text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The branching ratio of the purely leptonic $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu _{\mathrm{}}}`$ decay111Charge conjugate decays are implied throughout the paper. can be calculated  using

$$\text{BR}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}})=\frac{G_\text{F}^2}{8\pi }m_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}m_{\mathrm{}}^2\left(1\frac{m_{\mathrm{}}^2}{m_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}^2}\right)^2|V_{\mathrm{cs}}|^2\tau _{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}\mathrm{f}_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}^2,$$
(1)
where $`m_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ is the mass and $`\tau _{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ the lifetime of the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ meson, $`\mathrm{f}_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ decay constant and $`V_{\mathrm{cs}}`$ the corresponding CKM matrix element. $`G_\text{F}`$ denotes the Fermi coupling constant and $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$ the mass of the lepton.

Several models for the calculation of the decay constant $`\mathrm{f}_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ exist: potential models predict $`\mathrm{f}_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ in the range from 129 MeV to 356 MeV , QCD sum rule models predict $`\mathrm{f}_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}=\left(231\pm 24\right)`$ MeV  and lattice QCD calculations predict $`\mathrm{f}_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}=(240_{25}^{+30})`$ MeV .

The extraction of CKM matrix elements from $`\text{B}^0\overline{\text{B}}^0`$ oscillation measurements relies on these theoretical models for calculation of the decay constant for B mesons, $`f_\mathrm{B}`$, since a measurement of $`f_\mathrm{B}`$ from B$`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$ decays is currently not feasible. It is therefore important to measure $`\mathrm{f}_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ to test the theoretical models used in the $`f_\mathrm{B}`$ calculation. Measurements of $`\mathrm{f}_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ in leptonic $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ decays have been published by WA75 , BES , E653 , L3 , CLEO , and BEATRICE . The measured values lie between 190 MeV and 430 MeV. The current world average is $`280\pm 48`$ MeV .

In this paper, we present a measurement of BR($`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau `$) and $`\mathrm{f}_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ based on reconstruction of the decay sequence

| $`\text{e}^+\text{e}^{}\mathrm{Z}\text{c}\overline{\text{c}}`$ | $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}X`$ |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | $`\gamma `$ | $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ |  |  |
|  |  |  |  | $`\tau \overline{\nu }_\tau `$ |  |
|  |  |  |  | $`\text{}\text{ }\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\nu _\tau (\mathrm{}=e,\mu ).`$ |

(2)

Only $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ events from $`\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}`$ decays are considered, since a measurement of BR($`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau `$) in $`\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ events is systematically limited by the large uncertainty on the production rate of $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ mesons in $`\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ events.

Hadronic $`\tau `$ decays are difficult to distinguish from background and therefore only $`\tau `$ decays into electrons or muons are used. Since the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ mass cannot be reconstructed from a single particle in the final state, a neural network is trained on a preselected sample of hadronic Z events with one identified electron or muon, requiring the kinematics to be consistent with $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau \mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\nu _\tau \overline{\nu }_\tau `$ decays.

In the last step of the analysis $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\gamma \mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ decays are reconstructed in this $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ enhanced sample by forming the invariant mass of the photon and the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ candidate. This reduces the dependence on the Monte Carlo simulation of the background and increases the purity of the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ sample.

Since the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu _{\mathrm{}}}`$ decay is helicity suppressed, the $`\tau `$ channel has the largest branching ratio of all leptonic channels. Eq. 1 predicts the branching ratio into electrons to be negligible, $`\mathrm{BR}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\mathrm{e}^{}\overline{\nu _\mathrm{e}})/\mathrm{BR}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau )<10^5`$, due to the factor $`m_{\mathrm{}}^2`$, whereas the branching ratio into muons, BR($`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\mu ^{}\overline{\nu }_\mu `$), is expected to be sizeable, $`\mathrm{BR}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\mu ^{}\overline{\nu }_\mu )/\mathrm{BR}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau )=0.103`$. Therefore the decay $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\mu ^{}\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ is included in the signal definition and the final result is corrected for this contribution.

## 2 Detector, data sample and event preselection

The OPAL detector is described in detail elsewhere . Tracking of charged particles is performed by a central detector, consisting of a silicon microvertex detector, a vertex chamber, a jet chamber and $`z`$-chambers 222A right handed coordinate system is used, with positive $`z`$ along the $`\mathrm{e}^{}`$ beam direction and $`x`$ pointing towards the centre of the LEP ring. The polar and azimuthal angles are denoted by $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$, and the origin is taken to be the centre of the detector.. The central detector is inside a solenoid, which provides a uniform axial magnetic field of 0.435 T. The silicon microvertex detector consists of two layers of silicon strip detectors; for most of the data used in this paper, the inner layer covered a polar angle range of $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.83`$ and the outer layer covers $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.77`$, with an extended coverage for the data taken after the year 1996. The vertex chamber is a precision drift chamber which covers the range $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.95`$. The jet chamber is a large-volume drift chamber, 4.0 m long and 3.7 m in diameter, providing both tracking and ionization energy loss (d$`E`$/d$`x`$) information. The $`z`$-chambers provide a precise measurement of the $`z`$-coordinate of tracks as they leave the jet chamber in the range $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.72`$.

The coil is surrounded by a time-of-flight counter array and a barrel lead-glass electromagnetic calorimeter with a presampler. Including the endcap electromagnetic calorimeters, the lead-glass blocks cover the range $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.98`$. The magnet return yoke is instrumented with streamer tubes and serves as a hadron calorimeter. Outside the hadron calorimeter are muon chambers, which cover 93% of the full solid angle.

For Monte Carlo studies, event samples have been generated using JETSET 7.4  for multihadronic $`\mathrm{Z}`$ events and KORALZ 4.0  for $`\tau `$ pair events. Special signal samples have also been generated using JETSET. These consist of $`\mathrm{Z}\text{c}\overline{\text{c}}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}X`$ events with the decay sequence given in Eq. 2. The $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ signal is normalised using $`f(c\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{})=0.121`$  and $`\text{BR}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau )=7.0\%`$. Tau polarisation effects are handled by the $`\tau `$ decay library TAUOLA 2.4 .

