text:
# Quantum interference of 𝜌⁰- and 𝜔-mesons in the 𝜋𝑁→𝑒⁺𝑒⁻𝑁 reaction

## 1 Introduction

Baryon resonances have been most extensively studied in partial-wave analyses of pion-nucleon elastic scattering data. Fairly accurate values of their masses, half-widths and pion-nucleon partial decay widths have been extracted up to pion-nucleon center of mass energies of about 2 GeV . Isobar analyses of inelastic data ($`\pi N\pi \pi N`$) make it possible to study meson-nucleon final states other than $`\pi N`$, such as $`\rho N`$ and $`\pi N^{}`$ (where $`N^{}`$ denotes a low-lying baryon resonance which couples strongly to the $`\pi N`$ channel) . The $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$ data are known with much less statistical accuracy than the pion-nucleon elastic scattering data. For some partial waves, specific final states besides the $`\pi N`$ and $`\pi \pi N`$ channels have to be included in the analyses to satisfy unitarity. The $`\eta N`$ channel in particular is needed at low energy for a proper description of the S11 wave . Similarly, at higher energies, the $`\omega N`$ and $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ channels play a role .

The study of the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ and $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ processes described in this work aims at gaining understanding of the $`\pi N\rho ^0N`$ and $`\pi N\omega N`$ scattering amplitudes for center of mass energies close and below the vector meson production threshold ($`1.5<\sqrt{s}<1.8`$ GeV). There are well-known baryon resonances in this energy range, which contribute to the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ and $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ scattering amplitudes through their coupling to the $`\rho ^0N`$ and $`\omega N`$ channels. These amplitudes involve in addition significant non-resonant processes.

Phenomenological constraints on the $`\rho NN^{}`$ and $`\omega NN^{}`$ coupling strengths are useful both for baryon structure studies and for building models of vector meson propagation in the nuclear medium. On the one hand, it is of interest to compare the $`\rho NN^{}`$ and $`\omega NN^{}`$ coupling strengths entering the description of the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ and $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ cross sections to quark model predictions for the corresponding quantities. In particular, the $`e^+e^{}`$ channel offers the possibility to study the coupling of low-lying baryon resonances to the $`\omega N`$ channel below threshold. On the other hand, the $`\rho NN^{}`$ and $`\omega NN^{}`$ coupling strengths determine the contribution of resonance-hole states to the $`\rho ^0`$\- and $`\omega `$-meson propagator in nuclear matter. It has been suggested that the spectral distribution of those mesons at high baryon density could be interpreted as a signal of chiral symmetry restoration in the nuclear medium  and hence be sensitive to the nonperturbative structure of Quantum Chromodynamics. The spectral functions of vector mesons in the nuclear medium should be reflected in the spectra of lepton pairs produced in photon- and hadron-nucleus reactions as well as in ultra-relativistic heavy ion collisions . A proper understanding of the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ and $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ reactions appears as a first and necessary step towards a detailed interpretation of the production of lepton pairs off nuclei induced by charged pions. Because of the very large width of $`\rho `$-mesons in nuclei, the production of $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs in pion-nucleus interactions is expected to be mostly sensitive to the in-medium propagation of $`\omega `$-mesons for $`e^+e^{}`$ pair invariant masses close to vector meson masses . Both the $`\pi Ne^+e^{}N`$ and $`\pi Ae^+e^{}X`$ cross sections could be measured at GSI-Darmstadt with the HADES detector .

The exclusive observation of neutral vector mesons through their $`e^+e^{}`$ decay presents definite advantages over their observation through final states involving pions. Firstly, there are no competing processes, such as $`\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$ production leading to the same final state and impairing the identification of the $`\rho `$-meson in the $`\pi \pi N`$ channel. Secondly, both the $`\rho ^0`$\- and $`\omega `$-mesons decay into the $`e^+e^{}`$ channel. This leads to a quantum interference pattern which is expected to reflect the structure and relative sign of the $`\pi N\rho ^0N`$ and $`\pi N\omega N`$ scattering amplitudes. Such an interference in the $`e^+e^{}`$ channel, observed in the photoproduction of $`\rho ^0`$\- and $`\omega `$-mesons at higher energies , has proved very useful in establishing the similarity of the $`\gamma p\rho ^0p`$ and the $`\gamma p\omega p`$ processes and the diffractive nature of these reactions for incident photon energies of a few GeV.

The $`\pi Ne^+e^{}N`$ cross section is connected to the $`\pi N\rho ^0N`$ and $`\pi N\omega N`$ scattering amplitudes by the Vector Meson Dominance assumption . In this picture, the produced $`\rho ^0`$\- or $`\omega `$-meson is converted into an intermediate time-like photon which subsequently materializes into an $`e^+e^{}`$ pair. The dynamics of the $`\pi Ne^+e^{}N`$, $`\gamma N\pi N`$ and $`e^{}Ne^{}\pi N`$ processes is expected to be similar and dominated by the couplings of baryon resonances to the pion and to vector fields. In that sense, the study of the $`\pi Ne^+e^{}N`$ reaction complements programs devoted to the photo- and electroproduction of baryon resonances. There is presently a large activity in this field at ELSA , MAMI  and the Jefferson Laboratory .

