text:
# New Results from the X–ray and Optical1footnote 11footnote 1Based on observations performed at the European Southern Observatory, Paranal, Chile Survey of the Chandra Deep Field South: The 300ks Exposure

## 1 INTRODUCTION

We present here the analysis of the 300 ks exposure of the Chandra Deep Field South (Giacconi et al. 2000; hereafter Paper I) which reaches an on–axis flux limit of $`S=10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 and $`S=10^{16}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 in the hard (2–10 keV) and soft (0.5–2 keV) bands respectively. This is a factor of two deeper than the exposure presented in Paper I, and significantly deeper than the Chandra field presented by Mushotzky et al. (2000) and the XMM observations of the Lockman Hole by Hasinger et al. (2001a). With this dataset we have a similarly large survey area and limiting flux to the Chandra Deep Field North (Hornschemeier et al. 2000; 2001; Brandt et al. 2001). Results from the total exposure of one million seconds will be reported elsewhere (Rosati et al. 2001).

With this new data we confirm several results that were derived in the initial 120 ks dataset, and extend our analysis by resolving a larger fraction of the soft and hard X–ray background. The larger number of source photons allows a more accurate determination of the average spectral properties of the sample. The general properties of the X-ray background are now well established. This paper focuses on the nature of the sources that make up the background, especially in the hard band, taking advantage of new measured redshifts. We currently have 86 spectroscopic identifications from the on–going observational campaign with the VLT. Combining the X–ray and optical data, we can now study the intrinsic luminosities for a significant subset of sources, thus allowing for a characterization of the source population.

The paper is structured as follows. In §2 we describe the data acquisition and analysis. In §3 we present the results of the analysis of the X–ray data. In §4 we discuss some of the characteristics of the observed sources using the optical information available, and discuss the possible implications of our findings. Our conclusions are summarized in §5.

## 2 OBSERVATIONS AND DATA REDUCTION

### 2.1 X–Ray data

The Chandra Deep Field South (CDFS) data presented here have been obtained by adding two exposures to the former 120 ks exposure described in Paper I. The two new exposures were taken with the Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer–Imaging (ACIS–I) detector at a temperature of -120 C. The first observation (Obs ID 441) was taken on 2000-5-27, in the faint mode, for a total 60 ks exposure. The second observation (Obs ID 582) was taken on 2000-6-3/4 in the faint mode, for a total 120 ks exposure.

The data were reduced using the same techniques already described in Paper I (CIAO software release V1.5, see http://asc.harvard.edu/cda). The most important difference is the lower temperature of the detector (-120 C) that requires a new set of quantum efficiency uniformity files. At the temperature of -120 C the charge transfer inefficiency is largely reduced, and the effective area is greatly improved, especially in the hard band.

The data were filtered to include only the standard event grades 0,2,3,4 and 6. All hot pixels and columns were removed. We removed the flickering pixels with more than two events contiguous in time, where a single time interval was set to 3.3 s. Time intervals with background rates larger than $`3`$ $`\sigma `$ over the quiescent value ($`0.31`$ counts s-1 per chip in the 0.3–10 keV band) were removed. The 4 observations give a total exposure time of 303 ks. The four observations had different roll angles, enabling a total coverage of 0.1035 deg2. The exposure time across the field varies from a maximum of 303 ks in the center to a minimum of 25 ks in the corners. The area covered by 303 ks of exposure is 0.0636 deg2. The resulting exposure map is the sum of the exposure maps of the single observations weighted by the corresponding exposure times.

The detection strategy has been modified with respect to Paper I for a faster detection algorithm, allowing a large number of simulations to be carried out. We used Sextractor (Bertin & Arnouts 1996) on the 0.5–7 keV image rebinned by a factor of two, so that one image pixel corresponds to $`0.984\mathrm{}`$. Sextractor detection parameters were chosen as a result of simulations and we adopted a detection threshold of 2.4, with a Gaussian filter with 1.5 arcsec FWHM and a minimum area of 5 pixels. Sextractor is not tailored for use with a very low and sparse background as in ACIS–I. We used a modified version of the program to allow an external map to be used as local background. The smoothed map of the background was computed from the data itself after the removal of the sources down to a very low threshold. This modified detection algorithm is several order of magnitude faster than the wavelet detector algorithm of Rosati et al. (1995) or WAVDETECT in the CIAO software (Freeman et al. 2001).

The MARX v3.0 simulator (Wise et al. 2000) was used to generate the photon distribution of sources drawn from an input LogN–LogS modeled on the observed one. Sources were placed randomly on the ACIS detector, and each one of them has been simulated as a point source as defined in MARX. Four different observations with the same roll angles and exposure maps as the real observations are simulated for a given distribution of sources. The final event file is obtained by merging four event files. The sky background was created as a poisson realization of the observed background, which was obtained by removing all the detected sources from the real 300ks image. The same detection procedure was carried out with 100 simulations. We stress that each of these simulations includes all the details of a realistic observation, including the different orientation of the asymmetric PSF, and the variations in the background due to the edges of the chips and to the removed columns. The only ingredient missing in the simulations are the presence of extended sources and the clustering of the point sources. Both have a negligible impact on the efficiency of our detection procedure. We run our detection algorithm on the simulated fields and assessed the photometric and astrometric accuracy, completeness and spurious source contamination, as well as the sky coverage model by comparing the input and output LogN–LogS shown in Figure 1. Simulations show that the detection efficiency of Sextractor is comparable with that of the wavelet algorithm. Moreover, our $`S/N`$ criterium allows a direct and simple definition of the sky coverage (see section §3.2) to give accurate number counts.

We measure the signal to noise ratio of all the candidate detections in the area of extraction of each source, which is defined as a circle of radius $`R_s=2.4\times FWHM`$ (with a minimum of 5 pixels of radius). The FWHM is modeled as a function of the off-axis angle to reproduce the broadening of the PSF. In each band a detected source has a $`S/NS/\sqrt{S+2B}>2.1`$ within the extraction area of the image. Here $`B`$ are the background counts found in an annulus with outer radius $`R_S+12^{\prime \prime }`$ and an inner radius of $`R_S+2^{\prime \prime }`$, after masking out other sources, rescaled to the extraction region. A combined catalog is then produced matching the two. We stress that the condition of having $`S/N>2.1`$ in the extraction area corresponds to a high significance detection (the faintest detected sources have more than 10 counts). Here we used a threshold higher than the one used in Paper I ($`S/N>2.0`$) to reduce the number of spurious sources. Our catalog now typically includes less than 5 spurious sources, as tested with simulations.

Source counts are measured with simple aperture photometry within $`R_s`$ in the soft and hard bands separately. Simulations have shown that such aperture photometry leads to an underestimate of the source count rate by approximately $`4`$% (see panel c of Figure 1). We will correct such photometric bias before converting count–rates in energy flux.

The count–rate to flux conversion factors in the 0.5–2 keV and in the 2–10 keV bands were computed using the response matrices. We quote the fluxes in the canonical 2–10 keV band, as extrapolated from counts measured from the 2–7 keV band, in order to have a direct comparison with the previous results. The conversion factors are $`(4.6\pm 0.1)\times 10^{12}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 per count s-1 in the soft band, and $`(2.9\pm 0.3)\times 10^{11}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 per count $`\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the hard band assuming a Galactic absorbing column of $`8\times 10^{19}`$ cm-2 and a photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.4`$. The uncertainties in the conversion factors reflect the range of possible values for the effective photon index shown by the sources in our sample: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.11.7`$.

The conversion factors were computed at the aimpoint. Before computing the energy flux, the count rates must be corrected for vignetting and are converted to the count rates that would have been measured if the source were in the aimpoint. The correction is simply given by the ratio of the value of the exposure map at the aimpoint to the value of the exposure map at the source position. This is done separately for the soft and the hard band, using the exposure maps computed for energies of 1.5 keV and 4.5 keV. This procedure also accounts for the large variation in exposure time across the field of view.

### 2.2 OPTICAL AND IR DATA

The optical counterparts of X–ray sources have been identified on deep R band images obtained with the Focal Reducer/Low Dispersion Spectrograph (FORS1, Appenzeller et al. 1998) at VLT–ANTU. Most of the area covered by the 4 chips of ACIS–I has been observed in R band with an exposure time ranging from 1.5 to 2 hours, in Service Observing mode on October 1999–March 2000. Shallower exposures (about 20 minutes) have also been obtained for the outer regions covered by the ACIS–I chips at different roll angles. These images were reduced in the standard way (prescan, bias, sky-flat and supersky correction), astrometrically and photometrically calibrated and then coadded using drizzling procedures. The depth of the coadded image is $`R26.0`$ for the shallow part and $`R26.8`$ for the deeper part of the coadded image (at $`2\sigma `$ level within $`2\mathrm{}`$ aperture). The PSF in the final images is $`0.60.8\mathrm{}`$. The area covered by the deep R-band images has also been observed in I band, with 3 hours of exposure and a limiting magnitude of $`I26.5`$, with a PSF in the final image of $`0.6\mathrm{}`$.

For those sources which do not fall in the area covered by FORS1 images, the optical identification has been performed on a B band image of 6.5 hours integration obtained during the commissioning phase of the Wide Field Imager (Baade et al. 1999) at the 2.2 MPA–ESO Telescope in January 1999. The limiting magnitude is $`B26.5`$ ($`5\sigma )`$ with a PSF of $`1\mathrm{}`$. We have also used updated data in J and K bands as part of the ESO Imaging Survey on the ESO NTT (see Arnouts et al. 2001; Vandame et al. 2001).

The optical spectroscopy of X–ray counterparts with $`R26`$ is underway with FORS1 at VLT–ANTU. So far, the optical spectra were obtained observing with the multislit mode on FORS–1 at VLT–ANTU on October 27–30, 2000 and November 23–25, 2000. To date, we have obtained good S/N spectra for 86 sources, selected from a catalog which was constructed from the 300ks image. These redshifts are used in the following analysis. The list of redshifts will be presented with the complete catalog from the 1Ms data in Giacconi et al. (2001, in preparation), and the detailed description of the optical spectroscopy will be presented in a future paper (Hasinger et al. 2001b).

