format: text

text:
# Charmless Three-body Baryonic 𝐵 Decays

## I Introduction

The Belle collaboration recently reported the observation of $`B^{}p\overline{p}K^{}`$ decay, the first ever charmless baryonic $`B`$ decay mode, giving $`=(4.3_{0.9}^{+1.1}\pm 0.5)\times 10^6`$ Abe:2002ds . Three-body baryonic decay in $`bc`$ transitions have been observed Anderson:2000tz  previously, following a suggestion by Dunietz Dunietz:1998uz . It is interesting to compare the charmless case to the charmful one and also to charmless two-body modes such as $`B^0p\overline{p}`$, which has $`<1.2\times 10^6`$ Abe:2002er .

It has been pointed out that reduced energy release (e.g. by a fast recoiling meson) would favor the generation of baryon pair and thus three-body baryonic modes could be enhanced over two-body rates Hou:2000bz . One of the signatures would be (baryon pair) threshold enhancement in the three-body baryonic modes. In our previous study of $`B^0D^{}p\overline{n}`$ Chua:2001vh , we assumed factorization and obtained up to 60% of experimental rate from the vector current contribution. The decay spectrum exhibits threshold enhancement. The same threshold enhancement effect was predicted for the charmless $`\rho p\overline{n}`$ mode, giving $`10^6`$ Chua:2001xn . It is interesting that the newly observed $`p\overline{p}K`$ mode shows such a threshold enhancement Abe:2002ds . With this encouragement we extend our study to charmless modes such as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}\pi `$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{p}\pi `$, $`p\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$, $`p\overline{p}K^{}`$ and $`p\overline{p}\overline{K}^0`$. These modes are interesting not just by their (possibly) large rates, but also by their accessibility. Some of these modes are studied in a recent work Cheng:2001tr  that utilizes a factorization and pole model approach.

In Sec. II, we extend the factorization approach to the charmless case, where one now has two mechanisms for baryon pair production. In Sec. III, we discuss baryonic form factors and their associated Quantum Chromo-Dynamics (QCD) counting rules Brodsky:1974vy . In Sec. IV, the formulation is applied to the above mentioned charmless modes. The threshold enhancement phenomenon is found to be closely related to the QCD counting rules. Discussion and conclusion are given in Sec. V, while some useful formulas are collected in an appendix.

## II Factorization

In this section we extend the factorization approach used in Refs. Chua:2001vh ; Chua:2001xn  to charmless decay modes. Under the factorization assumption, the three-body baryonic $`B`$ decay matrix element is separated into either a current-produced baryon pair ($`𝒥`$) part together with a $`B`$ to recoil meson transition part, or a $`B`$ to baryon pair transition ($`𝒯`$) part together with a current-produced recoil meson part. As an example, the current-produced and transition diagrams for $`B^{}p\overline{p}K^{}`$ decay are depicted in Fig. 1.

In charmless decay modes, we need to use the effective Hamiltonian consisting of operators and Wilson coefficients, which is standard and can be found, for example, in Refs. Cheng:1999xj ; Ali:1998eb . In this work, we concentrate on the dominant terms. The factorization formula for the decay process $`BXY`$, where $`(X,Y)=(h,𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{})`$ with $`h`$ being a light meson and $`𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}`$ a baryon pair or vice versa is given by

$`\left(BXY\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\{V_{ub}V_{uq}^{}[a_1(\overline{q}u)_{VA}(\overline{u}b)_{VA}+a_2(\overline{u}u)_{VA}(\overline{q}b)_{VA}]`$ (1)
$`V_{tb}V_{tq}^{}[a_3{\displaystyle \underset{q^{}}{}}(\overline{q}^{}q^{})_{VA}(\overline{q}b)_{VA}+a_4{\displaystyle \underset{q^{}}{}}(\overline{q}q^{})_{VA}(\overline{q}^{}b)_{VA}`$
$`+a_5{\displaystyle \underset{q^{}}{}}(\overline{q}^{}q^{})_{V+A}(\overline{q}b)_{VA}2a_6{\displaystyle \underset{q^{}}{}}(\overline{q}q^{})_{S+P}(\overline{q}^{}b)_{SP}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}a_9{\displaystyle \underset{q^{}}{}}e_q^{}(\overline{q}^{}q^{})_{VA}(\overline{q}b)_{VA}+\mathrm{}]\},`$
where $`𝒪_1𝒪_2`$ stands for $`X|𝒪_1|0Y|𝒪_2|B`$. The coefficients $`a_i`$ are defined in terms of the effective Wilson coefficients $`c_i^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ as $`a_{i=\mathrm{odd}}c_i^{\mathrm{eff}}+c_{i+1}^{\mathrm{eff}}/N_c`$ and $`a_{i=\mathrm{even}}c_i^{\mathrm{eff}}+c_{i1}^{\mathrm{eff}}/N_c`$. We stress that $`c_i^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ are renormalization scale and scheme independent, as vertex and penguin corrections are included Cheng:1999xj . Their values are given in Table 1. In this work we use the $`N_c=3`$ case, while the $`N_c=2,\mathrm{}`$ cases are shown to indicate non-factorizable effects.

## III Form Factors and QCD Counting Rules

In this section, we first discuss the meson form factors used in this work. We then turn to discuss baryonic form factors, especially the implication of QCD counting rules.

### III.1 Meson Form Factors

The decay constant $`f_h`$ of the pseudoscalar meson $`h`$ is defined as

$$h(p_h)|\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)q^{}|0=if_hp_h^\mu .$$
(2)
These parameters and quark masses are taken from Ref. Ali:1998eb .

We also need $`0^{}0^{}`$ form factors defined as follows:

$`h(p_h)\left|\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)b\right|B(p_B)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[(p_B+p_h)^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{m_B^2m_h^2}{(p_Bp_h)^2}}(p_Bp_h)^\mu \right]F_1^{Bh}(t)`$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_B^2m_h^2}{(p_Bp_h)^2}}(p_Bp_h)^\mu F_0^{Bh}(t).`$
We use the so-called MS form factors, which take the following form Melikhov:2000yu :

$`F_1^{Bh}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F_1^{Bh}(0)}{(1t/M_V^2)[1\sigma _1t/M_V^2+\sigma _2t^2/M_V^4]}},`$ (4)
$`F_0^{Bh}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{Bh}(0)}{1\sigma _1t/M_V^2+\sigma _2t^2/M_V^4}},`$ (5)
where $`M_V=5.42(5.32)`$ GeV for $`h=K(\pi )`$. Other parameters are given in Table 2.

### III.2 Baryon Form Factors

Factorization introduces two types of matrix elements containing the baryon pair: $`𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}|V(A)|0`$ involving vector ($`V`$) or axial vector ($`A`$) current-produced baryon pair, and $`𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}|V(A)|B`$ involving the $`B𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}`$ transition.

For the current-produced matrix elements, we have

$`𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}|V_\mu |0`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}(p_𝐁)\left\{F_1(t)\gamma _\mu +i{\displaystyle \frac{F_2(t)}{m_𝐁+m_{\overline{𝐁}^{}}}}\sigma _{\mu \nu }\left(p_𝐁+p_{\overline{𝐁}^{}}\right)^\nu \right\}v(p_{\overline{𝐁}^{}})`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`\overline{u}(p_𝐁)\left\{(F_1+F_2)\gamma _\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{F_2(t)}{m_𝐁+m_{\overline{𝐁}^{}}}}\left(p_{\overline{𝐁}^{}}p_𝐁\right)^\mu \right\}v(p_{\overline{𝐁}^{}}),`$
$`𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}|A_\mu |0`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}(p_𝐁)\left\{g_A\left(t\right)\gamma _\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{h_A\left(t\right)}{m_𝐁+m_{\overline{𝐁}^{}}}}\left(p_𝐁+p_{\overline{𝐁}^{}}\right)_\mu \right\}\gamma _5v(p_{\overline{𝐁}^{}}),`$ (7)
where $`F_{1,2}`$ are the induced vector form factors, $`g_A`$ the axial form factor, and $`h_A`$ the induced pseudoscalar form factor. We have used Gordon decomposition to obtain the second line of Eq. (6). Note that $`t(p_𝐁+p_{\overline{𝐁}^{}})^2m_{𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}}^2`$ is nothing but the $`𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}`$ pair mass.

According to QCD counting rules Brodsky:1974vy , both the vector form factor $`F_1`$ and the axial form factor $`g_A`$, supplemented with the leading logs, behave as $`1/t^2`$ in the $`t\mathrm{}`$ limit, since we need two hard gluons to distribute large momentum transfer. $`F_2`$ and $`h_A`$ behave as $`1/t^3`$, acquiring an extra $`1/t`$ due to helicity flip. In the electromagnetic current case, the asymptotic form has been confirmed by many experimental measurements of the nucleon magnetic (Sachs) form factor $`G_M=F_1+F_2`$, over a wide range of momentum transfers in the space-like region. The asymptotic behavior for $`G_M^p`$ also seems to hold in the time-like region, as reported by the Fermilab E760 experiment Armstrong93  for $`8.9`$ GeV$`{}_{}{}^{2}<t<13`$ GeV2. Another Fermilab experiment, E835, has recently reported Ambrogiani:1999bh  $`G_M^p`$ for momentum transfers up to $`14.4`$ GeV2. An empirical fit of $`\left|G_M^p\right|=Ct^2[\mathrm{ln}(t/Q_0^2)]^2`$, is in agreement with the QCD counting rule prediction.

The current induced form factors $`F_1+F_2`$ and $`g_A`$ can be related by means of the SU(3) decomposition form factors $`F_{V,A}`$, $`D_{V,A}`$ and $`S_{V,A}`$ (with $`S_{V,A}`$ appearing only in the non-traceless current case), as shown in Table 3. It is well known that $`F_V`$ and $`D_V`$ can be expressed by the nucleon magnetic form factors $`G_M^{p,n}`$,

$`F_V=G_M^p+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_M^n,D_V={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}G_M^n.`$ (8)
As the first term $`F_1+F_2`$ in Eq. (6) can be related to nucleon magnetic Sachs form factor $`G_M`$, similarly the second term $`F_2`$ can be related to $`(G_EG_M)/[t/(m_𝐁+m_𝐁^{})^21]`$, where $`G_E`$ is the nucleon electric Sachs form factor. Since we do not have enough data on time-like nucleon $`G_E`$, we concentrate on the $`F_1+F_2`$ term as we did in Ref. Chua:2001vh . We may in fact gain information on $`G_E`$ by reversing our present analysis on these three-body baryonic $`B`$ decays in the future when more data become available.

