text:
# First Observation of 𝐵̄→𝐷^(∗)𝜌^{′-}, 𝜌^{′-}→𝜔𝜋⁻

## I Introduction

Currently most $`B`$ meson decays are unknown. The decay width is comprised of hadronic decays, leptonic decays and semileptonic decays. Leptonic decays are predicted to be very small, $`10^4`$ in branching fraction. The semileptonic branching ratio for $`\overline{B}Xe^{}\nu `$, $`X\mu ^{}\nu `$, and $`X\tau ^{}\nu `$ totals approximately 25% . The remainder must come from hadronic decays, where the measured exclusive branching ratios total only a small fraction of the hadronic width.

To be more explicit, the measured hadronic decay modes for the $`\overline{B}^0`$ including $`D^+(n\pi ^{})`$, $`D^+(n\pi ^{})`$, where $`3n1`$, $`D^{+()}D_s^{()}`$, and $`J/\psi `$ exclusive totals only about 10% . The $`B^{}`$ modes total about 12%.

Yet, understanding hadronic decays of the $`B`$ is crucial to ensuring that decay modes used for measurement of CP violation truly exhibit the underlying quark decay mechanisms expected theoretically.

It is also interesting to note that the average charged multiplicity in a hadronic $`B^0`$ decay is 5.8$`\pm 0.1`$ . Since this multiplicity contains contributions from the decay of $`D^+`$ or $`D^+`$ normally present in $`\overline{B}^0`$ decay, we expect a sizeable, approximately several percent, decay rate into final states with four pions . The seen $`D^{()}(n\pi )^{}`$ final states for $`n3`$ are consistent with being quasi-two-body final states. For $`n`$ of two the $`\rho ^{}`$ dominates, while for $`n`$ of three the $`a_1^{}`$ dominates . These decays appear to occur from a simple spectator mechanism where the virtual $`W^{}`$ materializes as a single hadron: $`\pi ^{}`$, $`\rho ^{}`$ or $`a_1^{}`$. The decay rates can be understood in a simple “factorization” model where the decay rate is given by the product between two currents, one between the $`\overline{B}`$ and the $`D`$ and the other given by the virtual $`W^{}`$ transforming into the light hadron of interest .

In this paper we investigate final states for $`n`$ of 4. We will show a large signal for the $`D^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ final state in Section III. In Section IV we will show that a substantial fraction, $``$20%, arise from $`D^+\omega \pi ^{}`$ decays and that the $`\omega \pi ^{}`$ mass distribution has a resonant structure around 1.4 GeV with a width of about 0.5 GeV. In Section V, similar conclusions are drawn about the $`D^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ final state. The same structure is shown to exist in $`D\omega \pi ^{}`$ final states (Section VII) and we will use these events to show in Section VII F that the spin-parity is most likely $`1^{}`$. This state is identified as the $`\rho ^{}`$, sometimes called the $`\rho `$(1450). We perform a generalized Breit-Wigner fit to get the best values of the mass and width, discussed in Section IX and the Appendix.

Other resonant substructure is searched for, but not found (Section X). Finally we summarize our findings and compare with the predictions of factorization and other models in Section XI.

The data sample consists of 9.0 fb-1 of integrated luminosity taken with the CLEO II and II.V detectors  using the CESR $`e^+e^{}`$ storage ring on the peak of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance and 4.4 fb-1 in the continuum at 60 MeV less center-of-mass energy. The sample contains 19.4 million $`B`$ mesons.

## II Common Selection Criteria

Hadronic events are selected by requiring a minimum of five charged tracks, total visible energy greater than 15% of the center-of-mass energy, and a charged track vertex consistent with the nominal interaction point. To reject continuum we require that the Fox-Wolfram moment $`R_2`$ be less than 0.3 .

Track candidates are required to pass through a common spatial point defined by the origin of all tracks. Tracks with momentum below 900 MeV/c are required to have an ionization loss in the drift chamber within $`3\sigma `$ of that expected for their assigned mass.***Here and throughout this paper $`\sigma `$ indicates an r.m.s. error. (These requirements are not imposed on slow charged pions from $`D^+`$ decay.) Photon candidates are required to be in the “good barrel region,” within 45 of the plane perpendicular to the beam line that passes through the interaction point, and have an energy distribution in the CsI calorimeter consistent with that of an electromagnetic shower. To select $`\pi ^0`$’s, we require that the diphoton invariant mass be between -3.0 to +2.5$`\sigma `$ of the $`\pi ^0`$ mass, where $`\sigma `$ varies with momentum and has an average value of approximately 5.5 MeV. The two-photon candidates are then kinematically fit by constraining their invariant mass be equal to the nominal $`\pi ^0`$ mass.

We select $`D^0`$ and $`D^+`$ candidates via the decay modes shown in Table I. We require that the invariant mass of the $`D`$ candidates lie within $`\pm 2.5\sigma `$ of the known $`D`$ masses. The $`\sigma `$’s are also listed in Table I. The $`D^0`$ widths vary with the $`D^0`$ momentum, $`p`$, (units of MeV), while the $`D^+`$ widths are not momentum dependent.

We select $`D^+`$ candidates by imposing the addition requirement that the mass difference between $`\pi ^+D^0`$ and $`D^0`$ combinations is within $`\pm 2.5\sigma `$ of the known mass difference. For the $`D^0`$, we use the same requirement for the $`\pi ^0D^0`$ decay. The mass difference resolutions are 0.63 and 0.90 MeV, for the $`\pi ^+D^0`$ and $`\pi ^0D^0`$ modes, respectively .

## III Observation of $`\overline{B}^0D^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ Decays

### A $`\overline{B}`$ Candidate Selection

We start by investigating the $`D^+(4\pi )^{}`$ final state.In this paper $`(4\pi )^{}`$ will always denote the specific combination $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$. The $`D^+`$ candidates are pooled with all combinations of $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ mesons.

Next, we calculate the difference between the beam energy, $`E_{beam}`$, and the measured energy of the five particles, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. The “beam constrained” invariant mass of the $`\overline{B}`$ candidates, $`M_B`$, is computed from the formula

$$M_B^2=E_{beam}^2(\underset{i}{}\stackrel{}{p_i})^2.$$
(1)
To further reduce backgrounds we define

$$\chi _b^2=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M_D^{}}{\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }M_D^{})}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M_D}{\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }M_D)}\right)^2+\underset{n(\pi ^0)}{}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\pi ^0}}{\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\pi ^0})}\right)^2,$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_D^{}`$ is the computed $`D^{}D^0`$ mass difference minus the nominal value, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_D`$ is the invariant candidate $`D^0`$ mass minus the known $`D^0`$ mass and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\pi ^0}`$ is the measured $`\gamma \gamma `$ invariant mass minus the known $`\pi ^0`$ mass. All $`\pi ^0`$’s in the final state are included in the sum. The $`\sigma `$’s are the measurement errors. We select candidate events in each mode requiring that $`\chi _b^2<C_n`$, where $`C_n`$ varies for each decay $`D^0`$ decay mode. For the $`Kn\pi `$ decay modes we use $`C_n=12,`$ 8, and 6, respectively.

### B Branching Fraction and $`(4\pi )^{}`$ Mass Spectrum

We start with the $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ decay mode. We show the candidate $`\overline{B}`$ mass distribution, $`M_B`$, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ in the side-bands from -5.0 to -3.0$`\sigma `$ and 3.0 to 5.0$`\sigma `$ on Fig. 1(a). The $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ resolution is 18 MeV ($`\sigma ).`$ The sidebands give a good representation of the background in the signal region. We fit this distribution with a shape given as

$$back(r)=p_1r\sqrt{1r^2}e^{p_2(1r^2)},$$
(3)
where $`r=M_B/5.2895`$ GeV, and the $`p_i`$ are parameters given by the fit.

We next view the $`M_B`$ distribution for events having $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ within 2$`\sigma `$ around zero in Fig. 1(b). This distribution is fit with a Gaussian Signal function of width 2.7 MeV and the background function found above whose normalization is allowed to vary. The Gaussian signal width is found from Monte Carlo simulation. The largest and dominant component results from the energy spread of the beam. We find 358$`\pm `$29 events in the signal peak.

We repeat this procedure for the other two $`D^0`$ decay modes. The $`M_B`$ spectrum for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ sidebands and the signal region is shown in Fig. 2. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ resolution is 22 MeV in the $`K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ mode and 18 MeV in the $`K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mode. Signal to background ratios are worse in these two modes, but the significance in both modes is quite large. The numbers of signal events are shown in Table II.

We choose to determine the branching fraction using only the $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ decay mode because of the relatively large backgrounds in the other modes and the decreased systematic error due to having fewer particles in the final state. In order to find the branching ratio we use the Monte Carlo generated efficiency, shown in Fig. 3 as a function of $`(4\pi )^{}`$ mass. The efficiency falls off at larger $`(4\pi )^{}`$ masses because the detection of the slow $`\pi ^+`$ from the $`D^+`$ decay becomes increasingly more difficult. Since the efficiency varies with mass we need to determine the $`(4\pi )^{}`$ mass spectrum. To rid ourselves of the problem of the background shape, we fit the $`\overline{B}`$ candidate mass spectrum in 50 MeV bins of $`(4\pi )^{}`$ mass. (The mass resolution is approximately 12 MeV.) The resulting $`(4\pi )^{}`$ mass spectrum is shown in Fig. 4. There are indications of a low-mass structure around 1.4 GeV, that will be investigated further in this paper.

We find

$$(\overline{B}^0D^+\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)=(1.72\pm 0.14\pm 0.24)\%.$$
(4)
The systematic error arises mainly from our lack of knowledge about the tracking and $`\pi ^0`$ efficiencies. We assign errors of $`\pm `$2.2% on the efficiency of each charged track, $`\pm `$5% for the slow pion from the $`D^+`$, and $`\pm `$5.4% for the $`\pi ^0`$. The error due to the background shape is evaluated in three ways. First of all, we change the background shape by varying the fitted parameters by 1$`\sigma `$. This results in a change of $`\pm `$3%. Secondly, we allow the shape, $`p_2`$, to vary (the normalization, $`p_1`$, was already allowed to vary). This results in 3.8% increase in the number of events. Finally, we choose a different background function

$$back^{}(r)=p_1r\sqrt{1r^2}\left(1+p_2r+p_3r^2+p_4r^3\right),$$
(5)
and repeat the fitting procedure. This results in a 3.7% decrease in the number of events. Taking a conservative estimate of the systematic error due to the background shape we arrive at $`\pm `$3.8%. We use the current particle data group values for the relevant $`D^+`$ and $`D^0`$ branching ratios of (68.3$`\pm `$1.4)% ($`D^+\pi ^+D^0`$) and (3.85$`\pm `$0.09)% ($`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$), respectively . The relative errors, 2.0% for the $`D^+`$ branching ratio and 2.3% for the $`D^0`$ are added in quadrature to the background shape error, the $`\pi ^0`$ detection efficiency uncertainty and the tracking error. The total tracking error is found by adding the error in the charged particle track finding efficiency linearly for the 5 “fast” charged tracks and then in quadrature with the slow pion from the $`D^+`$ decay. The total systematic error is 14%.

We wish to search for narrow structures. However, we cannot fit the $`\overline{B}`$ mass spectrum in small $`(4\pi )^{}`$ mass intervals due to a lack of statistics. Thus we plot the $`(4\pi )^{}`$ mass for events in the $`M_B`$ peak for the $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ mode and the sum of all three modes in Fig. 5. We also plot two background samples: events at lower $`M_B`$ (5.203 - 5.257 GeV) and those in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ sideband separately.

First we view the plots in the canonical 50 MeV bins. Both background distributions give a consistent if somewhat different estimates of the background shape. (Each background distribution has been normalized to the absolute number of background events as determined by the fit to the $`M_B`$ distribution.) In any case no prominent narrow structures appear in the histograms for the 10 MeV binning.

The most accurate distribution of $`4\pi ^{}`$ mass is obtained by using the data in all three $`D^0`$ decay modes. The $`4\pi ^{}`$ mass distribution shown in Fig. 6 was found by fitting the $`M_B`$ candidate mass distributions summed together. The distribution has been corrected for efficiency as a function of mass. There is an additional 14% systematic scale uncertainty on all the points.

