text:
# Abelian and Center Vortex Condensation in SU(3) Lattice Gauge Theory

##

To study the vacuum structure of the lattice gauge theories we introduced  a gauge invariant effective action for the external static background field $`\stackrel{}{A}^{\mathrm{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})`$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }[\stackrel{}{A}^{\mathrm{ext}}]=\frac{1}{L_4}\mathrm{ln}\left\{\frac{𝒵[\stackrel{}{A}^{\mathrm{ext}}]}{𝒵[0]}\right\},𝒵[U_\mu ^{\mathrm{ext}}]=_{U_k(x)|_{x_4=0}=U_k^{\mathrm{ext}}(x)}𝒟Ue^{S_W}.$$
(1)
$`𝒵[U_\mu ^{\mathrm{ext}}]`$ is the lattice Schrödinger functional (invariant, by definition, for lattice gauge transformations of the external links), $`U_k^{\mathrm{ext}}(x)`$ is the lattice version of the external continuum gauge field $`\stackrel{}{A}^{\mathrm{ext}}(x)=\stackrel{}{A}_a^{\mathrm{ext}}(x)\lambda _a/2`$, and $`S_W`$ is the standard Wilson action. $`𝒵[0]`$ is the lattice Schrödinger functional with $`\stackrel{}{A}^{\mathrm{ext}}=0`$ ($`U_\mu ^{\mathrm{ext}}=\mathrm{𝟏}`$).

At finite temperature we introduced the thermal partition function in presence of a given static background field:

$$𝒵_T\left[\stackrel{}{A}^{\text{ext}}\right]=_{U_k(\beta _T,\stackrel{}{x})=U_k(0,\stackrel{}{x})=U_k^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})}𝒟Ue^{S_W},\beta _t=L_4=\frac{1}{aT}.$$
(2)
If we send the physical temperature to zero the thermal functional Eq. (2) reduces to the zero-temperature Schrödinger functional given in Eq. (1).

We would like to detect vortex condensation. To this purpose we use our lattice effective action to define a disorder parameter  with non vanishing vacuum expectation value in the confined phase:

$$\mu =e^{F_{\text{vort}}/T_{\text{phys}}}=\frac{𝒵_T[\text{vort}]}{𝒵_T[0]},$$
(3)
where $`𝒵_T[\text{vort}]`$ and $`𝒵_T[0]`$ are, respectively, the thermal partition function with a vortex background field and without the background field, $`F_{\text{vort}}`$ is the free energy to create a vortex.

In SU(3) gauge theory we may consider two independent kinds of Abelian vortices $`T_3`$ and $`T_8`$ (and their linear combinations) associated respectively to the generators $`\lambda _3`$ and $`\lambda _8`$ (for details see ).

In case of center vortices the thermal partition function $`𝒵_T[𝒫_{\mu \nu }]`$ is defined by multiplying by the center element $`\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi /3)`$ the set $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }`$ of plaquettes  $`𝒫_{\mu \nu }(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)`$ with $`(\mu ,\nu )=(4,2)`$, $`x_4=x_4^{}`$, $`x_2=\frac{L_s}{2}`$ and $`L_s^{\text{min}}x_{1,3}L_s^{\text{max}}`$ , with $`L_s`$ the lattice spatial linear size.

By numerical integration of $`F_{\text{vort}}^{}`$ we can compute $`F_{\text{vort}}`$ and the disorder parameter $`\mu `$ (see Eq. (3)). Our numerical results suggest that in the confined phase of SU(3) lattice gauge theory $`F_{\text{vort}}=0`$ (in the thermodynamic limit).


format: text

text:
# Performance of the triple-GEM detector with optimized 2-D readout in high intensity hadron beam.

## 1 Introduction

Micro-pattern gas technologies have been considered as a good candidates for inner tracking systems of LHC experiments. A major problem of gas micro-pattern devices appeared to be heavily ionizing particles that are produced in nuclear interactions of hadrons with the material of the detectors. High and dense ionization produced in a sensitive region of the detector can provoke sparking with subsequent deterioration of its properties (gain and efficiency) and possible destruction. It was shown that introducing several gas amplification stages one can significantly improve performance of micropattern devices in this respect . The most convenient and safe way of producing such multistage gas amlification was application of Gas Electron Multiplier (GEM). The last development in this direction, the Triple-GEM detector, utilizing 3 consequtive GEM foils was shown to be the most safe with respect to sparking in hadronic environment .

Triple-GEM detectors have been developed as a possible technology for the inner tracking in LHCb experiment . Simulation of the LHCb interaction region, including the beam vacuum pipe, were performed to estimate the particle fluxes , using an average nominal luminosity of 2\*$`10^{32}`$cm-2s-1. The particle fluxes and its compositions depend strongly on the position along the beam axis and on the distance from the beam. Maximum charged hadron rate is expected to be $`810^3mm^2s^1`$ and total hadron rate per station reaches 100 MHz. It was shown that the GEM foil can withstand more than 100 sparks per cm2 without permanent damage. If we require that sparking rate is limited to 1 per $`10^3`$s per tracking plane and take into account local and total hadronic rate, it follows that the discharge probability per incident particle must not exceed $`10^{11}`$.

In this paper we describe the Triple-GEM detector with optimized readout board. New readout allowed to reduce significantly interstrip capacitance and thus improve signal to noise ratio of the detector. The results of test in high intensity pion beam demonstrate considerable improvement in the performance related to discharges due to heavily ionizing particles.

## 2 Detector design and experimental set-up.

The Triple-GEM detector consists of a primary ionization gap, 3 consequtive GEM foils separated by transfer gaps and a readout Printed Circuit Board (PCB), separated from the bottom GEM by an induction gap. The design and general properties of multi-GEM detectors were discussed in details earlier . Here we will concentrate mainly on the design of readout PCB and its influence on operation of the detector. In LHCb each tracking plane of the Inner tracking system has to provide position in horizontal direction with a precision of better than $``$200$`\mu `$ to keep momentum resolution below 0.5%. In the vertical direction, position accuracy can be 10 times worse as it is needed only for pattern recognition. Thus a stereo readout is foreseen with an angle of 0.1 rad.

The first measurements performed with large size prototype with small angle stereo readout  showed that the basic limitation on signal to noise ratio was high strip capacitance of the PCB. In the case of  it was about 100 pF for 30 cm long strips.

The PCB for such a detector is produced in two layers separated one from the other by a $`50\mu `$ kapton foil. Between metal strips of the top layer the kapton layer is etched out and the metal of bottom layer is opened. We propose to make zero degree strips at the top layer and small angle stereo strips and the bottom layer. The bottom strips have to be made in short sections parallel to the top ones with narrow “bridges” connecting the sections belonging to one bottom strip. Schematic drawing of this layout is shown in fig.1.

In such a layout the area of overlapping regions between top and bottom metal layers is reduced, thus minimizing the interstrip capacitance. Moreover, as the bottom and top strips are parralel, the sharing of induced charge between will be constant, and will not depend on the position along the strip. This is not the case for the layout in  where top strips were not parallel to those at the bottom.

In order to reduce further the interstrip capacitance the strips have to be made as narrow as possible. A natural limitation for the width is the feature size of the technology, that is about $`50\mu `$. Thus the width of the top strip was chosen as $`60\mu `$. The ratio of the strip widths is determined by the requirement to have the same signal to be induced on top and bottom strips. As top and bottom strips are separated by $`50\mu `$ and signal is induced by charge moving from the last GEM through the induction gap, bottom strips have to be wider than the top ones. We used MAXWELL package to calculate the necessary ratio of widths and strip capacitances. The thickness of copper layers was assumed to be $`5\mu `$. The kapton layer was $`50\mu `$ thick and the width of kapton strip at the bottom was taken $`10\mu `$ larger than at the top (at the contact with top strip). We also introduced in the model thick (1mm) epoxy substrate below the bottom strips. The calculations were made for a strip pitch of $`400\mu `$.

In the calculations we required that the ratio of the signals induced on the bottom strips with respect to the top ones is equal to 1.2, in order to compensate for the larger capacitance of the bottom strips. The results of the calculations are shown in table 1.

In order to achieve the sharing of induced signals as indicated above the width of the bottom strips has to be $`150\mu `$. The values of calculated strip capacitance per cm of length are shown in the first row of Table 1. The capacitance of the bottom strip is almost 2 times higher than that of top strip. However we can see that for 30cm long strip total capacitance will be below 20pF. In the second row of the table the results of measurements are shown. A $`1019cm^2`$ prototype PCB was used for the measurments with all strips grounded around the one which capacitance was measured. Experimental results are higher than calculated ones probably due to the differences in the particular shape of metal and kapton strip edges.

The prototype boards were produced with parameters shown in table 1 and size of sensitive area of $`1010cm^2`$. Top and bottom strips were extended from both sides forming very long bonding pads with a length of 4.5 cm and effective pitch of $`200\mu `$. Such long pads were made to have more freedom in connecting electronics, and simulate the case of a real strip length having smaller sensitive area.

The Triple-GEM detectors were assembled with prototype boards and GEM foils with $`1010cm^2`$ sensitive area. All transfer gaps were 1mm and induction gaps 2 mm. In the transfer and induction gaps we put bent strips of mylar 1mm and 2mm wide respectively that were attached to the frame at both ends. These strips served as spacers keeping GEM foil at a precise distance from the PCB and from each other. The drift gap was kept as 3mm.

Two detectors were equipped with PREMUX hybrid with 512 channels each. Detailed description of PREMUX can be found in . Each channel of PREMUX contains low-noise preamplifier, shaper and analogue buffer. Analog buffers can be readout sequentially through 1MHz multiplexer. Top and bottom strips were connected to the channels of PREMUX in series, i.e. each ”stereo” channel was followed by a ”straight” channel. The separation of signals from ”stereo” and ”straight” strips has been made off-line during data analysis.

In order to study the performance of the Triple-GEM detectors in high intensity hadron beams, assembled devices were exposed to the beam of 350 MeV pions at the proton cyclotron in Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI, Villigen, Switzerland). The beam was tuned to have maximum intensity of $`10^4mm^2s^1`$. The width of the beam was $`9`$ cm (FWHM) and the height was $`5`$ cm. Total beam intensity within the area of the detectors ($`1010cm^2`$) was $`610^7s^1`$. With this beam intensity we could measure discharge probablity below $`10^{11}`$ with reasonable statistical significance in several hours.

A schematic layout of the set-up at the beam is shown in fig.2. The two detectors were attached to the bench as close as possible to each other between two scintillating counters. The counters were used for the measurements of gain and efficiency at low intensity. For these measurements the beam intensity was reduced down to $`1001000`$Hz. Coincidence of scintillating counters was used as a trigger that produced sample-and-hold signal for PREMUX. Analog signals from each strip of the detectors were stored in the buffers of PREMUX, readout and digitized by a sampling ADC and then stored in the computer. More detailed description of the Data Aqcuisition system (DAQ) for PREMUX can be found in .

