format: text

text:
# On surfaces with 𝑝_𝑔=2, 𝑞=1 and non-birational bicanonical map 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 14J29

## 1 Introduction

If a smooth complex surface $`S`$ of general type has a pencil of curves of genus $`2`$, then the bicanonical map $`\varphi `$ of $`S`$ is not birational. We call this exception to the birationality of the bicanonical map $`\varphi `$ the standard case. The classification of the non-standard cases has a long history and we refer to the expository paper \[Ci\] for information on this problem.

The classification of non-standard irregular surfaces has been first considered by Xiao Gang in \[X\]. He gives a list of numerical possibilities for the invariants of the cases which might occur. More precise results have been obtained in \[CFM\], \[CCM\] and \[CM\].

In this note we prove the following:

###### Theorem 1.1

Let $`S`$ be an irregular surface of general type over $``$ with $`\chi (S)2`$ and non-birational bicanonical map. Then $`S`$ has a pencil of curves of genus $`2`$.

In view of the results contained in the aforementioned papers, in order to prove this theorem, it suffices to exclude the existence of non-standard cases with $`p_g=2,q=1`$. This we will do in §5 (see theorem 5.1). In §2 we prove some vanishing results which we apply later. In §§3, 4 we study the paracanonical system of the surfaces in question, proving a few numerical and geometric properties of it which allow us to prove theorem 5.1.

Acknowledgements: The present collaboration took place in the framework of the EC research project HPRN-CT-2000-00099, EAGER.

The second author is a member of CMAF and of the Departamento de Matemática da Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa.

The present paper has been finished during a visit of the second author to Rome supported by GNSAGA of INDAM.

Finally the authors want to thank the referee for the careful reading of the paper and for useful comments.

## 2 A preliminary result

In this section we prove some results that we will need further on.

###### Lemma 2.1

Let $`S`$ be an irregular surface of general type.

If $`C`$ is a $`1`$-connected curve on $`S`$ and $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$ is a point such that $`h^1(S,𝒪_S(K+\eta ))=0`$, then $`h^1(S,𝒪_S(K+\eta +C))1`$ and equality holds if and only if $`\eta _{|C}𝒪_C`$.

Furthermore, if $`h^1(S,𝒪_S(K+C))=0`$ and $`h^1(S,𝒪_S(K+\eta +C))=1`$, then $`\eta `$ is a torsion point of $`Pic^0(S)`$.

### Proof.

By Serre duality and the hypothesis, we have $`h^1(S,𝒪_S(K+\eta ))=h^1(S,𝒪_S(\eta ))=0`$.

Considering the long exact sequence obtained from the exact sequence:

$$0𝒪_S(\eta C)𝒪_S(\eta )𝒪_C(\eta )0$$

we obtain $`h^1(S,𝒪_S(\eta C))=h^0(C,𝒪_C(\eta ))`$. The line bundle $`𝒪_C(\eta )`$ has degree $`0`$ on $`C`$, thus, by \[CFM\], corollary (A.2), $`h^0(C,𝒪_C(\eta ))1`$ with equality holding if and only if $`\eta _{|C}𝒪_C`$. Now the first assertion follows because, by Serre duality $`h^1(S,𝒪_S(\eta C))=h^1(S,𝒪_S(K+\eta +C))`$.

The second assertion follows immediately from the first if we recall that $`h^1(S,𝒪_S(K+C))`$ is the dimension of the kernel of the restriction map $`Pic^0(S)Pic^0(C)`$. $``$

###### Proposition 2.2

Let $`S`$ be an irregular surface of general type such that either $`q=1`$ or the image of the Albanese map $`a:SAlb(S)`$ is a surface.

(i) If $`C`$ is a $`1`$-connected curve on $`S`$ and $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$ is a general point, then $`h^1(S,𝒪_S(K+\eta +C))1`$.

(ii) If $`C`$ is a $`1`$-connected curve on $`S`$ which is not contracted by the Albanese map $`a:SAlb(S)`$, then $`h^1(S,𝒪_S(K+C))<q`$ and if $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$ is a general point, then $`h^1(S,𝒪_S(K+\eta +C))=0`$.

(iii) If $`C`$ is a $`1`$-connected curve on $`S`$ which is contracted by the Albanese map $`a:SAlb(S)`$, then $`h^1(S,𝒪_S(K+C))=q`$ and if $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$ is a general point, then $`h^1(S,𝒪_S(K+\eta +C))=1`$.

### Proof.

Assertion (i) is an immediate consequence of lemma 2.1 because $`h^1(S,𝒪_S(K+\eta ))=0`$ for a general point $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$. For $`q=1`$ this is clear by upper semicontinuity of $`h^0(S,𝒪_S(K+\eta ))`$ on $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$, whereas for $`q2`$ it follows by the generic vanishing theorem from \[GL\] (see also \[Be\]).

Let us prove assertion (ii). The assertion about $`h^1(S,𝒪_S(K+C))`$ is well known (see \[Ra\] and \[Ca\], remark 6.8). Indeed, since $`C`$ is not contracted by the Albanese map, if $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$ is a general point, then $`\eta _{|C}`$ is non-trivial, i.e. the restriction map $`Pic^0(S)Pic^0(C)`$ is non-zero. Hence its tangent map $`H^1(S,𝒪_S)H^1(C,𝒪_C)`$ is non-zero, thus $`h^1(S,𝒪_S(K+C))`$, which is the dimension of its kernel, is smaller than $`h^1(S,𝒪_S)=q`$. The assertion about $`h^1(S,𝒪_S(K+\eta +C))`$ then follows also from lemma 2.1.

The proof of (iii) is similar and therefore we omit it. $``$

## 3 Some properties of the paracanonical curves

Let $`S`$ be an irregular surface of general type. We denote by $`K`$ a canonical divisor of $`S`$. If $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$ is any point, we will consider the linear system $`|K+\eta |`$. We denote by $`C_\eta `$ a curve in $`|K+\eta |`$, called a paracanonical curve of $`S`$.

Assume now that $`p_g=2,q=1`$ for $`S`$. Then, for a general point $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$, the linear system $`|K+\eta |`$ is a pencil. The curves $`C_\eta `$ thus describe, for a general point $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$, a continuous system $`𝒦`$ of dimension $`2`$ of curves on $`S`$, called the main paracanonical system of $`S`$.

We will write $`|K+\eta |=F_\eta +|M_\eta |`$, where $`F:=F_\eta `$ is the fixed part and $`|M|:=|M_\eta |`$ is the movable part of $`|K+\eta |`$. Next we prove two lemmas about the main paracanonical system.

###### Lemma 3.1

In the above setting, there is a not empty open Zariski subset $`UPic^0(S)`$ such that either $`F_\eta `$ or $`|M_\eta |`$ stays fixed as $`\eta `$ varies in $`U`$.

### Proof.

Let $`UPic^0(S)`$ be the not empty open set such that $`F_\eta `$ depends flatly on $`\eta U`$, so that the algebraic equivalence class of $`F_\eta `$ is independent on $`\eta U`$.

Suppose $`F_\eta `$ varies with $`\eta U`$. Fix a point $`ϵPic^0(S)`$. Then, when $`\eta `$ varies, the system $`F_\eta +|M_ϵ|`$ varies describing the general paracanonical system in $`𝒦`$. This proves that $`|M_ϵ|`$ does not depend on $`\eta `$. $``$

###### Lemma 3.2

Let $`S`$ be a minimal surface of general type with $`p_g=2`$, $`q=1`$, with no pencil of curves of genus $`2`$ and $`K^28`$. For any $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$ such that $`h^0(S,𝒪_S(K+\eta ))=2`$, the general curve in $`|M_\eta |`$ is irreducible. Furthermore:

(i) if $`|M_\eta |=|M|`$ does not depend on $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$, then either $`F_\eta `$ is $`1`$-connected or $`F_\eta =A_\eta +B`$, where $`B`$ is a fundamental cycle, $`A:=A_\eta `$ is $`1`$-connected, and $`K_S^2=8`$, $`K_SM=4`$, $`AB=0`$, $`KA=4`$, $`A^2=2`$, $`MA=MB=2`$;

(ii) if $`F_\eta =F`$ does not depend on $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$, then either $`F=0`$, or $`FM=2`$, $`F`$ is $`1`$-connected and $`M^24`$ or $`K^2=8`$, $`M^2=FM=4`$ and $`KF=0`$. In this latter case either $`F`$ is $`1`$-connected or $`F=A+B`$ with $`A`$, $`B`$ fundamental cycles such that $`AB=0`$.

### Proof.

We start by proving that the general curve in $`|M_\eta |`$ is irreducible if $`h^0(S,𝒪_S(K+\eta ))=2`$. Otherwise the pencil $`|M_\eta |`$ would be composed with a pencil $`𝒫`$. The pencil $`𝒫`$ cannot be rational, since $`|M_\eta |`$ has dimension $`1`$. Since $`q=1`$, then $`𝒫`$ would be an elliptic pencil, i.e. the Albanese pencil of $`S`$, and $`M_\eta 2G`$, where $`G`$ is a curve in $`𝒫`$. Since $`G^2=0`$, we must have $`F_\eta 0`$ and we cannot have $`KF_\eta =0`$, otherwise $`F_\eta `$ would be contained in curves of $`𝒫`$ and the canonical curves would be disconnected. Thus we have $`8K^2KF+2KG>2KG`$, hence $`KG=2`$, i.e. $`𝒫`$ would be a pencil of curves of genus $`2`$, a contradiction.

Now we prove (i). Suppose $`|M_\eta |=|M|`$ does not depend on $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$. Then $`F_\eta `$ moves with $`\eta `$. We claim that $`KF_\eta 4`$ and therefore $`KM4`$. Indeed, let $`G:=G_\eta `$ be an irreducible component of $`F:=F_\eta `$ moving with $`\eta `$, so that $`G`$ is nef. Notice that by Debarre’s inequality \[De\] we have $`K^22p_g=4`$. Then the index theorem tells us that $`KG2`$ and $`KG=2`$ would imply that $`G`$ moves in a pencil of curves of genus $`2`$, a contradiction. If $`KG=3`$, the index theorem again says that $`G^2=1`$ and we have a contradiction by proposition (0.18) from \[CCM\]. Therefore $`KFKG4`$ and there is a unique component $`G`$ of $`F`$ moving with $`\eta `$, otherwise $`KF8`$ and therefore $`KM0`$, a contradiction.

If $`FM=2`$, then $`F`$ is $`1`$-connected by A.4 from \[CFM\]. Assume $`FM>2`$. Then we have $`4KM=FM+M^24+M^2`$, yielding $`FM=4,M^2=F^2=0,KM=KF=4,K^2=8`$. If $`F`$ is not $`1`$-connected, then $`F=A+B`$ with $`A,B`$ effective, non-zero divisors, such that $`AB0`$. Then $`(M+A)B2`$, hence $`MB2AB2`$, and similarly $`MA2`$. Since $`FM=4`$ we must have $`MA=MB=2`$ and $`AB=0`$. Thus $`F`$ is $`0`$-connected and $`A`$ and $`B`$ are also $`0`$-connected by A.4 from \[CFM\]. Suppose the unique component $`G`$ of $`F`$ moving with $`\eta `$ sits in $`A`$. Then $`KA=4`$ and $`KB=0`$. From $`0=KB=BA+B^2+BM=B^2+2`$, we deduce $`B^2=2`$, hence $`B`$ is a fundamental cycle. Suppose $`A`$ is not $`1`$-connected and write $`A=A^{}+A^{\prime \prime }`$, with $`A^{}A^{\prime \prime }=0`$. We claim that $`BA^{}=BA^{\prime \prime }=0`$. Suppose indeed that $`BA^{}>0`$. Since $`0=BA=BA^{}+BA^{\prime \prime }`$, we would have $`BA^{\prime \prime }<0`$. But then $`A^{\prime \prime }(A^{}+B)=A^{\prime \prime }B<0`$, contrary to the fact that $`F`$ is $`0`$-connected. Suppose $`G`$ sits in $`A^{}`$. We claim that $`MG2`$. Indeed, clearly $`MG>0`$. If $`MG=1`$, since $`G`$ is not rational, then $`|M|`$ would cut a fixed point on $`G`$, hence $`G`$ would be properly contained in a curve of $`|M|`$, contrary to the fact that $`G`$ moves on $`S`$. Since $`MG2`$, we have $`MA^{}=2,MA^{\prime \prime }=0`$. But then $`A^{\prime \prime }(A^{}+B+M)=0`$, contrary to the $`2`$-connectedness of the canonical divisors. This ends the proof of (i).