The nucleon magnetic form factors are fitted to available data in Ref. Chua:2001vh  by

$`G_M^p(t)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{t^{i+1}}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}}\right)\right]^\gamma `$ , $`G_M^n(t)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{t^{i+1}}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}}\right)\right]^\gamma ,`$ (9)
where $`\gamma =2.148`$, $`x_1=420.96`$ GeV4, $`x_2=10485.50`$ GeV6, $`x_3=106390.97`$ GeV8, $`x_4=433916.61`$ GeV10, $`x_5=613780.15`$ GeV12, $`y_1=236.69`$ GeV4, $`y_2=579.51`$ GeV6, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=0.3`$ GeV. They satisfy QCD counting rules and describe time-like electromagnetic data such as $`e^+e^{}N\overline{N}`$ suitably well. We have real and positive (negative) time-like $`G_M^{p(n)}`$ Hammer:1996kx ; Baldini:1999qn . It is interesting to note the alternating signs of the $`x_i`$ and $`y_i`$ parameters, and that only two terms are needed to describe the neutron magnetic form factor Chua:2001vh .

The time-like form factors related to $`S_V`$, $`F_A`$, $`D_A`$, $`S_A`$ are not yet measured. It is noted in Ref. Cheng:2001tr  that the asymptotic behavior of baryon form factors studied in the 80s may be useful. Their asymptotic behavior as $`t\mathrm{}`$ can be described by two form factors depending on the reacting quark having parallel or anti-parallel spin with respect to baryon spin Brodsky:1980sx . By expressing these two form factors in terms of $`G_M^{p,n}`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$, one has

$`S_V`$ $``$ $`G_M^p+2G_M^n,`$
$`F_A`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}G_M^p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_M^n,`$
$`D_A`$ $``$ $`G_M^p+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}G_M^n,`$
$`S_A`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}G_M^p2G_M^n.`$ (10)
Since these relations only hold for large $`t`$, it implies relations on the leading terms of these form factors. In general more terms may be needed. In analogy to the neutron magnetic form case, we express these form factors up to the second term

$`S_V(t)`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_1}{t^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{s_2}{t^3}}\right)\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}}\right)\right]^\gamma ,`$
$`F_A(t)`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_1}{t^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_2}{t^3}}\right)\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}}\right)\right]^\gamma ,`$
$`D_A(t)`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{d}_1}{t^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{d}_2}{t^3}}\right)\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}}\right)\right]^\gamma ,`$
$`S_A(t)`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{s}_1}{t^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{s}_2}{t^3}}\right)\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}}\right)\right]^\gamma .`$ (11)
The asymptotic relations of Eq. (10) imply $`s_1=x_12y_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_1=2x_1/3+y_1/2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{d}_1=x_13y_1/2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{s}_1=x_1/3+2y_1`$.

The coefficients of the second terms are undetermined due to the lack of data. However, we can use the axial vector ($`g_A^{pn}=F_A+D_A`$) contribution in $`B^0D^{}p\overline{n}`$ decay to constrain $`\stackrel{~}{f}_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{d}_2`$. The part of the branching fraction $`(B^0D^{}p\overline{n})=(14.5_{3.0}^{+3.4}\pm 2.7)\times 10^4`$ Anderson:2000tz  arising from the vector current has been calculated to give $`_V7\times 10^4`$ Chua:2001vh . We find for $`\stackrel{~}{f}_2+\stackrel{~}{d}_2=2110\mathrm{GeV}^6`$, the branching fraction coming from the axial current $`_A(B^0D^{}p\overline{n})12.7\times 10^4`$, and the sum $`_V+_A`$ is within the measurement range. Had we used the asymptotic form of Eq. (10) for $`g_A^{pn}`$ in the whole time-like region, we would obtain $`_A1.0\times 10^4`$, which is too small.

In this work we take

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_2+\stackrel{~}{d}_2\stackrel{~}{z}=2110\mathrm{GeV}^6,$$
(12)
and $`s_2=\stackrel{~}{s}_2=0`$ for simplicity, since there is no data to constrain these yet. It is interesting to note that the asymptotic relations give vanishing results for $`p\overline{p}|(\overline{s}s)_{V,A}|0(D_{V,A}F_{V,A}+S_{V,A})`$, as one can see from Table 3 and Eq. (10). This can be understood as OZI suppression. We still have a vanishing $`p\overline{p}|(\overline{s}s)_A|0`$ for smaller $`t`$, if we take $`\stackrel{~}{d}_2=\stackrel{~}{f}_2=\stackrel{~}{z}/2`$. Since there is no point to advocate a large $`\overline{s}s`$ form factor in this work and this choice is preferred by the OZI rule, we therefore use $`\stackrel{~}{d}_2=\stackrel{~}{f}_2=\stackrel{~}{z}/2`$ throughout. For the vector case, we have vanishing $`p\overline{p}|(\overline{s}s)_V|0`$ if we use the asymptotic relation in the whole time-like region. On the other hand, if we use Eq. (11) for $`S_V`$, we may have a small but non-vanishing $`(\overline{s}s)_V`$ form factor for small $`t`$. This may be related to the $`\varphi `$ pole effect in the VMD view point Meissner:1996fn . Furthermore, we find that other OZI suppressed current-produced matrix elements, such as $`n\overline{n}|(\overline{s}s)_{V,A}|0`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}_{}{}^{}|(\overline{d}d)_{V,A}|0`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}_{}{}^{+}|(\overline{u}u)_{V,A}|0`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}{}_{}{}^{+}|(\overline{u}u)_{V,A}|0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}{}_{}{}^{0}|(\overline{d}d)_{V,A}|0`$, have the same SU(3) decomposition as the $`p\overline{p}|(\overline{s}s)_{V,A}|0`$ one. They therefore do not provide any further constraint.

We will also encounter $`𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}|\overline{q}q^{}|0`$, which can be related to the vector matrix element by the equation of motion,

$`𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}|\overline{q}q^{}|0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(p_𝐁+p_{\overline{𝐁}^{}}\right)^\mu }{m_qm_{\overline{q}^{}}}}𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}|V_\mu |0`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_𝐁m_{\overline{𝐁}^{}}}{m_qm_{\overline{q}^{}}}}F_1(t)\overline{u}(p_𝐁)v(p_{\overline{𝐁}^{}}).`$
This gives safe chiral limit in the $`𝐁𝐁^{}`$ case. For example, in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}|\overline{u}s|0`$, we have $`(m_\mathrm{\Lambda }m_{\overline{p}})/(m_sm_{\overline{u}})1`$. If $`𝐁=𝐁^{}`$, we encounter $`(m_𝐁m_{\overline{𝐁}})/(m_qm_{\overline{q}})`$. As hinted from the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}`$ case, our ansatz is to take this factor as the number $`n_q`$ of the corresponding constituent quark in $`𝐁`$. For example, we take $`\overline{p}p|\overline{d}d|0F_1\overline{u}v`$, while $`\overline{p}p|\overline{s}s|00`$ as suggested by the OZI rule.

For $`h_A`$, we follow Ref. Cheng:2001tr  to control the behavior of pseudoscalar form factors in the chiral limit by using

$$h_A(t)=\frac{(m_𝐁+m_{\overline{𝐁}^{}})^2}{tm_{\mathrm{GB}}^2}g_A(t),$$
(14)
where $`m_{\mathrm{GB}}`$ stands for the corresponding Goldstone boson mass. Thus, in the chiral limit,

$`𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}|\overline{q}\gamma _5q^{}|0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(p_𝐁+p_{\overline{𝐁}^{}}\right)^\mu }{m_q+m_q^{}}}𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}|A_\mu |0`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{GB}}^2}{m_q+m_q^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_𝐁+m_{\overline{𝐁}^{}}}{tm_{\mathrm{GB}}^2}}g_A(t)\overline{u}(p_𝐁)\gamma _5v(p_{\overline{𝐁}^{}})`$
stays finite, otherwise, we will be facing a large enhancement factor $`(m_𝐁+m_{\overline{𝐁}^{}})/(m_q+m_q^{})`$ in the above equation as we turn off $`h_A(t)`$.

We now turn to the transition form factors. In general, the matrix element of $`B𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}`$ transition can be defined as

$$𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}|\overline{q}\left(\gamma _5\right)b|Bi\overline{u}(p_𝐁)\left[_{V(5)}/p_h+_{A(5)}/p_h\gamma _5+_{P(5)}\gamma _5+_{S(5)}\right]v(p_{\overline{𝐁}^{}}),$$
(16)
where $`p_hp_Bp_𝐁p_𝐁^{}`$, and the form factors $`_V=_{A5}=_S=_{P5}=0`$ by parity invariance. According to QCD counting rules, for $`t=m_{𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}}^2\mathrm{}`$, we need three hard gluons to distribute the large momentum transfer released from the $`bq`$ transition. An additional gluon kicks the spectator quark in the $`B`$ meson such that it becomes energetic in the final baryon pair. Thus, as $`t\mathrm{}`$, we have:

$$_{A,V5}\frac{1}{t^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}},_{P,S5}\frac{1}{t^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}}.$$
(17)
That $`_{P,S5}`$ have one more power of $`1/t`$ than $`_{A,V5}`$ is due to helicity flip. This can be easily seen by taking $`|\overline{B}_q\overline{b}\gamma _5q|0`$. Without any chirality flip due to quark masses, we only have $`_{A,V5}`$ and the above counting rule holds, while with additional chirality flip, more effectively from the $`b`$ quark mass, we can also have $`_{P,S5}`$ but with additional power of $`1/t`$.

