text:
# On a quantum analog of the Grothendieck-Teichmüller group

## 1 The Hopf algebra $`_{GT}`$

In \[Dri\] Drinfeld introduced the Grothendieck-Teichmüller group by considering the (formal) reparametrizations of the data (commutativity and associativity isomorphisms) of a quasitensor category. Consider now braided (weak) monoidal bicategories arising from the representations of a Hopf category (as defined in \[CF\]) on 2-vector spaces (see \[KV\]), i.e. on certain module categories. Let us assume, in addition, that the Hopf category itself is given as the category of finite dimensional representations of a quasi-trialgebra, satisfying a quasitriangularity and coquasitriangularity condition. This is analogous to understanding the Grothendieck-Teichmüller group $`GT`$ as a universal symmetry of quasitriangular quasi-Hopf algebras (see e.g. \[CP\]) which via their category of finite dimensional representations then give rise to the afore mentioned quasitensor categories. Considering the question of a universal symmetry of quasitriangular quasi-Hopf algebras is e.g. of interest in the study of symmetries of moduli spaces of two dimensional conformal field theories (see \[Kon\]) since two dimensional conformal field theories are closely linked to the heighest weight representation of quasitrinagular quasi-Hopf algebras through their vertex algebras. Since the author has shown that any three dimensional extended topological quantum field theory in the sense of \[KL\] uniquely determines a trialgebra (\[Sch\]) and these three dimensional extended topological quantum field theories are supposed to be related to two dimensional boundary conformal field theories, the question of a universal symmetry of trialgebras is of potential interest to the question of symmetries on moduli spaces of two dimensional boundary conformal field theories.

###### Remark 1

Note that the above mentioned result, linking trialgebras to extended topological quantum field theories, also shows that the restriction of the consideration to Hopf categories which are representation categories of a trialgebra still includes a large and - form the physics persepective - the most important class of examples of such structures.

Let us begin by commenting on some of the involved notions or give references to the relevant literature, respectively. Especially, we will introduce the notion of a trialgebra in detail, now. For the notion of (quasi-) Hopf algebras, quasitriangularity and coquasitriangularity, etc., we refer to any of the many excellent introductions to Hopf algebras and quantum groups, available now (e.g. \[CP\] or \[KS\]). The notion of quasitensor category which is used in Drinfeld’s definition of $`GT`$ is given as a category together with a tensor product $``$ on it where $``$ need not be symmetric but satisfying a commutativity constraint “up to isomorphism”. For the purpose of this article, the reader should imagine a quasitensor category simply as the category of finite dimensional representations of a quasitriangular quasi-Hopf algebra and the commutativity constraint to be given by a universal $`R`$-matrix. For the a detailed introduction of quasitensor categories and their link to Hopf algebras and quantum groups, we refer to \[CP\].

Let us next introduce the concept of a trialgebra:

###### Definition 1

A trialgebra $`(A,,\mathrm{\Delta },)`$ with $``$ and $``$ associative products on a vector space $`A`$ (where $``$ may be partially defined, only) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ a coassociative coproduct on $`A`$ is given if both $`(A,,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and $`(A,,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ are bialgebras and the following compatibility condition between the products is satisfied for arbitrary elements $`a,b,c,dA`$:

$$(ab)(cd)=(ac)(bd)$$

whenever both sides are defined.

Trialgebras were first suggested in \[CF\] as an algebraic means for the construction of four dimensional topological quantum field theories. It was observed there that the representation categories of trialgebras have the structure of so called Hopf algebra categories (see \[CF\]) and it was later shown explicitly in \[CKS\] that from the data of a Hopf category one can, indeed, construct a four dimensional topological quantum field theory. The first explicit examples of trialgebras were constructed in \[GS1\] and \[GS2\] by applying deformation theory, once again, to the function algebra on the Manin plane and some of the classical examples of quantum algebras and function algebras on quantum groups. In \[GS4\] it was shown that one of the trialgebras constructed in this way appears as a symmetry of a two dimensional spin system. Besides this, the same trialgebra can also be found as a symmetry of a certain system of infinitely many coupled $`q`$-deformed harmonic oscillators.

###### Definition 2

We call a trialgebra quasitriangular (coquasitriangular) if one of the bialgebras contained in it is quasitriangular (coquasitriangular). We call a trialgebra $`(A,,,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ biquasitriangular if $`(A,,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is quasitriangular and $`(A,,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is coquasitriangular and if for the $`R`$-matrix $`R_{}`$ of $`(A,,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and the linear form $`R_{}`$ expressing the coquasitriangularity of $`(A,,\mathrm{\Delta })`$, the following condition holds:

$$[R_{},\widehat{R_{}}]=0$$

where $`\widehat{R_{}}`$ is the $`R`$-matrix of a Hopf algebra dual to $`(A,,\mathrm{\Delta })`$.

We will speak of a quasi-trialgebra if there is a Drinfeld coassociator $`\alpha `$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and one of the two products has a dual associator $`\beta `$ such that $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ satisfy a similar commutator condition as the $`R`$-matrices above (we will study this condition in detail in the next section).

###### Lemma 1

The (formal) reparametrizations of the data of the above mentioned biquasitriangular quasi-trialgebras define a self-dual noncommutative and noncocommutative Hopf algebra $`_{GT}`$.

Proof. In a quasitriangular quasi-Hopf algebra we have two kinds of data which are transformed by $`GT`$ as a universal symmetry (see \[Dri\]): The $`R`$-matrix and the coassociator $`\alpha `$. In the precise definition of $`GT`$ the completion of the transformations of these data with respect to a cartain class of formal power series is considered (see \[Dri\] or \[CP\] for a comprehensive introduction to $`GT`$). In a biquasitriangular quasi-trialgebra we have four types of data: The two matrices $`R_{}`$ and $`R_{}`$, the coassociator $`\alpha `$, and the associator $`\beta `$. We ask for the universal symmetry given by transformations of these data (including the same completion with respect to formal power series as in the case of $`GT`$), now.

First, observe that on the data $`(R_{},\alpha )`$ taken alone $`GT`$ acts just by definition. Considering formal linear combinations of the data $`(R_{},\alpha )`$, we can, obviously, extend this to an action of the group algebra of $`GT`$ (which naturally has the structure of a Hopf algebra, see e.g. \[CP\] or \[KS\]). Second, the class of all data $`(R_{},\beta )`$ is dual to the class of all data $`(R_{},\alpha )`$. So, concerning a universal symmetry of the data $`(R_{},\beta )`$ taken alone, we have to have a dual of the action of $`GT`$, again. By the definition of the data $`(R_{},\beta )`$, we can not have an action of a group there but have to describe a universal symmetry by a coaction of a Hopf algebra. By the above argument, this has to be the function algebra on $`GT`$ (where we define the appropriate function algebra as the algebra of polynomial functions, since $`GT`$ is a projective limit of algebraic groups and the explicit definition of $`GT`$ in \[Dri\] assures that the product of $`GT`$ correctly transforms into a coproduct as one proves by calculation from the defining relations).

In consequence, if we would transform the data $`(R_{},\alpha )`$ and $`(R_{},\beta )`$ of the two bialgebras included in a trialgebra separately, forgetting about the compatibility condition for the two products of a trialgebra, the universal symmetry would be described by the Drinfeld double $`𝒟\left(GT\right)`$ of $`GT`$, i.e. the tensor product of the group algebra of $`GT`$ and the algebra of functions on $`GT`$. In the next step, we have to restrict to those transformations of the complete set of data $`R_{},R_{},\alpha ,\beta `$ which transform a biquasitriangular quasi-trialgebra into a biquasitriangular quasi-trialgebra. Obviously, this is a subspace of $`𝒟\left(GT\right)`$. One proves by calculation from the compatibility relation of the two products that it is a sub-Hopf algebra $`_{GT}`$, indeed.

It remains to show that $`_{GT}`$ is self-dual, noncommutative, and noncocommutative: The self-duality follows from the fact that the classes of data $`(R_{},\alpha )`$ and $`(R_{},\beta )`$ are dual to each other. $`_{GT}`$ can not be commutative since one of the factors of $`𝒟\left(GT\right)`$ restricts to the group algebra of $`GT`$ and $`GT`$ is non-abelian. Finally, $`_{GT}`$ is noncocommutative, then, since it is self-dual. This completes the proof.

###### Lemma 2

There is an algebra morphism from $`_{GT}`$ to the group algebra of the Grothendieck-Teichmüller group.

Proof. Since, as shown above, $`_{GT}`$ is a sub-Hopf algebra of $`𝒟\left(GT\right)`$ and one of the factors of $`𝒟\left(GT\right)`$ is just the group algebra of $`GT`$, the conclusion follows.

###### Remark 2

Observe that the above map is only a morphism with respect to the associative alegbra structure of $`_{GT}`$. Also, it can not be surjective since there are compatibility constraints between the commutativity and associativity isomorphisms and their dual structures.

One could have the idea to extend this approach to higher braided weak monoidal weak $`n`$-categories beyond the level of bicategories where for tricategories one would expect an algebraic structure in the form of a vector space equipped with two associative products and two coassociative coproducts to generate these tricategories via representation theory. We will call such an algebraic structure a quadraalgebra. The compatibilities are given by requiring that any of the coproducts together with the two products defines a trialgebra plus the requirement that the two coproducts are compatible by the dual relation to the compatibility relation for the two products.

###### Lemma 3

There do not exist nontrivial deformations of a trialgebra into a quadraalgebra.

Proof. With similar arguments as given above one can show that the universal symmetry of a quasi-quadraalgebra, with two quasitriangularity conditions and one coquasitriangularity condition satisfied, is given by a trialgebra $`𝒯_{GT}`$. where there is an algebra morphism from $`𝒯_{GT}`$ \- as an associative algebra - to the group algebra of $`GT`$. Besides this, one proves that both bialgebras (which are Hopf algebras, even, in this case) within $`𝒯_{GT}`$ are self-dual and the two products have to agree (this follows, again from the symmetry of the classes of data on which $`𝒯_{GT}`$ acts as a universal symmetry). Both products are, as a consequence, universally defined, then. Since both products agree, we can without loss of generality assume that we have a unital product. But then we can apply an Eckmann-Hilton type argument to conclude that the product is abelian. So, $`𝒯_{GT}`$ is a commutative and cocommutative self-dual Hopf algebra. Besides this, $`𝒯_{GT}`$ is a sub-Hopf algebra of $`𝒟\left(GT\right)`$. But because of the algebra morphism from $`𝒯_{GT}`$ to the group algebra of $`GT`$, given by the previuos lemma, $`𝒯_{GT}`$ is determined by an abelian subgroup of $`GT`$, then. But by definition of $`GT`$ (see \[Dri\]), we get triviality, then, i.e. $`𝒯_{GT}`$ consists - up to rational factors - of the identity, only. But triviality of $`𝒯_{GT}`$ means that we can not have a nontrivial formal deformation theory of quasi-quadraalgebras with suitable (co)quasitriangularity conditions. Remenbering that in the definition of $`GT`$ the coassociator is the essential part of the data (see \[Dri\] where this is already noted), we can extend this conclusion to general quasi-quadraalgebras. This concludes the proof.

So, on the level of tricategories arising via representation theory from quadraalgebras (and, consequently, for higher categorical levels linked to corresponding higher algebras), one gets only generalizations of braided monoidal structures which do not allow for deformations. Especially, as we have just shown, there is no nontrivial deformation theory of trialgebras into quadraalgebras, further generalizing the deformation of groups into Hopf algebras into trialgebras. So, on the level of trialgebras a kind of stability is reached. Observe that this non existence of deformations is much stronger than usual rigidity in cohomology theory since we can not only exclude deformations in a given category of structures but also deformations to higher categorical analogs of the structure. E.g. the usual rigidity results in the theory of classical Lie algebras do not exclude the deformation of the universal envelope into a noncommutative and noncocommutative Hopf algebra but - as we just mentioned - we can exclude deformations of trialgebras into algebraic structures involving four or more products and coproducts joined in a compatible way. We suggest the term ultrarigidity for this kind of stability.

