text:
# Precision Measurement of the Spin-dependent Asymmetry in the Threshold Region of ³(He)⃗(𝑒⃗,𝑒')

## Abstract

We present the first precision measurement of the spin-dependent asymmetry in the threshold region of $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{})`$ at $`Q^2`$-values of 0.1 and 0.2 (GeV/c)2. The agreement between the data and non-relativistic Faddeev calculations which include both final-state interactions (FSI) and meson-exchange currents (MEC) effects is very good at $`Q^2`$ = 0.1 (GeV/c)2, while a small discrepancy at $`Q^2`$ = 0.2 (GeV/c)2 is observed.

Three-nucleon systems have been an excellent testing ground between theory and experiment in nuclear physics . In the context of electromagnetic processes, exact non-relativistic Faddeev calculations for both the ground state and the continuum of 3H and 3He have been carried out using a variety of modern nucleon-nucleon (NN) potentials . The exact treatment of final-state interactions (FSI) in the Faddeev calculation results in a much improved description of unpolarized $`pd`$ capture and breakup channels , as well as unpolarized electron scattering from the three-nucleon system . This has provided important information on the nuclear ground-state structure and thus allows a deeper understanding of the underlying nuclear force. With the availability of polarized beams and polarized targets, it has become possible to study additional spin-dependent quantities. Polarized 3He is an ideal target for such a study.

Polarized 3He is also important as an effective neutron target , because its ground state wave function is dominated by the $`S`$-state in which the proton spins cancel and the nuclear spin is carried entirely by the neutron. The spin-dependent asymmetries are thus sensitive to the neutron electromagnetic form factors in the vicinity of the quasielastic peak of polarized electrons scattering from a polarized 3He target . Recently there has been significant progress in extracting neutron electromagnetic form factors from double-polarization electron-3He scattering experiments . In recent years, there have also been extensive efforts  in studying polarized inelastic scattering of electrons from polarized 3He targets in the deep inelastic and resonance regions aiming at understanding the underlying neutron spin structure. The extraction of the neutron spin structure functions from these experiments requires detailed knowledge of the 3He nuclear ground-state structure .

However, to probe the nuclear ground state structure, to extract the neutron electromagnetic form factors or to extract the neutron spin structure function in the resonance region, the reaction mechanism, especially FSI and meson-exchange currents (MEC) effects, must be well understood. Recently, a non-relativistic Faddeev calculation which includes both FSI and MEC has been carried out  for the first time, and describes very well the recent precision data  on the transverse asymmetry $`A_T^{}`$ near the top of the quasielastic peak from the $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{})`$ process at low $`Q^2`$. However, since FSI and MEC effects are relatively small in this region, it is highly desirable to study another region where these two effects are larger to provide a more stringent constraint on the theory. The threshold region of $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{})`$, which extends from the two-body breakup threshold (with breakup energy of 5.5 MeV), the three-body breakup threshold (with breakup energy of 7.7 MeV) to the low energy transfer side of the quasielastic peak, is an ideal place for such a study. First, FSI effects are expected to be large in the threshold region since the final state nucleons have less kinetic energy and thus have a higher probability of interacting with each other. Secondly, it has been shown that a substantial contribution from MEC is needed to describe the measured elastic electromagnetic form factors of the three-body system . Therefore one would expect a large MEC effect in the threshold region as well.

A precision measurement of spin observables in the threshold region of $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{})`$ would thus provide us with important information on the reaction mechanism, thereby placing significant constraints on the theoretical uncertainties in probing the 3He ground state structure and in extracting the neutron electromagnetic form factors from electron scattering from 3He. In this Letter we report the first precision measurement of the spin-dependent asymmetry in the threshold region of $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{})`$.

For inclusive scattering of longitudinally polarized electrons from a polarized spin-1/2 target such as 3He, the spin-dependent asymmetry is defined as $`A=\frac{\sigma ^{h+}\sigma ^h}{\sigma ^{h+}+\sigma ^h}`$, where $`\sigma ^{h^\pm }`$ are the cross sections for the two different helicities of the polarized electrons. It is given in terms of the quasielastic response functions as

$$A=\frac{(\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}\nu _T^{}R_T^{}+2\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi ^{}\nu _{TL^{}}R_{TL^{}})}{\nu _LR_L+\nu _TR_T}$$
(1)
where the $`\nu _k`$ are kinematic factors and $`\theta ^{}`$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$ are the polar and azimuthal angles of target spin with respect to the 3-momentum transfer vector $`𝐪`$ in the laboratory frame. $`R_L`$ and $`R_T`$ are the spin-independent longitudinal and transverse response functions, while $`R_T^{}`$ and $`R_{TL^{}}`$ are the spin-dependent transverse and longitudinal-transverse ones. The response functions depend on the electron energy transfer $`\omega `$ and the four-momentum transfer squared $`Q^2`$. By choosing $`\theta ^{}`$ = $`0^{}`$ ($`90^{}`$), one selects the transverse asymmetry $`A_T^{}`$ (longitudinal-transverse asymmetry $`A_{TL^{}}`$).

The experiment was carried out in Hall A at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (JLab), using a longitudinally polarized continuous wave electron beam of 10 $`\mu `$A current incident on a high-pressure polarized 3He gas target. A detailed description of this experiment can be found in a previous publication .

Electrons scattered from the target were detected in the two Hall A high resolution spectrometers, HRSe and HRSh. The data from HRSe have been presented in a previous Letter . The data from HRSh were used for this analysis and covered both the elastic peak and the threshold region. Since the elastic asymmetry can be calculated accurately at low $`Q^2`$ using the well-known elastic form factors of 3He , the elastic measurement allows a precise monitoring of the product of the beam and target polarizations, $`P_bP_t`$. Two kinematic points were measured in the threshold region, one with a central $`Q^2`$-value of 0.1 (GeV/c)2 at an incident beam energy $`E_0`$ = 0.778 GeV and the other with a central $`Q^2`$-value of 0.2 (GeV/c)2 at $`E_0`$ = 1.727 GeV. The target spin was oriented at 62.5 to the right of the incident electron momentum direction, while the outgoing electron momentum directions were 23.7 and 15.0 to the right of the incident electron momentum direction for $`Q^2`$ = 0.1 and 0.2 (GeV/c)2, respectively. This corresponds to $`\theta ^{}`$ from 131.2 to 136.5 for $`Q^2`$ = 0.1 (GeV/c)2, and from 134.2 to 140.0 for $`Q^2`$ = 0.2 (GeV/c)2.

The yield for each electron helicity state was corrected by its corresponding charge and computer dead time, and the raw experimental asymmetry was formed as a function of the excitation energy in the 3He system, which is defined as $`E_x=\sqrt{M^2+2M\omega Q^2}M`$, where M is the mass of the 3He target. A 5 MeV bin was used for the excitation energy. The range of the excitation energy is from 5.5 MeV, which corresponds to the two-body breakup threshold, to about 35 MeV for $`Q^2`$ = 0.1 (GeV/c)2, and about 50 MeV for $`Q^2`$ = 0.2 (GeV/c)2. The raw asymmetry was then corrected for dilutions due to scattering from the target walls, the nitrogen admixture inside the target cell, and $`P_bP_t`$. The physics asymmetry was obtained after subtraction of the elastic radiative tail contribution, radiative correction of the quasielastic asymmetry, and correction for spectrometer acceptance and bin-averaging effects, all obtained from a Monte Carlo simulation . The external radiative correction was treated following the standard procedure of Mo and Tsai . The internal radiative correction was calculated using the covariant formalism of Akushevich et al. . This procedure requires knowledge of 3He nuclear response functions at various kinematics points, which were obtained from full Faddeev calculations .