To discuss the $`\pi Ne^+e^{}N`$ reaction, we use the $`\pi N\rho ^0N`$ and $`\pi N\omega N`$ amplitudes obtained in the recent unitary coupled-channel model of Ref. . This is a relativistic approach where, in contrast to isobar analyses of $`\pi N`$ scattering, the s- and d-wave pion-nucleon resonances are generated dynamically starting from an effective field theory of meson-nucleon scattering . We present the model and its predictions for the $`\pi N\rho ^0N`$ and $`\pi N\omega N`$ amplitudes in Section 2. The calculation of the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ and $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ cross sections in the Vector Meson Dominance model is outlined in Section 3. Our numerical results for these cross sections are displayed in Section 4. We show how the $`\rho ^0\omega `$ quantum interference pattern in the $`e^+e^{}`$ spectrum occurs in both isospin channels and evolves as function of the total pion-nucleon center of mass energy in the interval ($`1.5<\sqrt{s}<1.8`$ GeV). Concluding remarks are given in Section 5.

## 2 The $`\pi N\rho ^0N`$ and $`\pi N\omega N`$ amplitudes close to the vector meson production threshold

We describe the $`\pi Ne^+e^{}N`$ reaction for $`e^+e^{}`$ pair invariant masses ranging from $``$0.4 to $``$0.8 GeV. The exclusive measurement of the $`e^+e^{}N`$ outgoing channel ensures that the $`e^+e^{}`$ pair comes from the decay of a time-like photon. In this respect, the identification of the $`e^+e^{}`$ decay of vector mesons is easier in the $`\pi Ne^+e^{}N`$ process than in the photoproduction reaction $`\gamma Ne^+e^{}N`$, where it interferes with Bethe-Heitler pair production. Assuming Vector Meson Dominance for the electromagnetic current , the $`\pi N\rho ^0N`$ and $`\pi N\omega N`$ amplitudes are the basic quantities entering the calculation of the $`\pi Ne^+e^{}N`$ cross section. At pion-nucleon center of mass energies close to the $`\rho ^0`$\- and $`\omega `$-meson production threshold the kinetic energy of the particles in the entrance channel is large. Hence a relativistic description of the $`\pi N\rho ^0N`$ and $`\pi N\omega N`$ amplitudes is preferable.

We study the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ and $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ reactions in the framework of a recent relativistic and unitary coupled-channel approach to meson-nucleon scattering . The available data on pion-nucleon elastic and inelastic scattering and on meson photoproduction off nucleon targets are fitted in the energy window $`1.4<\sqrt{s}<1.8`$ GeV, using an effective Lagrangian with quasi-local two-body meson-baryon interactions and a generalized form of Vector Meson Dominance to describe the coupling of vector mesons to real photons. The scheme involves the $`\pi N`$, $`\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\rho N`$, $`\omega N`$, $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\eta N`$ hadronic channels, whose relevance in this energy range has been highlighted by earlier non-relativistic analyses . The coupling constants entering the effective Lagrangian are parameters which are adjusted to reproduce the data. In view of the kinematics, only s-wave scattering in the $`\rho N`$ and $`\omega N`$ channels is included, restricting $`\pi N`$ and $`\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$ scattering to s- and d-waves. The pion-nucleon resonances in the S11, S31, D13 and D33 partial waves are generated dynamically by solving Bethe-Salpeter equations .

The model provides a good fit to the $`\pi ^{}p\rho ^0n`$, $`\pi ^{}p\omega n`$ and $`\gamma p\rho ^0p`$ cross sections for $`\sqrt{s}1.75`$ GeV, where enough data close to threshold are available for comparison . Above threshold, where higher partial waves should become important (in channels where pion-exchange effects are expected to be large), it underestimates significantly the $`\pi ^{}p\rho ^0n`$ and the $`\gamma p\omega p`$ cross sections. The model reproduces satisfactorily the $`\pi N`$ scattering data (phase shifts and inelasticities) and pion photoproduction multipole amplitudes below the vector meson production threshold . Our approach is therefore appropriate to values of $`\sqrt{s}1.75`$ GeV. In the $`\rho ^0N`$\- and $`\omega N`$-channels, the restriction to s-wave scattering means that the model applies to situations where the vector meson is basically at rest with respect to the scattered nucleon $`(\sqrt{s}M_N+M_V)`$, where $`M_N`$ and $`M_V`$ denote the nucleon and the vector-meson masses respectively. This assumption implies that the range of validity of the present calculation is limited to $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs with invariant masses $`m_{e^+e^{}}`$ close to $`(\sqrt{s}M_N)`$.

The $`\pi N\rho N`$ and $`\pi N\omega N`$ amplitudes are represented diagrammatically in Fig. 1. The $`\pi N\rho N`$ amplitude has isospin 1/2 and isospin 3/2 components while the $`\pi N\omega N`$ amplitude selects the isospin 1/2 channel. Both amplitudes have spin 1/2 and spin 3/2 parts.

The invariant transition matrix elements for the $`\pi N\rho N`$ and $`\pi N\omega N`$ reactions are given by

$`\rho ^j(\overline{q})N(\overline{p})|𝒯|\pi ^i(q)N(p)`$
$`=(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(q+`$ $`p\overline{q}\overline{p})\overline{u}(\overline{p})ϵ^\mu (\overline{q})T^{ij}_{(\pi N\rho N)\mu }u(p),`$ (1)
$`\omega (\overline{q})N(\overline{p})|𝒯|\pi ^i(q)N(p)`$
$`=(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(q+`$ $`p\overline{q}\overline{p})\overline{u}(\overline{p})ϵ^\mu (\overline{q})T^i_{(\pi N\omega N)\mu }u(p),`$ (2)
where $`T_{(\pi N\rho N)\mu }^{ij}`$ and $`T_{(\pi N\omega N)\mu }^i`$ are functions of the three kinematic variables $`w=p+q=\overline{p}+\overline{q}`$ ($`\sqrt{w^2}`$ = $`\sqrt{s}`$), $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$.