###### Remark 3

Since Hopf categories are linked to four dimensional topological field theory (as Hopf algebras are to the three dimensional case), see \[CF\] and \[CKS\], this seems on the algebraic level to mirror the fact that geometry in dimension five and higher is in some sense much simpler than the three and four dimensional cases. There is also a more physical interpretation of this result: Since bialgebra categories are linked supposedly to certain types of quantum field theories on noncommutative spaces (see \[GS3\]), we can see this as saying that quantum field theory on noncommutative spaces is a stable structure in some sense, not allowing for a further generalization of the passage from classical to quantum field theory to quantum field theory on noncommutative spaces.

So far, we have seen only a few abstract properties of the Hopf algebra $`_{GT}`$. We will give a more explicit description of $`_{GT}`$ in the next section.

## 2 The explicit structure of $`_{GT}`$

In \[Dri\] an explicit description of the Grothendieck-Teichmüller group $`GT`$ is derived from the general definition of the group of transformations of the associator and the braiding of a quasitensor category. In this section, we want to do the same for the Hopf algebra $`_{GT}`$.

Recall that the elements of $`GT`$ can be written in the form $`(\lambda ,f)`$ with $`\lambda `$ and $`f`$ belongs to the $``$-pro-unipotent completion of the free group of two generators where the pairs $`(\lambda ,f)`$ satisfy certain conditions (see \[Dri\]). Remember also that $`f`$ arises in the following way from the general definition of $`GT`$: If we change the associator

$$\left(UV\right)WU\left(VW\right)$$

this means multiplying it by an automorphism of $`\left(UV\right)W`$. It can be shown that any such automorphism is of the form

$$f(\sigma _1^2,\sigma _2^2)\left(\sigma _1\sigma _2\right)^{3n}$$

with $`n`$ and $`f`$ as above. Here, $`\sigma _1`$, $`\sigma _2`$ are the generators of the braid group $`B_3`$.

Now, assume that we have a Hopf category (see \[CF\]) with associativity isomorphism $`\alpha `$ for the tensor product and coassociativity isomorphism $`\beta `$ for the functorial coproduct. Note that while the possible transformations of $`\alpha `$ are represented by automorphisms of tensor products $`\left(UV\right)W`$, the possible cotransformations of $`\beta `$ are of a dual nature and can formally be seen as elements of the algebraic dual of the underlying vector space of the automorphism group

$$Aut\left(\left(UV\right)W\right)$$

(remember that a Hopf category is, especially, $``$-linear). So, cotransformations of $`\beta `$ can be - up to linear combinations - written in the form $`\widehat{g}`$ where $`g`$ is the second component of an element of $`GT`$ and $`\widehat{}`$ denotes the dualization operation as defined above.

Next, remember that the structure of $`GT`$ is basically determined by the transformations of the associator (see \[Dri\], \[Kon\]), i.e. in the sequel we will forget about the component $`\lambda `$ coming from the braiding.

In conclusion, we can describe the Hopf algebra $`_{GT}`$ as a sub-Hopf algebra of the tensor product of the function algebra of $`GT`$ with the Hopf algebra dual of $`GT`$ (as defined above), i.e. as a sub-Hopf algebra of the Drinfeld double of $`GT`$.

In order to determine the concrete nature of this sub-Hopf algebra, we have to use the compatibility condition between $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ involved in the definition of a Hopf category. While for objects $`U,V,W`$ $`\alpha `$ is represented as an isomorphism

$$\phi :\left(UV\right)WU\left(VW\right)$$

$`\beta `$ is, again, given by an element $`\widehat{\psi }`$ of the dual of the space of such transformations. The natural compatibility condition is, then,

$$\psi ^1\phi =\phi ^1\psi $$
(1)
In order to assure that a pair $`(f,\widehat{g})`$ transforms a Hopf category into a Hopf category, we have to require that for the transformed isomorphisms the above equation holds, too. Since $`f`$ and $`g`$ act on $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$, respectively, by the multiplication

$`\phi `$ $``$ $`\phi f`$
$`\psi `$ $``$ $`\psi g`$
it follows that

$$g^1\psi ^1\phi f=f^1\phi ^1\psi g$$
(2)
Let

$$\chi =\psi ^1\phi $$

i.e. equation (2) reads as

$$g^1\chi f=f^1\chi ^1g$$
(3)
We are searching for a universal structure (i.e. not dependent on the choice of Hopf category) of $`_{GT}`$, so, we have to require that (3) holds for all possible choices of $`\chi `$.

Since equation (1) implies that

$$\chi ^2=1$$

i.e. $`\chi `$ is a projector, it follows that equation (3) holds for all possible choices of $`\chi `$ iff it holds for $`\chi `$ being the identity. So, equation (2) is equivalent to the condition

$$g^1f=f^1g$$
(4)
for the elements $`f,g`$ of $`GT`$, i.e. we have a universal condition determining $`_{GT}`$.

###### Remark 4

The symmetry inherent in the condition (4) is, of course, the source of the self-duality of $`_{GT}`$.

###### Remark 5

Mixed Tate motives over $`Spec\left(\right)`$ are believed to be given as representations of $`GT`$ (see \[Kon\]). The explicit nature of condition (4), in principle, allows for explicit calculations of the quantum analogs of such motives as representations of $`_{GT}`$ which are also corepresentations of $`_{GT}`$. Given pairs of representations of $`GT`$, one can use (4) to determine such representations of $`_{GT}`$. On the other hand, the condition also shows that one has to expect that representations of pairs $`(f,\widehat{g})`$ satisfying (4) exist where neither the component $`f`$, nor $`g`$, derives from a full representation of $`GT`$, i.e. one has to expect quantum motives which do not derive from a classical counterpart. E.g. partial representations of $`GT`$ which would develop singularities, if one would try to extend them to a full one, could play a role, here.

We want to conclude this section with another small observation: In \[KL\] an algebraic framework - so called extended topological quantum field theories - is developed in detail which allows for the inclusion of the case of boundary conformal field theories into the algebraic description. It is shown there that such theories are determined by modular categories $`𝒞`$ (i.e. certain quasitensor categories) together with a Hopf algebra object $`H`$ in $`𝒞`$. One can immediately define a category Rep$`\left(H\right)`$ of representations of $`H`$ in $`𝒞`$ from this.

###### Lemma 4

The possible compatible transformations of Rep$`\left(H\right)`$ together with $`𝒞`$ are determined by pairs $`(f,g)`$ of elements $`f,g`$ of $`GT`$ satisfying condition (4).

Proof. Direct consequence of the definition of Rep$`\left(H\right)`$.

So, from the view of the abstract quantum symmetry $`_{GT}`$, the algebraic formulation of boundary conformal field theories given by \[KL\] and the structure of trialgebras and Hopf categories are just different concrete realizations of one and the same quantum symmetry.

###### Remark 6

One can dually also formulate $`_{GT}`$ by starting from the Ihara algebra Ih (see \[Dri\], \[Iha1\], \[Iha2\] for the definition) instead of $`GT`$ (the Ihara algebra is closely related to the Lie algebra of $`GT`$). The condition (4) translates then to the condition

$$[f,h]=0$$
(5)
for elements $`f,hIh`$.

Remembering that the Lie algebra structure of Ih derives - by evaluation of the elements of Ih on finite-dimensional metrized (i.e. endowed with an invariant inner product) Lie algebra $`g`$ \- from the Kirillov bracket (see \[Dri\] and for the definition of the Kirillov bracket \[Kir\]), condition (5) translates after evaluation on $`g`$ to

$$\{f_g,h_g\}=0$$

i.e. we can view it as requiring $`h_g`$ to behave as a symmetry relative to $`f_g`$ and vice versa.

## 3 Conclusion

We have introduced a noncommutative analog $`_{GT}`$ of the Grothendieck-Teichmüller group in the form of a self-dual, noncommutative, and noncocommutative Hopf algebra. Besides this, we have given an explicit description of the elements of $`_{GT}`$. We also proved a stability property (ultrarigidity) excluding deformations of certain higher categorical structures than bicategories. Further work will deal, in particular, with physical applications of this stability result.

Acknowledgements:

I thank H. Grosse for discussions on the topics involved and A. Goncharov for very helpful explanations on classical motivic structures. Besides this, I thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) for support by a research grant and the Erwin Schrödinger Institute for Mathematical Physics, Vienna, for hospitality.


format: text

text:
# Gamma function, Beta function and combinatorial identities

## Abstract

In this note we present a method for obtaining a wide class of combinatorial identities. We give several examples, in particular, based on the Gamma and Beta functions. Some of them have already been considered by previously, and other are new.

Key words: Combinatorial identities, Gamma function, Beta function, Dirichlet’s integral.

## 1. Introduction

The five basic methods for obtaining combinatorial identities are the following (see \[PWZ\]). The first is sister Celine’s method \[F\], generalized by Zeilberger \[Z82\], the second is Gosper’s algorithm \[G\], Zeilbereger’s algorithm \[Z90, Z91\] is the third method, the Wilf and Zeilbereger method \[WZ90, WZ92\] is the fourth, and the Hyper algorithm \[Pe\] is the fifth. Besides, Egorychev \[E\] presents another method, based on integral representations in the complex domain. The latter method allows to compute several combinatorial sums with inverse binomial coefficients. In the present note, we present another method for obtaining a wide class of combinatorial identities, based on integral representations in the real domain.

In 1981, Rockett \[R, Th. 1\] (see also \[Pl\]) proved the following. For any nonnegative integer $`n`$

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)^1=\frac{n+1}{2^{n+1}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}\frac{2^k}{k}.$$

In 1999, Trif \[T\] proved the above result using the Beta function. This paper can be regarded as a far-reaching generalization of the ideas presented in \[T\]. Our main result, in its simplest form, can be stated as follows.

###### Theorem 0.1

Let $`r`$, $`nk`$ be any nonnegative integer numbers, let $`f(n,k)`$ be given by

$$f(n,k)=\frac{(n+r)!}{n!}_{u_1}^{u_2}p^k(t)q^{nk}(t)𝑑t,$$

where $`p(t)`$ and $`q(t)`$ are two functions defined on $`[u_1,u_2]`$. Let $`\{a_n\}_{n0}`$ and $`\{b_n\}_{n0}`$ be any two sequences, and let $`A(x)`$, $`B(x)`$ be the corresponding ordinary generating functions. Then

$$\underset{n0}{}\left[\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}f(n,k)a_kb_{nk}\right]x^n=\frac{d^r}{dx^r}\left[x^r_{u_1}^{u_2}A(xp(t))B(xq(t))𝑑t\right].$$

As an easy consequence of Theorem 0.1 we get a family of identities, including the one presented above.

###### Example 1

(see \[JS\]) Let $`a_n=a^n`$ and $`b_n=b^n`$ for all $`n0`$ such that $`a+b0`$. So the corresponding generating functions of these sequences are

$$A(x)=\underset{n0}{}a_nx^n=\frac{1}{1ax};B(x)=\underset{n0}{}b_nx^n=\frac{1}{1bx}.$$

Recall that, the Gamma function is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+1)=_0^{\mathrm{}}t^se^t𝑑t,$$

for all real numbers $`s`$ such that $`s>1`$, and the Beta function is defined by

$$B(s,r)=_0^1t^{s1}(1t)^{r1}𝑑t,$$

for all positive real numbers $`s`$ and $`r`$. Since $`B(s,r)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(r)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+r+1)}`$ we obtain

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s}{r}\right)^1=(s+1)_0^1t^r(1t)^{sr}𝑑t,$$
$`(1)`$
for all nonnegative real numbers $`s`$ and $`r`$ such that $`sr`$.

