text:
# Synthetic Spectra from 3D Models of Supernovae

## 1. Introduction

The amount of evidence that the envelopes of supernovae (SNe) can deviate from spherical symmetry is increasing. Net intrinsic polarization measurements from some SNe are consistent with ellipsoidal envelopes (Howell et al. 2001; Leonard et al. 2001; Leonard et al. 2000; Wang et al. 2001; Wang et al. 1997; see Wheeler 2000 for a list of measurements). In some flux spectra, a clumpy or macroscopically mixed ejecta distribution (or at least a nonspherical excitation structure) has been invoked to explain phenomena such as the “Bochum event” in SN 1987A (Phillips & Heathcote 1989; Utrobin, Chugai & Andronova 1995). Most conspicuously, the interesting morphologies of SN remnants may indicate macroscopic mixing in the initial SN envelopes (Decourchelle et al. 2001; Fesen & Gunderson 1996; Hwang, Holt & Petre 2000; Tsunemi, Miyama & Aschenbach 1995). These findings have inspired new 3D explosion models (Khokhlov 2000; Reinecke, Hillebrandt & Niemeyer 2002; Kifonidis et al. 2000). Testing new models as they arise will require detailed NLTE radiative transfer calculations in 3D.

Nonetheless, considering and deducing general constraints on SN geometry without such detailed calculations can be fruitful (Thomas et al. 2002). We have developed a parameterized synthetic spectrum code for 3D models of SNe called Brute which we describe here. In §2 we describe the assumptions and implementation of Brute, and in §3 we outline future work to bring the code toward a detailed analysis code.

## 2. Model

Brute was designed under some of the same basic assumptions as the highly successful direct analysis code Synow (Fisher 2000; Deng et al. 2000; Millard et al. 1999). Both codes use a simplified model of a SN atmosphere which has been called the “elementary supernova” (ES; Jeffery & Branch 1990). The major difference is that Synow is a strictly 1D code, but Brute is for arbitrary geometry.

### 2.1. The Elementary Supernova Model

The ES model is a simplified picture of a SN at phases between a few days to a few months after explosion. It consists of a central, optically thick continuum-emitting core surrounded by an extended envelope within which line formation occurs. The SN expands homologously so that $`vr`$ for all matter elements.

The ES core (or photosphere) is approximated by a surface which emits blackbody radiation at some specified temperature. The photosphere is sharp, meaning that all radiation regardless of wavelength originates at the same physical surface.

Radiation transfer in the envelope is accomplished by means of the Sobolev approximation (Sobolev 1947; Rybicki & Hummer 1978), justified in detail for the SN case by Jeffery & Branch (1990). The assumption of homologous expansion provides a great simplification in the calculations, because then (1) Sobolev optical depth is angle independent, (2) common point velocity surfaces for intensity integrals are spheres and (3) propagating photons only redshift with respect to the matter and never blueshift. For each ion used in the envelope, the optical depth of a “reference line” is parameterized spatially using a contrast function. All other line optical depths of the same ion are scaled assuming LTE. The source function is taken to be that of pure resonance scattering ($`S=J`$).

It should be noted that the parameterized prescription here can be replaced by one with more detail. The resonance scattering assumption can be generalized as well. The effects of special relativity in the transfer can be included (to minor effect; Jeffery 1993). Electron scattering also may be included. To speed up transfer, lines close together in wavelength can be grouped into bands of small width to prevent needless extra calculations. For the purpose of direct analysis of SN spectra however, the above parameterized prescription is sufficient.

Once the source function has been determined for each line at all points in the envelope, a formal solution along impact parameter beams toward an observer is calculated. Again, the Sobolev approximation simplifies this process, since emission in a given wavelength from the SN arises only from common direction velocity planes perpendicular to the line of sight.

### 2.2. 3D Implementation

The key difference between the 1D and 3D implementation is the method by which the mean intensity is calculated. In 1D, we can take advantage of an azimuthal symmetry in the intensity arriving at a point to simplify the mean intensity integral. But in 3D, such symmetry is missing and the integral becomes more problematic. To avoid this problem, we adopt a Monte Carlo approach, based largely on 1D codes (Abbott & Lucy 1985; Mazzali & Lucy 1993; Mazzali 2000).

Packets of equal energy with wavelengths drawn from the Planck distribution are emitted from the surface of the core such that the core is a Lambert radiator. The packet random walks from line scattering to line scattering as it redshifts into resonance with lines of increasing wavelength. The probability that a packet undergoes a scattering (coherent in the comoving frame) is determined by the optical depth at the resonance targets.

As each packet enters a new cell of the envelope or immediately after a scattering, an “event” optical depth is chosen to “schedule” the next possible scattering : $`\tau _{ev}=\mathrm{ln}(R)`$ where $`R`$ is a random number between 0 and 1. As the packet propagates through the cell, it accumulates optical depth from the lines it encounters until the total exceeds $`\tau _{ev}`$. The packet then scatters coherently.

From the perspective of a single cell in the envelope during a simulation, packets of equal energy intersect the cell from many directions. The locus of points defined by the packets’ previous resonance targets form the common point velocity surfaces. The Monte Carlo technique assembles these surfaces implicitly. The radiation field is built up by counting packets that come into resonance with lines everywhere in the envelope. At the end of the simulation, the total luminosity is used to calibrate the weight of a single packet, converting the packet-in-resonance tallies into estimates of $`J`$ in each line.

Of course in 3D, the appearance of a spectrum may depend on the line of sight to the envelope. Rather than wait for enough packets to emerge along all lines of sight (a serious problem), we employ the same formal integral technique used in the 1D calculation. Once the source function is determined everywhere by Monte Carlo, common direction plane positions are computed and the flux is integrated across impact parameter beams. This technique greatly reduces the number of packets to follow in a simulation.

## 3. Future work

In order to resolve variations in optical depth that are small in size, the resolution of the envelope must be increased. The simplest solution is to use a big computer with a lot of memory, or split the envelope up amongst multiple processors. The fact that we need only sweep the line list from blue to red may help, and we can load segments of the line list as the calculation progresses.

Including electron scattering in the calculations, and replacing the assumption of pure resonance scattering with branching will help to make the code more consistent overall. The eventual goal is a NLTE code for use with new 3D explosion models. Until the reliability and quantity of those models increases, a great deal about deviations from spherical symmetry in SNe can be learned from a parameterized code.

#### Acknowledgments.

This work was supported in part by NASA grants NAG5-3505 and NAG5-12127, and an IBM SUR grant to the University of Oklahoma.

## References

Abbott, D., Lucy, L. 1985 ApJ 288, 679

Decourchelle, A., et al. 2001 A&A 365, L218

Deng, J., Qiu, Y., Hu, J., Hatano, K., Branch, D. 2000 ApJ 540, 452

Fesen, R., Gunderson, K. 1996 ApJ 470, 967

Fisher, A. 2000 PhD Thesis, U of Oklahoma

Reinecke, M., Hillebrandt, W., Niemeyer, J. 2002 A&A in press, also astro-ph/0206459

Howell, D., Hoflich, P., Wang, L., Wheeler, J. 2001 ApJ 556, 302

Hwang, U., Holt, S., Petre, R. 2000 ApJ 537, L119

Jeffery, D. 1993 ApJ 415, 734

Jeffery, D., Branch, D. 1990, in Supernovae, Jerusalem Winter School for Theoretical Physics, ed. J. C. Wheeler, T. Piran & S. Weinberg (Singapore : World Scientific), 149

Khokhlov, A. 2001 ApJ in press, astro-ph/0008463

Kifonidis, K., Plewa, T., Janka, H.-Th., Muller, E. 2000 ApJ 531, L123

Leonard, D., Filippenko, A., Ardila, D., Brotherton, M. 2001 ApJ 553, 861

Leonard, D., Filippenko, A., Barth, A., Matheson, T. 2000 ApJ 536, 239

Mazzali, P. 2000 A&A 363, 705

Mazzali, P., Lucy, L. 1993 A&A 279, 447

Millard, J., et al. 1999 ApJ 527, 746

Phillips, M., Heathcote, S. 1989 PASP 101, 137

Rybicki, G., Hummer, D. 1978 ApJ 219, 654

Sobolev, V. 1947 Moving Envelopes of Stars (Leningrad: Leningrad State UP) (English transl. S. Gaposchkin \[Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1960\])

Thomas, R., Kasen, D., Branch, D., Baron, E., 2002 ApJ 567, 1037

Tsunemi, H., Miyata, E., Aschenbach, B. 1999 PASJ 51, 711

Utrobin, V., Chugai, N., Andronova, A. 1995, A&A 295, 129

Wang, L., Howell, D., Hoflich, P., Wheeler, J. 2001 ApJ 550, 1030

Wang, L., Wheeler, J., Hoflich, P. 1997 ApJ 476, L27

Wheeler, H., 2000 in Cosmic Explosions, ed. S. S. Holt & W. W. Zhang (New York : AIP), 445; also astro-ph/9912403


format: text

text:
# Improved Nearside-Farside Method for Elastic Scattering Amplitudes

## I Introduction

In heavy-ion, atomic and molecular collisions, an elastic differential cross section, $`\sigma (\theta )`$, where $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle, is often characterized by a complicated interference pattern. This complicated structure makes it difficult to understand the physical phenomena involved in the scattering process, as well as the links between $`\sigma (\theta )`$ and the properties of the model that describes the phenomenon.

In some cases, semiclassical methods Brink (1985) explain the scattering pattern as the interference between simpler, and slowly varying, subamplitudes. If we ignore the complication that, in some angular regions, uniform asymptotic techniques are necessary, then the semiclassical subamplitudes arise mathematically from saddle points or poles, which account physically for contributions from reflected, refracted or generalized diffracted semiclassical trajectories Nussenzveig (1992). The subamplitudes can be conveniently grouped into two types: those arising from semiclassical trajectories which initially move in the same half plane as the detector (N or nearside trajectories) and those from the opposite half plane (F or farside trajectories).

Semiclassical methods are not always simple to apply and sometimes they have a limited range of applicability. Their limitations are determined by the range of validity of the (presently known) asymptotic techniques that are used to approximate the original quantum mechanical problem.

In order to overcome these difficulties, it is common practice to apply to the elastic scattering amplitude, $`f(\theta )`$, a NF method that was proposed by FullerFuller (1975) more than 25 years ago. The Fuller NF method has the merit of being simple and, although inspired by the semiclassical theories, it uses only scattering matrix elements $`S_l`$ calculated (or directly parametrized) by exact quantum mechanics. The NF subamplitudes are obtained by exact summation of NF partial wave series (PWS), thereby bypassing problems associated with the applicability and validity of semiclassical techniques, e.g. using approximate $`S_l`$, replacing the PWS by integrals, using stationary phase integration, etc.

