format: text

text:
# Semi-inclusive nonleptonic decays 𝐵→𝐷_𝑠^(∗)𝑋

## I Introduction

The semi-inclusive nonleptonic decays $`BD_s^{()}X_q`$ ($`q=c`$ or $`u`$), where $`X_q`$ is a hadronic system containing a $`q`$-quark, can be used to study mechanisms of the production of the $`D_s^{()}`$ meson in $`B`$ meson decays, as well as the dynamics of the strong interactions . As pointed out in Ref. , the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix element $`|V_{ub}|`$ can be determined by the measurement of the momentum spectrum of the $`D_s^{()}`$ meson in $`BD_s^{()}X_u`$. An advantage of the method***Other methods of extracting $`|V_{ub}|`$ from nonleptonic $`B`$ decays have also been proposed . is that the majority of the spectrum in the rare decays $`BD_s^{()}X_u`$ lie above the kinematic limit for $`BD_s^{()}X_c`$ which constitutes an overwhelming background. Since this method involves nonleptonic $`B`$ decays, in which only hadrons appear in the final state, the hadronic complications may be more sever than the determination of $`|V_{ub}|`$ from semileptonic decays $`B\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}X_u`$. An understanding of the strong interactions, which are responsible for the confinement of quarks and gluons in hadrons, in the weak decays is essential to a determination of $`|V_{ub}|`$.

Measurements of the branching fraction for $`BD_sX`$ have been reported by ARGUS and CLEO. The average of their results gives $`(BD_s^\pm X)=(10.0\pm 2.5)\%`$ . Recently, new precise measurements of $`D_s^+`$ and $`D_s^+`$ meson production from $`B`$ meson decays have been presented by BABAR . The results for the branching fractions are $`(BD_s^+X)=(10.93\pm 0.19\pm 0.58\pm 2.73)\%`$ and $`(BD_s^+X)=(7.9\pm 0.8\pm 0.7\pm 2.0)\%`$. As for the rare decays $`BD_s^{()}X_u`$, none of them have been experimentally measured. With high-statistics event sample from the $`B`$ factories, coupled with improvements in detector performance and analysis techniques, measurements of $`BD_s^{()}X_u`$ might be possible in the near future.

The $`bq\overline{c}s`$ tree transition is expected to dominate $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_q`$ decays. In these processes the $`b`$ quark decays to a $`c`$ or a $`u`$ quark, emitting a virtual $`W`$ that fragments to a $`\overline{c}s`$ quark pair that subsequently hadronizes into a $`D_s^{()}`$ meson. The effective weak Hamiltonian responsible for the decays is well known , which is based on the operator product expansion  and the renormalization group . The problem is how to calculate hadronic matrix elements of four-quark operators in the effective weak Hamiltonian. Factorization hypothesis has widely been used in calculations of nonleptonic $`B`$ decays, which reduce the hadronic matrix element of a four-quark operator to the product of two matrix elements of current operators . The argument for factorization is based on the space-time evolution of the decay products . At the quark level the decay $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_q`$ begins as a nearly collinear configuration of $`bq+(\overline{c}s)`$, with $`q`$ and the $`(\overline{c}s)`$ pair moving rapidly apart in opposite directions. When the color singlet $`D_s^{()}`$ meson is formed, it is far away from the hadronic system $`X_q`$ recoiling against it. The strong interaction between them is expected to be not significant. Therefore, the hadronic matrix element can be factorized into a product of hadronic matrix elements of color-singlet quark currents. For $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_c`$ due to limited energy release this argument is considered to be weaker than $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_u`$. Factorization in the nonleptonic $`B`$ decays with the emission particle being a light meson can be justified more rigorously in the heavy quark limit using perturbative QCD, where the emission particle means the one that does not inherit the spectator quark from the $`B`$ meson . Unfortunately, this is not the case for both $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_c`$ and $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_u`$ decays, where the emission particle is $`D_s^{()}`$ that is not light. Nevertheless, factorization has been found to hold with current accuracy in the color-favored decay modes $`\overline{B^0}D_s^{()}D^{()+}`$, where no perturbative QCD justification has been presented . Thus, we have some confidence in the applicability of factorization to the color-favored decay modes $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_q`$.

In this paper, we analyze $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_q`$ decays in some detail. We shall calculate the total and differential $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_q`$ decay rates assuming factorization. We include the contributions of penguin diagrams to $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_c`$ decays, which turn out to be small but non-negligible. After factorization the long-distance QCD effects on $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_q`$ decays are contained in two matrix elements: One is related to the decay constant for the $`D_s^{()}`$ meson, accounting for the direct generation of the $`D_s^{()}`$ meson from the vacuum by the $`\overline{c}s`$ current forming the weak Hamiltonian, while the other incorporates the effect of the initial $`b`$ quark bound state in the $`B`$ meson, which relates a $`b`$-quark decay to a $`B`$-meson decay. The treatment of the initial bound state effect will be the main focus of this paper. We shall use the light-cone expansion and the heavy quark effective theory (HQET)  to make our calculations aimed at understanding this effect from QCD.

## II Factorization

Both $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_c`$ and $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_u`$ involve tree amplitudes. In addition, penguin amplitudes contribute to $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_c`$. The annihilation and exchange diagrams are estimated to give much smaller contributions than the tree diagram . We shall neglect them. The relevant $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=1`$ effective Hamiltonian reads

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{V_{qb}V_{cs}^{}(c_1O_1^q+c_2O_2^q)V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\underset{n=3}{\overset{10}{}}c_nO_n\right\},$$
(1)
where $`O_{1,2}^q`$ are the tree operators and $`O_{36}`$ $`(O_{710})`$ the QCD (electroweak) penguin operators. They are given by

$`O_1^q=(\overline{q}_ib_i)_{VA}(\overline{s}_jc_j)_{VA},O_2^q=(\overline{q}_ib_j)_{VA}(\overline{s}_jc_i)_{VA},`$ (2)
$`O_{3(5)}=(\overline{s}_ib_i)_{VA}{\displaystyle \underset{q^{}}{}}(\overline{q}_j^{}q_j^{})_{V(+)A},O_{4(6)}=(\overline{s}_ib_j)_{VA}{\displaystyle \underset{q^{}}{}}(\overline{q}_j^{}q_i^{})_{V(+)A},`$ (3)
$`O_{7(9)}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(\overline{s}_ib_i)_{VA}{\displaystyle \underset{q^{}}{}}e_q^{}(\overline{q}_j^{}q_j^{})_{V+()A},O_{8(10)}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(\overline{s}_ib_j)_{VA}{\displaystyle \underset{q^{}}{}}e_q^{}(\overline{q}_j^{}q_i^{})_{V+()A},`$ (4)
where $`i`$ and $`j`$ are color indices, $`(\overline{q}_1q_2)_{V\pm A}=\overline{q}_1\gamma _\mu (1\pm \gamma _5)q_2`$, the summation runs over $`q^{}=u,d,s,c,b`$, and $`e_q^{}`$ is the electric charge of the $`q^{}`$ quark in units of $`|e|`$.

The Wilson coefficients $`c_n`$ have been calculated in different schemes . In this paper we shall consistently use the naive dimensional regularization scheme. Including the next-to-leading order QCD corrections, the values of $`c_n`$ at the renormalization scale $`m_b`$ are

$`c_1=1.082,c_2=0.185,c_3=0.014,c_4=0.035,c_5=0.009,c_6=0.041,`$ (5)
$`c_7=0.002\alpha _{em},c_8=0.054\alpha _{em},c_9=1.292\alpha _{em},c_{10}=0.263\alpha _{em}.`$ (6)
Here $`\alpha _{em}=1/137`$ is the electromagnetic fine structure constant.

Under the factorization hypothesis, we obtain from the effective Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) the decay amplitudes

$`A(\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c)=if_{D_s}\left(\alpha p_{D_s}^\mu X_c|j_\mu ^c|\overline{B}+\beta X_c|J|\overline{B}\right),`$ (7)
$`A(\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c)=\alpha m_{D_s^{}}f_{D_s^{}}ϵ^\mu X_c|j_\mu ^c|\overline{B},`$ (8)
$`A(\overline{B}D_s^{}X_u)=i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ub}V_{cs}^{}a_1f_{D_s}p_{D_s}^\mu X_u|j_\mu ^u|\overline{B},`$ (9)
$`A(\overline{B}D_s^{}X_u)={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ub}V_{cs}^{}a_1m_{D_s^{}}f_{D_s^{}}ϵ^\mu X_u|j_\mu ^u|\overline{B},`$ (10)
where

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}[V_{cb}V_{cs}^{}a_1V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}(a_4+a_{10})],`$ (11)
$`\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}(a_6+a_8){\displaystyle \frac{2m_{D_s}^2}{m_c+m_s}},`$ (12)
$`a_{2i}=c_{2i}+{\displaystyle \frac{c_{2i1}}{N_c}},`$ (13)
$`a_{2i1}=c_{2i1}+{\displaystyle \frac{c_{2i}}{N_c}}.`$ (14)
$`N_c`$ is the number of colors. The currents $`j_\mu ^q=\overline{q}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b`$ and $`J=\overline{c}(1\gamma _5)b`$.

We have defined the decay constants of the pseudoscalar $`D_s`$ meson and the vector $`D_s^{}`$ meson as

$`D_s^{}(p_{D_s})|\overline{s}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5c|0=if_{D_s}p_{D_s}^\mu ,`$ (15)
$`D_s^{}(p_{D_s^{}},ϵ)|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu c|0=m_{D_s^{}}f_{D_s^{}}ϵ_\mu ^{(\lambda )},`$ (16)
where $`ϵ`$ stands for the polarization vector of the $`D_s^{}`$ meson. Using the definition (15) and the Dirac equation, it follows that

$$D_s^{}|\overline{s}(1+\gamma _5)c|0=if_{D_s}\frac{m_{D_s}^2}{m_c+m_s},$$
(17)
which has been used to obtain Eq. (7).

## III Initial bound state effect

In this section we study the initial $`b`$-quark bound state effect on $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_q`$ using the light-cone expansion and the heavy quark effective theory. In the following we work out, in detail, the formulation for $`\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c`$. The results for $`\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c`$ and $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_u`$, which have a simpler structure in decay amplitudes, can be easily obtained along the same lines.

The differential decay rate for $`\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c`$ in the $`\overline{B}`$ rest frame is given by

$$d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c)=\frac{1}{2m_B}\frac{d^3𝐩_{D_s}}{(2\pi )^32E_{D_s}}\underset{X_c}{}(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p_Bp_{D_s}p_{X_c})|A(\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c)|^2.$$
(18)
Applying $`d^4y\text{exp}[iy(p_Bp_{D_s}p_{X_c})]=(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p_Bp_{D_s}p_{X_c})`$, $`X_c|Q_\mu (0)|\overline{B}=X_c|Q_\mu (y)|\overline{B}\text{exp}[iy(p_{X_c}p_B)]`$ due to translation invariance, and the completeness of the hadronic states $`|X_c`$, we obtain from Eq. (7)

$`{\displaystyle \underset{X_c}{}}`$ $`(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p_Bp_{D_s}p_{X_c})|A(\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c)|^2`$ (21)
$`=f_{D_s}^2{\displaystyle }d^4ye^{iyp_{D_s}}(|\alpha |^2p_{D_s}^\mu p_{D_s}^\nu \overline{B}|[j_\nu ^c(0),j_\mu ^c(y)]|\overline{B}+|\beta |^2\overline{B}|[J^{}(0),J(y)]|\overline{B}`$
$`+\alpha \beta ^{}p_{D_s}^\mu \overline{B}|[J^{}(0),j_\mu ^c(y)]|\overline{B}+\alpha ^{}\beta p_{D_s}^\mu \overline{B}|[j_\mu ^c(0),J(y)]|\overline{B}).`$
Computing the commutators of currents yields