Results for the physics asymmetry at both kinematics are shown in Fig. 1. The uncertainty in determining the excitation energy is about 0.4 MeV at $`Q^2`$ = 0.1 (GeV/c)2, and 1.0 MeV at $`Q^2`$ = 0.2 (GeV/c)2, dominated by the uncertainty in the beam energy. The vertical error bars on the data are the statistical and systematic errors added in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty includes contributions from the determination of $`P_bP_t`$, target wall and $`N_2`$ background subtraction, elastic radiative tail subtraction, radiative correction and the correction of spectrometer acceptance and bin-averaging effects. A careful analysis of systematic uncertainties was carried out and the results are shown together with the physics asymmetry and statistical uncertainties in Table I for $`Q^2`$ = 0.1 (GeV/c)2 and Table II for $`Q^2`$ = 0.2 (GeV/c)2.

All theoretical calculations were performed using AV18  as the NN interaction potential and the Höhler nucleon form factor parametrization. Plane wave impulse approximation (PWIA) calculations  are shown as dot-dashed lines. Non-relativistic Faddeev calculations with FSI only  are shown as dashed lines. Non-relativistic Faddeev calculations which include both FSI and MEC  are shown as dotted lines without the inclusion of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar current, and solid lines with the inclusion of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar current. The MEC’s ($`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$ exchanges) were chosen according to a prescription given by Riska , which guarantees to a large extent the consistency of the MEC’s to the NN force used. The agreement between the full calculation and the data is very good at $`Q^2`$ = 0.1 (GeV/c)2, and a relatively small discrepancy is observed at $`Q^2`$ = 0.2 (GeV/c)2.

To investigate the effects of different NN potentials, we compare our data with full Faddeev calculations using the AV18 potential and the Bonn-B potential , a non-local potential which is very different from the local AV18 potential. The result is shown in Fig. 2. As can be seen, the difference between the theoretical calculations using these two potentials is very small, which suggests that this observable is not sensitive to the choice of different NN potentials and the corresponding exchange currents.

Theoretical uncertainties due to $`G_E^p`$, $`G_M^p`$, $`G_E^n`$ and $`G_M^n`$ were studied using PWIA . The relative difference between the asymmetries calculated with the nucleon form factors from the Höhler parametrization and from data  was found to be around 1%, and thus theoretical uncertainties due to nucleon form factors are completely negligible.

The good agreement between the full calculation and the data at $`Q^2`$ = 0.1 (GeV/c)2 suggests the validity of the current way of treating FSI and MEC in the full calculation. The small discrepancy at $`Q^2`$ = 0.2 (GeV/c)2 may be due to the fact that some $`Q^2`$-dependent effects, such as the relativisitic effect, are not included in the current non-relativistic Faddeev calculation.

In conclusion we have presented the first precision data on the spin-dependent asymmetry in the threshold region of $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{})`$. The agreement between the data and non-relativistic Faddeev calculations which include both FSI and MEC effects is very good at $`Q^2`$ = 0.1 (GeV/c)2, while the discrepancy at $`Q^2`$ = 0.2 (GeV/c)2 might be due to some $`Q^2`$-dependent mechanism.

We thank the Hall A technical staff and the Jefferson Lab Accelerator Division for their outstanding support during this experiment. We also thank T. W. Donnelly for many helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by the U. S. Department of Energy, DOE/EPSCoR, the U. S. National Science Foundation, the Science and Technology Cooperation Germany-Poland and the Polish Committee for Scientific Research, the Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica (Murst), the French Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Conseil Régional d’Auvergne, the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), and grant of European Foundation Project INTAS-99-0125. This work was supported by DOE contract DE-AC05-84ER40150 under which the Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA) operates the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. The numerical calculations were performed on the PVP machines at the U. S. National Energy Research Scientific Computer Center (NERSC) and the CRAY T90 of the NIC in Jülich.


format: text

text:
# FORM FACTOR OF THE RELATIVISTIC SCALAR BOUND STATE CALCULATED IN MINKOWSKI SPACE

## 1 Introduction

Relativistic bound states manifest themselves as poles of the scattering matrix at $`P^2=M^2`$, where $`P`$ is the total momentum of the system and $`M`$ is the rest mass of the bound state. The residua at those poles define so-called vertex functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,P)`$ satisfying the Bethe-Salpeter equation (BSE) , which for bound states of two constituents reads:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,P)=i\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}V(p,k,P)G_0(k,P)\mathrm{\Gamma }(k,P),$$
(1)
where $`p`$ and $`k`$ are relative four-momenta of the constituent pair in final and intermediate states, and the free two-particle propagator $`G_0(k,P)=g(k+P/2,m_1)g(kP/2,m_2)`$ is a product of renormalized one body propagators $`g`$. The kernel $`V`$ is a sum of all Bethe-Salpeter irreducible diagrams .

For solution, the BSE is usually analytically continued (with the help of the Wick rotation) into the Euclidean space. This avoids the singularities in the kernel and propagators and standard numerical techniques can be employed. An interesting alternative has been developed by Kusaka and Williams . It is based on the Perturbation Theory Integral Representation (PTIR) , i.e., on the fact that any n-point Green function can be expressed as a unique integral over spectral variables. Then, the known structure of the singularities can be factorized and the BSE is cast into the real finite integral equation for the real vertex weight function. This approach is, in principle, applicable also for complicated kernels and/or for the case when the propagators are arbitrarily dressed, which may make the Wick rotation difficult or impossible. However, the derivation of the spectral decomposition is nontrivial and has been so far performed only for kernels induced by cubic type - derivative free interaction of scalars.

In this contribution we present our calculation of the electromagnetic (e.m.) form factor of a bound state of two scalars, calculated with the help of PTIR. Our calculations are done with the simplest ladder kernel, only the s-wave ground state being considered. The results are compared with those obtained in the 3-dimensional quasipotential (QP) spectator (Gross) reduction of the BSE.

## 2 Formalism

The interaction lagrangian of our simple scalar model is

$`_{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`g\psi _1(x)\psi _1(x)\varphi (x)g\psi _2^{}(x)\psi _2(x)\varphi (x)e^2\psi _2^{}(x)\psi _2(x)A_\mu (x)A^\mu (x)`$ (2)
$`e[\psi _2^{}(x)_\mu \psi _2(x)+_\mu \psi _2^{}(x)\psi _2(x)]A^\mu (x),`$
where $`g`$ is a (strong) coupling constant, $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ are fields of massive scalar particles (with masses $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$), neutral and charged, respectively, $`\varphi `$ is the lighter scalar field mediating the strong interaction, and $`A_\mu (x)`$ is a photon field. In ladder approximation the t channel kernel is given by

$$V(p,k,P)=\frac{g^2}{m_\varphi ^2(pk)^2iϵ}.$$
(3)
The spectral decomposition of the bound state vertex function reads :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,P)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\alpha _1^1\frac{dz\rho ^{[2]}(\alpha ,z)}{(m^2+\alpha (p^2+zpP+\frac{P^2}{4})iϵ)^2}.$$
(4)
The general scattering kernel can be expressed as a rather complicated multi-dimensional spectral integral (for details see ). From the BSE it then follows for the weight functions:

$$\frac{1}{\lambda }\frac{\rho ^{[2]}(\overline{\alpha },\overline{z})}{\overline{\alpha }^2}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\alpha _1^1𝑑zK^{\mathrm{tot}}(\overline{\alpha },\overline{z},\alpha ,z)\frac{\rho ^{[2]}(\alpha ,z)}{\alpha ^2},$$
(5)
where $`\lambda =g^2/(4\pi )^2`$ and where all the scattering kernel and propagators weight functions together with appropriate number of spectral integrals are non-trivially hidden in $`K^{\mathrm{tot}}(\overline{\alpha },\overline{z},\alpha ,z)`$. This integral equation for $`\rho (\alpha ,z)`$ has been solved numerically by iterations.

