text:
# DESY 02-047hep-ph/0204263April 2002 Exclusive 𝐵→𝐾^{∗∗}𝛾 Decays in the QCD LCSR approach**footnote *Talk presented at the XXXVIIth Rencontres de Moriond: Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, Les Arcs, France, 9-16 March 2002.

## 1 Introduction

The study of radiative decays based on the flavour-changing neutral $`b(s,d)+\gamma `$ current transition is of crucial importance for testing the flavour sector of the Standard Model and probing for new physics. In the standard model, the short distance contribution to rare B-decays is dominated by the top quark, and long distance contributions by form factors. Precise measurements of these transition will not only provide a good estimate of the top quark mass and the CKM matrix elements $`V_{td},V_{ts},V_{tb}`$, but also of the hadronic properties of $`B`$-mesons, namely form factors which in turn would provide a good knowledge of the corresponding dynamics and more hint for the non-perturbative regime of QCD.

Experimental measurements of exclusive $`BK^{}\gamma `$ branching ratios have been reported by the BABAR, CLEO and BELLE Collaborations, with the results:

$`10^5\text{Br}(\overline{B}^0\overline{K}^0\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}4.23\pm 0.40\pm 0.22\hfill & \text{ }\text{[1]}\hfill \\ 4.55_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.68}}^{+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.72}}\pm 0.34\hfill & \text{ }\text{[2]}\hfill \\ 4.96\pm 0.67\pm 0.45\hfill & \text{ }\text{[3]}\hfill \end{array}`$
and also of the inclusive rate :

$`10^4Br(BX_s\gamma )=(3.22\pm 0.40)`$
However, the first observation of the rare $`B`$-decay to the orbitally excited strange mesons has been reported by CLEO , and recently by BELLE :

$`10^5Br(BK_2^{}(1430)\gamma )=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1.66_{0.53}^{+0.59}\pm 0.13)\hfill & \text{[2]}\hfill \\ (1.26\pm 0.66\pm 0.10)\hfill & \text{[3]}\hfill \end{array}`$
These important experimental measurements provide a crucial challenge to the theory. Whereas many theoretical approaches have been employed to predict the exclusive $`BK^{}(892)\gamma `$ decay rate, less attention has been devoted to rare radiative $`B`$-decays to excited strange mesons . Most of these theoretical approaches rely on non-relativistic quark models, HQET  and relativistic model. However there is a large spread between different results, due to different treatments of the long distance effects.

In this talk we present the results of , where a systematic analysis of the electromagnetic penguin form factor $`F_1^K^{}(0)`$ governing the exclusive rare $`B`$-decays to orbitally excited $`K^{}`$-mesons was performed in the framework of the QCD sum rules on the light cone .

## 2 General framework

At the quark level, the rare semileptonic decay $`bs\gamma `$ can be described in terms of the effective Hamiltonian obtained by integrating out the top quark and $`W^\pm `$ bosons:

$$H_{eff}=4\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}C_i(\mu )O_i(\mu ).$$
(1)
where $`V_{ij}`$ are the corresponding CKM matrix elements and $`G_F`$ is the Fermi coupling constant. Following the notation and the convention of ref., regarding the operator basis, one can test the model dependence of the form factors for the exclusive decay in the ratio of the exclusive-to-inclusive radiative decay branching ratio:

$`R_K^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{BR(BK^{}\gamma )}{BR(BX_s\gamma )}}F_1^K^{}(0)^2\zeta (m_s,m_b,m_K^{},..)`$ (2)
where $`\zeta (m_s,m_b,m_K^{},..)`$ is a kinematic function which can be found in . With this normalization, one eliminates the uncertainties from the CKM matrix elements and the short distance contribution. Thus, we are left in (2) with unknown form factors $`F_1^F(0)`$, which we will derive using QCD sum rules on the light cone.

The starting point of our sum rule is to consider the correlation function

$$i𝑑xe^{iqx}\times <K^{}(p,ϵ)|T\left\{\overline{\psi }(x)\sigma _{\mu \nu }(\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _5)q^\nu b(x)\overline{b}(0)i\gamma _5\psi (0)\right\}|0>$$

Hereafter we use $`\psi `$ as a generic notation for the field of the light quark. The hadronic representation of (2) is obtained by inserting a complete set of states including the $`B`$-meson ground state, higher resonances and the non-resonant states with $`B`$-meson quantum numbers. After writing down the dispersion relation in $`(p+q)^2`$, we can separate the contribution of the $`B`$-meson as the pole contribution.

