text:
# Gravitational Radiation from Pulsating White Dwarfs

## 1 Introduction

There are a number of gravitational radiation detectors, planned, under construction, and operational covering a wide frequency spectrum from $`10^9\mathrm{Hz}`$ all the way up to $`10^4\mathrm{Hz}`$. Expected sources of gravitational radiation include numerous astrophysical sources such as compact binaries, supermassive black holes, and binary coalescence. In addition, there is an expected cosmological background of gravitational radiation arising from the very earliest times of the universe. The coverage of the spectrum is not complete and the gap between space-based interferometers (such as LISA) and ground-based interferometers (such as LIGO and VIRGO) has been proposed as a possible “clean window”, devoid of continuous foreground sources, through which the cosmological background of gravitational radiation could be seen (Seto, Kawamura, & Nakamura, 2001). Most binary white dwarf systems will coalesce before their gravitational wave frequency rises above $`0.1\mathrm{Hz}`$, while more massive binaries such as double neutron star or black hole binaries will be sweeping through this band on the way to their eventual coalescence in the ground-based frequency band. However, rotating white dwarfs undergoing quasi-radial oscillations will emit gravitational radiation in this frequency band. These sources will be essentially monochromatic and long-lived. Given the number of white dwarfs in the galaxy, it is quite possible that this population will produce a confusion-limited foreground of sources in this frequency band that will mask the cosmological background. We propose a possible energy source for these oscillations and attempt to estimate the average signal strength.

## 2 Quasi-radial Oscillations

Quasi-radial oscillations of rotating white dwarfs were investigated in the early 1970’s (Papoyan, Sedrakian, & Chubaryan, 1972; Haroutyunyan, Sedrakian, & Chubaryan, 1972) where the frequency spectrum of the fundamental oscillation mode for maximally rotating white dwarfs was determined. These stars are oblate due to their rotation and consequently they have a non-zero quadrupole moment. The oscillations add a time dependence to the quadrupole moment (Vartanian & Hajian, 1977). The oscillation is described by assigning each mass element a time dependent coordinate given by $`x_\alpha =x_\alpha ^0(1+\eta \mathrm{sin}\omega t)`$ where $`\eta 1`$ and a constant. Thus, the reduced quadrupole moment is given by:

$`Q_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \rho \left(x_\alpha x_\beta \frac{1}{3}\delta _{\alpha \beta }x^2\right)d^3x}`$ (1)
$``$ $`Q_{\alpha \beta }^0\left(1+2\eta \mathrm{sin}\omega t\right)`$
where $`Q_{\alpha \beta }^0`$ are the components of the quadrupole moment of the rotating oblate white dwarf in equilibrium and we have neglected terms of order $`\eta ^2`$. Taking the axis of rotation to lie along the $`z`$-axis, the non-zero components of the quadrupole moment obey:

$$Q^0=Q_{zz}^0=2Q_{xx}^0=2Q_{yy}^0.$$
(2)
The power emitted in gravitational radiation is given by:

$$J=\frac{G}{5c^5}\left|\frac{d^3}{dt^3}Q_{\alpha \beta }\right|^2,$$
(3)
and consequently one obtains:

$$J=\frac{6G}{5c^5}\eta ^2\omega ^6\left|Q^0\right|^2\mathrm{cos}^2\omega t^{}=J_0\mathrm{cos}^2\omega t^{}$$
(4)
where the retarded time is $`t^{}=tr/c`$ for a source at distance $`r`$.

To determine the wave form and the angular distribution of the radiation, we rotate to coordinates in which the wave vector lies along the $`z`$-axis and use the transverse-traceless gauge. Consequently,

$`h_+`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{½}\left(h_{xx}h_{yy}\right)`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3GQ^0\eta \omega ^2}{c^4r}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}\omega t^{}`$
$`h_\times `$ $`=`$ $`h_{xy}=0,`$ (6)
where $`\theta `$ is the angle between the wave vector and the axis of rotation of the white dwarf. We can express the strain amplitude in terms of the power by combining Eq. 4 with Eq. 5 to obtain:

$$h_+=\sqrt{\frac{15GJ_0}{2c^3}}\frac{1}{r\omega }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}\omega t^{}.$$
(7)
If an energy source can be found to drive the pulsations, the rate at which power is put into the vibrations can be combined with the lifetime of the energy source to estimate the strain amplitude from an individual white dwarf and thus from the galactic population as a whole. We discuss a possible mechanism in the next section.

## 3 Energy Source

If there is no permanent source of energy to feed the gravitational radiation, the oscillation energy will quickly radiate away in about 1000 years (Vartanian & Hajian, 1977). Since the ultimate source of the gravitational radiation from the white dwarf is the oblateness arising from the rotation, we propose that the deformation energy of the white dwarf provides the energy to drive the oscillations. In this scenario, as the white dwarf spins down, it will transition from oblate to spherical. This transition will trigger starquakes which will feed the oscillations which drive the gravitational radiation. We assume that a part of the deformation energy will be converted into gravitational radiation while the remaining part will dissipate through thermal, electromagnetic, and other channels. We use the technique of Sahakian, Sedrakian, & Chubarian (1972) to calculate the deformation energy.

From numerical results, the dependence of the mass of the rotating and non-rotating configurations is found to be linear with the baryon number, so $`M=kN`$ and $`M_0=k_0N`$, where the subscript “0” indicates the non-rotating configuration. The mass difference between the rotating and non-rotating configurations with the same baryon number is a result of the additional energy of rotation ($`W_r(\mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{1}{2}I\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$) as well as the potential energy due to crustal deformation ($`W_g(\mathrm{\Omega })`$), thus:

$$W_g(\mathrm{\Omega })=\mathrm{\Delta }Mc^2W_r(\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the angular velocity of the white dwarf, $`I`$ is its moment of inertia, and the mass difference in grams is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M=(kk_0)N=8.96\times 10^{29}N.$$
(9)
The appropriate parameters for maximally rotating white dwarfs were calculated in Haroutyunian, Sedrakian, & Chubaryan (1971) and Sahakian, Sedrakian, & Chubarian (1972). These parameters are presented in Table 1. To obtain the deformation energy for rotation rates less than $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{max}}`$, we use the fact that the results of Haroutyunian, Sedrakian, & Chubaryan (1971) were obtained using a linear expansion in the small dimensionless parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2/8\pi G\rho _c`$, where $`\rho _c`$ is the non-rotating central density. Consequently, we can write:

$$W_g(\mathrm{\Omega })=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{max}}}\right)^2W_g(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{max}}).$$
(10)
It now remains to determine the time scale, $`\tau `$, for a spin-down mechanism so that we can relate the power in gravitational radiation to the decrease in deformation energy by:

$$J_0=\beta \frac{W_g}{\tau },$$
(11)
where $`\beta 1`$ is a “branching ratio” that quantifies the fraction of deformation energy which goes into gravitational radiation from the fundamental mode.

