text:
# Suppressing the contribution of intrinsic galaxy alignments to the shear two-point correlation function

## 1 Introduction

The distortion of distant galaxies by the tidal gravitational field of intervening matter inhomogeneities has become known as “cosmic shear”. Since this lensing signal depends upon the matter power spectrum, it is an important cosmological tool, as was proposed in the early 1990s by Blandford et al. (1991), Miralda-Escudé (1991) and Kaiser (1992). This set the scene for further analytic and numerical work (eg. Kaiser 1998; Schneider et al. 1998; White & Hu 2000), taking into account the non-linear evolution of the power spectrum which results in increased power on small scales (Hamilton et al. 1991; Peacock & Dodds 1996).

During 2000, four teams announced the first observational detections of cosmic shear (Bacon et al. 2000; Kaiser et al. 2000; van Waerbeke et al. 2000; Wittman et al. 2000; Maoli et al. 2001), demonstrating the feasibility of its study. Various statistics are used to quantify cosmic shear, and to compare the observations with predictions for cosmological models. Here we focus on the shear correlation functions; other measures include the aperture mass statistic (Schneider et al. 1998) and shear variance (e.g. Kaiser 1992).

Besides its dependence on the large-scale structure in the Universe, the magnitude of the effect is also sensitive to the redshift distribution of the galaxies used in the analysis. So far, direct redshift estimates have not been obtained for the samples concerned. Typically the mean redshift has been estimated from surveys of similar depth, and a corresponding redshift probability distribution has been assumed (e.g. van Waerbeke et al. 2001; Hoekstra et al. 2002a). Motivated by the recent interest in obtaining photometric redshifts for cosmic shear surveys, we consider how to make use of redshift information, and its impact on the constraints permitted by the two-point statistic under consideration.

In weak lensing analyses, it is assumed that the background galaxies are randomly oriented so that their mean intrinsic ellipticity $`ϵ^\mathrm{s}=0`$ and any correlation in observed ellipticities arises from gravitational lensing. The magnitude of any intrinsic alignment of the background source population has recently been the subject of many numerical, analytic and observational studies (e.g. Croft & Metzler 2000; Heavens et al. 2000; Crittenden et al. 2001 (Cr01); Catelan et al. 2001; Mackey et al. 2002; Brown et al. 2002, Hui & Zhang 2002). Due to differences in the assumed origin of intrinsic alignments and the type of galaxies considered, the numerical and analytic estimates span a couple of orders of magnitude in amplitude. For example, the analytic model of Cr01 assumes that any intrinsic signal arises from correlations between the angular momenta of galaxies, whereas that of Catelan et al. (2001) relies on tidal shear correlations. Nonetheless, all studies conclude that intrinsic alignments are more important for shallower surveys (becoming comparable to the lensing signal for a mean survey redshift $`z0.5`$) and that the correlation falls off quite rapidly with source separation.

The structure of this paper is as follows. In the next section we outline the relationships between the matter power spectrum and the lensing correlation functions. The dependence on the redshift distribution and on cosmology is highlighted. Correlation functions are derived from observational data, and in $`\mathrm{Sect}\mathrm{.\hspace{0.17em}3}`$ we describe how practical estimators are used for this purpose. In $`\mathrm{Sect}\mathrm{.\hspace{0.17em}4}`$ a toy model to account for intrinsic alignments is developed; the amplitude of the correlation is normalised to that of Cr01. The introduction of a weighting factor to minimise any contribution of intrinsic alignments to the shear correlation function is considered in $`\mathrm{Sect}\mathrm{.\hspace{0.17em}5}`$. In $`\mathrm{Sect}\mathrm{.\hspace{0.17em}6}`$ we present the results of applying such a weighting factor to surveys of different mean redshift. We finish in $`\mathrm{Sect}\mathrm{.\hspace{0.17em}7}`$ with a discussion of the results and a future perspective of using redshift information in cosmic shear analysis.

For a review of cosmological weak lensing and the relevant aspects of cosmology, see Mellier (1999) and Bartelmann & Schneider (2001; hereafter BS01). In addition, the present status and outlook for cosmic shear studies is summarised by van Waerbeke et al. (2002).

## 2 Power spectra and lensing correlation functions

In this section, the relationships between the power spectra and observable lensing correlation functions are outlined; throughout, we adopt the notation of BS01.

The three-dimensional density fluctuation field $`\delta (𝐫)`$ at comoving position $`𝐫`$ is a homogeneous and isotropic random field, with a two-point correlation function given by

$$\delta (𝐫)\delta (𝐫^{})C_{\delta \delta }\left(|𝐫𝐫^{}|\right).$$
(1)
Such a field is described by its power spectrum $`P_\delta (|𝐤|)`$ ($`𝐤`$ being the comoving wave-vector), which is the Fourier transform of the two-point correlation function. In Fourier space one can write

$$\widehat{\delta }(𝐤)\widehat{\delta }^{}(𝐤^{})(2\pi )^3\delta _\mathrm{D}(𝐤𝐤^{})P_\delta (|𝐤|),$$
(2)
where $`x^{}`$ denotes the complex conjugate of $`x`$, $`\widehat{x}`$ denotes its Fourier transform, and $`\delta _\mathrm{D}`$ is the Dirac delta function.

The effective convergence $`\overline{\kappa }_{\mathrm{eff}}(\theta )`$ depends upon the weighted integral of the density contrast along the line of sight

$$\overline{\kappa }_{\mathrm{eff}}(\theta )=\frac{3H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}}{2c^2}_0^{w_\mathrm{H}}dw\overline{W}(w)f(w)\frac{\delta [f(w)\theta ,w]}{a(w)},$$
(3)
where $`H_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ are the values of the Hubble parameter and the density parameter at the present epoch, and $`a(w)`$ is the scale factor at comoving distance $`w`$, normalized such that $`a(0)=1`$ today. The horizon distance is denoted by $`w_\mathrm{H}`$, and $`f(w)`$ is the comoving angular diameter distance, so that the comoving separation is $`f(w)\theta `$. The function $`f(w)`$ depends on the spatial curvature, $`K`$:

$$f(w)=\{\begin{array}{cc}K^{1/2}\mathrm{sin}(K^{1/2}w)\hfill & (K>0)\hfill \\ w\hfill & (K=0)\hfill \\ (K)^{1/2}\mathrm{sinh}[(K)^{1/2}w]\hfill & (K<0)\hfill \end{array};$$
(4)
later we assume that $`K=0`$ (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$). The function $`\overline{W}(w)`$ accounts for the sources being distributed in redshift, and consequent differences in lensing signal,

$$\overline{W}(w)_w^{w_\mathrm{H}}\mathrm{d}w^{}p(w^{})\frac{f(w^{}w)}{f(w^{})}R(w,w^{}),$$
(5)
where $`p(w^{})dw^{}`$ is the comoving distance probability distribution for the sources. The function $`R(w,w^{})=f(w^{}w)/f(w^{})`$ is the ratio of the angular diameter distance of a source at comoving distance $`w^{}`$ seen from a distance $`w`$, to that seen from $`w=0`$.

The power spectrum $`P_\kappa (\mathrm{})`$ of the effective convergence, or equivalently of the shear $`P_\gamma (\mathrm{})`$ (see for example BS01), is related to that of the density fluctuations through a variant of Limber’s equation in Fourier space (Kaiser 1998)

$$P_\kappa (\mathrm{})=\frac{9H_0^4\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}^2}{4c^4}_0^{w_\mathrm{H}}dw\frac{\overline{W}^2(w)}{a^2(w)}P_\delta (\frac{\mathrm{}}{f(w)},w),$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the angular wave-vector, Fourier space conjugate to $`\theta `$.

We see now that $`P_\kappa `$ and $`P_\gamma `$ are intimately related to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$, and to $`P_\delta `$ which in turn depends on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the shape parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and on $`\sigma _8`$, the density fluctuations in spheres of radius $`8h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. In addition, note the dependence upon the redshift distribution of the sources. Access to the cosmological parameters is provided through the (observable) shear correlation functions, which we now turn to.

The shear has two components and can conveniently be represented as the complex quantity $`\gamma \gamma _1+\mathrm{i}\gamma _2`$. Throughout, we assume the weak lensing limit so that $`|\gamma |1`$. Consider a pair of galaxies at position $`\vartheta `$ and $`\vartheta +\theta `$, where the polar angle of their separation vector $`\theta `$ is $`\varphi `$. The tangential and cross-components of the shear for either of these galaxies are

$$\gamma _\mathrm{t}=\text{e}\left[\gamma \mathrm{e}^{2i\varphi }\right];\gamma _\times =\text{m}\left[\gamma \mathrm{e}^{2i\varphi }\right].$$
(7)
Using the notation of Schneider et al. (2002a), the shear correlation functions are defined as

$$\xi _\pm (\theta )=\gamma _\mathrm{t}\gamma _\mathrm{t}\pm \gamma _\times \gamma _\times (\theta )=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}{2\pi }\mathrm{J}_{0,4}(\mathrm{}\theta )P_\kappa (\mathrm{}),$$
(8)
where Jn are $`n`$-th order Bessel functions of the first kind. $`P_\kappa (\mathrm{})`$ can be written in terms of the observable correlation functions:

$$P_\kappa (\mathrm{})=2\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}d\theta \theta \left[\xi _\pm (\theta )\mathrm{J}_{0,4}(\mathrm{}\theta )\right],$$
(9)
making use of the orthogonality of Bessel functions. From now on we focus on $`\xi _+`$, since this contains most cosmological information on the scales of interest.

Another quantity that is often determined in cosmological weak lensing studies is the shear variance inside a circle of radius $`\theta _\mathrm{c}`$, which is also related to the convergence power spectrum

$$\left|\overline{\gamma }\right|^2(\theta _\mathrm{c})=\frac{1}{2\pi }d\mathrm{}\mathrm{}P_\kappa (\mathrm{})\frac{4\mathrm{J}_1^2(\mathrm{}\theta _\mathrm{c})}{\left(\mathrm{}\theta _\mathrm{c}\right)^2}.$$
(10)
This can also be determined directly by placing circular apertures onto the data field but is affected by any gaps; these may arise, for example, due to the need to mask regions containing bright stars and their diffraction spikes. However, the shear variance can also be obtained from $`\xi _+`$:

$$\left|\overline{\gamma }\right|^2(\theta _\mathrm{c})=\frac{\mathrm{d}\vartheta \vartheta }{\theta _\mathrm{c}^2}\xi _+(\vartheta )S_+\left(\frac{\vartheta }{\theta _\mathrm{c}}\right),$$
(11)
where van Waerbeke (2000) showed that

$$S_+(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\pi }\left[4\mathrm{cos}^1\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)x\sqrt{4x^2}\right]\hfill & (x2)\hfill \\ 0\hfill & (x>2)\hfill \end{array}.$$
(12)
### 2.1 Choice of cosmology, power spectrum and source redshift distribution

Unless otherwise stated, our fiducial cosmology is a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ and $`H_0=70\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$.

A scale-invariant ($`n=1`$, Harrison-Zel’dovich) spectrum of primordial fluctuations is assumed. Predicting the shear correlation functions requires a model for the redshift evolution of the 3-D power spectrum. The fitting formula of Bardeen et al. (1986; BBKS) is used for the transfer function, and the Peacock and Dodds (1996) prescription for the evolution in the nonlinear regime. The power spectrum normalisation is parameterised with $`\sigma _8=0.9`$, and the shape parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.21`$.

As an aside, the differences in predicted shear correlation functions using the fitting formula of Eisenstein & Hu (1999) for the transfer function (rather than that of BBKS) were found to be minimal.

The normalised source redshift distribution is parameterised using the form suggested by Smail et al. (1995):

$$p(z)\mathrm{d}z=\frac{\beta }{z_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma \left(3/\beta \right)}\left(\frac{z}{z_0}\right)^2\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\frac{z}{z_0}\right)^\beta \right]\mathrm{d}z,$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma (x)`$ is the gamma function. We set $`\beta =1.5`$ so that $`z1.5z_0`$. The value of $`z_0`$ is adjusted to give different redshift distributions, which would in practice be obtained from surveys with different limiting magnitudes. For example, Fig. 1 shows $`p(z)`$ for $`z=0.5`$ and $`z=1.0`$, roughly corresponding to limiting magnitudes of $`I22`$ and $`25`$ respectively.