The data sample used in this analysis consists of about 3.5 million $`\mathrm{Z}`$ decays recorded during the period 1991-1995 and an additional 0.4 million $`\mathrm{Z}`$ events recorded for detector calibration purposes in 1996-2000. Events are only used if the silicon microvertex detector and the other main detector components relevant for the analysis were fully operational. Hadronic $`\mathrm{Z}`$ decays are selected based on the number of reconstructed tracks and the energy deposited in the calorimeter . To ensure that the event is well contained within the acceptance of the central detector, the polar angle of the thrust axis is required to satisfy $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{T}|<0.8`$.

Signal events are characterised by the presence of an electron or a muon from $`\tau `$ decays and large missing energy. Electrons and muons are identified using neural networks  which are trained to identify leptons with a momentum greater than $`2`$ GeV. Only events with exactly one identified electron or muon are selected. Electrons from photon conversions are rejected using a neural network conversion finder .

Each event is divided into two hemispheres by the plane perpendicular to the thrust axis. The hemisphere with less visible energy is required to contain the lepton. This hemisphere is selected to search for $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ decays. To further enrich the sample in $`\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}`$ events, a loose anti-b tag  is applied in the hemisphere opposite to the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$. Finally, at least 9 tracks are required in an event to reduce the background from $`\mathrm{Z}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ events while keeping more than $`97\%`$ of the signal events at this stage of the selection.

## 3 Reconstruction technique

A matching algorithm  is used to avoid double-counting of particle momenta in the calorimeters and in the tracking detectors. The output of the matching algorithm – referred to as particles – are tracks and calorimeter clusters.

If the missing energy in the event is only due to the neutrinos produced in the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ decay, the energy and momentum of the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ are exactly given by

$`\stackrel{}{P}_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i\text{lepton}}{}}\stackrel{}{p}_i`$ (3)
$`E_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{s}{\displaystyle \underset{i\text{lepton}}{}}E_i,`$ (4)
where $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ centre-of-mass energy. The summation is performed over all particles in the event except the lepton. The resulting mean reconstructed energy of the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ is 27 GeV which is slightly larger than the true mean energy of 26 GeV.

Due to detector acceptance and resolution effects this method yields an energy resolution of $`6.5`$ GeV and an angular resolution of $`52`$ mrad where the resolution is defined as the sigma of a single Gaussian fitted to the distribution. To further improve the energy resolution, a kinematic fit is applied in which the energy and the absolute momentum of all particles (except the lepton) are varied independently from each other (i.e. varying their mass) using the constraint

$$\sqrt{E_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}^2P_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}^2}=M_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}.$$
(5)
The $`\chi ^2`$ values calculated from the deviations from the experimentally measured values

$$\chi ^2=\underset{i\mathrm{lepton}}{}\frac{(E_i^{\mathrm{fit}}E_i^{\mathrm{meas}})^2}{\sigma _{E_i^{\mathrm{meas}}}^2}$$
(6)
are minimized. This procedure yields an energy resolution of about $`3.0`$ GeV. About $`2\%`$ of the events are rejected because the kinematic fit does not converge. The efficiency $`ϵ(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau )`$ to reconstruct the $`\mathrm{Z}\text{c}\overline{\text{c}}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}X,\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\gamma \mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\gamma \tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ signal in the $`\tau ^{}\mu ^{}\overline{\nu _\mu }\nu _\tau `$ channel or in the $`\tau ^{}e^{}\overline{\nu _e}\nu _\tau `$ channel at this stage of the analysis is about $`30\%`$.

## 4 Selection of $`𝐃_𝐬^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝉^{\mathbf{}}\overline{𝝂}_𝝉`$ candidates

In the next part of the analysis a $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ enriched sample is selected using neural networks. About $`52\%`$ of the selected events used as input to the neural networks are expected to be $`\mathrm{Z}\text{b}\overline{\text{b}}`$ events, about $`36\%`$ $`\mathrm{Z}\text{c}\overline{\text{c}}`$ events and the remaining $`12\%`$ Z boson decays into light quarks (uds). The signal contribution is expected to be of the order $`1\%`$. For each channel (electron or muon) two neural networks are trained: one to separate signal from $`\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}`$ background events and one to distinguish between signal and $`\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ background.

The light-quark background is not used in the training. Since $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau \nu _\tau `$ decays from b decays are not considered signal, they are included in the $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ background. They constitute about $`0.8\%`$ of the $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ background events used as input to the neural network.

The following variables are used in all four networks:

* The reconstructed energy $`E_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ of the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ obtained from the kinematic fit (Fig. 1a); the reconstruction method used for the energy and the momentum of the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ is only valid for purely leptonic decays. Semileptonic background decays are expected to have a lower reconstructed $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ energy $`E_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$.
* The lepton energy $`E_{\mathrm{lep}}`$; leptons in light-quark background events have on average lower energy than in signal events whereas leptons in background events from $`\mathrm{b}\mathrm{}`$ decays have on average higher energy than in signal events due to the hard fragmentation of the b hadron.
* The output of two additional neural networks trained to find $`\mathrm{b}\mathrm{}`$ (Fig. 1b) and $`\mathrm{b}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{}`$ decays ; leptons originating from signal events have properties more similar to leptons from $`\mathrm{b}\mathrm{}`$ decays than from $`\mathrm{b}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{}`$ decays.
* The visible invariant mass determined from the tracks and clusters and the energy sum in the electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), both calculated in the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ hemisphere; on average they are lower for signal events due to the energy carried by the neutrinos.

The choice of input variables is optimized separately for each net. The following two variables are only used in the two neural networks rejecting $`\text{b}\overline{\text{b}}`$ background and in the neural network separating the muon channel from the $`\text{c}\overline{\text{c}}`$ background:

* The momentum $`p_{\mathrm{lep},\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ of the lepton in the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ rest frame for signal events; it is limited by the mass of the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ meson to be $`p_{\mathrm{lep},\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}<m_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}/2`$. The $`p_{\mathrm{lep},\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ distribution is smeared by the experimental resolution. For leptons not originating from $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ decays this restriction does not exist, leading to a tail at higher $`p_{\mathrm{lep},\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$.
* The angle between the direction of the reconstructed $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ and the direction of the jet containing the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$; in signal events this angle is on average larger than in $`\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ background events. The jets are reconstructed by combining all particles - including the lepton - using a cone algorithm . The jet direction is then calculated excluding the lepton.