It is interesting to include an annihilation interaction into (5). Consider a generalized annihilation kernel:

$$V_{\mathrm{ah}}(P)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\gamma _0^1𝑑\xi \frac{\rho _{\mathrm{ah}}(\gamma ,\xi )}{\gamma P^2\xi iϵ},$$
(6)
which includes a tree level $`V_{\mathrm{ah},\mathrm{tree}}=g^2/(m_\varphi ^2M^2iϵ)`$. From the assumption that any vertex function can be expressed in the PTIR form it follows a surprising fact that the annihilation term cannot contribute to (5), since BSE is derived assuming a zero width of a bound state. This would mean that the presence of the annihilation term does not affect the bound state spectrum and wave functions. On the other hand, for the bound states of $`(\psi _1,\psi _1)`$ or $`(\psi _2,\psi _2)`$ the annihilation channel is open and the bound states decay into two or more $`\varphi `$ particles. Clearly, in this case the spectrum and the vertex functions are affected by the annihilation kernel. It is difficult to take this into account in a self consistent way, since the usual derivation of the BSE is based on the factorization of the S-matrix with the real bound state pole, i.e., without the finite width.

The square of the electromagnetic form factor is an observable quantity. It appears that the well known expression for the e.m. form factor of the bound state described by the BSE can be rewritten in terms of the PTIR weight functions as an integral free of singularities. The resulting expression is lengthy, but easy to use numerically and will be given explicitly elsewhere.

## 3 Results

Figure 1a illustrates the differences between Bethe-Salpeter and QP results at soft coupling regime. We fix the masses of $`\psi _1,\psi _2,\varphi `$ to be equal to the masses of the neutron, proton and pion, respectively (actually, we use $`m_n=m_p=939\mathrm{MeV},m_\varphi =138\mathrm{MeV}`$). The coupling constant $`\lambda `$ is for these masses and for $`ϵ_d=2.3`$ MeV given by $`\lambda =0.118`$ (in units of $`m_p^2`$) . For QP we also introduce usual phenomenological form factors $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m_\varphi ^2)/(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2p_\varphi ^2)`$. Obviously, Bethe-Salpeter and Gross form factors have very similar shape, the difference between them is much smaller than the effect due to the modification of the strong interaction by the phenomenological form factors.

Figure 1b shows the e.m. form factors for several values of the fraction of binding $`\eta =M/(m_1+m_2)`$ for the choice of masses $`m_1=m_2=m=2m_\varphi `$ also used by Kusaka et al . Recall, that for the deuteron $`\eta _d0.9988`$. Although the fraction of binding varies dramatically, the form factors look rather similar. It seems that their slopes are much more sensitive to the range of interaction rather than its strength.

## 4 Conclusions and Outlook

In this contribution the elastic e.m. form factors of scalar bound states have been calculated in Bethe-Salpeter and Gross formalism. We also claim that annihilation term does not influence the spectrum and wave functions of the bound states.

For more realistic systems the complication of spin degrees of freedom has to be considered. We have formally derived similar equation for fermion-antifermion state. Its solution is being developed.

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the grant GA CR 2020447. Some of the results were part of the Diploma thesis of V. Š.

## References

* added in November 2001


text:
# Untitled Document

Light-Quark Vector-Meson Spectroscopy

A. Donnachie and Yu S Kalashnikova

Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester,
Manchester M13 9PL, England
ITEP, 117259 Moscow, Russia

Abstract. The current situation for vector meson spectroscopy is outlined, and it is shown that the data are inconsistent with the generally accepted model for meson decay. A possible resolution in terms of exotic mesons is given. Although this resolves some of the issues, fresh theoretical questions are raised.

INTRODUCTION

It is now 15 years since it was first suggested  that the $`\rho ^{}(1600)`$, as it was then known, is in fact a composite structure, consisting of at least two states: the $`\rho (1450)`$ and $`\rho (1700)`$. Their existence, and that of their isoscalar counterparts, the $`\omega (1420)`$ and $`\omega (1650)`$, and of an associated hidden-strangeness state, the $`\varphi (1680)`$, is now well established . So it is pertinent to ask why the light-quark vector mesons remain an important field of study. The answer is straightforward. Although there is general consensus on the existence of these states, there is considerable disparity on their masses and widths. Further what is known about the composition of their hadronic decays raises fundamental questions about the nature of these states and our understanding of the mechanism of hadronic decays.

A further complication has been highlighted in two of the talks  at this meeting, with indications of an isovector vector meson at a mass of around 1200 to 1250 MeV. This revives an old controversy. Many years ago evidence was presented  for two vector states with masses $`1097\pm 19`$ MeV and $`1266\pm 35`$ MeV in the reaction $`\gamma pe^+e^{}p`$. The evidence for these two states was obtained from the interference between the Bethe-Heitler amplitude and the real part of the hadronic photoproduction amplitude. Additionally in $`\omega \pi `$ photoproduction , $`\gamma p(\omega \pi )p`$, the $`\omega \pi `$ system is dominated by a low-mass enhancement with a peak at about 1250 MeV and it seemed natural to associate this with a vector state. However it appears that this enhancement is dominated by the $`J^P=1^+`$ $`b_1(1235)`$ meson. The evidence for this comes from the analysis  of the decay angular distributions of the $`\omega \pi `$ system. The conclusion of  is that the data are best described by production of the $`b_1(1235)`$ together with a small $`J^P=1^{}`$ contribution. Additionally the production mechanism does not appear to conserve $`s`$-channel helicity. This latter conclusion is confirmed in the experiment of  which had the benefit of a linearly-polarised beam. The angular distribution of the production plane relative to the photon polarisation vector has structure which is inconsistent with $`s`$-channel helicity conservation. The decay angular distributions of the two experiments agree and it was also concluded by  that the data favour a $`b_1(1235)`$ interpretation over a vector-meson interpretation. Preliminary data  on $`\omega \pi `$ photoproduction at high energy indicate a cross section for the 1250 MeV enhancement which is comparable to or larger than the cross section at much lower energy , with the natural inference that it is being produced diffractively. However diffractive photoproduction of the $`b_1(1235)`$ is inconsistent with all we know about diffraction from other reactions. It violates the Gribov-Morrison rule  and, more seriously, at the parton level it requires both spin flip and angular-momentum flip. The photon is some combination of $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$ $`q\overline{q}`$ states and the $`b_1(1235)`$ is $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$. To avoid conflict with diffraction phenomenology, a possible interpretation of the $`\omega \pi `$ photoproduction data is that it is a mix of $`1^{}`$ and $`1^+`$ at the lower energies, and entirely $`1^{}`$ at high energy, requiring a vector meson at about 1250 MeV.

Obviously the light-quark vector mesons present an exciting theoretical challenge.

Information on the vector states comes principally from $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation, and also $`\tau `$ decay for the isovector states, but there are problems with much of the data:

$``$ inconsistencies, even in recent high-statistics data

$``$ restricted energy ranges, e.g. Novosibirsk and CLEO

$``$ poor statistics in some channels and missing channels

$``$ inadequate knowledge of multiparticle final states

Fortunately this is set to change with a range of possible new facilities for $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation and $`\tau `$ decay:

$``$ upgrade of Novosibirsk to higher energy

$``$ the PEP-N proposal at SLAC

$``$ the use of initial state radiation (ISR) at BABAR

$``$ emphasis on $`\tau `$ and charm at CLEO

There is also the possibilty of complementary data on vector meson photoproduction:

$``$ from the upgrade of CEBAF

$``$ from real photon radiation in proton-ion and ion-ion collisions at RHIC

$``$ photo- and electroproduction at HERA

So the future study of vector mesons looks healthy.