In case (ii) we set $`M:=M_\eta `$. One has $`M^2>0`$ since $`M`$ moves in a system $``$ of curves of dimension $`2`$ and the general curve $`M`$ is irreducible. The case $`M^2=1`$ is excluded by proposition (0.14, iii) of \[CCM\]. The case $`M^2=2`$ is also excluded by theorem (0.20) of \[CCM\]. Thus we may assume $`M^23`$. Suppose that $`M^2=3`$, in which case $`F0`$, otherwise we would have $`K^2=M^2=3`$ against \[De\]. Again by theorem (0.20) of \[CCM\], $``$ has no base point. Fix $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$ general and a general curve $`M|M_\eta |`$. For a general $`ϵPic^0(S)`$, the pencil $`|M_ϵ|`$ cuts out on $`M`$ a base point free $`g_3^1`$ which has to vary with $`ϵ`$ by (1.6) of \[CFM\]. This is impossible, since $`M(K+M)=M(2M+F)8`$ and therefore $`p_a(M)5`$. Thus $`M^24`$. If $`MF4`$, then $`8K^2KM=FM+M^2`$, proving that $`K^2=8`$ and $`M^2=FM=4`$, $`KF=0`$. Suppose $`F`$ is not $`1`$-connected and write $`F=A+B`$ with $`A,B`$ effective, non-zero divisors, such that $`AB0`$. By the same argument we made before, we have $`MA=MB=2`$ and $`AB=KA=KB=0`$. Since $`F^2=4`$ we have that $`A^2=B^2=2`$, and this concludes the proof of (ii). $``$

## 4 Non birationality of the bicanonical map and the paracanonical system

Now we will consider a minimal surface $`S`$ of general type with $`p_g=2,q=1`$, with non-birational bicanonical map $`\varphi `$, presenting the non-standard case. Notice that, by \[R\] and by proposition 3.1 of \[CM\], one has then $`K^28`$. We also recall the following lemma already contained in \[CCM\] (see lemma (2.2) of that paper):

###### Lemma 4.1

Fix $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$ and let $`x`$, $`y`$ be points on $`S`$ such that $`\varphi (x)=\varphi (y)`$, with $`y`$ not lying in the base locus of $`|K\eta |`$. In particular one may assume that $`x`$, $`y`$ are general points such that $`\varphi (x)=\varphi (y)`$. Then $`x`$ belongs to a curve $`C_\eta `$ in $`|K+\eta |`$ if and only if $`yC_\eta `$.

Let $`\nu >1`$ be the degree of $`\varphi `$. In view of this lemma, $`\varphi `$ restricts to the general curve $`M_\eta `$ to a map of degree $`\nu `$ to its image. In particular, if $`\varphi `$ has degree $`2`$, then the bicanonical involution fixes the curves $`M_\eta `$ and therefore also the curves $`F_\eta `$.

Now we are ready for the proof of the following proposition:

###### Proposition 4.2

Let $`S`$ be a minimal surface of general type with $`p_g=2`$, $`q=1`$, with non-birational bicanonical map, presenting the non-standard case. Then, with the same notation as in lemma 3.2, we have that $`F=F_\eta `$ is independent of $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$, and either:

(i) $`F=0`$ or $`F`$ is $`1`$-connected, strictly contained in a fibre of the Albanese pencil of $`S`$ and $`FM=2`$, $`M^24`$, or;

(ii) $`F=A+B`$ with $`A`$, $`B`$ fundamental cycles such that $`AB=0`$ and $`M^2=FM=4`$, $`K^2=8`$.

In any case for a general $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$, the general curve $`M|M_\eta |`$ is bielliptic and for a general $`ϵPic^0(S)`$, the linear system $`|M_ϵ|`$ cuts out on $`M`$ a complete linear series whose movable part is a $`g_4^1`$ composed with the bielliptic involution on $`M`$.

The bicanonical map has then degree $`2`$ onto its image, and the bicanonical involution $`\iota `$ acts on the general curve $`M`$ as the bielliptic involution.

### Proof.

First, assume that $`F`$ is non-zero, $`1`$-connected and not contained in a fibre of the Albanese pencil. We claim that this case is not possible.

Notice that $`h^1(S,𝒪_S(2KM_\eta ))=h^1(S,𝒪_S(K+F_\eta \eta ))=0`$ for $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$ a general point. Indeed, if $`|M_\eta |`$ moves with $`\eta `$, then $`F=F_\eta `$ stays fixed by lemma 3.1, and the assertion follows by proposition 2.2, (ii). If $`|M_\eta |`$ stays fixed while $`\eta `$ moves, the divisor $`F_\eta \eta `$ stays also fixed, and we obtain the assertion by the second part of lemma 2.1, because $`h^1(S,𝒪_S(F_\eta ))=0`$ and $`\eta `$ is not a torsion point, for a general $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$ .

Thus if $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$ is general, the bicanonical system $`|2K|`$ cuts out on the general curve $`M|M_\eta |`$ a complete, non special series of degree $`2g2+FM`$ and dimension $`g2+FM`$, where we set $`g:=p_a(M)`$. By lemma 4.1 this series is composite with an involution of degree $`\delta 2`$. One has $`2g2+FM\delta (g1)+\delta (FM1)`$, hence $`FM(\delta 2)(g1)+\delta (FM1)2(FM1)`$, and therefore $`FM=\delta =2`$ and the equality has to hold everywhere in the above inequalities. In particular $`M`$ is hyperelliptic. Notice that two points $`x,yM`$ are conjugated in the hyperelliptic involution if and only if $`\varphi (x)=\varphi (y)`$, so that $`\varphi `$ has degree $`2`$ onto its image and we can talk about the bicanonical involution $`\iota `$ such that $`\iota (x)=y`$ if and only if $`\varphi (x)=\varphi (y)`$.

Suppose that $`|M_\eta |`$ moves with $`\eta `$. Let $`ϵPic^0(S)`$ be a general point and consider the linear series $`g_{ϵ,\eta }`$ cut out by $`|M_ϵ|`$ on the general curve $`M|M_\eta |`$. This series is complete and its movable part is composite with the hyperelliptic involution on $`M`$ by lemma 4.1. Furthermore its fixed divisor does not depend on $`ϵ`$, since it is supported at the finitely many points of $`S`$ which belong to every curve $`M_\eta `$. This would imply that $`g_{ϵ,\eta }`$ is independent on $`ϵ`$, a contradiction to (1.6) of \[CFM\].

Suppose that $`|M_\eta |`$ does not move with $`\eta `$ and let again $`M`$ be the general curve in $`|M_\eta |`$. Let $`ϵPic^0(S)`$ be a general point. By lemma 4.1 the curve $`F_ϵ`$ cuts out on $`M`$ a divisor fixed by the hyperelliptic involution. This would imply that the restriction map $`Pic^0(S)Pic^0(M)`$ is the zero map, yielding $`h^1(S,𝒪_S(M))=1`$, a contradiction. Our claim is thus proved.

Suppose next that $`F`$ is $`1`$-connected, contained in some fibre of the Albanese pencil of $`S`$. Remark that $`h^1(S,𝒪_S(F))=1`$ and also $`h^1(S,𝒪_S(F+\eta ))=1`$, for $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$ general by proposition 2.2. Now we will prove that (i) holds and therefore $`|M_\eta |`$ moves with $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$.

In this case $`|2K|`$ cuts out on $`M`$ an incomplete series of degree $`2g2+FM`$ and dimension $`g3+FM`$, which is composite with an involution of degree $`\delta 2`$. We claim that $`\delta =2`$. Suppose indeed that $`\delta 3`$. Then $`2g2+FM3(g3)+3FM`$, i.e. $`g+2FM7`$, which yields $`g=3`$, $`FM=2`$, $`\delta =3`$. Then $`4=(K+M)M=FM+2M^2=2+2M^2`$, and we find $`M^2=1`$. By theorem (0.20) of \[CCM\], we see that $`|M|`$ cannot vary with $`\eta `$, which means that $`F`$ has to. Namely $`F`$ has to be a fibre of the Albanese pencil. Then $`KF=F^2+FM=2`$, and we find a contradiction.

From $`\delta =2`$ we deduce $`2(g3+FM)2g2+FM`$, hence $`FM4`$.

If $`FM=4`$, then $`M`$ has to be hyperelliptic. Arguing as above, we see that $`|M|`$ cannot move with $`\eta `$, hence $`F`$ has to, so that $`F`$ is a fibre of the Albanese pencil. In this case, by lemma 4.1, the bicanonical involution has to fix every curve of the Albanese pencil. Thus, if $`x,yM`$ are in the $`g_2^1`$, i.e. if $`\iota (x)=y`$, then the fibre of the Albanese pencil through $`x`$ also contains $`y`$. This would imply that the base of the Albanese pencil is rational, a contradiction.

If $`FM=2`$, then $`KF=F^2+FM2`$ and therefore $`F`$ cannot move, otherwise the fibres of the Albanese pencil have genus $`2`$. Then, by proposition 3.2, $`M^24`$. This ends the proof of (i).

Suppose now that $`F`$ is not $`1`$-connected. Then we will prove that $`|M_\eta |`$ moves with $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$, thus (ii) will follow by lemma 3.2, (ii).

If $`|M|`$ does not depend on $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$, then one has a decomposition $`F=A+B`$ as in part (i) of lemma 3.2 and we claim that $`h^1(S,𝒪_S(F))=1`$. Indeed $`h^1(S,𝒪_S(A))=0`$ and $`h^0(B,𝒪_B(A))=1`$ and the claim follows by the exact sequence

$$0𝒪_S(F)𝒪_S(A)𝒪_B(A))0$$

Hence $`|2K|`$ cuts out on the general curve $`M|M|`$ a linear series of degree $`2g+2`$ and dimension $`rg+1`$ , which is composite with an involution of degree $`\delta 2`$. This implies again that the involution in question is a $`g_2^1`$ on $`M`$. Arguing as before we see that the curves $`A`$ should cut out on $`M`$ divisors of this $`g_2^1`$, which leads to a contradiction. Thus we proved that $`|M_\eta |`$ moves with $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$.

As for the final part of the statement, first suppose we are in case (i). As we saw, $`|2K|`$ cuts out on $`M`$ a $`g_{2g}^{g1}`$ composed with an involution of degree $`2`$. As usual, one sees that $`M`$ cannot be hyperelliptic. Then it has to be bielliptic. The series cut out by $`|M_ϵ|`$ on $`M`$ is complete. Its fixed part does not depend on $`ϵ`$, whereas its movable part is composed with the bielliptic involution and it is complete, of dimension $`1`$, hence it is a $`g_4^1`$.

Suppose now we are in case (ii). Recall that, by lemma 4.1, the degree of the map $`\varphi _M:M\varphi (M)`$ is $`\nu 2`$, which is also the degree of $`\varphi `$. Since $`M(K+M)=12`$, then $`M`$ has genus $`7`$. The series cut out by $`|M_ϵ|`$ on $`M`$ is a complete $`g_4^1`$, varying with the parameter $`ϵPic^0(S)`$. Notice that its fixed part does not depend on $`ϵ`$, hence it is empty, since there are finitely many $`g_d^1`$’s on $`M`$, with $`d3`$. Furthermore lemma 4.1 yields that either $`\nu =2`$ or $`\nu =4`$. In the latter case however the $`g_4^1`$ would not vary with $`ϵ`$, a contradiction. Therefore $`\nu =2`$ and the $`g_4^1`$ is composed with a fixed involution of degree $`2`$, independent on $`ϵ`$. Since the $`g_4^1`$ is complete and varies with $`ϵ`$, we see that the involution on $`M`$ has to be elliptic. $``$

Notice that the assertion concerning the degree of the bicanonical map contained in the above proposition, also follows by the results of \[X\].

## 5 The main theorem

In this section we will prove the following:

###### Theorem 5.1

If $`S`$ is a surface of general type with $`p_g=2`$, $`q=1`$, non-birational bicanonical map, then it presents the standard case.

By proposition 4.2, if $`S`$ is a minimal surface of general type with $`p_g=2`$, $`q=1`$, such that the bicanonical map is not birational and $`S`$ presents the non-standard case, then for $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$ a general point, the pencil $`|K+\eta |=F+|M_\eta |`$ has a fixed part $`F`$ which does not depend on $`\eta `$ and a movable part $`|M|=|M_\eta |`$ which depends on $`\eta `$. Notice that all components of $`F`$ sit in fibres of the Albanese pencil.

We let $``$ be the $`2`$-dimensional system of curves which is the closure, in the Hilbert scheme, of the family of curves $`|M_\eta |`$, with $`\eta Pic^0(S)`$ a general point. If we let $`\mu :=M^2`$, then $`\mu 4`$ and the general curve $`M`$ is irreducible. Notice that $``$ has a natural morphism $`Pic^0(S)`$ whose general fibre is a $`^1`$.