The correspondence between signal after the ADC and the input charge was found before the measurements using built-in calibration capacitances. With this electronic calibration we could determine input charge and gain of the detectors.

For counting of the discharges we measured the current of the drift cathode. In the presence of full beam intensity this current was higher than 1nA when the gain was above $`10^3`$. However when a discharge occured this current dropped to zero and then restored according to the recovery of GEM voltage. Using a current meter with analog output proportional to the input current, we assembled a simple set-up including an amplifier, discriminator and scaler. The threshold of this set-up was tuned in such a way that all the discharges were counted.

## 3 Results and discussion.

The main goal of this work was to study the dependence of discharge probability on gas gain in the detector and compare it with the efficiency versus gain performance. The beginning of the efficiency plateau is determined by the primary ionisation deposited in the drift gap and noise of the electronics. In fig.3 noise values (sigma of the gaussian fit) are shown for all channels of one of the detectors, for straight strips (top figure) and stereo strips (bottom figure). We can see that the noise for stereo strips is higher ($`9`$ ADC bins) than for straight strips ($`6`$ ADC bins). From electronic calibration we knew that 1 ADC bin corresponded to 125 electrons. Thus the noise value for stereo channels was $`1200`$e and for straight channels it was $`800`$ e. At the left side of the bottom figure we can see some reduction of the noise as stereo strips become shorter reaching the side edge of the structure rather than the opposite edge.

In fig.4 typical signals from charged particle are shown. Top and bottom figures correspond to straight and stereo strips respectively. In both layers two groups of channels(clusters) have signals. Higher signal obviously corresponds to the main charge induced by the incident particle, while the smaller signal is a pick-up from the opposite layer. This conclusion is confirmed by coincidence of the smaller cluster position with the main one from the opposite layer. Such a strong pick-up is determined by very long extensions of the strips outside sensitive area where strips from both layers go parellel to each other. In the final detector such a design should be avoided and strips at the regions of fan-outs and bonding pads have to be as short as possible.

In order to find the cluster corresponding to an incident particle, first, all channels were sorted into straight and stereo ones. Then those channels that exceeded a certain threshold (usually 2-3 sigma noise) were found. Signals were summed up within continous groups of such channels (clusters). We took always only the cluster with the highest charge for further analysis. An example of cluster charge distribution is shown in fig.5. We can see clear separation of the main part of the signal from noise peak. Here the cluster signals from both layers were summed together.

The relationship between signals in top and bottom layers is shown in fig.6. Here the correlation between cluster charge in top and bottom layers is plotted. We see that these signals are almost equal to each other. Thus the result of this measurement is lower by 20% than the value expected from the calculations. Signals that are seen at the sides of the figure can appear when the main cluster is lost and the “pick-up” signal is taken instead. Losses of signal might happen due to two noisy and two broken channels in the bottom layer that were excluded from the analysis (see fig.3).

The pion beam was tuned in such a way that most of the sensitive area of the detectors was irradiated. In fig.7 the distribution of reconstructed cluster positions in two dimensions is shown. This distribution demonstrates roughly the beam intensity within the area of the detector and scintillator counters. Binning in horizontal direction is determined by the spacing of straight strips (0.4 mm), while that in the vertical direction corresponds to the pitch of stereo structure (4 mm),

Gas gain of the detectors was determined as the ratio of average cluster charge over the average number of primary electrons released by minimum ionising particle in the 3 mm gap. The latter is equal approximately to 30 electrons for the gas mixture used ($`ArCO_2`$, 70-30). In fig.8 the dependence of gain on GEM voltage is shown for both detectors. Voltage differences from top to bottom electrodes in all GEMs were kept the same. The values of field in transfer, induction and drift gaps are indicated in the figure. The difference in gain at the same GEM voltage in two detectors can be explained by a limited precision of spacing of the GEM foils, accuracy of resistors in the resistive network and possible difference in hole diameter in different GEMs.

As we did not have any tracking devices apart from the detectors under study, we used one detector to determine the efficiency of the other. Efficiency of detector 2 was defined as the ratio of the number of cases when signals were found in both detectors to the total number of cases when detector 1 had a signal. With this definition of the efficiency we could not get values close to 100% because the detectors were not precisely aligned. Some tracks that were detected by detector 1 did not pass through detector 2. This problem however did not prevent to define the starting point of efficiency plateau. The dependence of efficiency on the gain together with the discharge probability is shown in fig.9. The values of efficiency are indicated at the left scale and the values of discharge probability at the right. The beginning of efficiency plateau is clearly determined at a gain of $`5000`$ while the value of probability equal to $`10^{11}`$ is achieved at a gain of $`20000`$. There is a margin of a factor 4 between the beginning of efficiency plateau and discharge threshold where the detector can be operated safely.

## 4 Conclusions

Safe operation of the Triple-GEM detector was demostrated with a margin of a factor 4 between the beginning of efficiency plateau and gain where the discharge probability per incident particle exceeded $`10^{11}`$. The detector had a sensitive area of $`1010cm^2`$ but the effective strip length was 19 cm. This result was possible due to an optimized design of the readout PCB that allowed significant reduction of the strip capacitance down to 0.5-0.7 pF/cm. The detector still suffers from pick-up between the layers of PCB. In the final design the regions of fan-outs and bonding pads will be made as short as possible and this effect will be significantly suppressed.

## 5 Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank very much J.-P.Perroud, P.Sievers, M.Ziegler and U.Straumann for significant help during the test period in PSI, L.Ropelewski and F.Sauli for assistance in preparation at CERN, D.Renker for help at the experimental area in PSI.


text:
# Possible Infrared Counterparts to the Soft Gamma-Ray Repeater SGR 1806-20

## 1 Introduction

The soft gamma-ray repeaters (SGRs) are unusual objects, even for the rarefied field of compact object astrophysics, with only 4 definitely identified over the last 30 years. As a class, they are defined by their repeated super-Eddington soft gamma-ray bursts (peak photon energy $`30`$ keV, versus $`300`$ keV for “classical” gamma-ray bursters), with occasional outbursts greatly exceeding the Eddington luminosity for a $`1M_{}`$ object. During a giant outburst, SGR 0526-66 showed 8-second pulsations (Mazets et al.,, 1979), and SGR 1900+14 showed 5-second pulsations during a similar outburst some 20 years later (Hurley et al., 1999a, ). Both SGR 1900+14 and SGR 1806-20 show X-ray pulsations (5-s and 7.5-s, respectively) in quiescence (Kouveliotou et al., (1998); Hurley et al., 1999b ). Based on their spin periods and period derivatives, SGRs appear similar to the so-called Anomalous X-ray Pulsars (AXPs) (Stella et al.,, 1998). Currently, the most widely investigated model for both SGRs and AXPs is the so-called “magnetar” model, in which a highly-magnetized young neutron star has X-ray emission powered by the decay of its magnetic field, and the soft gamma-ray bursts are powered by magnetic realignment in the neutron star crust (Duncan & Thompson, (1992); Thompson & Duncan, (1993)). Other models have also been proposed (e.g. Marsden et al., (2001)).

One motivation for considering SGRs as young neutron stars has been their apparent association with young supernova remnants, particularly the association of SGR 1806-20 with the radio nebula G10.0-0.3 (Vasisht et al., (1993); Kulkarni & Frail, (1993)). At one time, SGR 1806-20 was thought to be associated with a luminous blue variable (LBV) star which lies at the time-variable (in both flux and morphology) core of this nebula. However, the recent Inter-Planetary Network (IPN) localization of SGR 1806-20 provides a position inconsistent with that of the LBV star and radio core (Hurley et al., 1999c, ). Furthermore, (Gaensler et al.,, 2001) argue that G10.0-0.3 is not a supernova remnant at all; rather it may be powered by the tremendous wind of the LBV star (Hurley et al., 1999c, ). Infrared observations of the field of SGR 1806-20 reveal that the LBV star is not alone, but appears to be part of a cluster of embedded, hot, luminous stars (Fuchs et al.,, 1999), and the IPN position for SGR 1806-20 is consistent with membership in that cluster. Recently, Eikenberry et al., (2001) have used near-infrared photometry and spectroscopy to conclude that this cluster contains what may be the most luminous star in the Galaxy (the LBV star), at least one Wolf-Rayet star of type WCL, and at least two blue “hypergiants” of luminosity class Ia+. These properties make the cluster resemble a somewhat smaller and older version of the “super” star cluster R136 (Massey & Hunter,, 1998), making the potential association with SGR 1806-20 even more intriguing.

We report here X-ray observations of SGR 1806-20 with the Chandra X-ray Observatory (Weisskopf et al.,, 1996), as well as near-infrared observations of the field with the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO) 4-meter telescope and the Hartung-Boothroyd Observatory 0.65-m telescope. Using Chandra to localize SGR 1806-20 to an accuracy $`<1\mathrm{}`$, we then can identify possible infrared (IR) counterparts to SGR 1806-20. In Section 2, we describe the observations and data analysis. In Section 3, we discuss the results and their implications for SGR 1806-20 and other soft gamma-ray repeaters, and in Section 4 we present our conclusions.

## 2 Observations & Analysis

### 2.1 Chandra Observations

We analyzed an archival Chandra observation of SGR 1806-20 taken on 24 July 2000 UT. The observation duration was 4900 seconds, with the aim point on the back-illuminated ACIS-S3 CCD chip. Because the time-resolution was 3.24-s (full-frame mode), sources as bright as SGR 1806-20 suffered from significant photon pileup in the core ($`3040\%`$ here). This effect limits spectroscopic accuracy, and also prevents detailed analysis of the spatial profile near the (suppressed) image core, but does not greatly impair the source localization. We used the CIAO 2.1.3 and SHERPA 2.1.2 software packages for Chandra to perform the analyses of the data.

We present a section of the Chandra image of this field in Figure 1, revealing a single bright source near the expected position of SGR 1806-20. Within the limits imposed by pileup, the source appears to be unresolved (Gaussian $`\sigma =0.8\mathrm{pixels}=0.4\mathrm{}`$), and has a centroid of $`\alpha _{2000}=18\mathrm{h}08\mathrm{m}39.32\mathrm{s}`$ and $`\delta _{2000}=20\mathrm{°}24\mathrm{}39.8\mathrm{}`$ based on the Chandra aspect solution. The uncertainty in this position is dominated by the systematic offsets in the Chandra aspect solution, which are typically $`0.51.0\mathrm{}`$. Kaplan et al., (2001) have used deeper Chandra observations of this field to identify several X-ray counterparts of nearby USNO-A2.0 stars, and based on them find a corrected position of $`\alpha _{2000}=18\mathrm{h}08\mathrm{m}39.32\mathrm{s}`$ and $`\delta _{2000}=20\mathrm{°}24\mathrm{}39.5\mathrm{}`$ , with uncertainties in each coordinate of $`\pm 0.3\mathrm{}`$, in good agreement with our position above. Thus, we adopt the more accurate position of Kaplan et al., (2001) from here on.

