text:
# References

Recent developments in string dualities have suggested that the known five types of superstring theories in ten dimensions and M-theory in eleven dimensions are just different microscopic descriptions of the same underlying physics. This means that if any of the descriptions can be defined nonperturbatively, it is as good as any other to study the dynamics of the universality class of string/M theories. A celebrated first step towards this end has been made by Ref. , where the so-called Matrix theory has been proposed as a nonperturbative definition of M-theory in the infinite momentum frame. Soon after, the IIB matrix model  has been proposed as a nonperturbative definition of type IIB superstring theory. Although there are many evidences that support these conjectures, there is no direct proof that these models reproduce the string/M theories perturbatively111See, however, Ref.  as an attempt in this direction.. If these conjectures are true, there is a hope to understand all the fundamental questions about the Standard Model, including the space-time dimensionality, gauge group, matter contents, the hierarchy problem, the cosmological constant problem, and so on, in terms of the dynamics of these models.

So far, the understanding of the vacuum of these models is quite limited. In this Letter, we attempt to extract information about the dimensionality of the space-time which is dynamically generated in the IIB matrix model. The IIB matrix model is a supersymmetric matrix model obtained formally by taking a zero-volume limit  of ten-dimensional SU($`N`$) super Yang-Mills theory. Unlike in field theories, the space-time is treated in this model as a dynamical object, which is represented by ten bosonic $`N\times N`$ hermitian matrices, where $`N`$ should be sent to infinity eventually. Therefore, the model has a potential to explain the dynamical origin of the dimensionality of our space-time, which, in the Standard Model, has to be given as an input parameter. If we are ever going to explain our four-dimensional space-time in this way, the vacuum of the IIB matrix model should be dominated by configurations which have only four-dimensional extent222This is similar in spirit to a description of our four-dimensional space-time as a “brane” in a higher-dimensional non-compact space-time, which is proposed  as an alternative to a more conventional compactification approach.. This means, in particular, that the ten-dimensional Lorentz invariance of the model should be spontaneously broken to a four-dimensional one.333The possibility of a non-trivial vacuum structure in string theory has been considered also in .

Such an issue can in principle be addressed by performing Monte Carlo simulation, since the model is completely well defined for arbitrary $`N`$ without any cutoff . Indeed the large-$`N`$ dynamics of the four-dimensional version of the IIB matrix model, which can be obtained by a zero-volume limit of four-dimensional super Yang-Mills theory, has been understood to a considerable extent through Monte Carlo simulation . Comparison of the results with those for the corresponding bosonic theory , revealed that supersymmetry indeed plays an important role in the dynamics of large-$`N`$ reduced models as a nonperturbative definition of string theories. Unfortunately, such a direct approach does not work in the IIB matrix model as it stands, due to the fact that the effective action induced by fermions is generically complex, whereas in the above mentioned four-dimensional version, it is real. In general, when the action of a theory has a non-zero imaginary part, the number of configurations needed to extract any information increases as exponential of the system size. This is the notorious sign problem, which occurs also in many other interesting systems related to particle physics, such as theories with a chiral fermion (as in the present case), theories with a $`\theta `$ vacuum, Chern-Simons theories and theories with a finite baryon number density. We emphasize, however, that the problem is a purely technical one, and indeed its complete solution in some particular class of systems has been obtained recently .

In order to search for a way out of this difficulty, let us consider a deformation of the IIB matrix model by introducing an integer parameter $`\nu `$, which couples to the imaginary part of the effective action induced by fermions. The deformed model, which reduces to the IIB matrix model at $`\nu =1`$, is well-defined for arbitrary $`\nu `$. It preserves both gauge invariance and Lorentz invariance, and moreover, it preserves the cluster property, which is an important consequence of the supersymmetry of the original model. At $`\nu =0`$, the sign problem disappears and standard Monte Carlo techniques become applicable. Monte Carlo studies up to $`N=512`$ show, however, that the ten-dimensional Lorentz invariance is not spontaneously broken , which suggests that if Lorentz invariance is spontaneously broken in the original model, the imaginary part of the effective action must play a crucial role. This motivated us to consider the opposite extreme, namely $`\nu =\mathrm{}`$.

At $`\nu =\mathrm{}`$, the integration over the bosonic matrices is dominated by the saddle-points of the imaginary part of the effective action. We find that the saddle-points are given by configurations which have only eight-dimensional extent. This implies that the ten-dimensional Lorentz invariance is spontaneously broken at least to an eight-dimensional one. Since we still have to integrate over the saddle-point configurations, the question arises whether the remaining eight-dimensional Lorentz invariance further breaks down, say, to a four-dimensional one. To this end, we study the hessian at configurations which have only $`d`$-dimensional extent ($`d8`$) and find that it is zero of order $`(8d)\{2(N^21)16\}`$. In other words, the imaginary part of the effective action becomes more stationary for smaller $`d`$. This gives a huge enhancement to configurations with smaller $`d`$, which is found to cancel exactly the entropical barrier against having such configurations. Considering the effect of the real part of the effective action, which is studied in Ref.  using perturbation theory, it is plausible that the vacuum of the model at $`\nu =\mathrm{}`$ is actually given by $`d<8`$. We also find a lower bound on $`d`$ as $`d>2`$. Further information about the vacuum can be obtained by performing explicitly the integration over the saddle-point configurations by Monte Carlo simulation. Naively, one might consider that the sign problem, which already exists in the original model ($`\nu =1`$), becomes maximally severe at $`\nu =\mathrm{}`$. This is not the case, as we will see.

The IIB matrix model is formally a zero-volume limit of ten-dimensional pure $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. The action, therefore, is given by

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`S_b+S_f,`$
$`S_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{tr}\left([A_\mu ,A_\nu ]^2\right),`$
$`S_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tr}\left(\psi _\alpha (𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu )_{\alpha \beta }[A_\mu ,\psi _\beta ]\right).`$ (1)
$`A_\mu `$ ($`\mu =1,\mathrm{},10`$) and $`\psi _\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},16`$) are $`N\times N`$ traceless hermitian matrices, which can be expanded in terms of the generators $`t^a`$ of SU($`N`$) as

$$(A_\mu )_{ij}=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N^21}{}}A_\mu ^a(t^a)_{ij};(\psi _\alpha )_{ij}=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N^21}{}}\psi _\alpha ^a(t^a)_{ij},$$
(2)
where $`A_\mu ^a`$ is a real variable and $`\psi _\alpha ^a`$ is a real Grassmann variable. We have made a Wick rotation in the action (1), so that the metric has Euclidean signature. The $`16\times 16`$ matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ are ten-dimensional gamma matrices after Weyl projection, and the unitary matrix $`𝒞`$ is a charge conjugation matrix satisfying

$$𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu 𝒞^{}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu )^{};𝒞^{}=𝒞.$$
(3)
The model has a manifest ten-dimensional Lorentz invariance, by which we actually mean an SO(10) invariance. $`A_\mu `$ transforms as a vector and $`\psi _\alpha `$ transforms as a Majorana-Weyl spinor.

Pure $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory can be also defined in 3D, 4D and 6D, as well as in 10D. Hence, by taking a zero-volume limit of these theories, we can define supersymmetric large-$`N`$ reduced models, which are $`D=3,4,6`$ versions of the IIB matrix model. A nontrivial question then concerns whether the integration over the bosonic matrices is convergent, since the integration domain for hermitian matrices is non-compact. A potential danger of divergence, even for finite $`N`$, exists when the eigenvalues of $`A_\mu `$ become large. This issue has been addressed in Ref.  using a one-loop perturbative argument. When all the eigenvalues are well separated from each other, one can expand the matrices $`A_\mu `$ and $`\psi _\alpha `$ around diagonal matrices as

$$(A_\mu )_{ij}=x_{i\mu }\delta _{ij}+a_{\mu ij};(\psi _\alpha )_{ij}=\xi _{i\alpha }\delta _{ij}+\phi _{\alpha ij},$$
(4)
where $`a_\mu `$ and $`\phi _\alpha `$ are matrices containing only off-diagonal elements. One can then integrate over the off-diagonal elements $`a_\mu `$ and $`\phi _\alpha `$ up to one-loop, by fixing the gauge properly and including the Faddeev-Popov ghosts. The integration over the bosonic off-diagonal elements $`a_\mu `$ and the Faddeev-Popov ghosts, gives a logarithmic attractive potential between all the pairs of $`x_i`$ . This potential, however, is exactly cancelled by the contribution of the fermionic off-diagonal elements $`\phi _\alpha `$ due to supersymmetry. This cancellation is responsible for the cluster property of the model , which is important for the interpretation of the model as a string theory. In order to calculate the effective potential for $`x_{i\mu }`$, one still has to integrate over the fermionic diagonal elements $`\xi _{i\alpha }`$, which is nontrivial. In Ref. , it has been shown that the effective potential for $`x_{i\mu }`$ can be given by a branched-polymer like attractive interaction among $`N`$ points in $`D`$-dimensional space-time represented by $`x_{i\mu }`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$). Now counting the power of $`x_i`$ in the partition function, the integration measure for $`x_{i\mu }`$ gives $`D(N1)`$ and the integration over $`\xi _{i\alpha }`$ gives $`\frac{3}{2}p(N1)`$, where $`p=2(D2)`$ is the number of real components of the spinor considered for each $`D`$. Therefore, naively one concludes that when

$$D(N1)\frac{3}{2}p(N1)=2(3D)(N1)0,$$
(5)
the integration over $`x_{i\mu }`$ is divergent and otherwise convergent. This means that the integral is divergent for $`D=3`$ and convergent for $`D=4,6,10`$, irrespectively of $`N`$. This conclusion is in agreement with an exact result available for $`N=2`$  and a numerical result obtained for $`N=3`$ . For $`D=4`$, Monte Carlo simulations show that the conclusion extends to the large-$`N`$ limit . Therefore, it is conceivable that the above conclusion obtained by the one-loop argument holds in general, although it is not a rigorous proof.

Going back to the definition of the model (1), let us first integrate over the fermionic matrices $`\psi _\alpha `$, which induces an effective action for $`A_\mu `$. When fermions are real Grassmann variables as in the present $`D=10`$ case, the fermion integral yields a pfaffian of a $`p(N^21)\times p(N^21)`$ matrix. On the other hand, when fermions are complex Grassmann variables as in the $`D=4,6`$ case, the fermion integral yields a determinant of a $`p(N^21)/2\times p(N^21)/2`$ matrix. For $`D=4`$, the fermion determinant is real positive, which allows a direct Monte Carlo study of the model . For $`D=6,10`$, the fermion determinant ($`D=6`$) or pfaffian ($`D=10`$) is complex in general, since fermions are essentially chiral in these cases. This causes the notorious sign problem. There are some exceptions444This is because, when $`(N^21)`$ is smaller than $`D`$, one can always make a $`D`$-dimensional rotation to set $`A_\mu =0`$ for $`\mu =1,\mathrm{},D(N^21)`$, since one can regard $`A_\mu ^a`$ as $`(N^21)`$, $`D`$-dimensional real vectors. The statements in $`D=10`$ for $`N=2`$ and $`N=3`$, for example, follow from (14) and (13), respectively. when $`N`$ is small . For $`D=6`$, the fermion determinant is real positive for $`N=2`$. For $`D=10`$, the pfaffian is real positive for $`N=2`$ and real (but not positive definite) for $`N=3`$. Although we consider only the $`D=10`$ case in what follows, the analysis can be readily applied to the $`D=6`$ case as well. We also restrict ourselves to $`N4`$ so that the pfaffian is complex generically.

