text:
# Nonresonant Contributions in 𝑩→𝝆𝝅 Decay

## I Introduction

The recent observation of $`CP`$ violation in the $`B`$-meson system, realized through the measurement of a nonzero, time-dependent, $`CP`$-violating asymmetry in the process $`B^0\left(\overline{B}^0\right)J/\psi K_S`$ (and related ones) expt , heralds a new era of discovery. The result yields a value of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$ in accord with standard model (SM) expectations smx , where $`\beta `$, defined by $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\beta )V_{cb}^{}V_{cd}/\left(V_{tb}^{}V_{td}\right),`$ is an angle of the unitarity triangle, $`V_{ij}`$ being an element of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix ckm . Ascertaining the presence of physics beyond the SM thus demands the determination of all the angles of the unitarity triangle.

In this paper, we consider the decays $`B^0(\overline{B}^0)\rho \pi \pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0,`$ as a Dalitz-plot analysis of the possible $`\rho \pi `$ final states, under the assumption of isospin symmetry, permits the determination of the CKM parameter $`\alpha `$ qui&co , where $`\alpha =\pi \beta \gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\gamma )V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}/\left(V_{cb}^{}V_{cd}\right).`$ Our interest is in assessing the size of the nonresonant contributions which could possibly obscure the analysis, and in ameliorating their impact. Indeed, the strategy for the extraction of $`\alpha `$ relies, in part, on the assumption that the $`\rho `$ mesons dominate the $`3\pi `$ final state. There are, however, empirical indications that this assumption may not always be warranted. For example, combining the CLEO measurements of the branching fractions, $`\left(\overline{B}^0\rho ^{}\pi ^\pm \right)=\left(27.6_{7.4}^{+8.4}\pm 4.2\right)\times 10^6`$ and $`\left(B^{}\rho ^0\pi ^{}\right)=\left(10.4_{3.4}^{+3.3}\pm 2.1\right)\times 10^6`$ cleo , with the BABAR result $`(B^0\rho ^\pm \pi ^{})=(28.9\pm 5.4\pm 4.3)\times 10^6`$ babar  yields

$`={\displaystyle \frac{\left(\overline{B}^0\rho ^{}\pi ^\pm \right)}{\left(B^{}\rho ^0\pi ^{}\right)}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.7}\pm 1.2,`$ (1)
where we have added the errors in quadrature and ignored correlations. These ratios are small GaoWur  with respect to simple theoretical estimates, which give $`6`$ bsw . An interesting possibility for the resolution of this discrepancy has been suggested in Refs. dea&co ; DeaPol , whose authors investigate the possible backgrounds to $`B\rho \pi 3\pi `$ decay which arise from contributions mediated by other resonances. They find that the light $`\sigma `$ resonance, a broad $`I=J=0`$ enhancement in $`\pi \pi `$ scattering, as well as the heavy-meson resonances $`B^{}`$ $`\left(J^P=1^{}\right)`$ and $`B_0`$ $`\left(J^P=0^+\right)`$, can modify the $`B3\pi `$ branching ratios in the $`\rho `$-mass region and give rise to values of $``$ crudely compatible with the empirical value of Eq. (1), given its large error. In particular, the contribution of $`B^{}\sigma \pi ^{}`$ decay significantly enhances the effective $`B^{}\rho ^0\pi ^{}`$ branching ratio and lowers the value of $``$. Analogously, the $`\sigma `$ modestly impacts the $`B^0\rho ^0\pi ^0`$ branching ratio GarMei ; let us consider the issues.

The analysis of $`B^0(\overline{B}^0)\rho \pi \pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ decay posits a two-step process, that is, that the amplitude for $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ decay can be written as

$$A(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)=f_+a_++f_{}a_++f_0a_{00},$$
(2)
where $`a_{ij}A(B^0\rho ^i\pi ^j)`$ and $`f_i`$ is the vector form-factor describing $`\rho ^i\pi \pi `$ qui&co . An analogous construct can be made for $`B^0\left(\overline{B}^0\right)\sigma \pi \pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ decay, which contains the scalar form-factor describing $`\sigma \pi ^+\pi ^{}.`$ It is evident that the manner in which the $`\sigma `$ populates the $`\rho `$ phase-space will depend on the amplitude for $`B^0\sigma \pi ^0`$ decay, as well as on the accompanying scalar form-factor. The $`\sigma `$ is a state of definite $`CP`$, so that the isospin analysis of Ref. qui&co  can be enlarged to include it GarMei ; nevertheless, the analysis relies on the form factors adopted for the $`\rho ^i\pi \pi `$ and $`\sigma \pi \pi `$ processes. The resonances of interest are broad, so that Breit-Wigner form-factors are generally insufficient: they do not satisfy general theoretical constraints, such as analyticity and unitarity, over the $`\pi \pi `$ invariant-mass interval needed. As discussed in detail in Ref. GarMei , the differences are striking for the scalar form-factor, and the resulting numerical impact on $`B3\pi `$ decay is sizable. In contrast, the numerical differences for the vector form-factor are not large.

The purpose of this paper is to extend the work of Ref. GarMei , which deals exclusively with the $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ contributions. We incorporate the $`B^{}`$ and $`B_0`$ contributions suggested in Ref. dea&co , as the effects they find in the $`B^0\rho ^0\pi ^0`$ channel are considerable. In this paper, however, we show that the off-shell nature of the $`B^{}`$ and $`B_0`$ weak and strong vertices adds considerably to the uncertainty of the estimate of Ref. dea&co  and may well reduce these contributions significantly. Nevertheless, we also explore kinematical cuts which would be useful in reducing the impact of these effects in the $`\rho `$-mass region.

We begin in Sec. II with the weak, effective Hamiltonian and the matrix elements pertinent to our calculations. Subsequently, in Sec. III, we derive the amplitudes associated with the various contributions of interest in the $`\rho `$-mass region of $`B3\pi `$ decay. We discuss our numerical results in Sec. IV and conclude in Sec. V.

## II Effective Hamiltonian and matrix elements

The effective, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }B|=1`$ Hamiltonian for $`bdq\overline{q}`$ decay is given by BucBL

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}={\displaystyle \frac{G_\mathrm{F}}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\lambda _u\left(C_1O_1^u+C_2O_2^u\right)+\lambda _c\left(C_1O_1^c+C_2O_2^c\right)\lambda _t{\displaystyle \underset{i=3}{\overset{10}{}}}C_iO_i\right],`$ (3)
where $`G_\mathrm{F}`$ is the Fermi coupling constant, $`\lambda _qV_{qb}V_{qd}^{}`$ are CKM factors, $`C_i`$ are Wilson coefficients, and $`O_i`$ are four-quark operators. The expressions for $`C_i`$ and $`O_i`$ are detailed in Ref. BucBL , though we interchange $`C_1O_1^qC_2O_2^q`$, so that $`C_11`$ and $`C_1>C_2`$. We neglect the electroweak-penguin operators $`O_{7,\mathrm{},10}`$ because their coefficients $`C_{7,\mathrm{},10}`$ are smaller than the others. In the decay amplitudes that we derive, the $`C_i`$ enter through the combinations $`a_i=C_i+C_{i+1}/N_\mathrm{c}`$ if $`i`$ is odd and $`a_i=C_i+C_{i1}/N_\mathrm{c}`$ if $`i`$ is even, where $`N_\mathrm{c}=3`$ is the number of colors.

The diagrams contributing to the $`B3\pi `$ amplitudes considered here, as shown in Fig. 1, each have a strong vertex and a weak vertex, where the latter describes the transition $`M_bM_1M_2,`$ in which $`M_b`$ is a heavy meson containing a $`b`$ quark and $`M_{1,2}`$ are light mesons. The amplitude corresponding to the weak vertex is given by

$`A(M_bM_1M_2)=M_1M_2|_{\mathrm{eff}}|M_b.`$ (4)
To evaluate this, we adopt the naive factorization approximation, following earlier calculations dea&co ; DeaPol ; GarMei  to which we compare.

The relevant matrix elements are

$`\begin{array}{c}\pi ^{}(p)\left|\overline{d}\gamma ^\mu Lu\right|0=\sqrt{2}\pi ^0(p)\left|\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu Lu\right|0=\mathrm{i}f_\pi p^\mu ,\\ \rho ^{}(p,\epsilon )|\overline{d}\gamma ^\mu u|0=\sqrt{2}\rho ^0(p,\epsilon )|\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu u|0=f_\rho \epsilon ^\mu ,\end{array}`$ (7)
$`\begin{array}{c}q^\mu \rho ^+(p,\epsilon )|\overline{u}\gamma _\mu Lb|\overline{B}^0(k)=2\mathrm{i}A_0^{B\rho }(q^2)M_\rho \epsilon ^{}q,\\ \pi ^+(p)|\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu Lb|\overline{B}^0(k)=(k+p)^\mu F_1^{B\pi }(q^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{M_B^2M_\pi ^2}{q^2}}q^\mu (F_0^{B\pi }(q^2)F_1^{B\pi }(q^2)),\\ q^\mu \sigma (p)|\overline{d}\gamma _\mu Lb|\overline{B}^0(k)=\mathrm{i}(M_B^2M_\sigma ^2)F_0^{B\sigma }(q^2),\end{array}`$ (11)
$`\begin{array}{c}q^\mu \pi ^+(p)|\overline{u}\gamma _\mu Lb|\overline{B}^0(k,\epsilon _B^{})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{i}\sqrt{2}A_0^{B^{}\pi }(q^2)M_B^{}\epsilon _B^{}q,\\ q^\mu \pi ^+(p)|\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu Lb|\overline{B}_0^0(k)=\mathrm{i}(M_{B_0}^2M_\pi ^2)F_0^{B_0\pi }(q^2),\end{array}`$ (14)
where $`f_\pi `$ and $`f_\rho `$ are the usual decay constants, $`qkp`$, and $`L1\gamma _5`$. The various $`A_0(q^2)`$ and $`F_{0,1}(q^2)`$ are form factors. Other meson-to-meson matrix elements can be determined using isospin symmetry. In our phase convention, the meson flavor wave functions are given by $`\pi ^+=u\overline{d},`$ $`\sqrt{2}\pi ^0=u\overline{u}d\overline{d},`$ $`\pi ^{}=d\overline{u},`$ $`\overline{B}^0=b\overline{d},`$ $`B^{}=b\overline{u},`$ and similarly for the $`\rho `$, $`B^{}`$, and $`B_0`$. This implies that we have, for example, $`\pi ^+|\overline{u}\gamma _\mu b|\overline{B}^0=\sqrt{2}\pi ^0|\overline{d}\gamma _\mu b|\overline{B}^0=+\sqrt{2}\pi ^0|\overline{u}\gamma _\mu b|B^{}=\pi ^{}|\overline{d}\gamma _\mu b|B^{}.`$ We now employ these matrix elements to realize amplitudes for $`B3\pi `$ decays.

