text:
# Computational Resources to Filter Gravitational Wave Data with P-Approximant Templates.

## I Introduction

The inspiral phases of close binary systems are expected to be the most important sources of gravitational waves (GW) for the first generation of detectors, LIGO, GEO600, VIRGO and TAMA . Under radiation reaction the orbit of the binary decays emitting a signal which increases in amplitude and frequency called a “chirp” signal. The three main types of compact sources of GW interesting for detection purposes are neutron star-neutron star (NS-NS), neutron star-black hole (NS-BH) and black hole-black hole (BH-BH) binaries. To see NS-NS binaries it is estimated that we need to look to 100-400 Mpc to see three events per year . While it is assumed that there is a greater population of NS-NS binaries, it is the BH-BH binaries which are the strongest candidates for detection from a purely bandwidth point of view. It is believed that with an initial network of detectors, it will be possible to detect $`23`$ events per year at a distance of 200 Mpc . Due to the masses involved, the inspiral phase for these systems shuts off earlier than in BH-NS or NS-NS systems. This is advantageous as these binaries should “chirp” in or about the most sensitive frequency of the detectors.

As we have some prior knowledge on what the waveform should look like, the optimal strategy is “Wiener” or “matched” filtering . This works as follows : we firstly create a set of theoretical models or “templates” based on a certain parameter set. These templates are then cross-correlated with the detector output. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is compared to a predetermined threshold to decide whether or not a signal is present. The cross-correlation is weighted with the inverse of the noise power-spectral-density of the detector. This has the effect of emphasising the most sensitive frequencies of the detector. This is another reason why the BH-BH binaries will indeed be the best candidates.

In order that the search for GW is not computationally exhaustive we need to have some predetermined criteria for the generation and placement of templates. In reality a template is dependent on a number of parameters such as mass, spin, eccentricity etc. of the binary. As the composition of the signal is unknown, the templates have to be laid out in a lattice such that the correlation between a possible signal and a nearby template achieves a predetermined threshold. In this study, the templates used represent non-spinning circular binaries. We therefore have a reduced parameter space as we can theoretically model our system by using only the individual masses of the binary components. It has been shown that for detection purposes it is sufficient to work with restricted post-Newtonian waveforms . This is when the amplitude of the waveform is kept at the dominant Newtonian level, but the phase is extended to various post-Newtonian (PN) orders . While it may still be sufficient to work with restricted waveforms, there may be evidence to suggest that the standard PN waveforms may not be good enough.

The PN approximation is a perturbative method which expands the equations of motion, binding energy and GW flux as a power series in $`v/c`$, where $`v`$ is the orbital velocity and $`c`$ is the speed of light. In the early stages of an inspiral, the radiation reaction time-scale, $`\tau _{rr}`$ is much greater than the orbital time-scale, $`\tau _{orb}`$. It is in this adiabatic regime that the PN approximation works best. The main problem for PN waveforms comes when we enter the strong field regime. To get an idea of how well the PN waveforms perform, we can look at the ratio $`\tau _{rr}/\tau _{orb}`$ for various systems in and around the most sensitive frequency of the detector. If we take the LIGO noise curve, we are mostly interested in the region between $`100300`$ Hz. For a 1.4-1.4 $`M_{}`$ binary the ratio between the time-scales lies between $`4.5\times 10^3\tau _{rr}/\tau _{orb}680`$. However, for a 10-10 $`M_{}`$ binary, the ratio lies between $`140\tau _{rr}/\tau _{orb}40`$, where the final value is taken to be the frequency at the last stable orbit ($`f_{lso}190`$ Hz). We know that the adiabatic approximation breaks down when the two time-scales are comparable. We can see that even for the lowest mass BH-BH binaries expected to be detected, we cannot have much confidence in the performance of the PN templates. Recently, Damour, Iyer and Sathyaprakash introduced P-approximant waveforms . These templates are constructed by taking the PN expansion, defining new energy and flux functions and resumming the series expansion of the new functions using the method of Padé approximation. These new waveforms were shown to have better behaved convergence properties than the PN templates. This eliminated the problem with PN waveforms that a higher approximation didn’t necessarily mean a better template.

For the placement of templates it has been shown that by incorporating techniques of differential geometry we can greatly simplify the problem . As the matched filtering is to be carried out in the Fourier domain, it can be shown that the restricted PN Fourier transform waveforms (RPNFT) can be thought of as vectors in a Hilbert space. Sathyaprakash has shown that when considering two-mass parameter waveforms, a convenient coordinate system to use is not the individual masses but the Newtonian and 1-PN “chirptimes” . The chirptimes are convenient combinations of the total mass, $`m=m_1+m_2`$, and the reduced mass ratio, $`\eta =m_1m_2/m^2`$, of the system. The concept of a metric tensor on the search manifold was defined by means of two different but ultimately equivalent methods . The number of templates needed for a one-step search has already been calculated at Newtonian , 1-PN  and 2-PN  orders. In this paper we will extend the previous works in three ways : (i) use the more recent models of the noise power spectral density of the detector  (ii) expand the template number calculation to 2.5-PN for RPNFT waveforms and (iii) calculate the template number for P-approximant waveforms to 2.5-PN order.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we recap and partially extend the geometric method of GW detection. In Sec. III we define the T and P-approximant waveforms, while Sec. IV contains a description of the numerical method used. Sec. V contains the results for the template number and computational cost using both types of waveforms for all ground-based detectors.

Throughout this paper we use geometric units ($`G=c=1`$).

## II The Geometric Method

The restricted PN time domain waveform can be written as

$$h(t,\lambda ^\mu )=a\left(t\right)\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }(t,\lambda ^\mu ).$$
(1)
where $`\left\{\lambda ^\mu \right\}`$ is an open set on $``$n. As the search for GW will be carried out in the Fourier domain, it is necessary to have such a representation of the waveform. In geometric terms the Fourier transform is a bijection from the real space $``$n to the complex space $``$n. As the map $`h(t,\lambda ^\mu )\stackrel{~}{h}(f,\lambda ^\mu )`$ is diffeomorphic, this defines a topology on both manifolds . The phase of the GW in the Fourier domain can be conveniently parameterized by the parameter set $`\lambda ^\mu =\{t_0,\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\tau _k\}`$, where $`t_0`$ is the time-of-arrival of the wave, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the phase of the wave at time-of-arrival. The “chirptimes”, $`\left\{\tau _k\right\}`$, are functions of the individual masses of the system defined to 1.5-PN approximation by

$$\tau _0=\frac{5}{256\eta m^{5/3}\left(\pi f_0\right)^{8/3}},$$
(2)
$$\tau _2=\frac{5}{192\eta m\left(\pi f_0\right)^2}\left(\frac{743}{336}+\frac{11}{4}\eta \right),$$
(3)
$$\tau _3=\frac{\pi }{8\eta m^{2/3}\left(\pi f_0\right)^{5/3}}.$$
(4)
The parameter $`f_0`$ corresponds to the lower frequency cutoff of the detector and each subscript, $`k`$, corresponds to a $`(k/2)`$-PN approximation. As we could, in principle, have used the parameter set $`\{t_0,\mathrm{\Phi }_0,m_1,m_2\}`$ to represent the GW phase, we can see than only two of the chirptimes can be independent. This will prove convenient as it will allow us to choose a combination of any two chirptimes to serve as the coordinate basis for our waveforms. As the chirptimes are dynamical parameters dependent on the astrophysical system, we will refer to them as being “intrinsic”. We will thus refer to the kinematical parameters $`t_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ as “extrinsic” parameters.

By treating the Fourier domain waveforms as vectors in a Hilbert space, we can define a scalar product

$$a|b=2_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{df}{S_h(f)}\stackrel{~}{a}(f)\stackrel{~}{b}^{}(f)+c.c.,$$
(5)
where $`c.c.`$ denotes complex conjugate, $`S_h(f)`$ is the one-sided noise power spectral density (PSD) and $`\stackrel{~}{a}(f)`$ is the Fourier transform of $`a(t)`$ defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{a}(f)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ta(t)e^{2\pi ift}.$$
(6)
We can provide an analytical estimate for the shape of the PSD. In Fig 1 we have plotted the effective noise $`\sqrt{fS_h(f)}`$ for the four initial ground-based detectors . For our purposes, we can think of the factor $`1/S_h(f)`$ as simply a weight in the scalar product. We can also define a vector norm

$$|\stackrel{~}{x}|=x|x^{1/2}.$$
(7)
It is possible to define a metric tensor on the manifold by using two separate, but ultimately equivalent methods. For both methods we assume that each waveform is normalized to unity. We also consider two points on the manifold separated by the infinitesimal coordinate distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^\mu `$ . In the first method we use the fact that the proper distance between the two points is given by

$$ds^2=|\stackrel{~}{h}(f,\lambda ^\mu +\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^\mu )\stackrel{~}{h}(f,\lambda ^\mu )|^2,$$
(8)
This can be rewritten as

$$ds^2=\left|\frac{\stackrel{~}{h}}{\lambda ^\mu }d\lambda ^\mu \right|^2=\frac{h}{\lambda ^\mu }|\frac{h}{\lambda ^\nu }d\lambda ^\mu d\lambda ^\nu ,$$
(9)
where the second expression comes from Eqn (7) after we neglect all terms of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^2`$ and higher. The quadratic form on the right hand side suggests we define the metric as

$$\xi _{\mu \nu }=\frac{h}{\lambda ^\mu }|\frac{h}{\lambda ^\nu }=2_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{df}{S_h(f)}\frac{\stackrel{~}{h}^{}}{\lambda ^\mu }\frac{\stackrel{~}{h}}{\lambda ^\nu }+c.c.$$
(10)
To fully justify this, we can use the fact that in any normed Euclidean vector space, the right hand side of Eqn (8) defines a metric .