Variables sensitive to the flavour of the event are used in the neural networks separating signal from $`\text{c}\overline{\text{c}}`$ background:

* The highest momentum $`p_{\mathrm{max}}`$ of any particle with a charge opposite to that of the lepton in the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ hemisphere (Fig. 1c); in signal events this particle should originate from the fragmentation of the c quark which produced the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ meson. On average, it is therefore expected to have less momentum than the highest momentum charged particle in $`\text{c}\overline{\text{c}}`$ and light-quark background events.
* The angle $`\alpha _{\mathrm{lep},\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ between the direction of the lepton in the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ rest frame and the direction of the reconstructed $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ in the lab frame (Fig. 1d); for $`\text{c}\overline{\text{c}}`$ background events the $`\alpha _{\mathrm{lep},\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ distribution is broad and it is peaked around $`\pi /2`$ while in signal events $`\alpha _{\mathrm{lep},\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ is closer to $`\pi `$.

In the neural networks which reject $`\text{b}\overline{\text{b}}`$ background the following variables are used:

* The number of tracks and the number of clusters in the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ hemisphere; the number of clusters and the b likelihood in the opposite hemisphere.

Four selected variables which display good signal versus background separation are shown in Fig. 1. Data and background Monte Carlo distributions are in good agreement.

The output distributions of the neural networks for the muon channel are shown in Fig. 2. The output distributions for the electron channel are similar. In Fig. 3, two-dimensional distributions of the outputs of the neural networks are shown. A cut at 0.85 on all outputs is applied to select a $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ enriched sample with a signal efficiency of about $`ϵ(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau )=9\%`$.

The discrepancies between data and Monte Carlo are largest for the neural networks used to reject $`Z\text{c}\overline{\text{c}}`$ background below 0.2, far away from the cut. Discrepancies between the neural network input distributions of the data and the Monte Carlo simulation are treated as systematic uncertainties, as discussed in Section 7.

## 5 $`𝐃_𝐬^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$ reconstruction

In the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ enriched sample, events with photon candidates in the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ hemisphere are used to reconstruct the decay $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\gamma \mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$. The $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ signal can then be observed as a peak in the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ mass region of the $`\gamma \mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ invariant mass distribution.

Since the neural networks have been trained to find $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ events and not specifically $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\gamma \mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ events, additional cuts on the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ enriched sample are required to reduce the background in the $`\gamma \mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ invariant mass distribution:

* The b likelihood as given by the b tagging algorithm  in the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ hemisphere has to be less than 0.5 to further suppress $`\text{b}\overline{\text{b}}`$ background.
* Using energy and momentum conservation, the missing energy in the hemisphere is reconstructed from the visible energy $`E_{\mathrm{vis}}^{\mathrm{hemi}}`$ in the hemisphere, the invariant mass of all particles in the hemisphere, $`M_{\mathrm{hemi}}`$, and in the opposite hemisphere, $`M_{\mathrm{opp}}`$, via the relation:

$$E_{\mathrm{miss}}^{\mathrm{hemi}}=\frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}+\frac{M_{\mathrm{hemi}}^2M_{\mathrm{opp}}^2}{2\sqrt{s}}E_{\mathrm{vis}}^{\mathrm{hemi}}.$$
(7)
The missing energy $`E_{\mathrm{miss}}^{\mathrm{hemi}}`$ has to be larger than 15 GeV.

These two cuts reduce the efficiency for the signal to $`8\%`$.

The photon is found using information from the electromagnetic calorimeter as described in . This method assigns a weight to each photon candidate corresponding to the probability for it to stem from a real photon. To accept a photon candidate, this weight has to be larger than $`0.6`$. Only events with exactly one such photon candidate in the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ hemisphere are accepted. The distribution of the photon energy $`E_\gamma `$ after all previously defined selection cuts is shown in Fig. 4. Data and Monte Carlo simulation are in reasonable agreement. Finally, $`E_\gamma `$ is required to be greater than $`2.3`$ GeV. For smaller photon energies the shapes of the invariant mass distributions of the photon and the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ candidate become similar for background and signal. The energy resolution for photons with $`E_\gamma >2.3`$ GeV as determined by the Monte Carlo is about $`300`$ MeV and the angular resolution is about 5 mrad.

## 6 Results

The distribution of the invariant mass $`m(\gamma \mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{})`$ of the photon and the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ candidate for the events satisfying all selection criteria is shown in Fig. 5. In the signal region, $`m(\gamma \mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{})<2.36`$ GeV, there are $`24.5\pm 2.8`$ background events predicted by the Monte Carlo. The number of background events is determined by requiring the expected number of Monte Carlo events to be identical to the number of data events after the lepton identification cuts described in Section 2.

The most important branching ratios have been adjusted in the Monte Carlo using the values in . The uncertainty on the background is due to the limited number of Monte Carlo events. This number is subtracted from the data which yields $`22.5\pm 6.9`$ signal events. The uncertainty is the statistical uncertainty of the data.

The efficiency to reconstruct $`\mathrm{Z}\text{c}\overline{\text{c}}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}X,\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\gamma \mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\gamma \tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ events in the $`\tau ^{}\mu ^{}\overline{\nu _\mu }\nu _\tau `$ channel is $`0.9\%`$ and in the $`\tau ^{}e^{}\overline{\nu _e}\nu _\tau `$ channel $`0.7\%`$. If the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ decays directly into muons via $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\mu ^{}\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ the efficiency is $`0.6\%`$.

The branching ratio $`\text{BR}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau )`$ is extracted using

$`\text{BR}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{N_{\text{cand}}}{2N_\mathrm{Z}R_\text{c}f(c\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{})P_V(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{},\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s})\text{BR}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\gamma \mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{})}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{BR}(\tau l\overline{\nu }_l\nu _\tau )ϵ(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau )+\frac{\mathrm{BR}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\mu ^{}\overline{\nu }_\mu )}{\mathrm{BR}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau )}ϵ(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\mu ^{}\overline{\nu }_\mu )}},`$ (8)
where $`N_{\mathrm{cand}}`$ is the number of background-subtracted candidates in the signal region, $`N_\mathrm{Z}`$ the number of $`\mathrm{Z}`$ decays, $`R_\mathrm{c}=0.1671\pm 0.0048`$  the partial width of the $`\mathrm{Z}`$ decaying into a pair of charm quarks, $`f(c\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{})=0.121\pm 0.025`$  the production rate of $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ mesons in charm jets, $`ϵ(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau )`$ the efficiency for the signal and $`ϵ(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\mu ^{}\overline{\nu }_\mu )`$ the efficiency for reconstructing $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\gamma \mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\gamma \mu ^{}\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ decays. As discussed in Section 1, we use $`\mathrm{BR}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\mu ^{}\overline{\nu }_\mu )/\mathrm{BR}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau )=0.103`$.

