text:
# 1 Wiener-Hopf Determinants

## 1 Wiener-Hopf Determinants

Recently, a beautiful identity due to Borodin and Okounkov was proved for Toeplitz determinants which shows how one can write a Toeplitz determinant as a Fredholm determinant. In this note we generalize this to the Wiener-Hopf case. The proof in the Wiener-Hopf case follows identically with the second one given in . We include it here for completeness sake and because the nature of the identity is slightly different in the continuous verses discrete convolution setting.

In the Wiener-Hopf case we begin with a Fredholm determinant on a finite interval and then show how this can be written as a Fredholm determinant of an operator defined on $`L^2`$ of a half-line. The point is the second operator has a very “small” kernel and thus higher order approximations (as a function of the length of the finite interval) can be found.

We now state the analogue of the identity and then apply it to a particular case to show how error estimates can be computed. In the future we hope to refine the estimates given here, apply this identity to other important examples, and also extend it to other operators.

We consider the Fredholm determinant of the finite Wiener-Hopf operator

$$det(I𝒦_{[0,\alpha ]}),$$
(1.1)
where the $`𝒦`$ acts on $`L^2(0,\alpha )`$ and has kernel $`𝒦(xy)`$ with $`𝒦`$ given by the Fourier transform of a function $`F`$, i.e.

$$F(\xi )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝒦(x)e^{i\xi x}𝑑x.$$
(1.2)
The continuous analogue of the Borodin-Okounkov identity is given, under appropriate conditions by the formula

$$det(I𝒦_{[0,\alpha ]})=Ze^{c\alpha }det(I_{[\alpha ,\mathrm{})}),$$
(1.3)
where

$$c:=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{ln}(1F(\xi ))\frac{d\xi }{2\pi },$$
(1.4)
$``$ is an operator acting on $`L^2[\alpha ,\mathrm{})`$ with kernel,

$$(x,y)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{\varphi _{}}{\varphi _+}1\right)_{x+z}\left(\frac{\varphi _+}{\varphi _{}}1\right)_{zy}𝑑z,$$
(1.5)
and $`Z`$ is a certain constant whose value will be defined shortly. Here $`\varphi _x`$ is inverse Fourier transform of $`\varphi (\xi ),`$ and $`\varphi _\pm (\xi )`$ are the Wiener-Hopf factors satisfying;

$$1F(\xi )=\varphi _+(\xi )\varphi _{}(\xi ),\xi 𝐑,$$
(1.6)
and also satisfying the condition that the functions $`\varphi _\pm `$ when extended away from $`𝐑`$ are analytic in the upper and lower half-plane respectively. So that this makes sense and our proof is valid we require that $`F`$ is bounded and in $`L^1(𝐑)`$ and that $`𝒦`$ is also in $`L^1(𝐑)`$ and satisfies $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}|x||𝒦|(x)𝑑x<\mathrm{}.`$ To achieve an unique factorization, $`1F`$ must have index zero, be bounded away from zero and we assume that $`\varphi _\pm `$ are one at $`\pm \mathrm{}`$. These conditions guarantee that the operator $`AI`$ in the proof below is trace class and also that all the integrals defined are finite. For details see .

In this section we include the proof of the identity as promised. In the next section we apply it to a particular example that arises in random matrix theory . In this example

$`𝒦(xy):={\displaystyle \frac{g\mathrm{sin}\pi (xy)}{\pi \mathrm{sinh}g(xy)}},x,y𝐑,g>0.`$ (1.7)
We show that as $`\alpha \mathrm{},`$

$`det(I_{[\alpha ,\mathrm{})})1C(g)\mathrm{e}^{2g\alpha (1\theta /\pi )},`$ (1.8)
where $`C(g)`$ is a completely determined constant and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta :=e^{\pi ^2/g},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}<\theta <\pi /2.`$ This is a refinement of the classical Szegö-Kac-Widom Theorem. Previous attempts at the refinement computed the exponential term but not the constant. In principal, as the reader will see, higher order terms can also be found using the method outlined in section two.

Here is a proof of the above identity in the Wiener-Hopf case. As already stated this proof follows from . The interested reader should also note another slightly different and very elegant proof given in . Denote by $`P_\alpha `$ the orthogonal projection of $`L^2(0,\mathrm{})`$ onto $`L^2(0,\alpha ),`$ $`Q_\alpha =IP_\alpha ,`$ and $`P`$ the orthogonal projection of $`L^2(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ onto $`L^2(0,\mathrm{}).`$ Also define $`W(\varphi )`$ to be $`PM_\varphi P`$ and $`W_\alpha (\varphi )`$ to be $`P_\alpha M_\varphi P_\alpha `$ where $`M_\varphi `$ is multiplication by $`\varphi .`$ Note that by using Fourier transforms it can be proved that $`W_\alpha (\varphi )`$ is unitarily equivalent to $`I𝒦_{[0,\alpha ]}`$ with $`\varphi =1F.`$ It is straight-forward to check that

$$P_\alpha W(\varphi _+)=P_\alpha W(\varphi _+)P_\alpha ,W(\varphi _{})P_\alpha =P_\alpha W(\varphi _{})P_\alpha ,$$

and

$$W(\varphi _+)W(\varphi _+^1)=I,W(\varphi _{})W(\varphi _{}^1)=I.$$

Using the above, we can write 222It is an easy general fact that if $`\psi _1\overline{H^{\mathrm{}}}`$ or $`\psi _2H^{\mathrm{}}`$ then $`W(\psi _1\psi _2)=W(\psi _1)W(\psi _2)`$. In particular $`W(\varphi _\pm )`$ are invertible with inverses $`W(\varphi _\pm ^1)`$. Recall that $`H^{\mathrm{}}`$ consists of all $`\psi L^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that the Fourier transform of $`\psi `$ vanishes on the negative real axis.

$$P_\alpha W(\varphi )P_\alpha =P_\alpha W(\varphi _+)W(\varphi _+^1)W(\varphi )W(\varphi _{}^1)W(\varphi _{})P_\alpha $$

$$=P_\alpha W(\varphi _+)P_\alpha W(\varphi _+^1)W(\varphi )W(\varphi _{}^1)P_\alpha W(\varphi _{})P_\alpha .$$

Now it can be shown that the product of the determinants of $`P_\alpha W(\varphi _\pm )P_\alpha `$ are equal to $`e^{c\alpha }`$, (see , section 10.79). Thus to compute $`det(I𝒦_{[0,\alpha ]})`$ we need to consider $`P_\alpha W(\varphi _+^1)W(\varphi )W(\varphi _{}^1)P_\alpha `$.