$`{\displaystyle \underset{X_c}{}}`$ $`(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p_Bp_{D_s}p_{X_c})|A(\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c)|^2`$ (24)
$`=2f_{D_s}^2\left(|\alpha |^2S_{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }p_{D_s}^\mu p_{D_s}^\nu +|\beta |^2g_{\alpha \beta }\right){\displaystyle d^4ye^{iyp_{D_s}}\left[^\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_c(y)\right]\overline{B}|\overline{b}(0)\gamma ^\beta U(0,y)b(y)|\overline{B}}`$
$`2f_{D_s}^2(\alpha \beta ^{}+\alpha ^{}\beta )m_cp_{D_s}^\beta {\displaystyle d^4ye^{iyp_{D_s}}i\mathrm{\Delta }_c(y)\overline{B}|\overline{b}(0)\gamma _\beta U(0,y)b(y)|\overline{B}},`$
where $`S_{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }=g_{\mu \alpha }g_{\nu \beta }+g_{\mu \beta }g_{\nu \alpha }g_{\mu \nu }g_{\alpha \beta }`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_q(y)=\frac{i}{(2\pi )^3}d^4ke^{iky}\epsilon (k^0)\delta (k^2m_q^2).$$
(25)
The soft gluon interactions on the final state $`c`$ quark appear in the Wilson line operator

$$U(x,y)=𝒫\text{exp}[ig_s_y^x𝑑z^\mu A_\mu (z)],$$
(26)
where $`𝒫`$ denotes path-ordering and $`A^\mu `$ is the background gluon field. The initial bound state effect is contained in the matrix element of the non-local $`b`$-quark operator, $`\overline{B}|\overline{b}(0)\gamma ^\beta U(0,y)b(y)|\overline{B}`$. We note that the same matrix element also incorporates bound state effects in other inclusive $`B`$-meson decays, including $`B\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}X_q`$ , $`B\gamma X_s`$ , and $`BK^{()}X`$ . We shall use the light-cone expansion to calculate the matrix element. The light-cone expansion enables a systematic ordering of nonperturbative QCD effects as an expansion in powers of a small parameter of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2/m_B^2`$. The general method has been described in . We shall restrict ourselves here to the essential steps only.

Each integrand of the integrals in Eq. (24) contains an oscillating factor $`e^{iyp_{D_s}}`$. The dominant contribution comes from domains with less rapid oscillations, i.e., $`|yp_{D_s}|1`$. This implies that for sufficiently large momentum of the outgoing $`D_s`$ meson, the decay dynamics is dominated by spacetime separations in the neighborhood of the light cone $`y^2=0`$. The light-cone dominance is also justified since the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c(y)`$ in the integrals in Eq. (24) has a singularity at $`y^2=0`$. Therefore, at leading twist we haveHigher twist effects have been analyzed quantitatively in . They give rise to corrections of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2/m_B^2`$ and can be added systematically. The calculation of higher twist effects on the processes under consideration is beyond the scope of this paper.

$$\overline{B}|\overline{b}(0)\gamma ^\beta U(0,y)b(y)|\overline{B}=2p_B^\beta _0^1𝑑\xi e^{i\xi yp_B}f(\xi ),$$
(27)
where $`f(\xi )`$ is the $`b`$-quark distribution function of the $`B`$ meson introduced in Refs.

$$f(\xi )=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{d(yp_B)}{yp_B}e^{i\xi yp_B}\overline{B}|\overline{b}(0)y/U(0,y)b(y)|\overline{B}|_{y^2=0}.$$
(28)
Note that $`f(\xi )`$ depends only on the properties of the $`B`$-meson bound state and is not specific to particular $`B`$-meson decay process in question. Thus, $`f(\xi )`$ is a universal distribution as fundamental as parton distributions in deep inelastic scattering. It has the interpretation of the probability of finding a $`b`$-quark with momentum $`\xi p_B`$ inside the $`B`$ meson with momentum $`p_B`$ .

Assembling all the pieces, we obtain the momentum spectrum for $`D_s^{}`$ in $`\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d|𝐩_{D_s}|}}(\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{D_s}^2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩_{D_s}|^2}{E_{D_s}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\xi f(\xi )\epsilon (E_{D_s}m_B\xi )`$ (32)
$`\times \delta (m_B^2\xi ^22m_BE_{D_s}\xi +m_{D_s}^2m_c^2)`$
$`\times [|\alpha |^2(m_{D_s}^2E_{D_s}+m_Bm_{D_s}^2\xi 2m_BE_{D_s}^2\xi )+|\beta |^2(E_{D_s}m_B\xi )`$
$`(\alpha \beta ^{}+\alpha ^{}\beta )m_cE_{D_s}].`$
Carrying out the $`\delta `$-function integration in Eq. (32), we finally arrive at

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d|𝐩_{D_s}|}}(\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{D_s}^2}{2\pi m_B}}{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩_{D_s}|^2}{E_{D_s}\sqrt{|𝐩_{D_s}|^2+m_c^2}}}`$ (36)
$`\times \{f(\xi _+^c)[|\alpha |^2(2m_BE_{D_s}^2\xi _+^cm_Bm_{D_s}^2\xi _+^cm_{D_s}^2E_{D_s})`$
$`+|\beta |^2(m_B\xi _+^cE_{D_s})+(\alpha \beta ^{}+\alpha ^{}\beta )m_cE_{D_s}]`$
$`(\xi _+^c\xi _{}^c)\},`$
where

$$\xi _\pm ^q=\frac{E_{D_s}\pm \sqrt{|𝐩_{D_s}|^2+m_q^2}}{m_B}.$$
(37)
The interference between the tree and penguin amplitudes is associated with the coefficients $`|\alpha |^2`$ and $`\alpha \beta ^{}+\alpha ^{}\beta `$.

In the case of the $`\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c`$ and $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_u`$ decays, similar considerations lead to the momentum spectra in the $`\overline{B}`$ rest frame

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d|𝐩_{D_s^{}}|}}(\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{D_s^{}}^2}{2\pi m_B}}|\alpha |^2{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩_{D_s^{}}|^2}{E_{D_s^{}}\sqrt{|𝐩_{D_s^{}}|^2+m_c^2}}}`$ (39)
$`\times \left[f(\xi _+^c)\left(2m_BE_{D_s^{}}^2\xi _+^c+m_Bm_{D_s^{}}^2\xi _+^c3m_{D_s^{}}^2E_{D_s^{}}\right)\left(\xi _+^c\xi _{}^c\right)\right],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d|𝐩_{D_s}|}}(\overline{B}D_s^{}X_u)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2}{4\pi m_B}}|V_{ub}V_{cs}^{}|^2a_1^2f_{D_s}^2{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩_{D_s}|^2}{E_{D_s}\sqrt{|𝐩_{D_s}|^2+m_u^2}}}`$ (41)
$`\times \left[f(\xi _+^u)\left(2m_BE_{D_s}^2\xi _+^um_Bm_{D_s}^2\xi _+^um_{D_s}^2E_{D_s}\right)\left(\xi _+^u\xi _{}^u\right)\right],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d|𝐩_{D_s^{}}|}}(\overline{B}D_s^{}X_u)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2}{4\pi m_B}}|V_{ub}V_{cs}^{}|^2a_1^2f_{D_s^{}}^2{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩_{D_s^{}}|^2}{E_{D_s^{}}\sqrt{|𝐩_{D_s^{}}|^2+m_u^2}}}`$ (43)
$`\times \left[f(\xi _+^u)\left(2m_BE_{D_s^{}}^2\xi _+^u+m_Bm_{D_s^{}}^2\xi _+^u3m_{D_s^{}}^2E_{D_s^{}}\right)\left(\xi _+^u\xi _{}^u\right)\right],`$
where

$$\xi _\pm ^q=\frac{E_{D_s^{}}\pm \sqrt{|𝐩_{D_s^{}}|^2+m_q^2}}{m_B}.$$
(44)
For a longitudinally polarized $`D_s^{}`$ we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{d|𝐩_{D_s^{}}|}}`$ $`[\overline{B}D_s^{}(\lambda =0)X_c]`$ (47)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{f_{D_s^{}}^2}{2\pi m_B}}|\alpha |^2{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩_{D_s^{}}|^2}{E_{D_s^{}}\sqrt{|𝐩_{D_s^{}}|^2+m_c^2}}}`$
$`\times \left[f(\xi _+^c)\left(2m_B|𝐩_{D_s^{}}|^2\xi _+^c+m_Bm_{D_s^{}}^2\xi _+^cm_{D_s^{}}^2E_{D_s^{}}\right)\left(\xi _+^c\xi _{}^c\right)\right].`$
For a transversely polarized $`D_s^{}`$ we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_T}{d|𝐩_{D_s^{}}|}}`$ $`[\overline{B}D_s^{}(\lambda =\pm 1)X_c]`$ (49)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{m_{D_s^{}}^2f_{D_s^{}}^2}{\pi m_B}}|\alpha |^2{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩_{D_s^{}}|^2}{E_{D_s^{}}\sqrt{|𝐩_{D_s^{}}|^2+m_c^2}}}\left[f(\xi _+^c)\left(m_B\xi _+^cE_{D_s^{}}\right)\left(\xi _+^c\xi _{}^c\right)\right].`$
From Eq. (36) one can easily obtain the hadronic invariant mass spectrum for $`X_c`$ in $`\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c`$ using the relation

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dm_{X_c}}(\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c)=\frac{m_{X_c}E_{D_s}}{m_B|𝐩_{D_s}|}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d|𝐩_{D_s}|}(\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c).$$
(50)
Similar formulas hold for the hadronic invariant mass spectra in $`\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c`$ and $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_u`$.

The total decay rates can be obtained by integrating Eqs. (36), (39)-(43), (47) and (49) with respect to $`|𝐩_{D_s^{()}}|`$ over the entire kinematic range

$$0|𝐩_{D_s^{()}}|\sqrt{[(m_B+m_{D_s^{()}})^2m_{X_{q_{\mathrm{min}}}}^2][(m_Bm_{D_s^{()}})^2m_{X_{q_{\mathrm{min}}}}^2]}/(2m_B),$$
(51)
where $`m_{X_{q_{\mathrm{min}}}}`$ is the minimum value of the invariant mass of the hadronic system $`X_q`$.

Measurements of the ratio of the decay rate for the longitudinally polarized $`D_s^{}`$ to the total decay rate for $`\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c`$ have a good potential for testing the theory, since the theoretical uncertainties partly cancel in the ratio and most of experimental systematic errors also cancel.

The leading effect of the initial $`B`$ bound state is encoded in the distribution function $`f(\xi )`$. Since it is a nonperturbative QCD object, $`f(\xi )`$ has not yet been completely determined. Nevertheless, several important properties of it are known in QCD . The distribution function is exactly normalized to unity, $`_0^1𝑑\xi f(\xi )=1`$, because of the conservation of the $`b`$-quark vector current by the strong interactions. For a free $`b`$-quark, $`b(y)=e^{iyp_b}b(0)`$. From Eq. (28) it follows then that in the free quark limit

$$f_{\mathrm{free}}(\xi )=\delta \left(\xi \frac{m_b}{m_B}\right).$$
(52)
The mean $`\xi =_0^1𝑑\xi \xi f(\xi )`$ and the variance $`\sigma ^2=(\xi \xi )^2=_0^1𝑑\xi (\xi \xi )^2f(\xi )`$ characterize the location of the “center of mass” of the distribution function and the square of its width, respectively. They specify the gross shape of the distribution function. They have been estimated using the heavy quark effective theory. The results are

$`\xi ={\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{m_B}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6m_b^2}}(\lambda _1+3\lambda _2)\right],`$ (53)
$`\sigma ^2={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{3m_B^2}},`$ (54)
where $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are the HQET parameters, which are defined as

$`\lambda _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_B}}\overline{B}|\overline{h}_v(iD)^2h_v|\overline{B},`$ (55)
$`\lambda _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12m_B}}\overline{B}|\overline{h}_vg_sG_{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }h_v|\overline{B}.`$ (56)
Both of them are expected to be of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2`$. These imply that the distribution function is sharply peaked around $`m_b/m_B`$ with a width of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_B`$. This is in line with the expectation that the $`b`$ quark should carry most of the momentum of the $`B`$ meson.

Another important property of the distribution function, discussed previously, is universality. This implies that the distribution function can be extracted from measurements of one process, and then applied to predict others in a model-independent way. Indeed, the shape of the distribution function can be directly extracted from $`B\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}X_q`$  or $`B\gamma X_s`$  decays. This could eventually improve the precision of theoretical predictions.