### 2.2 Some dependencies of $`\xi _+`$

In this subsection we note some dependencies of $`\xi _+`$ on cosmological parameters, and on the redshift distribution of the sources from which it is measured.

To illustrate the dependency of $`\xi _+`$ on source redshift distribution, Fig. 2 shows $`\xi _+`$ for three values of $`z_0`$, corresponding to $`z=0.8`$, 1.0 and 1.2. As expected, the amplitude of $`\xi _+`$ is higher for deeper surveys. Fig. 2 also highlights a couple of degeneracies: $`\xi _+`$ for $`z=1.0`$, now with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.38`$ is shown. Note the difficulty in distinguishing this curve from that of the fiducial cosmology with a higher mean redshift, $`z=1.2`$. The well-known degeneracy between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ and $`\sigma _8`$ is also demonstrated: we show that for $`z=1.0`$, taking for instance $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.4`$ and $`\sigma _8=0.78`$ results in a curve which would be difficult to distinguish from that of the fiducial cosmology in practice.

## 3 Estimators

Let us now consider how estimates of the correlation functions can be obtained in practice using the distorted images of galaxies. We begin by considering the case where the only mechanism giving rise to correlations in galaxy ellipticities is gravitational lensing.

In the limit of weak lensing, the complex ellipticity of a galaxy $`ϵ_i`$ at position $`\theta _i`$ is related to its intrinsic ellipticity $`ϵ_{}^{\mathrm{s}}{}_{i}{}^{}`$ and to the gravitational shear $`\gamma (\theta _i)`$ through

$$ϵ_i=ϵ_{}^{\mathrm{s}}{}_{i}{}^{}+\gamma (\theta _i).$$
(14)
We use the definition of ellipticity from Bonnet & Mellier (1995) where for elliptical isophotes with axis ratio $`b/a1`$, $`|ϵ|=(1b/a)(1+b/a)^1`$. Further, under this definition $`ϵ\gamma `$ if the unlensed source population is randomly oriented. For simplicity we will use the notation $`\gamma _i\gamma (\theta _i)`$. Using (14) it follows that the expectation value

$$ϵ_iϵ_j^{}\left(ϵ_{}^{\mathrm{s}}{}_{i}{}^{}+\gamma _i\right)\left(ϵ_{}^{\mathrm{s}}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}+\gamma _j^{}\right)\gamma _i\gamma _j^{}+ϵ_{}^{\mathrm{s}}{}_{i}{}^{}ϵ_{}^{\mathrm{s}}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{},$$
(15)
and in the absence of intrinsic correlations the final term vanishes. In this case, any correlation between observed galaxy ellipticities results from weak lensing.

As discussed in Schneider et al. (2002b), the correlation function can be estimated in bins of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }\vartheta `$, centred on $`\vartheta `$, and a weight function can be defined such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\vartheta (\varphi )=1`$ for $`\vartheta \mathrm{\Delta }\vartheta /2<\varphi \vartheta +\mathrm{\Delta }\vartheta /2`$ and is zero otherwise. An estimator for the correlation function $`\xi _+(\vartheta )`$ is given by

$$\widehat{\xi }_+(\vartheta )=\frac{_{ij}𝒲_i𝒲_j\mathrm{\Delta }_\vartheta \left(|\theta _i\theta _j|\right)\left(ϵ_iϵ_j^{}\right)}{N_\mathrm{p}(\vartheta )},N_\mathrm{p}(\vartheta )=\underset{ij}{}𝒲_i𝒲_j\mathrm{\Delta }_\vartheta \left(|\theta _i\theta _j|\right),$$
(16)
where $`𝒲_i`$ and $`𝒲_j`$ are weights (depending on the reliability of the ellipticity measurement, for example) and $`N_\mathrm{p}(\vartheta )`$ is the effective number of pairs in that bin. In the absence of intrinsic correlations, since $`ϵ_iϵ_j^{}\xi _+(|\theta _i\theta _j|)`$, it follows that $`\widehat{\xi }_+(\vartheta )`$ is an unbiased estimator of the shear correlation function of the lensing signal $`\xi _+(\vartheta )`$.

However, the existence of intrinsic alignments would imply that $`ϵ_{}^{\mathrm{s}}{}_{i}{}^{}ϵ_{}^{\mathrm{s}}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}0`$. The estimator $`\widehat{\xi }_+(\vartheta )`$ is no longer an unbiased estimator of $`\xi _+(\vartheta )`$: rather it includes a contribution from correlated intrinsic (source) ellipticities, for which the two-point correlation function will be denoted by $`\xi _+^{\mathrm{int}}(\vartheta )`$. In order to minimise the impact of intrinsic correlations on the interpretation of the weak lensing signal, we need an estimate of the amplitude of $`\xi _+^{\mathrm{int}}(\vartheta )`$, and a scheme to give less weight to galaxy pairs where the intrinsic correlation is likely to be high.

## 4 Intrinsic alignments

Correlations between the intrinsic ellipticities of neighbouring galaxies are expected to arise during their formation, due to similarities in the tidal gravitational field in which they form. As noted in the introduction, a number of numerical and analytical studies have sought to quantify the amplitude of this correlation as a function of angular separation and redshift. For our purposes, we need a toy model to roughly predict the amplitude of intrinsic correlations expected. Since there is disagreement on the dominant mechanism responsible for intrinsic alignments, and on its subsequent enhancement or “washing out”, use of a detailed model is not warranted here.

Let us consider a close pair of galaxies with comoving distances $`w_iw_jw`$ and angular separation $`\theta `$. Their comoving separation $`r`$ is given by

$$r^2=(\mathrm{\Delta }w)^2+f^2(w)(\theta )^2,$$
(17)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }ww_iw_j`$.

Denoting the (3-D) two-point density correlation function by $`\xi _\delta (r)`$, one might expect that the two-point correlations in intrinsic ellipticity $`\xi _\delta ^2(r)`$. Indeed, this dependence corresponds to the asymptotic behaviour at large separations derived by Cr01, whose normalisation we later adopt. The two-point density correlation function is the Fourier transform of the power spectrum, so the power spectrum used to predict the lensing correlation functions described in Sect. 2 could be used. However, since Cr01 focus on a $`\xi _\delta (r)1/r`$ behaviour, and because of its analytic simplicity, we also use this form.

Next, this 3-D intrinsic correlation function has to be projected into an angular intrinsic ellipticity correlation function, integrating over the distance distribution of galaxies and taking into account the (observed) galaxy two-point correlation function $`\xi _{\mathrm{gg}}(r)`$. Note that we do not consider the individual tangential and cross components of the correlation functions of the intrinsic ellipticities. Rather, we consider the sum of these quantities, which corresponds to $`\xi _+`$ in the notation of Schneider et al. (2002a; note that the notation of Cr01 differs here). We obtain

$$\xi _+^{\mathrm{int}}(\theta )\frac{dw_1p(w_1)dw_2p(w_2)[1+\xi _{\mathrm{gg}}(r)]\left[\xi _\delta (r)\right]^2}{dw_1p(w_1)dw_2p(w_2)[1+\xi _{\mathrm{gg}}(r)]},$$
(18)
where $`p(w)\mathrm{d}w`$ is the galaxy distance distribution, which we take to be of the form given in Sect. 2.

Given that the scale over which intrinsic alignments operate is much smaller than the distances to the galaxies, the integral above can be recast as

$$\xi _+^{\mathrm{int}}(\theta )\frac{dwp^2(w)\mathrm{d}(\mathrm{\Delta }w)[1+\xi _{\mathrm{gg}}(r)]\left[\xi _\delta (r)\right]^2}{1+dwp^2(w)\mathrm{d}(\mathrm{\Delta }w)\left[\xi _{\mathrm{gg}}(r)\right]}.$$
(19)
The two-point galaxy correlation function is taken to be $`\xi _{\mathrm{gg}}(r)=(r/4.3h^1\mathrm{Mpc})^{1.8}`$, constant in comoving separation. Evolution is ignored for both the galaxy and density correlation functions, in view of the weak evolution that is seen in galaxy samples out to $`z3`$ (e.g. Porciani & Giavalisco 2002). The normalisation of $`\xi _+^{\mathrm{int}}(\theta )`$ is set at an angular scale of $`10\mathrm{}`$ and for $`z=1`$, using the value obtained by Cr01; Mackey et al. (2002) point out that on very small spatial scales ($`1h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$) non-linear clustering effects may erase any initial alignments, so we perform the normalisation well above this scale. We end up with a simple model for $`\xi _+^{\mathrm{int}}(\theta )`$, which depends upon the redshift distribution of sources.

## 5 Inclusion of a redshift dependent weighting factor

An important difference between ellipticity correlations arising from lensing and those due to intrinsic alignment is that the latter only has a significant amplitude over a relatively small range in redshift. For a given galaxy pair, the lensing correlations depend on the integrated effect of the matter along the line of sight out to the redshift of the closer galaxy.

In order to minimise the intrinsic signal, giving less weight to galaxy pairs where the redshift difference is small seems like a plausible step. How effective would such a weighting be, how would the lensing correlation be changed and how would the noise on our estimate of the correlation function increase?

Comparison of the observed correlation functions with the foregoing expressions requires one to adopt a source redshift distribution; in practice, what will become routinely available are photometric redshift estimates. The true redshift of galaxy $`i`$ will be denoted by $`z_i`$ and the photometric redshift estimate by $`\overline{z}_i`$, with equivalent notation for distances (i.e. $`w_i`$ and $`\overline{w}_i`$). The probability density to have sources at comoving distance $`w_i`$ and to have photometric distance estimates $`\overline{w}_i`$ will be denoted by $`p(w_i)`$ and $`p(\overline{w}_i)`$ respectively, and $`p(w_i,w_j)`$ is the joint probability to have sources at $`w_i`$ and at $`w_j`$ . For conditional probabilities, $`p(w_i|\overline{w}_i)`$ represents the probability that the true source distance is $`w_i`$ given that the photometric distance estimate is $`\overline{w}_i`$. Similarly, $`p(\overline{w}_i|w_i)`$ is the probability that a photometric distance estimate $`\overline{w}_i`$ will be obtained, given that the true distance is $`w_i`$.

### 5.1 Estimator

A practical estimator for the lensing correlation function should minimise the relative signal from intrinsic alignments:

$$\widehat{\xi }_+(\vartheta )=\frac{_{ij}𝒲_i𝒲_j𝒵_{i,j}\mathrm{\Delta }_\vartheta \left(|\theta _i\theta _j|\right)\left(ϵ_iϵ_j^{}\right)}{N_\mathrm{p}(\vartheta )},N_\mathrm{p}(\vartheta )=\underset{ij}{}𝒲_i𝒲_j𝒵_{i,j}\mathrm{\Delta }_\vartheta \left(|\theta _i\theta _j|\right);$$
(20)
$`𝒵_{i,j}𝒵(\overline{z_i},\overline{z_j})`$ is a weighting factor which could be of the form

$$𝒵(\overline{z_i},\overline{z_j})=1\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{z})^2}{2\sigma _𝒵^2}\right],$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{z}`$ is the difference between the photometric redshift estimates of the galaxies in a pair, and $`\sigma _𝒵`$ is a factor that controls the extent of the region in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{z}`$ space over which galaxy pairs are down-weighted. This would be chosen to reflect photometric uncertainty, which is typically much larger than the range over which intrinsic correlations operate. We will neglect the weights $`𝒲`$ in what follows (since these would be determined from the data in practice), and see how this estimator performs in Sect. 6.