Set

$$W(\varphi _+^1)W(\varphi )W(\varphi _{}^1)=A.$$

Notice that the determinant of $`P_\alpha AP_\alpha `$ equals $`det(P_\alpha AP_\alpha +Q_\alpha )`$. Now $`A`$ is invertible and differs from $`I`$ by a trace class operator . Therefore

$$det(P_\alpha AP_\alpha +Q_\alpha )=detAdet(A^1P_\alpha AP_\alpha +A^1Q_\alpha )$$

$$=detAdet(A^1(IQ_\alpha )AP_\alpha +A^1Q_\alpha )=detAdet(P_\alpha A^1Q_\alpha AP_\alpha +A^1Q_\alpha )$$

$$=detAdet(P_\alpha +A^1Q_\alpha )det(IQ_\alpha AP_\alpha ),$$

since $`P_\alpha Q_\alpha =0`$. The determinant of the operator on the right equals one, again since $`P_\alpha Q_\alpha =0`$. Moreover

$$det(P_\alpha +A^1Q_\alpha Q_\alpha )=det(I(IA^1)Q_\alpha )=det(IQ_\alpha (IA^1)Q_\alpha ).$$

We have shown

$$det(I𝒦_{[0,\alpha ]})=detAdet(IQ_\alpha (IA^1)Q_\alpha ).$$
(1.9)
It remains to show that this is the same as (1.3). First, $`A`$ is similar via the invertible operator $`W(\varphi _+)`$ to $`W(\varphi )W(\varphi _{}^1)W(\varphi _+^1).`$ Therefore

$$detA=detW(\varphi )W(\varphi _{}^1)W(\varphi _+^1)=detW(\varphi )W(\varphi ^1).$$
(1.10)
This is a representation of the constant $`Z`$333It is known that the constant $`Z`$ can also be expressed as $`\mathrm{exp}_0^{\mathrm{}}z\mathrm{ln}(1F)_z\mathrm{ln}(1F)_zdz`$, (see  section 10.79). in (1.3). Next

$$A^1=W(\varphi _{})W(\varphi )^1W(\varphi _+)=W(\varphi _{})W(\varphi _+^1)W(\varphi _{}^1)W(\varphi _+)$$
(1.11)
$$=W(\varphi _{}/\varphi _+)W(\varphi _+/\varphi _{}).$$
(1.12)
Because $`\varphi _{}/\varphi _+`$ and $`\varphi _+/\varphi _{}`$ are reciprocals it follows easily from the algebra properties of our operators that the determinant of

$$(IQ_\alpha (IA^1)Q_\alpha )$$

is the same as the determinant given in the right-hand side of (3) and this completes the proof.

## 2 An Example

Next we turn to the example cited in the first section. Consider (1.1) with

$`𝒦(xy):={\displaystyle \frac{g\mathrm{sin}\pi (xy)}{\pi \mathrm{sinh}g(xy)}},x,y𝐑,g>0.`$ (2.13)
The Fourier transform is given by,

$$F(\xi )=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\pi ^2/g)}{\mathrm{cosh}(\pi ^2/g)+\mathrm{cosh}(\pi \xi /g)}.$$
(2.14)
It is clear that $`F`$ satisfies our hypothesis. Writing, $`1F(\xi )=\mathrm{exp}(\psi (\xi )),`$ and

$$\psi (\xi )=_0^{\mathrm{}}\psi _te^{i\xi t}𝑑t+_{\mathrm{}}^0\psi _te^{i\xi t}𝑑t,$$
(2.15)
where

$$\psi _t=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{ln}(1F(\xi ))e^{i\xi t}\frac{d\xi }{2\pi }$$
(2.16)
yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\pm (\xi )}{\varphi _{}(\xi )}}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\pm i\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi )\right),`$ (2.17)
with

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi )=2i{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\psi _t\mathrm{sin}(\xi t)𝑑t.`$ (2.18)
A simple calculation shows that

$`(x,y)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}f(x+z)f(z+y)𝑑z,`$ (2.19)
where

$`f(x):=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _+}{\varphi _{}}}1\right)_x={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\left(e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi )}1\right)e^{i\xi x}{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi }{2\pi }}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{}}{\varphi _+}}1\right)_x.`$ (2.20)
To find $`f(t)`$ we need to compute $`\psi _t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi ).`$ With $`a:=e^{\pi ^2/g},`$ a calculation gives,

$`\psi _t={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(\pi t)\mathrm{cosh}(g\theta t/\pi )}{t\mathrm{sinh}(gt)}},a=:\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}<\theta <\pi /2.`$ (2.21)
It is a bit difficult to compute $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi )`$ directly, so instead of finding $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi )`$ we attempt to find its derivative. Using (2.18) and (2.21) and we find, that

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi )=2i{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(\pi t)\mathrm{cosh}(g\theta t/\pi )}{t\mathrm{sinh}(gt)}}\right)\mathrm{sin}(\xi t)𝑑t.`$ (2.22)
Next using the above and formula 3.524.5 of , gives the integral as a limit as $`\mu 1`$ of the sum of $`\zeta (\mu ,(1\beta /\gamma )/2)`$ and $`\zeta (\mu ,(1+\beta /\gamma )/2).`$ Then using the definition of the $`\zeta `$ function, rearranging the sums, and finally letting $`\mu 1`$ we obtain

$`2g\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\pi }}){\displaystyle \frac{i\xi }{2g}}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i(\pi +\xi )}{2g}}\right)`$ (2.23)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\pi }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{i\xi }{2g}}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\left(\pi \xi \right)}{2g}}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\pi }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{i\xi }{2g}}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\left(\pi +\xi \right)}{2g}}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\pi }}\right){\displaystyle \frac{i\xi }{2g}}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\left(\pi \xi \right)}{2g}}\right),`$
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the di-gamma function. Integrating (2.23) with respect to $`\xi `$ with the initial condition $`\mathrm{\Phi }(0)=0,`$ gives,

$`\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi ))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{\theta }{\pi })+\frac{i\xi }{2g}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{\theta }{\pi })\frac{i\xi }{2g}\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}(1\frac{\theta }{\pi })+\frac{i\xi }{2g}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}(1\frac{\theta }{\pi })\frac{i\xi }{2g}\right)}}`$ (2.24)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{i\pi }{g})\frac{i\xi }{2g}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}(1\frac{i\pi }{g})+\frac{i\xi }{2g})}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}(1\frac{i\pi }{g})\frac{i\xi }{2g}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{i\pi }{g})+\frac{i\xi }{2g})}}.`$
We need now to compute (2.20). Note that the integrand vanishes when $`\xi `$ is zero. Furthermore, by using the asymptotics of the Gamma functions, it is easily seen that the integral converges conditionally. Putting $`s=\frac{i\xi }{2g}`$ and $`z=\mathrm{exp}(2gx)`$, in (2.20), we find,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f(x)}{2g}}={\displaystyle _i\mathrm{}^i\mathrm{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(a+s\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(as\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1a+s\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1as\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(bs\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1b+s\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1bs\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(b+s\right)}}1\right)z^s{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{2\pi i}},`$ (2.25)
where