Fix a general point $`xS`$ and set $`x^{}:=\iota (x)`$. Consider the system $`_x`$ of curves in $``$ passing through $`x`$. We claim that the system $`_x`$ is irreducible, of dimension $`1`$, parametrized by $`Pic^0(S)`$. Indeed any irreducible component of $`_x`$ has dimension $`1`$ and no irreducible component of $`_x`$ can be contained in a fibre of $`Pic^0(S)`$. Since $`_x`$ cuts the general fibre of $`Pic^0(S)`$ in one point, the claim follows.

Notice that $`_x=_x^{}`$, so it is appropriate to denote this system by $`_{x,x^{}}`$.

Let us point out the following corollary of proposition 4.2:

###### Corollary 5.2

In the above setting, two general curves in $``$ have intersection multiplicity $`\mu 4`$ at fixed points of $`S`$, and intersect at $`4`$ further distinct variable points, which are pairwise conjugated in the bicanonical involution $`\iota `$. In particular, given a general point $`xS`$, two general curves in $`_{x,x^{}}`$ intersect at $`2`$ distinct variable points, which are conjugated in the bicanonical involution.

Recall that the index of a $`1`$-dimensional system of curves on a surface is the number of curves of the system passing through a general point of the surface. Next we prove the following lemma:

###### Lemma 5.3

In the above setting, the system $`_{x,x^{}}`$ has index $`\nu =2`$.

### Proof.

The index of $`_{x,x^{}}`$ cannot be $`1`$. In this case, in fact, $`_{x,x^{}}`$ would be a pencil. Since $`_{x,x^{}}`$ has base points at $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$, it would be a rational pencil, whereas we know it is parametrized by $`Pic^0(S)`$. Thus $`\nu 2`$.

Let $`y`$ be a general point of $`S`$ and set $`y^{}:=\iota (y)`$. Let $`M`$ be a curve in $`_{x,x^{}}`$ through $`y`$ and therefore also through $`y^{}`$. Since $`\nu 2`$, we know there is some other curve $`M^{}`$ in $`_{x,x^{}}`$ through $`y`$ and $`y^{}`$. Suppose there is a third one $`M^{\prime \prime }`$. Then $`M^{}`$ and $`M^{\prime \prime }`$ would cut out on $`M`$ the same divisor, a contradiction to (1.6) of \[CFM\]. $``$

Set $`Pic^0(S):=A^{}`$ and fix $`xS`$ a general point. Another general point $`yS`$ determines two point $`m_{1,y},m_{2,y}`$ in $`A^{}`$ corresponding to the two curves of $`_{x,x^{}}`$ containing $`y`$. Thus we can consider the map:

$$\alpha :SPic^2(A^{})A^{}$$

which takes the general point $`yS`$ to the divisor class of $`m_{1,y}+m_{2,y}`$. This map is clearly surjective and it factors through the Albanese map. We denote by $`G`$ the general fibre of $`\alpha `$, which is composed of curves of the Albanese pencil.

We are finally in a position to give the:

Proof of theorem 5.1. Assume $`S`$ presents the non-standard case. Let us keep the above notation and let us set $`n:=GM`$. By proposition 4.2, one has $`GK=GF+GM=GM=n`$. Since we are in the non-standard case, we have $`n4`$.

Fix a general point $`xX`$ and the system $`_{x,x^{}}`$. Let $`M`$ be a general curve in $`_{x,x^{}}`$. Let $`MG`$ consist of the points $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$. Notice that each of the points $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ is a general point of $`S`$, in particular it is different from $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$. Let $`m`$ be the point of $`A^{}`$ corresponding to the curve $`M`$. By lemma 5.3 and by the generality of $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$, for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ there is only another curve $`M_i_{x,x^{}}`$, different from $`M`$, containing $`x_i`$. Let $`m_i`$ be the point of $`A^{}`$ corresponding to $`M_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. One has $`\alpha (x_i)=m+m_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. On the other hand, by the meaning of $`G`$, one has $`\alpha (x_1)=\mathrm{}=\alpha (x_n)`$, i.e. the divisor classes of $`m+m_i`$ on $`A^{}`$ are the same for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. This implies $`m_1=\mathrm{}=m_n`$, i.e. $`M_1=\mathrm{}=M_n`$. Let $`M^{}`$ be this curve. Then $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ sit in the intersection of the two curves $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ of $`_{x,x^{}}`$, off the points $`x,x^{}`$. By corollary 5.2 we have $`n+24`$, i.e. $`n2`$, a contradiction. $``$

| Ciro Ciliberto | Margarida Mendes Lopes |
| --- | --- |
| Dipartimento di Matematica | CMAF |
| Universita di Roma Tor Vergata | Universidade de Lisboa |
| Via della Ricerca Scientifica | Av. Prof. Gama Pinto, 2 |
| 00133 Roma, ITALY | 1649-003 Lisboa, PORTUGAL |
| cilibert@mat.uniroma2.it | mmlopes@lmc.fc.ul.pt |


text:
# Why is nacre strong? II: remaining mechanical weakness for cracks propagating along the sheets

## I Introduction

A number of living soft matters derive their strength from some composite structures. Tooth and timber are among the examples. These composite structures have motivated studies mainly in industry or technology-oriented field to produce strong materials, such as raw material for construction or air plane and automobile tires.  One of the purposes of this paper is to present some complementary understandings of such a problem from a viewpoint of a physicist.

In the first of this series of papers,  which deepened the scaling picture presented in , we studied nacre  which has an alternating laminated structure of hard and soft layers (Fig. 1). One of the significant features of this substance lies in the length scale of the layers. The thicknesses of hard inorganic layer $`d_h`$ and that of the soft organic layer $`d_s`$ are of the order of nanometer and micron, respectively. This allows us a coarse-grained treatment in which average deformation field may be well defined and can be used for the analysis of the field even near the tip. Simplifying the coarse-grained elastic energy further in terms of Fourier components of the deformation field, which is somewhat different from conventional approaches,  we could show analytical solutions and thereby demonstrate one possible mechanism for the toughness of nacre for a perpendicular crack.

This paper does not concern the enhancement in toughness as opposed to the title. Rather, we proceed to study a case of parallel crack with the fixed grip condition from the continuum view (as for non-continuum treatment on laminated composites, see for example, ). As we see later, this coarse-grained treatment again leads to a reasonably simplified picture of the problem. To describe the fields near the tip, we shall find that an extra term is required in our elastic energy. This term introduces a new length scale $`\lambda `$, as we see below, and the extra term becomes important near the tip ($`x\lambda `$, where $`x`$ is the distance from the tip). This term is suggested previously concerning some smectic liquid crystal  and a lenticular tip form is predicted from scaling arguments.  Here, we obtain an analytical solution to the stress and deformation distribution near the tip; the tip form in this case takes also the lenticular form. The appearance of a parabolic differential equation for the deformation field due to the extra term is another feature of this paper. We also obtain an analytical solution for $`x\lambda `$, which allows us to estimate the fracture energy; there is no energy enhancement within our treatment.

The Young modulus of the hard and soft layer are denoted $`E_h`$ and $`E_s`$, respectively, where

$`E_s=\epsilon E_h.`$

In the following, we consider the case of parallel fractures under the plane strain condition, i.e. $`e_{zx}=e_{zy}=e_{zz}=0`$ (Fig. 1). Here, $`e_{ij}`$ is the strain derived from the displacement field $`u_i`$, i.e.

$`e_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u_i}{x_j}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u_j}{x_i}}\right),`$

where $`(x_1,x_2,x_3)(x,y,z).`$

The ensuing analysis is based on the conditions appropriate for nacre:

$`\epsilon `$ $``$ $`1,`$
$`d_s`$ $``$ $`d_h,`$
$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon d/d_s1,`$
where, $`d=d_s+d_hd_h`$.

### A Elastic energy for the nacre in the thin layer limit

Assuming that the thickness of layers are thin in the sense that we can neglect the stress change over a few layers, we can introduce macroscopic strain field to have the following elastic energy

$$f=\frac{E}{2(1\nu ^2)}e_{xx}^2+\frac{E_0}{2}e_{yy}^2+\frac{E_0}{1+\nu }e_{xy}^2+\frac{\nu E_0}{1\nu }e_{xx}e_{yy},$$
(1)
where

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`E_h,`$
$`E_0`$ $`=`$ $`ϵE_h.`$
We have assumed that the Poisson ratio is the same for both layers for simplicity (even if $`E_sE_h`$, or $`\epsilon 1,`$ $`\nu _s`$ and $`\nu _h`$ are typically of the same order). We have checked (for the perpendicular crack) the stress distribution resulting from this energy exhibits small change over a few layers, which justifies the above assumption.

The strain-stress relation results from this energy by the relation $`\sigma _{ij}=f/e_{ij}`$:

$`\sigma _{xx}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E}{1\nu ^2}}e_{xx}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{1\nu }}E_0e_{yy},`$ (3)
$`\sigma _{yy}`$ $`=`$ $`E_0\left(e_{yy}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{1\nu }}e_{xx}\right),`$ (4)
$`\sigma _{xy}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_0}{1+\nu }}e_{xy}.`$ (5)
### B Parallel fracture: inclusion of the bending effect

Near the fracture tip, the stress gradient is large; we may need to include the stress changes within a single layer in some cases. In the case of parallel fracture, the bending, which originates from the non-uniform stress, is important as we see below. The correction due to the bending effect is given by (neglecting the bending energy of the soft layer)

$`f_B={\displaystyle \frac{B_h}{2d}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2u_y}{x^2}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2u_y}{x^2}}\right)^2,`$

where the bending moduli is given by

$`B_h={\displaystyle \frac{E_hd_h^3}{12(1\nu ^2)}}.`$

The total energy is then given by

$$f_T=f+\frac{K}{2}\left(\frac{^2u_y}{x^2}\right)^2.$$
(6)
As we see later, in the case of parallel fracture, the first term in $`f`$ in Eq. (1) becomes negligible; the remaining terms in $`f`$ are all associated with the weak modulus $`E_s`$ while the bending term is associated with the strong modulus $`E_h`$. This suggests the possibility that this higher-order derivative term make a significant contribution to the energy in the parallel fracture.

In accordance with the introduction of the bending term, we have another length scale $`\lambda `$ as announced:

$`\lambda ^2={\displaystyle \frac{K}{E_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{ϵ}}.`$

## II Scaling prediction

As we see below, at large scale where $`\lambda x`$, we have $`u_xu_y`$, and the elastic energy is simplified to

$$f=\frac{E_0}{2}\left(\frac{u_y}{y}\right)^2+\frac{E_0}{4\left(1+\nu \right)}\left(\frac{u_y}{x}\right)^2.$$
(7)
At small scale $`\lambda x`$, we also have $`u_xu_y`$ and the elastic energy is simplified to

$$f=\frac{E_0}{2}\left(\frac{u_y}{y}\right)^2+\frac{K}{2}\left(\frac{^2u_y}{x^2}\right)^2.$$
(8)
This energy in Eq. (8) has been discussed for smectic liquid crystals.  By considering energy balance as in the Griffith theory,  it is predicted that the system exhibits a ”lenticular fracture,” where the opening angle $`\theta _0`$ is finite, i.e.,

$$\theta _0^2\frac{G_0}{E_0\lambda },$$
(9)
where $`G_0(=2\gamma _0)`$ is a thermodynamic separation energy for the soft medium (where $`\gamma _0`$ is the surface energy of the organic substance). Note here this angle is small ($`\theta _01`$) because $`G_0/E_0a`$ , where $`a`$ is a molecular length; thus we see the angle is small ($`\theta _0^2a/\lambda )`$. (Here, the relation, $`G_0/E_0a,`$ results from the following argument. The scaling expression for the elastic modulus for polymer melt is given by $`EcT/N_e`$ where $`c1/a^3`$ and $`N_e`$ $`100`$,  while the surface tension is typically given by $`\gamma =T/a^2`$.  Thus, we have $`E\gamma /a`$.)

In the inner (small scale) region, the deformation of the free surface is given by

$`u_su_y(x,y=0)=\theta _0x.`$

In the outer (large scale) region where the bending term is neglected, we expect the usual singular behavior for the stress and deformation distribution because the deformation field satisfies the two-dimensional Laplace equation resulting from the energy in Eq. (7);

$`\sigma _s`$ $``$ $`\sigma _{yy}(x,y=0)={\displaystyle \frac{K_I}{\sqrt{x}}}`$
$`u_s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K_I}{E_0}}\sqrt{x}.`$
Requiring the matching of the deformation field at $`x=\lambda `$, we have

$`K_I^2=E_0^2\theta _0^2\lambda =G_0E_0.`$

This shows that the stress intensity factor is the same order with that for a pure organic system; there is no enhancement of the separation energy.

$`K_I`$ usually depends on the remote tensile stress and, at the moment of fracture (where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}=\sigma _{Failure}`$), the square of this coincides with the elastic constant multiplied by the fracture energy (e.g. $`K_I^2=\mu G`$). In the above, it seems that $`K_I`$ does not depend on the remote stress from the beginning. This is because the expression (9) is derived from an energy-balance consideration which requires the condition ”at the moment of fracture.”