### 5.2 Lensing correlation function

We first consider what effect a redshift dependent weighting factor has on the lensing induced component of the correlation function, $`\xi _+(\theta )`$. The addition of such a weighting factor modifies the effective source distance distribution, and a distance correlation is introduced. To make this clear, consider the shear correlation function for particular source distances $`w_i`$ and $`w_j`$ i.e. $`\xi _+(\theta ;w_i,w_j)`$, which would correspond to sources located on two sheets (Schneider et al 2002a);

$`\xi _+(\theta ;w_i,w_j)={\displaystyle \frac{9H_0^4\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2}{4c^4}}{\displaystyle _0^{w_{i,j}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}w}{a^2(w)}}`$
$`\times R(w,w_i)R(w,w_j){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}{(2\pi )}P_\delta (\frac{\mathrm{}}{f(w)},w)\mathrm{J}_0(\mathrm{}\theta )},`$ (22)
where the upper limit $`w_{i,j}`$ in the outer integral is the minimum of $`w_i`$ and $`w_j`$. What is important to note is the dependence on the product $`R(w,w_i)R(w,w_j)`$. When (22) is averaged over the source distance distribution, Schneider et al. (2002a) obtain

$`\xi _+(\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{9H_0^4\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2}{4c^4}}{\displaystyle _0^{w_\mathrm{H}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}w}{a^2(w)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}{(2\pi )}P_\delta (\frac{\mathrm{}}{f(w)},w)\mathrm{J}_0(\mathrm{}\theta )R(w,w_i)R(w,w_j)},`$ (23)
where the angular brackets in $`R(w,w_i)R(w,w_j)`$ denote averaging over the probability distribution $`p(w_i,w_j)`$. If $`p(w_i,w_j)`$ is the probability density to have sources at comoving distances $`w_i`$ and $`w_j`$, in the absence of intrinsic source correlations one has that $`p(w_i,w_j)p(w_i)p(w_j)`$. Then, $`(R(w,w_i)R(w,w_j)\overline{W}^2(w)`$, as in in (6). The addition of the weighting factor $`𝒵(\overline{w}_i,\overline{w}_j)`$ changes the probability density of the redshifts of pairs included in the estimator (20) thus

$$p(w_i,w_j)=\frac{_0^{w_H}d\overline{w}_i𝒳_0^{w_H}d\overline{w}_j𝒴𝒵(\overline{w}_i,\overline{w}_j)}{_0^{w_H}d\overline{w}_i_0^{w_H}d\overline{w}_j𝒵(\overline{w}_i,\overline{w}_j)_0^{w_H}dw_i𝒳_0^{w_H}dw_j𝒴},$$
(24)
where $`𝒳p(\overline{w}_i)p(w_i|\overline{w}_i)`$ and $`𝒴p(\overline{w}_j)p(w_j|\overline{w}_j)`$, the inclusion of the denominator ensuring that the probability distribution is normalised. Using $`p(\overline{w}_i|w_i)p(w_i)=p(w_i|\overline{w}_i)p(\overline{w}_i)`$ (and similarly for galaxy $`j`$) we have that the expectation value of

$$R(w,w_i)R(w,w_j)=\frac{_w^{w_H}dw_iR(w,w_i)_w^{w_H}dw_jR(w,w_j)_0^{w_H}d\overline{w}_i𝒳^{}_0^{w_H}d\overline{w}_j𝒴^{}}{_0^{w_H}dw_i_0^{w_H}dw_j_0^{w_H}d\overline{w}_i𝒳^{}_0^{w_H}d\overline{w}_j𝒴^{}},$$
(25)
where $`𝒳^{}p(w_i)p(\overline{w}_i|w_i)`$ and $`𝒴^{}p(w_j)p(\overline{w}_j|w_j)𝒵(\overline{w}_i,\overline{w}_j)`$. Substitution of (25) into (23) gives the lensing two-point correlation $`\xi _+(\theta )`$. This depends upon the accuracy of photometric redshift estimates, and upon “filtering” using the weighting factor $`𝒵`$.

### 5.3 Intrinsic correlation function

Now consider how accounting for photometric redshifts and applying the same weighting factor $`𝒵(\overline{w}_i,\overline{w}_j)`$ to the prescription for the intrinsic correlation function adjusts the intrinsic correlation function:

$$\xi _+^{\mathrm{int}}(\theta )=\frac{_0^{w_H}dw_i_0^{w_H}dw_j_0^{w_H}d\overline{w}_i𝒳^{}_0^{w_H}d\overline{w}_j𝒴^{}\left[1+\xi _{\mathrm{gg}}(r)\right]\left[\xi _\delta (r)\right]^2}{_0^{w_H}dw_i_0^{w_H}dw_j_0^{w_H}d\overline{w}_i𝒳^{}_0^{w_H}d\overline{w}_j𝒴^{}[1+\xi _{\mathrm{gg}}]},$$
(26)
where $`𝒳^{}`$ and $`𝒴^{}`$ are defined as below (25). The $`\xi _{\mathrm{gg}}(r)`$ term in the denominator can safely be ignored, leaving us with the same denominator as (25). We note that the galaxy correlation function $`\xi _{\mathrm{gg}}`$ should in principle also enter the expressions for the shear; however, as shown in Schneider et al. (2002a), this modifies the resulting cosmic shear signal only by a very small fraction and has therefore been ignored throughout.

## 6 Results

The error in each of our photometric redshift estimates is assumed to be a Gaussian of dispersion $`\sigma _{\mathrm{phot}}=0.1`$ in $`z`$, typical of the accuracy obtained using codes such as hyperz, which adopts a standard spectral energy distribution fitting procedure (Bolzonella et al. 2000), provided that photometric information is available in a sufficient number of wavelength bands. The ratio of the intrinsic signal to the total (lensing plus intrinsic) signal for the weighting factor given by (21) and for various widths of the weighting function, $`\sigma _𝒵`$, is shown in Fig. 3. Two redshift distributions are shown, one with $`z=1.0`$ and the other with $`z=0.5`$. Note that the contamination from intrinsic alignments is much more dramatic in the lower redshift case, but that this can be largely suppressed by down-weighting pairs of galaxies with similar photometric redshifts. The higher mean redshift case is perhaps more typical of surveys suitable for cosmic shear studies. Although the fractional contribution from the intrinsic alignment signal is low, it can be reduced.

By down-weighting pairs depending on their photometric redshift estimates, the number of pairs is also effectively reduced and hence the noise is increased. For the higher (lower) redshift case, the solid (dashed) curve of Fig. 4 shows the fraction of pairs remaining ($``$) as a function of the filter width $`\sigma _𝒵`$. Although the noise is increased, the expectation value $`R(w,w_i)R(w,w_j)`$ is rather insensitive to $`\sigma _𝒵`$ and hence the change in $`\xi _+(\theta )`$ is also small (see Fig. 5).

## 7 Discussion and Conclusions

Recent studies of intrinsic ellipticity correlations have shown that the intrinsic signal can be comparable to (or exceed) the lensing signal in the case of shallow cosmic shear surveys (Jing 2002). We investigated to what extent the contribution of galaxy pairs which are likely to have larger intrinsic correlations can be suppressed, using photometric redshift information and a simple redshift dependent weighting factor. Such a process also results in a reduction in the effective number of pairs and hence an increase in the noise, which scales roughly as $`1/\sqrt{N_\mathrm{p}}`$. The width of the weighting factor, parameterised by $`\sigma _𝒵`$, controls the fraction of pairs remaining. The photometric accuracy determines the precision with which galaxies at similar redshifts can be identified, hence the residual contribution from intrinsic alignments.

The reduction of the effective number of pairs is not the only relevant consideration for the noise in the determination of the two-point correlation function. Depending on the survey geometry, cosmic variance can become the dominant contribution to the covariance of the correlation function for larger angular separations. In particular, for a compact survey geometry, cosmic variance of the shear field dominates over shot noise for angular scales larger than a few arcminutes (e.g., Schneider et al. 2002b). Hence, for those scales the reduction of the effective number of pairs becomes of little relevance.

Intrinsic alignments have also been invoked as a possible source of the so-called B-mode contributions seen in cosmic shear surveys (van Waerbeke et al. 2001, 2002; Hoekstra et al. 2002b). Such B-modes are not expected from lensing effects and thus are usually interpreted as a remaining systematics; whereas galaxy correlations can in principle generate a B-mode contribution (Schneider et al. 2002a), its amplitude is very small. If the B-mode is due to an intrinsic alignment of galaxies, then the use of the redshift filter as discussed here should strongly suppress its relative contribution.

Choosing to apply such a weighting factor will be governed by the details of the survey. Such considerations include that the impact of intrinsic alignments is more dramatic for surveys of lower mean redshift or depth. Another important factor is the accuracy of photometric redshift estimates, which depends upon the combination and characteristics of filters used for the survey - see e.g. Wolf et al. (2001) for a discussion of photometric redshift estimate performance in the context of filter sets. Further, the size of the error bars associated with the practical determination of the two-point correlation function will also play a part in the decision. For deep surveys, with our assumed photometric errors, in order to decrease the fractional contribution of $`\xi _+^{\mathrm{int}}`$ by a few percent, a reduction of several tens of percent in the number of effective pairs may result. However, removal of the intrinsic alignment systematic becomes increasingly important as the experimental error bars in surveys become smaller. In shallower surveys, the contamination from intrinsic alignments is much more pronounced, and in this case down-weighting close galaxy pairs is more effective. Given real data, one might consider a more elaborate weighting scheme that is a function of not only the difference in photometric redshifts, but also giving more weight to higher redshift pairs. Furthermore, the weight factor $`𝒵_{i,j}`$ need not be chosen as a function of the estimated photometric redshift only, but can be constructed such that it depends on the full redshift probability distribution as estimated by photometric redshift techniques. For example, a natural choice would be to have $`𝒵_{i,j}`$ depending on the probability that the two galaxies $`i,j`$ lie within a narrow redshift interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$, as estimated from their individual $`z`$-distributions. The calculation of the expectation value of the corresponding shear estimator is then slightly more complicated, but can be done for each survey at hand.

Throughout we have assumed that photometric redshift estimates will be available for each of the source galaxies, and that the dispersion in these estimates is independent of magnitude or redshift. In practice, photometric redshift estimates are reliable down to a certain limiting magnitude, depending on the survey characteristics and the relative depths of the filters used. Particularly in a deep survey, this magnitude limit may exclude many of the fainter and smaller galaxies that are likely to be in the high-redshift tail of the redshift distribution, and to make a substantial contribution to the lensing signal. Requiring photometric redshift estimates could in fact lead to an increase in the Poisson noise of such a survey by reducing the usable number of pairs beyond the effect shown in Fig. 4, and in addition the reduction in mean redshift could increase the relative contribution from intrinsic alignments. One possibility to counteract such affects might be to include fainter galaxies where no photometric redshift estimates are available, assuming that these are at higher redshifts where intrinsic alignment is less of an issue.

The use of cosmic shear surveys as a tool to place constraints on the 3-D power spectrum, so-called power spectrum tomography, would rely on the availability of photometric redshift estimates for the galaxies involved in the analysis (e.g. Hu 1999; 2002). Croft & Metzler (2000) demonstrated that the intrinsic alignment signal is more severe when correlations within a narrow slice in source galaxy redshift space are considered. The application of a redshift dependent filter, similar to the one we have described here, would greatly suppress the intrinsic alignment systematic. Instead of slicing galaxies in redshift, and calculating the correlation function for galaxies in the same redshift bin – which both increases the relative importance of intrinsic alignments and reduces the total number of pairs – one should correlate galaxies from different redshift bins $`i,j`$, where the bin width would be chosen to be of the same order as the redshift uncertainty. This would yield a set $`\xi _{i,j}(\theta )`$ of correlation functions for which the intrinsic signal is strongly suppressed for $`ij`$. When comparing these correlation functions with predictions from cosmological models, their covariance must be taken into account, which may turn out to be fairly complicated (see Schneider et al. 2002b for the case with no redshift information). This redshift slicing is most straightforwardly done with the correlation function, although for other estimators of the two-point cosmic shear statistics, such as the shear dispersion or the aperture mass, similar pair redshift-dependent estimators are easily constructed.