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\pi }}\right),`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{g}}\right).`$
To compute the integral (2.25) we take a sequence of contours consisting of the line segment from $`iR_n`$ to $`iR_n`$ and the semi-circle of radius $`R_n`$ in the left-half plane centered at the origin. Here $`R_n=n+\delta ,`$ where $`\delta `$ is any fixed constant satisfying $`0<\delta <1/4.`$ Now computing the residues of the Gamma functions in the left-half plane we obtain after taking the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$ the sum of two hypergeometric functions $`{}_{4}{}^{}F_{3}^{};`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f(x)}{2g}}`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{\theta }{\pi })\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\theta }{\pi }\frac{i\pi }{g}))\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\theta }{\pi }+\frac{i\pi }{g}))}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{\theta }{\pi })\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\theta }{\pi }+\frac{i\pi }{g}))\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\theta }{\pi }\frac{i\pi }{g}))}}`$
$`\times \mathrm{e}_4^{g\left(1\frac{\theta }{\pi }\right)\alpha }F_3\left({}_{1\frac{\theta }{\pi },\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\frac{\theta }{\pi }}{}^{\beta _1,\beta _2,\beta _2,\beta _1};\mathrm{exp}(2g\alpha )\right))`$
$`+`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{\theta }{\pi })\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\theta }{\pi }\frac{i\pi }{g}))\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\theta }{\pi }+\frac{i\pi }{g}))}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\frac{\theta }{\pi })\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}(\frac{i\pi }{g}\frac{\theta }{\pi }))\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}(\frac{i\pi }{g}\frac{\theta }{\pi }))}}`$
$`\times \mathrm{e}_4^{g\left(1+\frac{\theta }{\pi }\right)\alpha }F_3\left({}_{1+\frac{\theta }{\pi },\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\frac{\theta }{\pi }}{}^{\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _2,\gamma _1};\mathrm{exp}(2g\alpha )\right)),`$
where

$`\beta _1`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{g}}\right),\beta _2=1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{g}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\pi }}\right)`$
$`\gamma _1`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{g}}\right),\gamma _2=1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\pi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{g}}\right).`$
As $`\alpha \mathrm{},`$

$`\mathrm{tr}_{[\alpha ,\mathrm{})}C(g)\mathrm{exp}\left(2g\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\pi }}\right)\alpha \right),`$ (2.27)
where

$`C(g):=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{\theta }{\pi })\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\theta }{\pi }\frac{i\pi }{g}))\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\theta }{\pi }+\frac{i\pi }{g}))}{(1\frac{\theta }{\pi })\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{\theta }{\pi })\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\theta }{\pi }+\frac{i\pi }{g}))\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\theta }{\pi }\frac{i\pi }{g}))}}\right)^2.`$ (2.28)
We have obtained (2.27) from (2.19) and the trace. Note that since $`0<\theta /\pi <1/2`$, the leading exponential factor, $`\mathrm{exp}(g(1+\theta /\pi )\alpha )`$, in the second term of (2.26) will tend to zero faster than the first. Furthermore, since

$`{}_{4}{}^{}F_{3}^{}\left({}_{B_1,\mathrm{},B_3}{}^{A_1,\mathrm{},A_4};z\right)=1+{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\delta _nz^n,|z|<1,`$
where the above series converges absolutely in the unit circle, we see that only the exponential factor in the first term of (2.26) will be relevant in the computation of $`\mathrm{tr}_{[\alpha ,\mathrm{})}`$ for large $`\alpha .`$

Here we give an expression for $`\mathrm{tr}_{[\alpha ,\mathrm{})}^k,`$ where $`k`$ is any positive integer and with this determine the higher order terms for large $`\alpha .`$ We can compute $`det(I_{[\alpha ,\mathrm{})})`$ by computing traces. The justification for this fact follows from our estimate for $`f(x)`$ when $`x`$ is large. It shows that the function is exponentially small. Hence when $`x`$ is larger than $`\alpha `$ it follows that the operator $`_{[\alpha ,\mathrm{})}`$ has norm smaller than one.

To compute the traces we note that from the expression of $`(x,y)`$ given by (2.19) and by shifting the interval of integration, $`[\alpha ,\mathrm{})`$, in the trace to $`[0,\mathrm{})`$,

$`\mathrm{tr}_{[\alpha ,\mathrm{})}^k={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}f(x_1+x_2+\alpha )\mathrm{}f(x_{2k}+x_1+\alpha )𝑑x_1\mathrm{}𝑑x_{2k}.`$ (2.29)
For fixed $`x,y>0`$, as $`\alpha \mathrm{},`$

$`f(x+y+\alpha )2g{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{\theta }{\pi })\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\theta }{\pi }\frac{i\pi }{g}))\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\theta }{\pi }+\frac{i\pi }{g}))}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{\theta }{\pi })\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\theta }{\pi }+\frac{i\pi }{g}))\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\theta }{\pi }\frac{i\pi }{g}))}}\mathrm{e}^{g(1\frac{\theta }{\pi })(x+y+\alpha )},`$ (2.30)
where the second exponentially decaying term in (2.26) has been discarded. Integrating (2.29) with (2.30) we find, as $`\alpha \mathrm{},`$

$`\mathrm{tr}_{[\alpha ,\mathrm{})}^kC(g)^k\mathrm{exp}\left(2g\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\pi }}\right)k\alpha \right).`$ (2.31)
Therefore,

$`\mathrm{ln}det(I_{[\alpha ,\mathrm{})})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tr}_{[\alpha ,\mathrm{})}^k}{k}},`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{C^k(g)}{k}}\mathrm{e}^{2g(1\frac{\theta }{\pi })\alpha k}.`$
Finally,