The Fuller method is based on a splitting of the Legendre polynomials, $`P_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$, in the PWS of $`f(\theta )`$, into traveling angular wave components, with the traveling angular waves consistent with detailed semiclassical analyses of scattering from impenetrable and transparent spheres Nussenzveig (1992).

The Fuller method was Hussein and McVoy (1984); Brandan and Satchler (1997) and continues to be widely used; indeed the ISI Web of Science reports about 140 citations since 1981 to Fuller’s seminal work (for more recent examples see Ogloblin et al. (1998); Nicoli et al. (1999); Khoa et al. (2000); Ogloblin et al. (2000); Szilner et al. (2001); Khoa et al. (2002) and references therein). The success of the method depends, apart from its simplicity, on its remarkable capability of physically explaining complicated interference patterns in cross sections as arising from the interference between NF subamplitudes having simple properties. In particular, the NF cross sections are often less structured and more slowly varying with $`\theta `$ than is the full cross section. Even though no semiclassical technique has been used, these NF subamplitudes can often be given a physical interpretation (in analogy with results from semiclassical methods) as contributions from simple scattering mechanisms, which then allows a good understanding of the angular scattering.

In the light of these unquestionable successes, it is desirable to extend the validity of the Fuller approach to cases where the original Fuller method is not (physically) satisfactory, for example, it may produce oscillatory and rapidly varying NF cross sections, when the full cross section is monotonic and slowly varying with $`\theta `$. Examples of these shortcomings have been known for a long time. One classic example is pure Coulomb scattering. For repulsive Coulomb potentials only a N contribution is expected semiclassically (Brink (1985), p. 56), whereas the Fuller NF method yields also a F contribution Fuller (1975). As a result, the NF cross sections are less simple than the full one. In this case, the unsatisfactorily effects are, however, confined to a restricted backward angular region (Fuller (1975), p. 1564). Another more striking example is observed in the scattering by a uniformly charged sphere (Hussein and McVoy (1984), p. 154, Fig. 26). In this case, the ratio of the full cross section to the Rutherford one decreases monotonically into the shadow of the Coulomb rainbow. In contrast, the N ratio closely follows the full ratio up to $`\theta 40^{}`$ when it becomes approximately constant (i.e. independent of $`\theta `$), being approximately equal to the F ratio.

A similar effect is also observed in the angular distributions for a strong absorption model (SAM) with a two parameter ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) symmetric $`S`$ matrix element and Fermi-like form factors Hatchell (1989). For a fixed value of the cut-off parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and for a sufficiently large value of the diffuseness parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the Fuller NF cross sections show an almost exponential decline up to a certain $`\theta `$ (which decreases with increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$). At larger angles, the NF cross sections are greater then the full cross section, which continues its oscillatory exponential decline.

Similar striking effects appear at high energies and for large scattering angles in the NF cross sections of $`\alpha `$ particles and light heavy-ions scattered by nuclei using optical potentials. Less striking, but still disturbing, effects are also observed, at lower energies, in some N cross sections for the optical potentials used to fit recent data of light heavy-ion scattering Ogloblin et al. (1998); Nicoli et al. (1999); Khoa et al. (2000); Szilner et al. (2001). Typical N cross sections rapidly decrease from $`0^{}`$ and from $`180^{}`$. The two branches meet in the crossing region where an interference pattern appears, with strong oscillations over an extended range of angles.

In this paper, we show how some of these shortcomings can be removed using a new NF method Anni et al. (2001), based on an improved modified resummation of the PWS. The new method is a development of the Hatchell Hatchell (1989) idea of incorporating the Yennie, Ravenhall and Wilson (YRW) Yennie et al. (1954) resummation technique into the NF formalism. The limitations of the NF Hatchell resummation technique have been discussed McCabe and Connor (1995); Hollifield and Connor (1999a, b) and a modified NF YRW resummation procedure, depending on two parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, was proposed Whiteley et al. (2001); Noli and Connor (2002) to bypass the difficulties with the original NF YRW approach. The possibility of further improving the modified YRW resummation procedure, using different resummation parameters $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{}`$ and $`\beta _1,\beta _2,\mathrm{}`$, together with a rule to fix the value of these parameters Anni et al. (2001), is discussed in the present work.

For all three NF methods, Fuller, Hatchell and ours, the starting point is the quantum mechanical PWS for the full scattering amplitude $`f(\theta )`$,

$$f(\theta )=\frac{1}{2ik}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_lP_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta ),$$
(1)
where $`k`$ is the wavenumber, $`P_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ is the Legendre polynomial of degree $`l`$ and $`a_l`$ is given in terms of the scattering matrix element $`S_l`$ by:

$$a_l=(2l+1)(S_l1).$$
(2)
In the following, we will write $`x=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. For future convenience, we recall that the PWS (1), considered as a distribution, converges to its exact value for $`\theta 0`$, upon dropping the 1 in the term $`S_l1`$ on the r.h.s of (2). The omitted amplitude is proportional to the Dirac delta function $`\delta (1x)`$ (e.g. see Brink (1985), p. 52). We also recall that the PWS (1), considered as a distribution, is convergent if $`S_l`$ is asymptotically Coulombic Taylor (1974).

In Sec. II, we briefly outline the original Fuller NF method, and show that unsatisfactorily results are obtained for seven collision systems, which are different from those considered in Anni et al. (2001). In Sec. III, we discuss a modification of the Fuller NF technique proposed in Refs. Hollifield and Connor (1999a, b); Whiteley et al. (2001); Noli and Connor (2002) and present an improved modified method. Our new method is very effective in cleaning unphysical contributions from NF cross sections for the seven examples where the usual Fuller technique gives usatisfactorily results. Our conclusions are in Sec. IV.

## II Limitations of the Fuller NF method

### II.1 Introduction

The Fuller NF decomposition is realized by splitting in (1) $`P_l(x)`$, considered as a standing angular wave, into traveling angular wave components

$$P_l(x)=Q_l^{()}(x)+Q_l^{(+)}(x),$$
(3)
where (for $`x\pm 1`$)

$$Q_l^{()}(x)=\frac{1}{2}[P_l(x)\pm \frac{2i}{\pi }Q_l(x)],$$
(4)
with $`Q_l(x)`$ the Legendre function of the second kind of degree $`l`$.

Inserting (3) into (1) splits $`f(\theta )`$ into the sum of two subamplitudes

$$f(\theta )=f^{()}(\theta )+f^{(+)}(\theta ),$$
(5)
with

$$f^{()}(\theta )=\frac{1}{2ik}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_lQ_l^{()}(x).$$
(6)
Note that, by construction, the decomposition (5) is exact. Also we will obtain an exact decomposition, by using in place of the $`Q_l^{()}(x)`$ in (3), any pair of functions whose sum is $`P_l(x)`$. The property of the $`Q_l^{()}(x)`$ that makes the splitting (3) important, is the asymptotic result

$$Q_l^{()}(x)\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi \lambda \mathrm{sin}\theta }}\mathrm{exp}[i(\lambda \theta \frac{\pi }{4})],$$
(7)
for $`l\mathrm{sin}\theta 1`$, where $`\lambda =l+\frac{1}{2}`$. In particular, (7) allows $`()`$ to be identified with N scattering and $`(+)`$ with F scattering (Hussein and McVoy (1984), p. 121). In the semiclassical theory, the splitting of $`P_{\lambda \frac{1}{2}}(x)`$ into the sum of $`Q_{\lambda \frac{1}{2}}^{()}(x)`$, or the related splitting obtained from the asymptotic expansions of these functions Brink (1985), plays a crucial role in deriving the semiclassical subamplitudes. In particular, the NF semiclassical subamplitudes arise from terms originally containing $`Q_{\lambda \frac{1}{2}}^{()}(x)`$, or their asymptotic expansions (7). These facts raise the hope that the direct calculation of the $`f^{()}(\theta )`$ from their PWS representation in (6) will separate the NF contributions to $`f(\theta )`$, thereby avoiding problems connected with the applicability or validity of the semiclassical theory.

In order to make this hope mathematically rigorous, one should prove that it is possible to perform on the PWS, written in terms of the $`Q_l^{()}(x)`$, the same manipulations that are used in deriving the complete semiclassical decomposition of $`f(\theta )`$. These manipulations are essentially path deformations in $`\lambda `$ of the integrals into which (1) can be transformed, using either the Poisson sum formula (Nussenzveig (1992), p. 45) or the Watson transformation (Nussenzveig (1992), p. 49). The consequences of these path deformations depend on the properties of the terms in the PWS when they are continued to real or complex values of $`\lambda `$ from the initial physical half integer $`\lambda `$ values. The splitting of $`P_l(x)`$ into the $`Q_l^{()}(x)`$ modifies these properties and can cause the appearance of unphysical contributions in the $`f^{()}(\theta )`$, which cancel out in $`f(\theta )`$ (these contributions are not expected to be present in the semiclassical subamplitudes).

In spite of these possible limitations, extensive experience with the Fuller NF method has demonstrated that the method is usually reliable, in the sense that it often decomposes $`f(\theta )`$ into simpler NF subamplitudes, apparently free from unphysical contributions arising from the above mathematical difficulties. However for a few examples, some of which were mentioned in Sec. I, the Fuller NF subamplitudes can be directly compared with the corresponding exact analytical, or semiclassical, results and disagreements are observed.

Fortunately, the Fuller NF subamplitudes contain information that allows one to recognize the unphysical nature of the undesired contributions. Suppose $`f^{(+)}(\theta )`$, or $`f^{()}(\theta )`$, contains a single semiclassical contribution from a stationary phase point at $`\lambda (\theta )`$. Then the derivative with respect to $`\theta `$ of the phase of $`f^{(+)}(\theta )`$, or $`f^{()}(\theta )`$, is equal to $`\lambda (\theta )`$, or $`\lambda (\theta )`$, respectively (Brink (1985), p. 57). Following Fuller we will call this derivative the Local Angular Momentum (LAM) for the F (or N) subamplitude; it depends on $`\theta `$. Usually, only for a generalized diffracted trajectory, arising from a simple pole, is the LAM expected to be constant, being equal to the angular momentum of the incoming particle responsible for the diffraction.

In the semiclassical regime, this constant value is expected to be large. Because of this, if we observe that, in a certain $`\theta `$ range, LAM $``$ 0, this can be considered a warning for the unphysical nature of the N or F subamplitudes in that range of $`\theta `$. This occurs for the LAM of the Fuller Coulomb F subamplitude, and for the NF subamplitudes of the SAM in the angular region where the NF cross sections contain unphysical contributions Anni et al. (2001). In both cases, this decoupling of $`\theta `$ from LAM, together with the fact that the full cross section is simpler then the NF ones, suggests the unphysical nature of the NF subamplitudes.