Most of what has been said above also applies to higher-order cosmic shear statistics. It is well known that the three-point statistics, i.e. the skewness, contains very useful cosmological information (e.g. van Waerbeke et al. 1999). As true for the 2-point statistics, the three-point correlation function is the quantity which is most easily derived from a cosmic shear survey. Bernardeau et al. (2002a) have constructed a statistics based on the measured three-point correlation function (see Schneider & Lombardi 2002 for the classification of three-point shear correlators), and Bernardeau et al. (2002b) obtained a significant detection in the VIRMOS-DESCART survey data. It is unclear whether, and by how much, intrinsic ellipticity correlations affect these measurements. Furthermore, up to now no B-mode estimator in the three-point function has been devised which may indicate the presence of intrinsic alignment effects. Redshift slicing can of course also be done for the three-point function which may be the only way to measure these lensing statistics without the potential influence of intrinsic effects; one needs to suppress those triplets of galaxies where the probability of all three being at the same redshift is not negligibly small (i.e., the estimator is unaffected by intrinsic effects if two of the three are at the same redshift).

Of course, the intrinsic alignment signal that we seek to suppress when performing a lensing analysis is also interesting in its own right, since it places constraints on the formation and evolution of galaxies. Suitable catalogues of galaxies to quantify this signal, and its evolution with redshift, will be a natural by-product of large cosmic shear surveys with photometric redshift information. For example, using a filter for the determination of the ellipticity correlation as in (20) with $`𝒵_{i,j}^{}=1𝒵_{i,j}`$ will make this estimate dominated by the intrinsic alignments, and could thus be used as a first estimate of it. More sophisticated techniques would include the consideration of the resulting correlation function in dependence of the width of the weighting function, and extracting the lensing and intrinsic signal from this functional form.

If the intrinsic alignment of galaxies indeed occurs, and in particular if the intrinsic effect is as strong as suggested by some models (e.g. Jing 2002), a deep multi-colour wide-field survey with a broad range of filters will be necessary, and rewarding, to remove this systematic from cosmic shear measurements. Most likely, the near-IR imaging will present the bottleneck, limiting the magnitude - and thus the effective number density - of galaxies that can be used for cosmic shear. A wide-field near-IR camera in space, such as the PRIME satellite mission, would be an ideal supplement to the planned extensive ground-based optical cosmic shear surveys.

After we had completed this paper, we became aware of work by Heymans & Heavens (2002), also addressing how redshift information can be used to reduce the contamination from intrinsic alignments. They apply their technique to estimate the reduction of the intrinsic signal in several surveys, including the SDSS photometric and spectroscopic samples.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Doug Clowe, Thomas Erben, Martin Kilbinger, Patrick Simon, and in particular Marco Lombardi and Ludo van Waerbeke for useful discussions. We would also like to thank the anonymous referee for very helpful comments. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under the project SCHN 342/3–1 and by the TMR Network “Gravitational Lensing: New Constraints on Cosmology and the Distribution of Dark Matter” of the EC under contract No. ERBFMRX-CT97-0172.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently there has been a great amount of interest in the rare process $`B_s^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ as it offers an opportunity to probe physics beyond the standard model. Thus in the standard model the branching ratio is rather small, i.e., $`B(\overline{B}_s^0\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ $`=`$$`(3.1\pm 1.4)\times 10^9`$ (for $`|V_{ts}|=0.04\pm 0.002`$) while in supersymmetric models it can get three orders of magnitude larger for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the branching ratio can be as large as $`10^6`$. This result is very exciting in view of the fact that the sensitivity of the Tevatron to this decay will improve by two orders of magnitude allowing a test of a class of supersymmetric models even before any sparticles are found. Thus while the current limit on this decay is $`B(\overline{B}_s^0\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ $`<`$$`(2.6)\times 10^6`$ it is estimated that the RUNII of the Tevatron could be sensitive to a branching ratio down to the level of $`10^8`$ or even lower. While this sensitivity is still too small to test the standard model prediction, it is large enough to explore significant portions of the parameter space of supersymmetric models such as mSUGRA. The previous analyses have mostly been in the context of CP conservation except for the works of Refs.. In Ref. effects of CP violation on lepton asymmetries, ie., $`(l^+l^+l^{}l^{})/(l^+l^++l^{}l^{})`$ in decays of $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs were studied, while in Ref. CP asymmetry in B and $`\overline{B}`$ decays was investigated but only a cursory mention of the effect of CP violation on the size of the branching ratio, which is primarily the quantity which will be measured at the Tevatron, was made in Ref.. The effects of CP phases on the Higgs sector were ignored in these works. However, it is known that at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ CP mixing effects in the neutral Higgs sector are very significant and cannot be ignored. In this analysis we give a complete analysis of the effects of CP violation on the decay $`B_{d,s}^0l^+l^{}`$ valid at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ including the effects of CP violation in the neutral Higgs sector which mediates the decay. The focus of our work is the effect of CP violation on the branching ratio $`B(\overline{B}_{d,s}^0l^+l^{})`$. Specifically we would like to see the size of the variation in the branching ratio when the phases are included in the analysis and to see if such variations will allow the branching ratio to lie within reach of RUNII of the Tevatron.

In supersymmetric models CP phases arise naturally via the soft breaking masses. Thus the mSUGRA model allowing for complex soft parameters contains two phases and the parameter space of such models can be characterized by $`m_0,m_{\frac{1}{2}},|A_0|,\mathrm{tan}\beta ,\theta _\mu ,\alpha _A`$ where $`m_0`$ is the universal scalar mass, $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ is the universal gaugino mass, $`|A_0|`$ is the universal trilinear coupling, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =<H_2>/<H_1>`$ where $`H_2`$ gives mass to the up quark and $`H_1`$ gives mass to the down quark and the leptons, $`\theta _\mu `$ is the phase of the Higgs mixing parameter $`\mu `$ and $`\alpha _A`$ is the phase of the trilinear couplings $`A_0`$. In extended SUGRA models with nonuniversalities and in the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) one can have many more phases. Specifically the $`U(1),SU(2),SU(3)`$ gaugino masses $`m_i`$ (i=1,2,3) can have phases so that $`m_i=|m_i|e^{i\xi _i}`$ and such phases play an important role in SUSY phenomena at low energy. An important constraint on models with CP violation is that of the experimental limits on the electron and on the neutron electric dipole moments (edms)($`d_e<4.3\times 10^{27}ecm`$, $`d_n<6.5\times 10^{26}ecm`$). These constraints can be satisfied in a variety of ways. The limit on the edm of $`H_g^{199}`$ is also known to a high degree of accuracy ($`d_{H_g}<9\times 10^{28}ecm`$) and recent analyses have also included this constraint. Specifically in scenarios with the cancellation mechanism and in scenario with phases only in the third generation one can accommodate large CP violating phases and their inclusion can affect supersymmetric phenomena in a very significant way. In this work we will focus on the contribution from the so called counter term diagram (Fig.1) which gives an amplitude proportional to $`\mathrm{tan}^3\beta `$ for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The decay $`B_d^{}^0l^+l^{}`$ ($`d^{}=d,s`$) is governed by the effective Hamiltonian

$`H_{eff}={\displaystyle \frac{G_Fe^2}{4\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}}V_{tb}V_{td^{}}^{}(C_SO_S+C_PO_P+C_S^{}O_S^{}`$
$`+C_P^{}O_P^{}++C_{10}O_{10})_Q`$ (1)
where

$`O_S=m_b(\overline{d}_\alpha ^{}P_Rb_\alpha )(\overline{l}l),O_P=m_b(\overline{d}_\alpha ^{}P_Rb_\alpha )(\overline{l}\gamma _5l),`$
$`O_S^{}=m_d^{}(\overline{d}_\alpha ^{}P_Lb_\alpha )(\overline{l}l),O_P^{}=m_d^{}(\overline{d}_\alpha ^{}P_Lb_\alpha )(\overline{l}\gamma _5l),`$
$`O_{10}=(\overline{d}_\alpha ^{}\gamma ^\mu P_Lb_\alpha )(\overline{l}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5l)`$ (2)
and where the subscript $`Q`$ in Eq.(1) is the scale where the quantities are being evaluated. The branching ratio $`B(B_d^{}^0l^+l^{})`$ is given by

$`B(\overline{B}_d^{}^0l^+l^{})={\displaystyle \frac{G_F^\mathit{2}\alpha ^\mathit{2}M_{B_d^{}}^\mathit{5}\tau _{B_d^{}}}{\mathit{16}\pi ^\mathit{3}}}|V_{\mathrm{𝑡𝑏}}V_{\mathrm{𝑡𝑑}^{}}^{}|^\mathit{2}`$
$`(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_l^2}{M_{B_d^{}}^2}})^{1/2}\{(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_l^2}{M_{B_d^{}}^2}})|f_S|^2+|f_P+2m_lf_A|^2\}`$ (3)
where $`f_i`$ (i=S,P) and $`f_A`$ are defined as follows

$$f_i=\frac{i}{2}f_{B_d^{}}(\frac{C_im_bC_i^{}m_d^{}}{m_d^{}+m_b}),f_A=\frac{if_{B_d^{}}}{2M_{B_d^{}}^2}C_{10}$$
(4)
Additionally in the above one should include the SUSY QCD correction which behaves like $`\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and can produce a significant effect in the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region.

## 2 Effects of CP Violation on $`B_s^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$

We discuss now the effects of CP violation on the decay $`B_s^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$. As pointed out above the diagram which gives the largest contribution in the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region is the counter term diagram and involves the exchange of Higgs poles. In the absence of CP violation the Higgs sector diagonalizes into a CP even and a CP odd sector. However, it is well known that loop effects induce a CP violation in the Higgs sector and generate a mixing of CP even and CP odd sectors. As a consequence CP effects will enter Fig.1 not only in the vertices involving charginos and squarks but also in the Higgs poles and the vertices involving the Higgs. CP violation in the Higgs sector can be exhibited by parameterizing the Higgs VEVs in the presence of CP violating phases as follows:

$`(H_1)=(H_1^0,H_1^{})=(v_1+\varphi _1+i\psi _1,H_1^{})/\sqrt{2},`$
$`(H_2)=(H_2^+,H_2^0)=e^{i\theta _H}(H_2^+,v_2+\varphi _2+i\psi _2)/\sqrt{2})`$ (5)
where in general $`\theta _H`$ is non-vanishing as a consequence of the minimization conditions of the Higgs potential. In the presence of CP violating phases the CP even and the CP odd sectors of the Higgs fields mix and thus the Higgs matrix is a $`4\times 4`$ matrix in the basis $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\psi _1,\psi _2`$. In the basis $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\psi _{1D},\psi _{2D}`$ where

$`\psi _{1D}=\mathrm{sin}\beta \psi _1+\mathrm{cos}\beta \psi _2,`$
$`\psi _{2D}=\mathrm{cos}\beta \psi _1+\mathrm{sin}\beta \psi _2`$ (6)
the $`\psi _{2D}`$ field decouples and is identified as the Goldstone and one is left with a remaining $`3\times 3`$ $`(mass)^2`$ matrix which mixes CP even and CP odd states. The Higgs mass matrix can be diagonalized by the transformation

$`RM_{Higgs}^2R^T=diag(M_{H_1}^2,M_{H_2}^2,M_{H_3}^2)`$ (7)
where the eigen values $`(m_{H_1},m_{H_2},m_{H_3})`$ are now admixtures of CP even and CP odd states and we arrange the eigenvalues so that in the limit of no CP violation one has the identification $`(m_{H_1},m_{H_2},m_{H_3})`$$``$ $`(m_H,m_h,m_A)`$ where (h, H) are the (light, heavy) CP even Higgs bosons and A is the CP odd Higgs boson. The diagonalization modifies the vertices which connect the Higgs with the quarks and the leptons. One finds that the interaction Lagrangian for the Higgs vertices that enter in the counter term diagram is now given by

$`L_{ffH}=(gm_b/2m_Wcos\beta )\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j=1}^3\overline{b}[R_{j1}i\gamma _5sin\beta R_{j3}]bH_j`$
$`(gm_l/2m_Wcos\beta )\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j=1}^3\overline{l}[R_{j1}i\gamma _5sin\beta R_{j3}]lH_j`$ (8)
In the SUSY sector we carry out the analysis in the scenario with minimal flavor violation where the squark mass matrices are assumed flavor-diagonal. Under this assumption we find