One possible mechanism for the spin-down of a rotating white dwarf is magneto-dipole radiation torque, which occurs if the magnetic field is oblique (Schmidt, et al., 2001). Observational data for 65 isolated white dwarfs indicates the magnetic field strength on the surface of these stars lies in the range $`3\times 10^4`$ to $`10^9`$ G (Wickramasinghe & Ferrario, 2000). If we define $`\alpha `$ to be the angle between the magnetic and rotation axes, the spin-down rate of the white dwarf is given by:

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{2\mu ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^3}{3Ic^3}\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha ,$$
(12)
where $`\mu =BR^3`$ is the magnetic moment, $`B`$ is the magnetic field strength, and $`R`$ is the radius of the white dwarf. The characteristic time scale is then:

$$\tau =\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\left|\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right|}.$$
(13)
We neglect the influence of gravitational radiation on the spin evolution because the ratio of the energy lost through gravitational radiation to that of the energy lost through the magnetic-dipole spin down mechanism is about $`3.6\beta `$. With this information, we can now estimate the gravitational radiation luminosity and strain amplitude for several white dwarfs.

## 4 Strain Amplitudes and Luminosities

The rotation rates for white dwarfs are difficult to measure since these objects have little or no surface blemishes and gravitational broadening of their spectral lines overwhelms the expected rotational broadening (Kawaler, 2003). Fortunately, some magnetic white dwarfs show time variability in their magnetic features which allows for their rotation rates to be inferred (Wickramasinghe & Ferrario, 2000; Kawaler, 2003). Magnetic white dwarfs are thought to make up roughly 1% of the white dwarf population and isolated magnetic white dwarfs tend to have an average mass ($`0.95M_{\mathrm{}}`$) that is well above that of nonmagnetic white dwarfs ($`0.57M_{\mathrm{}}`$). There is evidence that the population of magnetic white dwarfs is bimodal with high mass stars (near the Chandrasekhar limit) having rotational periods between $`700`$ s and several hours (Wickramasinghe & Ferrario, 2000). This may be evidence that such objects are the result of double degenerate mergers (Wickramasinghe & Ferrario, 2000; Dupuis, Vennes, & Chayer, 2002), as has been proposed for EUVE J0317-855 (Ferrario, et al., 1997).

The population of merged magnetic white dwarfs may be the most promising source of gravitational radiation from the mechanism of quasi-radial oscillations. To estimate the expected strain amplitude from both individual sources and the population as a whole, we identify eight candidates from the 65 known isolated magnetic white dwarfs from Wickramasinghe & Ferrario (2000) as those with rotational periods less than one day. The properties of the candidates are listed in Table 2. We estimate the local space density of merged magnetic white dwarfs by taking the local space density of white dwarfs to be $`0.003\mathrm{pc}^3`$ (Liebert, Dahn, & Monet, 1988), the fraction of isolated magnetic white dwarfs to be $`5.1\%`$ (Wickramasinghe & Ferrario, 2000), and the fraction of isolated magnetic white dwarfs that are remnants of mergers to be $`8/65`$. This results in a local space density of $`\rho _\mathrm{s}=1.9\times 10^5\mathrm{pc}^3`$. The expected distance to the nearest source is then found by:

$$r=2\left(\frac{3}{4\pi \rho _\mathrm{s}}\right)^{1/3}46\mathrm{pc}$$
(14)
Assuming a galactic distribution of white dwarfs to follow the disk population, we assign a density distribution of:

$$\rho =\rho _0e^{r/R}e^{z/h}$$
(15)
in galacto-centric cylindrical coordinates, with $`R=2.5\mathrm{kpc}`$ and $`h=200\mathrm{pc}`$. Taking the solar location as $`r_s=8.5\mathrm{kpc}`$ and $`z_s=0`$, we obtain $`\rho _0=5.5\times 10^4\mathrm{pc}^{}3`$ and a total number of $`N=8.6\times 10^6`$ in the galaxy.

Expected strain amplitudes, $`\tau `$, and $`\eta `$ for the eight isolated magnetic white dwarfs are given in Table 3. These are calculated by first determining $`\tau `$ from Eqs. 12 and 13, where we have chosen $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha =1/2`$. This is a reasonable assumption since a distribution in $`\alpha `$ that is either uniform or spiked at $`\alpha =\pi /4`$ are supported by observation (Schmidt & Norsworthy, 1991). Choosing a value for $`\beta `$ with which to calculate the luminosity is somewhat problematic due to the dearth of observational data for pulsations in this frequency range. Most observations of white dwarf pulsations are in the mHz range, and consequently any pulsations in the dHz range will be averaged out in an observation. We choose an upper bound to $`\beta `$ by requiring that the largest Doppler broadening of spectral lines due to pulsations be less than thermal Doppler broadening. The most stringent constraint comes from PG 1031+234 and yields $`\beta =10^4`$. We note that the resulting pulsational Doppler broadening in the remaining seven white dwarfs is at least an order of magnitude below the thermal Doppler broadening. Thus, the luminosity is calculated from Eq. 11 and used with Eqs. 14 and 7 to determine the strain amplitude where we have averaged over all orientations and taken $`\beta =10^4`$. We have used the average mass of $`0.95M_{\mathrm{}}`$ whenever the mass was undetermined and the average distance of $`46\mathrm{pc}`$ is the distance is unknown. The expected energy flux on earth (in $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$) for a population made entirely of each type of white dwarf is also shown in Table 3. The flux, $`F`$, is calculated using

$$F=\frac{4\pi \rho _\mathrm{s}hf(h)J_0}{4\pi \left(3\times 10^{18}\right)^2}$$
(16)
where $`h=200\mathrm{pc}`$ and $`f(h)=6.15`$ is calculated using Appendix A of Hils, Bender, & Webbink (1990). Finally, we note that a simple average of the strain amplitudes in Table 3 gives $`h_+=5.9\times 10^{28}`$ and an average flux of $`F=9.21\times 10^{16}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$. The flux is spread out over a frequency band of $`\nu _1=0.12`$ to $`\nu _2=0.32\mathrm{Hz}`$, and we can estimate an average strain amplitude for the galactic population of pulsating white dwarfs by using the angle and polarization averaged expression of Douglas & Braginsky (1979) and averaging over the frequency range $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =\nu _2\nu _1`$ to obtain:

$$h_{+\mathrm{ave}}=\frac{\mathrm{ln}\nu _2/\nu _1}{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu }\sqrt{\frac{4GF}{\pi c^3}},$$
(17)
which gives $`h_{+\mathrm{ave}}=8.35\times 10^{27}`$.