We show below for seven collision systems, different from those considered in Anni et al. (2001), how unphysical NF contributions manifest themselves. The seven collision systems are; (a) a simple SAM model, (b) 16O + 16O at $`E_{\text{lab}}`$ = 145 MeV, using the WS2 optical potential of Ref. Khoa et al. (2000), and (c) more briefly, 16O + 16O at $`E_{\text{lab}}`$ = 480, 704, 1120 MeV, and $`\alpha `$ \+ 12C, $`\alpha `$ \+ 40Ca, both at $`E_{\text{lab}}`$ = 1370 MeV.

### II.2 Strong absorption model for elastic scattering

The first example is a simple SAM in which the $`S_l`$ is directly parametrized by

$$S_lS(\lambda )=\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda }{\mathrm{\Delta }})}+\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }+\lambda }{\mathrm{\Delta }})},$$
(8)
with $`\lambda =l+\frac{1}{2}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10.0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1.8`$,

The SAM (with modifications for the Coulomb interaction, and in a slightly different form from (8) ) was widely used in early studies of heavy-ion elastic scattering Frahn (1984); Grypeos et al. (2001). At the present time, the SAM is not so popular, using either simple forms such as (8) or more sophisticated functions. It has been found that the characteristics of heavy-ion angular distributions, measured over wide angular ranges, are not accounted for by the simpler SAM models; instead the angular scattering is more easily described using optical potentials, rather then attempting complicated extensions of the SAM.

In spite of this, the SAM in its simple form (8) continues to be of interest, since it allows important tests of NF decompositions Hatchell (1989); Hollifield and Connor (1999a, b); Noli and Connor (2002). This is because the PWS for the SAM (8) can be evaluated easily by saddle point techniques Hatchell (1989), or more simply, using the Watson transformation and elementary complex integration. Both methods allow a simple, mathematically correct, identification of the NF subamplitudes. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$, $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \mathrm{\Delta })1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{sin}\theta 1`$, it is found that the NF subamplitudes are $`\mathrm{exp}(\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\theta i\mathrm{\Lambda }\theta )/\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}\theta }`$, to a good degree of approximation (Ref. Hussein and McVoy (1984), Eq. (3.5) ). The NF cross sections, multiplied by $`\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ are equal and have an exponential slope, whereas the phase derivatives of the NF subamplitudes are expected to be equal to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, respectively.

The results obtained by applying the Fuller NF method to the SAM with parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10.0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1.8`$ are shown in Fig. 1. In the lower panel, we show a log plot of the dimensionless quantity $`4k^2\sigma (\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ versus $`\theta `$ since the corresponding NF quantities are expected to have an exponential slope. This is additionally shown in Fig.1 by the thin dot-dash line which represents $`\mathrm{log}_{10}[\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\theta )]`$. Furthermore, because the $`S_l`$ are real, $`f(\theta )`$ has a constant phase (and its phase derivative is of no interest), while the $`f^{()}(\theta )`$ have identical moduli but opposite phases. Thus we need only show the N (or F) LAM and similarly for the cross sections. In Fig. 1, the N and F quantities are shown by thick continuous and dashed curves, respectively.

In a systematic notation explained in Sect. III, the results obtained from the Fuller NF method, which substitutes (3) into (1), are indicated by $`\text{R}=0`$. The thin curve, in the lower panel of Fig. 1, shows the full cross section. Figure 1 shows that, for $`\text{R}=0`$, unphysical contributions dominate the F (= N) cross section over most of the angular range, i.e. for $`\theta 50^{}`$. In particular, the F curve is completely different from the expected exponential decrease. Also the F (= $``$N) LAM $`0`$ for $`\theta 50^{}`$. At forward angles, oscillations in the F LAM curve indicate that another F subamplitude is present, which interferes with the unphysical one. This behavior does not support the conjecture that the F LAM of this other subamplitude has the expected value, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10.0`$.

By comparing the lower panel of Fig. 1 with the corresponding Fig. 1 of Anni et al. (2001), for which $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2.0`$, one observes that the change in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has not altered the magnitude of the unphysical contribution in the angular region where it is dominant. The explanation for this observation is straightforward. The amplitude obtained on dropping $`S_l`$ from the term $`S_l1`$ in (2) is $`f_\delta (\theta )=i\delta (1x)/k`$. Applying to $`f_\delta (\theta )`$ the same procedure used by Fuller to derive the NF Coulomb subamplitudes (Ref. Fuller (1975), Eq. 11), we find that the NF components of $`f_\delta (\theta )`$ are $`f_\delta ^{()}(\theta )=\pm [2\pi k(1x)]^1`$. The corresponding NF cross sections, downward shifted by one vertical unit, are shown in Fig. 1 by the thin dotted curve and labelled NFδ. This curve shows that the major part of the unphysical contribution, when it dominates the Fuller F subamplitude, is due to $`f_\delta ^{(+)}(\theta )`$ and does not depend on the properties of $`S_l`$.

A more satisfactory Fuller NF result is obtained by dropping $`1`$ from the term $`S_l1`$ in (2), and then considering the PWS thus obtained as a distribution. To ensure convergence of the resulting NF subamplitudes, a YRW resummation is performed on them. This is explained in more detail in Sect. III, and in a systematic notation developed there, is denoted $`\text{R}=0_\text{Y}`$. Figure 1 shows that the $`\text{R}=0_\text{Y}`$ results are rather good at forward angles, $`\theta 70^{}`$. Apart from a small region around $`\theta =0^{}`$, where the condition $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{sin}\theta 1`$ is not satisfied, the N (= $``$F) LAM agrees closely with the expected value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ up to $`\theta 70^{}`$, and the N (= F) cross section curve follows the expected exponential decrease. For $`\theta 120^{}`$, the N cross section is still dominated by an unphysical contribution. At intermediate angles, $`70^{}\theta 120^{}`$, interference oscillations appear both in the N cross section and in the N LAM curve. It is interesting to note that the NF LAMs are more sensitive to interference effects in Fig. 1 than are the NF cross sections. Also, in the interference region, one cannot attach the meaning of a local angular momentum to the subamplitude phase derivative. In our case, in this interference region, the N LAM curve oscillates around the expected semiclassical value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the region, $`70^{}\theta 90^{}`$, where the true semiclassical component dominates the N subamplitude, and around the unphysical value of 0 at larger angles.

### II.3 Optical model for 16O $`+`$ 16O elastic scattering

Figure 2 shows our results for the phenomenological (WS2) optical potential used to fit Khoa et al. (2000) the 16O + 16O elastic cross section at $`E_{\text{lab}}=145`$ MeV. The usual Fuller NF method has been applied that employs an analytic formula for the NF subamplitudes of the Coulomb scattering amplitude Fuller (1975). The parameters for this potential are given in Table 1 of Ref. Khoa et al. (2000).

In the upper panel we display LAM/$`k`$, which we call the Local Impact Parameter (LIP), and in the lower panel a log plot of $`\sigma (\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta `$. The thin continuous lines show the (unsymmetrized) cross section and LIP for the full amplitude. For $`\theta 20^{}`$, and at backward angles, the full cross section is characterized by oscillations having approximately the same period. In the intermediate angular range, $`50^{}\theta 150^{}`$, there are oscillations of longer period, which increases as $`\theta `$ increases. These properties, which are typical of light heavy-ion scattering, are much more complicated than those for the simple SAM cross sections, and indicate the presence of several interfering subamplitudes.

The oscillations in the LIP curve for the full amplitude qualitatively follow those in the full cross section. In addition, the change in sign of the full LIP for $`\theta 20^{}`$ indicates a crossover between one N subamplitude, dominant at smaller angles (where the full LIP oscillates around negative values), with a F subamplitude that is dominant at larger angles (where the full LIP oscillates around positive values). The oscillations of longer period in the intermediate angular range for the full cross section correspond to an oscillating positive LIP. This indicates there is an interference between two F subamplitudes with a crossover near the deep minimum at $`\theta 70^{}`$. The oscillations at backward angles in the full cross section indicate an interference of one of these F subamplitudes with its continuation to the opposite side of the target (N).

The results of the Fuller NF method (thick curves, continuous for N and dashed for F quantities) in Fig. 2 confirm this interpretation. The N cross section crosses the F one at $`\theta 20^{}`$; the F cross section oscillates in the intermediate angular range before decreasing, almost monotonically, towards backward angles, where it meets the N cross section. For $`\theta 60^{}`$, the behavior of the N cross section is characterized by rather complicated oscillations. It is difficult to imagine that these oscillations arise only from interference between a N subamplitude, which is dominant at forward angles, with a N subamplitude dominant at backward angles. The thin dotted lines in Fig. 2 show interpolations (linear fits) of the average behavior of the N cross section in the ranges $`50^{}\theta 90^{}`$ and $`\theta 150^{}`$. In the crossing region of the dotted lines, the N cross section is about two orders of magnitude larger then the crossing value. The contribution from an additional N subamplitude is apparently necessary to explain this behavior of the N cross section. The shape of the N LIP curve supports this conjecture. The N LIP curve is oscillatory, with increasing oscillation amplitude, up to $`\theta 85^{}`$, where the deep minimum corresponds to a crossover between two interfering N subamplitudes. For $`85^{}\theta 145^{}`$, the N LIP curve is oscillatory around 0, which suggests an unphysical origin for the N subamplitude dominant in this angular range. At $`\theta 145^{}`$, where there is a narrow maximum in the N LIP curve, the unphysical N subamplitude crosses a different N subamplitude, that becomes dominant at backward angles. Oscillations, similar to those observed at backward angles in the N LIP curve, are present at backward angles in the F LIP curve. The corresponding oscillations in the F cross section are barely visible with the scale used in the lower panel of Fig. 2. They can, however, be observed in the inset, where the thin rectangular area is plotted with a vertical scale magnified by a factor of 3.

In summary our detailed analysis of the NF LIP and NF cross sections indicates the presence of an unphysical contribution, which makes the properties of these quantities unneccessarily complicated.

### II.4 Additional optical model examples

In this section we briefly discuss five additional examples where the NF optical potential cross sections are dominated by unphysical contributions over wide angular ranges.