By Theorem 0.1 and equation $`(1)`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\underset{n0}{}x^n\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}a^kb^{nk}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)^1\hfill & =\frac{d}{dx}\left(x_0^1\frac{1}{(1axt)(1bx+bxt)}𝑑t\right)\hfill \\ & =\frac{d}{dx}\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1ax)\mathrm{ln}(1bx)}{a+babx}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

On the other hand,

$$\mathrm{ln}(1x)=\underset{n1}{}\frac{x^n}{n}\text{and}\frac{1}{a+babx}=\frac{1}{a+b}\underset{n0}{}\frac{a^nb^nx^n}{(a+b)^n},$$

hence

$$\begin{array}{cc}\underset{n0}{}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}a^kb^{nk}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)^1\hfill & =\frac{d}{dx}\left[\frac{1}{a+b}\underset{n0}{}\frac{a^nb^nx^{n+1}}{(a+b)^n}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{(a^{k+1}+b^{k+1})}{k+1}\frac{(a+b)^k}{a^kb^k}\right]\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{a+b}\underset{n0}{}\frac{(n+1)(ab)^{n+1}x^n}{(a+b)^{n+1}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}\frac{(a^k+b^k)(a+b)^{k1}}{k(ab)^{k1}},\hfill \end{array}$$

which means that for any nonnegative integer $`n`$

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}a^kb^{nk}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)^1=\frac{n+1}{\left(\frac{1}{a}+\frac{1}{b}\right)^{n+1}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}\frac{(a^k+b^k)\left(\frac{1}{a}+\frac{1}{b}\right)^{k1}}{k}.$$

As a numerical example, for $`a=b=1`$, we get

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)^1=\frac{n+1}{2^{n+1}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}\frac{2^k}{k},$$

which is result of Rockett, Pla and Trif. The latter identity we can represent as follows:

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)^1=(n+1)\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{(n+1k)2^k}.$$
$`(2)`$
###### Example 2

Let us define $`a_n=n`$, $`b_n=1`$ for $`n0`$. By Theorem 0.1 and equation (1) it is easy to see that

$$\underset{n0}{}\left[\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}k\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)^1\right]x^n=\frac{2x\mathrm{ln}(1x)}{(2x)^3}\frac{x(3x4)}{(2x)^2(1x)^2}.$$

Hence, for any nonnegative integer $`n`$

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}k\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)^1=\frac{1}{2^n}\left[(n+1)(2^n1)+\underset{k=0}{\overset{n2}{}}\frac{(nk)(nk1)2^{k1}}{k+1}\right].$$

In the rest of the paper, we prove Theorem 0.1 and generalize it by functions represented by integrals over a $`d`$-dimensional domain. We present several examples; some of them have been considered previously, and other are new.

## 2. One-dimensional case

First of all, let us prove Theorem 0.1. Let $`f(n,k)`$ be as in the statement of the theorem. Then

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}f(n,k)a_nb_{nk}=\frac{(n+r)!}{n!}_{u_1}^{u_2}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}a_kp^k(t)b_{nk}q^{nk}(t)dt,$$

which means that

$$\underset{n0}{}x^n\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}f(n,k)a_nb_{nk}=\underset{n0}{}\left[\frac{(n+r)!x^n}{n!}_{u_1}^{u_2}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}a_kp^k(t)b_{nk}q^{nk}(t)\right]dt.$$

Let $`A(x)=\underset{n0}{}a_nx^n`$, $`B(x)=\underset{n0}{}b_nx^n`$; hence

$$\underset{n0}{}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}f(n,k)a_kb_{nk}x^n=\frac{d^r}{dx^r}\left[x^r_{u_1}^{u_2}A(xp(t))B(xq(t))𝑑t\right],$$

which means that Theorem 0.1 holds.∎

Now, we present other applications of Theorem 0.1.

###### Example 3

Immediately, by equation $`(1)`$ and Theorem 0.1, we get for any nonnegative integer numbers $`c`$ and $`d`$

$$\underset{n0}{}x^{cn}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{cn}{dk}\right)^1=\frac{d}{dx}_0^1\frac{xdt}{(1(1t)^cx^c)(1t^d(1t)^{cd}x^c)}.$$

For $`c=d=2`$ we get

$$\underset{n0}{}x^{2n}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n}{2k}\right)^1=\frac{d}{dx}_0^1\frac{xdt}{(1(1t)^2x^2)(1t^2x^2)}.$$

Therefore,

$$\underset{n0}{}x^{2n}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n}{2k}\right)^1=\frac{d}{dx}\left[\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1x)}{x(2x)}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1+x)}{x(2+x)}\right],$$

Hence, for any nonnegative integer $`n`$

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n}{2k}\right)^1=\frac{2n+1}{2^{2n+2}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{2n+1}{}}\frac{2^k}{k+1}.$$

###### Theorem 0.2

Let $`\{a_n\}_{n0}`$ and $`\{b_n\}_{n0}`$ be two sequences, $`A(x)`$ and $`B(x)`$ be the corresponding ordinary generating functions and $`\mu `$ be the differential operator of the first order defined by $`\mu (f)=\frac{d}{dx}(xf)`$. Then, for any positive integer $`m`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\underset{n0}{}\hfill & \left[\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)^ma_kb_{nk}\right]x^n=\hfill \\ & \mu ^m\left[\underset{m\text{times}}{\underset{}{_0^1_0^1\mathrm{}_0^1}}A(xt_1t_2\mathrm{}t_m)B((1t_1)(1t_2)\mathrm{}(1t_m)x)dt_1dt_2\mathrm{}dt_m\right].\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof

Using equation $`(1)`$ we get

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)^m=(n+1)^m\left[_0^1t^k(1t)^{nk}𝑑t\right]^m,$$

which means that

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)^m=(n+1)^m\underset{m\text{times}}{\underset{}{_0^1\mathrm{}_0^1}}(t_1t_2\mathrm{}t_m)^k((1t_1)(1t_2)\mathrm{}(1t_m))^{nk}dt_1\mathrm{}dt_m.$$

So similarly to proof of Theorem 0.1, this theorem holds. ∎

Now let us find another representation for $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)^m`$.

###### Proposition 1

For any nonnegative integers $`n,m`$

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)^m=(n+1)^m\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\underset{i=0}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{(1)^i}{k+1+i}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{i}\right)\right]^m.$$

###### Proof

By Equation (1) we get for all positive integer $`m`$

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)^m=(n+1)^m\left(_0^1t^k(1t)^{nk}𝑑t\right)^m,$$

which means that

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)^m=(n+1)^m\left[_0^1\underset{i=0}{\overset{nk}{}}(1)^i\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk}{i}\right)t^{k+i}dt\right]^m,$$

hence the proposition holds. ∎

The above proposition and equation (2) yield the following.

###### Corollary 1

For any nonnegative integer $`n`$,

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)^1=(n+1)\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{(n+1k)2^k}=(n+1)\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{(1)^j}{k+1+j}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{j}\right).$$

###### Corollary 2

For any nonnegative integer number $`n`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)^2\hfill & =(n+1)^2\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\underset{i=0}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{(1)^i}{k+1+i}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{i}\right)\right]^2=\hfill \\ & =(n+1)^2\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{2}{nk+1}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{(1)^j}{n+2+i}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{i}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof

By Proposition 1 the first equality holds. Now let us prove the second equality. By Theorem 0.2 we get

$$\underset{n0}{}x^n\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)^2=\mu ^2\left[_0^1_0^1\frac{1}{(1tux)(1(1t)(1u)x)}𝑑u𝑑t\right],$$

therefore

$$\underset{n0}{}x^n\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)^2=\mu ^2\left[_0^1\frac{2\mathrm{ln}(1tx)}{x(1t(1t)x)}𝑑t\right].$$

Hence, since $`\mathrm{ln}(1tx)=_{n1}\frac{t^nx^n}{n}`$ and $`\frac{1}{1t(1t)x}=_{n0}t^n(1t)^nx^n`$, the second equality holds. ∎

As we see, all the above examples depend on equation (1) which follows from the definition of Beta function. Now let us present another direction for examples. Let us define $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s}{r}\right)`$ for any two real numbers $`r,s>1`$ as

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s}{r}\right)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(r+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(sr+1)}.$$
$`(3)`$
###### Example 4

It is easy to see by induction on $`n0`$ that

$$_0^{\pi /2}\mathrm{sin}^{mn}xdx=\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }((mn+1)/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }((mn+3)/2)},$$

so Theorem 0.1 for $`p(t)=q(t)=a\mathrm{sin}^mt`$ yields

$$\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2}\underset{n0}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }((mn+1)/2)a^n}{\mathrm{\Gamma }((mn+3)/2)}=_0^{\pi /2}\frac{1}{1a\mathrm{sin}^mt}𝑑t.$$

Hence, since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2)=\sqrt{\pi }`$, we get for any positive integer $`m`$

$$\underset{n0}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{mn1}{2}}{\frac{mn}{2}1}\right)a^n=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}_0^{\pi /2}\frac{1}{1a\mathrm{sin}^mt}𝑑t.$$

As numerical examples, we get the following identities:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\underset{n0}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{n1}{2}}{\frac{n}{2}1}\right)\hfill & =2;\hfill \\ \underset{n0}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1/2}{n1}\right)\hfill & =arctanh(1+\sqrt{2})+arctanh(1\sqrt{2});\hfill \\ \underset{n0}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{n1}{2}}{\frac{n}{2}1}\right)b^n\hfill & =\frac{2\left[arctanh\left(\frac{b1}{\sqrt{b^21}}\right)arctanh\left(\frac{b}{\sqrt{b^21}}\right)\right]}{\sqrt{b^21}},b>1.\hfill \end{array}$$

## 3. Generalization: $`d`$-dimensional case

Let $`X`$ be a multiset of variables $`x_j`$, where $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},d+1`$, and let $`X^{}=\{x_{i_1},\mathrm{},x_{i_l}\}`$ be the underlying set. Let $`g(t)`$ and $`f_j(t)`$, $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},d`$ be any $`d+1`$ functions such that $`\varphi (x_{i_1},\mathrm{},x_{i_l})=g(x_{d+1})\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}f_j(x_j)`$ is a function defined on a $`l`$-dimensional domain $`D`$. Let $`r`$ be a nonnegative integer number, and let $`f(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_d)`$ be given by

$$f(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_d)=\frac{(k_1+\mathrm{}+k_d+r)!}{(k_1+\mathrm{}+k_d)!}_D\varphi (x_{i_1},\mathrm{},x_{i_l})𝑑x_{i_1}\mathrm{}𝑑x_{i_l}.$$

Then for any sequences $`\{a_n^{(j)}\}_{n0}`$, $`j=1,2,\mathrm{}d`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\underset{k_1+\mathrm{}+k_d=n}{}\hfill & f(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_d)\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}a_{k_j}^{(j)}=\hfill \\ & =\frac{(n+r)!}{n!}_D\left(g(x_{d+1})\underset{k_1+\mathrm{}+k_d=n}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}a_{k_j}^{(j)}f_j^{k_j}(x_j)\right)𝑑x_{i_1}\mathrm{}𝑑x_{i_l}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore

$$\begin{array}{cc}\underset{n0}{}\underset{k_1+\mathrm{}+k_d=n}{}\hfill & f(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_d)x^n\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}a_{k_j}^{(j)}=\hfill \\ & =\underset{n0}{}\left[\frac{(n+r)!}{n!}_Dg(x_{d+1})\underset{k_1+\mathrm{}+k_d=n}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}a_{k_j}^{(j)}(xf_j(x_j))^{k_j}dx_{i_1}\mathrm{}dx_{i_l}\right]\hfill \end{array},$$

which means that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\underset{n0}{}\underset{k_1+\mathrm{}+k_d=n}{}\hfill & f(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_d)x^n_{j=1}^da_{k_j}^{(j)}=\hfill \\ & =\frac{d^r}{dx^r}\left[x^r_Dg(x_{d+1})\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}A_j(xf_j(x_j))dx_{i_1}\mathrm{}dx_{i_l}\right]\hfill \end{array},$$

where $`A_j(x)`$ is the generating function of the sequence $`\{a_n^{(j)}\}_{n0}`$. Hence, we get the following result (Theorem 0.1 is its particular case), which gives us a general method for obtaining combinatorial identities.