These scattering amplitudes can be decomposed into isospin invariant components as

$`T_{(\pi N\rho N)\mu }^{ij}(\overline{q},q;w)={\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}T_{(\pi N\rho N)\mu }^{(I)}(\overline{q},q;w)P_{(\rho )}^{(I)ij},`$ (3)
$`T_{(\pi N\omega N)\mu }^i(\overline{q},q;w)={\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}T_{(\pi N\omega N)\mu }^{(I)}(\overline{q},q;w)P_{(\omega )}^{(I)i},`$ (4)
in which the isospin projectors are given for the $`\pi N\rho N`$ transition by

$`P_{(\rho )}^{(I=\frac{1}{2})i,j}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\tau ^i\tau ^j,`$ (5)
$`P_{(\rho )}^{(I=\frac{3}{2})i,j}=\delta ^{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\tau ^i\tau ^j,`$ (6)
and for the $`\pi N\omega N`$ transition by

$`P_{(\omega )}^{(I=\frac{1}{2})i}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\tau ^i.`$ (7)
The isospin invariant amplitudes can be expanded further into components of total angular momentum using the relativistic projection operators introduced in Ref. . Because our model is restricted to s-wave vector-meson nucleon final states, this expansion takes the simple form,

$`T_{(\pi NVN)\mu }^{(I)}(\overline{q},q;w)`$ $`=M_{\pi NVN}^{(I,J=\frac{1}{2})}(s)Y_{(J=\frac{1}{2})\mu }(\overline{q},q;w)`$ (8)
$`+M_{\pi NVN}^{(I,J=\frac{3}{2})}(s)Y_{(J=\frac{3}{2})\mu }(\overline{q},q;w),`$
where V stands for $`\rho `$ or $`\omega `$ and the angular momentum projectors are defined by

$`Y_{(J=\frac{1}{2})\mu }(\overline{q},q;w)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}}(\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{w_\mu }{w^2}}w\overline{)})(1{\displaystyle \frac{w\mathrm{}}{\sqrt{w^2}}})i\gamma _5,`$ (9)
$`Y_{(J=\frac{3}{2})\mu }`$ $`(\overline{q},q;w)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{w\mathrm{}}{\sqrt{w^2}}})(q_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{w.q}{w^2}}w_\mu )i\gamma _5`$ (10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}}(\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{w_\mu }{w^2}}w\overline{)})(1{\displaystyle \frac{w\mathrm{}}{\sqrt{w^2}}})(q\overline{)}{\displaystyle \frac{w.q}{w^2}}w\overline{)})i\gamma _5.`$
In the more general notation of Ref. , the quantities defined by Eqs. (9) and (10) are written as $`[Y_{0,\mu }^{(+)}(\overline{q},q;w)]_{13}`$ and $`[Y_{1,\mu }^{()}(\overline{q},q;w)]_{13}`$ respectively.

In the center of mass system ($`\stackrel{}{q}`$=$`\stackrel{}{p}`$), the time component of the spin projectors $`Y_{(J=\frac{1}{2})\mu }`$ and $`Y_{(J=\frac{3}{2})\mu }`$ vanishes and the space components read simply

$`Y_{(J=\frac{1}{2})j}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _j& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (11)
$`Y_{(J=\frac{3}{2})j}=i\sqrt{3}p_j\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _j(\stackrel{}{\sigma }.\stackrel{}{p})\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (12)
In these coordinates, the matrix elements of the spin projectors acting on Dirac spinors can be expressed in terms of Pauli spinors $`\chi `$ as

$`\overline{u}(\overline{p},\overline{\lambda })Y_{(J=\frac{1}{2})j}u(p,\lambda )=i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{p^0+M_N}\sqrt{\overline{p}^0+M_N}}{2\sqrt{3}M_N}}\overline{\chi }(\overline{\lambda })\sigma _j\chi (\lambda ),`$ (13)
$`\overline{u}(\overline{p},\overline{\lambda })Y_{(J=\frac{3}{2})j}u(p,\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{3}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\overline{p}^0+M_N}}{\sqrt{p^0+M_N}}}\overline{\chi }(\overline{\lambda }){\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{\sigma }.\stackrel{}{p})}{M_N}}{\displaystyle \frac{p^j}{m_\pi }}\chi (\lambda )`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\overline{p}^0+M_N}}{\sqrt{p^0+M_N}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{M_N}}\overline{\chi }(\overline{\lambda })\sigma ^j\chi (\lambda ),`$ (14)
where $`\lambda `$ and $`\overline{\lambda }`$ are the polarizations of the ingoing and outgoing nucleons while $`p^0`$ and $`\overline{p}^0`$ are defined by $`p^0`$=$`\sqrt{M_N^2+\stackrel{}{p}^2}`$ and $`\overline{p}^0`$=$`\sqrt{M_N^2+\stackrel{}{\overline{p}}^2}`$. The $`\pi N\rho N`$ and $`\pi N\omega N`$ amplitudes in the S11, S31, D13 and D33 channels obtained in Ref.  are displayed in Figs. 2 and 3. The quantities shown are the amplitudes $`M_{\pi N\rho N}^{(I,J)}(s)`$ and $`M_{\pi N\omega N}^{(I,J)}(s)`$ defined by Eq. (8), which depend only on the center of mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$. The coupling to subthreshold resonances is clearly exhibited in these pictures.