Figure 3 shows N (upper panel) and F (middle panel) cross sections obtained by the usual Fuller NF method for different optical potentials that describe the elastic scattering of 16O by 16O, at $`E_{\text{lab}}`$ = 480, 704 and 1120 MeV (potentials labelled WS2 in Ref. Khoa et al. (2000)), and of $`\alpha `$ particles by 12C and 40Ca, at $`E_{\text{lab}}`$ = 1370 MeV (potentials labelled WSa in Ref. Khoa et al. (2002)). We used relativistically corrected kinematics Farid and Satchler (1984) in all these optical potential calculations, and symmetrisation effects were ignored for the 16O + 16O system.

In the N and F panels, we have normalized the quantities, $`\mathrm{log}_{10}[\sigma (\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta ]`$, to the values of the corresponding N quantities, indicated by $`N(\theta _0)`$, at $`\theta _0=150^{}`$. Except for a restricted region at forward angles, whose width depends on the system considered, the normalized Fuller NF cross sections are practically equal, for different colliding partners and/or energies. In every case, the unphysical effects of the Fuller NF method are as striking as those for the SAM discussed in Sect. II.2. In the lower panel we have plotted, without normalization factors, the full cross sections and, for $`\theta 120^{}`$, the Fuller N ($``$ F) cross section. It is very apparent that, at large angles, the behavior of the full cross sections is quite different from that of the Fuller NF cross sections. In particular, the 16O + 16O full cross sections at 480 MeV and 704 MeV possess a pronounced interference pattern in an angular region where the Fuller NF cross sections are dominated by unphysical contributions. For completeness, we remark that the NF LIP is practically null in the angular ranges where the NF cross sections show unphysical behavior for all these cases.

## III Improved NF method using resummation

### III.1 Resummation of full and NF PWS

In the preceding Section, we have discussed examples where the Fuller NF method resulted in unphysical contributions. We also clearly demonstrated that the Fuller method has the capability to identify the unphysical contributions through anomalous behavior in the NF LAM, or LIP. This capability helps us to avoid misleading interpretations of the full and NF cross sections obtained from the Fuller NF method. However the problem of finding more satisfactory NF methods without unphysical contributions remains open.

A possible solution to this problem was proposed by Hatchell Hatchell (1989), who used a modified NF method. The modifications consisted of, first, in writing $`f(\theta )`$ in the resummed form ($`x1`$)

$$f(\theta )=\frac{1}{2ik}\frac{1}{(1x)^r}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_l^{(r)}P_l(x),$$
(9)
$`r=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, and, second, in using a different splitting in the resummed PWS (9) for the Legendre polynomials into traveling waves.

The use of the resummed form (9) for $`f(\theta )`$ was originally proposed Yennie et al. (1954) by Yennie, Ravenhall, and Wilson (YRW) in a different context. Equation (9) is an exact resummation formula, of order $`r`$, which is derived from the recurrence relation for Legendre polynomials. Some mathematical properties of the resummed PWS (9) have been investigated by Wimp Wimp (1999). The YRW resummed form (9) can be derived by iterating $`r`$ times, starting from $`a_l^{(0)}=a_l`$, the resummation identity ($`x1`$)

$$\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_l^{(i1)}P_l(x)=\frac{1}{1x}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_l^{(i)}P_l(x),i=1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(10)
where

$$a_l^{(i)}=\frac{l}{2l1}a_{l1}^{(i1)}+a_l^{(i1)}\frac{l+1}{2l+3}a_{l+1}^{(i1)},$$
(11)
with $`a_1^{(i1)}=0`$.

It is important to remark that the resummed coefficients $`a_l^{(r)}`$, being linear combinations of the $`a_l^{(0)}=a_l`$, can have very different properties from the original physical $`a_l`$. However, no information about the physical $`a_l`$ is lost on applying the resummation procedure, and the value of $`f(\theta )`$ does not depend in any way on the resummation order used. This is true for (9) and for all the resummed forms for $`f(\theta )`$ derived in this paper and is a consequence of the (exact) mathematical properties of the Legendre polymonials.

Equation (9) does not hold for a PWS written in terms of a linear combination of Legendre functions of integer degree of the first and second kinds ($`x\pm 1`$)

$$(\theta )=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_l_l(x),$$
(12)
where

$$_l(x)=pP_l(x)+qQ_l(x),$$
(13)
with $`p`$ and $`q`$ real or complex constants independent of $`l`$. Rather, as a result of the property $`lQ_{l1}(x)1`$ as $`l0`$, the extended resummation identity holds ($`x\pm 1`$) Anni and Renna (1981)

$$\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_l^{(i1)}_l(x)=\frac{1}{1x}\left[\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_l^{(i)}_l(x)qa_0^{(i1)}\right],$$
(14)
where the recurrence relation (11) gives $`a_l^{(i)}`$ in terms of $`a_l^{(i1)}`$. By iterating (14) $`r`$ times , $`(\theta )`$ can be written in the extended resummed form ($`x\pm 1`$) Anni and Renna (1981)

$$(\theta )=\frac{1}{(1x)^r}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_l^{(r)}_l(x)q\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}a_0^{(i1)}\frac{1}{(1x)^i}.$$
(15)
It is important to note that $`(\theta )`$ is independent of the value used for $`r`$.

The $`Q_l^{()}(x)`$ used to split $`P_l(x)`$ in the Fuller NF method are a particular case (with $`p=1/2`$, and $`q=\pm i/\pi `$) of the more general linear combination $`_l(x)`$

When the splitting (3) is made in the initial (1) or resummed PWS (9), different NF subamplitudes are obtained, i.e. the NF subamplitudes depend on the order $`r`$ of the resummation. In particular, the last term on the r.h.s. of (15) is omitted from these $`r`$ dependent resummed NF subamplitudes. However, the sum of the NF resummed subamplitudes remains $`f(\theta )`$, because the differences exactly cancel each other. A different extended resummation identity occurs in the Hatchell approach, because the functions he used in place of the $`Q_l(x)`$ obey a (inhomogeneous) recurrence relation, different from that for $`Q_l(x)`$ (see Ref. Hollifield and Connor (1999a) for details).

It is important to realize that the YRW resummation procedure (which has been extended in Anni and Renna (1981) to treat PWS like (12) ) can also be used to speed up the convergence of the PWS (1) or (6), or even to ensure their convergence if the PWS was originally defined only in a distributional sense: in fact if $`a_lO(l^p)`$ then $`a_l^{(r)}O(l^{p2r})`$. Indeed the YRW resummation procedure was originally introduced Yennie et al. (1954) to produce, for $`r1`$, a convergent Goodmanson and Taylor (1980) PWS for the full amplitude of high-energy electron-nucleus scattering in which $`S_l`$ is asymptotically Coulombic, and also to speed up the convergence of this PWS.

Using his splitting for $`P_l(x)`$ into traveling angular waves, Hatchell has shown Hatchell (1989) that the unphysical contributions to the SAM NF cross sections systematically decrease on increasing $`r`$, i.e. on using the resummed PWS (9) before the splitting of $`P_l(x)`$, rather then the original unresummed PWS (1). More recently Hollifield and Connor (1999a, b), it was shown that the same NF resummed method gives even better results if the Fuller $`Q_l^{()}(x)`$ functions are used. The superiority of the $`Q_l^{()}(x)`$ seems to be connected with the greater rapidity with which the $`Q_l^{()}(x)`$ approach their asymptotic behavior (7) McCabe and Connor (1995); Hollifield and Connor (1999a, b), compared to the Hatchell NF functions.

The success of using (9) before applying the NF splitting (3) depends upon the properties of the resummed coefficients $`a_l^{(r)}`$. For the SAM at low $`l`$ values, the $`a_l^{(r)}`$ rapidly decrease in magnitude Hollifield and Connor (1999a) with increasing $`r`$. As a result, the low $`l`$ values, where the splitting into running angular waves is physically less reasonable, give a smaller contribution to the resummed PWS.

However, in some cases, this resummation technique acts in the opposite direction, by enhancing the undesired unphysical contributions to the NF resummed subamplitudes. We have found that this happens, for example, for pure Coulomb scattering, for scattering by an impenetrable sphere, and for the SAM (see Noli and Connor (2002)) when the cross section is calculated at an angle $`\pi \theta `$, using the identity $`P_l[\mathrm{cos}(\pi \theta )]=(1)^lP_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$.

### III.2 Improved resummation of full and NF PWS

One possible solution to the intriguing puzzle discussed in Section III.1 is to regard (10) as a particular case of the modified resummation identity Whiteley et al. (2001)

$$\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_l^{(i1)}P_l(x)=\frac{1}{\alpha _i+\beta _ix}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_l^{(i)}P_l(x),i=1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(16)
with $`\alpha _i+\beta _ix0`$ and

$$a_l^{(i)}=\beta _i\frac{l}{2l1}a_{l1}^{(i1)}+\alpha _ia_l^{(i1)}+\beta _i\frac{l+1}{2l+3}a_{l+1}^{(i1)}.$$
(17)
For $`\alpha _i,\beta _i0`$, apart a renormalization factor, the r.h.s. of (16) depends only on the ratio $`\beta _i/\alpha _i`$. Thus, without loss of generality, we can assume $`\alpha _i=1`$ for all $`i`$. By iterating (16) $`r`$ times, we can write $`f(\theta )`$ in the modified resummed form ($`1+\beta _i0`$)

$$f(\theta )=\frac{1}{2ik}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{1}{1+\beta _ix}\right)\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_l^{(r)}P_l(x),$$
(18)
$`r=1,2,\mathrm{}`$. It is straightforward to show that the extended modified resummed form for the PWS (12) is given by ($`x\pm 1`$ and $`1+\beta _i0`$)

$`(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\beta _ix}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_l^{(r)}_l(x)`$ (19)
$`+`$ $`q{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}}\beta _ia_0^{(i1)}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{i}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\beta _jx}}.`$
The identity (18) is the key result for our improved NF method. The YRW resummation formula (9) is obtained when $`\beta _1=\beta _2=\mathrm{}=\beta _r=1`$.

The resummed form (18) with $`\beta \beta _1=\mathrm{}=\beta _r`$ is a particular case of a more general one Whiteley et al. (2001), which uses a basis set of reduced rotation matrix elements; this gives the amplitude for more general scattering processes than those described by (1). For these general PWS, a Fuller-like NF decomposition can be introduced Dobbyn et al. (1999); Sokolovski and Connor (1999); McCabe et al. (2001) which allows the scattering amplitude to be separated into NF subamplitudes. In some cases, the NF cross sections contained unexpected (unphysical) oscillations Whiteley et al. (2001), which are enhanced if the generalization of (9) is used, but which disappear for an appropriate choice of the $`\beta `$-parameter in the generalization of (18).

