text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

LHC will be by far the largest source of top quarks available in the forthcoming years, with a top pair cross-section of 860 pb  and a total single top (plus antitop) cross-section of 306 pb from three processes . This will allow to perform precision studies of top couplings. In the Standard Model (SM) the $`Wtb`$ vertex is purely left-handed and its size is given by the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix element $`V_{tb}`$. Unfortunately, the $`t\overline{t}`$ cross-section is rather insensitive to its actual value, assuming that it is much larger than $`V_{td}`$ and $`V_{ts}`$. Hence, to obtain a measure of the absolute value of $`V_{tb}`$ it is necessary to fall back on less abundant single top production , with a rate proportional to $`|V_{tb}|^2`$. Still, $`t\overline{t}`$ production can give invaluable information on the $`Wtb`$ vertex. Angular asymmetries between decay products are very sensitive to a small admixture of a right-handed $`\gamma ^\mu `$ term or a $`\sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$ coupling of either chirality. That is, if we parameterise the most general CP-conserving $`Wtb`$ vertex with the effective Lagrangian 111The most general $`Wtb`$ vertex (up to dimension five) involves ten operators, but at the level of precision of these asymmetries it is an excellent approximation to consider the top on-shell. With $`b`$ also on-shell and $`Wl\nu ,jj`$ six of them can be eliminated using Gordon identities. The resulting Lagrangian can be further restricted assuming CP conservation. The couplings can then be taken to be real, of either sign.

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{b}\gamma ^\mu \left(V_{tb}^LP_L+V_{tb}^RP_R\right)tW_\mu ^{}`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{b}{\displaystyle \frac{i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu }{M_W}}\left(g^LP_L+g^RP_R\right)tW_\mu ^{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$
these asymmetries are sensitive to the values of $`V_{tb}^R`$, $`g^L`$ and $`g^R`$ relative to the SM coupling $`V_{tb}^LV_{tb}`$, which from now on will be normalised to one. These new couplings vanish at tree-level in the SM, but can be generated at higher orders in the SM or its extensions . In particular, one-loop QCD corrections prompt the appearance of a coupling $`g^R=0.00642`$  that is detectable at LHC, as we argue in the following.

It is worth drawing attention to the importance of a direct measurement of these parameters. Unless there is some accidental cancellation among new contributions, new physics scenarios are bound to bring about the appearance of new observable $`V_{tb}^R`$, $`g^L`$ or $`g^R`$ terms, which are likely to be comparable in size to the one-loop QCD correction to $`g^R`$ above. It has been shown that in supersymmetric or two Higgs doublet models radiative corrections can give enhanced contributions to the top width , but these corrections should better manifest themselves in angular asymmetries, whose study can be carried out with high precision at LHC. On the other hand, low energy physics measurements do not set model-independent constraints on these parameters. Usually $`V_{tb}^R`$ is neglected in the literature arguing that the presence of such coupling at a detectable level would increase the $`bs\gamma `$ branching ratio, resulting in a value larger than the measured rate $`\mathrm{Br}(bs\gamma )=3.15\times 10^4`$ . (The $`\sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$ terms are not discarded with this argument because they contain an extra $`q_\nu `$ factor suppressing their contribution for small $`q_\nu `$.) However, this is not compulsory since the amplitude involving $`V_{tb}^R`$ contains the product $`V_{ts}V_{tb}^R`$, and $`V_{ts}`$ is not directly measured . The SM value $`V_{ts}0.04`$ is obtained assuming $`3\times 3`$ CKM unitarity, that does not hold if heavier fermions exist. So, in principle the value of $`V_{ts}`$ can be a fraction of its SM estimate, and the indirect limit $`|V_{tb}^R|0.04`$  can be relaxed without spoiling the prediction for $`bs\gamma `$ and other processes .

At LHC these nonstandard couplings can be measured in single top production , being the expected $`2\sigma `$ limits (with a realistic assumption of 5% systematic uncertainties) $`0.052g^L0.097`$, $`0.12g^R0.13`$ . In this Letter we show that these bounds can be further improved in top pair production $`ppt\overline{t}WbW\overline{b}l\nu jjjj`$ with the analysis of the $`lb`$ forward-backward (FB) asymmetry in $`tl\nu b`$ decays, first proposed in . Not only it is more sensitive than single top production but it also has smaller systematic uncertainties and does not depend on the details of the production process. Here we investigate the dependence of this asymmetry on all the anomalous couplings in Eq. (1), comparing its sensitivity with that of other popular spin correlation asymmetries . The main background from $`Wjjjj`$ is taken into account, and we perform a simple simulation of the detector effects.

## 2 Asymmetries in $`t\overline{t}`$ decays

The FB asymmetry in the decay of the top quark $`tW^+bl^+\nu b`$ is defined as

$$A_{\mathrm{FB}}=\frac{N(x_{bl}>0)N(x_{bl}<0)}{N(x_{bl}>0)+N(x_{bl}<0)},$$
(2)
where $`x_{bl}`$ is the cosine of the angle between the 3-momenta of the $`b`$ quark and the charged lepton in the $`W`$ rest frame, and $`N`$ stands for the number of events. The same definition holds for the $`\overline{t}l^{}\overline{\nu }\overline{b}`$ decay.

Angular asymmetries involving the top spin rely on the fact that top pairs are produced with correlated spins, decaying before depolarisation takes place. In order to fix the notation we briefly summarise how angular asymmetries can be built from spin correlations (see for instance Ref. ). A complete set of spin correlation observables for $`t\overline{t}`$ production is described in Ref. . Let $`\widehat{𝐩}_t`$, $`\widehat{𝐩}_{\overline{t}}`$ be the normalised top and antitop 3-momenta in the CM frame, and $`𝐬_t`$, $`𝐬_{\overline{t}}`$ their spins. We will study angular asymmetries based on the observables $`(\widehat{𝐩}_t𝐬_t)(\widehat{𝐩}_{\overline{t}}𝐬_{\overline{t}})`$, which provides the spin correlation in the helicity basis, and $`(𝐬_t𝐬_{\overline{t}})`$. We do not consider the beam line or mixed bases, since the helicity basis exhibits the highest degree of correlation at LHC . To build these angular asymmetries the spins $`𝐬_t`$, $`𝐬_{\overline{t}}`$ can be inferred from the distribution of the decay products. For a left-handed $`Wtb`$ vertex the angular distribution of the fermion $`f`$ with respect to the top spin in the top rest frame is given by

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _f}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+h_f\mathrm{cos}\theta _f\right),$$
(3)
where $`\theta _f`$ is the angle between the fermion 3-momentum in the top rest frame $`𝐩_f`$ and the top spin $`𝐬_t`$, and $`h_f`$ are constants between $`1`$ and $`1`$. For the antitop quark, the distributions are obtained from the above formula with similar definitions but replacing $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _f`$ by $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _f`$. For charged leptons and $`d,s`$ quarks $`h_f=1`$ and the correlation is maximal. For neutrinos and $`u,c`$ quarks $`h_f=0.31`$. For leptonic decays we select the charged lepton as spin analyser. For hadronic decays, the best choice would be to select the down-type jet. However, the $`d,s`$ jets cannot be experimentally identified, and they are conventionally assigned to the jet from the $`W`$ decay with smaller energy in the top rest frame . This corresponds to a $`d`$ or $`s`$ 61% of the time, and has an average correlation with the top spin $`h_q=0.51`$. Corresponding to these spin correlations, we build the asymmetries