## 3 RESULTS

### 3.1 X–ray Spectra and Hardness Ratio

We have performed a detailed analysis of the X–ray spectral properties. We have measured the average stacked spectrum of the 197 sources of the total sample. The corresponding background was constructed using the stacked spectrum of all the background regions extracted around each source. The resulting photon files were scaled by the ratio of the total area of extraction of the sources and the corresponding area used for the background. Such a procedure guarantees a correct background subtraction despite the non–uniformities of the instrumental background across ACIS–I. The ancillary response matrix for the stacked spectra was obtained from the counts–weighted average of the matrices from each of the single sources. Each ancillary response matrix is composed of the sum of the matrices corresponding to that source in each single exposure, weighted by the corresponding exposure time. The same is done for the response matrices. In this way, we keep track in the most detailed way of the characteristics of the different regions and the different detector temperatures at the time of the observations.

We used XSPEC v11.0 to compute the slope of a power law spectrum with Galactic absorption, in the energy range 1.0–10 keV. We exclude energy bins below $`1.0`$ keV because the calibration is still uncertain below this energy. Such uncertainty has a small effect on the average conversion factor, but can give wrong results on detailed fits. For a column density fixed to the Galactic value $`N_H=8\times 10^{19}`$ cm-2, we obtained a photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.44\pm 0.03`$ (errors refer to the 90% confidence level) with $`\chi _\nu ^2=1.16`$. The results of the spectral fit to the total sample of sources are shown in Figure 2. The average spectrum of the detected sources is consistent with the measured shape of the unresolved hard background $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1.4`$, confirming previous findings with Chandra (Paper I; Mushotzky et al. 2000).

A more detailed view of the spectral properties as a function of the fluxes comes from the hardness ratio $`HR=(HS)/(H+S)`$ where $`H`$ and $`S`$ are the net count rates in the hard (2–7 keV) and the soft band (0.5–2 keV), respectively. The distributions of the hardness ratios as a function of the soft and hard flux are shown in Figure 3. In both bands, the number of hard sources increases at lower fluxes. This is particularly significant if we plot the hardness ratio as a function of the hard fluxes. The average $`HR`$ ranges from $`HR0.2`$ for $`S>5\times 10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2, to $`HR0.1`$ for $`S<5\times 10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2. Such hardness ratio corresponds to an energy spectral index $`\alpha _E=0`$ and $`\alpha _E=0.5`$ respectively. Even if we have already resolved the majority of the 2–10 keV background, the remaining fraction is made by a population of sources with progressively harder spectra.

There are 22 sources ($`11`$% of the total sample) which are observed only in the hard band plotted at $`HR=1`$, and 51 sources ($``$ 26% of the total sample) which are observed only in the soft band plotted at $`HR=1`$. Studies from ASCA suggest that each source with nuclear activity is emitting in both bands at some level: the soft emission is $`1`$% of the hard emission for the hardest sources (Della Ceca et al. 1999a).

In the framework of the unification model for the AGNs, we expect to detect most of these sources in the soft and hard band if we push the detection limit down to low fluxes. We study the stacked spectra of the only–soft and the only–hard subsamples, to determine the flux level at which the single sources can be detected in the hard and soft bands respectively. For the sources detected only in the soft, the stacked spectrum has an hardness ratio of $`HR0.67\pm 0.05`$ and is well fitted by a power law with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2.2\pm 0.2`$ for a $`\chi _\nu ^21.2`$. This is consistent with the typical spectrum of unabsorbed TypeI AGN, similar to the sources found at very high fluxes by ASCA.

For the source detected only in the hard band, the hardness ratio of the cumulative spectrum is $`HR0.64\pm 0.09`$. The fit with an unabsorbed power law gives $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.0\pm 0.2`$, but with $`\chi _\nu ^22`$. This indicates that a single power law is a bad fit and therefore intrinsic absorption is a necessary ingredient to describe the spectra of the faint, hardest sources. In fact, if we leave the local absorption free, we find $`N_H=(2.5\pm 0.5)\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2, which is more than two orders of magnitude larger than the Galactic value, and a power law of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.55\pm 0.3`$ (errors correspond to the 90% confidence level). Such level of absorption correspond to $`N_H>10^{23}`$ cm-2 for $`z>1`$. This results shows that the progessive hardening of the sources at faint fluxes is due to intrinsic absorption.

Moreover, the average hardness ratios derived for the two subsamples tell us that the average spectrum of the sources undetected in one of the two bands is similar to that of the other sources detected in both bands at low fluxes. In other words, we expect to detect most of them in a longer exposure. The average number of soft and hard counts for the sources detected in the hard or in the soft band only, is 3.8 and 4.1 respectively (corresponding to a count rate of $`1.3\times 10^5`$ cts/s).

The flux where the whole sample is detected in both the soft and the hard band will depend on the nature of the sources themselves. For example, the absorption detected in the only–hard subsample is already well in excess of $`N_H=10^{22}`$ cm-2. If the intrinsic absorption is rapidly increasing with decreasing flux, as predicted by some AGN synthesis models (see Gilli, Salvati & Hasinger 2001), then the expected count rate of most of these hard sources can be much lower than the expected average $`1.3\times 10^5`$ cts/s and they could be undetectable in the soft band down to fluxes as low as $`S10^{19}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 (see discussion in §5).

In conclusion, at our present flux limits, we are still seeing significant differences in the soft and hard subsamples. These can result from an admixture of different classes of objects. This finding encourages us to push the flux detection threshold to the point where all the sources are detected in both bands. The value of such a flux can be much lower than expected depending on the intrinsic properties of the low–flux sources. This will be investigated with the total ($``$1Ms) exposure of the CDFS.

### 3.2 LogN–LogS and Total Flux from Discrete Sources

We now calculate the effective sky coverage at a given flux which is defined as the area on the sky where a source with a given net count rate can be detected with a $`S/N>2.1`$ in the extraction region defined in §2.1. The computation includes the effect of varying exposure, vignetting and point response function variation across the field. Such a procedure has been tested extensively with simulations performed with MARX v3.0, and it has been shown to be accurate to within a few percent (see panel d in Figure 1). The sky coverage is given in Figure 4. The step–like features are due to the large difference in the exposure across the field of view.

Using the sky–coverage we can compute the number counts in the soft and hard bands. In the soft band, shown in Figure 5, we find the Chandra results in excellent agreement with ROSAT in the region of overlap $`S_{min}>10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2. The Chandra data extend the results to $`10^{16}`$ erg s-1 cm-2. A maximum likelihood fit to the soft sources gives

$$N(>S)=(400\pm 80)\left(\frac{S}{2\times 10^{15}}\right)^{0.66\pm 0.06}\mathrm{cgs}$$
(1)
where the errors are at 1 sigma. The confidence levels at 1, 2 and 3 sigma for both slope and normalization are shown in the insert panel of Figure 5. The clear flattening with respect to the bright counts by ROSAT ($`S>10^{13}`$ erg s-1 cm-2) shown in Paper I (also found by Mushotzky et al. 2000) is confirmed. The slope shows 2$`\sigma `$ evidence of further flattening with respect to the value found in Paper I. This difference may be partially due to the number of spurious sources and flickering pixels not removed in the previous data reduction, causing the soft number counts at the lowest fluxes to be overestimated by $`15`$%. To check if the number counts are flattening in the investigated flux range, we perform a fit with a double power law for the differential number counts. The fit is done on 4 parameters: faint–end normalization and slope, bright–end slope and flux where the break occurs. We find that the differential counts are well fitted by a power law which is consistent with the euclidean slope at the bright end and with a slope $`\alpha _{diff}\alpha +1=1.5\pm 0.1`$ (1 sigma) at the faint end, with a break at $`S=1.1\times 10^{14}`$ erg s-1 cm-2. Thus, below $`S=10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2, the slope of the cumulative number count is $`\alpha 0.5`$. Such a significant flattening will be further tested on the data from the 1Ms observation.

We compared our LogN–LogS with the predictions of the AGN population synthesis models described in Gilli, Salvati & Hasinger (2001). We consider their model B, where the number ratio R between absorbed and unabsorbed AGNs is assumed to increase with redshift from 4, the value measured in the local Universe, to 10 at $`z1.3`$, where R is unknown. This model was found to provide a better description of the X–ray constraints (ASCA and ROSAT number counts, luminosity function and redshift distribution by ROSAT, see Gilli, Salvati & Hasinger 2001) with respect to a standard model where R=4 at all redshifts. The value of R was independent of the luminosity and therefore a large population of obscured QSOs is included in the model. Such a model was originally calibrated to fit the background intensity measured by ASCA. In this paper, the parameters of the AGN X–ray luminosity functions assumed in the model B are recalibrated to fit the background intensity measured by HEAO–1. The predictions for the source counts (short dashed line in Figure 5) are in very good agreement with the Chandra LogN-LogS at all fluxes.

For the total contribution to the soft X–ray background, we refer to the 1–2 keV band, following Hasinger et al. (1993; 1998) and Mushotzky et al. (2000). In this energy band the comparison with the unresolved soft X–ray background is more straightforward than in the 0.5–2 keV band, since for energies $`<1`$ keV the Galactic contribution may be significant. The unresolved value in the 1–2 keV band measured by ROSAT is $`4.4\times 10^{12}`$ erg s-1 cm-2, while the value found by ASCA is $`3.7\times 10^{12}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 (see Hasinger et al. 1998 and references therein). We find a contribution of $`5.6\times 10^{13}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 deg-2 for fluxes lower than $`10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2, corresponding to $`1315`$% of the unresolved flux. If this value is summed to the contribution at higher fluxes ($`3.02\times 10^{12}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 deg-2, see Hasinger et al. 1998), we end up with a total contribution of $`3.57\times 10^{12}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 deg-2 for fluxes larger than $`0.6\times 10^{16}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 (which is our flux limit in the 1–2 keV band), corresponding to 81% of the unresolved value as measured by ROSAT. If we assume the unresolved value measured by ASCA (which must be considered as a lower limit) the resolved contribution amounts to 96%.

