text:
# Measuring 𝐵→𝜌𝜋 decays and the unitarity angle 𝛼

## I Introduction

The measurement of the angle $`\alpha `$ in the unitarity triangle will be one of the paramount tasks of the future b–factories, such as the dedicated $`e^+e^{}`$ machines for the BaBar experiment at SLAC  and the BELLE experiment at KEK , or hadron machines such as the LHC at CERN, with its program for $`B`$–physics ***Opportunities for $`B`$–physics at the LHC have been recently discussed at the workshop on Standard Model Physics (and More) at the LHC, 14-15 October 1999; copies of transparencies can be found at the site http://home.cern.ch/ mlm/lhc99/oct14ag.html.. Differently from the investigation of the $`\beta `$ angle, for which the $`BJ/\mathrm{\Psi }K_s`$ channel has been pinned up  and ambiguities can be resolved , the task of determining the angle $`\alpha `$ is complicated by the problem of separating two different weak hadronic matrix elements, each carrying its own weak phase. The evaluation of these contributions, referred to in the literature as the tree ($`T`$) and the penguin ($`P`$) contributions, suffers from the common theoretical uncertainties related to the estimate of composite four-quark operators between hadronic states. For these estimates, only approximate schemes, such as the factorization approximation, exist at the moment, and for this reason several ingenuous schemes have been devised, trying to disentangle $`T`$ and $`P`$ contributions. In general one tries to exploit the fact that in the $`P`$ amplitudes only the isospin–$`1/2`$ If one neglects electroweak penguins. part of the non–leptonic Hamiltonian is active ; by a complex measurement involving several different isospin amplitudes, one should be able to separate the two amplitudes and to get rid of the ambiguities arising from the ill–known penguin matrix elements.

One of the favorite proposals involves the study of the reaction $`B\rho \pi `$, i.e. six channels arising from the neutral $`B`$ decay:

$`\overline{B}^0\rho ^+\pi ^{},`$ (1)
$`\overline{B}^0\rho ^{}\pi ^+,`$ (2)
$`\overline{B}^0\rho ^0\pi ^0,`$ (3)
together with the three charge–conjugate channels, and the charged decay modes:

$`B^{}\rho ^{}\pi ^0,`$ (4)
$`B^{}\rho ^0\pi ^{},`$ (5)
with two other charge–conjugate channels. Different strategies have been proposed to extract the angle $`\alpha `$, either involving all the decay modes of a $`B`$ into a $`\rho \pi `$ pair as well as three time–asymmetric quantities measurable in the three channels for neutral $`B`$ decays , or attempting to measure only the neutral $`B`$ decay modes by looking at the time-dependent asymmetries in different regions of the Dalitz plotIn this way the measurement of a decay mode with two neutral pions in the final state, eq. (4), can be avoided..

Preliminary to these analyses is the assumption that, using cuts in the three invariant masses for the pion pairs, one can extract the $`\rho `$ contribution without significant background contaminations. The $`\rho `$ has spin $`1`$, the $`\pi `$ spin $`0`$ as well as the initial $`B`$, and therefore the $`\rho `$ has angular distribution $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ ($`\theta `$ is the angle of one of the $`\rho `$ decay products with the other $`\pi `$ in the $`\rho `$ rest frame). This means that the Dalitz plot is mainly populated at the border, especially the corners, by this decay. Only very few events should be lost by excluding the interior of the Dalitz plot, which is considered a good way to exclude or at least reduce backgrounds. Analyses following these hypotheses were performed by the BaBar working groups ; MonteCarlo simulations, including the background from the $`f_0`$ resonance, show that, with cuts at $`m_{\pi \pi }=m_\rho \pm 300`$ MeV, no significant contributions from other sources are obtained. Also the role of excited resonances such as the $`\rho ^{}`$ and the non–resonant background has been discussed .

A signal of possible difficulties for this strategy arises from new results from the CLEO Collaboration recently reported at the DPF99 and APS99 Conferences :

$$(B^\pm \rho ^0\pi ^\pm )=(1.5\pm 0.5\pm 0.4)\times 10^5,$$
(6)
$$(B\rho ^{}\pi ^\pm )=(3.5_{1.0}^{+1.1}\pm 0.5)\times 10^5,$$
(7)
with a ratio

$$R=\frac{(B\rho ^{}\pi ^\pm )}{(B^\pm \rho ^0\pi ^\pm )}=2.3\pm 1.3.$$
(8)
As discussed in , this ratio looks rather small; as a matter of fact, when computed in simple approximation schemes, including factorization with no penguins, one gets, from the DDGN model of Ref. , $`R13`$, admittedly with a large uncertainty; another popular approach, i.e. the WBS model , gives $`R6`$ (in both cases we use $`a_1=1.02`$, $`a_2=0.14`$). The aim of the present study is to show that a new contribution, not discussed before, is indeed relevant to the decay (5) and to a lesser extent to the decay (3). It arises from the virtual resonant production depicted in Fig. 1, where the intermediate particle is the $`B^{}`$ meson resonance or other excited states. The $`B^{}`$ resonance, because of phase–space limitations, cannot be produced on the mass shell. Nonetheless the $`B^{}`$ contribution might be important, owing to its almost degeneracy in mass with the $`B`$ meson; therefore its tail may produce sizeable effects in some of the decays of $`B`$ into light particles, also because it is known theoretically that the strong coupling constant between $`B`$, $`B^{}`$ and a pion is large . Concerning other states, we expect their role to decrease with their mass, since there is no enhancement from the virtual particle propagator; we shall only consider the $`0^+`$ state $`B_0`$ with $`J^P=0^+`$ because its coupling to a pion and the meson $`B`$ is known theoretically to be uniformly (in momenta) large . The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section II we list the hadronic quantities that are needed for the computation of the widths; in Section III we present the results and finally, in Section IV, we give our conclusions.

## II Matrix elements

The effective weak non-leptonic Hamiltonian for the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }B|=1`$ transition is §§§We omit, as usual in these analyses, the electroweak operators $`Q_k`$ ($`k=`$ 7, 8, 9, 10); they are in general small, but for $`Q_9`$, whose role might be sizeable; its inclusion in the present calculations would be straightforward.:

$$H=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}\underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}C_k(\mu )Q_kV_{tb}^{}V_{td}\underset{k=3}{\overset{6}{}}C_k(\mu )Q_k\right\}.$$
(9)
The operators relevant to the present analysis are the so–called current–current operators:

$`Q_1`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{d}_\alpha u_\beta )_{VA}(\overline{u}_\beta b_\alpha )_{VA}`$ (10)
$`Q_2`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{d}_\alpha u_\alpha )_{VA}(\overline{u}_\beta b_\beta )_{VA},`$ (11)
and the QCD penguin operators:

$`Q_3`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{d}_\alpha b_\alpha )_{VA}{\displaystyle \underset{q^{}=u,d,s,c,b}{}}(\overline{q}_\beta ^{}q_\beta ^{})_{VA}`$ (12)
$`Q_4`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{d}_\alpha b_\beta )_{VA}{\displaystyle \underset{q^{}=u,d,s,c,b}{}}(\overline{q}_\beta ^{}q_\alpha ^{})_{VA}`$ (13)
$`Q_5`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{d}_\alpha b_\alpha )_{VA}{\displaystyle \underset{q^{}=u,d,s,c,b}{}}(\overline{q}_\beta ^{}q_\beta ^{})_{V+A}`$ (14)
$`Q_6`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{d}_\alpha b_\beta )_{VA}{\displaystyle \underset{q^{}=u,d,s,c,b}{}}(\overline{q}_\beta ^{}q_\alpha ^{})_{V+A},`$ (15)
We use the following values of the Wilson coefficients: $`C_1=0.226`$, $`C_2=1.100`$, $`C_3=0.012`$, $`C_4=0.029`$, $`C_5=0.009`$, $`C_6=0.033`$; they are obtained in the HV scheme , with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{(5)}=225`$ MeV, $`\mu =\overline{m}_b(m_b)=4.40`$ GeV and $`m_t=170`$ GeV. For the CKM mixing matrix  we use the Wolfenstein parameterization  with $`\rho =0.05`$, $`\eta =0.36`$ and $`A=0.806`$ in the approximation accurate to order $`\lambda ^3`$ in the real part and $`\lambda ^5`$ in the imaginary part, i.e. $`V_{ud}=1\lambda ^2/2`$, $`V_{ub}=A\lambda ^3[\rho i\eta (1\lambda ^2/2)]`$, $`V_{td}=A\lambda ^3(1\rho i\eta )`$ and $`V_{tb}=1`$.

The diagram of Fig. 1 describes two processes. For the $`B^{}`$ intermediate state there is an emission of a pion by strong interactions, followed by the weak decay of the virtual $`B^{}`$ into two pions; for the $`\rho `$ intermediate state there is a weak decay of $`B\rho \pi `$ followed by the strong decay of the $`\rho `$ resonance. We compute these diagrams as Feynman graphs of an effective theory within the factorization approximation, using information from the effective Lagrangian for heavy and light mesons and form factors for the couplings to the weak currents In the second reference of  a similar approach has been used to describe the decay mode $`B^0D^+D^{}\pi ^0`$; the main difference is that for $`B3\pi `$ we cannot use soft pion theorems and chiral perturbation theory, because the pions are in general hard; therefore we have to use information embodied in the semileptonic beauty meson form factors. This is also the main difference with respect to ..

To start with we consider the strong coupling constants. They are defined as

$`\overline{B}^0(p^{})\pi ^{}(q)|B^{}(p,ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`g^{B^{}B\pi }ϵq`$ (16)
$`B^{}(p^{})\pi ^+(q)|\overline{B}_0^0(p)`$ $`=`$ $`G^{B_0B\pi }(p^2)`$ (17)
$`\pi ^0(q^{})\pi ^{}(q)|\rho ^{}(p,ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`g_\rho ϵ(q^{}q).`$ (18)
In the heavy quark mass limit one has

$`g^{B^{}B\pi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_Bg}{f_\pi }}`$ (19)
$`G^{B_0B\pi }(s)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_{B_0}m_B}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{sm_B^2}{m_{B_0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{h}{f_\pi }}.`$ (20)
For $`g`$ and $`h`$ we have limited experimental information and we have to use some theoretical inputs. For $`g`$ and $`h`$ reasonable ranges of values are $`g=0.3`$$`0.6`$, $`h=0.4`$$`0.7`$ . These numerical estimates encompass results obtained by different methods: QCD sum rules , potential models , effective Lagrangian , NJL-inspired models . Moreover $`g_\rho =5.8`$ and $`f_\pi 130`$ MeV. This value of $`g_\rho `$ is commonly used in the chiral effective theories including the light vector meson resonances and corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho 150`$ MeV; see, for instance, , where a review of different methods for the determination of $`g`$ is also given.

