text:
# Optical Spectropolarimetry of the GRB 020813 Afterglow

## 1 Introduction

It is now generally assumed that the optical afterglows of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) arise from synchrotron emission in the post-shocked gas of a relativistic blast wave (see, e.g., Piran, 2000; Mészáros, 2002). There is credible evidence that GRBs are strongly collimated or beamed explosions (e.g., Rhoads, 1999; Sari, Piran, & Halpern, 1999; Frail et al., 2001). Synchrotron radiation is intrinsically polarized, and the synchrotron emission from a jet will have a net polarization if its axis does not coincide with the line of sight. A natural consequence of models for beamed afterglows is time-variable polarization, which will depend on the viewing geometry as well as the degree of orientation of the magnetic field (e.g., Medvedev & Loeb, 1999; Gruzinov, 1999), up to a maximum polarization of $`20\%`$ (Ghisellini & Lazzati, 1999; Sari, 1999). Optical imaging polarimetry has been performed for a handful of GRB afterglows to search for this signature. The results have been either upper limits (Hjorth et al., 1999; Covino et al., 2002a) or detections at $`p13\%`$ (Covino et al., 1999; Wijers et al., 1999; Rol et al., 2000; Covino et al., 2002b), except for an observation of GRB 020405 by Bersier et al. (2002) that detected $`9.9\%\pm 1.3\%`$ polarization 1.3 days after the burst.

GRB 020813, a typical long-duration burst with a series of pulses, was detected by *HETE-2* at 2:44 UT on 2002 August 13 (Villaseñor et al., 2002), and an associated optical transient (OT) was promptly identified (Fox, Blake, & Price, 2002). The rapid localization allowed us to begin spectropolarimetric observations less than 5 hours after the burst was initially detected. These are the first spectropolarimetric observations obtained for a GRB afterglow. Preliminary descriptions of this dataset were given by Price et al. (2002) and Barth et al. (2002).

## 2 Observations and Reductions

The observations were obtained with the dual-beam LRIS spectropolarimeter (LRISp; Oke et al., 1995; Goodrich, Cohen, & Putney, 1995) on the Keck-I telescope, and a slit width of 1″. The addition of a new ultraviolet polarizing calibration filter to LRISp allowed us for the first time to take advantage of the full available wavelength range of LRISp using both the blue and red cameras. We used a 400 lines mm-1 grism on the blue side of the spectrograph and a 400 lines mm-1 grating on the red side, giving a wavelength scale of 1.09 Å pixel-1 over 3200–5800 Å in the blue and 1.86 Å pixel-1 over 5600–9400 Å in the red. The red and blue beams were separated with a dichroic beamsplitter having 50% transmission at 5700 Å.

We began exposures of the OT associated with GRB 020813 on 2002 August 13 at 7:23 UT, when its brightness was $`V19`$ mag. The total exposure time was 3 hours, broken into individual 15-minute exposures. Each pair of consecutive exposures gives one of the Stokes parameters $`q`$ (with the half-wave plate oriented at 0° and 45°) or $`u`$ (22$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 and 67$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5), and the 4 exposures taken together are used to determine the degree and position angle of linear polarization ($`p`$ and $`\theta `$). We refer to these three sets of four exposures each as the “hour 1”, “hour 2”, and “hour 3” data. The airmass was 1.3–1.5 during the observations, and before starting each hour’s exposures the spectrograph was rotated to place the slit at the parallactic angle for the midpoint of the hour. Seeing was $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}7`$, and there were intermittent thin clouds during the observations.

As a probe of the Galactic interstellar polarization (ISP), we also observed the A2V star HD 187330, which is located 64$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$7 from the line of sight to the GRB. Its apparent magnitude ($`V=9.22`$ mag) implies a distance of $`350`$ pc; this is sufficiently distant to probe the majority of the Galactic ISP for a Galactic latitude of $`21\mathrm{°}`$ (Tran, 1995). Distant A-type stars are useful as probes of ISP because of their brightness and low intrinsic polarization, although ideally a smaller angular separation from the OT would be desirable.

The data were reduced using standard techniques as described by Miller, Robinson, & Goodrich (1988). The zeropoint of $`\theta `$ was calibrated with the polarized standard star BD+59°389 (Schmidt et al., 1992). For the unpolarized standard star HD 14069 we found $`p0.1\%`$ across the entire optical spectrum.

## 3 Continuum and Absorption Lines

Figure 1 displays the total flux spectrum of the OT from all exposures combined. Numerous metal absorption lines are superposed on a featureless continuum, as is typical for GRB afterglow spectra (e.g., Metzger et al., 1997; Kulkarni et al., 1999; Vreeswijk et al., 2001; Jha et al., 2001). Two distinct absorption systems are present in the spectrum (Table 2). The individual absorption lines in the higher-redshift system have a mean $`z=1.255`$. The second system has weaker absorption lines and a mean redshift of 1.223. Both systems show lines of Si II $`\lambda 1527`$, C IV $`\lambda \lambda 1548,1551`$, Al III $`\lambda 1671`$, Mg II $`\lambda \lambda 2796,2804`$, and Mg I $`\lambda 2853`$, as well as several Fe II lines including $`\lambda \lambda 2587,2600`$. Additional features from the $`z=1.255`$ system include lines of Al III, Mn II, Mg I, Zn II, and Cr II. One emission line is also present in the spectrum, centered at 8404.0 Å and consistent with \[O II\] $`\lambda 3727`$ at $`z=1.255`$. We conclude that the $`z=1.255`$ system is the likely host of the GRB, since it is the highest-redshift absorption system detected and its \[O II\] emission line is an indicator of star-forming activity.

Ionization of the surrounding interstellar medium (ISM) by the GRB could cause temporal variations in the equivalent widths of interstellar absorption lines within the host galaxy (Perna & Loeb, 1998), and we have measured the equivalent widths of the absorption lines in the hour 1, 2, and 3 spectra separately to search for any variations. The differences in equivalent widths are consistent with the level of measurement uncertainty, and we conclude that no variability is detected. Searches for ultraviolet absorption-line variability in other GRBs have so far yielded null results as well (Vreeswijk et al., 2001; Mirabal et al., 2002).

The continuum has a power-law slope of $`\beta =1.06\pm 0.01`$ (for $`f_\nu \nu ^\beta `$) on the red side. On the blue side, we find a steeper slope of $`\beta =1.25\pm 0.03`$. This apparent steepening toward the blue is affected by atmospheric dispersion and is sensitive to the centering of the OT within the slit, as well as reddening, so the red-side value is a more reliable measurement of the intrinsic slope. Levan et al. (2002) reported a shallower optical slope of $`\beta =0.8`$ approximately 98 hours after the burst.

## 4 Polarization

Polarization was measured over five wavelength bins: $`35004500`$, $`45005500`$, $`58006800`$, $`68007800`$, and $`78008800`$ Å. All measurements were performed using the $`q`$ and $`u`$ spectra and their associated error spectra, with the results converted to $`p`$ and $`\theta `$ as the final step. We observed the same three polarized standard stars (BD+59°389, HD 19820, and HD 155528) during both nights of our observing run (August 12 and 13 UT). For all three stars and five wavelength bins, the RMS difference in the polarization measured from the two nights’ observations is only 0.04%. The polarized standard stars also have essentially constant $`\theta `$ as a function of wavelength (to within $`\pm 1\mathrm{°}`$), and agreement to within 1° between the two nights of observations. This demonstrates the excellent stability of the instrument.

The raw measurements for the OT yield $`p=2.33.1\%`$ with $`\theta =153\mathrm{°}162\mathrm{°}`$, but a portion of this polarization is caused by transmission through regions of aligned dust grains in the Galactic ISM. The line of sight to GRB 020813 has a Galactic reddening of $`E(BV)=0.111`$ mag (Schlegel, Finkbeiner, & Davis, 1998). Along most Galactic lines of sight, the maximum interstellar polarization observed is 9% per magnitude of $`E(BV)`$ (Serkowski, Mathewson, & Ford, 1975). The ISP probe star has $`p=0.67\%\pm 0.01\%`$ at $`\theta =167\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0\pm 0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}3`$ over 5800–6800 Å, falling comfortably within the expected range, and its $`p(\lambda )`$ spectrum is consistent with a Serkowski interstellar polarization curve. To correct the polarization measurements of the OT, we fitted a low-order polynomial to the $`q`$ and $`u`$ spectra of the ISP star and subtracted the result from the Stokes parameters of the OT. The ISP-corrected measurements for the OT are listed in Table 1; random uncertainties due to photon statistics and detector read noise are at the level of 0.1% in $`p`$ and $`12\mathrm{°}`$ in $`\theta `$. The standard star observations suggest that any additional systematic uncertainties should not be time-variable, and are likely to be $`0.1\%`$ in $`p`$ and $`1\mathrm{°}`$ in $`\theta `$.

The ISP-corrected polarization longward of 5600 Å is nearly constant during the 3 hours at 1.9–2.2%. On the blue side, however, the polarization drops from $`2.4\%\pm 0.1\%`$ during hour 1 to $`1.8\%\pm 0.1\%`$ in hour 3. This is formally a $`4\sigma `$ detection of polarization variability, but it is somewhat surprising to find significant variations in $`p`$ only on the blue side. As a check on this measurement, the reductions were repeated with different extraction and background windows, and repeated again using entirely different reduction software; in all cases the results were consistent with the original measurements to within 0.1% in $`p`$. We conclude that the variability in $`p`$ on the blue side is likely to be genuine, although we caution against over-interpretation of this result since the measurement is not repeatable.

Imaging polarimetry obtained on the following night at the VLT by Covino et al. (2002c) demonstrates a much more dramatic level of variability in $`p`$ over the next 14 hours. Covino et al. find a raw polarization of $`p=1.17\%\pm 0.16\%`$ at $`\theta =158\mathrm{°}\pm 4\mathrm{°}`$, and ISP-corrected values of $`p=0.80\%\pm 0.16\%`$ at $`\theta =144\mathrm{°}\pm 6\mathrm{°}`$.111Covino et al. (2002c) use an ISP correction derived from stars in the same imaging field as the OT. Their $`V`$-band ISP correction is $`p=0.59\%`$ at $`\theta =178\mathrm{°}`$, in reasonable agreement with the polarization we measure for HD 187330. If we apply our ISP correction to their raw measurement we obtain $`p=0.57\%`$ at $`\theta =147\mathrm{°}`$. The change in $`p`$ between our hour 3 data and the VLT observation is significant at the $`7\sigma `$ level. This large drop in $`p`$ demonstrates that most of the polarization we detect in the Keck data must be intrinsic to the OT itself, and not merely the result of transmission through dust within the host galaxy or the intervening galaxy at $`z=1.223`$.

The ISP-corrected polarization detected by Covino et al. (2002c) is sufficiently low that in principle it could arise from the interstellar medium in the host galaxy or perhaps even in the intervening $`z=1.223`$ system, although dust grains have a low polarization efficiency in the ultraviolet (Martin, Clayton, & Wolff, 1999). Furthermore, if GRBs result from the death of massive stars, one can expect many GRBs to occur in dusty and gas-rich star-forming regions, and in extreme cases Type II supernovae can have optical ISP of several percent from the host galaxy (Leonard et al., 2002). However, *Chandra* observations have indicated a low absorbing column of $`N_\mathrm{H}=7\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2 that is consistent with the expected Galactic absorption along the line of sight (Vanderspek et al., 2002). Also, the lack of any large change in $`\theta `$ accompanying the variation in $`p`$ suggests an intrinsic origin for the majority of the detected polarization. Detection of a continued late-time decline in $`p`$ would provide a definitive test.

## 5 Discussion

Our observations, combined with those of Covino et al. (2002c), clearly show variability in the degree of polarization, with a nearly constant position angle. This already places strong constraints on the polarization models. Random effects, such as emission from a small number of randomly oriented magnetic field cells (Gruzinov & Waxman, 1999) or amplification of the emission from one such cell by microlensing (Loeb & Perna, 1998), would predict that $`p`$ and $`\theta `$ should change on the same timescale.