We show the LogN–LogS distribution for sources in the hard band in Figure 6, down to a flux limit of $`10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2. The hard counts are normalized at the bright end with the ASCA data by Della Ceca et al. (1999b). A maximum likelihood fit to the hard sources data is:

$$N(>S)=(1150\pm 150)\left(\frac{S}{2\times 10^{15}}\right)^{0.92\pm 0.12}\mathrm{cgs},$$
(2)
where the errors are at 1 sigma. We used a conversion factor for an average power law $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.4`$. The confidence contours at 1, 2 and 3 sigma for the slope and the normalization are shown in the upper right corner of Figure 6. The hard number counts confirm the finding of Paper I (large filled dot) of a substantial flattening with respect to the slope at the bright end ($`\alpha =1.67\pm 0.09`$, Della Ceca et al. 1999b). We repeat the fit with a double power law in the differential counts, as in the case of the soft counts. For the hard counts too, we find evidence for further flattening: the differential counts are well fitted by a power law which is consistent with the euclidean slope at the bright end and with a slope $`\alpha _{diff}=1.6\pm 0.2`$ (1 sigma) at the faint end, with a break at $`S=9\times 10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2. To confirm such change in the slope below $`S=10^{14}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 we need to extend the number counts to a lower flux limit.

The normalization computed at $`2\times 10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 is consistent with the best fit in Paper I. Thus, we still find a difference larger than 3 sigma from the results of Mushotzky et al. (2000, large star). We stress that here we used an average spectral slope ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.4`$) flatter than in PaperI (where we used $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.7`$). We chose the new value to be in agreement with the average spectral shape of our new combined sample. The short dashed line in Figure 6 is the same model as in Figure 5.

Despite the assumption of a flatter spectral slope, the difference in normalization with the hard number counts of Mushotzky et al. (2000) is still present. Our hard number counts are confirmed also by the results from the Lynx field, independently analysed by some of us, and from the XMM observation of the Lockman Hole (Hasinger et al. 2001a). The disagreement between us and Mushotzky et al. (2000) is statistically significant and acquires particular relevance since we are about to resolve completely the hard background. The causes of discrepancy may be due to calibration problems222A 15% underestimation of the effective area of the BI chips has been recently discovered, but only below 1.2 keV, see http://asc.harvard.edu/ciao/caveats/effacal.html). A possible physical reason is cosmic variance. In this case the larger area of the CDFS should give a more accurate measure, if compared with the smaller area (1/4) covered by the pointing of Mushotzky et al. (2000).

The integrated contribution of all the sources within the flux range $`10^{13}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 to $`10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 in the 2–10 keV band is $`(1.15\pm 0.15)\times 10^{11}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 deg-2 for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.4`$. After including the bright end seen by ASCA for $`S>10^{13}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 (Della Ceca et al. 1999b), the total resolved hard X–ray background amounts to $`(1.46\pm 0.20)\times 10^{11}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 deg-2. The inclusion of the ASCA data at bright fluxes minimizes the effect of cosmic variance. In Figure 7 we show the total contribution computed from the CDFS plus ASCA sample. The value at the limiting flux $`S=10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 is still lower than the value of the total (unresolved) X–ray background $`1.6\times 10^{11}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 deg-2 from UHURU and HEAO-1 (Marshall et al. 1980). More recent values of the 2–10 keV integrated flux from the BeppoSAX and ASCA surveys (e.g., Vecchi et al. 1999; Ishisaki et al. 1999 and Gendreau et al. 1995) appear higher by 20-40%. These latest values are closer to the old Wisconsin measurements which were about 30% higher than the HEAO-1 value. The difference of 30% in flux has never been resolved up to the current day (McCammon & Sanders 1990).

Before concluding that a relevant fraction (10-40%)of the XRB has still to be resolved, we perform a detailed analysis of the hard sample, in order to understand if the resolved contribution may be underestimated due to a wrongly assumed spectral shape. To have a better understanding of how the spectrum of the X–ray background is built up at different fluxes, we divide the hard band sample into a bright subsample ($`9\times 10^{15}<S<10^{13}`$ erg s-1 cm-2), a faint subsample ($`10^{15}<S<9\times 10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2) and a very faint subsample ($`10^{15}<S<4\times 10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2) in terms of the hard fluxes. The sources were selected only in the area with 300ks of exposure, and the stacked spectra contain about 3300, 3700 and 1550 net counts respectively. We fitted the energy range from 1 keV to 10 keV with an absorbed power law and fixed the local absorption to the Galactic value $`N_H=8\times 10^{19}`$ cm-2. The best–fit photon index is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.55\pm 0.03`$ for the bright sample, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.26\pm 0.04`$ for the faint sample, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.08\pm 0.07`$ for the very faint sample (1 sigma errors). The trend, shown in Figure 8, is representative of the progressive hardening of the sources at lower fluxes. The line in Figure 8 is the prediction from the model used in Figures 5 and 6. Here we notice that at the very bright end our sample is dominated by few bright sources with a spectrum steeper than the rest of the sample, typical of the TypeI AGNs detected by ASCA at $`S>10^{13}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 (which make about 30% of the hard background and have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1.8`$). This may have biased the average spectral slope of our total sample towards slightly higher values. For example, the average spectral slope in the Lynx field, independently analyzed by some of us, in the same range of fluxes is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.36\pm 0.02`$ (1 sigma error) which is marginally flatter than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.44\pm 0.03`$ found in the CDFS.

We checked that using a varying $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, as shown in Figure 8, does not alter the resulting logN–logS by more than a 5% increase in the normalization. The total contribution to the X-ray background changes even less, since the lower $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at low fluxes is compensated by the higher $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at high fluxes. We conclude that using an average $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.4`$ to derive the hard fluxes from the net counts is justified. An interesting consequence of this analysis is that a fraction of at least $`10`$% of the unresolved hard XRB is still to be resolved at fluxes lower than $`10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2.

## 4 PROPERTIES OF SOURCES

The spectroscopic optical identification process of the X–ray sources described in this paper is still ongoing. Spectra have been taken with the FORS1 instrument on the VLT UT-1 in multislit mode. From about 130 spectra taken, we obtained a total of 99 redshifts, of which we regard 86 as secure.

The redshifts are distributed between $`z=0.1`$ and $`z=3.7`$ with 50 sources at $`z1`$ and 36 at $`z>1`$. In Figure 9 we plot the distribution as a function of redshift and hardness ratio. We notice a striking difference between the distribution of hard and soft sources. The large majority of the sources with $`HR>0`$ appear at $`z1.6`$, most of them at $`z<1`$. Moreover, most of the sources with $`HR>0`$ are identified as TypeII AGNs from the presence of narrow lines. TypeI AGNs instead, show an average $`HR0.5`$ with a relatively narrow dispersion, and they are found in a broader range of redshift.

Only three sources have $`HR0`$ and $`z>2`$, including an obscured QSO at $`z=3.7`$ with $`HR0`$. This source is marked with an asterisk in Figure 9 and is studied in detail in Norman et al. (2001). The average hardness ratio of all sources at $`z>1.6`$ is $`HR0.5`$. This result, if confirmed by the complete analysis of the sample, would indicate that the hardest sources contributing to the 2–10 keV background are typically TypeII objects at $`z1`$, according to what has been found by Barger et al. (2001). Conversely, the most distant sources ($`z>2`$) have an average $`HR0.5`$ and are prevalently TypeI objects. The dashed lines in Figure 9 show how the observed hardness ratio changes with redshift for a given intrinsic absorbing $`N_H`$ assuming a photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.7`$. We note that $`HR`$ is not a good tracer of intrinsic absorption especially at high $`z`$.

We can investigate in greater detail the nature of the hard sources. We selected a subsample of source with $`HR>0`$ (corresponding to an effective $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<0.5`$ for a Galactic $`N_H`$). All the selected sources are included in the region with 300ks of exposure and have a hard flux lower than $`2\times 10^{14}`$ erg s-1 cm-2. The sources selected in this way contribute about 20-30% of the total X–ray background. A fit with an absorbed power law gives $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.23\pm 0.13`$ and $`N_H=(1.3\pm 0.2)\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2 (1 sigma errors). Using an average redshift of $`z0.7`$ as representative of the sources in the subsample, we find an average intrinsic absorption corresponding to $`N_H(4\pm 0.4)\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2 with a similar $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This confirms the presence of strong intrinsic absorption for the hardest sources detected at low fluxes.

Luminosities are computed in the rest–frame soft band after assuming an average power law spectrum with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.4`$, in a critical universe with $`H_0=50`$ km/s/Mpc. The distribution of luminosities emitted in the soft band with redshift is shown in Figure 10. This plot shows that in 300ks we have achieved a greater sensitivity than all previous surveys. The upper solid line corresponds to a sensitivity limit in flux of $`2\times 10^{16}`$ erg s-1 cm-2, that was the flux limit of the 120k exposure (see Paper I). Most of the sources with $`HR>0`$ appear to fall in the $`L_{hard}=10^{42}10^{44}`$ erg s-1 range and are identified with TypeII absorbed AGNs. Data obtained with the HST observations of a small fraction of our field (Schreier et al. 2001) will address in detail the morphological properties of the optical counterparts.

Softer sources with $`HR<0`$ appear to span the range from $`10^{40}`$ to $`10^{45}`$ erg s-1. At luminosities larger than $`10^{42}`$ erg s-1 these sources are mostly identified with TypeI AGN. At the low luminosity end, several sources are detected only in the soft band ($`HR=1`$). Most of these objects are identified with galaxies at redshift less than $`0.6`$ with soft luminosities restricted to a range between $`L_x=10^{40}`$ and $`L_x=10^{42}`$ erg s-1. This population of relatively nearby galaxies with soft X–ray spectra has been found also by Hornschemeier et al. (2001) in the Chandra Deep Field North.