In this work we will need the transition matrix elements $`p\overline{p}|(\overline{u}b)_{S,P}|B^{}`$ and $`p\overline{p}|(\overline{d}b)_{S,P}|\overline{B}^0`$, which consist of eight form factors in total. It is useful to restrict these even if only by some asymptotic relations. By following a similar path to Ref. Brodsky:1980sx , the chiral conserving parts $`_{A,V5}`$ can be expressed by two form factors depending on the interacting quark having parallel or anti-parallel spin with the proton spin. The chiral flipping parts $`_{P,S5}`$ can be expressed by one form factor with the spin of interacting quark parallel to the proton’s. The spin anti-parallel part is absent since it corresponds to an octet-decuplet instead of an octet-octet baryon pair final state. The asymptotic forms (as $`m_B^2,t\mathrm{}`$) are

$`p\overline{p}|(\overline{u}b)_S|B^{}`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{u}(p_p)\left[F_A/p_h\gamma _5+F_P\gamma _5\right]v(p_{\overline{p}}),`$
$`p\overline{p}|(\overline{u}b)_P|B^{}`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{u}(p_p)\left[F_{V5}/p_h+F_P\right]v(p_{\overline{p}}),`$
$`p\overline{p}|(\overline{d}b)_S|\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{u}(p_p)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}(11F_A+9F_{V5})/p_h\gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_P\gamma _5\right]v(p_{\overline{p}}),`$
$`p\overline{p}|(\overline{d}b)_P|\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{u}(p_p)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}(9F_A+11F_{V5})/p_h{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_P\right]v(p_{\overline{p}}).`$ (18)
We need only three form factors. For simplicity, we use

$$F_{A,V5}=\frac{C_{A,V5}}{t^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}},F_P=\frac{C_P}{t^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}},$$
(19)
and Eq. (18) in the whole time-like region.

## IV Charmless Baryonic $`B`$ Decays

We now apply the results of the previous sections to charmless $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}\pi ^+,\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\overline{p}\pi ^+,p\overline{p}\overline{K}^0`$, and $`B^{}p\overline{p}\pi ^{},p\overline{p}K^{}`$ decays. These modes are of interest not just because of possibly large rates, but also by accessibility in detection.

Let $`𝒯`$ denote the part of the decay amplitude $``$ that involves the $`B𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}`$ transition matrix element $`𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}|V(A)|B`$, and $`𝒥`$ denote the part that involves current-produced $`𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}`$ matrix element $`𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}|V(A)|0`$. We have,

$`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)\overline{p}\pi ^+\right)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒥\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)\overline{p}\pi ^+\right),`$
$`\left(p\overline{p}h\right)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒥\left(p\overline{p}h\right)+𝒯\left(p\overline{p}h\right),`$
$`𝒥(p\overline{p}\overline{K}{}_{}{}^{0})`$ $`=`$ $`𝒥\left(p\overline{p}K^{}\right),`$ (20)
where $`h=K^{,0},\pi ^{,0}`$. We note that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ modes only have current-produced contributions $`𝒥`$. On the other hand, the $`p\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ mode is dominated by $`𝒯(p\overline{p}\pi ^{})`$ contributions, as we will see later. It can be used to extract baryonic transition form factors which can be applied to $`p\overline{p}K`$, $`p\overline{p}\overline{K}^0`$ modes via Eq. (18). Furthermore, the $`p\overline{p}\overline{K}^0`$ and the $`p\overline{p}K^{}`$ modes have identical current-produced matrix elements, as one can easily show by replacing the spectator quark in the $`B^{}K^{}`$ transition.

### IV.1 $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}\pi ^+,\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\overline{p}\pi ^+`$

By using Eq. (1) and equations of motion we have,

$`(\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)\overline{p}\pi ^+)=𝒥(\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)\overline{p}\pi ^+)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\pi ^+|\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)b|\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}\{(V_{ub}V_{us}^{}a_1V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}a_4)𝐁_s\overline{p}|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)u|0`$
$`+2a_6V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)}+p_{\overline{p}})_\mu (p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)}+p_{\overline{p}})^\nu }{m_bm_u}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)\overline{p}|{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{s}\gamma _\nu u}{m_sm_u}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{s}\gamma _\nu \gamma _5u}{m_s+m_u}}|0\}.`$ (21)
As stated before, only the current-produced part ($`𝒥`$) contributes, hence it is similar to the $`\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}K^{()}\pi ^+`$ mode, where one only has $`\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}\pi ^+`$ transition while, analogous to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\overline{p}`$, the $`K^{()}`$ is produced by the current Ali:1998eb .

The chiral limit of the vector term is protected by baryon mass differences, while that of the axial term is protected by Eq. (15). Since the contribution from the vector current ($`V`$) does not interfere with that from the axial current ($`A`$), the branching fraction is a simple sum of the two, i.e. $`=_V+_A`$.

Taking $`\varphi _3`$ (or $`\gamma )=54.8^{}`$ from a recent analysis Ciuchini:2000de , we give in Table 4 the branching fractions for $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)\overline{p}\pi ^+`$. The first row is obtained by extending the asymptotic relations to the whole time-like region and information from the nucleon magnetic form factors $`G_M^{p,n}`$ for $`g_A`$, while we apply $`\stackrel{~}{f}_2=\stackrel{~}{d}_2=\stackrel{~}{z}/2`$ in the second row. Note that we do not need $`S_{A,V}`$. Our result for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ mode in the first line is consistent with that of Ref. Cheng:2001tr . We concentrate on the $`N_c=3`$ case, while $`N_c=2,\mathrm{}`$ cases are given to indicate possible non-factorizable effects. Since $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ are penguin-dominated processes, the branching fractions are dominated by the $`a_6`$ term of Eq. (21). One can verify this by comparing different $`N_c`$ cases in Tables 4 and 1. Since $`N_c`$ dependence is weak in this term, we do not expect large non-factorizable contributions.

The axial contribution to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ mode in the second row is about four (two) times larger than that in the first row. We find $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)\overline{p}\pi ^+)[0.5(0.9)]\times 10^6`$, giving a larger rate for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ mode. These rates are similar to those obtained in Cheng:2001tr .

We show in Fig. 2 the $`d/dm_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}}`$ and the $`d/dm_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\overline{p}}`$ for the $`\stackrel{~}{f}_2=\stackrel{~}{d}_2=\stackrel{~}{z}/2`$ case, which gives larger rates. One clearly sees threshold enhancement, which can be seen as a consequence of the need for large-$`t`$ suppression of the baryon form factors.

Motivated by large $`\varphi _3`$ (or $`\gamma `$) hints He:1999mn , we show the $`\varphi _3`$-dependence of the branching fractions for $`\stackrel{~}{f}_2=\stackrel{~}{d}_2=\stackrel{~}{z}/2`$ in Fig. 3. The larger rates for larger $`\varphi _3`$ come from tree-penguin interference as in the $`K^{}\pi ^+`$ case He:1999mn .

### IV.2 $`Bp\overline{p}\pi ,p\overline{p}K`$

Unlike the $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ case, the decay amplitude of $`B^{}p\overline{p}h^{}`$ with $`h=\pi `$ or $`K`$ contains both the current-produced ($`𝒥`$) and transition ($`𝒯`$) contributions:

$$(p\overline{p}h^{})=𝒥(p\overline{p}h^{})+𝒯(p\overline{p}h^{}),$$
(22)
where

$`𝒥(p\overline{p}h^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\{h^{}|(\overline{q}b)_{VA}|B^{}`$ (23)
$`\times p\overline{p}|V_{ub}V_{uq}^{}a_2\left(\overline{u}u\right)_{VA}V_{tb}V_{tq}^{}[a_3(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d+\overline{s}s)_{VA}+a_4\left(\overline{q}q\right)_{VA}`$
$`+a_5(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d+\overline{s}s)_{V+A}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}a_9(e_u\overline{u}u+e_d\overline{d}d+e_s\overline{s}s)_{VA}]|0`$
$`+2a_6V_{tb}V_{tq}^{}h^{}|(\overline{q}b)_{SP}|B^{}p\overline{p}|\left(\overline{q}q\right)_{S+P}|0\},`$
with $`q=d`$ or $`s`$ for $`h=\pi `$ or $`K`$, and, from Eq. (1),

$`𝒯(p\overline{p}h^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\{(V_{ub}V_{uq}^{}a_1V_{tb}V_{tq}^{}a_4)h^{}|(\overline{q}u)_{VA}|0p\overline{p}|(\overline{u}b)_{VA}|B^{}`$ (24)
$`2a_6V_{tb}V_{tq}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{m_h^2}{m_b(m_u+m_q)}}h^{}|(\overline{q}u)_{VA}|0p\overline{p}|(\overline{u}b)_{V+A}|B^{}\}`$
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}f_hm_b\left[\alpha _hp\overline{p}|\overline{u}b|B^{}+\beta _hp\overline{p}|\overline{u}\gamma _5b|B^{}\right],`$
where

$$\alpha _h,\beta _h\left[V_{ub}V_{uq}^{}a_1V_{tb}V_{tq}^{}\left(a_4\pm a_6\frac{2m_h^2}{m_b(m_q+m_u)}\right)\right].$$
(25)
It is of interest to compare the above equations with the familiar two-meson decay amplitudes Ali:1998eb . For the $`Bp\overline{p}`$ transition part, the analogous transitions are $`B^{}\pi ^0,\rho ^0`$ (or the isospin-related $`\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}\pi ^+,\rho ^+`$). To single out this effect, we can search for two-meson decay modes dominated by such transitions. For the $`\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}\pi ^+,\rho ^+`$ transition dominated modes, we have $`\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}\pi ^+\pi ^{}(K^{})`$ and $`\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}\rho ^+\pi ^{}(K^{})`$ having decay amplitude proportional to $`\alpha _{\pi (K)}`$ and $`\beta _{\pi (K)}`$, respectively. For the $`B^{}\pi ^0,\rho ^0`$ transitions, we can find $`\alpha _K`$, $`\beta _{\pi (K)}`$ in $`B^{}\pi ^0K^{},\rho ^0\pi ^{}(K^{})`$ decay amplitudes, respectively. The $`\pi ^0\pi ^{}`$ mode is different due to the cancellation of strong penguin in $`B^{}\pi ^0`$ and $`B^{}\pi ^{}`$ transition parts as they are related by isospin.

For the current-produced part, we can find similar terms in $`B^{}\pi ^0\pi ^{}`$, $`\pi ^0K^{}`$, $`\rho ^0\pi ^{}`$ and $`\rho ^0K^{}`$ decay amplitudes. However, we have additional terms. The matrix element of the isosinglet currents $`p\overline{p}|(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d+\overline{s}s)_{V,A}|0`$ is non-vanishing, in contrast to the two-body $`K^{}\pi ^0(\rho ^0)`$ and $`\pi ^{}\pi ^0(\rho ^0)`$ cases, where $`\pi ^0(\rho ^0)`$, as a member of an isotriplet, cannot be produced via the isosinglet current. As we will see, $`p\overline{p}|(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d+\overline{s}s)_{V,A}|0`$ give non-negligible contributions to the $`p\overline{p}K^{}(\overline{K}{}_{}{}^{0})`$ modes.