## 5 Conclusions

We have shown that the galactic population of white dwarfs can produce a background of gravitational radiation in the frequency range of $`0.120.32\mathrm{Hz}`$ through quasi-radial pulsations. The source of energy to drive these pulsations is found in the deformation energy of the white dwarf due to its rotation. This energy can be extracted from the white dwarf as it spins down. We have proposed that a population of isolated magnetic white dwarfs which are the remnants of merged double degenerate binaries can be sources of this gravitational radiation. Estimates of the signal strength over the frequency band of interest indicate that this population may be comparable in strength to the level of the stochastic cosmological background of gravitational radiation predicted by standard inflationary models. In addition, some white dwarfs may be near enough that their signals will stand above the background and their individual parameters can be measured. If the frequency and amplitude of the gravitational radiation from one of these nearby single white dwarfs can be measured, then it will provide an opportunity to test models of white dwarf interiors and give a unique opportunity to check the main parameters for white dwarfs and to understand their dissipation mechanisms.

This work is supported by CRDF award AP2-3207 and 12006/NFSAT PH067-02. MJB is also supported by NASA Cooperative Agreement NCC5-579.


format: text

text:
# Model Dependence of the Properties of 𝑆₁₁ Baryon Resonances

## I Introduction

The problem of extracting baryon resonance parameters from observables measured in scattering experiments is of fundamental importance. In order to understand the relevant degrees of freedom at low energy and their interactions in the few dozen $`N^{}`$ states found to date, reliable and objective information on their properties extracted from data is required. Models of the baryon spectrum are usually compared to masses defined in terms of effective Breit-Wigner parameters. A more sensitive test of such models is the comparison of total widths and branching fractions to open channels of each resonance to those extracted from data. These quantities are also defined in terms of effective Breit-Wigner parameters, but in general show more sensitivity to the method used to fit the data. What is not commonly appreciated is the dependence of these resonance parameters on the method used to extract them from a fit to the data. For example, it is not uncommon to see such parameters referred to as “data” in the literature.

The primary goal of this paper is to examine the model dependence in this process in a carefully chosen test case, states in the $`S_{11}`$ partial wave in $`\pi N`$. States in this partial wave have both significant physics interest and significant uncertainty in their parameters as reported by the Particle Data Group (PDG) in their Review of Particle Properties PDG . Most of the literature considers the lowest energy resonance in this partial wave \[$`S_{11}`$(1535)\] as a three-quark state within the quark model quarkmodels . However, the substantial branching fraction of $`S_{11}`$(1535) to $`\eta N`$ has, given the small phase space available for this decay, led to the interpretation of this state as a meson-baryon molecule chiral . Lattice calculations of the masses of these states have recently been developed lattice1 ; lattice2 . The calculations of both Ref. lattice1  and lattice2  are quenched, and find masses for $`S_{11}`$(1535) similar to the values fit from experiment PDG . In addition, constituent quark models which describe these $`S_{11}`$ resonances as ($`P`$-wave) orbital excitations with $`J^P=1/2^{}`$ differ in their prediction of the amount of mixing between the two possible quark-spin states Karl , because of different models of the short distance interactions between the quarks. A comparison between partial widths calculated in a given model and those extracted from data can be used to determine the nature of these short distance interactions. This makes the dependence of these partial widths on the method used to extract them from fits to data important, and relevant.

These important microscopic issues are unable to be settled with the uncertainty in the full and partial widths presently reported by the PDG, which vary widely among various studies. At one extreme, analyses of the $`\pi N`$ elastic scattering data tend to give a full width of about 120 MeV for $`S_{11}`$(1535), with $`\pi N`$ as the dominant decay branch VPIpiN ; KH80 . At the other extreme, threshold eta photo-production data gives a much larger full width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ 210 MeV, with $`\eta N`$ as the larger decay branch KruMuk . Only a unified treatment of all the data can provide a consistent picture.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the model dependence of $`S_{11}`$ resonance parameters by extracting them from several fits to a single set of partial wave amplitudes for $`\pi N\pi N`$ VPIpiN  and $`\pi N\eta N`$ Vrana  scattering in the $`S_{11}`$ partial wave. These fits have different levels of sophistication in their of description of the scattering matrix. The analysis of these channels in this partial wave is chosen because the proximity of two overlapping resonances \[$`S_{11}(1535)`$ and $`S_{11}(1650)`$\] and the $`\eta N`$ channel threshold makes it an interesting and non-trivial example. Differing treatments of the re-scattering processes are a key difference among the models studied here and these effects should be most important near a threshold. Although the number of open channels is much larger than two, the two channels that have been chosen are the most important and account for 90% (1535) and about 80% (1650) of the decay width when all channels are included PDG .

Breit-Wigner models can get good fits to single channel data (e.g. $`\pi N\eta N`$ Baker , $`\gamma N\pi N`$ MAID ), but have non-trivial uncertainties and at times surprising results. In simplifying an intrinsically multichannel problem into a single channel model, information from other reactions must be included with accompanying uncertainties. In addition, there is no single commonly accepted form for the resonance shape. When a somewhat large ($``$10) set of asymptotic states can couple to each $`N^{}`$ with high probability, including a large sample of reactions and application of the unitarity constraint are extremely important. Common multichannel techniques include $`K`$-matrix Penner ; Green  and Carnegie-Mellon Berkeley (CMB) Batinic ; Vrana  models. Each has an established way of including a variety of interactions respecting multichannel unitarity with varying ability to include dynamics.

Three methods are used here to perform the extraction of resonance parameters via a fit to the partial wave amplitudes. The most constrained is the CMB model, which was developed Cutkosky  to describe $`\pi N`$ elastic and inelastic scattering, and extended and modernized in Ref. Vrana . This approach has multi-channel unitarity, and the scattering matrix (a matrix in the space of channels) has the required analytic structure. Resonances are modeled as “bare” poles, which are “dressed” by coupling to the open asymptotic channels.

The second, simpler approach is to describe the unitary $`T`$ matrix using a real symmetric $`K`$ matrix, which is in turn written directly in terms of resonance parameters. This approach maintains multi-channel unitarity, but does not satisfy analyticity constraints. The third, simplest approach is to build the $`T`$ matrix directly from a sum of relativistic Breit-Wigner forms for the resonances. In this case, minimal constraints on the scattering amplitudes are available. Below $`\pi \pi `$ production threshold, the overall amplitude can be made unitary using Watson’s theorem. However, the $`\eta N`$ channel must be included for a good description of the $`S_{11}`$ partial wave, and only ad-hoc methods MAID  are available to accomplish this. The Breit-Wigner models used here are neither unitary nor analytic.