$$A_1=\frac{N(x_lx_q>0)N(x_lx_q<0)}{N(x_lx_q>0)+N(x_lx_q<0)},$$
(4)
$$A_2=\frac{N(x_{lq}>0)N(x_{lq}<0)}{N(x_{lq}>0)+N(x_{lq}<0)},$$
(5)
where $`x_l`$ is the cosine of the angle between $`𝐩_l`$ and $`\widehat{𝐩}_t`$, $`x_q`$ the analogue for $`𝐩_q`$ and $`\widehat{𝐩}_{\overline{t}}`$, and $`x_{lq}`$ the angle between $`𝐩_l`$ and $`𝐩_q`$. Besides, we consider the correlation $`(\widehat{𝐩}_t𝐬_t)(\widehat{𝐩}_{\overline{t}}𝐬_{\overline{t}})`$ using the neutrino as spin analyser in semileptonic decays . This yields the asymmetry

$$A_3=\frac{N(x_\nu x_q>0)N(x_\nu x_q<0)}{N(x_\nu x_q>0)+N(x_\nu x_q<0)},$$
(6)
with $`x_\nu `$ the cosine of the angle between $`𝐩_\nu `$ and $`\widehat{𝐩}_t`$. When nonstandard couplings are present, the angular distribution of the decay products no longer corresponds to Eq. (3). Therefore, comparing the measured angular asymmetries with their SM expectations the presence of anomalous $`Wtb`$ couplings can be established. However, these asymmetries depend on the degree of correlation between the $`t`$ and $`\overline{t}`$ spins, and hence on other variables such as new production mechanisms, center of mass energy, parton distributions, or the presence of anomalous $`gtt`$ couplings. This dependence on the production process makes the analysis of the $`Wtb`$ vertex with spin correlations less clean than with the FB asymmetry.

## 3 Dependence of the FB asymmetry on couplings and masses

Before the numerical discussion it is enlightening to have a look at the dependence of $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}`$ (which will be the best observable among the asymmetries discussed) on the nonstandard couplings. For simplicity we ignore corrections from the $`t`$ and $`W`$ widths, which will turn out to be irrelevant, but keep $`m_b`$ nonvanishing. Unlike $`A_{13}`$, $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}`$ only depends on the $`t`$, $`b`$ and $`W`$ boson masses, and on the couplings in Eq. (1). For small $`g^R`$ the leading dependence of $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}`$ on this coupling is given by the interference term $`V_{tb}^Lg^R`$. For $`g^R=0`$ we obtain the SM tree-level (LO) value $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}=0.2223`$. The bulk effect of one-loop QCD corrections in the asymmetry can be taken into account including a $`\sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$ term $`g^R=0.00642`$ . The corresponding NLO value is $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}=0.2257`$. Borrowing from our numerical analysis below the combined statistical error of the asymmetry, $`\delta A_{\mathrm{FB}}5\times 10^4`$, we obtain the simple estimate that QCD corrections amount to a $`10\sigma `$ effect. This high sensitivity is due to the presence of the large linear term. The dependence of $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}`$ on $`g^L`$ and $`V_{tb}^R`$ is mainly quadratic because the linear terms are suppressed. Then, the sensitivity to these couplings is less impressive. In Fig. 1 we plot $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}`$ for different values of $`\delta g^Rg^R+0.00642`$, $`\delta g^Lg^L`$ and $`\delta V_{tb}^RV_{tb}^R`$. (We use $`m_t=175`$, $`M_W=80.33`$, $`m_b=4.8`$ GeV.)

We expect that the main source of systematic error on $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}`$ will be the uncertainty in the top mass. For $`\delta m_t1`$ GeV, as estimated for LHC, the variations in the LO and NLO predictions of $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}`$ with respect to the central values with $`m_t=175`$ GeV are shown in Fig. 2. The thickness of the lines corresponds to the uncertainty in the $`W`$ mass, which is expected to be measured at LHC with a precision of $`0.015`$ GeV, and has a much smaller effect on the FB asymmetry. The full potential of the measurement of $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}`$ will be available when $`\delta m_t`$ is reduced to $`0.15`$ GeV and $`\delta M_W`$ to $`0.006`$ GeV at TESLA (see Ref.  and references there in). With these precisions, the systematic errors due to $`m_t`$ and $`M_W`$ are almost negligible.

## 4 Numerical results

The calculation of the matrix elements for the $`26`$ processes $`gg,q\overline{q}t\overline{t}W^+bW^{}\overline{b}l\nu jjjj`$, including all spin correlations, is performed using HELAS extended to compute the $`\sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$ vertices present in the top and antitop decays. As background we consider $`W^\pm `$ plus four jets, calculated with VECBOS . We use the MRST structure functions set A  with $`Q^2=\widehat{s}`$. We generate enough events to ensure that the Monte Carlo uncertainties are below the experimental statistical errors, and use the same event sets (one for the $`\mu `$ channel and another for the $`e`$ channel) for all the evaluations of the asymmetries. This is crucial to make certain that the small deviations in the asymmetries are not an artifact of the numerical integration.

Assuming for the moment perfect particle identification and neglecting any detector effects, we obtain for the FB asymmetry the LO value $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}=0.2222`$ and the NLO value $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}=0.2257`$. These are remarkably close to the ones obtained above neglecting corrections from the top and $`W`$ widths. These corrections cancel after integration in phase space due to their linear dependence on the small ratios $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t/m_t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W/M_W`$. Note also that NLO corrections to the production of $`t\overline{t}`$ pairs do not modify the FB asymmetry, and can be taken into account with a global factor $`K=1.7`$ . For the spin correlation asymmetry $`A_1`$ we obtain the tree-level value $`0.0835`$, in agreement with Ref.  within Monte Carlo uncertainties. The sensitivity of the asymmetries $`A_{13}`$ to anomalous couplings is not modified by NLO corrections to $`t\overline{t}`$ production, which have little influence on top-antitop spin correlations at LHC . These corrections must be included when comparing with real data. In this case it is also compulsory to take hadronisation into account and to use a proper detector simulation. In order to estimate the sensitivity to anomalous $`Wtb`$ couplings, it is sufficient to simulate the calorimeter resolution by performing a Gaussian smearing of the energies. We use

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E^j}{E^j}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{50\%}{\sqrt{E^j}}}3\%,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E^e}{E^e}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{10\%}{\sqrt{E^e}}}0.3\%,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E^\mu }{E^\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`2.5\%`$ (7)
for jets, electrons and muons, respectively. The energies in Eqs. (7) are GeV and the terms are added in quadrature. We apply “detector” cuts on transverse momenta of the jets $`p_T^j20`$ GeV, electrons $`p_T^e15`$ GeV, and muons $`p_T^\mu 6`$ GeV. We also require pseudorapidities $`|\eta |2.5`$ and reject the events where the charged lepton and/or the jets are not isolated, requiring a distance in ($`\eta `$, $`\varphi `$) space $`\mathrm{\Delta }R0.4`$. We then require the signal and background events to fulfill at least one of the ATLAS trigger conditions. In practice, at the high luminosity phase they imply the cuts $`p_T^e30`$ GeV in the electron channel and $`p_T^\mu 20`$ GeV in the muon channel. These conditions reduce the phase space in the forward region and then $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}`$ to $`0.15`$ for muons and $`0.05`$ for electrons. For $`A_{1,2}`$, the effect of the detector simulation is to reduce them by factors of $`0.55`$, $`0.7`$ in the muon channel and $`0.15`$, $`0.4`$ in the electron channel, respectively. $`A_3`$ is washed out in both channels.