The possibility to calculate the correlator (2) in the region of large space-like momenta $`(p+q)^2<0`$ is based on the expansion of the $`T`$-product of the currents in (2) near the light-cone $`x^2=0`$ which is expressed through matrix elements of non-local operators, sandwiched in between the vacuum and the meson state. These matrix elements define the light-cone meson wave functions. We restricted our calculations to the leading twist-2 operator for the $`K^{}(892)`$, as in , and to the asymptotic wave function for the other $`K^{}`$-mesons. The latter choice is simply based on the fact that using QCD sum rules, it is impossible to get rid of the lower-lying states contributions from these higher resonances.

However, nothing is known about the corresponding $`K^{}`$-decay constants, and one has to predict them. For that, we have used recent data  on semileptonic $`\tau (K^{})\nu _\tau `$ decays These quantities contribute to the transition rates for pseudoscalar, vector, scalar and axial vector emission. to obtain them . We present in table 1 the corresponding decay constants. For $`K_2^{}(1430)`$, we have constrained the corresponding decay constant with the recent data  on $`BK_2^{}(1430)\gamma `$.

Following the basic steps of the QCD sum rules on the light-cone, as described above, and using the experimental $`K^{}`$-decay constants, we show in table 1 the corresponding form factors. Finally, in table 2 we compare our results for the ratio $`R_K^{}[\%]`$ with previous works .

## 3 Summary

Motivated by the first observation of the radiative decay $`BK_2^{}(1430)\gamma `$, we have investigated rare radiative $`B`$ decays to orbitally excited $`K^{}`$-mesons. First, we have presented an alternative method of calculating the transition form factors and related decays using the QCD sum rules on the light-cone. For that, We have extracted the unknown $`K^{}`$-decay constants using the recent data  on semileptonic $`\tau K^{}\nu _\tau `$ decays.

For $`K_2^{}(1430)`$, we have constrained the corresponding decay constant with the recent data  on $`BK_2^{}(1430)\gamma `$. We find that if $`f_{K_2^{}(1430)}=(140180)MeV`$, a substantial fraction $`(3.07.0)\%`$ of the inclusive $`bs\gamma `$ branching ratio goes into the $`K_2^{}(1430)`$ channel, in a good agreement with recent CLEO data . Our prediction for the $`BK^{}(892)\gamma `$ branching fraction yields to $`(6.014.0)\%`$, also in good agreement with the experimental data .

In order to make comparison of our results with previous calculations, we have tabulated our results together with results of , ,  and  in table 2. As far as decays into higher $`K`$-resonances are concerned, our results are in general in much better agreement with  than  and , apart from the $`K^{}(1410)`$-channel where the difference is more significant. Finally, it should be noticed that the theoretical uncertainties in our light-cone sum rules are the wave functions and the decay constants of the $`K^{}`$-mesons. The accuracy of our calculation can be substantially improved by taking into account the wave functions of twist-3 and twist-4 for the $`BK^{}(892)\gamma `$ decay, and going beyond the asymptotic form for the other decay modes. To reduce the uncertainties on the $`K^{}`$-mesons decay constants, one can determine them independently using QCD sum rules for the two-point correlator of the corresponding currents.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the Organizers of the XXXVIIth Rencontres de Moriond for their financial support. I express my gratitude to A. Ali for critical reading of the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# On the structure of 𝜇-classes

## 1. introduction

Let $`𝕂`$ be an algebraically closed field. Consider three polynomials $`a=a(t),b=b(t),c=c(t)𝕂[t],`$ of respective degrees $`n_a,n_b,n_c,`$ such that $`\mathrm{gcd}(a,b,c)=1.`$ If $`c0,`$ then

(1)
$$x=\frac{a(t)}{c(t)},y=\frac{b(t)}{c(t)}$$

is the parametrization of a rational function. Parametrizations of this form play an important role in computer-aided geometric design (see for instance \[4, Chapter 6\]).