#### IV.2.1 $`B^{}p\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$

Although we have both current-produced and transition contributions to the $`p\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ mode, the former is expected to be small due to color-suppression of the $`a_2`$ tree contribution and the smallness of CKM-suppressed penguin contributions, as one can see from Eq. (23). We show in Table 5(a) the contribution from the current-produced part $`𝒥(p\overline{p}\pi ^{})`$. As in the previous section, we are interested in the $`N_c=3`$ case and list other $`N_c`$ cases for estimation of non-factorizable effects. For $`N_c=3`$ the main contribution is from the strong penguin terms ($`a_4`$, $`a_6`$), while the tree contribution is small due to the smallness of $`a_2`$. For $`N_c=2,\mathrm{}`$, we have larger $`a_2`$ and the main contributions come form the tree amplitude. With or without non-factorizable parts, the current-produced contribution is indeed much smaller than the experimental rate $`\left(p\overline{p}\pi ^{}\right)=\left(1.9_{0.9}^{+1.0}\pm 0.3\right)\times 10^6`$ Abe:2002ds .

Since the current-produced part gives small contribution and the transition part $`𝒯`$ is governed by $`a_1`$, we expect the latter to give major contribution in the $`p\overline{p}\pi `$ rate. The transition part $`𝒯`$ involves unknown $`B^{}p\overline{p}`$ transition form factors $`F_{A,P,V5}`$ in the matrix elements $`p\overline{p}|(\overline{u}b)_{S,P}|B^{}`$. We illustrate with three cases where only one form factors dominates. In each case we fit the coefficient $`C_A`$, $`C_P`$ or $`C_{V5}`$ to the central value of the experimental measured $`p\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ rate. Note that the matrix elements $`p\overline{p}|(\overline{u}b)_{S,P}|B^{}`$ in Eq. (24) have nothing to do with the factorized meson $`h`$, hence the obtained coefficients $`C_{A,P,V5}`$ can be applied to the $`p\overline{p}K^{}`$ mode (and for the $`p\overline{p}\overline{K}^0`$ mode through Eq. (18)) as well.

Table 5(b) shows the obtained values of these coefficients. It is interesting to observe that $`C_{A,V5}\left(m_B/2\right)^5`$ and $`C_P\left(m_B/2\right)^8`$. Note that the effect of $`F_A`$ and $`F_{V5}`$ in the $`p\overline{p}\pi `$ decay rate are similar. For $`\varphi _3=54.8^{}(90^{})`$, we have $`|\alpha _\pi |(0.9)|\beta _\pi |`$ for the color allowed tree-dominated part, leading to $`|C_A|(1.1)|C_{V5}|`$. Unlike the current-produced part, the transition part is not sensitive to $`N_c`$, since $`\alpha _\pi `$, $`\beta _\pi `$ (composed of $`a_1`$, $`a_4`$ and $`a_6`$) do not depend strongly on $`N_c`$ as $`a_2`$.

By combining the transition contributions with the current-produced part for $`\stackrel{~}{f}_2=\stackrel{~}{d}_2=\stackrel{~}{z}/2`$, $`s_2=\stackrel{~}{s}_2=0`$ case, we obtain the total branching fractions shown in Table 6. We see that the rates are still similar to the experimental central value, justifying our procedure.

In Fig. 4 we plot $`d/dm_{p\overline{p}}`$ for the $`B^{}p\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ mode, for the $`N_c=3`$ case with $`\varphi _3=54.8^{}`$, $`C_A=|C_A|`$, $`C_P=|C_P|`$ and $`C_{V5}=|C_{V5}|`$, respectively. It is clear that the three cases give close to identical results. The threshold enhancement phenomena is evident, as has already been shown in the $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)p\pi ^+`$ cases. However, we have a much faster $`1/m_{p\overline{p}}`$ suppression here due to the $`1/t^{3,4}`$ behavior of the dominant transition form factors, while for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)p\pi ^+`$ modes the form factors only behave as $`1/t^2`$ in the large $`t`$ limit. It would be interesting to verify the faster $`1/m_{p\overline{p}}`$ fall off experimentally.

In Fig. 5 we illustrate the $`\varphi _3`$-dependence of the $`p\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ branching fractions, with $`\varphi _3=54.8^{}`$ and $`90^{}`$ results fixed to those of Table 6. Since this mode is dominated by the transition part, we expect similar $`\varphi _3`$ behavior as in $`\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}\pi ^+\pi ^{},\rho ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay rates. The behavior of the rates from the $`C_A`$, $`C_P`$ terms are similar to the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ case He:1999mn  rather than the $`\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ case. We have a similar $`\alpha _\pi `$ term in the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ amplitude, while due to cancellation in the current-produced and the transition terms, there is no strong penguin in the $`\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ amplitude, resulting in small tree-penguin interference. The $`C_{V5}`$ case is similar to $`\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}\rho ^+\pi ^{}`$ and does not show strong $`\varphi _3`$ dependence. As noted before, both features can be understood from the expression of $`\alpha _\pi `$ and $`\beta _\pi `$ in Eq. (25).

#### IV.2.2 $`B^{}p\overline{p}K^{}`$

For the $`B^{}p\overline{p}K^{}`$ decay, we have both a transition ($`𝒯`$) part and now a more effective current-produced ($`𝒥`$) part, as shown in Table 7(a). For the vector part, the largest contributions come from $`(a_3+a_5)p\overline{p}|(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d+\overline{s}s)_V|0`$ and $`a_4p\overline{p}|(\overline{s}s)_V|0`$ in Eq. (23). In the first line of the table, we have $`p\overline{p}|(\overline{s}s)_{V,A,S,P}|0=0`$ and the contributions are mainly from the $`a_3+a_5`$ term. For $`N_c=3`$, $`a_3+a_5`$ is small, resulting in a small $`_V`$. In the second line, the $`a_4p\overline{p}|(\overline{s}s)_V|0`$ term gives $`_V0.3\times 10^6`$ and interferes differently with the previous term for different $`N_c`$ as $`a_3+a_5`$ changes sign. On the other hand, the $`(a_3a_5)p\overline{p}|(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d+\overline{s}s)_A|0`$ term dominates in the axial part. The dependence on $`N_c`$ of these contributions can be understood from the behavior of $`a_3a_5`$.

We now turn to the transition ($`𝒯`$) part. For $`\varphi _354.8^{}(90^{})`$, we have $`|\alpha _K||\alpha _\pi |`$ $`(|\alpha _K||\alpha _\pi |)`$ and hence $`_𝒯(p\overline{p}K^{})(\mathrm{or})_𝒯(p\overline{p}\pi ^{})`$ from the $`C_{A,P}`$ contributions. On the other hand, $`a_4`$ and $`a_6`$ in $`\beta _K`$ are partially canceled and the tree contribution is CKM suppressed, resulting in $`|\beta _K|^2|\alpha _K|^2`$. Hence, the $`p\overline{p}|\overline{u}b|B^{}`$ contribution containing $`C_{A,P}`$ is much larger than the $`p\overline{p}|\overline{u}\gamma _5b|B^{}`$ case coming from $`C_{V5}`$, as can be seen from Table 7(b). Note further that the $`\varphi _3=90^{}`$ case from $`C_{A,P}`$ gives larger rates, as should be expected from the analogous $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ mode He:1999mn .

We combine the current-produced contribution with the transition part and give the total branching fractions in Table 8. The results prefer the $`\varphi _3=90^{}`$ case. Numbers shown in the first two lines of Table 8 are close to the the experimental rate $`(B^\pm p\overline{p}K^\pm )=(4.3_{0.9}^{+1.1}\pm 0.5)\times 10^6`$ Abe:2002ds . We see that, for the $`\varphi _3=90^{}`$, $`N_c=3`$ and $`C_A=|C_A|`$ case we have $`=4.26\times 10^6`$, which is closest to the central value of the experimental rate. The value only changes by 10% as we modify $`N_c`$ to $`2`$ or $`\mathrm{}`$.

We plot $`d/dm_{p\overline{p}}`$ in Fig. 6 for the $`\varphi _3=90^{}`$, $`N_c=3`$ case of Table 8. The curves from $`C_A`$, $`C_P`$ terms are close to data points taken from Ref. Abe:2002ds . The curve from $`C_{V5}`$ term is too low as expected from the smallness of $`\beta _K`$. For the first two cases, one can see that, except for a possible bump at $`m_{p\overline{p}}2.2`$–2.4 GeV, the behavior of the decay spectrum including threshold enhancement can be explained naturally. Comparing with Fig. 4, we note that the suppression for large $`m_{p\overline{p}}`$ is milder than the $`p\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ case. This is due to the presence of the current-produced part which has less suppressed form factors ($`1/t^2`$), which dominates over the transition part in the large $`t`$ region.

We give in Fig. 7 the $`\varphi _3`$-dependence of $`(p\overline{p}K^{})`$. The $`C_{A,P}`$ cases are similar to the $`K^{}\pi ^+`$ mode He:1999mn , while the $`C_{V5}`$ case is similar to the $`K^{}\rho ^+`$ case as discussed before. We note that the experimental indication that the $`p\overline{p}K^{}`$ rate is larger than the $`p\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ rate seems to favor larger $`\varphi _3`$ values such as $`90^{}`$ case, analogous to $`B`$ to two meson decay situation He:1999mn .