For the matrix elements of quark bilinears between hadronic states, we use the following matrix elements:

$`\pi ^{}|\overline{d}\gamma _5u|0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{if_\pi m_\pi ^2}{2m_q}}`$ (21)
$`\pi ^0(q)|\overline{u}\gamma _5b|B^{}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ^\mu (qp)_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{2m_B^{}A_0^\pi }{m_b+m_q}}`$ (22)
$`\rho ^+(q,ϵ)|\overline{u}\gamma _5b|\overline{B}^0(p)`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ^\mu (pq)_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{2m_\rho A_0}{m_b+m_q}}`$ (23)
$`\pi ^+(q)|\overline{u}\gamma _\mu b|\overline{B}^0(p)`$ $`=`$ $`F_1\left[(p+q)^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{m_B^2m_\pi ^2}{(pq)^2}}(pq)^\mu \right]+F_0{\displaystyle \frac{m_B^2m_\pi ^2}{(pq)^2}}(pq)^\mu `$ (24)
$`\pi ^+(q)|\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)b|\overline{B}_0^0(p)`$ $`=`$ $`i\left\{\stackrel{~}{F}_1\left[(p+q)^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{m_{B_0}^2m_\pi ^2}{(pq)^2}}(pq)^\mu \right]+\stackrel{~}{F}_0{\displaystyle \frac{m_{B_0}^2m_\pi ^2}{(pq)^2}}(pq)^\mu \right\}`$ (25)
$`0|\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu d|\rho ^{}(q,ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`f_\rho ϵ^\mu ,`$ (26)
where $`f_\rho =0.15\mathrm{GeV}^2`$  and

$`A_0^\pi `$ $`=`$ $`A_0^\pi (0)=0.16,A_0=A_0(0)=0.29,`$ (27)
$`F_1`$ $`=`$ $`F_1(0)=F_0(0)=0.37,F_0^\pi =\stackrel{~}{F}_1(0)=\stackrel{~}{F}_0(0)=0.19.`$ (28)
The first three numerical inputs have been obtained by the relativistic potential model; $`A_0`$ and $`F_1`$ can be found in , while $`A_0^\pi `$ has been obtained here for the first time, using the same methods. The last figure in (28) concerns $`F_0^\pi `$, for which such an information is not available; for it we used the methods of  and the strong coupling $`BB_0\pi `$ computed in .

## III Amplitudes and numerical results

For all the channels we consider three different contributions $`A_\rho `$, $`A_B^{}`$, $`A_{B_0}`$, due respectively to the $`\rho `$ resonance, the $`B^{}`$ pole and the $`B_0`$ positive parity $`0^+`$ resonance, whose mass we take  We identify the $`0^+`$ state mass with the average mass of the $`B^{}`$ states given in . to be $`5697`$ MeV.

For each of the amplitudes

$`A^+`$ $`=`$ $`A(B^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+)`$ (29)
$`A^{00}`$ $`=`$ $`A(B^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0)`$ (30)
$`A^{+0}`$ $`=`$ $`A(\overline{B}^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)`$ (31)
we write the general formula\**\**\**We add coherently the three contributions; the relative sign the $`B`$ resonances on one side and the $`\rho `$ contribution on the other is irrelevant, as the former are dominantly real and the latter is dominantly imaginary. The relative sign between $`B^{}`$ and $`B_0`$ is fixed by the effective Lagrangian for heavy mesons. $`A^{ijk}=A_\rho ^{ijk}+A_B^{}^{ijk}+A_{B_0}^{ijk}`$. We get, for the process (29):

$`A_\rho ^+`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\eta }^0\left[{\displaystyle \frac{t^{}u}{tm_\rho ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho m_\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{tu}{t^{}m_\rho ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho m_\rho }}\right]`$ (32)
$`A_B^{}^+`$ $`=`$ $`K\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }(t,u)}{tm_B^{}^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_B^{}m_B^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }(t^{},u)}{t^{}m_B^{}^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_B^{}m_B^{}}}\right],`$ (33)
$`A_{B0}^+`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{K}^0(m_{B_0}^2m_\pi ^2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{tm_{B_0}^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B_0}m_{B_0}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^{}m_{B_0}^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B_0}m_{B_0}}}\right],`$ (34)
where, if $`p_\pi ^{}`$ is the momentum of one of the two negatively charged pions $`t=(p_\pi ^{}+p_{\pi ^+})^2`$, $`t^{}`$ is obtained by exchanging the two identical pions and $`u`$ is the invariant mass of the two identical negatively charged pions. Clearly one has $`u+t+t^{}=m_B^2+3m_\pi ^2`$. The expressions entering in the previous formulas are

$`\overline{\eta }^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{g_\rho }{\sqrt{2}}}\left[f_\rho F_1\left(c_1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{3}}\right)+m_\rho A_0f_\pi \left(c_2+{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{3}}\right)\right]+`$ (35)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{tb}V_{td}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{g_\rho }{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\left(c_4+{\displaystyle \frac{c_3}{3}}\right)\left(f_\rho F_1m_\rho A_0f_\pi \right)+2\left(c_6+{\displaystyle \frac{c_5}{3}}\right)m_\rho A_0f_\pi {\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{(m_b+m_q)2m_q}}\right],`$ (36)
$`K`$ $`=`$ $`4\sqrt{2}gm_B^2A_0^\pi {\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\left\{V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}\left(c_2+{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{3}}\right)V_{tb}V_{td}^{}\left[c_4+{\displaystyle \frac{c_3}{3}}2\left(c_6+{\displaystyle \frac{c_5}{3}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{(m_b+m_q)2m_q}}\right]\right\}`$ (37)
$`\stackrel{~}{K}^0`$ $`=`$ $`h\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_B}{m_{B0}}}}F_0^\pi {\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}(m_{B0}^2m_B^2)\left\{V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}\left(c_2+{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{3}}\right)V_{tb}V_{td}^{}\left[c_4+{\displaystyle \frac{c_3}{3}}2\left(c_6+{\displaystyle \frac{c_5}{3}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{(m_b+m_q)2m_q}}\right]\right\},`$ (38)
with $`m_b=4.6`$ GeV, $`m_qm_um_d6`$ MeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_B^{}=0.2`$ keV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B_0}=0.36`$ GeV . Moreover, for the process (30)

$`A_\rho ^{00}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\eta }^{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{s^{}u}{sm_\rho ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho m_\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{su}{s^{}m_\rho ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho m_\rho }}\right],`$ (39)
$`A_B^{}^{00}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left\{K_1{\displaystyle \frac{s+s^{}4m_\pi ^2}{2m_B^{}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{K\mathrm{\Pi }(s^{},s)+K_1\mathrm{\Pi }(s^{},u)}{s^{}m_B^{}^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_B^{}m_B^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{K\mathrm{\Pi }(s,s^{})+K_1\mathrm{\Pi }(s,u)}{sm_B^{}^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_B^{}m_B^{}}}\right\},`$ (40)
$`A_{B_0}^{00}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{K}^0+\stackrel{~}{K}^{cc}}{sm_{B_0}^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B_0}m_{B_0}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{K}^0+\stackrel{~}{K}^{cc}}{s^{}m_{B_0}^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B_0}m_{B_0}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{K}^0}{um_{B_0}^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B_0}m_{B_0}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{(m_{B_0}^2m_\pi ^2)}{2}}`$ (41)
In this case we define $`s=(p_\pi ^{}+p_{\pi ^0})^2`$, if $`p_{\pi ^0}`$ is the momentum of one of the two identical neutral pions, $`s^{}`$ is obtained by exchanging the two neutral pions and $`u`$ is their invariant mass (again we have a relation among the different Mandelstam variables: $`s+s^{}+u=m_B^2+3m_\pi ^2`$). Then $`\overline{\eta }^{}`$, $`K_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{K}^{cc}`$ are given by

$`\overline{\eta }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{g_\rho }{\sqrt{2}}}\left[f_\rho F_1\left(c_2+{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{3}}\right)+m_\rho A_0f_\pi \left(c_1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{3}}\right)\right]+`$ (42)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{tb}V_{td}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{g_\rho }{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\left(c_4+{\displaystyle \frac{c_3}{3}}\right)\left(f_\rho F_1+m_\rho A_0f_\pi \right)2\left(c_6+{\displaystyle \frac{c_5}{3}}\right)m_\rho A_0f_\pi {\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{(m_b+m_q)2m_q}}\right],`$ (43)
$`K_1`$ $`=`$ $`4gm_B^2A_0^\pi {\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\left\{V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}\left(c_1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{3}}\right)+V_{tb}V_{td}^{}\left[c_4+{\displaystyle \frac{c_3}{3}}2\left(c_6+{\displaystyle \frac{c_5}{3}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{(m_b+m_q)2m_q}}\right]\right\},`$ (44)
$`\stackrel{~}{K}^{cc}`$ $`=`$ $`h\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_B}{m_{B0}}}}F_0^\pi {\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}(m_{B0}^2m_B^2)\left\{V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}\left(c_1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{3}}\right)+V_{tb}V_{td}^{}\left[c_4+{\displaystyle \frac{c_3}{3}}2\left(c_6+{\displaystyle \frac{c_5}{3}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{(m_b+m_q)2m_q}}\right]\right\},`$ (45)
and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(x,y)=m_\pi ^2\frac{y}{2}+\frac{x(m_B^2m_\pi ^2x)}{4m_B^{}^2},$$
(46)
while $`\stackrel{~}{K}^0`$ was given above in (38).