Non-resonant amplitudes must be added to account for scattering processes which do not involve $`s`$-channel $`N^{}`$ resonances. Although a fairly small set of diagrams describing non-resonant processes can be identified at lower total energy ($`W`$ 1.3 GeV), the set of possible diagrams grows rapidly as the total energy increases to 2.0 GeV. To date, no published work has included all the relevant diagrams. Empirical descriptions of the non-resonant amplitudes can be chosen since each resonance has a strong signal in at least one of the reactions studied, and most publications find the non-resonant amplitudes to be smaller than the resonant amplitudes. In addition, the most basic physics assumption is that the resonances come from the long-distance part of the interaction and are seen in the sharp energy features of the data, while the non-resonant amplitudes arise from the short-range part of the interaction and provide smooth energy dependence. This implies that, in this case, the influence of the choice of non-resonant amplitudes on the extracted resonance properties should be small. The “distant poles” model of the non-resonant amplitudes is designed for use with the CMB model. Bare poles well below and well above the thresholds for the channels being studied, i.e. distant poles, are fit to the partial-wave data with methods very similar to those used for the resonance poles. In the CMB model they provide a smooth, analytic, unitary $`T`$ matrix in the physical region; they can also be incorporated into a $`K`$-matrix model to provide a unitary scattering matrix. While the poles and cuts in the left-hand part of the complex $`s`$-plane required by crossing symmetry are difficult to fully implement in the CMB model, their effects in the physical region can be simulated by a particular choice of strong form factor, and by the use of sub-threshold poles. Another method adds to the resonant amplitudes polynomials quadratic in the parameters $`x_c=(ss_{\mathrm{th},c})^{1/2}`$ for each exit channel $`c`$, which can yield a unitary $`T`$ matrix for the $`K`$-matrix approach.

The procedure used here is to calculate, using the CMB, $`K`$-matrix, and Breit-Wigner approaches, the matrix $`T_{ab}`$ for scattering between the channels $`\{a,b\}\{\pi N,\eta N\}`$ in terms of a set of parameters describing the resonant and non-resonant amplitudes. Different treatments of the background are explored, giving a total of eight different models. A $`\chi ^2`$ statistic is minimized by varying these parameters to best fit the partial wave amplitudes for the $`\pi N\pi N`$ VPIpiN  and $`\pi N\eta N`$ Vrana  reactions.

The goals of this work are somewhat limited in order to make a clear statement about model dependence, and for this reason the resonance parameters which result should not be considered for use in understanding the microscopic structure of the $`S_{11}`$ resonance states. The channel space is greatly simplified to only the two principal channels, leaving out other channels such as $`\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$ that are a much smaller part of the amplitudes, but which must be included for the optimal values. From ten-channel fits to both $`\pi N`$ and $`\gamma N`$ reactions, the $`S_{11}`$(1650) width is known to be $``$50% larger than in a two-channel fit. In addition, the sophisticated $`K`$-matrix techniques developed by the Giessen group Penner  are not used here.

## II Models of the scattering matrix

In this section the form of the scattering matrix in the various models is described, along with the implementation of the two forms of background described above. All of the models used here require partial wave amplitudes (PWA) as input. These extract the energy dependence of amplitudes with specific isospin, parity and angular momentum (e.g. $`S_{11}`$) from the large number of experimental data points. About 20 years ago, significant efforts were made to find model independent methods for partial wave analysis of $`\pi N`$ elastic data KH80 . More recent efforts by the George Washington University (GWU) group VPIpiN  incorporate most of the theoretical constraints developed previously. Although the fits in this work do not use the most recent GWU work, results using the most recent PWA would not produce different conclusions. Since the number of data points for the $`\pi N\eta N`$ reaction is much smaller, there is more model dependence. These amplitudes are discussed in Ref. Vrana , using a method that that accurately couples the $`\pi N`$ elastic and inelastic data with minimal model dependence. Until another study is done, this is the only PWA result available for $`\pi N\eta N`$.

### II.1 CMB model

In this work the $`S_{11}`$ partial wave in $`\pi N`$ elastic and $`\pi N\eta N`$ scattering is described using only the two light resonances $`S_{11}`$(1535) and $`S_{11}`$(1650). In the CMB model background ($`t`$\- and $`u`$-channel) processes are simulated using one high-energy and two sub-threshold $`s`$-channel poles, which are treated identically to the resonances in order to preserve the analytic structure of the $`T`$ matrix. The transition amplitudes Cutkosky ; Vrana  are

$$T_{ab}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{5}{}}f_a(s)\sqrt{\rho _a(s)}\gamma _{ai}G_{ij}(s)\gamma _{bk}\sqrt{\rho _b(s)}f_b(s)$$
(1)
where $`\{a,b\}\{\pi N,\eta N\}`$ label the channels, and $`i,j`$ label the poles, which can represent the resonances or the background. The model used in this paper has five poles (two for real resonances and three for background resonances). It is easy to add channels with this formalism if the input data is available. The phase space factor $`\rho _a(s)`$ has the form

$$\rho _a(s)=\frac{p_a}{\sqrt{s}},$$
(2)
where $`p_a`$ is the c.m. frame momentum and $`\gamma _{ai}`$ is the real-valued coupling constant of resonance $`i`$ to the channel $`a`$. The form factor $`f_a`$ in Eq. (1) is unity in the $`S`$-wave.

The dressed propagator $`G_{ij}(s)`$ allows resonance $`i`$ to couple to resonance $`j`$ through re-scattering, and is the solution of the Dyson equation

$$G_{ij}(s)=G_{ij}^0(s)+G_{ik}^0(s)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{kl}(s)G_{lj}(s).$$
(3)
The bare propagator $`G_{ij}^0(s)`$ has the form

$$G_{ij}^0(s)=\frac{\delta _{ij}e_i}{s_{0i}s},$$
(4)
where $`e_i=+1`$ for the resonances and the high-energy background pole, and $`s_{0i}`$ is the bare mass of the resonance (background pole). One sub-threshold pole has $`e_i=+1`$ (repulsive), and the other has $`e_i=1`$ (attractive).

The self energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{kl}`$ in Eq. (3) is the sum over channels $`c`$

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{kl}=\underset{c=1}{\overset{2}{}}\gamma _{ck}\varphi _c(s)\gamma _{cl},$$
(5)
where $`\varphi _c(s)`$ is the channel propagator, which plays a central role in the CMB model. The sum is over the two channels in this simplified problem. Two-pion channels such as $`\rho N`$ can be included by treating them as quasi-two-body channels, which results in an enlarged $`T`$ matrix. The re-scattering sum in Eq. (5) will then extend over the additional channels. The imaginary part of $`\varphi _c`$ is the product of phase space, $`\rho _c`$(s), with the square of the form factor for channel $`c`$ (this quantity will be seen in the other models below) and the real part is obtained through a once-subtracted dispersion integral Vrana ; Cutkosky . The desired analyticity of the entire amplitude is then assured.

Unitarity comes about because of the democracy of the re-scattering in the Dyson equation, Eq. (3). In the multichannel context, unitarity is expressed through a generalized optical theorem,

$$\mathrm{Im}T_{ab}=\underset{c}{}T_{ac}^{}T_{cb}$$
(6)
Unitarity is also related to the properties in the complex plane through the discontinuity in the amplitude across the right-hand cut.