In $`D=10`$, the fermion integral yields

$$Z_f[A]=\text{d}\psi \text{e}^{S_f}=\text{Pf},$$
(6)
where

$$_{a\alpha ,b\beta }=if_{abc}(𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu )_{\alpha \beta }A_\mu ^c$$
(7)
is a $`16(N^21)\times 16(N^21)`$ anti-symmetric matrix, regarding each of $`(a\alpha )`$ and $`(b\beta )`$ as a single index. The real totally-antisymmetric tensor $`f_{abc}`$ gives the structure constants of SU($`N`$). In what follows, it proves convenient to work with an explicit representation of the gamma matrices given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=i\sigma _2\sigma _2\sigma _2\sigma _2;\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=i\sigma _2\sigma _2\mathrm{𝟏}\sigma _1;\mathrm{\Gamma }_3=i\sigma _2\sigma _2\mathrm{𝟏}\sigma _3;`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_4=i\sigma _2\sigma _1\sigma _2\mathrm{𝟏};\mathrm{\Gamma }_5=i\sigma _2\sigma _3\sigma _2\mathrm{𝟏};\mathrm{\Gamma }_6=i\sigma _2\mathrm{𝟏}\sigma _1\sigma _2;`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_7=i\sigma _2\mathrm{𝟏}\sigma _3\sigma _2;\mathrm{\Gamma }_8=i\sigma _1\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏};\mathrm{\Gamma }_9=i\sigma _3\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏};`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{10}=\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏},`$
for which the charge conjugation matrix $`𝒞`$ becomes a unit matrix.

Some important properties of the pfaffian $`\text{Pf}(A)`$ are in order. First of all, it is invariant under a ten-dimensional Lorentz transformation, $`A_\mu ^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }A_\nu `$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an SO(10) matrix. It is also invariant under a gauge transformation $`A_\mu ^{}=gA_\nu g^{}`$, where $`g`$ is an SU($`N`$) matrix. Under a parity transformation,

$$A_{10}^P=A_{10};A_i^P=A_i(\text{for}i=1,\mathrm{},9),$$
(9)
the pfaffian becomes complex conjugate,

$$\text{Pf}(A^P)=\{\text{Pf}(A)\}^{},$$
(10)
since $`(A^P)=(A)^{}`$. As a consequence, the pfaffian $`\text{Pf}(A)`$ is real, when $`A_{10}=0`$. This also means that $`det=(\text{Pf})^2`$ is real positive, when $`A_{10}=0`$.

We next consider the case with $`A_9=A_{10}=0`$. In this case, the pfaffian is actually equal to the fermion determinant of eight-dimensional Weyl fermion which we denote as $`det^{(8)}`$. $`^{(8)}`$ is an $`8(N^21)\times 8(N^21)`$ matrix defined as $`_{a\alpha ,b\beta }^{(8)}=if_{abc}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mu )_{\alpha \beta }A_\mu ^c`$, where the eight-dimensional gamma-matrices $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mu `$ after Weyl projection are given, for example, by

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1=i\sigma _2\sigma _2\sigma _2;\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2=i\sigma _2\mathrm{𝟏}\sigma _1;\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_3=i\sigma _2\mathrm{𝟏}\sigma _3;\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_4=i\sigma _1\sigma _2\mathrm{𝟏};`$ (11)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_5=i\sigma _3\sigma _2\mathrm{𝟏};\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_6=i\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}\sigma _1\sigma _2;\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_7=i\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}\sigma _3\sigma _2;\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_8=\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}.`$
With this representation, one finds that $`^{(8)}`$ is a real matrix, which means that $`det^{(8)}`$ is real. However, it is not positive definite, as we have checked numerically. In fact, this is the case even for $`A_8=0`$. However, if we take $`A_7=A_8=0`$, it becomes positive definite, since in this case, we have $`det^{(8)}=|det^{(6)}|^2`$, where $`det^{(6)}`$ is the fermion determinant of six-dimensional Weyl fermion .

Finally, when $`A_3=A_4=\mathrm{}=A_{10}=0`$, one finds that $`\text{Pf}(A)=0`$ . This can be proved in the following way. First we note that $`(\text{Pf})^2=det=|detU|^{16}`$, where $`U`$ is an $`(N^21)\times (N^21)`$ matrix defined as $`U_{ab}=f_{abc}X^c`$, where $`X^c=A_1^c+iA_2^c`$. Since $`U_{ab}X^b=0`$, the matrix $`U`$ has a zero-eigenvalue, and therefore $`detU=0`$. This completes the proof.

Using Lorentz invariance of the pfaffian $`\text{Pf}(A)`$, we summarize some of its important properties as follows. Let us first define sets of “degenerate” configurations $`\mathrm{\Omega }_d`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_d=\{\{A_\mu \};n_\mu ^{(i)}A_\mu =0\text{for}n_\mu ^{(i)}(i=1,\mathrm{},10d)\text{linearly independent}\}.$$
(12)
Obviously, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_9`$. Then the statements are

$`\text{(a) When}\{A_\mu \}\mathrm{\Omega }_9,\text{Pf}(A)\text{}.`$ (13)
$`\text{(b) When}\{A_\mu \}\mathrm{\Omega }_6,\text{Pf}(A)0.`$ (14)
$`\text{(c) When}\{A_\mu \}\mathrm{\Omega }_2,\text{Pf}(A)=0.`$ (15)
Here we recall that in the IIB matrix model, the space-time is treated as a dynamical object represented by the bosonic matrices $`A_\mu `$. In this regard, generic configurations in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_d`$ describe $`d`$-dimensional space-time. It is very suggestive that the phase of the pfaffian is sensitive to the dimensionality $`d`$ of the space-time. Indeed, the above results will play a crucial role in the following analysis.

Let us write the effective action induced by fermion integral as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{eff}}=\mathrm{ln}(\text{Pf})`$, which we decompose into the real part $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(r)}`$ and the imaginary part $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}`$ as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{eff}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(r)}+i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}`$. Then we generalize the theory by introducing an integer parameter $`\nu `$, which couples only to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}`$, the imaginary part of the effective action, as

$$Z_\nu =\text{d}A\text{e}^{S_b[A]\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(r)}[A]}\text{e}^{i\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}[A]}.$$
(16)
The parameter $`\nu `$ has to be an integer since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}`$ is defined only up to modulo $`2\pi `$. For $`\nu =1`$, the model reduces to the original model. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}`$ flips its sign under a parity transformation due to (10), the models with $`\nu `$ and $`\nu `$ are nothing but parity partners. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(r)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}`$ are both Lorentz invariant and gauge invariant separately, the generalized model is also both Lorentz invariant and gauge invariant. According to the one-loop perturbative argument given below (4), the deformed IIB matrix model continues to be well-defined for arbitrary $`\nu `$, and moreover, it preserves the cluster property, which is an important consequence of the supersymmetry of the original model.

Another important point about the generalization we consider is that $`S_b`$ can be calculated exactly and the result is independent of the parameter $`\nu `$. For this, we recall that in the original supersymmetric large-$`N`$ reduced models ($`D=4,6,10`$), one obtains

$$S_b=\frac{1}{4}\left(D+\frac{p}{2}\right)(N^21)=\frac{1}{2}(D1)(N^21),$$
(17)
using a scaling argument similar to . Due to the fact that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}[A]`$ is invariant under a scale transformation of $`A_\mu `$, one can easily find that the above result is unaltered by the generalization to arbitrary $`\nu `$ for $`D=6,10`$. In particular, this holds true even in the $`\nu \mathrm{}`$ limit. Note, however, that this does not necessarily imply that all the vacuum expectation values of the generalized model are independent of $`\nu `$. Even their convergence in the $`\nu \mathrm{}`$ limit is nontrivial. This point shall be clarified later.

We prove a property of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}`$, which turns out to be essential in the analysis of the $`\nu \mathrm{}`$ limit. We first recall that the pfaffian $`\text{Pf}(A)`$ is a polynomial of $`A_\mu ^a`$ of order $`8(N^21)`$. Hence, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}`$ is infinitely differentiable at a configuration, for which the matrix $``$ is invertible. When the configuration belongs to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_d`$ ($`d=1,\mathrm{},8`$), we find that

$$\frac{^n\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}}{A_{\mu _1}^{a_1}A_{\mu _2}^{a_2}\mathrm{}A_{\mu _n}^{a_n}}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{^n}{A_{\mu _1}^{a_1}A_{\mu _2}^{a_2}\mathrm{}A_{\mu _n}^{a_n}}\text{Im}\mathrm{ln}det=0\text{for}n=1,\mathrm{},(9d).$$
(18)
This is because, up to $`(9d)`$-th order of perturbations, the configuration stays within $`\mathrm{\Omega }_9`$, and therefore $`det`$ remains to be real positive due to (13).

In the $`\nu \mathrm{}`$ limit, the integration over $`A_\mu `$ is dominated by the configurations which satisfy the saddle-point equation given by

$$0=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}}{A_\mu ^a}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{}{A_\mu ^a}\text{Im}\mathrm{ln}det=\frac{1}{2}\text{Im}\text{Tr }\left(^1^{(\mu a)}\right),$$
(19)
where $`^{(\mu a)}`$ is an $`A`$-independent $`16(N^21)\times 16(N^21)`$ matrix defined by

$$\left(^{(\mu a)}\right)_{b\beta ,c\gamma }=\frac{_{b\beta ,c\gamma }}{A_\mu ^a}=if_{abc}(𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu )_{\beta \gamma }.$$
(20)
Since the equation (19) gives $`10(N^21)`$ constraints among $`10(N^21)`$ real variables, naively one would expect that only a very small portion of the configuration space survives. This is not the case, however. In fact, we find that all the configurations that belong to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_8`$ satisfy the saddle-point equation (19) due to (18). The existence of solutions to (19) other than of this type, cannot be excluded. It is reasonable, however, to consider that the configurations in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_8`$ dominate in the sense of Lebesgue measure. Hence, at $`\nu =\mathrm{}`$ the full ten-dimensional Lorentz invariance is broken down at least to an eight-dimensional one. In order to examine whether the remaining eight-dimensional Lorentz invariance further breaks down, we still have to integrate over the saddle-point configurations. An important point here is that the imaginary part of the effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}`$ for the saddle-point configurations takes only 0 or $`\pi `$ due to (13). This means that there are actually two sequences of $`\nu `$, (I) $`\nu =0,2,4,\mathrm{},2\mathrm{}`$ and (II) $`\nu =1,3,5,\mathrm{},(2\mathrm{}+1)`$, which give two a priori different limiting theories.