###### Theorem 0.3

Let $`X`$ be a multiset of variables $`x_j`$, where $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},d+1`$, and let $`X^{}=\{x_{i_1},\mathrm{},x_{i_l}\}`$ be the underlying set. Let $`g(t)`$ and $`f_j(t)`$, $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},d`$ be any $`d+1`$ functions such that $`\varphi (x_{i_1},\mathrm{},x_{i_l})=g(x_{d+1})\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}f_j(x_j)`$ is a function defined on a $`l`$-dimensional domain $`D`$. Let $`r`$ be a nonnegative integer number, and let $`f(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_d)`$ be given by

$$f(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_d)=\frac{(k_1+\mathrm{}+k_d+r)!}{(k_1+\mathrm{}+k_d)!}_D\varphi (x_{i_1},\mathrm{},x_{i_l})𝑑x_{i_1}\mathrm{}𝑑x_{i_l}.$$

Then for any sequences $`\{a_n^{(j)}\}_{n0}`$, $`j=1,2,\mathrm{}d`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\underset{n0}{}\underset{k_1+\mathrm{}+k_d=n}{}\hfill & f(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_d)x^n\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}a_{k_i}^{(j)}=\hfill \\ & \frac{d^r}{dx^r}\left[x^r_Dg(x_{d+1})\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}A_j(xf_j(x_j))dx_{i_1}\mathrm{}dx_{i_l}\right],\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`A_j(x)`$ is the ordinary generating function of the sequence $`\{a_n^{(j)}\}_{n0}`$.

Another way to generalize Theorem 0.1 is the following. Let $`V`$ be the hyperplane defined by $`_{i=1}^d\left(\frac{x_i}{a_i}\right)^{p_i}=1`$ where $`x_i0`$ for all $`i=1,2,\mathrm{}d`$. If $`p_i0`$ for all $`i`$, then the Dirichlet’s integral is defined by

$$_V\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}x_j^{\alpha _j1}dx_1\mathrm{}dx_d=\frac{a_1^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}a_d^{\alpha _d}}{p_1\mathrm{}p_d}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\alpha _1}{p_1}\right)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\alpha _d}{p_d}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{\alpha _1}{p_1}+\mathrm{}+\frac{\alpha _d}{p_d}\right)}.$$
$`(4)`$
So for $`p_j=1`$, $`a_j=1`$, and $`_{j=1}^d\alpha _j=n`$ we obtain

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _d}\right)^m=\frac{(n+d1)!^m}{n!^m}\left(_{x_1+\mathrm{}+x_d=1}x_1^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}x_d^{\alpha _d}𝑑x_1\mathrm{}𝑑x_d\right)^m.$$
$`(5)`$
Hence, Theorem 0.3, Theorem 0.1 and equation (4) yield the following.

###### Theorem 0.4

Let $`\{a_n^{(j)}\}_{n0}`$ be any sequence for all $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},d`$, and let $`\nu `$ be the differential operator of the $`(d1)`$th order defined by $`\nu _d(f)=\frac{d^{d1}}{dx^{d1}}(x^{d1}f)`$ . Then

$$\begin{array}{cc}\underset{n0}{}x^n\hfill & \underset{\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _d=n}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _d}\right)^m_{j=1}^da_{\alpha _j}^{(j)}=\hfill \\ & =\nu _d^m\left[\underset{m\text{times}}{\underset{}{_V\mathrm{}_V}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}A_j(xx_{j,1}x_{j,2}\mathrm{}x_{j,m})_{i=1,j=1}^{d,m}dx_{i,j}\right],\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`V`$ is the hyperplane defined by $`x_1+x_2+\mathrm{}+x_d=1`$ , $`A_j(x)`$ is the ordinary generating function of sequence $`\{a_n^{(j)}\}_{n0}`$, $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},d`$.


text:
# The Equilibrium Structure of Cosmological Halos

## Abstract

We have derived an analytical model for the postcollapse equilibrium structure of cosmological halos as nonsingular truncated isothermal spheres (TIS) and compared this model with observations and simulations of cosmological halos on all scales. Our model is in good agreement with the observations of the internal structure of dark-matter-dominated halos from dwarf galaxies to X-ray clusters. It reproduces many of the average properties of halos in CDM simulations to good accuracy, including the density profiles outside the central region, while avoiding the possible discrepancy at small radii between observed galaxy and cluster density profiles and the singular density profiles predicted by N-body simulations of the CDM model. While much attention has been focused lately on this possible discrepancy, we show that the observed galaxy rotation curves and correlations of halo properties nevertheless contain valuable additional information with which to test the theory, despite this uncertainty at small radii. The available data allows us to constrain the fundamental cosmological parameters and also to put a unique constraint on the primordial density fluctuation power spectrum at large wavenumbers (i.e. small mass scale).

The TIS Model. Our model is described in detail in SIR  for an EdS universe and generalized to a low-density universe, either matter-dominated or flat with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ in ISb . An initial top-hat density perturbation collapses and virializes, which leads to a nonsingular TIS in hydrostatic equilibrium, a solution of the Lane-Emden equation (appropriately modified for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$). Using the anzatz that the resulting TIS sphere is the one with the minimum-energy, out of the family of possible solutions, we find that a top-hat perturbation collapse leads to a unique, nonsingular TIS, yielding a universal, self-similar density profile for the postcollapse equilibrium of cosmic halos. Our solution has a unique length scale and amplitude set by the top-hat mass and collapse epoch, with a density proportional to the background density at that epoch. The density profiles for gas and dark matter are assumed to be the same.

Rotation Curves of Dark-Matter Dominated Galactic Halos. The TIS profile matches the observed mass profiles of dark-matter-dominated dwarf galaxies, which are well-fit by the empirical density profile of B , with a finite density core. The TIS profile gives a nearly perfect fit to the Burkert profile, providing it with theoretical underpinning and a cosmological context ISa .

We have also combined the TIS halo model with the Press-Schechter (PS) formalism, which predicts the typical collapse epoch for objects of a given mass in the CDM model, to explain the observed correlation of $`v_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{max}}`$ for dwarf spiral and LSB galaxies. The observational data indicates preference for the currently-favored, flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM universe ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1\lambda _0=0.3`$, $`h=0.7`$). For more details on our methods and results, see ISa .

The Correlations of Halo Core and Maximum Phase-Space Densities with Velocity Dispersion. A comparison of observed halo properties with other correlations predicted by this TIS+PS approach can test the CDM model while constraining the fundamental cosmological parameters and the power-spectrum shape at small mass scales (i.e. large wavenumbers $`k`$). The core densities $`\rho _0`$ and maximum phase-space densities $`Q\rho _0/\sigma _V^3`$ for dark-matter dominated halos are predicted to be correlated with their velocity dispersions $`\sigma _V`$ as shown in Figure 1. For cold, collisionless DM, $`Q`$ is expected to be almost independent of the effects of baryonic dissipation S . The data on halos from dwarf spheroidal to clusters is consistent with these predictions, with preference for the flat, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. There have been recent claims that $`\rho _0=`$const for all cosmological halos, independent of their mass, and that such behavior is expected for certain types of SIDM FDCHA ; KKT . This claim, however, does not seem to be supported by the current data (Figure 1).

Galaxy Clusters: TIS vs. CDM Simulations We have shown previously IS ; SI ; SIR  that the TIS halo model predicts to great accuracy the internal structure of X-ray clusters found by gas-dynamical/N-body simulations of cluster formation in the CDM model at $`z=0`$. The TIS prediction for the redshift evolution of the halo mass-temperature and mass-velocity dispersion relations for galaxy clusters also matches to high accuracy ($``$ few percent) the empirical relations derived in ME  from CDM gas/N-body simulations and by the Virgo Consortium from their Hubble volume N-body simulations \[Evrard, private communication\].

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by NSF grant INT-0003682 from the International Research Fellowship Program and the Office of Multidisciplinary Activities of the Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences to ITI and grants NASA ATP NAG5-7363 and NAG5-7821, NSF ASC-9504046, and Texas Advanced Research Program 3658-0624-1999 to PRS.


text:
# Collective Dipole Bremsstrahlung in Fusion Reactions

## Abstract

We estimate the dipole radiation emitted in fusion processes. We show that a classical bremsstrahlung approach can account for both the preequilibrium and the thermal photon emission. We give an absolute evaluation of the pre-equilibrium component due to the charge asymmetry in the entrance channel and we study the energy and mass dependence in order to optimize the observation. This dynamical dipole radiation could be a relevant cooling mechanism in the fusion path. We stress the interest in experiments with the new available radioactive beams.

PACS numbers: 24.30.Cz; 25.70.Jj; 25.70.Lm; 25.60.Pj

In the early stage of a heavy ion collision large amplitude collective motions can be excited. Monopole, dipole or quadrupole modes are typical examples. Tracing information from their decay provides the opportunity to learn about the features of fermionic systems in particular, extreme conditions.

If the colliding nuclei have different $`N/Z`$ ratios the charge equilibration process takes place. Several works have suggested that the related neutron-proton collective motion has the features of a Giant Dipole Resonance ($`GDR`$) mode . In a microscopic approach based on semiclassical $`BNV`$ transport equations , it has been studied in detail how a collective $`GDR`$ responsenbdevelops in the entrance channel. In connection to this analysis three main phases can be identified. First, during the $`\mathrm{𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔}\mathrm{𝑝ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑒}`$ the two partners, overcoming the Coulomb barrier, still keep their own response. Then it follows a dinuclear phase when the conversion of relative motion energy in thermal motion starts to take place, mainly due to nucleon exchange. The composite system is not thermally equilibrated and manifests, as a whole, a large amplitude dipole collective motion. The charge equilibration has initiated. Finally, during the third phase, the Compound Nucleus (CN) formation, the nucleus is thermally equilibrated. In a phonon approach  it was shown  for the first time that an enhancement of the $`GDR`$ gamma emission should be observed if the number of $`GDR`$ phonons, $`n_{GDR}^{(0)}`$, when the $`CN`$ is formed, is larger than the value corresponding to a statistical equilibrium of the $`GDR`$ (as oscillator) with the $`CN`$ (as heat bath). This effect has been experimentally evidenced in several fusion reactions .

However it is important to notice that also in the second (dinuclear) phase a $`GDR`$ is excited on top of nonequilibrium states  (Brink-Axel hypothesis). The number of $`GDR`$ phonons is even larger than $`n_{GDR}^{(0)}`$  and consequently some pre-equilibrium $`GDR`$ photons can be emitted also at this stage. In the attempt to estimate this contribution we cannot use straightforwardly the ”phonon” approach  which is based on the assumption of the existence of a thermally equilibrated nucleus. A way to face this problem is to directly apply a bremsstrahlung (”bremss”) approach. Considering the evolution of the collective dipole acceleration from the time when it suddenly rises, at the beginning of the second phase, until it is completely damped to a pure ”thermal” component, we can consistently calculate the whole contribution of the pre-equilibrium $`GDR`$ to the photon yield. This is the aim of our letter.