Finally, for the neutral $`B`$ decay (31), we have

$`A_\rho ^{+0}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^0{\displaystyle \frac{us}{tm_\rho ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho m_\rho }}+\eta ^+{\displaystyle \frac{st}{um_\rho ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho m_\rho }}+\eta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{tu}{sm_\rho ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho m_\rho }}`$ (47)
$`A_B^{}^{+0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K\mathrm{\Pi }(s,t)+K_1\mathrm{\Pi }(s,u)}{sm_B^{}^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_B^{}m_B^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{K\mathrm{\Pi }(t,s)}{tm_B^{}^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_B^{}m_B^{}}}`$ (48)
$`A_{B_0}^{+0}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{K}^0+\stackrel{~}{K}^{cc}}{sm_{B_0}^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B_0}m_{B_0}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{K}^0}{tm_{B_0}^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B_0}m_{B_0}}}\right)(m_{B_0}^2m_\pi ^2),`$ (49)
where $`s=(p_\pi ^{}+p_{\pi ^0})^2`$, $`t=(p_\pi ^{}+p_{\pi ^+})^2`$, $`u=(p_{\pi ^+}+p_{\pi ^0})^2`$, and $`s+t+u=m_B^2+3m_\pi ^2`$. The constants appearing in these equations are :

$`\eta ^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_\rho }{2}}(f_\rho F_1+m_\rho A_0f_\pi ){\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}\left(c_1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{3}}\right)+V_{tb}V_{td}^{}\left(c_4+{\displaystyle \frac{c_3}{3}}\right)\right]+`$ (50)
$`+`$ $`g_\rho m_\rho A_0f_\pi {\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{tb}V_{td}^{}\left(c_6+{\displaystyle \frac{c_5}{3}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{(m_b+m_q)2m_q}}`$ (51)
$`\eta ^+`$ $`=`$ $`g_\rho m_\rho A_0f_\pi {\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\left\{V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}\left(c_2+{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{3}}\right)V_{tb}V_{td}^{}\left[c_4+{\displaystyle \frac{c_3}{3}}2\left(c_6+{\displaystyle \frac{c_5}{3}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{(m_b+m_q)2m_q}}\right]\right\}`$ (52)
$`\eta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`g_\rho f_\rho F_1{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\left\{V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}\left(c_2+{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{3}}\right)V_{tb}V_{td}^{}\left(c_4+{\displaystyle \frac{c_3}{3}}\right)\right\}.`$ (53)
For the charged $`B`$ decays we obtain the results in Table I and II. In order to show the dependence of the results on the numerical values of the different input parameters, we consider in Table I results obtained with $`g=0.40`$ and $`h=0.54`$, which lie in the middle of the allowed ranges, while in Table II we present the results obtained with $`g=0.60`$ and $`h=0.70`$, which represent in a sense an extreme case (we do not consider the dependence on other numerical inputs, e.g. form factors, which can introduce further theoretical uncertainty). In both cases the branching ratios are obtained with $`\tau _B=1.6`$ psec and, by integration over a limited section of the Dalitz plot, defined as $`m_\rho \delta (\sqrt{t},\sqrt{t}^{})m_\rho +\delta `$ for $`B^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`m_\rho \delta (\sqrt{s},\sqrt{s}^{})m_\rho +\delta `$ for $`B^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0`$. For $`\delta `$ we take $`300`$ MeV. This amounts to require that two of the three pions (those corresponding to the charge of the $`\rho `$) reconstruct the $`\rho `$ mass within an interval of $`2\delta `$. Numerical uncertainty due to the integration procedure is $`\pm 5\%`$.

We can notice that the inclusion of the new diagrams ($`B`$ resonances in Fig. 1) produces practically no effect for the $`B^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ decay mode, while for $`B^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ the effect is significant. For the choice of parameters in Table I the overall effect is an increase of $`50\%`$ of the branching ratio as compared to the result obtained by the $`\rho `$ resonance alone. In the case of Table II we obtain an even larger result, i.e. a total branching ratio $`(B^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{})`$ of $`0.82\times 10^5`$, in reasonable agreement with the experimental result (6) (the contribution of the $`\rho `$ alone would produce a result smaller by a factor of 2). It should be observed that the events arising from the $`B`$ resonances diagrams represent an irreducible background, as one can see from the sample Dalitz plot depicted in Fig. 2 for the $`B^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ (on the axis the two $`m_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}^2`$ squared invariant masses). The contributions from the $`B`$ resonances populate the whole Dalitz plot and, therefore, cutting around $`tt^{}m_\rho `$ significantly reduces them. Nevertheless their effect can survive the experimental cuts, since there will be enough data at the corners, where the contribution from the $`\rho `$ dominates. Integrating on the whole Dalitz plot, with no cuts and including all contributions, gives:

$$\mathrm{B}r(B^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0)=1.5\times 10^5\mathrm{B}r(B^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{})=1.4\times 10^5$$
(54)
where the values of the coupling constants are as in Table I.

We now turn to the neutral $`B`$ decay modes. We define effective width integrating the Dalitz plot only in a region around the $`\rho `$ resonance:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{eff}(\overline{B}^0\rho ^{}\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)|_{m_\rho \delta \sqrt{s}m_\rho +\delta }`$ (55)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{eff}(\overline{B}^0\rho ^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)|_{m_\rho \delta \sqrt{u}m_\rho +\delta }`$ (56)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{eff}(\overline{B}^0\rho ^0\pi ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)|_{m_\rho \delta \sqrt{t}m_\rho +\delta }.`$ (57)
The Mandelstam variables have been defined above and again we use $`\delta =300`$ MeV . Similar definitions hold for the $`B^0`$ decay modes. The results in Table III show basically no effect for the $`\overline{B}^0\rho ^\pm \pi ^{}`$ decay channels and a moderate effect for the $`\rho ^0\pi ^0`$ decay channel. The effect in this channel is of the order of 20% (resp. 50%) for $`\overline{B}^0`$ (resp. $`B^0`$) decay, for the choice $`g=0.60,h=0.70`$; for smaller values of the strong coupling constants the effect is reduced. Integration on the whole Dalitz plot, including all contributions, gives

$$\mathrm{B}r(\overline{B}^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)=2.6\times 10^5$$
(58)
confirming again that most of the branching ratio is due to the $`\rho `$-exchange (the first three lines of the $`\rho `$ column in Table III sum up to $`2.3\times 10^5`$).

To allow the measurement of $`\alpha `$, the experimental programmes will consider the asymmetries arising from the time–dependent amplitude:

$$𝒜(t)=e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }/2t}\left(\mathrm{cos}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }mt}{2}A^{+0}\pm i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }mt}{2}\overline{A}^{+0}\right),$$
(59)
where one chooses the $`\pm `$ sign according to the flavor of the $`B`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ is the mass difference between the two mass eigenstates in the neutral $`B`$ system. Here $`\overline{A}^{+0}`$ is the charge–conjugate amplitude. We have performed asymmetric integrations over the Dalitz plot for three variables: $`R_1`$, $`R_2`$ and $`R_3`$, which multiply, in the time–dependent asymmetry, respectively $`1`$, $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }mt`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }mt`$. We have found no significant effect due to the $`B^{}`$ or the $`B_0`$ resonance for $`R_1`$ and $`R_3`$. On the other hand these effects are present in $`R_2`$, but $`R_2`$ is likely to be too small to be accurately measurable.

## IV Conclusions

In conclusion our analysis shows that the effect of including $`B`$ resonance polar diagrams is significant for the $`B^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ and negligible for the other charged $`B`$ decay mode. This result is of some help in explaining the recent results from the CLEO Collaboration, since we obtain

$$R=3.5\pm 0.8,$$
(60)
to be compared with the experimental result in eq. (8). The $`\rho `$ resonance alone would produce a result up to a factor of 2 higher. Therefore we conclude that the polar diagrams examined in this paper are certainly relevant in the study of the charged $`B`$ decay into three pions.

In the case of neutral $`B`$ decays we have found that, as far as the branching ratios are concerned, the only decay mode where the contribution from the fake $`\rho `$’s (production of a pion and the $`B^{}`$ or the $`B_0`$ resonance) may be significant is the neutral $`\rho ^0\pi ^0`$ decay channel. As for the time–dependent asymmetry no significant effect is found. Therefore the $`B\pi \pi \pi `$ decay channel allows an unambiguous measurement of $`\alpha `$, with two provisos: 1) only the neutral $`B`$ decay modes are considered; 2) the $`\rho ^0\pi ^0`$ final state can be disregarded from the analysis.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank J. Charles, Y. Gao, J. Libby, A. D. Polosa and S. Stone for discussions.


format: text

text:
# Qualitative Signals of New Physics in 𝐵-𝐵̄ Mixing

## I Introduction

The strongest constraints on the CKM matrix likely to be achieved in the next three years will arise from the values of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ and $`x_s`$. Results from CDF, Babar and Belle should provide $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$ with an error of $`0.08`$ or less . If $`x_s`$ is not too large, then it is hoped that $`x_s`$ will be measured to better than $`10\%`$ in Run 2 of CDF . For the analysis of the CKM matrix the useful quantity is

$$\frac{x_s}{x_d}=\left(\frac{V_{ts}}{V_{td}}\right)^2K,$$
(1)
where $`K`$ is a SU(3) correction factor, calculated to be $`1.3`$ with a claim by lattice calculations of a $`7\%`$ error .

In terms of CKM parameters ,

$$\mathrm{sin}2\beta =\frac{2\eta (1\rho )}{(1\rho )^2+\eta ^2},$$
(2)
and

$$\frac{x_s}{x_d}=\frac{K}{\lambda ^2R_t^2}$$
(3)
where

$$R_t=\sqrt{(1\rho )^2+\eta ^2}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\mathrm{sin}(\beta +\gamma )}.$$
(4)
These two results will produce a small allowed region for the CKM parameters, assuming that they are consistent with the present loose constraints from $`|V_{ub}|`$ and $`ϵ_K`$.

It is interesting to note that both Eqs. (2) and (3) have to do with $`B\overline{B}`$ mixing. Thus, if there is a significant new physics contribution to $`B\overline{B}`$ mixing, then these measurements provide no constraint on CKM parameters. Rather, they would provide wrong values for the parameters, which we denote by $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{R}_t`$. Naturally,

$$\stackrel{~}{R}_t=\sqrt{(1\stackrel{~}{\rho })^2+\stackrel{~}{\eta }^2}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}{\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\stackrel{~}{\gamma })}.$$
(5)
We also define

$$\stackrel{~}{R}_b=\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\rho }^2+\stackrel{~}{\eta }^2}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\beta }}{\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\stackrel{~}{\gamma })}.$$
(6)
A new physics contribution to $`B_d\overline{B_d}`$ mixing, described by an effective superweak-like interaction

$$G_{bd}\overline{b}𝒪d\overline{b}𝒪d+\text{h.c.},$$
(7)
with $`G_{bd}`$ of order $`10^7G_F`$ to $`10^8G_F`$, will affect both Eqs. (2) and (3). Eq. (2) is also sensitive to new physics in $`B_s\overline{B_s}`$ mixing. Considering only new physics of the form in Eq. (7), the measurements of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ and $`x_s`$ really determine the $`B_d\overline{B_d}`$ matrix $`M_{12}`$:

$`\text{Im}M_{12}`$ $``$ $`2\stackrel{~}{\eta }(1\stackrel{~}{\rho }),`$ (8)
$`\left|M_{12}\right|`$ $``$ $`(1\stackrel{~}{\rho })^2+\stackrel{~}{\eta }^2,`$ (9)
$`\text{Re}M_{12}`$ $``$ $`\pm \left[(1\stackrel{~}{\rho })^2\stackrel{~}{\eta }^2\right].`$ (10)
The CKM fit requires the positive value; the negative value corresponds to the well known ambiguity $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }\pi /2\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ .

The present limit on $`x_s`$ yields the result that $`\stackrel{~}{R}_t<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$. If we assume that $`x_s`$ will be measured to be between $`20`$ and $`30`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{R}_t`$ will lie between $`1.0`$ and $`0.8`$, corresponding to $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ in the region between $`80^{}`$ and $`50^{}`$. On the other hand, it has been suggested on the basis of the measured $`B`$ decay rates that $`\gamma `$ is greater than $`90^{}`$ . If this were true, then it could be a sign of new physics.

As a possible way of finding a sign of this new physics, we consider the asymmetry in the time dependent decays $`B_d(\overline{B_d})\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. In Fig. 1 the solid line shows the expected asymmetry for values of $`\stackrel{~}{R_t}`$ between $`1.0`$ and $`0.8`$, with $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=25^{}`$ (this corresponds to values for $`\stackrel{~}{R_b}`$ which lie between $`0.422`$ and $`0.436`$). The values of the asymmetry are well above zero.

In contrast, if the true $`\gamma 115^{}`$, then the expected asymmetry is approximately $`0.9`$. Thus, a discovery of such a large negative asymmetry in this scenario could be a signal of new physics in $`B\overline{B}`$ mixing. Note that the penguin contribution plays an important role in this analysis. In the absence of penguins the first asymmetry would be $`\mathrm{sin}2(\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\stackrel{~}{\gamma })`$, which is already significantly larger than $`\mathrm{sin}2(\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\gamma )`$. However, inclusion of the penguin separates the asymmetries further by increasing the first asymmetry well above $`\mathrm{sin}2(\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\stackrel{~}{\gamma })`$. This makes the difference even more striking.

Details of this calculation are given in the appendix. We have used a method proposed by Silva and Wolfenstein  in which one invokes SU(3) to relate the tree and penguin contributions in the $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays to those in the $`B_dK^\pm \pi ^{}`$ decays. The details of this calculation depend on SU(3), factorization and were originally performed assuming that the strong phase shift between the penguin and the tree contributions in the $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and in the $`B_dK^\pm \pi ^{}`$ channels is equal to a common value $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and, moreover, that $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0^{}`$. Recently, this analysis has been revisited by Fleischer , allowing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to take any value. Since we are interested in a large qualitative effect, small changes in the assumptions made in the calculation will not affect the conclusion. For example, setting $`\mathrm{\Delta }=45^{}`$ yields the dash-dotted curve in Fig. 1. There is, however, one critical assumption: the sign of the penguin term relative to that of the tree. If we choose the negative sign, or equivalently let $`\mathrm{\Delta }=180^{}`$, we obtain the dashed curve in Fig. 1. Assuming this sign, the asymmetry for $`\gamma =115^{}`$ is about $`0.7`$. Thus, except for low values of $`\stackrel{~}{R}_t`$ (large values of $`x_s`$), the large qualitative difference disappears.

As discussed by Fleischer , allowing for any value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the measured asymmetry allows a limited range of values for $`\gamma `$. This leads us to consider the following three possibilities:

* If a sizeable positive asymmetry is found, this would be consistent with values of $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ well below $`90^{}`$, as postulated in our scenario, and rule out values greater than $`90^{}`$.
* A very large negative asymmetry would be consistent with a true value of $`\gamma `$ in the neighborhood of $`115^{}`$, as has been proposed , and could rule out values of $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ corresponding to $`\stackrel{~}{R}_t<0.95`$. In this case we could have a signal of new physics independent of any assumption about $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.
* A negative asymmetry in the neighborhood of $`0.5`$ could be interpreted in different ways: (1) if one believes from factorization that $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is close to $`+1`$, then one obtains $`\gamma `$ slightly above $`90^{}`$ and this could be a sign of new physics in our scenario; (2) the true value of $`\gamma `$ is really $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ for values of $`\stackrel{~}{R}_t`$ above $`0.85`$ but $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is close to $`1`$.

It is interesting to note that, if $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is close to $`1`$, then the motivation for a value $`\gamma >90^{}`$ given in Ref.  may disappear.

As a particular example, let us take $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }=0.4`$ and $`(1\stackrel{~}{\rho })=0.8`$, corresponding to $`\stackrel{~}{R}_t=0.89`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=63.5^{}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=26.5^{}`$. If the true values were $`\eta =0.4`$ and $`(1\rho )=1.2`$, $`\beta =18.5^{}`$, and $`\gamma =116.5^{}`$, then, in order to fit the $`B_d\overline{B_d}`$ mixing from Eqs. (8)–(10), with the positive sign in Eq. (10), we would need

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\text{Im}M_{12}\right)_{sw}}{\left(\text{Im}M_{12}\right)_{\mathrm{CKM}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\text{Re}M_{12}\right)_{sw}}{\left(\text{Re}M_{12}\right)_{\mathrm{CKM}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{8}},`$ (12)
where the subscript $`sw`$ denotes a superweak-like contribution, as in Eq. (7), and the subscript $`\mathrm{CKM}`$ denotes the Standard Model contribution.

Another possible interpretation of the large negative asymmetry in this scenario would be that the true value of $`\text{Re}M_{12}`$ is given by the minus sign in Eq. (10). In that case, the phase $`2\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ would be about $`130^{}`$ instead of $`50^{}`$. Then the true value of $`\gamma `$ would have to be around $`70^{}`$ in order to explain the large negative asymmetry. Therefore, the main new contribution would be

$$\left(\text{Re}M_{12}\right)_{sw}2\left(\text{Re}M_{12}\right)_{\mathrm{CKM}}.$$
(13)
## II Conclusions

In the Standard Model the best determination of the CKM matrix elements, from $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ and $`x_s`$, depends on the absence of new physics effects in the mixing. Therefore, it is possible that experiments that are really sensitive to the phases of decay amplitudes may show qualitative deviations from expectations based on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ and $`x_s`$. One example is discussed in this paper, where we have stressed the usefulness of a qualitative measurement of the CP-violating asymmetry in $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported in part by the Department of Energy under contracts DE-AC03-76SF00515 and DE-FG02-91-ER-40682. The work of J. P. S. is supported in part by Fulbright, Instituto Camões, and by the Portuguese FCT, under grant PRAXIS XXI/BPD/20129/99 and contract CERN/S/FIS/1214/98. L. W. thanks SLAC for support during the time this work was carried out.

## Determining the asymmetry in $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays

For completeness, we include in this section a description of the method proposed by Silva and Wolfenstein  to estimate the asymmetry in the time dependent decays $`B_d(\overline{B_d})\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. In this method one uses two observables as input: $`\mathrm{sin}2\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ obtained from the CP-violating asymmetry in $`B_dJ/\psi K_S`$ decays; and

$$R\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }[B_dK^+\pi ^{}]+\mathrm{\Gamma }[\overline{B_d}K^{}\pi ^+]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}]+\mathrm{\Gamma }[\overline{B_d}\pi ^+\pi ^{}]},$$
(14)
recently measured by CLEO to be $`R=4.0\pm 2.2`$ , where we have added the errors in quadrature. In addition, one uses the spectator approximation and SU(3) (in fact a U-spin rotation interchanging the $`d`$ and $`s`$ quarks) to relate the tree dominated process $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ to the penguin dominated $`B_dK^\pm \pi ^{}`$. Here we will follow the notation of Ref. .

The relevant decay amplitudes may be written as

$`A(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}}{|V_{ub}V_{ud}|}}T+{\displaystyle \frac{V_{tb}^{}V_{td}}{|V_{tb}V_{td}|}}Pe^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}=e^{i\gamma }T\left[1+re^{i(\beta \gamma +\mathrm{\Delta })}\right],`$ (15)
$`A(B_dK^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{ub}^{}V_{us}}{|V_{ub}V_{us}|}}T^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}}{|V_{tb}V_{ts}|}}P^{}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}=e^{i\gamma }T^{}\left[1r^{}e^{i(\gamma +\mathrm{\Delta }^{})}\right].`$ (16)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ are strong phases, while $`r=P/T`$ and $`r^{}=P^{}/T^{}`$ are the ratios of the magnitudes of the penguin to the tree contributions in each channel, respectively. Therefore ,

$$R=\frac{T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{T^2}\frac{r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2r^{}\mathrm{cos}\gamma \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}+1}{1+2r\mathrm{cos}\left(\beta +\gamma \right)\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }+r^2}.$$
(17)
Using U-spin we may relate the two decay channels through

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{T^{}}{T}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{V_{us}}{V_{ud}}}\right|{\displaystyle \frac{f_K}{f_\pi }}\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{f_K}{f_\pi }},`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{P^{}}{P}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{V_{ts}}{V_{td}}}\right|{\displaystyle \frac{f_K}{f_\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda R_t}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_K}{f_\pi }}.`$ (20)
In the last two expressions we have used factorization to estimate the ratio of matrix elements in the two channels. This provides a first order estimate of the SU(3) breaking effects. Therefore, defining

$$a\frac{r^{}}{r}=\frac{1}{\lambda ^2R_t},$$
(21)
we obtain

$$R=\left(\lambda \frac{f_K}{f_\pi }\right)^2\frac{a^2r^22ar\mathrm{cos}\gamma \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }+1}{1+2r\mathrm{cos}(\beta +\gamma )\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }+r^2}.$$
(22)
Here, we have used the true values of $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ ($`R_t`$) as they appear in the CKM matrix. Eq. (22) determines $`r`$. Finally, the time dependent asymmetry in $`B_d(\overline{B_d})\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays is given by

$$\mathrm{asym}=\frac{2\text{Im}\lambda _f}{1+|\lambda _f|^2}$$
(23)
where

$$\lambda _f=\frac{q}{p}\frac{A(\overline{B_d}\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{A(B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{})}=e^{2i(\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\gamma )}\frac{1+re^{i(\beta +\gamma +\mathrm{\Delta })}}{1+re^{i(\beta \gamma +\mathrm{\Delta })}}.$$
(24)
Notice that we have used $`q/p=\mathrm{exp}(2i\stackrel{~}{\beta })`$ (as opposed to the true CKM phase $`\beta `$) because any new physics appearing in the mixing will affect the interference CP-violating asymmetries in both the $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B_dJ/\psi K_S`$ channels, through the same $`q/p`$. In the presence of new physics $`\beta `$ in Eqs. (15) and (16) need not be the same as $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$.