A basic object in this area is the syzygy module of the triple $`(a,b,c):`$

$$Syz(a,b,c):=\{(A,B,C)𝕂[t]^3:Aa+Bb+Cc=0\}.$$

The degree of a vector of polynomials of the form $`(A,B,C)`$ is defined as $`\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{deg}(A),\mathrm{deg}(B),\mathrm{deg}(C)\}.`$ Let $`n=\mathrm{max}\{n_1,n_b,n_c\},`$ and set

$$\mu (a,b,c):=\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{deg}(A,B,C),(A,B,C)Syz(a,b,c)\{0\}\}.$$

This number is called the class of the triple $`(a,b,c).`$ It may be regarded as an invariant of the parametric curve (1), which provides information about how to implicitize it (see ). It is well known (see ) that $`\mu [\frac{n}{2}].`$ Moreover, the upper bound holds for generic curves of degree $`n.`$

In a more general setting, for a given positive integer $`n,`$ let $`𝕂[t]_n`$ denote the vector space of all polynomials in $`t`$ of degree $`n,`$ and let $`𝒫_n𝕂[t]_n^3`$ be the subset of $`(a,b,c)𝕂[t]_n^3`$ such that $`g0,\mathrm{gcd}(a,b,c)=1`$ and $`n=\mathrm{deg}(a,b,c).`$ $`𝒫_n`$ may be regarded as the set of all parametric equations of planar rational curves or degree $`n.`$

For every $`\mu _0,`$ set

$$𝒫_n^\mu :=\{(a,b,c)𝒫_n:\mu (a,b,c)=\mu \}.$$

It turns out that $`𝒫_n=𝒫_n^0\mathrm{}𝒫_n^{\frac{n}{2}}.`$ In \[5, Theorem 1\], it is shown that, for every $`0\mu \frac{n}{2},`$ the Zariski closure of $`𝒫_n^\mu ,`$ denoted $`\overline{𝒫_n^\mu },`$ is an irreducible variety of dimension $`2n+2\mu +4`$ if $`\mu <\frac{n}{2},`$ or $`3n+3`$ if $`\mu =\frac{n}{2}.`$

In that paper, it is shown that $`\overline{𝒫_n^{\frac{n}{2}}}=𝒫_n^0\mathrm{}𝒫^{\frac{n}{2}},`$ and it was conjectured that, for every $`\mu \frac{n}{2},`$

(2)
$$\overline{𝒫_n^\mu }=𝒫_n^0\mathrm{}𝒫^\mu .$$

As stated in , due to the irreducibility of $`𝒫_n^\mu ,`$ this is equivalent to the following:

###### Conjecture 1.1.

If $`\mu <\frac{n}{2},`$ then every parametrization of class $`\mu `$ is a limit of parametrizations of class $`\mu +1.`$

The main result of this paper is a positive answer to this question. This is our main result:

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`ϵ`$ be a new variable. If $`\mu <\frac{n}{2}`$ then, for any $`(a,b,c)𝒫_n^\mu ,`$ there exists $`(a_ϵ,b_ϵ,c_ϵ)𝕂[ϵ,t]^3`$ such that, as univariate polynomials in $`𝕂(ϵ)[t],`$ they satisfy the following conditions:

* $`\mathrm{gcd}(a_ϵ,b_ϵ,c_ϵ)=1;`$
* $`n=\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{deg}(a_ϵ),\mathrm{deg}(b_ϵ),\mathrm{deg}(c_ϵ)\},`$
* $`\mu (a_ϵ,b_ϵ,c_ϵ)=\mu (a,b,c)+1,`$
* $`(a_ϵ,b_ϵ,c_ϵ)|_{ϵ=0}=(a,b,c).`$

###### Definition 1.3.

A triple $`(a_ϵ,b_ϵ,c_ϵ)𝕂[ϵ,t]^3`$ satisfying the hypothesis of Theorem 1.2 will be called an approximating sequence for $`(a,b,c).`$

We may regard approximating sequences as deformations of $`(a,b,c)`$ which “converge” to the latter when $`ϵ0.`$ As an immediate result of our construction, we get that Conjecture 1.1 is true, so the equality given in (2) holds for every $`\mu =0,1,\mathrm{},\frac{n}{2}.`$

In the following section we present some auxiliary results, which will allow us to put a given triple $`(a,b,c)𝒫_n^\mu `$ in a “generic situation”. In Section 3, we will construct the approximating sequence for this generic situation and prove Theorem 1.2.

## 2. Auxiliary Results

In this section we will show that, in order to have some genericity, we may replace $`(a,b,c)`$ with $`(a+\lambda b,b,c),\lambda 𝕂.`$ This change “preserves” approximating sequences.