The total photon emission probability from the dipole mode oscillations, as given by the bremsstrahlung formula, can be expressed as  ($`E_\gamma =\mathrm{}\omega `$):

$$\frac{dP}{dE_\gamma }=\frac{2e^2}{3\pi \mathrm{}c^3E_\gamma }(\frac{NZ}{A})^2|X^{\prime \prime }(\omega )|^2,$$
(1)
where $`X^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ is the Fourier transform of the acceleration $`X^{\prime \prime }(t)`$ associated with the distance between the centers of mass of protons $`(P)`$ and neutrons $`(N)`$, $`X=R_pR_n`$. $`A=N+Z`$ is the system mass. Thus following the time evolution of the dipole mode along the fusion dynamics it is possible to evaluate, in absolute values, the corresponding pre-equilibrium photon emission. However it is interesting to notice that the ”bremss” approach  actually provides a unified picture to account for the photon emission from both pre-equilibrium and thermal $`GDR`$. In fact Eq.(1) also allows to recover the usual expression for the $`\gamma `$-decay rate from a $`GDR`$ in thermal equilibrium with a $`CN`$ at temperature $`T`$. In this case the dipole mode will manifest thermal oscillations that by the fluctuation-dissipation theorem are completely determined only by its dissipative properties . We may consider equivalently that these are the consequence of the action of a fictious, time dependent, random force $`F(t)`$ . Then the Fourier transform of the distance $`X(t)`$ can be expressed as: $`X(\omega )=\alpha (\omega )\times F(\omega )`$, where

$$\alpha (\omega )=\alpha _r(\omega )+i\alpha _i(\omega )=\frac{1}{M_{coll}(\omega _0^2\omega ^2i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{}}\omega )},$$
(2)
is the response function of the dipole mode . $`M_{coll}\frac{NZ}{A}m`$ with $`m=935MeV`$ (nucleon mass) represents the collective mass of the neutron-proton relative motion and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the decay width.

The spectral density of mean square fluctuation of random force $`<|F(\omega )|^2>`$ is related to the properties of the system through the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, as it follows :

$$<|F(\omega )|^2>=\frac{\mathrm{}\alpha _i(\omega )}{|\alpha (\omega )|^2}cth(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2T})=M_{coll}\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }cth(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2T}).$$
(3)
Using the Parseval theorem and the ergodic hypothesis we have, for times $`T_0`$ very large, $`lim_{T_0\mathrm{}}T_0<|F(\omega )|^2>=|F(\omega )|^2`$. So, by introducing in Eq.(1) the Fourier transform $`X^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ of the acceleration, since $`|X^{\prime \prime }(\omega )|^2=\omega ^4|X(\omega )|^2`$, we get the average photon emission probability per unit time:

$$\underset{T_0\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{T_0}\frac{dP}{dE_\gamma }=\frac{2}{3\pi }\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}mc^3}\frac{NZ}{A}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }E_\gamma ^4}{(E_\gamma ^2E_0^2)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2E_\gamma ^2}cth(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2T})$$
(4)
If we exclude the zero-point motion contribution and expand the hyperbolic function for $`\mathrm{}\omega >T`$ we obtain:

$`\underset{T_0\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{dP}{dE_\gamma }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{E_\gamma }{\pi \mathrm{}c}})^2`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi e^2\mathrm{}}{mc}}{\displaystyle \frac{NZ}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }E_\gamma ^2}{(E_\gamma ^2E_0^2)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2E_\gamma ^2}}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{E_\gamma }{T}})=`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{E_\gamma }{\pi \mathrm{}c}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{abs}}{3}}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{E_\gamma }{T}}),`$ (7)
where $`\sigma _{abs}`$ is the $`\gamma `$-absorption cross section in the $`GDR`$ region. This is the well known formula for the gamma emission rate from hot $`GDR`$ . It was previously obtained by using the detailed balance principle or from considerations on the statistical equilibrium between dipole mode and black-body radiation .

Now we focus on the dynamical dipole mode in the entrance channel and we study the dependence of the pre-equilibrium dipole oscillations on the incident beam energy. We look at the relative weight vs. the statistical contribution.

In the following we present results concerning the charge equilibration process for the systems $`{}_{}{}^{40}Ca`$ $`(N/Z=1)`$ on $`{}_{}{}^{100}Mo`$ $`(N/Z=1.38)`$, at $`4AMeV`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{16}O`$ $`(N/Z=1)`$ on $`{}_{}{}^{98}Mo`$ $`(N/Z=1.33)`$ at various beam energies ($`4`$, $`8`$, $`14`$ and $`20AMeV`$). Our fusion dynamics is obtained in the framework of an accurate $`BNV`$ transport simulation of central collisions, see  for a detailed analysis.

The time evolution of the dipole moment $`D(t)=\frac{NZ}{A}X(t)`$ and of quantity $`DK(t)=\mathrm{\Pi }/\mathrm{}`$ for the $`Ca+Mo`$ reaction is shown in Fig.1a. Here $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\frac{NZ}{A}(\frac{P_p}{Z}\frac{P_n}{N})`$ with $`P_p`$ ($`P_n`$) center of mass in momentum space for protons (neutrons) is just the canonically conjugate momentum of the $`X`$ coordinate, $`\mathrm{\Pi }=M_{coll}X^{}(t)`$. Then a collective $`GDR`$ hamiltonian can be introduced as $`H_{GDR}=\mathrm{\Pi }^2/(2M_{coll})+M_{coll}\omega _0^2X^2/2`$.

We choose the origin of time at the beginning of the dinuclear phase . The dipole acceleration as obtained by a second order numerical derivative of $`D(t)`$ is shown in Fig.1b. With a good approximation this is zero before $`t=0`$. It suddenly rises when the collective dipole excitation is triggered and after few oscillations it becomes completely damped, around $`250fm/c`$. The corresponding power spectrum, $`|D^{\prime \prime }(\omega )|^2`$, calculated from the Fourier transform of $`D^{\prime \prime }(t)`$:

$$D^{\prime \prime }(t)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}D^{\prime \prime }(\omega )\mathrm{exp}^{i\omega t}d\omega $$
(8)
is plotted in Fig.1c by a dashed line.

In the same Fig.1c we have added (solid line) $`|D^{\prime \prime }(\omega )|^2`$ as obtained directly from the Fourier transform of the dipole moment, $`D(\omega )`$ by using:

$`|D^{\prime \prime }(\omega )|^2`$ $`=`$ $`D^{}(0)^2+\omega ^2D(0)^2+2\omega ^2D^{}(0)ReD(\omega )`$ (9)
$``$ $`2\omega ^3D(0)ImD(\omega )+\omega ^4|D(\omega )|^2`$ (10)
where $`D(0)`$ and $`D^{}(0)`$ are the dipole and the dipole velocity values at $`t=0`$. The nice agreement between the two procedures indicates the numerical accuracy of the method.

The total photon emission probability from the pre-equilibrium dipole mode, given by the bremsstrahlung formula Eq.(1), is reported in Fig.1d (solid line).

For comparison we show the first step statistical spectrum (dashed line). The latter is just the product of the statistical gamma decay rate , (see also Eq.(7)), times the mean life time of the compound nucleus $`\tau _{CN}`$. A good estimate of $`\tau _{CN}`$ can been derived from the total neutron width of a $`CN`$ at temperature $`T`$: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=\mathrm{}/\tau _{CN}=2mr_0^2A^{2/3}/(\pi \mathrm{}^2)T^2\mathrm{exp}(B_n/T)`$, with $`B_n=8.5MeV`$ (neutron binding energy) and $`r_0=1.2fm`$. For the statistical $`GDR`$, the standard parameters from systematics, including temperature dependence of the width, are considered. We remark that the two contributions are comparable.

The pre-equilibrium spectrum is shifted toward lower values of energy as a consequence of the large quadrupole deformation along the fusion path. However part of the total shift is also due to the used effective interaction .

We perform an analogous analysis for the reaction $`{}_{}{}^{16}O`$ $`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{98}Mo`$ at four beam energies. In Fig.2 the power spectra $`|D^{\prime \prime }(\omega )|^2`$ obtained with the two procedures described before are plotted. Again the two methods give close results.

In Fig.3 the corresponding ”bremss” spectra (solid lines) as well as the first step statistical spectra (dashed line) for the system $`O+Mo`$ are plotted. We remark the characteristic ”rise and fall” behaviour of the pre-equilibrium contribution (already observed within the ”phonon” approach ). This effect is more clearly evidenced in Fig.4 where the extra photon multiplicities due to the charge asymmetry in the entrance channel, obtained integrating over energy in the resonance region, are plotted as a function of excitation energy for both ”bremss” and ”phonon” (see following) models. The resulting trend is determined by the interplay of several effects. At low beam energies, a slow neck dynamics does not sustain the dipole oscillations. A strong attenuation of the acceleration takes place along entrance channel and the dipole emission is quite low. We expect a similar behaviour in deep-inelastic reactions.

At higher beam energies a faster fusion dynamics can favor the dipole oscillation. Larger amplitudes of the acceleration and more dipole oscillations enhance the pre-equilibrium radiation. Around 8-14 AMeV an optimum effect is attained. At higher beam energies a larger $`GDR`$ damping manifests and consequently the gamma emission is again reduced .

From a comparison between the two systems, at the same energy available in the c.m., we observe a larger pre-equilibrium emission from $`Ca+Mo`$ (black square in Fig.4). This can be related to larger values of the dipole acceleration as a result of a larger initial dipole moment amplitude.

It is interesting to compare our results to the predictions of the phonon approach, where the main input quantity is the number of $`GDR`$ phonons at the time of $`CN`$ formation. In this model a $`GDR`$ phonon gas is coupled to the $`CN`$ . The phonons are decaying with a rate $`\mu =\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{}`$ and excited with a rate $`\lambda `$. The enhancement of $`\gamma `$-decay probability is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_{phonon}=(n_{GDR}^{(0)}\lambda /\mu )\gamma _\gamma /(\mu +\gamma _{ev})`$ were $`\gamma _\gamma `$ is the partial width for photon emission and $`\gamma _{ev}`$ is the evaporation decay rate. In this method one of the uncertainties is related to the estimation of the quantity $`n_{GDR}^{(0)}`$ which in turn requires the knowledge of the $`CN`$ formation time . The results presented here are obtained following the usual procedures in $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ space to fix the thermal equilibration time, see ref.. We see from Fig.4 that the values obtained in the ”phonon” approach (circles) are systematically below the ”bremss” evaluation, as expected from the previous discussion. In order to get the ”bremss” results we need much larger values of the parameter $`n_{GDR}^{(0)}`$, corresponding to times well before statistical equilibrium, not consistent with the phonon model picture.

In Fig.4 we report also the ratio between total pre-equilibrium and total statistical photon multiplicity as a function of the initial excitation energy of the compoud system. This ratio is a good measure of the pre-equilibrium effect which should be seen in experiments when the total photon yields from a $`N/Z`$ asymmetric reaction and a symmetric one, both forming the same $`CN`$ in similar conditions (temperature, angular momentum) are compared. To calculate the total statistical $`GDR`$ contribution we consider a very schematic cascade Montecarlo model including only gamma and neutron channel competition. The optimum range of beam energies to observe the pre-equilibrium effect appears to be around $`8AMeV`$. At higher beam energies a larger statistical contribution to gamma decay will lower the relative importance of pre-equilibrium contribution, which actually, as we have already discussed, starts to decrease in absolute value. We have to remark that, at the same $`E^{}`$, the effect is still more important for the $`Ca+Mo`$ system, although now the total statistical emission is also larger, see Eq.(7). The $`16\%`$ enhancement is also in very good agreement with the experimental estimate of .