In the second method we start by calculating the scalar product between two templates $`\stackrel{~}{h}(\lambda ^\beta )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{h}(\lambda ^\beta +\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^\beta )`$ separated by a distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^\beta `$ in the parameter space. The scalar product is nothing more than the cosine of the angle between the waveforms. It has been shown that by expanding the scalar product to quadratic order we obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{h}(\lambda ^\beta )|\stackrel{~}{h}(\lambda ^\beta +\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{h}{\lambda ^\mu }}|{\displaystyle \frac{h}{\lambda ^\nu }}\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^\nu ,`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\xi _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^\nu .`$ (12)
The quantity on the left hand side above is referred to either as the match or overlap between templates. For this study we will use the term overlap. We thus rewrite the preceding equation as

$$O=1\frac{1}{2}ds^2,$$
(13)
where $`O`$ denotes the overlap. As all the parameters of the waveform are not independent, the search for GW will only need to be carried out on the 2-D sub-manifold of independent intrinsic parameters. In order to project from our initial n-D space to the 2-D sub-space we recursively use a projection onto orthogonal sub-spaces. This is achieved by using

$$\gamma _{\mu \nu }=\xi _{\mu \nu }\frac{\xi _{\mu _0}\xi _{{}_{0}{}^{}\nu }}{\xi _{_{00}}}.$$
(14)
This projection operation is equivalent to a mapping from the n-D space onto an orthogonal hypersurface. The projection itself has two separate meanings. From a geometric point of view, it can be seen as a minimization of distance between two templates. From a data analysis point of view, it can be viewed upon as a maximization over extrinsic parameters. By using this projection, we ensure that the overlap between templates on the 2-D sub-space is maximized over all extrinsic parameters. In Appendix A we outline some of the properties of this projection from both a geometric and detection point of view.

Once we are on the sub-manifold of intrinsic parameters, the number of templates is given by simply dividing the proper volume of the manifold by the volume of the template, $`dl^2`$, i.e.

$$𝒩=\frac{\sqrt{g}𝑑\tau }{dl^2}$$
(15)
where $`g=det|g_{ij}|`$ is the determinant of the metric tensor on the 2-D manifold. For a rectangular lattice of templates in $`N`$ dimensions, the volume of each template is given by

$$dl^N=\left(2\sqrt{\frac{1M}{2}}\right)^N.$$
(16)
where $`M`$ is the minimal match. This is a quantity chosen by the experimenter and defines the minimum acceptable loss of event rate.

## III The Gravitational Waveform

The usual restricted PN waveforms are essentially a power series in the velocity $`v`$, plus logarithmic terms which arise at order $`v^6`$ and beyond. As we are only considering waveforms up to order $`v^5`$ in this study we can neglect the logarithmic terms and deal with a pure power series. We can create the Padé approximation by simply equating the power series on the left hand side to a rational function of the right hand side, i.e.

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}a_kv^k=P_M^N=\frac{{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}}A_kv^k}{1+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}}B_kv^k},$$
(17)
such that $`n+1=N+M+1`$. For a more complete discussion of Padé approximation, we refer the reader to reference .

While it is possible to write the Fourier domain waveform in terms of the chirp masses, in order to use Padé approximation we need to use a more basic format for the wave. Before progressing, it is necessary to clarify some nomenclature. The phase of the waveform is normally constructed using a PN-expansion in the velocity, $`v`$. As we are dealing with what is in effect a Taylor series, we will call any waveform using PN-approximation a T-approximant waveform, while any waveform which uses a Padé approximation, we call a P-approximant waveform.

### A T-approximant Waveforms.

Using the Stationary Phase approximation, we write the Fourier transform of the GW as

$$\stackrel{~}{h}(f)=𝒜f^{7/6}\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\left[\psi \frac{\pi }{4}\right]\right\},$$
(18)
where the phase, $`\psi `$, is given by the expression

$$\psi =2\pi ft_0\varphi _0+2_{v_f}^{v_{lso}}𝑑v\left(v_f^3v^3\right)\frac{E^{}(v)}{F(v)},$$
(19)
where $`v_f=(\pi mf)^{1/3}`$ is the instanteous velocity at frequency $`f`$, $`v_{lso}`$ is the velocity at the last stable circular orbit (LSO) and the normalization constant $`𝒜`$ is given by demanding $`\stackrel{~}{h}|\stackrel{~}{h}=1`$. In the comparable mass case, the orbital energy and GW flux to $`𝒪(v^6)`$ order are given by

$$E(v)=\frac{\eta v^2}{2}\left[1\left(\frac{9+\eta }{12}\right)v^2\left(\frac{8157\eta +\eta ^2}{24}\right)v^4+𝒪(v^6)\right].$$
(20)
$`F(v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{32\eta ^2v^{10}}{5}}[1({\displaystyle \frac{1247}{336}}+{\displaystyle \frac{35}{12}}\eta )v^2+4\pi v^3`$ (23)
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{44711}{9072}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9271}{504}}\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{65}{18}}\eta ^2)v^4({\displaystyle \frac{8191}{672}}+{\displaystyle \frac{535}{24}}\eta )\pi v^5+𝒪(v^6)].`$
The position of the LSO is unknown in the case of two comparable mass objects. However, it has been hypothesized that a more accurate description of $`v_{lso}`$ may be given by

$$v_{lso}^2=\frac{1}{6}\frac{1+\frac{1}{3}\eta }{1\frac{35}{36}\eta }\left(2\frac{1+\frac{1}{3}\eta }{\sqrt{1\frac{9}{6}\eta +\frac{1}{36}\eta ^2}}\right).$$
(24)
which approaches the Schwarzchild test-mass limit in the case of $`\eta 0`$. This in turn should provide more accurate knowledge of the position of the LSO. From this we can define the frequency at the LSO as $`f_{lso}=v_{lso}^3/\pi m`$.

### B P-approximant Waveforms.

The groundwork for constructing the Padé approximation of the energy and flux has already been laid down . In this section we will briefly outline the main points. As we are dealing with only sub-diagonal Padé approximants we can denote the rational function $`P_M^N`$ by $`P_{m+ϵ}^m`$, where as we increase the level of approximation the parameter $`ϵ=0`$ or 1. The advantage of the sub-diagonal approximants is purely computational in that we can cast the flux in a continued fraction form and we only have one new coefficient to calculate as we go to each next level of approximation.

#### 1 The P-approximant Energy Function

Starting with Eqn (20) we can construct the Padé approximant energy function

$$E_{P_n}(x)=\left[1+2\eta \left(\sqrt{1+e_{P_n}(x)}1\right)\right]^{1/2}1,$$
(25)
where $`x=v^2`$ and $`e_{P_n}(x)`$ is an energy flux related to the binding energy of the system given by

$$e_{P_n}(x)=xP_{m+ϵ}^m\left[\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}a_kx^k\right],$$
(26)
where the coefficients $`a_k`$ are given by

$$a_0=1,a_1=1\frac{\eta }{3},a_2=3+\frac{35\eta }{12}.$$
(27)
Constructing the Padé approximation gives us the expression

$$e_{P_n}(x)=x\frac{1+\frac{1}{3}\eta \left(4\frac{9}{4}\eta +\frac{1}{9}\eta ^2\right)x}{1+\frac{1}{3}\eta \left(3\frac{35}{12}\eta \right)x}.$$
(28)
Once again, taking the derivative of Eqn (25) with respect to the velocity yields

$$E_{P_n}^{}(v)=\frac{v\eta }{\left(1+E_{P_n}(x)\right)\sqrt{1+e_{P_n}(x)}}\frac{de_{P_n}(x)}{dx},$$
(29)
where

$$\frac{de_{P_n}(x)}{dx}=c_0\frac{1+c_2x\left(2+\left(c_1+c_2\right)x\right)}{\left(1+\left(c_1+c_2\right)x\right)^2},$$
(30)
and the Padé coefficients, $`c_k`$, are given by

$$c_0=1,c_1=1+\frac{\eta }{3},c_2=\frac{4\frac{9}{4}\eta +\frac{1}{9}\eta ^2}{1+\frac{1}{3}\eta }.$$
(31)
#### 2 The P-approximant Flux

As we are only dealing with waveforms up to 2.5-PN order and can neglect all logarithmic terms, we can simplify the steps taken for converting the flux into a form compatible with Padé theory. Starting with Eqn (23) we can write the PN flux as

$$F_{T_n}(v)=F_N(v)\underset{k=0}{\overset{5}{}}c__kv^k,$$
(32)
where $`F_N(v)`$ is the Newtonian flux given by

$$F_N(v)=\frac{32}{5}\eta ^2v^{10}.$$
(33)
With this representation of the flux, the idea is to create a three step mapping to a Padé approximant flux, $`F_P(v)`$. In order to use Padé theory, our power series needs to contain a linear term in the velocity $`v`$. The reason for this is that the linear coefficient of the Taylor series appears in the denominator of the Padé coefficients. A Taylor series like the PN-flux, which contains a null linear term, results in infinite Padé coefficients. The first step therefore is to introduce such a term and create a “factored” flux function by the operation

$`f_{T_n}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{v}{v_{pole}}}\right)F_{T_n},`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`F_N(v){\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{5}{}}}f__kv^k.`$ (35)
where $`v_{pole}`$ is the velocity at the photon ring, $`f__0=c__0`$ and $`f__k=c__kc_{_{k1}}/v_{pole}`$ from $`k=1,..,n`$. This choice of using $`v_{pole}`$ as a normalizing velocity comes naturally from the fact that we expect a pole at $`r=3M`$ in the flux for particles in a Schwarzchild metric. The next step is to create the corresponding P-approximant “factored” flux by

$$f_{P_n}(v)=F_N(v)P_{m+ϵ}^m\left[\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}f__kv^k\right].$$
(36)
The final P-approximant flux is then given by

$$F_{P_n}(v)=\left(1\frac{v}{v_{pole}}\right)^1f_{P_n}(v).$$
(37)
It has been shown that this representation of the flux has faster convergence properties than the usual PN-flux.