The events are reconstructed identifying first the three jets from the antitop hadronic decay.Among the four final jets, two of them $`j_1`$, $`j_2`$ must reproduce the $`W`$ mass $`(M_W^{\mathrm{rec}})^2=(p_{j_1}+p_{j_2})^2`$, and with a third one $`j_3`$ the $`\overline{t}`$ mass $`(m_{\overline{t}}^{\mathrm{rec}})^2=(p_{j_1}+p_{j_2}+p_{j_3})^2`$. Of the twelve possible combinations, we choose the one minimising the sum of square mass differences $`(m_{\overline{t}}^{\mathrm{rec}}m_t)^2+(M_W^{\mathrm{rec}}M_W)^2`$. The remaining jet is then assigned to the $`b`$ quark. With this kinematic identification $`b`$ tagging is neither necessary nor convenient in order to keep the signal as large as possible. The neutrino momentum $`p_\nu `$ is reconstructed from the missing transverse momentum $`p_T\overline{)}`$ and the charged lepton momentum $`p_l`$, identifying $`(p_\nu )_T=p_T\overline{)}`$ and solving $`(p_\nu +p_l)^2=M_W^2`$ for $`(p_\nu )_L`$. Of the two possible values for the longitudinal momentum we choose the solution with $`(p_\nu +p_l+p_b)^2`$ closer to $`m_t^2`$, what ensures the correct event reconstruction.

The presence of a calculable $`Wjjjj`$ background does not change the value of the asymmetries but increases their statistical error. Thus, it is convenient to reduce the background as much as possible without spoiling the signal. For this purpose we apply loose cuts on the reconstructed masses of $`t`$, $`\overline{t}`$ and $`W^{}`$,

$`130`$ $`m_t^{\mathrm{rec}}`$ $`220,`$
$`150`$ $`m_{\overline{t}}^{\mathrm{rec}}`$ $`200,`$
$`65`$ $`M_W^{}^{\mathrm{rec}}`$ $`95,`$ (8)
which have very little effect on the signal. The mass window is wider for $`m_t^{\mathrm{rec}}`$ than for $`m_{\overline{t}}^{\mathrm{rec}}`$ because the reconstruction of the top from missing transverse momentum is worse than the antitop reconstruction from three jets. In Table 1 we collect the signal and background cross-sections in the SM. The statistical errors for the asymmetries computed from this Table are $`\delta A6.5\times 10^4`$ and $`\delta A7.3\times 10^4`$ in the muon and electron channels, respectively, for an integrated luminosity of 100 fb-1. In Table 2 we collect the asymmetries within the SM and for several values of the anomalous parameters. Using these figures the statistical significance of the deviations from the SM NLO prediction can be computed for each channel and combined to yield the total statistical significance in Table 3. Notice that although the asymmetries for the $`e`$ channel are typically smaller than for the $`\mu `$ channel, the sensitivities are similar. We also observe that the significances obtained are 60–70% of those obtained naively from Figure 1 and the combined statistical error.

We have ignored systematic errors in our study. As we have mentioned in the previous Section, we expect that the main source of systematic error will be the uncertainty in the top mass (see Fig. 2). We have given in Table 3 the precision in the determination of anomalous couplings that will be possible when TESLA reduces the uncertainty in the top mass to $`\delta m_t=0.15`$ GeV. Before TESLA operation, the theoretical uncertainty due to $`\delta m_t`$ must be taken into account in each decay channel. The bulk effect of this systematic uncertainty for the expected LHC precision $`\delta m_t=1`$ GeV is that the figures in Table 3 have to be reduced by factors of $`0.60.7`$, being the difference between the SM LO and NLO predictions approximately $`3.6\sigma `$ in this case, and the remaining statistical significances between $`1.8\sigma `$ and $`2\sigma `$. Additionally, it should be pointed out that if we assumed that no new physics contributes to the $`Wtb`$ vertex, the measurement of the FB asymmetry could be turned into an indirect, model-dependent determination of the top mass  with an accuracy of $`\delta m_t0.5`$ GeV.

The FB asymmetry will be first observed at Tevatron, but the small statistics available will not allow to perform precision tests. With a similar analysis and the cuts $`p_T^{e,\mu ,j}10`$ GeV, $`|\eta ^e|2`$, $`|\eta ^\mu |1.5`$, $`|\eta ^j|2.5`$, we obtain for an integrated luminosity of 2 fb-1 $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}=0.21\pm 0.04`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}=0.23\pm 0.08`$ in the $`e`$ and $`\mu `$ channels, respectively. The asymmetry can be measured with $`5.4\sigma `$, but the anomalous couplings needed to have a $`3\sigma `$ deviation are large, $`|g_{R,L}|0.3`$, $`|V_{tb}^R|0.7`$.

In summary, we conclude that $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}`$ is an excellent tool for the study of the $`Wtb`$ vertex that can spot one-loop QCD corrections with $`6\sigma `$ significance. The sensitivity to $`g^R`$ is one order of magnitude better than in single top production at LHC , and even at a 1000 GeV $`\gamma e^{}`$ collider with a luminosity of 500 fb-1 . The sensitivity to $`g^L`$ is similar but better than the one expected at a linear $`e^+e^{}`$ or $`\gamma e^{}`$ collider, or in single top production at LHC. Spin correlation asymmetries are not quite as sensitive and they depend on the production process as well. This fact has, however, a bonus: if $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}`$ has its predicted value and $`A_1`$ or $`A_2`$ do not, then the source of the discrepancy is bound to be an anomalous coupling or mechanism in $`t\overline{t}`$ production. Hence, the study of the FB asymmetry in $`t\overline{t}`$ production also complements spin correlation asymmetries helping to disentangle the origin of new physics, if observed.

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HTRN–CT–2000–00149 Physics at Colliders and by MCYT and Junta de Andalucía.


format: text

text:
# Numerical studies of confinement in the Landau gauge by the larger lattice simulation

## 1 The infrared behaviour of QCD in the Landau gauge

The colour confinement in QCD can be formulated as an absence of coloured asymptotic states in the BRST formalism, and the presence of long-range $`1/p^4`$ correlation between colour sources. In the Gribov-Zwanziger’s theory of Landau gauge QCD, the long-range correlation is attributed to the ghost propagator, i.e. the inverse of the Faddeev-Popov(FP) matrix. The ghost propagator is more singular and the gluon propagator is less singular than the tree level in the infrared region.

In Kugo-Ojima’s theory, a sufficient condition for an absence of coloured asymptotic states is that the parameter $`u^{ab}`$ defined by the two-point function of the FP ghost fields, $`c(x),\overline{c}(y)`$, and $`A_\nu (y)`$, satisfies $`u^{ab}(0)=\delta ^{ab}`$.

## 2 The Kugo-Ojima confinement criterion and the Gribov-Zwanziger’s theory

Let two-point tensor $`G_{\mu \nu xy}^{}{}_{}{}^{ab}`$ be

$$G_{\mu \nu xy}^{}{}_{}{}^{ab}=\mathrm{tr}\left(\lambda _{}^{a}{}_{}{}^{}D_\mu \frac{1}{D}(D_\nu )\lambda ^b\right)_{xy}.$$
(1)
and the horizon function $`H(U)`$

$$H(U)=\underset{x,y,a}{}G_{\mu \mu xy}^{}{}_{}{}^{aa}(N^21)E(U)$$
(2)
where $`N`$ is the number of colours, now $`N=3`$. $`E(U)`$ depends on the options of the definition of gauge field, $`U`$-linear or $`\mathrm{log}U`$ type;

$`U`$-linear: $`E(U)=_l\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{tr}U_l,`$

$`\mathrm{log}U`$: $`E(U)=_{l,a}\mathrm{tr}\left(\lambda _{}^{a}{}_{}{}^{}S(𝒜_l)\lambda ^a\right)/(N^21)`$, where $`𝒜_l=adj_{A_l}`$, and $`S(x)=\frac{x/2}{\mathrm{th}(x/2)}`$ .

One can show that in the core region, the horizon function $`H(U)`$ is negative and in the infinite volume limit $`lim_V\mathrm{}H(U)/V=0`$ which is called horizon condition.