Fig. 1 was obtained in the following way. We have set $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=25^{}`$. Then, for each value of $`\stackrel{~}{R}_t`$ between $`0.8`$ and $`1`$, we calculate $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}_b`$. Our choice of $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ guarantees that $`\stackrel{~}{R}_b`$ lies within the range currently allowed by the measurement of $`|V_{ub}|`$. We have taken $`R=3`$, which is in the lower side of the range allowed by CLEO , in order to facilitate comparison with Ref. . Next, we consider the scenario in which the true value of $`\gamma `$ is really $`115^{}`$. The corresponding value of $`\beta `$ is obtained by requiring $`R_b=\stackrel{~}{R_b}`$, thus continuing to satisfy the $`|V_{ub}|`$ measurement. For each case, we can determine $`r`$ from Eq. (22), $`\lambda _f`$ from Eq. (23), and the asymmetry from Eq. (24).


text:
# Eclipse maps of spiral shocks in the accretion disc of IP Pegasi in outburst

## 1 Introduction

Accretion discs are widespread in astrophysical environments, from sheltering the birth of stars to providing the energetics for the most violent phenomena such as relativistic jets. Despite its general importance and although considerable effort both in observation and theory has been invested over the past decade, the structure and underlying physics of accretion discs remains poorly understood. One of the major unsolved problems concerns the nature of the anomalous viscosity mechanism responsible for the inward spiraling of the disc material (Frank, King & Raine 1992).

Best prospects for progress in understanding accretion discs physics are possibly found in mass-exchanging binaries such as Cataclysmic Variables (CVs). In these close binaries mass is fed to a non-magnetic ($`B\stackrel{<}{}10^5`$ G) white dwarf via an accretion disc by a Roche lobe filling companion star (the secondary). The sub-class of dwarf novae comprises low-mass transfer CVs which show recurrent outbursts of 2–5 magnitudes on timescales of months either due to an instability in the mass transfer from the secondary or due to a thermal instability in the accretion disc which switches the disc from a low to a high-viscosity regime (Warner 1995 and references therein).

Spiral shocks have been advocated by various researchers as a possible mechanism for transport of angular momentum in accretion discs (Savonije, Papaloizou & Lin 1994) and may be the key, together with magnetic viscosity (Hawley, Balbus & Winters, 1999), in understanding the viscosity mechanism. The recent discovery of spiral shocks in the accretion disc of the dwarf novae IP Pegasi in outburst – from Doppler tomography of emission lines (Steeghs, Harlaftis & Horne 1997, 1998; Harlaftis et al. 1999) – confirmed the results of hydrodynamical simulations (Armitage & Murray 1998, Stehle 1999). The spiral shocks are produced in the outer regions of the disc by the tides raised by the secondary star. During the outburst the disc expands and its outer parts feel more effectively the gravitational attraction of the secondary star leading to the formation of spiral arms.

Here we report on the eclipse mapping analysis of the data obtained by Harlaftis et al. (1999; see there for observations and data reduction). Our goal is to confirm the existence, constrain the location and to investigate the spatial structure of the spiral shocks observed in the Doppler tomograms. Section 2 presents the data and gives details of the analysis procedures. In section 3 we present a set of simulations with the eclipse mapping method aimed to clarify the interpretation of the results of section 4 in terms of real spiral shocks. A summary of our findings is given in section 5.

## 2 Data Analysis

### 2.1 Lightcurves

A time-series of high-resolution, optical spectrophotometry ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =43544747`$ Å, velocity dispersion of $`27kms^1`$ per pixel) covering one eclipse of IP Peg was obtained during the third day of the November 1996 outburst. The reader is referred to Harlaftis et al. (1999) for a detailed description of the dataset and of the reduction procedures. Lightcurves were extracted for the blue continuum ($`43654440`$ Å) and for the C III+N III $`\lambda 4650`$ (Bowen blend) and He II $`\lambda 4686`$ lines and phase folded according to the sinusoidal ephemeris of Wolf et al. (1993),

$$T_{\mathrm{mid}}(\mathrm{HJD})=\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}445\hspace{0.17em}615.4156}+\mathrm{0.158\hspace{0.17em}206\hspace{0.17em}16}E+(OC)$$
(1)
where

$$(OC)=1.0903\times 10^3\mathrm{sin}\left[2\pi \frac{E10258}{10850.88}\right].$$

The line lightcurves were continuum subtracted and, therefore, correspond to net line emission. The three lightcurves are shown in Fig. 1 as gray open squares.

The C III+N III lightcurve shows a peculiar double-stepped eclipse shape revealing the presence of two asymmetric brightness sources displaced from disc centre. Although less pronounced, the same morphology can also be seen in the continuum lightcurve. The shape of the He II eclipse is more symmetrical than that of the other passbands but mid-eclipse occurs earlier with respect to the continuum eclipse, indicating that the line surface distribution is also asymmetric.

The continuum and He II lightcurves show a conspicuous orbital modulation with maximum at phase $`\varphi 0.15`$ cycle and minimum at $`\varphi +0.15`$ cycle. This is not seen in the C III+N III lightcurve although an increase in flux is clearly visible after phase $`\varphi =+0.22`$ cycle. For any reasonable mass ratio, $`q<1`$ \[$`q`$=0.5 for IP Peg, Wood & Crawford (1986)\], the shadow of the secondary star covers regions outside the primary lobe for orbital phases $`|\varphi |>0.2`$ cycle. Therefore, it is hard to explain the observed modulation in terms of occultation by the secondary star unless the eclipsed source lies outside the primary lobe. Thereafter, we assign the orbital modulation to gas obscuration by the spiral arm seen at maximum between phases 0.0-0.25 cycle (see section 4).

Out-of-eclipse brightness changes are not accounted for by the eclipse mapping method, which assumes that all variations in the eclipse lightcurve are due to the changing occultation of the emitting region by the secondary star (but see Bobinger et al. 1996 for an example of how to include orbital modulations in the eclipse mapping scheme). Orbital variations were therefore removed from the lightcurves by fitting a spline function to the phases outside eclipse, dividing the lightcurve by the fitted spline, and scaling the result to the spline function value at phase zero. This procedure removes orbital modulations with only minor effects on the eclipse shape itself. The corrected lightcurves are shown in Fig. 1 as filled circles. For the purpose of eclipse mapping analysis the lightcurves were limited to the phase range ($`0.18,+0.28`$) since data outside of eclipse is basically used to set the out-of-eclipse level and flickering in this phase range serves to add unnecessary noise to the fit.

### 2.2 Eclipse maps

The eclipse mapping method is an inversion technique that uses the information contained in the shape of the eclipse to recover the surface brightness distribution of the eclipsed accretion disc. The reader is referred to Horne (1985), Rutten et al. (1992) and Baptista & Steiner (1993) for the details of the method.

As our eclipse map we adopted a grid of $`51\times 51`$ pixels centered on the primary star with side 2 RL1, where RL1 is the distance from the disk center to the inner Lagrangian point. The eclipse geometry is controled by a pair of $`q`$ and $`i`$ values. The mass ratio $`q`$ defines the shape and the relative size of the Roche lobes. The inclination $`i`$ determines the shape and extent of the shadow of the secondary star as projected onto the orbital plane. We obtained reconstructions for two sets of parameter, ($`q=0.5,i=81\text{}`$) (Wood & Crawford 1986) and ($`q=0.58,i=79.5\text{}`$) (Marsh 1988), which correspond to an eclipse width of the disc centre of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =0.086`$ (Wood & Crawford 1986; Marsh & Horne 1990). These combination of parameters ensure that the white dwarf is at the center of the map. There is no perceptible difference in eclipse maps obtained with either geometry. Hence, for the remainder of the paper we will refer to and show the results for ($`q=0.5,i=81\text{}`$).

The lightcurves were analyzed with eclipse mapping techniques to solve for a map of the disc brightness distribution and for the flux of an additional uneclipsed component in each passband. The uneclipsed component accounts for all light that is not contained in the eclipse map in the orbital plane (i.e., light from the secondary star and/or a vertically extended disc wind). The reader is referred to Rutten et al. (1992) and Baptista, Steiner & Horne (1996) for a detailed description of and tests with the uneclipsed component. For the reconstructions we adopted the default of limited azimuthal smearing of Rutten et al. (1992), which is better suited for recovering asymmetric structures than the original default of full azimuthal smearing (see Baptista et al. 1996).

Lightcurves, fitted models and grayscale plots of the resulting eclipse maps are shown in Fig. 2 and will be discussed in detail in section 4.

## 3 Eclipse mapping simulations

We performed various simulations with asymmetric sources in order (i) to investigate how the presence of spiral structures in the accretion disc affects the shape of the eclipse lightcurve, and (ii) to evaluate the ability of the eclipse mapping method to reconstruct these structures in the eclipse maps.

For the simulations we adopted the geometry of IP Peg ($`q=0.5`$ and $`i=81\text{}`$) and constructed lightcurves with the same signal to noise ratio and orbital phases of the real data of section 2. Figure 3 shows the results of the simulations.

Asymmetric compact sources (model #1) result in eclipse lightcurves with rapid brightness changes at ingress/egress phases. The azimuthal smearing effect characteristic of the eclipse mapping method is responsible for the distortion which makes the compact sources appear ‘blurred’ in azimuth. Nevertheless, their radial and azimuthal locations are satisfactory recovered.

Brightness distributions with spiral structures (models #2 to #4) result in eclipse shapes with characteristic ‘bulges’, whose extension and location in phase reflect the orientation and radial extent of the spiral arms. Due to the azimuthal smearing effect these structures are reproduced in the form of asymmetric arcs, whose maximum brightness and radial position yield information about the orientation, position and radial extent of the original spiral arms. The adition of a symmetric brightness source (i.e., centred in the eclipse map, model #5) can dilute the presence of spiral arms. In this case the eclipse shape is smoother and more symmetric in comparison with those of models #2-4 and the asymmetric arcs are less clearly visible in the eclipse map, mixing with the brightness distribution of the central source.

These simulations show that the eclipse mapping method is able to reproduce asymmetric light sources such as spiral arms (provided the asymmetric sources are properly eclipsed) and that the asymmetric structures seen in the eclipse maps of Fig. 2 are not caused by artifacts of the method. Models #3 to #5 are the relevant ones for the purpose of comparing the results of the simulations with those from the IP Peg data (Fig. 2). The morphology of the continuum and C III+N III lightcurves is similar to that of models #3 and #4, while the He II lightcurve resembles that of model #5.

## 4 Results

Data and model lightcurves are shown in the left panels of Fig. 2. Horizontal dashed lines indicate the uneclipsed component in each case. The uneclipsed component corresponds to about 12, 1 and 1 per cent of the total flux, respectively for the continuum, C III+N III and He II curves. While a non-negligible fraction of the light in the continuum probably arises from an emitting region outside of the orbital plane (possibly a disk wind), the net He II and C III+N III emission mostly arises from (or close to) the orbital plane.

The middle panels of Fig. 2 show eclipse maps in a logarithmic grayscale. The maps in the right panels show the asymmetric part of the maps in the middle panels and are obtained by calculating and subtracting azimuthally-averaged intensities at each radius.