In the plot $`S`$ versus $`R`$, where S is the X–ray flux in the soft band (see Figure 7 of Paper I) this subsample appears to populate the low $`S/R`$ region at fluxes $`S<10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2. We can use a criterium defined in the $`S`$$`R`$ plane to isolate this soft, low luminosity population of sources. If we define a subsample requiring $`S/S_{opt}<0.1`$, $`S_{tot}<3\times 10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2, and $`HR<0.5`$, we find 18 sources. Among these 18 sources, 10 have redshift, with an average value $`z=0.25`$. The very high redshift sources with $`HR=1`$ (see Figure 9) have $`S/S_{opt}1`$ and are therefore excluded from this subsample. By visual inspection from the images in the $`R`$ and $`B`$ bands, at least 10 of these 18 sources appear clearly to be galaxies. If we fit their stacked spectrum with a power law, we find consistency with Galactic absorption, and a spectral slope $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2.0\pm 0.2`$ (90 % c.l.). If we repeat the fit with a thermal spectrum, we find a temperature of $`3.5\pm 1.5`$ keV, which is too high to be produced by hot gas in the potential wells of galaxies. Such an apparent temperature may be due to the contribution of low luminosity nuclear activity or a population of X–ray binaries. Both fits have a $`\chi _\nu ^21`$. A better definition of the subsample will be available when the spectroscopic optical identification is completed.

## 5 CONCLUSIONS

We detected X–ray sources down to a flux limit of $`10^{16}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 in the 0.5–2 keV soft band and $`10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 in the 2–10 keV hard band, improving the sensitivity by a factor of 2 with respect to Paper I. The LogN–LogS relationship of the hard sample confirmed the previous findings obtained from the 120 ksec exposure (Paper I). The average slope turns out to be $`\alpha =0.92\pm 0.12`$, which is flatter with respect to the quasi–euclidean slope found by ASCA at the bright end ($`S>10^{13}`$ erg s-1 cm-2). However, adopting a fit with double power law in the whole flux range, we find indication for flattening down to $`\alpha =0.6\pm 0.2`$ below $`S10^{14}`$ erg s-1 cm-2.

After the inclusion of the ASCA sources at the bright end, the total contribution to the resolved hard X–ray background down to our flux limit of $`10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 now amounts to $`(1.45\pm 0.15)\times 10^{11}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 deg-2. This result is robust to variations of the average spectral slope in the hard sample, which can be as low as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.1`$ for the faintest sources. The value for the unresolved X–ray background ranges from $`1.6`$ to $`2.4\times 10^{11}`$ erg s-1 cm-2, so a fraction between 60% and 90% of the hard XRB has now been resolved.

We confirm our previous finding on the average spectrum of the sources of the total sample, which can be well approximated with a power law with index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.4`$. We also find a progressive hardening of the sources at lower fluxes, both for the soft and the hard samples. In particular, we divided the hard sample into three subsamples: bright ($`9\times 10^{15}<S<10^{13}`$ erg s-1 cm-2), faint ($`10^{15}<S<9\times 10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2) and very faint ($`10^{15}<S<4\times 10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2). The average power law is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.55\pm 0.03`$ for the bright subsample, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.26\pm 0.04`$ for the faint subsample, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.08\pm 0.07`$ for the very faint subsample. The progressive hardening at faint fluxes is probably due to a stronger intrinsic absorption.

In the soft band the counts show a slope of $`\alpha =0.66\pm 0.06`$ (1 sigma error), clearly flatter than the slope at the bright end measured by ROSAT. A double power law fit indicates a progressive flattening at the faint end, with a best fit with $`\alpha =0.5\pm 0.1`$ for fluxes below $`10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2. The soft X–ray background in the energy range 1–2 keV is now resolved at the level of 81–96 % depending on the assumed value for the unresolved soft XRB.

The soft and the hard LogN–logS must ultimately approach each other. In fact, in the unified AGN explanation of the XRB we should, with increasing sensitivity, see the same objects in both bands. However, if the remaining hard population is constituted by sources that are even more strongly absorbed, there will be a significant fraction of hard sources still undetected in the soft band also at $`S10^{17}`$ erg s-1 cm-2. Following the model B in Gilli, Salvati & Hasinger (2001), we found that the soft and hard LogN–LogS predict the same source density at $`S10^{19}10^{20}`$ erg s-1 cm-2.

We have also used measured redshifts for 86 sources. The spectra will be presented in the catalog paper of the 1Ms exposure (Giacconi et al, in preparation). We find that the hard sources with $`HR>0`$ are typically found at $`z<1`$, with intrinsic luminosities between $`10^{42}`$ and $`10^{44}`$ erg s-1 in the soft band. Between the objects producing the 2–10 keV X–ray background, the ones with $`HR>0`$ (producing between 20–30% of the total XRB) appear relatively nearby (redshifts $`z<1`$) and are most easily identified with Seyfert II galaxies (see also Barger et al. 2001). We note that a bias could be present against obscured AGNs, since our spectroscopically identified sample is not complete and obscured AGNs are expected to have on average fainter magnitudes than the unobscured ones. One of the important results of Chandra is the detection of obscured QSOs. A first clear example of hard (i.e. likely obscured) X–ray sources at high redshift with X–ray luminosities above $`3\times 10^{44}`$ erg s-1 have been already found (see Figure 9). This source is extensively described in Norman et al. (2001). When the optical identification program will be completed, it will be possible to test whether the population of aborbed AGN is as large as assumed in the AGN synthesis models of the XRB (Madau, Ghisellini & Fabian 1993; Comastri et al. 1995; Gilli et al. 2001, Comastri et al. 2001).

The observation at $`S<10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 of very soft ($`HR<0.5`$) objects with $`L_X`$ between $`10^{40}`$ and $`10^{42}`$ erg s-1 up to $`z0.3`$ opens up a new window to the study of the evolution of galaxies at moderate $`z`$. A large number of galaxies could increase the number counts at low fluxes without contributing significantly to the XRB.

G. Hasinger and G. Szokoly acknowledge support under DLR grant 50 OR 9908 O. R. Giacconi and C. Norman gratefully acknowledge support under NASA grant NAG-8-1527 and NAG-8-1133. We thank Richard Bouwens for providing the modified version of Sextractor used for detection and Roberto Della Ceca, Ken Kellerman and Peter Shaver for useful comments. We thank the anonymous refere for a constructive and detailed report.


format: text

text:
# Radiative decays of mesons in the NJL model

## I Introduction

The analysis of vector and axial-vector meson physics represents a nontrivial task from the theoretical point of view. This is basically due to the characteristic energy scales at which these particles manifest, namely an intermediate range between low energy hadron physics and the high energy region where QCD can be treated perturvatively. In order to deal with the subject, one possible approach is to start from an effective meson Lagrangian; another possible way is to derive the corresponding effective interactions from QCD-inspired fermionic schemes.

In the last two decades, the development of chiral effective models  has provided a profitable framework to analyze various phenomena related to the physics of vector and axial-vector mesons . These models have been built taking into account the symmetries of QCD, together with the so–called axial anomaly introduced through the Wess-Zumino-Witten (WZW)  effective action. As an alternative approach, the analysis of spin one meson physics can be performed by starting with the Lagrangian proposed by Nambu and Jona–Lasinio (NJL) . This Lagrangian is based in 4-fermion interactions, showing the chiral symmetry of QCD, and leads to an effective theory for scalar, pseudoscalar, vector and axial–vector mesons after proper bosonization. The effective meson Lagrangian can be obtained by constructing a generating functional, and evaluating the real and imaginary parts of the fermion determinant .

In this work we follow this second approach, studying the phenomenology of spin 1 mesons in the framework of the NJL model. We propose a fermionic Lagrangian that shows an approximate $`U(3)_LU(3)_R`$ chiral symmetry, explicitly violated by current quark masses, as is the case of QCD in the limit of large number of colours $`N_C`$. In particular, we revisit the predictions given by this model for anomalous radiative decays of vector mesons, taking into account the explicit breakdown of the $`SU(3)`$ flavour symmetry to $`SU(2)`$ isospin symmetry with the assumption $`m_u=m_dm_s`$. We perform the bosonization of the NJL theory by carrying out an expansion of the fermion determinant in terms of the meson fields. This gives rise to a set of one–loop Feynman diagrams  from which one can derive the relevant effective meson interactions. Taking into account present experimental data, we analyze possible input parameters for the model, in order to obtain an acceptable phenomenological pattern for the observed anomalous decays of pseudoscalar and vector mesons.

The paper is organized as follows: In Sect. II we introduce the NJL Lagrangian and the bosonization technique. In Sect. III we derive the effective Lagrangian to account for vector and axial-vector meson interactions, considering the explicit breakdown of flavour $`SU(3)`$ symmetry. This leads to some relations between vector meson masses and decay constants that can be written in terms of symmetry breaking parameters. Then, in Sect. IV, we concentrate on the anomalous radiative decays of pseudoscalar and vector mesons, which proceed through the $`U(1)`$ axial anomaly. In Sect. V we discuss the numerical results for the corresponding branching ratios, in comparison with the present experimental information. Finally in Sect. VI we present our conclusions. The Appendix includes a brief description of the regularization scheme used throughout our analysis.