THE DATA

The key data in determining the existence of the two isovector states were $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$  and $`e^+e^{}\omega \pi `$ . These original data sets have subsequently been augmented by data on the corresponding charged channels in $`\tau `$ decay , to which they are related by CVC. These new data confirm the earlier conclusions. The data on $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$  and $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0`$  (excluding $`\omega \pi `$) and the corresponding charged channels in $`\tau `$ decay  are consistent with the two-resonance interpretation , although they do not provide such good discrimination. It was also found that the $`e^+e^{}\eta \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ cross section is better fitted with two interfering resonances than with a single state . Independent evidence for two $`J^P=1^{}`$ states is provided in a high statistics study of the $`\eta \pi \pi `$ system in $`\pi ^{}p`$ charge exchange . Decisive evidence for both the $`\rho (1450)`$ and $`\rho (1700)`$ in their $`2\pi `$ and $`4\pi `$ decays has come from the study of $`\overline{p}p`$ and $`\overline{p}n`$ annihilation . The data initially available for the study of the $`\omega (1420)`$ and $`\omega (1600)`$ were $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ (which is dominated by $`\rho \pi `$) and $`e^+e^{}\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ . The latter cross section shows a clear peak which is apparently dominated by the $`\omega (1600)`$. The former cross section is more sensitive to the $`\omega (1420)`$. However the only channel in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation and $`\tau `$ decay with really consistent data sets over a wide energy range is the $`\pi \pi `$ channel, and that runs out of statistics at the upper end of the relevant energy range.

In addition to the direct experimental problems there are theoretical uncertainties which affect the analysis of $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation and $`\tau `$ decay, and which present data are insufficiently precise to resolve. Firstly there is the “tail-of-the-$`\rho `$” problem. In some channels, most notably $`\pi \pi `$ and $`\pi \omega `$, there is strong interference between the high-energy tail of the $`\rho `$ and the higher-mass resonances. The magnitude and shape of this tail are not known with any precision. They can only be specified in models and strictly should be part of the parametrisation. Different models yield different results for the masses and widths of the resonances. A related problem is the question of the relative phases. These can be specified in simple models, but we know that these models are not precise and leaving the phases as free parameters has a major effect on the results of any analysis.

The experimental challenge is easily stated; high-statistics excitation curves for a wide range of hadronic final states:

$$\pi \pi \omega \pi a_1\pi h_1\pi \rho \rho \rho (\pi \pi )_SK\overline{K}K^{}\overline{K}\mathrm{}$$
(1)
Note that the $`n\overline{n}`$ states can decay to $`K\overline{K}`$, $`K^{}\overline{K}`$ etc. with significant partial widths, so isospin separation is necessary in these channels, and there can be mixing between the isoscalar $`n\overline{n}`$ states and the $`s\overline{s}`$ states.

THE THEORETICAL PROBLEM

Despite these various difficulties, an apparently natural explanation for the higher-mass vector states is that they are the first radial, $`2^3S_1`$, and first orbital, $`1^3D_1`$, excitations of the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ and the first radial excitation of the $`\varphi `$, as the generally-accepted masses  are close to those predicted by the quark model . However this argument is suspect as the masses of the corresponding $`J^P=1^{}`$ strange mesons are less than the predictions, particularly for the $`2^3S_1`$ at $`1414\pm 15`$ MeV  compared to the predicted 1580 MeV . Quite apart from comparing predicted and observed masses, one would expect the $`n\overline{n}`$ mesons to be 100 to 150 MeV lighter than their strange counterparts, putting the $`2^3S_1`$ at less than 1300 MeV and the $`1^3D_1`$ below 1600 MeV. Also this interpretation faces a more fundamental problem. The data on the $`4\pi `$ channels in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation are not compatible with the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model  which is accepted as the most successful model of meson decay. The model works well for decays of established ground-state mesons:

$``$ widths predicted to be large, are found to be so

$``$ widths predicted to be small, are found to be so

$``$ calculated widths agree with data to $`2540\%`$

$``$ signs of amplitudes are correctly predicted

As far as one can ascertain the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model is reliable, but it has not been seriously tested for the decays of excited states.

The $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model predicts that the decay of the isovector $`2^3S_1`$ to $`4\pi `$ is extremely small:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2Sa_1\pi }3\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2Sh_1\pi }1\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}$$
(2)
and for the isovector $`1^3D_1`$ the $`a_1\pi `$ and $`h_1\pi `$ decays are large and equal:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1Da_1\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1Dh_1\pi }105\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}$$
(3)
As $`h_1\pi `$ contributes only to the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ channel in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation, and $`a_1\pi `$ contributes to both $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0`$, then after subtraction of the $`\omega \pi `$ cross section from the total $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model predicts:

$$\sigma (e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0)>\sigma (e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0)$$
(4)
This contradicts observation over most of the available energy range. Further, and more seriously, it has been shown recently by the CMD collaboration at Novosibirsk  and by CLEO  that the dominant channel by far in $`4\pi `$ (excluding $`\omega \pi `$) up to $`1.6`$ GeV is $`a_1\pi `$. This is quite inexplicable in terms of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model. So the standard picture is wrong for the isovectors, and there are serious inconsistencies in the isoscalar channels as well. One possibility is that the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model is simply failing when applied to excited states, which is an intriguing question in itself. An alternative is that there is new physics involved.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

A favoured hypothesis is to include vector hybrids , that is $`q\overline{q}g`$ states. The reason for this is that, firstly, hybrid states occur naturally in QCD, and secondly, that in the relevant mass range the dominant hadronic decay of the isovector vector hybrid $`\rho _H`$ is believed to be $`a_1\pi `$ . The masses of light-quark hybrids have been obtained in lattice-QCD calculations , although with quite large errors. Results from lattice QCD and other approaches, such as the bag model , flux-tube models , constituent gluon models  and QCD sum rules , show considerable variation from each other. So the absolute mass scale is somewhat imprecise, predictions for the lightest hybrid lying between 1.3 and 1.9 GeV. However it does seem generally agreed that the mass ordering is $`0^+<1^+<1^{}<2^+`$.

Evidence for the excitation of gluonic degrees of freedom has emerged in several processes. Two experiments  have evidence for an exotic $`J^{PC}=1^+`$ resonance, $`\widehat{\rho }(1600)`$ in the $`\rho ^0\pi ^{}`$ channel in the reaction $`\pi ^{}N(\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{})N`$. A peak in the $`\eta \pi `$ mass spectrum at $`1400`$ MeV with $`J^{PC}=1^+`$ in $`\pi ^{}N(\eta \pi ^{})N`$ has also been interpreted as a resonance . Supporting evidence for the 1400 state in the same mode comes from $`\overline{p}p\eta \pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ . There is evidence  for two isovector $`0^+`$ states in the mass region 1.4 to 1.9 GeV; $`\pi (1600)`$ and $`\pi (1800)`$. The quark model predicts only one. Taking the mass of the $`1^+1.4`$ GeV, then the $`0^+`$ is at $`1.3`$ GeV and the lightest $`1^{}`$ at $`1.65`$ GeV, which is in the range required for the mixing hypothesis to work. Of course if hybrids are comparatively heavy, that is the $`\widehat{\rho }(1600)`$ is the lightest $`1^+`$ state, and the $`\pi (1600)`$ presumably the corresponding $`0^+`$ hybrid (or at least with a significant hybrid component) then the vector hybrid mass $`2.0`$ GeV making strong mixing with the radial and orbital excitations unlikely.