#### IV.2.3 $`\overline{B}^0p\overline{p}\overline{K}^0`$

For the $`\overline{B}^0p\overline{p}\overline{K}^0`$ decay, we have $`(p\overline{p}\overline{K}{}_{}{}^{0})=𝒥(p\overline{p}\overline{K}{}_{}{}^{0})+𝒯(p\overline{p}\overline{K}{}_{}{}^{0})`$. Since $`\overline{K}{}_{}{}^{0}|(\overline{s}b)_{VA}|\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}=K^{}|(\overline{s}b)_{VA}|B^{}`$ by isospin, we have

$$𝒥(p\overline{p}\overline{K}{}_{}{}^{0})=𝒥(p\overline{p}K^{}).$$
(26)
On the other hand,

$$𝒯(p\overline{p}\overline{K}{}_{}{}^{0})=i\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}f_{\overline{K}^0}m_b[\alpha _{\overline{K}^0}p\overline{p}|\overline{d}b|\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}+\beta _{\overline{K}^0}p\overline{p}|\overline{d}\gamma _5b|\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}],$$
(27)
with

$$\alpha _{\overline{K}^0},\beta _{\overline{K}^0}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\left(a_4\pm a_6\frac{2m_{\overline{K}^0}^2}{m_b(m_s+m_d)}\right).$$
(28)
We show in Table 9 the separate current-produced and transition contributions to the $`p\overline{p}\overline{K}^0`$ decay rate. As explained in the above, the current-produced part is identical to the $`p\overline{p}K^{}`$ case, except for the difference in $`\tau _B^{}`$ and $`\tau _{B^0}`$. For the transition part, the transition form factors are related to the $`p\overline{p}K^{}`$ case through Eq. (18). We concentrate on the $`(\overline{d}b)_S`$ form factors instead of $`(\overline{d}b)_P`$, since $`|\alpha _{\overline{K}^0}||\beta _{\overline{K}^0}|`$. We have $`_A=1.1F_A+0.9F_{V5}`$ and $`_P=F_P/4`$ for the $`(\overline{d}b)_S`$ form factors. Since $`_P^{p\overline{p}\overline{K}^0}/_P^{p\overline{p}K^{}}=1/4`$, the contribution form the $`C_P`$ term is very small. The ratio of the $`C_A`$ and $`C_{V5}`$ contributions can be understood as well. For $`\varphi _3=54.8^{}`$, the $`F_A`$ dominated case is larger than the $`F_{V5}`$ dominated case by a factor of $`11/9`$ in amplitude, giving a rate enhancement $`(11/9)^2|C_A/C_{V5}|^2(11/9)^21.5`$. For $`\varphi _3=90^{}`$, we have a further 10% growth in amplitude due to $`|C_A|1.1|C_{V5}|`$ (as shown in Table 5(b)), and the rate enhancement becomes $`1.8`$. It is interesting to compare the transition contributions to those in the $`p\overline{p}K^{}`$ mode: for the $`C_A`$ dominated case, $`_𝒯(p\overline{p}\overline{K}{}_{}{}^{0})_𝒯(p\overline{p}K^{})`$; for the $`C_P`$ dominated case, $`_𝒯(p\overline{p}\overline{K}{}_{}{}^{0})_𝒯(p\overline{p}K^{})`$; for the $`C_{V5}`$ dominated case, $`_𝒯(p\overline{p}\overline{K}{}_{}{}^{0})_𝒯(p\overline{p}K^{})`$.

We give in Table 10 the full branching fraction by combining the current-produced and transition parts in amplitude. For the $`N_c=3`$, $`\varphi _3=54.8^{}[90^{}]`$ case, we have $`(p\overline{p}\overline{K}{}_{}{}^{0})=(0.5`$$`3.6)\times 10^6`$ \[(0.5–$`4.3)\times 10^6`$\]. It could be close to or smaller than the $`p\overline{p}K^{}`$ rate.

In Fig. 8 we plot $`d/dm_{p\overline{p}}`$ for the $`\overline{B}^0p\overline{p}\overline{K}^0`$ mode. The decay spectrum for the $`C_A`$ and $`C_{V5}`$ cases are similar to the $`C_A`$, $`C_P`$ cases in the $`p\overline{p}K^{}`$ mode. They exhibit threshold enhancement and a slower fall off for large $`t`$ compared to the $`p\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ case. For the $`C_A`$ case, where the rate is not far from $`p\overline{p}K^{}`$, the decay spectrum could be checked soon.

In Fig. 9 we show the $`\varphi _3`$-dependence of $`(p\overline{p}\overline{K}{}_{}{}^{0})`$. As shown in Eq. (28), the transition part does not have tree-penguin interference and hence the mild $`\varphi _3`$ dependence is from the sub-dominant current-produced term.

### IV.3 Comparison with Other Works

Before we end this section, we compare our work with some others. There are approaches that use pole models to evaluate decay matrix elements. For example, Ref. Piccinini  use $`K^{}`$ pole for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}p`$ production in $`B\eta ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }p`$ decay, while Ref. Cheng:2001tr  use pole models in two-body and three-body baryonic B decay. We focus on the comparison with the Ref. Cheng:2001tr  as we have some subjects in common.

In Ref. Cheng:2001tr , Cheng and Yang use a factorization approach in the current-produced ($`𝒥`$) amplitude. Their approach is similar to ours (up to some technical differences), hence they obtain results similar to ours in current production dominated modes, such as $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}\pi ^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\overline{p}\pi ^+`$. However, there is considerable difference in the transition ($`𝒯`$) part. We factorize the amplitude into a current-produced meson and a $`B`$ to baryonic pair transition amplitude. In their approach, they use a simple pole model to evaluate this part. For example, in $`B^{}p\overline{p}K^{}`$ decay, they have a strong process $`B^{}\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^{()},\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^{0()}\}\overline{p}`$, followed by a weak $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^{()},\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^{0()}\}pK^{}`$ decay. From their modeling of the strong coupling $`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_bB^{}p}=3\sqrt{3}g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^0B^{}p}`$, they can give $`p\overline{p}K^{}`$ rate that is close to experimental result by using monopole $`q^2`$ dependence of $`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_bB^{}p}`$. The $`m_{p\overline{p}}`$ spectrum given in Ref. Cheng:2001tr  shows a peak around $`t6\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ (or $`m_{p\overline{p}}2.5`$ GeV), while we have a sharper peak in lower $`m_{p\overline{p}}`$ (around 2 GeV). The difference is due to the $`1/t^3`$ behavior in our transition part from QCD counting rule, while they have $`1/t^2`$ from the pole model. On the other hand, one expects peaking behavior towards large $`m_{pK^{}}`$ due to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ pole in their approach, while in this work we do not expect any structure (since $`K^{}`$ and $`p`$ are factorized) in the $`m_{pK^{}}`$ spectrum. In turn, they expect $`p\overline{p}\overline{K}^0`$ rate $`10^7`$ due to the absence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ pole, while we expect a rate that could be as large as $`p\overline{p}K^{}`$, although $`10^7`$ is also possible. It is up to experiment to check the $`m_{pK^{}}`$ spectrum and the $`p\overline{p}\overline{K}^0`$ rate.

We recall that in Ref. Chua:2001vh  we also tried a VMD (dispersion analysis) approach Hammer:1996kx ; Mergell:1996bf  in the current production dominated $`B^0D^{}p\overline{n}`$ decay. In this approach, the strong coupling for each pole is fixed at the pole mass, hence each pole gives a monopole contribution to the total form factors. One needs to have more than one pole with cancellations in order to reproduce the correct QCD counting rule, which is $`1/t^2`$ for current-produced form factors Hammer:1996kx ; Mergell:1996bf . We likely would have the same situation here, that more than one pole is needed to reproduced the large $`t`$ behavior. If we take a multi-pole approach, the baryonic transition form factor can be expressed as $`BM_i`$ transitions with $`M_i`$ as one of the mesons, followed by a strong process $`M_i𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}`$ (similar to Ref. Piccinini ). Summing over $`i`$, the QCD counting rule should be taken as a constraint. Instead of doing so, in part because of lack of independent data, we use a simplified transition form factor motivated from the QCD counting rule directly in this work, and wait for experimental data, such as semi-leptonic $`B𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}l\nu `$ and semi-inclusive $`B𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}X`$ (similar to $`B\pi X`$ He:2002ae ), to improve our understanding. One may resort to the multi-pole approach once these measurements become available.

## V Discussion and Conclusion

In this work we use factorization approach to study charmless three-body baryonic $`B`$ decays. We apply SU(3) relations and QCD counting rules on baryon form factors. We identify two mechanisms of baryon pair production, namely current-produced and transition. The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ modes arise solely from the current-produced part, with rates of order $`10^710^6`$. The $`p\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$, $`p\overline{p}K^{}`$ and $`p\overline{p}\overline{K}^0`$ modes are dominated by transition contributions, while the current-produced contributions in the last two cases are significant.

Due to the absence of $`S_{V,A}`$ in the current-produced amplitude, and the complete absence of the transition amplitude, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ modes are the simplest in this work. However, they are sensitive to how we treat the chiral limit of the pseudoscalar term (which has an $`a_6`$ coefficient). On the other hand, we neglect $`F_2`$ contribution in the vector part. It remains to be checked whether this is a good approximation or not. It may in turn give us information on $`F_2`$, or equivalently $`G_E`$, from these measurements. In particular, the vector current form factors in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ are only related to the proton $`G_{M,E}`$ from SU(3) symmetry (as one can see from Eq. (21) and Table 3), and we may obtain information of $`G_E^p`$ from this mode.

The $`\varphi _3`$ dependence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}\pi ^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\overline{p}\pi ^+`$ rates are similar to $`K^{}\pi ^+`$, $`K^{}\pi ^+`$ modes. Since transition contributions dominate in the $`p\overline{p}h`$ modes, the $`\varphi _3`$ dependence of $`p\overline{p}\pi ^{}(K^{})`$ rate is similar to that in the two-body $`\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0}\pi ^+\pi ^{}(K^{})`$ or $`\rho ^+\pi ^{}(K^{})`$ decays, while the $`\varphi _3`$ dependence of $`p\overline{p}\overline{K}^0`$ rate is mild.

Under factorization, the $`p\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ and the $`p\overline{p}K^{}`$ modes have the same baryonic transition form factors. Since the $`p\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ mode is dominated by baryonic transition contribution, we use it to fit for the transition form factor parameters and apply them to the $`p\overline{p}K^{}`$ case. To keep $`p\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ rate around the experimental central value but allowing $`p\overline{p}K^{}`$ rate to be larger, data seems to favor a larger $`\varphi _3`$. The $`p\overline{p}\overline{K}^0`$ rate can be similar to or much smaller than the $`p\overline{p}K^{}`$ rate. We do not consider modes involving vector mesons, such as $`p\overline{p}K^{}`$, since they will involve further unknown form factors.

It is interesting that we can reproduce $`p\overline{p}K^{}`$ decay spectrum based on QCD counting rules, indicating that the latter is a rather robust theoretical tool. From QCD counting rules, the current-produced baryonic form factors behave like $`1/t^2`$, while the transition baryonic form factors behave like $`1/t^3`$ in large $`t(m_{\mathrm{𝐁𝐁}^{}}^2)`$ limit. The $`p\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ decay is dominated by the transition part and hence shows a faster damping behavior for large $`t`$. In contrast, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{p}\pi ^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\overline{p}\pi ^+`$, $`p\overline{p}K^{}`$ and $`p\overline{p}\overline{K}^0`$ modes contain current-produced part, and show a slower damping behavior for large $`t`$. We expect an even slower damping behavior (form factors $`1/t`$) in three-body mesonic $`B`$ decay. These can be checked soon, especially by comparing the $`p\overline{p}K^{}`$ and the $`p\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ spectra.

