text:
# Higher Dimensional Radiation Collapse and Cosmic Censorship

## Abstract

We study the occurrence of naked singularities in the spherically symmetric collapse of radiation shells in a higher dimensional spacetime. The necessary conditions for the formation of a naked singularity or a black hole are obtained. The naked singularities are found to be strong in the Tipler’s sense and thus violating cosmic censorship conjecture.

The cosmic censorship conjecture (CCC) put forward some three decades ago by Penrose rp  says that in generic situation all singularities arising from regular initial data are clothed by event horizon. Since CCC remains as an unresolved issue in classical general relativity, examples which appear to violate conjecture remain important and may be valuable when one attempts to formulate notion of CCC in concrete mathematical form. The Vaidya solution pc  is most commonly used as a testing ground for various forms of the CCC. In particular, Papapetrou pp  first showed that this solution can give rise to the formation of naked singularities and thus provided one of the earlier counter examples to CCC. Since then, the solution is extensively studied in gravitational collapse with reference to CCC (see e.g. pj  and references therein). Lately, there has been interest in studying gravitational collapse in higher dimensions hd . This brief report searches for the occurrence of naked singularities in higher dimensional Vaidya spacetime and if they do, to investigate whether the dimensionality of spacetime has any role in the nature of singularities. We find that higher dimensional Vaidya spacetime admit strong-curvature naked singularities in the Tipler’s ft  sense.

The idea that spacetime should be extended from four to higher dimensions was introduced by Kaluza and Klein kk  to unify gravity and electromagnetism. Five dimensional $`(5D)`$ spacetime is particularly more relevant because both $`10D`$ and $`11D`$ super-gravity theories yield solutions where a $`5D`$ spacetime results after dimensional reduction js . Hence, we shall confine ourselves to $`5D`$ case. It should be noted that higher dimensional spacetimes where all dimensions are in the equal foot, like ones to be considered here, are not so realistic, as we are living in effectively 4-dimensional spacetime. So in principle one might expect that by dimensional reduction the higher dimensional spacetime should reduce to our 4-dimensional world. In this sense, the models considered in this paper are ideal.

The metric of collapsing Vaidya models in $`5D`$ case is iv

$$ds^2=(1\frac{m(v)}{r^2})dv^2+2dvdr+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$
(1)
where $`v`$ is null coordinate which represents advanced Eddington time with $`\mathrm{}<v<\mathrm{}`$, $`r`$ is radial coordinate with $`0r<\mathrm{}`$, $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2=d\theta _1^2+sin^2\theta _1(d\theta _2^2+sin^2\theta _2d\theta _3^2)`$ is a metric of 3 sphere and the arbitrary function $`m(v)`$ (which is restricted only by the energy conditions), represents the mass at advanced time $`v`$. The energy momentum tensor can be written in the form

$$T_{ab}=\frac{3}{2r^3}\dot{m}(v)k_ak_b$$
(2)
with the null vector $`k_a`$ satisfying $`k_a=\delta _a^v`$ and $`k_ak^a=0`$. We have used the units which fix the speed of light and gravitational constant via $`8\pi G=c=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}.`$ Clearly, for the weak energy condition to be satisfied we require that $`\dot{m}(v)`$ to be non negative, where an over-dot represents a derivative with respect to $`v`$. Thus mass function is a non-negative increasing function of $`v`$ and that radiation is imploding.

The physical situation here is that of a radial influx of null fluid in an initially empty region of the higher dimensional Minkowskian spacetime. The first shell arrives at $`r=0`$ at time $`v=0`$ and the final at $`v=T`$. A central singularity of growing mass is developed at $`r=0`$. For $`v<0`$ we have $`m(v)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}`$, i.e., higher dimensional Minkowskian spacetime, and for $`v>T`$, $`\dot{m}(v)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}`$, $`m(v)`$ is positive definite. The metric for $`v=0`$ to $`v=T`$ is higher dimensional Vaidya, and for $`v>T`$ we have the higher dimensional Schwarzschild solution. In order to get an analytical solution for our higher dimensional case, we choose $`m(v)v^2`$. To be specific we take

$$m(v)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & v<0,\hfill \\ \lambda v^2(\lambda >0)\hfill & 0vT,\hfill \\ m_0(>0)\hfill & v>T.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
and with this choice of $`m(v)`$ the spacetime is self similar ss , admitting a homothetic Killing vector $`\xi ^a`$ given by

$$\xi ^a=r\frac{}{r}+v\frac{}{v}$$
(4)
which satisfies the condition

$$Ł_\xi g_{ab}=\xi _{a;b}+\xi _{b;a}=2g_{ab}$$
(5)
, $`Ł`$ denotes the Lie derivative. It follows that $`\xi ^ak_a`$ is constant along radial null geodesics and hence a constant of motion,

$$\xi ^aK_a=rK_r+vK_v=C$$
(6)
Let $`K^a=\frac{dx^a}{dk}`$ be the tangent vector to the null geodesics, where $`k`$ is an affine parameter. Geodesic equations, on using the null condition $`K^aK_a=0`$, take the simple form

$$\frac{dK^v}{dk}+\frac{m(v)}{r^3}(K^v)^2=0$$
(7)
$$\frac{dK^r}{dk}+\frac{\dot{m}(v)}{2r^2}(K^v)^2=0$$
(8)
Following dj ; gb , we introduce

$$K^v=\frac{P}{r}$$
(9)
and, from the null condition, we obtain

$$K^r=\left(1\frac{m(v)}{r^2}\right)\frac{P}{2r}$$
(10)
The function $`P(v,r)`$ obeys the differential equation

$$\frac{dP}{dk}\left(1\frac{3m(v)}{r^2}\right)\frac{P^2}{2r^2}=0$$
(11)
Radial null geodesics of the metric (1), by virtue of Eqs. (9) and (10), satisfy

$$\frac{dr}{dv}=\frac{1}{2}\left[1\frac{m(v)}{r^2}\right]$$
(12)
Clearly, the above differential equation has a singularity at $`r=0`$, $`v=0`$. The nature (a naked singularity or a black hole) of the collapsing solutions can be characterized by the existence of radial null geodesics coming out from the singularity. Eq. (12), upon using eq. (3), turns out to be

$$\frac{dr}{dv}=\frac{1}{2}\left[1\lambda X^2\right]$$
(13)
where $`Xv/r`$ is the tangent to a possible outgoing geodesic. In order to determine the nature of the limiting value of $`X`$ at $`r=0`$, $`v=0`$ on a singular geodesic, we let

$$X_0=\underset{r0v0}{lim}X=\underset{r0v0}{lim}\frac{v}{r}$$
(14)
Using (13) and L’Hôpital’s rule we get

$$X_0=\underset{r0v0}{lim}X=\underset{r0v0}{lim}\frac{v}{r}=\underset{r0v0}{lim}\frac{dv}{dr}=\frac{2}{1\lambda X_0^2}$$
(15)
which implies,

$$\lambda X_0^3X_0+2=0$$
(16)
This algebraic equation governs the behavior of the tangent vector near the singular point. Thus by studying the solution of this algebraic equation, the nature of the singularity can be determined. The central shell focusing singularity is at least locally naked (for brevity we have addressed it as naked throughout this paper), if eq. (16) admits one or more positive real roots. When there are no positive real roots to eq. (16), the central singularity is not naked because in that case there are no outgoing future directed null geodesics from the singularity. Hence in the absence of positive real roots, the collapse will always lead to a black hole. The condition under which this locally naked singularity could be globally naked is well discussed pj  and we shall not discuss it here. Thus, the occurrence of positive real roots implies that the strong CCC is violated, though not necessarily the weak CCC. We now examine the condition for the occurrence of a naked singularity. Eq. (16) has two positive roots if $`\lambda 1/27`$, e.g., the two positive roots of eq. (16) $`X_0=2.21833`$ and $`5.69593`$, correspond to $`\lambda =1/50`$. Thus referring to above discussion, gravitational collapse of null fluid in higher dimensions leads to a naked singularity if $`\lambda 1/27`$ and to formation of a black hole otherwise. The degree of inhomogeneity of collapse is defined as $`\mu 1/\lambda `$ (see jl ), we see that for a collapse sufficiently inhomogeneous, naked singularities develop. Comparison with analogous $`4D`$ case shows that naked singularity occurs for a slightly larger value of inhomogeneity factor in $`5D`$.

The analysis of geodesics escaping to far away observers emanating from singularity is similar to that discussed in pp ; dj . To see this, we first note that the apparent horizon in our case is given by $`X=1/\sqrt{\lambda }`$. We write the equation of geodesics in the form $`r=r(X)`$. Using eqs. (3) and (13) we obtain,

$$r\frac{dX}{dr}=\frac{\lambda X^3X+2}{1\lambda X^2}$$
(17)
Integration of the above equation yields the equation of geodesics (integral curves). Here, we briefly describe constraints when geodesics can escape to a far away observer. Basically this follows from analysis of eq. (17) and its solution. We consider separately the following two cases.

Case (a) $`\lambda <1/27`$

The solution of eq. (17) is

$$r=\frac{(xa_1)^{C_1}}{(xa_2)^{C_2}(x+a_3)^{C_3}}$$
(18)
where $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ are two positive roots with $`a_1>a_2`$ and $`a_3`$ is the negative root of equation eq. (16). $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$ and $`C_3`$ are given by

$`C_1=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_2a_3}{(a_1a_2)(a_1+a_3)}},C_2={\displaystyle \frac{a_1a_3}{(a_1a_2)(a_2+a_3)}},`$
$`C_3={\displaystyle \frac{a_1a_2}{(a_1+a_3)(a_2+a_3)}}`$
For $`X1/\sqrt{\lambda }`$, all geodesics are ingoing and no geodesics escapes. For $`X<1/\sqrt{\lambda }`$, geodesic families can meet the singularity with tangent $`X=a_1`$ and $`r=\mathrm{}`$ can be realized in future along the same geodesic at $`X=a_2`$. Thus the singularity will be globally naked and an infinity of geodesics would escape from singularity to reach far away observer.