## IV The $`\overline{B}^0D^+\omega \pi ^{}`$ Decay

To investigate the composition of the $`(4\pi )^{}`$ final state, we now investigate the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ mass spectrum for the events in the $`\overline{B}`$ peak. All three $`D^0`$ decay modes are used. We show the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ invariant mass distribution for events in the $`\overline{B}`$ mass peak in Fig. 7 (there are two combinations per event). A clear signal is visible at the $`\omega `$. The histograms on the figure are for events either in the lower $`M_B`$ range, from 5.203 GeV to 5.257 GeV, or in the previously defined $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ sidebands; no $`\omega `$ signal is visible.

The purity of the $`\omega `$ sample can be further improved by restricting candidates to certain regions of the Dalitz plot of the decay products. We define a cut on the Dalitz plot as follows. Let $`T_0`$, $`T_+`$ and $`T_{}`$ be the kinetic energies of the pions, and $`Q`$ be the difference between the $`\omega `$ mass, $`M_\omega `$ (equal to 782 MeV), and the mass of the 3 pions. We define two orthogonal coordinates $`X`$ and $`Y`$, where

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`3T_0/Q1`$ (6)
$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{3}(T_+T_{})/Q.`$ (7)
The kinematic limit that defines the Dalitz plot boundary is defined as

$$Y_{boundary}^2=\frac{1}{3}(X_{boundary}+1)(X_{boundary}+1+a)(1+b/(X_{boundary}+1c))$$
(8)
where $`a=6m_0/Q`$, $`b=6m^2/(M_\omega Q)`$, $`c=3(M_\omega m_0)^2/(2M_\omega Q)`$, $`m`$ is the mass of a charged pion and $`m_0`$ the mass of the neutral pion.

For any set of three pion kinetic energies, we define a variable $`r`$, properly scaled to the kinematic limit as

$$r=\sqrt{\frac{X^2+Y^2}{X_{boundary}^2+Y_{boundary}^2}},$$
(9)
where the boundary values are found by following the radial vector from (0,0) through $`(X,Y)`$.

For events in the $`B`$ mass peak we show in Fig. 8 the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ invariant mass for three different cuts on $`r`$. The $`\omega `$ signal is purified by restricting $`r`$, since the Dalitz plot density for a $`1^{}`$ system decaying into $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ peaks at $`r`$ equals zero .

For further analysis we select $`\omega `$ candidates within the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ mass window of 782$`\pm `$20 MeV with $`r<0.7`$. We abandon the $`\chi _b^2`$ cut here, as background is less of a problem. In Fig. 9 we show the $`\overline{B}`$ candidate mass distribution for the $`D^+\omega \pi ^{}`$ final state summing over all three $`D^0`$ decay modes. (The signal is fit with the same prescription as before.) There are 136$`\pm `$15 events in the peak.

In Fig. 10 we show the $`\omega \pi ^{}`$ mass spectrum in the left-side plot. The solid histogram shows events from the lower $`M_B`$ sideband region suitably normalized. The dotted histogram shows the background estimate from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ sidebands, again normalized. In the signal distribution there is a wide structure around 1.4 GeV, that is inconsistent with background. We re-determine the $`\omega \pi ^{}`$ mass distribution by fitting the $`M_B`$ distribution in bins of $`\omega \pi ^{}`$ mass, and this is shown on the right-side.

Knowing the $`\omega \pi ^{}`$ mass dependence of the efficiency we evaluate the branching fraction:

$$(\overline{B}^0D^+\omega \pi ^{})=(0.29\pm 0.03\pm 0.04)\%.$$
(10)
We provisionally label the state at 1432 MeV the $`A^{}`$ and investigate its properties later. The $`\omega \pi ^{}`$ comprises about 17% of the $`(4\pi )^{}`$ final state. All of the $`\omega \pi ^{}`$ final state is consistent with coming from $`A^{}`$ decay.

## V Observation of $`B^{}D^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$

We proceed in the same manner as for the $`\overline{B}^0`$ reaction with the exception that we use the $`D^0\pi ^0D^0`$ decay mode and restrict ourselves to the $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ decay mode only due to large backgrounds in the other modes. The $`\chi ^2`$ is calculated according to equation 2 and we use a cut value of 8. The $`M_B`$ distributions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ sidebands and signal data are shown in Fig. 11 for the $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ decay mode. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ resolution is 18 MeV. We see a signal of 195$`\pm `$26 events yielding a branching fraction of

$$(B^{}D^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0)=(1.80\pm 0.24\pm 0.27)\%.$$
(11)
The $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ mass spectrum shown in Fig. 12 shows the presence of an $`\omega `$.

Selecting on the presence of an $`\omega `$ with $`r<0.7`$ we show the sideband and signal plots in Fig. 13. (Here we do not use the previously defined $`\chi ^2`$ cut.)

The branching ratio, based on 26$`\pm `$6 events is

$$(B^{}D^0\omega \pi ^{})=(0.45\pm 0.10\pm 0.07)\%.$$
(12)
In Fig. 14 we show the $`\omega \pi ^{}`$ mass spectrum. We see an enhancement at around 1.4 GeV as in the neutral $`\overline{B}`$ case. (We do not have enough statistics here to fit the $`M_B`$ distribution in bins of $`\omega \pi ^{}`$ mass.) The $`\omega \pi ^{}`$ fraction of the $`(4\pi )^{}`$ final state is 25%, and all the $`\omega \pi ^{}`$ is consistent with coming from the $`A^{}`$.

## VI Analysis of $`D^+\omega \pi ^{}`$ Decay Angular Distributions

The $`A^{}`$ is produced along with a spin-1 $`D^{}`$ from a spin-0 $`\overline{B}`$. If the $`A^{}`$ is spin-0 the $`D^{}`$ would be fully polarized in the $`(J,J_z)=(1,0)`$ state. If the $`A^{}`$ were to be spin-1 any combinations of z-components would be allowed. It is natural then to examine the helicity angle of the $`D^+`$ by viewing the cosine of the helicity angle of the $`\pi ^+`$ with respect to the $`\overline{B}`$ in the $`D^+`$ rest frame.

Another decay angle that can be examined is that of the $`\omega \pi `$ system. If the $`A^{}`$ is spin-0, the $`\omega `$ is polarized in the (1,0) state and may be if the $`A^{}`$ is spin-1. Here the helicity angle is defined as the angle between the normal to the $`\omega `$ decay plane and the direction of the $`A^{}`$ in the $`\omega `$ rest frame. For a spin-0 $`A^{}`$ the distribution will be cosine-squared. Again full polarization is possible if the $`A^{}`$ is other than spin-0, but any distribution other than cosine-squared would demonstrate that the spin is not equal to zero.

For this analysis we use all three $`D^0`$ final states for the $`D^+`$ final state. To find the distributions we fit the number of events in the $`M_B`$ candidate plot selected on different angle bins. The $`\omega \pi `$ mass is required to be between 1.1 and 1.9 GeV. This restriction leaves 111$`\pm `$13 events.

In Fig. 15 we show the helicity angle distribution, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _D^{}`$ for the $`D^{}`$ decay. The data have been corrected for acceptance. We also show the expectation for spin-0 from the Monte Carlo. The data have been fit for the fraction of longitudinal polarization. We find

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=0.63\pm 0.09.$$
(13)
The systematic error is much smaller than the statistical error.

The $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _D^{}`$ distribution is not consistent with full polarization, yielding a $`\chi ^2`$ of 17.7 for 5 degrees of freedom. The helicity angle distribution for the $`A^{}\omega \pi ^{}`$, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\omega `$, is shown on Fig. 16. Furthermore the $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\omega `$ distribution is quite inconsistent with a $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\omega `$, yielding a $`\chi ^2`$ of 109 for 5 degrees of freedom. Therefore, we rule out a spin-0 assignment for the $`A^{}`$.

To determine the $`J^P`$ we need a more well defined final state. This is provided by analysis of $`\overline{B}D\omega \pi ^{}`$ decays.

## VII Observation of $`\overline{B}D\omega \pi ^{}`$ Decays

### A $`\overline{B}`$ candidate selection

Here we study the reactions $`\overline{B}D\omega \pi ^{}`$, with either a $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ or $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ decay. Other $`D^0`$ or $`D^+`$ decays have substantially larger backgrounds.

Although we are restricting our search to $`\omega `$’s, we define two $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ samples. One within 20 MeV of the known $`\omega `$ mass (782 MeV) and the other in either low mass or high mass sideband defined as three $`\pi `$ mass either between 732 and 752 MeV or between 812 and 832 MeV. We also require a cut on the $`\omega `$ Dalitz plot of $`r<0.7.`$

To reduce backgrounds we define

$$\chi _b^2=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M_D}{\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }M_D)}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M_\omega }{\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }M_\omega )}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\pi ^0}}{\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\pi ^0})}\right)^2,$$
(14)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_D`$ is the invariant candidate $`D^0`$ mass minus the known $`D^0`$ mass, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\omega `$ is the invariant candidate $`\omega `$ mass minus the known $`\omega `$ mass, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\pi ^0}`$ is the measured $`\gamma \gamma `$ invariant mass minus the known $`\pi ^0`$ mass. The $`\sigma `$’s are the measurement errors. We select candidate events requiring that $`\chi _b^2`$ is $`<`$ 12 for the $`K\pi `$ mode and $`<`$6 for the $`K\pi \pi `$ mode.

### B $`B^{}D^0\omega \pi ^{}`$ Signal

We start with the $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ decay mode, for events in the $`\omega `$ peak. We show the candidate $`\overline{B}`$ mass distribution, $`M_B`$, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ in the side-bands from -7.0 to -3.0$`\sigma `$ and 7.0 to 3.0$`\sigma `$ on Fig. 17(a). This gives a good representation of the background in the signal region. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ resolution is 18 MeV ($`\sigma ).`$ We fit this distribution with the shape given in Equation 3.

We next view the $`M_B`$ distribution for events having $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ within 2$`\sigma `$ around zero in Fig. 17(b). This distribution is fit with a Gaussian signal function of width 2.7 MeV and the background function found above whose normalization is allowed to vary. We find 88 $`\pm `$14 events in the signal peak.

We repeat this procedure for events in the $`\omega `$ sidebands. We use for our $`\chi _b^2`$ definition pseudo-$`\omega `$ masses in the center of the sideband intervals. We show the $`M_B`$ distribution for events in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ sideband, defined above, and those having $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ within 2$`\sigma `$ around zero in Fig. 18. We find no significant signal.

### C $`\overline{B}^0D^+\omega \pi ^{}`$ Signal

The same procedure followed for the $`D^0`$ final state is used for the $`D^+`$ final state. We show the candidate $`\overline{B}`$ mass distribution, $`M_B`$, for events in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ side-band on Fig. 19(a). The $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ resolution is 18 MeV ($`\sigma ).`$ This gives a good representation of the background in the signal region. We fit this distribution with a shape given in equation 3.

We next view the $`M_B`$ distribution for events having $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ within 2$`\sigma `$ around zero in Fig. 19(b). This distribution is fit with a Gaussian signal function of width 2.7 MeV and the background function found above whose normalization is allowed to vary. We find 91$`\pm `$18 events in the signal peak.

We repeat this procedure for events in the $`\omega `$ sidebands. We show the $`M_B`$ distribution for both $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ sidebands and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ within 2$`\sigma `$ around zero in Fig. 20.

There is no evidence of any signal in the $`\omega `$ sideband plot, leading to the conclusion that the signal is associated purely with $`\omega `$.

### D Branching Fractions

We determine the branching ratios, shown in Table III, by performing a Monte Carlo simulation of the efficiencies in the two modes. We use the current particle data group values for the relevant $`\omega `$, $`D^+`$ and $`D^0`$ branching ratios of (88.8$`\pm `$0.7)% ($`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$), (9.0$`\pm `$0.6)% ($`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$) and (3.85$`\pm `$0.09)% ($`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$) . The efficiencies listed in the table do not include these branching ratios .

The systematic error arises mainly from our lack of knowledge about the tracking and $`\pi ^0`$ efficiencies. We assign errors of $`\pm `$2.2% on the efficiency of each charged track, and $`\pm `$5.4% for the $`\pi ^0`$. The error due to the background shape is evaluated in three ways. First of all, we change the background shape by varying the fitted parameters by 1$`\sigma `$. This results in a change of $`\pm `$5.0%. Secondly, we allow the shape, $`p_2`$, to vary (the normalization, $`p_1`$, was already allowed to vary). This results in 5.5% increase in the number of events. Finally, we choose a different background function given in equation 5 and repeat the fitting procedure. This results in a 1.0% decrease in the number of events. Taking a conservative estimate of the systematic error due to the background shape we arrive at $`\pm `$5.5%.