$`det(I_{[\alpha ,\mathrm{})})1C(g)\mathrm{e}^{2g\alpha (1\theta /\pi )},\alpha \mathrm{}.`$ (2.32)
In random matrix theory $`E(\alpha ):=det(I𝒦_{[0,\alpha ]})`$ is the probability that an interval $`[\alpha /2,\alpha /2]`$ (after a suitable scaling) is free of eigenvalues. Putting $`g=0,`$ in (2.1), we have the sine kernel, $`\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi (xy))}{\pi (xy)}.`$ It was shown in  that $`R(\alpha ):=\frac{d\mathrm{ln}E(\alpha )}{d\alpha },`$ satisfies a particular Painléve V equation. For a simpler derivation of this and a review of random matrix theory see . Recently, it was shown in  using the theory of  that $`R(\alpha )`$ for $`g>0,`$ satisfies a particular Painléve VI. In a heuristic perturbative calculation on the Painléve VI both the exponential decaying terms were was found , however, the prefactor, $`C(g),`$ cannot be determined as it involves an indefinite integral. It appears that $`C(g)`$ can only be obtained from determinant identity, (1.3). It can also be shown that the computation of (1.1) with the kernel given by (2.13) can be reformulated as an equivalent $`2\times 2`$ matrix Riemann-Hilbert problem, see  for a description of this technique. Although as $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$, such a technique could reproduce the classical results of Akhiezer, Hirschman and Szegö, namely, the $`Z`$ factor, it is not at all clear whether the higher correction terms given by (2.34) can be found. Final remark: the determinant identity, (1.3), does not hold for $`g=0`$. Since in this situation, the Fourier transform of the sine kernel is the characteristic function of $`[\pi /2,\pi /2]`$ and the Wiener-Hopf factorization fails.

| Department of Mathematics |  | Department of Mathematics |
| --- | --- | --- |
| California Polytechnic State University |  | Imperial College |
| San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 USA |  | 180 Queen’s gate, London, SW7 2BZ, UK |
| ebasor@calpoly.edu |  | y.chen@ic.ac.uk |


format: text

text:
# The GMOS integral field unit: first integral field spectroscopy with an 8m telescope

## 1. Introduction

The first of the two Gemini Multiobject Spectrographs has been completed and tested on the Gemini-North Telescope. This paper describes the integral field unit (IFU) which converts this multiobject spectrograph into an integral field spectrograph.

The capabilities of GMOS (Fig. 1) can be summarised as follows.

* 0.07 arcsec/pixel image scale
* $`5.5\times 5.5`$ arcmin field
* 0.4 - 1.1$`\mu `$m wavelength coverage
* Resolving power up to $`R=10,000`$ (with 0.25 arcsec slits)
* Detector: CCD mosaic of $`3\times (4608\times 2048`$) pixels
* Active control of flexure
* On-instrument WFS for accurate guiding
* Main modes:

+ Multiobject using laser-cut slit masks
    + Integral field spectroscopy mode
    + Longslit spectroscopy using generic masks
    + Imaging

The scientific requirements were defined by the Gemini project. These are summarised below, where the adopted top-level specification and main design features are also given.

* To exploit good images from GEMINI, the IFU has a sampling of 0.2 arcsec.
* To provide unit filling factor in the field, the fibres are coupled to a close-packed lenslet array at the input
* To provide the largest possible contiguous field, 1000 fibers were used to give an object field of $`7\times 5`$ arcsec (1000 fibres)
* To make provision for accurate background subtraction, an extra $`5\times 3.5`$ arcsec field offset by 60 arcsec from the object field is provided for background estimation (500 fibres).
* To allow a transparent change between slit and integral field modes, the IFU is deployed by the mask exchanger and the input and output foci are coplanar with the masks.
* To obtain high throughput, the fibres are lenslet-coupled at the output and input to convert the F/16 beam to $``$F/5 for efficient use with fibres.
* The adoption of a low risk construction technique (to reduce risk to schedule) dictated the use of the fibre+lenslet technique in preference to image slicing (see Allington-Smith & Content 1999 — hereafter AC — for a summary of the techniques available)

## 2. Description

The principle of the optical design is shown in Fig. 2. We used the fibre-lenslet technique described by AC. This makes more efficient use of the detector surface than the lenslet-only approach (e.g. Sauron; Bacon et al 2001). While not quite as efficient as the image-slicing method (e.g. 3D; Weitzel et al. 1996), it provides a high level of efficiency without the technical risk that would be required to implement such a design. The original image-slicing technique of 3D could not be used for reasons of size and optical performance, but a version using the Advanced Image Slicer (AIS) concept would have been feasible for GMOS (Content 1997). Although IFUs using the AIS concept are under construction (Dubbeldam et al. 2000), the technology, employing diamond-turned spherical optics, was deemed to pose an unacceptable risk to GMOS’s tight schedule.

The design adopted folds light approaching the telescope focal plane into a telecentric enlarger which re-images the field onto a close-packed lenslet array. This produces an array of pupil images which are fed into optical fibres in a fast beam to minimise the effect of focal ratio degradation (FRD; Carrasco & Parry 1994). This arrangement ensures that the filling factor in the field is nearly unity since it is set by the the lenslet array, which is close-packed, rather than by the fibres whose active area, that of the cores, is sparsely distributed.

The fibres allow the 2-D array to be reformatted into two pseudo-slits which are located at the original telescope focal plane. By splitting the fibres into blocks which may be individually aligned, it is possible to mimic the exit pupil of the telescope so that the spectrograph receives the reformatted light as if from a pair of conventional longslits. These slit blocks contain the fibre terminations which consist of linear lenslet arrays which convert the beam back to the speed originally incident from the telescope.

The confocality of the input and output focal surfaces of the IFU with that of the telescope means that no major shift in spectrograph focus is required when the IFU is inserted into the beam. Thus, the deployment of the IFU is a transparent process from the point of view of the spectrograph.

In the normal two-slit mode, two sets of spectra are produced, displaced in the dispersion direction. This allows the spectra to contain $``$2000 pixels but requires the use of a suitable bandpass filter to avoid overlaps between spectra. If it is desired to increase the spectrum length and avoid the possibility of overlaps altogether, one slit may be blocked off by the manual insertion of an output mask. The mapping between the field and the slit is arranged so that this will block off one half of both object and background field leaving contiguous sections of the field as shown in Fig. 3. This allows the observer to choose the optimum combination of the numbers of spectral and spatial samples.

In order to maximise the numbers of spatial samples, the images produced by each fibre at the pseudoslit are allowed to overlap slightly. This situation is discussed by AC, who show that the only consequence is a slight degradation in spatial resolution (in the direction corresponding to that of the slit only) since the Nyquist sampling criterion is satisfied providing that the object is sampled by at least two lenslets at the IFU input: the sampling of the slit by the detector is only of minor importance. If the overlap between images at the slit was minimised, the result would be a drastic reduction in the number of spatial samples with a consequent reduction of the field of view. The close-packed configuration also requires that the mapping between the input and output is such that elements which are adjacent at the slit are also adjacent in the field, as shown in Fig. 3, and that the element-to-element variation in throughput is small, as described in Section 3.2.

