal L}_{\rm sig} 

293: + {\mathcal L}_{q \overline{q}})$, where

294: ${\mathcal L}_{\rm sig}$ (${\mathcal L}_{q \overline{q}}$)

295: is the signal ($q \overline{q}$) likelihood.

296: 

297: Additional discrimination between signal and background can be

298: achieved by using the Belle standard algorithm for $b$-flavor

299: tagging~\cite{tagging}, which is also needed for the direct

300: $CP$ violation measurement. The flavor tagging procedure yields two

301: outputs: $q = \pm 1$, indicating the flavor of the other $B$ in the event,

302: and $r$, which takes values between 0 and 1 and

303: is a measure of the confidence that the $q$ determination is

304: correct. Events with a high value of $r$ are considered

305: well-tagged and are therefore unlikely to have originated from

306: continuum processes. For example, an event that contains a high momentum lepton

307: ($r$ close to unity) is more likely to be a $B \overline B$ event

308: so a looser ${\cal R}_{\rm sig}$ requirement can be applied. We find

309: that there is no strong correlation between $r$ and any of the

310: topological variables used above to separate signal from the

311: continuum.

312:  

313: We divide the data into $r\ge 0.5$ and $r<0.5$ bins. The continuum

314: background is reduced by applying a selection requirement on

315: $\mathcal{R}_{\rm sig}$ for events in each $r$ region of Set I and Set II

316: according to the figure of merit (FOM). The FOM is defined as

317: $N_{\rm sig}^{\rm exp}/\sqrt{N_{\rm sig}^{\rm exp}+N_{\rm bg}^{\rm exp}}$, 

318: where $N_{\rm sig}^{\rm exp}$ and $N_{\rm bg}^{\rm exp}$ denote the expected 

319: signal,

320: assuming the branching fraction ${\cal B} = 2 \times 10^{-6}$,

321: and background yields obtained from $B^{\pm} \to \rho^{\pm} \pi^0$ MC and sideband data, respectively.

322: A typical requirement suppresses 98\% of the continuum background while

323: retaining 45\% of the signal.

324:   

325: \begin{figure}[htb]

326: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{fig1a.eps}

327: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{fig1b.eps}

328:    \caption{

329:     \label{fig:off} (a) The distribution of $\Delta E$ vs. $M_{\rm bc} $ for the off-time events; 

330:     (b) the distributions of $\cos \theta_2$ vs. $\cos \theta_1$

331:     for the on-time events (circle) and the off-time events (triangle).}

332: \end{figure}

333: 

334: In our previous publications \cite{pi0pi0_Belle, gg_Belle} 

335: we reported a special background originating from the overlap of a hadronic

336: continuum event and the residual calorimeter energies from an earlier QED 

337: scattering event.

338: This $e^+e^- \to \gamma \gamma$ background has a signature of back-to-back

339: photons in the CM frame, which can combine with two soft photons to form 

340:  $\pi^0 \pi^0$ candidates. The fake $\pi^0 \pi^0$ candidates tend to have very small total

341: CM momenta due to the characteristics of the 

342: back-to-back photons, resulting in a peaking behavior  at $M_{\rm bc}= 5.28 $

343:  GeV/$c^2$. Therefore the QED background is quite similar to the $B^0 \to \pi^0\pi^0$ 

344: signal and has to be considered in the signal extraction. The best way to

345: identify the  $e^+e^-\to \gamma\gamma$ events is to use the timing 

346: information of the ECL clusters, which are off-time for the QED background but  

347: only available in the latter 239 fb$^{-1}$ of data. For data in which the 

348: timing information is not available, we have to rely on other observables to 

349: distinguish candidates synchronized with the

350: trigger particles (on-time)  from the  off-time QED background. Assuming the 

351: distributions of the off-time QED background are the same for the first

352: 253 fb$^{-1}$ and latter 239 fb$^{-1}$, the PDFs of the observables can be 

353: obtained using the data in the latter  239 fb$^{-1}$ sample, in which 

354: trigger timing information can be used to identify the on-time and off-time

355: events. 