### E The $`\omega \pi ^{}`$ System

For all subsequent discussions we add the $`D^0`$ and $`D^+`$ final states together. We select sample of $`\omega `$’s in the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ mass window of 782$`\pm `$20 MeV using only combinations having $`r<0.7`$ in the Dalitz plot.

In Fig. 21 we show the $`\omega \pi ^{}`$ mass spectrum in the left-side plot. The solid histogram shows events from the lower $`M_B`$ sideband region (5.203 - 5.257 GeV) suitably normalized. The dotted histogram shows the background estimate from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ sidebands, again normalized. In the signal distribution there is a wide structure around 1.4 GeV, that is inconsistent with background. We re-determine the $`\omega \pi ^{}`$ mass distribution by fitting the $`M_B`$ distribution in bins of $`\omega \pi ^{}`$ mass, and this is shown on the right-side.

This structure appears identical to the one we observed in $`\overline{B}D^{}\omega \pi ^{}`$ decays.

### F Angular Distributions in $`D\omega \pi ^{}`$

We can determine the spin and parity of the $`A^{}`$ particle by studying the angular distributions characterizing its decay products. The decay chain that we are considering is $`BAD`$; $`A\omega \pi `$ and $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$. The helicity formalism  is generally used in the analysis of these sequential decays. This formalism is well suited to relativistic problems involving particles with spin $`\stackrel{}{J}`$ and momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ because the helicity operator $`h=\stackrel{}{J}\stackrel{}{p}`$ is invariant under both rotations and boosts along $`\widehat{p}`$.

There are two relevant reference frames. The first one, that we will define $`x_Ay_Az_A`$ is the rest frame of the $`A`$ particle, with the $`\widehat{z_A}`$ axis pointing in the $`A`$ direction of motion in the $`B`$ rest frame. The $`\widehat{x_A}`$ direction is arbitrary. The second one, $`x_\omega y_\omega z_\omega `$, is related to $`x_Ay_Az_A`$ by the rotation through 3 Euler angles $`\varphi _A,\theta _A,\varphi _A`$, as shown in Fig. 22. The angle $`\varphi _A`$ defines the orientation of the plane containing the $`\omega `$ direction in the $`A`$ rest frame and the $`\widehat{z_A}`$ axis with respect to the $`\widehat{x_A}\widehat{z_A}`$ plane. The angle $`\theta _A`$ is the polar angle of the $`\omega `$ momentum vector in the $`A`$ rest frame. Note that the $`A`$ decay plane has an azimuthal angle $`\varphi _A`$ both in the $`x_Ay_Az_A`$ and in the $`x_\omega y_\omega z_\omega `$ references. The angles $`\theta _\omega `$ and $`\varphi _\omega `$ define the orientation of the $`\omega `$ decay plane in the $`\omega `$ rest frame. As the angle $`\varphi _A`$ is arbitrary, the only angle that has a physical meaning is $`\chi =\varphi _A\varphi _\omega `$, the opening angle between the $`A`$ decay plane and the $`\omega `$ decay plane.

Both the $`\overline{B}`$ meson and the $`D`$ meson are pseudoscalar, therefore their helicity is 0. Thus $`A`$ will be longitudinally polarized independently of its spin. In order to calculate the decay amplitude for this $`A\omega \pi ^{}`$ process, we need to sum over the $`\omega `$ helicity states:

$$𝒜=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\lambda _\omega }D_{0\lambda _\omega }^{J_A}(\varphi _A,\theta _A,\varphi _A)D_{\lambda _\omega 0}^1(\varphi _\omega ,\theta _\omega ,\varphi _\omega )B_{\lambda _\omega 0},$$
(15)
here $`D_{0\lambda _\omega }^{J_A}(\varphi _A,\theta _A,\varphi _A)`$ is the rotation matrix that relates the $`x_Ay_Az_A`$ and the $`x_\omega y_\omega z_\omega `$ frames and $`D_{\lambda _\omega 0}^1(\varphi _\omega ,\theta _\omega ,\varphi _\omega )`$ is the rotation matrix relating the $`x_\omega y_\omega z_\omega `$ and the direction of the normal to the $`\omega `$ decay plane $`\widehat{n}(\theta _\omega ,\varphi _\omega )`$.

In general, there are three helicity amplitudes that contribute to this decay: $`B_{10}`$ and $`B_{10}`$, corresponding to a transverse $`\omega `$ polarization, and $`B_{00}`$, corresponding to a longitudinal $`\omega `$ polarization. This expression can be simplified by observing that $`A\omega \pi `$ is a strong decay and thus conserves parity. Thus, the helicity amplitudes are related as:

$$B_{10}=(1)^{1S(A)}\eta _A\eta _\omega \eta _\pi B_{10},$$
(16)
$$B_{00}=(1)^{1S(A)}\eta _A\eta _\omega \eta _\pi B_{00}.$$
(17)
where $`S(A)`$ is the spin of particle $`A`$ and $`\eta _A,\eta _\omega `$ and $`\eta _\pi `$ represent the intrinsic parity of the decaying particle and its decay products, respectively.

Eq. 16 relates the two transverse helicity amplitudes, while Eq. 17 forbids the presence of a longitudinal component under certain conditions. For example, if $`A`$ is a $`1^{}`$ object, the $`\omega `$ has transverse polarization and $`B_{10}=B_{10}`$. When the sign in Eqs. 16-17 is positive, two parameters determined by the hadronic matrix element affect the angular distribution and thus we cannot fully determine it only on the basis of our assumptions on the $`A`$ spin parity. We have carried out the calculation of the predicted angular distributions including spin assignment for $`A`$ up to 2. The predicted angular distributions are summarized in Table IV.

The statistical accuracy of our data sample is not sufficient to do a simultaneous fit of the joint angular distributions shown above. Thus only the projections along the $`\theta _A`$, $`\theta _\omega `$ and $`\chi `$ are fitted, integrating out the remaining degrees of freedom. Table V, gives the analytical form for these projections.

We determine the projections of these angular distributions by fitting the $`M_B`$ distribution as a function of the various angular quantities $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _A`$, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\omega `$, $`\chi `$. We restrict the $`\omega \pi ^{}`$ mass range to be between 1.1 and 1.7 GeV, containing 104 signal events. In order to fit the angular distribution with theoretical expectations, we must correct the data for acceptances. We determine the acceptance correction by comparing the Monte Carlo generated angular distributions with the reconstructed distributions. The angular dependent efficiencies are shown in Fig. 23.

The corrected angular distributions are shown in Fig. 24. The data are fit to the expectations for the various $`J^P`$ assignments. For the $`0^{}`$, $`1^{}`$ and $`2^+`$ assignments, the curves have a fixed shape. For the $`1^+`$ and $`2^{}`$ assignments we let the ratio between the longitudinal and transverse amplitudes vary to best fit the data. We notice that the $`\omega `$ polarization is very clearly transverse ($`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\omega `$) and that infers a $`1^{}`$ or $`2^+`$ assignment.

We list in Table VI the $`\chi ^2/dof`$ for the different $`J^P`$ assignments. The $`1^{}`$ assignment is preferred, having a $`\chi ^2/dof`$ of 1.7. The other assignments are clearly ruled out. If the $`1^{}`$ assignment is correct, the probability that our fit yields a $`\chi ^2/dof`$ equal to 1.7 or greater is 3.8% .

## VIII Discussion of Nature of the $`A^{}`$

We have found a $`1^{}`$ object decaying into $`\omega \pi ^{}`$. A non-relativistic Breit-Wigner fit assuming a single resonance and no background gives a mass around 1420 MeV with an intrinsic width about 400 MeV. Signals for $`\omega \pi ^{}`$ resonances have been detected before below 1500 MeV. There is a well established axial-vector state, the b1(1235), with mass 1230 MeV and width 142 MeV. Data on vector states, excited $`\rho `$’s, are inconsistent. Clegg and Donnachie  have reviewed $`\tau ^{}(4\pi )^{}\overline{\nu }`$, $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ data, including the $`\omega \pi `$ final state. Their best explanation is that of two $`1^{}`$ states at 1463$`\pm `$25 MeV and 1730$`\pm `$30 MeV with widths 311$`\pm `$62 and 400$`\pm `$100 MeV, respectively. Only the lighter one decays into $`\omega \pi `$. The situation is quite complex, however. They conclude that these states must be mixed with non-$`q\overline{q}`$ states in order to explain their decay widths. There is also an observation of a wide, 300 MeV, $`\omega \pi ^0`$ state in photoproduction at 1250 MeV , that is dominantly the $`b_1`$(1235)  with possibly some $`1^{}`$ in addition. Our state is consistent with the lower mass $`\rho ^{}`$. We do not seem to be seeing significant production of the higher mass state into $`\omega \pi ^{}`$, as expected.

Several models predict the mass and decay widths of excited $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ mesons . For example, according to Godfrey and Isgur  the first radial excitation of the $`\rho `$ is at 1450 MeV. There is a large variation among the models, however, on prediction of the relative decays widths ranging from no $`\pi \pi `$ to $`\pi \pi `$ being equal to $`\omega \pi `$ .

Since we have observed a wide $`1^{}`$ state in the mass region where the $`\rho ^{}`$ is expected, the most natural explanation is that we are observing the $`\rho ^{}`$ for the first time in $`B`$ decays.

We note that $`\tau ^{}`$ lepton decays into $`\omega \pi ^{}`$ have been observed, and the $`1^{}`$ spin-parity definitely established. However, the relatively low mass of the $`\tau ^{}`$ distorts the the mass spectrum significantly, and makes it difficult to extract the $`\rho ^{}`$ mass and width .

## IX Mass and Width Values for the $`\rho ^{}`$

Here we find the best values for the $`\rho ^{}`$ mass and width. This procedure is discussed in more detail in the Appendix. The shape of the $`\omega \pi ^{}`$ mass spectrum is affected by the phase space allowed by the $`B`$ decay, the $`B`$ decay amplitude, the decay amplitude for the $`\rho ^{}`$, and finally the shape of the Breit-Wigner decay distribution. For $`BD^{()}\omega \pi ^{}`$ decay:

$`d\mathrm{\Gamma }(BD^{()}\omega \pi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M_B}}|A(BD^{()}\rho ^{})BW(\rho ^{})A(\rho ^{}\omega \pi )|^2`$ (19)
$`\times d𝒫(BD^{()}\rho ^{})d𝒫(\rho ^{}\omega \pi ){\displaystyle \frac{dM_{\omega \pi }^2}{2\pi }},`$
where $`D^{()}`$ indicates either a $`D^{}`$ or a $`D`$ meson.

The phase space for two-body decays is well known. The decay amplitude for the $`B`$ decay can be obtained from factorization where the $`\rho ^{}`$ is assumed to be identical to the lepton current . Finally the Lorentz structure of the $`\rho ^{}`$ decay can be accounted for and we are left only to consider a Breit-Wigner amplitude of the form

$$\mathrm{Breit}\mathrm{Wigner}(M_{\omega \pi })=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(M_{\omega \pi })M_{\omega \pi }^2}{(M_{\omega \pi }^2M_\rho ^{}^2)^2+M_{\omega \pi }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(M_{\omega \pi })},$$
(20)
where the mass dependent width is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(M_{\omega \pi })=\mathrm{\Gamma }(M_\rho ^{})\left(\frac{p_\omega (M_{\omega \pi })}{p_\omega (M_\rho ^{})}\right)^3\left(\frac{M_\rho ^{}}{M_{\omega \pi }}\right)^n\frac{1+(Rp_\omega (M_\rho ^{}))^2}{1+(Rp_\omega (M_{\omega \pi }))^2}.$$
(21)
We allow the parameters $`R`$ and $`n`$ to float in the fit. They represent parameterizations of the hadronic matrix element and Blatt-Weiskopf damping factors. $`R`$ is the $`\rho ^{}`$ radius in units of fm/$`\mathrm{}c`$. Fig. 25 shows the fit to $`M_{\omega \pi }`$ distribution, where we have summed the $`D^0`$, $`D^+`$ and $`D^+`$ data. (We have corrected the data in each channel for the $`M_{\omega \pi }`$ efficiency dependence, which is small for the $`D^0`$ and $`D^+`$ modes.)