The quality of background subtraction can be enhanced by the use of the separate background field. This is half the size of the object field and separated from it by 60 arcsec to allow the centre of a large extended object to be observed while still obtaining a clean estimate of the sky background (Fig. 4). If desired, beam-switching may be used, by which the telescope is nodded to switch the object alternately between the object and background field. This provides immunity to temporal variations in the sky background, depending on the frequency of switching, and improves the subtraction accuracy since the same physical elements sample both object and sky. This is discussed in detail by AC.

Fig. 5 gives an overview of the mechanical design. The fore-optics and slit assemblies are fixed rigidly to the slit plate. The slit plate interfaces with the mask exchange mechanism in the same way as for a regular slit mask.

## 3. Instrument characterisation

The performance of the IFU was determined by measurements in the laboratory after assembly and at the telescope, in September 2001, during the commissioning of GMOS.

### 3.1. Cosmetic quality

Out of 1500, there is only one broken element. In addition there are 4 elements with significantly reduced throughput (assessed by visual inspection.

### 3.2. Throughput and fibre-to-fibre variation

The throughput of the IFU was measured in the laboratory using a calibrated photodiode referenced to a wavelength of 670nm.

The throughput of the complete IFU without regard to the spectrograph stop (i.e. without constraining the angular extent of the output beam) was found to be 79$`\pm `$5%. The useful component of this throughput (i.e. all light that enters the spectrograph stop) was determined to be 68$`\pm `$5%. This figure includes any slit-pointing misalignment. This compares with the theoretical estimate made before final system optimisation of 59%.

The throughput of the IFU after installation on the telescope was assessed using flatfield light from the Gemini Calibration Unit (GCAL). The IFU was deployed in GMOS and an exposure made in direct imaging mode (the grating replaced by a plane mirror) with a particular broad-band filter in the beam. The resulting raw data was examined and the signal integrated over the full extent of the IFU output (the direct images of the two slits) after subtracting the detector background. The IFU was then removed from the beam and another direct image taken with the same spectrograph and GCAL configuration. The signal was summed over those pixels which correspond to the spatial extent of the two input fields of the IFU. A comparison of the signal levels yields the throughput of the IFU alone over the passband defined by the filter. The results were: 62%, 65%, 62% and 58% in the g’, r’, i’ and z’ filter passbands respectively (SDSS system: Fukugita et al. 1996). The previous laboratory measurement of 68$`\pm `$5% (670nm) is consistent with the r’-band result (550-700nm).

This is the simplest and most direct method of measurement because it is independent of variations in seeing or transparency that might affect an observation of a standard star.

The variation in throughput from fibre to fibre was estimated from flat-field data. Ignoring the 5 elements known to be defective, the counts recorded in each extracted spectrum showed an RMS variation of 6%. This is an upper limit since the intensity of the flatfield illumination was not completely uniform.

### 3.3. Image quality

The same commissioning data were used to assess the quality of the images of the individual elements at the slit, as recorded by the detector. In direct imaging mode, these appear as a series of round images aligned in the spatial direction. Each is clearly resolved and the images overlap at $``$50% of their peak value in the spatial direction. Fig. 6 shows a close-up of one slit block and a cut in the spatial direction which also shows the extent of the inter-block gap.

### 3.4. Stability

Flexure effects were assessed by recording the positions of the images of the IFU slit as a function of gravity vector while the telescope is placed in different orientations. Although some flexure is seen (typically 0.1 pixel/hour), it is similar to that experienced by GMOS without the IFU deployed (in direct-image or slit-spectroscopic modes). Thus we conclude that any contribution from the movement of the IFU as a whole or from its component parts is too small to be measurable. The precision of this result is limited by non-repeatability in the measurements. This is made up of a combination of some intrinsic non-elasticity in the structure of GMOS and the uncertainty in measuring the centroids of the images.

## 4. Scientific characterisation

During commissioning, a number of elliptical galaxies from the Sauron programme (de Zeeuw et al. 2002) were observed in order to provide a comparison dataset to allow us to verify the accuracy of the data reduction. In addition, NGC 1068 was observed to allow a comparison with the extensive body of long-slit spectroscopy available with e.g. STIS on the Hubble Space Telescope (Crenshaw & Kraemer 2000) as well as previous integral field data, (e.g. Thatte et al. 1997, Pecontal et al. 1997, Garcia-Lorenzo et al. 1999).

The observations of NGC1068 consist of a set of 4 pointings offset from the object centre by a few arcsec so as to synthesise a larger field by mosaicing. We used the B600 grating with the $`g^{}`$ filter to limit the length of spectrum so as to avoid overlap between the two sets of spectra. This configuration gave good coverage of the H$`\beta `$ and \[OIII\]4959+5007 emission lines.

Fig. 7 shows a comparison of a direct image of NGC 1068 taken by GMOS with the $`g^{}`$ filter and an image in the same passband reconstructed from the integral field data. They are very similar, with only small differences that are likely to be caused by the small difference between the passband of the direct image and that used in the reduction of the spectroscopic data. This provides a preliminary check of the accuracy of the integral field data.

Fig. 8 shows how the shape and multiplicity of the emission lines changes over the field. This confirms the initial impression of complexity obtained from examination of the raw data.

These data were reduced using a software package produced by GEMINI for GMOS. This includes special features for the reduction of integral field data, which is generally more complex than for slit spectroscopy.

## 5. Conclusions

We have described the design of the integral field unit of the Gemini Multiobject Spectrograph installed on the northern Gemini telescope and presented performance results obtained in the laboratory and at the telescope. This is the first instrument for integral field spectroscopy on an 8-10m telescope and the largest format of fibre-coupled IFU yet used at any telescope.

Estimates of the throughput of the IFU (including losses at the spectrograph stop) indicate reasonable agreement between theory and measurements in the laboratory, considering that both determinations are subject to uncertainties which are difficult to estimate. The experimentally-determined throughput is a little higher than expected indicating the high quality of construction and the realism of the theoretical model, which made pessimistic assumptions where hard data was lacking. This encourages us to believe that not only have we developed the techniques to make high-quality devices for integral field spectroscopy but also that we have the design tools which allows us to make a near-optimal choice of design parameters and produce realistic estimates of the final performance.

Measurements obtained at the telescope indicate a throughput intermediate between the laboratory and theoretical estimates, although formally consistent with the former. The variation in throughput between elements is satisfactorily small and the quality of the images at the slit is actually slightly better than predicted. This is expected to ease the task of data reduction.

#### Acknowledgments.

We thank the many staff in Durham who have worked on the GMOS-IFU or on its prototypes: Roger Haynes, David Lee, Ian Lewis, Deqing Ren, Jingyun Zhang, Ray Sharples and David Robertson. We also thank the other members of the GMOS team who made this work possible by supplying the superb optics, mechanics, electronics and controls of GMOS-1, including Terry Purkins, Phil Williams and David Lunney. We also thank the Gemini project for supporting this work (especially Doug Simons, Fred Gillett and Matt Mountain).