In principle, the jet geometry, together with an assumption of some level of orientation of the amplified magnetic field with respect to the shock, could predict the degree of polarization as function of time. Models based on this scenario (Ghisellini & Lazzati, 1999; Sari, 1999) show that the maximum degree of polarization occurs around the time of the jet break ($`t_{\mathrm{jet}}`$), when the opening angle of the jet is equal to the inverse Lorentz factor. However, at that time the emission is observable from a significant fraction of the jet. This introduces order-unity uncertainties in the polarization predictions since the energy distribution profile as function of distance from the axis of the jet is unknown. In addition, a detailed description of the hydrodynamic evolution is not yet available; only the asymptotic scalings, well before and well after $`t_{\mathrm{jet}}`$, are understood. Thus, it is not possible to make detailed, quantitative comparisons of polarization models with observations.

Despite these uncertainties, we can make general comparisons of the observations with the model proposed by Sari (1999), which predicts sharp features in the polarization light curves, although more realistic assumptions on the hydrodynamics of jet spreading, and on the energy distribution within the initial jet, are expected to produce smoother features than those predicted by this model. This model has three parameters. The line-of-sight offset to the jet determines the shape of the curve; $`t_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ sets the overall timescale; and an overall scale factor for $`p`$ is set by a function of the ratio of the magnetic field components parallel to and perpendicular to the shock front, which is assumed to be constant. We denote the offset in units of the opening angle of the jet by $`0<\varphi <1`$. (For $`\varphi >1`$ the jet is not visible initially, corresponding to an “orphan” afterglow.) Small offsets give rise to a single polarization peak, while large offsets yield three peaks, where the middle one has position angle perpendicular to the other two. More realistic jet models may smooth the curve and eliminate this middle peak. We note that the model of Ghisellini & Lazzati (1999) predicts only two peaks since their calculations did not include the spreading of the jet.

Figure 2 demonstrates that the jet model parameters can be chosen so as to find at least a qualitative agreement with the data. In the figure, our measurements for the 5800–6800 Å polarization, and the $`V`$-band measurement from Covino et al. (2002c), are compared with two sample models. Initial analysis of the optical light curve suggested $`t_{\mathrm{jet}}3.55`$ hours (Bloom, Fox, & Hunt, 2002; Gladders & Hall, 2002), although subsequent analysis (to be presented elsewhere) indicates that the light curves may be consistent with a later value of $`t_{\mathrm{jet}}1011`$ hours. Given this uncertainty in deriving $`t_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ from the photometric data, our approach is to determine whether there are any values of $`t_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ that produce polarization light curves consistent with the observations. The first model has a small offset $`\varphi =0.3`$ and predicts one peak of polarization. (Models with $`0<\varphi 0.35`$ would give similar results.) This requires $`t_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ to occur during the Keck observations, at $`6`$ hours. However, this model somewhat underpredicts the decay of polarization between our measurements and those of Covino et al. A better fit is obtained for a medium-offset model with $`\varphi =0.55`$ and $`t_{\mathrm{jet}}16`$ hours, where the polarization drops to zero, or perhaps even rotates the position angle by 90°, between the Keck and VLT observations. Under both interpretations, the overall level of polarization is less than the maximal possible level of $`20\%`$. This implies that the magnetic field perpendicular to the shock differs only by $`1520`$% from that parallel to the shock front. Models with other values of $`\varphi `$ have difficulty matching both the near-constancy of $`p`$ during the Keck observations (for $`\lambda >5800`$ Å) and the large change in $`p`$ detected by Covino et al. (2002c).

The polarization behavior of GRB 020813 appears rather similar to that of GRB 990712, which varied between $`p=3.0\%`$ at 0.4 days after the burst and 1.2% at $`t=0.8`$ days, at nearly constant position angle (Rol et al., 2000). We note that our models with $`\varphi =0.3`$ or $`0.55`$ could also be nearly consistent with the GRB 990712 data within its uncertainties. Still, as noted by Rol et al., the lack of clear evidence for a jet break for that event casts some doubt on this interpretation.

Finally, we mention that the hints of wavelength dependence to the polarization of GRB 020813, which appear to be time-variable, can not be accommodated by these models. A spectral break passing through the optical band at the time of our three measurements could produce such a signature, but there is no evidence for such a break.

To date, polarimetric observations of GRB afterglows have had rather sparse temporal coverage. Further progress will require continuous polarization monitoring of bright afterglows, initiated as early as possible and extending well beyond $`t_{\mathrm{jet}}`$. Also, our data highlight the need for color information in future polarization measurements. Obtaining such observations would pose some logistical difficulties, but the potential for improved understanding of the physical structure of the synchrotron jets from GRBs would make this effort extremely worthwhile.

Research by A.J.B. is supported by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant #HST-HF-01134.01-A awarded by STScI, which is operated by AURA, Inc., for NASA, under contract NAS 5-26555. R.S. thanks the Sherman Fairchild foundation and a NASA ATP grant for support. Data presented herein were obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among Caltech, the University of California, and NASA. The Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support of the W.M. Keck Foundation. The authors wish to recognize and acknowledge the very significant cultural role and reverence that the summit of Mauna Kea has always had within the indigenous Hawaiian community.


format: text

text:
# Clustering around radio galaxies at 𝐳∼1.5

## 1 Introduction

One of the key questions facing astrophysics today concerns the epoch and mode of formation of the most massive elliptical galaxies. Whilst the majority of galaxies can be easily accommodated by a slow assembly of galaxies from bottom-up, within the standard predictions of semi–analytical models of a cold dark matter Universe kau98 ; col00 , some lines of evidence suggest that an earlier and more dramatic formation mechanism may be necessary to accommodate (some of) the most massive galaxies. In particular:
1. Powerful AGN at high redshifts: the host galaxies of powerful radio sources are the most massive galaxies known at early cosmic epochs \[e.g. 3\], with stellar masses of a few times $`10^{11}M_{}`$ at redshifts $`1\mathrm{}<z\mathrm{}<2`$ bes98 . At higher redshifts, even if fueled at the Eddington limit, central supermassive black holes of $`10^{89}M_{}`$ are required to produce the observed radio luminosity, suggesting that massive galaxies are already in place at redshifts $`z\mathrm{}>5`$ bre99 .
2. The nature of sub-millimetre selected galaxies: many of the powerful sub-mm selected galaxies seen with SCUBA are objects at $`z>2`$, which are currently forming stars at hundreds or thousands of solar masses per year \[e.g. 6\]. The K$`z`$ relation for these SCUBA galaxies indicates that these are amongst the most massive objects at their epoch dun02 . SCUBA galaxies therefore appear to be massive galaxies which are forming the bulk of their stars in a single dramatic starburst at high redshift.
3. Cluster galaxy scaling relations: the very low scatter found around the colour magnitude relation \[e.g. 8\] and the fundamental plane (a tight correlation between the surface brightness ($`I_\mathrm{e}`$), characteristic radius ($`r_\mathrm{e}`$), and velocity dispersion ($`\sigma `$) of cluster ellipticals, which can be roughly approximated as: $`r_\mathrm{e}\sigma ^{1.2}I_\mathrm{e}^{0.8}`$; e.g. 9) of elliptical galaxies in low redshift clusters imply a fairly high formation redshift of these ellipticals, with little bluening from later starbursting activity. The fundamental plane essentially measures the mass–to–light ($`M/L`$) ratio of the galaxies (from $`M\sigma ^2r_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`LI_\mathrm{e}r_\mathrm{e}^2`$ it can be written as $`M/LM^{0.25}`$); by comparing clusters at different redshifts \[e.g. 10,11\], the mass–to–light ratio is found to evolve very slowly with redshift out to $`z0.8`$, as $`\mathrm{\Delta }Log(M/L)0.4z`$. Further, the scatter around neither the fundamental plane nor the colour–magnitude relation shows any significant increase out to redshifts $`z1`$ dok01 ; sta98 . These results both further support the argument that the elliptical galaxies must have formed at a very early cosmic epoch, with limited later star formation (although see dok01  for discussion of a possible ‘progenitor–bias’ selection effect).
4. The ages of massive ellipticals at high redshift: Dunlop et al. dun96  age–dated the old red elliptical galaxy 53W091 at $`z=1.55`$ through a detailed investigation of its optical spectral energy distribution. They derived an age of 3.5 Gyr, comparable to the age of the Universe at that redshift, again implying a very early formation epoch. Although there has since been considerable debate as to the age of this galaxy, and of the similar 53W069, Nolan et al nol01  convincingly defend this initial age estimate. Similar results are beginning to be obtained for Extremely Red Objects (EROs; e.g cim02  and refs therein).

The identification of a sample of cluster elliptical galaxies at redshifts $`z1.5`$ would provide a key opportunity to advance our understanding of the epoch and mode of formation of these objects. This is an early enough epoch to test the ‘progenitor–bias’ model (which would allow later star formation in cluster ellipticals), and would also offer a unique opportunity to compare, through age–dating techniques, the ages of the most luminous elliptical galaxies in the cluster with those of less luminous cluster ellipticals, and therefore directly observe whether there is an age–luminosity relation for cluster ellipticals. Redshift 1.5 is a critical cosmic epoch for these studies: it is still sufficiently nearby that cluster ellipticals can still be identified on the basis of multi–colour imaging in a practical observing time, and is also an epoch where elliptical galaxies are still expected to be plentiful. In this article, the first steps to providing such a sample of elliptical galaxies are discussed.

## 2 Multi–colour imaging of AGN fields

Beyond redshift $`z1`$, the two well–known methods for identifying galaxy clusters, deep optical / near–IR imaging for galaxy overdensities, and X–ray detections of the hot intracluster medium, both start to become very expensive in terms of telescope time to achieve sufficient sensitivity for a wide survey area. For this reason, an alternative method has frequently been adopted: using targetted studies towards powerful AGN. At low redshifts AGN are often found in relatively rich environments \[e.g. 16\], and at redshifts $`z1`$ numerous lines of evidence (including detections of extended X–ray emission, overdensities of galaxies in narrow–band images or selected by infrared colour, cross–correlation analyses, and direct spectroscopic studies of individual sources; see bes00  for a review) indicate that at least some powerful radio sources are located at the centres of galaxy overdensities. At higher redshifts, radio sources have been detected out to $`z=5.2`$ bre99 , with some sources spectroscopically confirmed to lie in overdense environments (cf. Kurk et al. & Venemans et al., in this volume). This offers the prospect that AGN can be used to pinpoint galaxy clusters back to the earliest epochs.

We have embarked upon a project to investigate in detail the environments of a complete subsample of the most luminous radio sources from the equatorial BRL sample of Best et al. bes99 , within the narrow redshift range $`1.44z1.7`$. The fields of 6 sources have been imaged in the $`R`$, $`J`$ and $`K`$ wavebands, using the SOFI and SUSI-2 instruments on the NTT. This filter combination was chosen to provide maximal sensitivity to old cluster ellipticals with the $`R`$ and $`J`$ bands spanning the 4000Å break and the $`K`$ waveband providing a long red baseline. The observations cover a field of view of 5 by 5 arcmins ($``$2.7 by 2.7 Mpc at the radio source redshifts), and reach limiting depths of $`K20.6`$, $`J22.4`$ and $`R25.9`$.

## 3 Old red galaxies clustered around the AGN

The K–band number counts in the fields of these radio sources are compared against the results of blank–field surveys in Figure 1 (left). The derived counts are fully consistent with the literature counts at magnitudes $`K\mathrm{}<17.5`$, which is the expected magnitude of brightest cluster galaxies at $`z1.5`$. At fainter magnitudes the galaxy counts still lie within the scatter of the other observations, but the counts in every magnitude bin from $`17.5<K<20.5`$ exceed the literature average by at least 1$`\sigma `$.