## III Amplitudes

Practical considerations drive our interest in the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ and $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^\pm `$ decay modes; we shall not consider the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^\pm `$ ones. We write the amplitude for $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^+\left(p_+\right)\pi ^{}\left(p_{}\right)\pi ^0\left(p_0\right)`$ decay as a coherent sum of the $`\rho `$, $`\sigma `$, $`B^{}`$, and $`B_0`$ amplitudes, namely,

$`A^{+0}=A_\rho ^{+0}+A_\sigma ^{+0}+A_B^{}^{+0}+A_{B_0}^{+0}.`$ (15)
For $`B^{}\pi ^{}\left(p_1\right)\pi ^{}\left(p_2\right)\pi ^+\left(p_+\right),`$ the amplitude $`A^+`$ can be constructed in an analogous manner.

We consider first the $`B\rho \pi 3\pi `$ contributions, represented by the diagram denoted by “$`\rho `$” in Fig. 1(a). For each $`\rho ^i`$ diagram and $`3\pi `$ state, the amplitude is written as a product of an amplitude for the $`B\rho ^i\pi ^j`$ weak transition and a vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \pi \pi }`$ describing the $`\rho ^i\pi \pi `$ form factor. Were the $`\rho `$ a narrow resonance, the Breit-Wigner (BW) form

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \pi \pi }^{\mathrm{BW}}(s)={\displaystyle \frac{g_\rho }{sM_\rho ^2+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho M_\rho }}`$ (16)
would suffice, where $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the invariant mass of the $`2\pi `$ system and $`g_\rho `$ is the $`\rho \pi \pi `$ coupling constant. However, since the $`\rho `$ is not narrow — its width is some $`20\%`$ of its mass — this form must be generalized to accommodate known theoretical constraints over the region in $`s`$ for which it is appreciable. For example, unitarity and time-reversal invariance compel the phase of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \pi \pi }(s)`$ to be that of $`L=1`$, $`I=1`$ $`\pi \pi `$ scattering for $`s\left(M_\pi +M_\omega \right)^2,`$ for which the scattering is elastic. Moreover, the imaginary part of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \pi \pi }(s)`$ must vanish below physical threshold, $`s=4M_\pi ^2.`$ For a detailed discussion with references to earlier work, see Refs. GarOCon1 ; GarMei . Following Ref. GarOCon1 , we have

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \pi \pi }(s)={\displaystyle \frac{F_\rho (s)}{f_{\rho \gamma }}},`$ (17)
where $`F_\rho (s)`$ is the vector form-factor of the pion and $`f_{\rho \gamma }`$ is the $`\rho `$-$`\gamma `$ coupling constant. The parameters in $`F_\rho (s)`$ are determined by fitting to $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ data; what is important is that the parametrization itself is consistent with theoretical constraints. The value of $`f_{\rho \gamma }`$ is determined from the $`\rho e^+e^{}`$ width, which, in turn, is extracted from the $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ cross section at $`s=M_\rho ^2`$ GarOCon1 ; GarOCon2 . The overall sign is chosen so that Eq. (17) is equivalent to the BW form, Eq. (16), as $`sM_\rho ^2`$. At $`s=M_\rho ^2`$ the BW form is compatible with the various theoretical constraints. In our numerical analysis, we adopt the “solution $`B`$” fit of Ref. GarOCon1  for $`F_\rho `$, for which $`f_{\rho \gamma }=0.122\pm 0.001\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ GarOCon2 . Alternatively, a BW form with a running width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (s)`$, chosen to be compatible with the form of the $`\pi \pi `$ phase shift (in the crossed channel) as $`s4M_\pi ^2,`$ is given in Ref. babarbook . However, the numerical differences between this form and the one we have chosen are small GarMei .

For the decay amplitudes, after summing over the $`\rho `$ polarizations, we find

$`\begin{array}{c}A_\rho ^{+0}=\eta ^{}\left(s_+s_{+0}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \pi \pi }\left(s_0\right)+\eta ^+\left(s_0s_+\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \pi \pi }\left(s_{+0}\right)\eta ^0\left(s_0s_{+0}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \pi \pi }\left(s_+\right),\\ A_\rho ^+=\overline{\eta }^0\left[\left(s_{12}s_{1+}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \pi \pi }\left(s_{2+}\right)+\left(s_{12}s_{2+}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \pi \pi }\left(s_{1+}\right)\right],\end{array}`$ (20)
where $`s_{kl}\left(p_k+p_l\right)^2,`$ with

$`\begin{array}{c}\eta ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{G_\mathrm{F}}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\lambda _ua_1\lambda _ta_4\right)f_\rho F_1^{B\pi },\eta ^+={\displaystyle \frac{G_\mathrm{F}}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\lambda _ua_1\lambda _t\left(a_4a_6R_q\right)\right]f_\pi M_\rho A_0^{B\rho },\\ \eta ^0={\displaystyle \frac{G_\mathrm{F}}{2\sqrt{2}}}\left\{\left[\lambda _ua_2+\lambda _t\left(a_4a_6R_q\right)\right]f_\pi M_\rho A_0^{B\rho }+\left(\lambda _ua_2+\lambda _ta_4\right)f_\rho F_1^{B\pi }\right\},\\ \overline{\eta }^0={\displaystyle \frac{G_\mathrm{F}}{2}}\left\{\left[\lambda _ua_1\lambda _t\left(a_4a_6R_q\right)\right]f_\pi M_\rho A_0^{B\rho }+\left(\lambda _ua_2+\lambda _ta_4\right)f_\rho F_1^{B\pi }\right\}.\end{array}`$ (24)
Here $`A_0^{B\rho }A_0^{B\rho }\left(M_\pi ^2\right)`$ and $`F_1^{B\pi }F_1^{B\pi }\left(M_\rho ^2\right),`$ whereas $`R_qM_\pi ^2/[\left(m_b+\widehat{m}\right)\widehat{m}]`$ — note that we work in the isospin-symmetric limit, for which $`\widehat{m}=m_u=m_d`$. The relative signs between the different terms in Eq. (20) follow from the $`\rho \pi \pi `$ couplings222 We use the notation $`M_2M_3|M_1M_2M_3|_{\mathrm{strong}}|M_1.`$

$`\begin{array}{c}\pi ^0\left(p_0\right)\pi ^\pm \left(p_\pm \right)|\rho ^\pm =\pm g_\rho \epsilon _\rho \left(p_\pm p_0\right),\\ \pi ^+\left(p_+\right)\pi ^{}\left(p_{}\right)|\rho ^0=g_\rho \epsilon _\rho \left(p_{}p_+\right),\end{array}`$ (27)
which follow, in turn, from the phase conventions we have chosen for the flavor wave functions: $`|\pi ^\pm =|I=1,I_3=\pm 1`$ and $`|\pi ^0=|I=1,I_3=0,`$ and similarly for the $`\rho `$ states. Our $`A_\rho `$ amplitudes agree with those of earlier calculations ali ; dea&co ; GarMei .

We turn next to the $`\sigma `$ “meson” contributions, represented by the diagram denoted by “$`\sigma `$” in Fig. 1(a). We use the $`\sigma `$ to denote a two-pion state with total isospin $`I=0`$ and total angular-momentum $`J=0`$; it need not be a “pre-existing” resonance, but, rather, can be generated dynamically by the strong pionic final-state interactions in this channel OO . The peak of the broad enhancement associated with the $`\sigma `$ is close to the $`\rho `$ in mass, so that the decay $`B\sigma \pi 3\pi `$ can populate the $`B\rho \pi `$ phase space DeaPol . As in the $`\rho `$ case, the amplitudes for $`B\sigma \pi 3\pi `$ decays are written as a product of an amplitude for the $`B\sigma \pi `$ weak transition and a vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }`$ describing the $`\sigma \pi \pi `$ form factor. We write GarMei

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }(s)=\chi \mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n(s),`$ (28)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n`$ is defined as

$`0|\overline{d}d|\pi ^+(p_+)\pi ^{}(p_{})=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n(s_+)B_0.`$ (29)
We note that $`B_0M_\pi ^2/(2\widehat{m})`$ is the vacuum quark condensate and $`\chi `$ is a normalization constant, to be discussed shortly. For our numerical work in the next section, we adopt the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n(s)`$ as derived in Ref. MeiOll , after Refs. npa ; basde ; OO . The calculated form factor is realized in a chiral, unitarized, coupled-channel approach; at low energies, the form factor is matched to the one-loop-order expression in chiral perturbation theory GasLeu ; MeiOll . The resulting form factor is consistent with low-energy constraints and is comparable to the scalar form-factor which emerges from the dispersion analysis of Ref. DGL ; however, it is notably different from the Breit-Wigner form adopted in Refs. e791 ; DeaPol  to study the role of the $`\sigma `$ in $`B`$ and $`D`$ decays into the $`3\pi `$ final state. That is,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }^{\mathrm{BW}}(s)={\displaystyle \frac{g_{\sigma \pi \pi }}{sM_\sigma ^2+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma (s)M_\sigma }},\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma (s)={\displaystyle \frac{M_\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma }{\sqrt{s}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{s4M_\pi ^2}{M_\sigma ^24M_\pi ^2}}},`$ (30)
where the coupling $`g_{\sigma \pi \pi }\pi ^+\pi ^{}|\sigma `$ is determined from the $`\sigma \pi \pi `$ decay rate. For $`B3\pi `$ decay, the numerical changes arising from the use of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }(s)`$ in place of the BW expression are significant GarMei , as we will see here as well. We determine the normalization $`\chi `$ by requiring that GarMei

$`\chi \left|\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n\left(M_\sigma ^2\right)\right|={\displaystyle \frac{g_{\sigma \pi \pi }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma \left(M_\sigma ^2\right)M_\sigma }},`$ (31)
which equates $`\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }(s)\right|`$ to its BW counterpart at $`s=M_\sigma ^2.`$ The values of $`M_\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma `$ are extracted from fits of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }^{\mathrm{BW}}(s)`$ to $`D3\pi `$ decays e791 . The normalization condition is motivated by noting that the modulus of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n(s)`$ is peaked near $`s=M_\sigma ^2,`$ whereas the normalization of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n(s)`$ is sensitive to the values of certain, poorly known low-energy constants GarMei . We emphasize that $`M_\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma `$ appear merely in the normalization of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }`$.