### C Comparison between T and P-approximant Waveforms.

The question must be asked as to why we should favor one template model over another. While both templates are based on the adiabatic approximation, it has been shown that the P-approximant templates are superior in a number of ways . The main problem with the T-approximant waveforms is that as we go to higher approximations, we do not necessarily obtain a better template. In the test-mass approximation, we know that the $`v^4`$ and $`v^5`$ PN approximants diverge in opposite directions from the exact numerical flux. This is reflected when we go to the comparable mass case in the values of the overlaps between the 2 and 2.5-PN waveforms and the fiducial “exact” waveform. For a 10-10 $`M_{}`$ system, the 2-PN waveform achieves an overlap of 0.894, while the 2.5-PN template has an overlap of 0.545. Compare this with the results of the P-approximant waveforms : 0.868 for the 2-PN template and 0.979 for the 2.5-PN template, and we can already see the benefit of the P-approximant waveforms. Another test can be carried out by looking at the Cauchy convergence between the approximations. If we compare the 2 and 2.5-PN approximations for both types of waveforms, we get a value of 0.496 between the T-approximant waveforms and a value of 0.918 for the P-approximant waveforms.

The next problem encountered with T-approximant waveforms is that it is possible to achieve overlaps of $``$ 0.9. The price that has to be paid, however, is a large bias in the parameter values. For example it has been shown that for a \[1.4,10\] $`M_{}`$ system, it is possible to achieve an overlap of 0.94 with a 2.5-PN template . However, this is achieved using a template with masses of 0.82 and 20.4 $`M_{}`$. In comparison, the P-approximant template achieves a higher overlap (0.994) with lower biases in the parameter values (\[1.37, 10.02\] $`M_{}`$). From this we must conclude that the PN waveforms are not faithful templates.

Taking into account how badly the PN templates perform in the test mass case, we should be worried about their performance in the case of two comparable masses. On the other hand, it is due to their faster convergence properties and lower biases in parameter estimation, why we believe that the P-approximant templates will give superior results in the search for gravitational waves.

## IV The Numerical Method

Our primary aim in this study is to calculate the number of templates needed for a GW search using P-approximant waveforms. This is closely followed with the aim of developing a numerical code which can be used for any type of waveform. As the calculation of the metric tensor depends on the derivatives of the waveforms, it is sometimes more convenient to do this numerically. The eliminates the need for calculating the derivatives analytically, which for example, in the case of P-approximant waveforms is very messy. In order to calculate the numerator of Eqn (15) there are a number of possible methods. Due to the shapes of the parameter spaces (Fig 2), we chose to use a two-fold Monte Carlo method for evaluating the double integral in the same equation. This method is a combination of two different Monte Carlo methods called “hit-or-miss” and “crude” methods . The “hit-or-miss” method is used

for calculating the fractional area of the parameter space, $`\delta A`$. Briefly, this involves enclosing the parameter space inside a boundary of known area, and throwing points at random inside the boundary. The fractional area is then given by $`\delta A=A\times (n/N)`$, where $`A`$ is the area of the known boundary, $`n`$ is the number of points falling inside the region of interest and $`N`$ is the total number of points. If the search manifold was Euclidean we would only need to calculate the value $`\sqrt{g}`$ once. For a toy model where all waveforms are terminated at a constant frequency irregardless of mass, then it has been shown that the manifold is approximately Euclidean . A suitable co-ordinate transformation maps the manifold onto a globally Euclidean space where the metric is constant. However, as soon as we include the frequency at the LSO, $`f_{lso}`$, in the termination of the waveforms, the search manifold becomes a curved Riemannian manifold and a globally Euclidean manifold no longer exist . This is where the “crude” method comes in. We can us it to calculate the mean value of $`\sqrt{g}`$ on the manifold. By using the chirptimes introduced earlier as coordinate basis, we have a choice of two coordinate systems within which to work. These are the $`\tau _0`$-$`\tau _2`$ and $`\tau _0`$-$`\tau _3`$ systems. What we found, from a numerical point of view, was that the fractional area $`\delta A`$ converged quickest in the $`\tau _0`$-$`\tau _2`$ coordinate system. From a computational point of view, this makes it a more desirable set of coordinates as it decreases the number of necessary calculations.

When generating numerical waveforms, the Nyquist theorem states that for a bandwidth limited signal with a critical frequency, $`f_{Nyq}`$, then in reconstructing the time series waveform our sampling rate, $`f_{samp}`$, must be at least twice the critical frequency. This is to ensure that any frequency above the critical frequency will not lead to an ’aliasing’ in the waveform. This is when higher frequency components of the wave occur within the required bandwidth. As previously stated, in this investigation it was decided to evolve the waveforms as far as $`f_{lso}`$ or to some arbitrary cutoff frequency. The choice is made as follows. When using the arbitrary cutoff, a frequency of $`f_{cut}=2kHz`$ is chosen. This means that all binaries with total masses in the range $`m[2.1,100]M_{}`$ are evolved up to and beyond their natural cutoff frequencies (by this it is assumed that the natural cutoff frequency for an inspiral waveform is at the last stable circular orbit), while only the lowest mass binaries have their waveforms cut off early. It is not expected that this will have any great effect on the number of templates as $`99\%`$ of the waves energy is extracted by the time the GW frequency has reached $`750Hz`$ . This can easily be seen from looking at the power spectrum of $`\stackrel{~}{h}(f)`$ which is proportional to $`f^{7/3}`$.

To ensure there is no aliasing in the construction of our waveforms we have chosen the sampling frequency to be $`f_{samp}=6kHz`$ if $`f_{lso}>1.5kHz`$, or, $`f_{samp}=4f_{lso}`$ if $`f_{lso}1.5kHz`$. As our waveforms have a maximum bandwidth of $`2kHz`$, our sampling frequency is always at least three times $`f_{Nyq}`$. To cut down on computation time we are starting out however with the Fourier transforms rather than the time series waveforms.

In order to investigate the reliability of the numerical code, we tested it against known results calculated semi-analytically. These results were calculated previously for RPNFT waveforms up to 2-PN order using older noise curves . The basic assumptions of that study were as follows : a rectangular template lattice was used with a minimal match of 0.97 and a SNR of 1. It was assumed that the minimal individual mass was $`0.2M_{}`$. Using these same assumptions, we calculated the template number for identical waveforms using the numerical method outlined above. The results from the numerical code coincided with previous results to within $`5\%`$. Thus, we can be confident about our results for template number for both the T and P-approximant waveforms using the new noise curves

## V Results and Discussion

For the initial ground-based interferometers the most likely sources to be detected are solar-mass BH-BH binary systems. This is because these systems have an LSO frequency in or around the most sensitive points of the detector noise curves and are therefore the best candidates for detection. For completeness, however, we would also like to know how many templates are needed to search for BH-NS and NS-NS binaries as well. With this in mind, we calculated the number of templates for two separate cases. In the first case we chose a minimum individual mass of $`1M_{}`$, while in the second we chose $`5M_{}`$. The maximum total mass in each case is different due to the different lower frequency cutoffs of the detectors. The values used are $`86M_{}`$ (LIGO, GEO), $`100M_{}`$ (VIRGO) and $`50M_{}`$ (TAMA). For both cases we used the same assumptions. Namely, we choose a minimal match of $`M=0.97`$. This means that we have a loss in detection rate loss $`10\%`$. All waveforms are terminated at the LSO frequency or $`2kHz`$, whichever is reached first. And finally we choose a rectangular lattice of templates.

As well as template number, we need to know the computational cost of the storage of these templates. Schutz  has provided a relation between the number of templates and the CPU requirements for a GW search. In brief terms, the data streams from the detector are broken into segments of $`D`$ real numbers. The length of the longest filter is $`F`$ real numbers, such that $`F>>D`$. To filter the data through $`𝒩`$ templates of length $`F`$ requires $`𝒩D\left(16+3\mathrm{log}_2F\right)`$ floating point operations (flops). If the sampling frequency is $`2f_{Nyq}`$, then the computational power required is

$$P𝒩f_{Nyq}\left(32+6\mathrm{log}_2F\right)$$
(38)
flops. If we assume that the length of the longest filter is due to a minimal mass template such that $`m_1^{min}+m_2^{min}=m^{min}`$, $`\eta =0.25`$, then the length of the longest filter, $`F`$, is given by

$$F=\frac{5}{32}f_{Nyq}\left(\pi f_{low}\right)^{8/3}\left(2m^{min}\right)^{5/3}$$
(39)
where we once again assume a sampling rate of $`2f_{Nyq}`$. These equations can be amended accordingly depending on the sampling rate used.

The number of templates needed for a one-step GW search using 2 and 2.5-PN waveforms are presented in Figs 3 \- 4, while the computational cost is given in Figs 5 \- 6. We present the results for these particular approximations as we believe that they currently represent the best templates for a GW search. We can see by comparing between sets of results, that in most cases we need more templates to search for inspiralling binaries using P-approximant waveforms than we do using T-approximant waveforms. Initially, this may seem counter-intuitive. We would normally assume, that if the P-approximant waveforms do indeed bare a closer resemblance to the true waveform of a signal, we would need a lower number of templates. We thus need to explain the large increase in the number of templates as we go from T to P-approximant waveforms.

In order to show why we need more templates using P-approximant waveforms, we carried out two experiments. In the first experiment we use the fact that the extrinsic components of the metric remain constant over the entire manifold. It is only the intrinsic components that change. We therefore held all of the waveform parameters constant except for either $`\tau _0`$ of $`\tau _2`$. We chose a number of different points on the search manifold and varied the intrinsic parameters by $`10^5`$ seconds. We then calculated the proper distance between both templates. We know from Eqn (12) that there is a connection between the overlap of two nearby templates and the proper distance between them. To first order approximation in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^\mu `$, the proper distance is given by

$$s\sqrt{1\stackrel{~}{h}(\lambda ^\mu )|\stackrel{~}{h}(\lambda ^\mu +\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^\mu )}$$
(40)
What we find is that the proper distance between two P-approximant templates is greater than the proper distance between two T-approximant templates at constant points on the manifold. This is explained by the fact that not only does the proper area of the manifold change as we go to successive approximations, but it also changes as we go from one type waveform to another. This can be seen from examining the eigenvalues of the metric tensor as we firstly go from one approximation to another, and secondly, by using different types of waveforms. For the second experiment, we calculated the span of each template at different points on the manifold. We chose a number of different mass ranges on the manifold. In Fig 7 we present the results for the choice of $`[1,1]M_{}`$, $`[1,10]M_{}`$ and $`[10,10]M_{}`$ while changing the Newtonian chirptime $`\tau _0`$. The solid curve represents the span of the T-approximant template, while the dashed curve represents the span of the P-approximant template. We can see in the case of $`[1,1]M_{}`$, there is not much difference in the span of the templates when using either of the approximations. However, as we move to higher and higher masses, the P-approximant templates have a smaller span on the search manifold than the T-approximant templates. Once again, this can be explained by looking at the eigenvalues of the metric. The orientation and span of each template is dependent on the eigenvalues of the locally diagonal metric. We can deduce from this that it is in the high mass range of the manifold that is mainly responsible for the change in proper area as we go from T to P-approximant waveforms. This fact, combined with the orientation of the template, sufficiently explains the need for extra templates when using the P-approximant waveforms. The numerical results are presented in Appendixes B and C.