The $`R`$-$`K`$ colour distribution of the galaxies within 300 kpc of the AGN is displayed in Figure 1 (right), compared against the mean colour distribution for galaxies at greater than 1 Mpc radial distance from the AGN in the same frames. There is a clear surplus of red ($`RK\mathrm{}>4`$) galaxies.

These results show that an excess of faint ($`17.5<K<20.5`$), red ($`RK\mathrm{}>4`$) galaxies are found across the fields. These have the colours and magnitudes expected of old passive galaxies at the radio source redshifts. The radial distribution of the galaxies with these colours and magnitudes is investigated in Figure 2, for five of the radio source fields and for a combined histogram produced by averaging across all five fields. Also included on these plots is the expected number density for blank-field sources of these magnitudes and colours; this was calculated from the K20 cim02  and CADIS tho99  surveys. The results from combining the five AGN fields show that red galaxy excesses are seen on two different scales around the radio sources: there is a pronounced peak at small radii, $`r\mathrm{}<150`$ kpc, together with a larger scale overdensity extending across most of the field. These results are in broad agreement with those of hal98 ; however, with the larger radial coverage of the data provided here, it is now possible to quantify the radial extent of the large–scale overdensity (which extended beyond their field of view): the galaxy counts remain above field expectations out to between 1 and 1.5 Mpc radius.

Comparing the five individual fields in Figure 2, however, it is immediately apparent that this combined result is the average of five fields with very different properties. 0016$``$129 and 2025$``$155 do both show radial distributions similar to the average result, with pronounced peaks in the inner bin followed by weak red galaxy overdensities to $`1`$ Mpc. 0000$``$177 has a central pronounced peak of red galaxies, but shows no large–scale excess (indeed quite the opposite). 0139$``$273 and 1524$``$136 are both much less centrally concentrated, with smoother central peaks and much more gradual radial declines in red galaxy surface density out to the blank–field expectations at radial distances of between 1 and 1.5 Mpc. There is clearly a large range in the nature, scale and significance of any red galaxy overdensities around these AGN.

The Mpc–scale galaxy overdensities have the appearance of forming clusters of galaxies. The wealth of galaxies around these AGN with the magnitudes and colours expected of old elliptical galaxies at $`z1.5`$ indicate that the epoch of elliptical galaxy formation must be earlier than this redshift; the colours of these objects further suggest that the bulk of their stellar populations must have formed at redshifts $`z\mathrm{}>5`$. The large size–scale of these overdensities should not be surprising, since the timescale for objects of density $`\rho `$ to separate from the Hubble Flow and collapse is given by $`t(3\pi /32G\rho )^{1/2}`$ pea99 . For a proto-cluster, with $`M10^{1415}M_{}`$ collapsing from 3-5 Mpc radius, this corresponds to a collapse time of several Gyr, and so such objects cannot yet be fully collapsed by $`z1.5`$.

The small–scale overdensities have the size of compact groups of galaxies, or of cluster cores. In the latter case, it is interesting that where small–scale overdensities are seen, almost all of the galaxies that comprise these have the red colours indicative of old passively evolving elliptical galaxies. This indicates that morphological segregation may already have taken place in the very inner regions around the AGN, implying that the morphology–density relation \[e.g. 22\] is imprinted into cluster centres at a very early epoch.

In conclusion, substantial overdensities of red galaxies with the colours, magnitudes and radial distribution expected of old passively evolving elliptical galaxies have been found around radio sources at redshifts $`z1.5`$. Work is currently on–going to spectroscopically confirm the cluster membership of these galaxies, and to age their stellar populations, which will allow dramatic advances to be made in our understanding of how and when the most massive elliptical galaxies form.


text:
# Derivation of the Supersymmetric Harish–Chandra Integral for UOSp(𝑘₁/2𝑘₂)

## I Introduction

Harish–Chandra HC1  gave a closed formula for a class of group integrals. Let $`𝒢`$ be a compact semi–simple Lie group and let $`a`$ and $`b`$ fixed elements in the Cartan subalgebra $`_0`$ of $`𝒢`$. Harish–Chandra’s formula then reads

$$\underset{U𝒢}{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{tr}U^1aUb\right)𝑑\mu (U)=\frac{1}{|𝒲|}\underset{w𝒲}{}\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{tr}w(a)b\right)}{\mathrm{\Pi }(a)\mathrm{\Pi }(w(b))},$$
(1)
where $`d\mu (U)`$ stands for the properly normalized invariant measure and $`\mathrm{\Pi }(a)`$ for the product of all positive roots of $`_0`$. Moreover, $`𝒲`$ is the Weyl reflection group of $`𝒢`$ and $`|𝒲|`$ is the number of its elements. We notice that the integrals (1) should not be confused with Gelfand’s spherical functions GEL1 ; HEL ; HC ; OP . They are defined by a group integral which looks at first sight just like the one in Eq. (1), however, for Gelfand’s spherical functions, $`a`$ and $`b`$ are not in the Cartan subalgebra. Thus, Gelfand’s spherical functions are very different objects. Only in the case of $`𝒢=\mathrm{SU}(N)`$, the Harish–Chandra integral (1) coincides with the unitary spherical function of Gelfand. It is known as the Itzykson–Zuber integral IZ . A very handy diffusion equation method was developed in Ref. IZ,  to derive this unitary case.

A supersymmetric generalization of the Itzykson–Zuber integral, i.e. the extension of the Harish–Chandra integral to the case of the unitary supergroup $`\mathrm{U}(k_1/k_2)`$, was first obtained in Ref. TG,  by generalizing the Itzykson–Zuber diffusion equation method to supersymmetry. In its most general form, this integral was obtained in Ref. GGT,  as an application of Gelfand–Tzetlin coordinates for $`\mathrm{U}(k_1/k_2)`$ and also in Ref. AMU,  by employing the methods as given in Ref. TG, .

Serganova Vera  and Zirnbauer MRZ  conjectured that Harish–Chandra’s formula should not only have a supersymmetric extension in the unitary case, but also generalize to all classical supergroups $`𝒮𝒢`$. Thus, one would expect a result of the following form to hold,

$$\underset{u𝒮𝒢}{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{trg}u^1sur\right)𝑑\mu (u)=\frac{1}{|𝒮𝒲|}\underset{w𝒮𝒲}{}\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{trg}w(s)r\right)}{\pi (s)\pi (w(r))},$$
(2)
where $`s`$ and $`r`$ are in the Cartan subalgebra $`𝒮_0`$ of $`𝒮𝒢`$. The Weyl reflection group $`𝒮𝒲`$ and the root system $`\pi (s)`$ have to be properly generalized to superspace, $`|𝒮𝒲|`$ is the number of elements in $`𝒮𝒲`$. The extension of the Harish–Chandra integral to the case of the unitary supergroup $`\mathrm{U}(k_1/k_2)`$ is certainly of the form (2). The most interesting remaining case is the unitary orthosymplectic supergroup $`\mathrm{UOSp}(k_1/2k_2)`$. For this case, we present a proof of the conjecture (2) in this note. In Sec. II, we state and derive the supersymmetric Harish–Chandra integral for $`\mathrm{UOSp}(k_1/2k_2)`$. We summarize and conclude in Sec. III.

## II The supergroup integral and its derivation

After briefly summarizing properties of the super group $`\mathrm{UOSp}(k_1/2k_2)`$ and introducing our notation in Sec. II.1, we state the group integral in Sec. II.2. The solution is sketched in the following two sections. In Sec. II.3, we formulate an eigenvalue equation for the integral over the supergroup algebra, which is solved by separation in Sec. II.4.

### II.1 The supergroup $`\mathrm{UOSp}(k_1/2k_2)`$

Kac KAC1 ; KAC2  gave a classification of the classical superalgebras similar to Cartan’s classification of the Lie algebras in ordinary space. In principle, to each classical superalgebra a supergroup is associated by the exponential mapping. However, the classification pattern of the supergroups is usually somewhat coarser RIT . If one omits the supergroup stemming from the exceptional superalgebras, one is left with only four different types of subgroups of the general linear supergroup $`\mathrm{GL}(k_1/k_2)`$, namely the unitary supergroup $`\mathrm{U}(k_1/k_2)`$, the orthosymplectic supergroup $`\mathrm{OSp}(k_1/2k_2)`$ whose compact form is denoted by $`\mathrm{UOSp}(k_1/2k_2)`$ and the groups associated with the strange superalgebras $`\mathrm{P}(k)`$ and $`\mathrm{Q}(k)`$. In most applications, the $`\mathrm{U}(k_1/k_2)`$ and the $`\mathrm{UOSp}(k_1/2k_2)`$ are used. The $`\mathrm{OSp}(k_1/2k_2)`$ is formed by the elements $`u`$ of $`\mathrm{GL}(k_1/2k_2)`$ which leave invariant the metric

$$L=\mathrm{diag}(1_{k_1},J),$$
(3)
such that $`u^TLu=L`$. Here, $`J`$ is the symplectic metric

$$J=\tau ^{(1)}1_{k_2}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 1_{k_2}\\ 1_{k_2}& 0\end{array}\right],\mathrm{with}\tau ^{(1)}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right].$$
(4)
Restricting $`\mathrm{OSp}(k_1/2k_2)`$ to its compact part, we arrive at $`\mathrm{UOSp}(k_1/2k_2)`$. While the fermionic dimension $`2k_2`$ is always even, the bosonic dimension $`k_1`$ can be even or odd, eventually resulting in some slight differences for the group integral. The superalgebra $`\mathrm{uosp}(k_1/2k_2)`$ and the supergroup $`\mathrm{UOSp}(k_1/2k_2)`$ are, as usual, connected via the exponential mapping. For $`\sigma \mathrm{uosp}(k_1/2k_2)`$ we have $`u=\mathrm{exp}(\sigma )\mathrm{UOSp}(k_1/2k_2)`$. These generators span the algebra. A compact real form of this algebra can be written as

$$\sigma =\left[\begin{array}{cc}\sigma ^{(\mathrm{o})}& \sigma ^{(\mathrm{a})}\\ \sigma ^{(\mathrm{a})}& i\sigma ^{(\mathrm{usp})}\end{array}\right].$$
(5)
One uses the supertrace denoted by $`\mathrm{trg}`$ as Killing–Cartan form. The $`k_1\times k_1`$ matrix $`\sigma ^{(\mathrm{o})}`$ is antisymmetric, it is in the algebra $`\mathrm{o}(k_1)`$ and generates the ordinary group $`\mathrm{O}(k_1)`$. The $`2k_2\times 2k_2`$ matrix $`\sigma ^{(\mathrm{usp})}`$ is in the algebra $`\mathrm{usp}(2k_2)`$ and generates the ordinary group $`\mathrm{USp}(2k_2)`$, i.e. in the basis defined by Eq. (3) it is of the form

$$\sigma ^{(\mathrm{usp})}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\sigma ^{(\mathrm{usp},1)}& \sigma ^{(\mathrm{usp},2)}\\ \sigma ^{(\mathrm{usp},2)}& \sigma ^{(\mathrm{usp},1)T}\end{array}\right].$$
(6)
Here $`\sigma ^{(\mathrm{usp},1)}`$ is a skew–hermitean matrix and $`\sigma ^{(\mathrm{usp},2)}`$ is skew–symmetric. The $`k_1\times 2k_2`$ matrix $`\sigma ^{(\mathrm{a})}`$ in Eq. (5) contains the anticommuting variables, it is in the sector $`\mathrm{usop}(k_1/2k_2)\mathrm{o}(k_1)\mathrm{usp}(2k_2)`$ and has the symmetry $`\sigma ^{(\mathrm{a})}J=\sigma ^{(\mathrm{a})}`$. The asterix denotes the complex conjugate of the second kind for Grassmann variables.