The considerable successes achieved by the original Fuller NF method suggest that the modified resummed form (18) be used to diminuish unphysical contaminations to the NF subamplitudes when they are present. To do this, we must give a practical rule to fix the values of the $`\beta _i`$ parameters. In Refs. Noli and Connor (2002); Whiteley et al. (2001), it was proposed to select the value of $`\beta \beta _1=\mathrm{}=\beta _r`$ so that $`(1+\beta x)^r`$ approximately mimics the shape of the angular distribution. The shape of the cross section can however be very different from that given by $`(1+\beta x)^r`$. It is therefore desirable to test a different recipe, based on a simple rule. The quantitative recipe proposed here is inspired by the observation that the modified resummation procedures produce a more physical NF understanding by reducing the contribution from the low $`l`$ values in the resummed PWS. This suggests that we select the $`\beta _1,\beta _2,\mathrm{},\beta _r`$ in $`r`$ repeated applications of (16), so as to eliminate as many low $`l`$ terms as possible from the resummed PWS in (18). The transformation from $`\{a_l^{(i1)}\}`$ to $`\{a_l^{(i)}\}`$ is linear tridiagonal, with coefficients linear in $`\beta _i`$, which means that a resummation of order $`r`$ allows one to equate to zero the leading $`r`$ coefficients $`a_l^{(r)}`$, with $`l=0,1,\mathrm{},r1`$, by solving a system of $`r`$ equations of degree $`r`$ in the parameters $`\beta _1,\beta _2,\mathrm{},\beta _r`$. We will call the resummation defined in this way an improved resummation of order $`r`$.

It is straightforward to show that the improved resummation of order $`r=1`$ is obtained by choosing

$$\beta _1=3a_0/a_1,$$
(20)
while the improved resummation of order $`r=2`$ is given by

$$\beta _{1,2}=(B\pm \sqrt{B^24A})/2,$$
(21)
with $`A`$ and $`B`$ solutions of the linear equations

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}(\frac{1}{3}a_0+\frac{2}{15}a_2)A\hfill & +& \hfill \frac{1}{3}a_1B=a_0\\ & & \\ (\frac{3}{5}a_1+\frac{6}{35}a_3)A\hfill & +& \hfill (a_0+\frac{2}{5}a_2)B=a_1.\end{array}$$
(22)
Higher order improved resummations require the solution of more complicated systems of equations.

Note that the improved resummation of order $`r=1`$ is, obviously, not defined if $`a_1=0`$. Similarly the resummation of order $`r=2`$ is not defined for an (accidentally) zero value of the determinant of the linear equations (22). Analogous limitations are expected to hold for higher order resummations. However, these pathological situations were never observed in our calculations. In all the cases we have analyzed using $`r2`$, we find that the improved resummations considerably reduce the width of the angular regions in which the Fuller NF cross sections exhibit unphysical behavior. In these analyses, we have used $`S_l`$ from simple parametrizations, as well as from some of the optical potentials currently employed to describe light heavy-ion scattering.

Note that, as for the YRW resummed form (9), no physical information is lost on using our improved resummed form (18), and the full $`f(\theta )`$ does not depend in any way on the resummation order used. This might seem surprising, because our method omits the contribution from low values of $`l`$. For example, for the improved resummation of order $`r=1`$, the resummed term $`a_0^{(1)}`$ is set to zero in the resummed PWS, but the information on the physical value of $`a_0`$ is contained in the resummed term $`a_1^{(1)}`$ and in the resummation parameter $`\beta _1`$, and similarily for higher order resummations. The improved resummation method only modifies the NF (resummed) subamplitudes, not their sum $`f(\theta )`$, as it tries to eliminate unphysical contributions that have their origin in the NF splitting of the $`P_l(x)`$ into running waves $`Q_l^{()}(x)`$.

The physical meaning of the NF splitting (3) is based on the asymptotic properties of $`P_l(x)`$ and $`Q_l^{()}(x)`$, see (7). The NF splitting (3) is not expected to be physically meaningful for low $`l`$ values. For example, for $`l=0`$, (3) states that $`P_0(x)=1`$ is the sum of

$$Q_0^{()}(x)=\frac{1}{2}\pm \frac{i}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}[(1+x)/(1x)].$$
(23)
This decomposition of unity is undoubtly mathematically exact, but it is difficult to think that it can be physically meaningful. It is contributions of this type that the improved resummation omits from the resummed PWS, after having moved to higher values of $`l`$ in the resummed PWS, the physical information contained in the original $`S_l`$.

It is also interesting to understand the reasons for the successes and failures of the Hatchell method for the SAM Hollifield and Connor (1999a, b); Noli and Connor (2002) based on the use of the YRW resummed form (9) for $`f(\theta )`$ and the Fuller NF splitting (3). In those cases where the Hatchell method is successfull, we find for low $`l`$ values, $`S_lS_{l+1}`$, and the $`a_l^{(r)}`$ are made small in magnitude with the choice $`\beta _1\beta _2\mathrm{}\beta _r1`$. In those cases where the Hatchell method fails, it happens that, for low $`l`$ values, $`S_lS_{l+1}`$, and the choice $`\beta _1\beta _2\mathrm{}\beta _r1`$ makes the $`a_l^{(r)}`$ small in magnitude. Our improved method automatically chooses appropriate values for the resummation parameters using the exact values of $`S_l`$.

Finally, we summarize the procedure used by our new improved resummation method. The calculations are performed applying: first, an improved resummation of order $`r=0,1,2`$, with $`r=0`$ meaning no resummation, second, the Fuller NF splitting (3), and third an extended YRW resummation (15) of the NF (resummed) subamplitudes. This latter YRW resummation is necessary to ensure the convergence of the final NF PWS. This final resummation can, however, be replaced with any other procedure that provides convergence of the final NF PWS. The results obtained from these three steps will be indicated by the notation $`\text{R}=0_\text{Y},1_\text{Y},2_\text{Y}`$. The notation $`\text{R}=0_\text{Y}`$ is used in Fig. 1. Also, we use $`\text{R}=0`$ to indicate the original Fuller method for the SAM case: no resummation and no final YRW resummation, because, in this case, the presence of the 1 in the term $`S_l1`$ ensures rapid convergence of the PWS.

### III.3 Strong absorption model for elastic scattering

Our results obtained after applying the $`\text{R}=1_\text{Y},2_\text{Y}`$ procedures to the SAM of Sec. II.2 are shown in Fig. 4.

The effectiveness of the improved resummation procedure is impressive, both for the NF cross sections and for the NF LAM curves. Using the $`\text{R}=1_\text{Y}`$ method (for which $`\beta _1=0.7621`$), the F (= $``$N) LAM and the F (= N) cross section are in agreement with the expected results up to $`\theta 140^{}`$. For $`\text{R}=2_\text{Y}`$ (which has $`\beta _{1,2}=0.8634\pm 0.0723i`$), the agreement covers almost the whole angular range. The small irregular oscillations appearing at large $`\theta `$ for the N LAM curve, when $`\text{R}=2_\text{Y}`$, may arise from precision limitations (64 bit floating point representation) in the calculations, or from residual unphysical contributions not completely removed by our improved method.

If instead we apply the YRW resummation procedure, we find that it gives worse results compared to our $`\text{R}=1_\text{Y},2_\text{Y}`$ methods, although better results than the Fuller $`\text{R}=0_\text{Y}`$ method. This is because the YRW choice of $`\beta _1=\beta _2=1`$ is not too far from our improved estimate of these parameters.

Note that, using our improved procedure, the value of the SAM cut-off parameter, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10`$, is correctly identified in the plots of the LAM. Also, no shift of the LAM occurs on changing the resummation order. We recall that resummation does not change or translate in any way the physical properties $`S_l`$; nor does it alter the physical content of $`f(\theta )`$. It only changes the coefficients $`\alpha _l^{(r)}`$ in the resummed PWS (18). Note that the $`\alpha _l^{(r)}`$ have a different meaning from the partial wave amplitudes $`a_l`$, and the summation index of the resummed PWS (18) should not be identified as the orbital angular momentum quantum number. This is because the resummation extracts the factor $`_{i=1}^r(1+\beta _ix)^1`$ from the Legendre polynomial PWS.

### III.4 Optical model for 16O + 16O elastic scattering

Figure 5 shows our results for the WS2 optical potential of Sec. II.3 using the $`\text{R}=1_\text{Y}`$ method (for which $`\beta _1=0.99970.0800i`$). The oscillations of the Fuller N curves around $`\theta 90^{}`$ are removed, and both the $`\text{R}=1_\text{Y}`$ N cross section and the N LIP curve are considerably simpler than those from the Fuller method. The F curves are essentially the same as those in Fig. 2, although the $`\text{R}=1_\text{Y}`$ method has suppressed the oscillations in the F cross section at backward angles (compare the insets in the lower panels of Figs. 2 and 5), as well as the oscillations in the F LIP curve in the same angular range. This demonstrates that the $`\text{R}=1_\text{Y}`$ method is more effective than the usual Fuller one in decomposing $`f(\theta )`$ into slowly varying NF subamplitudes. It also shows that some oscillations in the Fuller NF cross sections in Fig. 2 are artifacts, without any physical meaning, introduced by the properties of the NF technique used. We have also applied the improved resummation method $`\text{R}=2_\text{Y}`$. The results are practically the same as those for $`\text{R}=1_\text{Y}`$ and are not shown.

The cleaning by the $`\text{R}=1_\text{Y}`$ procedure in Fig. 5 of the original Fuller NF subamplitudes (Fig. 2) is impressive and allows a better identification, in the F cross section and F LIP of the dominance, for $`\theta 90^{}`$, of the contributions from classical-like trajectories refracted from the internal part of the nuclear interaction. In Fig. 5, this interpretation is demonstrated by the overall agreement, for $`\theta 90^{}`$, between the F curves and the classical mechanical results (thin curve, labelled 1) corresponding to impact parameters smaller than the classical orbiting one.

For the WS2 potential the collision energy is, in fact, slightly below the critical energy at which orbiting disappears for the classical deflection function (when it is transformed into a nuclear rainbow minimum). Because of this, the dependence of the impact parameter $`b`$ on $`\theta `$ is that of an infinitly many-valued function (Newton (1982), p. 127-129). Four of these branches, corresponding to the deflection function being larger than $`360^{}`$, are plotted for the LIP in the upper panel of Fig. 5 (shown by thin curves) and labelled from 1 to 4 for increasing values of $`b`$. The LIP is assumed to be equal to $`b`$ for the F branches (thin dashed curves, with labels 1 and 4) and to $`b`$ in the N case (thin continuous curves, 2 and 3). In the lower panel, the thin curves, with the same labels, show the contributions to the classical cross section from these branches, in which we have included, in the usual simple way (Brink (1985), p. 49), the absorptive effects of the imaginary part of the optical potential.