The fit gives the mass and width to be (1349$`\pm `$25$`{}_{5}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+10}`$) MeV and (547$`\pm `$86$`{}_{45}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+46}`$) MeV, respectively. The errors are statistical and systematic; they are derived in the Appendix. The values for $`R`$ and $`n`$ are $`2.05_{1.14}^{+7.85}`$ fm/$`\mathrm{}c`$ and $`0.57_{0.83}^{+0.71}`$, respectively.

## X Search For Other Resonant Substructure in $`D^{}(4\pi )^{}`$

We have accounted for $``$20% of the $`(4\pi )^{}`$ final state. We would like to disentangle other resonant substructure. Since the background is large in modes other than $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ we will only use this mode. One process that comes to mind is that where the virtual $`W^{}`$ materializes as an $`a_1^{}`$, that subsequently decays into $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ and we produce a $`D^+`$ that decays into $`D^+\pi ^0`$. This process should be the similar to that previously seen in the reaction $`B^{}D^0\pi ^{}`$, where the $`D^0`$ decayed into a $`D^+\pi ^{}`$ . We search for the presence of an $`a_1^{}`$ by examining the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ mass spectrum in Fig. 26.

There is an excess of signal events above background in the $`a_1^{}`$ mass region, that cannot be definitely associated with the $`a_1`$. Proceeding by selecting events with $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ masses between 0.6 and 1.6 GeV, we show the $`D^+\pi ^0`$ invariant mass spectrum in Fig. 27.

Although there is a suggestion of a low mass enhancement, it is not consistent with $`D^{}`$ production that would peak in region of 2.42 - 2.46 GeV. Perhaps we are seeing an indication of fragmentation at the $`bc`$ decay vertex here.

We also display for completeness the “$`a_1^{}\pi ^0`$” mass distribution in Fig. 28. There may or may not be a wide structure in the $`(4\pi )^{}`$ mass. At this point we abandon our search for substructure in this decay channel.

## XI Discussion and Conclusions

We have made the first statistically significant observations of six hadronic $`B`$ decays shown in Table VII.

There is a low-mass resonant substructure in the $`\omega \pi ^{}`$ mass. The fit to a sophisticated Breit-Wigner function gives the mass and width to be (1349$`\pm `$25$`{}_{5}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+10}`$) MeV and (547$`\pm `$86$`{}_{45}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+46}`$) MeV, respectively.

The structure at 1349 MeV has a spin-parity consistent with $`1^{}`$. It is likely to be the elusive $`\rho ^{}`$ resonance . These are by far the most accurate and least model dependent measurements of the $`\rho ^{}`$ parameters. The $`\rho ^{}`$ dominates the final state. (Thus the branching ratios for the $`D^{()}\omega \pi ^{}`$ apply also for $`D^{()}\rho ^{}`$.)

Heavy quark symmetry predicts equal partial widths for $`D^{}\rho ^{}`$ and $`D\rho ^{}`$. We measure the relative rates to be

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\overline{B}^0D^+\rho ^{}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\overline{B}^0D^+\rho ^{}\right)}=1.04\pm 0.21\pm 0.06$$
(22)
$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(B^{}D^0\rho ^{}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(B^{}D^0\rho ^{}\right)}=1.10\pm 0.31\pm 0.06$$
(23)
$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\overline{B}D^{}\rho ^{}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\overline{B}D\rho ^{}\right)}=1.06\pm 0.17\pm 0.04.$$
(24)
Thus the prediction of heavy quark symmetry is satisfied within our errors.

Factorization predicts that the fraction of longitudinal polarization of the $`D^+`$ is the same as in the related semileptonic decay $`\overline{B}D^{}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ at four-momentum transfer $`q^2`$ equal to the mass-squared of the $`\rho ^{}`$

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\left(\overline{B}D^+\rho ^{}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\overline{B}D^+\rho ^{}\right)}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\left(\overline{B}D^{}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\overline{B}D^{}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }\right)}|{}_{q^2=m_\rho ^{}^2}{}^{}.$$
(25)
Our measurement of the $`D^+`$ polarization (see Fig. 15) is (63$`\pm `$9)%. The model predictions in semileptonic decays for a $`q^2`$ of 2 GeV2, are between 66.9 and 72.6% . Thus this prediction of factorization is satisfied.

We can use factorization to estimate the product of the $`\rho ^{}`$ weak decay constant $`f_\rho ^{}`$ and the branching ratio for $`\rho ^{}\omega \pi ^{}`$. The relevant expression is

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\overline{B}D^+\rho ^{},\rho ^{}\omega \pi ^{}\right)}{\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}\left(\overline{B}D^{}\mathrm{}^{}\nu \right)|_{q^2=m_\rho ^{}^2}}=6\pi ^2c_1^2f_\rho ^{}^2\left(\rho ^{}\omega \pi ^{}\right)|V_{ud}|^2,$$
(26)
where $`c_1`$ is a QCD correction factor. We use $`c_1`$=1.1$`\pm `$0.1 .

We use the semileptonic decay rates given in Barish et al. . The product

$$f_\rho ^{}^2\left(\rho ^{}\omega \pi ^{}\right)=0.011\pm 0.003\mathrm{GeV}^2,$$
(27)
where the error is the quadrature of the experimental errors on the experimental branching ratios and $`c_1`$.

The model of Godfrey and Isgur predicts decay constants widths and partial widths of mesons comprised of light quarks by using a relativistic treatment in the context of QCD . They predict both $`f_\rho ^{}`$ and $`\left(\rho ^{}\omega \pi ^{}\right)`$; the values are 80 MeV and 39%, respectively. The branching ratio prediction is believed to be more accurate . We use this to extract

$$f_\rho ^{}=167\pm 23\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(28)
The model predicts a lower value for $`f_\rho ^{}`$ than observed here, if factorization is correct.

We note that all the $`BD^{()}\rho ^{}`$ branching ratios that we have measured are approximately equal to the $`BD^{()}\rho `$ branching rates  if a model value of $`\left(\rho ^{}\omega \pi ^{}\right)`$ = 39% is used.

Finally, although the $`\overline{B}^0D^+(4\pi )^{}`$ and $`B^{}D^0(4\pi )^{}`$ branching ratios are nearly equal, the $`\omega \pi ^{}`$ branching ratios are about 1.5 times larger for the charged $`B`$ than the neutral $`B`$, maintaining the trend seen for the $`\pi ^{}`$ and $`\rho ^{}`$ final states. Since the $`B^{}`$ lifetime is if anything longer than the $`B^0`$, this trend must reverse for some final states. It has not for $`D^{()}\rho ^{}`$.

## XII Acknowledgements

We thank A. Donnachie, N. Isgur, J. Rosner and J. Schechter for useful discussions. We also thank D. Black of Syracuse University for crucial insights on how to calculate Lorentz structures. We gratefully acknowledge the effort of the CESR staff in providing us with excellent luminosity and running conditions. M. Selen thanks the PFF program of the NSF and the Research Corporation, and A.H. Mahmood thanks the Texas Advanced Research Program. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

## XIII Appendix: Determination of the $`\rho ^{}`$ Mass and Width

### A Introduction

Since the $`\rho ^{}`$ decays to $`\omega \pi ^{}`$ via a P-wave, we need to take into account the fact that the width, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(M_{\omega \pi })`$, may not be constant, but can vary with $`M_{\omega \pi }`$. Furthermore we need to consider the kinematic limits from $`BD^{()}\rho ^{}`$ decay and $`\rho ^{}\omega \pi `$ decay.

### B The Differential Decay Distribution

We can write a general expression for the differential distribution for $`M_{\omega \pi }`$ in $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }(BD^{()}\omega \pi )`$ via the $`\rho ^{}`$ as:

$`d\mathrm{\Gamma }(BD^{()}\omega \pi )=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M_B}}|A(BD^{()}\rho ^{})BW(\rho ^{})A(\rho ^{}\omega \pi )|^2`$ (29)
$`\times `$ $`d𝒫(BD^{()}\rho ^{})d𝒫(\rho ^{}\omega \pi ){\displaystyle \frac{dM_{\omega \pi }^2}{2\pi }},`$ (30)
where $`d𝒫`$ indicates a phase space term, $`BW`$ indicates some form of a Breit-Wigner shape function, and $`A`$ indicates an amplitude.

The phase space of $`BD^{()}\rho ^{}`$ provides a cut off at higher $`M_{\omega \pi }`$, whereas the phase space of $`\rho ^{}\omega \pi `$ provides a cut off at lower $`M_{\omega \pi }`$. We assume that the two decay stages are independent and can be factorized. Thus the function can be calculated from the widths of $`B`$ and $`\rho ^{}`$ decays.

#### 1 The $`B`$ Decay Width

The width for $`\rho ^{}`$ production is given by:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(BD^{()}\rho ^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M_B}}|A(BD^{()}\rho ^{})|^2d𝒫(BD^{}\rho ^{})`$ (31)
$`d𝒫(BD^{()}\rho ^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2p_D^{}}{M_B}}\right)`$ (32)
$`A(BD^{()}\rho ^{})\sqrt{G_F}V_{cb}\times \mathrm{Lorentz}\mathrm{structure}\times f_\rho ^{}(M_{\omega \pi })`$ (33)
where $`f_\rho ^{}(M_{\omega \pi })`$ is the $`\rho ^{}`$ weak production form factor.

Instead of having to calculate $`f_\rho ^{}(M_{\omega \pi }`$), we can use our knowledge of semileptonic $`b`$ decays, $`BD^{()}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ coupled with factorization to approximate $`A(BD^{}\rho ^{})`$.

Factorization tells us:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(BD^{()}\rho ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`6\pi ^2|V_{ud}|^2f_\rho ^{}^2(M_{\omega \pi })|a_1|^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(BD^{()}l\nu )}{dq^2}}|_{q^2=M_{\omega \pi }^2}`$ (34)
$``$ $`p_{D^{()}}M_{\omega \pi }^2\times \{|H_+(M_{\omega \pi }^2)|^2+|H_{}(M_{\omega \pi }^2)|^2+|H_o(M_{\omega \pi }^2)|^2\}`$ (35)
The helicity amplitudes $`H(M_{\omega \pi }^2)`$ can be related to the axial-vector form factors $`A_1(q^2)`$ and $`A_2(q^2)`$, and vector form factor $`V(q^2)`$. Details can be found in reference .

$`H_\pm (q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`(M_B+M_D^{})A_1(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{2M_Bp_D^{}}{M_B+M_D^{}}}V(q^2)`$ (36)
$`H_o(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M_D^{}\sqrt{q^2}}}\left[(M_B^2M_D^{}^2q^2)(M_B+M_D^{})A_1(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{4M_B^2p_D^{}^2}{M_B+M_D^{}}}A_2(q^2)\right]`$ (37)
In the heavy-quark symmetry limit, the form factors $`A_1,A_2`$, and $`V`$ are related to the Isgur-Wise function. With correction due to finite heavy quark mass and $`\alpha _s`$, they can be written as

$`A_1(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{(M_B+M_D^{})^2}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{M_B+M_D^{}}{2\sqrt{M_BM_D^{}}}}h_{A_1}(w)`$ (38)
$`A_2(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`R_2{\displaystyle \frac{M_B+M_D^{}}{2\sqrt{M_BM_D^{}}}}h_{A_1}(w)`$ (39)
$`V(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`R_1{\displaystyle \frac{M_B+M_D^{}}{2\sqrt{M_BM_D^{}}}}h_{A_1}(w),`$ (40)
were $`w`$ is the invariant four-velocity transfer.

The values calculated by Neubert for $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ have the explicit dependence on $`w`$  of

$`R_1(w)`$ $`=`$ $`1.350.22(w1)+0.09(w1)^2`$ (41)
$`R_2(w)`$ $`=`$ $`0.79+0.15(w1)0.04(w1)^2,`$ (42)
while Close and Wambach  determine

$`R_1(w)`$ $`=`$ $`1.150.07(w1)+𝒪(w1)^2`$ (43)
$`R_2(w)`$ $`=`$ $`0.91+0.04(w1)+𝒪(w1)^2.`$ (44)
CLEO measured $`R_1(0)`$ and $`R_2(0)`$ to be $`1.18\pm 0.30\pm 0.12`$ and $`0.71\pm 0.22\pm 0.07`$, respectively . The form factor $`h_{A_1}(w)`$ can be assumed to be linear as $`h_{A_1}(w)=1\rho _{A_1}^2(w1)`$; CLEO measured $`\rho _{A_1}^2`$ to be $`0.91\pm 0.15\pm 0.06.`$

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(BD^{}\rho ^{})`$ as function of $`M_{\omega \pi }`$ is shown in Fig. 29, where the form factor $`f_\rho ^{}`$ is not included.