$`P_V(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{},\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s})`$ is the ratio of $`\text{c}\overline{\text{s}}`$ mesons produced in a vector state ($`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$) with respect to the sum of the pseudoscalar ($`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}`$) and vector states. For non-strange D mesons, $`P_V(\mathrm{D}^{},\mathrm{D})`$ has been measured by ALEPH , DELPHI  and OPAL . The averaged value is $`P_V(\mathrm{D}^{},\mathrm{D})=0.61\pm 0.03`$ . To extrapolate this ratio to $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}`$ mesons, the effect of the decays of $`L=1`$ D⋆⋆ resonances and quark mass effects need to be taken into account. D⋆⋆ resonances contribute only in the case of non-strange mesons. This effect was estimated by OPAL to be smaller than the experimental uncertainty  and is therefore neglected. Applying the correction factor for quark mass effects from  yields $`P_V(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{},\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s})=0.64\pm 0.05`$ where the full size of the correction is included in the uncertainty. This value is consistent with the ALEPH measurement of $`P_V(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{},\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s})=0.60\pm 0.19`$ .

Using $`P_V(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{},\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s})=0.64\pm 0.05`$ and the values given in Table 1 for the branching ratios yields

$$\text{BR}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau )=\left(7.0\pm 2.1(\text{stat})\right)\%.$$
(9)
## 7 Systematic Uncertainties

Systematic uncertainties arise from the uncertainties in the branching ratios, the Monte Carlo modelling, selection efficiencies and the detector resolution. The resulting systematic uncertainties are summarised in Table 2 and described in more detail below.

The external values used in the calculation of the branching ratios are each varied within their uncertainties.

The uncertainty on the background rate and on the efficiencies $`ϵ(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau )`$ and $`ϵ(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\mu ^{}\overline{\nu }_\mu )`$ due to the limited number of Monte Carlo events is counted as systematic uncertainty.

To account for uncertainties in the determination of the background rate, the number of background events is also calculated using the sideband of the $`m(\gamma \mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{})`$ distribution, defined by $`m(\gamma \mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{})>2.4`$ GeV. The difference between the standard analysis and the predicted background rate using the sideband is 0.1 background events in the signal region. This difference is taken as systematic uncertainty.

About $`55\%`$ of the background is due to combinations of $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ candidates with photons which do not originate from the same decay. The remaining background mainly consists of $`\mathrm{D}^{}\gamma \mathrm{D}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{D}^0\gamma \mathrm{D}^0`$ decays. No $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau \nu _\tau `$ decays from b decays are expected in the final sample. The most important branching ratios have been varied within their uncertainties using $`\text{BR}(\mathrm{D}^{}\gamma \mathrm{D}^{})=0.016\pm 0.004`$, $`\text{BR}(\mathrm{D}^0\gamma \mathrm{D}^0)=0.381\pm 0.029`$, $`\text{BR}(\mathrm{D}^0e^{}X^+)=0.0675\pm 0.0029`$ and $`\text{BR}(\mathrm{D}^0\mu ^{}X^+)=0.068\pm 0.008`$ . The corresponding change of the result is taken as systematic uncertainty.

To determine the effect of uncertainties in the Monte Carlo description of the fragmentation of b and c quarks, the distribution of the scaled hadron energy, $`x_\mathrm{E}=2E_\mathrm{h}/\sqrt{s}`$, is reweighted within the experimental uncertainties for b quarks, $`x_\mathrm{E}=0.702\pm 0.008`$, and for c quarks, $`x_\mathrm{E}=0.484\pm 0.008`$ . The largest of the variations observed using the fragmentation functions of Peterson et al., Collins and Spiller, and Kartvelishvili et al.  is taken as systematic uncertainty.

The exact shape of the lepton momentum spectrum for background events is not known. Therefore $`\mathrm{b}\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{b}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{c}\mathrm{}`$ decays are reweighted to reproduce the lepton momentum spectrum in the rest frame of the b or c hadron as predicted by the ACCMM , the ISGW  and the ISGW\**  models. The same parameters as in  are used. The largest difference between the results obtained using the different models is taken as systematic uncertainty.

To take into account uncertainties in the modelling of the tracking resolution by the Monte Carlo, the reconstructed Monte Carlo track parameters are smeared by $`\pm 10\%`$  and the analysis is repeated. The largest difference between the results is taken as an estimate for this source of systematic uncertainty.

The analysis is redone varying the photon energy scale in the Monte Carlo simulation by $`\pm 2\%`$  and the difference between the results is taken as systematic uncertainty. Furthermore it was checked that the result obtained with the low purity sample in the range $`1\text{ GeV}<E_\gamma <2.3\text{ GeV}`$ is statistically consistent with the result obtained for $`E_\gamma >2.3\text{ GeV}`$.

The electron identification efficiency has been studied in  and has been found to be modelled correctly within $`4\%`$. The muon identification efficiency has been studied in , giving an uncertainty of $`5\%`$.

Each of the input distributions has been compared between data and Monte Carlo simulation. The simulated distributions are reweighted for each input variable in turn to agree with the corresponding data distributions, and the analysis is repeated with the weighted events. The resulting differences in the measured branching ratio are added in quadrature to obtain an estimate of the systematic uncertainty due to modelling of the input variables. This includes the uncertainty due to the Monte Carlo modelling of the missing energy $`E_{\mathrm{miss}}^{\mathrm{hemi}}`$ since some of the neural network variables are strongly correlated to $`E_{\mathrm{miss}}^{\mathrm{hemi}}`$.

The cut on the output of the b-tag in the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ hemisphere is varied in the Monte Carlo between 0.43 and 0.57 but kept at 0.5 for the data to account for uncertainties in the Monte Carlo modelling of the efficiency of the b tagging algorithm. This corresponds to a change in the b tagging efficiency of about $`\pm 2\%`$.

All uncertainties are added in quadrature to determine the total systematic uncertainty.