356: 

357: Figure \ref{fig:off}(a) shows the 

358: $M_{\rm bc}$ - $\Delta E$ distribution for the off-time $\pi^0 \pi^0$ 

359: candidates in the latter  239 fb$^{-1}$ sample after passing all analysis 

360: requirements. These off-time $\pi^0 \pi^0$ events

361:  are located in the $M_{\rm bc}$ signal region but have no 

362: particular structure in $\Delta E$. Since the QED photons are close to the

363: $e^+$ and $e^-$ directions, the angle between the $\pi^0$ moving direction and 

364: the $z$ axis can be used to identify the QED background. The angular

365:  distributions of on-time and off-time candidates in the latter sample 

366: are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:off}(b), where

367: $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ are the angles of higher and lower 

368: momentum $\pi^0$s, respectively. Compared to the on-time events,

369: the off-time candidates have a narrow distribution in

370: $(\cos\theta_1, \cos\theta_2)$-plane. 

371: The last variable that helps distinguish the QED background is missing energy,

372: defined as $E_{\rm miss}$ = $E^*_{\rm total}$ - 2  $E^*_{\rm beam}$, where

373: $E^*_{\rm total}$ is the total reconstructed energy in the CM frame. 

374: Since the QED background consists of two overlapping events, 

375: the missing energy tends to be larger than that of  the on-time events.

376: All these five observables are implemented in the fit. 

377: 

378: 

379: %%%\section{Signal extraction}

380: The signal yields are extracted by applying unbinned five-dimensional

381: maximum likelihood (ML) fits to the ($M_{\rm bc}$,

382: $\Delta E$, $\cos \theta_1$, $\cos \theta_2$, $E_{\rm miss}$) distributions of 

383: the $B$ and $\overline B$ samples.

384: The likelihood is defined as

385: \begin{eqnarray}

386: \mathcal{L} & = & {\rm exp}\; (-\sum_{s,k,j} N_{s,k,j})

387: \prod_i (\sum_{s,k,j} N_{s,k,j} {\mathcal P}^i_{s,k,j}) \;\;\;

388: \end{eqnarray}

389: where

390: \begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{P}^i_{s,k,j} & = &

391: \frac{1}{2}[1-q^i \cdot \acp]P1_{s,k,j}(M^i_{\rm bc}, \Delta E^i) \times P2_{s,k,j}(\cos \theta^i_1, \cos \theta^i_2) \times P3_{s,k,j}(E^i_{\rm miss}).

392: \end{eqnarray}

393: The direct $CP$ asymmetry is defined as

394: \begin{eqnarray}

395: \acp \equiv \frac{N(\overline B \to \overline f)-N(B \to f)}

396: {N(\overline B \to \overline f)+N(B \to f)},

397: \end{eqnarray}

398: and $s$ indicates Set I or Set II, $k$ distinguishes events in the

399: $r<0.5$ or $r\ge 0.5$ bins, $j$ indicates the category of signal or background

400: contributions due to the $q\bar{q}$ continuum,  $B^\pm \to \rho^\pm\pi^0$ decay 

401: and off-time QED events.  $i$ is the identifier of the $i$-th

402: event, $P1_{s,k,j}(M_{\rm bc}, \Delta E)$ are the two-dimensional

403: probability density functions (PDFs) in $M_{\rm bc}$ and $\Delta E$,

404: $P2_{s,k,j}(\cos \theta_1, \cos \theta_2)$ are the two-dimensional PDFs in $\cos \theta_1$ and $\cos \theta_2$, $P3_{s,k,j}(E_{\rm miss})$ are the 

405: one-dimensional PDFs in $E_{\rm miss}$, $N_{s,k,j}$ is the number of events and 

406: $q^i$ indicates the $B$ meson flavor: $q^i$ = +1($-1$) for $B^0$ and $\overline{B}^0$.