## II Nambu–Jona–Lasinio Lagrangian and bosonization

Chiral effective models have proved to reproduce the low energy hadron phenomena with significant success. For that reason, a significant effort has been done in order to derive these effective schemes from a microscopic theory as QCD. The effective four fermion Lagrangian proposed by Nambu and Jona–Lasinio , which shows the chiral symmetry of QCD, represents one of the most popular ways to achieve this goal. The NJL model provides, after proper bosonization, not only the expected effective couplings for scalar, pseudoscalar, vector and axial–vector mesons but also the Wess–Zumino–Witten sector  which accounts for the anomalous meson decays. The explicit form of the NJL Lagrangian reads

$``$ $`=`$ $`\overline{q}(i\overline{)}\widehat{m}_0)q+2G_1\left[(\overline{q}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda ^aq)^2+(\overline{q}i\gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda ^aq)^2\right]`$ (2)
$`2G_2\left[(\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda ^aq)^2+(\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda ^aq)^2\right],`$
where $`q`$ denotes the $`N`$-flavour quark spinor, $`\lambda ^a`$, $`a=0,\mathrm{},N^21`$ are the generators of the $`U(N)`$ flavour group (we normalize $`\lambda ^0=\sqrt{2/N}𝟙`$) and $`\widehat{m}_0`$ stands for the current quark mass matrix, which explicitly breaks the chiral symmetry. The coupling constants $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$, as well as the quark masses, are introduced as free parameters of the model. In the absence of the mass term, the NJL Lagrangian shows at the quantum level the $`SU(N)_ASU(N)_VU(1)_V`$ symmetry characteristic of massless QCD.

It is possible to reduce the fermionic degrees of freedom to bosonic ones by standard bosonization techniques. With the introduction of colorless boson fields and an appropriate use of the Stratonovich identity, one obtains an effective action where the fermions couple to the bosons in a bilinear form. The couplings driven by $`G_1`$ in (2) lead to the introduction of scalar and pseudoscalar boson fields, whereas those carrying $`G_2`$ lead to the inclusion of vector and axial–vector mesons.

To be definite, let us consider the vector meson sector with $`N=3`$ flavours, $`u`$, $`d`$ and $`s`$. By means of the Stratonovich identity, the vector–vector coupling in (2) can be transformed as

$$2G_2(\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu \frac{1}{2}\lambda ^aq)^2\frac{1}{4G_2}\text{Tr}V_\mu ^2+i\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu V_\mu q,$$
(3)
where $`V_\mu i{\displaystyle \underset{a=0}{\overset{8}{}}}V_\mu ^a\lambda ^a/2`$. The spin 1 fields $`V_\mu ^a`$ can be identified with the usual nonet of vector mesons,

$$V=\frac{(i)}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\rho ^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\omega _8}{\sqrt{6}}+\frac{\omega _1}{\sqrt{3}}& \rho ^+& K^+\\ \rho ^{}& \frac{\rho ^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\omega _8}{\sqrt{6}}+\frac{\omega _1}{\sqrt{3}}& K^0\\ K^{}& \overline{K}^0& \frac{2\omega _8}{\sqrt{6}}+\frac{\omega _1}{\sqrt{3}}\end{array}\right)$$
(4)
which transform in such a way to preserve the chiral symmetry of the original NJL Lagrangian (and therefore that of QCD). Notice that the first term in the right hand side of Eq. (3) is nothing but a mass term for the vector fields $`V_\mu ^a`$, thus the vector–meson masses are governed by the coupling $`G_2`$ in the NJL Lagrangian. It can be seen that these masses are degenerate in the limit where the quark masses are degenerate.

Now, the quark fields can be integrated out, leading to an effective Lagrangian which only contains bosonic degrees of freedom. This procedure can be carried out by taking into account the generating functional

$$𝒵=𝒩𝒟V𝒟q𝒟\overline{q}\mathrm{exp}\left\{i𝑑x^4\left[\frac{1}{4G_2}\text{Tr}V_\mu ^2+\overline{q}(i\overline{)}\widehat{m}_0+i\overline{)}V)q\right]\right\}$$
(5)
and performing the calculation of the fermion determinant (a detailed analysis can be found in ). A similar procedure can be followed for the full NJL Lagrangian (2), leading to the interactions involving scalar, pseudoscalar and axial–vector bosons. In this way, the final effective Lagrangian is written only in terms of spin 0 and spin 1 colorless hadron fields.

Here we have performed the bosonization by carrying out an expansion of the fermion determinant, which gives rise to a set of one–loop Feynman diagrams . In order to build up the final effective meson Lagrangian, we have obtained the local part of the relevant interactions by taking the leading order of a gradient expansion in powers of the external momenta, and considering the dominant contributions in $`1/N_C`$. The divergent integrals have been treated using a proper–time regularization scheme with a momentum cut–off, keeping the leading contributions. The procedure is developed in detail in the next section.

## III Effective meson couplings and symmetry-breaking parameters

In this section we describe the effective meson interactions derived from the NJL Lagrangian. We begin by calculating the relevant one–loop self–energy diagrams contributing to the meson kinetic and mass terms, and those leading to the effective weak and strong meson decay couplings. Notice that the meson fields introduced through the bosonization technique acquire their dynamics via the self–energy one–loop diagrams.

In our framework, the poles of the quark propagators occur at the so–called constituent masses, i.e. dynamically generated masses which arise as a consequence of the spontaneous breakdown of the chiral symmetry. The constituent masses appear as solutions of Schwinger-Dyson self-consistency equations (gap equations), which are governed by the scalar coupling $`G_1`$ in the NJL Lagrangian (2). Here we will not concentrate in the scalar sector of the model, thus the constituent quark masses, as well as the pseudoscalar boson masses, will be considered as free parameters.

Our main interest is focused in the anomalous radiative decays of vector mesons. Nevertheless, we need to consider also the axial–vector sector of the model, since the axial–vectors mix with the pseudoscalars at the one–loop level ($`PA`$ mixing).

### A Kinetic terms and masses of the spin-1 mesons

The generating functional (5) gives rise to effective kinetic terms for the spin-1 vector mesons via one–loop diagrams, as shown in Fig. 1(a). The analysis in the case of the axial–vector mesons can be performed in an analogous way, with the additional ingredient of $`PA`$ mixing given by Fig. 1(b).

The loop in Fig. 1(a) gives a contribution to the vector meson self-energy given by

$$iN_C\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\text{Tr}\frac{\overline{)}k\overline{)}p+m_1}{(kp)^2m_1^2}\lambda ^a\gamma _\mu \frac{\overline{)}k+m_2}{k^2m_2^2}\lambda ^b\gamma _\nu ,$$
(6)
where $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ are the constituent masses of the quarks entering the loop, $`N_C`$ is the number of colors, and the trace acts over the flavour and Dirac indices.

As stated above, we will take only the leading order in the external momentum $`p`$, which means to evaluate the integral at $`p=0`$ after extracting the relevant kinematical factors. In this case, this is equivalent to consider only the divergent piece of (6):

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(V)}=I_2(m_1,m_2)\left[\frac{1}{3}(p_\mu p_\nu p^2g_{\mu \nu })+\frac{1}{2}(m_2m_1)^2\right],$$
(7)
where

$$I_2(m_i,m_j)i\frac{N_C}{(2\pi )^4}d^4k\frac{1}{(k^2m_i^2)(k^2m_j^2)}.$$
(8)
As it was previously mentioned, in order to regularize the divergence we use the proper–time regularization scheme  with a cut–off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which will be treated as a free parameter of the model. Details of the procedure can be found in the Appendix. We obtain

$$I_2(m_i,m_j)=\frac{N_C}{16\pi ^2}_0^1𝑑x\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,\frac{(m_i^2m_j^2)x+m_j^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}).$$
(9)
From (7), the kinetic terms for the vector mesons in the effective Lagrangian are given by

$`_{kin}^{(V)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}I_2(m_u,m_u)[\rho _{\mu \nu }\rho ^{\mu \nu }+2\rho _{\mu \nu }^+\rho _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }+\omega _{\mu \nu }\omega ^{\mu \nu }+\alpha \varphi _{\mu \nu }\varphi ^{\mu \nu }`$ (11)
$`+2\beta (K_{}^{}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{+}K_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }+K_{}^{}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{0}\overline{K}^{0\mu \nu })],`$
where $`V^{\mu \nu }^\mu V^\nu ^\nu V^\mu `$, and

$$\alpha =\frac{I_2(m_s,m_s)}{I_2(m_u,m_u)},\beta =\frac{I_2(m_u,m_s)}{I_2(m_u,m_u)}$$
(12)
parameterize the magnitude of the $`SU(3)`$ flavour symmetry breaking.

The kinetic Lagrangian in (11) has been expressed in terms of the vector fields in (4), with the additional rotation

$`\omega _8`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi \mathrm{cos}\theta _0+\omega \mathrm{sin}\theta _0`$ (13)
$`\omega _1`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta _0+\omega \mathrm{cos}\theta _0,`$ (14)
which diagonalizes the neutral sector. It is easy to see that here the rotation is “ideal”, i.e., the spin 1 mass eigenstates $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ are composed by pure light $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks, while the $`\varphi `$ meson is a bound state $`\overline{s}s`$. The $`\omega \varphi `$ rotation angle is given by $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _0=1/\sqrt{3}`$. Slight deviations from the ideal mixing condition will be considered below to allow for the decay $`\varphi \pi ^0\gamma `$ observed recently.

The mass terms for the vector mesons are given by the $`(V_\mu )^2`$ term in (3), plus a divergent one–loop contribution given by the second term in the square brackets in (7), which vanishes in the $`SU(3)`$ flavour limit. This leads to

$`_{mass}^{(V)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8G_2}}\left[\rho _\mu \rho ^\mu +2\rho _\mu ^+\rho _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }+\omega _\mu \omega ^\mu +\varphi _\mu \varphi ^\mu +2K_{}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{+}K_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }+2K_{}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{0}\overline{K}^{0\mu }\right]`$ (16)
$`+(m_sm_u)^2\beta I_2(m_u,m_u)(K_{}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{+}K_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }+K_{}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{0}\overline{K}^{0\mu }).`$
Notice that (as expected) the mass terms turn out to be diagonal in the ($`\omega ,\varphi `$) basis.