The following properties will be useful in the sequel:

###### Theorem 2.1 ().

There exists unique polynomials $`p_x,p_y,p_w,q_x,q_y,q_w𝕂[t]`$ such that

1. $`\mathrm{deg}(p_x,p_y,p_w)=\mu ,\mathrm{deg}(q_x,q_y,q_w)=n\mu ;`$
2. $`a=p_yq_wp_wq_y,b=p_wq_xp_xq_w,c=p_xq_yp_yq_x;`$
3. Every syzygy $`(A,B,C)Syz(a,b,c)`$ can be written uniquely in the form

$$(A,B,C)=h_1(p_x,p_y,p_w)+h_2(q_x,q_y,q_w),$$

with $`h_1,h_2𝕂[t]`$ with $`\mathrm{deg}(h_1)\mathrm{deg}(A,B,C)\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{deg}(h_2)\mathrm{deg}(A,B,C)+\mu n.`$

###### Corollary 2.2.

$`\mathrm{gcd}(p_x,p_y,p_w)=1.`$

###### Proof.

As $`\frac{(p_x,p_y,p_w)}{\mathrm{gcd}(p_x,p_y,p_w)}Syz(a,b,c),`$ it turns out that, if the degree of the $`\mathrm{gcd}`$ is positive, we would have a syzygy of degree strictly less than $`\mu (a,b,c)`$ which is a contradiction. ∎

###### Lemma 2.3.

For all but finitely many $`\lambda 𝕂,\mathrm{gcd}(p_y\lambda p_x,p_w)=1.`$

###### Proof.

As the number of roots of $`p_w`$ is finite, if the claim does not hold, then there exists $`t_0𝕂`$ such that $`p_w(t_0)=0`$ and $`p_y(t_0)\lambda p_x(t_0)=0`$ for infinitely many values of $`\lambda .`$ This implies that $`p_y(t_0)=p_x(t_0)=0,`$ which is a contradiction with the corollary. ∎

###### Lemma 2.4.

For every $`\lambda 𝕂,\mu (a,b,c)=\mu (a+\lambda b,b,c).`$

###### Proof.

It is straightforward to verify that the morphism $`𝕂[t]^3𝕂[t]^3`$ given by $`(A,B,C,)(A+\lambda B,B,C)`$ gives an isomorphism of syzygy modules which preserves the degree filtration. To be more precise, for a fixed $`\lambda ,`$ if we denote with $`p_x^\lambda ,p_y^\lambda ,\mathrm{},q_w^\lambda `$ the polynomials generating the syzygies of $`(a+\lambda b,b,c),`$ then it is straightforward to check that

$$p_x^\lambda =p_x,p_w^\lambda =p_w,q_x^\lambda =q_x,q_w^\lambda =q_w,p_y^\lambda =p_y\lambda p_x,q_y^\lambda =a_y\lambda q_x.$$

So, we have that $`\mathrm{deg}(p_x^\lambda ,p_y^\lambda ,p_w^\lambda )=\mu (a,b,c).`$ Due to Theorem 2.1, this value characterizes $`\mu (a+\lambda b,b,c).`$

###### Proposition 2.5.

Let $`\lambda 𝕂.`$ If there exists an approximating sequence for $`(a+\lambda b,b,c),`$ then there exists an approximating sequence for $`(a,b,c).`$

###### Proof.

Let $`(\stackrel{~}{a_ϵ},\stackrel{~}{b_ϵ},\stackrel{~}{c_ϵ})𝕂[ϵ,t]^3,`$ be an approximating sequence for $`(a+\lambda b,b,c)`$ We will show that, if we define

$$a_ϵ:=\stackrel{~}{a_ϵ}\lambda \stackrel{~}{b_ϵ},b_ϵ:=\stackrel{~}{b_ϵ},c_ϵ:=\stackrel{~}{c_ϵ},$$

we get an approximating sequence for $`(a,b,c).`$ From the properties of $`\stackrel{~}{a_ϵ},\stackrel{~}{b_ϵ},\stackrel{~}{c_ϵ},`$ it is easy to check that

$$\mathrm{gcd}(a_ϵ,b_ϵ,c_ϵ)=1,n=\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{deg}(a_ϵ),\mathrm{deg}(b_ϵ),\mathrm{deg}(c_ϵ)\}.$$