For numerical analyses we take the following parameterization for the distribution function

$`f(\xi )=N{\displaystyle \frac{\xi (1\xi )^c}{[(\xi a)^2+b^2]^d}},`$ (57)
where $`N`$ is a normalization constant which guarantees $`_0^1𝑑\xi f(\xi )=1`$. The four shape parameters, $`(a,b,c,d)`$, obey all the known constraints on the distribution function. Once the parameters $`c`$ and $`d`$ are given, the parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$ can be fixed by comparing with $`\xi `$ and $`\sigma ^2`$ given in Eqs. (53) and (54). Unfortunately, we do not know the values for $`c`$ and $`d`$ at present. We shall take $`c`$ and $`d`$ to be free parameters and vary them to gain an idea of how the momentum spectra for $`D_s^{()}`$ and branching fractions depend on the shape of $`f(\xi )`$. Eventually, the shape of the distribution function can be determined from experimental data. The parameterization (57) facilitates the comparison to data.

## IV Free quark limit

In order to understand the bound state dynamics of the $`B`$ meson in the semi-inclusive $`B`$ meson decays, we should consider the decay rates for the free quark decays, $`bD_s^{()}q`$, which give us a reference point.

In the free quark limit, the distribution function becomes a $`\delta `$-function. Substituting the free $`b`$-quark distribution function Eq. (52) in Eqs. (36) \[or, most easily, Eq. (32)\] and (39)-(43), we reproduce the corresponding total decay rates for the free quark decays in the rest frame of the $`b`$ quark:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(bD_s^{}c)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{D_s}^2}{4\pi m_b^2}}|𝐩_{D_s}|\{|\alpha |^2[(m_b^2m_c^2)^2m_{D_s}^2(m_b^2+m_c^2)]+|\beta |^2(m_b^2+m_c^2m_{D_s}^2)`$ (59)
$`+(\alpha \beta ^{}+\alpha ^{}\beta )m_c(m_b^2m_c^2+m_{D_s}^2)\},`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(bD_s^{}c)={\displaystyle \frac{f_{D_s^{}}^2}{4\pi m_b^2}}|\alpha |^2|𝐩_{D_s^{}}|[(m_b^2m_c^2)^2+m_{D_s^{}}^2(m_b^2+m_c^22m_{D_s^{}}^2)],`$ (60)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(bD_s^{}u)={\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2}{8\pi m_b^2}}|V_{ub}V_{cs}^{}|^2a_1^2f_{D_s}^2|𝐩_{D_s}|[(m_b^2m_u^2)^2m_{D_s}^2(m_b^2+m_u^2)],`$ (61)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(bD_s^{}u)={\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2}{8\pi m_b^2}}|V_{ub}V_{cs}^{}|^2a_1^2f_{D_s^{}}^2|𝐩_{D_s^{}}|[(m_b^2m_u^2)^2+m_{D_s^{}}^2(m_b^2+m_u^22m_{D_s^{}}^2)].`$ (62)
Similarly, substituting Eq. (52) in Eqs. (47) and (49), we reproduce the corresponding decay rates for $`bD_s^{}c`$ with the longitudinal and transverse polarizations of $`D_s^{}`$, respectively,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L[bD_s^{}(\lambda =0)c]={\displaystyle \frac{f_{D_s^{}}^2}{4\pi m_b^2}}|\alpha |^2|𝐩_{D_s^{}}|[(m_b^2m_c^2)^2m_{D_s^{}}^2(m_b^2+m_c^2)],`$ (63)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T[bD_s^{}(\lambda =\pm 1)c]={\displaystyle \frac{m_{D_s^{}}^2f_{D_s^{}}^2}{2\pi m_b^2}}|\alpha |^2|𝐩_{D_s^{}}|(m_b^2+m_c^2m_{D_s^{}}^2).`$ (64)
It follows from Eqs. (60) and (63) that the ratio of the decay rate for the longitudinally polarized $`D_s^{}`$ to the total decay rate for $`bD_s^{}c`$

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(bD_s^{}c)=1\frac{2m_{D_s^{}}^2(m_b^2+m_c^2m_{D_s^{}}^2)}{(m_b^2m_c^2)^2+m_{D_s^{}}^2(m_b^2+m_c^22m_{D_s^{}}^2)}.$$
(65)
Our results for the part of the free quark decay rate involving tree diagrams agree with Refs. . It should be stressed that the reproduction of the free quark decay results by taking the free quark limit of the leading twist results shows consistency of the light-cone expansion.

All the momentum spectra for $`D_s^{()}`$ in the free quark decays $`bD_s^{()}q`$ are a discrete line localized at

$$|𝐩_{D_s^{()}}|=\sqrt{[(m_b+m_{D_s^{()}})^2m_q^2][(m_bm_{D_s^{()}})^2m_q^2]}/(2m_b)$$
(66)
because the momentum of $`D_s^{()}`$ in the two-body decay is fixed kinematically.

As shown in the last section, at the hadron level the momentum spectrum for $`D_s^{()}`$ in $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_q`$ spreads over the kinematic range given in Eq. (51), due to the fact that the hadronic invariant mass $`m_{X_q}`$ is changeable. However, since the heavy $`b`$ quark in the $`B`$ meson is nearly free, most of the spectrum remain around the free quark decay location of (66). This is the phase space region where light-cone dominance occurs.

For measurements of $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_u`$ one can apply the cut on the $`D_s^{()}`$ momentum above the limit for charm production in the decay, $`|𝐩_{D_s^{()}}|>\sqrt{[(m_B+m_{D_s^{()}})^2m_D^2][(m_Bm_{D_s^{()}})^2m_D^2]}/(2m_B)`$, to suppress the $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_c`$ background. Since this cut is well below the free quark decay location of (66), the majority of the momentum spectrum in $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_u`$ pass the cut, as we shall see.

## V Numerical analyses

For numerical analyses, we must specify the values of the input parameters. We use $`G_F=1.16639\times 10^5`$ GeV-2, $`m_B=5.279`$ GeV, $`m_{D_s}=1.969`$ GeV, $`m_{D_s^{}}=2.112`$ GeV, $`m_D=1.87`$ GeV, and $`m_\pi =0`$. We neglect the $`B^+`$, $`B^0`$ lifetime difference and use $`\tau _B=1.6\times 10^{12}`$ sec. For quark masses, we use $`m_b=4.9`$ GeV, $`m_c=1.5`$ GeV, $`m_s=120`$ MeV, and $`m_u=0`$. As for the CKM matrix elements, we take $`|V_{ub}|=0.0035`$, $`|V_{cs}|=0.9742`$, $`|V_{cb}|=|V_{ts}|=0.04`$, and $`|V_{tb}|=0.9992`$. Since the phase $`\omega _{ud}\mathrm{arg}(V_{cs}^{}V_{tb}^{}V_{cb}V_{ts})`$ is very small, we assume $`\mathrm{cos}\omega _{ud}=1`$. For the decay constants, we take $`f_{D_s}=264`$ MeV from the measurements of the leptonic branching fractions Br($`D_s\tau \nu `$) and Br($`D_s\mu \nu `$)  and assume $`f_{D_s^{}}=f_{D_s}`$. We take $`m_{X_{c_{\mathrm{min}}}}=m_c`$ for $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_c`$ and $`m_{X_{u_{\mathrm{min}}}}=0`$ for $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_u`$. Finally, we consider two very different shapes of the distribution function parameterized in Eq. (57), corresponding to two sets of parameters: (i) preset $`c=d=1`$, in that case $`a=0.9548`$ and $`b=0.005444`$, which are inferred from the known mean value and variance of the distribution function given by Eqs. (53) and (54) using the HQET parameters $`\lambda _1=0.5`$ GeV2 and $`\lambda _2=0.12`$ GeV2; (ii) preset $`c=d=2`$, in that case $`a=0.9864`$ and $`b=0.02557`$ inferred from the same mean value and variance of the distribution function .

We first compute the branching fractions for $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_q`$. It turns out that the branching fractions are not sensitive to the detailed shape of the distribution function. The difference between the branching fractions obtained using the parameter sets (i) and (ii) for the distribution function is negligible. The results for the direct production of $`D_s^{()}`$ in semi-inclusive B decays are

$`(\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c)=4.0\%,`$ (67)
$`(\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c)=5.4\%,`$ (68)
$`(\overline{B}D_s^{}X_u)=4.8\times 10^4,`$ (69)
$`(\overline{B}D_s^{}X_u)=6.2\times 10^4.`$ (70)
The calculated branching fraction for $`\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c`$ is in agreement with the measured one by BABAR quoted in the Introduction. Because $`D_s^{}`$ decays to $`D_s^{}\gamma `$ or $`D_s^{}\pi ^0`$, we can compare the sum of both channels, $`(\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c)+(\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c)=9.4\%`$, from Eq. (70) with the measured branching fraction for $`BD_s^\pm X`$ quoted in the Introduction. The comparison shows an encouraging agreement.

We find that the contribution of the penguin amplitude decreases the branching fraction for $`\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c`$ by $`3\%`$ and the branching fraction for $`\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c`$ by $`6\%`$. So the penguin contribution is small but non-negligible, especially for $`\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c`$.

Comparing with the calculations in the free quark decays $`bD_s^{()}q`$, we find that all the branching fractions for $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_q`$ are enhanced by the initial bound state effect by about $`5\%`$.

The ratio of the decay rate for the longitudinally polarized $`D_s^{}`$ to the total decay rate for $`\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c`$ is also insensitive to the detailed shape of the distribution function. The bound state effect increases the ratio by $`2\%`$ compared to the free quark decay. We obtain

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\overline{B}D_s^{}X_c)=0.66.$$
(71)
Now we turn to the differential decay rates. Figures 1-4 show the momentum spectra for $`D_s^{()}`$ in $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_q`$. We choose to use two very different shapes of the distribution function to calculate the spectra. In contrast to the integrated decay rates, all the spectra depend strongly on the shape of the distribution function. Hence measurements of the spectra can provide useful information about the nonperturbative distribution function.

As Figs. 3 and 4 make clear, the majority of the momentum spectrum for $`D_s^{()}`$ in the decay mode $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_u`$ lie above the kinematic limit for the dominated decay mode $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_c`$, which is $`|𝐩_{D_s}|>1.81`$ GeV for $`\overline{B}D_s^{}X_u`$ and $`|𝐩_{D_s^{}}|>1.73`$ GeV for $`\overline{B}D_s^{}X_u`$. The fraction of spectrum above the charmed limit is not sensitive to the shape of the distribution function. We find that about $`98\%`$ of the spectrum goes beyond the charmed limit. Thus, the kinematic cut on the momentum of $`D_s^{()}`$ provides an efficient discrimination between $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_u`$ decays and $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_c`$ decays.

## VI Discussion and Conclusion

We have calculated the total and differential $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_q`$ decay rates assuming factorization. We have treated the initial bound state effect using the light-cone expansion and the heavy quark effective theory, generating a theoretical description of this effect from QCD rather than the phenomenological model . The resulting branching fractions for $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_c`$ are found to be in agreement with the measurements. This suggests that factorization is a fair approximation for these decay modes. However, there are still considerable uncertainties in the theoretical calculations and experimental measurements. Theoretical uncertainties arise from the input parameters, the $`b`$-quark distribution function, the higher twist corrections, and the radiative corrections. The uncertainty in the decay rate from the error on the decay constant $`f_{D_s}`$ alone  is already quite large ($`30\%`$).

For the determination of $`|V_{ub}|`$ from $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_u`$, additional theoretical uncertainty results from the underlying factorization hypothesis itself. It is hard to quantify this uncertainty. Therefore, $`|V_{ub}|`$ determined from the semi-inclusive nonleptonic decay $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_u`$ will not be competitive with that determined from the inclusive semileptonic decay $`\overline{B}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}X_u`$ . Nevertheless, $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_u`$ will provide a useful independent measurement of $`|V_{ub}|`$ with very different systematic errors. On the other hand, using $`|V_{ub}|`$ determined from the inclusive semileptonic $`B`$ decay, the range of validity of calculational tools for addressing QCD can be tested and established in $`\overline{B}D_s^{()}X_u`$,

###### Acknowledgements.

It is a pleasure to thank Berthold Stech for useful discussions. This work is supported by the Australian Research Council.


text:
# On the Density of Cold Dark Matter.