We note that there is a possible bump around $`m_{p\overline{p}}=2.3`$ GeV in the $`p\overline{p}K^{}`$ decay spectrum. It is interesting that the position is close to the mass of a glueball candidate $`\xi (2230)`$, also known as $`f_J(2220)`$, with $`m=2231\pm 3.5`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=23_7^{+8}`$ MeV Groom:in . Combining $`(J/\psi \gamma \xi )2.5\times 10^3`$ Groom:in  and $`(J/\psi \gamma \xi )(\xi p\overline{p})=(1.5_{0.5}^{+0.6}\pm 0.5)\times 10^5`$ Bai:wm , we have $`(\xi p\overline{p})6\times 10^3`$. If the rate in the whole $`2.2<M_{p\overline{p}}<2.4`$ GeV bin is due to this resonance, we would have $`(B^{}K^{}\xi )(\xi p\overline{p})1.24\times 10^6`$. We thus get $`(B^{}K^{}\xi )2\times 10^4`$, or a few times the rate of $`(B^{}\eta ^{}K^{})=(6.5\pm 1.7)\times 10^5`$ Groom:in . Since both $`\xi `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ are glue rich hadrons, while $`bs`$ decays provide glue rich environment Atwood:1997de , this may be of great interest. The underlying dynamics could be $`g^{}g\xi `$, which is analogous to $`g^{}g\eta ^{}`$ for $`B\eta ^{}+X_s`$ decay Atwood:1997bn . One should also search in three-body mesonic decay modes. However, as noted, a slower fall off for non-resonance part, together with interference with possible nearby resonances, may produce physical background. But $`Bp\overline{p}K^{}`$ decay could be a rather clean mode to search for $`\xi `$ xi .

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank S. J. Brodsky, H.-C. Huang, H.-n. Li and M.-Z. Wang for discussions. This work is supported in part by the National Science Council of R.O.C. under Grants NSC-90-2112-M-002-022 and NSC-90-2811-M-002-038, the MOE CosPA Project, and the BCP Topical Program of NCTS.

## Appendix A Some useful Formulas

In general, for a three-body decay $`Bh𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}`$, the amplitude can always be written in the following form:

$`\left(Bh𝐁\overline{𝐁}^{}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\{𝒜\overline{u}(p_𝐁)/p_hv(p_{\overline{𝐁}^{}})+\overline{u}(p_𝐁)/p_h\gamma _5v(p_{\overline{𝐁}^{}})`$ (29)
$`+𝒞\overline{u}(p_𝐁)\gamma _5v(p_{\overline{𝐁}^{}})+𝒟\overline{u}(p_𝐁)v(p_{\overline{𝐁}^{}})\},`$
whose absolute square is given by

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }\left|\right|^2`$ $`=`$ $`G_F^2\left\{\right|𝒜|^2[(m_B^2+m_2^2m_{12}^2m_{23}^2)(m_{23}^2m_2^2m_3^2)`$ (30)
$`m_3^2(m_{12}^2(m_1m_2)^2)]`$
$`+`$ $`2\mathrm{Re}\left(𝒜𝒟^{}\right)[m_1(m_{23}^2m_2^2m_3^2)m_2(m_B^2+m_2^2m_{12}^2m_{23}^2)]\}`$
$`+`$ $`\left|𝒟\right|^2\left[m_{12}^2(m_1+m_2)^2\right]+(𝒜,𝒟𝒞,m_2m_2),`$
where the summation is over all spins, and we have adopted the convention that the relatively positive baryon is assigned as particle 1, the other baryon is assigned as particle 2, the meson $`h`$ is always assigned as particle 3. One can see from the above that only Re$`\left(𝒜𝒟^{}\right)`$ and Re$`\left(𝒞^{}\right)`$ appear as interference terms upon squaring. Given these formulas, the task is now reduced to obtain the $`𝒜`$$`𝒟`$ terms for an amplitude of interest.

It is straightforward to obtain the decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from the integration of

$$d\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{\left(2\pi \right)^3}\frac{1}{32m_B^3}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\left|\right|^2\right)dm_{12}^2dm_{23}^2.$$
(31)


text:
# 1 LO 2→2 squared matrix elements contributing in the case of transverse polarization. Note that each entry 𝛿|𝑀|² has to be multiplied by a prefactor, see Eq. (), to obtain the actual partonic cross section 𝑑𝛿𝜎̂ relevant for Eq. ().

The partonic structure of spin-1/2 targets at the leading-twist level is characterized entirely by the unpolarized, longitudinally polarized, and transversely polarized distribution functions $`f`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$, and $`\delta f`$, respectively . By virtue of the factorization theorem, these non-perturbative parton densities can be probed universally in a multitude of scattering processes as long as some arbitrary hard scale $`\mu _F`$ can be introduced to separate long- and short-distance physics. The latter, hard scattering coefficient functions as well as the $`\mu _F`$ dependence of the parton densities can be calculated perturbatively in QCD and confronted with experiment. By now measurements of helicity averaged deep-inelastic lepton-nucleon scattering (DIS) have reached a precision that theoretical uncertainties become the limiting factor in the extraction of unpolarized parton distributions $`f`$. Combined experimental and theoretical efforts have led also to an improved understanding of the spin structure of longitudinally polarized nucleons, $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$, in the past few years. Yet many interesting questions still remain unanswered here. In particular, nothing is known about the helicity dependent gluon density, $`\mathrm{\Delta }g`$. By far the most elusive quantity is, however, the completely unmeasured parton content $`\delta f`$ of transversely polarized nucleons.

Current and future experiments are designed to further unravel the spin structure of both longitudinally and transversely polarized nucleons. Information will soon be gathered for the first time from polarized proton-proton collisions at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) . The main thrust of the RHIC spin program is to hunt down $`\mathrm{\Delta }g`$ by measuring double-spin asymmetries $`A_{\mathrm{LL}}`$ for various processes in longitudinally polarized $`pp`$ collisions at high energies . However, collisions of transversely polarized protons will be studied as well, and the potential of RHIC in accessing transversity $`\delta f`$ in transverse double-spin asymmetries $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ will be examined in this paper for all conceivable scattering processes. First we briefly review the main features of transversity  to elucidate the difficulties in pinning it down experimentally. Next we present results for $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ for prompt photon and jet production and comment on pion pair and heavy quark final states. Special emphasis is put on realistic estimates of the statistical precision for such measurements at RHIC including limitations from the detectors. We also briefly comment on the Drell-Yan process and alternative methods of filtering for transversity which involve special types of fragmentation functions. It should be stressed that studies of $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ have been presented in the past \[4-7\]. These have usually  been based on the model assumption $`\delta f(x,\mu )=\mathrm{\Delta }f(x,\mu )`$ for all scales $`\mu `$, which cannot be valid in QCD due to the different $`\mu `$-evolutions of $`\delta f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$. Of course, since nothing is known experimentally about $`\delta f`$ one has to rely on some model to study spin asymmetries $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$. As will be explained below, we make use of the Soffer inequality  to give upper bounds for $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$. This should provide some guidance on what processes one should focus on in first experimental studies of transversity at RHIC. On the other hand, measurements of $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ in excess of these bounds may indicate a new “spin surprise”. Theoretical uncertainties in $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ due to variations of the arbitrary factorization scale $`\mu _F`$ are addressed. In view of all these points and upcoming exploratory studies with transversely polarized protons at RHIC, we believe our paper to be timely and useful.

The transversity density $`\delta f`$ is defined , in complete analogy to its longitudinally polarized counterpart $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$, as the difference of finding a parton of flavor $`f`$ at a scale $`\mu `$ with momentum fraction $`x`$ and its spin aligned ($``$) and anti-aligned ($``$) to that of the transversely polarized nucleon, i.e.,

$$\delta f(x,\mu )f_{}(x,\mu )f_{}(x,\mu )$$
(1)
(an arrow always denotes transverse polarization in the following). The unpolarized densities are recovered by taking the sum in Eq. (1). Upon expressing transversely polarized eigenstates as superpositions of helicity eigenstates, $`\delta f`$ reveals its helicity-flip, chiral-odd nature . Since all QCD and electroweak interactions preserve helicity/chirality, $`\delta f`$ completely decouples from standard inclusive DIS which explains its elusiveness. In addition, a transversity (helicity-flip) gluon density is forbidden for spin-1/2 targets as helicity changes by two units cannot be absorbed . This complete lack of quark-gluon mixing leads to particularly simple, non-singlet type scale $`\mu `$ evolution equations for $`\delta f`$ which are known up to the next-to-leading order (NLO) of QCD . These kernels have the striking feature that all Mellin-$`n`$ moments, $`_0^1x^{n1}\delta f(x,\mu )𝑑x`$, decrease under evolution, i.e., transversity “evolves away” at all $`x`$ with increasing $`\mu `$. In particular, the nucleon’s tensor charge, given by  $`_f_0^1𝑑x[\delta f(x,\mu )\delta \overline{f}(x,\mu )]`$, is not conserved under QCD evolution. It is also apparent that a quark sea polarization $`\delta \overline{q}(x,\mu )`$, where $`q=u,d,s`$, is vanishingly small at all scales, if it is not already present at the input scale $`\mu _0<\mu `$ (beyond the leading order (LO) of QCD a numerically tiny $`\delta \overline{q}(x,\mu )`$ is generated dynamically under evolution \[11-13\].). Anyway, since most of the required subprocess cross sections are not known in the NLO, we limit ourselves for consistency to $`\delta f`$’s evolved with LO kernels  only.