The resulting decay amplitudes are then

$`A_\sigma ^{+0}=\eta _\sigma ^0\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }\left(s_+\right),A_\sigma ^+=\overline{\eta }_\sigma ^0\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }\left(s_{1+}\right)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }\left(s_{2+}\right)\right),`$ (32)
where

$`\begin{array}{c}\eta _\sigma ^0={\displaystyle \frac{G_\mathrm{F}}{2}}\left\{\left[\lambda _ua_2+\lambda _t\left(a_4a_6R_q\right)\right]\left(M_B^2M_\sigma ^2\right)f_\pi F_0^{B\sigma }\lambda _ta_6{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma |\overline{d}d|0}{m_b\widehat{m}}}\left(M_B^2M_\pi ^2\right)F_0^{B\pi }\right\},\\ \overline{\eta }_\sigma ^0={\displaystyle \frac{G_\mathrm{F}}{\sqrt{2}}}\left\{\left[\lambda _ua_1\lambda _t\left(a_4a_6R_q\right)\right]\left(M_B^2M_\sigma ^2\right)f_\pi F_0^{B\sigma }+\lambda _ta_6{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma |\overline{d}d|0}{m_b\widehat{m}}}\left(M_B^2M_\pi ^2\right)F_0^{B\pi }\right\},\end{array}`$ (35)
with $`F_0^{B\pi }F_0^{B\pi }\left(M_\sigma ^2\right)`$ and $`F_0^{B\sigma }F_0^{B\sigma }\left(M_\pi ^2\right).`$ From Eqs. (28) and (29), it follows that $`\sigma |\overline{d}d|0=M_\pi ^2/\left(\sqrt{6}\chi \widehat{m}\right).`$ We agree with the weak amplitudes of Ref. GarMei , but disagree with those of Ref. DeaPol  in that our $`\eta _\sigma ^0`$ and $`\overline{\eta }_\sigma ^0,`$ neglecting penguin terms, are smaller and larger, respectively, than theirs by a factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$.

We now evaluate the $`B^{}`$ and $`B_0`$ contributions, whose diagrams are shown in Fig. 1(b); we suppose that other excited $`B`$-meson states could also contribute, but we expect that their larger masses ought to make them less important dea&co . Presently, no reliable data exist on the widths of these heavy mesons, so that their values have to be calculated. Recent estimates B-review ; BecLey  suggest that the $`B^{}`$ is a very narrow resonance, whereas the $`B_0`$ is less so, its width being some $`6\%`$ of its mass. Nevertheless, the resonances are sufficiently narrow that it is reasonable to adopt a Breit-Wigner representation for the propagators of these mesons, as in Ref. dea&co . In the combined heavy-quark and chiral limit hq , the strong couplings connecting the $`(B^{},B_0)`$, $`B`$, and $`\pi `$ mesons are dea&co ; B-review ; B0 333 We note that $`B^{}(k,\epsilon )\pi ^+|\overline{B}^0=B^{}\pi ^+|\overline{B}^0(k,\epsilon )`$ and $`B_0^{}(k)\pi ^+|\overline{B}^0=B^{}\pi ^+|\overline{B}_0^0(k).`$

$$B^{}\left(p^{}\right)\pi ^+(p)|\overline{B}^0(k,\epsilon )=\frac{2g\sqrt{M_BM_B^{}}}{f_\pi }\epsilon p,$$
(36)
$$B^{}(p^{})\pi ^+(p)|\overline{B}_0^0(k)=\frac{h\sqrt{M_BM_{B_0}}}{f_\pi }\frac{k^2M_B^2}{M_{B_0}}.$$
(37)
Using isospin symmetry, we derive

$`B^{}\pi ^+|\overline{B}^0=\sqrt{2}\overline{B}^0\pi ^0|\overline{B}^0=\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}|B^{}`$ (38)
and analogous relations for $`B\pi |B_0`$. We then obtain

$`\begin{array}{c}A_B^{}^{+0}={\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}K\mathrm{\Pi }(s_0,s_+)+K_1\mathrm{\Pi }(s_0,s_{+0})}{s_0M_B^{}^2+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_B^{}M_B^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}K\mathrm{\Pi }(s_+,s_0)}{s_+M_B^{}^2+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_B^{}M_B^{}}},\\ A_B^{}^+={\displaystyle \frac{K\mathrm{\Pi }(s_{1+},s_{12})}{s_{1+}M_B^{}^2+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_B^{}M_B^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{K\mathrm{\Pi }(s_{2+},s_{12})}{s_{2+}M_B^{}^2+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_B^{}M_B^{}}},\end{array}`$ (41)
$`\begin{array}{c}A_{B_0}^{+0}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{K}^0+\stackrel{~}{K}^{cc}}{s_0M_{B_0}^2+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B_0}M_{B_0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{K}^0}{s_+M_{B_0}^2+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B_0}M_{B_0}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\left(M_{B_0}^2M_\pi ^2\right)}{\sqrt{2}}},\\ A_{B_0}^+=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{K}^0}{s_{1+}M_{B_0}^2+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B_0}M_{B_0}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{K}^0}{s_{2+}M_{B_0}^2+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B_0}M_{B_0}}}\right)\left(M_{B_0}^2M_\pi ^2\right),\end{array}`$ (44)
where

$`\begin{array}{c}K=4G_\mathrm{F}\left[\lambda _ua_1\lambda _t\left(a_4a_6R_q\right)\right]gM_B^{}\sqrt{M_BM_B^{}}A_0^{B^{}\pi },\\ K_1=2\sqrt{2}G_\mathrm{F}\left[\lambda _ua_2+\lambda _t\left(a_4a_6R_q\right)\right]gM_B^{}\sqrt{M_BM_B^{}}A_0^{B^{}\pi },\end{array}`$ (47)
$`\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{K}^0={\displaystyle \frac{G_\mathrm{F}}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\lambda _ua_1\lambda _t\left(a_4a_6R_q\right)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{M_{B_0}^2M_B^2}{M_{B_0}}}h\sqrt{M_BM_{B_0}}F_0^{B_0\pi },\\ \stackrel{~}{K}^{cc}={\displaystyle \frac{G_\mathrm{F}}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\lambda _ua_2+\lambda _t\left(a_4a_6R_q\right)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{M_{B_0}^2M_B^2}{M_{B_0}}}\sqrt{M_BM_{B_0}}F_0^{B_0\pi },\end{array}`$ (50)
and the sum over $`B^{}`$ polarizations yields

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(u,v)={\displaystyle \frac{\left(M_B^2M_\pi ^2u\right)u}{4M_B^{}^2}}+M_\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{v}{2}}.`$ (51)
Note that $`A_0^{B^{}\pi }A_0^{B^{}\pi }\left(M_\pi ^2\right)`$ and $`F_0^{B_0\pi }F_0^{B_0\pi }\left(M_\pi ^2\right).`$ Our expressions for $`A^{+0}`$ in Eqs. (41) and (44) disagree with those in Ref. dea&co  in that the factors of $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ are missing in their formulas, and that the minus sign in the middle of the big brackets in Eq. (44) is opposite to theirs. However, our expressions for $`A^+`$ in Eqs. (41) and (44) agree with theirs.

## IV Numerical results and discussion

We begin by listing the parameters that we use; we conform with the parameter choices of Refs. dea&co ; GarMei , in order to realize a crisp comparison with their results. In specific, the Wilson coefficients we use are

$`\begin{array}{c}C_1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.100},C_2=0.226,C_3=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.012},C_4=0.029,C_5=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.009},C_6=0.033.\end{array}`$ (53)
For the CKM factors, we adopt the Wolfenstein parametrization wolfenstein , retaining terms of $`𝒪\left(\lambda ^3\right)`$ in the real part and of $`𝒪\left(\lambda ^5\right)`$ in the imaginary part, to wit,

$`\begin{array}{c}V_{ud}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\lambda ^2/2,V_{ub}=A\lambda ^3\left[\rho \mathrm{i}\eta \left(1\lambda ^2/2\right)\right],V_{td}=A\lambda ^3(1\rho \mathrm{i}\eta ),V_{tb}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\end{array}`$ (55)
and using

$`\lambda =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.2196},\rho =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.05},\eta =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.36},A=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.806}.`$ (56)
For decay constants, light meson masses, and resonance parameters, we have