In order to formulate the integration over the saddle-point configurations, we first rotate them so that they satisfy $`A_9=A_{10}=0`$ and then integrate over $`A_1,A_2,\mathrm{},A_8`$. We define the Hesse matrix for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}[A]`$ within the directions transverse to the integration domain as

$$H_{ja,kb}=\frac{^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}}{A_j^aA_k^b}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2}{A_j^aA_k^b}\text{Im}\mathrm{ln}det=\frac{1}{2}\text{Im}\text{Tr }\left(^1^{(ja)}^1^{(kb)}\right),$$
(21)
where $`j,k=9,10`$. We find that the Hesse matrix $`H_{ja,kb}`$ has $`16`$ zero-eigenvalues with eigenvectors corresponding to perturbations

$$(\delta A_9^a,\delta A_{10}^a)=(A_1^a,0),(A_2^a,0),\mathrm{},(A_8^a,0),(0,A_1^a),(0,A_2^a),\mathrm{},(0,A_8^a).$$
(22)
These zero-modes are a reflection of the fact that the configurations after these perturbations still stay within $`\mathrm{\Omega }_8`$, and thus satisfy the saddle-point equation (19). When $`N`$ is even, the Hesse matrix $`H_{ja,kb}`$ has actually two more zero-eigenvalues. To see this, we first note that $`H_{9a,9b}=H_{10a,10b}=0`$ and $`H_{9a,10b}=H_{10b,9a}`$. Note also that $`H_{9a,10b}=H_{9b,10a}`$ due to (10), which means that an $`(N^21)\times (N^21)`$ matrix $`K_{ab}`$ defined by $`K_{ab}=H_{9a,10b}`$ is antisymmetric. Due to a general property of an antisymmetric matrix of odd size, $`K_{ab}`$ for even $`N`$ should have a zero-eigenvalue, whose corresponding eigenvector we denote as $`\chi ^a`$. Then one finds that $`(\delta A_9^a,\delta A_{10}^a)=(\chi ^a,0),(0,\chi ^a)`$ are eigenvectors of the Hesse matrix $`H_{ja,kb}`$ with zero-eigenvalues. Unlike the 16 zero-modes in (22), these two additional zero-modes, which exist only for even $`N`$, have nothing to do with the symmetry of the space of solutions to the saddle-point equation (19). Hence, they should be considered as accidental zero-modes. Since the saddle-point analysis in such a case becomes more complicated, we restrict ourselves to the odd $`N`$ case in what follows.

In order to deal with the 16 zero-modes, which actually correspond to the Lorentz transformation in the $`(i,9)`$ and $`(i,10)`$ planes ($`i=1,2,\mathrm{},8`$), we have to take into account the phase volume analogous to the Faddeev-Popov determinant. In the present case, it can be given by the 16-dimensional volume spanned by the 16 vectors (22) in the configuration space. We denote this phase volume as $`𝒱^{(16)}`$. Thus we arrive at the models, which describe the two limiting theories corresponding to the even/odd $`\nu `$ sequences,

$`Z_{\nu =2\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \left(\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{8}{}}\text{d}A_\mu \right)𝒱^{(16)}|J|^{1/2}\text{e}^{S_b}\left|det^{(8)}\right|},`$ (23)
$`Z_{\nu =2\mathrm{}+1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \left(\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{8}{}}\text{d}A_\mu \right)𝒱^{(16)}|J|^{1/2}\text{e}^{S_b}det^{(8)}},`$ (24)
where $`J`$ denotes the determinant of the Hesse matrix $`H_{ja,kb}`$ after removing the zero-modes. We recall that $`det^{(8)}`$ is real but not positive definite, which makes the two models a priori different. One can see that the exact result (17) for $`S_b`$ can be reproduced from (23) and (24) as it should, by noting that $`𝒱^{(16)}\lambda ^{16}𝒱^{(16)}`$ and $`J\lambda ^{2\{2(N^21)16\}}J`$ under a scale transformation $`A_\mu \lambda A_\mu `$.

Let us consider the question whether the remaining eight-dimensional Lorentz invariance of the models (23) and (24) is further broken. For this we show that the hessian $`J`$ becomes zero for configurations in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_7`$ and that the order of zero increases for configurations in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_d`$ with smaller $`d`$. To quantify this statement, let us consider a configuration with $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_d`$ being generic and $`A_{d+1},\mathrm{},A_8`$ being of order $`ϵ`$. We first note that each element of $`H_{ja,kb}`$ for such a configuration becomes of order $`ϵ^{(8d)}`$ due to (18). Therefore, the non-zero eigenvalues of $`H_{ja,kb}`$ become of order $`ϵ^{(8d)}`$. We have checked numerically that they are not of order higher than $`ϵ^{(8d)}`$ generically. This means that $`J`$ is of order $`ϵ^{(8d)\{2(N^21)16\}}`$. On the other hand, degenerate configurations with smaller $`d`$ is suppressed by the entropy factor $`ϵ^{(8d)(N^21)}`$ coming from the integration measure. The phase volume factor $`𝒱^{(16)}`$ gives also a suppression of order $`ϵ^{2(8d)}`$. Collecting all the powers of $`ϵ`$, we find a suppression of order $`ϵ^{10(8d)}`$. This means, first of all, that the integrals (23) and (24) are non-singular at the degenerate configurations. Secondly, we note that, as far as the $`N`$-dependent part is concerned, the suppression for smaller $`d`$ coming the entropy factor $`ϵ^{(8d)(N^21)}`$ is exactly cancelled by the enhancement coming from $`|J|^{1/2}`$. This means that there is essentially no entropical barrier against having smaller $`d`$.

So far, we have been focusing on the effect of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}`$ on the dynamics of the IIB matrix model. The effect of $`S_b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(r)}`$, on the other hand, has been studied in Ref.  by using the low-energy effective theory obtained by the one-loop perturbation theory (4). There, it was argued that the complicated branched-polymer interaction among the diagonal elements $`x_{i\mu }`$ of the bosonic matrices $`A_\mu `$ might induce a collapse of the distribution of $`x_{i\mu }`$. Monte Carlo simulation of the low-energy effective theory at $`\nu =0`$  shows that the effect of $`S_b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(r)}`$ is not sufficient to induce a spontaneous breakdown of Lorentz invariance. However, after taking into account the effect of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}`$ by sending $`\nu `$ to infinity, it is very plausible that the remaining eight-dimensional Lorentz invariance of the models (23) and (24) is further broken by the effect of $`S_b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(r)}`$, because there is no entropical barrier against having degenerate configurations any more. If this is the case, the vacuum at $`\nu =\mathrm{}`$ is given by degenerate configurations with $`d<8`$. In this regard, we recall also that the pfaffian $`\text{Pf}(A)`$ is zero when $`\{A_\mu \}\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$, as stated in (15). Therefore, the dimensionality $`d`$ of the vacuum configurations must be $`d>2`$.

In order to check the above statements and to determine the dimensionality $`d`$ of the vacuum configurations at $`\nu =\mathrm{}`$, one has to carry out the integration over the saddle-point configurations described by (23) and (24), for example, by Monte Carlo simulation. Note that the model (23) is not plagued by the sign problem any more. The model (24), on the other hand, can be studied using the configurations generated with the model (23) as

$$𝒪_{\nu =2\mathrm{}+1}=\frac{𝒪\text{sgn}(det^{(8)})_{\nu =2\mathrm{}}}{\text{sgn}(det^{(8)})_{\nu =2\mathrm{}}}.$$
(25)
If the fermion determinant $`det^{(8)}`$ does not have a definite sign for dominant configurations, the denominator as well as the numerator of the r.h.s. in (25) becomes very small, exhibiting the sign problem. However, if it turns out that the vacuum of the model (23) is given by configurations with $`d6`$, then due to (14), we have $`\text{sgn}(det^{(8)})=1`$ for dominant configurations. In this case, the sign problem, which a priori exists in the model (24), is solved in a sense dynamically, and the model (24) is actually equivalent to the model (23), since $`𝒪_{\nu =2\mathrm{}+1}=𝒪_{\nu =2\mathrm{}}`$ for any observables $`𝒪`$.

To summarize, we considered a deformation of the IIB matrix model by introducing an integer parameter $`\nu `$ which couples to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}`$, the imaginary part of the effective action induced by fermions. We studied the deformed model at $`\nu =\mathrm{}`$, where the integration over the bosonic matrices is dominated by the configurations for which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}`$ is stationary. First of all, there is still a huge configuration space left as the saddle-point configurations which we have to integrate over. Secondly, these saddle-point configurations have more than two shrunken directions. Thirdly, the more shrunken directions the configuration has, the more stationary $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}`$ becomes. This gives rise to an enhancement for configurations with more shrunken directions, and the effect was shown to cancel exactly the $`N`$-dependent entropical barrier against having such configurations. An intriguing feature of this enhancement is that it occurs exactly when the configuration becomes a lower-dimensional hyperplane. This may be responsible for generating a flat space-time instead of a curved one or a fractal one, as a result of the dynamics of the IIB matrix model. We argued that the dimensionality $`d`$ of the space-time generated dynamically in the deformed IIB matrix model at $`\nu =\mathrm{}`$ is $`2<d8`$ and most likely $`d<8`$. We derived the models which describe the integration over the saddle-point configurations for the two a priori different limiting theories corresponding to the even/odd $`\nu `$ sequences. Remarkably, the model with the even $`\nu `$ sequence is not plagued by the sign problem. One can therefore study the model by standard Monte Carlo simulation to extract the dimensionality $`d`$ of the vacuum configurations. If this turns out to be $`d6`$, the model with the odd $`\nu `$ sequence is actually equivalent to the model with the even $`\nu `$ sequence.

Whether the original model ($`\nu =1`$) belongs to the same phase as $`\nu =\mathrm{}`$ is a nontrivial question, which is not accessible through standard Monte Carlo simulation due to the sign problem. We quote, however, an example from history, where an analogous approach was successful. It is the strong coupling limit in the lattice formulation of nonabelian gauge theories. Although one should send the bare coupling constant to zero in the continuum limit, confinement in these theories has been clearly demonstrated in the strong coupling limit . The limit also provides a qualitative understanding of the spontaneous breakdown of chiral symmetry . The existence of such an approach is indeed one of the advantages of having a nonperturbative formulation, which should also apply to the case of string theory. Note, however, that the above successes in the case of nonabelian gauge theories rely crucially on the fact that there is no phase transition between the strong coupling regime and the weak coupling regime . An illustrative example clarifying this point is that confinement holds in the strong coupling limit even for abelian gauge theories, for which there is actually a phase transition to a deconfining phase at an intermediate coupling constant.

The fact that the model at $`\nu =\mathrm{}`$ still has a huge configuration space to integrate over, which is quite peculiar to this system, may suggest that it is in fact quite close to the original model ($`\nu =1`$). Although it is hard to justify this statement rigorously, it would be certainly worthwhile to explore further the dynamics of the deformed IIB matrix model in this limit.