Due to Lemma 2.4, we have that

$$\mu (a_ϵ,b_ϵ,c_ϵ)=\mu (\stackrel{~}{a_ϵ},\stackrel{~}{b_ϵ},\stackrel{~}{c_ϵ})=\mu (a+\lambda b,b,c)=\mu (a,b,c)+1,$$

and it is straightforward to see that $`(a_ϵ,b_ϵ,c_ϵ)|_{ϵ=0}=(a,b,c).`$

## 3. Construction of the Approximating Sequence

In this section we will fix $`(a,b,c)𝒫_n^\mu `$ such that $`\mu +1\frac{n}{2},`$ and will construct an approximating sequence for $`(a+\lambda b,b,c)`$ for an appropiate $`\lambda 𝕂.`$ Proposition 2.5 implies that there exists an approximating sequence for $`(a,b,c).`$

Suppose w.l.o.g. that $`\mathrm{deg}(a)`$ is positive. We will consider a family $`(a_ϵ,b_ϵ,c_ϵ)`$ of the form

(3)
$$a_ϵ:=a(1+\frac{ϵ}{t\alpha }),b_ϵ:=b,c_ϵ:=c,$$

where $`\alpha 𝕂`$ is a root of $`a`$ having properties to be described shortly. It is clear that, as $`ϵ`$ goes to zero, the deformed family converges to $`(a,b,c).`$ Moreover, it is straightforward to check that $`n(a_ϵ,b_ϵ,c_ϵ)=n(a,b,c)`$ and that $`\mathrm{gcd}(a_ϵ,b_ϵ,c_ϵ)=\mathrm{gcd}(a,b,c)=1.`$ In order to have $`\mu (a_ϵ,b_ϵ,c_ϵ)=\mu (a,b,c)+1,`$ we choose $`\alpha `$ such that $`a(\alpha )=0`$ and either $`p_y(\alpha )0`$ or $`p_w(\alpha )0.`$

It is not true that the latter condition can always be acomplished as the following cautionary example shows.

###### Example 3.1.

Set $`p_x=q_w=t,p_y=p_w=t1,q_x=t^4,q_y=1.`$ Then, $`a=(t1)^2,b=t^5t^4t^2,c=t^5+t^4+t,`$ and we have that there is a unique root of $`a`$ which is also the same root of $`p_y`$ and $`p_w.`$

If we are in the situation that every root of $`a`$ is also a root of $`p_y`$ and $`p_w,`$ then we will construct an approximating sequence for $`(a+\lambda b,b,c)`$ for $`\lambda 𝕂^{}`$ such that $`\mathrm{deg}(a+\lambda b)>0.`$

###### Lemma 3.2.

There is $`\lambda 𝕂`$ such that $`\mathrm{deg}(a+\lambda b)>0,`$ and $`a+\lambda b`$ has a root $`\alpha `$ such that either $`p_y^\lambda (\alpha )0`$ or $`p_w^\lambda (\alpha )0.`$

###### Proof.

If every root of $`a`$ is a root of $`p_y`$ and $`p_w,`$ then pick one of those $`\lambda `$ satisfying Lemma 2.3, and denote, as in the proof of Proposition 2.3, with $`p_x^\lambda ,p_y^\lambda ,\mathrm{},q_w^\lambda `$ the polynomials generating the syzygies of $`(a+\lambda b,b,c),`$ we get that $`p_y^\lambda =p_y\lambda p_x,`$ and $`p_w^\lambda =p_w.`$

As $`\mathrm{gcd}(p_y^\lambda ,p_w^\lambda )=\mathrm{gcd}(p_y\lambda p_x,p_w)=1`$ by Lemma 2.3, then any root of $`a+\lambda b`$ may be chosen provided that $`\mathrm{deg}(a+\lambda b)`$ is positive.

In order to see the latter, let $`\lambda _1\lambda _2`$ both satisfying Lemma 2.3. If $`a+\lambda _1b`$ and $`a+\lambda _2b`$ were both constant, then so would $`a`$ and $`b.`$

Proof of the Main Theorem. We may suppose then, w.l.o.g. that there exists $`\alpha 𝕂`$ such that is a root of $`a`$ but is not a common root of $`p_y`$ and $`p_w.`$

Due to the remarks made at the beginning of this section, it only remains to prove that $`\mu (a_ϵ,b_ϵ,c_ϵ)=\mu +1.`$ First, observe that

$$p_x(t\alpha )a_ϵ+p_y(t\alpha +ϵ)b_ϵ+p_w(t\alpha +ϵ)c_ϵ=(t\alpha +ϵ)(p_xa+p_yb+p_wc)=0,$$

so $`((t\alpha )p_x,(t\alpha +ϵ)p_y,(t\alpha +ϵ)p_w)`$ is a nontrivial syzygy on $`(a_ϵ,b_ϵ,c_ϵ)`$ and we deduce that $`\mu (a_ϵ,b_ϵ,c_ϵ)\mu (a,b,c)+1.`$