Two specific models for the hadronic hybrids are the flux-tube model  and the constituent gluon model . There are some substantial differences in their predictions for hybrid decays. For the isovector $`1^{}`$ the flux-tube model predicts $`a_1\pi `$ as essentially the only hadronic mode, and a width of $`100`$ MeV. The constituent gluon model predicts dominant $`a_1\pi `$, but with significant $`\rho (\pi \pi )_S`$ and $`\omega \pi `$ components, and a larger width. For the isoscalar $`1^{}`$ the flux-tube model predicts $`\rho \pi `$ as essentially the only hadronic mode, with a width of $`20`$ MeV. The constituent gluon model predicts dominant $`\rho \pi `$, a significant $`\omega (\pi \pi )_S`$ component and a larger width.

An alternative explanation could be to invoke the old concept of multiquark states. These are defined as solutions of the multiquark Hamiltonian with totally confined boundary conditions. In the pioneering paper on bag-model four-quarks , the states were considered with all interquark orbital momenta equal to zero. Such states easily decay into mesons, so that these multiquarks usually do not exist as relatively narrow resonances. The $`q^2\overline{q}^2`$ states with vector quantum numbers necessarily contain an extra unit of orbital momentum between constituents, which could reduce the amplitude of their ”superallowed” decays. Namely, for the four-quark configurations corresponding to the $`(3\overline{3})`$ diquark-antidiquark colour representation, $`J^{PC}=1^{}`$ quantum numbers are achieved if orbital excitation $`L=1`$ is taken between the diquark and the antidiquark. Extra suppresion of superallowed decay happens if the string model for the multiquark state is adopted, in which a string with junction and antijunction points is formed between the diquark and the antidiquark.

In the bag model the masses of such vector states  lie well above 1.7 GeV. The string model with junctions  lowers the mass to 1.5 GeV giving the possibility for $`q^2\overline{q}^2`$ states to participate in the higher vector meson phenomena. The detailed structure of $`q^2\overline{q}^2`$ vector states was considerd in . The peculiar feature of the multiquark scenario is that it is necessary to take into account three lowest states with different total quark spins. Another interesting feature is that the lowest isovector state is about 200 MeV higher than the lowest isoscalar one. Similarly to the hybrid case, selection rules for the multiquark superallowed decay exist which forbid the decay into a pair of $`S`$-wave mesons . The main decay modes of $`q^2\overline{q}^2`$ states are to $`S`$-wave plus $`P`$-wave mesons, and, in principle, mixing between $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`q^2\overline{q}^2`$ states does the same job as mixing between $`q\overline{q}`$ states and hybrids. The resulting mixing scheme should include five states, and is much more complicated than in the hybrid case. On the other hand it offers new opportunities, as the low-lying four-quark $`\rho (1250)`$ and $`\omega (1100)`$ might be responsible for the photoproduction data and the former be the “new” vector meson at about 1250 MeV.

The general conclusion is that the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation and $`\tau `$-decay data require the existence of a “hidden” vector exotics in the isovector and isoscalar channels (assuming that the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ results are qualitatively reliable). The mixing required is non-trivial, although schemes can be devised which are qualitatively compatible with the data . The unseen physical states are “off-stage”, in the 1.9 to 2.1 GeV mass region. Nonetheless, it appears difficult to achieve quantitative agreement with data (within the constraint of specific models) unless the exotics and the $`1^3D_1`$ states have direct electromagnetic coupling. At the simplest level hybrids do not, but these couplings can be generated by relativistic corrections at the parton level  or via intermediate hadronic states, for example hybrid $``$ $`a_1\pi `$ $``$$`\rho `$$``$ $`e^+e^{}`$.

RADIATIVE DECAYS: AN ALTERNATIVE

Radiative decays offer several theoretical advantages. They are a much better probe of wave functions, and hence of models, than are hadronic decay modes because of the direct coupling to the charges and spins of the constituents. This can be particularly relevant, for example, in distinguishing gluonic excitations from conventional radial and orbital excitations as in a $`1^{}`$ hybrid the $`q\overline{q}`$ are in a spin-singlet state which is the reverse of the usual $`q\overline{q}`$ configuration. The results of detailed calculation are encouraging . Crucial channels can be specified and, importantly from the practical point of view, it is found that interesting channels should be easily identified. The widths for radiative decays to pseudoscalar states are generally small, but some of those to the $`1P`$ states are large. Some preliminary results are given in Table 1.

TABLE 1. Preliminary radiative widths in keV .

|  | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\rho _S\right)`$ | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\omega _S\right)`$ | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\rho _D\right)`$ | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\omega _D\right)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`a_0\left(1300\right)\gamma `$ | $`15`$ | $`140`$ | $`110`$ | $`990`$ |
| $`a_1\left(1260\right)\gamma `$ | $`45`$ | $`420`$ | $`80`$ | $`740`$ |
| $`a_2\left(1320\right)\gamma `$ | $`75`$ | $`695`$ | $`12`$ | $`110`$ |
| $`f_0\left(1300\right)\gamma `$ | $`140`$ | $`15`$ | $`990`$ | $`110`$ |
| $`f_1\left(1285\right)\gamma `$ | $`420`$ | $`45`$ | $`740`$ | $`80`$ |
| $`f_2\left(1270\right)\gamma `$ | $`695`$ | $`75`$ | $`110`$ | $`12`$ |

The larger partial widths should be measurable at the new high-intensity facilities. In some cases they may be measurable in the data from present experiments. We give two specific examples of quarkonia decay and a comment on hybrid radiative decay.

The $`\omega \eta `$ decay of the $`\omega (1650)`$ has been observed in the E852 experiment . If the $`\omega (1650)`$ is the $`1D`$ $`q\overline{q}`$ excitation of the $`\omega `$, then the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model gives the partial width for this decay as 13 MeV . The partial width for the radiative decay $`\omega (1650)a_1(1250)\gamma `$ is of the order of 1 MeV, that is about $`8\%`$ of the $`\omega \eta `$ width. The E852 experiment has several thousand events in the $`\omega \eta `$, so we may expect several hundred events in the $`a_1\gamma `$ channel. Similarly both the $`\rho (1450)`$ and $`\rho (1700)`$ are seen by the VES collaboration  in the $`\rho \eta `$ channel with several thousand events. Both these states have strong radiative decays, the $`\rho (1450)`$ to $`f_2(1270)\gamma `$ and the $`\rho (1700)`$ to $`f_1(1285)\gamma `$ both of the order of 1 MeV. Assuming that the $`\rho (1450)`$ and the $`\rho (1700)`$ are respectively the $`2S`$ and the $`1D`$ excitations of the $`\rho `$, then the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model gives the partial widths for the $`\rho \eta `$ decays of the $`\rho (1450)`$ and $`\rho (1700)`$ as 23 MeV and 25 MeV respectively , so the radiative decays should again be present at the level of a few hundred events.

The $`\pi (1800)`$ is interesting as it could be a conventional $`\pi (2S)`$ or $`\pi (3S)`$, the latter being the more natural if the $`\pi (1300)`$ is interpreted as the $`\pi (2S)`$ as in the conventional quark model, or it could be a $`\pi _g`$ hybrid. The $`\omega (1420)`$ and $`\omega (1650)`$ could be conventional $`2S`$ and $`1D`$ or a hybrid $`\omega _g`$. The widths of the radiative decays $`\pi (1800)\omega (1420)`$ or $`\omega (1650)`$ depend sensitively on which of these configurations the mesons are in, and potentially can discriminate among them. For example, if the $`\pi (1800)`$ is $`2S`$ then the width of the radiative decay to $`\omega (1420)`$ will be large, 0.5 to 1.0 MeV. If it is $`3S`$ then the radiative decay will be strongly suppressed because of the orthogonality of the wave functions, unless the $`\omega (1420)`$ is $`3S`$, which is highly unlikely. Equally, if the $`\pi (1800)`$ is a hybrid, then the width of the radiative decay to the hybrid $`\omega _g`$ will again be large. Thus if a radiative width of $`1`$ MeV is found then the two states must be siblings, which would be most natural for hybrids.