It is also seen that for very small value of $`\lambda `$, say $`O(10^{17})`$, $`X1/\sqrt{\lambda }`$ and hence singularity is only locally naked.

Case (b) $`\lambda =1/27`$

In this case, the eq. (17) takes the form

$$r\frac{dX}{dr}=\frac{(X3)^2(X+6)}{27X^2}$$
(19)
which has a trivial solution $`X=3`$. In the variables (t, r), it takes the form $`t=2r`$ which is a special null geodesic. In analogous $`4D`$ case one gets $`t=3r`$ pp . For $`X3`$, eq. (17) can be integrated to

$$r=\frac{Exp\left(\frac{2}{3X}\right)}{(3X)^{8/9}(X+6)^{1/9}}$$
(20)
As in $`4D`$ case pp , we can conclude that there is an infinite number of geodesics escaping to a far away observer.

The strength of singularity is an important issue because there have been attempts to relate it to stability djd . A singularity is termed gravitationally strong or simply strong, if it destroys by crushing or stretching any object which falls in to it. A sufficient condition ck  for a strong singularity as defined by Tipler ft  is that for at least one non-space like geodesic with affine parameter $`k`$, in limiting approach to singularity, we must have

$$\underset{k0}{lim}k^2\psi =\underset{k0}{lim}k^2R_{ab}K^aK^b>0$$
(21)
where $`R_{ab}`$ is the Ricci tensor. Eq. (21), with the help of eqs. (2), (3) and (9), can be expressed as

$$\underset{k0}{lim}k^2\psi =\underset{k0}{lim}3\lambda X(\frac{kP}{r^2})^2$$
(22)
Our purpose here is to investigate the above condition along future directed null geodesics coming out from the singularity. For this, solution of eq. (11) is required. Eq. (6), because of eqs. (3), (9) and (10), yields

$$P=\frac{2C}{2X+\lambda X^3}$$
(23)
which is a solution of eq. (11) and geodesics are completely determined. Further, we note that

$$\frac{dX}{dk}=\frac{1}{r}K^v\frac{X}{r}K^r$$
(24)
which, on inserting the expressions for $`K^v`$ and $`K^r`$, become

$$\frac{dX}{dk}=(2X\lambda X^3)\frac{P}{2r^2}=\frac{C}{r^2}$$
(25)
Using the fact that as singularity is approached, $`k0`$, $`r0`$ and $`Xa_+`$ (a root of (16)) and using L’Hôpital’s rule, we observe

$$\underset{k0}{lim}\frac{kP}{r^2}=\frac{2}{1+\lambda X_0^2}$$
(26)
and hence eq. (22) gives

$$\underset{k0}{lim}k^2\psi =\frac{12\lambda X_0}{(1+\lambda X_0^2)^2}>0$$
(27)
Thus along radial null geodesics strong curvature condition is satisfied.

Recently, Nolan bc  gave an alternative approach to check the nature of singularities without having to integrate the geodesic equations. It was shown in bc  that a radial null geodesic which runs into $`r=0`$ terminates in a gravitationally weak singularity if and only if $`\dot{r}`$ is finite in the limit as the singularity is approached (this occurs at $`k=0`$), the over-dot here indicates differentiation along the geodesics. So assuming a weak singularity, we have

$$\dot{r}d_0rd_0k$$
(28)
Using the asymptotic relationship above and the form of $`m(v)`$, the geodesic equations yield

$$\frac{d^2v}{dk^2}\alpha k^1$$
(29)
where $`\alpha =\lambda X_0^4d_0=`$ a non zero const., which is inconsistent with $`\dot{v}d_0X_0`$, which is finite. Since, the coefficient $`\alpha `$ of $`k^1`$ is non-zero, the singularity is gravitationally strong. Having seen that naked singularity is a strong curvature singularity, we now turn our attention to check it for scalar polynomial singularity. We therefore examine the behavior of Kretschmann scalar ($`K=R_{abcd}R^{abcd}`$, $`R_{abcd}`$ is the Riemann tensor). The Kretschmann scalar with the help of eq. (3), takes the form

$$K=\frac{72}{r^4}X^4$$
(30)
which diverges at the naked singularity and hence the singularity is a scalar polynomial singularity. The Weyl scalar ($`C=C_{abcd}C^{abcd}`$, $`C_{abcd}`$ is the Weyl tensor) has the same expression as Kretschmann scalar and thus the Weyl scalar also diverges at the naked singularity and so the singularity is physically significant bs .

The Vaidya metric in $`4D`$ case has been extensively used to study the formation of naked singularity in spherical gravitational collapse pj . We have extended this study to higher dimensional Vaidya metric, and found that strong curvature naked singularities do arise for slightly higher value of inhomogeneity parameter. We have checked, for naked singularities to be gravitationally strong, by method in ck  and by alternative approach proposed by Nolan bc  as well, and both seem to be in agreement. It is straight forward to extend above analysis for non radial causal curves. Further, the Kretschmann and Weyl scalars blows up as singularity is approached. In conclusion, this offers a counter example to CCC.

Authors would like to thank IUCAA, Pune (INDIA) for the hospitality. Thanks are also due to Brien C. Nolan for helpful correspondence.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The search for the last missing particle predicted by the Standard Model, the Higgs boson, is one of the main topics in high energy physics at LEP. The Standard Model (SM) has been verified to a very high degree of precision but no Higgs boson has yet been discovered. Current searches at LEP in the Standard Model scenario  exclude Higgs bosons with masses $`m_{\mathrm{H}^0}`$ below 114.1 GeV at the 95% confidence level. Many proposed models extend the SM while preserving the good agreement with experimental data. A minimal extension of the SM, the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model (2HDM), has this property. In non-supersymmetric 2HDMs, Higgs bosons with small masses still cannot be excluded . The analysis presented here, a search for $`\mathrm{A}`$ and $`\mathrm{h}`$ in the mass range 4–12 GeV, provides new constraints on the parameter space of these models.

In the 2HDM, two complex Higgs doublets are introduced to generate the mass of the fermions:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\varphi _1^+}{\varphi _1^0}\right)\text{;}\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\varphi _2^+}{\varphi _2^0}\right).$$
(1)
One constraint for extended Higgs sectors is the experimental observation that the value of $`\rho m_{\mathrm{W}^\pm }^2/(m_\mathrm{Z}^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\mathrm{W})1`$. The condition of $`\rho 1`$ is automatically met by models with only Higgs doublets.

There are several possible patterns for how the new fields may couple to fermions. Four types of 2HDMs are theoretically considered in order to avoid introducing flavour changing neutral currents (FCNC) . The four types differ in the way the two Higgs fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ couple to fermions (see Table 1).

In this analysis the CP-conserving 2HDM type II is considered where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ couples to the down-type and the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ couples to the up-type matter fields. This 2HDM predicts five physical Higgs bosons: two charged ($`\mathrm{H}^\pm `$), two CP-even ($`\mathrm{H}^0`$, $`\mathrm{h}`$) and one CP-odd ($`\mathrm{A}`$) Higgs boson (the neutral Higgs bosons are often referred to as scalar and pseudoscalar, respectively). The Higgs sector of the general CP-conserving 2HDM has six free physical parameters  and can be parametrized by the masses $`m_{\mathrm{H}^\pm }`$, $`m_{\mathrm{H}^0}`$, $`m_\mathrm{h}`$ and $`m_\mathrm{A}`$ and two dimensionless parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, with $`\alpha `$ being the mixing angle in the CP-even neutral Higgs sector, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$ being the ratio of the two vacuum expectation values $`v_2`$ and $`v_1`$.

The Higgs sector in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) is a special case of a 2HDM type II model in which, due to relations imposed by supersymmetry, only two free parameters remain (eg. $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`\alpha `$) at tree level in the Higgs sector. Direct searches at LEP in the MSSM scenario have set limits on the Higgs mass and its parameter space. For example in a parameter scan where the parameter combination was chosen to give a maximal predicted mass $`m_\mathrm{h}`$, 95% C.L. limits have been set on the masses $`m_\mathrm{h}`$ and $`m_\mathrm{A}`$ larger than 88.4 GeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >0.4`$ .

## 2 Higgs Boson Production in $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ Collisions

There are three main processes for Higgs production at Born level within the energy range covered by LEP, namely the Higgsstrahlung, associated production and Yukawa processes shown in Figure 1, of which only the first process is of importance in the Standard Model. In the Standard Model the Yukawa process is suppressed by the factor $`(m_\mathrm{f}^2/m_\mathrm{h}^2)`$, and the associated production of Higgs bosons is nonexistent.

The cross-sections of the 2HDM are closely related to similar processes of the Standard Model:

$$\sigma (\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{h}\mathrm{Z}^{})=\sigma _{\mathrm{SM}}(\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{SM}}\mathrm{Z}^{})\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta \alpha )$$
(2)
$$\sigma (\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{h}\mathrm{A})=\sigma _{\mathrm{SM}}(\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{Z}\nu \overline{\nu })\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta \alpha )\lambda ^{\frac{3}{2}}$$
(3)
where $`\lambda =(1\kappa _\mathrm{h}\kappa _\mathrm{A})^24\kappa _\mathrm{h}^2\kappa _\mathrm{A}^2`$ being a phase space factor, with $`\kappa _i=m_i^2/m_\mathrm{Z}^2`$ .