Despite the limitations imposed by the pulse pileup, we attempted crude spectral analyses on the Chandra observation. We extracted a background-subtracted spectrum for the point source and then modelled it as an absorbed power-law, obtaining a best-fit with $`\chi _\nu ^2=0.88`$ for 41 degrees of freedom. This produced an absorption estimate of $`n_H=4.5(\pm 1.0)\times 10^{22}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ and a flux of $`6\times 10^{12}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the 2-10 keV band – both in good agreement with the BeppoSAX observations of Mereghetti et al., (2000).

### 2.2 Infrared Observations

We obtained near-infrared images of the field of SGR 1806-20 using the Ohio State InfraRed Imaging Spectrograph (OSIRIS) intrument (Depoy et al.,, 1993) and f/14 tip-tilt secondary on the CTIO 4-meter telescope on 6 July 2001 UT. We note that no IPN bursts had been observed from SGR 1806-20 for 2 weeks prior to this date. We used the f/7 camera of OSIRIS, providing a plate scale of $`0.161\mathrm{}`$ per pixel and an unvignetted field of view of $`100\mathrm{}`$ on a side. We observed the field in the J, H, and K bands (central wavelengths of $`1.25\mu `$m, $`1.65\mu `$m, and $`2.2\mu `$m, respectively). For each band, we obtained 9 separate images in a $`3\times 3`$ grid pattern offset by $`10\mathrm{}`$. The integration times for each image were 3.24, 3.24, and 10 seconds for J,H, and K bands respectively. We then subtracted dark frames from each image, divided the result by its own median, and then median-combined the resulting images into a normalized sky frame. We subtracted the dark frame and a scaled version of the sky frame from each of the 9 images, and divided the result by a dome flat image. We shifted each of the 9 frames to a common reference position and averaged them to give a final image in each band.

Due to the presence of variable thin clouds during the CTIO observations, we photometrically post-calibrated these images using observations of stars in the field of SGR 1806-20 and infrared standard stars on July 27, 2001 with the Hartung-Boothroyd Observatory 0.65-meter telescope and its infrared array camera (Houck & Colonno,, 2001). We took 7 images of the field of SGR 1806-20 in each band, with offsets of $`15\mathrm{}`$ between images. We then processed the images in each band as described for the CTIO data above. We repeated this procedure on sets of 7 images of the UKIRT standard FS26 in each band. We extracted the flux in $`\mathrm{ADU}/\mathrm{s}`$ from each processed image of FS26 individually, using the average as the best estimate of the flux, and the standard deviation as the $`1\sigma `$ uncertainty. We then used the known magnitudes of this star to calibrate similarly-derived flux measurements and uncertainties for several bright stars in the field of SGR 1806-20. We used a photometric airmass solution derived from measurements of stars observed for another program over a range of airmasses throughout the night.

For astrometric calibration, we had several USNO-A2.0 stars present in the J-band image. We chose 8 of the brightest stars (Figure 2a), and peformed a least-squares linear fit to determine the best astrometric solution. We found an RMS of $`<0.15\mathrm{}`$ in each coordinate, including the USNO-A2.0 relative uncertainties which can be as large as $`0.25\mathrm{}`$. We then used the centroids of several IR-bright stars to transfer this coordinate system onto the H- and K-band images (Figure 2b,c). We found this approach to provide superior results to simply applying an astrometric solution to the USNO stars visible in the H- and K-band images – reddened stars greatly increase crowding in these images and thus increase contamination of the centroids of the USNO stars. The transfer of coordinates produced an additional RMS uncertainty of $`<0.08\mathrm{}`$ in each coordinate for the H- and K-band images. Since the X-ray position for SGR 1806-20 of Kaplan et al., (2001) also derives from USNO-A2.0 stars, the two solutions should be directly comparable. Thus, the 90% positional uncertainty we can provide for the location of SGR 1806-20 on the infrared images is $`0.7\mathrm{}`$. We present J-, H-, and K-band images of the region near SGR 1806-20 in Figure 3, along with the 90% positional error circle. We present photometry of the labelled stars in Table 1.

## 3 Discussion

### 3.1 The Distance to SGR 1806-20

As noted above, SGR 1806-20 lies in the direction of an unusual embedded cluster of massive, luminous young stars (Fuchs et al., (1999); Eikenberry et al., (2001)), with a distance of $`14.5\pm 1.4`$ kpc and a reddening of $`A_V=29\pm 2`$ mag (Corbel et al., (1997); Eikenberry et al., (2001)). The LBV star is perhaps the most luminous star known at $`L>6\times 10^6L_{}`$, and the Wolf-Rayet and blue hypergiant stars are also certain to be very massive (Eikenberry et al.,, 2001). The fact that stars D and E in Figure 3 have $`JK=5.0`$ mag indicates that they are members of this cluster ($`E_{JK}=5.0`$ mag for $`A_V=29`$ mag), and thus that SGR 1806-20 lies within the radial extent of the cluster on the sky. Furthermore, the X-ray absorption towards SGR 1806-20 is $`56\times 10^{22}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (see above, and Mereghetti et al., (2000)), which is consistent with the extinction towards the cluster. Thus, it seems likely that SGR 1806-20 is also a member of this massive star cluster at a distance of $`14.5\pm 1.4`$ kpc. It is very interesting to note that the soft gamma-ray repeater SGR 1900+14 is also very near to a cluster of embedded luminous stars (Vrba et al.,, 2000). The projected distance from the center of this cluster to the location of SGR 1900+14 is $`<1`$ pc.

### 3.2 The IR Counterparts

The IR colors (and upper limits) of the two candidate counterparts to SGR 1806-20 are consistent with both of them being stellar members of the star cluster ($`JK=5.0`$ mag, $`HK=2.0`$ mag). Note that the brighter star just outside the error circle (“C” in Figure 3) appears to be a foreground star ($`JK=3`$ mag), confirming that it is not a likely counterpart to the SGR. However, as can been seen in Figure 3, the field of SGR 1806-20 is highly crowded in the IR by both foreground/background objects and cluster members, and the simple fact that two stars lie within the 90% confidence error circle and another just outside it shows that the probability of a chance coincidence of unrelated IR objects is high. Thus, we cannot conclude definitely that either of the possible counterparts is actually related to SGR 1806-20. Monitoring for variability may resolve this issue in the future.

If both candidates are in fact members of the cluster, we can estimate their absolute magnitudes to be $`M_K=2.3`$ mag (A) and $`M_K=0.4`$ mag (B). For Star A, this is consistent with stars of luminosity matching a B1V or K3III star, and is inconsistent with any stars of luminosity class I. After correcting for the $`HK=2`$ mag differential extinction toward the cluster, the intrinsic color of $`(HK)_{intrins}=0.8\pm 1.2`$ mag is essentially consistent with all stellar spectra earlier than late M, and does not significantly constrain the classification. For Star B, the absolute magnitude is consistent with stars of luminosity matching a B8V star, and is inconsistent with any stars of luminosity class III or higher. It is important to note that no observations have yet probed the distribution of stars in the cluster with masses below that of late B main sequence stars. Thus, it is possible that there are even further stars within the error circle at significantly lower mass/luminosity, unless the cluster mass distribution shows a sharp lower cutoff.

### 3.3 The SGR Progenitor Star

One particularly intriguing aspect of the association between SGR 1806-20 and the star cluster is that a neutron star progenitor went supernova before the stars currently observed in the cluster. Since more massive stars evolve to the supernova stage more rapidly, if the progenitor of SGR 1806-20 formed at the same time as the currently observed massive stars, its mass must have been greater. However, the mass estimate for the LBV is $`>200M_{}`$ (Eikenberry et al.,, 2001), and several of the other stars are likely to have masses in the range of $`50100M_{}`$ (Eikenberry et al.,, 2001). While recent theories have predicted that very massive stars may produce neutron star remnants due to the effect of envelope loss via dense stellar winds, the upper limit on their masses is $`80M_{}`$, with higher mass stars producing massive black hole remnants. Thus, it seems unlikely that the SGR 1806-20 progenitor formed at the same time as the currently observed massive stars in the cluster.

Alternately, SGR 1806-20 may have formed prior to these stars – in fact, Kaplan et al., (2001) suggest that the supernova event that produced SGR 1806-20 may have triggered the star formation activity that produced the massive stars in the cluster. However, the massive stars we observe in the cluster are evolved, with ages of $`10^6`$ yr to reach the LBV and Wolf-Rayet stages of their lives. If the SGR 1806-20 supernova event led to the birth of these stars, then SGR 1806-20 is much older than the $`10^310^4`$ yr typically considered for magnetars. Alternately, SGR 1806-20 may simply be taken as evidence for prior massive star formation at this location. While at least one supernova occurred here, perhaps it was not the first, and an earlier supernova event triggered the formation of the currently observed massive stars.

## 4 Conclusions

We have presented X-ray and infrared observations of the field of SGR 1806-20, determining the location of the X-ray counterpart in the IR image to an accuracy of $`0.7\mathrm{}`$ (90% confidence). We find two potential counterparts in this small error circle, and the crowding in this field makes it difficult to ascertain which if either of these stars is a true counterpart to SGR 1806-20. The X-ray absorption towards SGR 1806-20 matches the infrared extinction of cluster members, indicating that the SGR 1806-20 is at the same distance as the cluster ($`14.5\pm 1.4`$ kpc), and the IR observations reveal that it lies within the radial extent of the cluster on the sky. The presence of a neutron star in a cluster containing extremely massive evolved stars indicates either that the neutron star progenitor was more massive (which seems unphysical) or that these stars are the result of the most recent of multiple star formation epochs at this location.

The authors thank R. Blum and A. Alvarez for help in obtaining the observations at CTIO. SSE is supported in part at Cornell by an NSF CAREER award (NSF-9983830), and SGP and DH were partially supported by this grant. MAJ was supported at Cornell by a NASA Space Grant summer research fellowship, and MAG was supported by a NSF REU fellowship.


text:
# The Chandra Deep Field South: the 1 Million Second ExposureBased on observations made at the European Southern Observatory, Paranal, Chile. The EIS observations have been carried out using the ESO New Technology Telescope (NTT) at the La Silla observatory (ESO LP 164.O-O561).