In the S11 channel, the N(1535) and the N(1650) resonances lead to peak structures in the imaginary parts of the amplitudes. The pion-induced $`\omega `$ production amplitudes in the D13 channel reflect the strong coupling of the N(1520) resonance to the $`\omega `$N channel. The $`\pi N\omega N`$ amplitudes contain also significant contributions from non-resonant, background terms. We refer to  for a detailed discussion of the dynamical structure of the amplitudes and for the comparison to quark-model coupling constants of the effective coupling strengths of the vector meson-nucleon channels to the baryon resonances contributing to the amplitudes.

The $`\pi ^{}p\rho ^0n`$ and $`\pi ^{}p\omega n`$ amplitudes are obtained from the isospin 1/2 and isospin 3/2 scattering amplitudes by the relations,

$`M_{\pi ^{}p\rho ^0n}^J={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}M_{\pi N\rho N}^{(1/2,J)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}M_{\pi N\rho N}^{(3/2,J)},`$ (15)
$`M_{\pi ^{}p\omega n}^J=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}M_{\pi N\omega N}^{(1/2,J)}.`$ (16)
Similarly the $`\pi ^+n\rho ^0p`$ and $`\pi ^+n\omega p`$ amplitudes are given by

$`M_{\pi ^+n\rho ^0p}^J={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}M_{\pi N\rho N}^{(1/2,J)}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}M_{\pi N\rho N}^{(3/2,J)},`$ (17)
$`M_{\pi ^+n\omega p}^J=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}M_{\pi N\omega N}^{(1/2,J)}.`$ (18)
The quantities $`M_{\pi ^{}p\rho ^0n}^J`$ and $`M_{\pi ^{}p\omega n}^J`$ are displayed in Fig. 4. Their counterparts for the other reactions, $`M_{\pi ^+n\rho ^0p}^J`$ and $`M_{\pi ^+n\omega p}^J`$ , are shown in Fig. 5.

The phases of the isospin coefficients appearing in Eqs. (15) and (17) play a crucial role in determining the $`\rho ^0\omega `$ interference in the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ and $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ reaction cross sections. The real and imaginary parts of the $`\pi ^{}p\omega n`$ and of the $`\pi ^+n\omega p`$ amplitudes are the same and mostly positive. In contrast, the $`\pi ^{}p\rho ^0n`$ and $`\pi ^+n\rho ^0p`$ amplitudes have opposite signs. The $`\pi ^{}p\rho ^0n`$ amplitudes are predominantly negative and will therefore interfere destructively with the $`\pi ^{}p\omega n`$ amplitudes. The $`\pi ^+n\rho ^0p`$ and $`\pi ^+n\omega p`$ amplitudes have the same sign over a large $`\sqrt{s}`$ interval, leading to a constructive interference.

From Figs. 4 and 5, we expect the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ and $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ reaction cross sections to be very sensitive to the presence of baryon resonances below the vector meson production threshold.

## 3 Calculation of the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ and $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ cross sections close to the vector meson production threshold

The $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ and $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ cross sections are calculated from the $`\pi ^{}p\rho ^0n`$, $`\pi ^{}p\omega n`$, $`\pi ^+n\rho ^0p`$ and $`\pi ^+n\omega p`$ amplitudes presented in Section 2, supplemented with the assumption of the Vector Meson Dominance of the electromagnetic current . This assumption can be enforced in the effective Lagrangian by introducing vector meson-photon interaction terms of the form,

$`_{\gamma V}^{int}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_\rho }{2M_\rho ^2}}F^{\mu \nu }\rho _{\mu \nu }^0+{\displaystyle \frac{f_\omega }{2M_\omega ^2}}F^{\mu \nu }\omega _{\mu \nu },`$ (19)
where the photon and vector meson field tensors are defined by

$`F^{\mu \nu }=^\mu A^\nu ^\nu A^\mu ,`$ (20)
$`V^{\mu \nu }=^\mu V^\nu ^\nu V^\mu .`$ (21)
In equation (19), $`M_\rho `$ and $`M_\omega `$ are the $`\rho `$\- and $`\omega `$-masses and $`f_\rho `$ and $`f_\omega `$ are dimensional coupling constants. Their magnitude can be determined from the $`e^+e^{}`$ partial decay widths of the $`\rho `$\- and $`\omega `$-mesons to be

$`|f_\rho |=0.036GeV^2,`$ (22)
$`|f_\omega |=0.011GeV^2.`$ (23)
The relative sign of $`f_\rho `$ and $`f_\omega `$ is fixed by vector meson photoproduction amplitudes . We assume that the phase correlation between isoscalar and isovector currents is identical for real and virtual photons as in Sakurai’s realization of the Vector Meson Dominance assumption . With the conventions used in this paper, both $`f_\rho `$ and $`f_\omega `$ are positive. The form of the coupling terms of Eq. (19) is appropriate for describing the hadronic structure of massive photons.

We consider first the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ reaction. The diagrams contributing to this process in the Vector Meson Dominance model are shown in Fig. 6.