## 8 Conclusion

$`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\gamma \mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ decays are selected in the invariant mass distribution of the photon and the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ meson. The branching ratio of $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ meson decays into $`\tau \nu _\tau `$ has been measured to be

$$\text{BR}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}\tau ^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau )=\left(7.0\pm 2.1(\text{stat})\pm 2.0(\text{syst})\right)\%,$$

in good agreement with the only other direct measurement but with a slightly smaller uncertainty . From this measurement the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ decay constant can be derived using Eq. 1 and the values in Table 1 to be

$$\mathrm{f}_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}=\left(286\pm 44(\text{stat})\pm 41(\text{syst})\right)\text{MeV}$$

consistent with theoretical predictions \[1-3\] for $`\mathrm{f}_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ and with the world average $`\mathrm{f}_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}=280\pm 48`$ MeV .

## Acknowledgements

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


format: text

text:
# The X-ray afterglow of GRB000926 observed by BeppoSAX and Chandra: a mildly collimated fireball in a dense medium ?

## 1 Introduction

Afterglows of Gamma Ray Bursts (GRB) are typically characterized by a power law behavior in time and in frequency, i.e. the observed flux $`F(tt_0)^\delta \nu ^\alpha `$. This property is nicely accounted for by the fireball model, in which the afterglow is produced by the interaction of a relativistic expanding shell with an external medium (e.g. Wijers, Rees & Mészáros (1997)). The spectral and temporal slopes depend on the geometry (e.g. spherical vs jet (Sari, Piran & Halpern (1999))) and on the density distribution of the external medium (e.g. constant density – hereafter ISM – vs. wind (Chevalier & Li (1999))). A change of the slope (i.e. a break) of the light curve is produced either when a spectral break (like that associated to $`\nu _c`$, the cooling frequency of electrons ) transits the observed frequency window or when “bulk” variations,- i.e. global changes of the kinematics or hydrodynamics of the fireball,- take place. The latter is the case of jet expansion or the transition from relativistic to non-relativistic expansion (hereafter named NRE). In contrast to the effect of spectral breaks, jet expansion and NRE produce achromatic breaks in the light curves. In a jet this happens when the beaming angle of the fireball ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the Lorentz factor), becomes similar to the opening angle of the jet, $`\theta `$ (Sari, Piran & Halpern (1999); Roads (1999)), at the time $`t_\theta `$:

$$t_\theta (1+z)(\frac{E_{i,53}}{n})^{1/3}(\frac{\theta }{0.1})^{8/3}\mathrm{days},$$
(1)
where $`n=n_610^6\mathrm{cm}^3`$ is the density and $`E_i=E_{i,53}10^{53}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ is the energy the fireball would have if it were spherically symmetric; i.e., in the case of a jet of solid angle $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$, its energy would be $`E=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }E_i`$.

The transition to NRE instead occurs when the blast wave has swept up a rest-mass energy equal to its initial energy, at a time (e.g. Wijers, Rees & Mészáros (1997), Livio & Waxman (2000), hereafter LW):

$$t_{NRE}3\frac{1+z}{2}(\frac{E_{53}}{n_6})^{1/3}\mathrm{days}$$
(2)
Both jet and NRE can therefore yield achromatic breaks a few days after the burst. The NRE requires an external medium of a much higher density than that of a jet. This is indeed what one would expect if GRB originate in dense star forming regions, a scenario for which supporting evidence is accumulating (e.g. Piro et al. 2000a ; Kulkarni et al.  (2000)).

So far, evidence of achromatic breaks has been claimed in some optical afterglows (e.g.Harrison et al.  (1999); Kulkarni et al.  (1999)), but an unambiguous detection of this feature in the X-ray range is still missing (e.g. Kuulkers et al.  (2000); Pian et al.  (2001)). Most of the authors attribute this feature to jet behavior, although this model may have some problem in accounting for the sharpness of the transition (Rhoads & Fruchter (2001)). In fact, there is no - a priori - reason to exclude a NRE and there is at least one case (GRB990123) in which it has been attributed to either cases (Kulkarni et al.  (1999); Dai & Lu (1999)). In GRB000926 a break in the optical light curve at $`t2`$ days has been reported by several groups (Fynbo et al. 2000b ; Veillet (2000); Halpern et al.  (2000); Rol et al.  (2000), Price et al. (2000, hereafter P0). The observed variation of the temporal slope of $`2`$ is much larger than the value of 0.25 expected by a spectral break (Sari, Piran & Halpern (1999)). Indeed, a jet scenario has been proposed to explain this behavior (P ).

In this paper we report on BeppoSAX and Chandra observations of the afterglow of this burst (Sect. 2 & 3). Those observation occurred around and after the break observed in the optical. We compare X-ray with optical data (Sect.4) and show that they are explained by jet behavior and a NRE into a high density medium.

## 2 Observations, data analysis and the X-ray spectrum

The gamma-ray burst GRB000926 was detected by the Interplanetary Network (IPN) on $`t_0=`$Sep.26.99 U.T. (Hurley et al.  (2000)). It was a moderately bright GRB, with a revised 25-100 keV fluence of $`6.2\times 10^6\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, and a duration of about 25 s (Hurley et al.  (2000)). Optical observations (Dall et al.  (2000), Gorosabel et al.  (2000)) showed an optical counterpart, at a very bright level ($`R=19.3`$) one day after the GRB. This is the second brightest afterglow ever observed in the optical band. This finding triggered two rapid target of opportunity observations in X-rays, one with BeppoSAX and the other with Chandra. A second Chandra observation was scheduled around $`t=t_0+12`$ days, to study the late time evolution of the afterglow.

The BeppoSAX (Piro, Scarsi & Butler (1995); Boella et al.  (1997)) observation started on Sep. 29.03 ($`tt_0=`$2 days) and lasted for 12 hrs. Effective exposure times were 20 ksec for the MECS(1.6-10 keV) and 5 ksec for the LECS(0.1-10 keV). The analysis of the MECS image showed a previously unknown fading source in a position consistent, within the error of $`50^{\prime \prime }`$, with the optical transient, and therefore identified as the X-ray afterglow of GRB000926 (Piro et al. 2000b ; Piro et al. 2000c ). The source was only marginally detected in the LECS. The average count rate of the source in the MECS(1.6-10 keV) is $`(3.2\pm 0.6)\times 10^3cts/s`$. The spectrum is well fitted by a power law with energy index $`\alpha =(0.9\pm 0.7)`$111 Hereafter errors and upper limits on fit parameters, including temporal slopes, correspond to 90% confidence level for one parameter of interest and absorption by our Galaxy ($`N_H=2.7\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2`$) and F(1.6-10 keV)=F(0.2-5 keV)$`=(2.6\pm 0.6)\times 10^{13}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. We have checked different background subtraction methods, finding that the corresponding systematic effect amount to less than about 15%. This has been included in the flux error quoted above.