J. N. would like to thank K.N. Anagnostopoulos, T. Hotta, T. Izubuchi and A. Tsuchiya for collaborations at the earlier stage of this work. We are also grateful to J. Ambjørn, W. Bietenholz, D. Bödeker, F.R. Klinkhamer and N. Obers for valuable comments and discussions. J. N. is supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science as a Postdoctoral Fellow for Research Abroad. The work of G. V. is supported by MURST (Italy) within the project “Fisica Teorica delle Interazioni Fondamentali”.


format: text

text:
# Indistinguishability and nonlocality in Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment

## I Introduction

The recent experiments on teleportation  demonstrate that instantaneous transportation of information is an experimental fact. The quantum state of a given system may be transported from one location to another without moving through the intervening space. Partial implementations of quantum teleportation over macroscopic distances have been achieved by using optical systems. That suggests, in our opinion, that a revision on the very structure of space-time is demanded. Actually, teleportation is essentially based on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) experiment . We claim that we should revise to notion of space-time at microscopic levels, by taking into account the non-individuality of elementary particles. If two particles are indistinguishable, then we should not ascribe usual space-time coordinates to them, since these coordinates act like labels.

In this paper we consider that ‘indistinguishable’ objects are objects that share their properties, while ‘identical objects’ means ‘the very same object’, and not two objects at all. We need to settle this vocabulary, since in physics textbooks it is usual to consider the words ‘indistinguishable’ and ‘identical’ as synonymous.

Relativity does not allow signals with velocities greater than the speed of light in the vacuum. EPR suggests that there is an instantaneous communication between two elementary particles.

It is considered that the interference produced by two light beams, in a two-slit experiment, is determined by both their mutual coherence and the indistinguishability of the quantum particle paths. For instance, Mandel  has proposed a quantitative link between the wave and the particle descriptions by using an adequate decomposition of the density operator. In this paper we propose the use of a set-theoretical framework without identity for the EPR Gedanken experiment, which allows us to show that nonlocal phenomena between entangled particles is a logical consequence from their non-individuality.

The set-theory with no identity that we use is quasi-set theory . Quasi-set theory is based on Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms for sets and permits to cope with collections of indistinguishable objects by allowing the presence of two sorts of atoms (Urelemente), termed $`m`$-atoms and $`M`$-atoms. A binary relation of indistinguishability between $`m`$-atoms (denoted by the symbol $``$), is used instead of identity, and it is postulated that $``$ has the properties of an equivalence relation. The predicate of equality cannot be applied to the $`m`$-atoms, since no expression of the form $`x=y`$ is a well-formed formula if $`x`$ or $`y`$ denote $`m`$-atoms. Hence, there is a precise sense in saying that $`m`$-atoms can be indistinguishable without being identical.

We have recently proposed (with D. Krause and A. G. Volkov) that quasi-set theory provides a tool for dealing with collections of indistinguishable elementary particles . In  we proved (with A. M. S. Santos) that a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is possible even in an ensemble of indistinguishable particles. In this paper we show that indistinguishability implies nonlocality as it follows in the next paragraphs.

## II EPRB

The original Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Gedanken experiment dealt with measurements of position and momentum in a two-particle system. Here we appeal to the use of a composite spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ system started with D. Bohm. This kind of experimental setup we refer to as Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm (EPRB) experiment. Our discussion on this topic is essentially based on the classic textbook by J. J. Sakurai .

It is well known that the state ket of a two-electron system in a spin-singlet state can be described by:

$$\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right)(|𝐳+;𝐳|𝐳;𝐳+),$$
(1)
where $`𝐳`$ is an arbitrary quantization direction, and $`|𝐳+;𝐳`$ means that electron $`1`$ is in the spin-up state while electron $`2`$ is in the spin-down state. Something similar may be said about $`|𝐳;𝐳+`$.

If the spin component of particle $`1`$ is shown to be, e.g., in the spin-up state, the other particle component is necessarily in the spin-down state. This remarkable correlation has been experimentaly confirmed . Some authors have discussed the possibility of a comunication between entangled particles by means of ‘wormholes’ . In this paper we suggest another topological explanation of this weird phenomenum.

## III Quasi-Metric Spaces

Our mathematical framework for describing EPRB is quasi-sets. Quasi-set theory $`𝒬`$ allows the presence of two sorts of atoms (Urelemente), termed $`m`$-atoms and $`M`$-atoms, identified by two unary predicates $`m(x)`$ and $`M(x)`$, respectively. It is important to observe that the term ‘atom’ is in the mathematical sense. Concerning the $`m`$-atoms, a weaker ‘relation of indistinguishability’ (denoted by the symbol $``$), is used instead of identity, and it is postulated that $``$ has the properties of an equivalence relation.

The universe of $`𝒬`$ is composed by $`m`$-atoms, $`M`$-atoms and quasi-sets. The sentence ‘$`x`$ is a quasi-set’ is denoted by $`Q(x)`$, where $`Q`$ is a unary predicate. The axiomatics is adapted from that of ZFU (Zermelo-Fraenkel with Urelemente), and when we restrict the theory in not considering $`m`$-atoms, quasi-set theory is essentially equivalent to ZFU, and the corresponding quasi-sets will be termed ‘ZFU-sets’ (similarly, if also the $`m`$-atoms are ruled out, the theory collapses into ZFC). The $`M`$-atoms play the role of the Urelemente in the sense of ZFU.

In order to preserve the concept of identity for the ‘well-behaved’ objects, an extensional equality is introduced for those entities which are not $`m`$-atoms on the following grounds: for all $`x`$ and $`y`$, if they are not $`m`$-atoms, then $`x=_Ey`$ iff $`(Q(x)Q(y)(z(zxzy)))(M(x)M(y)xy)`$. We are using standard logical notation: $``$ is the conditional of propositional calculus, $`\neg `$ is negation, $``$ is conjunction, $``$ is disjunction, $``$ is the biconditional, and $``$ and $``$ are, respectively, the universal and the existential quantifiers of predicate calculus.

It is possible to prove that $`=_E`$ has all the properties of classical identity and so these properties hold regarding $`M`$-atoms and ‘ZFU-sets’. It is straight to see that we can easily define the binary relations “$`_E`$”, “$`<_E`$”, “$`>_E`$”, “$`_E`$”, and “$`_E`$”, as natural extensions, respectively, of “$``$”, “$`<`$”, “$`>`$”, “$``$”, and “$``$” in the ZFU-set of, e.g., real numbers.

According to the weak-pair axiom in quasi-set theory, for all $`x`$ and $`y`$, there exists a quasi-set whose elements are the indistinguishable objects from either $`x`$ or $`y`$. In symbols: $`xyz(Q(z)t(tztxty))`$. Such a quasi-set is denoted by $`[x,y]`$ and, when $`xy`$, we have $`[x]`$ by definition. We remark that this quasi-set cannot be regarded as the ‘singleton’ of $`x`$, since its elements are all the objects indistinguishable from $`x`$, so its ‘cardinality’ (or quasi-cardinality, if we use the original terminology in ) may be greater than $`1`$. A concept of strong singleton, which plays an important role in the applications of quasi-set theory, may be defined. We call $`[x]`$ a weak singleton.

It is rather intuitive that the concept of function cannot be defined in the standard way, so it is introduced a weaker concept of quasi-function, which maps collections of indistinguishable objects into collections of indistinguishable objects. When there are no $`m`$-atoms involved, the concept is reduced to that of function as usually understood.

The concept of relation is like the standard one: a quasi-set $`w`$ is a relation between two quasi-sets $`x`$ and $`y`$ if $`w`$ satisfies the following predicate $`R`$: $`R(w)`$ iff $`Q(w)z(zwuv(uxvyz=_Eu,v))`$. The notion of ordered pair $`u,v`$ is analogous to the usual definition.

As usual, if $`x=_Ey`$, we say that $`R`$ is a relation on $`x`$. We denote by $`Dom(R)`$ (the domain of $`R`$) the quasi-set $`[ux:u,vR]`$ and by $`Rang(R)`$ (the range of $`R`$) the quasi-set $`[vy:u,vR]`$.

Let $`x`$ and $`y`$ be quasi-sets. We say that $`f`$ is a quasi-function from $`x`$ to $`y`$ if $`f`$ is such that ($`R`$ is the predicate for ‘relation’ defined above): $`R(f)u(uxv(vyu,vf))uu^{}vv^{}(u,vfu^{},v^{}fuu^{}vv^{})`$.

As a final remark on this review on quasi-sets we say that there is a unary functional letter in the language of quasi-set theory named as $`qc`$. If $`x`$ is a variable, then $`qc(x)`$ corresponds to the quasi-cardinality of $`x`$, which is a cardinal. Roughly speaking, $`qc(x)`$ corresponds to the number of elements of $`x`$ and it is a natural extension of the usual notion of cardinality of a set.

Next we define metric spaces into the context of quasi-set theory. Our main goal is to define a very simple quasi-set-theoretical structure for a space-time of a system of two EPRB-correlated particles.

###### Definition 1

A quasi-metric space is an ordered pair $`X,d`$, such that:

1. $`X`$ is a non-empty quasi-set.
2. $`d:X\times X\mathrm{}`$ is a quasi-function which associates each ordered pair $`x,y`$ to a real number $`d(x,y)`$, which we refer to as the distance between $`x`$ and $`y`$.
3. $`d(x,y)=_E0`$ if and only if $`xy`$.
4. $`d(x,y)>_E0`$ if and only if $`\neg (xy)`$, that is, $`x`$ and $`y`$ are distinguishable ($`\neg `$ is the standard negation connective from mathematical logic).
5. $`d(x,y)=_Ed(y,x)`$.
6. $`d(x,z)_Ed(x,y)+d(y,z)`$

The above definition is a very natural generalization of the usual concept of metric space, which certainly deserves an adequate mathematical study that we do not accomplish here, since that task is out of the scope of this paper.

Now we present an example of a non-trivial quasi-metric space with its correspondent physical interpretation in terms of the EPRB Gedanken experiment.

###### Definition 2

An EPRB-Space is a quasi-metric space $`𝒮=_EM,d_q`$, where:

$`M=_EV[x]_2`$, where $`V\mathrm{}^n`$ is an open set of the usual set of ordered $`n`$-tuples of real numbers, endowed with the euclidian metric;111It could be a flat metric of Lorentz signature. $`[x]_2`$ is a weak singleton such that $`m(x)`$; and $`qc([x]_2)=_E2`$.

If $`a`$ and $`b`$ are elements of $`V`$ then $`d_E(a,b)_E2c`$, where $`d_E`$ is the euclidian distance, and $`c`$ is a real constant such that $`c>_E0`$.

$`d_q(x,a)=_Ed_q(a,x)=_Ec`$ for all $`x[x]_2`$, and for all $`aV`$.

$`d_q(a,b)=_Ed_E(a,b)`$ if $`a`$ and $`b`$ are both elements of $`V`$.