#### 2 The Width of $`\rho ^{}`$ decay

The width of $`\rho ^{}`$ decay can be expanded as:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho ^{}\omega \pi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M_{\omega \pi }}}|A(\rho ^{}\omega \pi )|^2d𝒫(\rho ^{}\omega \pi )`$ (45)
$`d𝒫(\rho ^{}\omega \pi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2p_\omega }{M_{\omega \pi }}}\right)`$ (46)
$`A(\rho ^{}\omega \pi )=Lorentzstructure\times h(M_{\omega \pi }^2),`$ (47)
where $`p_\omega `$ is evaluated in the $`\omega \pi `$ rest frame, and $`h(M_{\omega \pi }^2)`$ is the $`\rho ^{}`$ strong decay form factor, which is usually assumed to be a constant.

The Lorentz structure of $`\rho ^{}\omega \pi `$ must be linear in the polarization vectors of the $`\rho ^{}`$ and the $`\omega `$. The simplest mathematical expression is $`\epsilon _\rho ^{}\epsilon _\omega `$, which is S-wave. For P-wave, since $`\epsilon _\rho ^{}p_\rho ^{}=0`$ and $`\epsilon _\omega p_\omega =0`$ by transversality, the only Lorentz scalers we can form are $`(\epsilon _\rho ^{}p_\omega )(\epsilon _\omega p_\rho ^{})`$ and $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon _\rho ^{}^\mu \epsilon _\omega ^\nu p_\omega ^\alpha p_\rho ^{}^\beta `$. The first term violates parity conservation. Later, we describe the detailed calculation of the second term, which gives

$$|A(\rho ^{}\omega \pi )|^2=h^2(M_{\omega \pi }^2)|ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon _\rho ^{}^\mu \epsilon _\omega ^\nu p_\omega ^\alpha p_\rho ^{}^\beta |^2h^2(M_{\omega \pi }^2)M_{\omega \pi }^2p_\omega ^2$$
(48)
Thus, the width of $`\rho ^{}\omega \pi `$ is:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho ^{}\omega \pi )h^2(M_{\omega \pi }^2)p_\omega ^3$$
(49)
Note, that the contribution of longitudinal polarized $`\omega `$ to the width is zero, which is consistent with our spin-parity study; our measurements gave $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Long}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}`$ to be ($`10\pm 9)\%`$ in the $`D^{}\omega \pi `$ mode and ($`0.4\pm 22\%`$) in the $`D\omega \pi `$ mode.

#### 3 The Breit-Wigner

The Breit-Wigner function has a long history. Fundamentally we are approximating the decay as having a non-changing amplitude as a function of mass in the simplest case. In general the denominator of the Breit-Wigner has a fixed form in amplitude given by

$$\mathrm{Denominator}=M_{\omega \pi }^2M_\rho ^{}^2iM_{\omega \pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}(M_{\omega \pi }),$$
(50)
The numerator is where we have to have more discussion. Since $`\omega \pi `$ is a large decay mode of $`\rho ^{}`$, we assume that the mass dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}`$ can be approximated by the mass dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \pi }`$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}(M_{\omega \pi })=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}(M_\rho ^{})\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \pi }(M_{\omega \pi })}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \pi }(M_\rho ^{})}$$
(51)
From the derivation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho ^{}\omega \pi )`$ above, we see that

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \pi }(M_{\omega \pi })}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \pi }(M_\rho ^{})}=\left(\frac{h(M_{\omega \pi }^2)}{h(M_\rho ^{}^2)}\right)^2\times \left(\frac{p_\omega (M_{\omega \pi })}{p_\omega (M_\rho ^{})}\right)^3$$
(52)
#### 4 The Differential Distribution

Eq. 30 now can be rewritten as:

$$d\mathrm{\Gamma }(BD^{}\omega \pi )=\mathrm{\Gamma }(BD^{}\rho ^{})\frac{2M_{\omega \pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \pi }(M_{\omega \pi })}{(M_{\omega \pi }^2M_\rho ^{}^2)^2+M_{\omega \pi }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}(M_{\omega \pi })^2}\frac{dM_{\omega \pi }^2}{2\pi }$$
(53)
With the relation shown in Eq. 51, we have the differential function which can be used for fitting the mass distribution:

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(BD^{}\omega \pi )}{dM_{\omega \pi }}=C\times \mathrm{\Gamma }(BD^{}\rho ^{})\times \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }M_{\omega \pi }^2}{(M_{\omega \pi }^2M_\rho ^{}^2)^2+M_{\omega \pi }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2},$$
(54)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the $`M_{\omega \pi }`$-dependent total width. From Eq. 51 and Eq. 52 we get that:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\times \left(\frac{h(M_{\omega \pi }^2)}{h(M_\rho ^{}^2)}\right)^2\times \left(\frac{p_\omega (M_{\omega \pi })}{p_\omega (M_\rho ^{})}\right)^3$$
(55)
#### 5 Decay Form Factor of $`\rho ^{}\omega \pi `$

Now, what form should we use for $`h(M_{\omega \pi }^2)`$? In Eq. 48, the dimensions of $`h(M_{\omega \pi }^2)`$ are GeV-1. But the dependence on $`M_{\omega \pi }`$ could be anything. So we can try $`h(M_{\omega \pi }^2)M_{\omega \pi }^n`$, where $`n`$ is allowed to float in the fit.

$`h(M_{\omega \pi }^2)`$ could also include Blatt-Weisskopf factors . A Blatt-Weisskopf factor for the P-wave decay $`\rho ^{}\omega \pi `$ would be of the form:

$$FF(M_{\omega \pi }^2)=\frac{1+(Rp_\omega (M_\rho ^{}))^2}{1+(Rp_\omega (M_{\omega \pi }))^2}$$
(56)
where $`R`$ is the radius of the $`\rho ^{}`$ meson. A typical value is $`R=1\mathrm{fm}/\mathrm{}c`$.

### C Fit to $`M_{\omega \pi }`$ Spectrum

Since we are limited by the statistics, we chose to add the $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ final states together. This is permissible since the Lorentz structure of $`\rho ^{}`$ decay in the different modes is the same. The only difference is in the width of $`BD^{()}\rho ^{}`$ part, that depends on $`M_{\omega \pi }`$, however this difference is slight.

We use following formula to represent the width:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(M_{\omega \pi })=\mathrm{\Gamma }(M_\rho ^{})\left(\frac{p_\omega (M_{\omega \pi })}{p_\omega (M_\rho ^{})}\right)^3\left(\frac{M_\rho ^{}}{M_{\omega \pi }}\right)^n\frac{1+(Rp_\omega (M_\rho ^{}))^2}{1+(Rp_\omega (M_{\omega \pi }))^2}$$
(57)
We allow the parameters $`R`$ and $`n`$ to float. We use Neubert’s calculated values for $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$; effects of changing this to other estimates will contribute to the systematic error. Fig. 25 shows the fit to $`M_{\omega \pi }`$ distribution.

The fit gives the mass and width to be (1349$`\pm `$25) MeV and (547$`\pm `$86) MeV, respectively. The values for $`R`$ and $`n`$ are $`2.05_{1.14}^{+7.85}`$ and $`0.57_{0.83}^{+0.71}`$, respectively.

Systematic errors can arise from several sources. We test our fit globally by restricting the mass range to below 1.8 GeV. This results in a shift in the mass by -5.7 MeV and the width by -23.2 MeV. Both of these changes are much smaller than the statistical error.

Two specific sources of systematic error are using the $`D^{}`$ mass to represent both $`D^{}`$ and $`D`$ meson final states, and using the form-factors $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ from Neubert’s calculation. To estimate the error on the former, we use the $`D`$ in the fit; for the latter we use form-factors as calculated by Close and Wambach or, the CLEO measurement of these parameters. Listed in the Table VIII are the contributions from each of these sources.

Finally, to estimate the error due to our model of the $`\omega \pi ^{}`$ shape, we allow the values of $`R`$ and $`n`$ to change so that the $`\chi ^2`$ of the fit increases by one unit, corresponding to a one standard deviation variation. We list in Table VIII the maximum positive and negative changes in the mass and width values allowed by these variations. Thus our final value for the mass of $`\rho ^{}`$ resonance is ($`1349\pm 25_5^{+10}`$) MeV. The width is ($`547\pm 86_{45}^{+46}`$) MeV.

It is possible that values of the $`\rho ^{}`$ mass and width could be affected if additional resonance substructure of unknown origin were to be included. There is no evidence, however, that such structures are needed. By including all the known physics effects of phase space and Lorentz structure we are able to describe the data quite well.

### D Calculation of the Lorentz Structure

In this Section, we will calculate the Lorentz structure $`|ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon _\rho ^{}^\mu \epsilon _\omega ^\nu p^\alpha q^\beta |^2`$, where we use $`p^\alpha `$ and $`q^\beta `$ to represent the four momentum of $`\rho ^{}`$ and $`\omega `$. In general the helicity structure is more apparent when calculated in a rest frame where the $`\rho ^{}`$ is in motion. Later we will give the expression in $`\rho ^{}`$ rest frame.

The transversality $`\epsilon _\omega p_\omega =0`$ . For spin 1 massive particle with momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}=p\stackrel{}{e}_z`$, the helicity states can be represented as:

$`\epsilon _{(\pm )}`$ $`=`$ $`(0,1,\pm i,0)`$ (58)
$`\epsilon _{()}`$ $`=`$ $`(p,0,0,E)/M`$ (59)
For general $`\stackrel{}{p}`$, we can construct $`\epsilon _{()}`$ as follows. The $`\epsilon _{(\pm )}`$ are not shown as they will not be directly used.

$$\epsilon _{()}=(\frac{p}{M},\frac{E\stackrel{}{p}}{Mp})$$
(60)
Now we need to prepare calculations of several quantities. First is $`\epsilon _{(\lambda )}^\mu \epsilon _{(\lambda )}^\nu `$. The summation over all helicity states is given in . For helicity 0, we use Eq: 60 and expand it. We have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =o,\pm }{}}\epsilon _{(\lambda )}^\mu \epsilon _{(\lambda )}^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`g^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{M^2}}`$ (61)
$`\epsilon _{()}^\mu \epsilon _{()}^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^\mu p^\nu }{M^2}}\delta _{\mu 0}\delta _{\nu 0}+{\displaystyle \frac{(p^\mu p^\nu )^{}}{P^2}}`$ (62)
$`\epsilon _{(+)}^\mu \epsilon _{(+)}^\nu +\epsilon _{()}^\mu \epsilon _{()}^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`g^{\mu \nu }+\delta _{\mu 0}\delta _{\nu 0}{\displaystyle \frac{(p^\mu p^\nu )^{}}{P^2}}`$ (63)
In $`(p^\mu p^\nu )^{}`$, only $`\mu ,\nu =1,2,3`$ have non-zero values. In the later calculations, we always assume that transverse helicity states ($`\lambda =\pm 1`$) have the same probabilities.

For terms like $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }p^\alpha p^\beta \mathrm{}`$, exchanging $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ will introduce a negative sign. Thus the value is zero.

$$ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }p^\alpha p^\beta \times anything=0$$
(64)
The Lorentz structure will be calculated with summation of all helicity states and different polarizations.

$$A_{tot}=A_{00}+A_{01}+A_{10}+A_{11}=ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }ϵ_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }(\epsilon ^\alpha \epsilon ^\kappa p^\beta p^\lambda )_\rho ^{}(\epsilon ^\gamma \epsilon ^\mu q^\delta p^\nu )_\omega $$
(65)
where $`A_{01}`$ for longitudinal polarized $`\rho ^{}`$ and transverse polarized $`\omega `$. Others are similar.