We proceed now to the wave function renormalization required by the kinetic terms in (11). The vector meson fields can be properly redefined by $`V_\mu Z_V^{1/2}V_\mu `$, with

$`Z_\rho ^1`$ $`=`$ $`Z_\omega ^1={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}I_2(m_u,m_u)`$ (18)
$`Z_K^{}^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\beta I_2(m_u,m_u)=\beta Z_\rho ^1`$ (19)
$`Z_\varphi ^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\alpha I_2(m_u,m_u)=\alpha Z_\rho ^1.`$ (20)
Then from (16) one obtains

$$m_\rho ^2=m_\omega ^2=\frac{Z_\rho }{4G_2},m_K^{}^2=\frac{m_\rho ^2}{\beta }+\frac{3}{2}(m_sm_u)^2,m_\varphi ^2=\frac{m_\rho ^2}{\alpha },$$
(21)
thus the $`\varphi `$ meson mass can be written in terms of the $`\rho `$ mass and the flavour symmetry breaking parameter $`\alpha `$. In the case of the $`K^{}`$, the corresponding mass relation includes both the parameter $`\beta `$ and a quark–mass dependent contribution that arises from the loop in Fig. 1 (a).

A similar analysis can be performed for the axial–vector meson sector. By replacing $`\gamma _\alpha \gamma _\alpha \gamma _5`$ in the quark–meson vertices in Fig. 1 (a), one finds

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(A)}=\frac{2}{3}I_2(m_1,m_2)\left[(p_\mu p_\nu p^2g_{\mu \nu })\frac{3}{2}\frac{(m_2+m_1)^2}{2}\right],$$
(22)
leading to the kinetic Lagrangian

$`_{kin}^{(A)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}I_2(m_u,m_u)[a_{1}^{}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}a_1^{\mu \nu }+2a_{1}^{}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{+}a_1^{\mu \nu }+f_{1\mu \nu }f_1^{\mu \nu }`$ (24)
$`+2\beta K_{1}^{+}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}K_1^{\mu \nu }+2\beta K_{1\mu \nu }^0\overline{K}_1^{0\mu \nu }+\alpha f_{1\mu \nu }^{}f_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{\mu \nu }]`$
and the mass terms

$`_{mass}^{(A)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8G_2}}\left[a_{1}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}a_1^\mu +2a_{1}^{+}{}_{\mu }{}^{}a_1^\mu +f_{1\mu }f_1^\mu +f_{1\mu }^{}f_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{\mu }+2K_{1}^{+}{}_{\mu }{}^{}K_1^\mu +2K_{1\mu }^0\overline{K}_1^{0\mu }\right]`$ (27)
$`+I_2(m_u,m_u)[2m_u^2(a_{1}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}a_1^\mu +2a_{1}^{+}{}_{\mu }{}^{}a_1^\mu +f_{1\mu }f_1^\mu )`$
$`+(m_u+m_s)^2\beta (K_{1}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{+}K_1^\mu +K_{1}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{0}\overline{K}_1^{0\mu })+2m_s^2\alpha f_{1\mu }^{}f_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{\mu }].`$
As in the vector meson case, the Lagrangian is diagonal in the chosen basis, where $`f_1`$ and $`f_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}`$ are obtained from the $`U(3)`$ states $`A_8`$ and $`A_1`$ through an ideal rotation. Notice that both neutral and charged axial–vector boson masses receive a contribution proportional to $`G_2^1`$, which arises from field transformations as in Eq. (3), plus additional (positive) contributions proportional to the quark masses. In this way, the axial–vector mesons are in general expected to be heavier than their vector meson counterparts.

Finally, we have to take into account the mixing between the axial–vector mesons and the pseudoscalars. This requires the analysis of the pseudoscalar–axial vector couplings and the pseudoscalar kinetic terms, given by the one–loop diagrams in Fig. 1 (b) and (c) respectively. The effective couplings read

$`_{mix}`$ $`=`$ $`iI_2(m_u,m_u)[2m_u(_\mu \pi ^0a_1^\mu +_\mu \pi ^+a_1^\mu +_\mu \pi ^{}a_1^{+\mu }+_\mu \eta _uf^\mu )`$ (30)
$`+\beta (m_u+m_s)(_\mu K^+K_1^\mu +_\mu K^{}K_1^{\mu +}+_\mu K^0\overline{K}_1^{0\mu }+_\mu \overline{K}^0K_1^{0\mu })`$
$`+2\alpha m_s_\mu \eta _sf^\mu ],`$
while the pseudoscalar kinetic Lagrangian is given by

$`_{kin}^{(P)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}I_2(m_u,m_u)[_\mu \pi ^0^\mu \pi ^0+2_\mu \pi ^+^\mu \pi ^{}+_\mu \eta _u^\mu \eta _u+\alpha _\mu \eta _s^\mu \eta _s`$ (32)
$`+2\beta _\mu K^+^\mu K^{}+2\beta _\mu K^0^\mu \overline{K}^0].`$
Once again, we have chosen a basis for the neutral fields in which the states $`\eta _u`$, $`\eta _s`$ are obtained from the $`U(3)`$ states $`\eta _8`$, $`\eta _1`$ through an ideal rotation. However, these states cannot be treated as approximate mass eigenstates due to the presence of the $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly, which breaks the $`U(3)`$ symmetry down to $`SU(3)`$. Although formally of order $`1/N_C`$, this anomaly leads to a relatively large mass splitting between the observed $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ physical states. Still, large $`N_C`$ considerations are shown to be powerful enough to deal with the interactions of the $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _8`$ fields as members of an $`U(3)`$ nonet. As stated, we will not concentrate here in the pseudoscalar mass sector, and consequently, in the $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry breaking mechanism responsible for the $`\eta ^{}`$ mass. In the NJL framework, one way to proceed is to include the so-called ’t Hooft interaction , which emulates the effect of the anomaly. Instead of following this way (which means to include six-fermion interaction vertices) we will introduce the $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ mixing angle as a parameter of the model. Thus we write $`\eta _u`$ and $`\eta _s`$ in terms of the physical states as

$`\eta _u`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\phi _P\eta +\mathrm{sin}\phi _P\eta ^{}`$ (33)
$`\eta _s`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\phi _P\eta +\mathrm{cos}\phi _P\eta ^{}.`$ (34)
In order to write the effective Lagrangian in terms of the physical fields, one needs not only the relevant wave function renormalizations but also the diagonalization of the $`PA`$ couplings. This can be achieved by means of the transformations

$$PZ_P^{1/2}P,A_\mu Z_A^{1/2}A_\mu +C_PZ_P^{1/2}_\mu P,$$
(35)
where $`P=\pi `$, $`K`$, $`\eta _u`$, $`\eta _s`$, and

$`C_\pi `$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}I_2(m_u,m_u)Z_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{m_u}{m_{a_1}^2}}=C_{\eta _u}`$ (36)
$`C_K`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}I_2(m_u,m_u)Z_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{(m_u+m_s)}{2m_{K_1}^2}}`$ (37)
$`C_{\eta _s}`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}I_2(m_u,m_u)Z_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{m_f^{}^2}}.`$ (38)
The wave function renormalization for the pseudoscalar sector yields

$`Z_\pi ^1`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{\eta _u}^1=I_2(m_u,m_u)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{6m_u^2}{m_{a_1}^2}}\right)`$ (39)
$`Z_K^1`$ $`=`$ $`\beta I_2(m_u,m_u)\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(m_u+m_s)^2}{m_{K_1}^2}}\right]`$ (40)
$`Z_{\eta _s}^1`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha I_2(m_u,m_u)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{6m_s^2}{m_f^{}^2}}\right),`$ (41)
where the axial–vector meson masses can be read from (27). As can be immediately seen from (24), the wave function renormalization for the axial–vector mesons is equivalent to that performed in the vector meson sector, c.f. Eq. (III A). Using these relations and those in (21), the axial–vector meson masses turn out to be constrained by

$`m_{a_1}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_\rho ^2+6m_u^2`$ (42)
$`m_{K_1}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_K^{}^2+6m_um_s`$ (43)
$`m_f^{}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_\varphi ^2+6m_s^2.`$ (44)
### B Weak and strong decay constants

We want to analyze the ability of the effective model under consideration to describe the low energy behaviour of pseudoscalar and vector mesons. Let us begin by studying some fundamental decay processes, in order to evaluate the relevant decay constants in terms of the model parameters.

The pseudoscalar weak decay constants $`F_\pi `$ and $`F_K`$ can be obtained from the one–loop transitions represented in Fig. 2, where $`P=\pi `$, $`K`$. As in the self–energy case, these diagrams are found to be logarithmically divergent and can be regularized using the proper–time scheme. We will keep as before only the leading contributions in the limit of vanishing external momenta, which amounts to take only the divergent piece of the loop integrals.

The decay constants $`F_P`$ are defined as usual by

$$0|J_{\mu 5}(0)|P(q)=i\sqrt{2}F_Pq_\mu .$$
(45)
It is easy to see that the contributions from Fig. 2 (a) and (b) lead to

$`F_\pi `$ $`=`$ $`2I_2(m_u,m_u)m_uZ_\pi ^{1/2}\left(1+i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}m_uC_\pi \right)`$ (46)
$`=`$ $`2I_2(m_u,m_u)m_uZ_\pi ^{1/2}\left(16{\displaystyle \frac{m_u^2}{m_{a_1}^2}}\right)`$ (47)
$`F_K`$ $`=`$ $`\text{}I_2(m_u,m_u)\beta (m_u+m_s)Z_K^{1/2}\left[1+i(m_u+m_s)C_K\right]`$ (48)
$`=`$ $`\text{}I_2(m_u,m_u)\beta (m_u+m_s)Z_K^{1/2}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(m_u+m_s)^2}{m_{K_1}^2}}\right],`$ (49)
where have made use of Eqs. (38). In these equations, the first terms arise from the graph in Fig. 2 (a), whereas the contributions proportional to $`C_{\pi ,K}`$ are due to the $`PA`$ mixing diagrams. Using now Eqs. (41), we end up with the simple relations

$$F_\pi =\frac{2m_u}{Z_\pi ^{1/2}},F_K=\frac{(m_u+m_s)}{Z_K^{1/2}}.$$
(50)
Next, let us study the basic decay constants $`g_\rho `$, $`g_K^{}`$ and $`g_\varphi `$, which account for the strong decays of the vector mesons into two pseudoscalars. The decay constants can be defined from the total decay rates according to

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho \pi \pi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_\rho ^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\rho }{12}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_\pi ^2}{m_\rho ^2}}\right)^{3/2}`$ (51)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}K\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`\text{}{\displaystyle \frac{g_K^{}^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^{}}{16}}\left\{\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{(m_K+m_\pi )^2}{m_K^{}^2}}\right]\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{(m_Km_\pi )^2}{m_K^{}^2}}\right]\right\}^{3/2}`$ (52)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi KK)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi K^+K^{})+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi K^0\overline{K}^0)`$ (53)
$`=`$ $`\text{}{\displaystyle \frac{g_\varphi ^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\varphi }{24}}\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_{K^+}^2}{m_\varphi ^2}}\right)^{3/2}+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_{K^0}^2}{m_\varphi ^2}}\right)^{3/2}\right].`$ (54)
Notice that for the $`\varphi KK`$ width we have taken into account the mass difference between the neutral and charged kaons. Though tiny, this mass difference becomes important in view of the very narrow phase space allowed.