We know that the entanglement state of the two correlated particles in EPRB entails a relation of indistinguishability between them. So, such particles cannot be labeled by anything. The EPRB-correlated particles cannot be labeled by their coordinates in space-time, since they are indiscernibles and space-time is a classical structure with individual points. In other words, we propose another structure for space-time in quantum mechanics. We suggest that entangled quantum particles define another space-time structure (quasi-metric space $`𝒮`$), quite different from that one in classical mechanics. The space or space-time coordinates in $`V`$ correspond to the coordinates of macroscopic and distinguishable particles or devices. The quasi-set $`[x]_2`$ in axiom A1 of an EPRB space-time corresponds to the ‘coordinates’ (or corresponding quasi-metric space points) associated to the two-particle system of EPRB-correlated electrons. So, any “nonlocal” phenomena among EPRB-correlated particles is not nonlocal at all, since the distance between indiscernibles is always zero, according to axiom A1 in definition (2) and axiom 3 in definition (1). One interesting side result is that our system $`𝒮`$ does not allow us to localize the quantum indistinguishable particles, which are associated to the elements of $`[x]_2`$. That is, entangled particles do not have local coordinates in the usual sense. Nevertheless their distance to any point of $`V`$ is always constant.

It is easy to verify that the proper axioms of $`M,d_q`$ are consistent with those of a quasi-metric space. One natural question is: what is the role of constant $`c`$? Our idea is to extend the euclidian metric $`d_E`$ to a space which includes m-atoms $`x`$, i.e., Urelemente $`x`$ such that $`m(x)`$. Since $`d_q(a,x)`$ cannot be zero if $`m(x)`$ and $`a`$ is an ordered $`n`$-tuple of real numbers ($`\neg (xa)`$), then the simplest solution is to consider that $`d_q(a,x)`$ is constant. Nevertheless, if $`d_q(x,a)=_Ec`$, then we cannot consider $`V=_E\mathrm{}^n`$, since in this case we can easily show that assumption $`6`$ in Definition (1) is not satisfied. So, constant $`c`$ is closely related to the open set $`V`$.

Since our EPRB-space is restricted to a neighborhood $`V`$ of some points in $`\mathrm{}^n`$, it seems clear that this neighboorhood has something to do with the experimental fact that the spin measurement probe (in EPRB) is localized in a specific point of classical space-time. More specificaly, $`V`$ is the neighborhood of the space-time coordinates of the spin measurement probes. In other words, the region $`V`$ may be regarded as the set-theoretical union of two open balls in $`\mathrm{}^n`$ which are associated to the space-time regions occupied by the two spin measurement devices in the EPRB experiment. See FIG. 1.

Such a mathematical model is not in conflict with not-instantaneous electromagnetic interactions between the two correlated electrons if we consider that this null distance between them allows just interactions directly related to the entangled state involved. Besides, it is a nice result that any null distance is obviously invariant under Galilean as well as Lorentzian transformations of coordinates. Despite the fact that simultaneity depends on the observer in special relativity, this simultaneity occurs between two points very close (null distance). It seems natural to admit that a relativistic approach to this kind of space-time structure is demanded. But that is a task for future works.

## IV Conclusions

According to FIG. 1 and our previous explanation, nonlocality in EPRB is a misunderstanding. Although the distance between the spin measurement devices is not zero, the distance between the two particles is null. So, there is no non-local phenomena at all. Besides, the distance between a given particle of the EPRB system and any point of $`V`$ (the space-time region occupied by the spin peasurement devices) is always $`c`$. This last result is a confirmation that there is no manner to localize indistinguishable particles in a specific point of space-time, but there is a way to associate these particles to neighborhoods in space-time. Such an association may cause the illusion that the particles in this system can be localized. But they cannot, since EPRB correlated particles are indistinguishable.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Within the framework of the Standard Model of electroweak interactions, the elements of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa mixing matrix are free parameters, constrained only by the requirement that the matrix be unitary. The values of the matrix elements can only be determined by experiment. Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET) provides a means to extract the magnitude of the element $`V_{\mathrm{cb}}`$ from particular semileptonic b decays, with relatively small theoretical uncertainties .

In this paper, the value of $`|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ is extracted by studying the decay rate for the process $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ as a function of the recoil kinematics of the $`\mathrm{D}^+`$ meson 111Charge conjugate reactions are always implied, and the symbol $`\mathrm{}`$ refers to either an electron or muon. . The decay rate is parameterised as a function of the variable $`\omega `$, defined as the scalar product of the four-velocities of the $`\mathrm{D}^+`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0`$ mesons. This is related to the square of the four-momentum transfer from the $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0`$ to the $`\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ system, $`q^2`$, by

$$\omega =\frac{m_{\mathrm{D}^+}^2+m_{\mathrm{B}^0}^2q^2}{2m_{\mathrm{B}^0}m_{\mathrm{D}^+}},$$
(1)
and ranges from 1, when the $`\mathrm{D}^+`$ is produced at rest in the $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0`$ rest frame, to about 1.50. Using HQET, the differential partial width for this decay is given by

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu })}{\mathrm{d}\omega }=\frac{1}{\tau _{\mathrm{B}^0}}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{Br}(\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu })}{\mathrm{d}\omega }=𝒦(\omega )^2(\omega )|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|^2,$$
(2)
where $`𝒦(\omega )`$ is a known phase space term and $`(\omega )`$ is the hadronic form factor for this decay. Although the shape of this form factor is not known, its magnitude at zero recoil, $`\omega =1`$, can be estimated using HQET. In the heavy quark limit ($`m_\mathrm{b}\mathrm{}`$), $`(\omega )`$ coincides with the Isgur-Wise function  which is normalised to unity at the point of zero recoil. Corrections to $`(1)`$ have been calculated to take into account the effects of finite quark masses and QCD corrections, yielding the value and theoretical uncertainty $`(1)=0.913\pm 0.042`$ . Since the phase space factor $`𝒦(w)`$ tends to zero as $`\omega 1`$, the decay rate vanishes at $`\omega =1`$ and the accuracy of the extrapolation relies on achieving a reasonably constant reconstruction efficiency in the region near $`\omega =1`$.

Previous measurements of $`|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ have been made using B mesons produced on the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance  and in $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decays . These analyses used a linear or constrained quadratic expansion of $`(\omega )`$ around $`\omega =1`$. An improved theoretical analysis, based on dispersive bounds and including higher order corrections, has since become available . This results in a parameterisation for $`(\omega )`$ in terms of $`(1)`$ and a single unknown parameter $`\rho ^2`$ constrained to lie in the range $`0.14<\rho ^2<1.54`$, $`\rho ^2`$ corresponding to the slope of $`(\omega )`$ at zero recoil.

The previous OPAL measurement  used the decay chain $`\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{D}^0\pi ^+`$, with the $`\mathrm{D}^0`$ meson being reconstructed in the exclusive decay channels $`\mathrm{D}^0\mathrm{K}^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`\mathrm{D}^0\mathrm{K}^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$. In this paper, a new analysis is described in which only the $`\pi ^+`$ from the $`\mathrm{D}^+`$ decay is identified, and no attempt is made to reconstruct the $`\mathrm{D}^0`$ decay exclusively. This technique, first employed by DELPHI , gives a much larger sample of $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ decays than the previous measurement, but also larger background, requiring a rather more complex analysis. The measurement of  is also updated to use the new parameterisation of $`(\omega )`$, and improved background models and physics inputs. In both cases, the initial number of $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ mesons is determined from other measurements of $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ production in $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decays.

The new reconstruction technique is described in Section 2, the determination of $`\omega `$ for each event in Section 3, the fit to extract $`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ and $`\rho ^2`$ in Section 4 and the systematic errors in Section 5. The updated exclusive measurement is discussed in Section 6 and the measurements are combined and conclusions drawn in Section 7.

## 2 Inclusive reconstruction of $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ events

The OPAL detector is well described elsewhere . The data sample used in this analysis consists of about 4 million hadronic $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decays collected during the period 1991–1995, at centre-of-mass energies in the vicinity of the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ resonance. Corresponding simulated event samples were generated using JETSET 7.4  as described in .

Hadronic $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decays were selected using standard criteria . To ensure the event was well contained within the acceptance of the detector, the thrust axis direction222A right handed coordinate system is used, with positive $`z`$ along the electron beam direction and $`x`$ pointing to the centre of the LEP ring. The polar and azimuthal angles are denoted by $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$. was required to satisfy $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _T|<0.9`$. Charged tracks and electromagnetic calorimeter clusters with no associated tracks were then combined into jets using a cone algorithm , with a cone half angle of 0.65 rad and a minimum jet energy of 5 GeV. The transverse momentum $`p_t`$ of each track was defined relative to the axis of the jet containing it, where the jet axis was calculated including the momentum of the track. A total of 3 117 544 events passed the event selection.

The reconstruction of $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ events was then performed by combining high $`p`$ and $`p_t`$ lepton (electron or muon) candidates with oppositely charged pions from the $`\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{D}^0\pi ^+`$ decay. Electrons were identified and photon conversions rejected using neural network algorithms , and muons were identified as in . Both electrons and muons were required to have momenta $`p>2\mathrm{GeV}`$, transverse momenta with respect to the jet axis $`p_t>0.7\mathrm{GeV}`$, and to lie in the polar angle region $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.9`$.

The event sample was further enhanced in semileptonic b decays by requiring a separated secondary vertex with decay length significance $`L/\sigma _L>2`$ in any jet of the event. The vertex reconstruction algorithm and decay length significance calculation are described fully in . Together with the lepton selection, these requirements result in a sample which is about 90 % pure in $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ events.

An attempt was made to estimate the $`\mathrm{D}^0`$ direction in each jet containing a lepton candidate. Each track (apart from the lepton) and calorimeter cluster in the jet was assigned a weight corresponding to the estimated probability that it came from the $`\mathrm{D}^0`$ decay. The track weight was calculated from an artificial neural network, trained to separate tracks from b decays and fragmentation tracks in b jets . The network inputs are the track momentum, transverse momentum with respect to the jet axis, and impact parameter significances with respect to the reconstructed primary and secondary vertices (if existing). The cluster weights were calculated using their energies and angles with respect to the jet axis alone, the energies first being corrected by subtracting the energy of any charged tracks associated to the cluster .

Beginning with the track or cluster with the largest weight, tracks and clusters were then grouped together until the invariant mass of the group (assigning tracks the pion mass and clusters zero mass) exceeded the charm hadron mass, taken to be 1.8 GeV. If the final invariant mass exceeded 2.3 GeV, the jet was rejected, since Monte Carlo studies showed such high mass $`\mathrm{D}^0`$ candidates were primarily background. For surviving jets, the momentum $`𝐩_{\mathrm{D}^0}`$ of the group was used as an estimate of the $`\mathrm{D}^0`$ direction, giving RMS angular resolutions of about 45 mrad in $`\varphi `$ and $`\theta `$. The $`\mathrm{D}^0`$ energy was calculated as $`E_{\mathrm{D}^0}=\sqrt{p_{\mathrm{D}^0}^2+m_{\mathrm{D}^0}^2}`$.