$`C_S={\displaystyle \frac{m_l}{\sqrt{2}m_W^2\mathrm{cos}^3\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{2}{}}}m_{\chi _s^+}{\displaystyle \frac{R_{j1}^2}{M_{H_j}^2}}\psi _s`$ (9)
$`C_P={\displaystyle \frac{m_l\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }{\sqrt{2}m_W^2\mathrm{cos}\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{2}{}}}m_{\chi _s^+}{\displaystyle \frac{R_{j3}^2}{M_{H_j}^2}}\psi _s`$ (10)
$`\psi _s={\displaystyle \underset{q=t,c,u}{}}U_{s2}\lambda _{qq}\{({\displaystyle \frac{m_WV_{s1}}{2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}})[\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _q}{2}}f_3(m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2/m_{\chi _s^{+2}})`$
$`+\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _q}{2}}f_3(m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2/m_{\chi _s^{+2}})]+{\displaystyle \frac{m_qV_{s2}\mathrm{sin}\theta _q}{4\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\mathrm{sin}\beta }}e^{i\varphi _q}\mathrm{\Delta }f_3\}`$ (11)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_3`$= $`f_3(m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2/m_{\chi _s^{+2}})`$\- $`f_3(m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2/m_{\chi _s^{+2}})`$, $`\stackrel{~}{q}_1(\stackrel{~}{q}_2)`$ is the heavier (lighter) squark and $`\theta _q`$ and $`\varphi _q`$ are defined by

$$\mathrm{sin}\theta _q=\frac{2m_q|A_qm_0\mu ^{}\mathrm{cot}\beta |}{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2}$$
(12)
$$\mathrm{sin}\varphi _q=\frac{m_0|A_q|\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{A_q}+|\mu |\mathrm{sin}\theta _\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta }{|m_0A_q\mu ^{}\mathrm{cot}\beta |}$$
(13)
In Eq.(11) $`U`$ and $`V`$ are the diagonalizing matrices for the chargino mass matrix $`M_C`$ so that $`U^{}M_CV^1=diag(m_{\chi _1^\pm },m_{\chi _2^\pm })`$ and finally $`f_3`$ in Eq.(11) is a form factor defined by $`f_3(x)=xlnx/(1x)`$. For the diagram of Fig.1 $`C_S^{}`$ and $`C_P^{}`$ are defined as follows

$`C_S^{}(counter)=(C_S(counter)[\lambda _{qq}\lambda _{qq}^{}])^{}`$
$`C_P^{}(counter)=(C_P(counter)[\lambda _{qq}\lambda _{qq}^{}])^{}`$ (14)
where $`\lambda _{qq}=(V_{qb}V_{qd^{}}^{}/V_{tb}V_{td^{}}^{})_{CKM}`$ and the subscript means that the matrix V here is the CKM matrix. Eqs.(9-13) give the most general result for the minimal flavor violation with inclusion of phases without any approximations. Neglecting the squark mixings for the first two generations Eq.(11) simplifies so that

$`\psi _s=U_{s2}\{({\displaystyle \frac{m_WV_{s1}}{2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}})[\lambda _{uu}f_3(y_{\stackrel{~}{u}_{1s}})+\lambda _{cc}f_3(y_{\stackrel{~}{c}_{1s}})`$
$`+\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _t}{2}}f_3(y_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{1s}})+\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _t}{2}}f_3(y_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{2s}})]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_tV_{s2}\mathrm{sin}\theta _t}{4\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\mathrm{sin}\beta }}e^{i\varphi _t}[f_3(y_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{2s}})f_3(y_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{1s}})]\}`$ (15)
where $`y_{\stackrel{~}{u}_{1s}}`$ etc are defined by $`y_{\stackrel{~}{u}_{1s}}=(m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_1}^2/m_{\chi _s^{+2}})`$, $`y_{\stackrel{~}{c}_{1s}}=(m_{\stackrel{~}{c}_1}^2/m_{\chi _s^{+2}})`$, $`y_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{1s}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2/m_{\chi _s^{+2}}`$, $`y_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{2s}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2/m_{\chi _s^{+2}}`$.

## 3 Numerical Size of CP Effects

Eqs.(9)-(15) constitute the new results of this analysis as they include the effects of CP violation. In the limit when we neglect the CP phases our approximation Eq.(15) agrees with the result of Bobeth etal. at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The phases can increase or decrease the branching ratio. We focus on the region of the parameter space where an enhancement occurs and this region is of considerable relevance for the detection of the $`B_s^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ signal.

| Table 1. Electron, neutron and $`H_g`$ edms | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| case | $`m_0`$, $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}`$, $`|A_0|`$ | $`\alpha _A`$, $`\xi _1`$, $`\xi _2`$, $`\xi _3`$ | $`d_e`$ | $`d_n`$ | $`d_{H_g}`$ |
| (a) | $`200,200,4`$ | $`1,.5,.659,.633`$ | $`1.45\times 10^{27}`$ | $`9.2\times 10^{27}`$ | $`7.2\times 10^{27}`$ |
| (b) | $`370,370,4`$ | $`2,.6,.653,.672`$ | $`1.14\times 10^{27}`$ | $`7.9\times 10^{27}`$ | $`2.87\times 10^{26}`$ |
| (c) | $`320,320,3`$ | $`.8,.4,.668,.6`$ | $`3.5\times 10^{27}`$ | $`7.1\times 10^{27}`$ | $`2.9\times 10^{26}`$ |

In Fig.2 we give a plot of the ratio $`B(B_s^0\mu +\mu ^{})/B(B_s^0\mu +\mu ^{})_0`$, where $`B(B_s^0\mu +\mu ^{})_0`$ is the branching ratio in the absence of phases, as a function of the phase $`\alpha _A`$ of the trilinear coupling $`A_0`$ for values of $`|A_0|`$ ranging from 1 to 5. In each case we find that the ratio of branching ratios shows a strong dependence on $`\alpha _A`$. Specifically for the case $`|A_0|=5`$ the ratio can become as large as $`10^2`$. Thus Fig.(2) shows that with phases the branching ratio can be significantly modified. There are many contributing factors to this phenomenon. Thus in Eqs.(9),(10) and (15) we find several quantities that depend on the phases. These include the chargino masses, the Higgs masses, the mixings $`R_{j1}`$ and $`R_{j3}`$ etc. However, the largeness of the effect arises mostly from the variation in $`\psi _s`$. Here one finds that in some regions of the parameter space the masses of the stops and their mixings are strongly affected by the CP phases which affect $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _t`$ and $`f_3`$ and their combined effect can generate a large enhancement of the amplitude when the phases are included. In Fig.3 we exhibit the branching ratio $`B_s^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for various values of the phases and compare the results to the CP conserving case where the phases are all set to zero. The analysis of Fig.4 is identical to that of Fig.3 except that a comparison is made with the CP conserving case where the phases are all set to $`\pi `$. One finds that often points in the parameter space which would otherwise (i.e., when phases all vanish or are equal to $`\pi `$) lie below the sensitivity of $`10^8`$ for the branching ratio, which is what the RUNII of the Tevatron can achieve in the future, can now be moved into the region of sensitivity of the Tevatron.

We have checked that using the cancellation mechanism there exist regions of the parameter space where the experimental constraints on the edms of the electron, of the neutron, and of $`H_g^{199}`$ are satisfied. For $`H_g^{199}`$ the atomic edm constraint can be translated into a contrainst on a specific combination of the chromo electric dipole moment of u, d and s quarks, so that $`C_{H_g}=|d_d^Cd_u^C0.012d_s^C|`$ is contrained to satisfy $`C_{H_g}<3.0\times 10^{26}cm`$. An example is given in Table1. As shown in Ref. one uses scaling to generate a trajectory where cancellations occur and the edm constraints are satisfied starting from a given cancellation point. We have checked that this is the case for the region such as in Table1. In Fig.5 we exhibit the effect of CP phases on the branching ratio of $`B_d^0\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ and compare the result to the CP conserving cases where all the phases are set to zero. (An analysis without phases for this process is also given in Ref.). The analysis of Fig.6 is identical to that of Fig.6 except that a comparison with CP conserving cases is made by setting all the phases to $`\pi `$. It would be interesting to see if some of the region of Figs. 5 and 6 would be accessible to experiment in the future. An interesting study has recently appeared correlating the $`B_{d,s}^0\overline{B}_{d,s}^0`$ mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{d,s}`$ with $`B_{d,s}^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ in supersymmetry for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. It would be interesting to investigate this correlation in the presence of phases in MSSM. However, this requires an analysis of the $`B_{d,s}^0\overline{B}_{d,s}^0`$ mass difference with inclusion of phases in the supersymmetric loop contribution to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{d,s}`$. This possibility is under investigation.

## 4 Conclusion

In conclusion in this work we have derived analytic results for the effects of CP violating phases on the branching ratio $`B_d^{}^0l^+l^{}`$ arising from the chargino-stop exchange contribution in the counter term diagram in the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region. It is found that the branching ratio in general is sensitive to the CP phases and that the branching ratio can vary in some parts of the parameter space by up to 1-2 orders of magnitude. These results have important implications for the search for this signal and for the interpretation of it in limiting the SUSY parameter space once the signal is found. Of course significant effects of order 50-100% can be obtained with significantly smaller phases than those in Table 1 and here the edm constraints can be satisfied over a much larger parameter space. In the above analysis we have not included the effects of the gluino and the neutralino exchanges. Inclusion of these will bring in a strong dependence on additional phases $`\xi _1`$ and $`\xi _3`$. A full analysis of the CP violating effects valid also for small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ will be discussed elsewhere.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported in part by NSF grant PHY-0139967.


text:
# Linking Makinson and Kraus-Lehmann-Magidor preferential entailments

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Here is one possible presentation of preferential entailments: We are given some knowledge, represented as a set of logical formulas. This set can be associated with various kinds of objects, providing its “semantics”: it can be associated with its set of models, or equivalently in the propositional case, with the set of the complete theories which entail the formulas. Or it can be associated with the set of theories (complete or not) which entail the formulas. Then we are given a binary relation among these objects, and we keep only the objects which are “preferred” (meaning minimal) for this relation. We get a stronger set of formulas, deduced “by default”: we get also all the formulas associated with this reduced set of objects. This allows to reason in a non monotonic way, since augmenting the knowledge may invalidate previous conclusions. Indeed, some objects may become minimal in the smaller set associated with the new knowledge. We can allow more flexibility by considering copies of models, or copies of theories, defining the relation among these sets of copies. We get then four kinds of preferential entailments, called KLM below, which have been introduced by Kraus, Lehmann and Magidor (1990) in  ( requires some conditions on the relation, but adding these conditions is straightforward in our results).

Makinson (1994, first version in 1989) has defined a more general version , called MAK here. An unstructured “semantics” is defined simply by a satisfaction relation from some set of objects to the set of formulas, without any condition. It is then useless to consider sets of these objects instead of singletons: its suffices to define directly as our starting set, the set of sets that we would want to consider. Also, since nothing prevents two different objects from being associated with the same set of formulas, it is useless to consider copies of objects. A drawback of this simple definition is that the notion of classical deduction is lost. The “entailment” can be highly non standard, departing from classical logic and natural ways of reasoning. We can e.g. deduce $`AB`$ without deducing $`A`$. As a bonus, we can consider as our starting logic basically any non classical logic.

If we want to compare the two notions, we must determine which non standard behavior we admit in the “semantics” defining the preferential entailment. If we want to extend KLM entailment in order to deal with any situation accessible to MAK entailment, all we have to do is to admit any unconstrained relation $`|`$ between the set of states and the set of formulas. We can even restrict our attention to the simplest of the four cases, defining the relation directly on the set of the objects describing the semantics. Thus, the interesting point is the other direction. We show that, provided classical equivalence is respected, MAK entailment is equivalent to KLM entailment. We describe a simple subclass of MAK entailment, which includes all the cases where MAK entailment respects classical equivalence, and for which it is easy to describe a passage from MAK formulation to KLM formulation and back. We improve previous results obtained by Dix and Makinson (1992) in  and by Voorbraak (1993) in . With respect to , the description of the subclass of MAK is much simpler. Thanks to recent results on preferential entailments, we establish equivalence between the two formalisms in all the cases where it is possible, namely when MAK respects classical equivalence.