Within the effective model analyzed here, the decay rates (54) are dominated by the one–loop graphs shown in Fig. 3. As before, we keep here the dominant, logarithmically divergent contribution, and the leading order in the external momenta (the corresponding diagrams with two axial–vector legs vanish in this limit). From the evaluation of the $`\rho \pi \pi `$ and $`\rho a_1\pi `$ diagrams, and using (III A), (38) and (41), we find

$$g_\rho =I_2(m_u,m_u)Z_\rho ^{1/2}Z_\pi \left(1+i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}m_uC_\pi \right)=Z_\rho ^{1/2}.$$
(55)
In the case of $`g_\varphi `$ the evaluation of the dominant contribution is more involved, since the loop includes two different quark propagators. The loop integral has the form

$$I_3i\frac{N_C}{(2\pi )^4}d^4k\frac{k^2}{(k^2m_u^2)(k^2m_s^2)^2}.$$
(56)
Once again the divergence is logarithmic, thus it is natural to express the integral in terms of $`I_2(m_i,m_j)`$. However, owing to the flavour symmetry breakdown, there is an ambiguity at the moment of choosing the infinite part of (56). Here we follow the criterion of respecting the natural hierarchy given by the quark content of the decaying vector meson, that means, we use the $`k^2`$ factor in the integrand to remove the $`m_u^2`$ pole. We have then

$$I_3\alpha I_2(m_u,m_u).$$
(57)
Taking into account the wave function renormalization for the $`\varphi `$ and $`K`$ mesons, together with the corresponding pseudoscalar–axial vector mixing, we end up with

$$g_\varphi =\frac{\sqrt{\alpha }}{\beta }g_\rho .$$
(58)
In the same way we proceed for the case of the $`K^{}`$ to two meson decay. Here, due to the $`SU(3)`$ symmetry breaking, the analogous of Eq. (55) for $`g_K^{}`$ leads to a relation between $`g_K^{}`$ and $`g_\rho `$ which can be written in terms of $`Z_{\pi ,K}`$ and $`C_{\pi ,K}`$. At first approximation, however, the dependence on these parameters cancels and one can write

$$g_K^{}g_\rho .$$
(59)
In this way, both $`\varphi `$ and $`K^{}`$ strong decay constants can be predicted in terms of the measured value of $`g_\rho `$ and the symmetry breaking parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. The corresponding numerical evaluation will be done in Sect. V.

## IV Anomalous radiative decays of pseudoscalar and vector mesons

Our goal is to test the ability of this relatively simple, NJL–like model to reproduce the observed pattern for the anomalous radiative decays of pseudoscalar and vector mesons once the breakdown of chiral symmetry is taken into account. These decays are mainly originated by the $`U(1)_A`$ anomaly. In the framework of our model, they occur through the well–known triangle graphs shown in Fig. 4, which lead to an anomalous Wess–Zumino–Witten effective Lagrangian. The corresponding diagrams including an axial–vector which mixes with the pseudoscalar meson gives a vanishing contribution . This can be seen e.g. by looking at the effective anomalous Lagrangian obtained by gauging the Wess–Zumino–Witten action, as shown in Ref. .

The couplings between the vector mesons and the outgoing (on–shell) photons follow from the assumption of vector meson dominance of the electromagnetic interactions. In our framework, these couplings can be obtained from quark–loop diagrams connecting photons and vector mesons (see Ref.  for details). After the proper inclusion of the symmetry breaking parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, the $`V\gamma `$ couplings read

$$j_\mu ^{em}=em_\rho ^2Z_\rho ^{1/2}\left(\rho _\mu +\frac{1}{3}\omega _\mu +\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}\frac{m_\varphi ^2}{m_\rho ^2}\sqrt{\alpha }\varphi _\mu \right).$$
(60)
Let us begin by analyzing the decays of the neutral pseudoscalars $`\pi ^0`$, $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ into two photons. These processes arise at the one–loop level from the triangle diagrams shown in Fig. 4 (a). The diagrams are found to be convergent, and the limit of vanishing external momenta can be taken trivially. For $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ we get

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^0\gamma \gamma )=\frac{\alpha ^2m_\pi ^3}{64\pi ^3}\left(\frac{Z_\pi ^{1/2}}{2m_u}\right)^2=\frac{\alpha ^2m_\pi ^3}{64\pi ^3F_\pi ^2},$$
(61)
where $`\alpha `$ is the electromagnetic fine structure constant. This expression coincides with the result obtained in standard Chiral Perturbation Theory . In the case of $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ decays to two photons, one has the additional problem of $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ mixing. In our framework, instead of dealing with the $`U(3)`$ states $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _8`$, it is natural to work with the $`\eta _u`$ and $`\eta _s`$ states defined above, which determine the flavour content of the quark propagators in the loop. Taking into account the corresponding pseudoscalar wave–function renormalizations, we find

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta \gamma \gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2m_\eta ^3}{64\pi ^3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3F_\pi }}\mathrm{cos}\phi _P{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3F_s}}\mathrm{sin}\phi _P\right]^2`$ (62)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta ^{}\gamma \gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2m_\eta ^{}^3}{64\pi ^3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3F_\pi }}\mathrm{sin}\phi _P+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3F_s}}\mathrm{cos}\phi _P\right]^2,`$ (63)
where, in analogy with $`F_\pi `$ and $`F_K`$, we have defined

$$F_s\frac{2m_s}{Z_{\eta _s}^{1/2}}.$$
(64)
Now we analyze the radiative vector meson decays $`VP\gamma `$. The corresponding widths can be conveniently parameterized as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(VP\gamma )=\frac{\alpha g_\rho ^2}{24\pi }\frac{C_{VP}^2}{F_\pi ^2}\left(\frac{M_V^2M_P^2}{4\pi M_V}\right)^3,$$
(65)
where the coefficients $`C_{VP}`$ can be obtained from the loop diagrams shown in Fig. 4 (b). Clearly, the evaluation of the relevant triangle quark loops is entirely similar to that performed for the $`P\gamma \gamma `$ case.

For the processes $`\rho ^0,\omega \pi ^0\gamma `$ we can use Eqs. (18), (50) and (55) to eliminate the pseudoscalar and spin 1 wave function renormalization factors. In this way the coefficients $`C_{\rho ^0\pi ^0}`$ and $`C_{\omega \pi ^0}`$ are simply given by

$$C_{\rho ^0\pi ^0}=1,C_{\omega \pi ^0}=3.$$
(66)
The same procedure applies in the case of $`V\eta ,\eta ^{}\gamma `$ processes, with the additional inclusion of the $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ mixing angle and the flavour symmetry breaking parameter $`\alpha `$. We have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}C_{\rho ^0\eta }\hfill & =& 3\mathrm{cos}\phi _P\hfill \\ C_{\omega \eta }\hfill & =& \mathrm{cos}\phi _P\hfill \\ C_{\varphi \eta }\hfill & =& 2F_\pi \mathrm{sin}\phi _P/(\sqrt{\alpha }F_s)\hfill \\ C_{\varphi \eta ^{}}\hfill & =& 2F_\pi \mathrm{cos}\phi _P/(\sqrt{\alpha }F_s),\hfill \end{array}$$
(67)
where $`\phi _P`$ is the $`\eta _u\eta _s`$ mixing angle defined in (34).

For the decays $`K^{}K\gamma `$, the calculation is slightly more complicated due to the presence of different constituent masses for the quark propagators in the loop. The coefficients depend now on the symmetry breaking parameter $`\beta `$ and the mass ratio $`\lambda m_s/m_u`$ according to

$$\begin{array}{ccc}C_{K^+K^+}\hfill & =& f(\lambda )F_\pi /(\sqrt{\beta }F_K)\hfill \\ C_{K^0K^0}\hfill & =& g(\lambda )F_\pi /(\sqrt{\beta }F_K),\hfill \end{array}$$
(68)
where functions $`f(\lambda )`$ and $`g(\lambda )`$ are defined as

$`f(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+6\lambda \lambda ^2}{2(1\lambda ^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (2\lambda ^2+1)\mathrm{ln}\lambda ^2}{(1\lambda ^2)^2}}\right]`$ (69)
$`g(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \mathrm{ln}\lambda ^2}{(\lambda ^21)}}\right].`$ (70)
Finally let us consider the decays $`\eta ^{}\rho \gamma `$ and $`\eta ^{}\omega \gamma `$, which can be treated in a completely similar way just taking into account the spin 0 character of the decaying particle when averaging over the initial spin states. Using the same parameterization as in (65) we obtain

$$\begin{array}{ccc}C_{\rho ^0\eta ^{}}\hfill & =& 3\mathrm{sin}\phi _P\hfill \\ C_{\omega \eta ^{}}\hfill & =& \mathrm{sin}\phi _P.\hfill \end{array}$$
(71)
We have skipped in this discussion the decay $`\varphi \pi ^0\gamma `$ since the corresponding coefficient $`C_{\varphi \pi }`$ vanishes in our framework, owing to the purely strange flavour content of the $`\varphi `$ meson. However, in view of the present experimental results, it is interesting to remove the ideal mixing angle condition in the $`\omega \varphi `$ sector allowing for a tiny nonstrange component for the $`\varphi `$ field. If this is parameterized by a small mixing angle $`\phi _V`$, one trivially gets

$$C_{\varphi \pi ^0}=C_{\omega \pi ^0}\mathrm{sin}\phi _V=3\mathrm{sin}\phi _V.$$
(72)
The present experimental value for the branching ratio $`\varphi \pi ^0\gamma `$ leads to a mixing angle $`\phi _V`$ of about $`3.2^{}`$ , which does not represent a significant change in the other, nonvanishing radiative decay widths involving $`\varphi `$ and $`\omega `$.