A Chandra X-ray Observatory (Weisskopf et al.  (1996)) TOO observation (hereafter C1) with the ACIS-S began on Sep. 29.674 ($`tt_0`$=2.7 days) and ended on Sep. 29.851, with an exposure time of 10ks. The X-ray afterglow was observed at a position RA(2000)=17h 04m 09.6s; Decl. (2000)= +51 47’ 8.6” with an uncertainty of $`2\mathrm{"}`$, consistent with the optical position. The source count rate in the 0.3-5 keV range is $`(2.9\pm 0.2)\times 10^2`$ cts s-1, corresponding to a flux F(0.2-5 keV)$`=(1.2\pm 1.0)\times 10^{13}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ for the best fit power law spectrum. This has $`\alpha =(0.8\pm 0.2)`$, i.e. consistent with the BeppoSAX slope, and absorption $`N_H=(5\pm 3)\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, consistent with that of our Galaxy. Since the BeppoSAX and Chandra spectral shapes are consistent, we have fitted them simultaneously linking the spectral parameters (but for the normalizations). We obtain a good fit ($`\chi ^2=25.6,\nu =26`$) with $`\alpha =0.85\pm 0.15`$, a ratio of the BeppoSAX over Chandra normalization of $`2.3\pm 0.6`$ and some marginal evidence of intrinsic absorption (in addition to the one in our Galaxy) in the rest frame of the GRB (z=2.06 Fynbo et al. 2000a ; Castro et al.  (2000))), corresponding to a column density $`N_{HGRB}=(0.4_{0.25}^{+0.35})\times 10^{22}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. The residuals around 2 keV, i.e. the iron line region in the rest frame of the GRB (Fig.1 ), are marginal, with an upper limit on an iron line of $`I<2\times 10^5\mathrm{cm}^2`$ s-1, corresponding to an equivalent width $`EW<1`$ keV. For comparison, the iron line detected by Chandra in GRB991216 has $`EW=0.5`$ keV (Piro et al. 2000a ).

The last Chandra observation (hereafter C2) took place on Oct.10.176 and ended on Oct. 10.58. The afterglow count rate had faded to $`2.0\pm 0.75\times 10^3\mathrm{cs}^1`$ (0.3–5.0 keV), allowing $`60`$ counts to be collected in the 33 ksec exposure. With so few counts it is difficult to place good constraints on $`\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`\alpha `$ simultaneously, so we fix $`N_{HGRB}=0(\mathrm{or}0.4)\times 10^{22}cm^2`$ and find $`\alpha =0.85\pm 0.15(\mathrm{or}1.2\pm 0.3))`$. The flux in the 0.2-5 keV range derived by the best fit power law is equal in both cases to $`(8.3\pm 1.1)\times 10^{15}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. An overall fit on the three data sets (see Fig. 1) gives $`\chi ^2/\nu =30.8/24`$, with spectral parameters consistent with those derived previously (see the inset in Fig.1) and a ratio of the normalizations C2/C1 of $`(7.7\pm 1.1)\times 10^2`$.

We find marginal evidence of a steeper spectrum in C2. The ratio of count rates in the 0.2-1.5 keV range over 1.5-8 keV is in fact $`2.1\pm 0.6`$ and $`3.9\pm 0.2`$ in C1 and C2 respectively. If we leave the slope of C2 unlinked in the combined fit of all data sets, we get $`\alpha _{C2}=1.23\pm 0.3`$. While this result is of marginal statistical significance, it is interesting to note that the difference in slope between C2 and C1+BeppoSAX is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =0.4\pm 0.3`$, i.e. consistent with the steepening of 1/2 expected when $`\nu _c`$ passes into the energy window.

An intrinsic column density $`N_{HGRB}0.4\times 10^{22}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ is marginally detected at a confidence level of $`98\%`$ (see the inset in Fig.1). We remark that, since most of the local gas is ionized by GRB photons (Boettcher et al.  (1999)), the real column density can be much higher. Assuming that the relation between the optical extinction $`A_V`$ and $`N_H`$ is similar to that in our own galaxy (e.g. Predehl & Schmitt (1995)), gives $`A_v2`$. This value is $`220`$ greater than that derived by optical measurements (P ), implying a dust-to-gas ratio much lower than that of our Galaxy. This effect has been observed in other GRB (Galama & Wijers (2000)) and it may be the result of destruction of dust by the GRB radiation (Waxman & Draine (2000)).

## 3 A very steep X-ray decay

In the BeppoSAX data the source exhibits a substantial decay, decreasing by a factor of $`(1.7\pm 0.5)`$ in 6 hours. This corresponds to a power law decay $`F(tt_0)^{\delta _X}`$ with slope $`\delta _X4`$. This behaviour is consistent with the first Chandra observation, that took place near the end of the BeppoSAX observation, and whose flux was a factor $`2.3\pm 0.6`$ times lower than the average BeppoSAX flux. Combining these two data sets (Fig.2) we derive a slope $`\delta _X=3.7_{1.6}^{+1.3}`$, in agreement with the optical slope measured after the break. The late Chandra point appears to deviate from this law, the slope connecting C1 with C2 being $`\delta _x=1.70\pm 0.16`$. However, when the large error of the earlier slope is considered, the two measurements are nearly compatible (Fig. 2). A combined fit to all the X-ray data points gives then $`\delta _X=1.89_{0.16}^{+0.19}`$ with F(2-10 keV)=$`1.19\times 10^{12}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ at $`t=1`$ day.

The X-ray decay of GRB000926 is much steeper than that typically observed in X-ray afterglows, where $`\delta _X1.4`$ (Piro (2000)). We remark, however, that previous observations covered the evolution of the afterglow primarily at $`tt_0<2`$ days. The data presented here are instead sampling the X-ray behaviour at later times. It is in this domain that we expect deviations due to either a jet or NRE.