Particularly important in the present context is the Cartan subalgebra $`\mathrm{uosp}^{(0)}(k_1/2k_2)`$ of $`\mathrm{uosp}(k_1/2k_2)`$. As in the theory of Lie–algebrae in ordinary space there is a difference for the orthogonal group in even or odd dimension. We introduce the notation $`[k_1/2]`$ for the integer part of $`k_1/2`$. Then, for even bosonic dimension $`[k_1/2]=k_1/2`$ , the elements of $`\mathrm{uosp}^{(0)}(k_1/2k_2)`$ are the matrices

$$s=\mathrm{diag}(is_{11}\tau ^{(1)},\mathrm{},is_{[k_1/2]1}\tau ^{(1)},is_{12},\mathrm{},is_{k_21},is_{11},\mathrm{},is_{k_21}),$$
(7)
while for odd bosonic dimension $`[k_1/2]=(k_11)/2`$, the Cartan subalgebra $`\mathrm{uosp}^{(0)}(k_1/2k_2)`$ consists of the matrices

$$s=\mathrm{diag}(is_{11}\tau ^{(1)},\mathrm{},is_{[k_1/2]1}\tau ^{(1)},0,is_{12},\mathrm{},is_{k_21},is_{11},\mathrm{},is_{k_21}).$$
(8)
Thus, $`\mathrm{uosp}^{(0)}(k_1/2k_2)`$ is the direct sum of the Cartan subalgebras of $`\mathrm{o}(k_1)`$ and $`\mathrm{usp}(2k_2)`$.

### II.2 Statement of the supergroup integral

Using the definitions of the previous section, we can write formula (2) for the case of the supergroup $`\mathrm{UOSp}(k_1/2k_2)`$ more explicitly. For two fixed elements $`s`$ and $`r`$ of the Cartan subalgebra $`\mathrm{uosp}^{(0)}(k_1/2k_2)`$, we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{u\mathrm{UOSp}(k_1/2k_2)}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\mathrm{trg}u^1sur\right)𝑑\mu (u)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{[k_1/2]!k_2!}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(det[\mathrm{cos}(2s_{p1}r_{q1})]+det[i\mathrm{sin}(2s_{p1}r_{q1})]\right)det[2i\mathrm{sin}(2s_{p2}r_{q2})]}{B_{k_12k_2}(s)B_{k_12k_2}(r)}}`$ (9)
for $`k_1`$ even and

$$\underset{u\mathrm{UOSp}(k_1/2k_2)}{}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\mathrm{trg}u^1sur\right)𝑑\mu (u)=\frac{1}{[k_1/2]!k_2!}\frac{det[i\mathrm{sin}(2s_{p1}r_{q1})]det[2\mathrm{cos}(2s_{p2}r_{q2})]}{B_{k_12k_2}(s)B_{k_12k_2}(r)}$$
(10)
for $`k_1`$ odd. We introduced the function $`B_{k_12k_2}(s)`$ which is given by

$$B_{k_12k_2}(s)=2^{k_2}\frac{_{p<q}(s_{p1}^2s_{q1}^2)_{p<q}(s_{p2}^2s_{q2}^2)_{p=1}^{k_2}s_{p2}}{_{p,q}(s_{p1}^2+s_{q2}^2)}$$
(11)
for even bosonic dimension $`k_1`$ and by

$$B_{k_12k_2}(s)=2^{k_2}\frac{_{p<q}(s_{p1}^2s_{q1}^2)_{p<q}(s_{p2}^2s_{q2}^2)_{p=1}^{[k_1/2]}s_{p1}}{_{p,q}(s_{p1}^2+s_{q2}^2)}$$
(12)
for odd bosonic dimension $`k_1`$. These two formulae differ only in the last terms of the numerators.

Formulae (9) and (10) contain, as special cases, the ordinary orthogonal and unitary symplectic Harish–Chandra integrals for $`𝒢=\mathrm{SO}(k_1)`$ and for $`𝒢=\mathrm{USp}(2k_2)`$, if we set $`k_2=0`$ or $`k_1=0`$, respectively. Thus, the derivation of the supersymmetric integral to follow also includes a rederivation of those ordinary integrals. For equal bosonic and fermionic dimension, formula (9) was conjectured in Ref. MRZ,  and used to calculate the correlation functions in a certain circular random matrix ensemble.

We mention in passing that the invariant measure $`d\mu (u)`$ and its normalization relate to non–trivial questions of certain boundary contributions in superanalysis ROT  which are highly important in applications. In the present context, however, we do not need to go into this.

### II.3 Eigenvalue equation

The main idea for the derivation of formulae (9) and (10) is to properly modify the supersymmetric extension TG  of the Itzykson–Zuber diffusion equation method IZ  to the present case. It turns out that it is somewhat more convenient to construct the eigenvalue equation associated with the diffusion equation. The two equations are related by Fourier expansion. Such an eigenvalue equation for the ordinary case of $`\mathrm{SU}(N)`$ as originally discussed by Itzykson and Zuber IZ  was constructed by Brézin BREZ . Berezin and Karpelevich BK  had studied such an eigenvalue equation to calculate the twofold group integral named after them, see also Ref. HOG, . To construct the eigenvalue equation needed to derive formulae (9) and (10), we adjust the steps made in Refs. GUWE, ; JSV, , where a supersymmetric eigenvalue equation was employed for the extension of the Berezin–Karpelevich integral.

We introduce the Laplace operator over the superalgebra $`\mathrm{uosp}(k_1/2k_2)`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{2}\underset{p<q}{\overset{k_1}{}}\frac{^2}{\sigma _{pq}^{(\mathrm{o})2}}+\underset{p,q}{\overset{2k_2}{}}\frac{1+\delta _{pq}}{4}\frac{^2}{\sigma _{pq}^{(\mathrm{usp})}\sigma _{pq}^{(\mathrm{usp})}}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{p=1}{\overset{k_1}{}}\underset{q=1}{\overset{k_2}{}}\frac{^2}{\sigma _{pq}^{(\mathrm{a})}\sigma _{pq}^{(\mathrm{a})}}.$$
(13)
Its eigenfunctions are the plane waves $`\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{trg}\sigma \rho )`$ with both matrices $`\sigma ,\rho \mathrm{uosp}(k_1/2k_2)`$. Thus, we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{trg}\sigma \rho )=\mathrm{trg}\rho ^2\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{trg}\sigma \rho ).$$
(14)
We now diagonalize both matrices according to $`\sigma =u^1su`$ and $`\rho =v^1rv`$ where $`u`$ and $`v`$ are in the supergroup $`\mathrm{UOSp}(k_1/2k_2)`$ and $`s`$ and $`r`$ are in the Cartan subalgebra $`\mathrm{uosp}^{(0)}(k_1/2k_2)`$, i.e. given by Eq. (7) or Eq. (8), respectively. Integrating both sides over $`v`$ and using the invariance of the measure $`d\mu (v)`$, we arrive at the radial eigenvalue equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_s\chi _{k_12k_2}(s,r)=\mathrm{trg}r^2\chi _{k_12k_2}(s,r),$$
(15)
where, now using $`u`$ instead of $`v`$ again, the function

$$\chi _{k_12k_2}(s,r)=\underset{u\mathrm{UOSp}(k_1/2k_2)}{}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\mathrm{trg}u^1sur\right)𝑑\mu (u)$$
(16)
is the integral we want to calculate. The operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ in Eq. (15) is the radial part of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The term radial refers to the Cartan subalgebra. This usage which is common in mathematics should not lead to confusions with the radial operators used, for example, in Refs. GUKOP1, ; GUKO1, ; GUKOP2, ; GUKO2,  where quite different spaces were studied. To obtain the radial operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$, we need the Jacobian, or Berezinian, of the variable transformation $`\sigma =u^1su`$. This Berezinian is given by the the functions $`B_{k_12k_2}^2(s)`$ of Eqs. (11) and (12). It was not possible for us to find out where this Berezinian was first obtained, and we do not claim originality for its calculation. In any case, to make the paper self–contained, we sketch the calculation in Appendix A. Hence, the radial part of the Laplacean over $`\mathrm{uosp}(k_1/2k_2)`$ reads

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_s=\frac{1}{2}\underset{p=1}{\overset{[k_1/2]}{}}\frac{1}{B_{k_12k_2}^2(s)}\frac{}{s_{p1}}B_{k_12k_2}^2(s)\frac{}{s_{p1}}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{p=1}{\overset{k_2}{}}\frac{1}{B_{k_12k_2}^2(s)}\frac{}{s_{p2}}B_{k_12k_2}^2(s)\frac{}{s_{p2}}.$$
(17)
The number of bosonic eigenvalues is $`[k_1/2]`$, i.e. identical for the pairs $`\mathrm{uosp}(k_1/2k_2)`$ and $`\mathrm{uosp}(k_1+1/2k_2)`$ with $`k_1`$ even. However, the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ is not the same in these two cases, because the functions (11) and (12) differ.

### II.4 Solution by separation

The Laplacean (17) is separable. We make an ansatz for the group integral which separates off the square roots of the Berezinians,

$$\chi _{k_12k_2}(s,r)=\frac{\omega _{k_12k_2}(s,r)}{B_{k_12k_2}(s)B_{k_12k_2}(r)}.$$
(18)
A tedious but straightforward calculation then yields the trivial eigenvalue equation

$$\frac{^2}{\stackrel{}{s}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}\omega _{k_12k_2}(s,r)=\mathrm{trg}r^2\omega _{k_12k_2}(s,r).$$
(19)
for the function $`\omega _{k_12k_2}^{(\beta )}(s,r)`$. Here we introduced the gradient

$$\frac{}{\stackrel{}{s}}=(\frac{}{s_{11}},\mathrm{},\frac{}{s_{[k_1/2]1}},\frac{}{s_{12}},\mathrm{},\frac{}{s_{k_22}}),$$
(20)
which also defines the flat Laplacean $`^2/\stackrel{}{s}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ appearing in the eigenvalue equation (19). A crucial feature of the square root of the Berezinian enters the derivation of Eq. (19). It satisfies the harmonic equation

$$\frac{^2}{\stackrel{}{s}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}B_{k_12k_2}(s)=0,$$
(21)
which we prove in Appendix B. Any linear combination of products of exponentials solves the eigenvalue equation (19). However, as the group integral and the eigenvalue equations are obviously invariant under permutations of the variables in the $`\mathrm{o}(k_1)`$ sector $`s_{p1},p=1,\mathrm{},[k_1/2]`$ or, equivalently, $`r_{p1},p=1,\mathrm{},[k_1/2]`$ and under permutations of the variables in the $`\mathrm{uosp}(2k_2)`$ sector $`is_{p2},p=1,\mathrm{},k_2`$ or, equivalently, $`ir_{p2},p=1,\mathrm{},k_2`$, the desired solution must have the same property. Moreover, there is a symmetry under a parity transformation for the variables $`is_{p2},p=1,\mathrm{},k_2`$ and $`ir_{p2},p=1,\mathrm{},k_2`$. That is, the solution must be invariant under the substitution $`s_{p2}s_{p2}`$ and $`r_{p2}r_{p2}`$. For $`k_1`$ odd, the same symmetry must hold also for $`s_{p1},p=1,\mathrm{},[k_1/2]`$ and $`r_{p1},p=1,\mathrm{},[k_1/2]`$ respectively. By these symmetries the solution of Eq. (19) for $`k_1`$ odd is up to normalization uniquely determined,

$$\omega _{k_12k_2}(s,r)=\frac{1}{[k_1/2]!k_2!}det[i\mathrm{sin}(2s_{p1}r_{q1})]det[2\mathrm{cos}(2s_{p2}r_{q2})].$$
(22)
For $`k_1`$ even, the part antisymmetric under the parity transformation has to be kept and we find

$$\omega _{k_12k_2}(s,r)=\frac{1}{[k_1/2]!k_2!}\left(det[\mathrm{cos}(2s_{p1}r_{q1})]+det[i\mathrm{sin}(2s_{p1}r_{q1})]\right)det[2i\mathrm{sin}(2s_{p2}r_{q2})].$$
(23)
These results give, together with the ansatz (18), the desired group integrals (9) and (10). As already mentioned, our derivation of the supersymmetric group integral contains as special cases a rederivation of the ordinary orthogonal and unitary symplectic Harish–Chandra integrals for $`k_2=0`$ or $`k_1=0`$, respectively.