$`\begin{array}{c}f_\pi /\sqrt{2}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}92.4}\mathrm{MeV},M_\pi =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}139.57}\mathrm{MeV},\\ f_\rho =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.15}\mathrm{GeV}^2,M_\rho =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}769.3}\mathrm{MeV},\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}150}\mathrm{MeV},g_\rho =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5.8},\\ M_\sigma =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}478}\mathrm{MeV},\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}324}\mathrm{MeV},g_{\sigma \pi \pi }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.52}\mathrm{GeV}.\end{array}`$ (60)
The decay constants $`f_\pi `$ and $`f_\rho `$ are associated with $`\pi ^\pm `$ and $`\rho ^\pm `$ decay, respectively. We neglect isospin-violating effects throughout, so that $`M_{\pi ^\pm }=M_{\pi ^0}=M_\pi ,`$ $`M_{\rho ^\pm }=M_{\rho ^0}=M_\rho ,`$ as well as $`M_{\overline{B}^0}=M_B^{}=M_B.`$ Moreover, $`\widehat{m}=6\mathrm{MeV}.`$ The $`B^{}`$ and $`B`$ are degenerate in the heavy-quark limit, so that we neglect their mass difference as well. We also neglect the lifetime difference between the $`\overline{B}^0`$ and $`B^{}`$, setting $`\tau _{\overline{B}^0}=\tau _B^{}=\tau _B.`$ For the $`B`$ and related mesons, we have

$`\begin{array}{c}M_B=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5.279}\mathrm{GeV},\tau _B=1.6\times 10^{12}\mathrm{s},m_b=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4.6}\mathrm{GeV},\\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_B^{}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.2}\mathrm{keV},M_{B_0}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5.697}\mathrm{GeV},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B_0}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.36}\mathrm{GeV},\end{array}`$ (63)
and use

$`g=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.6},h=0.7.`$ (64)
The heavy-to-light transition form factors are given by

$`\begin{array}{c}A_0^{B\rho }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.29},F_0^{B\pi }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.37},F_1^{B\pi }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.37},F_0^{B\sigma }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.46},\\ A_0^{B^{}\pi }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.16},F_0^{B_0\pi }=0.19.\end{array}`$ (67)
Finally, for the vector and scalar form-factors, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \pi \pi }(s)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }(s)`$, respectively, we follow the treatment of Ref. GarMei . The $`F_\rho (s)`$ parametrization we adopt was fit to $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ data in the elastic region GarOCon1 , $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}M_\pi \sqrt{s}M_\pi +M_\omega ,`$ only, so that for larger values of $`s`$ we use a Breit-Wigner form, matched to the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \pi \pi }(s)`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=M_\pi +M_\omega .`$ That is, for $`\sqrt{s}923\mathrm{MeV}`$ we employ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \pi \pi }(s)=\left[c_\mathrm{r}\left(M_\rho ^2s\right)+\mathrm{i}c_\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho M_\rho \right]g_\rho /\left[\left(M_\rho ^2s\right)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^2M_\rho ^2\right],`$ with $`c_\mathrm{r}0.929`$ and $`c_\mathrm{i}1.29.`$ For the scalar form-factor, we employ the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n(s)`$ derived in Ref. MeiOll , which is valid for $`\sqrt{s}1.2\mathrm{GeV}.`$ The normalization of Eq. (31) implies that $`\chi =20.0\mathrm{GeV}^1.`$ For $`\sqrt{s}>1.2\mathrm{GeV},`$ we match to the asymptotic form of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi \pi }(s)`$ DGL , as detailed in Ref. GarMei .

To obtain branching ratios for $`B3\pi `$ decay in the $`\rho `$-mass region, we integrate over the region of phase space satisfying the requirement that two of the three pions reconstruct the $`\rho `$ mass within an interval of 2$`\delta `$, as was done in Refs. dea&co ; GarMei . This amounts in each case to calculating the effective width

$`\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}(B\rho (p_1+p_2)\pi (p_3))=\mathrm{\Gamma }(B\pi (p_1)\pi (p_2)\pi (p_3))|_{(M_\rho \delta )^2s_{12}(M_\rho +\delta )^2}.\end{array}`$ (69)
We choose $`\delta =0.3\mathrm{GeV},`$ following earlier work dea&co ; GarMei .

For crisp comparison with Ref. dea&co , we begin by computing the effective branching ratios arising from the use of Breit-Wigner forms, as in Eqs. (16) and (30) for the $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$, respectively, throughout. The various contributions, reflective of the enumerated terms in Eq. (15), are reported in Table 1. There are differences between our results for the $`\rho `$, $`\rho `$$`+`$$`B^{}`$, and $`\rho `$$`+`$$`B^{}`$$`+`$$`B_0`$ contributions and the corresponding ones in Ref. dea&co . The differences are, however, not large and arise in part from missing factors in the formulas for the $`B^{}`$ and $`B_0`$ amplitudes, which we delineated in the last section. In contrast, as pointed out in Ref. GarMei , the $`\sigma `$ effect on the $`B^{}`$ decay is much bigger than that found in Ref. DeaPol , because our $`\sigma `$ amplitude is larger than theirs by a factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$. This is evident in the $`\rho `$$`+`$$`\sigma `$ and $`\rho `$$`+`$$`\sigma `$$`+`$$`B^{}`$ columns. Our results agree with those Ref. GarMei , to the extent that they are applicable; we note that Ref. GarMei  neglects penguin contributions altogether and deals exclusively with the $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ contributions. The last column of Table 1 contains the sum of all the contributions, $`\rho `$$`+`$$`\sigma `$$`+`$$`B^{}`$$`+`$$`B_0`$. Overall, it is apparent that the effect of the $`B_0`$ is smaller than that of the other contributions, although it is not negligible. Finally, in the last row, we collect the ratios of branching ratios $``$ defined in Eq. (1). These results show that the inclusion of the $`\sigma `$ and $`B^{}`$, either individually or together, makes the estimated value of $``$ consistent with the empirical one, given its large error.

We now proceed to compute the effective branching ratios with the $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ form-factors, Eqs. (17) and (28), which we advocate. These results are presented in Table 2. The results without the $`\sigma `$ contributions change little, as the vector form-factor is not terribly different from its BW counterpart GarMei . In the presence of the $`\sigma `$, this similarity persists for the $`\overline{B}^0`$ decays, but, in contrast, the $`B^{}`$ branching ratios are significantly increased compared to the corresponding ones in Table 1. This effect also tends to diminish the relative impact of the $`B^{}`$ and $`B_0`$ contributions on the $`\rho ^0\pi ^{}`$ mode, though the heavy mesons persist in making a substantial impact on the effective branching ratio for the $`\rho ^0\pi ^0`$ mode.

Were the heavy-meson contributions to the $`\rho ^0\pi ^0`$ mode seen in Table 2 as large as we have estimated, the impact on the Dalitz-plot analysis to extract $`\alpha `$ from $`\overline{B}^0(B^0)\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ decays would be significant dea&co . Since the $`B^{}`$ and $`B_0`$ masses lie outside the phase-space region of $`B3\pi ,`$ their effects behave as part of the nonresonant background, but are not uniform and obviously interfere with other contributions. The manner in which the contributions are distributed throughout the Dalitz plot is shown for $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ decay in Fig. 3; the heavy-meson contributions preferentially populate the edges of the Dalitz plot, in which the $`\rho `$ contributions lie as well. In $`B^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ decay, the distribution of the heavy-meson contributions is somewhat more uniform, as illustrated in Fig. 3.

We now proceed to consider the reliability of the estimates we have effected. Let us first note that the parameters $`g`$ and $`h`$ of the strong heavy-meson couplings in Eqs. (36), (37) assume the values given in Eq. (64) — these reflect the upper limits of their estimated ranges dea&co ; B-review .444 We also note, however, that the $`g`$ value in Eq. (64) is, by virtue of heavy-quark symmetry, favored by the recent measurement of the $`D^{}D\pi `$ width D\*width , which yields $`g=0.59\pm 0.01\pm 0.07.`$ Thus, the results we find with these parameters can be regarded as extremal estimates (although variations in other numerical inputs, such as the form factors, do introduce further uncertainties). Choosing central values of $`g`$ and $`h`$ in their estimated ranges decreases the heavy-meson effects by up to some 50$`\%`$ dea&co , as explicitly shown in Table 3.

Moreover, the relative signs chosen for the $`\rho `$, $`\sigma `$, and heavy-meson contributions will impact the numerical values of the effective branching ratios. As noted by Ref. dea&co , the relative sign of the $`B^{}`$ and $`B_0`$ contributions is fixed in the heavy-quark and chiral limits. The relative signs of the heavy-meson, $`\rho `$, and $`\sigma `$ contributions, however, are less clear. We define the $`\rho \pi \pi `$ coupling as per Eq. (27), after Ref. dea&co ; GarMei , though we note that a chiral Lagrangian analysis suggests that the relations of Eq. (27) should possess an additional overall sign. With this modification, the branching ratios for the $`\rho `$+$`B^{}`$+$`B_0`$ combination in Table 2 typically become smaller by no more than 15$`\%`$. However, the $`\rho `$+$`\sigma `$ results in $`\overline{B}^0\rho ^0\pi ^0`$ and $`B^{}\rho ^0\pi ^{}`$ become some 3$`\%`$ and 10$`\%`$ larger, respectively. The impact on the $`\rho `$+$`\sigma `$+$`B^{}`$+$`B_0`$ results is mixed, leading to a suppression of about 10$`\%`$ in the $`\rho ^0\pi ^0`$ mode and an enhancement of 2$`\%`$ in the $`\rho ^0\pi ^{}`$ mode.