The dressed propagator $`G_{ij}(s)`$ can be found by solving algebraically the matrix equation Eq. (3), with the result

$$H_{ij}(s)[G^1(s)]_{ij}=[G^0(s)^1]_{ij}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}(s)=\frac{s_{0i}s}{e_i}\delta _{ij}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}(s),$$
(7)
and the matrix $`G(s)`$ can be found by inverting $`H(s)`$. This completes the necessary ingredients for calculating the $`T`$ matrix in the CMB model of Eq. (1) in terms of three parameters for each resonance or background pole. These are the bare mass squared $`s_{0,i}`$, and the coupling strengths $`\gamma _{\pi N,i}`$ and $`\gamma _{\eta N,i}`$. Since there are five poles, this model has a total of fifteen parameters.

Once this $`T`$ matrix is fitted to the partial wave data by varying these fifteen parameters, baryon resonance parameters are extracted from the resonant part of the $`T`$ matrix. The procedure for doing this is described in what follows.

### II.2 Extraction of resonance parameters in the CMB model

Poles in the resonant part of the $`T`$ matrix occur at complex values of $`s`$ where the denominator of the resonance propagator vanishes. A search program finds these pole locations, and these are the model-free output (see Ref. Vrana  for details). This is possible because the amplitude has reasonable properties for complex values of $`s`$.

However, it is important to derive effective Breit-Wigner parameters for each resonance from this model. Once the pole positions are found, the matrix $`H(s_{\mathrm{pole}})`$ is diagonalized to eliminate interference between resonances. The denominator of the resonant part of the $`T`$ matrix in the vicinity of each pole is then expanded in $`s`$. The constant term becomes the dispersive correction to the mass, and the term linear in $`s`$ becomes the width of a generalized relativistic Breit-Wigner form. Thus, although the energy dependence of a resonance in the CMB model is much more sophisticated than the normal Breit-Wigner shape, all characteristics of a resonance can be expressed in this commonly used form.

### II.3 CMB model with polynomial background

This is a modified CMB model which uses a polynomial function to describe the background. Care must be taken to maintain unitarity of the $`T`$ matrix. Using a technique from Ref. Manley , the full $`S`$ matrix is written

$$S=B^{}RB,$$
(8)
where $`R`$ and $`B`$ are the resonant and non-resonant $`S`$ matrices, respectively. Here $`R=I+2iT`$ uses the CMB-model $`T`$ matrix, and $`B`$ is a unitary matrix that need not be symmetric. The background matrix $`B`$ is constructed from a real symmetric matrix $`K^B`$

$$B=\left(1+iK^B\right)\left(1iK^B\right)^1,$$
(9)
where for the two channel case of interest

$$K^B=\left[\begin{array}{cc}k_{\pi \pi }x_\pi +k_{\pi \pi }^{}x_\pi ^2& k_{\pi \eta }x_\eta +k_{\pi \eta }^{}x_\eta ^2\\ k_{\pi \eta }x_\eta +k_{\pi \eta }^{}x_\eta ^2& k_{\eta \eta }x_\eta +k_{\eta \eta }^{}x_\eta ^2\end{array}\right],$$
(10)
or

$$K_{ab}^B=k_{ab}x_b+k_{ab}^{}x_b^2,$$
(11)
$`x_b=\sqrt{s\left(m_N+m_b\right)^2}`$ for $`s`$ above exit channel threshold and zero otherwise, and the coefficients $`k_{ab}`$ and $`k_{ab}^{}`$ are real. Note that the off-diagonal terms in $`K^B`$ are zero for $`s`$ below $`\eta N`$ threshold. This ensures that the diagonal and off-diagonal elements of $`R`$ are not mixed, so the $`\pi N\eta N`$ amplitude vanishes below $`\eta N`$ threshold. This model has six real parameters describing the background, and six describing the resonances, for a total of twelve real parameters.

Once the $`S`$ matrix in Eq. (8) is formed, it can be easily converted using $`S=I+2iT`$ to a $`T`$ matrix that can be fit to the partial wave amplitudes by varying these twelve parameters in the usual way, and the extraction of the baryon parameters is identical to that of the original CMB model.

### II.4 K-Matrix models

A unitary $`S`$ matrix can be constructed from a real, symmetric $`K`$-matrix via $`T=K(1iK)^1`$. This method is very common in the literature Longacre ; Moorhouse ; Penner ; Chung  for investigating hadrons in reactions. Recently, effective Lagrangian models Penner  have been used with a $`K`$-matrix for studies of $`N^{}`$ states. Non-relativistic reductions of Feynman diagrams make these studies more sophisticated than what is presented here. The earlier work of Moorhouse and collaborators Moorhouse  is very similar to the method used here.

The differences between the CMB and $`K`$-matrix models are well known. A common problem with all $`K`$-matrix methods is the difficulty in maintaining analyticity. Only the work of Longacre Longacre  accomplished this. Thus, pole positions and residues can be obtained from the CMB fits and not from the $`K`$-matrix fits. Many researchers feel these values have less model dependence. Any microscopic model (e.g. lattice QCD) which has the analytic properties as an output can only use the CMB results. While the CMB model has a full treatment of re-scattering, only the imaginary part of the channel propagator is included in the $`K`$-matrix model. The choice of the $`S_{11}`$ resonances near $`\eta N`$ threshold as a test case is motivated by the expectation that these re-scattering effects are most important close to threshold. As discussed above, the $`K`$-matrix method can be incorporated directly into an effective Lagrangian formulation Penner . As a result, the non-resonant amplitudes can be added diagram by diagram. This is a significant advantage over the present version of the CMB model, which is formulated in terms of amplitudes rather diagrams. In this work, we use the amplitude form of the $`K`$-matrix model Moorhouse ; Chung .

Although the CMB model is preferred on theoretical grounds, the $`K`$-matrix model has practical advantages. It is more commonly used, and the less complicated treatment of interference and re-scattering effects simplifies the fits to partial-wave amplitudes.

As in the CMB model, two sub-threshold poles and one high-energy pole can be used to describe the non-resonant part of the scattering matrix. The contributions from the resonance and non-resonant poles are

$$K_{ab}^i(s)=\frac{\sqrt{\rho _a(s)}f_a(s)\gamma _{ai}\gamma _{bi}f_b(s)\sqrt{\rho _b(s)}}{\left(s_is\right)e_i}.$$
(12)
Here the form is similar on the surface to what is used in CMB model. The phase space $`\rho _a(s)`$ is given by Eq. (2), $`f_a(s)`$ is the form factor (none is needed for $`S`$-wave), $`\gamma _{ai}`$ is the coupling constant of the resonance or background pole $`i`$ to channel $`a`$ (but with units different from the CMB model), and $`s_i`$ is the position of the $`i`$-th (real) pole. The signs $`e_i`$ are the same as those used in CMB model, with $`e=+1`$ for the resonances, the high-energy background pole, and one sub-threshold background pole, while the second sub-threshold background pole has $`e=1`$. The $`K`$-matrix is formed from a simple sum over the resonance and background poles

$$K_{ab}(s)=\underset{i\mathrm{poles}}{}K_{ab}^i(s)$$
(13)
When the $`K`$-matrix is converted to a $`T`$-matrix, re-scattering (“dressing” of the resonance) comes about naturally and the resonance gains a finite width. In this model the $`K`$-matrix is written directly in terms of the resonance parameters, so that $`M_i=\sqrt{s_i}`$ is the mass of the resonance associated with the pole at $`s_i`$, the partial width of the $`i`$-th resonance to channel $`a`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ai}=\frac{\rho _a(s_i)f_a^2\gamma _{ai}^2}{M_i},$$
(14)
and the total width is the sum of the partial widths. As discussed above, the differences between CMB and $`K`$-matrix formalism are seen only when interactions with other resonances and non-resonant amplitudes occur. These differences are expected to be maximized close to a channel threshold, which is the reason for the choice of the $`S_{11}`$ partial wave with resonances near $`\eta N`$ threshold. In this case, the CMB model is expected to give more reliable results.