We denote the momenta of the ingoing and outgoing hadrons as in Fig. 1 and the 4-momenta of the electron and the positron by $`p_{}=(p_{}^0,\stackrel{}{p}_{})`$ and $`p_+=(p_+^0,\stackrel{}{p}_+)`$ respectively. The differential cross section for the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ reaction in the center of mass reference frame is then given by

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\overline{q}^2}}\right]_{\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n}={\displaystyle \frac{M_pM_n}{16\pi ^2s}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{\overline{p}}|}{|\stackrel{}{p}|}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{p}_+}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{m_e}{p_+^0}\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{p}_{}}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{m_e}{p_{}^0}(2\pi )^4}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,\overline{\lambda },\lambda _+,\lambda _{}}{}}|_{\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n}(q,p,\lambda ;p_+,\lambda _+,p_{},\lambda _{},\overline{p},\overline{\lambda })|^2\delta ^4(\overline{q}p_+`$ $`p_{}),`$ (24)
in which $`m_e`$ denotes the electron mass and where the magnitude of the initial and final nucleon momenta is given as function of $`\sqrt{s}`$ and $`\overline{q}^2`$ by

$`|\stackrel{}{p}|={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}}\left[12{\displaystyle \frac{M_p^2+m_\pi ^2}{s}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(M_p^2m_\pi ^2)^2}{s^2}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ (25)
$`|\stackrel{}{\overline{p}}|={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}}\left[12{\displaystyle \frac{M_p^2+\overline{q}^2}{s}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(M_p^2\overline{q}^2)^2}{s^2}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (26)
.

We factorize the invariant matrix elements into vector meson production and $`e^+e^{}`$ decay amplitudes as

$`_{\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n}(q,p,\lambda ;p_+,\lambda _+,p_{},\lambda _{},\overline{p},\overline{\lambda })=`$
$`_{\pi ^{}p\rho ^0n}^\mu (q,p,\lambda ;\overline{q},\overline{p},\overline{\lambda })`$ $`{}_{\rho ^0e^+e^{}\mu }{}^{}(\overline{q};p_+,\lambda _+,p_{},\lambda _{})`$
$`+_{\pi ^{}p\omega n}^\mu (q,p,\lambda ;\overline{q},\overline{p},\overline{\lambda })`$ $`{}_{\omega e^+e^{}\mu }{}^{}(\overline{q};p_+,\lambda _+,p_{},\lambda _{}).`$ (27)
The $`e^+e^{}`$ decay amplitudes include the vector meson propagators,

$`S_\rho (\overline{q}^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{q}^2M_\rho ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (\overline{q}^2)M_\rho }},`$ (28)
$`S_\omega (\overline{q}^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{q}^2M_\omega ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega M_\omega }},`$ (29)
where the energy-dependent $`\rho `$-width is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (\overline{q}^2)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{M_\rho }{\sqrt{\overline{q}^2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}^24m_\pi ^2}{M_\rho ^24m_\pi ^2}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}},`$ (30)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega `$ denoting the widths at the peak of the $`\rho `$\- and $`\omega `$-resonances.

We perform the lepton sums and integrations and average over the angle between the initial and final 3-momenta. Using Eqs. (9) to (14), we find

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\overline{q}^2}}\right]_{\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{6\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_pM_n}{s}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{\overline{p}}|}{|\stackrel{}{p}|}}m_e^2(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}^2}{2m_e^2}})(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_e^2}{\overline{q}^2}})^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{f_\rho ^2}{M_\rho ^4}}S_\rho ^{}(\overline{q}^2)S_\rho (\overline{q}^2){\displaystyle \underset{J}{}}\overline{C}_{JJ}M_{\pi ^{}p\rho ^0n}^J(s)M_{\pi ^{}p\rho ^0n}^J(s)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{f_\rho f_\omega }{M_\rho ^2M_\omega ^2}}S_\rho ^{}(\overline{q}^2)S_\omega (\overline{q}^2){\displaystyle \underset{J}{}}\overline{C}_{JJ}M_{\pi ^{}p\rho ^0n}^J(s)M_{\pi ^{}p\omega n}^J(s)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{f_\omega f_\rho }{M_\rho ^2M_\omega ^2}}S_\omega ^{}(\overline{q}^2)S_\rho (\overline{q}^2){\displaystyle \underset{J}{}}\overline{C}_{JJ}M_{\pi ^{}p\omega n}^J(s)M_{\pi ^{}p\rho ^0n}^J(s)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{f_\omega ^2}{M_\omega ^4}}S_\omega ^{}(\overline{q}^2)S_\omega (\overline{q}^2){\displaystyle \underset{J}{}}\overline{C}_{JJ}M_{\pi ^{}p\omega ^0n}^J(s)M_{\pi ^{}p\omega n}^J(s)],`$ (31)
where the $`\overline{C}_{JJ}`$ coefficients depend on $`\sqrt{s}`$ and $`\overline{q}^2`$ and are given in the center of mass frame by the expressions,

$`\overline{C}_{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{(p^0+M_p)(\overline{p}^0+M_n)}{4M_nM_p}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{\overline{p}}|^2}{3\overline{q}^2}}\right),`$ (32)
$`\overline{C}_{\frac{3}{2}\frac{3}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{p}^0+M_n)}{(p^0+M_p)}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}|^4}{2M_nM_p}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{\overline{p}}|^2}{3\overline{q}^2}}\right).`$ (33)
The derivation of the cross section in the other isospin channel, $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$, is completely similar, with the obvious replacement of $`_{\pi ^{}p\rho ^0n\mu }`$ and $`_{\pi ^{}p\omega n\mu }`$ by $`_{\pi ^+n\rho ^0p\mu }`$ and $`_{\pi ^+n\omega p\mu }`$.

## 4 Numerical results

This section is devoted to the discussion of the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ and $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ differential cross sections for values of the total center of mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ ranging from 1.5 GeV up to 1.8 GeV. We explore the dependence of the $`\rho ^0\omega `$ interference pattern in the $`e^+e^{}`$ channel on $`\sqrt{s}`$ in this energy range, in particular in the vicinity of the $`\omega `$-meson production threshold ($`\sqrt{s}`$=1.72 GeV).