## 1 Introduction

With deeper and deeper exposures the Chandra X–ray Observatory has resolved an increasingly large fraction of the X–ray background (Mushotzky et al. 2000; Hornschemeier et al. 2000, 2001; Giacconi et al. 2001–Paper I; Tozzi et al. 2001–Paper II; Brandt et al. 2001a), particularly at high ($`>2`$ keV) energies. With the completion of two 1 Megasec Chandra exposures early this year, the Chandra Deep Field South (CDFS, the subject of this Paper) and North (CDFN, Brandt et al. 2001b), the original X–ray glow discovered by Giacconi et al. in 1962 is now almost completely resolved in individual sources by confusion-free Chandra images. Observational and theoretical studies over the last two decades have lead to a picture in which the X–ray background (XRB) is due to accretion onto super-massive black holes, integrated over cosmic time. With these new observations, the general interest is now focusing on understanding the physical nature and the cosmic evolution of these extragalactic sources, and their role in models of galaxy evolution (e.g. Fabian 1999; Gilli, Salvati & Hasinger 2001).

In Paper I, we presented the first results from a 118 ks exposure. In Paper II, we extended the statistical analysis of the X–ray properties to 200 sources from a 300 ks exposure, and reported on the optical identification and redshifts of a sizeable subsample from the first results of our on–going spectroscopic program with the VLT. The X–ray spectra were found to become progressively harder at fainter fluxes, with an average stacked spectrum well fitted in the 1–10 keV range by a power law with photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.44\pm 0.03`$, i.e., very close to the known spectral shape of the XRB (Marshall et al. 1980; Gendreau et al. 1995). The Log N–Log S relation from the 300 ks observations showed a significant flattening down to a flux limit of $`10^{15}\text{ erg cm}\text{-2}\text{ s}\text{-1}`$ when compared to previous ASCA determinations at fluxes larger than $`10^{13}\text{ erg cm}\text{-2}\text{ s}\text{-1}`$ (e.g. Cagnoni et al. 1998; Della Ceca et al. 1999) and fluctuation analysis from Beppo SAX down to $`10^{14}\text{ erg cm}\text{-2}\text{ s}\text{-1}`$ (Perri & Giommi 2000). These sources accounted for 60-90% of the hard XRB, the main uncertainty lying in the measurement of its absolute value with previous X–ray missions. In Paper II, we also found that the optical spectra and X–ray luminosities for most of the hard sources are those typical of Type II AGN, in keeping with expectations of AGN population synthesis models of the XRB (e.g. Setti &Woltjer 1989; Madau, Ghisellini & Fabian 1993; Comastri et al. 1995, Gilli, Salvati & Hasinger 2001).

We present here the main results from the analysis of the 940 ks exposure (hereafter 1 Msec) of the CDFS. In Section 2, the Log N–Log S relations are used to estimate the resolved fraction of the XRB in the soft (0.5–2 keV) and hard (2–10 keV) bands. In Section 3 we discuss some of the optical properties of the source population in light of the spectroscopic identification of 83 sources to date. The underlying catalog of X–ray sources used in this Paper is presented in Giacconi et al. (2001, hereafter Paper III) along with optical identifications in deep R band imaging data.

The spectroscopic dataset, which is being collected with on–going observations with the FORS spectrograph at the VLT, is presented elsewhere (Szokoly et al. in prepration), while a detailed analysis of the X–ray spectra of the CDFS sources and a comparison with AGN models are presented in a forthcoming paper (Gilli et al. in preparation).

## 2 Statistical properties of the X–ray source population

The Mega second dataset of the CDFS is the result of the coaddition of 11 individual Chandra ACIS–I (Garmire et al. 1992; Bautz et al. 1998) exposures with aimpoints only a few arcsec from each other. The nominal aim point of the CDFS is $`\alpha =`$3:32:28.0, $`\delta =`$27:48:30 (J2000). We selected this field in a patch of the southern sky characterized by a low galactic neutral hydrogen column density ($`N_H=8\times 10^{19}`$ cm-2) and a lack of bright stars. The diary of observations is given in Paper III. The processing method (data filtering, photon stacking, calibration procedures) is described in Papers II and III. Due to different roll angles of the individual pointings, the final image covers 0.109 deg2. The decrease of effective exposure time and degradation of the angular resolution at large off–axis angles cause the sky coverage to drop below $`10^{15},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{14}\text{ erg cm}\text{-2}\text{ s}\text{-1}`$ in the soft and hard bands respectively (Papers II and III).

In Figure 1, we show the color composite image of the CDFS. This was constructed by combining images (first smoothed with a Gaussian with $`\sigma =1\mathrm{}`$) in three bands (0.3–1 keV, 1–2 keV, 2–7 keV), which contain approximately equal numbers of photons from detected sources. Blue sources are those undetected in the soft (0.5–2 keV) band, most likely due to intrinsic absorption from neutral hydrogen with column densities $`N_H>10^{22}`$ cm-2. Very soft sources appear red. A few extended low surface brightness sources are also readily visible in the image.

Papers II and III describe in detail detection algorithms and photometric procedures used. By using a signal–to–noise threshold of 2.1, we detected 346 sources in the 0.5–7 keV band; 307 have $`S/N>2.1`$ in the soft band, 251 in the hard band and 110 in the very hard (5–7 keV) band. This S/N criterium was chosen to limit the total number of spurious sources to less than 10, as established with extensive simulations (see Paper II). The faintest detected sources have approximately 10 counts in the soft band and 13 in the hard band.

For a power law source spectrum with a photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.4`$, absorbed by a Galactic column densities of $`8\times 10^{19}\text{cm}^2`$, we obtain a conversion factor of $`(4.6\pm 0.1)\times 10^{12}\text{ erg cm}\text{-2}\text{ s}\text{-1}`$ per count s-1 in the soft band (count rate in 0.5–2 keV to flux in the same band), $`(3.0\pm 0.3)\times 10^{11}\text{ erg cm}\text{-2}\text{ s}\text{-1}`$ per count s-1 in the hard band (count rate in 2–7 keV to flux in 2–10 keV), and $`(1.02\pm 0.1)\times 10^{10}\text{ erg cm}\text{-2}\text{ s}\text{-1}`$ per count s-1 in the very hard band (count rate in 5–7 keV to flux in 5–10 keV). The assumed source spectrum is justified by the stacked spectral analysis of all detected sources (see below). The uncertainty in the conversion factors corresponds to the observed range of the average spectral index ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.4\pm 0.3`$).

With these conversion factors, the on–axis flux limits for the soft, the hard and the very hard bands are $`5.5\times 10^{17}\text{ erg cm}\text{-2}\text{ s}\text{-1}`$, $`4.5\times 10^{16}\text{ erg cm}\text{-2}\text{ s}\text{-1}`$, and $`10^{15}\text{ erg cm}\text{-2}\text{ s}\text{-1}`$ respectively. These values refer to the fluxes at which the sky coverage drops to zero for the assumed detection threshold. We should stress that point sources at fluxes fainter than these limits can statistically be detected in the CDFS, at the expenses of increasing substantially the number of spurious sources. This approach would not have any significant benefit however, since the area covered at these fluxes is $`5\%`$ and therefore only a handful of real sources would add to the sample. In addition, the sky coverage becomes increasingly inaccurate at very faint detection limits, making the faint end of the number counts very uncertain.

In Paper III we also presented a catalog of sources characterized as extended. Visual inspection and optical colors indicate that some of them are groups or isolated early type galaxies at $`z<1`$. In several cases however, the X–ray emission is dominated by a central, hard component which is likely due to low–level nuclear activity. The mean surface brightness of these diffuse sources is as low as $`10^{16}\text{ erg cm}\text{-2}\text{ s}\text{-1}\text{arcmin}^2`$, i.e. between 10 and 20 times fainter than the faintest extended sources discovered by ROSAT (Rosati et al. 1995).

In Figure 2, we show the cumulative number counts in three bands: soft, hard and very hard (5–10 keV). The hard and soft counts now cover several orders of magnitude in flux, therefore a single power law is no longer a good fit. We perform a double power–law fit to the differential number counts with four parameters: faint–end normalization and slope, bright–end slope and flux where the break occurs. Likelihood contours for the faint end slope and normalization are shown at the top of Figure 2.

In the soft band, the Chandra data extend the results from previous surveys down to $`5.5\times 10^{17}\text{ erg cm}\text{-2}\text{ s}\text{-1}`$. We find the differential soft counts to be consistent with an euclidean slope at the bright end, and a slope $`\alpha _{diff}\alpha +1=1.63\pm 0.13`$ (1 $`\sigma `$ error) at the faint end, with a break at $`S1.3\times 10^{14}\text{ erg cm}\text{-2}\text{ s}\text{-1}`$. Thus, below $`S=10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2, the slope of the cumulative number count is $`\alpha 0.6`$ (see top panels of Figure 2). The normalization, computed at $`S=2\times 10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2, is $`K=380\pm 80`$, which is consistent with previous values found in Papers I and II.

The Log N–Log S distribution for sources in the hard band is extended down to a flux limit of $`4.5\times 10^{16}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 with the present data. As in Paper II, the hard counts are normalized at the bright end ($`S>10^{13}\text{ erg cm}\text{-2}\text{ s}\text{-1}`$) with the ASCA data by Della Ceca et al. (1999). The best fit bright–end slope is consistent with an Euclidean slope, whereas the faint end has a slope of $`\alpha _{diff}=1.61\pm 0.10`$. The break occurs at $`S8\times 10^{15}\text{ erg cm}\text{-2}\text{ s}\text{-1}`$ and $`K=1300\pm 100`$. This confirms a further flattening when compared with the 300 ks CDFS exposure (Paper II) and shallower Chandra fields (e.g. Stern et al. 2001a; Mushotzky et al. 2000; see the top panels in Figure 2).

In order to test the impact of cosmic variance in these relatively small fields ($`0.1\text{deg}^2`$), we compare our faint number counts with those derived from the public CDFN data using our method of analysis (i.e. photon file processing, detection algorithm, etc.). The slope and normalization of the faint end are found to be consistent within two sigma level (see dashed contours in the top panels of Figure 2), whereas the CDFN counts at bright fluxes are significantly higher than in the CDFS. We find $`\alpha =0.53\pm 0.1`$ and $`K=490\pm 90`$ at the faint end of the soft counts, and $`\alpha =0.61\pm 0.10`$ and $`K=1500\pm 100`$ at the faint end of the hard counts. Our best fit values for the CDFN Log N–Log S are in very good agreement with those recently published by Brandt et al. (2001b) with a completely different method of detection, calibration and sky coverage computation. This suggests that differences in number counts are not due to systematics in methods of analysis, but rather to field to field variations.

We compared our Log N–Log S with the predictions of the AGN population synthesis models described in Gilli, Salvati & Hasinger (2001). We consider their model B, where the number ratio $`R`$ between absorbed and unabsorbed AGNs is assumed to increase with redshift from 4, the value measured in the local Universe, to 10 at $`z1.3`$, where $`R`$ is unknown. This model was found to better describe observations with respect to a standard model where $`R=4`$ at all redshifts. The value of R is assumed to be independent of the luminosity, and therefore a large population of obscured QSOs is included in such a model. In this Paper, the parameters of the AGN X–ray luminosity functions assumed in the model B are renormalized to fit the background intensity measured by HEAO–1 ($`1.6\text{ erg cm}\text{-2}\text{ s}\text{-1}\mathrm{deg}^2`$ in the 2–10 keV band). The predictions for the source counts (solid line in Figure 2) in the hard and soft bands are in very good agreement with the Chandra Log N–Log S at all fluxes.