In conclusion, in this letter we have presented a bremsstrahlung approach to dipole radiation from both thermal $`GDR`$ and dynamical dipole mode in fusion reactions. We stress that in our calculation we directly get absolute values for the emission probabilities without any normalization or adjusted parameters. Moreover the ”bremss” approach can be extended in a similar way to dissipative deep-inelastic collisions  where similar prompt $`\gamma GDR`$ emission has been recently observed .

We have shown that when we consider the full dynamics of the pre-equilibrium dipole in charge asymmetric fusion processes the extra radiation contribution appears to be systematically two times larger than the expectations, based on a phonon model, used so far  (see Fig.4). The pre-equilibrium dipole radiation due to the charge asymmetry in the entrance channel can be then comparable to the statistical $`CN`$ emission. In this sense it can represent a new ”cooling” mechanism in warm fusion reactions to form less excited residues, e.g. of interest for the synthesis of heavy elements.

A dependence of the pre-equilibrium gamma emission on beam energy has been evidenced. We conclude that this is a consequence of the interplay between fusion dynamics, damping properties of the dipole and statistical gamma emission. We expect a better observation of the effect in reactions between nuclei with a larger initial dipole amplitude at beam energies where fusion dynamics is quite fast. Exotic (radioactive) beams are a good opportunity for studying these phenomena. However a caution is related to the fact that now a charge equilibration can take place also by an enhancement of fast nucleon emission.

We finally remark that the dynamical nature of the pre-equilibrium contribution will show up in a clear anisotropic $`\gamma `$-emission since it is due to dipole oscillations on the reaction plane (see details in ). This could be a nice characteristic signature of fusion paths in reactions induced by radioactive beams.


text:
# Direct photons and thermal dileptons: A theoretical review

## 1 Introduction

The measurement of electromagnetic probes provides a valuable and a necessary complement to that of hadronic observables in an environment as potentially complex as that of ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions. This fact owes partly to the weakness of final-state interactions in photon emission (real or virtual) but is also related to the richness of the information carried by the electromagnetic observables. Those statements can be made quantitative in the following. In a finite-temperature strongly-interacting medium the differential rate for real photon emission is given by

$$\omega \frac{d^3R}{d^3k}=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^\mu \frac{1}{e^{\beta \omega }1},$$
(1)
while that for virtual photon emission is

$$E_+E_{}\frac{d^6R}{d^3p_+d^3p_{}}=\frac{2e^2}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{1}{k^4}L^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{e^{\beta \omega }1}.$$
(2)
In the above equations $`\omega `$ is the photon energy, $`\beta `$ is the inverse temperature, $`k^2`$ is the virtual photon invariant mass, $`L_{\mu \nu }`$ is a lepton tensor, and the $`E`$’s and $`p`$’s are the lepton energy and momenta. $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }`$ is the retarded, finite-temperature photon self-energy: a direct window to the many-body physics. Vector Meson Dominance (VMD) couples the photon field (real or virtual) to hadronic matter in the confined sector via the current-field identity : $`J^\mu =_ig_i\varphi _i^\mu `$, where the sum runs over the vector meson fields $`\varphi _i^\mu `$. In the sector where the relevant degrees of freedom are partonic: $`J^\mu =_qe_q\overline{\psi }_q\gamma ^\mu \psi _q`$, where $`e_q`$ is a quark charge. In the region where confinement is effective, the dilepton production rate can then be directly related to the in-medium spectral density of the vector mesons. There lies one of the reasons for measuring and understanding the dilepton spectrum: the vector and axial vector correlators will mix via interactions with the thermal background . In the limit of chiral symmetry restoration, those correlators are expected to become degenerate . To obtain information on the axial current-current correlator through the measurement of electromagnetic radiation constitutes a challenge to which we will return later. Also note that the importance of real photons and dileptons as tools for quark-gluon plasma (QGP) diagnostics was realized early on  and has fueled the interest in those variables ever since.

As RHIC begins its operation, it is sensible to assess the situation in terms of what has been measured and learnt so far at SPS energies. We shall discuss in turn the low dilepton invariant mass region, real photon measurements, and the intermediate dilepton invariant mass sector. It is futile here to attempt to cover and do justice to the many works that are relevant to this discussion. Also, in the spirit of a review with length constraints, we point to the appropriate references for the technically-intensive issues.

## 2 Low mass dileptons

This kinematical region, first explored in HELIOS dimuon measurements , was scrutinized by CERES in a series of dielectron measurements which have generated a considerable amount of theoretical activity . The experimental measurements, together with some of their theoretical interpretations are shown in Fig. 1. As the status of the theoretical understanding of those inspiring data has not been profoundly modified since our last meeting in this series, there is no need here to go into a great deal of detail. The Brown-Rho scaling hypothesis is described in a recent review . The curve labeled “in-medium $`\rho `$” reflects an in-medium calculation of the vector meson spectral density , which is directly related to the dilepton emission rate through the current-field identity . The results of a transport calculation involving an incoherent sum of meson reaction is also shown . The “in-medium” calculation is a representation of fairly conventional many-body physics, as the vector mesons are broadened by interactions with nucleons and created mesons, as well as with the pions in the pion cloud. It turns out the the pole mass of the $`\rho `$ is not drastically modified by those interactions, owing to cancellations between channels . QCD sum rules can only provide a broad consistency-check of some of the phenomenological models . An experimental attempt to distinguish between the approaches listed above involves high resolution measurements at and around the vector meson peaks. The calculations relying on broadened spectral densities are lower there because of unitarity requirements . Also, a study of the low mass dilepton excess as a function of the beam energy and of the baryon density would also constrain the models: runs at higher baryon densities may highlight novel many-body manifestations such as mixing effects . Those important refinements of the data would help to bring this exciting chapter to some closure.

## 3 Real photons

The interest in the thermal emission of real photons partly stems from the seminal suggestion by Feinberg that thermal electromagnetic emission might be an important process when a large multiplicity of particles are produced in the final state . To lowest order in the coupling constants, the fact that the photon spectrum carries with it information about the electromagnetic current-current correlator can be rewritten in the language of relativistic kinetic theory. In a quark-gluon plasma, the production of real photons will proceed through annihilation ($`q\overline{q}\gamma g`$) and Compton ($`gq\gamma q`$, $`g\overline{q}\gamma \overline{q}`$) channels. Therefore, the photons produced in the plasma carry information on the thermodynamic state of the parton medium at the moment of their production. However from a practical point of view, the signal-to-background ratio is smaller than that for dileptons by roughly two orders of magnitude, due especially to the large $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\eta `$ decay contributions. This fact makes the real photon measurements particularly challenging. At SPS energies, the first attempts to observe direct photon production in ultrarelativistic nuclear collisions with O and S beams found no significant excess . The WA80 collaboration has obtained upper bounds for the $`p_T`$ spectrum of real photons generated in S + Au collisions at 200 AGeV . A measurement of direct photons in 208Pb + 208Pb collisions at 158 AGeV was finally reported by WA98 .

Recent times have witnessed a flurry of theoretical activity centered on the theoretical interpretation of the WA98 photon measurements. The data along with a pQCD estimate are shown in Fig. 2. It is impossible to discuss here the many calculations, but ingredients of some theoretical interpretations are not free from ambiguities and those should be pointed out in order to make progress. Let us first consider the high transverse momentum part of the measured photon spectrum. In hadron-hadron collisions at ISR energies, comparisons of the measured high $`p_T`$ sector with NLO-QCD direct photon calculations reveal that pQCD contributions are quantitatively important . This component of the spectrum should reflect the parton distribution functions. However, despite many years of experimental and theoretical effort, the process of inclusive photon production in the collision of elementary hadrons is not yet fully understood, and those uncertainties propagate to nuclear collisions. A recent critical survey concludes that the present fixed target data on inclusive prompt photon data at ISR energies ($`\sqrt{s}23`$ GeV) are inconsistent , making it difficult to extract from them physically meaningful values of model parameters. Bearing those uncertainties in mind, the idea of attributing the pattern of deviations between the measured direct photon cross sections and NLO calculations to parton transverse momentum (neglected in the NLO calculations) has however gathered support . Taking a confinement radius of 0.5 fm, the intrinsic transverse momentum generated thusly is $`<k_{}^2>0.32`$ (GeV/c)2. Furthermore, soft-gluon emission will make this value larger . The resummation calculation for multiple soft-gluon emission in direct photon production is challenging, and part of their contribution will receive a non-perturbative component at the $`\sqrt{s}`$ values that are relevant for this discussion. As a temporary substitute for a rigorous calculation, effects of soft-gluon radiation are approximated by a convolution of the LO cross section with a $`k_{}`$-smearing function. Early estimates obtained $`<k_{}^2>0.9`$ (GeV/c)2 at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 20 GeV .

In addition to these considerations (and to their inherent uncertainties), multiple initial state scattering (the Cronin effect) in pA and AA collisions will add to the parton transverse momenta , prior to the photon-forming interaction. Clearly, before a consensus is achieved, systematic studies of hadron and photon spectra are needed in pp, pA, and AA collisions at the same energies. This has not been possible in the past, and the necessary energy-scaling procedures add to the ambiguities. This situation will not be repeated at RHIC, where all three types of collisions will be accessible to a given experimental setup. One may then ask how crucial are the high temperatures advocated by early hydrodynamical calculations ? As long as the quantitative role played by parton momentum broadening in nuclear collisions is not fully elucidated, it appears difficult to bring this issue to closure. The global survey suggested above would go a long way in this direction. A closely related issue is the use in the deconfined-QCD sector of the photon production rates obtained from two-loop topologies at finite-temperature . Those utilize the hard thermal loop resummation method in finite temperature perturbation theory . This technique allows the investigation of screening effects in a systematic way. At the one-loop level, this approach was successfully used to compute the emission rate of hard real photons  and dileptons . The two-loop rates receive a large boost from a colinear singularity, making the process labeled “annihilation-with-scattering” dominant . Some progress has been made in understanding those results in terms of an ordering of the different length scales in the problem . However, even including obvious coupling constants scaling, it is fair to say that the use at the SPS of the photon rates calculated for asympotically high energies rests on the belief that the relative contributions to the photon spectrum of the different self-energy cuts are generic. This still remains to be put on a firm theoretical foundation.

The low $`p_T`$ part of the direct photon spectrum is linked to softer physical contributions. Those typically will involve interactions between degrees of freedom from the lower temperature confined sector. Let’s consider the kinetic-theory representation of the hadronic reactions responsible for direct photon production. Those rates have been evaluated first in Ref. , have been verified subsequently , and involve a gas of $`\pi `$, $`\eta `$, $`\rho `$, and $`\omega `$ mesons. Also, contributions involving the $`a_1`$ have been shown to be quantitatively important . Herein lies an ambiguity in the hadronic phase: there is no unique way to implement a chirally-symmetric model with vector mesons. A consequence of this is that a survey of the literature rapidly reveals that photon production rates in a meson gas can differ by factors of $``$ 3, at temperatures and transverse momenta that are germane to the conditions discussed here . We advocate again a systematic treatment of all the available hadronic data in order to reduce the degeneracies in parameter-space of the effective theories involved . Furthermore, definite conclusions about the nature of the sources in the soft part of the photon spectrum produced in heavy ion collisions are hindered by the following fact. Consider for a moment the WA80 photon data (S + Au, at 200 AGeV), together with photon rates calculated with the same vector meson spectral density as that used to interpret the CERES data. The photon spectrum one obtains after a simple fireball space-time evolution constitutes at least $``$ 16 % of the signal at $`p_T`$ = 1.5 GeV/c . It is known that the in-medium effects in this energy regime are largely baryon-driven . This begs the question of how much is the corresponding contribution to the WA98 Pb + Pb data, as the appropriate calculation has not yet been done. There, an examination of the data with a LO-pQCD calculation with an intrinsic $`<k_{}^2>`$ 1 (GeV/c)2 yields $``$ 45% of the measured yield at $`p_T`$ = 2.5 GeV/c . Barring the Cronin effect, the sources needing to be added then are the contribution from the in-medium vector meson spectral densities and the additional contributions from the meson gas that are not included in them as, in self-energy parlance, they are specifically two-loop contributions. This course of action is then laid out and preliminary results are promising .