An alternate description of the background is using the polynomial form of Eq. (10), which is added to the resonance $`K`$ matrix

$$K_{ab}=\underset{i\mathrm{resonances}}{}K_{ab}^i(s)+K_{ab}^B.$$
(15)
With either method of treating the background, these $`K`$-matrix models have the same total number of parameters as the CMB models, 15 for the distant-poles background and 12 for the polynomial background.

### II.5 Breit-Wigner models

There are two kinds of Breit-Wigner model used here along with two kinds of non-resonant amplitude parameterization. In each model, the resonant and non-resonant $`T`$-matrices are summed,

$$T_{ab}(s)=\underset{i\mathrm{resonances}}{}T_{ab,\mathrm{res}}^i(s)+T_{ab,\mathrm{nonres}}(s),$$
(16)
This form is inconsistent with unitarity without special effort.

The resonant amplitude $`T_{ab,res}^i(s)`$ is given by

$$T_{ab,\mathrm{res}}^i(s)=\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ai}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bi}}\sqrt{s}}{e_i\left(s_is\right)i\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i}e^{i\theta _i^{ab}}.$$
(17)
The signs $`e_i`$ are the same as in the CMB and $`K`$-matrix models, $`s_i`$ is the pole position (with $`M_i=\sqrt{s_i}`$ for resonance poles), and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i=_a\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ai}`$ is the total width of resonance $`i`$. Using a procedure similar to that of Ref. MAID , an arbitrary phase $`\mathrm{exp}(i\theta _i^{ab})`$ is associated with each pole in each channel. As shown below, the freedom to fit these additional phases is crucial to achieving a good fit with a Breit-Wigner model to the $`S_{11}`$ partial-wave $`T`$ matrix elements in these channels.

The width commonly used to describe a non-relativistic Breit-Wigner form is the energy-dependent width

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ai}^{\mathrm{n}.\mathrm{r}.}(s)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ai}(s_i)\frac{\rho _a(s)}{\rho _a(s_i)},$$
(18)
with the phase-space factor $`\rho _a(s)`$ as in Eq. (2). (Note that this is not the same as the conventional non-relativistic Breit-Wigner energy dependence.) An alternative, relativistic form results from the assumption that the numerator of the contribution of resonance $`i`$ to the $`K`$-matrix in Eq. (12) is the same as that in the Breit-Wigner form in Eq. (17). If the partial width used in the $`K`$-matrix formalism, Eq. (14), is generalized to an energy-dependent function by replacing $`M_i`$ with $`\sqrt{s}`$, then the $`K`$-matrix numerator of Eq. (12) is

$$\sqrt{\rho _a(s)}f_a(s)\gamma _{ai}\gamma _{bi}\sqrt{\rho _b(s)}f_b(s)=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ai}\sqrt{s}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bi}\sqrt{s}}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ai}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bi}}\sqrt{s},$$
(19)
which is the same as the numerator in Eq. (17). This suggests the use of

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ai}^{\mathrm{rel}}(s)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ai}(s_i)\frac{\sqrt{s_i}}{\sqrt{s}}\frac{\rho _a(s)}{\rho _a(s_i)},$$
(20)
for the energy-dependent partial width in a relativistic Breit-Wigner form. In what follows models using both $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ai}^{\mathrm{n}.\mathrm{r}.}(s)`$, labeled BW<sub>n.r.</sub>, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ai}^{\mathrm{rel}}(s)`$, labeled BW<sub>rel</sub>, are used in fitting the Breit-Wigner form in Eq. (17) to the $`S_{11}`$ partial-wave $`T`$ matrix elements, and the results are compared. The relativistic form is the same as that advocated by Chung et al. Chung .

The first non-resonant form uses distant poles to describe the background contributions to the $`T`$ matrix, so that the total $`T`$-matrix is a simple sum

$$T_{ab}(s)=\underset{i\mathrm{poles}}{}T_{ab}^i(s),$$
(21)
This form of background has two low energy poles and one high energy pole, the same as was used with the CMB and $`K`$-matrix models. To get a good fit, each of these terms requires an additional phase in each channel, as described above. With the background described by distant poles, there are 15 parameters (mass, width, and $`\pi N`$ branching fraction for each term) associated with the five poles, and ten phases, for a total of 25 real parameters. Of the models used in this work, this model has the largest number of parameters.

As with CMB and $`K`$-matrix models, it is possible to describe the non-resonant background by a polynomial function, so that

$$T_{ab}(s)=\underset{i\mathrm{resonances}}{}T_{ab,\mathrm{res}}^i(s)+T_{ab,\mathrm{nonres}}(s),$$
(22)
where the background $`T`$-matrix elements are the polynomials

$$T_{ab,\mathrm{nonres}}=\kappa _{ab}x_b+\kappa _{ab}^{}x_b^2.$$
(23)
As with the other models, $`x_b=\sqrt{s\left(m_N+m_b\right)^2}`$ for $`s`$ above exit channel threshold and zero otherwise, but now the coefficients $`\kappa _{ab}`$ and $`\kappa _{ab}^{}`$ are complex. In this model there are six resonance parameters associated with the two poles, and 8 background parameters (2 complex numbers for each of two channels), for a total of 18 real parameters.

## III Results

In order to understand the complications in the $`S_{11}`$ partial wave, model predictions for a hypothetical isolated resonance are first considered. Figure 1 compares the results of all four models for the scattering amplitude of an isolated single-channel $`S`$-wave resonance. An $`S`$-wave resonance is chosen with a mass of 1710 MeV and width of 215 MeV in the $`\pi N\eta N`$ reaction, which avoids any complications with centrifugal barriers. Agreement among the different formulations is striking, despite the deliberate choice of a resonance mass close to $`\eta N`$ threshold. The $`K`$-matrix and CMB models have identical forms for an isolated resonance. The relativistic Breit-Wigner is chosen to be identical with the CMB model in this limit. Even the Breit-Wigner amplitude with the non-relativistic width is in good agreement with the other other forms. If the complex amplitudes are plotted on an Argand diagram (with the real part of the amplitude on the horizontal axis, and the imaginary part on the vertical axis), all will show the typical counter-clockwise circular motion of a resonance. Non-resonant background will cause a shift or a distortion of this basic shape, and inelasticity will decrease the radius. Interference between resonances can have significant effects.