The resolved fraction of the hard X–ray background, after including the bright end as observed by ASCA (Della Ceca et al. 1999), amounts to $`(1.57\pm 0.15)\times 10^{11}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 deg-2. This value, which is computed down to the limiting flux of $`S=4.5\times 10^{16}`$ erg s-1 cm-2, has now reached, if not exceeded, the value of the total (unresolved) X–ray background $`1.6\times 10^{11}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 deg-2 measured by UHURU and HEAO–1 (Marshall et al. 1980). If we assume more recent measurements of the integrated background from ASCA surveys (Ishisaki et al. 1999; Ueda et al. 1999), the resolved fraction of the hard XRB is 80–90%. The BeppoSAX measurement (Vecchi et al. 1999; see Paper II) is likely too high to be accounted for by our number counts.

Field to field variations have also a non negligible impact on these measurements. For example, we have shown that the differences at the bright end, and to a lesser extent at the faint end, of the Log N–Log S in the CDFS and CDFN fields are likely an effect of cosmic variance. The total contribution to the XRB in the CDFN amounts to $`(1.7\pm 0.17)\times 10^{11}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 deg-2, which is 8% higher than the CDFS value.

The existence of a fainter and progressively harder population of sources which are likely to fill the remaining fraction of the hard XRB is confirmed by the steep counts in the very hard band (5–10 keV), also plotted in Figure 2. A single power–law fit yields a slope of $`\alpha =1.35\pm 0.15`$, with a normalization $`K=940\pm 100`$, somewhat lower than the value obtained with XMM observations of the Lockman Hole in the same band (Hasinger et al. 2001), and lower than the extrapolation of the bright 5–10 keV counts of the Hellas2XMM survey (Baldi et al. 2001). The best fit values in the CDFN are $`\alpha =1.18\pm 0.20`$ and $`K=1230\pm 200`$. A double power law fit indicates a break at $`S4\times 10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2, but with large uncertainties on the slopes due to the smaller number of sources (110) and to the smaller flux range probed. The steeper slope with respect to the 2-10 keV number counts is mainly due to the hardening of the average spectrum at low fluxes. In fact, by running our detection algorithm in the 5–7 keV band alone, we find only 5 additional sources which are just below the detection threshold in the 2–7 or 0.5–7 keV bands. Forthcoming XMM observations of the CDFS will be crucial to investigate the nature of these sources which, in light of our first spectroscopic identifications, are expected to be strongly absorbed AGN, at relatively low redshift

It is also interesting to quote the contribution of all CDFS sources to the soft band, which we restrict to 1–2 keV to be compared with the measurement of the total flux measured by ROSAT, $`4.4\times 10^{12}\text{ erg cm}\text{-2}\text{ s}\text{-1}\mathrm{deg}^2`$ (see Hasinger et al. 1998). We find a resolved contribution of $`6.25\times 10^{13}\text{ erg cm}\text{-2}\text{ s}\text{-1}`$ deg-2 for fluxes lower than $`10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2, corresponding to $`14`$% of the total value. When we include the integrated contribution of point–like sources at higher fluxes as measured by ROSAT, the total resolved contribution at fluxes larger than $`3\times 10^{17}\text{ erg cm}\text{-2}\text{ s}\text{-1}`$ (our flux limit in the 1–2 keV band) adds up to $`3.65\times 10^{12}\text{ erg cm}\text{-2}\text{ s}\text{-1}`$deg-2, corresponding to 83% of the total value. In addition, X–ray clusters are known to contribute 6% of the ROSAT 1–2 keV background (10% in the 0.5–2 keV band, see Rosati et al. 1998). This sets an upper limit of $`11`$% for the diffuse emission from warm gas. Incidentally, we note that we resolved completely the value found by ASCA (Gendreau et al. 1995), which, however, must be considered a lower limit to the 1–2 keV total background (see discussion in Hasinger et al. 1998).

## 3 Spectral properties, X–ray and optical colors

The cumulative spectral properties of the CDFS sample show an increasing hardness at fainter fluxes (Paper I and II; Brandt et al 2001b). The analysis of the stacked spectrum of the total sample (see Paper II for technical details) gives now an average photon index of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.375\pm 0.015`$ (error at 90% confidence level) with $`\chi _\nu ^2=1.65`$ in the 1–10 keV range, after fixing the absorbing column density to the Galactic value ($`N_H=8\times 10^{19}`$ cm-2). The average spectrum is consistent with the shape of the total hard background $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1.4`$, confirming previous findings. To quantify the progressive hardening of the spectral shape as a function of the hard flux, we divided the sample of sources which are detected in the hard band in 4 subsamples, defined in order to have roughly the same number of net source counts ($``$ 3000): bright ($`S>2\times 10^{14}`$ erg s-1 cm-2), medium ($`2\times 10^{14}>S>6\times 10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2), faint ($`S<6\times 10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2), and very faint ($`S<2\times 10^{16}`$ erg s-1 cm-2, with only $`1500`$ counts). The best fit slope of the stacked spectra is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.68\pm 0.03`$, $`1.42\pm 0.03`$, $`1.10\pm 0.03`$, and $`1.05\pm 0.05`$ respectively. Incidentally, by assuming a varying $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as a function of the flux, we verify that the changes in the Log N–Log S are well within the quoted errors (less than 5%).

In Figure 3 we show the hardness ratio as a function of the luminosity in the 0.5–10 keV band for 83 sources for which we have optical spectra and secure classification (Szokoly et al. in preparation). The hardness ratio is defined as $`HR(HS)/(H+S)`$ where $`H`$ and $`S`$ are the net count rates in the hard (2–7 keV) and the soft band (0.5–2 keV), respectively. The X–ray luminosities are not corrected for internal absorption and are computed in a critical universe with $`H_0=50`$ km s-1 Mpc-1. Different source types are clearly segregated in this plane. Type I AGNs (marked with circles) have luminosities between $`10^{43}`$ erg s-1 and $`10^{45}`$ erg s-1, with hardness ratios in a narrow range around $`HR0.5`$. This corresponds to an effective $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.7`$, commonly found in Type I AGN. Type II AGN are skewed towards significantly higher hardness ratios ($`HR0`$), with (absorbed) luminosities in the range $`10^{42}10^{44}`$  erg s-1 . Note that the unabsorbed, intrinsic luminosities of Type II AGN would fall in the same range as that of Type I’s (see Gilli et al. in preparation). A subset of objects characterized by spectra of normal galaxies (marked with triangles) have very low luminosities ($`10^{41}`$ erg s-1) and very soft spectra (several with $`HR=1`$), as expected in the case of starbursts or thermal halos. However, a separate subset has harder spectra ($`HR>0.5`$), and luminosities larger than $`10^{42}`$ erg s-1. In these galaxies the X–ray emission is likely due to a mixture of low level AGN activity and a population of low mass X–ray binaries (see also Fiore et al. 2000; Barger et al. 2001). In Figure 3, we also include two Type II QSOs (asterisks), which are the most luminous sources in the HR–LX plane with HR$`>0`$. We discovered one in the CDFS itself (Norman et al. 2001); the second one was recently found by Stern et al. (2001b) in the Lynx field.

In Figure 4, we present a color-magnitude diagram, $`K`$ vs $`RK`$, for all CDFS sources with available photometry and optical counterparts. Vega magnitudes are derived from our survey with FORS–VLT (Program-ID 64.O-0621) and from the ESO Imaging Survey (EIS, Vandame et al. 2001; Arnouts et al. 2001). Optical spectral classification is used as in Figure 3. As a control sample, field galaxies are also shown. Type II sources are, on average, significantly redder than Type I sources and the overall field population, as expected in objects with dust and gas obscured AGN activity (e.g. Alexander et al. 2001). As a reference, on the same diagram we plot evolutionary tracks of an early and three late type galaxies using the template library of Coleman, Wu, Weedman (1980) (for E/S0, Sbc, Scd and Irr), whose spectral energy distributions (SEDs) have been extended to the near-IR and far UV using Bruzual &Charlot (2000) models. Magnitudes are normalized to the measured local value $`K^{}=10.8`$, no dust extinction is assumed. The QSO track was obtained using an empirical template from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (Vanden Berk et al. 2001). The QSO SED was extended in the near IR using the Granato et al. (1997) models and normalized to $`M_B^{}=22.4`$.

The color-magnitude region spanned by the evolutionary tracks of $`L_{}`$ galaxies ranging from late to early types encompasses most of the CDFS sources (with the exception of the bluest Type I objects which lie along the QSO track). Similarly, the template tracks in the $`BR`$ vs $`RK`$ plot in Figure 5 cover the color space of the optical counterparts of the CDFS source. This coverage becomes even more uniform if a range of dust extinctions is taken into account. This suggests that Type I and Type II AGN are hosted by a broad range of galaxy types. These findings are in agreement with the results of Schreier et al. (2001) and of Koekemoer et al. (2001) who found morphological types of CDFS sources to be uncorrelated with their hardness ratio from high-resolution HST imaging data.

## 4 Conclusions

In this Paper, we have reported the main results from the 1 Ms exposure of the Chandra Deep Field South, using the catalog of 346 sources presented by Giacconi et al. (2001). These observations reach a flux limit of $`5.5\times 10^{17}\text{ erg cm}\text{-2}\text{ s}\text{-1}`$ in the 0.5–2 keV band, $`4.5\times 10^{16}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 in the 2–10 keV band (or $`3.6\times 10^{16}\text{ erg cm}\text{-2}\text{ s}\text{-1}`$ in the 2–8 keV band), and $`10^{15}\text{ erg cm}\text{-2}\text{ s}\text{-1}`$ in the 5–10 keV band.

The source number counts in the hard (2–10 keV) band show a significant flattening ($`\alpha 0.6`$) below $`S8\times 10^{15}\text{ erg cm}\text{-2}\text{ s}\text{-1}`$. The two deepest Chandra surveys, CDF South and North (Brandt et al. 2001b), have substantially resolved the hard XRB in individual sources, the main uncertainty now lying in the measurement of its total value. Nonetheless, we find the number counts at the hardest energies probed by Chandra (5–10 keV band) to be significantly steep ($`\alpha 1.3`$). Together with the evidence that the progressive steepening of the average X–ray spectrum of the faint population seems to continue at fluxes near or below our flux limit, this indicates that there is still a not negligible population of faint hard sources to be discovered with better sensitivity at high energies. Such sources are expected to generate the 30 keV bump in the XRB spectrum. XMM may play an important role in unveiling this population, if not affected by confusion.