## III Summary and conclusions

We calculated the supersymmetric Harish–Chandra integral for the unitary orthosymplectic supergroup, thereby proving a conjecture Vera ; MRZ . Our derivation uses a diffusion equation or, equivalentely, eigenvalue equation method. It is based on the separability of the Laplacean. Our present contribution is a further extension of this technique, which, to the best of our knowledge, has previously only been used for group integrals over the unitary group: orginally, it was introduced for the Harish–Chandra integral over the ordinary unitary group IZ ; BREZ , then extended for the supersymmetric Harish–Chandra integral over the unitary supergroup TG . Already in 1958, Berezin and Karpelevich BK  had developed such a technique for an integral over two unitary groups, see also Ref. HOG, . This was also extended to the supersymmetric case GUWE ; JSV . Here, we considered the unitary orthosymplectic supergroup and adjusted the eigenvalue equation method to this case. As the unitary orthosymplectic supergroup contains the ordinary orthogonal and unitary symplectic groups as subgroups and special cases, we automatically also extended the eigenvalue equation method to these two ordinary groups.

We are aware of only two methods which could be an alternative: character expansions and Gelfand–Tzetlin coordinates. Balantekin developed the character expansion method for the unitary ordinary and supergroup BAL1 ; BAL2  and obtained various group integrals. Recently, this method was further extended and employed in Ref. SW, . Similar considerations are also of interest if one studies the Itzykson–Zuber integral for matrices of large dimension ZJZ . Moreover, character expansions could also be developed for the calculation of certain integrals over the ordinary orthogonal and unitary symplectic group BAL3 , but Harish–Chandra integrals have so far not been tackled with this approach. Gelfand–Tzetlin coordinates GT ; BR  allow one to compute the ordinary SLS  and supersymmetric GGT  Itzykson–Zuber integral directly, i.e. without using a diffusion or eigenvalue equation. This method has not been applied yet to work out Harish–Chandra integrals for the ordinary orthogonal or unitary symplectic or the supersymmetric unitary orthosymplectic supergroup. However, it has been employed for Gelfand’s spherical functions GUKOP1 ; GUKO1 ; GUKOP2 ; GUKO2 .

Considering all the cases, in which non–trivial group integrals could be obtained for the first time or in which known results could be rederived faster, the diffusion or eigenvalue equation method used and further extended here shows a remarkably wide range of applicability.

###### Acknowledgements.

TG and HK acknowledge financial support from the Swedish Research Council and from the RNT Network of the European Union with Grant No. HPRN–CT–2000-00144, respectively. HK also thanks the division of Mathematical Physics, LTH, for its hospitality during his visits to Lund.

## Appendix A Calculation of the Berezinian

We use the standard procedure of obtaining the metric tensor $`g`$ whose superdeterminant is the square of the Berezinian. The variation of the element $`\sigma =u^1su\mathrm{uosp}(k_1/2k_2)`$ reads

$$d\sigma =u^1(ds+[s,\delta \stackrel{~}{u}])u,\mathrm{where}\delta \stackrel{~}{u}=duu^1$$
(24)
is also in the algebra $`\mathrm{uosp}(k_1/2k_2)`$. Thus, the invariant length element is given by

$`\mathrm{trg}d\sigma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{trg}(ds+[s,\delta \stackrel{~}{u}])^2=\mathrm{trg}ds^2+\mathrm{trg}[s,\delta \stackrel{~}{u}]^2`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{[k_1/2]}{}}}ds_{p1}^2+{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{k_2}{}}}ds_{p2}^2+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(\alpha _n^{(\mathrm{o})})^2(\delta \stackrel{~}{u}_n^{(\mathrm{o})})^2+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(\alpha _n^{(\mathrm{usp})})^2(\delta \stackrel{~}{u}_n^{(\mathrm{usp})})^2+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(\alpha _n^{(\mathrm{a})})^2(\delta \stackrel{~}{u}_n^{(\mathrm{a})})^2.`$
In the last step, we expanded the traces, the metric $`g`$ can then be read of from the coefficients in front of the squared variation differentials. We split the contribution from the commutator in three terms and introduced a new index $`n`$, labelling the roots and the variation differentials stemming from $`\delta \stackrel{~}{u}`$. There are three types of roots, corresponding to the $`\mathrm{o}(k_1)`$ and the $`\mathrm{usp}(2k_2)`$ subalgebras and the remaining sector $`\mathrm{uosp}(k_1/2k_2)\mathrm{o}(k_1)\mathrm{usp}(2k_2)`$ containing the anticommuting degrees of freedom. For even bosonic dimension $`2k_1`$, there are $`2k_1(k_11)`$ roots $`\alpha _n^{(\mathrm{o})}`$ of $`\mathrm{o}(2k_1)`$, given by $`\pm s_{p1}\pm s_{q1}`$ with independent signs and $`p<q`$. For odd bosonic dimension $`2k_1+1`$, there are $`2k_1`$ additional roots $`\pm s_{p1}`$ which are needed for the complete root system of $`\mathrm{o}(2k_1+1)`$. The roots $`\alpha _n^{(\mathrm{usp})}`$ of $`\mathrm{usp}(2k_2)`$ are $`\pm is_{p2}\pm is_{q2}`$ with independent signs and $`p<q`$, and furthermore $`\pm 2is_{p2}`$, all together $`2k_2^2`$ roots. Finally, we have the $`2k_1k_2`$ roots $`\alpha _n^{(\mathrm{a})}`$ from $`\mathrm{uosp}(k_1/2k_2)\mathrm{o}(k_1)\mathrm{usp}(2k_2)`$, which read $`\pm s_{p1}\pm is_{q2}`$ with independent signs and indices $`p,q`$. For odd bosonic dimension we have $`2k_1`$ additional roots $`\alpha _n^{(\mathrm{a})}=\pm is_{p2}`$. Collecting everything, the superdeterminant $`\mathrm{detg}g`$ of the metric $`g`$ is the product of all roots from $`\mathrm{o}(k_1)`$ and $`\mathrm{usp}(2k_2)`$, divided by the product of all roots from $`\mathrm{uosp}(k_1/2k_2)\mathrm{o}(k_1)\mathrm{usp}(2k_2)`$. The square root of $`\mathrm{detg}g`$ then gives the Berezinians (11) and (12).

## Appendix B Square root of the Berezinian as a harmonic function

The result (21) is crucial for the separation ansatz and for the derivation of the ensuing eigenvalue equations. It is tedious, but elementary to prove it by explicit calculation. We consider even $`k_1`$, the case of odd $`k_1`$ is treated in the same way. Using relations such as

$$\underset{pq}{}\frac{1}{s_{p1}^2s_{q1}^2}=0\mathrm{and}\underset{pqt}{}\frac{s_{p1}^2}{(s_{p1}^2s_{q1}^2)(s_{p1}^2s_{t1}^2)}=0$$
(26)
we find

$$\frac{1}{B_{k_12k_2}(s)}\underset{p=1}{\overset{[k_1/2]}{}}\frac{^2}{s_{p1}^2}B_{k_12k_2}(s)=\underset{p,q,t}{}\frac{4s_{p1}^2}{(s_{p1}^2+s_{q2}^2)(s_{p1}^2+s_{t2}^2)}\underset{pq,t}{}\frac{8s_{p1}^2}{(s_{p1}^2s_{q1}^2)(s_{p1}^2+s_{t2}^2)}\underset{p,q}{}\frac{2}{(s_{p1}^2+s_{q2}^2)}.$$
(27)
Similarly, we obtain

$$\frac{1}{B_{k_12k_2}(s)}\underset{p=1}{\overset{k_2}{}}\frac{^2}{s_{p2}^2}B_{k_12k_2}(s)=\underset{p,q,t}{}\frac{4s_{p2}^2}{(s_{p1}^2+s_{q2}^2)(s_{p1}^2+s_{t2}^2)}\underset{pq,t}{}\frac{8s_{p2}^2}{(s_{p2}^2s_{q2}^2)(s_{p1}^2+s_{t2}^2)}\underset{p,q}{}\frac{6}{s_{p1}^2+s_{q2}^2}.$$
(28)
Combining these two intermediate results, we arrive at

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B_{k_12k_2}(s)}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\stackrel{}{s}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}B_{k_12k_2}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{pq,t}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4s_{t2}^2}{(s_{p1}^2+s_{t2}^2)(s_{q1}^2+s_{t2}^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{8s_{p1}^2}{(s_{p1}^2s_{q1}^2)(s_{p1}^2+s_{t2}^2)}}\right)+`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{pq,t}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4s_{t1}^2}{(s_{t1}^2+s_{p2}^2)(s_{t1}^2+s_{q2}^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{8s_{p2}^2}{(s_{p2}^2s_{q2}^2)(s_{p1}^2+s_{t2}^2)}}\right)+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{p,q}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{8s_{p1}^2}{(s_{p1}^2+s_{q2}^2)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8s_{q1}^2}{(s_{q1}^2+s_{p2}^2)^2}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{p,q}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{s_{p1}^2+s_{q2}^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{pq,t}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4s_{t2}^2}{(s_{p1}^2+s_{t2}^2)(s_{q1}^2+s_{t2}^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{4s_{p1}^2}{(s_{p1}^2s_{q1}^2)(s_{p1}^2+s_{t2}^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{4s_{q1}^2}{(s_{q1}^2s_{p1}^2)(s_{q1}^2+s_{t2}^2)}}\right)+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{pq,t}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4s_{t1}^2}{(s_{p1}^2+s_{t2}^2)(s_{q1}^2+s_{t2}^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{4s_{p2}^2}{(s_{p2}^2s_{q2}^2)(s_{p2}^2+s_{t1}^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{4s_{q2}^2}{(s_{q2}^2s_{p2}^2)(s_{q2}^2+s_{t1}^2)}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`0,`$
which is Eq. (21).


text:
# Electroweak Standard Model and Precision Tests

## 1 Introduction

The most fundamental observable related to the weak interaction is the muon lifetime, $`\tau _\mu `$. With the electromagnetic two-loop contribution obtained in Ref. vanRitbergen:1998yd , $`\tau _\mu `$ can be used unambiguously to extract the Fermi constant, $`G_F=1.16637(1)\times 10^5\text{ GeV}^2`$, where the uncertainty is completely dominated by experiment. With the electromagnetic fine structure constant, $`\alpha `$, as an additional input, we can then obtain the quantity,

$$A^2=\frac{\pi \alpha }{\sqrt{2}G_F}=(37.2805\pm 0.0003\text{ GeV})^2,$$
(1)
and use it to write down relations between the intermediate gauge boson masses, $`M_{W,Z}`$, and the weak mixing angle; for example, in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme one has Degrassi:1990tu ,

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_W\widehat{s}^2=\frac{A^2}{M_W^2(1\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_W)},\widehat{s}^2(1\widehat{s}^2)=\frac{A^2}{M_Z^2(1\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_Z)},$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_Z`$ are electroweak radiative correction parameters. Most of the $`Z`$-pole asymmetries discussed in the next section are basically measurements of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _e^{\mathrm{eff}}=\widehat{\kappa }_e\widehat{s}^2`$, where $`\widehat{\kappa }_f`$ denotes a flavor dependent form factor which for $`f=e`$ is numerically very close to unity with little sensitivity to the Standard Model (SM) input parameters. Since furthermore $`M_Z`$ is known to great accuracy, the second Eq. (2) implies that the $`Z`$-pole asymmetries effectively determine,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_Z=\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\gamma +F_1(m_t^2,M_H,\mathrm{}).$$
(3)
Asymptotically for large top quark masses, $`m_t`$, the function, $`F_1`$, grows like $`m_t^2`$. This is because the large mass hierarchy, $`m_tm_b`$, breaks isospin symmetry in $`W`$ boson self-energy diagrams with a bottom and a top quark in the loop. This effect has been absorbed into $`G_F`$, but now reappears in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_Z`$ when $`M_Z`$ is computed in terms of it. For the same reason, there is an $`m_t^2`$ effect in the low-energy $`\rho `$-parameter Veltman:1977kh , which is defined as the ratio of neutral-to-charged weak current interaction strengths. The first Eq. (2) shows that a determination of the $`W`$ boson mass can then be used to measure