407: The flavor of the  $B$ meson in the $B^0 \to \pi^0 \pi^0$ channel is not self-tagged and must be determined from the accompanying $B$

408: meson. To account for the effect of $B^0$-$\overline{B}^0$ mixing and 

409: imperfect tagging, the term $\acp$ for the signal in Eq. 2 has to be replaced by

410: $\acp (1-2\chi_d)(1-2w_k)$, where $\chi_d$ = 0.186 $\pm$ 0.004 \cite{PDG} is 

411: the time-integrated mixing parameter and $w_k$ is the wrong-tag fraction 

412: that depends on the value of $r$. The wrong-tag fractions are determined using 

413: a large sample of self-tagged 

414: $B^0 \to D^{*-}\pi^+, D^{*-}\rho^+$ and $D^{(*)-}l^+\nu$

415: events and their charge conjugates \cite{tagging}.

416: 

417:  

418: The $M_{\rm bc}$-$\Delta E$ PDFs for the signal and for the 

419: $B^+ \to \rho^+\pi^0$ background are taken

420: from smoothed two-dimensional histograms obtained from large MC

421: samples. For the signal PDF ($P1$), discrepancies between the peak positions and

422: resolutions in data and MC are calibrated using $\dz\to\pizpiz$ and

423: $\bp\to\dzbpip$ decays. The difference is caused by imperfect simulation

424: of the $\pi^0$ energy resolution, while the effect of the opening angle

425: distributions can be neglected. The invariant mass distribution for the $D^0$

426: is fitted with an empirical function for data and MC, and the

427: observed discrepancies in the peak position and width are converted to

428: the differences in the peak position and resolution for $\de$ in the

429: signal PDF. We require the $D^0$ decay products to lie in the same momentum

430: range as the $\pi^0$s from $B^0 \to \pi^0\pi^0$.

431: %We find a $ +7.4 \pm 5.6 \ {\rm MeV}$

432: %difference between MC and data for the $\de$ peak position and a

433: %4.5 $\pm 6.2$ \% discrepancy in the $\de$ resolution.

434:  To obtain the two-dimensional PDF, $P1(M_{\rm bc}$, $\Delta E)$, for the 

435: continuum background, we multiply a linear function for $\de$ with the ARGUS 

436: function~\cite{argus}  for $\mbc$.

437: The $M_{\rm bc}$-$\Delta E$ PDF for the off-time QED background is

438: modeled as a  smoothed two-dimensional histogram using the off-time candidates 

439: in the latter data set.

440: 

441: 

442: The $P2(\cos\theta_1,\cos\theta_2)$ and $P3(E_{\rm miss})$ PDFs are described by

443:  two-dimensional and one-dimensional 

444: smooth histograms, respectively. These PDFs are obtained using the on-time and off-time candidates with 

445: trigger timing information. Note that the same on-time PDFs are used for signals,  the $\rho^+\pi^0$ 

446: background and the continuum. In other words, these three components are distinguished based on

447: the $M_{\rm bc}$-$\Delta E$ distribution, while the off-time component is identified using all

448: 5 variables.  In the fit, the shapes of the signal, off-time and

449: $B^+ \to \rho^+\pi^0$ PDFs are fixed and 

450: all other fit parameters are allowed to float. We check the modeling of the 

451: off-time QED background by comparing the results of the five-dimensional fit to

452: the data with timing information 

453: to the fit result using only the $M_{\rm bc}-\Delta E$ PDFs after removing 

454: the off-time candidates. With 3200 events, the obtained off-time yield from the 5-d fit is $79\pm 14$, consistent with 61 off-time candidates. 

455: Moreover, the obtained yields for signals, the $B^+\to \rho^+\pi^0$ background

456:  and the continuum are also consistent between

457: the two fits. 