Kinematical cuts can mitigate the impact of the heavy-meson and $`\sigma `$ contributions. Since the $`\rho ^\pm \pi ^{}`$ modes are little affected by these notions, we evaluate only the $`\rho ^0\pi ^0`$ and $`\rho ^0\pi ^{}`$ modes. We try two different sets of kinematical cuts. For the first one, we set $`\delta =0.15\mathrm{GeV}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho `$ and report our results in Table 5. The relative suppression of the heavy-meson and $`\sigma `$ contributions is quite modest, if it exists at all. For the second set, we impose not only a $`\delta `$ cut but also a cut on $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, where $`\theta `$ is the helicity angle, defined as the angle between the direction of one member of a pion pair from $`\rho `$ decay and the direction of the parent $`B`$-meson evaluated in the pair’s rest-frame. Since the $`\rho `$ contribution has a $`\mathrm{cos}^2`$$`\theta `$ distribution in $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ decay qui&co , larger values of $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |`$ enhance the $`\rho `$ contribution. Interference effects in the $`B^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ channel will make this cut less effective. We set $`\delta =0.3\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |>0.4,`$ and collect the results in Table 5. Comparing to Table 2, the $`\theta `$ cut is seen to decrease the relative size of the $`\sigma `$ background, as discussed in Ref. GarMei . The helicity-angle cut only modestly reduces the $`\sigma `$ contribution in $`B^{}\rho ^0\pi ^{}`$ decay; however, an assumption of $`\rho `$ dominance is only needed when one employs an isospin analysis to extract $`\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha )`$ from $`B^0\left(\overline{B}^0\right)\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ decay, as detailed in Ref. qui&co . For the $`\rho ^0\pi ^0`$ mode, the chosen cut does significantly reduce an already small contribution. Were the $`\sigma `$ contribution to the $`\rho ^0\pi ^0`$ mode much larger than we estimate, then a full partial-wave analysis to separate the $`s`$\- and $`p`$-wave contributions could be both practicable and necessary.

Finally, we must discuss a tacit assumption we have made in the estimation of the $`B^{}`$ and $`B_0`$ contributions, which is made in Ref. dea&co  as well. That is, in realizing the diagrams of Fig. 1(b), we have treated the strong $`(B^{},B_0)B\pi `$ and weak $`(B^{},B_0)\pi \pi `$ vertices as if the $`B^{}`$ and $`B_0`$ mesons were on their mass shell. This assumption is compatible with the assumed use of the combined heavy-quark and chiral limits in the treatment of the strong $`(B^{},B_0)B\pi `$ vertices. However, neither assumption is appropriate for $`B\rho \pi `$ decay. That is, for the $`B3\pi `$ decays of interest, we require that two of the three pions have an invariant mass $`\sqrt{s}`$ comparable to that of the $`\rho `$ meson. This implies that in most of the relevant phase-space region the mediating heavy-mesons carry $`s`$ values much smaller than their squared masses — they are highly off-mass-shell. Moreover, the bachelor $`\pi `$ is never soft in this kinematical region. Thus the combined heavy-quark and chiral limits are used beyond their range of validity. These effects modify the vertices we have assumed in Eqs. (36), (37) and Eq. (14). Unfortunately, the needed off-shell extrapolations cannot be done reliably, although we would generically expect this effect to suppress the numerical importance of the $`B^{}`$ and $`B_0`$ contributions. For example, the form factors of Eqs. (14) now depend on both $`q^2`$ and $`k^2`$; the vertices are only “half” off-shell, so that $`p^2`$ does not enter, as the final-state $`\pi `$ is on its mass shell. Moreover, additional form factors appear. To illustrate, we note that the general parametrization

$`\pi ^+(p)|\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu Lb|\overline{B}_0^0(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}F_0^{B_0\pi }(k^2,p^2,q^2){\displaystyle \frac{\left(M_{B_0}^2M_\pi ^2\right)q^\mu }{q^2}}`$ (70)
$`\mathrm{i}F_1^{B_0\pi }(k^2,p^2,q^2)\left[p^\mu +k^\mu \left(M_{B_0}^2M_\pi ^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{q^\mu }{q^2}}\right]`$
predicated by an assumption of Lorentz invariance yields

$`q^\mu \pi ^+(p)|\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu Lb|\overline{B}_0^0(k)=\mathrm{i}(M_{B_0}^2M_\pi ^2)F_0^{B_0\pi }(q^2,k^2)+\mathrm{i}(M_{B_0}^2k^2)F_1^{B_0\pi }(q^2,k^2)`$ (71)
for the half-off-shell matrix element of interest. The matrix element is a linear combination of signed, uncertain contributions, so that its sign is ultimately unclear. Similar considerations apply to the $`B^{}\pi `$ matrix element, as well as to the strong vertices of Eqs. (36), (37). In the treatment of Ref. DesEHT , an off-shell extrapolation of Eq. (36), in the kinematic region of interest, is effected through the replacement $`\sqrt{M_BM_B^{}}\sqrt{M_B\sqrt{s}}`$. To assess the impact of these considerations on the numerical results we have reported, we shall adopt a similarly ad hoc prescription. Thus, we perform the replacement

$`M_B^{}^{3/2}s^{3/4}`$ (72)
in the numerator of the $`B^{}`$ amplitudes in Eq. (41), so that the “off-shellness” of both the strong and weak vertices is taken into account. We neglect the $`B_0`$ in this simple numerical estimate, as its effect was rather small to start with. We calculate the corresponding branching ratios and collect the results in Table 6. Our simple prescription leads to a dramatic reduction of the $`B^{}`$ contributions, as a comparison with Table 2 makes clear. Note that the computed values of $``$ are still consistent with the empirical ones, as a reduction in $``$ is still realized through the $`\sigma `$ contributions. Although we cannot draw firm conclusions from this simple exercise, it serves to illustrate that neglecting the off-shell nature of the heavy-meson vertices in the kinematic region of interest could easily lead to a considerable overestimate of their effects.

## V Conclusions

We have examined resonant and nonresonant backgrounds to $`B\rho \pi 3\pi `$ decays which can potentially impact the extraction of $`\alpha `$ from a Dalitz-plot analysis of $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ decays qui&co , as well as the value of the ratio of branching ratios we term $``$, as defined in Eq. (1). In particular, we have evaluated the effects of nonresonant contributions mediated by the heavy mesons $`B^{}`$ and $`B_0`$, as well as the contributions from the light $`\sigma `$ resonance via $`B\sigma \pi 3\pi `$ decay, in the $`\rho `$-mass region. In this, our analysis parallels that of Refs. dea&co ; DeaPol , though it differs fundamentally in two points. Firstly, we use the vector and scalar form-factors of Ref. GarMei , which are consistent with low-energy theoretical constraints and thus are suitable for the description of broad resonant structures such as the $`\rho `$ and the $`\sigma `$. The scalar form factor, in particular, is quite different from the Breit-Wigner form adopted in other analyses DeaPol ; e791  and leads to differing results GarMei . Secondly, in the kinematics of interest, the $`B^{}`$ and $`B_0`$ are highly off-mass-shell, impacting the strong and weak vertices which mediate the $`B(B^{},B_0)\pi \pi \pi \pi `$ decay. We find that these effects can reduce the heavy-meson contributions substantially.

Our numerical results show, were we to neglect the off-shell effects we have mentioned, that the $`B\rho ^\pm \pi ^{}`$ decay modes are little affected by the $`\sigma `$ and heavy-meson backgrounds, whereas the $`\rho ^0\pi ^0`$ mode receives large contributions from the latter. In contrast, the $`B^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ decay mode contains large contributions from both the $`\sigma `$ and $`B^{}`$, though the $`\sigma `$ contributions numerically dominate. Effecting a simple model of off-shell effects, we find that the $`B^{}`$ effects are substantially reduced. The off-shell extrapolation of interest cannot be effected with certainty; nevertheless, our estimates indicate that the neglect of this effect may lead to a substantial overestimate of the $`B^{}`$ contributions in $`B3\pi `$ decay. The role of the $`\sigma `$ in lowering the theoretical value of $``$ and yielding a favorable comparison with experiment persists despite these considerations.

Note added. Since the submission of this paper for publication, a report by the BABAR Collaboration has appeared B-\>3pi , giving the experimental bound $`\left(B^\pm \pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^\pm \right)<15\times 10^6`$ at 90% C.L. This can be used to constrain the contribution of the $`B^{}`$\- and $`B_0`$-pole diagrams. Using the $`g`$ and $`h`$ values as in Table 2, we find $`(B^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{})=24.8\times 10^6`$ for the combined $`\rho `$+$`\sigma `$+$`B^{}`$+$`B_0`$ contribution, where we have integrated over all the allowed phase-space. Were we to use the intermediate values of $`g`$ and $`h`$ given in Table 3, though such a $`g`$ is not favored by data D\*width , we would obtain $`\left(B^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\right)=18.7\times 10^6.`$ If we use our off-shell extrapolation (neglecting the small $`B_0`$ contribution) and the parameters of Table 2, we find $`\left(B^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\right)=15.4\times 10^6.`$ This comparison supports our assertion: the treatment of the $`B^{}`$ vertices in Ref. dea&co  tends to yield an overestimate of their contribution to $`B3\pi `$ decay. On a related note, the failure to confront the empirical bound on $`\left(B^{}K^+K^{}\pi ^{}\right)`$ decay has been described in recent work by Cheng and Yang CheYan .

Acknowledgments We thank Ulf-G. Meißner for helpful discussions and J.A. Oller for the use of his scalar form factor program. The work of J.T. is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-FG01-00ER45832. S.G. thanks the SLAC Theory Group for hospitality and is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under contracts DE-FG02-96ER40989 and DE-AC03-76SF00515.


format: text

text:
# The Evolution of Shocks in Blazar Jets

## 1 Introduction

The current phenomenology used to estimate parameters in models of blazars often assumes a spherical homogeneous emitting region (in the plasma rest frame). This approximation is based in part on the ease of calculating the inverse Compton spectrum in a spherical geometry. This approach has served the subject well and has produced useful estimates of the parameters of many blazars \[Ghisellini (1997\]. However, when we consider the reconciliation of constraints based upon spectral breaks and pair opacity, spherical models are probably too contrived. Furthermore, consideration of the way in which shocked regions would arise in jets lead us away from the idea of spherical emitting regions. In this paper we take the first steps in the direction of determining the geometry of blazar emission and how this relates to the dynamics of the underlying flow. This indicates the direction for future blazar models and also indicates how models based upon more realistic geometries may be better able to constrain jet Doppler factors and the opacity of the diffuse infrared background.