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_W=\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\gamma +F_2(\mathrm{ln}m_t,M_H,\mathrm{}),$$
(4)
where indeed $`F_2`$ has a milder $`m_t`$ dependence. $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ are complicated functions of the Higgs boson mass, $`M_H`$, which are asymptotically logarithmic. Eqs. (3) and (4) also show that $`M_H`$ can be extracted from the precision data only when the quantity,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\gamma =4\pi ^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\gamma \gamma }^{(f)}+\text{ bosonic terms},$$
(5)
which characterizes the renormalization group (RG) evolution (“running”) of $`\alpha `$,

$$\widehat{\alpha }(M_Z)=\frac{\alpha }{1\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\gamma },$$
(6)
is known accurately. While it can be computed rigorously for leptons, there is a problem for quarks (hadrons). This is best seen by noting that the one-loop fermion contribution to the photon self-energy, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\gamma \gamma }^{(f)}`$, is proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}M_Z^2/m_f^2`$, and it is not clear what mass definition is to be used here for quarks. This is a question of loop corrections proportional to powers of the QCD coupling, $`\alpha _s`$, and can indeed be dealt with perturbatively for charm and bottom quarks Erler:1998sy . For the light quarks, however, perturbation theory breaks down and one needs a different strategy: one uses analyticity and the optical theorem which in essence delivers $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\gamma \gamma }^{(f)}`$ from its imaginary part and thus from (a weighted integral over) the cross-section $`\sigma (e^+e^{}\mathrm{hadrons})`$ for which experimental data are available. Incidentally, a similar strategy is used to estimate the hadronic two- and three-loop contributions to the muon anomalous magnetic moment, $`g_\mu 2`$, which amounts to an integral over the same data, but with a different weight. Notice that the uncertainty in the cross-section data induces correlations between $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\gamma `$, $`M_H`$, $`g_\mu 2`$, and (currently of less importance) the running of the weak mixing angle relevant for weak neutral current precision observables at low energies (such as in atomic parity violation) which is also subject to this kind of treatment and the same data.

By assuming isospin symmetry and correcting for kinematics, isospin violating effects Cirigliano:2001er , electroweak radiative corrections Marciano:pd ; Braaten:1990ef ; Erler:2002mv , etc., one can use the invariant mass spectrum in hadronic $`\tau `$ decays to obtain additional information Davier:2002dy . Kinematic suppression limits this method mainly to two pion (and to a lesser extent four pion) final states. Hadronic $`\tau `$ decay data are of particular relevance to $`g_\mu 2`$ (see below).

## 2 $`Z`$-pole observables

The first part of Table 1 shows the $`Z`$ line shape and leptonic forward-backward (FB) cross section asymmetry, $`A_{FB}(\mathrm{})`$, measurements from LEP 1 Abbaneo:2001ix . They include the total $`Z`$ decay width, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$, the hadronic peak cross section, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{had}}`$, and for each lepton flavor the ratio of hadronic to leptonic partial $`Z`$ widths, $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$. The invisible $`Z`$ partial width, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{inv})`$, is derived from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{had}}`$, and the $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$, and is not independent. It is smaller than the SM prediction by almost 2 $`\sigma `$, which can be traced to $`\sigma _{\mathrm{had}}`$ which deviates by a similar amount. Conversely, one can use the data to determine the number of standard neutrinos, $`N_\nu =2.986\pm 0.007`$, again showing a 2 $`\sigma `$ deviation from the expectation, $`N_\nu =3`$.

The second part of Table 1 shows the results from $`Z`$ decays into heavy flavors Abbaneo:2001ix . For bottom and charm quarks the partial $`Z`$ width normalized to the hadronic partial width, $`R_q`$, is shown, as well as the FB-asymmetry, $`A_{FB}(q)`$, and $`A_q`$ which is proportional to the combined left-right (LR) forward-backward asymmetry, $`A_{FB}^{LR}(q)`$. The latter is equivalent to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _q^{\mathrm{eff}}`$. $`A_{FB}(q)`$ is proportional to $`A_eA_q`$ and primarily sensitive to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _e^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ with $`A_{FB}(b)`$ providing one of its best determinations. It shows a 2.4 $`\sigma `$ deviation, and favors larger values of $`M_H`$. It is tempting to suggest new physics effects in the factor $`A_b`$ to reconcile this deviation and the disagreement with $`A_{LR}`$ discussed below. However, one would need a $`(19\pm 7)`$% radiative correction to $`\kappa _b`$ while typical electroweak radiative corrections are of $`𝒪(1\%)`$ or smaller. New physics entering at tree level is generally not resonating and/or strongly constrained by other processes. At any rate, $`R_b`$ is in reasonable agreement with the SM and some tuning of parameters would be required.

The last part of Table 1 shows further measurements with sensitivity to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$. The LR cross section asymmetry, $`A_{LR}=A_e`$, from the SLD Collaboration for hadronic Abe:2000dq  and leptonic final states Abe:2000hk  show a combined deviation of 1.9 $`\sigma `$ from the SM prediction. In contrast to $`A_{FB}(b)`$, it favors small values of $`M_H`$, which are excluded by the direct searches at LEP 2 Holzner:2002ft ,

$$M_H114.4\text{ GeV }(95\%\text{ CL}).$$
(7)
The other determinations are from $`A_{FB}^{LR}(\mu )`$ and $`A_{FB}^{LR}(\tau )`$ Abe:2000hk , from the final state $`\tau `$ polarization, $`𝒫_\tau `$, and its angular dependence Abbaneo:2001ix , as well as the hadronic charge asymmetry Abbaneo:2001ix , which is a weighted sum over $`A_{FB}(q)`$.

## 3 Other observables

The first part of Table 2 shows the (direct) $`m_t`$ measurement from the Tevatron Abbott:1998dc ; Abe:1998bf , as well as $`M_W`$ from LEP 2 Abbaneo:2001ix  and $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions Abbott:1999ns ; Affolder:2000bp . The combined $`M_W`$ is 1.8 $`\sigma `$ higher than the SM expectation. Just as $`A_{LR}`$ it favors smaller values of $`M_H`$. We compare these mass measurements with all other (indirect) data, and the SM prediction for various values of $`M_H`$ in Figure 1. The bottom and charm quark masses, $`m_b`$ and $`m_c`$, which enter the SM predictions of numerous observables (for example through $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\gamma `$) are constrained using a set of inclusive QCD sum rules Erler:2002bu  and are recalculated in each call within the fits as functions of $`\alpha _s`$ and other global fit parameters.

The second part of Table 2 shows results of neutrino-nucleon deep inelastic scattering experiments from CERN and FNAL. The ratio of neutral-to-charged current $`\nu _\mu `$-cross sections, $`R_\nu =\sigma _{\nu N}^{\mathrm{NC}}/\sigma _{\nu N}^{\mathrm{CC}}`$, is more sensitive to the weak mixing angle than the analogous $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$-ratio, $`R_{\overline{\nu }}`$. Both are sensitive to charm threshold effects which introduce the dominant theoretical uncertainty. This uncertainty largely cancels in the ratio Paschos:1972kj ,

$$R^{}=\frac{\sigma _{\nu N}^{\mathrm{NC}}\sigma _{\overline{\nu }N}^{\mathrm{NC}}}{\sigma _{\nu N}^{\mathrm{CC}}\sigma _{\overline{\nu }N}^{\mathrm{CC}}}=g_L^2g_R^2,$$
(8)
which was used by the NuTeV Collaboration Zeller:2001hh  (who had a clean $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$-beam at their disposal) to measure the weak mixing angle precisely off the $`Z`$-pole. In the presence of new physics, however, which will in general affect $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ cross sections differently, one should rather monitor $`R_\nu `$ and $`R_{\overline{\nu }}`$ independently, or equivalently, the effective four-Fermi $`\nu _\mu `$-quark couplings,

$$g_L^2=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W+\frac{5}{9}\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _W,g_R^2=\frac{5}{9}\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _W,$$
(9)
which are shown in the Table. One sees that the quoted Zeller:2001hh $`\sigma `$ deviation in the weak mixing angle can be traced to a 2.9 $`\sigma `$ deviation in $`g_L^2`$. The weak charge of Cs Bennett:1999pd , $`Q_W(\mathrm{Cs})`$, is currently the only other precise determination of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ off the $`Z`$-pole, while the results of $`\nu e`$ scattering in the third part of Table 2 and of $`Q_W(\mathrm{Tl})`$ are less precise. The extraction of weak charges from atomic parity violation is complicated by atomic theory Kuchiev:2002fg  uncertainties and $`Q_W(\mathrm{Cs})`$ was deviating from the SM prediction in the past. Thus, it is important to have complementary determinations of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ which (as indicated in Figure 2) will come from polarized Møller scattering by the E158 Collaboration at SLAC Carr:1997fu  and elastic $`\stackrel{}{e}p`$ scattering by the QWEAK Collaboration at JLAB Armstrong:2001  which will determine the weak charges of the electron and the proton, respectively. A new deep inelastic $`eD`$ scattering experiment has also been suggested Reimer:2002 .

The last entry in Table 2 refers to $`g_\mu 2`$ Bennett:2002jb  which shows a deviation of about 2.5 $`\sigma `$ from the SM prediction. This could be interpreted as a hint at supersymmetry or many other types of physics beyond the SM Czarnecki:2001pv . However, as discussed in the introduction, there are complications from the two-loop hadronic vacuum polarization. In fact, data based on $`\sigma (e^+e^{}\mathrm{hadrons})`$ suggest even a 3 $`\sigma `$ deviation Davier:2002dy ; Hagiwara:2002ma , while data based on $`\tau `$ decays suggest agreement with the SM within about one standard deviation Erler:2002mv . Moreover, the three-loop hadronic light-by-light contribution can be modeled Knecht:2001qg , but methods based on first principles such as chiral perturbation theory are not precise enough to confirm the model estimates Ramsey-Musolf:2002cy .

## 4 Conclusions

Despite of the various deviations described above, it must be stressed that the overall agreement between the data and the SM is reasonable. The $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom of the global fit is 49.1/40 where the probability for a larger $`\chi ^2`$ is 15%.

The global fit to all precision data currently favors values for the Higgs boson mass222See Ref. Frank:2002qa  and the talk of W. Hollik at this meeting for a discussion of Higgs boson masses in the minimal supersymmetric SM.,

$$M_H=86_{32}^{+49}\text{ GeV},(M_H=93_{35}^{+52}\text{ GeV}),$$
(10)
where the central value is slightly below the lower LEP 2 limit in Eq. (7). The result in parentheses refers to the case where the $`g_\mu 2`$ result is excluded from the fit. The two results differ not because the SM prediction for $`g_\mu 2`$ has a strong $`M_H`$ dependence, but rather due to the correlation described in the Introduction. If one includes the Higgs search information from LEP 2, one obtains the probability density shown in Figure 3.

The global fit result,

$$m_t=174.2\pm 4.4\text{ GeV},(m_t=174.0_{7.4}^{+9.9}\text{ GeV}),$$
(11)
is dominated by the Tevatron measurement, $`m_t=174.3\pm 5.1`$ GeV. One can exclude this from the fit and determine $`m_t`$ from the (indirect) precision data alone. This is the result in parentheses, which is seen in spectacular agreement with the Tevatron value.