458:  

459: \begin{figure}[htb]

460: \includegraphics[width=0.64\textwidth]{fig2.eps}

461: %\resizebox{!}{0.25\textwidth}{\includegraphics{whole.eps}}

462: %\resizebox{!}{0.35\textwidth}{\includegraphics{fig1-1.eps}}

463: %\resizebox{!}{0.35\textwidth}{\includegraphics{fig1-2.eps}}

464:   \caption{

465:     \label{fig:fit_result}

466:     Result of the fit described in the text.

467:     (Top-left) $\mbc$ projection for events that satisfy

468:     $-0.18 \ {\rm GeV} < \de < 0.06 \ {\rm GeV}$;

469:     (top-right) $\de$ projection for events that satisfy

470:     $5.27 \ {\rm GeV}/c^2 < \mbc < 5.29 \ {\rm GeV}/c^2$. The bottom plots from 

471: left to right are $\cos \theta_1$, $\cos \theta_2$ and $E_{\rm miss}$ 

472: projections without any $M_{\rm bc}$ and $\Delta E$ selection.

473:     The solid lines indicate the sum of all components,

474:     and the dotted, dashed, dot-dashed lines and hatched part

475:     represent the contributions from signal, continuum,

476:     off-time and $B^+ \to \rho^+\pi^0$ events, respectively.

477:   }

478: \end{figure}

479:  

480: %%%\section{Branching Fractions}

481: We perform a 5-d fit to all the data assuming the same off-time

482: QED distributions for the former and latter data sets. Figure \ref{fig:fit_result}

483: shows the fit projections.

484: The obtained signal yield is $74.4^{+21.4}_{-19.7}$ with a statistical

485: significance (${\cal S}$) of $5.5 \sigma$, where ${\cal S}$ is defined as

486: ${\cal S}=\sqrt{-2\ln({\cal L}_0/{\cal L}_{N_s})}$, and ${\cal

487: L}_0$ and ${\cal L}_{N_s}$ denote the maximum likelihoods of the

488: fits without and with the signal component, respectively. 

489: We vary each calibration constant for the signal PDF by $\pm 1

490: \sigma$ and obtain systematic errors from the change in the signal

491: yield. Adding these errors in quadrature, the systematic error from signal PDF 

492: is $^{+3.0}_{-3.1}\%$. %we find the yield is

493: %$81.8^{+15.7}_{-17.1}$, and

494:  

495: In order to obtain the branching fraction, we divide the signal

496: yield by the reconstruction efficiency, measured from MC to be

497: $12.8\%$, and by the number of $\bb$ pairs. %The trigger efficiency

498: %is found to be close to $100\%$ resulting in a negligible systematic

499: %uncertainty.

500: We consider systematic errors in the

501: reconstruction efficiency due to possible differences between data

502: and MC. We vary the yields of $\rho^{\pm} \pi^0$ and off-time events by 

503: $\pm 1\sigma$  and obtain the systematic

504:  error $^{+4.5}_{-4.7}$\% and $^{+3.1}_{-2.3}$\%, respectively.

505:  We assign a total error of $8\%$ due to $\pi^0$

506: reconstruction efficiency, measured by comparing the ratio of the

507: yields of the $\overline{D}^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$ and $\overline{D}^0 \to K^+ \pi^- \pi^0$ decays. The experimental errors on the branching fractions for

508: these decays~\cite{PDG} are included in this value. We check the

509: effect of the continuum suppression using a control sample of

510: $\bp\to\dzbpip$ decays; the ${\cal R}_{\rm sig}$ requirements has a similar

511: efficiency for the MC control sample and for signal MC. Comparing the

512: ${\cal R}_{\rm s}$ requirement on the control sample in data and MC,

513: a systematic error of $1.5\%$ is assigned.

514: Finally, we assign a systematic error of $1.3\%$ due to the

515: uncertainty in the number of $\bb$ pairs, ($534.6 \pm 7.0$) $\times \

516: 10^6$, and obtain a branching fraction of

517: \begin{displaymath}

518: {\cal B}(B^0\rightarrow\pi^0\pi^0)={\BR}.