## 2 Spherical models for Markarian 501

Let us begin by noting the results obtained by fitting spherical emission models for the blazar Markarian 501. The geometry of such models is indicated in Figure 1. Typical parameters for MKN 501, which emits synchrotron X-rays and inverse Compton TeV $`\gamma `$-rays, inferred from this geometry are a radius, $`R10^{1516}\mathrm{cm}`$, a magnetic field, $`B0.1\mathrm{G}`$, magnetic energy, $`U_B10^4\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, particle pressure, $`p10^210^0\mathrm{dynes}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ and a Doppler factor, $`\delta 1020`$.

MKN 501 flares sporadically in X–rays and $`\gamma `$–rays. Figure 2 shows the evolution of the TeV $`\gamma `$–rays, 1 keV RXTE PCA flux and optical emission from MKN 501 during part of a flare that occurred in July, 1997 \[Lamer & Wagner (1998\]. The period of observation encompasses a subsiding flare and a newly developing one, necessitating two component models for the flare. Note that the 1 keV X-ray flux does not rise until about a day after the $`\gamma `$–ray flux. The reason for this is apparent in the time-dependent RXTE spectra \[Lamer & Wagner (1998\] shown in figure 3. Whilst the low energy part of the spectrum decreases, a high energy part starts to emerge at about epoch 4 and dominates in epoch 6. By epoch 10, the spectrum has returned to a form similar to that in epoch 2 exhibiting a break in spectral index of approximately 0.3 at approximately 6 keV.

A two component spherical model for the combined epoch 6 X–ray and epoch 6 $`\gamma `$–ray data111The $`\gamma `$–ray observations did not extend beyond epoch 6 because of increasing moonlight. is shown in figure 4. Two synchrotron components based on energy–truncated power–law spectra were fit to the X-ray data. We take the point of view that the high energy ($`\text{break energy}50100\mathrm{keV}`$) component whose emergence is apparent during earlier epochs is related to the $`\gamma `$–ray flare. The low energy component probably encompasses the lower energy X-rays from both the subsiding and developing flares. In order to restrict the number of parameters we have assumed that the magnetic field is the same in each component. The model parameters for each component are: Doppler factor, $`\delta `$, the upper cutoff in Lorentz factor of the electron distribution, $`\gamma _2`$, the magnetic field (in the rest frame), $`B`$, the normalising constant of the electron distribution, $`K_e`$ and the electron spectral index, $`a`$. (The electron number density per unit Lorentz factor is $`N(\gamma )=K_e\gamma ^a`$.) The parameters reported in the figure legend relate only to the high energy component. The parameters of a number of model fits to this epoch of MKN 501 are given in table 1. These models include examples of where a correction has been made to the infrared background and examples of where no correction has been made. In relating the bulk Lorentz factor, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to the Doppler factor we have assumed that the jet is nearly pole-on, so that $`\delta 2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The bulk Lorentz factor is not used in the models but is used for other purposes below.

A typical fit to the MKN 501 flux emitted during a large flare in July, 1997 is shown in Figure 4. In this fit, the TeV data have been corrected for absorption by the diffuse infrared background using the opacity estimated by ?). However, the extent of the correction is currently controversial and we have also summarised in table 1 the model parameters derived when no correction is made. It is worth emphasizing that the inferred radius of the spherical region is a parameter that is provided by the model fits. Variability provides an a priori upper limit on this parameter, namely, that for a variability timescale, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, the emitting region needs to be small enough that variations are not smeared out. This leads to

$$R<\frac{1}{2}c\mathrm{\Delta }t\delta 1.3\times 10^{16}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }t}{\mathrm{day}}\right)\left(\frac{\delta }{10}\right)\mathrm{cm}$$
(1)
However, in the spherical model, there is no other a priori basis for radii $`10^{1516}\mathrm{cm}`$. Sometimes the diameter of the sphere is associated with an adiabatic cooling length. However, this idea has not really been developed significantly.

## 3 Production of shocks in jets

In order to make further progress it is important to understand the possible processes that can lead to the production of shocks in jets. One process that is often mentioned (e.g. ?)) is the production of shocks resulting from variations in the flow velocity. We idealise the initial conditions as a velocity discontinuity with faster moving gas catching up to slower moving gas (see figure 5). This is a classic shock tube in which the equation of state and flow velocities are relativistic. There are two solutions of interest: (1) Two shock waves are produced, one moving into the gas ahead of the shock – the forward shock, the other into the gas behind – the reverse shock. (2) A single shock (either forward or reverse) and a rarefaction are produced. The direction of the shock in this case depends upon the details of the initial parameters. The development of the two possible solutions are sketched in Figure 6.

Both of these situations are most readily analysed by transforming to the frame of the contact discontinuity separating the two gases. This is the approach used by ?) for the non-relativistic case. It is also useful here since, as before, this is the rest frame of the two gases on either side of the contact discontinuity and is the appropriate frame in which to calculate the emissivity.

### 3.1 Forward and reverse shocks

Let us first consider the case of a forward and reverse shock. It is useful to calculate the difference in the velocities of the two shocks given the (uniform) pressure, $`p_3`$, of the gas sandwiched in between them. In so doing we use the ultrarelativistic equation of state, $`p=1/3ϵ`$ where $`p`$ is the pressure and $`ϵ`$ is the energy density. This is equivalent to assuming that at this stage of the jet, some 100 gravitational radii from the core, there is no entrained thermal matter and that the initial matter ejected from the black hole is ultrarelativistic (e.g. is composed exclusively of relativistic electron-positron pairs). The most straightforward way to do the calculation is in the frame of the contact discontinuity (CD) separating the two shocked regions, assign the ratio $`p_3/p_1`$, and then use this to calculate velocities of both shocks and the velocities of upstream and downstream gas.

In the frame of the contact discontinuity, the velocities of upstream and downstream gas in regions 1 and 2 may be derived from the expressions given in ?) for the relative velocity between pre-shock and post-shock gases, taking into account that in the CD frame the post-shock gas is stationary. The result is:

$`\beta _1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}(p_3/p_11)}{\sqrt{(3+p_3/p_1)(1+3p_3/p_1)}}}`$ (2)
$`\beta _2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(p_3/p_1p_2/p_1)}{\sqrt{(3p_2/p_1+p_3/p_1)(p_2/p_1+3p_3/p_1)}}}`$ (3)
At this point we introduce a convenient notation for the relativistic composition of velocities. We denote the relativistic addition and subtraction of velocities by

$`\beta _1\beta _2\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1+\beta _2}{1+\beta _1\beta _2}}`$ (4)
$`\text{and}\beta _1\beta _2\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\beta _2}{1\beta _1\beta _2}}`$ (5)
respectively.

The frame-independent relative velocity between the gas on either side of the forward/reverse shock structure

$$\beta _{12}=\beta _1\beta _2=\beta _1^{}(p_3/p_1,p_2/p_1)\beta _2^{}(p_3/p_1,p_2/p_1)$$
(6)
may be used to either calculate the relative velocity in the observer’s frame as a function of the parameters $`p_3/p_1`$ and $`p_2/p_1`$ or to numerically determine the ratio $`p_3/p_1`$ of the shock to upstream pressures as a function of the relative velocity and the ratio, $`p_2/p_1`$ of the downstream to upstream pressures.

What is most important for the current purposes is the difference in the shock velocities since this determines the size of the emitting region in the rest frame. These may be calculated from the expressions given in ?) for the pre-shock and post-shock velocities in the shock frame. Denoting the shock frame by a double prime superscript, then the velocity of the reverse shock, for example, in the CD frame, is given by:

$$\beta _1^{}\beta _{1,\mathrm{sh}}^{}=\beta _1^{\prime \prime }\beta _{1,\mathrm{sh}}^{}=\beta _1^{}\beta _1^{\prime \prime }$$
(7)
The results for both forward and reverse shocks are:

$`\beta _{1,\mathrm{sh}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3+p_3/p_1}{3(1+3p_3/p_1)}}}`$ (8)
$`\beta _{2,\mathrm{sh}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3+p_3/p_2}{3(1+3p_3/p_2)}}}`$ (9)
The limits of strong and weak shocks are informative.

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\text{As}\hfill & p_3/p_1\mathrm{}& \beta _{1,\mathrm{sh}}^{},\beta _{2,\mathrm{sh}}^{}1/3\hfill & \\ \text{As}\hfill & p_3/p_11& \beta _{1,\mathrm{sh}}^{},\beta _{2,\mathrm{sh}}^{}1/\sqrt{3}\hfill & \end{array}$$
(10)
These limits are to be expected from the limiting velocities in the post-shock region of a relativistic flow, remembering that the post-shock region is at rest in this frame. Note also that the range in velocities between strong and weak shocks is not great – approximately $`0.330.58c`$. The shock velocity difference, which determines the size of the emitting region, is shown in figure 7. Note that the size of the region is not determined by the relative velocity. However, the relative velocity has a role which we consider further below.

The size of the flaring region in the rest frame as a function of the time in the rest frame, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}`$ and the observer’s time, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, is given by:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }x_{\mathrm{sh}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`|\beta _{1,\mathrm{sh}}^{}\beta _{2,\mathrm{sh}}^{}|c\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}={\displaystyle \frac{|\beta _{1,\mathrm{sh}}^{}\beta _{2,\mathrm{sh}}^{}|}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{CD}}}}c\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ (11)
$``$ $`2.6\times 10^{14}|\beta _{1,\mathrm{sh}}^{}\beta _{2,\mathrm{sh}}^{}|\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{CD}}}{10}}\right)^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{1\mathrm{d}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{y}}}\right)\mathrm{cm}`$ (12)
Time dilation between the rest and observer’s frame has been incorporated. Since the difference in shock velocities does not vary greatly with the pressure of the shocked gas, we adopt a fiducial value of unity for that parameter.

An immediately interesting feature of this result is that for a Lorentz factor of 5 (corresponding to a Doppler factor $`10`$) and timescales of a few days, the size of the shocked region in the direction of flow is comparable to the radii inferred from fits of the spherical model. This is a direct consequence of the insensitivity of the size of the shocked region to its pressure.