It is a pleasure to congratulate Augusto García and Arnulfo Zepeda to their 60th birthday, and to thank the organizers for inviting me to a very enjoyable meeting.


text:
# The Interference between Continuum and Resonance in 𝑒⁺𝑒⁻→𝑐𝑐̄ Experiment

## I Introduction

It is well known that the $`e^+e^{}`$ experiments have lots of advantages in particle physics study: large cross section, small background, and well-determined initial state (both four-momentum and quantum numbers). There were lots of $`e^+e^{}`$ experiments, there are still many $`e^+e^{}`$ experiments working, and there will be further experiments build to continue the experimental study. With the energy ranges from $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ threshold up to TeV scale, these experiments contribute a lot to the knowledge of the world around us. Among them, there are some working at the $`\tau `$-charm energy region, where the $`J^{PC}=1^{}`$ charmonium states are produced and studied, including Mark-I, Mark-II, Mark-III, DM2, Crystal Ball, BES and so on. Recently, CLEO working at CESR decided lower its energy from the $`B\overline{B}`$ threshold to the charm threshold cleoc , and BES working at BEPC decided upgrade both the accelerator and the detector to make a factory-like experiment bes3 , these two experiments will reach an extremely high precision in the study of the charmed mesons and the dynamics of the charmonium states decay in this energy range.

$`J/\psi `$, the first vector charmonium state discovered in 1974 jpsi , gains lots of attention due to its surprising narrow width and strong coupling to $`e^+e^{}`$ state. Since then, it has been used as an ideal laboratory for light hadron spectroscopy and charmonium decay dynamics study, which are the essential tasks of the low energy QCD. The attempt of figuring out the strong decays of $`J/\psi `$ via three-gluon and electromagnetic decays via one-photon annihilation reveals the relative phase between these two amplitudes may be large, with the help of some pure electromagnetic decay modes of $`J/\psi `$ like $`\omega \pi ^0`$ phase . This is an important information since it indicates there would be no interference between these two amplitudes. This situation will be further studied in this paper.

$`\psi (2S)`$, the radially excited spin triplet state of $`J/\psi `$, has also the narrow nature and strong coupling to $`e^+e^{}`$ state, but most impressing feature found in the $`\psi (2S)`$ study is the abnormal suppression of some decay modes compared with the corresponding $`J/\psi `$ decays based on perturbative QCD predictions. This suppression was first observed by the Mark-II experiment in vector pseudoscalar (VP) decay modes like $`\rho \pi `$ and $`K^{}\overline{K}`$ mk2 , and confirmed by BES besVP  (referred as “$`\rho \pi `$ puzzle” in literatures). Moreover, BES also observed the suppression in vector tensor (VT) decays of $`\psi (2S)`$ besVT . This has led to substantial theoretical efforts in solving the problem rhopitheo ; phase2 , unfortunately, most of the models were ruled out by the experiments, while some others need further experimental data to test.

The $`\psi (3770)`$, currently regarded as the D wave charmonium state, lies above the $`D\overline{D}`$ threshold, as a consequence, the OZI allowed decays of $`\psi (3770)D\overline{D}`$ would dominate its decays. This picture has been considered true for pretty long period of time, until recently, a careful study of the old analyses indicates the $`D\overline{D}`$ cross section may be lower than inclusive hadron cross section of $`\psi (3770)`$, or in other words, there are substantial non-$`D\overline{D}`$ decays of $`\psi (3770)`$ state nonddbar .

The three topics in charmonium studies (relative phase between strong and electromagnetic decays, “$`\rho \pi `$ puzzle”, and non-$`D\overline{D}`$ decays of $`\psi (3770)`$) play important roles in understanding the charmonium decay dynamics. In following sections, we will examine carefully the experimental observables and theoretical expectations in charmonium study in $`e^+e^{}`$ experiments, to provide a possibility of investigating these problems in a self-consistent way by considering the unavoidable background process in $`e^+e^{}`$ experiment, namely, the continuum process. We argue that, for any exclusive decay final states of these charmonia decay, in some cases, the contribution of this process to the amplitude may be very important, while in some other cases, although the direct contribution is relatively small, the interference between this term and other dominant amplitudes may contribute a non-negligible part, which maybe provide a guideline to solve the three existing problems in the charmonium decays.

The purpose of our paper focuses on locating the natural source of the existing problems rather than to offer a detailed solutions of them. So we begin with the inclusive hadronic process to exhibit the experimental effect on theoretical cross section, then simple assumption is often adopted to estimate the function on exclusive processes from the continuum contribution. At the last of the paper, we also studied the experimental condition dependence of the results in case the interference was not considered, which is true for most of the existing experimental results on $`J/\psi `$, $`\psi (2S)`$ and $`\psi (3770)`$ decays.

## II Experimentally observed cross sections

We know that $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi (2S)`$ decay into light hadrons through two interactions: the three-gluon strong interaction and the one-photon electromagnetic interaction. There is in general a relative phase between these two amplitudes. This is also true for $`\psi (3770)`$ in its OZI suppressed decay into light hadrons. These two amplitudes and the phase between them are extracted from experimental data by several authors for $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi (2S)`$ phase ; phase2 ; phase3 . If we denote the amplitude of three-gluon by $`a_{3g}`$ and one-photon by $`a_\gamma `$, both of them can be complex, the decay rate

$$\sigma |a_{3g}+a_\gamma |^2.$$
(1)
In $`e^+e^{}`$ colliding beam experiments, the charmonium are produced from $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation, there is inevitable another amplitude

$$e^+e^{}\gamma ^{}hadrons$$
(2)
accompanied with the production of the resonances. This amplitude does not go through the resonance, but in general it could produce the same final hadronic states as charmonium decays do. So there are three Feynman diagrams corresponding to the experimentally measured cross sections, i.e. the three-gluon decays, the one-photon decays, and the one-photon continuum process, as illustrated in Fig. 1. The former two amplitudes are associated with the resonance, while the last one is a slowly varying function of C.M. energy ($`\sqrt{s}`$). To analyze the experimental results, we must take into account three amplitudes and two phases. Taking the amplitude of one-photon continuum as $`a_c`$, the experimentally observed cross section

$$\sigma ^{}|a_{3g}+a_\gamma +a_c|^2.$$
(3)
In this paper, for simplicity, we define

$$a_c=\frac{e^2(s)}{s}e^{i\varphi ^{}},$$
(4)
where $`e`$ is the electromagnetic coupling constant, $`(s)`$ is the form factor, and

$$a_{3g}=\frac{𝒞_{ggg}}{sM^2+iM\mathrm{\Gamma }},$$
(5)
$$a_\gamma =\frac{𝒞_\gamma e^{i\varphi }}{sM^2+iM\mathrm{\Gamma }},$$
(6)
where $`𝒞_{ggg}`$ and $`𝒞_\gamma `$ are taken to be real, and $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are the mass and the width of the resonance. We shall use this form for general discussions and numerical calculations.

The experimentally observed cross sections in $`e^+e^{}`$ collision are modified by the initial state radiation. For the narrow resonances $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi (2S)`$, the observed cross sections are also distorted by the energy spread of the collider. The radiative corrected cross section is expressed as rad.1

$$\sigma _{r.c.}(\sqrt{s})=\underset{0}{\overset{x_m}{}}𝑑xF(x,s)\frac{\sigma _{Born}(s(1x))}{|1\mathrm{\Pi }(s(1x))|^2},$$
(7)
where $`\sigma _{Born}`$ is the Born order cross section. In the upper limit of the integration $`x_m=1s_m/s`$, $`\sqrt{s_m}`$ is the experimentally required minimum invariant mass of the final state $`f`$ after losing energy to multi-photon emission; $`F(x,s)`$ has been calculated in several references rad.1 ; rad.2 ; rad.3  and $`\mathrm{\Pi }(s(1x))`$ is the vacuum polarization factor.

The $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders have finite energy resolution. The energy resolution function $`G(\sqrt{s},\sqrt{s^{}})`$ is usually described by a Gaussian distribution :

$$G(\sqrt{s},\sqrt{s^{}})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{\Delta }}e^{\frac{(\sqrt{s}\sqrt{s^{}})^2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}},$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, a function of the beam energy, is the C.M. energy spread of the accelerator. So the experimentally measured resonance cross section, $`\sigma _{exp}`$, is the radiative corrected cross section $`\sigma _{r.c.}`$ folded with the energy resolution function:

$$\sigma _{exp}(\sqrt{s})=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sigma _{r.c.}(\sqrt{s^{}})G(\sqrt{s^{}},\sqrt{s})𝑑\sqrt{s^{}}.$$
(9)
Through out this paper, all the physical quantities to be discussed are experimentally observed ones and the radiative correction as well as collider energy spread are implicitly taken into account.

In principle, any experiment measures $`\sigma _{exp}^{}`$ should subtract the contribution of the continuum part to get the physical quantity $`\sigma _{exp}`$, where $`\sigma _{exp}^{}`$ and $`\sigma _{exp}`$ indicate the experimental cross sections calculated from Eq.(9) with the substitution of $`\sigma ^{}`$ and $`\sigma `$ from Eq.(3) and Eq.(1) respectively to $`\sigma _B`$ in Eq.(7). Unfortunately, up to now, most of the experiments just neglect this contribution and $`\sigma _{exp}=\sigma _{exp}^{}`$ is assumed for almost all the channels studied, at least at $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi (2S)`$. The noticeable exceptions are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ee}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \mu }`$ and the total width. These quantities are measured, together with the resonance mass, by scanning around the peak of the resonance and then fitting the measured curves with the theoretical cross sections. In the fitting, the theoretical cross sections always include a continuum termjpsipscan .

The difference between $`\sigma _{exp}`$ and $`\sigma _{exp}^{}`$ implies a plausible paraphrase in high energy physics literatures. On one hand, the theoretical analyses are based on $`\sigma _{exp}`$, on the other hand, the experiments actually measure $`\sigma _{exp}^{}`$. However, even in the case that the continuum amplitude is relatively small, such as in $`\psi (2S)`$, certain values of the phase possibly lead to non-negligible interference. For $`\psi (3770)`$ scan experiment, the inclusive continuum hadron cross section is larger than the resonance peak, possible interference may contribute a substantial part of the observed cross section.

We now display the effect from the continuum amplitude and corresponding phase for $`J/\psi `$, $`\psi (2S)`$ and $`\psi (3770)`$. To do this, we calculate the ratio

$$k\frac{\sigma _{exp}^{}\sigma _{exp}}{\sigma _{exp}^{}}.$$
(10)
In order to see the effect of the relative phase, the magnitude of $`a_{3g}`$, $`a_\gamma `$ and $`a_c`$ are treated as input. In principle, $`a_{3g}`$, $`a_\gamma `$ and $`a_c`$ are different for different exclusive modes both in absolute value and in the relative strength. For illustrative purpose, following assumption is used for any of the exclusive mode: the squared moduli of $`a_{3g}`$ and $`a_\gamma `$ are proportional to their branching ratios of inclusive hadrons $`B(ggghadron)`$ and $`B(\gamma ^{}hadron)`$ given by PDG pdg , and the squared modulus of $`a_c`$ is assumed to be proportional to the Born order $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ cross section multiplied by $`R_{had}`$ which indicates the hadronic cross section of the continuum process, and is estimated by pQCD pdg . Table 1 lists these inputs for $`J/\psi `$, $`\psi (2S)`$ and $`\psi (3770)`$.

If we use the BEPC energy spread listed by PDG pdg , $`\sigma _{J/\psi }`$ 3100 nb, $`\sigma _{\psi (2S)}`$ 700 nb, and $`\sigma _{\psi (3770)}`$ 8 nb are got. Combining with equation (1), (3) and (10), we could obtain $`k`$ as a function of $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$, whose variation is shown in Fig. 2. It can be seen that for certain values of the two phases, $`k`$ could deviates from 0, or equivalently the ratio $`\sigma _{exp}^{}/\sigma _{exp}`$ deviates from 1, which implies that the continuum process may produce non-negligible effect in experimental measurement.