We should not be discouraged by the vast increase in templates for P-approximant waveforms at certain approximations. As we know that the 2.5-PN P-approximant template is vastly superior to its T-approximant counterpart, what is most important is the comparison between 2-PN templates. In both cases that we studied, there is only a small increase in template number needed as we go from T-approximant to P-approximant waveforms. This increase is more than acceptable due to the fact that the P-approximant templates are more robust and reliable in general.

## VI conclusion

In this study we have calculated the number of templates needed for a one-step GW search using T-approximant and P-approximant waveforms. We first displayed how the detection of GW can be examined by evoking pre-established techniques of differential geometry. By treating the waveforms as vectors in a Hilbert space we can define an N-dimensional Riemannian manifold upon which we can define a scalar product, vector norm and a metric tensor. By choosing a particular parameterization for the phase of the GW we showed how the search for GW need only take place on a 2-D submanifold defined by a set of independent parameters intrinsic to the binary system in question. The operation of projecting onto this sub-manifold has a two-fold interpretation. From a geometric point of view it is a minimization of distance between two templates, while from a data analysis point of view it is a maximization of parameters. We have also outlined the development of an easily modifiable numerical code for calculating template number. This code uses the latest analytical models of the noise spectral density of the initial ground-based detectors.

This code uses a combination of “crude” and “hit-or-miss” Monte Carlo methods to calculate the proper area of the search parameter space. We found that there was a particular coordinate system ($`\tau _0`$-$`\tau _2`$) which seemed to be particularly advantageous from a computational point of view. At present the code works for waveforms up to 2.5-PN order. We outlined the difference between the T and P-approximant comparable mass waveforms, as well as how to construct the P-approximant energy and flux functions. These waveforms were generated to the LSO for waveforms with $`f_{lso}1.5kHz`$. For waveforms with $`f_{lso}>1.5kHz`$ we introduced a cutoff frequency of $`f_{cut}=2kHz`$. This is entirely consistent as most of the waves energy has been extracted by $`1kHz`$. Although it is BH-BH binaries that present the best possibility for detection by the first generation of detectors, we calculated template number for two seperate cases assuming minimum individual masses of $`1M_{}`$ and $`5M_{}`$

We found that in general we need more templates when using P-approximant waveforms. In some cases (e.g. 1.5-PN order) the number of templates needed increased by a factor of 3. However, the 1.5-PN templates are known to be unreliable. The case we were most interested in was the comparison in performance of the 2-PN templates. We found that we while we still need a greater number of templates, this increase in small, and when weighed against the known robustness of the P-approximant templates, the increase is acceptable. We were able to explain the increase in template number by the fact that the proper area of the parameter space is dependent on the level of approximation and type of waveform used. We used this fact to explain how the span of the P-approximant templates decreases faster than the corresponding T-approximant templates as we increase the total mass.

These results are encouraging for the use of P-approximant templates over the usual PN waveforms in the search for GW.

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr B. S. Sathyaprakash for proposing the problem to me and for his invaluable guidance during the research and in the writing of this paper. I would also like to thank Dr(s) Stanislav Babak, Kostas Glampedakis, Andreas Dimitropoulos, R. Balasubramanian and Prof. L.P. Grishchuk for the extremely useful discussions and suggestions during the period of this work. I would finally like to thank Phil Fayers for his help and assistance with the computational issues of this problem.

## A Properties of the Metric Projection

We have defined the metric projection as

$$\gamma _{\mu \nu }=\xi _{\mu \nu }\frac{\xi _{\mu _0}\xi _{{}_{0}{}^{}\nu }}{\xi _{_{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}0}}}},$$
(A1)
What we will now show is that there is a two-fold interpretation of the projection depending on whether one is looking at the problem from a geometrical or detection point of view. As one follows on closely from the other, we will first examine the meaning of the projection from a geometrical point of view. We firstly define the distance between two points (or templates) on a $`4D`$ manifold as

$$ds^2=\xi _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^\nu ,$$
(A2)
$$=\xi _{_{00}}\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^0\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^0+2\xi _{_{0j}}\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^0\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^j+\xi _{_{ij}}\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^i\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^j,$$
(A3)
where we use arbitrary coordinates $`\lambda ^\mu =\{x,y,z,w\}`$. Any function is minimized or maximized if its first derivative is zero. Therefore, the proper distance, $`ds^2`$, is minimized if

$$\frac{}{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^\mu }\left(ds^2\right)=0.$$
(A4)
Initially we want to project from an $`nD`$ space to an $`mD`$ orthogonal sub-space ($`m<n`$). We can project onto the orthogonal sub-space as follows. We first choose to minimize the proper distance with respect to the $`x`$-coordinate. Therefore, taking the first derivative with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^0=\left|xx_0\right|`$

$$\frac{}{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^0}\left(ds^2\right)=\xi _{_{00}}\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^0+2\xi _{_{0j}}\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^j=0,$$
(A5)
The trivial solution is if $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^0=\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^j=0`$. Therefore, Eqn (A5) implies

$$\xi _{_{00}}=\xi _{_{0j}}=0.$$
(A6)
The proper distance between points on the $`n1`$ sub-manifold is then given by

$$d\sigma ^2=\gamma _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^\nu ,$$
(A7)
where $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ is the metric tensor on the $`3D`$ submanifold defined by Eqn (A1) and $`d\sigma ^2<ds^2`$. We can therefore see how the projection of the metric can be interpreted as a minimization of distance between points on the manifold.

From a detection point of view we have seen in Section II that the overlap between two templates yields the expression

$$u(\lambda ^\beta )|u(\lambda ^\beta +\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^\beta )=1\frac{1}{2}\xi _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^\nu .$$
(A8)
The left hand side of Eqn (A8) is maximized if the 2nd term on the right hand side is minimized, i.e.

$$\frac{}{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^\mu }\left(\xi _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^\nu \right)=0.$$
(A9)
From Eqn (A4), this process is then equivalent to the minimization of template distance shown above. We can thus equate the projection of the metric from one subspace onto another as a maximization over the parameters defining each subspace.

## B Template Number For a One-Step GW Search.

## C CPU Requirements For a One-Step GW Search.


format: text

text:
# Aspects of 𝒂_𝟎-𝒇_𝟎 mixing in the reaction 𝒑⃗𝒏→𝒅𝒂_𝟎

## I Introduction

The nature of the lightest, virtually mass-degenerate, scalar mesons $`a_0`$ (980) ($`I^GJ^{PC}=1^{}0^{++}`$) and $`f_0`$ (980) ($`0^+0^{++}`$) is an important and still unsolved problem of hadron physics. The quark structure of these mesons is not well established at present time. This issue is also closely related to the very interesting problem of $`a_0`$-$`f_0`$ mixing. A dynamical mechanism for this mixing close to $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold was suggested around 20 years ago in Ref. . Since that time a number of papers have been published in which different aspects of $`a_0`$-$`f_0`$ mixing and the possibilities to measure this effect have been discussed, see, for example, Refs. . Recently, in Ref. , some new arguments were presented in support of a fairly large $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ -mixing intensity. Analyzing the experimental data  on the exclusive production of the $`a_0`$(980), $`a_2`$(1320) and $`f_0`$(980) resonances in $`pp`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=29.1`$ GeV, the authors of Ref.  came to the conclusion that $`80\pm 25`$ % of all $`a_0^0`$ mesons come from the $`f_0`$(980).

The results of Ref.  provide certainly a fairly strong indication for a large $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing. However, for more solid conclusions, in particular about the quantitative value of the mixing, a thorough analysis is needed. In this context it is important to keep in mind that the mixing can manifest itself in many different physical processes and observables. Thus, in this paper we want to discuss another consequence of the $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing effect, namely the angular asymmetry of the reaction

$$pnda_0^0/f_0.$$
(1)
with unpolarized and polarized proton beam. Furthermore we study the influence of the finite width of the scalar mesons on the unpolarized as well as the polarized differential cross section. All these investigations are performed with special emphasis on how to extract informations on the $`a_0/f_0`$ mixing.

In the present paper we will address the $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$ mesons as resonances. However, it should be stressed that all the results derived in this paper do not need any assumption about the nature of those scalar mesons. Even if these scalar mesons are dynamically generated , in the proximity of the pole the scattering matrix can still be well approximated by the propagation of quasiparticles corresponding to elementary fields. The true nature of the propagating object is then hidden in the effective parameters of those elementary fields. This was shown rigorously by Weinberg for the case where inelastic channels are absent .

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we review some common properties of the production of unstable particles. We start out from the case of a single particle and then, in Sect. 3, generalize the formalism to the two channel case relevant for the present study. Section 4 contains a discussion of the general structure of the primary production amplitude for small excess energies. Section 5 is devoted to the study of different observables. The main emphasis is put on the $`\pi \eta `$ final state. Two differential observables are analyzed in detail, namely the double differential cross section $`d^2\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }/dm^2`$ as well as the analyzing power. The former observable was studied recently in a series of papers, however, without investigating the $`m^2`$ dependence more thoroughly. The latter, on the other hand, was not discussed in detail before at all. We close with a short summary and conclusions.