## III Simplification of the energy at large and small scales

At equilibrium, by requiring $`\delta F=F(u_x+\delta u_x)F(u_x)=0`$ for any displacement $`\delta u_x`$, where

$$F=𝑑𝐫\left(\frac{E}{2(1\nu ^2)}e_{xx}^2+\frac{E_0}{2}e_{yy}^2+\frac{E_0}{1+\nu }e_{xy}^2+\frac{\nu E_0}{1\nu }e_{xx}e_{yy}+\frac{K}{2}\left(\frac{^2u_y}{x^2}\right)^2\right),$$
(10)
we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2u_x}{x^2}}+ϵ\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{^2u_x}{y^2}}+ϵ\beta {\displaystyle \frac{^2u_y}{xy}}=0,`$

where

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\left(1+\nu \right)}},\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\nu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\nu }{1\nu }}\right)`$

For the displacement of $`u_y`$, we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2u_y}{y^2}}+\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{^2u_y}{x^2}}+\beta {\displaystyle \frac{^2u_x}{xy}}\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{^4u_y}{x^4}}=0.`$

Let us try to find a solution of the form

$`u_x`$ $`=`$ $`u\mathrm{exp}(ipx)\mathrm{exp}(iqy)`$
$`u_y`$ $`=`$ $`v\mathrm{exp}(ipx)\mathrm{exp}(iqy)`$
and put them into the above two equations. We have

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}p^2+ϵ\alpha q^2& ϵ\beta pq\\ \beta pq& q^2+(\alpha +\lambda ^2p^2)p^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ v\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\end{array}\right).`$

Requiring $`(u,v)(0,0)`$, with $`\alpha ^{}=\alpha ^2\beta ^2`$, we have

$`ϵ\alpha q^4+\left(1+ϵ\left(\alpha ^{}+\alpha \lambda ^2p^2\right)\right)p^2q^2+\left(\alpha +\lambda ^2p^2\right)p^4=0.`$

Since we concern the region, $`p1/d`$, for a continuum theory, from the relation $`\lambda ^2d^2/ϵ`$ we have $`ϵ\lambda ^2p^21`$ and $`ϵ\lambda p1`$. Then, we arrive at the two solutions,

$`q^2=p^2(\alpha +\lambda ^2p^2)+O(ϵ),{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{ϵ\alpha }}\left(1+O(ϵ)\right)`$

The minus sign on the right-hand side indicates that the solution is a damping function in the $`y`$ direction and some trigonometric function in the $`x`$-direction.

From the second solution, we have $`v\sqrt{ϵ}u`$. Since we seek the solution with $`v>u`$ in our boundary condition, we chose the first, i.e., $`q^2=p^2(\alpha +\lambda ^2p^2)`$. Thus, at large scale ($`\lambda p1`$), we have $`q^2=p^2\alpha `$, which leads to $`uϵv`$. These facts allow us to reduce Eq. (10) to the form announced in Eq. (7). At small scale ($`\lambda p1`$), we have $`q^2=\lambda ^2p^4`$ and, thus, $`uϵ\lambda pv`$, which allows Eq. (10) to be reduced to the form in Eq. (8).

Unlike the perpendicular case,  the energy is not simplified into a single form over all length scale in the present case. Instead, we observe the simplification of the energy at both the large and small scales, i.e., $`\lambda p1`$ and $`\lambda p1.`$ We note here that $`\lambda `$ is rather large compared with the layer thickness, i.e., $`\lambda d/\sqrt{ϵ}`$. The ensuing analysis is based on the condition, $`d\lambda L`$, where $`2L`$ is the $`y`$ dimension of the sample.

## IV Large scale solution

At equilibrium, by minimizing the energy given in Eq. (7), we have

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\overline{x}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{y^2}}\right)u_y=0,`$

where

$`\overline{x}=\sqrt{2(1+\nu )}x.`$

When the crack tip is located at the origin of the $`x`$-axis the appropriate boundary conditions are, under the fixed condition, as follows:

$`u_y`$ $`=`$ $`\pm u_0\text{ at }y=\pm L,`$
$`u_y`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{ for }y=0,\text{ }x0(x\lambda ),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{u_y}{y}}`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{ for }y=0,\text{ }x0(x\lambda ).`$
Note here that these boundary conditions specify the conditions at the points away from the origin. As in the perpendicular case, in analogy with the boundary problem for a variable condenser,  we have the displacement;

$$u_y=\frac{2u_0}{\pi }Im\left[\mathrm{log}\left(e^{i\pi z/(2L)}+\left(e^{i\pi z/L}1\right)^{1/2}\right)\right],$$
(11)
with

$`z=y+i\left(\overline{x}\overline{x}_0\right).`$

In the above, the branch of the function $`z^{1/2}`$ is chosen such that $`z^{1/2}=r^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(i\theta /2)`$ with $`0<\theta <2\pi `$ (e.g., $`(1)^{1/2}=i`$). Here, the remote boundary conditions allow the shift, $`x_0\left(=\overline{x}_0/\sqrt{2(1+\nu )}\right)`$, in our solution, as far as $`x_0L`$.

In the following, we consider only the region $`y>0`$, since the problem is symmetric with respect to the $`x`$-axis. When $`\left|z\right|L`$, we have

$$u_y(x,y)=\frac{2u_0}{\pi }Im\left[\left(\frac{i\pi z}{L}\right)^{1/2}\right].$$
(12)
In the vicinity of the origin (but still $`x\lambda `$), it reduces to a parabolic form:

$$u_y(x,y=0)=2u_0\theta (x)\sqrt{\frac{\overline{x}\overline{x}_0}{\pi L}}.$$
(13)
where $`\theta (x)`$ is the Heaviside step function. Here and hereafter, the notation $`y=0`$ should be understood as the limit where the variable $`y`$ approaches to an positive infinitesimal quantity. This is because the consideration for the region $`y>0`$ is enough due to the symmetry.

The nonzero component of the stress field is given from $`\sigma _{yy}=E_0e_{yy};`$

$$\sigma _{yy}=\sigma _{\mathrm{}}Re\left[\frac{e^{i\pi z/(2L)}}{\left(e^{i\pi z/L}1\right)^{1/2}}\right],$$
(14)
where the remote tensile stress is given by

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}=E_0{\displaystyle \frac{u_0}{L}}.`$

When $`\left|z\right|L`$, we have

$`\sigma _{yy}(x,y)=\sigma _{\mathrm{}}Re\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{i\pi z}{L}}\right)^{1/2}\right],`$

and stress distribution near the tip is given by

$$\sigma _{yy}(x,y=0)=\sigma _{\mathrm{}}\theta (x)\sqrt{\frac{L}{\left(\left(\overline{x}\overline{x}_0\right)\right)\pi }}.$$
(15)
Note here that these expressions are valid only when $`x>\lambda (d/\sqrt{ϵ})`$ where $`\lambda L`$.

## V Small scale solution

From Eq. (8), we have a ”pseudo bi-diffusion” equation,

$$\frac{^2u_y}{y^2}=\lambda ^2\frac{^4u_y}{x^4}.$$
(16)
The solution to our problem has to satisfy the following two boundary conditions at least

$`u_y`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{ for }y=0,\text{ }x<0(\left|x\right|\lambda ),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{u_y}{y}}`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{ for }y=0,\text{ }x>0(x\lambda ).`$
In addition, the solution should be able to match with the large scale solution.

### A General solution for the boundary problem

The field $`u_y`$ satisfies the (pseudo) bi-diffusion equation,

$`\left(_y+\lambda _x^2\right)\left(_y\lambda _x^2\right)u_y=0.`$

Putting $`S_u=\left(_y\lambda _x^2\right)u_y`$, we see that $`S_u`$ is a solution to the anti-diffusion equation

$`\left(_y+\lambda _x^2\right)S_u=0`$

and that $`u_y`$ satisfies the inhomogeneous diffusion equation

$`\left(_y\lambda _x^2\right)u_y=S_u.`$

The source function $`S_u`$ is a solution of the anti-diffusion equation (a typical solution is $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{x^2}{4\lambda y}\right)/\sqrt{4\pi \lambda y}`$) and blows up when $`y`$ approaches to zero, except that $`S_u`$ is independent of $`y`$, i.e., $`S_u=A+Bx`$ (this fact can be confirmed later) where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are constants independent of $`x`$ and $`y`$.

Since $`u_y`$ satisfies the bi-diffusion equation, $`\sigma _{yy}`$ also satisfies the bi-diffusion equation. Putting $`S_\sigma =\left(_y\lambda _x^2\right)\sigma _{yy}`$, we have

$`\left(_y\lambda _x^2\right)\sigma _{yy}=S_\sigma .`$

To have a physical solution, we have $`S_u=A+Bx`$ and we conclude that $`S_\sigma =0`$ because $`S_\sigma =E_0_yS_u`$. Namely, $`\sigma _{yy}`$ is the solution of the diffusion equation. As we see later, the function $`S_u`$ obtained starting from the diffusion equation for $`\sigma _{yy}`$ is actually in the form, $`S_u=A+Bx`$. In this way, we shall obtain the general solution for $`u_y`$.

The general solution for the initial boundary condition (here, ”initial” corresponds to $`y=0`$)

$$\sigma _{yy}(x,y=0)=F(x)$$
(17)
is given as

$$\sigma _{yy}(x,y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi \lambda y}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}F(x^{})\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\left(xx^{}\right)^2}{4\lambda y}\right)𝑑x^{}.$$
(18)
In the following, we determine the source function $`F(x)`$ considering appropriate boundary conditions. Requiring the boundary condition

$$\sigma _{yy}(x,y)=0\text{ for }y=0\text{ and }x>0,$$
(19)
we may put

$$F(x)=\theta (x)f(x)+\sigma \lambda \delta (x)$$
(20)
where $`\delta (x)`$ is the Dirac’s delta function and $`f(x)`$ and $`\sigma `$ are the quantities to be determined. As we see later, the second singular term in the source function is required to have a smooth matching to the outer solution. In this way, we have

$$\sigma _{yy}(x,y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi \lambda y}}_{\mathrm{}}^0f(x^{})\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\left(xx^{}\right)^2}{4\lambda y}\right)𝑑x^{}+\sigma \sqrt{\frac{\lambda }{4\pi y}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{x^2}{4\lambda y}\right).$$
(21)
By integrating Eq. (21) over $`y`$, we have ($`erfc\left(x\right)=1erf(x)`$, $`erf(x)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}_0^xe^{t^2}𝑑t`$)

$`E_0u_y(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}f(x^{})\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{y}{\pi \lambda }}}e^{\frac{\left(xx^{}\right)^2}{4\lambda y}}{\displaystyle \frac{xx^{}}{2\lambda }}erfc\left({\displaystyle \frac{xx^{}}{\sqrt{4\lambda y}}}\right)\right)𝑑x^{}`$ (23)
$`+\sigma \left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda y}{\pi }}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{4\lambda y}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}erfc\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{\sqrt{4\lambda y}}}\right)\right)+C(x),`$
where we have used the formula given in , in which formulae the integration constants are chosen so that the result vanishes at $`x=\mathrm{}`$. In the above, $`C(x)`$ is the solution of the bi-diffusion equation independent of $`y`$, i.e.,

$`C(x)=c_0+c_1x+c_2x^2+c_3x^3.`$

The boundary condition required for $`u_y(x,y)`$ is

$$u_y(x,y)=0\text{ for }y=0\text{ and }x<0.$$
(24)
To determine the function $`f(x)`$ to accommodate this boundary condition, we consider $`u_y(x,y)`$ at $`y=0`$. Noting the relation,

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}f(x^{}){\displaystyle \frac{xx^{}}{2\lambda }}erfc\left({\displaystyle \frac{xx^{}}{2\sqrt{\lambda y}}}\right)dx^{}`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^x}𝑑x^{}+{\displaystyle _x^0}𝑑x^{}\right)f(x^{}){\displaystyle \frac{xx^{}}{2\lambda }}erfc\left({\displaystyle \frac{xx^{}}{2\sqrt{\lambda y}}}\right),`$
where the first term in the right-hand side is zero at $`y=0`$ and the second term is nonzero only when $`x<0`$, we have

$`E_0u_y(x,y=0)=\theta \left(x\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}{\displaystyle _0^x}f(x^{})\left(xx^{}\right)𝑑x^{}\sigma x\right)+C(x).`$

Here, note the relation $`erfc\left(\left(xx^{}\right)/\sqrt{4\lambda y}\right)2\theta \left(x\right)`$ when $`y0^+.`$

Since $`\theta (x)=1\theta (x)`$, the boundary condition (24) is satisfied only when

$$C(x)=\sigma x\frac{1}{\lambda }_0^xf(x^{})\left(xx^{}\right)𝑑x^{},$$
(25)
to have

$`E_0u_y(x,y=0)=\theta \left(x\right)\left(\sigma x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}{\displaystyle _0^x}f(x^{})\left(xx^{}\right)𝑑x^{}\right).`$

The condition (25) is strong in the sense that $`C(x)`$ is the polynomial of $`x`$ with the order lower than the fourth and is independent of $`y`$; $`f(x)`$ is at most linear in $`x`$,

$$f(x)=a_0+a_1x.$$
(26)
In this way, we obtain

$$E_0u_y(x,y=0)=\theta \left(x\right)\left(\sigma x\frac{1}{\lambda }\left(\frac{1}{2}a_0x^2+\frac{1}{6}a_1x^3\right)\right)$$
(27)
and from Eqs. (17) and (20), we have (for $`x0`$)

$$\sigma _{yy}(x,y=0)=\theta (x)(a_0+a_1x)$$
(28)
## VI Matching between inner and outer solutions

Eq. (27) contains the three unknown constants, $`a_0,a_1,`$ and $`\sigma ,`$ while the outer solution the one unknown, $`x_0`$; there are four unknowns. To determine these constants we require that $`u_y`$ and $`_xu_y`$ match the outer solution at $`x=\lambda `$ while $`\sigma _{yy}`$ and $`_x\sigma _{yy}`$ match the large-scale solution at $`x=\lambda `$.