## I Introduction

The new results on Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropy from TOCO (, BOOMERanG (, ), MAXIMA (), and DASI  experiments represent an extraordinary success for the standard cosmological model of structure formation based on Cold Dark Matter (CDM) and adiabatic primordial perturbations (see e.g. ). Furthermore, early data releases from the 2dFGRS and SDSS galaxy redshift surveys (, ) are living up to expectations and combined analysis of all these datasets are placing strong constraints on most cosmological parameters ( ,).

However, even if theory and observations are in spectacular agreement on large ($`\stackrel{>}{}1\mathrm{M}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}`$) scales, various discrepancies seem to be present on smaller (sub-galactic) scales. In particular, numerical simulations of CDM models yield an excess of small-scale power, producing, for example, more satellite galaxies than observed () and cuspy galactic halos with excessive dark mass concentrations (, ), while on the smallest scales probed, gravitational lensing (,) prefers CDM substructure. Many authors have addressed these issues and many solutions have been proposed, ranging from modifications of the properties of the CDM particles to the introduction of new physics and to a refinement of the astrophysical processes involved in the simulations.

One way to address these issues is by detection of dark matter. The key quantity of relevance to dark matter searches is the CDM density, which specifies the dark matter annihilation cross-section. In this paper, we use the latest CMB and deep redshift surveys data in order to simultaneously constrain the most important cosmological observables related to CDM: the CDM density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2`$, the spectral tilt $`n_S`$ of the primordial power spectrum and the rms mass fluctuations in spheres of $`8h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, $`\sigma _8`$.

We extend and complement recent studies (see e.g. , , ) by studying the stability of the constraints towards different theoretical assumptions such as, for example, a dark energy equation of state parameter $`w_Q>1`$ (quintessence) or an extra background of relativistic particles ($`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu ^{eff}>0`$). Furthermore, under the assumption of CDM, we extrapolate the cosmological constraints into a measurement of the linear rms density fluctuations on sub-galactic mass scales.

## II Cosmological Constraints on CDM

### A Method

We compare the recent CMB observations with a set of models with 6 parameters sampled as follows: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2\omega _{cdm}=0.01,\mathrm{}0.40`$, in steps of $`0.01`$; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2\omega _b=0.001,\mathrm{},0.040`$, in steps of $`0.001`$; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.0,\mathrm{},1.0`$, in steps of $`0.05`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.1,\mathrm{},1.0`$, in steps of $`0.05`$. The value of the Hubble constant is not an independent parameter, since:

$$h=\sqrt{\frac{\omega _{cdm}+\omega _b}{1\mathrm{\Omega }_k\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}.$$
(1)
We vary the spectral index of the primordial density perturbations within the range $`n_s=0.60,\mathrm{},1.40`$ (in steps of $`0.02`$) and we rescale the amplitude of the fluctuations by a pre-factor $`C_{10}`$, in units of $`C_{10}^{COBE}`$, with $`0.50<C_{10}<1.40`$. In order to test the stability of our results under variation of some of the theoretical assumptions, we also consider variations in the dark energy equation of state parameter $`w_Q=1.0,\mathrm{},0.5`$ as expected in quintessence models (see e.g. , , , ) and of an extra background of relativistic particles with $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu =0.3,\mathrm{},9`$ in steps of $`0.3`$ (see  and references therein).

The theoretical models are computed using a modified version of the publicly available cmbfast code  and are compared with the recent BOOMERanG-98, DASI and MAXIMA-1 results. The power spectra from these experiments were estimated in $`19`$, $`9`$ and $`13`$ bins respectively, spanning the range $`25\mathrm{}1150`$. For the DASI and MAXIMA-I experiments we use the publicly available correlation matrices and window functions. For the BOOMERanG experiment we assign a flat interpolation for the spectrum in each bin $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}/2\pi =C_B`$, we approximate the signal $`C_B`$ inside the bin to be a Gaussian variable and we consider $`10\%`$ correlations between the various bins. The likelihood for a given cosmological model is then defined by $`2\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}=(C_B^{th}C_B^{ex})M_{BB^{}}(C_B^{}^{th}C_B^{}^{ex})`$ where $`M_{BB^{}}`$ is the Gaussian curvature of the likelihood matrix at the peak. We consider $`10\%`$, $`4\%`$ and $`5\%`$ Gaussian distributed calibration errors for the BOOMERanG-98 \[Boom2\], DASI  and MAXIMA-1 \[Max2\] experiments respectively and we included the beam uncertainties by the analytical marginalization method presented in . We also include the COBE data using Lloyd Knox’s RADPack packages.

In addition to the CMB data we incorporate the real-space power spectrum of galaxies in the 2dF 100k galaxy redshift survey using the data and window functions of the analysis of Tegmark et al. ().

To compute $`^{2dF}`$, we evaluate $`p_i=P(k_i)`$, where $`P(k)`$ is the theoretical matter power spectrum and $`k_i`$ are the $`49`$ k-values of the measurements in . Therefore we have $`2ln^{2dF}=_i[P_i(Wp)_i]^2/dP_i^2`$, where $`P_i`$ and $`dP_i`$ are the measurements and corresponding error bars and $`W`$ is the reported $`27\times 49`$ window matrix. We restrict the analysis to a range of scales where the fluctuations are assumed to be in the linear regime ($`k<0.2h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$). When combining with the CMB data, we marginalize over a bias $`b`$ considered to be an additional free parameter.

We attribute a likelihood to each value of $`\omega _{cdm}`$, $`n_S`$, $`\sigma _8`$ by marginalizing over the nuisance parameters. We then define our $`68\%`$ ($`95\%`$), confidence levels to be where the integral of the likelihood is $`0.16`$ ($`0.025`$) and $`0.84`$ ($`0.975`$) of the total value.

### B CMB results and test for theoretical assumptions.

The results of our analysis are shown in Table 1. In the first row, we restrict our analysis to CMB data with a combination of “weak priors”: $`h=0.65\pm 0.2`$, age $`t_0>10`$Gyr and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m>0.1`$. Since the value of $`\sigma _8`$ is degenerate with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, in the table we report $`\sigma _8^{}`$ defined as the value of $`\sigma _8`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.30\pm 0.05`$. We see that, under the class of models considered, the CMB data suggest a $`2\sigma `$ detection of CDM, a scalar spectral index $`n_S0.92`$ and a value of $`\sigma _80.66`$ at $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.3`$. The reason why the present data favour CDM is evident in Fig.1, top panel, where we plot the recent CMB data with the best fit purely baryonic (BDM) and CDM models. BDM models fail to reproduce the observed power at $`\mathrm{}700`$. The new CMB data provide independent support for the presence of non-baryonic dark matter in the universe.

Before including information from complementary cosmological datasets, it is important to test the stability of our CMB results by removing some of the theoretical assumptions used in the analysis. We restrict our analysis to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models. However another candidate that could possibly explain the observations of an accelerating universe is a dynamical scalar “quintessence” field. The common characteristic of quintessence models is that their equation of state,$`w_Q=p/\rho `$, varies with time and can be greater than $`w_Q=1`$, the value corresponding to the cosmological constant. Adopting ’quintessence’ instead of a cosmological constant does not change the results of our analysis, but increases the error bars.

Another possibility is to consider an extra background of relativistic particles (see e.g. ), parametrized by a larger number of effective massless neutrinos $`N_\nu ^{eff}`$. Since increasing $`N_\nu ^{eff}`$ changes the epoch of equality, which is well determined by CMB observations (), larger values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2`$ are needed in order to compensate for this variation. The constraints on $`\sigma _8^{}`$ are not greatly affected since the matter power spectrum is mainly sensitive to changes in the redshift of equality, which is kept constant via the CMB data.

In the entire analysis, we assume negligible reionization and an optical depth $`\tau _c0`$. This is in agreement with recent estimates of the redshift of reionization $`z_{re}6\pm 1`$ (see e.g. ). We have also removed this assumption. Due to the well known degeneracy with the scalar spectral index $`n_S`$, the effect of including variations in $`\tau _c`$ leaves the CMB data in better agreement with higher values of $`n_S`$ and of $`\sigma _8`$.

A background of gravity waves and/or of isocurvature modes can modify the theoretical CMB spectrum on large angular scales. In order to test for these hypotheses, we repeat the analysis without the COBE data. This has the effect of relaxing our constraints.

The high-$`\mathrm{}`$ part of the observed spectrum can be contaminated by different systematics (see e.g. ): beam reconstruction, detector noise, foregrounds. All $`3`$ different experiments can be affected by different systematics and the fact that the $`3`$ datasets are in reasonable agreement suggests that the systematics are under control. However, we repeated the analysis removing the data points at $`\mathrm{}>650`$. As we can see, again, apart from an increase in the error bars, there is no significant difference.

### C Comparison with complementary datasets.

Since the CMB results are stable under variations of different theoretical assumptions, we can now assume that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-CDM models are valid and investigate the effects of applying various prior probabilities and of incorporating complementary cosmological datasets. Including the gaussian prior $`0.8\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.6\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.2\pm 0.1`$ from type Ia supernova luminosity distances  or $`h=0.71\pm 0.07`$ from measurements with the Hubble Space Telescope  does not change our conclusions and improves the constraints on the $`3`$ parameters.

In Figure $`1`$, bottom panel, we check for consistency of the 2dF data with the set of CDM models used in the CMB analysis by plotting a convolution of all the matter power spectra from the theoretical models in agreement with the CMB data, together with the recent 2dF analysis of . As one can see, the region consistent with CMB alone is quite broad (due to the weak CMB constraint on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) and contains the shape of the 2dF spectrum. Including other cosmological constraints from SN-Ia and HST shrinks the CMB constraint into a region consistent with the shape inferred from 2dF. This ’consistency’ is reflected in the results of Table 1: including information on the shape of the 2dF matter power spectrum improves our constraints in a similar direction to the SN-Ia and HST priors.

On similar scales, recent analyses of the local cluster number counts can be summarised as giving different results for $`\sigma _8`$ mainly due to systematics in the calibration between cluster virial mass and temperature: a high value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{0.6}\sigma _8=0.55\pm 0.05`$ in agreement with the results of (, ) and a lower one, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{0.6}\sigma _8=0.40\pm 0.05`$ following the analyses of  and . It is interesting to plot these constraints in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{0.6}\sigma _8\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2`$ plane. We do this in Figure $`2`$, where we plot the $`95\%`$ confidence level contour of the combined CMB+HST, CMB+SN-Ia and CMB+2dFGRS analyses (obtained again with the assumption of CDM) together with the high and low constraints on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{0.6}\sigma _8`$ at $`68\%`$ c.l..

As we can see, a correlation appears from the present CMB data between these $`2`$ quantities: namely, increasing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2`$ enhances the rms mass fluctuations. The independent constraint on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{0.6}\sigma _8`$ from clusters can be used to break the degeneracy. Using the high constraint, we obtain a higher value for the density in CDM (see Table 1) with $`0.17>\mathrm{\Omega }_{cmd}h^2>0.11`$ at $`95\%`$ c.l.. Using the low value, the constraint becomes $`0.15>\mathrm{\Omega }_{cmd}h^2>0.09`$, again at $`95\%`$ c.l.. The $`2`$ results are consistent and favour CDM; however, when additional information such as SN-Ia and 2dF are included, the CMB tends to prefer the lower value.

We further analyze this possible discrepancy in Figure 3 where we plot constraints in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m\sigma _8`$ plane together with the $`68\%`$ c.l. results of  and of . For values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m<0.35`$, the high $`\sigma _8`$ constraint is in slight disagreement with the CMB+2dF result at more than $`1\sigma `$.