## II The production of unstable particles

Let us start with the general expression for the cross section of the reaction $`NNdX,`$ where $`X`$ denotes the decay products of an unstable meson. We start the discussion by assuming the presence of one mesonic resonance only. The generalization to more than one resonances will be done in the next section. The main purpose of this section is to introduce our notation and to remind the reader on the impact of a finite decay width on observables.

The reaction cross section in the center-of-mass (CM) system be can expressed as

$$d\sigma _X=(2\pi )^4\frac{1}{4|\stackrel{}{p}|\sqrt{s}}|𝒜_X|^2d\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu +1}(P;p_d,k_1,\mathrm{},k_\mu ).$$
(2)
Here $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ denotes the CM momentum of the initial protons and $`P`$ the total initial four-momentum. The reaction amplitude $`𝒜_X`$ is given by

$$𝒜_X=W_X(k_1,\mathrm{},k_\mu )G(m^2).$$
(3)
where the primary production amplitude is denoted by $``$. We assume the unstable meson, whose propagation is described by $`G(m^2)`$, to decay into the $`\mu `$ particles of the final state $`X`$ through the vertex function $`W_X`$. $`m^2`$ is the total invariant mass of the final $`\mu `$-particles system and is given by $`m^2=(k_i)^2`$, with $`k_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},\mu `$ being the four-momenta of the $`\mu `$ decay particles. The phase space of the final $`\mu `$ particles and the final deuteron (with the four-momentum $`p_d`$) is defined as

$`d\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu +1}(P;p_d,k_1,\mathrm{},k_\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^4(Pp_dk){\displaystyle \frac{d^3p_d}{(2\pi )^32E_d}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k_i}{(2\pi )^32\omega _i}}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`(2\pi )^3dm^2d\mathrm{\Phi }_2(P;p_d,k)d\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu (k;k_1,\mathrm{},k_\mu )`$ (5)
where $`E_d`$ and $`\omega _i`$ are the energies of the final deuteron and the $`i`$-th decay particle, respectively, and $`k=k_i`$. The latter recursive formula allows to study the propagation and the decay of the unstable particles independently of the production mechanism itself.

It is convenient to introduce what we would like to call partial spectral functions $`\rho _X`$, which is given by

$`\rho _X(m^2):=(2\pi )^3{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu (k;k_1,\mathrm{},k_\mu )|G(m^2)W_X|^2}.`$ (6)
Note that unitarity demands that

$$\underset{X}{}\rho _X(m^2)=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}G(m^2),𝑑m^2\underset{X}{}\rho _X(m^2)=1,$$
(7)
where the sum runs over all decay channels of the unstable particle that are open at a certain given value of $`m^2`$.

Using Eqs. (2) – (6) we can write

$$\frac{d^2\sigma _X}{dm^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_k}=\frac{1}{64\pi ^2}\left(\frac{|\stackrel{}{k}|}{|\stackrel{}{p}|}\right)\frac{1}{s}||^2\rho _X(m^2),$$
(8)
where $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ is the relative momentum of the meson system $`X`$ with respect to the deuteron. Naturally, $`|\stackrel{}{k}|`$ is a function of $`m^2`$, namely

$$|\stackrel{}{k}|=\frac{\lambda ^{1/2}(s,m^2,M_d^2)}{2\sqrt{s}},$$
(9)
where $`M_d`$ denotes the mass of the deuteron and the function $`\lambda `$ is given by

$$\lambda (x,y,z)=(xyz)^24yz.$$
(10)
In this paper we neglect a possible final state interaction (FSI) of the produced mesons with the deuteron (this issue was discussed for the reaction $`ppda_0^+`$ in Ref. ). Then, close to threshold, the energy dependence of the matrix element $``$ is determined by the lowest possible orbital angular momentum $`l`$ of the meson system $`X`$ with respect to the deuteron. Specifically, it will be given by $`k^l`$ with $`k=|\stackrel{}{k}|`$ being the corresponding relative momentum.

Let us now consider the case that interests us in the present study, namely the decay of a scalar resonance or quasiparticle into two pseudoscalar mesons. For any given interaction of the scalar mesons with the pseudoscalars, the physical two point functions for the scalar mesons can then be constructed by solving the Dyson equation, where the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is given by the leading order two pseudoscalar loop diagrams. The equation is illustrated in Fig. 1. The strongest energy dependence of the loops is introduced by the unitarity cut and its analytical continuation below the threshold. The remaining piece can be assumed constant and can be absorbed in the physical mass $`M_R`$. Under these assumptions the physical propagators of the scalar mesons can be described by a Flatté form , namely by

$$G(m^2)=\frac{1}{m^2M_R^2+iM_R\underset{X}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_X},$$
(11)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_X=\frac{|W_X|^2|\stackrel{}{k}_X|}{8\pi M_R^2},$$

with $`\stackrel{}{k}_X`$ being the CM momentum of the meson system $`X`$. Below the threshold of the production of the final state $`X`$ the analytic continuation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X`$ is to be used.

## III The mixing amplitude

We now turn to the case that is relevant for the present paper, namely when there are two propagating unstable particles with different isospins. Then the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ exhibits a matrix structure in isospin space. If we now allow the propagating particles to mix then the self-energy matrix develops non-diagonal elements. Note, since the mixing particles $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$ are essentially mass degenerate all the mixing should be completely dominated by its effect on the meson propagation itself. Along the lines of this reasoning we completely neglect any isospin violation in the primary production amplitude $``$ and in the coupling of the pseudoscalar mesons to the resonances. In short, we assume the resonances to be produced in pure isospin states. The physical states, however, are those that propagate. The physical states of $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$ are consequently no longer pure isospin states.

We start from the inverse propagator in the isospin basis,

$`𝐆^\mathrm{𝟏}(m^2)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}(m^2m_1^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11})& \mathrm{\Sigma }_{10}\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }_{01}& (m^2m_0^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{00})\end{array}\right)=:\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_{11}& g_{12}\\ g_{12}& g_{22}\end{array}\right),`$ (16)
where $`m_1`$ and $`m_0`$ denote the bare masses in the isospin 1 and 0 channel, respectively. The diagonal elements of the self-energy are given by

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\overline{K}K}^1+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\pi \eta }`$ (17)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\overline{K}K}^0+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\pi \pi }`$ (18)
and the isospin breaking is generated by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{10}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{01}=\alpha +\mathrm{\Pi }_{K^+K^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\overline{K}^0K^0}.$$
(19)
In these formulas $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}`$ denote loops integrals with particles $`x`$ and $`y`$ propagating. The loops are assumed to be renormalized – the renormalization constants are either absorbed into the physical masses of the scalar mesons or into the complex quantity $`\alpha `$ (see also the discussion of this question in Ref. ). The loops denoted by $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\overline{K}K}^I`$ are to be read as containing contributions from charged kaons as well as neutral kaons, coupled to the isospin $`I`$ as indicated in the superscript. It is also implied that the physical masses are used in those loop integrals. The mass difference between the charged and the neutral kaons is the source for the isospin breaking generated by the loops of Eq. (19). Without this difference the two kaon loops would cancel each other. The complex quantity $`\alpha `$ contains the effect induced by $`\pi `$-$`\eta `$ mixing , as for instance discussed in Ref. , as well as a possibly existing direct $`a_0`$$`f_0`$ transition. Naturally, the imaginary part of $`\alpha `$, induced by the $`\pi ^0`$$``$$`\eta `$ transition, can be easily estimated as was done in Ref. .

The propagation of the physical states is described by the eigenvalues of $`𝐆`$, i. e.

$$G_{a_0}=2/(g_{11}+g_{22}+r)\text{and}G_{f_0}=2/(g_{11}+g_{22}r),$$
(20)
where $`r=\sqrt{(g_{11}g_{22})^2+4g_{12}^2}`$. The physical masses of the scalar mesons $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$ are given by the real part of the zeros of Eq. (20).

As usual the full propagator $`𝐆`$ can be expressed in terms of the physical propagators $`G_{a_0}`$ and $`G_{f_0}`$ plus a parameter for the mixing, which can be identified as $`\delta =2g_{12}/(g_{11}g_{22}).`$ In the case of $`\rho `$$`\omega `$ mixing or $`\pi `$$`\eta `$ mixing $`\delta `$ is guaranteed to be small due to a large denominator $`g_{11}g_{22}`$. In the former case there is a large difference in the widths whereas in the latter the masses of the mixing particles are rather different. However, the experimental evidence that is available for the masses and widths of the scalar mesons $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$ suggests that here both these quantities might be very similar . Thus, even $`g_{11}=g_{22}`$ is not excluded. Also, we want to emphazise that $`\delta `$ can not be interpreted as a mixing angle because it is necessarily complex valued.

For convenience we write the primary production amplitude $``$ as a vector in isospin space,

$`𝐌=\left(\begin{array}{c}_1\\ _0\end{array}\right),`$ (23)
and the final production vertex $`W_X`$ as a matrix

$`𝐖=\left(\begin{array}{cc}W_1^{(\pi \eta )}& W_1^{(\pi \pi )}\\ W_0^{(\pi \eta )}& W_0^{(\pi \pi )}\end{array}\right).`$ (26)
Note that here $`W_1^{(\pi \eta )}`$ is the vertex for the coupling of the $`\pi \eta `$ system to an isospin-one particle as given by an elementary Lagrangian, whereas $`W_0^{(\pi \eta )}`$ is the vertex where the $`\pi \eta `$ system mixes first into the $`\pi \pi `$ system which then couples to an isospin-zero particle. We thus find for the complete production amplitude of the final states $`X`$ = $`(\eta \pi )`$ or $`(\pi \pi )`$ (c.f. Eq. (3) for the one channel situation)

$`𝐀=𝐖^{}\mathrm{𝐆𝐌}=𝐖^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{11}g_{22}g_{12}^2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_{22}& g_{12}\\ g_{12}& g_{11}\end{array}\right)𝐌=𝐖^{}G_{a_0}G_{f_0}\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_{22}& g_{12}\\ g_{12}& g_{11}\end{array}\right)𝐌.`$ (31)
Basically all investigations on the $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ so far don’t use the propagators of the physical states, i.e. they don’t use the eigenvalues of $`𝐆`$. Rather they assume that the $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$ mesons still propagate as proper isospin states. This leads to expressions that are very easy to interpret and which are illustrated in Fig. 2 for the case of $`X=(\pi \eta )`$. Within the formalism developed above this assumption corresponds to the approximation

$$G_{f_0}G_{a_0}=\frac{1}{g_{11}g_{22}g_{12}^2}\frac{1}{g_{11}g_{22}}=\stackrel{~}{G}_{f_0}\stackrel{~}{G}_{a_0},$$
(32)
where $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{f_0}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{a_0}`$ are now propagators of these mesons in the isospin $`0`$ and $`1`$ states, respectively. Indeed, the results presented in Ref.  suggest that

$$\frac{g_{12}^2}{g_{11}g_{22}}<10^2,$$

i.e. that the approximation (32) is not unreasonable.