There is one term which often shows up; expanding we find:

$`ϵ_{0ijk}ϵ_{0imn}p_jp_mq_kq_n`$ $`=`$ $`p_2^2q_3^2+p_3^2q_2^22p_2p_3q_2q_3(i=1)`$ (66)
$`+`$ $`p_1^2q_3^2+p_3^2q_1^22p_1p_3q_1q_3(i=2)`$ (67)
$`+`$ $`p_1^2q_2^2+p_2^2q_1^22p_1p_2q_1q_2(i=3)`$ (68)
$`+`$ $`(p_1^2q_1^2+p_2^2q_2^2+p_3^2q_3^2)(p_1^2q_1^2+p_2^2q_2^2+p_3^2q_3^2)`$ (69)
$`=`$ $`(p_1^2+p_2^2+p_3^2)(q_1^2+q_2^2+q_3^2)(p_1q_1+p_2q_2+p_3q_3)^2`$ (70)
$`=`$ $`p^2q^2(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q})^2=p^2q^2(1cos^2\theta )`$ (71)
Now the summation over all helicity states:

$`A_{tot}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }ϵ_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }\left(g^{\alpha \kappa }+{\displaystyle \frac{p^\alpha p^\kappa }{M^2}}\right)p^\beta p^\lambda \left(g^{\gamma \mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{q^\gamma q^\mu }{m^2}}\right)q^\delta q^\nu `$ (72)
$`=`$ $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }ϵ_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }g^{\alpha \kappa }g^{\gamma \mu }p^\beta p^\lambda q^\delta q^\nu `$ (73)
$`=`$ $`2ϵ_{0\beta \mu \delta }ϵ_{0\lambda \mu \nu }p^\beta p^\lambda q^\delta q^\nu (\alpha =0or\kappa =0)`$ (77)
$`+ϵ_{\alpha 0\mu \delta }ϵ_{\alpha 0\mu \nu }p^0p^0q^\delta q^\nu (\beta =\lambda =0)`$
$`+ϵ_{\alpha \beta \nu 0}ϵ_{\alpha \lambda \mu 0}p^\beta p^\lambda q^0q^0(\delta =\nu =0)`$
$`+2ϵ_{\alpha 0\mu \delta }ϵ_{\alpha \lambda \mu 0}p^0p^\lambda q^\delta q^0(\beta =\nu =0or\lambda =\delta =0)`$
$`=`$ $`2p^2q^2(1cos^2\theta )+2E_\rho ^{}^2q^2+2E_\omega ^2p^24E_\rho ^{}E_\omega pqcos\theta `$ (78)
Lorentz structures for longitudinal polarized $`\rho ^{}`$ and $`\omega `$:

$`A_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }ϵ_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^\alpha p^\kappa }{M^2}}\delta _{\alpha 0}\delta _{\kappa 0}+{\displaystyle \frac{(p^\alpha p^\kappa )^{}}{p^2}}\right)p^\beta p^\lambda \left({\displaystyle \frac{q^\gamma q^\mu }{m^2}}\delta _{\gamma 0}\delta _{\mu 0}+{\displaystyle \frac{(q^\gamma q^\mu )^{}}{q^2}}\right)q^\delta q^\nu `$ (79)
$`=`$ $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }ϵ_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }(p^\alpha p^\kappa )^{}p^\beta p^\lambda (q^\gamma q^\mu )^{}q^\delta q^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2q^2}}`$ (80)
$`=`$ $`0`$ (81)
In the first step, only one of nine terms survive; seven terms are eliminated due to Eq. 64. The one which has four $`\delta `$’s results in two 0 subscripts in each $`ϵ`$. In the second step, Eq. 64 limits that $`\beta ,\lambda ,\delta `$ and $`\nu `$ are all zero, which also gives zero.

The Lorentz structures for longitudinal polarized $`\rho ^{}`$ and transverse polarized $`\omega `$ are:

$`A_{01}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }ϵ_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^\alpha p^\kappa }{M^2}}\delta _{\alpha 0}\delta _{\kappa 0}+{\displaystyle \frac{(p^\alpha p^\kappa )^{}}{p^2}}\right)p^\beta p^\lambda \left(g^{\gamma \mu }+\delta _{\gamma 0}\delta _{\mu 0}{\displaystyle \frac{(q^\gamma q^\mu )^{}}{q^2}}\right)q^\delta q^\nu `$ (82)
$`=`$ $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }ϵ_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }\delta _{\alpha 0}\delta _{\kappa 0}g^{\gamma \mu }p^\beta p^\lambda q^\delta q^\nu ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }ϵ_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }g^{\gamma \mu }{\displaystyle \frac{(p^\alpha p^\kappa )^{}}{p^2}}p^\beta p^\lambda q^\delta q^\nu `$ (83)
$`=`$ $`ϵ_{0\beta \mu \delta }ϵ_{0\lambda \mu \nu }p^\beta p^\lambda q^\delta q^\nu +ϵ_{\alpha 0\mu \delta }ϵ_{\kappa 0\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{(p^\alpha p^\kappa )^{}}{p^2}}p^0p^0q^\delta q^\nu `$ (84)
$`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{p^0p^0}{p^2}}1)p^2q^2(1cos^2\theta )`$ (85)
$`=`$ $`M_\rho ^{}^2q^2(1cos^2\theta ).`$ (86)
Similarly, Lorentz structures for transverse polarized $`\rho ^{}`$ and longitudinal polarized $`\omega `$ are:

$$A_{10}=m_\omega ^2p^2(1cos^2\theta ),$$
(87)
while Lorentz structures for transverse polarized $`\rho ^{}`$ and $`\omega `$ are given by:

$`A_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{tot}A_{00}A_{01}A_{10}`$ (88)
$`=`$ $`2E_\rho ^{}^2q^2+2E_\omega ^2p^24E_\rho ^{}E_\omega pqcos\theta (2p^2q^2+M_\rho ^{}^2q^2+m_\omega ^2p^2)(1cos^2\theta )`$ (89)
$`=`$ $`(E_\rho ^{}^2+E_\omega ^2p^2)(1+cos^2\theta )4E_\rho ^{}E_\omega pqcos\theta .`$ (90)
In the rest frame of $`\rho ^{}`$, the Lorentz structures are expressed as:

$`A_{tot}`$ $`=`$ $`2M_\rho ^{}^2q_\omega ^2`$ (91)
$`A_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (92)
$`A_{01}`$ $`=`$ $`M_\rho ^{}^2q_\omega ^2(1cos^2\theta )`$ (93)
$`A_{10}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (94)
$`A_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`M_\rho ^{}^2q_\omega ^2(1+cos^2\theta ).`$ (95)
(Note, that there is no contribution from longitudinal polarized $`\omega `$.)


format: text

text:
# Understanding the radio emission geometry of PSR B0329+54

## 1 Introduction

Radio wave emission from pulsars is believed to originate in the open field line region of the polar cap of the neutron star. The size, shape and location of regions of radio emission in the average profiles of pulsars is thus expected to reflect the arrangement of emission regions in the pulsar magnetosphere. Pulsar average profiles exhibit a great diversity in shape, and their classification based on the number of emission components is a useful starting point to study the emission characteristics of pulsars. Rankin (1983a, b, 1990, 1993) has carried out such a detailed classification, and has come up with the conclusion that there are two kinds of emission components – core and conal – in pulsar profiles, which result from two distinct types of emission mechanisms. Further, Rankin proposes that the conal components arise from two nested hollow cones of emission, which along with a central core emission region, make up the complete pulsar emission beam. The actual profile observed for a given pulsar depends on the cut that the observer’s line-of-sight makes through this emission beam. From the above work, Rankin also concludes that core radiation originates from very close to the neutron star surface whereas the conal radiation comes from regions higher up in the magnetosphere. The outer cone is postulated to originate higher up in the magnetosphere than the inner cone, but along the same set of field lines. However, there are other reports, (e.g. Gil 1991), which postulate that the core and conal emissions might originate at very similar heights in the magnetosphere.

Lyne and Manchester (1988) also confirm the difference in properties between the core and conal emissions. However, they believe that emission within the beam is patchy, i.e. the distribution of component locations within the beam is random, rather than organized in one or more hollow cones. They have come to the conclusion that a single emission mechanism can account for both the central and outer components. Further, they propose that the observations are best described by a gradual change in emission characteristics from the axial region to the outer edge of the emission beam, rather than by two distinct emission processes.

In this paper, we present the results from an analysis of emission components of PSR B0329+54. This pulsar, one of the strongest known at radio wavelengths, is an excellent laboratory for a detailed study of pulsar emission physics. The simplest radio observations of this pulsar show a profile with three clearly visible components and in the classification scheme of Rankin (1990), it is identified as a “triple (T)” profile. The central component is thought to be due to core emission and the two outer components are of the conal type. However, there has been some evidence for the presence of more than three distinct components for this pulsar. For example, Hesse (1973) has adopted five components for a study of the relative intensity variations between the different components. More recently, Kuzmin and Izvekova (1996), from a study of fitting Gaussians to distinct emission components in the average profile, have found that a five component model does not adequately describe this pulsar’s profile. They propose a six component model and thereby question the validity of the core–cone structure of the emission beam. Hence, detection of the correct number of emission components and their distribution with respect to pulse longitude, plays a crucial part in deciding whether the pulsar emission beam is conal or patchy. For PSR B0329+54, this attempt is further complicated by the fact that this pulsar is a mode-changer, i.e. it switches between the two different modes of average profile (Lyne 1971; Hesse, Sieber and Wielebinski 1973), during which there is an appreciable change in the relative strengths and the locations of the emission components.

In this paper, we present the results from an analysis of single pulse data of PSR B0329+54, at two different frequencies. We have used the window–threshold technique, which is suitable for the detection of weak emission components in pulsar profiles ganga (Gangadhara 2000). In section 2, we report the detection of new emission components in the profile of PSR B0329+54. In section 3 we interpret the results in terms of aberration and retardation effects in the pulsar magnetosphere and use this to estimate the emission heights and polar cap locations of the cones. Section 4 discusses the implications of our findings on the structure of the emission beam of this pulsar.

## 2 Observations and Data analysis

For our study of emission components of PSR B0329+54, we considered two data sets: the first obtained at 606 MHz from the Lovell telescope at Jodrell Bank; and the second obtained at 325 MHz from the GMRT (Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope) at Khodad in India. Table 1 summarizes the main observing parameters for these data sets. The details of the observing system and the calibration procedures for the Lovell telescope are identical to that used by Gould and Lyne (1998).

For the GMRT, which consists of 30 antennas each of 45 meter diameter (see Swarup et al. (1990) for details), the data were obtained by incoherent addition of the dual polarization signals from 6 antennas. The bandwidth used was 16 MHz, divided into 256 spectral channels by the digital back-ends (see Gupta et al. (2000) for more details about the pulsar mode of operation of the GMRT). The raw data were integrated to a time resolution of 0.516 milliseconds before being recorded for off-line analysis, where the data were dedispersed and gated to obtain the single pulse data. During off-line analysis, care was taken to check the data for radio frequency interference signals and to filter out the power line frequency signals. The final 2100 pulses were collected from more than one observing session, each of which had the same observing parameters. For all the data sets from GMRT and Lovell, the profiles were aligned by defining the peak of the central component in the average profile as the location of zero pulse longitude.

The average pulse profiles obtained from the 325 MHz and 606 MHz data are shown in Fig. 1a & b, respectively. For the Lovell data, the pulsar showed a mode change in the midst of the observations. In the beginning, for about 600 pulses, it was in the abnormal mode after which it switched to the normal mode. The dotted line curve in Fig. 1b shows the average profile when the pulsar was in the abnormal mode. All the profiles in Fig. 1 show 5 distinct emission components whose peaks lie in the longitude range of $`14\mathrm{°}`$ to $`10\mathrm{°}`$. However, a study of the single pulses reveals the presence of significant emission outside these longitude ranges. For example, Fig. 2a shows a sequence of about 300 pulses from the abnormal mode duration, where occasional emission in the longitude ranges $`20\mathrm{°}`$ to $`16\mathrm{°}`$ and $`13\mathrm{°}`$ to $`18\mathrm{°}`$ can easily be seen. This extra emission can also be detected in the average profile made from these pulses (Fig. 2b).