519: \end{displaymath}

520:  

521: The significance including systematic uncertainties

522: is reduced to $5.4 \sigma$.

523: \begin{figure}

524: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig3a.eps}

525: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig3b.eps}

526: %\resizebox{!}{0.45\textwidth}{\includegraphics{whole1.eps}}

527: %\resizebox{!}{0.45\textwidth}{\includegraphics{whole2.eps}}

528:   \caption{

529:     \label{fig:tagged}

530:     $\mbc$, $\de$, $\cos \theta_1$, $\cos \theta_2$ and $E_{\rm miss}$ 

531:     distributions with projections of the fit

532:     superimposed. The distributions are shown separately for

533:     events tagged as $\overline{B}{}^0$ (left) and ${B}^0$ (right).

534:   }

535: \end{figure}

536:  

537: This new measurement is lower than our previous published result, 

538: $(2.3^{+0.4+0.2}_{-0.5-0.3})\times 10^{-6}$, in which the QED background

539: was considered in the systematic uncertainty. We perform a 

540: $M_{\rm bc}$-$\Delta E$ fit to the 

541: data used in the previous analysis. Although the current analysis has 

542: tighter ${\mathcal R}_{\rm sig}$ requirements to suppress the continuum background, the obtained value of the branching fraction is $(2.0^{+0.5}_{-0.4})\times 10^{-6}$, consistent with the previous

543: result. We then perform a five-dimensional fit to the same data, the 

544: central value of the branching fraction drops to $(1.7\pm 0.4)\times  10^{-6}$,

545: which is larger than the measurement with 535 million $B\overline B$ pairs. 

546: We also compare the 2-d and 5-d fit results using the full dataset, the 

547: difference of the branching fraction is $0.3 \times 10^{-6}$. Therefore, we

548: conclude that the change in the branching fraction is due to a statistical 

549: fluctuation and the inclusion of the off-time QED background in the fit, where 

550: the former has a larger impact.

551: 

552: The result for ${\cal A}_{CP}$ is $0.44^{+0.73+0.04}_{-0.62-0.06}$.

553: Systematic errors are estimated by varying the fitting parameters by

554: $\pm 1\sigma$. Including the errors of wrong-tag fraction ($w_k$) and the

555: time-integrated mixing parameter ($\chi_d$), 

556: the total systematic error is $^{+9.6}_{-17.7}$\%.

557: To illustrate this asymmetry, we show the results separately for

558: $B^0$ and $\overline{B}{}^0$ tags in Fig.~\ref{fig:tagged}.

559: %While not significant, the method already gives constraints on

560: %$\phi_2$~\cite{ckmfitter}.

561:  

562: 

563: %%%\section{Conclusion}

564: In conclusion, we have improved the measurements of  $\bz\to\pizpiz$

565: in a data sample of 535 million $\bb$ pairs.  We

566: obtain $74.4^{+21.4}_{-19.7}$ signal events with a significance of

567: $5.4$ standard deviations ($\sigma$) including

568: systematic uncertainties. The branching fraction is measured to be

569: $\BR$. The branching fraction is different from our

570: previous result due to the larger data sample that is used and the treatment of 

571: the off-time QED background. We 

572: also report the direct $CP$ asymmetry to be 0.44$^{+0.73+0.04}_{-0.62-0.06}$,

573: which is consistent with our previous result \cite{pi0pi0_Belle}.

574: The branching fraction for

575: $\bz\to\pizpiz$, together with the measurements of its direct $CP$

576: violating asymmetry ${\cal A}_{CP}$, will allow a model-independent

577: extraction of the CKM angle $\phi_2$ from measurements

578: of the $B\to \pi\pi$ system in the near future.

579:  

580: %%%\section*{Acknowledgments}

581: % Please paste this acknowledgement into your latex file.