Suppose that the inequality holds strictly. Then, there must be $`(A,B,C)`$ of degree bounded by $`\mu `$ such that $`Aa_ϵ+Bb_ϵ+Cc_ϵ=0.`$ As

$$\begin{array}{c}A(t\alpha +ϵ)a+B(t\alpha )b+C(t\alpha )c=\hfill \\ A(t\alpha )\frac{t\alpha +ϵ}{t\alpha }a+B(t\alpha )b+C(t\alpha )c=\hfill \\ A(t\alpha )a_ϵ+B(t\alpha )b_ϵ+C(t\alpha )c_ϵ=(t\alpha )(Aa_ϵ+Bb_ϵ+Cc_ϵ)=0,\hfill \end{array}$$

we have that $`(A(t\alpha +ϵ),B(t\alpha ),C(t\alpha ))Syz(a,b,c),`$ and it is a nontrivial syzygy of degree bounded by $`\mu +1.`$ So, due to the last item of Theorem 2.1, there exists $`h_1,h_2𝕂[t]`$ such that

$$(A(t\alpha +ϵ),B(t\alpha ),C(t\alpha ))=h_1(p_x,p_y,p_w)+h_2(q_x,q_y,q_w),$$

with $`\mathrm{deg}(h_2)(\mu +1)+\mu n.`$ As we have supposed $`\mu +1\frac{n}{2},`$ then $`2\mu +1n1,`$ so $`h_2`$ must be identically zero. Then, we have that $`(A(t\alpha +ϵ),B(t\alpha ),C(t\alpha ))=h_1(t)(p_x,p_y,p_w),`$ with $`\mathrm{deg}(h_1)=1.`$

Comparing the first coordinate of the last equality, we have that $`h_1(t)=\lambda ^{}(t\alpha +ϵ),\lambda ^{}𝕂\{0\}.`$ In addition, if we compare the two last coordinates, we will have that $`(t\alpha )`$ divides both $`p_y`$ and $`p_w,`$ which contradicts our hypothesis. So, we have that $`\mu (a_ϵ,b_ϵ,c_ϵ)=\mu (a,b,c)+1`$ and the claim holds.

###### Example 3.3.

We will show here that, in order to construct to approximation family, if we take any root $`\alpha `$ of $`a`$ without imposing the condition that it should not be simultaneously root of $`p_y`$ and $`p_w,`$ the sequence (3) may fail to have degree $`\mu +1.`$ Consider again, as in Example 3.1,

$$a:=(t1)^2,b=t^5t^4t^2,c=t^5+t^4+t.$$

If we take as $`\alpha `$ the unique root of $`a,`$ then we will have that

$$a_ϵ=(t1)^2+ϵ(t1),b_ϵ=b,c_ϵ=c.$$

This is not an approximating sequence, because $`\mu (a,b,c)=1`$ and, as

$$ta_ϵ+(t1+ϵ)b_ϵ+(t1+ϵ)c_ϵ=0,$$

then we have that $`\mu (a_ϵ,b_ϵ,c_ϵ)=1.`$

In this case, we may choose $`\lambda =\frac{1}{12}.`$ One can check that $`\alpha =2`$ is a root of $`a+\lambda b,`$ and with this choice of $`\alpha ,`$ we get the following family:

$$\begin{array}{c}a_ϵ=\frac{t^5}{12}+\frac{t^4}{12}+\frac{13}{12}t^22t+1+ϵ(\frac{1}{12}t^4\frac{1}{12}t^3\frac{1}{6}t^2+\frac{3}{4}t\frac{1}{2}),\hfill \\ b_ϵ=b,c_ϵ=c.\hfill \end{array}$$

An easy calculation shows that this deformed family has class equal to two, so we get an approximating family of $`(a+\frac{1}{2}b,b,c),`$ and hence $`(a+ϵ(\frac{1}{12}t^4\frac{1}{12}t^3\frac{1}{6}t^2+\frac{3}{4}t\frac{1}{2}),b,c)`$ is an approximating family of $`(a,b,c).`$

Acknowledgements. I would like to thank David Cox for his careful reading of the manuscript and many helpful suggestions. This research was conducted while I was a postdoctoral fellow at the Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA) in Sophia-Antipolis, France, partially supported by Action A00E02 of the ECOS-SeTCIP French-Argentina bilateral collaboration.