Since the main focus of the paper is the $`\pi \eta `$ channel it is convenient to introduce a mixing parameter $`\xi `$ by

$$\xi (m)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{01}(m)\stackrel{~}{G}_{f_0}(m^2),$$
(33)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{01}`$ was defined in Eq. (19) and is related to the $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ transition amplitude. With this definition we get for the transition amplitude for the reaction $`pnd\pi \eta `$

$$𝒜_{(\pi \eta )}=W_1^{(\pi \eta )}\stackrel{~}{G}_{a_0}(_1+\xi (m)_0)+W_0^{(\pi \eta )}\stackrel{~}{G}_{f_0}_0+W_0^{(\pi \eta )}\xi (m)\stackrel{~}{G}_{a_0}_1.$$
(34)
The last term involves mixing in $`W_0^{(\pi \eta )}`$ as well as in $`\xi (m)`$ and is therefore a second order correction. Close inspection reveals that in the region $`m2m_K`$ the third term in Eq. (34) should be suppressed by a factor

$$\frac{g_{f_0\pi \pi }|\lambda _{\pi ^0\eta }|m_{a_0}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_0}}{g_{a_0\pi \eta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{01}(m_\eta ^2m_\pi ^2)}0.12$$

compared to the second term. In this estimation we used the values $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{01}5000`$ MeV2 determined from $`K\overline{K}`$ decay loops (see Fig. 2 in Ref. ) at $`m2m_K`$ and the $`\pi \eta `$ mixing amplitude $`\lambda _{\pi ^0\eta }5000`$ MeV2 (see Ref.  and references therein). We also use the masses and widths $`m_{a_0}=m_{f_0}=980`$ MeV$`/c^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_0}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_0}=50`$ MeV$`/c^2`$ and coupling constants $`g_{a_0\pi \eta }`$ and $`g_{f_0\pi \pi }`$ that are determined from the equations $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_0}=g_{a_0\pi \eta }^2q_{\pi \eta }/(8\pi m_{a_0}^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_0}=3g_{f_0\pi \pi }^2q_{\pi \pi }/(16\pi m_{f_0}^2)`$, where $`q_{\pi \eta }`$ and $`q_{\pi \pi }`$ are corresponding relative momenta. Consequently, both terms – the third and the last in Eq. (34) – will be neglected in what follows.

## IV Structure of the primary production amplitude

As we argued in the former section one can safely assume the primary production amplitudes $`_{}`$ as isospin conserving. In this section we demonstrate how to construct the effective interaction relevant for the transitions $`pnd+(scalarmeson)`$ in the close-to-threshold regime.

As pointed out in Refs. , if the scalar meson has isospin 1 it can only be produced in a $`p`$ wave. Since the initial $`pn`$ system has to be in an isotriplet state and has to have odd parity, the Pauli principle requires that it is also in a spin-triplet state. Thus, the effective transition operator for the isovector final state has to be linear in $`𝒌`$ and has to have an odd power of $`𝒑`$ (hereafter $`𝒌`$ and $`𝒑`$ denote the final and initial relative three-momenta in the considered reaction, respectively). It also has to be linear in both the spin $`𝑺:=\varphi _1^T\sigma _2𝝈\varphi _2`$ of the initial nucleons pair and the polarization vector $`\mathit{ϵ}`$ of the outgoing deuteron. These constraints lead to the reaction amplitude of the following type

$$_1=a(𝒑𝑺)(𝒌\mathit{ϵ}^{})+b(𝒑𝒌)(𝑺\mathit{ϵ}^{})+c(𝒌𝑺)(𝒑\mathit{ϵ}^{})+d(𝒑𝑺)(𝒑\mathit{ϵ}^{})(𝒌𝒑).$$
(35)
The coefficients $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ and $`d`$ are independent scalar amplitudes. They may depend on the total CM energy and are necessarily complex since they contain the initial state interaction. For the isospin 1 amplitude relevant here the phase induced by the two nucleon unitarity cuts can be related to the $`NN`$ phase shifts, as pointed out in Ref. . However, for the isoscalar initial state (required for the production of the $`f_0`$ meson, cf. below) there is no phase-shift analysis available at the relevant energies due to a lack of high energy $`pn`$ scattering experiments . Therefore, in this paper we will not consider the effects induced by the initial state interaction. Let us mention, however, that their effects do not influence the qualitative aspects discussed here. Note, that the scalar amplitudes $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ and $`d`$ are expected to have quite smooth energy dependence and, accordingly, can be considered as constant in the near threshold region.

In Ref.  the transition amplitude was given in a partial wave decomposed form. Obviously the two descriptions are equivalent, however, we regard Eq. (35) as more convenient for the construction of polarization observables.

The amplitude relevant for the near-threshold production of an isoscalar scalar meson can be constructed along the same lines and is given by

$$_0=f(𝑺\mathit{ϵ}^{})+g(𝒑𝑺)(𝒑\mathit{ϵ}^{}).$$
(36)
Similar expressions for the amplitudes (35) and (36) can be found in Ref. . Note, however, that the terms proportional to $`g`$ and $`d`$ were omitted in that work.

It is obvious from Eqs. (35) and (36) that $`_1k`$ and $`_0const.`$ near the threshold. For the isospin conserving case we therefore get

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dm^2}(pnda_0)Q^{3/2}\text{and}\frac{d\sigma }{dm^2}(pndf_0)Q^{1/2},$$

where $`Q(m)=\sqrt{s}M_dm`$ is the excess energy. Thus, if we study the production of an isospin 1 final state, namely $`\pi ^0\eta `$, the mixing with the isoscalar ($`f_0`$) state will be kinematically enhanced .

## V Study of observables

### A Invariant mass spectrum

Naturally the simplest observable is just the invariant mass spectrum of the reaction $`pndX`$. As long as we look at energies/values of $`m^2`$ such that $`Q(m^2)`$ is small, the spectrum should show a resonant peak $`\underset{X}{}\rho _X`$ reflecting the $`m^2`$ dependence of the $`f_0`$ propagator, cf. Eq. (7). It is possible to deduce the branching ratios of a particular resonance by a fit of the Flatté distribution to the mass spectrum. This was demonstrated, e.g., for the case of the $`a_0^+`$ in Ref. . Since so far little is known about the $`f_0`$ this very easy to measure observable is very interesting. In addition, the number of all events in this peak is proportional to

$$|_0|^2=3|f|^2+2\mathrm{Re}(fg^{})p^2+|g|^2p^4,$$

c.f. Eqs. (7), (8) and (36). Note that the knowledge of the amplitudes $`f`$ and $`g`$ is important, if we want to deduce quantitative informations about the $`f_0/a_0`$ mixing amplitude from the reaction $`pndX`$.

Definitely the most interesting observables are those concerning the channel $`pnd\pi \eta `$, since here the isospin conserving amplitude enters in a $`p`$ wave whereas the isoscalar amplitude, that can be mixed in via isospin violation, enters in an $`s`$ wave. This is the kinematical enhancement mentioned at the end of the last section.

Let us discuss the mass distribution $`d\sigma /dm_{\pi ^0\eta }`$ for the $`\pi ^0\eta `$ system in the reaction $`pnd\pi ^0\eta `$. Note that near the threshold of the reaction $`pnda_0^0`$ this mass distribution should be sensitive to the magnitude of $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing as well as to the mixing mechanism.

Consider first the limiting case of isospin conservation, so that the $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing is absent. In this case the mass spectrum of the $`\pi ^0\eta `$ system should coincide with the spectrum of the $`\pi ^+\eta `$ system from the reaction $`ppda_0^+`$ – apart from an overall (isospin) factor of 0.5 . The amplitude of the reaction $`pnd\pi ^0\eta `$ is then given by the diagram of Fig. 2a. In this case the invariant $`\pi ^0\eta `$-mass distribution is determined by the phase space and $`\rho _{(\pi \eta )}`$, which was defined in Eq. (6), and is dominated by the $`a_0`$ propagator (c.f. Eq. (11)). The $`\pi ^0\eta `$-mass distribution obtained under these asumptions, is shown in Fig. 3 by the dotted line. The calculations are done at $`T_p=2645`$ MeV$`/c`$ where experimental results can be expected from the ANKE collaboration soon . The parameters used here are: $`M_{a_0}=980`$ MeV$`/c^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_0}=50`$ MeV$`/c^2`$. The mass-dependent width is described by a Flatté-like form $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_0}(m)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_0}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{K\overline{K}}(m)`$, which takes into account the $`K\overline{K}`$ decay channel (see Eq. (8) in Ref.). As we discussed in the previous Sections, the isospin conserving production of the $`a_0^0`$ meson can take place only in a $`p`$ wave and hence is suppressed near threshold.

If isospin is not conserved and $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing is present, then the $`\pi \eta `$ system can be produced also in an $`s`$ wave through the $`f_0`$. The corresponding diagram is shown in Fig. 2b. For this mechanism the $`\pi ^0\eta `$ mass spectrum is determined not only by the $`a_0^0`$ propagator, the partial wave of production and the phase space but also by the $`f_0`$ propagator and by the mass dependence of the nondiagonal self-energy matrix element $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{01}(m)`$ (cf. Eqs. (19) and (33)):

$`\xi (m)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{01}(m)\stackrel{~}{G}_{f_0}(m^2){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{01}(m)}{m^2M_{f_0}^2+iM_{f_0}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_0}(m^2)}}.`$ (37)
For illustrative purposes we will use $`M_{f_0}=980`$ MeV$`/c^2`$ and the same Flatté-like width that was used for the $`a_0`$ meson above, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_0}(m^2)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_0}(m^2)`$.