In recent years there have been searches for the Standard Model Higgs boson as well as for MSSM Higgs bosons by all four LEP experiments . The interpretation of the flavour independent Higgs search within the 2HDM in the mass range below approximately $`40`$ GeV requires $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta \alpha )`$ to be less than 0.2 . For a sufficiently small $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta \alpha )`$, the $`\mathrm{h}`$ produced through the Higgsstrahlung process can not be seen in the data collected at LEP due to the cross-section suppression factor (Eqn. 2). Associated production, if kinematically allowed, would be the dominant process for Higgs boson production. On the other hand a light Higgs boson which is produced only in the Yukawa process ($`\mathrm{A}`$ or $`\mathrm{h}`$ whichever is lighter) could have escaped discovery. Under the assumption that the Higgsstrahlung process is suppressed and associated production is kinematically forbidden, $`m_\mathrm{A}+m_\mathrm{h}>\sqrt{s}`$, the Yukawa process becomes the dominant process for Higgs production at LEP. This scenario can easily be realised in the general 2HDM since its parameters are not constrained theoretically . In this analysis we concentrate on Higgs masses below the 2$`m_\mathrm{b}`$ threshold since previous analyses  are insensitive to such light Higgs bosons. We will also constrain ourselves to Higgs masses above the 2$`m_\tau `$ threshold.

The cross-section of the Yukawa process

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{Yukawa}}m_\mathrm{f}^2N_\mathrm{c}\xi _\mathrm{f}^2$$
(4)
is proportional to the squared fermion mass, $`m_\mathrm{f}^2`$, the colour factor, $`N_\mathrm{c}`$, of the emitting fermion, and an enhancement factor $`\xi _\mathrm{f}^2`$, which describes the coupling between the Higgs boson and the emitting fermion (see Table 2).

The range of $`\xi _d^{\mathrm{h}/\mathrm{A}}`$ for which a detectable signal would be produced can be divided into two parts:

1. $`\xi _d<1`$ (implies $`\xi _u>1`$): An up-type quark pair $`\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}`$ radiates a Higgs boson decaying into $`\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}`$.
2. $`\xi _d>1`$: A down-type quark pair $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ radiates a Higgs boson decaying into $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$.

In this analysis, only the $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$$`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ final state is considered, since background suppression can be performed more efficiently using the clear signature of bottom decay, together with the missing energy and low-multiplicity signature of $`\tau `$ decays. In Figure 2 the respective numbers of expected events are shown as a function of $`\xi _d^\mathrm{h}`$ for the example of a CP-even Higgs with a mass of 4 GeV.

## 3 Search in the $`𝐛\overline{𝐛}`$$`𝝉^\mathbf{+}𝝉^{\mathbf{}}`$ Channel

### 3.1 Data and Monte Carlo Samples

The present analysis is based on data collected with the OPAL detector  during the years 1992–1995, taken at centre-of-mass energies close to the $`\mathrm{Z}`$ peak. Although the integrated luminosity at LEP recorded at $`\sqrt{s}`$ between 130 and 208 GeV is about a factor five higher than the luminosity around the $`\mathrm{Z}`$ peak, the number of produced b quarks is about a factor of 100 smaller in the higher-energy data. Therefore we only use data recorded at the $`\mathrm{Z}`$ peak at centre-of-mass energies near 91 GeV to search for Yukawa production of Higgs bosons. The data collected at off-peak energies in the range between 89 GeV and 93 GeV are included to increase the available statistics. Since the characteristics of signal events do not depend on the precise center-of-mass energy, and since the background is completely dominated by SM hadronic $`\mathrm{Z}`$ decays, we can treat the data as if all were taken on-peak by rescaling the off-peak luminosity appropriately. For this we count the number of observed hadronic events  in the data. This number, efficiency corrected and divided by the peak cross-section for hadronic $`\mathrm{Z}`$ decays of 30.45 nb as measured by OPAL , then yields an effective on-peak luminosity of 113.1 $`\mathrm{pb}^1`$ , from which about 12% is contributed by the data taken off-peak.

We consider three types of background classes, with the full detector response simulated as described in , using the following generators.

1. Two-photon background, generated with Vermaseren 1.01  and PHOJET

* Two-photon production of hadronic final states is characterized by little visible energy in the detector. Usually, the e+ and e- escape undetected close to the beam axis, causing only a small amount of transverse momentum. The relatively large cross-section of this process nevertheless makes us consider it as a potential background. The Monte Carlo sample of about two million two-photon events corresponds to a luminosity of about four times the data luminosity.
2. Four-fermion background, generated with FERMISV  and grc4f

* The four-fermion background at LEP 1 mainly originates from Initial State Pair (ISP) and Final State Pair (FSP) radiation diagrams. This background class can be divided into two subclasses, the first containing four lepton final states and the second having $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$$`\mathrm{f}\overline{\mathrm{f}}`$ final states. The first subclass is eliminated by requiring the event to pass a general multihadronic selection . The second class contains a small amount of irreducible $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$ $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$$`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ background with a charged lepton pair, mainly from FSP radiation. The Monte Carlo sample of about 25000 four-fermion events corresponds to a luminosity of about eight times the data luminosity.
3. $`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ background, generated with Jetset 7.4

* This class of background consists of events of the type $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$`\mathrm{Z}/\gamma \mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$. Events with gluons radiated off the quarks, especially $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$`\mathrm{Z}/\gamma \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}\mathrm{g}(\mathrm{g})`$, are very likely to have signal characteristics and represent the main background in this analysis. The Monte Carlo sample of about seven million processed $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ events corresponds to a luminosity about two times the data luminosity. Generated Monte Carlo $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ background samples for different detector setups are weighted according to the respective luminosity for the data.

Eighteen signal samples of 10000 events each with masses of $`m_{\mathrm{h}/\mathrm{A}}`$=4–12 GeV in one GeV steps were generated using a newly written Monte Carlo program based on . The hadronisation is done with JETSET version 7.408  together with OPAL specific modifications . The decay of the tau leptons is simulated with the tau decay library TAUOLA . These signal events are subjected to the same reconstruction and event selection as the real data.

### 3.2 Analysis Tools

In calculating the visible energies and momenta, $`E_{vis}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{P}_{vis}`$, of individual jets and of the total event, “energy-flow objects” are formed from the charged tracks and calorimeter clusters . To avoid double counting, the energies expected to be deposited in the calorimeters by the charged particles are subtracted from the energies of the associated calorimeter clusters.

In order to identify jets containing b hadron decays, three independent techniques using lifetime, high-$`p_t`$ lepton characteristics and kinematic information are used. Artificial Neural Networks (ANN’s) have been trained to combine several lifetime-sensitive tagging variables and kinematic variables. For each jet, the outputs of the lifetime ANN, the kinematic ANN, and the lepton tag are combined into a likelihood variable $`B`$ which discriminates b-flavoured jets from c-flavoured jets and light quark jets .

### 3.3 Properties of Yukawa Production

One of the properties of Yukawa production is the hard energy spectrum of the emitted Higgs bosons. In Figure 3 the energy distributions of the $`\mathrm{A}`$ and $`\mathrm{h}`$ are shown. This leads to a high boost of the decay products of the Higgs particles and results in a small angle between the two $`\tau `$’s in the detector. Consequently, the tracks of the decay products of the two $`\tau `$’s can be reconstructed in one single low-multiplicity jet. In addition, two high-multiplicity jets are expected to be associated with the b quarks. Thus the expected topology of a signal event has a three jet signature. A simulated signal event is shown in Figure 4. In this analysis each event is forced into three jets using the Durham algorithm . The jets are sorted according to their multiplicity, assuming that the jet with the lowest charged particle multiplicity (denoted ‘Jet(3)’) contains the two $`\tau `$ leptons from the Higgs decay.

### 3.4 Event Selection

The event selection consists of two parts, a preselection and a subsequent likelihood selection. Since the unknown Higgs mass enters in the properties of the likelihood variables, the selection was performed and optimized separately for each of the nine simulated signal mass hypotheses.

The preselection consists of the eight cuts described below (see Figure 5).

* General hadronic event selection as described in .
* $`E_{vis}<90`$ GeV. Due to the neutrinos from $`\tau `$ decays the signal events have missing energy in the detector. This cut on the visible energy primarily suppresses $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ background.
* $`P_t(miss)>3`$ GeV. The cut on the transverse missing momentum in the event is additionally introduced to reduce two-photon background.
* To suppress two-photon events further, we require the missing momentum vector to have $`|\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{beam}\mathrm{axis},\stackrel{}{\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{miss}})|<0.95`$.
* A two dimensional cut $`3C+\mathrm{log}(y_{32})4.5`$ on the event shape variables, $`C`$-value  and $`y_{32}`$ , is introduced to suppress two-jet like events.
* A large fraction of the missing momentum in the event is due to the undetectable neutrinos of the decaying $`\tau `$’s in Jet(3). Therefore a cut on the angle between Jet(3) and $`\stackrel{}{P}_{miss}`$ is introduced: $`\mathrm{cos}(\text{Jet(3)},\stackrel{}{P}_{miss})>0.6`$.
* We require at least one identified electron or muon in Jet(3). Electrons are identified according to  and muons according to . This cut is made to reduce $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ background and to define efficient likelihood variables. The probability of two $`\tau `$ decays containing at least one charged lepton is approximately 60%. To ensure the correct efficiency modelling in the Monte Carlo a further cut on the lepton momentum, $`P_l>2`$ GeV, is added.
* 2 $`N_{track}`$ 4 in Jet(3). This cut on the charged multiplicity of Jet(3) is introduced in order to optimize the ratio of signal over square root of background after the likelihood selection.