### A Outer solution

Introducing $`\alpha `$ (which is different from $`\alpha `$ used in Sec. III)

$`\alpha ^2=\sqrt{2\left(1+\nu \right)}`$

we have

$`u_y(x,y`$ $`=`$ $`0)=2u_0\alpha \theta (x)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{xx_0}{\pi L}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}u_y(x,y`$ $`=`$ $`0)=\theta (x){\displaystyle \frac{u_0\alpha }{\sqrt{\pi L\left(xx_0\right)}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_0}}\sigma _{yy}(x,y`$ $`=`$ $`0)=\theta (x){\displaystyle \frac{u_0}{\alpha \sqrt{\pi L\left(\left(xx_0\right)\right)}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\sigma _{yy}(x,y`$ $`=`$ $`0)=\theta (x){\displaystyle \frac{u_0}{2\alpha \sqrt{\pi L}}}((xx_0))^{3/2}`$
### B Inner solution

Introducing $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`u`$ (which is different from $`u`$ in Sec. III)

$`a{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda a_0}{E_0u}},b{\displaystyle \frac{a_1\lambda ^2}{E_0u}},u{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma \lambda }{E_0}}`$

we have

$`u_y(x,y`$ $`=`$ $`0)=u\theta (x)({\displaystyle \frac{x}{\lambda }}({\displaystyle \frac{a}{2\lambda ^2}}x^2+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{6\lambda ^3}}x^3))`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}u_y(x,y`$ $`=`$ $`0)=u\theta (x)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}({\displaystyle \frac{a}{\lambda ^2}}x+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2\lambda ^3}}x^2))`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_0}}\sigma _{yy}(x,y`$ $`=`$ $`0)=\theta (x){\displaystyle \frac{u}{\lambda }}(a+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{\lambda }}x)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\sigma _{yy}(x,y`$ $`=`$ $`0)=\theta (x)u{\displaystyle \frac{b}{\lambda ^2}}`$
### C Matching

We have four conditions, while we have four unknowns, $`a,b,x_0,`$ and $`u`$, for the four conditions.

At $`x=\lambda :`$

$`u\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{6}}\right)+u`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha u_0l\sqrt{\gamma }`$
$`u\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{\lambda }}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2\lambda }}\right)+u{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha u_0l}{\lambda \sqrt{\gamma }}}`$
Here, we have introduced

$`l=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\pi L}}},\gamma =1{\displaystyle \frac{x_0}{\lambda }}`$

At $`x=\lambda :`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{\lambda }}\left(ab\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_0l}{\alpha \lambda \sqrt{\gamma ^{}}}}`$
$`u{\displaystyle \frac{b}{\lambda ^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_0l}{2\alpha \lambda \lambda ^2\left(\sqrt{\gamma ^{}}\right)^3}}`$
Here, we have introduced

$`\gamma ^{}1+{\displaystyle \frac{x_0}{\lambda }},`$

from which we have $`x+x_0=\lambda (1+x_0/\lambda )=\lambda \gamma ^{}`$. With the definition,

$`\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{u_0}{u}}l,`$

we have

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`42\alpha \eta {\displaystyle \frac{6\gamma 1}{\sqrt{\gamma }}}`$ (29)
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`6+6\alpha \eta {\displaystyle \frac{4\gamma 1}{\sqrt{\gamma }}}`$ (30)
and

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`\eta {\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma ^{}+1}{2\alpha (\gamma ^{})^{\frac{3}{2}}}}`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2\alpha (\gamma ^{})^{\frac{3}{2}}}}`$
Thus, we have a set of equations for $`\gamma `$ and $`\eta :`$

$`42\alpha \eta {\displaystyle \frac{6\gamma 1}{\sqrt{\gamma }}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta {\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma ^{}+1}{2\alpha (\gamma ^{})^{\frac{3}{2}}}}`$ (31)
$`6+6\alpha \eta {\displaystyle \frac{4\gamma 1}{\sqrt{\gamma }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2\alpha (\gamma ^{})^{\frac{3}{2}}}}`$ (32)
Numerical solution to this set of equation with $`\left|x_0\right|<\lambda `$ (or $`\left|1\gamma \right|<1`$) is $`\gamma =0.71842,\eta =0.38752`$ for $`\nu =0`$ and $`\eta =\mathrm{0.378\hspace{0.17em}70},\gamma =0.6656`$ for $`\nu =1/2`$.

Approximate but analytical expressions for them can be obtained as follows. Introducing $`\eta ^{}1/\eta `$ and $`\delta `$ by

$`\delta =x_0/\lambda ,\gamma =1\delta ,\gamma ^{}=1+\delta `$

and, assuming, $`\delta 1`$, the set of equation can be reduced to

$`4\eta ^{}2\alpha \left(5{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}\delta \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{65\delta }{4\alpha }}`$
$`6\eta ^{}+6\alpha \left(3{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\delta \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{23\delta }{4\alpha }}`$
Solving this equation we have an approximate solution:

$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\left(12\alpha ^211\right)}{3\left(12\alpha ^27\right)}}`$
$`\eta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{48\alpha ^48\alpha ^21}{3\left(12\alpha ^27\right)\alpha }}`$
For $`\alpha =\sqrt{2(1+\nu )}`$ with $`0<\nu <1/2`$, $`\delta 0.4`$ which barely justifies the assumption, $`\delta 1`$, while $`\eta ^{}2.4`$. In this way, we confirm that $`\gamma `$ and $`\eta `$ are both positive quantity of the order of unity for any value of $`\nu `$ ($`0<\nu <1/2`$).

## VII Overall solution

For $`\left|x\right|<\lambda `$, from Eqs. (23), (25), and (26) we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{u_y(x,y)}{u}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}X^2+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{6}}X^3\right)\left(1+erf\left({\displaystyle \frac{X}{\sqrt{4Y}}}\right)\right)`$ (34)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Y\left(a+bX\right)erfc\left({\displaystyle \frac{X}{\sqrt{4Y}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}bY+{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{a}{2}X^2+\frac{b}{6}X^3}{X}}\right)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{Y}{\pi }}}e^{\frac{X^2}{4Y}}`$
and from Eqs. (21) and (26) we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{yy}(x,y)\lambda }{E_0}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(a+bX\right)erfc\left({\displaystyle \frac{X}{\sqrt{4Y}}}\right)b\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{Y}{\pi }}}e^{\frac{X^2}{4Y}}`$

where $`a`$ $`(0.4)`$ and $`b`$ $`(0.1)`$ are given by Eq. (30) and $`u=u_0l/\eta `$ $`(2.6u_0l)`$ with $`\gamma `$ and $`\eta `$ given by Eq. (32). Here, $`X=x/\lambda `$ and $`Y=y/\lambda `$.

For $`\left|x\right|>\lambda `$, $`u_y`$ and $`\sigma _{yy}`$ are given by Eqs. (11) and (14) where $`x_0=(1\gamma )\lambda `$ $`(0.3\lambda )`$.

As expected and clear from (34), these expression are only valid for $`y\lambda `$ (at small scale, we have $`q^2=\lambda ^2p^4`$ with $`\lambda p1`$, from which we have $`q^2p^21/\lambda `$).

If we operate $`\left(_y\lambda _x^2\right)`$ to the right-hand side of Eq. (34) we obtain $`a+bX`$, which corresponds to $`S_u`$ in the previous section and thus confirm the statement mentioned there.

A typical shape of the crack tip and stress distribution around the surface $`(0<y\lambda )`$ are given in the plots in Fig. 2 with the parameters given in Discussion. The solution becomes precise only when $`x\lambda `$ or $`x\lambda `$. Near the tip ($`x\lambda `$), the tip is lenticular ($`x`$) while, away from the tip ($`x\lambda `$), the deformation field recovers the ordinary square-root law ($`\sqrt{x}`$) .

## VIII Discussion

Since we have the usual singular behavior for the stress and stress fields we have

$$G_0\left(\sigma u\right)_{\text{large scale}}\sigma _{\mathrm{}}u_0.$$
(35)
On the other hand, from the Griffith’s energy balance, we have $`\gamma _0L\sigma _{\mathrm{}}^2/E_0`$.  Thus, the fracture energy is the order of $`\gamma _0`$ as predicted by the scaling consideration.

Since we have

$`\overline{\theta }_0(x){\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}u_y(x,y=0)=u\theta (x)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{\lambda ^2}}x+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2\lambda ^3}}x^2\right)\right)`$

the crack tip angle at $`x=0`$ is

$`\theta _0\overline{\theta }_0(0)={\displaystyle \frac{u_0l}{\eta \lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{u_0}{\sqrt{L\lambda }}}`$

By rewriting the last expression with the aide of (35), we have

$`\theta _0\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0}{E_0\lambda }}}`$

as predicted in Eq. (9).

Typical parameters for nacre are as follows:

$`d`$ $`=`$ $`1\mu \mathrm{m}`$
$`L`$ $`=`$ $`1cm`$
$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`1/250`$
For this parameter we have

$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`250\mu \mathrm{m}`$
$`L/\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`40`$
$`d/\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`1/250`$
These numerical values allow us the continuum description with length scales $`\lambda `$ and $`L`$ since the relation, $`d\lambda L`$, holds for these values.

If we did not include the last term in Eq. (20), we would not have a linear term in the deformation field and it would contradict with the scaling expectation (in addition, we could not make a smooth matching as we see below); we would have

$`u_y`$ $`=`$ $`u\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{2\lambda ^2}}x^2+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{6\lambda ^3}}x^3\right)\theta (x)`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_0}}\sigma _{yy}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{\lambda }}\left(a+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{\lambda }}x\right)\theta (x)`$ (37)
Here, we have only two unknowns; $`a^{}ua`$ and $`b^{}ub`$. Let us assume first that $`a^{}0`$. Then, the first equation implies $`a^{}<0`$ for a positive $`u_y`$ around the origin ($`x=0`$), while the second equation implies $`a^{}>0`$ for a positive $`\sigma _{yy}`$ (We have assumed $`u>0`$). Thus, for consistency, we have $`a^{}=0`$.

Thus, we have

$`u_y(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b^{}}{6\lambda ^3}}x^3\theta (x)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_0}}\sigma _{yy}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b^{}}{\lambda ^2}}x\theta (x)`$
For positive $`u_y`$ and $`\sigma _{yy}`$, we have $`b^{}<0.`$ By introducing the shift $`x_0`$ for the outer solution as before, the matching of the both fields themselves is possible. However, since the inner solution $`u_y`$ $`(x^3)`$ is concave (positive curvature) while the outer solution $`(\sqrt{x})`$ convex (negative curvature), the smooth matching is impossible. For a similar reason, the smooth matching of the stress is also impossible and the stress field at $`x=0`$ tends to zero. These facts suggest the need for the last term in Eq. (20).