The agreement between the quantum $`\text{R}=1_\text{Y}`$ F curves and the classical curve labelled 1 is overall good for $`\theta 90^{}`$, and is impressive for $`\theta 120^{}`$. This shows that the $`\text{R}=1_\text{Y}`$ F subamplitude, calculated by an exact quantum method, is dominated for $`\theta 90^{}`$ by a classical contribution corresponding to trajectories with small impact parameters, $`b5`$ fm, which are refracted by the nuclear interaction. The contribution from F branch 1 continues at $`180^{}`$ into the contribution from N branch 2. However, as $`\theta `$ decreases from $`180^{}`$, there is an increasing disagreement with the average quantum N contribution. Evidently, for impact parameters that approach the orbiting one ($`b_{\text{orb}}=6.001`$ fm), diffractive effects start to become significant. Finally, we note that there is a large disagreement between the classical F curve 4 and the average behavior of the quantum F cross section at forward angles. This suggests that the other F subamplitude responsible for the interference pattern in the F quantum cross section cannot be considered a classical-like refractive contribution.

### III.5 Additional optical model examples

In Fig. 6, we show the N (upper panel) and F (lower panel) cross sections calculated using the improved NF method, $`\text{R}=1_\text{Y}`$, for the optical potentials considered in Sec. II.4. In contrast to Fig. 3, no normalization factors are used in Fig. 6. Comparison of Fig. 6 with Fig. 3 shows that the $`\text{R}=1_\text{Y}`$ NF resummation method has removed the unphysical contributions that dominate the Fuller NF cross sections over most of the angular range.

For these cases, $`\beta _1=1.00010.0283i,1.00010.0218i,0.99910.0102i,0.99580.0021i`$, and $`0.99850.0010i`$, in descending order for the collision systems listed in the legend of the upper panel of Fig. 6. In all cases, $`\beta _11`$, which is a consequence of the fact that, for these five collision systems, at low $`l`$ values we have $`S_lS_{l+1}`$. The result $`\beta _11`$ also explains why the unphysical contributions in the Fuller NF cross sections of Fig. 3 have very similar shapes. Indeed for $`\beta _1=1`$, the angular dependence of the unphysical cross sections is $`(1x)^2\mathrm{sin}^4(\theta /2)`$, which is the same as the Rutherford cross section. This implies that on making the (usual) plot of the ratio of the cross sections to the Rutherford one, the unphysical contributions will appear independent of $`\theta `$, i.e. a constant.

Figure 6 clearly shows that the $`\text{R}=1_\text{Y}`$ method has cleaned the Fuller NF cross sections of unphysical contributions. The $`\text{R}=1_\text{Y}`$ and Fuller NF cross sections agree closely at forward angles, with the $`\text{R}=1_\text{Y}`$ curves providing the correct continuation of the Fuller NF curves to larger angles, where the unphysical Fuller NF contributions become dominant over the $`\text{R}=1_\text{Y}`$ results. In addition, the $`\text{R}=1_\text{Y}`$ procedure clearly identifies the oscillatory pattern of the 16O + 16O full cross sections at $`E_{\text{lab}}=`$ 480 MeV and 704 MeV as an interference between the NF resummed subamplitudes.

As a final curiosity, we note that a ’suspect’ behavior appears in the $`\text{R}=1_\text{Y}`$ NF cross sections for $`\alpha +^{12}`$C at $`\theta 40^{}`$. We find that the corresponding $`\text{R}=1_\text{Y}`$ NF LIP are $`0`$ for $`\theta 60^{}`$. However, the LIP for the full amplitude is also $`0`$ for $`\theta 60^{}`$, indicating that the full cross section is dominated by contributions from low partial waves in this angular region.

We have repeated the calculations, substituting the WS form factors used in Khoa et al. (2002), with symmetrized WS-like form factors defined by

$$f_{\text{sym}}(r,R,d)=\mathrm{sinh}\frac{R}{d}/(\mathrm{cosh}\frac{R}{d}+\mathrm{cosh}\frac{r}{d}),$$
(24)
where $`R`$ and $`d`$ are the radius and diffuseness parameters, respectively. We find that the full cross section decreases for $`\theta 60^{}`$ by more than 5 orders of magnitude, which exceeds the precision limits of our optical potential computer code. At forward angles the effect of the substitution is very small. This supports the conjecture that the suspect behavior in the $`\text{R}=1_\text{Y}`$ NF and full cross sections arises from the ’cusp’, which the usual WS potentials have at the origin. The cusp is expected to produce diffraction scattering for the low partial waves, which is equally distributed between the N and F subamplitudes. It is this effect that we observe, and which disappears on removing the cusp. Similar effects, although masked by the limited range of the scale along the ordinate, are also observed in the 16O + 16O collision at $`E_{\text{lab}}=`$ 1120 MeV, as well as tentatively in the $`\text{R}=1_\text{Y}`$ N $`\alpha +^{40}`$Ca cross section.

## IV Conclusions

Our new NF resummation procedure clearly improves the original Fuller NF method, as is evident from the seven examples discussed here, and from those presented elsewhere Anni et al. (2001); Anni (2002). In all these cases, we obtain NF resummed cross sections that are more slowly varying and less structured than the Fuller ones. On the one hand, our results confirm the utility of NF methods for gaining insight into the properties of the subamplitudes responsible for complicated structures in cross sections. On the other hand, they remind us of the empirical origin of NF methods, and suggest caution in the interpretation of results obtained from NF techniques. Using different NF methods lets us check what parts of the resulting NF subamplitudes are independent of the particular technique used. Only properties stable with respect to different NF methods, can be considered as manifestations of some physical phenomenon.

In addition, we have shown that in all NF analyses, it is desirable to investigate the behavior of the LAM. This quantity is more sensitive to interference effects than are the NF cross sections, and a null value (or an oscillatory behavior around zero) of the NF LAM in a certain angular range may indicate the dominance of an unphysical contribution.

###### Acknowledgements.

Support of this research by a PRIN MIUR (I) research grant, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (UK) and INTAS (EU) is gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# Discovery Potential for Doubly Charged Higgs Bosons in 𝑒⁺𝑒⁻ Collisions at LEP

## I Introduction

The real nature of the Higgs sector is unknown, with the single $`SU(2)_L`$ doublet of the Standard Model (SM) as only the simplest possibility. Scalar $`SU(2)`$ triplet representations arise in some extensions of the SM, often motivated by their usefulness in generating neutrino masses. A Higgs triplet with the appropriate quantum numbers includes a doubly charged Higgs boson, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$, as part of its physical particle content. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ has a distinct experimental signature through its decay to a pair of like sign leptons. The discovery of a $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ would have important implications for our understanding of the Higgs sector and more importantly, for what lies beyond the standard model. This is especially interesting at this time given the evidence for neutrino mass from SNO  and Super-Kamiokande  and the recent hints of dileptons by the H1 Collaboration  at HERA.

We have previously considered signals for doubly charged Higgs boson production via the process $`e^{}\gamma e^+\mu ^{}\mu ^{}`$ , where the photon is produced with a laser backscattered from one of the beams of an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider. In that work we considered collider centre of mass energies of $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV and higher. We refer the interested reader to ref.  for earlier work on this process. Here we study the sensitivity to a doubly charged Higgs boson in the process $`e^+e^{}e^+e^+\mu ^{}\mu ^{}`$ for centre of mass energies appropriate to LEP200, $`\sqrt{s}200`$ GeV. We approximate this reaction using the subprocess $`e^+e^{}+\gamma e^+e^+\mu ^{}\mu ^{}`$, assuming the Weizsäcker-Williams photon spectrum  for the intermediate photon. Thus, this work involves the same $`e\gamma `$ initiated process as we have previously considered, as shown in the Feynman diagrams of Fig. 1. The direct production of doubly charged Higgs bosons is illustrated by the diagrams of Fig. 1a. However, the non-resonant contributions of the Feynman diagrams of Fig. 1b also contribute to the distinct $`\mu ^{}\mu ^{}`$ signal when the mass of the doubly charge Higgs exceeds the $`e\gamma `$ centre of mass energy, $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }>\sqrt{s_{e\gamma }}`$. These non-resonant contributions play an important role in the reach that one can obtain for doubly charged Higgs masses. Because the signature of same sign muon pairs in the final state is so distinctive and has no SM background, we find that the process can be sensitive to virtual $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$’s with masses in excess of the centre of mass energy, depending on the strength of the Yukawa coupling to leptons.

We briefly summarize the relevant properties of the doubly charged Higgs boson. We refer the reader to ref.  for more details of models that include Higgs triplets such as the Left-Right symmetric model  and the Left-handed Higgs triplet model , and for a more comprehensive list of references.

The generic form of the Yukawa coupling to leptons of a scalar which transforms as an $`SU(2)_L`$ triplet is

$$_{Yuk}=ih_{ll^{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{lL}^TC\sigma _2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }_{l^{}L}+h.c.,$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ denotes the scalar triplet, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{lL}`$ denotes the left-handed lepton doublet with flavour $`l`$, and $`C`$ is the charge conjugation matrix. Thus the interaction of the doubly charged Higgs boson with leptons is parametrized by a set of couplings $`h_{ll^{}}`$, where $`l,l^{}`$ are flavour indices.

The product of Yukawa couplings $`h_{ee}h_{\mu \mu }`$ dictates the magnitude of the process we consider here. Indirect constraints on the masses and couplings of doubly charged Higgs bosons have been obtained from lepton number violating processes and muonium-antimuonium conversion experiments . The most stringent limits come from that latter measurement . For flavour diagonal couplings these measurements require that the ratio of the Yukawa coupling, $`h`$, and Higgs mass, $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, satisfy $`h/M_\mathrm{\Delta }<0.44`$ TeV<sup>-1</sup> at 90% C.L.. Non-diagonal flavour couplings are indirectly constrained to be rather small by the rare decays $`\mu \overline{e}ee`$  and $`\mu e\gamma `$  so we neglect them in this analysis.

The indirect bounds allow the existence of low-mass doubly charged Higgs with a small coupling constant. These limits can be circumvented in certain models as a result of cancellations among additional diagrams arising from other new physics . Thus, from this point of view, direct limits are generally more robust. We refer the reader to ref.  for references on other direct bounds. We only specifically note here the work of Gregores et al. , which most closely resembles the approach presented here. We point out certain differences between our calculation and theirs in the next section.