The continuum and C III+N III lightcurves display bulges similar to that of the lightcurves of models #3 and #4 (Section 3) and result in eclipse maps with two clearly visible asymmetric arcs, which are interpreted as being the spiral shocks seen in the Doppler tomograms of Harlaftis et al. (1999). In comparison with the models of Fig. 3, the orientation of the arcs suggests that the spirals are aligned in a direction perpendicular to the major axis of the binary (models #3 and #4). The arcs show an azimuthal extent of $`90\text{}`$ and extend from the intermediate to the outer disc regions ($`R0.20.6R_{\mathrm{L1}}`$). Therefore, the outer radius of the spirals is of the same order of the disc outburst radius ($`R_d0.34a0.6R_{L1}`$) inferred by Wood et al. (1989). The eclipse maps show no evidence of the bright spot at disc rim and no enhanced emission along the gas stream trajectory.

The azimuthal location of the arcs is consistent with the results from hydrodynamical simulations and from the Doppler tomography. The arc in the upper left quadrant of the eclipse map (hereafter arc 1) corresponds to the spiral arm whose maximum occurs at phases 0.5–0.75 while the arc in the lower right quadrant (arc 2) corresponds to the spiral arm seen at maximum intensity at phases 0.0–0.25 (orbital phases increases clockwise in the eclipse maps of Fig. 2 and phase zero coincides with the inner lagrangian point L1). The arcs are not symmetrical with respect to the centre of the disc. In C III+N III, arc 2 is further away from disc centre than arc 1 – in agreement with the Doppler tomography, which indicates smaller velocities for the spiral arm 2 ($`550kms^1`$) than for the spiral arm 1 ($`700kms^1`$).

The lightcurve of He II is quite symmetrical with less pronounced bulges than in C III+N III, resulting in an eclipse map consisting of a symmetrical, centred brightness distribution and asymmetric arcs at different distances from disc centre. The outermost arc (arc 2) is more easily seen in the eclipse map, while the emission from the innermost arc (arc 1) is blendend with that of the central source. Nevertheless, arc 1 is clearly seen in the asymmetric part of the He II map show in the right panel of Fig. 2. The symmetrical emission component is probably related to the low-velocity component seen in He II Doppler tomograms and is suggested to be due to gas outflow in a wind emanating from the inner parts of the disc (see also Marsh and Horne, 1990; for an alternative interpretation, slingshot prominence from the secondary star, see Steeghs et al. 1996). The He II arcs contribute about 16 per cent of the total flux of the eclipse map – in good agreement with the results from the Doppler tomography, which indicate that the spirals contribute $`15`$ per cent of the total He II emission (Harlaftis et al. 1999). In comparison, the arcs in the C III+N III and continuum maps contribute, respectively, about 30 and 13 per cent of the total flux.

We quantify the properties of the asymmetric arcs by dividing the eclipse map in azimuthal slices (i.e., ‘slices of pizza’) and computing the distance at which the intensity is maximum for each azimuth. This exercice allows to trace the distribution in radius and azimuth of the spiral structures. The results are plotted in Fig. 4 as a function of orbital phase. The diagrams for He II were computed from its asymmetric map and are noisier than those for C III+N III because most ($`84`$ per cent) of the flux in the eclipse map is subtracted with the symmetric component. The two spiral shocks are clearly visible in the intensity diagrams, as well as their distinct locations with respect to disc centre. In He II the outer spiral (arc2) is brighter than the inner spiral (arc1), in line with the results of Harlaftis et al. (1999), while in C III+N III arc 1 is brighter than arc 2. The middle panels give the radial position of the maximum intensity as a function of binary phase. For C III+N III, the maximum intensity along arc 1 lies at a constant distance of $`0.28R_{L1}`$ from disc centre while the maximum intensity of arc 2 occurs at $`0.55R_{L1}`$. The numbers are similar for He II.

We computed equivalent Keplerian velocities for each radius assuming $`M_1=1.0\pm 0.1M_{}`$ e $`R_{\mathrm{L1}}=0.81R_{}`$ (Marsh & Horne 1990). The results are plotted in the upper panel of Fig. 4. Gray lines show the corresponding uncertainties at the 1-$`\sigma `$ limit. For comparison, the results from the C III+N III and He II Doppler tomograms (Harlaftis et al. 1999; see their fig. 4 for the He II diagram) are shown as dashed lines. Since the C III+N III Doppler map is much noisier and blurred than the He II Doppler map, the corresponding diagram is noisier and less reliable than the He II diagram on the right panel. We obtain velocities in the range $`8501050kms^1`$ for the spiral 1 compared to the observed $`400770kms^1`$ and in the range $`650800kms^1`$ for the spiral 2 compared to the observed $`400550kms^1`$ (observed values from Harlaftis et al. 1999). The Keplerian velocities calculated from the radial position of the shocks are systematically larger than those inferred from the Doppler tomography, suggesting that the gas in the spiral shocks has sub-Keplerian velocities. This is in line with the results of the hydrodynamical simulations of Steeghs & Stehle (1999, see their fig. 5), which predicts velocities lower than Keplerian (by as much as 15 per cent) in the outer disc near the spirals.

We remark that with the white dwarf mass and Roche lobe radius of IP Peg the Keplerian velocity at the largest possible disc radius ($`R0.85R_{\mathrm{L1}}`$) is about $`530kms^1`$. Therefore, if the observed velocities of Harlaftis et al. (1999) do reflect Keplerian motions, then the emitting gas should be at the border and even outside the primary lobe.

Occultation of light from the inner disc regions by the spirals might produce the out of eclipse variations seen in Fig. 1. This is expected since the spiral waves are also vertically extended. From the azimuthal position of the spirals in the eclipse map, the maximum occultation (i.e., the minimum of the orbital modulation) should occur when the spirals are seen face on, at orbital phases $`0.3`$ and $`+0.15`$ cycle, in agreement with the modulations seen in Fig. 1.

## 5 Conclusions

We analyzed eclipse lightcurves of the dwarf novae IP Peg during the November 1996 outburst in order to confirm the existence, constrain the location and investigate the spatial structure of the spiral shocks observed in the Doppler tomograms. Our mais results can be summarized as follows:

* Eclipse maps in the blue continuum and in the C III+N III emission line reveal two asymmetric arcs at different azimuth and radius from disc centre which are consistent with the spiral shocks seen in the Doppler tomograms. The arcs show an azimuthal extent of $`90\text{}`$ and extend from the intermediate to the outer disc regions ($`R0.20.6R_{L1}`$). The outer radius of the spirals is of the same order of the disc outburst radius ($`R_d0.34a0.6R_{L1}`$).
* The He II eclipse map is composed of a central brightness source plus asymmetric arcs at different distances from disc centre. The symmetric component probably corresponds to the low-velocity component seen in He II Doppler tomograms and is understood in terms of gas outflow in a wind emanating from the inner parts of the disc.
* The spirals contribute about 16 and 30 per cent of the total line flux, respectively, for the He II and C III+N III lines, and 13 per cent in the continuum.
* The Keplerian velocities derived from the radial position of the shocks are systematically larger than those inferred from the Doppler tomography, indicating that the gas in the spiral shocks has sub-Keplerian velocities.

## Acknowledgments

We thank an anonymous referee for helpful discussions and comments. This work was partially supported by the PRONEX/Brazil program through the research grant FAURGS/FINEP 7697.1003.00. RB acknowledges financial support from CNPq/Brazil through grant no. 300 354/96-7. ETH was supported by the TMR contract ERBFMBICT960971 of the European Union.


text:
# Geodetic Precession and the Binary Pulsar B1913+16

## 1. Introduction

The binary pulsar PSR B1913+16 exhibits a measurable amount of geodetic precession due to a misalignment of its spin axis and orbital angular momentum (relativistic spin orbit coupling) by an angle $`\delta `$ (see also Stairs et al., for geodetic precession in PSR B1534+12). The angle between the line of sight and the spin axis, $`\zeta `$, changes according to:

$$\mathrm{cos}\zeta (t)=\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{cos}i+\mathrm{sin}\delta \mathrm{sin}i\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{prec}}(tT_0),$$

where $`i`$ is the orbital inclination of the binary system. General Relativity (GR) predicts a rate of precession $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{prec}}=1.21`$ deg yr<sup>-1</sup>, leading to a change in the pulse profile and polarization characteristics with time.
Previous observations by Weisberg, Romani and Taylor (1989) detected a change in the relative amplitude of the trailing and leading component, but no change in the component separation. Also, there were no changes in the position angle swing of the linear polarization noted (Cordes, Wasserman & Blaskiewicz 1990).

## 2. Recent Observations Cast Some Light

The evolution of the observed radio pulse profile of PSR B1913+16 would be determined when the four parameters $`\alpha ,\delta ,\rho ,T_0`$ were specified for a given $`i`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the angle between the magnetic pole and the spin axis, $`\delta `$ is as mentioned above, $`\rho `$ is the angular radius of the emission cone and $`T_0`$ the epoch of precession. Based on recent data from the Effelsberg 100-m telescope, Kramer (1998) first noticed a change in the component separation $`W`$. This allows a solution region in parametric space that respects GR and the hollow cone model (HCM).

$$W(t)=2\mathrm{arccos}\left[\frac{\mathrm{cos}\rho \mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\zeta (t)}{\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\zeta (t)}\right]$$

Effelsberg polarization data has been used in respect with the rotating vector
model (RVM), to further narrow down the solution region.

$$\psi (t)=\mathrm{arctan}\left[\frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}(\varphi \varphi _0)}{\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\zeta (t)\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\zeta (t)}\right]+const.$$

The inclination of the binary orbit with respect to the line-of-sight, $`i`$, is known from timing observations modulo the ambiguity $`i180^{}i`$. The possibilities are: Case A: $`i=47.2^{}`$, Case B: $`i=132.8^{}`$

## 3. The Solution Today

The set of plausible solutions has been well limited, as shown in Fig 1. The inclination of the binary orbit is most likely to be Case B rather than Case A (Wex, Kalogera, Kramer 2000). More precise use of the polarization data plus a molding of the two models (HCM & RVM) to specifically suit PSR B1913+16 (see also Weisberg & Taylor in these proceedings) could further limit the solutions and enable a prediction on the future of this system.