### 3.2 The relative velocity and the condition for two shocks

We have already seen that the pressure in the shocked region can be estimated from the relative velocity of the unshocked gas on either side of the reverse-forward shock region. The relative velocity also enters into the condition for a forward–reverse shock pair to occur. The relative velocity needs to be large enough to produce a pressure, $`p_3`$, between the shocks that is greater than both $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$. The limiting case occurs when $`p_3=\mathrm{max}(p_1,p_2)`$. This leads to the following condition on the relative velocity, $`\beta _{12}`$ of the gas on either side of the shocked region:

$$\beta _{12}>\sqrt{3}\frac{|p_2/p_11|}{\sqrt{(3p_2/p_1+1)(3+p_2/p_1)}}$$
(13)
If the relative velocity is less than this critical value, that is, if the variation in velocity is not substantial enough, then a forward–reverse shock structure does not form. In order to gain some numerical insight, one can assign a Lorentz factor to the overtaking gas (region 1) and use equation (13) to calculate the maximum Lorentz factor of the gas ahead of the forward shock (region 2) for a two-shock solution to occur. The maximum lorentz factor is shown in figure 8 for overtaking Lorentz factors, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ of 5 and 10. The relevant parameter here is the ratio of the pressures downstream of the forward shock, $`p_2`$ and upstream of the reverse shock, $`p_1`$. For example, if $`p_2/p_1=2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=5`$ then the maximum Lorentz factor of the upstream gas is about 4.3. If the Lorentz factor of the upstream gas exceeds this value then an intermediate shocked region with pressure greater than both $`p_2`$ and $`p_1`$ cannot be supported. The outcome is a rarefaction wave moving into the downstream gas and a reverse shock moving into the upstream gas. When $`p_1>p_2`$ the situation is reversed.

As in the non-relativistic case (see ?)), the rarefaction region is described by a centred, simple wave \[Liang (1977\]. Simple waves are based on the Riemann invariants, $`J_\pm `$, of the one-dimensional gas dynamics equations and for the equation of state $`p=ϵ/3`$

$$J_\pm =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }\pm \frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}\mathrm{ln}p$$
(14)
In the region of right propagating simple wave, $`J_{}=\text{constant}`$ and the equations of the right propagating characteristics are:

$$\frac{x}{ct}=\frac{\beta +1/\sqrt{3}}{1\beta /\sqrt{3}}$$
(15)
These two features of a centred simple wave allow one to develop the solution in the rarefaction region and patch it to the solution on the left representing the reverse shock (see figure 6). As with the two-shock solution it is convenient to develop the shock plus rarefaction solution in the frame of the contact discontinuity and in terms of the pressure, $`p_3`$ in the post-shock region. In this frame, the unshocked gas velocity on the left is given by:

$$\beta _1^{}=\frac{\sqrt{3}(p_3/p_11)}{\sqrt{(3+p_3/p_1)(1+3p_3/p_1)}}$$
(16)
and the velocity on the right is given by:

$$\beta _2^{}=\frac{(p_2/p_3)^{\sqrt{3}/2}1}{(p_2/p_3)^{\sqrt{3}/2}+1}$$
(17)
The frame-independent relative velocity, $`\beta _{12}=\beta _1^{}\beta _2^{}`$ can be used to solve numerically for the pressure, $`p_3`$ in terms of $`\beta _{12}`$ if required.

In this solution, the velocity of the reverse shock in the contact discontinuity frame (which is also the rest frame of the shocked gas) is the same as that of the reverse shock in the two-shock case, i.e.

$$\beta _1^{}=\sqrt{\frac{3+p_3/p_1}{3(3p_3/p_1+1)}}$$
(18)
and the size of the shocked region in the CD frame as a function of the observer’s time is also similar, viz.:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}=|\beta _1^{}|\frac{c\mathrm{\Delta }t}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}2.6\times 10^{14}|\beta _1^{}|\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{10}\right)^1\left(\frac{t}{\mathrm{day}}\right)\mathrm{cm}$$
(19)
## 4 Application to the flare in Markarian 501 – the size of the shocked region

Inspection of the RXTE spectra and the $`\gamma `$–ray light curve show that the second flare begins at $`t641.5\mathrm{days}`$ where $`t`$ refers to JD–2,440,000. This means that epoch 6 for which we have presented the two component models (see figure 4) corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Delta }t643.7641.5=2.2\mathrm{days}`$ and X–ray epoch 10 corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Delta }t645.7641.5=4.2\mathrm{days}`$. The entire period surrounding this flare involved such a marked departure from the quiescent flux of Markarian 501 that it is reasonable to assume that the relative velocity exceeded the critical value derived above and that $`|\beta _{1,\mathrm{sh}}\beta _{2,\mathrm{sh}}|1`$ giving a longitudinal size for the flaring region $`1.1\times 10^{15}(\mathrm{\Gamma }/5)^1\mathrm{cm}`$. We neglect for now the complications resulting from calculating the inverse Compton emissivity in a non-spherical region and, in order to obtain indicative estimates of the radius of the emitting disk–like region of the jet, we assume that the volume of the emitting region is the same as that of the corresponding spherical region as modelled previously. As recorded in table 2, this gives radii ranging from about $`9\times 10^{14}\mathrm{cm}`$ to $`4\times 10^{16}`$ cm. Thus, the emitting region is a reasonably thin slice of the jet, and in the rest frame, the ratio of its longitudinal extent to its diameter ranges from 0.01 to 0.3, depending upon the details of the model. The estimate of the longitudinal size arises naturally from the dynamics of the shocked region and one does not have to appeal to adiabatic expansion to limit the effective size. This is also the case for the shock plus rarefaction solution.

## 5 Constraints from spectral breaks

As the flare evolves, by epoch 10 the X–ray spectrum (see Figure 3) has settled down to a shape similar to that of the original flare in epoch 2. We regard this as indicating the establishment of a quasi–steady state spectrum in which cooling following a shock (or shocks) has established a broken power–law with the break energy at about 6 keV. This spectral feature provides further constraints on the model with interesting implications.

The criterion for the location of the break is somewhat contrived in the framework of a spherical model. This is especially the case with temporal data since there is really no criterion for how the radius of the emitting region would evolve. We therefore shall not burden the reader with calculations appropriate for a spherical geometry and we only consider the implications of the spectral break for the disk model whose dynamics we have considered above.

A break in spectral index in the context of shock-generated spectra occurs at that photon energy where the cooling time of electrons is equal to the travel time of the plasma across the emitting region. In this case this means that the cooling time at the break energy equals the duration of the flare. Often, only the effect of synchrotron cooling is considered. However, in many blazars the inverse Compton power is comparable to or greater than the synchrotron power and the contribution of inverse Compton cooling to the total cooling timescale must be considered. When inverse Compton scattering in the Klein-Nishina limit is involved (as it is for TeV blazars) the calculation of the cooling time is more complicated than it is when the Thomson limit applies. However, in the Klein-Nishina limit, both the cross-section and energy transfer decrease and we therefore assume that the dominant inverse Compton contribution occurs for interactions between photons and the radiation field that occur in the Thomson limit. Thus, in estimating the appropriate radiation energy density for an electron of Lorentz factor, $`\gamma `$, in the plasma rest frame, one determines a cutoff photon energy, $`ϵ_2`$, in the observer’s frame, defined by

$$ϵ_2(\gamma )\delta \frac{m_ec^2}{\gamma }5.1\left(\frac{\delta }{10}\right)\left(\frac{\gamma }{10^6}\right)^1\mathrm{eV}$$
(20)
For a cylindrical uniformly emitting disk of length, $`\mathrm{\Delta }l`$, and radius, $`R`$, the radiation energy density per unit frequency at the centre of the disk in the plasma rest frame and the observed flux density are given by:

$`u_\nu ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi j_\nu ^{}^{}}{c}}f(\mathrm{\Theta }_c)`$ (21)
$`F_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^3}{D_L^2}}\pi R^2\mathrm{\Delta }lj_\nu ^{}^{}`$ (22)
where

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_c`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tan}^1(\mathrm{\Delta }l/2R)`$ (23)
$`\text{and}f(\mathrm{\Theta }_c)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }_c\mathrm{tan}\mathrm{\Theta }_c\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_c`$ (24)
For a thin disk, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_c\mathrm{\Delta }l/2R`$ and $`f(\mathrm{\Theta }_c)(\mathrm{\Delta }l/2R)(1+\mathrm{ln}(2R/\mathrm{\Delta }l))`$ . Thus the radiation energy density is defined in terms of the flux density, $`F_ϵ=F_{ϵ_0}(ϵ_2/ϵ_0)^\alpha \mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{erg}^1`$ by:

$$u_{\mathrm{rad}}^{}\frac{4D_L^2}{cR\mathrm{\Delta }l}f(\mathrm{\Theta }_c)\delta ^4\left(\frac{ϵ_0F_{ϵ_0}}{1\alpha }\right)\left(\frac{ϵ_2}{ϵ_0}\right)^{1\alpha }$$
(25)
where $`ϵ_2(\gamma )`$ is the cutoff in photon energy (observer’s frame) defined above and $`ϵ_0=1\mathrm{keV}`$ is a convenient fiducial energy.

The synchrotron plus inverse Compton cooling time, corresponding to the break energy, $`ϵ_b`$, is, in the plasma rest frame:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }t_c^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2^{1/2}3^{3/2}\pi {\displaystyle \frac{(m_ece\mathrm{})^{1/2}}{\sigma _T}}B^{3/2}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{u_{\mathrm{rad}}}{u_B}}\right]^1ϵ_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}`$ (26)
$``$ $`3.23\times 10^3B^{3/2}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{u_{\mathrm{rad}}^{}}{u_B}}\right]^1\delta ^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_b}{\mathrm{keV}}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{sec}`$ (27)
where $`u_B=B^2/8\pi `$. In order to compare with the observed flare duration, we use the corresponding time in the observer’s frame:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t_c=\mathrm{\Gamma }t_c^{}3.23\times 10^3B^{3/2}\left[1+\frac{u_{\mathrm{rad}}}{u_B}\right]^1\left(\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^2\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{ϵ_b}{\mathrm{keV}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{sec}$$
(28)
Normally, one would invert the expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_c`$ to obtain an expression for the break energy $`ϵ_b`$ as a function of time. However, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_c`$ depends both explicitly on the break energy and implicitly through the dependence of $`u_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ upon $`ϵ_b`$. Therefore, in assessing the implications of the break in the X-ray spectrum, it is easiest to compare the cooling time, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_c`$ at the observed break energy with the time of duration of the flare (approximately 4.2 days at epoch 10). These comparisons are recorded in table 2 for the various models summarised in table 1.