We have shown that fluctuations in the number counts among different Chandra fields can be as large as $`5\%`$ at low fluxes and up to $`30\%`$ at bright fluxes (a more detailed analysis of this effect is presented in Tozzi et al. 2001b). These differences correspond to 1–2 $`\sigma `$ Poissonian fluctuations (see top panels of Figure 2). Fluctuations of counts in excess of the Poisson noise are expected as a result of significant source clustering over scales comparable to the field size. By extrapolating the detected angular two–point correlation function for $`X`$–ray sources (e.g., Vikhlinin et al. 1995; Giacconi et al. 2001) out to the typical scale of Chandra fields, we find the contribution of clustering to cosmic variance to be negligible.

Using optical identification and redshifts for a quarter of the total sample, our on–going spectroscopic observations indicate that the bulk of the obscured Type II AGN (with HR$`>0`$) lies at a median redshift $`0.8`$ (Paper II; see also Crawford et al. 2000; Barger et al. 2001). A stacked spectrum analysis of these sources reveals that they are characterized by an intrinsic absorption with $`\mathrm{log}N_H>21.5`$, assuming a median redshift of $`z=1`$. These sources are on average redder than the field galaxy population, however, they still span a portion in color–color diagrams which is covered by a broad range of host galaxy spectral types. The fact that Type II AGN may not be segregated just within one morphological class of galaxies is corroborated by HST/WFPC2 imaging of several of these sources (Koekemoer et al. 2001).

Even accounting for the incomplete spectroscopic identification of our sample, the redshift ditribution of sources is in stark contrast with AGN population synthesis models which predicts a peak at redshifts $`1.32`$ (e.g. Gilli, Salvati & Hasinger 2001). A similar distribution at low redshift has been observed in the Lockman Hole (Hasinger et al. 2001). Together with the evidence that the observed effective spectral slope of the faint X–ray population is harder than the model predictions (see Figure 8 in Paper II), this suggests that such models will have to be modified to incorporate different evolutionary scenarios (Gilli et al. in preparation).

A substantial fraction (11%) of the CDFS sources remain unidentified even in deep VLT optical images ($`R27.5`$) or moderately deep near–IR imaging (a 15% fraction down to $`K22`$). The hardness ratio distribution of these “blank” sources is similar to the overall distribution in the CDFS, making it difficult to comment on the nature of these sources with current data.

A great deal of spectroscopic work with 8–10m class telescopes, as well as deep multi-wavelength photometry to constrain redshifts and SEDs of the faintest population ($`30\%`$ of the CDFS sources are fainter than $`R=25`$), will be needed to characterize the nature and the evolution of the AGN population. Scheduled mid–IR observations with SIRTF of the two Chandra Deep fields (the GOODS project, Dickinson et al. 2001) will play a prominent role in this study, by probing heavily obscured objects at virtually any redshift.

We thank Dr. Harvey Tananbaum and the entire Chandra  X–ray Center Team for the high degree of support we have received in carrying out our observing program. In particular, we wish to thank Antonella Fruscione for her constant help in the use of the CXC software. R. Giacconi and C. Norman gratefully acknowledge support under NASA grant NAG–8–1527 and NAG–8–1133.


text:
# Aspects of QCD Factorization11footnote 1Talk presented at the Int. Workshop on QCD: Theory and Experiment (Martina Franca, Italy, 16–20 June 2001), and at the 9th Int. Symposium on Heavy Flavour Physics (Pasadena, CA, 10–13 September 2001)

## 1 Introduction

In many years of intense experimental and theoretical investigations the flavor sector of the Standard Model has been explored in great detail by studying mixing and weak decays of $`B`$ mesons and kaons. CP violation has been observed in $`K`$$`\overline{K}`$ mixing (1964), $`K\pi \pi `$ decays (1999), and most recently in the interference of mixing and decay in $`BJ/\psi K`$ (2001). There is now compelling evidence that the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) mechanism accounts for the dominant source of CP violation in low-energy hadronic weak interactions. Most notably, the discovery of a large CP asymmetry in the $`B`$ system has established that CP is not an approximate symmetry of Nature. Rather, the smallness of CP-violating effects in kaon (and charm) physics reflects the hierarchy of CKM matrix elements.

Measurements of $`|V_{cb}|`$ and $`|V_{ub}|`$ in semileptonic $`B`$ decays and of the magnitude and phase of $`V_{td}`$ in $`K`$$`\overline{K}`$ mixing, $`B_{d,s}`$$`\overline{B}_{d,s}`$ mixing, and $`BJ/\psi K`$ decays has helped to determine the parameters of the unitarity triangle $`V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}+V_{cb}^{}V_{cd}+V_{tb}^{}V_{td}=0`$ with good accuracy. The current values obtained at 95% confidence level are $`\overline{\rho }=0.21\pm 0.12`$, $`\overline{\eta }=0.38\pm 0.11`$ for the coordinates of the apex of the (rescaled) triangle, and $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.74\pm 0.15`$, $`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha =0.14\pm 0.57`$, $`\gamma =(61\pm 16)^{}`$ for its angles Hocker:2001xe . These studies have established the existence of a CP-violating phase in the top sector of the CKM matrix, i.e., $`\text{Im}(V_{td}^2)0`$. The next step in testing the CKM paradigm must be to explore the CP-violating phase in the bottom sector, i.e., $`\gamma =\text{arg}(V_{ub}^{})0`$. In the Standard Model the two phases are, of course, related to each other. However, there is still plenty of room for New Physics to affect the magnitude of flavor violations in both mixing and weak decays (see, e.g., Kagan:2000wm ). In particular, the present upper bound on $`\gamma `$ is derived from the experimental limit on $`B_s`$$`\overline{B}_s`$ mixing, which has not yet been seen experimentally and could well be affected by New Physics.

Common lore says that measurements of $`\gamma `$ are difficult. Several “theoretically clean”222In this area of flavor physics many practitioners would consider a method to be “theoretically clean” only if it exclusively relies on elementary geometry (amplitude triangles) and, perhaps, isospin symmetry. We adopt the rationale followed in most other branches of high-energy physics and call a method theoretically clean if it relies on systematic expansions in small parameters. The methods discussed later in this talk are theoretically clean in this wider sense. determinations of this phase have been suggested (see, e.g., Atwood:1997ci ; Dunietz:1988bv ), which are extremely challenging experimentally. Likewise, “clean” measurements of $`\alpha =\pi \beta \gamma `$ Gronau:1990ka ; Snyder:1993mx  are very difficult. It is more accessible experimentally to probe $`\gamma `$ (and $`\alpha `$) via the sizeable tree–penguin interference in charmless hadronic decays such as $`B\pi K`$ and $`B\pi \pi `$. The basic decay topologies contributing to these modes are shown in Figure 1. Experiment shows that the tree-to-penguin ratios in the two cases are roughly $`|T/P|_{\pi K}0.2`$ and $`|P/T|_{\pi \pi }0.3`$, indicating a sizeable amplitude interference. It is important that the relative weak phase between the two amplitudes can be probed not only via CP asymmetry measurements ($`\mathrm{sin}\gamma `$), but also via measurements of CP-averaged branching fractions ($`\mathrm{cos}\gamma `$). Extracting information about CKM parameters from the analysis of nonleptonic $`B`$ decays is a challenge to theory, since it requires some level of control over hadronic physics, including strong-interaction phases. Such challenges, combined with the importance of the issue, is what triggers theoretical progress.

## 2 QCD Factorization

Hadronic weak decay amplitudes simplify greatly in the heavy-quark limit $`m_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. This statement should not surprise those who have followed the dramatic advances in our theoretical understanding of $`B`$ physics in the past decade. Many areas of $`B`$ physics, from spectroscopy to exclusive semileptonic decays to inclusive rates and lifetimes, can now be systematically analyzed using heavy-quark expansions. Yet, the more complicated exclusive nonleptonic decays have long resisted any theoretical progress. The technical reason is that, whereas in most other applications of heavy-quark expansions one proceeds by integrating out heavy fields (leading to local operator product expansions), in the case of nonleptonic decays the large scale $`m_b`$ enters as the energy carried by light fields. Therefore, in addition to hard and soft subprocesses collinear degrees of freedom become important. This complicates the understanding of hadronic decay amplitudes using the language of effective field theory. (Yet, very significant progress towards an effective field-theory description of nonleptonic decays has been made recently with the establishment of a “collinear–soft effective theory” Bauer:2001yr . The reader is referred to these papers for more details on this important development.)

The importance of the heavy-quark limit is based on the physical idea of color transparency Bjorken:1989kk ; Dugan:1991de ; Politzer:1991au . A fast-moving light meson (such as a pion) produced in a point-like source (a local operator in the effective weak Hamiltonian) decouples from soft QCD interactions. More precisely, the couplings of soft gluons to such a system can be analyzed using a multipole expansion, and the first contribution (from the color dipole) is suppressed by a power of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$. The QCD factorization approach provides a systematic, model-independent implementation of this idea Beneke:1999br ; Beneke:2000ry . It gives rigorous results in the heavy-quark limit, which are valid to leading power in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$ but to all orders of perturbation theory. Having obtained control over nonleptonic decays in the heavy-quark limit is a tremendous advance. We are now able to talk about power corrections to a well-defined and calculable limiting case, which captures a substantial part of the physics in these complicated processes.

The workings of QCD factorization can best be illustrated with the cartoons shown in Figure 2. The first graph shows the well-known concept of an effective weak Hamiltonian obtained by integrating out the heavy fields of the top quark and weak gauge bosons from the Standard Model Lagrangian. This introduces new effective interactions mediated by local operators $`O_i(\mu )`$ (typically four-quark operators) multiplied by calculable running coupling constants $`C_i(\mu )`$ called Wilson coefficients. This reduction in complexity (nonlocal heavy particle exchanges $``$ local effective interactions) is exact up to corrections suppressed by inverse powers of the heavy mass scales. The resulting picture at scales at or above $`m_b`$ is, however, still rather complicated, since gluon exchange is possible between any of the quarks in the external meson states. Additional simplifications occur when the renormalization scale $`\mu `$ is lowered below the scale $`m_b`$. Then color transparency comes to play and implies systematic cancellations of soft and collinear gluon exchanges. As a result, all “nonfactorizable” exchanges, i.e., gluons connecting the light meson at the “upper” vertex to the remaining mesons, are dominated by virtualities of order $`m_b`$ and can be calculated. Their effects are absorbed into a new set of running couplings $`T_{ij}^{I,II}(\mu )`$ called hard-scattering kernels, as shown in the two graphs on the right-hand side. What remains are “factorized” four-quark and six-quark operators $`O_j^{\mathrm{fact}}(\mu )`$ and $`Q_j^{\mathrm{fact}}(\mu )`$, whose matrix elements can be expressed in terms of form factors, decay constants and light-cone distribution amplitudes. As before, the reduction in complexity (local four-quark operators $``$ “factorized” operators) is exact up to corrections suppressed by inverse powers of the heavy scale, now set by the mass of the $`b`$ quark.