We consider first the differential cross section defined by Eq. (31) for the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ and the $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ reactions. The magnitude of the 4-vector $`\overline{q}`$ is the invariant mass m$`_{e^+e^{}}`$ of the $`e^+e^{}`$ pair.

The differential cross sections calculated using Eq. (31) for the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ and the $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ reactions at $`\sqrt{s}`$=1.5 GeV are shown in Figs. 7 and 8.

These figures illustrate very clearly the isospin effects discussed in Section 2. For the two reactions, the $`\omega `$ and $`\rho ^0`$ contributions to the cross section are the same. The $`\rho ^0`$-$`\omega `$ interference is destructive for the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ reaction and constructive for the $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ process. Consequently, the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ differential cross section is extremely small in the range of invariant masses considered in this calculation (less than 10 nb GeV-2). In contrast, the constructive $`\rho ^0`$-$`\omega `$ interference for the $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ reaction leads to a sizeable differential cross section (of the order of 0.15 $`\mu `$b GeV-2).

This is a very striking prediction, linked to the resonant structure of the scattering amplitudes $`M_{\pi NVN}^{1/2}`$ and $`M_{\pi NVN}^{3/2}`$. At $`\sqrt{s}`$=1.5 GeV, the coefficients $`\overline{C}_{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}`$ and $`\overline{C}_{\frac{3}{2}\frac{3}{2}}`$ are 1.12 and 0.02 GeV2 respectively (for $`e^+e^{}`$ pair invariant masses of the order of 0.5 GeV). The smallness of $`\overline{C}_{\frac{3}{2}\frac{3}{2}}`$ is a consequence of the relative D-wave state in the initial pion-nucleon system implied by the spin 3/2 of the channel. From the values of the amplitudes displayed in Figs. 4 and 5, it is easy to see that the J=1/2 and J=3/2 contributions to the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ and $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ differential cross sections are of comparable magnitude. These cross sections reflect the couplings of both the N(1520) and N(1535) baryon resonances to the vector meson-nucleon channels. Data on differential cross sections for the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ and $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ reactions at $`\sqrt{s}`$=1.5 GeV would be very useful for making progress in the understanding of these couplings.

The $`\sqrt{s}`$-dependence of the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ differential cross section below the vector meson production threshold is illustrated in Figs. 9-11. The corresponding results for the $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ reaction are shown in Figs. 12-14.

These differential cross sections vary smoothly with the total center of mass energy. They exhibit the features discussed for $`\sqrt{s}`$=1.5 GeV. However they also reflect dynamics associated with higher-lying resonances . We emphasize again that the relative s-wave assumed between the vector meson and the nucleon in the final state is appropriate only for values of m$`_{e^+e^{}}`$ close to ($`\sqrt{s}M_N`$). The differential cross sections for the lowest $`e^+e^{}`$ pair invariant masses are expected to be outside the range of validity of the model of Ref. .

The interference pattern changes drastically at the $`\omega `$-meson threshold. This is shown in Figs. 15 and 16 for the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ differential cross section and in Figs. 17 and 18 for the $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ differential cross section.

Just below threshold, the $`\omega `$-contribution begins to increase, while the general features of the $`e^+e^{}`$ production in the two isospin channels remain the same. Above the $`\omega `$-meson production threshold, the differential cross sections for the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ and $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ reactions are completely dominated by the $`\omega `$-contribution. The magnitudes of the cross sections for the two reactions are comparable. The $`\rho ^0\omega `$ interference is still destructive in the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ channel and constructive in the $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ channel, albeit very small. In both reactions, crossing the $`\omega `$-production threshold leads to a sharp increase in the cross section, by two orders of magnitude in the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ channel and by one order of magnitude in the $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ channel.

In order to see the s-channel resonant structure of the $`e^+e^{}`$ pair production more directly, it is interesting to look at the differential cross section as function of $`\sqrt{s}`$ for $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs of given invariant mass. This quantity is displayed in Fig. 19 for the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ reaction and in Fig. 20 for the $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ reaction. The invariant mass of the $`e^+e^{}`$ pair is 0.55 GeV. The structures associated with the N(1520) and N(1535) baryon resonances are particularly visible. In Figs. 21 and 22, we show differential cross sections as functions of $`\sqrt{s}`$ for $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs of invariant masses ranging from m$`_{e^+e^{}}`$=0.40 GeV to 0.65 GeV. Our results are presented in Figs. 21 and 22 for the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ and $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ reactions respectively. The N(1650), the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1620) and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1700) play a significant role in determining the cross sections for values of $`\sqrt{s}`$ close to the $`\omega `$-meson production threshold.

It is interesting to compare our cross sections for the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ and $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ reactions with the recent work of Titov and Kämpfer . In their approach, the $`\pi Ne^+e^{}N`$ amplitudes are assumed to be dominated by s- and u-channel nucleon and baryon resonance exchanges. All baryon resonances with masses $``$1.72 GeV are included. The transition couplings of baryon resonances to vector fields are taken from the chiral quark model calculation of Riska and Brown . The couplings to the $`\rho N`$ and $`\omega N`$ channels of the baryon resonances obtained in the hadronic theory of Ref.  are rather different from those obtained in the quark model of Ref. . They are in general substantially weaker. This issue is discussed extensively in Ref. . Consequently the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ and $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ cross sections are much larger in the calculation of Titov and Kämpfer but some trends are similar in both descriptions. At $`\sqrt{s}`$=1.6 GeV, the $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ cross section is significantly larger than the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ cross section. This reflects a constructive $`\rho ^0\omega `$ interference in the first case and a destructive $`\rho ^0\omega `$ interference in the latter process as in our approach. Much of the strength is provided by the S11 resonances. At $`\sqrt{s}`$=1.8 GeV, the cross sections for both reactions are comparable and dominated by the $`\omega `$-contribution. The sensitivity of the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ and $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ cross sections to the strength of the transition couplings of baryon resonances to vector fields is the key result of both calculations. The magnitude of these cross sections below threshold would therefore provide very valuable information on vector meson-nucleon dynamics. The sensitivity of the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ cross section to the couplings of baryon resonances to vector meson-nucleon channels can also be seen from a previous computation  we did in the same coupled-channel framework as the present calculation. In Ref. , the $`\pi ^{}p\rho ^0n`$ and $`\pi ^{}p\omega n`$ amplitudes were obtained without systematic constraints from meson photoproduction data. This led to very different couplings, in particular of the N(1520) to the $`\rho ^0N`$ channel, and to a constructive rather than a destructive $`\rho ^0\omega `$ interference.