## IX Conclusion

In this paper, we have developed a continuum theory for a nanoscale layered structure with a parallel crack. We indicated the importance of the bending term near the crack, which leads to a parabolic differential equation and, thereby, a lenticular tip form. From the coarse-grained view, we have a simplified picture with analytical expressions; the deformation field is linear function of $`x`$ (the distance from the tip) near the tip and goes back to the usual square-root function of $`x`$ away from the tip. As a result, the fracture energy of nacre against the parallel crack is of the same order as the soft organic material; there is no enhancement in toughness within our simplified view.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author is grateful to Pierre-Gilles de Gennes for a number of essential discussions at the early stage of this work. He would like to express his sincere gratitude to all the members of de Gennes’ group at Collège de France for warm hospitality during his stay in Paris. He also thanks to Elie Raphaël for discussions. This work is supported by Joint Research Project between Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

We present the measurement of the branching fractions of the exclusive decays111Throughout this paper, whenever a mode is given, the charge conjugate (c.c.) is also implied. $`B^0\eta _cK^0`$ and $`B^+\eta _cK^+`$, with $`\eta _c`$ decaying into $`K_S^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$, $`K^+K^{}\pi ^0`$, and $`K^+K^{}K^+K^{}`$ ($`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$). The $`\eta _c`$ is a $`c\overline{c}`$ meson with $`I^G(J^{PC})=0^+(0^+)`$. The decay $`B^0\eta _cK^0`$ proceeds through the same $`b`$ $``$ $`c\overline{c}`$ $`s`$ color-suppressed quark diagram as the “golden” mode, $`B^0J/\psi K^0`$, used to measure the $`CP`$–violating parameter $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ with negligible theoretical uncertainty . Up to now, experimental information on $`B`$ decays into $`\eta _c`$ has been sparse .

The ratio of the decay rates for the exclusive charmonium decays

$$R_K\mathrm{\Gamma }(B\eta _cK)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(BJ/\psi K)$$
(1)
has been calculated with different dynamical assumptions  including factorization222We note that we have measured a departure from the factorization hypothesis  in another $`b`$ $``$ $`c\overline{c}`$ $`s`$ color-suppressed mode, $`BJ/\psi K^{}`$, wherein we have made a polarization measurement, more sensitive than a measurement of $`R_K`$ to the existence of a factorization-violating term.. The ratio is used since one expects that the corrections to the heavy quark limit, due to the relatively light $`s`$-quark, are likely to cancel. This leads to the following predictions for $`R_K`$: 1.6 $`\pm `$ 0.2 , 1.64 $`\pm `$ 0.55 , 1.8 $``$ 2.3 , 0.94 $`\pm `$ 0.25 , 1.0 $``$ 1.3 .

## 2 The BABAR detector and dataset

The data used in this analysis are obtained with the BABAR detector at the PEP-II asymmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ storage ring. The BABAR detector is described elsewhere . The 1.5 T superconducting solenoidal magnet, whose cylindrical volume is $`1.4`$$`\mathrm{m}`$ in radius and $`3`$$`\mathrm{m}`$ long, contains a charged-particle tracking system, a Cherenkov detector (DIRC) dedicated to charged particle identification and an electromagnetic calorimeter. The segmented iron flux return, including endcaps, provides identification of muons and $`K_L^0`$. In addition, the end of the cylindrical volume in the $`e^{}`$ direction is instrumented with an electromagnetic calorimeter. The tracking system consists of a 5-layer double-sided silicon vertex tracker and a 40-layer drift chamber filled with a gas mixture of helium and isobutane. The calorimeter consists of 6580 CsI(Tl) crystals. The flux return is instrumented with resistive plate chambers.

We have used data corresponding to 20.7 $`\text{ fb}^1`$ of integrated luminosity collected at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance (“on-resonance”), and 2.1 $`\text{ fb}^1`$ recorded (“off-resonance”) about $`40`$$`\mathrm{MeV}`$ lower in energy in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ rest frame (“CM”), between October 1999 and October 2000. The asymmetric collisions produce a boost in the $`e^{}`$ direction, with $`\beta \gamma =0.55`$ in on-resonance running.

## 3 Analysis method

A blind analysis is performed in which all selections are chosen to maximize $`N_S/\sqrt{N_S+N_B}`$ using simulated or off-resonance data, or sidebands in on-resonance data. $`N_S(N_B)`$ is the number of expected signal (background) events after all selection criteria have been applied.

Event selection designed to enhance the number of $`B`$ decays requires four or more charged tracks, the sum of all charged and neutral energies to be above 2 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$, the sum of all the charged momenta to be above 1 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$, and the normalized second Fox-Wolfram moment  to be less than 0.6. In addition, at least one neutral or charged kaon candidate is required to have a momentum in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ rest frame consistent with the two-body decay $`B\eta _cK`$.

$`B^0`$ or $`B^\pm `$ candidates are formed from an $`\eta _c`$ candidate and a “fast” kaon, either a charged kaon or a $`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. The $`\eta _c`$ candidates correspond to three different topologies: two charged tracks with either $`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ or $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$, or four charged tracks. The $`B`$ decay vertex is calculated using the charged $`\eta _c`$ daughters, and the fast kaon if charged.

We require that all charged tracks be within $`0.35<\theta <2.54`$ to obtain well-reconstructed tracks, where $`\theta `$ is the polar angle with respect to the $`e^{}`$ direction. An important requirement of our analysis is that charged kaon candidates from the $`B\eta _cK`$ decay are identified by the DIRC and/or by measurements of ionization energy loss $`dE/dx`$ in the drift chamber and silicon tracker. The momentum of each kaon from $`\eta _c`$ decay is required to be greater than 250$`\mathrm{MeV}/c`$.

The $`K_S^0`$ particles can arise from $`\eta _c`$ or $`B`$ decays. In the following, the number in parentheses corresponds to the latter $`K_S^0`$. The $`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ candidates are required to have a reconstructed invariant mass within 12.5 (10) $`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ of the nominal, i.e. world average, value . Furthermore, the cosine of the opening angle between the flight direction and the momentum vector of the $`K_S^0`$ candidate is required to be greater than 0.990 (0.9995), and the flight distance from the $`B`$ vertex greater than 2 (3) times its error.

The $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ candidates are formed from pairs of photons detected in the calorimeter with a reconstructed invariant mass within 15$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ of the nominal value. We require that the cosine of the decay angle in the $`\pi ^0`$ rest frame be less than 0.82 to avoid accidental combinations involving very soft photons. In addition, the electromagnetic showers are required to have moments of the lateral energy deposition  between 0.01 and 0.55. The lower energy photon has a minimum energy of 130$`\mathrm{MeV}`$ while the minimum value for the higher energy photon is 270$`\mathrm{MeV}`$.

A Fisher discriminant is used to suppress continuum backgrounds. The Fisher variable is defined as a linear combination of eighteen variables, including the energies between each of nine cones relative to the $`\eta _c`$ direction in the CM . The most important variables are the normalized second Fox-Wolfram moment and the event thrust, constructed with all charged tracks and neutral clusters in the event. The Fisher discriminant is trained on signal, $`u\overline{u}`$, $`d\overline{d}`$, $`s\overline{s}`$, and $`c\overline{c}`$ simulated events, and tested on off-resonance data. The requirements on the Fisher discriminant depends on the decay mode.

The charmonium mass region is defined by 2.74 $`<m_X<`$ 3.22 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. After all selection criteria, the weighted double-Gaussian mass resolutions are 10, 12, and 26 $`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ for the $`K_S^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$, $`K^+K^{}K^+K^{}`$ and $`K^+K^{}\pi ^0`$ channels, respectively, as obtained from a simulation. The $`\eta _c`$ signal region varies between $`\pm 55`$$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ and $`\pm 70`$$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ relative to the nominal $`\eta _c`$ mass (2979.8$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$), depending on the $`\eta _c`$ decay mode.

The total energy of the $`e^+e^{}`$ system in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ CM and laboratory frames are denoted by $`\sqrt{s}`$ and $`E_o`$, respectively. In the $`e^+e^{}`$ laboratory frame, the candidate energy is defined as $`E_B=(s/2+𝐩_o𝐩_B)/E_o`$, where $`𝐩_o`$ and $`𝐩_B`$ are the momentum vectors of the $`e^+e^{}`$ system and the $`B`$ candidate, respectively . The analysis region is defined by a rectangular area in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$$`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ plane where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is the difference between the energy of the $`B`$ candidate in the CM frame and $`\sqrt{s}/2`$, and $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ is the beam-energy substituted mass, $`\sqrt{E_B^2p_B^2}`$. For events with multiple candidates, the one with the smallest $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|`$ is retained; this choice affects only a small fraction of events, from 3.4% to 12.4% in the analysis region.

The limits of the analysis region are defined by 5.1$`<`$$`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ $`<`$5.29 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|`$ $`<`$0.25 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$. According to the full detector simulation based on GEANT3 , depending on the $`\eta _c`$ decay mode. the signal is Gaussian-distributed in $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ with a mean near zero and a resolution between 15 and 30$`\mathrm{MeV}`$, while it is Gaussian-distributed in $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ with a mean near the $`B`$ mass and a resolution around 2.5$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ resolution depends on the $`\eta _c`$ decay mode, best for $`K_S^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ and worst for $`K^+K^{}\pi ^0`$. Note that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distribution in data is not centered at zero but rather at about $`10`$$`\mathrm{MeV}`$; the window is shifted accordingly, leading to a contribution to the overall systematic error. The shifted-$`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|`$,$`|m_{ES}m_B^{nominal}|`$ signal region is $`<`$30 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$, $`<`$$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ for the tightest ($`K_S^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$) case and $`<`$70 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$, $`<`$$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ for the loosest ($`K^+K^{}\pi ^0`$) case.

## 4 Observation of exclusive $`𝜼_𝒄`$ signals

Figure 1 displays the mass distribution of the charmonium system in the ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$,$`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$) signal region for the $`K_S^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ channel, using $`B^+`$ candidates after subtraction of the combinatorial background. We see clear $`\eta _c`$ and $`J/\psi `$ peaks where we have indicated the $`\eta _c`$ mass selection excluding the $`J/\psi `$ region. The representative curves are fits of three contributions: flat background, $`J/\psi `$ peak, and $`\eta _c`$ peak with two different widths. The $`J/\psi `$ peak is represented by a Gaussian with mean constrained at the nominal $`J/\psi `$ mass and a 12 $`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ resolution. The $`\eta _c`$ mass peak is represented by a Breit-Wigner distribution convoluted with the same Gaussian. The mean of the Breit-Wigner distribution is fixed at the nominal $`\eta _c`$ mass and the width333 The world average width is $`13.2_{3.2}^{+3.8}`$$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ while more recent results give $`27.0\pm 5.8\pm 1.4`$$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ , $`11.0\pm 8.1\pm 4.1`$$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$  and $`21.1_{6.2}^{+6.9}`$$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ , either to the world average or to the CLEO measurement . Since we cannot yet distinguish among the various measurements, we have used for the $`\eta _c`$ width the average value $`16.7\pm 6.0`$$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$; the efficiency depends on the width central value and the systematic error on its error.

In Figure 2 we display the analysis region for the $`B^+`$ and $`B^0`$ ($`\eta _cK_S^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$) channels as examples. Clear accumulations in the ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$,$`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$) signal region are apparent. Figures 3 and 4 display projections of the analysis region for the different $`\eta _c`$ channels. The combinatorial background shape is parametrized by a linear function in $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and a threshold function  in $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ with a fixed endpoint given by the average beam energy.

In addition to the combinatorial background, a background that peaks in the ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$,$`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$) signal region can arise from cross-feed from other $`\eta _c`$ decay modes, from partial reconstruction and/or incorrect particle identification, or from $`B`$ decays into the same detected particles without an intermediate $`\eta _c`$ decay (exact matches). After study, the first two sources are found to be negligible. A quantitative evaluation of the exact matches for each mode is made using data by studying the $`\eta _c`$ mass sidebands for events in the ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$,$`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$) signal region, after subtracting the combinatorial background as a function of mass. The peaking background is consistent with zero for all modes except possibly for the $`K_S^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ mode, see the flat background in Figure 1.

The raw yield and expected backgrounds in the ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$,$`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$) signal region, and the probability that the background fluctuates to the observed yield are given in Table 1. In order to ensure the statistical independence of the signal and background measurements, the combinatorial background is estimated here by the extrapolation into the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ signal band of the threshold function fitted in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ signal band below the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ signal band ($`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ $`<5.27`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$). Because of the low statistics in the $`B^0`$ channels, the shape parameter of the background function is fixed to that fitted in the corresponding $`B^+`$ channel.

## 5 Branching fraction determination

The measured $`B^+`$ or $`B^0`$ branching fraction ($``$) is given by

$$=\frac{N_{yield}}{N_{B\overline{B}}\times ϵ},$$
(2)
where $`N_{yield}`$ is the net yield in the ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$,$`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$) signal region, extracted from fits to the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ distributions in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ signal region (Figure 4), and corrected for the peaking background contributions listed in Table 1; $`ϵ`$ is the signal efficiency determined by applying the same analysis chain to signal Monte Carlo (MC) samples and correcting for data-MC differences; and $`N_{B\overline{B}}`$ is the number of produced $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs, (22.73$`\pm `$ 0.36)$`\times 10^6`$, determined by a comparison of the rate of multihadron events taken on-resonance to that off-resonance.