Is therefore appears that uncertainties remain in the theoretical interpretation of the direct photon spectrum, both in the low and high transverse momentum regions. However, several of those difficulties can be resolved.

## 4 Intermediate mass dileptons

Dimuon pairs in the intermediate invariant mass region ($`m_\varphi <M<m_{J/\psi }`$) have been measured at CERN by the Helios-3  and NA38/NA50 collaborations . We consider those in turn. The Helios-3 data is concerned with dimuon production in p + W and S + W collisions at 200 AGeV. As in the low mass sector, an analysis of the heavy ion data and of the proton-nucleus data revealed an excess of lepton pairs over that expected from known sources; those being the direct decays of primary vector mesons, the Drell-Yan contribution and the correlated semileptonic decay of open charm mesons. Naturally, one should ask whether there exist mesonic channels similar to the ones at play in the low invariant mass region that could significantly contribute in this kinematical region. However a precise determination of the specific channels starting from effective chiral Lagrangian techniques remained elusive, as in this invariant region the basic VMD form factors will be significantly off-shell and there is enough phase space for the initial channels to couple to a variety of high mass vector mesons . Fortunately, there exists a wealth of data concerning $`e^+e^{}`$ hadrons in the appropriate invariant mass range . Those data can be analyzed channel-by-channel : an example appears in Fig. 3. Inverting the channels that have two-body mesonic final states, a reaction database can be constructed. Those contributions can then be used in a transport approach that can be directly compared with experimental measurements. The procedure described here was used in conjunction with a cascade-type model and compared with the Helios-3 data , and some results are shown in Fig. 4.

It appears that once the “thermal” channels are included, the measured observable calls for little or no additional sources. Recently, this approach was applied to the intermediate mass dimuon data measured by NA50 . A result of this calculation is shown in Fig. 5, together with the result of a similar approach. Those two calculations differ mainly in the dynamical models used to integrate out the dilepton rates, and in their quark-gluon plasma content. Whereas a study is underway  to try and pin down, as much as the data allows, model parameters such as the initial temperature (while still being consistent with the global set of measured observables at those bombarding energies), an important message emerges: the importance of the secondary mesonic reactions  can not be denied. To completely rule out a mechanism like $`c\overline{c}`$ enhancement, for example, a better measurement is needed and a dedicated experiment is in the planning stages .

## 5 Conclusion

The measurement of electromagnetic radiation at the SPS has generated exciting data that has considerably motivated and stirred the field as a whole. It is appropriate to pause at this point and to reflect on what has been learnt. The low mass dileptons show strong indications of the signature of a genuine, in-medium many-body effect. This is an achievement that should not be underplayed. As elaborated on in the text, the theoretical effort on this is ongoing and high resolution data at the vector meson masses will bring this discussion to a new level of quantitative assessment. In the real photon sector, a systematic evaluation of the nuclear $`k_{}`$ broadening in hadron and electromagnetic spectra is called for. Similarly, the theoretical framework used for real photons has to be consistent, and in fact identical, with that used in the virtual photon domain. This is vital for the sake of theoretical consistency and also in view of the fact that those data do show common global features . Some issues discussed here represent well-posed problems and answers are to be expected soon.

Have we seen a restoration (even partial) of chiral symmetry? Without a window on the axial correlator this issue remains inconclusive. This will be difficult to assess from studies of low mass dileptons as the axial vector channel is far below those of stronger sources . However, we suggest that it might be possible in real photon and/or intermediate mass dilepton measurements, as there the contribution of the $`a_1`$, for example, is not small . Before this can be done, the calculations of the axial vector spectral density have to be brought to a level of sophistication close to those that exist in the vector channel. Have we seen a quark-gluon plasma? As it is, some analyses of the hard portion of the photon spectrum and of the intermediate mass dilepton data do contain a QGP component, albeit at different levels. In my opinion is it still too early to tell, but keeping in mind the caveats outlined in this talk, it is fair to say that this carries the suggestion that the SPS has ventured in a threshold energy density region. RHIC has the tantalizing mandate to go deeper in this new realm.

## Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure for me to thank my collaborators. This work is supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and in part by the Fonds FCAR of the Quebec Government.


text:
# References

BI-TP 2001/05

On $`e^+e^{}W^+W^{}4f(+\gamma )`$ at LEP2***Suppported by the BMFT, Bonn, Germany, Contract 05 HT9PBA2

Yoshimasa Kurihara

KEK, Tsukuba, Japan

Masaaki Kuroda

Meijigakuin University, Yokohama, Japan

Dieter Schildknecht

Fakultät für Physik, Universität Bielefeld

Bielefeld, Germany

Abstract

The results on $`e^+e^{}W^+W^{}4f(+\gamma )`$ obtained by different groups are compared with each other. Differences in the results for the total cross section of up to about 0.6 % are traced back to different ways of implementing the double-pole approximation.

In the workshop report on $`W`$-pair production at LEP2 , theoretical results on the cross section for the reaction $`e^+e^{}W^+W^{}4f(+\gamma )`$ from several working groups are presented. While the workshop has been in progress, based on our previous work , we obtained results for the total cross section of the above reaction that were approximately 0.5 % larger than the results published in ref.. In the present note, we give our results, which remained unpublished so far, and we compare them with the results of the BBC  and the RACOON  group in ref..111Additional results, not published in refs., were kindly provided to us by the BBC group (Beenakker, Berends and Chapovsky) and the RACOON group (Denner, Dittmaier, Roth and Wackeroth).

We will arrive at the conclusion that different ways of implementing the double-pole approximation (DPA) that enters the evaluation of the cross section may lead to differences up to about 0.6 % in the total cross section for the above-mentioned reaction.

We briefly summarize our approach  that will be referred to as KKS in the subsequent discussion of the different approaches. The total cross section is written as the sum of the Born cross section, $`\sigma _B^{\mathrm{full}}`$, the virtual one-loop and soft-photon-radiation cross section, $`\sigma _{V+S}`$, and the hard-photon-radiation cross section, $`\sigma _H`$,

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}=\sigma _B^{\mathrm{full}}+\sigma _{V+S}+\sigma _H.$$
(1)
As in ref., the Born cross section, $`\sigma _B^{\mathrm{full}}`$, is based on the complete set of Feynman diagrams contributing to $`e^+e^{}`$ four fermions, i.e. diagrams not containing $`W`$-resonance enhancements are also taken into account.

The expression for $`\sigma _{V+S}`$ is given by

$`\sigma _{V+S}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s}}(2\pi )^7{\displaystyle \frac{1}{512}}{\displaystyle \stackrel{}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑k_+^2𝑑k_{}^2d\mathrm{cos}\theta _Wd\widehat{\phi }_2d\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta }_2d\widehat{\phi }_4d\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta }_4\frac{|\stackrel{}{k_\pm }|}{E_{beam}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{|(e^+(\sigma _+)e^{}(\sigma _{})W_{\lambda _+}^+(f_1(\tau _1)\overline{f}_2(\overline{\tau }_2))W_\lambda _{}^{}(f_4(\tau _4)\overline{f}_3(\overline{\tau }_3)))|^2}{[(k_+^2M_W^2)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^2M_W^2][(k_{}^2M_W^2)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^2M_W^2]}}|_{𝒪\left(\alpha \right)},`$
where $`^{}`$ indicates the spin sum over the final fermions as well as the spin average of the initial $`e^+e^{}`$ pair. The variables

$$k_+^2,k_{}^2,\mathrm{cos}\theta _W$$
(3)
stand for the squared invariant masses and the cosine of the polar production angle of the fermion pairs in the $`e^+e^{}`$ center-of-mass frame, while

$$\widehat{\phi }_2,\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta }_2;\widehat{\phi }_4,\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta }_4$$
(4)
denote the fermion angles in the rest frames of the pairs of invariant masses $`k_+^2`$ and $`k_{}^2`$, respectively; specifically, in the case of on-shell production, we have $`k_+^2=k_{}^2=M_W^2`$. As indicated by the integration variables in (2), the amplitude describing (on-shell or off-shell) $`W`$ production and decay in (2) is to be expressed in terms of $`k_+^2,k_{}^2,\mathrm{cos}\theta _W`$ and the fermion-pair rest-frame angles $`\widehat{\phi }_2,\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta }_2`$ and $`\widehat{\phi }_4,\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta }_4`$. The choice of the rest-frame angles in (2), in view of the DPA, is dictated by the requirement that the off-shell and on-shell decay configurations have identical (normalized) decay probabilities.222The (normalized) rest-frame decay distribution is independent of the virtuality, i.e. independent of whether $`k_\pm ^2=M_W^2`$ or $`k_\pm ^2M_W^2`$. The DPA now consists of ignoring any additional dependence on $`k_\pm ^2`$ in the $`W`$-boson (production and decay) amplitude in (2) by evaluating the amplitude at the pole position, $`k_+^2=k_{}^2=M_W^2`$. The variation of the phase space with $`k_\pm ^2`$ in (2) is taken into account via the dependence of the $`W`$-boson three momentum, $`|\stackrel{}{k}_\pm |`$, that is given by

$$|\stackrel{}{k}_\pm |^2=\frac{1}{4s}(s^2+k_+^4+k_{}^42s(k_+^2+k_{}^2)2k_+^2k_{}^2),$$
(5)
where the $`e^+e^{}`$ center-of-mass energy squared is denoted by $`s`$.

Also the hard-photon radiation is treated in the DPA, the expression for $`\sigma _H`$ being analogous to (2).

The RACOON ansatz, when evaluating $`\sigma _V`$ in the DPA according to (2), differs from ours in their choice of the laboratory-frame fermion angles. This implies that in general off-shell and on-shell amplitudes at different rest-frame angles are associated with each other, and accordingly an avoidable difference between the off-shell amplitude and its approximating on-shell one is introduced. The choice of the laboratory angles also implies a dependence on which pair of outgoing leptons (quarks) is used to specify the four-fermion configuration. Fortunately, as noted by RACOON, using different pairs of fermions affects the result for the total cross section only at the level of 0.1% .

In the treatment of the BBC group, also the phase space and the propagators in (2) are evaluated on the $`W`$ mass shell, $`k_\pm ^2=M_W^2`$, by carrying out the substitution

$$\frac{M_W\mathrm{\Gamma }_W}{(k_\pm ^2M_W^2)+M_W^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^2}\pi \delta (k_\pm ^2M_W^2)$$
(6)
that becomes exact in the zero-width limit333In ref., such an approximation is called the zero-width approximation. of $`M_W\mathrm{\Gamma }_W0`$. As, by construction, there is no off-shell phase-space element in the BBC ansatz, the question of which on-shell amplitude is to be associated with a certain off-shell phase-space element becomes meaningless.

Concerning the photon radiation, the RACOON treatment differs from the DPA ones of BBC and KKS by taking into account radiation from the full set of Born diagrams for $`e^+e^{}4\mathrm{fermions}`$.

Finally, we note that RACOON in its treatment includes non-factorizable radiative corrections as well. Since such corrections cancel  in the total cross section, they were not included in the KKS evaluation. In view of the discussion of differences between the final results of the different groups below, we note that RACOON did not explicitly verify the cancellation of the non-factorizable radiative corrections in the sum of $`\sigma _V`$, $`\sigma _S`$ and $`\sigma _H`$. The non-factorizable radiative corrections taken into account by BBC, by construction, drop out in the total cross section.