The Gemini Observatory is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under a cooperative agreement with the NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the National Science Foundation (United States), the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (United Kingdom), the National Research Council (Canada), CONICYT (Chile), the Australian Research Council (Australia), CNPq (Brazil) and CONICET (Argentina).

## References

Allington-Smith, J. & Content, R., 1999. PASP 110, 1216-1234.

Bacon. R., Copin, Y., Monnet, G., Miller, B.M., Allington-Smith, J.R., Bureau, M., Carollo, C.M., Davies, R.L., Emsellem, E., Kuntschner, H., Peletier, R.F., Verolme, E.K. & de Zeeuw, T., 2001. MNRAS 326, 23.

Carrasco, E. & Parry, I., 1994. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 271, 1

Content, 1997. SPIE 2871, 1295-1305

Crenshaw, D. & Kraemer, S., 2000. ApJ, 532, L101-L104.

Dubbeldam, M., Content, R., Allington-Smith, J., Pokrovsky, S., Robertson, D., 2000. SPIE 4008, 1181-1192.

Fukugita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J. E., Doi, M., Shimasaku, K., & Schneider, D. P. 1996. A.J. 111, 1748.

Garcia-Lorenzo, B., Mediavilla, E. & Arribas. S., 1999. ApJ 518, 190-212.

Pecontal, E., Ferruit, P., Binette, L. & Wilson, A.S., 1997. ApSS 248, 167-174.

Thatte, N., Genzel, N., Kroker, H., Krabbe, A., Tacconi-Garman, L., Maiolino, R. & Tecza, M., 1997. ApSS 248, 225-234.

Weitzel, L., Krabbe, A., Kroker, H., Thatte, N., Tacconi-Garman, L. E., Cameron, M., and Genzel, R. 1996. Astr. & Astroph. Suppl., 119, p 531.

de Zeeuw, P. T, Bureau, M., Emsellem, E, Bacon, R., Carollo, C.M., Copin, Y., Davies, R. L., Kuntschner, H, Miller, B.W, Monnet, G., Peletier, R. F. & Verolme, E. K., 2002. MNRAS 329, 513.


text:
# SEARCH FOR NEW BARYON RESONANCES

## 1 Introduction

For several decades, the baryon resonances have been investigated  mainly through partial wave analysis of the “pionic” processes $`\pi N\pi N,\eta N`$$`\gamma N\pi N`$, and to less extent, from two pion final states.

Recent advent of high quality electromagnetic beams and sophisticated detectors, has boosted intensive experimental and theoretical study of mesons photo- and electro-production. One of the exciting topics is the search for new baryon resonances which do not couple or couple too weakly to the $`\pi N`$ channel. Several such resonances have been predicted  by different QCD-inspired approaches, offering strong test of the underlying concepts.

Investigation of $`\eta `$-meson production via electromagnetic probes offers access to fundamental information in hadrons spectroscopy. The properties of the decay of baryon resonances into $`\gamma N`$ and/or $`N^{}\eta N`$ are intimately related to their internal structure . Extensive recent experimental efforts on $`\eta `$ photoproduction  are opening a new era in this topic.

The focus in this manuscript is to study all the recent $`\gamma p\eta p`$ data for $`E_\gamma ^{lab}<`$ 2 GeV ($`WE_{total}^{cm}<`$ 2.2 GeV) within a chiral constituent quark formalism based on the $`SU(6)O(3)`$ symmetry. The advantage of the quark model for meson photoproduction is the ability to relate the photoproduction data directly to the internal structure of the baryon resonances. Moreover, this approach allows the inclusion of all of the known baryon resonances. To go beyond the exact $`SU(6)O(3)`$ symmetry, we introduce  symmetry breaking factors and relate them to the configuration mixing angles generated by the gluon exchange interactions in the quark model .

## 2 Theoretical Frame

The chiral constituent quark approach for meson photoproduction is based on the low energy QCD Lagrangian

$$=\overline{\psi }\left[\gamma _\mu (i^\mu +V^\mu +\gamma _5A^\mu )m\right]\psi +\mathrm{}$$
(1)
where $`\psi `$ is the quark field in the $`SU(3)`$ symmetry, $`V^\mu =(\xi ^{}_\mu \xi +\xi _\mu \xi ^{})/2`$ and $`A^\mu =i(\xi ^{}_\mu \xi \xi _\mu \xi ^{})/2`$ are the vector and axial currents, respectively, with $`\xi =e^{i\mathrm{\Pi }f}`$; $`f`$ is a decay constant and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ the Goldstone boson field.

The four components for the photoproduction of pseudoscalar mesons based on the QCD Lagrangian are:

$`_{fi}`$ $`=`$ $`_{seagull}+_s+_u+_t`$ (2)
The first term in Eq. (2) is a seagull term. It is generated by the gauge transformation of the axial vector $`A_\mu `$ in the QCD Lagrangian. This term, being proportional to the electric charge of the outgoing mesons, does not contribute to the production of the $`\eta `$-meson. The second and the third terms correspond to the s- and u-channels, respectively. The last term is the t-channel contribution and contains two parts: i) charged meson exchanges which are proportional to the charge of outgoing mesons and thus do not contribute to the process $`\gamma N\eta N`$; ii) $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ exchange in the $`\eta `$ production which are excluded here due to the duality hypothesis .

The u-channel contributions are divided into the nucleon Born term and the contributions from the excited resonances. The matrix elements for the nucleon Born term are given explicitly, while the contributions from the excited resonances above 2 GeV for a given parity are assumed to be degenerate so that their contributions could be written in a compact form .

The contributions from the s-channel resonances can be written as

$`_N^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2M_N^{}}{sM_N^{}\left[M_N^{}i\mathrm{\Gamma }(q)\right]}}e^{\frac{k^2+q^2}{6\alpha _{ho}^2}}𝒜_N^{},`$ (3)
where $`k=|𝒌|`$ and $`q=|𝒒|`$ represent the momenta of the incoming photon and the outgoing meson respectively, $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the total energy of the system, $`e^{(k^2+q^2)/6\alpha _{ho}^2}`$ is a form factor in the harmonic oscillator basis with the parameter $`\alpha _{ho}^2`$ related to the harmonic oscillator strength in the wave-function, and $`M_N^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(q)`$ are the mass and the total width of the resonance, respectively. The amplitudes $`𝒜_N^{}`$ are divided into two parts : the contribution from each resonance below 2 GeV, the transition amplitudes of which have been translated into the standard CGLN amplitudes in the harmonic oscillator basis, and the contributions from the resonances above 2 GeV treated as degenerate, since little experimental information is available on those resonances.