## References

Cordes, J.M., Wasserman, I., & Blaskiewicz, M. 1990, ApJ, 349, 546

Damour, T., & Ruffini, R. 1974, Acad. Sci. Paris, 279, série A, 971

Damour, T., & Taylor, J.H. 1992, Phys. Rev. D, 45, 1840

Hulse, R.A., & Taylor, J.H. 1975, ApJ, 195, L51

Kramer, M. 1998, ApJ, 509, 856

Taylor, J.H. 1999, Proceedings of the XXXIV’th Rencontres de Moriond, to be published

Weisberg, J.M., Romani, R., & Taylor, J.H. 1989, ApJ, 347, 1029

Wex, N., Kalogera, V., Kramer, M. 2000, ApJ, 528, 401


text:
# The 𝐿_𝑥-𝑇, 𝐿_𝑥-𝜎 and 𝜎-𝑇 relations for groups and clusters of galaxies

## 1 Introduction

It has been well established that there exists a strong correlation between the X-ray determined bolometric luminosity $`L_x`$, the X-ray temperature $`T`$ of the intracluster gas and the optical measured velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$ of the cluster galaxies (Wu, Xue & Fang 1999; hereafter Paper I and references therein). A precise determination of these correlations is important not only for the study of dynamical properties and evolution of clusters themselves but also for distinguishing different cosmological models including the prevailing estimate of the cosmic density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ through a combination of the baryon fraction of clusters and the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (White et al. 1993; David, Jones & Forman 1995). For instance, if the observed $`L_x`$-$`T`$ relation follows $`L_xT^2`$ (e.g. Quintana & Melnick 1982; Markevitch et al. 1998), we would arrive at the conclusion that the X-ray emission is primarily due to purely gravitational heating and thermal bremsstrahlung, and the baryon fraction $`f_b`$ of clusters can be representative of the Universe, i.e., $`f_b`$ provides a robust estimate of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ (see Paper I). However, if the observed $`L_x`$-$`T`$ relation appears to be $`L_xT^3`$ (e.g. White, Jones & Forman 1997), other non-gravitational heating mechanisms must be invoked in order to give gas sufficient excess energy (e.g. Ponman, Cannon & Navarro 1999; Wu, Fabian & Nulsen 1999; Loewenstein 1999), unless the baryon fraction of clusters is requited to vary with temperature (David et al. 1993). The latter challenges the standard model of structure formation.

Another critical issue is whether the $`L_x`$-$`T`$, $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma `$-$`T`$ relations for clusters of galaxies can naturally extend to group scales. In the hierarchical model of structure formation, groups are believed to be the scaled-down version of clusters, and the underlying gravitational potentials of groups and clusters are similar when scaled to their virial radii (e.g. Navarro, Frenk & White 1995). It is expected that groups and clusters should exhibit similar correlations between $`L_x`$, $`T`$ and $`\sigma `$, provided that gas and galaxies are in hydrostatic equilibrium with the underlying gravitational potential of groups and their X-ray emissions are produced by thermal bremsstrahlung. Indeed, in the present Universe a majority of the baryons may be bound in the gravitational wells of groups (Fukugita, Hogan & Peebles 1998). All groups may contain hot X-ray emitting gas with $`kT`$ around or less than $`1`$ keV (e.g. Price et al. 1991; Ponman et al. 1996), and most of them should be detectable with future sensitive observations. Without the knowledge about the dynamical properties of groups characterized by the $`L_x`$-$`T`$, $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma `$-$`T`$ relations, it could be misleading if the presently estimated baryon fraction of groups is immediately used as a cosmological indicator. Meanwhile, any difference in these correlations between clusters and groups will be helpful for our understanding of the formation and evolution of structures on scales of $`1`$$`10`$ Mpc and of the significance of non-gravitational heating mechanisms.

The pioneering work of constructing the $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ relation for groups was carried out by Dell’Antonio, Geller & Fabricant (1994). They found a significant flattening in the relation for groups with $`\sigma `$ below $`300`$ km s-1, as compared with the same relation for rich clusters. An extensive study of the $`L_x`$-$`T`$, $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma `$-$`T`$ relations for groups was soon made by Ponman et al.(1996), based on 22 Hickson’s compact groups (HCG) whose X-ray emissions are detected. The most remarkable result is the steepening ($`L_xT^{8.2}`$) of the $`L_x`$-$`T`$ relation, in contrast with the X-ray properties of clusters ($`L_xT^{2.5}`$$`T^3`$), while the significant flattening in the $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ relations for groups claimed by Dell’Antonio et al. (1994) was only marginally detected. Using the RASSCALS group catalog, Mahdavi et al. (1997, 2000) obtained a much shallower $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ relation ($`L_x\sigma ^{0.37\pm 0.3}`$) for groups with $`\sigma <340`$ km s-1 than the above results. Interestingly, Mulchaey & Zabludoff (1998) studied 12 poor ROSAT groups but arrived at an opposite conclusion that the X-ray component in groups follows the same $`L_x`$-$`T`$-$`\sigma `$ relations as those in clusters. Namely, groups are indeed low-mass versions of clusters.

Theoretically, several investigations have been made on the possible reasons why the $`L_x`$-$`T`$ relation flattens with the increase of scale and temperature (e.g. Cavaliere, Menzi & Tozzi 1997, 1999; Valageas & Schaeffer 1999). In particular, if the $`L_x`$-$`T`$ and $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ relations show a significant departure from the expectations of $`L_xT^2\sigma ^4`$ within the framework of thermal bremsstrahlung and hydrostatic equilibrium, the previous estimate of the amount of baryonic matter in groups and its application to the determination of cosmic density parameter would become questionable. Consequently, one may need to study whether the observed X-ray emission of groups has partially arisen from the individual galaxies ( Dell’Antonio et al. 1994) or other non-gravitational mechanisms such as those suggested by the preheated ICM model (e.g. Ponman et al. 1999) and the shock model (Cavaliere et al. 1997).

In this paper, we would like to update and then compare the $`L_x`$-$`T`$, $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma `$-$`T`$ relations for groups and clusters, using all the available X-ray/optical data in literature especially the new measurements of poor clusters and groups. We wish to achieve a better statistical significance, which may essentially allow us to closely examine the question as to whether the similarity of these relations would break down on group scales. Throughout the paper we assume a Hubble constant of $`H_0=50`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 and a flat cosmological model of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$.

## 2 Sample

We follow the same strategy as in Paper I to select groups and clusters of galaxies from literature: We include all the groups and clusters for which at least two parameters among the X-ray bolometric luminosity ($`L_x`$) and temperature ($`T`$), and the optical velocity dispersion of galaxies ($`\sigma `$) are observationally determined. Essentially, we use the cluster catalog in Paper I, which contains a total of 256 clusters. We first remove MKW9 from the list and put it into our group catalog. We then add another 19 clusters whose temperatures or velocity dispersions have become available since then. This is mainly due to the recent temperature measurements by White (1999). Our final cluster sample consists of 274 clusters. Unlike the optimistic situation for X-ray clusters, the X-ray emission has remained undetectable for most groups because of their relatively low X-ray temperatures. By extensively searching the literature, we find 66 groups that meet our criteria, which include 23 HCGs (Table 1). As compared with the sample used in previous similar study by Ponman et al. (1996), the number of groups has almost tripled. We convert the observed X-ray luminosities to bolometric luminosities in the rest frame of the groups and clusters according to an optically thin and isothermal plasma emission model with 30 percent solar abundance, in which we assume $`T=6`$ and $`1`$ keV, respectively, for the 99 clusters and 26 groups whose temperatures remain unknown spectroscopically.

## 3 Results

Essentially, two linear regression methods are used in the fit of the observed data ($`L`$, $`T`$ and $`\sigma `$) to a power-law relation: the standard ordinary least-square (OLS) method and the orthogonal distance regression (ODR) technique (Feigelson & Babu 1992). The latter is preferred because it can account for data scatters around two variables, which is particularly suited when two variables contain significant measurement uncertainties. We perform both the OLS and ODR fits to the data sets of our group and cluster samples, respectively. In order to maximally use the published data especially for groups in the ODR fitting, we assign the average values of measurement uncertainties in $`L_x`$, $`T`$ and $`\sigma `$ to those data whose error bars are not available. Specifically, the average relative errors ($`\mathrm{\Delta }L_x/L_x`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /\sigma `$) are found to be ($`14.7\%`$, $`22.4\%`$, $`16.5\%`$) and ($`24.7\%`$, $`15.5\%`$, $`28.4\%`$) for clusters and groups, respectively. Finally, the Monte-Carlo simulations are performed to estimate the standard deviations in the fitted relations.

### 3.1 $`L_x`$-$`T`$ relation

The observed and our best-fit $`L_x`$-$`T`$ relations are shown in Fig.1 and also summarized in Table 2. It appears that the resultant $`L_x`$-$`T`$ relation for (184) clusters remains nearly the same as that given in Paper I for 142 clusters, $`L_xT^{2.79\pm 0.08}`$. However, our best fit $`L_x`$-$`T`$ relation for 38 groups becomes somewhat flatter: The power-index in the ODR fitting drops to $`5.57\pm 1.79`$, in contrast to the value of $`8.2\pm 2.7`$ reported by Ponman et al. (1996) based on 16 HCGs. Nevertheless, at $`3\sigma `$ significance level we have confirmed their claim for the similarity breaking of the $`L_x`$-$`T`$ relation at the low temperature end.

### 3.2 $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ relation

We display in Fig.2 and Table 3 the X-ray luminosity-velocity dispersion relations for 59 groups and 197 clusters. Again, the $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ relation for clusters agrees with our previous result based on 156 clusters (Paper I): $`L_x\sigma ^{5.3}`$, while the best fit $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ relation for our group sample reads $`L_x\sigma ^{2.35\pm 0.21}`$, which is significantly flatter than both the above relation for clusters and the Ponman et al. (1996) result for 22 HCGs $`L_x\sigma ^{4.9\pm 2.1}`$. Yet, our $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ relation for groups has not reached the shallow slopes (0.37 – 1.56) reported by Mahdavi et al. (1997, 2000). A glimpse of Fig.2 reveals the following two features: (1)The data of groups and clusters are joined together through poor cluster population, and there is no apparent gap in between; (2)The scatters of $`\sigma `$ around the best fit $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ relation become relatively large on group scale.

### 3.3 $`\sigma `$-$`T`$ relation

The best fit $`\sigma `$-$`T`$ relation for clusters using 109 clusters remains almost unchanged (Fig.3 and Table 4) as compared with the previous studies by Wu, Fang & Xu (1998; and references therein) and Paper I: $`\sigma T^{0.65\pm 0.03}`$. Meanwhile, we have found roughly the same relation for our sample of 36 groups: $`\sigma T^{0.64\pm 0.08}`$, which is also consistent with the previous results within uncertainties (Ponman et al. 1996; Mulchaey & Zabludoff 1998). For clusters, this relation alone indicates that the intracluster gas may not be in isothermal and hydrostatic equilibrium with the underlying gravitational potential of clusters. However, the same conclusion is not strictly applicable to groups if the large uncertainty in the presently fitted $`\sigma `$-$`T`$ relation is included. Additionally, the ratios of specific energy in galaxies to that in gas for the 36 groups exhibit rather large scatters ranging from 0.3 to 3.5, with an average value of $`\beta _{spec}=0.85`$.