## 6 Pair opacity

Pair opacity provides another important constraint on models of blazars – particularly TeV blazars. TeV photons interact with infrared photons to produce pairs, the rate of production again depending upon the radiation energy density in the plasma rest frame. Here we are concerned with the infrared photons internal to the emitting region. For a power-law photon spectrum of spectral index $`\alpha `$ extending to at least the infrared, the absorption per unit length, $`a_{\gamma \gamma }\mathrm{cm}^1`$, of a $`\gamma `$–ray of energy $`ϵ_\gamma `$ can be expressed in terms of the observed flux density, $`F_{ϵ_0}`$, and observed $`\gamma `$–ray energy, $`ϵ_\gamma `$, using results presented in ?), as follows:

$$a_{\gamma \gamma }=\frac{4\sigma _T}{c}\eta (\alpha )\frac{d_L^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }lR}f(\mathrm{\Theta }_c)\delta ^{(2\alpha +3)}F_{ϵ_0}\left[\frac{ϵ_0ϵ_\gamma }{(m_ec^2)^2}\right]^\alpha \mathrm{cm}^1$$
(29)
An analytical expression for the parameter $`\eta (\alpha )1`$ has been calculated by ?). The opacity depends upon the Doppler factor to a large power, so that a large Doppler factor can also render the observation of TeV $`\gamma `$-rays consistent with the photon energy densities required to produce them.

At first sight it appears that this disk model for the shocked region offers a better prospect for the escape of $`\gamma `$–rays because of the reduced path length in the direction of the jet. However, aberration implies that in the rest frame, photon trajectories are almost perpendicular to the jet thereby increasing the path length. Specifically, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }l^{}`$ is the size, in the rest frame, of the disk, if $`\theta `$ is the angle between the jet and the line of sight in the observer’s frame, and if $`c\beta `$ is the jet velocity, then the path length of a ray through the disk originating from the back is given by:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }s}{\mathrm{\Delta }l^{}}=\frac{1\beta cos\theta }{cos\theta \beta }$$
(30)
(with the proviso that $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ has a maximum $``$ the diameter of the shocked region.) The value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }s/\mathrm{\Delta }l^{}`$ tends to compensate for the smaller value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }l^{}`$ implied by our disk model so that one can only expect a modest reduction in $`\gamma `$–ray opacity compared to a spherical model. Therefore in table 2 we have given the $`\gamma `$–ray opacity for 10 TeV photons based on the diameter of the emitting disk. The emitting region is only marginally optically thin in this case.

On the other hand, the specific normal shock configuration, upon which we have based our models represents the worst case for $`\gamma `$–ray opacity. If the shock(s) defining the disk, were oblique then the photons emitted perpendicular to the jet direction in the rest frame would not have such a large path length and a reduction in opacity by an order of magnitude would result. We have therefore, as an indication of the reduction in opacity related to this model, have tabulated the optical depth based upon the longitudinal extent of the slab. Naturally this is much less and indicates the importance of generalising this model to the case of oblique shocks.

Despite these potential reductions in $`\gamma `$–ray opacity, it appears that the emission of $`\gamma `$–rays originates not far above the $`\tau _{\gamma \gamma }=1`$ surface – the gammasphere \[Blandford (1994, Blandford & Levinson (1995\].It is possible therefore, that X-ray flares generated at smaller radii will have no TeV counterpart. An examination of the combined TeV and X-ray light curves would be interesting in this regard.

## 7 Discussion

### 7.1 Summary

We have presented a simple theoretical approach to determining the geometry of synchrotron and inverse Compton emitting regions in blazar jets that is intimately related to the dynamics of the underlying flow. Of course, other treatments of blazar emission regions that postulate relativistic shocks from the outset (e.g. ?)) would give similar estimates for the size of the emitting region. What we have shown here is how the emission region patches onto the rest of the jet and how it is determined by the flow parameters of different sections. For high enough relative velocities, the emission region is bounded by two shocks; for relative velocities lower than critical the emission region patches on via a simple wave. In the latter case both forward and reverse shocks are possible depending upon the relative strengths of the pressure in the two regions.

Using this approach, we have shown that the extent (in the jet direction) of the shocked emission region is similar to, but smaller than, what has previously been inferred from spherical models. Making the approximation that the inverse Compton emission from a shocked section of jet is the same as from the equivalent sphere, we have shown how spectral breaks and pair optical depths may be estimated. There are some interesting differences here between models calculated using TeV spectra that have been corrected to allow for the opacity of the infrared background (IRB) and comparable models for which no corrections have been applied. Referring to table 2, one can see that the IRB–corrected models are more compact and the estimated cooling times are less than the observed duration of the flare. Moreover, the pair opacity at 10 TeV is quite significant even in the most favourable case of basing the opacity on the length of the shocked region. In the case of no IRB correction, it is feasible that the cooling time and the flare time become equal for Doppler factors between 10 and 20. In this regime also, the pair opacity can be reasonably low. Thus it is possible that the IRB opacity estimated by ?) may be too high. However, in view of the various approximations used, these conclusions can only be regarded as tentative. However, they do point the way to more detailed models in which the various effects can be modelled in more detail. Such models should include detailed calculations of inverse Compton emission in anisotropic radiation fields and the calculation of the post-shock flow, taking into account both particle acceleration and relativistic fluid dynamics.

### 7.2 Relationship to numerical simulations of relativistic jets

Our approach to modelling shocks in relativistic jets that we have described above is analytic and one can ask if there is there any point in such a treatment given the impressive simulations of relativistic jets that have been carried in recent years? (For an introduction to the literature on this work one may consult the recent papers of ?), ?) and ?).) The answer is yes for several reasons:

1. Analytic/semi-analytic approximations of jet dynamics are useful when modelling blazar emission and for other analytic estimates of jet behaviour. Simple models (provided they capture the relevant physics) streamline the process of model fitting.
2. The numerical simulations are extremely useful for the purpose for which they were intended, e.g. in comparing relativistic and nonrelativistic jet stability ?) or in a qualitative assessment of the behaviour of superluminal components \[Agudo et al. (2001\]. However, for computational reasons related to the Courant criterion, the jet densities of the simulations do not approach the low values that we expect of relativistic jets in AGN. To be specific, consider a jet in which the relativistic electron distribution has a lower cutoff at a Lorentz factor of $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}`$; let the pressures of the jet and interstellar medium (ISM) be $`p_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ and $`p_{\mathrm{ISM}}`$ respectively, and let $`T_{\mathrm{ISM}}=10^7T_7`$ be the temperature of the ISM; let $`a`$ be the electron spectral index. Then the ratio of jet electron number density to ISM electron number density is given by:

$$\frac{n_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{jet}}}{n_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{ISM}}}6\left(\frac{a2}{a1}\right)\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}^1\left(\frac{p_{\mathrm{jet}}}{p_{\mathrm{ISM}}}\right)\left(\frac{kT}{m_ec^2}\right)1.6\times 10^3\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}^1T_7$$
(31)
for a jet in pressure equilibrium with its surroundings and $`a=2.2`$. Therefore, for an electron-proton jet and an ISM temperature $`10^7`$, the ratio of densities is of order $`10^5`$ since $`\gamma _{min}100`$ \[Bicknell, Wagner, & Groves (2001\]. For an electron-positron jet, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}10100`$ and the ratio of mass densities $`10^8`$. The only simulations that begin to approach these remarkable densities are those of ?), in which the ratio of mass densities is $`10^3`$. Of course one can learn a lot from simulations that depend mainly upon the ordering of densities rather than the absolute values. However, such simulations do not give a good idea of the interaction of the jet with the external medium since this strongly depends upon the jet density ratio.
3. It is feasible that one can utilise numerical simulations to understand internal jet dynamics in a jet in which the internal energy and the mass density are dominated by relativistic particles if the parameter

$$\chi =\frac{\rho c^2}{4p}\stackrel{<}{}1$$
(32)
where $`\rho `$ is the rest mass density \[Bicknell (1994, Bicknell (1995\]. For the low density simulations of ?)

$$\chi =\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{jet}}c^2}{4p_{\mathrm{jet}}}=\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{ISM}}c^2}{4p_{ISM}}\left(\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{jet}}}{\rho _{\mathrm{ISM}}}\right)=\frac{\mu m_pc^2}{4kT_{\mathrm{ISM}}}\left(\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{jet}}}{\rho _{\mathrm{ISM}}}\right)1.6\times 10^5T_7^1\left(\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{jet}}}{\rho _{\mathrm{ISM}}}\right)$$
(33)
For the parameters of the ?) simulation, $`\chi 100`$. For one thing, this means that the velocities of internal shocks are not relevant to blazar emission regions in such a model.

One could put several counter-arguments to the above. For example, the interstellar medim temperature could be higher. But then one would have to reconcile this with the lack of observed high temperature bremsstrahlung from AGN. In summary, the current simulations are impressive and the various groups involved have boldly moved into a previously uncharted region of parameter space. However, the simulations do not currently address the physics of blazars. Clearly that is a challenge for the future.

## 8 Acknowledgments

We thank the organisers of this workshop for a stimulating meeting. SJW wishes to thank the organisers and the Heidelberg Sonderforschungsbereich for travel support. We acknowledge constructive criticism of the referee that contributed to an improved version of this paper.

## 9 References