As shown in Table 3, the observed number of data events and the expected background agree well at each step of the preselection. Of the background passing the general multihadronic selection (cut 0) about 2% of the four-fermion events, 0.4% of the $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ events and 0.3% of the two-photon events remain after the complete preselection, with the $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ background clearly being the dominant contribution. The signal selection efficiency, only weakly dependent of the Higgs boson mass, ranges from 11% to 17%, depending on the signal sample, as detailed for some typical masses in Table 4.

From reference histograms of eight variables, listed below, we define signal likelihood selections for each mass hypothesis, both for the $`\mathrm{h}`$ and the $`\mathrm{A}`$ Higgs boson. Due to the overwhelming dominance of the $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ background, we use a single inclusive background class. The eight reference histograms are (see Figure 6):

1. $`B_1`$. The ‘b-ness’ of the jet with the highest multiplicity. This value is defined as

$$B_1=\frac{L_b}{L_b+L_c+L_{uds}}.$$
(5)
Here $`L_b`$, $`L_c`$ and $`L_{uds}`$ are likelihood values for bottom, charm and light flavour jets respectively .
2. $`B_2`$. The ‘b-ness’ value of the jet with the second highest multiplicity.
3. $`M_{vis}`$. The measured invariant mass of the event.
4. The $`C`$-value of the event .
5. $`(P_1+P_2)/E_{jet}`$ in Jet(3). The sum of the momenta of the two tracks in Jet(3) with the highest momentum divided by the measured energy in Jet(3).
6. $`P_t`$. The transverse momentum of the event, with respect to the beam axis.
7. $`\mathrm{log}(y_{32})`$. The logarithm of the $`y_{32}`$ value of the event .
8. $`\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{Jet}(1),\mathrm{Jet}(2))`$. Cosine of the angle between the jet with the highest multiplicity (Jet(1)) and the one with the second highest multiplicity (Jet(2)).

The likelihood distributions are shown in Figure 7. The likelihood cuts are determined separately for each Higgs type and mass hypothesis in a compromise to achieve a good expected limit, calculated with Monte Carlo experiments, and a smooth behavior of efficiency and expected number of backgrounds as a function of the Higgs mass. After the likelihood cut the data are in good agreement with background Monte Carlo simulation (see Table 5 and Table 6).

## 4 Systematic Studies

In order to estimate systematic uncertainties, the following sources of uncertainty are varied in the Monte Carlo, one at a time, and the analysis is redone with the adjusted samples to calculate the difference in the background expectation and the efficiency with respect to the standard analysis. For variations done in two directions, with respect to the central value, the largest deviation in expected background and efficiency after re-analysis is taken as the systematic uncertainty. The following sources of uncertainty were studied:

* The systematic error contributed by the b-tagging due to track resolution modelling. This was estimated with a variation of the track parameters $`\varphi _0\pm 5`$%, $`d_0\pm 5`$%, $`z_0\pm 10`$% as described in . This variation particularly influences the values of track- and secondary vertex significances ($`d/\sigma _d`$ and $`l/\sigma _l`$) which are important variables for the b-tagging procedure.
* The uncertainty in the b-quark fragmentation function  is estimated by varying $`ϵ_\mathrm{b}`$ by $`\pm 25`$% around a central value of $`ϵ_\mathrm{b}=0.0038`$ . A smaller(higher) value of $`ϵ_\mathrm{b}`$ corresponds to a harder(softer) B-hadron spectrum.
* Description of the kinematic variables used in the likelihood selection. The kinematic likelihood variables in the Monte Carlo were shifted to match the mean of the data. After the shift on the variable the selection is reapplied and the deviations in the expected background and efficiency are taken as systematic errors.
* The B-hadron charged decay multiplicity uncertainty .

The systematic deviations are calculated separately for the two different hypotheses on Higgs type ($`\mathrm{A}`$ and $`\mathrm{h}`$) after a likelihood cut at 0.8 to ensure that statistical contributions to the estimated systematic errors are minimal.

Furthermore the analysis for one typical Higgs hypothesis ($`m_\mathrm{h}`$$`=`$5 GeV) was redone under the assumption of 100% correlated helicity states of the $`\tau `$’s. The deviation of 1.3% for signal and 1.5% for background expectation were included as a source of systematic uncertainty. The contributions to the systematic uncertainty are broken down for the analyses in Table 7.

Adding in quadrature the statistical uncertainties and the uncertainties from the above sources yields the total errors, listed in Table 5 and Table 6, on the selection efficiency and background rates for all nine masses of $`\mathrm{A}`$ and $`\mathrm{h}`$. The uncertainty due to the b-fragmentation function is the highest contribution.

## 5 Limits on $`𝝃^{𝐡\mathbf{/}𝐀}`$ in the 2HDM Type II

The results of the selection with systematic and statistical errors are listed in Table 5 for the $`\mathrm{A}`$ and in Table 6 for the $`\mathrm{h}`$.

2HDM Type II limits are determined for the cross-section of the process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$ $`\mathrm{Z}`$$``$ $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$$`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$. Due to the dependence of the cross-section (Eqn. 4) on the enhancement factor $`\xi _d^{\mathrm{h}/\mathrm{A}}`$, a limit on $`\xi `$ is obtained by calculating $`N_{95}`$, the 95% C.L. upper limit on the rate of accepted signal events in the data, according to , and adjusting for the efficiency, cross section, and luminosity.

The total error on the efficiency and on the background estimation are convoluted into the limit according to . For the mass points between the measured ones, in one GeV steps from 4 to 12 GeV, the limit is linearly interpolated from the two neighbouring measurements. Comparing limits obtained with analyses optimized to neighbouring mass points, the uncertainty of the interpolation was estimated to be less than 0.5 units in $`\xi `$.

Assuming a branching ratio of 100% for Higgs boson decays into $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ the limits on $`\xi _d^{\mathrm{h}/\mathrm{A}}`$ are shown in Figure 8(a) for $`\mathrm{A}`$ production and in Figure 8(b) for $`\mathrm{h}`$ production, and are summarised in Table 8.

In a 2HDM model with Standard Model particle content, the Higgs branching ratio into $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ for $`\xi _d10`$ is about 85% for Higgs masses between 4 and 9.4 GeV. In the mass range from 9.4 Gev to 11.0 GeV the branching ratios are very much influenced by mixing of the Higgs bosons $`\mathrm{h}`$ and $`\mathrm{A}`$ with $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ bound states with the same quantum numbers (see Table 9). We have therefore calculated the branching ratios of the Higgs into $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ according to reference . The limits derived within this model are shown in Figure 9(a) and (b) for CP-odd and CP-even Higgs production, respectively. The observed structure, in particular at higher Higgs boson masses, is a consequence of the behaviour of the branching ratio in this particular model.

## 6 Implications for the Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment

Recent measurements of the anomalous magnetic moment, $`a_\mu =\frac{1}{2}(g2)_\mu `$, of the muon have given a result which deviates from the Standard Model expectation by $`400\times 10^{11}`$, corresponding to about 2.6 standard deviations . Depending on the estimation of the hadronic contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment, the 90% C.L. ranges for the contribution of New Physics $`\delta a_\mu (\mathrm{NP})`$ are:

$`215\times 10^{11}`$ $`\delta a_\mu (\mathrm{NP})`$ $`637\times 10^{11}\text{[35]}`$ (6)
$`170\times 10^{11}`$ $`\delta a_\mu (\mathrm{NP})`$ $`690\times 10^{11}\text{[36]}`$ (7)
$`112\times 10^{11}`$ $`\delta a_\mu (\mathrm{NP})`$ $`573\times 10^{11}\text{[37]}`$ (8)
Light Higgs bosons A and h could form a part of $`a_\mu `$ via loop diagrams. A one-loop calculation  predicts positive contributions $`\delta a_\mu ^I`$(h) $`>0`$ for the h, and negative contributions $`\delta a_\mu ^I`$(A) $`<0`$ for the A. The two-loop terms, due to the stronger coupling of the Higgs fields to loops with heavy quarks, turn out to be larger in magnitude than the one-loop terms, and of opposite sign , giving a total positive contribution $`\delta a_\mu ^{II}`$(A) $`>0`$ for the $`\mathrm{A}`$, as shown with indicated isolines in Figure 9 (a) . However, the two-loop terms gives a total negative contribution $`\delta a_\mu ^{II}`$(h) $`<0`$ for the $`\mathrm{h}`$, thus suggesting that the $`\mathrm{h}`$ can not account for the BNL observation. We show in Figure 9 (b) only the isolines of the contribution from the earlier one-loop calculation  which resulted in a positive value of $`\delta a_\mu ^I`$(h). Our data exclude positive contributions $`\delta a_\mu ^I`$(h) $`>100\times 10^{11}`$ for h masses between 4.0 and 10.7 GeV at the one-loop level, and $`\delta a_\mu ^{II}`$(A) $`>100\times 10^{11}`$ for A masses betwen 4.0 and 9.9 GeV at the two-loop level. Similar limits have been derived from radiative $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ decays  for h/A masses lighter than about 8 GeV, with, however, large QCD uncertainies.