## 4 Jet vs NRE of a spherical fireball in a dense medium

The optical data (Fig.2) are nicely fitted by the standard jet model with synchrotron emission (P ) but, when X-ray data are considered, we find inconsistencies with this scenario. The relationship linking the temporal and spectral slopes are (Sari, Piran & Halpern (1999)) $`\delta =2\alpha +1`$ ($`\nu <\nu _c`$) and $`\delta =2\alpha =`$ ($`\nu >\nu _c`$). We find then that the X-ray temporal and spectral slopes $`\delta _X=1.9`$ and $`\alpha _x=0.85`$ are consistent only with the case of a cooling frequency below the X-ray range. The slope $`p`$ of the electron distribution $`N_e\gamma ^p`$ would then be $`p=\delta =2\alpha =1.7\pm 0.3`$, i.e. marginally compatible with the minimum slope needed to avoid an infinite energy content in electrons. A more relevant problem of this model is that the predicted temporal slope is significantly lower than the one measured in optical (P ; see also Fig. 1), $`\delta _O=2.3\pm 0.08`$. Furthermore, the electron slope derived from the optical data under the same scenario ($`p=2.39\pm 0.15`$) is not consistent with the X-ray derivation. Finally we note that the - admittedly marginal - evidence of a spectral steepening in C2, argues against a jet behavior, during which $`\nu _c`$ remains constant.

We now examine the alternative explanation of a transition to NRE of a spherical fireball . The relationships linking $`\delta `$ and $`\alpha `$ are given in Livio & Waxman (2000). We find that the X-ray data are consistent with a NRE either in a uniform density medium ( which gives $`\delta =2.17\pm 0.45`$) or in a wind ($`\delta =2.3\pm 0.35`$). The cooling frequency is now above the X-ray range, and therefore $`p=2.7\pm 0.3`$. In this case the optical and X-ray spectral data points should lie on a single power law. We have evaluated the slope $`\alpha _{OX}=\frac{log(F_X/F_O)}{log(\nu _X/\nu _O)}`$ of the power law connecting the flux at 1 keV observed by Chandra ($`F_X`$) with the R band flux extrapolated at the time of the Chandra observation ($`F_O`$, Fig.2) and corrected for the extinction (P ). We find $`\alpha _{OX}=0.91.1`$, in agreement with the slope measured in X-rays. Before the break the evolution is indistinguishable from that of a spherical relativistic fireball, which follows a decay with $`\delta =1.3\pm 0.2`$ (ISM) or $`\delta =1.8\pm 0.2`$ (wind). The latter case is not compatible with the optical slope measured before the break (P ), and we conclude that both optical and X-ray data are consistent with a spherical expansion in a uniform medium, with the temporal break produced by a transition to NRE. From eq.(2) we derive $`n_610`$. We have estimated, following Freedman and Waxman (2000), a fireball energy comparable to the observed $`\gamma `$-ray isotropic energy, which is $`E_{i,\gamma }=8\times 10^{52}`$erg ($`z=2.03`$ (Castro et al.  (2000)), $`H_0=75`$ km/s/Mpc, $`q_0=1/2`$). The absorbing column density is $`N_Hnr_{NRE}10^{23}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, where the radius $`r_{NRE}10^{16}`$cm (LW ). This is in apparent disagreement with the upper limits derived by the X-ray spectrum. This disagreement is rectified by recalling that the medium is heavily ionized by the GRB photons, and therefore its effective absorption is negligible (Boettcher et al.  (1999)).

## 5 A collimated fireball in a dense medium

There remains, however, a discrepancy between optical and X-ray data, that is not accounted for by previous models. The X-ray decay after the break ($`\delta _X=1.70\pm 0.16`$) is significantly flatter than the optical one ($`\delta _O=2.30\pm 0.08`$, P ). In fact, the extrapolation of the X-ray flux with the optical slope at the time of the second Chandra observation underestimates the observed flux by a factor of $`2\pm 0.5`$ (Fig.2). This indicates the presence of a flattening taking place in between the two sets of observations, as predicted in the case of a jet expansion followed by a transition to NRE(LW ). In this case, the lateral expansion of the jet begins when it is relativistic, and during the lateral expansion stage there is rapid decline of the flux due to the rapid decrease of the fireball energy per unit solid angle (as this angle increases). This is producing the first break in the light curve. The time at which the jet completes its side-ways expansion, is roughly the same time at which the flow becomes sub-relativistic. At this stage, lateral expansion is no longer important, and the rapid flux decline due to lateral expansion ceases, leading to a flattening of the light curve. This effect appears more evident in X-rays, which are not contaminated at later times by the presence of a fairly bright host galaxy (P ).

We show now that both optical and X-ray data are in agreement with this scenario. The light curve of the afterglow is composed by three subsequent power laws with decay slopes $`\delta _1`$, $`\delta _2`$, and $`\delta _3`$, that we have modeled with the empirical formula :

$$F(t)=F(t_{b1})\frac{[(\frac{t}{t_{b1}})^{\delta _1s}+(\frac{t}{t_{b1}})^{\delta _2s}]^{1/s}}{[1+(\frac{t}{t_{b2}})^{\delta _2s}]^{1/s}[1+(\frac{t}{t_{b2}})^{\delta _3s}]^{1/s}}$$
(3)
The parameter $`s`$ describes the sharpness of the breaks. The temporal slopes are related to the power law index of electrons by relationships that depend on the location of $`\nu _c`$ and on the density distribution of the external medium (LW ). We can exclude most of the cases as follows. $`\alpha _{OX}\alpha _x`$ implies that $`\nu _c`$ is either below the optical or above the X-ray range. In the first case, we would have $`p=2\alpha _X=1.7`$ that, besides being less than 2, would give temporal slopes flatter than observed. In fact: $`\delta _1=\frac{(3p2)}{4}=0.8`$, $`\delta _2=p=1.7`$ and $`\delta _3=1+\frac{7}{6}(p2)=0.65`$ (wind) or $`\delta _3=1+\frac{3}{2}(p2)=0.55`$ (ISM). During the jet phase $`\nu _c=const`$ while, in the NRE phase, $`\nu _c`$ increases (decreases) with time for a wind (ISM). In the case of a wind $`\nu _c`$ could move above the optical range, but still giving a flat slope $`\delta _3=\frac{3}{2}+\frac{7}{6}(p2)=1.15`$.

Let us now examine the case of $`\nu _c`$ lying above the X-ray range. This implies $`p=2\alpha _X+1=2.7`$. The case of a wind is excluded because $`\delta _1=1.8`$, i.e. greater than observed. For a ISM we have $`\delta _1=\frac{3}{4}(p1)=1.3`$, $`\delta _2=p=2.7`$ and $`\delta _3=\frac{9}{10}+\frac{3}{2}(p2)=1.95`$, which appear to be consistent with the data. We have assessed this case more quantitatively by fitting eq.(3), with the slopes expressed as a function of $`p`$, to the optical data (with the contribution of the host galaxy subtracted) . We obtain $`p=2.57\pm 0.3`$, in nice agreement with the value derived from the X-ray spectra, $`t_{b1}=1.76_{0.4}^{+0.7}`$ days, $`t_{b2}=5.5\pm 2`$ days, and $`s=1.7\pm 0.3`$. Moreover, this same law (i.e. rescaling the normalization but with the same parameters determined by the optical light curve) fits fairly well all the X-ray data points, and in particular reproduce C2 (Fig. 3). We also note that this law predicts a temporal slope of about 2.6 around 2 days, nearer to the steep decay observed in the BeppoSAX an C1 observations.

The simultaneous determination of $`t_\theta =t_{b1}`$ and $`t_{NRE}=t_{b2}`$ allows an unambiguous determination (i.e. not depending on estimates of $`E_i`$ and $`n`$) of the jet angle (LW ). In fact $`t_{NRE}=(1+z)^{3/4}(\frac{E_{i,53}}{n_6})^{1/4}t_\theta ^{1/4}`$ which, when combined with eq.(1), gives $`\theta =0.7(\frac{t_\theta }{t_{NRE}})^{1/2}=0.4`$. The total $`\gamma `$-ray energy is then, for a two-sided jet, $`E_\gamma =0.16E_{\gamma ,i}=1.2\times 10^{52}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Finally, the density $`n_6=(1+z)^3E_{i,53}\frac{t_\theta }{t_{NRE}^4}0.04`$. Note that the jet angle is rather insensitive to the errors in the determination of break times. Conversely, the density should be considered as an order of magnitude estimate, due to the strong dependence on $`t_{NRE}`$ and to model details (LW ). We have finally checked whether the value of density is compatible with the broad band spectrum of the GRB, following the prescriptions of Wijers & Galama (1999). Since the parameters one derives are dependent on the model adopted, we have restricted the analysis to the data before the break, when the fireball evolution is indistinguishable from the spherical case. From the radio data (Frail, private communication; Harrison et al. (2001)) and the extrapolation of the optical-to-X-ray spectrum at lower frequencies, we derive that the synchrotron self-absorption frequency $`\nu _a`$ and frequency of the maximum flux $`\nu _m`$ should be in the range between $`10^{10}10^{12}`$Hz, and that the flux at $`\nu _m`$ should be $``$a few mJy. Furthermore, as we have shown before, $`\nu _c\stackrel{>}{}10^{18}`$ Hz. The large range spanned by these quantities gives a density spread over orders of magnitude that, however, comfortably include the density estimate derived before.

## 6 Conclusions

In this paper we have shown that X-ray observations of the afterglow of GRB000926 around and after the break observed in the optical confirm the presence of this feature in X-rays as well. However, they are not consistent with the standard jet scenario based on synchrotron emission, requiring a more complicated model. We find that both the spectral and temporal properties of X-ray and optical data are compatible with a moderately collimated fireball ($`\theta 25^{}`$) expanding in a dense medium ($`n4\times 10^4`$ cm-3). This produces two breaks in the light curve. The first is due, as usual, to a jet behavior. The second, around 5 days, is attributed to a transition to NRE due to the high density of the external medium, and is followed by a flattening of the curve, that accounts for the late X-ray measurement, and is also preferred by optical data. Optical measurements at later times should help to characterize this behavior but, to do so, it will be necessary to actually single out the afterglow from the host in the image. Current estimates of the contribution of the host galaxy from the flattening exhibited by the light curve will, in fact, cancel out any intrinsic flattening due to the afterglow. Finally, we note that we cannot exclude other possibilities like, for example, an event of gravitational lensing (Mao & Loeb (2001)) that amplified the flux around 12 days, or a contribution of an Inverse Compton component to the late X-ray emission (Harrison et al. 2001). An analysis of different options goes, however, beyond the scope of this paper.

Our result supports the association of GRB with star forming regions. In fact, the density is consistent with that of very dense molecular clouds ($`n10^4`$ cm-3). On the other hand it is not as high as that required to produce the iron lines observed in some X-ray afterglows (e.g.Antonelli et al.  (2001); Piro et al. 2000a  and references therein), which is possibly connected with much denser ($`n10^{10}`$cm-3) progenitor ejecta. In these cases the environment must be composed by at least two regions, since the fireball requires a medium with a density $`n\stackrel{<}{}10^7`$cm-3 to produce an afterglow lasting at least a few days. The properties of this medium, in particular the density, are not the same in all GRB. While in this GRB we find $`n4\times 10^4`$cm-3, in several other GRB the density should be much lower, as indicated, for example, by the absence of breaks in the optical light curves (Kulkarni et al.  (2000)) or by the evidence of relativistic expansion several weeks after the GRB (Waxman, Kulkarni & Frail (1998)). Another element of diversity in GRB appears to be the magnetic field strength. In this burst the magnetic field density is estimated to be less than $`10^6`$ times the equipartition value, comparable to that of GRB971214 (Wijers & Galama (1999)) and GRB990123 (Galama et al.  (1999)), but four orders of magnitude weaker than in GRB970508 (Wijers & Galama (1999)). As suggested by Galama et al. (1999), such differences in field strength may reflect differences in energy flow from the central engine.

We thank the BeppoSAX & Chandra teams for the support, in particular H. Tananbaum for the organization of the Chandra TOO. BeppoSAX is a program of the Italian space agency (ASI) with participation of the Dutch space agency (NIVR). KH is grateful for Ulysses support under JPL contract NAG 5-9503, and for NEAR support under NASA grant NAG5-95903. GG & PM acknowledge support under NASA grant G00-1010X. MRG acknowledges support under NASA contract NAG8-39073 to the Chandra X-Ray Center.