The factorization formula is valid in all cases where the meson at the “upper” vertex is light, meaning that its mass is much smaller than the $`b`$-quark mass. The second term in the factorization formula (the term involving “factorized” six-quark operators) gives a power-suppressed contribution when the final-state meson at the “lower” vertex is a heavy meson (i.e., a charm meson), but its contribution is of leading power if this meson is also light. Aspects of this power counting will be discussed in more detail later.

Factorization is a property of decay amplitudes in the heavy-quark limit. Comparing the magnitude of “nonfactorizable” effects in kaon, charm and beauty decays, there can be little doubt about the relevance of the heavy-quark limit to understanding nonleptonic processes Neubert:2001sj . Yet, for phenomenological applications it is important to explore the structure of at least the leading power-suppressed corrections. While no complete classification of such corrections has been given to date, several classes of power-suppressed terms have been analyzed and their effects estimated. These estimates (with conservative errors) have been implemented in the phenomenological applications to be discussed later in this talk. Specifically, the corrections that have been analyzed are “chirally-enhanced” power corrections Beneke:1999br , weak annihilation contributions Beneke:2000ry ; Beneke:2001ev , and power corrections due to nonfactorizable soft gluon exchange Khodjamirian:2001mi ; Burrell:2001pf ; Becher:2001hu . With the exception of the “chirally-enhanced” terms, no unusually large power corrections (i.e., corrections exceeding the naive expectation of 5–10%) have been identified so far. Nevertheless, it is important to refine and extend the estimates of power corrections. Fortunately, the QCD factorization approach has a wide range of applicability and makes many testable predictions. Ultimately, therefore, the data will give us conclusive evidence on the relevance of power-suppressed effects. Many tests can, in fact, already be done using existing data. Several examples will now be discussed in detail.

### 2.1 Tests of Factorization in $`BD^{()}L`$ Decays

In $`B`$ decays into a heavy–light final state, when the light meson is produced at the “upper” vertex, the factorization formula assumes its simplest form. Then only the form factor term (the first graph on the right-hand side in Figure 2) contributes at leading power. This is also the place where QCD factorization is best established theoretically. In Beneke:2000ry , the systematic cancellation of soft and collinear singularities was demonstrated explicitly at two-loop order. The proof of these cancellations has recently been extended to all orders in perturbation theory Bauer:2001cu . In order to complete a rigorous proof of factorization one would still have to show that the hard-scattering kernels are free of endpoint singularities stronger than $`1/x`$ or $`1/(1x)`$ as one of the quarks in the light meson becomes a soft parton. It has been demonstrated that the kernels tend to a constant (modulo logarithms) at the endpoints in the so-called “large-$`\beta _0`$ limit” of QCD, i.e., to order $`\beta _0^{n1}\alpha _s^n`$ for arbitrary $`n`$ in perturbation theory Becher:2001hu . However, it is an open question whether such a smooth behavior persists in higher orders of full QCD.

Let us first consider the decays $`\overline{B}^0D^{()+}L^{}`$, where $`L`$ denotes a light meson. In this case the flavor content of the final state is such that the light meson can only be produced at the “upper” vertex, so factorization applies. One finds that process-dependent “nonfactorizable” corrections from hard gluon exchange, though present, are numerically very small. All nontrivial QCD effects in the decay amplitudes are then described by a quasi-universal coefficient $`|a_1(D^{()}L)|=1.05\pm 0.02+O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b)`$ Beneke:2000ry . For a given decay channel this coefficient can be determined experimentally from the ratio Bjorken:1989kk

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0D^+L^{})}{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0D^+l^{}\nu )/dq^2|_{q^2=m_L^2}}=6\pi ^2|V_{ud}|^2f_L^2|a_1(D^{()}L)|^2.$$

Using CLEO data one obtains $`|a_1(D^{}\pi )|=1.08\pm 0.07`$, $`|a_1(D^{}\rho )|=1.09\pm 0.10`$, and $`|a_1(D^{}a_1)|=1.08\pm 0.11`$, in good agreement with theory. This is a first indication that power corrections in these modes are under control, but more precise data are required for a firm conclusion. Other tests of factorization in $`B`$ decays to heavy–light final states have been discussed in Beneke:2000ry ; Ligeti:2001dk ; Diehl:2001xe .

Recently, the experimental observation of unexpectedly large rates for color-suppressed decays such as $`\overline{B}^0D^{0()}\pi ^0`$ CLEO ; Abe:2001pd  has attracted some attention. QCD factorization does not allow us to calculate the amplitudes for these processes in a reliable way. It predicts that these amplitudes are power-suppressed with respect to the corresponding $`\overline{B}^0D^{+()}\pi ^{}`$ amplitudes, but only by one power of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_c`$. Specifically, the prediction is that a certain ratio of isospin amplitudes approaches unity in the heavy-quark limit: $`A_{1/2}/(\sqrt{2}A_{3/2})=1+O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_c)`$ Beneke:2000ry . Considering that charm is not a particularly heavy quark, we find that this scaling law is respected by the experimental data, which give $`A_{1/2}/(\sqrt{2}A_{3/2})=(0.70\pm 0.11)e^{\pm i(27\pm 7)^{}}`$ for $`BD\pi `$ and $`(0.72\pm 0.08)e^{\pm i(21\pm 8)^{}}`$ for $`BD^{}\pi `$ Neubert:2001sj . Assuming the hierarchy $`m_bm_c>\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, a rough theoretical estimate of the amplitude ratio, $`A_{1/2}/(\sqrt{2}A_{3/2})0.75e^{15^{}i}`$, had been obtained prior to the observation of the color-suppressed decays Beneke:2000ry . It anticipated the correct order of magnitude of the deviation from the heavy-quark limit.

### 2.2 Tests of Factorization in $`BK^{}\gamma `$ Decays

The QCD factorization approach not only applies to nonleptonic decays, but also to other exclusive processes such as $`BV\gamma `$ and $`BVl^+l^{}`$ (where $`V=K^{},\rho ,\mathrm{}`$ is a vector meson) Beneke:2001at ; Bosch:2001gv . The resulting factorization formula is similar (but simpler) to that for $`B`$ decays into two light mesons. Therefore, the study of exclusive radiative transitions not only extends the range of applicability of the method, but also provides a new testing ground for the factorization idea.

Interestingly, the analysis of isospin-breaking effects in radiative $`B`$ decays gives a direct probe of power corrections to the factorization formula. Experimentally, it is found that Coan:2000kh ; Ushiroda:2001sb ; BaBar

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_0\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0\overline{K}^0\gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}\overline{K}^{}\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0\overline{K}^0\gamma )+\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}\overline{K}^{}\gamma )}=0.11\pm 0.07,$$

indicating (albeit with a large error) that isospin-breaking effects could be as large as 10% at the level of the decay amplitudes. Such effects are absent in the heavy-quark limit. A detailed theoretical analysis of the leading power-suppressed contributions leads to the prediction $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=(8.0_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.2}}^{+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.1}})\%\times (0.3/T_1^{BK^{}})`$ newpaper , where $`T_1^{BK^{}}`$ is a tensor form factor, whose value is expected to be close to 0.3. By far the largest contribution to the result comes from an annihilation contribution involving the $`(VA)(V+A)`$ penguin operator $`O_6`$ in the effective weak Hamiltonian. Therefore, the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is a sensitive probe of the magnitude and sign of the ratio $`C_6/C_{7\gamma }`$ of Wilson coefficients.

The above discussion shows that in the Standard Model one indeed expects a sizeable isospin breaking in the $`BK^{}\gamma `$ decay amplitudes, in agreement with the current central experimental value. If the agreement persists as the data become more precise, this would not only test the penguin sector of the effective weak Hamiltonian, but also provide a quantitative test of factorization at the level of power corrections.

### 2.3 Tests of Factorization in $`B\pi K,\pi \pi `$ Decays

The factorization formula for $`B`$ decays into two light mesons is more complicated because of the presence of the two types of contributions shown in the graphs on the right-hand side in Figure 2. The finding that these two topologies contribute at the same power in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$ is nontrivial Beneke:2001ev  and relies on the heavy-quark scaling law $`F^{BL}(0)m_b^{3/2}`$ for heavy-to-light form factors. Whereas this scaling law has been obtained from several independent studies (see, e.g., Chernyak:1990ag ; Ali:1994vd ; Bagan:1998bp ), it is not as rigorously established as the corresponding scaling law for heavy-to-heavy form factors. In the QCD factorization approach the kernels $`T_{ij}^I(\mu )`$ are of order unity, whereas the kernels $`T_{ij}^{II}(\mu )`$ contribute first at order $`\alpha _s`$. Numerically, the latter ones give corrections of about 10–20% with respect to the leading terms. This is consistent with being of the same power but down by a factor of $`\alpha _s`$. Therefore, the scaling laws that form the basis of the QCD factorization formula appear to work well empirically.

The factorization formula for $`B`$ decays into two light mesons can be tested best by using decays that have negligible amplitude interference. In that way any sensitivity to the value of the weak phase $`\gamma `$ is avoided. For a complete theoretical control over charmless hadronic decays one must control the magnitude of the tree topologies, the magnitude of the penguin topologies, and the relative strong-interaction phases between trees and penguins. It is important that these three key features can be tested separately. Once these tests are conclusive (and assuming they are successful), factorization can be used to constrain the parameters of the unitarity triangle. (Of course, alternative schemes such as pQCD Keum:2001ph  and “charming penguins” Ciuchini:1997hb  must face the same tests.)

#### Magnitude of the Tree Amplitude

The magnitude of the leading $`B\pi \pi `$ tree amplitude can be probed in the decays $`B^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^0`$, which to an excellent approximation do not receive any penguin contributions. The QCD factorization approach makes an absolute prediction for the corresponding branching ratio Beneke:2001ev ,

$$\text{Br}(B^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^0)=\left[5.3_{0.4}^{+0.8}(\text{pars.})\pm 0.3(\text{power})\right]10^6\times \left[\frac{|V_{ub}|}{0.0035}\frac{F_0^{B\pi }(0)}{0.28}\right]^2,$$

which compares well with the experimental result $`(5.6\pm 1.5)\times 10^6`$ (see Table 7 in Beneke:2001ev  for a compilation of the experimental data on charmless hadronic $`B`$ decays). The theoretical uncertainties quoted are due to input parameter variations and to the modeling of the leading power corrections. An additional large uncertainty comes from the present error on $`|V_{ub}|`$ and the semileptonic $`B\pi `$ form factor. The sensitivity to these quantities can be eliminated by taking the ratio

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^0)}{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0\pi ^+l^{}\overline{\nu })/dq^2|_{q^2=0}}=3\pi ^2f_\pi ^2\underset{1.33_{0.11}^{+0.20}(\text{pars.})\pm 0.07(\text{power})}{\underset{}{|a_1^{(\pi \pi )}+a_2^{(\pi \pi )}|^2}}=(0.68_{0.06}^{+0.11})\text{GeV}^2.$$

This prediction includes a sizeable ($`25\%`$) contribution of the hard-scattering term in the factorization formula (the lower graph on the right-hand side in Figure 2). Unfortunately, this ratio has not yet been measured experimentally.