Zwanziger showed in his lattice formulation that the ghost self-energy cancels precisely the zero-th order $`p^2`$ term and the ghost propagator behaves as $`1/p^4`$ in the infrared asymptotic region provided no additional non-perturbative effect is involved . Recent results of Dyson-Schwinger approach suggest the nonperturbative aspects are in effect.

Kugo also showed in the continuum formulation that the ghost propagator $`G(p^2)/p^2`$ behaves in the infrared asymptotic region as

$$G(p^2)/p^21/[p^2(1+u(0)+O(p^2))]$$
(3)
where $`u(p^2)^{ab}=\delta ^{ab}u(p^2)`$. Thus Kugo-Ojima condition leads to the same singular behavior as Zwanziger’s, and derives the universal renormalizaiton factors as $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z_1}{Z_3}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{Z}_3}}=1+u(0)=0.`$

Putting Kugo-Ojima parameter as $`u(0)=c,`$ one finds that the horizon condition is written as $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{e}{d}}\right)+(d1)ce=(d1)\left(c{\displaystyle \frac{e}{d}}\right)=(d1)h=0.`$ where $`e=E/V`$ and $`d=4`$.

Thus one sees that both the above arguments appear to be consistent with each other provided the lattice covariant derivative meets with the continuum one in the naive sense, i.e., $`e/d=1`$.

Kugo discussed in his lecture that the colour confinement can be realized via either (1) $`Z_1=0`$ and $`Z_3=`$finite or (2) $`Z_1/Z_3=0`$ but/and $`Z_3=0`$

Zwanziger argues that the second possibility is realized in the SU(2) colour case.

Our numerical results are summarized in Table 1. We obtained that $`u_b^a(0)`$ is consistent to $`c\delta _b^a,c=0.8`$ in $`SU(3)`$ quenched simulation, $`\beta =6.0`$, on $`24^4`$ and $`32^4`$.

In the case of $`\beta =6.4`$ on $`32^4`$, the value of $`e/d`$ becomes closer to 1, but $`|h|`$ becomes larger as compared to those of $`\beta =6.0`$, and thus $`c`$ becomes smaller. We need to perform larger lattice simulation to approach the continuum limit.

## 3 The two-point functions (gluon propagator, ghost propagator)

We measured gluon propagator of $`\beta =6.0`$ on lattice $`16^4`$, $`24^4`$ and $`32^4`$, and observed clear tendency of the infrared suppression in the case of $`24^4`$ and $`32^4`$.

The ghost propagator is infrared divergent and its singularity can be parametrised as $`p^{2(1+\alpha _G)}`$, where $`p^2={\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}(4\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi k_\mu }{L}})`$, $`(L/2<k_\mu L/2)`$. In the $`32^4`$ lattice, the overall scale difference in the $`\mathrm{log}U`$ and $`U`$linear versions disappear in gluon propagator, but it still remains in ghost propagator.

The gluon propagator and the ghost propagator are evaluated also from Dyson-Schwinger approach. They found qualitatively similar solutions for dressing functions of the gluon and the ghost, $`Z(p^2)(p^2)^{\alpha _D}`$ and $`G(p^2)(p^2)^{\alpha _G}`$ with $`\alpha _D+2\alpha _G=0`$, $`\alpha _G0.595`$ and $`\alpha _D1.19`$.

The gluon propagator vanishes at $`0`$ momentum if $`\alpha _G>0.5`$. Our lattice simulation of the ghost dressing function $`G(p^2)`$ shows that the value $`\alpha _G0.18`$ remains unchanged at $`1/3`$ of the Dyson-Schwinger one through $`16^4`$ to $`32^4`$ simulations. The negative $`\alpha _D`$ appears in $`24^4`$ lattice and $`\alpha _D0.4`$ in $`32^4`$ lattice. We observe the tendency that $`|\alpha _D|`$ increases as the lattice size increases, but our data still stays about $`1/3`$ of the prediction of the Dyson-Schwinger approach.

In contrast to the first data of the ghost propagator, suppression at the lowest momentum is not seen in our data of the ghost propagator. For calculation of the ghost propagator, we adopted the multigrid Poisson solver whose accuracy was kept within $`10^5`$, and we set 1% as an ending condition of perturbative calculation of the inverse FP operator. The Landau gauge accuracy of $`divA=0`$ is $`10^4`$ in maximum norm.

Using the ghost and gluon dressing function, the running coupling can be evaluated from $`\alpha _s(pa)=(g^2(a)/4\pi )Z(pa)G(pa)^2(pa)^{2\alpha _D4\alpha _G}`$, where $`a`$ is the lattice spacing. In the case of $`\beta =6,32^4`$, which has the smallest $`|h|`$, the suppression of the gluon dressing function due to the loss of correlation of the gluon field and the enhancement of the ghost dressing function cancel. We find $`\alpha _D+2\alpha _G0`$ near the lowest momentum point and $`\alpha _s(0)1`$. The infrared suppression of the running coupling measured from the three point function of gluon and from the ghost-antighost gluon in $`\overline{MOM}`$ scheme would be attributed to the loss of correlation of gluon fields.

## 4 Discussion and outlook

In the $`\beta =6,32^4`$ lattice simulation $`|h|`$ is about 0.15 and we need extrapolation to $`|h|=0`$. There remain finite size effects in ghost propagator in $`32^4`$ lattice, and also in the Kugo-Ojima parameter which manifest themselves in their dependence on the definition of the gauge field. The continuum limit should not depend on the definition of the gauge field and so a systematic method for extrapolating the continuum limit of c in the two definitions is necessary.

This work was supported by the KEK supercomputing project No.02-82.


text:
# Neutrino physics from cosmological observations

## 1 Neutrino masses

The absolute value of neutrino masses are very difficult to measure experimentally. On the other hand, mass differences between neutrino mass eigenstates, $`(m_1,m_2,m_3)`$, can be measured in neutrino oscillation experiments. Observations of atmospheric neutrinos suggest a squared mass difference of $`\delta m^23\times 10^3`$ eV2 . While there are still several viable solutions to the solar neutrino problem the so-called large mixing angle solution gives by far the best fit with $`\delta m^25\times 10^5`$ eV2  (see also contributions by A. Hallin and A. Smirnov in the present volume).

In the simplest case where neutrino masses are hierarchical these results suggest that $`m_10`$, $`m_2\delta m_{\mathrm{solar}}`$, and $`m_3\delta m_{\mathrm{atmospheric}}`$. If the hierarchy is inverted  one instead finds $`m_30`$, $`m_2\delta m_{\mathrm{atmospheric}}`$, and $`m_1\delta m_{\mathrm{atmospheric}}`$. However, it is also possible that neutrino masses are degenerate , $`m_1m_2m_3\delta m_{\mathrm{atmospheric}}`$, in which case oscillation experiments are not useful for determining the absolute mass scale.

Experiments which rely on kinematical effects of the neutrino mass offer the strongest probe of this overall mass scale. Tritium decay measurements have been able to put an upper limit on the electron neutrino mass of 2.2 eV (95% conf.)  (see also the contribution by Ch. Weinheimer in the present volume). However, cosmology at present yields an even stronger limit which is also based on the kinematics of neutrino mass.

Neutrinos decouple at a temperature of 1-2 MeV in the early universe, shortly before electron-positron annihilation. Therefore their temperature is lower than the photon temperature by a factor $`(4/11)^{1/3}`$. This again means that the total neutrino number density is related to the photon number density by

$$n_\nu =\frac{9}{11}n_\gamma $$
(1)
Massive neutrinos with masses $`mT_02.4\times 10^4`$ eV are non-relativistic at present and therefore contribute to the cosmological matter density

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu h^2=\frac{m_\nu }{92.5\mathrm{eV}},$$
(2)
calculated for a present day photon temperature $`T_0=2.728`$K. Here, $`m_\nu =m_1+m_2+m_3`$. However, because they are so light these neutrinos free stream on a scale of roughly $`k0.03m_{\mathrm{eV}}\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{1/2}h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ . Below this scale neutrino perturbations are completely erased and therefore the matter power spectrum is suppressed, roughly by $`\mathrm{\Delta }P/P8\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu /\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ .

This power spectrum suppression allows for a determination of the neutrino mass from measurements of the matter power spectrum on large scales. This matter spectrum is related to the galaxy correlation spectrum measured in large scale structure (LSS) surveys via the bias parameter, $`b^2P_g(k)/P_m(k)`$. Such analyses have been performed several times before , most recently using data from the 2dF galaxy survey . This investigation finds an upper limit of 1.8-2.2 eV for the sum of neutrino masses. However, this result is based on a relatively limited cosmological parameter space. For the same data and an even more restricted parameter space an upper limit of 1.5 eV was found .

It should also be noted that, although massive neutrinos have little impact on the cosmic microwave background (CMB) power spectrum, it is still necessary to include CMB data in any analysis in order to determine other cosmological parameters.

When calculating bounds on the neutrino mass from cosmological observations great care must be taken, because if the analysis is based on a too restricted parameter space, possible parameter degeneracies cannot be studied and the bound on $`m_\nu `$ can become artificially strong.

In Fig. 1 the degeneracy between different cosmological parameters is shown in form of the quantity

$$r_{ij}=\frac{\sigma _{j\mathrm{fixed}}(\theta _i)}{\sigma (\theta _i)}1,$$
(3)
i.e. the decrease in uncertainty of a measurement of parameter $`i`$ when parameter $`j`$ is fixed. From this figure it can be seen that there are significant degeneracies between $`\mathrm{\Sigma }m_\nu `$ and other parameters, most notably $`b`$, the bias parameter, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, the matter density.

In Ref.  a full numerical likelihood analysis was performed using a slightly restricted parameter space with the following free parameters: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$, $`H_0`$, $`n_s`$, $`Q`$, $`b`$, and $`\tau `$. The analysis was further restricted to flat models, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=0`$. This has very little effect on the analysis because there is little degeneracy between $`m_\nu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$. In order to study the effect of the different priors three different cases were calculated, the priors for which can be seen in Table I. The BBN prior on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ comes from Ref. . The actual marginalization over parameters other than $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu h^2`$ was performed using a simulated annealing procedure .

Fig. 2 shows $`\chi ^2`$ for the three different cases as a function of the $`m_\nu `$. The best fit $`\chi ^2`$ values are 24.81, 25.66, and 25.71 for the three different priors respectively. In comparison the number of degrees of freedom are 34, 35, and 36, meaning that the fits are compatible with expectations, roughly within the 68% confidence interval.

The 95% confidence limit on $`m_\nu `$ was identified with the point where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=4`$. These limits are shown in Table II. For the most restrictive prior we find a 95% confidence upper limit of $`m_\nu 2.47`$ eV. This is compatible with the findings of Ref.  who derived that $`m_\nu <1.82.2`$ eV for a slightly more restrictive parameter space.

Based on the present analysis we consider $`m_\nu 3`$ eV (95% conf.) a robust upper limit on the sum of the neutrino masses. This corresponds roughly to the value found for the CMB+LSS data alone without any additional priors. Even though this value is significantly higher than what is quoted in Ref. , it is still much more restrictive than the value $`m_\nu 4.4`$ eV  found from CMB and PSCz  data. As is also discussed in Ref.  the main reason for the improvement is the much greater precision of the 2dF survey, compared to the PSCz data .

## 2 Cosmological neutrino lepton asymmetry

Cosmological observations, in addition to the information they yield on neutrino masses, also provide a powerful means of determining the presence of a non-zero cosmological neutrino lepton number or additional sterile neutrino species.

In addition to affecting structure formation neutrinos also contribute relativistic energy density in the early universe. This has a profound effect on big bang nucleosynthesis as well as the CMB formation. The Friedmann equation, $`H^2=8\pi G\rho /3`$, yields a relationship between temperature and expansion rate. The beta reactions which maintain equilibrium between neutrons and protons in the early universe freeze out roughly when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/H1`$. If relativistic energy density is added then $`H`$ is larger for a given temperature and the beta reactions freeze out faster. The neutron to proton ratio is in equilibrium given by $`n/pe^{Q/T}`$, with $`Q=m_nm_p=1.293`$ MeV, so that if relativistic energy density is added more neutrons survive. This in turn means that more helium is formed, the dependence being roughly $`Y_PN_\nu ^{1/6}`$, and indeed observations of the primordial helium abundance can be used to constrain the amount of relativistic energy density.

The standard way to parameterise such energy density is in equivalent number of neutrino species $`N_\nu \rho _R/\rho _{\nu ,0}`$, where $`\rho _{\nu ,0}`$ is the energy density of a standard neutrino species. At present the bound is roughly $`N_\nu <3.54`$ .

At first sight this bound can be translated directly into a bound on the neutrino lepton number as well, because a non-zero lepton number yields additional energy density.

$$N_\nu =3+\frac{30}{7}\left(\frac{\mu }{\pi T}\right)^2+\frac{15}{7}\left(\frac{\mu }{\pi T}\right)^4,$$
(4)
assuming that only one neutrino species has non-zero lepton number.

However, there is a fundamental difference in that the bound is flavour sensitive. The electron flavour neutrinos enter directly into the beta reactions, and an electron neutrino lepton number therefore has a different influence on BBN than muon or tau neutrino lepton numbers .

In practise this means that a large positive chemical potential in muon and tau neutrinos can be compensated by a small electron neutrino chemical potential. Of course such models are quite contrived, but it is highly desirable with independent methods for determining the cosmological neutrino lepton numbers.

It turns out that the CMB is at least in principle also an excellent probe of the relativistic energy density. The reason is that an increase in the relativistic energy density delays matter radiation equality, which in turn leads to an increase of the so-called early integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect. In the power spectrum this shows up as an increase in power around the scale of the particle horizon slightly after recombination, i.e around the scale of the first acoustic peak. This effect can be seen in Fig. 3.

This effect has been used previously to constrain $`N_\nu `$ using data from the best present day experiments , namely Boomerang , Maxima , CBI  and DASI . Unfortunately the data is not yet of sufficient accuracy to yield constraints anywhere near as strong as BBN. However, on the other hand they do not suffer from the same problems of being flavour sensitive. It is therefore possible to combine BBN and CMB constraints to yield a non-trivial bound on neutrino lepton chemical potentials . From a combination of CMB data with the PSCz data a bound of $`N_\nu =6_{4.5}^8`$ (95%) has been obtained  (see also Table 3). Interestingly, this has provided the first detection of the cosmic neutrino background around a redshift of 1000, and the first measurement independent of big bang nucleosynthesis.

It should also be noted that the flavour dependence of the BBN bound relies on the assumption that there is no mixing between different flavours during BBN. However, if the solar LMA solution turns out to be correct it is almost inevitable that there is significant equilibration between $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$ prior to BBN. It has been shown that this significantly strengthens the bound because a large $`\nu _\nu `$ or $`\nu _\tau `$ lepton number will leak into the electron sector before BBN .

## 3 Discussion

Cosmology offers an interesting probe of neutrino physics which is complementary to terrestrial experiments.

Observations of the large scale structure power spectrum has already given bounds on the absolute value of neutrino masses which are comparable to, or stronger than the present bound from tritium endpoint measurements. For the present data an upper limit to the neutrino mass of $`m_\nu <2.53`$ eV can be derived. This can be compared to the present bound from the Mainz experiment of $`m_{\nu _e}=_i\left(|U_{ei}|^2m_i^2\right)^{1/2}=2.2`$ eV.