The contributions from each resonance to $`\eta `$ photoproduction is determined by introducing  a new set of parameters $`C_N^{}`$ and the following substitution rule for the amplitudes $`𝒜_N^{}`$,

$`𝒜_N^{}C_N^{}𝒜_N^{},`$ (4)
so that

$`_N^{}^{exp}=C_N^{}^2_N^{}^{qm},`$ (5)
where $`_N^{}^{exp}`$ is the experimental value of the observable, and $`_N^{}^{qm}`$ is calculated in the quark model . The $`SU(6)O(3)`$ symmetry predicts $`C_N^{}`$ = 0 for $`S_{11}(1650)`$, $`D_{13}(1700)`$, and $`D_{15}(1675)`$ resonances, and $`C_N^{}`$ = 1 for other resonances in Table 1. Thus, the coefficients $`C_N^{}`$ give a measure of the discrepancies between the theoretical results and the experimental data and show the extent to which the $`SU(6)O(3)`$ symmetry is broken in the process investigated here.

One of the main reasons that the $`SU(6)O(3)`$ symmetry is broken is due to the configuration mixings caused by the one gluon exchange . Here, the most relevant configuration mixings are those of the two $`S_{11}`$ and the two $`D_{13}`$ states around 1.5 to 1.7 GeV. The configuration mixings can be expressed in terms of the mixing angle between the two $`SU(6)O(3)`$ states $`|N(^2P_M)>`$ and $`|N(^4P_M)>`$, with the total quark spin 1/2 and 3/2,

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}|S_{11}(1535)>\\ |S_{11}(1650)>\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _S& \mathrm{sin}\theta _S\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _S& \mathrm{cos}\theta _S\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}|N(^2P_M)_{\frac{1}{2}^{}}>\\ |N(^4P_M)_{\frac{1}{2}^{}}>\end{array}\right),`$ (6)
and

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}|D_{13}(1520)>\\ |D_{13}(1700)>\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _D& \mathrm{sin}\theta _D\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _D& \mathrm{cos}\theta _D\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}|N(^2P_M)_{\frac{3}{2}^{}}>\\ |N(^4P_M)_{\frac{3}{2}^{}}>\end{array}\right).`$ (7)
To show how the coefficients $`C_N^{}`$ are related to the mixing angles, we express the amplitudes $`𝒜_N^{}`$ in terms of the product of the meson and photon transition amplitudes:

$`𝒜_N^{}<N|H_m|N^{}><N^{}|H_e|N>,`$ (8)
where $`H_m`$ and $`H_e`$ are the meson and photon transition operators, respectively. Using Eqs. (6) to (8), for the resonance $`S_{11}(1535)`$ one finds

$`𝒜_{S_{11}(1535)}`$ $``$ $`[<N|H_m|N(^2P_M)_{\frac{1}{2}^{}}>\mathrm{cos}\theta _S<N|H_m|N(^4P_M)_{\frac{1}{2}^{}}>\mathrm{sin}\theta _S]`$ (9)
$`[<N(^2P_M)_{\frac{1}{2}^{}}|H_e|N>\mathrm{cos}\theta _S<N(^4P_M)_{\frac{1}{2}^{}}|H_e|N>\mathrm{sin}\theta _S].`$
Due to the Moorhouse selection rule, the amplitude $`<N(^4P_M)_{\frac{1}{2}^{}}|H_e|N>`$ vanishes  in our model. So, Eq. (9) becomes

$`𝒜_{S_{11}(1535)}`$ $``$ $`[<N|H_m|N(^2P_M)_{\frac{1}{2}^{}}><N(^2P_M)_{\frac{1}{2}^{}}|H_e|N>]`$ (10)
$`\left[\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _S\mathrm{sin}\theta _S\mathrm{cos}\theta _S{\displaystyle \frac{<N|H_m|N(^4P_M)_{\frac{1}{2}^{}}>}{<N|H_m||N(^2P_M)_{\frac{1}{2}^{}}>}}\right].`$
where $`<N|H_m|N(^2P_M)_{\frac{1}{2}^{}}><N(^2P_M)_{\frac{1}{2}^{}}|H_e|N>`$ determines  the CGLN amplitude for the $`|N(^2P_M)_{\frac{1}{2}^{}}>`$ state, and the ratio

$`={\displaystyle \frac{<N|H_m|N(^4P_M)_{\frac{1}{2}^{}}>}{<N|H_m|N(^2P_M)_{\frac{1}{2}^{}}>}},`$ (11)
is a constant determined by the $`SU(6)O(3)`$ symmetry. Using the same meson transition operator $`H_m`$ from the Lagrangian as in deriving the CGLN amplitudes in the quark model, we find $``$ = -1 for the $`S_{11}`$ resonances and $`\sqrt{1/10}`$ for the $`D_{13}`$ resonances. Then, the configuration mixing coefficients can be related to the configuration mixing angles

$`C_{S_{11}(1535)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _S(\mathrm{cos}\theta _S\mathrm{sin}\theta _S),`$ (12)
$`C_{S_{11}(1650)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _S(\mathrm{cos}\theta _S+\mathrm{sin}\theta _S),`$ (13)
$`C_{D_{13}(1520)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _D(\mathrm{cos}\theta _D\sqrt{1/10}\mathrm{sin}\theta _D),`$ (14)
$`C_{D_{13}(1700)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _D(\sqrt{1/10}\mathrm{cos}\theta _D+\mathrm{sin}\theta _D).`$ (15)
## 3 Results and Discussion

Our effort to investigate the $`\gamma p\eta p`$ process has gone through three stages.

In our early work , we took advantage of the differential cross section data from MAMI  (100 data points for $`E_\gamma ^{lab}`$= 0.716 to 0.790 GeV) and polarization asymmetries measured with polarized target at ELSA  (50 data points for $`E_\gamma ^{lab}`$= 0.746 to 1.1 GeV) and polarized beam at GRAAL  (56 data points for $`E_\gamma ^{lab}`$= 0.717 to 1.1 GeV). Those data allowed us to study the reaction mechanism in the first resonance region and led to the conclusion  that the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ plays by far the major role in this energy range.

Later, differential cross section data were released by the GRAAL collaboration  (244 data points for $`E_\gamma ^{lab}`$= 0.732 to 1.1 GeV). Using the four data sets we extended our investigations to the second resonance region and performed a careful treatment of the configuration mixing effects. This work  led us to the conclusion that the inclusion of a new $`S_{11}`$ resonance was needed to interpret those data.

Finally, the third resonance region has just been covered by the CLAS g1a cross section measurements  (192 data points for $`E_\gamma ^{lab}`$= 0.775 to 1.925 GeV).