#### Magnitude of the $`T/P`$ Ratio

The magnitude of the leading $`B\pi K`$ penguin amplitude can be probed in the decays $`B^\pm \pi ^\pm K^0`$, which to an excellent approximation do not receive any tree contributions. Combining it with the measurement of the tree amplitude just described, a tree-to-penguin ratio can be determined via the relation

$$\epsilon _{\mathrm{exp}}=\left|\frac{T}{P}\right|=\text{tan}\theta _C\frac{f_K}{f_\pi }\left[\frac{2\text{Br}(B^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^0)}{\text{Br}(B^\pm \pi ^\pm K^0)}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}=0.223\pm 0.034.$$

The quoted experimental value of this ratio is in good agreement with the theoretical prediction $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}}=0.24\pm 0.04(\text{pars.})\pm 0.04(\text{power})\pm 0.05(V_{ub})`$ Beneke:2001ev , which is independent of form factors but proportional to $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$. This is a highly nontrivial test of the QCD factorization approach. Recall that when the first measurements of charmless hadronic decays appeared several authors remarked that the penguin amplitudes were much larger than expected based on naive factorization models. We now see that QCD factorization reproduces naturally (i.e., for central values of all input parameters) the correct magnitude of the tree-to-penguin ratio. This observation also shows that there is no need to supplement the QCD factorization predictions in an ad hoc way by adding enhanced phenomenological penguin amplitudes, such as the “nonperturbative charming penguins” introduced in Ciuchini:1997hb . In their most recent paper Ciuchini:2001pk , the advocates of charming penguins parameterize the effects of these animals in terms of a nonperturbative “bag parameter” $`\widehat{B}_1=(0.13\pm 0.02)e^{i(188\pm 82)^{}}`$ fitted to the data on charmless decays. By definition, this parameter contains the contribution from the perturbative charm loop, which is calculable in QCD factorization. Using the factorization approach as described in Beneke:2001ev  we find that $`\widehat{B}_1^{\mathrm{fact}}=(0.09_{0.020.02}^{+0.03+0.04})e^{i(185\pm 3\pm 21)^{}}`$, where the errors are due to input parameter variations and the estimate of power corrections. The perturbative contribution to the central value is 0.08; the remaining 0.01 is mainly due to weak annihilation. We conclude that, within errors, QCD factorization can account for the “charming penguin bag parameter”, which is, in fact, dominated by short-distance physics.

#### Strong Phase of the $`T/P`$ Ratio

QCD factorization predicts that (most) strong-interaction phases in charmless hadronic $`B`$ decays are parametrically suppressed in the heavy-quark limit, i.e., $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{\mathrm{st}}=O[\alpha _s(m_b),\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b]`$. This implies small direct CP asymmetries since, e.g., $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}(\pi ^+K^{})2|\frac{T}{P}|\mathrm{sin}\gamma \mathrm{sin}\varphi _{\mathrm{st}}`$. The suppression results as a consequence of systematic cancellations of soft contributions, which are missed in phenomenological models of final-state interactions. In many other schemes the strong-interaction phases are predicted to be much larger, and therefore larger CP asymmetries are expected. Table 1 shows that first experimental data provide no evidence for large direct CP asymmetries in $`B\pi K`$ decays. However, the errors are still too large to draw a definitive conclusion that would allow us to distinguish between different theoretical predictions.

### 2.4 Remarks on Sudakov Logarithms

In recent years, Li and collaborators have proposed an alternative scheme for calculating nonleptonic $`B`$ decay amplitudes based on a perturbative hard-scattering approach Keum:2001ph . From a conceptual point of view, the main difference between QCD factorization and this so-called pQCD approach lies in the latter’s assumption that Sudakov form factors effectively suppress soft-gluon exchange in diagrams such as those shown in the graphs on the right-hand side in Figure 2. As a result, the $`B\pi `$ and $`BK`$ form factors are assumed to be perturbatively calculable. This changes the counting of powers of $`\alpha _s`$. In particular, the nonfactorizable gluon exchange diagrams included in the QCD factorization approach, which are crucial in order to cancel the scale and scheme-dependence in the predictions for the decay amplitudes, are formally of order $`\alpha _s^2`$ in the pQCD scheme and consequently are left out. Thus, to the considered order there are no loop graphs that could give rise to strong-interaction phases in that scheme. (However, in Keum:2001ph  large phases are claimed to arise from on-shell poles of massless propagators in tree diagrams. These phases are entirely dominated by soft physics. Hence, the prediction of large direct CP asymmetries in the pQCD approach rests on assumptions that are strongly model dependent.)

The assumption of Sudakov suppression in hadronic $`B`$ decays is questionable, because the relevant “large” scale $`Q^2m_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}1`$ GeV2 is in fact not large for realistic $`b`$-quark masses. Indeed, one finds that the pQCD calculations are very sensitive to details of the $`p_{}`$ dependence of the wave functions Chris . This sensitivity to infrared physics invalidates the original assumption of an effective suppression of soft contributions. The argument just presented leaves open the conceptual question whether Sudakov logarithms are relevant in the asymptotic limit $`m_b\mathrm{}`$. This question has not yet been answered in a satisfactory way.

## 3 New Constraints on the Unitarity Triangle

The QCD factorization approach, combined with a conservative estimate of power corrections, offers several new strategies to derive constraints on CKM parameters. This has been discussed at length in Beneke:2001ev , to which we refer the reader for details. Some of these strategies will be illustrated below. Note that the applications of QCD factorization are not limited to computing branching ratios. The approach is also useful in combination with other ideas based on flavor symmetries and amplitude relations. In this way, strategies can be found for which the residual hadronic uncertainties are simultaneously suppressed by three small parameters, since they vanish in the heavy-quark limit ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$), the limit of SU(3) flavor symmetry ($`(m_sm_q)/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$), and the large-$`N_c`$ limit ($`1/N_c`$).

#### Determination of $`\gamma `$ with minimal theory input

Some years ago, Rosner and the present author have derived a bound on $`\gamma `$ by combining measurements of the ratios $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{exp}}=|T/P|`$ and $`R_{}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^\pm \pi ^\pm K^0)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^\pm \pi ^0K^\pm )`$ with the fact that for an arbitrary strong phase $`1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{\mathrm{st}}1`$ Neubert:1998pt . The model-independent observation that $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{\mathrm{st}}=1`$ up to second-order corrections to the heavy-quark limit can be used to turn this bound into a determination of $`\gamma `$ (once $`|V_{ub}|`$ is known). The resulting constraints in the $`(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })`$ plane, obtained under the conservative assumption that $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{\mathrm{st}}>0.8`$ (corresponding to $`|\varphi _{\mathrm{st}}|<37^{}`$) are shown in the left-hand plot in Figure 3 for several illustrative values of the ratio $`R_{}`$. Note that for $`0.8<R_{}<1.1`$ (the range preferred by the Standard Model) the theoretical uncertainty reflected by the widths of the bands is smaller than for any other constraint on $`(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })`$ except for the one derived from the $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ measurement. With present data the Standard Model is still in good shape, but it will be interesting to see what happens when the experimental errors are reduced.

#### Determination of $`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha `$

With the help of QCD factorization it is possible to control the “penguin pollution” in the time-dependent CP asymmetry in $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays, defined such that $`S_{\pi \pi }=\mathrm{sin}2\alpha [1+O(P/T)]`$. This is illustrated in the right-hand plot in Figure 3, which shows the constraints imposed by a measurement of $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ in the $`(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })`$ plane. It follows that even a result for $`S_{\pi \pi }`$ with large experimental errors would imply a useful constraint on the unitarity triangle. A first, preliminary measurement of the asymmetry has been presented by the BaBar Collaboration this summer. Their result is $`S_{\pi \pi }=0.03_{0.56}^{+0.53}\pm 0.11`$ Aubert:2001qj .

#### Global Fit to $`B\pi K,\pi \pi `$ Branching Ratios

Various ratios of CP-averaged $`B\pi K,\pi \pi `$ branching fractions exhibit a strong dependence on $`\gamma `$ and $`|V_{ub}|`$, or equivalently, on the parameters $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ of the unitarity triangle. From a global analysis of the experimental data in the context of the QCD factorization approach it is possible to derive constraints in the $`(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })`$ plane in the form of regions allowed at various confidence levels. The results are shown in Figure 4. The best fit of the QCD factorization theory to the data yields an excellent $`\chi ^2/n_{\mathrm{dof}}`$ of less than 0.5. (We should add at this point that we disagree with the implementation of our approach presented in Ciuchini:2001pk  and, in particular, with the numerical results labeled “BBNS” in Table II of that paper, which led the authors to the premature conclusion that the “theory of QCD factorization … is insufficient to fit the data”. Even restricting $`(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })`$ to lie within the narrow ranges adopted by these authors, we can find parameter sets for which QCD factorization fits the data with a good $`\chi ^2/n_{\mathrm{dof}}`$ of less than 1.5.)

The results of this global fit are compatible with the standard CKM fit using semileptonic decays, $`K`$$`\overline{K}`$ mixing and $`B`$$`\overline{B}`$ mixing ($`|V_{ub}|`$, $`|V_{cb}|`$, $`ϵ_K`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$, $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$), although the fit prefers a slightly larger value of $`\gamma `$ and/or a smaller value of $`|V_{ub}|`$. The combination of the results from rare hadronic $`B`$ decays with $`|V_{ub}|`$ from semileptonic decays excludes $`\overline{\eta }=0`$ at 95% CL, thus showing first evidence for the existence of a CP-violating phase in the bottom sector. In the near future, when the data become more precise, this will provide a powerful test of the CKM paradigm.

## 4 Outlook

The QCD factorization approach provides the theoretical framework for a systematic analysis of hadronic and radiative exclusive $`B`$ decay amplitudes based on the heavy-quark expansion. This theory has already passed successfully several nontrivial tests, and will be tested more thoroughly with more precise data. A new effective field-theory language appropriate to QCD factorization is emerging in the form of the collinear–soft effective theory. Ultimately, the developments reviewed in this talk may lead to theoretical control over a vast variety of exclusive $`B`$ decays, giving us new constraints on the unitarity triangle.

I wish to thank the organizers of QCD@Work and Heavy Flavours 9 for the invitation to deliver this talk, and for arranging these two conferences in a style and setting which encouraged many lively discussions. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation. The second version of this talk was delivered on 11 September 2001, a few hours after terrorist attacks hit various targets in the U.S. Our thoughts and sympathy are with the many innocent victims of this tragedy.