However, it should be noted that an even stronger upper bound can be put on neutrino masses if they are Majorana particles. In that case neutrinoless double beta decay is possible because lepton number is not a conserved quantity. The non-observation of such events has led to the bound

$$m_{ee}=\underset{j}{}U_{ej}^2m_{\nu _j}<0.27\mathrm{eV},$$
(5)
where $`U`$ is the neutrino mixing matrix . From observations of neutrinoless double beta decay it has indeed been claimed that positive evidence for non-zero neutrino masses has been obtained, with a favoured value in the range 0.11-0.56 eV . However, this claim is highly controversial and has been refuted by a number of other authors . At present it therefore seems safest to regard neutrinoless double beta decay experiments as yielding only an upper limit on $`N_\nu `$.

In the coming years the large scale structure power spectrum will be measured even more accurately by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, and at the same time the CMB anisotropy will be probed to great precision by the MAP and Planck satellites. By combining these measurements it was estimated by Hu, Eisenstein and Tegmark that a sensitivity of about 0.3 eV could be reached . Currently an upgrade of the Mainz experiment by an order of magnitude, the KATRIN experiment, is planned. Such an experiment should take the limit on the electron neutrino mass down to about 0.2 eV. The prospects for measuring a neutrino mass of the order 0.1 eV, as suggested by oscillation experiments is therefore almost within reach.

Another cosmological probe of the neutrino mass is the so-called Z-burst scenario for ultrahigh energy cosmic rays . Neutrinos are not subject to the GZK cut-off which applies to protons . Therefore it is in principle possible that the primary particles for super GZK cosmic rays are neutrinos. One possibility which has been explored is that the neutrino-nucleon cross-section increases drastically at high CM energies, for instance due to the presence of large extra dimensions. The other possibility is that neutrinos have rest mass in the eV range. In that case high energy neutrinos can annihilate on cosmic background neutrinos with a large cross section if the CM energy is close to the Z-resonance, corresponding to a primary neutrino energy of $`E_\nu 4\times 10^{21}m_{\mathrm{eV}}^1\mathrm{eV}`$. This annihilation would produce high energy protons which could then act as primaries for the observed high energy cosmic rays. The observed ultrahigh energy cosmic ray flux can be explained if the heaviest neutrino has a mass larger than $`0.1`$ eV. Therefore, if the Z-burst scenario turns out to be correct, it is in principle possible to measure a neutrino mass in this range .

With regards to the neutrino relativistic energy density, the present bound from BBN is roughly $`N_\nu <3.54`$. The prospects for improving this bound in the future do not seem too bright. The present bound is most likely dominated by systematic effects in the measurement of helium abundances. BBN is also a very powerful probe of a possible neutrino lepton asymmetry, particularly if, as is indicated by data from SNO and Super-Kamiokande , the LMA mixing solution is correct. In this case, an upper bound on the lepton asymmetry for any flavour is roughly $`\mu _{\nu _i}/T<0.07`$ .

The combination of CMB and large scale structure data can also be used for constraining the neutrino relativistic energy density. At present the CMB data are not of sufficient accuracy to yield a bound which is competitive with that from BBN, the present bound being $`N_\nu =6_{4.5}^8`$ (95%) (see also Table 3). However, this bound applies to a very different epoch and therefore puts significant constraints on possible entropy production after BBN but before CMB formation.

In the near future a much more accurate determination of $`N_\nu `$ from CMB measurements will become possible thanks to the satellites MAP and Planck. It was estimated by Lopez et al.  that it would be possible to measure $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu 0.04`$ using Planck data. However, this is probably overly optimistic and a more reasonable estimate seems to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu 0.10.2`$ .

This will also allow for a possible detection of sterile neutrinos mixing with ordinary neutrinos in the early universe over a wide range of parameter space .


text:
# Discovery of GRB 020405 and its Late Red Bump

## 1 Introduction

In recent years several indirect lines of evidence have emerged connecting the class of long duration $`\gamma `$-ray bursts (GRBs) to massive stars. Every GRB afterglow with a sub-arcsecond position is associated with a star-forming galaxy (Bloom, Kulkarni & Djorgovski, 2002). Some of these galaxies are forming stars copiously with rates of a few hundred M yr-1 (Berger, Kulkarni & Frail, 2001; Frail et al., 2002). On smaller scales, some afterglows (the so-called “dark bursts”), show evidence for heavy dust extinction (Djorgovski et al., 2001; Piro et al., 2002). X-ray and optical observations of some GRBs indicate substantial column densities (Owens et al., 1998; Galama & Wijers, 2001). In addition, there is evidence for moderate circumburst densities, $`n10`$ cm-3, in some bursts (Harrison et al., 2001; Panaitescu & Kumar, 2001; Yost et al., 2002). These indicators are consistent with GRBs originating in gas-rich star-forming regions (i.e. molecular clouds).

The most direct link between GRBs and massive stars comes from observations on stellar scales, namely the detection of underlying supernovae (SNe) and X-ray spectral features. X-ray spectral features have been observed in a few GRBs (e.g. Piro et al. 2000; Reeves et al. 2002), although the detections generally have low signal-to-noise, and the interpretations are somewhat controversial. What is generally agreed, however, is that X-ray features would require the presence of high densities of iron on stellar scales.

The discovery of the unusual Type Ic SN 1998bw (Galama et al., 1998) in a nearby ($``$40 Mpc) galaxy, within the small error box of GRB 980425 (Pian et al., 2000) suggested that at least some GRBs might be caused by SN explosions. Despite the fact that GRB 980425 was under-energetic compared to the cosmological GRBs (Frail et al., 2001) and may therefore represent an independent class of GRBs, the fact remains that SN 1998bw directly demonstrates that a massive star is capable of producing relativistic ejecta (Kulkarni et al., 1998) — an essential requirement for producing $`\gamma `$-rays.

The first indication of a SN underlying a cosmological GRB came from the observation of a red excess (“bump”) in the rapidly-decaying afterglow of GRB 980326 (Bloom et al., 1999), which had a color and peak time consistent with SN 1998bw shifted to $`z1`$. However, the lack of a measured redshift for this GRB and the possibility of other explanations (e.g. dust echoes: Esin & Blandford 2000; Reichart 2001) made the identification of the bump uncertain. Several attempts to identify similar bumps in the afterglows of GRBs with known redshift followed with mixed results; see Price et al. (2002) for a review.

These earlier results motivated us to successfully propose a large Hubble Space Telescope (HST) program to search for SNe underlying GRBs (GO-9180, P.I.: Kulkarni). HST is ideally suited to this effort since its stable point-spread function and high angular resolution make possible accurate and precise photometry of variable sources embedded on host galaxies. Low redshift GRBs are particularly important to study, since beyond a redshift of 1.2 the strong absorption in the SNe rest-frame spectra blueward of 4000 Å covers the entire observed optical region, thus making searches all but impossible with current instruments.

To date, the best case for a SN underlying a cosmological GRB comes from HST observations of GRB 011121 ($`z=0.365`$; Bloom et al. 2002; Garnavich et al. 2002). This is based on a bump in the optical afterglow lightcurves between 15 and 75 days, exhibiting a spectral turnover at $``$ 7200 Å.

In addition, based on early NIR and radio observations (Price et al., 2002), the afterglow of GRB 011121 exhibits clear evidence for a circumburst density, $`\rho r^2`$ (where $`r`$ is the radial distance from the burst). Such a density profile is indicative of stellar mass loss. Hence, from two independent lines of evidence, it can be inferred that the progenitor of GRB 011121 was a massive star.

However, not all GRBs have an underlying SN as bright as that of GRB 011121 (e.g. GRB 010921: Price et al. 2002). Thus, additional deeper searches for coincident SNe are necessary to determine whether the lack of an observed SN is due to dust obscuration, diversity in the brightness of SNe coincident with GRBs, or to some subset of GRBs having a different progenitor.