On smaller (sub-galactic) scales, recent and strong constraints on the linear rms mass fluctuations $`\sigma (M)`$ have been obtained through lensing measurements ( ). In Figure $`3`$, we plot the predictions of the CDM models that are within the $`95\%`$ CMB constraints in the $`\sigma (R)R`$ plane together with a region indicative of the constraint obtained from lensing. A more careful comparison and a better study of all the assumptions and possible systematics should be done. However, here we wish to point out that, even in our simple analysis, the two contours overlap and the CDM paradigm seems consistent over a range of scales from $`10^4\mathrm{Mpc}\mathrm{h}^1`$ to $`10^1\mathrm{Mpc}\mathrm{h}^1`$.

## III Discussion

In this paper we have provided strong constraints on the amount of non-baryonic dark matter in the universe by comparing adiabatic inflationary models with a set of cosmological observations. Combining CMB anisotropy measurements, high redshift supernovae observations, constraints on the Hubble parameter from the HST key project, and the matter power spectrum data from the 2dFGRS, we find $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2=0.11_{0.03}^{+0.04}`$, $`n_S=0.93\pm 0.08`$, $`\sigma _8^{}=0.66\pm 0.10`$ at $`95\%`$ confidence level. These results provide strong evidence for the presence of non-baryonic dark matter in a way independent of the local cluster abundance data.

If the dark matter is the neutralino, a knowledge of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2`$ can set strong bounds on the parameter space of the simplest and most direct implementations of supersymmetry (see e.g. , , ).

The constraint on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2`$ obtained here can be considered stable under the removal of some of the theoretical assumptions made in the analysis. Including quintessence, reionization and a large-scale CMB component such as expected from gravity waves (see e.g. , ) or isocurvature CDM perturbations (see e.g. ) can relax the constraints but does not change the conclusions. Models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2`$ as large as $`0.2`$ are disfavoured in all cases except under the exotic hypothesis of an extra background of relativistic particles.

Depending on the external data we incorporate, the CMB constraints in the $`\sigma _8\mathrm{\Omega }_M^{0.6}\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2`$ plane can be $`12\sigma `$ lower than most of the determinations inferred from the local cluster X-ray temperature function (see e.g. , , ) and cosmic shear data (, , , ), while in better agreement with the ’new’ analyses of  and . However, we showed that use of the high or low priors on $`\sigma _8`$ has only a marginal effect on the constraints on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2`$.

With reference to previous analyses, we are in agreement with the recent paper by Lahav et al. , although our value of $`\sigma _8^{}`$ appears to be slightly lower. However we allow for variations in the spectral index $`n_S`$ while in  this parameter has been set to $`n_S=1`$. We also included the COBE data using the lognormal approximation as in  and the 2dF data is taken from the independent analysis of .

The low values of $`\sigma _8`$ and $`n_S`$ can possibly alleviate some of the problems of CDM on subgalactic scales. We will investigate this in a forthcoming paper . However, we also find that the models compatible with the CMB can satisfy the recent lensing constraints. This result suggests that a solution of the subgalactic CDM problem can most likely be obtained by a refinement of the astrophysical processes involved in the numerical simulations, rather than by an ad hoc modification of the dark matter properties. However, if future cluster temperature or cosmic shear analyses were to converge towards a higher $`\sigma _8`$ value, then this could lead to a possible discrepancy with the CMB+2dF result. It will be the task of future experiments and analysis to verify this interesting result.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Celine Boehm and Marco Peloso for useful discussions. AM acknowledges support from PPARC.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The $`(m,m+1)`$ unitary minimal conformal model coupled to two-dimensional gravity can be analyzed by the two-matrix chain model or the multi-matrix chain model - under appropriate scaling limits. In two-dimensional gravity, loop amplitude is one of the most important physical quantities, which is the amplitude for a surface with loop-like boundaries. The $`(m,m+1)`$ minimal model has $`m1`$ matter states , so in general, we have to deal with loops on which matter configurations are not restricted to homogeneous ones -.

In Refs. , some disk amplitudes whose boundaries have heterogeneous matter states are studied in the case of the tricritical Ising model ($`m=4`$ case). It is found that the obtained amplitudes have simple geometrical interpretation. The heterogeneous loops make interesting splitting and sticking interaction regularly. Here a question arises. Can we decide any heterogeneous loop amplitudes only from the geometrical consideration? In other words, does the geometrical consideration give enough information to decide any heterogeneous loop amplitudes?

In order to address this question, in this paper, we study a disk amplitude with rather complicated boundary condition in the case of the Ising model ($`m=3`$ case). We show that the amplitude calculated by Schwinger-Dyson equations can be reproduced through purely geometrical consideration. We speculate that any heterogeneous loop amplitudes can be decided geometrically.

## 2 Amplitude from Schwinger-Dyson equations

In this section, we examine a disk amplitude with heterogeneous matter boundary condition using Schwinger-Dyson equations. Let us start with the action of the two-matrix model

$$S(A,B)=\frac{N}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{tr}\left\{U(A)+U(B)AB\right\}.$$
(2.1)
Here $`A`$ and $`B`$ are $`N\times N`$ unitary matrix variables, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the bare cosmological constant. As a critical potential which realizes the Ising model coupled to two-dimensional gravity, we take

$$U(\varphi )=\alpha \varphi +\frac{\beta }{2}\varphi ^2+\frac{\gamma }{3}\varphi ^3,(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )=(3,3,1).$$
(2.2)
This can be found using the orthogonal polynomial method .

In this paper we will focus on the amplitude

$$W_{ABAB}(p_1,q_1,p_2,q_2)=\underset{k,l,m,n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{N}\mathrm{tr}(A^kB^lA^mB^n)p_1^{k1}q_1^{l1}p_2^{m1}q_2^{n1}$$
(2.3)
and its continuum universal counterpart $`w_{ABAB}(\zeta _{A1},\zeta _{B1},\zeta _{A2},\zeta _{B2},t)`$ in the large $`N`$ limit. Here $`p_i`$ and $`q_i`$ are bare boundary cosmological constants, $`\zeta _{A_i}`$ and $`\zeta _{B_i}`$ are their renormalized counterparts, and $`t`$ is the renormalized cosmological constant. The insertion of the operator $`\mathrm{tr}(A^kB^lA^mB^n)`$ makes a loop-like boundary on which a part with spins up and a part with spins down appear by turns. In the large $`N`$ limit, the corresponding continuum amplitude becomes the disk amplitude whose boundary consists of four arcs with distinct matter states.

Let us start with the Schwinger-Dyson equation

$$0=\underset{a}{}𝑑A𝑑B\frac{}{A^a}\left\{\mathrm{tr}\left(A^kt^aB^lA^mB^n\right)e^{S(A,B)}\right\},$$
(2.4)
here the hermitian matrix $`A`$ is expressed as $`A=_aA^at^a`$ using the bases of hermitian matrices $`\left\{t^a\right\}`$. Rewriting Eq. (2.4) explicitly, we obtain

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{k1}{}}}[A^i][A^{ki1}B^lA^mB^n]+{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{m1}{}}}[B^lA^{mi1}][A^kA^iB^n]\alpha [A^kB^lA^mB^n]`$ (2.5)
$`\beta [A^{k+1}B^lA^mB^n]\gamma [A^{k+2}B^lA^mB^n]+[A^kB^{l+1}A^mB^n],`$
here we use the notation $`[A^kB^l\mathrm{}]=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{N}\mathrm{tr}(A^kB^l\mathrm{})`$ . Multiplying $`p_1^{k1}q_1^{l1}p_2^{m1}q_2^{n1}`$ and summing up with respect to $`k`$, $`l`$, $`m`$ and $`n`$ indices, we obtain the equation in terms of resolvent amplitudes

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(W_A(p_1)v(p_1)+q_1\right)W_{ABAB}(p_1,q_1,p_2,q_2)+\left(W_{BA}(q_1,p_2)1\right)W_{AAB}(p_1,p_2,q_2)`$ (2.6)
$`+(\beta +\gamma p_1)W_{BAB}(q_1,p_2,q_2)+\gamma W^{(A)}{}_{BAB}{}^{}(q_1,p_2,q_2).`$
In Eq. (2.6) and in the following, we use the notations $`v(p)=\alpha +\beta p+\gamma p^2`$,

$$W_{M_1M_2\mathrm{}}(r_1,r_2,\mathrm{})=\underset{k,l,\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{N}\mathrm{tr}(M_1^kM_2^l\mathrm{})r_1^{k1}r_2^{l1}\mathrm{},$$
(2.7)
$$W^{(M)}{}_{M_1}{}^{(M^{})}{}_{M_2\mathrm{}}{}^{}(r_1,r_2,\mathrm{})=\underset{k,l,\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{N}\mathrm{tr}(MM_1^kM^{}M_2^l\mathrm{})r_1^{k1}r_2^{l1}\mathrm{},$$
(2.8)
where $`M`$, $`M^{}`$ and $`M_i`$ denote the matrices $`A`$ or $`B`$. Using the relations $`W_{BA}(q_1,p_2)=W_{AB}(p_2,q_1)`$ and $`W_{BAB}(q_1,p_2,q_2)=W_{AAB}(q_2,q_1,p_2)`$, we observe that $`W_{ABAB}`$ can be expressed in terms of $`W_A`$, $`W_{AB}`$, $`W_{AAB}`$ and $`W^{(A)}_{BAB}`$.

As for $`W^{(A)}_{BAB}`$, from the resolvent expression for the $`l=0`$ case of Eq. (2.5) and the relations $`W^{(A)}{}_{AB}{}^{}(p_2,q_2)=p_2W_{AB}(p_2,q_2)W_B(q_2)`$ and $`W_A{}_{}{}^{(B)}{}_{AB}{}^{}(p_1,p_2,q_2)=W^{(A)}{}_{BAB}{}^{}(p_2,q_2,p_1)`$, we obtain

$`W^{(A)}{}_{BAB}{}^{}(p_2,q_2,p_1)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(W_A(p_1)+W_A(p_2)v(p_1)\right)W_{AAB}(p_1,p_2,q_2)`$ (2.9)
$`\left(\beta +\gamma (p_1+p_2)\right)W_{AB}(p_2,q_2)+\gamma W_B(q_2).`$
Combining Eqs. (2.6) and (2.9), we find that $`W_{ABAB}`$ can be expressed in terms of $`W_A`$, $`W_B`$, $`W_{AB}`$ and $`W_{AAB}`$. Furthermore using the relations

$`W_{AAB}(p_1,p_2,q)={\displaystyle \frac{W_{AB}(p_1,q)W_{AB}(p_2,q)}{p_1p_2}},`$ (2.10)
$`W_{AB}(p,q)={\displaystyle \frac{W_A(p)(\beta +\gamma p)W_B(q)\gamma W_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{(A)}(q)}{W_A(p)v(p)+q}},`$ (2.11)
$`W_B{}_{}{}^{(A)}(q)=(W_B(q)v(q))W_B(q)(\beta +\gamma q)\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma [A],`$ (2.12)
we find, in the end, that $`W_{ABAB}`$ can be expressed in terms of $`W_A`$ and $`W_B`$. (Here the last two equations are obtained in a similar way to Refs. .)