SUMMARY

Despite 15 years of work we do not yet understand the light-quark vectors. The data raise tantalising questions which go to the heart of nonperturbative QCD:

$``$ How many light-quark vector mesons are there?

$``$ Are there exotic states hiding in there?

$``$ What are the masses, widths, decay channels?

$``$ Does the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model fail?

$``$ If there are exotics, where are the corresponding states in the strange and charm sectors?

The $`e^+e^{}`$ partial widths and the radiative decay widths of the light-quark vector mesons provide a particularly sensitive probe of wave functions, and the nature of the states involved. The hadronic channels test our understanding of decay mechanisms for radial and orbital excitations, and for exotic states if they are present.

We are in the intriguing position of having sufficient information to realise that the light-quark vector mesons present an exciting challenge, but have insufficient information to solve it. Whatever the answers, new physics is guaranteed!

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported in part by grant INTAS-RFBR 97-232

REFERENCES

1. Erkal, C. and Olsson, M. G., Z.Phys. C31, 615 (1986)
2. Donnachie, A. and Mirzaie, H., Z.Phys. C33, 407 (1987)
3. Particle Data Group, European Physical Journal C15, 1 (2000)
4. Achasov, M. (SND Collaboration), “Review of experimental results from SND
5. Pick, B. (Crystal Barrel Collaboration), “Higher vector meson states
6. Bartalucci, S. et al., Nuovo Cimento 49A, 207, (1979)
7. Ballam, J. et al., Nucl.Phys. B76, 375 (1974)
8. Atkinson, M. et al., Nucl.Phys. B243, 1 (1984)
9. Brau, J. E. et al., Phys.Rev. D37, 2379 (1988)
10. H1 Collaboration, Paper submitted to XX International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions, Rome, 2001
11. Gribov, V. N., Sov.J.Nucl.Phys. 5, 138 (1967)
12. Morrison, D. R. O., Phys.Rev. 165, 1699 (1968)
13. Barkov, L. M. et al., Nucl.Phys. B256, 365 (1985)
Bisello, D. et al., Phys.Lett. B220, 321 (1989)
14. Dolinsky, S. I. et al., Phys.Lett. B174, 453 (1986)
Bisello, D. et al., Proc. XXV ICHEP, edited by K.K. Phua and Y. Yamaguchi, World Scientific, Singapore, 1992
15. R. Barate et al (ALEPH Collaboration), Z.Phys. C76, 15 (1997)
Perera, L. P. (CLEO Collaboration), Proc. Hadron’97, edited by S-U Chung and H. J. Willutski, American Institute of Physics, New York, 1998, 595
16. Albrecht, H. et al. (ARGUS Collaboration), Phys.Lett. B185, 223 (1987)
17. Dolinsky, S. I. et al., Phys.Rep. 202, 99 (1991)
Stanco, L. (DM2 Collaboration), Proc. Hadron’91, edited by Y. Oneda and D. Peaslee, World Scientific, Singapore, 1992, 84
18. Bacci, C. et al., Nucl.Phys. B184, 31 (1981)
Cosme, G. et al., Nucl.Phys. B152, 215 (1979)
19. Clegg, A. B. and Donnachie, A., Z.Phys. C62, 455 (1994)
Donnachie, A. and Clegg, A. B., Phys.Rev. D51, 4979 (1995)
20. Achasov, N. N. and Kozhevnikov, A. A., Phys.Rev. D55, 2663 (1997)
21. Antonelli, M. et al., Phys.Lett. B212, 133 (1988)
22. Fukui, S. et al., Phys.Lett. B202, 133(1988)
23. Abele, A. et al. (Crystal Barrel Collaboration), Phys.Lett. B391, 191 (1997)
24. Antonelli, M. et al., Z.Phys. C56, 15 (1992)
25. Godfrey, S. and Isgur, N., Phys.Rev. D32, 189 (1985)
26. Busetto, G. and Oliver, L., Z.Phys. C20, 247 (1983)
Geiger, P. and Swanson, E. S., Phys.Rev. D50, 6855 (1994)
Blundell, H. G. and Godfrey, S., Phys.Rev. D53, 3700 (1996)
27. Kokoski, R. and Isgur, N., Phys.Rev. D35, 907 (1987)
28. Ackleh, E. S., Barnes, T. and Swanson, E. S., Phys.Rev. D54, 6811 (1996)
29. Barnes, T., Close, F. E., Page, P. R. and Swanson, E. S., Phys.Rev. D55, 415 (1997)
30. Akhmetshin, R. R. et al., Phys.Lett. B466, 392 (1999)
31. Anderson, S. et al., Phys.Rev. D61, 112002 (2000)
32. Donnachie, A. and Kalashnikova, Yu. S., Z.Phys. C59, 621 (1993)
33. Close, F. E. and Page, P. R., Phys.Rev. D56, 1584 (1997)
34. Lacock, P., Michael, C., Boyle, P. and Rowland, P., Phys.Lett. B401, 308 (1997)
35. Bernard, C. et al., Phys.Rev. D56, (1997) 7039 and hep-lat/9809087
36. Lacock, P. and Schilling, K., hep-lat/9809022
37. McNeile, C., hep-lat/9904013
38. Barnes, T. and Close, F. E., Phys.Lett. 116B, 365 (1982); ibid 123B, 89 (1983)
Barnes, T., Close, F. E. and de Viron, F., Nucl.Phys. B224, 241 (1983)
39. Chanowitz, M. and Sharpe,S., Nucl.Phys. B222, 211 (1983)
40. Isgur, N. and Paton, J. E., Phys.Lett. 124B, 247 (1983)
Isgur, N., Kokoski, R. and Paton, J. E., Phys.Rev.Lett. 54, 869 (1985)
Isgur, N. and Paton, J. E., Phys.Rev. D31, 2910 (1985)
Barnes, T., Close, F.E. and Swanson, E. S., Phys.Rev. D52, 5242 (1995)
41. Kalashnikova, Yu. S. and Yufryakov, Yu. B., Phys. Lett. B359, 175 (1995)
Kalashnikova, Yu. S. and Yufryakov, Yu. B., Phys. At. Nucl. 60, 307 (1997)
42. Balitsky, I. I., Dyakonov, D. I. and Yung, A.V., Z.Phys. C33, 265 (1986)
43. Latorre, J. I., Pascual, P. and Narison, S., Z.Phys. C34, 347 (1987)
44. Weygand, D. P. (E852 Collaboration), Proc. HADRON’97, edited by S-U Chung and H. J. Willutski, American Institute of Physics, New York, 1998, 313
45. Gouz, Yu. P. (VES Collaboration), Proc. XXVI ICHEP edited by J. R. Sanford, 572
46. Thompson, D. R. et al. (E852 Collaboration), Phys.Rev.Lett. 79, 1630 (1997)
47. Abele, A. et al. (Crystal Barrel Collaboration), Phys.Lett. B423, 175 (1998)
48. Zaitsev, A. (VES Collaboration), Proc. Hadron’97, edited by S-U Chung and H. J. Willutski, American Institute of Physics, New York, (1998), 461
Amelin, D. V. (VES Collaboration), ibid 770
49. Le Yaounac, A., Oliver, L., Pène, O., Raynal, J. C. and Ono, S., Z.Phys. C28, 309 (1985)
Iddir, F., Le Yaouanc, A., Oliver, L., Pène, O, and Raynal,J. C., Phys.Lett. B205, 564 (1988)
50. Kalashnikova, Yu. S., Z.Phys. C62, 323 (1994)
51. Jaffe, R. L., Phys.Rev. D15, 267 (1977)
52. Mulders, P.J., Aerts, A.T. and de Swart, J. J., Phys.Rev. D21, 1370 (1980)
53. Badalyan, A. M., LNF-91/017(R) (1991)
54. Donnachie, A. and Kalashnikova, Yu. S., Z.Phys. C59, 621 (1993)
55. Donnachie, A. and Kalashnikova, Yu. S., Phys.Rev. D60, 114011 (1999)
56. Close, F.E., Donnachie, A. and Kalashnikova, Yu. S., in preparation
57. Eugenio, P. et al. (E852 Collaboration), Phys.Lett. B497 190 (2001)
58. D.V. Amelin et al. (VES Collaboration), Nucl.Phys. A668, 83 (2000)


text:
# Detecting Outer Planets in Edge-On Orbits: Combining Radial Velocity and Astrometric Techniques