The selection of pions from $`\mathrm{D}^+`$ decays relies on the small mass difference of only 145 MeV  between the $`\mathrm{D}^+`$ and $`\mathrm{D}^0`$, which means the pions have very little transverse momentum with respect to the $`\mathrm{D}^0`$ direction. Each track in the jet (other than the lepton) was considered as a slow pion candidate, provided it satisfied $`0.5<p<2.5`$ GeV and had a transverse momentum with respect to the $`\mathrm{D}^0`$ direction of less than 0.3 GeV. If the pion under consideration was included in the reconstructed $`\mathrm{D}^0`$, it was removed and the $`\mathrm{D}^0`$ momentum and energy recalculated. The final selection was made using the reconstructed mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ between $`\mathrm{D}^+`$ and $`\mathrm{D}^0`$ mesons, calculated as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m=\sqrt{E_\mathrm{D}^{}^2|𝐩_\mathrm{D}^{}|^2}m_{\mathrm{D}^0},$$

where the $`\mathrm{D}^+`$ energy is given by $`E_\mathrm{D}^{}=E_{\mathrm{D}^0}+E_\pi `$ and momentum by $`𝐩_\mathrm{D}^{}=𝐩_{\mathrm{D}^0}+𝐩_\pi `$.

A new secondary vertex was then iteratively reconstructed around an initial seed vertex formed by the intersection of the lepton and slow pion tracks. Every other track in the jet was added in turn to the seed vertex, and the vertex refitted. The track resulting in the lowest vertex fit $`\chi ^2`$ was retained in the seed vertex for the next iteration. The procedure was repeated until no more tracks could be added without reducing the vertex fit $`\chi ^2`$ probability to less than 1 %. The decay length $`L^{}`$ between the primary vertex and this secondary vertex, and the associated error $`\sigma _L^{}`$, were calculated as in . The pion candidate was accepted if the decay length satisfied $`0.1\mathrm{cm}<L^{}<2`$ cm and the decay length significance satisfied $`L^{}/\sigma _L^{}>2`$.

The resulting distributions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ for opposite and same sign lepton-pion combinations are shown in Figure 1(a) and (b). The predictions of the Monte Carlo simulation are also shown, broken down into contributions from signal $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ events, ‘resonant’ background containing real leptons and slow pions from $`\mathrm{D}^+`$ decay, and combinatorial background, made up of events with fake slow pions, fake leptons or both.

In Monte Carlo simulation, about 45 % of opposite sign events with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m<0.17\mathrm{GeV}`$ are signal $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ events, 14 % are resonant background and 41 % are combinatorial background. The resonant background is made up mainly of $`\mathrm{B}^{}\mathrm{D}^+\pi ^{}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\pi ^0\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{K}^0\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ decays. These are expected to be dominated by b semileptonic decays involving orbitally excited charm mesons (generically referred to as $`\mathrm{D}^{}`$), e.g. $`\mathrm{B}^{}\mathrm{D}^0\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ followed by $`\mathrm{D}^0\mathrm{D}^+\pi ^{}`$. These decays will be denoted collectively by $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{h}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$. Small contributions are also expected from $`\mathrm{b}\mathrm{D}^+\tau \overline{\nu }\mathrm{X}`$ decays with the $`\tau `$ decaying leptonically, and $`\mathrm{b}\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\mathrm{X}`$ with the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ decaying semileptonically (each about 1 % of opposite sign events). For same sign events with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m<0.17`$GeV, there is a small resonant contribution of about 6 % from events with a real $`\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{D}^0\pi ^+`$ where the $`\mathrm{D}^0`$ decays semileptonically, and the rest is combinatorial background.

The most important background, from $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{h}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ decays, comes from both charged $`\mathrm{B}^+`$ and neutral $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ and $`\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{s}`$ decays, whereas the signal comes only from $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ decays. Therefore the charge $`Q_{\mathrm{vtx}}`$ of the reconstructed secondary vertex containing the lepton and slow pion and its estimated error $`\sigma _{Q_{\mathrm{vtx}}}`$ were calculated, using

$`Q_{\mathrm{vtx}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}w_iq_i,`$
$`\sigma _{Q_{\mathrm{vtx}}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}w_i(1w_i)q_i^2,`$
where $`w_i`$ is the weight for track $`i`$ of charge $`q_i`$ to come from the secondary vertex, and the sums are taken over all tracks in the jet . The weights were calculated in a similar way to those used for the $`\mathrm{D}^0`$ direction reconstruction, using a neural network with the track momentum, transverse momentum and impact parameter significances with respect to the reconstructed primary and secondary vertices as inputs. The weights for the lepton and slow pion candidate tracks were set to one. The vertex charge distributions for opposite sign events with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m<0.17`$GeV are shown in Figure 1(c) and (d).

The reconstructed vertex charge and error were used to divide the data into different classes enhanced or depleted in $`\mathrm{B}^+`$ decays, thus reducing the effect of this background and increasing the statistical sensitivity. Three classes $`c`$ were used—class 1 where the charge is measured poorly ($`\sigma _{Q_{\mathrm{vtx}}}>0.9`$), class 2 where the charge is measured well and is compatible with a neutral vertex ($`\sigma _{Q_{\mathrm{vtx}}}<0.9`$, $`|Q_{\mathrm{vtx}}|<0.5`$) and class 3 where the charge is measured well and is compatible with a charged vertex ($`\sigma _{Q_{\mathrm{vtx}}}<0.9`$, $`|Q_{\mathrm{vtx}}|>0.5`$).

## 3 Reconstruction of $`𝝎`$

The recoil variable $`\omega `$ was estimated in each event using the reconstructed four-momentum transfer to the $`\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ system:

$$q^2=(E_{\mathrm{B}^0}E_\mathrm{D}^{})^2(𝐩_{\mathrm{B}^0}𝐩_\mathrm{D}^{})^2$$

together with equation 1. The $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ and $`\mathrm{D}^+`$ energies $`E_{\mathrm{B}^0}`$ and $`E_\mathrm{D}^{}`$ were estimated directly, whilst the momentum vectors $`𝐩_{\mathrm{B}^0}`$ and $`𝐩_\mathrm{D}^{}`$ were estimated using the energies together with the reconstructed polar and azimuthal angles, as described in more detail below.

Since the slow pion has very little momentum in the rest frame of the decaying $`\mathrm{D}^+`$, the momentum (and hence energy) of the $`\mathrm{D}^+`$ was estimated by scaling the reconstructed slow pion momentum by $`m_{\mathrm{D}^+}/m_\pi `$, as for the $`\mathrm{D}^0\mathrm{K}^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ channel in . A small correction (never exceeding 12 %) was applied, as a function of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}`$, the angle of the slow pion in the rest frame of the $`\mathrm{D}^0`$. This procedure gave a fractional $`\mathrm{D}^+`$ energy resolution of 15 %. The polar and azimuthal angles of the $`\mathrm{D}^+`$ were reconstructed using weighted averages of the slow pion and $`\mathrm{D}^0`$ directions, giving resolutions of about 22 mrad on both $`\varphi `$ and $`\theta `$.

The energy of the $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ was estimated using a technique similar to that described in , exploiting the overall energy and momentum conservation in the event to calculate the energy of the unreconstructed neutrino. First, the energy $`E_{\mathrm{bjet}}`$ of the jet containing the $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ was inferred from the measured particles in the rest of the event, by treating the event as a two-body decay of a $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ into a b jet (whose mass was approximated by the $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ mass) and another object making up the rest of the event. Then, the total fragmentation energy $`E_{\mathrm{frag}}`$ in the b jet was estimated from the measured visible energy in the b jet and the identified $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ decay products: $`E_{\mathrm{frag}}=E_{\mathrm{vis}}E_{\mathrm{}}E_\mathrm{D}^{}`$. Finally, the $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ energy was calculated as $`E_{\mathrm{B}^0}=E_{\mathrm{bjet}}E_{\mathrm{frag}}`$, giving an RMS resolution of 4.4 GeV.

The b direction was estimated using a combination of two techniques. In the first, the momentum vector of the $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ was reconstructed from its decay products:

$$𝐩_{\mathrm{B}^0}=𝐩_\mathrm{D}^{}+𝐩_{\mathrm{}}+𝐩_{\overline{\nu }},$$

the neutrino energy being estimated from the reverse of the event visible momentum vector: $`𝐩_{\overline{\nu }}=𝐩_{\mathrm{vis}}`$. The visible momentum was calculated using all the reconstructed tracks and clusters in the event, with a correction for charged particles measured both in the tracking detectors and calorimeters . This direction estimate is strongly degraded if a second neutrino is present (e.g. from another semileptonic b decay in the opposite hemisphere of the event), and its error was parameterised as a function of the visible energy in the opposite hemisphere. The resulting resolution is typically between 40 and 100 mrad for both $`\varphi `$ and $`\theta `$.

The second method of estimating the $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ direction used the vertex flight direction—i.e. the direction of the vector between the primary vertex and the secondary vertex reconstructed around the lepton and slow pion as described in Section 2. The accuracy of this estimate is strongly dependent on the $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ decay length, and was used only if the decay length significance $`L^{}/\sigma _L^{}`$ exceeded 3. After this cut, the angular resolution varies between about 15 and 100 mrad, and is worse for $`\theta `$ in the 1991 and 1992 data where accurate $`z`$ information from the silicon microvertex detector was not available. The $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ candidate was rejected if the two reconstruction methods gave $`\theta `$ or $`\varphi `$ angles disagreeing by more than three standard deviations, which happened in 7 % of Monte Carlo signal events. Finally, the two $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ direction estimates were combined according to their estimated uncertainties, giving average resolutions of 35 mrad on $`\varphi `$ and 43 mrad on $`\theta `$, including events where only the first method was used.

The estimate of $`q^2`$ derived from the $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ and $`\mathrm{D}^+`$ energies and angles was improved by applying the constraint that the mass $`\mu `$ of the neutrino produced in the $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay should be zero. The neutrino mass is given from the reconstructed quantities by:

$$\mu ^2=(E_{\mathrm{B}^0}E_\mathrm{D}^{}E_{\mathrm{}})^2(𝐩_{\mathrm{B}^0}𝐩_\mathrm{D}^{}𝐩_{\mathrm{}})^2.$$

The constraint was implemented by calculating $`q^2`$ using a kinematic fit, incorporating the measured values and estimated uncertainties of the $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ and $`\mathrm{D}^+`$ energies and angles (the $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ angular uncertainties varying event by event). This procedure improved the average $`q^2`$ resolution from 2.78 GeV2 to 2.57 GeV2. In Monte Carlo simulation, 11 % of signal events were reconstructed with $`q^2<0`$, corresponding to an unphysical value of $`\omega `$ larger than $`\omega _{\mathrm{max}}1.5`$, and were rejected.

The resulting distributions of reconstructed $`\omega `$ for various ranges of true $`\omega `$ (denoted $`\omega ^{}`$) in simulated $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ decays are shown in Figure 2(a–e). The average RMS $`\omega `$ resolution is about 0.12, but there are significant non-Gaussian tails. The resolution was parameterised (separately for the 1991–2 and 1993–5 data) as a continuous function $`R(\omega ,\omega ^{})`$ giving the expected distribution of reconstructed $`\omega `$ for each true value $`\omega ^{}`$. The resolution function was implemented as the sum of two asymmetric Gaussians (i.e. with different widths either side of the peak) whose parameters were allowed to vary as a function of $`\omega ^{}`$. The convolution of this resolution function with the Monte Carlo $`\omega ^{}`$ distribution is also shown in Figure 2(a–e), demonstrating that the resolution function models the $`\omega `$ distributions well.