In Section 2 we introduce the notations and the logical pre-requisite necessary for this text. In Section 3 we remind the definitions and main properties of the kind of preferential entailments considered here, giving our results in Section 4.

## 2 NOTATIONS AND FRAMEWORK

$``$ $`\text{L},\phi ,𝒯`$: We work in a propositional language L, and we use the same denotation L for its set of formulas. Letters $`\phi ,\psi `$ denote formulas (identified with their equivalence class). Letters $`𝒯`$ or $`𝒞`$ denote sets of formulas.

$``$ $`V,\text{M},\mu ,𝒫(E),\mu \mathrm{}`$: $`V(\text{L})`$ (vocabulary), denotes a set of propositional symbols and $`\mu `$ denotes an interpretation for L, identified with the subset of $`V(\text{L})`$ that it satisfies. The satisfaction relation is denoted by $``$, $`\mu \phi `$ and $`\mu 𝒯`$ being defined classically. For any set $`E`$, $`𝒫(E)`$ denotes the set of its subsets. The set $`𝒫(V(\text{L}))`$ of the interpretations for L is denoted by M. A model of $`𝒯`$ is an interpretation $`\mu `$ such that $`\mu 𝒯`$. The sets of the models of $`𝒯`$ and $`\phi `$ are denoted respectively by $`\text{M}(𝒯)`$ and $`\text{M}(\phi )`$.

$``$ $`𝒯\mathrm{},Th(𝒯),\text{T}`$: $`𝒯\phi `$ and $`𝒯𝒯_1`$ are defined classically. A theory is a subset of L closed for deduction, and T denotes the set $`\{𝒯\text{L}/𝒯=Th(𝒯)\}`$ of the theories of L.

$``$ $`\text{M}_1\mathrm{},Th(\mu ),Th(\text{M}_1)`$: A theory $`𝒞\text{T}`$ is complete if $`\phi \text{L}`$, $`\phi 𝒞`$ iff $`\neg \phi 𝒞`$. The set $`Th(\mu )=\{\phi \text{L}/\mu \phi \}`$ of the formulas satisfied by $`\mu `$ is the theory of $`\mu `$. For any subset $`\text{M}_1`$ of M, $`\text{M}_1𝒯`$ means $`\mu 𝒯`$ for any $`\mu \text{M}_1`$ and the theory of $`\text{M}_1`$ is the set $`Th(\text{M}_1)=\{\phi \text{L}/\text{M}_1\phi \}`$ \[thus $`Th(\text{M}_1)=_{\mu 𝐌_1}Th(\mu )`$\]. This ambiguous use of $`Th`$ and of $``$ (applied to sets of formulas or interpretations) is usual. For any $`𝒯\text{T}`$, we get $`𝒯=_{𝒯_i𝐓,𝒯_i𝒯}𝒯_i=_{𝒞_i𝐓,𝒞_i\mathrm{complete},𝒞_i𝒯}𝒞_i`$. The set of all the complete theories is in a natural one-to-one mapping with M: For any $`\mu \text{M}`$, $`Th(\mu )`$ is complete, and for any complete $`𝒞\text{T}`$, $`\text{M}(𝒞)`$ is a singleton $`\{\mu \}\text{M}`$. For any $`𝒯\text{L}`$, we get $`\mu 𝒯`$ iff $`Th(\mu )𝒯`$ and for any $`\text{M}_1\text{M}`$, $`\text{M}_1𝒯`$ iff $`Th(\text{M}_1)𝒯`$.

## 3 PREFERENTIAL ENTAILMENTS

### 3.1 PREFERENTIAL KLM ENTAILMENT

Since their introduction , these kinds of preferential entailment have been extensively studied. As  remarks, “the use of the term preferential is \[..\] rather anarchic \[…\]”. The situation has not really improved since these “early years”, however, it is clear that now the word is not restricted to the “cumulative cases” as done in . The expression “preferential entailment” was first introduced by Shoham (1988) in , and then regularly generalized and/or modified. The basic idea however is still the same: we consider a set of objects describing the semantics, and a binary relation $``$ on this set of objects. We get a “preferential semantics” in which only the objects, associated with a set of formulas, which are minimal for $``$, are considered. The definitions we give can be found in e.g. \[7, Definitions 3.10, 3.13\] (“single formula version”) and \[6, Definitions 4.26–29\] (“theory version”, only version considered here), with some modifications which have already been considered in e.g. . These modifications are either cosmetic, or consist in dropping some special condition imposed in the original text to the relation $``$, since (1) we do not need these restrictions, and (2) our study can accommodate in a straightforward way these restrictions.

###### Definition 3.1

A KLM model is a triple $`\mathrm{SS}=(S,l,)`$, where $`S`$ is a set, the elements of which are called states, $`l`$ is a mapping $`S𝒫(\text{M})`$ that labels every state with a set of interpretations and $``$ is a binary relation on $`S`$, called a preference relation.

We define a satisfaction relation $`|`$: for any $`sS`$, $`s|\phi `$ whenever $`l(s)\phi `$ and, for any $`𝒯\text{L}`$, $`s|𝒯`$ whenever $`l(s)𝒯`$. For any set of formulas $`𝒯\text{L}`$, we define $`S(𝒯)=\{s\mathrm{SS}/s|𝒯\}`$ and the set $`S_{}(𝒯)`$ of the states in $`S(𝒯)`$ which are minimal for $``$ by $`S_{}(𝒯)=\{sS(𝒯)/s^{}s\text{ for no }s^{}S(𝒯)\}`$.

$`S(𝒯)`$ is $`\widehat{𝒯}`$ in the original texts. Notice that, as noted by Bochman (1999) in , we can replace the set $`l(s)`$ of interpretations by a theory, precisely the theory $`Th(l(s))`$, and we will in fact generally prefer this formulation, where $`l`$ is a mapping $`S\text{T}`$ instead of $`S𝒫(\text{M})`$. Also, we drop here the consistency of states condition $`l(s)\mathrm{}`$ (or alternatively $`l(s)\text{L}`$ if we consider labelling with theories) which appears in the original definitions. As explained below, this condition is unnecessary.

The role of $`l`$ is to allow “copies of” sets of interpretations (or alternatively “copies” of theories), since various states can be mapped by $`l`$ to the same object.

###### Definition 3.2

Let us call an entailment relation, any relation $``$ in $`𝒫(\text{L})\times \text{L}`$. Any entailment relation can be extended into a relation in $`𝒫(\text{L})\times 𝒫(\text{L})`$ by defining $`𝒯𝒯^{}`$ as $`𝒯\phi `$ for any $`\phi 𝒯^{}`$.

From any entailment relation, we can define a mapping $`C`$ from $`𝒫(\text{L})`$ to itself, called an entailment, as follows: $`C(𝒯)=\{\phi \text{L}/𝒯\phi \}`$.

###### Definition 3.3

 A KLM entailment relation $`_{}^{KLM}`$ is defined as follows from a KLM model $`\mathrm{SS}`$: for any $`𝒯\{\phi \}\text{L}`$, $`𝒯_{}^{KLM}\phi `$ whenever $`s|\phi `$ for any $`sS_{}(𝒯)`$. We write also $`\phi C_{KLM}(𝒯)`$ instead of $`𝒯_{}^{KLM}\phi `$ and call the entailment $`C_{KLM}`$ a KLM preferential entailment, or a KLM entailment for short.

###### Definition 3.4

A pre-circumscription $`f`$ (in L) is an extensive (i.e., $`f(𝒯)𝒯`$ for any $`𝒯`$) mapping from T to T. For any subset $`𝒯`$ of L, we use the abbreviation $`f(𝒯)=f(Th(𝒯))`$, assimilating a pre-circumscription to a particular extensive entailment. We write $`f(\phi )`$ for $`f(\{\phi \})=f(Th(\phi ))`$.

Thus, we call here pre-circumscription any entailment which respects full logical equivalence and which is extensive. By “respects full logical equivalence”, we mean that, if $`𝒯_1`$ and $`𝒯_2`$ are two logically equivalent sets of formulas \[i.e. $`Th(𝒯_1)=Th(𝒯_2)`$\], then (1) (“left side”) $`f(𝒯_1)=f(𝒯_2)`$, and (2) (“right side”) $`𝒯_1f(𝒯)`$ iff $`𝒯_2f(𝒯)`$. The “right side” is equivalent to “right weakening”: if $`𝒯_1\phi `$ and $`𝒯_1f(𝒯)`$, then $`\phi f(𝒯)`$.

###### Definition 3.5

An entailment $`C`$ satisfies (CT), cumulative transitivity, also known as “cut”, if

$$\text{for any }𝒯^{}C(𝒯),\text{ we get }C(𝒯𝒯^{})C(𝒯).$$

Here are the two main (and characterizing) properties of KLM entailments:

###### Property 3.6

 Any KLM entailment $`C_{KLM}`$ is a pre-circumscription satisfying (CT).

###### Property 3.7

 Any pre-circumscription satisfying (CT) is a KLM entailment.

Particular KLM models can be considered. The three kinds described now originate also from , where no special names are given. Let $`\mathrm{SS}=(S,l,)`$ be a KLM model.

###### Definition 3.8

1. If $`S=𝒫(\text{M})`$ (or equivalently, under the alternative formulation in terms of theories, $`S=\text{T}`$) and $`l=identity`$, then $`\mathrm{SS}`$ is a simplified (or unlabelled) KLM model.
2. If each $`l(s)`$ is a singleton in $`𝒫(\text{M})`$ (or equivalently a complete theory), then $`\mathrm{SS}`$ is a singular KLM model.
3. If $`\mathrm{SS}`$ is simplified and singular, then $`\mathrm{SS}`$ is a strictly singular KLM model.

With the unrestricted case, we get then four kinds of models, which could give rise to four kinds of KLM entailments. It happens (, this result could also be extracted from an independent work by Voorbraak ) that we can without lack of generality restrict our attention to simplified KLM models: in the proof of Property 3.7, we can easily get a simplified KLM model. Thus, we do not really need to use “states” in KLM models. Notice that in the particular case of a singular KLM model, we generally cannot suppress the states if we want to keep only singletons in the image $`l(S)`$ of $`l`$ (as shown in a very simple finite example in \[7, p.193\], which applies here): we cannot suppress the states without leaving this attractive particular case111Even in this case, the states can be suppressed, provided we enlarge the vocabulary of the initial language L in such a way that each different state gives rise to a different interpretation in the new language: this method is introduced by Costello (1998) in  for the cumulative and finite case. This means that if we start from a preference relation defined in a set of copies of interpretations, we cannot always get an equivalent relation defined directly on the set M of the interpretations. This feature is a good motivation for using states, but only in the case of singular models. Also we cannot express any KLM entailment thanks to a singular KLM model (a small finite counter-example in \[7, proof of Lemma 4.5\] applies here)222Again, this limitation can be overcome , at least in the finite case: at the price of a severe modification of the vocabulary of the initial language L, any KLM preferential entailment can be expressed in terms of a strictly singular KLM model.. This means that if we start from a preference relation defined on a set of copies of sets of interpretations (or equivalently of copies of theories), then we can find an equivalent relation defined directly on the set $`𝒫(\text{M})`$ (or T), but we generally cannot define the relation on the set M of interpretations or even on a set of copies of interpretations. Thus, we get exactly three kinds of KLM preferential entailments (see their syntactical characterizations in ), instead of four. A consequence of this reduction to simplified models is that any singular model is equivalent to a simplified model, which is not absolutely obvious from the definitions (“equivalent”, meaning here giving rise to the same preferential entailment).