## 1 Introduction

Radial velocity (RV) surveys of nearby stars have been employed in the search for extra-solar planets for nearly two decades (see Marcy, Cochran & Mayor 2000). As these efforts continue into the next decade, they will be supplemented by precision astrometric searches, e.g., by FAME, Keck Interferometer, and SIM (Horner et al., 2000; van Belle et al., 1998; Danner et al., 1999). In previous papers, we examined the RV and astrometric techniques in detail, paying particular attention to the regime where the time-baseline of the observations is shorter than the orbital period of the extra-solar companion (Eisner & Kulkarni 2001a,b; hereafter EK2001a,b). This regime is interesting because one expects giant planets to form in the colder regions of the proto-planetary nebula, and thus one expects such objects to possess periods of many years to centuries (Boss, 1995). In EK2001a,b we demonstrated that one can achieve a significant improvement in sensitivity (over current techniques) if the orbital amplitude and phase are included in the analysis.

Here, we examine the benefits of combining simultaneous astrometric and RV observations. Specifically, we examine the sensitivity of a combined astrometric and RV detection technique applied to an edge-on orbit, where the full RV signature and one dimension of the astrometric signature can be observed.

The plan for the paper is straightforward. First, we simulate large numbers of hypothetical data sets containing (1) noise only, and (2) signal and noise, and determine the Frequentist Type I and II errors. As in EK2001a,b we acknowledge that a Frequentist approach is not as rigorous as a full Bayesian analysis. However, this approach is simple enough that it is amenable to deriving (semi-)analytical estimates of the sensitivity – a principal goal of the paper. We conclude by discussing the parameter space opened up by combining FAME, Keck Interferometer, or SIM astrometric surveys with ongoing precision RV studies.

## 2 Basic Equations

We will assume edge-on circular orbits throughout this discussion. The astrometric signature of an edge-on circular orbit is given by

$$\theta (t)=𝒜\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{2\pi t}{\tau }+\varphi \right)+\lambda t+\mu ,$$
(1)
where $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ are the proper motion and parallax of the planetary system, respectively, and

$$𝒜=\frac{M_p}{D}\left(\frac{G\tau ^2}{4\pi ^2M_{}^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}.$$
(2)
Here, $`D`$ is the distance to the system, $`M_{}`$ is the mass of the star, and $`M_p`$ is the mass of the planet. We ignore the annual parallax. However, annual parallax should be included in modeling of planets with periods around one year.

The RV signature of this orbit is given by the derivative of the orbital position along the line of sight:

$$v(t)=𝒱\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{2\pi t}{\tau }+\varphi \right)+\gamma .$$
(3)
Here $`\gamma `$ is the radial velocity of the planetary system, and

$$𝒱=M_p\left(\frac{2\pi G}{M_{}^2\tau }\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}=\frac{2\pi D}{\tau }\times 𝒜.$$
(4)
Thus, we can express the sensitivity (defined as the minimum-mass planet that can be detected) of the RV and astrometric techniques in terms of $`𝒜`$:

$$M_p=D𝒜\left(\frac{4\pi ^2M_{}^2}{G\tau ^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}.$$
(5)
However, it is more difficult to identify planets with long periods than Equation 5 might suggest. In the so-called “long-period regime”, defined as $`T_0<<\tau `$ where $`T_0`$ is the duration of the survey, we observe a fraction of the orbit. As a result, in this regime, the sensitivity is expected to depend critically on the orbital phase. The reflex velocity is covariant with $`\gamma `$ and thus the RV technique is most sensitive when $`2\pi t/\tau +\varphi =n\pi `$ (EK2001a). In contrast, the astrometric signal of an edge-on orbit is covariant with $`\lambda t`$ and $`\mu `$, and thus the astrometric technique is sensitive when $`2\pi t/\tau +\varphi =(n+1/2)\pi `$ (EK2001b). Thus the RV and astrometric techniques achieve their maximal sensitivities for different orbital phases, and we expect, on general grounds, that combining the two techniques should yield a substantial benefit in the long-period regime.

## 3 Monte Carlo Analysis

The signal analysis for the astrometric and RV techniques consists of fitting the observations to the models specified in Equations 1 and 3. As noted by several authors (e.g. Scargle, 1982; Nelson & Angel, 1998, EK2001a) the most optimal fitting is obtained by using the technique of Least Squares. First, we convert the physical model specified by Equations 1 and 3 to equations linear in the unknowns:

$$\theta (t)=𝒜_c\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)+𝒜_s\mathrm{sin}(\omega t)+\lambda t+\mu ,$$
(6)
$$v(t)=𝒱_c\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)+𝒱_s\mathrm{sin}(\omega t)+\gamma .$$
(7)
Here, $`𝒜_c=𝒜\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$, $`𝒜_s=𝒜\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$, $`𝒱_c=𝒱\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$, $`𝒱_s=𝒱\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$, and $`\omega =2\pi /\tau `$. In EK2001a,b we discuss the importance of the $`\gamma `$, $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ terms. These three variables are not directly relevant in detecting or characterizing a companion planet but they are unknown and in the long-period regime are covariant with some of the orbital parameters (Black & Scargle, 1982). Thus the three variables must be solved for in order to correctly model the observations.

Using Equations 6 and 7 as our physical model, we perform the following analysis. First, we simulate a large number of data-sets containing only Gaussian nose (i.e. no signal). For each of these data sets, we perform a Least Squares fit to three models: a model using only astrometric measurements (Equation 6), a model using only RV measurements (Equation 7), and a model that utilizes both astrometric and RV measurements. In each case, for each simulated data set we fit for amplitude and phase. We note here that for the RV+astrometry model, since the two measurements have different variances we minimize the $`\chi ^2`$ (where $`\chi `$ is the difference between the model and the rms-weighted measurements).

Specifically, we simulate $`N=1000`$ data-sets, sampled at one month intervals for $`T_0=10`$ years (with no loss of generality, we take the time interval to go from $`T_0/2`$ to $`T_0/2`$), and we explore periods from 5 to 100 years. We assume that the measurement noise in both the RV and astrometric surveys is characterized by Gaussian noise with rms of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{RV}}`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{ast}}`$ respectively. The best achieved $`\sigma _{\mathrm{RV}}=3`$ m s-1 (Butler et al., 1996). The anticipated astrometric precision of FAME is between 50 and 100 $`\mu `$as (Horner et al., 2000), that of the Keck Interferometer (narrow angle) between $`30`$ and 50 $`\mu `$as (van Belle et al., 1998), and that of SIM between 1 and 10 $`\mu `$as (Danner et al., 1999). We note that $`\sigma _{\mathrm{ast}}=100`$ $`\mu `$as yields approximately equivalent sensitivity to RV technique with 3 m s-1 rms for a planet orbiting a star located at distance $`D=10`$ pc with $`\tau 2T_020`$ years (Equation 4).