The homogeneous disk amplitudes $`W_A`$ and $`W_B`$ satisfy a third order equation. They are expanded as

$$W_A(p)=W_B(p)=32a\zeta +\left(\frac{a}{2}\right)^{4/3}w(\zeta )+𝒪(a^{5/3}),$$
(2.13)
here $`a`$ is the lattice spacing and

$$w(\zeta )=\left(\zeta +\sqrt{\zeta ^2t}\right)^{4/3}+\left(\zeta \sqrt{\zeta ^2t}\right)^{4/3}$$
(2.14)
is the continuum homogeneous disk amplitude  under the renormalization $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10a^2t`$ and $`p=a\zeta `$. This amplitude satisfies the third order equation

$$w(\zeta )^33t^{4/3}w(\zeta )16\zeta ^4+16t\zeta ^22t^2=0.$$
(2.15)
Combining all of the above equations, we obtain the continuum heterogeneous disk amplitude $`w_{ABAB}`$. From the explicit calculation, we find that terms in $`𝒪(a^{5/3})`$ in Eq. (2.13) do not affect the calculation of $`w_{ABAB}`$, and $`w_{ABAB}`$ is expressed only in terms of $`w(\zeta _{A_i})`$ and $`w(\zeta _{B_j})`$. From the $`a^1`$ order terms of $`16W_{ABAB}`$, we obtain the continuum disk amplitude $`w_{ABAB}`$ as follows:

$`w_{ABAB}(\zeta _{A_1},\zeta _{B_1},\zeta _{A_2},\zeta _{B_2})`$ (2.16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{w(\zeta _{A_1})+w(\zeta _{A_2})}{\zeta _{A_1}\zeta _{A_2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{w(\zeta _{A_1})^2}{(\zeta _{A_1}+\zeta _{B_1})(\zeta _{A_1}+\zeta _{B_2})}}{\displaystyle \frac{w(\zeta _{A_2})^2}{(\zeta _{A_2}+\zeta _{B_1})(\zeta _{A_2}+\zeta _{B_2})}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{w(\zeta _{B_1})+w(\zeta _{B_2})}{\zeta _{A_1}\zeta _{A_2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{w(\zeta _{A_1})^2}{(\zeta _{A_1}+\zeta _{B_1})(\zeta _{A_1}+\zeta _{B_2})}}{\displaystyle \frac{w(\zeta _{A_2})^2}{(\zeta _{A_2}+\zeta _{B_1})(\zeta _{A_2}+\zeta _{B_2})}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{w(\zeta _{B_1})w(\zeta _{B_2})}{\zeta _{A_1}\zeta _{A_2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{w(\zeta _{A_1})}{(\zeta _{A_1}+\zeta _{B_1})(\zeta _{A_1}+\zeta _{B_2})}}{\displaystyle \frac{w(\zeta _{A_2})}{(\zeta _{A_2}+\zeta _{B_1})(\zeta _{A_2}+\zeta _{B_2})}}\right)`$
$`3t^{4/3}\left(w(\zeta _{A_1})+w(\zeta _{A_2})\right){\displaystyle \frac{\zeta _{A_1}+\zeta _{A_2}+\zeta _{B_1}+\zeta _{B_2}}{(\zeta _{A_1}+\zeta _{B_1})(\zeta _{A_2}+\zeta _{B_1})(\zeta _{A_1}+\zeta _{B_2})(\zeta _{A_2}+\zeta _{B_2})}}`$
$`+(A_1B_1,A_2B_2).`$
Here the last expression $`\left(A_1B_1,A_2B_2\right)`$ denotes the terms which are obtained by interchanging $`A_i`$ and $`B_i`$ in all of the preceding terms. As the continuum part, we have taken terms which are non-analytic in all of the variables $`\zeta _{A_i}`$, $`\zeta _{B_j}`$ and $`t`$. We should notice that the form of the amplitude (2.16) is not unique because of the identity equation (2.15). This uncertainty, however, does not arise in the geometrical consideration in the next section.

## 3 Amplitude from geometrical consideration

In this section, we will show that the heterogeneous disk amplitude $`w_{ABAB}`$ obtained in section 2 can be reproduced through purely geometrical consideration.

At first let us briefly review the mechanism of the interaction of heterogeneous boundary in the case of $`w_{AB}`$ , which is the continuum counterpart of $`W_{AB}`$. In this case, the boundary loop consists of two parts on which the spin state is up or down. According to boundary conformal field theory, discontinuity in the matter boundary conditions corresponds to the insertion of a boundary operator in Refs. . So in the case of $`w_{AB}`$, we consider that two spin operators $`\varphi _+\sigma `$ are situated at the points where spin state changes (see Fig. 1). The continuum amplitude $`w_{AB}`$ is calculated to be

$$w_{AB}(\zeta _A,\zeta _B)=\frac{w(\zeta _A)^2+w(\zeta _B)^2+w(\zeta _A)w(\zeta _B)3t^{4/3}}{\zeta _A+\zeta _B}.$$
(3.1)
By performing the inverse Laplace transformation, we obtain the disk amplitude $`𝒲_{AB}(\mathrm{}_A,\mathrm{}_B)`$ in terms of the lengths of the boundaries (see appendix A),

$`𝒲_{AB}(\mathrm{}_A,\mathrm{}_B)`$ $`=`$ $`_{𝒜}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left[w_{AB}(\zeta _A,\zeta _B)\right]`$ (3.2)
$`=`$ $`\theta (\mathrm{}_A\mathrm{}_B)(𝒲𝒲)(\mathrm{}_A\mathrm{}_B)+\theta (\mathrm{}_B\mathrm{}_A)(𝒲𝒲)(\mathrm{}_B\mathrm{}_A)`$
$`+{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{}_A,\mathrm{}_B)}}𝑑\mathrm{}𝒲(\mathrm{}_A\mathrm{})𝒲(\mathrm{}_B\mathrm{})3t^{4/3}\delta (\mathrm{}_A\mathrm{}_B).`$
From Eq. (3.2) we find that the following geometrical interpretation is possible . The original heterogeneous loop splits into two homogeneous loops. The first three terms in Eq. (3.2) correspond to the three diagrams in Fig. 2 respectively. This loop splitting phenomenon can be summarized in the following rules.

1. Boundary A 111 We refer to the part of boundary on which the spin state is up as boundary A etc, in the same way to . sticks to boundary B so that a heterogeneous loop splits into homogeneous loops. The split disks are connected by the double line which is formed by sticking of boundaries A and B.
2. The spin operator $`\sigma `$ is situated at each end of the double line.

The spin operator $`\sigma `$ separates the boundary into two sides. One side forms homogeneous loop-like boundary and the other forms a stuck double line. We speculate that the spin operator $`\sigma `$ has the effect to make discontinuity in the geometrical state of boundary as well as in the matter state.

Now let us derive $`w_{ABAB}`$ through a purely geometrical consideration. For simplicity, we will neglect the terms proportional to $`t^{4/3}`$ in Eqs. (2.16) and (3.1), because they only make the argument complicate. We can deal with these terms in a similar manner. The rules of the splitting phenomenon should equally be applied in this case. We will employ the rules and sum up all possible terms. Here the weights of the respective terms, however, are not fixed. The relative weights will be fixed by requiring the consistency with $`w_{AB}`$ and the expected symmetries of the amplitude $`w_{ABAB}`$. The resultant amplitude will completely coincide with that derived from the Schwinger-Dyson equations up to overall normalization.

In the following we will explain how to derive the amplitude $`w_{ABAB}`$ in detail. In the case of $`w_{ABAB}`$, there are four spin operators $`\sigma `$ on the loop-like boundary. Let us focus on one of them (denoted by $``$ in Fig. 4). After loop splitting, the spin operator we focus is in touch with another part of the boundary. According to the point with which it is in touch, there are four possibilities, (a), (b), (c) and (d) in Fig. 4. As an example let us consider the case (a) concretely. The spin operator we focus is at one end of the double line (see Fig. 4). At the other end of the double line, one of the remaining spin operators will be situated. According to the spin operator situated there, the case (a) is classified into three sub cases, (a-1), (a-2) and (a-3) in Fig. 5. Then the amplitude corresponding to the case (a) is written as follows (see appendix A):

$`𝒢_a=a_1{\displaystyle \frac{w_{AAB}(\zeta _{A_1},\zeta _{A_2},\zeta _{B_1})w(\zeta _{B_2})}{\zeta _{A_2}+\zeta _{B_2}}}+a_2{\displaystyle \frac{w_{BBA}(\zeta _{B_1},\zeta _{B_2},\zeta _{A_1})w(\zeta _{B_2})}{\zeta _{A_2}+\zeta _{B_2}}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left\{a_3w(\zeta _{A_1})w(\zeta _{A_2})+a_4w(\zeta _{A_1})w(\zeta _{B_1})+a_5w(\zeta _{B_2})w(\zeta _{A_2})+a_6w(\zeta _{B_2})w(\zeta _{B_1})\right\}w(\zeta _{B_2})}{(\zeta _{A_1}+\zeta _{B_2})(\zeta _{A_2}+\zeta _{B_1})(\zeta _{A_2}+\zeta _{B_2})}}.`$
Here $`a_i`$ represent unknown weight constants, which will be determined later, and $`w_{AAB}`$ and $`w_{BBA}`$ represent the continuum counterparts of the amplitudes $`W_{AAB}`$ and $`W_{BBA}`$ respectively. Similarly the case (b) is classified into two sub cases, (b-1) and (b-2) (see Fig. 6). The corresponding amplitude is

$`𝒢_b`$ $`=`$ $`b_1{\displaystyle \frac{w_{AAB}(\zeta _{A_1},\zeta _{A_2},\zeta _{B_1})w(\zeta _{B_2})}{\zeta _{A_1}+\zeta _{B_2}}}+b_2{\displaystyle \frac{w_{AAB}(\zeta _{A_1},\zeta _{A_2},\zeta _{B_1})w(\zeta _{A_1})}{\zeta _{A_1}+\zeta _{B_2}}},`$ (3.4)
where $`b_i`$ are unknown weight constants. The cases (c) and (d) are obtained by interchanging $`A_i`$ with $`B_i`$ in the cases (b) and (a) respectively:

$$𝒢_c=𝒢_b|_{AB},𝒢_d=𝒢_a|_{AB}.$$
(3.5)
In the cases (b) and (c), we have doubly counted several terms. The next amplitude corresponds to the doubly counted terms,

$`𝒢_e`$ $`=`$ $`b_1{\displaystyle \frac{w(\zeta _{A_2})w(\zeta _{B_2})\left(w(\zeta _{A_1})+w(\zeta _{B_1})\right)}{(\zeta _{A_1}+\zeta _{B_1})(\zeta _{A_1}+\zeta _{B_2})(\zeta _{A_2}+\zeta _{B_1})}}b_2{\displaystyle \frac{w(\zeta _{A_1})w(\zeta _{B_1})\left(w(\zeta _{A_1})+w(\zeta _{B_1})\right)}{(\zeta _{A_1}+\zeta _{B_1})(\zeta _{A_1}+\zeta _{B_2})(\zeta _{A_2}+\zeta _{B_1})}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{w(\zeta _{B_1})w(\zeta _{B_2})\left(e_1w(\zeta _{A_1})+e_2w(\zeta _{B_1})\right)}{(\zeta _{A_1}+\zeta _{B_1})(\zeta _{A_1}+\zeta _{B_2})(\zeta _{A_2}+\zeta _{B_1})}}+{\displaystyle \frac{w(\zeta _{A_1})w(\zeta _{A_2})\left(e_1w(\zeta _{B_1})+e_2w(\zeta _{A_1})\right)}{(\zeta _{A_1}+\zeta _{B_1})(\zeta _{A_1}+\zeta _{B_2})(\zeta _{A_2}+\zeta _{B_1})}}.`$
Here the first term comes from the double counting between the cases (b-1) and (c-1) (see Fig. 8). The second term comes from that between the cases (b-2) and (c-2) (see Fig. 8). The third term represents that between the cases (b-1) and (c-2) (see Fig. 10). The last term represents that between the cases (b-2) and (c-1) (see Fig. 10).

The amplitude we aim at is obtained by summing up all the cases

$$𝒢=𝒢_a+𝒢_b+𝒢_c+𝒢_d+𝒢_e.$$
(3.7)
By using the relations

$$w_{AAB}(\zeta _1,\zeta _2,\xi )=w_{BBA}(\zeta _1,\zeta _2,\xi )=\frac{w_{AB}(\zeta _1,\xi )w_{AB}(\zeta _2,\xi )}{\zeta _1\zeta _2},$$
(3.8)
$$w_{AB}(\zeta ,\xi )=\frac{w(\zeta )^2+w(\xi )^2+w(\zeta )w(\xi )}{\zeta +\xi },$$
(3.9)
we can express $`w_{ABAB}`$ in terms of the homogeneous disk amplitudes. It contains 10 unknown weight constants. They can be decided by requiring symmetries of the amplitude. Eq. (3.7) already has the symmetry under interchanging $`A_i`$ with $`B_i`$. We further require the symmetry under $`(A_1A_2)`$ and that under $`(B_1B_2)`$ . The unknown constants are determined up to overall normalization. The weights $`(a_1,a_2,a_4,a_6,b_2)`$ have the same non-zero value and the remaining constants equal to zero.