So far, our discussion has been motivated by, and based on observations. However, theorists have studied massive star models for long duration GRBs for more than a decade. In particular, the “collapsar” model posits that GRBs arise when the cores of massive stars with sufficient angular momentum collapse and form black holes (Woosley, 1993; MacFadyen & Woosley, 1999; MacFadyen, Woosley & Heger, 2001) whose accretion powers bursts of $`\gamma `$-rays. From the discussion in this section, it is clear that there is a good observational basis for the collapsar model. Detailed studies of the underlying SNe (or their absence) will provide much needed observational constraints to the collapsar model, or other models which also require an associated SN event (“supranova” — Vietri & Stella 1998; “cannonball” — Dado, Dar & De Rujula 2002).

Here, we present the discovery of the afterglow of GRB 020405 and the subsequent search for and discovery with HST of a red bump in the afterglow that we suggest may be a SN underlying the GRB.

## 2 The GRB and its Optical Afterglow

On 5 April 2002 at 00:41:26 UT the InterPlanetary Network (IPN) consisting of Ulysses, Mars Odyssey/HEND and BeppoSAX discovered and localized GRB 020405 (Hurley et al., 2002). With a duration of 60 s, the burst is a typical long duration GRB (Figure 1). The prompt emission can be well fitted by a Band function (Band et al., 1993) with the following parameters: low-energy spectral index, $`\alpha =0.00\pm 0.25`$, high-energy spectral index, $`\beta =1.87\pm 0.23`$ and break energy, $`E_b182\pm 45`$ keV. The fluence, as measured by Konus-WIND, was $`(7.40\pm 0.07)\times 10^5`$ erg cm-2 (15–2000 keV), and the peak flux, averaged over 0.768 s, was $`(5.0\pm 0.2)\times 10^6`$ erg cm-2 s-1.

We observed the 75 square-arcmin error box of GRB 020405 with the robotic 50-inch telescope at Mount Stromlo Observatory (MSO) and the 40-inch telescope at Siding Spring Observatory (SSO), commencing approximately 17 hours after the GRB. From comparison of these images with images from the Digitised Sky Survey111The Digitized Sky Surveys were produced at the Space Telescope Science Institute under U.S. Government grant NAG W-2166. we were able to identify a bright ($`R18.5`$ mag) source within the error-box that was not present in the Sky Survey (Price, Schmidt & Axelrod, 2002). We undertook further imaging observations with the Wise 40-inch, SSO 2.3-m, and the Las Campanas du Pont 100-inch telescopes (see Table 2) and found that the candidate faded.

In parallel, we undertook VLA observations of the source and found a $`0.4`$ mJy radio counterpart (Berger, Kulkarni & Frail, 2002). The combination of a decaying optical source and a variable radio counterpart established that we had detected the afterglow of GRB 020405.

Several groups undertook follow-up observations of the optical afterglow. In particular, observations with the VLT rapidly identified the host galaxy to be a member of a group of interacting galaxies (Masetti et al., 2002) at a redshift of $`z=0.695\pm 0.005`$ (Masetti et al., 2002).

## 3 Optical Observations of the Afterglow and the Host Galaxy

The low redshift of this event made it a prime candidate for a search for an underlying SN as a part of our large HST program. We staggered observations with the Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) in F555W, F702W and F814W between 19 and 31 days after the GRB in order to densely sample the peak of any underlying SN. We followed this sequence with observations in each filter approximately two months after the GRB in order to measure the SN decay. At each epoch we exposed a total of 3900 s and used a 6-point dither pattern to recover the under-sampled point-spread function (PSF).

We used “On-The-Fly” pre-processing to produce debiased, flattened images. The images were then drizzled (Fruchter & Hook, 2002) onto an image with pixels smaller than the original by a factor of 0.5 using a pixfrac of 0.7.

Given that we had to tie the ground based and HST datasets we paid special attention to calibration. Calibration of field stars was performed through observation of Stetson standards222http://cadcwww.dao.nrc.ca/standards/  with the Swope 40-inch telescope at LCO. We estimate that our calibration is accurate to approximately 0.05 mag. Images were bias-subtracted and flat-fielded in the standard manner, and combined where necessary to increase the signal-to-noise.

As can be seen from Figure 2, the host galaxy complex is quite bright ($`R21`$ mag). Hence it is essential to employ image subtraction techniques on the ground-based images to obtain accurate lightcurves for the afterglow (e.g. Price et al. 2002; Bersier et al. 2002). We used the Novicki-Tonry photometry technique (see Price et al. 2002 for a description) on both the ground-based and HST observations to produce host-subtracted fluxes, under the assumption that the afterglow flux in the last available HST images in each filter were negligible (Tables 2 and 3). For the ground-based data, this is a reasonable assumption, since none of the observations are particularly deep, and the errors in the photometry will be larger than any offset. Similarly for the F555W and F702W measurements with HST, which have late observations, but in F814W there will be an uncertain, additional flux not included in our measurements since we are using subtracted fluxes. This additional flux is equal to the flux of the afterglow on Jun 9 in F814W, and so it is important to bear in mind that the F814W measurements presented below are an underestimate of the true flux for this filter only.

### 3.1 Host Galaxy Spectroscopy

We observed the afterglow and host galaxy of GRB 020405 with the Echellette Spectrograph and Imager (Sheinis et al., 2002) on Keck II at 2002 Apr 8.41 UT in poor seeing conditions. We used a 0.75-arcsec wide slit close to the parallactic angle and obtained two 1800-s exposures in echellette mode with a small dither on the slit. We used custom software to straighten the echelle orders before combining the individual exposures and extracting the spectrum using IRAF. Arc lamp exposures were used for wavelength calibration, with a resultant scatter of 0.06 Å. An observation of Feige 34 was used for flux calibration. An earlier spectrum was also obtained from the Baade Telescope, but with lower resolution and signal-to-noise.

We detect several bright emission lines which we attribute to \[O II\], H$`\beta `$ and \[O III\] at a mean Heliocentric redshift of 0.68986 $`\pm `$ 0.00004, consistent with the measurement first reported by Masetti et al. (2002). We list these emission lines in Table 1. Using the observed \[O II\] and H$`\beta `$ line fluxes and assuming a flat Lambda cosmology with $`H_0`$ = 65 km s-1 Mpc-1 and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ = 0.3, we calculate (Kennicutt, 1998) a star formation rate of 4 M yr-1. This star-formation rate is uncorrected for extinction or stellar absorption, and is therefore a lower limit.

## 4 Modeling the Afterglow

We model the lightcurves (Figure 3) by adopting a standard afterglow model with power-law temporal decay and a power-law spectrum, $`F_\nu t^\alpha \nu ^\beta `$. Due to the bright host galaxy complex, we include in our data set only those values in the literature that have been derived from host-subtracted images — specifically, the measurements of Bersier et al. (2002) (corrected for the apparent difference in reference star magnitudes) and those presented here. In the first round of analysis we restrict ourselves to data taken prior to 10 d after the GRB. We obtain a fairly poor fit with $`\chi ^2`$/DOF = 53.4/29, $`\alpha =1.41`$ and $`\beta =1.25`$. We notice that the model slightly over-predicts the flux for the earliest data from the MSO 50-inch. This may suggest the presence of a jet break about one day after the GRB.

Bersier et al. (2002) have detected strong polarization of the afterglow emission (9.9%) at 1.3 d after the GRB which then appears to have declined to about 1.9% by 2.1 d after the GRB (Covino et al., 2002). Sari (1999) predicted the polarization of GRB afterglows to peak at about 10% at the time of the jet break for GRBs that are not viewed far off-axis. The behavior of the polarization-curve, therefore, also argues for the presence of a jet break about a day after the GRB. The low radio flux (Berger et al. in prep.) compared to the bright optical afterglow may also be evidence for an early jet break.