Since the pulses which have emission in the longitude ranges $`20\mathrm{°}`$ to $`16\mathrm{°}`$ and $`13\mathrm{°}`$ to $`18\mathrm{°}`$ are less frequent, these emissions are not clearly seen in the average pulse profiles in Fig. 1. To enhance and easily detect emission from such regions, we have used a “window-threshold” technique ganga (Gangadhara 2000) in which we set a window in longitude domain and employ an intensity threshold to select the single pulses that go to make an average profile. We consider all those pulses which have emissions above the threshold within the window. As a result of this averaging of selected pulses, emission components within the window improve in signal to noise ratio compared to other parts of the profile and are more easily detected. Thus, for example, by setting a window over the longitude range $`20\mathrm{°}`$ to $`16\mathrm{°}`$, and considering all those pulses which are above a $`4\sigma `$ intensity threshold (here, $`\sigma `$ is the rms of the intensity in the off pulse region) we obtained an average profile shown as profile number 8 in Fig. 3a & b. This profile clearly shows an emission component (labeled component VIII in the figures) centered at about $`18\mathrm{°}`$ for the 606 MHz data and at about $`20\mathrm{°}`$ for the 325 MHz data.

The ”uniqueness in the phase location of a component peak (within error bars) with respect to the changes in the window position and threshold levels” was used as a criterion for deciding whether a given pulse component was detected. As a additional criterion, we also looked at its detection at other frequency and whether it follows the general trend of radius-to-frequency mapping followed by the known components.

By applying the technique repeatedly at different pulse longitude windows, we have determined the presence of 9 unique emission components, shown by the 9 average profiles in Fig. 3a&b. The combined profile (Fig. 3c & d), obtained by adding all these 9 profiles, shows the relative location of the 9 emission components of PSR B0329+54.

To test if this detection of components is unique, we have tried our window-threshold technique for choices of much broader longitude windows, such as those which enclose more than one component. In all such cases, our technique determines the same number and location of components. Furthermore, our technique detects no new components when applied to regions of longitude that are far away from the known on-pulse region. This argues that our detected components are genuine.

## 3 Interpretation

Since we have identified 8 conal components which are evenly distributed in number about the core component, our results can be interpreted in terms of a set of nested cones of emission. Figure 4a shows the location of the components in the form of 4 conal rings of emission around the core component, for the 606 MHz data. In Fig. 4b we show the pulse phase extent of each cone at 325 MHz and 606 MHz, along with the location of the nominal centre of the cone, taken to be the half-way point between the corresponding leading and trailing components. We estimate the phase location of any given component as the mean of the distribution of phases of the peaks of single pulses which are selected by our window-thresholding technique. We estimate an error on this component phase location as the standard deviation of the same distribution. The error bar on the location (zero phase) of the core component is estimated to be about $`\pm 0.6\mathrm{°}`$ at both the frequencies. We also estimated the component locations by fitting Gaussians to each component in Fig. 3a & b, which gave the results that are same within the error bars with the method we have adopted. From the plots in Fig. 4, it is clear that the conal components are squeezed closer to the core (and to each other) in the trailing part of the profile, as compared to the leading part. This asymmetry is clearly reflected in the shift of the cone centers away from the core and towards the leading part of the profile. This effect increases as we go from the inner cones to the outer ones. Further, for the same cone, the effect is more pronounced at the lower frequency.

The above remarkable behavior has a simple interpretation: the radiation beams from the outer cones are progressively bent or deflected in the forward direction, i.e. the direction of rotation of the pulsar. Such a bending can be produced by aberration and retardation effects in the pulsar magnetosphere (Cordes 1978). Below, we consider in detail the emission geometry in the pulsar magnetosphere and include the effects of aberration and retardation. Using these, we show that the emission heights as well as the transverse location of associated dipolar magnetic field lines on the polar cap can be uniquely estimated for each cone, at each frequency of observation. We also consider the effect of magnetic field sweepback which can produce bending of the cones in the opposite direction. We find that, in the present context, the effect of magnetic field sweepback is negligible compared to the aberration and retardation effects.

### 3.1 Emission geometry

The geometry relevant to our current understanding of emission of radio radiation from the polar cap region of pulsar magnetospheres is illustrated in Fig. 5. We start with a right-handed coordinate system originating at the center of the star with the z-axis aligned parallel to the rotation axis $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. In the figure, $`\widehat{m}`$ and $`\widehat{n}`$ represent unit vectors along the magnetic axis of the pulsar and along the line of sight to the observer and they are inclined at angles $`\alpha `$ and $`\zeta `$, respectively, to the rotation axis. The vectors $`\widehat{n}`$, $`\widehat{m}`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ all lie in the x-z plane when the rotation phase $`\varphi =0`$. In this geometry, we have

$$\widehat{n}=\widehat{z}\mathrm{cos}\zeta +\widehat{x}\mathrm{sin}\zeta ,$$
(1)
$$\widehat{m}=\widehat{z}\mathrm{cos}\alpha +\mathrm{sin}\alpha (\widehat{x}\mathrm{cos}\varphi +\widehat{y}\mathrm{sin}\varphi ),$$
(2)
where $`\zeta =\alpha +\beta ,`$ and $`\beta `$ is the impact angle of line-of-sight with respect to magnetic axis. The angle $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ made by $`\widehat{n}`$ with respect to $`\widehat{m}`$ at any $`\varphi `$ is then given by

$$\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\zeta +\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\zeta \mathrm{cos}\varphi .$$
(3)
Now consider the curve C in Fig. 5, which represents a typical dipolar magnetic field line. Let P represent an emission point on this field line, with spherical coordinates $`(r,\theta )`$ centered on the magnetic axis. Since the tangent to the field line at P needs to be parallel to $`\widehat{n}`$, we can establish the following relationship between $`\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ :

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta =\frac{3}{2\mathrm{tan}\mathrm{\Gamma }}\pm \sqrt{2+\left(\frac{3}{2\mathrm{tan}\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)^2}$$
(4)
This equation has two roots, and the continuous physical solution switches the sign of second term on right hand side from positive to negative when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ changes sign from positive to negative. For the region close to the magnetic axis one can approximate Eq. (4) as $`\theta (2/3)\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$

Let $`(𝐫_{\mathrm{em}}^\mathrm{i},\theta _{\mathrm{em}}^\mathrm{i})`$ be the coordinates of the emission point for the $`\mathrm{i}^{\mathrm{th}}`$ cone, (i = 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the cone numbers). In the absence of any aberration and retardation, it is assumed that the radiation from these points is emitted tangential to the field lines. However, the aberration due to corotation causes emission beams to bend towards the azimuthal direction such that radiation is received earlier than if there were no rotation.

If $`\zeta `$ is the angle between the rotation axis and the line-of-sight then the distance from the rotation axis to the line-of-sight is $`r_{\mathrm{em}}^\mathrm{i}\mathrm{sin}\zeta .`$ Hence the rotation velocity at the emission point is $`\mathrm{\Omega }r_{\mathrm{em}}^\mathrm{i}\mathrm{sin}\zeta .`$ If $`v_{}`$ is the velocity of particles along the field line then the total velocity of particles $`𝐯_{\mathrm{tot}}=\widehat{b}v_{}+\widehat{\varphi }\mathrm{\Omega }r_{\mathrm{em}}^\mathrm{i}\mathrm{sin}\zeta ,`$ where $`\widehat{b}`$ and $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ are the unit vectors in the directions of magnetic field and rotation, respectively. The aberration angle $`\eta _{\mathrm{ab}}^\mathrm{i}`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{sin}\eta _{\mathrm{ab}}^\mathrm{i}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }r_{\mathrm{em}}^\mathrm{i}\mathrm{sin}\zeta }{v_{\mathrm{tot}}},$$
(5)
where $`v_{\mathrm{tot}}=|𝐯_{\mathrm{tot}}|.`$ It is more appropriate to assume $`v_{\mathrm{tot}}c`$ instead of $`v_{}c,`$ therefore, we have

$$\mathrm{sin}\eta _{\mathrm{ab}}^\mathrm{i}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }r_{\mathrm{em}}^\mathrm{i}\mathrm{sin}\zeta }{c}=\frac{r_{\mathrm{em}}^\mathrm{i}}{r_{\mathrm{LC}}}\mathrm{sin}\zeta ,$$
(6)
where $`r_{\mathrm{LC}}=c/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the radius of the velocity of light cylinder for the pulsar. Hence the aberration is greater for emissions arising at larger altitudes.

Our aberration angle formula (Eq. 6) differs in two respects with respect to the one given in the literature (e.g., Cordes 1978; Phillips 1992): (i) literature formula uses $`\alpha `$ instead of $`\zeta ,`$ which is correct only when the magnetic axis and the line-of-sight are aligned $`(\beta =0),`$ and (ii) we estimate ’$`\mathrm{sin}\eta _{\mathrm{ab}}^\mathrm{i}`$’ instead of ’$`\mathrm{tan}\eta _{\mathrm{ab}}^\mathrm{i}`$’ as it avoids $`v_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ exceeding c when we set $`v_{}c.`$ However, the values of aberration angle estimated using the two formulae differ by a very little, i.e., of order $`(r_{\mathrm{em}}^\mathrm{i}/r_{\mathrm{LC}})^2`$ for $`\beta \alpha `$.

If the cones are emitted at different altitudes from the surface of the neutron star then the conal radiation emitted at lower altitudes takes more time to reach the observer compared to the arrival times of those components emitted at higher altitudes. In terms of pulse phase of the received radiation, this is equivalent to a shift of components emitted at higher altitude to earlier phase with respect to phases of lower altitude components. If $`r_{\mathrm{em}}^\mathrm{i}`$ is the emission altitude of $`\mathrm{i}^{\mathrm{th}}`$ cone, then this retardation phase shift is given by

$$\eta _{\mathrm{ret}}^\mathrm{i}=\frac{r_{\mathrm{em}}^\mathrm{i}}{r_{\mathrm{LC}}}.$$
(7)
The net phase shift due to aberration and retardation is $`\eta ^\mathrm{i}=\eta _{\mathrm{ab}}^\mathrm{i}+\eta _{\mathrm{ret}}^\mathrm{i},`$ which gives

$$\mathrm{sin}\left(\eta ^\mathrm{i}\frac{r_{\mathrm{em}}^\mathrm{i}}{r_{\mathrm{LC}}}\right)=\frac{r_{\mathrm{em}}^\mathrm{i}}{r_{\mathrm{LC}}}\mathrm{sin}\zeta .$$
(8)
For the small angle approximation ($`\eta _{\mathrm{ab}}^\mathrm{i}1`$) , the solution of this equation is given by

$$r_{\mathrm{em}}^\mathrm{i}\frac{r_{\mathrm{LC}}\eta ^\mathrm{i}}{(1+\mathrm{sin}\zeta )}.$$
(9)
Both aberration and retardation shift the pulse components emitted at higher altitudes to earlier phases in the received pulse. Therefore, we see an asymmetry in the location of the leading and trailing components with respect to the centre of the profile. If $`\varphi _\mathrm{l}^\mathrm{i}`$ and $`\varphi _\mathrm{t}^\mathrm{i}`$ are the measured locations of the leading and trailing components of a cone with respect to the centre of the profile, then

$$\varphi _\mathrm{l}^\mathrm{i}=\varphi ^\mathrm{i}+\eta ^\mathrm{i};\varphi _\mathrm{t}^\mathrm{i}=\varphi ^\mathrm{i}+\eta ^\mathrm{i},$$
(10)
where $`\varphi ^\mathrm{i}`$ is the phase of ith component when the aberration and retardation are absent. From these, the values of $`\eta ^\mathrm{i}`$ and $`\varphi ^\mathrm{i}`$ are easily obtained :

$$\eta ^\mathrm{i}=\frac{(\varphi _\mathrm{t}^\mathrm{i}+\varphi _\mathrm{l}^\mathrm{i})}{2};\varphi ^\mathrm{i}=\frac{(\varphi _\mathrm{t}^\mathrm{i}\varphi _\mathrm{l}^\mathrm{i})}{2}.$$
(11)
The estimate of the net phase shift $`\eta ^\mathrm{i}`$, in conjunction with Eq. (8), immediately yields an estimate for the emission height $`r_{\mathrm{em}}^\mathrm{i}`$ of the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ cone. Next, using the phase locations $`\varphi ^\mathrm{i}`$ of the conal components, we can estimate the tangent angle $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{i}`$ from Eq. (3), and the angular location $`\theta _{\mathrm{em}}^\mathrm{i}`$ of the emission point from Eq. (4).