In this way, $`w_{ABAB}`$ is determined up to the normalization constant. When we choose the normalization constant properly ($`a_1=1`$) , the obtained amplitude indeed coincides with that obtained from the Schwinger-Dyson equations in section 2 222 In a similar manner we can also reproduce the terms proportional to $`t^{4/3}`$ in Eq. (2.16)..

## 4 Discussion

In the previous section we derived the heterogeneous disk amplitude $`w_{ABAB}`$ only through geometrical consideration. We required the symmetries of the amplitude there, however, we consider that the rules of splitting and the consistency with $`w_{AB}`$ were essential.

Let us discuss to what extent we can generalize the result we obtained. According to the rules of loop splitting, we can expect that $`w_{AB}`$ consists of three terms333 Here we neglect the term proportional to $`t^{4/3}`$. (see Fig. 2). The rules, however, do not give the information on the relative weight of each term. That is, the weight of the last term of the numerator of Eq. (3.9) relative to the first two terms is unknown. When we treat this weight as an additional unknown constant, we can also determine it in the same way to section 3. This shows that we can also derive $`w_{AB}`$ from the rules of loop splitting and the consistency between $`w_{AB}`$ and $`w_{ABAB}`$. From this fact, we speculate that any heterogeneous loop amplitudes can be determined from the loop-splitting rules and the consistency among the relevant amplitudes.

In boundary conformal field theory, the boundary operator $`\sigma `$ plays the role to make discontinuity in matter state on the boundary. As we saw in section 3, when it is dressed with gravity, it also makes a discontinuity in the geometrical state of the boundary. Here let us comment on the relation with the boundary operators  which appear in the scaling operators in the matrix models. In Ref.  it is argued that the scaling operator $`\widehat{\sigma }_{n(m+1)}=\widehat{}_n`$ has the effect to split a loop into $`k`$ loops in the case of $`(m,m+1)`$ model, where $`kn`$. When two $`\sigma `$ approach each other, one can consider that they change the spin state on the boundary locally, and they have the effect to split a loop into two loops . The boundary operator $`\widehat{B}_2`$ can be identified with the operator obtained in the limit where two $`\sigma `$ approach each other. We expect that $`\widehat{B}_n`$ can be constructed by making a linear combination of the operators obtained when $`2(k1)`$ spin operators $`\sigma `$ get together, where $`1kn`$.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to Professor I. K. Kostov, because this research has started from the discussion with him. We are also grateful to Professor M. Ninomiya for warmhearted encouragement. Thanks are also due to members of YITP, where one of the authors (A.I.) stayed several times during the completion of this work.

## Appendix A Inverse Laplace transformation

We summarize here some useful relations on inverse Laplace transformation. The Laplace transformation of a function $`f(\mathrm{}_i)`$ is defined by the relation

$$_i\left[f(\mathrm{}_i)\right]=F(\zeta _i)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\mathrm{}_ie^{\mathrm{}_i\zeta _i}f(\mathrm{}_i).$$
(A.1)
The following three relations are useful in calculating the inverse Laplace transformation,

$`_1^1_2^1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta _1+\zeta _2}}\right]=\delta (\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2),`$ (A.2)
$`_1^1_2^1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{F(\zeta _1)}{\zeta _1+\zeta _2}}\right]=\theta (\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2)f(\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2),`$ (A.3)
$`_i^1\left[F(\zeta _i)G(\zeta _i)\right]={\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{}_i}𝑑\mathrm{}^{}f(\mathrm{}^{})g(\mathrm{}_i\mathrm{}^{})=f(\mathrm{}_i)_ig(\mathrm{}_i).`$ (A.4)
Here $`F(\zeta _i)`$ and $`G(\zeta _j)`$ represent the Laplace transformed functions of $`f(\mathrm{}_i)`$ and $`g(\mathrm{}_j)`$ respectively, and the symbol $`_i`$ in the third equation denotes the convolution with respect to $`\mathrm{}_i`$. All of the inverse Laplace transformations of the amplitudes in section 3 can be performed by combining these relations444 Eq. (A.3) can be derived combining Eqs. (A.2) and (A.4)..

As examples, we show the inverse Laplace transformations of some terms in Eq. (LABEL:G\_a) in the following:

$`_{A_1}^1_{A_2}^1_{B_1}^1_{B_2}^1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{w_{AAB}(\zeta _{A_1},\zeta _{A_2},\zeta _{B_1})w(\zeta _{B_2})}{\zeta _{A_2}+\zeta _{B_2}}}\right]`$ (A.5)
$`=\left[\theta (\mathrm{}_{A_2}\mathrm{}_{B_2})𝒲_{AAB}(\mathrm{}_{A_1},\mathrm{}_{A_2}\mathrm{}_{B_2},\mathrm{}_{B_1})\right]_{B_2}𝒲(\mathrm{}_{B_2})`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{}_{A_2},\mathrm{}_{B_2})}}𝑑\mathrm{}^{}𝒲_{AAB}(\mathrm{}_{A_1},\mathrm{}_{A_2}\mathrm{}^{},\mathrm{}_{B_1})𝒲(\mathrm{}_{B_2}\mathrm{}^{}),`$
$`_{A_1}^1_{A_2}^1_{B_1}^1_{B_2}^1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{w(\zeta _{A_1})w(\zeta _{A_2})w(\zeta _{B_2})}{(\zeta _{A_1}+\zeta _{B_2})(\zeta _{A_2}+\zeta _{B_1})(\zeta _{A_2}+\zeta _{B_2})}}\right]`$ (A.6)
$`=\left[\theta (\mathrm{}_{A_1}\mathrm{}_{B_2})𝒲(\mathrm{}_{A_1}\mathrm{}_{B_2})\right]`$
$`_{B_2}\left\{\left[\theta (\mathrm{}_{A_2}\mathrm{}_{B_1})𝒲(\mathrm{}_{A_2}\mathrm{}_{B_1})\right]_{A_2}\left[\theta (\mathrm{}_{B_2}\mathrm{}_{A_2})𝒲(\mathrm{}_{B_2}\mathrm{}_{A_2})\right]\right\}.`$
From Eq. (A.5), one finds that this term corresponds to the first diagram in Fig. 5. Similarly the amplitude (A.6) can be represented by Fig. 11.


text:
# 1 Optical excitations along the BN alternations.

Optical Excitations in Hexagonal
Nanonetwork Materials

Kikuo Harigaya

Nanotechnology Research Institute and Research Consortium for Synthetic Nano-Function Materials Project, AIST, Tsukuba 305-8568, Japan

## Abstract

Optical excitations in hexagonal nanonetwork materials, for example, Boron-Nitride (BN) sheets and nanotubes, are investigated theoretically. The bonding of BN systems is positively polarized at the B site, and is negatively polarized at the N site. There is a permanent electric dipole moment along the BN bond, whose direction is from the B site to the N site. When the exciton hopping integral is restricted to the nearest neighbors, the flat band of the exciton appears at the lowest energy. The symmetry of this exciton band is optically forbidden, indicating that the excitons relaxed to this band will show quite long lifetime which will cause strong luminescence properties.

INTRODUCTION

The hexagonal nanonetwork materials composed of atoms with ionic characters, for example, Boron-Nitride (BN) sheets and nanotubes , have been investigated intensively. They are intrinsically insulators with the energy gap of about 4 eV as the preceding band calculations have indicated . The possible photogalvanic effects depending on the chiralities of BN nanotubes have been proposed by the model calculation . Even though optical measurements on the BN systems have not been reported so much, it is quite interesting to predict condensed matter properties of the hexagonal nanonetwork materials.

In this paper, we investigate optical excitation properties in BN systems. The bonding is positively polarized at the B site, and is negatively polarized at the N site. There is a permanent electric dipole moment along the BN bond, whose direction is from the B site to the N site. The presence of the dipole moments will give rise to strong excitonic properties as illustrated in Fig. 1. The energy of the highest occupied atomic orbital of N is larger than that of B, and the energy of the lowest unoccupied orbital of B is smaller than that of N. Low energy optical excitations are the excitations of the electron-hole pairs between the higher occupied states of N and the lower unoccupied states of B atoms.

EXCITONS ON THE KAGOMÉ LATTICE

We consider exciton interactions among nearest neighbor dipoles. In Fig. 2 (a), the B and N atoms are represented by full and open circles, respectively. The several arrows show the directions of dipole moments. We assume one orbital Hubbard model with the hopping integral of electrons $`t`$, the onsite repulsion $`U`$, and the energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ between the B and N sites. After second order perturbations, we obtain the following forms of the nearest neighbor interactions: $`J_1=t^2/(\mathrm{\Delta }+U)`$ for the case of conserved excited spin (type-1 exciton) and $`J_2=t^2/\mathrm{\Delta }+t^2/(\mathrm{\Delta }+U)`$ for the case that spin of the excited electron flips (type-2 exciton). The condition $`U>\mathrm{\Delta }`$ would be satisfied in general, and this means that $`J_1`$ and $`J_2`$ are positive. The interactions are present along the thin lines of Fig. 2 (a). After the extraction of the interactions $`J_1`$ and $`J_2`$, there remains the two-dimensional Kagomé lattice which is shown in Fig. 2 (b). Therefore, the optical excitation hamiltonian becomes:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =\alpha ,\beta }{}}J_1(|i,\sigma j,\sigma |+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}J_2(|i,\alpha j,\beta |+|i,\beta j,\alpha |+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.),`$
where the indices $`i`$ and $`j`$ mean the vertex points of the Kagomé lattice, and the sum is taken over the nearest neighbor pairs $`i,j`$ and the excited spin $`\sigma `$. The unit cell has three lattice points, namely, 1, 2, and 3, as shown in Fig. 2 (b).

The energy dispersions of the model are given in terms of wavenumbers $`𝒌=(k_x,k_y)`$:

$$E=\{\begin{array}{c}2(J_1+J_2),\hfill \\ (J_1+J_2)[1\pm \sqrt{1+4\mathrm{cos}(k_xb/2)[\mathrm{cos}(k_xb/2)+\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{3}k_yb/2)]}],\hfill \\ 2(J_1+J_2),\hfill \\ (J_1J_2)[1\pm \sqrt{1+4\mathrm{cos}(k_xb/2)[\mathrm{cos}(k_xb/2)+\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{3}k_yb/2)]}],\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
where the two dimensional x-y axes are defined as usual in Fig. 2, and $`b=\sqrt{3}a`$ is the unit cell length of the Kagomé lattice in Fig. 2 (b), and $`a`$ is the bond length of Fig. 2 (a). There appears a dispersionless band with the lowest energy $`2(J_1+J_2)`$. There is another dispersionless band at the higher energy $`2(J_1+J_2)`$. The other four bands have dispersions which are like those of the two dimensional network of electrons on the graphite. Such the appearance of the flat band has been discussed with the possibility of ferromagnetism in the literatures . In the present case, the lowest optical excitation band becomes flat in the honeycomb BN plane. When the BN plane is rolled up into nanotubes, the flat band is dispersionless too. Such the flat exciton band will have strong optical density originating from the huge density of states due to the weak dispersive character.

SYMMETRIES OF EXCITON WAVEFUNCTIONS

We look at symmetries of the lowest excitons with the energy $`2(J_1+J_2)`$. The eigenvalue problem at the wavenumber $`𝒌=(0,0)`$ gives twofold degenerate solutions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}=(1/\sqrt{6})(1,1,2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{}=(1/\sqrt{2})(1,1,0)`$ both for the type-1 and type-2 exciton states. The symmetry of the solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ is shown in Fig. 3 (a), and that of the solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ is displayed in Fig. 3 (b). We find that both wavefunctions are symmetric with respect to spatial inversion, and therefore they have the symmetry gerade. The transition to the lowest exciton is optically forbidden. The forbidden exciton state indicates that excitons relaxed to this lowest exciton band will show quite long lifetime which will cause strong luminescence properties. In addition, the lowest energy excitons will have huge density of state due to their flatness of the band. These properties might result in interesting optical measurements in hexagonal nanonetwork materials.