The requirement of helicity conservation in hard scattering processes implies that chirality has to be flipped twice in order to be sensitive to transversity. One possibility, which we are going to consider in the following, is to have two transversely polarized hadrons in the initial state and to measure double-spin asymmetries

$$A_{\mathrm{TT}}(𝒫)=\frac{\frac{1}{2}[d\sigma /d𝒫()d\sigma /d𝒫()]}{\frac{1}{2}[d\sigma /d𝒫()+d\sigma /d𝒫()]}\frac{d\delta \sigma /d𝒫}{d\sigma /d𝒫}.$$
(2)
Here $`𝒫`$ stands for any appropriate set of kinematical variables characterizing the observed final state. An alternative is to have only one transversely polarized initial hadron and a fragmentation process in the final state that is sensitive to transverse polarization. Such experiments can be carried out at RHIC  as well as in semi-inclusive DIS at the fixed target experiments HERMES  and COMPASS . Several different fragmentation processes have been identified as being potentially suitable for a transversity measurement . One possibility is to observe the fragmentation of a transversely polarized quark into a transversely polarized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperon as described by a transversity fragmentation function $`\delta D_q^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ . Other promising approaches have emerged from considering an asymmetry in the transverse momentum distribution of a hadron in a jet around the jet axis (“Collins effect” ), or the interference between $`s`$\- and $`p`$-waves of a two pion system (“interference fragmentation” ). For example, it has been shown  that combinations of Collins fragmentation functions and transversity densities may be partly responsible for sizable azimuthal spin asymmetries seen in DIS , as well as  for surprisingly large single transverse spin asymmetries discovered in fixed target $`p^{}p\pi X`$ experiments . Attempts are currently being made to study the Collins effect in $`e^+e^{}`$ scattering, and also to measure the interference fragmentation functions there .

There are, however, several problems with most such conceivable signatures for transversity based on fragmentation spin effects. First of all, for all of them the analyzing power is a priori unknown and may well be small. Second, in practically all cases, there are competing mechanisms for generating the physical observable that do not involve transversity. For example, as was recently pointed out , the azimuthal asymmetries seen in DIS could also result from “final-state interactions” of the struck quark, and the large single transverse spin asymmetries in $`p^{}p\pi X`$ mentioned above may be explained by non-trivial higher twist effects, described in the context of QCD factorization theorems . It may therefore be difficult to cleanly disentangle transversity from other effects. Finally, there is not simply one single “Collins function”; rather, it exists for each flavor separately. This increases the number of unknowns and may complicate conclusions on more detailed aspects of transversity .

For these reasons, we will focus in this paper exclusively on transverse double-spin asymmetries of the type (2) at RHIC as signatures for transversity. For our observables, the $`\delta f`$’s we are after are the only unknowns in the calculation. In addition, and more generally, our study is also motivated by the fact that $`pp`$ collisions at high energies provide a natural environment for determining twist-2 parton densities: it is an experience from the unpolarized case that in the collider regime theory calculations based on perturbative partonic hard-scattering work best and generally describe experimental data well, unlike the fixed-target situation where sometimes significant discrepancies between data and LO (or NLO) QCD occur. It is therefore important to investigate how much $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ measurements at RHIC will tell us about transversity.

On the downside, transverse double-spin asymmetries are expected to be very small in general . Unpolarized gluons play an important or even dominant role in almost all production processes. The complete lack of gluon induced subprocesses in case of transverse polarization strongly dilutes $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$. In addition, $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ in Eq. (2) is further diminished by the requirement of a double chirality flip in the transversely polarized cross section which excludes some of the “standard” $`22`$ amplitudes to contribute, whereas the remaining ones are color-suppressed. For instance, for $`qq`$ scattering only the interference between the two LO Feynman diagrams has a quark line connecting the two polarized incoming hadrons as necessary for a chirality flip. It should be also noted that although $`\delta f`$ is the only unknown in an analysis of $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$, it always appears “quadratic” in doubly polarized scattering. In general the task is to find for each process a kinematical region where gluons contribute as little as possible to the unpolarized cross section in Eq. (2). This is expected for the production of a final state with high transverse momentum $`p_T`$, e.g., a jet or prompt photon. On the other hand, for large $`p_T`$ the cross section becomes small which reduces the statistical precision, $`\delta A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ with which $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ can be measured. Also, as mentioned above, $`\delta f`$ evolves away if probed at large hard scales $`\mu _Fp_T`$. Thus one always has to find the best compromise between the size of $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ on the one hand, and $`\delta A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ on the other. In any case, for RHIC $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ should be larger than about 0.001 to be detectable, since systematic uncertainties from relative polarization measurements are presently at best expected to be of that order .

In principle the most favorable reaction for determining transversity is the Drell-Yan process, $`pp\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, which proceeds exclusively through $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation in LO without any gluonic contribution. Not surprisingly, transversity was first studied theoretically in the context of the Drell-Yan process , and several phenomenological studies have been performed since . However, a recent NLO study of upper bounds for $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ , using the same model for $`\delta f`$ as described below, has revealed that the limited muon acceptance for the RHIC experiments  threatens to make a measurement of transversity in this channel elusive. In particular, the dependence of $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ on the rapidity $`y`$ of the muon pair, which would be sensitive to the shape of $`\delta f`$, receives a substantial relative statistical error . It should be also kept in mind that only the product of quark and anti-quark transversity densities is probed, and in $`pp`$ scattering the latter may well be much smaller than assumed in the model below, due to the lack of the gluon splitting $`gq\overline{q}`$ discussed above. In the following we demonstrate that, although $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ is rather minuscule, jet and prompt photon production can be nevertheless a useful tool to decipher transversity at RHIC.

To be specific, according to the factorization theorem the fully differential transversely polarized cross section $`d\delta \sigma `$ on the right-hand-side of Eq. (2) for, say, the production of two massless partons $`c`$ and $`d`$ with transverse momentum $`p_T`$, azimuthal angle $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with respect to the initial spin axis, and pseudorapidities $`\eta _c`$ and $`\eta _d`$ reads

$$\frac{d^4\delta \sigma }{dp_Td\eta _cd\eta _dd\mathrm{\Phi }}=2p_T\underset{a,b}{}x_a\delta f_a(x_a,\mu _F)x_b\delta f_b(x_b,\mu _F)\frac{d^2\delta \widehat{\sigma }}{dtd\mathrm{\Phi }}(s,t,u,\mathrm{\Phi },\mu _F,\mu _R),$$
(3)
where $`d\delta \widehat{\sigma }`$ is the partonic cross section. In the partonic center of mass system (c.m.s.), the Mandelstam variables are given by

$$s=x_ax_bS,t=x_a\sqrt{S}p_Te^{\eta _c},u=x_a\sqrt{S}p_Te^{\eta _d}$$
(4)
where $`\sqrt{S}`$ denotes the available hadronic c.m.s. energy and

$$x_a=\frac{2p_T}{\sqrt{S}}\mathrm{cosh}\left[\frac{1}{2}(\eta _c\eta _d)\right]e^{(\eta _c+\eta _d)/2},x_b=\frac{2p_T}{\sqrt{S}}\mathrm{cosh}\left[\frac{1}{2}(\eta _c\eta _d)\right]e^{(\eta _c+\eta _d)/2}.$$
(5)
Since discrepant results for the partonic cross sections $`d\delta \widehat{\sigma }`$ can be found in the literature \[4-7\], we have recalculated and listed them in Table 1. We fully agree with the expressions given in Tab. II of , except for an overall factor $`2\pi `$ in the normalization of the cross sections in that paper (such a factor does not affect spin asymmetries). For completeness we give here also the result for heavy flavor production which will be briefly discussed below. The entries for $`\delta |M|^2`$ in Tab. 1 have to be multiplied by an appropriate factor to yield the partonic cross sections relevant for Eq. (3):

$$\frac{d^2\delta \widehat{\sigma }}{dtd\mathrm{\Phi }}=\frac{2\alpha _s^2(\mu _R)}{9s^2}\frac{tu}{s^2}\mathrm{cos}(2\mathrm{\Phi })\delta |M|^2,$$
(6)
with $`\mu _R`$ denoting the renormalization scale. In the case of prompt photon production, $`\alpha _s^2`$ in Eq. (6) has to be replaced by $`\alpha _s\alpha e_q^2`$ with $`e_q`$ the electrical charge of the incoming quark $`q`$. For production of heavy flavors via $`q\overline{q}Q\overline{Q}`$, the factor $`tu/s^2`$ in Eq. (6) becomes $`(t^{}u^{}m^2s)/s^2`$, where $`m`$ is the mass of the heavy quark, and the reduced Mandelstam variables $`t^{},u^{}`$ are given as $`t^{}=tm^2`$, $`u^{}=um^2`$. Expressions (4) and (5) remain valid with $`tt^{},uu^{}`$ and $`p_Tm_T=\sqrt{p_T^2+m^2},\eta _{c,d}y_{c,d}`$ with the heavy flavor rapidities $`y_{c,d}`$.

While the corresponding unpolarized cross section $`d^4\sigma /dp_Td\eta _cd\eta _dd\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-independent and can be trivially integrated over $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ yielding the usual factor $`2\pi `$, the factor $`[tu\mathrm{cos}(2\mathrm{\Phi })/s^2]`$ in Eq. (6) is a very characteristic feature of double transverse polarization of the incoming partons111For arbitrary azimuthal angles $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{a,b}`$ of the initial transverse spin vectors the cross section actually has the angular dependence $`\mathrm{cos}(2\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_a\mathrm{\Phi }_b)`$ .. It would obviously integrate to zero, and therefore each quadrant in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ should be added with the appropriate sign upon integration , i.e., $`\left(_{\pi /4}^{\pi /4}_{\pi /4}^{3\pi /4}+_{3\pi /4}^{5\pi /4}_{5\pi /4}^{7\pi /4}\right)\mathrm{cos}(2\mathrm{\Phi })d\mathrm{\Phi }=4`$. This way of combining cross sections has the advantage that it leads to much higher rates as compared to considering only  a small bin around, say, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$. An alternative approach would be to integrate the spin-dependent cross section over $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with a weight factor $`\mathrm{cos}(2\mathrm{\Phi })`$. By using other Fourier harmonics as weight factors, one could actually verify experimentally the $`\mathrm{cos}(2\mathrm{\Phi })`$ dependence of $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ predicted by QCD.