### 3.2 PREFERENTIAL MAK ENTAILMENT

Makinson considers an entailment more general than its KLM counterpart, with a simpler definition. The price is that this notion leaves classical consequence altogether, getting a highly non standard preferential entailment in which we can conclude $`AB`$ without concluding $`B`$, and in which what we conclude from $`AB`$ is not related to what we conclude from $`\{A,B\}`$. This can be useful if we want to extend the notion of preferential entailment to non classical logics. However, if we want to stay in our good old classical way of reasoning, this is rather confusing. In any case, a fair comparison with KLM definitions needs to equate the ways we want to reason at first. This is what we will do in Section 4, after giving the definitions now.

###### Definition 3.9

 A MAK model is a triple $`\mathrm{SS}=(S,|,)`$ where $`S`$ is a set, the elements of which are called states, $``$ is a binary relation on $`S`$, called a preference relation (till now, this is as in KLM models Definition 3.1) and where $`|`$ is any satisfaction relation on $`S`$. We write $`s|_{}\phi `$ \[respectively $`s|_{}𝒯`$\] whenever $`s|\phi `$ \[respectively $`s|𝒯`$, i.e. $`s|\phi `$ for any $`\phi 𝒯`$\] and for no $`s^{}S`$ such that $`s^{}s`$ we have $`s^{}|\phi `$ \[respectively $`s^{}|𝒯`$\].

A MAK entailment relation $`_{}^{MAK}`$ is defined as follows: For any set of formulas $`𝒯\{\phi \}`$, $`𝒯_{}^{MAK}\phi `$ whenever $`s|\phi `$ for all $`sS`$ satisfying $`s|_{}𝒯`$.

A MAK preferential entailment, or MAK entailment for short, is an entailment $`C_{MAK}`$ defined by a MAK entailment relation: $`C_{MAK}(𝒯)=\{\phi \text{L}/𝒯_{}^{MAK}\phi \}`$.

The names KLM model and MAK model are from . What makes this short definition so powerful is that no condition is required for $`|`$. This makes the preferential entailment very different from what we expect for an “entailment”. $`C_{MAK}`$ is far from being a pre-circumscription: if $`𝒯_1`$ and $`𝒯_2`$ are classically equivalent, we do not know anything about $`C_{MAK}(𝒯_2)`$ when we know $`C_{MAK}(𝒯_1)`$. Moreover, we almost need an extensive description of all the sets $`C_{MAK}(𝒯)`$, since they are not classical theories. If we drop the identification between a formula and its equivalence class, we can even consider logics where $`C_{MAK}(AB)`$ is different from $`C_{MAK}(BA)`$. It may even seem strange that such a formalism has interesting properties, however we get cumulative transitivity:

###### Property 3.10

 Any MAK entailment is extensive and satisfies (CT).

This implies also idempotence (Makinson, ):
$`C_{MAK}(C_{MAK}(𝒯))=C_{MAK}(𝒯)`$. Nevertheless, the significance of (CT) for such a non standard “entailment” is far from being as great as when we deal only with pre-circumscriptions.

Before making a comparison between MAK and KLM, let us give a few natural definitions, which extend to ($`S`$, $`|`$) what is usually done with classical interpretations (M, $``$).

###### Definitions 3.11

Let $`(S,|,)`$ be a MAK model. As in Definition 3.1, for $`sS`$, $`𝒯\text{L}`$, and $`\phi \text{L}`$, $`s|𝒯`$ means $`s|\phi `$ for any $`\phi 𝒯`$, $`S(𝒯)=\{sS/s|𝒯\}`$ \[and  $`S(\phi )=S(\{\phi \})`$\].
We define the entailment $`Cn_|`$ as follows: $`Cn_|(𝒯)=\{\phi \text{L}/\text{ for any }sS(𝒯),s|\phi \}`$.

We define also, for each $`sS`$: $`Cn_|(s)=\{\phi \text{L}/s|\phi \}`$.

We get (straightforward ): $`Cn_|`$ is a Tarski entailment, i.e. it is an extensive entailment satisfying idempotence (point 1) and monotony (point 2): for any sets $`𝒯,𝒯^{}`$ of formulas,

1. $`𝒯Cn_|(𝒯)=Cn_|(Cn_|(𝒯))`$.
2. If $`𝒯𝒯^{}`$ then $`Cn_|(𝒯)Cn_|(𝒯^{})`$.

Notice that we get (immediate from the definitions): $`Cn_|(𝒯)=_{sS(𝒯)}Cn_|(s)`$.
As a particular case, we get $`Cn_|(𝒯)=\text{L}`$ if $`S(𝒯)=\mathrm{}`$.

As in classical logic, we use the same notation $`Cn_|`$ for two different, but closely related, notions (cf $`Th`$ in Section 2): an entailment, defined by $`Cn_|(𝒯)`$, and the notion of “theory of a state”, defined by $`Cn_|(s)`$. A justification for using the same writing $`Cn_|`$ is that $`Cn_|(s)`$ is indeed a theory in the meaning of $`Cn_|`$: for any $`sS`$, $`Cn_|(Cn_|(s))=Cn_|(s)`$.

Proof: $`Cn_|(s)Cn_|(Cn_|(s))`$ since $`Cn_|`$ is a Tarski entailment.
$`Cn_|(Cn_|(s))`$ $`=`$ $`_{s^{}S(Cn_|(s))}Cn_|(s^{})`$ by definition of $`Cn_|(𝒯)`$, and $`sS(Cn_|(s))`$ \[i.e. $`s|Cn_|(s)`$\], thus $`Cn_|(Cn_|(s))Cn_|(s)`$.

Here is a last result of this kind : For any $`𝒯\text{L}`$, we get $`Cn_|(𝒯)C_{MAK}(𝒯)`$.

Notice that, contrarily to $`Cn_|`$, $`C_{MAK}`$ is not a Tarski entailment: it falsifies monotony.

## 4 RELATING MAK AND KLM ENTAILMENTS

### 4.1 THE MAK ENTAILMENTS WHICH ARE KLM ENTAILMENTS

MAK notion encompasses KLM notion, as noticed in :

###### Property 4.1

For each KLM model $`\mathrm{SS}=(S,l,)`$ (defining a KLM entailment $`C_{KLM}`$), there exists a MAK model $`(S,|,)`$ such that its associated MAK entailment $`C_{MAK}`$ is equal to $`C_{KLM}`$.

Notice that we even do not need to make $`l`$ to vanish in the KLM model (even if we know that we could do so without loss of generality). The set of states and the preference relation are unmodified. It suffices to define $`|`$, as in , by: $`s|\phi `$ whenever $`l(s)\phi `$. It is clear from the definitions that we get indeed $`_{}^{MAK}=_{}^{KLM}`$.

What is interesting then is to describe precisely the subclass of MAK models which can be translated into KLM models. Here is a characterization of this subclass:

###### Theorem 4.2

A MAK model $`\mathrm{SS}=(S,|,)`$ gives rise to a MAK entailment $`C_{MAK}`$ which is equal to some KLM entailment $`C_{KLM}`$ iff the MAK entailment $`C_{MAK}`$ is a pre-circumscription.

Proof: The condition is necessary from Property 3.6. MAK entailments satisfy (CT) from Property 3.10, thus Property 3.7 gives the result.

This shows that what lacks to MAK entailment in order to be a KLM entailment is exactly the full preservation of logical equivalence.

Even if this result is satisfactory from a formal perspective, it is more a characterization of the subclass of the MAK entailments which can be turned into KLM entailments than a characterization of the subclass of MAK models which can be turned into KLM models. In some way, this makes no difference since the preferential entailments are fully defined from the models, but we could expect an easier and more direct property, which can be checked directly on the MAK model, without needing to compute its related MAK entailment.

### 4.2 A SUBCLASS OF MAK MODELS WHICH ARE KLM MODELS

The fact that, for any KLM entailment, we have $`Th(𝒯)C_{KLM}(𝒯)`$ for any $`𝒯\text{L}`$ has already been taken into account in  for describing a subclass of the MAK models which (1) can be turned into KLM models and (2) is powerful enough to give rise to all the MAK entailments which are also KLM entailments. However, the description of the subclass given in  is needlessly complex. We describe here a simpler and more general subclass, which in our opinion describes all the interesting and non pathological MAK models which satisfy conditions (1) and (2) above.

###### Definitions 4.3

1. A MAK model $`\mathrm{SS}=(S,|,)`$ is supra classical whenever we get $`Th(Cn_|(s))=Cn_|(s)`$ for any state $`s`$ in $`S`$. This means that the “world” associated to each state is classically deductively closed (i.e. is a classical theory).
2. An entailment $`C`$ is supra classical if it satisfies $`Th(𝒯)C(𝒯)`$ for any $`𝒯\text{L}`$.

The first definition concerns only the couple $`(S,|)`$ describing the semantics to which $``$ will be applied, but is independent of the preference relation $``$. Voorbraak  calls “L-faithful” what we call supra classical models.

For the second definition, notice that any pre-circum-scription is a supra classical entailment.

###### Lemma 4.4

If a MAK model $`\mathrm{SS}=(S,|,)`$ is such that the entailment $`Cn_|`$ is supra classical, then the MAK model $`\mathrm{SS}`$ is supra classical.

Proof: (1) $`Cn_|(s)Th(Cn_|(s))`$ since $`𝒯Th(𝒯)`$.

(2) $`Th(Cn_|(s))Cn_|(Cn_|(s))`$ by hypothesis, and we already know that we have in any case $`Cn_|(Cn_|(s))=Cn_|(s)`$, which establishes $`Th(Cn_|(s))=Cn_|(s)`$.

###### Lemma 4.5

If a MAK model $`\mathrm{SS}=(S,|,)`$ is supra classical, then the (Tarski) entailment $`Cn_|`$ and the (preferential) MAK entailment $`C_{MAK}`$ defined by $`\mathrm{SS}`$ are pre-circumscriptions.

Proof: (1) Let $`\phi Th(𝒯)`$ and $`sS(𝒯)`$, i.e. $`𝒯Cn_|(s)`$, then $`\phi Cn_|(s)`$ by supra classicality of $`\mathrm{SS}`$. Thus, $`\phi _{sS(𝒯)}Cn_|(s)`$, i.e. $`\phi Cn_|(𝒯)`$: $`Cn_|`$ is supra classical. From $`Cn_|(𝒯)=_{sS(𝒯)}Cn_|(s)`$ we get also $`Cn_|(𝒯)\text{T}`$ since each $`Cn_|(s)`$ is in T. Since by Definition 3.9 we get $`C_{MAK}(𝒯)=_{sS_{}(𝒯)}Cn_|(s)`$ (where the subset $`S_{}(𝒯)`$ of $`S(𝒯)`$ is defined exactly as in Definition 3.1 for KLM models), we get a fortiori $`\phi C_{MAK}(𝒯)\text{T}`$.

(2) If $`𝒯_1`$ and $`𝒯_2`$ are two equivalent sets, then, by supra classicality of $`\mathrm{SS}`$, for each $`sS`$, we have $`s|𝒯_1`$ iff $`s|𝒯_2`$, i.e. we have $`S(𝒯_1)=S(𝒯_2)`$. A fortiori we get then $`S_{}(𝒯_1)=S_{}(𝒯_2)`$. Thus we get $`Cn_|(𝒯_1)=Cn_|(𝒯_2)`$ and $`C_{MAK}(𝒯_1)=C_{MAK}(𝒯_2)`$ by the definitions of $`Cn_|(𝒯)`$ and $`C_{MAK}(𝒯)`$ respectively.

We have established:

###### Property 4.6

1. A MAK model $`\mathrm{SS}=(S,|,)`$ is supra classical iff the (Tarski) entailment $`Cn_|`$ that it defines is supra classical, iff the entailment $`Cn_|`$ is a pre-circumscription.
2. If a MAK model is supra classical, then the (preferential) MAK entailment $`C_{MAK}`$ that it determines is a pre-circumscription.

We are now in position to establish our second main result:

###### Theorem 4.7

1. If a MAK model $`\mathrm{SS}`$ is supra classical, then the MAK entailment $`C_{MAK}`$ that it determines is equal to some KLM entailment $`C_{KLM}`$.