Further, the knowledge of emission height and angular location can be used to map the respective locations of the “foot” points of field lines associated with the emission region of each cone on the polar cap. For this, we start with the equation of dipolar field lines

$$r=r_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,$$
(12)
where $`r_\mathrm{e}`$ is the field line constant, which is the equatorial distance of a field line from magnetic axis. Applying this at the surface of the neutron star gives

$$\frac{1}{r_\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{i}}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _s^\mathrm{i}}{r_\mathrm{s}}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(s^\mathrm{i}/r_\mathrm{s})}{r_\mathrm{s}}\frac{s_{}^{\mathrm{i}}{}_{}{}^{2}}{r_\mathrm{s}^3},$$
(13)
where $`s^\mathrm{i}`$ is the distance from the magnetic axis to the foot of the field line (colatitude), as measured on the surface of neutron star with radius $`r_\mathrm{s}`$ $`(10`$ km). The approximate version in the above equation is for the case $`\theta _\mathrm{s}^\mathrm{i}1`$. At the emission point, the dipole field equation then yields

$$\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _{\mathrm{em}}^\mathrm{i})}{r_{\mathrm{em}}^\mathrm{i}}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(s^\mathrm{i}/r_\mathrm{s})}{r_\mathrm{s}}.$$
(14)
Under the small angle approximation we obtain the following relationship :

$$s^\mathrm{i}s_\mathrm{L}\sqrt{\frac{r_{\mathrm{LC}}}{r_{\mathrm{em}}^\mathrm{i}}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{em}}^\mathrm{i}.$$
(15)
Here $`s_\mathrm{L}(r_\mathrm{s}^3/r_{\mathrm{LC}})^{1/2}`$ is the distance from the magnetic axis to the foot of the last open field line that demarcates the polar cap region.

Using the above formulae, we have computed, for PSR B0329+54, the emission heights and the location of the relevant field lines, independently for each of the four cones and at each of the two frequencies. We have used $`\alpha =30\mathrm{°}`$ and $`\beta =2.1\mathrm{°}`$, as proposed by Rankin (1993) for this pulsar. Further, we have taken the fiducial centre point of the profile as the location of the core component, assuming that it is emitted at a very small height above the neutron star surface. Our results are summarized in Table 2 for the lower frequency (325 MHz) and in Table 3 for the higher frequency (606 MHz). The second and third columns give the measured locations of the leading and trailing components for each cone (with respect to the location of the core component), and the next two columns give the inferred values for net phase shifts and tangent angles for the leading component of each cone. Column 6 gives the estimates of emission height (in km) for each cone. Column 7 gives the estimates for the transverse location of the associated field lines on the polar cap. This is characterized by $`s_\mathrm{L}^\mathrm{i}=s^\mathrm{i}/s_\mathrm{L}`$. In the case of PSR B0329+54, the magnetic and rotation axes are inclined through an angle $`\alpha =30\mathrm{°},`$ therefore, the polar cap is actually ellipsoidal with major axis aligned in the longitudinal direction of the pulsar (Cordes 1978). For the normalizing purpose we consider the position of the last open filed line which is on the azimuthal direction, $`s_\mathrm{L}(r_\mathrm{s}^3/r_{\mathrm{LC}})^{1/2}171`$ m. The errors in component location are propagated appropriately to estimate the errors for all other dependent parameters given in Table 2 and Table 3.

The salient results from our interpretation of the emission geometry are as follows :

(i) For the same cone, the lower frequency radio radiation is emitted at a higher altitude than the higher frequency radiation. This result supports the canonical picture of radius-to-frequency mapping.

(ii) For the same frequency, successive cones are emitted at higher altitudes in the pulsar magnetosphere. The heights range from a nearly a hundred kilometers for the innermost cone to a thousand kilometers for the outermost cone or from about 0.5% to about 3% of the light cylinder radius.

(iii) All cones, at both frequencies appear to originate on (or around) a narrow set of field lines, slightly more than half-way out to the edge of the polar cap region ($`\mathrm{s}^\mathrm{i}/\mathrm{s}_\mathrm{L}0.50.6`$).

### 3.2 Effect of magnetic field sweepback

We now consider the effect of magnetic field sweepback, an effect that opposes the aberration effect. Since pulsars lose their rotation energy by magnetic dipole radiation, the magnetic dipole field experiences a torque due to such emissions. As a result, the field lines tend to bend in the toroidal directions, which is opposite to the sense of rotation. To estimate the bending angle at the emission altitude $`r_{\mathrm{em}}^\mathrm{i}`$ we use the following result given by Shitov (1983)

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{mfs}}^\mathrm{i}=1.2\left(\frac{r_{\mathrm{em}}^\mathrm{i}}{r_{\mathrm{LC}}}\right)^3\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha .$$
(16)
Using the emission altitudes given in the Table 2, we computed the bending angle due to field sweepback for each cone, at each frequency, and found the sweepback is too small compared to the aberration and retardation phase shifts. For the outer most cone, where the sweepback is expected be highest, we find $`\varphi _{\mathrm{mfs}}^\mathrm{i}<0.001\mathrm{°}`$ at 325 MHz and 0.0005$`\mathrm{°}`$ for 610 MHz. Therefore, our assumption that the phase shifts of the cone centers with respect to the core position are predominantly due to the aberration and retardation, is validated.

## 4 Discussion

Our results show that PSR B0329+54 has 9 unique emission components (of which at least 3 have been detected for the first time). This is the largest number of components detected for any pulsar and indicates that the emission geometry for this pulsar is probably quite complicated. We note that our component VI, detected in the longitude range of $`8\mathrm{°}`$ to $`10\mathrm{°}`$, matches very well with the sixth component proposed by Kuzmin and Izvekova (1996) as a result of Gaussian fits to the emission components. Our results thus confirm the component proposed by them.

The new components are clearly seen at 606 MHz but are less prominent at 325 MHz. This may be part of the known trend of reducing significance of conal components (with respect to the core component) at lower frequencies. Further, the locations of components at the two frequencies follow the commonly seen trend that distance from the centre of the profile increases at lower frequencies, generally referred to as the “radius-to-frequency-mapping” effect, (e.g. Phillips 1992; Sieber 1996). This also supports the argument of genuineness of the detected components. Our results also appear to indicate that the newly detected conal components for this pulsar show up more clearly during the abnormal mode rather than in the normal mode.

Our interpretation of the 9 emission components as 4 nested cones of emission surrounding a single core component supports the picture of core and conal emission beams (e.g. Rankin 1983a; Oster and Sieber 1977). Rankin (1993) has proposed 2 conal rings to explain the existence of pulsars with 5 components in their average profiles. More recently, Mitra and Deshpande (1999) have found evidence for 3 nested conal rings, from their analysis of the emission patterns of a large sample of pulsars. PSR B0329+54 is the first pulsar for which we found the clear evidence for as many as 4 nested cones of emission. It should be interesting to see if a similar analysis for other multicomponent pulsar shows the presence of 4 emission cones.

Our data also presents the direct evidence for the detection of aberration and retardation effects in pulsar magnetospheres. Earlier experimental efforts to detect evidence for aberration and retardation time delays (as well as magnetic field sweepback) in some pulsars (e.g. Phillips 1992) did not yield any positive signature. Recently, Malov and Suleimanova (1998) have estimated the aberration and retardation phase shifts for components I and IV of this pulsar using the average pulse profiles at different frequencies. The detection of aberration and retardation phase shifts of as much as three degrees that we report, supports the view that the conal emission originates at altitudes of the order of several hundreds of kilometers above the neutron star surface. Rankin (1993) reports an emission altitude of 217 km at 1 GHz for the main conal ring (cone number 3 in our picture) of this pulsar. Kijak and Gil (1997, 1998) estimate somewhat higher emission altitudes, in the range 300 - 500 km. From our results, the corresponding emission altitude is about 600 km at 606 MHz.

Further, the fact that a given conal ring exhibits more aberration at the lower frequency clearly shows that the lower frequency radiation originates at a higher altitude in the magnetosphere of this pulsar. This radius-to-frequency-mapping effect has been proposed as an explanation for the commonly observed fact that the overall widths of pulsar profiles increase with decreasing frequency. Our results provide a direct corroboration of this model, and the result then makes other proposed explanations, such as chromatic aberration (or refraction) in the magnetosphere (e.g. Barnard and Arnos 1986) or low frequency broadening due to reduced beaming of the radiating particles (Kunzl et al. 1998), less likely to be valid.

By combining the emission heights obtained from aberration and retardation effects with a dipolar magnetic field geometry, we have been able to localize the exact emission point of each cone with a good degree of precision. Perhaps the most interesting result of our work is the conclusion that the successive cones of emission originate at increasing heights in the magnetosphere, but along relatively nearby field lines. This is for the first time that such a result has been obtained for any pulsar. In the context of 2 cones of emission, Rankin (1993) has raised this as a major unanswered question: whether the cones are emitted at different heights along the same set of field lines or are associated with different sets of field lines. For PSR B0329+54, this question is now answered for all the 4 cones of emission. We find that all the cones at a given frequency are associated with a set of field lines that are located at about $`0.5`$ \- $`0.6`$ of the distance to the edge of the polar cap. We believe that the scatter in the values (0.5 to 0.6) for different cones is within the limits of our estimation errors. Further, we find that the cones at both frequencies are also associated with the same set of field lines, again within the error estimates.

We note in particular that our results show clearly that the radio emission does not originate at or near the last open field line region of pulsar magnetosphere. In the formulation we have presented in Eqs. (1) through (15), there is only one free parameter that can affect this conclusion: the value of $`\alpha `$, the inclination angle between the magnetic and rotation axes of the pulsar. Higher values of $`\alpha `$ would reduce the estimated emission heights and consequently move the associated field lines closer to the edge of the polar cap. However, there good evidence that the value of $`\alpha =30\mathrm{°}`$ for this pulsar is a robust estimate (Rankin 1990; Lyne and Manchester 1988).

If the results about the emission geometry that we have obtained for pulsar B0329+54 are found to be true in general for the population of known pulsars, then it should prove to be a significant improvement in our general understanding of the emission geometry of radio pulsars. This could provide important constraints for the various theories for the emission mechanism of radio pulsars. For example, any successful theory would need to produce radiation at a given frequency from significantly different heights along the same set of field lines in the magnetosphere to explain the observed behavior of conal components.

## 5 Conclusion

We have used a technique based on windowing and thresholding, to detect the weak emission components in pulsar profiles. By applying this to the single pulse data of PSR B0329+54 at 325 MHz and 606 MHz, we have detected three new emission components for this pulsar, and also confirmed the presence of a new component proposed by Kuzmin and Izvekova (1996). We conclude that this pulsar has 9 components, which is the highest among all the known pulsars.

We interpret the 9 components as being produced by 4 nested hollow cones of emission along with a central core component of emission. Our results thus support the core and conal emission picture of pulsar radiation beams.

We find clear evidence that the conal components in the trailing part of the pulsar profile are squeezed closer to the core (and to each other) as compared to the corresponding components in the leading part of the profile. We interpret this as evidence for aberration and retardation effects in the conal beams. The observed aberration and retardation phase shifts increase from the inner to outer cones, and for any given cone, the effect is more at the lower frequency.

From a detailed consideration of the emission geometry in the magnetosphere, including the effects of aberration and retardation, we are able to constrain the location of emission regions independently for each cone, and at each frequency (325 & 606 MHz). From these computations, we are able to conclude the following: (i) for the same cone, the lower frequency radiation comes from a higher altitude than the higher frequency radiation, (ii) for the same frequency, successive outer cones originate at higher altitudes and (iii) all cones at both frequencies appear to originate on (or around) a specific set of field lines which are located at about half-way out to the edge of the polar cap region. The inferred emission heights for the cones range from $``$ 160 km to $``$ 1150 km.

It is, probably, for the first time that the emission regions corresponding to the conal components for a pulsar have been located so precisely and unambiguously. In particular, our conclusion that there is only a restricted region of the polar cap that is active in producing all the conal radiation that is observed, should prove to be an interesting constrain for models or theories of pulsar emission mechanisms.

We thank Dunc Lorimer for his help in data reduction and fruitful discussions during the initial stages of the work. We are thankful to A. G. Lyne for providing the Jodrell Bank data and to J. M. Rankin, A. Peyman and D. Mitra for useful discussions.