Before we can perform numerical studies of $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ we have to specify the $`\delta f`$. Since nothing is known experimentally about them one has to fully rely on models to study spin asymmetries $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$. The only guidance so far is provided by the Soffer inequality

$$2\left|\delta q(x)\right|q(x)+\mathrm{\Delta }q(x)$$
(7)
which gives an upper bound for $`\delta f`$ in terms of the unpolarized and helicity-dependent quark distributions $`q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$, respectively. As in  we utilize this inequality by saturating the bound at some low input scale $`\mu _00.6\mathrm{GeV}`$ using the LO GRV  and GRSV (“standard scenario”)  densities $`q(x,\mu _0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x,\mu _0)`$, respectively. For $`\mu >\mu _0`$ the transversity densities $`\delta f(x,\mu )`$ are then obtained by straightforwardly solving the evolution equations using the appropriate LO kernels . It should be noted that the inequality (7) is preserved under evolution in LO and NLO ($`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$), as was shown in . Obviously, the sign to be used when saturating the inequality is at our disposal. Our calculations below will always refer to choosing a positive sign throughout. This is expected to result in the largest possible asymmetries, since then all transversity densities have the same sign at the input scale, and the partonic cross sections in Table 1 are all positive. Note that, thanks to the especially simple evolution of the transversity densities, the sign is preserved under $`Q^2`$-evolution, for each parton density individually. We have varied the sign in the saturation of Eq. (7) independently for all parton densities; however the asymmetry always came out smaller than the one obtained for only positive signs. It is important, however, to point out that the actual sign of the asymmetry cannot be predicted in this way: for example, we could saturate the inequality with positive signs for the quark densities and with negative signs for the antiquarks. Then all $`q\overline{q}`$ scatterings will give negative contributions, and only the $`qq`$ and $`\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ channels remain positive. Therefore, the asymmetry may potentially become negative in certain kinematical regions, but it will never be as large in absolute value as our default one obtained for choosing only positive signs in saturating the Soffer inequality.

Using these densities we can present the maximally possible spin asymmetries $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$. It should finally be kept in mind that by saturating Eq. (7) at a somewhat higher scale, e.g., $`\mu _01\mathrm{GeV}`$, one would obtain in general somewhat (but not very much) larger $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$’s as compared to our results in Figs. 1 and 2 below. It does not seem very natural, however, that Soffer’s inequality is saturated at scales much larger than $`\mu _01\mathrm{GeV}`$. Therefore we believe that our results represent fairly realistic upper bounds for $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$. It is also quite possible that Eq. (7) is actually far from being saturated.

In this case all spin asymmetries would be much smaller and not accessible by RHIC at all. However, in non-relativistic quark models one has $`\delta q=\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ which also leads to sizable transversity densities, but may be at variance with Soffer’s inequality.

Let us first turn to single-inclusive jet production as jets are copiously produced at high energies and are theoretically rather well understood. The corresponding double-spin asymmetry $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ is shown in Fig. 1 as a function of the jet transverse momentum $`p_T`$. The rapidities in Eq. (3) are integrated over the range $`1\eta 2`$ which is accessible with in the STAR experiment at RHIC. As expected, $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ is rather small due to the dominance of the gluon induced processes in the unpolarized cross section. In the $`p_T`$ range shown, the $`qg`$ subprocess alone always contributes about $`50\%`$ of the total rate. At low $`p_T`$ also the $`gg`$ subprocess contributes significantly. In case of transversity, $`d\delta \sigma `$, the $`qqqq`$ (and $`\overline{q}\overline{q}\overline{q}\overline{q}`$) process is color-suppressed as $`1/N_C`$ since only the interference of different amplitudes has the required helicity-flip properties, whereas the $`q\overline{q}`$ channel suffers from the presumed scarcity of antiquarks in the initial state for $`pp`$ collisions. Nevertheless, for our model transversity densities for which we also saturate the antiquark densities at the initial scale, the asymmetry at $`\sqrt{S}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$ is mainly driven by the $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation reaction unless $`p_T`$ becomes larger then about $`40\mathrm{GeV}`$ and the $`qq`$ channel starts to take over. The sizable antiquark density we propose would necessarily be of nonperturbative origin. Its presence could provide information on the breaking of chiral symmetry in QCD, as is true for transversity in general .

The bands in Fig. 1 indicate the theoretical uncertainty in $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ due to variations of the factorization scale in the range $`p_T/2\mu _F2p_T`$. We have always identified the renormalization scale $`\mu _R`$ with $`\mu _F`$ since in the LO of QCD $`\alpha _s`$ drops out of the asymmetry (2) anyway. Also shown in Fig. 1 is the expected statistical accuracy for a measurement of $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ at c.m.s. energies $`\sqrt{S}`$ of 200 and 500 GeV for certain bins in $`p_T`$, using an integrated luminosity of 320 and 800 $`\mathrm{pb}^1`$, respectively, and assuming a polarization of $`70\%`$ for each beam. It turns out that statistical errors would allow sensible measurements up to a $`p_T`$ of about 40 (70) GeV for $`\sqrt{S}=200`$ (500) GeV. The region beyond that would only become accessible through a substantial upgrade in luminosity. However, for the smallest $`p_T`$ bins, $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ is rather tiny, in particular for $`\sqrt{S}=`$500 GeV, and limitations from the systematical uncertainties become important here, making a measurement at modest $`p_T`$ values a very challenging task.

Instead of detecting a jet one can also consider identifying a leading hadron (pion). Single-inclusive pion production has a smaller rate though and thus larger statistical errors. From a theoretical point of view it is less clean than jet production as it involves also the modeling of the fragmentation of a final state parton into the observed pion. On the other hand, it is an old idea  that tagging on two back-to-back pions could in principle help to overcome the difficulties of small transverse spin asymmetries by reducing the contribution from gluon induced processes in the unpolarized cross section: since the fragmentation functions for $`g\pi ^+`$ and $`g\pi ^{}`$ are the same, the cross section combination  $`\sigma ^{\pi ^+\pi ^+}\sigma ^{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}\sigma ^{\pi ^{}\pi ^+}+\sigma ^{\pi ^{}\pi ^{}}`$, where in each case the two pions are in opposite azimuthal hemispheres, completely eliminates the $`qgqg`$ and $`gggg`$ channels (although not $`ggq\overline{q}`$). The corresponding double-spin asymmetry,

$$A_{\mathrm{TT}}\frac{\delta \sigma ^{\pi ^+\pi ^+}\delta \sigma ^{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}\delta \sigma ^{\pi ^{}\pi ^+}+\delta \sigma ^{\pi ^{}\pi ^{}}}{\sigma ^{\pi ^+\pi ^+}\sigma ^{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}\sigma ^{\pi ^{}\pi ^+}+\sigma ^{\pi ^{}\pi ^{}}},$$
(8)
is indeed sizable, reaching easily values as large as $`10\%`$ in certain regions of $`p_T`$ for the pions. However, the catch here is that the statistical error $`\delta A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ for this combination of cross sections is not only, as usually the case, proportional to the inverse of the square root of the counting rate,

$$\delta A_{\mathrm{TT}}\left(\sigma ^{\pi ^+\pi ^+}\sigma ^{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}\sigma ^{\pi ^{}\pi ^+}+\sigma ^{\pi ^{}\pi ^{}}\right)^{1/2},$$
(9)
but rather to

$$\delta A_{\mathrm{TT}}\left(\sigma ^{\pi ^+\pi ^+}\sigma ^{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}\sigma ^{\pi ^{}\pi ^+}+\sigma ^{\pi ^{}\pi ^{}}\right)^{1/2}\sqrt{\frac{\sigma ^{\pi ^+\pi ^+}+\sigma ^{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}+\sigma ^{\pi ^{}\pi ^+}+\sigma ^{\pi ^{}\pi ^{}}}{\sigma ^{\pi ^+\pi ^+}\sigma ^{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}\sigma ^{\pi ^{}\pi ^+}+\sigma ^{\pi ^{}\pi ^{}}}}.$$
(10)
The extra factor always renders $`|\delta A_{\mathrm{TT}}|`$ much bigger than $`|A_{\mathrm{TT}}|`$ itself.

In Fig. 2 we show our “maximal prediction” for $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ for prompt photon production. At lowest order, the basic calculation is similar to that for jet production. Our predictions are made for $`|\eta |0.35`$ as relevant for the PHENIX experiment. We take into account that only half the azimuth is covered by the detectors in this experiment. We also assume that in experiment an isolation criterion is imposed on the photon, meaning that events are vetoed if much hadronic energy is found in the vicinity of the photon. We adopt the isolation criterion proposed in , which eliminates an (unwanted) contribution to the cross section related to photons produced in jet fragmentation. The resulting transverse-spin asymmetries for photons are larger than for jets; however, unfortunately the same is true for the expected statistical errors. Nevertheless, for transverse momenta of the photon not very much larger than 10 GeV also this measurement may provide useful information about the transversity densities.

We note that heavy flavor production turns out to be not particularly useful due to the strong dominance of the gluon-gluon fusion process in the unpolarized rate in all relevant kinematical regions.

In conclusion, accessing transversity at RHIC through leading-twist double-spin asymmetries in “standard” processes like jet or prompt photon production appears to be a difficult, albeit not completely impossible, task. In general, even the “maximally allowed” transverse double-spin asymmetries $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ are very small, requiring great experimental efforts to detect them. Since jets (and photons) are produced very copiously at RHIC, the main limitation may often be the systematical rather than the statistical error for measurements of $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$. Nonetheless, if the $`\delta f`$, $`\delta \overline{f}`$ arise through evolution from an input at some low scale that saturates (or nearly saturates) Soffer’s inequality, RHIC will see signatures of transversity in these channels, complementing information on transversity gained from other sources at RHIC and elsewhere.

We finally emphasize – in the spirit of Ref.  – that the (expected) general smallness of $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$, perhaps best summarized  by $`|A_{\mathrm{TT}}||A_{\mathrm{LL}}|`$, where $`A_{\mathrm{LL}}`$ is the longitudinal counterpart of $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ for a certain reaction, is also to some extent a virtue: it relies on Soffer’s inequality and on other important aspects of transverse-spin in QCD, such as the peculiar evolution of transversity (non-singlet type, strong suppression at small-$`x`$) and the kinematical and color-suppression of the hard scatterings of transversely polarized partons. The experimental finding of much larger $`A_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ than the ones presented here would constitute a spin puzzle of proportions similar to the “spin crisis” of the late eighties in the longitudinally polarized case.

We are grateful to R.L. Jaffe and M. Grosse Perdekamp for helpful comments. M.S. thanks A. Schäfer for discussions and RIKEN and Brookhaven National Laboratory for hospitality and support. W.V. is grateful to RIKEN, Brookhaven National Laboratory and the U.S. Department of Energy (contract number DE-AC02-98CH10886) for providing the facilities essential for the completion of this work. The work of M.S. was supported by DFG and BMBF.