We schematically summarize the assumptions underlying the approaches by the different groups in Table 1.

In our calculation, as in ref., the $`\alpha _{G_\mu }`$ scheme is used, i.e. the coupling constants appearing at tree level are evaluated in terms of the muon decay constant, $`G_\mu `$. In order to make the comparison of the results of the different groups transparent, we stick to comparing cross sections with order $`\alpha `$ corrections, discarding the inclusion of higher-order effects, such as the exponentiation of the initial state radiation, etc.

We use the set of input parameters also employed in the LEP2 workshop proceedings ,

$`M_Z`$ $`=`$ $`91.1867GeV,M_W=80.35GeV,M_H=150GeV,`$ (7)
$`G_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`1.166389\times 10^5GeV^2,\mathrm{\Gamma }_W=2.08699GeV.`$
The numerical integrations were performed by using the Monte Carlo program BASES .

Various checks of our program were performed:

* The cancellation of the ultraviolet and the infrared divergences in the cross section was confirmed analytically as well as numerically.
* The stability against changing the soft-photon separation energy, $`k_c`$, was checked by varying $`k_c`$ between 0.001 GeV and 0.1 GeV.
* The cancellation of mass singularities in the total cross section was checked by varying the fermion masses.
* The virtual correction, $`\sigma _V`$, and the soft photon radiation, $`\sigma _S`$, were independently calculated by using GRACE  as well as the program constructed by one of the present authors  several years ago.

The Leptonic $`W^\pm `$ decay
We start with the leptonic decay, $`e^+e^{}W^+W^{}(\overline{\mu },\nu _\mu )(\tau ,\overline{\nu }_\tau )(+\gamma )`$. In Tables444We note that all cross sections displayed in Tables 2 to 8 are given in units of $`fb`$. 2 to 4, our results (KKS) are compared with the ones from BBC and RACOON. In order to explicitly verify that our numerical evaluation is consistent with the one from BBC, we have also performed an evaluation á la BBC, i.e. by replacing the full phase space in (S0.Ex1) by the zero-width approximation (5). Compare KKS (zero-width) in Tables 2 to 4.

In the interpretation of the results in Tables 2 to 4, we proceed in several steps:

* Comparing the results of KKS (zero-width) and BBC, in Tables 2 and 3, we find good agreement between these independent calculations of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}`$ and the virtual correction $`\sigma _{V+S+H}`$. The comparison explicitly demonstrates that both calculations, BBC and KKS, are reliable, elementary errors being excluded. The relative difference between the BBC (the KKS(zero-width)) and the KKS results is displayed in Table 4. Since the virtual corrections are proportional to the Born cross section evaluated in DPA, the relative change in $`\sigma _{V+S+H}`$ of about 3% is approximately given by the relative change in $`\sigma _B^{\mathrm{DPA}}`$. The relative change of around 3% amounts to a decrease of the total cross section by about 0.3% or 0.6 fb (compare Table 2) of KKS(zero-width) relative to KKS.

We conclude that the 0.3% reduction of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}`$ of BBC relative to KKS is due to the use of the simplifying zero-width approximation that enlarges $`\sigma _B^{\mathrm{DPA}}`$ and accordingly the absolute value of the (negative) radiative correction, $`\sigma _{V+S+H}`$.
* We turn to a discussion of the differences between the results of KKS and RACOON. According to Table 1, the increase of $`0.6fb0.3`$% in Tables 2 and 3 of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}`$ from KKS relative to $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}`$ from RACOON at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV is to be traced back to differences in the (soft and hard) photon radiation555The discussion is simplified, in so far as we ignore the effect of the different choices of the fermion angles and assume exact cancellation of the non-factorizable corrections in the RACCON treatment. Compare the more detailed discussion in the case of hadronic $`W^\pm `$ decays below.. KKS treats photon radiation in the DPA, while RACOON radiates photons from all diagrams. Table 3 indeed shows that the virtual factorizable corrections, $`\sigma _V^{\mathrm{fact}}`$, of KKS and RACOON agree very well, the differences in $`\sigma _{V+S+H}`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}`$ thus indeed being due to the different treatment of the radiation. Compare the value of $`\sigma _{V+S+H}\sigma _V^{\mathrm{fact}}`$ in Table 3.
* Finally, we compare the results of BBC and RACOON. As noted in Table 1, the BBC procedure differs from the one by RACOON in applying the DPA to the radiation in conjunction with the use of the zero-width approximation. Since the zero-width approximation decreases the total cross section, the increase of the cross section of BBC relative to RACOON induced by applying the DPA to the treatment of the radiation is (partially) cancelled. The surprisingly good agreement between $`\sigma _{tot}`$ by RACOON and by BBC at 200 GeV appears as an accidental one. In this connection it is to be noted that the difference between RACOON and BBC, or rather KKS (zero-width), according to Table 2, changes with decreasing $`e^+e^{}`$ energy from $`+0.16fb`$ to $`0.7fb`$.

The Hadronic $`W^\pm `$ decay
For the hadronic channel, $`e^+e^{}W^+W^{}(u\overline{d})(\overline{c}s)`$, no results from BBC are available. We compare our results, KKS and KKS(zero-width), with the result from RACOON.

In our calculations, we used values of the quark masses that coincide with the ones from RACOON (in units of GeV/c2),

$`m_u`$ $`=`$ $`0.0485,m_c=1.55,m_t=174.17,`$ (8)
$`m_d`$ $`=`$ $`0.0485,m_s=0.15,m_b=4.5.`$
The quark masses enter $`\sigma _V`$, $`\sigma _S`$ and $`\sigma _H`$ in terms of mass-singular logarithms, but are obviously irrelevant for the total cross section.

In Tables 5 to 7, our results are compared with the ones from RACOON. According to Tables 5 and 6, the observed pattern of deviations between KKS, KKS(zero-width) and RACOON is similar to the one found in the case of the leptonic $`W^\pm `$ decays:

* The results for $`\sigma _{tot}`$ from KKS at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV lie about 10 $`fb`$ or 0.55% above the ones from RACOON666In , the results from RACOON are also compared with the results from YFSWW, by Jadach et al., whereby also the dominant higher-order radiative corrections are included. The results by YFSWW lie up to about 0.4% above the ones from RACOON..
* The results from KKS(zero-width), which simulate the zero-width treatment employed by BBC, are only 3 $`fb`$ or 0.17% larger than the ones from RACOON. As discussed under i) and iii) for the leptonic $`W^\pm `$ decay, the zero-width approximation decreases the total cross section, thus leading to an (accidental) coincidence of the RACOON and KKS(zero-width) result.

Remembering Table 1, the difference between KKS and RACOON is expected to be due to the difference in the treatment of the photon radiation (DPA versus radiation from the full set of Born diagrams) and to the different choice of the fermion angles kept invariant under the on-shell continuation in $`k_\pm ^2`$. In addition, we have to keep in mind that RACOON, as a consequence of the complexity of their program, did not explicitly verify the cancellation of the non-factorizable corrections in their calculation of $`\sigma _{V+S+H}`$.
In the ensuing interpretation of the difference between RACOON and KKS, we proceed in two steps:

* We assume that the result by RACOON, even though being obtained by including the non-factorizable corrections to $`\sigma _V`$, $`\sigma _S`$ and $`\sigma _H`$ , implicitly contains a cancellation of these contributions in the sum, $`\sigma _{V+S+H}`$. The last column of Table 6 then shows that the factorizable contribution to photon radiation, $`\sigma _{S+H}^{\mathrm{fact}}`$, by KKS exceeds the one by RACOON by 15 $`fb`$. The difference in $`\sigma _V^{\mathrm{fact}}`$ amounts to -5$`fb`$. Altogether this adds up to the mentioned difference of 10 $`fb`$ in $`\sigma _{tot}`$.
In order to clarify the origin of the difference of 5 $`fb`$ in $`\sigma _V^{\mathrm{fact}}`$, between KKS and RACOON, we look at Table 7. In Table 7, in addition to the results from KKS and RACOON, we provide results (i.e. KKS (lab.)) for $`\sigma _B^{\mathrm{DPA}}`$ and $`\sigma _V^{\mathrm{fact}}`$ employing laboratory fermion angles, as used by RACOON in their treatment of $`\sigma _V`$. The use of the laboratory-frame fermion angles decreases the KKS results for $`\sigma _V^{\mathrm{fact}}`$ by 0.15 % to agree with the ones from RACOON. The difference of 5 $`fb`$ in $`\sigma _V^{\mathrm{fact}}`$ is accordingly traced back to the different choice of the fermion angles kept constant under extrapolation in $`k_\pm ^2`$777The absolute value of $`\sigma _V^{\mathrm{fact}}`$ being dependent on the choice of the regularizing photon mass, the comparison of $`\sigma _V^{\mathrm{fact}}`$ of KKS and RACOON is carried out for technical reasons and is meant to explicitly demonstrate the consistency of the results under identical boundary conditions..
* Alternatively, let us assume that the different treatment of the photon radiation by KKS and by RACOON nevertheless leads to identical results for the factorizable part of the photon radiation, i.e. we assume that the factorizable part of the photon radiation, even though unknown to the RACOON treatment, can be well represented by the KKS results. For $`\sigma _S`$, such a hypothesis might be suggested by the excellent agreement of KKS and RACOON for $`\sigma _S`$ given in Table 7. Under this assumption, the non-factorizable part of the radiative corrections, implicitly contained in the RACOON result, can be calculated from the difference of the KKS and RACOON results for $`\sigma _V`$, $`\sigma _S`$ and $`\sigma _H`$. According to Table 7, it becomes

$`\sigma _{V+S+H}^{\mathrm{non}\mathrm{fact}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _V^{\mathrm{non}\mathrm{fact}}+\sigma _S^{\mathrm{non}\mathrm{fact}}+\left(\sigma _H^{\mathrm{RACOON}}\sigma _H^{\mathrm{fact}}\right)`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`12.6fb.`$
Under the above hypothesis that the magnitude of the factorizable part of the photon radiation is unaffected by replacing the full set of diagrams by the reduced set of the DPA, we thus arrive at the conclusion that the RACOON result for $`\sigma _{V+S+H}`$ contains a non-factorizable contribution to the photon radiation that is not cancelling the non-factorizable contribution to $`\sigma _V`$. This non-factorizable contribution of about -12 $`fb`$ would then be responsible for the difference in $`\sigma _{tot}`$ of about $`10fb`$ between KKS and RACOON.

Actually, both the hypotheses discussed in i) and ii) may be considered as extreme cases. A detailed analysis of the RACOON calculation may indeed reveal that both, the different treatment of the radiation as well as some mismatch of non-factorizable corrections, are at the root of the 0.6% difference of the results of KKS and RACOON on $`\sigma _{tot}`$.

Conclusions
By explicitly simulating the results of BBC and RACOON, whenever possible, we found excellent agreement with BBC and RACOON. Due to the complexity of the calculations, this in itself is a remarkable result. Differences among the final results up to about 0.6 % were traced back to the different underlying implementations of the double-pole approximation. Roughly speaking, the different treatment of the photon radiation (by using the DPA) leads to an increase of our results relative to the ones of RACOON. This increase is (partially) cancelled, if the additional simplifying approximation of on-shell kinematics (the BBC zero-width approximation) is adopted. As a consequence of the known difficulties concerning the treatment of unstable particles, it remains an open question, to what extent even a technically extremely demanding full-one-loop evaluation (without DPA) could possibly reduce theoretical uncertainties.

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank S. Dittmaier and S. Chapovsky for communicating their numerical results to us, and for providing details on the structure of their computational procedures. We would like to also thank J. Fujimoto and T.Ishikawa for valuable discussions and suggestions.