## 5 Conclusion

We have computed the $`e^+e^{}`$ pair invariant mass distributions for the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ and $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ reactions below and close to the vector meson production threshold ($`\sqrt{s}`$=1.72 GeV).

We employ the $`\pi N\rho ^0N`$ and $`\pi N\omega N`$ amplitudes obtained in a recent relativistic and unitary coupled-channel approach to meson-nucleon scattering . This description reproduces a large body of data on pion-nucleon elastic and inelastic scattering and on meson photoproduction off nucleons in the energy range $`1.4<\sqrt{s}<1.8`$ GeV. In the model, pion-nucleon resonances are generated dynamically and the coupling strengths of these resonances to vector meson-nucleon channels are predicted. These couplings are not well-known.

Using the Vector Meson Dominance assumption, we have shown that the differential cross sections for the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ and $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ reactions below the $`\omega `$-threshold are very sensitive to the coupling of low-lying baryon resonances to vector meson-nucleon final states. We find that the $`\rho ^0\omega `$ interference is destructive in the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ channel and constructive in the $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ channel. We predict a very small cross section for the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ reaction below threshold and a sizeable cross section for the $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ reaction in this energy range. Above the $`\omega `$-meson production threshold, both cross sections are comparable and much larger.

The magnitude of the $`\pi ^{}pe^+e^{}n`$ and $`\pi ^+ne^+e^{}p`$ differential cross sections below the $`\omega `$-threshold depends strongly on the structure and dynamics of baryon resonances. These reactions deserve experimental studies. Such a programme could be carried at GSI (Darmstadt) using the available pion beam and the HADES spectrometer . These measurements would provide a necessary step towards the understanding of $`e^+e^{}`$ pair production in pion-nucleus reactions and in general significant constraints on the propagation of vector mesons in the nuclear medium.


format: text

text:
# Unveiling the Progenitors of Gamma-Ray Bursts through Observations of their Host Galaxies

## 1 The Starburst-GRB Connection

Detailed analysis of the cosmic infrared background and long wavelength galaxy counts by various groups have illustrated the large ($`>`$70%) contribution from infrared luminous galaxies (LIR=L(8$``$1000 $`\mu `$m)¿1011 L) to the star-formation rate density at $`z<3`$ Chary & Elbaz (2001); Franceschini et al. (2001). Infrared luminous galaxies emit as much as 90% of their bolometric luminosity at far-infrared wavelengths indicating that dust reprocessing is extremely significant at z$``$1$``$3. Most of these galaxies are inconspicuous at optical/UV wavelengths except that many of them show evidence of merger activity. This seems to suggest that tidally induced starbursts dominate the co-moving star-formation rate (SFR). However, the classification of a starburst galaxy based on its UV-determined SFR is ambiguous. For example M82, which is not an infrared luminous galaxy, is classified as a starburst galaxy based on stellar population synthesis model fits to it’s optical/near-infrared multiband photometry. These fits yield a young age for the stellar population, of order 10 Myr. While it’s star-formation rate is about 7 M yr-1, no higher than that of M51 (the Whirlpool Galaxy), it’s specific star-formation rate i.e. the star-formation rate per unit stellar mass is about an order of magnitude higher than M51, promoting it to the ‘starburst’ galaxy category. Thus, if GRBs were indeed associated with massive stars, almost all the hosts should be starburst galaxies with a large fraction of these being infrared luminous objects. To test this hypothesis it is necessary to obtain either a measure of the far-infrared luminosity or the extinction corrected specific SFR in the GRB host galaxies.

Figure 1 shows the sensitivity of the deepest surveys at a variety of mid- and far-infrared wavelengths which allow a direct determination of LIR (see also Elbaz et al. (2002)). Clearly, the mid-infrared regime (7$``$25 $`\mu `$m) is most sensitive to detecting infrared luminous galaxies at $`z<2.5`$. However, even the deepest surveys at these wavelengths observe only galaxies with L$`{}_{\mathrm{IR}}{}^{}>10^{11}`$ L.

This is further illustrated by the fact that of the 16 GRB host galaxies that have been observed so far at 850 $`\mu `$m using the SCUBA instrument, only one of them (GRB010222) has been detected at late-times after the afterglow has faded completely berg02 . The derived SFR for this object is comparable to the SFR inferred from the radio observations of GRB980703 berg02  suggesting that it is an ultraluminous infrared galaxy (ULIG).