A partial wave amplitude with this $`W`$ dependence is the most visible signature of a resonance, producing a peak in the total cross section with an appropriate width. Such a peak is seen in the total cross section for $`\pi N\eta N`$, and is often interpreted as a resonance. The $`S_{11}`$ partial wave amplitude dominates the total cross section for this reaction, and is shown in the bottom two panels of Fig. 2. Since the higher mass resonance $`S_{11}(1650)`$ couples weakly to this channel, this appears to be an isolated resonance with small non-resonant amplitudes.

Single-channel fits of the $`\pi N\eta N`$ amplitudes have been made, which are shown as curves in the bottom two panels of Fig. 2. The results are similar to those of single-channel fits with a Breit-Wigner energy dependence to the total cross sections for $`\pi ^{}p\eta n`$ and $`\gamma p\eta p`$ KruMuk . The data can be fit using an $`S`$-wave Breit-Wigner form if a small, but important contribution from non-resonant amplitudes is included and the energy region used in the fit is truncated. This rough fit can be used to determine the product of the initial and final state couplings to the resonance, requiring information from more complete fits to account for the missing decay strength of the $`S_{11}`$(1535) resonance to other channels. The single-channel, one resonance fit shown in Fig. 2 is made with a Breit-Wigner resonant shape with the relativistic form of the width, the polynomial form of the background, and a single phase multiplying the resonant amplitude, truncating the fit at 1700 MeV. The result is a mass of 1543 MeV, a width of 134 MeV, and a $`\pi N`$ branching fraction of 48%. This shows that it is possible to find fit parameters that roughly agree with the more complete models, but these results are of uncertain value given the strong model dependence.

The elastic $`\pi N`$ amplitude (the upper two panels of Fig. 2) is more complicated, showing two structures overlapping in energy. The resonance $`S_{11}(1650)`$ couples strongly to $`\pi N`$ with peaks at $`W`$ 1.7 GeV in Im($`T`$) and at $`W`$ 1.65 GeV in Re($`T`$). Although this rapid energy dependence is a clear resonant signal, there is also a nontrivial non-resonant amplitude which greatly distorts the typical Argand diagram. The energy dependence of $`S_{11}(1535)`$ is more complicated in $`\pi N`$ elastic scattering because of the strong coupling to the $`\eta N`$ channel at its threshold ($`W`$=1.487 GeV), which is within the resonant shape. This produces a cusp in the real part at threshold in addition to a peak in the imaginary part at approximately the resonance mass. Given this complicated structure, analyticity of the scattering amplitude and dispersive scattering effects can be expected to be most important for this state. For this reason, the elastic amplitude includes many of the important dynamical effects studied here.

After this somewhat pedagogical introduction, the main results of this work are now presented. The fits to the $`S_{11}`$ partial-wave data for the $`T`$-matrix elements $`T_{\pi N\pi N}`$ and $`T_{\pi N\eta N}`$ for each resonant-non-resonant model are shown in Figures 3 to 10. Unlike most previous papers studying $`N^{}`$ resonances, which show only the full amplitude, the non-resonant amplitude (with all resonant couplings set to zero) and the resonant amplitude (with all non-resonant couplings set to zero) are also shown here. The effective Breit-Wigner properties of the two resonances extracted from these fits are given in Tables 1 and 2. Errors in the first four columns of results are determined from the fitting uncertainties only.

A common criterion in fits is the value of $`\chi ^2`$, given in the last row of the tables. A comparison of the two-channel fits shows that the lowest values of $`\chi ^2`$ are attained using the Breit-Wigner models with distant poles background, the more theoretically sophisticated models are in between, and the Breit-Wigner models with polynomial background have the highest $`\chi ^2`$ values. Breit-Wigner models commonly have better fits because they are most often applied to study single-channel reactions, but are much more likely to have additional local minima close to the global minimum, reflecting the lack of theoretical constraints. The extra parameters required to get a good fit unfortunately obscure the physics results. The extraction of physically meaningful results for resonances depends more on the quality of the theoretical constraints placed on the fit than on the quality of the fit itself. In some cases the fit function is not as sharp as the data, e.g., the CMB and $`K`$-matrix model Im($`T_{\pi N\pi N}`$) amplitudes with polynomial background, although this is not apparent from the total $`\chi ^2`$, which is summed over all data points. All models are able to match the shape of the cusp at at $`\eta N`$ threshold in Re($`T_{\pi N\pi N}`$), since this is a property of interfering amplitudes and there are many possible solutions.

In the figures more detail is shown than is customary. For all models, the amplitudes are separated into resonant and non-resonant parts. The resonant amplitudes provide rapid energy fluctuations and a rough match to the data, especially for $`\pi N\eta N`$. The non-resonant amplitudes are generally smooth. However, analyticity constraints require a cusp at $`\eta N`$ threshold, a feature of all non-resonant amplitudes using distant poles background. At first glance, the fits all look similar. More careful inspection reveals differences in the detailed balance between resonant and non-resonant amplitudes and in the channel coupling effects. One of the most striking features is seen in the $`\pi N\pi N`$ amplitude for the relativistic Breit-Wigner model with distant poles background, Fig. 6. The imaginary part of the non-resonant amplitude is much larger at $`W`$ 1.7 GeV due to coupling to $`\eta N`$ than in the other models, a coupled channel effect. The resonant part of the amplitude is then smaller than in the other models and this model has a very small $`B_{\eta N}`$ for $`S_{11}(1650)`$.

The resonance parameters extracted using the various models are compared in Tables 1 and 2. Variations among the results for the resonance masses, the full width and the $`\pi N`$ branching fraction are all significant given the estimated error bars of this study. The estimated errors would have to be much larger for the models to be in agreement. For reference, the result for the CMB model fitting two resonances with all open channels is shown in Table 1. Note that the errors quoted for the CMB results include systematic errors from model uncertainties, and so are larger than the errors arising only from fitting uncertainties in the results of the present work. Many resonance parameters found in the two-channel CMB model are within the estimated errors of the full model. The exception is the width of the $`S_{11}(1650)`$, where the full CMB model value is larger than that of any of the other eight models. The full CMB model fit apparently has a complicated interference between the second resonance and the channels that are excluded in the truncated versions. We also list the recommended physical parameters for these states from the Particle Data Group PDG . Almost all results are within the conservative estimated ranges they publish. It is interesting that although the results for the $`S_{11}`$(1535) full width have significant variations using the different models studied here, the values are all in the lower part of the PDG estimated range. Similarly, the CMB and $`K`$-matrix results for $`B_{\pi N}`$ are all in the lower part of the PDG estimated range for that quantity.