Of course, now the invariant mass plot becomes sensitive to the specific mixing mechanism. For example, if we assume that the leading contribution to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{01}(m)`$ comes from the direct $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ transition mechanism, i. e. the term $`\alpha `$ in Eq. (19), then there should be no drastic dependence on the invariant mass $`m`$ of the $`\pi ^0\eta `$ system. The $`\pi ^0\eta `$-mass spectrum, corresponding to the mechanism of Fig. 2b and with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{01}(m)=const`$, is shown in Fig. 3 by the dashed line. (All the distributions are normalized to 1 at the maximal values!) On the other hand, if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{01}(m)`$ is determined mainly by the $`K\overline{K}`$ loop (the term $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{K^+K^{}}`$$``$$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\overline{K}^0K^0}`$ in Eq. (19)), it should be strongly enhanced near the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold (see, e.g., Refs. ). The corresponding $`\pi ^0\eta `$-mass distribution is shown in Fig. 3 by the solid line.

Thus, we conclude that the $`\pi ^0\eta `$ mass spectrum is rather sensitive to the $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing mechanism. That is why the study of $`d\sigma /dm_{\pi ^0\eta }`$ in the reaction $`pnd\pi ^0\eta `$ should allow to shed light on the nature of the lightest scalar mesons $`a_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(980)`$.

### B Analyzing power for the process $`pnd\pi \eta `$

#### 1 Near threshold

In our approximation the total amplitude $``$ of the resonant $`\pi \eta `$–production with $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing effects taken into account may be written as (c.f. Eq. (34))

$$=_1+\xi _0,$$
(38)
where the amplitudes $`_1`$ and $`_0`$ are given by the Eqs. (35) and (36) and the mixing parameter $`\xi `$ was defined in Eq. (33).

Let us introduce the polarization of one of the nucleons $`𝜻`$ through $`𝜻=\varphi _1^+𝝈\varphi _1`$ or $`\varphi _1\varphi _1^+=(1+𝜻𝝈)/2`$. The matrix element (38) squared and averaged (summed) over the polarizations of the initial neutron (final deuteron) is then given by

$$\overline{||^2}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(|a|^2+|c|^2\right)p^2k^2+3|B|^2+|D|^2p^4\right]+(𝒑𝒌)\mathrm{Re}H$$

$$+p^2\mathrm{Re}\left[a^{}D(𝒑𝒌)+B^{}D\right]+(𝜻[𝒌\times 𝒑])\mathrm{Im}H,$$
(39)
where

$$B=b(𝒑𝒌)+f\xi ,D=d(𝒑𝒌)+g\xi ,H=a^{}B+a^{}c(𝒑𝒌)+B^{}c+D^{}cp^2.$$

Let the polarization vector $`𝜻`$ be directed along the $`x`$-axis ($`𝜻𝒑`$). Then, in terms of the angles $`\theta `$ and $`\phi `$, we have $`𝒑𝒌=pk\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and $`𝜻[𝒌\times 𝒑]=\zeta pk\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi `$ ($`\zeta =|𝜻|`$). Using those expressions Eq. (39) may be written as

$$\overline{|(\theta ,\phi )|^2}=C_0+C_1\mathrm{cos}\theta +C_2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\zeta \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi (D_0+D_1\mathrm{cos}\theta ),$$
(40)
where

$$C_0=\frac{1}{2}\left(|a|^2+|c|^2\right)p^2k^2+\left(|f|^2+\frac{1}{2}|f+p^2g|^2\right)|\xi |^2,$$

$$C_1=pk\mathrm{Re}\left(\left[(a+b+c+p^2d)^{}(f+p^2g)+2b^{}f\right]\xi \right),$$

$$C_2=p^2k^2\left[|b|^2+\frac{1}{2}|b+p^2d|^2+\mathrm{Re}\left(a^{}c+(a+c)^{}(b+p^2d)\right)\right],$$
(41)
$$D_0=pk\mathrm{Im}\left(\left[a^{}fc^{}(f+p^2g)\right]\xi \right),$$

$$D_1=p^2k^2\mathrm{Im}(a^{}b+a^{}c+b^{}c+p^2d^{}c).$$

We can now generalize the definition of the asymmetry $`A`$ given in Ref.  to the polarized situation. Using the short hand notation

$$\sigma (m;\theta ,\phi )\frac{d^2\sigma }{dm^2d\mathrm{\Omega }}(\theta ,\phi ).$$
(42)
we now define the angular–asymmetry parameter $`A`$ through

$`A(m;\theta ,\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (m;\theta ,\phi )\sigma (m;\pi \theta ,\phi +\pi )}{\sigma (m;\theta ,\phi )+\sigma (m;\pi \theta ,\phi +\pi )}}`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_1\mathrm{cos}\theta +\zeta D_0\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi }{C_0+C_2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\zeta D_1\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi }}.`$ (44)
It follows from Eqs. (41) and (44) that $`C_1=D_0=0`$ for $`\xi =0`$ and thus

$$A(m;\theta ,\phi )_{\xi =0}=0$$
(45)
when isospin is conserved.

Let us discuss some specific features of the expression (44) in the following. First note that there are two different terms. The first term does not depend on the polarization $`\zeta `$ of the proton beam and on the angle $`\phi `$. Therefore, Eq. (44) implies that

$$A(m;\theta =0^0,\phi )=\frac{C_1}{C_0+C_2}.$$
(46)
This particular result for the asymmetry $`A`$ was derived earlier in Ref.  but not in terms of the amplitudes $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, $`d`$, $`f`$ and $`g`$. The discussion in Refs. , on the other hand, takes into account only the amplitudes $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, and $`f`$, but not the amplitudes $`d`$ and $`g`$.

At $`\theta =90^0`$ and for $`\zeta 0`$ we get

$$A(m;\theta =90^0,\phi )=\zeta \frac{D_0}{C_0}\mathrm{sin}\phi =\frac{2\zeta pk\mathrm{Im}\left(\left[a^{}fc^{}(f+p^2g)\right]\xi \right)\mathrm{sin}\phi }{\left(|a|^2+|c|^2\right)p^2k^2+\left(2|f|^2+|f+p^2g|^2\right)|\xi |^2}.$$
(47)
Obviously the isospin-breaking effect for different angles $`\theta `$ and $`\phi `$ depends on different combinations of the basic amplitudes. Thus, experimental information on the asymmetry obtained with polarized beam could allow to deduce additional constraints on the amplitudes $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, $`d`$, $`f`$, and $`g`$ of the $`a_0`$\- and $`f_0`$ production reactions. With regard to that let us mention that the model of $`a_0`$-meson production discussed in Ref. , which was based on the impulse approximation, leads to $`A(m;\theta =90^0,\phi )0`$ – because in that model $`a=c=0`$.

Throughout this paper we make the assumption that isospin breaking takes place only in the propagation of the scalar mesons. This implies that the mixing strength is the same for all partial waves. On the other hand, if a significant mixing takes place also in the initial $`NN`$ interaction or in the primary production amplitude $`_1`$, there is no reason to expect this mixing as being partial-wave independent. Thus the study of polarization observables allows to examine this basic model assumption in a clean way.

In addition it will be very interesting to study the $`m`$ dependence of $`A(m;\theta ,\phi )`$ in detail. By construction $`A`$ projects on the isospin breaking pieces of the amplitude. Therefore, the $`m`$ dependence of $`A`$ gives direct access to the $`m`$ dependence of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{01}(m)`$ and thus to the mixing mechanism.

#### 2 Higher energies

As mentioned above the asymmetry $`A(m;\theta ,\phi )`$ (Eq. (44)) will become zero if $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing is not included, i.e. for $`\xi =0`$. This result is in line with the observation made in Ref.  that the asymmetry $`A(\theta )`$ is identical to zero in the reaction $`pnd\pi ^0`$ for the unpolarized case. Let us emphasize, however, that the vanishing of the asymmetry $`A(m;\theta ,\phi )`$ in the limit $`\xi =0`$ for the polarized case is true only near threshold, where the $`a_0`$ meson is produced in a $`p`$ wave and the $`f_0`$ meson in an $`s`$ wave, see Eqs. (35) and (36). The expressions (35) and (36) do not take into account contributions from higher partial waves, specifically they do not include, e.g., the $`d`$ wave production of the $`a_0`$ meson and the $`p`$ wave production of the $`f_0`$ meson. In the following we want to consider this question in more detail, assuming that isospin is conserved.

The amplitudes for $`a_0`$\- and $`f_0`$ production in the reaction (1) can be written in the most general form as

$$_I=\varphi _1^T\sigma _2(F_I+𝑮_I𝝈)\varphi _2,$$
(48)
where $`\varphi _{1,2}`$ are the spinors of the nucleons. The two terms $`F_I`$ and $`𝑮_I`$ correspond to $`S_{NN}=0`$ and $`S_{NN}=1`$, respectively, where $`S_{NN}`$ is the total spin of the initial $`NN`$ system. The subscript $`I`$ denotes the isospin of the produced scalar meson. The scalar and vector functions $`F_I`$ and $`𝑮_I`$ depend on the vectors $`𝒑`$, $`𝒌`$ and $`\mathit{ϵ}`$. Let $`L_{NN}`$ and $`L_{Md}`$ be the angular momenta in the initial $`NN`$ and in the final meson$`+d`$ systems, respectively. It follows from the conservation of quantum numbers together with the required antisymmetry of the system with respect to the initial nucleons that the $`F_1`$ ($`𝑮_1`$) term in Eq. (48) should contain only the contributions from even (odd) values of $`L_{NN}`$ and $`L_{Md}`$. One can also see that the $`F_0`$ ($`𝑮_0`$) term should only contain the contributions from odd (even) values of $`L_{NN}`$ and $`L_{Md}`$. In the isovector ($`I=1`$) case the $`s`$ wave ($`L_{NN}=L_{Md}=0`$) is forbidden, i.e. the contributions to the $`F_1`$ term start with a $`d`$ wave. For the case where one of the nucleons is polarized, the expression for the squared matrix element (48) is given by the form

$$\overline{|_I|^2}=\frac{1}{2}\left[|F_I|^2+\left([F_I𝑮_I^{}+F_I^{}𝑮_I]𝜻\right)+(𝑮_I^{}𝑮_I)+i\left(𝜻[𝑮_I\times 𝑮_I^{}]\right)\right],$$
(49)
where $`𝜻`$ is the proton polarization vector. The second term in the expression (49) corresponds to the interference between the $`F_I`$ and $`𝑮_I`$ amplitudes. Thus, this term is an odd function of the final momentum $`𝒌`$. All other terms in Eq. (49) are even functions of $`𝒌`$. We see that the second term is responsible for the angular asymmetry in the reaction (1) even if isospin is conserved. It vanishes in the case of unpolarized protons, i.e. $`A(m;\theta ,\phi )0`$ for $`𝜻=0`$.