## V Model parameters and numerical analysis

In order to perform the phenomenological analysis of the model, and to obtain definite predictions for pseudoscalar and vector meson decay processes, it is necessary to establish a strategy, choosing a suitable set of parameters to be used as input values.

Let us begin with the basic decay processes analyzed in Section III. Using the $`\pi ^\pm `$ and $`K^\pm `$ weak decays, it is possible to write the pseudoscalar wave function renormalization factors $`Z_\pi `$ and $`Z_K`$ in terms of the well–measured decay constants $`F_\pi `$ and $`F_K`$, which will be taken as input parameters. In the same way, the wave function renormalization factor $`Z_\rho `$ can be obtained from the phenomenological value $`g_\rho 6`$ arising from (54). Now, from (9) and (18), we can relate $`g_\rho `$ with the loop integral $`I_2(m_u,m_u)`$ to estimate

$$\frac{m_u}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}0.26.$$
(73)
Next we use the mass relations (21) to determine a phenomenological acceptable set of values for the cut–off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the strange quark mass $`m_s`$. A reasonable choice is

$$m_s510\text{ MeV},\mathrm{\Lambda }1.2\text{ GeV},$$
(74)
which lead to $`m_\varphi =0.99`$ GeV (exp. 1.02 GeV) and $`m_K^{}=0.91`$ GeV (exp. 0.89 GeV), with a light quark mass $`m_u=m_d310`$ MeV. The symmetry breaking parameters $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\lambda `$ defined in the previous sections are then given by

$$\alpha 0.6,\beta 0.76,\lambda 1.6.$$
(75)
Using the relations (58) and (59), the phenomenological value of $`g_\rho `$, together with the results in (75) allow to predict the values for the strong decay constants $`g_K^{}`$ and $`g_\varphi `$. In this way we obtain

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}K\pi )\hfill & \hfill & \hfill 44\text{ MeV}\\ \mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi K^0\overline{K}^0)\hfill & \hfill & \hfill 1.3\text{ MeV}\\ \mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi K^+\overline{K}^{})\hfill & \hfill & \hfill 2.0\text{ MeV}\end{array}$$
(76)
while the corresponding experimental values read $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}K\pi )=50.8\pm .9`$ MeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi K^0\overline{K}^0)=1.51\pm 0.03`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi K^+K^{})=2.19\pm 0.03`$ MeV . The results are in agreement with the predicted values within an accuracy of a 15% level, which can be taken as a lower bound for the expected intrinsic theoretical error of the model.

As an alternative procedure, we could have derived the values for $`F_\pi `$ and $`F_K`$ from the relations (41), where the axial-vector meson masses can be taken either from Eqs. (24) or just as input parameters. For instance, with the chosen value of $`m_u`$ we can obtain from Eq. (43) a prediction for the $`a_1`$ mass of about 1080 MeV . This value is somewhat low, but once again agrees within a 15% accuracy with the present experimental result of $`m_{a_1}=1230\pm 40`$ MeV. In fact, it is natural to expect the model to describe the axial-vector meson sector only in a roughly approximate way, due to the relatively high masses involved, the broad character of the resonances and the admixtures with close states with same quantum numbers. Hence we choose to rely on the well-known low energy decay constants $`F_\pi `$ and $`F_K`$ as our input magnitudes.

Finally, using the analytical expressions obtained in the previous section, we can look at the model predictions for pseudoscalar and vector meson radiative decays. In the case of the decays involving $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons, it is necessary to fix two more input parameters, which can be chosen as the decay constant $`F_s`$ (or equivalently the pseudoscalar wave function renormalization $`Z_{\eta _s}`$) and the $`\eta _1\eta _8`$ mixing angle $`\theta _P`$. The latter is related with $`\phi _P`$ by

$$\phi _P=\frac{\pi }{2}\theta _0+\theta _P,$$
(77)
where $`\theta _035.3^{}`$ is the “ideal” rotation angle introduced above.

Our numerical results are shown in Table I, where we quote the values corresponding to four different sets for $`F_s`$ and $`\theta _P`$, together with the present experimental widths . In order to get the theoretical results, we have used the physical values for the pseudoscalar and vector meson masses entering Eq. (65). We have chosen the values of $`F_s`$ and $`\theta _P`$ that lead to a better agreement for the whole set of decays, always having in mind that an intrinsic theoretical error of at least 15% can be expected from the NJL scheme. In general, we find that the best results for $`\theta _P`$ lie within the usually expected range between $`10^{}`$ and $`20^{}`$ , while the model seems to prefer a rather large value for the ratio $`F_s/F_\pi `$, higher than 3/2. We quote for completeness the results corresponding to a ratio $`F_s/F_\pi =1.4`$, favored by large-$`N_C`$ arguments , which leads in this case to too large widths for the decays involving $`\eta `$ and $`\varphi `$ mesons.

When varying $`F_s`$ and $`\theta _P`$, and comparing with the experimental values, it is found that an accurate agreement for certain widths worsens the predictions in other cases. Nevertheless, considering the relatively important intrinsic theoretical error of the model, it can be said that the values in Table I show a phenomenologically acceptable pattern for the pseudoscalar and vector meson anomalous radiative decays. Our results are found to be of similar quality to those presented e.g. in Ref. , where the authors start from a nonlinear sigma model, and Ref. , where a different parameterization of the chiral–flavour symmetry breaking is introduced (notice that several experimental values have changed in the last years).

## VI Conclusions

Starting from an effective four–fermion NJL Lagrangian, we have analyzed the phenomenology associated with anomalous radiative decays of pseudoscalar and vector mesons. The effective interactions between spin 0 and spin 1 mesons have been derived from the bosonization of the fermionic theory through the evaluation of the relevant quark loop diagrams, taking the leading order both in the external momenta and $`1/N_C`$ power expansions. The divergent loops have been treated using a proper–time regularization scheme with a momentum cut–off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

We have taken into account the breakdown of the chiral symmetry considering constituent quark masses $`m_u=m_dm_s`$. The departure of the effective couplings from the global $`SU(3)`$ flavour symmetry limit has been introduced through the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, which correspond to properly regularized fermion loop integrals.

In order to perform the phenomenological analysis, we have chosen a few fundamental input parameters, namely the basic decay constants $`F_\pi `$, $`F_K`$ and $`g_\rho `$, the $`\rho `$ meson mass, the momentum cut–off (or equivalently the light quark mass $`m_u`$), and the constituent mass of the strange quark $`m_s`$. We have also taken into account the physical values of the pseudoscalar meson masses. To account for the decays involving $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons, this set has been complemented with the parameter $`F_s`$ and the $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ mixing angle $`\theta _P`$. We have shown that with the choice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }1.2`$ GeV and $`m_s510`$ MeV this simple model leads to an acceptable pattern for the vector meson mass spectrum, as well as the branching ratios for the strong decays $`\rho \pi \pi `$, $`\varphi KK`$ and $`K^{}K\pi `$. The agreement is found within a 15% level, that can be taken as a lower bound for the intrinsic theoretical error of the model.

We have evaluated within this framework the branching ratios for anomalous radiative decays of pseudoscalar and vector mesons. In the case of those processes involving the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$, the contrast between the predictions of our model and the present experimental data is optimized for a $`\theta _P`$ mixing angle between $`10^{}`$ and $`20^{}`$, in agreement with usual expectations. On the other hand, we find that the preferred ratio $`F_s/F_\pi `$ lies in the range 1.75 to 2, which is a rather high value in comparison with the result arising from large $`N_C`$ considerations. In general, taking into account the relatively large theoretical error, we see that the model leads to reasonably good predictions for the main radiative pseudoscalar and vector meson decay widths. The quality of our results is comparable to that obtained in previous works which use different effective models and/or parameterizations for the flavour symmetry breaking effects.

##

The divergent integrals $`I_2(m_i,m_j)`$ have been regularized within the proper–time scheme . One makes use of the relation

$$\frac{1}{A^{n+1}}\frac{1}{n!}_{1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ss^ne^{sA},$$
(78)
which holds for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ sufficiently large. If we let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a momentum cut–off for our theory, we have for equal masses $`m_i=m_j`$

$`I_2(m,m)={\displaystyle \frac{N_C}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4k_E\frac{1}{(k_E^2+m^2)^2}}`$ (79)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_C}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4k_E_{1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑sse^{s(k_E^2+m^2)}}={\displaystyle \frac{N_C}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}),`$ (80)
where $`k_E`$ is the momentum in Euclidean space, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha ,x)`$ is the Incomplete Gamma Function,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha ,x)_x^{\mathrm{}}t^{\alpha 1}e^t𝑑t.$$
(81)
In the case where $`m_im_j`$, Eq. (80) can be generalized using the Feynman parameterization

$$\frac{1}{(k_E^2+m_i^2)(k_E^2+m_j^2)}=_0^1𝑑x\frac{1}{(k_E^2+B^2(x))^2},$$
(82)
where $`B^2(x)=m_i^2+(m_j^2m_i^2)x`$. Using the same regularization procedure as before one ends up with

$$I_2(m_i,m_j)\frac{N_C}{16\pi ^2}_0^1𝑑x\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,\frac{B^2(x)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}).$$
(83)