582: 

583: %***** Acknowledgments *****

584: We thank the KEKB group for the excellent operation of the

585: accelerator, the KEK cryogenics group for the efficient

586: operation of the solenoid, and the KEK computer group and

587: the National Institute of Informatics for valuable computing

588: and Super-SINET network support. We acknowledge support from

589: the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and

590: Technology of Japan and the Japan Society for the Promotion

591: of Science; the Australian Research Council and the

592: Australian Department of Education, Science and Training;

593: the National Science Foundation of China and the Knowledge

594: Innovation Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences under

595: contract No.~10575109 and IHEP-U-503; the Department of Science

596: and Technology of India; the BK21 program of the Ministry of Education of

597: Korea, and the CHEP SRC program and Basic Research program

598: (grant No. R01-2005-000-10089-0) of the Korea Science and

599: Engineering Foundation; the Polish State Committee for

600: Scientific Research under contract No.~2P03B 01324; the

601: Ministry of Science and Technology of the Russian

602: Federation; the Slovenian Research Agency;

603: the Swiss National Science Foundation; the National Science Council and

604: the Ministry of Education of Taiwan; and the U.S.\

605: Department of Energy.

606: 

607: 

608: 

609: %We thank the KEKB group for the excellent operation of the

610: %accelerator, the KEK Cryogenics group for the efficient operation

611: %of the solenoid, and the KEK computer group and the NII for

612: %valuable computing and Super-SINET network support.  We

613: %acknowledge support from MEXT and JSPS (Japan); ARC and DEST

614: %(Australia); NSFC (contract No.~10175071, China); DST (India); the

615: %BK21 program of MOEHRD and the CHEP SRC program of KOSEF (Korea);

616: %KBN (contract No.~2P03B 01324, Poland); MIST (Russia); MESS

617: %(Slovenia); NSC and MOE (Taiwan); and DOE (USA).

618:  

619: 

620: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

621: \bibitem{phi1_belle}

622:   K.~Abe {\it et al.} (Belle Collaboration),

623:   Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71}, 072003 (2005).

624: \bibitem{phi1_babar}

625:   B.~Aubert {\it et al.} (BaBar Collaboration),

626:   Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 161803 (2005).

627: \bibitem{km}

628:   M.~Kobayashi and T.~Maskawa,

629:   Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 49}, 652 (1973).

630: 

631: \bibitem{phi2_belle}

632:   K.~Abe {\it et al.} (Belle Collaboration), hep-ex/0608035.

633: 

634: \bibitem{phi2_babar}

635:   B.~Aubert {\it et al.} (BaBar Collaboration), hep-ex/0607106.

636: 

637: \bibitem{isospin}

638:   M.~Gronau and D.~London,

639:   Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 65}, 3381 (1990);

640:   M.~Gronau, D.~London, N.~Sinha and R.~Sinha,

641:   Phys. Lett. B {\bf 514}, 315 (2001).

642: 

643: \bibitem{pi0pi0_predictions}

644:   M.~Beneke and M.~Neubert, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 675}, 333 (2003);

645:   Y.-Y.~Keum and A.I.~Sanda, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67}, 054009 (2003). %;

646:   %G.~Kramer and W.F.~Palmer, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 52}, 6411 (1995).

647: 

648: \bibitem{theory}

649:   W.S.~Hou and K.C.~Yang, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 84}, 4806 (2000);

650:   C.K.~Chua, W.S.~Hou and K.C.~Yang,

651:   Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 18}, 1763 (2003);

652:   A.J.~Buras {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 101804 (2004).

653: \bibitem{pi0pi0_Belle}

654:   Y. Chao, P. Chang {\it et al.} (Belle Collaboration),

655:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 94}, 181803 (2005).

656: \bibitem{KEKB}

657: S.~Kurokawa and E.~Kikutani, Nucl. Instr. and. Meth. A \textbf{499}, 1 (2003),

658: and other papers included in this volume.

659: \bibitem{Belle}

660:   A.~Abashian {\it et al.} (Belle Collaboration),

661:   Nucl. Inst. and Meth. A {\bf 479}, 117 (2002).