We therefore adopt a broken power-law temporal decay with indices $`\alpha _1`$ (early times), $`\alpha _2`$ (late times) and a jet break time, $`t_{\mathrm{jet}}`$. The power-law indices are functions of the electron energy distribution index, $`p`$ ($`N(\gamma )\gamma ^p`$ for $`\gamma >\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}`$). However, given the sparse data we make the ad hoc simplifying assumption that the optical band is above the cooling frequency and the circumburst medium is homogenous. In this case, $`\alpha _1=(3p2)/4`$ and $`\alpha _2=p`$ (Sari, Piran & Halpern, 1999).

With these assumptions, we obtain a much-improved fit ($`\chi ^2`$/DOF = 35.9/28): $`p=1.93\pm 0.25`$ and $`t_j=1.67\pm 0.52`$ d. Adding a systematic error of 0.06 mag in quadrature with the measurement errors to account for differences between data taken with different instruments reduces the $`\chi ^2`$ to match the degrees of freedom. In our experience, this is an expected level of systematic error.

The redshift of GRB 020405, $`z=0.690`$, and the observed spectrum of the burst, imply an isotropic-equivalent $`k`$-corrected (Bloom, Frail & Sari, 2001) energy release, $`E_{\mathrm{iso}}(\gamma )[202000\mathrm{k}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}]=(7.37\pm 0.80)\times 10^{52}`$ erg. The $`k`$-correction ($`k=1.31\pm 0.09`$) is small and rather precise given the spectral constraints from BeppoSAX. From our best-fit value of $`t_{\mathrm{jet}}`$, using the specific formulation of Frail et al. (2001), we calculate a jet opening angle of $`(5.83\pm 0.69)n^{1/8}`$ degrees, where $`n`$ is the number density of the ambient medium in units of 1 cm-3. The beaming-corrected energy is thus $`E_\gamma =(3.82\pm 0.94)\times 10^{50}n^{1/4}`$ erg, at the low end of (but consistent with) the distribution centred on $`9\times 10^{50}n^{1/4}`$ erg for long duration GRBs (Frail et al., 2001).

We can also measure the dust extinction from the afterglow data by demanding that the intrinsic spectral slope match that predicted by a particular theoretical model (dependent upon the density profile and the location of the cooling frequency relative to the optical bands) and attributing any observed reddening to extinction (see, e.g., Price et al. 2002). Assuming an SMC extinction curve (Reichart, 2001), we measure the extinction to be 0.22 mag $`<A_V^{\mathrm{host}}<`$ 0.64 mag, depending on the choice of afterglow model.

### 4.1 Late Time Data: A Red Bump

We now turn our attention to data taken after 10 d from the GRB. We note that there is a strong excess in each of the three HST filters. This excess (“bump”) exists independent of the assumed geometry of the afterglow, but is more pronounced for a jet model (discussed above). We suggest this excess may be due to a SN which exploded within about a week of the GRB. Although it is not possible to analyze the bump in detail (in particular, its flux relative to SN 1998bw) until later HST observations have been made of the host galaxy to remove the assumption of zero afterglow flux in the last available epochs, we can make a number of qualitative statements.

First, the peak of the bump is not well constrained by these data, and appears to be between 10 and 25 days after the GRB. Second, fitting a power-law spectrum, $`F_\nu \nu ^\beta `$, to the HST data demonstrates that the bump is quite red, with $`\beta =3.98\pm 0.18`$ (i.e. $`BV=1.07`$ mag, $`VR=0.90`$ mag), in contrast to $`\beta =1.23\pm 0.12`$ measured for the afterglow at early times, further evidence for the existence of two components. This measurement of the spectral index is similar to that for the SN underlying GRB 011121, which has $`\beta 3.5`$ between the F450W and F555W filters at late time (Bloom et al., 2002). However, the SN underlying GRB 011121 appeared somewhat bluer in the F555W filter than SN 1998bw (Garnavich et al., 2002), while GRB 020405’s red bump appears more red. For GRB 011121, the SN spectral peak was at $`7500`$ Å (Bloom et al., 2002), which corresponds to 9300 Å at the redshift of GRB 020405. Since the spectrum is well described by a single power-law, the spectral peak of a SN would be redward of 8700 Å, which is consistent with the data on GRB 011121. Thus, the broad-band spectra of the red bump appears to be grossly similar to that of GRB 011121 upon first inspection. Some differences in color are not unexpected, due to the uncertain extinction along the line-of-sight to GRB 020405 and the expected diversity in the properties (e.g. jets) of these energetic SNe.

## 5 Conclusions

Here we report the discovery of the nearby ($`z0.7`$) GRB 020405 and the subsequent discovery of the afterglow. The GRB itself, with a duration of 60 s, appears to be a typical long duration burst. The optical afterglow data, spanning about 10 days, can be fitted with a standard broken power law with a break time of about 1.5 d. Identifying this break with a jet we obtain a beaming-corrected energy release of about $`2\times 10^{50}`$erg, typical of that inferred for long duration GRBs.

Motivated by the low redshift, we undertook multi-color observations of the afterglow with HST. We found an excess over the flux predicted by the modeling of the afterglow from ground based data. The overall broad-band spectrum of the bump as well as its temporal evolution are most simply explained as due to an underlying SN which exploded at about the same time as the GRB.

In Price et al. (2002), we summarize the searches for underlying SNe in $`z<1.2`$ GRBs (the redshift restriction arising from the fact that the searches are conducted in the optical band; see §1). Including GRB 020405, there are 13 GRBs with $`z<1.2`$. A strong case for an underlying SN can be made for GRB 011121 ($`z=0.365`$; Bloom et al. 2002; Garnavich et al. 2002) and GRB 020405 ($`z=0.690`$). A good case can be made for GRB 970228 ($`z=0.695`$; Reichart 1999; Galama et al. 2000) and GRB 980326 ($`z`$ unknown; Bloom et al. 1999). At first blush this appears to be a low yield and suggestive that either there is diversity in the progenitors of long duration GRBs or in the properties of underlying SNe, or both.

However, it is important to bear in mind that one of the two unique signatures for a SN is the spectral rollover at short wavelengths, namely below about 4000 Å (see Bloom et al. 1999). Thus for $`z1`$, observations in the $`R`$ and $`I`$ bands are critical, whereas at lower redshifts observations in $`V`$ and $`R`$ bands are critical. The $`I`$ band is quite noisy for ground-based observations whereas most afterglows are well observed in $`R`$ and $`V`$ bands.

Restricting to $`z<0.7`$ we find five GRBs (970228, 011121, 020405, 990712 and 010921), of which underlying SNe have been identified in the first three, and possibly in GRB 990712 (Björnsson et al., 2001). The limit for an underlying SN in GRB 010921 is not very stringent (Price et al., 2002); in particular, an underlying SN fainter by more than 2 mag relative to that of SN 1998bw (about as bright as typical SNe Ib/c) would have escaped identification. It is thus premature to conclude that we need several progenitors to cause GRBs. What we can conclude, though, is that dense sampling in several bands of nearby GRBs is likely to remain a productive activity.

BPS and PAP thank the ARC for supporting Australian GRB research. GRB research at Caltech (SRK, SGD, FAH, RS) is supported by grants from NSF and NASA. KH is grateful for Ulysses and IPN support under JPL Contract 958056 and NASA Grant NAG5-11451. Support for Proposal HST-GO-09180.01-A was provided by NASA through a grant from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555. We thank M. Pettini, N. Reddy and C. Steidel for undertaking observations at Keck under the auspices of the Caltech ToO program. Finally, we thank the staff of MSO, SSO, Wise, LCO, and Keck, and the STScI for their assistance.