In reference  and  the authors have suggested that a light Higgs boson could fully account for the observed deviation of the measured $`(g2)_\mu `$ from the Standard Model expectation. In a scenario without contributions of other new particles, eg. gauginos, and assuming that either $`\mathrm{h}`$ or $`\mathrm{A}`$ is heavy enough to render associated $`\mathrm{A}`$$`\mathrm{h}`$ production inaccessible at LEP, only the lighter of the two Higgs bosons would sizeably contribute. For a light h, one has to assume in addition $`\mathrm{sin}(\beta \alpha )0`$ to explain its non-observation in the Standard Model search for the Higgsstrahlung process. The experimental results of this analysis can be interpreted in such a scenario and would rule out (using the one-loop calculation ) a light h in the mass range of 4–10.7 GeV, and (using the two-loop calculation ) a light A in the mass range from 4–9.9 GeV as the only source of the discrepancy in the $`(g2)_\mu `$ measurement for all three 90% C.L. ranges listed above.

## 7 Conclusion

The Yukawa production of light neutral Higgs bosons in the channel $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$ $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$$`\mathrm{A}`$/$`\mathrm{h}`$$``$ $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$$`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ is studied. The search presented here, based on data collected by OPAL at $`\sqrt{s}m_\mathrm{Z}`$ in the years 1992 to 1995, has not revealed any significant excess over the expected background. Limits on the Yukawa production of a light Higgs with masses in the range of 4 GeV to 12 GeV have been set at 95% C.L. New limits on the parameters $`\xi _d^\mathrm{A}=|\mathrm{tan}\beta |`$ and $`\xi _d^\mathrm{h}=|\mathrm{sin}\alpha /\mathrm{cos}\beta |`$ are presented for $`\mathrm{A}`$ and $`\mathrm{h}`$ production, respectively. Assuming a branching ratio to $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ of 100% , upper limits for $`\xi _d^\mathrm{A}`$ can be set within the range of 8.5 to 13.6 and for $`\xi _d^\mathrm{h}`$ between 8.2 to 13.7, depending on the mass of the Higgs boson. In a 2HDM type II model with Standard Model particle content similar limits are obtained up to masses of 9.4 GeV. Above 9.4 GeV the mixing of the Higgs bosons $`\mathrm{h}`$ and $`\mathrm{A}`$ with $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ bound states with the same quantum numbers, especially for the CP-odd $`\mathrm{A}`$, results in weaker limits in certain mass ranges. The experimental result of this analysis restricts the contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon for a light h in the mass range of 4–10.7 GeV (using one-loop calculation ) and for a light A in the mass range from 4–9.9 GeV (using the two-loop calculation of ) to $`\delta a_\mu (\mathrm{Higgs})<100\times 10^{11}`$ at the 95% C.L.

## 8 Acknowledgements

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


text:
# HyperPro An integrated documentation environment for CLP11footnote 1In A. Kusalik (ed), Proceedings of the Eleventh Workshop on Logic Programming Environments (WLPE’01), December 1, 2001, Paphos, Cyprus. COmputer Research Repository (http://www.acm.org/corr/), ** your cs.PL/0111046 or cs.SE/0111046**; whole proceedings: cs.PL/0111042.

## 1 Introduction

HyperPro is a documentation and development tool for Constraint Logic Programming (CLP) systems. HyperPro helps to document CLP programs giving its users the possibility to edit, in a homogeneous and integrated environment, a single program or different versions of a program, comments about them, information for formal verification and debugging purposes, as well as the possibility to execute, debug and test the program or program versions as well. All the tests executed on a CLP program and its history of development can therefore be integrated and consistently documented within an unique environment.

HyperPro has two basic characteristics: version management and documentation. A particular aspect of CLP is that the written programs are short and they can be tested on multiple versions which differ only by small changes. In fact, for example, the way constraints are ordered may drastically affect the efficiency and the reachability of a solution. It is thus essential for the user to keep trace of the many versions of a program (there is potentially an exponential number of versions). In this approach of program development, documentation is at least as useful as the code of the program itself. It can be compared to elaboration of formal specification where documentation (or requirements) in natural language plays a role at least as significant as the code.

The HyperPro system, developed by the authors, make use of the Thot editor and its API. Thot is a structured editing tool with hypertext editing facilities. It was developed at INRIA and it is based on the logical aspect of the document (, , , ). Thot uses a meta-model that allows the description of several models of documents, with their various presentations, through dedicated languages. Thot is in fact very comparable with XML technology (). Its language $`𝒮`$ defining the structure of a document is similar to XML’s DTD (Document Type Definition). Its languages $`𝒫`$ and $`𝒯`$ (respectively presentation and translation languages) could be compared with the XSL (eXtensible Stylesheet Language) and XSLT (for Transformation). We chose Thot because it provides an API which allows the easy creation of an editor such as HyperPro and offers the possibility to integrate new applications to existing ones. It has also a remarkable feature: the possibility to open several views of the same document in synchronized windows.

This paper describes some of the HyperPro functionalities which are: static synchronized views of the document; management of multiple versions of a program within the same document; testing of different program versions; test of these versions using external CLP systems; dynamic views (produced by projections requests); indexes; exports of the document under different formats for processing with other systems. This paper completes the presentation of HyperPro published in  and presents the main novelties: support for execution, exportations, indexes and projections. Projection is a mechanism for extracting and exporting relevant pieces of code according to specific criteria. Indexes are of three types: the traditional index of words, the index of the relations cross references and the index of the program versions. The two latter relate to the code parts and highlight the ”two-dimensional” hypertext structure of a document.

Thanks to the modularity of the implementation, with few changes, HyperPro can be adapted to other languages such as the language C (cf. ).

In section 2, we survey basic HyperPro features whose ideas where initially presented in : static views, versions, program execution and exportations.

Section 3 is dedicated to the indexes, section 4 to dynamic views (or projections) and we conclude this paper by a comparison between HyperPro and other literate programming systems.

## 2 HyperPro Functionalities

This section introduces the most important functionalities of HyperPro, which are the static views of different parts of the document, program versions, their testing and document export in various formats.

The HyperPro document looks like a report. It must have a title, a sequence of at least one section, a table of contents and a words index. Optionally, it can contain the date, the authors’ names and their affiliations, keywords, bibliographical references, annexes and other indexes. HyperPro defines, also, a special style for logic programming, so a paragraph, may be also a relation definition. At least one relation definition must be present in a HyperPro document. A relation definition contains a relation title and a list of at least one predicate definition. The relation title is defined by a predicate indicator, that is the predicate name and its arity, or just a name, since a packet of goals or directives can be seen as a special case of relations. The relation title contains also a reference to a predicate definition, followed optionally by a list of references to predicate definitions that define a unique program or different versions of the program.

### 2.1 Static views

Thot allows the user to define views of his document, such that, chosen portions of it are presented separately in a view. Views are synchronized in such a way to facilitate selecting, moving and editing consistently and easily in a particular view as much as in the main view. HyperPro provides several different views of the same document: the main view that shows the whole document, the table of contents, the informal comments on relations, the assertions on relations, the relations code which are a collection of packets of clauses corresponding to different versions of the same relation. The main view and the table of contents are displayed automatically, when a document is open. The other views are shown on demand by the user through the appropriate menu bar.

By clicking somewhere in the main view, like in one of the other opened views, all the views are synchronized simultaneously to present the corresponding part of the referred text.

### 2.2 Program Versions

The possibility of being able to manage various versions of a program during the development and documentation is a significant feature offered by HyperPro. This possibility finds all its interest in the case of the Constraint Logic Programming. Indeed, it is interesting to be able to integrate in the same document several versions which, for example, differ only by one clause or are completely different because they are based on different algorithms.

Every relation is defined by at least one packet of clauses. Among these packets we distinguish a particular one which is the current packet defining the relation. It is called the current predicate definition (c.p.d.). The c.p.d. is pointed by a hypertext link placed in the relation title. This link is called the current predicate reference (\[c.p.r.\]). The \[c.p.r.\] can be changed to point to any other predicate definition the user wishes, within the same relation definition. The \[c.p.r.\] are obligatory since they define the current or the default predicate definition for each relation in the document.

A program is defined when it has appropriate references to the relations which compose it. Once all the relations and their c.p.d. for a program are given, the user defines the program by putting a hypertext reference to the relation which defines the predication in every predication in the body of all relation’s c.p.d. These references are called definition references (\[def.\]). The user does not have to put \[def.\] to predications in the body of the c.p.d. which are direct recursive calls.

Figure 1(a) shows some relations defined for a program, with the \[c.p.r.\] presented in the relation titles composing the program and the \[def.\] in the predications at the body of the c.p.d. The document has two sections, section 1.1, which defines relations a/1, b/2, and c/1, and section 1.2, which defines relation a/1. Only relation a/1 in section 1.1 has two predicate definitions defined for it. The \[c.p.r.\] for relation a/1 points to its first predicate definition. The \[c.p.r.\] are represented by full lines in the figure. The dashed lines represent the definition references, which are presented in the text of the document as \[def.\]. As it is shown, they point to the relation titles they refer to. Note that there are no \[def.\] for predications recursively referring to the relation they are defining.

The \[def.\], together with the version naming utility, allows the user to effectively manage and document different versions of the program in the same document which can have different relations with the same name and arity. Conflicts between relations are therefore solved and managed explicitly and manually by the user with \[def.\]. Different versions of the program defined in a document are distinguished from each other by their names and are managed with the corresponding naming reference. The naming reference allows the user and the utilities based on it to follow and retrieve all predicate clauses of every relation in a program as defined by the chain of \[def.\] of every relation linked in it.

To name a version, once the \[def.\] for a program are inserted for the predications in the body of the c.p.d. as explained above, the user selects the utility name a version in the Tools menu. A window opens and the user enters a name for the version. The user then chooses the first relation composing his program and a named reference is put then automatically in the version bar, after the title of every relation composing the version, pointing to the respective c.p.d. of each relation in the program.