### 5.1 Determination of signal efficiency

The efficiency for reconstructing $`B\eta _cK`$ candidates for each $`\eta _c`$ decay mode is given by the fraction of generated signal events that are reconstructed in the appropriate mode. We have compared simulations with real data, using for example $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ and $`D^\pm `$ control samples. There are small differences in reconstruction efficiency for charged particles, $`K_S^0`$ and $`\pi ^0`$ mesons, vertexing efficiency, resolution and absolute scale of charged particle momentum and photon energies, and charged kaon identification and pion misidentification probabilities. These effects have been measured and corrected. The resulting efficiencies are given in the first line of Table 2.

### 5.2 Determination of systematic errors

We have evaluated the systematic errors on the yield, $`B`$ counting and efficiency determination. The systematic error on the yield comes from a comparison of the combinatorial background estimations from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ side and signal bands while that on $`B`$ counting comes principally from the uncertainty on the efficiency due to small differences between data and simulation.

Each of the efficiency corrections, as well as our knowledge of the $`\eta _c`$ width, has a corresponding systematic uncertainty. In addition, each requirement in the analysis method has been studied to evaluate any systematic differences between simulation and data. The dominant systematic errors on the signal efficiency are due to kaon identification, tracking efficiency, and $`K_S^0`$ reconstruction as can be seen in Table 2.

### 5.3 Results

Our results for the product of the branching fractions for each mode are listed below. We have used the nominal values for the $`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ branching fractions. The $`B\eta _cK`$ branching-fraction determinations assume that the branching fraction of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ into $`B\overline{B}`$ is 100%, with an equal admixture of charged and neutral $`B`$ final states, and similarly for $`K^0`$ relative to $`K_S^0`$ and $`K_L^0`$.

| $``$($`B^+\eta _cK^+`$)$``$($`\eta _cK^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ \+ c.c.) | = | (52.8$`\pm `$ 7.9$`\pm `$ 7.3)$`\times 10^6`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $``$($`B^+\eta _cK^+`$)$``$($`\eta _cK^+K^{}\pi ^0`$) | = | (15.5$`\pm `$ 3.6$`\pm `$ 2.5)$`\times 10^6`$ |
| $``$($`B^+\eta _cK^+`$)$``$($`\eta _cK^+K^{}K^+K^{}`$) | $`<`$ | 5.6$`\times 10^6`$ (90% CL) |
| $``$($`B^0\eta _cK^0`$)$``$($`\eta _cK^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ \+ c.c.) | = | (36.8$`\pm `$ 11.6$`\pm `$ 6.0)$`\times 10^6`$ |
| $``$($`B^0\eta _cK^0`$)$``$($`\eta _cK^+K^{}\pi ^0`$) | = | (11.3$`\pm `$ 5.1$`\pm `$ 2.4)$`\times 10^6`$ |
| $``$($`B^0\eta _cK^0`$)$``$($`\eta _cK^+K^{}K^+K^{}`$) | $`<`$ | 2.3$`\times 10^6`$ (90% CL) |

The first error is statistical and the second systematic. The central value for $``$($`B^+\eta _cK^+`$)$``$($`\eta _cK^+K^{}K^+K^{}`$) is 3.2 $`\times 10^6`$, while the two-sided 68% CL varies from 2.6$`\times 10^6`$ to 4.1$`\times 10^6`$. No correction is made for any potential $`\varphi \varphi `$ contribution to the $`K^+K^{}K^+K^{}`$ channels.

The channels $`\eta _cK_S^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ and $`\eta _cK^+K^{}\pi ^0`$ are manifestations of the general decay $`\eta _cK\overline{K}\pi `$. From isospin symmetry, the corresponding rates are related by simple Clebsch-Gordon coefficients: $``$($`\eta _cK^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ \+ c.c.) = 2/3 $``$($`\eta _cK\overline{K}\pi `$) and $``$($`\eta _cK^+K^{}\pi ^0`$) = 1/6 $``$($`\eta _cK\overline{K}\pi `$). Therefore the ratio of branching fractions, $``$($`\eta _cK^+K^{}\pi ^0`$)/$``$($`\eta _cK^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ \+ c.c.), should be 0.25. Our measurements are consistent with this value for $`B^+`$ (0.29 $`\pm `$ 0.08 $`\pm `$ 0.04) and $`B^0`$ (0.31 $`\pm `$ 0.17 $`\pm `$ 0.05).

We therefore combine our two results, taking into account common systematic errors, to obtain the values for the general decay:

| $``$($`B^+\eta _cK^+`$)$``$($`\eta _cK\overline{K}\pi `$) | = | (82.5 $`\pm `$ 10.4 $`\pm `$ 8.3)$`\times 10^6`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $``$($`B^0\eta _cK^0`$)$``$($`\eta _cK\overline{K}\pi `$) | = | (58.1 $`\pm `$ 15.2 $`\pm `$ 6.3)$`\times 10^6.`$ |

The first error is statistical and the second systematic. We deduce the branching fraction ratio from our measurements of the $`K\overline{K}\pi `$ channel: $``$($`B^0\eta _cK^0`$)/$``$($`B^+\eta _cK^+`$) = 0.71 $`\pm `$ 0.20 $`\pm `$ 0.08. We have not used the $`\eta _cK^+K^{}K^+K^{}`$ results since their statistical weight would be marginal.

Using the world average for the $`\eta _cK\overline{K}\pi `$ branching fraction, 0.055 $`\pm `$ 0.017 , our results become

| $``$($`B^+\eta _cK^+`$) | = | (1.50 $`\pm `$ 0.19 $`\pm `$ 0.15 $`\pm `$ 0.46)$`\times 10^3`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $``$($`B^0\eta _cK^0`$) | = | (1.06 $`\pm `$ 0.28 $`\pm `$ 0.11 $`\pm `$ 0.33)$`\times 10^3,`$ |

where the last error is due to the $`\eta _cK\overline{K}\pi `$ branching fraction. We have not used the $`\eta _cK^+K^{}K^+K^{}`$ results since the $`\eta _c`$ branching fraction is not very well known. We compare these results to the exclusive branching fractions measured by CLEO : $``$($`B^+\eta _cK^+`$) = ($`0.69_{0.21}^{+0.26}\pm 0.08\pm 0.20)\times 10^3`$ and $``$($`B^0\eta _cK^0`$) = ($`1.09_{0.42}^{+0.55}\pm 0.12\pm 0.31)\times 10^3`$ The third error is that due to the nominal $`J/\psi \gamma \eta _c`$ branching fraction. Assuming that the errors due to the nominal branching fractions cancel, our results differ by a factor 2.2 $`\pm `$ 0.9 for the $`B^+`$ channel, combining statistical and systematic errors in quadrature. The $`B^0`$ channel results are consistent.

To determine $`R_K`$, we have used our measurements  of the branching fractions, $``$($`B^+J/\psi K^+`$) = ($`10.1\pm 0.3\pm 0.5)\times 10^4`$ and $``$($`B^0J/\psi K^0`$) = ($`8.5\pm 0.5\pm 0.6)\times 10^4`$, taking into account common systematic errors, to obtain

| $`R_K^+=`$ | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$($`B^+\eta _cK^+`$)/$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$($`B^+J/\psi K^+`$) | = | 1.48 $`\pm `$ 0.19 $`\pm `$ 0.17 $`\pm `$ 0.46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`R_K^0=`$ | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$($`B^0\eta _cK^0`$)/$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$($`B^0J/\psi K^0`$) | = | 1.24 $`\pm `$ 0.33 $`\pm `$ 0.16 $`\pm `$ 0.38 |

where the first error is statistical, the second systematic and the third due to the $`\eta _cK\overline{K}\pi `$ branching fraction. Our results agree with the theoretical predictions listed at the end of Section 1.

## 6 Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the extraordinary contributions of our PEP-II colleagues in achieving the excellent luminosity and machine conditions that have made this work possible. The success of this project also relies critically on the expertise and dedication of the computing organizations that support BABAR. The collaborating institutions wish to thank SLAC for its support and the kind hospitality extended to them. This work is supported by the US Department of Energy and National Science Foundation, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Canada), Institute of High Energy Physics (China), the Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique and Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (France), the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (Germany), the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (Italy), the Research Council of Norway, the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation, and the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (United Kingdom). Individuals have received support from the A. P. Sloan Foundation, the Research Corporation, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.


text:
# On Axion Thermalization in the Early Universe

## I Introduction

The Peccei-Quinn solution PQ  to the strong CP-problem introduces a new $`U(1)_{PQ}`$ chiral symmetry, the spontaneous breaking of which leads to a new spinless particle, the axion WW . If it exists, the axion has quite well defined properties: its mass and couplings are inversely proportional to $`F_a`$, the energy scale of the $`U(1)_{PQ}`$ breaking. We will be particularly concerned with the coupling of the axion field $`a`$ to gluons

$$_{gga}=\frac{1}{F_a}\frac{\alpha _s}{8\pi }G^{b\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }^ba$$
(1)
where $`\alpha _s=g_s^2/(4\pi )`$ with $`g_s`$ the gauge coupling of color $`SU(3)_c`$. In (1),

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }^b=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }G^{b\rho \sigma }$$
(2)
is the dual of the gluon field $`G_{\mu \nu }^b`$, and there is a sum over the color index $`b`$.

Much theoretical study and experimental effort have been devoted to this particle (for recent reviews see review ). The laboratory, astrophysical, and cosmological constraints imply that $`F_a`$ must be a high energy scale, at least as large as Raffelt

$$F_a>6\times 10^8\mathrm{GeV}$$
(3)
which in turn implies

$$m_a<0.01\mathrm{eV}$$
(4)
Thus, the axion has to be a very light particle and very weakly coupled.

One of the most attractive features of the axion is that it may be one of the constituents of the dark matter. Indeed, axions are copiously produced in the early universe. These primordial axions are generated mainly non-thermally. We know three non-thermal sources at work in the evolution of the universe: the “misalignment mechanism” misalignment , string decay string  and domain wall decay Chang . When the Peccei-Quinn symmetry breaks down at a temperature $`TF_a`$, the vacuum angle has no preferred value; but when the temperature reaches $`T\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, the vacuum angle sets where the vacuum energy is minimized, which is the CP-conserving value. Relaxation from one angle to the other produces a coherent, cold condensate of axions. This is the “misalignment mechanism”. On the other hand, the $`U(1)_{PQ}`$ breaking at $`TF_a`$ originates axion strings. If inflation takes place just after that, these strings dilute away. However, if this is not the case, we have a second mechanism of production of axions when strings decay. Also, if the axion field is not homogeneized by inflation, there are models where axion domain walls appear soon after $`T\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. The decay of these walls into axions is a third mechanism of non-thermal primordial axions.

Thermal production of axions was studied by Turner Turner . His main interest was to study the possibility that thermal axions have a density greater than the corresponding to non-thermal axions, and then to analyze the potential detection of photons from axion decay. Turner considered the Primakoff process, $`a+q\gamma +q`$, where $`q`$ is a light quark, and photoproduction, $`a+Q\gamma +Q`$, where $`Q`$ is a heavy quark, and showed that when

$$F_a<10^9\mathrm{GeV}$$
(5)
axions were once in thermal equilibrium. Evaluating the axion density he found that for

$$F_a<4\times 10^8\mathrm{GeV}$$
(6)
the thermal population is greater than the non-thermal.

In Turner , it was mentioned that other axion processes contribute to axion thermalization and consequently would increase the value in (5). However, these other processes were not evaluated since the range (5) includes (6) and this was enough for the purposes of Turner . We note that the experimental bound in (3) excludes the range in (6) and leaves a small interval of the condition (5).

In this paper we extend the work of Turner  and investigate the contribution to axion thermalization of other processes than Primakoff and photoproduction. As we will show, the processes we discuss lead to a much larger range for $`F_a`$ than (5).

The reactions we consider all involve the $`gga`$ vertex appearing in (1),

1) $`a+gq+\overline{q}`$

2) $`a+qg+q`$ and $`a+\overline{q}g+\overline{q}`$

3) $`a+gg+g`$

We show the corresponding Feynman diagrams in Figs. 1, 2, and 3.

The coupling of the axion to gluons (1) is an essential ingredient of the effective theory once the Peccei-Quinn symmetry is broken, since it reproduces the chiral anomaly of the theory. In this sense our results are model independent in contrast with the result (5) arising from Primakoff and photoproduction processes that involve the $`a\gamma \gamma `$ coupling which is model dependent and might be small in some models.