Breit-Wigner models with relativistic and non-relativistic resonance shapes are fitted separately and give almost identical results. Despite having the best fits, they give results that vary the most from the PDG values. Compared to the other results, the Breit-Wigner models have significantly lower mass, and smaller widths and $`\pi N`$ branching fractions for $`S_{11}`$(1650). This is more true for the fits using the polynomial background than for those using the distant poles non-resonant amplitudes. Since the resonant peak in Im($`T`$) smoothly blends in with the non-resonant background, the $`S_{11}`$(1650) width is very sensitive to how this background is treated. Therefore, it is not surprising that the biggest discrepancies arise in this resonance property. Interference with the overlapping lower energy state also has an important influence.

Comparisons between the CMB and $`K`$-matrix models are the most interesting. The full fit amplitudes in Figs. 3 and 4 are very similar. They even miss the sharp structure in the $`\pi N`$ elastic amplitude at $`W`$ 1.6 GeV in the same way. At first glance the resonant and non-resonant amplitudes are also very similar, but the small difference in the shape of the imaginary elastic amplitude is the primary source of the differences in the extracted full width in the two models. The $`S_{11}`$(1535) full width from the CMB model with distant poles background is larger than for the $`K`$-matrix model with distant poles, and vice versa for the $`S_{11}`$(1650) full width. For the error bars we derive, the difference in the full width is more significant than the difference in $`B_{\pi N}`$. This shows the interplay of the interfering resonances. On the other hand, the same two models with polynomial background (where the CMB model no longer satisfies analyticity) have very similar values for the full width. Interpretation of this result will be a key component of the discussion.

## IV Discussion

A variety of empirical models were used to fit partial wave amplitudes (the input ‘data’) for a carefully chosen problem, the $`S_{11}`$ partial wave and its two most important channels, $`\pi N`$ and $`\eta N`$. This partial wave is interesting because of the physics interest in the $`S_{11}`$ resonances and the large uncertainty in their properties as reported by the PDG PDG . By using identical input amplitudes and fitting strategies, we have made the first objective comparison of $`N^{}`$ resonance extraction models. Four different resonance models (CMB, $`K`$-matrix, and Breit-Wigner with non-relativistic and relativistic widths), and two different empirical models for the non-resonant amplitude (distant poles and polynomial) are employed. These models are in regular use for the extraction of hadronic properties. It should be emphasized that the four resonance models have almost identical amplitudes for isolated resonances. The primary differences among the models come from the way the dynamics of resonance interference, multichannel effects, and non-resonant amplitudes are treated. Although resonance models of widely varying quality are employed, the non-resonant models are both rather empirical. However, this partial wave in these channels has non-resonant amplitudes which are comparatively small. Since the non-resonant amplitudes have a smooth energy dependence, their influence on the extracted resonance parameters should be small. The main purpose of this work is to study the model dependence of the extraction of $`S_{11}`$ properties (mass, width, and $`\pi N`$ branching fraction) in a case where overlapping resonances, multichannel effects, and analyticity constraints are all expected to be important.

The models used here can be put in order according to the theoretical constraints employed. The CMB model with distant poles background satisfies multichannel unitarity and constraints from analyticity, and handles resonance-resonance quantum mechanical interference well. In fact, the CMB model includes the most complete resonance propagation effects of any of the existing models. The $`K`$-matrix model used here does not satisfy analyticity constraints, and leaves out re-scattering dynamics present in the CMB model. The Breit-Wigner models used here satisfy essentially no theoretical constraints. However, unitary Breit-Wigner models MAID  and $`K`$-matrix models that satisfy analyticity constraints Longacre  have been developed.

The large range of properties for the two lowest energy $`S_{11}`$ resonances in the Review of Particle Properties PDG  is also found here. This is evidence that much of the uncertainty in the PDG estimates of $`S_{11}`$ properties comes from model dependence, since the same input amplitudes are used in every fit. No evidence is found for a third $`S_{11}`$ state in the energy range studied. Some of the Breit-Wigner models have the best fits to the data, but this is due to the flexibility of these models rather than an ability to describe the underlying dynamics. Arbitrary adjustments must be employed in order to obtain good fits to the data. The empirical phases between the resonances provide a simple way to adjust the resonance-resonance interference at the cost of obscuring the physics output. As a result, the physical properties of the $`S_{11}`$(1650) determined with the Breit-Wigner models are very different than with the other models.

The models with the strongest theoretical constraints, the CMB and $`K`$-matrix models with distant poles background, provide better agreement with each other and with the CMB fits to a much larger set of reactions Vrana ; Vranagam . One major result of the present work is the differences between CMB and $`K`$-matrix models found in a situation where their differences should be the largest. The extent of the disagreement cannot be simply stated. For the error bars given for the input amplitudes and those determined in our fits, the difference between the $`S_{11}`$(1535) mass and full width for the CMB and $`K`$-matrix models with distant poles is significant. This is an important measure of the difference in these two models.

Other considerations could contribute to these differences. The estimated errors quoted in the partial-wave amplitude fits have a direct effect on the values quoted here. It is possible that the errors in the partial wave amplitudes are understated due to a lack of understanding of the model dependence. Although a more sophisticated non-resonant amplitude could be required, the smoothness of these amplitudes in all models argues against this. Each model has problems that are likely due to the truncated channel space employed. The most obvious problem is with the width of $`S_{11}`$(1650). About 20% of the overall strength that was supposed to go to channels other than $`\pi N`$ and $`\eta N`$ has to be included somewhere in the smaller channel space.

In the context of the small but important test case chosen for this study, the results of the CMB and $`K`$-matrix model fits are found to have small, but potentially important differences. Since the CMB model is better constrained theoretically, the resonance properties extracted using this model should be preferred when there is reason to doubt other models. A possible conclusion could be that this proves that the constraints provided by analyticity, a superior treatment of re-scattering, and an improved treatment of resonance interference are important in this case. From the present limited comparison, such a conclusion is likely premature. This issue requires further study, particularly from the theoretical side.

We should note that many $`N^{}`$ states will not be obscured by strong threshold effects and will not have strong interference with other states of the same angular momentum and parity. The simplified dynamics of the $`K`$-matrix model then give it the practical advantage of a simpler and more stable path to a good fit to the partial-wave amplitudes. Proper use of this model in the analysis of $`N^{}`$ data is unlikely to give results that are badly incorrect. For resonances with a larger number of open channels, the interaction of the non-resonant and resonant amplitudes can be much more complicated and simplified fitting can give erroneous results.

The primary result of this paper is that even in a small multi-channel problem, dynamics are important. Since Breit-Wigner models have very few theoretical constraints, ad-hoc parameters are required to fit real data such as those of the two-channel problem studied here. We therefore suggest that consideration of these issues be part of any attempt to determine global recommendations for baryon resonance properties.

## Acknowledgments

This research is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under contracts DE-FG02-86ER40273 (AK, SC), and by the National Science Foundation under grant PHY-0140116 (SD).