Figure 1(c) shows two different versions named V1 and V2 defined in a document which has, among others, two different relations with the same name and the same arity. This figure shows the final state after defining both versions. However, the user first named version V1, as presented in Figure 1(b) by choosing the utility “name a version” in the tools menu, giving the version the name V1, and finally choosing relation a/1, which is the first relation in his version. The pointers for V1 point to the c.p.d., i.e. to the same predicate definitions pointed to by the \[c.p.r.\].

Afterwards, the user entered a new section, numbered 1.2, where he defined relation a/1. In its predicate definition, the second clause for a/1 refers to relation c/1, previously defined in section 1.1. Therefore, he puts a \[def.\] after the predication c(X), which points to relation c/1 in section 1.1. Then the user proceeds to name this new version, choosing for it the name of V2. After choosing relation a/1 in section 1.2, the naming reference V2 appears in the version bar after its title, which points to the c.p.d. pointed to by the \[c.p.r.\], as it appears in the title of relation c/1 as well, since it also became part of version V2.

The user is able to delete a version by simply indicating its name. The system then removes automatically all the pointers defining it as well as the name of this one accompanying the relation titles in which it appears.

In Figure 1(c), we still consider the same HyperPro document presented in Figure 1(b). However, here the user modified the \[c.p.r.\] for relation a/1 in section 1.1 and added a new predicate definition for relation b/2, modifying also its \[c.p.r.\] so as to point to its second predicate definition. However, the naming reference V1 previously defined still points to the previous predicate definition. The \[def.\] are not shown in this figure so as not to complicate the figure excessively. Then, the user proceeds to define this version with the utility name a version, giving it the name V1 (or other name) and choosing the relation a/1. Then, a naming reference V1 is automatically put in the version bar after every title of all the relations of the version, along the \[c.p.r.\]/\[def.\] chain.

### 2.3 Program Testing

Once a version is defined, the user can test it, take a view of it, verify it syntactically or export it. To test a program or a version the user should specify the interpreter for a language he wants to test, from the available ones, in a menu. Then, he can choose one of the following test modes: program/version mode; clause/relation mode; automated recursive mode.

In the program/version mode, the user selects a named version wherever it appears in the document and then HyperPro opens a test window where the previously chosen interpreter is run and where the version is loaded, starting from the beginning of the program. The clause/relation mode allows the user to select any packet of clauses or relation which are loaded in the test window. If a relation is selected, it is loaded from its c.p.d. In the automated recursive mode, the user selects one relation in the document and the test utility loads it, following the \[c.p.r\]/\[def.\] chain in which the selected predicate definitions are included, starting from the the selected relation. It is the simplest way to test a small program or any set of few predicates, without having to explicitly define a program or a version.

The user can then run and test his program, version or packet of clauses in the test window. Therefore, the only thing that changes when testing a program in each mode is what is loaded from the document in the test window.

### 2.4 Document Exporting Facilities

HyperPro allows the user to export the whole document in four different formats: ASCII, , Postscript and HTML. The ASCII exporting facility simply makes a dump of ASCII codes of the document into a file. It is useful during HyperPro development especially when the structure of the HyperPro document is changed. The exporting facility dumps a HyperPro document into a file in atex format. The logical structure of the original document is entirely reflected in the file, except for the hypertext links, for obvious reasons. However, the indexes are mirrored in the document, so that the hypertext version of the original document is faithfully rendered in paper, as much as possible. The table of contents is maintained in the version of the document. The HTML exporting facility makes the original HyperPro document viewable by any available web browser, where the original hypertext links appear as such in the HTML version of the document. It is also possible to export only part of the document like a version or a packet of clauses using appropriate menus.

## 3 Indexes

When presenting any hypertext document in two dimensions, as on paper, we obviously loose the hypertext links together with the linked information, and the hypertext facilities as well. The only way to render these informations again in two dimensions is by means of indexes. But this is not the only reason to build indexes. In fact, an index can present the information of all linked information linearly, allowing the user to access any node of the linked hypertext structure instantly, and not only through the linear link sequencing. Another advantage of building indexes, since the HyperPro editor allows the presentation of any part of a document in a separate view, is that we can present, through the index-based projections in HyperPro, parts of the original document by selecting the appropriate information directly from the indexes in a HyperPro document. We present each of the HyperPro indexes in the next subsection and the index-based projections in the following one.

A HyperPro document has two hypertext structures: one linking together information about relations and the other connecting relations together in program versions.There is an index for each of these hypertext structure, called Cross Reference Index and Versions Index, respectively. Each of these indexes is built independently through the Tools menu presented in the HyperPro editor. Once an index is built, the HyperPro system opens a new view for the corresponding index.

### 3.1 Cross Reference Index

The Cross Reference Index indicates the page number of every relation appearing in the document, the page number where the relation’s current predicate definition is found, and the page numbers where the relation is used in other parts of the relations defined in the document, independently of versions. It is an absolute index of relation definitions. Each of these page entries is presented differently in the HyperPro document, as well as printed: the relation position in the document is shown in italic, the current predicate definition in bold, and each entry where the relations used in normal font. Figure 2 shows a Cross Reference Index built for a HyperPro document.

Since the index page entries are hypertext links, the user can access the corresponding part of the original document by just clicking its index page entry, and the main document view will present synchronously the part of the document corresponding to the entry.

### 3.2 Versions Index

The Versions Index presents, for each version, all the relations which are part of it, together with the document page number where the relation is defined. Figure 3 shows a Versions Index. The first entry indicates where the version was firstly defined, i.e. in which page of the document is found the predicate definition pointed to by the first named references appearing in the document, as all corresponding predicate definitions pointed to by the named references for each relation included in the version as well.

As for the Cross Reference Index, each page number of a relation entry in the Versions Index is a hypertext link to the corresponding place where the relation is defined. Even if there are more than one relation with the same name and arity, both defined in the same document page, each participating of a different version, the main view will show only the corresponding entry for each relation page entry link clicked.

## 4 Dynamic views

HyperPro allows the possibility to project and view separately some parts of the document selected by the user following some criteria.

The dynamic views (called also projection views) HyperPro offers are: manual projection view; automated projection view; version view; recursive projection view; index-based projection view.

A projection view displays selected portions of the document in a separate view. The selection processes depends on the projection wanted. Projections differ from static views on the selection process, which are already incorporated in Thot’s machinery in the case of static views, but have to be provided dynamically by the HyperPro implementors in case of projections.

In the Manual Projection View Mode the user is free to select any part of the document, called elements, to be viewed. The granularity of the selected element is defined to be paragraphs and relation definitions. Therefore, when the user clicks in any of these elements or in their descendants, the projection will show the whole paragraph or relation definition.

In the Recursive Projection View the user selects one or more relations and HyperPro shows in a separate view all the packets of clauses in the \[c.p.r.\]/\[def.\] chain in which the relation is inserted, including obviously the packet pointed to by its own \[c.p.r.\]. This projection view is rather useful to help the user to detect which predications have not yet its \[def.\] set, or to find out where it is set to.

In the Automated Projection View Mode, the user gives some regular expression and HyperPro shows in a separate view all the portions of the document where the regular expression appears. The smallest granularity for this projection is a word.

The Version Projection View shows the user, in a separate view, all the packets of clauses composing a program or version chosen by the user in the document.

Index-Based Projection View: HyperPro offers a projection associated to indexes. Once an index view is built, as explained in Section 3, the user can choose in the Tools menu the Projections entry which will show a sub-menu where the different projections are presented. If the user chooses the Index based entry, clicking on an index entry, either Versions or Cross Reference, HyperPro will automatically show in another separate view what is related to the entry chosen in the index view. For instance, if the user clicks on a Version Index view entry, the projection will present in its view all the relations which are part of that version entry, and only them. Clicking on any part of the projection view will synchronously present the corresponding part of the document on the main view. In the case of the Cross Reference Index, the projection will show the relation corresponding to the entry the user clicked on. Figure 4 presents the image of a projection view for an entry of the Version Index shown in Figure 3.

## 5 HyperPro Interfaces

In this section we present the user’s schematic interfaces such as menus and sub-menus for the functionalities and utilities that should be present in HyperPro. Some functionalities and utilities appear in specific Thot menus, like the export, views and index facilities. However, the manual and automated projection view, the version or program view, the recursive view and the index-based projection views facilities appear in the Tools menu, as the others utilities as well. The reason is that Thot allows anyone to include his own facilities using the Thot toolbox.

Views are selected in the menu Views. There the user chooses the entry point to the sub-menu Open a view… and in there, he chooses the view he wants to open, including the indexes views. The views the user can open are, therefore: the main view of the whole document; the table of contents; view of the comments; view of the assertions; view of the clauses; view of indexes.

The exporting facilities are accessed by the Document menu, and the Save as… sub-menu. A window opens where the user can then choose the exporting facility he wants to use. We will not present here the index facility interface. Tools menu offers the user access to the following utilities: Make indexes, Versions, Projections, Tests, Syntax verification and HyperPro preferences.

All facilities interface is done through communications windows, where the user controls the utility and where the data input is done, and some utilities may open a specific window to work as their output interface, as explained above.

## 6 HyperPro Versus Other Systems for Documentation

At the current state-of-the-art, there are no satisfactory tools or widely accepted methodologies for documenting PROLOG programs. Donald Knuth introduced literate programming in the form of  Web, his tool for writing literate Pascal and C programs . The philosophy for documenting Pascal or C programs apparently offers the basis to establishing a methodology to document programs in the logic programming paradigm, but it seems not sufficient as we will see.