The efficiency to reconstruct $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ decays $`ϵ(\omega ^{})`$ is shown in Figure 2(f), together with a second order polynomial parameterisation. The efficiency varies with $`\omega ^{}`$, but is reasonably flat in the critical region near $`\omega ^{}=1`$ where the extrapolation to measure $`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ is carried out.

## 4 Fit and results

The values of $`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ and $`\rho ^2`$ were extracted using an extended maximum likelihood fit to the reconstructed mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$, recoil $`\omega `$ and vertex charge class $`c`$ of each event. Both opposite and same sign events with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m<0.3\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\omega <\omega _{\mathrm{max}}`$ were used in the fit, the high $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ and same sign events serving to constrain the combinatorial background normalisation and shapes in the opposite sign low $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ region populated by the $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ decays. Using the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ value from each event in the fit, rather than just dividing the data into low $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ ‘signal’ and high $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ ‘sideband’ mass regions, increases the statistical sensitivity as the signal purity varies considerably within the low $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ region.

The logarithm of the overall likelihood was given by

$$\mathrm{ln}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{M^a}{}}\mathrm{ln}_i^a+\underset{j=1}{\overset{M^b}{}}\mathrm{ln}_j^bN^aN^b$$
(3)
where the sums of individual event log-likelihoods $`\mathrm{ln}_i^a`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}_j^b`$ are taken over all the observed $`M^a`$ opposite sign and $`M^b`$ same sign events in the data sample, and $`N^a`$ and $`N^b`$ are the corresponding expected numbers of events.

The likelihood for each opposite sign event was given in terms of different types or sources of event by

$$_i^a(\mathrm{\Delta }m_i,\omega _i,c_i)=\underset{s=1}{\overset{4}{}}N_s^af_{s,c_i}^aM_{s,c_i}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_i)P_s(\omega _i)$$
(4)
where $`N_s^a`$ is the number of expected events for source $`s`$, $`f_{s,c}^a`$ is the fraction of events in source $`s`$ appearing in vertex charge class $`c`$, $`M_{s,c}(\mathrm{\Delta }m)`$ is the mass difference distribution for source $`s`$ in class $`c`$ and $`P_s(\omega )`$ the recoil distribution for source $`s`$. For each source, the vertex charge fractions $`f_{s,c}^a`$ sum to one and the mass difference $`M_{s,c}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_i)`$ and recoil $`P_s(\omega )`$ distributions are normalised to one. The total number of expected events is given by the sum of the individual contributions: $`N^a=_{s=1}^4N_s^a`$.

There are four opposite sign sources: (1) signal $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ events, (2) $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{h}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ events where the $`\mathrm{D}^+`$ is produced via an intermediate resonance ($`\mathrm{D}^{}`$), (3) other opposite sign background involving a genuine lepton and a slow pion from $`\mathrm{D}^+`$ decay and (4) combinatorial background. The sum of sources 2 and 3 are shown as ‘resonant background’ in Figure 1. A similar expression to equation 4 was used for $`_j^b`$, the event likelihood for same sign events. In this case, only sources 3 and 4 contribute.

The mass difference distributions $`M_{c,s}(\mathrm{\Delta }m)`$ for sources 1–3 were represented by analytic functions, whose parameters were determined using large numbers of simulated events, as were the recoil distributions $`P_s(\omega )`$ for sources 2 and 3. The fractions in each vertex charge class for sources 1–3 were also taken from simulation. For the signal (source 1), the product of the expected number of events $`N_1^a`$ and recoil distribution $`P_1(\omega )`$ was given by convolving the differential partial decay width (equation 2) with the signal resolution function and reconstruction efficiency:

$$N_1^aP_1(\omega )=4N_\mathrm{Z}R_\mathrm{b}f_{\mathrm{B}^0}\tau _{\mathrm{B}^0}\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{D}^0\pi ^+)_1^{\omega _{\mathrm{max}}}^2(\omega ^{})|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|^2𝒦(\omega ^{})ϵ(\omega ^{})R(\omega ,\omega ^{})𝑑\omega ^{}$$

where $`N_\mathrm{Z}`$ is the number of hadronic $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decays passing the event selection, $`R_\mathrm{b}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{had}}`$ is the fraction of hadronic $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decays to $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$, $`f_{\mathrm{B}^0}`$ the fraction of b quarks hadronising to a $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0`$ and $`\tau _{\mathrm{B}^0}`$ the $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ lifetime. The factor of four accounts for the two b hadrons produced per $`\mathrm{Z}^0\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ event and the two identified lepton species (electrons and muons). The form factor $`(\omega ^{})`$ is given in  in terms of the normalisation $`(1)`$ and slope parameter $`\rho ^2`$. The efficiency function $`ϵ(\omega ^{})`$ and resolution function $`R(\omega ,\omega ^{})`$ were described in Section 3, and the known phase space factor $`𝒦(\omega ^{})`$ is given in . The assumed values of the numerical quantities are given in Table 1.

Since the data are divided into different vertex charge classes enhanced and depleted in $`\mathrm{B}^+`$ decays, the fit gives some information on the amount of $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{h}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ background. The predicted level of this background in the fit was therefore allowed to vary under a Gaussian constraint corresponding to the branching ratio of $`\mathrm{Br}(b\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{h}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu })=(0.76\pm 0.16)\%`$. The latter has been calculated from the measured branching ratio $`\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{D}^+\pi ^{}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }\mathrm{X})=(0.473\pm 0.095)\%`$ , assuming isospin and SU(3) flavour symmetry to obtain the corresponding $`\mathrm{b}\mathrm{D}^+\pi ^0\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ and $`\mathrm{b}\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{K}^0\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ branching ratios. A scaling factor of $`0.75\pm 0.25`$ was included for the last branching ratio to account for possible SU(3) violation effects reducing the branching ratio $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^+\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{K}^0`$ compared to the expectation of $`\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{D}^+\pi ^0)`$. The $`P_2(\omega )`$ distribution for these events was taken from simulation, using the calculation of Leibovich et al. to predict their recoil spectrum.

The numbers $`N_3^{a,b}`$ and $`P_3(\omega )`$ distributions for the small background contributions covered by source 3 (both opposite and same sign) were taken from Monte Carlo simulation, with branching ratios adjusted to the values given in Table 1. The branching ratio for $`\mathrm{b}\mathrm{D}^+\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }`$ was derived using the inclusive branching ratio $`\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{b}\tau \mathrm{X})=(2.6\pm 0.4)\%`$ , assuming a $`\mathrm{D}^+`$ is produced in a fraction $`0.25\pm 0.03`$ of the time, as seen for the corresponding decays $`\mathrm{b}\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}\mathrm{X}`$ and $`\mathrm{b}\mathrm{}\mathrm{X}`$ ($`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{e},\mu `$) . The rate of $`\mathrm{b}\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\mathrm{X}`$ was assumed to be dominated by the two body decay $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{()}`$. The rate of real $`\mathrm{D}^+`$ decays in the same sign background depends on the production fractions of $`\mathrm{D}^+`$ in $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ and $`\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}`$ events, which were taken from .

The parameters of the analytic functions describing the combinatorial background ($`N_4^a`$, $`N_4^b`$, $`f_{4,c}^a`$, $`f_{4,c}^b`$, $`M_{4,c}(\mathrm{\Delta }m)`$ and $`P_4(\omega )`$) were fitted entirely from the data, with only the choice of functional forms motivated by simulation. The shapes of the mass and recoil functions (including a small correlation between $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ and $`\omega `$) are constrained by the same sign sample (which is almost entirely combinatorial background), and are the same for each vertex charge class $`c`$. The opposite sign high $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ region serves to normalise the number of combinatorial background events in the low $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ region for each vertex charge class.

The values of $`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ and $`\rho ^2`$ were extracted by maximising the total likelihood given by equation 3. The values of $`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ and $`\rho ^2`$ were allowed to vary, together with the level of $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{h}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ background and 13 auxiliary parameters describing the combinatorial background distributions. A result of

$`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ $`=`$ $`(37.5\pm 1.2)\times 10^3,`$
$`\rho ^2`$ $`=`$ $`1.12\pm 0.14`$
was obtained, where the errors are only statistical. The correlation between $`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ and $`\rho ^2`$ is 0.77. The distributions of reconstructed $`\omega `$ for opposite and same sign events with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m<0.17`$ GeV, together with the fit results, are shown in Figure 3. The fit describes the data well, both in this region and the high $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ region dominated by combinatorial background, for all three of the vertex charge classes.

By integrating the differential partial decay width (equation 2) over all values of $`\omega `$, the branching ratio $`\mathrm{Br}(\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu })`$ was also determined to be

$$\mathrm{Br}(\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu })=(5.92\pm 0.27)\%,$$

where again the error is statistical only. This result is consistent with the world average once systematic errors are included.

Many previous results have been obtained using a constrained quadratic expansion for the form factor: $`(\omega )=(1)\left[1a^2(\omega 1)+b(\omega 1)^2\right]`$, where $`a`$ is a slope parameter to be determined by the fit, and $`b`$ is constrained to $`b=0.66a^20.11`$ . To allow comparison with such measurements, the fit was also performed with this parameterisation of $`(\omega )`$, giving the results $`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|=(36.9\pm 1.2)\times 10^3`$ and $`a^2=0.88\pm 0.14`$, the correlation between $`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ and $`a^2`$ being 0.79. The difference in the two curvature parameters $`\rho ^2`$ and $`a^2`$ is in good agreement with the expectation of $`\rho ^2a^20.21`$ .

## 5 Systematic Errors

Systematic errors arise from the uncertainties in the fit input parameters given in Table 1, the Monte Carlo modelling of the signal $`\omega `$ resolution, the recoil spectrum of $`\mathrm{b}\mathrm{D}^{}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ decays and selection efficiencies, and possible biases in the fitting method. The resulting systematic errors on the values of $`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$, $`\rho ^2`$ and $`\mathrm{Br}(\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu })`$ are summarized in Table 2 and described in more detail below.

The various numerical fit inputs were each varied according to the errors given in Table 1 and the fit repeated to assess the resulting uncertainties.

The calculation of Leibovich et al. was used to simulate the recoil spectrum of $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{h}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ decays, assumed to be produced via the semileptonic decay $`\mathrm{B}^0\mathrm{D}^{}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$. Here $`\mathrm{D}^{}`$ represents a P-wave orbitally excited charm meson. The calculation predicts the recoil spectra and relative rates of semileptonic decays involving both the narrow $`\mathrm{D}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{D}_2^{}`$ states and wide $`\mathrm{D}_0^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{D}_1^{}`$ states. All these decays are suppressed close to $`\omega =1`$ by an extra factor of $`(\omega ^21)`$ when compared with the signal $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ decays. This reduces the uncertainty due to the rate of $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{h}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ decays in the extrapolation of the signal recoil spectrum to $`\omega =1`$. Non-resonant $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{h}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ decays are not included in the model, but are not expected to contribute close to $`\omega =1`$.