### 3.4 Co-consistency test

The employment of the ODR fitting method essentially ensures that the best fit relations between $`L_x`$, $`T`$ and $`\sigma `$ are self-consistent (Paper I). We now examine the co-consistency between these relations in the sense that these three relations are not independent. Our strategy is as follows: We first derive the correlation between $`\sigma `$ and $`T`$ from the best fit $`L_x`$-$`T`$ and $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ relations listed in Table 2 and Table 3. We then compare this ‘derived’ $`\sigma `$-$`T`$ relation with the one obtained independently from our ODR fitting shown in Table 4. Our fitted relations should be acceptable if a good agreement between the derived and fitted $`\sigma `$-$`T`$ relations is reached. Otherwise, at least one of the three fitted relations will be questionable.

For cluster sample, combining the $`L_x`$-$`T`$ and $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ relations in Table 2 and Table 3 yields $`\sigma T^{0.53\pm 0.04}`$. Therefore, at $`2\sigma `$ significance level the derived $`\sigma `$-$`T`$ relation is consistent with the directly fitted one $`\sigma T^{0.65\pm 0.03}`$. As for the group sample, the derived $`\sigma `$-$`T`$ relation reads $`\sigma T^{2.37\pm 0.90}`$, which compares with the best fit one $`\sigma T^{0.64\pm 0.08}`$. Regardless of the apparent disagreement between the mean slopes, the large $`68\%`$ confidence interval makes the two relations show no difference within $`2\sigma `$. As a result, the three fitted relations for groups in Table 2 – Table 4 are still consistent with each other when the $`2\sigma `$ uncertainties are taken into account. Indeed, a visual examination of Fig.1–Fig.3 reveals that the data points of groups show very large dispersions especially on the $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ plane. Either the sparse data points and/or the inclusion of a few unusual groups in our fitting (e.g. HCG94, S49-142, etc.) may account for the the marginal co-consistency between the $`L_x`$-$`T`$, $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma `$-$`T`$ relations for groups.

In Table 2 – Table 3, we have also given the significance level for the resulting correlation coefficient for each data set, based on Kendall’s $`\tau `$. It appears that the probability of erroneously rejecting the null hypothesis of no correlation between $`L_x`$, $`T`$ and $`\sigma `$ is $`P<0.2\%`$ for all the cases. Therefore, it is unlikely that the correlations we have found for groups and clusters are an artifact of the small samples and/or the statistical fluke.

## 4 Discussion and conclusions

### 4.1 Global properties

Groups and clusters constitute large and nearly virialized dynamical systems in the Universe. While the distribution of dark matter in these systems may exhibit a regularity such as the universal density profile, the hot intragroup/intracluster gas could be affected by non-gravitational heating mechanisms (e.g. star formation), especially for poor systems like groups of galaxies where even individual galaxies may make a nonnegligible contribution to the X-ray emission (Dell’Antonio et al. 1994; Mulchaey & Zabludoff 1998). Therefore, the standard scenario that groups and clusters should be the similar dynamical systems at different mass ranges is only applicable to the distribution and evolution of the dark matter particles. Whether or not the hot gas can be used as a good tracer of the underlying gravitational potential wells depends on how significant the X-ray emission of individual galaxies and the non-gravitational heating would be, which in turn depends on how massive a dynamical system will be. Because groups of galaxies connect individual galaxies to clusters of galaxies, one may expect to detect the transition between “galaxy-dominated” and “intracluster medium dominated” properties occurring on group scales (e.g. Dell’Antonio et al. 1994).

Such a scenario has essentially been justified by our analysis of the correlations between X-ray luminosity, temperature and velocity dispersion for groups and clusters, although the current data especially for groups still have rather large uncertainties. It is remarkable that we have detected the similarity breaking in the $`L_x`$-$`T`$ and $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ relations between massive systems (clusters) and low mass ones (groups), indicating that the overall dominant X-ray emission and heating mechanisms are quite different in these two systems. Nevertheless, for the $`\sigma `$-$`T`$ relation we have not found an apparent discrepancy between the two systems. Our result essentially agrees with the previous findings of Dell’Antonio et al. (1994), Ponman et al. (1996) and Mahdavi et al. (1997, 2000).

### 4.2 Uncertainties

Major uncertainties in the presently fitted $`L_x`$-$`T`$, $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma `$-$`T`$ relations for groups and clusters come from the sparse (X-ray) data sets of poor clusters and groups. Although an observational determination of these relations does not in principle require the completeness of the sample, the reliability and significance of our fitting can be seriously affected by the small number statistics. The marginal co-consistency between the three relations for groups may be partially due to the small group sample. It is generally believed that poor clusters and groups should all contain hot X-ray emitting gas (e.g. Price et al. 1991; Ponman et al. 1996). However, most of them can be hardly detected by current X-ray observations because of their low temperatures $`T0.1`$$`1`$ keV. Therefore, our group sample suffers from a selection bias, in which the present X-ray data are acquired by different authors with different criteria. For instance, about 1/3 of our group sample are HCGs, and the steepening of the $`L_x`$-$`T`$ relation for groups may have partially arisen from the contribution of these HCG populations.

Our statistical results are sensitive to the linear fitting methods, especially for the $`L_x`$-$`T`$ and $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ relations. This arises because the observed quantities, $`L_x`$, $`T`$ and $`\sigma `$, all have measurement uncertainties, while OLS method ignores scatters around the horizontal variable (e.g. $`T`$ or $`\sigma `$). At this point, the ODR fitting technique is strongly recommended. However, not all the data points have information about their measurement uncertainties, or some error bars are difficult to evaluate. In this case, we have simplified the problem and employed the average values instead, in order to maximally use the available data points, which may have yielded further uncertainties in the ODR fitted relations. Note that the measurement uncertainties in $`L_x`$ are relatively smaller than those in $`T`$ and $`\sigma `$ (see Fig.1 and Fig.2). This explains the significant difference in the resultant $`L_x`$-$`T`$ and $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ relations between OLS and ODR methods.

### 4.3 Physical implications

Under the assumption that both gas and galaxies are in hydrostatic equilibrium with the underlying gravitational potential of group/cluster, we would expect that the total X-ray luminosity via thermal bremsstrahlung scales as (e.g. Paper I)

$$L_xT^{2.5}f_b^2r_c^1S_{gas},$$
(1)
and

$$L_x\sigma ^4T^{1/2}f_b^2r_c^1S_{gal},$$
(2)
where $`f_b`$ is the (gas) baryon fraction, $`r_c`$ is the core radius and $`S`$ is the so-called dimensionless structure factor which depends strongly on the power-index of gas/galaxy profile (e.g. the conventional $`\beta `$ model or the King model) but weakly on the core radius. Using the emission weighted temperature instead of $`T`$ in eq.(1) only leads to a modification to $`S_{gas}`$. Additionally, the velocity dispersion of galaxies and the temperature of hot X-ray emitting gas satisfy

$$\sigma T^{1/2}.$$
(3)
From our fitted $`\sigma `$-$`T`$ relations alone, groups are still consistent with $`\sigma T^{1/2}`$ within $`2\sigma `$ uncertainties, while a significant deviation from what is expected under the scenario of isothermal and hydrostatic equilibrium is found for clusters. The latter is consistent with a number of similar studies on the issue (e.g. White, Jones & Forman 1997; Wu et al. 1998; 1999). Yet, it is unlikely that the intragroup gas is in the state of a perfect isothermal and hydrostatic equilibrium with the underlying gravitational potential as allowed by the $`\sigma `$-$`T`$ relation within its $`95\%`$ significance interval. This point can be further demonstrated by the apparent disagreement between the theoretical prediction of eq.(1), $`L_xT^2`$, and our fitted $`L_x`$-$`T`$ relation for groups in Table 2, $`L_xT^{5.57\pm 1.79}`$, unless the baryon fraction is assumed to vary with gas temperature. Meanwhile, the best fit $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ relation for groups, $`L_x\sigma ^{2.35\pm 0.21}`$, differs from the theoretical expectation (eq.) in conjunction with eq.(3): $`L_x\sigma ^4`$. Taking these results as a whole, we feel that the currently available optical/X-ray data have already provided convincing evidence for either the failure of isothermal and hydrostatic equilibrium hypothesis for intragroup gas or the significant contribution of X-ray emission from the individual group galaxies. Therefore, any cosmological applications of these fitted relations without considering these effects could be misleading.

The physical implications of the $`L_x`$-$`T`$, $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma `$-$`T`$ relations for clusters have been extensively studied in Paper I. For the group sample, there exists an apparent difference between the theoretically predicted $`L_x`$-$`T`$ and $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ relations (eq.) and the observationally determined ones. Dell’Antonio et al. (1994) attributed the flattening of $`L_x`$-$`\sigma `$ relation to the additional X-ray emission of individual group galaxies, while Ponman et al (1996) interpreted the steepening of the $`L_x`$-$`T`$ relation as the result of the wind injection from galaxies. The recent detection of the X-ray wakes in pool cluster A160 may give a strong support to these scenarios, i.e., a large fraction of X-ray emission in groups and poor clusters can be associated with individual galaxies (Drake et al. 2000). It thus deserves to explore whether this scenario can quantitatively account for the reported $`L_x`$-$`T`$-$`\sigma `$ relations for groups. Alternatively, other mechanisms such as preheating by supernovae and substructure merging may also contribute extra heating to the intragroup medium.

On the other hand, the prevailing determination of the baryon fraction of groups via hydrostatic equilibrium and thermal bremsstrahlung could be seriously contaminated by the X-ray emission of individual group galaxies and other non-gravitational heating. This might account for the relatively large variations of the presently derived baryon fractions among different groups. It is unlikely that a robust estimate of the baryon fractions of groups and poor clusters within the framework of conventional dynamical models and their cosmic evolution can be achieved without a better understanding of the various heating mechanisms. Indeed, we cannot exclude the possibility that some puzzles about the properties of the baryon fractions of groups and clusters are due to the contamination of the X-ray emission of individual galaxies and the non-gravitational heating. For instance, the standard model predicts an increase in the baryon fraction with radius, and a universal value of $`f_b`$ at large radii cannot be reached unless the X-ray temperature is required to rise in some clusters (Wu & Xue 2000 and references therein). The presence of such puzzle has essentially prevented the baryon fractions of groups and clusters from the cosmological applications. Inclusion of the contributions of other emission/heating sources in the estimate of the total gravitational masses of groups and clusters may lead to a re-arrangement of the radial distribution of baryon fraction. Further work will thus be needed to explore whether these effects can resolve the above puzzle.

We thank the referee, Andisheh Mahdavi, for many valuable suggestions and comments. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation of China, under Grant No. 19725311.