Next, for each of three models, we determine the ellipse (in $`𝒜`$$`\varphi `$ space) within which 99% of the fitted amplitudes and phases lie. This ellipse, denoted by $`ϵ_1`$, describes the “Type I” errors of the detection technique. Thus the inferred $`𝒜`$ and $`\varphi `$ have a 1% chance of being outside the $`ϵ_1`$ ellipse (in the absence of a signal).

As discussed earlier (§2) we expect RV and astrometric models to show orthogonal sensitivity. Indeed, as can be seen from Figure 1, the $`ϵ_{1,\mathrm{RV}}`$ and $`ϵ_{1,\mathrm{ast}}`$ are $`90^{}`$ out of phase in the long period regime. On a basic level, we can understand the benefit of combining RV and astrometric observations by noting that the intersection of $`ϵ_{1,\mathrm{rv}}`$ and $`ϵ_{1,\mathrm{ast}}`$ is much smaller than either of the individual ellipses, and thus it is easier to detect signals over the level of the noise. In fact, this is verified by the combined analysis: the ellipse for the combined analysis, $`ϵ_{1,C}`$, lies entirely within both $`ϵ_{1,\mathrm{RV}}`$ and $`ϵ_{1,\mathrm{ast}}`$ (Figure 1).

Analytic expressions for the Type I errors for RV or astrometric techniques are given in EK2001a and EK2001b, respectively. Given these expressions, it is not difficult to infer an analytic expression for the Type I errors in the case of combined astrometric+RV technique. As noted earlier for $`\sigma _{\mathrm{RV}}=3`$ m s-1 and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{ast}}=100`$ $`\mu `$as, the semi-minor axes for $`ϵ_{1,\mathrm{RV}}`$ and $`ϵ_{1,\mathrm{ast}}`$ are approximately equal ($`D=10`$ pc), and thus $`ϵ_1`$ for the combined analysis will be a circle whose radius is given by

$$A_{c1}=\{\begin{array}{cc}2^{1/2}\mathrm{min}(A_{1s},\frac{\tau }{2\pi D}v_{1s})\hfill & \text{for }\tau <T_0\hfill \\ \frac{2A_{1s}}{1\mathrm{cos}(\pi T_0/\tau )}\hfill & \text{for }\tau >T_0\hfill \end{array}.$$
(8)
Here, $`A_{1s}=3.69\sigma _{\mathrm{ast}}n_0^{1/2}`$, $`v_{1s}=3.69\sigma _{\mathrm{rv}}n_0^{1/2}`$, and the factor of $`2^{1/2}`$ reflects the fact that in the short-period regime, there are essentially twice as many measurements. As illustrated in Figure 2, this analytic function provides an excellent fit to the data.

Next, we evaluate “Type II” errors for the three models. Type II errors describe the probability of failing to detect a genuine signal due to contamination by noise. To understand the type II statistics, we simulate a large number of data sets consisting of a simulated signal and noise (see EK2001a,b for further details). The signal is a sinusoidal wave with an amplitude $`𝒜_0`$ (astrometry), and the corresponding velocity amplitude is $`2\pi D𝒜_0/\tau `$ (we set $`D=10`$ pc); the phase, $`\varphi `$ is randomly chosen from the interval $`[0,2\pi ]`$ (uniform distribution). For each model, we increment the amplitude\[s\] until 99% of the fitted orbital parameters lie outside of the appropriate $`ϵ_1`$ ellipse; this amplitude is denoted by $`A_{99}`$ (for each method).

## 4 Results and Discussion

The benefit of combining RV and astrometric analysis accrues mainly from the fact that the error ellipses for the two techniques in $`A\varphi `$ parameter space are perpendicular to each other (Figure 1). RV+astrometry analysis will be most useful in cases where the error ellipses for the two techniques are roughly the same size (otherwise, one error ellipse might lie entirely within the other, and no additional benefit would arise from combining the two techniques). As mentioned above, the current precision of RV techniques is $`3`$ m s-1 (Butler et al., 1996), which means that for a 10 year survey, we must use astrometric measurements with $`100`$ $`\mu `$as precision (for a system at $`D=10`$ pc) to reap the maximal benefit from RV+astrometry technique. This is approximately the sensitivity that will be obtained by future instruments like Keck Interferometer and FAME (van Belle et al., 1998; Horner et al., 2000).

As illustrated by Figure 3a, RV+astrometry analysis (with comparable RV and astrometric measurement accuracies) applied to edge-on orbits attains approximately the same sensitivity as an astrometric analysis applied to face-on orbits. This similarity stems from the fact that in both cases, the highly elliptical 1-D $`ϵ_1`$ is circularized through the addition of a second dimension. Another way of thinking about this is that no matter what part of the orbit, when we observe both dimensions we can always see the full orbital curvature. Thus, combining astrometric and RV techniques in a large survey ensures good sensitivity for all orbital inclination angles.

It is also worth noting that RV+astrometry yields valuable gains in the short-period regime ($`\tau <T_0`$). When $`\sigma _{\mathrm{RV}}`$ is comparable to $`\sigma _{\mathrm{ast}}`$, the sensitivity of RV+astrometry is better by $`2^{1/2}`$ over RV or astrometry alone. Furthermore, noting that the sensitivity of astrometry to face-on orbits is $`2^{1/2}\sigma _{\mathrm{ast}}`$ (EK2001b), we see that the short-period sensitivity of RV+astrometry is approximately independent of orbital inclination.

We have also examined the sensitivity when astrometric data is combined with RV data of a longer time-baseline, specifically for several upcoming missions (recall that RV surveys will have been underway for 15–20 years by the time astrometric surveys commence). We investigate FAME ($`T_{0,\mathrm{RV}}=20`$ years, $`T_{0,\mathrm{ast}}=5`$ years), Keck Interferometer ($`T_{0,\mathrm{RV}}=20`$ years, $`T_{0,\mathrm{ast}}=10`$ years), and SIM ($`T_{0,\mathrm{RV}}=30`$ years, $`T_{0,\mathrm{ast}}=10`$ years). We find that in the cases of FAME and Keck Interferometer, the addition of longer time-baseline RV measurements has a significant impact (Figures 3b–3c). In fact, RV+astrometry analysis can easily detect Saturns when astrometric analysis alone doesn’t come close (Figure 3b). In the case of SIM, the main benefit of RV+astrometry is that one can achieve optimal sensitivity over a wider range of inclination angles (Figure 3d).

### 4.1 Shorter Surveys

We have also examined the sensitivities of the RV, astrometric, and combined techniques applied to shorter duration surveys, in order to compare the various sensitivities for short-period companions. Specifically, we investigate the prospect of finding companions around M dwarfs with a 2-year survey combining RV measurements with astrometric measurements from AO systems on large telescopes like Keck or the Palomar $`200^{\prime \prime }`$. Previous authors have successfully searched for companions around M-dwarfs using RV measurements and astrometric measurements on AO systems (e.g., Delfosse et al., 1999) although they have not used the combined RV+astrometry analysis described here (i.e., they analysed the RV data and the astrometric data separately).

As illustrated by Figure 4, the RV technique gains significantly over astrometry for short periods (because $`𝒱𝒜/\tau `$; Equation 4). If astrometry is to contribute meaningfully then $`\sigma _{\mathrm{ast}}1`$ mas. There is some expectation that such a precision can be obtained for binary stars (Dekany et al., 1994). If so, combined RV+Astrometry surveys of nearby M dwarfs can measure masses of Jupiter and Saturn-mass companions.