In the context of  Web-like literate programming systems developed since 1984, the following are the most important documentation systems: 1) Knuth’s  Web for Pascal and C ; 2) Ramsey’s  Noweb ; 3) Thimbleby’s  Cweb , a variant of Knuth’s  Web; 4) Ramsey’s  Spider  which is a  Web generator. The basic idea behind Literate Programming is that programmers should use three languages: a typesetting language, such as ; a programming language, such as Pascal, and a language which allows flexible combination of the typesetting and the programming texts into a single document. Thus, a literate program contains pieces of programs interleaved with descriptive texts. A literate programming system integrates these languages by providing tools to extract and process, from the input files, program texts and to generate documents containing summaries, index tables, cross-references, etc.

Cweb  is a tool to produce program documentation in a combination of C, the programming language, and troff, a text-formating language. The combined code and documentation can be processed and possibly typeset to result in a high-quality presentation including a table of contents, index, cross-referencing information, and related typographical conventions.  Cweb differs from  Web mainly in the choice of languages:  Web is based on Pascal and instead of C and troff or nroff.

Spider was designed for developing verified Ada programs. The difficulty of using  Web directly is that the intended target programming language is SSL (language for specifying structured editors), and the only languages for which  Web implementations were available were Pascal and C.  Spider is a  Web generator, akin to parser generators. Using  Spider the user can build a  Web without understanding the details of web’s implementation, and can easily adjust that  Web to change as a language definition changes.

Norman Ramsey has proposed a new literate programming system, called  Noweb , which is intended to be a simple and extensible tool. It was developed on Unix and can be ported to non-Unix systems provided that they can simulate pipelines and support both ANSI-C and either awk or icon.  Noweb can also work with HTML, the hypertext markup language for Netscape and the World-Wide Web. A  Noweb file is a sequence of chunks. A chunk may contain code or documentation and may appear in any order. Code chunks contain program source code and references to other code chunks. Several code chunks may have the same name. Ramsey claims that  Noweb is simpler than Knuth’s  Web due to its independence of the target programming language, but it also means that  Noweb can do less. At last,  Noweb works with both plain and . The system is extensible in the sense that new tools can be easily added to it, requiring no reprogramming. Its Weave tool preserves white spaces and program indentation when expanding chunks. Theses features are necessary to document program in languages like Miranda and Haskell, in which indentation is significant.

An other documentation generator called lpdoc was developed by Manuel Hermenegildo team . It is designed for (C)LP and more specifically Ciao programs. lpdoc generates a documentation, in various formats, automatically from one or more source files for a logic program. The quality of the documentation generated is enhanced when using the Ciao assertion language and the machine-readable comments (using the ’comment’ directives).

All the systems described above can not be considered as integrated environments for development and documentation. They do not offer a WYSIWYG tool to handle all literate programming aspects in an uniform way.

Our purpose while developing HyperPro was to offer a tool which permits to record all the experiences accumulated when developing an application based on constraint logic programming, and maintaining it: programming, documenting, debugging, performing verifications, testing. The high level of expressiveness of constraint logic programming makes possible to consider a program as an executable specification. HyperPro presented in this paper consider that a CLP program is a document written with a methodology which takes into account the peculiar aspects of logic programming on one side. On the other side, it has the flexibility of a textual document. All the information concerning the program development and its maintainance is recorded in this document.

## 7 Conclusion

We have presented a system based on the hypertext system Thot , called HyperPro, whose purpose is to facilitate logic programs development. It offers several facilities to view and handle documents at different levels of abstraction and from different point of view. Particularly, HyperPro aims to document CLP programs giving its users the possibility to edit, in a homogeneous and integrated environment, different versions of programs, comments about them, information for formal verification and debugging purposes, as well as the possibility to execute, debug and test the programs as well. All the attempts and development history of CLP programs can therefore be integrated and consistently documented within a unique environment gathering together a hypertext editor, different CLP interpreters and syntactical verifiers, as different debugging and verification tools as well. It also possesses several functions for exporting the document in different formats such as: html, latex, ascii, and producing projections, which are especial excerpts of the document, according to different criteria, such as, the program goal, pieces of code directly marked by the user, program versions, etc. HyperPro is convenient to create and maintain new programs. However, it still need program importation facilities in order to be able to incorporate and handle already existing programs.


text:
# Nucleon Charge and Magnetization Densities

## Abstract

We use a relativistic prescription to extract charge and magnetization densities from data for the scattering of high-energy electrons by nucleons. A Fourier-Bessel analysis is used to minimize the model dependence of the fitted densities. We find that the neutron and proton magnetization densities are very similar, but the proton charge density is significantly softer. A useful measurement of the neutron charge density is obtained, although the relative uncertainty in the interior will remain substantially larger than for the other densities until precise new data at higher $`Q^2`$ become available.

The electromagnetic structure of nucleons can be investigated using the electric and magnetic Sachs form factors, $`G_E`$ and $`G_M`$, measured by elastic scattering of high-energy electrons. Recent experiments with intense high-polarization electron beams have improved the quality of the data for nucleon elastic form factors. Perhaps the most dramatic observation  is that the ratio between the electric and magnetic form factors for the proton decreases sharply for $`1<Q^2<6`$ (GeV/$`c`$)2. It was suggested that these results demonstrate that the proton charge is distributed over a larger volume than its magnetization, but radial densities were not obtained. At low momentum transfer, the form factors are related to Fourier transforms of the charge and magnetization densities, but this interpretation is more complicated at high momentum transfer. Nevertheless, although models of nucleon structure can often calculate the form factors directly, it remains desirable to relate the form factors to spatial densities because our intuition tends to be based more firmly in space than momentum transfer. In this paper we use a Fourier-Bessel analysis, together with a relativistic relationship between form factors and densities, to parametrize the nucleon electromagnetic form factors in terms of charge and magnetization densities.

The nucleon electromagnetic vertex function takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =F_1(Q^2)\gamma ^\mu +\kappa F_2(Q^2)\frac{i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu }{2m}$$
(1)
where $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ are known as Dirac and Pauli form factors, $`\kappa `$ is the anomalous part of the magnetic moment, and $`\gamma ^\mu `$ and $`\sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$ are the usual Dirac matrices (e.g., ). This current operator appears simplest in the Breit frame where the nucleon approaches with initial momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}_B/2`$, receives three-momentum transfer $`\stackrel{}{q}_B`$, and leaves with final momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}_B/2`$ such that the energy transfer vanishes. In the Breit frame for a particular value of $`Q^2`$, the current separates into electric and magnetic contributions

$$\overline{u}(p^{},s^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu u(p,s)=\chi _s^{}^{}\left(G_E+\frac{i\stackrel{}{\sigma }\times \stackrel{}{q}_B}{2m}G_M\right)\chi _s$$
(2)
where $`\chi _s`$ is a two-component Pauli spinor and where the Sachs form factors are given by

$`G_E`$ $`=`$ $`F_1\tau \kappa F_2`$ (4)
$`G_M`$ $`=`$ $`F_1+\kappa F_2`$ (5)
with $`\tau =(Q/2m)^2`$. Naively it would appear that one could obtain charge and magnetization densities as Fourier transforms of the electric and magnetic form factors, but each momentum transfer $`Q`$ specifies a different Breit frame. Early experiments with modest $`Q^2`$ suggested that

$$G_{Ep}\frac{G_{Mp}}{\mu _p}\frac{G_{Mn}}{\mu _n}G_D$$

where $`\mu `$ is the magnetic moment in nuclear magnetons and $`G_D(Q^2)=(1+Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)^2`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=0.71`$ (GeV/$`c`$)2 is known as the dipole form factor. Similarly, data for $`G_{En}`$ at low $`Q^2`$ can be described by the Galster parametrization

$$G_{En}(Q^2)\mu _nG_D(Q^2)\frac{A\tau }{1+B\tau }$$
(6)
where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are constants.

Let $`\rho _{ch}(r)`$ and $`\rho _m(r)`$ represent spherical intrinsic charge and magnetization densities normalized according to

$$𝑑rr^2\rho _{ch}(r)=Z,𝑑rr^2\rho _m(r)=1$$

where $`Z=0,1`$ is the nucleon charge. An intrinsic form factor can then be defined by the Fourier-Bessel transform

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }(k)=𝑑rr^2j_0(kr)\rho (r)$$
(7)
where $`k`$ is the intrinsic spatial frequency (or wave number). If one knew how to obtain $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(k)`$ from data for the appropriate Sachs form factor, the intrinsic density could be obtained simply by inverting the Fourier transform, such that

$$\rho (r)=\frac{2}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kk^2j_0(kr)\stackrel{~}{\rho }(k)$$
(8)
The naive or nonrelativistic inversion from form factor to density replaces $`Q`$ by $`k`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(k)`$ by $`G(Q^2)`$, but leads to unsatisfactory densities for dipole or Galster form factors — the direct Fourier transform of a dipole form factor is an exponential density with a cusp at the origin. The corresponding density for the Galster form factor is more complicated but also features an unphysical cusp at the origin.