The differential decay rates in  are given in terms of five possible expansion schemes and several unknown parameters: a kinetic energy term $`\eta _{\mathrm{ke}}`$ and the slopes of the Isgur-Wise functions for the narrow and wide $`\mathrm{D}^{}`$ states $`\widehat{\tau _1}`$ and $`\widehat{\zeta _1}`$. These parameters were varied within the allowed ranges $`0.75<\eta _{\mathrm{ke}}<0.75`$GeV, $`2<\widehat{\tau _1}<1`$ and $`2<\widehat{\zeta _1}<0`$ subject to the constraint that the ratio $`R=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}D_2^{}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu })/(\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}D_1\mathrm{}\overline{\nu })`$ lie within the measured range $`R=0.37\pm 0.16`$ . This excludes the expansion schemes $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`B_{\mathrm{}}`$ of  and constrains the allowable values of $`\eta _{\mathrm{ke}}`$ in the others. The fraction of $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}\mathrm{D}^{}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ decays involving the narrow $`\mathrm{D}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{D}_2^{}`$ states, which is not precisely predicted, was varied in the range $`0.22\pm 0.06`$, obtained by comparing the measured rates for $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ semileptonic decays involving $`\mathrm{D}^+`$, $`\mathrm{D}^+`$, $`\mathrm{D}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{D}_2^{}`$ with the inclusive semileptonic decay rate . The systematic errors were determined as half the difference between the two parameter sets giving the most extreme variations in $`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ and $`\rho ^2`$, and the central values were adjusted to half way between these two extremes. The values of both $`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ and $`\rho ^2`$ are most sensitive to variations in $`\eta _{\mathrm{ke}}`$, which is constrained by the measured value of $`R`$.

The effect of uncertainties in the average b hadron energy $`x_E=E_\mathrm{b}/E_{\mathrm{beam}}`$ was assessed in Monte Carlo simulation by reweighting the events so as to vary $`x_E`$ in the range $`0.702\pm 0.008`$ , and repeating the fit. The largest of the variations observed using the fragmentation functions of Peterson, Collins and Spiller, Kartvelishvili and the Lund group  were taken as systematic errors.

The signal reconstruction efficiency and vertex charge distributions are sensitive to the $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ decay multiplicity, which depends only on the $`\mathrm{D}^0`$ decay for the $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ decay channels of interest. The systematic error was assessed by varying separately the $`\mathrm{D}^0`$ charged and $`\pi ^0`$ decay multiplicities in Monte Carlo simulation according to the measurements of Mark III . The branching ratio $`\mathrm{D}^0\mathrm{K}^0,\overline{\mathrm{K}}^0`$ was also varied according to its uncertainty . The resulting uncertainties on $`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ and $`\rho ^2`$ from each variation were added in quadrature to determine the total systematic errors.

The modelling of the $`\omega `$ resolution depends on the description of the $`\mathrm{D}^+`$ and $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ energy and angular distributions in the simulation. The reconstructed $`\mathrm{D}^+`$ and $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ energy distributions in data and simulation were compared, and the means were found to differ by 0.04 and 0.13 GeV respectively. The opposite hemisphere missing energy was found to agree within 5 %. The corresponding systematics were assessed by shifting or scaling the data distributions and repeating the $`\omega `$ reconstruction and fit. The modelling of the angular resolution was checked by studying the agreement of the two angular estimators—the slow pion and $`\mathrm{D}^0`$ directions for the the $`\mathrm{D}^+`$, and the missing energy vector and vertex flight directions for the $`\mathrm{B}^0`$. The angular resolutions were found to be up to 5 % worse in data, and the systematic error was assessed by degrading the simulated resolution appropriately. Finally, the fraction of events with $`\omega `$ reconstructed in the physical region ($`\omega <\omega _{\mathrm{max}}`$) was found to be 3.5 % smaller in the data, in both opposite and same sign charge samples. The reconstruction efficiency was corrected for this effect, and an additional systematic error of half the correction ($`1.7\%`$) assumed. The final systematic errors due to $`\omega `$ resolution modelling are dominated by the $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ $`\theta `$ resolution.

The electron identification efficiency has been studied using control samples of pure electrons from $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ events and photon conversions, and found to be modelled to a a precision of 4.1 % . The muon identification efficiency has been studied using muon pairs producted in two-photon collisions and $`\mathrm{Z}^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ events, giving an uncertainty of 2.1 % .

The fraction of hemispheres with identified leptons which also had a selected secondary vertex was found to be about 4 % less in data than in simulation. The overall fraction of vertex tagged hemispheres was also found to be about 4 % lower in data. These discrepancies were translated into systematic errors on the efficiency to tag a semileptonic b decay with a secondary vertex in either the same or the opposite hemisphere, in each case attributing the whole discrepancy to a mismodelling of b hadron decays. The resulting errors on the same and opposite hemisphere tagging efficiencies were taken to be fully correlated.

The overall track reconstruction efficiency is known to be modelled to a precision of 1 % , and a similar uncertainty was found to be appropriate for the particular class of slow pion tracks from $`\mathrm{D}^+`$ decays. The systematic error was assessed by randomly removing 1 % of tracks in the simulation and repeating the fit.

Uncertainties in the tracking detector resolution affect the efficiency, $`\omega `$ reconstruction and vertex charge distributions. The associated error was assessed in the simulation by applying a global 10 % degradation to all tracks, independently in the $`r`$-$`\varphi `$ and $`r`$-$`z`$ planes, as in .

The entire fitting procedure was tested on a fully simulated Monte Carlo sample seven times bigger than the data, with true values of $`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|=32.5\times 10^3`$ and $`\rho ^2=1.3`$. The fit gave the results $`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|=(31.8\pm 0.5)\times 10^3`$ and $`\rho ^2=1.25\pm 0.07`$, consistent with the true values. For each variable, the larger of the deviation of the result from the true value and the statistical error were taken as a systematic errors due to possible biases in the fit. Additionally, the large Monte Carlo sample was reweighted to change the values of $`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ and $`\rho ^2`$, and the fit correctly recovered the modified values. To verify the correctness of the statistical errors returned by the fit, it was performed on many separate subsamples, and the distribution of fitted results studied. Further checks on the data included performing the analysis separately for $`\mathrm{B}^0`$ decays involving electrons and muons, dividing the sample according to the year of data taking, and varying the lepton transverse momentum cut. In all cases, consistent results were obtained.

Including all systematic uncertaintities, the final result of the inclusive analysis is

$`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ $`=`$ $`(37.5\pm 1.2\pm 2.5)\times 10^3,`$
$`\rho ^2`$ $`=`$ $`1.12\pm 0.14\pm 0.29,`$
where the first error is statistical and the second systematic in each case.

## 6 Measurement using exclusively reconstructed $`𝐃^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}`$ decays

In this analysis, the $`\mathrm{D}^0`$ from the $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$, $`\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{D}^0\pi ^+`$ decay is reconstructed exclusively in the decay modes $`\mathrm{D}^0\mathrm{K}^{}\pi ^+`$ (‘3-prong’) and $`\mathrm{D}^0\mathrm{K}^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ (‘satellite’—where the $`\pi ^0`$ is not reconstructed). The event selection, reconstruction and determination of $`\omega `$ are exactly the same as described in . The determination of the signal and background fractions, and the fit to extract $`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ and $`\rho ^2`$ are performed as in , but have been updated using the improved form factor parameterisation , the updated input parameters given in Table 1 and the $`\mathrm{b}\mathrm{D}^{}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay model  discussed in Section 5.

The fit is performed on 814 3-prong and 1396 satellite candidates, of which $`505\pm 44`$ and $`754\pm 72`$ are attributed to $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ signal decays. The result of the fit is

$`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ $`=`$ $`(36.8\pm 1.6\pm 2.0)\times 10^3,`$
$`\rho ^2`$ $`=`$ $`1.31\pm 0.21\pm 0.16,`$
where again the first errors are statistical and the second systematic. The statistical correlation between $`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ and $`\rho ^2`$ is 0.95. The distribution of reconstructed $`\omega `$ for selected candidates (both 3-prong and satellite) is shown in Figure 4. The branching ratio $`\mathrm{Br}(\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu })`$ has also been determined to be

$$\mathrm{Br}(\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu })=(5.11\pm 0.19\pm 0.49)\%.$$

The systematic errors arise from uncertainties in the background levels in the selected samples, as well as uncertainties in the Monte Carlo simulations. They have been evaluated following the procedures described in , and are summarised in Table 3. The selection efficiency error includes contributions from lepton identification efficiency, b fragmentation and detector resolution uncertanties, described in detail in . The largest change with respect to the previous result is due to the improved $`\mathrm{b}\mathrm{D}^{}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ modelling, with the suppression of this background at values of $`\omega `$ close to one. This reduces the statistical error, the systematic uncertainty due to the rate of such decays, and shifts the central value of $`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ upwards as compared to .

## 7 Conclusions

The CKM matrix element $`|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ has been measured by studying the rate of the semileptonic decay $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ as a function of the recoil kinematics of both inclusively and exclusively reconstructed $`\mathrm{D}^+`$ mesons. The two results are combined, taking into account the statistical correlation of 18 % and correlated systematic errors from physics inputs and detector resolution. The results are:

$`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ $`=`$ $`(37.1\pm 1.0\pm 2.0)\times 10^3,`$
$`\rho ^2`$ $`=`$ $`1.21\pm 0.12\pm 0.20,`$
$`\mathrm{Br}(\overline{\mathrm{B}}^0\mathrm{D}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu })`$ $`=`$ $`(5.26\pm 0.20\pm 0.46)\%,`$
where the first result is statistical and the second systematic in each case. The statistical and systematic correlations between $`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ and $`\rho ^2`$ are 0.90 and 0.54 respectively. These results supersede our previous publication . They are consistent with other determinations of $`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ at LEP  and the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance . The branching ratio is consistent with the world average result of $`(4.60\pm 0.27)`$ % . The result for $`(1)|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ is the most precise to date from any single experiment.

Using the theoretical estimate $`(1)=0.913\pm 0.042`$ , the value of $`|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|`$ is determined to be

$$|V_{\mathrm{cb}}|=(40.7\pm 1.1\pm 2.2\pm 1.6)\times 10^3,$$

where the uncertainties are statistical, systematic and theoretical respectively.

## Acknowledgements

We particularly wish to thank the SL Division for the efficient operation of the LEP accelerator at all energies and for their continuing close cooperation with our experimental group. We thank our colleagues from CEA, DAPNIA/SPP, CE-Saclay for their efforts over the years on the time-of-flight and trigger systems which we continue to use. In addition to the support staff at our own institutions we are pleased to acknowledge the
Department of Energy, USA,
National Science Foundation, USA,
Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, UK,
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Canada,
Israel Science Foundation, administered by the Israel Academy of Science and Humanities,
Minerva Gesellschaft,
Benoziyo Center for High Energy Physics,
Japanese Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (the Monbusho) and a grant under the Monbusho International Science Research Program,
Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS),
German Israeli Bi-national Science Foundation (GIF),
Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie, Germany,
National Research Council of Canada,
Research Corporation, USA,
Hungarian Foundation for Scientific Research, OTKA T-029328, T023793 and OTKA F-023259.