The low detection rate of GRB host galaxies in the submillimeter questions the validity of the association between star-formation and GRBs. However, at the typical SCUBA sensitivity of 3$`\sigma `$3 mJy, only the brightest ULIGs that are more luminous than L$`{}_{\mathrm{IR}}{}^{}`$4$`\times `$1012 L can be detected at $`z>1`$. These hyper luminous galaxies comprise only a small subset of the entire ULIG population. Since the total contribution from ULIGs to the global star-formation history is at most 30% Chary & Elbaz (2001) the contribution from these hyper-luminous sources is less than 10%.

Thus, as inferred independently by Ramirez-Ruiz et al. (2002), only about 10% of GRB hosts are likely to be detected by SCUBA at sensitivity limits of 3 mJy which is consistent with the small detection rate mentioned above and the small number of statistics. MIPS/SIRTF observations will be vital in deriving the far-infrared luminosity of a large number of GRB hosts.

Fortunately, at the faint end of the infrared luminosity function, a complementary technique which utilizes the UV-slope seems to measure the dust-obscured star-formation reasonably well Meurer et al. (1999). At L$`{}_{\mathrm{IR}}{}^{}<4\times 10^{11}`$ L, much of the dust obscuration is optically thin i.e. the far-infrared emission is dust reprocessed UV emission from the same part of the galaxy. However, in the more luminous sources the dust is concentrated so strongly that the UV opacity is very high in the neighborhood of the star-forming regions and so all the UV photons are re-radiated at longer wavelengths. In this case, the UV and far-infrared observations trace the low and high opacity regions of the same galaxy respectively and the UV-slope is only a lower limit to the amount of obscuration.

To search for signatures of a starburst in the GRB hosts using this technique, the multiband photometry on GRB host galaxies between rest-frame ultraviolet and near-infrared wavelengths were fit using the stellar population synthesis models of Bruzual & Charlot, taking into account internal dust extinction Chary, Becklin & Armus (2002). The total (obscured+UV) star-formation rate in these galaxies is not found to be unusually high (Figure 2). Although only 2 of the 6 host galaxies with accurate photometry have derived L$`{}_{\mathrm{IR}}{}^{}>10^{11}`$ L and high resultant SFRs, the ratio between the dust-obscured SFR and the unobscured SFR for the GRB hosts has an average value of $``$4. This is in agreement with the redshift dependent value of 3$``$7 that Chary & Elbaz (2001) find for the ratio between the global comoving dust-obscured star-formation rate and the unobscured star-formation rate derived from the UV.

The near-infrared wavelengths constrain the stellar mass and age of the galaxy very well (Figure 3). Our analysis of the stellar population age and baryonic mass of 6 of the host galaxies with accurate photometry and redshifts reveal that all of them have high specific star-formation rates compared to local starbursts (Figure 2). The spectral energy distribution of 4 of them (GRB970228, GRB970508, GRB980613, GRB980703) are dominated by a young (age$`<`$50 Myr) stellar population which favors the collapsar model. However, 2 of them (GRB990123, GRB991208) have stellar populations of age $``$200 Myr suggesting that the merger of double degenerate systems might power some of the GRBs.

## 2 Future Work

Various techniques have been suggested to constrain the progenitors of GRBs: studying the environments of GRBs through spectral analysis of the X-ray afterglow Galama & Wijers (2001), searching for signatures in the light curve of the optical transient associated with the GRB Bloom et al. (1999); Galama et al. (2000) and studying the nature of the host galaxies. Of these, the latter is less direct but relatively simple and robust.

Associating GRBs with stellar phenomenon necessitates that the host galaxies are either undergoing active star-formation or have been through epochs of substantial star-formation in the past. Since much of the high-redshift star-formation is obscured by dust, accurately measuring the SFR requires tracing the amount of internal extinction in the host galaxies.

Previous star-formation episodes can be constrained either by measuring the metallicity of the host galaxies or by determining the stellar mass. Estimates of galaxy masses derived by fitting template SEDs to the photometry between UV and visible wavelengths only provide lower limits since they trace the young stellar component which has a low mass to light ratio. Accurate masses can only be derived by including data at rest-frame $`\lambda 2\mu `$m which traces the old/cool stellar component. At high redshift, IRAC/SIRTF observations will be able to constrain the contribution from this component. Thus, by fitting population synthesis models to the rest-frame UV to near-infrared light one can estimate the mass fraction of gas that has gone through the most recent starburst, the internal extinction, the age of the starburst and fraction of galaxy mass incorporated in an old stellar population.

Determining the distribution of stellar ages in a large number of host galaxies will provide one of the more reliable ways to distinguish between models where massive stars evolve to become GRBs. In particular models which involve the production of GRBs through the core-collapse of isolated massive stars into a black hole/accretion disk system would take place on timescales comparable to the epoch of star-formation i.e.$``$10 Myr. On the other hand merging double degenerate models suffer an evolutionary delay from the epoch of star-formation which is induced by the timescale for orbital decay of the binary system $`>`$100 Myr.

Thus, if a majority of the GRB hosts are found to have high specific SFRs (SFR/stellar mass) and young (age$`<`$10 Myr) stellar populations, this would be convincing evidence for ‘collapsars’ to be the progenitors of GRBs. However, most of the high redshift infrared luminous galaxies show the presence of a significant older stellar population that is dominating the rest-frame near-infrared light of the galaxy. This indicates that infrared luminous galaxies have undergone previous epochs of star-formation which could potentially provide an origin for double degenerate systems (Figure 3). As a result, if the majority of the hosts have a large old stellar population in addition to the young component, this would make it impossible to discriminate between the two models using this technique. A positional analysis of the burst locations on the host would then have to used as the discriminator due to the large kick velocities imparted to the degenerate objects from their supernovae.