Although there is no rigorous model-independent relationship between the Sachs form factor and the corresponding static density in the rest frame, a variety of models offer prescriptions of the form

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ch}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`G_E(Q^2)(1+\tau )^{\lambda _E}`$ (10)
$`\mu \stackrel{~}{\rho }_m(k)`$ $`=`$ $`G_M(Q^2)(1+\tau )^{\lambda _M}`$ (11)
where $`\lambda `$ is a model-dependent constant and where the intrinsic spatial frequency $`k`$ is related to the invariant momentum transfer by

$$k^2=\frac{Q^2}{1+\tau }$$
(12)
The most important relativistic effect is the Lorentz contraction of spatial distributions in the Breit frame and the corresponding increase of spatial frequency represented by the factor of $`(1+\tau )`$ in Eq. (12). A measurement with Breit-frame momentum transfer $`q_B=Q`$ probes a reduced spatial frequency $`k`$ in the rest frame. The Sachs form factor for a large invariant momentum transfer $`Q^2`$ is determined by a much smaller spatial frequency $`k^2=Q^2/(1+\tau )`$ and thus declines much less rapidly with respect to $`Q^2`$ than the Fourier transform of the density declines with respect to $`k^2`$. Licht and Pagnamenta  demonstrated that by accounting for Lorentz contraction a good fit to data for $`G_{Ep}`$ can obtained using a Gaussian density typical of quark models. Thus, this procedure provides physically reasonable densities free of cusps at the origin. However, according to Eq. (12), the maximum spatial frequency that is accessible with spacelike $`Q^2`$ is $`k_m=2m`$. The limitation $`k<k_m`$ can be interpreted as a consequence of relativistic position fluctuations, known as zitterbewegung, which obscure details finer that the nucleon Compton wavelength.

The first attempt to relate elastic form factors to ground-state densities was made by Licht and Pagnamenta  using a quark cluster model in the impulse approximation and a kinematic boost. They proposed a relativistic inversion method using Eq. (Nucleon Charge and Magnetization Densities) with $`\lambda _E=\lambda _M=1`$. However, these choices for $`\lambda `$ do not ensure that the Sachs form factors scale with $`Q^4`$, as expected from perturbative QCD, unless restrictions are placed upon $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(k_m)`$. Using a more symmetric treatment of the cluster model, Mitra and Kumari  found that $`\lambda _E=\lambda _M=2`$ automatically satisfy the perturbative QCD scaling relations at very large $`Q^2`$ without constraining $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(k_m)`$. More recently, Ji  obtained similar relationships with $`\lambda _E=0`$ and $`\lambda _M=1`$ using a relativistic Skyrmion model based upon a Lorentz invariant Lagrangian density for which the classical soliton solution can be evaluated in any frame. Quantum fluctuations were then evaluated after the boost. Furthermore, the recent soliton calculation by Holzwarth  uses this prescription and accurately predicted the decline in $`G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}`$. In this paper we employ the values $`\lambda _E=0`$ and $`\lambda _M=1`$ suggested by the soliton model and in a subsequent paper  will investigate in detail the discrete ambiguity due to the choice of $`\lambda `$.

To extract radial densities from the nucleon form factor data we employ techniques originally developed for fitting radial distributions to data for scattering of electrons or protons from nuclei . Simple models with a small number of parameters do not offer sufficient flexibility to provide a realistic estimate of the uncertainty in a radial density. Rather, we employ linear expansions in complete sets of basis functions that are capable of describing any plausible radial distribution without strong a priori constraints upon its shape. Such expansions permit one to estimate the uncertainties in the fitted density due to both the statistical quality of the data and the inevitable limitation of experimental data to a frequency range, $`kk_{max}`$. The uncertainty due to limitation of $`k`$ is known as incompleteness error. More detailed discussion of the method may be found in Refs. , but the basic idea is to supplement the experimental data by pseudodata of the form $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(k_i)=0\pm \delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }(k_i)`$ whose uncertainties are based upon a reasonable model of the asymptotic behavior of the form factor for $`k_i>k_{max}`$ where $`k_{max}`$ is the spatial frequency corresponding to the maximum measured $`Q^2`$. On quite general grounds one expects the asymptotic form factor for a confined system to decrease more rapidly than $`k^4`$ . Therefore, we assume that

$$\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }(k)=\stackrel{~}{\rho }(k_{max})\left(\frac{k_{max}}{k}\right)^4$$
(13)
Notice that we must apply this procedure to $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(k)`$ instead of the Sachs form factors because, according to Eq. (12), the accessible spatial frequencies are limited to $`k<2m`$ for spacelike $`Q^2`$ while convergence of Eq. (8) requires a constraint upon $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(k)`$ for inaccessible range $`k>2m`$.

The Fourier-Bessel expansion (FBE) takes the form

$$\rho (r)=\underset{n}{}a_nj_0(k_nr)\mathrm{\Theta }(Rr)$$
(14)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the unit step function, $`R`$ is the expansion radius, $`k_n=n\pi /R`$ are the roots of the Bessel function, and $`a_n`$ are the coefficients to be fitted to data. One advantage of the FBE is that the contribution of each term to the form factor is concentrated around its $`k_n`$ so that a coefficient $`a_n`$ is largely determined by data with $`kk_n`$. The larger the expansion radius $`R`$, the smaller the spacing between successive $`k_n`$ and the greater the sensitivity one has to variations in the form factor. One should choose $`R`$ to be several times the root-mean-square radius but not so large that an excessive number of terms is needed to span the experimental range of momentum transfer. Terms with $`k_n>k_{max}`$ provide an estimate of the incompleteness error. We chose $`R=4.0`$ fm, but the results are insensitive to its exact value. Small but undesirable oscillations in fitted densities at large radius were suppressed using a tail bias based upon the method discussed in Ref. . We employed a tail function of the form $`t(r)e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }r}`$, based upon the successful dipole parametrization for low $`Q^2`$, and included in the $`\chi ^2`$ fit a penalty for strong deviations from the tail function for $`r>2.0`$ fm. The constraint on the neutron charge was also enforced using a penalty function. The tail bias improves the convergence of moments of the density but has practically no effect upon a fitted density in the region where it is large. The error band for a fitted density is computed from the covariance matrix for the $`\chi ^2`$ fit and includes the incompleteness error, but does not include discrete ambiguities due to the choices for $`\lambda `$ in Eq. (Nucleon Charge and Magnetization Densities).

We selected the best available data in each range of $`Q^2`$, with an emphasis upon recent data using recoil or target polarization wherever available. $`G_{Mp}`$ data were taken from the compilation of Höhler  for $`Q^2<0.15`$ (GeV/$`c`$)2 and for larger $`Q^2`$ from the analysis of Brash et al using the recent recoil polarization data for $`G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}`$ from Refs. . Cross section data from Refs.  were used for $`Q^2<1`$ (GeV/$`c`$)2 but cross section data for $`G_{Ep}`$ were excluded for larger $`Q^2`$. Similarly, the data for $`G_{En}`$ were limited to recent polarization data , with corrections for nuclear structure and final-state interactions whenever available, plus the analysis of $`t_{20}`$ and $`T_{20}`$ by Schiavilla and Sick . We also included the neutron charge radius obtained by Kopecky et al from transmission of thermal neutron through liquid 208Pb and 209Bi. Finally, for $`G_{Mn}`$ we selected polarization data from  and cross section data from .

Fits to the form factor data are shown in Fig. 1 as bands that represent the uncertainties in the fitted form factors. The widths of these bands are comparable to the experimental precision where data are available, but expand for larger $`Q^2`$ where the uncertainties are based upon Eq. (13). Notice, however, that in this figure the form factors were divided by $`G_D`$, which decreases rapidly with $`Q^2`$. Therefore, the impact of uncertainties at large $`Q^2`$ upon the fitted densities remains modest because, with the exception of $`G_{En}`$, the form factors themselves and their absolute uncertainties become rather small at their largest $`Q^2`$. Although the low-$`Q^2`$ data for $`G_{Mn}`$ have improved in recent years, significant systematic discrepancies remain. Recent data from Refs.  with small statistical uncertainties suggest a small dip near 0.2 and a peak near 1 (GeV/$`c`$)2. For $`G_{En}`$ we plot the Galster model  for comparison. The simple two-parameter fit Galster et al. made to the rather poor data available at that time did not permit a realistic estimate of the uncertainty in the form factor or fitted density and the apparent agreement with more modern data must be judged as remarkable but fortuitous.

Proton charge and magnetization densities are compared in Fig. 2. Both densities are measured very precisely. The new recoil-polarization data for $`G_{Ep}`$ decrease more rapidly than either the dipole form factor or the magnetic form factor for $`Q^2>1`$ (GeV/$`c`$)2; consequently, the charge density is significantly softer than the magnetization density of the proton. Neutron densities are shown in Fig. 3. We find that the magnetization density for the neutron is very similar to that for the proton, although the interior precision is not as good because the range of $`Q^2`$ is smaller and the experimental uncertainties larger. Limitations in the range and quality of the $`G_{En}`$ data presently available result in a substantially wider error band for the neutron charge density. Data at higher $`Q^2`$ are needed to improve the interior precision, but a useful measurement of the interior charge density is obtained nonetheless. The positive interior density is balanced by a negative surface lobe. Note that polarization measurements are sensitive to the sign of the density, but that cross section measurements are not.

In summary, we have developed a parametrization of nucleon electromagnetic form factors based upon radial densities expanded in complete bases. Although we cannot claim that the fitted densities are unique, this method does provide an intuitively appealing parametrization of the data. It is necessary to account for Lorentz contraction at high momentum transfer in order to obtain reasonable interior densities without a cusp at the origin. Using recent recoil polarization data for the proton, we find that the charge density is significantly broader than the magnetization density. We also find that the neutron and proton magnetization densities are similar. Although the available data are not yet as precise, the neutron charge density is also obtained with useful precision. A more detailed discussion of the model dependence of fitted densities will appear elsewhere.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank O. Gayou for providing a table of $`G_{Ep}`$ data and X. Ji and C. Perdrisat for useful discussions. The support of the U.S. National Science Foundation under grant PHY-9971819 is gratefully acknowledged.