## II Evolution of the axion density

In the cooling of the universe, as soon as the temperature $`TF_a`$ is reached, massless axions can be produced by means of reactions 1), 2), and 3). The production rate has to compete with the expansion of the universe, characterized by the Hubble expansion rate,

$$H=\sqrt{\frac{4\pi ^3}{45}}\sqrt{g_{}}\frac{T^2}{M_{planck}}$$
(7)
We will assume that, in the range of temperatures where we will apply the evolution equation for interating axions, the particle content corresponds to $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$, with 3 families and one Higgs boson, with all particles at the same temperature. Then, the relativistic degrees of freedom appearing in (7) are given by KolbTurner

$$g_{}=g_{boson}+\frac{7}{8}g_{fermion}=106.75$$
(8)
The behaviour of the axion density $`n_a`$ is given in terms of the Boltzmann equation Turner ; KolbTurner ; Brown ,

$$\frac{dn_a}{dt}+3Hn_a=\mathrm{\Gamma }[n_a^{eq}n_a]$$
(9)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the thermal averaged interaction rate for the process $`a+i1+2`$

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_a^{eq}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{p}_a}{2E_a}\frac{d\stackrel{~}{p}_i}{2E_i}f_a^{eq}f_i^{eq}(\stackrel{~}{\sigma }v\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}E_a2E_i)}`$ (10)
$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }v\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}E_a2E_i`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{p}_1}{2E_1}\frac{d\stackrel{~}{p}_2}{2E_2}(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p_1+p_2p_ap_i)\left|M\right|^2}`$ (11)
with $`d\stackrel{~}{p}d^3p/(2\pi )^3`$. The phase space occupancy in kinetic equilibrium $`f^{eq}`$ is given by the Fermi-Dirac or Bose-Einstein distributions,

$$f^{eq}=\frac{1}{e^{(E\mu )/T}\pm 1}$$
(12)
where we will take the relativistic limit where the chemical potential $`\mu `$ goes to zero. In eq (11), $`\left|M\right|^2`$ is summed over all the degrees of freedom. The equilibrium densities appearing in (10) are given by

$$n^{eq}=g𝑑\stackrel{~}{p}f^{eq}$$
(13)
where $`g`$ is the degrees of freedom of the particle. In the period of interest, thermal axions are massless and have a density

$$n_a^{eq}=\frac{\zeta (3)}{\pi ^2}T^3$$
(14)
where $`\zeta (3)=1.20206\mathrm{}`$ is the Riemann zeta function of 3.

We follow the convenient procedure Turner ; KolbTurner ; Brown  of normalizing particle densities to the entropy density,

$$s=\frac{2\pi ^2}{45}g_ST^3=0.44\times g_ST^3$$
(15)
so that we define

$$Y\frac{n_a}{s}$$
(16)
During the epoch in which we will apply the Boltzmann equation (9), we can use $`g_S=g_{}=`$ constant, and given by (8). Then we have that

$$Y^{eq}=\frac{n_a^{eq}}{s}=\frac{45\zeta (3)}{2\pi ^4}\frac{1}{g_{}}=\frac{0.27}{g_{}}$$
(17)
is constant. We can write the Boltzmann equation (9) as

$$x\frac{dY}{dx}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{H}\left[Y^{eq}Y\right]$$
(18)
where we have defined

$$x\frac{F_a}{T}$$
(19)
We will now show that equation (18) can be integrated in our case. First, we advance that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }T^3`$ (see sec. III) so that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/H1/x`$ and we can define the constant

$$kx\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{H}$$
(20)
Second, we use the fact that $`Y^{eq}`$ is independent of $`x`$. We define

$$\eta \frac{Y}{Y^{eq}}$$
(21)
and, finally, we write equation (18) in the form

$$x^2\frac{d\eta }{dx}=k(1\eta )$$
(22)
that has the solution

$$\eta (x)=1e^{k(1/x1)}$$
(23)
Since we start at $`x=1`$ ($`T=F_a`$) with no axions, in (23) we have specified the initial condition $`\eta (x=1)=0`$.

From the solution (23) we see that $`\eta `$ starts to grow at $`x=1`$. At $`x=k`$ (that is, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=H`$) axions decouple from the QCD plasma. We call $`Y_d`$ the value of $`Y`$ at decoupling. For $`x>k`$ the value of $`\eta `$ remains constant, so we have $`Y=Y_d`$. We are interested in the situation that axions have in practice a thermal spectrum, so we will ask that $`Y_d`$ differs from $`Y^{eq}`$ in less than 5%,

$$\frac{Y_d}{Y^{eq}}=\eta (x=k)=1e^{k(1/k1)}>0.95$$
(24)
which implies

$$k>4$$
(25)
When $`k`$ satisfies this inequality, a thermal population of axions is born in the early universe. In the next section we calculate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which, as we see from (20), will give us the clue of which is the corresponding range of $`F_a`$.

## III Calculation of thermally averaged interaction rates

As expression (11) is Lorentz invariant, we can evaluate it in any reference system. For convenience, we choose the center of mass system and will consider that all the particles are massless because we are at very high energies. So, we will write (10) as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{n_a^{eq}}\frac{d\stackrel{~}{p}_a}{2E_a}\frac{d\stackrel{~}{p}_i}{2E_i}f_a^{eq}f_i^{eq}(2s\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{CM})$$
(26)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{CM}`$ is the usual total cross section in the center of mass system, but with no average over the initial degrees of freedom, and $`s`$ is the Mandelstam invariant. From the Lagrangian piece (1) one can easily find the Feynman rules for the couplings between axions and gluons that appear in the diagrams in Figs.1, 2, and 3, which are necessary to calculate the cross sections for the considered processes. Some of these cross sections diverge logarithmically in the $`t`$ and $`u`$ channel. The processes we consider take place in a plasma with vanishing global color and so color is effectively screened for distances bigger than $`m_D^1`$, with $`m_D`$ the QCD Debye mass given by bellac

$$m_D^2=g_s^2\frac{N_c+N_f/2}{3}T^2=8\pi \alpha _sT^2$$
(27)
where $`N_c=3`$ is the number of colors and $`N_f=6`$ is the number of flavors. We cutt-off the divergences using the Debye mass. Cross sections have the form

$$\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{CM}=A\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{s}{m_D^2}\right)+B$$
(28)
where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are constants, which for the considered processes have the numerical value

1) $`A=0,B=\frac{N_f}{6\pi ^2}\frac{\alpha _s^3}{F_a^2}`$

2) $`A=\frac{N_f}{\pi ^2}\frac{\alpha _s^3}{F_a^2},B=\frac{3N_f}{4\pi ^2}\frac{\alpha _s^3}{F_a^2}`$

3) $`A=\frac{15}{2\pi ^2}\frac{\alpha _s^3}{F_a^2},B=\frac{55}{8\pi ^2}\frac{\alpha _s^3}{F_a^2}`$
Putting (28) in (26) we find integrals of the type

$`I^\pm `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta (3)}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{e^x\pm 1}}`$ (29)
$`L^\pm `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta (3)}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x^2\mathrm{ln}x}{e^x\pm 1}}`$ (30)
that can be done analitically. We have

$`I^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}`$ (31)
$`I^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2`$ (32)
$`L^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(9+\mathrm{ln}46\gamma +6{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^{}(3)}{\zeta (3)}}\right)`$ (33)
$`L^{}`$ $`=`$ $`32\gamma +2{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^{}(3)}{\zeta (3)}}`$ (34)
where $`\gamma =0.5772\mathrm{}`$ is the Euler’s Gamma constant and $`\zeta ^{}(3)=0.1981\mathrm{}`$. With these results, the integral (26) gives

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{T^3\zeta (3)}{(2\pi )^2}\left\{\left[BA\left(1/2+\mathrm{ln}(2\pi \alpha _s)\right)\right]I^\pm I^{}+AL^\pm I^{}+AI^\pm L^{}\right\}$$
(35)
where the sign $`\pm `$ depends on whether the particle that goes whith the axion is a gluon ($``$) or a quark ($`+`$). Thus, for each of the processes 1), 2), and 3) we get, respectively,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+gq+\overline{q})={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^3}{F_a^2}}T^3N_f{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (3)}{6\pi ^4}}`$ (36)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+qg+q)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+\overline{q}g+\overline{q})=`$ (37)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^3}{F_a^2}}T^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}N_f{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (3)}{4\pi ^4}}\left(L^++{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}L^{}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{ln}(2\pi \alpha _s){\displaystyle \frac{15}{8}}\right)`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+gg+g)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^3}{F_a^2}}T^3{\displaystyle \frac{15\zeta (3)}{2\pi ^4}}\left(L^{}\mathrm{ln}(2\pi \alpha _s){\displaystyle \frac{17}{12}}\right)`$ (38)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the sum of all $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$, and turns out to be

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }7.1\times 10^6\frac{T^3}{F_a^2}$$
(39)
where we have introduced $`\alpha _s1/35`$, corresponding to energies $`E10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$.

## IV Conclusions

Using (39), (7) and the definition (20) we have

$$k=\frac{F_a}{T}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{H}5.0\times 10^{12}\frac{\mathrm{GeV}}{F_a}$$
(40)
The inequality (25) translates into

$$F_a<1.2\times 10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}$$
(41)
This is our main result. Models with $`F_a`$ satisfying (41) have axions thermalizing in the early universe and predict that today there is a thermal population of axions.

We get a much higher value than the one in (5). One of the reasons is that the interaction rate (39) increases as $`T^3`$ at high energies, while the rate coming from the photoproduction process considered in Turner  goes as $`T`$ since the axion is attached to the fermion line with the usual derivative coupling. The other reason is that color and flavor factors make the interaction rate larger.

Our result in (41) is in fact conservative. This is due to the fact that the effective theory below the scale $`F_a`$ has couplings of the axion to the electroweak gauge bosons $`W^\pm `$, $`W^0`$, and $`B`$, similar to (1). This generates processes like 1), 2), and 3) with gluons replaced by appropiate combinations of $`W^\pm `$, $`W^0`$, and $`B`$. These new processes contain in general quarks and also leptons. The form of the couplings is fixed but their magnitude is model dependent since it is different for different PQ-charge assignments to the matter fields. Given this model dependence, we do not include them in our analysis. They would lead to an increase of the numerical value in (39) by a factor of $`2`$ and consequently would make the range of $`F_a`$ in (41) larger by the same amount.

Once we assume that axions thermalize, it is interesting to know the density of this thermal axion population. After decoupling, axions redshift freely until today. Their density today, $`n_{a0}`$, can be calculated using the fact that after decoupling, the value of $`Y`$ stays constant. We need the entropy density today, $`s_0`$, which has the contribution of photons, neutrinos and axions. Even in the case that axions are relativistic today, the contribution to $`s_0`$ can be neglected since the axion temperature is much colder than the cosmic microwave background temperature, $`T_0=2.75`$ K. Indeed, since the time of axion decoupling, the decoupling of other particles have heated the photon bath but not the axion one. One gets that the entropy density today corresponds to $`g_S=43/11=3.91`$ in (15).

Then, we use (8), (15), and (17), to calculate the axion number density today

$$n_{a0}=\frac{0.27}{106.75}(0.44\times 3.91T_0^3)7.5\mathrm{cm}^3$$
(42)
This small density was also found by Turner Turner . At the view of the small mass (4) one can conclude that it is very unlikely that it can play a direct role in the efforts to detect axions review .

It is also interesting to determine the range of temperatures where axions interact with the QCD plasma. For a given $`F_a`$ satisfying (41), it is not difficult to see that the thermalization range is

$$F_aT\frac{F_a^2}{5\times 10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}}$$
(43)
For example, for the highest possible value of $`F_a`$ where still a thermal population arises, $`F_a=1.2\times 10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$, we get a temperature range

$$1.2\times 10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{T}0.3\times 10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}$$
(44)
For the lowest value of $`F_a`$ allowed by observation (see eq(3)), the range is

$$6\times 10^8\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{T}7\times 10^4\mathrm{GeV}$$
(45)
Our final comment refers to a related effect also happening in the thermalization period. If there are non-thermal axions produced at this period, they would thermalize since they would interact with the QCD plasma through reactions 1), 2) and 3). Thus, no matter which was the energy spectrum and how high was the production rate of the originally non-thermal axions, they would end up with the thermal spectrum (12) and density (14). There is no effect on axions from the misalignment mechanism and domain wall decay, since they are generated at $`T\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, that cannot be in the range (43). Strings start to decay into axions after their formation at $`TF_a`$. Current models string  have the bulk of axions produced also at $`T\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. If this is the case, then thermalization effects on string axions are small. However, the physics of axion strings is still not completely settled and we would like to stress that if a string model or any other source of non-thermal axions have substantial axion production in the range (43) then those axions would thermalize and finally we would have a single thermal population that dilute away with the expansion of the universe as we have studied in this paper.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Cristina Manuel and Georg Raffelt for discussions. The work of E. M. and F. R. is partially supported by the CICYT Research Project AEN99-0766, by the DGR Project 2001 SGR 00188, and by the EU network on Supersymmetry and the Early Universe (HPRN-CT-2000-00152). G. Z. is grateful for hospitality at the Grup de Fisica Teorica of the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.