Precisely, if $`\mathrm{SS}=(S,|,)`$ is supra classical, then there exists a KLM model $`\mathrm{SS}^{}=(S,l,)`$ with $`S`$ and $``$ unmodified, such that the MAK entailment defined by $`\mathrm{SS}`$ is the KLM entailment defined by $`\mathrm{SS}^{}`$.
2. Any KLM preferential entailment $`C_{KLM}`$ is equal to a MAK entailment defined by a supra classical MAK model.

Precisely, if $`\mathrm{SS}=(S,l,)`$, then there exists a supra classical MAK model $`\mathrm{SS}^{}=(S,|,)`$ with $`S`$ and $``$ unmodified, such that the KLM entailment defined by $`\mathrm{SS}`$ is the MAK entailment defined by $`\mathrm{SS}^{}`$.

Proof: (1) Theorem 4.2 and Property 4.6-2 give the first sentence.

Let $`\mathrm{SS}=(S,|,)`$ be a supra classical MAK model. We get a KLM model as follows: we keep the set $`S`$ and the relation $``$ unmodified. We define $`l`$ as the mapping $`S\text{T}`$ by taking $`l(s)=Cn_|(s)`$. It is immediate to see that the KLM entailment $`C_{KLM}`$ is equal to $`C_{MAK}`$.

(2) We have a constructive proof already: It suffices to see the construction given in Property 4.1: it is clear from the definitions that the MAK model obtained there is supra classical since we have already noticed that each $`l(s)`$ in Definition 3.1 can be equated to a classical theory. Notice that this theorem could also have been obtained as a consequence of some results in an earlier independent work by Voorbraak . Rather strangely, Voorbraak does not enounce this result in all generality, referring to  for further results on the subject.

Thus, we get characterization results and constructive passages simpler and easier than those given in . However, our results are slightly more general (see why in note 4): the subclass of the MAK models considered here is slightly greater than the subclass considered by Dix and Makinson since they consider a strict subclass of the MAK models which can be “amplified” (in their terms). It is easy to see, from  together with our results, that the class of the MAK models which can be “amplified” coincide with the class of the supra classical MAK models. Moreover, our comparison does not need to consider a third intermediate (between $`Cn_|`$ and $`C_{MAK}`$) non classical entailment333For readers familiar with , let us notice that an immediate consequence of our results is that, even in the exact framework and formulation considered in \[4, main theorem\], the condition (3a) given there ($`s|\phi `$ and $`s|\phi ^{}`$ implies $`s|\phi \phi ^{}`$) is redundant., which plays an important role in the results of , but which complicates the direct comparison between KLM and MAK preferential entailments. This simplification comes mainly from our results about supra classical MAK models. And the condition that each $`Cn_|(s)`$ must be a theory is easily checked, without the need to compute the associated MAK entailment or to introduce a third non classical entailment.

One consequence of our results about MAK entailments is that, if we are concerned only by those MAK entailments which respect full logical equivalence, then we can restrict our attention to a yet narrower class of MAK models. Indeed, we have seen just above why in this case we can restrict our attention to the easily described class of supra classical MAK models. Now, since we know that, for KLM entailments, we can consider only the simplified version of KLM models, our passages between MAK models and KLM models show that we can also require a unicity of states condition for MAK models. By “unicity of states”, we mean that, for any different $`s,s^{}S`$, the “worlds” $`Cn_|(s)`$ and $`Cn_|(s^{})`$ corresponding to these two states are different. The class of the supra classical MAK models satisfying unicity of states is powerful enough to generate all the MAK entailments which are pre-circumscriptions. Let us describe briefly now the analogous of the singular and the strictly singular KLM models in terms of MAK models.

###### Definition 4.8

A MAK model $`\mathrm{SS}=(S,|,)`$ is classical if the “worlds” $`Cn_|(s)`$ are (classical) complete theories, for any state $`s`$ in $`S`$.

###### Remark 4.9

$``$ A MAK model is supra classical iff the satisfaction relation $`|`$ respects the binary connector $``$: for each $`sS`$, we have

$$s|\phi _1\phi _2\text{iff}s|\phi _1\text{and}s|\phi _2.(R_{})$$

$``$ $``$ A MAK model is classical iff it is supra classical and $`|`$ respects the negation $`\neg `$:

$$s|\phi \text{iff}s|\neg \phi .(R_\neg )$$

Proof: $``$ If each $`Cn_|(s)`$ is in T, then, since $`\{\phi _1,\phi _2\}\{\phi _1\phi _2\}`$, we get $`\{\phi _1,\phi _2\}Cn_|(s)`$ iff $`\{\phi _1\phi _2\}Cn_|(s)`$. Conversely, let us suppose $`(R_{})`$. Then, if $`\{\phi _i\}_ICn_|(s)`$ and $`\{\phi _i\}_{iI}\phi `$, by compactness of $``$ there exists a finite $`JI`$ such that $`\{\phi _i\}_{iJ}\phi `$, i.e. $`_{iJ}\phi _i\phi `$, i.e. $`_{iJ}\phi _i(_{iJ}\phi _i)\phi `$, thus, by $`(R_{})`$, $`\phi Cn_|(s)`$. Remind that we identify a formula with its equivalence class. Makinson does not always make this assumption in , thus, his original formalism is slightly more general than the version given in the present text. However, since with KLM entailments a formula can always be replaced by an equivalent formula, we have to make this assumption (or any equivalent one) when we want to compare the two formalisms. This means that if this assumption is not made till the beginning (as in this text), then it must be added, e.g. by requiring in Definition 4.3-1 that $``$ is standard. Notice that Definition 4.3-1 as it stands implies that two formulas equivalent (for $``$) are always in the same sets $`Cn_|(s)`$, thus are “equivalent for $`|`$”.

$``$ $``$ A theory $`Cn_|(s)`$ is complete iff \[$`\phi Cn_|(s)`$ iff $`\neg \phi Cn_|(s)`$\], i.e. iff $`|`$ satisfies $`(R_\neg )`$.

A MAK model is classical iff $`|`$ respects all the logical connectors. For instance, it is immediate to see that $`(R_{})`$ and $`(R_\neg )`$ imply $`(R_{})`$:

$$s|\phi _1\phi _2\text{iff}s|\phi _1\text{or}s|\phi _2.(R_{})$$

Classical MAK models correspond to singular KLM models while the classical MAK models which respect unicity of states correspond to the strictly singular KLM models.

### 4.3 COMING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL KLM ENTAILMENTS

This work applies also to cases where special conditions are required for the models. We think that the simplicity and the naturalness of our translation is a first serious indication for this. Let us consider the original definitions.

###### Definitions 4.10

1. A consistent KLM model, is such that each state is consistent, meaning that $`l(s)`$ is consistent.
2. A KLM model $`\mathrm{SS}=(S,l,)`$ is smooth (stoppered in ) if, for each $`𝒯\text{L}`$ and $`sS(𝒯)S_{}(𝒯)`$, there exists $`s^{}S_{}(𝒯)`$ such that $`s^{}s`$ (“minoration by a minimal state”).

 considers only the KLM models which are consistent and smooth. The authors consider that the “converse of (CT)” \[if $`𝒯^{}C(𝒯)`$, then $`C(𝒯)C(𝒯𝒯^{})`$\], called cumulative monotony (CM), is as important as (CT), and they only care of cumulative entailments, which satisfy (CT) and (CM). They give the following characterization:

Original KLM characterization :
A pre-circumscription $`C`$ is cumulative iff it is a KLM entailment defined by a smooth and consistent KLM model.

It happens that this characterization result also holds without the consistency condition, which confirms our opinion made after Definition 3.1 that, for KLM entailments, the requirement that $`l(s)`$ must be consistent is needless444For readers familiar with , let us remind that Dix and Makinson add to (3a) (see note 3) a “consistency of states” condition (3b), for the MAK models, in their main theorem. This condition is necessary in their text only because they disallow inconsistent states in KLM models, following . Since inconsistent states are not a real problem, this condition, which restricts slightly the class of the MAK models concerned, can be suppressed without modifying the results about the preferential entailments..

We get, with the KLM models as defined here, a first modification of KLM characterization:

A “KLM Characterization” allowing inconsistent states: A pre-circumscription $`C`$ is cumulative iff it is a KLM entailment defined by a smooth KLM model.

The proof is an easy modification of the proof of the original characterization , moreover this result has already appeared as \[8, Observation 3.4.5\] and \[13, Proposition 5.4\].

We can go even further, by requiring that the KLM model is a simplified KLM model, meaning an “unlabelled model”, or a “model without states”: $`S=\text{T}`$ and $`l=identity`$.

A “KLM Characterization” with simplified models:
A pre circumscription $`C`$ is cumulative iff it is a KLM entailment defined by a smooth simplified KLM model.

Indeed, the “if” side comes from the “if” side of the previous characterization, allowing inconsistent states. For the “only if” side, it suffices to define the simplified KLM model associated to $`C`$ as follows:

(1) $`S=\text{T},l=identity`$ (the model is simplified, no need for states).

(2) For $`𝒯_1,𝒯_2`$ in T, $`𝒯_1_C𝒯_2`$ iff

(2a) $`𝒯_1=\text{L}`$ and $`𝒯_2f(𝒯)`$ for any $`𝒯\text{T}`$, or

(2b) $`𝒯_2\text{L}`$, $`𝒯_2𝒯_1`$ and there exists $`𝒯_3,𝒯_4`$
in T such that $`f(𝒯_3)=𝒯_1`$, $`f(𝒯_4)=𝒯_2`$,
and $`𝒯_3𝒯_2`$.

Then, if $`C`$ is a cumulative pre-circumscription, an easy translation of the proof of the characterization result from  (where $`l`$ is injective, as also taken into account in a “suppression of states” result given in ) shows that we get, in a way very similar to the original proof of :

(1) $`C`$ is equal to the KLM entailment defined by
this simplified KLM model, and

(2) this \[simplified\] KLM model is smooth
(and irreflexive).

Notice that this result has also appeared as \[13, Proposition 5.5\], with an apparently different proof.

We can then get immediately the corresponding characterization results in terms of MAK entailment, by using Theorems 4.2 and 4.7.

## 5 CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVES

We have shown that the notions of preferential entailment as defined by Kraus, Lehmann and Magidor and as defined by Makinson are much closely related than was supposed before. Indeed, these two notions coincide exactly in all the cases where they can coincide, that is when the underlying logic respects classical equivalence. Moreover, we have shown that a similar result holds also for the respective models defining the two notions. It was already known that any KLM model could easily be turned into a MAK model. We have exhibited a natural subclass of the MAK models which can, exactly as easily, be turned into a KLM model. The subclass obtained here is slightly greater, and is much easier to describe, than what was previously known. And this subclass of models is “complete”: it generates all the KLM preferential entailments. This subclass is the class of the MAK models for which all the states have a “classical” behavior: the set of formulas they satisfy is closed for classical deduction. This subclass is the most natural class to consider. Indeed, this is the class such that, for any preference relation $``$, we are certain from the beginning that the MAK preferential entailment generated has a classical behavior with respect to logical equivalence. There exist some MAK models outside this class which give rise to a KLM entailment, but these models are rather special, since it turns out that their preference relation, in some way, eliminates all the states in the model with an unclassical behavior. We have also shown that our results apply to important particular subclasses of KLM models and MAK models, namely those which are simplified in that either the labelling mapping $`l`$ is needless \[KLM side\], or some “unicity of state” condition is required \[MAK side\]. And we have shown that, even for the cumulative entailments considered in the original texts, these simplified models suffice, and that the passages between KLM models and MAK models work in this case also. As (non trivial) future work, let us remark that these results should help further study on the subject, since they show that this kind of preferential entailment is not as “cumbersome” as it is qualified even in the founding paper . Even automatic computation could take advantage from these results, since the models considered here have nice properties, which, hopefully, could help designing new kinds of “preferential entailments demonstrators”.

#### Acknowledgements

The author wants to thank the referees for their very useful comments.