Note that the amplitudes (35) and (36) are special cases of the general form Eq. (48) with $`F_I0`$. Also, setting $`F_I0`$ in Eq. (49) we always get $`A(m;\theta ,\phi )0`$ if isospin is conserved. The amplitudes (35) and (36) correspond to the $`𝑮_I`$ terms in Eq. (49) in the lowest-order approximation with respect to the final momentum $`𝒌`$, i.e. keeping only contributions that are at most linear in $`𝒌`$. The next-order term with respect to $`𝒌`$ in the amplitude for $`a_0`$-meson production is the $`d`$-wave contribution. This term (of the order $`k^2`$) contributes to $`F_1`$ in Eq. (48) and modifies the amplitude $`_1`$ given in Eq. (35), i.e.

$$_1_1+F_1\varphi _1^T\sigma _2\varphi _2,F_1=e(\mathit{ϵ}^{}[𝒑\times 𝒌])(𝒑𝒌)$$
(50)
where $`e`$ is a scalar amplitude. It is clear that the asymmetry $`A(m;\theta ,\phi )`$ (44), calculated with the amplitude (50), will get non-zero contributions $`k^3`$ for small $`k`$ due to the interference between $`p`$ and $`d`$ waves. It follows from Eq. (50) that $`F_1=0`$ at $`\mathrm{sin}\theta =0`$ or $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =0`$. In general, the $`F_1`$ term contains all contributions with even values $`L_{NN},L_{Md}=2,4,6,\mathrm{}`$. Thus, each contribution should include the factor $`\mathit{ϵ}^{}[𝒑\times 𝒌]`$ as well as the factor $`𝒑𝒌`$. Therefore, even in the general case $`F_1=0`$ if $`\mathrm{sin}\theta =0`$ or $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =0`$. Accordingly, for the case of conserved isospin we get

$$A(m;\theta =0,\phi )0$$
(51)
at any $`k`$ – and not only near threshold (compare this result with that from Eq. (45)). This result (51) confirms a general statement made in Ref.  on the absence of a forward–backward asymmetry for the reaction $`pndX^0`$ in the limit of isospin conservation.

It is remarkable that in addition to the condition (45) for the case of polarized proton beam we get also the nontrivial result that

$$A(m;\theta =90^0,\phi )0$$
(52)
if isospin is conserved. Therefore, any deviation of $`A(m;\theta =90^0,\phi )`$ from zero is a direct indication for $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing. Note that this statement does not depend on the number of partial waves taken into account, i.e. it is valid for any excess energy and not only near threshold. Consequently, a measurement of the asymmetry at $`\theta =90^0`$ should provide us with evidence on the $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing amplitude. We want to remark that this information is to be considered as complementary to the one that can be obtained with unpolarized beam. It should be mentioned that the vanishing of the asymmetry at $`\theta =90^0`$ for the reaction $`pnda_0^0`$ does not follow from the theorem formulated in Ref.  and is new.

Finally, let us discuss the situation at $`\theta 0^0`$ and $`\theta 90^0`$. If the amplitude for $`a_0^0`$-meson production is taken of the form (38), i.e. isospin-breaking effects are included, then the leading-order contribution to the asymmetry $`A(m;\theta ,\phi )`$ are of the order $`\xi k`$ (see Eqs. (41) and (44)). The next-to-leading terms in the amplitude $`_1`$ (see Eq. (50)) give rise to contributions of the order $`k^3`$ to the asymmetry from isospin-conserving terms. Thus, when studying isospin-breaking effects over a wide region of $`\theta `$, one should consider $`a_0^0`$-meson production in a rather narrow region of relative momenta $`k`$, i.e. at small excess energies, in order to suppress contributions to $`A(m;\theta ,\phi )`$ from isospin-conserving amplitudes with higher angular momenta.

## VI Summary

Let us summarize the main results of this paper. The most sensitive observables for examining the $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing amplitude are:

* the angular asymmetry $`A(m;\theta ,\phi )`$, as defined by Eq. (44) of this paper
* the distribution of the effective mass of the $`\pi ^0\eta `$ system near the $`a_0^0`$ threshold

With regard to the angular asymmetry $`A(m;\theta ,\phi )`$ for the channel $`pnd\pi ^0\eta `$, it is expected to be rather large, i.e. in the order of $`10^1`$. For the case of an unpolarized beam the forward-backward asymmetry was estimated earlier in Ref. . The study of the asymmetry $`A(m;\theta ,\phi )`$ with perpendicular polarized proton beam should shed additional light on the mechanism of $`a_0`$ production in the reaction $`pnda_0^0`$. As we have shown the various basic amplitudes for this reaction give different contributions to $`A(m;\theta ,\phi )`$ at different angles.

Since by constuction $`A`$ projects on the isospin breaking pieces of the amplitude, the $`m`$ dependence of $`A`$ gives direct access to the $`m`$ dependence of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{01}(m)`$ and thus to the mixing mechanism.

Note, in experiments with polarized beams isospin-breaking effects give contributions $`\xi k`$ to the asymmetry $`A(m;\theta ,\phi )`$ in leading-order with respect to the final momentum $`𝒌`$. Isospin-conserving amplitudes give contributions $`k^3`$ due to $`d`$-wave terms. Thus when studying isospin-breaking effects over a wider range of $`\theta `$ and $`\phi `$, one should consider $`a_0^0`$-meson production at small momenta $`k`$, or small excess energies. Accordingly, when studying the reaction $`pnd\pi ^0\eta `$ near the threshold of $`a_0`$ production, one should limit the invariant mass $`m`$ of the $`\pi ^0\eta `$ system in a narrow region near threshold. Note that the contribution of the $`d`$-wave to the reaction $`pnda_0`$ may be monitored by a simultaneous measurement of the differential cross section.

If isospin is conserved, then asymmetry effects should be absent at $`\theta =0^0`$ or $`\theta =90^0`$, even in the polarized case. The angle $`\theta =0^0`$ is not conclusive for the reaction with polarized beam, since all polarization effects are proportional to $`\zeta \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi `$ and vanish at $`\mathrm{sin}\theta =0`$. Thus, the asymmetry for $`\theta =0^0`$ coincides with the one for unpolarized nucleons. The case $`\theta =90^0`$ is much more interesting when studying the isospin-breaking effects in the reaction with polarized protons, since polarization effects are maximal at this angle. Anyway, in either case ($`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =90^0`$) a non-vanishing asymmetry $`A(m;\theta ,\phi )`$ can come only from isospin-breaking effects.

Very important informations on $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing can be also expected from a study of the mass distribution $`d\sigma /dm_{\pi ^0\eta }`$ for the $`\pi ^0\eta `$ system in the reaction $`pnd\pi ^0\eta `$. If the isospin is conserved then the mass spectrum of the $`\pi ^0\eta `$ system from this reaction should coincide with the one for the $`\pi ^+\eta `$ system from the reaction $`ppda_0^+`$. Differences in the mass distributions of the $`\pi ^0\eta `$ and the $`\pi ^+\eta `$ systems are a clear signal that the isospin is not conserved and that $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing is present. The mass distribution $`d\sigma /dm_{\pi ^0\eta }`$ for the $`\pi ^0\eta `$ system is also extremely sensitive to the mechanism of $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing. For example, in the case where $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing is dominated by the $`K\overline{K}`$ loop, the $`\pi ^0\eta `$ mass spectrum will be strongly enhanced near the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold.

Thus, we conclude that the study of the reaction $`pnda_0^0`$ is extremely useful to understand the mechanism and the magnitude of the $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing amplitude. The knowledge of this mixing amplitude should allow us to shed light on the nature and the quark content of the lightest scalar mesons $`a_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(980)`$.

Several interesting observables where not discussed in this paper and are to be studied in a subsequent work. One example is the differential cross section for $`pndK^+K^{}`$. Since this final state does not have definite isospin the differential cross section develops a forward–backward asymmetry at larger excess energies $`Q`$. Models predict that the kaon loops are an important source for the mixing . Therefore, the measurement of a forward–backward asymmetry for the process $`pndK\overline{K}`$ (the sum of $`pndK^+K^{}`$ and $`pndK^0\overline{K}^0`$) should help to pin down the $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing amplitude. Corresponding measurements of these decay channels should be feasible at the ANKE and TOF facilities, respectively, at the COSY accelerator in Jülich.

Finally let us consider the reaction $`dd{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}\pi ^0\eta `$. Evidently, here isospin is not conserved. Near the $`a_0`$ threshold this reaction should proceed only through the chain $`dd{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}f_0{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}a_0^0{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}\pi ^0\eta `$. Thus, the $`\pi ^0\eta `$ mass spectrum of this reaction should be even more sensitive to the $`a_0^0`$$``$$`f_0`$ mixing mechanism, than the one for the reaction $`pnda_0^0`$ .

## Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to L.A. Kondratyuk and M. Büscher for stimulating discussions. This work was partly supported by the DFG-RFBI grant No. 02-02-04001 (436 RUS 113/652/1-1) and by the RFBR grant No. 00-15-96562.