662: \bibitem{SVD2}

663: Z.Natkaniec {\it et al.} (Belle SVD2 Group), Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A \textbf{560}, 1(2006).

664: 

665: \bibitem{geant}

666:   R.~Brun {\it et al.},

667:   GEANT 3.21, CERN Report No. DD/EE/84-1 (1987).

668: \bibitem{fw}

669: The Fox-Wolfram moments were introduced in G. C. Fox and

670: S. Wolfram, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 41} 1581 (1978). The modified

671: moments used in this paper are described in Belle Collaboration,

672: S. H. Lee {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 261801 (2003).

673: 

674: \bibitem{fisher}

675:   R.A.~Fisher,

676:   Annals of Eugenics {\bf 7}, 179 (1936).

677: 

678: \bibitem{tagging} H. Kakuno {\it et al.}, Nucl. Instr. and Meth.

679: A {\bf 533}, 516 (2004).

680:  

681: 

682: \bibitem{gg_Belle}

683:   S. Villa {\it et al.} (Belle Collaboration),

684:   Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73}, 051107(R) (2005).

685: 

686:  \bibitem{PDG}

687:   Particle Data Group, S. Eidelman {\it et al.},

688:   Phys. Lett. B {\bf 592}, 1 (2004).

689: 

690: \bibitem{argus}

691:   H.~Albrecht {\it et al.} (ARGUS Collaboration),

692:   Phys. Lett. B {\bf 241}, 278 (1990).

693: %\bibitem{rhopi_belle}

694: %  J.~Zhang {\it et al.}  (BELLE Collaboration),

695: %  hep-ex/0406006.

696: %  Particle Data Group, K. Hagiwara {\it et al.},

697: %  Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66}, 1 (2002).

698: %  H. Kakuno {\it et al.},

699: %  hep-ex/0403022 (2004).

700: %\bibitem{w_r} Belle Collaboration, K. Abe {\it et al.}, hep-ex/0308036 (2003).

701: %\bibitem{ckmfitter}

702: %  J. Charles {\it et al.}, %, A. Hocker, H. Lacker, S. Laplace, F.R. Le Diberder, J. Malcles, J. Ocariz, M. Pivk, L. Roos,

703: %  hep-ph/0406184.

704: %  Muriel Pivk, Francois R. Le Diberder,

705: %  hep-ph/0406263.

706: %\bibitem{CGRS}

707: %  C.W.~Chiang, M.~Gronau, J.L.~Rosner and D.A.~Suprun,

708: %  Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70}, 034020 (2004).

709: %\bibitem{D0h0}

710: %  K.~Abe {\it et al.}  (BELLE Collaboration),

711: %  Phys. Rev. Lett.  {\bf 88}, 052002 (2002);

712: %  K.~Abe {\it et al.}  (BELLE Collaboration),

713: %  BELLE-CONF-0416, hep-ex/0409004 (2004);

714: %  B.~Aubert {\it et al.} (BaBar Collaboration),

715: %  Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 032004 (2004);

716: %  T.E.~Coan {\it et al.}  (CLEO Collaboration),

717: %  {\it ibid}. {\bf 88}, 062001 (2002).

718: %\bibitem{rho0pi0}

719: %  J.~Dragic {\it et al.} (Belle Collaboration),

720: %  Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93}, 131802 (2004).

721: %\bibitem{Barshay}

722: %  S.~Barshay, L.M.~Sehgal and J.~van Leusen,

723: %  Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 591}, 97 (2004).

724: %\bibitem{AcpKpi}

725: %  B.~Aubert {\it et al.} (BaBar Collaboration),

726: %  Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 93}, 131801 (2004).

727:   %hep-ex/0407057;

728: %  Y.~Chao {\it et al.} (Belle Collaboration),

729: %  Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 93}, 191802 (2004).

730:   %hep-ex/0408100, to appear in Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.

731: \end{thebibliography}

732: \end{document}

733: 

734: