text:
# Extreme Synchrotron BL Lac Objects

## 1 Introduction

Among active galactic nuclei (AGNs), blazars are the objects most dominated by non thermal continuum emission, which extends from radio to gamma rays, and whose properties are best explained by emitting plasma in relativistic motion towards the observer, closely aligned with the line of sight (see e.g. Urry & Padovani 1995). Their spectral energy distribution (SED), in a $`\nu F_\nu `$ representation, is characterized by two main broad peaks: that at low energy is commonly explained as synchrotron emission by highly relativistic electrons, while that at higher energy is probably due to Inverse Compton emission of the same electrons off seed photons, which can be either the same synchrotron photons produced locally, or photons from the external environment (see e.g. Ghisellini et al. 1996; Sikora et al. 1997; Ghisellini & Madau 1997; Dermer et al. 1997).

Among blazars, BL Lacertae objects are the sources with the highest variety of synchrotron peak frequencies, ranging from the IR–optical to the UV–soft-X bands (called Low or High energy peak BL Lacs, i.e. LBL or HBL, respectively; see Padovani & Giommi 1995). In the past the picture given by X–ray and radio surveys presented a bimodality in the distribution of the sources, with radio–selected objects mostly LBLs, and X–ray selected mostly HBLs. New results are now revealing a more continuous scenario. On one hand, new surveys like the DXRBS (Perlman et al. 1998), the RGB (Laurent–Muehleisen et al. 1998) and the REX (Caccianiga et al. 1999) are showing a more continuous and “smoother” range in peak frequencies. The “gap” in the SEDs properties is now filled thanks to the covering of previously unexplored regions of the parameters space (in $`F_x`$, $`F_r`$ and broad band spectral indices $`\alpha _{rx}`$, $`\alpha _{ro}`$ and $`\alpha _{ox}`$). On the other hand, the BeppoSAX observations of Mkn 501 (Pian et al. 1997) and 1ES 2344+514 (Giommi et al. 2000) have revealed that the synchrotron peak not only can reach the 2–10 keV band (as was known for few sources, like Mkn 421), but can go even further, up or above 100 keV, at least in a flaring state. These exceptional observations have extended by nearly two orders of magnitude the known “available” range of synchrotron peak frequencies, disclosing a new region of possible physical parameters that can give us valuable insights on the still unknown particle acceleration mechanism.

At present, however, very little is known about such extreme objects: we do not know if they are very rare or not, and if these energies are reached only during flares or also in normal, “quiescent” states. Another interesting topic is if there exists an upper limit to the peak frequency, and if we have already observed it or not. In order to answer to these questions, a necessary step is to find and study other objects of this kind, sampling more accurately the high energy region ($`>1`$ keV) of the peak sequence. With this goal,we have proposed and performed an observational campaign using the BeppoSAX satellite (Boella et al. 1997), after selecting a sample of candidates. The X–ray band is ideal for this purpose: in this band, objects characterized by different synchrotron peak frequencies show different spectral properties, according to the dominant radiation process (synchrotron or inverse Compton). This provides means to roughly estimate the position of the synchrotron peak, with the aid of the overall SED shape to recognize the origin of the X–ray emission.

In fact, the X–ray spectral index might even be considered the parameter by which to classify the source: BL Lacs which have the synchrotron peak in the IR band (i.e. LBLs), have a flat ($`\alpha _x<1`$) X–ray spectral index, due to inverse Compton emission, as for FSRQs 111 We call flat or steep a power law spectrum with index $`\alpha <1`$ or $`\alpha >1`$ respectively. This convention corresponds to rising or decaying (with frequency) spectra in a $`\nu `$$`\nu F_\nu `$ plot. . As the peak shifts towards higher energies, the synchrotron emission becomes more and more dominant in the X–ray band, and so we have, in sequence: intermediate BL Lacs, where we see the high energy tail of the synchrotron emission in the soft X–ray band and the flat inverse Compton spectrum in the hard band, resulting in a concave X–ray spectral shape ($`\alpha _{\mathrm{soft}}>1`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{hard}}<1`$); HBLs, where the X–ray band is completely dominated by the synchrotron emission above its peak, and so show a steep spectral index ($`\alpha _x>1`$); and Extreme BL Lacs, where the synchrotron peak becomes visible directly in the X–ray band at energies $`>1`$ keV (resulting in a convex spectrum with $`\alpha _{\mathrm{soft}}<1`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{hard}}>1`$, or in a flat X–ray slope all the way up to the maximum observable X–ray energies, as in the case of Mkn 501). Thanks to its wide energy band (0.1–100 keV), the BeppoSAX satellite offers the best opportunity to identify and study these extreme sources.

## 2 The sample

Our candidates have been selected from the HEAO1 survey, the Einstein Slew Survey and the Rosat All Sky Survey Bright Sources Catalogue (RASSBSC), using also information in other bands to construct the SEDs and to determine the broad band spectral indices ($`\alpha _{ro}`$, $`\alpha _{ox}`$ and $`\alpha _{rx}`$). These are good indicators of the location of the synchrotron peak, since objects of different characteristics tend to gather in different regions of the parameter space (Stocke et al. 1991; Padovani & Giommi 1995; Fossati et al. 1998; Padovani et al. 1997; see also Fig. 1).

The selection criteria were based on properties suggesting a high value of the synchrotron peak energy:

* a very high $`F_x/F_{\mathrm{radio}}`$ ratio ($`>3\times 10^{10}`$ erg cm-2 s-1/Jy, measured at least once, in the \[0.1–2.4\] keV band and at 5 GHz respectively);
* flat X–ray spectrum (when available), connecting smoothly with the flux at lower frequencies;
* appropriate values of $`\alpha _{ro}`$, $`\alpha _{ox}`$ and $`\alpha _{rx}`$ (see e.g. Fig. 1).

In addition, a high X–ray flux ($`>10^{11}`$ erg s-1 cm-2) was also requested, to achieve a good detection in the PDS instrument.

## 3 BeppoSAX observations

In Table 1 we report the observation log and some basic information for the seven observed sources. The LECS and PDS exposure times are usually shorter than the MECS ones, due to light leakage in the LECS instrument, which forces to take the exposures only during the part of the orbit in the earth shadow cone; and due to the on–off source switching for the PDS instrument.

The data analysis was based on the linearized, cleaned event files obtained from the BeppoSAX Science Data Center (SDC) on–line archive (Giommi & Fiore 1997). The data from the single MECS units were merged in one event file by SDC, based on sky coordinates. The event file was then screened with a time filter (from SDC) to exclude those intervals related to events without attitude solution (i.e. conversion from detector to sky coordinates), as recommended by SDC (see Handbook for NFI Spectral Analysis, Fiore et al., 1999). Due to remaining calibration uncertainties, the channels 1–10 and over 4 keV for the LECS, and 0–36 and 220–256 for the MECS were excluded from the spectral analysis. Standard extraction radii of 4 and 8 arcmin for MECS and LECS respectively were used, except for PKS 0548–322 (see paragraph 3.2.3).

The PDS instrument has no imaging capability, and its f.o.v. ($`1.4^{}`$ FWHM) is larger than the other Narrow Field Instruments (radius $`28^{}`$ for the MECS). Therefore there is the possibility for PDS spectra to be contaminated by hard serendipitous sources in the f.o.v, not visible in the smaller MECS images. To explore this possibility, for each object we checked in the NED and WGACAT databases for the presence of potentially contaminating sources.

### 3.1 Time analysis

We looked for time variability in each observation, using time bins from 500 to 10,000 s: no significant variability has been detected ($`\chi ^2`$–test constance probabilities $`>20\%`$), except for 1ES 1426+428. For this source the lightcurve clearly shows a trend (see Fig. 2), with a flux decreasing in the central part of the observation by about $`10\%`$ in 10 hours, before rising again. This variability is indicated by the low $`\chi ^2`$–test probability of constant flux ($`<0.02\%`$), and confirmed by the fact that the same pattern is visible in the lightcurves from the single MECS2 and MECS3 instruments. No significant variations are present in the LECS lightcurves, but the lower statistics does not allow to draw conclusions on a different behaviour of the low energy emission.

Fig. 2 also shows the corresponding hardness ratio (HR): the scatter is not compatible with a constant value. After the 11th hour there seems to be an anticorrelation between the HR and the countrate. However the significance of this anticorrelation is small: there is still a $``$20% probability to obtain the same correlation coefficient from a random sample.

### 3.2 Spectral Analysis

The spectral analysis was performed with the XSPEC 10.0 package, using the latest available response matrices and blank–sky background files (at 01/2000).

Particular attention was paid to the LECS blank–sky files, chosing those extracted in the same coordinate frame as the source files, to avoid the errors in the background subtraction arising from the different scaling of the area between raw and sky–detector coordinates.

The spectra were rebinned both with more than 20 net counts in each new bin and using the rebinning files provided by SDC, applying the Gehrels statistical weight (Gehrels 1986) when the resulting net counts were below 20 (typically 12–15 in some low energy channels of LECS). Various checks have shown that our results are independent, within the uncertainties, of the adopted rebinning. The LECS/MECS normalization factor was let free to vary: normal acceptable values should be within the 0.65–1.0 range, as indicated by SDC. For the PDS instead, the normalization factor was fixed at 0.9, as results from intercalibration tests performed on known sources (Fiore et al. 1999).

In order to unveil the possible presence of the synchrotron peak in the observed band, we have fitted routinely all datasets both with single and broken power–law models, with fixed Galactic and free absorption. The absorbing column density was parameterized in terms of $`N_\mathrm{H}`$, the HI column density, with heavier elements fixed at solar abundances and cross sections taken from Morrison & McCammon (1983). The Galactic value was derived from the nh program at HEASARC (based on Dickey & Lockman 1990), except for 1ES 1218+304, for which a direct measure is available (Elvis et al. 1989). The results from the single power-law fits are reported in Table 2, while Table 3 reports the broken power-law fits parameters. Adopting a conservative approach, we assessed the presence of a spectral break when the broken power-law model was significantly better, according to the F–test, even with respect to the single power–law model with free absorption. These are the cases presented in Table 3. Instead, when the fits were not significantly improved, we considered the single power–law model with free or galactic absorption as an adequate representation of the data.

For most of the single power–law models, as shown in Table 2, the fits are improved (with significance $`>99.9\%`$) adopting an absorption value greater than the galactic one. In most cases, however, the broken power–law models with galactic absorbing columns provided even better fits (according to the F–test, see Table 3). For 1ES 0033+595 and PKS 0548–322, instead, there is evidence for a higher column density also using the broken power–law models. To check if this extra absorption is real, we have used for these datasets also the “curved spectrum” model, as in Fossati et al. 2000.

In the following sections we present the details of the analysis for each object, along with some notes on the individual characteristics.

#### 3.2.1 1ES 0033+595

This source was detected in the LECS instrument only above 0.4 keV, due to the high galactic absorption, and in the PDS instrument up to $`60`$ keV. The spectrum is characterized by a curved shape, which is better fitted by a broken power-law than by a single power-law model (with both fixed and free absorption). The best fit, however, still requires a column density in excess of the galactic value (see Table 3), with high significance (F–test $`>99.8\%`$). The spectral indices before and after the break energy are lower and higher than 1, respectively, thus locating the synchrotron peak at the break energy itself, around 3 keV. The PDS data agree well with the extrapolation of the power-law after the break. The obtained $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ values higher than the galactic one cannot be accounted for by a curved model: this gives unplausible values for the spectral index at low energies ($`\alpha _1=0.1`$ at 0.5 keV), for galactic absorption. More likely values ($`\alpha _1=0.60.8`$) are obtained with a column density close to the one given by the broken power-law fit ($`5.76.3`$ x1021 cm-2). This object has been observed also by the Hubble Space Telescope as part of the “snapshot survey” of BL Lac objects, and was resolved into two point-like sources, with a separation of $`1\mathrm{}.58`$. It is a possible case of gravitational lensing (for a discussion of this hypothesis, see Scarpa et al. 1999, and Falomo & Kotilainen 1999).

#### 3.2.2 1ES 0120+340

This source was observed twice in a month, and was about $`20\%`$ weaker during the second observation. The best fits are shown in Fig. 4. In both epochs, a good fit is obtained with the single power–law model, but with a free absorption well in excess of the galactic value, at more than 99.9% confidence (see Fig. 5). As shown in Fig. 5 (and also indicated by the different ratio of MECS/LECS countrates), the spectral index has varied significantly, so it was not possible to sum the observations to enhance the S/N ratio.

In the second observation, a better fit is provided by a broken power–law model with galactic absorption, according to the F–test ($`>97\%`$). This is also consistent with previous results by Brinkmann et al. 1994 (RASS data), which reported absorption values near the galactic one \[$`\alpha =0.93\pm 0.35`$, $`N_\mathrm{H}=5.1\pm 1.4\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2, $`\chi _\nu ^2`$$`=0.97(13d.o.f.)`$, $`F_x=4.50\times 10^{11}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 in the ROSAT band\]. In the first observation, instead, a higher column density is required even with a broken power–law model \[$`\chi _\nu ^2`$$`=`$0.98($`120d.o.f.`$), to be compared with $`\chi _\nu ^2`$$`=`$1.10($`121d.o.f.`$) found with galactic NH\]. Comparing the two LECS datasets, the main differences lie in the 0.1–0.3 keV range, where oddly the higher flux observation presents a lack of soft photons with respect to the lower flux data. A check on the local background, compared to the blank–sky one, showed no relevant differences. Although this behavior could in principle be due to a variable absorption, either local or at the source, the low S/N in that energy range does not allow to draw reliable conclusions. Beyond 0.3 keV, the galactic column density provides good fits both with single and broken power–law models. Given the previous ROSAT results, we regard it as the most likely hypothesis, however future observations with higher S/N are necessary to settle this issue.

The source was detected also with the PDS (see Fig. 4), but with a flux incompatible with that expected by a simple extrapolation of the LECS+MECS data. Possible explanations are a flattening ($`\alpha 1`$) of the spectrum due to the emerging of an inverse Compton component (not unconceivable, given its SED, see Fig. 14), or the contamination by other sources in the field of view not visible in the imaging instruments. This last hypothesis is corroborated by the presence, at $`36^{}`$ from the BL Lac object, of the galaxy NGC 513 (z=0.0195), identified as a Seyfert 2. Objects of this class, being heavily absorbed, can actually have a significant hard X–ray emission, even if the soft X–ray flux is low (the ROSAT WGACAT full band countrate for NGC 513 is $`0.0097\pm 0.0014`$ cts/s, corresponding to 1.45 $`\times 10^{13}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 for galactic absorption). To check this possibility, we have also added a power–law component to the model for the PDS data of 1ES 0120+340, to mimic the Seyfert 2 emission in the hard band, after accounting for the off–axis efficiency of the instrument. In this way, the PDS data of both epochs can be easily explained by a power–law component of $`\alpha 0.7`$ with a normalization at 1 keV of $`2.5\pm 1.4`$ $`\mu `$Jy, which requires a column density of $`4\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2 to account for the ROSAT countrate. These values are quite common for Seyfert 2 objects, so this is a likely possibility.

#### 3.2.3 PKS 0548–322

The planned observation for this object has been split in three parts. The second observation (26–27/2/99) was very short ($``$ 2000 s), and only MECS data are available. For the first observation (20/2/99), an extraction region of $`6^{}`$ of radius has been used for the LECS, due to the presence of a contaminating source in the field of view, at $`10^{}`$. We have identified this source with the star `GSC_07061_01558` in the Guide Star Catalog, probably in a flaring state: it is much less visible in the MECS image (indicating a very soft spectrum) and was completely absent in the LECS and MECS images of the third observation.

In both observations with LECS data, a single power–law fit with free absorption gives $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ values higher than the galactic one, at more than 99.9% confidence (see Fig. 7). The spectral index has varied significantly between the three observations, not allowing the sum of the datasets to enhance the S/N. For the third observation the single power–law model fits the data very well; instead, the first observation is significantly better fitted by a broken power–law (F–test $`>99.8\%`$), with a break around 4 keV. In both cases, the data require a column density in excess of the galactic one, with high significance (F–tests $`>99.9\%`$ and $`>99\%`$ respectively, see Table 2 and 3). A column density higher than galactic seems also suggested by the fit with the “curved” model: the fit with a galactic $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ provides low energies spectral indices slightly flatter than expected from a peak around 3–4 keV ($`\alpha _1=0.4`$ at 0.5 keV). More likely values are obtained with $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ around 3.6–4.5$`\times `$1020 cm-2 ($`\alpha _1=0.70.8`$).

Interestingly, this extra absorption could be associated with the BL Lac environment. In fact, PKS 0548–322 belongs to a rich cluster of galaxies, and has two companions, one of which is seen in close interaction with the host galaxy of the BL Lac object (from NTT images, see Falomo et al. 1995). Previous X–ray observations with ROSAT and ASCA (see Sambruna et al. 1998) show some evidence of spectral absorption features around 0.5 keV, which suggest the presence of circumnuclear ionized gas, perhaps fueled by the tidal interaction. Unfortunately our data, due to the low S/N ratio in the low energy band, cannot confirm nor exclude these features.

PKS 0548–322 was detected up to $`30`$ keV by the PDS: the data are compatible with the extrapolation of the power–law from lower energies.

#### 3.2.4 GB 1114+203

This source presents a very steep spectrum, with a further steepening beyond 1.6 keV best fitted by a broken power–law model. The column density is in agreement with the galactic value, within the errors. No detection was achieved in the PDS instrument. Although the flux level at 1 keV is comparable with that of other sources in the sample, the steepness of the spectrum ($`\alpha 1.9`$ beyond 1.6 keV) makes the source too faint to be detected in the PDS range. The two steep indices locate the synchrotron peak at lower energies than the observed X–ray band, thus identifying this object as a typical “normal” HBL.

#### 3.2.5 1ES 1218+304

As the previous object, also this source presented a steep spectrum best fitted by a broken power–law with high significance ($`>99.9\%`$). The found column density is in agreement with the galactic value. The source is detected in the PDS up to $`30`$ keV, and the data, although slightly higher, are compatible with the extrapolation of the LECS+MECS best fit model within the (large) uncertainties (Fig. 9). Again, the two steep X–ray indices identify this object as a normal HBL. Previous EXOSAT and ROSAT observations reported similar spectral properties, with steep slopes near the BeppoSAX values ($`\alpha 1.5\pm 0.1`$ and $`\alpha =1.22\pm 0.03`$ in the ME and PSPC instruments, respectively; see Sambruna et al. 1994, and Fossati et al. 1998).

#### 3.2.6 1ES 1426+428

The spectrum of this object is very well fitted by a single flat power–law model, with galactic absorption: there is no clear sign of bending in the shape of the residuals (see Fig. 10). Broken power–law models do not statistically improve the fit, and moreover give values of $`\alpha _1`$and $`\alpha _2`$both flatter than unity \[they are also only marginally different ($`\alpha _2`$$`\alpha _1`$$``$0.1)\]. The data in the PDS band are particularly important for this source, in order to assess or not the presence of a steeper component ($`\alpha >1`$) that would reveal the position of the synchrotron peak.

Unfortunately, the PDS data are contaminated by another known hard source, namely the quasar GB 1428+422 (Fabian et al. 1998). This object, characterized by a very flat spectral index ($`\alpha <0.5`$), lies at $`41\mathrm{}`$ from 1ES 1426+428, thus inside the PDS f.o.v. but outside the MECS f.o.v.. For a lucky coincidence however, the quasar was observed by BeppoSAX on 4/2/99, four days before our observation. Thanks to the collaboration between the two proposing groups, we have been able to estimate the relative inter–contamination. Furthermore, we have also checked in NED and WGACAT databases for other potentially contaminating sources within $`80\mathrm{}`$ from 1ES 1426+428, selecting hard sources (HR $`>0.8`$) and/or with a high countrate, excluding those already identified as stars, and estimating their flux in the PDS range under the assumption of a power–law spectrum.

Besides the quasar, the highest contributions came from two sources: WGA J1426.1+4247 ($`\alpha 0.57`$, ROSAT countrate =0.011 cts/s) and CRSS 1429.7+4240 ($`\alpha 0.87`$, ROSAT countrate =0.015 cts/s). Their estimated high energy X–ray flux turned out to be roughly two orders of magnitude lower than 1ES 1426+428 in the PDS band, so we did not consider them, leaving GB 1428+422 as the only contaminating source.

The PDS data of both blazars were contaminated one by the other. The strategy to disentangle the two contributions has been the following. First we fitted only the LECS+MECS data of both sources. Then we extrapolated these best fit models into the PDS range, for estimating the relative contaminations. We fitted the combined LECS+MECS+PDS data of one source, adding in the PDS range the LECS+MECS model of the other source, after accounting for the instrument off–axis response, and cross–checked the results for consistency. In Fig. 11 the single components of the models used in the 1ES 1426+428 fit are shown, together with the total expected flux in the PDS instrument. Of course, this technique is based on the assumption that no large changes of flux or spectral index occurred in the four days separating the two observations, but in any case it gives a reference point to estimate possible variations. Fig. 10 (left panel) shows the fit including for the PDS model the BeppoSAX spectrum of GB 1428+422 ($`\alpha =0.42`$, F$`{}_{1\mathrm{keV}}{}^{}=0.30\mu `$Jy). The PDS points remain slightly above the flat ($`\alpha _x=0.92`$) power–law that fits the 1ES 1426+428 LECS$`+`$MECS data, however the fit is good ($`\chi _r^2=1.06`$), with no sign of declining slope up to 100 keV. A broken power–law model gives even flatter indices above 10 keV ($`\alpha _20.30.4`$), however, these values are not very plausible, since, even not considering the GB 1428+426 contribution, the emerging of such a flat component would have implied a 3$`\sigma `$ detection in the PDS also in the 100–200 keV band, not observed ($`8.2\times 10^2`$ cts/s against the observed $`2.2\pm 2.7`$ $`\times 10^2`$ cts/s).

Assuming also the possibility of a large flux variation for GB 1428+422 (not unlikely: in 1998, during pointed ROSAT HRI observations, it has doubled its flux over a timescale of two weeks or less, see Fabian et al. 1999), we also fitted the PDS data letting the GB 1428+422 normalization free to vary (Fig. 10, right panel). Again, the 1ES 1426+428 spectrum remains flatter than unity up to 100 keV, even accounting for a GB 1428+422 increase of a factor $``$4 in 4 days, from $`F_{1\mathrm{keV}}=0.30\mu `$Jy to $`F_{1\mathrm{keV}}=1.44\mu `$Jy. Given the SED of 1ES 1426+428 (see Fig. 14), this result quite reliably constrains the synchrotron peak to lie near or above 100 keV.

#### 3.2.7 H 2356–309

The spectrum of this source is not compatible with a single power–law model: there is clear evidence for a convex spectral shape, that is best fitted by a broken power–law with high significance ($`>99.9\%`$, see Table 3). This locates the synchrotron peak around 1.8 keV. The found column density is around the galactic values. This source has been detected also in the PDS instrument up to $`50`$ keV (see Fig. 12) and the data lie on the extrapolation of the MECS power–law.

## 4 Comparision with previous X–ray observations

Among the seven sources of our sample, PKS 0548–322 and 1ES 1426+428 have been observed several times also by previuos X–ray missions. Here we compare our BeppoSAX results with older X–ray spectra, in order to reveal and study possible variations of the synchrotron peak frequency.

### 4.1 PKS 0548–322

Variations of the location of the synchrotron peak have been observed even during our BeppoSAX observations, showing a convex spectrum peaked around $`4`$ keV in the first dataset and a steep spectrum in the third observation (locating the synchrotron peak below the observed band). The ASCA observations (Sambruna et al. 1998) confirm the presence of a convex spectrum, but with the break at slightly lower energies, around 1.7 keV ($`\alpha _{\mathrm{soft}}=0.9\pm 0.1`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{hard}}=1.04\pm 0.02`$). The ROSAT slope agrees with the lower energy index of the ASCA broken power–law ($`\alpha =0.84\pm 0.05`$, Sambruna et al. 1998). The EXOSAT and GINGA satellites observed the source three and five times respectively, showing again an interesting spectral variability. The EXOSAT observations of 2 November 1983 (Garilli & Maccagni 1990) and 7 March 1986 (Barr et al. 1988) report a “convex” spectrum similar to our first dataset, with break energies indicating a synchrotron peak at $`2.8\pm 0.8`$ and $`5`$ keV, respectively. The 30 Nov. 1983 observation, instead, is well fitted by a steep single power–law ($`\alpha =1.2_{0.2}^{+0.1}`$ in the 0.02–7.2 keV band), as our third dataset (Garilli & Maccagni 1990). Four out of the five GINGA observations (Tashiro et al. 1995) carried out between January 1990 and March 1991, showed an X–ray slope $`\alpha _x1`$ between 2–30 keV (hence the synchrotron peak lies in this range). One observation instead (19 Feb. 1991), quite interestingly, was characterized by a very flat spectral index ($`\alpha =0.84\pm 0.02`$) over the whole energy range, which would locate the synchrotron peak at energies $``$30 keV. These data suggest a possible behavior similar to Mkn 501, with the synchrotron peak which sometimes reaches the hard X–ray band, even if most of the time is rather stable in the range 1–5 keV.

PKS 0548–322 has been observed also in the TeV band, but so far no detection was reported: CANGAROO observations between October and November 1997 showed no evidence for an on–source excess (Roberts et al. 1999). The simultaneous optical and XTE All Sky Monitor X–ray measurements did not show any special activity.

### 4.2 1ES 1426+428

Besides ROSAT, this source has been previously observed also by HEAO–1, EXOSAT, ASCA and the BBXRT experiment (details in Sambruna et al. 1994, 1997). In Fig. 13 we report the historical flux levels in the 2–10 keV band, together with the measured spectral indices in that band. In all the previous observations, there is no evidence of a flat spectrum above 2 keV, even in the presence of large flux variations. The BeppoSAX observation is the first where this source showed a flat spectrum up to 100 keV. In BBXRT and ASCA data, the full band spectrum is best fitted by a broken power–law: in this case, the resulting break energy locates the synchrotron peak, for both observations, between 1 and 2 keV. This source therefore has undergone a shift in the peak frequency of at least two orders of magnitude. Note that, as shown by Fig. 13, the BeppoSAX flux in the 2–10 keV band of 1ES 1426+428 is not particularly high: it is the second lowest state observed, about $``$20% higher than the lowest one, observed by ASCA ($`2.04`$ vs. $`1.64`$ $`\times 10^{11}`$ ergs cm-2 s-1, in the 2–10 keV band). This indicates that the object can be very powerful above 10 keV while remaining inconspicuous in the soft X–ray band. This is also supported by the XTE monitoring, which did not show any special activity during the BeppoSAX observation. The other two “over 100 keV” sources (i.e. Mkn 501 and 1ES 2344+514) showed a markedly different behavior, becoming very active and strong also below 10 keV when their synchrotron spectrum peaks at high energies. 1ES 1426+428 has shown that the soft X–ray activity is not always necessary to be a strong 100 keV synchrotron emitter. At the same time, in this source, a relatively faint 2–10 keV state does not guarantee a hard spectrum (see e.g. the ASCA and ROSAT data in Fig. 13): all this is revealing of a complex relation between the injected power and the location of the synchrotron peak.

## 5 Discussion

The main purpose of our observations was to characterize the global spectral properties of the selected candidates, verifying their “extremeness” by locating the position of the synchrotron peak by means of the X–ray spectrum itself and by the shape of the overall SED. The SEDs of the 7 sources, constructed with our BeppoSAX and literature data, are shown in Fig. 14 and 15. The BeppoSAX observations have revealed and confirmed the “extreme” nature of five objects: for four of them (1ES 0033+595, 1ES 0120+340, PKS 0548–322 and H 2356–309) the X–ray data themselves show the peak of the synchrotron emission, presenting a convex spectrum best fitted with a broken power–law whose break locates the peak in the 1–5 keV range. For 1ES 1426+428, instead, the flat X–ray spectrum up to 100 keV constrains the synchrotron peak to lie near or even above that value, and makes this source the third object ever found with such high peak frequencies, after Mkn 501 and 1ES 2344+514. For the last two sources (GB 1114+203 and 1ES 1218+304), again best fitted by a broken power–law, the indices are both steep, thus locating the peak below the observed X–ray band (see Fig. 15). Their steep spectrum qualifies them as typical HBLs, for which the X–ray band is dominated by the tail of the synchrotron emission after the peak. These results confirm that the criteria adopted to select our candidates were highly efficient (5 out of 7), and we are beginning to populate the high energy end of the synchrotron peak sequence.

An important aspect that our observations have pointed out, compared with older data, is the high variability of the peak frequency exhibited by these objects: the observed range of $`\nu _{\mathrm{peak}}`$ variations has been from less than $`0.1`$ to 1.4 keV for 1ES 0120+340, from $`<0.1`$ to $`>20`$ keV for PKS 0548–322, and from $``$1 to over 100 keV for 1ES 1426+428. This can affect the classification of an object as “extreme”: in fact, if observed only once by BeppoSAX , 1ES 0120+340 and PKS 0548–322 would have been classified as normal HBLs (see Table 2). Mkn 501 and 1ES 2344+514 too exhibited HBL properties before their observations during flaring states. It is likely, therefore, that other “extreme” objects could be hidden in the HBL class, and would be uncovered if observed many times. Repeated observations are therefore necessary to properly identify this type of objects, and also to sample their spectral behavior in connection with flux changes. Flux variations, however, should not be the only criteria to trigger the observations for the most extreme states: 1ES 1426+428 proves that the shift in the peak frequency can be de–coupled from high flux states in the soft X–ray band.

A modeling of the SEDs and the resulting physical parameters will be presented in a forthcoming paper (for a preliminary Synchrotron Self Compton model to the AO2 sources, see Fig. 1 of Costamante et. al. 1999). Although more objects are necessary to draw reliable and statistically significant conclusions, it is nevertheless interesting to start analyzing the characteristics of these extreme objects also in the context of the entire class of BL Lac objects.

Fig. 16 shows the broad band spectral index $`\alpha _{rx}`$ as a function of the frequency of the synchrotron peak, for the BL Lacs analyzed in this paper plus Mkn 501 and 1ES 2344+514, together with the HBLs analyzed in Wolter et al. (1998) and the RBLs analyzed in Comastri et al. 1995. It can be seen that the almost linear correlation between $`\alpha _{rx}`$ and $`\mathrm{log}\nu _{\mathrm{peak}}`$ flattens out for large values of $`\nu _{\mathrm{peak}}`$, reaching a “stable” value of $`\alpha _{rx}0.5`$. This is in agreement with the scenario of a synchrotron peak moving smoothly from lower to higher energies: when the peak moves beyond the X–ray band, both the radio and the X–ray fluxes are produced by the same branch of the synchrotron emission, and so both fluxes change similarly as the peak moves at still higher frequencies. Consequently $`\alpha _{rx}`$ stabilizes at a (flat) value. Instead, when the radio and X–ray fluxes are produced by different branches of the synchrotron emission (before and after the peak), the radio and the X–ray fluxes change differently as the peak shifts, thus changing $`\alpha _{rx}`$.

The “moving peak scenario” also nicely accounts for the relation between $`\alpha _x`$ and $`\nu _{\mathrm{peak}}`$ (Padovani & Giommi 1996), shown in Fig. 17. To reliably compare our results with previous ROSAT results, in Fig. 17 we plot $`Beppo`$SAX spectral indices in the soft band (i.e. the first spectral index for a broken power-law model). We can see that LBLs are characterized by flat indices ($`\alpha _x<1`$), since their X—ray emission is likely dominated by the flat inverse Compton process. Intermediate BL Lacs, with $`\nu _{\mathrm{peak}}10^{14}`$$`10^{15}`$ Hz, are characterized by $`\alpha _x1`$. For them, broad band X–ray observations should reveal a concave spectrum, with the soft X–rays dominated by the steep tail of the synchrotron emission, and with the flat inverse Compton radiation emerging at higher energies (see the nice example of ON 231 in Tagliaferri et al. 2000). The steepest indices correspond to HBLs, where the X–rays are entirely dominated by the steep tail of the synchrotron emission. But as $`\nu _{\mathrm{peak}}`$ increases further, the synchrotron peak moves into the X–ray band, making the spectrum to flatten again, eventually reaching a “stable” value ($`\alpha _x0.5`$) corresponding to the typical slope of the synchrotron spectrum well before its peak. These are the objects that we have called extreme BL Lacs in this paper (i.e. with $`\nu _{\mathrm{peak}}>1`$keV).

The left panel of Fig. 18 shows $`\nu _{\mathrm{peak}}`$ as a function of the radio luminosity ($`\nu L_\nu `$ at 5 GHz) for our targets and for a few samples of blazar objects (1Jy BL Lacs, Slew Survey BL Lacs and 2Jy FSRQs), including the objects studied by Wolter et al. (1999) as well as Mkn 501 and 1ES 2344+514 in the flaring state. The solid line is the phenomenological relation proposed by Fossati et al. (1998) for the analytic representation of the general SED. In the context of the samples under considerations, our extreme BL Lacs, having luminosities similar to HBLs but larger $`\nu _{\mathrm{peak}}`$, indicate a wider range of peak frequencies covered by HBLs, compared to lower peaked objects. Indeed, the synchrotron peak frequency of the extreme BL Lacs and some HBLs is highly variable (as in the case of Mkn 501, 1ES 2344+514 and 1ES 1426+428, see Fig. 18).

At present, we do not know if this extreme spectral variability is a characteristic common to all blazars or if it is a peculiarity of only the HBLs (or some of them). It is however interesting to note that for some well studied LBL and FSRQ the value of $`\nu _{\mathrm{peak}}`$ seems to remain more constant. As an illustration we show in Fig. 18 (right panel) the observed range of variation of both $`\nu _{\mathrm{peak}}`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{peak}}\nu _{\mathrm{peak}}L_{\nu _{\mathrm{peak}}}`$ for three “low peak” sources of different luminosity (BL Lac itself, OJ 287 and 3C 279). The high $`\nu _{\mathrm{peak}}`$ objects seem to be characterized by a much larger $`\nu _{\mathrm{peak}}`$ variability, compared to the others, given more or less the same range of luminosity variations.

The high synchrotron peak frequencies which characterize, by definition, the extreme BL Lac class, flagging the presence of high energy electrons, make these sources good candidates for TeV emission through the inverse Compton process, as also indicated by the TeV detections of Mkn 421, Mkn 501 and 1ES 2344+514 (Catanese et al. 1997, 1998; see also Stecker, de Jager & Salamon 1996).

A significant role in the propagation of such high energy photons, however, is played by the absorption resulting from pair production interactions with the intergalactic infrared background. In fact, it has been shown that photons with energies greater than $`1`$ TeV should be removed by the spectra of sources with redshifts $`>0.1`$, according to the estimates of the intergalactic IR background (Stecker & De Jager 1997, 1998). In this respect, the extreme BL Lacs could be very useful as probes for the IR background, thanks to their different redshifts which make possible a good sampling of the optical dephts along $`z`$. 1ES 1426+428, in particular, should be very interesting, given its high synchrotron frequencies (in the “Mkn 501 class”) and its redshift at the border of the expected observable region ($`z=0.129`$).

###### Acknowledgements.

This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We thank the BeppoSAX Science Data Center for their support in the data analysis. L.C. thanks the Cariplo Foundation and the Italian Space Agency for support.


format: text

text:
# Zee model and phenomenology of lepton sector

The virtual effects of the Zee charged scalar boson on the lepton-family-number (LFN) violating processes are studied. We obtain the constraints on the individual Yukawa coupling constants of the Zee boson to leptons. Using these constraints, we predict the upper bounds on the muonium-antimuonium conversion probability, the branching fractions of the LFN violating decays such as $`\tau e\gamma `$, $`\tau \mu \gamma `$, $`\tau ^{}\mu ^+e^{}e^{}`$ and $`\tau e^+\mu ^{}\mu ^{}`$. The contribution of the Zee boson to the muon anomalous magnetic moment is also considered.
PACS: 12.60.-i; 13.15.+g; 13.35.-r

Accumulated data on atmospheric, solar and accelerator neutrino experiments indicate that neutrinos have small but finite masses and mix among flavors . Existence of massive neutrinos, even though they are very tiny, necessitates the extension of the standard model (SM) for electroweak interactions. To explain the smallness of neutrino masses, there are two well-known mechanisms. One is the see-saw mechanism which introduces heavy right-handed Majorana neutrinos . The other is the radiative mechanism in which neutrino masses are generated by radiative corrections and the left-handed neutrinos acquire the Majorana masses. The simplest model for the latter scenario was presented by Zee . In this model, the ordinary left-handed neutrinos are employed while a new charged scalar field $`h`$, being a $`\mathrm{SU}(2)_L`$ singlet, and two doublets of Higgs bosons $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ are introduced. The neutrino mass matrix in the Zee model, generated at one-loop level, shows a very distinctive pattern . Recently, in connection with neutrino oscillations, the neutrino mass and mixing matrices of the Zee model have been extensively studied . Especially, it has been recognized  that the Zee model yields a solution for the bi-maximal neutrino mixing both in atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillations .

The charged scalar boson $`h`$ in the Zee model carries lepton number $`L(=L_e+L_\mu +L_\tau )=2`$, and its Yukawa couplings to leptons violate the lepton-family-number (LFN) conservation. Thus the Zee scalar boson $`h`$ not only plays a crucial role for neutrino mass generation, but also it induces other interesting LFN violating weak processes. In fact, these processes have been studied before in the Zee model and some constraints on the Yukawa couplings between the Zee boson $`h`$ and leptons have been obtained -,-.

In this paper we further study the virtual effects of the Zee boson on the LFN violating weak processes. Although some information on the parameters in the Zee model has been reported from the analysis of neutrino oscillations within the framework of the Zee mass matrix , we refrain from its use here. Instead, we employ the experimental upper bounds on the muon decay rate, the $`g_\mu /g_e`$ ratio, and the $`\mu e\gamma `$ branching fraction, and show that we can obtain the constraints on the individual ratios, $`\frac{|f_{e\mu }|^2}{\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}`$, $`\frac{|f_{e\tau }|^2}{\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}`$, and $`\frac{|f_{\mu \tau }|^2}{\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}`$, where $`f_{ij}`$’s are the Yukawa coupling constants of the Zee boson $`h`$ to leptons and $`\overline{M}_1`$ is the “Zee boson” mass (see Eq.(7) below for the definition). With these constraints at hand, we analyze other LFN violating processes such as the muonium-antimuonium conversion, $`\tau e\gamma `$, $`\tau \mu \gamma `$, $`\tau ^{}\mu ^+e^{}e^{}`$ and $`\tau e^+\mu ^{}\mu ^{}`$ decays. Finally we consider the contribution of the Zee boson to the muon anomalous magnetic moment.

In the Zee model, the following Lagrangian is added to the SM:

$`_{\mathrm{Zee}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=e,\mu ,\tau }{}}f_{ij}\psi _{iL}^TC(i\sigma _2)\psi _{jL}h^++\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_1^T(i\sigma _2)\mathrm{\Phi }_2h^{}+h.c.`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`2f_{e\mu }\left[\nu _{eL}^TC\mu _Le_L^TC\nu _{\mu L}\right]h^++2f_{e\tau }\left[\nu _{eL}^TC\tau _Le_L^TC\nu _{\tau L}\right]h^+`$
$`+`$ $`2f_{\mu \tau }\left[\nu _{\mu L}^TC\tau _L\mu _L^TC\nu _{\tau L}\right]h^++\mu \left(\mathrm{\Phi }_1^+\mathrm{\Phi }_2^0\mathrm{\Phi }_1^0\mathrm{\Phi }_2^+\right)h^{}+h.c.,`$
where $`\psi _{iL}=(\nu _i,l_i)_L^T`$ (with $`i`$ a family index) is an usual left-handed lepton doublet and $`h^\pm `$ is the $`\mathrm{SU}(2)_L`$ singlet Zee scalar boson. Two Higgs doublets, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j=(\mathrm{\Phi }_j^+,\mathrm{\Phi }_j^0)^T,j=1,2`$, are introduced and we assume that only $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ couples to leptons. Since $`f_{ij}`$ is antisymmetric under the interchange of lepton family indices $`i`$ and $`j`$, the Yukawa couplings of $`h`$ to leptons violate the lepton-family-number-conservation. After the neutral components having acquired the vacuum expectation values, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j^0=v_j/\sqrt{2}`$, the charged Higgs boson (which is orthogonal to the would-be Goldstone boson) is expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^+=\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{\Phi }_1^+\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{\Phi }_2^+,$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \frac{v_1}{v_2}`$. This charged Higgs boson $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ mixes with the Zee boson $`h^+`$ due to the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$-$`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$-$`h`$ interaction given in Eq.(1). After the charged scalar mass matrix being diagonalized, $`h^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ are expressed in terms of the physical charged scalar bosons $`H_1^+`$ and $`H_2^+`$ with mass eigenvalues $`M_1^2`$ and $`M_2^2`$, respectively, as

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}h^+\\ \mathrm{\Phi }^+\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\varphi & \mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ \mathrm{sin}\varphi & \mathrm{cos}\varphi \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}H_1^+\\ H_2^+\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
with

$$\mathrm{sin2}\varphi =\frac{2\sqrt{2}\mu M_W}{g(M_1^2M_2^2)},$$
(4)
where $`M_W=\frac{g}{2}\sqrt{v_1^2+v_2^2}`$, the mass of $`W`$ gauge boson, and $`g`$ is the $`SU(2)_L`$ gauge coupling constant.

Since the physical charged $`H_1^\pm `$ and $`H_2^\pm `$ bosons are a linear combination of $`h^\pm `$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm `$, the interaction of $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ with leptons is made up of two parts, one being LFN conserving and the other LFN changing, and it takes the following form:

$`^{\mathrm{lepton}H_i}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g\mathrm{cot}\beta }{\sqrt{2}M_W}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=e,\mu ,\tau }{}}m_i\overline{\nu }_{iL}l_{iR}\right)\left(\mathrm{sin}\varphi H_1^++\mathrm{cos}\varphi H_2^+\right)`$ (5)
$`+\{2f_{e\mu }[\nu _{eL}^TC\mu _Le_L^TC\nu _{\mu L}]+2f_{e\tau }[\nu _{eL}^TC\tau _Le_L^TC\nu _{\tau L}]`$
$`+2f_{\mu \tau }[\nu _{\mu L}^TC\tau _L\mu _L^TC\nu _{\tau L}]\left\}\right(\mathrm{cos}\varphi H_1^++\mathrm{sin}\varphi H_2^+)+h.c..`$
The terms in the first line are LFN conserving and each term is proportional to a lepton mass $`m_i`$, and the rest are LFN changing terms stemming from the $`h^\pm `$-lepton interactions.

The effective four-fermion Lagrangian induced by $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ exchange gives observable contributions to weak processes. The dominant terms for the decays $`\mu e\overline{\nu }\nu `$, $`\tau e\overline{\nu }\nu `$, and $`\tau \mu \overline{\nu }\nu `$, for example, are given by

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\{(1+{\displaystyle \frac{|f_{e\mu }|^2}{\sqrt{2}G_F\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}})\left[\overline{e}_L\gamma _\lambda \nu _{eL}\right]\left[\overline{\nu }_{\mu L}\gamma ^\lambda \mu _L\right]`$ (6)
$`+\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{|f_{e\tau }|^2}{\sqrt{2}G_F\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right)\left[\overline{e}_L\gamma _\lambda \nu _{eL}\right]\left[\overline{\nu }_{\tau L}\gamma ^\lambda \tau _L\right]`$
$`+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{|f_{\mu \tau }|^2}{\sqrt{2}G_F\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}})\left[\overline{\mu }_L\gamma _\lambda \nu _{\mu L}\right]\left[\overline{\nu }_{\tau L}\gamma ^\lambda \tau _L\right]\},`$
where

$$\frac{1}{\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}=\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi }{M_1^2}+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi }{M_2^2}.$$
(7)
The constraint on $`|f_{e\mu }|^2/\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ has been obtained from the study of the muon decay rate. Smirnov and Tanimoto  got $`|f_{e\mu }|^2/\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}<7\times 10^4G_F`$ by assuming that the effect of the new bosons on the muon decay rate is smaller than $`0.1\%`$. On the other hand, McLaughlin and Ng  obtained

$$\frac{|f_{e\mu }|^2}{\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}<3\times 10^3G_F,$$
(8)
by demanding that the corrections be no bigger than the error of the SM Fermi constant. In this paper we take the latter one, a rather conservative constraint for $`|f_{e\mu }|^2/\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. Authors of Ref. also pointed out that an information on the difference $`(|f_{e\tau }|^2|f_{\mu \tau }|^2)/\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ can be obtained from the ratio of $`\tau `$ decay rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau \mu \overline{\nu }\nu )/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau e\overline{\nu }\nu )`$. Quite recently new results have been reported on the branching fractions of $`\tau `$ into leptons  and the ratio of the charged current coupling constants of the muon and electron is determined to be $`g_\mu /g_e=1.0007\pm 0.0051`$. The Zee model predicts (see Eq.(6)),

$$\frac{g_\mu }{g_e}=1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}G_F}\frac{|f_{\mu \tau }|^2|f_{e\tau }|^2}{\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}.$$
(9)
Taking the bound $`|\frac{g_\mu }{g_e}1|<0.006`$, we obtain

$$\left|\frac{|f_{\mu \tau }|^2}{\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\frac{|f_{e\tau }|^2}{\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right|<8.5\times 10^3G_F.$$
(10)
This gives only the upper bound on the difference. However, if we combine this constraint with the one from the $`\mu e\gamma `$ decay, we obtain the individual bounds on $`|f_{\mu \tau }|^2/\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ and $`|f_{e\tau }|^2/\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. In the Zee model, the branching fraction for $`\mu e\gamma `$ is given by

$$B(\mu e\gamma )=\frac{\alpha }{48\pi }\left(\frac{|f_{\mu \tau }f_{e\tau }|}{G_F\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right)^2.$$
(11)
The present experimental upper pound, $`B(\mu e\gamma )<1.2\times 10^{11}`$ , leads to

$$\frac{|f_{\mu \tau }f_{e\tau }|}{\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}<2.8\times 10^4G_F.$$
(12)
Then we find that the above constraint, combined with Eq.(10), gives the bounds

$$\frac{|f_{\mu \tau }|^2}{\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}},\frac{|f_{e\tau }|^2}{\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}<8.5\times 10^3G_F.$$
(13)
The fact that $`|f_{\mu \tau }|^2/\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ and $`|f_{e\tau }|^2/\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ individually get almost the same bound as their difference is due to the very stringent constraint of Eq.(12). Of course, if we get more precise determination of the $`g_\mu /g_e`$ ratio, we can set more stringent bounds on $`|f_{\mu \tau }|^2/\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ and $`|f_{e\tau }|^2/\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$.

With these bounds on the Yukawa coupling constants $`f_{ij}`$, Eqs.(8), (12), (13), we now discuss the weak processes involving charged $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ bosons. In particular we are interested in the LFN violating processes.

The muonium-antimuonium conversion. In the Zee model, the mixing of muonium $`M(\mu ^+e^{})`$ and antimuonium $`\overline{M}(\mu ^{}e^+)`$ arises, at one-loop-level, only through one diagram, the one with two $`H_i`$ exchange illustrated in Fig.1(a). Using a formula for the loop integral

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{k^2M_i^2}\frac{1}{k^2M_j^2}\left[\frac{1}{k/}\right]\left[\frac{1}{k/}\right]}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_i^2M_j^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_i^2}{M_j^2}}\left[\gamma _\lambda \right]\left[\gamma ^\lambda \right](ij),`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_i^2}}\left[\gamma _\lambda \right]\left[\gamma ^\lambda \right](i=j),`$
where $`[1/k/]`$ is coming from the internal neutrino propagator, we obtain the following effective Lagrangian for the $`M`$-$`\overline{M}`$ conversion:

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}^{M\overline{M}}=\frac{G_{M\overline{M}}}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\overline{\mu }\gamma _\lambda (1\gamma _5)e\right]\left[\overline{\mu }\gamma ^\lambda (1\gamma _5)e\right],$$
(14)
with

$$\frac{G_{M\overline{M}}}{\sqrt{2}}=\frac{|f_{e\tau }f_{\mu \tau }|^2}{16\pi ^2}\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{M}^2},$$
(15)
where

$$\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{M}^2}=\frac{\mathrm{cos}^4\varphi }{M_1^2}+\frac{2\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{s}^2\varphi \mathrm{sin}^2\varphi }{M_1^2M_2^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_1^2}{M_2^2}+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^4\varphi }{M_2^2}.$$
(16)
Note that $`_{\mathrm{eff}}^{M\overline{M}}`$ is in the $`(VA)\times (VA)`$ form111The $`M`$-$`\overline{M}`$ conversion experiments have been performed under the influence of external magnetic field. The $`M`$-$`\overline{M}`$ conversion probability reduces with the applied magnetic field, and the reduction depends on the effective Hamiltonian being in the form of $`(VA)\times (VA)`$, or $`(VA)\times (V\pm A)`$ or other interaction types . The integrated probability that the muonium $`M(\mu ^+e^{})`$ decays as $`\mu ^{}`$ rather than $`\mu ^+`$ is given by

$$P(\overline{M})=64G_{M\overline{M}}^2/\pi ^2a_B^6\lambda ^2,$$
(17)
where $`a_B`$ is the Bohr radius $`(m_e\alpha )^1`$ and $`\lambda =G_F^2m_\mu ^5/192\pi ^3`$ is the muon decay rate. Using the bound (12) and the relation

$$\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{M}^2}\frac{1}{\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{arbitrary}\varphi ,$$
(18)
(the equality holds when $`M_1^2=M_2^2`$), we obtain

$$P(\overline{M})<9.5\times 10^{24}\left[\frac{\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{M_W^2}\right]^2.$$
(19)
For $`\overline{M}_1=800`$ GeV, we get $`P(\overline{M})<10^{19}`$. The present experimental upper limit  is $`P(\overline{M})<2.4\times 10^{10}`$ (90% C.L.).

In fact, the muonium-antimuonium oscillation was studied before in the Zee model and the same box diagram in Fig.1(a) was analyzed . But our result on the effective Lagrangian for the muonium-antimuonium conversion disagrees with the one given in Ref., in respect to its chiral structure and magnitude. Comparing with Eqs.(4.116-117) of Ref., we find that our result on $`\frac{G_{M\overline{M}}}{\sqrt{2}}`$ in Eq.(15) is without a suppression factor $`(m_\mu /\mu _S)^2`$, where $`\mu _S`$ is the charged Zee boson mass introduced there, expected to be the same order of magnitude as our $`\overline{M}_1`$.

The $`\tau e\gamma `$ and $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ decays. With replacement of $`f_{\mu \tau }f_{e\tau }`$ in Eq.(11) with appropriate $`f_{ij}`$, the branching fractions for both decays are given by

$`B(\tau e\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{48\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{|f_{e\mu }f_{\mu \tau }|}{G_F\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right]^2B(\tau e\overline{\nu }_e\nu _\tau ),`$ (20)
$`B(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{48\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{|f_{e\mu }f_{e\tau }|}{G_F\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right]^2B(\tau e\overline{\nu }_e\nu _\tau ).`$ (21)
The constraints (8), (13) and $`B(\tau e\overline{\nu }_e\nu _\tau )_{\mathrm{exp}}=(17.83\pm 0.06)\%`$  lead to

$$B(\tau e\gamma ),B(\tau \mu \gamma )<2.0\times 10^{10},$$
(22)
both being far below the present experimental upper bounds ($`10^6`$)  .

The $`\tau ^{}\mu ^+e^{}e^{}`$ and $`\tau e^+\mu ^{}\mu ^{}`$ decays. The decay $`\tau ^{}\mu ^+e^{}e^{}`$ arises, at one-loop level, from the diagram with two $`H_i`$ boson exchange depicted in Fig.1(b). The loop integral gives

$$^{\tau \mu ee}=\frac{C^{\tau \mu ee}}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\overline{e}\gamma _\lambda (1\gamma _5)\tau \right]\left[\overline{e}\gamma ^\lambda (1\gamma _5)\mu \right],$$
(23)
with

$$\frac{C^{\tau \mu ee}}{\sqrt{2}}=\frac{f_{\mu \tau }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}f_{e\tau }f_{e\mu }}{16\pi ^2}\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{M}^2}.$$
(24)
Keeping in mind the antisymmetrization of the final two identical electrons and a symmetry factor $`\frac{1}{2}`$, and neglecting the muon and electron masses, we obtain, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau ^{}\mu ^+e^{}e^{})=|C^{\tau \mu ee}|^2m_\tau ^5/96\pi ^3`$, for the decay rate. Then we get the upper limit on the branching fraction of the $`\tau ^{}\mu ^+e^{}e^{}`$ decay,

$$B(\tau ^{}\mu ^+e^{}e^{})<2\times 10^{18}\left[\frac{\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{M_W^2}\right]^2.$$
(25)
Similarly, the contribution to the decay $`\tau e^+\mu ^{}\mu ^{}`$ comes from the one-loop diagram in Fig.1(c). Now the coefficient $`C^{\tau \mu ee}/\sqrt{2}`$ in Eq.(24) is replaced with $`C^{\tau e\mu \mu }/\sqrt{2}=f_{e\tau }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}f_{\mu \tau }f_{e\mu }/16\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{M}^2`$, and we obtain the same upper limit on $`B(\tau ^{}e^+\mu ^{}\mu ^{})`$ as the $`\tau ^{}\mu ^+e^{}e^{}`$ decay. For $`\overline{M}_1=800`$ GeV, we get the bound $`2\times 10^{14}`$ for the branching fractions of both decays. The present experimental upper limits on both decays are $`B_{\mathrm{exp}}<1.5\times 10^6`$ (90% C.L.) .

The $`\mu 3e`$ decay. This process is possible in all models which allow the $`\mu e\gamma `$. The photon is now virtual and decays into a $`e^+e^{}`$ pair. Contributions of the $`Z`$ boson-exchange graphs instead of photon are negligible. Thus the branching ratio has been estimated to be $`B(\mu 3e)(\alpha /\pi )B(\mu e\gamma )`$ . At one-loop level in the Zee model, there is another diagram contributing to the decay $`\mu 3e`$, a box diagram resembling the ones in Fig.1 with two $`H_i`$ exchange.222The $`\mu 3e`$ decay was studied before in the Zee model , but our result on $`C_{\mathrm{box}}^{\mu 3e}`$ disagree with the one in Refs., which has further a suppression factor $`(m_\mu /\mu _S)^2`$. The diagram gives

$$_{\mathrm{box}}^{\mu 3e}=\frac{C_{\mathrm{box}}^{\mu 3e}}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\overline{e}\gamma _\lambda (1\gamma _5)\mu \right]\left[\overline{e}\gamma ^\lambda (1\gamma _5)e\right],$$
(26)
with

$$\frac{C_{\mathrm{box}}^{\mu 3e}}{\sqrt{2}}=\frac{f_{e\tau }f_{\mu \tau }^{}}{16\pi ^2}\left[|f_{e\mu }|^2+|f_{e\tau }|^2\right]\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{M}^2}.$$
(27)
Assuming that this box diagram contribution adds to the decay rate incoherently, we obtain the ratio

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu 3e)_{\mathrm{box}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu e\gamma )\frac{\alpha }{\pi }}=12\left[\frac{|f_{e\mu }|^2+|f_{e\tau }|^2}{4\pi \alpha }\right]^2\left(\frac{\overline{M}_1}{\stackrel{~}{M}}\right)^4.$$
(28)
For $`\overline{M}_1=800`$ GeV, the constraints (8) and (13) give $`|f_{e\mu }|^2<0.02`$ and $`|f_{e\tau }|^2<0.06`$, respectively. Thus, in case $`\overline{M}_1\stackrel{~}{M}`$, there remains a possibility that this box diagram contribution to the decay rate $`\mu 3e`$ becomes comparable to the one from the photon exchange graph.

The same remarks can be made for such $`\tau `$ decays as $`\tau 3e`$, $`\tau ^{}e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, $`\tau 3\mu `$, and $`\tau ^{}\mu ^{}e^+e^{}`$. The branching fractions for the first two decays are expected to be of the order of $`(\alpha /\pi )B(\tau e\gamma )`$ and those for the latter two are $`(\alpha /\pi )B(\tau \mu \gamma )`$. In the Zee model, the two $`H_i`$ exchange diagrams also contribute to these LFN violating decays, and their contributions may possibly be comparable to those from the photon exchange diagrams.

The muon anomalous magnetic moment. With improvement in the measurment, the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, $`a_\mu =(g2)/2`$, has become to provide an excellent laboratory for testing various electroweak gauge models. Quite recently, the new experimental result on the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment was reported  and it shows a clear difference between the weighted mean of the experimental results and the SM prediction:

$$a_\mu (\mathrm{exp})a_\mu (\mathrm{SM})=43(16)\times 10^{10}.$$
(29)
In the Zee model, two new charged scalar mesons $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ appear. We now discuss their contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment. There are two relevant diagrams in one loop, which are depicted in Fig.2. The arrows on the fermion lines indicate the flow of lepton number. The diagram in Fig.2(a) is LFN conserving and thus the factor $`(m_\mu /M_W)^2`$ appears, while the one in Fig.2(b) is LFN changing and its contribution is proportional to $`|f_{e\mu }|^2`$ ($`|f_{\mu \tau }|^2`$). The calculation is straightforward , and we find

$`a_\mu ^{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^4}{24\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta }{8M_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{M}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}},`$ (30)
$`a_\mu ^{(b)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{24\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|f_{e\mu }|^2+|f_{\mu \tau }|^2}{\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}},`$ (31)
where

$$\frac{1}{\overline{M}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi }{M_1^2}+\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi }{M_2^2}.$$
(32)
The LFN conserving contribution is rewritten as $`a_\mu ^{(a)}=9\times 10^{16}\mathrm{cot}^2\beta (M_W^2/\overline{M}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$. So even when we take generous values for $`\mathrm{cot}\beta `$ and $`\overline{M}_2`$, say, $`\mathrm{cot}\beta 50`$ and $`\overline{M}_2200`$ GeV, we get $`a_\mu ^{(a)}4\times 10^{13}`$. For the LFN violating part, the bounds (8) and (13) give $`a_\mu ^{(b)}<6\times 10^{12}`$. Thus we observe that the contribution of the charged scalar bosons $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ to the muon anomalous magnetic moment is not sufficient fo fill the difference (29). In addition to these charged scalar bosons, there appear three neutral Higgs bosons in the Zee model. But their contributions to the muon anomalous magnetic moment are proportinal to $`(m_\mu ^2/M_WM_H)^2`$, where $`M_H`$ is a relevant Higgs mass, and, therefore, they are negligible. So we conclude that the Zee model in its original form cannot fill the present gap (29) between the experiment and the SM prediction.

The Zee model is one of the promising candidates which may explain the phenomena of atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillations. Also it predicts many interesting LFN violating weak processes. Gaining the current constraints on the individual Yukawa coupling constants, $`|f_{e\mu }|^2/\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, $`|f_{e\tau }|^2/\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, and $`|f_{\mu \tau }|^2/\overline{M}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, in the Zee model, we have studied the virtual effects of the Zee boson on the phenomenology of lepton sector. The predicted effects on the LFN violating weak processes are found to be small and far below the present experimental upper limits. Also it is found that the contribution of the new bosons in the Zee model to the muon anomalous magnetic moment is too small to fill the present difference between the experiment and the SM prediction. If this gap persists, we are compelled to abandan the Zee model or to pursue the extensions of its original form333An extension of the Zee model which includes singlet neutrinos has been considered in Ref... Embedding the original Zee model into supersymmetry might be one of the most interesting extensions .

After submitting the paper, our attension has been called to the following two papers, Ref. and Ref.. In the first reference., an effective field theory has been built by integrating out the heavy scalar in the Zee model. The effective lagrangians obtained for the four-fermi interactions are consistent with our results. In the second reference , it was pointed out also that the minimal Zee model cannot resolve the BNL $`g2`$ anomaly, using the neutrino oscillation data, and the extensions of the Zee model have been considered to explain the mass patterns of the neutrinos and leptons and the BNL $`g2`$ anomaly.

One of the authors (K.S) would like to thank M. Bando, N. Haba, T. Kugo, and M. Tanimoto for helpful discussions. This work is supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Areas (A), Ministry of Education, Japan (No. 12047212).

Figure Caption

Figure 1

The two-$`H_i`$-exchange box diagrams relevant for (a) the muonium-antimuonium conversion, (b) the $`\tau \mu ^+e^{}e^{}`$ decay, and (c) the $`\tau e^+\mu ^{}\mu ^{}`$ decay. The arrows show the flow of lepton number.

Figure 2

The charged $`H_i`$ scalar contributions to $`a_\mu `$: (a) the LFN conserving diagram and (b) the LFN changing diagram. The arrows show the flow of lepton number.


text:
# Ambiguities of theoretical parameters and CP/T violation in neutrino factories

## 1 Introduction

The observation of the atmospheric neutrino anomaly by Super-Kamiokande  provided us with convincing evidence that neutrinos have non-vanishing masses. There is another indication of neutrino masses and mixings by the solar neutrino deficit .

Assuming three generations of the leptons, we denote the lepton mixing matrix, which relates the flavor eigenstates ($`\alpha =\mathrm{e},\mu ,\tau `$) with the mass eigenstates with mass $`m_i(i=1,2,3)`$, by

$`U_{\alpha i}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{13}c_{12}& c_{13}s_{12}& s_{13}\\ c_{23}s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}c_{12}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\delta }& c_{23}c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}s_{12}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\delta }& s_{23}c_{13}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\delta }\\ s_{23}s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}c_{12}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\delta }& s_{23}c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}s_{12}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\delta }& c_{23}c_{13}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\delta }\end{array}\right)_{\alpha i},`$ (1)
where $`c_{ij}(s_{ij})`$ is the abbreviation of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}(\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij})`$. Then the atmospheric neutrino anomaly gives an allowed region for $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}`$ and the larger mass square difference ($`\delta m_{31}^2`$). The solar neutrino deficit provides allowed regions for $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}`$($`\delta m_{21}^2`$).

On the other hand, there is only an excluded region for $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}`$ from reactor experiments . Furthermore there is no constraint on the CP violating phase $`\delta `$. The idea of neutrino factories with muon storage rings were proposed  to determine these mixing parameters, and attracted the interest of many physicists .

However we have some questions concerning the previous analyses of the CP-violation effect. In many analysis, the muon energy of $`E_\mu `$ is assumed to be rather high. This seems strange since CP/T violation arises as a three generation effect . Indeed we can derive very naively that $`E_\mu 30\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, lower by factor 2, is the most efficient for $`L=3000`$ km  while $`E_\mu 50\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ is often assumed. Furthermore the fake CP-violation effect due to the matter effect increases with baseline length. The ambiguity in the estimate for the fake CP violation increases with baseline length. Taking into account this ambiguity in the analysis, the sensitivity to CP violation will be decreased as baseline length increases. It is unlikely that we can observe the CP-violation effect with such a long baseline. We discuss these problems.

## 2 Statistical quantity

As an experimental setup, we consider that $`N_\mu `$ muons decay at a muon ring. The neutrinos extracted from the ring are detected at a detector if $`E_\nu `$ is larger than a threshold energy $`E_{\mathrm{th}}`$. The detector has mass $`M_{\mathrm{detector}}`$ and contains $`N_{\mathrm{target}}`$ target atoms. We assume that the neutrino-nucleon cross section $`\sigma `$ is proportional to neutrino energy as

$$\sigma =\sigma _0E_\nu ,$$
(2)
The expected number of appearance events in the energy bin $`E_{j1}<E_\nu <E_j`$ ($`j=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$) is then given by

$$N_j(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta ;\delta )\frac{N_\mu N_{\mathrm{target}}\sigma _0}{\pi m_\mu ^2}\frac{E_\mu ^2}{L^2}_{E_{j1}}^{E_j}E_\nu f_{\nu _\alpha }(E_\nu )P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta ;\delta )\frac{\mathrm{d}E_\nu }{E_\mu },$$
(3)
where $`m_\mu `$ is the muon mass.

To estimate the sensitivity for the CP-violation effect the following statistics is usually used:

$`\chi _1^2(\delta _0)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{[N_j(\delta )N_j(\delta _0)]^2}{N_j(\delta )}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{[\overline{N}_j(\delta )\overline{N}_j(\delta _0)]^2}{\overline{N}_j(\delta )}}`$ (4)
$`n`$ is the number of bins. Since the CP violation is absent if $`\mathrm{sin}\delta =0`$, namely $`\delta =0`$ or $`\delta =\pi `$, we need to check that $`N_j(\delta )`$ is different from $`N_j(\delta _0)`$ with $`\delta _0\{0,\pi \}`$ to insist that CP violation is present.

We can claim that $`N_j(\delta )`$ is different from $`N_j(\delta _0)`$ at 90% confidence level, if

$`\chi _1^2`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{min}(\chi _1^2(0),\chi _1^2(\pi ))>\chi _{90\%}^2(n)`$ (5)
holds. Here $`\chi _{90\%}^2(n)`$ is the $`\chi ^2`$ value with $`n`$ degrees of freedom at 90% confidence level.

To see the behavior of $`\chi _1^2`$, we make use of high energy approximation which is valid for $`E_\nu (\delta m_{31}^2L)/4`$:

$$\chi _1^2(\delta _0)E_\mu \frac{J_{/\delta }^2}{A}\left\{(\mathrm{cos}\delta 1)\left[1\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{a(L)L}{4E_\nu ^{\mathrm{peak}}}\right)^2\right]\right\}^2$$
(6)
Here $`E_\nu ^{\mathrm{peak}}`$ is the neutrino energy which gives the maximum valu of the initial neutrino flux $`f_{\nu _\alpha }`$ and $`a(L)`$ is the effective mass square due to matter effect calculated using Preliminary Reference Earth Model(PREM). We find that $`\chi _1^2`$ is an increasing function of $`E_\mu `$. Thus we can obtain arbitrary large $`\chi _1^2`$, and we can seemingly achieve arbitrary high sensitivity to search for the CP-violation effect, by increasing muon energy. Thus the higher energy appears to be preferable to observe the CP-violation effect as long as we employ $`\chi _1^2`$. It is important, however, to note that $`\chi _1^2`$ has nothing to do with the imaginary part of the mixing matrix in high energy limit. The CP violation is brought about by the only imaginary part of the mixing matrix, which is proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}\delta `$ in our parameterization. $`\chi _1^2`$ is relevant with CP violation through unitarity.

Therefore we need to consider a statistical quantity which is sensitive to the imaginary part of the lepton mixings. As such a statistics we consider the following quantity:

$$\chi _2^2(\delta _0)\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\left[\mathrm{\Delta }N_j(\delta )\mathrm{\Delta }N_j(\delta _0)\right]^2}{N_j(\delta )+\overline{N}_j(\delta )}$$
(7)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_j(\delta )N_j(\delta )\overline{N}_j(\delta )`$. It is required

$`\chi _2^2`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{min}(\chi _2^2(0),\chi _2^2(\pi ))>\chi _{90\%}^2(n)`$ (8)
to claim that CP violation effect is observed.

In the high energy limit

$$\chi _2^2(\delta _0)\frac{L^2}{E_\mu }\frac{J_{/\delta }^2}{A}\left\{\mathrm{sin}\delta +\frac{1}{3}\frac{a(L)L}{4E_\nu ^{\mathrm{peak}}}(2\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{13}1)(\mathrm{cos}\delta 1)\right\}^2$$
(9)
($``$ for $`\delta _0=0`$ and $`+`$ for $`\delta _0=\pi `$), where

$`J_{/\delta }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{21}^2}{\delta m_{31}^2}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{13},`$ (10)
$`A`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}.`$ (11)
To see CP-violation effect is to measure $`J_{/\delta }\mathrm{sin}\delta `$. In this respect $`\chi _2^2`$ gives a good standard to observe CP violation.

## 3 Feasibility of CP violation search in presence of the ambiguities of the parameters

In this section we study the asymmetry with $`\chi _2^2`$. The values of all theoretical parameters will have ambiguities in practice, and hence we cannot estimate $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_j(\delta _0)`$ precisely. The genuine CP-violation effect will be absorbed into the ambiguity of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N(\delta _0)`$ if the ambiguity of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N(\delta _0)`$ is large. Therefore we must examine whether the CP-violation effect can be absorbed in the ambiguities of the parameters.

Suppose that we use the parameters $`\stackrel{~}{x}_i\{\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{kl},\delta \stackrel{~}{m}_{kl}^2,\stackrel{~}{a}(L)\}`$, which are different from the true values $`x_i\{\theta _{kl},\delta m_{kl}^2`$, $`a(L)\}`$, to calculate $`N_j(\delta _0)`$ and $`\overline{N}_j(\delta _0)`$. We will estimate the fake CP violation due to the matter effect as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{N}_j(\delta _0)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{N}_j(\delta _0)\stackrel{~}{\overline{N}_j}(\delta _0),`$ (12)
are evaluated from eqs.(3). We then obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^2(\delta _0)\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{[\mathrm{\Delta }N_j(\delta )\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{N}_j(\delta _0)]^2}{N_j(\delta )+\overline{N}_j(\delta )}$$
(13)
instead of $`\chi _2^2(\delta _0)`$. The observed asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_j(\delta )`$ consists of the genuine CP-violation effect and the fake one due to the matter effect. We have to subtract the matter effect, but we cannot estimate precisely the fake CP violation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{N}_j(\delta _0)`$ due to the ambiguities of the parameters. In such a case the sensitivity to CP-violation search gets worse once the ambiguities of the parameters are taken into account, since it is always possible to take $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{N}_j(\delta _0)`$ to satisfy

$$\left|\mathrm{\Delta }N_j(\delta )\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{N}_j(\delta _0)\right|\left|\mathrm{\Delta }N_j(\delta )\mathrm{\Delta }N_j(\delta _0)\right|,$$
(14)
or equivalently

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^2\chi _2^2,$$
(15)
by adjusting $`\stackrel{~}{x}_i`$’s. We can further argue that we lose more sensitivity as the baseline length gets longer. Let us illustrate the outline described above in detail. The CP asymmetry of probabilities

$$A(\{x_i\},\delta )P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta ;\{x_i\},\delta )P(\overline{\nu }_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\beta ;\{x_i\},\delta )$$
(16)
consists of the genuine CP asymmetry $`A_{\mathrm{CPV}}(\{x_i\},\delta )`$ and the fake one $`A_{\mathrm{CPM}}(\{x_i\},\delta )`$, so that

$$A(\{x_i\},\delta )=A_{\mathrm{CPV}}(\{x_i\},\delta )+A_{\mathrm{CPM}}(\{x_i\},\delta ).$$
(17)
We need to subtract $`A(\{x_i\},\delta _0)`$ from $`A(\{x_i\},\delta )`$, but instead we subtract $`A(\{\stackrel{~}{x}_i\},\delta _0)`$ due to the ambiguities of the parameters and obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{CPV}}(\delta )`$ $``$ $`A_{\mathrm{CPV}}(\{x_i\},\delta )+A_{\mathrm{CPM}}(\{x_i\},\delta )A(\{\stackrel{~}{x}_i\},\delta _0).`$ (18)
Here $`A_{\mathrm{CPV}}`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{CPM}}`$ can be estimated using high energy approximation as

$`A_{\mathrm{CPM}}(\{x_i\},\delta )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}[2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{13}`$ (19)
$`+`$ $`(2\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{13}1)J_{/\delta }\mathrm{cos}\delta \left]{\displaystyle \frac{a(L)L}{4E_\nu }}\right({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{31}^2L}{4E_\nu }})^3`$
$`A_{\mathrm{CPV}}(\{x_i\},\delta )`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{31}^2L}{4E_\nu }}\right)^3J_{/\delta }\mathrm{sin}\delta .`$ (20)
The factor

$$\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{13}\frac{a(L)L}{4E_\nu }$$
(21)
in eq.(19) is expected to be much larger than $`J_{/\delta }`$ in eq.(20) with a long baseline . Thus the ambiguity of the fake CP-violation effect, $`A_{\mathrm{CPM}}(\{x_i\},\delta )A(\{\stackrel{~}{x}_i\},\delta _0)`$, can absorb the genuine CP-violation effect $`A_{\mathrm{CPV}}`$, so that $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{CPV}}`$ , or equivalently $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^2`$, becomes significantly small. The condition to observe CP-violation effect in 90% confidence level, say, is again given by

$`X_2^2`$ $``$ $`\underset{\{\stackrel{~}{x}_i\}}{\mathrm{min}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^2>\chi _{90\%}^2(n).`$ (22)
We present in Figs.1 the required value of $`N_\mu M_{\mathrm{detector}}`$ obtained from eq.(22) to observe the CP-violation effect in 90% confidence level. All the parameters are assumed to have ambiguities of 10 %. We find that we cannot observe the genuine CP-violation effect when $`L`$ is larger than 1000 km. We can qualitatively understand it by eqs.(19) and (20). It is seen that

$$\frac{A_{\mathrm{CPV}}}{A_{\mathrm{CPM}}}=3\frac{J_{/\delta }\mathrm{sin}\delta }{2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{13}+(2\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{13}1)J_{/\delta }\mathrm{cos}\delta }\frac{4E}{a(L)L}$$
(23)
is a decreasing function of $`L`$, which means that the sensitivity to the CP violation is lost as the baseline length gets larger. The condition on $`L`$ is roughly estimated by $`A_{\mathrm{CPV}}/A_{\mathrm{CPM}}1`$, or

$$L\frac{4E}{a(L)}\frac{3J_{/\delta }\mathrm{sin}\delta }{2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{13}+(2\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{13}1)J_{/\delta }\mathrm{cos}\delta }.$$
(24)
For the parameters used in Fig.1,

$$L1250\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}.$$
(25)
## 4  Summary and Discussion

We discussed the optimum experimental setup and the optimum analysis to see the CP violation effect.

We examined how to analyze the data of experiments to confirm the naive estimation. We studied with two statistical quantities, $`\chi _1^2`$ (eq.(5)) and $`\chi _2^2`$ (eq.(8)). Usually $`\chi _1^2`$ is used in analyses of neutrino factories. We can test by this whether the data can be explained by the hypothetical data calculated assuming no CP-violation effect. We saw, however, that this quantity is sensitive has information for mainly the CP conserved part of the oscillation probability in high energy region. Hence we concluded that it is difficult to measure the CP violation by using this quantity. On the other hand, we can test with $`\chi _2^2`$ whether the asymmetry of oscillation probabilities of neutrinos and antineutrinos exists. We have seen that $`\chi _2^2`$ is sensitive to the CP violating part of the oscillation probability, and thus it is suitable quantity to measure the CP violation.

Then we investigated the influence of the ambiguities of the theoretical parameters on $`\chi _2^2`$. Since the matter effect causes the difference of the oscillation probabilities between neutrinos and antineutrinos, we have to estimate the fake asymmetry to search for the CP violation effect. However, we will always “overestimate” the fake CP violation due to the ambiguities of the theoretical parameters, and hence we will always estimate the genuine CP-violation effect too small. The matter effect increases as baseline length increases, and we will lose the sensitivity to the asymmetry due to the genuine CP-violation effect in longer baseline such as several thousand km.