SUMMARY

The flat band of the optically forbidden exciton appears at the lowest energy in the optical excitations of BN systems. The excitons relaxed to this band might show quite long lifetime which will cause strong luminescence properties.

REFERENCES

1. D. Golberg, Y. Bando, K. Kurashima, and T. Sato, Solid State Commun. 116, 1 (2000).
2. A. Rubio, J. L. Corkill, and M. L. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B 49, 5081 (1994).
3. X. Blase, A. Rubio, S. G. Louie, and M. L. Cohen, Europhys. Lett. 28, 335 (1994).
4. P. Král, E. J. Mele, and D. Tománek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1512 (2000).
5. A. Mielke, J. Phys. A, 24, 3311 (1991); ibid. 25, 4335 (1992).


text: # Hahn-Banach operators


text:
# 1 The 𝑑𝜎/𝑑𝑀_{𝑠𝑠̄} differential distribution of the invariant mass of the “visible” 𝑠𝑠̄ jet pair. Veto cut on 𝑐𝑐̄ jets is applied. The centre-of-mass energy is 350 GeV. Matrix element of type CC-03 (thick line) and type CC-43 (thin line). For details, see the text and ref. [].

At present, intensive studies are being performed to design future software architectures for experiments on proton proton colliders, such as the Tevatron  or the LHC  and high energy $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders such as JLC , NLC  or TESLA .

One of the important ingredients in such designs is the data structure for storing the Monte Carlo events. It is generally accepted that the data structures based on objects such as particles, clusters, strings, etc. with properties such as tracks, momenta, colour, spin, mass, etc. and on the relations explaining the origins and descendants of the objects is the most convenient one. This is the case at present , and it is also envisaged for the future, see . At the same time such a picture is in conflict with the basic principles of quantum mechanics. Einstein–Rosen–Podolsky paradox is an example of such phenomena. A general problem is that the quantum state of a multiparticle system cannot (at least in principle) be represented as a statistical combination of the states defined by the products of the pure quantum states of the individual particles. It is thus of the utmost importance to examine whether the approximation enforced by the data structure is purely academic, or if it rather represents a real difficulty, which may affect the interpretation of the future data.

It would not be a serious problem if the predictions of the Standard Model used in the interpretation of the future data could be provided by a single program, black box, without any need of analysing its parts. Then anything that would be measured beyond the prediction of such a hypothetical Monte Carlo program111 As experimental data are always obtained with imperfect detectors, cuts, inefficiencies, etc. theoretical predictions must be convoluted with the experimental effects. Monte Carlo simulation techniques are the only tools, for the time being, able to complete the task.  would be interpreted as “new physics”. Agreement, on the other hand, would constitute confirmation of the Standard Model, as it is understood at present (and proper functioning of the detector as well).

Because of the complexity of the problem, Monte Carlo predictions need to be dealt with by programs describing: the action of the detector and of the analysis, on the experimental side, and various effects, such as those from hard processes, hadronization, decay of resonances, etc., on the theoretical side. Every part is inevitably calculated with some approximation and, as a consequence, some systematic errors affect these predictions.

In the following, we will omit these complex issues from the discussion. We will limit ourselves to the question of spin effects, more precisely to the consequences of approximations used in combining production and decays of the intermediate states. As examples we will use effects in the production of pairs of $`\tau `$-leptons and $`W`$-bosons222For the sake of convenience, I will use as examples theoretical calculations I was involved in myself..

I advocate here that spin effects are non-treatable in the scheme where properties are attributed to individual particles only, in spite of the fact that it is the very method we used in KORALZ  – the program widely used at LEP for the simulation of $`\tau `$-lepton pair production and decay, including spin and QED bremssstrahlung effects. As described in ref.  the algorithm of spin generation for any individual event was consisting of the following steps:

1. An event consisting of a pair of $`\tau `$ leptons, bremsstrahlung photons, etc., was generated.
2. Helicity states for both $`\tau ^+`$ and $`\tau ^{}`$ were generated. At this point, an approximation with respect to quantum mechanisc was introduced.
3. Information on these helicty states, including the definition of quantization frames, i.e. the relation between $`\tau `$’s rest frame and laboratory frame, was then transmitted to TAUOLA , the package for the generation of $`\tau `$-lepton decays.
4. Finally TAUOLA performed decays of 100% polarized $`\tau `$’s, and the event in the HEPEVT common block was completed. It was not considered necessary to store the information about spin degrees of freedom; however, it proved convenient, for applications that rely on the approximate spin picture.

At LEP, in (nearly) all cases, such an approach was sufficient. Thanks to the ultrarelativistic nature of $`\tau `$-leptons $`(\frac{m_\tau }{m_Z})^21`$, missing effects were in most cases negligible. Let us note, however, that it was not always the case. Thanks to the excellent performance of the LEP detectors it was necessary to revisit the complete spin effects  and indeed the effects turned out to be measurable . Even more important was the case of complete spin effects in the measurement of the $`\tau `$-lepton lifetime, using the method of impact parameter sum (see e.g. ). In that case, terms missing in KORALZ were not at all suppressed by the mass factors. Fortunately we could recall the solution of KORALB  , which was always serving as a backup solution for the spin treatment in KORALZ. KORALB relies on the full spin density matrix, but includes first order bremsstrahlung corrections only; it also misses electroweak corrections, necessary in high precision studies of LEP.

We conclude that the solution for the spin treatment of $`\tau `$ leptons at LEP was optimal. On one side, a convenient picture of particles with properties, origins and descendants could be used and, on the other, a complete full spin solution was available, if necessary.

Let us now turn to another example of the spin effect, this time in the process, which can be a source of a background. Let us consider a semi-realistic observable of invariant mass distribution for pairs of $`s`$-flavoured jets, and its background from the four-jet process in the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation into four quarks ($`c\overline{c}s\overline{s}`$ jets) at the 350 GeV centre-of-mass energy, with the veto cut on $`c`$-jets forcing them into directions close to the beam pipe. We will not discuss details of the study, which is presented in ref. . We will simply recall some numerical results from that paper. In fig. 1, thin line represents the result of the complete CC-43333 At the Born level there are in total 43 diagrams for the charge current mediated $`e^+e^{}c\overline{s}\overline{c}s`$ process. This number is reduced to 3 if only the doubly $`W`$-resonant diagrams are taken.  matrix element. Not only the expected peak of $`Z`$-boson is clearly visible, but there is another one, at high energies as well. If we reduce the matrix element to the simple case of CC-03, where the double resonant $`WW`$-pair production is kept only (thick line), the $`Z`$ resonance disappears, but the second peak remains visible. In fig. 2 we investigate the origin of the second peak even further. We compare the CC-03 (distribution identical to that in the previous figure) with the case when transverse spin correlations are switched off. The difference is enormous. Not only is the peak at high energies reduced by a factor of 4, but also a huge shoulder of the distribution forms at lower invariant masses. There is no question, if an observable like ours was used in a search for new particles, that the lack of proper spin effects in the code simulating the background could lead to difficulties in data analysis and even to the temporary “discovery” of non–existing resonance for small experimental samples.

Is this example really worrisome? Probably not. At the future high energy experiments, data will be collected in sufficient quantities, all Monte Carlo programs will use the matrix elements for the combined production and decay of the $`W`$-pairs with no approximations. Already now the physics of the $`W`$-pair production is well established and the separation between production and decay is neither necessary (all its decay channels can be described by the same matrix element) nor convenient; effects due to the structure of the $`W`$ propagator make the separation into production and decay complicated.

Let us now turn to another example of the spin implementation algorithm. It is taken from ref.. The algorithm, essentially that of KORALZ, was adopted to work with any Monte Carlo program providing the production of $`\tau `$-leptons. If the generated events are stored in the format of a HEPEVT common block, then the algorithm consisting of the following basic steps can be used:

1. Search for $`\tau `$-leptons in a HEPEVT  common block (filled by any MC program).
2. Check what the origin of $`\tau `$–lepton is: $`Z,\gamma ,W,h,H^\pm `$ or eventually, $`22`$–body process such as: $`e^+e^{},(u\overline{u}),(d\overline{d})\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$.
3. For the $`22`$–body process of $`\tau `$-pair production, it is sometimes possible to calculate the $`\tau `$ polarization as a function of the invariant mass of the $`\tau `$–lepton pair and angle between the directions of $`\tau `$–leptons and incoming effective beams (in the rest frame of $`\tau `$-pair).
4. If in addition to the $`\tau `$-leptons, photons or partons (gluons, quarks, etc.) are stored in HEPEVT common block, one needs to define the “effective incoming beams”.
5. From such an information one can generate $`\tau `$ helicity states and define the relation between the $`\tau `$ rest frame and the laboratory frame.
6. The $`\tau `$ decay is generated with the help of a program such as TAUOLA.
7. Finally the entire event stored in a HEPEVT  common block is appended with the $`\tau `$’s decay products.
8. Optionally the final-state bremsstrahlung (emission from $`\tau `$-leptons) can be generated using PHOTOS .

As we can see in figs. 3 and 4, all leading spin effects are nicely reproduced by the above set of programs. A more complete discussion can be found in ref..

The Monte Carlo PHOTOS, is another example of a program that uses a HEPEVT  common block as a data structure. Its role is to generate, whenever suitable, bremsstrahlung photons in the decays of particles, resonances or sometimes from other intermediate charged states. The program was developped starting from the careful downgrading of the matrix element MUSTRAAL Monte Carlo , more precisely its part describing the decay of a $`Z`$ to a pair of leptons. Then, the algorithm was extended to work for the decay of “any” particle or resonance. By construction it is limited to leading logarithmic (ll) approximation with proper soft-photon angular distributions only. Thanks to comparisons with codes based on matrix elements, PHOTOS was checked to performed better than ll in the following cases: $`\tau e\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$, $`\tau \pi \nu \gamma `$, $`Z\mu ^+\mu ^{}\gamma (\gamma )`$, $`ggt\overline{t}\gamma (\gamma )`$.

In the special case of a hypothetical (scalar or pseudoscalar) Higgs boson decay $`h\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$, it is possible to define the full spin density matrix for the pair of $`\tau `$-leptons, independently of the Higgs boson production mechanism. The previously discussed algorithm of the spin implementation was extended (ref. ) to include the full spin effects in that case. As we can see in fig. 5, the program reproduces the effects of the Higgs parity correctly for the $`\pi ^+`$ $`\pi ^{}`$ acollinearity calculated in the rest frame of the Higgs boson and decay chain $`h\tau ^+\tau ^{};\tau ^\pm \pi ^\pm \nu _\tau `$ . When some detector smearings are introduced, see fig. 6, the effect becomes less visible. In this example, the Higgs-strahlung production mechanism at 350 GeV centre-of-mass energy was generated with the help of PYTHIA ; see ref.  for details of the study.

Summary

We can conclude that, in none of the discussed cases was it necessary to store spin degrees of freedom in the event records. In fact, storing such information in an approximate way as an attribute of particles would not lead to the correct solutions anyway. The general principle was shown of how to construct an interface that can calculate the relevant multiparticle density matrix from the kinematical information stored in the event record. A backup solution was always necessary.

Another solution relies on algorithms where decays and productions of some intermediate states are embodied in the monolithic program individually tailored to the process. This is a good approach in cases such as production and decay of $`(\tau \tau )(WW)(ZZ)`$ intermediate states. It may be reasonable as well for the case of $`t\overline{t}`$ production and decay, even though at least 6-body final states will have to be generated in single steps. Such a solution may pose problems if production and decay of pairs of new particles carrying spin will be discovered, especially if a multitude of decay channels, each described by a distinct model, would have to be combined.

We think that non-factorizability of the spin density matrices into properties of individual particles is important, and should be borne in mind in the discussions of future standards for event records, and redesigned software for high energy physics.

Acknowledgements

The inspiring atmosphere at the ECFA-DESY workshop in Cracow and CPP Tokyo was essential to the performance of this work. The author is specially grateful to M. Ronan for a discussion.


text:
# 𝜋₁ of Hamiltonian 𝑆¹ manifolds

## Acknowledgement

I would like to genuinely thank Susan Tolman for carefully reading this paper, for making corrections and for helping to improve the proof of the theorem.