## II Calculations and Results

We are studying the sensitivity to doubly charged Higgs bosons in the process $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}\gamma e^+e^+\mu ^{}\mu ^{}`$ where the intermediate photon is given by the Weizsäcker-Williams photon spectrum . The signal of like-sign dimuons is distinct and SM background free, offering excellent potential for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ discovery. The direct production of doubly charged Higgs bosons and their non-resonant contributions are illustrated in Figs. 1a and 1b, respectively.

To calculate the cross section we convolute the Weizsäcker-Williams photon spectrum, $`f_{\gamma /e}(x)`$ , with the subprocess cross section, $`\widehat{\sigma }(e^{}\gamma e^+\mu ^{}\mu ^{})`$;

$$\sigma =𝑑xf_{\gamma /e}(x,\sqrt{s}/2)\widehat{\sigma }(e^{}\gamma e^+\mu ^{}\mu ^{}).$$
(2)
We obtained analytic expressions for the matrix elements using the CALKUL helicity amplitude method  and performed the phase space integrals using Monte-Carlo integration techniques. This approach offers a nice check using the gauge invariance properties of the sum of the amplitudes. As the expressions for the matrix elements are lengthy and not particularly illuminating we do not include them here. Our numerical results include the possibility of both charge states, where the photon is emitted from either the electron or the positron.

Because we are including contributions to the final state that proceed via off-shell $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$’s we must include the doubly-charged Higgs boson width in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ propagator. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ width is dependent on the parameters of the model, which determine the size and relative importance of various decay modes. The decay $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}W^{}W^{}`$ is negligible assuming the VEV of the neutral member of the triplet is small, which it is limited to be by the LEP2 bound on the $`\rho `$ parameter  and by bounds on the mass of left-handed neutrinos . The decay rates for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}W^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ depend both on the model’s couplings and on the Higgs mass spectrum, the latter consideration determining whether the decays are kinematically allowed at all. For the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ mass range we are considering here we expect the partial width to final state fermions, which is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^{})=\frac{1}{8\pi }h_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}^2M_\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(3)
to dominate. Since we assume in our numerical results that $`h_{ee}=h_{\mu \mu }=h_{\tau \tau }h`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f=3\times \mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^{})`$. However, to be general, we also allow the possibility of a small additional width by taking

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_b+\mathrm{\Gamma }_f,$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b`$ is the partial width to final state bosons and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ is the partial width into final state SM fermions. Indeed, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ width cannot be given without knowing the full particle content of the theory so that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b`$ can be regarded as reflecting this ignorance. We consider two scenarios for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ width: a scenario with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b=0`$ and a scenario with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b=1.5`$ GeV for $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }>160`$ GeV, a possible threshold for boson pair production. In fact, the non-zero bosonic width only makes a noticeable contribution to our results for $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ just above this threshold value and we include it only to give the reader an idea of the uncertainty due to our ignorance of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b`$.

A final note before proceeding to our results is that we only consider chiral couplings of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to leptons. Our results here are all based on left-handed couplings. However, we also did the calculations for right-handed couplings. The amplitude squared and hence the numerical results are identical in both cases. As a result, the discovery potential for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ would be the same as that for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$, assuming one can make the same assumptions regarding parameters and mass spectra. This assumption may not be valid. We did not consider the case of mixed chirality.

To obtain numerical results we take as the SM inputs $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.23124`$ and $`\alpha =1/128`$ . Since we work only to leading order in $`||^2`$, there is some arbitrariness in what to use for the above input, in particular $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$.

We consider two possibilities for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ signal. In the first case we impose that the three subprocess final state particles be observed and identified. This has the advantage that the event can be fully reconstructed and as a check, the momentum must be balanced, at least in the transverse plane. In the second case, we assume that the positron is not observed, having been lost down the beam pipe. This case has the advantage that the cross section is enhanced due to divergences in the limit of massless fermions. The disadvantage is that there will be some missing energy in the reaction so that it cannot be kinematically constrained which might lead to backgrounds where some particles in SM reactions are lost down the beam. Although we expect these potential backgrounds to be minimal, this issue needs to be understood in a realistic detector simulation and should be kept in mind.

To take into account detector acceptance we restrict the angles of the observed particles relative to the beam, $`\theta _\mu ,\theta _{e^+}`$, to the ranges $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |0.95`$ . We assume an identification efficiency for each of the detected final state particles of $`ϵ=0.9`$. Finally, we note that one could impose additional cuts on the lepton energies to reflect further details of detector acceptance and impose a maximum value on the muon energies so that the tracks are not so stiff that their charge cannot be determined. However, these details are best left to the experimentalists to decide in the context of their detector simulation.

In Fig. 2 we show the cross sections as a function of $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for the reaction $`e^+e^{}e^+e^+\mu ^{}\mu ^{}+e^{}e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^+`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV for the two final state situations. The value of the Yukawa coupling is taken arbitrarily to be $`h=0.1`$ and we show cross sections for the two treatments of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ width described above. The solid (dotted) curve is for the case when all three subprocess final state leptons are observed in the detector and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_f+\mathrm{\Gamma }_b`$) and the dashed and dot-dashed curves arise when only the final state muons are observed for those two width scenarios. The cross sections fall monotonically as $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ increases, with a steep dropoff beyond the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ production threshold, $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }>\sqrt{s}`$, to rather small values. The cross section for the case of only observing the final state muons is similar in shape although roughly a factor of 2 larger in magnitude.

Although the cross sections below threshold are rather small, the signature of a $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is so distinctive and SM background free, discovery would be signalled by even one event. With the LEP integrated luminosities we expect that $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can probed up to the kinematic limit of $`190`$ GeV for moderate values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }ff`$ Yukawa couplings but a $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ with larger mass would reveal itself if its Yukawa coupling were large enough. To obtain discovery limits for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ we use the integrated luminosities and corresponding centre of mass energies given in Table I. To generate results based on the total integrated luminosity for all four LEP experiments, we multiplied the integrated luminosities per experiment given in Table I by a factor of four. To obtain discovery limit contours we calculated the expected event rate for each value of $`h`$ and $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This was done by calculating the cross section for each value of $`h`$ and $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for a given $`\sqrt{s}`$ and multiplying the cross section by the detection efficiency and integrated luminosity corresponding to that $`\sqrt{s}`$. The event rates corresponding to each value of $`\sqrt{s}`$ were then added together to give the total expected event rate for each value of $`h`$ and $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

In Fig. 3 we show 95% C.L. contours for the discovery of a doubly charged Higgs boson, corresponding to 3 events, in the Yukawa coupling - doubly charged Higgs mass ($`hM_\mathrm{\Delta }`$) parameter space. The four contours correspond to the case of observing the final state $`\mu `$ pairs plus the beam positron (or electron) with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ (long dashed line) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_f+\mathrm{\Gamma }_b`$ (dotted line) and the cases of observing only the $`\mu `$ pair with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ (dot-dashed line) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_f+\mathrm{\Gamma }_b`$ (short-dashed line).

One sees that the discovery limits are only sensitive to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ width for a small range of $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b`$ is “turned on”: $`160\text{GeV}<M_\mathrm{\Delta }<200\text{GeV}`$.

It should be noted in comparing our results to those of Gregores et al , that they only included the Feynman diagrams with s-channel contributions from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ and therefore restricted their study to resonance $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ production. In effect they looked at $`e^{}e^{}`$ fusion where one of the $`e^{}`$’s is the beam electron and the other arises from the equivalent particle approximation for an electron in the photon. In this approximation the authors assume that the positron is lost down the beam. Furthermore, they have not included the bosonic width. This is quite typical for doubly charged Higgs studies; however, as we show, the results are sensitive to this parameter for a particular range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ masses. Additionally, in ref. , they take an overall efficiency factor of 0.9 while ours is a more conservative $`(0.9)^2`$ for the signature in which only the two final state muons are observed. (Note also that the coupling of ref.  is related to ours by $`\lambda =h/\sqrt{2}`$.) Taking into account this width dependence and the fact that ours is a complete calculation rather than an equivalent particle approximation, explains the difference between the results.

The general behavior of these sensitivity curves reflects the dependence of the cross section on $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}_{e\gamma }}>M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ real $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s can be produced and the process is sensitive to the existence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s with relatively small Yukawa couplings. However, for $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }>\sqrt{\widehat{s}_{e\gamma }}`$ the process only proceeds via virtual $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s resulting in a smaller cross section that only leads to observable signals for larger values of the Yukawa couplings. We summarize the 95% probability mass discovery limits for the various scenarios in Table II for some representative coupling values.

## III Summary

Doubly charged Higgs bosons arise in one of the most straightforward extensions of the standard model: the introduction of Higgs triplet representations. Their observation would signal physics outside the current paradigm and perhaps point to what lies beyond the SM. As such, searches for doubly charged Higgs bosons are important. In this paper we studied the discovery potential for doubly charged Higgs bosons at LEP2. We found that doubly charged Higgs bosons could be discovered for even relatively small values of the Yukawa couplings: $`h>0.01`$ for $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ up to roughly 190 GeV. We note that the OPAL Collaboration at LEP has used this process to infer a 95 % C.L. upper limits of $`h_{ee}<0.08`$ for $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }<160`$ GeV . For values of $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ greater than the production threshold, discovery is possible even for $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ greater than $`\sqrt{s}`$ because of the distinctive, background free final state in the process $`e\gamma e^+\mu ^{}\mu ^{}`$ which can proceed via virtual contributions from intermediate $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors are most grateful to Rob Macpherson for many useful discussions and communications. This research was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. N.R. is partially supported by RFFI Grant 01-02-17152 (Russian Fund of Fundamental Investigations).


text:
# Lagrangian Statistics and Temporal Intermittency in a Shell Model of Turbulence

## Abstract

We study the statistics of single particle Lagrangian velocity in a shell model of turbulence. We show that the small scale velocity fluctuations are intermittent, with scaling exponents connected to the Eulerian structure function scaling exponents. The observed reduced scaling range is interpreted as a manifestation of the intermediate dissipative range, as it disappears in a Gaussian model of turbulence.

In the recent years there has been a great improvement in the experimental investigation of turbulence from a Lagrangian point of view . In the Lagrangian approach the flow is described by the (Lagrangian) velocity $`𝒗(𝒙_0,t)`$ of a fluid particle initially at position $`𝒙(0)=𝒙_0`$. This is the natural description for studying transport and mixing of neutrally advected substances in turbulent flows.