## III $`a_c`$ in $`e^+e^{}c\overline{c}`$ processes

### III.1 $`\psi (3770)`$

The $`\psi (3770)`$ is a wide resonance with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}=(23.6\pm 2.5)`$ MeV pdg . The collider energy spread can be neglected as long as the standard deviation of the energy resolution function $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is comparatively small, such as $`\mathrm{\Delta }2`$ MeV. Its maximum cross section of inclusive hadrons in $`e^+e^{}`$ collision is 8 nb, while the continuum cross section is about 13 nb. The resonance predominantly decays into $`D\overline{D}`$, while the continuum cross section mainly goes to light hadrons. The decay rate of $`\psi (3770)`$ to light hadrons via three-gluon annihilation even though small in the total width, e.g. at the order of 1%, or partial width of about 230 keV, which means that $`|a_{3g}|0.08|a_c|`$ ($`\psi (3770)`$ decays to light hadrons via one-photon annihilation is three orders of magnitude lower than the three-gluon annihilation given above pdg , and could be neglected), if it has interference with continuum amplitude, it could bring an interference of maximum 1.9 nb in the observed cross section to light hadrons. Another interference between the tail of $`\psi (2S)a_{3g}`$ and $`a_c`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=m_{\psi (3770)}`$ brings an interference of maximum 1 nb, while the interference between $`\psi (2S)`$ and $`\psi (3770)`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=m_{\psi (3770)}`$ is small, with 0.07 nb at maximum. The continuum cross section of $`e^+e^{}D\overline{D}`$, in the simple naive quark model, is estimated by

$$\sigma _c(s)=\frac{4}{3}\sigma _{\mu ^+\mu ^{}}(s)\frac{2P_D}{E_{cm}},$$
(11)
with $`P_D`$ being the momentum of the $`D`$ or $`\overline{D}`$. After taken into account of radiative correction, it is 0.019nb. But the interference between $`a_c`$ and $`a_D`$ is 0.79nb at maximum. Here $`a_D`$ denotes the OZI allowed strong interaction amplitude which is responsible for $`\psi (3770)D\overline{D}`$ decays.

A possible large constructive interference for light hadrons and, at the same time, a large destructive interference for $`D\overline{D}`$, could be responsible for the larger cross section of inclusive hadrons by direct measurement of $`e^+e^{}\psi (3770)hadrons`$ psi''xection  than the $`D\overline{D}`$ cross section measured by Mark III Collaboration using $`D`$ single-tag and double-tag MARK3 .

As to the exclusive decays, it could make some of the decay modes with small branching ratios more observable at the resonance. For example, if the missing decay modes of $`\psi (2S)`$ like $`\rho \pi `$ do appear in $`\psi (3770)`$ decays, with an enhancement factor Rosner , their on-resonance cross section could be substantially larger than off-resonance in $`e^+e^{}`$ experiment. Quantitatively, if $`(\psi (3770)\rho \pi )4\times 10^4`$ (or equivalently, $`\sigma _{\psi (3770)\rho \pi }0.003`$ nb) as suggested in Ref. Rosner , and $`\sigma (e^+e^{}\rho \pi )0.014`$ nb at Born order by the model of Ref. Achasov  11footnotetext: The same calculation gives $`\rho \pi `$ cross section at the mass of $`\psi (2S)`$ to be 0.015 nb, which is just below the current upper limit of the branching ratio $`2.8\times 10^5`$ or upper limit of the cross section 0.02 nb by BES besVP ., then the maximum interference could be 0.011 nb, much larger than the pure contribution from $`\psi (3770)\rho \pi `$. Comparing the cross sections on and off $`\psi (3770)`$ peak, $`\psi (3770)\rho \pi `$ could be seen through the interference with the continuum amplitude.

### III.2 $`\psi (2S)`$

As can be seen in Fig. 2 (b), the ratio $`\sigma _{exp}^{}/\sigma _{exp}`$ could deviate from $`1`$ substantially. For each exclusive decay channels, $`k`$ could be different, due to the magnitudes of $`a_\gamma `$ and $`a_{3g}`$, have different coefficients and $`a_c`$, if estimated by form factors, are of different functions of the energy. This must be taken into account in the fitting of $`a_\gamma `$, $`a_{3g}`$ and the phase in between. In general, with the interference between $`a_c`$ and the resonance, the maximum height of each exclusive channel does not necessarily coincide with the maximum height of the inclusive hadrons on which data are taken. We shall take the $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ channel as an example in the next section.

In $`\psi (2S)`$ final state analyses, it is noticeable that the observed cross sections of some electromagnetic processes, such as $`\psi (2S)\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`\psi (2S)\omega \pi ^0`$, and the famous puzzling process $`\psi (2S)\rho \pi `$, are three to four orders of magnitude smaller than the inclusive hadron cross section of the continuum process, which is about 15 nb. Form factor estimation fofa1  gives these cross sections comparable to the magnitudes off the resonancewym . It implies that a substantial part of the experimentally measured cross section could comes from the continuum amplitude $`a_c`$ instead of the $`\psi (2S)`$ decays, and interference between these two amplitudes may even affect the measured quantities further. Therefore it is essential to know the production rate of $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`\omega \pi ^0`$ and $`\rho \pi `$ due to the continuum process in order to get their correct branching ratios of the $`\psi (2S)`$ decays.

In order to know whether the observed suppression of VP and VT modes in $`\psi (2S)`$ decays are due to the absence of strong interaction amplitude, or the destructive interference between the electromagnetic and the strong amplitudes, or just an incidental destructive interference between these two and the continuum process in particular experiment, the amplitude $`a_c`$ must be taken into account.

### III.3 $`J/\psi `$

From Fig. 2 (a), it is seen that the interference between the amplitude $`a_c`$ and the resonance is at the order of a few percent which is much smaller than that of $`\psi (2S)`$. It is also smaller than the statistical and systematic uncertainties of current measurements. Nevertheless, for future high precision measurements such as the proposed CLEO-c cleoc  and BES-III bes3 , when the accuracy goes to a few per mille level, it should be taken into account.

## IV The dependence on experimental conditions

In this section, we discuss the dependence of the observed cross section in $`e^+e^{}`$ collision on the experimental conditions. The most crucial experiment conditions are the accelerator energy spread and the beam energy setting. The former will smear the intrinsic width of the resonance so that change the relative contribution between the resonance and the continuum, while the latter will affect the relative contribution as well as the absolute correction to the total rate due to the interference. The invariant mass cut or equivalent requirement in data analysis will also affect the relative contribution of resonance and continuum due to the different energy dependence of the cross sections in radiative correction.

### IV.1 Dependence on collider energy resolution

For narrow resonance like $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi (2S)`$, with intrinsic widths much narrower than the energy resolution of the current $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders, we don’t observe their original resonance curve. Instead, what we actually measure is the resonance smeared by the finite energy resolution of the collider. In Fig. 3, three cross sections are depicted: the Breit-Wigner cross section, the cross section after radiative correction (Eq.(7)), and the experimentally measured cross section (Eq.(9)).

In actual experiments, data are naturally taken at the energy which yields the maximum height of the inclusive hadrons. This energy is not the nominal mass of the resonance but somewhat higher, neither does it coincide with the maximum height of each exclusive channels due to the interference effect with $`a_c`$. For comparison, Fig. 4, depicts the observed cross sections of inclusive hadrons and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ pairs. Two arrows in the figure denote the different positions of the maximum heights of the cross sections. It is well know that the radiative correction reduces the height of the peak and shift the maximum height of the resonance peak upwards, and the energy resolution of the collider both reduces the height of the peak and shifts it more profoundly. Such shift, depends on the energy resolution of the collider, in general could be different for inclusive hadrons and for each exclusive channels. For example, the peak of $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ curve is shifted more than that of the inclusive hadrons, to 0.81 MeV above the $`\psi (2S)`$ nominal mass for BEPC energy spread, which is 1.3 MeV.

It is clear that the shape of the observed cross section is much different from that of Breit-Wigner. However, the energy smear hardly affects the continuum part of the cross section. So in the observed cross section, what proportion comes from the contribution of continuum and interference is sensitive to the energy spread. The larger the collider energy spread is, the more share the continuum part contributes in the observed cross section.

### IV.2 Dependence on beam energy

For demonstration of such dependence, we show the curve of $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ channel, for its dynamics is clear and there is no unknown parameter. It is similar to those hadronic channels in $`\psi (2S)`$ decays which only go through electromagnetic interaction, such as $`\omega \pi ^0`$ and $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. Since this is an exclusive channel, there is interference between the continuum and the $`\psi (2S)`$ amplitudes. Such interference can be seen clearly from the scan of the $`\psi (2S)`$, as shown in Fig. 5.

The relative contribution of the resonance and the continuum changes rapidly as the energy changes, and the interference term between these two amplitudes also varies with energy. The latter could change from negative to positive as the energy passes across the nominal mass of the resonance. In the actual experimental situation, it is important to know the beam energy precisely, which is needed in the delicate task to subtract the contribution of $`a_c`$. Possible uncertainty and drift of the beam energy need to be taken into account in the determination of the systematic errors.

### IV.3 Dependence on invariant mass requirement

The magnitude of the continuum part of the cross section is sensitive to the upper limit of the integration in the calculation of the radiative correction, i.e., it depends sensitively on the invariant mass cut in the experiment (Eq. (7)). This is because that the Born order cross section of the continuum term goes up as C.M. energy decreases. If the event selection uses a very loose cut, then the cross section from continuum part could be very large. This is particularly true for exclusive channels, because QCD predicts the form factors to be powers of $`1/Q^2`$. While the resonance part is not sensitive to the invariant mass cut, since the Breit-Wigner formula serves as a natural cut by itself. Mathematically, in the upper limit of the integration of Eq. (7), as long as $`(1s_m/s)\mathrm{\Gamma }/M`$, the integration is not sensitive to the upper limit, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`M`$ are the total width and mass of the resonance respectively.

So in the observed cross section, what proportion comes from the contribution of continuum and interference is sensitive to the events selection criteria. Many of a time, it is not the invariant mass cut directly applied to the data, instead it is affected by many cuts, like the momentum cut, kinematic fit, collinearity cut and so on. In this case, how much is the contribution of the continuum and the interference could only be calculated by Monte Carlo simulation. Qualitatively, looser invariant mass requirement in event selection would increase the share of the continuum part of the contribution.

It is worth noting here that in principle if $`a_c`$ is not considered correctly, different experiments will give different results to the same quantity, like the exclusive branching ratio of the resonance, due to the dependence on beam energy spread, beam energy setting, and invariant mass requirement in event selection. This point is especially important for the time being, since the beam spreads for different accelerators are much different, and events selection criteria is very different because of the big background in the channels analyzed jpsirep .

## V Summary and Perspectives

As we have emphasized in the foregoing discussion, the amplitude $`a_c`$, by itself or through interference with the resonance, could contribute significantly to the observed cross sections in $`e^+e^{}`$ experiments on charmonium physics. Its treatment depends sensitively on the experimental details, this has not been fully addressed in both $`e^+e^{}`$ experiments and theoretical analyses based on these results. So far, most of the measurements are crude, with large statistical and systematic uncertainties, so this problem has been outside of the purview of concern. Now with large $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi (2S)`$ samples from BES-II bes2data  and forthcoming high precision experiments CLEO-c cleoc  and BES-III bes3 , the effect of $`a_c`$ needs to be addressed properly.

To study the continuum contribution, the most promising way is to do energy scan for every exclusive mode in the vicinity of the resonance, so that both the amplitudes and the relative phases could be fit out simultaneously. In case this is not practicable, data sample off the resonance with comparable integrated luminosity as on the resonance should be collected to measure $`|a_c|`$, which could give an estimation of its contribution in the decay modes studied. The theoretical analyses based on current available $`e^+e^{}`$ data, particularly on $`\psi (2S)`$ may need to be revised correspondingly.

In fact, another way to free ourselves from the effect of the continuum is to analyze the decay product from higher energy experiments. For example, $`J/\psi `$ decays could be measured from $`\psi (2S)\pi ^+\pi ^{}J/\psi `$ , $`\psi (2S)`$ could be studied from $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilation experiments or from $`B`$ decays at the $`B`$ factories.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors wish to thank their colleagues of the BES collaboration for discussions. This work is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under contracts No. 19991483 and 100 Talents Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences under contract No. U-25.