Within our approach, we are in the process of interpreting all available experimental results and report here our preliminary findings.

Below, we summarize the main ingradients of the starting point and the used procedure leadind to the models $`_1`$, $`_2`$, and $`_3`$ (see Table 2 and Figs. 1 to 3):

* Mixing angles: Our earlier works  have shown the need to go beyond the exact $`SU(6)O(3)`$ symmetry. To do so, we used the relations (12) to (15) for the $`S_{11}`$ and $`D_{13}`$ resonances and left the mixing angles $`\theta _S`$ and $`\theta _D`$ as free parameters.
* Model $`_1`$: This model includes explictly all the eleven known relevant resonances (Table 1) with mass below 2 GeV, while the contributions from the known excited resonances above 2 GeV for a given parity are assumed to be degenerate and hence written in a compact form .
* Model $`_2`$: Because of the poor agreement between the model $`_1`$ and the data above $`E_\gamma ^{lab}`$ 1 GeV, as explained below, and given our previous findings , we introduce a third $`S_{11}`$ resonance with three free parameters (namely the resonance mass, width, and strength).
* Model $`_3`$: To improve further the agreement between our results and the data, we introduce a third $`P_{13}`$ missing resonance with three additional adjustable parameters.
* Fitting procedure: The free parameters of all the above three models have been extracted using the MINUIT minimization code from the CERN Library. The fitted data base contains roughly 650 values: differential cross-sections from MAMI , GRAAL , and JLab , and the polarization asymmetry data from ELSA  and GRAAL .

In the following, we compare the results of our models with different measured observables 111The differential cross sections from JLab  were kindly provided to us by B. Ritchie and M. Dugger and were included in our fitted data-base. However, given that these data have not yet been published by the CLAS Collaboration, we do not reproduce them here..

Figure 1 shows our results at six of the CLAS data energies. At the lowest energies we compare our results with data from GRAAL and MAMI. As already mentioned, at the lowest energy the reaction mechanism is dominated by the first $`S_{11}`$ resonance and the data are equally well reproduced by the three models. At the next shown energy, $`E_\gamma ^{lab}`$=0.975 GeV, we are already in the second resonance region and the model $`_1`$ overestimates the data, while the models $`_2`$ and $`_3`$ improve equally the agreement with the data.

At $`E_\gamma ^{lab}`$=1.175 and 1.275 GeV, the model $`_1`$ underestimates the unshown JLab data (see footnote a). This is also the case at the two depicted highest energies, except at backward angles, where again the model $`_1`$ overestimates the JLab data. The reduced $`\chi ^2`$ for this latter model is 6.5, see Table 1.

The most dramatic improvement is obtained by introducing a new $`S_{11}`$ resonance (Fig. 1, model $`_2`$), which brings down the reduced $`\chi ^2`$ by more than a factor of 2.

Finally the introduction of a new $`P_{13}`$ resonance (Fig. 1, model $`_3`$) gives the best agreement with the data, though it does not play as crucial a role as the third $`S_{11}`$ resonance.

Predictions of those models for the total cross section, as well as results for the fitted polarizations observables are depicted in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. These theory/data comparisons bolster our conclusions about the new resonances, without providing further selectivity between models $`_2`$ and $`_3`$.

Here, we would like to comment on the values reported in Table 1.

Mixing angles : The extracted values for mixing angles $`\theta _S`$ and $`\theta _D`$ are identical for models $`_2`$ and $`_3`$ and differ by 3 from those of the model $`_1`$. These values are in agreement with angles determined by Isgur-Karl model  and by large-$`N_c`$ approaches .

Third $`S_{11}`$ resonance: The extracted values for the mass and width of a new $`S_{11}`$ are close to those predicted by the authors of Ref.  (M=1.712 GeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T`$=184 MeV), and our previous findings . Moreover, for the one star $`S_{11}(2090)`$ resonance , the Zagreb group coupled channel analysis  produces the following values M = 1.792 $`\pm `$ 0.023 GeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T`$ = 360 $`\pm `$ 49 MeV. The BES Collaboration reported  on the measurements of the $`J/\psi p\overline{p}\eta `$ decay channel. In the latter work, a partial wave analysis leads to the extraction of the mass and width of the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ and $`S_{11}(1650)`$ resonances, and the authors find indications for an extra resonance with $`M=`$ $`1.800\pm 0.040`$ GeV, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T=`$ $`165_{85}^{+165}`$ MeV. Finally, a recent work  based on the hypercentral constituent quark model predicts a missing $`S_{11}`$ resonance with M=1.861 GeV.

Third $`P_{13}`$ resonance: The above mentioned hypercentral CQM predicts also three $`P_{13}`$ resonances with M=1.816, 1.894, and 1.939 GeV. Finally a relativized pair-creation $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ approach  predicts four missing $`P_{13}`$ resonances in the relevant energy region with masses betwenn 1.870 and 2.030 GeV.

## 4 Concluding remarks

We reported here on a study of the process $`\gamma p\eta p`$ for $`E_\gamma ^{lab}`$ between threshold and $``$ 2 GeV, using a chiral constituent quark approach.

We show how the symmetry breaking coefficients $`C_N^{}`$ are expressed in terms of the configuration mixings in the quark model, thus establish a direct connection between the photoproduction data and the internal quark gluon structure of baryon resonances. The extracted configuration mixing angles for the $`S`$ and $`D`$ wave resonances in the second resonance region using a more complete data-base are in good agreement with the Isgur-Karl model  predictions for the configuration mixing angles based on the one gluon exchange, as well as with results coming from the large-$`N_c`$ effective field theory based approaches .

However, one of the common features in our investigation of $`\eta `$ photoproduction at higher energies is that the existing S-wave resonances can not accommodate the large S-wave component above $`E_\gamma ^{lab}`$ 1.0 GeV region. Thus, we introduce a third S-wave resonance in the second resonance region suggested in the literature . The introduction of this new resonance, improves significantly the quality of our fit and reproduces very well the cross-section increase in the second resonance region. The quality of our semi-prediction for the total cross-section and our results for the polarized target and beam asymmetries, when compared to the data, gives confidence to the presence of a third $`S_{11}`$ resonance, for which we extract some static and dynamical properties: $`M`$ 1.776 GeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T`$ 268 MeV. These results are in very good agreement with those in Refs. , and compatible with ones in Ref. . Finally, we find indications for a missing $`P_{13}`$ resonace  with $`M`$ 1.887 GeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T`$ 225 MeV.

## Acknowledgments

One of us (BS) wishes to thank the organizers for their kind invitation to this very stimulating symposium. We are intebted to Barry Ritchie and Michael Dugger for having provided us with the CLAS g1a data prior to publication.

## References