One of the simplest statistical quantities one can be interested in is single particle velocity increments $`\delta 𝒗(t)=𝒗(t)𝒗(0)`$ (where, assuming statistical homogeneity, we have dropped the dependence on $`𝒙_0`$) for which dimensional analysis in fully developed turbulence predicts

$$\delta v_i(t)\delta v_j(t)=C_0\epsilon t\delta _{ij}$$
(1)
where $`\epsilon `$ is the mean energy dissipation and $`C_0`$ is a numerical constant. The remarkable coincidence that the variance of $`\delta 𝒗(t)`$ grows linearly with time is the physical basis on which stochastic models of particle dispersion are based. It is important to recall that the “diffusive” nature of (1) is purely incidental: it is a direct consequence of Kolmogorov scaling in the inertial range of turbulence and is not directly related to a diffusive process. Let us recall briefly the argument leading to the scaling in (1). We can think at the velocity $`v(t)`$ advecting the Lagrangian trajectory as the superposition of the different velocity contributions coming from the turbulent eddies (which also move with the same velocity of the Lagrangian trajectory). After a time $`t`$ the components associated to the smaller (and faster) eddies, below a certain scale $`\mathrm{}`$ are decorrelated and thus at the leading order one has $`\delta v(t)\delta v(\mathrm{})`$. Within Kolmogorov scaling, the velocity fluctuation at scale $`\mathrm{}`$ is given by $`\delta v(\mathrm{})V(\mathrm{}/L)^{1/3}`$ where $`V`$ represents the typical velocity at the largest scale $`L`$. The correlation time of $`\delta v(\mathrm{})`$ scales as $`\tau (\mathrm{})\tau _0(\mathrm{}/L)^{2/3}`$ and thus one obtains the scaling in (1).

Equation (1) can be generalized to higher order moments with the introduction of a set of temporal scaling exponent $`\xi (p)`$

$$\delta v(t)^pV^p(t/\tau _0)^{\xi (p)}$$
(2)
The dimensional estimation sketched above gives the prediction $`\xi (p)=p/2`$ but one expects corrections to dimensional scaling in presence of intermittency.

A generalization of (1) which takes into account intermittency corrections can be easily developed within the multifractal model of turbulence . The dimensional argument is repeated for the local scaling exponent $`h`$, giving $`\delta v(t)V(t/\tau _0)^{h/(1h)}`$. Integrating over the $`h`$ distribution one ends with the prediction

$$\delta v(t)^pV^p𝑑h\left(\frac{t}{\tau _0}\right)^{[phD(h)+3]/(1h)}$$
(3)
where, in the limit $`t/\tau _00`$, the integral can be estimated by a steepest descent argument giving finally

$$\xi (p)=\underset{h}{\mathrm{min}}\left[\frac{phD(h)+3}{1h}\right]$$
(4)
The fractal dimension $`D(h)`$ is related to the Eulerian structure function scaling exponents $`\zeta (q)`$ by the Legendre transform  $`\zeta (q)=\mathrm{min}_h[qhD(h)+3]`$. The standard inequality in the multifractal model (following from the exact result $`\zeta (3)=1`$), $`D(h)3h+2`$ implies for (4) that even in presence of intermittency $`\xi (2)=1`$. This is a direct consequence of the fact that energy dissipation enters in (1) at the first power. Our expression for scaling exponents (4) recovers in a more compact form the prediction obtained on the basis of an “ergodic hypothesis” of the statistics of energy dissipation .

Recent experimental results  have shown that indeed Lagrangian velocity fluctuations are intermittent and display anomalous scaling exponents, as predicted by the above argument. Despite the relative high Reynolds number of the experiments, a true temporal scaling range is not observed. Thus the estimation of the scaling exponents in (2) can be done only relatively to a reference moment (the so-called ESS procedure ).

In this work we use a dynamical toy model of turbulence for investigating scaling (2) and prediction (4) at very high Reynolds numbers. The model is a popular shell model of turbulence  in which the velocity fluctuations of the eddies at the scale $`\mathrm{}_n=L2^n`$ are represented by a single variable $`u_n`$ ($`n=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$). Only local interaction among shells are represented and therefore no sweeping effects are present. In this sense shell models are dynamical models of velocity fluctuations in a Lagrangian framework, and have been already used for the study of turbulent dispersion . The equation of motion for the complex shell variable $`u_n`$ is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{du_n}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`ik_n\left(u_{n+2}u_{n+1}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}}u_{n+1}u_{n1}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1\delta }{4}}u_{n1}u_{n2}\right)`$ (6)
$`\nu k_n^2u_n+f_n`$
where $`k_n=\mathrm{}_n^1`$ and $`f_n`$ is a deterministic forcing acting on the first two shells only. Shell model (6) is characterized by a chaotic dynamics with a statistically steady state with a constant flux of energy from large to small scales. The fluctuations generate by chaoticity induce a breaking of the global scaling invariance and corrections to the Kolmogorov exponents for the structure functions close to the experimental values .

Lagrangian velocity in the shell model framework can be represented as the superposition of the contributions of all the different eddies. Let us thus define

$$v(t)\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}Re(u_n)$$
(7)
where we have taken, rather arbitrarily, only the real part of the shell variables with unit coefficient. From the definition of the shell model, there is not a precise recipe for reconstructing the Lagrangian velocity. More in general, one could think of a representation in which shell variables are multiplied by an appropriate wavelet functions. Of course numerical prefactor, such as $`C_0`$ in (1) will depend on the wavelet basis. Nevertheless one expects that different choices should not affect Lagrangian scaling exponents $`\xi (p)`$ which are determined by the dynamical properties of the model.

Previous studies of multi-time correlations in shell models of turbulence have demonstrated the existence of a set of correlation times compatible with the multifractal picture of the turbulent cascade . This is an indication that, as we will see, Lagrangian velocity defined as (7) will be affected by intermittency.

Very long and accurate numerical simulations of the shell model (6) with $`N=24`$ shells and $`\delta =1/2`$ have been performed. The energy is injected at a constant flux $`\epsilon =0.01`$ is the first $`2`$ shells and is removed at the smallest shells by viscosity $`\nu =10^7`$. With these parameters, our simulations correspond to a Reynolds number $`Re10^8`$. For each realization, Lagrangian structure functions are computed from the Lagrangian velocity (7) up to the large-scale time $`\tau _0`$. Average is then taken over $`10^5`$ independent realizations.

In Fig. 1 we plot the set of numerically determined Eulerian structure function scaling exponent $`\zeta (q)`$ together with the fractal dimension $`D(h)`$ reconstructed by means of the Legendre transform. We observe strong intermittency in velocity statistics with scaling exponent which deviates from Kolmogorov prediction. The scaling exponents are not universal with respect to the particular shell model. Model (6) gives a set of exponents which are a little more intermittent than, but not far from, the experimentally observed exponents : $`\zeta (2)0.72`$, $`\zeta (4)1.25`$, $`\zeta (6)1.71`$. We thus expect that the values of $`\xi (p)`$ obtained from (4) using the $`D(h)`$ of Fig. 1 will be directly comparable with real experimental data.

Figure 2 shows the second-order Lagrangian structure function (1) as a function of time. The linear behavior is evident (see the inset) even if a long crossover from the ballistic scaling at short time $`\delta v(t)^2t^2`$ is present. In spite of the very high Reynolds numbers achievable in the shell model, the extension of the temporal scaling (2) is still moderate. For a comparison with the available experimental data, in the inset we also plot the result obtained from two simulations at lower resolution, with $`Re2\times 10^6`$ and $`Re10^5`$. In the latter case almost no scaling range is observable. Despite these limitations, we will see that high $`Re`$ simulations allow the determination of the Lagrangian scaling exponents with good accuracy.

The long crossover in Fig. 2 can be understood in terms of intermediate dissipative range as a consequence of the fluctuating dissipative scale . The smallest time at which one can expect scaling (1) is the Kolmogorov time $`\tau _\eta \tau _0Re^{(1h)/(1+h)}`$ which fluctuates with $`h`$. A demonstration of the effects induced by intermittency is given by considering a non-intermittent Gaussian model.

Setting $`f_n=\nu =0`$, (6) becomes a conservative system with two conserved quantitities which depends on the value of the $`\delta `$ . In statistical stationary condition, the model shows equipartition of the conserved quantities among the shell, in agreement with statistical mechanics prediction . For $`\delta =1+2^{2/3}`$ the equipartition state leads at small scales to Kolmogorov scaling $`|u_n|^2\mathrm{}_n^{2/3}`$ with Gaussian statistics. In Fig. 3 we plot the second-order Lagrangian structure function (1) for the Gaussian model. Both the ballistic and the diffusive scaling is clearly observable and the crossover is strongly reduced with respect to Fig. 2.

In Fig. 4 we plot the probability density functions of $`\delta v(t)`$ computed at different $`t`$ in the linear scaling range of Fig. 2 rescaled with their variances. The form of the pdf varies continuously from almost Gaussian at large time ($`t\tau _0`$) to the development of stretched exponential tails at short times, similar to what observed in laboratory experiments . Flatness $`F`$ grows from Gaussian value $`F=3`$ up to $`F20`$ at smallest times. This is an indication of Lagrangian intermittency, in the sense that the Lagrangian statistics cannot be described in term of a single scaling exponent.

In Fig. 5 we plot the set of Lagrangian scaling exponents $`\xi (p)`$ obtained from a direct fit of temporal structure functions. The nonlinear behavior in $`p`$ confirms the presence of Lagrangian intermittency already observed from the pdf. We present the result for moments up to $`p=6`$ which approximatively corresponds, from (4), to Eulerian structure function of order $`q=8`$. In this sense temporal structure functions are more intermittent. Figure 5 shows that the agreement with the multifractal prediction (4) is very good up to the moment achievable with our statistics. What is even more remarkable is that our prediction is very close to experimentally determined exponents. For example we find $`\xi (3)1.31`$, $`\xi (4)1.58`$, $`\xi (5)1.85`$, while the experimental data give  $`\xi _{exp}(3)=1.34\pm 0.02`$, $`\xi _{exp}(4)=1.56\pm 0.06`$ and $`\xi _{exp}(5)=1.8\pm 0.2`$.

In this work we have investigated the statistical properties of single particle Lagrangian velocity in fully developed turbulence. A prediction for intermittent scaling exponents of Lagrangian structure function is given within the multifractal framework. Very high Reynolds number simulations in shell model confirm the multifractal prediction, even if rather small scaling ranges are observed. In particular, our simulations show that at experimental Reynolds number presently available almost no scaling is observable. The reduction of the scaling range in Lagrangian statistics is interpreted as an effect of the intermediate dissipative range. A Gaussian, non-intermittent version of the shell model confirms this interpretation. An important consequence of our findings is that usual models of particle dispersion, based on stochastic model , are incorrect in a fundamental sense, and one should take into account the modifications due to intermittency.

This work was supported by MIUR-Cofin2001 contract 2001023848. We acknowledge the allocation of computer resources from INFM “Progetto Calcolo Parallelo”.